#Trucks with Best Gas Mileage 2025 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

ourworldofenergy · 5 years ago

Text

Why the Canadian Government Fails in Energy Transition and Carbon Reduction

Guest Blog by S. A. Shelley: In the matter of the transition to renewable energy, there are some nations and governments which do it quite well, e.g., Denmark, some that don’t appear to care, e.g. the US, and then there’s Canada. Canada claims to be very concerned about the environment and about the need to dramatically cut carbon emissions and transition quickly to a fossil-fuel-free economy. However, it has failed on a number of fronts and will most likely continue to fail.

The Need to Understand Total Cost

Whatever purchase at the personnel, industry or government level that you have, it is very important to have a good understanding of the TOTAL COST in order to make effective and well-reasoned economic decisions. Most people have an inherent ability to assess TOTAL COST and industry has analysts to help determine TOTAL COST; however, governments rely too much upon ideologues to arrive too often at incorrect TOTAL COST.

Strictly speaking, TOTAL COST = the sum of all costs associated with a purchase (or a project). Typically, this is broken into two components: TOTAL COST = Total Capital Costs (CAPEX) + Total Operating Costs (OPEX) over the assumed life of the product.

Let’s consider an immediate example of a consumer buying a car:

CAPEX = purchase price + dealer prep fees + financing costs – salvage / resale value

OPEX = fuel costs + insurance and registration + maintenance and parts

Consumers often buy a personal vehicle (car or truck) based only on the sticker price and consequently vehicle manufacturers have tuned their sales pitches to this almost exclusively. But if one does a TOTAL COST analysis of a car, EVs are now tending to be the lowest TOTAL COST personal vehicle choice (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 (Source: CleanTechnica)

Upfront CAPEX for an ICE is still much lower than for a similar sized EV, but when you add in the OPEX to arrive at TOTAL COST, EVs are starting to pull ahead. Therefore, at the personal level, EVs are quickly becoming the best economic choice for those that can overcome the initial high CAPEX, and at the societal level, EVs help reduce carbon emissions and are the right choice for that.

Is it a Good Idea for Governments to Subsidize EV Purchases?

That depends upon the objectives of the government and the consensus of the populace. If the aim is to wean a nation state off fossil fuel reliance, which history has shown can be an Achilles heel to national economies, then yes, do as Denmark and China are doing and ban ICEs while supporting EVs.

If the aim is to eliminate the carbon emissions in order to protect the environment, then do as Norway and ban new ICE sales by 2025.

But if your aim is to reward wealthy and upper middle class voters with subsidies for purchasing EVs, then do as the Canadian government is doing (see CBC news and Electrek). The Canadian Federal EV rebate will not help most Canadians because the average household income in Canada is about $64,000 (CDN) per Statistics Canada 2017 data, while the cheapest marginally useful EV starts at $32,000 (CDN) plus sales taxes. Even if average, working Canadians wanted to buy EVs, the initial purchase cost of EVs is still higher than most Canadians can afford.

Canadian consumers across a broad economic range have correctly calculated that less expensive ICEs, new or used, will be the best economic solution for them for some time. This phenomenon of the citizen consumer being economically smarter than big government is not unique to Canada.

What Must Governments Do to Get More EVs On the Roads?

They must clearly prove the case for EVs: Is it to save the environment or to save the country from the evil oil empires?

They must spend more on subsidies that will benefit more citizens across the whole economic spectrum.

They must spend more on supporting all of the technology and infrastructure that will make EVs cheap, convenient and useful to everyone.

Simple, right?

“Canadian Vehicles Are Big, Heavy and Guzzle a Lot of Gasoline”

Canadians rank number one in the world for having the largest, heaviest, least fuel efficient and highest carbon emitting vehicles.

For the befuddled government in Canada, a better approach to reducing carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption by personnel vehicles could be to make small nudges and then let market forces takeover. For example, it would be fine to allow ICEs to stay on the roads, as long as the net mileage of ICEs continued to improve each year. Looking at Figure 2, between 2005 and 2010 average vehicle mileage increased by about 16%. This means that for the same driving habits, 16% less fuel was consumed and 16% less carbon was emitted, on average just five years down the road.

Fig. 2 (Source: PewTrusts)

As late model used cars get removed from the car pool and are replaced with newer more efficient vehicles, then without changing tech or giving away EVs, it is likely that over time carbon emissions and fossil fuel consumption will decrease just by natural replacement of the personal fleet. Eventually, a new car that gets 30 mpg, will filter down to the used car market and replace an older generation model that only got 20 mpg. That’s an evolutionary way of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 50% on a personnel vehicle. Instead of promising $2000 camping trips for poor families, it may be more helpful to provide rebates for poor families to replace very old low mileage vehicles with newer used ones that get higher mileage. Eventually such rebates could be expanded to cover PHEVs or BEVS as those filter down through the used car marketplace.

Or if the Canadian government really wants to help the environment by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, maybe it should focus first on those gases which trigger the most warming. “The majority of warming results from gases with a much lower media profile than the paparazzi-trailed starlet of global warming, CO2.“

Support Transit Instead of EVs

To benefit more people quickly, Instead of spending $billions on EV subsidies that benefit the wealthiest citizens, those same monies may be more effectively spent on upgrading and improving transit systems that benefit a broader subset of citizens.

Canadian Federal Government Carbon Pricing is a Tax, Simple and Ugly

There are two general purposes for taxes. The first is to collect revenue for the government to provide critical services such as courts and defense. The second is to apply taxes to change consumption behavior, such as with sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco. However, with the Carbon pricing policies in Canada, there is no realistic way that Canadians can alter their energy consumption behavior in order to escape the carbon price: Thus it is a tax of the most egregious kind that siphons money from Canadians into government coffers with low to zero traceability. Natural gas is still the dominant energy source for heating homes and businesses, and there is nothing else available, now or in the short term, on a scale large enough for Canadians to use: It’s either heat the homes or freeze or migrate to Florida or Arizona for winter. Watch out America, you may need to build a wall on the northern border, too.

