<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/templates/Test/RssDisplay.xslt" type="text/xsl"?>
				<rss version="2.0">
				  <channel>
						<title><![CDATA[Turbo Diesel Register - Blogs]]></title>
						<link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive</link>
						<description />
						<language>en-us</language>
						<copyright><![CDATA[http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive]]></copyright>
						<generator>N/A</generator>
						<webMaster>stevest@centurytel.net</webMaster>
						<lastBuildDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:46:01 EDT</lastBuildDate>
						<ttl>20</ttl>

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[An AIG Sweatshirt and a Merrill Lynch Ball Cap?]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/83/An-AIG-Sweatshirt-and-a-Merrill-Lynch-Ball-Cap.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[So this guy comes into&#160;Dunkin Donuts&#160;in his AIG sweatshirt, and his date has on a Merrill Lynch ball cap.&#160; I guess there was something about the couple that just caught&#160;my eye because I see them over and over and over again.It is just me, or do those reminders of AIG and Merrill Lynch and their recent corporate blunders raise your blood pressure up a notch or two?&#160; You kind of want to go over and say, &#34;Folks, I don't like your company and I doubt I'd like your company for a cup of coffee either.&#34;That got me to thinking.&#160; How does America feel about me and my Chrysler/Dodge ball cap, jacket, t-shirt and officially-licensed Mopar underwear?Just something to think about and respond to after you read the Wall Street Journal's &#34;Mean Street&#34; editorial.&#160; Take a few minutes to read.&#160; This link will take you to the Wall Street Journal Online's piece, &#34;Chrysler's Italian Job.&#34;So, before you leave the house today, will you grab that Chrysler-logoed ball cap?What is the answer for Chrysler?]]></description>
					  <author>Robert Patton</author>
					  <pubDate>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Positive on a Bigger Scale - Chrysler and Fiat]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/82/Positive-on-a-Bigger-Scale---Chrysler-and-Fiat.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[This assignment came in and the results here came out the same day President Obama was inaugurated as the 44th. It was quite amusing to read assignment details and later hear many of the same buzzwords (consumer confidence, good news, reality, etc.) in Obama&#8217;s inauguration speech, so I guess Obama did the right thing and took the editor&#8217;s phone call over the holiday weekend. Another beer later and I&#8217;ll be positive for the remainder of the day. I promise. And this all followed the word that Chrysler and Fiat signed a nonbinding agreement, in which Fiat gets a third of Chrysler for no money. Their plan is a &#8220;strategic alliance&#8221; that would provide Fiat an initial 35-percent stake in Chrysler, without Fiat investing any cash. And why should they, the U.S. government has our tax dollars as cash to invest. Oops. Sorry. Think positive. Okay, there&#8217;s some merit to this idea. It ain&#8217;t perfect but Cummins doesn&#8217;t build car companies? In terms of product, Fiat is to Italy what GM is to the U.S., what VW is to Germany, what Renault or Peugeot is to France, and what Toyota is to Japan. Fiat SpA is Italy&#8217;s largest manufacturer and builds a variety of everyday cars suitable for most people, plus commercial vehicles, and like some of those named above, has an interest in or association with more premium brands like Alfa Romeo, Maserati and Ferrari. Fiat Auto and GM have had a relationship but it&#8217;s been rather stormy and GM doesn&#8217;t have a controlling interest; GM paid $2 billion to escape a put-option that might have left GM with Fiat as well, though Fiat has done better than GM recently. At this moment there&#8217;s been no comment from GM about any potential alliance between Chrysler and Fiat. And this latest alliance may allow Daimler to unload their remaining 19.9% of Chrysler direct to Fiat. So if Fiat gets a 35% stake from Chrysler and buys 20% from Daimler . . . .So what could become of Chrysler and Fiat working together? First and most obviously it makes each company greater and economies of scale on &#8220;globalization&#8221; often favor bigger companies. It might get Chrysler out from under Cerberus &#8220;dumb-ass management&#8221; although pessimists might not view Fiat management any more highly. And a dark Chrysler 300SRT-8 would make a great ride for La Cosa Nostra. It would give Chrysler in-roads to a broader European market, something they&#8217;ve been desperate to do for some time&#8212;few going concerns make cars for one country outside China and Russia. Likewise it would give Fiat a leg up in restarting North American sales and distribution; Ferrari and Maserati are already here, Alfa Romeo is working on it (the C8 and Spider should be first), and Fiat certainly has some cars that would sell here, including the new 500 that is a legitimate competitor to the BMW MINI for something small, economical, fun, and a measure of retro style. Both companies would share vehicle platforms and technology, most of which is completely transparent to the owner anyway. You can&#8217;t tell a Volvo S40 driver they are driving a Mazda 3 or Ford Focus but the platforms are related and things like this example happen all over the auto world. Bits like electronic architectures, air conditioners, and seats can be engineered once for similar-size cars and upholstered to match the brand and price later. Fiat has small cars covered, including respectable 1.3 and 1.9-liter turbodiesels (if the E85 lobby hasn&#8217;t bought all of Congress yet) and a host of good gas engines of less than 3 liters. Beyond the 500 some Fiats tend to look rather generic but Alfa Romeo is widely regarded for styling and I can&#8217;t be alone in thinking the Sebring, Avenger and Caliber