Welcome to TheOhioOutdoors
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Login or sign up today!
Login / Join

Get a pick-up while you still can!

Ohiosam

*Supporting Member*
11,708
191
Mahoning Co.
By Eric Peters on 12.13.11 @ 6:07AM

Ford's compact Ranger is the first casualty.

The government's pending (2016) 35.5 MPG CAFE fuel economy requirements -- which for the first time apply to trucks as well as passenger cars -- are going to make it very difficult for any automaker to sell trucks in volume in this country.

Ford has just dropped the compact-size Ranger from its U.S. model lineup -- making it the first CAFE casualty -- and I predict that larger trucks are on the endangered species list now, too. Just as large V-8/RWD sedans were almost completely killed off as mass-market vehicles by the original -- and far less punitive -- CAFE requirements that went into effect a quarter century ago.

Even a small truck with a four-cylinder engine will have a hard time averaging 35.5 MPG. To get there, the truck would need to be capable of 40 MPG on the highway and 30 MPG in city driving. There are only a handful of economy cars that achieve 40 MPG on the highway right now. Trucks do worse, MPG-wise, because they're heavier (to be able to do work such as pull a trailer or carry a pallet of bricks in the bed), less aerodynamic, in part because they need to ride higher off the ground than a car -- and often, ride on M/S-rated tires that have higher rolling resistance than standard passenger car radials. Fuel efficiency takes a back seat to capability.

The just-canceled Ranger managed 23 city, 27 highway -- so, about 25 MPG average. For a truck, that's not bad. But Ford would have had to get another 10 MPG out of Ranger to make the CAFE cut -- and avoid CAFE fines. I suspect Ford dropped the Ranger from its U.S. product portfolio because it realizes that getting a truck (any truck) to achieve 40 on the highway and 30 in city-type driving will probably -- almost certainly -- require:

• A dramatic reduction in weight via the use of composites rather than steel while maintaining the same level of crashworthiness.

• Very high-efficiency turbodiesel engines or other advanced technology, such as a hybrid powertrain.

• Significant reduction in power/capability.

All of which will increase the cost of the vehicle, perhaps to the extent that it is no longer economically viable to manufacturer. The Ranger got nixed first in part because it's a lower-on-the-totem-pole model than the best-selling F-Series. But CAFE is gunning for the F-truck, too. It gets considerably poorer fuel economy than the Ranger, which will make it that much harder (read, economically untenable) to achieve compliance with the 35.5 MPG CAFE diktat.

Even the government's own estimates of the costs imposed by CAFE so far are startling high: $2.4 billion -- and that was back in 2003, when the Congressional Budget Office issued its report, The Economic Costs of Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax. Mind, the $2.4 billion referenced by CBO assumed the old CAFE standard of 27.5 MPGs, not the recently enacted 35.5 MPG standard -- which also for the first time applies to trucks. The old CAFE standard was much more lenient, with a separate -- and higher -- CAFE peg for "light trucks." The CBO study also noted, presciently, that "unit sales of light trucks would ultimately decline about twice as much as would those of cars."

So what will the new 35.5 MPG standard cost us?

Automotive Fleet Magazine, an industry journal, estimates it will add at least another $1,000 to the sticker price of every new vehicle sold and $52 billion cumulatively.

And don't forget : CAFE does not stop at 35.5 MPG by 2016. Chief Engineer Obama pushed for -- and got -- a further bump to between 47 and 62 MPG by 2025.

Want to take a guess what that will cost?

The Chevy Volt sort-of electric car gives us a clue.

It is capable of operating on electricity alone for 20 or 30 miles at a stretch and so uses very little gas. It also has a sticker price of $40,000. Even with a massive federal subsidy of $7,500 the thing still costs about as much to buy as a new BMW 3 series or similar entry luxury-vehicle. It's thus a toy, or at best, an engineering concept. Whatever you'd like to call it, it's not economical -- and few people, other than affluent people, can afford to buy one. It is doubtful GM would have even produced the Volt for retail sale absent the PR value -- and, of course, government subsidies.

With trucks, it's even worse, because to a great extent the market for such vehicles is middle and working class. There are people in San Francisco and Washington with $200k annually incomes who will buy the Volt. But how many $40k-per-year electricians will be willing or even able to plunk down $30,000 for a "high efficiency" compact truck, as outlined above? Hence Ford's decision to pull the Ranger from its U.S. model lineup -- while continuing to sell it in other countries where there is no CAFE law.

It's an impossible situation for the car companies. You can't have both very high fuel economy and the capability people expect at a reasonable cost, while also meeting all the government's existing crashworthiness standards, too.

The latter is especially interesting because, for the first time, two mutually exclusive government edicts -- one relating to fuel economy, the other relating to crashworthiness -- are coming into obvious conflict. It would be relatively easy to chop a few hundred pounds off the typical truck and without doing anything else, score a significant increase in fuel economy. It would also be possible, with a lower curb weight, to use a smaller (or less powerful) engine and still maintain approximately the same performance while further increasing fuel economy (by dint of the fact that a smaller, less powerful engine would use less fuel). This would also have the happy effect of lowering the price of the vehicle since it costs nothing to remove weight, or equipment that adds weight, such as the now-mandatory multiple air bags that all vehicles come equipped with.

