Obama: 42 MPG for cars + CO2 regs by 2016.

U.S. to issue stricter fuel policy, end rift over California rules


May 18, 2009 - 2:00 pm ET
UPDATED: 5/18/09 5:58 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The White House will unveil an auto fuel efficiency proposal on Tuesday to resolve a dispute between California and the U.S. government over emissions and accelerate the time frame for sharply improving mileage performance, industry and other sources said.



The proposal, if accepted by California and a dozen other states that want to more aggressively target greenhouse gasses, would effectively end legal and political battles with the struggling auto sector over the best way to cut fuel consumption and curtail tailpipe emissions.

It would also put more pressure on struggling U.S. automakers such as General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and bankrupt Chrysler LLC to accelerate development of more efficient gasoline engines, as well as new gasoline/electric hybrids and all-electric cars.

According to people briefed on the announcement, the plan in the works for months would harmonize California's preference for curtailing emissions with the federal program that sets fuel economy standards based on vehicle weight and other attributes.

Annual mileage goals would be set from 2012-16 and would top out at 42 miles per gallon for cars and just over 26 mpg for light trucks, which include pickups, SUVs and minivans. Those targets are more aggressive than the current average goal for the U.S. fleet of 35 mpg by 2020, stemming from a December 2007 energy law.

March mandate

In March, the government said fuel-economy standards for all U.S. light vehicles will rise 8 percent to an average of 27.3 mpg for the 2011 model year and will cost the industry $1.46 billion to make the change.

Under that timetable, cars will be required to travel an industry average of 30.2 miles on each gallon of fuel, up from 27.5 mpg, and light-truck standards will increase by 1 mpg, to 24.1 mpg. The combined fleet average will rise by 2 mpg.

Those rules were the first fuel-economy mandates set by the Obama administration. They were to use a new system that sets standards for individual models based on their size.

The new policy would give automakers flexibility to meet the standards and would weigh the impact on the environment of carbon-based fuels and other vehicle systems that emit emissions, like air conditioners.

"This could be the breakthrough we've been looking for on clean cars," said David Friedman, research director of the clean vehicle program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The administration would not discuss the pending announcement other than to note that action on emissions and fuel economy was long overdue.

"I think you'll see tomorrow important, groundbreaking steps in that area," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters.

Paving the way

The administration in April opened the way to regulating emissions by declaring climate-warming pollution a danger to human health and welfare, in a sharp policy shift from the Bush administration.

The EPA declaration was seen as a strong signal to the international community that the United States intends to seriously combat climate change.

Moreover, Congress is considering legislation to cut carbon emissions emitted by cars, coal-fired power plants and oil refineries and other sources. The bill proposes a 17 percent reduction in emissions from 2005 levels by 2020.

The Obama White House in February reversed another Bush administration directive by ordering EPA to reconsider California's request for authority to regulate emissions from new cars and trucks under a law the state passed in 2006.

The agency said the Clean Air Act gives the EPA the authority to allow California to adopt its own emissions standards for motor vehicles due to the seriousness of the state's air pollution challenges.

More than a dozen other states supported California's plan, but the auto industry fought it in court, fearing a dual state and federal standards would result in a patchwork of regulations that would make vehicle planning and production more complex and expensive.

2mpg more for trucks should be no problem, just add direct injection and 6 speed automatics on everything.

As for cars Honda is already at 39.9mpg for imported cars, whats another 2mpg, just got to all 6 speed automatics.

This doesn't seem like that big of a deal considering the tech that will be out 7 years from now. HCCI, GDI and 6 speeds on everything. Car will probably get lighter too. Same performance better fuel economy.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&story=cafe&subject=fuelList

edit: here are the 2009 CAFE numbers/ratings http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Studies%20&%20Reports/Associated%20Files/March%202009%20Report.pdf

Tesla is already at 244mpg :eek: :lol:

2mpg more for trucks should be no problem, just add direct injection and 6 speed automatics on everything.

As for cars Honda is already at 39.9mpg for imported cars, whats another 2mpg, just got to all 6 speed automatics.

This doesn't seem like that big of a deal considering the tech they will be out 7 years from now. HCCI, GDI and 6 speeds on everything.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=fuel&story=cafe&subject=fuelListhow many hondas get 39.9mpg?

Its due-able, nothing to worry about, we knew it was coming anyways

Well guess we better hold on to all the Trailblazer SS's, GTO's, Corvettes, and Camaro's that we can.

They're going to become collectors items...........

Toyota is almost there, and just about is there with trucks this year. Ford is only 1.3mpg away with trucks and will be well over once the Ecoboost Edge, Escape, and Explorers come out next year.

Toyota in 2009
Imported car = 38.1mpg
Domestic produced car = 35.9mpg
Light truck = 25.8mpg

Ford light truck = 24.7mpg
Well guess we better hold on to all the Trailblazer SS's, GTO's, Corvettes, and Camaro's that we can.

They're going to become collectors items...........

So you don't think they can get 2mpg more out of TrailBlazer SS??? A vehicle without a 6 speed, GDI, or AFM.

You don't think they can sell one 100mpg CAFE rated Volt for every six 30mpg rated Camaros or Corvettes?

Toyota is almost there, and just about is there with trucks this year. Ford is only 1.3mpg away with trucks and will be well over once the Ecoboost Edge, Escape, and Explorers come out next year.

Toyota in 2009
Imported car = 38.1mpg
Domestic produced car = 35.9mpg
Light truck = 25.8mpg

Ford light truck = 24.7mpg


So you don't think they can get 2mpg more out of TrailBlazer SS??? A vehicle without a 6 speed, GDI, or AFM.

You don't think they can sell one 100mpg CAFE rated Volt for every six 30mpg rated Camaros or Corvettes?

I don't understand what you're saying. TBSS is rated at 12/16, how is that anywhere near 24, yet alone 42?

Thanks Obama. This should really help out automakers.

Keep in mind 3 things.

1. Those EPA mileage ratings are NOT what's being used to measure CAFE mileage.

2. Currently, cars are averaging 31 mpg CAFE, despite the law being only 27.5.

3. Trucks currently are averaging about 22 mpg.


This also leaves 2 conclusions:

1. Cars are ahead of the standards.

2. Trucks are going to be clearly more affected by the new standards than cars.


CAFE is sales based.

Anyone thinking Corvettes are doomed simply because of this needs to get a grip. 30,000 Corvettes (or based on current sales, 15-20,000) annually aren't going to dent GM's CAFE one way or another. Neither are Camaros. Again, lets get a grip before we start spreading fear through the herd mentality of the internet.

As a group, the overall fuel economy of cars will increase by 10 mpg in 11 years. Given the fact that fuel prices have increased 70% in the past few months and are likely headed back to $4 per gallon (although oil is more or less stable), again, the market will be ahead of the mandate and with 11 years to downsize and modernize (The new Ford Fusion hybrid alone exceeds the 2020 fuel economy standard). Performance cars are made in such small numbers, it's not even a factor.

Worse case scenario, we'll pay more for top performance models... which we've been doing progressively over the past decade for V8 cars over V6s. As long as there is a market, and money can be made on them, we'll certainly see them.

The new standards are a cakewalk compared with what we went through with CAFE from 1977 to 1987, going from 14 to 27.5 mpg.

Only difference is that there won't be trucks & SUVs to hide behind and push as a subsitute.

I don't understand what you're saying. TBSS is rated at 12/16, how is that anywhere near 24, yet alone 42?

CAFE = Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy. So if the current 2009 average standard is 22mpg for trucks and the 2016 is 24mpg then every truck in GMs fleet would need to get 2mpg more to meet the average. If everything from the TB SS to the Equinox goes up 2mpg GM is all set. FWD Equinox is going up ~7mpg in 2010 alone.

how many hondas get 39.9mpg?

50% since it is an average :shrug:

50% since it is an average :shrug:50% of what?

Anyone thinking Corvettes are doomed simply because of this needs to get a grip. 30,000 Corvettes (or based on current sales, 15-20,000) annually aren't going to dent GM's CAFE one way or another. Neither are Camaros. Again, lets get a grip before we start spreading fear through the herd mentality of the internet.


Corvette may be okay. Expensive sports cars may be okay. Cheaper sports cars based on high volume RWD platforms (like Camaro) are probably in trouble, because those other cars needed for economies of scale may not exist.

:mad: :mad:

Ford's 4.0L in the mustang...
GM's 4.3L "Vortec"
Jeep's 4.0L inline 6

For God's sake, the 2.8/3.1/3.4 which could barely eek out 25mpg in the Camaro on a good day...

Engine technology has come a LONG way. Growing up, did you ever think you'd see 270hp out of a 4-cylinder in an everyday production car that gets 29mpg? 29mpg out of a 304hp V6 displacing only 3.6L?

I think this is a nice way to tell auto manufacturers to get off their damn duffs and update ALL their engines. I don't foresee any kind of awful huge horsepower/performance drop. Maybe a slight increase in price, but so much of this technology is already available/under development.

I mean if Chrysler cleaned up their dang gas guzzling V8's, there's a huge piece of low-hanging fruit right there. Buddy of mine had a 2002 Dakota with the 4.7? :eek: Single-digit mpg in town. Maybe they've gotten better, but I'm guessing that motor is still around in some form.

Let me finish erecting my flame shield............

I'm for this legislature. I just bought a 2009 ford focus, and I'm totally digging the 35.5mpg in town, 36.1 hwy. If I could buy a small car with considerably better mileage, I would.

I'm also about to by a 2010 SS camaro. Currently, my focus mpg combined with the camaro mpg will be above CAFE standards. If, in 2016, I can buy a $15K American car with 42+mpg, I'm all for it.

Worse case scenario, we'll pay more for top performance models...

Guy, this is effectively legislating performance cars right out of the market. And you know what? I believe this IS THE GOAL. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. :shrug:

"We can keep building the V8 Camaro, but it'll cost you an arm and a leg."

<fast forward 3 years>

"Nobody's buying them. Kill it."

The new standards are a cakewalk compared with what we went through with CAFE from 1977 to 1987, going from 14 to 27.5 mpg.

That must be that new-fangled fuzzy math, because in the 10 year span you're talking about the standards rose 13.5 mpg or almost double, and the jump we're talking about now is a 14.5 mpg jump, MORE than double, with only 6 years (effectively) to get there. I realize that available technology is far better now, but the challenge is similar....

It's funny how fuel economy has kept going up even though the law hasn't. It's called free market demand. We've had a MPG war through natural forces. Just let it continue.....

The reason Honda and Toyota's "imported" number they tend to import more small cars..while making more profitable sedans here...though Honda is making the Civic here now.

I am not sure how far this plan will make it. I mean I can ask for 5 cent Big Mac's..and if it is not possible, it won't happen.

What is funny is this current government is so worried about leaving a green planet...for future generations...but they have no issue leaving them staggering unrepayable debt also. I guess our kids will have a forrest to live in, and clean rivers to bath in when the country goes bankrupt.

You don't think they can sell one 100mpg CAFE rated Volt for every six 30mpg rated Camaros or Corvettes?

If GM developed the Volt EXCLUSIVELY to protect the Camaro and Corvette, then, that would be true.

Let me finish erecting my flame shield............

I'm for this legislature. I just bought a 2009 ford focus, and I'm totally digging the 35.5mpg in town, 36.1 hwy. If I could buy a small car with considerably better mileage, I would.

I'm also about to by a 2010 SS camaro. Currently, my focus mpg combined with the camaro mpg will be above CAFE standards. If, in 2016, I can buy a $15K American car with 42+mpg, I'm all for it.

How does your 36 MPG Focus + your 24 MPG Camaro = a 42 MPG average?

What is funny is this current governent is so worried about leaving a green planet...for future generations...but they have no issue leaving them staggering unrepayable debt also. I guess our kids will have a forrest to live in, and clean rivers to bath in when the country goes bankrupt.

Can I just add that this whole "green" movement is a whole lotta bullsh!t? Follow the money on this one my friends - people are making $billions$.

CAFE is small potatos next to any greenhouse gas limits (read CO2 limits) the EPA will impose which by fiat (did I even use that right?) will dictate how much fuel mileage a vehicle will have to generate in order to meet the GH-gas limits

How does your 36 MPG Focus + your 24 MPG Camaro = a 42 MPG average?

I think he is talking about the current 27.5 average

50% of what?

:lol: 50% of what you asked about, Hondas. On average half will be below 39.9 and half will be above 39.9mpg


What is funny is this current government is so worried about leaving a green planet...for future generations...

I think they are more worried about the sh!t storm when we cross over the oil production peak. People for get that oil is a finite resource, once we pump ~50% out of the ground the next ~50% will be a lot harder and more expensive to get. Add to that lack of investment over the last year and you can see that when the economy recovers $4-$5 will be right around the corner.

Now that gas is $2 again it is almost like we didn't learn any lessons from last summers $4+ gasoline. $4-$5 will choke the economy unless we improve efficiency.

People for get that oil is a finite resource, once we pump ~50% out of the ground the next ~50% will be a lot harder and more expensive to get.

You keep saying we're going to run out of oil, but they were saying the same kinds of things 75 years ago. I realize that the price of oil is far too "spastic" for comfort as evidenced by last summer's prices, but let's not pretend that inflated CAFE standards are a cure-all for humanity either.

I am not sure how far this plan will make it. I mean I can ask for 5 cent Big Mac's..and if it is not possible, it won't happen.

I've always wondered if our elected leaders ever consult engineers when they consider CAFE hikes or if they just throw a number at the wall and demand "make it so".

