Ready or not: 36 MPG by 2015 mandate from Feds

[stovt001]

I don't see how you can call the Camaro big. It is right about the same size as a Mustang, if you look at the picture of them side-by-side.

[SSideways]

Originally Posted by gtahvit

I'm sorry but this means very little. In the end we either pay for more gas because we drive less efficient cars. Or, we pay more for our new cars because they have more expensive fuel efficient technology in them. I'm all for taking on the challenge of being more green. But, There are far better ways for our government to help us with fuel prices. These new statndards only look like our government is doing something. We pay for it one way or the other.

If they'd put the same effort into Cel. Ethanol, or more refineries, or offshore drilling I'd by much happier.

[GMRULZ]

Originally Posted by stovt001

I don't see how you can call the Camaro big. It is right about the same size as a Mustang, if you look at the picture of them side-by-side.

They are both big. Niether needs to be so large in my opinion. There is no reason to keep the cars the same size as models made 30 years ago. Imho..

[Muscle Master]

[QUOTE=GMRULZ;65231]Well, actually, I work in the Insurance industry and have been to here: http://www.iihs.org/ and watched them crash a car as well as watched dummy`s on a large slingshot machine to test whiplash ect... So I do actually know a thing or 2 about safety regs. You are just taking the industry exscuse that everybody regurgatates. There of course is some validity to your point of more weight due to safety regs, the main problem however is they think we all want these huge cars packed full of so many options that the queen mary pales by comparisson. That is the biggest issue. For instance why does the Solstice weigh 2860 but the Mazda Miata weighs 2445? Thats 400lbs...They both are supposedly small 2 door convert sports cars w/ 4cl engines.

The Camaro did not need to be the size it is. They should have developed Zeta to be smaller or perhaps put camaro on a different platform.. Oh well they didn`t and we have a big Camaro, which," keep your fingers crossed" hopefully won`t be over 3700lbs.

There are many small cars that do very well in the crash tests and are not heavy. My Vette is 3152lbs the solstce GXP 4cl turbo is 2976lbs. The Vette is a lot more car w/ a steel Full Frame. They can build them light when they want too. You see Vette people would not put up w/ a porker of a Vette. GM knows it and its light for what it is. The 350z which is about the same size is about 300lbs heavier.



I'm a Challenger fan and I hate when people throw weight into the factor( planning on doing something about that) but even I disagree when you say the camaro is big, to me the 5th generation is based of the first, eh to get back on topic the camaro looks at least 3600-3700 lb. but I say the weight varies pending on the v6-v8 engines their still planning on using, it could be big block or small block, but I say with the v8 it might way between 3800-3900 lb.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by GMRULZ

There are many small cars that do very well in the crash tests and are not heavy. My Vette is 3152lbs the solstce GXP 4cl turbo is 2976lbs. The Vette is a lot more car w/ a steel Full Frame. They can build them light when they want too. You see Vette people would not put up w/ a porker of a Vette. GM knows it and its light for what it is. The 350z which is about the same size is about 300lbs heavier.

Isn't it true that crash ratings are dependant on vehicle class? 5 stars for a sub compact are not the same as 5 stars for an SUV in the same test. Thats what I've heard anyway.

Also, the corvette has always been fairly light and the basic platform used today originated in the 80's, updated and modified yes but the basics are from the age of lightweight cars. I could be wrong on that stuff too so don't quote me on it.

[GMRULZ]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

Isn't it true that crash ratings are dependant on vehicle class? 5 stars for a sub compact are not the same as 5 stars for an SUV in the same test. Thats what I've heard anyway.

Also, the corvette has always been fairly light and the basic platform used today originated in the 80's, updated and modified yes but the basics are from the age of lightweight cars. I could be wrong on that stuff too so don't quote me on it.

True. a 5 star frontal SUV vs a 5 star frontal compact car, the Suv will win hands down. This is of course considering a frontal crash w/ the SUV keeping all 4 wheels on the ground.

Taken from a IIHS brochure:

CRASH WORTHINESS
The first crashworthiness attributes to consider are vehicle size
and weight. Small, light vehicles generally offer less protection
than larger, heavier ones. There’s less structure to absorb crash
energy, so deaths and injuries are more likely to occur in both
single- and multiple-vehicle crashes. If safety is one of your major
considerations PASS UP VERY SMALL, LIGHT VEHICLES. This
doesn’t mean you have to buy the heaviest vehicle you can find.
It wouldn’t necessarily be safer because those weighing more
than about 4,500 pounds afford only small injury risk reductions.
Meanwhile they increase the injury risks for people in the other
vehicles with which they collide.

