# Lutz says 35 mpg CAFÉ will scuttle GM product plans



## 05GTO (Oct 6, 2004)

*Lutz says 35 mpg CAFÉ will scuttle GM product plans*
Automotive News
Rick Kranz 
December 7, 2007 - 10:33 am ET​ 

_Click Bob's picture for Video_​ 

SAN DIEGO — A massive change to General Motors’ future product plans is expected if the 35 mpg (6.7 litres/100km) CAFÉ fleet average favored by Congress is enacted into law.

“The minute we have confirmation of the 35 mpg rule, that is the point where we go through all of our forward product plans and probably introduce, frankly, massive restructuring of the product plan,” said GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz. “A 35 mpg fleet mix means there is a bunch of stuff out there that is going to have to be 40 and 50 mpg.” 

The House bill passed last month calls for a 35 mpg nationwide fleet average by 2020, roughly a 40 percent increase from today’s CAFÉ standard. A key provision allows an automaker to trade credits between its car and truck fleets.

“We will have to take a look at everything because we’re going to have to come up with a plan which gets us to 2015, 2017, gets us part of the way there, and with clarity on how we’re going to get the rest,” said Lutz, interviewed Dec. 5 at a Saturn event in San Diego. “Then we will have to start raising prices as we introduce the new technology.” 

He estimated a $6,000 to $7,000 increase in the price of vehicles requiring new technology. GM is offering a two-mode hybrid power system in the 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon, although it has not said what the price of the option will be. 


Source: 
Automotive News covers North American automotive sales and production, automakers marketing in the United States and importers, and franchise and independent dealers in the United States 

Auto Channel, 2008 New Cars, 2008 New Car Buyers Guides, 2008 New Car Pictures, 2008 New Car Videos, 2008 New Car Reviews, 2008 New Car Pricing, 2008 New Car Buyers Guide, 2008- 1993 Car reviews, Hybrids, Compare Cars, The Car Channel, Compare New Ca


----------



## aintmisbehavinn (Feb 9, 2006)

Maybe we should hang on to what we have, makes me want to keep my 72.


----------



## Good 2 go (Sep 7, 2005)

GM showed 3 sub-compact concepts, the Beat, Groove and I can't remember the 3rd. They need to put those into production, that should help the CAFE numbers, and possibly allow the other higher powered "toys". Just my 2 cents.


----------



## gtoforspeed (May 19, 2007)

I know that they will have to have 35mpg avg but is that off how many are produced or is it just the number of models?


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

gtoforspeed said:


> I know that they will have to have 35mpg avg but is that off how many are produced or is it just the number of models?



A car gets 34 city and 45 hwy mpg, the Cafe formula is 1 hwy and 2 city numbers divided by 3, so the average is 37.66 mpg. A truck gets 18 city and 24 hwy, it's average is 20 mpg. 

The way it works is, if you produce 100,000 trucks that get a combined city hwy average of 20 mpg ( that's about what a Ford Ranger or Chevy Colorado gets) You would need to produce and sell a number of vehicles that would boost the average to 35 mpg. 

So if Ford sells 100,000 Rangers at 20 MPG then it needs to sell 575,000 cars, which it currently doesn't make, that gets and average of 37.66 mpg to meet an average of 35.04 mpg. 

Right now people won't buy Focus' that are discounted at the 575,000 a year rate. Ford sells close to 100,000 Rangers per year. So Ford would need to lower the price of a car that is more fuel efficient than a Focus to a price that they could sell 575,000. Or they would need to raise the price of the Ranger to lower it's sales . 

My guess is that you would see the F-150's price go up by 40-50 percent, so that a work truck would cost 30,000 and a nice 4dr would be 50,000. You would then see the sales of those vehicles tamk. People would look to buy more affordable vehicles and Ford would use the money from the F150's raised price to lower the price of a car that is more efficient than a Focus. 

This 35 MPG Cafe would mean that you will see more hybrids. Cars will get much smaller, Power will be down considerably. Lighter materials will be used to make cars weigh less. Aerodynamics will again come into play and cars like the 300 and the Mustang won't be able to be bricks anymore.

