GM puts brake on rear-drive vehicles
Published April 10, 2007

General Motors has put a hold on future rear-wheel-drive vehicles.

"We've pushed the pause button. It's no longer full speed ahead," Vice Chairman Bob Lutz revealed in an interview.

Two of the most important RWD cars in the works are the Chevy Camaro sports coupe due back late in 2008 and the full-size, RWD replacement for the Chevy Impala sedan for 2009. Both are expected to be huge sellers and contribute major profits to a GM till burdened with IOUs the last few years.

"It's too late to stop Camaro, but anything after that is questionable or on the bubble," said Lutz, noting that also means Camaro derivatives -- along with a big Impala sedan, "if we call it Impala."

The RWD cars, you see, would be larger and heavier than front-wheel-drive cars or are high-performance models.

So it comes down to the matter of fuel economy. Or as Lutz says: "We don't know how to get 30 percent better mileage from" RWD cars.

That 30 percent bogey arises from a proposal by the Bush administration to raise corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards by 4 percent a year so cars would have to average 34 m.p.g. by 2017, up from 27.5 m.p.g. today. On top of that, the Supreme Court ruled last week that the Environmental Protection Agency can regulate carbon dioxide expelled by cars, a gas that contributes to global warming. The EPA doesn't do so now.

"We'll decide on our rear-drive cars when the government decides on CO(-2) levels and CAFE regulations," Lutz said, adding that limiting CO(-2) would increase mileage, too.

"Carbon dioxide is a natural byproduct of burning gas and directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. If we legislate CO(-2) from cars, why not legislate we take one less breath per minute since humans release capricious amounts of CO(-2) each time they exhale?" offered a testy Lutz.

Lutz also points out that higher mileage will come at a price, with the proposal to raise CAFE certain to increase costs by as much as $5,000, which will be added to a car's sticker, an amount most consumers won't be willing to pay. There are no hard numbers for how much CAFE compliance adds to the sticker now.

"Rather than buy new, people would hang onto their old cars. We could eat the $5,000, but that would put us out of business."

Besides, those who see cars as more than just an appliance are eager for the new RWD offerings.

Among other cars affected are a high-performance midsize Pontiac, a replacement for the full-size Buick Lucerne sedan, a compact smaller than the current CTS at Cadillac and possible 300-horsepower versions of the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky roadsters.

"This is very disappointing," noted Erich Merkle, director of forecasting for IRN Inc., in Grand Rapids, Mich. Most of the cars coming are necessary to GM's turnaround as showroom magnets.

"What the public buys makes CAFE work, not what the industry builds," Merkle added. "To improve mileage you change demand, not supply, by raising gas prices through taxes. But no politician is going to do that so they throw the responsibility on the back of the industry."

Lutz also objects to the talk that carmakers can easily raise mileage with a very low investment.

"Academics assure us that for $200 we can get 30 percent better mileage. If anyone can figure out how to do that for $200 -- or even for $1,000 -- I want them in my office today. Show me how to do it and we'll adopt it," he said. "If I could increase mileage by 30 percent for $200, why wouldn't I? What's my motivation not to when a gas-electric hybrid gets 27 percent better mileage and I hope someday to get the cost down to $9,000?"

Others insist that carmakers simply have to sell more small cars, such as the trio of 1-liter concepts that promise 40 m.p.g.-plus that GM unveiled at the New York Auto Show.

"Small-car mileage only counts toward CAFE if you build them here, and you can't build small cars here at a profit," Lutz said, explaining that foreign-made cars would count toward the automaker's import fleet, and its domestic fleet is where GM needs help.

