Ready or not: 36 MPG by 2015 mandate from Feds

[2001ragtop]

The real solution is to just duplicate the technology of tesla motors.

Edit: BUT make a functional commuter car that is affordable using the technology.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

(For reference only) Their extremely expensive sports car doesn't use any gas. 220 miles per charge. 0-60 3.9 seconds.

[2xtrbo]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

The real solution is to just duplicate the technology of tesla motors.
http://www.teslamotors.com/

That car doesn't use any gas. 220 miles per charge.

0-60 3.9 seconds.

Yeah but how much fuel is burned to make that charge? I would be just as much. You are just taking the emissions from the tailpipe away and moving them to the smokestack of the coal fired power generation plant.

If we could use nuclear power generation this would make sense. But the tree huggers are stopping us.

[The_Blur]

Originally Posted by TFord

+1 My kids are gonna be S O L

My kids are getting electric scooters.

[Scotsman]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

Given the state of our country, the value of our dollar, and the amount of income the average family gets...people can hardly afford gas today. What makes anybondy think they'll be able to afford a 4-6 grand premium on cars, that isn't going to do anything if gas keeps rising in cost, AND more expensive gas? It's insane to expect it!

We are not Europe. What works for them will not work for us, there's to completely different lifestyles. I don't see it happening.

Finally, diesel prices are more than a dollar more expensive than gas over here. Regardless of the fuel economy...people aren't going to be looking evry closely at cars that run on more expensive fuel......

Still not getting it. Europe is a perfect example to use in this discussion because of the higher prices they pay for fuel, sure there are more than a few differences that effect gas/diesel prices, but both fuels are a lot more expensive over there than here. Even still with fuel prices being higher abroad people still manage to buy cars and drive them. Yes there are people that can't afford to drive in other countries, many in fact but the picture we get of those people is non existent because they're not considered. Whether or not we're Europe is irrelevant because (again) carmakers will have to do whatever helps them achieve a 35MPG fleet average, regardless of how much it's going to you and I, the consumer.

While Bob Lutz has more than a little insight on things effecting our future transportation needs and what not, I wouldn't take the $6g guesstimate he made for the increased cost of purchasing a car as gospel, and even if that's the case you'll still have plenty other options as will everyone else who can't afford a car that would cost %4-$6g's more several years from now. Another thing to consider is that we pay the LEAST for our cars out of anywhere else in the world, we've got it pretty good.

And NOTHING changes the fact that you get greater fuel efficiency with diesel than you do with gasoline requiring far fewer trips to the pump (something some of you guys can't seem to wrap your head around) that the increased cost is almost made up for immediately.

[TAG UR IT]

to the Fed gov't for forcing our automakers to change w/out giving any assistance AT ALL.

Before some of you sit there and complain to me on why should the fed gov't be forced to help out our big three, take a step back and think about it. ...I know the majority woudn't complaing about my response...so...

But, the Fed Gov't already helps out everyone, everywhere. Tornado rolls through, they declare an emergency and help out.....town floods? They're there. Shoot...no rain? We have a drought and Fed's are there. It's about keeping people on their feet so they can survive, right?....RIGHT?

Well, here we are.....2010 and GM's doing thier damndest to figure out how to make all their fleet hit CAFE of 36mpg's. They can't figure it out. They put more people on it spending LOTS of money on this project..........after all, if they don't get it done, they can't meet the fed gov't's requirements and you know what that means......no more GM. Or, GM building nothing but two seater golf carts....sounds like fun.

Wait....we at GM have got it! We can shut down the IN plant saving us about 5 million....we didn't need those "whatever" cars since they weren't selling that much anyway. Oh, and the 5,000 plant employees? I'm sure they'll get by. (beginning to catch my drift here?)

2014 - New CAFE is right around the corner. After shutting down two more lines of vehicles (meaning two more vehicle assembly plants and one engine plant, let's not forget about all the little guys that put together the small products for those killed off lines either....or THEIR families). Really, it's not that bad. We only cut another 20K american jobs.....screwing all of their families too. Wait, unemployment......doesn't that mean they are going to have to go to a gov't office to file for assisstance??....since there are no other jobs available?

Hmmm.... Let me say this.....and this is only MY personal opinion here. I don't mind at all about our Federal Government hiking up the required mile per gallon minimums. That's completely fine by me.

