Feds Demand 29 mpg Pickup Truck

[Steve Frazier]

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.

 

[d9gdon]

HP difference was?

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.

 

[CEwriter]

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.

 

[landtekk]

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

 

[John C.]

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.

 

[KSSS]

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 . . .

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.

 

[Komatsu 150]

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.

 

[CEwriter]

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.

 

[Ozz]

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.

 

[John C.]

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.

 

[Speedpup]

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

 

[John C.]

So how many of them have to meet 29 MPG?

 

[Speedpup]

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.

 

[stuvecorp]

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.

 

[CEwriter]

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.

 

[Speedpup]

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.

consumers won't buy them

 

[CEwriter]

Consumers buy what they're sold

 

[John C.]

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.

 

[dayexco]

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.

 

[Speedpup]

Consumers buy what they're sold

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.