Jump to content
William Maley

Industry News: EPA Announces A Roll-Back On Obama's Fuel Efficiency Regulations

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, balthazar said:

I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

Weight, yes, but also capabilities.  I'm not against increasing the capabilities of the 150/1500 series trucks, however there is no lower alternative for those who do not need such capacity... the mall runners... etc.  A trimmer F150 / Sierra 1000 would be fine for a lot of these McMansion garage queen trucks. Heck, still load them up with the Lincoln level goodies, but they don't need the frame capacity to tow 10,000 lbs.  The mid-size trucks are still too small for those who purchase the full sizers. 

 I'm exactly in that demographic.  I want a truck capable of putting a motorcycle in the back, but I don't need huge towing capacity.  At the same time, I need a real back seat that can be used for long distance travel, the Colorado/Ranger/Taco can't really offer that. The F150 is overkill. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Any further personal attacks will result in warning points being handed out. 

I got plenty of those in the past! 

*SIGH*

Unfortunately, those kinds of points are not redeemable for prizes though... :( 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the idea of a midsize truckish SUV with a nice interior, a small bed, and decent towing capacity.   A Jeep Grand Cherokee based vehicle that is similar in function to the Ridgeline would get my interest. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Weight, yes, but also capabilities.  I'm not against increasing the capabilities of the 150/1500 series trucks, however there is no lower alternative for those who do not need such capacity... the mall runners... etc.  A trimmer F150 / Sierra 1000 would be fine for a lot of these McMansion garage queen trucks. Heck, still load them up with the Lincoln level goodies, but they don't need the frame capacity to tow 10,000 lbs.  The mid-size trucks are still too small for those who purchase the full sizers. 

 I'm exactly in that demographic.  I want a truck capable of putting a motorcycle in the back, but I don't need huge towing capacity.  At the same time, I need a real back seat that can be used for long distance travel, the Colorado/Ranger/Taco can't really offer that. The F150 is overkill. 

I see what you are getting at. 

Questions.

If a less capable fullsizer is to be engineered, because I would assume that the frame would be not the same frame, as the 10 000/15 000 lbs hauler frame the current quarter ton trucks offer:

1. Would  that be an added cost to the development of the fullsizer of a 5000-7000 hauling F-100 frame as opposed to a 10 000 F-150 frame?  Keeping of course the same external body panels, truck beds, mirrors, tires, windshields, doors, lights, dashboards etc...

2. If a fullsizer could have a lesser capable frame that of a "regular" quarter tonner, keeping of course the same truck but not the frame, why would a mid-sizer be of use?

3. Assuming the lesser framed quarter tonner, would also be more fuel efficient than its more capable brethen, because of a less sturdy frame and hence lighter frame and hence more fuel efficient....so...

4. If #3 is the case, is it safe to say that all these wannabes that wanna own a fullsized truck because bigger obviously means bigger dick and larger ballz,  if Ford, Dodge, Chevy and GMC would offer a less capable fullsizer, and the less capable fullsizer is ACTUALLY MORE fuel efficient, and the wannabes wont have ANY TELLTALE SIGNS that their dicks are smaller and their ballz produce less semen, would it be safe to say that a 50 MPG-54 MPG CAFE is more plausible?

WITHOUT having to resort to rolling back the CAFE numbers?

 

Just a SERIOUS question on a SERIOUS thought...

And yes...JUST because we COULD buy what we WANNA buy does NOT mean WE HAVE to buy JUST because WE COULD!!!!

Meaning....

NO!

I do NOT want the government DEMANDING me WHAT it is I HAVE to buy...

But OBVIOUSLY...not ONLY North Americans anymore, but the whole bloody planet in 2018, we ALL have become VERY VERY SELFISH!!!

Corporations DO NOT give two shytes about the welfare of OUR planet...

MONEY...

Money is NOT the END ALL BE ALL in the HUMAN quest of happiness...

and MONEY is CERTAINLY NOT the answer to Humanity's original question of "why are we here?" 

JUST SAYIN'!!! 

