What do the new CAFE standards mean for the Z?
 

New mileage standards are on their way. 39 mpg for passenger cars by 2016. I understand that the 39 mpg would be an "average" among all models of cars that any particular automaker sells, but I'm not sure Nissan has many high-mileage cars to balance out the current MPG of the Z (26 mpg highway, 18 city... about 22 mpg overall)?

I would assume then, that the Z will need to be engineered to be more fuel efficient in the future. How do you think Nissan will end up doing this? Lighter weight? Lower horsepower? Less aggressive gearing? God forbid, a hybrid set-up? An electric Z? :icon14:

Probably hybrid... Nothing wrong with an electric sports car, tesla has proved that!

Nissan 370Z Hybrid coming in 2011?

A full electric is one thing, but a hybrid has the worst of both worlds. Not only does it have to lug around a heavy battery pack, it also has to carry an engine. You're sports car would bloat out to 4000 pounds and handle like a Buick.

As battery cell technology improves full electric is going to be the way to go, but I don't see them getting there by 2016. Tesla has made great strides in this direction and it's only going to get better as batteries get lighter.

They will probably just scrap the Z here in the states. What you saw yesterday was the death of the sports car for the average person in the United States. It simply isn't cost effective or practical to build electric or hybrid sports cars. Trucks are still going to be a necessity and carmakers are going to have to adjust their fleet to offset truck mileage that won't be able to meet those standards. That means the elimination of any cars that fill a niche market and bring down a fleet's CAFE standards. You will still be able to buy a Porsche or Ferrari, because those companies won't even attempt to meet CAFE standards, but you will pay a huge premium for those cars that are already out of reach for the average American.

Prices will go up, availability will go down, and you'll see a lot more Versa's on the dealer's lot....(whether people want them or not)

What CAFE standards mean for me?
 

I need to start saving up money and put a brand new E92 and Nismo 370Z in my garage before this happens. I could care less what happens afterward. I will be a happy camper! :driving:

The advantage of the Z is that it is a wolrdwide model. Since CAFE is a fleet average, the relatively low volume of the Z won't impact Nissan's CAFE average that much. I don't doubt that the Z will continue to be sold in the US for years to come, but the price may increase just to keep the volume low.

Ultimately it depends on what Nissan is able to do with their other models. The Altima outsells the more fuel efficient Sentra by far in comparison to the Accord/Civic and Camry/Corolla. Nissan's next generation small cars will have to be much improved over their current offerings.

Gas Guzzler
 

There's always the possibility of paying a gas guzzler tax if big brother allows that option as now.

If anything it means the z, g, fx will be more fuel efficient. These cars aren't too bad with mpg and i don't see nissan getting rid of the z or it would have to get rid of the g and fx too.

What Washington forgets is the fact that Americans love cars. A Toyota Prius doesn't exactly stir the emotions like a Z. The only way for this plan to work and to have people spend more money on uninspiring and unsafe cars that can't get out of their own way is to have gas prices reach astronomical rates where a middle class person can no longer afford to drive something that doesn't get 50 mpg. That's where cap and trade comes into play. If you ennact that plan then gas and all forms of carbon based energy will skyrocket.

They wouldn't have to get rid of them. They just wouldn't sell them here. The rest of the world, with a few exceptions, isn't as crazy as we are. China is just starting to embrace capitalism while we are throwing it away. China has about 4 times the population as we do, and they are buying up oil reserves. It's a great up and coming market for any car manufacturer that isn't owned by the US Government.

Nissan will still exist in the US. They will be a lot like Toyota, with a bunch of hybrid point A to B cars, fuel efficient family sedans, and cars that look like toasters (hello Cube). Toyota emraced this philosphy a couple years ago when they got rid of the Supra, MR2, and Celica.

Remember when I broke similar news on 4/22/09?

http://www.the370z.com/nissan-370z-g...brid-370z.html

Given product cycles, the current Z won't be the current Z by 2016. Even without a higher CAFE, the Z would have changed by then. It would have been at least two generations removed from today's 370Z.

