quite simple...


dollars & cents

Let your imagination explain the rest

 

Its all about emissions I think. Having to force its HP through the emissions kills the economy. The best set up fueling wise for a diesel produces the most NOx (and sadly the least smoke).

 

think about it...


If in order to produce less pollutants per cu/ft of exhaust emmissions we have to burn more fuel. doesn't that defeat the purpose?

shouldn't it be a volume/quality ratio?

 

I'm talking with aftermarket boxes. If you can pay $400 for a programmer that would make 150 horsepower by getting rid of emissions parameters, why can't you spend the same amount of money for one that would get you 4 more miles to the gallon by eliminating emission parameters?

I guess the obvious answer is that you really don't loose all that much efficiency to engine programming... And power gains are had much more by injecting more fuel, not increasing efficiency. If it could be done, I'm sure that it would be.

 

It is a volume/ quality ratio. Making you burn more fuel acts against the drops in emissions, but not enough to worsen emissions. It is a very real factor, however.

50% reduction in NOx may come by burning 25% more fuel; if you used to get 1 pound of NOx by burning 1 pound of Diesel, you now would get .75 pounds of NOx by burning 1.25 pounds of Diesel. You still get benefit, but it isn't ever as good as it seems.

Still, I have absolutely nothing against NOx reduction. Out here in the valley where I am it can get hazy to the point that I can hardly breath some days, and the majority of that is NOx.

 

when I say dollars and cents I'm not talking about shelling out money to buy chips or anything like that.

what I mean is if you look at the -BIG PICTURE- uncle sam stands to loose billions if we increase fuel economy.

remember, $.55 average taxes per gallon. let's say you put 20K on a year at 15MPG. that's 1333 gal/year x .55=$733 per vehicle.

now make it 20MPG thats only 1000 gal/year x .55=$550 per vehicle.

now multiply the savings buy the ammount of cars on the road.

do you see where i'm going with this?

 

I don't think Uncle Sam has any say about aftermarket programming boxes. They're already outlawed...

And I don't think Uncle Sam would really care too much about efficiency at this time, considering that they are giving tax rebates to folks who buy fuel sippers, and now Bush is calling for a 20% efficiency increase by 2010. Of course, the Government is planning on raising fuel taxes at the same time to make fuel sippers more desireable, and doing that will also recoup lost tax revenue. Congress would probably miss the revenue that they would loose, but the current prevailing political winds would rather use less oil, free ourselves from OPEC and be eco-friendly; and let's face it, Congress will spend money whether they had it or not.

If you could get even 2 MPG better, it wouldn't take long for a lot of guys to recoup their $400 investment. But I just don't think that it can be done. If you hacked off the EGR and catalytic convertor it would probably result in a larger efficiency increase than what programming could accomplish.


On an afterthought, how much fuel taxes are Federal? I've always thought that most of California's fuel tax was the states...

 

they have you thinking just the way they want you to. no offense.

also, special intrest groups like big oil (there are only 4 or 5 now) seem to provide well for there politicians in more ways than meet the eye.

it's a combination of fed/state

 

Think about it this way.

You can take a stock 24 valve Cummins that gets 18 MPG and has 300 horsepower.

You can add twin turbo's, EDM injectors and programmers and get that baby up to 600+ horsepower. And there are guys on this forum that run 600+ horsepower trucks and still get 18 MPG.


I don't think that the power/ efficiency angle is really that relevant on the Diesel. I'm willing to bet that even if a programmer were to drop the 300 horsepower rating to 200 horsepower, you would still only get 18 MPG. I think that the efficiency of the engine has really escaped relatively unharmed by emissions, or at least in a way that programmers can get around.


And I don't think there is an iota of evidence that TST, Bullydog, ATS, Banks or whoever is under government or big oil coercion to not make trucks more efficient.

 

A V6 Diesel?

Sounds difficult

 

AMEN!

They ALREADY have the 4 Cylinder version of the 6, so why not use it?

I just do not understand Engineers sometimes ( even though I are one )

 

mediocre mileage that new diesels offer....along with the ridiculous complexity...the expense of the parts...they are also more prone to break downs...now add the classic (although improved) starting issues that diesels have and the PRICE of diesel fuel....with all these things it is no longer in ur interest to have a diesel!!

i remember in the early 90's the reasoning behind getting diesels was FUEL ECONOMY and low fuel prices , DURABILITY, EASE OF MAINTENANCE...these 3 things are gone!!!....the only reason to get diesel now is the power, the resale value, and the ability to mod (which is becoming outlawed)

I am most upset about the fuel economy and fuel prices..those are the reasons i got a diesel...my 160 hp is more than plenty

 

I don't think it's the engineers, It's the Officers and other big wig's trying to one up the competition.

If there commercials stated " This is a minature version of the tried and true 5.9" this would sell me over some new and improved design.

 

Mr T, I don't think this is a mild difference in mpg if you are comparing the hemi currently offered in the 1500 which gets 12-14 mpg running empty vs this new diesel for the 1500 they are offering which is supposed to get 21 mpg city and hwy combined, that means a possible 22-24 mpg on the hwy. Never been a Hemi that will touch that in mileage, plus the benifit of 500 lb/ft of torque. Comparing to the 2500 diesel, I agree that the milage difference is minimal, but if you put the current 5.9 in a 1500, the front end would be wore out in 5000 miles. This new v-8 diesel is very close in weight to the current hemi, I believe I read they were within 100 lbs. I do agree that they should have just based it off of the current 4 cyl cummins but I do see that they have to keep up with or set the bench mark for the other auto makers.

 

I would say that it all ultimately goes back to the people that buy what is sold, and like to buy V-8's with a smooth and long powerband and good horsepower over stump-puller tractor engines. Most guys in 1500's are more interested in a truck that will have closer to sports car performance; understandably that isn't the hard-core 5th wheel hauler, it's the average driver who carries a refrigerator every now and then. The average driver would take that 4BTA, stomp it on an on-ramp and not be overly impressed.

A V-8 on the other hand could be built to be more powerful than the Hemi- that would be a beautiful day for the American Diesel.