Edited by oldshurst442

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I like the idea of a midsize truckish SUV with a nice interior, a small bed, and decent towing capacity.   A Jeep Grand Cherokee based vehicle that is similar in function to the Ridgeline would get my interest. 

A Grand Cherokee EXT would be the bomb! Give it a 6,000 lb tow rating and it would be perfect.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

A Grand Cherokee EXT would be the bomb! Give it a 6,000 lb tow rating and it would be perfect.

Googling turned up this neat photoshop image someone created...this would be cool. 

01 - Cópia.jpg

Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 I'm exactly in that demographic.  I want a truck capable of putting a motorcycle in the back, but I don't need huge towing capacity.  At the same time, I need a real back seat that can be used for long distance travel, the Colorado/Ranger/Taco can't really offer that. The F150 is overkill.

How do the Taco/Canyonado not do that in crew cab 6ft bed form? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I see what you are getting at. 

Questions.

If a less capable fullsizer is to be engineered, because I would assume that the frame would be not the same frame, as the 10 000/15 000 lbs hauler frame the current quarter ton trucks offer:

1. Would  that be an added cost to the development of the fullsizer of a 5000-7000 hauling F-100 frame as opposed to a 10 000 F-150 frame?  Keeping of course the same external body panels, truck beds, mirrors, tires, windshields, doors, lights, dashboards etc...

2. If a fullsizer could have a lesser capable frame that of a "regular" quarter tonner, keeping of course the same truck but not the frame, why would a mid-sizer be of use?

3. Assuming the lesser framed quarter tonner, would also be more fuel efficient than its more capable brethen, because of a less sturdy frame and hence lighter frame and hence more fuel efficient....so...

4. If #3 is the case, is it safe to say that all these wannabes that wanna own a fullsized truck because bigger obviously means bigger dick and larger ballz,  if Ford, Dodge, Chevy and GMC would offer a less capable fullsizer, and the less capable fullsizer is ACTUALLY MORE fuel efficient, and the wannabes wont have ANY TELLTALE SIGNS that their dicks are smaller and their ballz produce less semen, would it be safe to say that a 50 MPG-54 MPG CAFE is more plausible?

WITHOUT having to resort to rolling back the CAFE numbers?

 

 

Yes it would be additional development costs of course... but just like we now have 25 "different" sizes of crossover in a single brand that are mere inches apart in size, I think it would sell.   Imagine another Ford truck, the F-100 say, that is 5% smaller than the F150 but has a more light duty build that cuts 10% - 15% of the weight out.  If the truck maxes out at 5k or 6k towing capactiy, they can build components lighter.  The F150 right now ranges from 5,500 lbs to 12,000 lbs towing, but even on the 5,500 lbs configuration, there is no difference in major components like drive shaft, differential, frame, axle, suspension... etc.  So the 5,500 lbs capable truck lugs around a lot of extra weight that it will never be able to utilize.

If Ford could swap out a bunch of those components for lighter duty parts, they could save a significant amount of weight, and weight is the biggest killer of fuel economy.  The truck could probably be powered by the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder as a base engine and save additional weight over a V6.  Once you don't have to engineer the platform to handle such high weights, it cascades a lot of vehicle mass away.   

Cutting 15% of the weight out of a SuperCrew 4x4 2.7 Ecoboost drops the weight 720 lbs from 4805 to 4085. That would be huge. Even a 10% drop would be 480 lbs. 

The Ranger is the quick and dirty answer to the problem, however, it doesn't address the needs of passenger space or bed volume that get people into an F-150 in the first place. 

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

How do the Taco/Canyonado not do that in crew cab 6ft bed form? 

The Crewcab is not suitable for putting my inlaws in for 5 hour drives. 

16 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Googling turned up this neat photoshop image someone created...this would be cool. 

01 - Cópia.jpg

acb.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The truck could probably be powered by the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder as a base engine and save additional weight over a V6.

I've always wondered this.. How much savings is there really when you have turbos/heat exchanger/plumbing all added to the turbo 4? 

