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

[Frank Lee]

Chevrolet Silverado XFE and Ford F-150 SFE Fuel Economy - Motor Trend


Compared with conventional counter-parts, GM's XFE pickups reduce drag with a lowered suspension, a deeper front air dam, and a soft tonneau cover over the bed. They reduce mass with aluminum lower front control arms and 17-inch aluminum wheels, including the spare. Their 5.3-liter aluminum V-8 uses cylinder shutoff when engine load is light, driving through a six-speed automatic and a 3.08:1 rear axle (standard is 3.42:1), and roll on low-rolling-resistance tires. The Silverado XFE starts at $33,900, nearly $2900 higher than a base 2WD shortbed crew cab.

Nathan Wilmot, a performance engineer on GM's Energy Expert Team, estimates that the tonneau cover gives a 0.1- to 0.2-mpg improvement, the air dam maybe 0.05 mpg, and the slightly lowered suspension another 0.05 mpg. "A rough rule of thumb is about 0.1 mpg EPA combined improvement for each 10 'counts' [0.01 Cd] reduction on a full-size truck," he says. "There's no real gain on the city test, but you'll see more than double that in highway mpg."

Another rule of thumb, Wilmot adds, is about a 0.7-mpg (EPA combined) benefit per 500 pounds in weight savings. But since the total weight savings of the (costlier) aluminum parts on the XFE trucks is much less than that, he estimates their combined benefit at maybe 0.2 mpg. A further 0.2- to 0.3-mpg improvement, he says, comes from the low-rolling-resistance tires and another small increment from the taller axle ratio, which saves fuel mostly at highway speeds. Add those tenths up, and the total rounds off to the advertised 1.0-mpg improvement.

Breakdown on how to get 1 more mpg in a pickup. Funny how we have claims here of several mpgs for every individual item.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

In the summer I ride a Harley Sportster and all I ever hear from other Harley guys is how it's a chick's bike. Meanwhile, they are riding on their full dressers with air suspension, radios, heated hand grips, full fairings and windscreens...

If you really want to know... It's 'cause they need the heavier bike to haul their beer guts, and the soft suspension etc to keep it from jiggling so much that it throws off their balance - kinda like having a passenger that leans unpredictably :-)

[The Rooster]

Originally Posted by cfg83

The Rooster -

I looked the Mahindra up. The base small-cab version has a 4,400 lb curb weight. Do they consider themselves to be a small-pickup or a full-size?

CarloSW2

They consider themselves "compact" which is also reflected in the EPA classification as a small pickup truck. However the 2 door has a 7.5 foot bed, which is nearly the size of a full size trucks long bed, and it has a higher payload capacity than any F-150 with the standard V6. Small truck, full size capability, same mileage as my Acura Integra.

[The Rooster]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Here's my problem: from the late '60s (Toyota Stout - I owned one once, rescued from a junk pile) to the early '90s, several manufacturers - Toyota, Nissan, and others - managed to build and sell a lot of small pickups. A good many of these are still running, some as beater work trucks, some like mine as second vehicles, some modded for off-road (check your local Craigslist), when there seem to be few "full-sized" trucks of the same vintage left.

So that begs the question: If people bought small trucks not that long ago, why wouldn't they buy them now? And If automakers could sell them then, why can't they make & sell them now?

Long ago, just like today, full size trucks out-sold small trucks. And just like long ago, compact trucks are built and sold today, however, the smallest of them sell the worse, aka Chevy Colorado, and the largest sell the best...aka Toyota Tacoma.

The Tacoma is the best selling compact truck in the US, but Toyota sells about half as many Tacomas as Dodge sells Rams, the worst selling domestic full size truck. Combined together, Full size trucks outsell compact is a ratio of almost 5:1 And those are the figures from 2008 where gas prices were close to $4.00 per gallon.

Now to you and me, it's a no brainer to buy a Tacoma over a Ram. Quality being the main concern, then price, economy...etc. But we are in the minority. For every one of us, there are two Ram buyers.

[The Rooster]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Breakdown on how to get 1 more mpg in a pickup. Funny how we have claims here of several mpgs for every individual item.

So it cost's the consumer roughly $3,000 to get 1mpg gain on a truck, driving habbits staying equal.

And at least the customer gets a useful tonneau cover out of the deal. Each additional mpg is likely going to cost exponentially more, unless a complete and radical redesign is done from the ground up, with efficiency as a core part of the design. Perhaps a hybrid ladder frame-Unibody structure like the Ridgeline which as it turns out, only gets 20mpg's on the highway. Honda is going to discontinue the Ridgeline as well, so that may give you an indication as to how much customers want hybrid-chassis trucks.

I think the simplest solution is to jack up gas prices so nobody can afford to waste fuel. Or I could be spelling out the recipie for the revolutionary Tea-Party appocalypse.

