death of the automotive V8?

[Rusty Heap]

interesting read:


The American Spectator : Goodbye, V-8s, the Engines That Could

[redstrosekNic]

Very interesting.

[speedemon666]

"The new CAFE standard -- 35.5 MPG, average -- doesn't apply just to passenger cars, as the original 22.5 MPG CAFE standard did. Everything short of commercial vehicles is now lumped together in the same category. There is no more "light truck loophole" -- the loophole that made it possible, back in the '90s, for the car companies to do an end-run around CAFE for passenger cars by putting big engines into bigger vehicles that could be categorized as light trucks -- and which they called SUVs."



No worries here. All pickup trucks in California are registered as commercial

[Tobra]

I am dubious about the accuracy of that, and even if it is, CAFE is a federal thing, so either way it does not matter. A light truck and a car ar the same for CAFE standards

Guess my brother got his Challenger just in time

[kaisen]

Love the political opinion editorial in an Off Topic post

[Rusty Heap]

Originally Posted by kaisen

Love the political opinion editorial in an Off Topic post

Eric, as you have demonstrated an in-depth and informative automotive knowledge base, (which I have sincerely enjoyed) from your previous posts perhaps you can expand on what "you" see as the future of automotive power plants for the common person in the USA.

It's interesting from my own international travels, to observe what is a normal "tow vehicle" for a travel trailer in say, New Zealand where gas is $7-8 a gallon, where a Ute (SUV) or even a subaru wagon is expected to tow a 18-22 foot travel trailer. No you don't see a lot of Dodge/Chevy/Ford 3/4 ton full sized pickup trucks down there. Maybe the few Holden Utes, or Mercedes full sized commercial trucks. Mexico is different as well as Central America in general. More black smoke spewing underpowered smallish diesels in a car or mini-truck that can barely crawl up a hill.

I just found that "death of the V8" article interesting, is all with the new CAFE standards in our near future.

Eric please do expand on your future visions.

[Brando]

This can only be a political-related article as CAFE is not an independent regulation agency - they are a government agency.

I think the deeper question is who wants these fuel economy standards to be higher, and why?

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by Brando

This can only be a political-related article as CAFE is not an independent regulation agency - they are a government agency.

I think the deeper question is who wants these fuel economy standards to be higher, and why?

The topic is political, but the article had a clear political slant:

Originally Posted by from the article

V-8s are going to get scarce. And I mean exotic-scarce. Last go'round, CAFE made it a lot harder for a working class person to own a V-8 powered new car. But if you were comfortably middle class, it was still feasible. There were Crown Vics and Town Cars.

Upper middle class, no problem. $50k would do the trick -- doable for a professional couple.

This time, V-8s will become the exclusive playthings of the very affluent only -- people who can afford to spend $70k-plus for a low-volume (and so, CAFE irrelevant) car. Jaguar, for example, will probably continue to offer a V-8 in the ultra-performance (and ultra-expensive) XF-R version of the XF luxury-sport sedan. Mercedes will still offer V-8s in the E and S Class… for those few who can handle the freight.

What there won't be anymore are cars like the currently available Chrysler 300 C Hemi and the bet-you-it-gets-canceled-soon Chevy SS; that is, cars -- and trucks -- for regular people and intended to be sold in volume.

Of course, Obama -- and the next Dear Leader -- will still get to drive around in cars powered by big V-8s that get far less than 35.5 MPG…with the gas bill paid by taxpayers.

And that's just the way they want it.

POLITICAL OP ED

[Rusty Heap]

I can only say thank you Eric, for adding "fuel" to the fire. Funny ha hah joke right there.

Gas guzzler and Sin taxes are a reality, CAFE federal mandated by CONGRESS, yes those bunch of ninkumpoops we elected to sit in the big chair(s).

No this isn't a PARF topic, but other posters here are driving (ha hah) it to that.



Corporate Average Fuel Economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) are regulations in the United States, first enacted by the U.S. Congress in 1975,[1] and intended to improve the average fuel economy of cars and light trucks (trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles) sold in the US in the wake of the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo. Historically, it is the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy, expressed in miles per US gallon (mpg), of a manufacturer's fleet of current model year passenger cars or light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 8,500 pounds (3,856 kg) or less, manufactured for sale in the US. If the average fuel economy of a manufacturer's annual fleet of vehicle production falls below the defined standard, the manufacturer must pay a penalty, currently $5.50 USD per 0.1 mpg under the standard, multiplied by the manufacturer's total production for the U.S. domestic market. In addition, a Gas Guzzler Tax is levied on individual passenger car models (but not trucks, vans, minivans, or SUVs) that get less than 22.5 miles per US gallon (10.5 l/100 km).[2].............blah blah blah...........

