Consumer Reports Pushes For HD Trucks To Get EPA Fuel Mileage Estimates

Sounds like a good idea, they should push the limit to 10,000 lbs or even 12,000 lbs so these HD trucks have to be EPA rated.

I also think for as long as we have a gas guzzler tax, it should be applied to all vehicles.  If they hit a Maserati that gets 14/20 mpg with a $2000 gas guzzler tax, then a Ram HD that gets 14/20 mpg should get a $2000 gas guzzler tax, a Suburban should get one, Toyota Land Cruiser, etc.   Even playing field.  Then you'll see a push for high fuel economy in trucks.  

The point the benevolent do-gooders @ CR apparently have no idea of is, full-size truck buyers, ESPECIALLY at the HD range, aren't cross-shopping much at all, and of the mere 3 brands available- are very comparable in a criteria that HD truck buyers just do not care about.

... and that makes listing mpg a bad idea why?...

No reason not to provide the MPG figures...would think those numbers would be of value esp. to fleet buyers who do buy some of the HD trucks.  

Actually, I disagree about HD truck owners not caring...

Manufacturers of Pick-Up trucks and full sized SUVs have gotten a free ride regarding emissions, gas consumption, gas guzzler tax and the like...

Manufacturers used those loop holes to continue to produce full sized trucks the way they used to do it with BOF full sized cars....some gas saving technology ended up going into these BOF full sized trucks as the V8s used in them also went into some of their passenger cars which WERE and STILL ARE SUBJECTED to strict gas consumption rules...

Would-be owners of these BOF full sized trucks were NEVER subjected to lose money DIRECTLY from their pockets...they did when their BOF cars were subjected to these rules...for those that switched from cars to trucks that is...but NOT those that were ALWAYS truck guys...

But...hit the BOF full sized truck owners in their pockets like how BOF car owners were in the 1970s and I assure you with great confidence and ARROGANCE that these proud owners of  BOF full sized trucks wont be so lovey dovey with their BOF full sized trucks anymore...

Those Escalade driving soccer moms and cowboy wannabe dudes in their Longhorn Rams and Denali GMCs and King Ranch F Series will think twice before making such an expensive purchase that will now affect them DIRECTLY...

And then there is the fleet owners...a fleet of these gas guzzling things where 1-2 MPG difference could mean (hundreds of?) thousands of dollars over the course of the life expectancy of the fleets...

In a land (United States of America) where dollars and cents on the bottom line is ALL that matters and that dollars and cents on the bottom line is ALWAYS calculated and factored in...yeah...I think this matters and WILL make a difference...

In olden days, fuel economy and cost of operation were actually taking points in truck advertising.  Came across a 1953 Ford truck ad whilst reading the new Collectible Automobile Magazine, and the ad emphasized economy. 

1 hour ago, FAPTurbo said:

... and that makes listing mpg a bad idea why?...

I didn't say it was bad, but that it was inconsequential.

My buddy has a brand new Sierra ext cab/standard bed 4x4, 5.3 AFM V8. Says he's getting great MPG, 24 on the highway (rated @ 18/24). But there's a clear delineation between half ton & 3/4T & above buyers. This article addresses 3/4T & 1T trucks- a segment that perhaps has the highest per capita product awareness in the industry. People who buy these either absolutely need them, or know going in what to expect. Also keep in mind this class of vehicle changes the least out of all segments of vehicles because of function dictates, which brings stability in awareness.

Self-appointed 'advocacy' entities such as CR here market their cause as protective, IE: in this case a theoretical 2500HD GMC buyer will end up regretting their purchase because a F-250 Super Duty is rated to get 1 MPG better on the highway. While no one will refuse better MPG on the face of it, the Big 3 are so close that it's not going to drive any sales shifts.

Nissan is in the HD game also, aren't they? 

If you say so. I don't trust anything coming out of the Far East- lots of shaky stuff there.

- - - - -

Here's an '81 F-150 half ton ad. 300 CI I6, touting  a thoroughly unbelievable 21/29 MPG.

