backtop


Print 95 comment(s) - last by mritter1981.. on May 28 at 9:02 AM

Ford says 66% of new cars we use four-cylinder engines by 2020

With the looming CAFE fuel economy standards, just about every automaker out there is pushing hard to migrate from larger displacement engines to engines with a smaller displacement, typically using a turbocharger to get the same sort of power output. The benefit of this is that it allows drivers to have the same performance with improved fuel economy.

One of the most successful automakers at making this transition away from higher displacement engines has been Ford with its line of EcoBoost power plants. Detroit News reports that Ford is projecting an increase in sales for vehicles using four-cylinder engines and that by 2020 66% of all new vehicles will use smaller displacement four-cylinder engines.

"I think it's maybe a stretch. But I don't find it implausible," said Bill Visnic, senior editor at the car research site Edmunds.com, in a telephone interview. "If you look at where things have been going segment by segment, except pickups, you could say that's been the trend."

In 2008, only 40% of new vehicles sold used four-cylinder engines compared to 53% today. Currently, the majority of small and medium-size cars on the automotive market come standard with a four-cylinder engine. Most compact SUVs also come standard with four-cylinder engine. Full-size pickups and full-size SUVs currently come with six and eight-cylinder engine options. In 2012, sales of pickup trucks accounted for 13% of all new market sales.
 
Mike Osmotoso of LMC Automotive notes that to achieve that 66% goal, "[Ford would be] expecting pickups and full-size SUVs to virtually disappear."

Considering that the Ford F-150 is the automaker's best-selling vehicle, the more likely scenario would have entry-level trucks using EcoBoost four-cylinder engines producing the same power output as current base level V-6 engines.

Source: Detroit News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

"Disappearing" Trucks
By Flunk on 5/21/2013 9:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think Ford is expecting all Pickups to disappear. I think they're expecting people who don't actually need a Pickup on a day-to-day basis for work choosing more fuel efficient options.

I honestly don't see that happening. There is a segment of the population who will continue to buy huge trucks to drive around alone in until they can no longer afford to. And I don't see that happening by 2020.




RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By quiksilvr on 5/21/2013 9:26:04 AM , Rating: 3
True, but as more high end plastics are used on engines and the proliferation of composite materials used to save weight, not to mention the improvements to technology where a V4 can do the job of a V6 or V8, I believe in seven years we will see V4 F-150s.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By daboom06 on 5/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 9:48:08 AM , Rating: 2
Reducing the weight of the truck reduces its ability to haul and tow UNLESS they were to use lighter AND stronger components to make up the difference.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 10:19:46 AM , Rating: 3
5th wheel setups go a long way to help with this. They distribute the weight a lot better on the overall rig.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By theapparition on 5/21/2013 11:12:09 AM , Rating: 3
Even using stronger materials doesn't change the situation with towing.

You get a 4000lb truck towing a 6000lb boat, vs a 3000lb truck and you can have some serious issues. Strength of materials starts to mean less as you have momentum and inertia to deal with.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 11:19:09 AM , Rating: 2
6000 lbs is only 2.7 tons. :-/

If you can't safely tow that with a 1.4 ton truck, then I would suggest you've no errand going near any sized truck!


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 11:58:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Strength of materials starts to mean less as you have momentum and inertia to deal with.
There are 12k lb trucks towing 30k lbs of weight. How does that work then? A 3000 lb truck CAN tow more weight IF the structure is strong enough. The reason why trucks weigh so much is because of the weight of the of the structure needed to tow/haul X amount of weight. Lighten AND strengthen the structure and you can keep towing/hauling the same weight. That said, in reality, you still aren't going to get a 3000 lb truck that tows/hauls too much more than what it already does now IMO and the cost of lightening the truck may not be worth the additional expense and fuel savings. IMO trucks worst enemy is not weight but aerodynamics.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By theapparition on 5/21/2013 12:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the strength of the truck frame that becomes a problem, or the ability to pull the weight.

It's the pure dynamics of having a significantly heavier weight following a lighter one. It becomes an unstable system. The heavier towed load can literally push the truck around in braking scenarios (aka, jackknife) or cause unstable turns.

As for my numbers, I admit I just pulled them out of the blue, but my point still stands. It's not a linear relationship, but getting a truck too light would definitely affect its towing ability. Now I'm sure that would be accounted for when manufacturers rate the capacity.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 1:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
True, that effect can be mitigated by load distribution, better suspension, structural stiffness and wheels. Reducing weight saves fuel, costs, wear on roads, etc... The reduction in haul and tow capabilities will probably not affect most truck buyers.

The heavy duty trucks will always stay heavy for their intended purpose. Most F150 buyers won't haul or tow that much stuff or ever. There are those who do use a truck because they need its capabilities and those trucks are still available.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 1:20:11 PM , Rating: 5
Not really concerned with your exact numbers as I got wheat you were saying but trucks that are half the weight of their loads (and more) are driven daily AND are within manufacturers guidelines and state and local regulations. It's a non-issue. Only a portion of the towed weight is carried by the tow vehicle anyways. Only under braking does the tow vehicle possibly experience heavier loading. And that heavier load under braking is compensated for by the use of trailer brakes. It's mandatory over a certain towed weight to have them (and the weights are really low like 1500 lbs in CA). There is NO truck in ANY weight class that's rated to stop its combined gross weight without braking assistance from the trailer. I stand by my post that says that a lighter truck with the proper strengthening can tow the same amount of weight as the heavier truck. I also stand by my opinion that trucks won't get significantly lighter in reality due to cost and other issues.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By theapparition on 5/22/2013 10:06:08 AM , Rating: 1
I agree mostly as well.

My only point was that it will always be safer to tow with a heavier vehicle than a lighter one. Can it be done? Yes. Should it for the average person? No.

Trailer brakes still only help in strait line deceleration. In an emergency situation, the momentum of the trailer could cause the system to become unstable.

We don't really have to guess on this. A Ford Ranger can't tow the same capacity as the F150. Yes, there's plenty of factors involved, but if suddenly Ford was miraculously shave 1/4 the weight off the F150, then I guarantee you'd see a reduction in ultimate tow capacity.

And I do completely agree that I don't think we'd ever see a significant reduction in weight anytime soon.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/2013 1:12:59 PM , Rating: 2
It's both.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 1:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's both.
Thanks for weighing in. Are they equal or does one play a greater role?


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 1:46:07 PM , Rating: 1
Seriously?

Anyone with a clue of how obvious that statement was wouldn't have put in the stupid disclaimer.

It has instantly made me think more "assembly line dogsbody" and less "knowledgeable engineer".

In answer to your question, different operating regimes will have different dependencies, higher speeds lead to more bias towards aerodynamics, lower speeds towards weight. There is no single number that catches all. If your doing a lot of intersate, aerodynamics. If your shuttling around a farm and going no distance pretty slowly - weight.

Another significant factor omitted is drivetrain friction and inertia.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/2013 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 2
Truthfully, it depends.

If you're doing a lot of ultra urban, inner city driving (like say...in downtown Manhattan or in downtown Chicago) - probably moreso mass. Cuz you keep having to accelerate and decelerate that mass. So a LOT of energy is spent just on MOVING the damn thing.

But if you're doing say...a constant 75 mph - mehhh...that depends.

If you design the pick-up so that it "LOOKS" like a pick-up today (big, huge, bulky, like a brick), then hurling a brick at 75 mph is going to encounter a lot of air resistance no matter how much you try to make a brick aerodynamic. But on the other than though, mass is somewhat more "predictable" in terms of fuel economy specifically because kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2.

So if you say..make a truck 10% lighter, the relationship between the two is pretty well linear. Aero - on the other hand is a LOT less "predictable". (I used to run the computational fluid stuff while I was an undergrad research - not for cars or an OEM, but the nature of fluids and computational fluids is as much an art as it is a science right now. And there's still a LOT of debate amongst CFD users about what is the best way that is the most generally applicable. And it doesn't help that 35 years later (roughly) - there STILL isn't a general concensus amongst the experts in the field give you a glimpse as to how difficult the problem is and how difficult making such a claim/statement is.

And part of it also comes as a result of the customers too. OEMs can probably MAKE a very aerodynamic pick-up truck, but by then, it probably wouldn't look anything like the pick-up truck that people know and have envisioned in their minds. So, they end up having to like "undo" that, and well...yeah...you end up with what you've got today amongst all of the pick-up truck manufacturers.

It's the same or very similiar idea with the CVT transmissions and how people were complaining that you couldn't feel it shift, so OEMs HAD to change the transmission control algorithm and put the "shift feel" back into the CVT (which basically made the whole point of a CVT moot or near-moot).

OEMs (in general) get a fair bit of that. People generally don't like change. But once in a while, people eventually realize that the change was for the better. Much, MUCH better.

(The basic drag force equation is 0.5*rho*v^2*Cd*A and if people want the frontal profile of a pick-up to be a brick, then pretty much almost all of those numbers are locked/fixed values either because they're constant for comparison purposes, or constrained, however artifically).

