Chrysler on boad with 54.5 MPG CAFE requirement for 2025. Fingers crossed

[Dan Grec]

If you can get 20mpg out of a V8 half ton

Your whole assumption is that it's impossible to get > 20mpg out of a half ton truck with a high towing capacity.

The old adage "there ain't no replacement for displacement" was coined long before variable valve timing, variable length intake and exhaust runners, computer control and high efficiency turbos and superchargers.

Do you honestly think we won't come up with more and more improvements in the coming 13 years?

It's worth noting BMW build a production 3.0 liter that achieves similar power and torque to Dodge's production 8.0 liter engine.
How do you think they did that?

-Dan

 

[mike94yj]

The major problem I have with this whole issue is the fact that the EPA is writing law. This should be going through congress. There has been far too much legislation being enacted through the guise of regulation. Cap and trade was voted down, however most of the measures have magically been put in place.

 

[CodyY]

Your whole assumption is that it's impossible to get > 20mpg out of a half ton truck with a high towing capacity.

Well, having owned put 180k combined miles on the last two trucks (05&08 Silverados) and having purchased 8 full-sized trucks 1993 and up in the 16 years I've been driving; in addition to my racing, hot rodding, and dealership experience gives me a pretty good perspective on the technology since about 1950.

So, without expensive hybrid technology on a truck that already costs nearly $30,000 at base price it ain't gonna happen.

My "tuned for economy" 08 1500 2wd ECSB Chevy with 33" a/t tires and displacement on demand 5.3: nets me about 20 on a road trip with just me and some gear. 16.5 mixed and about 12 mpg city errands for the last two days.

My slightly tuned 7.3 van does about 21 open road and 17 mixed unloaded.

I dunno what you're driving, but the only way to get +20 is small diesel (tuned) and ditch the ULSD mixed fuel. My diesel buddies dropped 3-5mpg across the board when they changed a few years ago.

Even then, how does a -30mpg equate to the rest of the model line? That means a Chevy Cruz eco would have to DOUBLE it's fuel economy to over 80mpg. Guess what, the Volt does that and they've just halted production on it for slow sales, even with tax credits applied to our (yet again) struggling economy and national debt.

I have to balance MY checkbooks, why doesn't the president?

 

[Dan Grec]

Well, having owned put 180k combined miles on the last two trucks (05&08 Silverados) and having purchased 8 full-sized trucks 1993 and up in the 16 years I've been driving; in addition to my racing, hot rodding, and dealership experience gives me a pretty good perspective on the technology since about 1950.

So, without expensive hybrid technology on a truck that already costs nearly $30,000 at base price it ain't gonna happen.

My "tuned for economy" 08 1500 2wd ECSB Chevy with 33" a/t tires and displacement on demand 5.3: nets me about 20 on a road trip with just me and some gear. 16.5 mixed and about 12 mpg city errands for the last two days.

My slightly tuned 7.3 van does about 21 open road and 17 mixed unloaded.

So your anecdotal evidence shows nothing has changed much since the 50's, therefore you conclude nothing much is going to change in the next 13 years.

With an attitude like that, you'll be right.

Why not get behind the initiative and say something like:
"I really don't know how they can do it, but I sure hope they do! Good luck to them! I look forward to a truck with high towing capacity that gets >35mpg!".

Now the automakers have the incentive to it, the engineers working on the next-gen engines will take that attitude, not yours.

-Dan

 

[762X39]

I think the auto manufacturers can achieve this goal not because it is easy but because it is hard. Ford is looking at making the F150 body (and I guess the bed) from aluminum to save something like 700 pounds which when combined with the twin turbo V6 would put them within spitting distance of the 2025 standards. Why are these technological advancements ok when Mercedes or Audi does it but not when domestic manufacturers do it? If it were not for the gubment making it a requirement, we still wouldn't have seat belts, airbags or safety glass let alone proper anchors for baby seats or survivable vehicles that have crumple zones that sacrifice themselves so that you can live after a severe collision that would normally leave you as rotting meat ready for a wooden box or worse yet, a veggie burger in intensive care. Just saying...

 

[CodyY]

So your anecdotal evidence shows nothing has changed much since the 50's, therefore you conclude nothing much is going to change in the next 13 years.

Read more, post less. Comprehension are hard, I know.

If you read closely, I never said that technology hadn't advanced; only that I am well familiar with it. And that the currently "emission friendly" fuels are actually hurting overall fuel efficiency. I've also qualified my statements with personal experiences and reference links, something that "i read...." doesn't do, sparky.

