• May 18th 2010 at 6:56PM
  • 44
Chevrolet Silverado – Click above for high-res image gallery

General Motors' full-size pickup trucks may be next in line to get thermostatically controlled louvers behind the grille to improve aerodynamics. SRG Global, which produces a variety of components for numerous manufacturers, is developing just such a system for GM's trucks. Similar systems will debut later this year on the Chevrolet Cruze and later on the new Ford Focus.

One of the biggest sources of aerodynamic drag and turbulence comes from the air flowing through the engine compartment. Closing off the grille to limit such airflow can drastically reduce this drag. However, the engine still needs air for cooling, especially at lower speeds. At higher speeds, the increased air velocity means less open area is required to get adequate cooling air. Thermostatically controlled slats monitor coolant temperatures and then open or close as needed. SRG's new designs will integrate the slats into the grille structure, reducing the cost of the system and making assembly simpler. Eventually, all vehicles will likely use similar active airflow technologies.

  • 2007 Chevrolet Silverado LT, Z71 Crew Cab. X07CT_SL085 (United States)
  • null
  • Image Credit: null
  • 2007 Chevrolet Silverado LTZ Extended Cab. X07CT_SL069 (United States)
  • 2007 Chevrolet Silverado LTZ Extended Cab. X07CT_SL077 (United States)
  • 2007 Chevrolet Silverado LT, Z71 Crew Cab. X07CT_SL093 (United States)
  • 2007 GMC Sierra SLE Extended Cab. X07GM_SL070 (United States)
  • 2007 Chevrolet Silverado LTZ. X07CT_SL020 (United States)

I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

    • 1 Second Ago
      • 5 Years Ago
      I sure could have used this in cold climates where I used cardboard instead. Doesn't matter the vehicle, too much cold airflow makes it hard to get heat into the passenger compartment. The old Datsun PU was a frigid mistress.
      • 5 Years Ago
      In addition to the active grill, here's a way to add 10-15% to the FE:


      Don't worry, it lifts up level for when you have more cargo in the bed...

      Sincerely, Neil
        • 5 Years Ago
        I don't know why the Aztek doesn't work this way. I do know that every pickup truck that adds a sloped cap like this *does* improve. The trailing shape is more important than the front, though having one right helps the other.

        So, having a louvered active grill (or just a properly designed intake grill and flow through the engine compartment) along with the right tapered shape in the back, makes it possible to save a lot of fuel.

        Sincerely, Neil
        • 5 Years Ago
        I've seen that before.. very cool. Not very manly looking, but kammback = awesome.
        • 5 Years Ago
        The Aztek is not a low aero drag vehicle...

        The folks that put this or similar aero caps on their pickups get similar savings -- the facts on the benefits are clear.

        • 5 Years Ago
        The idea is to get forwarding force from the air flowing over the car (another way : use of Kamm effect.) . So its resolving the air created force to downward and vertical components and design for an angle and area so that total force can be optimized ( or maximized without affecting convince )

        The Prius, Accord Crosstour, ZdX ,BMW X6 do this.

        Back to point : Aztek also was Kamm-tailed , then how its not a low aero drag vehicle ?
        • 5 Years Ago
        If its true then Aztek should have 15% FE improvement compared to others.
      • 5 Years Ago
      If it's part of a commercial fleet or farm, then fine. But if you are an individual, then I say, the truck gets added to the CAFE total for the automaker's cars.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Hey I know how they could really reduce gas consumption -- don't make the oversized truck in the first place!
        • 5 Years Ago
        OK, thanks Mr. Obvious. Trucks are needed sometimes, but more often than not guys are making up for a small penis with a big truck. I cannot count the number of times I've seen some jackass cruising around town in a spify clean oversized truck hauling nothing whatsoever. And if they do have something, chances are it's a lawnmower at best.
        • 5 Years Ago

        as if the damn grill was the problem with those retarded vehicles.
        here in europe we have trucks too but they are unattractive boring flatbeds for actual work. not for expressing inbreading, gargantuan ignorance and garth brooks fandom.

        this is a work truck with a bed in europe http://www.vw-naestved.dk/data/infoblok/images/3-NyeBilerPriserTekniklt_ladvogn-MidtLeftImage.jpg

        people don't drive their family in that because it's a work vehicle!

        all the retarded excuses such as you need it to haul your fat momma! :) is bs. noone here drives the usa type truck because it's not needed. and we have uneven unpaved farm areas too..
        and for really rough dirt we have these things called tractors and combine harvesters! you got that!? :)
        no brokeback mountain trucks!
        • 5 Years Ago
        They need to do more than add louvers. They need a total aerodynamic redesign, and bring back the el camino while you are at it. But make it a plug in hybrid.