missed the target in that respect. And Fiat has a lot of small commercial vehicles including vans that would compete with the likes of the (Mercedes-Benz sourced) Sprinter, Ford&#8217;s coming-to-the-U.S. Transit, and every Renault and Nissan that Nissan can adapt to the U.S. market. Chrysler doesn&#8217;t have a lot of mainstream product that Fiat can use. It might be fun to pit a Viper against a Lamborghini Gallardo police car (they do have them), but otherwise the product exported would likely be Jeep, minivan and electric sports cars when/if they make production. I think this idea has some promise. First it has to get past the usual army of accountants, the U.S Treasury since they&#8217;ll be giving Chrysler finance arm $1.5B to generate showroom traffic. Second, as a nonbinding agreement it means nothing has been set in ink this inauguration day. Third, it is qualified as an initial stake in Chrysler, which means it may get bigger, and if it got big enough for Cerberus to bail Chrysler&#8217;s future looks even better. And let&#8217;s not forget that any good news regarding Chrysler may get more buyers into U.S. showrooms as they realize the company is not going away right after they buy a car or truck.]]></description>
					  <author>G. R. Whale</author>
					  <pubDate>Wed, 21 Jan 2009 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Jim Anderson for President!  The Fuel Fight.  Legislation Run Amok.]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/81/Jim-Anderson-for-President--The-Fuel-Fight--Legislation-Run-Amok.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[
I've been a long-time interweb user.I use search motors to help me find stuff.&#160; That's how I found you'ns at the TRD.&#160; Uh, TDR.I've even used Internet Exploder once or twice when I got the dreaded MacroSoft blue screen of death.&#160; My rifle works real good.Over the years I watched as Y2K computers didn't fail.Then I&#160;saw the dot.com blow up.The next big thing was chat rooms.&#160; Have you been to a chat room lately?Now its them-there blogs.&#160; So the TDR tried 'em.&#160; With the exception of one where Ken Freund talked about the 700 pound gorilla and overpopulation, there has not been much response.So we're going to give it one last try as TDR Writer and my buddy, Jim Anderson, announces his campaign for President.What do you think?&#160; Has Jim got a grasp on realty?I double-dog-dare ya' to find any fault with his way of thinkin'.Your response is welcomed at the end of the Final TDR&#160;Blog.

The Fuel Fight&#160;- Legislation Run Amok
In Issue 60 of the Turbo Diesel Register, the Editor discussed political issues concerning new fuel mileage government mandates.&#160; And TDR Writer, Greg Whale, gave his California-based perspective on the same subject. Their comments failed to point out the large and persistent inability of the US Congress (acting through the Environmental Protection Agency) and the California legislature (acting through CARB) to enact laws with any common sense or understanding of the situation that you and I face daily. We all want clean air, but legislation is missing the mark. As Whale points out, being chauffeured around in a stretch limousine or Suburban as a legislator or government official will cause loss of touch with those who put them into office. 
We certainly can&#8217;t blame government for our appetite for petroleum. That blame rests squarely on the shoulders of you and me. But, we sure can blame their lack of action and faulty action in legislation. In fact, a recent poll showed 57% of Americans feel Congress hasn&#8217;t done its job when it comes to moving meaningful energy related legislation toward becoming law. Read on.
&#160;
Consider that fuel (particularly diesel fuel) costs more than ever, up about $1.80/gallon in 2008.&#160; But there&#8217;s no move by legislative bodies to alleviate the situation except to stop the purchase of crude oil to be stored in our national reserve. This is nothing more than a ploy to grab headline attention. There&#8217;s little mention that at today&#8217;s rate, these strategic oil reserves would last barely one day. This move affected retail fuel pump prices not a whit. Each time I see this ploy, I think, &#8220;Let&#8217;s do a fuel tax holiday too!&#8221; How asinine. Earlier this year, the President asked an OPEC official to increase crude oil production to ease the price. The answer was, &#8220;Production is ample.&#160; There is no shortage.&#8221; The lack of crude oil started the conflict between Japan and the United States known as World War II. Could it happen again? 
&#160;
No legislation is likely to come out of Congress until after January, 2009. Democrats, who tend to lean toward legislation promoting alternative fuels and hydrogen engine research, hope to capture both the legislative and executive branches in the November elections. Republicans, who lean toward legislation promoting added drilling and exploration of domestic oil reserves, will also try to capture a majority of seats in the November election.&#160; Never will the two sides agree on anything anytime soon. They&#8217;re simply looking out for themselves, not for us.
&#160;
The Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently changed the standard by which city and highway fuel mileage numbers are arrived at for all vehicles sold in the United States. The revised &#8220;real world&#8221; standard is published on the window sticker of every new vehicle sold and is alleged to be a more accurate measure of the mileage (mpg) a consumer can expect. &#160;On most large vehicles (pickup trucks, large sedans, and SUVs), the numbers stayed the same or increased slightly. Conversely, small cars took a big hit. My presumption is that these new numbers will be the ones that the government will use to measure the new Corporate Average Fleet Fuel Economy (CAF&#201;) the goal of which is to be 35 mpg by the year 2020. Does the revised test now more accurately reflect &#8220;real world&#8221; use? &#160;Nope.
