Feds Demand 29 mpg Pickup Truck

[LT-x7]

I have to say I'm in John C's camp here. Government regulation is rarely good, it's about politics. I'm not opposed to improving fuel economy, but I am opposed to its being imposed. The market should drive technology, not the government. I can guarantee that if this mandate remains intact, light trucks as we know them will cease to exist. Like John says, it takes a fixed amount of energy to do a specific amount of work, this is a law of physics. If we expect to continue to do the amount of work we do with our trucks, it will require a specific amount of energy that can not change. I also agree with John in what this new technology will cost us. The diesel option on a pickup truck is now in the area of $10,000. This is due to the latest emissions requirements. Hybrids seem to be the latest fad in gaining fuel mileage, but ti is my understanding that these really only save fuel in city driving conditions. Plus you have the weight and cost of a bank of batteries that needs replacing after just a few years. I'm not sold on that technology as being cost efficient.

To me, the market should drive technological development, not the government. Any manufacturer that can develop a pickup that gets 100% better fuel mileage than their competitor (we are talking about a 100% improvement here) would definitely have a sales edge over their competitors if said pickup could do the same work in the same time.

Very well put Steve, I completely agree.

While were kinda on the subject....
These hybrids have got me thinking recently about just what you were saying about a gallon of fuel having a fixed amount of energy. So a hybrid burns fuel in a internal combustion engine producing mechanical energy. Then it converts it to electricity with a generator, then the electricity drives electric motors to produce the mechanical energy to propel the vehicle. Even if you don't factor all the extra weight from the extra equipment, how is that more efficient?

 

[Speedpup]

Batteries will last more than a few years. They are supposed to last ten in the Chevy Volt I think. Sucking up foreign oil is horrible and the sooner we get off it the better. Doubt industry would have moved this fast without being pushed. It cost money but if everyone has to do it you are all in the same boat. People here forget fast when gas goes down in price. Hybrids have smaller motors so they have less weight. I have not noticed excessive weight on HB models.

I think Ford's new diesel is meeting emissions with cheaper technology. Also if a hybrid uses electric the electric could have been produced by hydro electric, coal, or natural gas which we produce here in the USA not foreign oil.

 

[PSDF350]

5 years 10 years who cares. You can not rebuild battiers, well not cheaply. Once dead they go to a landfill for how many years. Plus there's all this talk about how your getting this better fuel mileage, but only because your not factoring in the plug in time at the house.

 

[Framer]

Want fuel economy? What you should regulate is speed and acceleration rates: It feels good to stomp on the gas and feel the torque. Car manufactures market speed and power, just like food manufactures market 0 this or high this. Limit large trucks (aka semi's) to 80 kph or New York States speed limit of 55mph (88kph). Limit pasenger vehicles to 100 kph or the speed limit in ontario. Then limit acceleration rates: I've seen minivans do 7secs to 60. Probably faster than a 1970 porsche. Your pickup truck does not have to be able to go 100mph up a 7% incline with a trailer on it. Speed adds to accidents that contributes to deaths. If you think Iraq, or Afgansistan kills american look to the war on the road. When vehicles get less capable of acceleration and top speed then they will use less fuel. Honda civic used to get 99hp or something like that. Now they have probably don't quote me 150hp stock. That meens if you dropped engine size to 1l or something like that it should perform like the civic of the 90's. 2 percent of the vehicles power goes to move the occupant. Oil needs to be saved for more important things like crop production, aviation. Moving to electric cars does nothing either. Just shifts production from oil to coal and coal is dirty. Easy oil has mostly been found. Look to tar sands as being bottom of barrel technology. Its almost like burning your furniture to heat you house. Oil shale would be the same thing but worst because shale is harder to process than sand. Natural gas is probably the next step. Thats my 2cents. Or just double the price of gasoline and then people will start to use less. The would pumps a billion barrels every 12 days and its just unsustainable. Moving to cars only capable of doing the speed limit and accelerating at a modest level might give some less dense fuels like (natural gas, electricty a fighting chance against oil. If you think I'm a greenie I drive a 6.6 duramax. If you were an by the book interpertation of any religion, in poverty, had saudis (a majorly different religion or culture with a different language) putting up bases in your country flying their loud jets over your country and bombing your neighbours some of your people might act the same as them. When we run out of resources we will see what true savages humans can be. We get rich while there people stay poor.

 

[CEwriter]

Very well put Steve, I completely agree.

