jpd80

I wonder if CAFE standards is really top of people's minds, 2016 to them is a ways off, the recession has thrown the anchor out on car sales, not to mention bankruptcies. Is fuel economy really upper in people's minds when buying vehicles or are they looking more at a best in class package?

And finally the penny drops with the media, maybe the negatard journalism will abate for a while......

So where does this leave car makers like Ford who previously rolled out a technology plan that described 2008-2012, 2012-2016 and 2016-2020 milestones for meeting the previous CAFE plans? Does this mean we'll see a ramp up in delivery of all strategies including weight reduction?

Poor Camaro doesn't realize it's big V8 is already redundant......

They have to change the basic ideology of GM. GM has always been quantity based, managerial bonuses are determined by factory production levels. There is a huge temptation to over produce and then cover up the mistake with incentives. I see GM clinging to Silverado and their larger SUVs to make profits, even the government acknowledges this is the only way GM will recover to profitability. So what really has changed at GM? Apart from the size, nothing.

Well I hope you get the family heirloom Nick, the full head of hair that is. BTW, anyone wanna guess what an EB V6 in the Mustang would do in terms of performance and economy?

I as referring to the chassis not the body, you have to get it really hot to burn like that, In the Falklands War there was a ship deck made of Ally that went up but that was a missle strike. I've had enough goes on this thread, time to step back, thanks for listening.

That's why Ford started out with power trains but ultimately weight is the enemy. I do know that FoA had a plan for a future Falcon that used magnesium chassis and Aluminium body but the plan soured when a magnesium project near me went bust due to lack of a major investor, Ford and Fiat agreed to buy the first 5 years of production..... edit, When manufacturers finally decide to step off steel and go to Aluminium, the volume will bring the price down - at the moment it's about $3,000/car. Would your customers pay $2,000 extra for a Focus with remarkable economy? Only people like you in sales could gauge whether that is achievable or whether the whole thing is purely driven by meeting regulations. I hope manufacturers see real opportunity in this.

Oh yeah, and Ford haven't even begun to explore lighter materials yet. These new laws make motor companies bring to market technology advances they would normally eek out to buyers over much longer periods. Nothing like targets for inspiring engineers. Edit, Weight reduction is the best way to meet tighter fuel regs, I'm looking forward to the possibility of magnesium chassis and aluminium bodies on our Fords - cutting 400 to 750 lbs from small to big....

But hang on, your base V6 is near $20,000, add an EB V6 and GT extras - that still under $30,000. Edit, It's also lighter and has better fuel economy than the V8 GT.

This works for me.

Or a hybrid SUV to a specific Mini.....

It's the way we look at the problem, sure our current vehicles will find it difficult to meet the new standards but the same was true in 1975 when manufacturers had 6 an 7 liter V8 as standard in vehicles and a fleet average of 13 mpg. I'm sure those folks though 27.5 mpg average was impossible except with econo boxes. We see the same arguments today, the rules are too hard. manufacturers are forced to think outside the box, new materials, more efficient power trains.

Of course not Nick, I'm merely pointing out that heavy transport is efficient at fuel used to move weight. We need to differentiate between work vehicles and lifestyle play things.

Semis are usually hauling up to 35 tons of freight, roughly the weight of 12 F Trucks. At average 6 mpg, shifting that load makes each semi equivalent to 12 F Trucks getting 72 mpg. Heavy transport is far more efficient at its job than light vehicles. Locomotives and ships are even better.

Isn't the point really that people wanting certain size vehicles and performance are afraid that the new fuel economy targets will mean the end of those vehicles? What if manufacturers could supply altered vehicles that comply to the targets and keep buyers happy? That's the challenge ahead of manufacturers, it's 1975 again folks.

GM hasn't changed what caused the problem, who's to say they won't be back for even more loot.

I'm no expert but that article is just a rant loaded with financial and factual inaccuracies.

That's because GM has learned nothing, someone else is footing the bill for their mistakes. After restructuring, GM will just go back to doing the same things it did before but on a smaller scale.

For sure, so much publicity before release ensure design aging ..:rolleyes:

This might be a start unless you already know about it:

That's what I'm saying. It's wasteful and not justified for the short term gain to design EB I-4s for dead end platforms and then redo everything for the new ones.

In some ways, I agree with what you're saying, I think Ford changed horses in mid stream. I can understand V6 EB in F Truck, that's OK but Ford raced off with twin force in D3 to revitalize interest. Releasing the Ecoboost V6 as a performance option in the D3s first confuses people's view of Ecoboost. Maybe Ecoboost I-4s in Focus, Fusion, Escape and perhaps Ranger would have worked better but Ford decided to change all of these platforms in the near future and in doing so, snookered themselves. Uniting FNA and Global platforms have blocked quick roll out of the Ecoboost I-4 engines that would have stolen back market share for Ford. I only hope Ford can get on with the job quickly. Is this what you're driving at Pioneer or am I wrong?

You know the funny thing is GM are now spruiking about the HCCI engine that gives diesel like torque and economy with a gasoline based engine.... They hope to have it out in the next 10 years, good luck with that one GM. Meanwhile at Ford, we have Twinforce, er...Ecoboost here and now.......

You'd think with a supposed 15,000 pre ordered the Camaro would be everywhere. Maybe they're not built yet, so I wonder what GM is waiting for.....