34mpg fleet average by 2016?

[fsskier]

If you read the bill, and the regulations carefully, then you realize the results are obtainable with reasonable technology.
Consider the following:

1. Building Flex Fuel vehicles let the manufacturers cheat the numbers considerably.

2. The average numbers are the raw numbers from the old epa test cycle, well above the publicized epa numbers.

3. Our cars and trucks have gotten much heavier in recent years without any real benefit. This weight can be removed.

4.Most real "construction trucks" are above the size covered in these regulations.

5. Eco-boost/ whatever lightly boosted 4 and 6 cyl engines have increased both power and economy at the same time and will replace many V8's

Then, factor in the cost of sending all our money overseas for foreign oil, or the risk of being dependent on our enemies for much of our oil imports.

The newer standards will be fine for me. And I tow 5,000 lbs, 4 days a week.

 

[ClarkB]

It's about time. There's no reason anyone who needs a 4x4 pickup should be stuck with one that only gets 17 mpg...or get a Ranger and get 18.

Originally Posted By: Shannow
And that's got how much relevence to a modern diesel engine ?...


My thoughts exactly.

Maybe some of you Aussies could enlighten us Yanks as to the selection of trucks down under. Do you see many 1/2, 3/4 or 1 ton trucks on the road or is the Hilux size more common?

Clark

 

[El_Schaf]

+1

 

[tonycarguy]

Didn't people say the same things back in the early 70s when the Federal emissions standards were enacted? Cars would become too expensive, people wouldn't buy them, it would cost jobs, on and on. Cars initially did suck but technology eventually caught up and now no one's complaining about the cleaner air we have.

Dinosaur companies hate change. I'm pro-capitalism and generally do not like government regulation and meddling, but sometimes you need to force companies to do the right thing.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
'm not saying we shouldn't go diesel, it would be a great idea. However automakers are very reluctant for several reasons. 1. Most people think of diesels as noisy, smelly, clattery, and sooty things. Second, emissions restrictions on diesels in the US are extraordinarily higher than in europe.



I say it's because making a throw away diesel is harder than it looks.

In any event, it's got nothing to do with public perception. The emissions standards should be no different than Europe. Are they dropping dead from diesels?

Are you averse to a diesel? Do you hear friends say, "Oooow, that's so smelly. Why would someone buy a MB diesel? Why would someone buy a VW diesel?".

I don't either. I do see everyone that can afford one and have an excuse to buy one get a Cummins or Duramax. Why is that?

 

[wapacz]

Originally Posted By: tonycarguy
Didn't people say the same things back in the early 70s when the Federal emissions standards were enacted? Cars would become too expensive, people wouldn't buy them, it would cost jobs, on and on. Cars initially did suck but technology eventually caught up and now no one's complaining about the cleaner air we have.

Dinosaur companies hate change. I'm pro-capitalism and generally do not like government regulation and meddling, but sometimes you need to force companies to do the right thing.




you seem to gloss over a big problem. "Cars initially did suck"
The reasoning behind this is that automakers had to use untested technology to get the job done.

In other words it is better to slowly ramp into it then jump right into it in the time it takes to do one redesign of a car.

 

[wapacz]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
'm not saying we shouldn't go diesel, it would be a great idea. However automakers are very reluctant for several reasons. 1. Most people think of diesels as noisy, smelly, clattery, and sooty things. Second, emissions restrictions on diesels in the US are extraordinarily higher than in europe.



I say it's because making a throw away diesel is harder than it looks.

In any event, it's got nothing to do with public perception. The emissions standards should be no different than Europe. Are they dropping dead from diesels?

Are you averse to a diesel? Do you hear friends say, "Oooow, that's so smelly. Why would someone buy a MB diesel? Why would someone buy a VW diesel?".

I don't either. I do see everyone that can afford one and have an excuse to buy one get a Cummins or Duramax. Why is that?


Actual i hear they have a lot of problem with diesel soot over there.

 

[labman]

Originally Posted By: AuthorEditor
I actually miss those mini pickups that Toyota, Datsun, VW, and Mazda made. To me they were a lot more practical every day vehicles than a lot of the monster rigs people drive instead of cars. Of course some need big trucks with power, but again diesels are the way to go there too.


+1 I am still driving my 77 LUV. Can't imagine giving it up for anything they build now.

Yes, cars and trucks are bigger and heavier than ever. Part of it is the bling people choose to go with and part of it is what it takes to meet all the federal requirements.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: ClarkB
Maybe some of you Aussies could enlighten us Yanks as to the selection of trucks down under. Do you see many 1/2, 3/4 or 1 ton trucks on the road or is the Hilux size more common?

