GM Cancels 29mpg 4.5L Diesel Engine
 

Just heard that GM dropped the 4.5L Diesel that claimed to get 29mpg highway. This was intended for the Silverado/Yukon/Suburban/Sierra line.

Nice work Obama.

Why'd they drop it?

29mpg and able to pull a Toy-Hauler: sounds like the perfect family truckster to me.

Their new overlords don't think we want to buy those kinds of vehicles, so in the name of the environment, they've been canceled.

we would all rather ride around in little shoe boxes with fart cans right? At least that's what they tell us we should want.

i'm gonna drive around in my Lemans after ripping off the cat, with baby seal skin seat covers and shellaced humpback whale eyes to replace the headlights. i'm also looking for a way to make it run on burning styrofoam.

or maybe they over exagerated their feat and are getting out before getting called out on it.

That would be suspicion #1 for me.

#2 would be that it can't meet emissions standards as is.

#3, it can meet current emissions standards but it is close to the limit, and with states now reassured in their ability to set their own standards, tougher than the Fed's, GM doesn't think they will be able to sell it in enough states.

#4, it meets or exceeds all performance goals and runs clean as hell, but will be so damn expensive GM doesn't think they can sell it.

#5, it is a super-engine that can do everything, but GM is planning to close the factories capable of producing the engine and projected volume of this motor alone isn't enough to justify keeping any of the factories open.

Works for me............Less weight = more agility

Kinda like the motorcycles you guys ride?

Some people like different vehicles to be capable of different things. You can't tow a boat with a Prius or a Mini.

No, but I've seen sportbikes being towed by Minis, Integras, and even a Miata.

But you can't tow a trailer with four bikes in it behind any of them and have room for 4-5 full size people inside.

And the point is?

I have seen a 67 Mustang on a 4x4 chassis and used for rock crawling....

You can take anything and use it beyond it's purposes. Are minis, integras and miatas going to replace the truck industry?

I doubt this engine was killed due to government pressure specifically against it, but I do think the government is doing everything it can to get people out of trucks and SUVs. It is just a continuation of the trend that has been going for decades. It used to be the only justifications you needed to get something was wanting it and affording it. Now for more and more things you must show you need it, if not legally then morally, while the affording it part has been thrown out the window.

Of course not..........But how often does that happen?

Around here, the average sportbike owner just hauls his own bike, and nothing more. Maybe 2 if he's carpooling w/someone. I'm just saying a lot of guys seem to exaggerate their need for a truck. You see them driving Tundras when a Tacoma would have sufficed :lol:

Fortunately people don't need to justify their vehicle purchases to anyone but themselves. The only thing that bothers me is when someone who bought a full size bitches about gas prices.

Wrong, Wrong, Wrong Wrong and Wrong. The engine was dropped because they were told to do so or moreso that the truck/SUV plants were the ones that should close. It was a trick engine...no exhaust manifolds and the turbo was in the center between the intake manifolds.

It was a 2010 calendar year complaint engine.

Its a damn shame.

Those cars are not designed to tow anything...and if you're specifically using the truck to go to the track, why would you use one of those?

Isn't that kind of what I said for #5?

Even though I listed it I still view it as a remote possibility. GM is not closing every truck plant. Even if trucks and SUVs die as passenger vehicles there will still be a demand for trucks, and consequently a need to build trucks for the commercial market. I think the commercial market buys a hell of a lot more diesel trucks than the passenger market, meaning the engine would still be viable. That is unless it isn't too expensive or can't meet emissions.

So that you don't have to own a truck in the first place?

You own a truck and a bike. Use the bike everywhere except when you need a cage.

Problem solved.

Your car is also transportation. And cars are allowed on the track. Therefore, you don't need a motorcycle. And since the pollute More than cars, there's even less need for them.

So, from now on when you go off on a "I'm going to tell ppl what they should drive" tangent. Just remember that you don't need anything more than a pair of shoes and a bus pass.

Yet, I don't hear any stories from you about how cool the bus is...

IMO it's getting killed because the costs to put it in production will not be recovered at the price and quantity that is estimated to be sold at least in the near term, and they can OEM an equevelent engine from someone else for a lot less money. In the past they'd pony up the development costs, I'd bet there's have been some long meetings going over list of projects looking for projects to cut.

if it works for you then enjoy it, I won't try to convince you otherwise.

It doesn't work for me at all. I have a Jeep for winter days when they haven't plowed our roads. (live out in the country, no plow sometimes for a couple days) I also have a truck to haul building supplies to work on my house. I don't need or want some little shit box car that is useless except for the most basic transportation.

