If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Ford building its smallest engine ever, presumably after hiring theoretical physicists to uncover the secrets of negative horsepower   (money.cnn.com) divider line 97
    More: Spiffy, Fiesta, carry-on luggage, smart fortwo, Daimler AG, torque, engineers  
•       •       •

3455 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Nov 2012 at 11:53 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-19 08:30:49 PM
I dunno, but losing a hundred pounds of weight while retaining or increasing horsepower seems like a good idea to me...

/gearhead
 
2012-11-19 08:35:06 PM
Why not hire real physicists?
 
2012-11-19 08:39:14 PM
They're probably still rational, i imagine, so shut yer pi-hole.
 
2012-11-19 09:03:23 PM
I knew a guy in high school who insisted it was possible to have negative speed. "Negative speed?" I asked. "Sure, like when you drive backwards."

/he actually ended up being a farker
//not calling him out, but if I did you would not be surprised.
///SSB
////The first S is for Stupid...
 
2012-11-19 09:30:07 PM
So now you can have small breakdowns.
 
2012-11-19 10:29:06 PM
bring back the Escort? God that car sucked.
 
2012-11-19 11:08:14 PM

pissedoffmick: bring back the Escort? God that car sucked.


You'll notice that even they sold meellions of them, you don't see them on the road anymore. Same is true of the two 90s models of Taurus. All gone. None survived the course of normal use.
 
2012-11-19 11:16:54 PM

brianbankerus: pissedoffmick: bring back the Escort? God that car sucked.

You'll notice that even they sold meellions of them, you don't see them on the road anymore. Same is true of the two 90s models of Taurus. All gone. None survived the course of normal use.


i hope the buick century doesn't suffer the same fate. not that it matters to me since i drive an alero.
 
2012-11-19 11:20:53 PM

SpikeStrip: i hope the buick century doesn't suffer the same fate. not that it matters to me since i drive an alero.


I drive a Venture. There are zillions of them on the road. Has 158,000 miles and still drives as good as new, which is to say not terribly well, but still.
 
2012-11-20 12:02:40 AM

sgnilward: I dunno, but losing a hundred pounds of weight while retaining or increasing horsepower seems like a good idea to me...

/gearhead


Real MuricansTM don't take too kindly to anything smaller than a V8.
 
2012-11-20 12:03:09 AM
Why not just use the patents you currently have for things you've been burying for the past 60 years?
 
2012-11-20 12:05:23 AM
Meh 93 ranger 3.0 at 269,000 miles, I must have missed the crappy Fords.
 
2012-11-20 12:13:48 AM
I'll stick with my Jetta Diesel and its 55 mpg, but thanks.
 
2012-11-20 12:31:43 AM
In other words, Detroit is making Tuk Tuk's for US market. For

timujin: I knew a guy in high school who insisted it was possible to have negative speed. "Negative speed?" I asked. "Sure, like when you drive backwards."

/he actually ended up being a farker
//not calling him out, but if I did you would not be surprised.
///SSB
////The first S is for Stupid...


Vector algebra is good with it

/DO NOT WANT Ford Tuk Tuk
 
2012-11-20 12:33:21 AM
If my memory serves me correctly, many British cars used to have tiny engines, easy on gas, connected to 5 speed transmissions to make up the power difference. They worked just fine.

A friend of mine, back in High School, had this tiny Renault station wagon -- complete with an emergency starting crank hidden under the seat. He got great gas mileage back when gas was cheap and the car used a 5 speed standard transmission.

Then I recall the VW bug -- with the engine two high school kids could unbolt and lift by hand right out of the back to fix.

Americans have this deeply rooted desire for power in their cars and that translates into fuel costs. I mean, right after the fuel crisis/shortage/f**k-up, what do the car makers produce and people buy like crazy? Gas guzzling SUV's.

