Jim the Nomad

I didn't read the complete thread, but just in case somebody hasn't mentioned it, Bob Lutz made a terrific statement to the effect of;

"Trying to improve fuel economy by forcing automakers to build more efficient cars is like trying to solve the nation's obesity epidemic by forcing the fashion industry to only sell small sizes."

It's a bit sad to think that the SUV craze helped make crash standards stricter, which in turn made cars heavier, which in turn made it more difficult to achieve better fuel economy.

Geoff Chadwick

Lets not forget a few things here...

Global warming aside, the fuel regs change in 2008, dropping fuel economy. Toyota isnt all that safe with its hybrid line. I read that the Prius may drop from 60mpg to 45mpg. While that ONE vehicle is still above the mark, it stops improving Toyota's average so much.

GM is just about done with the new dual-mode hybrid developed with BMW. The expectation is to get truck mpg up by 25%. This transmission is amazing, and while I dont know too much about it- it uses 2 40kW electric motors for hybrid power, which is a LOT. The prius uses a ~50kW unit and it chugs around all day long. The transmission was also sized to occupy the same space as the conventional transmission. That said, GM doesn't change its RWD transmission tunnels too often, nor its automatic transmissions. I would bet money this hybrid tranny would fit 4th gen fbodies from what little I know.

I'd bet if GM wanted to, they could adopt the hybrid drive used on the trucks to almost any RWD chassis. Downside is you add cost, weight, and make cars automatics, but it *might* be worth it in the end.

And yes, look at the LS450h. 3.5LV6 with 340HP and its rated 25/28mpg. Downside is it is $54,000. Still not good enough for the govt regs.

GM is in good place to deal with it, but it messes with their plan big time. Bob doesn't want people spoiling is great and brilliant plan. So Bob is going to complain like anyone would. It is a knee jerk reaction, but its also realistic. The industry may take a solid hit on this, but GM shouldnt be in *too* bad of shape.

Shellhead

Awesome post, Scott. I just want to add a couple of items of my own:

-Consensus is not science. The fact that intelligent, well-credentialed, highly qualified climatologists do not believe that global warming is man made is enough to say that this is not yet science. Remember, consensus in the scientific community once said that the Earth was flat and that the sun orbited the Earth. Scientists like Copernicus were vilified and disgraced because they chose to challenge those beliefs.....*exactly* what is happening today with global warming.

-Current climate models do not account for clouds or precipitation. If you look at the sky, you'll see that these are rather important things. How can we rely on models that look hundreds of years into the future that discount a major component of our atmosphere?

-Global warming forcasts differ. Al Gore's movie says ocean levels will rise by 20 ft, in the same time span that the UN report says they will rise by 20 inches. Clearly there is not as much consensus as they make it out to be.

-Mars has global warming - ice that should "never" melt is melting. Hmm.....but global warming is based on CO2, right? Contradictory, no? The current theory is that it's solar luminance levels that are shifting.

Given all of this - are we REALLY in a position to start passing laws? That's not to say global warming shouldn't be researched - it should be, but the issue with GM involves LAWS and frankly Lutz is exactly right - GM needs to do business based on what the government does.....sadly, we'll all pay for it one way or another.

And before anyone starts flaming this - one question: When was the last time the weather forcast where you live was correct one week in advance? If they can't accurately predict the weather *days* in advance, then how can they predict decades?

STOCK1SC

Considering there was a mini ice-age from the 1400's up into the early 1800's yeah I'd say we are warming up but we'll cool back down eventually too, the earth follows cycles. Nobody seems to bring up the fact that global warming is big bussiness. For example, paper recycling uses more energy than it saves and basically becomes a jobs program for low skilled workers. The chemicals needed to break down the ink and other substances on the paper are then spewed back into the environment that these people are claiming to try to save. Many of the recycling factories run off of coal powered power plants that in turn pollute more. Global Warming is the new "Feel Good" Yuppie trend, it makes people feel good about themselves but it comes down to money. I highly recommend Penn & Tellers show on showtime called "Bull Sh*t" where they basically rip a new one into the global warming crowd and expose them for scammers. As for the NASA comment I saw someone mention, of course they are gonna agree with the global warming crowd, who do you think gets the money for satellites, research, space missions to study the phenomenon? If you say there is no global warming, what are you gonna research? You can't get more money to study a problem unless you claim there is one! How entertaining would a movie be that just said "there is no global warming", no it's more exciting and profitable to scare and shock people with doomsday predictions. The media feeds off fear, just watch a half hour of the news, Asian Flu, Killer Asteroids, Murder, Rape, Kidnapping, etc... We are just bombarded with this sh*t everyday and most Americans now let others do the thinking for them, believe everything they are told, and willingly accept any outcome without any opposing view. Sorry for the rant, this stuff just gets me so ticked how sheepish we have become as a nation.

