GM: Emission law may hamper muscle cars

[David Louis Harter]

GM: Emission law may hamper muscle cars

But the Corvette's chief engineer says the 2009 Corvette ZR1 may be the last in a long tradition of Detroit performance cars, endangered by stronger federal fuel economy regulations and limits on carbon dioxide emissions.

[Mt. Mama]

GM: Emission law may hamper muscle cars

But the Corvette's chief engineer says the 2009 Corvette ZR1 may be the last in a long tradition of Detroit performance cars, endangered by stronger federal fuel economy regulations and limits on carbon dioxide emissions.
Another era being tossed by the wayside...:(

[505]

I did a little reading about this, and as an ex mechanic I do
have some thoughts.
The only part of the actual legislation I read about was the
following line:
"The legislation requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency
by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by
2020."

I read that sentence many times. I am still not sure exactly
what that means.

There is always room for improvement, however a 40% increase
will not be possible using todays automobile designs. I am not a
person who believes in the 200 MPG carburator. I have seen
hydraulic powered vehicals that got around 120 MPG, in the
preliminary testing. I guess what I am trying to say is there is only
so much power you can pull from a drop of fuel. I believe to
achieve a 40% increase in "economy" it would take much much
smaller and lighter cars, or magic.
At this time on a normal cruise down the highway through electronic
computer controls and a variety of sensors GM computers are running
the engine on a 14.7 to 1 fuel mixture. That is ideal pricision amounts
of fuel. Most of these Automobile computers are able to check its
inputs and adjust its outputs many thousands of times per second.
Unfortunately SUV's will be next. the government believes there are
some people who really need an SUV, they feel it is wrong for the
remainder, who "do not need to be driving an SUV" who are irresposibly
wasting fuel. There are plans to "Legislate out" SUV's.

[Mt. Mama]

.
Unfortunately SUV's will be next. the government believes there are
some people who really need an SUV, they feel it is wrong for the
remainder, who "do not need to be driving an SUV" who are irresposibly
wasting fuel. There are plans to "Legislate out" SUV's.


"BIG BROTHER" can kiss my hiney! I drive what I have available to me and darn lucky to be able to pay all the fees levied already (repairs, smog, license, registration, insurance, etc.) for what is supposed to be my RIGHT to begin with!

Anyone else feel like joining me in that "Alices' Restaurant refrain...I wanna kill...kiLL...KILL!" Stinkin' meally-mouthed bureaucrats anyways! :mad:

[505]

It seems to me that you would fall into the catagory of
the people who need SUV's. Considering the roads you travel.
Any Who ?

[Mt. Mama]

It seems to me that you would fall into the catagory of
the people who need SUV's. Considering the roads you travel.
Any Who ?
It would seem so, but it's been my experience with different branches of "Big Brother Bureaucracy" over the years, that they just make up the rules to suit their purpose for the moment. It doesn't matter what the "Law" says, they twist and contort it to their liking and benefit. And if you can't muster up the money (and they already know you can't) for a high-powered attorney to handle your business, your done! You stand about as much chance of winning as a snowball does of staying frozen in the Mojave Desert on the hottest day of the year!

I have learned over the years that when some "Meally-Mouth" claims something is supposed to benefit the "people", you might just as well interprit it to say, "Well, this new legislation is probably going to be harsh on most people, but it MAY accidently help a few. More importantly we (the government officals) will have more control and more bucks in our pockets."

As you might expect, I don't trust the government to do anything that is beneficial for any of us "peons". I only expect them to "pee-on us" every chance they get. That way, it's never a surprise when it happens.

[Dirtyshirt]

..........."The legislation requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency
by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by
2020."

I read that sentence many times. I am still not sure exactly
what that means..................

There is always room for improvement, however a 40% increase
will not be possible using todays automobile designs................I guess what I am trying to say is there is only
so much power you can pull from a drop of fuel.........

It's absolutely obtainable by 2010.

First, what we have is the usual Detroit automakers whineing about any change that exposes them as laggards

Second, we're talking (CAFE) Corporate Average Fuel Economy. That means GM can build a couple of cardboard vehicles in it's line up that can get 50mpg to raise it's average. It doesn't even matter if these models sell or not. Then they can still produce 18mpg SUV's.

Third, an immediate 30% increase can be had with Diesel power. You can get more power from a drop of Diesel then you can from a drop of gasoline, especially E85.