[Neilk]

I think CAFE has done a lot of good. Let's go back 30 years to the time where a Caddy V8 would put out 180hp and get 15 mpg. Today, a 2 liter BMW 328 puts out 240 hp and gets 36 mpg on the highway. Sure the engine might require a little more maintenance over the course of its life, but gas savings more than offset it.

You can also say the same thing about the Ford Eco-tec, whatever. People can be nostalgic over V8s, but when you can get better performing engines that are more fuel efficient, give me that!

[McLovin]

From today's WSJ:

WASHINGTON—The Obama administration on Tuesday released its final fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, requiring each auto maker's fleet to reach an average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025.

The announcement, coming during the Republican National Convention, highlighted the political debate over energy, with the Obama administration touting the savings for consumers who use less gasoline and Republicans calling the standards too harsh.

"These fuel standards represent the single most important step we've ever taken to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said President Barack Obama in a statement Tuesday. "It'll strengthen our nation's energy security, it's good for middle-class families and it will help create an economy built to last."

His Republican rival, Mitt Romney, has said he opposes the standards set by the Obama administration, though he has stopped short of saying he is against fuel-economy standards altogether. Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said last week: "Governor Romney opposes the extreme standards that President Obama has imposed, which will limit the choices available to American families."

The fuel-economy level was the same as the administration initially proposed in November 2011, and the final rule had been expected after the administration negotiated the details with auto makers and others last year.

The average fuel economy of vehicles in the 2011 model year was 28.6 miles per gallon, according to the Environmental Protection Agency, meaning the administration is seeking nearly to double fuel economy over a space of 14 years.

The administration estimated that as a result of the standards, an average family would save more than $8,000 by 2025 on fuel costs at current gasoline prices, while the cost of a vehicle would rise as much as $1,800.

The fuel savings "will more than make up for any increase in the cost of an automobile," Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said on a conference call with reporters. "We are raising the bar and ensuring that Americans are preparing for fluctuations in gas prices. We are also giving manufacturers the regulatory certainty they need to build more efficient cars."

The auto industry has favored national standards for years to avoid having to comply with different laws in different states.

But the industry's main trade group sounded a cautionary note on Tuesday. Gloria Bergquist, vice president for public affairs at the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said the new standards would be difficult to meet without infrastructure to support them, such as electric-vehicle charging stations or refueling stations for gasoline alternatives like natural gas.

"Just a mandate to build the vehicles may well fall short," Ms. Bergquist said in an interview. "If we really want to reduce fuel use, we need to develop the fuels, the charging stations and the technology at the same time."

The White House said the standards include "targeted incentives" for more advanced electric vehicles, hybrids, natural-gas vehicles and other alternative vehicles. It left the door open to making adjustments, saying the EPA and the Department of Transportation may revisit the standards after they take effect "to review their effectiveness and make any needed adjustments."

The standards made final Tuesday cover vehicles with model years 2017 to 2025. A separate rule boosts fleet fuel economy to 35.5 miles per gallon by the 2016 model year.

The rules will require fuel-economy improvements sooner for passenger cars, allowing more time for changes to sport-utility vehicles and pickups. Asian auto makers' fleets are dominated by passenger cars, while Detroit auto makers rely more heavily on pickups and SUVs for their profits.

The standards also include a limit on carbon-dioxide emissions, which are linked to climate change. The Environmental Protection Agency said the rules would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by six billion metric tons through 2025.

"It is as though we eliminated all of our [carbon dioxide] emissions for one year," said EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. "It is indeed very significant."

[aigel]

That writer is definitely having an agenda - the first half of the article is informative and explains the trend well. In the second half it goes down hill when he claims the big V8s of the olden days were less stressed and that we can't expect the force induction engines to last past 150k without major repair bla bla bla only the rich get to drive V8 bla bla bla including the prez.

I don't know about you guys, but my 77 Camaro didn't last 150k miles on a V8, even my newer V8s usually blew a gasket or cracked a head between 150-200k.

I also do like my six cylinder in my porsche. I have never thought the V8 to be the ultimate engine, even owning brute muscle cars before, it was fun, but not in a refined or exciting motorsport way ...