By chance, do you have any examples or engine weights with the turbo+components compared to their replaced V6? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ccap41 said:

I've always wondered this.. How much savings is there really when you have turbos/heat exchanger/plumbing all added to the turbo 4? 

By chance, do you have any examples or engine weights with the turbo+components compared to their replaced V6? 

In the case of the F150, there are still all of the turbo equipment to account for.  Most F150s are already sold in Ecoboost form... go going from 2.7EB to 2.3EB is really just dropping one turbo.  I have a meeting, but I'll see if I can find an example of what you're looking for. I'm thinking ATS 2.0T v. V6 or Camaro 2.0T v V6 will likely be the examples used. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The Crewcab is not suitable for putting my inlaws in for 5 hour drives. 

Yeah, that's understandable, that's a pretty long drive to be in there. They look pretty roomy but I've never been in the back of one. 

How often are you driving them that long? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ccap41 said:

Yeah, that's understandable, that's a pretty long drive to be in there. They look pretty roomy but I've never been in the back of one. 

How often are you driving them that long? 

Once a month or every other month.  We do trips from Pittsburgh to DC to my partner's sisters and his parents no longer do long distance drives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yes it would be additional development costs of course... but just like we now have 25 "different" sizes of crossover in a single brand that are mere inches apart in size, I think it would sell.   Imagine another Ford truck, the F-100 say, that is 5% smaller than the F150 but has a more light duty build that cuts 10% - 15% of the weight out.  If the truck maxes out at 5k or 6k towing capactiy, they can build components lighter.  The F150 right now ranges from 5,500 lbs to 12,000 lbs towing, but even on the 5,500 lbs configuration, there is no difference in major components like drive shaft, differential, frame, axle, suspension... etc.  So the 5,500 lbs capable truck lugs around a lot of extra weight that it will never be able to utilize.

If Ford could swap out a bunch of those components for lighter duty parts, they could save a significant amount of weight, and weight is the biggest killer of fuel economy.  The truck could probably be powered by the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder as a base engine and save additional weight over a V6.  Once you don't have to engineer the platform to handle such high weights, it cascades a lot of vehicle mass away.   

Cutting 15% of the weight out of a SuperCrew 4x4 2.7 Ecoboost drops the weight 720 lbs from 4805 to 4085. That would be huge. Even a 10% drop would be 480 lbs. 

The Ranger is the quick and dirty answer to the problem, however, it doesn't address the needs of passenger space or bed volume that get people into an F-150 in the first place. 

Yes. And thank-you.

I knew this of course. Your comment just reinforces my thought processes!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Once a month or every other month.  We do trips from Pittsburgh to DC to my partner's sisters and his parents no longer do long distance drives.

Yeah that's quite often as well.. Makes sense why you'd want the extra space. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.  The previous administration rushed these unrealistic standards through at the eleventh hour, knowing full well the ramifications.  And the day of reckoning has come.  A rollback is simply common sense.  It allows car makers to sell what people want to spend money on.  Any business that does not give the customer what they want will eventually die.  If someone wants a Volt or Bolt and does not mind being tethered to the cord, let them have it.  If someone wants a Suburban with 6.2L of manly power, let them have it.  Since Drew has let this post of yours stand and has taken down my post condemning your personal attack on me and millions of others, I will keep posting in my defense until more people can see my point of view here.  I am sure this will not be here the next time I check this board, but hopefully the censors here will be asleep long enough so that somebody sees this.

I am as much an Idiot as Anyone else in this world and have to continue to learn and change all the time. Growing with Humanity to live in our universe and get our butts off this rock into space.

Life is ever changing and static is what kills off things not change. Embracing change is why I love and care about everyone  and everything and even you Blu. I would never want you to not speak your mind but please try and put yourself as I do in other people's shoes to understand why we need to evolve and why rolling back rather than extending the date of improving things is a mistake.

Wishing you the best in your life.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Drew Dowdell Maybe if they had taken the Trailblazer / Envoy EXT and made it a 5ft bed it would have been good.

See the source image

After seeing this, I think if they had put a 5 foot bed on it, it would have been a better seller. Plus add electric motor assist for a hybrid.

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, dfelt said:

@Drew Dowdell Maybe if they had taken the Trailblazer / Envoy EXT and made it a 5ft bed it would have been good.

See the source image

After seeing this, I think if they had put a 5 foot bed on it, it would have been a better seller. Plus add electric motor assist for a hybrid.

See the source image

2005-gmc-envoy-xuv-photo-260192-s-1280x782.jpg

Every time these come up it makes me want to go find a barely used Bravada, 9-7x, or Rainier.  They still are good looking SUVs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

2005-gmc-envoy-xuv-photo-260192-s-1280x782.jpg

Very cool, but could it fit a Motorcycle? plus with no wall between the seats, I would think it would be windy or was there a wall that I just did not see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Yeah that's quite often as well.. Makes sense why you'd want the extra space. 

It would be out of the frying pan into the fire if we moved to a crewcab Taco or Canyonado from the Encore. The Encore does the trip, but it is really snug. Whatever we buy next will have more cabin space. What I really want is some larger long distance cruiser for those trips and something smaller sportier when it is just the two of us or just me. 

9 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Very cool, but could it fit a Motorcycle? plus with no wall between the seats, I would think it would be windy or was there a wall that I just did not see?

There is a wall there that can drop down ala Avalanche style. 

But it has a 6,200 lbs towing capacity... so I can use a Mototote. 

mototote motorcycle hitch carrier.jpg

 

IMG_20130315_181027.jpg

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

I got plenty of those in the past! 

*SIGH*

Unfortunately, those kinds of points are not redeemable for prizes though... :( 

That's OK...you get a long distance hug from me in Columbus.

25 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

2005-gmc-envoy-xuv-photo-260192-s-1280x782.jpg

Every time these come up it makes me want to go find a barely used Bravada, 9-7x, or Rainier.  They still are good looking SUVs. 

I still want a Trailblazer SS. Would tow a trailer when I need it and also haul a$$ when I don't.....

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Once a month or every other month.  We do trips from Pittsburgh to DC to my partner's sisters and his parents no longer do long distance drives.

Higher speed passenger rail service was overdue 25 years ago. I deeply despise driving across PA. Turnpike is NOT fun to drive...ugh.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

ATS 2.0T RWD - 3,373 lbs

ATS 3.6 RWD - 3,461 lbs

So 88lbs with that change alone.

Yeah, that's a significant amount of weight. 

Thanks! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

CT6. Just carry the family in class. Find a used one for like 35-45k... Don't worry about the motorcycle just drive it everywhere lol 

CT6 V6 AWD

CT6 3.0TT AWD

That can be the other car.  I'm not riding the motorcycle from Pittsburgh to Florida. That's why I want the mototote. Take it with me to my parents'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That can be the other car.  I'm not riding the motorcycle from Pittsburgh to Florida. That's why I want the mototote. Take it with me to my parents'.

Still think you should pick up a clean Escalade EXT.

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Social Stream

  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      The Ford Explorer hybrid got its EPA ratings finally. They're an improvement over the base 2.3 liter 4-cylinder delivering 27 city, 29 highway, 28 combined for the most efficient RWD model. That is an improvement of 6 mpg for city and 4 mpg combined. The AWD model comes in a bit lower at 23 city, 26 highway, and 25 combined. Unlike the Lincoln Aviator GT, the Ford Explorer Hybrid is not a plug-in model. 
      Powered by a 3.3 liter V6 plus the electrified drive train, the Explorer hybrid has a lot more power than the 4-cylinder with 318 horsepower and 322 lb-ft of torque. It comes with the same 10-speed automatic that all Explorers come with. Compared to the 2.3 liter turbo with 300 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque, we expect the Hybrid to feel faster and more refined due to the extra torque at the low end from the electric motor. 
      The Explorer Hybrid has more power and torque than its only direct competition, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid.  The Highlander does slightly better in fuel economy, but comes up 1,500 lbs short in towing capacity, though the next generation Highland Hybrid is supposed to get 34 mpg in front-wheel drive form.
      The Explorer Hybrid is available as a Limited trim model and starts at $51,780 after delivery charge, a $3,555 increase over an equivalent Limited trim. 
       