F the Bush administration! :cussing: I guess that means we'll be saying goodbye to trucks, high performance cars, and SUVs? :confused: :roll: What a dumb regulation. :mad: F the environment and gas prices too. I don't give a damn about either. :nuts:

Not a big shock. The big suppen push for RWD was kinda of a shock to me. They can get better mileage, they just need to rethink all this before putting models into production. This is not Bush. The auto industry across the board starting in 2008 will have a whole new life of standards to live up to. Some are groing to be good. What you see on fuel economy will be closer than they currently are (granted the HHR is very accurate). Even the beloved Prius will shock some potential new owners when they see it does not get 60mpg as previous years stated (and current owners already know). GM can get better mileage out of vehicles, FWD or RWD, they just need to do it. It's sad that my brothers 03 Monte can get 32-34 on the highway, constantly, and most other cars smaller can not. If they can get 25mpg out of a 300HP+ RWD (400+ if you count in the Corvette) car, they why not out of some of the other lineups. They need to just look close at what they are wanting to do and not make another huge mistake like the recent (Holden Monero) GTO. The new Silverado should have never hit the streets with the current 4speed. It should have the new 6speed. They can't say it's not ready when it's already in the "upper" class trucks.

Plus once you pass a certain GVWR, mileage does not fall into the same catagory (ie some full size trucks). So you wo'nt see trucks fall off, too much.

and not make another huge mistake like the recent (Holden Monero) GTO.

mistake?

mistake?

Yes, great car, over priced, huge mark ups. The main reason for it's failure in the US. Once they dropped the 6.0 in it, it was better, but too little, too late. Hope they learned their lesson on that.

Yes, great car, over priced, huge mark ups. The main reason for it's failure in the US. Once they dropped the 6.0 in it, it was better, but too little, too late. Hope they learned their lesson on that.

im not trying to put you on the spot,:thumb: i usually find it interesting what others say/know about the gto.

first i've heard about a huge markup on them. especially as the reason for failure.(again not saying its true or false.)

F the Bush administration! :cussing: I guess that means we'll be saying goodbye to trucks, high performance cars, and SUVs? :confused: :roll: What a dumb regulation. :mad: F the environment and gas prices too. I don't give a damn about either. :nuts:

So Capt how do you really fell about this? :lol: :lol: :D

Just giving you a hard time Capt.

:laughabov I think its BS that the government can regulate what kind of vehicles companies can manufacture and I can buy. :cussing: If I want to drive a a gas guzzling pollution mobile it should be my choice to make and manufacturers should be allowed to make them. :(

The Tragedy of CAFE
Posted 4/13/2007 12:38:21 PM by Angus MacKenzie
Filed under: Editorial, The Big Picture

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p92/HillsdaleHHR/impalass.jpg
I want a rear drive Impala. Actually, I want a rear drive Impala SS with 500hp, a six speed manual, monster Z06 brakes, Magnaride suspension, and sticky Pirelli P-Zeros on 20 inch alloys. Black on black, please. But I don't think I'm going to get one.

GM product guru Bob Lutz says all Zeta-based rear drive cars - apart from the Camaro - on hold, or a slowed development path, until the federal government decides exactly what the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) numbers should be. The Bush administration wants CAFE to rise by four per cent a year to 34mpg by 2017.

That's quite a tough target, and all automakers - not just GM - will have to change their model mixes dramatically to comply. So, the 2010 Impala is on the bubble, along with any other Zeta-based Chevy, Buick or Pontiac GM might have in the works. It's almost certainly the same situation crosstown in Dearborn where Alan Mullaly's beleaguered Ford team only recently decided to develop a global rear drive platform of its own.

GM has rightly concluded it may not make sense to spend billions on vehicles it won't be able to sell. Rear drive itself is not the issue when it comes to fuel efficiency - vehicle mass and powertrain choices are much more important - but the Zeta architecture was never designed as an ultra-light, ultra-efficient platform. A Zeta-based Impala will be a bigger, heavier car than the current model. It will burn more gas. And to make the rear drive Impala program profitable, you can bet GM needs a reasonable number of the cars it sells to be high margin V8s and performance models, not fuel-sipping V-6s. You see the problem.

