Well, there are lots of big things out in the world that I am not happy with and that I think are BS. This goes in my "small stuff" file. The Vette will be fine.

 

This is part of why I bought the Z06 last month..........I also think of it as a big middle finger to the Government and it's new baby domestic auto industry. I got mine while I could.

 

V8 is gone soon get yours while you can

 

If Chevy goes to a tiny displacement high revving peaky Japanese motorcycle style engine, then a 6, 7 or even 10 speed transmission may be necessary. But 6 speeds are wasted on the current V8s. The LS series has such a wide flat torque band that it doesn't need a lot of gears. A Powerglide would do, and save a couple of hundred pounds in the bargain. The 4L65E was a near perfect match to the characteristics of the LS2, witness the move to the 6 speed making virtually no difference in MPG or performance.

A CVT is something else that greatly benefits tiny displacement high revving peaky Japanese motorcycle style engines. But it does very little for a V8 with a broad flat torque band. Both of these transmission technologies only matter if GM dumps the V8 from the Corvette.

Going hybrid adds weight, both for the electric drive and for the battery pack. It does offer some advantages in stop and go traffic, but does nothing for you when cruising the interstate or negotiating the twisties. It is not something one would want in a performance car.

Now this stuff may be coming, but when it arrives, the car won't really be a Corvette anymore. It'll be a heavier wider S2000, probably still with a large truck size turning radius.

OTOH, GM could surprise us and do something radical. GM could install a compound gas turbine driving a CVT with hybrid assist in a light AWD car. While the best spark ignition engines are 28% efficient (and only then at WOT), gas turbines routinely achieve in excess of 40% efficiency. Compound engines can exceed 50% efficiency. The reason they've failed in cars, witness the Chrysler turbine cars, is turbine lag and loss of efficiency when required to run over a wide range of RPMs. That's where CVT comes in. With a CVT, the engine can run at a constant RPM, maximizing efficiency. Hybrid assist would cover turbine lag by supplying short bursts of electric energy to supplement the turbine during changes in load. Hybrid adds weight, but the turbine saves weight big time, averaging out to a lighter overall powertrain.

Gas turbines can run on basically any liquid or gaseous fuel, so it would qualify for the alternative fuel credit too. This would help GM make CAFE, and let us use the HOV lanes when commuting without having to dig up a ride share partner.

 

Being small and light like a Lotus doesn't mean it will be economical. A little 1.8L 4 banger should get better gas mileage than a 6.2 L Vette but it doesn't. And I don't know how Honda gets away by calling their SUV efficient when it gets a measely 2mpg better than my 5.3L Envoy.

Engineers have not been pushed to increase their efficency ratings in years. It has been 27mpg for decades.

V8s were also rumored to be gone decades ago but they are still around and a lot of times more efficient then their smaller more complexed counterparts. Even Audi is getting slammed for offering a 4 banger A4 that costs high $40s.

 

Perhaps we should just acknowledge that reciprocating pistons are a 19th century technology which has reached its limits. Time to switch to the gas turbine. I want a Vette that is a Jet!

 

The entire CAFE is and has been for years. We are no closer to reducing our dependence on foreign oil then we were during the Carter administration. This will do little if anything at all. In the end your car will cost more and you will still be buying foreign oil for your very little car. And the poor guy that needs a pickup to work on your house will charge you more to do the work as his gas and his pickup will cost him more. It's a political ploy and a joke. And the worst is the joke it at the American citizens expense.

 

35 mpg is very realistic. The Corvette already get very good gas mileage.

There are plenty of things that GM can do to improve fuel economy in the Corvette. Besides, the Corvette isn't really a "weak" point in GM's quest to meet CAFE standards because it get great gas mileage already.

Remember, it's an average among the car and truck lineup. Some cars will have really great gas mileage and some will be lower, but it's the average so the Corvette doesn't need to have exactly 35 mpg.

 

It would seem in the immediate short term GM could employ current technology direct fuel injection and cylinder deactivation to the LS3 engine, plus adopt the Z06 aluminum frame and magnesium front cradle for the standard C6 coupe, make the transparent top non-removable to aid rigidity, move the battery to the rear for better weight distribution, make the NPP exhaust standard and (unfortunately) discontinue the convertible, the Z06, the ZR1 and the Gran Sport from the lineup. Such a car would clearly outperform todays base C6 and Gran Sport in all respects, approach the performance of the Z06, and likely deliver 20 MPG city and 31 MPG highway (versus 15 MPG city and 24 MPG highway for the current Z06; and 14 MPG city and 20 MPG highway for the current ZR1, thus representing a 40% increase over these models). This would assure the immediate future of the Corvette until GM can hopefully get it's act together and develop an improved technology supercar that will outperform the corrent ZR1 while delivering at least twice the miles per gallon.

