Improve pickup truck mileage
 

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2008...ers-xfe-m.html

Well, Chevy is finally listening to people screaming about $4 gas. But you still have to wonder why they chose a big 5.3 liter V8 instead of the smaller 4.8 liter V8, 4.3 V6 or the 2.9 liter I4.

The six speed tranny would improve the low end "grunt" of the smaller engines.

And you have to wonder why they haven't gotten around to making an XFE Colorado pickup.

though it is a step in the right direction, it is only 1MPG better than the non-XFE version. you would think they could do better than that.

????

Not only that, but I'm getting better than XFE mileage in my 1998 Sierra with a 350 V-8 and over 150,000 miles.

-Jay

The 5.3 is the right choice for two reasons:

1. It's very efficient, relative to the 4.8 and the V6. It varies by year and model, but usually it's rated the same or better.

2. The most important part about making a more efficient model is that people have to buy and drive it. People want the 5.3.

yea but what about the smaller diesels for the 1500 series trucks everyone was promising for 2010. everyone being ford chevy and dodge. I think even toyota jumped on that bandwagon.

I would think that a diesel would sell better than any gas engine if towing was involved.

sorry, just fussing about the what ifs.

I don't think that most of the full size pickup market will buy anything less than 8 cylinders, even in a diesel (and regardless of the long history of 6 cylinder diesels used in commercial trucks).

Maybe Mahindra will be successful and change that.

My question is why don't they add a manual transmission to their Silverados?

You can get a 5 speed, but only on the "work truck" trim level, and only with the V-6 last time I checked. When I bought the Beast I was looking at new trucks, and asked to see a 5 speed, but they didn't even have one on the lot.

-Jay

The answer to that question is, (and I know I sound like a broken record here), nobody will buy it. It was available, once upon a time, but people weren't buying enough for it to be a cost-effective option to offer.

I think Dodge offers a manual transmission in some of their V8 full size pickups. I'm pretty sure they're the only one.

the dodge cummins turbo diesel (5.9 liter) is an inline 6 and has been that way until they recently changed it to a larger displacement but I think it is still an inline 6 and it got great power.

I have heard that dodge was going with a smaller V6 configuration that was going to yield roughly 200hp and 500 ft/lbs for the 1500 ram. I would buy that over the over inflated (in my opinion) hemi.

I disagree with the "people won't buy it" arguement when it comes to the diesel. look at the 2500 and 3500 trucks. most of them are diesels especially the people that use them for hauling. I can't remember a 1500 series truck with a diesel option. I have been told that they used to offer it but I wasn't around back then.

I do however agree with that arguement for the stick shift. I personally love a stick but most do not. sticks seem to be reserved for lower end cars and sports cars alone. good luck getting one in a truck or an SUV. I had to special order a truck to get the V8 and the manual and then found out that the max torque rating for the trans was just over the factory torque rating of the motor. I was very limited in what I could do with that truck so that I didn't mess up the trans.

last year, the diesels in the smaller full size trucks were all the craze on the dodge forum. everyone wanted one because it would outpull the hemi and (with modifications) outrun it as well. all that was speculation but there were high hopes.

Oh, there's no doubt in my mind that people will buy big-displacement diesels (including a whopping 5.9 liter V6). It's small diesels that I thought were being discussed.

As for the stick...I'm really not interested in having one in a truck. A car, yes, it's fun. Most new truck buyers feel the same way. Now, give me a good automatic transmission and good manual control of it and we're in business...

the 5.9 was an inline 6 (huge difference) torque out the tail. I have seen dyno sheets where the torque is 2.5 times the hp. very low rpms.

I was talking about the V6 that they were putting in the 1500 series trucks. I didn't want to guess at the displacement but for arguements sake, i want to say it was a 4.2 liter but I am not sure. not sure either about the mileage. the larger diesel was 300/600 where as this one is 200/500. I think the drive train of the 1500 series trucks couldn't handle the large engine. the drive shaft, axles, and rear end.


*edit* found this on the chevys. the dodge site is messed up right now so I can't seem to find anything on it right now.

https://www.autoblog.com/2007/06/15/g...the-hummer-h2/

*double edit* found some more on the dodge diesels. I was a little off on the numbers but here is what I found. also it states that these numbers may change.

https://www.dieselpowermag.com/tech/d...rformance.html

D'oh! You wrote "inline" and I just didn't pay enough attention to realize it. :)

The 4.5l Duramax in 1500 series trucks ought to sell okay (it still won't approach the 5.3's sales volume). Those who buy it will be very proud of it. Of note from the linked article:

I am a big fan of the diesel pickups. I have never been fortuate enough to have one just because they are so expensive. I have seen them push some major power. dyno days with diesels are very impressive. I heard about the smaller ones for the half ton trucks and thought....there is a diesel for me.

ironically, I just sold my truck to make way for a new baby in the family. I may never see a diesel (at least not a truck) in my driveway.

also, I agree with the 5.3 thing. there is a following for certain engines especially when you say chevy or ford. also, they tend to put a big premium upgrade price on diesels as well. I think the dodge one was an extra 5K when I was looking at trucks and that was almost 5 years ago.