I had the same truck in a '94 (300 I6 but w/ FI, 4-spd auto, 2WD, 3.08 gears). Still have the window sticker- it was rated at 15/20. I charted every tank of gas from 6 miles to 146,xxx, and it only averaged 15.

23 years later the 'same' truck ('17 Sierra 1/2-ton EC/standard bed, but with 5.3L AFM V8 & 6-spd auto) is rated at 18 vs. my '94's 15. Again: this is the most unchanged vehicle segment...

I failed to acknowledge this was a report from CR...

Although I wont change my stance on what I wrote....I agree with this totally...

14 minutes ago, balthazar said:

Self-appointed 'advocacy' entities such as CR here market their cause as protective

I HATE CR...    (that emoticon will have to do as there are none for CR...and because while Toyota was recalling their garbage...oil sludged Camrys, cracked and rusted pick-up truck frames, unintended accleration Lexus...CR STILL kept on recommending shytty Toyotas!)

Crappy reporting on ANYTHING they test...not only cars...Just utter bullshyte!

CR has long been suspect for refusing to lay out their 'formulas' for calculating their rating system.

1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

No reason not to provide the MPG figures...would think those numbers would be of value esp. to fleet buyers who do buy some of the HD trucks.  

Right, what does the manufacturer have to hide?

I don't think it's "hiding" anything- it doesn't seem to hurt MB that they list 51 individual models that are rated between 11 and 18 MPG. HD truck owners spend huge coin on trucks; they know what they like and what to expect. Duramax, Powerstroke & Cummins have all been around for going on 2 decades, and while they've gotten better, it's been incrementally.

Duramax has gone from the Allison 5 gear auto... to 6 gears. In 17 years.
In the same time frame the 1/2T has gone from 4 gears to 10 (2018 Escalade).

36 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I don't think it's "hiding" anything- it doesn't seem to hurt MB that they list 51 individual models that are rated between 11 and 18 MPG. HD truck owners spend huge coin on trucks; they know what they like and what to expect. Duramax, Powerstroke & Cummins have all been around for going on 2 decades, and while they've gotten better, it's been incrementally.

Duramax has gone from the Allison 5 gear auto... to 6 gears. In 17 years.
In the same time frame the 1/2T has gone from 4 gears to 10 (2018 Escalade).

MB is making a shift to electric in a hurry, so no fear on the gas mileage.  

An electric truck could make more torque than any of those Cummins or Powerstroke motors.  And emissions standards need to be tightened on those too, they should have the same standard as a gas car.   Those HD trucks emit a ton of black smoke and exhaust, and they should have to pay the same gas guzzler tax that a car has.

• MB makes no money on EVs, and they are grossly late to the party. Some might say they should have foreseen and beaten Tesla to the punch, or at least answered a 6 yr old product by now.
• Their reputation -as you claim it- is built on excess and V-12s, not 84-mile 2-ton compacts.
• Are consumers currently rejecting MB EVs suddenly going to go 'Hell Yeah America!' and buy them because they're built here? MB has no EV cred; actually its the opposite.

Right now, Ford offers far more TRQ than any Tesla (792 vs. 925). Tho it's possible to exceed that in an EV, it's easier to turn up the TRQ wick in a TD. Also, what penalties any EV truck would encounter under load is unknown, but given those EV cars see with HVA/C useage... it's likely to be a major factor (moreso than 1 or 2 MPG differences focused on here).

Not sure how there is any correlation between MB and EVs and US market heavy duty diesel trucks... way to go off-topic.

Sorry; here, back on topic:

12 hours ago, balthazar said:

I don't think it's "hiding" anything- it doesn't seem to hurt MB that they list 51 individual models that are rated between 11 and 18 MPG. HD truck owners spend huge coin on trucks; they know what they like and what to expect. Duramax, Powerstroke & Cummins have all been around for going on 2 decades, and while they've gotten better, it's been incrementally.

Duramax has gone from the Allison 5 gear auto... to 6 gears. In 17 years.
In the same time frame the 1/2T has gone from 4 gears to 10 (2018 Escalade).

