New 2017-2025 Fuel Economy Standards Will Be Tough on Trucks

New 2017-2025 Fuel Economy Standards Will Be Tough on Trucks

President Barack Obama announced tough new fuel-economy standards this morning that will increase the corporate average fuel economy in the U.S. to 54.5 mpg for cars and light trucks built between 2017 and 2025. For truck-makers, the hyper-efficient requirements will force major design and powertrain changes in future pickups.

“This agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we’ve ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,” Obama said. “We’ve set an aggressive target and the companies are stepping up to the plate. By 2025, the average fuel economy of their vehicles will nearly double to almost 55 miles per gallon.”

The new standard requires passenger cars to meet annual mileage increases of 5 percent from 2017 through 2025, while light trucks, including crossovers, vans, SUVs and pickups, will need to improve 3.5 percent a year from 2017 to 2021 and then by 5 percent between 2022 and 2025.

Exact annual fuel-economy targets haven’t been posted by the federal government, but current light truck CAFE standards are 25.4 mpg for 2012, rising to 28.8 mpg in 2016. They’re expected to be over 40 mpg in 2025, representing at least a 60 percent jump in efficiency over the next 13 years.


CAFE numbers are cacluated using a different formula than EPA mileage figures found on a truck's window sticker, but here's how the tough new rules could impact light-duty pickups.

A 2011 Ford F-150 with two-wheel drive and a 3.7-liter V-6 gasoline engine has a combined city/highway rating of 19 mpg. That same F-150 would have to achieve approximately 30 mpg combined (60 percent improvement) by 2025, which is an increase of about 11 mpg.

Can truck-makers build 30-mpg combined full-size half-ton trucks, the most popular pickups sold in the U.S. today? If they do, they will be radically different from the body-on-frame trucks driven today. We can guess at some of the technology that will be required.

Weight reduction, which is already important in the development of next-generation pickups, will likely shift frame and body structure materials from metals like steel and magnesium to much higher use of lightweight materials like composites and plastics. We wouldn’t be surprised if the half-ton of the future weighed at least 25 percent less than today’s pickups.

The truck of the future is also likely to be much more aerodynamic. Tough-truck looks are likely to disappear to get the best fuel economy possible.

Powertrains will probably feature extensive electrification and hybridization, similar to the plug-in series hybrid setup of the Chevy Volt. Four-cylinder diesels are also a strong possibility, like the research effort Cummins has been leading in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy and Nissan.

There’s one thing we can say with certainty. Though you’ll save money at the pump, the truck you buy is going to cost a lot more in the future to pay for all that advanced fuel saving technology. Don’t be surprised if your used 2012 Silverado, F-Series, Ram, Tundra or Titan holds its value strongly in the next decade.


I remember when Obama was running for the White House. He told the general public during a speech "I'm not going to take your pickups away, or your hunting or fishing, I just think fuel economy can be improved". Well, the future fuel economy figures his EPA laid out will pretty much obliterate pickup trucks as we know them. they are totally unrealistic as far as I'm concerned. I guess you did pretty much take our trucks away Obama..Now if we can elect a republican we may have a chance. I don't want a pick up that has the ruggedness of a golf cart..

Mowhawarth: I would like to have the power obummer has over the house and senate, on anything they put tru or you say, its called A VETO. If he dosen't like something thats right, and a good idea, or not towing the party line-- VETO!! so don't say he isn't part of the problem, he is the problem, him and his cabinet of tax cheats, and over educated morons not a sigle one of them has ever had a real job, except maybe teacher. Those who can do, those who can't teach.

Have you ever wondered, what if the government said something, and everyone else just said no. What would happen? If every auto maker refused to comply, would the government force them to halt all production? If they refused to stop making cars, would it be illegal to sell them? If dealers kept on selling, what then?

NOTE: I am not advocating government resistance, merely considering a hypothetical scenario.