The answer to the question will depend largely on where the profits lie. If pickups are more profitable than sports cars, I could see Nissan's sports car lineup very much reduced and a car more like the Altima coupe being "the" Nissan sports car. Certainly derivative of an economy car platform. Probably not quite up to the CAFE, but blazing fast (turbocharged, small displacement, is my guess). Will they call it a "Z"? That's for the marketeers to decide.

But if sports cars are more profitable than trucks? The lineup may still have two sports cars in it -- but, I suspect, they will still be in the high-mpg turbo configuration. (Incidentally, given the volume and numbers of SUVs/Trucks Nissan offers compared to the number of sports car models . . . I strongly suspect trucks are more profitable than sports cars.)

What happened in the 70's? There's your answer. History is repeating itself. Some sports cars died. Some became anemic jokes. None survived unscathed.

The math is simple. The more popular the Z becomes, the slower it will have to go. GET YOURS NOW! :eek:

:D

pelosi mobile..

http://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAqPMJFaEdY

How CAFE Ratings Work - Auto - FOXNews.com

That is a good read on CAFE standards. I think nissan will be fine meeting the goal. Some of the others further down the list have some things to worry about. Nissan is already at 32.2. They will just improve their small car offering and more people will buy them. Plus gas is bound to be higher in a few years and that will help them sell more fuel efficient cars too.

Exactly, people need to resist getting worked up into a lather and jumping to unfounded conclusions (you know who you are). Current CAFE standards didn't eliminate cars like the Viper, Z06, GT-R, etc, so why the hell would we assume this means death to the Z?

You forget basic history (or maybe you're too young to have lived it). When current CAFE standards were first introduced, they DID eliminate cars like the Viper, Z06, GT-R, etc. No legal high performance car survived in the U.S. They killed Challenger, Barracuda, Z-28, Mustang (the horrid Mustang II was a CAFE special), Road Runner, GTO, Marauder, Cougar -- those very few performance cars that survived did so only by losing the performance. Raising the CAFE took us through a dark automotive age and it took over twenty years for technology to catch up and give us performance cars on the same level as we had before. During those dark years from the mid-70's, a 200-hp Corvette was considered a BIG deal just two years after they offered several Vette engines of over 400 hp.

It is utterly unrealistic to think moving to a 39 mpg CAFE won't have a radical impact on the offerings of the industry. Just within the last six months, the CAFE zealots at EPA and NHTSA have published documents saying that a 36 mpg standard was technologically infeasible by 2016. If those in government who want it most think it won't work . . . .

It's scare tactics. When they realize that the majority can't comply they will push the date back. I'm sure the auto manufacturers (except Toyota) have already dispatched their lobbyists to Washington.

I wish that were the case, but two of the three domestic automakers are owned or at least controlled by the government. I don't think foreign manufacturers have much of a lobbying precense here in Washington, and like you said, Toyota, the #1 import in this country has already made this their business model. Honda is well on their way to following the same model. The European cars in this country fill a luxury market and they will just pay the fines and price their vehicles accordingly. Their clients can afford it.

I strongly believe we will see the death of cars like the Z, the Mustang GT, the Camaro SS (we harly knew ya), and maybe even the Corvette. GM has already done away with their high performance vehicle operations department. They said they will still produce the cars that are out there, but have no plans to develop new ones.

It is going to be an expensive proposition for car companies to develop these cars. I don't see them spending much to develop better sports cars that will only bring down their overall CAFE rating.

Enjoy these cars while you still can. I don't know how many years it will be before this country comes back to it's senses.

Remember, this new change is only thanks to a recent SCOTUS ruling. Should the population within the next few years see a backlash from this federal overstepping (which, as history has shown us, they most likely will) then you'll see alot of these restrictions go away. Sure, these standards will still cripple industry and sales in states like NY and California, but it will do far less harm, especially when people see how many jobs this move will cost.

