EPA: MY2013 MPG highest ever @ 24.1

[AndyH]

I don't disagree with you in general, Leftie, but to have an apples to apples transition, we need a BEV or FCEV pickup with the same range and load capability as a current ICE F150. Until that happens, the future that we must get to cannot happen.

And why exactly can't we start with a plug-in hybrid truck, instead? That's an incremental change that can actually change the paradigm. The technology is already here. While we're at it, require that most trucks be weak hybrids that shut their engines off when stopped, and can creep in traffic for a mile or so. That technology is also already here, and most trucks already have the room for a modest battery pack. But no, we want our trucks to look and act exactly the same, but with aluminum bodies under the same paint, and a whopping two more MPG instead of ten more...

It's not that we "can't" start with a PHEV truck, or a BEV truck or a FCEV truck, Leftie, it's that so far we don't have those tools! So hell yes - make carbon-free trucks!

But it's also useful for folks here to remember that the entire population of trucks and SUVs is not 'lifestyle vehicles' - so be careful with that broad brush, judgement, prejudice, etc.

Again - batteries add weight - that decreases overall energy efficiency. Look back at the numbers I posted - note that these are and MUST BE larger and stronger vehicles to perform their functions. While it would be cool if all the trucks and SUVs could be replaced with Prius Cs, good luck carrying 1000 lbs of plywood in a Prius more than once.... :lol: It's important to consider function - that's the starting point. So - there's still a real point to lightweighting and it must continue as it increases energy efficiency whether the prime mover is ICE or electricity. Hit the RMI hypercar documents for a look at how important this is, or look at aircraft design considerations.

Both have 'design death spirals' that must be managed as neither is a linear problem. Want to fly farther? Need more fuel. More fuel means a larger fuel tank - need more space. More fuel adds more weight - need more lift and thus more wing. More wing adds weight, requires stronger structure which adds more weight. Now we need more engine to move the larger, heavier vehicle...which uses more fuel per hour which means we need larger fuel tanks to meet the range need...etc. etc.

 

[AndyH]

Leftie, you made clear that you're looking at the philosophical problem and I can totally see, understand, and stand there with you as I agree completely with your view and the importance of a transportation revolution rather than evolution if we want a viable future on this planet. But Dave - I'm a bit annoyed with your position. Sorry, man...

Maybe this real-world look will help. I had a need for long-rang transportation back in 2000. It needed to be as fuel efficient as possible so I could afford to operate it. It also needed to carry three 6' long folding tables, trade show supplies and equipment, and my 'mobile office' for four-day trips to and from shows - about 1000 lbs. All of my peers made the obvious choice - they bought pickup trucks. I bought a used 1996 VW Passat TDI stationwagon. Fully loaded at highway speeds with no hypermiling it returned 42 MPG - speed management and some very light behavior modification got me to 48 MPG - this from a car that already had almost 200,000 miles on it when I bought it. During the peak of my sales career, I drove that car between 25,000 and 35,000 miles per year.

When my car finally died last December with 430,000 miles I was faced with a real challenge. I swore that I'd 'never' buy another ICE. I also needed the ability to carry larger items and some weight as I thought I was close to buying property and building an off-grid house/hobby farm. The only affordable option with the range and capability was a small pickup. There are no hybrids or BEVs or FCEV available at any price, and being a disabled veteran on a fixed income, price and operating costs are factors. I countered the efficiency hit from the truck by significantly cutting the number of miles driven (150-200 per month). The use of ethanol and tree planting helped zero-out the carbon from miles driven. Thankfully, the truck's mission is almost finished and it'll soon be sold. At that point, I'll be starting a personal experiment in relying on a BEV motorcycle with 35-40 miles of range and my bicycle for at least 6 months.

Trucks are important, the vast majority of them will continue to exist even if 'lifestyle vehicles' are somehow banned. The F150 can not be replaced by a Prius. And today, a BEV or FCEV pickup that can carry a ton of cargo for at least 200 miles would be well out of the price range of everyone that needed the work vehicle. Today, the only people that could afford such a vehicle are in the higher economic levels that are buying lifestyle vehicles - AKA Tesla Trucks... Please keep that in mind as this thread continues?

 

[GRA]

I don't disagree with you in general, Leftie, but to have an apples to apples transition, we need a BEV or FCEV pickup with the same range and load capability as a current ICE F150. Until that happens, the future that we must get to cannot happen.

