Medium- and Heavy-Duty Trucks To Get Fuel Economy Standards for First Time


Today, President Barack Obama will announce new fuel regulations for heavy duty vehicles set to go into place in 2014. These new rules will cover three distinct sets of vehicles: combination tractors (semitrailers), heavy-duty pickup trucks and vans, and vocational vehicles (such as city buses and garbage trucks).

The White House said in a statement this morning that the new rules were in response to requests from business owners and other operators of these vehicles after they saw the results of recent updates to the corporate average fuel economy standard for light-duty cars and trucks.

Like those recently upgraded EPA standards, the administration developed these new rules with automakers, fleet owners and the state of California as well as the U.S. Department of Transportation and the EPA to avoid potential court challenges.

The new program will run from the 2014 through the 2018 model years and is projected to save 530 million barrels of oil and reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 270 million metric tons. It’s projected to save owners of those vehicles $50 billion over the life of the plan.

The plan promises a flexible structure to address the wide variety of vehicles that fall under the program.

Update: We have details about how heavy-duty pickup trucks will meet the new standards.


Somehow I don't think they got any input from the correct set of business owners.

Better buy before the MY 14 starts. Everything will have to loose in order to meet what they put out.

more goverment b/s

Likely means more of what has already started in HD pickups... high-output diesels with increasingly taller axle ratios. You'll probably see axles all the way down to 3.08 with 7 and 8 speed transmissions, and highly restricted availability of axles shorter than 3.73.

You'll also have more van powertrains like the Sprinter and the Fiat vans that Chrysler is likely to bring over - small efficient diesels that can move the load but won't be doing 0-60 in 8 seconds. Speculation exists that Ford may even replace the E-series with the full size Transit van sold everywhere else in the world that competes with the Sprinter and Ducato/Daily.

It's likely the death sentence for the gasoline engine in the 3/4-ton-and-up market, though. It will take modern diesels to make the cut.

This will be interesting. I am curious what the numbers will end up being.

I do think it will be pointless unless they rate these trucks loaded considering most trucks live there life this way.

can they every leave stuff alone there to busy tryin to do little stuff like this then trying to get the government out of dept

Maybe the government (California) should axe the requirement for ethanol blended gasoline? I just came back from a trip to Lake Tahoe, CA (from the Los Angeles area). On the way up there, in my 2005 Dodge Ram 2500 Quad Cab Power Wagon (5.7L V8 & 4.56:1 gears), with the ethanol (E-10?) blended gasoline I got 14.8 m.p.g.

For the trip home, I filled up at the CA/NV Stateline at a gasoline station that sells pure gasoline. I managed to get about 16.5 m.p.g, with a bed half-filled with split fire wood, with the pure gasoline.

The government should factor this into their fuel economy standards.

I hope all truck lovers get out and vote in 2012. This BS needs to stop now!

I'm not sure that business owners would ask for more complex trucks like the government press release claimed. They did say it would save the trucking industry money. There will always be a beter "buy in" if you can demonstrate cost saving. Wierd science doesn't cut it. I'd be willing to spend more cash on any product if there is a return on investment down the road.

Buy American or say Bye to America!
Isn't the initial leg of your trip uphill? and the corresponding return leg downhill?
The fuel mileage penalty is only 3%, which is the direct reduction in BTU of E10 gasoline. Though if you switch back/forth from E0 to E10, there is a penalty until the long term air:fuel trim is adjusted.

The carbon dioxide AGW hoax has been thoroughly discredited.
So that pretext should be dropped. If the improved mileage can pay for the extra overhead, then there isn't a problem.
If the oversized pickup truck fails to meet the fuel mileage target, will the gas guzzler penalty just be added to the window sticker?
How can the 'plan' have an expiration date?


Not too sure about uphill vs. downhill. The first leg of my trip (to Santa Cruz, CA then to South Lake Tahoe, CA) was along the coast (Hwy #101). Two short steep grades. I spent a week in Lake Tahoe, running on the 100% gasoline, before the trip home. I wanted the computer to be adjusted with the change.

