TheOtherDave™

It's no surprise that the most vocal resistance to increased CAFE standards is coming from GM. :chuckles:
They tried the same story when the Feds mandated seatbelts.

And regardless of where you stand on climate change, the fact remains that we are continuing to burn oil like there is no tomorrow. At some point, we're going to have to find some way to kick the habit.

sherwood

for an average MPG rating, 35mpg is pretty ambitious, especially now that the testing procedures have changed. It's like a double blow.

I just don't see how it's possible, it's physically just a crazy number to shoot for.

TheOtherDave™

That's just complete bollocks.
The solution is straightforward --- less weight and less displacement.

This formula worked fine for the Civc CX in 1992, and it would do 38 mpg without any hybrid technology to reclaim the kinetic energy wasted by braking. Batteries are getting smaller, lighter and easier to recycle so IMO it perfectly reasonable to set a timeline for real progress.

Assuming you could cut 250 lbs out of the GS450h in seven years time, you'd have yourself a decen luxury sedan that was still rated in the mid to upper 30s for combined MPG.

While I'm not a fan of the government dictating to the market, something has to be done to reverse the trend of ever-larger motors going into coninually heavier chassis.

A 1978 Golf weighed about 860kg; the new 2007 Rabbit weighs nearly twice that. Even when you take modern safety requirements into account, there is weight than can be lost through the use of composites.

Since the market isn't self-correcting and we're moving past the point of peak oil production, it is time once again for the government to set a standard and force companies to innovate again.

And as far as Lutz's comments are concerned, it's just another case of an indolent manufacturer not wanting to invest in new technology for the sake of their bottom line.

DakarM

apples to oranges ToD and you know it. only a few modern car is going to be able to get down to sub 2000lb category when they have to meet all the safety requirements. even then, the price is high due to the amount of "exotic" material used.

sherwood

It's hard to get these cars down to that weight and still include all this mandated safety equipment. IIRC, MPG ratings hit their peaks in the late 80's once 4-bangers started becoming the norm in lighter cars. But it was the added weight of all these luxuries and safety features along with HP wars that brought them down. Correct me if I'm wrong, I probably am but remember hearing this more than once.

If this is to be a possibility I'd have to imagine at least one to two cars out of the entire lineup of every car company being made of aluminum. and then getting enough people to buy the car for it to count will be a whole new issue.

I know in my teg I get an average of 28MPG. Theres just no way I can foresee, with these new standards of testing, anything bigger than a 2.5L V6 even breaking even. Forget about AWD or these RWD cars, their weight is so up there just from an engineering standpoint that it'd be damn near impossible.

Next thing you know they are going to be shoving that pedestrian crap down our throats. These people in the senate, they don't know jack shit about car design or what goes into MPG values, 35 is ludicrous.

ILuvItTheJDM

I don’t even know where to begin, but…

1) I applaud this move and hope they get it passed. American consumers and the companies that cater to them cannot discipline themselves, so they government has to step in. Tough shit.

2) Lutz has turned into a retarded person. I’m sure he will just use this as a convenient excuse to can more projects. Also, it appears that he does not know what his own engineers are capable of. Didn’t GM show a diesel-hybrid Astra recently that got 100MPG?

3) Speaking of diesel, it’s the only way to go until full electric vehicles are available with long range and affordable pricing. The TSX/Euro/Jap Accord can get almost 63MPG highway with a diesel. The upcoming Jetta TDI should be close to that. If either of these cars were RWD/AWD, they would still be in the high 40s or 50s. And that’s WITHOUT hybrid. Imagine a HYBRID diesel. Come on, the technology already exists and we wouldn’t need new infrastructure like for hydrogen. Plus, these could run on biodiesel which could be made here in the USA or imported from “friendly” countries. Yes, diesels and diesel hybrids would command a price premium, but people are going to have to start changing the way they think and live; paying a $3-5K premium for a diesel hybrid drivetrain should be the least of someone’s worries.

