https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...49478099,d.cGE

The article uses a Tundra as the example but the regulations will apply to all car makers.

Wondering of this could have any effect on the much rumored F-150 tremor.

 

Why did they decided to use the vehicle "footprint" as a basis for fuel economy improvement requirements? There are many other parameters that could have been used.

I'll have to look through that EPA document sometime...

Thanks for the link Tim

 

Probably because this mess is less about saving the planet and more about a political power grab... since politics are involved, there's no requirement to invoke common sense.

I'll save the soapbox for another time!

 

Agreed

It would be interested to see the environmental impact assessment of using more materials/energy to build a supercrew long bed VS a reg cab short bed

Since the footprint calculation is based on wheelbase, I can see the reg-cab short bed's disappearing, however the reg cab long bed shares a 145" wheelbase with the Scab and Screw short box configurations.

 

I wanted some more info on this so I started digging through the EPA Federal Register, Link: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012...2012-21972.pdf

I then calculated out the footrpint in sqft for the 126" and 145" WBs Using a 67" track width (from ford specs page) I calculated out the 126" WB to have a 58.6 sqft "footprint" and the 145" WB to have a 67.2 sqft footprint.

Entering this information into the chart provided on page 408 of the aforementioned EPA document, we get this:



It looks like these regulations will be in effect for 2017. It will be interesting to see if the reg cab short bed makes the cut.

 

While I do like reg cab trucks, I've got no use for anything less than an SuperCab at the minimum. That said I rarely see modern reg cabs out here, and when I do it's never the short box and always a long bed.

While I would love to see the reg/cab short box continue, I don't see why Ford would make a business case for it. I don't remember a huge spred in pricing going from the reg/cab config to Super Cab. What's odd thoug is that the price difference between Super Cab and Super Crew is quite significant. That was the main reason I skipped on the full Crew cab.

 

I hope not. Reg cab/long bed is just right for me. There is plenty of room in the cab (more then reg cab SD) to hold me, a rider and hunting gear and guns. The long box gives me the room to have a good sized tool box and still 6+ feet for cargo or even a little more with the tailgate down. Plus since you can max out the payload/tow, it's the perfect. I wish a diesel powerplant would be dropped into the reg cab trucks but it looks like I have to get an EB in the next truck. Chris

 

I did the same. The Screw in XLT trim was about $3300 more than my Scab. With both girls grown and gone, the Scab is a great fit for the three of us. My wife, Ladybug, (my yorki-poo) and me. The dog rides on the console.

 

I don't think the reg cab long bed's are in jeopardy, as they share the same WB as the Screw and Scab. I can see them lengthening the WB and adding more storage behind the seat (as they already have started doing)

 

this just means i better buy my reg cab short bed within the next year. i want a tremor so bad i can taste it!