GM halts all Future RWD Models due to new Cafe Standards

Marty Howard · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:51 am

Forgot about the Izuzu...which I should remember since Cathy had a Storm GSI.

Many are now lobbying EPA to change their testing methods and also anly list average MPG, Not city and HWY. The new test would have a series of accelerations from 0 to 30,40,55,and 65. then have steady cruises of the same. The combined MPG would be the one posted and be truer to the actual MPG a vehicle would get.

And weight reduction does not mean lower safety, if it did, then we would all be required to drive 6K lbs SUV's since the that must be the safest. Many manufacturers have shown that a vehicle weighing under 2.5K pounds can have the same high crash ratings. There is a point of diminishing returns, but a 4 passenger car shouldn't need to weigh 5K lbs. No matter how much new technology you place in the car, you still have the laws of physics to deal with, that's not old school, that's science.

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:05 am

Todd Breakey wrote:

Autoweek had a sidebar comparing the "recovery of investment" of hybrids, diesels and conventional cars. That is the time it takes to recover the premium of the car over the gas version of the same car.

The Civic Hybrid had one of the worst ROI at 13 years.

The best..the VW Jetta TDI at only 3 years.

That's not the point. You make a sacrifice to save the planet when purchasing a hybrid. :lol:

I will be glad when our government realizes the answer to all our problems is efficient mass transit.

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:25 am

Screw the planet, dinosaurs were put on this earth so that I, and my fellow car guys and gals, could enjoy the process of making dino juice into greenhouse gasses!!!!! :twisted:

The preceding statement was made with tongue firmly planted in cheek.

Todd Breakey · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:27 am

MarcusMcRae wrote:

That's not the point. You make a sacrifice to save the planet when purchasing a hybrid. :lol:

I think that most people buy Hybrids because it will save them money over a gas burner. But this is just not true. A friend of the family makes a big deal about how much money her Civic Hybrid saves her due to the better gas mileage even though her increased monthly payment, compared to a standard Civic, would buy the extra tank of gas each month and still leave some in her pocket. Of course, I think she is an idiot, but you can't convince her otherwise.

If I were in the market for a new car right now, I would be looking at a Jetta TDI. ~45 mpg and a 600 mile range on a tank of fuel and it actually emits fewer greenhouse gasses than a typical gasser, sounds good to me. But I am a realist. Mu Mustang is paid off in 3 months and the savings from that payment alone would not be offset by the fuel savings that the TDI would give me.

MikeWhitney · **Joined:** Wed Aug 20, 2003 9:15 pm **Posts:** 4724

MarcusMcRae wrote:

I will be glad when our government realizes the answer to all our problems is to do less and give more power back to the people and industry.

Fixed that for you. I shudder at the thought of "Guvmint mandated transportation options". Talk about a waste of money and time. They cannot and will not get it right. If mass transportation were viable, someone would have already conceived of, created, and profited from it in the open market.

Governement needs to keep their damn hands off of transportation. Period. Let me vote with my money which plan wins.

Mike <-- growing more libertarian by the day

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

Marty Howard wrote:

Forgot about the Izuzu...which I should remember since Cathy had a Storm GSI.

Many are now lobbying EPA to change their testing methods and also anly list average MPG, Not city and HWY. The new test would have a series of accelerations from 0 to 30,40,55,and 65. then have steady cruises of the same. The combined MPG would be the one posted and be truer to the actual MPG a vehicle would get.

And weight reduction does not mean lower safety, if it did, then we would all be required to drive 6K lbs SUV's since the that must be the safest. Many manufacturers have shown that a vehicle weighing under 2.5K pounds can have the same high crash ratings. There is a point of diminishing returns, but a 4 passenger car shouldn't need to weigh 5K lbs. No matter how much new technology you place in the car, you still have the laws of physics to deal with, that's not old school, that's science.

another point that irks me about crash tests is how "safety" of a car is rated with a given impact velocity. Granted, there are some crashes where there is nothing you can do to lessen the impact (getting T-boned by a drunk driver), but MOST accidents involve a brief time of crucial driver reaction, in which it is entirely possible that a lighter vehicle might be able to reduce the speed at which impact occurs.

Lighter vehicles will be able to take advantage of this much better than heavier vehicles. Its kinda hard to determine exactly how to figure this part into safety ratings, considering it requires driving skill (something that most people on the road sorely lack). For example, people always ask my wife about how unsafe her mini must feel, when the fact is, it has incredible brakes and excellent handling, which would allow her to at LEAST lessen the impact in a lot of situations, if not avoid an accident altogether.

As far as hybrids being a money saver, now that the tax credit for hybrids is gone (it is isn't it?), the money savings are pretty hard to justify. . .

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:41 am

Todd Breakey wrote:

Autoweek had a sidebar comparing the "recovery of investment" of hybrids, diesels and conventional cars. That is the time it takes to recover the premium of the car over the gas version of the same car.