While were kinda on the subject....
These hybrids have got me thinking recently about just what you were saying about a gallon of fuel having a fixed amount of energy. So a hybrid burns fuel in a internal combustion engine producing mechanical energy. Then it converts it to electricity with a generator, then the electricity drives electric motors to produce the mechanical energy to propel the vehicle. Even if you don't factor all the extra weight from the extra equipment, how is that more efficient?

Hybrids are more efficient because they replace the most-fuel-consumptive power demand of the vehicle's total duty cycle -- acceleration -- with electric energy generated for free during braking. Transient loads during acceleration burn an inordinate volume of fuel. You see it in cars that have a computer with a "current fuel economy" read-out. Accelerating in my '97
Chyrsler Sebring (a middling-powered six-cylinder with automatic transmission), fuel efficiency drops into single digits. Cruising on the highway at 70 mph, it ticks off 27 mpg like clockwork.

A hybrid uses energy that used to be wasted as heat in the brakes to generate electric energy, then discharges that energy into the driveline during peak demand. The engine then works at more of a steady state, close to its power and efficiency sweet spot. (I do not, by the way, consider the gas/electric hybrid as we know them today to be anything like a reasonable fuel-efficiency solution. We can do much, much better. But they are what the free market has served up so far.)

The most efficient four-stroke gasoline engines are only about 43% thermally efficient, according to SAE. That means they're radiating 57% of the energy they burn as heat and noise. Efficiency proponents are pushing automakers to engineer systems that use more of that energy to move the vehicle. The auto industry is nowhere close to a point at which we can talk about the minimum amount of energy required to do a unit of work as an excuse not to pursue increased efficiency.

Politics are certainly a thorny construct. I scarcely trust politicians or regulators more than, say, the owners of auto companies or the good will of the faceless majority of car buyers. No markets are free. And even if they were, prices in them would somehow have to account for the cost to society of the products they produce for those markets to be anything other than socio-pathic means to enrichment of the luckiest and most politically astute.

And so we come round again to politics. It seems strange to me that people speak of "politics" and "free markets" as a dichotomy. They operate in tandem, scarcely more than a phone call or joyride on the corporate jet away from each other. They're both broken. What would you expect from powerful organizations run by people. Ambitious people make mistakes and get selfish and irregularly act with great compassion.

I trust neither and do business as sparingly as possible with both politics and free markets. When I want a cheap, consistent hamburger, I go to McDonalds. When I see short-sighted desires of the populace (cheap, big, powerful personal transportation) modifying the political and physical environment in a self-destructive trend, I very carefully consider what regulation might be able to achieve. Politicians and regulators approach their jobs with at least the pretense of public service and we have some (however weak) recourse.

Not so with the people making decisions about products produced. They seldom look forward more than three months, and when they do it is because they're concerned about their retirement funds -- much like the majority of consumers. Both sides of this free market produce infrequent, random acts of compassion and even altruism, as long as they don't cost very much.

It seems rash to leave one thing as important as energy independence or the survival of the human race, possibly both wrapped in the same issue, for the free market to spontaneously nurture. Sounds to me like trusting in the maternal instincts of a wolf pack to raise a baby in the wild.

L

 

[John C.]

CEwriter, thanks for the debate. It is what should be going on at the regulatory level.

As to your statement on gasoline engine efficiency I would have to say from my days in the classroom that you are a little optimistic for gasoline engines. Diesels are by far the most efficient engine invented so far and they only rate 33% efficient. One third of a gallon goes to accomplish the task, one third goes out the stack and the rest out the radiator and off the sides of the engine. The most efficient gas engine I've heard of was around 20% but it was not big enough to produce any useful work. Probably the worst efficient engines are gas turbines. They produce gobs of power but drink fuel at the same rate as flushing a toilet. So in that case just what is the government doing about controlling fuel usage in the airline industry?

You can push the social engineering as much as you want but as long as the population continues to grow, no amount of tinkering around the edges will solve the problem.

 

[shooterm]

Wont this just be the death of 1/2 ton and everyone drives 3/4 tons?

 

[Speedpup]

they say gas will go up about another 20 cents a gallon by summer. That means 3.50 for diesel here and the same for high octane gas

 

[CEwriter]

1/2-ton category is way too big and lucrative for the US automakers for it to die. Seems really likely we'll see some light diesels used in them, which will improve them. The worst that will happen is that people who buy pickup trucks and end up hauling nothing more than groceries (and channel their inner Wil and Sonny) might switch to something else. But probably not. There's no significant disadvantage to light diesels. We just don't use them in the U.S. because we've never used them in the U.S. (unless you count GM's extravagant flop in the 1970s).

