Midsize Sedans 2.0

lilengineerboy

Take a turbo car and drive about 100 miles in heavy city/suburban driving with fast acceleration and heavy braking. Check out the resulting mileage compared to epa estimates.

If you get in any car and drive like a maniac I would say you are unlikely to get the EPA rated mileage. I think I am missing the point.

If you get a turbo and stay under the boost or get a LPT, you will be rewarded with great fuel economy. If you boot the thing from every stoplight, my guess is that it will take its toll on mileage like any other car.

slegacy93

I don't believe it period. You cannot shove more air, burn more fuel for more hp and claim better gas mileage.

Just imagine your body as an engine. If you could increase your breathing capacity (air intake), you would be able to run more efficiently (faster/longer/less pain, etc.) than normal. Same as a car. And a car can take it one step further with an exhaust, the second part of the whole breathing equation. The better an engine can "breathe", the more efficient it is.

lilengineerboy

Just imagine your body as an engine. If you could increase your breathing capacity (air intake), you would be able to run more efficiently (faster/longer/less pain, etc.) than normal. Same as a car. And a car can take it one step further with an exhaust, the second part of the whole breathing equation. The better an engine can "breathe", the more efficient it is.

But having more oxygen reduces ATP at the muscles allowing them to more efficiently burn sugars at the muscular level, so the reason you are running faster is because you can burn more fuel.

jeffyscott

One of the universal truths is that a dirty air filter kills your mpg and replacing it with a clean one improves mpg. This just takes that theory one step further.

Yes, but you are likely getting less filtering and letting more dirt into the engine...is this a good thing? Generally, the less restrictive the filter is the less filtering it is doing. A dirty filter reduces air flow, but actually filters better. You could let more air in by having no filter at all, too...do you want to do that to get more HP and better MPG, its just going one step further from the after market, less restrictive filters .

lilengineerboy

You could let more air in by having no filter at all, too...do you want to do that to get more HP and better MPG, its just going one step further from the after market, less restrictive filters

I am not sure thats the case. Most air intakes (stock or otherwise) have some type of swirl inducer or something to create more turbulent airflow going into the motor. Apparently, more turbulent airflow has more exposed area for the fuel to bond with so you get better "atomization" (I think thats the term) for a better, leaner burn for more power with better MPG and still not killing emissions too much.

bv050506

I had an '07 V6 XLE Camry for almost 1 year. Traded it for the '07 3.5Altima SE. My Camry got 34mpg on two lanes going 60 mph. When I was on the highway going 70 mph it fell to 31mpg. the minute I went 79, I try to keep it just under 80, it fell to 27.4. Just buzzing around town was where it really hurt, I'd get 17 to 19mpg. My Altima gets 28 at 80 mph and about 21 in town.

jeffyscott

I don't really know anything about "intakes", I am not one to do any modifying. I was only really addressing the filter issue. Read things from time to time about people wanting to put less restrictive filters on cars K&N gets bandied about for instance. It pretty much has to be the case that less restrictive=more dirt.

akirby

Of course you potentially allow larger dirt particles into the engine with a less restrictive filter. But I've never heard of that being a problem with K&N or similar filters or air intake kits. And we're not talking about grains of sand here - the difference is very small.

dudleyr

Actually if you increase the filtered area you can maintain protection and increase flow.

I for one would not mess with the factory filter. They want good mileage and hp, but not at the expense of engine life.

03accordman

"looks like I hit a soft spot huh?? The Camry V6 does NOT get 30MPG period!"

The V6 Camry still gets 2 more mpg highway over a V6 Fusion; with a 35-40hp advantage!!!!

03accordman

"I know of more than a few Mazda 6 owners that have replaced their standard air filter and intake with an aftermarket Cold Air Intake (from companies like CP-E, Injen, and MazdaSpeed) and have actually experienced fuel economy thats 2-3 MPG BETTER than stock"

Why doesn't Mazda use these mods to get better gas mileage, as well as HP? It would be a very small cost for these kind of gains

03accordman

"I got to ask, why is this so "funny" is it because its a Ford product and not a Honda or Camry? I bet this is the reason for all the skepticism. I know if it were an Accord or Camry it would be golden and no questions asked.."

That's life - tough luck!!! Gold standards are gold standards.

