GM: Emission Law may hamper muscle cars
12-21-2007, 11:48 PM
#1
Soon to be born.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: AC<-->NYC
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM: Emission Law may hamper muscle cars
DETROIT - When General Motors Corp. pulls the cover off a new supercharged version of the Corvette at the Detroit auto show next month, it will unveil a performance car designed to rival or better even the fastest, most expensive exotic cars from Europe.
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.
"High-performance vehicles such as this may actually be legislated out of existence," Tadge Juechter said at a recent showing of the ZR1, which is designed to have around 620 horsepower.
President Bush on Wednesday signed into law legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it "a major step" toward energy independence and easing global warming.
The legislation requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
But Juechter said to sell one of the Chevrolet supercars, GM would need to offset that with cars that get 45 mpg.
"It could really be an endangered species," he said.
Aaron Bragman, an auto analyst with the consulting firm Global Insight, said predicting the death of the muscle car might be premature.
The Corvette, he said, is fuel efficient when compared with its competitors. Although fuel economy figures weren't released for the ZR1, the current 505-horsepower Corvette ZO6 gets an estimated 15 mpg in the city and 24 on the highway, according to GM.
The ZR1, he said, gets around the same mileage as a Chevrolet pickup truck, and GM won't be getting out of the pickup business because of gas mileage standards.
"I think it's a little over-dramatization," Bragman said. "GM wants to sell big, high-performance, fun cars. And typically that's what Americans want to buy."
Performance cars of the future may be powered by smaller engines or electric motors, he said, but they won't die.
The ZR1 will have a top speed of more than 200 mph, driven by an all-new supercharged 6.2-liter V-8 engine. It has 19-inch front and 20-inch rear wheels and a suspension tuned to provide extraordinary cornering grip, GM said.
The car has a carbon-fiber hood, fenders and roof for weight savings, and its huge carbon-ceramic brake rotors give it great stopping power, the company said.
The ZR1 will cost around $100,000 and probably will go on sale next summer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340556/?GT1=10645
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.
"High-performance vehicles such as this may actually be legislated out of existence," Tadge Juechter said at a recent showing of the ZR1, which is designed to have around 620 horsepower.
President Bush on Wednesday signed into law legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it "a major step" toward energy independence and easing global warming.
The legislation requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020.
But Juechter said to sell one of the Chevrolet supercars, GM would need to offset that with cars that get 45 mpg.
"It could really be an endangered species," he said.
Aaron Bragman, an auto analyst with the consulting firm Global Insight, said predicting the death of the muscle car might be premature.
The Corvette, he said, is fuel efficient when compared with its competitors. Although fuel economy figures weren't released for the ZR1, the current 505-horsepower Corvette ZO6 gets an estimated 15 mpg in the city and 24 on the highway, according to GM.
The ZR1, he said, gets around the same mileage as a Chevrolet pickup truck, and GM won't be getting out of the pickup business because of gas mileage standards.
"I think it's a little over-dramatization," Bragman said. "GM wants to sell big, high-performance, fun cars. And typically that's what Americans want to buy."
Performance cars of the future may be powered by smaller engines or electric motors, he said, but they won't die.
The ZR1 will have a top speed of more than 200 mph, driven by an all-new supercharged 6.2-liter V-8 engine. It has 19-inch front and 20-inch rear wheels and a suspension tuned to provide extraordinary cornering grip, GM said.
The car has a carbon-fiber hood, fenders and roof for weight savings, and its huge carbon-ceramic brake rotors give it great stopping power, the company said.
The ZR1 will cost around $100,000 and probably will go on sale next summer.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22340556/?GT1=10645
12-22-2007, 12:23 AM
#2
3-wheeler
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 2,734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we're going to see the death of the sports car, but figures are showing that the new energy legislation with the fuel mileage increases will add an average of $15,000 onto the price of a new car by the 2020 deadline.
The 35 MPG limitation only applies to a fleet average, but it means that a manufacturer will have to provide several high mileage vehicles to sell one or two lower mileage types. The loser here is going to be the customer because the choices for performance cars will go way down. Instead of a half a dozen you might have 2 or 3 at the most.
Still, the whole point behind the energy bill is to help limit the amount of imported oil the US uses. The issue is unlike other produced products, oil can be easily controlled during extraction to control the amount of supply on the market. The ONLY reason that we have not been paying $100 a barrel is because it's a constant test of the world market to see what people are willing to pay for.