Later, after government mandates, do they start making them more fuel economical. Certain trucks do not have mileage mandates.
As a courier, I drove an Isuzu P'up. Five speed standard transmission. 4 cyl engine. Great on gas and could go almost anywhere. I liked it so much, that when my subcontractor lost the area, that I bought it from him as my personal vehicle. I drove it 40 miles a day, two and from work. The next subcontractor bought ford cargo vans, automatic transmissions and arse light when empty. They guzzled gas. Four years later, when I left, I was still driving the Isuzu. It was a 1984 version. I sold it in 1999. I wore out the carburetor. At least, where a linkage went in. The necessary hole wore itself larger, creating an air leak.

My current car is a Buick, with a V-6. Plenty of power, but not that great on gas.
 
2012-11-20 12:36:46 AM
Some redneck will put eight of these tiny engines together into one monster truck, you'll see.
 
2012-11-20 12:39:20 AM

timujin: I knew a guy in high school who insisted it was possible to have negative speed. "Negative speed?" I asked. "Sure, like when you drive backwards."

/he actually ended up being a farker
//not calling him out, but if I did you would not be surprised.
///SSB
////The first S is for Stupid...


Technically, he's correct, but he used the wrong term.

Since he defined a direction (backwards), he was referring to a vector+speed (velocity).

And yes, velocity can be negative.
 
2012-11-20 12:41:03 AM
The guys that write the rules for SCCA are all having a migraine right now. This will be the go to engine in DSR. Might be competitive in CSR.
 
2012-11-20 12:46:48 AM

brianbankerus: pissedoffmick: bring back the Escort? God that car sucked.

You'll notice that even they sold meellions of them, you don't see them on the road anymore. Same is true of the two 90s models of Taurus. All gone. None survived the course of normal use.


There's still a lot of Tauruses up here in snowland. The Escort was a total POS and deserved to die.

The Taurus was the most popular car for millionaires.
 
2012-11-20 12:48:46 AM

brianbankerus: pissedoffmick: bring back the Escort? God that car sucked.

You'll notice that even they sold meellions of them, you don't see them on the road anymore. Same is true of the two 90s models of Taurus. All gone. None survived the course of normal use.


you Farkers read my mind. Escort platform = Ford EXP, Mercury Lynx. notorious for cracking blocks, becoming engulfed in flames. i'm no lover of freakin insurance co's but one has to wonder how an established manufacturer can get away with selling a product that caused lots of premium checks to be written. screwing the working guy that can't afford the screwing is an american corporate favorite.
 
2012-11-20 12:49:42 AM

Shazam999: The Taurus was the most popular car for millionaires.


I thought it was the F-150.
 
2012-11-20 01:04:29 AM

Axel_Gear: sgnilward: I dunno, but losing a hundred pounds of weight while retaining or increasing horsepower seems like a good idea to me...

/gearhead

Real MuricansTM don't take too kindly to anything smaller than a V8.


What would such an individual consider to be better out of these two:

183 cubic inch 4 cylinder
208 horsepower at 5,800 rpm
207 pounds/feet of torque at 4,100

359 cubic inch V8
165 horsepower at 3800 rpm
255 lb-ft at 2400rpm
 
2012-11-20 01:13:44 AM

Rik01: If my memory serves me correctly, many British cars used to have tiny engines, easy on gas, connected to 5 speed transmissions to make up the power difference. They worked just fine.

A friend of mine, back in High School, had this tiny Renault station wagon -- complete with an emergency starting crank hidden under the seat. He got great gas mileage back when gas was cheap and the car used a 5 speed standard transmission.

Then I recall the VW bug -- with the engine two high school kids could unbolt and lift by hand right out of the back to fix.

Americans have this deeply rooted desire for power in their cars and that translates into fuel costs. I mean, right after the fuel crisis/shortage/f**k-up, what do the car makers produce and people buy like crazy? Gas guzzling SUV's.

