The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly established new federal rules that set the first-ever national greenhouse gas emissions standards and will increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the United States by about 5 percent each year until the overall fleet average reaches 34.1 miles per gallon in model year 2016. Find out how the rules will be implemented, how much it is likely to cost, and what fuel economy has to do with greenhouse gases . . . Hope this is useful, Larry
a glut of fuel on the market, obama just said "let's drill"....and we're after 35 mpg pickups...makes zero sense to me
glut of fuel? It's over 3 here on Long Island diesel is 3.15 and as we know it could be 5 in two weeks if anything in the world happens to trigger supply or even speculation of it. Let's drill takes 6+ years minimum to get going. Then you have the not in my backyard blocking it all. What was opened and what was closed will not make a huge dent in supply needs that rise every year a few percent if I am not mistaken. If they can do it let's! It will reduce the huge trade deficit also cause by oil coming here and increase our independence,
I've never figured out how you can legislate physics. While the story mentions collaboration with the auto manufacturers I'm thinking the government came in with a gun in their hand and then told the manufacturers what they were agreeing to. Small diesels could make that without much problem but there is the issue of soot. Gas has about hit it limits in small pickups. I'm wondering if those regs are going to cover four wheel drive? The only thing good in the mess is that we have a couple of election cycles to go through before this get implemented.
amen
read a little ...here's a few articles that may be of interest to you http://www.heatingoil.com/blog/opec...-contribute-to-lower-oil-prices-this-year317/ http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...ibro-trading-profit-to-fuel-crude-search.html .. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...ising-stockpiles/story-e6frg91o-1225848303795 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bi...ning-business-2010-03-14?reflink=MW_news_stmp
They're not legislating, they're regulating. They're not regulating physics. They're regulating fuel economy. Physics won't change, but just as the heavy duty industry delivered 99% cleaner diesel engines when EPA imposed exhaust regulations, the auto industry will make cars and light trucks run on less fuel. As noted, many of the technologies are already there. There is no issue with diesel soot (see the previous paragraph). Small diesels will deliver the fuel economy they need without much modification and Cummins (at least) is counting on it after spending millions expanding its Columbus, IN, plant to add a line where they'll build light-duty diesels (mostly for Chrysler, I think). I'm sure we're a long way from the fuel efficiency limit of gasoline engines. Ford's new 6.2-liter V8 for the 2011 Super Duties is 15 percent more fuel efficient than its predecessor. And nobody's holding their feet to the fire yet. The key, though, is that it's not just about engines. Efficiencies the auto makers are getting out of 6-speed transmissions is incredible. Ford claims buyers of the 2011 F-250 with their new Power Stroke diesel will get 18 percent better fuel economy than those running last year’s Power Stroke. GM says the new Duramax is 11 percent more fuel efficient than its predecessor, and adds that its economy advantage jumps to 28 percent when driving under heavy loads. At the Super Duty introduction last month Ford said the 2011 F-150 would have what they call an Eco Boost drive train option. They couldn't give an exact economy number, but I suspect it will be 20+, given the Transit Connect with Eco Boost is at 23 mpg, with the only changes being a slightly smaller gasoline engine paired with a six-speed and a lot of lighter-weight materials that all of the trucks are going to be built from anyway. This is all low-hanging fruit that nobody is harvesting because nobody's forced them to, yet. Consider the possibilities of a light-duty, high-speed diesel paired to an electric hybrid drive. 30 mpg would be no strain at all. NHTSA's fuel-economy standards currently apply to four-wheel drive pickups. I suspect these will too. Oh, and isn't it a little short sighted to look at a temporary oversupply ("glut" if you will) of a non-renewable resource, largely controlled by a group of people whose sworn duty is (after removing all of our money) killing us as a reason not to conserve those resources? Think whatever you want about global warming, I for one am not willing to fight for my perceived right to enrich those who buy guns for Bin Laden and his ilk. L
I'm not a rocket scientist but....... I owned a 1974 pickup that got 10 miles/gallon. My last pickup (2003) got 11 miles/gallon. Both gassers. With 30 years of technology, fuel efficiency and emission improvements, is that all the better the car makers can do? It seems to me that if the tailpipes are supposed to be so much cleaner that they could do alot better than that. I think that 30 miles /gallon for a pickup should be able to be reached very easily if WHOEVER has there thumbs on the car makers lets go. I dont know maybe its the carmakers themselves. Any insight?