&#160;
How badly are small cars, the gas misers everybody now wants, being penalized with the revised EPA test? Consider this: I bought a Honda Fit in January, 2008. The window sticker showed EPA fuel economy numbers of 28 mpg city, and 34 mpg highway. For the last 9,000 miles this car has averaged in mixed city and highway driving over 40 mpg, far above its EPA combined rating of 31 mpg. The best tank average was 47 mpg, and the worst was 39.8 mpg. I consider myself to be an average driver, but apparently the EPA doesn&#8217;t.&#160; Just think what mileage that Fit would get if it was powered by a small Turbo Diesel! I&#8217;ll buy one of those when it becomes available. By the way, I still have and drive my 2006 Dodge Turbo Diesel 3500 dually regularly because I love its size and towing power as much as ever.&#160; And it will haul a lot more weight than an econobox. 
&#160;
Legislation enacted to push biofuels to the tune of a subsidy of one dollar for every gallon produced is another subject that raises my ire. Are our tax dollars doing good work? Studies that I&#8217;ve read report that biofuels have up to a 27% net energy loss, meaning it costs that much more to produce the fuel in energy consumed than the finished product provides. While the energy loss percentage can be debated, the tax subsidy is reality.&#160; This subsidy makes this fuel a non-issue if basic supply and demand were applicable. Is Congress&#8217; legislation and subsidy headed down the wrong road at a high rate of speed or what? This certainly can&#8217;t be called &#8220;Energy Efficiency,&#8221; but our government and the Prez can make noise that they&#8217;re leading us all to be &#8220;green.&#8221; 
&#160;
How about flex fuel vehicles that can burn 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline? Ethanol contains about half the heat energy per volume of gasoline. So the vehicle could get about half the number of miles-per-gallon running flex fuel as it would if burning straight gasoline. Duh! Where&#8217;s the savings? Where&#8217;s the green? But the newly enacted fuel CAFE standard will give five times credit for a vehicle that is able to burn this flex fuel, regardless whether its owner ever uses it. Duh, again! But Congress wants to look good at election time.&#160; It&#8217;s a cinch the lobbyists had a great influence in this piece of goofy legislation.
&#160;
On another front, Congress is discussing a windfall profits tax on big oil companies. This move will not encourage exploration nor lower the pump price of fuels.&#160; And it didn&#8217;t work when congress tried it in the 1970s. The last time we embraced this particularly bad idea, the windfall profits taxes paid by big oil primarily went to pork barrel projects rather than transportation improvements.&#160; 
&#160;
It is time to dismount my soapbox. Do you share the same thoughts and concerns?
&#160;
The same slanted ideas drive the changes in new diesel powered trucks, including the new Dodge. The new emission standard that took effect on January 1, 2007 (and the next level called for in 2010 that Cummins has already meet) called for limiting oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter emissions from diesel engine tailpipes.&#160; This change necessitated increasing engine size to provide equivalent power of previous models. Adding cooled exhaust gas recirculation to cut NOx emissions, adding a diesel particulate trap to cut carbon emissions (which are periodically burned off by the injection of raw diesel fuel that is exhausted from the engine to burn in the tailpipe mounted particulate trap), and a host of other changes makes the emissions 90% cleaner. These changes cut power and engine efficiency, and they make the engine run hotter.&#160; The increased heat requires a larger radiator, cuts under-hood component life (requiring the upgrade and tuning of a whole host of engine components), and makes the engine consume more fuel through lowered efficiency and added vehicle weight. Please explain to me in logical terms how an engine that burns more fuel is good for you and me? &#160;And please explain how the net effect of lower engine efficiency is good for our environment. 
&#160;
As an aside, diesel engine manufacturers and oil companies spent billions of dollars to invent the technology to meet the January 1, 2007 emissions standard. You and I are now paying for that invention, not the EPA or Congress. Congress calls such laws &#8220;unfunded mandates.&#8221; I call it &#8220;doublespeak.&#8221;
&#160;
What about building new, more efficient US refineries? I&#8217;m told the seemingly endless licensing and permitting process is so complicated that it takes up to 20 years for an application to be approved, and that oil companies will spend millions to complete the process. Only then can refinery construction begin. Would it make sense to streamline this process? Could Congress do that? You bet. Have they? No. Since a new refinery hasn&#8217;t been built in nearly 30 years, and since current US refineries are running at full capacity, it wouldn&#8217;t take much of an interruption to cause a fuel availability crisis. Is this facet of the fuel problem being addressed? Likely not. It is closer to being addressed thanks to the $148/barrel crisis that occurred in July. But I don&#8217;t give real Congressional action too much hope. Ten years from now I doubt we&#8217;ll have much new to show. That&#8217;s called being &#8220;reactive&#8221; instead of &#8220;proactive.&#8221;
&#160;
And why can&#8217;t we adopt the same standards used by European automakers which seem to have adopted common-sense solutions.&#160; Their diesel engines are more efficient than ours, yielding better fuel mileage numbers by allowing slightly higher diesel NOx emissions and giving credit for less carbon dioxide emissions. I believe the answer is that the plan wasn&#8217;t invented by the EPA&#8217;s political mavens who must justify their existence and multi-million dollar funding from at budget time.&#160; That&#8217;s a poor reason for you and me to suffer, and it lacks common sense in legislation given existing technology. &#160;But then they don&#8217;t call Washington &#8220;foggy bottom&#8221; for nothing!