And why exactly can't we start with a plug-in hybrid truck, instead? That's an incremental change that can actually change the paradigm. The technology is already here. While we're at it, require that most trucks be weak hybrids that shut their engines off when stopped, and can creep in traffic for a mile or so. That technology is also already here, and most trucks already have the room for a modest battery pack. But no, we want our trucks to look and act exactly the same, but with aluminum bodies under the same paint, and a whopping two more MPG instead of ten more...

Sure, we could start with that, but that assumes that most people who buy trucks are

a. Aware of the option

b. Willing to take a chance on (what is to them) unproven technology

c. Able to afford the higher lease/purchase payments

Here's Via Motors pricing page, which I'd suspect makes the most favorable assumptions re the performance of their trucks versus the 'standard benchmark' (which looks outdated compared to what's available currently):

http://www.viamotors.com/vehicles/quote-request/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Note that the Via standard cab loses at least 1/3rd of its payload capacity compared to the typical 3/4 ton pickup, i.e. 1,000 lb. vs. the nominal 1,500 (and often a lot more; this C&D review of the 2015 F-150:

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ford-f-150-first-drive-review" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

says it has a payload of 3,300 lb.), and that's not going to work for some people. So yes, it can be done, but just as most people aren't willing or able to shift to BEV/PHEV or even HEV cars now, most truck buyers will be equally unwilling to switch to a PHEV version anytime soon. As it is, tougher CAFE requirements are going to drive most vehicles in the direction of some level of hybridization regardless, along with improved ICEs and lighter materials. Assuming, of course that some future administration and/or congress doesn't decide to abandon them.

 

[LeftieBiker]

I guess no one else remembers that GM developed a hybrid full-sized pickup? EDIT: it was the Silverado 1500 2nd gen. It got, again IIRC, 5-10 more mpg in the city, carried big loads, and could also be used as a stationary power source. It was reviewed by a car magazine and they loved it, except for the price, which was understandably high for a just-developed vehicle. There is no need to invent the wheel here - it's already been done. As for the several strawman arguments attributed to me, if I didn't write it that way, I didn't mean it that way.

 

[GRA]

I guess no one else remembers that GM developed a hybrid full-sized pickup? EDIT: it was the Silverado 1500 2nd gen. It got, again IIRC, 5-10 more mpg in the city, carried big loads, and could also be used as a stationary power source. It was reviewed by a car magazine and they loved it, except for the price, which was understandably high for a just-developed vehicle. There is no need to invent the wheel here - it's already been done. As for the several strawman arguments attributed to me, if I didn't write it that way, I didn't mean it that way.

I remember it well, and here's what happened to them, per GCR:

Official: GM Quietly Drops Hybrid Pickups; Are SUVs Next?

GM's full-size hybrid pickups, the Chevrolet Silverado Hybrid and GMC Sierra Hybrid, for much of the time they've been on sale, have offered the highest gas mileage of any full-size truck on the U.S. market.

Yet these hybrid pickups, which were introduced for the 2009 model year, have been surprisingly slow-selling. Total sales numbers for the GM [NYSE: GM] full-size hybrid trucks added up to just 3,114 last year, from a high of 8,797 across five models in 2009.

And now, we've received official confirmation that they're discontinued. . . .

Price is a likely factor in these trucks' poor sales performance. Although they offer excellent EPA mileage ratings of 20 mpg city, 23 highway—for a best-in-class 21 mpg Combined—as well as good performance plus respectable towing and hauling ratings, the Chevy starts at $40,885, while the GMC starts at $41,305 for 2013.

For 2013, the mileage-focused Ram 1500 HFE model is the first full-sizer to tie that 21-mpg Combined rating; and it has an MSRP of just $28,250. GM hasn't yet revealed gas mileage ratings for its full-size trucks, which get new technology including direct injection, cylinder deactivation, and variable valve timing for an all-new V-6 engine and two new V-8s. The new V-6 might not quite meet the mileage of the Hybrid, but it would be far more affordable, with sales numbers that would figure significantly into average fuel economy calculations.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1081195_official-gm-quietly-drops-hybrid-pickups-are-suvs-next" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A vehicle that people aren't buying is no improvement at all.

 

[AndyH]

Sure, we could start with that, but that assumes that most people who buy trucks are

a. Aware of the option

b. Willing to take a chance on (what is to them) unproven technology

c. Able to afford the higher lease/purchase payments

<much snippage>

Not sure I can agree that 'most' is an operative word, but I can report on the business case as I've sold to contractors that use trucks and vans. As with semis, the largest budget line-item after purchasing the vehicles is fuel. Anything that can do the required job and that takes a bite out of the fuel bill is worth buying as long as it will at least break even compared with a 'conventional' truck. It doesn't take much overall savings to be worth doing.

