New designs will reduce transport fuels consumption

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

The latest offering in the popular pick-up truck segment is from Chevrolet, with a fairly hefty truck, 7700-lbs towing capacity, fitted with a 4-cylinder turbo-charged diesel.  The end result is a truck that will deliver 33 miles per gallon in real-world driving, including a climb up the Canadian Rockies to 4,400 feet. This kind of technical development is surprising in an environment of cheap fuel, but it shows you how overall fuels use will likely drop, even in the face of new consumers and more fuels demand.  As the technology continues to push the mpg capability of a truck, oil demand risks stagnating over the longer term.  Note that this is for the Diesel version, which I anticipate will be popular.  And keep in mind that these engines can run on recycled frying oil, peanut oil, all kinds of oils.   

To quote:

Our run in Chevy’s diesel-powered midsize truck began in Calgary, where we were asked to follow a route that went through Alberta’s vast farmland, and all the way to Banff, 4,537 feet above sea level in the breathtaking Canadian Rockies. During the 186-mile-long adventure, the GM Authority team recorded an average of 33 MPG fuel consumption in the Colorado Duramax.

The 33 MPG figure was recorded during both highway and city driving, with the final stretch of the run mostly performed on ascending terrain. Average speed was 65 mph.

Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/09/chevrolet-colorado-duramax-averages-33-mpg-during-186-mile-run/#ixzz604f50qe6

[BillKidd + 139]

That is very impressive. I just wish pickup trucks were not so danged expensive. Unreal!

I saw a gorgeous new Chevy being towed yesterday. Looked to be a new model year truck, if they are out. I loved the tail lights and the headlights. Lights make or break a truck for me. If they are too gaudy, I'm out, I don't care how much I, otherwise, like the truck.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

9 hours ago, BillKidd said:

That is very impressive. I just wish pickup trucks were not so danged expensive. Unreal!

It looks like the "Colorado" truck from Chevrolet can be purchased for about $32,000, with a modest trim level.  

The diesel has a bit of a charred history to it, when GM first came out with the larger versions perhaps 8 years ago, there were all kinds of problems, including injectors clogging, fuel starvation, and water pump failure due to poor pump internal design.  It looks like the 4-cylinder version offered here is a lot less trouble.  As always, as time marches on, the machinery gets ironed out and runs better. 

I have seen top-line fully tricked out full-size pickups with sticker prices of $80,000.    I guess they only sell those to Texans....

[BillKidd + 139]

The roads are full of $60,000 - $80,000 trucks down here. A large percentage never see dirt, never get off asphalt. I 'need' a new truck but have been unwilling to pull the trigger on these super high price tags. I can afford it, it just bugs heck out of me! Based on when I last bought a truck, 2008, trucks are about 33% - 40% over what they should cost. And that is based on what I 'should' have paid in 2008 in a normal economy... maybe $24,000. When I bought in fall of 2008, they could not get rid of trucks, there was a huge glut due to the Great Recession. My truck had sticker of $30,500 and after playing games with the dealership for a week on a Nissan Titan I liked, the guy called me up and said "What will it take?" I said, "Sensational, or I'm not going to buy it, because I don't have to have it." He said, "How about $18,500?" I said, "Sold, I'll be there in 30 minutes." I don't know how much markup they have, hard to envision they made any profit, look at that difference... $30,500 sticker (which some fools actually pay) and $18,500.

So, I'm waiting on the economy to crash, I suppose.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

On 9/20/2019 at 7:23 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The latest offering in the popular pick-up truck segment is from Chevrolet, with a fairly hefty truck, 7700-lbs towing capacity, fitted with a 4-cylinder turbo-charged diesel. 

Nothing new other than the diesel option.  This is just a slightly upgraded S10 which sold millions of in the 80/90/00's.    S10 was a fleet truck used by everyone.  Me among them.  Stopped producing for 5? years and came back as the Colorado(same parts work in both trucks initially at least), but the fools put a 6 cylinder in it and I sure as heck was not going to buy that useless fuel hog so bought a van instead.  I routinely pulled 3000lbs with the S10 and 4 cylinder.  Had to be careful if any hill and stopped with the gas engine, simply no go.  I averaged 29 mpg driving 65mph.  If you were a lead foot in city driving it dropped to 24mpg.  If you were kind in city driving at 35-->45mph with few stops, you got over 32mpg.  The diesel option would obviously fix the start on hill problem by giving a much lower torque.  True, with a 3000lb load, fuel economy suffered greatly.  Dropping to around 20mpg on the dead flat and any significant hills you dropped to ~40mph.  Trailer with windage?  Forget it.  You are going to burn the valves did not like "HIGH" power continuous. 