Increased imports of existing, highly fuel efficient GM subcompacts from Europe and Asia to offset the impact of the Zeta-based vehicles won't help. Although automakers are allowed such offsets, CAFE rules blindly refuse to acknowledge the fact that all automakers are global enterprises that build different types of vehicles in different places around the world. CAFE treats each manufacturer's imported and US-built model lines as two separate fleets, and requires each fleet to meet the standard.

Shifting production of subcompacts to the US isn't as simple as it sounds, either - smaller cars have lower profit margins, and US plants, with their high legacy costs, are probably the last place on earth you'd want to build them. And that's before you get to the cost of retooling all the plants currently set up to build big cars and trucks.

For years CAFE has mandated automakers build fuel-efficient cars that US consumers - used to cheap gas - had no reason to buy. Instead they simply bought millions of gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs - allowed under CAFE loopholes - and used them as car substitutes. You need only look around any shopping mall car park at all the pristine F150s and Silverados that have never done a day's work in their lives, at all the lumbering SUVs that have never been driven off the pavement, to see the availability of cheap gas has made CAFE a meaningless acronym to most Americans.

Compare and contrast America's vehicle parc with Europe's. It's true small cars are popular in Europe because a lot of European cities are tightly packed. But higher gas prices - you'll pay $6 to $8 a gallon over there these days - are a much more significant factor in the design of European cars. There are a lot of Camry/Accord/Fusion/Aura sized vehicles made in Europe. There are a lot of expensive luxury cars and biggish SUVs made there, too. Plenty have powerful six and eight cylinder gas engines. But many more are powered by highly fuel efficient diesels.

US auto manufacturing (and this includes foreign owned companies like Toyota, which has just spent more than $1 billion on a new factory in San Antonio, Texas, to build the gas-guzzling Tundra pickup) is by contrast dangerously one-dimensional. We don't do diesels. We don't do small cars. The tragedy of CAFE is the flaws in the system allowed this to happen.

In truth, the US industry would have been a lot better off had the federal government simply put a tax on gas after the original oil shocks over 30 years ago to keep prices high. Driven by higher gas prices American consumers would have naturally demanded more fuel efficient vehicles, and a US industry responding to such market forces would have focused its development resources on them, and tooled up to produce them.

Some of Detroit's auto execs have long understood this: Chrysler's Bob Eaton told me 15 years ago that his company's analysts had calculated all the improvements achieved in the fuel consumption of the American car and truck fleet under CAFE could have been achieved with a four cent a gallon increase in the price of gas.

Thanks to spineless politicians - and equally spineless Detroit execs content to play a short term game for short term gain - the gas tax horse has long since bolted. And now American auto manufacturing looks like it may have driven up a dead end that's going to cost billions to back out of.

I think Mr. Lutz finally figured out that W-body is going to have to carry the day through 2015 because there just isn't enough money to develop the new Zeta sedans for the US market.

Isn't this a tad short sighted and it ignores the fact that the planet belongs to us all and you're not the only inhabitant?

Not picking a fight but the environment should concern us all. What kind of a planet do you want your children to inherit?

I used to be in the environmental club when I was in high school. I used to try to save the rain forest and crap like that. When I started to do unbiased research I found out that most of what I believed in and most of environmentalist issues are just propaganda BS. It just makes people feel good to think they are doing their part to save a planet that doesn't need saving. I don't buy into the huge global warming problem and crap like that. :roll: I highly doubt my choice to drive a Hummer or a hybrid is going to make one bit of difference in terms of our environment, the planet, the made up gas crisis, or my children's future. :thumb:

I would have to agree with Howdy here!
As i do have several cars pumping non emmissioned fumes into the air, I feel large factories and the like are creating much more of a problems with environmental distruction!!
I only drive my gas suckin pigs a few times a year anyways so??:thumb:

I used to be in the environmental club when I was in high school. I used to try to save the rain forest and crap like that. When I started to do unbiased research I found out that most of what I believed in and most of environmentalist issues are just propaganda BS. It just makes people feel good to think they are doing their part to save a planet that doesn't need saving. I don't buy into the huge global warming problem and crap like that. :roll: I highly doubt my choice to drive a Hummer or a hybrid is going to make one bit of difference in terms of our environment, the planet, the made up gas crisis, or my children's future. :thumb:

:laughabov I think its BS that the government can regulate what kind of vehicles companies can manufacture and I can buy. :cussing: If I want to drive a a gas guzzling pollution mobile it should be my choice to make and manufacturers should be allowed to make them. :(

I don't believe that the government should regulate what kind of cars we should buy, and they don't. There telling the car companies that they have certain regulations to meet for gas mileage. Thats no different than telling a manufacturing plant they can't dump their waste in the local water supply. Chevy is deciding to not produce cars that people want to buy, not the government. Besides, if thats what you want (gas guzzler) they make it now its called a Suburban or H2, take your pick there's tons to choose from. (American) Car companies need to realize that they need to stop relying on the profits from large SUV's and trucks and strengthen there car offerings. Chevy can figure out the gas mileage problem, they just never have had to before.

All of that aside, your reckless lack of regard for the people around you sickens me, I can only hope that one day you change your beliefs and try and contribute to the well being of those around you. Otherwise, it will be a lonely funeral.

BTW there is no such thing as unbiased research, and you blinding yourself if you think people have no affect on the world. Thats just ignorant. Its the extent of damage we are doing that should be debated, not whether we are or are not.

BTW there is no such thing as unbiased research, and you blinding yourself if you think people have no affect on the world. Thats just ignorant. Its the extent of damage we are doing that should be debated, not whether we are or are not.

I meant unbiased as in I didn't let my feelings get in the way of the truth. Like I said I used to buy into global warming, deforestation, and all the other environmental issues. I believed I did my part and went out of my way to raise money to save the rain forest and crap like that. But the more I researched on the issues without letting my feeling or beliefs get in the way I realized that most of what I believed was environmentalist propaganda BS and didn't hold any truth. I wasn't doing anything but glorifying my own ego by thinking I was saving the planet and that I was better than everyone else by doing so. ;) :lol:

wow CH is that avatar your hs picture?? Nice mullet brother!!LOL

wow CH is that avatar your hs picture?? Nice mullet brother!!LOL

Nah, it's not mine but it's cool. :lol: Someday when I'm having a photogenic day I'll post a real pic. :thumb:

I honestly think the real issue is that the bean counters crunched the digits and figured out that nobody is going to buy those cars. If no one buys them and you've spent a billion dollars figuring out how to get them to 30 mpg, you're toast.

Basically, Lutz wanted a Charger/300C fighter, and it ain't gonna happen beyond the imported G8, which is going to die a painful death and probably take Pontiac down with it. DCX sells a lot of V8 Chargers and 300Cs, but with gasoline approaching $3.00 nationwide average, nobody is going to buy those cars in a few years when it hits $3.50 average.

What GM needs to do is hire back the American engineers and designers it chased off to Toyota and Nissan when they set up their US design bureaus, listen to them for once, and build the cars they should have been building ten years ago. Then they can concentrate on some really great halo cars when they have the money to do it right again.

I honestly think the real issue is that the bean counters crunched the digits and figured out that nobody is going to buy those cars. If no one buys them and you've spent a billion dollars figuring out how to get them to 30 mpg, you're toast.

Basically, Lutz wanted a Charger/300C fighter, and it ain't gonna happen beyond the imported G8, which is going to die a painful death and probably take Pontiac down with it. DCX sells a lot of V8 Chargers and 300Cs, but with gasoline approaching $3.00 nationwide average, nobody is going to buy those cars in a few years when it hits $3.50 average.