Everyone assumes Volt is going to be GM's CAFE savior, but at the ~$40,000 price tag they're talking about now they won't be able to sell them at even a 1:1 ratio with Corvette....let alone enough to cover Camaros....We're going to be seeing virtually ALL models with hybrid powertrains standard, and we're going to need to see improvement on them as well. Ford touts its 2010 Fusion hybrid as the most efficient in the midsize class, and it's only rated at 41 mpg so it wouldn't even pass....

Stupid,stupid,stupid.

CAFE is the wrong way to get from A to B. It is a failure and always has been.

There is simply no way to conserve our way out of dependence on foreign oil.

Change the fuels, not the cars.

I also heard on the news this morning that the new requirements for fuel economy and emmisions will effectively raise the price on each car by $1200. Not sure where they came up with that number however. More Cats?

edit: here are the 2009 CAFE numbers/ratings http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/nhtsa_static_file_downloader.jsp?file=/staticfiles/DOT/NHTSA/Vehicle%20Safety/Studies%20&%20Reports/Associated%20Files/March%202009%20Report.pdf

Tesla is already at 244mpg :eek: :lol:
I see that Tesla has ratings for both STD (27.5) and CAFE (244). Does anyone know (or have a link to more info on) how they calculate that?

:lol: 50% of what you asked about, Hondas. On average half will be below 39.9 and half will be above 39.9mpg

That would be true if that figure (39.9) were the median, but I think it's the mean. In general, if something is called an "average" and the type of average is unspecified (there are three types), then you should assume it's the mean.

You keep saying we're going to run out of oil, but they were saying the same kinds of things 75 years ago. I realize that the price of oil is far too "spastic" for comfort as evidenced by last summer's prices, but let's not pretend that inflated CAFE standards are a cure-all for humanity either.

I'm not saying the oil is going to run out. I'm saying global production will peak. There is still lot of of oil in the ground, but the last 50-33% will be much harder and more expensive to get than the first 33-50%. In the late 1800's you could drill a 100' well and get oil, today they are going down miles.

Once global production peaks prices will climb if demand is still growing. If we can cut demand off by making cars more efficient or make them run on electric for the first 20-40 miles then the price of oil will climb at a slower rate or maybe level off around $100 or what ever price makes electric the price friendly alternative.

Oil is just never going to "run out" though

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil


Everyone assumes Volt is going to be GM's CAFE savior, but at the ~$40,000 price tag they're talking about now they won't be able to sell them at even a 1:1 ratio with Corvette....let alone enough to cover Camaros....

Volt is going to be rated at 100mpg+ Maybe as high as 150mpg for CAFE. With that number you build 1 Volt and 8 LS3 powered Corvettes and Camaros and still meet the 42mpg average (150+(30*8)/9).

So in GM can sell 10,000 Volts, 30,000 Vettes, 50,000 Camaro SS, and still meet the 2016 CAFE.

Cruze, Aveo, Spark, Malibu should all have no problem averaging 42 CAFE by then if not by 2012. Just wait until that 1.4L GDI turbo engine comes out and goes into a lot of cars. GM is already testing more fuel efficient HCCI engines in the Aura (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=HCCI+Aura&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=HCCI+Aura&fp=G7EFg_3LQek)

Ford touts its 2010 Fusion hybrid as the most efficient in the midsize class, and it's only rated at 41 mpg so it wouldn't even pass....

That 41mpg is the EPA rating, not CAFE. I can't find it's CAFE number but my guess is that it is over 50mpg.


That would be true if that figure (39.9) were the median, but I think it's the mean. In general, if something is called an "average" and the type of average is unspecified (there are three types), then you should assume it's the mean.

This is true, I over simplified it. Although I suspect the median and mean are pretty close just based on knowing what Honda sells.

Cruze, Aveo, Spark, Malibu should all have no problem averaging 42 CAFE by then if not by 2012. Just wait until that 1.4L GDI turbo engine comes out and goes into a lot of cars.

This is kind of my point though. This CAFE standard removes a lot of choices if you're looking to buy a Malibu, for example. The line has to achieve at least 42 mpg, so you're looking at a whole slew of wheezy small turbo engines to power these larger cars. If we were anywhere near a point where a direct injected V6 with great power could get 45 mpg in a Malibu, we wouldn't constantly be having the hybrid/4 cylinder turbo conversation.

There isn't going to be some magic fairy dust that the automakers can sprinkle on their cars to achieve a fleet average of 42 mpg and still give us the types of cars that we, the people of this site anyway, enjoy and are accustomed to seeing. It's going to take a lot of growing pains characterized by less freedom of choice and increased costs passed on to the consumer.

This is kind of my point though. This CAFE standard removes a lot of choices if you're looking to buy a Malibu, for example. The line has to achieve at least 42 mpg, so you're looking at a whole slew of wheezy small turbo engines to power these larger cars. If we were anywhere near a point where a direct injected V6 with great power could get 45 mpg in a Malibu, we wouldn't constantly be having the hybrid/4 cylinder turbo conversation.

There isn't going to be some magic fairy dust that the automakers can sprinkle on their cars to achieve a fleet average of 42 mpg and still give us the types of cars that we, the people of this site anyway, enjoy and are accustomed to seeing. It's going to take a lot of growing pains characterized by less freedom of choice and increased costs passed on to the consumer.

Most people want good mileage and reasonable amount of power. I think the 2.4L 6 speed Malibu gives them that. If the CAFE number is about EPA hwy + 20% which is just an educated guess on my part since I can find individual car CAFE ratings. So a 2009 4cyl. Malibu (which is 75% sold) gets a CAFE rating of about 39mpg. If direct injection gets added for 2010 the Malibu might meet CAFE and offer more power than the 2009 car. So I don't know what the problem is?

Malibu hybrid sales will probably surpass V6 sales come 2016. Fusion hybrid is already 35% of Fusions sales. (http://forums.motortrend.com/70/7608708/monthly-sales-madness/ford-sees-sales-uptick-in-2q-fusion-off-to-strong/index.html) Even if it drops to 20-25% it will still out sell the 3.5L V6 Fusion. When the economy recovers and gas is back up to $4 it is just going to get worse for V6 car sales.

Malibu hybrid sales will probably surpass V6 sales come 2016. Fusion hybrid is already 35% of Fusions sales. Even if it drops to 20-25% it will still out sell the 3.5L V6 Fusion. When the economy recovers and gas is back up to $4 it is just going to get worse for V6 car sales.

Do you have links to these breakdowns? I kind of find it hard to believe that out of every 10 Fusions currently being sold, almost 4 of them are hybrids - at a time when hybrid sales in general are falling (didn't Honda dump its hybrid Accord due to slow sales?)

Put it this way, the 1.4 turbo engine that produces 140 HP doesn't sound like a very enchanting drive in a 3500 pound sedan. It might not matter to a lot of people, but it does to many others, especially if their new car feels slower than their old one.

Corvette may be okay. Expensive sports cars may be okay. Cheaper sports cars based on high volume RWD platforms (like Camaro) are probably in trouble, because those other cars needed for economies of scale may not exist.

If most Camaros sold were LS3s, then we'd likely need a new Camaro by the late part of 2nd half of the decade.

The LS3 Camaro gets 16 & 24 mpg.
The V6 powered Infiniti G37 coupe gets 17 & 25.

If Camaro is at risk, then Infiniti (even with V6s) is just as doomed.

I think we're both pretty sure Infiniti isn't going anywhere over the next decade..... and if GM is serious about Camaro becoming a core Chevrolet vehicle, Camaro won't either.

If most Camaros are the current V6, depending on volume related to total sales at GM, then there's a good chance that even the current Camaro might make it all the way through.

Still, even though the current Camaro can still make the cut without many changes, the Camaro that some of us wanted (smaller, lighter, same performance with say 100 horsepower drop) is still in the cards, therefore definately not an issue regarding future performance.

Ford's 4.0L in the mustang...
GM's 4.3L "Vortec"
Jeep's 4.0L inline 6

For God's sake, the 2.8/3.1/3.4 which could barely eek out 25mpg in the Camaro on a good day...

Engine technology has come a LONG way. Growing up, did you ever think you'd see 270hp out of a 4-cylinder in an everyday production car that gets 29mpg? 29mpg out of a 304hp V6 displacing only 3.6L?

I think this is a nice way to tell auto manufacturers to get off their damn duffs and update ALL their engines. I don't foresee any kind of awful huge horsepower/performance drop. Maybe a slight increase in price, but so much of this technology is already available/under development.

I mean if Chrysler cleaned up their dang gas guzzling V8's, there's a huge piece of low-hanging fruit right there. Buddy of mine had a 2002 Dakota with the 4.7? :eek: Single-digit mpg in town. Maybe they've gotten better, but I'm guessing that motor is still around in some form.

Your post hits all points on the head Quasar.

Think for a moment.

Today, we have a nearly 2 ton Camaro that puts out 426 horsepower. Yet it gets better fuel economy than the old 285 horse LT1 (by today's standards, the LT1 6 speed got 15/23 mpg next to the LS3's 16/24).

The new Camaro's V6 has over 300 horsepower.... yet it's highway mileage is only 1 mpg off of a 2000 2.4 4 cylinder Cavalier from 9 years ago!!!!


As I mentioned above, the firebreathing LS3 Camaro SS is a mere 1 mpg off of a smaller, lighter, V6 powered Infiniti G37 coupe.

Still want to whine that V8s are dead?

Try this on for size.

The V8, 426 horsepower, 3800 pound LS3 Camaro is rated at 16/24 mpg city/highway.
The V8, 390 horse, 4000 pound, Dodge Challenger R/T is rated at 16/25.

....But the V6 3472 pound, 263 horsepower, Mitsubishi Eclipse is rated at 16/25.

Equally remarkable is that the Hemi powered Dodge Challenger R/T gets the same highway mileage as the G37... and is only 1 mpg down in the city!!!


I haven't heard anyone predicting doom & gloom over Mitsubishi's Eclipse, or the death of the V6 engines powering many imports.... and don't get me started on comparing European imports.

And these V8 numbers are without direct injection!!!

And these numbers are with today's huge 2 ton coupes which will likely be downsized by mid decade!!

Direct injection is coming to all V8s, along with more mpg.... and even more power. If V8s are downsided with direct injection, then we'll see the same power and even more mpg with no other changes.

Throw in lighter cars (ie: Alpha), then there's even more mpg to be had on top of all of this.

So, anyone going into vapor lock over the new standards, or playing chicken little spreading fear on the internet needs to take a breath, look at the numbers, look at what's in the pipeline, and relax.

As long as the public buys RWD V8 performance cars, there WILL be RWD V8 performance cars.

Do you have links to these breakdowns? I kind of find it hard to believe that out of every 10 Fusions currently being sold, almost 4 of them are hybrids - at a time when hybrid sales in general are falling (didn't Honda dump its hybrid Accord due to slow sales?)

Put it this way, the 1.4 turbo engine that produces 140 HP doesn't sound like a very enchanting drive in a 3500 pound sedan. It might not matter to a lot of people, but it does to many others, especially if their new car feels slower than their old one.

http://forums.motortrend.com/70/7608708/monthly-sales-madness/ford-sees-sales-uptick-in-2q-fusion-off-to-strong/index.html

Accord Hybrid is rated at 25 city, while the Fusion is rated at 41 city. The Accord also cost more ($29K :think: )

140HP wouldn't matter to most people. GM could also make an engine that fits in between the 140HP 1.4L and the 260HP 2.0L. 175HP would probably be the sweet spot. I drove a 95HP Corsica in College. It had enough power to get me around.

I decided to find how the CAFE number is calculated. Found it on the NHTSA site.

From: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm

How is a manufacturer’s CAFE determined for a given model year?

A manufacturer’s CAFE is the fleet wide average fuel economy. Separate CAFE calculations are made for up to three potential fleets: domestic passenger cars, imported passenger cars and light trucks. The averaging method used is referred to as a “harmonic mean”. The regulatory language describes the calculation as: “the number of passenger automobiles manufactured by the manufacturer in a model year; divided by the sum of the fractions obtained by dividing the number of passenger automobiles of each model manufactured by the manufacturer in that model year by the fuel economy measured for that model.” The numerical example below illustrates the process. Assume that a hypothetical manufacturer produces four light truck models in 2004, where MPG means miles per gallon and GVWR means gross vehicle weight rating measured in lbs:
Model MPG GVWR Production Volume
Vehicle A 22 3000 130,000
Vehicle B 20 3500 120,000
Vehicle C 16 4000 100,000
Vehicle D 10 8900 40,000

Because the Vehicle D exceeds 8,500 GVWR, it is excluded from the calculation. Therefore, the manufacturer’s light truck CAFE is calculated as:

CAFE = Total Production Volume(PV) /(Vehicle A PV/mpg)+(Vehicle B PV)+....

So:
350,000/(130,000/22)+(120,000/20)+(40,000/16)=19.27


The 2004 model year light truck CAFE standard is 20.7 mpg therefore the manufacturer is not in compliance.


The site also explains the penalties and how credits are calculated and used.

I don't trust the EPA ratings on cars. My GTO is rated 16/24 and it averages 13mpg completely stock. I live in Puerto Rico, where hilly and slower driving is normal, my car doesn't even come close to 16 mpg average EVER...

My Focus SVT averaged 20 mpg and had ratings around 18/26 or so....

I'm digging the upcoming Fiesta with the 1.6 vct-i engine.

