Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

[Chuck S.]

I just ran across this article on proposed future government mileage standards...it will become very tough for many of our performance icons to survive these standards.

Mr. Waggoner, better get that Volt into production...electric around-town cars are already on the market and selling fast. And...how about that GM fuel cell car that's been coming forever?...Honda is now advertising how smart they are to have one.

http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home/article/105049/Today's-Gas-Guzzling-Exotic-Cars-May-Get-Zapped-by-New-Fuel-Rules

[Floyd B.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

Yep. You can always count on those boneheads in Washington to pass laws that favor foreign manufactures, penalize American companies and put Americans out of work. How much do you think Joe auto worker cares about a few millionths less smog particles to breath when his job just got sent to China who's government couldn't care less about the environment?

It looks like the Camaro and Challenger will be one generation cars while the Mustang will go the way of the mid-70's Mustang II (or finally die). Even though the Vette is close to meeting CAFE standards, it has already pushed the limits of weight reduction with conventional materials. It only has two options: 1) exotic (i.e. expensive) materials, or 2) less hp.

Get'em while you can because we appear to be heading for another cataclysmic muscle car event like we suffered in the early 70's.

[Dick W.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

One of GM's power train engineers addressed this subject a few months ago. While eventually the V-8 may be gone, they are making 260 hp out of a small 4 cylinder, and 15 years ago, with not near the technology we have doday, they were making a reliable 650 hp out of a V-6. Performance is not dead, it will just take a slightly different route (I hope)

[Floyd B.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

One of GM's power train engineers addressed this subject a few months ago. While eventually the V-8 may be gone, they are making 260 hp out of a small 4 cylinder, and 15 years ago, with not near the technology we have doday, they were making a reliable 650 hp out of a V-6. Performance is not dead, it will just take a slightly different route (I hope)

HP will drop - it has to. A supercharged V6 pumping out 600+ HP is still going to suck down gas at less than 10 miles/gal fuel economy. Performance will be redefined. 4000 lb hogs with 400+ HP engines aren't going to survive CAFE. Performance will be defined as lbs/hp - meaning there will be two primary (actually three if you count footprint) variables to play with: hp (the oposite of fuel economy all other variables remaining constant) and weight. CAFE will push manufactures to maximize footprint, reduce displacement and weight.

[Duke W.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

Weight, not power is a primary factor in EPA fuel economy performance. That's why Corvettes get good EPA numbers for such powerful, high performance cars. They are light, and all cars follow the same acceleration-speed profile, so the throttle is barely cracked driving a C6 on the EPA cycle.

GM has gone to great lengths to make the Corvette engine fuel efficient at low speed and load, something that Ferrari and Porsche don't worry about, which is why they get terrible EPA numbers, especially Ferrari.

If anything, specialty mfgs. like Porsche and Ferrari are going to have problems unless they make small high fuel efficient cars, to offset their gas guzzlers, which is not their bag. Fiat may have to start importing cars into the US just to keep Ferrari here, and Porsche will have to seek a full merger with VW.

If anything, these higher required EPA numbers will benefit Corvette in the marketplace. GM will have plenty of fuel efficient cars that will help them meet the new CAFE standards. Because of Corvette's low volume relative to GM's total output, you could increase or decrease the Corvette's EPA numbers 20 or 30 percent, and it wouldn't even budge the second decimal place of GM's aggregate CAFE number.

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

Weight, not power is a primary factor in EPA fuel economy performance. That's why Corvettes get good EPA numbers for such powerful, high performance cars. They are light, and all cars follow the same acceleration-speed profile, so the throttle is barely cracked driving a C6 on the EPA cycle.

GM has gone to great lengths to make the Corvette engine fuel efficient at low speed and load, something that Ferrari and Porsche don't worry about, which is why they get terrible EPA numbers, especially Ferrari.

If anything, specialty mfgs. like Porsche and Ferrari are going to have problems unless they make small high fuel efficient cars, to offset their gas guzzlers, which is not their bag. Fiat may have to start importing cars into the US just to keep Ferrari here, and Porsche will have to seek a full merger with VW.

If anything, these higher required EPA numbers will benefit Corvette in the marketplace. GM will have plenty of fuel efficient cars that will help them meet the new CAFE standards. Because of Corvette's low volume relative to GM's total output, you could increase or decrease the Corvette's EPA numbers 20 or 30 percent, and it wouldn't even budge the second decimal place of GM's aggregate CAFE number.

Duke

Duke, et al------


I agree that WEIGHT is the primary culprit. They just have to find a way to get the weight SIGNIFICANTLY reduced. A 2008 Corvette weighs about 3,200 lbs. A 1969 Corvette weighed about 3,200 lbs. The 2008 Corvette has, of course, a lot more power and gets better mileage, especially on the highway. However, if the car weighed 2,000 pounds, it would get a LOT better mileage with even the same power and MUCH greater performance.

These days, even what we regard as "small cars" are really heavy. For example, we think of the Solstice as GM's "small" sports car and powered only by a 4 cylinder engine. Yet, the Solstice weighs almost as much as the Corvette and doesn't really get all that much better mileage with its 177 hp base engine.

For performance, I think it's "back to the future". As I've mentioned several times before, one of my iconic sports cars that lives forever in my mind is the 1973-74 Lotus Europa. Great performance and great gas mileage. However, it weighed 1,600 pounds. That's the secret. That's what we need today.

[Patrick H.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

As I've mentioned several times before, one of my iconic sports cars that lives forever in my mind is the 1973-74 Lotus Europa. Great performance and great gas mileage. However, it weighed 1,600 pounds. That's the secret. That's what we need today.