(Note: I cannot stress my disclaimer enough. Even though I work for an OEM, I've also worked in the supplier base as well as an automotive engineering analyst, so I am speaking for myself based on my discussions at conferences with experts and my collective experiences. And a little bit from having actually done bits and pieces of it as part of my studies/personal research.)

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/2013 1:10:41 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand why people would think this.

You DO realize that FHWA Class 8 tractors weigh SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN their GVWR of 80,000 lbs., right? Considering that the rear tandem axle has a gross axle weight rating (GAWR) of 40,000 (Kenworth T680) lbs., I'm going to guess that the tractor itself is somewhere between 10,000-25,000 lbs.

By the logic below (and various other people have commented on the same or very similiar/along the same lines) - that would be saying that the Class 8 tractors can't do their job because they weigh less than their load. But that's OBVIOUSLY not a true statement. And it's also OBVIOUS that if you can do it with a heavy truck (Class 8); there is NOTHING that stops pick-up truck makers from taking a page out of that.

This is just my long-winded way of saying the weight of the pick-up truck as very little to do with the towing capacity.

Remember that kinetic energy is 0.5*m*v^2. If you have 4000 lb pickup towing a 6000 lb boat, you're moving 10,000 lb. If you have a 3000 lb pickup towing the same 6000 lb boat, now you're only moving 9000 lbs. You can check my math here, but 9000 lb is < 10,000 lb. Which means that it would take less torque and therefore; less power to move it and keep it moving. (Conversely, if you keep it at the same torque level, then you'll just accelerate faster.)

Strength of materials starts to mean MORE (since they will play a MUCH bigger role).

And this is the beautiful thing about engineering - you can DEFINITELY engineer stuff to carry more than its own weight. (cf. airplanes). And pickup trucks are no different.

There's nothing that stops a VW 900 hp Golf pusher-puller from towing the very same 6000 lb boat. You'd probably be putting a lot more strain on the Golf, but then again - you can beef up the Golf as well to do that job.

There's also nothing that says that you can't throw a hitch on the 2014 Corvette Stingray (with its 450 hp, 450 lbf.ft of torque) to tow once again, said 6000 lb boat. You'll probably bottom the car out, but...there are things that you can do to/for that as well. *rolls eyes*

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By StanO360 on 5/21/2013 1:19:19 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think that's the point. The point is, if you are hauling heavy loads, the weight savings provide only slight fuel saving as it's such a small portion of the overall load.

But the reality is most trucks are driven without loads most of the time, but they have to be able to carry a load when needed (which as you point out they can). If a load is carried daily, clearly the buyer will choose a diesel or other high torque engine.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Samus on 5/21/2013 2:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'll make this simple analogy for you guys who don't understand the concept of a truck towing a load heavier than itself:

I weigh 170lbs but can lift 250lbs.

It doesn't break the "laws of physics" and it isn't Voodoo. It's reality. Anything can be "stronger" than its own weight, especially vehicles.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/2013 2:03:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Trailer brakes" isn't the "weight of the pick-up truck" now is it?

;)

Brake rating/braking capacity is an entirely different measure.

Electronic brake force distribution is also something else entirely different.

Totally and completely separate things. They're interrelated only because everything affects everything else. (Which is what makes automotive engineering fun and interesting at times.)

If you have enough time and you're REALLY that interested, I can go into how you rate brakes and the entire braking system if you REALLY want to know.

And I can spend probably just as much time on the very closely related brake force calculations/engineering aspect of the entire braking system (which is probably part of the rating seminar anyways...). And then we can finally put the final piece of the puzzle by letting the mass of the vehicle be a variable rather than a fixed, constant value in the computations, and if you head hasn't exploded at that point, this probably will. :oD

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 2:40:12 PM , Rating: 1
Typical pickups don't have EBD lines for the trailer. Therefore the trailer will brake in a straight line... which is an issue when turning.

Go ahead with the heavy maths if you want - the day job is CFD.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/22/2013 2:29:06 PM , Rating: 2
What makes you think that you'll need EBD for your trailer?

So I'll entertain this thought exercise of yours for a moment and run with the hypothetical:

If your trailer has EBD (which is really just another version of glorified ABS), how would you prevent the trailer yaw rate due to EBD from being HIGHER than your the yaw rate of your lead towing pickup?

And if you have a 4000 lb pickup towing a 6000 lb boat, what's the weight transfer during braking? So how much would EBD really be able to help you? How would you coordinate the trailer EBD to the towing pickup's EBD?

Think about what you're suggesting...how would you pull it off?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 2:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In order to safely brake and simultaneously turn the vehicle, you need to ensure that there is not an overly large reliance on the trailer brakes and that the tractor retains sufficient authority over the drawbar.


