2016=1972

gm88 · April 2, 2010

FUBO http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/01/autos/cafe...final/index.htm

C. Charles Hahn · April 2, 2010

FUBO http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/01/autos/cafe...final/index.htm

truckofwinandawesome · April 2, 2010

Daryl LBZ · April 2, 2010

Don't care they arent going to get me to stop driving my truck!

ShimanoFisherman · April 3, 2010

I'm surprised it took this long for "il duce" to enact these regulations. I bought the Denali b/c I figured they were coming.

It'll be interesting to see if the automakers continue to spend the R&D dollars to produce high-powered trucks and suvs with the new gas-guzzler tax. Or will it be the 70s part deux...

Jubei69 · April 3, 2010

http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/index.php?...mp;hl=when+pigs

C. Charles Hahn · April 3, 2010

I'm surprised it took this long for "il duce" to enact these regulations. I bought the Denali b/c I figured they were coming.

It'll be interesting to see if the automakers continue to spend the R&D dollars to produce high-powered trucks and suvs with the new gas-guzzler tax. Or will it be the 70s part deux...

Well where HD trucks are concerned, they HAVE to keep producing high-powered drivetrains for them. The nice part of that is higher efficiency can have a nice side effect in the form of more power, if implemented correctly. I think it's very much possible with modern technology (things that didn't exist in the 70s) to increase efficiency without decreasing power.

Too bad that all comes with a steep price tag attached to it. I don't think we'll ever see truly downright "cheap" vehicles of any kind for a long, long time.

ryan_hermanutz · April 3, 2010

I'm surprised it took this long for "il duce" to enact these regulations. I bought the Denali b/c I figured they were coming.

It'll be interesting to see if the automakers continue to spend the R&D dollars to produce high-powered trucks and suvs with the new gas-guzzler tax. Or will it be the 70s part deux...

Well where HD trucks are concerned, they HAVE to keep producing high-powered drivetrains for them. The nice part of that is higher efficiency can have a nice side effect in the form of more power, if implemented correctly. I think it's very much possible with modern technology (things that didn't exist in the 70s) to increase efficiency without decreasing power.

Too bad that all comes with a steep price tag attached to it. I don't think we'll ever see truly downright "cheap" vehicles of any kind for a long, long time.

I think until some exotic fuel is discovered, the main stay will be factory turbo’s and maybe even the rebirth of a manual transmission. Just imagine a 6.2 twin turbo Silverado with a 6 speed manual transmission. Yeah I would hate to be forced into one of those

C. Charles Hahn · April 3, 2010

maybe even the rebirth of a manual transmission.

Not gonna happen. Again, with modern technology automatic transmissions have become just as if not more efficient and can shift faster than a manual transmission. Case in point, go look at the 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times of a manual transmission vs. automatic transmission in the new Camaro. The automatic is FASTER than the manual. That never used to happen, but now it does because automatic transmissions have drastically improved.

ryan_hermanutz · April 3, 2010

Maybe, but I would need to see the numbers, not that I would probably understand any of them, that they are more efficient than a direct drive manual tranny.

C. Charles Hahn · April 3, 2010

Maybe, but I would need to see the numbers, not that I would probably understand any of them, that they are more efficient than a direct drive manual tranny.

I understand a lot of guys on this site are "old school" or have mentalities that haven't changed from the "good 'ol days" (and trust me, that is frustrating sometimes when people assume any new technology is a bad thing or a sign that someone is out to get them) but seriously, this is 2010 now and vastly improved technologies DO exist.

Here's a case in point:

The V6 coupe will cover the quarter-mile in 14.5 seconds with an auto and 14.7 seconds with a manual, both at 97 mph.

Chevy's Camaro SS outfitted with the 422-hp 6.2-liter LS3 V8 six-speed manual hits 60 mph in 4.9 seconds and runs a 13.4-second quarter-mile at 108 mph according to Oppenheiser. Strangely enough, Oppenheiser also claims that the automatic-equipped SS Camaro, which is rated at 400 hp, runs from zero to 60 mph in just 4.6 seconds and through the quarter-mile in 13.3 seconds. "We optimized the shift points," he said.

So.... manual transmission gets more power and torque, but it's still slower which = less efficient.

ryan_hermanutz · April 3, 2010

That may have something to do with who is doing the shifting, I know for a fact that I can shift worlds better than my wife, but I'm sure that many other people can shift better than I can. Also isn't a manual more efficient than a automatic while coasting, something about no fuel or something like that?

truckofwinandawesome · April 4, 2010

That may have something to do with who is doing the shifting, I know for a fact that I can shift worlds better than my wife, but I'm sure that many other people can shift better than I can. Also isn't a manual more efficient than a automatic while coasting, something about no fuel or something like that?

Maybe they are afraid people will Bernstein The clutch!

C. Charles Hahn · April 4, 2010

That may have something to do with who is doing the shifting, I know for a fact that I can shift worlds better than my wife, but I'm sure that many other people can shift better than I can. Also isn't a manual more efficient than a automatic while coasting, something about no fuel or something like that?

I can see this is getting nowhere; I think you missed the part about giving up the old ways of thinking.

The only advantage to a fully manual transmission these days is the novelty and fun factor for drivers who know how to use them.

And "no fuel when coasting" with a manual? Umm... is the engine still running when you're coasting? If yes, then it's burning fuel.

ShimanoFisherman · April 4, 2010

So what new technology has the ability to double the combined mpg rating of these trucks in the next four to six years without a drastic reduction in horsepower? There's the simple matter of physicis. Without some totally new technology to make the truck lighter without compromising safety requirements and/or greatly advanced drivetrain technology, I just foresee smaller engines or gas-guzzler taxes.

Hybrid combustion/electric won't solve the issue. The hybrid Tahoe still only manages a combined twenty. And not only are the manufacturers haivng to try to drastically increase MPG they must also do it while having to conform to new BS emissions standards. GMs OHV engines could get one-to-two more MPG highway if they could use the lean cruise that they can in Australia but they're not allowed to b/c of NOx emissions.

Turbos aren't going to solve the problem entirely on their own either. I think we can all agree that the 3.5L Ford EcoBoost is a technological marvel. Yet it still only manages 17/25 in a car.

And all this has to be done without vast quantities of exotic materials. B/c I'm sure they could meet all the requirements today if we could all afford to buy six figure trucks.

Make no mistake about the intent of these new regulations. Their purpose is to change the behavior of the people in this country. Not to arbitrarily force the automakers to implement some new technology that they have locked away in a closet.