Industry News: EPA Announces A Roll-Back On Obama's Fuel Efficiency Regulations

[William Maley]

In a move that was expected to happen soon, the EPA announced that it plans to revise the fuel-efficiency regulations that were approved during the President Obama administration. 

“The Obama EPA’s determination was wrong. Obama’s EPA cut the midterm evaluation process short with politically charged expediency, made assumptions about the standards that didn’t comport with reality and set the standards too high,” said EPA chief Scott Pruitt in a statement today. 

The statement goes on to say that the agency will begin working on new standards for cars for 2022-2025 with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

The regulations that were finalized during Obama's tenure would require automakers to have fuel economy fleet average of over 50 mpg by 2025. Automakers have been pushing for the standards to be rolled back as it would cause vehicles to become more expensive, and consumers aren't buying fuel-efficient vehicles.

“This was the right decision. To ensure ongoing fuel economy improvement, the wisest course of action is to keep new vehicles affordable so more consumers can replace an older car with a new vehicle that uses much less fuel -- and offers more safety features," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers - a trade group that represents a dozen automakers including GM and Ford.

Unsurprisingly, this move has brought forth criticism from both consumer and environmental groups.

“EPA’s decision defies the robust record and years of review that show these targets are reasonable and appropriate,” said David Friedman, director of cars and products policy and analysis for Consumers Union, the advocacy division of Consumer Reports.

“Undermining these consumer protections will cost consumers more at the pump while fulfilling the wishes of the auto industry.”

The EPA also announced that it was considering revoking California's waiver that allows it to set its own emission rules that are tougher than the federal regulations. Aside from California, 12 other states have adopted these standards that together account for a third of car sales in the U.S.  Since President Donald Trump entered the white house, the relationship between the EPA and California has become very strained. California officials have vowed to fight back if the EPA goes forward.

Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

View full article

[riviera74]

Personally, I have never been a fan of CAFE.  I do think the last administration's EPA went too far.  The problem with CAFE is that it tells automakers to do what consumers should do instead: buy the right vehicle for their needs.  If gas prices rise  above $4 again, then consumers (when they can) will dump the gas-guzzling SUVs for fuel-sipping hybrids or even electric vehicles.  The gas tax (or better still, a VAT on crude oil and its distillates) is a far superior way to improve fuel economy through markets and consumer response rather than through federal mandates.

Auto safety, on the other hand, does not have a pricing mechanism.  Hence the need for (most of) those regulations to stand as is.  I doubt that this administration's EPA will end CAFE altogether since that would require a new law to replace the one from 1975.  But I will welcome the end of CAFE, since it is heavily biased towards trucks and against large sedans from the get-go.  One last thing: CARB exists for good reason (LA smog is a real health issue), but they can also buy (and do) cars that currently meet tougher European standards since many automakers already in many respects meet them overseas.

[ocnblu]

Hallelujah, it is about time cold hard reality sets in where government involvement is concerned.  Also I fully and robustly support curbing California.  Bunch of loons out there far removed from normalcy.  A 50-state standard is best for the country.

No one can regulate hearts, minds, desires.  I say if you have the money... SPEND IT HOW YOU WISH.  Is that a radical idear in 2018?

 

 

[oldshurst442]

13 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

  I say if you have the money... SPEND IT HOW YOU WISH.  Is that a radical idear in 2018?

 

 

 

Sure...but isnt that how the bubble burst in 2009?

13 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

No one can regulate hearts, minds, desires. 

Great...but didnt deregularization of Wallstreet in the 1980s by a Republican cause all that greed and shyte to hit the fan and send all of our jobs elsewhere and in the process creating a throw-out society which eventually led to the aforementioned bubble...oh...the de-regularization of mortgages in the 1990s by a Democratic also lead to that and now this current guy in power wants to bring back the jobs...

 

 I guess it would be a radical idear....

To have no limits JUST BECAUSE we can...because 'Merica Godammit!

 

because obviously we humans have self-control and our leaders and our barter entrepreneurs care about the welfare of our being and are responsible and in no way do all of us as a species destroy the very phoquing planet we inhabit... 

