Could America Remain All Powerful with Enviro-weenie Cars/Trucks?
 

I was perusing the offerings on another website when it occured to me the editorial comments seem to be pursuing an automotive ideal that would make America surpass Europe in electric, hybrid, and tiny. They appear to approve of new developments in vans, trucks, and semi's, but I always get the feeling they'd like to see them off the highway entirely.

The question I have is, "Given that New World view, do you think America could continue to be the world's main engine of wealth building through it's vibrant entrapenuerial drive if big and powerful vehicles became unobtainable?" Is an unlimited pursuit of MPGs at any cost going to throw cold water on world economies?

I think we're doomed. What do you think?

They can't take my 1 ton GMC van away... We don't drive it much, but when it is needed it saves gas because it can easily haul twice as much as the pickup truck. One trip in the van, or 2 - 3 trips in the full size pickup. Which one uses less fuel? Smaller isn't always better.

I think there will always be a place for large trucks and vans in america. even europe has large vehicles, they just aren't traditionally owned by regular people.

trucks for a business will always have their place too. I also agree with jay, 15 people all driving separate cars achieving 40 mpg sounds good but not as good as all of those people in one van getting 15 mpg. that is when you have to look at miles per gallon per person.

I think that more choices is good. the mandate is for an average of 35.5 mph which is only achieved right now from the smart and hybrids. I would love more choices in the small car world.

America could remain all-stupid and keep rolling the empty guzzlers. For a while anyway.

Every day I see work trucks towing trailers full of machines, materials, concrete forms, parts/pieces. They are loaded to capacity and heading to Do Work. They aren't clean trucks rolling with a single person (which draw the ire of so many), but real work trucks. I see them on farms with a multi-thousand pound bale of hay, towing grain trailers or combine cutters, full of feed or seed. Working trucks with a tough job, doing yeoman's work.

Can weenie trucks do these jobs or will our greatness downsize as did the Europeans? Is that decline linked or merely parallel?

I don't see the cars we drive effecting much.

I do see excessive government spending and national debt causing countries to start changing to the Euro for their reserve currency making the USD as worthless as a Peso tho. Just because the USD is a fiat currency doesn't mean we can go making up more and more of it all the time without it eventually biting us back.

It hasn't bit us yet, but with the way things are going it will. And it's gonna hurt.

We won't be stuck with weenie trucks for doing real work. The business case for making multiple trips or forgoing the big jobs just isn't there. I'm all for big trucks for big jobs. I'm all against big trucks for solo commuting. What to do about it? I don't know. Appealling to people's sensibilities obviously is a dead end.

yup, 'cause you can't fix stupid!

The way Americans use energy has to change. Doing nothing is not an option.

The people have failed to be proactive regarding wise energy use.

And that, boys and girls, is how we end up with Draconian legislation.

Just so I understand, are you suggesting that if there are no more "oversize" vehicles, American's will lose the drive to obtain wealth? In other words, do you think that the entrepreneurial spirit is all derived from the motivation to drive "big"?

I would have to disagree, there will always be plenty of other ways to exhibit one's wealth (jewelry, etc.).

-Bob C.

"Oversize" is relative. What's oversized to the car-centric may be undersized to a person that uses a working truck for all it's worth in either a business arena or in private life.

"...are you suggesting that if there are no more "oversize" vehicles, American's will lose the drive to obtain wealth?..." Not at all, and quite the opposite. Would the forcing of a smaller and less capable fleet upon America hamstring a hardworking and hard driving populace? As a rule, through the centuries America has overcome any number of things to become top dog. Could Americans overcome being forced into ever smaller and ever less-capable vehicles...working trucks specifically.

Who is talking about restricting working trucks?

The very first paragraph of my original post would answer that question.

But, is it not inevitable that larger trucks will be in the crosshairs? Only a matter of time? Light trucks are included in emissions, won't larger trucks be at some point? In our own lifetime(s)?

Do the environmentalists seem likely to slow down before that?

I did look at that before I posted. The "offerings on another website when it occured to me the editorial comments" doesn't tell me squat.