Clark


Hilux etc. are the most common size, like my Nissan Navara (during last year's dust storms)

It's rated to carry a tonne, or tow 3-1/2 tonnes, gets 10km/l everywhere, and we use it as a two compartment station wagon, dogs and luggage in the back. If I could have had the 2WD with 4WD ride height (like some Euros get), I would have.

Mate just bought a 2WD hilux 4 door ute, and is getting 12km/l.

This town has 10,000 people, and there are a handful of modernish F250 diesels getting around, but they are unwieldy at best.

 

[eljefino]

You need a 3/4 ton diesel truck to be over 8500 lbs for looser emissions specs. That could be changed with the stroke of a pen, especially if it's figured out that some people love diesels and are tolerating dragging that extra heavy frame around.

Ironically they're also CAFE exempt. I'd dig a hyundai sub-ranger size diesel pickup.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Originally Posted By: ClarkB
Maybe some of you Aussies could enlighten us Yanks as to the selection of trucks down under. Do you see many 1/2, 3/4 or 1 ton trucks on the road or is the Hilux size more common?
Clark
In NZ the only size we commonly see on the road is the Hilux / Navara (Frontier) in pickup and flatbed form. But keep in mind those "mini" trucks have grown in in size in the last few years and are usually club cabs. The engines (diesels) have reduced in capacity from around 3.0 L to about 2.5 L due to the better technology.

One problem we have here is that there is no periodic smog testing which has resulted in a large number of older continuously-smoking diesel vehicles still being allowed on the road - and they seem to last forever. Being immersed in this makes me a big advocate of smog testing - as much as I hated it when I lived in SoCal.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: wapacz
Originally Posted By: tonycarguy
Didn't people say the same things back in the early 70s when the Federal emissions standards were enacted? Cars would become too expensive, people wouldn't buy them, it would cost jobs, on and on. Cars initially did suck but technology eventually caught up and now no one's complaining about the cleaner air we have.

Dinosaur companies hate change. I'm pro-capitalism and generally do not like government regulation and meddling, but sometimes you need to force companies to do the right thing.




you seem to gloss over a big problem. "Cars initially did suck"
The reasoning behind this is that automakers had to use untested technology to get the job done.

In other words it is better to slowly ramp into it then jump right into it in the time it takes to do one redesign of a car.


It's not a matter of Ramping up, it's not New Technology, , It's a matter of Waking Up an seeing how the rest of the world manages with high fuel prices.
Take a look at the Ford Transit Connect Of course U.S. does not get the Diesel version.
Here is a comment from a U.K. Owner;
Quote; By UK Van Driver
#5, Posted: 12/7/2008

"Article showing 50-52mpg for Transit Connect"
http://www.carpages.co.uk/ford/ford_new_transit_04_10_02.asp
Quote:
"The all-new Ford Transit Connect also established a new record. The Transit Connect achieved 52.42 mpg (SWB) and 51.05 mpg (LWB) respectively. Equally impressive, both Transit Connects achieved lower cost per tonne/mile than rivals Renault Kangoo and Volkswagen Caddy, entered in the class below."
"The RAC/Fleet World MPG Marathon demonstrates how fuel can be saved by careful, skilled driving in varied conditions. Roads travelled on the 465 mile, two-day route ranged from motorway in the Manchester area down to small lanes, many hills and the mountain road passing Snowdon in North Wales."
""These results confirm that Ford Transit and Transit Connect offer excellent fuel economy. Ford has lead the commercial vehicle market for more than 30 years and low cost of ownership is just one reason British businesses choose Ford," said Mark Chapman, marketing manager, commercial vehicles, Ford of Britain."
- So why are the USA versions getting terrible engines? Are Ford deliberately bringing in bad engines so the gas companies are happy? Is there some guy in Ford who is making decisions with the help of the oil company cash?

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: wapacz
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
'm not saying we shouldn't go diesel, it would be a great idea. However automakers are very reluctant for several reasons. 1. Most people think of diesels as noisy, smelly, clattery, and sooty things. Second, emissions restrictions on diesels in the US are extraordinarily higher than in europe.



I say it's because making a throw away diesel is harder than it looks.

In any event, it's got nothing to do with public perception. The emissions standards should be no different than Europe. Are they dropping dead from diesels?

Are you averse to a diesel? Do you hear friends say, "Oooow, that's so smelly. Why would someone buy a MB diesel? Why would someone buy a VW diesel?".

I don't either. I do see everyone that can afford one and have an excuse to buy one get a Cummins or Duramax. Why is that?


Actual i hear they have a lot of problem with diesel soot over there.


..and ...so? Are they dropping dead from it ..and if you wouldn't mind, do you have some reference that I can hook into?