 

I dedicate this song to you, because birthday

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by oldshurst442

[oldshurst442]

Fuel efficiency?

Those targets COULD be met.

Question is...there are a couple of questions actually...

1. Do we as a society WANT to change?

2. Do we as a society WANT to sacrifice?

3. Do we as a society ACCEPT the responsibility and do we ACKNOWLEDGE the shyte we are doing? 

Or do we as a society just say, "not my problem" and just go out of are way to do what the phoque we want to do and just damn the phoquing planet because either

1. #fakenews

2. Wont be around when it is truly too late

 

I aint a tree hugger by any means

 

But...

 

I cant seem to forget the message in that 1960s movie either...

 

I love me some 707 horses.

But I could live with just 1

if it would come down to it.  If it meant that we needed to. 

Im not sure our selfish society would want to do the same. 

*SIGH*

And no...its not all about doom and gloom.

But the thing is..going forward into OUR future...the whole phoquing planet has become selfish. 

Oh well...not my problem I guess...

1. #Fakenews

2. Ill be loooooong gone to see if doomsday is truly a reality or not. 

 

Edited April 3, 2018 by oldshurst442

[smk4565]

I think automakers could hit the standard with more electrification, which would make cars more expensive, but they can price war it out and cut profits if they wanted, none of these car makers are hurting.   That being said I could see keeping the 54 mpg standard but pushing it back to 2030 to give carmakers more time.

I also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

And that being said, what the EPA wants to do doesn't matter because California doesn't want to play this game.  California will win any legal battle because CARB was there first, and there is ZERO PERCENT chance that car companies make a car they can't sell in California (or states with it's emission laws) because 1/3rd of all new cars are under California rule, no one is throwing away 1/3 of their volume.  

[Scout]

43 minutes ago, smk4565 said:

also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

I believe a tax would would have a similar effect as well. However the government would just squander any additional revenue from the tax. Knowing government, they would probably use the tax to start a new/additional agency devoted to how to force more fuel efficiency. 

[daves87rs]

On 4/2/2018 at 7:59 PM, ocnblu said:

Hallelujah, it is about time cold hard reality sets in where government involvement is concerned.  Also I fully and robustly support curbing California.  Bunch of loons out there far removed from normalcy.  A 50-state standard is best for the country.

No one can regulate hearts, minds, desires.  I say if you have the money... SPEND IT HOW YOU WISH.  Is that a radical idear in 2018?

 

 

 

Well, I kinda agree with this....

 

In the last 10 years, we have improved things by leaps and bounds. EV is growing, and is slowly getting there. There are already many cars that can reach 50mpg now......

But here's the catch-unless we want to start paying close to 50k per new car, the tech needs to be able to play catch up. A Cobalt at 16k in 2010 is now nearly 26k (Cruze) in 2018. Cheapest new cars are creeping close to 20k. Someone forgot at some point to realize people need to pay for these too...and we wonder why everyone is leasing now! New car sales are close to a crashing point....might be nice to soften the blow a bit. If prices are able to drop some, it will bring more folks in to the market that might not have been there before.

Also, with the growth of EV, this also allows it to grow with different ways to power up. It allows for more solar or wind, or heck-even the burning of trash! Time to start really putting coal to rest.......

 

I am not worried....the automakers will continue to look for better ways to improve their products (including gas mileage) Also, gas mileage will lessen a bit as more EVs start hitting the road as well.....

[A Horse With No Name]

I am going to enjoy this...watching stupid people do stupid things means we have the right to laugh at them. Rest of the world will pass us by methinks. Tesla is starting to go in the tank and will not recover IMHO.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facing-u-s-tariffs-china-plans-countermeasures-1521632332

Just like trade wars are coming back to haunt us, this will come back to haunt us.

On 4/2/2018 at 9:58 PM, smk4565 said:

I think automakers could hit the standard with more electrification, which would make cars more expensive, but they can price war it out and cut profits if they wanted, none of these car makers are hurting.   That being said I could see keeping the 54 mpg standard but pushing it back to 2030 to give carmakers more time.

