I'm not only thinking no, but I am thinking a build thread to update the '88 would be way more fun for you, and likely get you a nice ride. What are the goals?
I'm not only thinking no, but I am thinking a build thread to update the '88 would be way more fun for you, and likely get you a nice ride. What are the goals?
californiamilleghia said:Will they start Drive 55mph again ?
That whole thing (the NMSL) started in the days of 3-speed automatics, 4-speed manuals, V8 everything and bad aero. Then again, there's so many trucks and SUVs on the road now that maybe 55 mph still is the peak MPG speed of the national fleet.
In reply to GCrites80s :
The drop off is not as steep for most modern cars as it used to be due to taller top gears, better aero, etc. But for many, peak mpg speed is still below typical highway speeds. Taller gearing would raise the peak mpg speed a bit in my E38 (as well as actual peak mpg most likely), but as it sits now, peak MPG cruising on flat ground occurs in the 45 - 50 mph range as an example.
tuna55 said:I'm not only thinking no, but I am thinking a build thread to update the '88 would be way more fun for you, and likely get you a nice ride. What are the goals?
I have a similar thought. The '88 value will stay for a while since those generation of trucks are starting to become popular again. You could swap a later model LS in it and probably do a full suspension refresh for under 10K. Depending on your expected trailer size, a good set of shocks and rear air bags with a more powerful 5.3 or 6.0 should be able to cover any towing duties.
Then again, a newer truck with modern safety and options is really nice, just throwing out an idea.
-Rob
rslifkin said:In reply to GCrites80s :
The drop off is not as steep for most modern cars as it used to be due to taller top gears, better aero, etc. But for many, peak mpg speed is still below typical highway speeds. Taller gearing would raise the peak mpg speed a bit in my E38 (as well as actual peak mpg most likely), but as it sits now, peak MPG cruising on flat ground occurs in the 45 - 50 mph range as an example.
The EPA highway ratings are taken at 48 mph so that sounds like an attempt to approximate peak. Which is kinder to vehicles with bad aero than having it be 60-65 which is more typical of highway speeds in the U.S. when you include non-interstates and urban highways.
In reply to GCrites80s :
Are you sure about that 48 mph? I remember it used to be done at 55 and I thought the test run now includes a 65 mph segment. If they tested at 48, then I've got a couple vehicles that should have been rated easily 20 - 25% higher.
My 2000 Firebird says 29 highway on the sticker, I get 32-33 at 75mph.
rslifkin said:
In reply to GCrites80s :
Are you sure about that 48 mph? I remember it used to be done at 55 and I thought the test run now includes a 65 mph segment. If they tested at 48, then I've got a couple vehicles that should have been rated easily 20 - 25% higher.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
Click on the Highway and High Speed tabs. Average 48.3 and 48.37 respectively.
GCrites80s said:https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
Click on the Highway and High Speed tabs. Average 48.3 and 48.37 respectively.
In the descriptions there, it indicates that the highway test was only the complete source of highway mpg for 07 and older. 08+ vehicles had additional tests done to adjust the numbers. And the currently listed numbers on the fueleconomy.gov site for older vehicles have an estimated correction factor applied (so they're lower than the original window stickers showed). My Jeep was originally rated at 13/17, corrected mileage now shows 11/16.
The correction factors and original highway test are certainly unrealistic on many cars. My E38 is rated at 19 mpg highway (with the correction factor, I'd have to dig out the window sticker to find the original rating, may have been 21 if memory serves). In the real world, it'll get a reliable 23 - 24 mpg at 75, 22 - 23 at 80. Slowing down to 65 - 70 gets it up to 25, maybe 26. At a steady 50 mph cruise on without any big hills it'll do 28+.
I remember when the model year 2008 adjustments happened. I was working at an auto show and people were walking around aghast at the new MPG numbers since they didn't know what was going on.
I'm saying prices stay strong for a while-- people that need trucks and work them hard still have pent up demand from new truck shortages. We're headed into tax season, so people who are on the fence are about to have tax refunds, keeping demand strong. Inflation and strong used markets will keep prices high.
Commodity fuel prices aren't going to dislodge people from trucks en masse. It will take a more fundamental economic correction where people need to get out from under truck payments or pull equity out of their vehicle to make a big difference in used prices.
No. The new car market is still really tight, which makes the used car market tight. Gas prices aren't going to impact that
Maybe the larger trucks will suffer a blow but Ford's new Maverick truck is on like a 5 month backorder.
Ford won't accept any orders right now because they can't keep up with demand. I just talked to a dealer about this yesterday and the saleslady told me that and said she would put my name on the list.
I am expecting price gouging on the Maverick coming soon.
Picking up a surprisingly nice LBZ powered CC long bed Sierra tonight for less than $15,000 so I'd say in one particular case very much yes.
