Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion Automotive news and discussion about upcoming vehicles

GM says goodbye to new V8s...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 10:13 PM
  #31  
DvBoard's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 940
From: Southern Indiana
Originally Posted by mnypitTA
I dont think so. OK so my 81 Z28 had about 180rwhp and got 10mpg, 88 Trans Am GTA got 16mpg and had 200rwhp, my 98 had over 300 before mods and got 28mpg.

Not too much to expect in my opinion. Especially when the alternative is everyone driving Cobalts and Neons.
Dude, mid-80's civics got "52" MPG. You don't see modern civics doing that.


It's not all uphill, and it's not any cheaper (Each f-body was more expensive wasn't it?).
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 10:17 PM
  #32  
mnypitTA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 634
From: Deland, FL
Originally Posted by DvBoard
Dude, mid-80's civics got "52" MPG. You don't see modern civics doing that.


It's not all uphill, and it's not any cheaper (Each f-body was more expensive wasn't it?).
I am not sure what you mean but I had an 88 CRX that got nearly 60mpg on the highway, and a 78 Triumph Spitfire that got 48mpg. That is what I am getting at. I just cant see why we cant get better gas mileage from a V8 than we do, especially over the next 10 years.
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 10:26 PM
  #33  
Todd80Z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 439
From: Northern VA
Originally Posted by mnypitTA
I just dont get it that people still think Iraq was over oil. We have not gotten any benefit, oil wise, from any actions in the mid east. If it were about oil, I would think we would be seeing some of that oil over here.

So you think more taxes and regulations are the answer. It doesnt matter that the government allready makes more money off of every gallon of gas then the "big oil" companies. We need to tax them more, and tax the drivers tags more to teach people that they should drive better gas mileage cars. We need to regulate and demand the car companies make certain cars. You know until the 80s, there was a good portion of Germany that did that. I think they called it the Eastern Block.

Come on guys, Government is not the answer.

And I still think a V8 can achieve 35mpg given 10 years and a couple determined car companies.
I'm not really up for discussing the war, but if Iraq didn't have large oil reserves, we wouldn't be there. PERIOD.

You are extrapolating this Gestapo thing WAY too far. The average yahoo that drives his 12mpg pickup to a cushy office job everyday is chaining us to the Oil Shieks and Chavez. It's not the enviro-***** like you think, because, like it or not, the Oil Shieks control the price, because they sit on the cheapest oil on the planet. They can set the bottom, because they can turn a profit at $15/barrel. At this point, we are hopelessly tied to these despicable, backwards-*** regimes, all so that we have the "freedom" to hit the remote start on the Suburban for a 10 minute warmup to head to Starbucks.

THAT is why I'll take CAFE, in the absence a more correct gas tax. These taxes, BTW, pay for services that you and I use. HOW they are spent is, of course, open to a whole lot of discussion, but the need for additional road taxes in the face of decaying infrastructure, more backups, etc, seems fairly reasonable to me. Everyone wants a free lunch, without working for it. It's why we'll be owned by China in 20 years.
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 10:37 PM
  #34  
mnypitTA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 634
From: Deland, FL
Originally Posted by Todd80Z28
I'm not really up for discussing the war, but if Iraq didn't have large oil reserves, we wouldn't be there. PERIOD.

You are extrapolating this Gestapo thing WAY too far. The average yahoo that drives his 12mpg pickup to a cushy office job everyday is chaining us to the Oil Shieks and Chavez. It's not the enviro-***** like you think, because, like it or not, the Oil Shieks control the price, because they sit on the cheapest oil on the planet. They can set the bottom, because they can turn a profit at $15/barrel. At this point, we are hopelessly tied to these despicable, backwards-*** regimes, all so that we have the "freedom" to hit the remote start on the Suburban for a 10 minute warmup to head to Starbucks.

THAT is why I'll take CAFE, in the absence a more correct gas tax. These taxes, BTW, pay for services that you and I use. HOW they are spent is, of course, open to a whole lot of discussion, but the need for additional road taxes in the face of decaying infrastructure, more backups, etc, seems fairly reasonable to me. Everyone wants a free lunch, without working for it. It's why we'll be owned by China in 20 years.
We dont have to be a slave to OPEC. We have our own oil. Hell Chavez is drilling our oil in the Gulf of Mexico then selling it back to us through OPEC. Our Government will not let us drill our own oil. Nor will they let us build more refinaries. But you think more regulations are a good thing. You say I am going to far on the Gestapo **** thing, then say China will own us in 20 years. Same differance. If we keep letting it happen that is exactly what will happen. We need smaller government and less regulations and taxes, not bigger and more.

Iraq was not for oil. Personally I think we should take a little of that oil myself, but we didnt go there for that, so we cant. Oh and it would be politically incorrect.

Last edited by mnypitTA; Jan 16, 2008 at 10:39 PM.
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 10:46 PM
  #35  
mnypitTA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 634
From: Deland, FL
I think you all see my feelings on Government intervention. I dont like it, no matter whether it is CAFE or some other crazy regulatory comittee. So I am done here. I just think the government should step back, and if anything help us become energy independant, rather than imposing or enforcing regulations on every aspect of energy we have here. We as a country have the capability to be completely energy independant, but the government wont let us.
Old Jan 16, 2008 | 10:51 PM
  #36  
ponchoV8's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 148
From: A pineapple under the sea.
If phasing out V8's is the future, I hope it will at least lead to something like a modern version of the Grand National's turbo V6.

