automationgame.com

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:11 pm**

so apparently there is a rule that all car companies in the US, the average fuel efficiency of all the vehicles combined have to meet a minimum amount, and it turns out that right now in 2015 that average only has to be about 26 MPG (or something like that, here is the source, but however the 2025 rules (just 10 years away!) requires the average to be 56.5 MPG, what's going to happen with that, will the idea of a sports car be a turbocharged 3 cylinder in a corvette body? how do you envision it will turn out? i know for me i'm going to try to keep my truck on the road as long as i can. (and i know i post a lot here in the off topic thread, but i have no other meaning in my sad, lonely life)

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:53 pm**

Corporate average, that's why we get cars like the volt, cobalt xfe, and other hyper mileage cars and trims. By making 40-50 mpg cars, or 100mpg-e hybrids they can keep pushing the big motor cars, but I mean the vette and camaro both have 30+ hyw mpg to keep their average up. Also why dodge split ram it to it's own brand as trucks have their own standards. There's also a cap and trade system to pay into funds to make up for a lower average, you can also sell off excess average to other companies so they can "self regulate"

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 2:02 pm**

nialloftara wrote:Corporate average, that's why we get cars like the volt, cobalt xfe, and other hyper mileage cars and trims. By making 40-50 mpg cars, or 100mpg-e hybrids they can keep pushing the big motor cars, but I mean the vette and camaro both have 30+ hyw mpg to keep their average up. Also why dodge split ram it to it's own brand as trucks have their own standards. There's also a cap and trade system to pay into funds to make up for a lower average, you can also sell off excess average to other companies so they can "self regulate"

ah, thanks for the info

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:02 pm**

This also has a big influence on "Compliance Cars." Where companies have randomly placed electric versions of their cars, like the Fiat 500e, Ford Focus EV, Chevy Spark E, Etc. It also comes into a lot of wierd "Emissions Credits" With companies like Tesla selling their credits for millions of dollars to other companies. Also, with the 3 Cyllinder comment,
It's Already begun.
Full Page.

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:14 pm**

The odds of thaf 56.5MPG regulation coming into place are slim, I'd say. I can hardly name any cars that currently get that much.

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:26 pm**

Well, I see no reason why it CANNOT happen.

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 3:30 pm**

Microwave wrote:The odds of thaf 56.5MPG regulation coming into place are slim, I'd say. I can hardly name any cars that currently get that much.

it's already planned though, it's guaranteed to happen at this point (unless the next president changes it) a bunch of full electric cars should be able to balance it out, but to get enough to balance out many of our favorites, half the US would have to be driving electric to justify the 56.5 MPG

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:21 pm**

We're still about a decade away, so technology is going to advance but I can see this turning into another situation where big American companies start churning out cheap economical crap, so we'll have lots of Ford Pinto type cars that ARE economical, but total shit.

Posted: **Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:35 pm**

well if you look at the current Ford Fiesta one liter EcoBoost it's getting 30 city 43 Highway I mean that's pretty good Fiesta seem to be a go well built car I don't think we're going to go back to the Pinto style, we might start seeing a lot less v8 options on cars.so thats more aluminum, more polymers, more reliance on turbocharging, probably more CVT transmissions ..

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:11 am**

Ford has brought back the I4 Turbo Mustang.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:48 am**

Yep, that was the source of one of the last competition I hosted.

Its a matter of averages, if you sell 4 cars that get 75mpg and sell one that gets 25mpg your average is still 65mpg meeting the standard.

But I'm with Microwave on this one, very little chance that the standard will hold at that level.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2015 3:53 am**

Lordred wrote:Ford has brought back the I4 Turbo Mustang.

And they didn't put a V8 in the Ford GT... This is so much crap. I know the whole premise of using turbocharging technology to increase fuel economy and maintain power while arguably increasing torque numbers... but let me at least have the option of the big V8. I probably would own a Taurus instead of my Mustang if it came with a V8 option and RWD because it would be more practical (WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THE FALCON IN THE US?!? :evil:

). My cousin bought a 2013 Dodge Charger R/T because it was the only place to get a performance 4-door sedan with a V8 and RWD. (The Chevy SS really didn't make it to dealers near us by then.) The FWD and smaller engine shift Ford is moving towards is really displacing people like my dad and I who like the big cars and big motors. Every Ford my parents and I own has a V8 (That's 8 cars. 64 Cylinders and 44.1L [2690.1 CI] of displacement FTW).

Furthermore, I don't understand why the government thinks it is appropriate to make an average fleet fuel economy. I think it's impractical and could be devastating if the technology doesn't keep up. We've made great strides. The 2014 Shelby GT 500 was capable of making 662 HP and it was capable of 24 HWY MPG. You just couldn't get 24 MPG while actually making 662 HP. Let the consumer and the market determine where fuel economy needs to go. When US Gas Prices were >$4.00 per US Gal. the people moved away from gas guzzlers. Some of us though, held out, tried to be economical, and now with regular fuel going for ~$2.00 per US Gal. I can easily afford to venture into the power-band a little further than I used to.

This is just some sham to try to address the amount of pollutants that these cars put out. While it may be reducing the amount of fuel burned, hybrid and electric vehicles aren't really zero emission vehicles. Their batteries and other components have costs and environmental impact as well. Not to mention, the electricity you charge these things with come from something somewhere. We don't have full use of wind and solar in our electric grids... so there's fossil fuel burning in some location, albeit much more efficient usage.

