06 vs 07 Duramax

[JasonF]

I am looking at getting a Crew Cab Duramax 4x4 and I've foung some sweet deals on the 06's. The problem now is that money is tight and it looks like I will have to wait until next summer until I can pay off the wifes car.
My question that I have is what the major changes will be for 07 with the emissions? I know that the Classic 07 will be the same as 06 until Jan 07 but these will be in short supply I'm sure by next summer. How much will the new compliant 07's vary in MPG, performance, and price compared to equal 06's?
Thanks Jason

[K5Fury]

You can expect about a $3,000 increase on a GM diesel for model year '07 due to the extra stuff needed to make it compliant.

[dozerboy]

Also a decrease in power and/or economy is likely.

[JasonF]

I guess it will be a wait and see game. Shoot we can send men to the moon so some GM engineers should be able to make a low emission D-max perform as before.

[dozerboy]

I'm sure they can but why if the other 2 can't, GM is just playing games with them?

[Yamsi401]

Originally Posted by JasonF

I guess it will be a wait and see game. Shoot we can send men to the moon so some GM engineers should be able to make a low emission D-max perform as before.

In electronics, there's a tradeoff when it comes to power - you don't get something for nothing. It took alot of horsepower to send a tiny ship to the moon with VERY inefficient engines - all done without environmental concerns of the tree huggers. These are the same huggers that would rather save the Northern Spotted Wood Tick instead of allowing the Diesel industry to go more mainstream into the vehicle market saving more fuel.

In Europe, Diesels account for about 40% of new cars sold each year. Diesel fuel has higher energy content than gasoline( 18% more punch per gallon), and diesel performance is usually better in terms of engine output. These factors also mean that vehicles running on diesel put less global-warming pollution into the air. Thus, it might seem that in today's world of rising temperatures and fuel prices, diesel is ripe for a surge in popularity in North America.

[LostBoy]

Originally Posted by Yamsi401

...Thus, it might seem that in today's world of rising temperatures and fuel prices, diesel is ripe for a surge in popularity in North America.

It's been ripe for a long time - the issue is most Americans hear "diesel" and have horrible visions of the loud, stinky, black cloud-emitting diesels of yesterday. In reality, they probably sit next to at least 1 modern diesel in traffic every day w/out even realizing it. Since they're never made aware of how clean & efficient modern technology has made diesels run, that general inaccurate perception changes very slowly, 1 person at a time. Automakers have to produce what the general public demands, regardless of alternative benefits.

That being said, it seems GM's really pushing the ridiculous E-85 $h!+, and with a ton of government backing I think most people will be inclined to go with that before diesel, at least until some organization or another puts out the funds to equally hype diesel w/ tv & radio commercials (by the way - all the cornfields they show in those tv commercials - I'm sure they're maintained w/ diesel tractors)

[K5Kahos]

All I know is, the surcharge is more like $5000, AND at all the diesel pumps around here have a sticker on them- " Low Sulfer 500, DO NOT RUN IN 2007 MODEL YEAR OR LATER" Written just like that. I have yet to see any pumps without it. The dealer said if you run that fuel, it will destroy your engine and void your warranty.

[LostBoy]

Originally Posted by K5Kahos

All I know is, the surcharge is more like $5000, AND at all the diesel pumps around here have a sticker on them- " Low Sulfer 500, DO NOT RUN IN 2007 MODEL YEAR OR LATER" Written just like that. I have yet to see any pumps without it. The dealer said if you run that fuel, it will destroy your engine and void your warranty.

In regard to folks that have an '07 truck and need to fuel it up, I think only the immortal words of Mr. T are sufficient to describe the situation: I PITY DA FOOL

No offense.

[J45p3r]

Originally Posted by LostBoy

That being said, it seems GM's really pushing the ridiculous E-85 $h!+, and with a ton of government backing I think most people will be inclined to go with that before diesel, at least until some organization or another puts out the funds to equally hype diesel w/ tv & radio commercials (by the way - all the cornfields they show in those tv commercials - I'm sure they're maintained w/ diesel tractors)

That E-85 "$h!+" make a lot more sense than diesel in my opinion. There's only so much oil to go around and at least E-85 is made from 85% renewable resource. On top of that, I bet a lot of those tractors run on bio-diesel or even ethanol.

[dozerboy]

I wish we could have kept diesel a secret then I would still be paying $1 gal. less for fuel over gas. Bio-diesel is probably more of a renewable resource then E85 I don't care what anyone else does I'll stick with diesels.

Originally Posted by J45p3r

I bet a lot of those tractors run on bio-diesel or even ethanol.

No they don't.

[FBJR]

If you believe the news hype, sure we are running out of oil.

We keep finding more, get it easier and more effecient.

We current reserves, just 200 years left

[04CHEVYYFZ]

I'll bet that barely any of the tractors are running bio diesel,

around here when farmers get their fuel they get a discounted

price for fuel that is not going to be used on the streets(like

an agricultural grade) I have yet to see one of those pumps with

a soy diesel sticker on it. I think that E-85 sucks, I'm all

for supporting farmers but that chit just doesnt run right. I

drove my moms new avy on a trip and filled up with E-85 on the

way there and then used premium on the way back. There was

about 4 to 5 mpg difference between the two premium being the

best. My buddy and my dad love to burn the soy diesel in their

****** b/c it seems to out perform regular diesel. When I get

out of college I will buy a diesel hands down over a gas motor.