I can promise you that if OPEC knew the world would pay $150 a barrel for light crude that they would charge it tomorrow. The issue is finding that tipping point where people would rather walk or avoid driving than pay for fuel.
Bottom line is this. The only way you will see any relief at the pump is by the US being allowed to explore and drill in offshore areas and places like Alaska. We are the ONLY country on the planet denying ourselves our own natural resources and the American people are paying a hefty price for it. Using less oil just means the cartels will decrease producion and drive up costs. Sure you might get 50 MPG in your hybrid but if you're paying $6 or $8 a gallon for gas then where is your savings and where is our energy independence?
Write or call your local congressman's office and tell them to stop putting pressure on the oil companies and the automakers and start drilling for our own oil.
Till then, costs of vehicles will skyrocket as automakers spend huge amounts of money on R&D and are forced to build cars with lightweight materials like fiberglass and carbon fiber to keep fuel economy as high as possible. Meanwhile this makes vehicles less safe and more prone to total destruction. Soon we'll have throw away cars like everything else in society.
The 35 MPG limitation only applies to a fleet average, but it means that a manufacturer will have to provide several high mileage vehicles to sell one or two lower mileage types. The loser here is going to be the customer because the choices for performance cars will go way down. Instead of a half a dozen you might have 2 or 3 at the most.
Still, the whole point behind the energy bill is to help limit the amount of imported oil the US uses. The issue is unlike other produced products, oil can be easily controlled during extraction to control the amount of supply on the market. The ONLY reason that we have not been paying $100 a barrel is because it's a constant test of the world market to see what people are willing to pay for.
I can promise you that if OPEC knew the world would pay $150 a barrel for light crude that they would charge it tomorrow. The issue is finding that tipping point where people would rather walk or avoid driving than pay for fuel.
Bottom line is this. The only way you will see any relief at the pump is by the US being allowed to explore and drill in offshore areas and places like Alaska. We are the ONLY country on the planet denying ourselves our own natural resources and the American people are paying a hefty price for it. Using less oil just means the cartels will decrease producion and drive up costs. Sure you might get 50 MPG in your hybrid but if you're paying $6 or $8 a gallon for gas then where is your savings and where is our energy independence?
Write or call your local congressman's office and tell them to stop putting pressure on the oil companies and the automakers and start drilling for our own oil.
Till then, costs of vehicles will skyrocket as automakers spend huge amounts of money on R&D and are forced to build cars with lightweight materials like fiberglass and carbon fiber to keep fuel economy as high as possible. Meanwhile this makes vehicles less safe and more prone to total destruction. Soon we'll have throw away cars like everything else in society.
12-22-2007, 09:48 AM
#4
.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Motorcity
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one would have been much happier with a large gas tax. Why should people that drive reasonable distances each year be limited by choice of vehicle? Who is the bigger user of natural resources, the Prius owner driving 25,000 miles a year or the ZO6 owner that drives 5,000 miles a year.
Tax the usage and people will use less. Those people with long commutes will buy more fuel efficient cars. Anyone who thinks the auto companies are going to be able to meet these new regs while still offering 300hp family sedans and thirsty sports coupes is in serious denial. Welcome back the 120hp family sedan with the 12 sec 0-60.
This guy from GM was just telling the truth.......even though no one wants to hear it.
12-22-2007, 10:26 AM
#5
Curves Ahead
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 145
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think we're going to see the death of the sports car, but figures are showing that the new energy legislation with the fuel mileage increases will add an average of $15,000 onto the price of a new car by the 2020 deadline.
The 35 MPG limitation only applies to a fleet average, but it means that a manufacturer will have to provide several high mileage vehicles to sell one or two lower mileage types. The loser here is going to be the customer because the choices for performance cars will go way down. Instead of a half a dozen you might have 2 or 3 at the most.
Still, the whole point behind the energy bill is to help limit the amount of imported oil the US uses. The issue is unlike other produced products, oil can be easily controlled during extraction to control the amount of supply on the market. The ONLY reason that we have not been paying $100 a barrel is because it's a constant test of the world market to see what people are willing to pay for.
I can promise you that if OPEC knew the world would pay $150 a barrel for light crude that they would charge it tomorrow. The issue is finding that tipping point where people would rather walk or avoid driving than pay for fuel.
