Former GM Exec Says Fuel Rules Will Boost Vehicle Costs by $5,000

Lutz_ViaTruck II

Speaking at the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress, a yearly meeting where current and new technology is discussed and revealed, former vice chairman of General Motors Bob Lutz offered a dire prediction and a few suggestions.

According to The Detroit News, Lutz believes that aggressive federal fuel economy regulations will increase the cost of new cars in 2025 — when manufacturers face the biggest mileage hurdles — far more than the government's estimate of $1,800. Lutz suggested that the real price boost will be more like $5,000 per vehicle, most of which will get passed along to the customer.

Lutz also suggested the best way to encourage people to change their auto purchase choices is not to punish automakers by requiring a certain number of vehicles produced to be hybrids, electrics or hypermilers; instead he recommends giving consumers an incentive to purchase fuel-sipping vehicles. By placing a 25-cent tax on each gallon of fuel sold in the U.S. for the next 10 years, he said, the government could easily guide buyers to more "fuel independent" choices. Likewise, he said, the government could use the extra funds to fix potholes and crumbling bridges, and to clean up "the infrastructure mess that is currently an absolute embarrassment" to the U.S.

Bob_Lutz_Wide II

 

Comments

Thanks Obama !! And Thanks Greens/Left Winger's !!

All this for Fictional Global Warming ! Science and reality proved them wrong..

They push for green energy,but green energy pollutes more than conventional energy !

Electric vehicles with 0 miles already polluted as much as a regular vehicle driven 90,000 miles !! Yes,the process of the toxic battery is equal to a car driven 90,000 miles...Green energy is a scam it made lots of people rich,by making us poorer.

I'd like to see someone run the numbers on how much extra hardware and energy consumption is used to make this MPG boost. It'd likely be years down the road before the couple extra MPG's catch up to the energy consumption used for all the extra gizmos and gadgets in manufacturing. Let alone all the extra break downs we will incur.

I'm with Canadian Dodge Ram Owner, this is stupid. My next truck will be an older 3/4 ton diesel (looking for 6.9 Ford F250) with mechanical injectors. When something goes wrong, I want to be able to fix it. And I'm not about to shell out $5,000 for something that will never make up for itself. At today's prices, that extra $5000 put towards fuel (diesel for me at $4.00/gal) will let me go 25,000 (at 20MPG AVG). I'll either be buying new before the regulations, and/or used thereafter.

2025 is a long ways off. Just buy a 2024 and don't worry about it. Hell I'll be 72 in 2025, I could care less what a truck cost then. Won't be doing that much RV'ing. I think everyone needs to worry about the price of gas more.

Oh this sucks, Maybe I will buy two new truck now and keep one in storage for ten years.

Go green everybody and save our planet! Global warming is a fact and the severe storms we are having every year is proof of it. The average temperature is rising and the north pole is disappearing. Wake up you non believer clowns.

Greg, storms this year have been no worse if not less then previous years. Hurricane Sandy was only a Catagory 1 storm just happened to combine with another low pressure system heading out of the midwest which magnified its overall pressure and size but wind wise it wasn't anything to right home about and we are still waiting for the 100 hear hurricane to hit New England. Stupid people have built up in coastal areas and on the shore line so when we do get hit by a storm the damage is far worse.

@CDRO: How can you possibly believe climate change isn't happening when the arctic ice is disappearing more quickly every year? Even now the once legendary North West Passage is open far later in the season than ever and reopens far sooner every year. It becomes very possible that within the next couple of decades the North West Passage will remain open year-round--maybe even without the need for icebreakers except into specific ports. You're simply ignoring quite visible and quite obvious facts by insisting the issue does not exist.

Global Warming is a huge money maker for the Hippocrates like Al Gore.

Sure temperatures are rising but the Earth has gone through cylcles of higher temperatures ever since its inception billions of years ago, nobody can prove it is man made, in fact their a are new studies out showing that the burning of coal and fossil fuels is providing a shield from the sun keeping temperatures lower then they could be from natural cyclical warming.

The new regulations aren't going to drive up the price; the manufacturers are going to up the price using the regulations as an excuse. Cars and trucks currently cost the consumer significantly more than they need to as evidenced by the fact that dealerships and manufacturers are willing to cut anywhere from $2K to $8K off the price of a car or truck just to make the sale. In some cases--trucks especially--they might cut even more--and still make a profit.