It's just conjecture, but I think the reason they're not more efficient already is pretty simple market dynamics. The technology's available, but pickup drivers have proven to be rich enough not to care much about a 10 or 20 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. Jack the price of the vehicle up $1,000, though, and they start shopping for alternatives. If it's going to cost $900 per vehicle (or whatever) to make them more efficient, you have to force all of the makers to do it or nobody will. GM's hybrid Silverado and Sierra are simply picking up on the Green marketing trend that started with cars, and they're anticipating the regulation that EPA and NHTSA just announced. I'm curious, what sort of truck do you have that's getting 11 mpg? L
2003 chevrolet 1500hd 6.0 liter. I can get 13 on a long trip but short trips are awful. Hook up a trailer and u better look for gas station around every corner. just looked at the computer in the truck. avg mpg 11.2
but dont u think if one maker was getting 20 mpg and everyone started buying them that the others would follow? Now I know that the hemi's and the chevy's are starting to claim the 20+ mark but even a couple of years ago that was unheard of.
The difference between legislation and regulation is semantics. Don't get me wrong about fuel economy. Better mileage is good. I've always been at the front of finding ways to pay less to operate my iron. Physics says it takes a minimum amount of energy to move a specified weight a specified distance. The internal combustion engine is finite in the amount of energy that can be output to actually move the vehicle. The real answer is finding a different type of engine that can use 100% of the fuel to move a vehicle. I have a problem with simply daisy chaining technologies one on top of each other in the name of fuel economy which cost me more to purchase, operate and repair. At some point my customers will not be able to pay the added costs I will have to assess per job. Daisy chains also add weight which reduces payload. I might not be able to carry the tools I need to repair a machine. Look at the addition of particulate filters and urea systems on diesels. A friend of mine is now selling the service of cleaning particulate filters for $1,200 a piece. In order to do this he had to purchase a machine for somewhere around $45,000. The truck is down a couple of days and the only alternative is $5,000 or more for a new unit. The engines burn more fuel and don't run as long before overhaul. Soot isn't a problem because extra fuel is used to burn off the soot from the filter. I don't believe I would call that progress. One only has to look at the Toyota situation to see that technology will present as many problems as solutions. Federally mandated technology will present more than the usual amount of problems. I don't believe I want to participate in that.
I think they should follow, and the fact that Ford reversed its decision to can the Ranger after reviewing 2009 sales may be an example of how some consumer demand for efficient pickups is affecting some auto maker decisions. But I think that full-size pickup buyers have demonstrated (by continued buying) that they don't care too much about fuel efficiency. That puts an auto maker who thinks maybe he could gain an advantage with a more fuel-efficient truck in a tough spot. Does he buck the trend and throw a LOT of development money at a very fuel efficient truck, hoping that consumer tide is turning toward efficiency? Current experience says, "No." With today's fuel efficiencies in the mid teens at best, people who need full-size trucks (real or perceived need) have gotten accustomed to putting a lot of their budget into gasoline. Even if a whole bunch of them suddenly get budget conscious and go truck shopping at the same time (pretty unlikely), few are going to dump their brand or dealer affinity to get a truck that gets 16 mpg when the one they're replacing got 14. I am not pro-regulation in general. I've just seen very good results from diesel emissions regulations. Yes they've gone too far with the way they've regulated existing machines in the field, but regulation on the manufacture of new diesel equipment has achieved the desired results pretty well. Regulation had to deliver clean diesel because a free market (even our faux-free one) never would. Not enough individual buyers would pay for clean diesels to swing the market in that direction. That doesn't make clean air any less necessary. It hasn't been free or easy, but few valuable protections of public health and safety are. We need more fuel-efficient vehicles. Yes, we do. Let's count the reasons: 1) Look at our balance of trade. Reason enough righ there. 2) As long as we're in the neighborhood, look closely at the socio-political ambitions of our trading partners; the jolly recipients of the money we spend on foreign oil. Yep, that's a really convincing reason to dramatically reduce our oil consumption. 3) Check the long-term outlook for oil supply. Only so many decomposing dinosaurs buried out there. Our 5 percent of the world's population is using up 25 percent of the oil burned. Seems like bad business to pursue the "use with abandon" policy with the prospect of Asia taking over global economic dominance. Might make some good foreign policy to at least attempt to save some oil for their burgeoning middle class, even if we are too short sighted to care about the inevitable long lines for $15 per gallon 87 octane. 3) Check our air quality. It's not worsening quite so fast as before we started regulating almost everything. Clearly, something more needs to be done. 4) Global warming. (Yeah, I went there.) Let me just ask a question: Do you really think 187 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union has mired itself in the divisive politics of a multi-national carbon cap and trade program because none of them could come up with somebody smart enough to see problems with climate-change statistics? Energy companies are among those with the most to lose from regulating greenhouse gases. Virtually no other entities on the planet have more political clout than energy companies. If there were the slightest problems with the assertion that human activity is contributing to global warming, there would be no Kyoto or European Union Emission Trading Scheme. Pickup and car buyers need dramatic fuel efficiency increases to change their buying behavior (as long as we're going to keep fuel prices so low). Auto makers need a level playing field -- all of their competitors have to make the same dramatic fuel efficiency improvements -- for the process to be fair. And boy will they create more fuel-efficient vehicles! Innovation is what we do best. So to get more fuel-efficient vehicles, we need regulation to raise the fuel-efficiency of that level playing field. Oh my, that took longer than I thought. Sorry. Hope it helps, L
price is rising that's all that matters and if the economy of the world comes back look out!
