Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
TireRack
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Members Area > General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-18-2009, 04:02 PM   #29
comiskeybum
Banned
 
Drives: 2010 Chevy Equinox LS
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Bend, Indiana
Posts: 799
wow 26mpg trucks.........thats gonna be hard
comiskeybum is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 04:28 PM   #30
AZCamaroFan
Camaro6 2016-2018
 
AZCamaroFan's Avatar
 
Drives: sometimes
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 18,450
Two options.
1. buy a great car before the car appocalypse and learn to repair it for decades to come.
2. Walk
AZCamaroFan is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 05:19 PM   #31
Morepwr
woohoo
 
Morepwr's Avatar
 
Drives: Silverado, 70cutlass, 57chevy&more
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Socal
Posts: 558
Thats going to be very hard to achieve. People are pretty used to having all the luxury items on new cars. If they want more MPG, then they are going to have to shed some serious weight. So you get a econobox with power nothing.
__________________
I am not useless, I can still be used as a bad example!
Morepwr is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 06:03 PM   #32
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by comiskeybum View Post
wow 26mpg trucks.........thats gonna be hard
The CAFE "truck" category includes these:



Stick a flat load floor in any hatchback and suddenly you have a "truck" that's EPA rated 35mpg and CAFE rated 55mpg to offset my next GMC Sierra. Piece of cake. Bonus: It's far more marketable as an SUV than it is as a hatchback car.
__________________
Removing weight has surprisingly little effect on fuel economy
Engine break-in procedure | Gear ratios
2002 GMC Sierra 4x4 5.3 (190,000 miles and going strong)
1980 Buick Lesabre family heirloom with 36,000 miles
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit 2 door I5-2.5 5spd DD lease
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
she really underestimates the damage i would do to her reproductive organs
http://allOffTopic.com is the place for all the naughty stuff you can't get away with on this forum...
theholycow is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 06:04 PM   #33
theholycow


 
theholycow's Avatar
 
Drives: '02 GMC Sierra, '80 Lesabre
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: RI
Posts: 1,804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morepwr View Post
Thats going to be very hard to achieve. People are pretty used to having all the luxury items on new cars. If they want more MPG, then they are going to have to shed some serious weight. So you get a econobox with power nothing.
The luxury items aren't what add up to all that weight. It's the big engines and transmissions, bulletproof frames that last 20 years in New England without rotting, large quantities of safety reinforcement (which nobody will ever ask them to remove), big wheels/tires with requisite suspension, and generally large size.

Weight doesn't have to be reduced to increase MPG, though. There's usually room for improvement in gearing, though GM's automatics tend to be geared for fuel economy. There's loads of room for aerodynamic improvement in modern cars; every car has a big gaping airplow/parachute grille that is entirely for aesthetic purposes and unnecessary for even the most extreme cooling, for example.
__________________
Removing weight has surprisingly little effect on fuel economy
Engine break-in procedure | Gear ratios
2002 GMC Sierra 4x4 5.3 (190,000 miles and going strong)
1980 Buick Lesabre family heirloom with 36,000 miles
2008 Volkswagen Rabbit 2 door I5-2.5 5spd DD lease
Quote:
Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23 View Post
she really underestimates the damage i would do to her reproductive organs
http://allOffTopic.com is the place for all the naughty stuff you can't get away with on this forum...
theholycow is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 06:24 PM   #34
drivingincamaro


 
drivingincamaro's Avatar
 
Drives: 95 civic
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago Illinois
Posts: 5,796
I see alot of twin turbo v6s in the future
__________________
drivingincamaro is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 06:30 PM   #35
Camaro_Corvette
36.58625, -121.7568
 
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
 
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsedTaHaveA68 View Post
Looks like we'll be buying a lot more diesels...