Later, after government mandates, do they start making them more fuel economical. Certain trucks do not have mileage mandates.
As a courier, I drove an Isuzu P'up. Five speed standard transmission. 4 cyl engine. Great on gas and could go almost anywhere. I liked it so much, that when my subcontractor lost the area, that I bought it from him as my personal vehicle. I drove it 40 miles a day, two and from work. The next subcontractor bought ford cargo vans, automatic transmissions and arse light when empty. They guzzled gas. Four years later, when I left, I was still driving the Isuzu. It was a 1984 version. I sold it in 1999. I wore out the carburetor. At least, where a linkage went in. The necessary hole wore itself larger, creating an air leak.

My current car is a Buick, with a V-6. Plenty of power, but not that great on gas.


I have a Jetta Wolfsburg 2.0T. She's not a bad little car for everyday running when I can't ride my VStar. For pulling the trailer (6000lbs) or for snowy winter days I have a Durango. That gets sh*t for gas mileage, and I'm thinking of trading it in for just about anything else. I don't need 7 seats anymore, but I still need that 6000lbs (well, 8000lbs would be nicer) of towing capacity.

Your memory is pretty close to right. The English have had a range of engines (of course) but many of the most popular have been the smaller size. Probably a good reason why they (and other Europeans) have small engines with ridiculous amounts of horsepower.
 
2012-11-20 01:22:13 AM
www.soulagesracing.com

PSCA Outlaw 10.5 Class
283 c.i. twin turbo (2000hp approximate)

That whole "No replacement for displacement" argument was thrown out the window a long time ago.

\One fast truck until I saw him hit the wall twice at Las Vegas Motor Speedway this past weekend.....
 
2012-11-20 01:25:17 AM
1L 3cyl engine? So Ford is using the first-gen Suzuki Swift engine?

I'd rather they add a few more cylinders, up the displacement 50%, and add a turbo.

www.gtspirit.com
 
2012-11-20 01:26:34 AM

kg2095: Axel_Gear: sgnilward: I dunno, but losing a hundred pounds of weight while retaining or increasing horsepower seems like a good idea to me...

/gearhead

Real MuricansTM don't take too kindly to anything smaller than a V8.

What would such an individual consider to be better out of these two:

183 cubic inch 4 cylinder
208 horsepower at 5,800 rpm
207 pounds/feet of torque at 4,100

359 cubic inch V8
165 horsepower at 3800 rpm
255 lb-ft at 2400rpm


350 cubic inch V8 every day of the week. I'd love to see one of those pissant foreign rice rockets push 5,000 lbs while towing 8,000 up a 6% grade and never drop below the speed limit.

Don't be a foreign cocksucker. Drive American.

/Chevy G20 sin wagon
 
2012-11-20 01:35:56 AM
123 horsepower should provide more than enough power for a tiny little car. My first gen Scion xB only has 108 and gets along fine in both city and highway.
 
2012-11-20 01:44:24 AM

kg2095: Axel_Gear: sgnilward: I dunno, but losing a hundred pounds of weight while retaining or increasing horsepower seems like a good idea to me...

/gearhead

Real MuricansTM don't take too kindly to anything smaller than a V8.

What would such an individual consider to be better out of these two:

183 cubic inch 4 cylinder
208 horsepower at 5,800 rpm
207 pounds/feet of torque at 4,100

359 cubic inch V8
165 horsepower at 3800 rpm
255 lb-ft at 2400rpm


You just don't get it do ya? Cars just aint meant to be powered by anything less than 8 cylinders. I know that the V8 is faster because when I was 17 in 1970 the cars were just faster then. Not like those damn slow Toyota Camrys they got today.
 
2012-11-20 02:27:50 AM

pissedoffmick: bring back the Escort? God that car sucked.


The American one did, the European Escort, which was a different car is another story.
 
2012-11-20 02:35:36 AM
upload.wikimedia.org

1.5 liter V-6 with a turbo, somewhere north of 800 HP. Ok so the mileage wasn't that good.
 
