@austinman1995 oh ok. Ours has been perfectly reliable, nearly 50,000 miles on it so far, we might trade it in for either a 2010 Fusion or a 2010 Escape soon.
I can assure you a Honda Accord 2.4 I-vtec would kill this thing in the 0-60! Vtecs are awsome technology, and reliable, but nothing can replace the nice grunt of a Chevy small block! lol!
@FordNissanChevy Yeah, I know, thats why the Fusion was ranked highest mpg. But our Honda still gets like 34mpg. So its fast (for waht it is) and is fuel effecient. Yeah, a 3.0l fusion would beat a 2.4 accord, but a 3.5 vtec accord would KILL a 3.0l fusion. Still, The fusion is nice!
@Motorfordtoyota Not really cause accord v6 is not that fast now ive seen stock fusions beat a v6 accord with no problem. Now the accord coupe v6 is faster way faster. Even an altima with cvt will beat an accord. Altima 3.5sr 0-60 6.5sec, 0-100=14.8, 1/4=14.8@100mph,topspeed 130mph.. Accord v6 ex 0-60=6.5, 0-100=15.4, 1/4 15@94.1mph,topspeed 127mph.. For the accord some people have gotten slower times.. acccord 271hp 254tq altima 270hp 258tq
@jsnevels2 Since when did I mention a fucking v6 accord. I said that the 2.4 i-VTEC honda engine could out run a 2.3 ford. I hate Nissan anyway, to cheap. And a Toyota 3.5 could out run a Nissan fuckima anyday. And the Camry is the best selling car, and it is bullet proof, ect. I couldnt care less about nissan.
@Motorfordtoyota UMMM you said 3.5 v-tec shithead now get mad at that shit motherfucker. Fuck that slow ass 2.4 i-shitec. I hate Honda anyways,poorly made,and no TORQUE. And a maxima will shit all over a camry anyday. And who cares about camry being best selling hell I kno that IDGAF.... Its bullet proof??? Yeah show me a vid of it being bullet proof. I could care lees about toyota,Honda,and ford.. You said I couldnt care less about Nissan so actually you care about Nissan!!!
@jsnevels2 I hate Nissan. They suck. Get over yourself. Ive lived in a Toyota/Ford?Honda Family for 14 years now. My Toyota never lets me, my Moms Toyota never lets her down, My sisters Honda never lets her down, Niether did her Acura all the way through the Accident. And my dads Honda would never leave him stranded, apart from the dead battery, but that can happen to any car.
@Motorfordtoyota UHHH I dont want to see what you type about your family history uhhh my mom had a 1994 altima GXE with 260kmiles on it no problems,dad has a 2001 maxima se with 175k miles on it no problems,my mom had a 2003 altima 3.5se 145kmiles on it no problems and now she has a 2008 altima 2.5sl 29kmiles no problem yet,oh my brother has a 99maxima se he has 271kmiles on it no problems. My grandad has a 2006 altima se-r man 134kmiles on it problem and it runs high 13s in the 1/4..
@Motorfordtoyota VQ is the engines that be in maximas,altima,350z's,murano's,pathfinder,frontier,quest,. SHUTUP??? Im not talking so stop typing asshole.
@Motorfordtoyota Ah, VTEC was a crutch to help avoid the lack of low-end power on their tiny engines, and that "technology" first came out in the 80s.. .right around the same time as the original GameBoy.
@ahanix1988 I dont like Hondas, never will. I was just saying that. I am a Toyota/Chevy guy, and a 2.5 Camry would beat this car, and a 2.4 Malibu could run with it.
There was no red zone on my tach in my 04 ranger with the the i4. I had to know, long story short, the motor shuts the fuel off at about 7k rmp. Peak HP is at 4200rmp. Either way, your ringing the guts out of the motor, and somehow they keep going, thank you mazda, I hope ford didn't mess your motor up too much, I kind of wish they would have kept the mazda flywheel balancer, and turbo option, but it still seems to be a good motor. Ford's dmbasses put a fuel shutoff right where passengers kick.
This is a really cool car inside and out but if you wanna get this gas mileage and go a little faster might as well go with a 00-05 Impala. They're V6 but its a pushrod so it gets 29MPG highway and a good 2 seconds faster to 60 than this thing.
Again, I like the first gen Fusion I think they look fucking sexy, plus they handle better then a Impala-boat. I'd take one over a Honda or a Toyota anyday. But if speed and MPG is what you want look elsewhere.
I know all about pushrod engines and OHC engines all well. You said because its pushrod it gets better gas mileage? That makes absoultely no sense, pushrod engines are old technology and they werent designed for fuel economy.
Well for starters, it would be pretty much impossible to have VVT in a pushrod engine, plus you do have more friction working against you with a push-rod, and I haven't seen any push-rod engine having more than 2v per cyl, so ohc, dohc is better than ohv in mpg and power.
For starters, Vortec engines have VVT now. I know, it's not a "real" VVT, but it has the same effect via different tuning for different RPM ranges in the ECU.
The friction is very negligible for a normal car. It'll only weight less on a V engine because the heads are way lighter.
Top fuel racers have pushrod hemi engines with 2 valves per cylinders. They make +8000hp. Did you say "duck"?
My car is a Pushrod V8, gets about 15 mpg in the city. A comparable OHC engine will get around 19 mpg and get more torque and power(for instance a DOHC Mustang engine). The reason most pushrod engines make more torque is because they are usually higher displacement engines, not solely because they use pushrods. If pushrods engines made more torque and fuel economy, why dont ANY four cylinder engines use them today?
