[Crewchief]

End of an Era? - MSN Autos

Article:

Originally Posted by MSN News

There's only one thing to say about a Corvette that can top 200 mph, or a Cadillac sedan that makes the muscle cars of the '60s seem like a bunch of wimps: Enjoy it while it lasts. This golden age of horsepower may be coming to an end, at least in the gas-guzzling manner to which we've become accustomed.

An initial stroll through the recent auto show in Detroit might convince you that nothing has changed. GM was touting the Chevrolet Corvette ZR1, a 620-horsepower 200-mph monster that's simply the fastest production car in GM's history. Next door at the Cadillac display, the CTS-V sport sedan was flexing its 550-horsepower muscles.

Even squeaky-clean Toyota — ignoring recent environmental backlash over guzzlers such as its Tundra pickup — offered the 500-plus horsepower Lexus LF-A roadster. This Tokyo demon, heading to showrooms next year, should also break the 200-mph barrier.

These hard-drinking machines might convince you that automakers are still partying like it's 1999, when gas cost around $1.20 a gallon. But just under the Detroit show's surface, something else was brewing. And it wasn't high-octane unleaded.

Read: Gasoline's New Math: Miles Per Dollar

New rules will force the car kings to shift their focus. Revised CAFE standards require automakers to raise the average mileage of their car and truck fleets to 35 mpg by 2020. Proposed pollution standards in the U.S. and Europe may force even more dramatic increases. And if California wins the right in court to regulate global-warming emissions, you might just kiss your super-powered car goodbye — at least those that rely solely on gasoline.

In Europe the government and greens are proposing carbon-dioxide targets so strict that, if passed, not a single gas-burning model on sale today — including hybrids like the Toyota Prius — would pass muster.

The situation recalls the end of the first muscle-car era, which left Boomers shedding tears for their beloved GTOs, Shelby Mustangs and Hemi 'Cudas. In the early '70s, the first-ever tailpipe standards were a critical step toward cleaning up smoggy cities, but they also helped strangle the muscle car. It took two decades and a serious dose of engineering Viagra before cars recovered their potency.

The unfortunate side effect is that the average car today slurps more gasoline than it did 20 years ago. Cars became vastly quicker and more powerful. And of course, Americans switched en masse to SUVs.

Read: Fuel Economy: Then and Now

For anyone — including myself — with a need for speed, the longtime cliché is that they have gasoline in their veins. But a century's worth of shooting-up has put us where we are now, trying to kick a national addiction to oil.

As a result, the Motown show also featured enough green cars to stock a Sierra Club parking lot. On display was Toyota's hybrid A-BAT concept pickup and General Motors' latest hybrids, including a plug-in Saturn Vue SUV that's coming in 2010. Mercedes, VW and Honda hyped their high-mileage diesel cars that can even meet California's tough pollution rules.

Tellingly, the show also saw carmakers backing away from the thrilling-but-thirsty V8 engine that's as much a part of American culture as rock and roll. GM deep-sixed a $300 million project to develop a new V8, with Vice Chairman Bob Lutz saying that new fuel-economy rules directly sparked the move. Ford plans to drop V8s from several models, replacing them with turbocharged V6 and four-cylinder engines that go farther on a gallon.

If all that doesn't have you seeing the writing on the wall, you'd better schedule an eye exam. Still, if there's a difference between today's golden age of performance and the '60s original, it's the ability of technology to ride to the rescue.

Discuss: Do you think the new regulations will really mean the end of high-powered cars or will technology come to the rescue once again?

At the Detroit show, I asked Lutz — the GM car czar who famously inspired the Dodge Viper while at Chrysler — whether this was the last hurrah for horsepower. And while Lutz has become a vocal supporter of hybrids, electric cars and alternative fuels, he said that cars like the Corvette would still find their niche. "At the height of the vegetarian craze, the grocery stores are still selling New York steaks," Lutz said.

Lutz's point was that some people will always find a way to go fast. But the future does look bleak for speed machines powered by gasoline. While it's too early to predict which fuels will be winners and losers, it's certain that there will be multiple players. Half the new cars sold in Europe run on clean diesel, and that impressive technology is finally on its way here.

Mercedes showed off a sumptuous diesel-hybrid S-Class sedan that delivers 44 mpg. Audi will almost certainly bring us a diesel version of its spectacular R8 sports car, combining 500 horsepower with a respectable 24 mpg.

Energy experts agree that the transition to alternative fuels will take decades. There will still be gas pumps 30 and 40 years from now. Car lovers will still be able to cruise their classic internal combustion machines, whether it's a '32 Ford Deuce Coupe, a '57 Chevy or today's hottest rides.

But the days of guzzling gas as quickly as you can hose it into your tank are over. Looking back 30 years from now, we'll know it was not only the right move, but the only move.

Lawrence Ulrich lives in Brooklyn and writes about cars. His reviews and features appear regularly in The New York Times, Popular Science, Men's Vogue and Travel + Leisure Golf.

35mpg is going to even be a problem even for the beloved STi. Granted these if these rules go into effect, they wont be till 2020, then again that's only a decade away. I wonder if cars prior to 2020 would be "grandfathered" into running whatever gas milage they were designed with. I think its impressive that car companyies are still making fast cars but are giving them much better gas milage like the concept "clean diesel Audi R8"

Originally Posted by MSN News

Clean diesel technology is finally here, and a good example is the 500-horsepower turdodiesel-powered Audi R8 — a V12 that can get a 24 mpg.

I'm sure there will be fast cars on the road, but im curious if dodge has something up there sleave to make a 8.4ltr V-10 get better gas milage then a honda accord, lol.

Thoughts?

