Camino LS6

Here's an idea for the politicians and GM

44 posts in this topic

Instead of cancelling all of these zeta cars, what if GM petitioned for a special CAFE exemption in exchange for building them all as E-100 Ethanol only? The cars could be optimised with high compression engines and sold at a healthy premium. Not only would they be clean and powerful, and running on domestic fuel, but they could be ambassadors for the expansion of Ethanol's popularity. The demand and buzz would help to drive the infrastructure for E-85 and ethanol in general forward at an increased pace. The cars would then be able to be offered in E-85 form as soon as certain levels of E-85 availability are reached. The other OEMs could do the same.

These cars could be the carrot, and the Smarts and Aveos the stick.

And the market could drive the change instead of the government.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expanding ethanol will cause a bit of a problem because, unlike oil, it cannot be shipped via pipe. Ethanol has to be moved via truck or train, so getting more of it around the country is going to bring a new set of challenges. I really doubt ethanol is going to be the long term alternative. And if thats the way other people (GM, those in D.C.) think, then they aren't going to go any more out of the way for a stopgap technology.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expanding ethanol will cause a bit of a problem because, unlike oil, it cannot be shipped via pipe. Ethanol has to be moved via truck or train, so getting more of it around the country is going to bring a new set of challenges. I really doubt ethanol is going to be the long term alternative. And if thats the way other people (GM, those in D.C.) think, then they aren't going to go any more out of the way for a stopgap technology.

Ethanol has more potential than anything else to have an immediate and measureable effect.

And, the govt. has just mandated a massive expansion of its production. There are over 1400 stations already selling E-85, a number which is expected to double within a year. Also, GM alone has already put 2.5 million E-85 capable cars on the road, and Ford has been building its FFvs for how long now?

Corn ethanol is certainly a stopgap, but cellulosic ethanol need not be.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've said before what's the problem with putting fuel efficient engines in the Zetas? Hybrids, V6's, even turbo 4s?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As I've said before what's the problem with putting fuel efficient engines in the Zetas? Hybrids, V6's, even turbo 4s?

Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

I dunno Camino, that E85 Saab Biopower 4-banger sounded mighty fine to me.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dunno Camino, that E85 Saab Biopower 4-banger sounded mighty fine to me.

Nothing wrong with that either. That's the beauty of this idea, we wouldn't have to give anything up - except the oil we wouldn't use.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

Not really, you see the output numbers Ford is claiming for their EconBoost engines, that make plenty of power. If you must have a V8 it should be limited to a very low volume trim level. But it wouldn't matter to you anyone since it's got 4 doors so it's not like it would effect your purchasing decisions. :P

As Satty pointed out, ethanol isn't easy to just magically make massive quantities of and ship all over the place with the same speed and efficiency of oil. It's not a long term solution, IMO.

Would you rather have a RWD Zeta with powerful and fuel efficient 4's and 6's or just have another FWD car with 4's and 6's? I say leave the V8's for low volume models like the G8, or if they are made available on high volume models, keep the number of V8 equipped ones low.

Edited by Dodgefan
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really, you see the output numbers Ford is claiming for their EconBoost engines, that make plenty of power. If you must have a V8 it should be limited to a very low volume trim level. But it wouldn't matter to you anyone since it's got 4 doors so it's not like it would effect your purchasing decisions. :P

As Satty pointed out, ethanol isn't easy to just magically make massive quantities of and ship all over the place with the same speed and efficiency of oil. It's not a long term solution, IMO.

Would you rather have a RWD Zeta with powerful and fuel efficient 4's and 6's or just have another FWD car with 4's and 6's? I say leave the V8's for low volume models like the G8, or if they are made available on high volume models, keep the number of V8 equipped ones low.

