Obama to announce auto mileage, emissions standards

[Vteckidd]

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's new fuel and emission standards for cars and trucks will save billions of barrels of oil but are expected to cost consumers an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016. Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for vehicles, as well as require an overall or industry average fuel efficiency standard at 35.5 miles per gallon.

Carol Browner, the White House energy and climate director, publicly confirmed the new initiative in appearances on morning network news shows, calling it a "truly historic" occasion and saying tougher standards are "long overdue."

The plan also would effectively end a feud between automakers and statehouses over emission standards — with the states coming out on top but the automakers getting the single national standard they've been seeking and more time to make the changes.

Obama's proposed change in rules would for the first time combine pollution reduction from vehicle tailpipes with increased efficiency on the road. It would save 1.8 billion barrels of oil through 2016 and would be the environmental equivalent of taking 177 million cars off the road, said senior administration officials speaking anonymously, ahead of the announcement.

New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program, they said.

The plan, to be proposed in the Federal Register of pending rules and regulations, must still clear procedural hurdles at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Transportation Department. Automakers expressed their support for the plan. "We're all agreeing to work together on a national program," said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved. The Obama plan adds another $600 to the price of a vehicle, a senior administration official said, bringing the total cost to $1,300 by 2016.

That official said the cost would be recovered through savings at the pump for consumers and if gas prices follow government projections.

Under the changes, the overall fleet average would have to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, with passenger cars reaching 39 mpg and light trucks hitting 30 mpg under a system that develops standards for each vehicle class size. Manufacturers would also be required to hit individual mileage targets.

Browner, who headed the EPA during the Clinton administration, said the industry told the administration "they wanted to make cleaner cars and what they needed was the government to give them predictability and certainty so that they could make the investments toward cleaner cars."

In a battle over emission standards, California, 13 other states and the District of Columbia have urged the federal government to let them enact more stringent standards than the federal government's requirements. The states' regulations would cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and trucks by 2016 — the benchmark Obama planned to unveil for vehicles built in model years 2012 and beyond.

The Obama plan gives the states essentially what they sought and more, although the buildup is slower than the states sought. In exchange, though, cash-strapped states such as California would not have to develop their own standards and enforcement plan. Instead, they can rely on federal tax dollars to monitor the environment.

The auto industry will be required to ramp up production of more fuel-efficient vehicles on a much tighter timeline than originally envisioned. It will be costly; the Transportation Department last year estimated that requiring the industry to meet 31.6 mpg by 2015 would cost nearly $47 billion.

But industry officials — many of whom are running companies on emergency taxpayer dollars — said Obama's plan would help them because they would not face multiple emissions requirements and would have more certainty as they develop their vehicles for the next decade.

Auto executives, including General Motors Corp. CEO Fritz Henderson, and executives from Ford Motor Co., Toyota Motor Corp., Honda Motor Co., Daimler AG and others planned to attend the White House event along with United Auto Workers President Ron Gettelfinger, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Browner was interviewed on CBS's "The Early Show" and ABC's "Good Morning America."

[81911SC]

O that's good. Did I read this right? Every car has to get 35.5 mpg?

[Vteckidd]

O that's good. Did I read this right? Every car has to get 35.5 mpg?
yup by 2016

bye bye V8s

[81911SC]

Yep, that's going to be interesting.

[WhiteAccord]

Fuck this shit!!! Run open downpipe all day!!!

[BanginJimmy]

yup by 2016

bye bye V8s


And high HP 4cy's and V6's also. We will all be required to drive smart cars.

[IMPORTchic]

Fuck that. Well what about people that already have older cars? Will we still be able to drive them, or are they going to be banned?

[oneSLOWex]

Fuck that. Well what about people that already have older cars? Will we still be able to drive them, or are they going to be banned?

I dont see how that could ever be possible cause there are SO many people who cant afford a new car right now. Hopefully this will never work anyway.

[81911SC]

Fuck that. Well what about people that already have older cars? Will we still be able to drive them, or are they going to be banned?There is no way, not possible.

[JITB]

Its not that ALL cars, its cars built as of 2016 will have to be 30mpg for trucks, and 35mpg for cars. The technology is there. Its one of the reasons for the big muscle car boom in the last few years. There gonna fill the market up with these..before the standard comes into play

[IMPORTchic]

That is what I was thinking. It is impossible. There is always going to be V6, V8, higher power, low mileage cars IMO.

Plus there isnt any way that everyone is going to be able to afford new cars. Unless that tard plans on giving out vouchers for cars, he better rethink it if that is the plan. lol

[81911SC]

LOL

[JITB]

New vehicles would be 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by the end of the program



Under the changes, the overall fleet average would have to be 35.5 mpg by 2016, with passenger cars reaching 39 mpg and light trucks hitting 30 mpg under a system that develops standards for each vehicle class size. Manufacturers would also be required to hit individual mileage targets.


its not rocket science, nor is it the end of the world..

[BanginJimmy]

its not rocket science, nor is it the end of the world..

but it is the end of high performance cars. Then again, it may make for a HUGE boom in the aftermarket industry to pick up the slack that is being shoved down our throats.

[JITB]

but it is the end of high performance cars. Then again, it may make for a HUGE boom in the aftermarket industry to pick up the slack that is being shoved down our throats.

true but the technology to make power with low mpg is out there, this will force companies to use it. Its like with GM and their financial situation being based on the fact that they had so many gas guzzling trucks. We cant expect to keep getting 500hp cars with 10 mpg, and expect gas prices to stay at a steady reasonable price.