Link to read more: http://www.iihs.org/brochures/pdf/sfsc.pdf

As far as Vette`s go they have always been 2 seater body on frame cars. They did go through a major revamp in 84 and again in 97 and shared very little w/ previous models, of course they kept the body on frame concept.

The use of lightweight materials could keep the weight of Camaro down. SMC, Aluminum ect... Don`t get me wrong, I`m definelty going to buy a Camaro. It`s just too d@mn sexy to pass up!

[Mythic]

The Camaro, Mustang and Challenger are all intended to be 2 door 4/5 seater cars. They are about as "small" as you can reasonably expect for them to acheive that goal. The weight of each is partially a function of that size and the materials needed to meet IIHS/NHTSA requirements as well as make a car that could actually be bought. The cars could be made with titanium frames, Lexan windows, and a carbon fiber-kevlar composite body and you, without drivetrain, would probably have a Camaro that 4 guys could schlep around with between them. But who's gonna buy a $2mil Camaro?

Most of the crash tesing is done by having the vehicle hit a deformable concrete block at 40mph. Lighter vehicles have less inherrent kinetic energy to deal with. Heavy vehicles, for simplicity sake, hit harder. They must then have larger frames and addtional crumple zone construction to reach an acceptable rating.

The only problem I've ever had with these metrics and the related death statistics is the difficulty in accounting for the variances between vehicles and the lack of information on what they hit, where they hit and average speed of the collision. How many of the small car deaths were collsions with stationary objects, equal mass vehicles or with larger mass vehicles. How fast was each vehicle travelling?

As noted a 5star SUV vs a 5star Subcompact is a no brainer to the SUV.
What about a 3star SUV vs a 5star Subcompact. Was it a front/front collision?
If 2 objects traveling 40mph hit head on, it is roughly equivalent to an 80mph collision with a stationary object. The still larger SUV with its higher cabin is still probably going to do better than the subcompact.

Then there is the deceleration trauma the occupants incur.
A 4500lb vehicle going 50mph has roughly the same impact as a 3000lb vehicle going 75mph. (F= M*A) However the occupant is also traveling at that speed. When the vehicle stops due to a collision, the occupant won't do so at the same rate. They will slam in to steering wheel/dashboard at the speed the car is traveling. If both vehicles have a 200lb driver, the 75mph vehicle's driver is subject to about 150% the impact force as the 50mph vehicle. Which is why Seatbelts and Airbags are so important.

Also, if you drive a Solstice, don't get hit by a Suburbarn...

[Adam]

The only real viable solution right now is for this country to go nuclear, to power electric vehicles, and then sell or store fossil fuels as an export. But this is a pipe dream. People will never do what makes sense, it's just impossible.

A hybrid that uses the breaks, solar, or an onboard gas generator, where the gas used is factored into the overall mpg rating is a fair way to get the mileage.

Something like the volt, that requires burning of fossil fuels to charge it up, that won't get factored into the mpg, is NOT FAIR, and if a bunch of automakers go that route, it's not going to help us at all, because the idea is to make cars more efficient, not just switch them from one fossil fuel to another.

[detroitboy]

Damn hippies trying to ruin our country and the great american V8!!!

[Silver Streak]

Why

:bangdesk:

[Number 3]

I don't believe it is that we are addicted to fossil fuels. We are addicted to "cheap" fuels.

The tar pits in Canada have something like 100 years worth of oil. The problem is it needs additional processing to make it oil and then gas and is therefor more expensive.

Turning Coal into oil has never been commercialized, but I believe in the U.S. alone we have a 500 year supply of Coal. An energy surplus that dwarfs the middle east. But again even more expensive to convert shale oil to oil.

What we want is the cheap stuff that you get when you stick a straw in the ground and oil comes out. Kind of like Jed Clampett.

If you want to discuss the environmental impacts of cars, then consider that it is only 15% or so of the total green house gasses. The rest comes from other stuff that no one wants to change because that would impact you personally.

So the easy answer is to blame the auto companies. Oh no one really wants a Camaro that big you should have made it smaller. But when you do please further defy physics so that when you crash it no one can get hurt.

It's a crazy world ladies and gentlemen and as someone said earlier, it's all about the money.

Even insurance companies have to balance between the cost of insuring a car and it's repairs vs. the cost of medical, hospitalization and death benefits. It's still about the money.

[Tal]

The talk about high gas prices in this thread was rather confusing until I realized it was from a year ago.

[DDustiNN]

We need a "necro" smiley...

[sandrr]

Originally Posted by Scotsman

Better snatch up those V8's fellas....



http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...804220375/1148

l posted a go nowhere thread last nite that tried to warn what is in store for the American car. We do have a voice in washington , if we chose to use it. Or maybe we all want to be rounded up and branded (euro) yuk!!!