General discussions related to cars and driving
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
  • User avatar
User avatar
By fpena944
#122565
Thought this was an interesting opinion piece as he brings up points about how after cars are no longer desirable then public transportation doesn't seem so bad:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/other/d ... d=msedgntp
Text Snippet
Once again, I hate to say I told you so…

I warned everyone that the disbanding of Dodge’s SRT team was the beginning of the end for high-performance for the brand, but some people just didn’t want to hear it. Then when it came out recently that the Hellcats are getting canceled at the end of 2023 I predicted that would also be the curtain call for all the Hemi V8s, something which was just confirmed.

Replacing the Hemi V8 will be the GME T6 or the Global Medium Engine Turbocharged 6, a name which just rolls off the tongue. It will be used for all Stellantis Global medium platform models, which include the Dodge Challenger and Charger. Please, try to hide your excitement about a turbo-six instead of a bruiser Hemi V8, especially one with a supercharger.

I really hate being the bearer of bad news or making doom-and-gloom predictions, but as a wise man once told me it’s best to face the awfulness of reality than to talk yourself into believing a lie. Those who have chosen to take the blue pill and sink into the ether, content that everything is going to be just fine, might think they’re wise. Instead, what they’re trading is the semblance of contentment now and the very real specter of tyrannical oppression at a later date.

Back to the replacement of the Hemi V8 with the GME T6: this proves an interesting point. If Dodge were really all super advanced and ready to rip with electrification, wouldn’t it be marrying that to a hybrid powertrain? Maybe it will, but so far no reports make any mention of even one electric motor. As I’ve said before, the key to understanding media reporting, particularly the kind that’s done at the bidding of large corporations like Stellantis, is to pay attention to what isn’t said. But don’t worry, I’m sure Dodge will become a leader of electrification, which is obviously going to be the future of cars because the media keeps repeating that talking point over and over.

All this is ostensibly to combat the slowly, and ever-slightly increasing global temperature. The hubris of believing by curtailing carbon emissions we can just “turn the dial” on the global thermostat down a few degrees is shocking but sadly not surprising. After all, the tale of Icarus exists for a reason.

A harbinger of our brave new world order has been revealed yet again, this time in the form of the 2021 Regional Transportation Plan passed recently by the San Diego Association of Government’s board of directors. The $160 billion road and transit plan has been characterized as a way to nuke private vehicle ownership over the coming years, although the included mileage tax component was “shelved” for now as it met fierce resistance. Don’t think for a moment it won’t be revisited since it was one of the biggest sources of funding to pump up public transit in the San Diego region. There are those who can’t stand that you can get into your privately-owned vehicle at any time of the day or night and drive virtually anywhere you please. These budding authoritarians view that and all other forms of personal freedom as threats to their power. That’s how big I think this fight really is, because it’s ultimately not about muscle cars and their V8 engines.

The best way to defeat an opposing army is to demoralize it. If you want to take away private cars from a population, a good strategy would be to first make all new cars toasters. After a while, enthusiasm about vehicles will wane to the point there would be little resistance to corralling everyone onto public transit systems. At least this seems to be the line of thought among certain groups and crazy enough, automakers are getting on board with this philosophy. This is why Ford, BMW, and others have been talking for years about how they’re not just car manufacturers but they’re transportation companies. We’ve seen all kinds of alternative transportation solution prototypes from certain automakers as they prepare for the new world order. They’re not dumb, they know which way the wind is blowing.

So who’s going to save us from an awful transportation hell in the near future? Some think Elon Musk will be their savior. Just remember, this is the same man who ran quite the fleecing of American taxpayers to get Tesla going, only to cater to a very narrow section of the population. Sure, the guy’s smart but he’s definitely on Team Musk.

Now that we know the awfulness of the reality we’re facing and the uncertainty of the future, it’s time to do something about the direction things are taking. Sure, some will laugh at enthusiasts for caring about V8 engines. Those same people are puttering around in the left lane in their Hyundai Elantra, completely unaware of the pathetic nature of their ride, so I wouldn’t pay any heed to what they think. But if we don’t start shoring up our personal freedoms around things like performance vehicles, even more essential items will be taken away next.