BUT...DO NOT put the existence of several of the greatest auto manufacturing enterprises in jeapordy. The Fed Gov't needs to recognize that they are looking at some serious problems if they don't help out. And no....the feds can't just sit back and say, "Well, they want to drive it, they have to pay the extra $6,000 for it." That's not going to work. People won't be able to buy new vehicles if they go for $6K more. Auto manufacturers won't be selling as much, will have to cut jobs, and God forbid some will shut down.

This is just one more way we are going to be screwing ourselves in the long run..........................WITHOUT assistance from the Feds.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by 2001ragtop

The real solution is to just duplicate the technology of tesla motors.
http://www.teslamotors.com/

That car doesn't use any gas. 220 miles per charge.

0-60 3.9 seconds.

The Roadster is a damn fine vehicele. but at 90,000+ dollars? No thank you...

Originally Posted by 2xtrbo

Yeah but how much fuel is burned to make that charge? I would be just as much. You are just taking the emissions from the tailpipe away and moving them to the smokestack of the coal fired power generation plant.

If we could use nuclear power generation this would make sense. But the tree huggers are stopping us.

This is not a direct shot at you by any means, but that argument about fuel burned for elec. is one of the dumbest ones I've heard against electric cars...it's going to be burned anyways, and making gasoline isn't very green, either, if you get my drift. But where elecricity and gasoline production differ, is that one of the products DON'T have to be burned...again. So electric cars ARE much 'greener' than most alternatives.

Nuclear is a good idea, so is wind, hyrdo, solar, Geothermal, etc, etc. I'd go for all of it.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Whether or not we're Europe is irrelevant because (again) carmakers will have to do whatever helps them achieve a 35MPG fleet average, regardless of how much it's going to you and I, the consumer.

NOT if you and I say something. Just sitting back asn "accepting" something is so against my moral fiber it's insanity for me to even think about it.

Originally Posted by Scotsman

While Bob Lutz has more than a little insight on things effecting our future transportation needs and what not, I wouldn't take the $6g guesstimate he made for the increased cost of purchasing a car as gospel, and even if that's the case you'll still have plenty other options as will everyone else who can't afford a car that would cost %4-$6g's more several years from now. Another thing to consider is that we pay the LEAST for our cars out of anywhere else in the world, we've got it pretty good.

It's a worst-case senario, for sure if cars go up that much. But I still must ask: how much does the average family in the USA make per year, and how much does the average family in Europe make? I can't accept that "we've got it good" untill I know those two things. Same goes for gas prices. People are killing themselves to try and pay for gas right now...I don't think we've got it that good.......

Originally Posted by Scotsman

And NOTHING changes the fact that you get greater fuel efficiency with diesel than you do with gasoline requiring far fewer trips to the pump (something some of you guys can't seem to wrap your head around) that the increased cost is almost made up for immediately.

I wrap my head around it, Scotsman, I just don't agree with it. Desiel is a better choice than hybrids, for sure. But at a higher fuel cost, fewer trips to the pump doesn't mean didly-squat if you're paying the same per mile.

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

and everything else TAG said (but the smilie was my favorite part.....

[Scotsman]

Well, Dragon that just means you won't be buying diesel and there's a high probability I will. To each his own.

[GMRULZ]

Originally Posted by 2xtrbo

My current car has a twin turbo straight six that develops 300 + HP stock and with a $500 chip develops 340 HP. With a $1300 "Procede" chip develops near 400 HP. It has always turned in sub 5 second numbers from the day I took it home.

My point is that the owner can tune the car and it probably then sucks in more gas. But from the factory, a turbo car offers good mileage in "detuned version".

I average 30 mpg on the highway. So I would say the solution is GM's old in line six with a few turbos attached. We had an inline six in our old GM truck and it would fly. Or even a V6 but I am not a fan of the V6 because it requires counterbalancing and is not a silky smooth as a inline engine. Add some hybrid to that and you are there. And simply sell the detuned version.

I think its not necessarily smaller motors but vehicle weight. I stated before just the other night on 15 miles of interstate I got 33.8 mpg in my 06 Vette w/ a 6.0 V8. My Durango w/ a 4.7 V8 only gets 17-18 on the hwy. The Durango is 1400-1500lbs heavier than my Vette but has a smaller engine.

GM its time to call Jenny Craig!....Stop building porkers!!!

[radz28]

Originally Posted by GMRULZ

I think its not necessarily smaller motors but vehicle weight. I stated before just the other night on 15 miles of interstate I got 33.8 mpg in my 06 Vette w/ a 6.0 V8. My Durango w/ a 4.7 V8 only gets 17-18 on the hwy. The Durango is 1400-1500lbs heavier than my Vette but has a smaller engine.

