MasterTomos

iTrader: (15)

We're likely to say goodbye to the simple V8's we know and love and say hello to smaller displacement, forced induction, DOHC, direct injection, infinitely more complicated motors...while these types of motors have their upsides, yes, sometimes simpler is better IMO. (Lets not turn this into a DOHC/OHC v. Pushrod debate please! lol)

WhiteKnight '01

Weird that DOHC/OHC is supposed to be more efficient, but the 2v 4.6's got terrible gas mileage compared to the LS1's.

15/24 for a 4.6 M5

18/29 for a 5.7 M6

Detoxx03

iTrader: (14)

firebird99

iTrader: (2)

Mustang+Obama+BIG HOLE=a good time to me RON PAUL BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

Latch

iTrader: (8)

I believe you are correct. And like you said, there's a few things GM can do to improve economy in their V8s. Direct injection and variable valve timing being a couple more of them. Also, I think it would be interesting to see GM do something like slap a turbo or two on a smaller V8 like a 4.8 and see what kind of horsepower and economy they can get out of it. I see no reason not to, personally I'm tired of getting raped at the pump, but I'm not convinced that a V8 can't get decent fuel economy while making some healthy power.

Heater

A lot of that has to do with transmission gearing.

Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

still not seeing "not allowed." "highly recommended" maybe.

SlowFRC

iTrader: (2)

From the clips posted he said "this is what I needed in high school." That's not a compliment to the car at all.

Urban Legend

iTrader: (5)

Judging by the way you spell I will say this, you can benefit from English 101 and also a government class. This is just, "recommended."

MI-Z/28

I believe it also depends on sales. Someone please correct me if I am wrong. Simple example, if GM sells 2 Cruzes @ 40mpg and 2 Camaros at 20mpg their fleet average is 30mpg even if they produce 10 Cruzes and only 2 Camaros.

^This. Double overdrive in the M6 GM cars helps a lot.

LS1LT1

iTrader: (16)

I do see what you're saying there but I think something like that can be taken a few different ways.
I mean, one can look at the Lamborghini Aventador or even Honda NSX while at the car shows and also say: "this is what I needed in high school" (because face it, what high school kid wouldn't love to pull up to the Thanksgiving homecoming game in a Lamborghini LOL) as well. I don't know if that automatically makes them 'high school kid' type cars LOL.

SlowFRC

iTrader: (2)

I took his comment to mean the car would only appeal to juvenile irrational people. Basically I think he's saying that this car is useful for a high school kid but adults have no business in it. Kind of like saying "yeah this would be cool....if i was 16." I know I'm kind of making a jump here but politicians speak very indirectly and everything Obama has said and done leads me to believe that at no point in his life did he want a car like a gt500.

Latch

iTrader: (8)

He used to drive a Chrysler 300 before he ran for President, so I don't see why it would be odd for him to like a Mustang. You might be overthinking it a little bit because you hate the guy so much, you can't fathom how he could like the same kind of cars we like.

SlowFRC

iTrader: (2)

He had a base model 300 if I remember correctly. It may not have been a complete stripper car but it definitely wasn't an srt. Owning a big sedan doesn't make him an enthusiast. He pushed for and signed off on cafe which will certainly kill cars like the gt500. There is absolutely no way they can get the 50something fleet averages needed while still making anything close to the kind of performance cars they make today. So yeah I don't like the guy but even an unbiased person should see his anti performance car evidence far outweighs any one liners he said at an auto show.

Latch

iTrader: (8)

CAFE standards are by no means the nail in the coffin for performance cars. Even if a company doesn't meet the standards, it doesn't mean they can't sell the cars. It just means they pay a small fine. In 2006, BMW, Chrysler, VW, Ferrari, Porsche, and Maserati all failed to meet CAFE standards, so they paid the fine for it and kept on selling the cars. Mercedes has paid CAFE fines 21 times since the 80s and BMW 20 times. It's not that big of a deal.

Personally I think CAFE standards are nonsense, if the government wants to reduce oil consumption then they should push for more clean diesel cars to be sold in the U.S. and lower the tax on diesel fuel. Pushing for every last mpg out of gas engines seems to me like it's not the way to go, if anything they should be investing in new technologies like hydrogen fuel cells instead.

And BTW, it's not just Obama who pushed for higher CAFE standards, it was President Bush who raised it to 35 mpg by 2020. When Obama raised it to 50 mpg it was with the support of a number of different car companies, so I doubt they're all that worried about it.

I'm not trying to defend the Obama Administration, I'm not exactly a fan of what they've been up to, but I just want to calm your fears about the future of performance cars. It's gonna be just fine.

1ltcap

that is enough to make me not want a shelby.....ever.

firebird99

iTrader: (2)

Yeah the whole CAFE thing is kinda give and take because the car companies get BIG kick backs from the goverment to produce cars with better mpg's so its not all bad for them since they are going to do it anyways plus most people dont realize how much heavier cars have gotten do to the fact that they have to be so ''SAFE'' and the things needed to pass the new crash testing make new cars weigh alot more than they should.

1ltcap

http://www.tccsa.tc/adventure/renewable_oil.pdf

http://www.industrialheating.com/CDA...00f932a8c0____

http://www.omichron.com/renewablecrude.html

It'llrun

Say what? Several cars that average 40mpg or better? Excuse my bad math, but which cars do that? The only one I can think of is the VOLT and then, ONLY on "electric only" use.

The only other current GM car I can even think of getting 40 or better is the new Cruze and that only sees better than 40 on the highway, not even close to averaging 40 or more.

Oh wait, the 1.4L (turbo) version of the Sonic also has a 40mpg highway rating. Either way, I wouldn't claim GM has 2 cars averaging 40 or more, let alone "several" exluding any "same car, different name" versions, anyway.

Right now, including all vehicles in GM's lineup, the economy average is probably closer to 20 than 40mpg.

When the 98 Z/28 came out, the ratings were 17/28 for 6sp and 17/25 for auto. The car its in and the gearing both in the transmissions and rear have everything to do with those ratings. The 4.6L was pretty poor, but even using the current rating system(which is lower economy than in past years), the 1996 Mustang GT sees 16/24 for a combined average of 19 using the M5.

The 1998 Camaro, using this system(http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymod...t_Camaro.shtml) isn't much better... 16/25(M6). After 98, I'm sure the GT was worse, since it got a power bump.

Part of "efficiency rating" is calculated by specific output as well, but that's a debate for others.

WhiteKnight '01

Congratulations, you listed 3 cars that get better than 40MPG on the highway. Now if we factor in the Malibu that gets 34, the Impala that gets 30, the V6 Camaro that gets 30, the Equinox that gets 33, then you only have a couple of cars holding it back. The Camaro SS and the line of trucks, the Vette gets in the upper 20's I believe.