Being an american right now I have things that are high in priority. One the housing market. That doesn't bother me much right now. The biggest being America losing marketshare in its own industry, automotive. GM is going to push through and produce the baby max. Good, America needs to see diesel as the best option...Look at europe you flippin' tree huggers!!! Next, the last time i checked, less power means more mpg...I'm sorry 3/4 ton boys, you don't need more horsepower than a mack truck. wake up okay. and the half ton guys, you don't need a flippin' 310 hp diesel. Tune em' down GM please....So we can get more mpg.

Sorry to hear of your disapointment but your facts are wrong. Less power almost never means more effiency. It is all how you drive it. Less power is actualy worse for mpg due to the engine haveing to strain itself. Case and point a tuner in a diesel truck brings the MPG up yet you are adding power to your truck......Watch the top gear tv show where a bmw m3 follows a prius around a race track and the m3 gets 19 mpg and the prius gets 17.

Engine needs to be tuned correctly to achieve best mpg, and performance. Tune down a truck? Doesn't make much sense, you can still get good mpg and have over 300 horses.
I like my 3/4 ton, and I get pretty decent mpgs out of it. Sorry you feel that way.

It comes down to efficiency times displacement. You are correct that a 3.0L diesel option for a 1/2 ton would really get it done for most people. The 4.5L would get it done for most of the big trucks. Not sure if tuning it down would help or not. Certainly cylinder deactivation for diesel should be simple, just don't inject fuel every other cycle when in cruise.

I'm also disappointed with our lack of selection with diesel engines. My wife and I both drive 3/4 ton diesel trucks - not because we really need to haul massive trailers, but because they don't make the 1/2 ton or smaller trucks with diesel engines anymore. I'd like something more along the lines of my '91 Stepside - only with an engine that is a little more modern and lighter than the 6.2 that I've stuffed into it. A turbod/intercooled 4 or 6 could push that truck around nicely and deliver good MPG, but nobody makes anything like that. A new compact truck with a 2.0-3.0 liter 4 cylinder turbodiesel should sell quite well, but we cannot get one here.

speak for yourself, if I wanted good mpg id buy a compact car. Dont try to bunch us smoke blowing environment polluters in your "Green diesel" club.

speak for yourself, if I wanted good mpg id buy a compact car. Dont try to bunch us smoke blowing environment polluters in your "Green diesel" club.
And yet you have those little girlie-man Duramax-powered trucks... instead of a real Cummins diesel! :D

I'm not arguing against having a large diesel truck in the family - but it would be nice to have the option of having a smaller diesel truck as well. A 40 mpg Colorado that can pull a good sized boat would be excellent. Or a diesel Jeep even. GM makes a lot of nice diesels that you can get in the rest of the world.

Being an american right now I have things that are high in priority. One the housing market. That doesn't bother me much right now. The biggest being America losing marketshare in its own industry, automotive. GM is going to push through and produce the baby max. Good, America needs to see diesel as the best option...Look at europe you flippin' tree huggers!!! Next, the last time i checked, less power means more mpg...I'm sorry 3/4 ton boys, you don't need more horsepower than a mack truck. wake up okay. and the half ton guys, you don't need a flippin' 310 hp diesel. Tune em' down GM please....So we can get more mpg.

the fact is.... is that HP/TQ sell trucks!! competitive pressure from F & D alone will keep GM from offering an engine with inferior power.

For mileage.... I would be all over a Colorado diesel. That 2.9 V6 would be the perfect combo of power and economy:D

the fact is.... is that HP/TQ sell trucks!!

It sold trucks back in the good old days of stable jobs, abundant oil, and low fuel prices. With construction down and layoffs up, folks aren't asking for over the top power or a new truck every other year or two.

It sold trucks back in the good old days of stable jobs, abundant oil, and low fuel prices. With construction down and layoffs up, folks aren't asking for over the top power or a new truck every other year or two.

So you're telling me to expect less power from new trucks in the coming years

Personally, I don't see power levels going down.....maybe leveling off a bit with some increased fuel economy... but definately not going down.

So you're telling me to expect less power from new trucks in the coming years

Personally, I don't see power levels going down.....maybe leveling off a bit with some increased fuel economy... but definately not going down.


For the people that enjoy good power and such I hope your right!

For the people that enjoy good power and such I hope your right!

I'm all for the power wars to continue!!:D..... especially in the soon to be 1/2 tons :cool:

I don't see why GM couldn't stuff the 4cyl diesel into the new trucks. People are getting close to 30 mpg highway with the little diesel and 700r4. Just imagine the 5.2 4cyl with a 6l90e behind it turning 1600 rpm at 60 mph. You could easily see low to mid 30's with no lack of power. I drove one with just the 4spd auto and it got 13 mpg in a 8000 lb box truck with a very tall van body on it. The engines are there if the tree huggers would let them be used.

less power = better mpg.....

have you seen the new mercedes diesels ????? Tell me, how much power are those puting out and how great is their fuel economy ?