there is something wrong with your truck if the mileage is that low.
4/6/2010 Diesel Jumps As Fuel Prices Hit New Highs U.S. fuel prices broke record highs Monday following the Easter holiday weekend and new reports pointing to signs of an economic recovery; diesel was no exception. Trucking's main fuel jumped 7.6 cents this week to a high of $3.015 a gallon, breaking $3 for the first time since November 2008, according to the Department of Energy.
The hidden efficiency that no one sees is in the hp numbers. Your new truck easily has double or possibly triple the hp of the 74, but gets the same mileage. If that's not increased efficiency, I don't know what is. Unfortunately, fuel efficiency hasn't been a popular selling point for very long, so there's a lot of momentum in the system to overcome. Sure we hear about it when the cost hurts, but people have short memories. I'm glad to not be on the marketing team that's charged with trying appeal to a new audience without losing current customers. The market waffles back and forth so often that I can see why they would just stick with what works and just try to ride it out.
Nothing is impossible without a time limitation . Hard telling what we will see happen by 2016.( If we see 2016 ?)
The price of fuel itself will drive the mileage debate. A year or so ago when fuel was close to $4.00 a gallon you couldn't give away a pickup. When the price dropped back they became marketable again. The manufacturers probably didn't need much more than that to start working on more efficient use of a gallon of gas. On the other hand we had to bail out GM because they had no foresight in the matter. I am curious to see what the government will do when a 29 mile per gallon pickup can't be sold because it won't carry a 1,000 pound load or pull the same in a trailer. I'm also thinking a $24,000 pickup will then become a $40,000 pickup. Fleets are the number one purchaser of pickups. Just how many do think they will be able to afford and remember each pickup reduced because of purchase price represents a job that won't be filled. This is just another example of someone at a desk telling us what we need. As for me, if I can make the numbers work, I'll start a rebuild facility to keep the old ones running.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Wont this just be the death of 1/2 ton and everyone drives 3/4 tons?
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
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).
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?
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.
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?
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)?
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.
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.
The regulation we're talking about in this thread was put in place two weeks ago. It won't affect your '07.
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 . . .
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.
HP difference was?
I didn't read the legislation presented here but I'd be willing to bet there's a clause in it that fines the automakers for each truck that doesn't meet this standard. This is more about money than anything else. These fines will be passed along to us the consumers in a higher priced truck. The EPA is a joke as John C mentions and is out of control. Do we ever reach a point where our air is declared clean? I doubt it, then half the EPA employees would be out of work. I wonder if anyone on the Department of Energy is a mechanical engineer? Do the people requiring these huge numbers have any clue as to what would be involved in reaching them? I seriously doubt it.
Technology difference was almost 20 years, in which time the price of diesel tripled (at least) giving the manufacturers (and ultimately consumers) some incentive to increase fuel mileage out of the same engine. A 350 Chevy gas engine got increased HP and increased fuel mileage in the same time period.