The Civic Hybrid had one of the worst ROI at 13 years.

The best..the VW Jetta TDI at only 3 years.

I think the main reason people buy hybrids is not just ROI based upon gas costs. But it is nice to see that the gas ROI is getting better enough that it may soon be the deciding factor for some people. That will be the tipping point. Basically when the non-tree huggers start to buy hybrids because of 100% short term ROI issues.

I do think that the efficient diesels don't get as much press as they deserve.

MarcusMcRae · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:49 am

MikeWhitney wrote:

MarcusMcRae wrote:

I will be glad when our government realizes the answer to all our problems is to do less and give more power back to the people and industry.

Fixed that for you. I shudder at the thought of "Guvmint mandated transportation options". Talk about a waste of money and time. They cannot and will not get it right. If mass transportation were viable, someone would have already conceived of, created, and profited from it in the open market.

Governement needs to keep their damn hands off of transportation. Period. Let me vote with my money which plan wins.

Mike <-- growing more libertarian by the day

Mandated?? Does the government make a profit from highway construction?

Have you ever lived near an effective mass transit system?

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 9:59 am

MikeWhitney wrote:

Governement needs to keep their damn hands off of transportation. Period. Let me vote with my money which plan wins.

Mike <-- growing more libertarian by the day

Not trying to turn this into a political debate. :lol:

I am very much a capitalist, but my concern is that there is very little "money" in long term thinking. Try to get money from investors to...

(a) Sell dog food on the intenet, but promise the company will go public in five years and they will make a boatload of money

(b) Fund a mass transit system that may break even sometime when they retire or after they are dead, but it will make the world a better place due to less pollution, blah, blah, blah..

There are tons of other examples. Another would be to just ditch the FDA. Let anyone sell anything as a drug, etc. Free market thinking would dictate that if the drug is bad and blinds everyone or whatever that people will stop buying it and the company will go out of business. Problem solved!

My view on this... Free market for short term (it's what makes this country great). Government to help look out for long term. If only the Government side was as efficient as the freemarket side. :cry:

This thread has covered all kinds of topics adn is no longer on topic. Should we break it up or let it run it's course in a single thread?

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

Richard Casto wrote:

This thread has covered all kinds of topics adn is no longer on topic. Should we break it up or let it run it's course in a single thread?

I say lets turn it into a TIR/Pax debate!

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:12 am

Todd Breakey wrote:

MarcusMcRae wrote:

That's not the point. You make a sacrifice to save the planet when purchasing a hybrid. :lol:

I think that most people buy Hybrids because it will save them money over a gas burner.

You might be right, but it would be good to see some real data on that. People delude themselves all the time. I am sure there are people who buy hybrids today because they think it saves them money in the short term (over the life of the car). You also have people who play the lottery as an "investment". But I do think a significant percentage (maybe even the majority) know what the real deal is and buy them for the reason that Marcus mentioned.

I am not enough of a tree hugger yet (and I mean "tree hugger" in the nicest way.

) to have seriously considered a hybrid. But I CAN see myself someday buying one before it it makes sense from a 100% gas cost savings only. I would just like to see the cost come down a bit more. I am also just not in the market for a new car.

BriceJohnson · **Joined:** Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:33 am **Posts:** 2230

the environmental "friendliness" of hybrids is not without question as well, considering that disposal of these cars (and their batteries) can present an environmental hazard as well, unless they are properly recycled, in which case, cost comes back up again

Richard Casto · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:18 am

BriceJohnson wrote:

the environmental "friendliness" of hybrids is not without question as well, considering that disposal of these cars (and their batteries) can present an environmental hazard as well, unless they are properly recycled, in which case, cost comes back up again

True.

BriceJohnson wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

This thread has covered all kinds of topics adn is no longer on topic. Should we break it up or let it run it's course in a single thread?

I say lets turn it into a TIR/Pax debate!

We have all of the "topics of death" to work through...

http://www.thscc.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4985

steve remchak · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:39 am

Richard Casto wrote:

BriceJohnson wrote:

the environmental "friendliness" of hybrids is not without question as well, considering that disposal of these cars (and their batteries) can present an environmental hazard as well, unless they are properly recycled, in which case, cost comes back up again

True.

BriceJohnson wrote:

Richard Casto wrote:

This thread has covered all kinds of topics adn is no longer on topic. Should we break it up or let it run it's course in a single thread?

I say lets turn it into a TIR/Pax debate!

We have all of the "topics of death" to work through...

http://www.thscc.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=4985

too late in the season for the topics of death.

Donnie Barnes · **Posted:** Thu Apr 12, 2007 10:43 am

MarcusMcRae wrote:

Have you ever lived near an effective mass transit system?

What, you want us all to move to higher density areas? Because as near as I can tell that's the only way mass transit systems are going to be more efficient.

--Donnie

THSCC Forums

GM halts all Future RWD Models due to new Cafe Standards

Who is online