Look at the direct injection mazda motors you have 280hp 2.3 4cyls that will get you 25mpg, and the ecoboost twin turbo 6 with 325 hp with almost 30mpg. And the Ecotech that can make almost 300hp, and still do 28-30 mpg.

[Total_Blender]

but it is the end of high performance cars..

Thats what they said in the 1970's. It will be crappy for a few years but the performance will come back. The sky is not falling. :goodjob:

[tony]

Thats what they said in the 1970's.

That is how we ended up with turbocharged engines, it was originally used as a measure to lessen fuel consumption.. waste being converted back into energy. Look at this proposal as a little nudge toward that type of innovation.

And no it is not the end of V8's and V6's, as it was stated earlier the requirement is based off of a composite of the fleet average. If your diesel aveo gets 65mpg and your Z06 gets 14 then the two offset each other at 38mpg.. 3 over the requirement. This forces car companies to emphasize efficiency but still have the freedom to put out Camaro's and Mustangs for enthusiasts.

[BanginJimmy]

And no it is not the end of V8's and V6's, as it was stated earlier the requirement is based off of a composite of the fleet average. If your diesel aveo gets 65mpg and your Z06 gets 14 then the two offset each other at 38mpg.. 3 over the requirement. This forces car companies to emphasize efficiency but still have the freedom to put out Camaro's and Mustangs for enthusiasts.


But those little cars are not selling nearly as well as the bigger cars and trucks. GM made its money off trucks and the Vette. Ford made it's off of the F150 and the Mustang. Put simply, Americans dont like little econo boxes.

I know economic conditions will skew sales one way or another, but the simple fact is that most Americans dont want a smart car. They want a Mustang/Camaro/Charger and dont care that they ahve to put more gas in them.

[BanginJimmy]

Thats what they said in the 1970's. It will be crappy for a few years but the performance will come back. The sky is not falling. :goodjob:


If it was just MPG requirements I would tend to believe you, but then add in emissions limits and it gets FAR more difficult. Put simply, it takes gas to make power. It you limit the amount of emissions, you limit the amount of power.

[BanginJimmy]

tIts like with GM and their financial situation being based on the fact that they had so many gas guzzling trucks.

This couldnt be further from the truth. Detroit auto maker's financial troubles start and stop with the unions and the legacy costs imposed by the unions.



We cant expect to keep getting 500hp cars with 10 mpg, and expect gas prices to stay at a steady reasonable price.

Why not? At current usage we have several decades before we start to see any shortages in oil production. How about instead of shoving econo boxes down our throats whether we like it or not, the govt starts giving incentives to buy them?

Honda Civic base price 15,505 30mpg average
Civic Hybrid base price 23,650 42.5mpg average

Taking today's AAA gas price average of 2.314 and an average of 15k miles per year it would take you 24 years to break even. That doesnt even take into account the need for VERY expensive replacement batteries and other repairs that wouldnt be needed on a non-hybrid.

Lets look at another vehicle.
Chevy Malibu

standard base price 22,325 26mpg average
hybrid base price 26,275 30mpg average

Using the same criteria as above it would take 22 years to break even.

Why should I buy a more expensive hybrid when it would take more than 2 decades to break even on the investment? If the govt wants to force these cars down our throats they need to do something to make it economically prudent.




Look at the direct injection mazda motors you have 280hp 2.3 4cyls that will get you 25mpg, and the ecoboost twin turbo 6 with 325 hp with almost 30mpg. And the Ecotech that can make almost 300hp, and still do 28-30 mpg.

I'm not saying that the technology to make this happen will never be there. I am simply saying that in today's world the technology is not there, nor is it cheap enough to make it economically viable.

[JITB]

Why not? At current usage we have several decades before we start to see any shortages in oil production. How about instead of shoving econo boxes down our throats whether we like it or not, the govt starts giving incentives to buy them?

Honda Civic base price 15,505 30mpg average
Civic Hybrid base price 23,650 42.5mpg average

Taking today's AAA gas price average of 2.314 and an average of 15k miles per year it would take you 24 years to break even. That doesnt even take into account the need for VERY expensive replacement batteries and other repairs that wouldnt be needed on a non-hybrid.

Lets look at another vehicle.
Chevy Malibu

standard base price 22,325 26mpg average
hybrid base price 26,275 30mpg average

Using the same criteria as above it would take 22 years to break even.

Why should I buy a more expensive hybrid when it would take more than 2 decades to break even on the investment? If the govt wants to force these cars down our throats they need to do something to make it economically prudent.




not all these cars will have to be hybrids


As long as the manufacturer has them to offer, and the average be in the 35mpg range like tony stated. you can still have the 20mpg vette, with the 40mpg aveo. Its just gonna make companies have a set standard all across the board, instead of different emission standards for different areas. So the state manufacturers dont have to make changes for every different emission standard (california emissions), and the states wont have to fund the emissions.

there not being forced down anyone throats, car companies are gonna be given a basic emission guideline to go by all around..

[blackshine007]

Well, I have to stick my nose in and say that yes, the technology is there. Anyone with a properly tuned turbo knows that. Sctty411's car gets 40+ mpg on the highway and he's making some very nice numbers. A couple of years back, there was a 400 whp MR2 in one of those magazines that averaged 37mpg. The technology has always been there. The key is having the right size turbo. But the only downside to that is within those maps, there's fuel taken out to make those numbers which causes it to run lean, which in turn shoots up the NOx levels. With the Diesel technology, urethea injection could bring down the NOx, and with the proper gearing, even the trucks could make that possible. But that would mean goodbye to big V8's. Fuck em, we don't need them anyways. Ford's next line of fuel efficient big vehicles are gonna be turbo'd with the elimination of most of the V8's. In the coming years, ya'll are gonna be very familiar with the "Ecoboost" name.