The Bush administration effectively stopped any regulation directly related to greenhouse gases and routinely diminished the magnitude of fuel-economy standards, so EPA is hardly out of control. In fact, it is largely controlled by the executive branch via presidential appointment of administrators (with Congressional approval), as it was intended to be. Which gives U.S. voters reasonably direct control over EPA's actions -- certainly more direct than if the agency were controlled by the legislature. More importantly, politicans who make regulatory-agency staff appointments are controlled by reelection money. Do the math. Who has easier influence in Washington: Greenies and those of us who would prefer not to stuff the explosives funds of suicide bombers just so the average half-ton pickup truck retains the inaliable right to enough horsepower to tow a 14-foot backhoe loader, or the auto and petroleum industry? A significant portion of the voting populace wants cleaner, more efficient cars and half-ton pickup trucks. How else could the call for fuel efficiency overcome the behind-closed-doors clout of the automakers and Big Oil. If fuel effiency was the wrong way to go, out of self-preservation the oil industry is motivated and HAS ENOUGH MONEY to prove it wrong, publicize the facts and buy the right politicians to fire the regulators. Science supporting the case that we need cleaner, more efficient cars and half-ton pickup trucks must be reasonably unassailable. Because the auto and oil industries know a few good engineers who would certainly have shot the regulations down by now if the down-side was not pretty clear and creating the solutions was not possible. Of course its not free. The object -- energy independence and a survivable environment -- are of great value. But fuel-efficiency improvements at least begin paying for themselves with the first fill up. All reactions to unlimited domestic consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel will cost us all more, anyway. North American sources of oil are very expensive to deliver as usable gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump (see: Canadian oil sands). "Drill baby, drill"? That's gonna cost us. Ever see the TSA's budget? It's already costing us dearly to ward off oil-backed Muslim fanatics. Shame that cost, and a representative (significantly larger) chunk of our "national security" dedicated to keeping oil flowing from the Persian Gulf isn't paid for directly by a tax on gasoline. That'd inspire some demand for fuel efficiency. Reality is that growing population, as was mentioned before, is going to continue to increase our total energy demand and continue to stress the environment. The aforementioned Chinese had a solution for that: close the borders and impose a household size limit. Kind of a steep price to pay (China's economy was hobbled to third-world poverty until the end of the 20th century, and its people cowered under what could only very generously be called "social engineering") to preserve the unlimited towing capacity of a half-ton pickup truck. (We are talking about cars and half-ton pickup trucks, here, not heavy duties. NOT the Ford F-250 and larger, and GM and Dodge 2500s and larger.) Or we could continue to work to reduce per-capita consumption of energy and production of waste. Doing anything else is like stomping on the accelerator when you see the bridge abutment directly in your path.
This has been an such a good thread, I have to give everyone kudos who put there 2 cents in. The bottom line is how we wean ourselves of the tremendous thirst for oil that Americans have. I do feel our consumption is excessive and I have a hard time believing that market forces that are making so much money off oil are going to help us in anyway until the oil is gone. Inovation and technology are the things that drive markets.( me making a better widjit than your widjit will allow me to gain market share in the widgit business. I can use pr and claim to have a better widgit but the market will straighten that out eventually. ) I do think Hybrid technology is a better widgit. I also understand that the section of our economy that consumes the most fuel is the daily drivers. Those of us that buy into the idea that we actually need all the hp to get to work and buy the groceries consider it to be a right,and in the long run, will prove to be detrimental to our economic strength and security. I don't mind driving a small car at home if it enables me to have fuel to produce something and make a living. We should try and plan a generation or two ahead if we really want to stay on top of things. The daily drivers are what these 29 mpg regs are going to affect. and I think thats what really should be done.The car companies could have done this in the ninties but they sold us on power and flashy ego trips. Priority on how we use our resources should be a common sense thing,but reality has shown that those with the most influence usually win out, whether the influence is political or monetary or through Madison Ave. And the influence is almost always short term thinking. And we all know how easy most of us are persuaded. If we we don't strive for a higher bar, We can't claim to be a leader. I would much rather see oil conserved or at least used in a constructive manner.I live in a oil state where waste is the norm and its like watching all the heat go out the stack instead of warming the house. We have thousands of trillions cu ft of gas and no industry using it