Guy, this is effectively legislating performance cars right out of the market. And you know what? I believe this IS THE GOAL. Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em. :shrug:

That must be that new-fangled fuzzy math, because in the 10 year span you're talking about the standards rose 13.5 mpg or almost double, and the jump we're talking about now is a 14.5 mpg jump, MORE than double, with only 6 years (effectively) to get there. I realize that available technology is far better now, but the challenge is similar....

It's funny how fuel economy has kept going up even though the law hasn't. It's called free market demand. We've had a MPG war through natural forces. Just let it continue.....

Wil, you're way off base. If you call them as you see them, and have an issue with fuzzy math, then you may want to review your numbers.

14 mpg to 27.5 mpg is 13.5 mpg increase.

In other words, 50% in 10 years.

27.5 mpg to 40 mpg is 12.5 mpg increase.

In other words, that's a 33% increase in 11 years.

Strike one.


Next, there is no regulation outlawing performance cars. If your issue is V8s, then unless you're Rip Van Winkle, you might realize that V8s are already all but restricted to expensive cars. The only V8 you're going to find for under 30 grand is the Mustang GT. Most all cars with V8s today have at least a $5,000 premium on them. Finally, V8s (outside of Chrysler's LX cars) made up a miniscule amount of total vehicle sales. That isn't going to change. We're already there.

Also, it IS the public that's making the decision. Chrysler's V8 powered LX car sales plunged when gas climbed. Although Hemi engines still got better fuel economy than many import V6s, the image of the V8 was enough to kill sales. So the idea that the new standards will kill V8s, or somehow legislate them out of existence, or even worse, force people to buy V6s when the huge masses of them want and are demanding V8s doesn't hold up when you look at trends over the past decade.

Strike two.


Finally, as I mentioned above, V8 fuel economy today is stellar.... and there is even more tricks up the sleeve.

Chrysler has comitted to the Hemi, stating that it's in no danger for at least half of next decade. Ford's new 5.0 V8 is going to not only have higher horsepower numbers, but also much higher fuel economy. Ford's Ecoboost V6 will have even more fuel economy still. GM is looking at downsizing it's 6.2 eventually, but untill then, DI is expected to boost fuel economy while revised gearing will also raise mpg by a few numbers.

To top it off, Camaro will likely top out at around 70K per year. half will be SS. In a company that even in downsized form will churn out 1.5 million vehicles, to think that 30-35K V8 Camaros will dies due to CAFE is not realistic in the least. It's the Malibu, Cobalt, and SUVs that will dictate because of the volume.

Strike 3.


Yur...out. ;)

I don't trust the EPA ratings on cars. My GTO is rated 16/24 and it averages 13mpg completely stock. I live in Puerto Rico, where hilly and slower driving is normal, my car doesn't even come close to 16 mpg average EVER...

My Focus SVT averaged 20 mpg and had ratings around 18/26 or so....

I'm digging the upcoming Fiesta with the 1.6 vct-i engine.

The EPA rating is just so you have a yardstick to compare vehicles under identical situations. If car X gets 2 mpg better than car Y, then no matter what actual mpg numbers you get with your driving, doing the same type of driving in both cars will still get you a 2 mpg difference.

Also... again, let me say that the EPA numbers you see on your window IS NOT what CAFE numbers are based on.

CAFE numbers are based on higher numbers. Example, you EPA rating may say your car gets 29 mpg. Via the CAFE rule, they may rate your car at 32 mpg.

Currently, the national average is 31 mpg though the rule is 27.5.

http://forums.motortrend.com/70/7608708/monthly-sales-madness/ford-sees-sales-uptick-in-2q-fusion-off-to-strong/index.html

I see now. That percentage is for the new 2010 Fusion, and its impressive hybrid model has been heavily advertised. I was thinking about the old Fusion. I wouldn't anticipate that rate to continue.

I drove a 95HP Corsica in College. It had enough power to get me around.

That Corsica probably didn't weight near 3000 pounds either. My wife drives a 2001 Saturn SC1 and its little 1.9L is also rated around 90 HP if I recall. Sure it gets you around, but it is barely tolerable. As cars continue to grow in size and heft, you'll need more powerful engines to keep a base level of performance like this.

14 mpg to 27.5 mpg is 13.5 mpg increase.

In other words, 50% in 10 years.

27.5 mpg to 40 mpg is 12.5 mpg increase.

In other words, that's a 33% increase in 11 years.

Guess it depends on how you want to calculate the numbers. And besides, I thought the standard was going to be 42, not 40.

Next, there is no regulation outlawing performance cars. If your issue is V8s, then unless you're Rip Van Winkle, you might realize that V8s are already all but restricted to expensive cars.

I know this. My point was about you stating that "they'll just be more expensive" meaning the gap will continue to widen (at least, that's how I took it).

Also, it IS the public that's making the decision. Chrysler's V8 powered LX car sales plunged when gas climbed. Although Hemi engines still got better fuel economy than many import V6s, the image of the V8 was enough to kill sales. So the idea that the new standards will kill V8s, or somehow legislate them out of existence, or even worse, force people to buy V6s when the huge masses of them want and are demanding V8s doesn't hold up when you look at trends over the past decade.

I think we're on the same page in terms of the market deciding what is popular - but a large increase in CAFE starts to infringe upon the automakers' abilities to build performance cars in large numbers regardless of what the market demands. That is my concern here - the supply side. Besides all those issues, legislation that increases costs and complexity on an industry that is already reeling in an economy that is deflating seems a bit counterproductive at this time, but that is why I am not an elected leader. :)

Finally, as I mentioned above, V8 fuel economy today is stellar.... and there is even more tricks up the sleeve.

It IS stellar, but it is nowhere near being CAFE-positive even by today's standards. As this business continues to be more cutthroat and with increasing pressure from our government (especially one that essentially controls two of the three traditional muscle car manufacturers), it is going to be harder and harder to justify large CAFE-negative vehicles even with your Volts, Cruzes, etc.

I also heard on the news this morning that the new requirements for fuel economy and emmisions will effectively raise the price on each car by $1200. Not sure where they came up with that number however. More Cats?

No, its not a problem adding cats will solve, reducing C02 emmissions requires buring less fuel either by running a leaner charge (HCCI engine) or using a smaller engine.

That, said

Has anybody seen the language for the GH-gas regs? Is it going to be similar to CAFE in implementation? If GH-gas regs are modeled after CAFE regs then theres room for engines like the big V8s out now (or possibly smaller FI variants that run pretty lean off boost I'd imagine), but if its total CO2 unit emmitted per whatever unit for each vehicle, then yeah... :(... game over.

My wife drives a 2001 Saturn SC1 and its little 1.9L is also rated around 90 HP if I recall. Sure it gets you around, but it is barely tolerable. As cars continue to grow in size and heft, you'll need more powerful engines to keep a base level of performance like this.

You are used to driving fast cars ;) It was my first car and while it wasn't fast, it had enough power to get around and get me a speeding ticket for 82 in a 65.

95HP wouldn't be enough for a modern Malibu but that 140HP turbo 1.4L would probably make the Malibu faster than they 1990 4 cyl. 3 speed automatic Corsica. A car like that is all 80% of the public wants anyways.


I know this. My point was about you stating that "they'll just be more expensive" meaning the gap will continue to widen (at least, that's how I took it).

250HP, 300HP, 400HP cars are more plentiful and cheaper than they ever have been. In 2016 there will be plenty of 300HP options, it just might come in the form of a turbo 4cyl and not a V8. In the not too distant future V8s will be only used in 400HP+ applications. Unlike the early 80's were a V8 was needed if you wanted over 200HP. Blame the decline of the V8 on the tech advances in 4 cyl. and V6 engines. There is no place for the V8 in the 200-300HP mainstream product market.

You are used to driving fast cars ;)

Hey, in the winter I drive the '91 Jimmy - a whopping 160 HP or so from that 4.3 V6 (and that was when it was brand new!) :D

I decided to find how the CAFE number is calculated. Found it on the NHTSA site.

From: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm

The site also explains the penalties and how credits are calculated and used.

Credits will allow some room for the automakers to become compliant. If they are above the average now, then this will delay the year (by up to 3 years) that they will need to meet the new standards.

Has anybody seen the language for the GH-gas regs? Is it going to be similar to CAFE in implementation? If GH-gas regs are modeled after CAFE regs then theres room for engines like the big V8s out now (or possibly smaller FI variants that run pretty lean off boost I'd imagine), but if its total CO2 unit emmitted per whatever unit for each vehicle, then yeah... :(... game over.

See, this is the thing. I've been wringing my hands about the fuel mileage changes, but maybe we need to be even more concerned about the CO2 stuff?

For this to happen, at some point either price or saftey will be compromised. I think you will find most American's find "being green" as a nice idea..however they are not willing to compromise their safety or pocketbooks for it.

No, its not a problem adding cats will solve, reducing C02 emmissions requires buring less fuel either by running a leaner charge (HCCI engine) or using a smaller engine.


Big catch 22 situation there as well. Burning leaner means burning hotter. Running an engine like that is a great way to increase NOx production.

I don't trust the EPA ratings on cars. My GTO is rated 16/24 and it averages 13mpg completely stock. I live in Puerto Rico, where hilly and slower driving is normal, my car doesn't even come close to 16 mpg average EVER...

My Focus SVT averaged 20 mpg and had ratings around 18/26 or so....

I'm digging the upcoming Fiesta with the 1.6 vct-i engine.

Actually, they were pretty accurate for my A6. 15 mpg *could* be achieved in the city if driven carefully and not in stop-and-go traffic.

However, since conditions differ, our mileage is usually worse. I live downtown, most of my driving is short trips.

Its highway rating is spot on.

Same with my Mazda 3. Highway rating is spot on, actually I get slightly better highway mileage than advertised, and city is also spot on, but only if I drive easy and avoid congestion. in the winter, it got 25% worse mileage than advertised.

Take it as a guide, but generally, that's what I look at when determining what to expect from a car.

See, this is the thing. I've been wringing my hands about the fuel mileage changes, but maybe we need to be even more concerned about the CO2 stuff?
I started wondering about this after reading about the EU adopting CO2 limits (and Prosche saying they are really looking into ultra light cars going forward) and thinking there is no way CARB or the US was going to let the EU take the title away.

Big catch 22 situation there as well. Burning leaner means burning hotter. Running an engine like that is a great way to increase NOx production.
The thought had crossed my mind about NOX and lean burning engines, I suppose if they can't solve that problem, then its 1 liter engines for everbody :rolleyes: ;)

Oh well, we'll see? a MY11 Mustang might just be the last one I purchase for other than purely economic reasons :eek: :(

For this to happen, at some point either price or saftey will be compromised. I think you will find most American's find "being green" as a nice idea..however they are not willing to compromise their safety or pocketbooks for it.

I disagree, look at what sold and what didn't Summer 2008

CAFE and manufacturer based mileage requirements = FAIL

It hasn't worked over the last 30 years, we're in worse position now being dependent on oil more so than ever before. We have not address the fundamental issue.

Making vehicles more efficient, only makes driving cheaper per mile. Making it cheaper per mile to drive is going to do what, allow people to drive more. Our consumption only curtails if the price of fuel goes sky high, though this does nothing to address the fundamental issue.

The longer we avoid making a change to the source of our energy for vehicle transportation the longer we'll be laden by this crutch and the longer it will be until we're free of this sole fuel source for our vehicles.

These will not be hard or cheap decisions, but the right decisions for our future.

I haven't heard anyone predicting doom & gloom over Mitsubishi's Eclipse, or the death of the V6 engines powering many imports.... and don't get me started on comparing European imports.

And these V8 numbers are without direct injection!!!

And these numbers are with today's huge 2 ton coupes which will likely be downsized by mid decade!!

Direct injection is coming to all V8s, along with more mpg.... and even more power. If V8s are downsided with direct injection, then we'll see the same power and even more mpg with no other changes.

Throw in lighter cars (ie: Alpha), then there's even more mpg to be had on top of all of this.

So, anyone going into vapor lock over the new standards, or playing chicken little spreading fear on the internet needs to take a breath, look at the numbers, look at what's in the pipeline, and relax.

As long as the public buys RWD V8 performance cars, there WILL be RWD V8 performance cars.



Guy, excellent comparison. There are problems, though, among them being that the general public is not literate.

The second problem is that the media continues to exploit people's perception that america makes large, heavy vehicles with large engines that suck gas. Not a single article will talk about gas-guzzling Infinity.

The third problem is the administration. They are attempting to tackle climate change. This has nothing to do with climate change, but that's besides the point. Let's call it more appropriately by the term "pollution". I am for reducing pollution. Cars that the public buys have minimal effect on global pollution, or the pollution in the US. In fact, there was a study done by one of the transportation ministries/authorities that stated that commercial vehicles (trucks/buses) contribute to 90% of vehicular emissions. The administration's attack of climate change should concentrate on heavy polluters first and foremost. I support the idea of ever-improving vehicle mileage, but let's address the real issues, not some conjured up/concocted ideas that have minute effect on the environment compared to other big pollutants.

Way to demonize the people. Just like blaming your country's enormous debt on "irresponsible consumers". As if they make up the largest borrowing entity :rolleyes:

How about finding a log in your own eye first?

In fact, there was a study done by one of the transportation ministries/authorities that stated that commercial vehicles (trucks/buses) contribute to 90% of vehicular emissions.

Hell, looking beyond the transportation issue, the average $h!tbox people call a house produces more pollution than a car does due to the way we generate the bulk of our electricity.

