http://www.motorists.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/WhyThe2009CamaroIsDoomed_A200/camaro.jpg

Motorheads don’t want to hear it; refuse to believe it — but ugly realities are coming down hard on the ‘09 Camaro that will very possibly cause GM to pull the plug before the first one ever rolls off the line.


Doubt that? Consider the stillborn rear-wheel-drive next generation Chevy Impala — nixed because of concerns within GM about the possibility of meeting the pending (2012) 35 mpg fuel economy edict recently passed by Congress. A lighter front-drive car with a V-6 instead of a V-8 can make the cut; a V-8 RWD Impala can’t. So it’s gone. So is the talked-about next generation GTO. And the future of the G8 sedan looks not so good. GM is openly talking about scaling back the entire Pontiac division — and ending its role as a performance brand.


No bull; not my opinion. Just facts.


Now consider the 2009 Camaro — and the world in which it will have to swim. Gas prices are already surging toward $4 per gallon for regular unleaded. And Camaro’s not even here yet. By the time the car reaches production status in about eight months or so, we may very well be at $5 per gallon.
Maybe more.


At the same time, the buying power of the dollar is falling down the well — so everything is becoming more expensive, not just gas. And most of us are not making more money to compensate. Quite the opposite. Inflation and income stagnation are hitting us hard. Those of us who still have jobs and have been able to maintain the same income we had a year or so ago are few, thankful — and nervous. Buying a new car is not on our agenda. And buying a frivolous new car even less so. Camaro is not an exotic; it is a "Joe Sixpack" kind of car — so middle class and working class buyer skittishness is no small thing.


GM is well aware of these facts — which are going to kneecap Camaro (and any car like it) on the consumer level. Whatever the projected sales potential was two years ago should probably be cut in half. Bet your bippie that the bean counters within GM have thought about this, too.


That’s bad enough — and by itself could be sufficient to make going ahead with Camaro in 2009 about as sensible as building something like a Series 62 Cadillac would have been in 1979.


But wait, there’s more. Don’t forget the 10,000 pound Tallboy bomb that’s about to fall onto GM’s head (and ours) in the form of the 35 mpg CAFE edict. That changes … everything. The recession, crippling gas prices and declining buying power of the dollar are merely the coupe de grace.
A V-6 Camaro could maybe meet the current 27.5 mpg CAFE requirement for passenger cars without major engineering changes/expenses or hitting buyers with a "gas guzzler" surcharge that would bump the purchase price of the car up by $1,000 or more.


But 35 mpg? Only a few four-cylinder economy compacts and hybrids make it under that bar. Anything much over about 3,200 pounds with an engine larger than 3 liters is getting iffy. With a 300-plus hp V-8 engine and rear-wheel-drive?
Forget it.


Don’t believe it? Chew on this:


The current Ford Mustang GT — a car very similar in layout/power and so on to the pending ‘09 Camaro — manages just 17 mpg in city driving and 26 mpg on the highway. That’s with the 4 liter V-6 engine, by the way. The GT’s 4.6 liter V-8 (300 hp) slurps it down at the rate of 15 mpg in the city and 23 mpg on the highway. To survive 35 mpg CAFE, the V-8 Mustang GT would have to somehow nearly double its current average fuel economy. How is this going to be achieved, exactly? Think Ford is worried about the Mustang’s viability?


You’d better believe it.


The new Dodge Challenger is in even worse shape, CAFE wise. Its wonderful 6.1 liter V-8 won’t last long in this world, given city mileage of 13 mpg — and highway mileage that isn’t even out of the teens (18 mpg). Yes, a V-6 version is coming, but the most efficient engines of this size/type that Chrysler has available - like Ford — don’t come close to delivering 35 mpg.


Camaro’s in the same pickle. Neither the base V-6 version nor the high-powered V-8 model have a prayer of achieving CAFE compliance. If they’re produced, buyers will be facing huge "gas guzzler" surcharges that will only add to the growing roster of negatives arguing against making a purchase — from $75 fill-ups to the general uselessness of cars of these type, beyond their ability to provide a good time.


And here’s the deal: Chrysler’s already on the hook; the commitment to production has been made. It will have to at least try to make a go of it. For awhile. Ford has a strong buyer base for the Mustang; a case can be made that even with gas guzzler fees and generally awful times, economically speaking, it’s worth trying to hold the line — at least, for the moment.