to make anything.:Banghead. I also know that all the oil reserves that my state has, if put into the system would only be a blip in the scheme of things at the rate we are using it. "Science supporting the case that we need cleaner, more efficient cars and half-ton pickup trucks must be reasonably unassailable. Because the auto and oil industries know a few good engineers who would certainly have shot the regulations down by now if the down-side was not pretty clear and creating the solutions was not possible. Of course its not free. The object -- energy independence and a survivable environment -- are of great value. But fuel-efficiency improvements at least begin paying for themselves with the first fill up. All reactions to unlimited domestic consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel will cost us all more, anyway. North American sources of oil are very expensive to deliver as usable gasoline and diesel fuel at the pump (see: Canadian oil sands). "Drill baby, drill"? That's gonna cost us. Ever see the TSA's budget? It's already costing us dearly to ward off oil-backed Muslim fanatics. Shame that cost, and a representative (significantly larger) chunk of our "national security" dedicated to keeping oil flowing from the Persian Gulf isn't paid for directly by a tax on gasoline. That'd inspire some demand for fuel efficiency. Reality is that growing population, as was mentioned before, is going to continue to increase our total energy demand and continue to stress the environment. The aforementioned Chinese had a solution for that: close the borders and impose a household size limit. Kind of a steep price to pay (China's economy was hobbled to third-world poverty until the end of the 20th century, and its people cowered under what could only very generously be called "social engineering") to preserve the unlimited towing capacity of a half-ton pickup truck. (We are talking about cars and half-ton pickup trucks, here, not heavy duties. NOT the Ford F-250 and larger, and GM and Dodge 2500s and larger.)" I have to agree with this and most of the points that CEwriter has put out in this thread. I did find it pretty refreshing Scott
It all sounds so reasonable. We want to extend our use of petroleum as long as possible. But just think about that statement. Isn't that the aim of oil companies? Who has the biggest stake in making oil last as long as possible? Why would they support that? Think about this outside of the box. Let's say we start finding another way to power what we need. Where is all the money that was supposed to go toward bio fuels? Just how much do we really spend on nuclear power. Think about all the coal we have that could be used. Is there a way to make coal usable and less polluting than crude oil? We have huge reserves of natural gas. What is being done to use that source. How about changing grid power to nuclear and coal to liquid fuels. I can think of lots of better ways to social engineer our society. Instead we worry about one small segment of transportation and really do nothing about the big energy needs of our country. I'm not against better fuel mileage in transportation. I do think we are wasting a lot of money on something that has negligible impact on pollution as a whole. How many half ton pickups make up one day of emissions of a coal fired power plant. i suspect it amounts to a flea on the back of an elephant. Government is keeping us busy debating minutia and not even working on the big problems that really make a difference.
Please tell me you honestly don't believe what you wrote. I believe in clean air. I also believe in achieving balance. There is no balance in this policy. The EPA is out of control, they are way beyond the will of the people, next your going to say that the current national health care plan is the will of the people, its much the same. The newer pickups burn more fuel to achieve better emissions, thats a fact. The power increases are a none factor. The issue is the same in the over the road trucks. As a side note I was able to chip all my duramax trucks and far exceed the 365 of the 08 with no loss in mpg. I am just not buying that. The 07 to current use diesel to burn off soot, thats a major reason for the terrible mileage as well as an exhaust system that chokes the engine.
Really good thread. I think what John C. said about the target of pollution controls really makes sense. Diesel engine builders ares spending huge money to get the nth degree of exhaust cleaned up when the money could be better spent on some obvious gross polluters. Cargo ships are a well known example. The whole subject is so political that real data is hard to come by. I think it's fascinating that the DOE's estimate of world oil reserves is largely disputed by -not some industry group or other - but by the U. S. Geological survey, another government agency.
Thanks so much, Scott. It has been interesting. It's not about ships or locomotives or tractors. It's not about nuclear or coal or natural gas. It's not about CARB or EPA or whether you believe the science. In January 2010 our trade deficit for the month was $37.3 billion; $27.5 billion of that was money we sent overseas to import oil (nearly a billion dollars a day). Foreign oil is responsible for about three quarters of our trade deficit. Two-thirds of our foreign oil is used as a transportation fuel, and only a third of that goes to heavy duty trucks. It's about sacrificing the U.S. economy and our national security for light-duty horsepower.