No, this former GM exec knows that building cars is all about profit and that if they can find any excuse at all to raise the price, they will. Even if it's only by adding a few stickers and calling it a "special edition."

climate change has been going on since the very beginning. it isnt any different now. im sick of all you tree huggers. find something else to gripe about

Bob Lutz is definitely exaggeration the truth a bit. He's fully invested in Via hybrids and would no doubt profit from a much higher fuel tax.

The current Honda Accord, if sold in 2025 (with no changes) would get taxed or penalized approx $550. It will need approx 39 EPA MPG and currently gets about 29 MPG combined. At $55 for every mile under the CAFE (EPA sticker) MPG scheduled requirement, it would amount to $550. Inflation would bring that down much further. Of course, the Accord will easily meet that mandate.

When it comes to mid-size trucks, that's a little more sketchy as they'll like continue to grow. The regular cab Tacoma will be gone and the access cab will likely be the size of the current double cab Taco. That's a 56 sqft footprint. It currently averages 22 MPG for the 4 cylinder, auto and would require about 31 MPG by 2025. If by 2025, its MPG somehow stayed the same, that's about a $500 penalty, pre inflation.


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

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2013/04/is-the-regular-cab-pickup-doomed.html

Need to just add a gas tax...forget all this highly rediculous mileage standards on the trucks (guys want the trucks bigger and bigger, getting harder to overcome the physics of weight and size of today's full size vehicles). Trucks are for work! If you need one, you will pay the premium to fill 'er up. Problem solved.
Plus, the people that just use them for commuter vehicles (basically luxury cars) would be helping with our crumbling infrastructure. My Jeep doesn't do too well on gas...guess if I want to drive it around, I'll pay the premium.

Just raise the gas tax to $1.00/gallon. That is all.

Jeep

Rob Lutz, believe it or not I had dealings with him/or his staff in 1995 over my dismal XJ Cherokee. I sent him a personl fax and he got Doug Croker head of Chrysler and Hyundai at the time in Australia to phone me at work.

I ended up with the best XJ Sports in Australia, except for the mechanical fails.

He came through for me, but he didn't fix Chrysler's inherent quality problems.

Got rid of the Jeep and bought a Nissan Navara D20 Dual Cab diesel, the world's slowest pickup truck I thought, but a tank.

You can see with the types of money involved with this CAFE footprint issue why some of your (Hyundai, Ford, etc) exaggerated mpg figures.

If the car companies can get away with lying about mpgs it will save them billions of dollars.

Midsizers will find much harder to meet CAFE regs than full size trucks. The footprint modelling disadvantages the smaller more economical trucks and favours vehicles like the Ford Atlas.

We are now getting some midsizers that are getting around 35mpg on the highway and can carry weights similar to a base model F-250 SD and they can tow over 7 000lbs.

The Ford Atlas example of what a full size truck will be like in the future gives a good indication.

The US needs an unbaised system for pickups so people can have a choice, not be regulated into micro cars.

The engine choices for the Atlas will not be big block V8s, it will most likely be 3 litre plus Eco Boosts and small V8s.

As I've been saying the new midsizer diesel engines will most likely be the direction of your full size trucks will head in. This is needed so the manufacturers in the US can meet CAFE.

If they don't the companies will be penalised for poor fuel figures.

@Jeff S
Robert Lutz is saying what we were saying about increasing fuel taxes and fixing infrastructure in the US.

Here is an interesting Ford story that came out in Australia today. It seems Ford Australia design the best pickup in the world with the Ranger and now China's best selling vehicle.

This story goes with the question you posed to me yesterday on the future of the Australian motor industry.

http://www.news.com.au/business/companies/ford-australias-great-china-hope-just-dont-tell-anyone/story-fnda1bsz-1226625104356

Global warming is in fact going on right now, and has in the past, along with global cooling! it is called nature! the sun get warmer, and less hot, has solar flares and less solar flares, to think man can alter the climate is like saing man can make it rain! not going to happen, yes the ice caps are melting, but it is just that they have been growing for thousands of yrs, and now they will be warming for the same amount! there have been setlements found under all this ice that has been melting up in Greenland, yes there was man in the area back a long long time ago, when the earth was warmer than it is now, and then there was an "ice age", and all the settlements that are being found up under the ice, were abandoned, with all the tools that were used at the time by man, left there to be found later. This is all a shame perpertrated by folls who are not fools at making $$$, but fools who think this is realy man made. What is the old saying? you cant fool Mother Nature! but you can fool some of the people some of the time, but only fools will believe this is because of man!