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The Ford Explorer hybrid got its EPA ratings finally. They're an improvement over the base 2.3 liter 4-cylinder delivering 27 city, 29 highway, 28 combined for the most efficient RWD model. That is an improvement of 6 mpg for city and 4 mpg combined. The AWD model comes in a bit lower at 23 city, 26 highway, and 25 combined. Unlike the Lincoln Aviator GT, the Ford Explorer Hybrid is not a plug-in model. 
      Powered by a 3.3 liter V6 plus the electrified drive train, the Explorer hybrid has a lot more power than the 4-cylinder with 318 horsepower and 322 lb-ft of torque. It comes with the same 10-speed automatic that all Explorers come with. Compared to the 2.3 liter turbo with 300 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque, we expect the Hybrid to feel faster and more refined due to the extra torque at the low end from the electric motor. 
      The Explorer Hybrid has more power and torque than its only direct competition, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid.  The Highlander does slightly better in fuel economy, but comes up 1,500 lbs short in towing capacity, though the next generation Highland Hybrid is supposed to get 34 mpg in front-wheel drive form.
      The Explorer Hybrid is available as a Limited trim model and starts at $51,780 after delivery charge, a $3,555 increase over an equivalent Limited trim. 
       
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Does anyone else notice a big drop in fuel economy when using the air conditioning? For people with automatic climate control do you ever manually turn off the air conditioner? 
    • By dfelt
      The Trump Administration and the EPA officials have scrapped all further talks with California and canceled the $929 million in federal funds for a California high-speed rail project.
      California's Governor has responded that this is in response to California leading a 16 state coalition challenge to President Trump's national emergency to take funds from the defense department and apply it to building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
      California has already filed suit to block the Trump administration proposal to roll back federal fuel economy targets for 2022-2025.
      CARB Chair Mary Nichols is on record that they are willing to work with the auto industry in giving more flexibility to comply with the greenhouse gas limits. This came as the White house administration instructed the EPA to break off talks before Christmas and have not responded to any suggested areas of compromise by California and the 19 states they are representing nor the auto industry suggestions for compromise.
      While FCA declined to comment, GM and the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers did not respond to a request for comment. Ford has stated they are very disappointed in the failure of continued talks. Joe Hinrichs, Ford's president of global operations said in a statement: "The auto industry needs regulatory certainty, not protracted litigation."
      The auto industry is on record as opposing freezing the emissions / fuel efficiency standards to 2020 levels but also want relief from the roughly 5 percent annual carbon reduction targets for all vehicle classes fuel efficiency.
    • By dfelt
      The Trump Administration and the EPA officials have scrapped all further talks with California and canceled the $929 million in federal funds for a California high-speed rail project.
      California's Governor has responded that this is in response to California leading a 16 state coalition challenge to President Trump's national emergency to take funds from the defense department and apply it to building a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean.
      California has already filed suit to block the Trump administration proposal to roll back federal fuel economy targets for 2022-2025.
      CARB Chair Mary Nichols is on record that they are willing to work with the auto industry in giving more flexibility to comply with the greenhouse gas limits. This came as the White house administration instructed the EPA to break off talks before Christmas and have not responded to any suggested areas of compromise by California and the 19 states they are representing nor the auto industry suggestions for compromise.
      While FCA declined to comment, GM and the Alliance for Automobile Manufacturers did not respond to a request for comment. Ford has stated they are very disappointed in the failure of continued talks. Joe Hinrichs, Ford's president of global operations said in a statement: "The auto industry needs regulatory certainty, not protracted litigation."
      The auto industry is on record as opposing freezing the emissions / fuel efficiency standards to 2020 levels but also want relief from the roughly 5 percent annual carbon reduction targets for all vehicle classes fuel efficiency.

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...