The second leg of the trip (South Lake Tahoe to Los Angeles) was along the Central Valley. One long and one short, steep grades. Again, this time I had the extra weight of the firewood. I was able to maintain 5th gear, with power to spare, for most of the hill climbs. Normally (without the extra weight), with E-10, the transmission would drop to 4th half-way up these grades. The extra power was quite noticeable.

About 75 miles from home, when I needed to top-off the tank (with E-10), I noticed the drop in power and loss of throttle response. It was evident, to me, the advantages of my engine running on 100% gasoline compared to 90% gasoline.

Buy American or say Bye to America!

yes you will feel the difference from E-10 to 100% gasoline and also see a difference in FE


I'd have to agree that it is nearly impossible to use one way data and determine if mileage improved from the 0% ethanol or just the fact that Buy American was just headed back downhill. It is true though that there is less energy content in the ethanol, thereby bringing down MPG.

As far as discrediting AGW this is likely not the right post to start bringing that up. (I don't want Mike to shut it down since this is an important article and I'd like to see the comments) There has been no credible alternative to AGW, just like evolution, big bang, gravity, etc so it is the model that is used since it fits the parameters best.

"It’s projected to save owners of those vehicles $50 billion over the life of the plan."

I'll bet meeting this new standard will add more than $50 billion to the cost of those vehicles.

This new standard will be removed as soon as Obama is replaced with Palin.

Butt out you 14 trillion dollars in debt dead beat losers its none of the broke ass governments buisness what fuel mileage vehicles get ! bureaucratic government collapse cant come fast enough .

Wonder if this includes 3/4 and 1 ton pickups?

I personally think consumers should know fuel economy #'s for city/hwy. Hopefully the target economy #s are realistic.


This DOES apply to 3/4, 1 ton and up vehicles. I know Mike will be giving us more details on this later in the week but if memory serves me the 3/4 and 1 tons will have to have an EPA window sticker like everything else but the fuel economy isn't going to be measured for increases by CAFE type rules. Instead it is 10% mpg improvement for gas and 15% for diesel trucks (only the 3/4 and 1 ton as semis and other specialty trucks will have different standards). As a matter of fact I think the window stickers have to be on the trucks starting calendar year 2012 although the MPG improvements don't have to start until 2014.

It will be nice to have an apples-to-apples comparison on the trucks. It should encourage a major weight-loss program for Ford

I think just putting a MPG sticker on the windows of medium and heavy duty trucks will do more for fuel economy than these rules and tweaks ever will. If buyers had an easily visible MPG number, like they do with light duty vehicles, they would likely flock to the trucks with the best MPG, forcing other manufacturers to improve.

mhowarth - The weight loss you mention is one of the advantages of a HD tow vehicle. Towing a 12,000lb fifth wheel you dont want an HD that weighs in like a 1/2 ton.

@Paul810 - it is decidely more complex than flocking to the brand with a better MPG. IIRC you can get a Cummins engine in any brand of commercial truck, same goes for tranny's, and drive axles. One brand may be more areodynamic, but how is the government going to test all of this? I suspect that they will leave it to the manufactures to test and do random spot tests to verify results. International had taken the EPA to court over regulations. In the pickup truck ranks, a truck goes into "limp home" mode if DEF is not refilled They were complaining that competitors systems in big rigs could run dry and keep on going. They felt that this put them at a disadvantage in the market.

@ Buy America-
With the E-10 vs. Standard gas, my truck does better with the standard. 2005 Chevy 1500, 5.3. Multiple tanks for each blend, I noticed about 1 MPG difference. Figured out I need about $0.17 price difference to even out, but my area (NW Iowa) there is only a constant $0.10 between the two. I don't rod my truck too much, so can't say I've noticed the power difference you describe.