So the automakers will have to come up with a small engine, like a 1.0 3cyl ecoboost, connect it to a 25 speed transmission with a 10 speed auxiliary transmission and a 50-100 hp electric motor + a hydraulic hybrid system and put this into a truck thats made of carbon fiber, aluminum and plastic, then install solar panels and a radios under the front and rear bumpers to emit a v8 sound so people can hear you coming, and finally be made of atleast 90% recycled parts, all while being able to tow between 6000 to 12,000 lbs.

LMAO!!! Im keeping my Ranger until the end of days.

A government in debt thinking they can make decisions to help the consumer's pocket! Nonsense! Would you seek financial advice from a bankrupt financial organiztion. As for this wish list; as much as we all want our cars and trucks to be economical, the same oil companies in whose pockets the politicians reside will just jack up the prices by 100% or more by 2025 as well. So it won't make much of a difference if the new cars & trucks have significant increases in gas mileage, we will just be paying $10/gallon at the pump, plus the additional cost of all that technology and who knows what new taxes they would have added to the vehicles and the fuel. Electricity has to paid for somehow for plug in vehicles, which will be an additional cost. The grids can hardly handle electricity demands right now, so they will need to be significantly upgraded. The whole thing stinks. Hang onto your bulldog looking trucks especially if you don't have any loans on them and just drive the heck out of them. The anti-car people hold some of the politicians buy the balls and the oil companies squeeze the balls of the others. Who loses? You and me the average guy just wanting to make a living and still enjoy the smell of gasoline and diesel.

Tell me when I can pick up my T6 Ranger with a 2.7 liter Ecoboost engine?

I hate CAFE . if Conservative Party people will buy less new brand trucks with unibody. if they need save old or older pickup and traditional SUV for new parts and engine, if Edelbrock parts will be excellent design will version to original manufacture brands parts will be older by discontinuation near future. it will be classic pickup and SUV heritage.


Ever bean to a SCORE desert race?

Very few rules, the last frontiere of motorsports!

SCORE encourages development to go faster or survive races!

The unlimited classes, heck I was in Mexico when they fielded the Cummings semi truck to race Baja!

They race ambulances, buses, a Rolls-Royce, pre-1982 bugs stock, you name it.

When I was there in the mid 1990's it went from the cream of the crop, Ivan's technological PPI-Toyota mid-engined fully independent suspension F1 car with large tires down to my street legal 1986 pickup with lisense plates still registered in my state and insured (for the drive home after the race).

In Baja, you bring it and they will find a class for you if it will not fit in one!

Case in point, Oshkosh Defense fielded the LCTV, a 13,000 lbs. machine with no torsion bars or coil springs, all hydraulic suspension system with CTI and they created a special military class for them...

Do not compare other forms of racing with Baja. They enjoy freedoms in the dust!

I also recall some teams re-fueling their machines doing 60 mph to save time! That's right chase teams would find flat areas where the race vehicle and chase truck could fuel the race vehicle at speed to save time.

Now that's what I call freedom to imagine!

The biggest flaw with oxi's off-road racing stories is that they are from the 1990s, 20 years ago, and based on trucks 20 years ago which were very primitive compared to the modern trucks of today. Times have changed but oxi hasn't.

"When I was young we didn't have fancy F-150's and Raptors. We had little Toyota trucks in the 1990's and that's the way it was and we liked it!!!!!" - grumpy old oxi -

There will always be a demand for larger & more heavy duty trucks and these trucks will not be held to as strict a standard as passenger cars, vans, suvs, cross overs, or light duty pickups. You will still be able to get a heavy duty truck for towing and hauling it just might be more expensive because they will be more limited in numbers and those that want them will be willing to pay the price. Most consumers will be happy with a light truck to do weekend hauling and this is not a bad thing. There will still be a good size market for a compact, midsize, and 1/2 ton full size pickup. Although most of the manufactures have abandoned the compact and midsize market other manufacturers probably will take up the slack. A front wheel drive 4 cylinder truck that is compact priced reasonably would be just right for the suburbanite or as a second or third vehicle for anyone that does not want to use their larger truck all the time. Gas mileage will be a more significant factor in the future. If the truck manufactures come up to the wire and cannot make the deadline they will be granted a reasonable extension. This is not the end of the world just like Y2K wasn't. Our country has faced much worse and the consumer has faced much worse regulation than this.