Furthermore, almost every incentive that the Federal Government has provided for green energy and reduction of carbon emission has been targeted at and benefited large businesses, not lower or middle class Canadians. While the PM uses his perk of zipping around frivolously on a private jet (see National Post and CTV News), it’s time for the Federal Government in Canada to honestly admit that the carbon price in Canada hits a captive market with no substantive, alternative choice available.

Carbon Emissions and Fossil Fuel Consumption Inelasticity in Canada

There is no reasonable and realistic way for the Federal Canadian government to achieve its much touted and promised carbon emission and fossil fuel consumption reduction targets. According to data from the World Bank since 1980 energy consumption in Canada has been very consistent at around 52 barrels of oil equivalent per year per Canadian. During the same period, the yearly carbon emissions per Canadian have slowly dropped from about 20 to 15 tonnes, which is still over twice the yearly per capita carbon emissions of a European at 6.8 tonnes. During this same period, the use of renewable energy in Canada has remained fairly flat so most of the gains in carbon reductions have come from elsewhere, either fuel efficiency improvements or the shuttering of coal power plants.

While the Federal government enacts legislation and policies to reduce Canada’s carbon footprint and fossil fuel consumption, historical data suggests that such legislation will be ineffective (Fig. 3) and that it is extremely unlikely for the Federal Government in Canada to meet its international commitments to CO2 reduction. More needs to be done for Canada to succeed, but it is also extremely unlikely that the current administration has the technical, fiscal or social where-with-all to do what is necessary without resorting to brute force diktats.

Fig. 3

The problem is more difficult to resolve when one considers that current Federal objectives in some areas will nullify any possible gains in other areas. For example, without being able to reduce per capita energy consumption or carbon emissions, adding 350,000 immigrants each year to Canada will by default drive up the total energy consumption and carbon emissions volumes: That will mean an additional 2.6 million tonnes of oil equivalent energy consumed and 5.2 million additional tonnes of carbon emissions each year. Energy will be needed to heat the residences of the newcomers and commute them to their jobs and there is nothing on the horizon to substitute for oil and gas in Canada. Therefore, unless the Federal Government in Canada gives each new immigrant an EV and a solar powered home, there is absolutely no way that the Federal Liberal government can achieve their vaunted carbon reduction targets and the shutdown of Canada’s oil industry.

In Canada, it takes over a decade for new energy projects, renewable or not, to come on stream. In that same decade, 3,500,000 new Canadians will need a lot of energy. Who in the Federal Government in Canada has a realistic plan for that? By realistic, I mean affordable, corruption free, workable and implementable without significant social or economic disruption.

It continues to get worse, because during this year’s Federal Election campaign, the Canadian Prime Minister has decided that he needs two jets while every other prior prime minister or party leader to date has made do with only one jet. To paraphrase Ms. Thunberg, “Shame on You Prime Minister Trudeau”. For the Earth’s sake, if the Federal Liberals are returned to a minority Government in Canada, I kindly ask the Green or NDP coalition partners to reign in the Prime Minister’s privileged jet setting and plastic bottle consumption habits.

Canada Can Do Better

Canada has a lot of renewable energy potential and a lot of ability to reuse resources. But maybe the Federal Government in Canada needs to be the first thing recycled before anything real and sustainable can be achieved. I absolutely agree that Canada must change its energy habits, but it needs better moral and technical leadership and a unifying vision instead of a divisive and dismissive cadre of elitist and privileged politicians (see Pierre Poilievre and CBC News).

I’m not against EVs. I commute in Houston on a bicycle and EVs can’t touch me for energy efficiency (15 miles per gallon of beer vs. about 130 mpge for an EV) or lowest lifetime greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, I know that renewable technology has now achieved parity with or surpassed traditional fossil fuel technologies in a lot of areas: My next car will most likely be an EV and my next house will have integrated solar and battery energy.

But I am very much in favor of evolutionary progress and of governments implementing environmental and energy policies based upon reason, science and economics instead of listening to biased and scandal plagued consultants from New York. In the long run, energy and financial independence requires astute and competent governments. Well done Norway, Denmark, Germany and China. Keep trying Canada.

Vive l’Alberta Libre!

Why the Canadian Government Fails in Energy Transition and Carbon Reduction was originally published on OurWorldofEnergy

0 notes

biofunmy · 5 years ago

Text

Canada Signals a Willingness to Challenge Trump on His Clean-Car Rollback

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.

WASHINGTON — Canada has signaled a willingness to buck one of President Trump’s most significant environmental rollbacks — a major weakening of auto pollution standards — by signing a clean-car deal with California, the state leading the fight against the rollback.

Wednesday’s agreement, which pledges to advance the use of clean and electric cars, lacks binding specifics. Nevertheless, Canada’s decision to publicly align itself with California and its climate-change policies inserts the government of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into a high-profile battle being waged over Mr. Trump’s weakening of rules designed to combat climate change.

“Working with California is a way to move forward and share best practices and align our standards,” said Catherine McKenna, the Canadian environment minister, on a telephone call with reporters. “California has been an inspiration when it comes to clean fuel standards. That is where the world is going.”

Traditionally, Canada has aligned its auto emissions standards with federal rules in the United States. However, several analysts said they saw Wednesday’s announcement as a clear step toward a more concrete shift in which Canada could potentially switch to the environmentally stricter standards of California and other states.

Such a move could undercut Mr. Trump’s efforts to weaken environmental policy by creating a much larger market for cleaner cars, thereby making it more economically viable for auto manufacturers to build cars to the higher standards.