Diesels are out, wait and see. They will be too expensive to purchase with little or no fuel economy benefit. I think mhowarth has it right, it won't be a CAFE type standard, just mandated improvements. My guess: large commercial trucks will go CNG/LNG, small commercial/HD pickups will be advanced gasoline engines with DI and turbocharging.

one millions miles truck
if you truck towing averaged 10mpg
cost $4 dollars
(1,000,000 / 10) x 4 = $400,000 dollars on gas
one mpg improved
(1,000,000 / 11) x 4 = $363,636
one mpg over one million miles is a savings of 36,363 dollars
in the business world it comes down to the numbers
what could you do with that money you saved buy a new truck
think about 2 or even 3 mpg improvement how much a business will save $$$
when a business owner saves money they reinvest or pockets the money


I used to use the 10% ethanol in my 2002 Chevy 1500HD 2WD. I would consistently get around 12 MPG or about 270-280 miles on a tank of gas. A lot of short drives to work. Flat ground here in S. Louisiana where elevation only varies between 2-5 ft above sea level. I started filling up with 100% pure gasoline and now I get right at 13 MPG for around 310- 320 miles on a tank. I have done more but that is the average. This has been verified by many fillups.

@Road Trip. I think you are pretty right about European Vans becoming more prevalent. Another change I can see, is Petrol(Gasoline) engines applied to HD Pickups Vocational vehicles (F650) and Motorhomes becoming extinct.

@ Buy American or say Bye to America,

Chrysler had ethonal vehicles in the late 80's early 90's and they were getting 8 mpg less than a regular gas powered vehicle,same engine/trans/gear ratio....

Even today stations with ethonal blend you get less mpg,the government needs to get out of the automotive world,they mess everything up !

Now they are pushing natural gas,saying it is 40% cheaper than regular gas,but they dont tell you ,your fuel economy goes down next to nothing.We had a fleet of Natural gas powered vehicles here in 1991-1996 and you have no range with natural gas and you need huge tanks to hold the compressed N.G.The average car will have 2 big tanks filling up the whole trunk (rendering the trunk useless)and you will only have the range of 1/4 tank of regular gas,plus you need heavy duty suspension (tanks are extrememly heavy) Even a full size van/truck we had to get added leaf spring in the back to keep it from sagging,they were pushing n.g here at the time,so our company decided to convert a few full size vans/trucks and a few sedans.It didnt pay off,they wasted more money,and was a hassle at the time to find a filling station,nobody carries it anymore,but today you can fill up from your home,but you will be stranded when you drive 75 miles,no place to fill it up !!

In order for me to get 1mil miles in a HD truck I would probably have to buy 6-10 trucks and run each of them into the ground, but due to increase costs I will lose money...

Real numbers:
150k miles / 10mpg @ $4/g = $60,000.00 in gas.
150k miles / 11mpg @ $4/g = $54,545.00 in gas
Savings $5455.
But if due to the increase in cost due to the new standards and inflation the trucks cost $8000. more I will be losing $2545 per truck.

If you really want to save money on gas, get the prices of gas down. Get rid of all of the blends - summer blends, Calif blends, Chicago blends, winter blends, etc. Then start producing more oil. Then prices will drop. You'll save a lot more if gas went back down to $1.60 again than trying to squeeze a measily mpg increase with skyrocketing energy prices.

150k miles / 10 mpg @ $1.60/g = $24,000.00
$54k - $24,000 = $30,000 savings.

$54k at 11mpg and gas at $4. vs $24k at 10 mpg but gas at $1.60

I think I'll take the $1.60 gas.

We have a energy cost problem, not a mpg problem.

@ Buy American or say Bye to America!

Maybe you truck just needed a good run on the highway to burn out the carbon,I buy many vehicles then resell them and lots are sluggish at first but when I drive them on the highway after 70 or so miles they wake up and have more power.

Try adding STP fuel injector cleaner to your truck,I used this since the early 90's and it works great,one of my keeper vehicles had over 200,000 miles with its original fuel injectors,so the cleaner doesnt harm them.

Ethanaol,does improve performance over regular fuel,but takes away mpg.I didnt notice a difference when I used ethanal mix in my HEMI truck ,but then I always use the STP fuel injector cleaner also (it really works good)Also just f.y.i Natural gas takes away mpg and performance.

I'm confused... the government wants trucks to get good fuel economy, diesel is $4.00 a gallon and you guys are pissed? Hmmm.....

