What do the new CAFE standards mean for the Z?

FlashBazbo · 05-21-2009, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoCal 370Z

Tesla is doing well, and now even better: Daimler takes a stake in electric carmaker Tesla

Tesla Motors Press Room

I am currently considering placing a reservation on a Tesla S. My wife has visited Tesla's main showroom, in Menlo Park, CA, and came away very impressed.

That's new. That MAY just save them!

I wonder if they'll hush up the improprieties or go through with the investigations.

SiXK · 05-21-2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo

LSUTurboTiger, I read the same stuff about Tesla. (Maybe AutoWeek? Maybe the Wall Street Journal?) It's about to implode. People are headed for prison, by all reports. The money guys and promoters apparently got taken for a ride (if you believe their side of the story). The car won't do what they claim, plus, it costs 50% more to build than they've sold it for. Very, very ugly.

Too many people in the media and in the Green movement wanted it to be true, so it was "true."

Pretty much exactly what I believe to be true. There are major allegations of fraud. supposedly two sets of books. Then, like you said, there are the allegations about the car too and if its capable of what they claim.

I am not swearing 100% that I am certain that these things are true, but allegations are out there and they are being investigated. The truth will come out soon and we will know what is true and whats not true.

Lug · 05-21-2009, 11:56 AM

If it needs rebates, it's not profitable. That's just shifting the cost to someone else (other taxpayers). Solar panels are nice but they won't produce enough power to do anything significant anytime soon. I found that if you covered 40 average sizeed rooftops with panels, it would generate enough power in one hour to replace 1 gallon of gasoline...at 100% efficiency.

ChrisSlicks · 05-21-2009, 12:51 PM

Solar is only 20% efficient at the moment, so the benefits will improve as the technology does. I also favor the building of new efficient power stations, both traditional (coal / nuclear) and alternative.

Lug · 05-21-2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisSlicks

Solar is only 20% efficient at the moment, so the benefits will improve as the technology does. I also favor the building of new efficient power stations, both traditional (coal / nuclear) and alternative.

The useful efficiencies were "just around the corner" back in the 70's. With current tech, it would cost me well over $25000 to be able to generate 4.4 Kilowatts (enough to replace a small power generator,I looked into this after Hurricane Ike left me powerless for a week). That would only be for about 6 hours a day and wouldn't even let me run my air conditioners. To totally go off the grid would be over $100,000 and lots of extra stoage capacity. All the "success" solar power stories I've read involve reducing energy uses by something like 2/3rd's AND huge tax rebates. Solar as a major player is just a no go anytime in the near future. Wind power is much better......IF you live in the right place.

ChrisSlicks · 05-21-2009, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lug

The useful efficiencies were "just around the corner" back in the 70's. With current tech, it would cost me well over $25000 to be able to generate 4.4 Kilowatts (enough to replace a small power generator,I looked into this after Hurricane Ike left me powerless for a week). That would only be for about 6 hours a day and wouldn't even let me run my air conditioners. To totally go off the grid would be over $100,000 and lots of extra stoage capacity. All the "success" solar power stories I've read involve reducing energy uses by something like 2/3rd's AND huge tax rebates. Solar as a major player is just a no go anytime in the near future. Wind power is much better......IF you live in the right place.

Yes, going off grid with solar just isn't feasible unless you live like you're in the 19th century. There are some feasible solar concepts using solar collectors to generate steam (which can be stored). Photovoltaic cells have a long way to go.

The whole house generators I've looked into are natural gas or propane. We loose power several times a year, this winter we lost power for a week during a ice storm with temperatures near 0F. At first I tried to keep the house warm using the fireplace but that was a losing battle. Eventually I got smart and hooked an inverter up to my truck and wired it up to my gas boiler so that the ignition system and circulater pumps would work. Idling my truck the gas tank lasted about 2 days. Obviously a full on generator would be more efficient than a 300W inverter.

Lug · 05-21-2009, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisSlicks

Yes, going off grid with solar just isn't feasible unless you live like you're in the 19th century. There are some feasible solar concepts using solar collectors to generate steam (which can be stored). Photovoltaic cells have a long way to go.

The whole house generators I've looked into are natural gas or propane. We loose power several times a year, this winter we lost power for a week during a ice storm with temperatures near 0F. At first I tried to keep the house warm using the fireplace but that was a losing battle. Eventually I got smart and hooked an inverter up to my truck and wired it up to my gas boiler so that the ignition system and circulater pumps would work. Idling my truck the gas tank lasted about 2 days. Obviously a full on generator would be more efficient than a 300W inverter.