Complete garbage (see I can do that too).

If you're towing a load that's greater than the tow vehicles GVWR, which if you're towing anything you are, you ARE overly relying on the trailers brakes! LOL! The tow vehicle is NOT designed to brake anything over its own GVWR. The trailers brakes are explicitly for that purpose. In order to brake and turn safely with a towed load, you just need to slow the f$&k down!


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 2:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
there are trailers without its own brakes.

Of course trailers brakes are for the trailers only.

When braking, you actually want the trailers to rely most of its braking power on the towing vehicle. This is to maintain more control. If the trailer is actually braking faster than the truck, then you lose control. It's a safety thing but you shouldn't brake and turn anyways, it's just unsafe.

In order brake and turn safely with any vehicle, you just need to slow down before the turn.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 2:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there are trailers without its own brakes.
And they are illegal if they're over a certain weight.

quote:
When braking, you actually want the trailers to rely most of its braking power on the towing vehicle.
Yes you want the combined braking power and yes it makes for stable braking but the not designed for over GVWR braking is still is a fact.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 3:19:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And they are illegal if they're over a certain weight.

Yes and that proves his point that trailers rely on vehicle brakes and tow vehicles are designed with that in mind.

quote:
Yes you want the combined braking power and yes it makes for stable braking but the not designed for over GVWR braking is still is a fact.


that's why there's a max tow limit and any trailers past a certain weight has to have brakes. The max tow weighs depends on how much braking the vehicle can provide along with vehicle. It cannot pass a certain %. If the vehicle has a low GVWR then it will have a lower tow limit. That's why the same vehicle with double wheels in the back have a higher GVWR and tow rating. Nothing changed except grip and braking capabilities.

If it's based on combined braking power then there wouldn't be a tow limit because the only variable would be trailer braking power. that wouldn't make any sense and your vehicle would be very unsafe.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 3:23:59 PM , Rating: 2
just to clarify before you bust out with more crazy logic. Tow rating is dependent on many things and not just braking.

http://www.rv.net/SharedCode/ford/output.cfm?id=29...

Gross Combination Weight Rating (gcwr): The total allowable weight of the tow vehicle, the trailer, the cargo in each, hitch hardware, fluids and occupants.

Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (gvwr): The total allowable weight for the vehicle, including occupants, fluids, options, hitch hardware, cargo and trailer-hitch weight.

Gross Axle Weight Rating (gawr): The total allowable weight on an individual axle. This includes the weight of the tires, wheels, brakes and the axle itself.

Maximum Tow Rating: The manufacturer’s weight limit for towed loads. For conventional trailers, this normally includes a hitch-weight limit as well; for fifth-wheels, the pin weight is applied to the truck’s gvwr and its rear-axle gawr.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 3:30:32 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yes and that proves his point that trailers rely on vehicle brakes and tow vehicles are designed with that in mind.
No that only proves law makers can make laws.

quote:
that's why there's a max tow limit and any trailers past a certain weight has to have brakes.
Max tow limits are determined by the manufacturer and state and local regulations. Max tow on my pickup is 16,000 lbs with a 5th wheel/gooseneck and 10k lbs with a bumper hitch. In CA, trailers over 1500 lbs require brakes. Other states are higher. Tow rating isn't based on GVWR, it's based on the weight handling capacity of each axle/tire. It just so happens that heavy axles contribute to a higher overall weight and in turn more GVWR.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
Correction, GVWR is based on the weight handling ability of the axles and tires.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/22/2013 2:48:14 PM , Rating: 2
"If the vehicle has a low GVWR then it will have a lower tow limit."

Uh...half-truth. I haven't gone through and dissected all of the trailer tow calculations yet for work (that's coming up shortly) but from what I've been told, the relationship between trailer tow (weight capacity) and GVWR is not that straightforward.

There are a LOT of conditions regarding how you calculate trailer tow, how you rate it, and how those ratings relate to the GVWR of a vehicle.

Here is the old way of calculating conventional trailer tow capacity (I'm in the process of rewriting this anyways, hence why I'm researching or will be researching the trailer tow government regulations/stuff shortly):

=IF(OR(ISBLANK(ttlimit),ISBLANK(tongue_cg),ISBLAN K(tongue_per),ISBLANK(gcwr11)),"-",FLOOR((MIN((gvw- (ttcurb1+ttc1))/tongue_per,((rmaxgawr-((ttcurb1+ttc 1)-(ttcurbfrt1+ttcfrt1)))*wb)/(tongue_cg-zeroline)/ tongue_per,gcwr11-ttcurb1-ttc1,ttlimit)),ttround))< br />
And that's just ONE of the calculations. Note that GVWR is NOT included in that calculation.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're towing a load that's greater than the tow vehicles GVWR, which if you're towing anything you are, you ARE overly relying on the trailers brakes! LOL! The tow vehicle is NOT designed to brake anything over its own GVWR.


