Any thoughts on how this will impact trucks? Can they achieve these lofty goals on full sized trucks?

Interested in hearing from the techies out there..

I think the trucks will fall under the same standards as now, none really

I recently bought a 2010 Silverado Crew Cab 4X4 . The salesman said that the 2010 diesles built after May will have some kind of small tank containing a liquid for the emission system. This tank will have to be serviced at every oil change . Will add about $3,500 to cost of truck. He told me that all brands will have this system. Anybody heard about this ?

The HD trucks are exempt from corporate Fuel economy ratings. You will see a lot of changes in other vehicles though. Most people do not know that HHR, Equinox, SRX are classified as trucks to make the current current ratings. The EPA is changing the rules on what is considered a truck. If the vehicles listed above cannot be considered trucks in the future, GM is going to have some problems.

I think those vehicles already get pretty good mileage so I bet it wont affect them much

All I can say is the way this country is going, Bend Over and brace your self.

Don't get why people are so concerned about more fuel efficient cars.
Let's see its expected to add $400 to the price of a new car in 2012 and $970 by 2016, but on average people willsave $3000 over the life of the vehicle. Add to that it will decrease our dependence on oil and reduce emissions. I'm trying to find the down side here??

the downside is the implementation of more rules and regulations...your freedoms are disappearing very quickly and it needs to be stopped.

emissions on diesels etc. will destroy the diesel performance aftermarket...which i imagine is the whole reason your on this site. there are alot of repercussions that people dont take into account.

people so easily forget that we rather recently rebelled from the tyranny of excessive rule..the same kind of rule that is slowly grasping us again. "don't tread on me"...we need to bring it back.

All I can say is the way this country is going, Bend Over and brace your self.

Agreed

Obama=Marxism

:agreed:= carter 44 and 05longbed. :D Mike

I recently bought a 2010 Silverado Crew Cab 4X4 . The salesman said that the 2010 diesles built after May will have some kind of small tank containing a liquid for the emission system. This tank will have to be serviced at every oil change . Will add about $3,500 to cost of truck. He told me that all brands will have this system. Anybody heard about this ?

Its urea. It further cleans the exhaust gasses prior to exiting the vehicle. For most it will just be another thing to remove and only replace when going in for emissions testing.

Don't get why people are so concerned about more fuel efficient cars.
Let's see its expected to add $400 to the price of a new car in 2012 and $970 by 2016, but on average people willsave $3000 over the life of the vehicle. Add to that it will decrease our dependence on oil and reduce emissions. I'm trying to find the down side here??


You sound like an OBAMA talking point

What they don't tell you is once they ram cap and trade down our throat you wont be saving any money period.

You will need a vehicle that gets 35.5 mpg just to afford to drive to work

Don't get why people are so concerned about more fuel efficient cars.
Let's see its expected to add $400 to the price of a new car in 2012 and $970 by 2016, but on average people willsave $3000 over the life of the vehicle. Add to that it will decrease our dependence on oil and reduce emissions. I'm trying to find the down side here??
The turth of it is that you won't save money, people will generally take more trips/longer trips, thus spending more money. And now that one of the airlines is going to start charging $45 for CARRY-ON baggage, it is starting to look like more people will start driving even more. In the end it won't limit our consumption of foreign oil.

If the governement truely wants to do some good, they need to find a better alternative to the fuel we use now that can be produced here cheaper and that will still give us the same performance. Battery power is a joke except for short commutes. And other fuel alternatives just haven't made it into conveince supply.

And as for upping the price, it goes up every year even though the quality seems to go down. There is almost as much plastic in these things as there is metal anymore.

Well said Carter 44.

Don't get why people are so concerned about more fuel efficient cars.
Let's see its expected to add $400 to the price of a new car in 2012 and $970 by 2016, but on average people willsave $3000 over the life of the vehicle. Add to that it will decrease our dependence on oil and reduce emissions. I'm trying to find the down side here??