&#160;
The EPA should read other government research. &#160;TDR member, Loren Marz with the National Weather Service, did research and concluded that gasoline, gasohol, and similar fuels are much more volatile fuels than diesel fuel; and that the volatile components of those fuels emitting from refineries, fuel storage farms, fuel station tank vents, and the vapor coming from gasoline tanks that makes you turn your head as you fill up amounts to something like 450,000 ton of volatile organic compounds (VOC) going into the atmosphere every year. This substantial component of environmental fouling is not being recovered (although the technology exists to do so), and it isn&#8217;t being regulated. Has anybody in the government listened to Loren? Apparently not. He&#8217;s an informed, common sense guy.&#160; And all of his family vehicles efficiently use much less volatile diesel fuel.
&#160;
This article wouldn&#8217;t be complete without suggestions for solutions. 
&#160;
First, cut out the dollar per gallon federal subsidy for any alternative energy source that costs more in energy to produce than the product provides. Instead, provide direct grants for technologies that produce net energy gains and for promising research that reaches the same goal.
&#160;
Second, to encourage less dependence on foreign oil, provide tax credits to US companies to be applied against active search and drilling costs that bring new wells and oil fields into production. The credits would be given only after on-site field inspections and proper documentation proving efficient work and use of grant monies, and they should be limited to three to five years.
&#160;
Third, rather than institute a windfall profits tax on big oil, Congress could require a portion of gross profits be used for research, exploration, and increasing production efficiency and capacity. This legislation should expire after ten years.
&#160;
Finally, tough legislation must quickly be enacted to stop or limit commodities speculators, particularly traders outside the US from influencing the market price of US petroleum they don&#8217;t even own. At present, commodities speculators account for up to 40% of crude oil&#8217;s price depending on which market analyst you listen to.
&#160;
Current legislation, or lack thereof, is driven by politics, not common sense. When a bunch of politicos, including EPA&#8217;s elected or appointed managers, write faulty legislation without heeding informed input from independent scientists who understand the problem, we should know we&#8217;re in for some shoddy treatment. Enjoy the ride!? And remember to cast your informed vote in November because each and every one of us is an admittedly very small part of the legislative process.
&#160;
&#8220;There ain&#8217;t no answer. There ain&#8217;t gonna&#8217; be any answer. There never has been an answer. That&#8217;s the answer.&#8221;&#160; &#8211;Gertrude Stein, American Author (1874-1946).
&#160;
Jim Anderson
TDR Writer
]]></description>
					  <author>Robert Patton</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[The Blog &#34;of the Year&#34;]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/80/The-Blog-quotof-the-Yearquot.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[Nope, it&#8217;s not my ego run amok again. It&#8217;s that time of year when the number of &#8220;of the year&#8221; awards appears to extend beyond the number of nameplates for sale. You should see the 2009 Ram in all of the competitions, but the HD&#8217;s new Hemi won&#8217;t qualify so it will have to wait for the 2010 redesign where it will likely go up against Ford and GM diesels catching up with the Cummins 6.7 in the emissions race. These awards are an excellent press source for the outlets that provide them, and manufacturers love awards because they make great ad copy. Some of them are quite obscure while others have to keep adding them to keep up with the ever-more segmenting and confusing array of vehicles. Car &#38; Driver sidesteps the problem while recognizing good product with their 10Best list, and others single one out by majority voting. Entry criteria typically limit the field to what is &#8220;new&#8221; or partially so, and judging criteria usually include concepts like &#8220;importance&#8221; or &#8220;significance,&#8221; &#8220;value&#8221; (perceived or otherwise&#8230;and very hard to judge with the ridiculously optimistic numbers some manufacturers provide as prices), &#8220;best&#8221; or &#8220;superiority,&#8221; and so on. I am frequently amused when a minivan wins a &#8220;car&#8221; or &#8220;truck&#8221; award, curious how you can compare a group of vehicles where only a portion of them were designed to and/or can go on a 4WD trail or route, and dumbfounded when a top-selling unit that will continue to be a top seller is rated more significant than a completely new and very viable player in the segment. A few auto-centric web sites have their own awards as well, the dilemma being they haven&#8217;t the relatively long history of things that 40, 50, or 60-year-old magazines do. Hits and history don&#8217;t always relate. It&#8217;s critical to ensure the criteria are clearly explained and you have enough data to make an informed choice for what suits your needs best. Years ago when we did Four Wheeler of the Year tests, the winner was chosen not by vote but by numbers. Objective data determined by tape measures, sound meters and accelerometers was joined with points values assigned by every judge to perhaps 50-60 subsections. It was all weighted&#8212;with off-road performance the most important&#8212;and the equation results produced a winner. We often named people&#8217;s individual choice, and noted if their numerical scoring gave the win to a different vehicle. That&#8217;s what I find from TDR, a bunch of information and source identification from which I can draw my own conclusions. I recently read a motorhome test that compared the cabinets to those on an expensive motor yacht, and having been on a few yachts I can assure you this was wild hyperbole or good PR completely unrelated to fact. That&#8217;s the pitiful state of publishing these days, where politics are as pitiful as, well, politics. Like most automotive-associated industries the TDR is not having a banner year and this will be the last blog, for awhile at least. The opportunity to blog where politics are irrelevant and I didn&#8217;t have to watch my mouth was a privilege, as was the reader input in favor of, correcting, or simply calling me a !@%^&#38;*! idiot. Diesel might be $4/gallon and the economy in the dumpster, but that&#8217;s priceless.]]></description>