The average car buyer/American is both very very dumb and very very angry without good impulse control these people do not make rational fact based decisions. They're going to continue to F150 commute while driving up the prices of old Geos they will likely never drive.
All I know is I sat on that 1.0L stick shift Metro for years dreaming of trading it to some commuter in the outer counties for a tow pig with lousy MPG, but I gave up too soon and let it go. I still got a good trade, but an Expedition would have been cool too.
Interesting to note about speed vs. mileage. We took a family trip back in February and because we needed the space, used my K3500 crew cab pickup, with the 6.0 gas V8. There was a lot of extended highway driving. On 200-300 mile segments holding speeds between 80 and 85 mph, the fuel economy for that tank was 13 mpg. I dropped down to between 75 and 80 mph, and the mileage increased to 14. So I tried going even slower, keeping speeds between 70 and 75, and fuel economy actually dropped back to 13. So I tried to keep the speeds up as much as traffic permitted. Best tank was 14.8 mpg driving between 75 and 80 mph. This is a truck that around town usually gets between 11 and 12 mpg.
Thankfully we got home before gas hit $3.50 a gallon.
$5+ a gallon was what we up north of the border pay in good times,8 bucks a gallon now and probably hit $10 in the not too distant future.
Since $$$ has no real value in today's world, I suspect that Truck sales will stay strong until fuel is actually not available. At the moment is is just gouging, since the increased $$$ makes fuel appear at the pump no problem.
In reply to NOHOME :
Its not gouging, at least, not by the gas stations. The price of oil, as well as gasoline and heating oil (basically diesel) has ben on a tear due to fear about the invasion.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/crude-oil
Took a pretty big hit today, though.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it goes either way. Back in '08 there were still a lot of relatively unsophisticated pickups/SUVs in daily circulation so a swap to something smaller and new was a significant savings. But trucks of the past 5-10 years really don't have all THAT awful gas mileage by comparison, and those that really fill frequently are already spending a ton as they likely need a truck for big truck things. However, I forsee big savings on certain new trucks if A) gas keeps going another dollar or two and B) the chip backlog catches up. Along I-75 outside of Detroit there are acres and acres of brand new Silverados as far as the eye can see... just waiting on those little silicon thinky parts.
My Dad doesn't seem to be all that worried though. Bought out his lease on the Niro Hybrid (50+ MPG), sold it to Carvana for a 5k profit, and against all odds SOMEHOW just scored a lease on a brand new Tacoma SR5 4x4—at 2k down, 290/mo all-in. That's clearly not gas increase related but it's still very surprising to me... not sure I'll actually believe it until I see the damn thing in his driveway. I mean, the Toyota dealer near me is only stocked with used competing brands, and not a whole at that. Meanwhile, friends out west are seeing 20k markups on 4 runners and the like. Did Michigan not get the memo? Is my Dad a master negotiator? Up is down and down is up.
kevlarcorolla said:$5+ a gallon was what we up north of the border pay in good times,8 bucks a gallon now and probably hit $10 in the not too distant future.
The trouble with you Canadians is you have a lot of country to put roads into and not a lot of people to pay for those same roads. So you pay more than we Yankees do.
In my new-ish 2013 F-150 SuperCrew, highway mileage at 70mph is greater than 20mpg. AT 80mph it's less than 17mpg, a 15% difference. Pulling an enclosed trailer, it's more like a 30-40% difference. Only so much aerodynamic improvement is possible when you're moving a great big object through air at high speeds.
In reply to frenchyd :
And our liberal gov has added a major carbon tax to the fuel on top of the allready heavily taxed fuel.
And cancelled pipelines and other oil related projects in favour of buying our fuel elsewhere.
And thats working out just fine like all the other products farmed to other countries.
ShinnyGroove (Forum Supporter) said:In my new-ish 2013 F-150 SuperCrew, highway mileage at 70mph is greater than 20mpg. AT 80mph it's less than 17mpg, a 15% difference. Pulling an enclosed trailer, it's more like a 30-40% difference. Only so much aerodynamic improvement is possible when you're moving a great big object through air at high speeds.
Yes for these purposes "bad aero" means big too. I seldom think in terms of cD by itself except when comparing vehicles of very similar size. Instead I think in terms of Drag Area which is cD multiplied by frontal area.
rslifkin said:In reply to GCrites80s :
The drop off is not as steep for most modern cars as it used to be due to taller top gears, better aero, etc. But for many, peak mpg speed is still below typical highway speeds. Taller gearing would raise the peak mpg speed a bit in my E38 (as well as actual peak mpg most likely), but as it sits now, peak MPG cruising on flat ground occurs in the 45 - 50 mph range as an example.
Peak MPG in my slippery Volvo is 65.
Peak MPG in my 41 year old Mazda is about 75...
You'll need to log in to post.