Fortunately the government has learned from the 70's. When Cafe first cme into play the government cranked EPA CAFE numbers up faster than manufacturers could use technology to meet them. The only way the manufacturer could comply was to make an underpowered piece of junk. This new mandate is giving the manufacturers some time to develope technology and redesign models to improve efficiency. The cutbacks won't be as drastic as the 70's. 

Eventually technology will catch back up and we will start getting corvettes that have 400-500-600 hp again and they will get 35-40 mpg hwy. 

Mercedes just showed off an S-Class that has over 200hp, goes 0-60 in 9 seconds and gets 70 mpg hwy. It uses the Dies-Otto cycle engine that runs like a diesel, compression fired at low rpms, and Otto cycle at high rpms. Car manufacturers will focus on aluminum instead of steel. You will see lots of cars use technology to stay decent sized and powered. My guess is these regulations will only force car makers to make better cars.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

Where`s our 75mpg they promised us back in `85 when FI first hit the showrooms for good??
I`ve got a ten year old car that gets better millage then about 80% of new vehicles sold now.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

Rukee said:


> Where`s our 75mpg they promised us back in `85 when FI first hit the showrooms for good??
> I`ve got a ten year old car that gets better millage then about 80% of new vehicles sold now.


Here's what has happened. We the consumer have demanded more power. We have demanded safer cars. We have demanded a view of the road from a higher seating position. We have demanded more creature comforts. We have demanded stiffer, more solid automobiles. We have demanded quieter vehicles. 

There is two ways to achieve that. One is expensive and requires the use of exotic metals and carbon fiber, plus extensive technology. The other is cheap and means adding more steel, more sound insulation, making the car larger, and trucks and SUV's are now in the picture. 

A 1986 Pontiac Sunbird weighed 2315 lbs and was considered heavy for it's class. It had a 1.8 liter OHC FI engine that was pretty advanced for it's time and made 85 hp. It would get 34 mpg highway and 24 city. It was good for a 10.8 0-60 time and was about 18.5 seconds in the 1/4 mile. For the time that was good. I owned one and that's how I know that stuff. In 1979 A Ford Granada weighed 2900 lbs and had a 84hp 250Ci. straight 6. It was about 15 seconds 0-60 and got 18 around town and 25 on the highway. Again pretty good for it's time. 

Fast forward to today. I have a 2003 Chevy Cavalier. It's 2.2 Ecotech makes 140hp and delivers epa numbers of 24 and 36. The car weighs 2700 lbs even though it's the same platform as the 1986 Sunbird. It runs a 15.8 1/4 mile and is able to do 0-60 in about 7.5 seconds. The weight issue is 2 airbags, a power sunroof, stiffening beams that have been added. Better bumpers, bigger wheels tires and brakes. ABS brakes, more sound deadening, a longer front and rear overhang for an appearance of a larger car and more trunk space. Better quality interiors with nicer seats, finished headliners and soft dashes and headliners. (Anybody remeber vinyl headliners) 

Take away 400lbs from my Cavalier by using carbon fiber for body panels, eliminating some sound deadening, making the body fit the platform tighter, lower the roofline, lighter wheels, smaller brakes for a lighter vehicle. Composite doors, lighter thinner seats, a lighter exhaust of aluminum instead of stainless and aluminum in suspension components takes another 200lbs. Change the engine to a 1.0 liter that makes 85 hp and is highly efficient eliminates 100 lbs. You now have a car that gets 40 city and 50 highway. It probably weighs 2000-2100lbs and is faster than the 1986 version by a bit. It also costs 2200 more than the version I'm driving due to the cost of components in it. NO ONE WOULD BUY IT!!!! It would be too slow, too expensive, and feel and look too small and flimsy. 

The average car in 1979 weighed 2900lbs. The average car in 1986 weighed 3000 lbs. The average car in 2006 weighed 3800lbs and the average truck/suv weighed 4800lbs. 

