Multi Displacement for Mustangs?
9/23/05, 10:34 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: September 23, 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With rapidly growing gas prices, having a powerful v8 is becoming pricy.
From the looks of things it dosent look like the gas prices are going anywhere but up.
So what about multi displacement?
There are multiple forms of this, but the most recent and in my mind effective is here.
Multi displacement turns off one bank of a v8.
therefore running it on 4 cylinders when you want.
What it ford were to make that option for the mustangs to come?
Dodge has recently done this with the Dodge Charger 6.1 litre hemi.
id be willing to pay the 2 or 3 grand extra msrp. Because in the long run i think you would be saving money.
The thought of turning off 4 cylinders and just running it on 4 is nostalgic to me..
yet retaining the v8 option when you want to fly.
Power when you want it. Gas saving when you need it.
Opinions?[B]
From the looks of things it dosent look like the gas prices are going anywhere but up.
So what about multi displacement?
There are multiple forms of this, but the most recent and in my mind effective is here.
Multi displacement turns off one bank of a v8.
therefore running it on 4 cylinders when you want.
What it ford were to make that option for the mustangs to come?
Dodge has recently done this with the Dodge Charger 6.1 litre hemi.
id be willing to pay the 2 or 3 grand extra msrp. Because in the long run i think you would be saving money.
The thought of turning off 4 cylinders and just running it on 4 is nostalgic to me..
yet retaining the v8 option when you want to fly.
Power when you want it. Gas saving when you need it.
Opinions?[B]
9/23/05, 10:40 AM
#2
GT Member
Join Date: April 25, 2004
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anybody seen any tests results of how much the variaible displacement Hemi improves gas mileage over the fixed displacement hemi? I just wonder if it really is worth added complexity...
9/25/05, 10:57 PM
#3
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
hmm i've been wondering the same thing lately.
but like john mentioned, do we really have proof that all this displacement on demand works as well as ppl say? cuz i havent even heard about it lately.
meh, if it got the mileage of a 4 banger when you wnated it to, im all for it. but that is alot of complexity being added, and what wouold that do to the 'stangs modability?
but like john mentioned, do we really have proof that all this displacement on demand works as well as ppl say? cuz i havent even heard about it lately.
meh, if it got the mileage of a 4 banger when you wnated it to, im all for it. but that is alot of complexity being added, and what wouold that do to the 'stangs modability?
9/26/05, 02:56 AM
#4
GTR Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Manchester, England
Posts: 4,748
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
I think this would only work when you were cruising. Any kind of accelleration would require the full 8 as the engine would be under too mush strain with just 4 cylinders firing. Let's face it, not all four bangers return the mileage. When the engine is under a lot of strain, the mileage suffers, look at the Evo's, they return about 18mpg.....
9/26/05, 08:04 AM
#5
Post *****
Join Date: May 13, 2004
Location: Berkeley/Redwood City, CA
Posts: 18,613
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
if only four cylinders were active, why would it strain more than any other normal four banger under acceleration?
i mean, i guess if you drive aggresively, any car can get bad mileage but why would there be more strain in this case? wouldnt the whole car act like a I4.
the evo is understress from the forced induction and such. and its not like ford will try and squeeze 300 horses from half an engine... or would they? lol
i mean, i guess if you drive aggresively, any car can get bad mileage but why would there be more strain in this case? wouldnt the whole car act like a I4.
the evo is understress from the forced induction and such. and its not like ford will try and squeeze 300 horses from half an engine... or would they? lol
9/26/05, 09:34 AM
#6
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: DMV
Posts: 2,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to work pretty effectively and invisiably on the standard Hemi's (the 6.1 version does not have it). Not sure how easy it would be to implement on an OHC design versus the cam-in-block OHC Hemis and now, various Chevys.
But with gas inexorably heading for permanent $3-4+ / gallon status, the simplistic "just tick a bigger motor in her" school of performance may be far less appealing, especially in a car aimed at a more cost-consious clientel like the Mustang. While that approach is effective in a way, $50-$75 fill ups may be a much for Joe Sixpack if necessary too often. So anything that would improve efficiency/decrease waste such as newer engine tech, less weight, better aerodynamics, etc. would, I think, be much more welcome in our higher priced energy environment. And while there might be some added cost at purchase time, the end result may well be a far more affordable car in the long run in terms of overall ownership costs.
And that's not to mention potential ancilliary benefits such a better handling, braking, accelerations, and top speed many of these efficiency improvers might render.