03accordman

"Yeah! you finally admit the Accord is thousands more than a comparably priced Fusion! And.. take a look right here at Edmunds.. 10 lowest priced sedans.. NO ACCORD...."

True, Accord is not on of the cheapest cars out there.

lilengineerboy

"I know of more than a few Mazda 6 owners that have replaced their standard air filter and intake with an aftermarket Cold Air Intake (from companies like CP-E, Injen, and MazdaSpeed) and have actually experienced fuel economy thats 2-3 MPG BETTER than stock"

Why doesn't Mazda use these mods to get better gas mileage, as well as HP? It would be a very small cost for these kind of gains

CAIs increase noise and there is increased risk of water getting sucked up through the intake system. I personally like the sound but given the discussion about how terrible it is that the Fusion is a few dB louder than the whatever car they were comparing it to, it would seem having a quiet motor is pretty important.

Where the really big gains would be is if they used tighter engine controls and a wide-band 02 sensor. The O2 sensor would give a lot more information about the combustion process, and the fuel and ignition maps could be much better tailored to the conditions.

03accordman

"I ride in my friends 05 Honda Accord 4cyl and I cannot believe you folks here that claim it sounds smooth???? When he trounces the pedal it makes all kinds of racket. Even with the radio going, you cannot hear the radio"

This is the first time I have heard of the Accord's 4 cyl being called an engine that creates a racket when revved up. Are you sure you were in a real Accord (not the imaginary one of your dreams that has a 'rackety' engine)?

03accordman

I would think mazda would have tried these solutions and come to the best arrangement. Its usually quite tough to improve upon a manufacturer's design with obvious downsides.

captain2

this is almost exactly my experience with the same engine in my bigger/heavier Avalon - and sure 'buzzing around town' I will usually see in the low 20s. To contend that a Camry (any other V6 engined car in this group including the Fusion) can't get 30mpg is ludricrous, and pointing to the results of the new EPA testing procedures equally so. All cars will lose a coupla mpg or so with the new tests, especially those V8s and/or artifically aspirated engines. My Altima 3.5 (rated at 18/27 in 03), in my wife's slightly more conservative hands, does a mpg (or so) worse as well.

lilengineerboy

I would think mazda would have tried these solutions and come to the best arrangement. Its usually quite tough to improve upon a manufacturer's design with obvious downsides.

A stock vehicle is full of compromises. Mazda could do a CAI if they weren't as worried about the sound or water intrusion. They didn't want to warranty a bunch of hydrolocked motors or hear people whining its too loud, so they didn't. As I mentioned, I'm okay with the noise and don't usually drive through lakes so I would be okay with the downsides associated with a CAI. Joe Camry probably wouldn't be.

I personally think the Accord rides too soft, while other people on this forum think its too firm. Aftermarket shocks would firm up the ride considerably, as would sport springs. Honda doesn't want to upset Grandma Accord's tender bottom so they make it a bit on the soft side.

It's not a matter of improving on a manufacturing design as much as optimizing a design to meet the individual's needs.

akirby

I would think mazda would have tried these solutions and come to the best arrangement. Its usually quite tough to improve upon a manufacturer's design

The best arrangement for the mfr is the one that provides the most cost/benefit. A few extra hp for a midsize family sedan isn't usually worth the extra cost of a cold air intake. If they're only selling 100K vehicles and the cold air intake costs $50 more than a paper filter and plastic intake that's $5M in savings right there. If the cost is higher or the volume is higher then the savings would be even higher.

Noise is also a much bigger design issue than you might think. There is usually plenty of room for minor improvments if you're willing to spend some money and make slight compromises on noise and/or driveability.

03accordman

HP I can understand; but wouldn't it be a great benefit if they could increase mpg by 2-3 mpg? I would think it would be well worth the effort even if it cost $50 per car. Anyway, that's just me.

dudleyr

If they could gain 2-3 mpg by spending $50 they would do it. That would mean they could sell more higher profit SUV's without paying a penalty.

Don't get me started on why anybody would want to buy one of them (large SUV's)

lilengineerboy

HP I can understand; but wouldn't it be a great benefit if they could increase mpg by 2-3 mpg? I would think it would be well worth the effort even if it cost $50 per car. Anyway, that's just me.