In 1985 most cars didn't have power windows, locks or seats. A sunroof was a rare option. A/C was an option on most vehicles. Lets face it, America's cars have become fat just like the population. For cars to become more efficient they will lose weight, power and comfort till technology and higher prices move into the market. Our addiction to trucks that 98% of the time haul nothing more than air will have to end also. That is what the government in general and Al Gore in particular are telling us. We must all sacrifice for the good of the world and so China and India can continue to catch us by polluting as much as they want and producing goods as cheaply as possible.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

A better way to get manufacturers to produce higher mileage vehicles than CAFE. Raise the price of gas through high taxes. Do this gradually, 50 cents per gallon at a time every 9 months over the next 4 years till you have raised it a total of 2.50 per gallon. 

Here's why I think it's better. 

If you are poor you will get rid rid of large vehicles and drive smaller more efficient vehicles. You will also drive less and use less fuel. The poor will also move to public transportation which will make that a viable alternative to your car. More need and use will drive there to be busses that get utilized instead of the 5 passengers on a bus right now. This will mean there will be less vehicles on the road and traffic will flow more freely which will make us use less fuel. 

If you are middle income, you will respond just like the poor and drive less, buy a smaller more efficient vehicle and plan trips better. The middle class might utilize busses but only for a to work commute type of situation. What the midlle class will do that will be a great thing would be to pressure their employers to set up a work from home station. They would save money and fuel by driving less and also using the computer to shop from home. 

The rich would continue as they are with some minor cutbacks in trips probably. 

This would help the airline industry, at 5.00 per gallon a drive from Pittsburgh to Chicago now costs $200 in gas alone, roundtrip at 40 mpg, where a flight would cost still cost $149 or might go up to 199. You wouldn't tax jet fuel differently. 

You would also raise the price of diesel fuel through taxes, but only by a $1.50. This would do a couple things also. 

First, goods would switch to railroads and help them survive. There would be less truck traffic on the road which would make traffic move freer and use less fuel. 

Second if gas is 5.00 per gallon and diesel is 4.00 per gallon, people would buy a more efficient diesel vehicle and pollute less. This would reduce pollution and our dependence on imported oil. It's fairly easy to make diesel from coal, plus biodiesel is easy to get. You could also make the extra tax on biodiesel a 1.00 surcharge instead of 1.50. 

We would import less oil because of all of this. We would all look for more efficient vehicles to buy instead of having them forced on us by a manufacturer. We would pollute less. The extra funds from the taxes would all, by mandate, be used for new road construction or improvements to current roads. This would alliviate traffic congestion and reduce fuel consumption. A car like the GTO or a Vette would still be a viable toy, and for the middle class if you were working at home 2 or 3 days a week, would still be a viable daily driver. 

There's my suggestion.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

I think someone could really clean up with a car like that. If it was soooo simple that anyone could work on it, I mean every part of the car, was reliable, got great millage, I think besides the public every fleet would want them just for service costs savings over time alone. Similar to how simple the early beetles were to work on. Sure the dealers would be missing out on the service end, but they`d more then make up for it in total sales.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

fergyflyer said:


> A better way to get manufacturers to produce higher mileage vehicles than CAFE. Raise the price of gas through high taxes. Do this gradually, 50 cents per gallon at a time every 9 months over the next 4 years till you have raised it a total of 2.50 per gallon.
> 
> Here's why I think it's better.
> 
> ...


Or we could move to a renewable fuel source, like corn based ethanol. That would keep our farmers going too.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

Rukee said:


> Or we could move to a renewable fuel source, like corn based ethanol. That would keep our farmers going too.


At the current time, corn based ethanol is not a very good alternative. It takes a bunch of energy to raise and harvest the corn. Then it doesn't yeild as much energy as other alternatives like sugar cane for ethanol production. 

As a country we really need to take advantage of the renewables that we have. If we were to spread solar panel across 10% of the land area of Nevada, we could produce enough electricty for the entire US. We have miles of coastline where winds are a viable source to produce electricity. 