The EPA IS out of control. I could live with TIER 3,tht wasn't bad. TIER 4 just plain sucks. Anybody looked at the Cat 336E? Hell,Volvo is practically the only manufacturer that makes TIER 4 motors straight out the box. If I could get past the SS/security at an EPA board meeting I'd beat the living xxxx out of them. Yah, I'm that mad. I like clean air,but the fact that the 6.7 ford diesel don't smell or sound like a diesel sucks, the whole thing sucks. Honestly,at some point engine manufacturers are going to say "We cant do this" If they want 30 MPG out of a truck,then it's gonna be the 6.7 ford, 4.11 gearing, a tuner, and big exaust. To get that, we'd have to go waay back to TIER 2 most likely at the emissions level. Guys that lug chainsaws around in the woods are getting hit hard. Going form the 372XP to 576XP to meet the emissions standars with a different type engine made the saws gain a pound and a half. 90cc saws will prolly add 2-2.5 pounds, and 120cc saws (rarely seen in the woods...) will prolly gain close to 4 lbs,as if 22 lbs wasn't heavy enough.
It is about petroleum usage, period. Instead of trying to make it last longer we need to stop using it, period. While that is not possible at this time we should be concentrating on all the points of the problem. How much foreign oil would be displaced by making a massive push for biofuels and even finding a substitute for internal combustion engines. Instead we mess with one segment of the population that doesn't seem to have much voting authority. So what percentage of the total autos on road are comprised of 1/2 ton pickups? Of that total what percentage are working trucks and not toys? What is being done to limit the fuel usage of SUVs? If you are going to put limits on fuel usage for a 1/2 ton pickup then where are the new standards concerning Ford Expeditions, Chevy Tahoes and so on. We wouldn't want to affect some congressman though with regulations on what they use. Balance of payment arguments are better placed where the problem really is, China. Last I checked we didn't import any oil from there. As I stated to start with, at least there will be a couple of voting cycles before these regulations come into affect.
suv's are in the fleet standards
So how many of them have to meet 29 MPG?
none they average all the cars sold by the company. i think they can pay a penalty also and let them guzzler.
To me reducing our fuel useage should be the biggest concern. I don't need a 400 horsepower 550 but one that costs me the least money to run it. Why we don't have 1/2 ton diesels that get good mileage 20 years ago is a shame.
Amen. "Balance of payment arguments are better placed where the problem really is, China. Last I checked we didn't import any oil from there." Let's do the math together: January 2010 trade deficit = $37.3 billion. January 2010 amount spent on foreign oil = $27.5 billion $27.5 divided by $37.3 = 73.7% IF we do not import any oil from China (we do not), AND 73.7% of our January 2010 trade deficit is the direct result of money spent on foreign oil (it was), THEN China is not even close to half the problem. Why try to divert a discussion about light-duty vehicle fuel efficiency to our trade deficit with China? OK, say January was an anomoly and there's a bigger problem the rest of the year with balance of trade associated with China. The issue at hand is not about balance of trade. It is about WHO benefits from most of the money we send off-shore for oil. The guys flying planes into the World Trade Centers weren't Chinese. Here are some technologies being developed that would have no urgency to get to market given U.S. appetite for light duty horsepower and size: (Excerpted from an ENR story ) "One up-and-coming technology is Ethanol-Boosted Direct Injection (EBDI). The dual-fuel, flex-fuel engine can run on gasoline-ethanol blends ranging from standard pump gasoline to E85 high-ethanol fuel. In January, clean-energy research company Ricardo Inc. introduced the prototype of its EBDI engine in a 1-ton pickup truck fitted with a 3.2-liter V6 engine. Graham Weller, Ricardo’s product group director for diesel projects, says it provides up to 30% better fuel economy than a standard gasoline engine, delivers diesel levels of torque and meets today’s emission regulations without complex after-treatment. "Researchers at the University of Wisconsin-Madison are successfully testing a diesel engine that reaches new heights of efficiency by running on a mix of diesel fuel and gasoline. An engine computer instantly adjusts the proportion of each fuel injected into the cylinders to meet the demands of heavier or lighter loads. In recent tests, the engine reached 59% thermal efficiency, compared to about 44% for a standard diesel, which translates to about 31% better fuel efficiency. Professor Rolf Reitz, who headed the tests, says emissions easily are meeting the EPA’s 2010 on-road diesel standards. "Another emerging technology is homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI), in which a gasoline engine runs without spark plugs. HCCI uses compression to ignite the fuel, similar to the way a diesel operates. HCCI can deliver 15% to 30% better fuel economy than a traditional spark-ignited gasoline engine, experts say. One challenge of HCCI is controlling the combustion over a wide range of operating conditions. Automakers have put the engine into prototype cars, but none has yet been tried in construction equipment." Just as regulation like the US DOT fuel efficiency standards we're talking about will bring currently effective technology (like diesel) to light duty vehicles, it will also spur development of new, significantly more fuel-efficient technologies and bring them to market.
