Lighter pickups coming soon- but geez have they gotten fat!

[Frank Lee]

Good luck with that

[Laurentiu]

As far as engines go on pick-up, why not go the turbo-diesel way ? I NEVER understood why the US regulators are so anti-Diesel.

It's not uncommon to achieve 40 MPG (US) on EU-sold diesel trucks. As for smaller , sedan-derived pick-up, such as the 1.5 Diesel , 90 HP, Nissan NP200 (aka Dacia Logan Pickup), it can get 50+ MPG on the highway. And it has a decent 6 x 4.25 ft. bed. It's CO2 emissions are quite low as well.

[Clev]

Originally Posted by Laurentiu

As far as engines go on pick-up, why not go the turbo-diesel way ? I NEVER understood why the US regulators are so anti-Diesel.

NOx and particulate emissions. Particulates are particularly bad in areas like Southern California.

They're reformulating diesel to reduce the sulfur content in the U.S. This will allow manufacturers to use catalysts and other devices to reduce these emissions. I would expect diesels to be more accepted in the next 5-10 years as these emissions are brought under control and CO2 becomes a bigger target.

Unfortunately, they're doing the same thing to diesels they do to gasoline cars. California mandates squeakier-clean new car standards, but they completely exempt pre-1973 vehicles from any testing at all. Consequently, people legally drive old pieces of junk that emit 1,000 times more pollution than a new car.

Similarly, new diesels are getting tighter emissions controls, but existing commercial diesel trucks, buses and equipment can run as dirty as they want, and diesel pickup owners are buying "power chips" that basically spew partially burned fuel into the atmosphere as black smoke in order to cool EGTs and allow more power.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Laurentiu

As far as engines go on pick-up, why not go the turbo-diesel way ? I NEVER understood why the US regulators are so anti-Diesel.

I don't think regulators can be the whole cause, because there are a lot of diesel pickups on the roads around here. The problem is that the current engines are oversized, they're noisy, and they stink - and the people who buy them think that those are features! ("Lookit me, I'm a big bad trucker in my own 18-wheeler!")

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

I don't think regulators can be the whole cause, because there are a lot of diesel pickups on the roads around here. The problem is that the current engines are oversized, they're noisy, and they stink - and the people who buy them think that those are features! ("Lookit me, I'm a big bad trucker in my own 18-wheeler!")

Those are great features, my 82 suburban has all of them and best of all eaks out 26mpg with its former autotragic moving a couple K of crafts around, once I get a chance to test it with a double overdrive stick we shall see if my record gets broken or not. My father plans on using it as a dingy/trailer on trips to fairs and whatnot behind their motor home, it should get excellent FE on those trips and save fuel because they usually need a normal vehicle to hop around and collect packages/supplies, while they are on the road months at fairs.

One difference between my 82 and new TD's though is that it does not ever smoke and is emission controlled, but it still stinks as does all exhaust clear or not.

And I agree, it is NOT regulators, if diesels were widely available on the market and half the cars on the lot were diesel you would likely see a massive increase in the number of diesels on the road.

Many people will buy whatever is available on the lot out of fear of ordering and if diesels were there many people would have a diesel.

There is still great fear of diesel by certain people but market acceptance has more to do with how many are out there and marketing, not whether people want it.

Originally Posted by Clev

NOx and particulate emissions. Particulates are particularly bad in areas like Southern California.

They're reformulating diesel to reduce the sulfur content in the U.S. This will allow manufacturers to use catalysts and other devices to reduce these emissions. I would expect diesels to be more accepted in the next 5-10 years as these emissions are brought under control and CO2 becomes a bigger target.

Sadly they could just make diesel from CNG like Europe does on its jet fuel and there were be absolutely no need to reformulate or clean diesel as fuel made that way is naturally sulphur free. Then add a little BD for lubrication.

Originally Posted by Clev

Unfortunately, they're doing the same thing to diesels they do to gasoline cars. California mandates squeakier-clean new car standards, but they completely exempt pre-1973 vehicles from any testing at all. Consequently, people legally drive old pieces of junk that emit 1,000 times more pollution than a new car.

Somehow I doubt very many people drive pre73 cars, likely are some but not any important #.

Anyway the way you talk. everybody who drives an old car only drives 12 banger Bentleys and 500ci Caddies or Herse's?

My 81 Comutacar is electric, the 70 Subaru gets in the 50's on a bad day in town no less. I've also been told that it passes pollution checks so long as it is allowed to get up to operating temperature first. (and doesn't have an exhaust leak)

There are economical cars from the early years kept on road just as there are gas gusslers.

Needless to say if you count ALL pollution emitted, your volume is directly related to the amount of gas you burn, you can't make up pollution out of nowhere, true a clean car emits more CO2 and less exotics but it is still emitting the same total of carbon out the tailpipe if you compare an old 50mpg car to a New one.

Also I have been told that many areas test ALL vehicles, several of the Subaru club members have been complaining about tailpipe sniffers not choosing the right test protocal for the 2cylinder subaru.

Cheers
Ryan

[usergone]

As pertains to the original subject (and title) I'm sure that if someone started selling kit cars and/or building/titling kits, that were built from aluminum/titanium with a small 2 or 3 cylinder TDI and a manual or dual slip clutch transmission, modest aerodynamics and cargo space, I'm sure people would be all over it. The presumable reason that we don't see too many of those around is the red tape. Maybe cost, too, but not as much IMHO.

In Texas, any fuel other than gasoline requires NO emissions test and depending on the inspection station, they may or may not even make sure you have all the emissions stuff you are supposed to have. So owning and operating one would be a piece of cake, but the manufacture/registration is the barrier (imo)

Edit: on another note, the way I understood it, black diesel exhaust will give you a higher EGT than the same fueling with more air. I could be confusing a strict comparison of air/fuel with timing, cause I know that advanced timing burns more fuel in the combustion chamber (as opposed to the manifold) and smokes less.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by thecheese429

If it had the "legendary" (according to jeep connoisseurs) V6, and about 200 bucks put into Raamat, maybe even some better weatherstripping and smoother suspension, it would definitely be a "nice" vehicle.

My recollection is the other way around. The very early Cherokee/Comanche had a V6 that was 'legendary' for breaking in various expensive ways. They replaced it with the 4.0L straight 6, and that engine is virtually indestructible.

Our '92 Cherokee was seriously overheating for about 2 weeks one summer, because the mechanic forgot to plug the electric fans back in (grumble). That was 14 years and about 120,000 miles ago. The dipstick still smells like burnt oil, and the engine does burn a bit of the stuff, but it still has more than enough torque to pull a trailer. The little guy has an amazingly tight turning radius, part/fulltime AWD, hi/lo range, and parts are cheap and plentiful. We don't drive it much anymore, but we'll be keeping our Cherokee until the rot makes it unsafe to drive.