2002 Camaro Z28 misses CAFE standard by 6.5mpg !!!

...and yet GM is still going to put out the 2010 Camaro that is probably a few hundred pounds heavier and has a larger more powerful 6.2L LS3 V8.

I'm sick of hearing the the doom and gloom about how 35mpg CAFE is going to end the Camaro and V8 cars in general so I decided to put together some numbers.

For starters, CAFE is currently at 27.5mpg. The current fleet of domestic cars averages 29.3 in 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/DomesticCarFleet.htm). So we have 12 years to get another 5.x MPG out of our domestic fleet. For those that think 5mpg in 12 years is too much too soon check out how we did from 1977-1987. We gained 10mpg :bow: and did that kill the muscle car?? NO... only a few years later we got Camaros and Corvettes with engines like the LT1 and LT5.

So now lets look at that 2002 Z28. The window sticker rated an automatic Camaro at 18/25 and an avg. MPG of 21. Missing CAFE was no big deal because it is a Corporate AVERAGE and GM only sold something like 25,000 Camaros with a V8 engine. Top dog LS1 Camaros only got about 75% of the CAFE 27.5. If we use the same ratios then a 2020 Camaro Z28 will need to get around 26mpg avg. That means something like 23/32mpg by 2020!!! This is why I'm not worried.


Also check out the #'s for import cars. They have actually gone down from an average of 32mpg in 1983 to 28mpg in 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/ImportedCarFleet.htm)and are now behind domestics :eek: Shame Shame.

Thank you.

Most people who doom and gloom about CAFE killing V8s forget that it is the average fuel economy for the company, not per model.

Between 77-87 OD became common. GM released the 700R4 around 82 or 83. What will the next "big" fuel saver be?

Between 77-87 OD became common. GM released the 700R4 around 82 or 83. What will the next "big" fuel saver be?

6 & 8 speed autos
Direct injection
AFM
2 mode hybrid
Series hybrid
Modern Diesels (check out anyones European lineup)
and Z284ever's favorite, weight reduction!

Between 77-87 OD became common. GM released the 700R4 around 82 or 83. What will the next "big" fuel saver be?

I think we are going to see many more small displacement turbocharged engines in the future. They get good fuel economy when driven normally and provide good power when you ask for it. I believe this is common in Europe, plus they like turbo-diesel engines over there. I am not sure is the U.S. will ever warm to diesel engines in large numbers.

EFI was introduced in the mid 80s by most of the auto industry to help fuel consumption. It also helped to add horsepower. Hopefully, mods will be available to undo whatever the auto industry has done to slow down and deball future high performance cars.

Thank you.

Most people who doom and gloom about CAFE killing V8s forget that it is the average fuel economy for the company, not per model.

Yep Yep

I think more gears, direct injection, DoD, etc. will be what gets us to 35mpg. I see the Volt as a great way for GM to get there, as well a Hybrids (even though they are just a patchwork solution)

The auto companies will want to make sure that most vehicles over the average are high profit vehicles, and right now, passenger cars dont fit in that category.

The economy sucks, inflation is getting worse, oil prices are getting higher, CAFE is implenting new MPG rules.
Of course I am talking about 1975

Anyone who was thinking 2007 is obviously off base.
I mean there's no way the exact same conditions we have this time around will end bad. I mean this time I am sure there will be a happy sunny ending. :rolleyes:

For those that think 5mpg in 12 years is too much too soon check out how we did from 1977-1987. We gained 10mpg and did that kill the muscle car?? NO... only a few years later we got Camaros and Corvettes with engines like the LT1 and LT5.
So by your own admission we had to go through 15 years of ****ty cars and you say the muscle car didn't die?
WTF you think going for 15 years with eco-boxes isn't that long?
So let's say I was 16 in 1975. I had to wait till I was 38 until I was able to buy an 'average joe' sports car with 300HP.
So if it happens again in 2020 and I have to wait another 15 years I'll be 66.
Yeah I got all the time in the world...

The BEST case scenario is this has no effect on our sports cars. The worst case is it eliminates them. In NO case does it gain a sports car enthusiast a thing.
So from that point of view there is zero reason to support this cafe increase.

