Consumer Reports Pushes Feds for HD MPG Numbers

Screen Shot 2017-09-20 at 4.04.35 PM II

By Brian Wong

According to Consumer Reports, fuel economy is an important consideration for buyers when purchasing a new pickup truck regardless of size. Its policy and mobilization arm, Consumers Union, now has petitioned Congress to make fuel-economy, emissions and fuel-cost data appear on window stickers and the government's Fueleconomy.gov website. It has also put three heavy-duty pickups to the test to see how fuel-efficient they are.

Currently, federal law requires automakers to promote fuel-economy information for passenger cars and light-duty trucks, but heavy-duty trucks (meaning those with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 8,501 pounds) have been exempt from this law. Consumer Reports wants that to change.

To that end, it tested three popular heavy-duty trucks: the Chevrolet Silverado 2500, Ford F-250 and Ram 2500 (click here to see how it tested for fuel economy). Each came in four-door crew-cab configuration with their respective turbo-diesel engine and four-wheel drive. It also tested the heavier-duty Nissan Titan XD, equipped in the same configuration with the 5.0-liter V-8 Cummins. Rounded to the nearest whole number and providing something more akin to a combined (rather than city- or highway-biased) fuel-economy rating, here's how they did:

Chevrolet Silverado 2500 Duramax 6.6L V-8 - 14 mpg
Ford Super Duty F-250 Power Stroke 6.7L V-8 - 15 mpg
Nissan Titan XD Cummins 5.0L  V-8 - 15 mpg
Ram 2500 Cummins 6.7L I-6 - 14 mpg

Bear in mind that these tests were conducted without loads or trailers, or run at any significant altitudes; adding any of those variables would have a negative impact on fuel-economy results. We should note that during our 2017 3/4-Ton Premium Truck Challenge, testing similarly equipped top-of-the-line models on a more highway-biased drive route, we achieved considerably better numbers.

We'll keep you posted on Consumer Reports' progress in motivating the EPA to push pickup truck makers to include three-quarter-ton pickups in their required fuel-economy postings on the window stickers and at Fueleconomy.gov.

Photos courtesy Consumer Reports

 

Screen Shot 2017-09-20 at 4.05.43 PM II

 

Comments

This test was done using the old DMAX engines. PUTC and TFL truck have tested the new DMAX and it outperforms the powerstroke in every conceivable aspect or performance comparison.

I'm old enough to make my own decisions about which truck I like.

Honestly, how in the world did people ever decide to buy a car without CAFE and EPA?

I hope someday the US Government gets completely out of the nanny business. Let those of us who actually want to have a nanny just hire one.

Let’s not add more regulation...

I would like to have the information to help with my personal decisions but agree that we don't need the government to start pushing new regulations based on that data. I would want it mainly to compare the diesel and gas versions of the truck. I guess the problem is that once the data is available then certain groups are going to start pushing regulations that will reduce the function of trucks much the way that cars have been reduced in function. Face it, the reduction in the function of cars is a large part of the reason that car sales are off while SUV and truck sales are up. Example: I pulled my boat with a 1972 Newport until 1991 when I bought a pickup to do. Now I have a crewcab pickup with a tonneau on the back which is a very popular setup. Basically, this a is just a taller version of the Newport, two rows of seats and a large trunk. I believe that for many purchasers of trucks these days a modernized Newport would do the job and burn less fuel but in car form it would not be able to meet fuel economy requirements for a car. Basically, in the drive for fuel economy the government is forcing people with certain needs to buy a less efficient vehicle than what they really need due to nuances in the law.

@GMS, so sorry you need to defend the duramax. As I said before, I really liked the DM we had at work. I also do not understand why people care about FE in trucks. But hey thats me. I will say my powerstroke is getting 17-18 now that it has 90K on it. When I bought it I was getting 15-16mpg. They take time to break in and get better as they go along. I wonder if they will take that into account, that the FE is better as the engine breaks in. Some of these diesels take a long time especially if you dont really use them.