Motorcycles do pollute more than cars, according to journalists......but those tests were done in unknown conditions.....We don't know what model years they compared, or whether the bikes had catylitic converters, sensors, & emissions controls. Nowadays every single new bike has that stuff, so as long as you don't remove it like most idiots do, I doubt it will pollute much more than a car. I don't know either way, but I would like to see an up-to-date comparison.

I never advocated taking away the right of people to own the vehicle of their choice. I merely called some people stupid for the choice they make. They take their bike to the track maybe 7-8 times a year, whoopdie-do.......For those limited needs they could have used a car with a trailer, and had something that's actually fast, handles well, and uses less gas. I could see buying a used truck as a second vehicle, but paying up the ass for a brand new full-size truck as your ONLY vehicle? Not for me.........If I'm gonna spend that much money on a vehicle, it needs to be fun to drive. After all, guys being guys, the majority of us like stuff that's fast and handles well, which makes me suspect that a lot of truck-owning guys would have been happier with a car. I can't prove it, but that's my opinion.

And people say "WTF do you care about what other people do", well if I see something I think is stupid, I point it out. But I am not a government official, so my opinion isn't going to hurt anyone. But if you want to get technical about it, people driving trucks does in fact affect the rest of us, because if their truck gets 20mpg when they could have used something that gets 28, then not only are they putting out more CO2, but it seems to me that it also raises the price of gas due to the law of supply & demand. You guys do care about your wallet, right?

BTW I am moving up to the SF Bay Area, and yes the bus, subway and light rail systems up there are VERY cool. Lame in some people's opinion maybe, but the vast majority of the people up there use them, so what does that tell you. Hell, I won't need to use a car except for groceries and going skiing. To me, driving is a waste of time & money unless it's on a fun mountain road.

guess I'm stupid then (according to homeslice anyway) oh me oh my I think I'll go kill myself now. my truck listed at 32K thanks. (didn't pay anywhere near that) and it gets 15.7 MPG and for the first 6 years of it's life it was my only vehicle. Would I have rather had something more fun (last time I checked funner wasn't a word) to drive. ummm no. For fun I have a bike, well and a couple more cars that you really wouldn't like.
Sometimes you can't afford to have more then one vehicle, or maybe you don't have room for more then one. You choose the one that fits your life the best. For some it's a truck. It's not stupid just because it doesn't fit your ideals of how people should live.
Do I need it? I don't know, bring me your little car and lets see if it can do what I need my truck to do. Funny I have a friend from Cali who regularly scowls at my truck. That is until I tell him to let me use his little truck for the weekend and then I'll get rid of mine.
Do I need the trailers, cars and other things that I do with the truck? Nope, but that's why I went to school and got a good job, so I could have more then just the bare necessities in my life.

My truck gets about 13mpg.

My wife's Accord gets 30-ish and handles better.

She just started working recently. We have a 20 mile commute. Her office is 7blocks from mine.

When convenient, we'll carpool.

Guess which vehicle stays at home?

The Accord. :fishon:

That was going to be my guess.

Since we are talking about the motorcycle people, we assume that they don't need a truck to haul their bike. I think it is a mistake to assume people buy trucks specifically to haul their motorcycle around. Most times I would assume people bought their personal vehicle long before a bike was in their realistic goals.


I still don't understand why anyone compares my F250 Diesel to a 4 banger of any make or model. This thing has a 7.3 engine, weighs 8,000 lbs and gets between 15 and 18 mpg. I have 4 wheel drive, 4 doors, and can move just about anything.

A civic, integra, celica or what not has an engine almost 1/4 the size of mine, weighs maybe 3,000 lbs?, isn't 4x4, can carry 4 or 5 people without the same amount of comfort, cannot realistically tow a heavy load (meaning more than a small sportsbike) but yes it fucking gets 10 miles per gallon more than mine.

Does that actually surprise anyone? I hope not.

Once Honda, Toyota and Nissan bring out a truck with a big displacement engine with amazing mpg, then we can yell at Detroit for falling behind.

Why?

Do you actually like driving the truck more than the Accord? If so, more power to you................but IMO there's lots of people who would probably be happier with a car, and the only reason they bought a truck or SUV was because of all the heavy advertising that brainwashes people into believing they need an SUV for image reasons, and because they say you need an SUV in order to successfully negotiate the "suburban jungle". :rolleyes: Seriously, if you watch ads for SUVs, they don't show the SUV towing anything, they just show it driving downtown with friends going clubbing or something, with trendy-looking people behind the wheel, to make it look like the cool thing to buy.........and then they show a "rugged" segment with them driving thru rainy weather or a construction zone, like as if a regular car can't do that. :lol

So if we shouldn't buy more than we need, wtf are we all doing on race inspired sportbikes when we could be riding much higher mpg scooters that would still take us through the mountains when we wanted to?