Big catch 22 situation there as well. Burning leaner means burning hotter. Running an engine like that is a great way to increase NOx production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCCI

Homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) is a form of internal combustion in which well-mixed fuel and oxidizer (typically air) are compressed to the point of auto-ignition....
HCCI has characteristics of the two most popular forms of combustion used in IC engines: homogeneous charge spark ignition (gasoline engines) and stratified charge compression ignition (diesel engines)....
The defining characteristic of HCCI is that the ignition occurs at several places at a time which makes the fuel/air mixture burn nearly simultaneously....

Advantages
HCCI provides up to a 15-percent fuel savings, while meeting current emissions standards.
Since HCCI engines are fuel-lean, they can operate at a Diesel-like compression ratios (>15), thus achieving higher efficiencies than conventional spark-ignited gasoline engines.[1]
Homogeneous mixing of fuel and air leads to cleaner combustion and lower emissions. In fact, because peak temperatures are significantly lower than in typical spark ignited engines, NOx levels are almost negligible. Additionally, the premixed lean mixture does not produce soot.[2]
HCCI engines can operate on gasoline, diesel fuel, and most alternative fuels. [3]
In regards to gasoline engines, the omission of throttle losses improves HCCI efficiency.[4]

[edit] Disadvantages
High in-cylinder peak pressures may cause damage to the engine.
High heat release and pressure rise rates contribute to engine wear.
The autoignition event is difficult of control, unlike the ignition event in spark ignition (SI) and Diesel engines which are controlled by spark plugs and in-cylinder fuel injectors, respectively.[5]
HCCI engines have a small power range, constrained at low loads by lean flammability limits and high loads by in-cylinder pressure restictions.[6]
Carbon monoxide (CO) and hydrocarbon (HC) pre-catalyst emissions are higher than a typical spark ignition engine, caused by incomplete oxidation (due to the rapid combustion event and low in-cylinder temperatures) and trapped crevice gases, respectively.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HCCI

Shows what I know. Conventional wisdom need not apply for HCCI engines. Neither do I it seems.

I disagree, look at what sold and what didn't Summer 2008

Well you have to look at the time also. That is when credit tightened and really limited peoples buying power. Bad credit conditions, and high gas, will push people into cheaper cars (which tend to be more fuel efficiant), or used cars...however that is not what they want to buy. Also, summer of 2008 was when you first started seeing the sales drop to 50% under prior year..which is really depression level. So I don't think it is indicative a change in consumer taste...more a matter of the people who could buy something spending less.

OK - truth hurts.

I have said for years that we are at the 2nd peak of performance cars, and just like before - it will die. I have speculated that insurance companies will have their share of the blame, the government will have it's share, and the economy would do the rest. There is no single person to execute here - it's a movement, collective, en-masse.

I'm going to ask every one of you - one on one - to be very honest with yourself for just a second.
Do you really need 400hp to drive to work and back every day?
Do you really need 540hp to go out for dinner Saturday night with the wife and kids?
Do you really need 390hp to bring home groceries tonight?
Do you really need 455hp to run the packages to the post office?
Do you really need 500hp in the drag car you race at the local track on the weekend? (OK - this one was to see if you are paying attention! :D)

You see, we (especially Americans) are so spoiled and wasteful it is insane. We think it is our birthright to own a fast car, an SUV, and a toy in the garage. We think nothing about wasting gas, oil, and other resources because, well, we simply "want that vehicle". Yet again, we are our own worst enemy. We are greedy, self-centered humans that are letting the spoils of Pandora's Box get the best of us... again.

I have maintained, and will continue to maintain, that the automotive market is just in the beginnings of a major shift. One that will result in the elimination of many of the mainstays of the last 20 years. We are about to see vehicles that are much lighter, less powerful, and more eco-friendly. Try to be honest with yourself, and understand what you really NEED versus what you want to have for your everyday vehicle. Some of the folks on this board (in the "If there was no Camaro" thread) have already indicated that the new Camaro is no longer on their list of desired vehicles due to babies, job situation, etc. Those are the kinds of folks that are more in-tune with their actual needs as compared with their desires.

Now listen, it is TOTALLY OK to want a new Camaro SS. I want one - I swear I do. But is it at the top of my needs list? Nope. Nor should it be. Would a V6 be at the top of the needs list? Maybe not, but it sure is farther up the list than an SS. A 4-door or crossover would be further up the list for me than the V6 Camaro, as I have a family and appreciate the 4-doors alot.

This plays right into the economic plan that I have touted for the lineup as well. Exotic, big-engined performers are toys for people with money. They are not/should not be intended for mainstream volumes and daily-driver vehicles of the masses. I love them as much as anyone, but their existence is for a different purpose IMO.

Some of you guys can flame away at me all you like, but I speak the truth to you. I work in this industry, developing parts and systems for cars that are 2-3 years away from seeing the streets, and I am telling you what is coming. You can fight it or embrace it, but it IS coming. :shrug:

In 5 years or so, I expect to see us bench-racing our upcoming 2800-lb ponycars that have I-4, I-5, and V6 engines with direct injection and power adders. A few years after that, we will be talking about adding low-weight capacitors for a short boost to the electric wheel motors and current/voltage-management programs to maximize our range while maintaining performance. :shock:

I have the truck I want, the Camaro SS is on order. With proper maintenance I'll never need another. With my income, gas isn't a problem. F 'em!

Let's start up a V8 / Diesel convoy in/around DC. Stay just fast enough to avoid tickets.

Add signs to the vehicles stating our displeasure with Govt. intrusion into our lives.

We can gridlock DC and SHUT IT DOWN for a day!

[...]

Yes.

...

Werd.

Proud, life would suck if all we are able to do is what we NEED to do just to survive. I guess you aren't suggesting that, but simply pointing out that the market is adjusting (as they tend to do)... ?

I mean, some basic food, a place to s**t, and a place to sleep that keeps the weather off of us ought to do it, right?

So only rich folks should be able to enjoy a fast car? :think:

And today's 400 hp cars do better on fuel (in normal driving) than the leviathons of old, offering far superior performance, safety, handling, emissions, etc. Not to mention, it isn't like everyone is buying the 400 hp versions of cars. There may be a lot more options than a few years ago at that power level, but they are still a vast, vast minority.

Meanwhile, yes, average horsepower has gone up across the board. And the market can (and is) adjusting by way of supply and demand. When people decide that the price of fuel is high enough, they'll opt for the 4 cylinder Malibu instead of the 6 (most do anyway, by the way, as they do for Camry, Accord, etc.).

Sounds pretty elitist (though I don't think you mean it that way) to suggest that the rest of us shouldn't be able to enjoy power if we want it.

Should we limit the speed and performance capabilities of the computers people are allowed to buy? After all, they use energy too. What about TVs? :D

EDIT: Reading / skimming your post again, it looks like you are primarily pointing out where things are headed (which is undoubtedly more or less true), not necessarily that it should / must go that way. You won't get much argument from many of us about wanting to keep weight down (so you don't NEED as much power to go silly fast) and so forth. Just so long as we still have the freedom to build the silly fast cars if we choose (but maybe 400 hp is silly fast, instead of 600 hp on a heavier car...) ;)

OK - truth hurts.

I have said for years that we are at the 2nd peak of performance cars, and just like before - it will die. I have speculated that insurance companies will have their share of the blame, the government will have it's share, and the economy would do the rest. There is no single person to execute here - it's a movement, collective, en-masse.

I'm going to ask every one of you - one on one - to be very honest with yourself for just a second.
Do you really need 400hp to drive to work and back every day?
Do you really need 540hp to go out for dinner Saturday night with the wife and kids?
Do you really need 390hp to bring home groceries tonight?
Do you really need 455hp to run the packages to the post office?
Do you really need 500hp in the drag car you race at the local track on the weekend? (OK - this one was to see if you are paying attention! :D)

You see, we (especially Americans) are so spoiled and wasteful it is insane. We think it is our birthright to own a fast car, an SUV, and a toy in the garage. We think nothing about wasting gas, oil, and other resources because, well, we simply "want that vehicle". Yet again, we are our own worst enemy. We are greedy, self-centered humans that are letting the spoils of Pandora's Box get the best of us... again.

I have maintained, and will continue to maintain, that the automotive market is just in the beginnings of a major shift. One that will result in the elimination of many of the mainstays of the last 20 years. We are about to see vehicles that are much lighter, less powerful, and more eco-friendly. Try to be honest with yourself, and understand what you really NEED versus what you want to have for your everyday vehicle. Some of the folks on this board (in the "If there was no Camaro" thread) have already indicated that the new Camaro is no longer on their list of desired vehicles due to babies, job situation, etc. Those are the kinds of folks that are more in-tune with their actual needs as compared with their desires.

Now listen, it is TOTALLY OK to want a new Camaro SS. I want one - I swear I do. But is it at the top of my needs list? Nope. Nor should it be. Would a V6 be at the top of the needs list? Maybe not, but it sure is farther up the list than an SS. A 4-door or crossover would be further up the list for me than the V6 Camaro, as I have a family and appreciate the 4-doors alot.

This plays right into the economic plan that I have touted for the lineup as well. Exotic, big-engined performers are toys for people with money. They are not/should not be intended for mainstream volumes and daily-driver vehicles of the masses. I love them as much as anyone, but their existence is for a different purpose IMO.

Some of you guys can flame away at me all you like, but I speak the truth to you. I work in this industry, developing parts and systems for cars that are 2-3 years away from seeing the streets, and I am telling you what is coming. You can fight it or embrace it, but it IS coming. :shrug:

In 5 years or so, I expect to see us bench-racing our upcoming 2800-lb ponycars that have I-4, I-5, and V6 engines with direct injection and power adders. A few years after that, we will be talking about adding low-weight capacitors for a short boost to the electric wheel motors and current/voltage-management programs to maximize our range while maintaining performance. :shock:


Posts like this drive me nuts. First off this new set of regulations will be nad for performance cars period. No matter how you slice or dice it its not good.
You talk about what yopu really need. I agree we dont really need 500 hp cars to go to the store, but if you want to use that commie way of thinking, we could get rid of alot of things we dont need. Do we really need NASCAR, the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, video games, snow skiing, waterskiing, wakeboarding, motocross, 24 inch wheels..... I could go on and on. I look at it as another take away for our freedom as living as an American. We dont need a lot of things that we do, but that is why we enjoy life in America.

Not often I disagree with PP. ;)

But I do on this occasion. :) What separates GM from other companies (in my book) is affordable performance. I love GM powertrains. I guess that's a huge reason why I prefer GM products in general. :cool:

Otherwise, I'll always drive Toyota! :eek:

The problem is....it is the Capitalistic "I want" culture that has gotten America where it is. Like it or not..the fact that we as a people are able to do and achieve what we want is what seperates us from the have nots like Russia, Europe, and in the future China. People are most productive, and to their greatest work when it is for their own personal gain..plain and simple. That being the case, any society that limits the ability of it's citizens to work for their own being, or limites possesions and potential is predetermined to have a subaverage future.

I like cars...do I need 3 cars...hell no. However..I have to earn the money to pay for it, and I am sure my boss is happy I work my ass off so I can afford the 3 cars I want. I sure work harder to have those cars than I would if I were only allowed one car by some regulation.

A society that is built on the idea of making due with "what is needed" is not one that innovates and makes game changing innovations. Sure we will run out of oil some day...but you know what..we might get hit by a meteorid or go bankrupt under mountains of debt also. Oil is king right now because it is the cheapest form of portable energy. I am willing to bet when the situation gets to the point that oil is no longer the best value...some person looking to have a big house, and a lot of money will find a way to replace it. This is a country that went from horse and buggy to the moon in 70 years based on the enginuity of the American people. Who knows where we will be in 40 years when the oil situation gets real.

My point is...in a capitalistic society, when the consumer wants a better value that oil..it will appear and be used. Untill then..any spending we do is nothing but a government or emotional give away.







OK - truth hurts.

I have said for years that we are at the 2nd peak of performance cars, and just like before - it will die. I have speculated that insurance companies will have their share of the blame, the government will have it's share, and the economy would do the rest. There is no single person to execute here - it's a movement, collective, en-masse.

I'm going to ask every one of you - one on one - to be very honest with yourself for just a second.
Do you really need 400hp to drive to work and back every day?
Do you really need 540hp to go out for dinner Saturday night with the wife and kids?
Do you really need 390hp to bring home groceries tonight?
Do you really need 455hp to run the packages to the post office?
Do you really need 500hp in the drag car you race at the local track on the weekend? (OK - this one was to see if you are paying attention! :D)

You see, we (especially Americans) are so spoiled and wasteful it is insane. We think it is our birthright to own a fast car, an SUV, and a toy in the garage. We think nothing about wasting gas, oil, and other resources because, well, we simply "want that vehicle". Yet again, we are our own worst enemy. We are greedy, self-centered humans that are letting the spoils of Pandora's Box get the best of us... again.

I have maintained, and will continue to maintain, that the automotive market is just in the beginnings of a major shift. One that will result in the elimination of many of the mainstays of the last 20 years. We are about to see vehicles that are much lighter, less powerful, and more eco-friendly. Try to be honest with yourself, and understand what you really NEED versus what you want to have for your everyday vehicle. Some of the folks on this board (in the "If there was no Camaro" thread) have already indicated that the new Camaro is no longer on their list of desired vehicles due to babies, job situation, etc. Those are the kinds of folks that are more in-tune with their actual needs as compared with their desires.

Now listen, it is TOTALLY OK to want a new Camaro SS. I want one - I swear I do. But is it at the top of my needs list? Nope. Nor should it be. Would a V6 be at the top of the needs list? Maybe not, but it sure is farther up the list than an SS. A 4-door or crossover would be further up the list for me than the V6 Camaro, as I have a family and appreciate the 4-doors alot.

