Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Site Notices
Page / 10
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 3/31/2018 4:06:04 PM EDT
[#1]
My 06 Duramax is now at 190k mile and going strong with egr disabled, blocked & chipped.  I’m hoping to order a 2020 Denali duramax. Fingers crossed for 500 hp, 1,000 ftlb of Tq. and no piss tank on it.
Link Posted: 3/31/2018 10:08:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards?  How is this a win for us?
View Quote
Steel body pickups?
Link Posted: 3/31/2018 10:18:03 PM EDT
[#3]
Good.  The regulation is all about forcing Americans into smaller cars.  Just like they want us in smaller houses on smaller lots with smaller pets.  Less for us means more for the dark occultists at the top.

The powers that be don't care a bit about saving fuel.  If they did, they would fix the traffic mess in the big cities (ALL controlled by demonrats), get the illegals off the roads, and implement smart lights (using technology from the 1980s-- no need for big brother stuff that costs millions).

Eliminating congestion would easily reduce fuel usage by 30% or more in this country.
Link Posted: 3/31/2018 10:51:17 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I sure as hell did and I owned that car for a dang long time. I tracked the mileage for way over a decade. Since I used another vehicle as a winter beater, the temps it was driven in were very moderate and not cold weather use which can really drop fuel economy.

I lost right around 3 mpg with that car. I was just extrapolating that newer cars that get better fuel economy and the ability to dial back or advance timing better could have even more significant differences. I have a Honda H-RV right now and even though much smaller, it doesn't really do much better then that 1998 Regal did when it comes to fuel economy.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:

You don't lose 3-5 mpg running on E10. Possibly on E85.
I sure as hell did and I owned that car for a dang long time. I tracked the mileage for way over a decade. Since I used another vehicle as a winter beater, the temps it was driven in were very moderate and not cold weather use which can really drop fuel economy.

I lost right around 3 mpg with that car. I was just extrapolating that newer cars that get better fuel economy and the ability to dial back or advance timing better could have even more significant differences. I have a Honda H-RV right now and even though much smaller, it doesn't really do much better then that 1998 Regal did when it comes to fuel economy.


Then your car defies the laws of physics.  E10 fuel contains about 2% less energy than E0.  For a 30mpg vehicle, I could see you losing MAYBE as much as 1mpg but considering that most E10 gasoline contains UP TO 10% ethanol, some fillups likely have been running on less than E10.

E85 contains about 28% less energy than E0.  If you could use E85 in that same 30mpg vehicle, I could see losing about 8mpg or so.

Many reformulated gasoline mixes used to contain MTBE as an oxygenate.  MTBE was replaced with ethanol.  10% MTBE gas has slightly LESS energy than 10% ethanol gas....although not enough to be significant when it comes to mpg.

The laws of physics are laws not suggestions.
Link Posted: 3/31/2018 11:39:24 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Hopefully we'll see a resurgence of body on frame SUVs.
View Quote
Also hope to see cylinder deactivation, start/stop, and DEF die off.

If they rescind the 2025 standards, liberal groups like Sierra Club are going to sue, and it will be tied up in court for years.  It's not going to be easy.
Link Posted: 4/1/2018 8:04:38 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Good.  The regulation is all about forcing Americans into smaller cars.  Just like they want us in smaller houses on smaller lots with smaller pets.  Less for us means more for the dark occultists at the top.

The powers that be don't care a bit about saving fuel.  If they did, they would fix the traffic mess in the big cities (ALL controlled by demonrats), get the illegals off the roads, and implement smart lights (using technology from the 1980s-- no need for big brother stuff that costs millions).

Eliminating congestion would easily reduce fuel usage by 30% or more in this country.
View Quote
They should have learned their lesson the first time - when they killed all the full sized cars & giant SUV's were created to replace them...
Link Posted: 4/1/2018 8:57:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

You don't lose 3-5 mpg running on E10. Possibly on E85.
View Quote
My 2002 Silverado Crew Cab 6.0 sure as hell did!
Link Posted: 4/1/2018 9:08:22 PM EDT
[#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Curious.. what are the negatives for consumers for higher gas milage standards?  How is this a win for us?
View Quote
Because unrealistically high fuel economy standards that will never be met are the reason car prices have been going through the roof.
Page / 10
Next Page Arrow Left
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top