GM its time to call Jenny Craig!....Stop building porkers!!!

I say if you want to buy that big 'ole heavy truck or whatever, be prepared to pay the price. There are many responsible ways to be more efficient than we're being and these gas prices and fuel economy standards may be the kick in the zipper we need to start actually setting a good example to the world. Don't ask me to propose how to do that, but I know there are things we can do to help.

[LS1_Alex]

Originally Posted by GMRULZ

I think its not necessarily smaller motors but vehicle weight. I stated before just the other night on 15 miles of interstate I got 33.8 mpg in my 06 Vette w/ a 6.0 V8. My Durango w/ a 4.7 V8 only gets 17-18 on the hwy. The Durango is 1400-1500lbs heavier than my Vette but has a smaller engine.

GM its time to call Jenny Craig!....Stop building porkers!!!

Don't mean to be rude at all but that mpg gauge can often be innacurate. I've been in a few cars and the real mpg is always less. You really need to look at your real world milage. When you go on a long trip fill it up and after 100-200 miles of driving fill it up again and calculate the real milage. Betcha it will be around 28-30mpg (which is still awesome) Most people don't believe me when I tell em I get 27mpg (freeway) with my 420rwh firebird.

[DGthe3]

Most other automakers get assistance from their governments in one form or another. However, in north america the domestics tend to have to fight the government. Its sad, and its stupid. And its not going to change either. Increasing fuel economy won't solve much, particularly if the cars are more expensive. people won't buy expensive cars to save gas, well most won't. So you end up with a 2 problems -older, less efficient cars are staying on the road, while fewer new cars are getting built which could mean job losses and so on which tag talked about.

The way to get people to drive more efficiently is to make it more expensive to get the gas. Then, reinvest money from gas taxes into green alternatives -be it cellulose ethanol production, biodiesel, clean energy, subsidising for hybrids/diesels, mass transit, etc. But, like most politicians, they didn't bother to create a solution to the problem at hand, but rather made something that could be put into a headline then have their name attached in the article so that they look better.

[stovt001]

Guys, calm down. The sky isn't falling. Yes gas is more expensive now, but adjusted for inflation, its about the same price as gas during the 70s oil crisis, but this time around our cars are at least twice as efficient. Even though we're paying more for gas, our fuel expenditures are still a FAR smaller percentage of our income than it was during the 60s, 70s, and 80s. We just don't notice it because that extra money goes towards new ipods and plasma screens and other things we "need". Even on an intern's income, driving 60 miles a day in bumper to bumper traffic and filling up with California's hugely cost inflated gas, gas is still only 8% of my income. It is so easy to get caught up in negative headlines, but except for the past few years, we've never had it so good. Even better, the commodity bubble will pop soon. Once someone teaches Bernake about inflation (assuming he listens) and he stops lowering the rate, all the commodity traders will realize how overvalued their investments were, and they'll lose out big. High gas prices aren't the oil companies' fault any more than high housing prices were the contractors' fault.

[2xtrbo]

Originally Posted by GMRULZ

I think its not necessarily smaller motors but vehicle weight. I stated before just the other night on 15 miles of interstate I got 33.8 mpg in my 06 Vette w/ a 6.0 V8. My Durango w/ a 4.7 V8 only gets 17-18 on the hwy. The Durango is 1400-1500lbs heavier than my Vette but has a smaller engine.

GM its time to call Jenny Craig!....Stop building porkers!!!

Not just talking about weight but also looks. If you look at the '69 Camaro it looks much better than the new one because it doesn't look so fat. The doors of the new Camaro are about a foot taller than the original. I doubt you can comfortably rest your arm on the door with the window rolled down. Also, visiblility suffers because there is a lot less window. I suppose it is all about side impact protection.

And then there is weight. There should be an aluminum space frame like an Audi maybe.

[stovt001]

Aluminum space frames would make this car cost as much as an Audi too. That would defeat the purpose. However, I definitely agree that the whole high beltline in many modern cars is annoying. I prefer better visibility and lighter weight to simulating a WWII pill-box. Now not commenting about the rest of the car, think about an older Civic hatchback. That thing has nearly 360 degree visibility through the windows, and they extend lower too. The car is lighter and safer because you can see out of it. I imagine you're right about impact protection being an advantage to the smaller greenhouses, but I think "style" has a lot to do with it too.