[Turbineguy]

It's bound to happen at some point. Our wonder toys will be grandfathered in I'm sure but those of us that run catless will be in a world of hurt eventually even in states that currently don't sniff check. California communism is a spreading disease.

I likes me some liquified dead dinosaurs. Suck em up, strain em out, and fill er up.

PS-just like your winged wonder you play with at work my egg beaters don't have any emisions stuff. Even in a Huey I burn up over 500lbs of fuel an hour. Nearly a 1000lbs an hour in a Blackhawk. F-18s I used to work on burn up 20k+ an hour.

[lackskill]

The unfortunate side effect is that the average car today slurps more gasoline than it did 20 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree with the notion that cars of 20 years ago are more fuel efficient than cars of today. How many full size trucks were getting 20+ mpg 20 years ago? How many sports cars had 250+ hp and got 20+ mpg 20 years ago? And besides the Civic DX and CRX HF I can't think of too many cars that got 40+ mpg then either.

[tyler_sti]

Im keeping my rex for ever

[sujak]

wont be affecting our cars, kinda like how the old muscle cars dont have to deal with with emissions etc.

i know where i live i dont have emissions so im in the clear

[Crewchief]

Originally Posted by Turbineguy

PS-just like your winged wonder you play with at work my egg beaters don't have any emisions stuff. Even in a Huey I burn up over 500lbs of fuel an hour. Nearly a 1000lbs an hour in a Blackhawk. F-18s I used to work on burn up 20k+ an hour.

off topic:

Its sad how much fuel the C-17 burns. We measure in our fuel in pounds but typical fuel load is 130k pounds, older models can take as much as 180k pounds, and the newer models can take as much as 250k pounds . Let me translate that for you for you non-aircraft people 250k pounds divided by 6.9 pounds equals 36,232 gallons. Thats for one major fill up! If we just got rid of 1 C-17 imagine the fosil fuels we would save per year.


back on topic

[USNSTI]

Correct me if I am wrong. CAFE standards basically means that the AVERAGE fuel economy, across a given manufacturers entire model line, must be equal to 35mpg or greater. That doesn't really mean that you can't sell a model that gets 18 mpg. It just means that if you do, it has to be balanced out by a model or models that get greater than 35mpg.

They just need to figure out how to sell one model that gets like 50mpg (Impreza hybrid anyone?) and they can keep putting out a gas guzzling, grin inducing, fire breathing, STi.

[Turbineguy]

Originally Posted by Crewchief

off topic:

Its sad how much fuel the C-17 burns. We measure in our fuel in pounds but typical fuel load is 130k pounds, older models can take as much as 180k pounds, and the newer models can take as much as 250k pounds . Let me translate that for you for you non-aircraft people 250k pounds divided by 6.9 pounds equals 36,232 gallons. Thats for one major fill up! If we just got rid of 1 C-17 imagine the fosil fuels we would save per year.


back on topic

Not at all surprised by those #s.

/end thread jack

We now return to our regularly scheduled thread.

[amg destroyer]

Originally Posted by USNSTI

Correct me if I am wrong. CAFE standards basically means that the AVERAGE fuel economy, across a given manufacturers entire model line, must be equal to 35mpg or greater. That doesn't really mean that you can't sell a model that gets 18 mpg. It just means that if you do, it has to be balanced out by a model or models that get greater than 35mpg.

They just need to figure out how to sell one model that gets like 50mpg (Impreza hybrid anyone?) and they can keep putting out a gas guzzling, grin inducing, fire breathing, STi.

exactly. afaik, this is an average, not a regulation for every car a company manufactures. the gas guzzlers just have to be "cancelled out," for the lack of better words, by other fuel efficient models.

correct me if im wrong..

[Late]

I don't have a problem with it. It just forces car makers/designers to be more efficient, and IMO some of them have been lazy the past couple decades. Car makers should be following Audi's example and pushing their minds to develop new technologies that can give us great sports cars that get great gas mileage too.

[IlliniSTi]

Some of the side effects will be good, like smaller, lighter cars with turbo engines. Subie has the turbo thing down, they just need to figure out the lighter part.

[Crewchief]

Originally Posted by IlliniSTi

Some of the side effects will be good, like smaller, lighter cars with turbo engines. Subie has the turbo thing down, they just need to figure out the lighter part.

How bout the gas milage part? When my friend that has a C5 vette with a 5.7ltr getting 4 more mpg on the highway then me..................something is wrong with this picture.

[tyler_sti]

^ I think it has to do with gearing. Were at almost 3500 at 80mph.

[USNSTI]

Originally Posted by Crewchief

How bout the gas milage part? When my friend that has a C5 vette with a 5.7ltr getting 4 more mpg on the highway then me..................something is wrong with this picture.

The LS series engines are very fuel efficient for the displacement that they have. I think gearing, weight, and aerodynamics have a lot to do with it though.

[jaydow11]

Originally Posted by Crewchief

off topic:

Its sad how much fuel the C-17 burns. We measure in our fuel in pounds but typical fuel load is 130k pounds, older models can take as much as 180k pounds, and the newer models can take as much as 250k pounds . Let me translate that for you for you non-aircraft people 250k pounds divided by 6.9 pounds equals 36,232 gallons. Thats for one major fill up! If we just got rid of 1 C-17 imagine the fosil fuels we would save per year.


back on topic

DING DING DING DING... you just hit a more important point! Yes auto's pollute, but if i remember right, they only account for like 2% of the entire polution in the world.

It's industrial companies, Diesel power plants, airplaines, Military's that polute way more!

Like you just said, one 747 just at takeoff uses the same amount of fuel as like 10 cars in a yea....

I could be wrong on that but it sounds about right anyways!

I have been trying to find a chart which breaks down by industry how much each area pollutes.... Anyone know of one?

This website was interesting I thought...

Air Pollution Facts

Jay