V8s are going to be low volume in cars whether or not you plan it that way. As for distirbution of ethanol that's not hard to handle. The trucks that deliver it can run on ethanol itself and it will be made more locally than gasoline, because feedstock to produce it is literally everywhere. The same plants will likely be able to use similar processes to produce other biofuels such as hydrogen going forward, so an investment in ethanol infrastructure also serves the cause of these other fuels. Over 100 new ethanol plants are already in the planning stages as we speak. No giant pipelines nor huge refineries and ports and supertankers required. Think differently and it is easy to see the feasibility here.

As for the cars themselves, more choices is always better than less. Why argue for making sacrifices instead of advancements?

Don't forget that this will help put a dent in the obscene amount of money we send to the oil producers which is allowing them to gain influence over our premier financial institutions as we speak! We are financing our own destruction. What's the total for a year? I believe it is something like $450 billion.

Why not go for the positive?

In the end this isn't about the V8s themselves, but about driving this new fuel forward into regular acceptance. They are the lure to sway some opinion, and I'd love to see enthusiasts in the vanguard of the switch to alternative fuels, wouldn't you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are some side benefits:

- garbage can be used to make ethanol (think of the landfill space saved)

- it will spur domestic industry and create jobs

- by -products of the process are also useful and marketable

- widespread acceptance will lower the price of oil itself

And that's just a start.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some side benefits:

- garbage can be used to make ethanol (think of the landfill space saved)

- it will spur domestic industry and create jobs

- by -products of the process are also useful and marketable

- widespread acceptance will lower the price of oil itself

And that's just a start.

+ It will decentralize the fuel production in this country.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would not have to be restricted to V8s and zeta.

Imagine high-compression v6s and 4s that make big power used the same way...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are some side benefits:

- garbage can be used to make ethanol (think of the landfill space saved)

- it will spur domestic industry and create jobs

- by -products of the process are also useful and marketable

- widespread acceptance will lower the price of oil itself

And that's just a start.

hey, this sounds just like renewable diesel they make in Carthage MO, and it can detoxify garbage too.

but... cellulosic is viable, corn isn't... look at how it's affected beef prices, milk prices and such.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a wierd thought, by putting the news of canceling what actual enthusiast crave for, is GM bringing out best of our ideas and use them for free?

IK mean evern since we have seen our beloved cars get tanked, we have been doing some brainstorming discussion regarding everything for their survival. May be PCS is their messenger and instigator of our thoughts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

Ethanol is a much better fuel for high performance cars anyway.

I'm really hoping that someday my fleet of cars can run on straight Ethanol, but my fear is that we'll all be stuck driving stupid assed electric cars.

My only other hope is BMW and their Hydrogen program. They were quoted once about NEVER abandoning the ICE because their division is about performance. (Hence the hydrogen ICE program)

Guess I might eventually be a BMW man. (Not entirely a bad thing :AH-HA_wink:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, hydrogen ICEs are the final solution and I am very thankful to BMW for pursuing this.

Ethanol, however, can start happening in a big way right now.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

I disagree..

Promote the flagship vehciles as GREEN and INNOVATIVE.

Example: "Want to still drive a nice car AND save the environment? At GM, we have the solution for you!"

But, of course, the V8s will still be optional.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree..

Promote the flagship vehciles as GREEN and INNOVATIVE.

Example: "Want to still drive a nice car AND save the environment? At GM, we have the solution for you!"

But, of course, the V8s will still be optional.

I agree. The V-8 and Green car should be top of the line. Nothing is more confusing to greenies than ambiguity. Look at Toy. Should they praise for Prius or Bash for the turd.

GM can foray both as an appliance and a performance company.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree..

Promote the flagship vehciles as GREEN and INNOVATIVE.

Example: "Want to still drive a nice car AND save the environment? At GM, we have the solution for you!"

But, of course, the V8s will still be optional.

I don't see where we disagree. :blink:

Aren't we saying the same thing?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see where we disagree. :blink:

Aren't we saying the same thing?