User avatar
By worf
#122623
I have written for years that “The War on Carbon” is a war on personal mobility.

Electric cars are just a series of battles on the way.

A “walking” population - especially with the ability to individually curate what people see on the internet - is easy to control.

Within 30 years the average household will not be able to use a “vehicle” with the thoughtless ease with which they can today.

Private vehicles will be too expensive for more that half of households(*.) Of the half that can afford to use them, rationing of charging will curtail use to essentials only. Most vehicles will be owned by corporations that will offer transportation as a service and that service will only be available to people in good standing.

Within 60 years few people will remember when you could just hop in your vehicle anytime you liked and go anywhere you wanted.

(*) Inflation in the next three decades will generate wealth and income inequality to an extent never seen before. Real purchasing power of the bottom 75% is going to plummet.
User avatar
By fpena944
#122647
worf wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:47 am I have written for years that “The War on Carbon” is a war on personal mobility.

Electric cars are just a series of battles on the way.

A “walking” population - especially with the ability to individually curate what people see on the internet - is easy to control.

Within 30 years the average household will not be able to use a “vehicle” with the thoughtless ease with which they can today.

Private vehicles will be too expensive for more that half of households(*.) Of the half that can afford to use them, rationing of charging will curtail use to essentials only. Most vehicles will be owned by corporations that will offer transportation as a service and that service will only be available to people in good standing.

Within 60 years few people will remember when you could just hop in your vehicle anytime you liked and go anywhere you wanted.

(*) Inflation in the next three decades will generate wealth and income inequality to an extent never seen before. Real purchasing power of the bottom 75% is going to plummet.
Also think about the fact that in a connected environment, the government would know exactly where you've been, what you've done, and for how long. This will likely lead to additional fees or taxes on these activities in order to continue pumping money into the machine.

Thankfully I don't see this become a reality outside of cities for a LONG time. It's simply too difficult to make this transformation in rural areas. But for 80% of the country, this stuff is scary.
User avatar
By JDS968
#122739
I've spent much of the past two years or so working on the development of the GME-T6.

I also do a LOT of work on the HEMI...including the Eagle (5.7L), Big Gas (6.4L pickup), Apache (392), and Hellcat/Redeye (6.2L).

Plus I sometimes still work on Pentastar (3.0L/3.2L/3.6L V6) and Tigershark (2.4L I4). When I get roped into them. They even rope me in to helping out with the 1.3L Firefly GSE once in a while.

I love the third generation HEMI. It's a very fun engine to drive, sounds better than any other V8 in current production, has an excellent cylinder head, and has a very usable torque curve for everything from trucks to muscle cars. Mrs. Florida has a bright orange (Go Mango) 2019 Charger Scat Pack with the Apache (485 horsepower). I really enjoy that car.

But if I were specifying a car or even a crossover (not that I would...but if I did...) I would select a GME-T6. It's never going to sound as good as the HEMI, but the car is going to be faster and handle better. I'm pretty sure you guys can figure out that an all-aluminum 3.0L I6 is a lot less weight on the front axle than an iron block V8. And there's more to it than just the block casting. Instead of iron cylinder liners that our other aluminum blocks have always used, this block uses ultra-thin steel cylinder liners that are robotically arc-welded (PTWA, Plasma Transferred Wire Arc) onto the aluminum bore surfaces. Working with Manufacturing Engineering to develop, refine, and validate this technology has been a major part of my job. It delivers a lighter engine block that is more durable than either an iron block or an aluminum block with cast or pressed in iron liners. It also transfers heat better than iron liners, allowing higher compression and boost (especially when combined with direct injection, which we never added to the HEMI).

I'm obviously not allowed to share any numbers before they are publicly announced, but I can tell you that, based on the work I've done with it so far, I really like this engine and I'd choose it over a HEMI for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with the environment or fuel costs.

