Nissan Titan XD Forum banner

1 - 20 of 42 Posts

·
Registered User
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
The NHTSA announced on Friday that they are proposing a new rule that would place stiffer regulations on medium and heavy-duty truck emissions by 1 billion metric tons. This new regulation is aimed at reducing fuel costs by about $170 billion by next decade.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established the standards that will now face a period during which industry and environment groups will comment. The standards could be revised.

The agencies are asking for a cut in carbon emissions between 2021 and 2027 that would be nearly equal to the greenhouse gas emissions from all U.S. residences in one year. The fuel-efficiency targets would save more oil than what the U.S. currently imports annually from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
http://www.freep.com/story/money/2015/06/19/environmental-protection-agency-heavy-trucks-greenhouse-gases/28976747/
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
340 Posts
I love these guys because they're so fuckking bad at math. For some reason we assume that reducing fuel consumption is free, as if it was simple as putting less gas in the tank. One thing for sure, if they want to force the industry to become more fuel efficicient thats going to take research and development, engineers don't work for free, materials don't cost free. So yes you can reduce fuel expenditure by $170 Billion but notice how no one talks about how much money its going to cost to save $170 Billion. If they did the people would demand communism...

"Once upon a time, to be pro-environment you had to be anti-big-vehicles. This rule will change that," said U.S Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. "In fact, these efficiency standards are good for the environment – and the economy. When trucks use less fuel, shipping costs go down. It's good news all around, especially for anyone with an online shopping habit."
This panders to the stupid of the stupid, lowest of the lowest common denominator...
 

·
Registered User
2019 Titan XD Pro4x Cummins
Joined
·
665 Posts
If they want to use less fuel they need to pull back the bogus emissions standards that cause more fuel to be burned.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
If they want to use less fuel they need to pull back the bogus emissions standards that cause more fuel to be burned.
How do the emissions standards cause more fuel to be burned?

I think that the government has a role in guiding and dictating where research should head. Even if they don't quite get there, that they are trying is a good thing.
 

·
Registered User
2019 Titan XD Pro4x Cummins
Joined
·
665 Posts
Due to changing combustion characteristics to alter emissions, so combustion isn't as efficient as it can be.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
857 Posts
How do the emissions standards cause more fuel to be burned?

I think that the government has a role in guiding and dictating where research should head. Even if they don't quite get there, that they are trying is a good thing.
That's where regulations come into play, as long as they have those in place and they make it know what could be voted in, it takes on an effect in the industry.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
313 Posts
For most diesel combustion pollutants, it used to be that "dilution is the solution to pollution" and maybe in rural areas you can still get away with that, but not in urban areas. There are too many health issues involved. You need emission controls. And one of the things that government is supposed to do is regulate the market (and provide infra-struture) so people don't get sick from pollution. Europe and China are beginning to figure that out, but it took some gawd-awful urban pollution for them to do so.

I understand the new urea and DPF systems have allowed manufacturers to back off the EGR and emissions tuning used in the past and allow the engine to run more efficiently. But the necessity to regen the DPF regularly still cuts into diesel efficiency.

And I see Toyota claiming big gains in the thermal efficiency of its new small diesels (used everywhere in their HiLux pickup, except US and Canada), with fuel efficiency up by 15% (the new-to-Toyota urea injection system helps that too). So there are still gains to be made before ... whatever happens next .
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Government needs to stay out of my life, and especially stay away from my truck.
You are so American.

Assuming that we all want to be nice to the planet and not exacerbate its problems, regulating emissions seems like a good news. To a certain degree auto makers are prepared for things like this. They have their own motives, I don't think that protecting the environment is one of them.
 

·
Registered User
2019 Titan XD Pro4x Cummins
Joined
·
665 Posts
Yeah humans alone are ruining the environment and there is no evidence whatsoever that the Earths climate has been dynamic for as long as we've been recording our history.

Climate change does exist, however it's being used as a fear tactics to line some peoples pockets.

Reducing the amount of energy we use is smarter than using more energy to achieve the illusion of cleaner consumption.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Too bad that won't happen :D

They'll continue to shaft everyone, that's what they are in the business of after all!
As a Canadian, I find it strange how many Americans have such a distrust of the government. I'm not saying I think the government does everything right, but I don't think they are just going around trampling on freedom.