This plays right into the economic plan that I have touted for the lineup as well. Exotic, big-engined performers are toys for people with money. They are not/should not be intended for mainstream volumes and daily-driver vehicles of the masses. I love them as much as anyone, but their existence is for a different purpose IMO.

Some of you guys can flame away at me all you like, but I speak the truth to you. I work in this industry, developing parts and systems for cars that are 2-3 years away from seeing the streets, and I am telling you what is coming. You can fight it or embrace it, but it IS coming. :shrug:

In 5 years or so, I expect to see us bench-racing our upcoming 2800-lb ponycars that have I-4, I-5, and V6 engines with direct injection and power adders. A few years after that, we will be talking about adding low-weight capacitors for a short boost to the electric wheel motors and current/voltage-management programs to maximize our range while maintaining performance. :shock:

My point is...in a capitalistic society, when the consumer wants a better value that oil..it will appear and be used. Untill then..any spending we do is nothing but a government or emotional give away.

Except oil doesn't "just appear". It did in the 1950s, but now it costs the taxpayers a significant amount of money to get oil from the national governments who have it.

Even the outgoing VP argued that oil is "unique" from a market perspective.

Except oil doesn't "just appear". It did in the 1950s, but now it costs the taxpayers a significant amount of money to get oil from the national governments who have it.

Even the outgoing VP argued that oil is "unique" from a market perspective.

I think a replacement or alterative will be developed when oils cost advantage disappears. Again..right now we grumble about it...just like we groumble about borrowing from China..however nothing will happen untill it hits our wallets in a long term manner.

Except oil doesn't "just appear". It did in the 1950s, but now it costs the taxpayers a significant amount of money to get oil from the national governments who have it.

Even the outgoing VP argued that oil is "unique" from a market perspective.

How does it cost taxpayers money to get oil? The taxpayers make a ton of money off oil. just look at Alaska. The media and the environazis have done a wonderful job of making oil the evil of all the world. Its sad because it has done wonders for the world.

These posts about having only what we need just baffle me. The people that came to this country and built it up didn't do all this so we could only have what we need and nothing more. What about the American dream? What about making our own choices? If people work and have the money, they should have what they want and desire in life, without it being taken away by an enviro-socialist crazed government. The only way to stop these lunatics is for people to rise up against it, because it's the only way big things were ever accomplished in this country. Hopefully, by the time this all comes around we won't have a super liberal in office and they reverse the damage that these people want to inflict. The car industry/economy needs help to make money and sales, not tougher regulations.

The problem is....it is the Capitalistic "I want" culture that has gotten America where it is.

Worlds largest debtor nation :(


A society that is built on the idea of making due with "what is needed" is not one that innovates and makes game changing innovations. Sure we will run out of oil some day...but you know what..we might get hit by a meteorid or go bankrupt under mountains of debt also. Oil is king right now because it is the cheapest form of portable energy. I am willing to bet when the situation gets to the point that oil is no longer the best value...some person looking to have a big house, and a lot of money will find a way to replace it. This is a country that went from horse and buggy to the moon in 70 years based on the enginuity of the American people. Who knows where we will be in 40 years when the oil situation gets real.

My point is...in a capitalistic society, when the consumer wants a better value that oil..it will appear and be used. Untill then..any spending we do is nothing but a government or emotional give away.

Necessity is the mother of invention.

I agree, the public will buy what ever is the most cost efficient fuel. But right now we want cheap gas, when prices go up, people flip out and pester their congressman/senator to do stupid things to get prices lower (cutting taxes that fund roads, subsidizing big oil, invading oil rich countries, etc..) yet at the same time people blame the auto companies for not making more fuel efficient cars like they do in the rest of the world. Again to make driving cheaper. It is a no win situation because as we know, low fuel prices don't encourage conservation. The best solution is higher gas tax. Alan Greenspan recommended a $3 a gallon tax to cut out consumption of imported oil. Of course this is political suicide and you will never see it done. So here we are with CAFE. I think gas will be back at $4 when the economy recovers and we know hybrids will be getting cheaper and better. This will most likely be a non issue come 2016.

Proud, life would suck if all we are able to do is what we NEED to do just to survive. I guess you aren't suggesting that, but simply pointing out that the market is adjusting (as they tend to do)... ?

I mean, some basic food, a place to s**t, and a place to sleep that keeps the weather off of us ought to do it, right?

So only rich folks should be able to enjoy a fast car? :think:

And today's 400 hp cars do better on fuel (in normal driving) than the leviathons of old, offering far superior performance, safety, handling, emissions, etc. Not to mention, it isn't like everyone is buying the 400 hp versions of cars. There may be a lot more options than a few years ago at that power level, but they are still a vast, vast minority.

Meanwhile, yes, average horsepower has gone up across the board. And the market can (and is) adjusting by way of supply and demand. When people decide that the price of fuel is high enough, they'll opt for the 4 cylinder Malibu instead of the 6 (most do anyway, by the way, as they do for Camry, Accord, etc.).

Sounds pretty elitist (though I don't think you mean it that way) to suggest that the rest of us shouldn't be able to enjoy power if we want it.

Should we limit the speed and performance capabilities of the computers people are allowed to buy? After all, they use energy too. What about TVs? :D

EDIT: Reading / skimming your post again, it looks like you are primarily pointing out where things are headed (which is undoubtedly more or less true), not necessarily that it should / must go that way. You won't get much argument from many of us about wanting to keep weight down (so you don't NEED as much power to go silly fast) and so forth. Just so long as we still have the freedom to build the silly fast cars if we choose (but maybe 400 hp is silly fast, instead of 600 hp on a heavier car...) ;)

What we need to survive?!?! I think that is leaping a bit deep into the extreme limits of the mind, don't you? Choosing between a V6 Camaro and an SS hardly seems like a decision that hols your fate and survival at hand.

Nowhere have I ever said that you are having decisions taken away from you. If you have the money and want the 540hp grocery cart - go get it. But understand that you are doing yourself and our nation a bit of a dis-service because you are wasting our resources needlessly... and grossly.

I never said only the rich deserve a fast car. But let's also be honest with ourselves. Do you see many Ferrari's parked in trailer parks? The rich will always have special advantages - that won't change. The cool thing for common Joes is taking something marginal and making it perform maximally. That is the essence and the roots of hot-rodding, and it will continue into the future as far as I can imagine. I have no doubt that we will be "tuning" anything and everything that OEM's can produce - be it a 3-cyl DI turbo or a 100% electric unit. I even commented on that at the end of my post.

No harm, no foul by me - I understand your post and appreciate the edit section. No, I am not trying to sound elitist at all. I'm just stating that changes are coming, and we (collectively as Americans) have made our own beds... don't try to pass the buck to anyone else for our situation. When the day comes that I don't see throngs of F350 Duallys and Escalades dropping off 1 kid each at school in the morning... I'll begin to think we are making progress. :(

Posts like this drive me nuts. First off this new set of regulations will be nad for performance cars period. No matter how you slice or dice it its not good.
You talk about what yopu really need. I agree we dont really need 500 hp cars to go to the store, but if you want to use that commie way of thinking, we could get rid of alot of things we dont need. Do we really need NASCAR, the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL, video games, snow skiing, waterskiing, wakeboarding, motocross, 24 inch wheels..... I could go on and on. I look at it as another take away for our freedom as living as an American. We dont need a lot of things that we do, but that is why we enjoy life in America.

Commie way of thinking?!?!

Posts like this drive me nuts.
I post thoughts and facts to try to present a situation and predict what is coming for us all, and I'm a commie. :rolleyes:

You go spend a few years in countries where people live in cardboard boxes, have no running water, are subjected to corrupt cops and no judicial system, have no form of social protection, no basic provisions, no guarantee of health care or even a next meal... and then post on this board about how "necessary" the things you posted REALLY are.

I'm not saying I want everything abolished but survival needs. I never brought the word survival up in my post. But there is a huge difference in surviving, living a nice yet modest lifestyle, and being grossly wasteful.

If you have the money and the resources, why can you not use a 3-cyl or hybrid for your everyday commuting and errands to save gobs of fuel for the week, then pull out your hot rod for a Saturday drive, a trip to the track, or a cruise... then put it back up for a while?

Again, I'm not being extremeist or elitist... I'm simply pointing out that the average American is accustomed to living a lavish lifestyle that is grossly wasteful... unneccessarilly wasteful. It's time we started to change our ways a bit. Shame we can't see that and make the changes ourselves, and not need organizations and governmental interference to make us see that, because I don't want anyone to make the choices for me (or you), but apparently that is what it's coming to.

Not often I disagree with PP. ;)

But I do on this occasion. :) What separates GM from other companies (in my book) is affordable performance. I love GM powertrains. I guess that's a huge reason why I prefer GM products in general. :cool:

Otherwise, I'll always drive Toyota! :eek:

Again... do you think performance must be a 400+hp V8 RWD coupe?
If so, I can introduce you to some I4 drivers that would strongly disagree.
And then there is the electric-powered cars that are rivaling and even surpassing the IC engine these days...

American (Electric) Muscle: Ronale Mustang 300E and HST Shelby Cobra EV300 (http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news050712_electric_muscle/index.html)
"The Ronaele Mustang 300E HST and Shelby Cobra EV300 are built to prove that electric vehicles aren't just good for the environment, but good for winning times on the race track as well. Each is powered by a 300kw electric motor derived from those used to power forklifts and modified to better suit a road car. Each is also capable of over 1000 lb-ft of torque, 300 horsepower, and a range of over 100 miles (as long as you don't indulge your right foot too much). At the track, both should be good for four to six full-throttle quarter-mile runs before they'll need recharging -- a process that takes approximately three hours to complete -- and both are capable of sub-four-second runs to 60 mph."

How easy is it to get 1000lb-ft of torque from a small block?


Remember.... I'm not advocating a neutered life, just an economically responsible one. We all want/need toys to play with - I've no problem with that. But I have a huge problem with 80% of Americans driving 400hp or more vehicles only to sit in gridlock on a highway during a morning commute. We need to change our ways. :yes:

What I need?

If I lived where I needed to live it would be in a one-room efficiency apartment within walking distance of where I work and go to church and shop for groceries with most other items I need purchased on the internet and delivered by USPS employees on a glorified Segway. Instead, while I could walk to the grocery, I live (alone) in a three bedroom two bath home that is almost 40% larger than the one I grew up in that is 18 miles from my job and 10 miles from my church.

If I lived where I needed to live (and should live per the dirt people) I wouldn’t need to own a car at all.

Living where I do and with a complete lack of any public transportation here, I do need a vehicle but if I owned what I “needed” I could get by with a 1976 Chevette so long as I kept it running. Instead, I own a two-seater sports car that outperforms many, many other sport and sporty cars on the road that stickers for more than the first house I owned and is ABSOLUTLY unneeded and impractical and I love every moment I’m in it. For my grocery getter, I own a four door luxury sedan that has more HP, accelerates faster, corners better and stops quicker than most of the “performance” cars I’ve owned (I’ve owned several over the years) and costs about twice what my fist house sold for.

I’m all for clean air and clean water and a clean environment but I am not for returning to a 1800’s lifestyle and I’m not willing to spend more money to buy less especially when I’m being told I have to do so all based on the LIE of global climate change and the even bigger LIE that mankind can do anything to either hasten or alter global climate change even if it’s happening.

I’m all for vehicles that are safer and perform better and are more efficient but not because some former community organizer has to pay off a debt to one of his constituencies so that he can get their vote next election…a constituency that, if they had their way, would outlaw all vehicles and the roads they travel on and force us all into an 1800’s lifestyle - a constituency who’s spokespeople fly around on private jets from city to city and country to country just to tell me I shouldn’t drive an SUV. But, I guess they got their wish because this will mean the end of the full-sized SUV and perhaps all SUvs that can actually do anything an SUV was supposed to do. I suppose now they'll keep flying around to tell us not to eat Big Macs.

I wonder what’s going to happen to GM (or Ford or Chrysler/Fiat or any of the rest) when people decide they like the vehicles they have more than the vehicles Mr. BO and his ilk say we can have? The new “standards” (I guess they don’t like the word mandate anymore) will fundamentally change the auto industry (or kill it) and what we have to choose from and unless one has a bunch of money to spend, I would say that a lot of people aren’t going to like the choices.

Very few of life’s pleasures come only from doing or owning what we need and no more. I’ll be proudly wasting a lot of gasoline in a few weeks as I take about a 4,400 mile road trip in my completely impractical sports car just for the fun of it and I don’t really care how much gasoline costs when I’m on the road.

Am I spoiled? Maybe; but no one has ever given me anything I have. I’ve worked for everything I have and the moment someone tells me I can’t have it anymore is the day I stop working and let the government (meaning all of you) start paying my way.

One last thing, I like my incandescent light and I don’t own a single “compact florescent” light bulb and I never will and I proudly light the outside of my home at night, especially during the annual “Earth Hour”.

No offense intended to anyone here with a different opinion or outlook on life.

Live long and prosper.

OK - truth hurts.

We may disagree on what available content should be for certain vehicles but we sure see eye to eye on this. I just can't articulate my thoughts the way you and Guy do.

I see it as the individual rights vs. community good pendulum starting to move the other way.

What I need?

If I lived where I needed to live it would be in a one-room efficiency apartment within walking distance of where I work and go to church and shop for groceries with most other items I need purchased on the internet and delivered by USPS employees on a glorified Segway. Instead, while I could walk to the grocery, I live (alone) in a three bedroom two bath home that is almost 40% larger than the one I grew up in that is 18 miles from my job and 10 miles from my church.