Seriously, 7 years to get 15mpg more? That's asking a little much isn't it?
That's because politicions don't know jack about what they are talking about. Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, and oh by the way. While your adding all that weight we would like you to increase your miles per gallon by 40-50%. Thanks, oh, and if you could also come in sunday that would be great.
__________________
I am seriously never serious vv V vv Next order of business
Camaro_Corvette is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 08:18 PM   #36
AZCamaroFan
Camaro6 2016-2018
 
AZCamaroFan's Avatar
 
Drives: sometimes
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 18,450
The politicians don't have to worry about it being hard to achieve. They can just pass a law about something that they have no knowledge of. They're either career politicans, or there other job was Law.
AZCamaroFan is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 09:06 PM   #37
DMX
 
DMX's Avatar
 
Drives: CrownVic,Suburban,Silverado,F150
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by camaro_corvette View Post
That's because politicions don't know jack about what they are talking about. Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, Safety, and oh by the way. While your adding all that weight we would like you to increase your miles per gallon by 40-50%. Thanks, oh, and if you could also come in sunday that would be great.
I'm with you 100%. The politicians just say "They need to get more mpgs...". They need to realize that in order to get more MPGs, you have to compromise on increasing safety standards. Because todays cars are extremely safe already and they are turning into weighed down bricks.
DMX is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 09:10 PM   #38
Lakailb87
 
Drives: 03 RSX Type S
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 110
I was hearing it was suppose to be set at a little less than 35.5 mpg. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=akvVufy0JRNs
Lakailb87 is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 09:11 PM   #39
Camaro_Corvette
36.58625, -121.7568
 
Camaro_Corvette's Avatar
 
Drives: Team 1LE
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 23,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMX View Post
I'm with you 100%. The politicians just say "They need to get more mpgs...". They need to realize that in order to get more MPGs, you have to compromise on increasing safety standards. Because todays cars are extremely safe already and they are turning into weighed down bricks.
I just remembered something. I totally forgot to add in all the "You can't do thats" Emissions, emissions, emissions!
__________________
I am seriously never serious vv V vv Next order of business
Camaro_Corvette is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 10:40 PM   #40
Master Chief
Spartan 117
 
Master Chief's Avatar
 
Drives: 2002 Camaro Z28
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NY
Posts: 19
Is there some way we can vote against this catastrophe?
__________________
Master Chief
Finished The Fight
Master Chief is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 11:36 PM   #41
One Mean Chevy
Future Vette Owner (201?)
 
One Mean Chevy's Avatar
 
Drives: A Mobile Road Block
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: GM Country
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by theholycow View Post
The CAFE "truck" category includes these:


Stick a flat load floor in any hatchback and suddenly you have a "truck" that's EPA rated 35mpg and CAFE rated 55mpg to offset my next GMC Sierra. Piece of cake. Bonus: It's far more marketable as an SUV than it is as a hatchback car.
If thats the case Clone and Mod the Volt to be classifed as a "Truck" say 80miles to the Gallon instead of 100 and GM is set.

I my book a truck is not a "Truck" unless its BOF, the Cab and Bed are Separate.


I think these numbers are over inflated.

Oh, Yeah Don't we already have budget short falls to repair worn out roads and Bridges because people are Driving Less and/or Riding Motorcycles.
__________________
Horsepower Means Nothing without the Torque and Transmission to back it up.

GM, WILL SURVIVE AND WILL BE BETTER THAN EVER.

2011 Camaro SS (6-Speed) w/RS Package. Its Great to be back in Black and a Chevy Again.

----------------------------
One Mean Chevy is offline  
Old 05-18-2009, 11:49 PM   #42
FxsX24
 
FxsX24's Avatar
 
Drives: S10 283 V8,Jimmy 4wd 4dr bk/bk
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Verona NY
Posts: 307
good thing its not a emissions standards being raised, on a certain year motor they made it cleaner (as per epa) and lost MPGs
FxsX24 is offline  
Closed Thread


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ready or not: 36 MPG by 2015 mandate from Feds Scotsman 5th Gen Camaro SS LS LT General Discussions 76 03-07-2009 03:19 PM
35 MPG Standard Will Kill the Muscle Car? Uh-Huh. Sure. Mr. Wyndham General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 6 01-09-2008 02:29 AM
35 MPG CAFE std. almost law Scotsman General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 35 12-21-2007 11:00 AM
Interesting article about the CAFE issues MerF General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 0 08-06-2007 04:29 PM
Interesting read on American cars and trucks...... fbodfather General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion 8 12-22-2006 08:47 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.