My opinion if you want fuel mileage go buy a car. If you want fun go buy a duramax:duh:

My opinion if you want fuel mileage go buy a car. If you want fun go buy a duramax:duh:



AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can't pull a 5'er safely with a 1/2 ton truck. Having said that I would gladly take a de-tuned DMAX if it gave me better mileage. 300HP and 600 ft-lbs are plenty. We are kidding ourselves thinking we need more and helping out Arabs.

If I had the loot I would be buying me a BWM 335D today. Now that is a company and that is a car. None of this penny pinching GM crap to deal with any more.

if you green diesel and tree huggers are so concerned with the environment then ride bicycles. if you want mileage buy a car. If you want to tow something make sure you have the power and torque u need. if u want to have the power of a mack truck then get it nothing wrong with that. both my trucks are chevys and both are diesel and i would never give up power for mileage. just seems wrong.

less power = better mpg.....

have you seen the new mercedes diesels ????? Tell me, how much power are those puting out and how great is their fuel economy ?



They put out decent power, and get 30 mpg. Are they any less powerful than gas benz? I think its close but my point is for all around needs a truck is perfect a V8 is a good engine. 4 and 6 cyl just dont do it for me except in my honda!:D

Another member telling me what I should want :rolleyes:

I don't see why you guys are getting upset when the poster wants more diesel options. I too would love to get 30 mpg with my truck. But, I also need to drag 10-12k around and that leaves me a diesel option if I want to get half way decent range.

But if I was only towing 6-8000 pounds a V6 diesel with a 6 speed would be sweet. Heck that would be sweet running empty wrapped in a colorado.

I do think that the truck HP wars will be winding down over the next 4 years as O-*******z eliminates the fuel economy exemption that 3/4 and 1 ton trucks are under. When trucks count against CAFE and they raise CAFE to 35 mpg, what do you think will happen?

A diesel/electric hybrid would go a long way to doing exactly what you need. The system that Honda uses in their Insight - with electrical assistance when power is needed - would allow a smaller diesel to haul a heavy load for most work while having another 200+ lb ft of electrical assistance for hill climbing and acceleration. Toss in regenerative braking and you've got something helpful on the downhill side as well. Lots of power for working and better mileage as well. You'd have to be able to pack enough battery power to climb a fairly long hill...

Daaamn I know the tree huggers are hating me then :D

But you know what I NEED to haul. Some NEED the speed. To each their own. If you want to buy a truck cause its fast and you can afford the gas then so be it...its THEIR choice not anyone else's. AND we dont need some tree hugger himself telling us to tune them down and we dont need XXX amount of horsepower. Go buy a damn prius or as stated before, ride your Huffy.

Gotta love this shit....come on some Diesel Site and run your mouth about having too much power? No such thing bud.

Being an american right now I have things that are high in priority. One the housing market. That doesn't bother me much right now. The biggest being America losing marketshare in its own industry, automotive. GM is going to push through and produce the baby max. Good, America needs to see diesel as the best option...Look at europe you flippin' tree huggers!!! Next, the last time i checked, less power means more mpg...I'm sorry 3/4 ton boys, you don't need more horsepower than a mack truck. wake up okay. and the half ton guys, you don't need a flippin' 310 hp diesel. Tune em' down GM please....So we can get more mpg.
You could not be further from the truth. Less efficiency means less mpg. Look at ALL of the higher mileage Duramax trucks on this site. I guarantee every single one of them is making more power right now than from the factory, and all getting MUCH better mileage than factory.

Example:My truck(kind of a poor example for efficiency, 8" lift with 37" tires).
No tuner, exhaust and intake mods(390ish HP)-12.5MPG
PPE on level 2(plus I think 90HP over stock, 480ish at the motor), exhaust and intake mods-15MPG
PPE on level 5(plus 300HP over stock, 650ish at the motor), plus exhaust and intake mods-17MPG

There is a fine line between excess power and underpowered. That is the perfect line where you have just the right amount of power to make the truck have its highest possible efficiency without burning excess fuel for nothing. But nobody drives the same. Driver A may keep there acceleration around in the much higher RPMs(say 2300) while Driver B may use there peak torque range(mine is 1800RPMs) Driver B is going to get the better deal because they are using the trucks peak torque range to move them.

I'm not one to insult but this has to be one of the WORST possible places to come and talk about how diesels are overpowered. I can understand needing to vent, but that doesn't belong here. Many of us break the stock power within the first few months of owning the truck BECAUSE its not enough. There are several trucks here pushing 1200hp and there owners are damn proud of it.

Check again and get your facts straight. You want to rant about overpowered tucks? Go join a Honda forum

And yet you have those little girlie-man Duramax-powered trucks... instead of a real Cummins diesel! :D

LOL if i wanted to go slow I would have been looking at the dodge, Besides the wrapper on the "hold on i am Cummins" SUCKS!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/sonicaudio/ThreadDirection.jpg

Ok back on subject

Being an american right now I have things that are high in priority. One the housing market. That doesn't bother me much right now. The biggest being America losing marketshare in its own industry, automotive. GM is going to push through and produce the baby max. Good, America needs to see diesel as the best option...Look at europe you flippin' tree huggers!!! Next, the last time i checked, less power means more mpg...I'm sorry 3/4 ton boys, you don't need more horsepower than a mack truck. wake up okay. and the half ton guys, you don't need a flippin' 310 hp diesel. Tune em' down GM please....So we can get more mpg.

