Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive



  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    I do see your point about shaving brands. Selling Hummer, and Saab, and restricting GMC to the Commercial nameplate only makes sense. Maybe one way to keep some brand names around, and successful, would be to "value price" the brands. First, instead of separating the brands at different dealerships, put them all under one roof. If someone wants a mid to large sedan, and has say $26k to spend, they should be looking at 3 brands only. That would be Chevy, Pontiac, or Saturn. now the question becomes what type of car are you looking for? If they want value, Chevy, Euro styling, Saturn, sporty, Pontiac. Currently, they would have 5 choices: Malibu, Impala, Aura, G6, or G8. By right, the Lacrosse should be above these, luring people looking for a Lexus GS, or Avalon. If they have say, $35k to spend, that is where you turn their attention to a Lacrosse, or CTS, and the Lacrosse should be BIGGER than the CTS, so they have a decision to make.

    Fuel economy isn't going to be as big a deal as you think, if they are willing to put 2 mode hybrid trannys in these cars. Volume production should keep the cost to a minimum
  • huntzingerhuntzinger Posts: 350
    It is precisely because the US Automakers have turned to DC for bailouts (such as the E85 charade) and keeping competitors out of the US market (such as diesel pollution standars), instead of being themselves a key innovative leader that is better alligned with world realities (the handwriting has been on the wall for expensive oil for years) and what all of the consumer market segments want, for why they've been losing market share everywhere except in big honking SUVs.

    And insofar as the fuel economy angst, Blu-Tek technology exists in diesels -- all GM has to do is licence it from Mercedes: technical risk: ZERO!

    If they want to beg for regulatory relief, then let them relax the diesel pollution standards to harmonize them with EU ... GM can then licence the VW / Audi TDI, as well as the plain Mercedes CDI. Again, technical risk is zero.

  • cooterbfdcooterbfd Posts: 2,770
    Why would GM have to "license" anything from anybody, when they have those products for sale in the EU already??? Tech risk: zero. Cost: ZERO
  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    Don't you know? According to GM, we don't want that European stuff here. They understand that Americans only want big pickups and Suburbans.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    The Prez commited yesterday to a 50% reduction in GHG emissions by 2050. Needless to say, that's not nearly a big enough reduction, and other countries called him out on that score. But even if we just settle for the 50% figure, the automakers won't have any time to rest in 2020 - they will have to get cracking on improving fuel economy even further, just as quickly....

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • hpmctorquehpmctorque Posts: 4,118
    "Needless to say, that's not nearly a big enough reduction..."

    How much is enough, and why?
  • wtd44wtd44 Posts: 1,211
    MPG being the question is a situation that won't last long, if we turn to the more important question of just what alternative (to gasoline) fuel shall we use to replace gasoline. We have a tremendous supply of natural gas in America. We could "quickly" begin this substitution process while we work on a future fuel of whatever sort for the long haul.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    Well 80% by 2050 is enough to negate the worst effects of global warming by the year 2100, according to the report by the IPCC. That is for all developed nations, but especially for what is by far the biggest energy consumer and polluter in the world, the United States.

    If we switch to natural gas, we will still be consuming a non-renewable energy source that produces greenhouse gas emissions.

    If we can manage to produce massive quantities of cellulosic ethanol, then I like E85's chances. But that's a long way off, if ever. We need to diversify our automotive energy sources as much as possible, as soon as possible.

    Oh yeah, and my original remark was slightly tongue in cheek, as there were no specific obligations agreed to by the G8 leaders on Tuesday, and no-one expects them ever to have the courage or the foresight to actually oblige themselves in any specific way, so automakers don't really need to worry...

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • wtd44wtd44 Posts: 1,211
    Let's get graphically fundamental: The natural gas for IC engines is aimed at fueling our transportation to get us to work each morning, after which we will do our jobs developing the future fuel. Eventually we start using the new future fuel and quit using the natural gas, which had itself already replaced gasoline in significant proportion. None of this will occur instantaneously. Yes, we will use gasoline and natural gas for a while. And on another vein, we should consider the conversion of our vast coal resources to other fuels. Key word: consider. We really must also consider that to get from A to Z, we may need to linger briefly at F, K, O, and V. Patience and pure science are mandatory. Double punt the emotionality! (he said, with some notable emotion...) :shades:
  • kernickkernick Posts: 4,072
    We have a tremendous supply of natural gas in America.