I also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

And that being said, what the EPA wants to do doesn't matter because California doesn't want to play this game.  California will win any legal battle because CARB was there first, and there is ZERO PERCENT chance that car companies make a car they can't sell in California (or states with it's emission laws) because 1/3rd of all new cars are under California rule, no one is throwing away 1/3 of their volume.  

California and the rest of the world.

[A Horse With No Name]

23 minutes ago, dfelt said:

@ocnblu Narrow thinking and destruction of the planet. Greed destroys all and sadly idiots wanting to live in the past have put idiots in office that also want to live in the past and have no ability to think about the future.

Education is the great equalizer and yet without education we have caste systems, racism and destruction of our planet and immediate home around us. 

Take off your hate to change horse with blinders on approach to life and get out and travel and see the world. You just might realize that the world is a worthwhile place to live in and take care of by living in balance with the ecosystem that humans seem to be hell bent on destroying.

Delay of the super high MPG would have been just fine by 10-15 years. Sadly morons that want to believe in their own faith of something rather than science will hurt more than help this world we all live in.

I hope you can enjoy your life when leaded gas comes back to clog your air and world with smog.

I would not mind fossil fueled vehicles if their proponents would pay for the foreign wars, the cost of escorting tankers, the moral cost of doing business with people like the highly corrupt Saudi's, the need to maintain a political alliance with apartheid Israel so we have at least one friend in the region, the environmental costs of fracking, the heath costs of polluted air, and the like.

All of this goes unaddressed by the fossil fuel advocates so I guess they are conceding this argument to people on my side of the fence. Morally this decision by the administration is ethically is vile IMHO.

But again, in that case, if those costs were up front costs, fuel would be $25 a gallon at least...and electric cars would win in a free market world of actual realized costs.

[A Horse With No Name]

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/04/05/ecuadorean-villagers-may-still-triumph-over-chevron/

More on how Dead Dino juice is not in our best interests...getting rid of or at least cutting the financial hegemony of Oil companies would be so good for humanity.

[Drew Dowdell]

CAFE is largely what has moved people into crossovers and trucks.  If CAFE were to continue, it should be equally enforced on trucks and SUVS. 

Imagine how fuel efficient an F-150 could be if, instead of inflating it as quickly as American asses are getting fat, they kept it the size of 20 years ago. 

[Scout]

On 4/2/2018 at 6:58 PM, smk4565 said:

also think adding a 25 cent per gallon federal gas tax would promote fuel efficiency better than CAFE, and we need tax revenue to pay roads since the Gov't has such a ridiculous deficit.  

I believe a tax would would have a similar effect as well. However the government would just squander any additional revenue from the tax. Knowing government, they would probably use the tax to start a new/additional agency devoted to how to force more fuel efficiency. 

[Scout]

I don't know why when I tried to reply that posted what I posted earlier but it did so now it's there twice I guess.

 

Anyway what I was going to say is you can't condemn fossil-fuel because it was the best option for a hundred years. Now other Technologies are getting better equipped to replace fossil fuel. We are not there yet but one day we will be.  Remember hydrogen fuel cells was a big thing? Don't see much about that anymore do we. Then there was the CNG That was supposed to be much better. Don't see much about that now either do we. It does appear electric will be do way things go however we are not ready for all electric yet. And it may be another 50 years before all electric is ready to replace fossil fuel. Our best thing going now for weaning yourself off of fossil fuel is the hybrids which helped use less fuel. One day I am sure we'll get there, however technology and infrastructure also have to be ready. That being said you shouldn't condemn people for loving their big gas-guzzling vehicles and supporting terrorists because as of today that's just how things work.

 

With all that said I still believe government intervention is not the best answer. I have rarely seen government involved in anything that it did not follow up. So that means as far as I am concerned the government can take the EPA and stick it up its bleep.

Edited April 5, 2018 by Scout

[A Horse With No Name]

Condemning fossil fuel and saying we need to move away from it are two separate ideas entirely.

[balthazar]

6 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Imagine how fuel efficient an F-150 could be if, instead of inflating it as quickly as American asses are getting fat, they kept it the size of 20 years ago. 

