Hmm, I am sure DoD has been offered in V8 versions in the past.

 

My guess is nothing will be done to the C6 unless production of this model goes past 2011. If the C7 is scheduled to come on line that is where all the change will be.

 

(Thanks for skipping the politics, the mods want to keep both liberal and conservatieve discussion in the political Forum)

 

Yes... but not on a car with the driveline setup of a C5/C6 Corvette. For some reason trying to run the engine in 4 cylinder mode was creating driveline vibrations.

 

Avgas was about $5.25 a gallon 2 years ago.

As of today 100LL is $4.25 a gallon and Jet A is currently $3.92.

Kero during winter months up north here pushes 5 bucks a gallon. Very volatile pricing.

 

CAFE increases actually drive up fuel consumption, with higher mileage people drive more. If you want to decrease dependency on foreign oil just adopt the conservative policy of "Drill here Drill now!". The US and Canada have vast quantities of oil! If you want to reduce gasoline consumption the only thing that works is an extreme gas tax something our liberal politicians dont have the cajonies to do!!!

 

North America has the largest reserves in the world.

Unfortunately, with the current administration drilling more in the U.S. will not happen in any way, shape, or form. The administration is in bed with the global warming and environmental crowd. And both of them make billions of dollars off their respective causes.

 

 

As one somewhat familiar with this business, the Canadians have ceased working on much of the oil sands development in Alberta (an area considered to have a huge potential) PRIMARILY because oil has now gone below $60 a barrel...not because they are somehow being kept from doing so.

The same is true of many other oil exploration possibilities now available here in the U.S. It is time for the oil companies to actually spend some of those record-breaking profits to do more to bring the existing available reserves into production mode.

 

IF GM increases the price too much then I won't have to worry, because a new C7 won't be MY car. ...and that goes for whatever my next car will be.

Car manufacturers need to buckle down and figure out a way to integrate these changes and build cars much more cost-effectively, or NO ONE will be buying a car in 2016.

Pretty much GM couldn't figure out a way to do this, so the Federal Government will be doing it for them. ...and if they can't figure out that price affects demand, then a lot of 2016 cars will be sitting on dealers lots for a LOOOONG time.

 

This is insane. Just make a struggling sector spend more money in R&D and make the people you supposedly care about pay another $1200-$1500 for a car. This will affect all cars. Not just the Vette. All cars will cost more. I'm just hoping this is just another political promise the administration will not be able to keep.

I have a feeling this is not the change people were looking for.

 

Assuming DoD means something like displacement on demand, better known as variable displacement, while initial trials may have caused undesireable driveline vibrations on the Vette, I can assure you there are ways of dealing with this rather minor problem at reasonable production costs. This is a poor excuse for having not already adopting this technology, just as their is no excuse for GM lagging in adopting GDI (gasoline direct injection) technology which simultaneously provides significant improvements in horsepower, fuel economy, and emission reductions from existing engines. It is all about focusing on applying existing technology, something current GM management seems incapable of comprehending. Fire every last business administration major employeed by GM and instead invest this money into experienced engineers that can transform this company back into the world beater it once was.

 

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradv...-its-best.html

CAFE uses a different method to calculate mileage. To equal the new 35.5 requirements, a car would need to have an average of 26 mpg combined using the new EPA standard.

Sorry if this a re-post

 

That just means they need to re-engineer the torque tube to make it non-resonant at the vibration frequencies of the LS3 in 4 cyl mode. Normally that would be done by varying the thickness of the drive shaft at specific locations to shift resonances out of the frequency band of interest. This is one of those standard engineering techniques that someone at GM Powertrain or Corvette engineering should know. They haven't bothered to do it up until now because it hasn't been a sales point, and the government hasn't been on their butts to improve MPG, but now they are.

 

Volatility seems to be the watchword for the price of any fuelstock in recent times. That's why I also mentioned other fuels such as peanut oil, soybean oil, ethanol, propane, and of course gasoline. A turbine (with computer controls) isn't picky, if it can be pumped and will burn, a turbine can run on it. For hydrogen economy fans, a turbine can burn that too.

Now as I said previously, turbine efficiency by itself is good when run at constant RPM, on a par with diesel engines, but really good efficiency can be obtained by compounding. A free piston expander, using high temperature ceramic technology, is probably the best compound stage for use in an auto. That requires a fairly clean burning fuel, so fuels like bunker #4 or powdered coal probably shouldn't be used.

Compounding also takes most of the heat out of the turbine's exhaust, so conventional catalytic converters won't work. But the piston heads of the free piston expander can be palladium coated to perform double duty as cat converters while there is still heat in the exhaust gases.

The basic engineering for all this has already been done, back in the 80s. It was put on the shelf then because computer controls weren't quite up to the job, ceramic engineering wasn't quite up to the job, and because the need wasn't desperate as oil prices fell and pressure to achieve higher MPG slacked. But it is all entirely practical now.

There are other ways to meet the new MPG requirements, but they all take a severe toll on performance. This is the only technology I know that can both maintain the high specific power output we crave while offering the high MPG the government demands.

 

You're right that exploration and development of difficult fields has virtually stopped now that the price of oil has fallen. This is only good economic and business sense. Pouring money into something that's going to cost more than it brings in is a recipe for financial ruin. The oil companies are behaving exactly correctly by taking their profits rather than tossing the money away on money losing activities.

Light Saudi crude still has a wellhead production cost of under $5 a barrel. As long as costs are that low, there is no good reason to exploit higher cost resources. Eventually, the Middle East wells will be exhausted. Then will be the time to start exploiting higher cost resources.

 

Well, now, isn't that interesting?

So, if this new law is fully implemented, after 7 years we should expect to see 400 million barrels of oil saved. That's 20 days consumption at current US consumption rates. Hmph! Lots of commotion and expense for a not very impressive gain.

 

To quote shopdog-
"Well, now, isn't that interesting?"

The Edmunds article is from 2007, does anyone know if the comparison is still valid?
If so, that would explain why the automakers have swallowed this without too much fighting. They know it will take some work but it won't be impossible.

 

i am a real big fan of 'less weight'.

personally i like small light cars. the quickest, scariest thing i have ever driven was an yamaha yzf r1 that i used to own. a lot of hp in a small light package. so i've experienced what reduced weight can do for the hp/weight ratio..

having said that, what with all the safey and DOT requirements for cars these days, i wonder how easy it easy it is to reduce weight and keep costs down while meeting these requirements.. sure you can have carbon fiber, aluminum and titanium frames and so forth but not at prices a normal person can afford..

the best examples of this are the newly reborn 'muscle' cars. all are big, heavy and slab sided. having grown up in the 60s and 70s, thats the first thing that catches my eye about these new cars is how 'thick' they look. its too bad they couldnt figure out how to make cars lighter while remaining cheap and safe.

so make em ligher, im more interested in hp/weight than in total hp. but i wonder how they can do that and meet the gov's requirements.

 

I would love to see a sub 3000 lb C7 , with a smaller 8 and twin turbos .