I have to ask...

Why the hell would you commute in the truck vs the car?

Is the Accord a shit box or something? Has it seen better days? Does it wreak of body odor?

Because sportbikes are funner than scooters. But is the average SUV funner than the average car?

Bikes usually are purchased for recreational purposes. Cars and trucks typically aren't.

:lol:

They are bought because of their variety of uses to the owner. Are passenger cars more useful than trucks? No. More efficient at moving people? Yes.

I will think of you the next time I pass a bus.

Can't really say that.

I would guess that a greater % of the population would feel that the easily approachable nature of a scooter is more fun than a high strung sportbike.

Also considering the best selling (or close to it) car over the past few years has been the Camry and would be a good candidate to represent the average car, I would say it doesn't take much to be more fun than the average car.
Even more, the average car is a 4spd automatic 4cyclinder sedan.

How a vehicle drives and handles is not what I'd call a "recreational purpose".......I call it one of the top priorities. Why spend a lot of money on any car or truck unless it's fun to drive? You spend a lot of time behind the wheel, and it's a waste unless you're getting something in return.

We live in a country where folks will define a car as sporty if it has a spoiler on the back. We are a country where automatic transmissions are king.

I actually had doochebag tell me that a car can be fun to drive if it has a nice radio and was comfortable to drive on the highway.

Think less "average vehicle currently on the road", and more "what could someone potentially buy for X amount of money"

The Accord is an '07 with a pleasant clean linen smell and no repairs needed. The only sign of wear is the typical-female-driver-damage (scratch down the side from running through a toll plaza :lol:).

I have been making the commute since I moved into our current place. My truck goes every day. I feel comfortable driving it, like the radio presets and don't bitch about fuel prices.

Her Honda is a lease and is over the allotted mileage.

I have a Ranger that I haul everything in. I haul the bikes when needed. I haul scrap metal for extra money, I've hauled in a ton between the truck and trailer with it. I'd like a bigger truck but no money for it. I'd really like a 4 door Ranger with at least a 6' bed, be able to haul more that way.

According to the IIHS, Consumer reports and the Government your Ford ranger is a death trap and should immediately be taken off the road.

I don't know if the average SUV is funner than the average car, but IMO it is MORE FUN.
Sure I may be able to take a corner a little faster in that average car, but in my average SUV, I can go to the end of the paved road, on to a gravel road. From that gravel road I can go to a min maintance road. From that min maint road, on to the dirt road, and from there, straight through the field. All this right after an inch of rain.
Lets see you do that in your Prius!

With any luck from young teeny bopper will chime in about how much "funner" his Civic is.

LOL...sig material.

I actually like driving my truck then my Malibu (and its an 08 so its the cool Malibu...lol). I like the feeling of sitting up high and accelerating slow. Also the truck is a manual and shifts well.

I love a smooth riding car like a Crown Vic or Park Ave...but they don't look that cool (cept an 88 Park Ave).

mine has the tank inside the rails. it's a 94. pushing 200K

That is one of YOUR top priorities. That is not the case for everyone. When you consider the top 2 bestselling vehicles in America last year were trucks while 3 and 4 were the Camry and Accord, two particularly bland and boring vehicles, it is safe to say that isn't the case for most.

It's a death trap for not having a bazillion safety nannies and does not deal well with a 50mph collision from the left front corner with a diesel locomotive.
according to the sources I listed.

They recomend you replace your Ranger with a Prius or a non rusted Toyota truck of some sort...preferably a hybrid highlander.

:rolleyes:

I dunno, Ive been driving a chevy colorado for 2 years now, its got the small enginem 4 doors and a 5 foot bed. I get 20-25 mpg (above the 20 that is claimed). I can tow around 4 bikes comfortably all day, or 2 bikes and my camper, or my camper by itself.

I can't tow the big campers that require a 5th wheel or haul horses or stuff like that, but 99% of the shit that I've ever needed to move can be moved with this truck.