I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

[Robert Hall]

2 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

Maybe it's a combination of larger wheel size and bigger grilles, badges, lights, etc but they certainly appear to be much larger.. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[G. David Felt]

5 minutes ago, balthazar said:

I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

I would have to agree as the weight has BALLOONED since all the required safety gear that has pushed up weight and roll over protection.

[balthazar]

Don't discount the weight contribution of all the sensors and cameras & 18 airbags and TPMS and adaptive CC and rain-sensing wipers and .....

[ocnblu]

22 hours ago, dfelt said:

@ocnblu Narrow thinking and destruction of the planet. Greed destroys all and sadly idiots wanting to live in the past have put idiots in office that also want to live in the past and have no ability to think about the future.

Education is the great equalizer and yet without education we have caste systems, racism and destruction of our planet and immediate home around us. 

Take off your hate to change horse with blinders on approach to life and get out and travel and see the world. You just might realize that the world is a worthwhile place to live in and take care of by living in balance with the ecosystem that humans seem to be hell bent on destroying.

Delay of the super high MPG would have been just fine by 10-15 years. Sadly morons that want to believe in their own faith of something rather than science will hurt more than help this world we all live in.

I hope you can enjoy your life when leaded gas comes back to clog your air and world with smog.

Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.  The previous administration rushed these unrealistic standards through at the eleventh hour, knowing full well the ramifications.  And the day of reckoning has come.  A rollback is simply common sense.  It allows car makers to sell what people want to spend money on.  Any business that does not give the customer what they want will eventually die.  If someone wants a Volt or Bolt and does not mind being tethered to the cord, let them have it.  If someone wants a Suburban with 6.2L of manly power, let them have it.  Since Drew has let this post of yours stand and has taken down my post condemning your personal attack on me and millions of others, I will keep posting in my defense until more people can see my point of view here.  I am sure this will not be here the next time I check this board, but hopefully the censors here will be asleep long enough so that somebody sees this.

[A Horse With No Name]

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.  The previous administration rushed these unrealistic standards through at the eleventh hour, knowing full well the ramifications.  And the day of reckoning has come.  A rollback is simply common sense.  It allows car makers to sell what people want to spend money on.  Any business that does not give the customer what they want will eventually die.  If someone wants a Volt or Bolt and does not mind being tethered to the cord, let them have it.  If someone wants a Suburban with 6.2L of manly power, let them have it.  Since Drew has let this post of yours stand and has taken down my post condemning your personal attack on me and millions of others, I will keep posting in my defense until more people can see my point of view here.  I am sure this will not be here the next time I check this board, but hopefully the censors here will be asleep long enough so that somebody sees this.

I am asking Drew to leave this up. I disagree vehemently with Bill but will fight tooth and nail to let him express his viewpoint.

Also, let me be clear-I actually want the 6.2 L of Suburban Manly suburban thing to survive in some way shape or form, as does David-you won't find a bigger supporter of SUV's here than David.

From a personal standpoint, I would love to see humanity come together, reclaim the Sahara, and use sunlight to grow algae based or plant based stock for liquid fueled internal combustion vehicles. Would love to see things like the Boeing 777 and Airbus 350 keep flying even after the stocks of natural petroleum are (eventually) depleted.

And now for the counter point...just because people want to spend their money on something does not make it moral of right. There would be a huge market for child porn if it was legal.

Edited April 6, 2018 by A Horse With No Name

[ccap41]

17 hours ago, Scout said:

Remember hydrogen fuel cells was a big thing? Don't see much about that anymore do we.

I believe both Toyota and Honda have production cars out in California. 

I'm still a firm believer that eventually, when the process gets much more efficient and cheaper, that it will be the real way of the future. 

11 hours ago, balthazar said:

I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

I think it's dimensional-ly because CAFE has to do with it's footprint and fuel economy. That's why the F150 is as wide as it can be without putting the marker lights on it like the HD/SDs have on the cab(and Raptor in the grille). 

[ccap41]

2 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.

It's just ironic that he has a Suburban and Trailblazer SS... Just say'n... I also think an Escalade.. 