Your house is next on the list & you will be liable. If you think I'm pullen your leg do a little search of pollutants. You will find Housing, Office Buildings etc. make the vehicles look quite small.

I recently bought a 2010 Silverado Crew Cab 4X4 . The salesman said that the 2010 diesles built after May will have some kind of small tank containing a liquid for the emission system. This tank will have to be serviced at every oil change . Will add about $3,500 to cost of truck. He told me that all brands will have this system. Anybody heard about this ?

Yes it is true. All 2011 diesels will have the tank. I believe it is called urea. You can read all about it. Just do a search for it on google. From the article I read and I can't find right at the moment... There will be an indicator warning when you get down to 1k miles left of urea. If you run out, your truck will go into limp mode until you refil the tank.

what in the heck is urea, and where will you buy it?

You sound like an OBAMA talking point

What they don't tell you is once they ram cap and trade down our throat you wont be saving any money period.

You will need a vehicle that gets 35.5 mpg just to afford to drive to work

Wow we should put you geniuses in charge of the "damn govmint". We can all just turn our clocks back 50 years and pretend like nothing ever changes. While your at it why don't ya call China and ask them how ignoring emission controls with an ever growing poplation and growing industrialization has worked out for them so far. Anyone see shanghai. Oh that's right you can't see shanghai thru the air.

You guys sounds like limbaugh. He's got you so scared of the government that anything they do must be bad.
Did anyone pay attention the last 5 years. When government allows industry towork without scrutiny, industry lines its pockets without concern for the people. Please wake up.

http://truthaboutscr.com/media/pdfs/SCR_Brochure_Medium_2-26-09b.pdf

http://www.fleetguard.com/pdfs/product_lit/americas_brochures/LT15618.pdf

Im writing a research paper on this now and have learned alot about the system over the past month. IMO it is a better alternative than the now current particulate filter.

I agree with governments pushing to make vehicles more environmentally friendly, what I do not agree with is the rules and regulations that limit "the small minority" from modifying their own vehicles for their own recreation/purpose.

I was just reading through this thread, and I can't believe the difference in opinions from one person to the next when it comes to the government and emission regulations...

I'm all for aftermarket parts and accessories, and anything else that will make my vehicle perform as I want it to, etc.
As much as these new emission regulations are a pain in the ass, I'm all for them!

How do some people figure that the government is taking away their rights by implementing stringent regulations??
If the government didn't enforce these so called "taking your rights away" regulations, where would we be? (Mexico City)
I doubt very much that people would take the initiative to go out and purchase a Catalytic converter and install it on their vehicle just to make the world a better place.

I complain like everyone else does when a new regulation drives the price of a vehicle upwards, but if it's for the better, then I'm all for it.
If someone can prove to me that these new emission standards are a waste of time and money, then maybe you'll be able to convert me.

There's three times as much emission controls on a 2011 Duramax as appose to a 2001, and yet there's a 32% increase in HP. I most certainly don't see anything wrong with that.

As far as aftermarket companies are concerned, they'll just have to work harder at developing performance parts that keep your vehicle running legal. If the manufacturers can improve performance and emissions, then I'm sure the after market companies can do so also.

That's my opinion!:D

There's three times as much emission controls on a 2011 Duramax as appose to a 2001, and yet there's a 32% increase in HP. I most certainly don't see anything wrong with that.

That's my opinion!:D

I agree with you completely... however the issue is that with each added emission device the mileage of these trucks drops. Take a look at the mileage of a stock LB7 vs a stock LMM.

Wow we should put you geniuses in charge of the "damn govmint". We can all just turn our clocks back 50 years and pretend like nothing ever changes. While your at it why don't ya call China and ask them how ignoring emission controls with an ever growing poplation and growing industrialization has worked out for them so far. Anyone see shanghai. Oh that's right you can't see shanghai thru the air.