I think this statement is the major problem with your argument. To you having a little car that "handles well" is fun to drive. which is fine by me, but when you see someone driving a big truck you think that they don't enjoy driving their truck. I LOVE LOVE LOVE my trucks and wouldn't trade them for all the little cars in the world!!! I love being up above the little cars you speak of. And as far as the phrase "fun to drive" you should come out here and go mudding with me sometime now that is fun!! (as long as you are in a truck and not a little car) or when there is 3 inches of snow on the ground the only thing stopping me from getting where I want to go is the little cars that can't get going because they don't have four wheel drive. I would dare to bet if someone gave you a truck to drive for a year you would come away with a diffrent opinion. Its amazingly convenient to be able to toss whatever you want in the bed and go. I haul stuff all the time, just the other day my mower broke and I had to take it into the shop. with out a truck that would have been a pain in the ass, I just loaded her up and away I went. Ever tried to move with out a truck? its no fun! And two days ago i hauled 100 bales of hay with the truck and a trailer. And after that I went up to the truck dealer and looked at a 30 thousand dollar f350. do I need it as my everyday driver.... probably not but i promise you there will be times when Im glad I had it. Like when I have to go get 30 squares of shingles to roof the house, or get 200 landscaping blocks. Not to mention that while the truck doesn't get the miles per gallon a civic would its very common to see diesel trucks turn over 300 thousand miles. which would be pretty impressive for a small car. especially if you are towing around a trailer which the car wasn't meant to do. so I would be replacing the small car more often. The bottom line is that while I agree that soccer moms probably don't need full sized SUVs to run their two children to soccer practice, not everyone who drives a big truck is just looking to waste money. If you have a truck you will find ways to use it. I have my bike and camaro for fun on dry pavment but my truck gets me through all the other crap.

And that's the thing, you have other vehicles to enjoy...........But the people who ONLY have a truck or SUV, to me it makes no sense unless they make use of its capabilites at least once a week or so. Otherwise it's not worth the hassle of owning something so big, so ponderous, and so bad on gas.

I did own a truck once, an '89 or '90 Ford F150, and the only thing "fun" about it was its stick shift, which was smooth and nice to shift (probably because it was actually a Mazda transmission, not Ford lol). Everything else about it sucked, the 5.0 engine ran out of breath and started shaking at not even 4K rpm, and while the ride quality was OK going in a straight line, if I was in the middle of a turn the solid axle would make the rear end step out over bumps. I got rid of it 6 months later.

yes I have other vehicles but those vehicles are the ones that don't make any sense to have. The bike is purely for recreation. It can hardly carry any cargo. Its not comfortable for any passengers. Ya it goes along way on little gas but what good is that if it rains? The camaro is fun but I haven't driven her in about 2 years. To me having either of those for my everyday driver wouldn't make any sense. The truck is the only one that DOES make sense. It is completely capable of doing everything I need in a daily driver and more. I can drive it in rain, snow, warm weather cold weather what ever comes around my truck is ready to go. The other vehicles are the worthless ones unless conditions are right. They are fun to drive now and then but if I had to pick just one vehicle to drive it would be a truck everytime. And again yes it costs a little more in gas but that is EASILY equaled out by its versatility. I couldn't live with out a truck its just to practical. some people buy trucks that they don't need I agree but who says they aren't fun to drive? To me a tiny little underpowered car is much less fun to drive. It may handle well but unless Im on a race track its not that big of a deal. And if Im going to buy a car that handles well and stuff id rather have a camaro that handles well and hauls ass rather than a little 4 cyl car that handles good only because it weights 1000 pounds and still can't get out of its own way. Everyone has their own idea about whats fun to drive to me its a big ol truck that can have a bed loaded with stuff, can tow just about anything, gets great traction in snow and mud, I don't do it everyday but when I need to I got the vehicle I need. You can't understand why I want to pay a few dollars more per year in gas, and I can't see how anyone would want to drive a car that can do nothing but get me and MAYBE 3 other people from point A to point B. (and if Im feelin really crazy maybe a trailer with one bike on it) I guess it just comes down to the word practical. To me a truck is practical because I have one vehicle that can do everything, if I didn't need a truck then yes gas mileage would come into play. So those people out there with big trucks may feel the same way. Just because a trucks bed is empty or its not pulling a trailer when you see it don't assume that they don't need the truck. They may be on their way to pick up a 20 foot livestock trailer, or headed to home depot to pick up supplies to build a deck etc etc.

A truck does everything whereas a car cannot carry a motorcycle or shit in the back. When gas is still under 2.50 a gallon the difference per month may only be 50 bucks vs. renting a truck if you go to the track, plus the inconvience.

The gearshift is directly over the transmission. The shifting is always going to feel the most direct. And it wasn't Mazda. Prolly Borg Warner.

says you!

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q...ylver/bike.jpg

It said in the owners manual Mazda T5 or MT5 or something like that. Ford and Mazda shared a lot of parts back then.

I thought it was only for the cars and smaller trucks.

I looked it up, sho' 'nuff used in the F-150's and full size Bronco's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_M5OD_transmission

Ya the T5 is a borg warner, trans and a damn good one at that. I had them in both my 3rd gen camaros and theres probably one in my f150 right now. Then they stepped up to the T56 which is in my 4th gen and its even better!