[Robert Hall]

i have to laugh at the thin-skinned hypocrisy of Mr Blu, though....he slags on Californians and left wingers constantly, yet takes slight at any criticism of right wingers. 

[Drew Dowdell]

Any further personal attacks will result in warning points being handed out. 

[Drew Dowdell]

12 hours ago, balthazar said:

I'm going to guess you're talking about weight, because in your example, the dimensional differences are about 5%. Weights are hugely up, but that has nothing to do with physical size here.

Weight, yes, but also capabilities.  I'm not against increasing the capabilities of the 150/1500 series trucks, however there is no lower alternative for those who do not need such capacity... the mall runners... etc.  A trimmer F150 / Sierra 1000 would be fine for a lot of these McMansion garage queen trucks. Heck, still load them up with the Lincoln level goodies, but they don't need the frame capacity to tow 10,000 lbs.  The mid-size trucks are still too small for those who purchase the full sizers. 

 I'm exactly in that demographic.  I want a truck capable of putting a motorcycle in the back, but I don't need huge towing capacity.  At the same time, I need a real back seat that can be used for long distance travel, the Colorado/Ranger/Taco can't really offer that. The F150 is overkill. 

[oldshurst442]

25 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Any further personal attacks will result in warning points being handed out. 

I got plenty of those in the past! 

*SIGH*

Unfortunately, those kinds of points are not redeemable for prizes though...  

[Robert Hall]

I like the idea of a midsize truckish SUV with a nice interior, a small bed, and decent towing capacity.   A Jeep Grand Cherokee based vehicle that is similar in function to the Ridgeline would get my interest. 

[oldshurst442]

40 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Weight, yes, but also capabilities.  I'm not against increasing the capabilities of the 150/1500 series trucks, however there is no lower alternative for those who do not need such capacity... the mall runners... etc.  A trimmer F150 / Sierra 1000 would be fine for a lot of these McMansion garage queen trucks. Heck, still load them up with the Lincoln level goodies, but they don't need the frame capacity to tow 10,000 lbs.  The mid-size trucks are still too small for those who purchase the full sizers. 

 I'm exactly in that demographic.  I want a truck capable of putting a motorcycle in the back, but I don't need huge towing capacity.  At the same time, I need a real back seat that can be used for long distance travel, the Colorado/Ranger/Taco can't really offer that. The F150 is overkill. 

I see what you are getting at. 

Questions.

If a less capable fullsizer is to be engineered, because I would assume that the frame would be not the same frame, as the 10 000/15 000 lbs hauler frame the current quarter ton trucks offer:

1. Would  that be an added cost to the development of the fullsizer of a 5000-7000 hauling F-100 frame as opposed to a 10 000 F-150 frame?  Keeping of course the same external body panels, truck beds, mirrors, tires, windshields, doors, lights, dashboards etc...

2. If a fullsizer could have a lesser capable frame that of a "regular" quarter tonner, keeping of course the same truck but not the frame, why would a mid-sizer be of use?

3. Assuming the lesser framed quarter tonner, would also be more fuel efficient than its more capable brethen, because of a less sturdy frame and hence lighter frame and hence more fuel efficient....so...

4. If #3 is the case, is it safe to say that all these wannabes that wanna own a fullsized truck because bigger obviously means bigger dick and larger ballz,  if Ford, Dodge, Chevy and GMC would offer a less capable fullsizer, and the less capable fullsizer is ACTUALLY MORE fuel efficient, and the wannabes wont have ANY TELLTALE SIGNS that their dicks are smaller and their ballz produce less semen, would it be safe to say that a 50 MPG-54 MPG CAFE is more plausible?

WITHOUT having to resort to rolling back the CAFE numbers?

 

Just a SERIOUS question on a SERIOUS thought...

And yes...JUST because we COULD buy what we WANNA buy does NOT mean WE HAVE to buy JUST because WE COULD!!!!

Meaning....

NO!

I do NOT want the government DEMANDING me WHAT it is I HAVE to buy...

But OBVIOUSLY...not ONLY North Americans anymore, but the whole bloody planet in 2018, we ALL have become VERY VERY SELFISH!!!

