Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-05-2011, 09:22 PM   #121 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: southern, wv
Posts: 353

Johnny 5 - '81 Honda Cm400e
90 day: 42.86 mpg (US)

Da bike - '06 Honda Shadow Vlx deluxe
90 day: 59.47 mpg (US)
Thanks: 18
Thanked 8 Times in 5 Posts
I say 75hp per 1500lbs is good.
I drive 130mile round trip a day.so Fe is good but it is all backcountry 2 lane roads that arnt well maintained. Usually no scraping in the winter, so 4x4 is needed and that is y it is stupid around here to buy a 2wd. I have had to use 4wd about a dozen times this year so far.

Ruggedness is the main reason the area is populated by trucks.

__________________
.
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 01-05-2011, 09:44 PM   #122 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: belgium, wi
Posts: 262

Bus - '94 Ford School Bus huge

Stupid - '01 Chevy Blazer LS
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)

hawk - '00 Honda Superhawk
Thanks: 2
Thanked 24 Times in 19 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf View Post
The 22R is 2366 cc per the manual, so the difference between calling it a 2.3L or 2.4L is kinda splitting hairs.

The engine numbers are historic, upgrades of the basic R series engine design: Toyota R engine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Well, here I go splitting hairs... would you constitute a 302 ford as a 4.9 liter? You could, but that is not the way anyone in the functioning automotive world does it.


As for others comments on the taco, I believe they did have a turbo version of the 22re. I was never looking for an over-powered truck, it just wasnt helpful that as soon as you loaded anything in it you couldnt merge with traffic at a reasonable speed (or at least it took a full foot of throttle to get there). Even 25 more hp would have made a big difference. Altogether, the new Tacoma could never have done some of the things that my 1989 could, and my 1989 could do all the things a new one can (as far as usefulness is concerned). I can say this about the newer trucks, working on them sucks. You need a topside creeper to work under the hood to avoid damaging the shoulder high fenders and grill.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 10:22 PM   #123 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by autoteach View Post
Well, here I go splitting hairs... would you constitute a 302 ford as a 4.9 liter?
I dunno... what's that in cc?

Quote:
I was never looking for an over-powered truck, it just wasnt helpful that as soon as you loaded anything in it you couldnt merge with traffic at a reasonable speed...
Maybe it's expectations. I don't think mine has any problem with performance, but then I expect it to take longer to accelerate - and to stop! - when it's got a heavy load. But I have the feeling that some people expect their trucks to do sub-8 second 0-60s while pulling a 10,000 lbs trailer, something that really PO's the horses, or the people following that load that you really didn't tie down as well as you'd thought :-)
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2011, 10:51 PM   #124 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: belgium, wi
Posts: 262

Bus - '94 Ford School Bus huge

Stupid - '01 Chevy Blazer LS
90 day: 21.38 mpg (US)

hawk - '00 Honda Superhawk
Thanks: 2
Thanked 24 Times in 19 Posts
4948cc's. Lets just put it this way, a 22RE is referred to as a 2.4 liter, plain and simple. As I told you when I first mentioned it, its for your good when ordering parts and the such, but you can call it a 2.3 as you like and be corrected, questioned, or otherwise.

As for unreasonable expectations, unloaded the truck accelerated as fast as I ever wanted it to. Brakes were NOT an issue, as it had some of the best brakes ever put on a truck prior to this last decade (four piston nissin calipers up front, if I remember correctly). It stopped like a sports car and went like a, well, horse and buggy. It was the one truck that all my friends have unbelievable memories of, even the big truck guys still revere it as a fundamentally the best truck they ever knew. I remember driving it back into a gulch to pull out a quad that I stuck with a farmer friend, and he had no clue what to say when we got back. He must have spent an hour trying to figure out how it did what it did. I driven a 2wd ford ranger (98?) with the 2.3L and it was not even in the same league, not even close. I have been disappointed with my current vehicle, the horribly capable chevy blazer (s-10). I have driven many other small trucks and its been hard to find that same small truck purposefulness, usefulness, and quality.
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:17 AM   #125 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JasonG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Charlotte NC / York SC
Posts: 728

05 DMax - '05 Chevrolet 2500HD
90 day: 18.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 120
Thanked 56 Times in 52 Posts
^ Same with my brothers yota.
Water and mud coming through the doors and it keeps going.
We've had a number of beater pick ups over the years but keep going back to the old Toyotas.