    You are right about the tremendous supply - but it is in the ground or under the oceans.

    The problem is how do you deliver it economically? I live in NH and the vast majority of the state does not gas-lines. The areas that do have natural gas, usually run short on supply near the end of the winter. So there is no extra supply for more people to run there houses, never mind running their vehicles on them too.

    LNG also comes into the area on tankers, and the LNG is stored in tanks. There are a lot of safety and terrorist concerns even at present levels of use.

    We use many fuels right now to heat our homes, and power our cars ... You can't eliminate any unless you have a viable - economic and quick way to do so. It's just theory and dreaming to state otherwise.
  • dtownfbdtownfb Posts: 2,915
    We use many fuels right now to heat our homes, and power our cars ... You can't eliminate any unless you have a viable - economic and quick way to do so. It's just theory and dreaming to state otherwise.

    Which is why any energy plan must include drilling oil and more refineries to address short term issues (next 20 years). The alternative solutions will take time to get integrated into our society.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    Except that the negative impact of allowing more drilling and more refineries is that then we say "See? That is what we are spending our money on for the time being, and that is what we are doing to solve the energy crisis" and then we do NOTHING. ELSE. AT ALL.

    When the oil supply jolts of the 70s came along, we did nothing at all to plan for our energy future or protect ourselves from the whims of OPEC etc. Do you really want that to be our only reaction AGAIN this time?

    It is time to diversify, not intensify our production of one fuel, ESPECIALLY not the one that has got us in so much trouble here.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • nortsr1nortsr1 Posts: 1,060
    Well, what you say is true, howver; if we would have started drilling back in the 70's
    (off shore, Artic, etc.) we sure as he-- wouldn't have to be as dependent on all those foreign countries that LOVE us, as much as we are dependent on them now. Let's at least start drilling...even though I read that it wouldn't change the course of are dependency on the LOVE countries for at least ten or more years. We will ALWAYS need oil...why not get and use our own!!!! Let's get the ball rolling. We already missed the boat a long time ago and still haven't learned our lesson!!!!!
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    keeps trumpeting the fact that oil companies already have unused leases on 60 million acres of land. I guess some are saying the oil companies should drill those lands before they are allowed to drill in other places. How come the oil companies aren't doing that already?

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    I would guess that if the oil companies have oil that they aren't extracting, it is because at current prices they can buy it more cheaply elsewhere. We have plenty of oil; it is cheap oil we lack.
  • Stever@EdmundsStever@Edmunds YooperlandPosts: 38,916
    Plus there aren't enough rigs around and there haven't been for years. Now there's a shortage of drilling ships.

    Tap existing land leases before drilling offshore (Island Packet)

    Back in the 70's we started the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That's just crude - there's not much gas or diesel or heating oil stored in the US.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    it will be cheaper for oil companies to explore new areas underwater at the edge of the continental shelf than to just exploit the on-land leases they already have? I find that a little hard to believe.

    I think it likely that the reality is that both represent very expensive oil, which is no solution to the oil price problem, obviously.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • lemmerlemmer Posts: 2,676
    I suspect you are right about offshore drilling being similarly expensive, but the psychological effect of allowing offshore drilling might scare off some of the silly speculators pushing up the price.
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    has announced they are dumping all their big engines in favor of smaller turbos, across the board, to be fully implemented by 2010: newsletter01

    I'm still holding my breath waiting for some automaker, ANY automaker, to announce a major program of weight reduction, to help comply with the new standards...

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • fintailfintail Posts: 32,887
    Does that headline reflect what was really said? I think it means MB will have a turbo in each "class" by then, not to drop all existing non-turbo engines. Still interesting.

    I think we'll see significant car weight reduction about as soon as we see people weight reduction.
Sign In or Register to comment.