TL;DR Let the consumers dictate to the car companies what kind of vehicles they will buy. The companies are interested in profit and profit is maximized where there is more demand than supply. The people want economical cars? Then the company will build those to meet demand. No one wants a gas guzzler? The company can't afford to build them on a mass produced scale.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:54 am**

I might sound stupid saying this, but I think the reason they put a V6 in the new Ford GT was because that there might have been a risk of cars like the GT350R and the GT competing for sales in the same market.
Also, out of curiosity, how come you didn't want a Taurus? What's impractical about it? Them things are fast as all hell, roomy, comfy, maybe a little bit expensive but still I think they're really nice cars.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2015 5:25 am**

On why the GT got the ecoboost instead of the voodoo,
http://news.boldride.com/2015/02/ford-gt-ecoboost-v6/71003/
As for the standards, personally I like them. It's putting constant pressure on the industry, forcing them to continue to push technologies and boundaries. In just the last what 10 years we have seen automatic transmissions go from 4-5 speed slush boxes based on 70's era designs to 7, 8 and 9 speed quick shifters that are out performing sticks. We've seen the push for CVT transmissions allowing for even further refinement. Engines are getting smaller but making the same or more power. Some companies are choosing to go a different route, and we have seen the VW stocks plunge as a result. We have see the main streaming of direct injection, direct ignition, variable valve timing. Hybrids and all electric cars are a quickly growing portion of total sales. The batteries, by the way do get recycled and turned into more batteries. And why all this extra push from the top? Because the vast car buying public isn't really interested in what happens to the environment, we saw this in the 70's with lead gas. That was literally killing people but there are those who still want it back, people de cat their cars all the time even though the science is clear on what emissions cause in terms of health effects. So the government sets regulations on what it wants of the car companies and the car companies design the best selling cars within those guidelines. If you want big cars with big engines there's plenty on the used car market, but they won't be as safe as new cars because the government continues to tighten safety rules as well. The Malibu vs Malibu crash test firmly proved that one.

Posted: **Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:10 pm**

KLinardo wrote:
Lordred wrote:Ford has brought back the I4 Turbo Mustang.

And they didn't put a V8 in the Ford GT... This is so much crap. I know the whole premise of using turbocharging technology to increase fuel economy and maintain power while arguably increasing torque numbers... but let me at least have the option of the big V8. I probably would own a Taurus instead of my Mustang if it came with a V8 option and RWD because it would be more practical (WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THE FALCON IN THE US?!? ). My cousin bought a 2013 Dodge Charger R/T because it was the only place to get a performance 4-door sedan with a V8 and RWD. (The Chevy SS really didn't make it to dealers near us by then.) The FWD and smaller engine shift Ford is moving towards is really displacing people like my dad and I who like the big cars and big motors. Every Ford my parents and I own has a V8 (That's 8 cars. 64 Cylinders and 44.1L [2690.1 CI] of displacement FTW).

Furthermore, I don't understand why the government thinks it is appropriate to make an average fleet fuel economy. I think it's impractical and could be devastating if the technology doesn't keep up. We've made great strides. The 2014 Shelby GT 500 was capable of making 662 HP and it was capable of 24 HWY MPG. You just couldn't get 24 MPG while actually making 662 HP. Let the consumer and the market determine where fuel economy needs to go. When US Gas Prices were >$4.00 per US Gal. the people moved away from gas guzzlers. Some of us though, held out, tried to be economical, and now with regular fuel going for ~$2.00 per US Gal. I can easily afford to venture into the power-band a little further than I used to.

This is just some sham to try to address the amount of pollutants that these cars put out. While it may be reducing the amount of fuel burned, hybrid and electric vehicles aren't really zero emission vehicles. Their batteries and other components have costs and environmental impact as well. Not to mention, the electricity you charge these things with come from something somewhere. We don't have full use of wind and solar in our electric grids... so there's fossil fuel burning in some location, albeit much more efficient usage.

TL;DR Let the consumers dictate to the car companies what kind of vehicles they will buy. The companies are interested in profit and profit is maximized where there is more demand than supply. The people want economical cars? Then the company will build those to meet demand. No one wants a gas guzzler? The company can't afford to build them on a mass produced scale.

Well the regulations are for reducing carbon footprints and fossil fuel dependency. Better economy typically equals lower emissions. If it isn't limited, then there will still be a large group who wants H2/3's and other large SUVs with nearly negative economy scores. I remember in 2008, I had to sit and laugh my ass off at the interviews of people at the pump complaining about how devastatingly expensive gasoline was for them to fill up, and then you see they are driving a big giant truck getting low teens at best on economy. Of course, they were always in this monster alone, yet still felt the need to have it (because tiny phallus?) so they could be "American". Don't get me wrong, I like muscle cars and big V8s just as much as the next person, but it shouldn't take a big slap in the head with a steel I-beam to make us understand we can't really have those anymore. We need to make a move toward energy independence and lowered carbon footprints, and this is a step in that direction. A step which should have been taken in the 70s/80s after the '74 Oil Crisis, but was not. For those who actually need such power, I get it. For those who just like to brag about that power for no apparent reason, I don't get it. Not on a daily driver, at least.

automationgame.com

so anyone see this regulation before?

so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?

Re: so anyone see this regulation before?