[BanginJimmy]

not all these cars will have to be hybrids


As long as the manufacturer has them to offer, and the average be in the 35mpg range like tony stated. you can still have the 20mpg vette, with the 40mpg aveo. Its just gonna make companies have a set standard all across the board, instead of different emission standards for different areas. So the state manufacturers dont have to make changes for every different emission standard (california emissions), and the states wont have to fund the emissions.

there not being forced down anyone throats, car companies are gonna be given a basic emission guideline to go by all around..


No, not all of the cars have to be hybrids. I simply used them as a comparison.

Yes, you can have the 20mpg Vette, but then you need a 50mpg Aveo to offset it. What is going to offset the Camaro and the Silverado? 2 more 50mpg econo boxes that no one buys and are ugly as hell?

How are these standards NOT being forced down anyone's throat? Name a single benefit to the consumer or the car manufacturers.

[BanginJimmy]

But that would mean goodbye to big V8's. Fuck em, we don't need them anyways.

Tell that to anyone that uses their truck to haul anything. When was the last time you saw someone hauling a car on a trailer with a Civic? How about hauling a load of drywall to a work site with a Malibu?

[90_ACCORD]

i read in a magazine once (dont remember which one but it was a car magazine) that companies know how to make a car get 100 miles to the gallon. they dont tho cuz that could change the world market due to the fact that the US would not need to buy as much oil.

also i was watching a show on speed (cant remember the name, for some reason im bad at remembering those) but it was a car building/rebuilding/just fixing up show. anyways they build a new Z06 that could do 200 mph on the track but also got 30 mpg on the street. Right there shows that its possible to get a lot of power out of a car and still have great gas miliage.

also if i find what show that was on ill post back up

[90_ACCORD]

dont know how reliable this is but check it out

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/10/11/corvette-z06-wins-mpg-marathon-in-the-uk/

[90_ACCORD]

ok i finally remember the name of the show and it was Gearz

[JITB]

No, not all of the cars have to be hybrids. I simply used them as a comparison.

Yes, you can have the 20mpg Vette, but then you need a 50mpg Aveo to offset it. What is going to offset the Camaro and the Silverado? 2 more 50mpg econo boxes that no one buys and are ugly as hell?

How are these standards NOT being forced down anyone's throat? Name a single benefit to the consumer or the car manufacturers.


each class has their own standard of mpg. cobalt gets 35mpg as is, malibu has a 40mpg hybrid, escalade also does, they have a hybrid silverado's etc.. Its all there already, which is why none of the manufacturers are complaining about this.. its actually a good thing for them, to be able to build cars based on 1 standard instead of different emission type cars for different regions.

[BanginJimmy]

each class has their own standard of mpg. cobalt gets 35mpg as is, malibu has a 40mpg hybrid, escalade also does, they have a hybrid silverado's etc.. Its all there already, which is why none of the manufacturers are complaining about this..

There are hybrid options for those vehicles, but they arent economically viable. As I have stated, it will take more than 22 years to break even if you buy a Malibu hybrid (30mpg average) and about 24 years for a Civic(42.5mpg average).

The best mileage in a cobalt is the LS model which gets 31mpg average. Cars are fuel efficient as they are. Making much higher mpg requirements will only drive the costs of those vehicles higher. As it is, cars will cost an extra $1300 on top of inflation increases because of this.




its actually a good thing for them, to be able to build cars based on 1 standard instead of different emission type cars for different regions.

I agree here. Having a single standard for all 50 states is good for the manufacturers, but it does nothing to help sales or profitability.

[blackshine007]

Tell that to anyone that uses their truck to haul anything. When was the last time you saw someone hauling a car on a trailer with a Civic? How about hauling a load of drywall to a work site with a Malibu?
Maybe you should reread what I typed. Turbos are the way to go. The whole original idea of them is to increase the efficiency of the motor. Look at it as having the power of a large displacement motor with no fuel economy penalties. I have an '86 F150 and I'm almost tempted to drop a Mustang SVO motor in just for the benefit of getting 24mpg as aposed to 17mpg it currently gets from the 5.0L V8. That SVO motor made more tq and hp than the V8. You can still pull with a turbo motor too. I wouldn't be surprised if Ford made the 3.7L Econoboost V6 the top motor for the superduty trucks to go along with some diesel engines.

[JITB]

Making much higher mpg requirements will only drive the costs of those vehicles higher. As it is, cars will cost an extra $1300 on top of inflation increases because of this.


all i can say about that is........all you engineers start putting your applications at GM, and chrysler... :D

But i here what your saying, i need to read about this thing some more to see about what your bringing up.

[BanginJimmy]

all i can say about that is........all you engineers start putting your applications at GM, and chrysler... :D

Yea, automotive engineers willing to work at a ST12(~85k/yr) salary are going to be in very short supply.


But i here what your saying, i need to read about this thing some more to see about what your bringing up.

The math used to figure out those numbers is kind of sketchy and I really dont understand them so I just went with the figures presented in the article. Judging by our govt's ability to predict future prices though, it will probably be MUCH higher. Maybe even as much as 200% or about 4k.

[BanginJimmy]

Maybe you should reread what I typed. Turbos are the way to go.