Bottom line is this. The only way you will see any relief at the pump is by the US being allowed to explore and drill in offshore areas and places like Alaska. We are the ONLY country on the planet denying ourselves our own natural resources and the American people are paying a hefty price for it. Using less oil just means the cartels will decrease producion and drive up costs. Sure you might get 50 MPG in your hybrid but if you're paying $6 or $8 a gallon for gas then where is your savings and where is our energy independence?
Write or call your local congressman's office and tell them to stop putting pressure on the oil companies and the automakers and start drilling for our own oil.
Till then, costs of vehicles will skyrocket as automakers spend huge amounts of money on R&D and are forced to build cars with lightweight materials like fiberglass and carbon fiber to keep fuel economy as high as possible. Meanwhile this makes vehicles less safe and more prone to total destruction. Soon we'll have throw away cars like everything else in society.
The 35 MPG limitation only applies to a fleet average, but it means that a manufacturer will have to provide several high mileage vehicles to sell one or two lower mileage types. The loser here is going to be the customer because the choices for performance cars will go way down. Instead of a half a dozen you might have 2 or 3 at the most.
Still, the whole point behind the energy bill is to help limit the amount of imported oil the US uses. The issue is unlike other produced products, oil can be easily controlled during extraction to control the amount of supply on the market. The ONLY reason that we have not been paying $100 a barrel is because it's a constant test of the world market to see what people are willing to pay for.
I can promise you that if OPEC knew the world would pay $150 a barrel for light crude that they would charge it tomorrow. The issue is finding that tipping point where people would rather walk or avoid driving than pay for fuel.
Bottom line is this. The only way you will see any relief at the pump is by the US being allowed to explore and drill in offshore areas and places like Alaska. We are the ONLY country on the planet denying ourselves our own natural resources and the American people are paying a hefty price for it. Using less oil just means the cartels will decrease producion and drive up costs. Sure you might get 50 MPG in your hybrid but if you're paying $6 or $8 a gallon for gas then where is your savings and where is our energy independence?
Write or call your local congressman's office and tell them to stop putting pressure on the oil companies and the automakers and start drilling for our own oil.
Till then, costs of vehicles will skyrocket as automakers spend huge amounts of money on R&D and are forced to build cars with lightweight materials like fiberglass and carbon fiber to keep fuel economy as high as possible. Meanwhile this makes vehicles less safe and more prone to total destruction. Soon we'll have throw away cars like everything else in society.
Muscle cars will still be available, but they will cost more. Gas guzzler taxes or the necessity of higher profit margins on low mpg cars aren't going to hurt Corvette sales much, but they will make a mighty dent in attractiveness of the Camaro and Mustang.
Horsepower wars will give way to weight wars. Even though CAFE standards might kill the rotary, Mazda will excel at the weight game.
Lighter cars will be a lot safer when everyone is driving them.
Cars are already disposable. They are built to crumple. It costs about $1500 per airbag to put them back in. A three year old car in a 15 mph accident that pops a few airbags is totaled.
12-22-2007, 11:20 AM
#6
GM might do the same thing they did in the 70s, smother huge engines while everyone else makes more efficient ones. More likely they'll rebadge more Daewoos and sell them here.
12-22-2007, 11:23 AM
#7
Go Texas Longhorns!
i'm not worried about losing the "RX" cars or sports cars in general. In fact, CAFE works to our advantage b/c sports cars don't sell in enough volume to even really move the CAFE needle for most manufacturers
sports cars are going to get even lighter and more efficient in the future, win win.
I'm glad i'm not into SUVs they are going to get hosed. Hummer is going to be $%^# if they dont fall in love with diesel real quick
sports cars are going to get even lighter and more efficient in the future, win win.
I'm glad i'm not into SUVs they are going to get hosed. Hummer is going to be $%^# if they dont fall in love with diesel real quick
12-22-2007, 01:17 PM
#8
Soon to be born.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: AC<-->NYC
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea I don't see the muscle car dying off anytime soon. Maybe they'll have lesser power than before or maybe even have an electric motor like the Tesla Roadster for example. But I do see SUVs becoming extinct in the long run unless they start using diesel or going hybrid, but can you imagine a hybrid Hummer?