But Camaro?


GM no longer has a sure bet buyer base; the name has been out of circulation for almost seven years now. That is a long time, regardless of other external issues, such as gas prices. Rebuilding a brand/make of car is tough in the best of times. In bad times, it is a fool’s errand. And it’s a luxury that cash-strapped, no longer number one GM cannot afford to indulge.


If Camaro sinks — as all signs indicate it will — GM will lose a ton of money. Remember that unlike Challenger (which is "spun off" the existing Charger sedan) GM has had to invest a great deal in what amounts to a brand-new platform/tooling and so on to make this happen. Big sales are needed to make it up. It increasingly looks as though that is extremely unlikely to happen.


Which is why GM may just abort the whole thing before it ever sees the light of day.


You wait and see.
11111

http://www.egmcartech.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/spy_shots_gm_camaro_no_disguise_main.jpg

f you’re crazy about automotive (http://www.egmcartech.com/2008/05/15/chevy-camaro-wont-debut-at-indy-in-sept-but-before-that/#) news and have been browsing the web this morning you probably read that the 2009/2010 Chevrolet Camaro will debut at the 2008 Indy ‘Back at the Brickyard’ event. However after a little research and speaking to they guys at GM, our main man John Neff from AutoBlog found out that the car (http://www.egmcartech.com/2008/05/15/chevy-camaro-wont-debut-at-indy-in-sept-but-before-that/#) will debut before that at a place that is still TBA. The car may still show its face at Indy for promotional purposes.
In the mean time you can just kick back and watch the Camaro circle the Nurburgring (http://www.egmcartech.com/2008/04/23/spy-video-2010-chevrolet-camaro-on-the-nurburgring/).
Source: AutoBlog (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/15/camaro-getting-early-unveil-at-indy-this-year/)

http://www.egmcartech.com/2008/05/15/chevy-camaro-wont-debut-at-indy-in-sept-but-before-that/

Or they could drop some type of V6 Hybrid engine in it and herald it as the muscle car for the 21st century... but wait never mind, you can't do that with 80 year old technology. Oh well!

http://img357.imageshack.us/img357/5793/simpsonsnelsonhaha2ct4.jpg

I'd say it's doomed because I'm burned out after five years of hype.
Kind of like the GTO, but with double the lead time.

That's odd... my wife and I spotted one doing some high altitude/cold weather testing on I-70 last Sunday.

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/4660/newcamaro3hw2.th.jpg (http://img377.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro3hw2.jpg)

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/167/newcamaro2kb4.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro2kb4.jpg)

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/167/newcamaro21nv4.th.jpg (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro21nv4.jpg)

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2493/newcamaro4dh4.th.jpg (http://img111.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro4dh4.jpg)

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/3668/newcamaro5xe9.th.jpg (http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro5xe9.jpg)

BTW: I'm no F Body fan but I know it wasn't uncommon for 6 speed cars to get 27 mpg hwy.

or gm will just pay a fine.

Diesel Camaro!!!!!

AS much as I like this thing and think it's the best thing of the "retro" crap ...
I hope to see it fail miserably. GM needs a kick in the sack for its failure and greed when it comes to fuel efficiency.

or gm will just pay a fine.

I agree, there is no way GM will drop the Camaro. Production versions are set to unveil in September:

http://www.leftlanenews.com/chevrolet-to-unveil-production-camaro-at-indy-event-in-september.html

With high fuel prices the Camaro will not do well, but I guarantee it will be released.

I think the mpg rating is for a combined total for all there vehicle currently on sale. Meaning make a few cars get 40+ to offset the cars that get less then 35.

If CAFE was that big of a concern, Porsche would cease to exist in the U.S.

The article is kinda ignoring/missing several facts:

half of the V8's will be garage queens with superchargers producing 600+ hp. They won't be daily drivers. Who can name all the special editions the Mustang put out?

