Consumers Union wants mpg ratings for heavy-duty pickups

[kscarbel2]

Automotive News  /  September 22, 2017

WASHINGTON -- Consumers Union is lobbying Congress to require public disclosure of fuel economy estimates for heavy-duty pickups so buyers can make more informed choices, after its tests found diesel-powered trucks underperformed gasoline-powered trucks.

Automakers are required to post window stickers on new light-duty vehicles showing estimated fuel economy, but there is no such mandate for trucks with gross vehicle weights exceeding 8,500 pounds.

The latest issue of the public interest group's magazine, Consumer Reports, includes a report about tests it conducted on four popular heavy-duty pickups: the Chevrolet Silverado 2500 HD, Ford F-250, Ram 2500 and Nissan Titan XD.

The tests found that the greater efficiency of their diesel engines does not make up for the extra weight they carry. The heavy-duty trucks achieved 14 to 15 mpg, or about 1 to 2 mpg less than their gasoline-powered light-duty counterparts.

Different tests

But it is challenging to evaluate the claims in a comparative way because Consumer Reports' test protocols differ from those of the EPA, including types of gasoline and driving methods. Plus, there are no government fuel-economy standards for heavy-duty pickups to meet as there are for light vehicles.

Most diesel-powered heavy-duty trucks are sold to consumers who use them for towing and hauling heavy loads. Under those conditions, diesel engines are generally more fuel efficient than gasoline-powered trucks.

The EPA enforces emissions standards for heavy-duty pickups, but compensates for the difference in usage from passenger vehicles by including a work factor for the payload. And the work factor varies for each model.

Letter to leaders

Consumers Union sent a letter to Senate and House committee leaders on Sept. 20 requesting that they authorize and appropriate funds to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the EPA to make information on fuel economy, emissions and the expected average fuel costs available to the public.

"Based on new data from testing at Consumer Reports, these heavy-duty diesel pickups cost about $35,000 to fuel over the first 15 years of the vehicles' lives. Further, they can cost $7,000 to $10,000 more to fuel than their light-duty gasoline counterparts over that same time," said David Friedman, director of cars and product policy and analysis at Consumers Union. "Without information like this, consumers are powerless to make informed decisions when shopping for these vehicles for their businesses or family."

Friedman, who resigned as NHTSA's deputy administrator in July 2015 after two years at the agency, said the EPA has the raw fuel economy data on heavy-duty pickups in the form of gallons per ton mile -- one ton of cargo transported one mile -- as provided to the agency by automakers, so making the data available to the public would require a minimum of extra effort.

The group said the fuel economy data should be published on the government website fueleconomy.gov and eventually publicized via a window label on new vehicles.

But the EPA's fuel-economy data on heavy-duty trucks is less comprehensive than the more robust tests required of light-duty vehicles.

"Everyone knows that the certification tests are pretty gentle and there's a gap between real-world use," Friedman said in an interview. "So, if, and when, they put out certification numbers, they will probably overestimate fuel economy. But we believe consumers are better off with some data than no data."

Consumers Union said funding is needed because NHTSA and the EPA lack the resources and staff needed to get the project off the ground.

Rules review

The group's request comes as the Trump administration considers whether to loosen fuel economy mandates -- known as the corporate average fuel economy rules -- for cars and light-duty trucks in the 2022-25 model years.

[Mack Technician]

Seems like gallon per ton mile will baffle the average Joe.

We will need snow displacement per gallon for plow truck enthusiasts.

Carbon pound displacement per mile for the kids who immediately install coal rolling tuners and adjust mpg. 

My ice shack is intentionally ultra light(900 @ axle) to keep me off the lake bottom. I get 9 mpg pulling it because it is like a drag car parachute. If I put the shack in a car crusher, cube it and drop it in my truck bed I'm getting 15-17 mpg.  

Not a simple equation for work trucks. 

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Mack Technician

[Hobert62]

I bought my 04' chevy 2500HD with a 8.1 (496) gas engine and an Allison.    not because of the mpg it gets, but because of how it does what I want it to do.    Driving it around as a car I get around 10mpg.    Using it as a truck I'm between 6&9.    

[Ezrider]

I would be curious to know exactly how the trucks they compared were speced to come up with gas getting better mpg. 

my experiance is by the time you get a big enough gas engine to tow without straining the gas millage is single didgets under load. and 10 ish unladen.

I've had a 8.1 chevy before as well loved that engine. i had a pretty big camper that i pulled with it you could set the cruise controll in the mountains but when working it hard i had gotten as bad as 4mpg. 10-12 hwy mpg unladen loved that truck though, my only complaint about it was the gas tank was way to small for the amount of fuel it could use. there was times towing you were only 150 miles between fill ups. 

If you never go very far and live in a place with as cold of winters as we get i would defiantly recommend a 8.1L truck.

The truck i had before that had a 7.3 that thing almost never dropped below 10mpg no matter how hard and heavy you ran it. could do 14-16 towing 18k lbs if you drove it easy and kept your speeds down.

I now have a bit newer powerstroke its not as good on fuel as the 7.3 but better that the 8.1 by a lot.

I would guess the testing they did with a small displacement gas engine essentially a half ton in a heavy duty body. that will struggle doing any work. 

[Hobert62]

I agree 100% with your opinion on the 8.1.   I hardly ever go over 200 miles on a tank using it as a car.   

[Dirtymilkman]

14 hours ago, Hobert62 said:

I agree 100% with your opinion on the 8.1.   I hardly ever go over 200 miles on a tank using it as a car.   

I had a ecoboost ford. Was supposed to have as much or more torque than my old 8.1.......they must have a different way of rating those ecoboost engines. But to Ford's credit, the ecoboost Pretty much matched the 8.1 fuel mileage when pulling. 

[Jamaican Bulldog]

17 hours ago, Ezrider said:

The truck i had before that had a 7.3 that thing almost never dropped below 10mpg no matter how hard and heavy you ran it. could do 14-16 towing 18k lbs if you drove it easy and kept your speeds down.

I now have a bit newer powerstroke its not as good on fuel as the 7.3 but better that the 8.1 by a lot.

I would guess the testing they did with a small displacement gas engine essentially a half ton in a heavy duty body. that will struggle doing any work. 

I sell Fords and also come in contact with Chevy and Dodge/Ram owners. The 7.3 is still revered as the best diesel Ford offered in their pick-ups. Despite the regulatory efforts to make newer diesels cleaner and more efficient, I also come across many real life stories of people who get significantly better mileage and more reliability and less ownership costs from the older diesels from Ford, Cummins etc.

The newer diesels may be cleaner WHEN they run right, but I wonder if anyone ever factored in how cleaner they really are compared to the older engines if they the newer ones tend  to burn more fuel? 

2 hours ago, Dirtymilkman said:

I had a ecoboost ford. Was supposed to have as much or more torque than my old 8.1.......they must have a different way of rating those ecoboost engines. But to Ford's credit, the ecoboost Pretty much matched the 8.1 fuel mileage when pulling. 

I remember when the ecoboosts came out and the training materials touted fuel economy advantages to the bigger displacements. Eventually the materials did away with touting fuel economy gains and focused on torque comparisons as more owners and Ford realized that the 3.5 eco really wasn't more efficient than the V8 5.0. The ecoboosts are definitely torquey and reliable but in the case of the F-150 we are seeing more people going back to the V8,  especially if they will have them long term as they figure less parts ( no turbos) will last longer. However the 2.7 eco has proven to be almost as powerful as the V8 and definitely more efficient than the V8.

Overall, I think its hard for an govt agency to rate mpg of the heavier pick-up engines because they way these vehicles are used and their configurations vary so much.

 

[Hobert62]

36 minutes ago, Jamaican Bulldog said:

I sell Fords and also come in contact with Chevy and Dodge/Ram owners. The 7.3 is still revered as the best diesel Ford offered in their pick-ups. Despite the regulatory efforts to make newer diesels cleaner and more efficient, I also come across many real life stories of people who get significantly better mileage and more reliability and less ownership costs from the older diesels from Ford, Cummins etc.

The newer diesels may be cleaner WHEN they run right, but I wonder if anyone ever factored in how cleaner they really are compared to the older engines if they the newer ones tend  to burn more fuel? 

 

I always asked that.      How does it make sense that the exhaust is cleaner if it takes more fuel to do the same amount of work?    Is the exhaust measured per gallon  of fuel used?  Do they take into consideration that it take more fuel to get from point A to point B? Wich means it makes more exhaust also?

[HeavyGunner]

My dads brand new (at the time) 2007 (I think) crew cab one ton 4wd with the 6.7 Cummins in it got really poor mileage and my dad was very disappointed. He has a stable of 12v and 24v that he has had since new that are used everyday hauling fuel, people, tools and parts to the job everyday with nearly zero problems and good fuel mileage. His new 6.7 was getting 14mpg so he removed the emissions bs and hooked up a tuner and so now with more power he gets 20-22mpg on the highway. Like you said Hobert I'd like to see the actual amount of emissions from the "clean" running 14mpg engine and the more powerful "dirty" engine which gets 20 mpg. 

[Hobert62]

Per gallon of fuel yes they prob are cleaner.  They just forget to tell the public they are going to use more gallons to do the same amount of work.

 When I still worked for  "butter krust" family owned bakery now part of bimbo bakery I had a 2007 (I think) non emission Mack vision single axle 350 and 10 speed.  I got in the high 8's for mpg.   Now doing the exact run in my freight company specd 2016 automatic 12 speed Detroit powered  freightliner I'm in the high 6's.   my mack would have ran circles around this thing too.     I know not a pickup like K's original post, but just an example.   

Edited September 25, 2017 by Hobert62

[Ezrider]

i think i am going to run my pre egr Mack untill its no longer feasible to run a truck that old. basically until the frame rails rot out and then if the truck is still in good shape at that point i might even replace the frame rails. really have no interest in running a emissions truck. especially now that they changed the wording of the e log mandate to include 99 and older engines rather than just the model year of the truck. my truck being a 2000 with a 99 build date and a 99 engine.

 

but anyway back to the original discussion. my 7.3 truck would pull anything made to be pulled behind a pickup. it was a 5 speed with 4.10's as long as you kept your speeds 65 or below it got great mpg. running 75 would lose 4mpg over running 65. my 8.1 had more pulling power than my 7.3 but if you wanted to get even half the mpg you had to run it on the foot pedal and let it slow down a little pulling hills. cruse control would drop a gear on a pull and run up almost any grade at your set speed but you could just about watch the fuel gauge drop when it did. when i bought it diesel was about double the cost of regular unleaded. so half the mpg was fine by me. easy winter starting and fast heat were nice too. once the gap in fuel prices came down though i found myself wanting to go back to a oil burner. my newer ford has more pulling power than my 7.3 did but also doesn't get the millage the 7.3 did. my current ford has 3.73's and automatic. 

 

iv got another truck 98 chevy with a 5.7 its a heavy truck with a service body on it. come in at almost 10k lbs at its every day weight, it has its tongue hanging out most of the time and gets about 10mpg on the hwy. never checked the towing mpg but i don't tow with it often and the heavyset ill tow with it as about 5k lbs and with that load overdrive is pretty much non existent. 

 

one time i bought a chevy fullsize reg cab short bed half ton 5 speed truck with a 4.3L v6. thinking it would be a great run around economy truck.  that thing was awful. would hardly do the speed limit of 75 on the interstate without being on the floor in any kind of a headwind and the mpg was worse than a v8. 

[Mack Technician]

6 hours ago, Ezrider said:

i think i am going to run my pre egr Mack untill its no longer feasible to run a truck that old. basically until the frame rails rot out and then if the truck is still in good shape at that point i might even replace the frame rails.

Waste oil and a pump weed sprayer....?

[Freightrain]

On 9/25/2017 at 3:04 AM, Ezrider said:

but anyway back to the original discussion. my 7.3 truck would pull anything made to be pulled behind a pickup. it was a 5 speed with 4.10's as long as you kept your speeds 65 or below it got great mpg. running 75 would lose 4mpg over running 65. my 8.1 had more pulling power than my 7.3 but if you wanted to get even half the mpg you had to run it on the foot pedal and let it slow down a little pulling hills. cruse control would drop a gear on a pull and run up almost any grade at your set speed but you could just about watch the fuel gauge drop when it did. when i bought it diesel was about double the cost of regular unleaded. so half the mpg was fine by me. easy winter starting and fast heat were nice too. once the gap in fuel prices came down though i found myself wanting to go back to a oil burner. my newer ford has more pulling power than my 7.3 did but also doesn't get the millage the 7.3 did. my current ford has 3.73's and automatic. 

I had a 2000 PSD, 6spd, CC, DRW with 4.10.  It would get 15+ if you kept it at 65 mph.  If you pushed the speed up to 70 it would drop off considerably.  You had to keep it under 2000 rpm if I recall.  Once you got the RPM up, it would drink fuel.  It pulled my 14K trailer without issue, all stock but I removed the muffler.  It would run up Fancy gap in 6th gear, just feathering the throttle to hold 65 mph.

I know the Dodge guys back then would carry on about 20+ mpg(empty) but that was with 3.54 gears.  I just don't like to constantly downshift on the highway.  Friend had a Dodge and 44ft trailer.  Same problem, always downshifting to keep speed on any grade.

 

Edited September 27, 2017 by Freightrain