What do the new CAFE standards mean for the Z?

fly yellow · 05-20-2009, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisSlicks

It's scare tactics. When they realize that the majority can't comply they will push the date back. I'm sure the auto manufacturers (except Toyota) have already dispatched their lobbyists to Washington.

I wish that were the case, but two of the three domestic automakers are owned or at least controlled by the government. I don't think foreign manufacturers have much of a lobbying precense here in Washington, and like you said, Toyota, the #1 import in this country has already made this their business model. Honda is well on their way to following the same model. The European cars in this country fill a luxury market and they will just pay the fines and price their vehicles accordingly. Their clients can afford it.

I strongly believe we will see the death of cars like the Z, the Mustang GT, the Camaro SS (we harly knew ya), and maybe even the Corvette. GM has already done away with their high performance vehicle operations department. They said they will still produce the cars that are out there, but have no plans to develop new ones.

It is going to be an expensive proposition for car companies to develop these cars. I don't see them spending much to develop better sports cars that will only bring down their overall CAFE rating.

Enjoy these cars while you still can. I don't know how many years it will be before this country comes back to it's senses.

Rainsford · 05-20-2009, 11:23 PM

Remember, this new change is only thanks to a recent SCOTUS ruling. Should the population within the next few years see a backlash from this federal overstepping (which, as history has shown us, they most likely will) then you'll see alot of these restrictions go away. Sure, these standards will still cripple industry and sales in states like NY and California, but it will do far less harm, especially when people see how many jobs this move will cost.

wstar · 05-20-2009, 11:57 PM

I really think all-electric cars are the future, or 'hybrids' in the sense of cars that are designed as full electrics, but have a tiny fixed-rpm gasoline engine hooked up to a generator to provide a range boost over the capacity of the battery packs alone. They're way more efficient in terms of energy production and utilization, and we already have the grid to distribute the juice (and gas stations for the long-range generators).

Won't get in the way of performance either. A good all-electric performance car can knock the socks off a gas car. You get 4 electric motors (one in each wheel)... AWD with full torque at any speed (starting at zero), engine braking that pretty much obviates the need for traditional brakes, and capable of much more advance traction and stability control with an advanced cpu controlling the 4 motor controllers (imagine a computer that could choose the engine torque delivered to each individual wheel precisely, on top of what can be done with TCS/launch-control systems today). Oh and did I mention no gearing necessary at all? No driveline losses, no clutch, no transmission, no differential, etc.

The only thing holding back that vision of the future, at this point, is the need for more advanced batteries and/or supercapacitors to be developed, and for the cost of those components to drop drastically. It will happen, it's just a question of when.

FlashBazbo · 05-21-2009, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

I really think all-electric cars are the future, . . . The only thing holding back that vision of the future, at this point, is the need for more advanced batteries and/or supercapacitors to be developed, and for the cost of those components to drop drastically. It will happen, it's just a question of when.

Actually, there's much bigger problem holding them back. The technological hurdle is huge, don't get me wrong, but I could see that hurdle resolved over the next 15 years. In fact, except for price issues, for MOST commuters (40 miles or less), feasibility is almost here.

But here's the 800 pound gorilla NOBODY in Washington wants to talk about: We don't have NEARLY enough power generation capacity to juice up that many electric cars. Even if you charge them during off-peak hours, the U.S. power generation industry is stuck with antiquated powerplants and insufficient capacity for what we're already doing. The current infrastructure needs off-peak in order to stay intact. The environmental lobby essentially killed powerplant construction thirty years ago. No nuke plants. No big coal plants. It is getting critical even without the added load of fifty million cars. (Google news articles on blackouts and brownouts.)

Electric cars, if they come online, will create the same kind of surprise that ethanol as an alternative fuel did. Ethanol use as a fuel taught us that we didn't have nearly enough grain production to both fuel cars AND feed people. Electric cars will teach us that there are no free lunches. They won't become feasible until / unless we spend hundreds of billions on new powerplants. (It would take decades to permit and build that kind of capacity. If you started today -- which the environmental lobby won't permit -- it could take 40 years to bring that much capacity online. And there are no large-scale powerplants that don't pollute big-time. Even wind has its problems.)

