Environmental question

[BigRedBuster]

OK, I, all of a sudden, am in the market to buy a new (different) vehicle. I was driving a Chevy heavy 3/4 ton diesel pick up. I need that for what I do with the truck. I pull lots of trailers...etc.

 

So, I had a 2003 model and was getting an average of 22-23 MPG. I am very sad to say that an idiot ran a stop sign in front of me yesterday and I no longer have this truck.

 

Now, I am told by the dealership that I will never get that fuel mileage again due to governmental emissions standards. Basically, GM had to put certain technology on the truck to meet these standards and so now, if I buy a truck that is 2005 or later that my mileage will go down to around 15-16 MPG.

 

So, what leaves me banging my head against the wall is, which is worse, burning 30% more fuel or a little more exhaust being put out?

 

Now, I consider myself an environmentalist within reason. It has to make sense.

 

This is frustrating with Diesel now well over $4.

 

It seems to me that burning more fuel is causing us one hell of a lot more problems than the emissions. Emissions are important and we need to cut them. BUT, at what cost? This seems to me like someone in Washington sat there and said....this sounds great!!!! But, didn't realize what these companies like GM will need to do to meet those standards.

[rawhide]

My 2008 Ford F-250 6.4 D gets 13-18 depending. Pulling a trailer or racing cars that think it won't move 13-15, normal sane driving 15-18 And I have to get it smogged every two years.

I pull a 30ft. 5th whl. RV, nuttin' else.

 

 

 

GBR

[BigRedBuster]

My 2008 Ford F-250 6.4 D gets 13-18 depending. Pulling a trailer or racing cars that think it won't move 13-15, normal sane driving 15-18 And I have to get it smogged every two years.

I pull a 30ft. 5th whl. RV, nuttin' else.

 

 

 

GBR

 

 

I'm going to miss my 22-24 MPG.

 

I pull a three horse (steal) goose neck trailer with three horses and loaded with everything else and I was averaging 18 going through the hills. Going down the interstate in flat Nebraska it wasn't anything for me to get 28-30 without a trailer.

[strigori]

That just does not sound right to be honest. I don't see why every other area of cars is having massive increases in gas mileage and for trucks it gets worse. At you deeply attached to GM? I know a lot of truck guys tend to be, but maybe another maker offers better mileage.

[jimk]

I don't know how to do it but I think you can take those emissions kits off of the truck and your fuel mileage should return. It seems like a few guys around here have done that. Check with a local diesel mechanic that isn't affiliated with a dealer.

[BigRedBuster]

That just does not sound right to be honest. I don't see why every other area of cars is having massive increases in gas mileage and for trucks it gets worse. At you deeply attached to GM? I know a lot of truck guys tend to be, but maybe another maker offers better mileage.

 

I think it has more to do with a truck needing power along with the emissions standards. You can decrease the power in a car and most people don't notice it or care as much. But, when you are buying a truck and it has a job to do, then you notice it.

 

What I have always thought the problem is, is that fuel efficiency and power come so much from air in and air out of an engine. That is why a turbo charger gives you more power. It pushes more air into the engine. Well, if you do anything to restrict that with emissions cleaning equipment, then you decrease efficiency.

 

I don't know how to do it but I think you can take those emissions kits off of the truck and your fuel mileage should return. It seems like a few guys around here have done that. Check with a local diesel mechanic that isn't affiliated with a dealer.

 

You can do what is called "chipping" it. Basically you buy a gizmo that you plug into the computer of the truck and it changes the programing of the truck. I did that on my truck that just got wrecked. The problem is, GM has made the new trucks so that doing that doesn't benefit you as much and if you do it, it is marked in the computer permanently and the warranty is void on the truck.

 

All that said, my biggest reason for starting this thread is a discussion between fuel economy and emissions. Which is worse, burning more fuel or putting out a little more emissions?

 

I say burning fuel is worse unless you live in an area like LA where smog is a major concern.