This is stupid. Just let sites like this do the testing and share their results. I'd like to think the government could be used as an practical source of data, but they come up with incredibly dumb test procedures that are then just pencil-whipped and engineered-to by the manufacturers. Real world numbers are what consumers want. Just test them and share the information. Done.

If the EPA does this it could potentially open the HD segment to CAFE regulations, which would be baaaaadddddddd. There is a reason these truck manufacturers don't want the fuel economy posted and that is because it would then be regulated by the EPA. If they want the numbers, they can check out real world numbers at www.fuelly.com

I'm old enough to make my own decisions about which truck I like.

Posted by: papajim | Sep 21, 2017 7:31:48 AM


Stupidity comes in all ages.

I think I would stick to the truck I like best, even if it's 1 MPG Less, at least the seat is softer

I always like having more information but not for the unstated reason it is being suggested for, which is to categorize HD's as inefficient and to force manufacturers to make them adhere to even more stringent and arbitrary eco-fascist standards that do nothing but make vehicles far too complex and wildly expensive. It's easy to pay for the cost of leftist smugness when you are the one paying 80 grand for work truck.

Heres the real results for the chevy and the ford
http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2017/08/which-one-ton-pickup-performs-best-as-a-daily-driver.html

Can you say domination!!

Stupidity comes in all ages

@ Frank

Do you ever say anything meaningful?? Every time you comment, its belittling or demeaning!

You need to seriously step back and stop being so upset at the world?? Get a life or a job maybe?? UNREAL

@tnt, didnt you just call people names on another thread? Contradict much?

@ Nitro

I never call people names when starting a thread, until I defend myself bc you ford fanboys get upset. So I make a smart@$$ comment to defend it and you guys get butt hurt!!

BIG DIFFERENCE!!

Have great day

papa jim is old enough to need a Hoveround.

@the FAKE Jeff S

you need to take your Ritalin on time. You know what happens when you skip your meds.

@TNT, so sorry you have to constantly defend the twins, and by doing so you feel the need to name call. I wouldnt call it smart either....

@ Nitro

Here we go again!!

So sorry you have to defend twins.....blah, blah. blah, blah, blah

Unreal...get a new line....every post you've done starts with that line. Its very comical!

@tnt, and it gets under everyones skin too,lol, yup I'll keep using it....

@ Nitro

No, it just shows your intelligence!

Very unnecessary to have fuel economy numbers posted for the HD trucks.We all know they use a lot of fuel under the conditions they are used for. But when you need to have a truck with abilities of a HD pick up, there is no other choices than the big 3 ,and they get similar fuel economy doing heavy work.

Calling a nurse, papa jim needs his meds and can you get him some Depends as well.

Hey while youre at it,, why not require big rigs semi tractors fuel numbers also?
Me thinks people buy HD trucks bc they like certain make model,,mpg be damned..
Ive been very happy with Chevys GMCs reliability for many years and wouldnt buy anything else anyway,,well maybe Tesla or Workhorse ...LOL

I vote for more information to be given to the consumer. Fuel economy shouldn't be a surprise. And it isn't as if this information is unique or as if it's asking too much. It just might add some sanity to the up-selling via ridiculous hp/tq one-up-manship.

Guys, don’t you know this is not their end game? This will bring the lower economy of our trucks to light. There will be legislation to try to regulate our trucks to have greater economy or require special permits to own them. Ready for a hybrid 3/4 ton? Me either. Don’t encourage them. CR leans very far left.

Guys, don’t you know this is not their end game? This will bring the lower economy of our trucks to light. There will be legislation to try to regulate our trucks to have greater economy or require special permits to own them. Ready for a hybrid 3/4 ton? Me either. Don’t encourage them. CR leans very far left.


Posted by: Puddycat | Sep 21, 2017 9:18:51 PM

Well if it's a proper hybrid system with a ice generator and electric propulsion, I believe you will see better mileage and way better towing than your currently used to. Not all tech would be worse than current designs.

It would be worse because it is more expensive and complicated. My power stroke Dirksen looks more complicated than a NASA engine

And the other thing is they should not force us to do anything. We should decide the market should decide

i always like too, how people say, yeah my X brand gets 1 mpg better than your y brand, yet that is so small that anyone can make it up in their vehicle if they wanted too. Now give me one that gets 10mpg better than I would think differently

From what I've read the 6.4 Hemi in the Ram's get upper teens on the highway with MDS, and the 6.0 and 6.2 muster 15-16.

Maybe if manufactures were forced to post MPG numbers it'd push technology in the HD segment. Maybe GM will finally update the 6.0 or replace it with the 6.2. Maybe we will finally see if the Ford Ecoboost is actually an engine that can stand up to the HD segment.

From the above comments:

No, a combustion engine acting as a range extender or a generator for electric engines to power the wheels is actually simpler and lighter weight and when mass produced , it is cheaper to make and maintain.

The idea that it is more complicated is ignorant.

I am old enough to realize MOST commenters on this site have NO idea what they are writing about.

Great job GM stomp Fords butt in a mud hole once again!

From what I've read the 6.4 Hemi in the Ram's get upper teens on the highway with MDS, and the 6.0 and 6.2 muster 15-16.

Maybe if manufactures were forced to post MPG numbers it'd push technology in the HD segment. Maybe GM will finally update the 6.0 or replace it with the 6.2. Maybe we will finally see if the Ford Ecoboost is actually an engine that can stand up to the HD segment.
Posted by: Tyler | Sep 22, 2017 8:56:33 AM

MDS adds extra complexity for a tiny increase in fuel economy. Guys that buy 3/4-ton gassers buy them for durability and reliability.

The 6.2 and Ecoboost won't appear in a 3/4-ton truck any time soon. The 6.2 is an aluminum block and the ecoboost is unreliable. The 6.0 is a proven engine with decent power numbers that can handle a ton of abuse for hundreds of thousands of miles. Better flowing heads and perhaps direct injection could help but that's about as far as I would prefer they go with updating the 6.0.

...direct injection could help but that's about as far as I would prefer they go with updating the 6.0. Posted by: Brick | Sep 22, 2017

@Brick

Completely agree! The 6.0 GM L96 engine has long had a great reputation for long trouble free service. Common for them to crack the 200k miles barrier with no major work on the engine, just gas and oil changes. Similar to the 4.8 in that regard. It's the last of a long line of Vortec gen 4 motors

I don't know about fuel economy, but I think crash tests should be done on on HD trucks. Most of the HD trucks share cabs with the 1/2 ton models but they weight about a ton more. Try doing the same crash tests with all the extra weight and see what happens.

Do you ever say anything meaningful?? Every time you comment, its belittling or demeaning!

You need to seriously step back and stop being so upset at the world?? Get a life or a job maybe?? UNREAL
Posted by: TNTGMC | Sep 21, 2017 11:34:58 AM

At least he's not on here calling people gay like papajim. I guess he had a bad experience at an interstate rest stop or something....

The 6.2 and Ecoboost won't appear in a 3/4-ton truck any time soon. The 6.2 is an aluminum block and the ecoboost is unreliable. The 6.0 is a proven engine with decent power numbers that can handle a ton of abuse for hundreds of thousands of miles. Better flowing heads and perhaps direct injection could help but that's about as far as I would prefer they go with updating the 6.0.
Posted by: Brick | Sep 22, 2017 4:59:53 PM

Put the kool-aid down man

I think this is great. A lot of people use 2500 series pickup trucks as daily drivers and it would be great when they purchase them to know roughly what fuel mileage they get. I don't think they need to regulate them. The manufactures are doing what they can already for fuel mileage and it is really only fair that the consumer knows what the fuel mileage is on the vehicle that they buy. There was a time that trucks were used for work for the most part and today most of them are used as daily drivers that work on occasion.

"...CR leans very far left. "

Get a grip, dude. If CR advocated for Communism, I think people would know about it by now.

I think it's a damm good idea.



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 | © 2017 Cars.com | Privacy Statement | Contact Us