        • 5 Years Ago
        Wait, so because someone is not always using a truck for work purposes means they shouldn't buy one? If you're not carrying 5 people in your car and have the trunk full then you're as bad as they are aren't you?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Yeah! I move refrigerators with my Civic hybrid all day.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @ TYLER:

        Ford had a poll done on who uses trucks and how much of the time? Wow...now that must have been some honest results...
        • 5 Years Ago
        Lots of people need a truck. Why not make them more efficient?
        • 5 Years Ago
        You know that the majority of people who have trucks use them, right? I know this from all the people I know who have a truck, and from statistics when Ford did a poll about it a few years ago.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Cool! hypermilers use this trick. Anything would help for aerodynamics on a truck!!

      Trucks aren't going away any time soon... let's make them as efficient as possible.
      What would help most is putting high tech engines in the things, instead of oldschool pushrod motors with no variable valve timing, though.

      C+ for effort.
        • 5 Years Ago
        When i said cigar-like torque curve, i'm talking about a naturally aspirated, DOHC motor with VVT on both cams.

        "Can you tune an engine to get peak power or torque at 2k rpm? Yes, but then it would have a severely inhibited peak value and wouldn't look so comparable."

        But like you said, it's not about peak power.

        "Rocker arm stoppers can't come off. Valves can't float. Headgaskets can't bust. Belts can't break. Turbo compressor wheels can't shatter."

        Then build those specific parts strong on a high tech motor.
        I have seen BMW engines from the mid 90's, who had VVT and DOHC, both fairly new at the time, last 200, 300, 400k without rebuilds. These motors started production in the mid 90's, in fact - they were also used to power the 4000+lb 7 series cars.

        It can be done.

        Adding new technology to motors does not make them less durable. Screwing up the engineering makes them less durable!!! our domestic companies are finally catching on and putting high tech motors in everything - why leave out trucks?

        It's a cost thing, plain and simple. And the fact that truck owners don't care about fuel economy and/or don't want to spend a lot on a truck.

        Dual variable valve timing makes more torque, across the band, than a larger SOHC, or a pushrod motor. Ford's doing it. It seems like this kind of tech is also going into their trucks too. Look at the new 5.0 v8, it's a marvel.

        IMHO it sounds like you just don't trust new stuff.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Ppl aren't going to sacrifice 5000 lbs of towing capacity for 10 mpg. Notice that the small truck market has effectively died. Ppl who are buying trucks are buying capable trucks and accepting the gas penalty."

        I still want a small truck. I'd love a Volt-Camino -- with some lumber-racks, it would be perfect for my purposes. The problem is that I currently own a small truck, and nobody has built a small truck that's better than the one I currently own. The new Ranger, Colorado, Tundra, and Frontier are all the same truck I have -- but they cost 10x as much.

        There are a few features that would make a small truck better than what I have:
        1. Diesel
        2. Any sort of plug-in vehicle.
        3. Any sort of hybrid, with a 110V power-take-off outlet. Diesel-electric hybrid would be preferable.
        4. Subaru AWD

        I want the extra efficiency. I don't want the extra size -- parking a full-size truck is extra work that I don't need to do, since I don't haul anything larger 4'x8' plywood/drywall/mdf. On the other hand, most minivans are just a hair too small to actually haul this stuff -- except for the Honda Odyssey. I smell an attempt to sell big/profitable trucks by neutering midsize vehicles.
        • 5 Years Ago
        I'd have to disagree with you, Corner49, it sounds like you've fallen for some old discredited hybrid myths.

        Hybrid technology like start-stop and regenerative braking save more than you think, for trucks it could mean going from 15 to 19 mpg. Over 15,000 miles that is 211 gallons saved, about $633 at current fuel prices. That's a lot of "pennies". That improvement comes in spite of the added weight of a larger battery.