You miss my point... somewhat completely! :-)

See the other post above - the trailer brakes in straight lines (well, they are supposed to), but the tractor may want to turn. If the trailer >> tractor, then you have issues.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 3:00:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the trailer >> tractor, then you have issues.
You're missing a LOT of points as well. :) You still think your tractor is heavier or just as heavy as your towed load. If you're not accepting that as fact, well you're misinformed.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 3:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
When did I (the man that posted about towing 4 tonnes with his 1.5 tonne pickup on down the page) ever say the tractor has to be heavier than the trailer?

(To avoid potential confusion the mathematical terminology >> means much greater than?)


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Reclaimer77 on 5/21/2013 6:42:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is just my long-winded way of saying the weight of the pick-up truck as very little to do with the towing capacity.


You can't compare a semi-truck, which is designed from the ground up to do NOTHING but tow heavy loads, to a pickup truck passenger vehicle.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By theapparition on 5/22/2013 9:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Not only that, but the drivers also have a higher level of driving certification (CDL) for operating towed loads.

Your average weekend warrior has no idea how to tow things safely. Good engineering can never overcome stupidity.

We can argue this all day long, but some physics can't be ignored. A heavier vehicle will be safer when towing anything. With a lot of good engineering, the risk can be reduced. But I guarantee that if manufacturers reduced truck weight, you'd also see a reduction in tow capacity. I have no issue with that, since 90% of trucks never tow a single thing in their lives. But I hope this doesn't come at the expense of still having trucks in the line up that can handle heavier loads.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/22/2013 10:29:45 AM , Rating: 2
You are absolutely right. Most people don't understand load balancing but you can't really blame them. Towing every weekend is vastly overstating its use. Almost every truck owner I know tow maybe once a year for moving or camping.

A heavier vehicle is safer definitely. The point is that manufacturers and people have realized that they don't need all this towing capabilities for a regular F150. The demand for better fuel economy and every day practicality is higher than towing capability. So why not sacrifice some of that towing capability to save fuel and road wear?

After sitting in the new trucks, I realized that trucks are designed more towards comfort and convenience than being just a truck. It's just transforming more towards a car. Almost all SUV have lost their off road capability also.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/22/2013 2:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
So you're trying to tell me that a 1966 Chevrolet K1434 with a published curb weight of 3750 lb is safer than a 2012 Chevrolet Colorado 2WD with a published curb weight of 3728 lbs?

And the former has a GVWR of 5600 lb while the latter is only 5300 lb.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the 1966 Chevy would be safer than the 2012 Chevy because it's heavier? Really?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By theapparition on 5/23/2013 10:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
I'd think anyone with intelligence would understand the context is "all else equal". Certainly trying to compare two vehicles that are half a century apart isn't valid.

But in the context of towing, a heavier vehicle will always be safer to tow with....all else equal.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/22/2013 2:57:56 PM , Rating: 2
Partially false.

Try spending 12 hours in one of those things. Why do you think they have sleeper cabs?

And at nearly the cost of a house, it'd be a REALLY expensive way for just hauling the kids around and groceries for your home. It isn't that it CAN'T do that. But it would be one heck of an expensive (and not very fast way) of doing it.

And if you don't think that pickups are built/designed around hauling loads, you're sorely mistaken.

Curb weight of a 2014 Chevrolet Silverado 1500 2WD with the 5.3L V8 is 5042 lbs. GVWR is 7200 lbs. GCWR with a 3.73 Rear Axle is 16700 lbs. and has a published max. conventional trailering with the 3.73 rear axle of 11200 lbs.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/2013 12:52:20 PM , Rating: 3
Shaving weight from the truck DEFINITELY reduces curb weight.

40 CFR 86.1803-01 (p.331)

"Curb weight means the actual or the manufacturer's estimated weight of the vehicle in operational status with all standard equipment, and weight of fuel at nominal capacity, and the weight of optional equipment computed in accordance with Sec. 86.1832-02; incomplete light-duty trucks shall have the curb weight specified by the manufacturer."

You're probably thinking of either the gross vehicle weight or the gross vehicle weight RATING; which, from 40 CFR 86.1803-01 (p.333) defines as:

"Gross vehicle weight means the manufacturer’s gross weight rating for the individual vehicle."

"Gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) means the value specified by the manufacturer as the maximum design loaded
weight of a single vehicle."

They're NOT the same thing.

