32mpg by 2015

[foff667]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24258714/

Can't wait to see this play out over the next few years.

[79CamaroDiva]

[BigAls87Z28]

Greaaat...
32mpg by 2015, then it goes to 35mpg by 2020.
But from now to 2015...thats a 10mpg increase.
Lots of BAS+ hybrids, 2 modes, and direct injected turbo engines coming sooner then planned from GM. Gen V's will bring direct injection, VVT, AFM, and better cylinder head design handed down from L92.
Its possible that Gen V's will be downsized in displacement, but little sacrafice to power.

[BonzoHansen]

The Volt to the rescue....

[iamsickofitall]

damn republicans and their green fuel economy...lol

[Knipps]

Why does each company have a different standard?

Late April Fools?

MSNBC needs better editing staff

New cars and trucks will have to meet a fleet-wide average of 31.6 mpg by 2015, or about a 4.5 percent annual increase from 2011 to 2015. In 2015, passenger cars will need to achieve 35.7 mpg and trucks will need to reach 28.6 percent.

[12secondv6]

Damn hippies..... burn them all..... and use gasoline

[bubba428]

Originally Posted by 12secondv6

Damn hippies..... burn them all..... and use gasoline

no....pure crude oil

[BonzoHansen]

Originally Posted by Knipps

Why does each company have a different standard?

Late April Fools?

MSNBC needs better editing staff

I read that too. I do not think it is a misprint.

[Knipps]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

I read that too. I do not think it is a misprint.

Then it's still poor editing, percent what? It's not discussed anywhere.

[BonzoHansen]

I read this today as well...

A Volt Out of the Red
April 23, 2008; Page A15 WSJ
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
With the administration's waning days coming up, the biggest implication of yesterday's fuel-economy proposals from the Transportation Department is that officials will have some media bouquets to Google at their leisure when they leave office. How fun it will be to read about their boldness in speeding up the already ambitious mileage targets that Congress enacted last year.

But anyone who thinks the new schedule amounts to a hill of biofuel soybeans must live somewhere far beyond the Beltway.

The fitting Earth Day hoax from Transportation Secretary Mary Peters promises the average new car in eight years will get 35.7 mpg, up from today's 27.5 mpg. Don't bet the mortgage money on it. The fact that the world is "running out of oil" is no guarantee that gasoline will remain $3.50 a gallon. And if it doesn't, a scheme that, by the government's own forgiving estimate, would add up to $979 to the price of a popular model might quickly lose any semblance of workability. For one thing, such models will stop being popular and pile up on dealer lots if consumers decide the size and horsepower sacrifice aren't worth the fuel savings.

That doesn't mean the CAFE rules won't survive in some form, just that lots of lobbying and log-rolling remain before any targets are set in stone. Here's another Washington lesson for the innocents residing at all points of the compass: After the 1970s, when gasoline prices dropped, the newly imposed mileage rules quickly devolved into their present form – mainly an elaborate scheme engineered by Washington and the UAW to keep auto workers busy manufacturing small cars in the U.S. at a loss, subsidized by the profits of big pickups and SUVs.

We just can't decide, in light of all this, whether GM is a genius or a dolt for developing the Volt.

America's biggest near-dead car company called in reporters this month to boast – boast! – about its willingness to lose money on its forthcoming electric car. That includes betting the farm on whether batteries can be developed with the necessary power-to-weight ratio and life expectancy to give the car its needed usability. "Whatever it takes to do, we will do" to deliver the plug-in Volt by a 2010 deadline, project leader Frank Weber told journalists.

Mr. Jenkins edits "Political Diary," the editorial page's daily email newsletter with commentary, analysis and gossip on Washington, D.C. and state politics. With John Fund. Subscribe at www.politicaldiary.com.

GM says it has a battery package in hand, and will have to squeeze 10 years of testing into two to make its schedule. Damn the costs and risks. The biggest of the shrinking three has made no secret of its Potemkin motivations. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz (who recently called global warming a "crock") has been his usual candid self, saying GM intends to beat Toyota at its own game of selling bogus green symbolism to Washington and Hollywood.

Message: "GM had the technology to do hybrids back when Toyota was launching the first Prius, but we opted not to ask the board to approve a product program that'd be destined to lose hundreds of millions of dollars . . . We made that mistake once. We won't make it again."