Yea to hell with a f350 that gets 30 mpg that is horse crap! Those dern politians!! trying to save me money and the planet for my children... to hell with them all!!!!

The only business owners in favor of this nonsence, are the ones in cahoots with the idiots saying such things, you know the ones that will profit from building the systems that Obumers idiot friends say this will do, these people have done nothing but work for the government or are professors at the universities, (egg heads) very inteligent but not very smart at all! You know (those that know how and can do-but those who don't know and can't teach), IDIOTS plain and simple, we realy need to get rid of all of them befofre it is to late. Most of these people have never had a real job, never had to work to make ends meet, never had to work to keep a roof over there heads, and to pay all the dam taxes, just for the privalage to keep tha roof over you head. The kids running the lemonaid stands know better! The have the gaul the tell us we must do this nonsence while the jet around, and caravan around in Suburbans (that we pay for fuel including)!!! They say it is so we can save $$$. just my .02$ worth soon to be worth only .01$

Right on my man!

I have never seen a thread with so many Debbie Downers. Improved MPGs benefits EVERYONE. So it might cost a little more, if you are buying an HD it is most likely a work truck that you can claim on your taxes anyway. If it is your personal truck, maybe you need to do a reality check and look into an F150 Ecoboost or (gasp) a sedan. Cruising around town in an empty 350 (like I see in DFW all the time) is a complete waste.

I'm yet to see a real argument as to why improved MPGs on any vehicle is a bad thing. Less dependance on foreign oil, lower overall fuel costs over the life of the vehicle, fewer emissions, better resale value,... But it's the extra $850 to the sticker on a truck that can exceed $45,000, that's where the line is drawn? Get real. Obama is not your problem, eating the right wing poison fed to you by Rush and Fox is the problem.

If we're not constantly improving, we are falling behind.


Some of those businesses in cahoots with the government are Cummins, Cat, Detroit Diesel (along with the rest of Daimler’s businesses), Kenworth, Mack..... Of course these companies will benefit since they sell the trucks but I'd hardly call them egg-head, non-working folk who can only teach. If they say they can meet all of the goals then there really should be a problem.

I was doing some math on the larger class7/8 rigs that are supposed to get a 4 gallon per 100 mile improvement and assuming they currently only get 8 mpg this increase will bump them to 11.75 mpg. That would save a $hit ton of money for the long-haul businesses. I don't expect that to occur all at once but if that is the relatively near term goal it will really help. Heck diesel prices might just fall back to level with regular petrol prices saving you and me a little more too without having to do anything.

@ Jeremiah

While I whole heartedly agree with what you said you need to know your audience. Being that crass on this particular site is likely to just get you shot down and have about 10 trolls start spouting nonsense for the next 45 comments.

I agree wit your premise that by setting the bar a little higher that the industry will actually have to make a better product rather than just be content with what they already have and ultimately it will save the industry and presumably the entire populace some money on their regular goods purchased and that can only be a good thing.

Who cares if MPG goes up a little bit if the price of gas "necessarily skyrockets" 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times what it should be. Gas is 2.5 x's what it was just 3 years ago.

Ladies and gentlemen, look around you. This is what a transformed society is. It is done by propoganda and exploitation. Take a look at Greece and Europe. If we don't find a way to put an end to it, we are going to have this in our country.

@ mhowarth I can see a lot more aerodynamics being used to bring down fuel usage. Seems to be a favourite topic with European Truck designers, although none of these concepts ever get off the ground generally as they look too weird.
Mercedes Design Centre, Stuttgart came up with this for an aerodynamic Freightliner.

@Dan the Man not typical of Europe even now. The riots in England are of the "Football Hooligan" mentality that pervades European countries.Like you do not see similar brawls in US/Canadian Football or even here in Australia. This violence is done by gangs of thugs who have political , ethnic or racial reasons to stir up trouble. Most of Europe generally is pretty peaceful, wander around late at night without worrying you are going to be assaulted

What about the yahoo's that buy these diesel pickups and modify them so they through black smoke all over the place, I think thier should be a crackdown on these people.

