Mass transit does not help us here. Nobody uses the mass transit unless they do not have a car. So that doesnt help drivers, only the lazy bastards that dont have jobs anyway. Helps them get to the drug dealer.

 

Well, then I guess it sucks to be you. We have pretty good mass transit where I live that's used by people of all classes.

 

I could be wrong , but ...imo the investment dollars should start straying away from 500+ hp engines to respectively move those 4000 lb cars and start focusing on how to make cars lighter . Put a freeze the power levels and re-focus on weight . Im not an engineer , so hell , maybe thats not even a possible scenario . Id like to thinkit is though .

 

Come to the San Francisco Bay Area and I'll prove you wrong. The doctors, lawyers and dotcom folks that park their Lexuses, BMWs and Mercedes at our parking lots so they can ride our trains into the City would say otherwise.

 

How is what people in San Fransisco do on mass transit gonna prove me wrong?????? I did say here didnt I??? yep I did. Here is a long way from San Fransisco. You never see anyone but the "poor people" riding the busses. We dont currently have a train, but one is planned. I highly doubt it will be used much either, and voted against it, but they passed it anyway. I just think it is yet another entitlement program for people that wont do for themselves. Orlando is not a mass transit type of city. Plenty of inexpensive parking downtown, and nobody lives close.

 

Not just the government. Actually, the current administration has resisted much of this. There are a lot of interest groups, however, ranging from the Sierra Club to the IIHS to Consumer's Union who campaign for better fuel consumption, safer cars, or both. The Sierra Club insists that lighter cars are just as safe as heavier cars, etc. It doesn't have to be true for them to say it.


Turbo 6? More like turbo 4, I think....

 

Does CAFE apply to all cars and car manufacturers in the U.S? I know MB and Audi are cutting edge in regards to diesel development, otherwise the rest of those manufacturers will be in a world of hurt as well trying to meet a 35mpg fleet avg. minimum. Only Hyundai makes high gas mileage econoboxes to offset their new V8, also perhaps MB with the hideous SMART compact.

All GM and the rest of the domestics need to do is start weening the soccer moms of America off those pig SUVs. I swear, I pick my daughter up at school and the whole line of waiting cars is majority SUV.....moms and dads in Suburbans, Expeditions, Sequoias and Armadas picking up 1-2 kids, and I'm assuming they drive those things with just themselves in it as their daily driver...fools. My Maxx does that just fine and it still has plenty of space in the rear for all kinds of stuff AND averages 25-27 city/hwy combined. Get those people into something less thirsty and a big part of the problem is solved.

 

It applies to everyone. But remember that if you exceed the numbers, you can add a car line that is below the average without penalty. If you barely meet or fall short, it's $5.50 per car per 0.1 mpg.

So if GM meets an average of 34.4 and Hyundai is 38.2, then Hyundai can introduce a 25mpg V8 and not get taxed, but GM will have to shell out $550 per car (assuming it's still $5.50 per .1mpg).

Now all GM needs to do is get everyone to start buying their small cars and sell fewer trucks. It's just as easy as typing that sentence....

 

I'm not exactly sure how Ford plan to achieve their stated claims?

Given that GM's V8's aren't bristling with technology, what if GM were to adopt DI, AFM, VVT et... across the range? Surely that would allow the V8 keep pace with the V6 turbos in that regard?

Currently, there is not one gasoline engine in use today that is dramatically more fuel efficient than another, by virtue of the technology adopted.

Unless Ford plan to introduce technology yet unseen in a modern automobile, I'll stick to the common knowledge that turbos drink more fuel than V8s.

 

Mmm, graphs

 

I guess its time for GM to unleash the diesel's, direct injected 4cyls and my idea of a "Geo" car company again.
A whole division, using 3 and 4cyl engines combined with BAS II technology could easily achieve 50mpg, more so when teamed with a diesel.
More BAS II hybrids, especially in Cobalt, cutting weight while retaining saftey, and GM could do this. They are only a tiny bit off.

 

off the boost, they can be pretty miserly.

 

I like how the trend in V8 vs 4 Cylinder cross. The trends up till 04' swap their slopes. Interesting.

Eyeballing it though, 2002 looks like 5.7 million 6's, 3.8 million 4 cylinder, and 3.2 million v8

2007: 4.8 million 6's(-17%), 4.2 million 4 cylinders(+11%) and 2.7 million v8's(-29%).

But that means roughly 12.7 million engines in 2002 vs 11.7 million in 2007. Also the data is only Jan-Nov. Why throw out the data from December?

 

On a side note, I do hope this CAFE scare pushes GM to offer the turbo Ecotec in the Malibu.

 

You do realize there is more to the US than the Orlando area, correct?