SiXK · 05-21-2009, 09:39 AM

I have a few thoughts on the subject. I will go ahead and state my displeasure with the current administration. I did not vote for this guy.

Its not just the cafe standards I am worried about, its the desire to manipulate Americans into buying small, green cars. In that respect new CAFE standards may only be step #1 for these guys.

We have heard that they may have cash incentive programs to persuade people to trade in their older cars. why would people want to do that if they are happy with their, oh, lets say 2009 370Z?

Probably because it will become very expensive to drive other cars. The dems favor higher gas prices. Gore said one time he wished gas was $5 a gallon so people would stop buying SUVs. If Govt Motors (GM) and others start building econo cars, it would not surprise me to see gas taxes go up to make driving a car like the 370 more expensive. But I believe the biggest expense may be emissions. Obamas standards call for a 30% reduction. If your car does not meet that I am sure there will be carbon taxes to pay (fines). No current cars meet that standard.

They are going to try and make it a difficult financial decision to drive a sports car or SUV.

I have heard a few things that come from good sources. If anyone doesn't believe it thats not a problem. I can't produce any links or documents to prove what I know.

The Tesla car does not perform as Tesla says it performs.
The Tesla car will cost more to produce than Tesla says it will cost.
The Tesla car does not have the range that Tesla says it has.

There are other concerns about their internal bookkeeping, and not of the "oops, they made a small mistake" variety, much more serious. just what I am hearing.

The electric car still needs a breakthrough before it will be viable.

back to the CAFE standards

Nothing these guys are doing is irreversible. The next President can relax or eliminate much of this.

IMO If you want to eliminate the need for foreign oil - drill our own.

IMO If you want the car companies to survive - let the market dictate what they build and sell.

I also think Global warming is a myth, so now a good percentage of you can hate me now.

Lug · 05-21-2009, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo

Actually, there's much bigger problem holding them back. The technological hurdle is huge, don't get me wrong, but I could see that hurdle resolved over the next 15 years. In fact, except for price issues, for MOST commuters (40 miles or less), feasibility is almost here.

But here's the 800 pound gorilla NOBODY in Washington wants to talk about: We don't have NEARLY enough power generation capacity to juice up that many electric cars. Even if you charge them during off-peak hours, the U.S. power generation industry is stuck with antiquated powerplants and insufficient capacity for what we're already doing. The current infrastructure needs off-peak in order to stay intact. The environmental lobby essentially killed powerplant construction thirty years ago. No nuke plants. No big coal plants. It is getting critical even without the added load of fifty million cars. (Google news articles on blackouts and brownouts.)

Electric cars, if they come online, will create the same kind of surprise that ethanol as an alternative fuel did. Ethanol use as a fuel taught us that we didn't have nearly enough grain production to both fuel cars AND feed people. Electric cars will teach us that there are no free lunches. They won't become feasible until / unless we spend hundreds of billions on new powerplants. (It would take decades to permit and build that kind of capacity. If you started today -- which the environmental lobby won't permit -- it could take 40 years to bring that much capacity online. And there are no large-scale powerplants that don't pollute big-time. Even wind has its problems.)

Yep, Nuke plants are the real answer to Electric cars if you follow the logic. I'm quite interested in the air cars. Couple of neat prototypes out there and eliminates the down sides to the electric cars (battery production/disposal, etc). Of course performance will really lag for a while.

WUKILLABEEZ78 · 05-21-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo

Actually, there's much bigger problem holding them back. The technological hurdle is huge, don't get me wrong, but I could see that hurdle resolved over the next 15 years. In fact, except for price issues, for MOST commuters (40 miles or less), feasibility is almost here.

But here's the 800 pound gorilla NOBODY in Washington wants to talk about: We don't have NEARLY enough power generation capacity to juice up that many electric cars. Even if you charge them during off-peak hours, the U.S. power generation industry is stuck with antiquated powerplants and insufficient capacity for what we're already doing. The current infrastructure needs off-peak in order to stay intact. The environmental lobby essentially killed powerplant construction thirty years ago. No nuke plants. No big coal plants. It is getting critical even without the added load of fifty million cars. (Google news articles on blackouts and brownouts.)