[carlfense]

Which is worse, burning more fuel or putting out a little more emissions?

I don't know that there can be an answer to that question. There needs to be a balance.

[knapplc]

Now, I am told by the dealership that I will never get that fuel mileage again due to governmental emissions standards. Basically, GM had to put certain technology on the truck to meet these standards and so now, if I buy a truck that is 2005 or later that my mileage will go down to around 15-16 MPG.

 

What kind of research have you done after hearing this from the dealership? Have you tracked down the specific government emissions standards they're talking about? A quick phone call (or ask at your next visit) should be able to tell you which regulation put these horrible MPG stats in place. From there it would probably be a quick google to find the requirements, the government web page about them, and what you can expect for MPG in your new vehicle. I'd be interested in knowing more about this.

[BigRedBuster]

The research I have done is basically talking to people in the industry. No, I don't know specific regulations. But, clear back in 2005 when I purchased my now wrecked truck and the dealership told me to "chip" it, it was common knowledge that what that did was reverse some of the emissions programing that was in the truck so that it would get better MPG. By doing that, I gained at least 4-5 MPG. It was then common knowledge that since then, GM designed the trucks so that that wasn't possible and we were just going to be stuck with worse MPG.

 

I'm now looking at getting a 2007 because that was the last year before GM made it less beneficial to "chip" it. I will then wait till basically the warranty is run out and then do what it takes to get better MPG.

[knapplc]

Hearsay is always the best reason to get upset about something. Good choice.

[ShawnWatson]

Why don't you just buy a 2003 model again?

[Conga3]

I would be very skeptical of a dealership's story on this. They probably have some of the story, but doubtful it's even close to the full story.

 

Vehicle manufacturers do have to build their vehicles within spec of government regulation, but likely more influential is the consumer's demands.

 

Crazy as it sounds, gas mileage is NOT #1 in what sells cars/trucks. Safety, horsepower & comfort features come first. Build enough of those into the vehicle, the MPG is going to take a hit.

 

If you remove all the safety, horsepower and comfort you get a Smart Car, for example.

 

The internal combustion engine is about as efficient as it can get already..and has been for years. What advances they can make in design, are likely out-weighed by all the extra crap they add to vehicles now - emission reduction features included.

[BigRedBuster]

Why don't you just buy a 2003 model again?

 

Because I tend to put a lot of miles on and they are getting old enough that I don't think I could purchase one and get the use out of it for the money. The 2007 has similar technology.

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not getting this just from the dealership. This is common knowledge in the industry. For instance, a couple years ago I was at a trade show where GM, Ford and Dodge all had large booths with their own engineers manning the booths. I spoke to all of them and they all had the same story. In this size of trucks, they can not increase fuel mileage because of emissions standards AND, that is why the new trucks don't get as good as the old ones.

 

This is also what every mechanic has said about the issue.

[ZRod]

All that said, my biggest reason for starting this thread is a discussion between fuel economy and emissions. Which is worse, burning more fuel or putting out a little more emissions?

 

I say burning fuel is worse unless you live in an area like LA where smog is a major concern.

It is still possible to burn more fuel and emit less pollutants. Catalytic converters are a good example. It's more efficient in terms of fuel consumption not to have them on the vehicle, but in terms of pollution it's more beneficial to have them. Same with Ethanol, it contains less stored energy than gasoline, hence lower fuel mileage, but it is a much cleaner fuel when burned. I'm not as familiar with Diesel, but from and environmental standpoint we are probably better off with the more stringent emission standards. Sacrifice the wallet for the common good I suppose...

 

I know there are also natural gas injection systems that supposedly make diesels more efficient. And I also saw a Top Gear episode on The History Channel a few weeks back where they had a F-250 or something that switched over to a reserve tanks and ran only on natural gas. I don't know how much more efficient it is but that is an alternative to look into as well and the fuel should be cheaper than diesel.