Capn Pete

So true!!!

I swear, I want to be a weather man! It's one of the only jobs in the world that you can CONSISTANLTLY be WRONG, and yet still show up to work tomorrow and get PAID!!! (and still have your job?!!)

BTW, great post STOCK1SC ... with you 100%!

krazzycowgirl

Dan's 2000 Vette gets 30MPG on the highway which is good for a vette

Mjolnir

These are the people that brought you the Challenger, the Columbia, Iraq, and the war on drugs.

I'd be real careful with the statement "The government's behind it, so it must be true, unbiased, and worth spending money on."

Bob Cosby

Global Warming....yes, we're getting a bit warmer over the last few decades. Yes, humans probably are contributing to it. No, I don't agree with all the algore 'chicken little' predictions.

From another point of view, here are a couple of interesting items....

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/s...se,52394.shtml

Additionally, a study of world-wide sea surface temperatures will show that they run in 30-40 year cycles of warming and cooling. We're on the cooling side right now. If you have MS PowerPoint, open this presentation and scroll down to the last few slides (especially the last 4). http://www.nationalpress.org/usr_doc...um_oct2005.ppt

Finally, I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I'm not a research scientist, but I am a Meteorologist.

Bob

PS....Scott and I agree on this one.....imagine that!

jg95z28

When you factor in the relative small timeline of data as compared to the actual age of the planet, then you begin to understand its just a guess on anyone's part.

But you better believe Al Gore... after all, he invented the internet.

stars1010

I wish people in power would actually listen to this common sense.

CLEAN

I like that fact that Lutz called the CAFE out for what it is, dependant on what people BUY not what the manufacturers SELL. So if people want good economy and low emissions and all that, why are they buying Avalanches instead of Cobalts? The only ones I'll care to listen to are the ones that put their money where their mouth is, namely a fuel sipper in the driveway.

DvBoard

GM needs to release a single all electric vehicle. "infinite" gas milage (no gas motor). Everything else can get whatever they want, the average over the whole fleet it still infinite.

Silver2009

Mr L is a master of theatrics. He knows how to use the soapbox very effectively. It's more economical to drum up attention to the political aspect of the debate than to start building 14 speed transmissions for the next gen of cars. I dig it. It's a business, and he was probably feeling pretty good about the future until the EPA saber rattling started again.

That being said, there are some 13,000 scientists that have openly stated that "global warming" is not being triggered by green house gases. How many are saying it is? Exactly. Did the laws of physics change for those scientists or are they visionaries? There are a number of studies that document the heat cycles that have occured naturely throughout time. Some soil studies show that past "heat cycles" were much more extreme that what we are seeing now. It is believed that the Sahara has seen temps of 160+ in centuries past.

Ma Nature is a wonderful thing. I am convinced that any number of things that man has done has made an impact on her balance. She is also pretty resourceful by repairing herself by whacking speicies and changing landscapes from time to time. What no one can validate is to what degree man has affected the eco system and if it is greater than what would have occured without us. We are also at the highest population count that the world has ever seen. What did that do?

It's just a matter of time before man decides to solve the "resource consumption" issues affecting our world. That change is the right thing to do with or without a government mandate. It's not going to be cheap when it finally comes. But it sure isn't cheap today when you think about the lives of Americans being spent daily to maintain a foothold on our current resource supply. FLAME ON!

OutsiderIROC-Z

Kinda what I was thinking...

posaune

how much pollution does a NASA shuttle or rocket launch produce?