Wouldn't a far greater service be rendered by listing MPG ratings for semi-trucks? These drive FAR more miles per vehicle and far quicker than any 3/4T / 1T trucks do, and their fuel costs are tied into the product they deliver. Even 0.1 MPG better would add up and effect more people than an individual getting 1.0 MPG better in a Brand X 3/4T / 1T personal truck over Brand Y. I'm reading that the 'holy grail' of loaded truck MPG is 10 MPG and they are currently around 5.5-6.5 MPG. No 3/4T-1T gets MPG that poor.

No Super Duty buyer is going to jump ship to Chevy because of 1 MPG better rating, so it serves no purpose. I'll bet under strictly level testing parameters, the Big 3 are within a MPG of each other- it's certainly not going to be, say; a 4 MPG difference. And even if it were, it's not going to sway brand allegiance.

I would assume fleet buyers of semi trucks compare brands with some sort of TCO calculation to determine which are the most cost-effective?   Individual owner-operators would be a different use case, of course.

The Freightliner Supertruck gets 12.2 mpg thanks to aero, hybrid system with waste heat recovery and solar panels and downsized diesel engine.  Another great innovation from Daimler, double the gas mileage of a typical semi truck.

Freightliner's Supertruck was a 2015 concept vehicle, it's not in production.
Peterbilt's Supertruck from 2014 posted very similar gains in MPG, but I don't think it's in production either.
 

that ad from 94, mpg ratings were calculated in an inflated fashion.  was is 2008 when they made the EPA standards more realistic and everything dropped like 15-20%?

HD truck buyers use trucks in so many more difficult conditions than the EPA test for normal cars.  Not sure the test outcome would even be relevant.  How do you address towing?  How much towing?  What is your load?  etc.

This is just people who love regulations just dying to regulate the shith out of something that is not, and by doing so create more taxes and penalty fines.  This is a money and power grab.  

If there were an agreement to rate fuel consumption on these beasts, then it would need a test specific to the uses of these vehicles.  And like i said they get used in so many different ways outside the realms of the usual comparative test.

10 hours ago, regfootball said:

This is just people who love regulations just dying to regulate the shith out of something that is not, and by doing so create more taxes and penalty fines.  This is a money and power grab.

Ten Million times 'YES'.

HD / Class 2 vehicle buyers know what they want, know about the vehicles moreso than any other buyer class, have never raised consumer complaints about MPG (which is very tightly comparable)... yet bureaucrats are sure they need 'saving'.

With American society now regulated up, down & sideways, lawmakers must justify their jobs by doing something. Anything non or underegulated 'must' become so, to 'move forward' and 'protect the people' [and generate a revenue stream].

Seems like a good way to piss money away having these trucks rated. I can't imagine this is a cheap process. 

The gas guzzler tax is for people who are buying a vehicle for fun and are taxed on it getting poor fuel economy. A truck owner who uses their truck for work or work related duties shouldn't be taxed additionally as he is contributing to the economy by using it for work or work related duties, unlike Joe Schmo in his Maserati. 

On 9/23/2017 at 7:52 PM, smk4565 said:

Those HD trucks emit a ton of black smoke and exhaust,

That's the owners' fault for modifying said vehicle. They do not do that when they're stock. I would have thought an enthusiast would have known that. 

Having many friends that have HD trucks, when gas prices hit north of $4, they quickly bought a 2nd auto for general purpose use. I am sure that does not happen as much in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and the midwest states where farms use these trucks.

I do agree that MPG should be rated and these trucks do put more wear and tear on the roads due to increased weight so the added tax should go to support the road system. Plenty of poor uses in people buying HD trucks, full size SUV's when they do not need them but that is the freedom of America. 

Post MPG, Tax fairly and equally and let those that can afford the gas to drive what they want. No reason to hide what HD auto's do with MPG.

30 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

That's the owners' fault for modifying said vehicle. They do not do that when they're stock. I would have thought an enthusiast would have known that. 