One can't count $4/gallon gas and 35mpg CAFE against it; The $3/gallon gas from 2007 has already shifted car fleet averages to over 30 mpg. Consumers are already shifting the fleet average faster than government regulations; Ain't it amazing how Supply & Demand work?!?
http://channels.netscape.com/pf/story.jsp?floc=FF-APO-1333&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20070831%2F1435666710.htm&sc=1333
Overall, passenger cars are expected to average 31 mpg, an increase of 1.2 mpg, while pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and vans are expected to increase to 22.9 mpg, up 0.7 mpg from 2006.

The lack of a RWD impala or G8 or any other GM car will actually improve demand for the Camaro, as Consumers who were shopping the RWD V8 market won't split thier sales among several models. Some that *needed* four doors will go elsewhere, but some will go Camaro. I'll bet that if GM *did* bring the G8 + GTO + Impala all rwd, it would cannabalize Camaro sales.

The Mustang V8 averages 19mpg when CAFE was 27; Why in the world would it need to hit 35?!? It would need to hit roughly 25-27 average to keep pace in the fleet average. That's without adjusting volume mix. Assuming the Camaro will only hit those levels is simply stupid and so is assuming it needs to hit 35 mpg.

It certainly won't have the sales it would have at $1 or $2/gallon gas, but it'll still sell well.

The tentative agreement announced earlier today (http://jalopnik.com/390747/canadian-auto-workers-claim-tentative-deal-reached-with-gm-after-all+nighter) between the Canadian Auto Workers and the General apparently contains provisions for, among other things, increased GM investment in production of a new vehicle at the Oshawa, Ontario plant. Why does this plant sound so familiar? Well, it's probably because it's where the 2010 Chevy Camaro will be built. Although it's unknown what this second vehicle they'll be building there later this year will be, we do know it'll be rear-wheel drive. Feel free to go ahead and begin your speculation after the jump, but our money's on a large Cadillac or a Buick, maybe even a Caprice! The opportunities feel endless! But what say you? [CTV.ca (http://ctv2.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080515.wcaw0515/business/Business/businessBN/ctv-business)]

GM already has the cure...

2.9l Turbo diesel already set to debut in the CTS in late 09 as a 2010 model, 2011 in the G8 and several "other" models not yet disclosed. Hint anyone?

6 speed trannies now standard on all DOD equipped trucks and SUV's which will boost what is already best in class fuel ecoonomy and add to that the 4.5l turbo diesel that debuts in all 1500 model trucks and SUV's in 2010. The 2010 Sierra 4.5l duramax is already estimated to show a 40% increase in fuel economy over the standard 5.3l.

You do the match 16/21 + 40%...

Thats a pretty big bump to your average when you consider how much truck and SUV business GM has...

Or they could drop some type of V6 Hybrid engine in it and herald it as the muscle car for the 21st century.

I would love to see this.

If CAFE was that big of a concern, Porsche would cease to exist in the U.S.

:confused: Porsche is pretty fuel efficient compared to MB, Ferrari, Audi, etc.

This is just a sensationalized story. GM is not going to kill the Camaro this close to production.

They keep on forgetting that this is not going to be a 100k-units-a-year model. It never was planned to be.

The CAFE rating that they keep on harping about is a Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy number. Just like how the Vette is not going to be terribly affected by this, similar situation on a fairly low-volume car like the Camaro. If GM is having such a hard time hitting the new standard, they can (and are already planning on) install a V6... or heck the I4 Turbo 2.0L which makes about as much HP as the V6 and gets nearly 30mpg (highway).

In my opinion that was one of the worst articles I've ever seen. I can't believe someone even published that.

Let's ignore the fact that this is all based on averages and not on individual vehicles... GM might not be the best car company, but it certainly isn't stupid enough to spend millions and million (over 100 million?) to develop a car and then this fan down its development.. axe it... I'm sure they'd rather pay the fine... its what Porsche will likely do.

The CAFE rating that they keep on harping about is a Corporate AVERAGE Fuel Economy number. Just like how the Vette is not going to be terribly affected by this, similar situation on a fairly low-volume car like the Camaro. If GM is having such a hard time hitting the new standard, they can (and are already planning on) install a V6... or heck the I4 Turbo 2.0L which makes about as much HP as the V6 and gets nearly 30mpg (highway).

Not to mention the newer turbo-diesel units that are coming out on their trucks

Frankly I am tired of gas price speculation. It has become hysteria. I know that high gas prices are here to stay, but all of this "it could be $8, $10, $20" a gallon within 6 months is a load of bull. No one can predict what's going to happen, especially when a new President takes office in January.

