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.

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.

 

http://forums.motortrend.com/70/7608...ong/index.html

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

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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

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).

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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!)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.