If I lived where I needed to live (and should live per the dirt people) I wouldn’t need to own a car at all.

Living where I do and with a complete lack of any public transportation here, I do need a vehicle but if I owned what I “needed” I could get by with a 1976 Chevette so long as I kept it running. Instead, I own a two-seater sports car that outperforms many, many other sport and sporty cars on the road that stickers for more than the first house I owned and is ABSOLUTLY unneeded and impractical and I love every moment I’m in it. For my grocery getter, I own a four door luxury sedan that has more HP, accelerates faster, corners better and stops quicker than most of the “performance” cars I’ve owned (I’ve owned several over the years) and costs about twice what my fist house sold for.

I’m all for clean air and clean water and a clean environment but I am not for returning to a 1800’s lifestyle and I’m not willing to spend more money to buy less especially when I’m being told I have to do so all based on the LIE of global climate change and the even bigger LIE that mankind can do anything to either hasten or alter global climate change even if it’s happening.

I’m all for vehicles that are safer and perform better and are more efficient but not because some former community organizer has to pay off a debt to one of his constituencies so that he can get their vote next election…a constituency that, if they had their way, would outlaw all vehicles and the roads they travel on and force us all into an 1800’s lifestyle - a constituency who’s spokespeople fly around on private jets from city to city and country to country just to tell me I shouldn’t drive an SUV. But, I guess they got their wish because this will mean the end of the full-sized SUV and perhaps all SUvs that can actually do anything an SUV was supposed to do. I suppose now they'll keep flying around to tell us not to eat Big Macs.

I wonder what’s going to happen to GM (or Ford or Chrysler/Fiat or any of the rest) when people decide they like the vehicles they have more than the vehicles Mr. BO and his ilk say we can have? The new “standards” (I guess they don’t like the word mandate anymore) will fundamentally change the auto industry (or kill it) and what we have to choose from and unless one has a bunch of money to spend, I would say that a lot of people aren’t going to like the choices.

Very few of life’s pleasures come only from doing or owning what we need and no more. I’ll be proudly wasting a lot of gasoline in a few weeks as I take about a 4,400 mile road trip in my completely impractical sports car just for the fun of it and I don’t really care how much gasoline costs when I’m on the road.

Am I spoiled? Maybe; but no one has ever given me anything I have. I’ve worked for everything I have and the moment someone tells me I can’t have it anymore is the day I stop working and let the government (meaning all of you) start paying my way.

One last thing, I like my incandescent light and I don’t own a single “compact florescent” light bulb and I never will and I proudly light the outside of my home at night, especially during the annual “Earth Hour”.

No offense intended to anyone here with a different opinion or outlook on life.

Live long and prosper.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.;)

I see it as the individual rights vs. community good pendulum starting to move the other way.

Exactly what I was thinking.

...

This attitude (that we should ignore how our actions impact the country as a whole) is what has made us reliant on loans from China and foreign energy. Fortunately much fo the country is waking up to the reality that our current lifestyle is unsustainable. Forget global warming and conservation for a moment. If we continue to consume at the current rate without forcing ourselves to develop an fossil fuels escape/migration plan we will cease to exist as a nation.

You think everyone wants to force us to live an 1800s style way of life. I disagree, what we want is for Americans to learn to live a 21st century lifestyle by choice, and escape an impending energy and resource crisis that will force us into an 18th century lifestyle.

I think a replacement or alterative will be developed when oils cost advantage disappears. Again..right now we grumble about it...just like we groumble about borrowing from China..however nothing will happen untill it hits our wallets in a long term manner.

Alternatives are already being developed - it's not that hard to imagine GM Voltec might have a cost advantage within 5-10 years. However they are not competing against the "true cost" of oil, which is heavily subsidized by the government in a number of ways.

Personally, I think CAFE is a boneheaded way to cut oil consumption. It only exists because it's the politically easy option. However, it does work to make the alternatives more cost-competitive.

How does it cost taxpayers money to get oil? The taxpayers make a ton of money off oil. just look at Alaska. The media and the environazis have done a wonderful job of making oil the evil of all the world. Its sad because it has done wonders for the world.

Primarily political and military presence in the middle east. The corn lobby estimated that imported oil is subsidized to the tune of $1/gallon of gas by the government. And it certainly isn't just the left that's demonizing oil -- the real political pressure is coming from the military and intelligence communities who have to deal with the day-to-day of US policy. That's why the oilmen in the last administration signed on to this.

So, what's the options?
- Keep doing what we are doing until the Chinese stop loaning us money and then buy up all the oil anyway. Most shortterm thinking "something for nothing" Americans support this idea, but we need politicians smarter than that.

- Let the Free Market decide. Which means we would have gas lines everytime some dictator got a bug up his butt. Politically unacceptable.

- Cut oil consumption and replace it with energy we do have (coal/nuclear). Good idea in theory, but in practice it's going to be painful in the short term.

Alaska ... great. However if we stopped importing oil, the place would be pumped dry within a year or two, "nazis" or no. That's the geological reality.

One last thing, I like my incandescent light and I don’t own a single “compact florescent” light bulb and I never will...

You had better stock up on incandescent bulbs then, they will be phased out by 2014.

the 100 watt bulb on 1/1/2012;
the 75 watt bulb on 1/1/2013; and
the 60 watt and 40 watt bulbs on 1/1/2014.

This was a provision of the December 2007 Energy Bill. Obviously it's not all incandescents, since there are situations CFLs won't work, but the most common ones...

You had better stock up on incandescent bulbs then, they will be phased out by 2014.

the 100 watt bulb on 1/1/2012;
the 75 watt bulb on 1/1/2013; and
the 60 watt and 40 watt bulbs on 1/1/2014.

This was a provision of the December 2007 Energy Bill. Obviously it's not all incandescents, since there are situations CFLs won't work, but the most common ones...
Way ahead of you.

I'm planning on having enough on hand that if need be, I can partially fund my retirement from selling my surplus on the black market.

This attitude (that we should ignore how our actions impact the country as a whole) is what has made us reliant on loans from China and foreign energy.
The decision of our government to not exploit our own energy reserves is why we are reliant on foreign energy.

The decision of our government to not live within its means and to continuously spend money it doesn't have to do things it is not required to do and in some cases, shouldn't be doing is why we are reliant on loans from China.


Fortunately much fo the country is waking up to the reality that our current lifestyle is unsustainable. Forget global warming and conservation for a moment. If we continue to consume at the current rate without forcing ourselves to develop an fossil fuels escape/migration plan we will cease to exist as a nation.

You think everyone wants to force us to live an 1800s style way of life. I disagree, what we want is for Americans to learn to live a 21st century lifestyle by choice, and escape an impending energy and resource crisis that will force us into an 18th century lifestyle.
There is a HUGE difference between people making choices of their own free will and those "choices" being forced on us.

The market can determine when those choices are made if simply allowed to do so and as imperfect as the free market might be, it is far, far superior to government mandates regardless of of how well intentioned the mandates might or might not be.

I was hoping these new fuel economy regulations were a US-only thing, and that somehow we in Canada would still have access to more of the powerful cars ... I guess not :(

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090519.wfuel0519/BNStory/Business

Fortunately I'm planning to keep the G8 for a while (and I may need to). I guess that's more sales that GM won't get when they don't offer anything attractive enough to get me to trade in the G8.

I think a replacement or alterative will be developed when oils cost advantage disappears. Again..right now we grumble about it...just like we groumble about borrowing from China..however nothing will happen untill it hits our wallets in a long term manner.

It still amazes me that much lip service is given about the "evils" of reliance on foreign oil but not so much concern from the government regarding the reliance on foreign labor.

It's puzzling that energy is the only tade deficit worth the government's time and legislation.

Much could be done to reduce the importation of oil through the furtherance of domestic oil.

I'm all for research into other forms of energy. I'm all for expoliting intelligent apprroaches.

I'm no conspiracy theorist unless the evidence is overwhelming. Suspicion is not always unhealthy.

The old saying of "Follow the money" could certainly be at work here. All the demonizing of oil and other cheap energy use as being the crisis on which the very survival of the whole planet teeters the balance just might be more due to someone or some interests getting more money and more power in the process.

Do we really have an energy crisis in this country? When was the last time your lights went out because we didnt have the power? When was the last time we had gas lines because of foreign oil? Its not in the foreign countries best interest to cut off the oil from us. They will go broke, besides we get most of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico.
The energy we use in this country has barely nothing to do with the money we borrow from China. Keep the energy market in the private sector and it wont cost the gov much at all. actually with all the taxes they collect they will mnake money.

Commie way of thinking?!?!

Posts like this drive me nuts.
I post thoughts and facts to try to present a situation and predict what is coming for us all, and I'm a commie. :rolleyes:

You go spend a few years in countries where people live in cardboard boxes, have no running water, are subjected to corrupt cops and no judicial system, have no form of social protection, no basic provisions, no guarantee of health care or even a next meal... and then post on this board about how "necessary" the things you posted REALLY are.

I'm not saying I want everything abolished but survival needs. I never brought the word survival up in my post. But there is a huge difference in surviving, living a nice yet modest lifestyle, and being grossly wasteful.

If you have the money and the resources, why can you not use a 3-cyl or hybrid for your everyday commuting and errands to save gobs of fuel for the week, then pull out your hot rod for a Saturday drive, a trip to the track, or a cruise... then put it back up for a while?

Again, I'm not being extremeist or elitist... I'm simply pointing out that the average American is accustomed to living a lavish lifestyle that is grossly wasteful... unneccessarilly wasteful. It's time we started to change our ways a bit. Shame we can't see that and make the changes ourselves, and not need organizations and governmental interference to make us see that, because I don't want anyone to make the choices for me (or you), but apparently that is what it's coming to.

Yep that is a commie way of thinking. You want the gov to decide what your need are and are not. That is communism and we all know how that works out.
I totally dont disagree with you. I agree Americans are extremely wasteful but who is going to tell people what is over the top and what is needed.
I myself have a 95 Civic I use for daily stuff that gets 40+mpg. My SS and Dodge Ram get used for when they are needed.
I like the idea of having an LS3 in a 3100 pound car. I wonder how much that would help the mileage?

Do we really have an energy crisis in this country? When was the last time your lights went out because we didnt have the power? When was the last time we had gas lines because of foreign oil? Its not in the foreign countries best interest to cut off the oil from us. They will go broke, besides we get most of our imported oil from Canada and Mexico.
The energy we use in this country has barely nothing to do with the money we borrow from China. Keep the energy market in the private sector and it wont cost the gov much at all. actually with all the taxes they collect they will mnake money.

My opinion: The crisis we have is our dependence on oil. This can be seen in the gas prices last year. Speculators think they can make money on oil, and our fuel prices sky rocket. This weakens and already weak economy, sending us into a recession....

A few other comments on this thread.

I don't think performance will die like in the 70s. It is possible to increase fuel economy while maintaining performance. The automakers will try their best to do this. Fuel economy is calculated based on a drive cycle. That drive cycle spends minimal time at WOT. Therefore, you can tune the engine for fuel economy on the cycle while maintaining performance.

I think CAFE regulations are the wrong way to decrease our dependence on oil and reducing CO2 emissions. This does not create a demand for fuel efficient vehicles, it forces them upon us. A better way would be to raise fuel taxes. This will cause a demand for more fuel efficient cars.

My opinion: The crisis we have is our dependence on oil. This can be seen in the gas prices last year. Speculators think they can make money on oil, and our fuel prices sky rocket. This weakens and already weak economy, sending us into a recession....

A few other comments on this thread.

I don't think performance will die like in the 70s. It is possible to increase fuel economy while maintaining performance. The automakers will try their best to do this. Fuel economy is calculated based on a drive cycle. That drive cycle spends minimal time at WOT. Therefore, you can tune the engine for fuel economy on the cycle while maintaining performance.

I think CAFE regulations are the wrong way to decrease our dependence on oil and reducing CO2 emissions. This does not create a demand for fuel efficient vehicles, it forces them upon us. A better way would be to raise fuel taxes. This will cause a demand for more fuel efficient cars.
The only problem with our dependence on oil is that we do far too little exploring, producing and refining in our own country. We have many, many decades worth of oil and centuries worth of coal and natural gas right here if we choose to use it. Our modern society is based on oil and for good reason; nothing that can do the same jobs more cheaply or more efficiently or more dependably has yet been discovered.

Yes, we should be exploring and exploiting other kinds of energy - other ways of doing things but there is nothing wrong with oil and no need to ruin our economy just to stop using it.

It's time we started to change our ways a bit. Shame we can't see that and make the changes ourselves, and not need organizations and governmental interference to make us see that, because I don't want anyone to make the choices for me (or you), but apparently that is what it's coming to.

Try NO! You are welcome to change your habits. Meanwhile I will take the advice into consideration but do what is in my best interest.... no organization or interference needed or maybe even tolerated. Thanks.

Again... do you think performance must be a 400+hp V8 RWD coupe?
If so, I can introduce you to some I4 drivers that would strongly disagree.
And then there is the electric-powered cars that are rivaling and even surpassing the IC engine these days...

Remember.... I'm not advocating a neutered life, just an economically responsible one. We all want/need toys to play with - I've no problem with that. But I have a huge problem with 80% of Americans driving 400hp or more vehicles only to sit in gridlock on a highway during a morning commute. We need to change our ways. :yes:

I had to remove my earlier post because I missed some of your points. :o

I think I get your main point. I would certainly not drive a V8 to work if the roads were gridlocked. That's sheer ignorance and stupidity, IMO.