Oh and one more thing, my local Chevy dealer has aquired a new Hybrid 4x4 1500 p/u, he was able to get it, because a customer of his ordered or at least had him locate a Hybrid Tahoe for him, and the dealer was offered the P/U with the Tahoe for a good discount, and he has offered me, a good deal on it, I have asked him what he could give me for the F-150 EB I want to get rid of, he said he was going to get back to me, as this was all thru e-mails, if I get a good trade offer, I might just go for it! and then I could drive around, and not have to have all these tree hugging prius driving moonbats look down at me for driving a big bad truck! once they see the Hybid on the side, they will be waving at me, with more than one finger that is!

@sandman4X4
I read an interesting article about a snake skeleton they found in Columbia. The skeleton was only several million years old which is nothing in geological terms.

According to the story the snake weighed an enormous 3 000lbs!

They figure for reptiles to be that size the global average temperature was 5 degrees celsius higher (8F) than current global averages. Right now they are talking less than 2 degrees celsius. So snakes might get to 1 000lbs :)

In the mid 14th century (1360) the Nordic people were farming in southern Greenland, because of global warming.

This guy is full of she-it.
The prices have gone up $5000 in the past 5 years but trucks got bigger and more guzzly.
If the prices go up its because him and the auto cartels set them higher, not because of regulation.
Taxing fuel even more will do nothing but hurt middle and lower income.

BigAlfromOz: that is right! I have read the same thing, only could not remember the yrs, so I said a long long time ago, yes there is global warming, what causes it? that big bright hot ball in the heavens, called the SUN!

@sandman4X4
Cows farting causes most of it doesn't it? :-)

Maybe the EPA can come up with some kind of device to stick into a cows ass to reduce it's carbon footprint.

Cow have got four feet so, how will the work out its footprint.

@sandman4X4
I lied, my memory is failing the average global temperature was 6 degree C warmer.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/world/meet-the-giant-snake-big-enough-to-eat-a-crocodile/2009/02/05/1233423363483.html

@BAFO - Australia overrates towing and payload capacity on trucks, so work gets done, I guess. Australia, isn't a sue happy society like the US, so it's not a problem. The Nissan Navara has almost 2X the capacity as the Nissan Frontier, just with different emblems.

The base F-250's payload is 4,240 lbs and that's more than the stripper Hilux cab & chassis that you quote WEIGHS! How 'bout we compare "like" trucks with actual beds.

A 'cab & chassis' stripper FURTHER exaggerates payload by not having a truck bed (when rated).


The REALITY is the F-250 has about 4X the towing and payload of mid-size trucks.

http://www.ford.com/trucks/superduty/specifications/payload/

http://www.ford.com/trucks/superduty/specifications/towing/

http://yahoo.carsales.com.au/?rs_ref=frontpage

http://autos.yahoo.com/

Big Al= Please Use something other than cows for and example.These U S politicians are already taking horses out from under the hood of our trucks and I do not want them to getting any ideas about cutting back on my steak.They will jump on any thing.

It's not all about global warming like some of you think. Although I do like my clean air and water to breath and drink. It's also about more energy independence.

Obama shouldn't mandate any fuel standards, he doesn't even know which is the correct fuel for his limo by putting diesel in instead of gasoline. It turned out that Obama tried pushing the broken down limo, but he couldn't even "budge it." :)

Why is it that people refuse to see the evidence right in front of their noses?

On the so-called 'Global Warming', I won't deny that Earth runs in hot and cold cycles--in roughly 1,000 year, 10,000 year and 50,000 year cycles and maybe more, as the Australian aboriginals can tell you. However.

Over the last 200 years the Earth's average temperature has risen faster than any equivalent period in geologic history and over the last hundred years even faster. These figures are measured and recorded. Worse, we were supposedly headed for a "mini ice age" about the time that we entered our industrial age which reversed the trend we had been seeing.

Fact: Britain had wineries during the so-called "dark ages" which were roughly 1000 years ago and yet no more than 500 years ago people could walk across the Thames River In London. There is some hint that the original vines for those wineries came from the Roman invasion nearly a thousand years before that. So based on at least one recorded history, world temperatures were falling prior to the 1800s.