...and yet GM is still going to put out the 2010 Camaro that is probably a few hundred pounds heavier and has a larger more powerful 6.2L LS3 V8.

I'm sick of hearing the the doom and gloom about how 35mpg CAFE is going to end the Camaro and V8 cars in general so I decided to put together some numbers.

For starters, CAFE is currently at 27.5mpg. The current fleet of domestic cars averages 29.3 in 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/DomesticCarFleet.htm). So we have 12 years to get another 5.x MPG out of our domestic fleet. For those that think 5mpg in 12 years is too much too soon check out how we did from 1977-1987. We gained 10mpg :bow: and did that kill the muscle car?? NO... only a few years later we got Camaros and Corvettes with engines like the LT1 and LT5.

So now lets look at that 2002 Z28. The window sticker rated an automatic Camaro at 18/25 and an avg. MPG of 21. Missing CAFE was no big deal because it is a Corporate AVERAGE and GM only sold something like 25,000 Camaros with a V8 engine. Top dog LS1 Camaros only got about 75% of the CAFE 27.5. If we use the same ratios then a 2020 Camaro Z28 will need to get around 26mpg avg. That means something like 23/32mpg by 2020!!! This is why I'm not worried.


Also check out the #'s for import cars. They have actually gone down from an average of 32mpg in 1983 to 28mpg in 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/ImportedCarFleet.htm)and are now behind domestics :eek: Shame Shame.

Concur 100%.

Nice post, Z28x. Excellent job.
It just takes a aimed and pointed thread like this every once in a while to shoot the doom-and-gloom "rumors" right in the heart.

...and yet GM is still going to put out the 2010 Camaro that is probably a few hundred pounds heavier and has a larger more powerful 6.2L LS3 V8.

I'm sick of hearing the the doom and gloom about how 35mpg CAFE is going to end the Camaro and V8 cars in general so I decided to put together some numbers.

For starters, CAFE is currently at 27.5mpg. The current fleet of domestic cars averages 29.3 in 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/DomesticCarFleet.htm). So we have 12 years to get another 5.x MPG out of our domestic fleet. For those that think 5mpg in 12 years is too much too soon check out how we did from 1977-1987. We gained 10mpg :bow: and did that kill the muscle car?? NO... only a few years later we got Camaros and Corvettes with engines like the LT1 and LT5.

So now lets look at that 2002 Z28. The window sticker rated an automatic Camaro at 18/25 and an avg. MPG of 21. Missing CAFE was no big deal because it is a Corporate AVERAGE and GM only sold something like 25,000 Camaros with a V8 engine. Top dog LS1 Camaros only got about 75% of the CAFE 27.5. If we use the same ratios then a 2020 Camaro Z28 will need to get around 26mpg avg. That means something like 23/32mpg by 2020!!! This is why I'm not worried.


Also check out the #'s for import cars. They have actually gone down from an average of 32mpg in 1983 to 28mpg in 2004 (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/ImportedCarFleet.htm)and are now behind domestics :eek: Shame Shame.

Thank you. I too get bored with all the doom-and-gloomers crying that the sky is falling with every single new regulation or fuel economy standard.

CAFE stands for Corperate AVERAGE Fuel Economy standards. People tend not to want to take time to think, and go for the simplistic answer that requires virturally no thought.

As you point cars under CAFE today average about 29 mpg. The standard has been frozen at 27.5 mpg since 1985.... that's 22 frigging years ago!!! The combined fuel economy of cars is already all but certain to go up due to rising fuel prices and the public already making fuel efficiency a major factor in new vehicle purchases.


So by your own admission we had to go through 15 years of ****ty cars and you say the muscle car didn't die?
WTF you think going for 15 years with eco-boxes isn't that long?
So let's say I was 16 in 1975. I had to wait till I was 38 until I was able to buy an 'average joe' sports car with 300HP.
So if it happens again in 2020 and I have to wait another 15 years I'll be 66.
Yeah I got all the time in the world...