A turbo isnt going to increase towing capacity. I drove my brother in laws 1500 with the 4.8 and towed a boat. It towed alright, but it struggled at times. I had no problems at all towing the same boat, with almost 300 extra lbs of camping gear in the bed when I drove his new truck that has the 5.3.

[81911SC]

Of course the Obama lovers will side with him. :jerkit:

[BanginJimmy]

I wouldn't be surprised if Ford made the 3.7L Econoboost V6 the top motor for the superduty trucks to go along with some diesel engines.


If Ford did that they would completely lose the market to companies that are still building the vehicles that are actually useful.

[blackshine007]

A turbo isnt going to increase towing capacity. I drove my brother in laws 1500 with the 4.8 and towed a boat. It towed alright, but it struggled at times. I had no problems at all towing the same boat, with almost 300 extra lbs of camping gear in the bed when I drove his new truck that has the 5.3.
Those 2 motors make damn near the same hp give or take 10 hp. The difference between those 2 motors is that the 4.8L makes 20-30 ft lbs of tq less than the 5.3 so naturally you will notice the tq advantage on the 5.3L motor. Your point on that holds no water. Some of the most powerful production vehicles are turbo. Look at your diesels. Look at some of your performance economy cars like the SRT4 Neon that returned 30mpg on the highway according to the epa. Or the turbo cobalt running 13's getting 30mpg on the highway. Or the Mini cooper S returning 34mpg highway. And then let's turn to GM's Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky cars. The n/a car with the 2.4L gets 26mpg highway while the turbo car with the 2.0L returns 28mpg and both share the same transmissions and rear ends. I think my point is clear. You can make power and reduce displacement without any adverse effects.

[NevrNufTorq]

Those 2 motors make damn near the same hp give or take 10 hp. The difference between those 2 motors is that the 4.8L makes 20-30 ft lbs of tq less than the 5.3 so naturally you will notice the tq advantage on the 5.3L motor. Your point on that holds no water. Some of the most powerful production vehicles are turbo. Look at your diesels. Look at some of your performance economy cars like the SRT4 Neon that returned 30mpg on the highway according to the epa. Or the turbo cobalt running 13's getting 30mpg on the highway. Or the Mini cooper S returning 34mpg highway. And then let's turn to GM's Pontiac Solstice/Saturn Sky cars. The n/a car with the 2.4L gets 26mpg highway while the turbo car with the 2.0L returns 28mpg and both share the same transmissions and rear ends. I think my point is clear. You can make power and reduce displacement without any adverse effects.
sorry bro, but his argument holds alot of weight. the big 'weight' as you term it is torque. thats the reason diesel's are far superior. they make around 300+ hp but all makes(ford, gm, dodge) all make over 500+ tq. i love a turbo more than anyone, but the sad fact is, torque moves weight better than hp. 20hp might not be much, but 20 ft/lbs of torque is huge. small displacement motors are awesome with a turbo but suck when it comes to torque. my poopra makes 250whp more than my vette but 75wtq less than it. both weigh almost the same, but the vette gets 6-7 mpg's better. why? torque, the vette does it with less rpm b/c the motor has the torque to do it. :2cents:

next time you pull a 11,000 lbs race trailer with your svo motor to the race at 5mph honk the horn as i pass you in my 800wtq turbo diesel doing 80 :goodjob:

[tony]

Its just strange to me how when the "Drill here Drill now" initiative was put forth our dependency on oil was oh so important and urgent, but even an empty threat of taking away muscle cars (which wont happen) in an attempt to achieve the same goal and the sentiment goes from one spectrum to the other. Lack of priorities and partisan bull ish is the reason why we can't make progress on issues like these.

[BanginJimmy]

Its just strange to me how when the "Drill here Drill now" initiative was put forth our dependency on oil was oh so important and urgent, but even an empty threat of taking away muscle cars (which wont happen) in an attempt to achieve the same goal and the sentiment goes from one spectrum to the other.


Drill here, Drill Now, was about reducing dependency on foreign oil, not oil as a product. If the US wants to reduce foreign oil consumption then we need to drill more. If the US wants to reduce oil consumption as a whole, we need a replacement for plastics, heating oil, most solvents, and oil fired power plants also, not just a few dollars a year in gasoline. Oil fired plants are easy, though expensive, to replace with nuclear plants. Plastics, heating oil and solvents are much harder to replace.



Lack of priorities and partisan bull ish is the reason why we can't make progress on issues like these.

Although I dont see this as anything more than govt intervention in business and completely unnecessary it cuts both ways. Both sides of the aisle are more interested in partisan politics than us on the street. Just look at that liar the dems put in as speaker of the house if you need further proof.

[TSiFTW]

It's socialism all socialism. If you guys want to live the rest of your lives being told what you can and can't do then keep voting for dipshits like Obama. Told what you can drive! HELL NO! I don't want to drive the same 35mpg turd everyone else is driving. Sure there will be different cars, but they may as well be the same after all the restricions. It all equals the same thing. And as far as aftermarket goes, Federal Emmissions standards would make modifying a car almost impossible to stay legal. I for one don't want to be completely contolled by our government, and I'm quite sure that most of the general population does not want that either. For the ones that do:2up:. Wake up people. This is all serious.

[tony]

Drill here, Drill Now, was about reducing dependency on foreign oil, not oil as a product.

Its the same thing, reduction of oil consumption in this country which in turn lessens our dependency. Actually higher standards is a more effective approach seeing as how when oil is produced it becomes a global commodity..

[BanginJimmy]

Its the same thing, reduction of oil consumption in this country which in turn lessens our dependency. Actually higher standards is a more effective approach seeing as how when oil is produced it becomes a global commodity..

