backtop


Print 112 comment(s) - last by 91TTZ.. on Sep 6 at 11:52 AM

Infiniti will turn to turbocharged 4- and 6-cylinder engines, hybrids, full electrics

"And another one gone, and another one gone / Another one bites the dust"
 
Well, it looks as though the recently approved CAFE standards that aim to increase automobile fuel economy to 54.5mpg by 2025 have claimed another victim. Infiniti currently has V8 engine options available in its M luxury sedan, FX crossover, and QX sport utility vehicles, but that likely won't be the case in future iterations of those vehicles.
 
According to a report by AutoGuide, increasingly stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations mean that V8 engines are no longer on the table for Infiniti vehicles. V8 engines have traditionally been available in luxury vehicles as a symbol of prestige and power, but Infiniti will look to new ways to bring powerful engines to its lineup while still keeping fuel economy in check.
 
“I don’t think any car that is on Infiniti drawing boards from here onwards we should expect a V8 to be included in that plan,” Johan de Nysschen, Infiniti's global president.
 
Infiniti's 5.0-liter V8 produces 385hp, its 5.5-liter V8 produces 420hp, and its 5.6-liter V8 (truck-based) produces 400hp.


Infiniti to say good-bye to V8 engines
 
There are numerous directions that Infiniti can take with the absence of a V8 engine. Automakers like Ford already have twin-turbocharged V6 engines that develop 365hp while still delivering respectable fuel economy. Even Hyundai is rumored to be getting in on the action with a twin-turbocharged 3.3-liter V6 which generates 395hp.
 
For entry-level and mid-range models will also see a shift in available engines as well. Infiniti's current workhorse engine is the 3.7-liter “VQ” V6, but Nissan is also working on a turbocharged four-cylinder engine to deliver comparable power and vastly improved fuel economy.
 
Other options for Infiniti include fully electric vehicles (like the LE Concept) and additional hybrid models (we’re hoping that Infiniti delivers a production version of the Emerg-E).
 
Infiniti isn't the only luxury maker to drop a V8 engine from its lineup. When Lexus redesigned its mid-range GS sedan, it dropped the 4.6-liter V8 engine option and instead launched the vehicle with a 3.5-liter V6 and a 3.5-liter V6/performance hybrid model for those that want the power of a V8.

Source: AutoGuide



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Philippine Mango on 9/3/2012 11:28:21 PM , Rating: 1
In 1994, Lexus had the LS400 with a 4.0 liter V8 engine. If you want the "smoothness" that a V8 engine provides, they COULD just make a lower displacement engine. In my opinion, I think a 1.5-2.0L turbocharged inline 6 engine would be sweetness as it would provide the smoothness and balance of a V8 with the fuel economy of a 4 cylinder engine. The whole point of a V6 or V8 engine is for smoothness as you can easily make 4 liter 4 cylinder engine, it just wouldn't be smooth.




By FITCamaro on 9/3/2012 11:46:20 PM , Rating: 1
A 2.0L inline 6 would be pointless. Its too small an engine for that many cylinders.


By morgan12x on 9/3/2012 11:57:35 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. Having a larger number of cylinders with a smaller displacement just takes the efficiency in the wrong direction due to internal friction and such. Either you would need more revs (short stroke/small bore) or more torque (long stroke/small bore) but both result in crappy power bands. On the other hand, large displacement 4 cylinders can be efficient but I agree they aren't very smooth.


By Philippine Mango on 9/4/2012 12:10:25 AM , Rating: 3
But that is the case with any engine of a smaller displacement, regardless of the number of cylinders.


By BZDTemp on 9/4/2012 4:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
More cylinders = more moving parts = more friction


By alpha754293 on 9/4/2012 3:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
You'd be amazed in some of the advances of lubrication systems; especially when it comes to synthetic lubrications.

There ARE "liquid engineers" (typically ChemEng or material science grads with either a master's or a Ph.D.) where pretty much all they do is manipulate materials and refinement/production processes in order to get the desired qualities/properties.

Think of the development of Mobil1 and then multiply that by like...a thousand!

If they can prepreg a soldier armor with a CWA detector; I'm pretty sure that they do wonders for friction - especially once the engine gets upto temp. (Low temp is still a pain.)

You also have to remember that the other advances in the engine where it's nearly variable EVERYTHING; any excess parasitic friction losses could probably be compensated for just by fine adjustments of the engine running/operating parameters, especially when onboard computers become more and more powerful, so rather than storing large lookup tables, it can actually do all the calculations and adjustments on the fly.

And the "smoothness" of an engine also has a fair bit to do with HOW you drive (since engine controls are mostly REactive rather than PROactive).


By fsd on 9/5/2012 1:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
They are typically called tribologists.
http://www.stle.org/

One thing to note is the smaller engines reduce part count and can reduce vehicle size. Take Mercedes C series, it is still big enough to fit a large V8 as in the AMG series, but interior space is less than a Honda Civic. Of course the Civic engine bay will not fit anything bigger than a typical 4 cylinder engine, definitely no V8.


By michael67 on 9/4/2012 5:32:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
On the other hand, large displacement 4 cylinders can be efficient but I agree they aren't very smooth.

I drive a GS450h and i can say its a lot smoother then a GS350, next to that its got 10% extra HP and is 20% more efficient.

You can even have a smooth and quick ride in 2 cylinder car, just make it a hybrid.

I have a R33 and a 6L V12 XJS, and love those cars, and would like to drive them all the time.

But reality is, those days are over, so i drive Think City EV or motor +95% of the time and save about +80% of my petrol cost.
Properly more more if i would drive the Jag all the time, as it only dose 10/18 mpg city/highway, even less if i drive real sporty!^_^


By Alexvrb on 9/4/2012 11:46:58 PM , Rating: 2
Think City EV? Sir, I'll be needing your man card, also turn in the keys to your real cars. You need a man card to drive them - it's the law. Since you're so worried about the cost of petrol, you probably won't even miss them.


By michael67 on 9/5/2012 4:20:10 AM , Rating: 1
You can have my "Man Card", i enjoy part of the money we save on the 2 months of holidays we take a year, like our 2 week dive vacation i just had to the Red sea.

Or that i will retire in 10y age 50, because i did not waste money on stupid things like petrol.

Don't have to prove the size of my dick with a big car, i am man enough on my own.

And with prizes here of $10 a gallon, people don't look down on you, if you driving a car like the Think City.

But if needed to drive the Jag to be a man, i would spend $8500, ware with the Think City EV and Honda CB500 i don't even spend 10% of that on my transportation!

Na... I rather be smart, then a dumb (cave)man!


By NellyFromMA on 9/4/2012 10:47:46 AM , Rating: 3
Inline 6 is also a space hog, isn't it? And hence, an engineering nuisance as well as a barrier for profitablity.


By Manch on 9/4/2012 12:09:18 PM , Rating: 2
Not so much big it is as is it is how tall it is. This can limit the applications in smaller cars. You will see them in more so in trucks, SUV's, though for a while BMW had one and they were quite profitable.