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Originally Posted By: wapacz
Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
'm not saying we shouldn't go diesel, it would be a great idea. However automakers are very reluctant for several reasons. 1. Most people think of diesels as noisy, smelly, clattery, and sooty things. Second, emissions restrictions on diesels in the US are extraordinarily higher than in europe.



I say it's because making a throw away diesel is harder than it looks.

In any event, it's got nothing to do with public perception. The emissions standards should be no different than Europe. Are they dropping dead from diesels?

Are you averse to a diesel? Do you hear friends say, "Oooow, that's so smelly. Why would someone buy a MB diesel? Why would someone buy a VW diesel?".

I don't either. I do see everyone that can afford one and have an excuse to buy one get a Cummins or Duramax. Why is that?


Actual i hear they have a lot of problem with diesel soot over there.


..and ...so? Are they dropping dead from it ..and if you wouldn't mind, do you have some reference that I can hook into?


I personally have no qualms with diesel, I think we SHOULD have alot more of them for numerous reasons. But yes, I do talk to people that are like "ew diesel, why would you want one of those they are slow and loud" because they have never seen a Jetta/Golf TDI or a MB/BMW diesel. And the problem is that the US emissions for diesel ARE Much higher than in europe, justified or not, thats the way it is, and it should be changed. That is why the Jeep Liberty CRD went the way of the dinosaur, because it could no longer meet US emission standards.

 

[Drew2000]

First, stop comparing US EPA MPG figures to European MPG calculations.
///
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=1089144

"One last fuel-economy tidbit: Don't even think of comparing EPA figures with standardized fuel-economy tests from other countries because the test cycles are very different. For example, the European highway rating, called "extra urban," is higher than the EPA's by about 30 percent, so a rating on that cycle of, say, 60 mpg, would be closer to 40 in this country. The mainstream press, not realizing the difference, often complains that automakers refuse to bring efficient models here when, in fact, they may not be all that efficient when measured by U.S. standards."
///
Second, diesel fuel (viewed as a "commercial fuel") is much more expensive in many states than gasoline due to high taxes.

Third, people have different needs and small vehicles may not work for some.

Fourth, we live in a democracy/republic and people have the right to spend their money (what's left after the taxman steals his share) as they see fit on the vehicles they choose to drive.

 

[jsharp]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: jsharp
They'll do this the same way they've always done it. Sell the small vehicles at nearly a loss and make the $$ up on the larger ones.

For those that mentioned the diesel Rabbit -

I worked at a place that had one of the pickups. 55 mph WFO on a flat road with no load and no wind.

Worked at another place that had one of the cars. Slightly faster but just as much a pile. Forget about starting it below 30 degrees unless it was plugged in.

I doubt anyone will put up with cars like those any longer.


And that's got how much relevence to a modern diesel engine ?

Auto chokes on gassers are known to play up from time to time too, causing difficult to no starting, and engine flooding...I doubt anyone would put up with that either.


I didn't mention the Rabbit in the first place. I was pointing out that 55 mpg doesn't mean much if the car is a heap like they were.

I'm not opposed to modern diesels but they have their own problems. Meeting US emissions standards isn't so cheap and easy, and they have issues in cold weather. We might be able to keep them going but I doubt the average housewife would have much luck with one.

"What? I was supposed to put anti-gel in with the fuel? Are you sure you told me that? I must have forgotten. Can you come get me? I'll just use your car until you get mine fixed."

Hope that your car isn't also a diesel or you'll have 2 that are frozen up in short order.

 

[Shannow]

Love generalisations.

One of the secretaries at work just went from a Prado diesel to an I30 diesel.

She's doing pretty good, although it only gets down to -11C around here

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Drew2000


Fourth, we live in a democracy/republic and people have the right to spend their money (what's left after the taxman steals his share) as they see fit on the vehicles they choose to drive.



Except you don't have the choice to drive modern fuel efficient vehicles, just over-stuffed Gas guzzlers!

 

[expat]

[quote

I'm not opposed to modern diesels but they have their own problems. Meeting US emissions standards isn't so cheap and easy, and they have issues in cold weather. We might be able to keep them going but I doubt the average housewife would have much luck with one.

[/quote]

Gasoline is seasonally adjusted, don't you think Diesel could be also?
U.S.A. is not the coldest place on earth!

 

[bradepb]

very few starting problems with our fleet of 52 diesel powered vehicles in winter ,mostly GMC and Ford some mercedes cat and cummins the adds are already in winter fuel and modern starting aids built in to the system work very well,
we dont even plug in the block heaters but you could for below zero starting, gets in the low teens all winter here.