Frankly I am tired of gas price speculation. It has become hysteria. I know that high gas prices are here to stay, but all of this "it could be $8, $10, $20" a gallon within 6 months is a load of bull. No one can predict what's going to happen, especially when a new President takes office in January.

The speculation itself is driving up the cost... it's basically a self-fulfilling prophecy. Gas is a commodity, so if the market thinks the price is going to go up - it will. The market also hates instability - so if the next Prez can do a better job at calming nerves around the world (not too hard to do compared to what came before), chances are prices will come down some - or at least stabilize. We hope, at least.

That original article, like today's environmentalist movement, is riddled with errors. Who wrote it, Al Gore? :p

GM already has the cure...

2.9l Turbo diesel already set to debut in the CTS in late 09 as a 2010 model, 2011 in the G8 and several "other" models not yet disclosed. Hint anyone?
Not to mention the DI ecotechs in the Cobalt/HHR SS models and the Sky/Solstice. Those are modern enough with lots of potential.

4100lb is what made it doomed..

4100lbs!?! Does this tank come with tracks?

Car is still ugly as hell. Was never a fan of (later model) camaros.

I would love to see this.

Me too. Release a plug-in hybrid camaro alongside the volt and people will really be talking.

Me too. Release a plug-in hybrid camaro alongside the volt and people will really be talking.

There'd be mullets self-immolating all over, they'd be so conflicted. A RWD e-flex layout with a stonking big electric motor. You step on it and all you hear is tires shredding, but no V8 roar. When the battery gets low a dinky and quiet 4-cyl engine fires up...

The article says the new 35 mpg CAFE standards go into effect in 2012. It is 2020. They could sell the car for over 10 years before they have to worry about federal regulations.

4100lb is what made it doomed..

That's the Challenger, not the Camaro.

The G8 (which uses the same platform) is right under 4000 lbs (and that's the V8 version).
The Camaro is probably gonna be slightly lighter (less doors, and might be slightly shorter in length).

The article says the new 35 mpg CAFE standards go into effect in 2012. It is 2020. They could sell the car for over 10 years before they have to worry about federal regulations.

The first jump is in 2012. The automakers don't just get a free pass for the next 11 model years. The standard ratchets up every couple years until then.

The article says the new 35 mpg CAFE standards go into effect in 2012. It is 2020. They could sell the car for over 10 years before they have to worry about federal regulations.
They are referring to the interim regulations that have been proposed but not yet ratified. They do include the 35 mpg standard for autos while the 2020 figure is the combined average for trucks and autos .

The new cafe standards will kill the current performance car market for anything affordable. Eventually technology will catch up, but the days of a $32k 300 horse power car will soon be gone. Do the math, under a 35 mpg auto fleet average, for every car GM sales that averages 28 mpg, they'll have to sale a car that averages 42 mpg and I don't see any of the current high horse power cars averaging anything near 28 mpg.

If you're looking at an $80k Porsche or BMW OR Benz, another $1k-$2k gas guzzler tax isn't that big a deal. For the high volume manufacturers, it will be a huge deal.

The horse power wars will quickly end. Enjoy it while you can.

bring back the iroc z28!

4100lbs!?! Does this tank come with tracks?

Makes me wonder why Chevy can take the already lightweight Corvette and say that they will cut 200 lbs of fat out of it and yet here is the super heavy Corvette. And don't even get me started on the CTS.

The Camaro will be a go. It is practically ready now... and it is so far along in development that they would still be better off building and marketing it now, and killing it in 4 yrs if they are not satisfied with how it affects their fleet mileage.

Some of these articles need to realize too... that it is part of fleet mileage. Not everything will need to hit 35 mpg average. The whole fleet will have to average that. A low volume, niche car like Camaro can come in under. One ace up GM's sleeve could be the volt. 40 miles with no gas used... it will be interesting to see how that is handled in fleet mileage calculations.

Plus, GM is already talking about using the 2.0L 4 cyl direct injection turbo, and the 3.6L V6 direct injection engines in the Camaro. Both get fairly good mileage already. (The 2.0L turbo gets as good of mileage in the Solstice at 260 HP as the base, 2.4L 177 HP engine).