EDIT: As for running on "anything" ... well for how long?  I used to run a diesel truck on bio diesel.... utterly destroyed it.  Fuel tanks: destroyed.  Gauges: destroyed.  Injector pump?  Ok if you would believe it.  Injectors: Plugged, partially plugged, destroyed.  And the kicker?  The truck STANK.  It reeked because of the plugged injectors or dribbling injectors or, poorly spraying dribbling open injectors tons of partially burned fuel and the products coming out the tail pipe?  REEK.  So, entire interior was destroyed as well. 

Yes, technically we can run on bio diesel, but until they start making much more REFINED bio diesel, I will never run it again if given a choice. Yes, I know, no reason they cannot refine it to a superior level equal to diesel, but vast majority of it is not. 

Edited September 21, 2019 by footeab@yahoo.com

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

11 hours ago, BillKidd said:

So, I'm waiting on the economy to crash, I suppose.

Well, judging by the Trillions of foreign $$$ pouring into the USA you might have to wait a few years.  Until Europe stops its insane ever increasing negative bond yield roll over... no hope for a USA recession.  If it does stop/pause, yup, will kick the USA almost instantly into a recession. 

[DanilKa + 443]

13 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Well, judging by the Trillions of foreign $$$ pouring into the USA you might have to wait a few years.  Until Europe stops its insane ever increasing negative bond yield roll over... no hope for a USA recession.  If it does stop/pause, yup, will kick the USA almost instantly into a recession. 

Haven’t you heard Bill Dudley is on a war path to ruin economy to stop Trump re-election? https://dealbreaker.com/2019/08/bill-dudley-tells-jay-powell-to-stop-being-a-cuck

Trillions foreign $$$ - do you have links? Later trend was opposite; US investors needed to buy more to finance budget deficit. And that puts pressure on stock market as pool of $$$ albeit large but not unlimited (wait for MMT...) and equities needs to be sold to buy treasuries.

Good fuel economy, by the way. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

17 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

Haven’t you heard Bill Dudley is on a war path to ruin economy to stop Trump re-election? https://dealbreaker.com/2019/08/bill-dudley-tells-jay-powell-to-stop-being-a-cuck

Trillions foreign $$$ - do you have links? Later trend was opposite; US investors needed to buy more to finance budget deficit. And that puts pressure on stock market as pool of $$$ albeit large but not unlimited (wait for MMT...) and equities needs to be sold to buy treasuries.

Good fuel economy, by the way. 

Trillions? 

FDI: https://www.selectusa.gov/FDI-in-the-US

youtube strategian

Peter Zeihan

No, I am not an economist: rather an engineer.  So, take what I say about overall economics with a very Tiny pinch of salt

EDIT: I personally know 4.5(rest never made it out) families who have fled S. Africa after having family members brutalized or murdered, both colored and white.  So, when looking at that map, it is no wonder why capital is FLEEING S. Africa if you asked me. 

 

Edited September 21, 2019 by footeab@yahoo.com

[butasha + 123]

On 9/20/2019 at 9:23 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The latest offering in the popular pick-up truck segment is from Chevrolet, with a fairly hefty truck, 7700-lbs towing capacity, fitted with a 4-cylinder turbo-charged diesel. 

Jan, That's not a truck that is a toy 😉 7700-lbs wont even budge my cattle trailer with only 2 full grown bulls let alone a full load. But I have to admit 33 mpg does sound good. I am lucky to get 9 mpg hauling a loaded gooseneck full of beef.

12 hours ago, BillKidd said:

The roads are full of $60,000 - $80,000 trucks down here. A large percentage never see dirt, never get off asphalt. 

BillKidd, It is safe to say that my truck does have more miles on the asphalt than dirt. But it is also safe to say that I have many, many more hours in the pasture and dirt roads than I have hours on asphalt road 😉

22 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

I have seen top-line fully tricked out full-size pickups with sticker prices of $80,000.    I guess they only sell those to Texans....