        More importantly, the record of the past 10 years reveals that hybrids are more reliable than average. With a much more powerful starter motor that can rev the engine up to full operating speed before applying fuel and spark, starting is much more reliable and less stressful on the IC engine. Of course, having the engine run less also saves wear and tear on the engine, that includes useless idling.

        If you really don't ever condone throwing technology at a problem, then shouldn't you be driving a horse cart? And why are you using that most technological of all solutions, known as the "Internet"?
        • 5 Years Ago
        Mustang 3.7 v6

        305hp @ 6500
        280tq @ 4250

        2 valve 4.6 v8

        248hp @ 4750
        294tq @ 4000

        3 valve 4.6 v8

        292hp @ 5700
        320tq @ 4000

        Now consider this, a DOHC, dual variable motor is going to put out a cigar-like torque curve, whereas the 4.6 SOHC is gonna have most of it's torque at peak RPM, more like a steady ramp up.

        The 3.7 DOHC makes less torque at peak, but the lower-end availability makes for more overall torque. Therefore, it is more suited for truck duty.

        I dunno if you've ever driven a car with a SOHC motor before, but you'd know that a hallmark of that single cam design is that the torque and horsepower are very peaky, and it is REALLY annoying to drive a small SOHC motor around in town because you have to keep the RPMs elevated. Not having variable valve timing makes this even worse.

        You don't need a friggin' 8 speed transmission when you have a thick wall of torque across the powerband. DOHC dual variable valve timing motors have this characteristic.
        • 5 Years Ago
        You can have durability and efficiency at the same time. Look at all the Japanese cars of yore.

        High tech engines are actually better for torque, but can be tuned for horsepower. Dual VVT, for example, essentially gives you a torque curve that looks like a cigar on a dyno graph. Even Honda's little k20 motors are like this.

        For example, the mustang 3.7 puts out more torque and horsepower over 2,000rpm compared to Ford's old 4.6L 2 valve v8. It also has vastly greater fuel economy. It's not even tuned for truck duty either; it could potentially outdo a lot of smaller truck v8's on the market.

        That's what you need in a truck, right? steady torque and lots of it.

        Well, you can have your cake ( power ) and eat it too ( mpg ). But right now, they just throw big, low tech blocks in trucks. It's a price thing. Those motors are cheap.
        But you could save a lot of fuel by paying $1000-$2000 extra for a truck.

        I'm not gonna defend the ridgeline. Honda REALLY screwed the pooch on that car. Isn't the titan a rebranded dodge?
        • 5 Years Ago
        All of those nifty elctronics are great for the numbers game, but the truck world is galaxies apart from the compact car world.

        Could manufacturers make a 50 mpg truck? Absolutely. Would it be able to cross rough terrain, haul a decent size boat, or last 250K miles? When pigs fly.

        Truck buyers are looking for durability, price, and capability. Higher HP almost without fail means less torque, which is what truck buyers are more concerned with.

        I'm glad manufacturers are improving the efficiency of trucks, and I think they're rightly starting with aerodynamics first. The Ridgeline didn't sell well. The Titan didn't sell well. But the Tundra's held its own. The Ridgeline made compromises, the Titan made compromises, the Tundra was up to task. Notice a trend?

        Ppl aren't going to sacrifice 5000 lbs of towing capacity for 10 mpg. Notice that the small truck market has effectively died. Ppl who are buying trucks are buying capable trucks and accepting the gas penalty.

        High tech motors are in direct opposition to what truck buyers are looking for.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Ford is tweaking their twin-turbocharged EcoBoost 3.5L V6 for the F150. The current version that's in the Flex and Taurus SHO has a nearly flat torque curve starting at 300 lb-ft at 1,500 rpm, peaking at 350 lb-ft.

        Also, turbocharged diesel engines are in big tow trucks and delivery vehicles - the good ol' American pickup has a long way to go in improving fuel efficiency while simultaneously improving torque.

        There are dozens of requests (with hundreds of positive votes) on Ford's website for keeping the Ranger but having a diesel option, as well as asking for a diesel option for the F-150.

        Hell, look at Chevy's hybrid pickups - no loss in power while providing as much as 30% better mileage.

        There's room for significant improvement without screwing around with real-time adjustable louvres. Sheesh.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Time to think: i think that's taking it too far.

        An electric truck would be nice, but the investment in buying that kind of vehicle would be gargantuan. it is an even worse value proposition than an electric car.

        You do have a great point, turbo diesel motors have been commonplace and are a good example of high tech goodness in action. I think you don't see a lot of them due to the price.

        IMHO, high tech car motors adapted for truck use are the best option. They are certainly a good middle ground between a truck with a dirt cheap 1990's tech motor and say.. a turbodiesel or hybrid.

        Ford must be really confident in their ecoboost to put it in the f150. That's very cool. I was expecting them to just drop the mustang 3.7 in as a base option though.
        • 5 Years Ago
        GM doesn't have VVT on its truck engine, but they do have VCT.
        • 5 Years Ago
        @neptronix (original post)

        Actually, pushrod doesn't preclude VVT (nor are pushrods antiquated, but with as many times as that topic has been rehashed on here and the autoblog main site, if you still believe that at this point I'm obviously not going to change your mind with this post). GM has had VVT on their 5.3L V-8 for years. It's an ingenious implementation actually.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Time to think: I agree with the diesel comment. When I finally kill off the engine in my S10 (192xxx) , I'll probably swap in a VW 1.9. But we haven't gotten diesels to choose from. Mahindra is coming. Maybe that will convince the big 3.

        I have to disagree with the hybrid truck comment. "just as powerful". Problem is, it's not just as CAPABLE. Hybrid towing capacity 6k lbs. Non hybrid 10k lbs. I mean, like you said, in theory, on paper, it should work. Maybe the tech wasn't there and it just needs an improvement, or maybe the weight wasn't justified. But in the real world, it didn't work as well as it did on paper this time.

        I'm not trying to argue about technology. I think it's great. That's why I come to AB and ABG, but it has to be utilized properly too. Like I said, what works in cars doesn't always work on trucks and what works on paper doesn't always work in the real world.

        Nept: "Then build those specific parts strong on a high tech motor." Ok, but that means making them bigger, and heavier, and paying for more engineers and more tests. So then at the end of the day you end up with a $50k 1/2 ton truck that doesn't work like you intended because it had to be built to different specs.

        "Adding new technology to motors does not make them less durable."
        No, not always, but in the case of smaller components in high stress applications, yes. Unless you use better materials or engineering and manufacturing practices....and those cost money. I'm sure we could, with current technology, make electric cars that were charged by energy in the road using nuclear power. But as rainbows and fairy dust as that sounds, nobody has the funds to implement it.

        For every argument I have, your answer is "throw money at it". Where do you expect that money to come from?

        Chris M: are you talking about hybrid trucks or hybrid tech on ICE trucks. I'm talking about hybrid technology like stop start and regen braking on ICE vehicles like the Fiesta. While the starters are more powerful, are the engines designed for it? Oil isn't typically delivered until the motor starts. Can you properly lube a motor to accommodate repeated stop-starts? The beefed up starter seems to only address the fact that more gas has to be applied to start an engine, not durability.

        Having the engine run less, especially at idle can actually decrease reliability. An engine running, especially without load (idling), in low stress situations is usually good for a motor as evidenced by the fact that a regularly driven car usually go 200K miles without issue, where-as a car that cycles from sitting for prolonged times and then driven usually doesn't.

        I'll go ahead and concede that start-stop should have little issue with lubrication as it goes from running, to dead, to start in a matter of 30 sec, but to say it's better than letting it idle is without a doubt false.

        Grouch: I agree, however, like I've pointed out on AB when models I'm excited about get axed. I'm rarely representative of the market in general. I was looking forward to the orlando, a car based 7 seater. I got an RX8 as a family sports car, but concede that it shouldn't have been made. It wouldn't have taken near the bad press if it'd gone to ppl who were looking for true sports cars than ppl looking for practical transportation.

        LS2/7: I agree about the superchargers, however, they don't have the FE improvement of turbos, because you can't get out of boost and driveline drag. Superchargers are more for packaging (dimensions) than they are about efficiency.
        • 5 Years Ago
        neptronix, I don't know where you are getting that the 3.7 V6 in the Mustang outpowers the 4.6 2 valve in the Mustang.
        260hp@5250rpm, 302ft-lbs@4000.
        So the 3.7 makes more power over 5000rpm, to the 7K limiter.