I was thinking... A lot of people talk of removing the wipers - which I think is unsafe and should not be done, even if you use Rain-X (Which I do). Has anyone tried these wiper cowls like the following?

https://www.jcwhitney.com/autoparts/I...26668010258656

https://www.jcwhitney.com/wcsstore/jc...45958_CL_1.jpg

Anyone's thoughts, do you think its worth the cost?

-Jay

I love diesels, but nobody is going to pay a $12,000 premium for a 4.5 liter diesel that won't get better MPG than a gas pig. Tier II stuck them with those dratted barrier filters that choke all the effiency out of them

I am disappointed GM does not offer the T-56 manual transmission instead of a complex, expensive, fragile, and wasteful slush box. I reckon they think people are too busy blabbing on the cell phone to shift their own gears without the waste of a torque converter.

I think about the wiper issue often; they look like they must mess up airflow badly. However, what I've read is that the hood-windshield interface airflow works in such a way that the wipers don't affect it (whether it's very turbulent and broken anyway, or it's jumping up past the wipers somehow, I don't remember).

I'm glad to know there's a smooth, prefab product for the job. I suspect that the sharp drop/gap isn't so great, and I when I thought of making one I imagined a hinged cover that gets pushed up by the wipers as they emerge...

I look at removing wiper blades the same way as I do removing side view mirrors. will it help efficiency? probably in some insignificant way. will it be unsafe? that depends on the driver and I want all the help I can get.

I like the Plastic wiper cover. I think it gives a very clean look. I can't say how much it would help but it looks good. I don't think they offer them for all vehicles, just trucks.

holycow,
your idea about the hinged hide-away wipers kind of reminds me of what they did with the aptera (if I read it right). I think it would be hard to do on an existing vehicle and not really worth the small gains.

I have also heard that the wipers that bow out that give even pressure across your windshield are more aerodynamic. I can't remember what they are called but they cost about twice as much as the conventional ones.

*edit* OH MAN that thing is like 120 bucks!!! still looks good.

I tried folding my mirrors in on The Beast once, and I was flying blind. I was so scared that there was a car in my blind spot the whole time. The Big White Hooptie and my old 80 Bonneville and 74 Chevy p/u all have wiper cowls from the factory. The wipers pull back behind the hood when not in use. I think this was for purely astetic reasons, not for any aero advantage. I wonder why they took the cowl away on the trucks. My 74 Chevy and Rusty (86 Chevy) were both essentially the same truck. The 74 had a wiper cowl, and Rusty does not.

-Jay

I think the gains using the wiper cowl would be very small. there again, I haven't tested it so I don't know. I personally am not willing to pay that kind of money for something just to find out. it does look cool.

I would think that they had it on the trucks to see what people thought of it and they didn't get the response they thought they would, either that or they found a place to save a few bucks and didn't put it back on the next model year.

THe only thing I could think of is that the hood and fenders needed to be a few inches taller so when the wipers parked they were below the lip of the hood. Probably what really killed it was that the taller hood and fenders were creating a broader leading edge on the front of the truck, and that must have been worse aerodynamically than just having the wipers park on the glass, in the airstream. By my calcualtions, decreasing the height of the hood and fenders by a couple of inches lowered the surface area of the leading edge of the truck by almost 2 square feet. That body ran from model years 1973 through 1987, and was continued for about 2 years later on the suburbans and the 3500 model trucks. The redesign where the wiper cowl was removed was introduced in 1981. Probably taken off in the gas crisis of the late 70's.

-Jay

https://www.boschautoparts.com/NR/rdo.../0/Icon540.jpg

There's a few different manufacturers making similar wipers. My VW came stock with that type of wiper.

I, for one, don't want a V8 in my next truck. I've always been interested in range and fuel economy, most particularly when I go off road in northern Maine. Full size off-road vehicles are a joke. The Chevy Z71 pkg sucks fuel so badly that I would never buy it as my hunting vehicle. I'd have to drive out every 3 days to gas up.

As for V6's, it's still a mystery to me why GM still uses the antediluvian 4.3 liter V6 engine as the base truck engine, when its 3.9 V6 with Displacement on Demand and variable cam timing is sitting in the parts bin. This engine, coupled to the new 6 speed automatic and 3.23 axles would give good fuel economy in a decent 4x4. Where is my 25 mpg truck?

I am willing to pay V8 prices for a V6 with economy. I'm even willing to pay diesel prices for a gas V6 with economy. WAKE UP, GM, FORD, DODGE!

My step had a 1500 Chevy 350 diesel back around 1980. Just after that they had a bunch of small 4 cyl diesel options in the mini trucks. I almost bought a 1980-something Chevy Luv 4x4 diesel a couple years ago. I kept thinking how hard it would be to get parts for the engine.

I'd like to see the small and mid size trucks get small 4 cyl diesels. And see the full size 1/2 tons get small V-6 or small V-8 diesels in the 200-250hp and 350-400lb/ft range. Even a large displacement (4.0L or higher) inline or V-6 diesel in a half ton would do it for me.

99,

it's coming. check my post #12 and you will see two links. I don't know about the smaller trucks and the 4-cyl diesel but it is a good idea.

they have been talking about smaller diesels in the half ton for a while so I can't say for sure if we will see them when they say we will but it is a start

I was told at our training that Dodge has a diesel in the works for a half ton truck. The target fuel economy at the time was 25mpg hwy