new fuel economy rules.
Thread Starter
|
Junior User
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
new fuel economy rules.
Have any of you read the news about the new vehicle fuel economic rules?
Seems in a couple of years, the pickup trucks have to have an AVERAGE mileage of 20 or 21 mpg something.
I just wonder how any truck maker could do that? It just doesn't sound real to me.
Seems in a couple of years, the pickup trucks have to have an AVERAGE mileage of 20 or 21 mpg something.
I just wonder how any truck maker could do that? It just doesn't sound real to me.
Fleet Mechanic
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,988
Likes: 14
From: Travelers Rest SC
Maybe this will breathe new life into the Ranger line. My old '86 2.3 got 24 in town- heavy traffic. I get annoyed that they keep making compact trucks bigger and thirstier (and more expensive!) Some of us only want (and need) a basic little 4 banger pick-up. I don't even want A/C, heat, or power anything. Just cheap and stone reliable.
Posting Guru
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,436
Likes: 2
From: Sunny SOCAL!
Post Fiend
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,147
Likes: 1
From: Joppa, Maryland
Hydraulic hybrid with diesel engines, seems to be where the future is at.. even though it hasn't exactly been proven tech yet, it seems to be very promising. Ford is working on a system for the f150 that they claim can get 60mpg.
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
One guess as to where I think they can gently place these MPG requirements. I drive an 01 Silverado with a 5.3 (don't get mad about that), and I'm happy with the 18 mpg I get with it. My philosophy is, "If you can't put gas in it, then don't buy it.". I had to let my 68 GTO go for that reason. My second daughter was on the way and I couldn't feed her and the GTO. 7 mpg on 93 octane gets expensive. Boy do I hate it when the government gets involved with private businesses "for the sake of the environment". Automakers should make what they want and let the market determine what mileage is or is not acceptable.
Post Fiend
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,110
Likes: 0
i think its good, i agree with the gov not getting involved with private business but the auto business is intertwinned with foriegn policy(i.e. oil) which in turn makes it the gov business also(unfortuntly)
i beleive the auto industry needs a push to get the higher mpg vehicals rolling. there are so many things they could have dumped money in besides the current things they do now(all the luxury crap, 22in wheels, electronic handling blah blah blah)
mpg will sell period, heck, it doesn't need to be advertised. mpg will sell now days more than all the luxury stuff you can put on a vehical.
i don't see why they can't use more light weight composite material or do something mroe with the aerodynamics of the trucks/suvs.
as i stated before, my 1971 chevy 3/4 4x4 with a 454 in it got the same gas milage as my 1995 f350 4x4 with a 460 in it. pretty sad i think, zero improvement for 24 years, and the dang chevy was faster and easier to work on!
as far as let americans decide what mpg is acceptable, i don't think the average american now days is smart enough to know what mpg is acceptable. the average americans knowledge of in depth foriegn policy and economics is saddening. its me know, pay later mentality.
i beleive the auto industry needs a push to get the higher mpg vehicals rolling. there are so many things they could have dumped money in besides the current things they do now(all the luxury crap, 22in wheels, electronic handling blah blah blah)
mpg will sell period, heck, it doesn't need to be advertised. mpg will sell now days more than all the luxury stuff you can put on a vehical.
i don't see why they can't use more light weight composite material or do something mroe with the aerodynamics of the trucks/suvs.
as i stated before, my 1971 chevy 3/4 4x4 with a 454 in it got the same gas milage as my 1995 f350 4x4 with a 460 in it. pretty sad i think, zero improvement for 24 years, and the dang chevy was faster and easier to work on!
as far as let americans decide what mpg is acceptable, i don't think the average american now days is smart enough to know what mpg is acceptable. the average americans knowledge of in depth foriegn policy and economics is saddening. its me know, pay later mentality.
Trending Topics
Mountain Pass
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 222
Likes: 4
From: Richmond, Va
If the govt would get off their *** and make the oil companies lower the gas prices, then we wouldn't need to have vehicles that get 25+ mpg. How do they justify the prices and in the same sentence talk about the RECORD profits last year?
FTE Stories
Ford Trucks for Ford Truck Enthusiasts
3 Best / 3 Worst Parts of Modern Ford Ownership
Brett Foote
10 Amazing Upgrades That Solve Common Ford Truck Owner Headaches
Pouria Savadkouei
Every 2026 Ford Engine Explained
Brett Foote
10 Ugly Ford Trucks That We Still Kinda Love
Joe Kucinski
10 Things Every Truck Owner NEEDS (2026 Edition)
Michael S. Palmer
Rezvani's Latest Post-Apocalyptic Monster Is a Ford F-150 Raptor Underneath
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Most Expensive Ford Trucks Ever Sold on Bring a Trailer
Joe Kucinski
2027 Ford Super Duty Buyer's Guide (Every Model, Engine, & Package)
Brett Foote
Top 10 Ford Truck Tragedies
Joe Kucinski
Postmaster
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,077
Likes: 1
From: None of your business
Originally Posted by tekrsq
If the govt would get off their *** and make the oil companies lower the gas prices, then we wouldn't need to have vehicles that get 25+ mpg. How do they justify the prices and in the same sentence talk about the RECORD profits last year?
How can you justify record profits? It's capitalism man, pure and simple. The only time I can see them getting in trouble was during the hurricane season last year. I think that during that time that they were doing some profiteering. In any case, it's the free market.