					  <author>G. R. Whale</author>
					  <pubDate>Thu, 23 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Common Sense Tries a Comeback]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/79/Common-Sense-Tries-a-Comeback.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[My news sources seem to be full of good news and indications that common sense is being considered once again, if not prevailing consistently. Of course my own common sense is now in question as I&#8217;ve just dinged my credit card big-time on gasoline tabs rocketing around Germany where diesels rule.&#160;&#160;Yeah, a turbo diesel car would have been the smart thing, but given the option of a 204 hp diesel or a 572 hp station wagon, common sense takes a vacation. At least&#160;all of that horsepower&#160;was practical in keeping up with German timing precision, as it allowed a three-stop, 75-mile round trip from the center of one small village to another and back in 46 minutes. The first good news is that Dodge has released the pricing info on the new Ram half-ton and it&#8217;s less expensive than the old one. A tempered showroom climate, smart design and manufacturing, fewer permutations and perhaps some Nardelli-and-company cost-cutting probably helped, but the new model&#8217;s standard stability control and automatic should have made it $1500 more than the old one, not less. Time will tell if this pricing strategy extends to the new heavy-duty but we&#8217;ll keep our collective fingers crossed. Also in my good news file is an Internal Revenue Service decision. Didn&#8217;t see that one coming did ya? The Infernal Revenue Service has declared that the Volkswagen&#8217;s new 40-mpg Jetta TDI is eligible for a federal tax credit similar to those offered for hybrid buyers. Details are numerous and it may apply to only the first 60,000 buyers, but you could get a tax credit of $1300 the year you buy one. Preliminary 2009 Jetta pricing puts the TDI model just about $2000 more than a similarly-equipped gasoline engine so your &#8220;diesel net&#8221; is just $700 for improving EPA figures by 10 mpg. Imagine the tax break if the EPA got better numbers. Their diesel numbers are usually pessimistic and I got measurably better than 30/41 driving a Jetta TDI. EPA seemed to admit they were aware of the problem in a December, 2006, publication suggesting that diesels deliver 18% better than their label mileage and everything else, including hybrids, delivered less than label mileage. Go back to that German hot rod for a second. Its rated average consumption is 14.0 liters/100 kilometers, and after 1770 kilometers at speeds between traffic jams and 280 kph, variable weather and changing loads, my average consumption was exactly 14.0 liters/100 kilometers. Can you imagine rating your car on how many gallons and ounces it will take to cover 100 miles&#8230;and then getting it spot on? Me neither. But here are a few ideas for fuel economy tests and what to do with them. First, have an independent agency or university (AMCI, SAE, MIT, CalTech, etc.) take over the testing; more than 30 years on the EPA still hasn&#8217;t got it. Everything else depends on getting an accurate measure to begin with. Second, measure and present it as volume required to cover set distance&#8212;any volume (gallons, ounces, liters, but no weights) and any distance (1 mile, 50 miles, 100 kilometers, 100 miles, etc.). Third, test and present pickup trucks (anything with a bed&#8212;normally covered or otherwise), at a 50/50 mix of GVWR and GCWR but never unloaded, and ensure at least 15 seconds of continuous full-throttle operation in the test; any penalties incurred should be based on what the vehicle is built to do/carry/pull, not what it manages loafing along in overdrive empty. Fourth, expand fuel economy ratings up to at least 12,000 GVW and 26,000 GCW. Fifth, across all segments, apply gas-guzzler taxes proportionally to those vehicles that use more than the segment average and tax credits proportionally to those vehicles that use less fuel than the average. How would you improve fuel economy testing and associated costs? ]]></description>
					  <author>G. R. Whale</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Emergency Kits]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/78/Emergency-Kits.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[When I first began driving as a teenager, I came upon an accident on a rural road, the memory of which has stayed with me all my years. A man driving a Corvair had hit a tree, his car was wrapped around him and the tree and he was trapped inside. As I drove up to the accident scene right beside the road, several people had stopped to help, when suddenly the car burst into flames. On the Corvair the gas tank, the source of the flames, was right in front of the trapped driver. Nobody had a fire extinguisher, and there was nothing to fight the roaring inferno with, other than futile attempts at throwing handfuls of sand from the roadside on it. The man burned to death, screaming for what seemed like an eternity, finally going silent several long minutes prior to the first fire truck&#8217;s arrival. After that dreadful scene I swore that I would carry a fire extinguisher