The Canadian auto market, with annual sales of about 2 million cars and light trucks, is about the same size as California’s, which is the largest in the United States. Thirteen other states, representing more than a third of the total market in the United States, have pledged to join California and enforce stricter pollution laws if the rollback takes effect this year, as widely expected.

“If Canada upholds the California standards, it could really shift the market away from what Trump is trying to do — it could make it so that auto companies don’t want to play with Trump on this anymore,” said Christopher Sands, the director of Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

He noted that the announcement came at a moment when previously high tensions over trade issues between Mr. Trump and Mr. Trudeau have simmered down, but that Mr. Trudeau, who is facing re-election, may see a political benefit from demonstrating that he is not making concessions to the American president. “He doesn’t want to appear to be Trump’s poodle,” he said.

A spokesman for the Environmental Protection Agency, John Konkus, did not respond to an email requesting comment.

Canada currently follows the ambitious emissions rules set by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Obama administration, which requires automakers to produce cars with an average mileage of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. That rule, which was projected to significantly cut the United States’ fossil fuel pollution, was one of President Barack Obama’s signature moves to combat global warming.

However, under Mr. Trump, the E.P.A. is preparing a plan, expected to be put in place this summer, that lowers those standards to about 37 miles per gallon, allowing for a major increase in the planet-warming greenhouse gas pollution that causes climate change. The administration’s plan is also expected to revoke the right of California and other states to set their own higher fuel economy standards.

Top officials in California have said repeatedly that they intend to uphold their state standard and sue the Trump administration over the rules.

Until that legal battle is resolved, the split between one federal standard and another set of state standards could divide the nation’s auto market in two, an outcome automakers have said that they dread because they could be forced to sell entirely different types of cars in different states.

Ms. McKenna suggested Wednesday that if Canada were to join with California and other states, it could force automakers to build more clean cars. “I believe that by working with California we can leverage our market share,” she said.

Ms. McKenna said Wednesday that Canada did not intend to take action until after the Trump administration issued its new plan.

For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.

Sahred From Source link Science

from WordPress http://bit.ly/2NhQZnT via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

crosbyru-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Automakers Push Back on Trump Plan to Relax Mileage Rules

Automakers Push Back on Trump Plan to Relax Mileage Rules Pres. Donald Trump thought he would win industry support from industry leaders over CAFE cuts but has seen opposition, instead/ In an unusual move, 17 automakers, including giants General Motors, Ford and Toyota, have sent a letter to President Donald Trump urging him not to move ahead on plans to roll back federal fuel economy standards – a move that puts the industry more in line with environmentalists than the anti-regulatory White House. The Trump Administration has signaled since it was first inaugurated its intention to roll back Obama-era guidelines that would have seen the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, or CAFE, standard rise to 54.5 mpg by 2025. The administration’s draft plans would freeze the numbers at 2021 model-year levels, or about 37 mpg. The Last Word! The proposal has already generated significant opposition from environmental and consumer groups, as well as the State of California which would effectively lose its current right to set standards higher than those established by the federal government. California has played lead in the various legal actions that have been filed to block any rollback even before the original outline of a plan the White House announced was formalized. (GM sees EVs reaching cost-parity with gas cars sooner than expected. Click Here for more.) Moving ahead with the draft plan to rollback CAFE would likely result in “an extended period of litigation and instability, which could prove as untenable as the current program,” the automakers wrote, as a group, through the trade association the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The shift to light trucks has made it more difficult for automakers to meet CAFE. “We strongly believe the best path to preserve good auto jobs and keep new vehicles affordable for more Americans is a final rule supported by all parties—including California,” they emphasized. The Obama-era regulations were achieved through a rare consensus between federal and state regulators, environmentalists and automakers. In the year leading up to the 2016 election, however, a number of those manufacturers began to question whether they would be able to meet the 54.5 mpg target, especially in light of the massive market shift from sedans and coupes to SUVs, CUVs and pickups. But the Trump Administration has actually gone further in the draft than many of the automakers, at least publicly, have said they wanted. And the plan to check California’s unique power has proven particularly unpopular, especially in light of the fact that more than a dozen other states have opted to follow its guidelines, rather than the federal standard. The California mandate puts further emphasis on shifting the market from the internal combustion engine to battery-cars and other zero-emission vehicles. “We urge both California and the federal government to resume discussions, because avoiding protracted litigation and uncertainty is good for all parties, including consumers, and for the environment,” Governor Gavin Newsom wrote in a letter sent to the White House at the same time as the industry correspondence. “We know that reaching an agreement has been challenging, but the stakes are too high and the benefits too important to accept the status quo.” (Click Here for more about GM and Bechtel planning JV to create new EV charging network.) California plans to fight to protect its own rules promoting a switch to electric vehicles. In reality, the industry would like to see California and the feds come to terms on a single standard, even if it tougher than what they see as an ideal target. The alternative to a friendly resolution is protracted litigation that leaves automotive planners in limbo. “Certainty is what we crave,” said Joe Hinrichs, head of Ford’s automotive operations, in an interview earlier this year. Having no clear target while the fight works through the courts means, at best, automakers would have to aim for the most stringent targets. Several manufacturers, including Honda and Toyota have said they won’t roll back their own mileage and emissions goals. If anything, Toyota on Friday announced plans to accelerate its roll-out of clean, high-mileage electrified vehicles. (Toyota speeding up EV development program. Click Here for the story.) –> Tags: CAFE, california cafe, fuel economy, fuel economy rollback, gm cafe, gm mileage, mileage rollback, paul a. eisenstein, paul eisenstein, thedetroitbureau, trump fuel economy, trump fuel economy rollback This entry was posted on Friday, June 7th, 2019 at and is filed under Automakers, Automobiles, Business, Crossovers/CUVs, Electrified Vehicles, Environment, Executives, Financials, Ford, Fuel Economy, GM, Investors, Lawsuits/Legal, Personalities, Pickups, Politicians, Regulatory, Sales, Sales, Technology, Toyota, Trends, Volkswagen. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Published at Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:28:38 +0000 The post Automakers Push Back on Trump Plan to Relax Mileage Rules appeared first on Sell Auto Notes | Sell BHPH Notes | Auto Note Buyers. https://autonotebuyerinc.com/automakers-push-back-on-trump-plan-to-relax-mileage-rules/