Jan, I am sure there are some 80K trucks sold in Texas. However those are probably in Houston or Dallas-Fort Worth. Austin well that is a completely different world all together. It is actually hard to get a new truck that can tow large loads through off road conditions for less than 50k especially if it is a ranch truck and you need real bumpers, brush/cattle guards, headache racks, bed rails, extra fuel tank, 8-10 ply non-highway tires etc etc. Basically just a tool and a fairly nice tax write as well. 

My pasture truck isnt typically all decked out. I prefer to be able to wash out the floor boards with a hose from time to time. Just dont think that little Canyon "truck" would last long. Although the 33 mpg sounds great.

[DanilKa + 443]

34 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Trillions? 

Trillion surprise you? That is how much US spent a year ABOVE what it brings in taxes. Hardly sustainable if you run a family budget but hey, it’s a good family business - printing money for all your neighbours... 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/217430/us-public-debt-and-forecast-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/02/06/Foreign-Ownership-US-Debt-Continues-Decline

how is it relevant to fuel economy topic? It isn’t:) except fuel may become more pricey when this house of card crushes

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

1 hour ago, DanilKa said:

Trillion surprise you? That is how much US spent a year ABOVE what it brings in taxes. Hardly sustainable if you run a family budget but hey, it’s a good family business - printing money for all your neighbours... 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/217430/us-public-debt-and-forecast-as-a-percentage-of-the-gdp/

https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2019/02/06/Foreign-Ownership-US-Debt-Continues-Decline

how is it relevant to fuel economy topic? It isn’t:) except fuel may become more pricey when this house of card crushes

Ding ding ding.  Preaching to the choir.  Believe me, I have as much physical assets as possible and not stocks or cash in USD.  It is only a matter of WHEN.  The only reason It has not fallen is because the developed world is printing just as fast if not faster with a couple exceptions.

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,187]

2 hours ago, butasha said:

Jan, That's not a truck that is a toy 😉 7700-lbs wont even budge my cattle trailer with only 2 full grown bulls let alone a full load. But I have to admit 33 mpg does sound good. I am lucky to get 9 mpg hauling a loaded gooseneck full of beef.

BillKidd, It is safe to say that my truck does have more miles on the asphalt than dirt. But it is also safe to say that I have many, many more hours in the pasture and dirt roads than I have hours on asphalt road 😉

Jan, I am sure there are some 80K trucks sold in Texas. However those are probably in Houston or Dallas-Fort Worth. Austin well that is a completely different world all together. It is actually hard to get a new truck that can tow large loads through off road conditions for less than 50k especially if it is a ranch truck and you need real bumpers, brush/cattle guards, headache racks, bed rails, extra fuel tank, 8-10 ply non-highway tires etc etc. Basically just a tool and a fairly nice tax write as well. 

My pasture truck isnt typically all decked out. I prefer to be able to wash out the floor boards with a hose from time to time. Just dont think that little Canyon "truck" would last long. Although the 33 mpg sounds great.

If you believe you need those things... Uh..... yea right.   A normal used PU for $3000 w/ 4wd low does all that just fine.  The sales lot people Love you.  Hate me.  😃  Glad someone buys those new PU's so I can buy them used and use the heck out of them for 10+ years before scrapping. 

[butasha + 123]

16 minutes ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

If you believe you need those things... Uh..... yea right.   A normal used PU for $3000 w/ 4wd low does all that just fine.  The sales lot people Love you.  Hate me.  😃  Glad someone buys those new PU's so I can buy them used and use the heck out of them for 10+ years before scrapping. 

You definitely don't know me very well and I don't believe I stated "believe I need those things" in my post. We do have several older model pickups that we use here on the ranch. I prefer to not have my primary truck that I use on a daily basis be an older less reliable vehicle. That is my preference not a need. As i get older it becomes more and more a need. But not yet.

I also have older tractors and newer more reliable tractors as well. Older equipment and newer equipment. Sometimes it makes sense to save money on equipment and sometimes it makes more sense to have equipment that you can rely on. This comes close to need? Probably just a business decision more than a need. Some years are fat with profit and we typically invest more in newer equipment in those years. Some years that isnt the case. But I am sure you understand this as it is just commonsense.