[Frank Lee]

Maybe instead of "reducing" the full size, they could "upgrade" and enlarge a smaller truck- say, a Ranger. Voila- 30 mpg?

[Frank Lee]

'46 Chev 1/2Ton short box 2wd: 2925 lbs shipping weight
'50........................................3175
'63........................................3235
'72........................................3506

I wanted to compile the weights of the most comparable version of a pickup truck through the years as I could... my ADD kicked in after a while... but note that in '46, a 2wd short box 1/2 Ton pickup only weighed a few hundred pounds more than a Tempo, while nowadays it's... what? More than DOUBLE?

[instarx]

Originally Posted by Big Dave

What happens when you put the pickup through bariatric surgery and wind up with a 2,800 lb truck that won't pass US crash tests?

Will designers drop the "crush zone" and go to the fortifed passenger citadel surrounded by a vehicle that is flimsily built and shreds in a wreck. This is common practice on race cars where weigh and safety are at a premium.

It might be one way to meet weight and safety requirements but your vehicle is "one and done" in accidents.

Trucks don't have to pass crash tests. In fact, cars don't have to pass crash tests - they just get ranked.

[instarx]

Originally Posted by The Rooster

I think the simplest solution is to jack up gas prices so nobody can afford to waste fuel. Or I could be spelling out the recipie for the revolutionary Tea-Party appocalypse.

As painful as it would be n the short term, that is probably the answer. Fuel prices are subsidized to the point of several dollars per gallon. We actually PAY oil companies to look on public lands for more oil which they then get to keep, and Exxon paid NO income taxes in 2009 on $35 BILLION in profits.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by instarx

Used to frequent a diesel truck forum when I had one, and I can tell you that the "truck guys" are very interested in fuel economy. The main reason no one buys 30 mpg full-sized trucks is because no one makes one, not because "they don't want one".

They want one IF they can still have a 6" lift, giant open tread tires, 300 extra HP via aftermarket tuning, and not change a single driving habit.

The CTD forums each have a sub-forum on "Performance", but none on economy. (Performance in this instance meaning increased engine power, and economy narrowly defined as lower operating cost per mile). I have yet to see a thread featuring a "performance build" that was for economy . . much less investigating aero add-ons. Questions about axle ratios are semi-popular, but in a truck numerical reductions work against overall utility.

Those who are concerned about economy, I notice, tend to be the ones who actually use the truck for work; that is, the vehicle is engaged in long distance commercial service or as a full-time local contractor. In which case "stock" is king, overall. (There are some threads involving car haulers and others, but the desire tends to be increasing mpg at 70 mph).

Not surprisingly, the latter group tends to be a good deal older than the former.

The interest in FE spikes when fuel prices rise, which shows that the purchase of a truck had nothing to do with need.

The best question about want versus need is to confront them with how many annual miles driven are IRS deductible.

It may be different on the Powerjoke and Maxi-pad forums, in which case some links to those threads would be appreciated (perhaps as a thread starter: we could reference diesel pickup economy threads of merit; or owners showing good results from records. Cold climate, 4WD, DRW, auto trans . . . there can be quite a few differences in truck spec, climate & topography which have significant effect, so those threads may not always be easily comparable).

The number of 3/4 and 1-T pickups is small -- especially diesel -- in comparison to the half-ton market. But the ones who need them (farmers, ranchers, contractors, commercial fleets, full-time RV'ers) also tend to trade them pretty quickly (5-7 years) when in fact these trucks will travel quite a bit farther in time & distance . . that would be a more fruitful direction to take for many/most owners: what does it take to complete 350k and 15-yrs reliably & economically?)

For anyone interested there is still discussion online about a generation of smaller diesel engines for half-ton pickups. CUMMINS had a V8 in the works for the small Ram: around 300 HP and 500 TQ. Mid-twenties estimated. GM also had a smaller engine being discussed. While the half-ton platform is limited in towing and payload, it would still fit an enormous number of users better than the current giants.

The best discussions at present are about the FORD Eco-Boost turbo V6 on the RV boards where it appears it may be a gasoline engine to compete with diesels for power and economy. (I haven't seen the Ford specific boards).

That engine, coupled to a lighter, more capable 3/4 or 1-T truck would be impressive, to say the least. The FORD Expedition -- with fully independent suspension -- would make one awesome family tow vehicle with that motor and the addition of AWD.

(And for the cracks about tent camping and such, let go the ignorance of upwards of one million Americans now using RV's to live in full time. By no means are they all retired. Losing one's house, or the need to move for economic reasons -- to remain mobile -- is a new feaure of our national life that will but increase. That ignorance may also extend to the fact that a few years ago 2/3'ds of graduating college seniors moved home . . a number that is up to 85% now. An extended family may very well have, and need the use of a big vehicle to transport themselves, their "home" and to best utilize capital in ONE traditional vehicle over several. In the meantime I would recommend a 7.3L circa 2000 FORD E-series van to be the prime mover of home & family).

.

.