My take...

California to President "Name Which Cannot Be Spoken On This Site", (NWCBSOTS):
"You know, we've got some air quality issues in our urban areas, since we've never really wanted to invest meaningfully in mass transit or anything like that. Anyways, we were thinking that the rest of the country can pay for whatever emission standards our cooky CARB comes up with"

President NWCBSOTS: "Now that sounds like a great idea!"

 

totally agree. just look at all the funding and greenlights that went to alternative fuels and alternative transportation when gas prices were high and then suddenly got their plugs pulled when the price of fuel went back down.

high gas prices are horrible in the short term but much better in the long

 

And technology will change and adapt with time. Just because we don't have a Camaro that gets 50mpg hwy and can still do the 1/4mi. in the 13's doesn't mean in 2020 the technology won't be there to do it.

Pick up trucks will not go away, they will just go from 400HP 6 sec.0-6 mid-lux vehicles to 1.9L diesel 285tq, 0-60 in 9.5 sec. work trucks.

I'd love to see more shipping done by rail. Get those trucks off the highway. Saves energy and money. Roads would last a lot longer (and thus cost less to maintain) without 2 ton+ cars and 18 wheelers.

 

Michigan is going to be selling alot of cars to out-of-towners

 

It's all sales based.

You can buy anything you want. But if it gets low fuel economy, it's going to be sold in lower numbers.

You forget that not too long ago some members of the California legislature attempted to throw huge taxes on large trucks & SUV. It didn't even get to the floor. Dealers, and even some of the legislature's own members (who happened to own large SUVs back home) killed it.

Cars like the Camaro and Mustang ARE NOT IN DANGER.

1. These cars are but a drop in the bucket in car sales, let alone total vehicle sales.

2. The fuel economy of the Mustang GT and at least the DOD Camaro SS is roughly the same as any run of the mill, mid-sized, V6 powered, import sedan ie: Camary & Avalon. Even the small Infiniti G37 sedan at 18 & 24 mpg (city/highway) is on par with the 16/25 of the Challenger R/T and the 17/26 of the Mustang GT.

And we haven't even got the mileage figures of the new Camaro V6 yet.

Cars like the Shelby GT500 and the SRT8 Challenger sell at such low numbers and at such high prices that either they will not be affected or if they are, judging what some people are willing to pay in dealer markups for these things, it's simply going to take away from dealer markups since there is only a certain amount in markups people are willing to pay.

Any rules would apply to new vehicles not used, and no one is going to stop supplying you with pickup trucks, so pipe down.

I agree with you that we need diesel cars 10001%! It has superior fuel economy, is cheaper than hybrids, and is exactly the powerplant needed here.

I used a hypothetical 5.3 as an example. The LS1 got very good mileage and power without any of the developments of the last 10 years like Direct Injection or varible valve timing. Chrysler's Hemi II simply has valve timing as a fuel economy maker. That engine makes over 400 lbs/ft of torque and 370 horsepower (390 with the truck's programing).... and gets far better mileage than the Hemi it replaces.

GM's own DI 3.6 V6 has over 300 horsepower.... and is capable of at least 40 more.... LS1 territory. With better mileage.

 

CAFE target hasn't changed. It's the sales rated average of all vehicles a company sells. The only change this round is that trucks are rolled into the figures as well.

Although Bush signed the new CAFE law, he left blank as to the guidelines as to how to reach them.

While I agree with you that CAFE is a dumb law, the only other alternative (taxes) is apparently a non-starter.

The United States is simply using WAY too much oil! This isn't a treehugger issue, this in my view, a National Security issue.

The more oil we import, the more money leaves the country. That feeds the trade deficit. Then there is the control other countries have over us. One example....Venzuela has a government that hates us, and uses every opportunity to throw mud in our eyes. Russia just finished a major port visit there as a show that they are friendly to countries we don't get alone with. Venzuela's oil production is nationalized, meaning the government runs it and gets all money made on oil production. So although they hate us, we're still funding their government because we NEED their oil.... something to think about when you go back and buy that Suburban simply to excercize a right.

