Re: Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler

Stephen Harding wrote:

> 
> That may be true but most pickup trucks on the road today,
> and for quite a few years in the past, have not been work
> trucks.

But with Ford/Dodge/GM, that is a matter of how they are *optioned* by 
the buyer, and all are at their core work vehicles and can be bought as 
low-optioned rubber-floor-mat vehicles.

> "Gas hog"???  I wouldn't think 15-20 mpg would be considered
> "gas hog" given that's pretty much what the Fords, Dodges
> and Chevys get.


They're pretty comparable *empty*, but loaded there's a huge difference. 
The Big 3 all have diesels for highly fuel-efficient heavy duty work. 
The Tundra does not. If you want to tow a big trailer with a Tundra, 
you're stuck with a sub-10 mpg gasoline v8 combination just like back in 
the days of the V10 gasoline Ram or a 454 Chevy. Admittedly the bigger 
Toyota v8 has the power to handle a load like that very well, but its 
going to suck down gas at a prodigious rate. OTOH, the diesels can give 
mid teens economy with a loaded trailer. Even the very early diesel 
Dodge Ram (non-intercooled 1990 12-valve ***mins and 3-speed non-lockup 
automatic!) would give 14 mpg with a fully loaded 5th wheel cattle 
trailer. Been there, seen that, had to pick my jaw up off the floor. The 
difference between gas and diesel is that the thermodynamic efficiency 
of a turbo-diesel goes up with increasing load, so the net result is 
that fuel mileage decreases less with increasing load on the 
turbo-diesel than it does on a normally-aspirated gasoline engine.