Ahah, Good question. See, they use the big engines because the pushrod mechanism allows for lighter engines. That's why a Z06 can have 7.4 liters, 505hp, get 24mpg and have an engine lighter than a Porsche I6.
The reason they won't use it on a 4 cylinder is because there's no weight saved in there. Or very little compared to DOHC. It'll just end up heavier because the engine would be bigger. So you're right on that. It's better for V6s and V8s.
Exactly but DOHC V8's make more power than Pushrod V8's 90% of the time. If pusrods are lighter and better on gas AND has more torque and power then why is GM the only company that makes them anymore?!? See, it just isn't logical, which means its probably not true. And I have a 89 Camaro 355 stroker.
True. OHC can rev higher so they have a better peak power, but not necessarily better performance. I mean what's the fastest production car in the world? A pushrod...talking about the SSC Ultimate.
It's not just GM. Ford and Dodge are the ones I know of that also still make OHV. It's not a good marketing decision for foreign automakers though. I mean let's face it, Japs and Europeans love high revving engines.
Yeah the TPIs didn't turn out that good...Still love the sound though. L98 or LB9?
okay i stand corrected with the vvt push-rod tech, but a dohc v8, like the new ford 5.0 has independent vvt for both exhaust and intake, and unless gm somehow squeezes 2 cams into the block, I don't see tat happening on a push-rod. And those drag engines are fully built and big. If you got 2 of the same size motors, 1 ohv and the other dohc, fully built them both, dohc will make more power, and more likely make better mpg with dual vvt.
There's no need for a VVT. Why would you need a VVT when the engine is already getting more than enough air and fuel even at max rpm? They won't need it because they don't need to rev as high.
Actually GM seriously considered using OHC for 1997 Corvette. They made prototypes of both. They tested both, and the engineers preferred the OHV for its instant response and torque. They put that engine into production, and named it the "LS1".
See the purpose of vvt is to get more horse power AND better fuel economy of the same displacement in a production vehicle with keeping a similar redline. Especially in a dual overhead cam with the intake cam and exhuast cam is independent controled in a dual overhead design. It can't be done without this added feature in the cylinder head!
There are quite a few OHV engines that have VVT. And I mean an actual VVT. If you know anything about how VVT ( aka good ol' VTEC ) works you'd know that it's actually not that impossible to implement it on a larger V8 OHV engine.
Yea true. look at GMs LS series v8 engines even if it cylinders on demand electronics get good fuel milage and power! but!... on small displacement motors overhead cam is better trying to squeeze as much torque posiible out of them.
Eliminating push rods in a cumbustional engine like between rocker arm and cam reduces friction which hence putting back more power in the system. GM did pretty good job keeping push rod "tech" in the current v8 engines (i say tradition) and gettting balance power fuel eco buy todays standards! but you can"t put V8s regardless in small cars to get better fuel eco....
Friction? Barely. I mean you're talking about lifting some valves here not moving the car. The cam gets far more energy than it needs for moving the rockers. Think about it, wouldn't that friction be negligible compared to the power that is taken from the engine to spin 4 cams (or two at least) instead of one?
I didn't say a V8 would get the same fuel economy as a 4 cyl. But a V6 can. And a V8, if designed efficiently, can get V6 numbers. Did you know Z06 gets better mileage than the V6 GT-R?
Every little bit of friction that can be reduced,... Enginners will implement it less parts more efficiency is one consideration. even on accessories like Ford, there going to elmanate power steering pumps with electric ones in next few years! All i'm saying WITH NO DISRESPECT AND AFFENDING ANYONE its compacting, power efficientcy purpose is with overhead cam&vvt is the way enginners are going with this route! See like i said with the bold type above to add is just my opinion!
@wildbloodydragon GM is making tons of DOHC engines,just not any v8's yet. and since you get more valves with DOHC, you'll get more power than ohv, you'll also achieve higher rpms. The biggest advantage the ohv has that its more compact.
@wildbloodydragon opps yeah forgot that engine, that engine was badass. Im not sure if ohv are lighter, i know the only have 1 cam, but its also got push rods, lifters, rockers, the block needs to be bigger to fit the cam inside, an ohc might be the lightest.
@FordNissanChevy OHC has one more cam, DOHC has three more cams. That's a lot of weight. Not to mention if they want to add VVT to it, which makes the cams even heavier.
That how GM managed to make the 427 in the Z06 is lighter then a Porsche Carrera 4 I6.
@wildbloodydragon but the ohv cam is heavier than a single ohc cam because of the extra lobes, then add the weight of the lifters, rocker and push rods.
@FordNissanChevy Extra lobes? Why would it have extra lobes if it's lifting the same number of valves? I think it's the other way around, on VVT OHCs you get an extra lobe for each cylinder (which is bigger then the two other lobes) so the OHC cam would end up heavier.
I mean doesn't matter how you add it up some lifters and rods won't be as heavy as 3 cams.
@wildbloodydragon WHAT!? No. On a 4 cylinder engine, both OHV and OHC have one cam. OHV has one in the block (also called cam-in block) that uses pushrods to open the valves. OHC has a single cam on top of the cylinder head that either uses rocker arms, or actuates the valves directly. DOHC has two cams on top, usually one for intake, and one for exhaust. On a V engine, OHV has a single cam. SOHC has 2, and DOHC has 4.