12-22-2007, 01:23 PM
#9
It's a Cavalier
Not as long as the ignorant public believes "I can see better because I'm higher" and "theyre much safer than small cars". People in general are stupid.
12-22-2007, 03:47 PM
#10
Grand Chancellor
meh... just adopt engine capacity taxes like Europe and Asia. Maybe then we will start to see "smart" muscle cars with efficient combustion engine designs instead of just dolloping more engine displacements.
Give incentive to smaller engine capacity cars. Works well with other countries. Why not us?
Give incentive to smaller engine capacity cars. Works well with other countries. Why not us?
12-22-2007, 11:20 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: First State
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
meh... just adopt engine capacity taxes like Europe and Asia. Maybe then we will start to see "smart" muscle cars with efficient combustion engine designs instead of just dolloping more engine displacements.
Give incentive to smaller engine capacity cars. Works well with other countries. Why not us?
Give incentive to smaller engine capacity cars. Works well with other countries. Why not us?
The Mazda RX-8 displaces ~1300ml, and gets 22mpg highway.
The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution displaces ~2200ml, and gets 23mpg highway.
The Chevrolet Corvette Z06 displaces ~7000ml, and gets 24mpg highway.
See what I mean?
12-23-2007, 12:32 AM
#12
You're comparing performance cars, which people will pay more for anyway.
Taxing on displacement like they do elsewhere is to make manufacturers develop better commuter cars. If we had that here there would still be muscle/sport cars, but not as many people buying SUVs and trucks.
Taxing on displacement like they do elsewhere is to make manufacturers develop better commuter cars. If we had that here there would still be muscle/sport cars, but not as many people buying SUVs and trucks.
Last edited by j_tso; 12-23-2007 at 12:55 AM.
12-23-2007, 08:00 AM
#14
07 6M Black
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Apopka, Fl
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not a huge fan of suv's. But they do usually rate safer in collisions than small cars. SUV has a head on collision with a small car, which vehilcle would you rather have your wife/child be in.
And they do have legitamate uses. Towing and hauling abilities that small cars will never have. Lots of room.
Some people may buy them just for a status symbol. Its a free market so I salute their right to do so. But thats not for me. After driving cars like the RX8 suv's feel like they have suspensions made of taffy and marshmallows. Most people are ignorant about the RX8. They assume it gets great gas mileage. I sort of look the other way and sheepishly reply "well,... not exactly" when people say this.
I get a little leery of letting the government have too much say in how we live our lives. After visiting the former Soviet Union (Ukraine to be exact) and seeing the results of "government knows best" I appreciate freedom even more. They just got rid of Big Brother (well, mostly). Why do we want to make the same mistakes. Socialism works great, if you are a colony of ants. Doesnt work with people. Compare the former West Germany to East Germany. Compare North Korea with South Korea.
Our public education system needs to spend less time on "politically correct topics de jour" and start teaching our children some recent history. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
And they do have legitamate uses. Towing and hauling abilities that small cars will never have. Lots of room.
Some people may buy them just for a status symbol. Its a free market so I salute their right to do so. But thats not for me. After driving cars like the RX8 suv's feel like they have suspensions made of taffy and marshmallows. Most people are ignorant about the RX8. They assume it gets great gas mileage. I sort of look the other way and sheepishly reply "well,... not exactly" when people say this.
I get a little leery of letting the government have too much say in how we live our lives. After visiting the former Soviet Union (Ukraine to be exact) and seeing the results of "government knows best" I appreciate freedom even more. They just got rid of Big Brother (well, mostly). Why do we want to make the same mistakes. Socialism works great, if you are a colony of ants. Doesnt work with people. Compare the former West Germany to East Germany. Compare North Korea with South Korea.
Our public education system needs to spend less time on "politically correct topics de jour" and start teaching our children some recent history. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
12-23-2007, 08:18 AM
#15
Bottom line is this. The only way you will see any relief at the pump is by the US being allowed to explore and drill in offshore areas and places like Alaska. We are the ONLY country on the planet denying ourselves our own natural resources and the American people are paying a hefty price for it. Using less oil just means the cartels will decrease producion and drive up costs. Sure you might get 50 MPG in your hybrid but if you're paying $6 or $8 a gallon for gas then where is your savings and where is our energy independence?
