GM Builds Pickups Without Certain Modules Due To Global Chip Shortage, Hurting Fuel Economy (reuters.com) 97
General Motors said on Monday that due to the global semiconductor chip shortage the U.S. automaker is building certain 2021 light-duty full-size pickup trucks without a fuel management module, hurting those vehicles' fuel economy performance. From a report: The lack of the active fuel management/dynamic fuel management module means affected models, equipped with the 5.3-liter EcoTec3 V8 engine with both six-speed and eight-speed automatic transmission, will have lower fuel economy by one mile per gallon, spokeswoman Michelle Malcho said. Malcho emphasized all trucks are still being built, something GM has repeatedly stressed it would try to protect as pickups are among GM's most profitable models. She declined to say the volume of vehicles affected. "By taking this measure, we are better able to meet the strong customer and dealer demand for our full-size trucks as the industry continues to rebound and strengthen," Malcho wrote in an email. The change runs through the 2021 model year, which typically ends in late summer or early fall, she said.
It's a pickup truck (Score:3)
How good fuel mileage are you expecting out of it, especially if you do use it to haul things (aside from groceries and shin biters)?
Re:It's a pickup truck (Score:5, Insightful)
And what do you suppose the odds are that it will actually carry anything more than 1% of the time it is driven?
Re:It's a pickup truck (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But everyone else might appreciate the slightly lower prices at the pump if those v8s get better mileage.
Re:It's a pickup truck (Score:4)
I have both a Mach E and a V8 Expedition, so I'm not sure how "anybody" can be used in a such a blanket fashion.
Re: (Score:3)
My V8 Mercedes got better mileage than my wife's 4 cylinder Suzuki Grand Vitara. I suspect the Suzuki would have been better with a V6.
Re: (Score:2)
V-8s, in older cars, often got much better mileage, especially on the highway, with 4 barrel carburetors. Two barrels were wide, for flooring it, and two were tiny, for sipping fuel while cruising.
Re: (Score:1)
And what do you suppose the odds are that it will actually carry anything more than 1% of the time it is driven?
Probably pretty high. The fact that I'm not hauling anything 90% of the time means I get better fuel economy, but for those times when i do need to haul stuff (this can be anything from dirtbikes, mower, building materials, garden supplies, animals, etc) I can do so with a slight hit to the fuel economy.
I really don't get why people like you get so upset about this shit. My wife's Tesla can do 0-60mph in a little under 4 seconds, are you angry that I don't floor it off the lights and do that 100% of the tim
Re: (Score:1)
I just find it comical to see the commercials of people driving their trucks offroad with improbably large loads compared to the reality of people too afraid of a scratch to ever drive the thing anywhere but to work and back on a nice paved road.
And with the fuel management deleted, you won't be getting that better fuel economy 90% of the time (if you bought one of the new trucks).
Re: (Score:1)
You seem awfully defensive. Especially considering that I'm talking about people who would never ever drive offroad because they might get a dent of a scratch. For the same reason, they will never ever carry a load more significant than groceries.
All that defensiveness just because someone laughs at marketing.
Re: (Score:1)
So you agree that the extra weight for heavy frame and suspension needed for carrying large loads and driving over boulders is a waste of fuel in a vehicle that will never be used for those things?
Re: It's a pickup truck (Score:2)
Most people just recognize how comically pristine truck beds look. Most people with pickups buy them because they fit into the fashion statement they wish to make in life. They rarely have anything to do with hauling.
Rational people who only use their beds once a year and don't need to make a fashion statement can simply rent a truck or trailer.
I'm not belittling fashion. But no one looks at a dude in a shiny leather jacket and thinks he's wearing it to protect himself in a spill.
Re: (Score:3)
According to the write-up, the difference is about 1mpg, which — my estimate — is at or around 5% for such vehicles. Maybe, a little more.
I wonder, what the trade-off is — and whether these trucks will not have a higher value later either because of more power, or better reliability, or some such...
Re: It's a pickup truck (Score:2)
They wonâ(TM)t. Efficiency usually means HIGHER reliability and better consistent power (due to thermal constraints).