0 notes

bestgaddi-com · 2 months ago

Text

2024 Ford F-150 Hybrid: Balancing Power and Efficiency

Overview and MPG Performance

The 2024 Ford F-150 Hybrid is a powerhouse, offering a solid 25 MPG combined. It’s the perfect blend of Ford’s legendary truck performance and modern hybrid technology.

Key Features and Specs

The F-150 Hybrid comes equipped with a 3.5L PowerBoost Full Hybrid V6 engine that delivers a jaw-dropping 430 horsepower and 570 lb-ft of torque. It’s built for those who need serious power without the fuel costs that typically come with it.

Why It’s a Top Choice

This hybrid truck is ideal for those who want the best of both worlds—muscle and mileage. Whether you’re towing a trailer or driving cross-country, the F-150 Hybrid is up to the task.

#2024 Truck Reviews #2025 Truck Fuel Efficiency #Best Fuel Economy Trucks 2024 #Best Gas Mileage Trucks 2024 and 2025 #Best MPG Trucks 2024 #Best Trucks 2024 #Fuel Economy Trucks 2025 #Fuel Efficient Trucks 2024 #High MPG Trucks 2024 #Top Fuel Efficient Trucks #Top Trucks Gas Mileage #Trucks with Best Gas Mileage 2025

0 notes

mikemortgage · 6 years ago

Text

White House ends California talks on mileage dispute

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday broke off talks on vehicle mileage standards with California, increasing the chances of a court battle that threatens to unsettle the auto industry.

The White House, which has proposed freezing the standards, said it would now move unilaterally to finish its own mileage rule later this year “with the goal of promoting safer, cleaner, and more affordable vehicles.”

The administration’s action challenges California’s decades-old authority to set its own, tougher mileage standards. California has used a waiver that Congress granted it under the 1970s Clean Air Act to help deal with its punishing smog. About a dozen states follow California’s mileage standards; that group accounts for about one-third of U.S. auto sales.

Lawmakers and automakers had urged a settlement and warned that different standards could bring years of court battles and raise costs for automakers and consumers.

California officials and the administration accuse each other of failing to present any acceptable compromise. The dispute comes as President Donald Trump feuds with the Democrat-led state over his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall and his threats to take back federal money from a high-speed rail project. California has taken a leading role in a 16-state lawsuit against Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to get money for the wall after Congress refused to provide it.

“Another targeted attack on CA by the Trump administration,” tweeted Gov. Gavin Newsom, D-Calif. “Clean air should be the most basic of human rights. This is a reckless political stunt that puts the health of MILLIONS of kids, families, and communities across America at risk.”

The administration last year proposed freezing mileage standards for cars and light trucks after slightly tougher 2020 levels go into effect. Doing so would scrap an Obama-era rule that would have improved fuel efficiency in 2025 to a fleet average of 36 mpg on the road. The Obama standard would have raised fuel efficiency by 10 mpg over current levels.

Trump’s move is one of a series of rollbacks targeting Obama administration efforts against pollution and climate change.

Janet McCabe, an acting assistant administrator for air at the Environmental Protection Agency under President Barack Obama, said California’s years of technological and regulatory efforts to lower pollution have pushed the auto industry to make cleaner-burning vehicles.

The conservative American Energy Alliance asserted that the state’s politicians long have taken a stand against “affordable, abundant energy, no matter the impact on California families.”

The auto industry hasn’t given up hope for an agreement on one national standard.

A major industry organization said automakers still support gradual increases in fuel economy that account for the shift from cars to SUVs and trucks.

“We encourage everyone to keep focusing on how we get there, because this is in the best interests of all parties, including consumers,” the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers said in a statement.

Because it takes several years to design vehicles, automakers have been planning to meet higher mileage requirements under Obama-era standards, as well as those in other countries.

For the 2020 model year and beyond, automakers already are designing many cars, trucks and SUVs that can be powered by conventional gasoline engines as well as more efficient gas-electric hybrid systems, auto industry analyst Sam Abuelsamid of Navigant Research said.

For now, “essentially the industry is ignoring what Trump wants to do,” Abuelsamid said. “We know at least until this thing gets settled in the courts, we have to deal with California and the other states and have product that can sell there as well as products that can sell overseas.”

——–

Krisher reported from Detroit. Associated Press writer Kathleen Ronayne in Sacramento, California, contributed to this report.

from Financial Post https://ift.tt/2Xd2EoW via IFTTT Blogger Mortgage Tumblr Mortgage Evernote Mortgage Wordpress Mortgage href="https://www.diigo.com/user/gelsi11">Diigo Mortgage

#IFTTT #Financial Post

0 notes

jesusvasser · 6 years ago

Text

First Drive: 2019 Ram 1500 eTorque

LEXINGTON, Kentucky — How does a major auto manufacturer meet the strict 2025 Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards with their highly profitable full-size pickup trucks … assuming of course that they’re not rescinded?

Diesel is the in-pocket answer for the Detroit Three and Nissan, and Ford’s big move a few years ago was a lightweighting that involved a massive shift to aluminum construction, making EcoBoost V-6s a viable alternative.