The cars should have a better chance of reaching those mpg targets. Lots of design iterations to get there and even more so for pickups. The BS manufacturers have been putting out and are about to produce now isn't significant. Smart money sits back and watches the melee.

The toyhauler, off-road/desert, 5th wheel crowd and industries will slowly go the way of the dodo bird.

By the way that's a real purty f150. The engine bay almost has enough room for a small motorcycle engine.

Oxi: have you ever seen the big class 7 trucks that are the team trucks for the Dakar Race Series?, most of them are made by the Mann Co. of Russia. These mosters go 100m.p.h.+ in the desert!, these truks are beasts!!, and if you look under them, they all have live excels! and leaf springs, the people that design them say that is the only way you can do it for the amount of time and speeds that they travel, and weight they can carry!

Hydrogen will be the way to go not radically raising mpg.








@ Oxi - did I say anything negative about Baja Racing????????
My comment about "If developing new technology was the sole reason for racing, we'd be looking at a Raptor with 20 inches of suspension travel" shows my point.
The Raptor does use some race technology but it is technology that has been around for at least 20 years. Current top shelf Baja trucks have over 20 inchs of travel not 12 inchs of travel.

We won't see top level racing technology making trucks super light because it still is super expensive.

You can accellerate testing of current technology or next gen vehicles by racing but that would let the cat out of the bag for manufactures trying to get an edge on the competition.

Racing does eventually improve cars and trucks but not as much as we think, or not as much as we'd like.

There is a reason why supercars are super expensive.

@matt- Im not sure I... I dont quite... I, uh... what?

Here's no reason each generation of pickup keeps getting so much bigger and heavier. Look at a late 90s f-series, a perfectly good truck that is tough and pulls and hauls. Todays f-series is 1000 pounds heavier! Let's scale back just a bit and that'll meet the new fuel targets. People can relax a bit, you're not going to be driving Subaru Brats in the future.

@Canadian Dodge RAM Owner
I am with you. But you better get this.

Obama is a bigger joke than April Fursten! We need a conservative president.

Never in the history of this great nation have we lost so many individual freedoms and rights to choose from as we have had in the last 3 1/2 years. O' bama and the liberals are hell bent on destroying this nation as we know it.

The Republicans are very timid on their approach to fight back.
What is the problem?

@ zviera,

I think I will need some,I managed the Chrysler bankruptcy and the negative talk that Chrysler would be split up and sold to who-ever,I had the wait and see approach.

With these mpg rules,smaller vehicles are coming !! I will need to be seriously medicated to ride in or drive a small car or truck with a small engine !! Or a current size full size truck with a small engine. It's really unfortunate we have a going backwards leadership (trains,bicycles are considered current state of the art technology from the left,they dont realize they are from the 1800's) we finally have new cars that can run beside old 12 second 1/4 mile muscle cars,and even pass them in some cases ! Even the new trucks are 5000 +lbs and run in the 6 second range (all domestic brands) and get in the high 14's in the 1/4.I cant imagine going back to the 1980's performance level of 15 sec 0-60 and 20 sec 1/4 miles,with strict mpg laws,we will have to.Small engines wont last as long in a heavy truck (they never did)Even if they can keep the hp up and decent performance ,We will have high strung 2.7 L engines in full size trucks that will always be in need of repair.I repair engines and smaller high powered engines never last as long as a bigger engine,that is a fact !

I am going to the doctor on later on,I need to be heavily medicated !! Thanks for your help !


Yes I have seen the larger classes in Dakar and those impressive Russian Kamaz trucks!

