Is GM getting smart?

[ffvben]

one thing I noticed , my 99 ford ranger with 125k miles has the original exhaust , you can see the steel and a little bit of rust spots inside the pipe. I just checked out a 06 Chevy Colorado 4cly 6k miles, the inside of the pipe is full of black carbon. is this just a fluke? I'm going to keep my eyes open on all makes, I know Nissan's have a light tint of carbon build up and they all have blue smoke when its cold and you first start driving. It makes me gag when the shop first opens and all the techs are driving in the shop to their bays. I never noticed that smoke on fords unless their was a problem with the engine.

[vt420]

I very very rarely see smoking nissans of any type car or truck. my friends 330k maxima never even let out a single puff, nor does my 240sx, or my ex-gf's dads old d21 hardbody, or my other friends altima...

Jeff

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by ffvben

I just checked out a 06 Chevy Colorado 4cly 6k miles, the inside of the pipe is full of black carbon. is this just a fluke?

Might be normal for a Colorado. But the one on my 04 Element is still just about clean enough to eat out of. I mean, if you were into that...

Black carbon indicates a rich condition, right? Maybe the one you saw is used mostly on short trips?

[VetteOwner]

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

Might be normal for a Colorado. But the one on my 04 Element is still just about clean enough to eat out of. I mean, if you were into that...

Black carbon indicates a rich condition, right? Maybe the one you saw is used mostly on short trips?

coulda been driven around the lot alot or alot of shorter test drives (or alot of test drives in general)

my 95 s-10 has suit in the inside of the pipe, same with my chevette but thats an exception(fully carbed no emmisions finicky air fuel ratio setting)

[jcp123]

Originally Posted by Sludgy

The new GMT900 pickups are nice looking, but GM really didn't have FE in mind when they selected powertrains.

I should hope not! When I buy a truck, it's not because of fuel economy...it's because I need it to do certain things that a car can't.

My Dad's Ram has MDS cylinder deactivation...not only does it not really help, I can't help but think of the Cadillac V8-6-4 debacle...if you ask me, I say less fancy schmancy technology, not more. I was already chagrined to find out my car had variable cam timing, even though it's a mechanical system...

On a side note, I drive a truck at work. It's an '07 Ranger fleet model with the Mazda-designed Duratec 2.3l 16v, power nothing, automatic, a/c. I get about 20mpg in it with the a/c almost permanently on, though I've seen as low as mid-16's when my co-workers drive it...mostly city driving with some highway-ish stretches.

[minic6]

GM's base 900 gets better FE than the Toyota Tundra. For better or worse in that size vehicle it is an industry leader. I feel all of them should try harder!

Unless you have driven a 4 6 8 Cad. you can't know how bad they really were! Most people can't tell when AFM is even happening and it has been mentioned on this site there should be a light when it is. You had no problem knowing with the old Caddy! People use to think the trans. was shifting into different gears.
AFM and Chyslers MDS is not a cure all. Most people don't see any difference because there pushing there trucks at75 plus. Which immediatly cuts the system off. And you deafeted what it was designed for.
All of these veh. have a narrow window were they work, push them and your in 8 cylinder mode. If someone really tries to drive to see a gain in FE they will. Would they do better with lighter weight, better gear ratios, smaller engines? Yes but thats not what the truck industry builds for the masses!
Have you seen the Tundra commercials? performance is key and lets pull a small house while were at it! I have read over and over how GM, Ford and Chrysler should build more FE into trucks. Seems to me Toyota learned the hype from the big 3 very well! And is going for uncharted territories to perpetuiate the overkill war.
My design for trucks would be this. Quit punishing the average consumer with the ability to tow anything! What happened to towing packages? If you towed you bought the package to do it. Now everyone is forced to because the marketing people feel for resale everyone needs it. Thats crazy but until people change their buying habits, current marketing practices won't either.

[jcp123]

I think my Dad's Ram is just so heavy that I doubt MDS ever even kicks in; he's not really fond of driving 75, though, usually stays between 65 and 70 on the freeway. Haven't had any freeway time in the Ram though, since we don't have one in town...

[ZugyNA]

Originally Posted by Bill in Houston

Every single time I read the title of this thread:
"Is GM getting smart?"

I think
"Doubtful."

Every time...

35 mpg CAFE standards applied to trucks would make them absolutely brilliant?

[Bill in Houston]

Originally Posted by jcp123

I should hope not! When I buy a truck, it's not because of fuel economy...it's because I need it to do certain things that a car can't.

My Dad's Ram has MDS cylinder deactivation...not only does it not really help, <snip>.

I must have missed your test results. Can you post the experiments you ran and the variables you controlled for, and the variables you were not able to control?

[Telco]

I read an article in a magazine, think it was Motor Trend, last year where they were interviewing a GM engineer. He said that the truck fuel injection programming was set to run a lot richer than on a car across the board. I wish I could remember which mag it was, it was sometime about a year ago while at the doctor's office. Anyway, from the way the article was reading it looked like a person could just get a car computer that uses the same style of fuel injection along with a pinout diagram for both the car and truck, wire the truck to accept the car computer, then get better mileage just off that. It would also explain why a Camaro was able to pull down mid 20s when driven easy, when a truck driven the same way could only get mid teens. And no, weight and aerodynamics wouldn't play that much of a role at the speeds I'm talking about. I always wanted to try it to see if it would work, never actually got to it (I'm pretty lazy). I was going to try this with my 96 Tahoe, but after some heavy soul searching decided that no matter what I did with it I'd not be able to get more than 30MPG and about 13 second quarters out of it, but the same work to a smaller, lighter vehicle could turn 40+MPG and maybe 11 second quarters. Yes, my goals are as high as my a$$ is heavy .