Meanwhile, Fiat Chrysler’s Ram is on to something by becoming the first truckmaker to offer a 48-volt mild hybrid system in its all-new 1500 truck. The system, branded eTorque, is standard with the Pentastar V-6 that becomes available this fall, and is optional with the 5.7-liter Hemi V-8, both versions on-sale now. The Pentastar V-6 eTorque uses a Continental-supplied 48-volt system, while the Hemi V-8 uses one from Magneti Marelli, the supplier that investment firm KKR is rumored to be ready to buy from Fiat Chrysler.

Ram claims a 2,300-pound payload for the V-6 eTorque, and a 12,750-pound trailer towing capacity for the V-8 eTorque, and so the truck marque used Kentucky horse country to show off its thoroughly redesigned new model, including a stop at WinStar Farms in Versailles, current home to 2018 Triple Crown winner Justify.

Both the eTorque V-6 and the eTorque V-8 are available with rear- or four-wheel-drive, and the usual array of pickup truck body styles and trims, though the test vehicles provided all were four-door crew cabs, with their four-inch increase in wheelbase over the 2018 model (which remains available as the 2019 Ram 1500 Classic), and of which three inches went to create an especially capacious back seat.

The eTorque system for either engine includes a 12-volt battery with a DC-to-DC 48- to 12-volt converter, and it provides a reliable stop/start system with smooth transitions even with a big load or heavy horse trailer. In stop/start situations, the first half-turn of the wheels is pure-electric, before making the transition to the gas engine, under any application of throttle. The eTorque V-6 features a two-step lift variable cam phasing, and the eTorque Hemi V-8 has variable cam phasing with cylinder shut-off to four cylinders.

The stop part of the stop/start system can shut off the engine while keeping everything else going for up to 10 minutes. In addition to the e-roll assist half-turn of the wheels, the eTorque systems assist shift transition smoothing and reduce parasitic drag. There’s a coast-fuel shutoff with reduced pumping effort and coasting regeneration, and levels of regeneration that includes pure eTorque, pure friction or a blend of the two.

On the 3.6-liter Pentastar V-6, eTorque adds 90 pound-feet to the base engine’s 269 pound-feet, and on the 5.7-liter Hemi, eTorque is good for an additional 130 pound-feet of torque, on top of the base V-8’s 410 pound-feet.

EPA numbers weren’t quite ready for the V-6 eTorque, but Ram expects a 2-mpg to 3-mpg city/highway increase over the standard Pentastar, which would potentially push the 4WD 1500’s estimates to 18/26 mpg, and the 2WD 1500’s estimates to 19/28 mpg.

The ’19 Ram 1500 Hemi eTorque is already in dealers, and the 4WD models’ EPA of 17/22 city/highway mpg tops comparable V-8 Ford F-150s and the new ’19 Chevrolet Silverado/GMC Sierra with the 6.2-liter V-8 and 10-speed automatic. The 4WD Ram’s highway number is equal to the 5.3-liter/8-speed versions of the 4WD GM models, and beats them by 1 mpg in the city.

Ram claims more than 600 miles range for the Pentastar eTorque Ram, and more than 800 miles when equipped with the optional 33-gallon fuel tank, while the Hemi eTorque is said to top 750 miles range.

Keep in mind, too, that the Pentastar V-6 with eTorque is standard on all Ram 1500 pickups. The gas-only Hemi option adds $1,195, and the Hemi with eTorque is $1,450 on top of that, making it a $2,645 option over the V-6, which probably doesn’t mean much to all the suburban cowboys buying pickups with $45,000+ MSRPs.

So we started our test drive through lush and verdant Kentucky horse country in the eTorque Hemi. Though there’s just the slightest stop/start lag when you floor the throttle from a standing start, you’ll be impressed by that first, all-electric half-turn of the wheels. The 2019 Ram 1500 4WD eTorque V-8 feels like the match of, or quicker than, any V-8 pickup truck out there, other than high-performance models like the Ford F-150 Raptor. Order the eTorque Hemi, and you get all the thick torque throughout the range of a big V-8, with livable fuel efficiency without the diesel guilt.

The whole truck is pretty impressive, especially among those of us who don’t desire having one as a daily driver. Though the usual urban parking issues can’t be overcome, the ’19 Ram 1500 drives a bit smaller than it is, and it’s significantly smoother than the competition. There was no detectable rear-wheel judder with an empty cargo box and under heavy throttle application.

Credit the coil-spring rear suspension, which Ram has had for several years now, while everyone else sticks with leaf springs last updated in the Conestoga era.

For the ’19 model, the steering gear is all new, and its precision and feedback feels as good as any big truck’s. A canister off each front side of the frame counters cylinder deactivation vibration (and it worksyou can’t feel cylinder shut-off). Ram engineers have moved the front anti-roll bar behind the front knuckle of the short-long arm suspension, for reduced roll stiffness and lighter weight.

The front knuckles and control arms are all-aluminum, part of a mixed-materials strategy that includes 98-percent high strength steel in the frame. Twin-tube shocks are standard, and a five-mode air suspension is optional, with its aero-mode kicking in about 60-62 mph. Overall, the truck has 28 times more high strength steel than the old, or Classic 1500, with weight reduction of up to 250 pounds, of which 100 pounds is a body-in-white diet.

We had a short drive of a ’19 Ram 1500 4WD with the eTorque V-6, and while it’s clearly less powerful and torquey than the eTorque V-8, it’s plenty quick for pickup buyers who want a good work truck and also want to save gas.

The 2019 Ram 1500s with the eTorque engines are potentially best-in-class in many ways, including handsome interiors with good materials and fit-and-finish, whether in mid-spec Big Horn and Lone Star trim or full hat-and-cattle Longhorn trim. The cutting edge eTorque engines should satisfy every sort of Ram pickup buyer, though if you can’t live without that good old fashioned rattle and smoke, rest assured that the diesel option is on the way.