Is it just editorial musings, or Congress or somebody in authority? Either way, I don't see it gaining traction.

I was perusing the offerings on another website when it occured to me the editorial comments seem to be pursuing an automotive ideal that would make America surpass Europe in electric, hybrid, and tiny. They appear to approve of new developments in vans, trucks, and semi's, but I always get the feeling they'd like to see them off the highway entirely.

Perhaps this helps.

Editorial musings-yes. But musings from one of those that currently reflects the goals and ideals of those in our nation that are active in, and successful to a degree with, changing what we can buy.

Actually, that doesn't help at all. The question was "Who is talking about restricting working trucks?" How about a link to the real deal- or is it a secret?

Not a secret, CLEANMPG.COM. I just thought it in bad taste to cite another website on this one.

Nobody was asking specifically about restricting working trucks. I did not say they were...see underlined portion.

at any rate, it is interesting that congress and the white house promised to give the economy highest priority, yet they continue to promote "fixing" climate change w/ anti-growth legislation.

in another thread it was discussed that we can go green w/out affecting industry so much. of course we can promote "greener" cars in other ways.

it seems people are catching on. did anyone see California's voters speak loudly against new taxes?

BTW, theclencher, whom i consider to be disinterested in political discussions, did elude to draconian legislation. thanks clench. you're right tho, we might just deserve it.

Hmmmmm. there seems to be a pre-concieved notion that big does not mean efficient.

That conclusion is totally false.

Current class 2 truck at 13.5 MPG and 9000 pounds gorss weight.

Make it a hydraulic hybrid, cut the CD to .34 with the same frontal area, and reduce the gross weight by 1600 pounds without affecting the payload by a single pound.

58 MPG. That's right 58 MPG in a big arse truck people. Those are EPA projections. I have posted the chart before.

Now if you can do that in a vehicle with 3.7 square meteres of frontal area, it should be easy to double that in a Corolla sized vehicle.

Now, when the public realizes the real possibilities, you should think a few decades into the future when the average person looks back at us and comments on how stupid we were to allow such waste to continue.

Consider this people, a tractor trailer gets about 6 MPG, but look at the load and aero drag that same vehicle has, compared to a passenger car, its about 3 to 5 times more efficient.

I am a conservative, but I am also a conservator. I want those who come after me to have it better than I do now.

Automotive technology has stagnated for my whole lifetime. With few exceptions there is very little real improvement. Take a perfectly restored pickup truck made in 1955 and a brand new one and put both of them on a lift and look at the bottom. It's practically identical, and both get about the same gas mileage.

When we dedicate the resoruces to improving vehicles, in the same way we dedicated our resources towards the atomic bomb, in WW2, we will solve our energy problems for 1000 years, bury OPEC, and possible save the atomosphere, while improving our quality of life on a planetary scale.

I KNOW how to do it, and I KNOW it can be done.

The mileage requirements should be 75 MPG for cars and50 MPG for trucks.

regards
gary

Well I dug around a bit over there- not sure what it is exactly you are referencing. So, working with this:

I was perusing the offerings on another website when it occured to me the editorial comments seem to be pursuing an automotive ideal that would make America surpass Europe in electric, hybrid, and tiny. They appear to approve of new developments in vans, trucks, and semi's, but I always get the feeling they'd like to see them off the highway entirely.

I surmise re: electric, hybrid, tiny they are talking about Peak Oil and the need to pretty much be off oil altogether possibly in our lifetimes. Well, yeah, if there's no oil, or there is some but it's more expensive than the alternatives, what else are you going to do? It's no longer an IDEAL then; it's a NECESSITY. And if there are new developments that improve fe on vans, trucks, and semis, then that's good but it's not good enough if the premise is Peak Oil is real, so we still need to look beyond relatively minor improvements. They may have more trains in mind? Local production for local demand?

In the DeBord/Motavalli EV/future of cars "debate", they're saying oil will be pretty much done by 2050. Even the pro-oil guy doesn't disagree.