2012-11-20 02:37:54 AM

WhyteRaven74: pissedoffmick: bring back the Escort? God that car sucked.

The American one did, the European Escort, which was a different car is another story.


OK. My mom bought the American one, her first car ever and it just sucked and sucked and then sucked some more. I have a very personal hatred for that (American version) model.
 
2012-11-20 02:44:40 AM

berniex: timujin: I knew a guy in high school who insisted it was possible to have negative speed. "Negative speed?" I asked. "Sure, like when you drive backwards."

/he actually ended up being a farker
//not calling him out, but if I did you would not be surprised.
///SSB
////The first S is for Stupid...

Technically, he's correct, but he used the wrong term.

Since he defined a direction (backwards), he was referring to a vector+speed (velocity).

And yes, velocity can be negative.


No, he is not technically correct. You just pointed out the difference between speed and velocity. For them to be different implies that to be technically correct he would have to have been referring to velocity and not speed.
 
2012-11-20 02:48:41 AM
I'm really hoping for good things from this engine. The suzuki swift/geo/chevy metro had a 1.0 3 cyl engine that has about 53 hp...good enough for freeway speeds and great on gas. This has around 125? and there's a turbo to take it to 175.
 
2012-11-20 03:19:37 AM
Smaller engine then a Robin?
www.blogcdn.com

Or a Peel P50?
media.techeblog.com
 
2012-11-20 03:45:57 AM
The same engine is also in the 2013 Focus over here in Europe.... but then i'd rather take the 1.6 common rail diesel unit, since it's even more economical with more torque, and thanks to the wonderful way the UK car tax rules work based on emissions, buy the fiesta in any trim or the focus in 'econetic' and you pay zero road tax. oooo yeahhhhhh....
 
2012-11-20 03:47:41 AM
A Suzuki GSX-R 600 has more power than that and it's naturally aspirated.
 
2012-11-20 03:50:45 AM

Romans 7 19: I'm really hoping for good things from this engine. The suzuki swift/geo/chevy metro had a 1.0 3 cyl engine that has about 53 hp...good enough for freeway speeds and great on gas. This has around 125? and there's a turbo to take it to 175.


Says the guy who never tried to merge a Metro in Miami.
 
2012-11-20 04:07:49 AM

pissedoffmick: Romans 7 19: I'm really hoping for good things from this engine. The suzuki swift/geo/chevy metro had a 1.0 3 cyl engine that has about 53 hp...good enough for freeway speeds and great on gas. This has around 125? and there's a turbo to take it to 175.

Says the guy who never tried to merge a Metro in Miami.


True....Mine only has the commute and Portland traffic to deal with.
 
2012-11-20 04:21:22 AM
When someone brags about the smallest engine ever, I expect something along the lines of a physically smaller engine with the exact same specs as a normal-size one. Like when a company brags about making a thinner cell phone.

This is just a car company trying to con people into paying the same amount for less materials.
 
2012-11-20 04:26:25 AM

Romans 7 19: pissedoffmick: Romans 7 19: I'm really hoping for good things from this engine. The suzuki swift/geo/chevy metro had a 1.0 3 cyl engine that has about 53 hp...good enough for freeway speeds and great on gas. This has around 125? and there's a turbo to take it to 175.

Says the guy who never tried to merge a Metro in Miami.

True....Mine only has the commute and Portland traffic to deal with.


I just got rid of my 1981 Chevette with the 1.6 i-4. 65 hp off the factory floor. 30 years and 250,000 miles later, it could still merge just fine at speeds up to 65mph. Of course, it had one of the best 4-speed trannys I've ever used. I had an identical 1982 with the auto tranny, and it couldn't merge into a Walmart parking lot.
 
2012-11-20 04:44:30 AM

rohar: The guys that write the rules for SCCA are all having a migraine right now. This will be the go to engine in DSR. Might be competitive in CSR.


My thoughts exactly...