2019 Ram 1500 Lone Star Longhorn Crew Cab 4×4 Specifications

ON SALE Now PRICE $43,590-55,340/$53,835-66,755 (base/as tested) ENGINE 3.6L DOHC 24-valve V-6 plus 48-volt lithium-ion battery, 305-hp @ 6,400 rpm, 269 lb-ft. @ 4,800 rpm plus 90 lb-ft. launch torque; 5.7L OHV 16-valve V-8 plus 48-volt lithium-ion battery, 395 hp @ 5,600 rpm, 410 lb-ft. @3,950 rpm, plus 130 lb-ft. of launch torque TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic LAYOUT 4-door, 5-passenger, 4WD pickup truck* EPA MILEAGE 17/22 mpg (city/highway, V-8 eTorque) L x W x H 228.9 x 82.1 x 77.7 in WHEELBASE 140.5 in WEIGHT 4,500-5,600 lb (est) 0-60 MPH 5.9 sec (est) TOP SPEED N/A

#IFTTT #Performance Junk WP Feed 4

0 notes

jonathanbelloblog · 6 years ago

Text

First Drive: 2019 Ram 1500 eTorque

Ram claims more than 600 miles range for the Pentastar eTorque Ram, and more than 800 miles when equipped with the optional 33-gallon fuel tank, while the Hemi eTorque is said to top 750 miles range.

Credit the coil-spring rear suspension, which Ram has had for several years now, while everyone else sticks with leaf springs last updated in the Conestoga era.

2019 Ram 1500 Lone Star Longhorn Crew Cab 4×4 Specifications

#IFTTT #Performance Junk Blogger Feed 4

0 notes

eddiejpoplar · 6 years ago

Text

Ford Has a “Better” Idea

You could write a book filled with all the things someone might reasonably think, say, or splutter about Ford’s recent decision to largely abandon the North American passenger car market. In late April, Ford’s new CEO, Jim Hackett, informed the financial community that, come 2020, almost 90 percent of Ford’s North American portfolio will consist of trucks and utility and commercial vehicles. There is room here to touch on only a few concerns this development rains down upon us. Farewell Fusion, Focus, Fiesta, and Taurus; hello things taller, wider, and most likely heavier.

How did this happen, and why? Cheap gas is the obvious culprit—like magic, it made thirsty vehicles plausible again, and for many carmakers, this makes America great again. They can get back to selling bigger trucks, SUVs, and crossovers, which are more profitable endeavors. But we know how this roller-coaster ride winds up.

Congress would have been wise to tax gasoline more heavily when gas was cheap—to lock in the national move toward more fuel-efficient vehicles that was picking up steam as America came out of recession. But Congress didn’t consider it for a minute, and automakers preferred selling SUVs as they had for decades before briefly renouncing them. Then, as now, they charged more for SUVs and crossovers, which cost them very little if any more to make than ordinary cars.

Hard to recall, but gas mileage improvements were happening in this country. Then, after years of cheap gas, national fuel economy stopped improving in 2017. This is what government and industry and much of the citizenry said we weren’t going to do again. Think back to 2008-09 and how different the mood was when federal bailouts for GM and FCA and a $5.9 billion loan to Ford from the U.S. Department of Energy spawned a generation of more fuel-efficient powertrains. Ford and others apologized for their environmental profligacy, acknowledging their own roles in their financial troubles and the lack of fuel-efficient vehicles they had to offer in times of high gas prices. They testified there was nothing they wanted to do more than get away from over-reliance on SUV profits, to build a new generation of sedans and passenger vehicles while getting a big leg up on this electric car thing.

Today we understand this position as an aberration or bout of temporary insanity, a momentary detour from their long-term stra-tegy for America, which is to make more money short-term selling as many of the biggest cars as they can get away with. The prospect of an imminent autonomous, ride-sharing, sales-collapse future has them running scared today, convinced they need to bank cash while they can. Like the rest of us, Detroit wonders how soon the gravy train is going to dry up. Ford President of Global Markets Jim Farley burnished Hackett’s 90-percent not-cars promise to investors by allowing that the company was also eager to build more “authentic off-roaders.” This despite almost no one ever going off-road.

Cheap gas is the obvious culprit—like magic, it made thirsty vehicles plausible again, and for many carmakers, this makes America great again.

This brings us to the question of the deeply psychological place high-riding SUVs, trucks, and crossovers occupy in the human psyche. Many people like them. But it isn’t like auto-makers haven’t been trying their hardest to sell them, either, marketing and talking up the jacked-up lifestyle to the cumulative tune of tens of billions. When the industry says the customer decides where the market goes, that’s not the whole truth.

In addition, there was another element to Ford’s decision to administer euthanasia to its family sedan lines in its 115th year.

Just two years ago, Ford boasted it had been named Interbrand’s best global green brand. But something happened on the way to the love-in: Ford and the rest of the industry bumped into President Donald Trump, who created a safe space for the bigly regulated to get back in touch with their biggest, baddest selves. Along with other manufacturers, Ford lobbied the newly receptive government of a rule-burner-in-chief to overturn the upgraded (but still imperfect) Obama-era CAFE and emissions standards for 2025, which they gleefully did. The industry, which had agreed to the rules under much humbled circumstances, went back on its word. Although it was on target to meet tougher standards, it saw junkie daylight and a path back to its old, dangerous habits. Like many an addict before it, it went right back in.