By Spuke on 9/4/2012 1:19:59 PM , Rating: 1
All BMW 6 cyl's are inline.


By Manch on 9/4/2012 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
Did not know that, only BMW I like is the M3 which is what I was referencing. One day Ill have one.


By RockyM20 on 9/4/2012 2:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
That's right. My 2001 320i has a 2.2L inline 6.

For its day, this engine was just amazing. Very smooth, puts out around 170 HP, and gets me 35+ MPG on the highway.

And as an added benefit this is one of the most easily maintained engines I have worked on. Changing sparkplugs takes maybe 20-30 minutes as everything is accessible on the top of the engine block (unlike the V8's in my trucks). Too bad that parts are so overpriced...


By ilkhan on 9/4/2012 2:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure this isn't true any more. It used to be that way.


By Spuke on 9/4/2012 5:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm pretty sure this isn't true any more. It used to be that way.
Nope! Still is that way.


By Manch on 9/4/2012 7:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
They replaced it with a v8 and some of the 3 series have turbo 4's instead. M3 is going back to an inline 6 right?


By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 3:06:11 PM , Rating: 2
Actually V or boxer engines are more expensive to manufacture, inline engines are far simpler. The main difficulty with inline 6 cylinders is mounting them transversely for front wheel drive. In rear wheel drive vehicles like jeeps, beemers, the old cressida they are pretty kick ass.


By sorry dog on 9/4/2012 7:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
This IS the reason you don't see them more. It would be more of an engineering challenge to fit one in a transverse layout, hence more expensive...unless you shrink it, but then it's smaller displacement than the equivalent four banger. That was the point of the VW narrow angle V6 was to have the compromise the advantages of the inline with a package that could fit into a FWD platform like the Corrado or Passat.

Part of the problem with larger bores is it becomes more difficult to control the combustion and prevent pre-ignition, however with more and better sensors that issue is being improved as well as advances NVH (Noise, Vibration, and Harshness) that accompany the 4 banger imbalance.


By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 9/4/2012 2:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
BMW has a 1.6l inline 6, would _love_ to see that turbo'd..


By alpha754293 on 9/4/2012 3:34:25 PM , Rating: 2
Uh....that's NOT necessarily true. If you ever looked at a bsfc vs. torque vs. engine speed graph, most gas engines are actually most efficient near the middle of the engine speed range.

Saleen was actually working on a 3.2L V8 just before it effectively died when Billy Tally and Steve Saleen were forced out by the spoiled kids management grads.


By chµck on 9/3/2012 11:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds like the engine in the mitsubishi evos


By sprockkets on 9/4/2012 2:44:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
In my opinion, I think a 1.5-2.0L turbocharged inline 6 engine would be sweetness as it would provide the smoothness and balance of a V8 with the fuel economy of a 4 cylinder engine.


Perhaps you know this, but no V8 is naturally balanced. Either you have to balance it with heavy counterweights which make for a "laggy" engine (typical V8) or you have a high reving engine but is unbalanced.

Looking at the big picture here, we have 3.5l V6s that put out the same or even more than their old larger V8s did. Who needs a V8? Too many morons on the road have more than 300HP available to them, with some around the 550-650 mark in high end SUVs.


By Pneumothorax on 9/4/2012 10:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, a v8 is less balanced than a straight 6 or a v12, but it's still much better than a V6.


By Manch on 9/4/2012 12:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
I've never seen an unbalanced high revving engine. Mainly because they explode when you attempt to take them that high.

What do you mean by laggy? Trying to understand your point here.

Yeah, you do have V6's capable of putting out the same or more power as the larger V8's but you also have larger v8's that put out more power than those v6's so your point on that is? Doesn't matter how you try and get around it, a v8 has more potential for power than a v6, period.


By sorry dog on 9/4/2012 9:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Weight balance is not the same as harmonic balance. Ferrari V8's use a flat plane crankshaft, which is less balanced but is lighter and makes a better exhaust note. Most other V8's use a crossplane crank cast with counterweights that result in much smoother operation, but with associated response penalty from increased rotating inertia.

...and by laggy he meant the throttle response...or quick revving and return to idle.

Also, to say a V8 has more potential power is not quite right. Many industrial diesel engines have six holes and put out thousands of pounds of torque.

As for cars...the availability of knowledge and parts for high performance gas V8's is much greater than other V6's, but that shouldn't be confused with the number of holes it has...displacement X volumetric efficiency will tell you much more about an engine's potential output. One ride in a Buick GNX will make you think twice before saying that.


By Manch on 9/5/2012 3:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
So how does Ferrari compensate? YOu say less balanced, the op said unbalanced which is why I questioned it. I don't just see a v6 being THAT much better in the throttle response if at all. Then as many posters have pointed out v6's have there own problems vs v4/v8's.There are many factors that can affect throttle response. Just being a v8 doesn't mean it will be "laggy"

We're not talking industrial diesel engines here, we're talking car engines so that has no bearing.

If I have to choose between a v6 and a v8 with equal displacement, Ill go with the V8. Buick GNX's are awesome cars, but that's a turbo 6 so again you're veering off point.


By 91TTZ on 9/4/2012 1:11:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Looking at the big picture here, we have 3.5l V6s that put out the same or even more than their old larger V8s did. Who needs a V8?


The thing is that V8s aren't really any less fuel efficient than a 3.5L V6 that can produce the same power.

For example:
My 1991 300ZX TT with 3.0L TT V6, 300 HP stock gets 17/19/22 mpg:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/7570.shtml

2005 350Z with 3.5L NA V6, 300 HP stock gets 17/20/23 mpg:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20501.shtm...

2001 Corvette with 5.7L NA V8, 350 HP stock gets 17/20/26 mpg:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16439.shtm...

And just for kicks:
2006 Corvette Z06 with 7.0L NA V8, 505 HP gets 15/18/24 mpg:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/21621.shtm...

Skyline GTR, 3.8L TT, 485 HP gets 16/18/21 mpg:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2009_Nissan...
(I know that's AWD so it's at a disadvantage)

It doesn't look like the V8s do poorly in the fuel economy department for the power that they make. When you attempt to make that kind of power with smaller engines the fuel economy drops on them as well.


By theapparition on 9/4/2012 2:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
Excellent point.

I've yet to find a performance V6 that will provide better fuel economy than a V8 at similar power levels.

And when you get down to it, an engine is really an air pump. To get a specific amount of power, you need to pump a specific amount of air. Couple that with a stochiometric air:fuel ratio*, and it doesn't matter in the end whether it's a V6, V8 or V12. It all has to pump the same amount of air.

The differences now become the other tricks that can be done, such as lowering Cd and rolling resistance, optimizing the transmission gears and rear end for performance/efficiency, and other tricks like limiting pumping work and friction (where V8s are at a disadvantage).