in each of my vehicles from that time on. And I have kept my word to myself&#8212;and him, although I never knew his name. Since that terrible day long ago and thanks to that oath, I have been able to extinguish several fires along the roads of America. Some had victims trapped, others had people standing by helplessly while their vehicle and possessions burned--because they never considered carrying a fire extinguisher. Now, the reason I shared this story was not to horrify you, or get &#8220;attaboys&#8221; for what I did. Rather, my intention is to stir some people to action. Typically, the three things most needed at an accident scene (besides a cell phone, which everybody seems to have these days) are a fire extinguisher, a first aid kit, and a flashlight. Yes, there are other things that are good to have, such as flares, warning triangles, blankets, etc., but if I can just get you to carry these items in your truck (and cars), somebody out there will be able to help an accident victim, and maybe prevent a tragedy. Just one time will make the re-telling of this awful experience worthwhile&#8212;and perhaps put some demons to rest. You just never know when it will be your turn.]]></description>
					  <author>Ken Freund</author>
					  <pubDate>Wed, 03 Sep 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Where Are We Headed Now?]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/77/Where-Are-We-Headed-Now.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[The recent unprecedented run-up in fuel prices has had a far-reaching effect on how and what Americans drive, along with repercussions throughout the economy and the automotive industry. Thankfully, it appears that the seemingly relentless fuel-price hikes have stopped, at least for the moment. As pump prices begin to drift down slightly, perhaps we can catch our collective breath and ponder the future. What will our automotive future be like? Will we sell our pickup trucks and end up driving tiny little cars and scooters, or even bicycles? Drivers in many parts of the world still pay more for fuel than we do. For decades, fuel was selling on the Continent for prices comparable to what we are paying now. By comparison, our fuel prices are still low compared with Europe and even Canada. Gasoline is about $12 in Norway, $10 per gallon in Holland, nearly $9 per gallon in England and Germany. So it&#8217;s reasonable to use the experience in these places as a partial model of what trends we may see in the U.S. My take on it all is that life will go on, and people will still drive, even if diesel hits $5 or $6 per gallon or more here, although the higher energy costs will be passed on for just about everything we buy. The United States is more spread out than Europe with lower population densities, and there are more rural farms and ranches here. As a result, large, full-sized pickup trucks, which are almost an American institution, will continue to be built and sold in the U.S.A. However, they&#8217;ll likely be sold in lesser numbers, and a higher percentage of trucks will be sold for primarily commercial use rather than private vehicles, just as in other countries. Americans are not tiny and we expect sufficient room in our vehicles for us, our family members and all of our &#8220;stuff.&#8221; We will reluctantly begin to buy a higher percentage of cars than trucks, and there will be more small cars sold. Folks will continue to drive, but will cut back on unnecessary driving and combine errands, and take their vacations closer to home. Many Dodge Ram diesel owners we&#8217;ve talked with already have cut back on driving their truck for daily commuting and use a small economy car instead, reserving the Ram for work, or hauling the boat, camper or toy hauler on weekends. Most large truck-based SUVS will be phased out and it&#8217;s likely that more compact and front-wheel-drive pickup trucks with smaller, more fuel-efficient drivetrains will be sold for personal use. The percentage of diesel vehicles will increase due to their efficiency and high torque, but the high price of diesel fuel here has dampened the growing enthusiasm for them that had been building for the past several years. In the near term, engines and transmissions will continue to become more efficient. You&#8217;ll see more small engines and six- or seven-speed (or more) transmissions along with generator/starter units that shut down the engine when the vehicle is stopped, and more engines will incorporate cylinder deactivation for better mileage. Manufacturing capacity limits and battery shortages and pricing will limit growth of hybrid vehicles for a while, and the same goes for plug-in hybrids and pure-electric vehicles. If and when they become mainstream, I think that electrical grid capacity will be a problem, especially during peak hours when commuters want to plug in at work. All of this technology comes at a cost, and the price of new vehicles will undoubtedly rise. Americans will continue to buy new vehicles, even if we buy fewer of them because they cost more and we drive less. The final question is: Will the domestic car industry survive intact? Do Americans care whether our automakers and brands survive? I think that our auto industry will either require government help and bailouts (again), or they may be gobbled up by foreign companies, just as Anheuser-Busch was recently&#8212;unthinkable just a few years ago. What is your opinion, and what do you think will happen? ]]></description>
					  <author>Ken Freund</author>
					  <pubDate>Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Three Heavyweights in Need PR]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/76/Three-Heavyweights-in-Need-PR.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[It was a relatively slow summer weekend for televised motorsports, so, better at procrastination than yard work I turned on the Brickyard 400. The guide description mentioned racing, but all I saw was a seemingly endless pit stop punctuated by an occasional sprint race. Brickyard 40 maybe&#8212;and that would be in kilometers, but in no way was this a race near 400 miles. Apparently Goodyear and NASCAR couldn&#8217;t race a right rear tire much longer than 15 laps; I&#8217;ve watch guys smoke tires for photos longer than that. I counted 11 &#8220;competition yellow&#8221; flags, apparently so named because if they don&#8217;t wave them the competing drivers might get hurt when tires disintegrate. You can&#8217;t blame the track at Indy; I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s been repaved for years. This is down to Goodyear (who probably paid big $$$ to be the sole tire supplier) and NASCAR; their Car of Tomorrow was brought out last year so teams could sort this out. Testing earlier this year indicated issues, but NASCAR and Goodyear couldn&#8217;t solve it. When Formula 1 ran a six-car &#8220;race&#8221; at Indy because all the Michelin cars parked and only Bridgestone-shod cars raced, fans raged about F1 and Michelin. Indianapolis Speedway wasn&#8217;t that happy about it either. You think Goodyear might get the same lambasting? We&#8217;ll have to see if their PR is better than Formula 1&#8217;s, but I know they have good PR in the RV industry. It isn&#8217;t actually called PR except by journalism professors, but what Affinity Group RV magazines do amounts to it. Those magazines--Trailer Life, MotorHome and Highways for Good Sam members&#8212;are heavyweights in RV rags, at least until Source Interlink&#8217;s new RV magazine comes out. Consider a recent question in Highways (July, 2008; http://www.goodsamclub.com/RVCentral/HighwaysDetails.aspx?pageID=74&#38;issueID=877) wherein a reader asked questions related to a bubble on his &#8220;Highway Trooper&#8221; tire. The Highways reply began, &#8220;I have no information on Highway Trooper tires, but that doesn&#8217;t mean they don&#8217;t exist. With the influx of Asian tires, it&#8217;s hard to keep up with the names and brands currently on the market.&#8221; Highways went on, &#8220;Unfortunately, many of these overseas-brand tires are poorly constructed and provide inadequate service, as you found out.&#8221; The answer, in Highways technical expert&#8217;s opinion: &#8220;I prefer to stick to the major brands, like Goodyear, which specialize in tires designed for trailer service (ST designation)...&#8221; Now here is what isn&#8217;t so obvious. First, the tech expert at Highways is also the Publisher of MotorHome and Trailer Life, and Senior VP, Group Publisher of the parent company. His job is to generate revenue, from advertisers, like, well, guess. The parent company also has links to Camping World, which sponsors a NASCAR race. See any pattern here? Second, I&#8217;m no tire expert but I think saying Goodyear specializes in trailer tires is like saying Cummins specializes in BTA5.9M2 engines. There are other tire companies where ST tires account for a larger percentage of their volume. I know Greenball Corporation offers a &#8220;Hiway Trooper&#8221; LT tire, and this tire is very probably built in Asia and could be standard on heavier RV trailers. Third, a buddy of mine who does do a lot of work with tires did some poking around and found Goodyear has some tires, including those ST tires they &#8220;specialize&#8221; in, made in Asia. If that information is good, Highways is merely recommending the American-branded version of two tires made in Asia. Now I don&#8217;t know who needs good PR more&#8212;NASCAR, Goodyear or Affinity. As for me, one of German cars came with tires from a French company, my truck and another German car run Japanese tires, and my trailer tires cipher as made in America. If it&#8217;s a good tire I don&#8217;t care where it came from. ]]></description>
					  <author>G. R. Whale</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Fuel Saving Tips]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/74/Fuel-Saving-Tips.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[We&#8217;re all getting clobbered by the high fuel prices. Instead of just whining and sniveling, I&#8217;ve been asked to provide some fuel-saving tips, so here you go: Keep your Dodge and Cummins diesel running its best by following the manufacturers&#8217; maintenance schedules. Replacing a partially clogged air filter can boost mileage while keeping dirt from wearing out your engine prematurely. When changing engine oil, you can also improve your gas mileage by 1-2 percent by using the manufacturer's recommended viscosity grade of motor oil rather than a &#8220;heavier&#8221; one. Synthetic lubricants not only keep your truck running longer, but reduce friction and fuel consumption. Synthetic transmission fluid or gear oil, wheel-bearing grease, differential oil, and transfer case lubricants all help. Be sure to follow factory recommendations for grade, viscosity and intervals to protect your warranty. Inflate your tires properly and check them often. Raise your truck to check for misadjusted wheel bearings and dragging brakes, turning the wheels by hand to detect tight bearings or brakes. Highway treads roll easier than mud-and-snow types, so consider changing if possible. Avoid carrying unneeded items in your truck. Check for items that you haven&#8217;t used in a while, especially heavy stuff, and leave it home. Every time you apply the brakes you are dissipating energy that you paid for when you bought fuel, so look far ahead, and anticipate traffic signals and flow. Extended warm-ups and excessive idling are not necessary and waste fuel. After starting, allow the engine to run long enough to circulate oil thoroughly and stabilize the idle, then take it easy until the engine is fully warmed up before using full throttle. Accelerate moderately and use the highest gear you can, without lugging the engine. Keep your foot steady on the accelerator, constant changes waste fuel, and cruise control can also save fuel. Wind makes a huge difference in fuel mileage, so slow down when there are strong headwinds. Higher speeds decrease fuel mileage drastically, because wind resistance increases with the square of the increase in speed. Roof-mounted wind deflectors on pickups can help mileage when towing a trailer. Mileage usually drops off rapidly at speeds above 60 mph, and as boring as it is, driving at 55 instead of 65 or 70 mph can often save 20 percent or more. If you&#8217;re shopping for a new truck, keep in mind that manual gearboxes usually get better mileage than automatics and select the best axle ratio for your load and use, don&#8217;t settle for whatever the dealer has on the lot. Generally the &#8220;taller&#8221; the ratio is numerically, the better the mileage, just be sure the truck&#8217;s ratings are sufficient for your intended loads. Keep mileage records, which help you compare changes in driving styles and indicate if mileage drops off for any reason. Filling to the same level each time will improve the consistency of your results. Many devices claim to improve mileage, but most are more hype than reality. You can learn more about fuel-saving products online at: www.consumerenergycenter.org/myths/gasoline_saving.html and www.epa.gov/otaq/consumer/reports.htm. Most stations generally raise or lower their prices in the morning around 10 AM and expect a rise on Friday morning as prices are often moved up for the weekend. Some stations are faster to raise prices when they are going up than others. If you find that the price has gone up when you go by a station, try and find one of those slower movers in your area so you can still purchase the cheaper fuel. When going on a trip, plan your route carefully, travel early in the day when winds are calmer, avoid rush hours, and check with highway department Web sites (or by phone) for detours, road closures, construction, etc. Avoid buying fuel at exit ramps for major highways, especially during holiday travels. These stations may be convenient but they know they have a captive audience. Try to fill up at your local station where the prices are lowest before you leave town. You can also save money by shopping for the lowest fuel prices online at www.gaspricewatch.com or www.gasbuddy.com. Perhaps you have some tips of your own that you&#8217;d like to share. Let&#8217;s hear from you!]]></description>
					  <author>Ken Freund</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 15 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Is This Just Dumb?]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.turbodieselregister.com/articlelive/blogs/73/Is-This-Just-Dumb.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[An acquaintance recently used &#8220;dumb&#8221; to describe Chrysler&#8217;s new stuff -- Challenger, Durango/Aspen Hybrids, and &#8216;09 Ram &#8211;because they are among Chrysler&#8217;s least-efficient vehicles. True, timing is unfortunate, but after explaining they were developed long before gasoline went gold, I started dumb things with his Toyota.The early 4Runner four-door had a wagon-style rear window that retracted into the tailgate. Wash the back window and most of the dirt and mud swept up by the wiper rolled right back down the window when the wiper lifted off the glass to park. That&#8217;s dumb. Roof-mounted satellite radio antennae on pickups designed for campers is dumb. How will a signal lost in trees get through a mass of wood, aluminum and other synthetic material? A Suburban I tested had a $100 option third-row, three-person split bench seat, but is split 50/50. Why not 60/40 so you could fold a side and still carry two back there? And you had pay extra for the dumb thing. Chrysler will build minivans for VW to sell as Routans. Chrysler will move more minivans and amortize costs sooner and VW dealers have a van to sell. But not a van you&#8217;d expect from VW, and dealers will have to buy tools and software/updates/licensing to service them. Could be more hassle than it&#8217;s worth, and dumb. The Challenger I drove had keyless operation so you could leave it in your pocket in the car. But unlike other cars, there was no pushbutton or lift handle trigger to lock or unlock it so you still had to fumble with the key getting in and out. Dumb. And did you know &#8220;pedals&#8221; are standard on the Challenger? Cost cutting must be getting out of hand&#8230;or foot. Websites with little car knowledge are doing bits on &#8220;hypermiling&#8221; that include switching the car off and coasting. Illegal in some states, it would make it hard to steer a Ram. Others suggest shifting into Neutral, but this will cost gas in most new cars since fuel is shut off under deceleration but not in Neutral. Curious none has suggested most normally-aspirated engines are driven most efficiently at wide-open throttle to 2000-2200 rpm, probably because you need a manual gearbox (or Infiniti 7-speed auto) to do it. Bloggers said one major auto magazine has been bought by BMW because of the outcome of some comparison tests. In those cases where I&#8217;ve driven all those compared, I&#8217;d probably name the BMW too. Another major magazine in their long-term fleet roundup noted anything with range of less than 350-400 miles should be &#8220;outlawed&#8221; even at 14 mpg. Of the reviewed 8 long-termers only 4 had range more than 350 miles at their as-tested mileage; the truck generating the comment was one of them and their Car of the Year was not. Only an expensive sedan met the 400-mile value. Dumb? In early July Dodge showed the new Ram in Nashville, TN, Nissan&#8217;s new home base. Given the Chrysler/Nissan talks on pickups is this coincidence, or just dumb? What are your favorite dumb car things? ]]></description>
					  <author>G. R. Whale</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT</pubDate>
					  <subject />
					</item>

				
				  </channel>
				</rss>
			