I have argued with Oshkosh Defense to race their MTVR U.S. Marines fully independent suspended tactical wheeled medium duty trucks in Dakar!

Insteade they raced their LCTV fully independent hydraulic suspension at 13,000 lbs. down in Baja last year!

I have always argued about military tactical trucks and their weights they can haul! The Marines medium and now heavy duty trucks are fully independent! No more straight axles!

The Marines off-road more than the Army and have a mission profile of 70% off-road, 30% on-road with their tactical trucks while the Army is the opposite.

Bottom line is more wheel travel, more ground clearance and better cornering with fully independent suspensions in trucks of that size which means higher speeds off-road!

I would like to see a different approach to this emission problem. After burning treatment is so last century. It's like to treat a high cholesterol patient with a pills, instead of preparing for him a balanced mix of food.
There must be a way to inject a gasoline before, during or after burning process to get cleaner burning. Even mixing gasoline with diesel to get better results and design a different engine.
All the treatments decrease engine power. I want to use a cleaning treatment, which will even increase engine power, so people will more likely go to gas station/s
I wold do that, but I am busy with other stuff I am working on, so I will leave it for a big 3.
BTW: My Hemi with 258 000 kms still pulls good in very hot Las Vegas this summer and very cold Alberta all year long ,so I don't buy this idea of small turbo gasoline engine. No offense people, but EB would be dead by now in these conditions.

One more thing, the IDIOTS in Washington need to put all there attention (what little of it they have), to getting this great Country of ours on track!, don't spend OUR $$$ before we even have it, never mind before even being born! you and yours, have all that you could ever use, (Aunt Zutunie not included), her nurfew is to cheep, when you have done everything to put the Country on the right track, then you can try to mess around with co2, mpg, and any other mandates you still have no clue about the effects of which will be brought to bear on us, wake up! is it 2012 yet? Maybe it is time for a Tea Party!

Well...I just bought a 2011 F-150 FX4 wit the 5.0L...All these new reg's say to me is that I'll be driving this F-150 for aloooooooooooooooooooonnnnnggggg time. But that's ok! I love the truck! And I have and will take the best of care of it. I plan to to have it 500,000+ miles! Hell I migh even go out on a limb and say its my first and last new truck I'll ever buy and I'm only 23 years old!

I love trucks I do...I always have...But if this is the future of them...Well, I guess I'll have to sink my intrests elsewhere, because it appears the days of the true auto enthusisast are dead. I love my new F-150 and unless something really and I mean REALLY change's in the future, it looks like her and I are gonna be spending along long long time together.

And and to...



@ Nate M- I think the same way you do. Im going to drive my 02 till the wheels fall off and the body rusts away (which isnt hard to do during the winters due to all the salt.)

Its high time for consumers, business people etc start call congressmen out and admistration officals the head of EPA etc to start using a common sense aproach to this! These zealous agency bureaucrats will never be satisfied!!!

First they had already had one CAFE increase then all of sudden all this!!!!

The real thing the government needs to do is help foster drilling for more oil, put limits on specators in oil and gasoline, diesel fuel market, and increase alternative fuels! Let us decided what we what to buy! Mabe some of these same people would give up their 10,000 sguare feet mansions for 1,500 square ft homes and do there part!

from ZRPOO " wonder how many Americans this is going to kill. Towing your 800LB ATV in your 2000LB 1/2 ton truck and you hit something. I guess it would work though, dead Americans don't need fuel."

Under the Obama plan, your new ATV will only weigh 200 lbs. You won't have a 500-800 cc engine, it will now have a twin turbo 50cc hybrid, and speed restricted to 15 miles per hour for your safety. So your new 2.0L F-150 will handle it just fine.

@ Alex - thanks for the chilling visual....... aaaaarrrrggggg

If the fuel economy standards for 2017-2025 trucks are going to be so tough, that's even more reason to buy that new truck BEFORE 2017! Delay the inevitable for as long as you can. I'll be trading my 2009 Tundra 5.7 in 2014 or 2015, while they're still hot.