It comes down to efficiency times displacement. You are correct that a 3.0L diesel option for a 1/2 ton would really get it done for most people. The 4.5L would get it done for most of the big trucks. Not sure if tuning it down would help or not. Certainly cylinder deactivation for diesel should be simple, just don't inject fuel every other cycle when in cruise.

less power = better mpg.....

have you seen the new mercedes diesels ????? Tell me, how much power are those puting out and how great is their fuel economy ?

I don't see why you guys are getting upset when the poster wants more diesel options. I too would love to get 30 mpg with my truck. But, I also need to drag 10-12k around and that leaves me a diesel option if I want to get half way decent range.

But if I was only towing 6-8000 pounds a V6 diesel with a 6 speed would be sweet. Heck that would be sweet running empty wrapped in a colorado.

I do think that the truck HP wars will be winding down over the next 4 years as O-*******z eliminates the fuel economy exemption that 3/4 and 1 ton trucks are under. When trucks count against CAFE and they raise CAFE to 35 mpg, what do you think will happen?

You could not be further from the truth. Less efficiency means less mpg. Look at ALL of the higher mileage Duramax trucks on this site. I guarantee every single one of them is making more power right now than from the factory, and all getting MUCH better mileage than factory.

Example:My truck(kind of a poor example for efficiency, 8" lift with 37" tires).
No tuner, exhaust and intake mods(390ish HP)-12.5MPG
PPE on level 2(plus I think 90HP over stock, 480ish at the motor), exhaust and intake mods-15MPG
PPE on level 5(plus 300HP over stock, 650ish at the motor), plus exhaust and intake mods-17MPG

Best mileage I've ever heard about in a Duramax is about 32 mpg... yeah, hand calc'ed, not from DIC, no fouled up odometer... a true 32 mpg.

How did he do it? He was turning better than a thousand RWHP on the dyno... but driving it daily conservatively.

I'm all for more diesel options... but detuning and reducing engine power? You're right. None of us need a 310 hp diesel engine... we need a 500-750 hp diesel engine with a tranny built to handle it.

Or, you could always buy a VW Jetta TDI - they can get better than 50 mpg. Buddy of mine has one and he loves it. But if he needs to tow or haul anything? He comes and asks me for my truck... ):h

That's my $0.02... don't spend it all in one place.

32 mpg ??

I just have to ask. What mpg did he get on the tank before and the tank after that? Was it a full tank used ? Or just fill up at the top of a hill and coast to the bottom, top off the tank and calculate?

No, I'm not serious about that last comment! But unless most of a tank of fuel is used and there are repeats of the result, it is pretty suspect. As Carl Sagan used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs".

...As Carl Sagan used to say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs".
I wasn't going to bother continuing to take this thread off topic, especially considering the likely response from posters who make unsubstantiated assertions that are ludicrous at face value like the one above your post. But, what the heck, you're right, so here goes...

If the claim that, "None of us need a 310 hp diesel engine... we need a 500-750 hp diesel engine with a tranny built to handle it." didn't jump the shark, the last word in his user name speaks volumes about the credibility of that post. Maybe he was attempting to be satirical, but if so, he omitted any obvious clue such as emoticons.

In case it isn't obvious, only a tiny minority of the users of this site legitimately "need" (by the loosest possible definition of the word), much less "have," a 750 hp Duramax in a road-legal pickup truck.

In fact, I feel confident asserting that a far larger percentage of the users of this site don't even actually need a pickup truck at all (much less a diesel), except perhaps for the rare occasion that could actually be accommodated with a rental. More than a few invent reasons to "need" a truck after the fact (which is sort of reminiscent of 'facts being fixed to support a policy decision that had already been made,' so at least they had kindred spirits in high places, huh?).

A lot of people on this site use their trucks mostly to commute back and forth to work, and have only occasional need for a pickup truck. A very large percentage of the people on this site have diesel pickuos mainly because they want one, not because they need one, even if their decision-making process may have confused those two motivations. But by the same token, it also doesn't matter whether or not people need the vehicle they buy. The sales of all high-powered sports cars attests to that. To each his own. We still have that freedom of choice (for now). But if we want to be intellectually honest, we should not engage in self-delusion about the reality of wants versus needs.

And the fact is, many truck buyers today are still what was the traditional customer prior to about 1990, when sales of personal-casual-use SUVs & Pickups started to take off, eventually becoming the dominating driver of the SUV/Pickup segment. And since the "traditional" pickup buyer typically routinely uses their truck in, or as an adjunct to, some sort of commercial endeavor, they are far more interested in bottom line economics than 1/4-mile ETs or a few more mph at the top of a long uphill pull.

Fuel prices have subsided substantially from last summer's peak, but don't kid yourself - the casual SUV/truck buyer - especially those with a 'more-is-better' mindset, is an endangered species in the face of the likely escalating fuel prices over the next decade.

Haha hey Randy...maybe you can move this to the "Haters" section?

Elvis...what do you drive? Im curious. I fit in the "I need a truck" section AND the "More is better" mindset too. Problem?

Figure this to all that think its easier/better mpg in less power. Theres a 250 lb block that needs picked up. There is a 150 lbs office worker and a 250 lbs body builder. Whos going to spend less energy lifting that block? ;)

Upto a certain point and within certain circumstances more power means less effort which in fact translate to better mpg's. Notice the circumstances word cause this isnt true for something ridiculous as a Top Fuel dragster obviously.

I wasn't going to bother continuing to take this thread off topic, especially considering the likely response from posters who make unsubstantiated assertions that are ludicrous at face value like the one above your post. But, what the heck, you're right, so here goes...

If the claim that, "None of us need a 310 hp diesel engine... we need a 500-750 hp diesel engine with a tranny built to handle it." didn't jump the shark, the last word in his user name speaks volumes about the credibility of that post. Maybe he was attempting to be satirical, but if so, he omitted any obvious clue such as emoticons.

In case it isn't obvious, only a tiny minority of the users of this site legitimately "need" (by the loosest possible definition of the word), much less "have," a 750 hp Duramax in a road-legal pickup truck.

In fact, I feel confident asserting that a far larger percentage of the users of this site don't even actually need a pickup truck at all (much less a diesel), except perhaps for the rare occasion that could actually be accommodated with a rental. More than a few invent reasons to "need" a truck after the fact (which is sort of reminiscent of 'facts being fixed to support a policy decision that had already been made,' so at least they had kindred spirits in high places, huh?).

A lot of people on this site use their trucks mostly to commute back and forth to work, and have only occasional need for a pickup truck. A very large percentage of the people on this site have diesel pickuos mainly because they want one, not because they need one, even if their decision-making process may have confused those two motivations. But by the same token, it also doesn't matter whether or not people need the vehicle they buy. The sales of all high-powered sports cars attests to that. To each his own. We still have that freedom of choice (for now). But if we want to be intellectually honest, we should not engage in self-delusion about the reality of wants versus needs.

And the fact is, many truck buyers today are still what was the traditional customer prior to about 1990, when sales of personal-casual-use SUVs & Pickups started to take off, eventually becoming the dominating driver of the SUV/Pickup segment. And since the "traditional" pickup buyer typically routinely uses their truck in, or as an adjunct to, some sort of commercial endeavor, they are far more interested in bottom line economics than 1/4-mile ETs or a few more mph at the top of a long uphill pull.

Fuel prices have subsided substantially from last summer's peak, but don't kid yourself - the casual SUV/truck buyer - especially those with a 'more-is-better' mindset, is an endangered species in the face of the likely escalating fuel prices over the next decade.


Some of what you say makes sense, I will give you some credit, however how about those of use that are not comfortable in compact cars? Maybe I really don't need my truck for work but guess what I need it for my own personal comfort. I have owned compact cars and big trucks and trucks are the best money well spent vehicle, bar none. So what if fuel cost more? Everything else on a truck lasts longer than a compact car. I am over six feet tall and over 270 lbs so getting into these "environmentally friendly" vehicles is a bitch for me. I have no problem with driving efficient vehicles, in fact I am for it but it won't be anything out there right now.

Figure this to all that think its easier/better mpg in less power. Theres a 250 lb block that needs picked up. There is a 150 lbs office worker and a 250 lbs body builder. Whos going to spend less energy lifting that block?
Away we go, further and further off topic.

The fact is that it takes the same amount of energy to "pick up" a net weight of 250 lbs., assuming that it is moved the same distance at the same rate of acceleration, which you should have known if you had a rudimentary knowledge of physics or engineering, before you 'hoisted yourself on your own petard' (look that one up) while trying - and failing - to make a point. Further, the lighter person might theoretically exert slightly less energy because he has less total gross weight to move due to his lighter weight arms and back (tare).

Your "hater" claim also doesn't stick. There is a difference between wants and needs, even if you don't want to admit it. You can buy whatever you want. I sure don't give a flip either way, whether someone's daily driver (even if it's just back and forth to a desk job) is a Prius, a Dodge Viper, or an F450 pickup, or even a Class A Fleetwood. It's your life. Feel free to live it as frugally, or as extravagantly or as wastefully as you want. The fact is, I don't care how prudently or foolishly you live your life. It doesn't cost me one dime more or less either way. So why would I bother to "hate" it either way?

But it's also an observation of mine, and a factual one I believe, that all too many people rationalize a need on the basis of what is mainly, if not entirely, a want.

As for your '"More is better" mindset,' well, we'll see how well that holds up over the next decade, which will be the deepest sustained economic contraction since the 1930s (or possibly of all time. Secular bear markets have a way of annihilating the "more is better" mindset, and usually only after the final die-hards throw in the towel does the next expansion phase begin.

Some of what you say makes sense, I will give you some credit, however how about those of use that are not comfortable in compact cars? Maybe I really don't need my truck for work but guess what I need it for my own personal comfort. I have owned compact cars and big trucks and trucks are the best money well spent vehicle, bar none. So what if fuel cost more? Everything else on a truck lasts longer than a compact car. I am over six feet tall and over 270 lbs so getting into these "environmentally friendly" vehicles is a bitch for me. I have no problem with driving efficient vehicles, in fact I am for it but it won't be anything out there right now.

Well, true, generally speaking, passenger cars did get smaller over the last two decades of the 20th century as manufacturers struggled to stay within the then-new CAFE limits. Ironically, today's full-size cars may claim to have more interior room than their larger predecessors, but oftentimes that room isn't in the same places (especially width). This is one of the reasons SUV sales took off in the 1990s - most passenger car alternatives often weren't as roomy, although minivans worked well for many people with several children.

Still, if you're "over six feet tall and over 270 lbs" I can understand how entry and exit from a passenger car could be a problem for you. But unless you're say, 6'7" or taller, maybe you have another problem that transcends vehicle choice. I don't mean to be unkind here, either, but are you clinically or morbidly obese?
http://www.laparoscopy.com/pleatman/am-i-morbidly-obese.htm

Away we go, further and further off topic.

The fact is that it takes the same amount of energy to "pick up" a net weight of 250 lbs., assuming that it is moved the same distance at the same rate of acceleration, which you should have known if you had a rudimentary knowledge of physics or engineering, before you hoisted yourself on your own petard (look that one up) while trying - and failing - to make a point. Further, the lighter person might theoretically exert slightly less energy because he has less total gross weight to move due to his lighter weight arms and back (tare).

Your hater claim also doesn't stick. There is a difference between wants and needs, even if you don't want to admit it. As for your '"More is better" mindset,' well, we'll see how well that holds up over the next decade, which will be the deepest sustained economic contraction since the 1930s (or possibly of all time. Secular bear markets have a way of annihilating the "more is better" mindset, and usually only after the final die-hards throw in the towel does the next expansion phase begin.

Well, true, generally speaking, passenger cars did get smaller over the last two decades of the 20th century as manufacturers struggled to stay within the then-new CAFE limits. Ironically, today's full-size cars may claim to have more interior room than their larger predecessors, but oftentimes that room isn't in the same places (especially width). This is one of the reasons SUV sales took off in the 1990s - most passenger car alternatives often weren't as roomy, although minivans worked well for many people with several children.

Still, if you're "six feet tall and over 270 lbs" I can understand how entry and exit from a passenger car could be a problem for you. But unless you're say, 6'7" or taller, maybe you have another problem that transcends vehicle choice. I don't mean to be unkind here, either, but are you clinically or morbidly obese?
http://www.laparoscopy.com/pleatman/am-i-morbidly-obese.htm

Sorry asshole. I was just trying to point out a simple fact...didnt realize your a damn physics engineer and wanted to blow your wad all over the place. Good for you. Its people like you that people like me hate. I can only imagine how you praise your keyboard warrior heroics. Maybe u can buy yourself a new pocket protector now huh?

No need to even remotely ask Mangles about his weight. Thats of NO concern of yours I would think. I know I wouldnt ask someone that. But maybe thats because Im not an arrogant engineer prick either. I am also willing to bet that you were the kid in school that I beat the hell outta of everyday too and now are grown up and find comfort in talking shit behind a keyboard. Once again..hate that type too. Maybe you should show some respect around here and maybe you will get some back. Also Im guessing you dont own a truck cause of the rudimentary knowledge of physics or engineering so go back to your damn Prius forum and leave the truck guys alone. We dont want ya.

So take your Elvis ass and leave the building lil fella.

Sorry asshole. I was just trying to point out a simple fact...didnt realize your a damn physics engineer and wanted to blow your wad all over the place. Good for you. Its people like you that people like me hate. I can only imagine how you praise your keyboard warrior heroics. Maybe u can buy yourself a new pocket protector now huh?

No need to even remotely ask Mangles about his weight. Thats of NO concern of yours I would think. I know I wouldnt ask someone that. But maybe thats because Im not an arrogant engineer prick either. I am also willing to bet that you were the kid in school that I beat the hell outta of everyday too and now are grown up and find comfort in talking shit behind a keyboard. Once again..hate that type too. Maybe you should show some respect around here and maybe you will get some back. Also Im guessing you dont own a truck cause of the rudimentary knowledge of physics or engineering so go back to your damn Prius forum and leave the truck guys alone. We dont want ya.

So take your Elvis ass and leave the building lil fella.

So, tell me again, who is it that's being hateful?

P.S.: Not surprisingly, you lost your bet, too.

:hug::idiot:

Well, true, generally speaking, passenger cars did get smaller over the last two decades of the 20th century as manufacturers struggled to stay within the then-new CAFE limits. Ironically, today's full-size cars may claim to have more interior room than their larger predecessors, but oftentimes that room isn't in the same places (especially width). This is one of the reasons SUV sales took off in the 1990s - most passenger car alternatives often weren't as roomy, although minivans worked well for many people with several children.

Still, if you're "over six feet tall and over 270 lbs" I can understand how entry and exit from a passenger car could be a problem for you. But unless you're say, 6'7" or taller, maybe you have another problem that transcends vehicle choice. I don't mean to be unkind here, either, but are you clinically or morbidly obese?
http://www.laparoscopy.com/pleatman/am-i-morbidly-obese.htm



No I am not obese, or overweight. I am in great health, and shape. Why are you giving me a laparoscopy website? What does that have to do with getting in a compact car? What just because I made a good arguement you say I am obese? WTF? I don't like compact cars because they are too small, I like my truck it has plenty of room for me. Sorry that your only comeback is too say I am morbidly obese and giving me a website for a Dr. Pleatman.

No I am not obese, or overweight. I am in great health, and shape. Why are you giving me a laparoscopy website? What does that have to do with getting in a compact car? What just because I made a good arguement you say I am obese? WTF? I don't like compact cars because they are too small, I like my truck it has plenty of room for me.
Maybe hes trying to picture you to continue on his night? :sheephump:HiHi:

OK fellas... this was sorta fun at first, but some people have chosen to take this personal on several people on many levels. Knock it off...

So Elvis, you never answered what you drive? Also, what made you decide to come on a diesel forum and lecture to people? Just so you know I fall in to the "need" a diesel and I love mine.

this was a good read. kudos all.


oh i need mine too.

Is is pretty funny thread and a prime example how things get twisted out of proportion and how urban myths get created.

Fact one, no way is a 1200 HP engine getting 32MPG while actually creating 1200HP. Another funny thing is some said increased power = increased efficiency. If that was true all of the time then you could turn it around and justify much smaller engines that while not creating peak power get way, way better fuel economy then we are getting. If that were all true they would make one and I would have one and so would everybody else . Great power, great efficiency hell your rich!!!! It may work in some cases but most it does not and you also might want to note that increase power likely equals increased stress and wear and hence equals decreased lifespan. Then talk to me about the price to create such a machine and if anybody would buy one at that price.

1/2 ton diesel trucks would be great for people who don't really need to haul anything heavy but just have to have a diesel but I think the utility isn't there. Rest assured just because they may have enough power to pull doesn't mean they would last long doing it. Just think of the differenced between a 1/2 ton and 3/4 ton. Brakes, that is a big one! Transmission, frame strength, etc. Go pull my 5'er with a half ton and see how it brakes or manuevers when some idiot cuts you off. That 5'er would twist that 1/2 ton around like a toy and you will die!!!!!

So when it comes right down to it a 1/2 ton with a diesel in it is just silly if it isn't getting 35MPG. The utility just isn't there and is basically what Ford and Dodge and Toyota figured and split the marketplace. GM is holding on and if there is a market maybe it is all theirs now. I hope that it is, other wise GM tanked a bunch more money. Cost, utility, relative fuel mileage a 3/4 ton or 1 ton diesel is a pretty tough act to follow. Pulls like a mule, costs less then a sports sedan or SUV, and gets better mileage then an SUV. Not too bad at all!

Another funny thing is some said increased power = increased efficiency.
It is the other way around. Increased efficiency = increased power. That's why turbocharging, porting & polishing, etc are all popular things.

If that was true all of the time then you could turn it around and justify much smaller engines that while not creating peak power get way, way better fuel economy then we are getting. If that were all true they would make one and I would have one and so would everybody else .
Sure - but the EPA wouldn't let you drive them over here. You can get some of them in Canada, and definitely Europe and Japan.

It may work in some cases but most it does not and you also might want to note that increase power likely equals increased stress and wear and hence equals decreased lifespan.
Careful there - you'll upset the Duramax crowd with their puny little connecting rods...!!

1/2 ton diesel trucks would be great for people who don't really need to haul anything heavy but just have to have a diesel but I think the utility isn't there. ... Pulls like a mule, costs less then a sports sedan or SUV, and gets better mileage then an SUV. Not too bad at all!
There are a bunch of people swapping 4BT's into a lot of things, including 1/2 ton pickups. It makes for a potent little truck that tows well and gets decent mileage. The 4BT is still pretty hefty - a smaller little "Duramax" 4 or 6 cyl would be excellent for the smaller trucks that just need to get decent mileage and do some minor pulling duty.

With the somewhat depressed economy, people may no longer be buying the 12+k lb 5ers that come with their own 30 year mortgage, instead they'll be buying smaller and cheaper trailers and won't need semi-level towing performance to pull them. The 30+ mpg 1/2 ton truck would be great - especially if they can get around the hefty premium that they are forcing on us. Run more biodiesel and drop the emissions standards - and the urea injection, DPF filters - all of the high dollar additions.

What are the specs on this motor anyhow? Havent been following it. Im sure it has to get better mileage than the 6.0L in the 1500HD or even the 5.3L too.

I have owned an 03' 1500HD with the 6.0. The best mileage I got with it was 15 bone stock. Average was around 12-13. I bought my D/A and was getting about 17-18. I added the things in my Sig and started getting about 20-22 Hwy. The WORST I got with my baby was 15. If we were talking about gas engines I would say your right for the most part. You need a happy medium. We are just lucky that diesels are easy to mod for more power. By striving to make a Diesel run more efficiently (better MPG), a byproduct of that labor is more power. And you are correct, if a person is making 1200Hp, they will not get 32Mpg. If they are making full use of that 1200hp. It just means that the engine is CAPABLE of making that power. If they were to put it on a dyno and run it like you would to get the best mileage then noway is it going to show 1200hp. Till he mashes the pedal and is using more fuel. All this means is that the 1200hp motor doesn't have to work as hard to move the same amount of weight as a less powerful motor. Which means it uses less fuel as long as you don't mash the pedal. But what do I know. I just like mechanical things.

what happened to the guy that started this thread??:stirthepo

You can find him on animal planet sat. night at 9pm (whale hunters). He has a new calling i guess.

You can find him on animal planet sat. night at 9pm (whale hunters). He has a new calling i guess.
):h):h):h

I like big Trucks YAY !!!

i wan't everyone on here to post what they do with their truck???? No BS lying either...unless your 6.6 spends its life with 8k load on it you don't freakin need it, for you guys pulling 12k campers once a year for vacation you could just rent the truck...thats cheaper. the 4.5 is a great fit for landscapers and contracters pulling mowers,and tools around. For the comment, made i don't care what decisions you guys make it has no effects on my, or it doesn't relate to any costs of my life...take a look at the last 15years, people's choices costed you 4.00/gal last summer, i also believe that last summer was the keystone to the condition that the economy is in right now. I am a democratic diesel fan, i lean closer to the middle than those wonderful extreme left wing socialists. so don't tell me to go buy a freaking prius, i mow during the summer months after work and school and need a great diesel motor in a 1/2 ton truck...

FWIW, I hope you get it. The 4.5 would be a nice addition to the fleet. Oh, BTW, we actually tried to buy a Prius last year - for my wife; a matter of personal choice.

As for what caused last year's anomalous price surge? Lots of things went into that; personal choice was not one of 'em. Meddling congress and bureaucrats, speculators, idiots in charge of things way beyond their ability to manage, ad nauseum... but personal choice was not one of 'em.

i wan't everyone on here to post what they do with their truck???? No BS lying either...unless your 6.6 spends its life with 8k load on it you don't freakin need it, for you guys pulling 12k campers once a year for vacation you could just rent the truck...thats cheaper. the 4.5 is a great fit for landscapers and contracters pulling mowers,and tools around. For the comment, made i don't care what decisions you guys make it has no effects on my, or it doesn't relate to any costs of my life...take a look at the last 15years, people's choices costed you 4.00/gal last summer, i also believe that last summer was the keystone to the condition that the economy is in right now. I am a democratic diesel fan, i lean closer to the middle than those wonderful extreme left wing socialists. so don't tell me to go buy a freaking prius, i mow during the summer months after work and school and need a great diesel motor in a 1/2 ton truck...


A lot of what you say makes sense but there are other factors to why people prefer a bigger, better engine. It not an overindulgence thing like I believe you are trying to explain. I have my truck for the fact that god forbid an accident may occur, I feel that my truck is much safter than the prius, or civic or even a camry. I seen trucks get into serious wrecks that there would be no way many made compact cars would be so lucky.

While your cumming and stroking I will taking your girl to the MAX

The Oil Companies And Truck Manufactories Are In Cahoots, If They Make The 6.6 Get 30mpg The Oil Companies Would Loss Money, So Gm Makes These Engines With Poor Fuel Mileage Mine Gets 14.1 Mpg

Get a life........... Do you realy believe that? If GM was in cahoots with Exxon than Exxon would be sharing some of there record earnings and GM would not be about to go bankrupt.

If the 6.6 could get 30 mpg than GM would own the market.

The Oil Companies And Truck Manufactories Are In Cahoots, If They Make The 6.6 Get 30mpg The Oil Companies Would Loss Money, So Gm Makes These Engines With Poor Fuel Mileage Mine Gets 14.1 Mpg

The Oil Companies And Truck Manufactories Are In Cahoots, If They Make The 6.6 Get 30mpg The Oil Companies Would Loss Money, So Gm Makes These Engines With Poor Fuel Mileage Mine Gets 14.1 Mpg

If thats all your getting with no DPF , you need to take your foot out of it once in a while . All the guys I know with your same truck with no DPF get 18 mpg like the older trucks do . 14.1 is with DPF .

Maybe your truck is a lemon . :D

If thats all your getting with no DPF , you need to take your foot out of it once in a while . All the guys I know with your same truck with no DPF get 18 mpg like the older trucks do . 14.1 is with DPF .

Maybe your truck is a lemon . :Dmight be, I know you aint talking I know you floor board your truck:driver:

Im just messin with ya brother , I think you know that .

A Colorado with a dmax would be nice.

i wan't everyone on here to post what they do with their truck???? No BS lying either...unless your 6.6 spends its life with 8k load on it you don't freakin need it, for you guys pulling 12k campers once a year for vacation you could just rent the truck...thats cheaper. the 4.5 is a great fit for landscapers and contracters pulling mowers,and tools around. For the comment, made i don't care what decisions you guys make it has no effects on my, or it doesn't relate to any costs of my life...take a look at the last 15years, people's choices costed you 4.00/gal last summer, i also believe that last summer was the keystone to the condition that the economy is in right now. I am a democratic diesel fan, i lean closer to the middle than those wonderful extreme left wing socialists. so don't tell me to go buy a freaking prius, i mow during the summer months after work and school and need a great diesel motor in a 1/2 ton truck...
What grade are you in? BTW I do some landscape work on the side and a 1/2 ton does not cut it if you do alot of commercial work. I guess if you have little mowers they will do.

in college. I don't take anything big, just residential keep me busy, and give me spending money. I took a 4 acre once a month last summer for guy out of the country in the reserves and it killed me just just to get it mowed the first time. from the story he told me when i first met him he was already deployed and got back into town around fathers day, and the prop had not been mowed yet, and had been growing about 6 weeks the first time. i tryed to mow it first time and couldn't and had to talk to my brothers in-laws to cut it for hay. after that it wasn't bad but i spoke to him back in march and told him i couldn't take it again.

Interesting Thread.
What was the original topic?

Higher efficency / given displacement wins.

The real question is, how much power does some want/need for their application?

Optimally a range of engines would be great. Will we see them? Probably not.

I currently drive a 2004.5 LLY and will be trading to a 2010/11 model. After that I would love to see a range extended electric HD 3500 to replace that. (powered by a diesel range extender of course :) )

Electric IS the future, diesel is a great technology for the interm.

Its all the tuning, whats expected of the car and the driver. A Golf TDI can drive around the entire UK on one tank. Its not pretty, its not fun, its not comfy, but it can be done. Producing a car that meets the needs of the general population is what needs to be done.

Buy a BIKE

Get a life........... Do you realy believe that? If GM was in cahoots with Exxon than Exxon would be sharing some of there record earnings and GM would not be about to go bankrupt.

If the 6.6 could get 30 mpg than GM would own the market.

If this is so...why did Chevy sell the pattons to thier electric cars (batteries) they made back in the 80's to an oil company. There was a real nice story on this on 60 Mintues. Oh yea, then they showed Chevy crushing the cars. Imagine where they would be today if Chevy would have continued their R&R?? So...would they real produce a 30 or 40 mile to the gallon D-Max?? Just a thought;)

allison has hydraulic assist, they could have adapted this to HD trucks along with. this can reduce fuel consumption 10-30% depending on driving(intown, start/stopping) but nimrod that is running gm now is idiot that sold off allison. those cars were like program/lease cars, owners never actually owned them, all the car companies that made those cars pulled them back and destroy them, same as r&d test mules. the oil company that bought batteries is the one doinng r&d on extending duty cycle of batteries, gm/ford/chrysler don't want to be making batteries.

You can get ok MPG out of about anything if driven right

If it were my call this is what should be the optional engines in GM's truck lineup:

Colorado: 2.2L, 4cyl Duramax ~200hp
Silverado 1500: 3L, v6 duramax, 250hp
Sliverado 2500/3500: 6.6L, v8 duramax, +350hp

There, everybody gets what they want or need and there's no bitching about the difference between the two. Me and myself....I'd take the colorado but that's only because I don't need my truck for comm endeavours or own a 5th wheel.

my $.02 :)

FWIW, I'm 6'1" 270# and my daily is a jetta tdi because I need a vehicle that gets damn good mileage (55 right now). Comfort is relative. If it came down to feeding your family or keeping your house, I'm sure most of us would find out "it's not so bad." :o:

Every car maker has the capability of making a fuel effiecient vehicle without sacrificing anything. They choose not to because they have stake in oil companies and are greedy like all politicians.

Hey gm should have a twins option on the 2500HD + models:)

gm should have made 4cyl(3.3+/-) duramax, when LLY came out and put it in 1500 and maybe detuned in s10/15 chassis. that engine would have sold and could have been done on same machinery line(maybe different plant) as duramax, same situation as chevyII or iron duke engine. electric sounds great but more sensitive/finicky than gas or diesel engines. gm messed around with V6 and think that was waste of funds. 4.5 is technology platform for emissions and power for broad platform(hopefully camaro with 6L90, before discontinued). think tandem turbo's will be on 2010 duramax, would explain 30% grill opening in pictures of mules, need more room for larger intercooler to drop IAT to reduce NOx, and supposed to have same injection system as 4.5(peak cylinder pressure control).

Hopefully cummins comes through with their light duty diesel engine.

http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2009/05/with-or-without-chrysler-cummins-committed-to-light-duty-diesel.html

I plow with my truck. Which where i live is like almost half the year. Ive plowed with 1500 pickups and torn them apart. Nothing can take the abuse better than a beefier truck. I love my 6.5, for fuel mileage i drive my mustang, 23 mpg's is good enough for me....

gas engines will never be as well built as diesels. gas moters i dought will ever be built that same. look at the vw diesel. great power. great mpg. just like europe.

and sometimes, more power.. more mpg. all with better airflow

Amen !!!