I'm not sure what the point is or what you're getting at. If the only issue in anyone's life is getting a 300, 400, or 500 horsepower car, they might want to review life's priorities.

Muscle cars started dying right after the 1970 model year, when the insurence industry began the practice of adding astronomical "Surcharges" to cars with names associated with "Muscle Cars" as well as advertized horsepower. The public also walked away from performance cars for "Personal Luxury" cars like the Grand Prix and the Monte Carlo (again in the 1970-1972 timeframe).

Corperate Average Fuel Economy Standards were enacted in 1975. Well AFTER muscle cars died.

I wasn't 16 in 1975, but close enough to relate.

If you were 16 in 1975, then the Chevrolet Monza was quick for you, and you'd see cars like the Pontiac Trans Am and the L82 Corvette as the ultimate American performance cars. And you wouldn't be able to buy one because you'd still be in 10th or 11th grade.

10 years later, when you were 26, settled in your career, had some extra cash, and your insurence finally dropped down enough for you to buy a car with a little extra umph, there would be plenty of 5.0 Mustangs, Z28s, and even turbo Daytonas (if that's what you were in to) that matched the performance of most all muscle car era performance cars that actually were sold in any real numbers (even turbo Daytonas matched base Roadrunners from the musclecar era in acceleration).

At age 36, you probally would be married, have a kid or 2, and have 2 cars. Owning a car with the most horsepower on the planet probally wouldn't be your top priority. You'd probally be mature enough to want a car that does everything well, yet is practical enough to be useful and still be alot of fun.

Within another 10 years, the kids are likely to have gone through college and/or are out on their own. That money you had been spending to support them is now suddenly your own. You are probally secure in your career and probally are now able to buy that top powered car you always wanted.

It's no mistake that Mustang Cobras & GT500s, Camaro SS, Dodge Vipers, mid-90s era Impala SS, all Cadillac V-series cars, Corvettes (especially the Z06), Charger & 300 SRTs, as well as all other top performance cars are all bought off the showroom floor by those who are typically well over 40 years old. More people over 50 years old buy these cars than those under 32.



Sure, an "average joe" can walk into a showroom and buy a 300 horsepower car today. But what is the point you're trying to make?

1. At no time in automotive history could an average joe walk in to a showroom and buy a 300 net horsepower car until today. Today, you can walk into a Ford showroom & buy a 300 horse Mustang GT for lower than the average new car price. That was never in automotive history the case till now. Go back in history to the 60s to find a 340 horsepower car going for the price of the average car of the time, and you simply wouldn't find one. Yet, today is filled with 340 horse Hemi Chargers and 300s which in the 60s would have been as rare (and about as pricey) as the CTSv is today.

2. In the muscle car era, anything with 400 horsepower was simply astronomical and mind blowing. If you went over that, and you wandered into the relm of legends. To get that 400 plus horsepower in any car, you were going to first lay down some mega bucks to check that option box, and hope you were able to get one of those engines in your muscle car (those engines were made more for bragging rights in car mags and not to sell in large numbers to "Average Joes").

3. Cars today are actually FASTER than comparative cars of the muscle car era..... alot faster.


The BEST case scenario is this has no effect on our sports cars. The worst case is it eliminates them. In NO case does it gain a sports car enthusiast a thing.
So from that point of view there is zero reason to support this cafe increase.

There is a ton of reasons to support the CAFE increase.

1. It will force weight reductions in cars, which has gone pretty high.

2. The reduction in weight will mean better handling

3. We've gotten to a point where more horsepower doesn't translate into more performance due to the extra weight needed to maintain durability margins.

4. Car makers have put disproportionate resources into large trucks and SUVs over the past 10 or so years, and CAFE forces them to ply more resources into cars and car based vehicles while increasing the efficiency of large trucks and SUVs.

5. There isn't the political will to do the thing that will actually affect fuel usage and influence car purchases (adjusting the gasoline tax that hasn't been touched in 15 years), so this is the only other option.


In 1975, Congress gave the auto industry just 9 years from enactment to DOUBLE the average fuel economy of it's cars based on sales over the 1974 models. This round, Congress has given the industry 13 years to boost fuel economy to 35 mpg from the current 29 mpg cars are currently selling and the 23 mpg light trucks are expected to achieve this year.

