Where GM should be going...

[mulerose]

Instead of re designing the 06 DMax for more power, they should be going for more economy. The people with chips claim better mpg, why can't GM improve in this area. I believe in the future more buying decisions will be mpg based than power based. They have enough power now for my needs.

[Brad Pelot]

Agreed! I would like to see both.
I have been wanting to buy a new pickup, but I can't because the new ones get crappy mileage. Did I mention that diesel is 2.45 a gallon.

[MIKE MOG]

Man, One the way home from work tonight I saw diesel for 2.59 a gal here in town. I don't get it. I just came back from Hilton Head SC. and paid 2.15 a gal there with the cost vering from Clevend Ohio to SC, Whats up with that? How can 1 BP be Cheaper than another?
Mike

[D-max Man]

When auto manufacturers design an engine, they have to get a balance of power - economy - and longevity.

More power reduces longevity and increases emissions.

It is not an easy task to achieve all three!

[BIGJEFFSCV]

I wish diesel was 2.45!
I paid 2.60 last Fri. and it was the cheapest within
10 miles. The station closest to my home is 2.75.
Great CA. taxes.

[Jim Brzozowski]

More power does not necessarily increase emisions. If one increases the efficiency of the fuel mixture burn it may actually be cleaner coming out the exhaust than the inefficient ones.
I've seen higher horspower engines that used less fuel than those low compression smog motors of the days gone by. The more fuel converted to energy within the combustion chamber/cylinder, the less there is left over to go out the exhaust. And I completely agree that economy of fuel usage better be looked at real closly. When fuel is $3.00 a gallon soon, and it will be IMHO, who wants an inefficient engine? Come on GM, lets get that boost up there and make better use of the fuel.

[javadog]

There are also combustion catalyst systems that greatly increase efficiency and reduce emmisions.
In some the catalyst is sprayed as a liquid solution into the intake system.
Unfortunately most consumers are not like the people
here on TDP. They just want their car to start when they turn the key and are lucky to get the oil changed once in a while. I don't think the catalyst
solution reservoir would be refilled regularly in many cases. Fuel efficiency is just not demanded by the average consumer right now. In polls it tends to hover near the bottom of the list of purchase
considerations. That is pretty sad if you ask me.

[G. Gearloose]

An old K20 with the aerodynamics of a brick (or F4), with a clapped-out 6.2 designed with 70's technology, can out milage in flat cruise a $45,000 spectacle of cutting edge electronics, sensors and metalurgy; The modern diesel pickup with a 25 year advantage has even less to boast about nowdays, unless your yanking bobcats around all day.
The 2x better milage advantage of the early eighties has turned into a handicap, because if you forget the extra reserve tow/haul capacity for a moment, unlayden diesel MPG has gone down over twenty-five years, while thoughtfully equipped gas engine MPG has practically doubled.

[More Power]

Our LB7 powered Lil Red (http://www.thedieselpage.com/features/project2-16.htm) helped to show what fuel economy can be when using taller gearing and a couple thousand pounds lighter by producing ~25-mpg at 75-mph. A 1982 6.2L turbo GMC I owned a few years ago would deliver 22-24-mpg at 65-mph, using 3.42 gears and an OD automatic. That 4x4 standard cab 1/2-ton truck was a lot lighter than the current trucks. Weight, gearing, drag and driving speed all make a difference.

MP

[Jim Brzozowski]

MP, you've about said it all. Its all basic physics. It takes energy to move mass. Mass times acceleration equals velociety. There are so many variables that come into play when trying to predict or compare fuel mileage, there is little basis for comparison where there is a level playing field. 25 MPG sounds good. I personally would like a taller gear when running empty. I figured out a long time ago that if you drive enough and you can double your mileage by purchasing a new vehicle, go ahead it will eventually be free over a long period of time. Of course that was back in the days when no one thought twice about 10 mpg trucks. I know I had a couple like that.

[Marty Lau]

Yup More Power hit on several thing here. The topic where should GM be going??????

IMNSHO they should produce a nice little V-6 Diesel that produces ~200 HP and they could put in Tahoes, 'Burbans, C/K 1500 and LD 2500's. They also should produce 150hp I-4 Diesels that they could put in smaller outfits. GM should be offering the C/K series with 3.42 gears. But heck GM might sell more stuff if they did that. What they need is to fire the current CEO who is a bean counter and get either a Sales or car/truck kind of CEO.

[D-max Man]

GM has developed a 5 liter V6 Duramax, I saw it 3 years ago. They were testing it then. I don't know why it hasn't hit the market yet?

[Marty Lau]

Originally posted by D-max Man:
GM has developed a 5 liter V6 Duramax, I saw it 3 years ago. They were testing it then. I don't know why it hasn't hit the market yet? It hasn't hit the market because when Ford dropped their V-6 Diesel program with Navistar because of the 6.0 PS issues, GM figured they would "save" money by stopping development and since Ford didn't have it why would GM. GM also stpped teh delovpment of I-4 TD for the Colorada and other same size outfits. Bean counters at work again.