But with gas inexorably heading for permanent $3-4+ / gallon status, the simplistic "just tick a bigger motor in her" school of performance may be far less appealing, especially in a car aimed at a more cost-consious clientel like the Mustang. While that approach is effective in a way, $50-$75 fill ups may be a much for Joe Sixpack if necessary too often. So anything that would improve efficiency/decrease waste such as newer engine tech, less weight, better aerodynamics, etc. would, I think, be much more welcome in our higher priced energy environment. And while there might be some added cost at purchase time, the end result may well be a far more affordable car in the long run in terms of overall ownership costs.
And that's not to mention potential ancilliary benefits such a better handling, braking, accelerations, and top speed many of these efficiency improvers might render.
9/26/05, 01:45 PM
#7
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: April 8, 2004
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be appealing, but only if it provided more than marginal gains in MPG. As it is now, the GT is only rated 3-5 less MPG than my current nine year old 4 banger. If displacement put MPG above 30+ then it would start to get appealing for me. There's always the V6 - it's rated exactly the same MPG as my 4 - and if the GT's MPG was rated any worse, then the V6 would've started to look better to me.
9/26/05, 02:53 PM
#8
Bullitt Member
Join Date: July 24, 2005
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, it's still less than milk 
and compared to other countries we get a pretty good deal
It seems like a Multiple displacment would just add ALOT to the msrp, and it would be mad complicated, which would take away some of the simplicity in modding a mustang
i saw in someones sig, take the 4.6 and put the escapes 70kW electric motor, that would be really cool because the electric motor can propel you up to lik 30 mph and it creates instant torque!
and compared to other countries we get a pretty good dealIt seems like a Multiple displacment would just add ALOT to the msrp, and it would be mad complicated, which would take away some of the simplicity in modding a mustang
i saw in someones sig, take the 4.6 and put the escapes 70kW electric motor, that would be really cool because the electric motor can propel you up to lik 30 mph and it creates instant torque!
9/26/05, 03:39 PM
#9
Cobra Member
Join Date: August 20, 2005
Location: BC
Posts: 1,108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The hemis with multi displacement do not get mileage much better than a regular 5.7L hemi V8. Im not sure on the numbers but i think it is only about 3 or 4mpg improvement. It would take a long time for that marginal improvement to offset the huge premium of a multi displavement engine. I think further down the road this would be a better option, but right now they are still relatively new and we all know how quickly "new" technology becomes obsolete.
9/26/05, 06:41 PM
#10
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 10, 2004
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 1,302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The technology would would improve efficiency/decrease waste as rhumb stated but I really wonder if the Mustang is the best application for it. Use in a sedan or F-150 would yield greater benefits for Ford and consumers as a whole given the greater sales volume.
There is also the unknown impact multi-displacement would have on the ability to modify our beloved 'Stangs. On the surface, it would add a layer of mechanical and electronic complexity that might hinder the ability to make enhancements. However, most upgrades increase engine efficiency for a given unit of fuel consumed so the transition is likely to be seamless.
I would still vote to retain static displacement on our 'Stangs and spend the money for development on improving other areas of the car. Just my $.02
There is also the unknown impact multi-displacement would have on the ability to modify our beloved 'Stangs. On the surface, it would add a layer of mechanical and electronic complexity that might hinder the ability to make enhancements. However, most upgrades increase engine efficiency for a given unit of fuel consumed so the transition is likely to be seamless.
I would still vote to retain static displacement on our 'Stangs and spend the money for development on improving other areas of the car. Just my $.02
9/28/05, 12:10 PM
#11
Meet Krissy, Our Star Racer
Join Date: March 19, 2005
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by MustangFanatic@September 26, 2005, 8:44 PM
The technology would would improve efficiency/decrease waste as rhumb stated but I really wonder if the Mustang is the best application for it. Use in a sedan or F-150 would yield greater benefits for Ford and consumers as a whole given the greater sales volume.
The technology would would improve efficiency/decrease waste as rhumb stated but I really wonder if the Mustang is the best application for it. Use in a sedan or F-150 would yield greater benefits for Ford and consumers as a whole given the greater sales volume.
kris
9/28/05, 03:32 PM
#13
Shelby GT500 Member
Join Date: March 3, 2004
Location: Richmond VA
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
neat technology. but it probably doesnt add that much. look at chevy they use it in some of their trucks and they get about 1 MPG some less than the comparable ford truck or SUV. for me that is worthless b/c it is more expensive and after warranty just one more electro gremlin for us to fix.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ssjbuu
Repair and Service Help
6
8/28/15 08:55 AM
carid
Vendor Showcase
0
7/20/15 06:26 AM