Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'American Cars' started by jebbinksy, May 19, 2009.
35 CAFEmpg is not the same as current mileage quotes.
"In the real world - or as real as we can get - the cars and trucks on dealers' lots are still going to be wearing EPA fuel economy labels. And it only requires an EPA rating of 29 miles per gallon for a passenger car to equal the CAFE rating of 39 MPG, while 23 MPG on the EPA scale equates to the truck segment's CAFE standard of 30 miles a gallon."
Also, there are a few loopholes.
"This is because the actual MPG or CO2 "standard" for every manufacturer will vary depending on what they build. Footprint-based means the amount of CO2 emitted and the level of fuel economy will vary depending on the vehicles wheelbase multiplied by its track width. Put another way, the area between where the tires touch the road.
This quote from the proposal addresses the implications for automakers: "Under a footprint-based standard, each manufacturer would have a GHG and CAFE standard unique to its fleet, with a separate standard for passenger cars and light-trucks, depending on the footprints of the vehicle models produced by that manufacturer. Generally, manufacturers of larger vehicles (i.e. vehicles with larger footprints) would face less stringent standards (i.e., higher CO2 grams/mile standards and lower CAFE standards) than manufacturers of smaller vehicles." This clearly favors the domestic makers."
Direct injection doesn't do much for performance, but it does improve efficiency and offer a slight increase in performance. But the main reason of the increase in performance of these small engines is not DI, but turbocharging. A turbocharged engine allows for a reduction in displacement which increase the average load during driving which in turn increase efficiency.
Direct injection is still quite expensive and the cylinder head must be designed for direct injection, which cost quite a bit of money. If it's combined with turbocharging it will increase the peak pressure in the engine which demand a stronger bottom end. Performance cars are usually produced in low volume so they usually lags behind a bit when it comes to technology that require large investments. But direct injection is already found on some of production engines with the highest specific power outputs, so there's just a question of time until it becomes more common in high performance cars, and some high performance cars already got direct injection. Audi RS6 with its 580 hp V10 engine is a good example.
Direct injection is also not a new technology, it was used in aircraft gasoline engines already during WW2.
Shouldn't be too difficult to pass these consumption standards. As a comparison, EU demands a 130g/km CO2 average by 2012, that's about 43 miles per gallon. Now, that's going to be difficult.
As for the 35.5 mpg goal, that's about the average consumption of cars sold in europe today. Certainly not an impossible goal given that they have 6, almost 7 years to get there. From todays average american car, that's in increase in mileage of about 5% a year and it will in total save money for car owners.
turbos are great, but theyre also expensive, and their efficiency is limited by emissions regs. Because high exhaust temps are beneficial to turbo motor efficiency, but cats like lower temps than whats ideal, you can only get so much benefit from a turbo. They usually keep those temps down by running way richer than ideal, which is obviously not ideal for fuel efficiency.
"Generally, manufacturers of larger vehicles (i.e. vehicles with larger footprints) would face less stringent standards "
Hah ok so to get around it they'll just build bigger cars. w00t H1 is back
Yea, but the thing is we don't like driving cars that Europeans drive. Most people in the states think a Civic/Cobalt/Focus are too small to live with, let alone stuff smaller than that. 90 percent of the people I sell cars like that to here hate them and just buy them because it's all they can afford.
That said, if all those regs go through and whatnot, and they slap some retarded Euro style gas taxes on shit a lot more people might be forced to too. All I can say is thank god their fleet average isn't actually calculated by the real numbers of sales of each vehicle. Everyone but Honda would be hosed.
Turbos add a few $100 to the price of a vehicle but that is paid back in the form of reduced fuel consumption.
A turbocharger actually reduce the exhaust temperature before the catalyst. Modern turbochargers also handle exhaust temperatures up to 1050 degC which means that they can run quite lean even at higher loads, but that really doesn't matter that much as engines spend most of their time with very low loads (low bmep) and with a small turbocharged engine we can increase the average load (and bmep). Car engines are as inefficient as they are much due to the low average bmep.
Emission regs only cares about emissions at low loads and the biggest trouble with emissions these days are transients and cold starts.
A 35.5 mpg average can get you, for instance a BMW 530D, which is not such a small car. But I would expect that a larger number of diesel engined cars aswell as car cars with smaller gasoline engines would be needed. The average car size also needs to go down, and frame built SUV's will probably be a thing in the past.
Well, I know with diesel and hybrids it'll make things quite a bit easier... I just have an issue with an arbitrary number being decided upon by the government. Companies were already working on all this shit at as fast a pace as is reasonable, all they're doing by setting an arbitrary number is either making it too hard/financially unreasonable OR possibly setting it too low... Depending on how some new technologies develop over the next few years.
The big flaw with their plan is that companies can make all the 50MPG cars they want, but a ton of people will still buy their Suburbans and pickups either out of want or need. I think the goal is pretty easy to get to via hybrids and mass adoption of diesel... Probably without changing the types of vehicles or mix of vehicles people drive right now... But I still find it reprehensible that the government has the nerve to try to manipulate something that should be up to consumers desires. It's not their place to put a law in place that makes it hard for a guy who needs a truck for work or for a guy with a big family to afford one. If they do have to can truck models because of this law that's all it's going to end up doing thanks to the lower sales volume, #$%# a ton of people who need them.
These regulations are a cheap way for the consumers to get cleaner cars and the car manufacturers now know what kind of long term goals they need to have. In turn they also get a single emission standard for all states which is much simpler to work with.
Cars cause a lot of emission and every year this cost the government (and individuals too) a large amount of money. So, it's possible to let the consumers alone decide what car to drive if they in turn pay the cost their car causes in terms of emissions. After all, it isn't fair to let someone else pay for a cost you have caused and if this was the case we wouldn't see many big SUV's on the streets, that's for sure.
Who really needs a truck by the way? Ok, for some people that works in for instance construction it can be useful but there are certainly options that work just as well if not even better. As for the guy with the large family he is certainly not in need of a truck, what he needs is a car with a few extra seats and a large cargo space.
it all depends on what you do. I need a truck. no way a camry is gonna tow a boat or a baja bug. seeing as a dont really have much of a commute I dont really feel bad about it. the asshole who drives a 1 ton 4x4 an hour away every day to sit behind a desk needs to be slapped.
I was going to say something along the lines of a 4 wheeled moped branded as a "car"
Oh, you mean import Cherys and rebadge them?