Comments on: U.S. automakers to meet Schwarzenegger

By: XR_2 Capri

XR_2 Capri — Thu, 08 May 2008 09:17:25 +0000

If GM USA kept the EV-1 program (and the other manufactures as well) going they would have cars that do 0 litres/100km.
Dont ask what the carbon footprint would be though.

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Thu, 08 May 2008 07:30:25 +0000

yes i also believe that it is an average fuel consumption they have to meet, not every vehicle meeting the actual figure.
i would have said meeting the average would be pretty damn hard too.
i mean to offset the massive amount of F-trucks using 15L/100k, they would need a hell of a lot of small cars achieving 4L/100k

By: crazychook

crazychook — Thu, 08 May 2008 06:19:59 +0000

I think fuel will be around $2 around christmas time (2008). Change in our driving habits are coming sooner than you think!

By: XR_2 Capri

XR_2 Capri — Thu, 08 May 2008 02:59:37 +0000

chucky
the weight of cars has changed which is valid but a polo 1.2 with 55kw is a better car choice in Sydney than a 200kw family car, most of the time having a single occupant. People quoting falcons and commodores doing 8litres/ 100 k’s are dreaming if the driving is in heavy traffic. A corolla has just as much perfomance as a old VL and will do the big K’s past wellington or west wyalong with ease, if the “big country” thinking is in mind.

TP “might” in the end, be on the winning side

a side note if barrel prices go to $200 and it works out that $1 = 1c in price increase that would mean $2.30/ litre in 2 years
push bikes, chook chasers and 4 cylinders will rule and say good by to falcon and commodore, Toyota will win

By: jamison

jamison — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:39:25 +0000

Not surprised at all.. actually, working in the industry, we knew about the “new” regulations about a year ago. Forecasting trends etc..

It is rather a difficult task, as currently the big sellers in the US are vans, small trucks and full-size trucks. Its also where the most profit is made, and hence its tough to make decisions that involves dramatic changes.

Making cars lighter is an option as someone stated, but for vans, trucks etc, they are redundant, as these vehicles are designed to carry upto 7 people with many safety features and also a lot of loads… and saving 30-40kg per vehicle will have a “tiny” effect on fuel consumption effiency. Changing body shell structures is almost out of the question, as literally would mean spending tens of billions of dollars and also a heck of a lot of new issues and problems…. again its not even an option.

engine-type, is pretty much where its at…. quiet simply.

Don’t be surprise if Australia adheres to a more restrict regulations soon also. We are paying ridiculous amounts for petrol, hence the trend of high sales of 4 cylinders.
But I think its not going to stop there.

Thats why some companies policy of “bigger bore” for more performance, I just cannot respect, its a rather “easy” way of getting power…. anyone can get 300kW by increasing engine size. And also, anotther issue… with Oz’s ridiculously tough road rules… do you really need that much power. I’m talking about daily drivers by the way…

By: Chucky

Chucky — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:00:51 +0000

XR_2 Capri Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Chucky,
I remember when 117kw VL was a car for the big country
————————————————————————————————-

You forgot to mention that the VL weighed almost half a ton less than the current VE Commodore. Do you think that people would pay another $10,000 or so for a Commodore made from lightweight materials?

By: XR_2 Capri

XR_2 Capri — Wed, 07 May 2008 12:18:34 +0000

Chucky,
I remember when 117kw VL was a car for the big country and then before that the 90kw XC was a big powerful car for the big country.
I really think that the thinking that you need 300kw to travel across the big country is well past it used by date.
My wife and I travelled from the central west N.S.W to Adelaide in 12 hours then did the coast road from Adelaide to Sydney and averaged 7.3lt/100 km in our Jumbuck fully loaded with camping equipment.
Now you dont need big KW for a big country

By: Chucky

Chucky — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:54:42 +0000

stfu Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
oh what rubbish
“”unrealistic expectations that will force them to limit sales of many models””

“something that many European manufacturers have already achieved with several models”

the europeans have already proved that it is realistic….if u cant do it,just quit making cars
—————————————————————————————————

Some cars right now can do 6.72L/100km or better, but if you think that the average European car can achieve this then you are really deluded. The Europeans may be able to achieve this goal by 2020, but that is biased to compare them with America seeing as how European countries have small narrow cramped streets where a small car makes sense, as opposed to America which is a big country with wide roads where everyone is not so cramped living on top of each other (New York City excluded).