The "emissions deal" article was about the new national emission and fe standards. Much more streamlined than a patchwork of different state standards IMHO. No mention of trucks.

Sure looks that way. Maybe 40 years left of affordable oil and what have we got? Autostarts and millions of solo V8 4x4 commuters, ever lengthening commute distances and times, ever expanding population.

If people had any sense they'd have declared anything less than, say, 30 mpg for the family hauler unacceptable years ago. There's been 30+ mpg vehicles commonly available for 50 years now. But then, of course, when they do get something with double the fe, they shouldn't turn around and rack up double the miles. :rolleyes:

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

Show me where Cleanmpg is against work trucks. :confused: 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah, the 86 has a Rochester Quadrajet on it. In 87 they switched to a TBI system with computer controls.

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.

That is the first time I've heard that.

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. :rolleyes:

No emissions equipment, plus I upgraded it to electronic ignition, and platinum plugs. I also drove it like my grandmother stole it... LOL. If you behaved and set the cruise at 65 it would regularly get high 20's. I thought it was fantastic when I bought Rusty, because I thought "Imagine how far I could go on dual tanks" The answer - I needed dual tanks to go as far as 1 tank took me in the 74.

Also, consider that an old full size pickup has much less frontal area, and probably not much worse drag coefficient, than a modern full size pickup; less weight; maybe a smaller engine; and far less power...though maybe no overdrive gear.

Lightweight, yes. It was so rusty that my brother in law joked that I was only driving 1/2 a truck... LOL

It had a 350 w/ a Rochester Quadrajet, and a TH350 transmission. Rust holes in the fenders so large you could stick your arms through them, but had an a/c that was so cold it would frost up the windows on a 90 degree day, and would regularly get 25-27 if you were light on the pedal.

EDIT: I know what the difference is!!! The 74 Chevy pickup had hidden wipers - when not in use the wipers pulled underneath the hood, out of the airstream... LOL

A 1990 Corolla with the 4A-GE, a 4 speed auto, and port injected is rated at 22/30.

A 1988 Corolla with the 4A-G, a 4 speed auto, and feedback adjusted carburetor is rated at 23/31.

They are the same generation, transmission, and curb weights. The only difference was fuel injection.

Don't get me wrong, I love my EFI, but carburetors do a better job if they are tuned properly.

Interesting. I wonder if there's a way to compare apples to apples like that between a carburetor and a modern EFI that supports DFCO and etc.

That's just bad design. A FI vehicle is capable of far better fuel economy than a carbureted vehicle ever could. It's possible they tuned the FI car for better performance instead of economy. Why else would one buy a car with a carburetor instead of FI unless they were trying to save money.

When I initially bought Rusty, I was looking for an 86 because it was easier/cheaper to find people to work on Carbed engines. Now its the other way around. Its a challenge to find someone who knows what they're doing when working on a carb.

Same reason people don't buy electric cars. Because in the off chance they go on a road trip they want the ability to do it without trouble. You can't go in a carbbed car from Phoenix, AZ at 1,100 ft to Flagstaff, AZ at 6,900 ft and expect the car to run correctly there, it needs adjusted, and there is only 145 miles between those two towns! Either you do it or a mechanic does it. When you go back, it needs adjusted again. There is no reliable system for adjusting the mixture to compensate for altitude, only new jets.

EFI is more reliable, especially over time where a carb needs service at least once a year(recommended) an EFI system can go 200k with nothing more than an oxygen sensor change(if even that, my tracker had 110k on the factory O2 sensor and it worked flawlessly). EFI offers the ability to just program in a new fuel ratio by changing numbers in a chart. EFI offers a way to troubleshoot without knowing anything(code readers). EFI offers a way to centrally control all aspects of the emissions system. EFI lets you log mileage.

There are A LOT of reasons to use EFI.

EFI is easier to start, too.

I bet that if someone wanted to put the effort/money into it, they could develop a carburetor with electronically-adjustable jets.

My Buick has a carb with electronic mixture control. Its a piece of crap that nobody knows how to work on. Buick only made it for 2 years before they decided to say screw it, we're putting fuel injection in them....