You guys sounds like limbaugh. He's got you so scared of the government that anything they do must be bad.
Did anyone pay attention the last 5 years. When government allows industry towork without scrutiny, industry lines its pockets without concern for the people. Please wake up.

The country was fine the way it was I am sorry if I don't want the US to be like the United Kingdom

Emissions standards are okay with me to a point
As long as you are not talking about CO2 being a pollutant

I just don't want to hear you crying when Diesel or gas is $10 a gallon and you can't afford to drive your brand new truck

IF the Government had the right idea they wouldn't make Diesels so cost prohibitive for ordinary vehicles.

This administration has not done one thing for the good of the country so don't be fooled and listen to everything you hear on MSNBC

BTW I was no fan of Bush but Obama has led even further and faster in the wrong direction

Here it is right out of the socialist's mouth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4


Yeah it would be nice If we used less energy and polluted less but the economy is already in piss poor shape

Our economy will collapse under Cap & Trade

Thay are basically adopting the California emmisions standard as the federal standard. For those of us in Calformia there will really not be any changes, for the rest of you start pulling those emissions parts off the shelf and be ready to re install them.

The country was fine the way it was I am sorry if I don't want the US to be like the United Kingdom

Emissions standards are okay with me to a point
As long as you are not talking about CO2 being a pollutant

I just don't want to hear you crying when Diesel or gas is $10 a gallon and you can't afford to drive your brand new truck

IF the Government had the right idea they wouldn't make Diesels so cost prohibitive for ordinary vehicles.

This administration has not done one thing for the good of the country so don't be fooled and listen to everything you hear on MSNBC

BTW I was no fan of Bush but Obama has led even further and faster in the wrong direction

Ummm ...... you really don't get it.

First, diesels have been costly options for decades and it has nothing to do with the governmet or emission controls. In fact when emission controls were added to diesels in 07 it didn't add anything to the option costs for them. Yet you blame the government for their cost???

Second, in case you didn't notice, included with the new emission requirements are more stringent fuel economy standards. Now if vehicles get better mileage then less gas is used, less gas used means LOWER demand, which would Decrease fuel prices.

Now I realize prices won't be going down due to our ever burgeoning population and its insatiable appetite for energy. But I'm also sure that we will be better off if all new vehicles use less fuel.

Btw I don't watch msnbc or fox news. Why let them make my mind up for me?

The cost of the duramax option has certainly gone up and the fuel mileage has went down.
the duramax option was $4810+$1200 if you wanted the Allison in 2001 and is $7195 in 2010 it will be even more with the LML

I do think the urea is a better way to go and fuel mileage will go back up, but the cost is going up even higher.

When a manufacture has to design a new diesel engine every two years because of emissions standards that gets expensive and is part of the reason why we saw the 4.5 duramax axed

Once I pay off my current duramax if GM had the 4.5 in production I would be first in line to buy it. I would love to be getting 25mpg and I don't need a 3/4 ton to drive everyday but I certainly don't want to drive a gutless gasser truck that gets worse fuel economy.;)

I agree with you completely... however the issue is that with each added emission device the mileage of these trucks drops. Take a look at the mileage of a stock LB7 vs a stock LMM.

What is the difference in mileage between those two?

I'm just referring to the average, not the best that someone has claimed to have and not the worst.

I can't complain about mileage -- 160hp tune, lift, tires, etc....

Thanks,
Bavanew

The country was fine the way it was I am sorry if I don't want the US to be like the United Kingdom

Emissions standards are okay with me to a point
"As long as we are talking about DC BS being a pollutant"

I just don't want to hear you crying when Diesel or gas is $10 a gallon and you can't afford to drive your brand new truck

IF the Government had the right idea they wouldn't make Diesels so cost prohibitive for ordinary vehicles.

This administration has not done one thing for the good of the country so don't be fooled and listen to everything you hear on MSNBC

BTW I was no fan of Bush but Obama has led even further and faster in the wrong direction

There I fixed it for ya.

