new fuel economy standards

[Jason]

One other thought since I don't have time to read the official release. Are these fleet averages like the current regulations? If so, it just means they will have to build many more 4 cyl and 6 cyl trucks to keep the average up for the big boys to be sold. I am assuming they are going to be fleet averages as evident in my last post.

 

[wrecking-crew]

thats why i hate our standards. we dont worry about more important things like the economy and what is going on in our country; we worry about pollution and problems in foreign places

 

[triumphrider-1]

That I know of the standard would apply to all cars, trucks, SUVs, etc, regardless of manufacturer.

That I am aware, the fuel averages for sub-categories (SUV, pickup, sedan, etc) will be increased as well, with the average coming out to the 35.5mpg.

The thing I keep hearing about huybrids is you can drive twenty or so miles without the gas engine even starting up. I don't see this happening when the windows are covered with ice and it's difficult to drive when you can't see where you're going. Electric vehicles would be even worse, the batteries would be flat before you got the windows de'iced, assuming they worked at all due to the extreme cold. The heat that is produced by a gas vehicle has to be dissipated and de-icing windows and interiors is a handy, free, by product.

Something I learned this past winter, the hybrids startup and run on the gasoline engines until the batteries reach a minimum temperature (they, atleast the Prius, uses engine heat to warm the batteries like you mention for our defrosting, heating, etc.), after which the batteries cycle in and out of use like normal.

One other thought since I don't have time to read the official release. Are these fleet averages like the current regulations? If so, it just means they will have to build many more 4 cyl and 6 cyl trucks to keep the average up for the big boys to be sold. I am assuming they are going to be fleet averages as evident in my last post.

See my first quote in this post.

 

[LittleHorse]

using a higher (numerically) gear ratio to lower the RPMs is not the answer..... gearing the truck to run where the engine is happy is the answer.........

unless you have a direct drive transmission then 3.08s are not going to do anything for mileage........ really these new [ford] engines should all be sporting 3.90 - 4.30 gear ratios..............

well of course these changes would come along with engines that were tuned to be happy at those lower RPM, along with mostly low end torque and not much high RPM power. My buddy's '91 Corvette cruises in 6th at 65mph somewhere around 1600-1800RPM. I dont think the engine is unhappy there, as he regularly gets 26mpg mixed highway/city.

 

[Jason]

What it all boils down to is this:

It can be done. It will require the automakers to do new things, yes, but it isn't going to be very hard on them. Hell, the japanese already pad mileage (meaning they can get better than the EPA stickers say they can) so I know the Big 3 can do it as well. Granted they may have to ride lower, or possibly smooth up the undercarriage a bit but it isn't going to kill them or us.

Why is it that a 2006 Toyota Rav4 has a lower drag coefficient than a Dodge Viper RT/10? Smoothing out the undercarriage. That's why. It's nothing more than engineering laziness. Hell the Scion xB has a drag coefficient of .32 while the newer gt500 has a CD of .38. Laziness

 

[mentalbreakdown00]

Well what about the poor diesels. Yes they burn cleaner now but getting close to half the mileage. I had to go to a Blue diamond (ford and international co-op) class the other day and the engineers of the 7.3/ 6.0/ 6.4 atmitted they wouldn't have stopped the 7.3 for a looong time, but for the EPA. Now diesels are going to urea converters in 2010 and they are getting half the mileage they used to. So what I don't get is ok, we made them cleaner, but they use almost 2x the fuel. Now they are gonna make the things even more expensive by slapping them with mileage standards on top of emissions. That's why Cat has stepped out and said we are no longer gonna build on highway engines anymore. Detriot is speculating about doing it. So what's this prove, ok they are cleaner and get better mileage, but they are gonna cost you thousands more......

 

[wrecking-crew]

Well what about the poor diesels. Yes they burn cleaner now but getting close to half the mileage. I had to go to a Blue diamond (ford and international co-op) class the other day and the engineers of the 7.3/ 6.0/ 6.4 atmitted they wouldn't have stopped the 7.3 for a looong time, but for the EPA. Now diesels are going to urea converters in 2010 and they are getting half the mileage they used to. So what I don't get is ok, we made them cleaner, but they use almost 2x the fuel. Now they are gonna make the things even more expensive by slapping them with mileage standards on top of emissions. That's why Cat has stepped out and said we are no longer gonna build on highway engines anymore. Detriot is speculating about doing it. So what's this prove, ok they are cleaner and get better mileage, but they are gonna cost you thousands more......

do you think they care about mpgs in deisels? no. do they think thru what they implement? no. the epa is a waste of govt money

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

do you think they care about mpgs in deisels? no. do they think thru what they implement? no. the epa is a waste of govt money

Only the people that run them do, they are rated heavy enough to not require mpg ratings.

Emissions are the big thing, and decades of diesels blowing black smoke have brought treehuggers down on diesels with torches and pitchforks.