The magic of forced induction (turbos/supercharging) is that it allows you to run a slightly more efficient engine during city/highway driving, then boosting the pressure only when going full throttle. There is certainly some advantages, but it also comes at a higher price, hotter and more structurally sound engine required, and higher complexity. But fuel economy doesn't change that significantly because turbos require a richer mixture.

*Typical 14.1:1 AFR for normal driving, but when going into PE mode (full throttle), the AFR needs to drop to protect the engine. Typically run much richer ~12.5:1. While turbo or supercharged cars must run even richer, dipping down close to 10:1.


By Manch on 9/4/2012 2:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
I run my car 11.8:1 I think that is more specific to what engine you're running. I have a 2.3 whipple running 16psi. Cant take it any higher without a race belt system. One thing I like about it over turbos is instant torque, no lag, make power at partial throttle. It's great for a street/strip car.

If I was doing a dedicated car for the strip, I'd probably run turbos. I dont do that 40 roll bullsh!t. Want to race, race from a dig.


By theapparition on 9/4/2012 2:01:11 PM , Rating: 2
No "V" engine is inherently balanced, which is why the crankshaft is weighted to deal with the issue.

However, I find it funny that you claim V6 are better since they are the absolute worst. There is a fundamental harmonic difference with the two banks of 3 cylinders working on a 4 cycle engine. A V4 (rare) or V8 can accomplish that much better than a V6 can. A V6 will always be the most unstable and unbalanced, which translates into vibration harshness. Smooth V6s accomplish that by adding balance shafts, which rob power. A V8 will provide better NVH, along with better power across all bands, all else equal.

Coupled with your other comments as a whole, you have know idea what you are talking about.


By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 4:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
A lot of the "smoothness" people associate with todays engines has to do with liquid filled mounts and sound deadening material around the firewall.


By Alexvrb on 9/5/2012 12:12:27 AM , Rating: 2
Don't forget new electronically actuated "active" mounts. They do work fairly well, but the idea of mounts that can potentially cause a vacuum leak just annoys me. Even more so than jelly (hydraulic) mounts leaking out. Plus they're even more expensive than even hydraulic mounts and have added electronics, wiring, and PCM control to go with them.

"Fake" automotive components I can no longer joke about: Exhaust fluid, computer-controlled engine mounts. Still OK: Blinker fluid, muffler bearings, winter air (for tires).


By sorry dog on 9/4/2012 10:13:15 PM , Rating: 2
V12 is. Think of it as 2 inline six's sharing a crank.


By CalaverasGrande on 9/4/2012 4:09:02 AM , Rating: 1
anyone complaining about not having a V8 needs to try driving a light sporty Japanese 4cyl car for a few weeks. I used to think there is no replacement for displacement. But a super light car, that handles well, with a responsive throttle, is WAY better than a heavy V8 powered lead sled.
I also could really give a fig about "smoothness" if I need to pay double gas price for that benefit. I'll stick to my "underpowered" subarus thanks.


By theapparition on 9/4/2012 2:15:03 PM , Rating: 2
And spend a day with me at the track with a 1000hp V8.

Yeah, it's a few hundred pounds more than your Subaru, but it's made up with a hellava lot more smiles.


By Manch on 9/4/2012 2:50:48 PM , Rating: 3
I'm raising the bullsh!t flag bro.

SPECIFICATIONS
2012 Subaru WRX STi Sedan
Price As Tested $ 34,845

Horsepower 305 @ 6000 rpm
Torque (lb-ft) 290 @ 4000 rpm
Curb Weight 3384 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 11.1

PERFORMANCE
EPA Fuel Economy - miles per gallon
city / highway 17 / 23
0 to 60 mph 5.3 sec.

2012 Ford Mustang Coupe
(5.0L V8 6-speed Manual)
$32,845
Horsepower (hp @ rpm)420 @ 6,500
Torque (lb-ft @ rpm)390 @ 4,250
Curb weight(lbs.) 3,620
Pounds Per Horsepower 8.6

EPA fuel economy (mpg)
16 city/24 highway
0-60 mph (sec.)4.8

I'm not knocking the WRX, I think they're awesome cars. I had a 94 Japanese spec than hung on just off the door of my 06 mustang all the way up to about 85 before the mustang started to really pull away. Both were stock at the time. Unfortuantely I moved to Virginia, so i left it in England. My friend had a 2004(US spec)and he'd consistenly beat me to 60, and I'd always get him at the 1/4 though. Those cars are every much the beast people say they are. Fantastic machines, but lets keep a few thigns in check.

Now comparing the 2012 models, the subaru loses on HP/Weight ratio, it loses on "responsiveness" Sorry , but the butt dyno doesnt count. You can google the specs and look for yourself. Number dont lie. Reclaimer already called you out about fuel economy, but listed above is the EPA's


By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 2:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
Subaru isn't exactly cutting edge with all the new efficiency technologies. A better comparison is to look what kind of HP BMW is getting out of their new designs for how much gas they use. BMW is putting out some insanely impressive numbers.
240HP 23/27/34


By Manch on 9/4/2012 7:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
As they usually do but, that has nothing to do with what I was replying to...


By Reclaimer77 on 9/4/2012 7:28:59 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah that's fair to Subaru. Notice how much those cutting edge technologies add to the cost of those BMW's per chance?

The new all aluminum Boxer engine is pretty efficient. The drive-line losses due to the AWD system is where you lose a lot of fuel economy, not from the engine itself.

Compare apples to apples here.

http://www.nadaguides.com/cars/2013/bmw/3-series/2...

http://www.nadaguides.com/Cars/2012/Subaru/Impreza...

Bingo! BWM's AWD sedan has the EXACT same mileage ratings as the WRX.

quote:
BMW is putting out some insanely impressive numbers. 240HP 23/27/34


Only when you cherry pick :)


By Reclaimer77 on 9/5/2012 1:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
Hello? Gonna pretend you didn't see this huh. Where's your vaunted BMW now?


By 91TTZ on 9/4/2012 4:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I used to think there is no replacement for displacement. But a super light car, that handles well, with a responsive throttle, is WAY better than a heavy V8 powered lead sled. I also could really give a fig about "smoothness" if I need to pay double gas price for that benefit. I'll stick to my "underpowered" subarus thanks.


Let's compare the Subaru WRX to a "heavy V8 powered lead sled" Corvette.

WRX Curb Weight: 3073
Corvette Curb Weight: 3199

WRX Fuel Economy: 17/19/23 mpg
Corvette Fuel Economy:16/19/26 mpg

The "lead sled" weighs only 4% more, has 67% more power, and as a final insult to injury gets the same/better gas mileage.


By Motoman on 9/4/2012 4:58:44 PM , Rating: 2
While I would never pick a WRX over a 'vette...my own pocketbook notwithstanding...I thought I'd point out that there's also considerably different levels of investment going on there.

A 2012 WRX STi is about $36k.

Corvettes start at $50k for the barebones version...and run up to $111k for the ZR1.