Places like Arkansas have hot springs where we could tap geothermal. There are lots of solutions, but the problem comes back to the same thing. Oil is the most cost effective solution to our energy needs. That's why the tax works. It raises the cost of oil so other solutions become a cost effective solution to oil dependence. 

When you mandate the mpg through CAFE, you end up with vehicles that people don't really want being produced. So they don't buy them, but instead hang on to their older vehicles. By raising the price of fuel through taxes you generate a demand for more efficient vehicles, so people actually want the car that gets 50 mpg and they want to give up their 14mpg pick-up.


----------



## sniper.x611 (Jan 30, 2007)

Interesting thoughts fergy..
Although I'd love to see that bill get passed. Whens the last time you walked inside the station to pay for gas, and didn't hear someone crying about prices.. 

Albeit a smart and simple solution, the general population isn't willing or capable of understanding "alternative" solutions to their own problem. We (and I mean "we") would rather make the companies fix our dilemma. 

But I really like the idea.


----------



## fattirewilly (May 26, 2006)

Anyone else here see this as a great reason to own Alcoa over the next 10-15 years?


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

I just heard the 35 MPG CAFE passed the house and the senate and is on it's way to Bush. Bush has indicated he will sign the energy bill with the CAFE of 35 in it.


----------



## MR.GTOOHIO (Nov 1, 2007)

*Hmmmmmm*

I Know A Few People From Harvard That Did A Study Back In 1993. They Stated That The U.s. Would Do Just What Is Occuring Now.

That They Would Utlilze Growing Support For Environmental Issues To Reign In Fuel Consumption And The Best Way Was To Raise Fuel Prices And Legislate Production Of More Efficient Automobiles.

Conservation Isnt An Issue Here. They Have Discovered That There Is More Oil Now In The New Canadian Fields Than All The Middle East Combined.

Just Try Finding It On Google Earth. You Cant. It Is Blocked From Site On All Satellite Programs.

U.s. Interest In These Fields Are Huge And U.s. Brokers Own Large Portions Of This.

I Agree That Trucks Are The New Vette. Everyone Seems To Need One For That Rare Occassion Of Hauling Home The New Washer And Dryer, Or That New Lawn Mower Purchase.......once Every 5 Years.

Look At The Hummers, The Escalades, The Rest Of The "gas Pack".

Baby Boomers Have Always Ruled The Market In The U.s. Always!!!!!

And Now That The Second Childhood Is Creeping In And The Bones Are Getting Weary I Really Dont See Them Giving Up On The Smooth Riding 4500 Lb Vehicles Or The On Star Navigations. 

The Problem Is That You Cant Kill The U.s. Auto Industry Without Killing The Economy.

Also You Cant Keep Fuel From "the Poor" By Raising Taxes On It Or The Wedge Between The Classes Will Grow Even More.

Ps- Did You Know That Al Gore Drained A River Feeding A Reservoir (killing A Huge Amount Of Shoreline Vegetation And Fish) Just So He Could Canoe Through It In Slower Shallower Water While Making His Commercial On Saving The Environment? This Guy Is Not To Be Trusted Nor Listened To.

The Question Now Remains : What About Us Performance Driven Gearheads? Tuners Know How To Go Faster With Less Ci's And Better Mpg. Can We Drop Our Stangs And Goats And Chargers For A New Sleek 45 Mpg 2200 Lb 155 Mph Tuner Made Here In The Usa? I Could!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

*35 Mpg*



fergyflyer said:


> At the current time, corn based ethanol is not a very good alternative. It takes a bunch of energy to raise and harvest the corn. Then it doesn't yeild as much energy as other alternatives like sugar cane for ethanol production.
> 
> As a country we really need to take advantage of the renewables that we have. If we were to spread solar panel across 10% of the land area of Nevada, we could produce enough electricty for the entire US. We have miles of coastline where winds are a viable source to produce electricity.
> 
> ...