consumers won't buy them
Consumers buy what they're sold
I don't recollect that I'm the one that took this to balance of payments. I believe I only commented on another statement. So lets take this back to 1/2 ton pickups. My point in all this is that it is not possible to make a F150 pickup truck get 29 miles to the gallon and still have a F150 pickup. That goes with my original statement that you can't legislate physics. I had a 1994 Ford Taurus awhile back which had a 4.0 liter six cylinder engine. I now drive a 2008 Ford Range pickup with a newer 4.0 liter six cylinder engine. The 1994 car would get 28 MPG on the highway but it only weighed approximately 2,300 pounds. The Ranger I drive now weighs close to 4,000 pounds, with four wheel drive and tools, with a supposedly more efficient engine only gets about 19 MPG. The point being is that it takes a certain amount of horsepower to move that weight. Right now all supposed improvements to gas engines in this size range are pie in the sky. None are proven to work at all let alone work in mass production. The diesel issue is one of fuel soot which is why we have diesel particulate filters being added to highway haul trucks and off highway equipment. Europe does not regulate that emission to the same extent that is being done in this country and that is why they can use them and we can't. Marrying a DPF to a 1/2 ton pickup is not practical at all. It is my understanding that DPFs are the reason fuel consumption is going up because basically a fire is lit in the filter with diesel from the tank. Finally I think most of the blue collar work force and small business is getting fed up with big brother dictating how and when we make a living. If they were really serious about balance of payments they would start using what we already have and allow more exploration. The recent carrot that the president floated was a news media fiasco designed to blunt the criticism that would follow. Any new exploration will take years in court and result in nothing but more expensive petroleum. At the same time we are fighting the highest unemployment level since the 1930s. I also don't believe that people would not purchase more efficient pickup trucks if they were available. That is what is making this power grab palatable. People want it but that doesn't mean that it is possible.
i'm really confused here.....you have a mass of consumers here posting/saying what they want.....and the writer of a periodical telling us what we're going to have.....maybe it's not confusion, just telling us what some people think we need to believe. e-85 vehicles have been around for at least 5 years that i'm aware of....ethanol is a "blinded" subsidy to the farming industry. it takes a massive amount of natural gas, and water to make this product. i've done site piping on 4 ethanol plants now, live in the heart of the ethanol industry, and at the risk of shooting myself in the foot.....i don't think that a product that consumes virtually as much energy to make as what's recovered.....is not a long term, viable product.
If there is a need at a profit business will fill the need to make the profit. Competition is king and if any company thought 1/2 ton diesel was in demand they would make it.
That's bull, I would have one. The only reason they wouldn't sell would be if they were over priced. I don't like the Fed's mandating this stuff but I also don't understand why a company wouldn't want to be first to market with a truck that could get half again better mileage compared to the other trucks on the market? I get the Diesel Power magazine and there has been articles where moddified trucks are getting much better mileage but as for emissions who knows? I know we have creative people out there that can pull off wild stuff, let them go at it and I bet there would be much more progress than the Fed's heavy handed approach.
price is a key factor in people buying something no? If companies can get all this mileage & reliability and still meet emissions I think they could sell their technology to a manufacturer. The manufacturers also know what they have coming down the road so it may not be worth going diesel for light duty trucks.
I don't know that not caring about fuel economy was or is a happy option for many pickup owners Larry. The simple fact is that those that have to have a pickup for work have not had any options. The diesels do provide some better economy, but we have to pay a price up front in purchase cost. Then, when you hook a trailer to the tail, the better economy goes away. I'm sure that manufacturers are going to strive to meet the new regulations, just as I'm sure that the new model pickups will be cheaper quality vehicles, and far smaller than what we see now. Getting rid of the weight is the easiest road to follow, new technology takes long lead times and much research and development cost. Not that it is not doable, but consider that the best diesel pickup engine now made (GM Duramax) costs the consumer an additional $8,000.00 up front, with the total package in the area of $40-50,000.00. That's pretty high for working stiffs to afford. As all know, wages have certainly not crept up along with costs for those of us that use these trucks everyday in business or on the farm or ranch. There is also the fact that some manufacturers may just elect to quit trying to meet ever changing and stiffer regulations. Caterpillar has already done this and I do not blame them. While it's a matter of competition to be sure, it does not help Americans when an American manufacturer says to hell with it and drops out. Lots of good jobs lost that way. Where do we stop government regulators and do-gooders? Not withstanding that environmentally, some good has come out of their efforts, but for the average American, the cost has been pretty high and it's getting worse by the day. How about we mandate to the government that they can change nothing or ad new regulations for at least ten years? Let the market settle down and some stability be achieved. Things have been so crazy for the last twenty years that no one can put new policies in place before they have to make changes. It does not have to be that way! It's a big part of where this country is now!