But maintaining the vehicle's compliance with existing and pending federal crashworthiness requirements while also significantly reducing its curb weight won't be easily or cheaply done. It will probably require wholesale re-engineering of the vehicle, not merely replacing steel with high-strength, lightweight (and very expensive) composites. Major R&D will be involved and the end result, though possibly both "safe" and "efficient" will also cost a small fortune, just like the Chevy Volt.

The people on the top floor of the Ford building are not idiots. They've crunched the numbers. They see the future. There is none for the Ranger -- and soon, bigger trucks, too. Bet your bippie GM and Chrysler are hip, too.

I predict it's all over for trucks as mass-market vehicles.

We just don't realize it yet.
 

Huckleberry Finn

Senior Member
15,973
135
Dumb.

As a coworker said this summer when he found out a Prius was in the spot of his Eddie Bower Expedition "Fuggin liberal, that car's battery is worse for the environment than my gas hog"
 

Schu72

Well-Known Member
3,864
113
Streetsboro
Maybe I understood things wrong, but I thought the legislation said that a manufacturers fleet had to average 35 mpg, not every vehicle. Again, it was some time ago when I was half heartedly reading on this.
 

Beentown

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
15,740
154
Sunbury, OH
It is Schu but the cuts are going to be coming soon with more trucks. Bye-bye Dakota and Colorado in the near future. Fuggin regs. Who voted for these people?
 

RRJJ

Removed by Request.
14,062
0
Yep, and not many on either side of the aisle will do anything to rectify such stupid regulations.
 

hickslawns

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
39,721
248
Ohio
Gee, I can't wait to see how this works out for those which work vehicles for a living. Hopefully the bigger trucks are exempt. Oh wait, I already know how this will work out. It is simply a way for the government to collect more dollars on the backs of the working class. It is the same reason why I have "upgraded" my diesels to "new" 2006 models with low miles. Go any newer and the increased emission regulations added $6-8k to the price of the new trucks. All the while, these "newer and cleaner" diesels get WORSE fuel mileage. How is it so much more environmentally friendly to consume more fossil fuels? It ISN'T! It is all about the government putting more money in their pockets and in the process hurting the already beaten down auto manufacturers even more.
 

Dannmann801

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
10,640
191
Springboro
While I have no real love for the auto mfgrs, this is a bunch of horseshit.
Them Rangers wuz good little trucks, that fit a real market need.

They can have my truck when they pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands.

Horseshit! :tantrum:
 

"J"

Git Off My Lawn
Supporting Member
56,741
274
North Carolina
Just makes me keep them longer that's all... My 2000 S-10 4cyl 5 spd gets between 25-29 MPG and I ain't getting rid of it anytime soon....
 

Ohiosam

*Supporting Member*
11,708
191
Mahoning Co.
While I have no real love for the auto mfgrs, this is a bunch of horseshit.
Them Rangers wuz good little trucks, that fit a real market need.

They can have my truck when they pry the steering wheel from my cold, dead hands.

Horseshit! :tantrum:

Don't hold back Danny, tell us how you really feel!:smiley_clap:
 

Huckleberry Finn

Senior Member
15,973
135
Just makes me keep them longer that's all... My 2000 S-10 4cyl 5 spd gets between 25-29 MPG and I ain't getting rid of it anytime soon....

I drive a 98 with a 4.3 v6 automatic...not sure what mpg I get but I love that lil girl...
 

Gern186

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
10,171
201
NW Ohio Tundra
What a crock of shit it that is......if I want to drive a truck that gets 15 mpg and pay for the gas, then I will. We don't need the govt telling us what we can and can't drive.....I'll be damned if I ever buy a little girly truck that gets 40 mpg and has no power.
 

hickslawns

Dignitary Member
Supporting Member
39,721
248
Ohio
What a crock of shit it that is......if I want to drive a truck that gets 15 mpg and pay for the gas, then I will. We don't need the govt telling us what we can and can't drive.....I'll be damned if I ever buy a little girly truck that gets 40 mpg and has no power.

And those of us that cannot get away with a gutless truck will be forced to pay more? In order to drive the vehicles which get worse mileage the manufacturers build the government fines into the price is how I read this. Great! I cannot wait! Here comes the big swing into natural gas powered vehicles fellas.
 

Ohiosam

*Supporting Member*
11,708
191
Mahoning Co.
And those of us that cannot get away with a gutless truck will be forced to pay more? In order to drive the vehicles which get worse mileage the manufacturers build the government fines into the price is how I read this. Great! I cannot wait! Here comes the big swing into natural gas powered vehicles fellas.

Yep, they have done it to new pick-ups, big trucks, tractors and construction equipment already and it will get worse. BTW I knew a propane dealer up in Lorain county that 25 years ago ran a Kenworth semi off of propane.