"Using data from 73 sites around the world, scientists have been able to reconstruct Earth’s temperature history back to the end of the last Ice Age, revealing that the planet today is warmer than it has been during 70 to 80 percent of the time over the last 11,300 years." -- http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2013/mar/reconstruction-earth-climate-history-shows-significance-recent-temperature-rise
The article indicates that the rise is expected to accelerate even more over the next hundred years if not longer. Additional articles such as, The Modern Temperature Trend -- http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm and Temperature Change History -- http://www.planetseed.com/relatedarticle/temperature-change-history emphasize this even more, with the latter one even showing a graph presenting annual and 5-year averages from 1860 through the early 2000s.

Another graph from the http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/templine.html shows that right now we're seeing one of the sharpest rises in global history at a time when we should logically still be falling by that 'cyclic' methodology. However, I can offer a much more recent proof, if you dare to seek it.

In the year 2001 an event so horrendous happened that ALL CIVILIAN AIRCRAFT were grounded for a week over the USA. Now, I know the vast majority of you remember this event for its political ramifications, but how many of you remember the weather during that week? How many of you even bothered to pay attention to the world around you? Maybe you should have, because daytime temperatures during that week averaged 5° F BELOW forecast temperatures! Where I live just 100 miles or so northeast of Washington, DC, we had some of the clearest skies and most gorgeous weather you could have imagined--the kinds of skies and air normally seen the day after a big storm has cleared the pollution.

You don't believe we are affecting our weather? We have recorded proof--but the data is effectively hidden from us by those who refuse to acknowledge it.

Oh, yes. We are definitely affecting our weather.

^cause and effect fallacy, there are way too many variables

@DenverMike
Are you spinning and trolling again?

A Colorado can carry 3 080lbs.

What does a 2013 Ford F-250SRW 4x4 172.4"wb carry? 3 020lbs.

http://media.ford.com/images/10031/2013_SuperDuty_Specs.pdf

So Mr UAW, I gave a link.

Also, DenverDunce, interpret what I have written, don't put spin on it and troll like a loser.

Before you answer research and read what a person writes and don't try and take this out of context again.

Remember, this issue is what started your Denverdumbass multi posts.

You are one full of $hit individual.

DWFields: the only place 100 milesNE of DC is the Atlantic Ocean, and just beyond that, Montauk Point NY, Block Island RI, Cape Cod & the Islands, unless you include NNE, by just a few %. there are also studies that say the Sun Spots are bigger, and more often than ever, that would have a much more profound impact on Global warming, than man would. See that big bright and very hot ball in the sky? but the only folks that could ever get rich over that, is the sun screen manf.

The real problem is everyone wants everything all in one package, rather than seeking a balance formed around realistic expectations. Take the small pickups of 15 to 20 years ago, small, fuel efficient, and capable for light duty jobs. Now the small trucks have grown into larger trucks approaching what a full size of 5 to 10 years ago was because we have to have more room, capability, power, etc. What is the advantage of this set up?? Nothing! That is the reason why there are so few players in the "small truck" category as their sales have been cannibalized by that of full size trucks which offer better everything as of current. And that is just the consumer side of it.

Now throw in the government and the insurance industry and you have them requiring unrealistic fuel standards along with safety and emissions. So we shave weight off the truck, add the latest in engine and transmission technology to bolster fuel efficiency only to have it negated by increased weight due to the safety standards, and emission controls that cause the engine to run less efficiently by adding restriction, recirculating exhaust back into the engine, and adding crappy additives like uria to clean the exhaust as in the case of modern diesels. Moreover, we have industry lobbyists promoting additives that degrade the quality of fuel along with having a propensity for damaging fuel system components by promoting condensation build up.

Lets get real, we cannot have everything all in one package, we need to give and take. I see way too many vehicles and engine technologies that are available in Europe and Australia that cannot be offered here because of prohibitive safety or emissions standards. Get real America! If you want to cut down on pollution it is not about taxing the people more on their vehicles, or increasing cost of vehicles by requiring unrealistic standards be placed on the vehicle manufacturers causing price increases, it should be about giving people alternative transportation for commuting, which is probably the biggest contributor to automotive air pollution. It is definitely not caused by people pleasure driving because they cannot afford that given the high fuel prices!

