Originally Posted by trademaster (Post 6283381)

CAFE standards were not created to reduce pollution. Remember that when debating this stuff folks.

Weight reduction is a great way to increase performance and efficiency if they do it right. Removing weight in the right places can lower the center of gravity and removing weight in general will help in nearly all aspects of performance. I doubt they'll be able to cut fleet weights by 15% by then, but it's not like it is the end of the world if they don't quite meet the stated goal.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3 (Post 6284525)

I may not have to use it (and never will, as I'm capable of driving all by my self), but I'll still have to pay for it. How does that make sense?



I know how light those mirrors are. I picked one up just last summer after it fell off.



You've hit on a defining characteristic of the regulatory state. And in the case of our specific one, what we get is generally more in line with what we deserve.



Those numbers sound more like total oil consumption, not imports. I'd have to do more research on exact numbers, but I think that around the late 70s, roughly 30% or so of the total use was from imports. 30 years later, it was more like 70% of the total was imports.

Today, the percent of use that is imported is rapidly going down, largely due to shale production, with a significant and growing percentage of the imports coming from Tar Sands from our friendly neighbor to the north. (Which is the reason WTI oil is around $20 a barrel cheaper than Brent). And the government and EPA are fighting both of these new sources of oil as hard as they can....which would suggest that despite claims that reducing imports is the purpose of CAFE, the actual motives are different.

Interesting addition to the point about CAFE driving the SUV craze. I've always held that opinion as well....And it makes you to wonder what affect it would have had on fuel consumption of people had still been able to find full size sedans that got low to mid 20s on the highway instead of SUVs that got upper teens at best.



It really got rolling with Ralph Nader's crusade against GM, which just happened to coincide with his quiet buying up of Ford stock. I'm sure the two were unrelated, though.:rolleyes:



No, I want more. Keep it coming, Captain!!!:high5:

Originally Posted by King Nothing (Post 6285378)

which trucking fleets?? I work for one and have heard no such thing, I hope they'd tell me since I repair the tractors lol

Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 6285742)

I re-read the first post...what is this "body-in-white" thing?...lol

Originally Posted by motorhead (Post 6285862)

15% in three years. That's awesome! Can't wait. If they also raise the power level by 25% at the same time that will be even better. :twitch:

Originally Posted by motorhead (Post 6286043)

I'm not most people. So what you're saying is that no one that currently owns a 5th gen should complain about the weight because they can't do anything about it anyhow that wouldn't otherwise turn it into a full blown race car?

So then, why are there so many on this very forum and others that do? My guess would be in the hopes that GM would produce a lighter version of the car that they love so much. Thus a reason for all the weight whiners to rejoice.

Originally Posted by Number 3 (Post 6287660)

Also keep in mind FE = emissions and emissions = FE. In Europe the equivalent to CAFE is CO2. At the tailpipe they are exactly the same thing.

Originally Posted by Number 3 (Post 6287660)

You said Shale Oil. Who is actually making Shale Oil into Oil in any reasonable amount? Even Tar Sands cost more money to make oil. Shale is even more expensive than that.

Originally Posted by 90503 (Post 6286186)

As far as the overall weight...I'm still a little fuzzy on this...

Current Camaro weighs 3800lbs?...that's a v-8? v-6?

10% off is 380...3800-380= 3420
15% off is 570...3800-570= 3230

Alpha is gonna weigh less than has previously been known prior to the CEO's order?

May not be applicable to the Gen6 Camaro as far as "the rest of the fleet"?...

Too premature for any concrete number??? All bets are off??

Thanks....

Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 6290276)

V6 typically around 3,750 give or take some. V8 100 lbs more than that give or take.

I realistically see the next gen base Camaro (if the base is the Turbo 4) in the high to mid 3,300 range and V6 in low to mid 3,400. If they get it less than that and manage not to noticeably shink the Camaro (I'd guess it at near ATS size) then I'll be very surprised, but happy!

Originally Posted by KMPrenger (Post 6290276)

V6 typically around 3,750 give or take some. V8 100 lbs more than that give or take.

I realistically see the next gen base Camaro (if the base is the Turbo 4) in the high to mid 3,300 range and V6 in low to mid 3,400. If they get it less than that and manage not to noticeably shink the Camaro (I'd guess it at near ATS size) then I'll be very surprised, but happy!

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome (Post 6279961)

I bet you a week's pay it is something more akin to this:

"Say, that's a nice lookin' corporation ya gots there.... it would be a shame if sumptin' waz ta happen to it!"

Magnesium costs about 50% more than Aluminum. I just don't want to have to hear a lot of complaints when people get sticker shock. It also kinda can catch fire and burn up an entire car. They make fireworks out of that nifty metal.

Originally Posted by Wizard1183 (Post 6291186)

I thought the flash point of magnesium was around 2500 degrees F? 880 isn't enough heat to get it to burn like magnesium can burn now if the entire car is on fire? Then maybe it'll get high enough but I wouldn't worry about it being a hazard.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3 (Post 6290071)

Only if you define emissions as CO2. I personally don't consider to CO2 to be a "pollutant" like CO, NOX, hydrocarbons, and things like that that actually "pollute" and lead to health problems and smog.

And with that definition of emissions, FE and emissions have little correlation. A new V8 powered pickup today is much cleaner than a Honda Civic 15 or 20 years ago was.

And in the 1970s, FE and emissions worked against each other. In the 70s, emissions regulations meant low octane gas, low compression ratios, and large, inefficient air pumps, all of which torpedoed efficiency.




Perhaps Shale oil isn't exactly the right terminology. It is my understanding that oil companies are figuring out how to use fracking to produce oil similar to what began with natural gas a few years earlier. The basic process has been know for decades, but only recently has the technology become advanced enough, and the price of oil high enough to make the economics of it work.

These sources are indeed more expensive than conventional oil, but at today's prices, they are still very profitable. Production from places like North Dakota is sky-rocketing (hence the need to build new pipelines), and could be in the millions of barrels a day in just a few short years.