The Impala was probably decided to be too high a volume that it would be too much of a hit on their fleet mileage... Camaro should be low volume, and manageable.

outback got pwned

http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro21nv4.jpg

Oh and;

Those of us who still have jobs and have been able to maintain the same income we had a year or so ago are few, thankful — and nervous.

This retarded attitude from media peoples is getting old.

GM needs a kick in the sack for its failure and greed when it comes to fuel efficiency.

According to Cars.com, GM's CAFE rating for passenger cars in 2007 was 29.6. By comparison...

Subaru: 28.6
VW: 28.6
Mitsubishi: 28.1
BMW: 27.5
Nissan: 25.9

This obviously does not take SUVs/trucks into account, but at least their cars get decent gas mileage. Not a failure...

Wow, you mean the Camaro still isn't out yet? I'd swear that I've been hearing about this car for the last four years...

interesting...

Consumers needs a kick in the sack for thier failure and greed when it comes to fuel efficiency.

Fixed. GM sells what consumers buy. Or mostly they do, when not loosing market share. ;)

Plus, GM is already talking about using the 2.0L 4 cyl direct injection turbo, and the 3.6L V6 direct injection engines in the Camaro. Both get fairly good mileage already. (The 2.0L turbo gets as good of mileage in the Solstice at 260 HP as the base, 2.4L 177 HP engine).

The turbo gets better fuel economy

ECOTEC® 2.4L VVT DOHC (manual): 19/25 (city/highway mpg)
ECOTEC® 2.4L VVT DOHC (automatic): 19/24 (city/highway mpg)
Turbo ECOTEC® 2.0L VVT DOHC (manual): 19/28 (city/highway mpg)
Turbo ECOTEC® 2.0L VVT DOHC (automatic): 19/26 (city/highway mpg)

The 2010 Sierra 4.5l duramax is already estimated to show a 40% increase in fuel economy over the standard 5.3l.

Where do you get 40%? Everything I've read, including the GM press release on May 5th, says 25%.

25% (http://www.autoblog.com/2008/05/05/gm-releases-details-on-upcoming-4-5l-duramax-turbo-diesel-v8/)

16/21 (your numbers)

20/26 @ 25% increase

22/29 @ 40% increase

The guy who wrote this is a tool. GM is too far into production (production units will be debuted in 4 months) to cancel what will be a successful car. CAFÉ is fleet-wide, not every friggin car needs to get 35 MPG.

How will CAFÉ classify the Volt? Since the target is 40 miles on a charge will it be 200mpg? How much credit will the government give GM for technologies like this?

It’s gas mileage will be competitive, I bet it’s better than the STI and will run on 87 with 400hp to boot so are we calling for the death of the STI?

Fixed. GM sells what consumers buy. Or mostly they do, when not loosing market share. ;)
If that was the end of the story no one would have a marketing department. Or try to lobby congress.

porsche was intelligent about how to get around the CAFE standards when they bought into Volkswagen -- millions of diesel jetta's getting 44 mpg while a small amount of 911's get 20 highway (or whatever they get). that way, all under one umbrella, volkswagen, porsche can simply point and say, 'there's our fuel effecient cars.'

There'd be mullets self-immolating all over, they'd be so conflicted. A RWD e-flex layout with a stonking big electric motor. You step on it and all you hear is tires shredding, but no V8 roar. When the battery gets low a dinky and quiet 4-cyl engine fires up...

Wait, you're telling me that this car would also cause rednecks to kill themselves en masse? It just keeps getting better and better!:lol:

Seriously though, the perfect mate to an electric motor with gobs of torque would be a high-revving, low-mid displacement V6, or straight 6 if they could fit it in with the electric stuff. The V6 would have enough torque to spin the generator when it needs to, but also enough top-end to take over if/when the motor tops out. I could see a Nissan VQ-3* variant filling this niche nicely. Hell, you could even integrate the motor into the rear end for better weight distribution. Or something.

while a small amount of 911's get 20 highway (or whatever they get).

25.

Not too shabby that Porsche is.

As someone above alluded to as well, this would practically mean the death of Subaru in total as well... .

As someone above alluded to as well, this would practically mean the death of Subaru in total as well... .