Anyone seen the story about Ford and GM working together on a nine and/or ten speed transmission?

It does seem odd how different the ratings are for the Navarra and the Frontier. Do they have the same frame? I know the drivetrains are different, and I suspect the suspensions are different.

I'm a big fan of the frontier. King cab frontier is about the greatest used pickup buy in my opinion (for what I use a truck for). First thing on my list to pickup (no pun intended) after I move later this year.

@BAFO - This one's tooooo easy... Oh and you suddenly can't figure out how to use a computer??? The King Ranch F-250 4X4 Crew cab, long bed with the diesel (AKA, the payload worst case scenario) has the "3,080 lbs payload" which you love to quote. The payload "best case scenario" is the base F-250 with 4,240 lbs payload.

On your link, scroll down to "MAXIMUM PAYLOAD WEIGHT RATINGS". OK, go to the 2nd column "Regular Cab". the 2nd listing for "F-250 SRW 4x2" (Max 10,000 lbs) is 4,240... Bingo! There you have it. See that wasn't so hard now was it???

You make this too easy to play. In case you did not know, here's some FYI...

If a base truck weighs 5,760 lbs (base F-250), and has a 10,000 gross GVWR, that leaves 4,240 lbs of net payload.

If a fully loaded, full-boat luxo truck weighs 6,920 lbs (the F-250 King Ranch in your example) and has the same 10,000 gross GVWR, that leaves just 3,080 lbs net payload. Drrrr...

At the same time, the Holden Colorado in your "payload example", is a 2wd regular cab stripper, cab & chassis, sold without a bed. And of course, gas engine and manual trans.

Of all the Colorados I found here...

http://yahoo.carsales.com.au/cab-chassis

...the "best case" payload scenario is 2,735 lbs because there was no "gas (petrol) engine" Colorado offered. All were (heavier) diesels. Got links?

If you were to use a fully loaded, 4X4 Colorado with a diesel engine as a "payload example", more similar to the King Ranch, it would have about a 1,000 lbs payload, when adjusted for conservative US payload ratings and with a bed installed.


Of course, the base-stripper reg cab, 2wd cab & chassis Colorado with the gas engine in your "theoretical" and "best case" payload, would also be the worst case scenario for a best "towing example" Colorado.
For that you would use a double cab Colorado model with the diesel.

You're need to be all over the place to try to prove your nonsense BS.

When it comes to the "35 MPG hwy" figure, you're back to the stripper Colorado, cab & chassis, but with a diesel engine (if 35 MPG hwy is even possible).

This is exactly the kind of "apples to ORANGES(?)" comparisons you use that makes you a joke around here...

@DWFields
I think you will find on this site many that disagree with global warming. Just read the comments section.

But, then there are the ones who agree its occurring, like myself, but require more proof on the 'Armagedon' that's the Greenie's state will occur.

Then you have the Greenie's, who, I think are over reacting to the situation.

Historically throughout mankinds history there have been doomsdayers. In more recent history you have had the anti nukes, oddly manyfold have been killed mining coal then in nuclear accidents.

What about the ozone depletion scaremongers in the 80s? Everything was going to fry as the ozone hole grew in size.

All of these issues are still in some peoples minds and they group the Global Warming issue with other past issues, that just have never occurred.

But the outcome of global warming has benefited mankind. The new technologies that are coming on line. The problem with these technologies is they are mainly government subsidised. Meaning taxpayers are the ones giving, and for what outcome?

We have directed our resources into the wrong areas because of political/business reasons.

Like I've stated in the past, all of the money used for green ideas is useless and costly. Green projects should have increased the gas infrastructure in the US so people use natural gas instead of oil. This would have had a bigger impact on greenhouse gasses than Solydra, EVs, Hybrids etc.

We need to use more existing technologies to resolve these issues, not try and invent new ones, we don't require that yet.

A great example of political manipulation of 'green' policy is the use of CAFE/EPA regulations by the US.

If they increase the price of fuel by taxation gradually and the manufacturers keep on building vehicles like they have a gradual change in culture will occur. It wouldn't decrease your standard of living.

The US government does need to get money from somewhere to pay back its borrowings and fix transport infrastructure.

To do what I've described the government will have to change the direction of its auto industry policies. From what I've read this isn't going to occur for another decade.

The government just spent billions bailing out the Big 3, why would they put them under. But this will come at the cost of the American consumer.

American and us other western nations can't go on like we have since the end of WWII.

To take on the Chinese the US has to work more closely with its other Western Allies, like looking at how your vehicle industry is regulated and protected. But other countries will have to do the same.

@DenverSpin,(Like that)
A Freightliner HDT has more than 4Xtimes the towing capacity of an F250. What not the same category of vehicle? Neither is a Hilux and F250.

Bob Lutz's comment is spot on. Yes any restrictions is going to cost more in monetary terms.

@DenverSpin (Good name Rob)
You are the one trying to make it into a comparison war.

I basically stated a Colorado can carry similar loads to some F-250s. I never mentioned it can out do it at anything. And what I wrote is true.

Again, you provided a link that supports my comment. How smart are you?

For your interest some F-350s can only carry 10lbs more than a Colorado.

If the UAW has people like you no wonder they destroyed Detroit. I suppose you one of the smarter UAW unionist/socialist. Maybe they should fire you from their propaganda department. The world might think the UAW outfit is managed by fools.

As Lou has shown you can't decipher, interpret, comprehend and co-realate information and data.

Let's see if you can spin that one Spinner.

@Big Al from Oz--The price of gas just jumped 20 cents a gallon on Sat just because of a flood in the Chicago area. Raise the fuel tax $0.25 a gallon the increase going specifically tor fixing and replacing bridges and crumbling interstate highways only and any unspent funds go directly into a trust fund directly for repair and replacement of these bridges and interstate roads. This increase cannot be used for bike, walking, and any other trails, nor can it be used for mass transit or street cars. Funds are not to be used for any highway beautification funds but only for the designated purpose. This would repair our deteriorating interstate highway and bridge system and create long term jobs.

Another thing that could be done is have something similar to the Cash for Clunkers is allow car manufacturers and utility companies to extend the amount of time to comply with these regulations by buying credits that would allow more time to comply with these new fuel and emission standards. Instead of the Government paying for the clunkers allow the car manufacturers and utility companies to buy these vehicles that are at least 10 years old but these vehicles must be scrapped. Just some ideas to get a discussion going.

MAybe scumbags like this guy should stop find ways to gam CAFE by making the trucks bigger and just make them smaller and more efficient, like people want.

MAYBE... JUST MAYBE.... if they become efficient enough, people like me will gladly pay an extra $5k. But as it is, I have no reason to buy a new vehicle now because they are too expensive and too inefficient .

@Denver Mike—Why is it that every article on this site you turn into a midsize trucks versus a full size truck towing and hauling capacity? I see this article in a broader scope and less myopic than you do. Electric vehicles for the most part are very limited and do not offer a viable alternative for most. The goal should be to not only make cleaner and more efficient vehicles but to encourage the public to get rid of older less efficient vehicles. Higher fuel prices are one way but not the only way. Let the pickups get bigger and more expensive and those that do not need them will buy fewer trucks and seek more efficient vehicles. After a while the trucks will become so big that the average person will not want them even if they are more efficient if they become so big that they are harder to park and maneuver. I have changed my mind on the larger pickups, the manufacturers should be allowed to make trucks wider and longer (as much as 6 inches wider and a foot longer). Get the trucks so large that the public views them just as they viewed the H-1 Hummer. Lower the fuel standards on these trucks and let the fuel prices go up. Add the $.25 a gallon extra fuel tax designated for roads and bridges and put a 20 percent excise tax on all new large pickups. Those that need or want these trucks will buy them anyway and use these funds to go directly to repair and replace interstate highways and bridges and any extra funds should be put in a trust designated for interstate highways and bridges only. Allow manufacturers to make as many of these larger trucks as they want by buying older cars or trucks that are at least 10 years old to be scrapped. You will still be able to buy as large a truck as you want, it will just be more expensive.

We should be far more worried about over urbanization, over farming, and polluted waterways than global warming. And these same green global warming wackos are the ones who want everything to be an over regulated over urbanized government sanctioned everything hell hole.

@DenverMike: Man is that argument confusing! You think you're being clear, but you make SO MANY ASSUMPTIONS!

Rather than saying "IF", you need to verify and prove those assumptions because if whomever you are debating has the verified information, you come up not only wrong, but looking like a fool. It's no wonder Big Al gets upset at you.

