Gas Mileage

[Road Trip]

Worth remembering though that diesel efficiency isn't only from increased CR and minimised pumping losses but is in no small part from the reduced (overall) combustion temperatures due to the considerable excess air which reduces heat loss to coolant.

Good point. This is a perfect example of why I look forward to other folk's input on all this.

I do know that with the ever-tightening emissions limits that the increased emissions technology/cost of same on new diesel trucks is becoming breathtakingly expensive:

You must be registered for see images attach

(https://www.drivingline.com/articles/how-diesel-emission-systems-work/)

Of course too high combustion temps = excessive NOx production. By the same token, too cool combustion
temps creates a soot issue. Allowing the particulates (soot) to escape has obvious negative consequences, not the least of
which is the fallout of this dark soot onto our snowcaps, which some have claimed could conceivably change the Earth's Albedo? And as a
veteran of the burn pits over in the sandbox I've become a connoisseur of good quality air. And as a dad/grandad I owe it to the ones
who will live well into the future to do my part to keep my vehicles running clean & smoke-free.

But on a brighter note, I recently pulled this directly off of the EPA website:

You must be registered for see images attach

(credit: EPA website)

Pondering all this, I think that as long as I'm the same or cleaner than when the chore truck was first built then
I can continue to enjoy the hobby. Our aging rides can be real head-scratchers when parts of the clean air componentry reach the end of
their designed service life and give us counterintuitive symptoms, but I for one will continue to make it work instead of using the 20-year-old
emissions testing exemption as an excuse to let it slide and become a gross polluter. If I know better...then I should do better.

99% less emissions is both amazing and well worth doing.

 

[Erik the Awful]

Are you a C student?

I absolutely was, until I joined the military. I was not succeeding in college because I had dreams, but no support. College was all about seeing if you were willing to swim through a mile of crap for the promise of a "real job". I joined the military and got better training. I went back to school with a goal in mind and a dealership technician program that had support, and got my associates degree. Then I got that "real job" that turned out to be a false promise. I went to work full time for the military and got two more associates degrees. I have 200 college credit hours (and am currently enrolled in another course) and no bachelor's degree to show for it. My current boss picked me over 80 other candidates specifically because I didn't have a degree and my resume showed that I was the kind of guy who's going to get the job done without having my hand held.

Seems like you missed the whole point of what everyone is saying here... GPA doesn't mean much. Engineers aren't superhuman and you shouldn't expect that they spent decades designing where that bolt goes in an application where it isn't necessary to do so. Assume that an average guy did the best he could with what he was given, because most of the team that did the design is going to be just that. They reuse as much as they can of the vetted and tried and trued designs, then they put it all together and try to troubleshoot and fix all the issues they find, then they get them on a test track and keep testing, troubleshooting, and iterating. The more time they have to do that and the less changes they have throughout a product line, the more refined the design will become and the better "engineered" it will be. But there are always cost/benefit considerations and the testing/refinement can't go on forever.

If you watch any advertising, Madison Avenue wants you to believe a given manufacturer expended massive resources perfecting their product. They show you ads with dozens of dudes in labcoats carrying clipboards and very studiously running tests in white labs with glass walls. You know that's not the truth. They had an engineering budget and a timeline. GM could have milked more economy out of vehicles if money was not a problem, but engineering has a labor cost, and cars are engineered on a timeline.

Sure, engineers are high performers, especially compared to business school graduates (shots fired!), but I've known and worked with enough engineers to know they're not cranking 24/7/365. They have good days and down days, just like the rest of us. The manufacturer is not going to spend the money to perfect their product, they're going to spend the money to get as much of an economy increase as they can within $XXXX.95 by a date two months in the future, because engineering gains have a shelf life. They have to push it to market, even if they left gains on the table. Maybe they'll get those gains at the mid-cycle platform refresh.

The implication is that everything is done by people who are just barely competent. I don't think it's correct, except perhaps in government.

The only difference between government and the private sector is that the private sector doesn't have to show their books. I've been in both, and they're both run by C students. I work with engineers pretty regularly, and every time they ask me to catalogue a new part I have to remind them that I need supporting information.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

Interesting fact, Lindbergh was a civilian contractor in WW2, brough in to help get the P38s the range to fly longer Pacific missions. He leaned those Allison V12s out, ran with the prop at a pitch that ran them at a lower rpm than the Allison engineers thought was safe. After something like 500 flight hours the engines were pulled apart and found no undue wear. Running leaner had the side effect of also helping prevent lead fuel plug fouling.

He was also a nazi, allegedly. GM did/does it, but not in the US anymore as far as I know. I haven't messed with enabling it on my LS swap, but I could. My point is the barely competent engineers already knew about it and have been doing it since before you were born, and probably even before I was born. We can't hold it against them if regulations made them go in other directions.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

The only difference between government and the private sector is that the private sector doesn't have to show their books. I've been in both, and they're both run by C students. I work with engineers pretty regularly, and every time they ask me to catalogue a new part I have to remind them that I need supporting information.

How often does the government fire the worst performing 10%? It's common in my industry.

 

[Erik the Awful]

Firing the bottom 10% is not good management. It's lazy leadership and it's destructive. It encourages backstabbing and self-promotion over the mission. As an Air Reserve Technician (ART), my position was pretty secure. High-year tenure doesn't apply to ARTs, but when I deployed overseas I had to work with active duty Tech Sergeants who were butting up against getting booted out for not getting promoted. They were the worst backstabbing sons of bi+ches I ever worked with. They were absolutely destructive to morale. My position was secure, so my focus was getting the work done, but at every turn they ran to management and claimed my work for their own, and tried to blame every failure on me. They were trying to claim they single-handedly won the war so they could get a medal, which would help with promotion. I got three medals just for going, and the medals didn't mean $#!+ for my career.

 

[Caman96]

A C student from the the 90’s is more qualified than today’s A student. And DEI is accelerating this in government and the private sector. #Boeing
Or the government:

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

Firing the bottom 10% is not good management. It's lazy leadership and it's destructive. It encourages backstabbing and self-promotion over the mission. As an Air Reserve Technician (ART), my position was pretty secure. High-year tenure doesn't apply to ARTs, but when I deployed overseas I had to work with active duty Tech Sergeants who were butting up against getting booted out for not getting promoted. They were the worst backstabbing sons of bi+ches I ever worked with. They were absolutely destructive to morale. My position was secure, so my focus was getting the work done, but at every turn they ran to management and claimed my work for their own, and tried to blame every failure on me. They were trying to claim they single-handedly won the war so they could get a medal, which would help with promotion. I got three medals just for going, and the medals didn't mean $#!+ for my career.

Essentially, they are firing their C students. I don't know about other industries but in software it happens and you can't hide it with BS because everyone on the team knows who the bottom 10% is.

 

[Erik the Awful]

I've seen plenty of D students schmooze the boss and stay on, while B students get fired and A students leave after being the shop mule too long. When I see failure, I don't blame the C students, I blame management for not selling the mission and not being engaged to see what's actually going on.

 

[0xDEADBEEF]

It's no different than your favorite sports team trying to improve its roster. It's meritocracy.

It's not even really that bad of a thing. Everyone knows the places that do it and just because you didn't work out at MegaCorp working on bleeding edge technology, doesn't mean you can't be a great hire at MediumCorp working on something else.

 

[Caman96]

When I see failure, I don't blame the C students, I blame management for not selling the mission

Another problem nowadays, no personal responsibility. Perpetuating more C students. Why try? Just blame management.