The only plush new piece of equipment that I need is my wifes Tahoe or Yukon of choice. Because as long as I can afford it she gets a new one just about every 3-4 years. This is a need because every successful marriage understands if Moma isnt happy nobody is happy. Besides I am kind of fond of her and like to see her happy and in a more reliable vehicle.

I am sorry that the sales lot hates you and as long as life is good I will try and provide you with an old worn out 3000 dollar 4x4 to purchase. Maybe we should meet because we have an 2006 3500 Chevy 4x4 work truck that we will probably rotate out pretty soon. We can eliminate the middle man.  

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 9/20/2019 at 9:23 AM, Jan van Eck said:

The latest offering in the popular pick-up truck segment is from Chevrolet, with a fairly hefty truck, 7700-lbs towing capacity, fitted with a 4-cylinder turbo-charged diesel.  The end result is a truck that will deliver 33 miles per gallon in real-world driving, including a climb up the Canadian Rockies to 4,400 feet. This kind of technical development is surprising in an environment of cheap fuel, but it shows you how overall fuels use will likely drop, even in the face of new consumers and more fuels demand.  As the technology continues to push the mpg capability of a truck, oil demand risks stagnating over the longer term.  Note that this is for the Diesel version, which I anticipate will be popular.  And keep in mind that these engines can run on recycled frying oil, peanut oil, all kinds of oils.   

To quote:

Our run in Chevy’s diesel-powered midsize truck began in Calgary, where we were asked to follow a route that went through Alberta’s vast farmland, and all the way to Banff, 4,537 feet above sea level in the breathtaking Canadian Rockies. During the 186-mile-long adventure, the GM Authority team recorded an average of 33 MPG fuel consumption in the Colorado Duramax.

The 33 MPG figure was recorded during both highway and city driving, with the final stretch of the run mostly performed on ascending terrain. Average speed was 65 mph.

Read more: http://gmauthority.com/blog/2019/09/chevrolet-colorado-duramax-averages-33-mpg-during-186-mile-run/#ixzz604f50qe6

In addition to that:

1)  GM is rolling out Dynamic Skip Fire, an improvement on cylinder deactivation that allows an 8-cylinder engine to run on an average of one cylinder under low-load conditions
2)  Mazda is refining Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition, which could reduce fuel consumption 15-25% over their SkyActiv engines. 
3)  Infiniti has developed a variable compression engine, improving fuel economy approximately 15%
4)  Every manufacturer is introducing some combination of fundamental improvements: cylinder coatings that reduce friction, improved lubricants, electrified auxiliary loads (electric water pump, oil pump, steering, HVAC, etc), higher compression ratios (enabled by better engine controls enabled by more powerful computers), water-cooled exhaust manifolds, more advanced turbochargers, improved thermodynamic cycles (Atkinson, Budack), etc.  The combined effect of these minor improvements is easily a 15-30% reduction in fuel consumption.
5)  Manufacturers have begun shifting to 48V hybrid systems - esp. for SUVs and performance vehicles, which benefit from the power boost. 
6)  Advanced transmissions (8-10 speed automatics, dual-clutch, multiple CVT technologies, etc) are slowly becoming ubiquitous
7)  Advances in mass reduction technologies (high strength steel, aluminum, advanced welding, adhesives, etc) are spreading to every new vehicle model.
8 ) Cheaper Lithium batteries are enabling widespread use of engine start-stop technology.  See also: hybrids.
9)  The auto industry, led by Tesla, is improving aerodynamics.

There's a LOT going on in automotive.  What's particularly interesting is how many of these improvements will close the gap between rated fuel economy and actual fuel economy.  Plenty of people driving 30mpg rated vehicles achieve 20-25mpg in practice because:
1)  They drive like jackasses.
2)  They get stuck in heavy traffic.
3)  They drive stop-and-go in cities.
4)  They take a lot of short trips. 
With the technologies mentioned above, a car rated at 30mpg can get better than 30mpg under harsh conditions.  Except that car won't be rated at 30mpg; it will be rated at 40-50mpg.  So instead of getting 20-25mpg with today's cars, we'll be getting 40-50mpg like a Prius does.  that will have a disproportionate impact on fuel consumption. 