In 1975, CAFE standards were enacted about the same time dramatic changes in pollution standards that sapped alot of power (and fuel efficiency) from engines. This time around, these far more minimal standards come about without no changes in emissions standards that are going to tax engine efficiency. This round in CAFE also comes at a time where vehicles have far more horsepower than ever... and are heavier than ever. That's alot of room to play with before we see any real world drop in performance.

As for your statement that sport car enthusiasts don't gain a thing, I see nothing to support that.

1. Sports cars will inevitably get lighter.
2. Sports cars will inevitably get better fuel economy.
3. Sports cars will almost certainly handle better because of lighter weight.
4. Sports cars will be able to get at least the same performance with less horsepower as todays heavier mega-powered cars.

So by your own admission we had to go through 15 years of ****ty cars and you say the muscle car didn't die?
WTF you think going for 15 years with eco-boxes isn't that long?
So let's say I was 16 in 1975. I had to wait till I was 38 until I was able to buy an 'average joe' sports car with 300HP.
So if it happens again in 2020 and I have to wait another 15 years I'll be 66.
Yeah I got all the time in the world...

Did you see my math? This time around we will have our cake and eat it too. Like guionM mentioned weight will be one of the first things to go. That means faster cars, better handling, and better fuel economy.

5 mpg is nothing. We already have large sedans and coupes in Europe putting down LS2 V8 levels of torque and getting high 30's for highway mileage. Tesla roadsters that are the size of a Solstice and as fast as a Ferrari running on 100% electric. And we still have 13 years to go before we need to get a CAFE avg. of 35MPG.

People also keep over looking the word AVERAGE. Every 50mpg Chevy Volt sold means you can sell one 20mpg Escalade or Three 30mpg Camaros and still meet that 35mpg average. The US domestic fleet average was 29mpg in 2004 when you could still get gas for $1.75. If we could find the 2007 numbers I'm sure that avg is in the 30-31mpg range thanks to the increase in hybrids and $3 gasoline. With all the hybrids, 6 speed autos, and direct injection engines coming out we realistically could be at that 35mpg average by 2012.

While I'm glad that many here don't feel doom and gloom my concerns lie with the car companies and how they react to the 35mpg in 2020. We can all say it will be ok but unless GM for instance also thinks it will be ok we are at their mercey for what's produced. (aftermarket not withstanding)

Make no mistake the fuel economy CAFE standard is very powerful on the car makers, especially our domestic brands. Because this is an everage fuel economy the car makers will have to invest heavily on future tech on all vehicles but especially the cars because they offer the best way to raise the average over an SUV or truck. Cars have not been a hot selling segment for the domestic brands and they certainly don't turn the kind of profits the trucks get. So while we say it's ok we're CLOSE GM has to look at things differently as new tech must be developed and that cost will need to be spread out on lower profit margin vehicles. At the end of the day the car companies are in the business to make a profit. So for GM the thought of a new business model and much higher development costs means being close in CAFE isn't really that close.

If the Gov. is serious about CAFE and if this plan works by 2020 who is to say they won't raise the bar again by 2025 or 2030? Just something else that the car companies must think about.

The actual price of gas is going to be more of a threat than CAFE. When gas hits $4 a gallon or more, people aren't going to want to purchase nearly as many V8 cars and trucks as they do now.

Fuel prices jumped 50% in one year from $60 a barrel in Oct. 06 to $90 a barrel in Oct.07. The price has since gone up to $97/bbl and down to $87/bbl and is back to $90 and some change today. Another increase like that and it wont matter how many V8 vehicles are made, because they will just be sitting on the lots.

What can you say, speculation drives the price of oil, lots of people are making big money right now (and I don't mean oil companies, unless they have large stocks of crude that they had been saving for just such an occasion and are dumping them on the market).

For those that think 5mpg in 12 years is too much too soon check out how we did from 1977-1987. We gained 10mpg :bow: and did that kill the muscle car?? NO... only a few years later we got Camaros and Corvettes with engines like the LT1 and LT5.