Had one that got more deer one season than the rifle did, had to jump a ditch to nail one, but it was in season !
__________________



I can't understand why my MPG's are so low..........
21,000lb, 41' Toy Haulers are rough on FE!
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:28 AM   #126 (permalink)
UFO
Master EcoModder
 
UFO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,300

Colorado - '17 Chevrolet Colorado 4x4 LT
90 day: 23.07 mpg (US)
Thanks: 315
Thanked 179 Times in 138 Posts
I am an engineer and 2366cc translates to 2.4 liters, not 2.3. Two significant digits dictates you must round up the 66cc to 100cc. You can still call it a 2.37 liter ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:30 AM   #127 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Fascinating
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 01:11 AM   #128 (permalink)
Wannabe greenie
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Yorba Linda, CA
Posts: 1,098

The Clunker (retired) - '90 Honda Accord EX sedan
Team Honda
90 day: 29.49 mpg (US)

Mountain Goat - '96 Ford Ranger XLT 4x4 SuperCab
90 day: 18 mpg (US)

Zippy - '10 Kymco Agility 125
90 day: 65.03 mpg (US)
Thanks: 5
Thanked 53 Times in 40 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEnemy View Post
To get the 4 door with 6.5' bed the ford is only available in a V8 automatic 13/19 mpg @ $31k

To get the 4 door Nissan with 6.5' bed V6, auto only mpg not listed, guessing 15/20 @ $27k

Base model V6 F150 vs Base model I4 Frontier get about the same mileage figures.
Sounds like you want the Tacoma double-cab long bed, then. 4.0L, 5-speed auto, 6,300 lb. towing with the trailer package, 17/21 mpg and MSRP of $24.4k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
But I have the feeling that some people expect their trucks to do sub-8 second 0-60s while pulling a 10,000 lbs trailer
The truck magazines are all starting to add the "0-60 hauling a 10,000 pound trailer" test to their truck comparos, so expect this phenomenon to get worse.
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 09:28 AM   #129 (permalink)
sid
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 202

grayranger - '10 Ford Ranger XL 2 door supercab
90 day: 30.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 27
Thanked 48 Times in 28 Posts
Quote:
I driven a 2wd ford ranger (98?) with the 2.3L and it was not even in the same league,
The modern Ford 2.3 L is a much different and better animal than the 1990's/early 2000's 2.3 L. I feel my 2.3 L four cylinder performs as well, if not better, than my old 3.0 L six. My new 2.3 L definitely has much better FE. There is a reason Ford discontinued the 3.0 L six.

As I said earlier, I feel the performance of my new 2.3 L Ranger is as good, but with better FE, than my old 1985 Toyota with the 22R engine. I can only dream how much better yet both the performance and FE of the Ranger would be if it only were the same size and weight of my 1985 Toyota (2010 Ranger 3200 lb., 1985 Toyota 2700 lb.). Which gets us back to the original topic . . .
__________________
2010 Ford Ranger, extra cab, 2.3 liter
http://www.stonemarmot.com

Band's latest song/music video "I Sing Along"
  Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2011, 12:22 PM   #130 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by autoteach View Post
4948cc's. Lets just put it this way, a 22RE is referred to as a 2.4 liter, plain and simple.
Yeah, I'd call 4948 cc a 4.9L engine - and when looking up parts (not that I've ever had to look up anything but filters for this truck) it's just the 4 cylinder.

But I think you're skipping over my original point, which is that the Toyota engine, whatever you want to call it, and the 2.3L engine in the Ford Ranger, whatever it is in CC, are pretty close to the same size, and the Toyota engine provides all the power I need to haul stuff - specially when I put the transfer case in low range :-)

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com