I really think all-electric cars are the future, or 'hybrids' in the sense of cars that are designed as full electrics, but have a tiny fixed-rpm gasoline engine hooked up to a generator to provide a range boost over the capacity of the battery packs alone. They're way more efficient in terms of energy production and utilization, and we already have the grid to distribute the juice (and gas stations for the long-range generators).

Won't get in the way of performance either. A good all-electric performance car can knock the socks off a gas car. You get 4 electric motors (one in each wheel)... AWD with full torque at any speed (starting at zero), engine braking that pretty much obviates the need for traditional brakes, and capable of much more advance traction and stability control with an advanced cpu controlling the 4 motor controllers (imagine a computer that could choose the engine torque delivered to each individual wheel precisely, on top of what can be done with TCS/launch-control systems today). Oh and did I mention no gearing necessary at all? No driveline losses, no clutch, no transmission, no differential, etc.

The only thing holding back that vision of the future, at this point, is the need for more advanced batteries and/or supercapacitors to be developed, and for the cost of those components to drop drastically. It will happen, it's just a question of when.

Actually, there's much bigger problem holding them back. The technological hurdle is huge, don't get me wrong, but I could see that hurdle resolved over the next 15 years. In fact, except for price issues, for MOST commuters (40 miles or less), feasibility is almost here.

But here's the 800 pound gorilla NOBODY in Washington wants to talk about: We don't have NEARLY enough power generation capacity to juice up that many electric cars. Even if you charge them during off-peak hours, the U.S. power generation industry is stuck with antiquated powerplants and insufficient capacity for what we're already doing. The current infrastructure needs off-peak in order to stay intact. The environmental lobby essentially killed powerplant construction thirty years ago. No nuke plants. No big coal plants. It is getting critical even without the added load of fifty million cars. (Google news articles on blackouts and brownouts.)

Electric cars, if they come online, will create the same kind of surprise that ethanol as an alternative fuel did. Ethanol use as a fuel taught us that we didn't have nearly enough grain production to both fuel cars AND feed people. Electric cars will teach us that there are no free lunches. They won't become feasible until / unless we spend hundreds of billions on new powerplants. (It would take decades to permit and build that kind of capacity. If you started today -- which the environmental lobby won't permit -- it could take 40 years to bring that much capacity online. And there are no large-scale powerplants that don't pollute big-time. Even wind has its problems.)

I have a few thoughts on the subject. I will go ahead and state my displeasure with the current administration. I did not vote for this guy.

Its not just the cafe standards I am worried about, its the desire to manipulate Americans into buying small, green cars. In that respect new CAFE standards may only be step #1 for these guys.

We have heard that they may have cash incentive programs to persuade people to trade in their older cars. why would people want to do that if they are happy with their, oh, lets say 2009 370Z?

Probably because it will become very expensive to drive other cars. The dems favor higher gas prices. Gore said one time he wished gas was $5 a gallon so people would stop buying SUVs. If Govt Motors (GM) and others start building econo cars, it would not surprise me to see gas taxes go up to make driving a car like the 370 more expensive. But I believe the biggest expense may be emissions. Obamas standards call for a 30% reduction. If your car does not meet that I am sure there will be carbon taxes to pay (fines). No current cars meet that standard.

They are going to try and make it a difficult financial decision to drive a sports car or SUV.

I have heard a few things that come from good sources. If anyone doesn't believe it thats not a problem. I can't produce any links or documents to prove what I know.

The Tesla car does not perform as Tesla says it performs.
The Tesla car will cost more to produce than Tesla says it will cost.
The Tesla car does not have the range that Tesla says it has.

There are other concerns about their internal bookkeeping, and not of the "oops, they made a small mistake" variety, much more serious. just what I am hearing.

The electric car still needs a breakthrough before it will be viable.

back to the CAFE standards

Nothing these guys are doing is irreversible. The next President can relax or eliminate much of this.

IMO If you want to eliminate the need for foreign oil - drill our own.

IMO If you want the car companies to survive - let the market dictate what they build and sell.