The problem with that comparison is that the significant increases from 1977 to 1987 ate all the low hanging fruit. Easy mileage increasers such as fuel injection and lock-up torque converters became the norm and provided a large portion of the improvements during that time.

Like any long term quest for improvement, you quickly run into the law of diminishing returns. While it was relatively easy in 1977 to see improvements of 1 or 2 mpg with each new model, no longer is that the case. It's going to take very expensive technology to gain the 25+% needed to get to 35 mpg. Of the technologies you mention, direct injection probably has the most bang for the buck and we'll definitely see more of it. However DOD adds maybe 1 mpg. Six-speed autos are good for maybe 3-5%. Yes you can combine these, but the total increase is less than their mathematical sum because to a certain extent they are each attacking the same inefficiencies (e.g. a 6-speed can give you a tall cruising gear, but then you can't use DOD as much because half the cylinders can't pull that much load).

The other technologies you mentioned aren't slam dunks either. While I agree wholeheartedly about weight (and I've done my share of bitching about the porkiness of the new CTS and F5), the fact is it's not cheap to reduce weight. Cars are getting heavier because of more creature comforts and more safety hardware. Not many consumers will forego either. We'll likely see cars get smaller to save weight, which would be an excellent thing. There's no reason the F5 needs to be as big as it is (nor the CTS for that matter). We just need to change consumers' (and GM's) perceptions that bigger = better, and that's not an easy sell. Aside from reducing size or content, that leaves exotic materials as a solution for weight reduction, and then we're back to big cost increases.

You also mentioned hybrids and Diesels, two technologies which are also very expensive and add thousands to the cost of building a car. Is everyone willing to pay $4,000+ more for every new car to see these gains? We may not have a choice, but people need to realize that there's no magic wand that will take us to 35 mpg with absolutely no trade-offs. We're going to have to pay more and get less car in return, and the fuel economy gains will not make up for it.

Lastly, you brought up the point about 35 mpg being the average. True, but when virtually none of your cars currently meets 35, that means every car is going to have to improve markedly. This is in contrast to the F4's time, when GM was already producing many cars that beat the average and therefore did have some leeway for selling gas hogs. If an Aveo is already under the average, it can't offset the Camaro.

GM has supposedly said that no new vehicles will get green-lighted unless they absolutely get better fuel economy than their predecessors. The F5 might be safe, but I'd be worried about the F6.

-Weight is not going to go down unless cars get physically smaller or we pay a lot for lightweight materials.

-stricter emissions while not included in this bill are already on the books and there will probably be more. Look at ultra low sulfer and the catch on fire CAT system.

-There is a precise number of BTU's you can extract from a gallon of gas.
Those BTU's can propel a certain weight with a certain resistence a certain distance. So far we've only really been able to increase MPG by using less gas. We haven't been able to burn gas and lower the percentage of it that gets wasted in heat that effectively. Were running out of ideas that use less gas so unless we find a way to lower the heat waste we are at a point of dimishing returns.

-Some of you are so naive to think CAFE will result in cars with less weight and equal or more HP that look just like what we are used to.
Yet you look at the ENTIRE rest of the world and not one other country has developed cars like ours. ALL off them with laws similiar to ours drive crappy little **** boxes with wimpy diesal motors that get good MPG.
You somehow think we are going to end up different. You think we are smarter? You think when gas is $4 a gallon it's going to be like it is today?
We WILL end up just like them in the end, driving some little 4-cylinder eco box diesel, just like they do in England. Sure the rich will have their cars, they always do, but not joe average.

Is CAFE the single killer. No, it's probably very achieveable by itself, it's just one more nail in the coffin, like high oil prices, stricter emissions, pedestration crash saftey standards, higher insurance.

http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little-Sky-Falling.jpg

http://disney-clipart.com/Chicken-Little/Disney-Chicken-Little-Sky-Falling.jpg
I'm naive...so that's what I was thinking.:rolleyes:

It's going to take very expensive technology to gain the 25+% needed to get to 35 mpg.
I thought it was more like 17% from 29 to 35 average CAFE?
With the alternate fuels(E85 and such), Hybrids, and (by then)Electric, I don't see why it would be a huge hurdle?..initial investment maybe...