I know that Ford has sold a LOT of turbocharged V6 gas F-150s and yes, I would expect to see the product planners offer a RAM 1500 with a GME-T6. However, I would be surprised if the 5.7L Eagle is going to be removed from the 1500 any time soon. I'd still prefer an Eagle over a T6 in a pickup. But I'd rather have a turbodiesel than a gas V8 anyway...

I really don't know what the next thing to replace the Hellcats will look like. Could they crank the boost on a 3.0L I6 high enough to match an 808 horsepower twin-screw 6.2L V8? Maybe. The cylinder heads sure do flow better than the 6.2L, and the combination of PTWA liners with direct injection will allow boost + compression that no HEMI could ever achieve without race gas. I suspect the next 800+ horsepower halo car will be some kind of hybrid, not a battery powered pure electric. And not the kind that uses a gas engine as a pure generator, either. I'm thinking more like the McLaren P1. Not my favorite, but neither were the Hellcats. I always loved the Vipers best.

Just some rambling from a guy who works on the subject of the article.
N_Jay, tooloud10 liked this
User avatar
By linderpat
#122877
worf wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:47 am ....Within 30 years the average household will not be able to use a “vehicle” with the thoughtless ease with which they can today.

Private vehicles will be too expensive for more that half of households(*.) Of the half that can afford to use them, rationing of charging will curtail use to essentials only. Most vehicles will be owned by corporations that will offer transportation as a service and that service will only be available to people in good standing.

Within 60 years few people will remember when you could just hop in your vehicle anytime you liked and go anywhere you wanted.
....
Based on this, do you recommend not holding collector cars? When is the best time to get out?

This has been on my mind for awhile, and was at least one small part of my decision to move Blumaxx. I did well with it, and know that I could have done better dollar wise if I waited, but at some point, the market crests and everything (with exceptions) tumbles off the table onto the floor. I am not considering things like Ferrari 250 GTO's in this equation, since some cars are really a lot more than just cars. Most 928's are not in that special class though, so when do we get out?

I'll have one for as long as I can, just to drive and enjoy, but I'm not likely to get into any car as an appreciable asset again.
User avatar
By worf
#123594
@JDS968 I’d like to hear (read) your “insider” view of this (and ‘rules’ like it.)

“ Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026…”

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/20/228 ... ions-biden

TFA wrote: EPA issues new rule to curb tailpipe pollution, fight climate change
Andrew J. HawkinsDec 20, 2021, 12:14pm EST
California Sues EPA Over Ruling Blocking State Emissions Law Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule today aimed at reducing tailpipe pollution from cars and light-duty trucks — an effort by President Joe Biden to return to the fuel economy standards put in place by Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.

Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026 — slightly over Obama’s goal of 54 mpg, but a major increase over the 38-mpg rule put in place by President Donald Trump. The EPA estimates the new standard would prevent the release of 3.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide through 2050 and will save car owners $420 billion in fuel costs.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan called it “the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established,” adding, “The standards are achievable, affordable, and will deliver a significant pollution reduction.”

“the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established”
The new fuel economy standards are the latest effort by the Biden Administration to reduce air pollution in the broader fight against climate change. Earlier this month, Biden signed an executive order directing the federal government to spend billions of dollars to purchase electric vehicles, upgrade federal buildings, and leverage the power of the government to shift to cleaner forms of electricity.

The administration will need to rely more heavily on executive actions to fight climate change after Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) came out against Biden’s Build Back Better proposal, which would have enacted a slate of environmental initiatives.

The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026. They’re seen as a return of Obama’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules from 2012 that required automakers to manufacture more efficient, less polluting vehicles. Those rules were rolled back under President Donald Trump, who sought to weaken the rule and allow the auto industry to make dirtier cars.

The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026
Advocates applauded the new rule as a victory for the environment and public health. “Climate change impacts the health of every American — now and for every future generation,” American Lung Association National President and CEO Harold P. Wimmer said in a statement. “These greenhouse gas standards are a critical steppingstone to climate and clean air benefits that are desperately needed in communities throughout the United States.”