 

[d9gdon]

Forced move to bigger truck

Looks to me like it'll only force me(the heavy user of a pickup to its maximum capacity) to be forced into a switch to a heavier truck that won't be regulated as a 29 mpg vehicle.

To get the 29 mpg target, I think mfrs will be forced to lower hauling and towing capacities and so they won't be "pickups" anymore, just simply GM El Camino or Ford Ranchero style vehicles.

Then, the next larger class (being bobtail type trucks like the GM 4500 job) will just (d)evolve into something resembling the pickups we have nowadays, but with bigger springs and bigger motors to stay in the unregulated bracket of trucks. Now I get to pay more for the truck when I buy it and pay more at the pump when I use it, cause I don't need the full capacity of the truck, I just needed a pickup dammit. How's that for circular thinking?

 

[CEwriter]

It is pretty circular.

There would be no reason to shrink the half-ton down to some sub-pickup car because car fuel efficiency is also regulated, and to a higher mpg rating. Not to mention there's no reason to reduce the vehicle's capabilities when you can actually improve them and still meet the fuel-efficiency targets with a light diesel and a six-speed transmission, or combination of technologies to be named later.

This regulation doesn't apply to the GM 4500, which doesn't exist anymore, or any of the currently existing 4500-level trucks.

And this whole train of thought opposes the direction that equipment manufacturers have taken since the beginning of emissions regulations, at least with work-oriented vehicles like heavy trucks and construction equipment. So far, vehicles that have work applications have actually increased in capability as emissions regulations have been applied to them.

Now, I understand that there are those who think automobile performance has suffered since emissions regulations began to affect their engineering because you can no longer buy a car that will pull the front wheels right off the showroom floor, but I think if you compare power densities for current models and those of, say 30 years ago, you will find that today's cars are considerably more powerful. Not to mention more reliable, thanks to fuel injection and a host of other technologies "forced" on us by emissions regulations.

 

[LT-x7]

but I think if you compare power densities for current models and those of, say 30 years ago, you will find that today's cars are considerably more powerful. Not to mention more reliable, thanks to fuel injection and a host of other technologies "forced" on us by emissions regulations.

I completely agree that newer more advanced engines are more powerful than older engines. But have you ever taken a modern fuel injected engine and stripped the emissions from it? I have, I will tell you it doesn't use more fuel and it doesn't lose power.

 

[CEwriter]

I completely agree that newer more advanced engines are more powerful than older engines. But have you ever taken a modern fuel injected engine and stripped the emissions from it? I have, I will tell you it doesn't use more fuel and it doesn't lose power.

Really? That's interesting. What kind of engine did you strip, and what kind of performance results did you get?

 

[d9gdon]

Light diesel with 6 speed

I've got a pickup with a light diesel (Duramax) and a six speed and it won't get half of that 29 mpg we're looking for.

If this regulation is going the right way, then why did a Dodge pickup with Cummins diesel get 21-25 mpg in 1988 when they came out (in my own experience) and get about 15-16 mpg(when I traded in my '07 model with same 5.9L)?

 

[John C.]

That's another point that can be against mileage demands by government. They are only on paper.

The manufacturer submits a mule for testing to an agency certified by the government. They submit the vehicle to tests that supposedly simulate average driving conditions. The lab then puts a theoretical rating on the unit and the manufacturer goes into mass production.

So does the vehicle truly deliver the advertised fuel mileage? Experience says almost never.

The only true test should be to statistically sample a certain number of vehicles on the road and if they don't attain the theoretical mileage numbers the governmental agency would go back to the manufacturer with a fine in the amount of mileage not delivered.

One need only read the thread on California Big Brother to see the tremendous power grab being taken by a state agency to run business out of California to see the way all this is going to finish putting the country in depression.

Right now we have people from China running all over our state looking for pre-tier machines to take to China. They have no problem using that iron to bury us in our own morass of regulation and feel good policies that do nothing but put people out of work.

 

[KSSS]

I've got a pickup with a light diesel (Duramax) and a six speed and it won't get half of that 29 mpg we're looking for.

