Sign In Join 

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / Why don't GM, Chrysler & Ford build high MPG vehicles?



Why don't GM, Chrysler & Ford build high MPG vehicles?

92 messages,  Last post on Feb 23, 2007 at 2:40 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Fuel Efficiency (MPG)


Messages Page 10 of 10
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion

#83 of 92
Re: Last time I checked........ [rockylee] by british_rover
Jan 16, 2007 (7:28 am)
Reply

Replying to: rockylee (Jan 16, 2007 2:15 am)

Also the Prizm was just a corolla.
#84 of 92
and for that matter by nippononly
Jan 16, 2007 (12:52 pm)
Reply
the Metro was a Suzuki, the Fiesta was a Kia (?), the...
 
Rocky gets credit for the 1992 Saturn SC, a car with no equipment and no power, that made 40 mpg highway I believe. Of course, (A) it has been out of production for some time, and no Saturn has been rated 40 or better in at least a decade, and (B) the SC's peers at the time made 45-50 mpg, like the Civic HF/VX/HX, Corolla FX, etc.
#85 of 92
Washington pushes Big Three to change by rockylee
Jan 24, 2007 (8:37 am)
Reply
Bipartisan plans for fuel efficiency, energy independence mean Detroit must move fast.
 
http://www.detroitnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070124/AUTO02/701240347/- 1148/AUTO01
 
Rocky
#86 of 92
Re: Washington pushes Big Three to change [rockylee] by nippononly
Jan 24, 2007 (1:13 pm)
Reply

Replying to: rockylee (Jan 24, 2007 8:37 am)

Did he push them to change? Or did he basically say that ethanol will solve all our ills (a patently absurd statement). After all, he knows that works in their favor - they are already readying flex-fuel vehicles en masse. Never mind that ethanol is 30% less efficient by volume, even more so by the measure of total energy consumption.
 
While ethanol will make us less dependent on foreign oil, since we can grow lots of corn, it is at best a stopgap, since not much of our consumption of foreign oil can be replaced by it.
 
And of course, it is just one more crutch for ALL the automakers to lean on that won't reduce the energy use of the American fleet at all. At least GM and Honda never gave up on hydrogen-based powertrains and both have a plug-in hybrid in the works as well.
#87 of 92
Re: Washington pushes Big Three to change [nippononly] by rockylee
Jan 25, 2007 (12:56 am)
Reply

Replying to: nippononly (Jan 24, 2007 1:13 pm)

While I agree with your post I will just say we have the capacity to make more. Ethanol, can be made out of pretty much any green crop, grass, etc, I think until we get serious it will like you said be at best a stop gap. The 30% less efficient is a big obstacle to over come if they are going to charge more than gasoline. If they could get Ethanol prices down $0.75 cheaper than gasoline a gallon it might work. The 30% is the obstacle and unless it's cheaper than gas like I said it will not sell in quantity.

 
Rocky
#88 of 92
Re: Washington pushes Big Three to change [rockylee] by nippononly
Jan 25, 2007 (8:32 am)
Reply

Replying to: rockylee (Jan 25, 2007 12:56 am)

Yes, but my point is that from the little plant being born, through to harvesting, fuel production, and burning and shooting out the tailpipe, ethanol consumes more energy (production + consumption) than gasoline! That may shift us away from being at the mercy of the middle eastern oil barons, but it doesn't do anything to reduce our energy consumption or greenhouse gas emissions.
 
It does reduce smog-forming pollutants in the air, which is good. Whether we should achieve that goal at the expense of increased energy use and greenhouse emissions is a topic for the public forum.
#89 of 92
Re: Give me a break. [perna] by ux149
Feb 21, 2007 (5:02 pm)
Reply

Replying to: perna (Jan 10, 2007 6:09 am)

I had a 1981 Pontiac Grand Prix with a 5.7 liter diesel. Yes, a diesel Grand Prix! They also offered in in '82. The only one I've ever seen was the one I owned. It averaged over 32 mpg highway and over 20 in the city. 25 years later, cars that get over 30 are "fuel efficient"? Come on, the big three have used the "we don't want to ruin your resale value" excuse long enough. They could have and should have produced far more efficient vehicles by now.
 
In 2005, I wanted a Chrysler 300 AWD with several options. The only way to get some of those options was to buy the 300C, a gas gussling hemi that averages only 17 mpg in my mixed use. The same options should have been available with the six cylinder!
#90 of 92
Re: the little plant by ux149
Feb 21, 2007 (5:09 pm)
Reply

Replying to: nippononly (Jan 25, 2007 8:32 am)

Rockylee, Are you forgetting that the mash by-product of ethanol is sold and used for use in livestock feed. So the grain isn't really planted or harvested for fuel at all. It is just diverted on its way to the feed mills.
 
 And wouldn't it be great to NOT pay farmers NOT to plant vast acres, and instead pay them for fuel?
#91 of 92
I was very interested by nippononly
Feb 21, 2007 (9:32 pm)
Reply
today to hear GM's latest radio ad around fuel efficiency, and they have modified it in a way that, while still slightly deceptive, is much more to my liking.
 
Namely, they now specify they are the leader in the number of truck models that get over 20 mpg highway (they actually SAY highway in the ad now, I like that), and they beat Honda and Nissan in number of car models making 30 mpg highway (they say highway again there, I like that too!).
 
Now of course, with a gazillion divisions to Honda and Nissan's two apiece, GM doesn't have to produce very many 30-mpg powertrains to beat H&N in number of models exceeding that rating, but it is specific, and it is true.
 
IMO, and echoing ux149 above, 30 mpg aint that impressive. Certainly not to me. Also, Honda could counter with an ad saying that the number of Accords it sells with the 4-cyl powertrain each year (making 34 mpg highway) exceeds the sales of ALL GM's models making the same figure. So even though GM has more models, Honda sells way more CARS making 30+ mpg. Personally, I think the bar for all of them should be 40 mpg these days.
 
Toyota has four models currently making 40 mpg, Honda has two, now with the Altima hybrid just released, Nissan has one also. Given their histories, all three of these carmakers should have more, although I understand Nissan's focus since Ghosn's arrival has been away from its roots and more towards flash and horsepower.
 
Chrysler, GM, Ford, no models rated at 40 mpg that I can think of.
#92 of 92
Re: the little plant [ux149] by rockylee
Feb 23, 2007 (2:40 pm)
Reply

Replying to: ux149 (Feb 21, 2007 5:09 pm)

The bottom line is it takes a lot of energy to grow corn. The only way to grow crops for Ethanol that doesn't require the mass amount of energy is growing crops that use little water compared to corn in irrigated parts of the country. Milo/Maze is just one crop that uses half the energy of corn which means that you get a 80% return on your energy investment. Corn is only 60% return. Corn, is a fine crop to grow if your climate gets a lot of precipitation in the summer.
 
Rocky

Messages Page 10 of 10
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Prev
Next
Last
Go To Msg #
Search This Discussion
To POST a message, please Sign In.

You are here: [F] Forums / Automotive News & Views / Why don't GM, Chrysler & Ford build high MPG vehicles?

New? Join Now!

Forum Tools

Please sign in.
Email Address:

Password:

Forgot Password?

Search Forums

Enter Keyword(s)

Advanced Search

Browse by Vehicle



View All Vehicles
Advertisement
Ask the Community
See What People Are Asking

Browse by Board

Browse by Topic


View All Topics

Today's Chats

Advertisement