1.3 L Renesis Rotary.
 
2012-11-20 04:53:45 AM

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: A Suzuki GSX-R 600 has more power than that and it's naturally aspirated.


Yes, and I am in awe of the power they can get for motorcycle engines.

BUT... Can they do it for 200,000 miles?
 
2012-11-20 05:18:50 AM

berniex: timujin: I knew a guy in high school who insisted it was possible to have negative speed. "Negative speed?" I asked. "Sure, like when you drive backwards."

/he actually ended up being a farker
//not calling him out, but if I did you would not be surprised.
///SSB
////The first S is for Stupid...

Technically, he's correct, but he used the wrong term.

Since he defined a direction (backwards), he was referring to a vector+speed (velocity).

And yes, velocity can be negative.


Technically he was incorrect, this is why words have meaning. Vector and speed are different things. Simply because you're facing one direction and driving the other doesn't mean you're speed is a negative. Negative velocity has nothing whatsoever to do with his argument. He specifically meant that if you sat in a car and then started driving in reverse, you were engaging in "negative speed".
 
2012-11-20 05:21:51 AM

Shadow Blasko: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: A Suzuki GSX-R 600 has more power than that and it's naturally aspirated.

Yes, and I am in awe of the power they can get for motorcycle engines.

BUT... Can they do it for 200,000 miles?


Probably not since most bikes that powerful get wrecked before getting anywhere near that old
 
2012-11-20 06:12:53 AM
40 mpg highway in a subcompact? Ohhhh, how very efficient.

Meanwhile, my wagon gets 50 mpg combined.

But then again, we don't have the minimum fuel waste requirement the US seems to have.
 
2012-11-20 06:57:43 AM

revrendjim: Why not hire real physicists?


I prefer rogue physicists

image.gamespotcdn.net
 
2012-11-20 06:59:08 AM

Axel_Gear: kg2095: Axel_Gear: sgnilward: I dunno, but losing a hundred pounds of weight while retaining or increasing horsepower seems like a good idea to me...

/gearhead

Real MuricansTM don't take too kindly to anything smaller than a V8.

What would such an individual consider to be better out of these two:

183 cubic inch 4 cylinder
208 horsepower at 5,800 rpm
207 pounds/feet of torque at 4,100

359 cubic inch V8
165 horsepower at 3800 rpm
255 lb-ft at 2400rpm

You just don't get it do ya? Cars just aint meant to be powered by anything less than 8 cylinders. I know that the V8 is faster because when I was 17 in 1970 the cars were just faster then. Not like those damn slow Toyota Camrys they got today.


Not sure which of you is serious....

I wouldn't generally have a problem with V8's, but I do for two reasons...

1) Americans love them
2) Americans couldn't innovate them in any way other than just 'making them bigger'.

It's the height of engineering laziness!

How we gonna make our new model of car faster hank?

Well we could bolt a turbocharger on, or we could look at ways of providing better efficiency, 32 valve engines, with hydraulic lifters

Aww hell Hank, i want somethin cheaper than that

Well ya could just increase the size of the engine boss...

/facepalm

and thats all you did...i mean christ, last time i looked there were STILL pushrod V8's available. This is why the american car industry needs aboloshing...you don't need cars/trucks that are the size of a small semi-detached house in the North of England...
 
2012-11-20 07:01:01 AM

timujin: this is why words have meaning.


timujin: doesn't mean you're speed is a negative.


Do you totally hate yourself now?
 
2012-11-20 07:01:48 AM

moel: and thats all you did...i mean christ, last time i looked there were STILL pushrod V8's available. This is why the american car industry needs aboloshing...you don't need cars/trucks that are the size of a small semi-detached house in the North of England...


Says the guy that lives on a little island.
 
2012-11-20 07:08:56 AM
Top Gear sure loved the old Fiesta.

For myself, I will never buy an American car ever again. Even if they start tossing bikini clad redheads
as standard equipment.

OK, that MIGHT get me to consider at least test driving them.
 
Displayed 50 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report