What GM needs to do is hire back the American engineers and designers it chased off to Toyota and Nissan when they set up their US design bureaus, listen to them for once, and build the cars they should have been building ten years ago. Then they can concentrate on some really great halo cars when they have the money to do it right again.

Sounds good, when you gonna be GM's CEO. They need someone to point them in the right direction.

well if the epa tries to tell me i cant drive my chevelle or my vette they will be screamin it into my rear window through a cloud of molten smolderin rubber!!! LOL
It might work for new cars but they will never kill off all the old iron runnin around i could probably run my chevelle on everclear if i had to or just switch it over to alchol period so suck my Arse bush and the rest of those tree huggin epa bastards!!LOL

Hold Your Breath
Supreme Court CO2 ruling puts future of performance cars up in the air
By SCOTT KUDIRKA

AutoWeek | Published 04/17/07, 2:05 pm et

Car enthusiasts are among those scratching their heads and wondering what the April 2 U.S. Supreme Court ruling defining carbon dioxide as a pollutant means for the future of cars and trucks as we know them.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit brought by the state of Massachusetts against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its refusal to regulate CO2 as a pollutant under the federal Clean Air Act. The ruling opens a can of worms, and in the end, no one can state how and when the regulation will be enforced. But rest assured, there will be regulation of CO2 emissions from the tailpipe.

The biggest irony is that three decades ago, when the Clean Air Act took effect, CO2 was deemed harmless. After all, it is what we exhale. Autos were permitted to emit CO2 as the natural byproduct of burning fossil fuels and from catalytic converters used to clean up harmful carbon monoxide from engine exhaust gases.

Since the implementation of the Clean Air Act, automakers have done a great job of producing efficient, powerful vehicles that emit far lower quantities of smog-forming pollutants. Yet now this very achievement is judged a failure, because regardless of how efficient a gasoline-burning engine is, it must always produce CO2. With CO2 as a pollutant, the only way to curtail its production is by reducing the amount of gasoline consumed.

Is this glorious news for environmentalists who desire the elimination of fossil fuels? Are enthusiasts damned to mere memories of performance? Enthusiasm does not equal a lack of responsibility. Automotive scribes, including those at AutoWeek, were writing about the need for smog-control laws and alternative sources of power as far back as 1974—in the darkest days of the energy crisis. They were right then, and they’re right now.

Today the most proletarian of vehicles benefit from previously unimaginable technologies that are now commonplace. The solution to future mobility lies in technology, whether in hydrogen-boosted gasoline engines, biofuels or other alternative methods of propulsion.

For now, all we can do is balance the environmental impact of a vehicle against its relative performance. And maybe try not to breathe so much.
Green or Mean?

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy lists these vehicles for 2007 as best and worst for annual production of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
GREENEST
Toyota Prius—5 tons
Honda Civic Hybrid—6 tons
Honda Civic GX—7 tons
Honda Fit—8 tons
Honda Civic—8 tons
Hyundai Accent—8 tons
Kia Rio/Rio 5—8 tons
Toyota Yaris—8 tons
Toyota Corolla—8 tons
Toyota Camry Hybrid—8 tons
Hyundai Elantra—9 tons
Nissan Altima Hybrid—9 tons
MEANEST
Lamborghini Murciélago—23 tons
Bentley Arnage RL—21 tons
Bentley Azure—21 tons
Maybach 57S/62S—20 tons
Dodge Ram 2500 Mega Cab—19 tons
Lincoln Navigator—19 tons
Ford F-250—18 tons
Volkswagen Touareg—15 tons
Jeep Grand Cherokee—13 tons
Mercedes-Benz GL320 CDI—13 tons
Mercedes-Benz ML320 CDI—12 tons
Mercedes-Benz R320 CDI—12 tons

800HP Biodiesel here: Bio Rocket (http://chevyhhr.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7823)

I don't have a problem going "green". I also believe that technology is very close to being completely green and friendly. BUT, what torques me off is all the politicians telling me I WILL HAVE to drive a 1000 pound car that runs on hydrogen or whatever when they continue to drive their Limos, SUVs, Airplanes, Helicopters, Yachts, etc. I stand with CH on this one. When the leaders lead...........I will follow. When the leaders dictate............I will protest. (Off my soapbox now)

I found the articles interesting, but something about Lutz's comments didn't ring true.