The auto industry, meanwhile, signaled that more will need to be done to help spur increases in electric vehicle sales, including tax breaks such as those included in the Build Back Better plan that now looks uncertain.

“Achieving the goals of this final rule will undoubtedly require enactment of supportive governmental policies,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which lobbies for the auto industry, “including consumer incentives, substantial infrastructure growth, fleet requirements, and support for U.S. manufacturing and supply chain development.”
User avatar
By tooloud10
#123605
JDS968 wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:20 pm I know that Ford has sold a LOT of turbocharged V6 gas F-150s and yes, I would expect to see the product planners offer a RAM 1500 with a GME-T6. However, I would be surprised if the 5.7L Eagle is going to be removed from the 1500 any time soon. I'd still prefer an Eagle over a T6 in a pickup. But I'd rather have a turbodiesel than a gas V8 anyway...
I would expect Ram to do the same thing as Ford WRT the future of the V8 in the light duty trucks--the turbo V6s won't have to be forced on anyone and the V8 take rate will decline organically because buyers will end up preferring the smaller engines. My current and prior F150s have had iterations of the 3.5TT, and I never intended to buy one. In fact, I went to the dealer to buy my previous truck and already knew I wanted the V8 but the salesman insisted that I drive both. The smaller turbo engine felt way better--the HP was the same but there was way more torque and it came on much lower.

Of course it doesn't sound as good but I would never sacrifice power for a better exhaust note. I applaud Ford and Ram for offering them both ways, but I truly don't understand how someone could take a look at the numbers and decide the V8 is the best choice for a light duty truck at this point. Hell, Toyota just ripped off the bandaid and dropped the V8 entirely in the new Tundra.
User avatar
By worf
#123608
linderpat wrote: Fri Dec 17, 2021 12:47 pm
worf wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:47 am Private vehicles will be too expensive for more that half of households(*.) Of the half that can afford to use them, rationing of charging will curtail use to essentials only. Most vehicles will be owned by corporations that will offer transportation as a service and that service will only be available to people in good standing.
Based on this, do you recommend not holding collector cars? When is the best time to get out?
If I knew the answer to that question I'd be pulling the strings rather than looking over my shoulder to see where they are attached.

My opinion?

If you do the math on the above 50% of households that will be able to afford a private vehicle... (Let's keep in mind that this 50% will also include a LOT of folks in "flyover states" that will keep their F150 trucks going forever on whatever can be distilled. Because they have to...)

... that's a lot of households.

Of the 25% (according to my theory) that will have purchasing power after inflation, what fraction will want a private vehicle? If it's 10% then it's 2.5% of the population.

By 2050 the US population is projected to be ~390M. If we assume half as many households that's 195M households and 2.5% of that is 4.875 million households that want a private vehicle that also have purchasing power.

Transportation as a service will be available to most regardless of their "private vehicle status."

I think folks with purchasing power and a desire to own a private vehicle that can also have "daily driver" convenience from a service will want a Porsche (or something in the same tier) and not a Toyota as their private vehicle.

How many will want an "old" dead-dinosaur powered vehicle?

I dunno.

But, I also think that new private vehicles that are also aspirational, or just plain "fun", will be far too expensive for all but a small fraction of the 2.5%. And they will all be electric or hydrogen or unicorn fart powered.

Thus, I think the market for 10 to 50 year-old "cool" vehicles will be vibrant. If electric charging is rationed - as I think it will have to be - and unicorn farts remain notional, then gasoline-powered toys will be in demand. (If regulations are passed making possession of gasoline and distillation of biofuel a felony then all bets are off...)

We have our collection because we want it. We drive them. We view them as toys not investments. So, to some extent I don't GAF as long as I can keep them working.

That written, I think that our collection will be far from worthless when we are too old to get in and out of them.

As for me, when I can't get in or out of one of our Porsche's then you can just roll me into my grave.