The cost of the duramax option has certainly gone up and the fuel mileage has went down.
the duramax option was $4810+$1200 if you wanted the Allison in 2001 and is $7195 in 2010 it will be even more with the LML

I do think the urea is a better way to go and fuel mileage will go back up, but the cost is going up even higher.

When a manufacture has to design a new diesel engine every two years because of emissions standards that gets expensive and is part of the reason why we saw the 4.5 duramax axed

Once I pay off my current duramax if GM had the 4.5 in production I would be first in line to buy it. I would love to be getting 25mpg and I don't need a 3/4 ton to drive everyday but I certainly don't want to drive a gutless gasser truck that gets worse fuel economy.;)

Well its a little silly to compare the option price of 2001 to 2010 and blame the gov. That is called inflation. What I am talking about is the difference between an 07 classic vs an 07.5 nbs duramax since 07.5 is when emission controls finally showed up on diesels. Or how about now GM just anounced the 2011 pricing. The LML is the same price as the LMM option was for 2010. Oh and btw the LML is about 11% more fuel efficient too. Not to mention gobs more power. What was your lame arguement again?

the LML is the same price as the LMM option was for 2010.

no way do you think GM is doing all this extra stuff for free?

If the option price didn't change They will make up the cost somewhere else on the truck

You have convinced me where can I go to to get a DPF and DEF added to my truck
Hell maybe it is so good I will go to the fuel station and they'll give me money back and only bunnies and flowers come out the exhaust:rolleyes:

Well its a little silly to compare the option price of 2001 to 2010 and blame the gov.

Your right it wasn't because of emissions it is because the government hasn't balanced the budget since 2000 and the dollar is in the toilet it is okay it will get even better with the 1.5 trillion dollar defecits for years to come

Your right it wasn't because of emissions it is because the government hasn't balanced the budget since 2000 and the dollar is in the toilet it is okay it will get even better with the 1.5 trillion dollar defecits for years to come

Well at least you understand economics. You are right the last time the budget was balanced clinton was in charge. King George really screwed us all with all his irresponsible economics. Now we are just getting started fixing the mess he created

I agree with you completely... however the issue is that with each added emission device the mileage of these trucks drops. Take a look at the mileage of a stock LB7 vs a stock LMM.

Pretty much.

The problem is, on diesels, all the "emissions devices" to date are a joke. EGR just messes up the intake and dumps soot back into the engine (I have a 147k LBZ motor in my garage that has 3/8" soot coating the inside of the intake :ThrowUp:). The DOC isn't much more than a soot trap. You know they're a joke when a truck that was originally equipped with them (but no longer has them) gets sniffed for the smog test and it passes with flying colors. The DPF is another one... The ONLY thing it reduces is soot. Soot is carbon, that will wash away and degrade. Heck, in stock form, the duramax barely smokes at all, if any. But when it regens, it's now burning more fuel and creating more emissions... It wouldn't surprise me if you where to sniff one while it was in regen (if you could get the probe in there without being lit on fire or the probe melting...) the emissions would be higher than a 1970's 4bbl BB. These aren't 1980's diesels that smoke when you look at them.

Frankly, emissions standards 10 years ago where plenty sufficient and where light years ahead of China now.

If you want to reduce emissions in diesels, rather than ramming ineffective garbage that just adds cost and complexity down our throats, put more into resarching a viable way to make enough BioDiesel to supply the whole country's diesel needs? BD burns TONS cleaner, is RENEWABLE, is better for all the parts of the motor (especially CP3 & injectors).... There isn't really a downside to BD, other than it's high gel point, but I'd imagine some kind of anti-gel agent could be devised.