A closer comparison might be the Camaro. Which can be had in a reasonable trim for ~$36k. Weight about 3750, 426hp, 16/24mpg.

So, ~22% more weight, but ~40% more power. And better gas mileage (on the highway, anyway).

In my book, decision still goes to the Camaro.


By Manch on 9/5/2012 3:56:17 AM , Rating: 2
I'd never pick a chevy over any Ford or Subaru. I miss my Subaru, it made an awesome winter car. Mustang, not so great during the winter.


By Manch on 9/5/2012 3:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed, the vette is an unfair compare. I posted the mustang vs Subaru wrx comparo above, since they're similarly priced and weights are pretty close.


Wait a minute
By Samus on 9/4/2012 1:33:17 AM , Rating: 5
How are Infiniti and consumers a victim of CAFE? Basically Infiniti is going to save costs using less materials and shipping less weight to the United States, and consumers are going to get better fuel economy with similar, if not better, performance.

I don't think CAFE is claiming any victims here, especially this early in the timeline. Infiniti sales have been lagging for years, and they have among the lowest fuel economy of any V8 luxury-class (only Jaguar/Land Rover are worse in the WT25 sales) and consumers have clearly spoken. The best selling luxury cars are typically I4, V6 or I6, those being Audi A3/A4 2.0T, Mercedes C-class (the 3.5 M112 is their best selling engine) and obvious BMW's fleet of I6's.

Yes, most manufactures offer V8's, but Infiniti/Nissan's aging VQ engine's (3.5/3.7l) are based on a 25-year old design and simply can't compete. Infiniti has taken the correct approach in deciding NOT to develope a whole new V8 engine for mass production and instead focus on what most other manufactures are doing, that is, developing small, powerful, economical and fuel efficient turbo-charged engines. Exhaust is free power, and if Chrysler hadn't completely destroyed the reputation of turbocharging in the 80's and early 90's by poorly implementing them (usually without liquid cooling, often causing oil to overheat blowing headgaskets or various seals in the turbo housing failing, and no implementation of a 'turbo timer' or cool-down system which is required when not running liquid cooling...ugg, the American market wouldn't be 20-years behind the rest of the world if their wasn't an alkali taste in our mouths every time we heard the word Turbo and immediately associated it with greatly increased maintenance costs.

Anyway, this is going off-topic. Infiniti is making the right move. Other manufactures will follow suit once their V8 technology has dried up. I have a stroker motor in my old Mercury Capri and I appriciate V8's as much as the next gearhead, but if I were buying a new luxury or new sports car, I'd definately take a supercharged/turbocharged I4/V6 over any V8. Just gettin' with the times. V8's are mostly unneccessary now.




RE: Wait a minute
By Samus on 9/4/2012 1:43:20 AM , Rating: 2
Damn lack of an edit button, those VQ engines I listed should be 5.0/5.6l, I was thinking of the V6's, which I might add are based of a 30+ year old DOHC design (obviously having since gone all aluminum with MPFI, but still not GDI) but the casting and cam runners are identical to those from the 80's originally developed out of the Datsun era.

I think it's safe to say Nissan/Infiniti have milked their "flagship" V8's as long as Ford and Chevy milked the 302/350cid, the difference being Ford and Chevy designs were older, so by todays standards definately wouldn't sell in the free market.


RE: Wait a minute
By Pneumothorax on 9/4/2012 2:30:46 AM , Rating: 3
A naturally aspirated well-tuned v8 will be inherently smoother, much quicker throttle response (still haven't driven a 'lag-free' turbo, AND SOUNDS A WHOLE LOT BETTER than a V6! F!@# CAFE and other BS, if a consumer can afford the $8/gal gas on a 18MPG, then LET HIM. Don't give the BS that 'CAFE' isn't mandatory, by forcing really high fines on non-compliant automakers, they're basically forcing them. Kind of like the BS supreme court decision where gov can basically tax/fee you do death to force you to do anything they want.


RE: Wait a minute
By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 2:37:03 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you they made the right decision to focus on V6's but I also think you should get enough power out of a modern naturally aspirated V6 to provide sporty power to all but the most absurdly overweight sedan.


RE: Wait a minute
By 91TTZ on 9/5/2012 11:42:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I was thinking of the V6's, which I might add are based of a 30+ year old DOHC design (obviously having since gone all aluminum with MPFI, but still not GDI) but the casting and cam runners are identical to those from the 80's originally developed out of the Datsun era.


This is completely and entirely untrue. The VQ engines share hardly anything at all with the older VG V6s that you're referring to. I had a 1986 300ZX Turbo with a VG30ET and I currently have a 1991 300ZX Twin Turbo with a VG30DETT in it. Even those VG engines aren't that similar. The older VG is a SOHC engine, not DOHC. Even aside from the heads, the engine blocks are different. You can't put DOHC heads on the SOHC block, the oil and coolant passages don't line up. The only thing that's similar is the crank, and even that requires modification.

And moving past the VG engines, the VQ engines are even more dissimilar. I can't put any part from a VQ V6 onto my VG. The crank's different, connecting rods are different, pistons are different, heads are different, exhaust manifolds are different, intake manifolds are different- it's an entirely new design.


RE: Wait a minute
By sorry dog on 9/4/2012 11:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't think CAFE is claiming any victims here


Negative ghostrider.

The cars aren't necessarily made with less material, just lighter material like aluminum or fiber which is more expensive to buy and needs more labor to assemble.

All of the above = more expensive


RE: Wait a minute
By Samus on 9/6/2012 12:16:49 AM , Rating: 2
Negative starbuck,

I can count at least two cylinders that won't make the bill of materials and weight list when shipping a V6/I6 over a V8.

As far as the VG/VX/VQ engine relation arguement is concerned, yes, they share quite a lot. Nissan hasn't retooled their equipment for decades, which is why they continue to manufacture the same displacement across the board in the North American market. Sure, the technology might be different (I'm sure they've added a knock sensor here and a cam position sensor there...) but they are far behind even Ford/GM/Chrysler who have all completely retooled their entire engine assembly process by now. Ford discontinued the 302 in 2001, and a 289 in 2010, based off of 60's and 80's technology respectively. Nissan is doing the same here, the difference is they are chosing not to make a V8 because A) it isn't neccessary in a luxury sedan/SUV B) they don't make a muscle car to put it in and C) their heavy duty pickup (Titan) is a sales joke ranking the lowest selling large pickup in the US market: http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2012/02/january-2012-...

They don't need a V8. This isn't CAFE's doing and is purely sensationalized, anti-government drama from the DT author.


RE: Wait a minute
By 91TTZ on 9/6/2012 11:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can count at least two cylinders that won't make the bill of materials and weight list when shipping a V6/I6 over a V8.