JMO,

G

[McLovin]

It will be interesting to see how durable all of these current 2.0 turbo'd engines are over the long haul, like 10 years, 120,000+ miles.

Cars like the BMW 328i, MB C class, etc.

[Por_sha911]

average of 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025

I love the smell of the agenda of government control of the people in the morning.

[krystar]

subaru's have been running 2.0-2.5liter turbo's since the early 90's. other than trannys and center diffs blowing up cause ppl mod em too much, haven't heard anything bad about those early ones

[aigel]

Originally Posted by krystar

subaru's have been running 2.0-2.5liter turbo's since the early 90's. other than trannys and center diffs blowing up cause ppl mod em too much, haven't heard anything bad about those early ones

+1

The author is full of manure IMHO. It finally is time the US catches on to small displacement engines that have been run for decades in Europe and Asia. I also feel strongly that your average commuter will do just fine with a 4 banger in place of that V6.

G

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by Rusty Heap

Eric, as you have demonstrated an in-depth and informative automotive knowledge base, (which I have sincerely enjoyed) from your previous posts perhaps you can expand on what "you" see as the future of automotive power plants for the common person in the USA.

I just found that "death of the V8" article interesting, is all with the new CAFE standards in our near future.

Eric please do expand on your future visions.

It's a balance between technology and infrastructure, and the money it takes to implement it.

The technology paths are fairly well understood. They're not mature, it's a puzzle. One advancement depends on the development of another. This is particularly true of alternative fuels.

It's one thing to ask consumers to pay more for a more technologically advanced car. It's another to ask companies or governments to invest in the infrastructure to support them.

For example, if diesel engines were more widely adopted in the US, it would likely mean that refineries would be built to produce more diesel. Otherwise the supply would be constant and the demand would rise, raising the cost of diesel.

For example, if electric/battery power were more widely adopted in the US, it would likely mean that charging stations would need to be added, and the existing electrical grid would be strained. Would new electric plants be needed? Would they be coal? Natural gas? Hydro? Nuclear?

For example, if LP/CNG power were more widely adopted in the US, it would likely mean that compressors and stations would need to be added, and the price of LP or natural gas may rise. We may also see those fuels taxed like gasoline to pay for roads and other expenses that gasoline taxes now cover. So it may seem cheap now, but it would get more expensive.

And there are other technologies, like hydrogen fuel cells, that depend on infrastructure and even safety regulations to develop along with them.

However, gasoline will be the norm for decades to come.

We'll see more efficient engines, both in terms of power density (hp/L) and emissions (ppm of hydrocarbons/CO). Most rely on more expensive/complex technologies like forced induction (turbochargers and superchargers) or more precise timing events like variable valve timing, several spark (laser) or fuel events per cycle (high-perssure direct injection).

We'll see more efficient transmissions/drivetrains. 8 speed automatic transmissions will be the norm. Much beyond that is thought to be a diminishing return. Many manufacturers are looking to Continuously Variable Transmissions (CVT), with Nissan leading the pack and Honda about to unveil a whole slew of them. We will see more automated manuals, like PDK, that don't have torque converter losses.

We'll see more efficient designs. Aerodynamics, packaging, rolling resistance (tires, bearings, CVs, torque converters). All will reduce the amount of power it takes to roll down the road.

We'll see lightweight materials. I think this will be number one. It will be the trickiest component as cost and safety will be tough. Moving to aluminums and other alloys vs steels, aramid composites (like carbon fiber), bonded structures (adhesives rather than welds/rivets/fasteners), ceramics and ceramic composites/aramids, and advanced plastics instead of glass. All of this adds lots and lots of money to the production costs of a car, at least right now. Like anything else, the costs come down as we adopt them on a broader scale, and costs come down as we develop better tehniques to implement them.

SOOOOOO......

We'll have to get used to the idea that smaller vehicles don't equate to cheaper vehicles. The idea of a "small" (Class A/B) car can't be as comfortable, powerful (lb/hp), or luxurious has to change....Americans think size matters. We're used to big cars and SUVs and it will be a tough transition. Ever been to Europe and see some of their 7 passenger vehicles? They would fit in the back of our 7 passenger full-size SUVs that we seem to think we need. I think it will be a tough transition. It's already started.