And all of that is without the impact of full electric vehicles. 

[JZBoozell + 4]

On 9/20/2019 at 11:02 AM, BillKidd said:

That is very impressive. I just wish pickup trucks were not so danged expensive. Unreal!

You think that's very impressive? I personally don't think so.

The EPA, in its 1983 fuel economy estimates, placed the VW Rabbit at the head of the class in saving motorists money at the pump -- giving it an estimated 50 miles per gallon

Please note the year. That was 36 years ago. 36 years! 14 years before the first hybrid which boasted 41 miles per gallon. 

A pickup truck what's 33 miles per gallon is something I would have expected 15 - 20 years ago.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

20 hours ago, JZBoozell said:

You think that's very impressive? I personally don't think so.

The EPA, in its 1983 fuel economy estimates, placed the VW Rabbit at the head of the class in saving motorists money at the pump -- giving it an estimated 50 miles per gallon

Please note the year. That was 36 years ago. 36 years! 14 years before the first hybrid which boasted 41 miles per gallon. 

A pickup truck what's 33 miles per gallon is something I would have expected 15 - 20 years ago.

In 1983, the diesel VW Rabbit achieved 50mpg.  A current model diesel VW Jetta achieves... 50mpg.  Seems like no progress was made. 

Except progress was made.  The progress has been astounding, actually.  The current model Jetta is a better vehicle by far.  Creature comforts, pollution controls, power, collision safety, size, payload/towing capacity - everything about the Jetta is superior to the Rabbit.  The same is true of today's trucks.  They're larger, more powerful, more reliable, more comfortable, more capable, safer, and cleaner.  There is no equivalence between current models and 1980's models. 

Why did this chain of events transpire?  In the early 1980's, fuel economy was prioritized, so we got better fuel economy.  In the 1990's and 2000's, we prioritized other things, so we got better other things.  In the 2010's, we switched back to prioritizing fuel economy.  As a result, we're getting - big shocker here - better fuel economy. 

The prioritization has been surprisingly rational, too.  When oil price shocks are killing your economy, fuel consumption takes priority over safety and pollution.  When oil is cheap and times are good, safety and pollution are arguably more important problems.  Today, we've largely solved the safety and pollution problems, which brings fuel economy back to the top of our priority list. 

Of course, if we're still unhappy with our fuel expenses, we could always try driving sensible vehicles...

[Old-Ruffneck + 1,220]

29 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

The progress has been astounding, actually.  The current model Jetta is a better vehicle by far.  Creature comforts, pollution controls, power, collision safety, size, payload/towing capacity - everything about the Jetta is superior to the Rabbit.  The same is true of today's trucks.  They're larger, more powerful, more reliable, more comfortable, more capable, safer, and cleaner.  There is no equivalence between current models and 1980's models.

1977-78 Chevy 350 half ton pickup 4X4 13 to 15 mpg. My new 2019 2500 Chevy w/6.6 Duramax averages 16mpg. My 2018 Ford 350 with 6.7 diesel get about the same. So real life work vehicles that need extra muscle not much improvement in mpg in 30+ years.

California police chase ends when Tesla squad car’s battery runs low    https://www.foxnews.com/auto/california-police-officer-must-call-off-chase-after-tesla-patrol-car-loses-battery

Edited September 26, 2019 by Old-Ruffneck

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

3 hours ago, Old-Ruffneck said:

1977-78 Chevy 350 half ton pickup 4X4 13 to 15 mpg. My new 2019 2500 Chevy w/6.6 Duramax averages 16mpg. My 2018 Ford 350 with 6.7 diesel get about the same. So real life work vehicles that need extra muscle not much improvement in mpg in 30+ years.

California police chase ends when Tesla squad car’s battery runs low    https://www.foxnews.com/auto/california-police-officer-must-call-off-chase-after-tesla-patrol-car-loses-battery

A 1970's Chevy half-ton isn't equivalent to a modern 2500/3500 diesel in towing capacity or durability - by any stretch of the imagination.  You also need to compare fuel economy under load.  On top of that, you're ignoring all the other improvements that have been made to these vehicles, which I've already listed for you. 

At this point, you're just being obstinate.