That's the shit-for-brains 'coal-rolling' bros..their illegally modified trucks should be seized and crushed.  Ignorance should be costly. 

8 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

That's the shit-for-brains 'coal-rolling' bros..their illegally modified trucks should be seized and crushed.  Ignorance should be costly. 

I agree, trucks like this should be taken off the streets and crushed.

I agree but it's probably a little difficult to catch as I would assume most aren't doing this around police officers. I do think it should be a ridiculous fine for harming the environment or whatever you want to call it. 

Most of them must live in rural places that don't do emissions inspections...don't see how such mods would pass inspection...

4 hours ago, ccap41 said:

Seems like a good way to piss money away having these trucks rated. I can't imagine this is a cheap process. 

The gas guzzler tax is for people who are buying a vehicle for fun and are taxed on it getting poor fuel economy. A truck owner who uses their truck for work or work related duties shouldn't be taxed additionally as he is contributing to the economy by using it for work or work related duties, unlike Joe Schmo in his Maserati. 

What about people that buy a heavy duty truck to go off roading for fun and don't use it for any business purpose?  What if your profession is stunt car driving instructor and you buy a CTS-V for work purpose and get gas guzzler taxed?

This is the problem. They either need to have no gas guzzler tax or tax everything under a certain threshold.  I have always favored a tax per gallon so it is on usage and not initial purchase.  

Quote

Having many friends that have HD trucks, when gas prices hit north of $4, they quickly bought a 2nd auto for general purpose use. I am sure that does not happen as much in Idaho, Montana, North Dakota and the midwest states where farms use these trucks.

Also having many friends with HD trucks, when gas hit north of $4, NONE of them bought a 2nd vehicle. I didn't either. These trucks do a lot more work than you might think in non-farm locales.

Quote

I do agree that MPG should be rated and these trucks do put more wear and tear on the roads due to increased weight so the added tax should go to support the road system. No reason to hide what HD auto's do with MPG.

They do pay- in fuel tax, same as even the tiniest gas car does. As Gov't analysts have already expressed numerous times- the issue with increasing MPG is less & less fuel tax collected, when infrastructure work costs on go up & up. This is why they are focusing on hitting EV drivers big time. And you thought you'd be rewarded for being green.
And there is no hiding of anything; anyone at anytime can easily research online sources to find out real world MPG on HD trucks. It's not a secret.

Quote

What about people that buy a heavy duty truck to go off roading for fun and don't use it for any business purpose?

What about people who drive 100 MPH or more, or take turns at .9 Gs or more? They're putting far more wear on the road than those doing the speed limit (esp in cornering); either de-engineer all cars to a limit of .80 lateral acceleration, or limit all cars to 75 MPH to save the infrastructure. Get some nice tall-sidewall tires on cars, too, nice & squishy. And ban anything over 400 HP- not necessary. OR... if you prefer; engineer the black boxes to tabulate aggressive driving and bill drivers monthly. Your choice... you know: so it's "fair".

Quote

They either need to have no gas guzzler tax or tax everything under a certain threshold.

The latter is already in place.

1 hour ago, smk4565 said:

What about people that buy a heavy duty truck to go off roading for fun and don't use it for any business purpose?  What if your profession is stunt car driving instructor and you buy a CTS-V for work purpose and get gas guzzler taxed?

This is the problem. They either need to have no gas guzzler tax or tax everything under a certain threshold.  I have always favored a tax per gallon so it is on usage and not initial purchase.  

Show me one person using a heavy duty truck for off road fun and why it has jack to do with what’s being talked about here. 

23 minutes ago, surreal1272 said:

Show me one person using a heavy duty truck for off road fun and why it has jack to do with what’s being talked about here. 

It has to do with the unfairness of a gas guzzler tax.  You can't tax Vehicle A that gets 14/19 mpg and not tax vehicle B that gets 11/15 mpg because it weighs more.  The Cadillac CTS-V has a gas guzzler tax, the Mercedes-AMG G65 does not.  That makes no sense; the "working man" isn't buying a $218,000 G-wagen that gets 13 mpg highway.   And the G65 buyer pisses on  $2000, they'd pay a $2k gas guzzler tax because they need to be seen in Beverly Hills with the most obnoxious car.