I have no idea why they don't use wide band O2 sensors and tighter tuning, that would do it. This is exactly what happened with the 2.0L Focus. It went from 34 to 37 mpg in 2005 because they better tuned the engine control parameters.

plekto

The real reason they restrict the engines is to be found on of all things, motorcycles. A restricted car that's severely choked-off creates a lot less NOX emissions since there's less oxygen in the equation. They do this with bikes all the time to get them to pass the new smog laws.

And what's the first thing a bike owner does? Replace the stock exhaust and filter. re-jet the carbs to run for maximum power as opposed to lowest pollution.(or in a FI system, re-chip it)

It makes an enormous difference in higher compression engines, which tend to be the most restricted from the factory.

Of course, they are right - a K&N filter was made for racing off-road, where a completely clogged with dust filter will blow up your engine. So there is a bit more wear and as a result, you'll need to change your oil every 2000 miles.

kdshapiro

"HP I can understand; but wouldn't it be a great benefit if they could increase mpg by 2-3 mpg?"

I agree with you. I would gladly pay for an upgrade to intakes/air filters/ecus etc, that provides more hp with the commesurate increase in fuel economy for about $100 worth of parts over the lifetime of the vehicle. The reason the manufacturers don't do this stuff is:

1. these methods don't increase fuel economy
2. engine longevity is potentially compromised

elroy5

I got to ask, why is this so "funny" is it because its a Ford product and not a Honda or Camry?

I do spend time on Honda forums. Young guys always want to know, how can I boost the power of my Accord? And the answer is always the same. Fast and reliable = not cheap (turbo/supercharger). Fast and cheap = not reliable (NOS). The fact that you believed this guy when he said he had 275hp, and then posted it on this forum, That's funny. It does not matter what the make (Honda, Toyota, Ford, Chevy,) these modifications you mentioned (intake, exhaust, chip) will get you at most 20hp. A far cry from 54hp. The extra noise you hear coming from the intake and exhaust are only giving you the illusion of more power.

lilengineerboy

I do spend time on Honda forums. Young guys always want to know, how can I boost the power of my Accord? And the answer is always the same. Fast and reliable = not cheap (turbo/supercharger). Fast and cheap = not reliable (NOS).

It depends how much you want to increase power and what sacrifices to drivability you are willing to make. A 50-shot of NOS isn't going to affect very much, but a 100-shot or more might start to get dangerous. You could probably run 5-7 psi on a turbo without and intercooler and with relatively poor fuel management, but if you want to run 16 or 17 or more, you should have all your ducks in a row. Hondas can also look at aftermarket vtec controllers, which seem to do more to move the powerband rather than raise it altogether.

Just swapping out intake/exhaust/chip isn't going to get you too much power but isn't really going to affect the longevity of anything either. All of my cars have had K&N filters because I like that you clean and re-use them as opposed to throwing them away. I have never had an internal engine problem based on close to 1,000,000 miles over 5 cars that have used these filters. Two cars have also had CAIs with no ill effects excepting the attention of the local constable.

What I think is funny is that a couple hundred dollar investment in HPDEs or autocrosses would do more to make someone a better, faster driver than a few grand in bolt ons.

elroy5

The most effective CAIs (letting in more air, without letting in more dirt) are the foam type, that you have to clean, then re-oil. Not many people are willing to do this for the small (maybe 5 hp) gain. Not to mention the prices of some CAIs is crazy. Then there is always the chance of going through one deep puddle of water, and screwing your engine up. Not worth it, to me anyway.

elroy5

the accord is not for everyone...it's certainly not for me.

Point taken. I am not saying the Accord is for everyone. I just don't agree with those who say the Accord leans in turns (like a Camry or Sonata) and doesn't handle well. The Accord handles with the best of them.

akirby

1. these methods don't increase fuel economy
2. engine longevity is potentially compromised

1. Wrong
2. Wrong again

kdshapiro

We'll have to agree to disagree. The only real way to up hp is to chip or mod a turbo, that gives a significant performance boost at the expense of fuel economy.

zzzoom6

mazda does offer a mazdaspeed intake which when installed by a dealer does not effect the warranty of the car. dynos have indicated that hp and torque benefit making the car a bit more responsive at lower rpms. but as lilengineerboy mentioned, it does make the car have a louder growl to it. some may like this, others not. but since the larger target market is generally more conservative, I'd expect manufacturers to compromise on some things.

akirby

Why do so many people report a slight increase in fuel economy after installing a cold air intake? We're not talking about a lot - maybe 0.5-1.5 mpg but it's still an increase, not a decrease. And it's only adding maybe 10 hp - maybe 15 with an exhaust upgrade. I don't understand why that's so hard for you to accept.

elroy5

Why do so many people report a slight increase in fuel economy after installing a cold air intake?