12-23-2007, 09:30 AM
#16
Registered
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats one of the worst comments I heard in awhile! LOL
I am sticking to the high tech rotary motor which has the same full economy, weighs the same as the V-8 motor, oh yeah.... just one small thing that I forgot to mention the V-8 motor has 3 times the Hp and 4 times the torque then the superior Rotary.
So yeah, good luck GM with selliing your technology in the 21th century!
12-23-2007, 10:55 AM
#18
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: First State
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope this inspires carmakers to bring some of the nice small cars from Europe and Japan. 70mpg VW Lupo TDi? Yes, please.
12-24-2007, 01:34 AM
#19
Super Moderator
How will this effect Marzda, I am surprised Brillo that your not worried about the Rotary's future, I for one would not like to see it extinct.
Will MNAO import the little Mazda 2 and would it lower their brands average, will it be enough to offset the Rotary?
RXLogic, I thought CAFE is Corporate Average Fuel Economy, not CO2.
Will MNAO import the little Mazda 2 and would it lower their brands average, will it be enough to offset the Rotary?
RXLogic, I thought CAFE is Corporate Average Fuel Economy, not CO2.
12-24-2007, 08:40 AM
#20
Registered
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hydrogen rotary anyone?
SUVs are going to get toasted big time. I have to admit that I really can't see why a lot of people get those things. A lot of them have no extremely limited to no off road capability, slow, and just straight heavy. I know there are some people who get them for big families (3+ kids) and the fact they have to move stuff alot and SUVs are good for that, but when I see people with a huge suburban and a 1 or 2 kids (in some cases no kids), it's like come on man. I understand if people just like them. Kind of like "we like rotaries". But seriously, at least we have specific reasons as to why we light our cars.
Maybe someone can help understand the SUV thing outside of actual needs of room and hauling (buy a Tundra).
SUVs are going to get toasted big time. I have to admit that I really can't see why a lot of people get those things. A lot of them have no extremely limited to no off road capability, slow, and just straight heavy. I know there are some people who get them for big families (3+ kids) and the fact they have to move stuff alot and SUVs are good for that, but when I see people with a huge suburban and a 1 or 2 kids (in some cases no kids), it's like come on man. I understand if people just like them. Kind of like "we like rotaries". But seriously, at least we have specific reasons as to why we light our cars.
Maybe someone can help understand the SUV thing outside of actual needs of room and hauling (buy a Tundra).
12-24-2007, 09:16 AM
#21
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Delaware
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting one half of GM would say that while the other half is rushing to put out the Volt. The reality is 2020 is a far way off and most manufacturers have already been working on alternatives(electric, hydrogen, etc.) GM is changing but the corporate culture is still one of sloth and name blaming instead of taking the lead like they did many years ago.
12-24-2007, 09:59 AM
#23
Lurker
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: N 01°21' E 103°59'
Posts: 353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, when the world oil reserves are almost exhausted, we'll be the only country with untapped oil reserves. At that point we can sell it at $500 a gallon and get back all the money we've sent to the middle east. Indoor ski resorts with real snow in the desert, here I come!
12-24-2007, 10:07 AM
#24
Its all about Style...
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South of Boston, MA
Posts: 3,337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just find it strange that the car manufacturers have had these high mileage cars over in Europe and have kept them away from us due to the fact they have said "There is no market for them in the US." but now they are for better or worse being forced by the Government to bring them over.
Do I like the way the Governement is making them bring them over, no I dont. Years ago they put the nail in the coffin in legistation that would give tax breaks to companies who produced gas saving vehicles (wish I could remember the name of it
) but since it was only the Japanese companies who at the time where researching them it again was burried/repealed and never brought back. Now they are passing laws to have these high mileage cars but without any kick backs from the government.
Overall be nice if we get access to cars that the rest of the world has had for years.
Do I like the way the Governement is making them bring them over, no I dont. Years ago they put the nail in the coffin in legistation that would give tax breaks to companies who produced gas saving vehicles (wish I could remember the name of it
) but since it was only the Japanese companies who at the time where researching them it again was burried/repealed and never brought back. Now they are passing laws to have these high mileage cars but without any kick backs from the government.Overall be nice if we get access to cars that the rest of the world has had for years.
12-24-2007, 11:11 AM
#25
Soon to be born.....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: AC<-->NYC
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the our future with cars is gonna feature biofuel, which is supposedly extremely fuel efficient and uses vegetable oil to make it. Let's see what happens.