I just went through the exercise of looking all this stuff up for work.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BZDTemp on 5/21/2013 12:55:46 PM , Rating: 2
Many trucks never move anything more than groceries and perhaps the occasional sports gear and/or furniture.

Those trucks will benefit from being lighter and while some truck buyers will keep going for the biggest ones out there others will chose more frugal models.

Even for those needing a truck for more than shopping a 4-cylinder will handle a lot. Remember a lot of freedom fighters make due with simple pick-up from Toyota and if they can carry rocket batteries into battle then surely they will handle a hunting trip :-)


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 1:10:08 PM , Rating: 1
A big heavy truck does not help you for offroading. Toyota Tacoma's are a much better choice for that hunting trip than some heavy duty ford or dodge. The previous generation Tacoma's were actually probably even better. There are a ton of uses for a light duty truck, not everything involves towing a 10,000lbs trailer.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 2:35:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yes toyota tacoma and chevy s10 are the most popular offroad/mudding trucks.

The bigger trucks are too heavy and get stuck easier.

Bigger trucks with high clearance are better at crossing water.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By zephyrprime on 5/21/2013 1:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
That vast majority of the time I see a truck on the road, it's empty and not towing anything.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 2:15:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
That vast majority of the time I see a truck on the road, it's empty and not towing anything.
How do you know they're not going to pickup a load or have just dropped off a load? When we go get hay, we're empty. We don't put sh!t in the bed or tow a trailer behind our truck just so you guys can feel good about our purchase. LOL! We use our truck the way we feel like using it.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 2:32:01 PM , Rating: 2
if they did, then he would see a lot of them on the road. When you pick up something, you drive it somewhere else.....unless you just like to load stuff up on your truck and let it sit there.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if they did, then he would see a lot of them on the road.
Not necessarily. Maybe that load only gets picked up a certain time of day and he only sees them when they're on their way to get it. When I used to drive a truck for a living, I typically would be empty during commutes when most people would see me. Did that mean I didn't need the truck. NOPE! It only means you saw me when I was empty. And that's my point


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Keeir on 5/21/2013 8:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't own a truck and rent one whenever I do need one. But I only need a truck about 6 times a year. Each time I end up paying ~40 dollars for my 4 hour truck rentals + ~1 hour of "out of the way" time.

For a 15,000 miles a year driver, the difference between owning a car and a full-size (but not heavy duty) truck is around 200-300 gallons of gasoline in a year. Since the expected cost of gasoline has been typically less than 4 dollars over the past 5 years, the expected price to own a truck is less than 1,000 dollars a year.

If I value my time at around 10 dollars a hour, once I rent a truck 20 or more times in a year (and the rental is for less than a day each time), I end up spending more money than if I had just owned the truck in the first place. That works out to less than 2 truck trips a month! If I use my car/truck every day to travel to work, and tow a boat to a lake/etc every other weekend in summer, you might see me needing a truck ~1/20 trips or less!

Its a problem. I am unaware of a service that rents pick-ups at a rate reasonable enough to ensure that "light" users don't see it as economically viable to rent.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Argon18 on 5/21/2013 10:35:06 AM , Rating: 2
A V4? Why would they make a V4? Four cyl engines are usually in-line.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By lagomorpha on 5/21/2013 5:42:02 PM , Rating: 1
Not to mention a V4 big enough to power a truck would have enough twisting vibration to tear itself free from its mounts.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By 91TTZ on 5/21/2013 10:52:39 AM , Rating: 2
V4s? What cars have V4s?


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 11:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
None now... I think.

Old Lancias used to use them.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Stuka on 5/21/2013 12:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Unlikely.

What is more likely, is the rebirth of the "small" pickup. Since the US lineup pushed the Colorado, Frontier and Tacoma up in scale. The compact car is ballooning into a midsize, which hemorrhaged into the new sub-compacts providing the same stature as a compact from 15+ years ago. I see no reason the trucks won't do the same.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/2013 12:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.

I would LOVE to see V4 trucks. Or V4 ANYTHING other than Harleys. ;o)


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 1:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
Honda VFR


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/2013 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
*edit*
Anything other than motorcycles then... :P

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed here are solely that of my own and are not representative of Ford Motor Company or its affiliates.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 1:14:43 PM , Rating: 2
Inline engines are cheaper to build, simpler, and cheaper and easier to repair.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By lagomorpha on 5/21/2013 5:52:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think Harley has ever made anything other than a V-twin and boxer-twins (back in the 1930s iirc) for retail production. Off the top of my head, production V4s have been made by Honda, Aprilia, Ducati, Yamaha, Ford, and I think Saab.