At least the 2500s are not effected I have not bought so when I trade in my Ram 2500 in for another I will still have something that can pull my stuff around.

Small block diesel, anyone? European-market Rangers get excellent MPG and can do real work.

Don't hold your breath for the regs going matter who is in office. Peak Oil is going to change the game forever, and the data shows it unlikely for us to come upon any new, large finds like those of the 50s in Saudi Arabia.

Palin's "Drill baby drill" is a pipe dream. We aren't going to find enough.

We'll about 5 new Saudi Arabias to compensate for aging out wells, by 2050, to compensate for rising consumption from China, India, and nations currently exporting oil. Drill as much as we want, that's the endgame. There's not that much cheap oil out there, anywhere.

I reckon we could go to war with China over the oil fields off Vietnam...and fight Vietnam, too, while we are at it.

Or we could move more freight by rail, get more rigs off the highways, and design pickup trucks again that are not toys or proof of machismo for anxious suburban dudes.

And we won't do it.

This isn't just an OBAMA thing, BUSH warned us years ago about the standards getting even more strict!

the future looks sad

Thanks to the few members with some sanity left who can reasonably state their ideas and/or concerns. I think "Living Farmville" and I are on similar pages that efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit we have to combat rising energy prices and bridging the gap until a better fuel is developed (I'm looking at you bio-diesel) or a new mode of transportation can take over.

To others who are way out on the fringe of both left and right, please seek out a qualified guidance counselor of some sort. We don't need any more radicals blowing things up or shooting good people. Being efficient isn't the end of the world folks. How did we survive last year with only mediocre trucks with 350 hp and only 650 lbs of torque? Did we really do less work (although I do have to say we might be able to get from point A to point B a couple of seconds faster thanks to the extra couple of seconds we drop in acceleration with the extra power)

To me this is very similar to adding catalytic converters in the mid 70's, power dropped for a few years until the tech caught back up but this is a very short term view to take and our tech advancement today is much better than in the past and to date we haven’t had the drop in power because of efficiency or pollution constraints. Can you think of the last time a truck has come out with less power and capability versus the truck that preceded it in the last, say, 20 years?

Some of you many want to revisit your math skills as well. I am having a lot of trouble figuring out what "Canadian Dodge Owner" was ranting about. My universal math states that if my vehicle gets 40 mpg and I fuel up with the same fuel as everyone else my price to fill up would be the cost of the fuel times the amount put in but I will certainly be at a lower operating cost than someone who is less efficient than 40 mpg. If he/she cares to elaborate now that they have had a chance to calm down I'm more than willing to listen and respond.

On a side note. I am surprised that Mike has let this comment section to go so long considering the responses versus other articles that have been shut down really fast. Maybe we are all way too entertaining to stop. Maybe it can be the newest hit reality show. "Real Truck Bonehead Survivors of the North American Shore" :)

@mhowarth - my take on Canadian Dodge Owner's rant is that with legislated fuel economy standards you might see 40 mpg but at that time fuel may cost 10 times more.
I doubt fuel prices will climb to 40 dollars per gallon in the next 6 - 14 years.
I can see his fear - double your fuel efficiency but increase the price of fuel 10 times.

Most of the anger seems to stem from people sick and tired of government intervention/mismanagement, and feeling of helplessness, and perhaps hopelessness.

I don't have a problem with a 40 mpg pickup or car for that matter, but if it means being forced to drive a Prius with a box - ouch.
I can see the bumper sticker " I'll give up my full sided truck when you pry my lifeless fingers from the steering wheel."

This post has gone on because, for the most part, guys have been civil to each other.
It is a political decision to up mpg standards, therefore political commentary is fare game.

I see Chevy is calling out Ram's 2 star front crash test ratings in their ads on

The crash testing ratings are only going to harder if trucks have to switch to more plastics and composites to get better fuel economy to comply with Obama's standards.