Corporations DO NOT give two shytes about the welfare of OUR planet...

MONEY...

Money is NOT the END ALL BE ALL in the HUMAN quest of happiness...

and MONEY is CERTAINLY NOT the answer to Humanity's original question of "why are we here?" 

JUST SAYIN'!!! 

Edited April 6, 2018 by oldshurst442

[Drew Dowdell]

7 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

I like the idea of a midsize truckish SUV with a nice interior, a small bed, and decent towing capacity.   A Jeep Grand Cherokee based vehicle that is similar in function to the Ridgeline would get my interest. 

A Grand Cherokee EXT would be the bomb! Give it a 6,000 lb tow rating and it would be perfect.

[Robert Hall]

3 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

A Grand Cherokee EXT would be the bomb! Give it a 6,000 lb tow rating and it would be perfect.

Googling turned up this neat photoshop image someone created...this would be cool. 

Edited April 6, 2018 by Cubical-aka-Moltar

[ccap41]

57 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

 I'm exactly in that demographic.  I want a truck capable of putting a motorcycle in the back, but I don't need huge towing capacity.  At the same time, I need a real back seat that can be used for long distance travel, the Colorado/Ranger/Taco can't really offer that. The F150 is overkill.

How do the Taco/Canyonado not do that in crew cab 6ft bed form? 

[Drew Dowdell]

24 minutes ago, oldshurst442 said:

I see what you are getting at. 

Questions.

If a less capable fullsizer is to be engineered, because I would assume that the frame would be not the same frame, as the 10 000/15 000 lbs hauler frame the current quarter ton trucks offer:

1. Would  that be an added cost to the development of the fullsizer of a 5000-7000 hauling F-100 frame as opposed to a 10 000 F-150 frame?  Keeping of course the same external body panels, truck beds, mirrors, tires, windshields, doors, lights, dashboards etc...

2. If a fullsizer could have a lesser capable frame that of a "regular" quarter tonner, keeping of course the same truck but not the frame, why would a mid-sizer be of use?

3. Assuming the lesser framed quarter tonner, would also be more fuel efficient than its more capable brethen, because of a less sturdy frame and hence lighter frame and hence more fuel efficient....so...

4. If #3 is the case, is it safe to say that all these wannabes that wanna own a fullsized truck because bigger obviously means bigger dick and larger ballz,  if Ford, Dodge, Chevy and GMC would offer a less capable fullsizer, and the less capable fullsizer is ACTUALLY MORE fuel efficient, and the wannabes wont have ANY TELLTALE SIGNS that their dicks are smaller and their ballz produce less semen, would it be safe to say that a 50 MPG-54 MPG CAFE is more plausible?

WITHOUT having to resort to rolling back the CAFE numbers?

 

 

Yes it would be additional development costs of course... but just like we now have 25 "different" sizes of crossover in a single brand that are mere inches apart in size, I think it would sell.   Imagine another Ford truck, the F-100 say, that is 5% smaller than the F150 but has a more light duty build that cuts 10% - 15% of the weight out.  If the truck maxes out at 5k or 6k towing capactiy, they can build components lighter.  The F150 right now ranges from 5,500 lbs to 12,000 lbs towing, but even on the 5,500 lbs configuration, there is no difference in major components like drive shaft, differential, frame, axle, suspension... etc.  So the 5,500 lbs capable truck lugs around a lot of extra weight that it will never be able to utilize.

If Ford could swap out a bunch of those components for lighter duty parts, they could save a significant amount of weight, and weight is the biggest killer of fuel economy.  The truck could probably be powered by the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder as a base engine and save additional weight over a V6.  Once you don't have to engineer the platform to handle such high weights, it cascades a lot of vehicle mass away.   

Cutting 15% of the weight out of a SuperCrew 4x4 2.7 Ecoboost drops the weight 720 lbs from 4805 to 4085. That would be huge. Even a 10% drop would be 480 lbs. 

The Ranger is the quick and dirty answer to the problem, however, it doesn't address the needs of passenger space or bed volume that get people into an F-150 in the first place. 