FIFY : OLDEST car.

Most HD trucks are diesels, which pay markedly more in fuel tax. They also get driven more than sports cars per year and per vehicle lifetime and get worse MPG. They pay far more than any sports car/limited use vehicle despite a CTS-V having a $1000 GG tax. It's fair.

4 hours ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Most of them must live in rural places that don't do emissions inspections...don't see how such mods would pass inspection...

Sadly not all states emission test Diesel like they do gas which is stupid. Course I put illegal headers on my suburban which helped to improve the engine including lower emissions and the test place was shocked when it tested cleaner than when it was new and OEM only. Stupid laws sometimes hurt people who try to do better with newer technology.

If only the actual testers knew what they were looking at, most have zero knowledge of auto's to know if something is not OEM.

1 minute ago, dfelt said:

Sadly not all states emission test Diesel like they do gas which is stupid. Course I put illegal headers on my suburban which helped to improve the engine including lower emissions and the test place was shocked when it tested cleaner than when it was new and OEM only. Stupid laws sometimes hurt people who try to do better with newer technology.

If only the actual testers knew what they were looking at, most have zero knowledge of auto's to know if something is not OEM.

One thing that needs to change w/ inspections I think is cutoff years...do 30-40yr old vehicles still need emissions inspections, given how few are still on the road relative to the # of newer vehicles?  An anecdotal example---a buddy of mine in Phoenix has had to go through hoops and carburetor rebuilds every two years, etc to get his '84 FJ60 so it will pass inspection, then readjust everything afterward to make it more drivable.  He's planning to get a LS3 crate engine installed from a shop in Seattle that specializes in such conversions. 

I have no problem with it, but note that USAToday reported in 2015 that the amount of cars on the road in the US 25 years or older is estimated to be 14 million.
'Historic'- registered vehicles in NJ are exempt from any sort of inspection. Tho I would have been highly intrigued to see my '40 go thru inspection.

7 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I have no problem with it, but note that USAToday reported in 2015 that the amount of cars on the road in the US 25 years or older is estimated to be 14 million.
'Historic'- registered vehicles in NJ are exempt from any sort of inspection. Tho I would have been highly intrigued to see my '40 go thru inspection.

14 million is only about 5% of the registered vehicles in the US, though...not a big deal if those don't get emission inspections, IMO...and how many miles do those older vehicles drive per year compared to newer vehicles?  Very few I would think on average..

1 hour ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

One thing that needs to change w/ inspections I think is cutoff years...do 30-40yr old vehicles still need emissions inspections, given how few are still on the road relative to the # of newer vehicles?  An anecdotal example---a buddy of mine in Phoenix has had to go through hoops and carburetor rebuilds every two years, etc to get his '84 FJ60 so it will pass inspection, then readjust everything afterward to make it more drivable.  He's planning to get a LS3 crate engine installed from a shop in Seattle that specializes in such conversions. 

Crazy but smart, Washington is planning to end emission inspections next year in 2018 due to no real change has been detected in the last 5 years for emissions so politicians have stated they would payout a pension to the employees and close them down. 

While I agree emission inspection can be ended, I have seen way too many damaged unsafe newer auto's on the road, I think they should flip the emissions inspection to a safety inspection for everything from belching smoke due to burnt rings to headlights and tail lights out as well as uncovered bumpers and body damage that no longer does the original job.

Driving is a privilege earned and we need to keep the roads safe and I think that needs to come via safety inspections. 

20 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I have no problem with it, but note that USAToday reported in 2015 that the amount of cars on the road in the US 25 years or older is estimated to be 14 million.
'Historic'- registered vehicles in NJ are exempt from any sort of inspection. Tho I would have been highly intrigued to see my '40 go thru inspection.

Would they even know what to inspect let alone understand the technology of that era.  