i am new to site but not to GMC, speaking about emissions. How many miles do you think us diesel owners will have to drive to equal the pollution created from this "Obama seems so-so concerned" yet he jumps on Air Force One
'on our dollar" at every opportunity to fly for an photo op, raising money for his party, trying to sell a bill that was so great it's already passed, cap & tax, etc etc... it just doesn't stop, he promised hope & change he's delivered both to me, I hope he will be gone soon, as for change it looks like we will soon have to get permission from the government to flush our toilets, they will probably put a meter on them charging you a emission tax when flushed, I wouldn't mind if the waste ended up in DC so they could waller in our waste to make up for us putting up with their BS. It seems when anything is said about Obama someone jumps in and says Bush did this and that also what about him, well Bush didn't promise Hope & Change

Tom

If you want to reduce emissions in diesels, rather than ramming ineffective garbage that just adds cost and complexity down our throats, put more into resarching a viable way to make enough BioDiesel to supply the whole country's diesel needs? BD burns TONS cleaner, is RENEWABLE, is better for all the parts of the motor (especially CP3 & injectors).... There isn't really a downside to BD, other than it's high gel point, but I'd imagine some kind of anti-gel agent could be devised.

The only issue with BD is the stress it will put on the food source in North America... if farmers can get more for their cash crops they will switch and produce the crops just for the fuel. I think that is why you are not seeing BD taking a larger stand, the government knows this and is trying to work around it.

I attached a picture that shows just how drastic these reductions in diesel emissions have been over the past 16 years. I agree that there is no reason to strive to bring them this low, especially not when china (and other manufacturing countries) are pumping out the emissions. Heres a NASA pictures showing the pollution hanging over china, where do you think it goes? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eDs_b1LRt6I/SI1v6flyITI/AAAAAAAABOw/NlGIJa6PQkU/s400/china+air+pollution.jpg

Well at least you understand economics. You are right the last time the budget was balanced clinton was in charge. King George really screwed us all with all his irresponsible economics. Now we are just getting started fixing the mess he created
i cant say that bush was the most fiscally responsible but you better get your head out of your ass if you think its getting better under obama. he is killing an already weakened country. obama is the worst thing that could have happened to this country. an anti-american, muslim that was not born in the u.s is president....no thank you.

Well at least you understand economics. You are right the last time the budget was balanced clinton was in charge. King George really screwed us all with all his irresponsible economics. Now we are just getting started fixing the mess he created

Ok, here the deal. Yes, the bush administration wasn’t the most fiscal responsible administration. Not going to say he was. The fact that he never vetoed any spending bill did help increase the deficient. But at the same time, unemployment was at its lowest rate ever for the first 6 years of his administration. He lowered taxes for EVERYONE, was fighting two wars, etc. Bush did inherit a rescission from Clinton. Clinton was only able to balance the budget by rising taxes, and cutting the budget of our military and etc. Remember, the president does not make the law, that’s congress. It was the democrated in congress who helped with the mortgage meltdown, which caused the economy to collapse. It was the dems who forced Freddie Mac and Fannie May to continue subprime loans until it was more the 50% of their books, regardless of their warnings. Some of republicans even warned about the possibilities. The dems view point was, it’s was a RIGHT to OWN a home and the banks were not to ask a whole lot of questions. It’s the whole entitlement thing!! So if a person who was looking to buy a house and they only make lets say $60,000 a year (this amount is being generous), and they want to buy a $300,000 house, the bank was to approve the loan even though they can’t afford it. Now, there is a lot to blame to go around on both sides of the fence!! The republican have some blame as well. Now with all that being said, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and etc, are pushing a socialist agenda!! To the Healthcare bill, to cap and tax, student loans and etc.. The only good thing Obama has done with his first year and so in office, was giving the general in Afghanistan some of the troops he asked for. Mark my words, Obama, will go down as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!

The only issue with BD is the stress it will put on the food source in North America...