Then again, I experience the Canadian government mostly and Canada is awesome.
 

·
Registered User
2019 Titan XD Pro4x Cummins
Joined
·
665 Posts
The Canadian government is more than capable of trampling all over our right. The Firearms Act is an excellent example.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
857 Posts
As a Canadian, I find it strange how many Americans have such a distrust of the government. I'm not saying I think the government does everything right, but I don't think they are just going around trampling on freedom.

Then again, I experience the Canadian government mostly and Canada is awesome.
Canada is evil as well.

BUT it depends if it matters to you, some people care about these things and some don't.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
340 Posts
If they want to use less fuel they need to pull back the bogus emissions standards that cause more fuel to be burned.
Their logic is borderline insane. We put teeny tiny turbo engines into 3-4,000 lb cars, over work the engine so the turbo is always in demand, everyone knows high boost events guzzle gas... but this is fuel efficient.

Put the biggest motor possible into the smallest car possible and voila fuel economy. Hit the nail with a sledge hammer not a feather duster...
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
608 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Their logic is borderline insane. We put teeny tiny turbo engines into 3-4,000 lb cars, over work the engine so the turbo is always in demand, everyone knows high boost events guzzle gas... but this is fuel efficient.

Put the biggest motor possible into the smallest car possible and voila fuel economy. Hit the nail with a sledge hammer not a feather duster...
I don't understand your argument. They measure the fuel economy, and you can as well yourself. Regardless of the engine, the fuel economy measurements I believe are true. So do you think that the way we measure it is wrong or something? I'm just a little confused.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
857 Posts
It's all them buying time before it all fcks up, I wouldn't like to know how these do after warranty and all those miles are racked up.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
313 Posts
It's all them buying time before it all fcks up, I wouldn't like to know how these do after warranty and all those miles are racked up.
Many of Ford's EcoBoost turbos have been around a fair amount of time. The 3.5L EcoBoost in the F150, like mine, has been out since 2011. It's a very big selling engine. I understand some of these have racked up 150K miles without major issue. But only time will tell how far they will go before a major overhaul. Certainly not as far as a diesel, but so far they seem pretty tough.

As for mileage, all turbos are similar in that if you use them by going into boost, you are going to burn more gas. But if you have a light foot, they can behave more like the small engine they are.

My EcoBoost only gets ~10.7mpgUS on Premium when towing my 8100# trailer because it's in boost most of the time. But it also has more low end torque than Ford's 6.2L V8 (but at high rpms >4000 the V8 will out pull it).

And when not towing, I get close to 20 mpgUS. I don't think there's a big V8 in a half-ton that can match that. The EPA rankings say the same.

But now, with diesel prices dropping below regular gas, and much below premium, the Titan XD with Cummins is looking very good.
 

·
Registered User
2019 Titan XD Pro4x Cummins
Joined
·
665 Posts
Their logic is borderline insane. We put teeny tiny turbo engines into 3-4,000 lb cars, over work the engine so the turbo is always in demand, everyone knows high boost events guzzle gas... but this is fuel efficient.

Put the biggest motor possible into the smallest car possible and voila fuel economy. Hit the nail with a sledge hammer not a feather duster...
This is a flawed argument.

A small displacement engine that is turbocharged can easily flow more air than a large displacement naturally aspirated engine.

The small displacement engine has less parasitic loss, has scaleable power output and smaller diameter cylinders have less stress on them under boost than large diameter cylinders that are naturally aspirated.

The problem is the person operating the vehicle that wants full power all the time from that little engine with a turbocharger, so it happily consumes the fuel needed to match the air flow. If the operator was capable of exhibiting restraint, the small displacement turbocharged engine will always achieve better economy than a comparable large displacement engine.

In the same way, the ISV will outperform the Duramax, the Powerstroke and the ISB.

As with everything there is a balance point of needing sufficient displacement for the basic needs of the vehicle before the turbo spools.

The biggest possible engine has higher friction, higher weight, higher parasitic losses and higher fuel consumption at low power requirements.
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
857 Posts
That would make sense, plus you have to imagine that automakers have already done their homework and have already weighed on the pros and cons.
 
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
Top