Another mid-size pickup is coming

[Boomhauer]

I was reading somewhere the other day that another reason why pickup trucks are not coming with standard transmissions is because the increased torque and horsepower of the newer engines takes too much engineering (over building) of manual transmissions and clutches to handle it and be covered cost effectively under warranty.

Takes a helluva transmission/clutch to handle the 350-450hp some of those engines dish out. Its only been recently that that much horsepower has been available in a small truck.

You know, that might be right. Might be getting to the point of more than a normal synchronized manual transmission can take, therefore you would  need to step up to a big rig unsynchronized transmission...

Coupled with the ever diminishing demand for manuals, and you get mostly auto availability.

So long as the transmission is DESIGNED FOR A TRUCK DOING ACTUAL TRUCK WORK I'm fine with an auto. Give me a good solid beefy Allison and I'll be happy...our firetrucks all had Allisons in them and we were very pleased with their performance.

[Firethorn]

You know, that might be right. Might be getting to the point of more than a normal synchronized manual transmission can take, therefore you would  need to step up to a big rig unsynchronized transmission...

It's my understanding that even 'big rigs' are tending towards automatics today, even though they might be 'automatic manuals' with a computer handling the shifting. 

Maybe we just need to go all the way to diesel-electric like what trains use.

[drewtam]

I won't say companies haven't screwed up implementation of the latest emissions control devices. But when done properly, they should never prevent one from operating the equipment unless the emissions devices were intentionally sabotaged.

A DPF regen should never prevent an engine from running full power. Running full power should help it achieve passive regen (if designed right).
A cold engine should never derate because it can't dose urea. There are specific carve outs in the EPA rules to let the engine run while it warms up.

To re-iterate, I'm not saying some manufacturers didn't screw it up. But its not an inherent flaw in the technology, but flaws in the learning curve on how to do it right.

[Boomhauer]

But its not an inherent flaw in the technology

It's something that is completely unnecessary. The EPA has run amok and gotten really stupid.

[drewtam]

Based on what?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but want to hear your reasoning. Should there be air pollution regs? What std should they be set to?

[Boomhauer]

Based on what?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but want to hear your reasoning. Should there be air pollution regs? What std should they be set to?

Let's put it this way...

When you start considering cow farts to be air pollution and want to tax farmers for cows, it's idiotic.

When your overreaching emissions regs actually decrease MPGs of cars, it's overreaching.

When even Europe looks at you funny for your regs, it's gone too far.

When you require an idiotic spout system that is nigh unusable, causes fuel spillage, etc, it's gone too far.

When you mandate extreme emissions limits that force manufacturers to take an already fairly clean running diesel engine and try to make it have unreasonable emissions controls, it's idiotic.

In accordance with my minimal .gov philosophy I am against governments regulating emissions, especially when they do it without knowing a damned thing about how the real world works. Reluctantly, I can deal with reasonable air pollution regs that aren't onerous and idiotic and counterproductive. I have no tolerance for the enviroweenie fundamentalist idiocy. The EPA isn't about helping the environment, but it is damned effective at crippling industry and real progress.

[Firethorn]

Based on what?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but want to hear your reasoning. Should there be air pollution regs? What std should they be set to?

Roughly speaking, there's a number of different pollutants that need to be controlled.  Diesel, operating differently than gasoline engines, tends to be naturally good in some aspects, while worse in others.

Current EPA regulations, being shaped for gasoline engines with the limits for individual pollutants, make it so that diesel engines actually need to be substantially better than gasoline engines - because while they're easily better on the aspects they're relatively good at, they're still not allowed to bust the gasoline levels for what they're relatively bad at.  Thus the 'silly' controls like urea injection.

My take on emissions - charge a tax for any hazardous emissions on the idea that that is your generalized damage to others.  IE each ton of mercury exhausted into the air is $X, each ton of lead is $Y, etc...  If you don't exhaust/release it, no charge*.  Then twiddle with the values to match them to economic damages.

*Though there needs to be some rules to keep them from simply storing it until the inevitable accident releases massive quantities.

[drewtam]

My take on emissions - charge a tax for any hazardous emissions on the idea that that is your generalized damage to others.  IE each ton of mercury exhausted into the air is $X, each ton of lead is $Y, etc...  If you don't exhaust/release it, no charge*.  Then twiddle with the values to match them to economic damages.

I 100% agree with this concept. It would really free the market to use low tech engines in the low volume niche markets and startups; while creating incentive for the large volume producers to create even better tech for emission reduction at a pace that they feel comfortable implementing.