The trade off is they can get by without this chip. But itâ(TM)s a worse trade-off in every other way. And 5% increased fuel usage isnâ(TM)t insignificant when scaled up to millions of vehicles. It means thousands of dollars more fuel costs over the life of the vehicle (if it has 20mpg and 250,000 mile lifetime and $3-$3.50/gallon average fuel costs, thatâ(TM)s $2000 great
Re: (Score:2)
Add to it that on some markets it might fall under a different tax bracket.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were all that straightforward, the reprogramming of vehicles' onboard computer(s) wouldn't be such a thing.
Re:It's a pickup truck (Score:4, Informative)
You seem to be going on the impression that every or even most truck drivers are going to be driving their truck at peak. That is rarely true.
A F-150 can carry over 3000 lbs and tow over 12,000 lbs.
How ever for most truck drivers even people who are using it for work, are usually carrying less than a few hundred pounds of equipment. A tool box full of the tools they need, and often some bulky but light items such as ladders, lumber, or the occasional large piece of equipment. If you actually drive, and pay attention to what most pickup drivers are doing with their trucks, you see most of them are empty or just have a few things in them. Rarely (even living in the country) Do I see a truck with a 5th wheel, with a large trailer, or a truck filled to the max with gravel.
The onboard computer can really help optimize fuel based on your driving conditions, this is part of the reason why pickup trucks are much more popular than ever. They may not be as fuel efficient as a car or even a modern SUV. But they are good enough for people to justify having one for their daily driver. Because Americans especially like the high drive height, and the utility when they need it available, to pick up a new appliance, or to get some additional supplies. But for your daily driver you are getting fuel economy around 25mpg which isn't a deal breaker. Especially say compared to a Camry that is only 10% better in fuel economy with much less utility. If you truck is going to be running at 10-15mpg all the time, you are going to be a slave to Fuel Costs, and your Truck would be used less, and people would opt for a more fuel efficient car.
We saw a drop of popularity of Trucks back in the mid 2000's because Gas prices were around $4.00 per gallon, which cause fueling your car expenses notching up you free cash. During that time people were getting Hybrid and smaller cars vs Trucks. Then they improved their fuel efficiency with the dropping price of fuel their popularity had risen again.
Most people don't need truck, Even if you live in the middle of nowhere with dirt roads (heck if you see the people in those areas, most of them drive small cars, and the Honda Fit is actually a popular car in these areas). The Farmers themselves may use the truck for work, but not as often as you think, because they have tractors for the real work, and a car for their daily driving. Their pickup just stays on their property and perhaps to pickup some hay or grain.
A lot of the image of the Truck driver isn't based on real life, but from the Truck Manufacturers Marketing. Manly Men, Driving big trucks getting er done! Where real life, is driving the truck to the Office, to sit down and call people on the phone while your truck is parked. On the weekend you may put in some flowers for your front lawn.
Re:It's a pickup truck (Score:5, Informative)
The ironic thing is that in a lot of rural areas, MPG is king, so for a lot of daily drives, something like a Honda Fit, Corolla, or Toyota Prius tends to be not uncommon. I've seen Priuses fitted with inverters because if they can make it to a back 40 road, they double as very solid and efficient generators for welding.
I've never understood why Toyota or some company that has a good record of making a small pickup can't make something like a 1990s-era Hilux, and make that a hybrid or EV. The four-bangers used to get 22+ MPG, and were light. They were not as big as a full size truck... but they got the job done, were extremely light, and were great for city runabouts. We don't need more full size Cybertrucks... instead, something like a Hilux (not a bigger Tacoma) as an EV, with a range extender under the hood. That way, the truck can be filled up at gas pumps for long trips, but for general stuff, it can be charged at home. It could even be used for generator power either in the back 40, or as an emergency. Nothing wrong with the full size trucks, but having something a bit smaller would be useful when parking in garages and the motorcycle-sized parking spots they call parking spaces in newer areas.
Re:It's a pickup truck (Score:5, Insightful)
It comes down to money. Most truck drivers are the Suburban Life Style Pickup Truck Drivers. Not many of these people are willing to admit to that. But they mostly feel having a big truck will validate their manhood. So 80% of all truck drivers want the bigger sized pickup truck F-150 is the most popular truck. Vs the 10% who wants a smaller truck. Where the cost of production for a bigger truck isn't that much different than a smaller truck. Most people will just want the biggest they can get, or just take the bigger size than what they really want.