6 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

How do the Taco/Canyonado not do that in crew cab 6ft bed form? 

The Crewcab is not suitable for putting my inlaws in for 5 hour drives. 

16 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

Googling turned up this neat photoshop image someone created...this would be cool. 

[ccap41]

2 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The truck could probably be powered by the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder as a base engine and save additional weight over a V6.

I've always wondered this.. How much savings is there really when you have turbos/heat exchanger/plumbing all added to the turbo 4? 

By chance, do you have any examples or engine weights with the turbo+components compared to their replaced V6? 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

I've always wondered this.. How much savings is there really when you have turbos/heat exchanger/plumbing all added to the turbo 4? 

By chance, do you have any examples or engine weights with the turbo+components compared to their replaced V6? 

In the case of the F150, there are still all of the turbo equipment to account for.  Most F150s are already sold in Ecoboost form... go going from 2.7EB to 2.3EB is really just dropping one turbo.  I have a meeting, but I'll see if I can find an example of what you're looking for. I'm thinking ATS 2.0T v. V6 or Camaro 2.0T v V6 will likely be the examples used. 

[ccap41]

6 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

The Crewcab is not suitable for putting my inlaws in for 5 hour drives. 

Yeah, that's understandable, that's a pretty long drive to be in there. They look pretty roomy but I've never been in the back of one. 

How often are you driving them that long? 

[Drew Dowdell]

Just now, ccap41 said:

Yeah, that's understandable, that's a pretty long drive to be in there. They look pretty roomy but I've never been in the back of one. 

How often are you driving them that long? 

Once a month or every other month.  We do trips from Pittsburgh to DC to my partner's sisters and his parents no longer do long distance drives.

[oldshurst442]

10 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Yes it would be additional development costs of course... but just like we now have 25 "different" sizes of crossover in a single brand that are mere inches apart in size, I think it would sell.   Imagine another Ford truck, the F-100 say, that is 5% smaller than the F150 but has a more light duty build that cuts 10% - 15% of the weight out.  If the truck maxes out at 5k or 6k towing capactiy, they can build components lighter.  The F150 right now ranges from 5,500 lbs to 12,000 lbs towing, but even on the 5,500 lbs configuration, there is no difference in major components like drive shaft, differential, frame, axle, suspension... etc.  So the 5,500 lbs capable truck lugs around a lot of extra weight that it will never be able to utilize.

If Ford could swap out a bunch of those components for lighter duty parts, they could save a significant amount of weight, and weight is the biggest killer of fuel economy.  The truck could probably be powered by the 2.3 liter 4-cylinder as a base engine and save additional weight over a V6.  Once you don't have to engineer the platform to handle such high weights, it cascades a lot of vehicle mass away.   

Cutting 15% of the weight out of a SuperCrew 4x4 2.7 Ecoboost drops the weight 720 lbs from 4805 to 4085. That would be huge. Even a 10% drop would be 480 lbs. 

The Ranger is the quick and dirty answer to the problem, however, it doesn't address the needs of passenger space or bed volume that get people into an F-150 in the first place. 

Yes. And thank-you.

I knew this of course. Your comment just reinforces my thought processes!  

[ccap41]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Once a month or every other month.  We do trips from Pittsburgh to DC to my partner's sisters and his parents no longer do long distance drives.

Yeah that's quite often as well.. Makes sense why you'd want the extra space. 

[Drew Dowdell]

ATS 2.0T RWD - 3,373 lbs

ATS 3.6 RWD - 3,461 lbs

So 88lbs with that change alone.

[G. David Felt]

5 hours ago, ocnblu said:

Calling people idiots and morons does not elevate you to genius status, David.  The previous administration rushed these unrealistic standards through at the eleventh hour, knowing full well the ramifications.  And the day of reckoning has come.  A rollback is simply common sense.  It allows car makers to sell what people want to spend money on.  Any business that does not give the customer what they want will eventually die.  If someone wants a Volt or Bolt and does not mind being tethered to the cord, let them have it.  If someone wants a Suburban with 6.2L of manly power, let them have it.  Since Drew has let this post of yours stand and has taken down my post condemning your personal attack on me and millions of others, I will keep posting in my defense until more people can see my point of view here.  I am sure this will not be here the next time I check this board, but hopefully the censors here will be asleep long enough so that somebody sees this.