[Tallpine]

You know, that might be right. Might be getting to the point of more than a normal synchronized manual transmission can take, therefore you would  need to step up to a big rig unsynchronized transmission...

Coupled with the ever diminishing demand for manuals, and you get mostly auto availability.

So long as the transmission is DESIGNED FOR A TRUCK DOING ACTUAL TRUCK WORK I'm fine with an auto. Give me a good solid beefy Allison and I'll be happy...our firetrucks all had Allisons in them and we were very pleased with their performance.

Our VFD has a policy that the trucks must go into low range when you leave the county road.  The main county dept already ruined the transmission in a brand new truck with 300 miles, from growling around in the brush with a load of water.  I think that was an F-550 

The automatics are nice for pump and roll operations.  Otherwise you never seem to be in the right gear and wear out your left leg.

[Gewehr98]

People in this thread really crack me up. 

[drewtam]

@Boom,

Sorry but there is no such thing as a free lunch. Reducing emissions usually means a side consequence of some kind. Sometimes it is reduced fuel economy, sometimes more expensive and complicated product, sometimes its both.

Your standard seems to be regulation is ok as long as it doesn't inconvenience you in the slightest, but that's just not how it works. Very rarely do we find a magic bullet like the 3-way catalyst that can reduce emissions, very simple, reliable, and cheap. But even then, it is driving product cost because it requires good electronic fuel and ignition control to really get the best use out of it and requires a better fuel standard from the refineries- adding to your pump price.

Unfortunately diesels have a harder time cleaning up the emissions because of the chemistry of the exhaust. That's why they have to inject urea, to alter that chemistry. Fortunately, urea SCR is so effective at cleaning up the smog causing NOx, that the engine can then be optimized for much better fuel efficiency.

[Ben]

@Boom,

Sorry but there is no such thing as a free lunch. Reducing emissions usually means a side consequence of some kind. Sometimes it is reduced fuel economy, sometimes more expensive and complicated product, sometimes its both.

Your standard seems to be regulation is ok as long as it doesn't inconvenience you in the slightest, but that's just not how it works. Very rarely do we find a magic bullet like the 3-way catalyst that can reduce emissions, very simple, reliable, and cheap. But even then, it is driving product cost because it requires good electronic fuel and ignition control to really get the best use out of it and requires a better fuel standard from the refineries- adding to your pump price.

Unfortunately diesels have a harder time cleaning up the emissions because of the chemistry of the exhaust. That's why they have to inject urea, to alter that chemistry. Fortunately, urea SCR is so effective at cleaning up the smog causing NOx, that the engine can then be optimized for much better fuel efficiency.

So the diesels that use urea for pollution control get better fuel economy? Genuine question. I have a DPF, and my model year gets about 5MPG worse than the previous year. Mine was the first year of the enhanced smog control, so perhaps DPFs have improved as well?

[Hutch]

You can have my 1999 F250 PowerStroke w 6-spd manual when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

[drewtam]

@Ben

Depends on what emissions level one is comparing to.

If its a non-emissions compliant, modern common rail engine (say a model intended for Chile, a region with clean fuel and no off road emissions requirements), then there is no way to beat that combination of modern fuel system and no emissions targets on fuel economy.

But if one is comparing to a previous emissions level, where its the same fuel system but also adding an urea SCR system, then yeah, it can be an improvement. The urea consumption sometimes offsets the fuel reduction, but I've worked on several cases where it was a net improvement on total fluid consumed compared to the previous generation engine design.

DPF's are going after PM, which is completely different emission item. Urea SCR targets NOx. Part of the reason why your DPF is taking more fuel is because the engine requires dosing the exhaust with raw fuel to help heat up the exhaust. The hot exhaust will cause the soot (PM) caught in the filter to oxidize into CO2. I suspect that your dosing fuel consumption is awful during the cold days of winter months. Its trying to heat up all that exhaust!

Here is how a urea SCR can make a net improvement to a DOC+DPF equiped engine...
By adding a urea system, the engine design can use more advanced or earlier injection timing and higher injection pressures. Both setting changes increase NOx and reduce PM. Therefore, the NOx is being cleaned up by the urea, and advanced timing is good for Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. With the reduced PM, the DPF won't be filled as quickly = less regeneration needed = less dosing and fuel consumption. With increased NOx to PM ratio and a catalyzed DPF, the PM can also more easily passively oxidize without any extra heating at all, again a dosing and fuel consumption reduction.

In summary, here is how a urea system can actually end up net better on total "fuel" consumption... advanced timing for improved BSFC, lower PM production and improved passive regen causing reduced fuel dosing.

[charby]

People in this thread really crack me up. 

Yep