- 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 isn't fuel economy getting better? *Spinoff from Ecoboost thread*
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:29 pm to treble hook
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:29 pm to treble hook
Yes, weight and size.
Another thing, too is that until recently, light trucks were excluded from CAFE.
Thus automakers didn't worry about them as much.
In 2006, reforms to the CAFE standards for light trucks were adopted, and took effect in 2011. During a transition period from 2008-2010, manufacturers had the choice of complying either with the unreformed CAFE standards or with the reformed CAFE rules. Under reformed CAFE, each manufacturer's required level of CAFE was based on target levels set according to vehicle size. The targets were assigned according to a vehicle's footprint: the product of the average track width (the distance between the centerline of the tires) and wheelbase (the distance between the centers of the axles). Each vehicle footprint value was assigned a target specific to that footprint value. Compliance was determined by comparing a manufacturer’s fleet average fuel economy in a model year with a required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual production levels and the category targets.
Another thing, too is that until recently, light trucks were excluded from CAFE.
Thus automakers didn't worry about them as much.
In 2006, reforms to the CAFE standards for light trucks were adopted, and took effect in 2011. During a transition period from 2008-2010, manufacturers had the choice of complying either with the unreformed CAFE standards or with the reformed CAFE rules. Under reformed CAFE, each manufacturer's required level of CAFE was based on target levels set according to vehicle size. The targets were assigned according to a vehicle's footprint: the product of the average track width (the distance between the centerline of the tires) and wheelbase (the distance between the centers of the axles). Each vehicle footprint value was assigned a target specific to that footprint value. Compliance was determined by comparing a manufacturer’s fleet average fuel economy in a model year with a required fuel economy level calculated using the manufacturer's actual production levels and the category targets.
1
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:31 pm to uway
It could be done.
Cut diesel engineers loose from the EPA shite and you could have a half ton truck approach 50mpg with a good towing capacity.
We need to regress in the towing capacity department for half ton trucks. More towing=more weight/hp=more fuel burned.
Cut diesel engineers loose from the EPA shite and you could have a half ton truck approach 50mpg with a good towing capacity.
We need to regress in the towing capacity department for half ton trucks. More towing=more weight/hp=more fuel burned.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:40 pm to Hammertime
quote:
Your math skills don't add up
I just said some trucks require bigger rims for bigger brakes. I'd like to see you try and put 16" wheels on my truck
And I'm telling you a 1 ton truck needs more stopping power than a 1/2 ton, and they wear smaller rims.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:42 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Agreed. Getting to where they can pull more than the frame and brakes can handle
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:42 pm to N2cars
I do not believe diesels were required to be counted in the CAFE tests. That's why you cannot ever find fuel mileage on anything other than forums. They also don't have to put the sticker on them when they are on the lots.
Main thing with diesels is emissions
As long as people don't know about the difference between hp and torque, manufacturers will do things based off of hp numbers. More hp = bigger penis
Main thing with diesels is emissions
quote:It is hard to design engines to be efficient and powerful at the same time. It isn't impossible, but the manufacturers just take the easy route and go for hp numbers. It is expensive and takes a lot of time though.
DSF
As long as people don't know about the difference between hp and torque, manufacturers will do things based off of hp numbers. More hp = bigger penis
This post was edited on 3/11/13 at 1:46 pm
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:46 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
A modern half ton with a similar size engine will make well over 400hp and get slightly better mileage
2004 Silverado
2013 Silverado
2004 - 295 hp (13-21)
2013 - 315 hp (15-21)
I wouldn't call that a very big improvement.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:47 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Cut diesel engineers loose from the EPA shite and you could have a half ton truck approach 50mpg with a good towing capacity.
Half ton Dodge diesel coming out soon. Rip the crap off of it and see what it'll do.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:50 pm to Hammertime
quote:
I do not believe diesels were required to be counted in the CAFE tests
I'm not sure, but I know all light trucks didn't get counted until 2010 or '11.
I now when I bought the EXT, there was no MPG rating on it either and it's a gas burner.
You're def. right about the diesel emissions deal. That was the big reason CAT got out of the OTR diesel business in 2007. Now Cummins is the only diesel available in most RVs.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:50 pm to s14suspense
Blow up a tranny 
IIRC, Peterbuilt uses CAT motors still. Well, I did a project about fuel costs and efficiency problems in logging trucks in around 2009/10 and they were still using CAT motors.
The weirdest thing I found out about that was the only difference between a 350hp motor and a 550hp motor was the programming
IIRC, Peterbuilt uses CAT motors still. Well, I did a project about fuel costs and efficiency problems in logging trucks in around 2009/10 and they were still using CAT motors.
The weirdest thing I found out about that was the only difference between a 350hp motor and a 550hp motor was the programming
This post was edited on 3/11/13 at 1:54 pm
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:54 pm to treble hook
It's the same engine with the same tech
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:54 pm to Hammertime
quote:
Blow up a tranny
Thought that was a given....
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:55 pm to Hammertime
Just gotta move more fuel and air
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:55 pm to Hammertime
quote:
IIRC, Peterbuilt uses CAT motors still. Well, I did a project about fuel costs and efficiency problems in logging trucks in around 2009/10 and they were still using CAT motors.
I believe those have different rules than RVs (based on weight).
I probably used the wrong term (OTR).
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:56 pm to jimbeam
quote:
Just find a cost effective diesel and put in 1/2 ton and rangers/tacomas Boom
I will never understand why this hasn't been done. Beetles have been made this way cars but not a half ton truck.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:57 pm to N2cars
Yeah, OTR means over the road trucks, like big rigs. And old man can drive a RV, and I can see how CAT wanted to get out of those engines.
Their big things are smaller boat motors, equipment, and OTR trucks
Their big things are smaller boat motors, equipment, and OTR trucks
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:57 pm to Pintail
Because Americans didn't start liking diesels until the 90s.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 1:59 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
It's the same engine with the same tech
Are you saying the 2004 Silverado and 2013 have the same engine with the same technology?
Posted on 3/11/13 at 2:00 pm to DownshiftAndFloorIt
quote:
Because Americans didn't start liking diesels until the 90s.
Price hike on a diesel motor vs a simple V8 or a high tech V6 is going to be tough to stomach still. Won't make that money back up in fuel savings.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 2:02 pm to treble hook
quote:
Are you saying the 2004 Silverado and 2013 have the same engine with the same technology?
I don't know for sure but it wouldn't be a stretch for those two. Besides cylinder deactivation there's probably not that much different. Transmissions might be a lot better but I doubt it.
Posted on 3/11/13 at 2:02 pm to treble hook
quote:
Are you saying the 2004 Silverado and 2013 have the same engine with the same technology
Pretty close.
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News