Is higher fuel economy worth it if you have lower safety?

These comments are really entertaining to say the least. Everyone is "entitled" to cheap fuel they say, and Obama is the anti-christ blah blah blah...... lmao at the crybabies on here :) Too bad they cannot figure out how to cut back somewhere else so they can drive their "family hauler" truck (lord knows most I see running around don't haul much of anything all year, and willing to bet they are the same crowd whining about the fuel mileage mandates), instead get on PUTC and start with conspiracy theories et al.

Now, someone come out and call me a lefty as I am sure I must be an "obama supporter" since I have the SENSE not to use a full size, 400 hp... 6000 lb truck as a commuter vehicle and them whine about the price of fuel, FE mandates, etc,

........... come on, so I can lmao some more :)

When my V8 truck fires up, rest assured it is being worked pulling trailers, hauling junk, whatever the case may be therefore I couldn't care less about the price of fuel or FE mandates, because it is not made to tote my ego, manhood, or vanity status around.

IMHO, the only ones who have a legit reason to complain are the small business owners that use their trucks for acutal business to put food on the table and pay for a roof over your head (I really feel bad for you guys, and feel that maybe you folks should be able to get incentives or something) , if not, stop whining as you have a CHOICE of a different vehicle to commute, lifestyle, whatever....and it doesn't have to be a prius either, I wouldn't want to drive one myself!

lmao some more because I know what comments are to follow.

@ Lou

Something tells me we are multiple decades away from any truck getting close to 40 mpg. They do have same aerodynamic properties of a washing machine after all.


Plastics and composites are considerably stronger than any steel that mankind can produce. When we start integrating more of this stuff in we are going to have strong frames and will protect us better with less overall mass, not an inferior more marginalized product. Its not the same chintzy stuff you are thinking about in your kid's toys. You may never believe me until you get to see some of the stuff in action but I encourage you to learn more about composites we have today. You may become the next champion for the cause with a little more knowledge.

@ Red

Living in Idaho I'd guestimate that about 60% of the vehicles on the road here are some type of ladder frame vehicles (i.e. truck frame) and RARELY are they being used for more than hauling fat people around who always seem to drive 32 mph no matter what the speed limit actually is. There are some businesses that honestly use their rigs but that is usually the exception not the norm. Most I see are 6" lifted 2500 diesels with a suspension so soft because of the lift that they lose about 25-30% of their payload and towing capacity and are usually towing a tiny trailer or boat that can't weight more than 3000# that any half ton or even midsize SUV could easily pull.

I typically used my various trucks as secondary work vehicles not commuter car. I did do this with my 05 Dodge for about a year before I bought another vehicle that fit my daily needs since it was excessive to drive the truck all the time.

mhowarth: Exactly my point. My truck stays parked in my back yard until I go to the haul some junk, tow a trailer who's weight exceeds what my Jeep Wrangler Unlimited will tow, or I fell like thorwing my yellow lab in the back to take him for a joyride a couple miles down the road to the levee and back. Otherwise, she gets started up once a a week for a few minutes. It gets ~ 12-13 mpg average, no way would I use such a vehicle for a DD to commute more than a few miles a day....

But, I do NOT dare complain about the fuel mileage or come up with stupid, assinine conspiracy theroies because the govt is putting FE standards in place. Lots of trucks around here are lifted with big tires, don't go off road, but are intead used for vanity purposes due to their character not being legit enough to snag some from a nice lady, they have to let thier truck do it for them in the way of "vanity/impressions.....then come on to PUTC and complain that their "entitled" feeling for cheap gasoline (nevermind the millions of emerging middle class in India and China that want to drive as well) has been compromised and they are not in their comfort zone. wah wah!

I think gasoline is a great BARGAIN even if it was 5 bucks a gallon, just think.... that one gallon of gasoline will move a 6K pound truck 10-15 miles, would you rather PUSH that truck the 10-15 miles, or chock up the 5 bucks to move it there? That is how I view it anyway.....