So...if Toyota starts making a hybrid F150-equivalent, commercial operators will be aware of it fairly quickly as they make quite rational decisions.

I completely agree with your list if you separate out and only talk about the 'civilian' users, and especially the 'lifestyle' vehicle folks as these are primarily emotional sales.

 

[GRA]

<much snippage>
Not sure I can agree that 'most' is an operative word, but I can report on the business case as I've sold to contractors that use trucks and vans. As with semis, the largest budget line-item after purchasing the vehicles is fuel. Anything that can do the required job and that takes a bite out of the fuel bill is worth buying as long as it will at least break even compared with a 'conventional' truck. It doesn't take much overall savings to be worth doing.

So...if Toyota starts making a hybrid F150-equivalent, commercial operators will be aware of it fairly quickly as they make quite rational decisions.

I completely agree with your list if you separate out and only talk about the 'civilian' users, and especially the 'lifestyle' vehicle folks as these are primarily emotional sales.

Andy, see my post immediately preceding yours. Although I agree with your logic re over the road trucking, where fuel is the greatest operational cost after labor, it seems that few (if any) contractors were persuaded by your logic re the GM hybrid pickups judging by the GCR article. IME many small contractors have occasional or largely seasonal work; when I was a kid growing up, one of my neighbors' dads was such. He owned a pickup, trailer air compressor, cement mixer truck (we used to crawl down inside the mixing tank to play) and backhoe, and they sat mostly unused on his parking pad during the winter months. Depending on usage patterns, low monthly payments when the vehicle is sitting idle may be more important than lower fuel payments when the vehicle is being used.

 

[LeftieBiker]

A vehicle that people aren't buying is no improvement at all

I was writing that the technology for hybrid pickups exists, not that people would snap them up at a premium price. The way this would have to work, pragmatically speaking, is the government would have to do two things: require a certain number of hybrids trucks, both weak and full hybrid, and subsidize most or even all (at first) of the price difference. Sound familiar?

 

[AndyH]

<much snippage>

Not sure I can agree that 'most' is an operative word, but I can report on the business case as I've sold to contractors that use trucks and vans. As with semis, the largest budget line-item after purchasing the vehicles is fuel. Anything that can do the required job and that takes a bite out of the fuel bill is worth buying as long as it will at least break even compared with a 'conventional' truck. It doesn't take much overall savings to be worth doing.

So...if Toyota starts making a hybrid F150-equivalent, commercial operators will be aware of it fairly quickly as they make quite rational decisions.

I completely agree with your list if you separate out and only talk about the 'civilian' users, and especially the 'lifestyle' vehicle folks as these are primarily emotional sales.

Andy, see my post immediately preceding yours. Although I agree with your logic re over the road trucking, where fuel is the greatest operational cost after labor, it seems that few (if any) contractors were persuaded by your logic re the GM hybrid pickups judging by the GCR article. IME many small contractors have occasional or largely seasonal work; when I was a kid growing up, one of my neighbors' dads was such. He owned a pickup, trailer air compressor, cement mixer truck (we used to crawl down inside the mixing tank to play) and backhoe, and they sat mostly unused on his parking pad during the winter months. Depending on usage patterns, low monthly payments when the vehicle is sitting idle may be more important than lower fuel payments when the vehicle is being used.

It might surprise you to learn that GCR isn't on the desk of any fleet owner I worked with in ~12 years of commercial sales. I get your point about the seasonal guy, but that's a very, very different environment from fleet operators. The smallest electrical contractor that I sold to had 250 pickups... Plumbers, HVAC, landscape contractors...many trucks, much larger fuel bills. Hell - the small car-hauler company (14 class-8 tractors and trailers) I worked with for a couple of years would fight for a 0.1 MPG improvement! I could usually add 3-5% to their fuel economy with lubricants and that brought on huge smiles!

PS - that Frankenstein GM hybrid was junk - that's why it failed, not because it was a hybrid or because contractors didn't work from balance sheets.

Check this out - how many times is GM going to 'drop' hybrids? Or...how many articles can one find actually ANNOUNCING that the hybrids exist?! (Hmmm...we told the world that we dropped hybrids in 2012 - I can't imagine why nobody's buying them in 2013...) :lol: :
http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-chevy-dropping-hybrid-pickups-2014-68703

A leading motivator for any hybrid purchase is significant improvements in fuel economy compared to most vehicles with traditional engines. Yet the GM hybrid trucks aren’t drastically outpacing the gas engine trucks in efficiency, while at the same time costing more.

http://fleetowner.com/running-green/range-certainty

Since the first alternative fuel vehicles hit U.S. roads, their relatively reduced driving range has been a significant deterrent to widespread adoption. Studies show that local fleets rarely require vehicles capable of traveling hundreds of miles between refueling events. That aside, the oft-discussed feeling of “range anxiety” takes a toll. What if I need to make an unplanned delivery today? What if I get diverted to a longer route because of traffic ...