 

Wait till you have to fill up with Jet A:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/How-Ob...-15296315.html

 

$4.79 a gallon is the airport price, with a bunch of federal aviation taxes included. Priced aviation gasoline at an airport? Same deal, very expensive due to tax.

Now instead of Jet A bought at the airport, your car could burn ordinary kerosene (nearly identical to Jet A) at $1.51 a gallon. Or it could run on ethanol at $1.71 a gallon, or peanut oil at 51 cents a pound ($3.50 a gallon), or soybean oil at 38 cents a pound ($2.66 a gallon), or even propane at $2.18 a gallon. Of course it'll burn ordinary gasoline too.

 

If the Corvette is getting 28 MPG highway now, then all GM really needs to do is bump it up to about 30-32 mpg by 2016.

The math:
When we take the weighted the average MPG from the Corvette and add it to the weighted average MPG for all the GM other cars, with many of the other cars being smaller, higher volume selling cars getting 40 MPG by 2016, then I do not believe the Corvette needs to undergo a major change by 2016. Just some tweeks and tunes to bump the MPG up about 10%.

What is all the fuss about???

 

To improve mileage and still retain the torque and horsepower; the manufacturers will discard the V8 and work with turbochargers to boost power. Top of the line models will come with duel turbochargers V6s - horsepower will be around 450-500 range. BMW is already working on this downsizing as well as Audi.

 

The fuss is about money and this will help nothing at all. Your car will cost more and we will still import oil.

 

It will not take much to get the Vette in compliance or very close at least without a reducetion of poser. In fact you may see a power boost. Direct injection has been done with this engine series, more power and better fuel economy. Even though people don't like it displacement on demand would also probably add 3-5 mpg on the highway. Add a feature to disable it for track days, etc. and we are looking good.

Lots of ways to save weight also. We already have an aluminum frame used on the Z06. It is possible we good go to a carbon fiber frame also. Speeking of carbon fiber, build the tub, body panels, both interior and exterior would be a big weight savings. Lets not forget the little things either. Seat frames using carbon fiber, driveshaft, steering column and shaft.

Big problem though will be the price. Unless there is a major break through in carbon fiber manufacturing methods this is going to cost a bunch.

 

Whether the final rules are 42 MPG or 37 MPG for cars, that's the combined city/highway number. Our highway number is 8-13 MPG short, and our city number is 19-24 MPG short of the new requirements. There's no way a few tweaks and a few pounds are going to overcome that. We need to shed at least a 1,000 pounds, and no V8 is going to meet the targets, so it has to go too. A 4 banger hybrid might do the job, but even that is questionable. A new sort of power plant is needed, preferably one that runs the Rankine cycle rather than the Otto cycle.

 

Actually shopdog you know as well as I do the the new CAFE standard will be extended. The technolgy is really not there yet. And what will stop the new CAFE standards in its tracks will be safety. But with what I outlined the highway miles is definitly achieveable.

Thanks for mentioning Rankine and Otto cycle, learn something new everyday. And you are right that long term a different power plant is porbably what is needed. But unless it is already in the design phase it won't be here by 2016.

But remember that the Vette represent 1% tops of GM sales. Vehicles like the Volt, if it is ever released get the equivlent of 100mpg in plug in mode and approx 50mpg in engine mode. Granted at 40K not many will sell. But now that the platform exists economy of scale will kickin and the price of smaller vehicles using the same technology will be reduced.

In fact I think the biggest segment for the technology is trucks. I have said for many years that a elecrtic drivetrain powered by a small engine, perferable diesel to increase mpg for trucks without losing towing ablility. ANd we don't need the plugin feature.

 

One technique for a hybrid that doesn't have too much of a weight penalty is the starter, alternator, and electric engine are all in one ring around the flywheel. Then you can have your engine kill at halts, regen braking, and assisted starts. I really like everything I've read about this design.

 

Not singling out anyone, but let's remember this thread is about the C6 and how the new rules will effect it.
I'd be very surprised to see any revolutionary powerplant in this car, I'm looking for your predictions about the next few years while the C6 stays in production.

 

My thoughts... are quite simple. Direct injection w/ a reversion to a 5.3 or 5.7 or even the 4.8. They're all available in the LSX family.

From what I remember reading DoD doesn't work w/ the rear mounted transmission. They were getting some nasty vibrations that they couldn't tune out in 4-cyl mode.