        Apples to apples.

        Now, if you contrast to the 2 valve in the current F-150, the 3.7 makes more power from 4750rpm and higher.
        and to the 3 valve in the F-150, the 3.7 makes more power from over 5850 rpm to 7000

        Ford needs an 8 speed automatic (ZF's) for the 3.7 to really shine in the F-150.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "Nept: "Then build those specific parts strong on a high tech motor." Ok, but that means making them bigger, and heavier, and paying for more engineers and more tests. So then at the end of the day you end up with a $50k 1/2 ton truck that doesn't work like you intended because it had to be built to different specs."

        That's funny because the cost of the 2011 v6 and v8 Mustangs are within $1000 of what the previous 2010 'truck motor' versions had.

        So, worst case scenario, a truck with a modern engine cost you $2000.... well, if you are running around hauling things for 100,000+ miles, you would save a hell of a lot of money on gas, and that extra $2000 would be a drop in the bucket!

        High tech does not mean weak, expensive, or unreliable! It can be done. It has been done. And GM and Chrysler will be playing catch up to Ford very soon.
        • 5 Years Ago
        A positive displacement supercharger (twin screw, roots) gives exactly the same results down low as increasing displacement. It's great for low down torque. Besides, if you really want low down torque, you get a Diesel. That is a TURBO Diesel. Every big rig on the road is a turbo Diesel, and they need torque more than a truck does.

        There are plenty of great alternative engine designs for trucks, the automakers just aren't emphasizing fuel economy right now in their trucks.
        • 5 Years Ago
        If you truly want off-the-line torque, than a series hybrid would do the trick (just like diesel train locomotives, just scaled down quite a bit). An optimized turbocharged V6 diesel would generate all the needed electricity to run an electric motor (or two) without being directly connected to the jerking and stress of the powertrain.

        You want to talk simplicity? Fixed ratio, single speed gearbox between the electric motor and the drive shaft. You can easily get 400 or more lb-ft of torque from 1 rpm up through 5,000 rpm. Seeing how electric motors have been moving 100,000 tons of freight since the 1930s when diesel-electric locomotives were first used on the railroads, this would be a major improvement in low-end torque and mpg efficiency that no ICE alone can beat.
        • 5 Years Ago
        No. The next Titan was potentially going to be a re-branded Dodge, not the current one.

        All that tech is great. Really. But again, trucks are a different ball game. Peak power and peak torque mean little. Turbos can't get you off-idle torque, or superchargers, or any other tech that imports like to use to debunk "no replacement for displacement". The truth is trucks don't allow for compensation. They need real world, low tech power and durability.

        Yes, that stuff has lasted in a bunch of 2400 lb cars, but that is nothing like a 6,000 lb vehicle towing 10,000 lbs. The stress on every component of a truck is like nothing else in motor-dom.

        Yes it's about price, but it's also about durability, and real world requirements. Can you tune an engine to get peak power or torque at 2k rpm? Yes, but then it would have a severely inhibited peak value and wouldn't look so comparable.

        Durability. Trucks get beat, not always daily, but they have to be prepared to do so. Some trucks may never tow more than 1000 lbs, but being full-size trucks, they have to be built to the standards of the guy who's truck earns him his livelihood and who DAILY tows 8000 lbs.

        Rocker arm stoppers can't come off. Valves can't float. Headgaskets can't bust. Belts can't break. Turbo compressor wheels can't shatter.

        These are all failures I've seen on "techy" imported engines. I'm not saying they're bad engines. But these tech failures would fail you right out of the truck market. And these were not engines that were towing 10k lbs.

        You may be new to the truck market or just think it's like the car market. It's not. At all. DOHC has been tried. The torque curve wasn't there. Less rotating mass wasn't as adept to withstanding the stress. More, smaller, moving parts become the weak links.

        I'm not saying "refute all technology". DI is a win-win in all cases, but you can't throw technology at a problem and not expect to have more problems later. Make something more complex, and it becomes more complicated and more prone to failure. This can be engineered out, but usually takes a decade or so.

        The truck market is highly competitive and really isn't the place for experimenting. Ask Toyota, Honda, and Nissan.