While I agree that raising the price of gasoline would push fuel economy up more quickly than CAFE standards, I think it can be done with a RWD car. What makes it so special? Try comparing two similar cars. The DTS and the Town Car are both large cars with V8s. Their combined fuel economy, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, is identical. A combined 20mpg. Even the Ford Mustang GT gets a combined 20 mpg, compared to 21 mpg for a Mitsu Eclipse (w/V6), and it does so using regular fuel.

As well, CAFE is calculated based on the number of cars sold. The Malibu and Cobalt can be the models with great fuel economy, the Impala need only be “okay”. CAFE is an average done over the entire vehicle line-up. They can still do RWD and get the CAFE figures.

What is Lutz’s motivation? Perhaps it’s to stir up a bunch of controversy so that voters will call Washington and get them to back off. Just so GM doesn’t have to tie up cash on fuel saving exercises when they need that cash for other operations like increasing quality, e-flex propulsion, and new vehicle models.

I’m not calling Lutz a liar…. He is just doing his job – looking out for GM.

Update:

Senate Approves Higher Fuel-Economy Standards
Date posted: 06-22-2007

WASHINGTON — Despite intense lobbying by car companies, the U.S. Senate has approved a compromise amendment to the energy bill that would impose a single average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg on cars and light trucks by 2020. Automakers had been pushing for a weaker requirement of 30 mpg for light trucks and SUVs.

The Senate action late Thursday is the most significant increase in fuel-economy standards in 20 years. Automakers have claimed the measure will ruin the domestic auto industry, but proponents say it could eventually reduce American gasoline consumption by more than 1 million gallons a day.

The debate now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, where legislators may push for even tougher regulations. Automakers today are required to meet two separate fleet averages: 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for trucks.

"This bill starts America on a path toward reducing our reliance on oil by increasing the nation's use of renewable fuels," said Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, according to The New York Times.

The Senate measure also requires that automakers enable half the vehicles they make to run on up to 85 percent ethanol by 2015. As of Friday morning, the car industry's main lobbying arm, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, had not yet commented publicly on the measure on its Web site.

I believe that the HHR counts under CAFE as an SUV for GM. That helps GM's truck & SUV CAFE immensly. Same with Chrysler and the PT (?)

In other news, diesel-electric hybrid is clearly the way to go for low CO2 and high MPG. Also low FP (Fine Particulate) if you factor in the new regs, ULSD fuel and the new FP filtration units Robert Bosch Corp is coming out with.

P.S. I think the recent Supreme Court decision on CO2 is great news.

Update:

Senate Approves Higher Fuel-Economy Standards
Date posted: 06-22-2007

WASHINGTON — Despite intense lobbying by car companies, the U.S. Senate has approved a compromise amendment to the energy bill that would impose a single average fuel economy standard of 35 mpg on cars and light trucks by 2020.


2020. There's moving fast.

By 2020 there may not be any gas to worry about at the rate we are using it. By 2020 there might hopefully be other alternatives like hydrogen for example.

Rick Wagoner put an end to this crap forever ago. GM RWDs are still a go. Here is a small bit but if you do a Google search you can find a bunch of interviews and stories. F**k the government trying to tell you what you can and can't drive! :lol:

http://jalopnik.com/cars/whew!/gms-wagoner-rear+drive-cars-still-on-track-262416.php

It just sounds more like Lutz's motivation was to stir up the masses, and in fact, had nothing to do with government rules and regs.:roll:

At least the RWD cars are coming. GM needs to have competitive cars in all segments.

Competitive cars in all segments makes sense.