:D Thanks for the laugh Bob...no disrepect others.

So far we've only really been able to increase MPG by using less gas.

Quoted for truth.

;)

Don't forget camless valves and HCCI on the next big fuel saving technologies. And everyones favorite Hybrid.

When is the 42V system supposed to be introduced into cars? Or is this still several years off? Won't this help the mileage of cars by reducing the work needed for the valvetrain among other things?

And solenoid-controlled Valves. Which is an infinitely variable valve-train. and less weight...maybe: No camshaft(s).

What's funny is myy 88 Thunderbird was every bit as large (if not bigger than my GTO), but weighted like 3300lbs if I remember right. I always asumed cars got heavier because of all the safety standards. "All Corvettes are Red" has a pretty good description of automakers go crazy trying to keep weight down because it had so many negative effects (higher weight, need to carry more fuel, higher cost). I am not thinking automakers are making cars heavier because they want to...it is more a matter of they have to. Unless safety standards relax, cars will only get lighter with the use of more expensive materials, which in itself is Pandora's box.

I really don't think this time around it about engines either. A 4 cylinder will work a lot harder to pull around a 3500lb car than a V8 will. And if the V8 has AFM..there is not advantage at all.

And solenoid-controlled Valves. Which is an infinitely variable valve-train. and less weight...maybe: No camshaft(s).

That's what I meant ;):)

I really don't think this time around it about engines either. A 4 cylinder will work a lot harder to pull around a 3500lb car than a V8 will. And if the V8 has AFM..there is not advantage at all.

Making an engine work hard is a good thing when it comes to efficiency - that's the whole point behind AFM/DoD technology! It's also why tall gearing helps to improve fuel economy.

So now lets look at that 2002 Z28. The window sticker rated an automatic Camaro at 18/25 and an avg. MPG of 21.

Not that I totally disagree with your point, but it is worthwhile noting that under the current EPA standards the 2002 Z28 is rated at 16/23 with an average of 19.

And lets remember that this standard will go for trucks and SUVs, too, not just cars. Which will have an effect on things.

Lutz has already said that if 35 MPG goes through, it probably will impact product plans (http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/FREE/71207006/1023/LATESTNEWS). (Unrelated to the business at hand, I love how the guy standing behind Lutz in the picture accompanying that article makes Lutz look like he has a mullet).

I definitely think there is some overreacting going on right now, but I think it will certainly be a development to watch...

Hopefully, mods will be available to undo whatever the auto industry has done to slow down and deball future high performance cars. I see this becoming much more commonplace, and a loophole to the system. As people become more comfortable with computers, the idea of 'reprogramming' their car won't seem like such a big deal. Automakers will intentionally release cars with detuned ECMs and give the good hi-po code to the aftermarket. People will buy a 300hp 35mpg Vette if they know all it will take is $300 and 15 minutes in their driveway to turn it back into a real car.

I think that 300hp, and 35mpg:eek:...is definitely a real car!! But I'm a little weird like that......:p

Not that I totally disagree with your point, but it is worthwhile noting that under the current EPA standards the 2002 Z28 is rated at 16/23 with an average of 19.


CAFE uses different calculations to get their number than the EPA does.

^Thats with an aerodynamic 3200 pound car. If there is one nameplate GM wants to save, I would think it would be the Corvette. I dont see the Corvette hitting the 35mpg average with its current platform, but at only about 35000 units produced annually, it wouldnt take much to offset it with a higher than 35mpg average car.

CAFE uses different calculations to get their number than the EPA does.

But you were quoting the window sticker in your first post, which is EPA.

(Unrelated to the business at hand, I love how the guy standing behind Lutz in the picture accompanying that article makes Lutz look like he has a mullet).



You trying to tell me that's not his mullet?

(There's a Camaro joke in there somewhere).

You trying to tell me that's not his mullet?

(There's a Camaro joke in there somewhere).

Now, if someone could put a Coors in that open hand and photoshop him into the concept...