I was getting 10 to 12 hours of 5kw off of 5 gallons of gas on my very very old gas generator. After about a week of this, I bought a new 6KW Diesel Generator (diesel was much easier to find than reg gas after the hurricane), gassed it up, hooked it up and ran.........for about 30 min and the power came back up. I was almost mad.

FlashBazbo · 05-21-2009, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lug

Wind power is much better......IF you live in the right place.

Brace yourself. Environmentalists (and people who live near wind farms) are putting an end to the concept of major wind farms. That's why, for a time recently, you heard the proposal to site wind farms offshore, out in the ocean.

Problem #1 -- Aesthetics. You're taking wilderness and/or beautiful countryside, stripping it naked of all natural tree life (clear-cutting to the extreme), and filling it with ugly metal towers. The construction itself creates a major greenhouse gas deficit.

Problem #2 -- Ultra-low frequency harmonics. Windmills go whump-whump-whump-whump constantly. When you've got a few hundred of them going whump-whump-whump-whump constantly, day after day, month after month, year after year, you drive away wildlife and make people within five miles of the installation go psycho. It's a big noise issue. Health as well as environmental interests are at work.

But how about waste-to-energy? You don't hear much about it because the waste management companies don't want you to hear much about it. But, if you use the WastAway system to process the garbage first, it's clean. It saves landfill space. It doesn't stink (as garbage incineration does). And it only takes three to five years to go through the permitting process and construction.

Lug · 05-21-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo

Brace yourself. Environmentalists (and people who live near wind farms) are putting an end to the concept of major wind farms. That's why, for a time recently, you heard the proposal to site wind farms offshore, out in the ocean.

Problem #1 -- Aesthetics. You're taking wilderness and/or beautiful countryside, stripping it naked of all natural tree life (clear-cutting to the extreme), and filling it with ugly metal towers. The construction itself creates a major greenhouse gas deficit.

Problem #2 -- Ultra-low frequency harmonics. Windmills go whump-whump-whump-whump constantly. When you've got a few hundred of them going whump-whump-whump-whump constantly, day after day, month after month, year after year, you drive away wildlife and make people within five miles of the installation go psycho. It's a big noise issue. Health as well as environmental interests are at work.

But how about waste-to-energy? You don't hear much about it because the waste management companies don't want you to hear much about it. But, if you use the WastAway system to process the garbage first, it's clean. It saves landfill space. It doesn't stink (as garbage incineration does). And it only takes three to five years to go through the permitting process and construction.

Waste-to-engery is at the top of the list as "doable". There is some interesting algae alternate fuel stuff that looks very promising as well.
Pond-Powered Biofuels: Turning Algae into America's Newest Alternative Energy Source - Popular Mechanics
and
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...oil/index.html

Lyndo · 05-21-2009, 03:56 PM

wind, nuclear and hydro are going to be the answers, all are clean and high enough output that the small disadvantages to them are going to have to be over looked if the power shortages and green house gas problems are ever going to be addressed.

edit: wow didn`t realise how off topic this thread has got lol, i didn`t even remember what thread it was after reading through it and posting haha had to go to the top and look

FlashBazbo · 05-21-2009, 04:06 PM

Back on topic, then . . . IF they decide to call it a Z, I think the new CAFE gives us an Altima Coupe with altered styling, the Z nameplate, front wheel drive, and a turbo four. (Would NISSAN ever put the Z label on a 4-cyl front-drive car? I don't really think so.) It might be the return of the 240SX.

>135I · 05-22-2009, 04:43 PM

I don't know maybe Nissan can do something like Chevy and a couple other car manufactures and have an engine that cuts cyclenders on the highway.

FlashBazbo · 05-22-2009, 07:05 PM

There are actually only two things we know for sure --

1. Unless they tax us into oblivion (which has been seriously proposed), our current Zs are great and will remain great. How many of us would still drive them with a punitive tax on fuel (up to $4 additional dollars of tax per gallon has been proposed by congressional Democrats)?