We'll have to change our perspective of adequate power (lb/hp). As McLovin pointed out in a different thread, (paraphrased) "A 200 hp 3400 lb sports car was a great driver's car in 1983. Why isn't it in 2013?" 500hp factory cars now roam the streets. A "normal" D-class sedan does 0-60mph in under 6 seconds (Altima V6, Sonata Turbo, Fusion EcoBoost, etc).... almost as fast as a 930 or 951 back in the day. 7-8 seconds in now considered too slow, even dangerous. We'll have to change that perspective, at least for daily driver type cars/trucks.

We'll have to change our perspective of comfort and NVH. Cars are heavy with sound deadening materials. Cars are heavy with large tires. Thicker, quieter glass. We read automotive reviews that focus on "soft-touch" materials and they get upset when the underside of the dash is a hard plastic material. All of this adds weight. We'll have to change that perspective.

Cars will continue to have all of the safety items we've mandated. Twenty years ago, we didn't have airbags (now we have ten!), ABS, traction control, stability controls, tire pressure monitors, pedestrian safety laws, or even widespread reporting of crash testing (and the crash testing wasn't nearly as tough). We're not going to go backwards. All of the weight and complexity added by those systems and regulations will continue to be constraints.

We're also used to all of the fancy doo-dads we've added. There aren't too many mainstream, high-volume cars that don't have power windows, power locks, power mirrors, power seat, remote entry, cruise control, fancy multi-media infotainment systems....all add weight. I don't think we'll give them up.

So is the V8 a dead-man-walking??

Maybe. GM seems to be committed to developing the pushrod small block. It's small/compact, powerful, and simple. They are adding multi-event direct injection next year. The already have variable valve timing. Ironically, a dressed 6.2L small block V8 (which is already all-aluminum) weighs LESS than most 2.0L intercooled turbo four cylinders. With better control over spark/fuel/valve timing, coupled with cylinder deactivation, and stop/start tech, it can be programmed to use very little fuel at "cruise" and add lots of power when needed. Since it is simpler, it is cheaper to manufacture. I've got it on good authority that the next-gen Corvette C7 will have a naturally aspirated 5.5L pushrod DI V8 making 450 hp yet turning 30+ mpg EPA freeway.

I know everyone will point to Cadillac's 4-6-8 debacle of the early eighties (I'll remind you that was 30 years ago) but with mulit-event high-pressure direct-injection, variable valve lift/timing, and multi-event spark it IS possible to run a V8 as a very lean 4 and seamlessly transition back to 6 and 8 cylinder power. Of course that same technology could be implemented in a 6 cylinder or even a 4 cylinder, and likely will. Same with the start/stop that kills the engine at stops. Why not?

I think you'll see more hybrid tech as well. Ferrari is committed to treating electric assist as a power-adder like a supercharger or turbocharger. 400hp engine plus selective 200 hp electric motor acts like a 600 hp engine, but with the added bonus of instant torque....and regen under braking. Does it add weight? Sure. But so would a supercharger or turbocharger. Would you be okay with a hybrid if it were marketed that way? How about a pickup with electric "boost" when loads dictate?

I think you'll see electric motors integrated into wheels and flywheels. All wheel drive can be de-coupled from the gas drivetrain, on-demand or as-needed. Both for traction, power-adding (boost), and handling (push/pull through a corner). Start/stop tech requires a more powerful instant starter. By adding the brush/stator to the flywheel "ring" you've got the leverage to spin and start a motor instantly, and it can also be used to generate (capture) under backload....and boost as needed under load. And it's much more simple, mechanically, than adding a conventional elctric motor to the drivetrain in some parallel way. It'll happen.

All of this costs money. One way or another, you'll end up paying for it. If the technologies are pushed by regulation (CAFE) then you'll have little choice. Or perhaps gasoline just starts getting so expensive that you'll demand it. Either way the costs may or may not be offset by fuel savings. But either way, we'd better be advancing those technologies. They're coming.

[Jim Richards]

Lot of interesting posts on this thread. I just realized that I haven't owned a car with a V-8 since 1986.

[Flieger]

Along with what Eric was saying, a large displacement engine can turn very low revs on the freeway due to the massive torque compared to a tiny engine spinning for power. The lower revs reduces frictional losses and is an advantage for fuel economy.

[Por_sha911]

The recent move by our president to enact the new CAFE of 54.5 including light duty trucks means you can kiss even 6 cylinders (and anything with any power at all) goodbye. I predict that soon turbos will be attacked for being wasteful since they decrease mileage as well. Meanwhile, no one says squat about pleasure boating because too many people in power that have one. Given enough time and power, Big Brother will do a mandatory recall of older cars.