@wildbloodydragon There is a good reason for it, believe it or not. The rotating mass as a whole might not necessarily be lighter (in some cases, it is) but think about it this way. In an OHC engine, the valve spring only has to move the valve itself, and maybe a small rocker arm. In an OHV engine, it has to move the valve, the rocker arm, and the long pushrod and lifter back into place. This will slow it down, and is one reason that OHV is usually poor for very high RPM applications.
@rudolphna54 Not really. The reason they don't rev too high is because they're limited to not rev that high.
Why limited? Simple. The engines deliver their peak torque and power way before even hitting the limit. Raising the limit would only slow the car down.
They could be built to rev higher, I mean, a top fuel dragster with a 8 liter OHV engine revs to 8500rpm, it's that it's just not necessary.
Still pretty sure it's more efficient to spin one cam and than to spin two.
@wildbloodydragon the design of an ohc or dohc type head has better flow than a ohv head, not sure why but its probably becuase it doesn't have the pushrods on the one side, allowing bigger ports. Plus it is easier to run a 4v setup rather than use bridges. Also the new ford 5.0 runs up to 7k rpm stock, and it really might have to do with less valve train friction. You can actually feel a difference in power when you switch to roller rockers, becuase of less friction. l
@FordNissanChevy Not sure if the OHC has better flow, the DOHC does though, because of the 4 valves per cylinder, obviously.
The 5.0's rpm range isn't what makes it impressive, I mean hell, my 16 year old LT1 revs to almost 7000. The 7 liter LS7 goes a little higher than 7000, and it's OHV.
We could argue forever man, but the simple reality is that for a small engine (I4, I6, very small V6 or V8) OHC is better. For a bigger engine (big V6, muscle car V8, V8 diesel, etc), OHV is better.
@wildbloodydragon the new ford 5.0 has more head flow than a Chevy nascar v8 ohv. Why do you think everybody uses doch/ohc, heck even lawnmowers are starting to use ohc's! By your logic a flathead v8 is the superior method because its lighter and more compact. Believe it or not that push rod and rocker do cause binding and stress, sure ohc is heavier, but alot smoother, with better flow, so more power and higher rpm.
@FordNissanChevy Oh so lawnmowers are the benchmark now? DOHC engine design is almost as old as the OHV engine design, there's no reason to ban either. Both have their uses and limitations.
The headflow of the 5.0 compares very closely to the LS3. It's a little more at less valvelift, and slightly less than the LS3 when the valves opens up all the way.
@FordNissanChevy 5.0 Coyote: .100 97.8 .200 184 .300 249 .400 287 .500 302 LS3: .200 156 .300 226 .400 276 .500 310 .600 332 These are intake cfm. The DOHC setup only helps at lower valve lifts. LS3 is not even that good in terms of flowing in LS series engines. LS7 is way more than that.
@wildbloodydragon i'd love to see where you get your info, your saying a 2v flows more than a 4v, lol. Is this for individual vales? because the Ford has 2 intake, 2 exhaust.
@FordNissanChevy So you're saying the numbers are bogus? Since you'd love to know the sources, I got the stock LS3 numbers from CorvetteForum,com and I got the stock Coyote numbers from ModularFords,com.
Now I'd love to see what you believe to be the actual numbers. I'm not even sure if you know what these numbers mean, lol.
Gotta love people like you. Reality is right in front of you but you still stubbornly insist that you're right. It's so entertaining.
@wildbloodydragon I'm pretty sure the coyote flows better than any other engine. It flows so well they had trouble getting it to idle due to no turbulence in the airflow to mix the air and fuel.
@Dereks06 You can be as sure as you'd like but the numbers suggest otherwise. There's no denying it flows very well at low valve lift but at high valve lift - as good as it flows - it's not the best in the segment.
Look, you don't have to go around calling people "troll" when you don't actually know what a "troll" is. I've came across quite a lot of them, and believe me, I'm not what you call "troll". I'm just saying.
@wildbloodydragon I'm sure you got a lot of these by now, but a 911 uses a flat 6... Plus theres a lot of weight to the awd system, and the corvette is made out of thin plastic or carbon fibre or fiberglass or something.
@ryfin2000 I'm talking about the weight of the engine itself. The inline 6 in the Porsche 911 Carrera, by itself, weights around 230kg. The 7 liter LS7 weights just below 200kg. 30kg is about 70lbs of difference. That's impressive considering the LS7 has twice the displacement, and nearly twice the horsepower.
Corvette's body is made of fiberglass and aluminum, the Z06 is mostly carbon fiber.
@wildbloodydragon Fair enough, except the porsche still doesn't have a straight 6, it has a flat 6. Other than that, however, i agree with you. Those LS engines are pretty neat, hoping to try out a camaro ss soon (fingers crossed)
um I don't really trust on Northstar V8 because I had owned a car with Northstar V8. I get sooooooo mmmaaaaannnyy problems on that engine. Even I gets some problems when it was new. Yes they are lighter
@kenneykole um you gets some problems because they be garbage depending on what generation/year they're from. Generally speaking northstars were never that good.
Well I used to owned a 2003 Cadillac Deville DTS. Fast, powerful, and almost quiet V8... So maybe they improved on later model. I don't know if they still making or they discontinued Northstar V8.
this 2.3 inline four is now replaced with a new 2.5 liter that gets better fuel economy AND still getting notibly better fuel economy With a lower redline (Which makes it quieter getting more torque lower RPMs at cruzing speed.
Yes like i said what happens when you add vct to a motor even if it's 10 cubes larger displacement, better power down lower RPMs with better higher RPM power yet still getting improved fuel economy, BUT yet lowering redline (wider power curve) which in meaning reducing stress, wear on components!