I'm not saying you're wrong because simply put, I have not attempted to verify nor disprove your assumptions; that task is up to you.

@Jeff S - I didn't bring it up. BAFO did. As he always does.

@BAF0, DWF - If you compare trucks, big vs small, on the extreme end of their respective payload schedule or range of operation, yes you'll see them almost cross over or almost overlap. That could be light duty vs medium duty. Or medium duty vs big rigs. Whatever.

I could throw a statement out there like: "We have F-550s carrying 'similar loads' to your COE Scania big rigs". Technically I'd be right, but I'd still be an idiot for saying so.

One thing you won't compare is towing, big vs small. F-250s tow approx 4X that of small trucks in similar, no, any configurations or set up.


My "4X" figure stands correct when comparing "like" vehicles, big vs small. If you call an F-150 or Tundra a "1/2 ton", a Hilux or Colorado is more accurately a "1/4 ton". That's good for what it is, and I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that tag.

And all this is using Australia's generous capacity ratings. Are they SAE standards?
Anything to say about the Nissan Navara vs Frontier huge disparity in capacity?

When it come to the "35 MPG" figure you threw out, it could mean anything, but you're sure not about to get specific on the truck's specs. Or its "average MPG". Especially not when hauling a load.

It has already been proven. See Mike's figures. Big al is trolling again about the mid-sizers doing the same work as a F-250 and other BS and if you haven't noticed Al has a foul mouth. It is disgusting.

As you can tell from many of Al's other entries on this site, Australia is home of the retarded bogan...

He and his partner thinks spamming this site with off-topic and postings is patriotisim and what we "need." The due tells us to less biased and that we "are bigoted and inbreds" but he is the one who is biased as hell and lies continuously about our trucks and our country.

That's why I call him a bigot. Australia is a land of increasing bigots, ignorant slack-jawed morons with the world-awareness of a blowfly and a population in love with the idea of themselves - deluded by their own propaganda.

Australians are not cheerful, friendly people who like to have a drink after a hard day's work. They're lazy bigots and boozers with a superiority complex and a foul mouth.

*All definitions have exceptions. My apologies to the minority (namely Alex) who are not as described above and post on this site in a civil and professional manner.

From the Texas Ram burns post,

"Different country, different ideas, Ram guys must be a very bigoted lot and/or inbreed hicks" - Big Al

I'd say that's the pot calling the kettle black.

@DenverMike: Umm... dude, in your comparison of load capacities, you made a MAJOR error--you forgot to convert to a common measurement. Looking at the Holden site and pulling the specifications on a 4x2 cab chassis, the load capacity of 2449 is in kilograms, not pounds, making its converted measure at 5400 pounds or almost 2-3/4 tons carrying capacity. Now, even if both driver and passenger weigh in at 250 pounds each, that's a 2.5 ton (US) load capacity. That exceeds the maximum load capacity of an F-150 XL--a truck physically much larger-- by almost 2,000 pounds. Sure, it may not be as fast, but it is obviously stronger because it is not designed to be an SUV. The Colorado 7 on the other hand probably rides a lot better but obviously doesn't have the same carrying capacity.

Still, the whole comparison argument doesn't fit the discussion at hand--why the price of cars (and trucks) will go up.

@DWFields - Show me your links. I convert everything into lbs by multipying by "2.2". The biggest payload I found in a cab & chassis is 1,243 kg. These are diesel Colorado C&Cs so BAFO must be quoting gas engine that I couldn't find. That when I aske for links.

Mind you this is a C&C rating without the bed. You have to deduct for that from the gross payload eventually.

5,400 lbs is absurd and even BAFO won't go there. It may be off topic, but does that automatically protect erroneous information?

I have doubts those numbers are accurate, but Australia over-rate this trucks so they can get work done. Plus it doesn't have a bed. If someone put 5400 lbs on a Colorado here you would call them all sorts of names.



Post a Comment

Please remember a few rules before posting comments:

  • Try to be civil to your fellow blog readers.
  • Stay on topic. We want to hear your opinions and thoughts, but please only comment about the specified topic in the blog post.
  • Your email will not be shown.

If you have a TypeKey or TypePad account, please Sign In

Home | Buy or Sell a Truck | News | Special Reports

Powered by Cars.com. By using this site, you agree to our terms of service | © 2014 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us

Visit our partner: MovingTruck.com