They could release something like the R1 over here and that could potentially solve any CAFE issues. (depending on how big of a hit it was and how efficient of an engine it got).

But still, I fully expect for Subaru to stop functioning as an independent carmaker over the next few years. Toyota will gobble them up.... and probably put their hybrid system into an AWD Subaru with electric motors running one pair of wheels while ICE the other 2.

But still, I fully expect for Subaru to stop functioning as an independent carmaker over the next few years. Toyota will gobble them up.... and probably put their hybrid system into an AWD Subaru with electric motors running one pair of wheels while ICE the other 2.

Something is already in the works. However, I don't see Subaru basterdizing their AWD system like the Highlander and RX hybrids. That being said, my mom's RX400h is just as strong in the snow as her RX300 was.

Frankly I am tired of gas price speculation. It has become hysteria. I know that high gas prices are here to stay, but all of this "it could be $8, $10, $20" a gallon within 6 months is a load of bull. No one can predict what's going to happen, especially when a new President takes office in January.


12345.

I'm getting really tired of this sensationalistic alarmist bull****. Yes, gas prices are $4/gal. No, that doesn't mean gas prices will continue to rise, at least not significantly. If I hear "OMG gas prices are going to be $6/gal by the end of summer" one more time, I'm gonna slap someone. Look at the past trends in terms of gas prices, we're not going to jump $2/gal in six months. It ain't going to happen.

porsche was intelligent about how to get around the CAFE standards when they bought into Volkswagen -- millions of diesel jetta's getting 44 mpg while a small amount of 911's get 20 highway (or whatever they get). that way, all under one umbrella, volkswagen, porsche can simply point and say, 'there's our fuel effecient cars.'

IIRC, the Boxster gets somewhere in the neighborhood of low to mid-30s MPG. Not bad for an open top roadster with 200 something horsepower.

They could release something like the R1 over here and that could potentially solve any CAFE issues. (depending on how big of a hit it was and how efficient of an engine it got).

But still, I fully expect for Subaru to stop functioning as an independent carmaker over the next few years. Toyota will gobble them up.... and probably put their hybrid system into an AWD Subaru with electric motors running one pair of wheels while ICE the other 2.

I thought I heard Subaru was going to pull out of the Kei-car segment altogether due to poor sales. So... no R1 I don't think.

I don't think Toyota will gobble them up, but I do think the CAFE standards (and rising gas prices) may eventually push them to borrowing Toyota's hybrid technology and going back to offering FWD cars again.

:confused: Porsche is pretty fuel efficient compared to MB, Ferrari, Audi, etc.




You knew what I meant, gruber.

That's odd... my wife and I spotted one doing some high altitude/cold weather testing on I-70 last Sunday.

http://img377.imageshack.us/img377/4660/newcamaro3hw2.th.jpg (http://img377.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro3hw2.jpg)

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/167/newcamaro2kb4.th.jpg (http://img136.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro2kb4.jpg)

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/167/newcamaro21nv4.th.jpg (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro21nv4.jpg)

http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/2493/newcamaro4dh4.th.jpg (http://img111.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro4dh4.jpg)

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/3668/newcamaro5xe9.th.jpg (http://img361.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro5xe9.jpg)

BTW: I'm no F Body fan but I know it wasn't uncommon for 6 speed cars to get 27 mpg hwy.

Dude, awesome spotting job. I'm totally jealous.

I thought I heard Subaru was going to pull out of the Kei-car segment altogether due to poor sales. So... no R1 I don't think.

I don't think Toyota will gobble them up, but I do think the CAFE standards (and rising gas prices) may eventually push them to borrowing Toyota's hybrid technology and going back to offering FWD cars again.

I don't see why Subaru can't legitimately switch over to Audi's business model, basically making AWD optional on most cars but standard on performance models. Everyone with a brain still knows that Audi is the king of AWD performance, Subaru could maintain that rep while making it optional...

Audi AWD = the suck.
Slightly lighter, longer gearing, direct injection, all of that could help out subaru.

According to Cars.com, GM's CAFE rating for passenger cars in 2007 was 29.6. By comparison...