Simple, they have to have some explanation for spending $2-300 on an air filter.

scape2

"If you and I can both get over EPA numbers in our cars, why would you claim a Camry CAN'T hit its numbers, when you don't own one and haven't driven one extensively on the highway? "

I guess the same way the other person can claim the Fusion gets lower mileage... wow, talk about some serious bias going on here...

scape2

"Lets see where the Fusion is in 4-5 years and 90,000 miles on it. We know the Accord will still be tight. The Fusion is a mystery"

Dejavue!! I heard this same story in 2001 when I bought my Escape from the CRV owners. After 75,000 hard miles, towing watercraft, visiting ski areas and finding fishing spots in the Cascade range.. my Escape was tight as day 1, ran great and never had ANY issues..

scape2

"I am a pretty big fan of modifications too and for certain vehicles it helps more than others (mainly boosted cars), but I don't know about 55 hp on a 3.0l Duratec."

Why? because its a Ford engine? Other makers with 3.0 engines get more HP? Why can't Ford? This engine is actually capable of producing over 300HP. I'll have to dig back and fine the article showing this. As a matter of fact I believe the 3.0 was put in either a Lincoln or a Jag and was putting out about 250-260HP.. The Duratec is a great little engine and has a history of reliability and durability.

scape2

Don't know, why don't you ask the folks that wrote the report? :shades:

scape2

"That's life - tough luck!!! Gold standards are gold standards. "

This is funny..

In your own mind my friend..

thegraduate

"If you and I can both get over EPA numbers in our cars, why would you claim a Camry CAN'T hit its numbers, when you don't own one and haven't driven one extensively on the highway? "

I guess the same way the other person can claim the Fusion gets lower mileage... wow, talk about some serious bias going on here...

Back up the bias bus a second...

In identical test conditions, the Fusion DOES get lower mileage, which validaidates the claim.

When comparing apples to apples as best we can (the EPA offers the best option for common ground here), the Fusion gets lower mileage than the Camry. There's nothing giving credence to your statement of "The Camry CAN NOT hit 30 MPG, period."

Maybe "in your own mind, my friend." In the REAL world, owners, and EPA disagree with that baseless claim (or did you have basis that you didn't share with us?)

scape2

"This is the first time I have heard of the Accord's 4 cyl being called an engine that creates a racket when revved up. Are you sure you were in a real Accord (not the imaginary one of your dreams that has a 'rackety' engine)? "

Ever thought maybe it is loud? I owned an Accord in 2000 and it was not this "refined" sounding machine that some want others to believe. This car was loud at full throttle. I have driven both a 4cyl Fusion automatic and have also test drive an 06 Accord 4cyl Automatic. Its all in what you want to believe. Both of these vehicles exhibit engine noise when pushed.

thegraduate

I owned an Accord in 2000 and it was not this "refined" sounding machine that some want others to believe.

It's not "wanting to believe" scape.

Last I checked, lots of people had lots of different perceptions about things. Which, iirc, is why you drive a Fusion and I drive an Accord. We placed different values on different aspects of a vehicle.

scape2

This I agree with. I am seeing very good MPG numbers from my Fusion. I am averaging 24.2 MPG in my daily commute to work. I drive about %60 freeway to work. On my last road trip I did an amazing 32 MPG to Idaho. This was per my computer and Yes, I should have done it by paper also just to check. Next time I will. In order to achieve this 24.2MPG I have been very conscious of my speed and acceleration from a light. I am hoping to reach at least 25-26MPG as an average.

lilengineerboy

*sigh*

Why? because its a Ford engine?

No, becuase it is already relatively optimized in that application, it doesn't require premium fuel, it doesnt have VVT, etc.