2. We will certainly be able to read about the 2016 generation of Zs in the press. Europe and Asia won't be following our lead. And, as in the dark days, they will still get all the cool cars and motorcycles -- whether we do, or not. (And, again, they'll be laughing at us for our grand gesture.)

fly yellow · 05-23-2009, 02:11 PM

Actually if Nissan decides to continue the Z and just not offer it here because of our crazy laws then you may just see the baddest Z ever built. It's just too bad that you will have to live in China to drive it. Of course there is always the possibility that China may call our debt that we owe them and we all might be living in China right now without even knowing it.

carguyg35 · 05-30-2009, 02:20 PM

One thing I wanted to add to this old discussion is a loophole in that 35.5 CAFE standard. And that would be the use of E85. As of now the automakers could simply convert the engines to run on E85 and that gives them a huge CAFE rating boost. So much so that every automakers would reach the new goal. Plus it is pretty easy to convert the engines to E85. Essentially install bigger fuel injectors and use more durable materials that come in contact with the E85 fuel as it is corrosive. This is a loophole that corn states can love.

05-21-2009, 11:56 AM	#3 (permalink)
Lug A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Texas Posts: 1,926 Drives: 2006 350Z Rep Power: 20	If it needs rebates, it's not profitable. That's just shifting the cost to someone else (other taxpayers). Solar panels are nice but they won't produce enough power to do anything significant anytime soon. I found that if you covered 40 average sizeed rooftops with panels, it would generate enough power in one hour to replace 1 gallon of gasoline...at 100% efficiency. __________________ keep Chubbs in your pocket - Chubbs

05-21-2009, 03:56 PM	#10 (permalink)
Lyndo Base Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Saskatoon, Sk, Canada Posts: 53 Drives: honda accord Rep Power: 17	wind, nuclear and hydro are going to be the answers, all are clean and high enough output that the small disadvantages to them are going to have to be over looked if the power shortages and green house gas problems are ever going to be addressed. edit: wow didn`t realise how off topic this thread has got lol, i didn`t even remember what thread it was after reading through it and posting haha had to go to the top and look Last edited by Lyndo; 05-21-2009 at 03:58 PM.

05-22-2009, 04:43 PM	#12 (permalink)
>135I Enthusiast Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Radcliff, KY Age: 43 Posts: 409 Drives: 2003 Cobra Rep Power: 17	I don't know maybe Nissan can do something like Chevy and a couple other car manufactures and have an engine that cuts cyclenders on the highway. __________________ I will miss my Z. I hope she goes to a good home.

05-21-2009, 12:51 PM	#4 (permalink)
ChrisSlicks A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: North East Posts: 6,203 Drives: 09 370Z Sport M6 Rep Power: 654	Solar is only 20% efficient at the moment, so the benefits will improve as the technology does. I also favor the building of new efficient power stations, both traditional (coal / nuclear) and alternative.

05-21-2009, 04:06 PM	#11 (permalink)
FlashBazbo Base Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Middle Tennessee Posts: 97 Drives: '09 370Z T-SP-7AT Rep Power: 0	Back on topic, then . . . IF they decide to call it a Z, I think the new CAFE gives us an Altima Coupe with altered styling, the Z nameplate, front wheel drive, and a turbo four. (Would NISSAN ever put the Z label on a 4-cyl front-drive car? I don't really think so.) It might be the return of the 240SX.

05-22-2009, 07:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
FlashBazbo Base Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Middle Tennessee Posts: 97 Drives: '09 370Z T-SP-7AT Rep Power: 0	There are actually only two things we know for sure -- 1. Unless they tax us into oblivion (which has been seriously proposed), our current Zs are great and will remain great. How many of us would still drive them with a punitive tax on fuel (up to $4 additional dollars of tax per gallon has been proposed by congressional Democrats)? 2. We will certainly be able to read about the 2016 generation of Zs in the press. Europe and Asia won't be following our lead. And, as in the dark days, they will still get all the cool cars and motorcycles -- whether we do, or not. (And, again, they'll be laughing at us for our grand gesture.)

05-23-2009, 02:11 PM	#14 (permalink)
fly yellow Enthusiast Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 455 Drives: 09 yellow 370z Rep Power: 266	Actually if Nissan decides to continue the Z and just not offer it here because of our crazy laws then you may just see the baddest Z ever built. It's just too bad that you will have to live in China to drive it. Of course there is always the possibility that China may call our debt that we owe them and we all might be living in China right now without even knowing it.

05-30-2009, 02:20 PM	#15 (permalink)
carguyg35 Base Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Fort Drum, NY Posts: 32 Drives: golf cart Rep Power: 17	One thing I wanted to add to this old discussion is a loophole in that 35.5 CAFE standard. And that would be the use of E85. As of now the automakers could simply convert the engines to run on E85 and that gives them a huge CAFE rating boost. So much so that every automakers would reach the new goal. Plus it is pretty easy to convert the engines to E85. Essentially install bigger fuel injectors and use more durable materials that come in contact with the E85 fuel as it is corrosive. This is a loophole that corn states can love.