As far as diesels in light pickups in the US, I think it will happen if they cure the particulate problem. Or change the rules. I hate the the regen in my 2008 3500, but I bought it despite the bad milage. The price I ended up paying for the basic truck that was offered was $28,000. But I have roll up windows and no fancy trim or wheels but all the drivetrain goodies including pto. Its a work truck. I have got to the point that dependablity for a certain amount of years was more important than fuel milage. My 97 powerstroke which I kept as a backup cause it's its really not worth anything to sell but will do most everything my new truck will including suck at fuel milage when towing. It's just not as reliable anymore. I don't see the the light truck changing a whole lot except they will be powered by gas or hybrid. The only manufactures that went full blown on diesels were american car makers because we money/credit here to pay. I want a truck for a least ten years without have to modify or repair it too often. I'm pretty sure that ten years from now, the engines you see in light trucks and almost all vehicles will be smaller displacement,higher hp that will get much better fuel milage. The holy grail is producing as much power out of the existing fuel we have until something better comes along. Engine computer controls that were pie in the sky 5 years ago are enabling engine makers to improve the forced induction tech way beyond what was expected. Vw has a 1.4 4cylinder that puts out 175 hp and close to 45 mpg. It uses a supercharger/turbo setup that I'm sure raise the bar for all you hot rodders. Getting the light duty segment of the vehicals to reach 29 mpg will be pretty easy in my opinion, because of how the mix of vehicals will be by then. The half ton market will be there by smaller.Ths suv and light truck comprised 50% of the light vehical ( anything under 14000 lbs) in 2004 and it been steadily dropping. The trend is that your big suvs are going away with smaller more fuel efficient car making up more of the mix. Daily drivers don't want the power if it sacrifices economy.I think fleet operators have always felt this way. Rating the the fuel milage across the spectrum of all models skews it on way or another. Unless they change how they rate mpg the numbers, it should work in our favor . I think those in the know are aware of this. My hd 3500 doesn't count nor does all the bigger stuff that makes up the construction business. With the client base in my business changing it's really important that I have as much info on what work is going to be like five or ten years down the road.Thats why I consistantly come to this site. I look forward to all opinions, so if someone says some thing I disagree with only makes me think a little harder. Infering doubt on someones opinion without supporting it with facts is disingenuos and is the reason we as Americans are confused. Maybe we can get some opinions from those in different parts of the world on how they see what the future will be and how they deal or not deal with emission problems and what it has cost there economy.
why would you say that?
Electric Power Steering Coming to Half-Ton Pickups From TruckTrend.com The full-size pickup will continue to be a mainstay of the Detroit 3's portfolios for some time to come, but as new fuel economy and emissions standards come into play, the trio need to find ways to make the large trucks more fuel efficient. One avenue may lie with electric power steering -- something commonly found on smaller vehicles, but rarely on big trucks. Mike Richardson, vice president of engineering at steering supplier Nexteer, recently told PickupTrucks.com that he expects EPS systems to proliferate in half-ton full-size pickups. "We expect that all three domestic manufacturers will converge to a 12-volt rack EPS architecture within the next three years or so," Richardson said. Implementing EPS systems in full-size trucks models would be a relatively easy and inexpensive way for automakers to deliver an improvement in fuel economy. Standard hydraulic power steering systems all utilize a hydraulic pump, which is fed off the engine's accessory drive. The pump constantly saps power from the engine, making it much less efficient. An electric, system, utilizes a motor to amplify steering effort, and is only actuated once the driver begins to turn the wheel. Nexteer says its EPS system, designed to handle the weight and abuse typically encountered with pickup trucks, can deliver up to a four-percent gain in fuel economy. Read about EPS limitations, and which half-tons already have it, here L
my 2006 3500 gas silverado gets 6-7 mpg
The article sounded like a cheerleader with money in the venture. If you want to save fuel just do away with power steering altogether. I never drove a truck with power steering until the late sixties. Why did it become necessary in the first place?