God, this is what I have to drive in behind the wheel. Slowest car I have ever driven! I dont really feel safe learning how to merge into 55mph traffic in this thing! I need my BMW or a Benzo
hahahha true. but im just saying, this is way too slow for me to drive. and especially since ive been in a few really fast cars, this seems REALLY slow. no offense though.
we meet again lol. ford is the best. my bro had a 08 ford fusion and loved it. but it got totaled by an illeagal mexican!!! i got 2 vids of the aftermath.
About 9, maybe 9 and a half? Really not bad for a little 4 banger, especially such a fuel efficient one!
There are 6Cyl's with more HP that take that amount of time to hit 60MPH!!
Also there are always ways to knock a second or so off, some involve beating on the car (which I DO NOT recommend, not worth it) like loading up the brakes for a faster launch and sometimes you can manually shift to right before the rev limiter where it might let you shift a little higher.
This is the first video of the Fusion I4 automatic on here doing a 0-60...finally. What RPM did it go up to before it shifted? my Mom's goes up to about 6300 rpm under WOT and it didn't sound like it in this vid.
My 2000 maxima se does high 6s.
Fir3FkNFoX 4 weeks ago
lol it took 11 seconds. priuses accelerate faster
HFCHSvids 4 months ago
@HFCHSvids this took 11 secs on my clock too my 2006 civic ex vtec can run a 9 second pass
fireman62truck 3 months ago
The new 2011 is much faster, the new 6 speed auto helps as well as a bigger engine.
Lexuslover123 6 months ago
@austinman1995 oh ok. Ours has been perfectly reliable, nearly 50,000 miles on it so far, we might trade it in for either a 2010 Fusion or a 2010 Escape soon.
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@austinman1995 are you talking about the Euro Fusion?
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@austinman1995 how much faster is it, and how good of mpg are you getting?
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
yeah that's slow. I have an 07 fusion myself, it's a stick and has the f2 cold air intake. I hit 0-60 in the 7's maybe low 8's
mjwible27 1 year ago
11:54 first run 10:23 second run
badmonk3829 1 year ago
I can assure you a Honda Accord 2.4 I-vtec would kill this thing in the 0-60! Vtecs are awsome technology, and reliable, but nothing can replace the nice grunt of a Chevy small block! lol!
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota probably, but this was made for pure mpg. The Fusion 3.0 would beat it tho.
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy Yeah, I know, thats why the Fusion was ranked highest mpg. But our Honda still gets like 34mpg. So its fast (for waht it is) and is fuel effecient. Yeah, a 3.0l fusion would beat a 2.4 accord, but a 3.5 vtec accord would KILL a 3.0l fusion. Still, The fusion is nice!
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota Not really cause accord v6 is not that fast now ive seen stock fusions beat a v6 accord with no problem. Now the accord coupe v6 is faster way faster. Even an altima with cvt will beat an accord. Altima 3.5sr 0-60 6.5sec, 0-100=14.8, 1/4=14.8@100mph,topspeed 130mph.. Accord v6 ex 0-60=6.5, 0-100=15.4, 1/4 15@94.1mph,topspeed 127mph.. For the accord some people have gotten slower times.. acccord 271hp 254tq altima 270hp 258tq
jsnevels2 1 year ago
@jsnevels2 Since when did I mention a fucking v6 accord. I said that the 2.4 i-VTEC honda engine could out run a 2.3 ford. I hate Nissan anyway, to cheap. And a Toyota 3.5 could out run a Nissan fuckima anyday. And the Camry is the best selling car, and it is bullet proof, ect. I couldnt care less about nissan.
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota UMMM you said 3.5 v-tec shithead now get mad at that shit motherfucker. Fuck that slow ass 2.4 i-shitec. I hate Honda anyways,poorly made,and no TORQUE. And a maxima will shit all over a camry anyday. And who cares about camry being best selling hell I kno that IDGAF.... Its bullet proof??? Yeah show me a vid of it being bullet proof. I could care lees about toyota,Honda,and ford.. You said I couldnt care less about Nissan so actually you care about Nissan!!!
jsnevels2 1 year ago
@jsnevels2 I hate Nissan. They suck. Get over yourself. Ive lived in a Toyota/Ford?Honda Family for 14 years now. My Toyota never lets me, my Moms Toyota never lets her down, My sisters Honda never lets her down, Niether did her Acura all the way through the Accident. And my dads Honda would never leave him stranded, apart from the dead battery, but that can happen to any car.
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota UHHH I dont want to see what you type about your family history uhhh my mom had a 1994 altima GXE with 260kmiles on it no problems,dad has a 2001 maxima se with 175k miles on it no problems,my mom had a 2003 altima 3.5se 145kmiles on it no problems and now she has a 2008 altima 2.5sl 29kmiles no problem yet,oh my brother has a 99maxima se he has 271kmiles on it no problems. My grandad has a 2006 altima se-r man 134kmiles on it problem and it runs high 13s in the 1/4..
jsnevels2 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota And now my dad is getting a new maxima
jsnevels2 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota Uhh who made the best engines list for 12 years Nissan. VQ all the way!!!
jsnevels2 1 year ago
@jsnevels2 What the hell is a vq? I dont like Nissan, get over your self. Not everybody does. Get over that fact. and SHUT UPPPPP!!!!!!
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota VQ is the engines that be in maximas,altima,350z's,murano's,pathfinder,frontier,quest,. SHUTUP??? Im not talking so stop typing asshole.
jsnevels2 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota The Accord is too bread and butter the Fusion is cool.
yellowcow13 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota Ah, VTEC was a crutch to help avoid the lack of low-end power on their tiny engines, and that "technology" first came out in the 80s.. .right around the same time as the original GameBoy.
ahanix1988 1 year ago
@ahanix1988 I dont like Hondas, never will. I was just saying that. I am a Toyota/Chevy guy, and a 2.5 Camry would beat this car, and a 2.4 Malibu could run with it.
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
@Motorfordtoyota Well yeah, the Focus/Milan/Zephyr are heavy as hell.
Just saying, VTEC was a band-aid
ahanix1988 1 year ago
Nice Mazda engine... ooops i mean "Duratec" :p
youngbleeb 1 year ago
@austinman1995 2.3
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
my 2009 ford fusion manual has a 7k redline
irishhotti2 1 year ago
I still think that my Dad's accord would beat it easily. Stock, that is. But Honda's v-tec system REALLY works!
Motorfordtoyota 1 year ago
There was no red zone on my tach in my 04 ranger with the the i4. I had to know, long story short, the motor shuts the fuel off at about 7k rmp. Peak HP is at 4200rmp. Either way, your ringing the guts out of the motor, and somehow they keep going, thank you mazda, I hope ford didn't mess your motor up too much, I kind of wish they would have kept the mazda flywheel balancer, and turbo option, but it still seems to be a good motor. Ford's dmbasses put a fuel shutoff right where passengers kick.
d1incharge 1 year ago
that thing is a turd once it hits 35
honesty401 2 years ago
@Fantafare its an 07 with a 2.3 auto, a 3.0 goes much faster, ours has been perfectly reliable, and works great, easy to drive.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
Meh.
This is a really cool car inside and out but if you wanna get this gas mileage and go a little faster might as well go with a 00-05 Impala. They're V6 but its a pushrod so it gets 29MPG highway and a good 2 seconds faster to 60 than this thing.
Again, I like the first gen Fusion I think they look fucking sexy, plus they handle better then a Impala-boat. I'd take one over a Honda or a Toyota anyday. But if speed and MPG is what you want look elsewhere.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
could get a 3.0 V6 Fusion or the 3.5 sport Fusion
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
Yeah but they're not as efficient.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
I have an Impala 3.4L and it sucks ass. 9 seconds to 60MPH and averages 28MPG mixed.
wootness3000 2 years ago
Being a pushrod engine has nothing to do with fuel mileage or power
TheLBCSublime 2 years ago
Actually, it does. A lot.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
I know all about pushrod engines and OHC engines all well. You said because its pushrod it gets better gas mileage? That makes absoultely no sense, pushrod engines are old technology and they werent designed for fuel economy.
TheLBCSublime 2 years ago
Same with diesel. It's old and not meant for efficiency. Yet they're still more efficient than any comparable gas-only powered car.
It's the torque. More torque at lower revs means the engine won't rev as much to get the car moving. That improves fuel efficiency.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
Well for starters, it would be pretty much impossible to have VVT in a pushrod engine, plus you do have more friction working against you with a push-rod, and I haven't seen any push-rod engine having more than 2v per cyl, so ohc, dohc is better than ohv in mpg and power.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
Not impossible at all. Check out the new Cadillac Escalade; 6.2L pushrod engine, with VVT :)
TheLBCSublime 2 years ago
For starters, Vortec engines have VVT now. I know, it's not a "real" VVT, but it has the same effect via different tuning for different RPM ranges in the ECU.
The friction is very negligible for a normal car. It'll only weight less on a V engine because the heads are way lighter.
Top fuel racers have pushrod hemi engines with 2 valves per cylinders. They make +8000hp. Did you say "duck"?
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
My car is a Pushrod V8, gets about 15 mpg in the city. A comparable OHC engine will get around 19 mpg and get more torque and power(for instance a DOHC Mustang engine). The reason most pushrod engines make more torque is because they are usually higher displacement engines, not solely because they use pushrods. If pushrods engines made more torque and fuel economy, why dont ANY four cylinder engines use them today?
TheLBCSublime 2 years ago
Ahah, Good question. See, they use the big engines because the pushrod mechanism allows for lighter engines. That's why a Z06 can have 7.4 liters, 505hp, get 24mpg and have an engine lighter than a Porsche I6.
The reason they won't use it on a 4 cylinder is because there's no weight saved in there. Or very little compared to DOHC. It'll just end up heavier because the engine would be bigger. So you're right on that. It's better for V6s and V8s.
BTW what car do you own?
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
Correction - the LS7 is 7.0 liters.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
Exactly but DOHC V8's make more power than Pushrod V8's 90% of the time. If pusrods are lighter and better on gas AND has more torque and power then why is GM the only company that makes them anymore?!? See, it just isn't logical, which means its probably not true. And I have a 89 Camaro 355 stroker.
TheLBCSublime 2 years ago
True. OHC can rev higher so they have a better peak power, but not necessarily better performance. I mean what's the fastest production car in the world? A pushrod...talking about the SSC Ultimate.
It's not just GM. Ford and Dodge are the ones I know of that also still make OHV. It's not a good marketing decision for foreign automakers though. I mean let's face it, Japs and Europeans love high revving engines.
Yeah the TPIs didn't turn out that good...Still love the sound though. L98 or LB9?
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
okay i stand corrected with the vvt push-rod tech, but a dohc v8, like the new ford 5.0 has independent vvt for both exhaust and intake, and unless gm somehow squeezes 2 cams into the block, I don't see tat happening on a push-rod. And those drag engines are fully built and big. If you got 2 of the same size motors, 1 ohv and the other dohc, fully built them both, dohc will make more power, and more likely make better mpg with dual vvt.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
Comment removed
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
There's no need for a VVT. Why would you need a VVT when the engine is already getting more than enough air and fuel even at max rpm? They won't need it because they don't need to rev as high.
Actually GM seriously considered using OHC for 1997 Corvette. They made prototypes of both. They tested both, and the engineers preferred the OHV for its instant response and torque. They put that engine into production, and named it the "LS1".
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
vvt will give you both low end and high end power, it also comes in handy during coldstarts.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
No not really, it gives you better fuel economy at lower revs and better power in higher revs. That's what it's for.
I can't comment on the cold start thing because I've seen both OHC and OHV have trouble.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
advanced=low to mid power
retard=upper end power
the new ford dohc v8's can do both now, full powerband
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
I thought it's the other way around lol
Yeah Ford is doing good with their new V8s. But even them are still making a lot of OHV diesels.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
See the purpose of vvt is to get more horse power AND better fuel economy of the same displacement in a production vehicle with keeping a similar redline. Especially in a dual overhead cam with the intake cam and exhuast cam is independent controled in a dual overhead design. It can't be done without this added feature in the cylinder head!
sach976 2 years ago
There are quite a few OHV engines that have VVT. And I mean an actual VVT. If you know anything about how VVT ( aka good ol' VTEC ) works you'd know that it's actually not that impossible to implement it on a larger V8 OHV engine.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
@wildbloodydragon vtec with a push-rod is really pushing it now
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
Yea true. look at GMs LS series v8 engines even if it cylinders on demand electronics get good fuel milage and power! but!... on small displacement motors overhead cam is better trying to squeeze as much torque posiible out of them.
sach976 2 years ago
True, OHV only makes sense of a V engine not on an inline one.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
Eliminating push rods in a cumbustional engine like between rocker arm and cam reduces friction which hence putting back more power in the system. GM did pretty good job keeping push rod "tech" in the current v8 engines (i say tradition) and gettting balance power fuel eco buy todays standards! but you can"t put V8s regardless in small cars to get better fuel eco....
sach976 2 years ago
Friction? Barely. I mean you're talking about lifting some valves here not moving the car. The cam gets far more energy than it needs for moving the rockers. Think about it, wouldn't that friction be negligible compared to the power that is taken from the engine to spin 4 cams (or two at least) instead of one?
I didn't say a V8 would get the same fuel economy as a 4 cyl. But a V6 can. And a V8, if designed efficiently, can get V6 numbers. Did you know Z06 gets better mileage than the V6 GT-R?
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
Every little bit of friction that can be reduced,... Enginners will implement it less parts more efficiency is one consideration. even on accessories like Ford, there going to elmanate power steering pumps with electric ones in next few years! All i'm saying WITH NO DISRESPECT AND AFFENDING ANYONE its compacting, power efficientcy purpose is with overhead cam&vvt is the way enginners are going with this route! See like i said with the bold type above to add is just my opinion!
sach976 2 years ago
You're entitled to your opinion but I'm talking about facts.
Less parts doesn't automatically mean better efficiency. There's no such law.
A rocket-propelled dragster has less parts than a hybrid. Is it more efficient?
VVT has more parts than both regular OHV and OHCs. Is it less efficient?
Force needed to spin 2-4 cams > force needed to overcome rocker friction. Fact.
GM designed DOHC systems to replace their OHVs. But they could never out perform their OHV. So they stuck with OHV.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
@wildbloodydragon GM is making tons of DOHC engines,just not any v8's yet. and since you get more valves with DOHC, you'll get more power than ohv, you'll also achieve higher rpms. The biggest advantage the ohv has that its more compact.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
@FordNissanChevy loldude they been making DOHCs since the 90s. Look up Northstar V8.
OHV V8s are a lot lighter too, and for their size and power turn out very impressive fuel economy numbers.
wildbloodydragon 2 years ago
@wildbloodydragon opps yeah forgot that engine, that engine was badass. Im not sure if ohv are lighter, i know the only have 1 cam, but its also got push rods, lifters, rockers, the block needs to be bigger to fit the cam inside, an ohc might be the lightest.
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy OHC has one more cam, DOHC has three more cams. That's a lot of weight. Not to mention if they want to add VVT to it, which makes the cams even heavier.
That how GM managed to make the 427 in the Z06 is lighter then a Porsche Carrera 4 I6.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon but the ohv cam is heavier than a single ohc cam because of the extra lobes, then add the weight of the lifters, rocker and push rods.
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy Extra lobes? Why would it have extra lobes if it's lifting the same number of valves? I think it's the other way around, on VVT OHCs you get an extra lobe for each cylinder (which is bigger then the two other lobes) so the OHC cam would end up heavier.
I mean doesn't matter how you add it up some lifters and rods won't be as heavy as 3 cams.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon WHAT!? No. On a 4 cylinder engine, both OHV and OHC have one cam. OHV has one in the block (also called cam-in block) that uses pushrods to open the valves. OHC has a single cam on top of the cylinder head that either uses rocker arms, or actuates the valves directly. DOHC has two cams on top, usually one for intake, and one for exhaust. On a V engine, OHV has a single cam. SOHC has 2, and DOHC has 4.
rudolphna54 1 year ago
@rudolphna54 DOHC and SOHC are both OHC, genius.
