I don't think DOD is going to be that meaningful to the average truck buyer. They aren't overly concerned with fuel economy to start with, so 1 to 1.5mpg isn't going to make or break many sales.

But it will help GM's CAFE average quite a bit, particularly compared to the other manufacturers. With the new F150 getting so much heavier, they are going to be playing catch up big-time vs GM with DOD. Think of the percentage of F150s per year as compared to the whole of FoMoCo's sales of the total. If the environmental lobby is successful in getting car and truck CAFE standards merged in the next few years then Ford's going to be in a world of hurt. GM will be too but that extra 1 MPG will put them in a better position to work from.

 

I've said it before and here it is again: no automotive company has ever paid a CAFE fine, despite yearly violations, and no company ever will. Since the fines are defered against "future improvements," the Feds haven't received a red cent. Considering that pension and retiree health care obligations have the potential to put the domestic auto industry into bankruptcy, CAFE is insignificant in comparison.

However, GM will have a huge competitive advantage if gas prices spike. Between having the lightest and smallest full-sized trucks, not to mention DOD, they will be leading the industry in fuel economy. That's assuming that fuel prices spike.

Back in reality, bigger is better as Dodge has recently found out. Judging by the popularity of the new Hemi, power is important and pick-up buyers can afford the gas. GM is going its own way while Dodge, Ford and Nissan are following the same "800-pound gorilla" strategy. Short term, I wouldn't bet on GM.

 

You're looking at that completely wrong, but don't feel bad, the media make the same mistake. Incremental fuel economy gains provide far better results on gas hogs than they do on fuel misers. Let's take an example.

A truck gets 15 mpg. You improve its efficiency 8% so it gets 16.2 mpg. Big deal, you say, that's just a lousy 1.2 mpg improvement. Well, over 1500 miles it will burn 7.4 fewer gallons (92.6 versus 100)

Now take an average mid-sized sedan getting 30 mpg. Increase its efficiency by the same 8% and now it gets 32.4 mpg. Wow, that's a 2.4 more mpg, a far better improvement, eh? No, it's not. In those same 1500 miles of travel, it saves only 3.7 gallons of fuel (46.3 versus 50 mpg).

The bottom line is, GM is saving more fuel by attacking its biggest gas guzzlers than Toyota is by making fleets of Priuses. It just doesn't provide the "wow" factor that gets the short-sighted media and tree-huggers all revved up.

 

GM sold more trucks last year than anyone, the gap will widen next year. They aren't hurting, and Nissan is no threat whatsoever.

So you don't like the styling. 1,800,000 GMT-800 buyers last year would beg to differ.

 

i think you're being a little shortsighted yourself. a big hulking heavy truck is 1)going to spend less time in DoD mode and 2) will be getting a smaller bump in efficiency from DoD than a smaller car would.

i mean, its nice and easy for calculations and dazzlement to assume that you get an 8% bump in efficency all the time, but that's not how DoD works is it? even over a long 1500 mile trip, there are more times that DoD will have to stay off on a truck than on a car. simply because of its mass and profile. i mean, you might get gusts of headwind making your truck fire on all cylinders for miles because its punching a humongous hole in the air at 70mph where a car would just shrug off that wind.

 

I assume redzed is talking about the restyling of the Silverado (I dislike it too). If so, Silverado accounted for only 716,000 sales in 2002. The Tahoe/Suburban don't have the same fugly front-end, and the Sierra restyling was far more successful.

BTW, I'd be willing to bet that GM's gap will shrink or even disappear (unfortunately ).

 

I'd have to disagree. Trucks, like SUV's are rarely used to their full potential. Most spend the majority of their life carrying one passenger, and no significant load. Most trucks have more power than neccesary, in order to provide adequate power when loaded. You don't need 285hp to propel a truck down the highway. Only approx. 20hp are needed to maintain 60mph. Heck, even at 2000rpm, a GenII 5.3 is capable of approx. 90hp at full throttle, but instead puts out far less due to part throttle pumping losses. Turn off 4 cylinders, and the engine is still capable of 45 hp, and will have significantly lower pumping losses. D.O.D will be best used on trucks and SUV's, thats why GM intends to implement it there first. Bring it on!!!

 

you think DoD will be smart enought out smooth out those "head boping stabbing drivers?" We all know someone that can't understand the concept of being steady on the gas to maintain speed... instead they always pulse the gas, constantly lurching the car slightly thru the whole trip down the highway.... Else DOD will be having a fit swtichigno n and off every time that driver pulses on the gas down the highway..