The advantages of them are too much to list. Sorry for the long

post

edit: apparently "t r u c k s" is a bad word

[J45p3r]

Originally Posted by FBJR

If you believe the news hype, sure we are running out of oil.

We keep finding more, get it easier and more effecient.

We current reserves, just 200 years left

200 isn't that long Sure, it won't be a problem for you or me, so I guess that means we should just ignore it

If oil is so plentiful and easy to get, I shouldn't be paying $3+ gallon for gasoline.

So, as much as I want a DMAX and still may get a DMAX, diesel is not a solution near or long term.

Also, I'm not saying E-85 is either, but it's a better solution than diesel, IMO.

Also, I should say that diesel DOES kick ass, but I just think we are nearing the end of it's life. Personally, I'd love to see hydrogen succeed since I think that is the ultimate solution. Who knows for sure though, I'm just some guy in backwoods downeast Maine.

[LostBoy]

Bio-Diesel is also a renewable resource, and if it should ever go mainstream, its also a form of recycling left-over organics rather than sending them to a land fill. Plus, diesel emissions are less harmful to the environment in any case - bio pollutes very little at all (except for making your truck smell like a rolling fry-cooker)

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but here in CO the methanol level in gas from November to March is upped to about 10%, & just that small increase kills mileage by about 2 MPG or more - that's in the winter, when the air's cooler and therefore more dense, which should mean better overall performance & economy. They say it limits pollution when in reality it makes the exhaust gasses lighter so it cuts down on hanging smog in the dense air (again, I'm referring only to a 10% mixture in this case, not E85). So how does that help? Sure, you're cutting down on emissions in theory & there's less oil used for the mixture, but if you have to fill up every 3 days as opposed to every 5, doesn't that end up using more in the long run?

E-85 costs more to produce & is much less efficient than gasoline, and diesel's cheaper & easier to produce plus more efficient & causes less pollution than gasoline, so that should be the choice hands-down.

Also consider that there aren't really any studies showing the environmental impact from E85 emissions on a mass scale - how do we even know they're better? Lastly, consider the whole picture; if everybody went to E85, they'd be filling up much more frequently, so our lessened dependency on oil is slightly offset there. Then consider the increased ag equipment needed to harvest, plus the environmental impact from the increased use of pesticides & chemical fertilizers to maintain the larger crops... I'll get down now.

[cmpcpro]

Originally Posted by J45p3r

200 isn't that long Sure, it won't be a problem for you or me, so I guess that means we should just ignore it

Sounds about right to me.

[J45p3r]

Originally Posted by LostBoy

Bio-Diesel is also a renewable resource, and if it should ever go mainstream, its also a form of recycling left-over organics rather than sending them to a land fill. Plus, diesel emissions are less harmful to the environment in any case - bio pollutes very little at all (except for making your truck smell like a rolling fry-cooker)

I'm not sure about the rest of the country, but here in CO the methanol level in gas from November to March is upped to about 10%, & just that small increase kills mileage by about 2 MPG or more - that's in the winter, when the air's cooler and therefore more dense, which should mean better overall performance & economy. They say it limits pollution when in reality it makes the exhaust gasses lighter so it cuts down on hanging smog in the dense air (again, I'm referring only to a 10% mixture in this case, not E85). So how does that help? Sure, you're cutting down on emissions in theory & there's less oil used for the mixture, but if you have to fill up every 3 days as opposed to every 5, doesn't that end up using more in the long run?

E-85 costs more to produce & is much less efficient than gasoline, and diesel's cheaper & easier to produce plus more efficient & causes less pollution than gasoline, so that should be the choice hands-down.

Also consider that there aren't really any studies showing the environmental impact from E85 emissions on a mass scale - how do we even know they're better? Lastly, consider the whole picture; if everybody went to E85, they'd be filling up much more frequently, so our lessened dependency on oil is slightly offset there. Then consider the increased ag equipment needed to harvest, plus the environmental impact from the increased use of pesticides & chemical fertilizers to maintain the larger crops... I'll get down now.

How difficult is it to produce biodiesel in mass quantities?

[J45p3r]

Originally Posted by cmpcpro

Sounds about right to me.

Do you have kids or plan to have kids?

[cmpcpro]

Originally Posted by J45p3r

Do you have kids or plan to have kids?

The automobile has only been around for 100 years. In the next 200 years I'm sure they won't be running off of gasoline.

[dozerboy]

Originally Posted by J45p3r

How difficult is it to produce biodiesel in mass quantities?

Not very, but I don't know how it compares to petrol fuels or E-85. Diesel is the way to go just look at Europe, and you get better mileage with diesel automobile than a gas of the same make. 200 years is a hell of a long time our kids have nothing to worry about that's just liberal BS.