Today Ford promises to take further advantage of a situation it was already taking liberal advantage of by selling even more trucks and crossovers with big footprints, which entitle them, under the rules (thanks, Obama!), to get lousier fuel economy and emit more than smaller vehicles. This was the poison pill planted in the 2009 regulations. Ford is not alone. GM sold Opel, its most convincing center of small car excellence, last year. So too FCA, which shuttered the Dart and Chrysler 200 production lines. Trucks and crossovers are set to take these almost-brand-new cars’ place, with the company’s compact and midsize passenger car lines forever cast into space.

Bailing on cars and failing to allocate adequate development money to carry these machines through their life cycles with dignity, all three of America’s heritage carmakers have walked away from what had once been their lifeblood and—even in their darkest days—a big part of who they were.

Instead, we have Ford’s new boss telling analysts, “We’re going to feed the healthy parts of our business and deal decisively with the parts that destroy value.” Imagine that: the great American family sedan now a value destroyer in the eyes of America’s oldest car company. Ousted Ford CEO Mark Fields was making all the modern noises and many of the newfangled investments the market indicated it wanted in the face of the futurescape that excites it so much. But it made no difference to Ford’s share prices. Last May, Fields was canned, and Hackett was in. But Hackett’s big idea—big spending cuts, including savings from the passenger car trapdoor, totaling $25 billion—hasn’t moved the market, either. Nor has a planned $11 billion spend on electric cars.

Meanwhile, it’s as if Ford convinced itself it couldn’t make money off sedans, hatchbacks, or wagons. This is the fight Ford lost in the ’70s, came back to in the ’80s with the Taurus, gave up again in the ’90s, then came back to fight harder once more with fine cars like the Fusion and Focus. But now Ford is quitting cars entirely (except for the Mustang and a rugged Focus variant). The We Can Do Everything swagger the American car industry personified for a century is truly gone. In its place, the fat man who can’t be bothered to bend over to pick up a dollar bill from the sidewalk because he’s worried about his health.

The post Ford Has a “Better” Idea appeared first on Automobile Magazine.

from Performance Junk Blogger 6 https://ift.tt/2JlGXPs via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Performance Junk Blogger 6

0 notes

bestforlessmove · 6 years ago

Text

How tax reform affects your 2018 mileage deduction

If you drive a personal vehicle for your property management business, you'll need to understand how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will impact your 2018 mileage deduction. While Congress passed the bill last December, the changes only went into effect on January 1, 2018 and do not affect your 2017 taxes. As part of our series on tax regulations, we get into the nitty gritty of mileage deductions to keep tracking and reporting your resources on the road efficiently.

Employees Get No Deduction for Work-Related Mileage

Before 2018, employees who incurred out-of-pocket expenses to perform their jobs could claim a deduction as long as expenses were not reimbursed by their employer. This was a miscellaneous itemized deduction, meaning it could be claimed only by taxpayers who chose to itemize. Also, such expenses were deductible only if, and to the extent, they exceeded 2% of the employee's adjusted gross income. By far the most common unreimbursed employee expense was job-related mileage (not including personal commuting). Other deductible unreimbursed expenses included long-distance travel expenses, continuing education expenses required for present employment, job search expenses for the same occupation, work-related dues and subscriptions, depreciation on a home computer used for work, and home offices used for the convenience of the employer. In 2015, 14.6 million taxpayers claimed this deduction, for a total of more than $96 billion.

The TCJA eliminated this deduction entirely starting in 2018 and continuing through 2025. This means that if you're an employee who drives for work you may not deduct any of your car expenses on your personal tax return.

You should seek to have your employer reimburse you for your work-related mileage. You can use the standard mileage rate-54.5 cents per mile in 2018-to calculate your reimbursements. Such reimbursements are tax-free to you, the employee, so long as you adequately account for your mileage and also tax deductible by your employer. If an employee drives his or her car a lot for work, it could be worthwhile to accept a salary reduction in return for such reimbursement. Tax must be paid on salary, while the reimbursements are tax-free.

Alternatively, an employer can provide an employee with a company car, which would be tax free if the employee only uses it for work-related driving (not including personal commuting).

More Depreciation for Automobiles Starting In 2018

If you're self-employed, you may continue to take a business deduction for the business use of your personal car. This was not eliminated like the employees deduction: it was enhanced. It helps to first know that the annual depreciation deduction for automobiles is subject to a maximum annual dollar limit. The TCJA greatly increases the annual limits for passenger vehicles first placed into service in a business during 2018 and later. The amounts are shown in the following chart and they apply to all passenger vehicles, including automobiles, trucks, and vans that fall within the definition. The chart shows that if you place a passenger vehicle into service in your business in 2018, you may take a maximum depreciation deduction of $10,000. The second year, you may deduct a whopping $16,000. That's $26,000 in depreciation deductions in the first two years–$34,000 if bonus depreciation is also claimed. These are by far the highest annual limits for passenger vehicle depreciation that have ever been allowed!

It's important to note that this chart assumes 100% business use of the vehicle. If you adopt the vehicle for both personal and business purposes, the limits are then reduced by the percentage of personal use. For example, if you use the vehicle 40% of the time for personal use, your annual deductions are consequently reduced by 40%. Additionally, you receive no bonus depreciation unless you use the vehicle at least 51% of the time for business and you must continue to do so for the first six years you own it or be required to give back part of your deduction. Moreover, your actual depreciation deduction, up to the annual limit, depends on the cost of your car and how much you drive for business.Unfortunately, if you purchased your car and placed it into service during 2017 or earlier, you can't benefit from these new limits and you're stuck with those that applied before. For passenger automobiles placed into service during 2017, only $3,160 could be deducted in 2017 and $5,100 in 2018.

