Ford Trucks to Get 62 MPG?

5834 Views 71 Replies 27 Participants Last post by MTB98, 12 d ago

mjncad

Discussion Starter · Jun 14, 2011

From Ford Truck Enthusiast.

http://www.ford-trucks.com/article/idx/0/737/article/Ford_Trucks_to_Get_62_MPG?.html?=industrynews

41 - 60 of 72 Posts

MTB98

· #41 · 14 d ago

ejb69 said:
Sure you can do things to make a truck get better mileage. But you’re going to have to give up off road and towing capability. Which is why I have a truck instead of a compact car.

Eliminating mirrors or other things creating drag may not have a large effect on your MPG but you need to scale that up to the millions of trucks on the road. Even a 1/10 mpg improvement would result in saving a significant amount of fuel. Technology is available to replace mirrors with cameras with no loss in capability.

Reactions: 1

ejb69

· #42 · 14 d ago

I do have the ultimate camera package on my truck. But it’s no replacement for mirrors.

Tires have a huge effect on mileage. But I am more than willing to put up with a loss in mileage than getting stuck in the forest roads or sliding in the ditch on snowy roads.

Reactions: 1

Herminator

· #43 · 14 d ago

I noticed my mileage dropped when I went to the 35" Duratracs vs the smaller street tires. I am sure the tread had something to do with it but it is also traveling farther that it thinks it is especially since when I bought it had one size smaller than stock.

Reactions: 1

Rule292

· #44 · 14 d ago

MTB98 said:
Eliminating mirrors or other things creating drag may not have a large effect on your MPG but you need to scale that up to the millions of trucks on the road. Even a 1/10 mpg improvement would result in saving a significant amount of fuel. Technology is available to replace mirrors with cameras with no loss in capability.

Mirrored images could easily be beamed onto the side windows using the heads-up display technology that cars like my Vette have.

Still, all the low hanging fruit is gone. No way to move mass other than with energy. And those kind of laws of physics apply regardless of the motive power.

Reactions: 1

MTB98

· #45 · 14 d ago

Rule292 said:
Still, all the low hanging fruit is gone. No way to move mass other than with energy. And those kind of laws of physics apply regardless of the motive power.

There isn’t much juice left to squeeze at this point. There is the 75-80% of the energy in fuel that only generates mostly heat. Not much energy of a gallon of fuel is used to actually move the vehicle down the road. A decent portion of the vehicles design has to incorporate some type of heat dissipation (radiator) to get the excess heat away. All the small things left to innovate won’t make much difference in individual mpg but makes a difference when scaled up to millions of cars.

Reactions: 1

Dr Maphesto

· #46 · 14 d ago

I cannot understand why bureaucrats are wasting resources fretting over my truck's mileage? That isn't what we pay them for.

Reactions: 2

Rule292

· #47 · 14 d ago

Dr Maphesto said:
I cannot understand why bureaucrats are wasting resources fretting over my truck's mileage? That isn't what we pay them for.

We should be paying them to drive down fuel costs, not driving down consumption and driving up energy costs.

The 3 most powerful words in the world are not "I love you"; the 5 most powerful words are "to promote the general welfare".

Reactions: 1

Treefarmer

· #48 · 14 d ago

MTB98 said:
There isn’t much juice left to squeeze at this point. There is the 75-80% of the energy in fuel that only generates mostly heat. Not much energy of a gallon of fuel is used to actually move the vehicle down the road. A decent portion of the vehicles design has to incorporate some type of heat dissipation (radiator) to get the excess heat away. All the small things left to innovate won’t make much difference in individual mpg but makes a difference when scaled up to millions of cars.

Unless research on gas/diesel and other liquid fuels, I suspect some smart person or team will figure out a way to get more power and less heat out of the fuel. Or they will scavenge the energy in the heat but either way, efficiency will go up dramatically.

That might not happen as all the research dollars are pushing toward other fuels, however that leaves a very wide door for a startup to make a dramatic difference. Suppose instead of getting 25% of the energy used for motion, we got 50-60% at an acceptable vehicle cost. That would really upset the apple cart and dramatically reduce pollution.

Reactions: 1

MTB98

· #49 · 14 d ago

Rule292 said:
We should be paying them to drive down fuel costs, not driving down consumption and driving up energy costs.

Doesn’t sound real “free market”-like to me.