I drive a Prius. I am looking into getting the Cybertruck. But what I really want is a Small Fuel Efficient Pickup truck good for daily driving, and enough utility to occasionally put 1 ton of wood pellets or pick up a large appliance.
Re: (Score:2)
I live in a condominium complex, and constantly see large families who are renting units driving brand new $45K pickup trucks.
They don't need it, they just want it, and are willing to spend all their money on it.
What's strange is, these same people will use beat up, lousy, hardly running ancient machines for their jobs. Then on the weekend climb into the new truck and zoom off.
Nobody really needs a larger truck. I just rent one if I need to move something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, your camper sound more of a recreational thing. And a AWD car or SUV can handle bad weather just fine, My Prius C (built on a Yaris frame) is perfactly fine for driving to the grocery store (30 miles for me) and back. Bad weather you really don't need a big car, just good tires.
I am not knocking you for having or wanting to have a pickup truck. But you don't need it, you just wanted it. It isn't a crime to get something you want vs to justify need to have.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the Chicken Tax. Outside the US, we have the Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger, Nissan Navara, and so on. The Chicken Tax has ensured that the US ute market evolved in isolation to its current bizarre state. It's like a case of island gigantism.
Re: (Score:2)
They do make smaller, hybrid trucks. They just don't sell them in the US.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because of government safety regulations. In the 90s, trucks were exempt from most passenger vehicle safety regulations. The cab would crush down to nothing in a rollover. But you could make a light, small truck that way, and a little 4-cylinder was enough to motivate it. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
But for your daily driver you are getting fuel economy around 25mpg which isn't a deal breaker. Especially say compared to a Camry that is only 10% better in fuel economy with much less utility.
Most of the pickups I see running around are SuperCrew 4x4s, which will never get 25 MPG. More like 15-18 MPG on a good day, maybe 20 on the highway. The Camry will get double the mileage of most pickups.
Next: A Weber Carburether (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect a decent fuel mileage and the risk is that it's getting even worse with loads.
Re: (Score:2)
Even pickups have been boasting 20+ mpg lately. Example: 2020 Ford F-150
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... [fueleconomy.gov]
Lots of engine options here so you can cherry-pick the data you want, but these pickups are getting better fuel economy than some SUVs from 10-20 years ago.
big denominator and tiny improvement is just math (Score:3)
For a efficient vehicle there is not much practical difference between 35 mpg and 45 mpg, but that level of improvement can require some costly equipment.
For a truck, going from 15 mpg to 20 mpg is a huge improvement in cost and range. And some modern full size trucks are able to get to over 25 mpg on highway.
Re: (Score:2)
2WD full size gasoline truck is practical and popular format. I learned to haul a fifth wheel on one. There are models that advertised north of 20 mpg, and theoretically if they don't meet EPA guidelines to make that claim then they have a great deal of legal liability. Ultimately I can only discuss agreed to facts, not your nonspecific doubts on what the "real" fuel economy might be.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if they are Diesels and 2WD. Which is about as common of a truck as finding a Unicorn.
If you'll look more closely, you'll find that the *vast* majority of duallys with fifth wheels pulling large trailers are 2WD diesels. Not having to drag around several hundred pounds' worth of transfer case, front diff, and other 4WD-associated weight translates directly to increased trailering capacity, plus 2WD trucks tend to be more stable/controllable since the center of gravity is lower.
Re: It's a pickup truck (Score:2)
A win for the consumer!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm more curious as to what is so dependent on a particular-sourced chip, when in essence the chip is just running firmware or software. When they develop the code for these functions they have to use some kind of development environment that is not based on the exact final IC, they develop wha they want out of either designing an IC based on the develoment environment, or simulating how their code is loaded into an off the shelf or customiziable IC to run.
Saying they can't get the chips and are simply omi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all chips run code. It's probably some specialized asic that only GM buys. A microprocessor like you're talking about is about as general as you can get. How do you know the GM chip isn't a state machine with a dozen analog inputs? The chip itself is the "code". Even if they could sub in parts and modify code you still need tons of rigorous testing. You want to sign off on that change? It's a hell of a safety issue.
Re: (Score:3)
"One Taiwanese company, TSMC, produces 70 percent of the global auto industryâ(TM)s supply of a key type of chip called a microcontroller, according to research firm IHS Markit."