Pu-lease.... No offense, but that's the same old line the less-informed people spout about renewable fuels, be it BD or Ethenol. Do you even know what they use to make BD? It's made with SOYBEANS (which, BTW, I don't think are a major portion of our diets), but it doesn't HAVE to be made with Soybeans. It can also be made with alge, which actually would yield MUCH more BD per sq acre than soybeans. You could set up BD alge farms in the middle of otherwise useless deserts, and probably end up making more than enough BD to supply the countries entire demand for diesel.

With ethenol, yes, they use corn here, but most people have no clue that there is more than one type of corn. That which WE eat is but one variety. They usually (or at least can) use "cow corn" to make Ethenol. I don't know about you, but I'm not going to try to eat "cow corn". it's just a LITTLE too tough for human consumption. Do you have any clue how much of it rots in silos and gets thrown away? LOTS. In addition to to corn, ethenol can be made with other things such as sugar beets, with yield fairly high amounts of ethenol. PRetty much anything starchy can be used, although some things give better yields than others.

The point is, all the arguements against renewable fuels citing "negative impact on food supplies" are a load of bull propogated by the less informed, miss informed or ignorant people out there (or maybe it's mis-information being purposely spread by the oil companies to try and make people against it and keep them in "control").

I'm not all against reducing pollution, but let's be reasonable here. Emission regs 10 years ago where plenty sufficient and WAY ahead of what they where 40 years ago. As Newone pointed out, Nobama's frivolus jaunts around the country and world are cranking out WAY more "greenhouse gasses" than a good portion of the entire country. Volcanoes dump more "garbage" into the atmosphere in one eruption than the entire world does in a year.

At the rate the "EPA" is going with emissions regs in this country, it's only a matter of time before every living creature in the country (us included!) needs something plugged into it's butt to capture thier "emissions". It's gotta stop.

Cougar good points and no offense taken... Im just stating what I heard... and its not so much that these crops are used much in society now... but farmers will switch to whatever crop will give them the best yield. They will switch from consumer crops to cash crops, putting stress on the food sources.

But you may be right about having alot of food left over...even with the stress of the droughts hitting the prairies (up here anyways).

I have seen the algae farms and that does look like a very promising way to produce BD. But there must be a reason its being held back? I mean if the private sector is so for it then where is the funding? Trucks can be retrofitted with such systems pretty easily if im not mistaken. Maybe the cost to produce the algae are high? I dunno, but there is a reason they are not showing up, might be the opposition from the oil companies pressing down on the industry.

Cougar good points and no offense taken... Im just stating what I heard... and its not so much that these crops are used much in society now... but farmers will switch to whatever crop will give them the best yield. They will switch from consumer crops to cash crops, putting stress on the food sources.

But you may be right about having alot of food left over...even with the stress of the droughts hitting the prairies (up here anyways).

I have seen the algae farms and that does look like a very promising way to produce BD. But there must be a reason its being held back? I mean if the private sector is so for it then where is the funding? Trucks can be retrofitted with such systems pretty easily if im not mistaken. Maybe the cost to produce the algae are high? I dunno, but there is a reason they are not showing up, might be the opposition from the oil companies pressing down on the industry.

Good point on the farmers switching to the crop with the best yield/highest profit.

I think the reason alge hasn't gone too far is funding (or lack thereof) for research. At this point, I've only heard of small batches being made, but with decent results. Mostly experimental at this point. With BD, pretty much anything made within the last 10 years or so should be able to take BD without any changes whatsoever. The older stuff may need some hoses replaced so the BE doesn't eat them, but that's about it.

I'm sure the EPA and others are shoving TONS of money down a rat hole trying to come up with more emissions control junk... How about rather than shoving it down a rat hole for more junk, use that money for BD alge research? Then maybe we could get somewhere and drasticly cut our usage of oil as well as reduce emissions with the cleaner fuel.