I know this new law is not Just from LUTZ, It came from the good old USA and they want ALL cars to average 35MPG by around 2020. This could be the end of the line for Hi Performance cars as we now know them.We do have the technoligy to have cars run on 80 percent of their total cylinders when in cruise mode, so mabe they can work on that with a car that runs on 50 percent power in certain situations, but if they don't. GOOD BY MUSCLE CARS


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

*35 Mpg*

This is a continuation from post #16, 

I believe it is LEXUS that currently has a 400 HP HYBRED car on the market. Maybe the American auto maker could go that route. Lets face it they have another 12 years to develope this engine. When I was in the ARMY most if not all of our vehicles were called MULTI FUEL because they could run efficently on GAS, KEROSENE, DIESEL and just about any other type of combustionable fuels. Our trucks could run on a mixture of all 3 at the time. This type of fuel was used mostly in our trucks of all size's including the earley HUM VEE'S. I don't know what they are using now.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

How about 230+mpg?
DailyTech - Aptera Motor Company Shows Off 200+ MPG Car
Surely no muscle car, but still capable of 100mph.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

Rukee said:


> How about 230+mpg?
> DailyTech - Aptera Motor Company Shows Off 200+ MPG Car
> Surely no muscle car, but still capable of 100mph.


There's a couple problems with all those cars. They don't come any where close to meeting US safety regs. By the time you get airbags, proper bumpers and other safety equipment on them, then add in sound insulation, creature comforts like AC, and such, you then have a vehicle that is 500lbs heavier. That 500lbs means you need more power and stronger suspension components which adds more weight meaning more power. 

It is great though to see that they can get those numbers. That means there is hope that they can produce a 100 mpg car that is usable.


----------



## PEARL JAM (Sep 6, 2005)

The other big clincher of this bill is that trucks will be on the same judgment scale as cars. Trucks and SUV sales have skyrocketed over the last 17 years due to the fact that people are willing to sacrifice fuel economy for the power, comfort and safety of a large, V8, RWD vehicle. With the new CAFE ratings, Light trucks and SUV's will most likely transform to hybrids (already happening) which will increase their cost while lowering their dependability.

I guess you have to ask if saving gas is worth 10-15grand more in cost. In 12 years, we won't have that choice.

2008 Yucon: $35,690-$40,465

2008 Hybrid Yucon $50,945-$53,775

GMC - 2008 Yukon Hybrid | World's First Hybrid SUV

So once again when the fed wants to save us from ourselves who takes it in the @ss? The consumer.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

PEARL JAM said:


> The other big clincher of this bill is that trucks will be on the same judgment scale as cars. Trucks and SUV sales have skyrocketed over the last 17 years due to the fact that people are willing to sacrifice fuel economy for the power, comfort and safety of a large, V8, RWD vehicle. With the new CAFE ratings, Light trucks and SUV's will most likely transform to hybrids (already happening) which will increase their cost while lowering their dependability.
> 
> I guess you have to ask if saving gas is worth 10-15grand more in cost. In 12 years, we won't have that choice.
> 
> ...


The fuel millage on that thing is still pathetic.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

I am really disappointed in the MPG's of my new Ram. It has the MDS which is supposed to deliver good MPG's when the 4 cyl's kick out. I am not seeing the results.

My 96 Ram got at best 17 mpg on the highway. About 12mpg in combined stop and go driving. It had a 5.2L. 

My 07' with a 5.7 Hemi is advertised at 17 highway. I am getting 15mpg. Combined is just under 14mpg. I did once get 21 mpg briefly and a few times I seen 19mpg both times with computer calculations. The weights of both trucks are close in weight at 5100 lbs. 

Although disappointed I'd still NOT trade it for a hybrid. I will sacrifice mpg for power.

So many people are not buying cars/trucks they want, but are buying trucks/cars that will give them good mpg despite what the car looks like or performs. When I go shopping for a vehicle I want what I want, not what the government wants me to drive. I have spoken to people, some friends who got a car they didn't really want, but they are getting 30 mpg. I refuse to be held hostage to sacrificing something I want for something I don't want but will buy it anyway. 

The more corn you put in your car the higher the cost at the store for it. You will transfer your savings at the pump to spending it at the store. As the hybrid craze widens and the fallacy of us becoming independent of oil is drilled into us.... the government will get involved with regulating corn and soy which will keep the price high anyway. Big oil will still get their cut.... 
Look for Exxon Corn beside the Jolly Green Giant at your local grocers.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

GTO JUDGE said:


> So many people are not buying cars/trucks they want, but are buying trucks/cars that will give them good mpg despite what the car looks like or performs. When I go shopping for a vehicle I want what I want, not what the government wants me to drive. I have spoken to people, some friends who got a car they didn't really want, but they are getting 30 mpg. I refuse to be held hostage to sacrificing something I want for something I don't want but will buy it anyway.


I have a 10 year old no nothing car that gets 30mpg, we haven`t made any progress in the last decade.


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

Yup. The Feds are talking like they did in the 1970's.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

GTO JUDGE said:


> I am really disappointed in the MPG's of my new Ram. It has the MDS which is supposed to deliver good MPG's when the 4 cyl's kick out. I am not seeing the results.
> 
> My 96 Ram got at best 17 mpg on the highway. About 12mpg in combined stop and go driving. It had a 5.2L.
> 
> ...


That's why I still say the right thing to do is an increase in the gas tax. If gas is 5.75 per gallon and you want to buy a 15mpg vehicle you have the choice. The person that wants to save money still gets to go find a 40 mpg vehicle. The extra tax money can be used to improve and enlarge roadways to relieve congestion and reduce pollution and fuel consumption. Fuels with ethanol would cost less and would become viable instead of forced alternatives. 

Lets face it, if a manufacturer makes a car that no one wants, no one will buy it. The price of older less efficient more polluting vehicles will climb, but since that is what people want they will buy those vehicles. Eventually the manufacturers that keep making guzzlers will realize that people will pay the tax to get what they want and the net effect will be that we still have large comfrotable safe vehicles and just end up paying more taxes. 

What's real interesting is that the people that tell us that we need to save the earth all don't practice what they preach. Obama owns a 5.7L hemi 300C. He could have bought a 3.5L and saved the world but he didn't. Hillary gets chauffered every where she goes in huge vehicles. Al Gore travels the earth to be seen and flys in private jets. Jets that have the ability to haul hundreds of people but there is usually much fewer than that. He also has huge houses that waste lots of precious resources. 

There should also be another CAFE. Congress' Average Fuel Economy. They should have to live by what they legislate for the rest of us. Their fleet of vehicles should meet CAFE. But hey remember these are the folks that gave us Social Security and exempted themselves from that and instead contribute their own money to their own retirement accounts.


----------



## LOWET (Oct 21, 2007)

*35 Mpg*



fergyflyer said:


> That's why I still say the right thing to do is an increase in the gas tax. If gas is 5.75 per gallon and you want to buy a 15mpg vehicle you have the choice. The person that wants to save money still gets to go find a 40 mpg vehicle. The extra tax money can be used to improve and enlarge roadways to relieve congestion and reduce pollution and fuel consumption. Fuels with ethanol would cost less and would become viable instead of forced alternatives.
> 
> Lets face it, if a manufacturer makes a car that no one wants, no one will buy it. The price of older less efficient more polluting vehicles will climb, but since that is what people want they will buy those vehicles. Eventually the manufacturers that keep making guzzlers will realize that people will pay the tax to get what they want and the net effect will be that we still have large comfrotable safe vehicles and just end up paying more taxes.
> 
> ...


What about all the energy that gets waisted every time BUSH opens his Mouth


----------



## GTO JUDGE (May 14, 2005)

The ones with the $$ write the laws the ones without the $$ must conform to. If we all could afford to be chauffeured we'd not care how high the price of oil goes we'd let it up to the less fortunate to carry our load. The same ole will always be the same ole.

Gore..... Don't do as I do, do as I say.


----------



## INTMD8AK (Oct 8, 2006)

LOWET said:


> This is a continuation from post #16,
> 
> I believe it is LEXUS that currently has a 400 HP HYBRED car on the market. Maybe the American auto maker could go that route. Lets face it they have another 12 years to develope this engine. When I was in the ARMY most if not all of our vehicles were called MULTI FUEL because they could run efficently on GAS, KEROSENE, DIESEL and just about any other type of combustionable fuels. Our trucks could run on a mixture of all 3 at the time. This type of fuel was used mostly in our trucks of all size's including the earley HUM VEE'S. I don't know what they are using now.


That Lexus doesn't hardly get any better gas mileage than my GTO. And it's also 500 pounds heavier. First gen Hybrids and ethanol are a waste of time. The biggest impact on fuel economy will come from vehicles like the chevy volt and those w/ clean diesel engines that produce great amounts of torque and get upwards of 50 MPG. This is where you will see the auto industry going. But there will still be 4,5, and 600 hp performance cars, b/c there will always be a market for it.

If we really want to make an impact on the use of fossil fuels we need to do it where it really counts, where most of those fuels are used. The generation of electricity. We all notice the price of gas and "how poor our MPG" is b/c we see it every day. I pay more per month for my gas and electricity bills for my 1000 sf home than I pay for gas for two vehicles. And the kicker is, we have the technology to replace natural gas and coal as methods of producing electricity, but we refuse to do it. Nuclear power has the potential to solve this problem, but we are to scared to use it. Solar and wind power can help on a small scale but they are ultimately not the most practical choices as they suffer some severe limitations.


----------



## fergyflyer (Apr 18, 2005)

INTMD8AK said:


> That Lexus doesn't hardly get any better gas mileage than my GTO. And it's also 500 pounds heavier. First gen Hybrids and ethanol are a waste of time. The biggest impact on fuel economy will come from vehicles like the chevy volt and those w/ clean diesel engines that produce great amounts of torque and get upwards of 50 MPG. This is where you will see the auto industry going. But there will still be 4,5, and 600 hp performance cars, b/c there will always be a market for it.
> 
> If we really want to make an impact on the use of fossil fuels we need to do it where it really counts, where most of those fuels are used. The generation of electricity. We all notice the price of gas and "how poor our MPG" is b/c we see it every day. I pay more per month for my gas and electricity bills for my 1000 sf home than I pay for gas for two vehicles. And the kicker is, we have the technology to replace natural gas and coal as methods of producing electricity, but we refuse to do it. Nuclear power has the potential to solve this problem, but we are to scared to use it. Solar and wind power can help on a small scale but they are ultimately not the most practical choices as they suffer some severe limitations.


I agree with you on the diesel part. Unfortunately our elected officials don't and they have regulated diesels out of the picture. I'm thinking a diesel electric hybrid is going to be the first car to break the 70 mpg mark and still provide decent acceleration and a size that is large enough to be used by an ordinary family. 

If we really wanted energy independence we would divert the billions we send overseas as aid to countries that don't really like us, and the Billions we waste in the United Nations. We could use that money to make wind and solar power our main supply of power. We then could build Nuclear power plants for use as backups for when the wind isn't blowing. 

As an aside, there is a solar power plant in the Mojave desert that produces electrical power 24/7. Even at night it is able to generate power. They achieve that by using solar reflectors to focus the suns energy onto collectors that heat a synthetic oil to an extremely high temperature. This oil stores the energy as heat and is used to heat water to make a steam driven turbine operate. So even at night the stored heat from the sun produces power. 

If you've ever driven through the Nevada deserts, you know how desolate the area is. If we covered 10% of the state of Nevada with solar collectors like this, we could generate enough electricity to power the entire US. It's too expensive now, but if we ued that UN money I talked about earlier, it might just be competitive enough to eliminate some fossil fuel usage. Lord knows it would do the US much more good than throwing our money into the black hole called the United Nations.


----------



## Rukee (Feb 8, 2007)

How about air powered cars??
G4 - The Feed - Hybrid Cars Full Of Hot Air?


----------



## pab13 (Apr 20, 2006)

All this MPG chat is funny...Everyone gets zero MPG at traffic lights


----------