Beyond whether a 62 mpg car is fathomable, the fact remains, cars that are able to attain such high gas mileage tend to be lightweight and dangerous. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety spokesman Russ Rader told TheDC that safety is always harmed with ratcheting up a vehicle’s fuel efficiency. “If the rules lead to incentives for people to buy smaller, lighter vehicles, then, we’re trading more crash deaths for better fuel economy. That’s the bottom line,” he said.


I'd take anything reported from freerepublic with a grain or two of salt just as I would from Huffington post or Tree Hugger.

Lightness and safety are two different things, often with SOME correlation but not causation. Light stuff can be very strong. Technically if everyone drove lighter (i.e., less mass) then all accident injury/death rates would decline as there would be less overall energy involved in the wreck.

Besides trucks are typically the lowest rated vehicles in terms of crash test standards on average. I'd feel much safer in say a new Hyundai Sonata with 5 star ratings and 5 star rollover than a new Ford f150 with 3 star ratings in a front crash and rollover ratings

Just because it is light does not make it unsafe. That logic is flawed and I backed it up with proof.

It's a quote the Institute for Highway Safety spokesman Russ Rader.


Since crash tests are about physics and engineering, we can be sufficiently entertained while engaging in some serious continuing education. The people at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which did the new study well understand their physics, as we all should. Their report presents, as was intended, a good basic lesson in the physics of car crashes. Bigger, heavier vehicles are safer; lighter, smaller vehicles are more dangerous. (see Newton, Sir Isaac; Laws of Motion) Without going into detail, all the minicars fared more poorly from a safety perspective than their larger brethren. Government pressure is now accelerating, pushed by environmental hysteria and enhanced by the power the government now has over the struggling automakers. There is no natural shortage of fossil fuel; there is only a shortage of fossil fuel production. Obama made a really big deal about "restoring scientific integrity to government decision-making." But that was, of course, in a different context. The science of global warming is, at best, flawed, incomplete and debatable. But the basic laws of physics are diamond-etched into titanium, so to speak. No political policy can change them. The Institute closed its report by saying, "There's no getting around the laws of the physical universe." You should remember those laws, even as your government ignores them and increasingly forces you into smaller, lighter, nore dangerous vehicles.

@Dave - I have to agree with mhowarth. This site did post a story that stated full sized trucks statistically were more dangerous than other vehicles. I also agree with his commentary on your sources.

@Red4x4 - your "trucks are just for work" commentary in some respects strikes me as a form of reverse snobbery. Kinda like how workmen will deride lawyers and doctors for "soft hands" and no dirt under their finger nails.

I didn't buy my truck for mpg but I did look at it, and from a budgeting perspective I do need to predict my fuel costs.
I actually am quite pleased with my mpg. I've gotten a best of 15 city/20.4 highway with some hypermiling.

I drive a truck for lifestyle not work. I love dirt bikes, quads, boats, fishing, hunting, camping, and not having to borrow the neighbours trailer when I need to carry stuff. I also like the fact that my cab doesn't smell like 2 wet labrador retrievers.
I currently use my truck as a daily driver or I use my wife's van. When I look out the window and see 2 feet of fresh snow - the truck as a DD makes perfect sense.

Lou, That article on here was on teen drivers. It said that big engines led to aggressive driving. The study was only for teens, 16 and 17 year olds in particular. It said they take more risks and as such the big engine would be riskier. There was nothing that said if only it was made out of more plastics and lighter, it would be less risky and more "safe."

You don't believe the IIHS? The IIHS study traffic deaths closely and said more plastics and smaller and lighter makes for a higher risk.

Take your heavy 2010 F-150 and ram it into a smaller plastic version and see who wins. More safety equipment will help but all being equal, the heavier F-150 will win.

"There's no getting around the laws of the physical universe."

The comments to this entry are closed.