@ Dan the man

Oil prices are up because so is demand (China/India). Most of us regard this as a good thing as it is a positive sign of the overall world economy. Supply may increase slightly overall for the next few years or decade but we are at the point of diminishing returns and the few places we may find more oil are going to be more expensive to extract so the extra supply will be a moot point.

I am one who wants a more efficient truck specifically because I expect prices to rise over time although I think your prediction of 5-6 times the current price won't happen certainly 50-100% increases are possible over the next 5-10 years.

On a side note those London riots appear to be largely the same as the LA riots of the early 90's (from the Rodney King verdict), as a result of the young man being killed by London police, not because of government, big oil, socialism, Islam or any other silly conspiracies.

@ Robert Ryan

I think I remember that picture coming out. I have seen a few other designs that look different but are supposed to reduce drag (the main efficiency improvement that can be made to the big rigs). I think for a business money should trump looks and the best overall design should win since it makes/saves the most money but no consumer can buy something that isn't being built by the manufacturers.

Mercedes also had that little A or B segment car designed after a fish about 3 years ago. It too was weird but the drag coefficient was something stupid low like .14 or something.

B right ? or is it be left?, I personaly would rather be right any day of the week myself, and there are a lot more of us than you may think. I also own a Eco-Boost, and I love it, you sound like you drive a priuos? and what is wrong with Rush, and Fox? lefties never like the 1st amendment when it doesn't suit them, and you just proved it. I wish we could have two form of gov. at the same time, one for one side with there take from one an give to another, and those that get to make up there own minds about where the $$$ goes in a fair an responsive manner. Like give every tax payer a line item veto, and where it is now the people who give to charities, out of there own parkets , over an above anything else, seems to be the right wing nut jobs you lefties all talk about, but never would put there own $$$ where there mouth is. If they all want us to pay more in taxes, well they could pay more if they desire, there is a lone on all tax forms to do so, and it's a fact that the greater % that do are those right wing nut job you talk about. Democates (rymes with hipocrates) are the cheepist of them all, the lowest % of givers to charities, and do as I say and not as I do, (Al Gore, Edwards, Kerry,) there all the same, there all tax cheets, Guitner, Rangle, I don't have enough time to list them all. Way way too much hate on the left. There is no way we will ever come together with all the hate on the left, you can't reason with them, they are blinded with hate.

@mhowart - you were right about Jeremiah's comment. Nice to see some honesty.
Wrong web site though. LOL
I'm conservative or maybe just a right leaning pragmatic, seems to come with age and children;) but I do see the benefit of improved mpg.
Guys blame government and special interest groups (I not surprised since those groups sem to f--- up everything), but we are going to see higher fuel prices one way or the other. Chinese and Indian's have tons of money and they will spend it to bolster their economic growth. The outcome is simple, competition for the same product (oil) will cause the price to rise.
Makes sense to improve mpg and soften the blow.
Governments and special interest groups should be working with developing countries to stop making the same mistakes the Western world has make - dependance on motor vehicles and oil.
Short term capitalistic gain by selling China and India cars or setting up shop there will only make the long term problem of oil supply worse.
Greed trumps all else.
Isn't unfettered capitalism great.

See... this is why our credit rating dropped from AAA to AA+. We spend way more than we earn.

Listen, spending exponentially more money to increase a few mpg's realistically takes a decade or so to recoup the costs.

There are facts stating it is much cheaper to maintain and drive a gaz guzzleer than to invest in a 40,00 hybrid that gets 40 mpg... how long does it take to break even on the cost? At least 5 or 6 years...

Gas is going to run out eventually..... thats the definition of a non-renewable resource.... I have no intentions of consuming less gas as India and China grow out of proportion

Obama wants to spend, spend,spend....Typical of any democrat!
Look at the bright side, a gas guzzler creates a job because the increased demand in gas means that gas company can hire another person!

Although economics is about supply and demand, there are also terms such as supply demand, quantity demand, price floor, price ceiling etc.

I may sound like a young kid, but I never cared about the price of gas! I never recorded my gas mileage! I will continue to drive my gas guzzler even if gas go to $8 a gallon. Our society in America requires a mobile form of transportation and hybrid technology only postpones the inevitable.