        I don't ever condone throwing technology at a problem. Start-stop and regenerative braking are epic fails to me. The pennies they save me in gas are not worth the hard starts or added weight. I can get a solar cell for $45 and it will provide juice even when I'm not braking. So why are we scavenging? We already had smart alternators in the Civic HX, right? So, when did charging a battery become so critical in ICE cars that we needed 100 charging techs thrown in so the battery stays topped up?
      • 5 Years Ago
      jp, -the truck is oversized because.....?

      Just because you prefer smaller doesn't mean that no one actually works for a living. The US consumes about 1 million half ton pick-up trucks a year used to actually build things. Some people get their hands calloused and dirty to make stuff that we all use.

      One of the problems with environmentalism is that it is just a short distance to elitist thinking. One would think to applaud innovation that promotes incremental efficiency in vehicles necessary for modern life, rather than condemn the existence of actually dirty work.
        • 5 Years Ago

        with that last comment. There are countries for you. America's not one of them.

        Are trucks used as penile compensation? Yes. Are corvettes, porsches, even *gasp* prius....es? Yes. Should that be illegal? No.

        I'm getting really tired of ppl thinking they have the right to tell me what to do. They pay for their gas. They pay more in gas tax than you. What, then, is your issue? Don't even try to say emissions. The effect of personal transportation is negligible in that regard. Every bit of CO and NO my 1986 RX7 has spewed in it's 24 years is less than what is required to manufacture 1 prius a year.

        Does a person who owns a truck have to carry something 100% of the time? No. You do realize if they did, there would be *gasp* worse emissions, right? Trucks need to be capable when called on, just like AWD cars don't really NEED AWD 90% of the time. But on that snowy, icey day, or on that muddy, back road, you find it was worth the premium.

        Maybe it's not to you, but thank god we live in a country where we can make choices that don't get us fired because were late because we weren't legally able to purchase a capable vehicle.

        Maybe barracks should be built onto every workplace, so we would never have to utilize transportation. Eliminate all choices. Consumables must be made, grown, produced in-house. No transportation of goods. It must all be done on relatively little energy because only solar power can be utilized in places like TX where there is little water or wind. No courting or dating, that's just unnecessary extravagance. It's wasteful. We'll just wack into tubes and all babies shall be products of artificial insimination.

        I'm all for the efficiency game, but some of you guys are worse than the apartment dwelling, detailed 4x4 truck driving guys with your obnoxiousness. His "wastefulness" is no worse than your snobbery. Make your choices. Allow others to live or die by theirs. Mandating that they follow your lead makes you no more intelligent.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Well no s*** dick tracy, trucks are needed. But you see people utilizing all the space and power? No. It's mostly a p**** enhancement of sorts used to haul around lawn mowers. A small pickup truck of the 90s would have done the job just as well. But lets face it, we americans love to waste a much s*** as possible.
        • 5 Years Ago
        jpm, don't get bent out of shape. You didn't say anything about trucks not having a use in your original post.

        Either ways, i agree with both of you.

        IMHO you should need proof that you actually use the car for something other than monster truck duty to buy it, though. I don't like seeing people drive these around casually for pleasure either. I feel the same way about SUVs though.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Corner49; you really don't care about air quality, do you.
        That rx7 is one of the dirtiest, least fuel efficient motors ever, go figure that you own one.

        That 'what it takes to manufacture a car' argument is old, tired, and useless.

        It takes that to create any car. And guess what, trucks easily emit 4 times what a prius does, unless you have a 4 cylinder truck, then it's more like 2x what a prius puts out.

        Don't get hysterical. I'm just saying i'm sick of people buying huge v8 trucks just to drive to work in every day, alone. Pissing away our limited oil supply and polluting just so you can have a cheap v8 car ( v8 trucks are cheap ) and feel manly. In the city there are tons of pricks driving these things like they would a car, and i never see them being used for what they were intended.

        At least snobbery only irritates people. Apartment dwelling, detailed 4x4 guys are actively ruining the environment for themselves and for me.

        An intelligent society looks out for it's people, it's animals, and it's land. Sometimes that involves creating laws to prevent some who just don't care from ruining it. We all exist here, time to stop turning this planet into a waste dump. It's bad enough already.
        • 5 Years Ago
        Wow, perhaps you have me pinned as some sort of fascist.