On the other hand, 2050 is still 30-ish years away. Crystal balls are notoriously inaccurate. The Singularity may get us all before then and we'll be driving 6 mpg super cars in the Metaverse. If I can do that, and they have a good simulation of the Nordschleiefe, then I'll carry on after I'm too feeble to drive IRL.
linderpat liked this
User avatar
By JDS968
#123841
worf wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:40 am @JDS968 I’d like to hear (read) your “insider” view of this (and ‘rules’ like it.)

“ Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026…”

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/20/228 ... ions-biden

TFA wrote: EPA issues new rule to curb tailpipe pollution, fight climate change
Andrew J. HawkinsDec 20, 2021, 12:14pm EST
California Sues EPA Over Ruling Blocking State Emissions Law Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule today aimed at reducing tailpipe pollution from cars and light-duty trucks — an effort by President Joe Biden to return to the fuel economy standards put in place by Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.

Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026 — slightly over Obama’s goal of 54 mpg, but a major increase over the 38-mpg rule put in place by President Donald Trump. The EPA estimates the new standard would prevent the release of 3.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide through 2050 and will save car owners $420 billion in fuel costs.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan called it “the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established,” adding, “The standards are achievable, affordable, and will deliver a significant pollution reduction.”

“the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established”
The new fuel economy standards are the latest effort by the Biden Administration to reduce air pollution in the broader fight against climate change. Earlier this month, Biden signed an executive order directing the federal government to spend billions of dollars to purchase electric vehicles, upgrade federal buildings, and leverage the power of the government to shift to cleaner forms of electricity.

The administration will need to rely more heavily on executive actions to fight climate change after Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) came out against Biden’s Build Back Better proposal, which would have enacted a slate of environmental initiatives.

The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026. They’re seen as a return of Obama’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules from 2012 that required automakers to manufacture more efficient, less polluting vehicles. Those rules were rolled back under President Donald Trump, who sought to weaken the rule and allow the auto industry to make dirtier cars.

The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026
Advocates applauded the new rule as a victory for the environment and public health. “Climate change impacts the health of every American — now and for every future generation,” American Lung Association National President and CEO Harold P. Wimmer said in a statement. “These greenhouse gas standards are a critical steppingstone to climate and clean air benefits that are desperately needed in communities throughout the United States.”

The auto industry, meanwhile, signaled that more will need to be done to help spur increases in electric vehicle sales, including tax breaks such as those included in the Build Back Better plan that now looks uncertain.

“Achieving the goals of this final rule will undoubtedly require enactment of supportive governmental policies,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which lobbies for the auto industry, “including consumer incentives, substantial infrastructure growth, fleet requirements, and support for U.S. manufacturing and supply chain development.”
I wrote a whole reply to this yesterday and then my phone ate it. Bastard.

Anyway, I don't think they're being ambitious enough. I think they should write a law requiring all gasoline powered vehicles to achieve 500 miles per gallon. If Congress doesn't like the laws of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry, they should just amend them by a majority vote, right?

In practice, these rules do not result in all vehicles magically becoming more fuel efficient. They are applied across fleet averages, and functionally represent another tax on less efficient vehicles, similar to the "gas guzzler tax", except they are spread out across more consumers and all taxpayers. They are satisfied by a mix of incremental increases in gasoline fuel efficiency, sales of hybrid gas-electric and pure battery-electric vehicles, and outright fines paid to the feds. In general, some manufacturers have succeeded at selling highly fuel efficient pure gasoline vehicles, hybrids, and/or battery electric vehicles to their customers. Others, such as Mercedes and Chrysler, have a customer base that includes a LOT of people who just want big V8s. Although we have sold a few gas-electric hybrid Pacificas, we mostly have not come up with anything that balances out our HEMI sales. So we (along with many other manufacturers) have been giving Tesla cash in exchange for the right to count some of their battery-electric vehicle sales towards our fleet averages. We (along with many other manufacturers) still have not hit the targets even with Tesla's credits, and so many years pay additional cash to the federal government in the form of fines. One of the stated reasons for our merger with Peugeot was to use the technology behind their successful battery-electric vehicles to manufacture our own electric vehicles instead of paying Tesla. Of course, even those vehicles would likely need to be sold below cost, just as Tesla's vehicles are.