Average fuel efficiency can be improved to meet the CAFE target, but it doesn’t come free. Using lighter materials and more advanced engine technology costs a lot of money, and those costs will be passed on to the consumer. This is why carmakers are making a fuss, because they don’t want to spend all this money if it results in customers being put off by the higher purchase prices.

By: crazychook

crazychook — Wed, 07 May 2008 11:21:17 +0000

I believe that the 6.72l/100km (35 MPG)is an average for the manufacturer of all their models that they sell. One manufacturers average at the moment is 15 MPG. So all they have to do is sell (and make) more smaller cars and hybrid vehicles. It is achievable but US manufacturers and consumers will resist spending more money to change their ways.

By: XR_2 Capri

XR_2 Capri — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:39:54 +0000

The US Automakers needs to deal with the fact that the world is trying and they aren’t. Jimmy Carter made the automakers goto I think 25mgp and they did Ronald Ragan came in and squashed it, if they had anyone with brains in charge over there since then they would be probably leading the world by now.
As Carl said diesel in jeeps except for the US how dumb are they, but a 7.4 turbo diesel in a F350 is fine???????????????
Go Europe,ship some quality over there

By: Justin

Justin — Wed, 07 May 2008 09:24:12 +0000

6.72L/100km? My 1.6L 98 Corolla gets me 7.7L/100km at best. Sure it doesn’t have all that “new” fuel efficiency improving technology like vvt, direct injection etc, but all I can say is that 6.72 is one big task.

By: stfu

stfu — Wed, 07 May 2008 04:45:00 +0000

oh what rubbish
“”unrealistic expectations that will force them to limit sales of many models”"

“something that many European manufacturers have already achieved with several models”

the europeans have already proved that it is realistic….if u cant do it,just quit making cars

By: Minnow

Minnow — Wed, 07 May 2008 02:20:57 +0000

haha yeah just like the The Simpsons movie. “I was elected to LEAD…. not to read”

Sort of stupid to have the same fuel consumption for a truck, for example a Prime Mover is never going to use the same amount of fuel as a diesel golf, but it is more efficient at transporting goods. It should be based on fuel consumption for the payload, just like what was in the wheels magazine this month, that explains the concept perfectly.

By: f1worldchamp

f1worldchamp — Wed, 07 May 2008 01:16:33 +0000

They are only struggling because they don’t want to. Who wants to volunteer to tell Texans with guns they can’t have F100’s anymore?

By: Carl

Carl — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:54:16 +0000

The only American car here in Australia capable of beating that fuel consumption mark is the DIESEL Jeep Patriot/Compass….and the Americans don’t even get that model they only get the petrol versions, and they don’t even come close!!!!
Therefore you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to realise that the American car industry will struggle to produce sub 7tl/100k cars…..personally i don’t feel sorry for them !!

By: Frugal One

Frugal One — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:32:51 +0000

“I’ll be back”

LOL

Cheers

F-0

By: Mitch

Mitch — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:32:30 +0000

that is a unrealistic target 6.72 litres/100km. they would have to remove all safety features to make cars lighter.

By: KJ

KJ — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:31:32 +0000

Good on him! Arnie for President! Then it will be just like The Simpsons movie!

By: No Name

No Name — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:51:30 +0000

Aww shucks poor yanks gonna have to driven smaller cars. Oh what a pity. Get over it USA your the biggest polluters on the planet thats one helluva badge to wear.