One thing I was happy about was I don't have to get emission inspections for my Jeep, even though my county does do inspections..too new I guess, even though it was brought in from out of state as a used vehicle from Arizona (originally sold new in California). 

Agreed on the safety inspections, Arizona and Ohio don't have them as far as I know..saw too many rolling wrecks in AZ and some in Ohio also...

I remember going thru inspection in the late '80s in a '53 Merc- the emission standard they tested to was "1968 and earlier". Don't recall if it passed (was a buddy's car).

Moltar- by percentages, 14M vehicles isn't much, and I agree with your statement. But the greenies are going to knash & wail over "14 million" and predict the End of the World.

dfelt- ending all emissions may be backed up via scientific testing, but I sense more knashing & wailing and political finger pointing. Should be... wearysome.

15 hours ago, smk4565 said:

What about people that buy a heavy duty truck to go off roading for fun and don't use it for any business purpose?  What if your profession is stunt car driving instructor and you buy a CTS-V for work purpose and get gas guzzler taxed?

This is the problem. They either need to have no gas guzzler tax or tax everything under a certain threshold.  I have always favored a tax per gallon so it is on usage and not initial purchase.  

LOL the 3 stunt car drivers driving CTS-Vs will be "okay". Let's just cater to every nook and cranny in the system yet you and I will pay for this process to get under way.  

I can tell by your post that you live in a much more urban environment than suburban/country. Yes, there are some HDs that get modified but most HD trucks are used for trucks. One of my best friends has a 2010 Cummins Ram and he uses it weekly for hauling seed. Work. 

14 hours ago, smk4565 said:

It has to do with the unfairness of a gas guzzler tax.  You can't tax Vehicle A that gets 14/19 mpg and not tax vehicle B that gets 11/15 mpg because it weighs more.  The Cadillac CTS-V has a gas guzzler tax, the Mercedes-AMG G65 does not.  That makes no sense; the "working man" isn't buying a $218,000 G-wagen that gets 13 mpg highway.   And the G65 buyer pisses on  $2000, they'd pay a $2k gas guzzler tax because they need to be seen in Beverly Hills with the most obnoxious car.

If you added that tax you'd be taxing almost all truck buyers. As it stands all truck/SUV/crossovers/minivans are exempt from the gas guzzler tax. I mean, that'd be fine, I guess. 

I assume it is half because trucks are used for trucks and the others for hauling more people therefore more seats, usually. CTS-V is a rare one that has 5 seat belts and gets the gas guzzler tax. I think it's safe to say that most that get that tax are 2-seaters and it is a pure luxury being able to own a car like that, hence taxing it. 

http://blog.consumerguide.com/gas-guzzler-tax/ 

2 hours ago, ccap41 said:

If you added that tax you'd be taxing almost all truck buyers. As it stands all truck/SUV/crossovers/minivans are exempt from the gas guzzler tax. I mean, that'd be fine, I guess. 

I assume it is half because trucks are used for trucks and the others for hauling more people therefore more seats, usually. CTS-V is a rare one that has 5 seat belts and gets the gas guzzler tax. I think it's safe to say that most that get that tax are 2-seaters and it is a pure luxury being able to own a car like that, hence taxing it. 

http://blog.consumerguide.com/gas-guzzler-tax/ 

A G-wagon isn't pure luxury?  If there is a gas guzzler tax to begin with it should be applied to MPG rating, not body styles.  It is like saying we will tax cars but not trucks, so people buy more trucks thus cause more pollution do more road damage.  Doesn't make sense.

Oh it absolutely is, but a G65 that probably sells only a couple hundred a year shouldn't be something we're looking to put more restrictions on or giving a sh!t about. 

They are saying they'll tax cars and not trucks, but only gaz guzzlers.

And like balthy has already said, these people are punished(or paing their taxes) at the gas pumps because you're comparing HDs that get driven 10-40,000 miles a year to super cars that get driven MAX of a few thousand miles. 

The CTS-V is the biggest outlier as it's 4 doors and probably the 2nd cheapest vehicle to get that tax next to the Z06.