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.Originally Posted by BanginJimmy
![]()
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.Originally Posted by Total_Blender
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.
Originally Posted by tony
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*Originally Posted by tony
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.Originally Posted by se7en
Originally Posted by Total_Blender
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.