        I just want cars to be efficient. Making cars more efficient is not difficult, especially trucks. The technology is already there.

        I know you Texans don't believe in public transport, but i live in Portland where we have one of the world's best public transport systems. The majority of people do not own cars here because of this, and our system runs off hydroelectric energy which produces no pollution whatsoever.

        So yes, i believe public transport is a pretty good solution for some areas.
        Considering that we import 60-70% of our oil, i'd say using less of it is a good idea too.

        Call me crazy.
        • 5 Years Ago

        Choosing a religion doesn't pollute. I don't care for any religion, but I can laugh at the Pope and move on.

        Choosing to consume beyond your needs is a character flaw. I can't laugh at that and move on - that's pollution, contributing to the need to drill in the Gulf, etc. It's irresponsible.

        I agree that pollution and efficiency are important at all levels of industry. However, I disagree that the personal transportation sector isn't a big deal in terms of pollution. That's just flat out wrong, and studies have proven that easily.

        If you'd see the posts on here, very few are in favor of coal-based electricity, and whenever an automaker has a plant that is saving energy or is a zero-waste-to-landfill facility, it's reported here, and such reports are met with positive comments.

        We, as a group, "get" the big picture. I don't know where this rant is coming from.
        • 5 Years Ago
        "That 'what it takes to manufacture a car' argument is old, tired, and useless. It takes that to create any car. "

        Then why don't you suggest outlawing the manufacture of vehicles...or the manufacture of anything in that case?

        What is old, tired, and useless is pretending that even a 50% improvement on public transportation emissions will make a dent in the world's pollution. Why aren't you greenies clamoring for something that will actually have a noticeable effect? Large scale clean air technology for manufacturing and goods transport. I don't mean arguing about carbon credits on a forum. That's a joke.

        I've never read anything about scrubbers or renewable energy semis or cargo ships here.

        You're showing your "save the world" hubris.

        The green movement goes worlds further in promoting prejudice and limiting personal enjoyment than it does in improving the condition of the world.

        You're pro alternative energy anyway. What do you care about someone "pissing away our limited oil supply"? You'll be driving your electric car anyway, right? They pay for it. They pay for every drop of gas they burn and every cent of tax that's tacked on. Once it's paid for, it's not yours, and it's not the world's. Maybe you should concentrate your efforts more on how that tax is being used.

        I actually own 2 rx7s and an rx8, and I intend to put a rotary in my Datsun 810. Like I've said, fuel economy is of little concern to me. I get enough smiles per gallon to make up for the FE. I live on 80 acres and have more than enough trees to make my overall environmental impact less than yours.

        Time to think: I agree with you. Urban cowboys are the biggest joke to those of us that need the capability, and they get properly ridiculed in TX. I have an S10. I could use something more capable, but I get by. Ironically, aside from my motorcycles, it's my most FE vehicle. However character flaws are a choice. You should no less respect it than you do gay marriage, or convent living, or religion, or monarchies. Some ppl have different priorities. If you disagree, laugh and move along. If they are doing their best by them, they'll happily continue regardless of your opinion. If your opinion means something to them, perhaps they'll choose something else. Being close-minded helps no one tho.
        • 5 Years Ago
        But we are all part of this world. If you actually need a full-size pickup on a regular basis - fine. But living in one of the most massive yuppie, limp-d*ck regions of the US - the greater DC metro area, I see a lot of waste, and it is selfish ignorance. In those instances, what you are calling "choice" I call a "character flaw." Contractors and farmers, etc., need trucks. The huge amount of suburbanites in crew cab Titans and F-150s and Expeditions/Tahoes/etc. around here make me sick - these vehicles will never see a dirt road or haul more weight than a few soccer balls and some padding. Yes, there should be a law against that - immensely wasteful consumption and pollution that isn't even remotely necessary.

        A good friend of mine from college lives in the middle of freakin' nowhere, hauls stuff all the time to fix up his house, etc., and the 4-cyl. Ranger works great for him. He loves it, and the mileage is much better than the V8 Dakota he had before - his payments and gas are equal to what his gas alone was in the Dakota.
      • 5 Years Ago
      Another example of aero-modding a pickup truck:


      The grill block is at the end of the thread.

      Sincerely, Neil
    • Load More Comments
    Share This Photo X