This new rule was set to come into play in 2020, they just bumped it up 4 years. I know I wouldn't mind getting better milage... Ecoboost all the way.

 

[mentalbreakdown00]

Apparantly they do care about the fuel mileage of diesels. They complain and complain about how many barrles of oil we use each day. Well if they produced nothing but late 90's diesels that got 20 mpg on the highway avg then we'd use less than newer diesels that get 10-12, but they burn cleaner so they are better.... I still think the government has no right to tell anyone how to make something or what it should be capable of, period. For example my house. I should be able to build my house like I want it, if it falls on me or leaks or what not it's MY PROBLEM, not anyone elses. Instead I have to hire someone that has a state liscense to do construction. Complete and utter BS, same applies to vehicles. THE ONLY THING GOOD THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE FOR VEHICLES IS OBD2!!

 

[AllanD]

what bothers me is the ASSumption that more economy is reasonably possible
in real world terms.

there is a finite ammount of chemical energy in a given volume or mass of fuel
and that chemical energy can only move a physical mass so far....

Obama obviously doesn't understand the principle of diminishing returns.

He says that "computers" have improved over the last decades, but computers
are still relatively in their infancy and the newer faster ones use more power and generate more heat to go faster....

Is a specious arguement...

Granted more economy IS possible using GDI technology,a nd that improvement I actually welcome.

a GDI is essentially a gasoline (or alternate) fuel engine that essentially runs in a hybred mode between spark fired "Otto" and "Diesel" cycle.

but mandating standards has NEVER worked.
The manufacturers can make the most superefficient vehicles the government demands, but people have to choose to buy them.

Chrysler is in financial trouble, but the one vehicle that was propping up the ENTIRE corporation was the Grand Cherokee, the poster child for the vehicle Obama wants to eliminate.



AD

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Apparantly they do care about the fuel mileage of diesels. They complain and complain about how many barrles of oil we use each day. Well if they produced nothing but late 90's diesels that got 20 mpg on the highway avg then we'd use less than newer diesels that get 10-12, but they burn cleaner so they are better.... I still think the government has no right to tell anyone how to make something or what it should be capable of, period. For example my house. I should be able to build my house like I want it, if it falls on me or leaks or what not it's MY PROBLEM, not anyone elses. Instead I have to hire someone that has a state liscense to do construction. Complete and utter BS, same applies to vehicles. THE ONLY THING GOOD THE GOVERNMENT HAS DONE FOR VEHICLES IS OBD2!!

The 6.4 uses fresh diesel fuel to burn the waste out of the particulate filter ... so yes, while it gets worse milage it is cleaner, and even though the fuel used to clean the filter doesn't make the truck move an inch, it is still pulled out of the fuel tank so it still shows up when you figure your milage.

Lowering emissions is a good thing... as far as milage goes people buy what they want. If a car that got really good milage is what people wanted they would make them. That is probably the reason that the automakers were ok with it being passed, they were going down that road right now anyway. Plus combined with the proposed clunker buyout thing it would help put more new cars on the road.

 

[mentalbreakdown00]

I know exactly how all the newer diesels work man. So you are ok withe them using 2x or so as much fuel and costing more because of the engineering of it, but it's ok cause it's cleaner?

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

I know exactly how all the newer diesels work man. So you are ok withe them using 2x or so as much fuel and costing more because of the engineering of it, but it's ok cause it's cleaner?

2x or more fuel? The 7.3 was lucky to hit 20 let alone 26...

You can chip them and get a custom exhaust to elimate that particular feature if you want.

Personally I am rather fond of breathing, it doesn't bother me at all if an engine runs cleaner but gets slightly worse mpg.

 

[mentalbreakdown00]

My 99 7.3 get 19-21 depending on driving with an exhaust and a chip on low, along with 4-5 others. Every 6.4 that comes into my shop and my good friend work at the city shop, they all have 11 mpg or less fuel eco avg. So yes about half the mileage. Ok so you'd rather have thousands more added to your price tag because of the engineering / equipment/ taxes put onto a truck to have it burn more fuel, not slightly more, but a bit more, than to have one that get 20 or so and let the engineers work at it and give it some more time and R&D to get this crap right.... Instead you'd rather force it down thier throat, cause some companies to stop building engines, and therefore narrowing some markets letting the other guys raise thier prices because they know you can't go anywhere else. I'm gonna stop commenting on this now...

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Most 6.4's I know of get about the same milage as the V-10, anywhere between 10-15 and it doesn't really vary much with what the truck is doing.

The Powerstroke is still the same ridiculously expensive option it has always been. It never has been a cheap option, which is why it wasn't popular until everybody had to have the biggest, baddest truck to show off in for pulling their boat in the last decade.

Although you could wait until diesel gets high again this summer and you can grab them of any style for the same price if not cheaper than a big V-8 or V-10 again...