4) Those of you in this thread babbling about 35MPG is impossible with current safety standards, AWD/RWD, etc...what don't you understand? A diesel or diesel hybrid could EASILY make this a reality in a near future!

http://mydrive.roadfly.com/blog/ExJxZ3/

TheOtherDave™

Like hell it is. Where I used the 92 Civic CX as an example, substitute the new Civic LX or the Ford Focus PZEV... or the Nissan Versa.

The whole point of this bill is to force manufacturers to find a way to bring weight down while complying with current side impact requirements.

The feds gave the auto industry 10 years or more to come up with fuel economy improvements on their own. Honda and Toyota took the lead, but the domestics never budged.

Rather than take the initative, the domestic brands just kept on marketing their massive SUVs. Now we are at the point where people are driving trucks with an 2000 to 8000 lb towing capacity as daily drivers.

Most of these trucks weigh between 3800 and 5800 pounds. That weight increase plays an major role in real-world fuel economy and in the CAFE standards.

This bill forces the Big Three to move on from their cash-cow SUVs and start engineering for the energy market of the 21st century.

As I said before, I don't like it when the government dictates to the market. But the situation is truly out of control and the SUV marketing blitz needs to end.

DakarM

well sure if you also want to limit what they can sell. yeah the auto makers get about 10 years to improve it but do you honestly believe that in 10years there will be less weight going into the cars? compare the 92 civic to the 2007 civic.

TheOtherDave™

I agree with you that we will probably never see another sub 1-ton compact coupe. The only way it might happen is if we start building Kei-class cars like the Honda Beat or Daihatsu Storia.

But in certain niches of our market, yes. I would expect to see the weight drop by about 5-10% for an average compact sedan. And the steps to acheive that goal aren't radical.

* Use CFRP to replace the steel side impact beams.
* Increase use of aluminum or FRP for roofs, trunks and hoods.

When you consider the economies of scale, it makes sense to invest in weight saving alternatives when existing gasoline engines come damn close to meeting the 35mpg standard already.

And I'm glad you brought up the 07 Civic. It shows how efficient modern engine design can be. Despite weighing 2704 lbs, the 2007 Civic EX sedan is rated at 30/38 for a manual. That's within spitting distance of the 92 Civic CX hatch, all while being quieter, roomier and faster.

With a 5 to 10% reduction in weight and a 25% increase in fuel economy, most of the current domestic sedans can achieve the 35mpg standard. The other half of the equation is breaking the cycle of marketing for mastodon-sized trucks and SUVs.

Since Detroit won't reinvest the money on their own, it is time for the government to step in and force their hand.

DakarM

* Use CFRP to replace the steel side impact beams.
* Increase use of aluminum or FRP for roofs, trunks and hoods.

you can't simply substitute materials and not retest and reengineer. all these take time and a lot of money. I have a friend who is a material structural engineer. he had to redesign a whole cabinet chassis using aluminum instead of steel because chinas consumption of steel made it too expensive to use. he spent nearly 3 months redesigning and testing the cabinet to be built using aluminum. every says make it lighter and lighter but they don't consider the magnatude of engineering that is involved whenever a material is changed. trunks and hoods on cars these days are part of the crumple area which protects the occupants, you can't simply change those parts with aluminum or other materials. also for manufacturing, aluminum still costs more than steel. lighter = more $$$

yes the civic is fuel efficient but it's not a car every wants to buy. which is my point.

10% reduction in weight is not an easy feat. would people still buy the same car if they had to pay about 10% more which was 10% lighter? probably some would but who wants to after a market where only some people will buy the car?

25% increase in fuel economy? you can't be serious? everyone would be driving underpowered nofrills nothrill cars and paying extra for the previlage.

what would happen to small independant makers such as BMW/Porsche/Ferrari, etc? even if they are able to meet 35mpg, the rest of the requirements which calls for 4% every year up to 2030 is idiotic.