backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by Black1969ta.. on Oct 25 at 4:24 AM


The Jeep Grand Cherokee will get a diesel engine option in 2013.
"I have no other way of getting to 2025 numbers than by going to hybrids"

Automakers along with state and federal governments have been working to hammer out fuel efficiency plans that will see the fleet wide economy for automakers rise to 54.5 mpg by 2025. There has been more than a little backlash even though major automakers and many in Washington have agreed in spirit to the plan. The backlash comes from some in Washington that say forcing the very high fuel efficiency numbers will reduce consumer choice and force automakers to build cars that consumers don’t want.
 
A perfect example of being forced to build a specific kind of car to simply meet economy standards is Chrysler. Chrysler has one hybrid in the works, a hybrid version of the 300 expected in 2013. However, according to Chrysler and Fiat CEO Sergio Marchionne he will be forced to build more hybrids simply to meet the goals.
 
Marchionne said, "I have no other way of getting to 2025 numbers than by going to hybrids."
 
Marchionne also said that Chrysler would also be bringing diesel vehicles to the U.S. to help meet the CAFÉ standards. The first of these diesel vehicles will likely be a Jeep Grand Cherokee in 2013. Interestingly, Chrysler already makes diesel vehicles for export markets. None of the diesel versions of its vehicles are currently offered in the U.S. today, although diesel versions of the Jeep Liberty (2005-2006) and Jeep Grand Cherokee (2007-2008) were briefly offered in the United States.
 
Chrysler has previously said that 14% of its global sales would be diesel-powered by 2014. The company is also offering multiple models that will run on compressed natural gas and that will help meet mandates as well. That is assuming buyers will consider a CNG vehicle, which isn't happening today outside of most fleet sales.
 
"The likelihood of that happening [CNG adoption] is uncertain, but I'm still hopeful that at least a sizable portion of the U.S. market will develop CNG capability. And we are ready," said Marchionne.

Source: AutoNews



Comments     Threshold


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

boo hoo
By tastyratz on 10/20/2011 1:27:57 PM , Rating: 1
Maybe instead they should just learn how to make an efficient engine that meets the standards? Other manufacturers are able to get phenominal gas mileage without going hybrid, so why can't they figure it out?




RE: boo hoo
By DigitalFreak on 10/20/2011 1:47:37 PM , Rating: 1
No doubt. Chrysler has always had the worst performing (MPG wise) power-trains. Maybe they should consider dumping the V8 in everything but the RAM trucks?


RE: boo hoo
By therealnickdanger on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: boo hoo
By MozeeToby on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: boo hoo
By aepurniet on 10/20/2011 5:02:31 PM , Rating: 4
CAFE is effectively subsidizing automaker research with tax payer dollars while taking out choice from the market place.

we should be striving to increase efficiency of our engines, but some companies are going to be it hard by the really high standards of 2025. that may affect the economy more adversely than an incremental increase in air pollution.

also a lot of increases in efficiency (batteries, exotic metal coatings in the engine to reduce friction), require rare earth metal mining. that is not good for our environment either.


RE: boo hoo
By MGSsancho on 10/21/11, Rating: 0
RE: boo hoo
By borismkv on 10/20/2011 5:09:44 PM , Rating: 1
If this were actually about the level of pollution cars put out, you'd have a point. It should be possible to decrease the pollutants that come out of a car without increasing efficiency. In addition, some vehicles pollute less than a similarly EPA rated car by virtue of different engine and exhaust technologies. CAFE doesn't address the idea of pollution at all, but instead focuses on the periphery of the pollution issue by saying that cars that burn less fuel are "good", so lets make people increase their fuel efficiency, regardless of whether or not its possible to make cars that can meet those standards (at least, cars that people want to *buy*).


RE: boo hoo
By JediJeb on 10/21/2011 6:36:06 PM , Rating: 3
The biggest problem is as you mention, CAFE mileage standards and EPA Air Quality standards usually cause a conflict when engineering an automobile engine. There are ways to get really high mileage out of a car but you need to remove some of the emissions equipment and change the timing, which will raise the NOx emissions and other things as well. You can make an engine very clean operating but in doing so you make it very inefficient.

You can also make an engine more efficient by tuning it to a specific RPM, but if you are going to do that for all automobiles then you would probably need to set them to all run at the same speed by some type of limiter so owners could not operate them outside of the optimum RPM range. Unfortunately the world is not a "One Size Fits All" situation even though most governments wish it was.


RE: boo hoo
By Dorkyman on 10/20/2011 6:35:18 PM , Rating: 2
You were wise to not argue how much pollution we should generate.

As a child living in LA in the 1960's, let me tell you--we had brown air. By contrast, today's air quality is far better.

So just how much better does the air quality *need* to be? I'd suggest we've reached a decent equilibrium right now. To go further means we lose in other ways.


RE: boo hoo
By wookie1 on 10/21/2011 3:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
You can't ignore the argument about how much damage is done, it's central to the cost of externalities. How much more should we pay for that small additional (if any) benefit? Why shouldn't we just say that all cars must use 0 energy, or run on unicorn farts or something?


RE: boo hoo
By Jeffk464 on 10/21/2011 11:14:48 PM , Rating: 3
You could have just left it at chrysler has the worst power trains.


RE: boo hoo
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 1:51:11 PM , Rating: 2
His point is that even with fuel efficient cars with small gas engines, the goal can't be hit without hybrids.


RE: boo hoo
By Samus on 10/20/2011 1:57:08 PM , Rating: 4
i'll clue him in on a strategy: stop putting HEMI's in every fucking car.

if it weren't for cylinder deletion (technology they aquired during the brief Daimler merger) they wouldn't have a single V8 besting 20mpg. i feel sorry for anybody suckered into buying their crap.

i think my favorite car comment of all time comes from my friend eric who got stuck with a sebring touring rental car and told me "every time i went over a bump, the trunk rattled like a cutlery drawer." the car had 3000 miles on it.