You were saying that I4 and V6 should not be in these cars because they are flagships. (At least that's what I thought)

If GM really wanted to GAIN SHARE and establish itself as a leader, it would strive to continue to let people have their cake and eat it too, while the other automakers downsize.

But no, that's too practical of a solution for GM to ever understand, I guess.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You were saying that I4 and V6 should not be in these cars because they are flagships. (At least that's what I thought)

If GM really wanted to GAIN SHARE and establish itself as a leader, it would strive to continue to let people have their cake and eat it too, while the other automakers downsize.

But no, that's too practical of a solution for GM to ever understand, I guess.

Ah, now I see.

I should clarify. I don't think the cars should be without the V8 option, the car would appear lame without it. The V6 is a no-brainer and needs to be available - not so much the I4, zetas are too big for that. The V6 should not be part of the top trim IMHO.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way.

I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way.

I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I hope to be dead before electric motors take over.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way.

I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.

First of all, electric vehicles have been around for more than 100 years and have been developed (see golf carts!). Secondly, there are two major forces at work at this juncture in time pulling at the auto industry: the impending oil crisis (see China, Terror Threat of the Week, etc.) and/or the greenhouse gas/carbon scandal. This has the potential to be a Perfect Storm for the auto industry, worse than the crises that hit Detroit in the mid-70s.

Ethanol is not about saving the environment. Ethanol is about stretching existing oil reserves with home-grown solutions. One of the challenges facing the Alberta Tar Sands is the fact that they actually require massive amounts of natural gas to extract the oil. This is only going to be a nightmare for the oil industry, if carbon taxes start kicking in. In fact, the Alberta government and the oil industry is actually looking into possible nuclear power as an alternative to power the oil industry there.

Electric cars are not necessarily a solution either; in fact, potentially they create a worse environmental problem if the electricity generated for your vehicle comes from 'dirty coal' or natural gas generators. Electric vehicles run on electricity generated by nuclear power plants would save our atmosphere, but then the matter of disposing of the spent fuel rods creates another entire future nightmare scenario.

Ethanol, is at best, a stop gap measure. Electric cars would seem to be the future, but most jurisdictions (Ontario especially!) simply could not handle an entire switch over of personal vehicles to electric any time in the near future. Although I suspect there will be amazing technologies that will stretch the life of the internal combustion engine, inevitably we will move away from it. Nearer in the future will be the virtual death of the V-8 engine and large vehicles as personal transportation. Like it or not, we lived in a bubble that started in the late '80s and lasted until about 3 years ago. We are back on a track that began in the mid-70s, with respect to the environment and fuel consumption. We will be moving toward smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles, smaller engines and more regulation from all levels. THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS GOING TO BE. You can move to an ice flow, but otherwise, we will all have to adapt.

My first car was a '67 Polara. I learned to drive on my uncle's '62 Plymouth. I had my first sexual experience in a '58 Plymouth. You guys don't need to tell me about the thrill of a fire-breathing V-8 or doing 'wheelies' in a parking lot. Been there done that. But times have changed. They are changing. I watch Barrett-Jackson in envy at all the beautiful Detroit metal still out there, but more and more personal vehicles are becoming complex, expensive and dangerous. Drivers are idiots. Governments are greedy. People are selfish. A lot of converging social and technological changes are going to force us in a direction that will not appeal to many on this Board.

In a democracy, rarely is everyone happy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that dictates a different form of propulsion results in a less fun vehicle...

V8's can be highly efficient---whether via cylinder deactivation, hybridization or even diesel power.

Until we figure out how to be less dependent upon our enemies via innovation, we've got to deal with the political BS that is the CAFE standards (as Congress is afraid to tax gas like Europe).

I still don't understand how Zeta somehow gets screwed--4's/6's/diesels & the occasional V8 shouldn't be that big a deal--but I don't get alot of decisions at the tubes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...



  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Who's Chatting

    There are no users currently in the chat room