Its not the same thing, but you are right, oil is a global commodity so domestic oil companies need to have some sort of benefit for selling domestically only.

[NevrNufTorq]

Its not the same thing, but you are right, oil is a global commodity so domestic oil companies need to have some sort of benefit for selling domestically only.
i love tony man, he comes up with some valid points but he's flopping on this one from the topic. now, it's WE dont wanna drilll elsewhere. no WE in it, i'm all for drilling here now. get your boy back on track, drill here now, and quit telling me what i have to buy!!! :2cents:

[Vteckidd]

Its just strange to me how when the "Drill here Drill now" initiative was put forth our dependency on oil was oh so important and urgent, but even an empty threat of taking away muscle cars (which wont happen) in an attempt to achieve the same goal and the sentiment goes from one spectrum to the other. Lack of priorities and partisan bull ish is the reason why we can't make progress on issues like these.
ehhh

I guess what it boils down IMO is choice. I want the choice of going out and buying a 10mpg v10.

The last thing i think we need is government imposing standards that will

a) Cost the auto companies estimated 47 Billion extra to comply with
b) dictate what types of cars they can manufacture

I get the argument that if you have a gas guzzling v8 you need a hybrid to offset it. But my point is wht couldnt the car makers come to this on their own.

Look its no secret they are being beat by the imports because of price and MPG. So IMO let capitalism take its course. Either they find a way to compete with their competition, or they go under.

Obama is passing rules and ultimately dictating the types of cars they can build with a strict federal standard. These guys havent made a product worth a shit in 10 years, some say 20. Let them go, let someone like Carlos Ghosn come in and turn them around ,or let them go under.

Government shouldnt interfere IMO

Drill Here Drill Now is about producing oil locally for consumption. It was not legislating how a company should be run, what it should produce, etc.

[eraser4g63]

ehhh

I guess what it boils down IMO is choice. I want the choice of going out and buying a 10mpg v10.

The last thing i think we need is government imposing standards that will

a) Cost the auto companies estimated 47 Billion extra to comply with
b) dictate what types of cars they can manufacture

I get the argument that if you have a gas guzzling v8 you need a hybrid to offset it. But my point is wht couldnt the car makers come to this on their own.

Look its no secret they are being beat by the imports because of price and MPG. So IMO let capitalism take its course. Either they find a way to compete with their competition, or they go under.

Obama is passing rules and ultimately dictating the types of cars they can build with a strict federal standard. These guys havent made a product worth a shit in 10 years, some say 20. Let them go, let someone like Carlos Ghosn come in and turn them around ,or let them go under.

Government shouldnt interfere IMO

Drill Here Drill Now is about producing oil locally for consumption. It was not legislating how a company should be run, what it should produce, etc.

By far this is what i have been preaching since the damn bail outs started. The government should have nothing to do with a product ANY company creates unless it is unsafe. If the big three can't keep up with what Honda, Nissan or Mazda are doing than it is time to look for an exit strategy. As far as I can tell all this administration has done is force the economy in to a more socialist state, spend money, raise taxes and lie to cover there ass. Like I said before and I will say again I feel bad for the people who will loose their jobs because of theses companies going belly up, You know what fuck that I don't feel bad for them they cause the problem to begin with ( UAW). All in all this is nothing more than a ploy to bend over for people of the left like Al Gore and the whole god damn green movement, and in the end this will burn the economy to the ground.

[blackshine007]

sorry bro, but his argument holds alot of weight. the big 'weight' as you term it is torque. thats the reason diesel's are far superior. they make around 300+ hp but all makes(ford, gm, dodge) all make over 500+ tq. i love a turbo more than anyone, but the sad fact is, torque moves weight better than hp. 20hp might not be much, but 20 ft/lbs of torque is huge. small displacement motors are awesome with a turbo but suck when it comes to torque. my poopra makes 250whp more than my vette but 75wtq less than it. both weigh almost the same, but the vette gets 6-7 mpg's better. why? torque, the vette does it with less rpm b/c the motor has the torque to do it. :2cents:

next time you pull a 11,000 lbs race trailer with your svo motor to the race at 5mph honk the horn as i pass you in my 800wtq turbo diesel doing 80 :goodjob:
I think I mentioned something about having the proper sized turbo. I'm willing to bet that the turbo on your Supra is probably a large single turbo. The type of turbo I'm talking about involves a turbo that spool s up very early. All of the aforementioned cars I brought up makes their peak tq numbers below 3000 rpm. At cruising speeds, you typically want to be riding within 75% of your peak power band in order to get decent gas mileage. That's why the Vette is getting better because at cruising speeds, it's well within the tq range and will do better. I bet the supra is basicly dumping gas. I make 90% of my peak tq at 2600 rpm. My lil v6 will average around 28mpg with peaks of 32mpg highway on occasion. So please don't think I'm trying to say that any turbo on any vehicle will help it get better. It has to be properly matched to the vehicle to get the best overall results. Not just to win races.

[SPOOLIN]

it only need to get that mpg when its cruising and normal driving, you can't tell me with our current technology that we can't design a bad ass muscle car or import super car that gets 35mpg cruising to work and then get 10mpg when you beating the shit out of it.

My 600whp civic got 28-30 on the streets when i drove it hard and fast that calculation fell to about 15mpg.

[ash7]

That is how we ended up with turbocharged engines, it was originally used as a measure to lessen fuel consumption..

lol *wrong*

Turbochargers were developed by the Swiss in 1905. They have always been used to increase power instead of to lessen fuel used. There is a difference between the two.