All one had to do was look back to last summer and the nearly $5 per gallon we were paying. To see the stupidity of us as a nation, all one has to do is look at all the posts here of people eager to go back to buying big trucks and SUVs when fuel prices dropped.

CAFE is dumb, and I for one would rather it go away. But because of the fact that over the years, we as a Nation have been far more demanding to excercise our "rights" simply because we can, and refuse any resemblence of sacrifice, to fix a National Security issue, we have to pressure the weakest link (in this case, automobile companies) to make the changes the public refuses to make.

Problem with mass transit is that to provide sufficient service, it's a money losing proposition. All mass transit is depended on federal funds to supply part of their budget. Our local BART system is perhaps the closest to a independently run system as you can get. It's a lifeline between the East Bay and San Francisco since the single bridge linking the two (Officially the World's busiest toll bridge, coincidentially!) is perpetually clogged. Yet the only way BART can make ends meet right now is to decrease service.

You hit everything on the head with just a few sentences. Something I need to learn to do.


Sure CAFE sucks. I feel it's an idea that puts responsibility for the market on the shoulders of those who should be answering the market.

But when you have people that go into absolute vapor lock at the idea of a 10 cent tax increase on $1.75 gasoline who actually supported the oil companies record shattering profits when gasoline was $4.75 per gallon, what we're stuck with is CAFE.

 

I have no idea where you got the Mustang or G37 numbers. For 2009, the Mustang GT is 16/24 with the automatic and 15/23 with the manual. The G37 automatic is 18/26 and manual is 17/25.

I've already explained why you won't be getting diesels and why they're not the answer -- at least if California or the EPA start setting CO2 standards.

As far as the Mustang and Camaro and their future outlook, I don't think it's quite that rosy. Any car that sells in large numbers that is well below the standard will need to be offset by cars that sell in large numbers well above the standard. The only way the market demands large numbers of cars well above the standard is with high gasoline prices. High gasoline prices will hurt demand for the Mustang and Camaro....

 

I'd guess a smidge better than the G8. It is a little smaller and will get the DI v6 where the G8 v6 still isnt. So 18/26 or 18/27 maybe? According to the new testing method, that's none too shabby for 300hp.

I've wanted to know, since the moment I saw it, what GMs new v6 diesel would do in mpg for a G8 or CTS. I think it would actually shock people. I've seen what the diesel Jags do over in the UK. Cali's diesel regs though guarantee it'll never happen.

If only GM were more inclined to stick that motor with a manual transmission into other "sport" vehicles in their lineup

 

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you here. I'm not talking about fleet average gas mileage. I'm talking about California assigning C02 exhaust emission limits on all new cars sold there (as well as the other states that adopt their emission regs). According to everything I've read the ONLY way to reduce C02 emissions is to reduce the amount of gasoline burned. It only follows that the Cali rules will NOT allow the sale of a new car that does not achieve X mpg (X=whatever mpg achieves the target C02 emissions, which I believe is around 43 mpg).
If a new car gets, say, 40 mpg, would it not emit more C02 than the law allows and, therefore, not be legal for sale?

 

CO2 is not pollution.

 

It is in the oceans, it is turning them acidic.

 

Here here dammit, me too. It's more than insane it's asinine! The only thing I see is a lot of scoundrels getting their pockets lined off of this ridiculous farce, which seems to have been bought hook line and sinker by a huge mass of sheeple all over the world! Buy em' up now folks, while ya can!

 

That's what the EPA (under the previous administration) said. It appears the EPA under the new administration will agree with California and allow it to treat C02 as an exhaust emission and therefore allow them to also limit the output of this "pollution." What it is really about, IMHO, is establishing California's right to set their own fuel economy standards.

 

The Supreme Court said that CO2 was a pollutant. The previous administration had no choice but to agree. They said that increased CAFE was sufficient remedy, and that the California regulations were not necessary, denying them on that basis.

Here we are in California, saving the planet, and all we get is grief!

 

Well you know how those Chicagoans are....

At least our governor isn't getting impeached!