There are a few more companies if you count 2 stroke racing motorcycles.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By SAN-Man on 5/22/2013 8:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
This post demonstrates the general public's fundamental ignorance of engines, technology, etc. I'm not going to point out why, suffice to say, cylinder configuration is not overly important - it's a perception held by the ignorant public at large.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By mritter1981 on 5/28/2013 9:02:17 AM , Rating: 2
Aside from where I live now: Alaska (Diesel gelling issues). I would love to see the option for a 4cyl Turbo Diesel in light duty trucks. What I find hilarious, is the fact that my '96 F-150XLT (has a 4.9L I6) gets better gas milage than my '09 Ranger (4.0L V6). Both are Manual TX, and driven similarly (yes I use the Ranger for more light offroad, since I enjoy hunting/fishing). The Ranger was cheaper, and got better gas milage/handled better than the I4 Wrangler I was looking at.

F-150: ~31 mpg (after replacing the intake, 24 mpg prior)

Ranger: ~18 mpg (regardless of when in 4WD/Towing/2WD)


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By mdogs444 on 5/21/2013 9:29:47 AM , Rating: 1
Count me as one. I have a new 2013 F150 4door with the optional 6.2L V8. Do I "need" it? Nope. But I love it, and I don't really care one lick about gas mileage.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Morde on 5/21/2013 9:33:07 AM , Rating: 2
V4??? you mean a I4. 4 cylinder cars are inline.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 10:17:50 AM , Rating: 2
Not all are I4, don't forget subaru's most excellent boxer 4's


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 12:50:19 PM , Rating: 2
RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 1:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
Not true, V4/I4/F4 are just configurations.

The V configuration generally reduces the overall engine length, height and weight compared to an equivalent inline configuration.
The V4 engine has not been widely used in cars, with Lancia, Ford and ZAZ the only companies to manufacture such an engine.

The inline-four layout is in perfect primary balance and confers a degree of mechanical simplicity which makes it popular for economy cars. However, despite its simplicity, it suffers from a secondary imbalance which causes minor vibrations in smaller engines. It does not work well for more than 5 cylinders because placing 6 or more cylinders in a line cause space conflicts.

F costs more but the configuration results in inherently good balance of the reciprocating parts, a low centre of gravity, and a very short engine length

there's also H, U, X and W engine layouts.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 9:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
I'll also be a truck owner for a LONG time although not as a primary vehicle.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By alpha754293 on 5/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 2:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
haha yea, when I used to own the Escalade.....memories of double pumping.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 2:52:51 PM , Rating: 2
How does paying more for fuel and taxes on that fuel NOT pay for your usage of more fuel? I see similar questions here but no explanations when I bring this point up.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 3:06:01 PM , Rating: 1
I think what people are thinking about are the actual costs incurred to environment and infrastructure. A truck that weighs 2x and use 2x fuel will pay 2x more on taxes. However, the damage on roads and environment is higher than 2x.

Using more fuels will also cause higher demand and raise prices.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 3:25:41 PM , Rating: 2
I see what you're saying but I haven't seen a study that has determined how much more a pickup truck damages roads and environment than a lighter vehicle. I'm sure there's some amount more but is it significant enough to charge a fee for?

quote:
Using more fuels will also cause higher demand and raise prices.
Anyone using fuel is causing higher demand and since most vehicles driven are by far CARS not trucks/SUV's/whatnot (see Ford's 13% comment above), a significant reduction in demand will come from driving less CARS not trucks/etc.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By lagomorpha on 5/21/2013 6:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see what you're saying but I haven't seen a study that has determined how much more a pickup truck damages roads and environment than a lighter vehicle. I'm sure there's some amount more but is it significant enough to charge a fee for?


The general formula is that damage to a road from vehicles is proportional to the cube of the axle weight times the number of axles. For example, if a truck weighs 4000 pounds then each axle weights 2000 pounds (yeah yeah different weight distribution than 50/50, this is just an example) so 2000 cubed is 8000000000 times 2 axles is 16,000,000,000 units of road damage.

Try putting in a few numbers and you'll quickly see that it takes a LOT of Suburbans to cause the same road wear as a single 80,000 pound semi.

Of course that's just for vehicle induced damage. Any place that goes through a lot of heating and cooling is going to be repairing the roads frequently whether there is traffic going over them or not.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/22/2013 10:04:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see what you're saying but I haven't seen a study that has determined how much more a pickup truck damages roads and environment than a lighter vehicle. I'm sure there's some amount more but is it significant enough to charge a fee for?

It depends on what truck you are talking about. Any semi will damage the roads and environment more than a regular car. Given its workload and weight, it is actually much more fuel efficient and environmentally friendly.