To claim the depreciation deduction for an automobile, you must use the actual expense method to calculate your annual mileage deduction, not the standard mileage rate. With the actual expense method, you are required to keep track of what you spend on gas and other car expenses and deduct that amount each year. The standard mileage rate is simpler because you deduct a set amount for each business mile (again 54.5 cents) instead of your actual itemized expenses. When you use the actual expense method the first year you own a vehicle, you won't be allowed to ever use the standard mileage rate for that same vehicle. However, depending on the cost of your car and how much you drive for business, the substantial depreciation you can now claim may make it worthwhile to use the actual expense method.

Now that you've learned all about how the 2018 mileage deduction has evolved, we hope that it will help you work with your accountant to determine the best course of action for your property management business. For an overview of the 2018 tax regulations, check out our post: How does the new tax law impact property managers? 9 changes to be aware of.

The post How tax reform affects your 2018 mileage deduction appeared first on Buildium.

0 notes

investmart007 · 7 years ago

Text

WASHINGTON | Trump wants negotiations with California on auto gas mileage

New Post has been published on https://is.gd/AfLU3e

WASHINGTON | Trump wants negotiations with California on auto gas mileage

WASHINGTON — Addressing a key concern for manufacturers, President Donald Trump has instructed his administration to explore negotiations with California on achieving a single fuel economy standard for the nation during a meeting with auto industry executives.

The president met with top auto executives Friday to discuss the standards and tasked Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt to handle the talks with California officials, according to two people briefed on the meeting. The people spoke on condition of anonymity to describe the private discussions.

The auto industry wants to relax the federal fuel economy standards, but not so much that they provoke a legal fight with California, which has power to impose its own stricter tailpipe pollution limits. Such a fight could create two different mileage standards in the U.S., forcing automakers to engineer and produce two versions of each of their vehicle models and driving up costs.

A Trump administration official said the two agencies have had meetings and discussions with California officials on the issue for several months.

Two auto industry trade groups confirmed in a statement that Trump was willing to talk with California, but they provided no specifics. The Alliance for Automotive Manufacturers and Global Automakers said they appreciated Trump’s “openness to a discussion with California on an expedited basis.”

During the meeting, one executive brought up how it would be better for the industry to have one standard instead of two, and Trump instructed Pruitt and Chao to go to California for talks, the people said.

White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said the president and the automakers discussed “how best to move forward” on the fuel economy standards.

The EPA under Trump has proposed freezing the standards at 2020 levels for the next five years, according to a draft of the proposal obtained by Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del. Under the proposal, the fleet of new vehicles would have to average roughly 30 miles per gallon in real-world driving, and that wouldn’t change through at least 2025.

The EPA under Obama proposed standards that gradually would become tougher during that period, rising to 36 mpg in 2025, 10 mpg higher than the current requirement. California and automakers agreed to the rules in 2012, setting a single national fuel economy standard.

If California splits from the federal rule under consideration by the Trump administration, it likely would be joined by 12 states that follow its standards. Together they make up about 40 percent of U.S. new-vehicle sales.

Any big change by Trump certainly would bring lawsuits from environmental groups as well as California. Leaks about the Trump EPA plan already have provoked a suit from California and 16 other states.

In testimony to Congress this month, Mitch Bainwol, CEO of the manufacturers’ alliance, said the trade group urged the administration to find a solution that increases mileage requirements from 2022 to 2025 and includes California to keep one national standard.

“The resulting regulatory nightmare would ultimately harm consumers by increasing vehicle costs and restricting consumer choice,” Bainwol said.

Trump said during the meeting in the Roosevelt Room of the White House that he wanted to discuss the “manufacturing of millions of more cars within the United States, for Michigan, for Ohio, for Pennsylvania” and states like South Carolina and North Carolina.

As the auto executives introduced themselves, the president joked to Sergio Marchionne, CEO of Fiat Chrysler, that “right now he’s my favorite man in the room” because he’s moving a plant from Mexico to Michigan.

Trump won the presidency in 2016 in part on his strength in the industrial Midwest states of Michigan and Ohio, which employ thousands of people in auto and parts manufacturing. The meeting came as the administration has been holding extensive negotiations with Mexico and Canada on a rewrite of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the auto industry is watching warily.

Asked if the deal might adversely affect the industry, Trump said, “NAFTA has been a terrible deal, we’re renegotiating it now, we’ll see what happens.”

“Mexico and Canada, look, they don’t like to lose the golden goose. But I’m representing the United States. I’m not representing Mexico and I’m not representing Canada,” he said. “We’ll see if we can make it reasonable.”

Automakers have been lobbying the Trump administration to revisit the fuel economy requirements, saying they’ll have trouble reaching them because people are buying bigger vehicles due to low gas prices.

When the single national standard was adopted six years ago, cars, which get better mileage than trucks and SUVs, made up just under half of U.S. new vehicle sales. By the end of last year, however, trucks and SUVs were close to two-thirds of all sales.

Some environmental groups oppose any reduction in the standards, saying that the ones developed in 2012 allow for changes in consumer buying habits. Reducing the standards, they say, will increase pollution and raise gasoline prices at the pump.

Requirements now are lower for bigger vehicles such as trucks and SUVs, said Luke Tonachel, director of clean vehicles for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The standards automatically adjust to the sales mix of vehicles,” he said.

Environmental groups also say the industry marketed trucks and SUVs to the public because they make bring higher profits than cars.

Auto executives attending the meeting included Marchionne, General Motors CEO Mary Barra, Ford CEO Jim Hackett and Bob Carter, executive vice president of North America for Toyota.

By TOM KRISHER and KEN THOMAS,By Associated Press – published on STL.News by St. Louis Media, LLC (Z.S)

___

#auto gas mileage #California #negotiations #TodayNews #Trump wants #Washington

0 notes

crosbyru-blog · 5 years ago

Text

Automakers Push Back on Trump Plan to Relax Mileage Rules

0 notes