There's really nothing wrong with having a weekend car that's 400+ hp. No doubt, if people (could afford or) are happy to have a car that sits in their garage or driveway for most of the week, no harm in that. At least that's not what I think you are advocating against, surely?

Anyhow, I think there's enough demand out there for families who still want a third car even if it is essentially unnecessary.

How easy is it to get 1000lb-ft of torque from a small block?

Actually, pretty easy. Torque can be multiplied with gearing. Here is a simplified example:

400 ft-lbs of peak torque
x 2.5:1 first gear ratio
x3:1 final drive ratio

= 3000 ft-lbs at the wheel.

Actually, pretty easy. Torque can be multiplied with gearing. Here is a simplified example:

400 ft-lbs of peak torque
x 2.5:1 first gear ratio
x3:1 final drive ratio

= 3000 ft-lbs at the wheel.Har har. That's not what he was asking... :p

Try NO! You are welcome to change your habits. Meanwhile I will take the advice into consideration but do what is in my best interest.... no organization or interference needed or maybe even tolerated. Thanks.

:thumb:

Har har. That's not what he was asking... :p

I wasn't joking. You can get any amount of torque you want, just by multiplying it with gears. The same is true of the electric motor. That 1000 ft-lbs would be 7500 ft-lbs if hooked to the same engine and transmission.

It is not the torque that matters. This is an old-wives tale. You can change the torque with gearing. You can't do that with horsepower.

American (Electric) Muscle: Ronale Mustang 300E and HST Shelby Cobra EV300 (http://www.motortrend.com/auto_news/112_news050712_electric_muscle/index.html)
"The Ronaele Mustang 300E HST and Shelby Cobra EV300 are built to prove that electric vehicles aren't just good for the environment, but good for winning times on the race track as well. Each is powered by a 300kw electric motor derived from those used to power forklifts and modified to better suit a road car. Each is also capable of over 1000 lb-ft of torque, 300 horsepower, and a range of over 100 miles (as long as you don't indulge your right foot too much). At the track, both should be good for four to six full-throttle quarter-mile runs before they'll need recharging -- a process that takes approximately three hours to complete -- and both are capable of sub-four-second runs to 60 mph."

How easy is it to get 1000lb-ft of torque from a small block?

I saw the Cobra EV300 on Supercars Exposed. Truly amazing vehicle. We can only hope the price of performance EVs comes down from the stratosphere. Give me that performance and a new Corvette MSRP with a decent range, and I'm seriously considering it. :p

Actually, pretty easy. Torque can be multiplied with gearing. Here is a simplified example:

400 ft-lbs of peak torque
x 2.5:1 first gear ratio
x3:1 final drive ratio

= 3000 ft-lbs at the wheel.

Har har. That's not what he was asking... :p

Thanks 96_Camaro_B4C. You are correct.

Dear Mr. rlchv70,
You have not achieved 1000ft-lb of Tq from your small block. You have achieved 400 from the block and have 3000 at the wheel.
I can gear my 1000ft-lb motor the exact same way you did your 400ft-lb unit, and I'll have 7500 ft-lbs to play with at the wheel.


TRY AGAIN. ;)

Thanks 96_Camaro_B4C. You are correct.

Dear Mr. rlchv70,
You have not achieved 1000ft-lb of Tq from your small block. You have achieved 400 from the block and have 3000 at the wheel.
I can gear my 1000ft-lb motor the exact same way you did your 400ft-lb unit, and I'll have 7500 ft-lbs to play with at the wheel.


TRY AGAIN. ;)


Who cares unless it's moving? Otherwise you're not doing any work. And even then, how fast can it move?

Who cares unless it's moving? Otherwise you're not doing any work. And even then, how fast can it move?

Ding ding ding ding!

Torque doesn't win races unless it is multiplied by RPM. And what do we call that, boys and girls?

I wasn't joking. You can get any amount of torque you want, just by multiplying it with gears. The same is true of the electric motor. That 1000 ft-lbs would be 7500 ft-lbs if hooked to the same engine and transmission.

It is not the torque that matters. This is an old-wives tale. You can change the torque with gearing. You can't do that with horsepower.No kidding. :shrug: The point is, he was talking about actually making a 1000 lb-ft (and God knows how much horsepower) engine, not using extreme gearing to achieve such torque at the wheels. You are the one who said you can gear it to make that power, which means we should be asking YOU, "who cares? It doesn't matter if you aren't moving." NOTE: After typing this, I went back and realized I'd missed a few posts. I see where you were going now, since Proud seemed to imply that a 300 hp / 1000 lb-ft electric motor would somehow be equivalent to a 1000 lb-ft small block (which would probably be making something like 1000+ hp, and would kill said electric motor). :o :)

Thanks 96_Camaro_B4C. You are correct.

Dear Mr. rlchv70,
You have not achieved 1000ft-lb of Tq from your small block. You have achieved 400 from the block and have 3000 at the wheel.
I can gear my 1000ft-lb motor the exact same way you did your 400ft-lb unit, and I'll have 7500 ft-lbs to play with at the wheel.


TRY AGAIN. ;)Exactly. I'm not even sure why this is an argument?? I guess maybe notgetleft was hung up on you choosing 1000 lb-ft instead of 1000 hp to indicate the levels of output that can be achieved on a small block. Maybe that's what this is all about. He's thinking your choice of lb-ft was an implication that peak torque is all that matters for performance. [Correction...See below... the point is that the ability to make torque AT SPEED is what matters from a performance standpoint. I didn't realize the context of your 1000 lb-ft small block question, possibly because I first saw it when he had quoted it...]

Who cares unless it's moving? Otherwise you're not doing any work. And even then, how fast can it move?No kidding. But he was talking about an engine actually making that torque (and whatever resultant power).

WAIT, WAIT, TIME OUT... I just skimmed back down, and I had missed the comparison of the 300 hp / 1000 lb-ft electric motor to a small block. I had been assuming that Proud was saying it IS achievable to get 1000 hp from a small block in the aftermarket (since he had posted at one point about hot rodders taking ordinary engines and making them extraordinary). Dang, I need to keep up with the thread before posting... I was on a completely different road here at first. :o

OK, yeah, in that light, Proud, I see what rlchv70, notgetleft, and Bob Cosby are saying. I see the context in which gearing was brought up to get such a big torque number.

I mean, the instant-on torque of an electric motor is no doubt an aid in acceleration off the line. But 1000 lb-ft * 0 rpm / 5252 = 0 hp. :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

Who cares unless it's moving? Otherwise you're not doing any work. And even then, how fast can it move?
What does "moving" have to do with the ease of getting torque from an electric motor versus a mechanical engine?

Ding ding ding ding!

Torque doesn't win races unless it is multiplied by RPM. And what do we call that, boys and girls?
Power doesn't win races unless it can be transmitted from the source to the ground, which is done through turning shafts, which is achieved with what boys and girls?

C'mon guys... :rolleyes:
How much HP is used while the car is in neutral and the small block is at WOT?
How much work is being done by the small block if the car has not moved?
Duh.:death:

You can have an AC motor that is constant torque, variable torque, constant power, or hybrids of the three. Go here to read more. (http://www.electricmotors.machinedesign.com/guiEdits/Content/bdeee2/bdeee2_1-3.aspx) I can maintain the 1000ft-lb of torque across any shaft speed of an AC motor if that is what I need to do. Certainly that means that the power will vary with shaft speed, but that also means I can drive my tires at the very edge of their tractive ability all the way through my speed range of my motor, thereby maximizing my accelerative force being applied by the tires to the ground, and thereby achieving the best possible speed in any given distance. Tough to do with a gas engine... it'll typically overpower the tires while trying to launch, and not be able to spin them as the vehicle's speed goes up - hence the soft-pedaling and clutch control issues.

Even if you want to go DC - like a big golf cart - there will be a small residual loss of the torque across the band, but if you throw the current into the motor, you will have TQ. If you have the voltage, you will have the speed. Mix the two how ever you like to get the results you want... high speed high tq, low speed high tq, low speed low tq, high speed low tq... etc.
There are several on this board that have posted in the past about the almost inifinite control we have over electric motors today, and we have discussed it well in other threads already.

You can simply "program" your way into an hp/tq curve that can be flat, curved, or even custom-made to suit your particular needs. IMPOSSIBLE to do with an I/C engine - even with DOD, variable vale timing, and the best computers and injection systems.

OK, yeah, in that light, Proud, I see what rlchv70, notgetleft, and Bob Cosby are saying. I see the context in which gearing was brought up to get such a big torque number.
No, sorry friend - it was/is still a lame attempt to "equal" the two powerplants.
rlchv70 took the torque to the wheel via gearing when I specifically said get 1000ft-lb with a small block. I'm talking about the source of the mechanical power providing 1000ft-lb of torque, and my subsequent post clarified it again.
As you and I both said.. you can gear the electric motor the exact same way you can gear the small block and keep the advantage.

THERE IS ONE EQUATION THAT GOVERNS THE ACCELERATION OF THE VEHICLE AND IT INVOLVES THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE TIRE AND THE CONCRETE. MOTIVE FORCE AND THE RESULTING ACCELERATION IS PROVIDED BY FRICTION.
F=ma, where F acting by the tire onto the concrete is provided by the torque of the axle shaft being transmitted through the shaft into the rim, and then into the tire. The F at the ground is equal to the available torque x distance from the center of the axle to the outer-surface of the tire. This is so basic and fundamental, yet so many seem hung-up on power.

You can have torque without power (1000ft-lbs on a shaft that is not turning), but you can not have power without torque (a shaft can not turn at all without a torque being applied). SO WHICH IS THE IMPORTANT ONE TO HAVE?!?! Now I dare someone to say "you can't have one without the other".



OK, how 'bout we all drop the tangential conversation about motors versus gas engines and get back to the crux of the thread? My initial comment has already been twisted and r@ped into something completely different than was intended anyhow. The challenge was to produce a factory-available small block with 1000ft-lb of torque that is easily sellable, streetable, and carries a warranty - as compared to an electric motor of the same potential - and consider the performance potential of it as well.
If you want to learn something new about electric motors in transportation, let's start a new thread.

Electric is coming. Embrace it, or get passed by.
I'll be owning/driving my V8 cars until I become scientific test material and subsequently push up daisies, and then my kids can decide what to do with them. I love them. I want to own and drive and play with them. But I fully expect to be driving the family out to dinner in a few years with a completely smooth and silent ride in an electric-powered family vehicle too.

On a side note, were the vehicles that George Jetson drove powered by fossil fuels, electric, fusion, fission, or EMP technology? All I saw were the little tiny rings that came out of the tailpipe. :D

Power doesn't win races unless it can be transmitted from the source to the ground, which is done through turning shafts, which is achieved with what boys and girls?
Torque * rpm. Which happens to be the bases for HP. Which was my point.

C'mon guys... :rolleyes:
How much HP is used while the car is in neutral and the small block is at WOT?
Don't know. Don't care either.

How much work is being done by the small block if the car has not moved?
Duh.:death:
Nothing worthwhile. Pointless, but ok.

You can have an AC motor that is constant torque, variable torque, constant power, or hybrids of the three. Go here to read more. (http://www.electricmotors.machinedesign.com/guiEdits/Content/bdeee2/bdeee2_1-3.aspx) I can maintain the 1000ft-lb of torque across any shaft speed of an AC motor if that is what I need to do. Certainly that means that the power will vary with shaft speed, but that also means I can drive my tires at the very edge of their tractive ability all the way through my speed range of my motor, thereby maximizing my accelerative force being applied by the tires to the ground, and thereby achieving the best possible speed in any given distance. Tough to do with a gas engine... it'll typically overpower the tires while trying to launch, and not be able to spin them as the vehicle's speed goes up - hence the soft-pedaling and clutch control issues.
I have no arguement at all with this, and have no issues with electrically-generated torque/power either. I'm simply saying that using only a torque figure is fairly meaningless in terms of accelerating my car. As an example, compare the acceleration of, say, a 345 lb/ft L98 3rd Gen with a 320 lb/ft Mach 1. They are about the same weight, similarly-geared. If you just look at torque, what do you think the answer would be?

I completely agree with you on most of the remaining parts of your post.

You can have torque without power (1000ft-lbs on a shaft that is not turning), but you can not have power without torque (a shaft can not turn at all without a torque being applied). SO WHICH IS THE IMPORTANT ONE TO HAVE?!?! Now I dare someone to say "you can't have one without the other".
If you have torque without power, you're not moving, so what's the point of having it in a vehicle? If you have torque with rpm (ie....that shaft is moving), now we're getting somewhere. We call that horsepower.

Like much of the above, I agree with the remainder of your post. My whole issue is that torque - as a number by itself - is over-rated, when it comes to determining how well a car will accelerate.

That's all. :)

Bob

rlchv70 took the torque to the wheel via gearing when I specifically said get 1000ft-lb with a small block. I'm talking about the source of the mechanical power providing 1000ft-lb of torque, and my subsequent post clarified it again.
As you and I both said.. you can gear the electric motor the exact same way you can gear the small block and keep the advantage.

It depends on your definition of "source". If you set the boundary condition at the axle, then the "source" would include all of the gearing.

Theoritically, you could also package all of the gearing at the flywheel. The "source" would then be capable of the 3000 ft-lbs in my example.