Three years in development to 50 state legal in 2008.
Keep in mind this model is a 4600lb luxury vehicle that gets 32mpg.
To follow mid 2008 is the ML (SUV) bluetec that will get 25mpg.
Soon after is a 1.8 liter bluetec that will power the new C-class and get over 40mpg with phenomenal performance.

So you see, one car company will have a CAFE of 35mpg before 2010.
And I'll bet you this....there will be ample supplies of muscle. This motor has broken over 10 world records.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9Iki0-3_YI

Das beste oder nicht.:cool:

[505]

Thank you for clearing that up, your post answered my questions. Now I
understand it will be an illusion of, did you say 50MPG by 2008. Overall
however the rest of the line does not have to change much. Here is what
I was thinking.
Since the late 70's we have had some 35MPG,60-70HP cars around
and In the 70's We had a 69 Ford Bronco all I remember is that it
had an 8 cylinder engine. 289? That would be a 70's comparable SUV.
Our Bronco got at the most 18MPG,and perhaps 120HP. It is true that the
advent of the computer controls made engines MUCH cleaner at the exhaust
pipe, I have also noticed FAR less sludge and gunk in general collecting inside
the engines. I have also noticed that the average engine life increased
(possibly twofold), and the performance has also greatly increased, Now
we have 4 cylinder engines putting out 350HP. However from a fuel efficiency
point of view, the results have been far less dramatic. Since the 70's the SUV's
and say a ½ ton trucks have had an increased mileage of perhaps 22MPG.
This is my point of view, and it is centric to American cars.

Now if you look at the legislation requiring a 40% increase. From my point
of view, the high mileage cars stayed right around 35MPG, that is what I
get from my car, and the Lower MPG vehicles like the SUV's, or Trucks
get 22MPG. I thought they were talking about real numbers, not the
Illusion of a better product. So I was picturing a world where these numbers
actually exist. In that world, assuming you agree with my numbers of 35,
and 22MPG. Then Higher mileage cars would have to get 49MPG, and
the SUV's and Pickups would have to get 30.8MPG. That is what I saw as
unbelievable.
I have studied fuels quite a bit, In the California Clean Air Car Course at
Butte College (this class was after work at night, and it lasted all winter
and into spring). It is a fact that diesel fuel contains 35% more energy
potential, in fact in the mid 70's one of my Uncles bought a small diesel
4 door car (I dont remember the type) but he reported 50MPG.
So it may be true that all we have to do is switch over to diesel. It is
also my impression that more diesel fuel can be pulled from a
barrel of crude, than gasoline. If that is true then it would further benefit our
situation.
I watched that youtube commercial twice. I have no doubt that it is a
nice car and superior to American technology. I hope the world has not
come to the point that a decent car will cost you $52,325.

[505]

I had another thought.
We should also start taking a second look at
transmissions. I have read alot about real working
transmissions that are composed of two cones driving
each other, giving the driver much finer control of the
drivetrain design of today, that is based on the concept of
giving the driver different gears, first, second, reverse, all
these concepts can be thrown out the window, effectively
giving the driver, or perhaps just the computer, an infinite
gear ratio, even variable reverse speeds. I am sold on this
transmission design. I was just thinking about it and I
realized with that type of setup you could just set your
engine RPM's to whatever, then forget about the throttle
from that time on you control the speed and direction using
transmission settings, since your gear ratio is now "infinite".
the laws of physics would force limits of course. no matter
how you orient the cones to each other, you will have a
limit on both the lowest possible speed, and another limit
on the highest speed.
It is not the speed that interests me, what interests me is
I know from earlier training that you can keep a precise
idea on engine load by watching the manifold vacuum. To
get the best mileage out of a vehical like this would
require keeping the engine load within load limits, in other
words you keep the vacuum needle registering as high as
possible, or within set limits. A transmission of this design
would give us that type of control. Even I can see that this
"concept" vehical would be very hard for the average driver to
control. Some of the controls can be offloaded onto the cars
computer, which is already there. Then someone would have
to design some type of interface for driver controls. I do not
imagine an implanted interface, I mean a comfortable seat,
and all new but intuitive controls in front of you. With a
concept car like this, you could get better fuel economy
without doing anything to the engine, or fuel. However I would
think a deisel powerplant hooked to this type of transmission
would be best. :)