Electric cars, if they come online, will create the same kind of surprise that ethanol as an alternative fuel did. Ethanol use as a fuel taught us that we didn't have nearly enough grain production to both fuel cars AND feed people. Electric cars will teach us that there are no free lunches. They won't become feasible until / unless we spend hundreds of billions on new powerplants. (It would take decades to permit and build that kind of capacity. If you started today -- which the environmental lobby won't permit -- it could take 40 years to bring that much capacity online. And there are no large-scale powerplants that don't pollute big-time. Even wind has its problems.)

The technological hurdle for electric cars isn't huge at all. All of you need to view the documentary WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR. Anyone who thinks electric cars are impractical will be enlightened.

wstar · 05-21-2009, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo

But here's the 800 pound gorilla NOBODY in Washington wants to talk about: We don't have NEARLY enough power generation capacity to juice up that many electric cars.

I don't think it's as bad as you think. New nuke plants are already getting traction, you can google about it, it's happening. If demand starts spiking due to electric cars (which will be gradual anyways), power companies will simply make their rates more progressive, charging more for peak than off-peak usage, encouraging people to charge their cars overnight when demand is typically lower. A lot of metro areas are also looking at incentive programs to start making the grid more resilient. Think solar panels on everyone's house to feed the downtown office buildings during the day, etc.

ChrisSlicks · 05-21-2009, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

I don't think it's as bad as you think. New nuke plants are already getting traction, you can google about it, it's happening. If demand starts spiking due to electric cars (which will be gradual anyways), power companies will simply make their rates more progressive, charging more for peak than off-peak usage, encouraging people to charge their cars overnight when demand is typically lower. A lot of metro areas are also looking at incentive programs to start making the grid more resilient. Think solar panels on everyone's house to feed the downtown office buildings during the day, etc.

It will be bad for a short while just because of how long it takes to get approval and to build a power plant (10+ years!). Hopefully they are learning their lesson to look ahead so we don't end up with the rolling blackouts that Cali experienced in the past.

Subsidizing distributed power is a good idea but it takes money and so the government needs to have funds to buy in. Germany has been doing this with huge success in the past few years. People are buying subsidized solar panels (cheaply) and sticking them on their roofs to sell power back into the grid. Farmers are allocating fields and setting up solar farms because it is more profitable than actual farming. There are some rebates here but they vary by state, and some states have none.

FlashBazbo · 05-21-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wstar

I don't think it's as bad as you think. New nuke plants are already getting traction, you can google about it, it's happening. If demand starts spiking due to electric cars (which will be gradual anyways), power companies will simply make their rates more progressive, charging more for peak than off-peak usage, encouraging people to charge their cars overnight when demand is typically lower. A lot of metro areas are also looking at incentive programs to start making the grid more resilient. Think solar panels on everyone's house to feed the downtown office buildings during the day, etc.

You don't understand the grid. (I work in the industry.) Our antiquated grid NEEDS off-peak to keep the equipment together. It can't take peak load around the clock. And accepting tiny amounts of power from multiple sources is a lot bigger physics problem than people realize. You don't just plug in a new source. It impacts the balance of the entire system. And if something goes wrong, it gets ugly in a hurry. (The major U.S. blackouts of the last couple of decades have almost all been minor small-source issues that took big grids out of balance, and off-line.)

And the last nuke plant permitted in the U.S. took (hold your breath) THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS just for the permitting process. $78.5 million JUST FOR THE PERMITTING (with no money coming in)! Then, they shut down the project.

Power generation is a lot harder than the bureaucrats realize.

wstar · 05-21-2009, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlashBazbo

You don't understand the grid. (I work in the industry.) Our antiquated grid NEEDS off-peak to keep the equipment together. It can't take peak load around the clock. And accepting tiny amounts of power from multiple sources is a lot bigger physics problem than people realize. You don't just plug in a new source. It impacts the balance of the entire system. And if something goes wrong, it gets ugly in a hurry. (The major U.S. blackouts of the last couple of decades have almost all been minor small-source issues that took big grids out of balance, and off-line.)

And the last nuke plant permitted in the U.S. took (hold your breath) THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS just for the permitting process. $78.5 million JUST FOR THE PERMITTING (with no money coming in)! Then, they shut down the project.

