Why can't we have these???

[madnessspirit]

Ecoboost is only such a high priced option in the base model, and I suspect most of the ecoboost sales come from the models above the base, where the difference in price are not so great.... For instance, on the F150 Platinum, the price differential is only a few hundred dollars. So saying the average buyer is willing to pay thousands more is a mis-characterization.

But, even against a base model V8, the price differential on an Ecoboost truck would be paid off in fuel savings in around 2 years, given the average American's driving habits of 15,000 miles per year. Plus, there is the smug that comes along with ownership, something that helped bolster the sales of early Prius models. All this, and the ecoboost V6 is a more capable engine than the base model V8, and certainly a powerhouse compared to the base model V6, which is all most buyers of an F-150 really even need in the first place. That N/A V6 will pull the boat around all day or tow a car/small camper. Don't get me wrong, there are buyers that need more power, but generally speaking, those guys would be better off in a larger platform, or their best engine option in this platform is the ecoboost.

As far as maintenance.... No, maintenance is not more expensive in the ecoboost. I suppose, if things broke out of warranty, there are some more parts, and more expensive parts to replace, but yeah. All things being equal, the ecoboost engine should be just as reliable, if not more so than its N/A V8 counterparts. Sometime in the first 150,000+ miles of (most likely trouble free) service, I think one would make up the additional cost of repairs in fuel savings. Then again, most owners will sell them before they have any major engine problems anyways.

The fact that 60-65% of f-150 buyers haven't realized that the ecoboost is a better engine than the V8, or that they don't need the V8 or ecoboost in the first place, tells me that yes, they are still pretty resistant to the change.

[theholycow]

I wasn't aware that the price difference changes based on equipment. Making it only a few hundred more makes the take rate much more believable for me. I don't think it's realistic to expect a 75% take rate in the first couple years and I still think it's pretty good.

If they're towing something that needs more power than the V8, let alone the EcoBoost, then I agree...they really should upgrade to a larger platform (but then have something more efficient to drive when they're not towing). If they don't then they really ought to be slowed down by lack of power so that they are less likely to take out innocent other road users.

[madnessspirit]

Yeah, that is kinda one of Ford's marketing tricks to up sell consumers to the ecoboost, keeping people thinking that their consumers are willing to do anything to obtain the amazing marvel of technology that is ecoboost.

[trollbait]

If a buyer was looking at the power of the 6.2L V8, the ecoboost is actually cheaper in the trim levels that V8 is offered in.

[occupant]

BMW did offer a diesel 3-Series, but it was the thirstier 24/36mpg 335d.

The last diesel BMW offered in the USA was the E28 524d and 524td in 1985 and 1986 models. That same 2.4L diesel with the ZF automatic was also used in 1984-1985 Lincoln mid-sizers, the Continental and Mark VII. 115hp and 155lbs of torque, decent mileage (23/30 original sticker EPA ratings), but they only sold a couple hundred of each and they are NOT easy to find today. Neither are the 524(t)d models, which got about the same mileage, I think the '85 was rated a little higher on the highway. I wonder what gearing were in those and if it's real low, it might be available to put in a gas model 528e or later E34 525i?

[8$PG]

I'm thinking about getting a BMW 320d Efficient Dynamics Edition (163hp) or the 318d/316d which has the same engine displacement of 2L but less rated power (142/112) and slightly lower fuel economy. All 3 does less than 120g/km co2 (EDE does 109g/km) and therefore are rated as environmentally friendly cars with no tax the first 5 years. The price is high on these even second hand starting at about 32'000.

Or as an alternative get a civic hybrid which can be found for less than half the price of the cheapest available BMW:s on the second hand market.

The price of gas is now about 8.14$PG and I drive 150km (93miles) to work each day so the total cost of fuel is close to 500$/month (or 3200sek) just to get to work.

Does anyone know what mileage the civic hybrid has at 65mph on the highway and if it is as comfortable as my current Accord. If the gain is not that great on highway I might be going the diesel-way instead but I still want a comfortable car that will suite all situations like long trips and so on. One drawback is that the BMW:s as second hand only comes with a manual gearbox. The new model has an 8speed automatic with the same mileage and I'm tempted to wait a year or so and get one of them used.

[theholycow]

Why would you want an automatic? Automatics have less opportunities and strategies for saving fuel...and are less fun!

[Jay2TheRescue]

Watch the Civic hybrids. Their battery packs are failing at an alarming rate, and Honda isn't stepping up and making it right. There is a class action lawsuit forming here in the US. There is a company in California that is rebuilding the HCH battery packs with higher quality cells, but that costs about $2,000 US, and adding international shipping to a heavy hybrid battery pack, it will be quite expensive.

[8$PG]

Originally Posted by theholycow

Why would you want an automatic? Automatics have less opportunities and strategies for saving fuel...and are less fun!

It's almost political to me. I can't help thinking that the manual clutch-pedal and stick is meddling directly with the buissness of the mechanics inside the car. The car should know better and just do what I tell it to do (accelerate/deccelerate etc) and and not need detailed instructions how to engage gears and drivetrain mechanically. It doesn't need that on other jobs like opening valves and injecting fuel or regulating the temperature of the coolant. It's just a 20:th century inheritage, just like the engine and gearboxes lack of awareness of oneanother. I have no problem choosing gear manually but I don't understand why I should be doing the engine/gearbox's physical job of stepping on the clutch and locking gears together. I think it can do that more carefully and consistent by itself if needed.

And I think driving an automatic can be at least as fun.

[theholycow]

While it would be nice if the car could know better, it doesn't. It only knows what's acceptable for right now. It can't know what you're planning. Compromises have to be made to shift patterns to appease all drivers so it can't come from the factory programmed for maximum efficiency. Automatics don't even have a way to avoid downshifting when you open the throttle a lot, which completely removes one very useful technique in the hypermiler's arsenal. What's going on in the engine isn't the only important thing for a transmission to know.

Now, if you just prefer to drive automatic, that's a good enough reason to do so. Sometimes the instant shifts of a good automatic can be even more satisfying than the intimate communion of driver and gears. However, if you're looking for maximum fuel economy then you're throwing away one of the most useful tools - the ability to meddle directly with the business of the mechanics inside the car.

There's also the inherent inefficiency of a torque converter, although dual-clutch gearboxes avoid that. If you can get a dual-clutch, program it for efficiency, program it for 100% obedience of the driver's gear choice, and make it compatible with EOC then you'll have most or all of the same ability to save fuel as with a manual.