[David Louis Harter]

and In the 70's We had a 69 Ford Bronco all I remember is that it
had an 8 cylinder engine... Our Bronco got at the most 18MPG,


For the last 20 years, I drove a 1987 Dodge Ramcharger 4WD SUV. I bought it new, and when a valve went through a piston in 1997, I had an engine custom-built (CA smog legal). It was based on the original 360cid V8 but (within the limitations of the CA smog requirements) featured higher performance and improved fuel economy. It had 295 horsepower, a 3-speed automatic transmission, and averaged 10 MPG in the city and 12 MPG on the highway (with the cruise control engaged).
http://www.catechnologies.com/blog/rammmmm1.jpg

I sold the Ramcharger January 21, 2007. It now lives in Colorado.

On February 5, 2007, I bought a Dodge Nitro R/T. It has a 4.0L V6 engine that produces 265 horsepower, a 5-speed electronic automatic transmission, and averages 18.2 MPG in the city and 23.2 MPG on the highway (with the cruise control engaged). The Nitro R/T would easily eat the Ramcharger alive in a race. It has nearly the horsepower the Ramcharger has but weighs considerably less, and the 5-speed electronic automatic transmission is incredibly smooth and effective.

http://www.catechnologies.com/blog/mrnitroplate1s.jpg

[505]

I am an EFI fan (Electronic Fuel Injection).
And I continue to be amazed at how much horsepower they
gained. It used to be the horsepower was always less than
the CID now they have in some cases doubled. Amazing
General Motors had the "Quad 4" its a 1.4L straight four that
rivals a V-6 in almost everyway. They delivered this power at
the price of rapid engine wear, and did not last very long.
The V-6 gets my vote for the racecar engine of the future.

[David Louis Harter]

I am an EFI fan (Electronic Fuel Injection).
And I continue to be amazed at how much horsepower they
gained.

I agree. Additionally, EFI is significantly better suited to changes in temperature, humidity, altitude, and atmospheric pressure.

[Dirtyshirt]

......................................
So it may be true that all we have to do is switch over to diesel................It is
also my impression that more diesel fuel can be pulled from a
barrel of crude, than gasoline. If that is true then it would further benefit our
situation............................I hope the world has not
come to the point that a decent car will cost you $52,325.



Switching over to Diesel is only another step in many steps. Clean, high performance, lightweight, economical and practical Diesel technology has advanced to the point of being reasonable at this point and time. It's reasonable enough to replace an automibile that cost the same and got 30% less fuel economy.

Point is, is that in another six months from now it will offered in a $35,000 automobile and a $50,000 SUV.
VW has just purchased patents and will be offering a smaller displacement bluetec that will sell $25,000 and get 50+ mpg.
By the time Toyota or Honda copy the R&D, you'll have $18,000 blutec Civics getting 70mpg.

Another point you may have missed. The emisions are ultra-low, 5star. The bluetec's catalyst is new technology not used before. The design and materials have changed. and the end product has been chemically altered.
Bluetech gets it's name from a blue solution that is injected into the catalyst. The solution required is very little. As I know now this solution is kept in a 3 liter plastic tank under the hood and lasts 15,000 miles.
The solution is highly available and therefore very cheap.
At least it should be, even though it is industrial, processed, urea........or in otherwords piss.

Ultimately my biggest point is that things seem to be available as costs and acceptance change.

E85 or 85% methanol and 15% ethanol, also known as todays "regular" has burdened our food supply so that both food and fuel have increased in price.
E85 is far more expensive then Diesel in those terms.

Ten years from now another set of hurdles will come and the machine grinds on. We are on the cusp of some very radical change as far as our enegy consumption goes.

[505]

processed urea, could this mean a special ammonia is one
of the catalysts?

[Dirtyshirt]

I like the Nitro David, but I think I'll stick to my muscle car.

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb222/Skinnywater_photos/000_0014.jpg

[David Louis Harter]

I like the Nitro David, but I think I'll stick to my muscle car.


Sweet! That must get some amazing mileage. :haha:

[charger]

GM: Emission law may hamper muscle cars

But the Corvette's chief engineer says the 2009 Corvette ZR1 may be the last in a long tradition of Detroit performance cars, endangered by stronger federal fuel economy regulations and limits on carbon dioxide emissions. we can not have that there just starting to get better ..
dang dang dang ..:eek: