Gas mileage plan for 2016 = death of rotary?
 

It seems that the plan states by 2016 all new passenger vehicles must do 39+ mpg...I dont know all the details, just what I read in small newspaper article today. Guess Mazda can quit designing that hydrogen powered rotary now lol...

Lulz... repost.

Thanks, much clearer article there, than what I saw. Dont think i could ever drive a piston engine again :) Dont know how Id survive.

Dont worry. By the time 2016 comes Mazda will have killed the rotary anyway.

How dare you.

Blasphemy!

I don't think there is anything to worry about. If a car can't meet the MPG they will just put a gas guzzler tax on it and make money that way.
Do you think the Presidential Limo can get 39 mpg. I don't.

hELL NO...THAT THING IS A TANK, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING HEAVIER THEN I Would of SAID "THAT"

I vote for hybrid renesis

Yeah, hydrogen renesis ftw.

By 2016 everyone will have a few plug-in cars on the block anyway and they'll be selling.

With USA unemployment in the 9 point range and a global recession, who really thinks $2.50 gas will be around much longer? Once the economy is restored we'll see gas double in price, and that will be long before 2016.

well it's a 50/50 chance cause you can only be president for 4 years after that hopefully he doesn't get re-elected and we can keep our rotary's :lol: im gonna keep my baby forever and baby it. lol

Regardless of how much electrical cars progress in the next few years, if a few million of them hit the streets we would see huge problems with our electrical structure.

California, for example, is already stressed to the max with electrical output. They import more electrical power than any other state in the country. Add a ton of plug in cars and you have yourself a serious problem.

With the possible cap and trade legislation, there's a serious risk coal power plants will be put out of business cause operational costs will skyrocket. With people afraid of Nuclear power there's few alternatives.

The fact is these pie in the sky environmental movements don't take into account real world impact.

Look at the news about ethanol! We've been using E10 for quite a long time and only now are people starting to report about how it does NOTHING for the environment and in fact probably pollutes more than it doesn't.

Biofuels, same deal. You do not burn your food for fuel!

This CAFE standard change will be the same thing. If it stays in place you'll see American muscle cars vanish and prices of remaining vehicles skyrocket.

I do fear, however, that if the rotary survives past 2016 that it will not be sold in the United States.

Oh how I fear that aswell. It'll be the 96+ 3rd gen rx-7s all over again. But if it does happen, I'll just turn this 8 into a full blown track car. Then I can pollute all I want there :)

As long as our cars survive until then, we might have free emission.... and our car's value might appreciate.....

You can pollute all you want on the street with the accessPORT.

Ask me how I know. :lol::lol::lol:

I'm not a proponent of pollution although I'm not a believer in anthropogenic global warming either. As much as I suspect our leaders have agendas beyond those on the surface (Mostly money driven), I still think that great good can be derived from their misplaced legislation and mandates(I guess I tend toward a positive attitude). I truly hope all goes well with the introduction of more rotaries because I'm a HUGE rotary supporter. If Mazda can make that happen and cleaner with lower emissions at the same time then FANTASTIC.

I look at intentions vs outcomes and see great folly often: The renesis sends it's unburnt hydrocarbons around again for a planned eventual more complete burn. The design often according to conditions retains a lot of carbon and builds it up in the engine itself which affects the life and performance of the unit. In order to regain some performance we are told to induce some special decarbonizer that appears to bring out a great portion of the same said pollutants that you were trying to avoid, into the atmosphere all at once.

A four seater rotary should be a hybrid for the torque requirment to overcome weight and help with improved mileage. A two seater needs to be light as hell (How light is hell?) and NA affordable with a premium FI version.

My 2 or 3 cents.

Paul.

36MPG is not necessarily for pollution purposes. It's to lower our independence on oil. Every thing is derived from the gallon of gasoline. The rotary is already a proven hydrogen vehicle (although current performance on those is minimal). If anything, I think it will drive the technology forward.

This may not be the easy route, but I think it's the smart route for America and the world.

It's not that either. There are many locations of crude and alternative oil sources (eg. shale) that have been put out of bounds by the government. This is a way to kill the automobile as we know it.
Where is the report that government is going to reduce their energy consumption? There isn't one. Just like taxes, government consumption of energy will continue to go up while we the people will have to conserve (sacrifice). No political parties were named in this post as to not violate the rules and it mostly applies to both political parties anyway.

How about this; Obama (and 99% of politicians in general) do not PLAN anything. They throw ideas around, write bills they do not read, vote on them, and we all suffer the consequences. Even where a situation has no need for manipulation, they screw with it anyway.

Obama has no fuel economy "plan" just as Bush was accused of not having an "exit strategy". Why is Obama never pressed by the news media for the details of his "plans"? 'Cuz he never has any. Obama shoots his mouth off to placate the sheeple and appease his electorate but never follows through or reveals the machinations of his "plans".

Besides, where does the Constitutional authority exist for anything our federal government does these days?

Interstate Commerce Clause is in the US Constitution. That is used as the excuse to regulate everything.

Erroneously, so as well. Even our current Supreme Court sometimes wakes up and reigns in the universal manner in which the Feds use any clause they can as an excuse for Totalitarianism. Take a look at "US v. Lopez" as it regards guns on school property and the ICC.

The ICC is only intended to ensure that each state does not erect physical borders of their own and harrass the concept of interstate commerce. The classical definition of the term "regulate" has been frustrated by modern politics, too.

I was waiting for the Great Philosopher to chime in. :)

Lemme know when he shows up, willya?

Oh don't discredit yourself. Anyone that has had a conversation with you about politics/law knows how smart you are. I been there.

because of Obama everyone is gonna be driving Prius' .....

"GO GREEN!" ..... whatever that only green that i care about is the green in my wallet

Here's what is funny about people who drive those and the Honda hybrids; I get passed on the freeway by those guys all the time and I drive +5 over the speed limit. So much for energy conservation. More like human vanity.

Them smart cars are pretty neat. Drop a gas sipping Hayabusa motor in it and it's the next best thing to the 8. Different administrations will look at other ways to better the pollution issue. I don't think 35mpg cars are it though.

It all started with the US Civil War (what was civil about it?). The national government has been taking over more responsibility for regulating our lives. The country would have been better off if the South would have conquered the North in some ways (worse in others, this is about states rights and limiting federal rule). Slavery, the reason most historians have given for the war, would have died off in a generation or two due to mechanization of farming.

Some of the most aggressive drivers are driving those cars. I've noticed the same thing.

Political threads ftw?

So we don't like Obama now because of an energy policy that is finally being developed? I'll keep it light here but come on. The conspiracy theories are exceptionally written and well thought out...but this policy is the end of the stupid dumb Hummers, Ford F650's, Excursions and other vehicles that have no place in a country with a declining economy and fossil alternatives.

I don't believe the rotary will fall because of this. Plus...we wouldn't get as many cool ass toys from BHR to play with.

I didn't like Obama in the first place. Like I said, what EXACTLY is his policy? Obama exists in mere platitudes and bromides. Should anybody demand SUBSTANCE from the man he would crumble. Expect the rest of his term as Prez to be nothing more than a continuous political campaign.
Think conspiracies don't exist? Take a look at your own City Council.
The rotary engine has no political distinction from the vehicles you mentioned in your socio-economic context.

I define Political Posts as pitting one political parties views against the other. The U.S. is basically a two party system and third parties views don't count. Pitting Liberals verses Conservatives would fall into that category. Rants against the Federal government policies as being fair game (as long as party politics aren't brought up). This is an automotive forum. More latitude would be allowed when it is in that context.

Anyone else hear that huge can of worms that just opened? People are going to diagree because a matter of opinion and what some call misleading facts. The oil issue regarding the big diesel truck/hummers have long been discussed before Obama. is I think it is coming to light more now then before is in part of the Obama administration and because of the struggling economy.

If only the two major political parties actually HAD conflicting philosophies that define their platforms, America may have a choice regarding their elected representatives. Once Americans come this conclusion, a third party will have an opening to actually be considered a "second party" and possibly achieve the poilitical legitimacy they seek. Of course, I am not including the science of politics and the FEC's regulatory rules regarding same (and for a reason).

I just want to be able to drive what i want to drive ........ Not what politicians want me to drive .

If people can afford to drive a big gas guzzling vehicle then they should have the right to. It is often needed for jobs/hobbies/lots of kids. There's also the safety argument. You might as well call smartcars coffins with wheels.

I think the 39 mpg standard is a good thing just like putting the fat and calories on the menu at restaurants. It's going to raise the bar for auto makers to come up with new solutions for making power with better fuel economy. Sure people want giant SUVs but no one wants 15 mpg. If you could have the same SUV with the same power and 39 mpg you'd be ecstatic!

Look how far we've come in the power department in 10 years? Most cars have doubled their output per liter including the rotary. Remember when a 2.8 liter v6 got 128hp (z24cavlier in the '80's), then 170hp (VW 90's). Now they're in the 250hp range. If we can get the power we can get the fuel economy. It's a win for consumers all the way around in my mind. Sure car companies are going to have to invest and innovate but ultimately we'll have better vehicles for it.

I'm all for having a car with a small hybrid motor so I can creep along in traffic on electric power only and turn the car off at a stoplight. How much better would the gas mileage be on our 8's if we could augment the city driving with an electric motor. And how much better would the low end torque be if we could have a 20hp electric motor kick in from 0-5Krpm. We'd be getting 25mpg and 0-60 times sub 6 second!

I say bring it and see what our great car companies can really do!

Sure, Advancement of technology is great but not when it's jammed down our throats. If they can make it happen WITHOUT TAXING ME MORE and without causing Mazda to end production of the RX-8 then cool, do it.

Then make your choice and buy one. Thats the American Way. Being forced upon us isn't.

Basically I don't want the Governments priorities lowering my quality of life. I work hard for my quality of life.

Your analogy doesn't work because mandating fuel economy would be analgous to the government MANDATING fat content in foods served/sold.

Then let the free-market decide what is valuable to them and what isn't. Our Constitutionally-limited Republic is not equipped to enhance the free-market by their own involvment.

If central-planning (i.e. Socialism) worked America would have faded away long ago under the competition of political phiosophies.

Yes I understand that my analogy is government mandate vs. people making informed decision. My point is that in both cases it's going to drive innovation and raise the level of products being offered and the industry doesn't want it.

My stance on free market vs. goverment regulation is: markets are reactive and the government should be pro-active. This past year was proof of how reactive our free market is and what can happen if there are no rules to the game.

I tend to agree that legislation is generally not well thought out or understood by the government. I think they should set the rules and let businesses figure out how to meet them through innovation.

You cannot make a valid point through a flawed analogy.

Where is the flaw in allowing we who actually provide the products and services to the free-market to have our "fingers on the pulses" of the buying public and address their concerns? I suppose BHR should have sat around and waited for the government to tell us it was okay to develop our coil kit, spacer plate, or anything else. From now on, BHR will wait until Obama tells us what to do next as regards product development. I just placed a call to the White House asking for guidance on midpipe development.

Again, you are mixing your concerns. First, you say that the markets are "reactive". To what? Then you say that governments "should" be proactive. In pursuit of what objective goal?

So the free-market pales incomparison to the innovation and genius of government? That "pro-active" government you are seeking already exists. It is called Statism.

The government has already established all the rules the markets need to guide their actions. Interestingly, but only to those who see the government as the paradigm, those who provide products and services are able to self-regulate through civil law and procedure.

Does this mean Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Maserati, Aston Martin, etc, will not be able to export cars to the US after 2016?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that the government tell you what to make or how to make it.

Also I would say you found a need and are doing a great job filling it with the excellent products and services you offer. But I would not call that and example of pro-active in the sense that I am talking about.

I think in the terms we are discussing the objective goal of government should be proactive in creating a marketplace that allows stable and consistent growth where businesses compete on an equal playing field with clear rules.

That requires some safety nets and incentives so that people can take risks and strike out in new directions and not worry that they could go bankrupt next week if they have a catastrophic injury or get pushed out of the industry by the big players due to preferential legislation. It also requires rules so that there is fair competition and companies aren't preying on each other and the people to make a quick buck. this takes out some of the more extreme cyclical nature of the market but in my experience extreme upswings have a portion that is artificial due to either market stupidity or plan old fraud. EG: '80s junk bonds, '90's tech bubble, '02 accounting scandals, '07 sub prime mortgage lending etc.

Show me where your proposed approach has ever worked.

Can anyone give a clear example of when so-called “free markets” caused a change for the better.


Nearly every change we've made as people has come from it being mandated by governments for various reasons [mostly about them staying in power], war, disease, disaster or people rioting in the streets or protesting.
The free market just finds ways to cash in on it.


No I'm a Communist or a Socialist but I refuse to buy into the political BS that keeps moving from party to the other every 4 to 8 years and I'll never “buy” the idea unregulated free markets as way to make everything better.

how about passing the law that ford has to stop using oil pans that rust... all the way through. or how about chevy come up with something other than a cavalier for an entry car? and chrysler uhhhh yeah enough said.... the euro car manufactuers seem to have thought ahead.... like a diesel jetta gets about the same as a prius or better but a jetta is still fun to drive and i can respect that.