You didn't explain how a one OHV cam and some lifters and pushrods are heavier than two or four OHC cams that 99.9% of the time are made for VVT.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon There is a good reason for it, believe it or not. The rotating mass as a whole might not necessarily be lighter (in some cases, it is) but think about it this way. In an OHC engine, the valve spring only has to move the valve itself, and maybe a small rocker arm. In an OHV engine, it has to move the valve, the rocker arm, and the long pushrod and lifter back into place. This will slow it down, and is one reason that OHV is usually poor for very high RPM applications.
rudolphna54 1 year ago
@rudolphna54 Not really. The reason they don't rev too high is because they're limited to not rev that high.
Why limited? Simple. The engines deliver their peak torque and power way before even hitting the limit. Raising the limit would only slow the car down.
They could be built to rev higher, I mean, a top fuel dragster with a 8 liter OHV engine revs to 8500rpm, it's that it's just not necessary.
Still pretty sure it's more efficient to spin one cam and than to spin two.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon the design of an ohc or dohc type head has better flow than a ohv head, not sure why but its probably becuase it doesn't have the pushrods on the one side, allowing bigger ports. Plus it is easier to run a 4v setup rather than use bridges. Also the new ford 5.0 runs up to 7k rpm stock, and it really might have to do with less valve train friction. You can actually feel a difference in power when you switch to roller rockers, becuase of less friction. l
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy Not sure if the OHC has better flow, the DOHC does though, because of the 4 valves per cylinder, obviously.
The 5.0's rpm range isn't what makes it impressive, I mean hell, my 16 year old LT1 revs to almost 7000. The 7 liter LS7 goes a little higher than 7000, and it's OHV.
We could argue forever man, but the simple reality is that for a small engine (I4, I6, very small V6 or V8) OHC is better. For a bigger engine (big V6, muscle car V8, V8 diesel, etc), OHV is better.
Agree?
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon the new ford 5.0 has more head flow than a Chevy nascar v8 ohv. Why do you think everybody uses doch/ohc, heck even lawnmowers are starting to use ohc's! By your logic a flathead v8 is the superior method because its lighter and more compact. Believe it or not that push rod and rocker do cause binding and stress, sure ohc is heavier, but alot smoother, with better flow, so more power and higher rpm.
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy Oh so lawnmowers are the benchmark now? DOHC engine design is almost as old as the OHV engine design, there's no reason to ban either. Both have their uses and limitations.
The headflow of the 5.0 compares very closely to the LS3. It's a little more at less valvelift, and slightly less than the LS3 when the valves opens up all the way.
So yeah, I just called your bullshit. Have fun.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon wrong
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy Oh yeah? Wanna bet?
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon 4v vs 2v, 4v having no push-rods limiting intake ports
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon i'd love to see where you get your info, your saying a 2v flows more than a 4v, lol. Is this for individual vales? because the Ford has 2 intake, 2 exhaust.
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy So you're saying the numbers are bogus? Since you'd love to know the sources, I got the stock LS3 numbers from CorvetteForum,com and I got the stock Coyote numbers from ModularFords,com.
Now I'd love to see what you believe to be the actual numbers. I'm not even sure if you know what these numbers mean, lol.
Gotta love people like you. Reality is right in front of you but you still stubbornly insist that you're right. It's so entertaining.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon well i cant find the numbers on modular fords, but i'll send you something to read.
FordNissanChevy 1 year ago
@FordNissanChevy Looking forward to it.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon I'm pretty sure the coyote flows better than any other engine. It flows so well they had trouble getting it to idle due to no turbulence in the airflow to mix the air and fuel.
Dereks06 1 year ago
@Dereks06 You can be as sure as you'd like but the numbers suggest otherwise. There's no denying it flows very well at low valve lift but at high valve lift - as good as it flows - it's not the best in the segment.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon Don't listen to "wildbloodydragon", he is a troll.
NateN34 1 year ago
@NateN34 Sure, I won't listen to myself. lol.
Look, you don't have to go around calling people "troll" when you don't actually know what a "troll" is. I've came across quite a lot of them, and believe me, I'm not what you call "troll". I'm just saying.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon I'm sure you got a lot of these by now, but a 911 uses a flat 6... Plus theres a lot of weight to the awd system, and the corvette is made out of thin plastic or carbon fibre or fiberglass or something.
ryfin2000 1 year ago
@ryfin2000 I'm talking about the weight of the engine itself. The inline 6 in the Porsche 911 Carrera, by itself, weights around 230kg. The 7 liter LS7 weights just below 200kg. 30kg is about 70lbs of difference. That's impressive considering the LS7 has twice the displacement, and nearly twice the horsepower.
Corvette's body is made of fiberglass and aluminum, the Z06 is mostly carbon fiber.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon Fair enough, except the porsche still doesn't have a straight 6, it has a flat 6. Other than that, however, i agree with you. Those LS engines are pretty neat, hoping to try out a camaro ss soon (fingers crossed)
ryfin2000 1 year ago
@ryfin2000 Oh yeah, totally forgot, Porsche has that boxer engine thing...