But you were quoting the window sticker in your first post, which is EPA.

I don't have the CAFE numbers so I'm using the original window sticker as an estimate just for the example. The new EPA ratings will have no effect on CAFE.

Now, if someone could put a Coors in that open hand and photoshop him into the concept...


:lol:

I don't have the CAFE numbers so I'm using the original window sticker as an estimate just for the example. The new EPA ratings will have no effect on CAFE.

I see what you're saying now. But using EPA for an unavailable CAFE confused me a bit on first (and second) read.

And that still doesn't address the fact that offsetting 25,000 V8 Camaros with better mileage models is a lot easier than offsetting a quarter million V8 trucks and SUVS.

But I don't want to argue with you, because like I said, I agree with what you're saying fundamentally. I think that there will be plenty of room for a Camaro in the new scheme of things once everything shakes out.

The problem GM will have with above CAFE average cars offsetting V8 Camaros is that the new V8 Camaro may only have a $3000 profit, whereas the large SUVs have a $10000-$15000 profit (before rebates). The bean counters will tell management that for every no profit econobox that is built, it needs to build a vehicle that will maximize profit on the V8 gas hog end of the scale, and it wont be a Camaro.

The bean-counters were "beaten" when the car came back...I have no worries it will stay around as long as it sells decently. Like someone mentioned, 30k V8's aren't a very big influence. Especially not 30k V8's with AFM, that get ~30mpg like we've been told it should....:shrug:

The problem here isnt making the numbers. Its well within the realm of possibility.

The problem here is the government telling me what I should be doing, and how much of it I should be allowed to do.

Its coddling, its quasi-socialist, and I'd like to hang every last senator and congressman that subscribes to the idea that they know what is best for me and mine.

If I want to tool around in a 9k lb truck with a 10L V-12, burning two gallons a mile, its MY PEROGATIVE.

Ill pay for the gas, and even pay the outrageous gasoline taxes, so the .gov can keep the roads in order. Past that, they need to get the hell out of my way.

So now lets look at that 2002 Z28. The window sticker rated an automatic Camaro at 18/25 and an avg. MPG of 21.

Right. But that wasn't the CAFE number. The city and highway numbers are reduced 10% and 22%, respectively, from the test numbers, from which CAFE is derived.

So it's really 20/31, and an average of around 25, which is only 2.5MPG short of the current standard.

I don't know whether the new 35mpg standard still uses the old test methods. I think it does, and if so, it doesn't seem as though it will be too hard to meet.

Those of you under 35 may not remember the big adjustment in EPA mileage numbers between 1984 and 1985, for which the 2007 to 2008 adjustment is just deja vu.

So, the headline says "35MPG CAFE".

But thats based on MPG numbers that are higher than whats on the sticker
Plus there's a bonus for E85
Plus Import/Domestic are now in the same pool which means GM can offset pickups with Aveos and other world cars
Plus there's some 'industry average' provision which might work out to be a backdoor
Plus the Transportation Secretary can always waive the rules if the manufacturers can't make them

So it might not be a steep as it sounds.

I thought it was more like 17% from 29 to 35 average CAFE?
With the alternate fuels(E85 and such), Hybrids, and (by then)Electric, I don't see why it would be a huge hurdle?..initial investment maybe...

It is a huge hurdle. A quote from Bob Lutz:

"The public has been led to believe that all this will be free, that there little tweaking we need to do. Tweak the transmissions a little bit, fiddle around with the fuel injection a little bit, and we'll easily get 35 miles per gallon," he says. "Well, I am here to tell you that without throwing thousands of dollars of expensive technology into vehicles we will not get to a 35 mpg fleet average."

From http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/12/19/lutz-gm-autos-biz-cz_jf_1229flint.html

In that same article Lutz implies that the Tahoe hybrid adds more than $10,000 to the cost of the truck, but that GM does not mark up the MSRP near that much. And it's still well short of the 35 mpg goal. Figure on similar scenarios across most of GM's product line and you can begin to see the impact these regulations are going to have. As it is GM barely makes any profit on its vehicles (on average) so they definitely cannot afford to absorb these costs across the board.