I'm 100% happy about the increase in CAFE standards. Who wouldn't want thier vehicles to get better mileage. Necessity is the mother of invention. I'm sure that automakers will meet CAFE standards. If someone didn't push them, then no one would.
Like someone above mentioned, vehicles have made very little progress in the MPG department. A similarly sized engine of 30-40 years ago only got a few MPG worse than the engines of today.
Mike
Senior User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Any particular reason the CAFE standards are based on mpg alone, rather than a figure that incorporates the number of passengers carried?
As an example - A car that gets 40 mpg looks great on paper compared to a car that gets 25 mpg. However, if the 40 mpg car carries only 4 people, and the 25 mpg car carries 6 people, one could say, for instance, that the 40 mpg car gets 160 people-miles per gallon, while the 25 mpg car gets 150 people-miles per gallon.
It is odd that big SUVs are included in the new standards, and the F250 is not included.
The new truck standard applies to light trucks, but I am not sure what the government considers a light truck for CAFE purposes.
As an example - A car that gets 40 mpg looks great on paper compared to a car that gets 25 mpg. However, if the 40 mpg car carries only 4 people, and the 25 mpg car carries 6 people, one could say, for instance, that the 40 mpg car gets 160 people-miles per gallon, while the 25 mpg car gets 150 people-miles per gallon.
It is odd that big SUVs are included in the new standards, and the F250 is not included.
The new truck standard applies to light trucks, but I am not sure what the government considers a light truck for CAFE purposes.
Post Fiend
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,462
Likes: 4
From: Durant, OK (SOSU)
The way I understand this, according to the article on ABCNews.com today, is that for every low mileage vehicle (SUVs, etc making 8-10 mpg) they must balance it with a vehicle making high mileage (25-30 mpg).
Hotshot
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,488
Likes: 22
From: The Big, Oregon
How much you wanna bet we'll see a copy of one of these as a cafe beater?
http://www.tigertruck.com/
Just think of the possibilities, though- they come in standard cab, extended cab, four door, and van varieties.
The government already owns THOUSANDS of these.
http://www.tigertruck.com/
Just think of the possibilities, though- they come in standard cab, extended cab, four door, and van varieties.
The government already owns THOUSANDS of these.
Post Fiend
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,110
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by remf
Any particular reason the CAFE standards are based on mpg alone, rather than a figure that incorporates the number of passengers carried?
As an example - A car that gets 40 mpg looks great on paper compared to a car that gets 25 mpg. However, if the 40 mpg car carries only 4 people, and the 25 mpg car carries 6 people, one could say, for instance, that the 40 mpg car gets 160 people-miles per gallon, while the 25 mpg car gets 150 people-miles per gallon.
It is odd that big SUVs are included in the new standards, and the F250 is not included.
The new truck standard applies to light trucks, but I am not sure what the government considers a light truck for CAFE purposes.
As an example - A car that gets 40 mpg looks great on paper compared to a car that gets 25 mpg. However, if the 40 mpg car carries only 4 people, and the 25 mpg car carries 6 people, one could say, for instance, that the 40 mpg car gets 160 people-miles per gallon, while the 25 mpg car gets 150 people-miles per gallon.
It is odd that big SUVs are included in the new standards, and the F250 is not included.
The new truck standard applies to light trucks, but I am not sure what the government considers a light truck for CAFE purposes.
thats how they calculate commercial airline fuel useage, per passenger.
Elder User
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
I hate to defend the oil companies, but let's not forget that there is a difference between profit and profit margin. After they sell their inventory that they produced from, say, 20 dollars per barrel of oil, they have to replace that oil with the 60 dollars per barrel of oil. They made money on the old stock, but spend more to replace it with new stock.
Our mpg's haven't improved much in the past 30 years for similar engine sizes, but the horsepower sure has. More power takes more fuel. Ford is now making 300 hp with the new Mustang with 261 cubic inches, has any factory ride (excluding halo cars) made that much with so little? The new engines are more efficient, but their mileage doesn't reflect that.
As far as that Tigertruck thing....ick!
I'd rather try to feed my GTO again. Passing a gas pump is nice, but passing everything else on the road is a whole lot more fun.
Our mpg's haven't improved much in the past 30 years for similar engine sizes, but the horsepower sure has. More power takes more fuel. Ford is now making 300 hp with the new Mustang with 261 cubic inches, has any factory ride (excluding halo cars) made that much with so little? The new engines are more efficient, but their mileage doesn't reflect that.
As far as that Tigertruck thing....ick!
I'd rather try to feed my GTO again. Passing a gas pump is nice, but passing everything else on the road is a whole lot more fun.
Lead Driver
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,471
Likes: 727
From: Calgary Canada
I suspect this isn't going to be very popular, but I have to agree with magee here. The large oil companies like Exxon and Shell make huge profits, but they are some of the largest companies in the world as well. Trust me, the profit margins on the refining side are razor thin. If any of you think that you can build your own refinery and make money at it, give it a shot.
Now the upstream side of the business is currently pretty profitable, but costs there have skyrocketed as well.
All in all, fuel prices aren't going to go down, and they shouldn't either. We've been far to wasteful for a very long time.
Now the upstream side of the business is currently pretty profitable, but costs there have skyrocketed as well.
All in all, fuel prices aren't going to go down, and they shouldn't either. We've been far to wasteful for a very long time.