Glad they will still be made. We should be able to buy what we want and drive what we want.
I likely won't go there since I've been there for years and have different needs these days than a rocket or sedan, but still, there are folks who may want them. If they use a lot of gas or a little gas should be a personal choice.
Granted economics are at play here, not just government standards. Any company can produce a huge gas guzzler and sell it to suburban moms. Been there don that.

However,
With CAFE the company can still comply by having some econoboxes selling to offset the guzzler. So the government , while not MANDATING any form over another IS causing some interference at the same time helping to move along the push towards more efficient cars.

Still the other hand of economics, demand, will have an effect. No sense in a manufacturer mass marketing something that few will purchase.

I used to be all about free economic growth and the market will solve everything, but I've learned that every cause has a dark side and that people are corrupt and evil if unchecked. Deregulating the telephone and electrical power industries has shown just how bad things can go. Enron any one?

So I guess I'm for the government sometimes interfering with some private businesses that effect us all. Not something I would recommend lightly though, the fox in the hen house as it were. It would definitely help if the government was more transparent and less secretive.
Not in our lifetime I'm guessing.:roll:

what if a company does not comply w/cafe?
what can they do?

what if a company does not comply w/cafe?
what can they do?

Probably not let the cars be sold in the US :confused: or levee a tax on each one?:(
Dunno. Big brother makes the rules and doesn't really share some info until it has to.

co2 is really negligable. Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre of trees absorbs enough CO2 over one year to equal the amount produced by driving a car 26,000 miles. An estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is between 0.88 lb. CO2/mi. – 1.06 lb. CO2/mi. (Nowak, 1993). Thus, a car driven 26,000 miles will emit between 22,880 lbs CO2 and 27,647 lbs. CO2. Thus, one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles.

until the reach age x (cant find the specific number, it varies between species) like the redwood forest, then it produces c02. but try and tell a tree hugger that they need to chop down some redwoods and replant them and what their head spin like the excorcist.

what if a company does not comply w/cafe?
what can they do?

Probably just slap a gas guzzler tax on. A little extra revenue always seems to shut politicians up. :lol:

what if a company does not comply w/cafe?
what can they do?

No gussler tax for a specific car because the CAFE is representative of the Manufacturer across the board.

If I remember correctly, if the cafe is not met in a given year...2007 for example, da Gov gives the Manufacturer the following year to make it up...i.e., 2008. After that penalties are assessed and paid to da Gov.

May have changed from 7 years ago.:red:

co2 is really negligable. Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. A healthy tree stores about 13 pounds of carbon annually -- or 2.6 tons per acre each year. An acre of trees absorbs enough CO2 over one year to equal the amount produced by driving a car 26,000 miles. An estimate of carbon emitted per vehicle mile is between 0.88 lb. CO2/mi. – 1.06 lb. CO2/mi. (Nowak, 1993). Thus, a car driven 26,000 miles will emit between 22,880 lbs CO2 and 27,647 lbs. CO2. Thus, one acre of tree cover in Brooklyn can compensate for automobile fuel use equivalent to driving a car between 7,200 and 8,700 miles.

until the reach age x (cant find the specific number, it varies between species) like the redwood forest, then it produces c02. but try and tell a tree hugger that they need to chop down some redwoods and replant them and what their head spin like the excorcist.

Well there is more to the majesty of living on earth than making every little thing wicked efficient.
Cutting down huge huge old growth to make room for the new would make sense if we were that close to extinction. But the reality is enough other forests can be replanted without resorting to that.

But the reality is enough other forests can be replanted without resorting to that.

Like the US, Canada relies heavily on the lumber industry and those folks are doing a pretty fine job replanting what they harvest. It still results in the displacement of some animal life, but not like the past...

While I would prefer that the feds (on both sides of the border) would raise fuel economy requirements it is not for the "greenhouse gas" reason - it is so that we can all become less dependent on oil. If we could get better fuel economy there would be more than enough fuel in Alberta, Texas, and other North American oil fields to supply our needs. Kiss my arse OPEC!