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Bear in mind these are probably not ATMegas and PICs but MCUs specialized for robust operation in harsh automotive environments, and quite possibly with features that are standard in automotive applications but not in Arduinos.
Remember that this shortage affects the entire automotive industry so
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect this says more about the 'aggolmeration' process than the actual development environment.
It seems that a 'natural' evolution would be from "special circuit board with firmware" toward 'CPU with all the functions needed by the vehicle'. But, at least for the meantime, separate "Module"s, whatever they may be, may provide greater robustness...
Re: What actual chips are in short supply? (Score:2)
Go to DigiKey or another mainstream distributor and find me some LT8650s. I'll wait here.
Re: (Score:2)
Just so we understand each other, you're saying that none of these companies:
could produce the kind of integrated circuits that the automobile industry needs if a carmaker approached them?
In theory the automaker should have something of a handle on their own supply chain, an
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at a glance NVIDIA, Xilinx and AMD can't because none of them actually have semiconductor fabs. NVIDIA and AMD are already at the limit of the capacity TSMC will make available for them, so they can't get any more chips manufactured than they already are.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not how this works.
That's not how any of this works.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:AC posting... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, you must login first. Only then can you post anonymously. There is no more logged-out anonymous posting.
That's about 6% on a typical truck (Score:5, Informative)
To put this into context, on a Chevy Silverado 1500 truck this is about 6% worse fuel economy than what you would get (15mpg instead of 16mpg, using various real-mpg figures on the internet and not the EPA rating; EPA rating is 17mpg).
That's a lot of extra fuel consumption when you consider the effort that has gone into getting the fuel consumption down by 6% up to now.
I see no mention of retro fitting this when the parts are available so this will remain a problem for the life of the vehicle, not only for a year or so while chip supplies recover.
Re: (Score:3)
To put this into context, on a Chevy Silverado 1500 truck this is about 6% worse fuel economy than what you would get (15mpg instead of 16mpg, using various real-mpg figures on the internet and not the EPA rating; EPA rating is 17mpg).
That's a lot of extra fuel consumption when you consider the effort that has gone into getting the fuel consumption down by 6% up to now.
If you think that's bad then consider that I get over half that MPG in a 44 tonne (97,000lb) heavy goods vehicle here in Europe. That's how ridiculous the MPGs of US pickups is.
Re:That's about 6% on a typical truck (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "full-size pickup" is a US phenomenon. In the rest of the world, things like the Toyota Hilux and Ford Ranger are a lot more popular.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You'll see the same thing in the US. A Freightliner Cascadia gets about 8-9mpg when doing flat freeway runs fully loaded at 40k-80klbs. That said, a heavy goods vehicle would be using diesel fuel, and wouldn't be starting and stopping much.
Pickup trucks in the US, specifically 1/2 ton models like the Chevy Silverado 1500 overwhelmingly run on gasoline. Diesel fuel, depending on the blend, has between 10-15% more energy per unit volume.
Also, the EPA tests for fuel economy are based 55% on short start-and-sto
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Another way think of 6% is 15 cents per gallon.
Now imagine the political firestorm that would result from trying to jack up the gas tax by 15 cents per gallon.
I have a hard time believing there won't be a recall to retrofit this, although the article says nothing about it.
Doesn't make sense. One ECU needed (Score:5, Interesting)
This doesn't make any sense to me, someone who actually reverse-engineers and tunes engine control units.
The main problem is that I haven't had a vehicle that ever used more than one ECU save for some crazy Audi V10/V12 stuff that used paired Bosch Units.
The computer is needed to control the injector pulsewidth, the spark timing, oil solenoids for variable cam timing, monitoring O2 feedback, etc. I have never seen a car that needed another computer to manage fuel economy?
That always is just baked into the main ECU that is needed to actually fire the plugs and squirt the fuel. No other computer besides a transmission torque-limiter reduction message while it's shifting has been part of the loop on anything I've tuned.
This totally feels like a BS news story to me. Just a way to tie to chip shortage to some real-world emissions problem. Think of the lives!
Re: (Score:2)
There very well could be a separate fuel economy module in the engine bay since every subsystem talks via CAN bus.
Re:Doesn't make sense. One ECU needed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That don't make no sense.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying GM is fucking stupid.
With HPCR diesels (I.e. all of them now) you just don't fire the injector electronically.
If GM separated that out into a different module all they have done is unnecessarily made the power train control system less reliable to make programming easier.
I hate working on their fucking trucks anyway. Their BCM is trouble all day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is OK, I sometimes do it too.
Anyway what I meant is that even with a diesel, these days there is nothing magical about the control system. In fact, TDIs and GDIs are practically identical in terms of equipment, ignition system aside.
Re: (Score:2)
But they have been doing that since Northstar! Why would they need a separate module still?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying GM is fucking stupid.
Having owned a 2002 Sierra for almost 20 years, I'm right there with you. There are aspects of that damned truck's design that are truly mind-boggling in their idiocy.
It will be popular feature (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For people still haunted by their 1980s Cadillac.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, my uncle had a Cadillac with the "4-6-8". It was fascinating to ride in and watch the current cylinder count on the dashboard, but he didn't have it for long...
Re: (Score:2)
'Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.' — Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Sounds like they needed an extra feature for the marketing department to boast about.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, from that page it looks like the primary complaint is that people don't like how 4 cylinder mode sounds when they install an extra loud aftermarket exhaust. Couldn't they just tape some peacock feathers to their butts or something?
Next up is people who want instant V8 response in situations where the engine has switched to 4 cylinder operation. In other words revving the engine to make noise.
The 3rd reason might actually make some sense, but requires an engine rebuild to fix. The very parts that t
Efficient solution != Good Solution. (Score:2)
Just-in-time inventory is an example of "efficient" supply chain management. What it really means is, if the smooth flow of components is disrupted, there is no slack in the system, there is no buffer that can insulate down stream processes while the kinks are being worked out.
Having high capacity utilization factor is considered efficient for elect
Re: (Score:3)
The invisible hand of the market will always trigger a race to the bottom, and there does not seem to be a good pure free market libertarian solution here
What about all those people telling me everyone in Texas should have a commercial LP tank and heater for when the gas fails and have a few hundred gallons of fuel and an 8kw generator? Surely they can’t all be wrong and surely that must be far cheaper than a bit of winterization equipment on a few plants. Also, can’t you just pay to get to the front of the line in a pandemic? I mean it’s not my fault if life is priced out of the market for poor people. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say most of the time 100 ICU beds are in use in a specific hospital. It might be valuable to have say 120 total for rare peak situations. Having 150 would be a stretch. 200 just stupid. When are you going to have a situation that requres double the ICU beds as usual? Maybe a pandemic. How often do those
Excuse to get rid of an unpopular feature. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not having this module means you don't have the factory defect that involves turning off cylinders.
GM only added this to make the feds happy. GM is more than happy to have an excuse to not add them.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrysler of all people doesn't seem to have issues with cylinder deactivation. Neither do the few other companies who implement it. This is just GM being terrible as usual.
So when does the government (Score:1)
You don't say... (Score:2)
-Carted around, wherever that vehicle goes
-Installed by humans/robots during vehicle production at the vehicle factory
-Shipped to the vehicle factory
-Held in a temperature-controlled warehouse
-Built in the electronics factory
-Created by electronic parts, manufactured and shipped from all over the world
-Designed and tested in the electronics factory
Not to mention ALL the people who had to u
Re: (Score:2)
Given this is a miniscule piece of the entire vehicle I'd say the driver losing 10lbs has more of an impact. I can tell you're old because you think modern cars are unworkable now. That plastic engine cover really does a number on people. Plenty of people are hacking on fully electric Leafs and Teslas now, just take a look on YouTube.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying that auto mechanics across the board are dissuaded by the technology, which doesn't help me when I want to get my car repaired (I'm too busy for that anymore). I get it: Electronics is not their field. And software is proprietary and therefore mostly inaccessible to them. They tell me that the troubleshooting tools are very expensive (thousands of dollars each) and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An easier way to see the difference is that 1MPG loss is a 6% loss.
6% over a 200k-ish mile lifespan of the vehicle adds up.
A drop in the bucket (Score:2)
Big whoop. The price of gas is up almost 50% in the last two months. (Thanks, Uncle Joe.) Nobody is going to care about or likely notice a piddly 5% loss of mileage.