However, the government has mandated crash protection, antilock brakes, airbags up the wazoo and other items which have added significant weight to the cars. That's why the Solstice and the Vette are so close in weight - there's a "base layer" of weight that you just can't ignore. Add in the fact that everyone wants quieter cars (with heavier carpet, thicker glass, etc) and more options and you get even more weight.

The amazing thing is that they can get all of this into a Corvette and end up with the same weight as 1969!

Patrick

[Duke W.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

Whenever some guy starts yaking about how Porsches are better than Corvettes, I respond as follows:

A 1965 small block Corvette weighs about 3200 pounds. A 1965 911 weights about 2400 pounds.

A 2008 Corvette Coupe weighs about 3300 pounds. A 2008 911 weighs about 3400 pounds.

Please discuss which marque has stayed true to traditional sports car values (like minimizing weight) and which must be the best engineered?

Given the weight increases from mandated safety regulations and the market demand for luxury creature comforts on high performance sports cars, the Corvette's low weight is a testament to its superb engineering, and most of the credit goes to Dave Hill for holding the line on weight.

It's all documented in "All Corvettes are Red".

Duke

[Joe L.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

However, the government has mandated crash protection, antilock brakes, airbags up the wazoo and other items which have added significant weight to the cars. That's why the Solstice and the Vette are so close in weight - there's a "base layer" of weight that you just can't ignore. Add in the fact that everyone wants quieter cars (with heavier carpet, thicker glass, etc) and more options and you get even more weight.

The amazing thing is that they can get all of this into a Corvette and end up with the same weight as 1969!

Patrick

Patrick-----


There's no doubt that the things that you mentioned are a very large contributing factor to modern vehicle weight. However, there are ways around it:

1) Apply the same high tech and innovation that's gone into powertrains and electronics to these weight increasing "safety" items;

2) The same process that created the laws mandating all these weighty items on cars can "un-create" them. Are we serious about energy independence and massive gains in fuel efficiency, or not? Besides, if all cars are lighter, there won't be that much difference in relative safety.

3) Folks that ride motorcycles forego virtually all the safety requirements that are required for cars and it's legal to do so. So, why shouldn't I be able to buy a car that also forgoes all these safety items? Make a 1,600 lb Lotus Europa today, forgoing all of the extra-weight "safety" items and I'll buy it! Damn the torpedoes; full speed ahead. Besides, if they were to make that 1,600 pound Europa today with today's powertrain technology, it could be even lighter, more powerful, and get even better mileage than it did in 1974. Now, that's EXCITING.

[John C.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

I've seen the name Lotus thrown around here but they're the only company that is truly producing a gas burning sports car that makes sense. Now only if they didn't cost 70 large and you could fit more than a briefcase in the trunk...

[Joe L.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

I've seen the name Lotus thrown around here but they're the only company that is truly producing a gas burning sports car that makes sense. Now only if they didn't cost 70 large and you could fit more than a briefcase in the trunk...

John-----


The Lotus cars available in this country weigh less than 2,000 lbs (with all the required safety items) and have great performance. However, they don't get the mileage they once did and they do cost Big $$$. Kind of "funky" looking now, too---nothing like the beautiful Europa of 1973-74.

I'm not saying to go out and buy an Exige or an Elise, though. I'm saying they're weight reduction "model" needs to be expanded and adopted by mainstream car manufacturers.

The bottom line is this: I really don't see how we will EVER get to 35 MPG with 3,500 pound cars. I think that it will take a change in the basic laws of physics to get there and we don't have anyone on earth that has the authority to change those laws.

[Stuart F.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

Perhaps any weight reduction program should start with the driver. Back in the day at the drag strip, we used to strip almost to our scivies to help cut down on weight, Ha!

Stu Fox

[Cecil L.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

Now that's a scary thought.

[Chuck R.]

Re: I worry about two things really

1) By whatever decade I get "Baby" finished, I hope to still have enough strength in my left leg to push the clutch peddle.

2) I can afford the fuel to run it after I get it completed.

Hell, I'll even throw in a #3

3) If fossil fuels will even still be available by then

Remember when they sprang the fuel crisis of 73 on us?

Catalitic everything and then after years of use, we find out that the acids created from converted exhausts was/is harder on the environment than the leaded fuels ever thought of being.

They want to attack polution, go after big industry first and leave the middle class alone for once.

Did I hear rumors that they are pushing for catalitic converters for riding lawn mowers? I'll leave it at that

Chuckster

[John H.]

Re: Dark Days Ahead For Performance Cars (Again)

I spent most of my career in the OEM Engineering environment concerned primarily with cost, weight, and tooling investment, and there's no easy answer. Safety mandates of all kinds drive up all three - always have, always will. The only answer to weight reduction (other than little teeny cars) is premium materials (as used in the Lotus models); primarily use of aluminum and magnesium castings and extrusions, which generate their own major issues when it comes to joining technology.

When we did the Prowler, it was done mainly as a premium material (aluminum) technology experiment; about the only parts on the whole car that would attract a magnet were the brake rotors and the exhaust pipes. Thousands of self-piercing Henrob rivets and lots of structural adhesives were used in the body (aluminum doesn't weld well on a volume production basis), and the entire frame was robotically mig-welded aluminum extrusions (Alcoa built a plant just to make the frames for us, at 14 units per day). The body was very difficult to build (high piece cost for the components and high cost for assembly due to the inability to weld), and the frame was almost as bad from a cost perspective due to all the slow mig-welding. We didn't make much on the car at $40,000 a crack.

Premium materials are hellish expensive, with low manufacturing productivity, and the price of cars doesn't need to get any higher. There's no easy answer (unless you're a politician - then you just regulate/legislate things whether they're feasible or not).