Is there a method in this madness? GM lost $4.3 billion in North America in the past three years. But after much angst, the company has put itself in position to compete with Toyota on cost and quality. It could even conceivably, for the first time, invest in designing and building a small, fuel-sipping car with the idea of making a profit.

GM expects to cut Toyota's labor cost advantage from $1,400 per car to $100, thanks to a multifold strategy that includes buying high-cost union workers out of their job-for-life guarantees. Meanwhile, in an eye-opening BusinessWeek report, Toyota's own managers note that their own costs are rising rapidly as a result of an aging work force at its U.S. factories.

So why the Volt? Remember that in the person of its impressive CEO Rick Wagoner, GM has a leader who came up through accounting, and who cut his teeth making fine and subtle judgments about how many of which cars to build at a loss, and how to minimize the capital commitment to them, in order to defray GM's fixed labor obligations while meeting federal fleet mileage standards. The Volt will lose money – and it's hard to see why a reformed GM would bother building such a car now unless it's planning to throw its lobbying clout behind a final set of CAFE rules designed to disadvantage its rivals.

How so? For some number of dollars, GM can afford to bribe consumers to drive Volts off the lot. That is, if doing so frees GM to build and sell other cars bigger and more powerful than the cars its rivals can afford to build under the CAFE rules. GM has shown itself pretty compos mentis so far in its epochal turnaround, so we will continue to assume it hasn't taken leave of its senses in developing the Volt.

[BonzoHansen]

Originally Posted by Knipps

Then it's still poor editing, percent what? It's not discussed anywhere.

I can't find the article I read. It alluded to vehicle size but the specifics were not drawn out. There must be some equation they are backing into with current models/production numbers.

[BigAls87Z28]

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

I read this today as well...

A Volt Out of the Red
April 23, 2008; Page A15 WSJ
By HOLMAN W. JENKINS, JR.
With the administration's waning days coming up, the biggest implication of yesterday's fuel-economy proposals from the Transportation Department is that officials will have some media bouquets to Google at their leisure when they leave office. How fun it will be to read about their boldness in speeding up the already ambitious mileage targets that Congress enacted last year.

But anyone who thinks the new schedule amounts to a hill of biofuel soybeans must live somewhere far beyond the Beltway.

The fitting Earth Day hoax from Transportation Secretary Mary Peters promises the average new car in eight years will get 35.7 mpg, up from today's 27.5 mpg. Don't bet the mortgage money on it. The fact that the world is "running out of oil" is no guarantee that gasoline will remain $3.50 a gallon. And if it doesn't, a scheme that, by the government's own forgiving estimate, would add up to $979 to the price of a popular model might quickly lose any semblance of workability. For one thing, such models will stop being popular and pile up on dealer lots if consumers decide the size and horsepower sacrifice aren't worth the fuel savings.

That doesn't mean the CAFE rules won't survive in some form, just that lots of lobbying and log-rolling remain before any targets are set in stone. Here's another Washington lesson for the innocents residing at all points of the compass: After the 1970s, when gasoline prices dropped, the newly imposed mileage rules quickly devolved into their present form – mainly an elaborate scheme engineered by Washington and the UAW to keep auto workers busy manufacturing small cars in the U.S. at a loss, subsidized by the profits of big pickups and SUVs.

We just can't decide, in light of all this, whether GM is a genius or a dolt for developing the Volt.

America's biggest near-dead car company called in reporters this month to boast – boast! – about its willingness to lose money on its forthcoming electric car. That includes betting the farm on whether batteries can be developed with the necessary power-to-weight ratio and life expectancy to give the car its needed usability. "Whatever it takes to do, we will do" to deliver the plug-in Volt by a 2010 deadline, project leader Frank Weber told journalists.

Mr. Jenkins edits "Political Diary," the editorial page's daily email newsletter with commentary, analysis and gossip on Washington, D.C. and state politics. With John Fund. Subscribe at www.politicaldiary.com.

GM says it has a battery package in hand, and will have to squeeze 10 years of testing into two to make its schedule. Damn the costs and risks. The biggest of the shrinking three has made no secret of its Potemkin motivations. Vice Chairman Bob Lutz (who recently called global warming a "crock") has been his usual candid self, saying GM intends to beat Toyota at its own game of selling bogus green symbolism to Washington and Hollywood.

Message: "GM had the technology to do hybrids back when Toyota was launching the first Prius, but we opted not to ask the board to approve a product program that'd be destined to lose hundreds of millions of dollars . . . We made that mistake once. We won't make it again."