RE: boo hoo
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 2:18:25 PM , Rating: 3
It's not just the V8's (which account for very little sales). Their entire line up of engines sucks. Up until recently, their V6's sucked gas like old V8's. Even their 4 cyls were horrible. They've been paying fines for not meeting the CURRENT standards for years. I don't feel sorry for them at all. It's like they're not even trying.


RE: boo hoo
By therealnickdanger on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: boo hoo
By retrospooty on 10/20/2011 3:12:29 PM , Rating: 3
"Let automakers build the cars people want and let the consumers control the speed of innovation."

This could work, although I dont know where Chrysler has room to complain... If not for govt. intervention, there wouldnt be a Chrysler anymore.


RE: boo hoo
By Dr of crap on 10/20/2011 3:36:36 PM , Rating: 2
And we needed to bail them out for the SECOND time for what reason?!!?

In their history they have always had the big engine cars. They are known for gas hog cars and trucks. They needed savings because they didn't have one small engine/higher mpg car/truck in their lineup.

Here's what I see happening. All car makers will have to build hybrids, or EVs, or whatever to make the CAFE. These will not sell well. But the price to bring them to market will be passed unto all car buyers to share the stupidness of it all. So even though there's a cost increase for normal ICE cars that get better mpgs, there will be an even higher cost added to these ICE cars to cover the hybrids needed for the CAFE, but not selling well.

Just bend over now and all will go well!


RE: boo hoo
By retrospooty on 10/20/2011 9:41:46 PM , Rating: 3
"And we needed to bail them out for the SECOND time for what reason?!!?"

I dunno, I am not a big fan of govt. bailouts... but if anyone shouldnt be complaining about govt. regulations, its GM and Chrysler. If anything Ford could, but they have it together and have a fuel efficient non- hybrid lineup already. Its not magic, its just effort.


RE: boo hoo
By foolsgambit11 on 10/20/2011 4:20:26 PM , Rating: 1
Well, without CAFE, the supply-demand curve for gasoline would be different. Everybody would be paying more for gasoline because many (most?) people would be using more gas. Since prices go up faster than linearly for a linear increase in demand, I'm betting we'd be looking at prices which would completely destroy the recreational truck industry.


RE: boo hoo
By wookie1 on 10/21/2011 4:02:07 PM , Rating: 1
I'm having trouble with this logic. More gas would be used without CAFE, resulting in higher prices - wouldn't the higher gas prices cause people to optimize their fuel usage? Probably far better than outlawing station wagons and forcing families to drive SUV's around - I'll bet if we didn't have the EPA mandates that forced SW's out, we would have far fewer SUV's that use much more gas.


RE: boo hoo
By foolsgambit11 on 10/21/2011 6:26:48 PM , Rating: 2
It would, if gasoline were a luxury item, and if people were logical consumers of goods. Neither are true. Look, for instance, at the differences between $1 gas and $4 gas. At first, people changed their habits, but over time, they just adjust to the new price, and consumption is around what it was before, while purchases of gas-guzzlers are again on the rise. But this extra capital sunk into gasoline is a drag on the country's economy.

I'm not saying increasing CAFE standards to 54 mph is definitely the best approach. Only that some level of government interference in fuel economy standards is warranted.


RE: boo hoo
By JediJeb on 10/21/2011 6:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
But I also wonder, if you cut the gas usage in half, is the price going to go down? The ones selling the oil still want to make the same amount of money they did before and the only way for them to do that would be to raise the price. OPEC already adjusts the supply to somewhat maintain the prices. They pump more oil if the price gets too high, they pump less oil when the price gets too low. When the supply side of the equation can be varied at will, the demand side does not always have the normal effect that supply and demand economics would dictate.


RE: boo hoo
By eonsnocrtnarrongi on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: boo hoo
By newmachineoverlord on 10/20/2011 10:17:45 PM , Rating: 1
That is not a solution to the many people who can't afford a new car, as they don't have the money to "vote" on what cars get sold new. Right now efficient used cars are hard to find because CAFE standards were stagnant for so long.
People who are priced out of the new market are stuck buying inefficient used cars and wishing that CAFE standards had been raised sooner.

CAFE increases consumer choice and without it efficient cars wouldn't be brought to market. In 2004 there were two cars in the US that got more than 40mpg, and over 100 cars outside of the us market that could get more than 40mpg. For those wanting an efficient gas vehicle there are still only two options on the american market, honda civic or toyota prius.


RE: boo hoo
By mindless1 on 10/23/2011 12:39:03 AM , Rating: 2
Efficient used cars are harder to find because they have low mass and higher revving engines making them throwaway failure prone and accident insurance writeoffs.

The problem isn't CAFE though, it's the increased safety features adding weight and crappy gas offsetting the potential gains from continually improving automotive tech.

Think about it, why would most people want to pay thousands of dollars more for the same thing when they don't drive THAT many miles per year? The truth is the "average" mileage people get from an automobile isn't a very valid number to consider, most people fall significantly above or below that average depending on their propensity to drive long distances (or not).

For example I live near a major metropolitan area and closer still to an airport. I RARELY have a need to drive more than 8 miles, usually only half that. The last thing I want is a more technically complex, more expensive to purchase AND repair, automobile.

If a sufficient # of people do want this, automakers would respond without it being forced upon them. Instead we have what you mentioned, lack of demand causes very few automobiles that meet your criteria.

It is unreasonable to think the majority should have forced upon them what they DO NOT WANT so a small minority can have what they want.


RE: boo hoo
By vision33r on 10/21/2011 1:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody wants fried food, soda, ice cream, and candy. Should we just say it's ok for people to eat these kinds of food as they please and ignore the consequences?

There ought to be education about choices we make that affects everything around us.


RE: boo hoo
By mindless1 on 10/23/2011 12:47:41 AM , Rating: 2
No, everybody does not want those unhealthy foods. Not only should you NOT say it's ok or not ok, you should butt the he!! out of other people's lives.

Nutrition should be taught in school, a required course, but it is wrong to play know-it-all and insist someone should listen to you. As soon as you do, someone will come along and have a problem with something you do that is wrong in their mind. The vicious circle never ends, live and let live without trying to be a judge unless you are elected as one.


RE: boo hoo
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 3:39:37 PM , Rating: 1
Bullshit. My GTO gets over 20 mpg on the highway without cylinder deactivation. So does my buddies Hemi Charger.

Am I a fan of most of Chrysler's lineup? No. But you're just repeating the same damn line over and over. They have their new 300 that gets 31 mpg which doesn't have a V8 and doesn't look terrible. And 31 mpg isn't bad for a full size sedan.

Dodge's problem though is the weight of their vehicles. Not necessarily their engines. You just know nothing about cars and obviously hate V8s, so you're blaming that. And you know why they offer the Hemi? Because the people buying their cars WANT it. There's little mileage difference between the V6 versions and the V8, so people get the V8.

Chrysler has many things to improve. But their problems do not revolve around the fact that they offer a V8 in many of their vehicles.


RE: boo hoo
By Mitch101 on 10/20/2011 3:58:35 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with my Chrysler wasnt the car but lousy mechanics who should be banned from the car repair business. I went the first 108K without a single issue with the car. It wasnt until mechanics started working on my car that the problems began.

I had to give up my Sebring with 188,000 miles on it because the mechanics working on it would make the car worse. In the last two cases I spent $900 total in repairs. The first problem was solved with a 50 cent spacer needed on the compressor and the second was a timing sensor. In the end the Mechanic messed up my computer so it wouldn't talk to anything and had a new rattle noise from time to time they could never pinpoint. The first problem took 3 tries to get right and the second 4 visits after that I traded it solely because nobody in race city usa of mooresville nc were all the Nascar drivers are pretty much out of cant fix shyt.

My Sebring was a 6cyl car and got 22.4 MPG I own a new Ford Fusion 4 Cyl and average 24.6. New, 2 cylinders less and 2 MPG more. My Sebring was never reprogrammed but my Ford Fusion with 13k miles has had 2 transmission updates. For the record my wife has a Chevy Equinox which is at 14K miles and they are replacing the timing chain, balance, and tensioner as we speak.


RE: boo hoo
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 3:58:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And 31 mpg isn't bad for a full size sedan.
All of that is just recent though. That kind of fuel economy is NOT standard fare at Chrysler. My thing is this, everyone else can do it. There's really no excuse for them not to.


RE: boo hoo
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 5:05:42 PM , Rating: 1
Spuke they don't have to make excuses! If people are buying their vehicles now in sufficient numbers to stay profitable, then Chrysler IS doing things right. The only people Chrysler should have to answer to is their customers.


RE: boo hoo
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 11:09:01 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
then Chrysler IS doing things right
Didn't say they were doing it wrong. I said they have no excuse. See the difference? If the rest of the industry thinks they can get this done, again what's Chrysler's excuse?

Rec77,
CAFE is part of the reality of doing business as an automaker. And since none of us voted anyone into office that believes in repealing CAFE, we must actually agree with CAFE. And since we all agree with it, we must accept whatever regulation, within reason, that CAFE proposes. As far as I'm concerned, if the automakers think they can get it done, I'm fine with it.

PS - This all goes back to previous discussions about voting the same retards in office. As long as WE keep voting these people in, this is what we get.


RE: boo hoo
By lightfoot on 10/20/2011 5:54:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My thing is this, everyone else can do it.

That's simply not true. Toyota and Honda don't even have a single non-hybrid vehicle that can meet the 2025 CAFE fleet average.

NOBODY can meet these standards without going hybrid or full EV.

The Toyota Prius can barely meet the standard, and it's one of the best. It's also a hybrid.


RE: boo hoo
By retrospooty on 10/20/2011 9:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
"NOBODY can meet these standards without going hybrid or full EV."

A) Its 2011 now. Don't ya think maybe 14 years of goal based innovation may yield some improvements?
B) Not all cars need to be hybrid's, its a "fleet average" that must be met
C) Check Ford. They are well on their way to the CAFE std with non- hybrids.
D) If you don't like any of the hybrid, or more fuel efficient cars from any particular maker, don't buy them. Don't buy them now, and don't buy them in 2025.


RE: boo hoo
By lightfoot on 10/21/2011 4:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A) Its 2011 now. Don't ya think maybe 14 years of goal based innovation may yield some improvements?

Fuel economy hasn't doubled in the last fourty years, so why would it double in the next fourteen years? This is not a reasonable expectation.
quote:
B) Not all cars need to be hybrid's, its a "fleet average" that must be met

Yes it is an AVERAGE - for every car that only gets 30 MPG, another will have to get 80 MPG. The fleet will have to AVERAGE 55 MPG which means that your AVERAGE car will have to me at least as efficient as the modern econobox.
quote:
C) Check Ford. They are well on their way to the CAFE std with non- hybrids.

Ford is no where NEAR these numbers. Their current CAFE value is 31.1. Ford currently is 57% of the way to the 2025 standard. If this were a math test that would be an 'F.' Honda (the current best of all auto makers) is only 67% to the 2025 standard.


RE: boo hoo
By mellomonk on 10/21/2011 1:36:36 AM , Rating: 2
You do realize that Chrysler's current product line is the result of a horrible marriage with Daimler, and then being owned by a capital management company (Cerberus) who was only looking to liquidate? They are finally in a situation where they can make some products that excite auto enthusiasts. They have even done wonders in recent years making silk purses out of sows ears with the current offerings. The new stuff is still yet to come.


RE: boo hoo
By FreeTard on 10/20/2011 8:26:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'll agree with you on the weight issues. In my Wrangler the V8 would have made a whole lot more sense and would have improved my economy over the minivan engine, just because of the weight issue. I could probably actually break 20mpg with the Hemi.

The old V6 was balls, the new V6 not too bad. The diesel never seemed to take off (on anything but the trucks). The only decent option seemed to be to opt for the Hemi.

I do agree with someone down below... They have 13 years to figure something out. I think they need to try and figure something out for say 10 years, and then freak out when the deadline gets closer.


RE: boo hoo
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 8:36:25 PM , Rating: 1
There's nothing to "figure out". No ICE engined car will be able to make these standards. You will have to go full hybrid or full EV, and that's that.

Remember these are FLEET wide standards.


RE: boo hoo
By FreeTard on 10/20/2011 8:53:14 PM , Rating: 1
Right... that's why I didn't specifically mention a tech. They've got 13 years to figure out anything they can. My point is, if they haven't figure something out after 10 then they can come back and complain.

13 years is few more rounds of government that can repeal or change standards. Heck if they were smart they would take all of their R&D money and save it for the next 12 years and then give it to the lobbyists to have the regs changed before they come into effect.


RE: boo hoo
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 11:11:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember these are FLEET wide standards.
They're NOT averages, never have been. There's a goofy formula CAFE uses to determine these numbers. The formula is still in place. Not to mention, the automakers said they could do it. So what's the problem?


RE: boo hoo
By avxo on 10/23/2011 9:43:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No ICE engined car will be able to make these standards.


Granted, that with current technology, it seems to be exceedingly difficult to achieve the fleet-wide average mandated by CAFE standards.

But to assert that no ICE car will be able to make this standards -- ever -- is, at best, stupid.

Take a look at Mazda and their Sky G engines.


RE: boo hoo
By Black1969ta on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: boo hoo
By mellomonk on 10/21/2011 1:45:27 AM , Rating: 2
uhhhh. NO. The Hemi name remains and is a critical part of marketing for RAM trucks and the large sedans. In the coming years you will hear about Pentastar V6s and MuliAir tech on small engines as well as Hemi.


RE: boo hoo
By Black1969ta on 10/25/2011 3:26:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually yes, according to Chrysler they are phasing out the HEMI's

See Link
http://www.autoblog.com/2008/01/22/chryslers-futur...


RE: boo hoo
By Black1969ta on 10/25/2011 3:30:22 AM , Rating: 2
Here is the article I was looking for originally, from DailyTech itself

see link
http://www.dailytech.com/Bowing+to+Green+Pressure+...


RE: boo hoo
By Lazarus Dark on 10/22/2011 10:09:37 PM , Rating: 2
My 09 5.7L Hemi Challenger (6 speed manual) gets 28-29 on the highway. I can hit 19mpg in the city if I focus entirely on hypermiling. I did it once, just to see what the best I could do was. But I will never do it again. Not only is hypermiling really boring and a pathetic way to live, but I'm perfectly happy with getting 14mpg in city, because I have a hell of a lot of fun doing it. I bought this car because its what I wanted. And the government should not be forcing manufacturers to make crappier cars without good reason.

I am comfortable with the, in my opinion, very low amount of pollution my car makes, in comparison to vehicles of decades past. And I am comfortable with the mpg; yes, the fuel price makes me drive it less, but then the fuel price also makes my wife drive the Honda Fit less, doesn't matter what car you have, everyone adjusts their driving habits based on fuel price. Any arguments about pollution or fuel conservation is a personal belief that I don't agree with. I am comfortable with the emissions and mileage of my car, but if others are not, that is not my problem. I have the right to disagree and also the right to not have my choices limited because of what econuts believe. At the very least there is a happy medium somewhere, but forced CAFE increases like what this article is about, in my opinion, is not that happy medium.

If these CAFE increases are not stopped, then I feel it may kill the new car market. Because I will not be buying another new car in the future if it is not EXACTLY what I want (which I almost guarantee means a big V8). I will buy a used car, and I can tell you, most people I know will as well.


RE: boo hoo
By quiksilvr on 10/20/2011 2:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yes it can, he's full of crap. If they can get 31 MPG highway on the Chrysler 300 NOW I'm pretty sure in 14 years they can improve the technology.

Not to mention that carbon fiber is becoming much cheaper and more common in vehicles. And diesel cars are becoming more prevalent.


RE: boo hoo
By The Raven on 10/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: boo hoo
By Gungel on 10/20/2011 2:56:44 PM , Rating: 2
His statement is surprising since Fiat has the knowledge for making very fuel efficient small engines that put out a lot of power.


RE: boo hoo
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 3:41:10 PM , Rating: 2
That go in equally tiny cars that people in America don't want. The Fiat 500 is a flop. No matter how much Jennifer Lopez shakes her fat ass in front of it on TV.


RE: boo hoo
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/20/2011 3:45:14 PM , Rating: 1
If a young J Lo shook her fatass in front of a Camaro ZL1, I'm sure you'd pitch a tent ;)


RE: boo hoo
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 7:57:31 PM , Rating: 1
No I'd tell her to get her fat ass out of the way of a beautiful ZL1. She's never been attractive.


RE: boo hoo
By Nfarce on 10/20/2011 8:04:51 PM , Rating: 1
And she's never had talent..


RE: boo hoo
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 11:12:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
She's never been attractive.
What? Dude, are you gay? Not that there's anything wrong with that.


RE: boo hoo
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2011 7:26:56 AM , Rating: 2
No she just doesn't do it for me.

Now Jennifer Aniston...man I wish I'd been older in the early 90s.....


RE: boo hoo
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 1:25:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now Jennifer Aniston....
Jennifer Aniston??!! No, you're not gay, just need to back off the crack a bit. LOL!

PS - Just messin with ya FIT. :)


RE: boo hoo
By Black1969ta on 10/25/2011 4:24:41 AM , Rating: 2
For once I agree with FIT, I would tell her to Move out of the way,

Never liked J Lo or Beyonce. Aniston has a dirty Girl Aura, but you could still take her home to mom.

Especially in The Bounty Hunter with Gerard Butler.


RE: boo hoo
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: boo hoo
By Hiawa23 on 10/20/2011 6:23:17 PM , Rating: 1
I don't get this. It's 2011, & they have until 2025. Are you telling me in 13 years they don't think they will be able to meet cafe standards. Why & Really...

I am still baffled why we haven't seen better gas mileage out of gasoline engine vehicles over the decades than we have today.


RE: boo hoo
By johnsmith9875 on 10/21/2011 9:30:33 AM , Rating: 1
You can blame the consumer. If you don't keep tacking on 30hp every year they lose interest.

I'm still not sure why a buyer wants a 500hp truck. Small penis I guess. I'm happy with my 120hp 4-cylinder.


Is this guy daft or something?!
By CypherSignal on 10/20/2011 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 1
THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT BEHIND THE REGULATIONS!!




RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 1:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah just screw the whole thing that some consumers don't WANT hybrids.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/20/11, Rating: -1
RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Iaiken on 10/20/2011 2:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
You forgot that customers don't want displacement on demand (Turbo/Superchargers), they want HEMI's.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/20/2011 2:14:45 PM , Rating: 2
Tell that to EcoBoost F-150 which is accounting for 45% of F-150 sales.

People will buy a turbo/supercharged engine as long as it isn't s**t!


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Iaiken on 10/20/2011 2:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
I was being ironic/sarcastic.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By DrKlahn on 10/20/2011 3:07:55 PM , Rating: 2
If those increased the car cost by a significant percentage (20-40%) and doubled the mechanical complexity then you would be comparing apples to apples. You aren't.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 3:16:12 PM , Rating: 1
Brandon are you daft or something??? Ugh never mind, not even worth getting into it.

We're fucked as a nation. Fuel economy standards is the last of our concerns, it's just another symptom. If a large number of people believe, as you do, that the Government knows more about engineering vehicles than people who do it for a living than I guess there's nothing more to say.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/20/2011 3:36:27 PM , Rating: 3
Do you really want a free-for-all in the auto market with regards to safety and fuel efficiency standards?

Do you really think that any of the advances in safety that have been implemented would be in place across the board if auto manufacturers were left to do it themselves? Hell, even simple stuff like LATCH anchors for car seats would be a mess without regulation.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 3:46:40 PM , Rating: 1
Yes. Because automakers respond to what people WANT to buy. They would be building more fuel efficient cars right now even without government interference. Not only that, but more fuel efficient cars would be available because they could build lighter cars for those who chose to sacrifice some safety for a lighter car with better fuel economy. But instead compact cars are now as big as midsize sedans of 20 years ago. Also they could run leaner air to fuel mixtures as they used to before 2004.

No one is saying no standards. We are saying that the current standards are fine. We don't need ever higher standards. Because what happens when 2025 gets here? Then they're going to push for even higher standards. California already wants to. Where does it end? When are things safe and efficient enough? When we all just walk or ride a bike because cars have been deemed too polluting and unsafe to drive?


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By eonsnocrtnarrongi on 10/20/11, Rating: 0
RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Dorkyman on 10/20/2011 6:52:43 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so change is progress?

Change is change. Progress is change for the better. Sometimes progress means changing back to what we had before.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 7:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
"Progress" for those like him is a Collectivist utopia where every single aspect of our lives is directly controlled by the ruling elite for the "betterment" of society.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Nfarce on 10/20/2011 9:06:38 PM , Rating: 2
"Progress" to a liberal is success...in the opposite direction (I read that somewhere else and it hits the nail on the head). Sink the ship of the majority to be equal to the minority that is stranded in the water.

Exhibit A: 84% of Americans had a health care plan either through their company or privately before Obamacare was rammed through Congress. Liberal Dems whined that 16% didn't have health care insurance, so they supported tearing down the current plans and rebuilding it in government fashion so the 16% could have "their fair share and equal access."


By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 7:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
Idiot.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Nfarce on 10/20/2011 8:07:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Well you are just another example of how the conservative brain works. Fear of change. Fear of progress.


Yeah, and we've seen how you liberals have "progressed" the US economy with draconian EPA regulations (shutting down coal manufacturing), Obamacare (already causing some people's insurance premiums to skyrocket), and Keynesian economic policy of government stimulated "jobs" creation.

Your change sucks.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 11:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well you are just another example of how the conservative brain works. Fear of change. Fear of progress.
Where people are forced to do things instead of willingly giving. No thanks. You'll have to shoot me down in my front lawn first. Don't miss.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By homebredcorgi on 10/20/2011 6:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
They would be building more fuel efficient cars right now even without government interference.

So the standards that haven't budged in 20 years are fine and if we didn't increase the standards we would still have cars with high fuel efficiency? How do you think we got to the fuel efficiency averages we have today? High gas prices initiated these standards, but until recently prices were extremely low and demand for fuel efficiency was never a major factor in a car purchase. Why would car makers have bothered putting the R&D into fuel efficiency if it weren't for these standards?

With this type of thinking we wouldn't have catalytic convertors and would still have leaded gasoline. What about seat belts and airbags? The car makers began to include seat belts as a standard option but many people didn't wear them until government laws forced them to. So even having the option doesn't necessarily mean they will be used or wanted by the consumer.

You are isolating these standards as something limiting individual choice (which they do) but ignoring their effect on society as a whole (reduced pollution and accident deaths). The majority of people believe the benefits to society outweigh the limitations on choice. You believe increasing the standards every 20 years is too much. What is an appropriate interval? I say increasing the standards is just fine when transportation still accounts for the vast majority of our pollution and oil use. Eventually, you will reach a point of diminishing returns (that or thermodynamics will impose an upper limit for us) but we still have plenty of room for improvement.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 6:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy has steadily risen even with the "old" standards though. Things like hybrids got to the market, not because of regulation, but because private business spent millions on R&D to bring them to the market. Direction injection? Small displacement turbo engines? All developed without ANY regularization dictating it.

quote:
Why would car makers have bothered putting the R&D into fuel efficiency if it weren't for these standards?


It was because there was a demand for the product.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 11:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
All developed without ANY regularization dictating it.
Yep, which regardless of what I said above about Chrysler, is exactly right. I don't believe CAFE is needed. Why regulate something that's already being done? It's retarded. But, hey, we voted for them!


By sorry dog on 10/22/2011 11:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
With this type of thinking we wouldn't have catalytic convertors and would still have leaded gasoline. What about seat belts and airbags? The car makers began to include seat belts as a standard option but many people didn't wear them until government laws forced them to. So even having the option doesn't necessarily mean they will be used or wanted by the consumer.


I think we would have them...but it would have taken longer. It's not like some bureaucrat one day decided we should all have safety belts and pushed his agenda. It was a public pushback that had many supporters and a few crusaders (Nader types).

It just that the way our country is structured the most effective way of using their energy was to go the government route. That doesn't mean that there aren't alternatives.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 4:51:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think that any of the advances in safety that have been implemented would be in place across the board if auto manufacturers were left to do it themselves?


Right I'm sorry, I forgot the Government invented and deployed on vehicles airbags, crumple zones, seatbelts etc etc. The fact that you believe without heavy regulation everything would be chaos, yet claim you aren't Liberal, is astounding to me.

And you're the one who brought "safety" into this. This has NOTHING to do with safety, it's about CAFE.

But you've always been a Government shill when it comes to automobiles so I don't expect you to change now. Free-for-all? Your argument only makes sense if I'm calling for an END to regulations. Do you see me doing that here? But they should be fair and sensible. When you have a large number of experts in the field citing major concerns about something, maybe you should hear them out? When they tell us straight up that vehicle costs will have to rise significantly to meet these goals, do you even care?

It's like people have such a hate for any corporation, industry, and CEO that they'll root for the Government to slap them down. Irregardless of the fact that it's really only going to end up hurting us, the public at large.

Brandon; what's sitting in my driveway is NOT the concern of a legitimate United States Government.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/20/2011 5:55:09 PM , Rating: 2
I brought up safety because that's one area where government intervention has resulted in a number of across-the-board changes to vehicles over the past several decades (mandated front/side/head airbags, ABS, traction control, side guard door beams, etc).

Do you have a problem with the government stepping in and saying that vehicles sold in the United States should have a minium standard when it comes to safety? That all cars should have child door locks on the rear doors, that all cars should have LATCH hookups in the back seats, that all cars should have, front and rear lighting that meets federal standards?

By that token, I don't have a problem with the government extending that to fuel economy standards. From the way I understand the 2025 CAFE regulations, the 54.5 combined CAFE is for cars and trucks together -- but the EPA windows sticker rating will be much lower (what consumers will actually be looking at).

Vehicles around the size of a Honda Fit will be required to have an EPA window sticker combined fuel economy rating of about 43 mpg by 2025. A vehicle the size of a BMW 7-Series will be required to have a combined fuel economy rating of about 34 mpg.

Trucks of course will have less stringent standards to adhere to.

A 2011 Honda Fit is rated at 30 mpg combined, while a 2011 BMW 740i is rated at 20 combined. A ~14 mpg increase over the next 14 years doesn't really seem all that crazy.

Chrysler's CEO is bitching because the company has ALWAYS been at the bottom when it comes to fuel economy. Chrysler is always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to engines/transmissions and fuel economy. They have a LOT further to go to reach the 2025 goal than many of its competitors.

I don't have recent CAFE numbers, but in 2009, Toyota and Honda had a CAFE of 36.5mpg and 35.9mpg respectively for passenger cars. Chrysler was at 28.3 -- dead last.

Hell, if it were up to me, I wouldn't have even bailed their asses out (the second time). I would have let them rot on the side of the road for the vultures to pick apart.

As for rising vehicle costs, a lot of it is fear-mongering IMHO. Toyota just released its new Camry which gets better fuel economy in I4 and V6 trim than its predecessor and they actually reduced prices. Same goes for Kia with its new Rio.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By DanNeely on 10/20/2011 6:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he 54.5 combined CAFE is for cars and trucks together -- but the EPA windows sticker rating will be much lower (what consumers will actually be looking at).


Correct. The current EPA numbers are about 20% below CAFE (varies slightly by vehicle since the tests are different); so the target is roughtly where current hybrids/low performance models are.


By bigdawg1988 on 10/20/2011 3:44:10 PM , Rating: 2
Your point would be valid if they didn't cry about the standards every time they are raised, and then they meet them well ahead of time (except Chrysler). This guy is telling us it's impossible to meet standards almost 15 years down the road. Oh, just STHU and work on it for about five years. Then, if you really can't come any closer you can complain. Besides, sell a few hybrids and diesels and HEMI up everything else. Get off your lazy butt and work on it. Big crybaby.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By foolsgambit11 on 10/20/2011 4:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe a large number of people think the Government knows more about providing for the general welfare than the people engineering vehicles for a living. The decisions of the auto industry affect more than just the auto industry.


By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 4:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe a large number of people think the Government knows more about providing for the general welfare than the people engineering vehicles for a living.


General welfare? Our Government can't even provide for it's own credit rating. Rome is burning and these guys are worried about what's going to be in our driveways in 2025?

quote:
The decisions of the auto industry affect more than just the auto industry.


The decisions of the automakers reflect the decisions of all of us, the general public. If fuel economy was the foremost concern of everyone, hybrids and EV's would outsell everything else.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Nfarce on 10/20/2011 8:58:22 PM , Rating: 1
Very poor analogy there, Brandon:

quote:
Customers don't want fuel injection


That was a technical advancement that increased performance and fuel economy over carb engines. See: the first Corvette where it was an OPTION.

quote:
Customers don't want ABS
Customers don't want traction control
Customers don't want stability control


I'd like to turn that crap OFF when running on a weekend road course (can't speak for stab control as I don't have it). My Infinity G does not allow turning of ABS or TC. But Corvettes and other higher performance machines allow the OPTION to turn that crap off.

Get the theme here? OPTION! Not MANDATORY!


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By yomamafor1 on 10/20/2011 2:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
AND they have a choice to not purchase a hybrid. Chrysler doesn't need to convert its entire product line to hybrid. It only need to convert the few products to hybrid to achieve the CAFE standard.


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 2:22:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It only need to convert the few products to hybrid to achieve the CAFE standard.
As few cars as they sell, they would need to have a hybrid/diesel option on every car.

quote:
AND they have a choice to not purchase a hybrid.
Which means cars will sit on dealer lots which means dealers will eventually not buy them from the manufacturer which means Chrysler will not build them which means they won't meet CAFE which means they pay fines which means all of their other cars will increase in price....


RE: Is this guy daft or something?!
By daveinternets on 10/20/2011 4:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's not the consumer's job to know what they want.


By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 8:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure if serious.


Fatty-mobiles
By rage33 on 10/20/2011 1:57:53 PM , Rating: 2
Dear CEO, there's something else that works, weight. After the 300, magnum, challenger, charger, etc... have you forgotten how to make a car which weighs less than 2 tons? The neon, PT cruiser, and magnum were all crap. That 500 isn't going to compete in the present market either at it's price and efficiency. Chrysler should have failed.




RE: Fatty-mobiles
By yomamafor1 on 10/20/2011 2:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, the safety regulations (which I deem much more important than fuel economy) as well as buyers' need to have the latest luxury accessories fitted in the car for lower cost would result in a heavy car.


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 10/20/2011 2:12:21 PM , Rating: 2
The Toyota Camry and the Dodge Charger are within an inch of each other in all interior dimensions. In addition, the Charger has total interior volume of 120.1 cubic feet versus 118 cubic feet for the Camry. Cargo capacity is the same for both at 15.4 cubic feet.

The Camry manages this while being 10" shorter overall.

The Charger V6 weighs 3,961
The Camry V6 weighs 3,420

The Charger V6 is rated at 18/27
The Camry V6 is rated at 21/30

That's a hefty price to pay for RWD


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 2:31:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's a hefty price to pay for RWD
Interesting that RWD doesn't add much weight to 2 seaters but adds quite a bit to sedans. Also, interesting that RWD sedans of even a few years ago weren't anywhere near as heavy as now.


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By dubldwn on 10/20/2011 3:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Charger V6 weighs 3,961 The Camry V6 weighs 3,420 The Charger V6 is rated at 18/27 The Camry V6 is rated at 21/30 That's a hefty price to pay for RWD

? - You get a car that weighs over 500lbs more and RWD, while only sacrificing 3 mpg? I'll pay that every time. Plus the Charger looks cool. I think quality is Camry's selling point.


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By Reclaimer77 on 10/20/2011 5:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
Price is the Camry's selling point. Quality? Average at best.

I'm not gonna claim to know a lot about the Charger, I've never been in one and I'm not crazy about domestic vehicles. But I'm skimming through the Edmunds review and it looks like one of the more solidly build large sedans on the market. And certainly a lot more enjoyable to drive than the Camry. Quibbling over 3mpg? I agree, Brandon needs to get a freaking grip.

Chrysler/Dodge has an image, and they make vehicles to reflect that image because people readily buy INTO that image and their vehicles. People like Brandon might not agree with that image and strategy, but I believe companies should have the right.


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By FITCamaro on 10/20/2011 8:03:20 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah the new Charger's look pretty bad ass. Plus an available AWD V8 car? Fuck yeah.

Not to say I'd run out and buy one if I was looking. But that's pretty bad ass and fun.


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By Spuke on 10/20/2011 11:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
Quite frankly, I REALLY like the new 300. Wouldn't buy it though. Too heavy and not quite quick enough. Plus I'm not sure about the build quality or dealer network. I am in the market for a luxury sedan (for the wife really) and I'm leaning towards the Infiniti G37. I'm also trying to convince her that I NEED a Porsche Cayman S since my Solstice is getting up there in miles (and going lower in value). :)


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By FITCamaro on 10/21/2011 7:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
G8 GXP ;)

Or CTS-V.


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By Spuke on 10/21/2011 1:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Definitely CTS-V!!


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By MozeeToby on 10/20/2011 4:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
(which I deem much more important than fuel economy)
That's nice, but what if someone else doesn't. Just playing devil's advocate as I do feel that some level of safety guarantees are important. But it does seem rather odd to me that if someone wants a small, more fuel efficient vehicle at the cost of safety they basically have to buy a motorcycle which is a good order of magnitude more dangerous than a 1980s Honda Civic would be.


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By Dr of crap on 10/20/2011 4:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
Spoken as a non-motorcyle rider!


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By MozeeToby on 10/20/2011 5:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not at all, just someone who understands statistics.

"Motorcycles are the most dangerous type of motor vehicle to drive. These vehicles are involved in fatal crashes at a rate of 35.0 per 100 million miles of travel, compared with a rate of 1.7 per 100 million miles of travel for passenger cars."


RE: Fatty-mobiles
By johnsmith9875 on 10/21/2011 9:29:22 AM , Rating: 2
We need a supply of healthy organs though, motorcycles have their purpose.


Compromise? Easy.
By SongEmu on 10/20/2011 4:35:21 PM , Rating: 2
I have a proposition for a government and big business. If you don't want to follow CAFE standards for the betterment of society, fine. We just won't bail you out with our tax money if you go under. Fair?




RE: Compromise? Easy.
By aepurniet on 10/20/2011 5:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
so your saying, we will impose regulations on you, your company may or may not survive them. but now we will bail you out because you couldnt meet our regulations? i think some car companies are going to be royally screwed by this.

obama is hoping the US companies come out one top. i think the germans and japanese will be selling a lot more cars in the US once 2025 rolls around.


Clueless comments
By Beenthere on 10/20/2011 4:42:12 PM , Rating: 2
No car maker is going to be able to meet the unrealalistic CAFE std. mandated by a bunch of paper pushers in DC without a bunch of crap mobiles to skew the numbers. All of the car companies are going with hybrids because they have no choice.

Chrysler is no different than any other car maker. In fact you will see more Fiats badged as Dodges to help meet CAFE standards just as GM and Ford will be importing crap boxes to meet government mandates. The engine technology simply does not currently exist to meet the foolish CAFE stds. mandated by the Fools on the Hill.




RE: Clueless comments
By aepurniet on 10/20/2011 5:22:35 PM , Rating: 2
dont forget those rebadged lancia's. and im not talking about some delta integrale 2 throwback.


Cry baby?
By obiwankenobi on 10/20/2011 5:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
Forcing the very high fuel efficiency numbers will reduce consumer choice and force automakers to build cars that consumers don’t want.

Toyota has been selling the Prius by the millions and yet these people will say that they are building cars that people don't want. I would say that Chrysler is building cars that people don't want while Hyundai is laughing all the way to the bank for its best selling 2011 Elantra because of it's fuel efficiency and sleek design. If you can't compete, your business will die, so stop blaming others for your demise.




RE: Cry baby?
By mellomonk on 10/21/2011 1:25:59 AM , Rating: 2
Chrysler and Fiat are far from 'dying'. Sales are up big time and the first totally new products of the Fiat partnership are still a year away. In fact in recent months they have been outselling Toyota with their so called 'un-loved' products, so we once again have and American 'Big Three'.

Marchionne is known for his outspoken comments. In this case he is just expressing a common feeling among auto execs. Everyone understands the needs for regulations, but sometimes the boundaries can chafe. Sergio is a to the bone 'car guy' and hybrids and EVs, given the current level of technology and public sentiment, just do not excite him. He has expressed this many times in the past. BUT he is no dummy and has made great investments in preparing for a future with EVs, hybrids, and alternative fuels. At preset he has been working hard to bring Fiat's Multi-Air and similar efficient tech to Chrysler's power train offerings which stagnated under Daimler's apathy and Cerberus's austerity. That combined with new small car and crossovers co-developed with Fiat/Alfa Romeo will give the Chrysler group a very strong and broad lineup in the next few years.


For a start, this is kind of silly..
By piroroadkill on 10/21/2011 4:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
Since the FIAT group has some of the best small diesel designs around.
They're also ridiculously efficient.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JTD_engine#1.3

1.3 litre turbo diesel good for up to 105hp.

In the UK available to us with this engine, we have the Vauxhall Corsa with the 95hp version of this, 67mpg (US), 3.5l/100km. Has stop/start, too. Emissions are low enough to avoid paying any road tax at all in the UK.




By Beenthere on 10/21/2011 9:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately Euro Diesel emissions is much more practical than in the U.S. Many Euro Diesels can not meet the absurd U.S. Diesel emissions and thus must be re-engineered at considerable expense because the U.S. EPA does not like Diesels and wants to promote EVs and hybrids over clean, fuel efficient and practical Diesels.


No Sh**!!!
By Arsynic on 10/20/2011 2:46:06 PM , Rating: 1
You don't think Obummer and Company expected the automakers to defy physics and produce a 60 MPG gas vehicle. They wanted car manufacturers to power their cars with batteries and solar cells provided by Solyndra so that Big Oil will be replaced by Big Green and the campaign donations would flow into Democrat coffers.




RE: No Sh**!!!
By stm1185 on 10/20/2011 3:06:14 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe that is true, because Obama knew Solyndra would fail, even knew the month in which it would fail, so obviously he did not expect it to become a solar cell provider for automobiles, that was just crony capitalism.


:(
By publicspace on 10/20/2011 6:39:02 PM , Rating: 2
Awww muffin...




Evolve or Die
By Apone on 10/20/2011 7:45:02 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler/Fiat's CEO's candor is appreciated however ill-advised. The big picture behind Chrysler is that it feels like it's being coerced into innovating and having to build better fuel-efficient vehicles. There's a saying in business which is "evolve or die". I understand the political frustration Chrysler is experiencing from Uncle Sam with CAFE's aggressive objectives but if the company seriously wants to survive in the long run, it must overhaul its strategy to be a trailblazer. There's only so much that cylinder deactivation, variable valve timing, forced induction, and direct injection can do.




Bring on the diesel
By nofumble62 on 10/20/2011 10:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler don't know how to make hybrids. When they are too late to enter, maybe forget about it altogether.




CAFE
By johnsmith9875 on 10/21/2011 9:26:25 AM , Rating: 2
So a CEO is complaining about being pulled kicking and screaming into the 21st century of technology?

And we wonder why Chrysler had to be bailed out....TWICE.




Hybrids are shortcuts
By anaxarxes on 10/24/2011 2:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
Instead of doing real R&D and increasing efficiency of ICEs, Chrysler cuts the road by going hybrid. Really nice. My '02 Civic was rated 34mpg combined, new VW diesels achieve over 50mpg highway, but the damn '12 Cruze is rated 33 mpg.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














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