THERE IS ONE EQUATION THAT GOVERNS THE ACCELERATION OF THE VEHICLE AND IT INVOLVES THE INTERFACE BETWEEN THE TIRE AND THE CONCRETE. MOTIVE FORCE AND THE RESULTING ACCELERATION IS PROVIDED BY FRICTION.
F=ma, where F acting by the tire onto the concrete is provided by the torque of the axle shaft being transmitted through the shaft into the rim, and then into the tire. The F at the ground is equal to the available torque x distance from the center of the axle to the outer-surface of the tire. This is so basic and fundamental, yet so many seem hung-up on power.


F=ma only gives you the instantaneous acceleration at launch.

You have to do an energy (power) balance in order to get the instantaneous acceleration rate at any given point in time. The equations become very complex because you have to take into account kinetic energy, wind resistance, rolling resistance, uphill or downhill, power curve of the engine, internal frictional losses from the drivetrain, and wheel slip.

You can use F=ma AFTER you do this energy balance when you know the resultant "leftover" force from taking into account all of the resistances.

Think of gearing as a lever. You can change the amount of force (torque) just by changing the length of the lever.

I saw the Cobra EV300 on Supercars Exposed. Truly amazing vehicle. We can only hope the price of performance EVs comes down from the stratosphere. Give me that performance and a new Corvette MSRP with a decent range, and I'm seriously considering it. :p

I am in the market for a GT500 soon. I have to admit, if the prices were the same, I'd go for the EV300 just for the "WOW" factor at the local cruise-ins and car shows. I think it would be a real conversation piece.

Looks just like a regular car, and performs awesome. Downside is that it would not be very practical for a cross-country trip or extended vacation away from the local service and charge port.

The technology is coming though. Nice to see some companys putting effort into the performance side of electric units. We hot-rodders may have to change our ways a bit, but we will always persue the speed demons!:yes:

That's all. :)

Bob

Sounds good! :thumb:

PS - I do know what power is, and I crave it as much as anyone, but power alone does not indicate the performance of a car any more than the torque numbers alone do.

Back to the econoboxes we are being forced to buy now...

PS - I do know what power is, and I crave it as much as anyone, but power alone does not indicate the performance of a car any more than the torque numbers alone do.

Well, I guess I have to disagree with that a little, because by definition, horsepower includes both work (torque) and time (rpm), while torque is just work (a twisting force with time/rpm not included). But I know what you're saying, and we're basically in violent agreement on most of this stuff. :)

Bob

I am in the market for a GT500 soon. I have to admit, if the prices were the same, I'd go for the EV300 just for the "WOW" factor at the local cruise-ins and car shows. I think it would be a real conversation piece.

Looks just like a regular car, and performs awesome. Downside is that it would not be very practical for a cross-country trip or extended vacation away from the local service and charge port.

The technology is coming though. Nice to see some companys putting effort into the performance side of electric units. We hot-rodders may have to change our ways a bit, but we will always persue the speed demons!:yes:

Fun electric cars are certainly possible. What real positive effect toward solving some issues is dubious at best, if all the issues are accounted for. One big issue is carbon emissions. You know, the other component in the announcement we discuss here. Higher fuel mileage, lower emissions.

Direct emission by electrics is not the problem. It's when you plug them in to recharge that is an issue. Electricity is likely to be VERY expensive. "Big oil" can morph into "big electricity".

Lighter cars with small gas or deisel engines is the easy route. They will likely catch on quickly if gasoline taxes go way up to force the issue.

I believe the car manufacturers will meet the challenge or perish. It's rather odd the US government is intent to put major pressure on a business they have decided to get into.

IMO, they have backed the domestics into a corner to make smaller and less powerful vehicles to meet the regulations. In order to keep safety up to present standards will mean more expensive vehicles with less content.

Better range with higher performance electric cars is not an area where the domestics can sink tons of developement money. Partially because the money isn't there, but partially because there's no assurance that people will be able to afford some super electric vehicle that will run like a scalded dog and have amazing range.

Path of least resistance folks... the path of least resistance.

Much of the holdback by GM for offering more rearwheel drive cars that would appeal has proven to be wise. Particularly in light of these recent standards. There was a lack of clarity from the government in previous times which demanded caution. I think that caution has proven to be well founded.

What seems to be ignored here is the fact that all the car companies have taken financial hits. ALL of them are either broke or shorter on cash than they were a year ago.

If you look at electric cars as being THE answer I believe some considerations are being left out of the thought process. Carbon emissions...

The electricity to charge them has to be produced somehow. Keep in mind that oil fired plants are not conducive to reducing the demand for foreign oil. Nuclear powered plants are not politically viable, coal fired plants are "horrid" carbon emitters. I don't see windmills being cost effective or efficient enough to make electricity sufficient to fill the gap.

There's a big environmentalist push and a massive budget shortfall that will likely lead to punishing energy taxes. The two cheapest ways to generate electricity are virtually removed from the table.

I don't care how good something may or not be for the environmant, or how it will reverse some trade deficit, people are not going to buy what they can't afford. IMO, some of these initiatives will do more to keep the millions who are out of work, out of work.

I fear more is being bitten off than can be chewed.

BTW, China is building "dirty coal" fired electricity producing plants as fast as they can... their population is ditching their bicycles as quick as they can.

I do hope that cars that are presently owned will not be rendered useless by a stroke of a pen.

Far fetched?

Don't count on it.

Far fetched?

Don't count on it.

You have summed up my thoughts beautifully. Thanks.

You have summed up my thoughts beautifully. Thanks.

What a gracious compliment! You are welcomed.

OK, how 'bout we all drop the tangential conversation about motors versus gas engines and get back to the crux of the thread? My initial comment has already been twisted and r@ped into something completely different than was intended anyhow. The challenge was to produce a factory-available small block with 1000ft-lb of torque that is easily sellable, streetable, and carries a warranty - as compared to an electric motor of the same potential - and consider the performance potential of it as well.

I don't think there's too much argument that an electric motor has many advantages over an IC engine. But it's not the motor that's been holding back the electric car, it's been energy storage. And energy storage will likely continue to hold it back from becoming dominant for at least another couple of decades. No pratical energy storage medium can come close to the energy density of liquid hydrocarbon fuels for a reasonable cost. Even when factoring in an electric motor's greater efficiency and re-gen capabilities, it's still not close. Sure, it's always possible there will be some great breakthroughs in the near future, but then again we've been chasing this rainbow for over a century and made minimal progress.


I'm simply saying that using only a torque figure is fairly meaningless in terms of accelerating my car. As an example, compare the acceleration of, say, a 345 lb/ft L98 3rd Gen with a 320 lb/ft Mach 1. They are about the same weight, similarly-geared. If you just look at torque, what do you think the answer would be?

I like to use the example of a bicycle: I can probably generate about 250 lb-ft of torque at the crank of my Mongoose ... but I doubt I could beat even an Aveo to 60 ;)

:think:

Proud, show me an automotive electric motor that makes the same output torque at any shaft speed. That 1000 lb-ft / 300 hp motor is a perfect example. Its torque "curve" is obviously quite negative in slope. If it made 1000 lb-ft at 0 rpm all the way to, say, 10000 rpm (or whatever), it would be making WAY, WAY more than 300 hp. They don't work that way.

I know we are off topic, and yes, even when we go electric, there will be "normal" cars and cars with a higher performance envelope, as well as hot rodders to elevate things beyond stock. Sooner or later, we will get to that point, and you are right to point out that we will have to adjust along with it. :)

But still, your example of a 1000 lb-ft electric motor still doesn't quite fly relative to getting performance numbers. Clearly, a 1000 lb-ft (at 0 rpm) motor that peaks at 300 hp will have an advantage over, say, an LT1 V8 that also peaks at 300 hp but only offers 330 lb-ft of peak torque. But that same electric motor would not fare so well against an LS7 with "only" 470 lb-ft of peak torque, but 505 hp. Put 'em both in a Z06 and gear them appropriately, and the LS7 is going to outperform it.

F1 cars make something like 700-800 hp, with less than half that number in lb-ft of available torque...

:)

:think:

Proud, show me an automotive electric motor that makes the same output torque at any shaft speed. That 1000 lb-ft / 300 hp motor is a perfect example. Its torque "curve" is obviously quite negative in slope. If it made 1000 lb-ft at 0 rpm all the way to, say, 10000 rpm (or whatever), it would be making WAY, WAY more than 300 hp. They don't work that way.

I know we are off topic, and yes, even when we go electric, there will be "normal" cars and cars with a higher performance envelope, as well as hot rodders to elevate things beyond stock. Sooner or later, we will get to that point, and you are right to point out that we will have to adjust along with it. :)

But still, your example of a 1000 lb-ft electric motor still doesn't quite fly relative to getting performance numbers. Clearly, a 1000 lb-ft (at 0 rpm) motor that peaks at 300 hp will have an advantage over, say, an LT1 V8 that also peaks at 300 hp but only offers 330 lb-ft of peak torque. But that same electric motor would not fare so well against an LS7 with "only" 470 lb-ft of peak torque, but 505 hp. Put 'em both in a Z06 and gear them appropriately, and the LS7 is going to outperform it.

F1 cars make something like 700-800 hp, with less than half that number in lb-ft of available torque...

:)


And in the case of an F1 car, one, or at most two, people can lift the front wheels off of the ground with the driver in the car. They also get about 3 MPG.

Other than that, your point is well taken.

I am in the market for a GT500 soon. I have to admit, if the prices were the same, I'd go for the EV300 just for the "WOW" factor at the local cruise-ins and car shows. I think it would be a real conversation piece.

Looks just like a regular car, and performs awesome. Downside is that it would not be very practical for a cross-country trip or extended vacation away from the local service and charge port.

The technology is coming though. Nice to see some companys putting effort into the performance side of electric units. We hot-rodders may have to change our ways a bit, but we will always persue the speed demons!:yes:I'd actually consider the GT500 except that I'm holding out hope that GM will come around and build the Camaro Z28. :D

In the back of my mind, I'm still toying with the idea of building a performance electric car. If I had the money (which I don't) I'd just buy a Tesla Roadster. I have decided if I do build one its going to have to have a cool factor, and since I'm a Chevyman to the bone, it will most likely be a Camaro or a Vette. :p

And in the case of an F1 car, one, or at most two, people can lift the front wheels off of the ground with the driver in the car. They also get about 3 MPG.

Other than that, your point is well taken.Well, yeah. :) Point is, horsepower is the key for them, not monstrous peak torque at idle followed by a rapid decrease in torque output leading to a modest horsepower peak. NASCAR racers, Top Fuelers, whatever; none of them would choose an engine with an output curve like that.

And yeah, I wouldn't expect fuel sipping when making that kind of power. You have to burn some fuel to release the chemical energy to make that sort of power!

Heck, go run a normal car at high engine speeds in a track situation and watch the fuel economy sink. Those window sticker ratings are generated in a street / highway cycle, not a racetrack situation. :D When driving cars that have instantaneous fuel economy displays, you can see the fuel econ drop into the single digits at launch and under heavy load / acceleration conditions. In a race, they are driving in those conditions the whole time!

Well, yeah. :) Point is, horsepower is the key for them, not monstrous peak torque at idle followed by a rapid decrease in torque output leading to a modest horsepower peak. NASCAR racers, Top Fuelers, whatever; none of them would choose an engine with an output curve like that.

And yeah, I wouldn't expect fuel sipping when making that kind of power. You have to burn some fuel to release the chemical energy to make that sort of power!

Heck, go run a normal car at high engine speeds in a track situation and watch the fuel economy sink. Those window sticker ratings are generated in a street / highway cycle, not a racetrack situation. :D When driving cars that have instantaneous fuel economy displays, you can see the fuel econ drop into the single digits at launch and under heavy load / acceleration conditions. In a race, they are driving in those conditions the whole time!

No disagreement, I only mean to offer that low weight is a big part of the F1 car's performance envelope.

The tax structures in Europe dictated the attention to small displacement. The gaining of high HP out of little engines is directly related to the tax structures.

Range is the issue with electric cars. You can certainly get a ton of whoop ass from electric propulsion. The problem is the range. Charge time is an adjunct bugaboo with batteries. The advamtage of the gasoline engine in a vehicle is that it will continue on with a very short interruption to refill the tank. Electrics aren't quite there yet.

And in the case of an F1 car, one, or at most two, people can lift the front wheels off of the ground with the driver in the car. They also get about 3 MPG.

Other than that, your point is well taken.
Then how about something with an F1 motor and transmission that is a bit harder to lift like the old Renault Espace F1 minivan. 800HP 3.5L V10, 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. 0-124mph in 6 seconds. Now while it makes more HP than torque, it was still spinning 520lbft.

At any rate, let's say I used technology from the Roswell spaceship and could build a motor that made only 20 lbft of torque, but it had a flat torque curve all the way up to 262,000 RPM. With the right transmission ratios it will destroy an average big block car that makes 20 times the torque because it is cranking out 1000HP.

The point is that higher average power is always better in acceleration contests because you can take advantage of gearing.

Then how about something with an F1 motor and transmission that is a bit harder to lift like the old Renault Espace F1 minivan. 800HP 3.5L V10, 0-60 in 2.8 seconds. 0-124mph in 6 seconds. Now while it makes more HP than torque, it was still spinning 520lbft.

At any rate, let's say I used technology from the Roswell spaceship and could build a motor that made only 20 lbft of torque, but it had a flat torque curve all the way up to 262,000 RPM. With the right transmission ratios it will destroy an average big block car that makes 20 times the torque because it is cranking out 1000HP.

The point is that higher average power is always better in acceleration contests because you can take advantage of gearing.

If you can do any of those scenarios for under $30k and meet CAFE and emissions you are on your way.