Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
538 messages, Last post on Jul 31, 2008 at 6:28 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
|
Replying to: tpe (Jan 17, 2008 7:52 am) Hauling capacity or towing capacity? Hauling capacity, or payload, or whatever you want to call it can be improved by beefing up the body and frame, but doesn't necessarily involve a stronger engine. For example, a 1970's Dodge Dart, with just a 100-110 hp slant six, has more payload capacity than probably any car, and most SUVs built today. The GVWR on something like that was around 4800 pounds, but they only weighed around 3200, so that's a 1600 pound spread. Today, even many full-sized body-on-frame SUVs only have about a 1300 pound spread. My '85 Silverado only has a 1400 pound spread (GVWR 5600 lb, curb weight around 4200) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 17, 2008 8:37 am) And it is unibody, but then of course Ford plans to make the next Explorer unibody anyway. And of course it has this 2.3L "stoich-GDI" engine, I don't even know what that means, but I do wonder if it will only increase cost by about $3000 as they claim. As for towing, with 40 hp less and much less weight in the towing vehicle itself, you can bet the XSE won't be tow-rated anywhere near what the Explorer is. And if you are not going to tow, I maintain you have no business buying an Explorer or any BOF SUV in the first place - get an Edge instead! You will save gas, you will have better handling, all the same interior space, and all for less money! Now of course, the Edge is a vehicle that could stand to lose at least half a ton in weight, and probably more. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 17, 2008 8:52 am) Stoichiometric gasoline direct injection. Basically lean burn; good for mileage but not so good for emissions, which is the primary hidden culprit in the cruddy mileage we see today. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Jan 17, 2008 8:02 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: tpe (Jan 17, 2008 7:30 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: steve_ (Dec 28, 2007 8:04 am) (we have asthma inhalers around this household, and I sort of like the idea of keeping the particulates down to a manageable level). I have something against flawed environmental policy. How is this for a true example? I live in a non-attainment area for pollution levels in the air. In order to improve the air quality the EPA imposes sanctions on industry and transportation sources of pollution in the non-attainment area (where I live). Majority of the air pollution in my area has been determined to be from the neighboring state which is NOT subject to the sanctions because the source area of the pollution meets required pollution levels. So you can pollute and screw up someone elses air and health and it is OK with EPA. Icing on the cake is EPA then punishes the recipients of the pollution instead of the creators of the pollution.
|
|
|
Replying to: moparbad (Jan 18, 2008 11:24 am) |
|
|
We'll still be driving cars with internal combustion engines of some sort, many as electric hybrids, other small cars with IC engines alone with small displacement engines, many diesels (if trains use diesel electric, why not us?). Liquid fuel is just too convenient to get away from. I can see it becoming economical to convert coal to liquid fuel. We have plenty of the black rock. 
|
|
|
|
|
we should have been gradually increasing fuel taxes along the way so as to drive consumers to want more fuel-efficient vehicles. I think he has a point. http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080124/FREE/980167430/1023/- - LATESTNEWS He also says people won't willingly transition in the next decade to the smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles that the new CAFE law will likely necessitate that the big automakers offer. I DON'T agree with him there. He thinks they will just keep their old cars longer, but I think they will go right on replacing them at the same intervals as they otherwise would have. And even as Lutz whines, whines, and whines some more, word is they are planning to offer more models with small turbocharged engines, which will go part of the way to helping them comply with 2020 CAFE regs. And the much-reported removal of big new V-8s from future product plans at GM has already been rescinded too, so they must think it's not ALL that hard to meet the new standards and still make vehicles people want. Oh yeah, and he is still pushing the dead-end E85/ethanol thing as America's best solution to the problem of imported oil. Get off it GM! If you could produce anywhere near enough E85 to make a dent in the problem, you would cost consumers more between their new gas and food prices than they would save if you just built some honest-to-God efficient cars that ran on gas (or diesel) in the first place! His remarks are in fact quite self-contradictory, as he still states that GM feels the ultimate future of automotive propulsion is electric. So get busy and make that Volt work for the street then! I know they will manage that well before 2020, and the key will be to see if they can then make its powertrain work for other larger models. Toyota will have the same problem with their plug-in Prius. |
|
|
|
|
"I DON'T agree with him there. He thinks they will just keep their old cars longer, but I think they will go right on replacing them at the same intervals as they otherwise would have." Not necessarily; if consumers are not thrilled with the cars that must be produced to meet the CAFE standards, many will simply hold on to the ones they have longer.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views How The 35 mpg Law By 2020 Will Affect The Cars We Will Drive
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
