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..
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.Originally Posted by JITB
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
[/URL]
Jesus Christ is my Savior
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.
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.
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