Reactions: 2

Rule292

· #50 · 14 d ago

MTB98 said:
Doesn’t sound real “free market”-like to me.

Me neither. Sounds like manipulated market which disfavors the consumer, which is what we have now.

Probably not the discussion for this thread though, since I was responding to Doc's statement about 62mpg and what benefits the consumer gets from the laws.

Reactions: 1

dodgeman

· #51 · 14 d ago

The National 55 mph speed limit was a thing when I was first driving for several years. I hated a would hate it again if it was implemented again. That said slowing down can make a huge difference on your fuel mileage, especially if you are towing. If the speed limit is 75 that doesn’t mean you have to go 80.

Reactions: 2

Rule292

· #52 · 14 d ago

dodgeman said:
The National 55 mph speed limit was a thing when I was first driving for several years. I hated a would hate it again if it was implemented again. That said slowing down can make a huge difference on your fuel mileage, especially if you are towing. If the speed limit is 75 that doesn’t mean you have to go 80.

I'd guess much of the high speed loss isn't just wind resistance but gearing. Big rig engineers spent a lot of effort in the recent years making rigs more aero to fit modern speed limits.

I wonder how much time is wasted by inappropriately low speed limits? Or slowing down the water flow from faucets and plumbing devices.

We can always make more energy and find ways of making it cheaper but we can't buy time in our life. (and no the time we "waste" on the internet doesn't count before someone mentions that).

We could probably make vehicles more aerodynamic but then again we grumblers would gripe about how stupid looking they are.

I'm not a design engineer but I do wonder what consumes the most energy on a vehicle. Is it friction losses in the driveline, or losses to things like the tire grip.

See less See more

Reactions: 2

MTB98

· #53 · 14 d ago

Rule292 said:
I'd guess much of the high speed loss isn't just wind resistance but gearing. Big rig engineers spent a lot of effort in the recent years making rigs more aero to fit modern speed limits.

I wonder how much time is wasted by inappropriately low speed limits? Or slowing down the water flow from faucets and plumbing devices.

We can always make more energy and find ways of making it cheaper but we can't buy time in our life. (and no the time we "waste" on the internet doesn't count before someone mentions that).

We could probably make vehicles more aerodynamic but then again we grumblers would gripe about how stupid looking they are.

I'm not a design engineer but I do wonder what consumes the most energy on a vehicle. Is it friction losses in the driveline, or losses to things like the tire grip.

Wind drag increase exponentially with speed. Double the speed the wind drag quadruples. Triple your speed and wind resistance is 9x.
Speed is the biggest MPG killer.

Reactions: 2

dodgeman

· #54 · 14 d ago

At highway speeds by far wind resistance is the biggest user. Wind resistance is based roughly on the square of your speed. Going from 30 mph to 60 mph doesn’t double the wind resistance but makes it 4 times greater. Going from 30 mph to 90 mph would be 9 times greater.

Reactions: 1

MTB98

· #55 · 14 d ago

Rule292 said:
Me neither. Sounds like manipulated market which disfavors the consumer, which is what we have now.

Probably not the discussion for this thread though, since I was responding to Doc's statement about 62mpg and what benefits the consumer gets from the laws.

The government should ensure a reliable and affordable energy and food supply is available to the citizens. No food and no energy makes for a rebellious populace.
How they go about doing that is up for debate.
I’m sure the oil companies are not supporters of $1.25/gallon gasoline. They like to make money just like everyone else.

Reactions: 1

gphillips

· #56 · 14 d ago

From the oil tycoons to politicians to oil stockbrokers to automakers, you will never see 60mpg without a big $$ tag. They are all in bed with each other to make money on the working class! My new to me in 2015 used 2001 Silverado K3500 LT dually 8.1L 496ci had a sticker of $35K new. I get 11-12mpg weather towing or not with CT gas. Out of state gas, it jumps up to 13-15mpg. Already to replace the truck today it would cost me around $80k. If they make more changes to them to get higher mpg, it would most likely be double that if not more. Trucks are trucks, they should leave them alone. Folks who have them just to have them, get a car! Already cost lots of money to keep my truck going, can't imagine what it will cost to repair new 60mpg trucks in the future!

Rule292

· #57 · 13 d ago

MTB98 said:
The government should ensure a reliable and affordable energy and food supply is available to the citizens. No food and no energy makes for a rebellious populace.
How they go about doing that is up for debate.
I’m sure the oil companies are not supporters of $1.25/gallon gasoline. They like to make money just like everyone else.