Other makers with 3.0 engines get more HP? Why can't Ford? This engine is actually capable of producing over 300HP.

Stock and modified motors are very different. A stock 300 hp motor isnt the same as one that has been tuned and peaky to hit 300 hp. Im not saying the 3.0L duratec requires that either, just that it doesnt in the Fusion.

I'll have to dig back and fine the article showing this. As a matter of fact I believe the 3.0 was put in either a Lincoln or a Jag and was putting out about 250-260HP.

Yes, with VVT and premium fuel, a different engine control strategy, different heads, different intake and exhaust manifolds, mildly underdriven pulleys, etc.

The Duratec is a great little engine and has a history of reliability and durability.

You are preaching to the chior here, I think the Contour w/a 2.5L V6 and a stick was one of my favorite cars ever. Even that car required a lot of work to get from 170hp to the 200hp in the SVT (premium fuel, revised manifolds, extrude hone intakes, higher compression, changing ignition maps, differnt exhaust system, etc).

plekto

The real reason that they restrict them is because it makes them PASS EMISSIONS. No other reason. It kills low-end power and the car is barely running at idle when it pollutes the most. It also hurts emissions a bit as well, but there's just no other way to get a typical small turbo to pass smog other than remapping the ECU and restricting the exhuast and intake.

Fixing it - it makes the engine work like the designers wanted. Some guy in Germany who makes the engine designs it and THEN they go "oh gheez - look at the god-awful smog regulations in California!" So they tweak the auxiliary components and computers and such to make it work. But it's jsut not the way it came off the designing board.

More power, better low-end peroformance, better fuel economy... But emissions are really going to be tough to pass(though it's possible with a few tricks)

benderofbows

"This engine is actually capable of producing over 300HP. I'll have to dig back and fine the article showing this. As a matter of fact I believe the 3.0 was put in either a Lincoln or a Jag and was putting out about 250-260HP.. The Duratec is a great little engine and has a history of reliability and durability."

I found the article for you, I remember reading it when it was first posted.

2007 Noble M400

"In the United States, the M400 is classified as a kit car because its chassis, engine and transmission are sold separately. The rolling chassis is actually built in South Africa, and 1g Racing in Hamilton, Ohio, sells it for $72,500. The basic 3.0-liter Ford Duratec V6 is assembled by AER Manufacturing in Carrollton, Texas, and lists for $4,400. Snakebite Performance, 1g Racing's parts division in Ross, Ohio, sells the transaxle and all the ancillary turbocharging hardware for $17,700."

"Motivation comes from a seemingly harmless 3.0-liter Ford Duratec V6 that has been transformed by two Garrett GT25R turbochargers calibrated by Roush Racing. The turbos deliver 12.5 psi of boost with minimal lag, enough to make 425 hp and an equally impressive 390 lb-ft of torque."

"A professional installer can put the Noble M400 on the road in about 30 hours at a cost between $3,500 and $4,000. Add it all up and you're looking at close to $100,000 for a kit car."

Evidently it is possible to acheive 425 hp by taking a Duratec and completely rebuilding it to racing specs for a few thousand dollars while adding $17,700 worth of performance parts. That is over 140 hp per liter.

I bet it has a cold air intake

kdshapiro

"I don't understand why that's so hard for you to accept."

People also report a decrease in fuel economy. Why don't you accept it?

kdshapiro

"better fuel economy"

Better fuel economy means lower emissions, if they can do it.

kdshapiro

"Evidently it is possible to acheive 425 hp by taking a Duratec and completely rebuilding it to racing specs for a few thousand dollars while adding $17,700 worth of performance parts. That is over 140 hp per liter."

Let me understand this. Take any engine, put $20K+ of development and parts into it and you can transform it into a monster that is not street legal.

Works for me.

akirby

People also report a decrease in fuel economy. Why don't you accept it?

I do accept that - if they drive it harder than they did before. I said "all things being equal" and "when driven normally".

Allowing the engine to breathe more easily (naturally, not by forcing more air in) makes it run more efficiently and a more efficient engine uses less fuel.

If you don't want to accept a sound scientific theory with field test data to back it up that's your prerogative.

03accordman

"In your own mind my friend"

And in the minds of more than 800,000 Americans every year, who buy the Camcords.