Your reasoning is completely flawed. You mention that Nissan is saving money and weight by going with a V6/I6, but Nissan's V6s and I6s are very stout. The Nissan 2.0 liter I6 from the Z31 weighs more than the 7 liter V8 that Chevy makes. The GTR's 3.8 liter V6 weighs almost 150 lbs more than the 7 liter LS7. How is Nissan saving money on shipping less weight when the engine they are shipping is actually heavier? Instead of shipping a lightweight V8 they're shipping a very heavy V6.

quote:
As far as the VG/VX/VQ engine relation arguement is concerned, yes, they share quite a lot. Nissan hasn't retooled their equipment for decades, which is why they continue to manufacture the same displacement across the board in the North American market.


Wrong. Dead wrong. The VG and VQ engines do NOT share quite a lot. In fact they're entirely different. I'd like you to find me a single internal engine part that can be swapped from a VQ engine to a VG engine.

The block is completely different and the engine mount location is different.
The crankshaft is different
The connecting rods are different
The pistons are different
The oil pump is different
The heads are different
The valves are different
The camshafts are different
The lifters are different
The intake manifold is different
The exhaust manifold is different


RE: Wait a minute
By 91TTZ on 9/5/2012 11:54:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Infiniti sales have been lagging for years, and they have among the lowest fuel economy of any V8 luxury-class (only Jaguar/Land Rover are worse in the WT25 sales) and consumers have clearly spoken. The best selling luxury cars are typically I4, V6 or I6, those being Audi A3/A4 2.0T, Mercedes C-class (the 3.5 M112 is their best selling engine) and obvious BMW's fleet of I6's.


As I pointed out in another post, Infinity's V8 powered Q45 got the same gas mileage as their V6 powered G35, and produced more power.

quote:
Infiniti has taken the correct approach in deciding NOT to develope a whole new V8 engine for mass production and instead focus on what most other manufactures are doing, that is, developing small, powerful, economical and fuel efficient turbo-charged engines.


Turbocharged engines are not necessarily more economical or fuel efficient. They tend to get about the same fuel economy as a larger naturally aspirated engine that produces the same power.

quote:
Exhaust is free power, and if Chrysler hadn't completely destroyed the reputation of turbocharging in the 80's and early 90's by poorly implementing them (usually without liquid cooling, often causing oil to overheat blowing headgaskets or various seals in the turbo housing failing, and no implementation of a 'turbo timer' or cool-down system which is required when not running liquid cooling


Exhaust isn't free power. You're restricting the exhaust by driving the turbine. Also, in order to run forced induction you need to run a lower compression ratio which decreases fuel economy.

Also, Chrysler's turbo engine from the late 80's/early 90's WAS water cooled.

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/22t.html

"The compressor itself was aluminum, driven by a turbine wheel in an iron housing with liquid-cooled bearings. The shaft bearing on the exhaust housing side was water-cooled, to reduce hot shutdown bearing failures."


RE: Wait a minute
By 91TTZ on 9/5/2012 12:22:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically Infiniti is going to save costs using less materials and shipping less weight to the United States, and consumers are going to get better fuel economy with similar, if not better, performance.


How are they going to save weight? My Nissan 3.0L TT V6 weighs more than a Nissan V8.

Nissan's new 3.8L TT V6 from the Skyline weighs more than a more than a 7.0L V8 from the Corvette. And it gets worse fuel economy.

Nissan VR38DETT
3.8 liters
weight: 600 lbs.

Nissan RB20 (inline 6)
2.0 liters
weight: 460 lbs

Chevy LS7
7.0 liters
weight: 458 lbs.


What's the point of doing this?
By 91TTZ on 9/4/2012 3:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
I see a lot of these articles stating that V8s are gas hogs and how much more efficient a smaller turbocharged engine is. However, that isn't really the case.

As I pointed out in another post, the power that the engine produces is usually what dictates fuel economy given the same vehicle type. My 300ZX TT with its 3.0L V6 gets roughly the same fuel economy as a much newer 350Z with 3.5L V6 that makes the same power. The Corvette with a 5.7L V8 is able to produce more power and torque and still get about the same fuel economy.

This article is about Infinity, so I'll compare a couple of their luxury cars:

Let's compare a 2005 Q45 with 340 HP 4.5L V8 to a G35 with a 298 HP 3.5L V6

Q45: 16/18/22 mpg:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2005_Infini...
G35: 16/18/22 mpg:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20722.shtm...

You'll see that they get about the same fuel economy. Going with a smaller engine didn't really produce better fuel economy, and adding turbochargers to it certain won't increase fuel economy since they'd need to lower the compression ratio which decreases efficiency.

I don't know why they're canceling development of V8s, but I don't think that the reason is the CAFE regulations.

Also, the author used Hyundai as an example of companies going with smaller engines to get better fuel economy, but that car is obviously not going to get very good fuel economy producing that kind of power and being AWD. For that kind of performance they could have probably used a large V8 and got better fuel economy. It probably has more to do with development costs and having multiple engines to develop and less to do with fuel economy.




RE: What's the point of doing this?
By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 2:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
Again look at BMW's numbers, great power great mileage.


RE: What's the point of doing this?
By 91TTZ on 9/4/2012 3:42:58 PM , Rating: 2
I think the recent bump in fuel efficiency on BMW's engines has to do with the fact that automakers have been recently switching to direct injection on their engines. This increases power and fuel economy.

Even new engines from Ford and Chevy use this. As an example, the low-end Camaro with a V6 engine makes 312 HP and gets 19/30 mpg.


RE: What's the point of doing this?
By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 4:37:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree 100% the two most recent boosts were from direct injection and auto transmissions with 5 or more gears.

Before that the main boosts were from variable valve timing and clutch like dohicky that locks out your torque converter when not swapping gears.

But it would probably be smart to turn the efficiency benefits into smaller engines. Instead of making a 300HP V6 midsize family sedan, the improvements allow you to put a 4 cylinder in the same car and have the power of a V6 sedan from ten years ago. Do we really need a Toyota Camry that will ditch a lot of sports cars from ten years ago?


By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 4:42:35 PM , Rating: 2
I talked my mom into buying a 4cyl Accord instead of a V6 and guarantee she doesn't know the difference until she pulls up to the gas pump.


RE: What's the point of doing this?
By 91TTZ on 9/4/2012 5:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do we really need a Toyota Camry that will ditch a lot of sports cars from ten years ago?


LOL- no we don't... but you know it's coming.


RE: What's the point of doing this?
By Spuke on 9/4/2012 6:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it would probably be smart to turn the efficiency benefits into smaller engines.
DI and other tech is already used in smaller engines.


true dat
By Ammohunt on 9/4/2012 2:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
With the outlandish cafe standards of 55MPG we will be lucky if we will be driving anything other than a single Cylinder engine.




RE: true dat
By GotDiesel on 9/4/2012 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 1
typical under educated naive American reply..
my 2001 jetta tdi alreday returns 55 mpg.. just have to
laugh at your stupid gas guzzling asses..


RE: true dat
By Nutzo on 9/4/2012 4:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
And your 2001 jetta tdi wouldn't be legal in the US for reasons stated earlier, so what's the point?

Besides, my 1980 Puch moped gets 110 MPG (twice your jetta).


RE: true dat
By Ammohunt on 9/4/2012 9:36:08 PM , Rating: 2
Hey Eurotrash! America > Europe get over it! Live free or die!


RE: true dat
By 91TTZ on 9/5/2012 12:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
typical under educated naive American reply.. my 2001 jetta tdi alreday returns 55 mpg.. just have to laugh at your stupid gas guzzling asses..


Here's my undereducated naive American reply:
Your 2001 Jetta TDI wouldn't get 55 mpg in the US. One reason why American mpg figures look so much lower than European mpg figures is because your "gallon" (which is an Imperial Gallon) is 20% larger than the US gallon.

Your Jetta TDI gets 35/38/44 mpg over here.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/16718.shtm...

Also, diesel costs about 10% more than regular gasoline.


Man Card this!
By texbrazos on 9/5/2012 12:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
This guy takes a 1972 datsun sticks a $3,500 electric kit in it, and smokes brand new Corvettes at the track. I would either hold my head in shame if I spent that kind of money to get beat by an 1972 Datsun or have to take the Vett and slap one of those electric engines in it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369h-SEBXd8




A corrupt U.S. government dictates the impossible
By Beenthere on 9/4/12, Rating: -1
By tecknurd on 9/4/2012 1:32:57 AM , Rating: 2
EVs and hybrids are the way to the future. Gasoline or petroleum will not last forever. Eventually they will run out. When they do hybrids and EVs will be cheaper to use. Fuel prices already climbing to a point that hybrids and EVs becomes feasible to buy. I am seeing more and more hybrids on the road.

Car makers have plenty of research and development. The 54.5 MPG may seem far, but soon they will reach it.

For people that want power, sure they can only go with turbo four and six cylinder engines. Though nobody is stopping them putting their own engine into their own car by themselves.

BTW, I do not know cars, but I prefer to have a car that has 54ish MPG compared to 18 MPG.


By Solandri on 9/4/2012 5:34:49 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed hybrids are the way of the future. Regenerative braking and running the engine only when needed is just too good energy savings to pass up. Disagreed on EVs. I just don't see them becoming effective enough to supplant liquid chemical fuels. Unless there are some major, major breakthroughs in battery storage capacity and recharge rate, I'm betting on biofuels (plant/algae-based alcohols) being the long-term winner.

quote:
Car makers have plenty of research and development. The 54.5 MPG may seem far, but soon they will reach it.

The issue I have with raising the CAFE standard for cars is that it's mostly spinning our wheels. 54.5 sounds like a big number but it's not. Current CAFE standard for cars is 30.2 MPG. So 54.5 is an increase of a whopping 24.3 MPG! Sounds impressive, right? It isn't. Going from 18 MPG to 30.2 MPG is only a 12.2 MPG increase, yet will save you over 1.5x as much fuel.

How is that possible? The problem is we measure fuel efficiency in MPG. That's actually the inverse of fuel consumption. So the bigger the MPG gets, the smaller your incremental savings. e.g. Say we had a hypothetical trip of 200 miles. Your different cars will burn:

100 MPG = 2 gallons
54.5 MPG = 3.7 gallons
30.2 MPG = 6.7 gallons
18 MPG = 11.3 gallons

Meaning the fuel savings for the different jumps are:

54.5 MPG -> 100 MPG = 1.7 gallons saved
30.2 MPG -> 54.5 MPG = 3.0 gallons saved
18 MPG -> 30.2 MPG = 4.6 gallons saved

Your biggest fuel savings come from improving the mileage of your low-mileage vehicles. The higher the mileage, the smaller the savings. So CAFE tackles the wrong end of the problem. Instead of trying to raise the mileage of cars, we should be (1) trying to raise the mileage of light trucks, and (2) encouraging people to switch from trucks and SUVs to cars.

Instead, CAFE appears to be doing the exact opposite - causing people to give up their cars in favor of trucks and SUVs.
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=22470...

Basically, every 2 people who switch from a sedan to an SUV cancels out 3 people who switch from a sedan to a Prius. And we're forcing the car companies to waste billions of research dollars on trying to make cars more Prius-like for minor fuel savings, when the bigger fuel savings would come from discouraging truck use.

I'm thinking of buying a boat right now (sailboat - I'm environmentally conscientious). I've been looking at tow vehicles. The boat + trailer will come out to about 2700 pounds, which 30 years ago wasn't unreasonable for a sedan to tow. Sure it would've gotten mileage in the low to mid 20s, but it could tow it. But CAFE has driven those sedans out of existence. I really don't want to have two cars - a regular driving vehicle and a tow vehicle. But due to CAFE attacking the wrong end of the problem, my choices are either to get two vehicles, or sell my sedan and buy an 18 MPG SUV.


RE: A corrupt U.S. government dictates the impossible
By Paj on 9/4/2012 8:19:48 AM , Rating: 1
A lot of good points. While I've said on here many times that the MPG mentioned in CAFE is certainly achievable, the jury is still out on its effectiveness, and other countries go about the problem in different ways.

The UK implement an annual road tax based on how efficient the car is, and on how much pollution it generates. This doesn't cause highly inefficient vehicles to go away - they're still there if people want them, but for many it makes more sense to get an efficient vehicle due to the saving they make on both road tax and fuel. I think this system probably makes more sense.


By Schrag4 on 9/4/2012 12:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The UK implement an annual road tax based on how efficient the car is, and on how much pollution it generates. This doesn't cause highly inefficient vehicles to go away - they're still there if people want them, but for many it makes more sense to get an efficient vehicle due to the saving they make on both road tax and fuel.


To me, this is overly-complicated and therefore idiotic. A per-gallon tax like we have in the US is ultra-simple and the fairest way to go. If you drive the same number of miles as me but use more fuel, you're paying a higher tax - that's fair, since your vehicle probably wears the road more than mine. In the UK, if you drive 1/10th as much as me but have a car that uses twice as much fuel per mile, you may have used 1/5th as much fuel as I did but you'll pay a higher road tax - that doesn't make sense. This is, of course, assuming the tax structure is as you describe (I'm taking your word for it).


By JPForums on 9/4/2012 2:09:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The UK implement an annual road tax based on how efficient the car is, and on how much pollution it generates.
To figure out how efficient a car is, they need to know how many MPG you get. Since fuel economy can be significantly worse, especially in an efficient car, due to driving habits, they'll need to monitor your driving habits to get an accurate reading. To figure out how much pollution it generates, they need a way of monitoring the CO2 output of the car. The separation of efficiency and pollution generation as a metric dictates this needs to be a separate piece of equipment. Since any of these pieces of equipment can be temporarily modified, the only sure way to get the right number is to put a GPS in every vehicle so that the government can monitor how many miles you are actually driving as you drive them. Interestingly, this has already been suggested as the method for applying a CO2 based tax to vehicles.

Now they could just assume a certain efficiency out of certain vehicles. Lets ignore the eventual rush to make vehicles that pass whatever test they are subjected to, regardless of how the perform in the real world. This is a simplification that makes the metric less accurate and open to abusing (I.E. Company A that donates to your campaign gets more favorable ratings and/or tests are designed with their vehicles in mind). They could also assume that 1 gallon of gas will produce the same amount of pollution regardless of how much of it is burned at once. However, if you do that, then you remove the need for more monitoring equipment.

Err, .. wait. In the end, a gallon of gasoline will release the same amount of pollution whether it carries you 1 mile or 100 miles and regardless of whether it burned by a motorcycle or a truck. This suggests a very accurate simplification to system can be made. Charge the tax based on how much gas is consumed. As an added benefit, it can be charged at the pump, with no need to worry about people modifying equipment to dodge the tax, and without costly new equipment that may or may not violate privacy rights. Such a system would also save tax payer money as it would require far less government administration. If only someone had thought of this sooner ... oh, wait, we already pay tax at the pump. I guess if we really want to push efficient vehicles, we could just raise the gas tax.


By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 2:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, that sucks


By 91TTZ on 9/4/2012 5:42:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the end, a gallon of gasoline will release the same amount of pollution whether it carries you 1 mile or 100 miles and regardless of whether it burned by a motorcycle or a truck.


This isn't true. The emission control systems on cars can vary the amount of pollution that the car emits. What kinds of pollution are you looking to curb?


RE: A corrupt U.S. government dictates the impossible
By Paj on 9/5/2012 7:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, a clarification. I did a bit of research and UK road tax is based on the size of the engine, and the amount of C02 released per km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_Excise_Duty

I thought it was based on MPG, but I was wrong. I agree with you about the problems in monitoring MPG (seeing how variable it can be in relation to driving habits).

quote:
Err, .. wait. In the end, a gallon of gasoline will release the same amount of pollution whether it carries you 1 mile or 100 miles and regardless of whether it burned by a motorcycle or a truck.


Thats not true at all. It can vary depending on the octane level, impurities, engine design, age of catalytic converter, etc. In controlled lab conditions you might be right, but out on the road there would be many variables that affect the final figure.

quote:
Charge the tax based on how much gas is consumed.


Some have suggested modifying the road tax system to incorporate a tax based on miles travelled per year, based on odometer readings. Higher odometer reading = more tax.
Cars in the UK already have to pass an annual roadworthiness test known as an MOT - this system could easily be incorporated into that without a massive increase in bureaucracy.

Such a system would also encourage greater use of public transport, car pooling, use of bikes and maybe even things like teleconferencing and flexible working hours.


By Schrag4 on 9/5/2012 8:40:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some have suggested modifying the road tax system to incorporate a tax based on miles travelled per year, based on odometer readings. Higher odometer reading = more tax.


Again, this is completely idiotic, and seems to me to suggest a tendency to try to over-legislate everything. You want to tax not only miles driven but fuel efficiency? Don't rate vehicles on efficiency (open to corruption) and force people to give odometer readings (just another small hassle among many others), simply tax each gallon of fuel and be done with it. People that drive more will pay more. People with less efficient vehicles that drive the same number of miles will pay more. People with less efficient vehicles that drive more will pay through the nose. It's elegant in its simplicity, and it's fair, something Big Govt's don't like (less to enforce means fewer govt jobs).


By Colin1497 on 9/4/2012 1:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
The original CAFE law had a large part in creating the SUV market by forcing people to move from cars to trucks in order to get powerful engines. The current CAFE law is a shell game with bonus points based on specific technologies and a sliding scale based on the size of the vehicle. It's all horribly conceived and a huge mess.


By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 2:24:19 PM , Rating: 2
Uhm, because we try to raise the mileage of light trucks (Heavy trucks to by the way) we cant raise the mileage of smaller cars?


By tecknurd on 9/4/2012 8:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
You may think that EV are not the second option because the time it takes to recharge batteries. EV can also run on fuel cells. EV can be recharged by hydrogen fuel stations.

The CAFE tackles one problem is currency. The cost of fuel keeps increasing while MPG stays the same. For me to drive 200 miles, it now costs $50 to $60 per week compared to several years ago which was half the cost.

If there are two cars. Car A with a MPG of 18 and car B with a MPG of 54. Both cars holds the same volume of fuel at 14 gallons. Send both cars on a infinite trip until they can not go any further. Car A will have a distance of 252 miles. Car B will have a distance of 756 miles. If I drive at an average of 260 miles per week, I will choose car B. It will give me close to three weeks until I have to go to the gas station. When it costs me up to $60 fill up the tank, that is a big savings. I can put $120 towards my savings account or something else every month. At the end of the year I would have $1440. That is a lot of money to me, but other people will think that is not much. Sure there is no such thing a car with a MPG of 54.


By Nutzo on 9/4/2012 3:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
EVs and hybrids are the way to the future.


As are higher car prices, higher long term maintenace costs, and higher insurance cost. Combined with lower resell value, hybrids are hard to justify in many cases.
(and I don't mean the typical justification I read: I was driving a SUV that got 10MPG now I drive a Prius that gets 50MPG, so it paid for itself in less than 2 years)

For example I drive around 95% city which would be the best case example for a hybrid, since there is little diference in Highway milage between a Hybrid and a 4 cyl car. A Camry hybid gets 40MPG vs 25MPG for the 4 cyl in town, yet the $3000 price difference would take me over 6 years just to break at $4/gal.
Add in the extra insureance cost, and it jumps to 9 years. Then add in the resell value (5 year old hybids sell for about the same as a 5 year old 4 cyl), and it would take over 12 years to break even.

Part of the problem is that I only drive around 6K mile/year, but even if I drove 12K mile/year or Gas was $8/gal, I'd still be looking at over 6 years just to break even.



By Jeffk464 on 9/4/2012 4:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
EVs and hybrids are the way to the future. Gasoline or petroleum will not last forever. Eventually they will run out. When they do hybrids and EVs will be cheaper to use. Fuel prices already climbing to a point that hybrids and EVs becomes feasible to buy

You know its not just a matter of running out of fuel its also a matter of market prices. As developing nations start consuming more oil demand for global oil goes up and eventually oil production will go down. The end result is demand will far exceed supply and prices will spike. Nope, eventually our concept of everybody driving around 5000lbs gas guzzlers will be completely unattainable. It was much better for americans when we were using our ford duallies to commute and haul our 5th wheels and ski boats around while the rest of the world was living in mud huts. :)


By 91TTZ on 9/4/2012 4:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
You don't really think that the US is demanding more fuel efficient cars just so that developing nations can buy cheaper gas, do you?


By soloburrito on 9/4/2012 2:56:02 AM , Rating: 2
The 2025 rule is not final, it's still only a goal. Also the CAFE numbers are quit a bit higher than the EPA numbers. 54.5 mpg (cafe) roughly equates to 36 mpg (epa). For 2020, the rule will equate to a 35 mpg (epa) fleet average. This number is flexible however depending on the types of vehicles being sold. If more pickups are sold, the target average goes down, if more compacts are sold, the target average goes up. It's a flexible system.

If fuel prices remain steady of rise steadily over time, drivers will see a return on fuel savings before the typical manufacturer warranty expires. Also this will result in less co2 emissions which improves air quality and will lower fuel demand/overseas oil demand which is a net benefit to the US.

If you think the EPA is full of hot air, look at some pictures of Beijing during their killer smog days. I'd rather have the EPA around than not.


RE: A corrupt U.S. government dictates the impossible
By Noya on 9/4/2012 3:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
And what about the increasing amounts of corn ethanol (watering down) of our fuel? That certainly lowers MPG as it has less BTU's per gallon.


By sorry dog on 9/4/2012 10:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
don't know why you got rated down.

It's more true than half the other crap in this thread.


By Pneumothorax on 9/4/2012 10:35:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
by soloburrito on September 4, 2012 at 2:56
If you think the EPA is full of hot air, look at some pictures of Beijing during their killer smog days. I'd rather have the EPA around than not.


You do realize CAFE has no impact on smog forming pollutants, right?
Another beef with CAFE is that it should have to voted on by the legislative and executive branch. The executive should not have this much free reign on such an important issue.


By mellomonk on 9/4/2012 12:20:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You do realize CAFE has no impact on smog forming pollutants, right?


The hell it doesn't. If those cars in Bejing got double the milage, then they would be roughly burning half the fuel they currently do and produce a correspondingly less amount of pollutants. It is that simple.

As an auto enthusiast myself I feel a good deal of the arguments around CAFE. But as person living at this time, there is a bigger picture that I cannot ignore. Just like a little kid must learn you cannot have pizza at every meal, we as a society must adjust to a reality that we must adjust our transportation needs and wants to achieve a better future. A future that we all say we want for our nation and the world in general. The challenges of CAFE and crash standards force the industry to move forward rather then just responding to the fashion trends of a largely uneducated and uncaring marketplace. As a bonus, think how sweet that pizza is going to taste when it isn't eaten every day.


By Warren21 on 9/4/2012 2:48:55 PM , Rating: 2
You are joking, right? The generations of Americans in the early 20th century were all about "the greater good". They signed up in droves to protect the U.S. through two world wars, and in peacetime people knew that their job had a valuable contribution to society from garbage man to CEO. It wasn't shameful to be blue collar, like the university push of today might have you believe.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/4/2012 3:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're honestly comparing enlisting in the military to the obvious point of my post? Those men volunteered!! How is that comparable to Government MANDATES for the so-called "greater good"?

Those same men you are talking about were so against Collectivism it's not even funny. They signed up in droves to FIGHT IT! What the hell do you think WW2 and defeating those fascist dictatorships was all about you idiot.

You're trying to make the dumbest point ever.


By Spuke on 9/4/2012 6:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're trying to make the dumbest point ever.
He does have a point here Warren. Volunteering and being forced are polar opposites. Sh!t, we could make this much easier by making the populace slaves of the government. Oh we can't do that because then we couldn't them of their money. Ok, indentured servants then. Nope! paychecks are big enough. How about making people THINK they are free while leaving them just enough rights to continue that fallacy. That way they'll still work and we (the government) can take most of their money away for BS AND they'll like it.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/4/2012 6:46:24 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah let me tell ya something, my late grandfather didn't fight on the Eastern front in WW2 so someone could tell him what he can put in his driveway. Or so he could be forced to pay for everyone's healthcare. No goddamn way!!

The argument Warren is making is just downright offensive.


By sorry dog on 9/4/2012 10:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather have the EPA around than not
\

Maybe so...the problem is when morons like Ray LaHood get appointed to the department and start to take up political causes rather than the boring bureaucratic job Congress created them to do. Backup camera's in every car...no texting by passengers, etc.

The diversity of choice of vehicles has already been reduced dramatically since the 80's and 90's and these mandates have a lot to do with that. The development costs grow and grow, so these costs must be defrayed over larger production numbers the competitive on price. But the lower volume niche vehicles are being regulated out of existence. I think they won't be happy until each automaker only makes 4 vehicles: A pickup, a crossover Suv, a small car, and a tiny car....all with mandated black boxes.


By ViroMan on 9/4/2012 5:46:49 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that they do not have half of the mandatory safety equipment in those cars like an American car has to have, right? Crumple zones all over(thus compromising the integrity of the car...), sturdy cab that won't crush vertically when it flips, air bags... all kinds of stuff that will weigh down the car. A lot of cars made outside of America are NOT legal in America do to missing safety standards... not just because the steering wheel is on the WRONG SIDE. There are conversion kits for that. GET IT RIGHT YOU GUYS... LEFT IS RIGHT. ;P

Remember that crazy tiny car that got 70mpg and you could fit 2 people in it like a clown car? It was like a riding lawn mower with transmission and a cab. It was on here like 2 years ago or something like it...made in India. IF it ever makes it to America, it would need to go through drastic changes that would add substantial weight. Then on top of that... it would almost never sale except to maybe meter maids. Who wants to drive a car that a Yugo could run over?


By probedb on 9/4/2012 7:34:24 AM , Rating: 1
You really need to look at what cars are produced outside the US a little more.


By theapparition on 9/4/2012 2:20:35 PM , Rating: 2
At the core, he's absolutely correct. The US safety standards are the most rigorous in the world. Many European models won't pass US requirements.


By theapparition on 9/4/2012 2:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
It was made by Tata motors.


By usbseawolf2000 on 9/4/2012 11:58:04 AM , Rating: 3
I wouldn't say it is impossible. 50 MPG EPA Prius is already rated 71 MPG CAFE.


By Nutzo on 9/4/2012 4:03:38 PM , Rating: 3
But not everyone wants to drive a Pruis :)


By Spuke on 9/4/2012 6:12:12 PM , Rating: 3
I sure as hell don't.


By freedom4556 on 9/5/2012 5:04:32 AM , Rating: 2
All this MPG and emissions mess makes me think that the future for sports car fans is neither hybrid nor EV but kit cars and crate motors.


By usbseawolf2000 on 9/5/2012 12:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be a Prius. Any 40 MPG (combined, not just highway) vehicle should translate to 54.5 MPG CAFE or higher.

For example, these vehicles are rated higher than 40 MPG combined.

Toyota Camry hybrid
Ford Fusion hybrid
Lexus CT200h
Ford C-MAX hybrid


By usbseawolf2000 on 9/5/2012 12:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
It doesn't have to be a Prius. Any 40 MPG (combined, not just highway) vehicle should translate to 54.5 MPG CAFE or higher.

For example, these vehicles are rated higher than 40 MPG combined.

Toyota Camry hybrid
Ford Fusion hybrid
Lexus CT200h
Lexus ES350h
Ford C-MAX hybrid


By usbseawolf2000 on 9/5/2012 12:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Driving experience <> Ownership experience. Pick your choice wisely. ;)


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki