Yep, the engineers have a heck of a challenge in front of them.. the article said that someone thought this could all be done with existing technology.. course, no-one has actually done mas production that does this.. so it'll be interesting to watch

Sam

 

Yep, the engineers have a heck of a challenge in front of them.. the article said that someone thought this could all be done with existing technology.. course, no-one has actually done mas production that does this.. so it'll be interesting to watch

Sam

 

I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this...

What the government is saying is similar to trying to make 6 gallons of milk fit into a single one gallon container by legislation.

you do the math.

I'm sure one day they'll try to mandate that acceleration due to gravity is decreased to 27.7 ft/s², also, in order to reduce friction and make women everywhere smile when they stand on a scale.

 

sorry, this is not some bureaucrat standing in his office wildly declaring that 'it shall be so'. this is a lot of technical folks saying it is possible, without significant invention. (beyond manufacturing)

just remember how this all works

the executive branch sets direction, & strategy.
the legislative branch makes laws, appropriates funds, and spends money
the judicial branch applies checks and balances to the whole mess above.
and the free press gets to comment on, and expose for comment, any/all of the above.

so, while I agree with you, this sounds really f...ing impossible, as against the laws of physics impossible, that doesn't mean that the objective isn't worth it anyhow, and there are a significant number of very smart technical folks who believe it is possible.... Like how many of us actually believed we could put men on the moon in a meer 9 yrs.. (and how many of us knew then how narrow that success was).

Sam

 

Good, that means the gov't will screw up the heavy duty pickup market and our pre-regulation trucks will be even more valuable.

 

that's what I'm thinking, and why I asked if they'll do the typical overreaching that they do and come all the way into the light-duty diesel and gas truck categories...

 

or vice versa...

Sam

 

That's what we said when the 6.0 was replaced with the 6.4. Mileage went down, and folks said you could not have a cleaner engine without giving up efficiency. Then some smart guys with clean paper and sharp pencils came up with the 6.7. It wasn't as impossible as we thought.

We have plenty of room for improvement. I hate goverment mandates.

 

Hold on. I am getting 11-12 mpg with 20k set if I don't have tall loads. The 7.3 PS is having about 40% thermal efficiency. Comparing Mercedes diesels between 1998 and 2005 the newer cars make about 30 % better mpg with even much better power.
Should we not expect the same results from Ford engineers?
Maybe we need to send them for lessons to Germany?

 

i'm going to quote a milita man who stood up to congress and said ,sir you are mistaken. we are the parents and you are the child.we will spank you if you need it.

 

Ah. Thermodynamics. Bingo. There is a way to squeeze out more efficiency of combustion engines. The hard part is those methods of doing it are so advanced it is cost prohibitive. If regulations change and the advanced technologies are forced on automakers then the cost will settle down after the initial hit. Like DEF - once its mainstream, ie - not "rare", the cost goes down. Ceramics will go a long way towards thermodynamics. I am sure there are other options too.

So, yes, there is only so much energy in any given amount of fuel. That isn't the only factor towards fuel efficiency. You need to look at the big picture - the power conversion.

If you jumped on a bicycle and, say, the force it took to move it in the lowest gear was as much as it is in the highest gear you would be looking for a way to petal easier...

On an off topic side-note - has anyone seen the commercials advertising train companies where the ads are something to the affect of "we can move a ton of freight 500 miles on 1 gallon of fuel"? Put that in to perspective... Yea, a train probably gets 10 gal/mile, but also look at how much weight its pulling. And we can't improve efficiency in smaller vehicles?

 

Your changing topics. That is an example of economies of scale. As with any freight carrier, cost per mile loaded mile is of utmost importance. If you only pull half that train, the freight just cost you twice as much to move.....

 

While some of the above could be argued, it's not the point. The point is the process has begun and just like the process for the gas engines emissions regulations came first at the expense of fuel mileage and power. As the process wore on we started to get it all back. Power, mileage, AND the emissions targets. Diesel will be no different.

My '79 F-150 4x4 with a 351 got a whopping 11 MPG, if I drove it off a cliff. You get the point. Along with this impressive fuel mileage I got an equally (un)impressive amount of power. I'm guessing a new F-150 would pretty much rip that old truck in half, getting double the mileage, and pumping out next to nothing emissions wise comparatively speaking.

 

I'm just hoping that these trucks dont get shafted over this. I see lower more car like shapes, weight reduction, crappy hard compound tires, etc.

 

I doubt it's going to be double. If you're only pulling half the train you're only pulling half the freight and by extension half the load. You only need half the equipment and fuel costs will go down as well. Naturally there would be certain fixed costs that wouldn't change (to a point) if you were pulling one car or 10, but it's doubtful costs would double.