Power generation is a lot harder than the bureaucrats realize.

Well, it seems the biggest problem is the bureaucrats themselves. I have faith that the NRC, etc will get things done quicker this time around though, re: approving new nuke plants. There are already proposals underway for a new generation of plants. Once the first few make it through the process, hopefully more will start. Nuke power is smart, and it's mostly ignorant fear on the part of the public that holds back nuclear plans

05-20-2009, 11:57 PM	#3 (permalink)
wstar A True Z Fanatic Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Houston, TX Posts: 4,024 Drives: too slow Rep Power: 3595	I really think all-electric cars are the future, or 'hybrids' in the sense of cars that are designed as full electrics, but have a tiny fixed-rpm gasoline engine hooked up to a generator to provide a range boost over the capacity of the battery packs alone. They're way more efficient in terms of energy production and utilization, and we already have the grid to distribute the juice (and gas stations for the long-range generators). Won't get in the way of performance either. A good all-electric performance car can knock the socks off a gas car. You get 4 electric motors (one in each wheel)... AWD with full torque at any speed (starting at zero), engine braking that pretty much obviates the need for traditional brakes, and capable of much more advance traction and stability control with an advanced cpu controlling the 4 motor controllers (imagine a computer that could choose the engine torque delivered to each individual wheel precisely, on top of what can be done with TCS/launch-control systems today). Oh and did I mention no gearing necessary at all? No driveline losses, no clutch, no transmission, no differential, etc. The only thing holding back that vision of the future, at this point, is the need for more advanced batteries and/or supercapacitors to be developed, and for the cost of those components to drop drastically. It will happen, it's just a question of when. __________________ 7AT Track Car! Journal thread / Car setup details

05-21-2009, 09:39 AM	#5 (permalink)
SiXK Enthusiast Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Orlando Posts: 352 Drives: 09 370Z / 91 300ZXTT Rep Power: 186	I have a few thoughts on the subject. I will go ahead and state my displeasure with the current administration. I did not vote for this guy. Its not just the cafe standards I am worried about, its the desire to manipulate Americans into buying small, green cars. In that respect new CAFE standards may only be step #1 for these guys. We have heard that they may have cash incentive programs to persuade people to trade in their older cars. why would people want to do that if they are happy with their, oh, lets say 2009 370Z? Probably because it will become very expensive to drive other cars. The dems favor higher gas prices. Gore said one time he wished gas was $5 a gallon so people would stop buying SUVs. If Govt Motors (GM) and others start building econo cars, it would not surprise me to see gas taxes go up to make driving a car like the 370 more expensive. But I believe the biggest expense may be emissions. Obamas standards call for a 30% reduction. If your car does not meet that I am sure there will be carbon taxes to pay (fines). No current cars meet that standard. They are going to try and make it a difficult financial decision to drive a sports car or SUV. I have heard a few things that come from good sources. If anyone doesn't believe it thats not a problem. I can't produce any links or documents to prove what I know. The Tesla car does not perform as Tesla says it performs. The Tesla car will cost more to produce than Tesla says it will cost. The Tesla car does not have the range that Tesla says it has. There are other concerns about their internal bookkeeping, and not of the "oops, they made a small mistake" variety, much more serious. just what I am hearing. The electric car still needs a breakthrough before it will be viable. back to the CAFE standards Nothing these guys are doing is irreversible. The next President can relax or eliminate much of this. IMO If you want to eliminate the need for foreign oil - drill our own. IMO If you want the car companies to survive - let the market dictate what they build and sell. I also think Global warming is a myth, so now a good percentage of you can hate me now. __________________ Magnetic Black 2009 370Z / Pearl Yellow 1991 300ZXTT

05-20-2009, 11:23 PM	#2 (permalink)
Rainsford Base Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: New York Posts: 9 Drives: 07 Nissan Maxima Rep Power: 17	Remember, this new change is only thanks to a recent SCOTUS ruling. Should the population within the next few years see a backlash from this federal overstepping (which, as history has shown us, they most likely will) then you'll see alot of these restrictions go away. Sure, these standards will still cripple industry and sales in states like NY and California, but it will do far less harm, especially when people see how many jobs this move will cost.