- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why can't (or don't) automakers create a truck with great gas mileage?
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:09 pm to bigrob385series
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:09 pm to bigrob385series
It really shouldn't be that difficult. Fuel and air control is exponentially better than it was in the early 90's and 22mpg was easy then in a full sized extra cab truck.
1
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:15 pm to Croacka
quote:
I'd like to know what they could manufacture if emissions weren't a requirement.
Safety Reqs and Creature comforts of an 80's or 90's car instead of 20 airbags with heated and cooled seats and glass roofs and 4 doors etc.
Put a modern drivetrain in a lighter smaller sized truck and they'd have no problem hitting 40 mpg but no one would buy them like that.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:16 pm to mizzoukills
Same reason you continue to create shitty threads. They can't
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:22 pm to s14suspense
Exactly
There is always lots of talk among people about buying this and wanting that, but the actual cash flow is what drives the market. It's driven toward more power and more comfort, not affordability or fuel economy.
The reason a cheap, light weight, stripped out pickup is hard to find is becuase it got hard to sell.
There is always lots of talk among people about buying this and wanting that, but the actual cash flow is what drives the market. It's driven toward more power and more comfort, not affordability or fuel economy.
The reason a cheap, light weight, stripped out pickup is hard to find is becuase it got hard to sell.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:24 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
Why can't (or don't) automakers create a truck with great gas mileage?
'89 Mazda B2200
I drove mine into the dirt and beyond. Couldn't kill it. Drove it to Grand Isle from BTR every other weekend for like 3 seasons straight (on the beach at Elmer's Island way back early 90's) to Hammond and back to BTR everyday for 2 yrs. Drunk romps out in cow pastures in New Roads.
Couldn't kill it.
Finally got rear-ended at George O'neal and Herrell's Ferry and it bent that sucker in the middle so high that I was looking down at the road sitting behind the wheel.
Kid who hit me was scared, cuz I was jumping around screaming "frick YES!!!" he thought I was mad.
ETA: the bumper optional. Had to get one after-market.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:27 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
There are several mid-sized diesel trucks available on the world market and none get close to 40mpg. Hell there are only a few cars that get that much, so to say it's not difficult is a bit of an understatement.
There's just not that much left we can do to an internal combustion engine to improve efficiency within the bounds of environmental regulations. There may be some gains through transmission technology such as an 8 speed dual clutch, and by reducing weight from the use of exotic materials and such, but those would likely be cost prohibitive.
There's just not that much left we can do to an internal combustion engine to improve efficiency within the bounds of environmental regulations. There may be some gains through transmission technology such as an 8 speed dual clutch, and by reducing weight from the use of exotic materials and such, but those would likely be cost prohibitive.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:32 pm to NorthEnd
quote:
Colorado/Canyon gets EPA est 31
Great mileage...and tows almost 4 tons. I'm thinking of buying one when the prices come down.
While the Chevy Colorado diesel is more than adequate for 95% of truck buyers. They still aren't small trucks. No one makes a compact truck anymore like the S-10 or Ranger or Toyota "pickup". I'm not sure modern safety regulations would even make that possible anymore.
20 years ago, 30-32 mpg was about the max you'd see from a Camry. Since then, "mid sized" cars have grown and their mileage is approaching 40mpg with gasoline engines.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:41 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
There are several mid-sized diesel trucks available on the world market and none get close to 40mpg.
The most fuel efficient truck on the American market gets 31 MPG with a diesel motor. That's pretty much the bench mark world wide if you have any expectation of passing other vehicles or towing something.....unless you want a real compact, regular cab truck similar in size to a 1980s Isuzu or Mazda pickup.
No one makes those anymore. If they did, no one would actually buy them.
If there's a way manufacturers could squeeze an extra MPG out of their trucks, they'd do it. As it is now, trucks are getting lighter and have a lot of plastic chin spoilers and other aerodynamic bolt ons. Some of them have engines that shut off fuel delivery to some cylinders, some have turbo motors, and some have diesels. 6 and 8 speed transmissions today are the norm.