I am as much an Idiot as Anyone else in this world and have to continue to learn and change all the time. Growing with Humanity to live in our universe and get our butts off this rock into space.

Life is ever changing and static is what kills off things not change. Embracing change is why I love and care about everyone  and everything and even you Blu. I would never want you to not speak your mind but please try and put yourself as I do in other people's shoes to understand why we need to evolve and why rolling back rather than extending the date of improving things is a mistake.

Wishing you the best in your life.

[G. David Felt]

@Drew Dowdell Maybe if they had taken the Trailblazer / Envoy EXT and made it a 5ft bed it would have been good.

After seeing this, I think if they had put a 5 foot bed on it, it would have been a better seller. Plus add electric motor assist for a hybrid.

[Drew Dowdell]

7 minutes ago, dfelt said:

@Drew Dowdell Maybe if they had taken the Trailblazer / Envoy EXT and made it a 5ft bed it would have been good.

After seeing this, I think if they had put a 5 foot bed on it, it would have been a better seller. Plus add electric motor assist for a hybrid.

Every time these come up it makes me want to go find a barely used Bravada, 9-7x, or Rainier.  They still are good looking SUVs. 

[G. David Felt]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Very cool, but could it fit a Motorcycle? plus with no wall between the seats, I would think it would be windy or was there a wall that I just did not see?

[Drew Dowdell]

1 hour ago, ccap41 said:

Yeah that's quite often as well.. Makes sense why you'd want the extra space. 

It would be out of the frying pan into the fire if we moved to a crewcab Taco or Canyonado from the Encore. The Encore does the trip, but it is really snug. Whatever we buy next will have more cabin space. What I really want is some larger long distance cruiser for those trips and something smaller sportier when it is just the two of us or just me. 

9 minutes ago, dfelt said:

Very cool, but could it fit a Motorcycle? plus with no wall between the seats, I would think it would be windy or was there a wall that I just did not see?

There is a wall there that can drop down ala Avalanche style. 

But it has a 6,200 lbs towing capacity... so I can use a Mototote. 

 

[ccap41]

CT6. Just carry the family in class. Find a used one for like 35-45k... Don't worry about the motorcycle just drive it everywhere lol 

CT6 V6 AWD

CT6 3.0TT AWD

[A Horse With No Name]

2 hours ago, oldshurst442 said:

I got plenty of those in the past! 

*SIGH*

Unfortunately, those kinds of points are not redeemable for prizes though...  

That's OK...you get a long distance hug from me in Columbus.

25 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Every time these come up it makes me want to go find a barely used Bravada, 9-7x, or Rainier.  They still are good looking SUVs. 

I still want a Trailblazer SS. Would tow a trailer when I need it and also haul a$$ when I don't.....

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

Once a month or every other month.  We do trips from Pittsburgh to DC to my partner's sisters and his parents no longer do long distance drives.

Higher speed passenger rail service was overdue 25 years ago. I deeply despise driving across PA. Turnpike is NOT fun to drive...ugh.

[ccap41]

1 hour ago, Drew Dowdell said:

ATS 2.0T RWD - 3,373 lbs

ATS 3.6 RWD - 3,461 lbs

So 88lbs with that change alone.

Yeah, that's a significant amount of weight. 

Thanks! 

[Drew Dowdell]

54 minutes ago, ccap41 said:

CT6. Just carry the family in class. Find a used one for like 35-45k... Don't worry about the motorcycle just drive it everywhere lol 

CT6 V6 AWD

CT6 3.0TT AWD

That can be the other car.  I'm not riding the motorcycle from Pittsburgh to Florida. That's why I want the mototote. Take it with me to my parents'.

[G. David Felt]

1 minute ago, Drew Dowdell said:

That can be the other car.  I'm not riding the motorcycle from Pittsburgh to Florida. That's why I want the mototote. Take it with me to my parents'.

Still think you should pick up a clean Escalade EXT.