-jonthan

[SL65AMG]

Fuck that. Well what about people that already have older cars? Will we still be able to drive them, or are they going to be banned?


they cant FORCE you to buy a new car, they will just make the new ones abide by the new regulations.

[BanginJimmy]

they cant FORCE you to buy a new car, they will just make the new ones abide by the new regulations.


So I can still drive a car that requires leaded fuel?

[SPOOLIN]

So I can still drive a car that requires leaded fuel?


Lead is bad for YOUR Bodily health, bad fuel mileage is only bad for the planet and our available resources.

[tony]

lol *wrong*

Turbochargers were developed by the Swiss in 1905. They have always been used to increase power instead of to lessen fuel used. There is a difference between the two.

-jonthan

I believe my mistake is stating that turbocharging started in the 70's rather than development toward fuel efficiency through turbocharging was in the 70s; I appreciate the correction.

[BanginJimmy]

Lead is bad for YOUR Bodily health, bad fuel mileage is only bad for the planet and our available resources.

So is carbon monoxide that is emmitted from unleaded cars. Leaded fuel burns far better and cleaner than unleaded which leads to the MUCH better mpg numbers.



To make another point, there is only so far you can take efficiency of design. At that point, the only way you are going to increase gas milage is to reduce rolling mass. These ighter weight cars would be deathtraps on the roads, just like most current high milage vehicles like the Prius and the Smart car. I did a quick look and found that the increasing safty of the prius is directly connected with slightly lower fuel economy. My guess is that they added weight in the form of bracing and safety equipment, causing the very weak motor to lose some of its efficiency.

[Jaimecbr900]

I know yall have missed me coming into one of these "political" type threads and putting in my big :2cents: , so I'll try not to let you down....:D

I'm actually surprised that only a couple of you are actually getting down to the REAL core here: It's Socialism. That's all it is. It may be masked and mirrored to look like Eco-friendly mumbo jumbo, but at it's core it's Big Brother trying to make more people dependent on the Gov't to fill their needs.

#1. Our Gov't neither has the power nor was it ever designed to be the overseer of 95% of the things they stick their noses into now. The only reason they do? The same reason crack dealers stay in business....addiction and lack of self drive. Keep the crackheads hooked, then you have repeat customers guaranteed. Keep mindless Americans hooked on Gov't as their "savior" to all that ails, then you have guaranteed votes next election. ;)

#2. This is just one more step toward Gov't control of Free Enterprise. How? Well, that's obvious. They already "bail out" companies that should just be let alone to either figure out how to fix itself or go bankrupt. That's how Free Enterprise system works. Supply and Demand ideaology. Look at GM. The Gov't wants to "save" it, only for it to go under in a few years anyway. Why save it? If they didn't make the right choices, let them go down in flames. Someone better will come along to take it's place. Just like the Post Office. Stamps cost more and more and more every year, yet the service and necessity of that service gets worse and worse. Gov't wants to keep it in place, for what? If we now email instead of write a letter, why keep it around? Wait.....wait......let me let the cat out of the bag for all you people that can't think for yourselves.......IT'S BECAUSE OF VOTES......I SAID IT, VOTES. You come in and ACT like the savior and keep people from losing their jobs, then you guarantee their votes next election. See how that works? So even though it totally screws up the fabric of our so called "Free Enterprise" system by continually prolonging the inevitable, they do it TO GET VOTES LATER. Who cares if they put is in debt for millenia to come? Who cares if it accomplishes absolutely nothing? Who cares if we waste more than we gain? Politicians care. It's job security for them.

#3. What's next? The Gov't telling us when we can have sex and with whom? Don't laugh. I'm certain noone ever imagined the Gov't would ever "bail out" a sinking ship 10 yrs ago, yet here it is. So who is to say that since they can now tell us what car we HAVE TO drive, that the control of what we do in the bedroom is far fetched???? Think about it. They're already telling businesses how to do their business and to whom. They're telling us what kind of car we must drive. What's next?

#4. When are people going to ever take responsability for their own lives? When are they going to quit being dependent on big brother to give them what they WON'T provide for themselves? Look at the next big thing, Gov't run, Gov't owned, the next big cluster F.......Centralized Health Care. Go ask Canadians if they like theirs. :rolleyes: It's just another way to keep the masses, who are too lazy to do for themselves let alone THINK for themselves, dependent on Gov't to give them their daily hand out. They give no fore thought to the consequences. All they see is, "hey, I don't have to pay for health insurance any more!!! Hoooray!!!.":rolleyes:

Let the failing company fail. They either find a way to survive or re-invent themselves to adapt or just fail. Small companies fail every day. Why aren't we saving them? After all, they are the ones that employ the majority of the American work force anyway.

I've succeeded and failed at business. I learned far more from the failures than I did from the successes. I adapted and moved on. My arms didn't fall off. I didn't die. It's life. Deal with it. Quit expecting someone else to come and dust you off like your mommy did when you were 3.

[Jaimecbr900]

I think I mentioned something about having the proper sized turbo. I'm willing to bet that the turbo on your Supra is probably a large single turbo. The type of turbo I'm talking about involves a turbo that spool s up very early. All of the aforementioned cars I brought up makes their peak tq numbers below 3000 rpm. At cruising speeds, you typically want to be riding within 75% of your peak power band in order to get decent gas mileage. That's why the Vette is getting better because at cruising speeds, it's well within the tq range and will do better. I bet the supra is basicly dumping gas. I make 90% of my peak tq at 2600 rpm. My lil v6 will average around 28mpg with peaks of 32mpg highway on occasion. So please don't think I'm trying to say that any turbo on any vehicle will help it get better. It has to be properly matched to the vehicle to get the best overall results. Not just to win races.

