New fuel standards
http://www.designnews.com/author.asp...;doc_id=231814 It will be interesting how the already fantastic mpg Vette program will address this.
-
-
Re: New fuel standards
I was surprised that the author started with this:
<<This post isn't going to focus on the proposal. Rather, I'm posing the salient engineering question: How do we get there? We're pretty much already capable of building 40 mpg vehicles, by paring weight through use of lighter materials and using advanced hybrid power plants.>>
That's hogwash, unless they're all little tiny cars with as-yet not-invented "advanced hybrid power plants".
Forget, for the moment, the 54.5 mpg pie-in-the-sky CAFE number for 2025; that's not as important as the 35.5 mpg number that's ALREADY the law, on the books, for 2016. That law requires that "cars" get 40 mpg ("combined", not the "highway" number everyone advertises), and light trucks must get 30 mpg. It's worth noting that there isn't a single car or truck on the planet today that will come close to meeting those numbers.
What kind of car WILL meet the 2016 requirement? A car smaller than a Honda Civic, but 300# lighter, with a 1.3L turbocharged and direct-injected technology-intensive 4-cylinder engine with an equally-costly 8- or 9-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission, with LOTS of aluminum, magnesium, and expensive composites in the body structure, and a sticker price about $8,000 higher to pay for the premium materials and technology.
Ask your congressman or senator to explain how that's the new definition of the American "family car"; they have no clue, but they voted for it anyway. The REAL problem is 2016, not 2017-2025.Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
John
I know the devil is in the detail of which I admittedly know nothing, but just a quick search on the Internet show the Honda Civic hybrid has a combined mileage of 44, the Toyota Prius is even higher at 51/48, and the Chevy Volt is in the 90s. We are already there.
JohnComment
-
Re: New fuel standards
I agree with John, what planet are these people from?
The vehicles since 1993 are getting less mileage. Check out your own "real" mileage. Our 93 Buick 3.8 Lesaber on the road was 31 mpg. Nothing that size gets anywhere close today.
In fact the cars today are fat. Check out the average weight of a standard car.....Its over 4,000 pounds. No wonder the mileage is lower. Does not take a brain surgeon to figure that out.
The newer Corvette is one of the more fuel efficient cars on the road. Even the Toyota can't come close.Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
I'm several years out of day-to-day involvement with the regulations, but I try to stay in touch. No question 54 mpg means strong hybrids at a minimum, but GM (and Chrysler) had little choice. What they were able to get through the Alliance was a mid-course review of technology development and cost, more modest yearly FE improvements in the early years and a carve-out for trucks until 2020.
I don't believe anyone told them it could be done, much less that consumers would actually buy 54 mpg cars. The current administration's strategy is to take environmental leadership back from California. Since that won't happen, we're locked in a battle of can-you-top-this. So much for any assurance of a single national FE standard instead of EPA vs. California + 13 states.
It looks like they kicked the can down the road in hopes that a different administration will see the light.
Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
this obama's sop to the greens in his party and it will be deemed impossible to meet but after the 2012 election. follow the votes and if his base don't vote because he did nothing for them they will stay home in november 2012Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
To add to what John just said, how about you guys go out and buy one and tell us 5 years from now about your cost of ownership
. The batteries cost 5x the actual gas they are supposed to save - go do the math and figure that battery technology hasn't evolved that much such that most of these are leased to hide the true cost of battery replacement. That's not stopping several bat transplant companies from starting up along that corridor most took to the National two weeks ago...
The OE you did not touch on has the most fuel efficient pickups, but then again we are talking about fractions of a MPG to get there over Gvt Motors. Will it deliver 10 years of useful life? Ask in 9.5 years since the first one went on sale in February. Is it going to safely pull your Top Flight trailer over the mountains???
IMHO any car that weighs 4000 lbs today is at least 1000 lbs over weight. You don't get those big cushy limo-cars any more that offer lbs of protection either.
I would submit that the major OE's have a plan to get close but like 40 years ago with the emission standards, the early attempts will drive significant compromise into these vehicles.Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
If You Don't Vote.... You Can Not Bitch.... Alot Of People Died For You To Have That PrivilegeComment
-
Re: New fuel standards
One word, NUTS to mileage standard.
This is what I think about politics. Watch this 4 minute clip. LOL
Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
good thing i am old enough as this will not effect me because right now i need a full size pickup to haul our quads and other stuff to our camp in north central Pa. as in a few years i will be too old to be doing all this stupid stuff. down the road this is going to be tough on the guys who trailer their corvettes to NCRS meets so i guess more owners will be getting driving points.
Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
Perhaps we should look to India for the answer to our needs in the future.
Comment
-
Re: New fuel standards
I just want them to drop the corn fuel. Would be better (for our cars) if that corn was fed to the cows and the excrement put in our tanks, or sent to Washington. About bad gas-- when high OAT and the fuel perks, if the car stalls out, it's hard to start. What effect does engine compartment heat have on voltage regulator? Like the recent threads mine ammeter is also showing alot of erratic discharging.
DaleComment
Comment