In the end, all of our vehicle prices are inflated by the requirement to pay Tesla (or sell our own electric vehicles below cost) and pay the fines to the feds, and all taxpayers are paying for the subsidies handed out to support electric vehicle sales.

The entire goal of corporate fuel economy requirements is completely misguided. There is a fantasy that the auto industry must be forced by federal law to deliver the products that our customers want. That is completely untrue. The automotive industry is a very efficient free market when the government gets out of the way. When customers want safety, efficiency, durability, capability, range, features, styling, you name it...there is always another manufacturer willing to deliver it for money if we won't. If customers want seat belts, airbags, electronic stability control, back-up cameras, crash survivability...somebody offers it, and will advertise on it, and make those sales to the customers who value those things. If customers want more miles per gallon or lower exhaust emissions or more range, somebody offers it, and will advertise on it, and will make those sales to the customers who want to pay for it. Year after year, customers continue to hand over their money for big V8s, not battery electric vehicles, even when the government slaps extra charges onto the vehicles the customers want and offers cash incentives for the battery-electric vehicles they don't want.

So the only logical goal of these mandates is to coerce manufacturers to sell products to customers who don't want them, because the government knows better than us. Fuck them.
User avatar
By fpena944
#123893
JDS968 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 3:40 pm
worf wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:40 am @JDS968 I’d like to hear (read) your “insider” view of this (and ‘rules’ like it.)

“ Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026…”

https://www.theverge.com/2021/12/20/228 ... ions-biden

TFA wrote: EPA issues new rule to curb tailpipe pollution, fight climate change
Andrew J. HawkinsDec 20, 2021, 12:14pm EST
California Sues EPA Over Ruling Blocking State Emissions Law Photo by David Paul Morris/Getty Images
The Environmental Protection Agency issued a new rule today aimed at reducing tailpipe pollution from cars and light-duty trucks — an effort by President Joe Biden to return to the fuel economy standards put in place by Barack Obama nearly a decade ago.

Under the rule, passenger vehicles would be required to achieve an average of 55 miles of travel per gallon of gasoline (mpg) by 2026 — slightly over Obama’s goal of 54 mpg, but a major increase over the 38-mpg rule put in place by President Donald Trump. The EPA estimates the new standard would prevent the release of 3.1 billion tons of carbon dioxide through 2050 and will save car owners $420 billion in fuel costs.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan called it “the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established,” adding, “The standards are achievable, affordable, and will deliver a significant pollution reduction.”

“the most ambitious vehicle pollution standards for greenhouse gases ever established”
The new fuel economy standards are the latest effort by the Biden Administration to reduce air pollution in the broader fight against climate change. Earlier this month, Biden signed an executive order directing the federal government to spend billions of dollars to purchase electric vehicles, upgrade federal buildings, and leverage the power of the government to shift to cleaner forms of electricity.

The administration will need to rely more heavily on executive actions to fight climate change after Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) came out against Biden’s Build Back Better proposal, which would have enacted a slate of environmental initiatives.

The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026. They’re seen as a return of Obama’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) rules from 2012 that required automakers to manufacture more efficient, less polluting vehicles. Those rules were rolled back under President Donald Trump, who sought to weaken the rule and allow the auto industry to make dirtier cars.

The new rule, which takes effect in 60 days, applies to vehicle model years 2023 to 2026
Advocates applauded the new rule as a victory for the environment and public health. “Climate change impacts the health of every American — now and for every future generation,” American Lung Association National President and CEO Harold P. Wimmer said in a statement. “These greenhouse gas standards are a critical steppingstone to climate and clean air benefits that are desperately needed in communities throughout the United States.”