Is there a method in this madness? GM lost $4.3 billion in North America in the past three years. But after much angst, the company has put itself in position to compete with Toyota on cost and quality. It could even conceivably, for the first time, invest in designing and building a small, fuel-sipping car with the idea of making a profit.

GM expects to cut Toyota's labor cost advantage from $1,400 per car to $100, thanks to a multifold strategy that includes buying high-cost union workers out of their job-for-life guarantees. Meanwhile, in an eye-opening BusinessWeek report, Toyota's own managers note that their own costs are rising rapidly as a result of an aging work force at its U.S. factories.

So why the Volt? Remember that in the person of its impressive CEO Rick Wagoner, GM has a leader who came up through accounting, and who cut his teeth making fine and subtle judgments about how many of which cars to build at a loss, and how to minimize the capital commitment to them, in order to defray GM's fixed labor obligations while meeting federal fleet mileage standards. The Volt will lose money – and it's hard to see why a reformed GM would bother building such a car now unless it's planning to throw its lobbying clout behind a final set of CAFE rules designed to disadvantage its rivals.

How so? For some number of dollars, GM can afford to bribe consumers to drive Volts off the lot. That is, if doing so frees GM to build and sell other cars bigger and more powerful than the cars its rivals can afford to build under the CAFE rules. GM has shown itself pretty compos mentis so far in its epochal turnaround, so we will continue to assume it hasn't taken leave of its senses in developing the Volt.

That article is one of many that are downplaying the Volt's signifigance, and calling it a waste. So now this article, probably writen by one of the many people who called GM stupid for not beating Toyota to teh punch of making a hybrid car, is now calling GM stupid for losing money on the Volt?

What Bob REALLY said is that GM, at the time, would not take the risk of losing money on a hyrbid car like the Prius at a time when gas prices were very low, and sales of trucks and SUVs were really high. The Board did not see the future, and did not want to hear about losing money on a car, after many failed attempts by GM and other makers to make such a vehicle.
At Toyota, where the Family name is on the building, the weight of making a technological car like the Prius stood out to the Toyoda family as a great idea, and an advancement in technology, as well as a gas saving technology. Had there been no super increase in gas prices, and gas was still about 1.50 a gallon, the Prius would be what it was when it first came out, "one of those cute hyrbids". Due to timing, and not foward thinking, the Prius and Toyota now have the edge over GM, but that will last only a short while.
I cannot stand stupid articles like this. None of it brings into the fact that current battery technology already can support claims of the Volt's electirc range. Mr.Lutz talked about a lot durring the recent NYIAS, and he said that GM is already working on 2nd and 3rd generation e-flex platforms. They have had such an influx of technological breakthroughs, that they now have to stop pushing the envelope, and start working on making the car. One of the Opel engineers at the press conference talked about a nano-strand technology that could mulitply the power and range of the current Lith Ion batteries by a factor of 10.
The stuff they already have coming for e-flex is going to be beyond our current ideas of what a hyrbid car can do.

Originally Posted by BonzoHansen

I can't find the article I read. It alluded to vehicle size but the specifics were not drawn out. There must be some equation they are backing into with current models/production numbers.

All cars and trucks have to average 35mpg by 2020 by all makers. Anyone over the 35mpg mark will achieve credits, and they can sell the credits off to other makers who are not at the 35mpg.

My question is....how will Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche, MB, BMW, Rolls, Bently, or any other luxury car company afford to stay in the US?

[foff667]

Didn't Lutz recently say something about "This is like trying to address the obesity problem in this country by forcing clothing manufacturers to sell smaller, tighter sizes" or something to that affect?

[BigAls87Z28]

Probably. Making the car makers create and build cars that get 35mpg isnt going to loosen up our grip on fuel, jacking the crap out of fuel prices will.
Just look at current conditions. People are cutting back, and people are chaning how they drive, what they drive, and what they buy. In a Free Market, the strong will survive. Having cars and trucks get an average of 35-40mpg only means that we will get smaller cars, with no soul, no passion...just really good gas milage while putting tremendus pressure on the auto makers.

Its kinda dumb to tell someone who needs a big truck to move a horse trailer, as trucks are a big part of our world. Now we have to tell them sorry, its a car based truck for you. I guess we could see the One-Tonne version of the Ute being built here.








Can you see people trading in thier Rams, Silvy's and F150s for these?

[V]

thats ute is naked.... lol

[Savage_Messiah]

It true that this will still be lower than europes standards or their average?