Sorry pal, but you've obviously never towed anything in your life or you'd understand how it works.

Your 2.3 motor makes no power nor torque UNTIL it gets the turbo spooled up, i.e. high rpms. What are you going to do UNTIL then? Sit at the light slipping the clutch until you can pull the weight from a stop? Daily driving is not like a tractor pull competition.

Bigger displacement engines make their torque on the lower end of the rpm range. Some diesels literally have usable torque right off idle. THAT torque is what moves weight, what pulls loads. Your 2.3 bi-turbo setup will NEVER move the weight that a 6.0L diesel does. It's just the facts.

Yes, technology does exist that makes it possible to have high HP numbers from relatively small displacement engines. That's fine. Problem is that just like my buddy nvrnftorq was saying, you can have 500HP and 200 ft/lb of torque in one car just like you can have 400hp and 400 ft/lb of torque in another. Which one do you think is better? Which one do you think will use more gas, everything else held equal?

The best answer to this issue is simply financial. Make it attractive FINANCIALLY for people to drive hybrids and they will drive them. If you FORCE them to, it won't work. Just like any other thing you force people to do. Now, make it atleast SEEM like it's their idea and they do it all day long. Give incentives for people to drive that electric car and they will.

[NevrNufTorq]

Sorry pal, but you've obviously never towed anything in your life or you'd understand how it works.

Your 2.3 motor makes no power nor torque UNTIL it gets the turbo spooled up, i.e. high rpms. What are you going to do UNTIL then? Sit at the light slipping the clutch until you can pull the weight from a stop? Daily driving is not like a tractor pull competition.

Bigger displacement engines make their torque on the lower end of the rpm range. Some diesels literally have usable torque right off idle. THAT torque is what moves weight, what pulls loads. Your 2.3 bi-turbo setup will NEVER move the weight that a 6.0L diesel does. It's just the facts.

Yes, technology does exist that makes it possible to have high HP numbers from relatively small displacement engines. That's fine. Problem is that just like my buddy nvrnftorq was saying, you can have 500HP and 200 ft/lb of torque in one car just like you can have 400hp and 400 ft/lb of torque in another. Which one do you think is better? Which one do you think will use more gas, everything else held equal?

The best answer to this issue is simply financial. Make it attractive FINANCIALLY for people to drive hybrids and they will drive them. If you FORCE them to, it won't work. Just like any other thing you force people to do. Now, make it atleast SEEM like it's their idea and they do it all day long. Give incentives for people to drive that electric car and they will.
ty bro so i didnt have to go over it one more time :cheers:

[BanginJimmy]

You 2 explained it FAR better than I ever could.

I still want to see this kid in a turbo civic trying to haul a car trailer though. Probably wouldnt even need a car on the trailer to be good for laughs.

[Total_Blender]

Hopefully this will be an incentive to the manufacturers to bust out some engineering. I know that the hybrids are using Atkinson cycle (aka 5 stroke) engines, and Mazda did have a Miller cycle V6 engine for a while which was 13% more efficient than a conventional Otto cycle gas engine.

And Bruce Crower has built a six stroke engine that re-captures heat loss and runs without pumping coolant so theres no parasitic drag from a water pump:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

I think whats holding us back in part is the use of the conventional gasoline fueled/otto cycle/piston engine model. I imagine the car of the future that does get 100mpg will probably have some new kind of engine thats very different from what we have now.

[blackshine007]

Sorry pal, but you've obviously never towed anything in your life or you'd understand how it works.
I have an '86 Ford F150 that I usually use to haul all of my trash or other people's cars. It has pulled more cars than I can remember over the last 9 years of ownership.


Your 2.3 motor makes no power nor torque UNTIL it gets the turbo spooled up, i.e. high rpms. What are you going to do UNTIL then? Sit at the light slipping the clutch until you can pull the weight from a stop? Daily driving is not like a tractor pull competition.
Like I was saying before, it's all on the proper sized turbo. Oviously, you don't want 2.3L with a GT35R or it will take forever to spool. If you match the turbo to the engine, you can get it to spool very early. You'd also have to play with timing as well. And who's gonna be slipping a clutch? Automatic transmissions increase the towing capability over a manual transmission any day of the week due to the ability to multiply torque vs. direct drive gear meshing.


Some diesels literally have usable torque right off idle. THAT torque is what moves weight, what pulls loads. Your 2.3 bi-turbo setup will NEVER move the weight that a 6.0L diesel does. It's just the facts.

You can thank the properly sized turbo for that. Being that it's just large enough for the engine to make it's peak tq down low, as a diesel approaches redline, the turbo is out of breath. But by then, the turbo made all the power it needed for the diesel.

I never said that if I were to drop the 2.3L motor in that it will ever make more than the 6.0L diesel. I said it will definately make more hp & tq than my 5.0L at the same, if not lower rpm's.


Yes, technology does exist that makes it possible to have high HP numbers from relatively small displacement engines. That's fine. Problem is that just like my buddy nvrnftorq was saying, you can have 500HP and 200 ft/lb of torque in one car just like you can have 400hp and 400 ft/lb of torque in another. Which one do you think is better? Which one do you think will use more gas, everything else held equal?
The ovious answer to that question is hands down the one with the most available tq at cruising speeds. Less work required to move a vehicle at the same speed means less fuel to be consumed.