Ok, here the deal. Yes, the bush administration wasn’t the most fiscal responsible administration. Not going to say he was. The fact that he never vetoed any spending bill did help increase the deficient. But at the same time, unemployment was at its lowest rate ever for the first 6 years of his administration. He lowered taxes for EVERYONE, was fighting two wars, etc. Bush did inherit a rescission from Clinton. Clinton was only able to balance the budget by rising taxes, and cutting the budget of our military and etc. Remember, the president does not make the law, that’s congress. It was the democrated in congress who helped with the mortgage meltdown, which caused the economy to collapse. It was the dems who forced Freddie Mac and Fannie May to continue subprime loans until it was more the 50% of their books, regardless of their warnings. Some of republicans even warned about the possibilities. The dems view point was, it’s was a RIGHT to OWN a home and the banks were not to ask a whole lot of questions. It’s the whole entitlement thing!! So if a person who was looking to buy a house and they only make lets say $60,000 a year (this amount is being generous), and they want to buy a $300,000 house, the bank was to approve the loan even though they can’t afford it. Now, there is a lot to blame to go around on both sides of the fence!! The republican have some blame as well. Now with all that being said, Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and etc, are pushing a socialist agenda!! To the Healthcare bill, to cap and tax, student loans and etc.. The only good thing Obama has done with his first year and so in office, was giving the general in Afghanistan some of the troops he asked for. Mark my words, Obama, will go down as THE WORST PRESIDENT IN HISTORY!!

Hate to point out the obvious but, the recession that Bush inherited was nothing like what Obama inherited, in fact the recession Bush inherited was OVER 2 months after he was sworn in and certainly before he had done anything.
Bush also happened to inherit a BUDGET SURPLUS. What'd he do, well he had his Republican cronies in Congress REPEAL the "Pay as you go" rules that Clinton passed to balance the budget. Bush had to repeal that rule to get his tax cuts passed. Even Bush's own Secretary of the Treasury (O'Niell) told Bush the country could NOT afford his tax cut and spending plans and they would lead to unending deficits. Bush asked for O'Niell's resignation. Then Bush went on to DOUBLE the federal DEBT during his administration.
He leaves office during the worst economic recesion since the Great Depression and the Largest federal deficit in history.
Somehow you think this is all Obama's fault. In case you didn't notice Obama has only submitted 1 budget so far, albeit terribly deficit ridden. Like I said earlier, the incredibly irresponsible BUSH years are going to cost us all for decades.

Hate to point out the obvious but, the recession that Bush inherited was nothing like what Obama inherited, in fact the recession Bush inherited was OVER 2 months after he was sworn in and certainly before he had done anything.
Bush also happened to inherit a BUDGET SURPLUS. What'd he do, well he had his Republican cronies in Congress REPEAL the "Pay as you go" rules that Clinton passed to balance the budget. Bush had to repeal that rule to get his tax cuts passed. Even Bush's own Secretary of the Treasury (O'Niell) told Bush the country could NOT afford his tax cut and spending plans and they would lead to unending deficits. Bush asked for O'Niell's resignation. Then Bush went on to DOUBLE the federal DEBT during his administration.
He leaves office during the worst economic recesion since the Great Depression and the Largest federal deficit in history.
Somehow you think this is all Obama's fault. In case you didn't notice Obama has only submitted 1 budget so far, albeit terribly deficit ridden. Like I said earlier, the incredibly irresponsible BUSH years are going to cost us all for decades.

Look, Obama is taking every opportunity available to increase government control in the private sector i.e. SOCIALISM. They started when Bush was in office by forcing the loans which caused the collapse of the economy which led to unemployment rates which leads us to where we are now. Obviously Bush/Republicans share some of the blame because they were afraid of the childish games that they would be forced to play with the dems if they called them out so it’s not all the dems fault. It’s just like letting a 3 yr old touch the hot eye of a stove of course it is their ultimate mistake but you let them do it and you knew better. I believe what makes Obama’s inability to govern most obvious is when Bush creates a stimulus that clearly did not work so instead of watching, learning, and adapting he tries the exact same play only on a much larger scale that dwarfs all his predecessors combined. Not too visionary. He claims to be a uniter but does nothing but verbally threaten and taunt people across the aisle. Very childish but I do not expect much else from a liberal. When I say Liberal I am not clumping dems in with it, these are the Obama’s, Pelosi’s, and Frank’s of the world, despicable human beings.