Totally agree. Transportation/mobility is the lifeblood of the population.

Unfortunately we're stuck between the oil tycoons and their supporters and the environmentalists and their supporters. With no solution in sight, though the oil tycoons seem to at the moment have their days numbered.

The other issue is that if we got 62 mpg and gas was $1.25 a gallon the highway and use taxes would have to come from somewhere.

Beyond the scope of this thread but there is/was an off topic discussion here which mentioned transitioning from fuels tax to a mileage based "consumption tax". The state mentioned was a northeastern state. Even the lowest rate (EVs, they must do less damage to highways) was well over 2 1/2 times the rate of the gas tax on your average 25 MPG vehicle (which is probably what the average 4 banger daily driver gets as an average). I did the math and a person driving their EV 12000 miles a year would pay around $1500 tax. A car traveling 12k miles and getting 25 mpg consumes 480 gals of gas. at $3.60 a gallon it's $1728 a year for fuel.

So in the end, kinda like putting in LED light bulbs, you might be getting 62 mpg but you won't be driving as cheap as you thought.

See less See more

Reactions: 1

Treefarmer

· #58 · 13 d ago

Rule292 said:
Totally agree. Transportation/mobility is the lifeblood of the population.

Unfortunately we're stuck between the oil tycoons and their supporters and the environmentalists and their supporters. With no solution in sight, though the oil tycoons seem to at the moment have their days numbered.

The other issue is that if we got 62 mpg and gas was $1.25 a gallon the highway and use taxes would have to come from somewhere.

Beyond the scope of this thread but there is/was an off topic discussion here which mentioned transitioning from fuels tax to a mileage based "consumption tax". The state mentioned was a northeastern state. Even the lowest rate (EVs, they must do less damage to highways) was well over 2 1/2 times the rate of the gas tax on your average 25 MPG vehicle (which is probably what the average 4 banger daily driver gets as an average). I did the math and a person driving their EV 12000 miles a year would pay around $1500 tax. A car traveling 12k miles and getting 25 mpg consumes 480 gals of gas. at $3.60 a gallon it's $1728 a year for fuel.

So in the end, kinda like putting in LED light bulbs, you might be getting 62 mpg but you won't be driving as cheap as you thought.

I believe fuel taxes are on a per gallon basis so price doesn't matter. However an increase in mileage would cause the tax revenue to drop although inexpensive travel would likely increase miles driven so that would somewhat offset the increased mileage both in tax revenue and pollution.

Reactions: 1

Rule292

· #59 · 13 d ago

Treefarmer said:
I believe fuel taxes are on a per gallon basis so price doesn't matter. However an increase in mileage would cause the tax revenue to drop although inexpensive travel would likely increase miles driven so that would somewhat offset the increased mileage both in tax revenue and pollution.

That is correct. I wanted to include the fuel costs to demonstrate how the "mileage tax" was almost as high as the cost of both the gas tax(es) and the fuel itself.

I'm sure that lots of number crunching went on and that regardless of the "scheme" there will be attempts to sneak in increases above what is paid now. My hope is that these schemes are outed with honesty.

Reactions: 1

ejb69

· #60 · 13 d ago

dodgeman said:
The National 55 mph speed limit was a thing when I was first driving for several years. I hated a would hate it again if it was implemented again. That said slowing down can make a huge difference on your fuel mileage, especially if you are towing. If the speed limit is 75 that doesn’t mean you have to go 80.

Yeah, I remember the 55 mph speed limit. The speed limit is now 70 on the interstate in Wisconsin. Yet, it’s pretty common for traffic to be flowing at 80mph.

If you go slower than what the flow is going you are just as dangerous as someone trying to go faster. I have seen it a few times. You’re just cruising along a 75 ish and suddenly the car ahead of me serves into the left lane , then I have too because some little car is only going 50 ish.

I have noticed on a few trips when I was mostly on state roads , with the speed limit of 55 mph that I was getting significantly better mpg. But , those roads tend to go through towns and having to stop a few times will erase the mileage gains from going slower.

My 2016 F250 would show what I was getting for mpg instantly. My 2020 F350 doesn’t do that, it just tells me what I got over the past 15 or 30 minutes or for the trip or life of the vehicle.

See less See more

41 - 60 of 72 Posts