If this regulation is going the right way, then why did a Dodge pickup with Cummins diesel get 21-25 mpg in 1988 when they came out (in my own experience) and get about 15-16 mpg(when I traded in my '07 model with same 5.9L)?

This regulation is not going the right way. The EPA is way out of control. After tier 2 all the low hanging fruit was picked. Now it is ridiculous. Each subsequent new tier results in worse mileage. My 01 Duramax 3500 would get 18 mpg. My 03 2500 got 22 mpg. My 06 3500 got 13 prior to being remapped and thats with the 6 speed. My 08 2500 gets 12.5 We burning more fuel to make cleaner emissions. That is crazy stupid. The cost of this technology is crippling on entire industries. If you have a pre 07 diesel pickup you need to treat her right.

 

[CEwriter]

I've got a pickup with a light diesel (Duramax) and a six speed and it won't get half of that 29 mpg we're looking for.

If this regulation is going the right way, then why did a Dodge pickup with Cummins diesel get 21-25 mpg in 1988 when they came out (in my own experience) and get about 15-16 mpg(when I traded in my '07 model with same 5.9L)?

The regulation we're talking about in this thread was put in place two weeks ago. It won't affect your '07.

 

[CEwriter]

The Duramax is not a light diesel. It's available in GM's 2500HD and 3500HD (the "HD" indicating heavy duty), which are not affected by these federal fuel efficiency standards.

We are not burning more fuel to make less emissions. Automakers are choosing to increase pickup truck horsepower to appeal to buyers who don't care about how much fuel they burn or pollution they emit as long as they have the most powerful truck on the street.

An '01 Duramax was rated at 300 hp and an '08 Duramax is rated at 365 hp. You got a 22% increase in horsepower with your fuel-efficiency drop. Other pickup makers are doing the same things.

The fact that EPA fuel efficiency ratings aren't replicated in real-world driving doesn't make any difference. Various driving conditions and driver practices are going to create such wide variations in actual fuel efficiency -- how close to the EPA rating do you think a 20-year-old driving in Summit County, CO, will come? How about a 50-year-old independent business owner in Lawrence, KS? The EPA ratings offer consumers a way to judge the relative fuel efficiency of one model compared to another, and the regulators a way to judge the direction that fuel efficiency is heading from one model year to the next. It's nothing more than a repeatable test of how much fuel a drive train consumes.

To suggest that regulations designed to reduce the contribution of one of the largest sources of air pollution in the nation are "doing nothing" presents something of an intellectual challenge. We've seen 90%+ reductions in emissions from light and heavy duty vehicles. So you must not mean that the regulations don't work.

The Clean Air Act, legislation written and ratified by elected representatives of the U.S. government, defined the people of the United States' desire for cleaner air. Suggesting that the resulting regulations -- which are achieving the will of the U.S. people -- perhaps indicates that you are among the dissenting segment of the population that doesn't care for clean air.

I hear they're not wasting a lot of time or effort on it in China . . .

 

[John C.]

The idea that the clean air act was brought about through the will of the people is laughable. It was brought about through grants offered to universities to bring in results that would support one segment of societies opinions. Again the situation in California is the perfect example. A statistician with false credentials made a pronouncement which was jumped on by regulators and presented to elected officials with no propensity to question the validity of the author or the findings or even read the bill before them. It's ok though, they aren't working and the air is a lot cleaner now. Trust me, it's coming to your stated soon.

The fact that fuel efficiency ratings can't be replicated is exactly the issue. You are advertising that the vehicle can do what is posted in the ads. You are telling all the American people that this is better but you can't prove it. If the ratings cannot be replicated then how can we trust that they were in fact ever used as a standard. What does that say about government? What does that say about the people who developed the standards?

The EPA now is an agency completely out of the control of elected officials. That EPA declared CO2 a hazardous substance was nothing more than a power grab that Congress did nothing about. I fully expect that within two years we will see the smoke police patrolling our neighborhoods looking for non complying cars and smoking fireplaces. Soon we will have breath out cleaner air than we breath in. It shouldn't be hard as all the work will be gone. No one will be able to start even a high mile car.

 

[Speedpup]

I've got a pickup with a light diesel (Duramax) and a six speed and it won't get half of that 29 mpg we're looking for.

If this regulation is going the right way, then why did a Dodge pickup with Cummins diesel get 21-25 mpg in 1988 when they came out (in my own experience) and get about 15-16 mpg(when I traded in my '07 model with same 5.9L)?

HP difference was?