A consumer truck is usually pretty bad compared a regular sedan. Some people use these trucks for what it's made for but the vast majority just want a truck and hardly use it for anything besides transportation.

quote:
Anyone using fuel is causing higher demand and since most vehicles driven are by far CARS not trucks/SUV's/whatnot (see Ford's 13% comment above), a significant reduction in demand will come from driving less CARS not trucks/etc.


Yes, 13% of new market sales are trucks. But that 13% caused more than 13% of the problem. We don't need statistics to tell us that. Trucks pollute more, use more fuel, and cause more road damage. Most truck/suv owners use them for daily driving.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/22/2013 2:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, 13% of new market sales are trucks. But that 13% caused more than 13% of the problem. We don't need statistics to tell us that. Trucks pollute more, use more fuel, and cause more road damage. Most truck/suv owners use them for daily driving.
You were being quite reasonable until this post. That's a TON of assumptions with no facts at all just your opinions. At least I asked some questions above to find out some real data. You seem quite satisfied that you're right regardless of whether you've got supporting data or not. Since I don't operate that way at all, we're done talking.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 10:16:32 AM , Rating: 2
4 Cyl engines have already increased in popularity. With $4 gasoline this is kind of a no brainer isn't it. Obviously they don't work for some vehicles, but for the average mid sized sedan they make perfect sense.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 10:23:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yikes, a turbo 4 in an F150. That doesn't sound great to me. Personally I would love to see a turbo 4 diesel in mid sized trucks aka Tacomas.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Argon18 on 5/21/2013 10:38:46 AM , Rating: 2
A turbo diesel 4 cylinder in a pickup would be a killer. Mercedes is making 369 ft/lbs from its 2.1 liter turbo diesel 4 cyl.

That's more torque than many gasoline v8 engines! It would deliver amazing power AND amazing fuel economy. Win-win.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 10:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
Considering peak torque only may be a bit erroneous.

You need torque across the rev range, particularly low down, otherwise you'll be doing a number on your clutch.

I would suggest to the likes of Ford/Isuzu/Toyota etc that they:
- Make a 2WD low range available for towing on the road, rather than limiting low range to 4WD only (which is currently the case).
- Make the range splitter capable of operating on the move. So your 5/6 forward gears become a real 10/12 forward gears.

That would greatly improve the performance of smaller engines when towing heavy loads.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By ssobol on 5/21/2013 11:03:36 AM , Rating: 2
In the '80s I had a Dodge Colt with a 4 cyl and a range splitter gear in the transmission. There were two levers, one the regular shifter and the eco/pwr lever. Running through all the gear ratios in sequence required shifting using both levers (and took a long time).

One of the cool things was being able to upshift while going in reverse.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 11:22:19 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with 2 levers being 2 too many for roadwork. There are three separate gearboxes in our tractor... which makes it a complete balls for shuttle work and getting appropriate ratios quickly.

I would suggest the single gear lever for the 5/6 "normal gears", with a (guarded) powershift button on the lever for shifting the high/low box. Hand stays on the gearstick, but you've full functionality.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 1:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
This is how semi transmissions are built, to switch between the high and low you just flip a little switch on the side of the shift leather. Its super easy.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Jeffk464 on 5/21/2013 1:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
leaver


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/22/2013 11:18:48 AM , Rating: 2
lever


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By FITCamaro on 5/21/2013 12:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
Problem is I don't see a turbo 4 cylinder diesel coming out in an F150 in the next 10 years.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By BRB29 on 5/21/2013 2:38:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why not?
They already went with a V6.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 3:02:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They already went with a V6.
He said turbo diesel 4 cyl.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Amiga500 on 5/21/2013 10:40:53 AM , Rating: 2
Got a 4-cyl turbo-diesel in my isuzu rodeo/dmax.

OK, its not gonna break any speed records, but if your in no rush, it'll tow ~4 tonnes with a further 2 or 3 on the back bed... [if you a policeman I mean tow 3.5 tonnes and not a gram more ;-)]


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By Spuke on 5/21/2013 12:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yikes, a turbo 4 in an F150.
It would be fine as a replacement for the base V6 IMO.


RE: "Disappearing" Trucks
By cyberguyz on 5/22/2013 12:36:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, why not?

A 3.0-4.0 Liter 4-cyl Turbo diesel wouldn't really be so far off the mark. It could put out way more torque than the turbo 6 it has now.

Think about Cummins is getting 850 ft/lb of torque out of a huge straight 6 (and people pushing that well over 1000 ft/lb). If a big 4-banger can half that, it would be perfectly viable in an F150.


"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki