backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 245 comment(s) - last by KamiXkaze.. on Jan 27 at 7:05 PM

GM's next generation Chevrolet Impala will remain FWD-based

GM's 4.5 liter V8 Duramax diesel engine

Honda's 2.2-liter i-DETC diesel engine
GM's Northstar to fade away while Chrysler's Hemi may see less service

In late December, President Bush signed into a law a new energy bill which will raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) average to 35 MPG by 2020. Some auto manufacturers balked at the idea while the bill was under construction, but Detroit’s Big Three all committed to complying with the new standard once it passed.

The first victims of the new energy bill are already starting to show up just a month after the new energy bill passed.

General Motors announced that it cancelled plans to build new versions of its Northstar V8 engine. GM's Northstar engine was introduced in the 1990s and has been a staple in the engine bay of high-end Cadillac luxury vehicles.

GM will instead rely on its direct-injection (DI) 3.6 liter V6 engine to power its luxury vehicles. The DI V6 produces 304 HP in the CTS compared to the 320 HP, 4.6 liter Northstar V8 engine used in the larger STS. The V6 engine does, however, have a huge deficit in the area of torque when compared to the current Northstar V8 -- the V6 produces just 273 lb-ft of torque while the V8 delivers 315 lb-ft.

GM claims that the move to the DI V6 will not only improve the fuel economy of its larger vehicles, but will also save weight across the board -- the V6 is anywhere from 150 pounds to 200 pounds lighter than the Northstar V8.

Another big loser in the midst of new CAFE regulations is Chrysler’s Hemi engine. "The Hemi is not the powertrain of the future," said Chrysler co-president Jim Press. "It's the powertrain of today."

The Hemi engine will not be dropped entirely from the Chrysler portfolio, but its role will be greatly diminished. The 5.7 liter V8 Hemi engine was recently upgraded for the 2009 Dodge Ram and now produces 380 HP and 404 lb-ft of torque -- up from 345 HP and 375 lb-ft. Fuel economy was also boosted by 4 percent and emissions were reduced compared to the old Hemi engine.

Despite the upgraded power and improved fuel economy, vehicles like the next generation Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 will likely miss out on Hemi power. Instead, Chrysler is developing new "Phoenix" high-output V6 engine to take the place of the Hemi. The engines will feature dual overhead cams, variable valve timing and cylinder deactivation. Ranging-topping variants are likely to surpass 300 HP, like its competitors, and provide better fuel economy than its Hemi counterpart.

When it comes to actual vehicle platforms, General Motors is already taking steps to comply with the update CAFE. The company originally planned to resurrect the Pontiac GTO -- again -- using the same underpinnings as the upcoming Chevrolet Camaro and Pontiac G8. Those plans are now shelved.

"I think (the Monaro/Pontiac GTO) is gone for now," said GM's Bob Lutz. "We’ve got nothing in the product plan right now like that. We’d like to have, but you can’t do everything."

GM was to also build the next generation Chevy Impala using the same RWD platform. Those plans were also shelved and the next generation Impala will continue to ride on a FWD platform.

Despite the killings that were mentioned above, manufacturers are looking to new, more efficient powertrains to power their vehicles into the future. All of the major manufacturers are looking to hybrid, fuel cell and electric vehicles to boost fuel economy. Manufacturers, however, are also looking towards an increased use of turbocharging and diesel technology to boost economy.

Ford recently announced its "EcoBoost" engine line which takes advantage of turbocharging. Its new 2.0 liter turbo four produces an incredible 275 HP and 280 lb-ft of torque. The company's new 3.5 liter V6 produced a whopping 340 HP and 340 lb-ft thanks to turbocharging. Both engines produce the power of a V6 and V8 engine respectively while achieving greater fuel economy.

On the diesel front, General Motors will soon roll out a new 4.5 liter V8 Duramax diesel engine destined for its light-duty pickups and SUVs. Toyota is following suit with a new V8 diesel engine for its Tundra full-size pickup and Sequoia full-size SUV. Honda is also prepared to make a 2.2 liter i-DETC diesel four cylinder engine available in its 2009 Honda Accord and 2009 Acura TSX. A larger 3.5 liter V6 diesel will finds its way into the Honda Pilot, Honda Ridgeline and Acura MDX.

The new CAFE regulations were a big wakeup call to all auto manufacturers who sell vehicles in the U.S. It's great to see that manufacturers are adept enough to evolve and adapt to give customers the power they crave with increased fuel economy at the same time.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sheet
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 11:45:00 AM , Rating: 4
Well, good going politicians. You neutered the Charger and killed the GTO.

Thanks.




RE: Sheet
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 1/23/2008 11:48:01 AM , Rating: 2
There's always the Challenger :)

My guess is that the 300C and Charge will stay with HO V6 engines while the upcoming Challenger will continue on with the 5.7 liter and 6.1 liter Hemis... for at least a few years.


RE: Sheet
By theapparition on 1/24/2008 9:57:27 AM , Rating: 4
I find it particuarly amusing when I see the "death of sports cars" headlines.

First, some facts.
High performance cars make up only a fraction of the sales of cars/trucks. When faced with CAFE decisions, the manufacturer's are going to look at the number of vehicules sold by fuel economy. When ever you want the biggest change, you don't go after the smallest items. The end result.......the top25 offenders probably won't be sports cars. They'll be Trucks and SUV's.
The end of the big V8 dead? So far from the truth. There are advantages to forced induction (turbocharing and supercharging) but issues as well. There is an old addage, "there's no replacement for displacement". So true. NA engines will deliver signifigantly more torque than their equal powered turbo'd counterparts. Torque is what gives acceleration response, which consumers have become accustomed to.

Now for those horrible American engines:

For example:

2008 Mitsu Evo X:
2.0L 4cyl Turbo 320hp
16city/22highway

2008 Corvette
6.2L 8cyl 436hp
18city/28highway

And now for that same engine in a much heavier car:
2008 Cadallac CTS-V
6.2L 8cyl 430hp
17city/25highway (2007 models were 15/24)

Which would you rather have? Less power in a small turbo engine, with poorer fuel economy, or more power in a more fuel efficient engine. (I just tried to pick cars that were similar in performance, I don't need lessons on the fact that they appeal to differnt markets). The GM LSx series of engines will also be updated with displacement on demand and VVT. Such enhancements will only add to their fuel economy. Can't do DoD on a 4cyl and the EVO already has VVT.
So for as much as American companies get bemoaned for big fuel-sucking low-tech engines, they seem to be doing all right.

What's really sad, though, is that the Corvette actually props up GM's average fuel economy figures, which hover somewhere around 24mpg. Toyota, recognized as the leader in fuel economy, only manages close to 28mpg, after all those Prius' it sold. Belive me, the Tundra will face the chopping block before most sports cars.

Out of the big 3 American, GM is probably in the best position to meet the new standards. Ford probably a close second. Chrysler billed itself as the big, heavy, punch-you-in-the-face brand, and such will have to do a complete revamp of product line, not only engines, but put their pig-heavy cars on a diet. German brands will also have issues, but have more experience with meeting those requirements in Europe. Still, because you have European experience, that doesn't mean that it will translate to American consumers' tastes.

It was sad that they cancelled the Monaro, though. The Challenger and Camaro will be cool, and I still think you'll see a Pontiac version of the Camaro (whether they call it Firebird or GTO). Performance cars are very much alive, and you won't see them going anywhere soon.

Now....400hp Suburbans, you may want to buy now if you really want one.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 10:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
> "Now for those horrible American engines:"

Err, the Evo X (in addition to being more than 10% heavier than a Corvette) is also an all-wheel-drive model. That alone equals the difference in mileage between the two.

> "Torque is what gives acceleration response, which consumers have become accustomed to"

Consumers buy what they can afford. When CAFE standards force domestic automakers to put big-block models at a price point high enough that they don't impact fleet standards, sales will certainly decline dramatically.


RE: Sheet
By theapparition on 1/24/2008 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Err, the Evo X (in addition to being more than 10% heavier than a Corvette) is also an all-wheel-drive model. That alone equals the difference in mileage between the two.

Err, you also dismissed the Cadillac, which is also a full 10% heavier than the EVO X is.
All wheel drive models should have very little difference in mileage, since the the other axle is only operable when the computer senses bad conditions or the operator is hard on launch, where 50% of the torque can be delivered to the front wheels.

So let's take a look at another comparable model.

Infinity G35
3.5L V6 306hp
17/24mpg

Infinity G35x (all-wheel drive)
17/23mpg.

Overall.......very comparable cars to the Cadillac, with very similar mileage numbers. Yet the Cadillac gets a full 40% more power. Would you want 40% more power for the same cost of fuel? So which engine is more efficient? You know the answer. Adding some high-tech features to these engines will only make them better.

quote:
Consumers buy what they can afford. When CAFE standards force domestic automakers to put big-block models at a price point high enough that they don't impact fleet standards, sales will certainly decline dramatically.

The problem is, those big-block models we are talking about are already more efficient than most of their sales fleet. Sales won't decline dramatically, since they are already a minor sales item. When Chevy sells 618,257 trucks and over 400k SUV's per year, and only 30k corvettes (that already have higher mpg than corporate average fuel economy) it has a minor impact.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 2:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Err, you also dismissed the Cadillac, which is also a full 10% heavier than the EVO X is"

According to the Cadillac site, there isn't a 2008 CTS-V. There's an 07...but it uses the 6.0l engine, not the 6.2. The 2009 CTS-V has the 'Vette engine...but its going to be supercharged, which pretty much negates discussing NA engines.

Also, when comparing engines, you can't just pick one outlying example and claim its indicative. Engines are tuned for specific purposes. Take for instance the engine in my very small, light, two-seater, which gets 17/24 mileage. It's tuned for power at all costs, not economy.
The same displacement V6 engine (not the same engine itself) even in a substantially heavier sedan can get 19/28. Add direct injection to that and you can hit 30mpg highway.

But in any case, I'm NOT disagreeing with your primary point, that mpg doesn't correlate inversely to displacement. There are a lot more factors involved.


RE: Sheet
By theapparition on 1/24/2008 4:10:50 PM , Rating: 2
I did put the 2007 Cadillac epa numbers in the original comment. Still a good basis for comparison. Two of my vettes are supercharged and put out over 800hp and over 1000hp. The 800hp one is my daily driver, and can get over 30mpg highway, so I know a little bit about forced induction too. ;)

Your absolutely correct that engines are tuned for distinct purposes. Point is, engines are always tuned (from factory) for:

1. Emissions
2. Safety
3. Performance
4. Fuel Economy

Most engines are pig-rich from the factory, since that makes the engine safer to operate in all enviroments. With a proper aftermarket tune, you can signifigantly increase hp, mpg, and lower emissions.

quote:
Also, when comparing engines, you can't just pick one outlying example and claim its indicative.

True, but if I didn't have any examples, someone would chime in disputing the claims.

In any event, the facts speak for themselves. I tire when I hear that American sports cars with big low-tech engines are gas guzzlers, when in fact, they usually exceed (or are on par) with most other cars on the road.


RE: Sheet
By Samus on 1/24/2008 3:31:41 PM , Rating: 1
I have a Mazdaspeed Protege with over 200 wHP. I consistently get 30MPG highway. I had a Subaru WRX (non STi) that had somewhere in the 250wHP range with 15psi boost, still got 30MPG highway.

I'm tired of people saying performance cars and SUV's get simular mileage. That's simply impossible when you have a 1:2 weight differential. Protege/Subaru are 2500lbs, Tahoe is 5000lbs. The acceleration, top speed, braking and overall fuel milage will be much less than a compact car.


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By Christopher1 on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By TheDoc9 on 1/23/2008 12:08:50 PM , Rating: 5
maybe in 50 years when we're all required to ride segways someone will be saying that to you.


RE: Sheet
By creathir on 1/23/2008 12:16:59 PM , Rating: 1
Muscle cars are my right to drive. Sports cars are my right to drive. Hummers are my right to drive. I pay taxes on those roads just like you do. If you want to drive a freakin' yugo, go right ahead. I'll stick with my Ram 1500 Quad Cab.

- Creathir


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 12:28:30 PM , Rating: 1
We don't care what you drive.........do we? You want to spend more on gas, be my guest.


RE: Sheet
By Topweasel on 1/23/2008 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
But that is the thing. This new Law prevents companies from selling these options because otherwise people wouldn't purchase the high MPG cars. This law sucks because basically tell the car companies what to sell, no matter what the majority actually want.


RE: Sheet
By ebakke on 1/23/2008 1:00:18 PM , Rating: 4
While I would never buy a muscle car, or really any vehicle that guzzles gas, I completely agree with you. Let the people decide what they want. If we want 4 MPG vehicles, sell us 4 MPG vehicles. At some point, people will get sick of spending $2304911234 a day for gas, and they'll demand higher standards. The difference is that they'll demand it from the manufacturer not the government. Even at $3 per gallon, Americans have shown that they're not willing to change their driving behavior, or their vehicles.

The government needs to get out of deciding what vehicles consumers can/can't buy.


RE: Sheet
By bpurkapi on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:26:25 PM , Rating: 3
A law removing overtime wages and requiring people to work 50 hours/week would help the economy. A law requring the death penalty for property-based crimes would help the economy. A law requring anyone past retirement age to be euthanized would help the economy.

There's a little problem with a thing called "freedom", though.


RE: Sheet
By smitty3268 on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By oTAL (blog) on 1/24/2008 1:22:21 AM , Rating: 3
Actually, when you look past the surface two of those three things would never help the economy. I have no idea about the death penalty change... maybe it would...

I still think that the best way would be to "integrate" the environment into the economy by taxing fuels higher and waiting for the economy to adjust. Still, this can be a good thing...

I know we disagree on this and other topics masher, but surely you can see the possibility that the pros will outweight the cons in this law change.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By oTAL (blog) on 1/25/2008 11:26:31 AM , Rating: 3
That was quite an aggressive and empty post. I've got to admit I expected I little more from you masher...

Surely you know that even disregarding the ethical part of the question, slave labor isn't nearly as productive, by many measures, as adequately compensated workers (depending on the task I'll give you that).

It's a little silly to be condescendent towards fellow dailytech readers when no reason was given. I believe my point is valid. If you disagree please do so in a more courteous way.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 11:36:51 AM , Rating: 1
> " believe my point is valid. If you disagree please do so in a more courteous way"

If you felt my statement was directed to you personally, I apologize. It was, however, not, but rather to those few remaining Keynesian economists who still believe in the concept of a free lunch.

As for "slave labor", I suggested no such thing; a mandatory increase in the work week is a far different matter. And, of course, the statement was simply for illustration of the rights issue, and wasn't being seriously advanced.


RE: Sheet
By napalmjack on 1/23/2008 2:15:22 PM , Rating: 4
They're is ALWAYS a political reason for EVERYTHING Bush (or most all of politicians for that matter) does, has done, or will do. Do you really think he gives a damn about the economy, and do you actually believe that the new CAFE standards will lead to lower gas prices? Seriously??


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 3:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They're is ALWAYS a political reason for EVERYTHING Bush (or most all of politicians for that matter) does, has done, or will do.

Thats why they are POLITICIANS by trade.
quote:
Do you really think he gives a damn about the economy

Don't be naive, of course he does, as does everyone else. But each side has a different view on what they see as a resolution, and how bad they actually think the problem is.
quote:
and do you actually believe that the new CAFE standards will lead to lower gas prices?

No, who said they will? In 10 years, the global demand will have increased much more than today's levels. So if the oil producing countries are stating that the price is reflective upon the demand, then the price of gasoline will not decrease. The point of the CAFE standards, although its stupid and in my view would work itself out via capitalism & supply/deman, are to acheive more mpg's in 2020, saving some money in your pocket in comparison to 2007 mpg.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 4:09:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
saving some money in your pocket in comparison to 2007 mpg.
Who says that the US will have lower fuel prices in 2020 even compared to 2007? Even if our demand drops because of more fuel efficient cars, why would the oil companies, OPEC, and others charge us less? Especially when India, China and some others will be paying horrendous prices for oil? It's already been shown that gas prices are not directly connected to oil prices or even demand for that matter. It's was calculated that current average gas prices in SoCal should currently be at $2.77/gallon based on demand, refinery capacity and all the taxes and fees yet gas is at $3.40 a gallon. Who says that gas prices will be lower than China and India come 2020? I think that's just wishful thinking.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 5:01:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "why would the oil companies, OPEC, and others charge us less? "

Neither oil companies nor OPEC set the price of oil. Commodity traders do, by estimating the price needed to equate demand with supply.

Furthermore, the price of oil only accounts for about half the price of gasoline. A lot of the recent gas price runup is simply due to a lack of refining capacity, nothing else.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 5:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Neither oil companies nor OPEC set the price of oil. Commodity traders do
Ok. Why would commodity traders set the price of oil lower? And, why would the refineries lower the price of gas? Whoever sells the gas from the refineries will still be able to charge high prices because of increased demand and commodity trading to India and China. So it goes back to my original question, why would the price of gas go down because the US's demand goes down?


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 5:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "Ok. Why would commodity traders set the price of oil lower? "

Easy one. Because if they don't do so when demand weakens (or when supply grows faster than demand) they lose their shirt. Traders don't make money from raising prices. They make money by guessing right.

> "And, why would the refineries lower the price of gas? "

Because if they don't, their competitors will. And then no one will buy their gas.

This really isn't open to debate. Look at how far gas prices fell during the 1980s and 1990s. Demand was increasing very slowly (it actually fell a few times) and supply was increasing quickly. So the price fell.

Now we have the opposite situation, and it will probably persist for at least five years. After that, we'll likely see a period of falling prices again, at least briefly.


RE: Sheet
By Manch on 1/27/2008 7:03:26 PM , Rating: 1
I thought it was the rapidly increase in air travel, the expanding markets and population boom in China and India, the lack of refineries in the USA, the multiple standards for gasoline, OPEC and all of those other things like the political instability in the Middle East. I could be wrong. Who woulda thought that those damn hummer guys, err sorry ladies people were responsible!


RE: Sheet
By irev210 on 1/23/2008 1:27:48 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more.

Consumers know what they want.

I am all for having low emission standards but increasing fuel economy is something people should decide. Already we see that many consumers enjoy the higher MPG vs low but that doesnt mean everyone does and forever.

Again, I think we need to regulate emissions, not MPG. Higher emission standards actually decreases MPG, most people don't know this. My 1989 Honda CRX got 55MPG but when I take it to California smog station it pollutes about 300-400x more than my newer 2002 Ford F-150 even though both are running in perfect "like new" condition.


RE: Sheet
By Oregonian2 on 1/23/2008 1:48:13 PM , Rating: 3
In other words, when there's a shortage of fuel that could have been delayed with higher MPG's, folk forced to use public transportation and/or sit in long fuel lines for their quota will yell and curse but *without* mentioning the government in terms of blame?

You feel the government has no responsibility in trying to maintain the long term stability of fuel supply (and therefore the country's economy)?


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 2:18:39 PM , Rating: 5
> "You feel the government has no responsibility in trying to maintain the long term stability of fuel supply "

Which it could do much better by allowing and incentivizing additional drilling and refining capacity, as well as increasing the size and scope of the strategic petroleum reserve. Increasing the federal gas tax would do more to control demand alone.

The government is doing what's popular here, not what makes the most sense economically.

In any case, if you're asking us to choose between freedom and unbridled economic growth, I'll take the former, thanks. However, that's a false dilemma. History has shown that government meddling in the free market is nearly always counterproductive. If the government keeps it thumb out of the gears, the market will find a much better solution than the chaps in Washington ever can.


RE: Sheet
By jimbojimbo on 1/23/2008 5:43:17 PM , Rating: 1
"The government is doing what's popular here, not what makes the most sense economically."

What's funny is every suggestion you brought up was something Republicans were fighting for but the Democrats and the enviro-activists shot them all down. I can't wait for the sun to calm down again so they can all shut the hell up about global warming this and global warming that.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:24:25 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
every suggestion you brought up was something Republicans were fighting for but the Democrats and the enviro-activists shot them all down.

Exactly. Because republicans believe in capitalism and increasing the economic output. Democrats are more based on an increase of spending for social policies and high taxes. When it comes to economics, fiscal policy, and capitalism...you'd be a fool to think the democrats would ever do anything to benefit a person economically - the only thing they are concerned about is redistribution of wealth to make everone "even".


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/23/2008 9:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sun to calm down again? Are you serious? Global warming is not about the sun getting angry and "turning up" and then if we appease it, maybe with a sacrifice, it will "calm down".

Global warming is def. something to be worried about it is not some crazy thing these weird scientists came up with. It has its base in some strong scientific evidence. I cannot say for sure that it will happen but it is a good theory with a lot of support (I dont mean dems or repubs I mean legit support from researchers). People often attempt to discredit it because it is "just" a theory but evolution, relativity and the big bang are also "just" theories.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 10:00:17 PM , Rating: 2
> "Global warming is not about the sun getting angry and "turning up" ..."

Err, the Sun does have several known cycles which cause it to vary in both intensity and activity, the Maunder Cycle being the best known of these. Several climatologists do in fact believe that changes in solar activity are the primary driver for long-term climate change. See Svensmark's research at the Danish Space Center for one such reference.

> " but evolution, relativity and the big bang are also "just" theories. "

Evolution, relativity, and the Big Bang are all theories with extensively proven predictive abilities. Anthropogenic Global Warming, on the other hand, has so far failed to make a single accurate prediction...and more and more climate researchers are starting to explore other alternatives.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/23/2008 11:49:28 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Err, the Sun does have several known cycles which cause it to vary in both intensity and activity, the Maunder Cycle being the best known of these. Several climatologists do in fact believe that changes in solar activity are the primary driver for long-term climate change. See Svensmark's research at the Danish Space Center for one such reference.


Err, just because several climatologists argue with the overwhelming scientific community does not make them right. There is a tenured prof. of molecular biology at the number one ranked molecular biology school, Berkeley, who believes HIV/AIDS is not caused by a virus but is simply an immune deficiency (most of his colleagues disagree). His name is Dr. Peter Duesberg.

Evolution is constantly against about by ppl who believe in intelligent design. Some of them are scientists. (I believe in evolution as well as HIV being caused by a virus.)

"more and more climate researchers are starting to explore alternatives"

This is way too broad of a statement to be verifiable, I doubt anyone went door to door or did a poll asking climate researchers whether they are, in fact, doing this.

quote:
A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[23] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[24] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[25][26][27] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."


so it may not be unanimous but it is def a majority. that majority is increasing (also from same source listed below).

quote:
The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation.[17][18][19] The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[20] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[21] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations[22] explicitly use the word "consensus" when referring to this conclusion.


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

Now if I had to bet, would I bet on that small group of people who disagree with all the above experts? It would be presumptuous and foolish...and a waste of my money.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/24/2008 12:32:40 AM , Rating: 2
correction in above::

Evolution is constantly argued against by ppl who believe in intelligent design. Some of them are scientists. (I believe in evolution as well as HIV being caused by a virus.)


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 9:33:56 AM , Rating: 2
> "just because several climatologists argue with the overwhelming scientific community does not make them right"

The "overwhelming majority" is pretty much a media myth.

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641

http://www.dailytech.com/100+Prominent+Scientists+...

Still worse, even the climatolists who *do* believe in AGW don't support the doomsday scenario theories the media constantly advances.

> "so it may not be unanimous but it is def a majority"

The Oreskes survey includes work as far back as 1993, and nothing at all later than 2003, for a mean publication date of 1999. Climatology has advanced a great deal since then.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/24/2008 10:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Why do you reference Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte? You know as well as I do that what he does is called junk science and biased reviewing. He is def not respected in the scientific community. The groups that I referenced that endorse global warming are the most respected scientific communities around such as the national academy of science. You respond to that with Dr. Schulte? Are you joking? Here is what the journal to which he submitted his paper (that you referenced) said:

quote:
Schulte's Analysis: Not Published; Not Going to Be
The celebrated research by Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte, claiming that a legitimate debate still continues over the science behind climate change, is "a bit patchy and nothing new," according to Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen , editor of the Energy and Environment journal to which Schulte had submitted the work for publication.

It is "not what was of interest to me" and will not be published, Boehmer Christiansen said (in email correspondence reproduced in full at the end of this post).

(Thus, it turns out that the only way you could justify calling Schulte's work "peer-reviewed" is by pointing out that his biggest fan, Christopher Walter, is the Third Viscount Monckton of Brenchley - a British peer.)


btw you know hes not a climatologist right? hes an endocrinologist


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/24/2008 10:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just saw that you wrote a whole blog about Schulte. Are you out to misinform? There is a clear consensus about global warming as I stated in my above reference of all the major scientific communities. The numbers you reference and that he used to write his paper are clearly inflated against global warming.

Among the group that he says reject global warming
quote:
Two of the papers conduct no actual scientific research but merely review social aspects of climate science. I'm baffled as to why they would be included other than to "boost the numbers":


http://www.skepticalscience.com/Klaus-Martin-Schul...

Basically your endocrinologist (not climatologist) is rejected by the scientific community.

Heres another list of grps that support global warming (some maybe repeated as I didnt check whether they overlap)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
* Environmental Protection Agency
* NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies
* American Geophysical Union
* American Institute of Physics
* National Center for Atmospheric Research
* American Meteorological Society
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere
* The Royal Society of the UK
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Academies of Science from 19 countries

All the leading scientific grps support global warming. Its a clear fact.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/24/2008 11:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
> "btw you know hes not a climatologist right?"

The papers he cited were by Climatologists, however. If you prefer more "hefty" names, how about some of the following:

Dr. Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Gerhard Kramm of the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
Physicist Dr. Laurence I. Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and former Chair of the New England Section of the American Physical Society.
Dr. Freeman Dyson, noted physicist.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute
Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Physicist Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center.
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Robert M. Carter of Australia; Former UN IPCC.
Dr. James P. Koermer, a Professor of Meteorology and the director of the Meteorological Institute at Plymouth State University.
Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon
Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, a professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, IPCC expert reviewer.
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Atmospheric Science, MIT.
IPCC 2007 Expert Reviewer Madhav Khandekar, Ph.D meteorology.
Solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev, of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
Physics Professor Emeritus Dr. Howard Hayden of the University of Connecticut.
Dr. Ben Herman, past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona.
Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia.
Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin.
Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA.
B.P. Radhakrishna, President of the Geological Society of India
Climatologist Robert Durrenberger, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
IPCC reviewer and climate researcher and scientist Dr. Vincent Gray.
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee
Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant
Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia
Physicist Dr. Eigil Friis-Christensen is the director of the Danish National Space Centre.
Geologist Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, professor emeritus of the Department of Physical Geography.

I could name more than 300 more, all skeptics of the "global warming" consensus.


RE: Sheet
By guy007 on 1/25/2008 3:12:47 AM , Rating: 2
I obviously cant go through the whole list and check who each person is, but one name did catch my eye, MITs Dr. Lindzen. He is def not the most unbiased source you can find.

quote:
Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan claimed that Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." According to a PBS Frontline report, " According to PBS, Dr. Lindzen has claimed in Newsweek and elsewhere that his funding comes exclusively from government sources, but he does not seem to include speaking fees and other personal compensation in this statement"


Furthermore you mostly list people. I listed the most elite scientific groups each representing hundreds to thousands of top scientists. Now I know their are some scientists that do not believe in global warming but the majority do. 300 ppl is a small drop in the bucket.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/25/2008 10:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
> "Ross Gelbspan wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen "

And of course, the usual nonsense about a secret "big oil" conspiracy funding all the hundreds of scientists who disagree comes out. Let me ask you this-- how much billions have pro-Global Warming researchers received from environmental causes with an axe to grind?

BTW, Ross Gelbspan is a political activist whose made millions from his global warming books and speaking fees.

> "I listed the most elite scientific groups "

The EPA isn't an "elite scenitific group". The AIP and the AGU are. The AIP, btw, merely adopted the AGU's position statement verbatim...a statement approved by a nine member governing board. The position wasn't voted on by the members at large.

And what WAS that statement? Let me quote from it:
quote:
Enhanced national and international research and other efforts are needed to support climate related policy decisions. These include fundamental climate research, improved observations and modeling, increased computational capability, and very importantly, education of the next generation of climate scientists. AGU encourages scientists worldwide to participate in climate research, education, scientific assessments, and policy discussions. AGU also urges that the scientific basis for policy discussions and decision-making be based upon objective assessment of peer-reviewed research results
In other words-- more research is needed. Sounds like a very sensible position...especially when you represent an organization whose members have received some $40B in climate research funding.

You can read the full statement here, and you won't find ANY hint of a looming catastrophe.

http://www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Sheet
By Oregonian2 on 1/23/2008 7:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ah! Supply and Demand. Supply is safe to target, Demand is forbidden to mess with. I get it now... especially interesting when increasing the supply rate only makes things worse (given a fixed limited supply) long term.

I keep forgetting how everything political should be decided for short term reasons -- wise long term policy is forbidden!


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 8:01:22 PM , Rating: 4
Your error is in assuming that continued exploitation of oil is a mistake. Your logic chain is:

"Since oil is a finite resource, we should stop using it as soon as possible"

However, that statement was as true in 1908 as it is today...even more so, in fact, since proven oil reserves then were on the order of 10 years (President Coolidge even convened an emergency council to "solve the problem" of oil which would shortly all be gone).

By your logic, we should have stopped using oil a century ago. But obviously that would have been horribly unwise, and would have denied billions of people the benefits of industrialization.

The smart thing to do is use resources while they're available, then shift to alternatives as supplies dwindle. When do you shift? When market forces tell you too...when the rising price of oil and gas makes those alternatives practical.

But as long as gas is cheaper than grain alchohol, its a more effective resource economically. Failing to use it makes about us much long-term sense as trying to run the country on solar power in 1908.


RE: Sheet
By irev210 on 1/23/2008 10:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly...

We will NEVER EVER EVER run out of oil. It will simply become too expensive to extract.

As masher2 is saying -- as soon as oil becomes economically "expensive", we will simply move to something else "cheaper".

I hate how people think these CAFE rules will help the "Gas guzzlers" stop taking away oil from the "earth savers".

If you are an earth saver, you will let supply/demand and economics hold its course. The higher the oil price goes, the more people will naturally just buy more fuel efficient or vehicles that do not use fossil fuel at all.

Of course those short minded people say "well those options dont exist". That is irrelevant. As soon as oil becomes too expensive another alternative will replace it.

If I was running all of the green orgs I would try to let people use as much oil as possible, driving up the cost of oil allowing alternatives to become financially attractive to companies and individuals.


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 3:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Nonsense. There will still be a few muscle cars left for the rich enthusiasts. 35mpg is a fleet average. That means one or two high performance - low MPG vehicles in each lineup with the other twenty vehicles (especially for GM and Ford) at around 40 - 50 mpg range. The Vette, GTO and Mustang will still be around. They will just cost $100k+ and be brutal to refuel every couple of days. Those who have the money burning a hole in their pocket will still be free to buy them.

The reality is that when gas costs upwards of $6 - $10 per gallon (probably within the next 5 years if not sooner), consumer demand will force automakers to produce vehicles that get way more than a measly 35mpg. It's only a matter of time and this law will be moot.


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 3:57:13 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nonsense. There will still be a few muscle cars left for the rich enthusiasts.

Ahh yes. And prior to all the stupid CAFE standards & EPA/Environmental regulations, muscle cars (or almost all cars) were available to the MIDDLE CLASS, not the "rich enthusiasts".


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 4:05:39 PM , Rating: 1
Sucks, doesn't it. But this law won't have anything to do with it. If the USdollar keeps falling and our debt starts to get sold off for cheap, well, bad things are going to happen in our backyards and terrorists won't have anything to do with it. Having a mid-priced muscle car will be the least of our concerns.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 4:14:42 PM , Rating: 2
Everyone acts like the falling dollar is a new thing. Does anyone read History 101 anymore or are the events of the past irrelevant to today's cultured and highly intellectual society?


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 4:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
You are very right it's not a new thing. And I didn't mean to make it seem like it was. But it's certainly a correction that could hurt quite a bit for a good while. We (Americans) have, plain and simple, overspent as a society for too long. But as Americans we have the right to be as financially irresponsible as we want... until the bill comes due. I am as guilty of this as anyone. I still want a bigger HD set. This $145 billion economic stimulus will just make things that much worse, but politicians are trying to stay elected. I'll be saving that rebate check, thank you.


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 5:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
Gotcha. I just heard about the rebate checks. Who qualifies for those?


RE: Sheet
By mdogs444 on 1/23/2008 6:20:30 PM , Rating: 2
Thats still open to debate, as the bill hasnt been written yet...and won't be for at least another 3 weeks.

However, from following the situation, there is back and forth on who it should go to. One thing is clear is that they will decrease the federal taxes on corporations so they can increase employment. The republicans want to issue the tax rebates back to the people who actually pay taxes, and the democrats want to give rebates to the poor who dont pay taxes and put more money into people who get prolonged unemployment benefits, welfare, and food stamps.


RE: Sheet
By Etsp on 1/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 12:39:17 PM , Rating: 1
> ""Right" to drive...which amendment was that again?"

The 9th, 10th, and 14th, to be precise.


RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 1:44:17 PM , Rating: 3
9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The 14th Amendment refers to not restricting the privileges (not rights) of the people WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. CAFE was passed by elected officials, signed into law by an elected official, and doesn't restrict your ability to buy a car, own a car, or drive the car; using this amendment to say CAFE is unconstitutional is weak, at best. While it restricts the power of the car, the power of the car has little real bearing on the ability of that vehicle to perform it's basic function: safely get the occupants from place to place.

I read, re-read, and re-re-read each of these. I still didn't see where we're guaranteed a right to drive. After all, there were no cars when this these amendments were created and ratified.

At best, one could interpret these to mean that people have the right to move freely about the country. But you don't need a Hemi (or a Honda) to do that. Or perhaps one could say you have the right to attempt to receive the privilege of obtaining a driver's license and car, assuming you obey the laws and can afford it. But there is no where that says driving is a right of the people; it's a privilege.

If it were a "right" to drive, then we'd have to subsidize vehicles for those who couldn't afford it, otherwise we'd be denying those who didn't have the means for a car their basic Constitutional "rights".


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 1:56:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But there is no where that says driving is a right of the people; it's a privilege.
I believe it is a privilege also but the government is not treating driving as a privilege. If it were, then they would restrict any cars except fuel efficient one's. If we're truly in a crisis then take the drastic measures required of a crisis. The government DOES have this right but they choose not to exercise it. Why?


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 1:58:29 PM , Rating: 2
> "I still didn't see where we're guaranteed a right to drive."

Technically, the federal government is denied the right to restrict what we can drive. If the Constitution does't specifically grant them that right, they don't have it.

> "After all, there were no cars when this these amendments were created and ratified."

Radio, TV, high-speed printing presses, and the Internet didn't exist then either. Does that mean freedom of speech doesn't apply to them?


RE: Sheet
By Etsp on 1/23/2008 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Technically, the federal government is denied the right to restrict what we can drive.
I was under the impression that the government mandated that vehicles sold must meet certain safety requirements, which as you stated in another post, is effectively the same thing as denying us the right to drive it.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 2:20:46 PM , Rating: 2
> "I was under the impression that the government mandated that vehicles sold must meet certain safety requirements"

Your impression is correct. Now, examine the Constitution and try to find where it's given that power.

Our rights are already infringed in numerous ways. That doesn't mean we should blindly accept additional restrictions.


RE: Sheet
By hemipowered on 1/23/2008 2:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. They already ripped from me the second US muscle car era :( This time it isn't from an oil shortage, go figure...


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 3:35:56 PM , Rating: 3
I agree too, they should do away with safety standards and re-label it population control. No safety, more deaths.........yeah, population control.


RE: Sheet
By MaulBall789 on 1/23/2008 3:49:03 PM , Rating: 2
So by that logic all laws not stated directly under the Constitution are illegal. Anarchy Now! Yeah, I don't think so.

I don't think this is blindly accepting anything. Fossil fuel demand growing way faster than supply is one thing but the sinking US dollar is also going to take it's toll. Maybe these factors (among others) will force us to greatly expand local drilling and refining but it only delays the inevitable.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 5:04:41 PM , Rating: 2
> "So by that logic all laws not stated directly under the Constitution are illegal. "

All laws which grant the US government powers not expressly authorized by the Constitution are illegal, yes.

As for it being "anarchy", if it was good enough for the Founding Fathers, it's good enough for me.


RE: Sheet
By mcmilljb on 1/23/2008 6:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws. Quoting just a small part of the Constitution (actually a small addition) does not define what Congress can and cannot do! Congress does not need to legislate directly most of the time any way. Quick and easy way is to deny money to states not complying with what they want. Ask someone from Louisiana old enough to remember about why they finally passed the law raising the drinking age in their state to 21. More than likely CAFE punishes automakers with huge monetary penalties. They could ignore it, but people are not going to pay that penalty too.


RE: Sheet
By masher2 (blog) on 1/23/2008 6:39:34 PM , Rating: 3
> "The Constitution gives Congress the right to pass laws. "

But not any and all laws regardless. It specifically limits what laws can and cannot do. The 9th and 10th Amenderments **do** exist for very real reasons. That's an important point to remember.


RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 2:32:59 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, that has been challenged in the courts many times. And is still being challenged (recent events on MySpace come to mind). The Constitution doesn't protect all speech, this has been made clear through decades (centuries) of legal precedence. And through the legal standard of precedence, laws are written and challenged. And broadcasting isn't a right; it's a privilege. And the government, through LEGAL PROCESSES, does have the right to restrict privileges, and rights, as is stated in the Constitution. Read 14 again. If they couldn't restrict an individual's rights through due process, they couldn't send you to jail for breaking the law. The key here is due process. 14 isn't without exception, just as the courts have ruled.

There's also a little part of the Constitution that grants the government power to make laws and enforce them. If you think this law inhibits your driving "rights", I'd suggest you contact the ACLU.


RE: Sheet
By Verran on 1/23/2008 2:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Technically, the federal government is denied the right to restrict what we can drive. If the Constitution does't specifically grant them that right, they don't have it.

The federal government is not restricting our rights on what we can drive. They're restricting what cars can be made, just like they have been doing for decades now. As I said before in another post: I would seriously hope that you guys aren't blind enough to think this is the first time this has happened.

Let's say these new standards prevent them from making a Mustang V8 next year, or whatever. Then the federal government just removed your right to buy said Mustang, by your logic. But isn't the federal government already "removing your right" to drive a Mustang with factory straight pipes? Or a Mustang without airbags? etc. etc. etc. What about my "right" to drive some of those foreign diesel models that don't meet regulations over here? How is that any different?

These things are mandated on a daily basis. This is nothing new. In fact, this is even less drastic than normal because (if another post in this thread was accurate), BMW is currently choosing not to follow these guidelines, and is still selling the cars they want with a premium attached. GM could do this too, and you could maintain your "right" to choose if you wanted that car.

People are complaining about losing the "right" to drive a car that has not been built. In fact, the "right" is only lost if it ISN'T built. Seems like a bit of a logical paradox.


RE: Sheet
By eye smite on 1/23/2008 3:41:40 PM , Rating: 1
I agree with you, aside from being stubborn, complaining is a strong american trait and we look for violations of our rights when there are none or that right never existed. Why do we let these dolts even post here?.............Oh yeah it's that first ammendment thing again isn't it. Should have a stupidity stipulation in it somewhere


RE: Sheet
By Spuke on 1/23/2008 3:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BMW is currently choosing not to follow these guidelines
No, they're going to try. They're releasing diesels and hybrids. At their relatively small volumes, even if they miss the target, the fines won't be that great and they can roll them into the cost of the car (they're doing it already) and their market wouldn't notice the price increases.

These are premium cars and their customers expect to pay premium prices. The thing is that regular cars will be approaching the premium prices of the upper end car makers with diesel and hybrid technologies. And it seems the car makers also want to reduce weight while maintaining current and future safety standards too? Ha! Expect to pay at least $10k more for that Camry by 2020. I expect the price increases to start in 2009.

Notice how NO ONE has mentioned actual prices of these new cars?


RE: Sheet
By diablofish on 1/23/2008 4:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
There are other ways auto makers should be judged. For example, the content of their vehicles that use recylced materials instead of "virgin" materials. How energy efficient their plants and assembly processes are. How well they support the local economies of the areas where their plants are. Simply looking at fuel efficiency is only a part of the bigger picture.

For example, do a little research on BMW's Spartanburg, SC plant. You'll find that they have taken steps to make the manufacture of their vehicles more green in addition to looking for ways to make their vehicles more fuel efficient.

The market is shifting to be more demanding of green products. Target, Wal-Mart, and others are all looking at ways to reduce packaging costs (and environmental impact) by changing the way products are packaged. They'll not only save money, but be able to market themselves as being more green - which more and more consumers are demanding. BMW and other car makers are looking at ways to reduce energy costs in their production so they can cut production costs AND market themselves as green.

For example, in the latest issue of Wired magazine, BMW has a multi-page insert promoting their green initiatives.


RE: Sheet
By Malhavoc on 1/23/2008 3:00:46 PM , Rating: 2
You won't find it. If it was truly ones right to drive, you would not require a license. So in essence, you are granted permission to drive. Permission is not equal to right.