We are not going to agree on the political discussion. I think we need to let this die and talk about diesel trucks, since that is what this forum is all about. Everyone has different views.

Don't get why people are so concerned about more fuel efficient cars.
Let's see its expected to add $400 to the price of a new car in 2012 and $970 by 2016, but on average people willsave $3000 over the life of the vehicle. Add to that it will decrease our dependence on oil and reduce emissions. I'm trying to find the down side here??


Well, the EPA just set the standard... They do not have any authority to "set standards" and quite frankly neither does congress!

Tyrants are dictating how we live...

You may not have a problem with it, I DO!

Well, the EPA just set the standard... They do not have any authority to "set standards" and quite frankly neither does congress!

Tyrants are dictating how we live...

You may not have a problem with it, I DO!

Well for an agency that has no authority to set standards they seem to set plenty of them.
I am so sick of all the bellyaching and whining about the new emision standards, if we put dinosaurs like you in charge, nothing would ever change.
This is hardly a form of tyranny. Some people in this country have had it so good for so long they don't have any concept of what real government abuses look like, or what tyranny or suffering really mean.
Why don't you go try living in a place like Somalia or Haiti, then you'll have something REAL to B*tch about.

Well for an agency that has no authority to set standards they seem to set plenty of them.
I am so sick of all the bellyaching and whining about the new emision standards, if we put dinosaurs like you in charge, nothing would ever change.
This is hardly a form of tyranny. Some people in this country have had it so good for so long they don't have any concept of what real government abuses look like, or what tyranny or suffering really mean.
Why don't you go try living in a place like Somalia or Haiti, then you'll have something REAL to B*tch about.

I can't see anything wrong with keeping it "so good" here in this country. The new emission standards are fine, but look at the "technology" they allow the manufacturers use for meeting those standards. Using more fuel so we can clean up engine emissions. Wow :rolleyes:

The LML trucks get better mileage than the LMM's.

I agree with keeping things "so good". That's kinda my point. Some people on here act like these new emission standards are the same as forcing them to work in a gulag for pennies a day. They forget that the emission controls are all about keeping things "good for everyone" not just keeping a select few happy.

Politics aside, most everyone here hates regeneration of the dpf. This needs to go. The engines need to be redesigned to be clean with out a dpf. Bring on the urea, but NO DPF. I really would have thought these newly developed engines, like the 6.7L powerstroke, and the 4.5L duramax would have been able to pass without a DPF.

Politics aside, most everyone here hates regeneration of the dpf. This needs to go. The engines need to be redesigned to be clean with out a dpf. Bring on the urea, but NO DPF. I really would have thought these newly developed engines, like the 6.7L powerstroke, and the 4.5L duramax would have been able to pass without a DPF.

No problem.
I agree DPF is not a perfect solution by any means. However, its a small trade off in my book. DPF costs ~0.75 mpg per tank from everything I've read on here on the LMM's, its gonna be much less on the LML's.
I look at it kinda like catalytic converters on gas engines, they were vilified for years as well, but they work. It took automakers alot longer in the 70's and 80's to figure out how to clean up gas engines and make any power, but they did it. Today's cars get twice the gas mileage as their 1960's counterparts and are ~96% cleaner at the same time.
DPF for all its faults, works. It cleans up particulate emissions on diesels by 85-100%. Diesel emission tech is still in its infancy and there will be some growing pains, but the simple truth is todays diesels are more powerful and cleaner than ever.

I don't really care about the politics of it either, I just know I don't want the air in my city to look like Shanghai. I figure I'm willing to have my truck average 16 MPG instead of 17 over its life so far, to help make that happen.