The best answer to this issue is simply financial. Make it attractive FINANCIALLY for people to drive hybrids and they will drive them. If you FORCE them to, it won't work. Just like any other thing you force people to do. Now, make it atleast SEEM like it's their idea and they do it all day long. Give incentives for people to drive that electric car and they will.
I couldn't agree with you more :goodjob:

[Vteckidd]

Actually you can thank the oh 5.7L+ Displacement for that lol

I understand what you are saying about TQ and smaller turbos etc. But why do you think the trucks have big DISP ,diesel, turbo motors? I dont know of any truck that really can tow that is less than at least a 4.0l

[BanginJimmy]

Hopefully this will be an incentive to the manufacturers to bust out some engineering. I know that the hybrids are using Atkinson cycle (aka 5 stroke) engines, and Mazda did have a Miller cycle V6 engine for a while which was 13% more efficient than a conventional Otto cycle gas engine.

And Bruce Crower has built a six stroke engine that re-captures heat loss and runs without pumping coolant so theres no parasitic drag from a water pump:
http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060227/FREE/302270007/1023/THISWEEKSISSUE

I think whats holding us back in part is the use of the conventional gasoline fueled/otto cycle/piston engine model. I imagine the car of the future that does get 100mpg will probably have some new kind of engine thats very different from what we have now.


All of this comes back to finances. You can make a 100mpg car, but if you cant get more than 2 normal sized adults in it then it wont sell. It wont sell if it costs 60k when you can buy a 30mpg car for 20k. It wont sell if it oesnt look good. It wont sell if safety ratings are crap.


Engineering is the next step in fuel economy. I dont think you are going to find an option to replace the vehicles we like enjoy to drive with anything that is currently in the pipeline. I also think the next big breakthrough will come based more off of a diesel design than a gas engine.

[Jaimecbr900]

I have an '86 Ford F150 that I usually use to haul all of my trash or other people's cars. It has pulled more cars than I can remember over the last 9 years of ownership.

Yet you think that a 2.3L would be able to replace your power plant in that truck and do the same job. Not gonna happen. Read below why.;)



Like I was saying before, it's all on the proper sized turbo. Oviously, you don't want 2.3L with a GT35R or it will take forever to spool. If you match the turbo to the engine, you can get it to spool very early. You'd also have to play with timing as well. And who's gonna be slipping a clutch? Automatic transmissions increase the towing capability over a manual transmission any day of the week due to the ability to multiply torque vs. direct drive gear meshing.

No, you have the torque theory all wrong. Torque is naturally made as a function of several factors put together; piston size, STROKE, crankshaft size, etc. EVERY motor makes torque. How much and more importantly WHEN it comes in is an individual trait of every motor. You can put all the combinations you want on that 2.3L and it will NEVER do the job (torque) that a V8 can with or without a turbo.

Turbo sizing does affect when the turbo "spools", but it also has effect on efficiency. A tiny turbo spools up quick, but runs out of steam quick too. A big turbo spools up slower, but doesn't run out of steam. The "matching" comes in when you "match" it to the MOTOR you are using in your application. If you have a rev happy motor, then you are not going to put in some tiny turbo on it because by the time the engine makes power, then the turbo has petered out and its now a hot air pump. Look at a lot of the factory turbo cars. They have good bottom end, but sorry top end. Why? Because they were designed to be street cars and not race cars. If they wanted real HP, then they would do what all of us do....upgrade to a different turbo that matches what you want the car to do. A small 2.3L motor is going to make it's power NOT on the low end, but after it REVS up in the upper RPM range. When was the last time you towed something where you took off from a STOP at 4k RPM? So where exactly do you think you're going to go until your little motor makes that magical power and torque that the dyno says it does????? No where. Have you ever watched a tractor pull race? Go watch one. As the weight slides forward on the sled, the multi engined (all V8's and bigger BTW, wonder why?:rolleyes:) tractor has a harder and harder time to drag it. When they can't drag it, what happens??? They stop. Right? Which leads me to my next point.....

What do you think ANY transmission is going to do as you sit there and wait for that 2.3L to make it's "power" at 4-5K RPM???? It's SLIPPING. You step on the gas at that light, the engine doesn't have enough torque yet so it sits there.....so what exactly is happening inside ANY transmission???? Tell you what, let's do an experiment: You bring any Ford Ranger with that 2.3L engine, slap ANY turbo you want onto it. I'll bring a diesel truck w/o ANY turbo. We'll put both of them side-by-side on a boat ramp to pull two identical boats out of the water, up that ramp, and drive home 100 miles. My money says that MY diesel will not only do the job 100x better, but also use LESS diesel than you will IF you ever get up the boat ramp to begin with. Wanna bet? There's torque for ya in a nut shell. It's a necessary part of automotive life. No ball bearing macro engineered turbo available on the market today can make up that gap when it comes to usable street torque.




You can thank the properly sized turbo for that. Being that it's just large enough for the engine to make it's peak tq down low, as a diesel approaches redline, the turbo is out of breath. But by then, the turbo made all the power it needed for the diesel.

Wrong.

You can thank STROKE and CRANK size and DISPLACEMENT for that.

All the power it needed for what? :thinking:


I never said that if I were to drop the 2.3L motor in that it will ever make more than the 6.0L diesel. I said it will definately make more hp & tq than my 5.0L at the same, if not lower rpm's.

Then your 5.0 needs a rebuild.....:rolleyes:

[Vteckidd]

uhhh

Not that i disagree with Jaimie, but any diesel USES a turbo because it needs alot of compression to run.

Most deisels are upwards of 17:1 static compression.