Subaru: 28.6
VW: 28.6
Mitsubishi: 28.1
BMW: 27.5
Nissan: 25.9

This obviously does not take SUVs/trucks into account, but at least their cars get decent gas mileage. Not a failure...

actually GM's number is artificially inflated- they get a boost from E-85 cars sold, E-85 mpg is bumped by a factor of 7, i.e. 10mpg on E-85 is calculated to be almost 70mpg for CAFE purposes, as a federal incentive for alternative fuel. then you average that w/ the mpg of the vehicle on gasoline and that still gives you a pretty high number overall. You get the factor because for E-85 only 15% of the fuel is gasoline. So a gallon of E-85 only counts as 0.15 gallons of gasoline. If you get 10mpg on E-85 that's interpreted as 10 miles per 0.15 gallons of gasoline=67mpg.

If CAFE was that big of a concern, Porsche would cease to exist in the U.S.

Porsche eats the fines they have to pay to sell such low mileage cars. Its hasn't really been a problem for them since their cars were such high profit. However methinks a merger with VW and their fleet of high mileage cars might happen in the next 5 years or so.

Funny... a 35 MPG CAFE standard is around a 30 MPG EPA standard. The Mustang would not need to double its efficiency to be at par.

CAFE uses the old EPA test. Not the new one.

Writers = FTL

Funny... a 35 MPG CAFE standard is around a 30 MPG EPA standard. The Mustang would not need to double its efficiency to be at par.
CAFE uses the old EPA test. Not the new one.
Writers = FTL
Not double, but the V6 would need to improve by 50% and that's a huge improvement.

For some perspective, my new 1990 Mazda Miata weighed 2200 lbs and had 108 horse power. It had a combined rating of 28 mpg. If a 2200 lb car with 108 hp that did 0-60 in 8.2 seconds can't get close to a combined 35 mpg, imagine what it will take.

actually GM's number is artificially inflated- they get a boost from E-85 cars sold, E-85 mpg is bumped by a factor of 7, i.e. 10mpg on E-85 is calculated to be almost 70mpg for CAFE purposes, as a federal incentive for alternative fuel. then you average that w/ the mpg of the vehicle on gasoline and that still gives you a pretty high number overall. You get the factor because for E-85 only 15% of the fuel is gasoline. So a gallon of E-85 only counts as 0.15 gallons of gasoline. If you get 10mpg on E-85 that's interpreted as 10 miles per 0.15 gallons of gasoline=67mpg.

True, but the other part of that legislation is that E85 cars can only bump the CAFE a total of 1 mpg, regardless of how many E85 cars are produced. So assuming GM produced enough cars to get the +1 mpg rating (pretty easy), the CAFE rating for GM without it is 28.6. Still pretty decent mileage.

No subaru I have ever owned (two WRX's, two STi's) got near the mpg of my LS1/M6 WS6. Averaged 27mpg @ 80mph, around 22mpg @ 120mph (montana). At 120 my STi was getting between 6-8mpg.

Nick

No subaru I have ever owned (two WRX's, two STi's) got near the mpg of my LS1/M6 WS6. Averaged 27mpg @ 80mph, around 22mpg @ 120mph (montana). At 120 my STi was getting between 6-8mpg.

Nick

yea not many on this forum realize that late F-bodies and new style mustangs actuallly get as good, if not better hwy mileage than their turbo suby's.....

-mikey

http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/167/newcamaro21nv4.th.jpg (http://img236.imageshack.us/my.php?image=newcamaro21nv4.jpg)



Looks like that outback was speeding.

yea not many on this forum realize that late F-bodies and new style mustangs actuallly get as good, if not better hwy mileage than their turbo suby's.....

-mikey

New style six bangers maybe, definitely not the V8s. My '07 Mustang GT got 23 mpg on an excellent day of all highway, grandma driving. That's also the EPA highway MPG that the car was rated at. That's very beatable by a WRX.

^
I don't know about the Mustangs since they only have a 5-spd (are they as overdriven as the M6 in the LS1 cars?), but my '01 M6 Z28 certainly got better mileage than my wrx.

New style six bangers maybe, definitely not the V8s. My '07 Mustang GT got 23 mpg on an excellent day of all highway, grandma driving. That's also the EPA highway MPG that the car was rated at. That's very beatable by a WRX.

yea but thats 23mpg on 87 octane compared to what 25mpg on 93 for the wrx?