Could America Remain All Powerful with Enviro-weenie Cars/Trucks? - Page 3 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Go Back   Fuelly Forums > Fuel Talk > General Fuel Topics
Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 05-21-2009, 01:20 PM   #21
Registered Member
 
GasSavers_BEEF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,831
what ever happened to the half ton diesel trucks that dodge and GM were talking about? did the idea get scrapped when the economy went sour?

that might help the FE of the trucks without losing power. I know it won't be as good as what some would want but every bit helps
__________________

__________________
Be the change you wish to see in the world
--Mahatma Gandhi



GasSavers_BEEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 02:21 PM   #22
Registered Member
 
palemelanesian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 364
Country: United States
Show me where Cleanmpg is against work trucks. Here's a counter-example: <1 mpg can be a good thing

I'm all in favor of trucks when a truck is needed. I don't think anyone is questioning that. What I don't like is all the trucks hauling around nothing but a big ego.

To answer your question, even though I don't believe the premise that full-sized trucks are going away: I think we'll find a way. That's the American way.
__________________

palemelanesian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 02:43 PM   #23
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Talking about older trucks, nothing got better mileage than my old 1974 Chevrolet C-10 pickup. I regularly got 25 - 27 MPG in that truck on the highway, and it had an a/c that was so cold you literally could keep ice cream in there. I think the big thing that brought the FE down was all the emissions crap they put on those trucks. Chevy started putting emissions controls on those trucks in 1975, and it hit a peak in 86 (Rusty's model year) where that truck with a 4 speed OD tranny, smaller engine (rusty has a 305 vs my 74's 350) and 12 years newer. It should get better mileage, but the best I ever squeaked out of Rusty is about 20 or 22 MPG, and that was on a road trip.
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 02:44 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Mayhim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 179
Country: United States
Let me re-re-clarify... "...but I always get the feeling..."

I've been visiting cleanmpg for a long time now, and I GET THE FEELING from the editorial comments that, while they support better mpg in practically anything, they also see anything to do with smaller and higher mpgs is the way to go. From that, my question.

If someone doesn't get that out of the site, fine.
Mayhim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 03:08 PM   #25
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,111
Country: United States
Send a message via AIM to dkjones96
Is the 86 carbureted? A properly tuned engine with a carb or even tbi setup is capable of higher fuel economy than a port injected EFI engine is. At least at steady throttle it is.

Emulsified fuel burns better.
__________________
- Kyle
dkjones96 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 03:23 PM   #26
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 62
Country: United States
The global economy and those of each nation are going to be strongly affected by energy prices and availability. Americans got a wake-up call with $4.50/gal gas prices. We will find ways to be competitive, especially if we take the long view and start preparing for the post-oil world.

If we're really concerned about hauling heavy stuff around this country, I think we need to take advantage of our interstate corridor right-of-ways and build new rail systems. We need to limit sprawl and encourage development within our urban centers. Also, I'm hoping that for jobs like mine - working in front of a computer instead of with my hands (which I did my share of) - telecommuting will become the norm instead of the exception.

As we all lament, the U.S. "doesn't build things anymore". Yet we still manage to gain wealth, because we conceive of, design and engineer things, then market and distribute them after they're manufactured somewhere else, and finally collect the lion's share of the profits.

FWIW, I just finished reading, "The Post-American World" by Fareed Zakaria (the editor of Newsweek). I recommend it. He talks about the fall of the British Empire and the Rise of the U.S., our current and future (for several more decades at least) role as the sole superpower, and how "the rise of the rest" affects us. "The rest" includes China and India, but also most of the other countries around the world, who have learned from our example and are becoming wealthier and more competitive, largely through developing capitalistic economies.

- Bill
Nrggeek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 04:11 PM   #27
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
Yeah, the 86 has a Rochester Quadrajet on it. In 87 they switched to a TBI system with computer controls.
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 04:47 PM   #28
Registered Member
 
bowtieguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,873
Country: United States
Location: orlando, florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nrggeek View Post
"The rest" includes China and India, but also most of the other countries around the world, who have learned from our example and are becoming wealthier and more competitive, largely through developing capitalistic economies.
this is a great argument against tougher "clean" standards as those countries do not hold themselves accountable to environmentalism.

again, i have no issue w/ strategically placed "green" legislation so long as it allows for present success as well as that of the future.
bowtieguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 06:45 PM   #29
Registered Member
 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,624
Country: United States
Send a message via ICQ to theholycow Send a message via AIM to theholycow Send a message via MSN to theholycow Send a message via Yahoo to theholycow
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkjones96 View Post
Is the 86 carbureted? A properly tuned engine with a carb or even tbi setup is capable of higher fuel economy than a port injected EFI engine is. At least at steady throttle it is.

Emulsified fuel burns better.
That is the first time I've heard that.
__________________
This sig may return, some day.
theholycow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2009, 09:48 PM   #30
Registered Member
 
theclencher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 542
Country: United States
Yeah- a carb "emulsifying" fuel better than injection? I don't think so.

25-27 in a '74? Man I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday.
__________________

__________________
Tempo/Topaz:
Old EPA 23/33/27
New EPA 21/30/24

F150:
New EPA12/14/17

theclencher is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.