 

[GRA]

<much snippage>
Not sure I can agree that 'most' is an operative word, but I can report on the business case as I've sold to contractors that use trucks and vans. As with semis, the largest budget line-item after purchasing the vehicles is fuel. Anything that can do the required job and that takes a bite out of the fuel bill is worth buying as long as it will at least break even compared with a 'conventional' truck. It doesn't take much overall savings to be worth doing.

So...if Toyota starts making a hybrid F150-equivalent, commercial operators will be aware of it fairly quickly as they make quite rational decisions.

I completely agree with your list if you separate out and only talk about the 'civilian' users, and especially the 'lifestyle' vehicle folks as these are primarily emotional sales.

Andy, see my post immediately preceding yours. Although I agree with your logic re over the road trucking, where fuel is the greatest operational cost after labor, it seems that few (if any) contractors were persuaded by your logic re the GM hybrid pickups judging by the GCR article. IME many small contractors have occasional or largely seasonal work; when I was a kid growing up, one of my neighbors' dads was such. He owned a pickup, trailer air compressor, cement mixer truck (we used to crawl down inside the mixing tank to play) and backhoe, and they sat mostly unused on his parking pad during the winter months. Depending on usage patterns, low monthly payments when the vehicle is sitting idle may be more important than lower fuel payments when the vehicle is being used.

It might surprise you to learn that GCR isn't on the desk of any fleet owner I worked with in ~12 years of commercial sales.

I'm not surprised (see point a. from previous post), just as I'm not surprised that most small contractors don't spend their 'free' time doing tradeoff analyses using Excel spreadsheets

I get your point about the seasonal guy, but that's a very, very different environment from fleet operators. The smallest electrical contractor that I sold to had 250 pickups... Plumbers, HVAC, landscape contractors...many trucks, much larger fuel bills. Hell - the small car-hauler company (14 class-8 tractors and trailers) I worked with for a couple of years would fight for a 0.1 MPG improvement! I could usually add 3-5% to their fuel economy with lubricants and that brought on huge smiles!

Agreed that large fleets are more likely to employ accountants and do C-B analyses, but I wonder what % of pickup sales go to such fleets, compared to small business people that only have a truck or two. H'mm, I'll see if I can find anything. And car-haul is an over the road business, so we have no disagreement there.

PS - that Frankenstein GM hybrid was junk - that's why it failed, not because it was a hybrid or because contractors didn't work from balance sheets.

Check this out - how many times is GM going to 'drop' hybrids? Or...how many articles can one find actually ANNOUNCING that the hybrids exist?! (Hmmm...we told the world that we dropped hybrids in 2012 - I can't imagine why nobody's buying them in 2013...) :lol: :
http://www.hybridcars.com/gm-chevy-dropping-hybrid-pickups-2014-68703

A leading motivator for any hybrid purchase is significant improvements in fuel economy compared to most vehicles with traditional engines. Yet the GM hybrid trucks aren’t drastically outpacing the gas engine trucks in efficiency, while at the same time costing more.

And that's always going to be the problem: as long as it takes much too long (for a business) to get payback, most of them aren't interested. Same reason why I expect the Subaru Crosstrek XV hybrid to not sell much, as it's a $3k premium for all of 2 mpg. If your timeline for payback is 12-18 months, it makes no sense, and even most private owners probably want no more than 3 years until breakeven. Lower fuel prices just make the equation worse for AFVs. And if more efficient ICEs can get you about the same mileage at a much lower price (e.g. the current Silverado C15, 18/24/20), you're not going to be willing to pay a lot more for a marginal improvement. Which is why I said CAFE will be the driving force towards whatever hybridization/AFV happens, barring permanent and significant fuel price hikes.

 

[GRA]

A vehicle that people aren't buying is no improvement at all

I was writing that the technology for hybrid pickups exists, not that people would snap them up at a premium price. The way this would have to work, pragmatically speaking, is the government would have to do two things: require a certain number of hybrids trucks, both weak and full hybrid, and subsidize most or even all (at first) of the price difference. Sound familiar?

More realistically in the current political environment, they could just require better mileage through CAFE, and leave it up to the companies to figure out how to get there. Which is what they ARE doing.

 

[LeftieBiker]

More realistically in the current political environment, they could just require better mileage through CAFE, and leave it up to the companies to figure out how to get there. Which is what they ARE doing.

