Sorry if this is posted somewhere else. Just wanted a lighthearted discussion of what you guys thought about the future of automobiles and what things like these CAFE standards might to. How drastic they are, too drastic? Not enough? Things of this nature.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/05/17/m...utomakers-don/

 

Not a fan of CAFE. Have no issue with making cars more fuel efficient and would rather have (God forbid) staggered taxes on gas over the coming years to "adjust" market demand for fuel efficient vehicles. And besides I'm sure CAFE and CARB will continue to set their own separate standards . . . .

 

Not a fan of any CAFE. When gas hits $6.00 your wallet will decide what ^car you want to drive. Let the markets decide. If US consumers can't afford to buy gas for their cars they will adjust.

Of course this relies on the open free trade of petroleum which doesn't exist. So the answer is?

 

The only reason the poll shows people approving of a 60mpg CAFE is that they don't tell them the reality.
If you want 60mpg fine...
They didn't tell them that means a 3200lbs. sedan that goes 0-60 in over 10sec.
The new diesel VW Jetta is EPA rated 42 highway @0-60 in 8.3 sec.
60mpg EPA rating would mean using a slower smaller engine.
To get to a CAFE of 60mpg you would need a fleet of even slower cars than that.

 

Admirable. If stupid.

CAFE has done more to make the cars we drive, even these V8 Mustangs, much better at not wasting the fuel.

The problem is when you have to have all the luxuries like power windows, locks, seats, brakes, and air conditioning, as well as have the required safety features such as airbags, antilock brakes, crumple zones, 5MPH bumpers... All of which add weight.

Then you kowtow to the people who, like a lot of us, refuse to accept anything other than a v8 or v6. "Four Cylinder?! That's not 'merican!"

And one wonders how we keep adding to Big Oil's bottom line.

I'm all for it.

Except I know it's impossible.

So it's stupid to even bring it up. Silly lawmakers.

/says the man driving the 2006 V8 Mustang GT.

 

Heh, loved the Jetta TDI nutswinger in the replies below.

 

NVM....

 

I liked this one...

 

After spending past few weeks in Europe, I gotta say I'm pretty impressed with diesels.
Before purchasing my Golf, I thought that there is no way 100 hp would be enough. But after driving it ... High torque is at low RPMs that I'm not seeing any difference in city driving between Golf diesel and my Mustang.
So far I'm averaging about 45 mpg in 90% city driving (and much better on highway) and like I said, it's not any different than driving a Mustang in city driving except I'm getting much better fuel economy. I'm impressed.

62 mpg might be little too much, but I would't mind seeing 45-50 mpg standards.

 

Diesels are pretty good but two of the biggest stumbling blocks to getitng diesels in masse in the US are fuel supply and pollution requirements, the latter really bumping costs for a diesel here. The US could give them a break on pollution standards to keep diesel purchase prices down but thats just getting ahead in one area (reduced fuel consumption) at the expense of another (air quality) or put another way, how many people do you justify killing through poor air quality just make cheap diesels available in an effort to trim our national fuel consumption.

 

Europe approved diesels so I don't see what the problem is with the USA.
Considering sizes of engines in the USA, I don't think air quality is an issue. I mean, there is no way a 5.0L in the Ford F-150 (the most common vehicle in the USA) can pollute less than a typical European diesel (under 2.0L).

 

This is kind of what I am thinking. Doesn't Audi have some insanely clean diesels to boot? Here in the U.S.? Now I know that diesel isn't thought of very highly here as it is in even South America. But maybe it should be. Opel has a sweet pair of racing diesel prototypes that get about 100 mpg. I could be waaaay off on that number but it is pretty high.

There is another thought I had after reading this article about the more common uses of aluminum and even carbon fiber in vehicles. Maybe it's time we streamlined the use of lighter weight components here that are just as strong. The higher the usage the lower the price. Just like anything else mass produced. I know that the safety ratings really are a good thing and keeping people safe is a good thing. This is where it gets tough. The car companies didn't had weight to the cars to make them safer, they just made the car safe and just so happened to add weight. Size is a big issue too. My Civic is roughly the size of the last generation Accord. Just a bit smaller but on the inside almost the same exactly. Something has to give here. We have to figure out how to make smaller packaging, good interior room and be safe. This is where the lighter weight components kick in.

Another thought I had about economy friendly fuel mapping. Practically every car is run by a computer. There is a computer for a bajillion sensors on the car. I don't see why most cars can't have a de-tuned Eco button like the CR-Z. It may not help a lot but it's an easy thing to do. Think about having a GT with an Eco mode that efficiently delivers 325 Hp. Then switch to Sport or Boss mode depending on the car and instantly back up into the 412+ Hp range. It's just a generalization, don't kill me on the small details here. But essentially the CR-Z could almost be a better hybrid without the hybrid systems. Take out the weight and add a more powerful and efficient engine (i.e. not necessarily fuel mileage efficiency but engine efficiency) get a good gearing set up and voila, a sporty and efficient car. No, it isn't the fastest but it'd be faster than my Si and most places I drive I can't even get into all the power my 335i has. This isn't to say I don't want all that power, I do, it's intoxicating. But my Civic does a good job of getting out of its own way.

I have read the comments about how 20 years ago we were doing 50+ mpg with carbs and early FI systems. Well, if you want to drive an 80Hp Omni again, then fine, we'll go there. We'll also implement the 55 mph speed limits and gears to accompany the new speeds. In that case we could currently get about 45+ mpg in just about every 4 cylinder car on the market. Engines now are really efficient. Not perfect but pretty darn efficient compared to yesteryear. These earlier cars were fairly small and fairly light as well. Many poorly designed and hard to work on. While air bags help the weight, the girth is from size and extra sheet metal with new vehicles.

It's not that I don't think that high overall mpg ratings can't happen. There are just some numbers that aren't realistic. Of course, wouldn't everyone like to get 60 mpg? Yes. But to mandate an overall fleet-wide average, near impossible. Trucks just have too much weight and a lot working against them. Cars make it a lot more possible but there are many hoops that I think the general populace has no idea have to be gone through in order to make this happen. Looks like times will revert back to the days of the garage queen again. I know I will never be able to daily drive the next performance vehicle I buy but that doesn't mean it won't stop me from having it. Excessive, yeah, probably.

 

That "news story" is nothing but a propaganda piece. I wrote an article about it on another car site...

http://www.politicsandcars.com/blog/...-is-propaganda

 

The problem isn't so much CO2 (22.2 lbs/gal diesel and 19.4 lbs/gal gasooline), Its NOx (oxides of nitrogen) and soot (DEP or diesel exhuast particulates) which is much higher than in a comparable gasoline burning engine and thats why the EPA is requiring additional pollution control systems on diesels (urea injection and a particulate trap) In order for a diesel to meet the same standards as a gasoline engine. Otherwise that diesel engine produces about twice the particulate emissions of a comparable gasoline engine over the operating range.

The problem with the additional pollution control systems is increasing the price of an already expensive engine option which may or may not be offset by fuel savings over the life of the vehicle not to mention in the case of urea injection, yet another maintenece item since it has to be replenished.

 

There's more to it than just vehicle fuel consumption and emissions. One needs to factor in "well-to-wheels" emissions for each fuel.

"According to USEPA, gasoline produces 8788 grams of CO2 per gallon, while diesel produces 10,084 grams of CO2 per gallon. HOWEVER, according to a Toyota study (and Toyota could hardly be called a big diesel proponent), refining gasoline produces 427 grams MORE CO2 equivalent (CO2e includes other greenhouse gases such as methane and N2O) than the refining of diesel fuel (ULSD), so in effect diesel produces more CO2e per gallon WTW than gasoline but the margin is smaller than what is contained in the fuel itself.

A MIT study calculated that there are 564 grams more CO2e per gallon of gasoline produced in the refining process than is produced by refining diesel fuel (ULSD). "

Furthermore, don't be surprised when future DI gasoline engines have some sort of selective catalyst systems installed similar to the DPF systems found on current, modern diesel engines.

 

You are not worried about the higher HC and CO emissions of gassers?!

In fact, the current "clean diesel" vehicles currently available in the U.S. easily meet even the stricter PM standards proposed in LEV III by CARB.

It's the GDI vehicles that will have a difficult time meeting those standards, if they're ever promulgated, at least without particulate filters. The proposal is to lower the PM mass emission standard from the current 0.01 g/mi (LEV II and Tier 2) to 0.006 g/mi in 2014 and 0.003 g/mi in 2017 under LEV III.

One of the few gas vehicle emissions certification sheets in which CARB includes the actual certified PM emissions is the VW CC and Eos. Both have a 2.0 turbocharged GDI engine with certified PM emissions of 0.004 g/mi ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/...290_2d0_pz.pdf ). Note that these vehicles are categorized as "PZEV" - the "best" emissions category currently available under LEV II.

However, this vehicle would not meet the proposed 2017 emission standard of 0.003 g/mi. Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) conducted tests on a GDI vehicle which showed that the vehicle was able to meet the 2014 limit on two of three fuels tested, but was unable to meet the 2017 limit on any of the fuels tested.

For reference, the 2011 BMW 335d has certified PM emissions of 0.000 g/mi ( http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/..._l2_diesel.pdf ), and the BMD X535d has certified PM emissions of 0.001 g/mi, both easily below even the 0.003 g/mi proposed for 2017.

 

I hadn't considered well to wheel Marz but its a good point, still diesels without a particulate filter would effect the immediate air quality at ground level and IIRC as a greenhouse pollutant, its about six times more effective than CO2. The big issue with particulates still isn't its greenhouse effect, soot produced by the engine acts like a sponge and soaks up various pollutants along the exhaust path and thats the air quality issue that is hurting people and why the EPA is pushing hard to reduce particulate emissions.


Thats interesting and I'm guessing that going to LEV III will phase out port injected engines completely?


Sounds like PTOX for everybody then by 2017

I see with the aforementioned PTOX (particulate trap)