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon
um I don't really trust on Northstar V8 because I had owned a car with Northstar V8. I get sooooooo mmmaaaaannnyy problems on that engine. Even I gets some problems when it was new. Yes they are lighter
kenneykole 1 year ago
@kenneykole um you gets some problems because they be garbage depending on what generation/year they're from. Generally speaking northstars were never that good.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
@wildbloodydragon
oh ok
Well I used to owned a 2003 Cadillac Deville DTS. Fast, powerful, and almost quiet V8... So maybe they improved on later model. I don't know if they still making or they discontinued Northstar V8.
kenneykole 1 year ago
@kenneykole Maybe. Friend of mine had a northstar too and he loved the power, the sound and the smoothness but he hated how unreliable the car was.
wildbloodydragon 1 year ago
this 2.3 inline four is now replaced with a new 2.5 liter that gets better fuel economy AND still getting notibly better fuel economy With a lower redline (Which makes it quieter getting more torque lower RPMs at cruzing speed.
sach976 2 years ago
@sach976 i think its the same motor, just bigger displacement, and they added vct to the new one, i think
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
Yes like i said what happens when you add vct to a motor even if it's 10 cubes larger displacement, better power down lower RPMs with better higher RPM power yet still getting improved fuel economy, BUT yet lowering redline (wider power curve) which in meaning reducing stress, wear on components!
sach976 2 years ago
Also to add in proof the redline in the 2010 fusion with this 2.5 is 6000 rpm vs 6500 for the 2009 2.3 version!
sach976 2 years ago
Not bad for 2.3L. Imagine if they had put Taurus SHO's Ecoboost in this model....
yellowmusicfreak 2 years ago 2
@yellowmusicfreak It'd probably go 0-60 in like around 4 seconds...lol
brandenkhan15 2 years ago
God, this is what I have to drive in behind the wheel. Slowest car I have ever driven! I dont really feel safe learning how to merge into 55mph traffic in this thing! I need my BMW or a Benzo
hashkashkabash 2 years ago
you think this is slow? Check out a Diesel Ranger 0-60, your lucky to make it to 60 lol.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
hahahha true. but im just saying, this is way too slow for me to drive. and especially since ive been in a few really fast cars, this seems REALLY slow. no offense though.
hashkashkabash 2 years ago
yeah me too, ive got a truck thats 3 times quicker but hey this gets you from point a to point b.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
you need to take a benzo and chill out on the roads before you kill someone. its fast enough for what its made for.
TheLBCSublime 2 years ago
do u mean the max speed
eric5577 2 years ago
no i mean from 0-60
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
~10 seconds to 60?
USGiorgi 2 years ago
Thats like 10 seconds. Thats pretty bad.
VitaminE6SS 2 years ago
well its mid-size with a 4 cyl cant expect too much.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
mine did it in 5 seconds flat
eric5577 2 years ago
Looks almst as quick at the 3.0 V6. Not bad
4MATICbenz 2 years ago
Yea with mine it depends on how you get down on the peadle i give it few extar taps to get it going
eric5577 2 years ago
Not bad for a 4 cylinder.
FordCopChrist1995 2 years ago 2
makes me miss my brothers 08 fusion.
northsiderollers 2 years ago
0.. ok it wont let u push it
eric5577 2 years ago
see if you can do a burnout of quick 0-120 of sumin show that the 3.0l is not the only for fusion with power
eric5577 2 years ago
it wont go over 116 mph.
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
LOL!
Nickgarage 2 years ago
Nice. Do you enjoy driving the Fusion? And has it been reliable?
FordCopChrist1995 2 years ago
Fusions are great
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
we meet again lol. ford is the best. my bro had a 08 ford fusion and loved it. but it got totaled by an illeagal mexican!!! i got 2 vids of the aftermath.
northsiderollers 2 years ago
Lol. What's wierd is that the Fusion is made in Mexico it's self.
FordCopChrist1995 2 years ago
well i guess i cant do anything about it. but i seen some ford factories around here.
northsiderollers 2 years ago
Ford still makes most of their cars here but still makes some in Canada and Mexico.
FordCopChrist1995 2 years ago
nothin i can do i guess. but chec out the 2 vids.
northsiderollers 2 years ago
I don't really mind Canadian made cars that much but idk about mexico made.
FordCopChrist1995 2 years ago
yea i know but wat you gonna do?? at least ford is a great product!!
northsiderollers 2 years ago
True...
FordCopChrist1995 2 years ago
not bad
ventureandcivic 2 years ago
Awesome!
mitsumivec4life 2 years ago
About 9, maybe 9 and a half? Really not bad for a little 4 banger, especially such a fuel efficient one!
There are 6Cyl's with more HP that take that amount of time to hit 60MPH!!
Also there are always ways to knock a second or so off, some involve beating on the car (which I DO NOT recommend, not worth it) like loading up the brakes for a faster launch and sometimes you can manually shift to right before the rev limiter where it might let you shift a little higher.
dodgechryslersucks 2 years ago
yeah i agree not bad, but it did seem like it took forever lol, but i do know my Pontiac G6 V6 3.5L dont take that long lol
adiosk8r91 2 years ago
Not too shabby for a 4Banger!
makaveli087 2 years ago 2
This is the first video of the Fusion I4 automatic on here doing a 0-60...finally. What RPM did it go up to before it shifted? my Mom's goes up to about 6300 rpm under WOT and it didn't sound like it in this vid.
gusherb94 2 years ago
thats about the same rpm ours did
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
Pretty gud fer eh 4 poper :)
pickupman1995 2 years ago 3
not bad...my 2.3 hauls my old truck to 60 in about 2 months :)
1969MustangMACH1 2 years ago 4
datz perty good 4 A 4
Nickgarage 2 years ago
thats the pedal to the floor? thats pretty good for a inline 4
chevymonte1 2 years ago 2
yep
FordNissanChevy 2 years ago
i count about 10.5ish?
FatGuyWithAKatana 2 years ago 3