Since the House would never pass that either, and since it would result in little or no evolution towards non-ICE propulsion, I don't agree. We need to improve that trucks substantially, not let the companies play accounting tricks with fleet averages and build marginally more efficient trucks.

 

[GRA]

More realistically in the current political environment, they could just require better mileage through CAFE, and leave it up to the companies to figure out how to get there. Which is what they ARE doing.

Since the House would never pass that either, and since it would result in little or no evolution towards non-ICE propulsion, I don't agree. We need to improve that trucks substantially, not let the companies play accounting tricks with fleet averages and build marginally more efficient trucks.

They don't have to pass it, they already did a couple of years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy#Agreed_standards_by_model_year.2C_2011-2025" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[LeftieBiker]

They don't have to pass it, they already did a couple of years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... _2011-2025

I assumed that the poster meant "better than the requirements currently in place" including automatic increases. If you want to just rely on the standards above, I suggest that you start filling sandbags.

 

[GRA]

Evidence pointing that way, via GCC:

UMTRI: automakers have surpassed new CAFE requirements for past 3 years

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/10/20141022-umtri.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Urk, managed to delete most of this post while trying to quote from it and include the above in a new post.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Realistically, though, I'm not going to spend any time bemoaning what I can't alter barring dictatorial power.

The problem is, we either talk about it while wielding no political power, or don't talk about it and thus give even more power to the carbon interests. In the latter case, your children lose. (I had a vasectomy 30 years ago.) This society may still outlive me, but it's no longer a virtual certainty.

 

[donald]

If you have an issue with it just write to your politicians and ask them to do what most of the rest of the western world does - charge large taxes for road fuel.

It really doesn't [that is, shouldn't] matter how much tax is put on fuel because tax has to be collected one way or the other. More fuel tax, less of some other tax for the same revenue. But what it does do is get people to buy more economical cars.

I view EVs and driving economically as a form of tax evasion!

Average fuel consumption in privately owned vehicles is virtually a direct function of the price of fuel.

If that is too unpalatable of Americans because the logic of that is too difficult for them, just put a high purchase tax on pickups that companies can write off against revenue.

The problem is with your Government's taxation/enviro policies, not with people who choose to buy what they want.

 

[dgpcolorado]

If you have an issue with it just write to your politicians and ask them to do what most of the rest of the western world does - charge large taxes for road fuel.

It really doesn't [that is, shouldn't] matter how much tax is put on fuel because tax has to be collected one way or the other. More fuel tax, less of some other tax for the same revenue. But what it does do is get people to buy more economical cars.

I view EVs and driving economically as a form of tax evasion!

Average fuel consumption in privately owned vehicles is virtually a direct function of the price of fuel.

If that is too unpalatable of Americans because the logic of that is too difficult for them, just put a high purchase tax on pickups that companies can write off against revenue.

The problem is with your Government's taxation/enviro policies, not with people who choose to buy what they want.

While your suggestions are reasonable they aren't possible in the current political environment. It isn't just that the oil companies "own" many of the politicians — as they surely do — it is that the voters tend to be ignorant and face a sea of propaganda that all taxes are bad and that any tax increase, for any purpose whatsoever, is an outrage. And they dutifully vote accordingly. Logic and reason do not apply here, sad to say.

 

[donald]

Maybe so, but that still lands the issue squarely in the lap of the politicians. I think it is somewhat abusive to call people who have pick up trucks for short runs 'D-bags' when they are put in that position by the politicos.

I was driving to work along a back route I sometimes use to avoid accidents on the main routes the other day, and for virtually the whole trip I found myself pounding through pothole and manhole cover continuously that have been left and allowed to rot. Very hard on the car's suspension, it was never designed for such punishing road surfaces.

I cannot say if these, so called, 'D-bags' have similar experiences but failing, poorly maintained, road infrastructure and a tax regime for vehicle purchase and fuel that together encourage buying robust vehicles over economical ones is within the domain of the politicos, so I would have to hesitate to point an accusing finger at these people.

It doesn't seem right to me to blame them for doing what seems right to them in their own circumstances.

 

[LeftieBiker]

Even if high fuel taxes were feasible politically, they tend to be regressive, costing the working poor much more of their income than the well off and rich. Mandated fuel economy standards that necessitate efficient vehicles and BEV/PHEV options, combined with subsidies to make those vehicles affordable, are the best way to make this transition. If you want to use taxes to drive the change, then *tax the vehicles* according to rated fuel economy. The technology to do this at the pump exists right now. This would allow a variable tax rate according to income, reducing or eliminating the regressive aspect of fuel taxes.