Seeing as the Corvette Z06 can get 27mpg on the highway while pumping out 505hp, I don't think I'm dreaming...

Like the US, Canada relies heavily on the lumber industry and those folks are doing a pretty fine job replanting what they harvest. It still results in the displacement of some animal life, but not like the past...

While I would prefer that the feds (on both sides of the border) would raise fuel economy requirements it is not for the "greenhouse gas" reason - it is so that we can all become less dependent on oil. If we could get better fuel economy there would be more than enough fuel in Alberta, Texas, and other North American oil fields to supply our needs. Kiss my arse OPEC!

Seeing as the Corvette Z06 can get 27mpg on the highway while pumping out 505hp, I don't think I'm dreaming...

Its all about gearing and displacement On demand, now if they could just make it work with a switch so that it did not come on when you did not want it.

How can a "heavier" car like the Grand Prix, Lasabre (sp?) & Impala get 30 mpg on the highway, yet much lighter cars, the HHR with 4 cylinder engines, can only get slightly more?

The GM 3.8 ltr engine is a great one! It has power, get-up and go and still has great gas mileage.

In 1984 I bought my first new car, a Ford EXP with a 1.9 ltr 4-banger in it. On the highway with good weather I got 40 mpg going to Florida from Michigan and back.

Car companies build what consumers want, they can still build better and the American car companies better start building better, or they won't exists in a few decades or so?????:confused:

Car companies build what consumers want, they can still build better and the American car companies better start building better, or they won't exists in a few decades or so?????:confused:

Sure they will because of die hards like myself that will never buy a foreign vehicle. :lol: :usa:

http://www.chevyhhr.net/gallery/files/3/3/9/1/1977Chevette.jpg

http://www.chevyhhr.net/gallery/files/3/3/9/1/1977Chevette.jpg



Oh LordY! We had a diesel Chevette. Uh, I really can't go on about just how horrible every little thing was about it other than its MPG. As they say at the end of any decent EC Comic Book.
GASP, GOOD LORD, CHOKE!"

Like riding on metal trash cans. Boomy, LOUD, creaky, smelly, leaky ( Lots of body movement ), feel EVERY bump and ride the grooves to the shoulder.
One of the worst of the eighties!:one:

Sure they will because of die hards like myself that will never buy a foreign vehicle. :lol: :usa:

But you did, the HHR !:lol:

Hey don't make me feel any guiltier about buying my Honda Minivan, made happily in Alabama...........:lol:

But you did, the HHR !:lol:

Hey don't make me feel any guiltier about buying my Honda Minivan, made happily in Alabama...........:lol:

Its still got a bowtie. ;) :lol:

Its still got a bowtie. ;) :lol:

Funny, I just found some old Impala script I was thinking of putting on the Honda! I feel, er naked in it!:lol:

Hey CH, did you ever get the PM I sent you about DVDs? I have no record of it in my sent box, so I thought I'd ask. These internets is crazy some times............:roll: No pressure, just wondering.

Nope.

The Chevette was the bizniz. My Dad wore out two 'em. A '76 Scooter model with just two seats and an '80 two-door.

I had a two door (orange) and a 4 door model (tan). The two door even took a T-bone hit from a full size pickup truck. I spun around about 5 times and the car was totalled, but I was safe and sound inside!!

http://images.blingingtees.com/images/m/178x178/13383006.jpg

Ahh yes...the Chevette

with the axle whine from hell and lifters, at 30 MPH, that sounded like a swarm of bees.;)

Those good ol' Isuzu lifters...same engine used in the old mail Jeeps!

My best friend in HS had a good ol' Chevy shove-it, I meana Chevette.:lol:

My best friend in HS had a good ol' Chevy shove-it, I meana Chevette.:lol:


Friend of mine did too, it said "Rallye 1.6" on the side and had some swank ralley vinyl seats and all.