The auto industry, meanwhile, signaled that more will need to be done to help spur increases in electric vehicle sales, including tax breaks such as those included in the Build Back Better plan that now looks uncertain.

“Achieving the goals of this final rule will undoubtedly require enactment of supportive governmental policies,” said John Bozzella, president and CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which lobbies for the auto industry, “including consumer incentives, substantial infrastructure growth, fleet requirements, and support for U.S. manufacturing and supply chain development.”
I wrote a whole reply to this yesterday and then my phone ate it. Bastard.

Anyway, I don't think they're being ambitious enough. I think they should write a law requiring all gasoline powered vehicles to achieve 500 miles per gallon. If Congress doesn't like the laws of thermodynamics, physics, and chemistry, they should just amend them by a majority vote, right?

In practice, these rules do not result in all vehicles magically becoming more fuel efficient. They are applied across fleet averages, and functionally represent another tax on less efficient vehicles, similar to the "gas guzzler tax", except they are spread out across more consumers and all taxpayers. They are satisfied by a mix of incremental increases in gasoline fuel efficiency, sales of hybrid gas-electric and pure battery-electric vehicles, and outright fines paid to the feds. In general, some manufacturers have succeeded at selling highly fuel efficient pure gasoline vehicles, hybrids, and/or battery electric vehicles to their customers. Others, such as Mercedes and Chrysler, have a customer base that includes a LOT of people who just want big V8s. Although we have sold a few gas-electric hybrid Pacificas, we mostly have not come up with anything that balances out our HEMI sales. So we (along with many other manufacturers) have been giving Tesla cash in exchange for the right to count some of their battery-electric vehicle sales towards our fleet averages. We (along with many other manufacturers) still have not hit the targets even with Tesla's credits, and so many years pay additional cash to the federal government in the form of fines. One of the stated reasons for our merger with Peugeot was to use the technology behind their successful battery-electric vehicles to manufacture our own electric vehicles instead of paying Tesla. Of course, even those vehicles would likely need to be sold below cost, just as Tesla's vehicles are.

In the end, all of our vehicle prices are inflated by the requirement to pay Tesla (or sell our own electric vehicles below cost) and pay the fines to the feds, and all taxpayers are paying for the subsidies handed out to support electric vehicle sales.

The entire goal of corporate fuel economy requirements is completely misguided. There is a fantasy that the auto industry must be forced by federal law to deliver the products that our customers want. That is completely untrue. The automotive industry is a very efficient free market when the government gets out of the way. When customers want safety, efficiency, durability, capability, range, features, styling, you name it...there is always another manufacturer willing to deliver it for money if we won't. If customers want seat belts, airbags, electronic stability control, back-up cameras, crash survivability...somebody offers it, and will advertise on it, and make those sales to the customers who value those things. If customers want more miles per gallon or lower exhaust emissions or more range, somebody offers it, and will advertise on it, and will make those sales to the customers who want to pay for it. Year after year, customers continue to hand over their money for big V8s, not battery electric vehicles, even when the government slaps extra charges onto the vehicles the customers want and offers cash incentives for the battery-electric vehicles they don't want.

So the only logical goal of these mandates is to coerce manufacturers to sell products to customers who don't want them, because the government knows better than us. Fuck them.
What I don't get though is how does this work for boutique manufacturers? Let's forget for a moment that Ferrari and Lambo are owned by other companies. If they were truly independent how would they ever meet fleet averages when they only create sports cars that are focused on performance, not economy. Also why should it apply to them when they create just a minuscule amount of vehicles in comparison to others?

I guess the same could apply to RAM trucks. All they create are trucks, so how are they supposed to meet the same fleet average as a company like Honda or Toyota that create small cars to counteract their trucks?
User avatar
By JDS968
#123909
fpena944 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 7:44 pmWhat I don't get though is how does this work for boutique manufacturers? Let's forget for a moment that Ferrari and Lambo are owned by other companies. If they were truly independent how would they ever meet fleet averages when they only create sports cars that are focused on performance, not economy. Also why should it apply to them when they create just a minuscule amount of vehicles in comparison to others?

I guess the same could apply to RAM trucks. All they create are trucks, so how are they supposed to meet the same fleet average as a company like Honda or Toyota that create small cars to counteract their trucks?
So far as I know, independent boutique manufacturers like McLaren satisfy the requirements with a combination of paying Tesla to take credit for some of their sales and then paying the Feds a fine every year for whatever remaining gap that left between their average and the required average. At one point, Aston Martin (I think after Ford got rid of them) started offering a free "Aston Martin Cygnus" (an electric Smart with an Aston badge on the front and a few dead cows inside) with the purchase of certain real AMLs, just to buoy their fleet average. I don't know how exactly the accountants worked that into the price structure, but I guarantee you, sourcing a golf cart with custom Aston Martin leather interior is not free and Aston Martin is not in the business of losing money on sales.

And of course, all of these shenanigans are on top of the gas guzzler tax nearly every exotic sale incurs.

So the answer to your question is that this does not "work" for boutique manufacturers in that it does not drive any meaningful improvement in their vehicles' fuel economy. It's just a cash grab. I suppose it also might reduce overall sales by a percent or two due to slightly increased prices, which liberals probably think is great. But I have trouble imagining the customer who is in the market for a McLaren but gets dissuaded by that last couple thousand dollars.

As for RAM, yes, they'd have a serious problem as an independent, outside of our corporate umbrella. But not as big as you think. If I understand correctly, only the RAM 1500, Promaster, and Promaster City count toward the fleet average. (I think we stopped selling the RAM C/V minivan). The 2500, 3500, and chassis cab trucks are exempt. In fact, they don't even get officially tested for EPA cycle fuel economy.
User avatar
By User2
#123931
JDS968 wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:20 pm Instead of iron cylinder liners that our other aluminum blocks have always used, this block uses ultra-thin steel cylinder liners that are robotically arc-welded (PTWA, Plasma Transferred Wire Arc) onto the aluminum bore surfaces. Working with Manufacturing Engineering to develop, refine, and validate this technology has been a major part of my job. It delivers a lighter engine block that is more durable than either an iron block or an aluminum block with cast or pressed in iron liners.
You mean like those 10 yr old Ford (or 14 yr old Nissan) engines? Ya could have just asked.. 😉

https://jalopnik.com/the-ford-engine-te ... -g-5467038
User avatar
By JDS968
#123954
User2 wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:33 pm
JDS968 wrote: Thu Dec 16, 2021 4:20 pmInstead of iron cylinder liners that our other aluminum blocks have always used, this block uses ultra-thin steel cylinder liners that are robotically arc-welded (PTWA, Plasma Transferred Wire Arc) onto the aluminum bore surfaces. Working with Manufacturing Engineering to develop, refine, and validate this technology has been a major part of my job. It delivers a lighter engine block that is more durable than either an iron block or an aluminum block with cast or pressed in iron liners.
You mean like those 10 yr old Ford (or 14 yr old Nissan) engines? Ya could have just asked.. 😉

https://jalopnik.com/the-ford-engine-te ... -g-5467038
Yeah, we've done a lot of benchmarking of PTWA liners made by Ford, Nissan, Mercedes, VW, Porsche, etc. Nobody's PTWA process is the same. Ours is of course unique to Chrysler (uhhh...Stellantis?) and we're still iteratively improving it. Our preproduction blocks are already surprisingly durable (as I mentioned and Jalopnik noted about the Ford blocks, more so than cast or pressed iron liner aluminum blocks) and they are only getting better. I wish I were able to share some of the internal reports I've written about evaluations of dyno test engines. It's fascinating stuff, and I really enjoy being knee deep in it.

Excellent graphic!

The Snow Porsche, pics

I have never needed chains with Blizzaks.

Adjusted IAC reference curve with new RefDC. Targe[…]

Bring A Trailer finds

Currently 3 cars on BaT with bids over $1 millio[…]