Let me spell it out really plainly for ya:
-you're not going to get the CAFE to 54 mpg with conventional gas engine technology.
-Not even with current "advanced engine" technology.
-even small-displacement diesel engines will have trouble selling when the mfg's tack on a $5,000 premium for them, in addition to the extra cost for fuel and maintenance. Causing a 250,000 mile break-even point of cost over the service life of said vehicles. See: Dodge Sprinter for example
-it WILL require Hybrid drive systems
-"excluded Trucks" are not 3/4 & 1/2 tons
-this WILL become extremely expensive for Joe Pickup and the small business owner with multiple vehicles in operation, the heavy trucking industry has already felt the impacts.
-you're special. I have $1 says you will vote for the incumbent.

With an attitude like that, you'll be right.

Hell yes I will.

Why not get behind the initiative and say something like:
"I really don't know how they can do it, but I sure hope they do! Good luck to them! I look forward to a truck with high towing capacity that gets >35mpg!".

Now the automakers have the incentive to it, the engineers working on the next-gen engines will take that attitude, not yours.

-Dan

Awesome. $60,000 work trucks with aluminum bodies that require high dollar oil, specialized maintenance for their hybrid drives with banks of heavy-assed batteries, and thousands of dollars in body work every time one gets so much as breathed on.

Sign me tha fawk up.


CodyY out

 

[Dan Grec]

Awesome. $60,000 work trucks with aluminum bodies that require high dollar oil and specialized maintenance and thousands of dollars in body work every time one gets breathed on.

By that logic you should be driving a horse and cart.

I mean, come on, who wants to pay for gasoline to get from A to B?

-Dan

 

[CodyY]

By that logic you should be driving a horse and cart.

I mean, come on, who wants to pay for gasoline to get from A to B?

-Dan

Fill out your profile, n00b.

 

[Dan Grec]

Fill out your profile, n00b.

Grecy: Join date 2009. Total Posts 426
CodyY: Join date 2011. Total Posts 112

Hmm.

The Road Chose Me will tell you everything you need to know about me.

-Dan

 

[haven]

Let's keep this discussion civil, folks. Everyone has the right to share their opinion.

 

[jeepdreamer]

^correct^ so here's mine.
As long as we insist on gasoline as the fuel of choice for the masses, something major will have to change in the technology to make them efficient. I honestly don't believe that the solution is in multiple drive systems or electric cars/trucks or floating spaceships operating on a flux capacitor. The big picture is that we have been swallowed into the "global economy" and all the pitfalls that come with it. Give us a source (its there) for producing our own fuel and allow it to happen responsibly. That would drop the cost of oil and help us ween ourselves from a market that has long held us captive and controlled us at their whim. Sadly they have the ability to completely bankrupt us at will should they choose to remove us as the world currency at which it is purchased. Lets prevent that from being an option and then we can deal with what is the best option.
As mentioned consistently, diesel is the go-to fuel for those that need to haul more than their butt around. Its almost absurd to me that we, the largest commuting nation around (as in area driven/land mass/developed areas) has consistently allowed diesel to be the black sheep of our transportation. We can blame our own govt. for much of that due to them taxing it to the ridiculous levels it currently is at. But we the people have failed to even give it a fair shake while the other nations of the world embrace it happily. I just am completely stymied as to how we ignore the massive potential of this as a fuel source. Add in some of that wiz bang technology that allows us to reach out towards other planets and apply some of those thinkers toward finding a way to synthesize it. Yes.. that sounds a lot like Biodiesel...it should. But while that is another aspect of a problem solver that we have nearly ignored.. it is not without its own short comings. Winter performance is maybe the biggest issue of Bio.. but your gonna tell me we can operate a remote controlled vehicle on a planet way the heck out there and we can't create a way to solve that problem? Please! I don't buy it! And since Bio can be created out of almost anything, why not? Here's a whacky idea.. How about investing in some solar tube farms. Allow the algae that forms in the tubes to be harvested and processed into bio diesel? Oh wait... that would be killing two birds with one stone AND cutting OPEC out of the deal. Guess that will never happen!

 

[Metcalf]

Mileage isn't rocket science...or doesn't have to be.

Vehicles just need to be lighter, more aerodynamic, use less power for auxiliary features.

What I don't like is the .gov telling me I HAVE to have things. I am very confident that I could build a light weight aerodynamic vehicle that could get 100mpg while being driven responsibly at reasonable speeds. Is it going to be able to have a/c, sat nav, seating for 7, air bags, side air bags, be the size of an H2, and do that....NO!

My 7000lb Dodge rolling around on 39" aggressive tires with the aerodynamics of a BARN still gets 20mpg when driven wisely with over 300,000 miles on it!

There is hope, but it's not in the direction that modern car companies and modern consumers are going....

 

[Frank]

Do you honestly think we won't come up with more and more improvements in the coming 13 years?

Sure, let the free market dictate that. In the 1980's/early 90's Honda had a car that got 30+ mpg and sold them as fast as they got put on the lot. They were notorious for lasting forever. As long as you put gas, oil and tires on it and one could go anyplace in it.

Put an economical gas powered vehicle on the sales floor in a size that will accommodate an American family, give those families jobs and see what happens.

 

[CodyY]

Sure, let the free market dictate that. In the 1980's/early 90's Honda had a car that got 30+ mpg and sold them as fast as they got put on the lot. They were notorious for lasting forever. As long as you put gas, oil and tires on it and one could go anyplace in it.

Put an economical gas powered vehicle on the sales floor in a size that will accommodate an American family, give those families jobs and see what happens.

Pre-ethanol fuel, my brother's CRX HF would regularly click off 48mpg tanks. That's with an 18 yr old driving.

Suck it Prius!

 

[spectre6000]

I'm not usually in this section, but as a former "industry insider" so to speak I'll tell you why it's probably not worth getting your hopes up. I worked in alternative fuels up until 2008 heading an experimental feedstock project to fuel the largest biodiesel refinery in the US. CAFE standards and RFS Act were part of my regular reading regimen. The A&F there are certainly a big part of why Jeeps will never see any reasonable fuel economy figures, but the RFS act doesn't help. There are a million loopholes in the one that essentially take the teeth out of the other (thanks, W). GM is so far under the bar right now (in real terms) because every truck they sell (and many cars) are "flex fuel" vehicles meaning they can technically run on ethanol. It doesn't cost GM anything more than a line of code, but the government treats these vehicles as if they're running on ethanol 50% of the time (yeah right, when was the last time you saw a neat ethanol pump?). That means a big truck that gets 12 miles to the gallon gets 24 as far as CAFE standards are concerned! Hybrids have a similar math when it come to calculating CAFE mileage. I don't know if there's any sort of IP that goes with the "flex fuel" scheme, but Chrysler doesn't seem to have really caught on... Or maybe someone in upper management has principles and ethics... Not sure..

You want a diesel? Cool! Me too! Why doesn't Chrysler bring diesels to the US? They keep tempting us year after freaking year with fuel economy figures, torque figures, something approaching reliability, but we won't see them any time soon. Why? The US emissions regulations are set up to effectively make it impossible for diesels to meet regulation. Why? The particulate problem in passenger cars was solved a long time ago; they're often even cleaner than gas engines in that concern. The low sulfur fuels keep the really nasty stuff out of the tailpipes. Unfortunately it's the fact that NOx is to diesels what CO2 is to gas engines. It's a much more potent greenhouse gas, so that at least has some merit. The problem is that Nitrogen bonds to the oxygen much more readily at the higher temperatures at which diesels run. A number of German manufacturers have figured out the urea after treatment trick, but Americans can't seem to wrap their heads around engines that aren't the same as every other engine (air cooled engines require a different driving style, rotary engines require additional oil, diesel engines are close but if they require urea Americans can't quite meet the curve). Mazda has figured out that an ultra-low compression ratio (on the order of 13:1) will lower combustion chamber temperatures enough to significantly reduce NOx emissions and actually meet US emissions regulations WITHOUT after treatment. I have yet to see what that does to the various attributes that make diesels worthwhile in the first place (torque, fuel economy, and reliability). The problem here is that Mazda owns that technology... Unfortunately, Chrysler messed up the Diamler partnership or they could have access to the after treatment technology... Diamler messed it up too, but hindsight is 20/20 (if the ultra awesome high tech cupholders break when Mercedes uses quality materials, of course everything is going to break when Chrysler's bean counters get a hold of it).

Unfortunately, Fiat doesn't have any cool diesel tech (they don't really have any cool tech period, it's a style brand), so no diesels here for the foreseeable future. They do have a bunch of small European city cars though! The Smart ForTwo has double digit horsepower (but doesn't follow up with the sort of fuel economy one would expect for that sacrifice) and the Scion iQ is doing pretty well on the showroom with double digit horsepower, and as I recall there's another car coming in 2013. Remember the old Volkswagens? What Chrysler is going to do (sorry Jeep guys) is bring in a few more Fiat city cars, reskin a few for the Chrysler lineup, and do their best to sell a million of them. Throw in some hybrids (I don't think either party has anything fun going on in the hybrid or electric realms, but they'll probably need to figure something out), and that's pretty much all you're going to see. Sorry to burst any bubbles.