Trucks about to get more expensive.

[r3020]

snip-

The government's pending (2016) 35.5 MPG CAFE fuel economy requirements -- which for the first time apply to trucks as well as passenger cars -- are going to make it very difficult for any automaker to sell trucks in volume in this country.

Ford has just dropped the compact-size Ranger from its U.S. model lineup -- making it the first CAFE casualty -- and I predict that larger trucks are on the endangered species list now, too. Just as large V-8/RWD sedans were almost completely killed off as mass-market vehicles by the original -- and far less punitive -- CAFE requirements that went into effect a quarter century ago.

Even a small truck with a four-cylinder engine will have a hard time averaging 35.5 MPG. To get there, the truck would need to be capable of 40 MPG on the highway and 30 MPG in city driving. There are only a handful of economy cars that achieve 40 MPG on the highway right now. Trucks do worse, MPG-wise, because they're heavier (to be able to do work such as pull a trailer or carry a pallet of bricks in the bed), less aerodynamic, in part because they need to ride higher off the ground than a car -- and often, ride on M/S-rated tires that have higher rolling resistance than standard passenger car radials. Fuel efficiency takes a back seat to capability.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/13/cafe-spells-rip-for-trucks

[Nebrfarmr]

Had a similar discussion with a 'green' acquaintance. Their point ov view was it was all good. I replied that in some cases, it might not be. They were having trouble seeing how something that may get less MPGs could be better. For example, I run a straight truck that takes about 5 gallons of fuel to make a round trip hauling corn to town. A semi burns around 9 according to the guy who hauls for me from time to time, but he hauls 3 X as much per load, making it mo efficient, similar to how a 50 passenger bus can haul 50 people from here to there with far less fuel, and far less emissions than a 40+ MPG Smart Car. Ditto how it is more efficient to haul 18 steers in one trip with my heavy duty pickup & trailer, than to go twice with 9 head with a smaller pickup and trailer. I think the problem is that the people who truly would utilize a 3/4 or one ton are too few to have a real voice anymore. Much like the Yuppies who bought big 4WD SUVs for just driving around town with two people in it, the government saw 'waste' and put a gas guzzler tax on them.

[r3020]

The only way manufacturers can meet this mandate is to price trucks so high no one wants to buy them. To get the fleet average up they have to get trucks off the roads.

[Samnospam]

Guess I better just keep the old 454 tuned up.

[wgjerde768071]

Dodge did have a prototype years ago but did not come out with it . More R and D is needed in this area

[schnurrbart]

They will need to convert all vehicles to diesel and make them to do the mpg they are capable of.  Right now they are running very low compared to what is capable.  Diesel has the highest energy of any fuel and the diesel engine is the best to tweak to get higher mpg.  It can be done but the oil people will fight it forever.

[GoredHusker]

I've always said if they'd do with pickups and semi trucks what they do with trains, considerably higher fuel mileages would be achieved.  Just put a traction motor on each axle.  Under the hood put a little one cylinder direct inject diesel engine powering a generator to provide electricity for the traction motors.  A train is roughly 3.5 times more efficient at moving products than a semi truck.  It wouldn't be much of a stretch utilizing rail technology to get a pickup up over 40mpg. 

[schnurrbart]

I really think they can do it without the electric motor but that would be even more fuel efficient.  There are just too many powerful rich people who stand to lose if they did.

[hardnox604008]

Interesting, and I've thought about that but not eactly true, I'm thinking.

The efficiency of rail comes primarily from lower friction from steel on steel and much less wind drag from long trains.

A chevy volt under gas power is halfway to what you're talking- same thing but with a conventional drive train.

[Nebrfarmr]

Right now we are in a paradox with diesel emissions. The higher the compression, the more efficient, but the worse for some emissions. You can counter that with a filter, but the filter must be heat purged, by pumping raw diesel into it, to make it hot enough to burn off the stuff and render it harmless. Well, harmless except for the fire hazard. The alternative is a diesel that uses urea to minimize emissions, but if the urea gets into the engine workings, it is both abrasive, and corrosive. The new diesels in some cases have the exhaust 'cleaner' than the air around us, but do so with a loss of efficiency. Who knows how much technology it will take to overcome this. I have a 1994 Dodge Cummins I bought cheap, it gets a little over 20 MPG empty, pulls my trailer good, and is easy to upkeep. A buddy of mine has a 2008 V8 diesel of another brand. He out pulls me, but only gets 17 MPG empty, and a new injector costs about $1000 and there are 8 of them. I have read research where they are using a turbine engine to run a generator, with electric drive to the wheels. A turbine when run at a steady speed is as efficient as a piston engine, meets emissions as easily, and only has one moving part, the turbine. It can run off of multiple fuels, the most promising of which is a combination of diesel and ethanol in terms of emissions, cost, and efficiency. Blended properly, they are getting cleaner emissions with no loss of efficiency. A hybrid drivetrain would overcome the weaknesses of a turbine which are a power delay as it spools up, and loss of efficiency when not under load.