Then again, I just realized even small displacement turbo engines get around the same mileage as modern V8's, both the EVO and WRX are only rated in the mid-20's hwy.

Looks like we'll be revisiting the days of the early 70's when the original musclecars died.

Last edited by ponchoV8; Jan 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM.
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 12:30 AM
  #37  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by ponchoV8
If phasing out V8's is the future, I hope it will at least lead to something like a modern version of the Grand National's turbo V6.

Then again, I just realized even small displacement turbo engines get around the same mileage as modern V8's, both the EVO and WRX are only rated in the mid-20's hwy.

Looks like we'll be revisiting the days of the early 70's when the original musclecars died.
Not quite that bad...in 1980, any car that could do a 1/4 mile in under 18 seconds was fast. Corvettes struggled and mostly failed to break into the 15s. I don't see us going there, at least.

A Camry hybrid has a CAFE rating over 35 and it's solidly into the 15s.

I do expect the V8 rumble will be getting more expensive...unless you buy used
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 12:32 AM
  #38  
teal98's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,132
From: Santa Clara, CA
Originally Posted by mnypitTA
Come on guys, Government is not the answer.
Sure it is. To whom do you request a lowering of taxes? The Government. Who raises taxes? The government.

Who controls tax rates? The government.

See? The government is the answer to three of these (and you are the answer to the fourth).
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 05:02 AM
  #39  
SSbaby's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 3,123
From: Melbourne, Australia
Usually turbos use more fuel than atmos.

If you compare a 400hp V6 turbo to a 400hp NA V8, I'd bet the V8 is more fuel efficient every time.

Downsizing engines is not the answer, nor has it ever been the answer to the fuel economy standards. Cars are getting heavier and heavier, particularly as manufacturers must meet more stringent crash testing requirements. It's the weight of vehicles that is the real killer to fuel economy standards, not engine capacity.

I'll keep my current V8 until new propulsion methods are in place.
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 06:47 AM
  #40  
Eric Bryant's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,400
From: Michigan's left coast
Originally Posted by SSbaby
Usually turbos use more fuel than atmos.

If you compare a 400hp V6 turbo to a 400hp NA V8, I'd bet the V8 is more fuel efficient every time.
I'm confident that you'll see engines in the next several years where this is not the case. Hell, the LNA in the Solstice GXP/Sky RL should already demonstrate that small turbocharged engines can provide an incredible increase in performance without additional fuel consumption.
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 07:38 AM
  #41  
detltu's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 658
From: Madisonville, Louisiana
I think all this means is V8 will become something special again. Bob Lutz says no new V8 families but it will only be a matter of time before offering a V8 is a big deal by itself. They will still be out there and with things like direct injection and electromagnetic valves and HCCI they will be able to make V8s that don't fall below the 35mpg standard and make a lot of horsepower.
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 08:15 AM
  #42  
Todd80Z28's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 439
From: Northern VA
Originally Posted by SSbaby
Usually turbos use more fuel than atmos.

If you compare a 400hp V6 turbo to a 400hp NA V8, I'd bet the V8 is more fuel efficient every time.
The press releases on Ford's Ecoboost are in direct contradiction to this statement. I'm confident that it will be the other way.
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 08:39 AM
  #43  
mnypitTA's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 634
From: Deland, FL
Originally Posted by teal98
Sure it is. To whom do you request a lowering of taxes? The Government. Who raises taxes? The government.

Who controls tax rates? The government.

See? The government is the answer to three of these (and you are the answer to the fourth).
I meant more government regulations. The government needs to curtail their spending, not raise taxes and impose more regulations.
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 09:05 AM
  #44  
Z28x's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Todd80Z28
The press releases on Ford's Ecoboost are in direct contradiction to this statement. I'm confident that it will be the other way.
Well those are Ford V8s they are comparing the EcoBoost to, we all know how much more efficient an engine like an LS1/LS4 is
Old Jan 17, 2008 | 09:25 AM
  #45  
Geoff Chadwick's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 2,154
From: All around
Originally Posted by Eric Bryant
Hell, the LNA in the Solstice GXP/Sky RL...
Higher output and pretty impressive increase in fuel economy. When I first saw the specs on that engine I was shocked.

The LSx series are in the line for DI. We know they've tested it. Who knows what that'll do to fuel economy. HCCI, theres another. Make all cars mild hybrid using a combined starter/alternator, theres another.

Getting off the Political Rant, GM makes a 300hp V6. With a turbo, whos to say it couldnt make 400? Should be pretty easy. Weight is a big problem!!!

And I'll second the lighter ponycar with less power. Its expensive and annoying for the buyer to decrease weight. In comparison, mods that add power are cheap and easy (and dont effect CAFE).

Speaking of which - Stupid Question - Lets say GM makes a turbo V6. To help fuel economy, they castrate the tune and reduce boost. As a GMPP Dealer-Installed-Item they reflash the ECU to gve you the power that you want. As it is technically installed after the sale, that shouldnt affect CAFE right? That would be one [rediculous] way around it.



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:10 AM.