What we see today is pretty close to the maximum MPG allowed by current technology in a truck that people actually want to buy.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 2:43 pm to N2cars
quote:this. It makes moving again so jerky.
Really, really hate this feature in all new cars and trucks.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 3:00 pm to 7thWardTiger
It's incredibly stupid. I would love to know what percentage of a vehicles fuel consumption over its lifespan is from idling at 0 mph. I bet it's almost nothing. It's "feel good" technology
Posted on 11/11/15 at 3:04 pm to mizzoukills
The oilfield workers, even when laid off are still giving their paycheck back to the man through their f250s. In effect, gas guzzlers keep them all shopping at the company store. The man don't want it any other way.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 3:08 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
It's incredibly stupid. I would love to know what percentage of a vehicles fuel consumption over its lifespan is from idling at 0 mph. I bet it's almost nothing. It's "feel good" technology
It's a MPG test beating technology.
That's the only reason it's there.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 3:09 pm to Minnesota Tiger
The last 2 F150s I have owned both have an ad for BP gasoline around the neck of the tank that stares at you when you open the fuel door.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 3:47 pm to Croacka
I have a 2015 2500 (obviously with DEF tank) and my fuel tank is 36 gal
Posted on 11/11/15 at 3:59 pm to s14suspense
Right, which is a side note on a bigger problem of feeling good about mpg while not looking at total fuel consumption over the life of the vehicle.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 4:03 pm to whoisnickdoobs
quote:
They can but they won't because the oil industry runs not only the country but the world
This guy gets it.
My high school calculus teachers uncle designed a carburetor for his 79 bronco (back in 79) that let it get somewhere in the 50/60 mpg area, he eventually sold the design to ford in the 80's from what I remember to be a couple million (could have just been a million) and we never even heard or saw anything about it...think about how much money the oil companies would have lost out on if cars started getting 50 mpg since the 80's...i would guess somewhere in the 100's of billions of dollars...
This post was edited on 11/11/15 at 4:05 pm
Posted on 11/11/15 at 4:22 pm to boatless2
quote:
My high school calculus teachers uncle designed a carburetor for his 79 bronco (back in 79) that let it get somewhere in the 50/60 mpg area, he eventually sold the design to ford in the 80's from what I remember to be a couple million (could have just been a million) and we never even heard or saw anything about it...think about how much money the oil companies would have lost out on if cars started getting 50 mpg since the 80's...i would guess somewhere in the 100's of billions of dollars...
Posted on 11/11/15 at 4:29 pm to mizzoukills
quote:
Why can't (or don't) automakers create a truck with great gas mileage?
1). Oil companies wouldn't allow it.
2). Why would you do that when you have the mouth-breathers convinced that 18-25 mpg is the best that American ingenuity has been able to accomplish these past 100 years?
Murika.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 4:30 pm to boatless2
quote:1979 Ford Bronco, Curb Weight of 4,663 lbs.
My high school calculus teachers uncle designed a carburetor for his 79 bronco (back in 79) that let it get somewhere in the 50/60 mpg area
Coefficient of friction approaching 0.6
Couldn't get 50/60 mpgs for a mile if you dropped it from an airplane at 36,000 feet.
Just stahp with the crack use.
Posted on 11/11/15 at 4:31 pm to boatless2
quote:
My high school calculus teachers uncle designed a carburetor for his 79 bronco (back in 79) that let it get somewhere in the 50/60 mpg area, he eventually sold the design to ford in the 80's from what I remember to be a couple million (could have just been a million) and we never even heard or saw anything about it...think about how much money the oil companies would have lost out on if cars started getting 50 mpg since the 80's...i would guess somewhere in the 100's of billions of dollars...
True story... not many people alive know that one. They also stole the plans (and killed everyone involved) for an engine that runs on water and a micro fusion reactor that runs on garbage.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News