AGW is not a theory. Theories are testable. You can test what the length of a hypotenuse of a right triangle, if you know the lengths of the legs. That is the Pythagorean Theorem.

Wein's displacement law is what disproves the AGW-carbon dioxide hoax. Everyone knows the effect of Wein's law, but the do not know the name.
Stick a rod of iron into a fire, start heating it. As the temperature of the rod increases the radiation emitted will change. As the temperature goes up, the radiation will start entering the visible spectrum (380-780 nanometers), so there will be a faint dark red glow. As the temp rises even further, the glow will be a brighter medium red, then red-orange, orange, yellow, yellow-white, then it will appear white.
Why does it not just emit more & more of infrared radiation?
It does [Blackbody radiated energy is proportional to the absolute temperature to the FOURTH power], and it also shifts toward shorter wavelengths.
The perception of 'white' occurs when all three cones are registering light (R,G,B)

The wavelengths where carbon dioxide functions as a 'greenhouse gas' [a misnomer, because a greenhouse works by blocking convection] is fixed-see quantum mechanics.
So if the Earth heats up [the Sun, not the logarithmic affect of carbon dioxide], the radiation emitted to space shifts above/around the spectral lines of carbon dioxide, and the energy balance is re-restored.
No runaway warming, no mass death, no 'climate refugees'.
No need for a 'carbon tax', or other legislation design to change people's behavior. [United Nations Agenda 21]

So how does this apply to vehicles, and our country?
Firstly, in the long-run it can save operators money, but in the short-run the small & medium business (who create the jobs), may not be able to afford the initial extra cost. [is the government going to offer interest free loans to these businesses for the extra outlay?]
Secondly, the balance between cost & safety & capability can easily be changed to meet these new fuel economy numbers, virtually overnight. Improvement due to developments in science/technology are slow & steady.
If the market demands a $1,000 surcharge on heavy duty pickups, but that extra premium will be paid for in 100 weeks of operation, then that is what the market would do-if we had a free enterprise system.

Goerge? what in the hell did you just say man? This is man not scientist monthly

2 weeks is not enough time to have received responses from business owners etc and formulated a plan to announce. This was already planned and drafted before hand. Who in their right minds wold believe this stuff.

@ George - my sentiments exactly;)
Telling the Greens they are full of crap sounds so much better when you use big words.


First off AGW is testable and falsifiable. It has been tested in the lab on smaller scales (we obviously can't replicate an Earth sized experiment). Something tells me that many of us here have even done this experiment at home at some point, it is called a terrarium. With the lid on (our green house or CO2 layer) even with a cooled exterior environment (like the sun cooling a bit) the terrarium can still heat up when exposed to the UV radiation (sunlight) that heats the "stuff" in the terrarium (like a microwave heats your food by increasing the vibration of the molecules) and that heated stuff gives off increased ambient radiation as radiant heat, in the IR spectrum {infra-red}. Longer wave lengths no longer have the penetrating ability that a high wave length does and is reflected back down increasing the overall temperature. This is what happens in the terrarium because the IR can't make it through the glass barrier like the UV light can coming in.

The Earth works the same way with an increased CO2 layer acting as the glass dome. The intense UV light from the sun makes it in but the IR energy can't make it back out the thicker layer of CO2. The thicker the CO2 is, the harder it is for the IR to escape. Just like sleeping in your bed. Your body emits natural IR energy (process of burning food calories for ATP {energy}) that is trapped by your blanket. The thicker (more dense) the blanket the warmer your body gets because less of its IR heat is able to escape.

to better illustrate the difference in penetrating abilities of wave lengths (UV versus IR) think of ham radios. People can talk to each other past the horizon point quite easily (say a distance from Seattle to Chicago) but aiming their radio waves at an angle up at the sky. Radio waves are very long (longer than IR) and do not escape easily. They are bounced off of clouds to the person in Chicago so they can pick up the transmission. The shorter UV wave length can penetrate clouds (we know this because we can still get sunburn in a cloudy day). The clouds and CO2 layer don't block much of the UV rays. X-rays are even shorter in length and you need ultra dense stuff to even partially block them. That is why we wear a lead jacket when a dentist takes and X-ray of your tooth.

As far as Wien's law that has little to do with the heating of the Earth. We are talking about heating of the atmosphere of a few degrees Kelvin (like 3-4 degrees Kelvin) not thousands in order for the entire planet to glow and give off radiant heat into space. Hell Jupiter isn't massive enough to heat up that much to give off visible heat. That is just silly.

If Earth were hot enough to give off the heat energy of say your typical incandescent light bulb (2700 degrees Kelvin) that would make the Fahrenheit temperature 4,400 degrees. What life do you think would be around to care? Hell almost every element known to man would either boil off or be a molten pool.

Would an increase of 3-4 degrees (Kelvin) increase the heat given off by the planet? Sure (such a small amount that we can hardly fathom it) and guess what. It is given off as IR heat which would largely be trapped in the CO2 layer and increase the rate of over all heating much more than would escape through that layer.

Sorry for the long winded response but I think I narrowed it to easy to understand terms and in ways that all of us inherently know and have experienced.

I really don't want to talk any more about this kind of stuff on this site becuase it is the wrong venue. I want to talk about cool trucks that are about to get cheaper to run thanks to some new standards.

I guess I could have 'dumbed down' Wein's displacement law to this.
Take V8 engine, open throttle fully, hold there until exhaust manifold glows hot, then very hot!
But I don't want to be patronizing.

Wein's displacement law pertains to the cooling (thermodynamic equilibrium), and you still do not understand the logarithmic effects of carbon dioxide. The carbon dioxide effect is almost fully saturated, so additional CO2 will have marginal, if any, additional effect.

Bring on the supercharged 5.0 to replace the 6.2 in Raptor!

Interesting - why don't we talk about forming new dendrites in the brain and excitatory amino acids:)
That's why we drive trucks and have toy collections....
what does science or logic have to do with any of it!

George you still aren't making a lot of sense to me. Of course as you heat something the energy shortens the wavelength of the EM spectrum it emits. We have no disagreement there. That is how we can see REALLY hot stuff, like the filament in your light bulb. Just about the only thing resistant to that heat level is tungsten. Iron for instance would only produce a red light as it would just melt if any more energy (heat) was pumped into it.

At some point in your V8 example the max capacity of the injectors/fuel/air will limit the output of potential energy and leaving the throttle open won't continue to heat the header/manifold any hotter. It reaches equilibrium (ignoring needing a lot of fuel and a block and other components that can take that stress).

But the air and other components do heat up around the manifold because of the radiant heat given off, but they too will reach a point of equilibrium. The planet will too but at those levels nothing would survive.

The sun has actually been cooling over the past 30 or so years (it does go in cycles but over time the sun will continue cool {talking hundreds of millions and billions of years here} as it runs out of fuel) and the temps of the planet have still been increasing. With a lower input of energy the only thing that could create an increase here is additional trapping of radiant heat that in the past would have escaped through the atmosphere. (the Earth doesn't combust its own fuel source to change matter into energy like our sun does through fusion.)

Again I want to move off this topic for the sake of this forum. Maybe Mike will open an anything goes commenting section where we can try and hash things out, heck maybe once and for all we could all agree on the Ford vs Dodge vs GM thing. ;)

Interesting article. Being fuel conscious is benefcial to use all but we haven't seen anything yet. I still remember Obama's words, "We have the best country in the world, help me CHANGE it" Wait till we see 60-80% income taxes like in Europe as they transform us into that model. Here they will raise everything slowly and have us pay for it that way - fuel, food, utilties, etc. all in the name of green, or to help pay for non-worker benefits. We will be lucky if we can even buy a truck. Trucks are great for many needs. I am thankful we have a choice to drive one. For many EU families, a car is a five year's net salary. We need to be frugal but not controlled. Ask those who saw it happen elsewhere.

We offer fast, friendly and affordable junk removal service in and around the Seattle area.

The comments to this entry are closed.