I also think Global warming is a myth, so now a good percentage of you can hate me now. :tiphat:

well think of it this way the z gets 26mpg right now, adding DI in the 2012 model should bolster that up to 29-30 then a little ecu tuning can easily get u to the 35.5 if need be, but alas Nissan will probably just drop the Z line in america

Yep, Nuke plants are the real answer to Electric cars if you follow the logic. I'm quite interested in the air cars. Couple of neat prototypes out there and eliminates the down sides to the electric cars (battery production/disposal, etc). Of course performance will really lag for a while.

The technological hurdle for electric cars isn't huge at all. All of you need to view the documentary WHO KILLED THE ELECTRIC CAR. Anyone who thinks electric cars are impractical will be enlightened.

LSUTurboTiger, I read the same stuff about Tesla. (Maybe AutoWeek? Maybe the Wall Street Journal?) It's about to implode. People are headed for prison, by all reports. The money guys and promoters apparently got taken for a ride (if you believe their side of the story). The car won't do what they claim, plus, it costs 50% more to build than they've sold it for. Very, very ugly.

Too many people in the media and in the Green movement wanted it to be true, so it was "true."

Problem: The Z doesn't get 26 overall right now -- it gets 26 on the highway cycle. It gets 22 overall. (And less than that on my mostly-highway driving.)

What "little ecu tuning" would get the car to 35.5? An ecu that deactivates three of the cylinders?

Tesla is doing well, and now even better: Daimler takes a stake in electric carmaker Tesla

Tesla Motors Press Room

I am currently considering placing a reservation on a Tesla S. My wife has visited Tesla's main showroom, in Menlo Park, CA, and came away very impressed.

I don't think it's as bad as you think. New nuke plants are already getting traction, you can google about it, it's happening. If demand starts spiking due to electric cars (which will be gradual anyways), power companies will simply make their rates more progressive, charging more for peak than off-peak usage, encouraging people to charge their cars overnight when demand is typically lower. A lot of metro areas are also looking at incentive programs to start making the grid more resilient. Think solar panels on everyone's house to feed the downtown office buildings during the day, etc.

It will be bad for a short while just because of how long it takes to get approval and to build a power plant (10+ years!). Hopefully they are learning their lesson to look ahead so we don't end up with the rolling blackouts that Cali experienced in the past.

Subsidizing distributed power is a good idea but it takes money and so the government needs to have funds to buy in. Germany has been doing this with huge success in the past few years. People are buying subsidized solar panels (cheaply) and sticking them on their roofs to sell power back into the grid. Farmers are allocating fields and setting up solar farms because it is more profitable than actual farming. There are some rebates here but they vary by state, and some states have none.

If it needs rebates, it's not profitable. That's just shifting the cost to someone else (other taxpayers). Solar panels are nice but they won't produce enough power to do anything significant anytime soon. I found that if you covered 40 average sizeed rooftops with panels, it would generate enough power in one hour to replace 1 gallon of gasoline...at 100% efficiency.

Pretty much exactly what I believe to be true. There are major allegations of fraud. supposedly two sets of books. Then, like you said, there are the allegations about the car too and if its capable of what they claim.

I am not swearing 100% that I am certain that these things are true, but allegations are out there and they are being investigated. The truth will come out soon and we will know what is true and whats not true.

You don't understand the grid. (I work in the industry.) Our antiquated grid NEEDS off-peak to keep the equipment together. It can't take peak load around the clock. And accepting tiny amounts of power from multiple sources is a lot bigger physics problem than people realize. You don't just plug in a new source. It impacts the balance of the entire system. And if something goes wrong, it gets ugly in a hurry. (The major U.S. blackouts of the last couple of decades have almost all been minor small-source issues that took big grids out of balance, and off-line.)

And the last nuke plant permitted in the U.S. took (hold your breath) THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS just for the permitting process. $78.5 million JUST FOR THE PERMITTING (with no money coming in)! Then, they shut down the project.

Power generation is a lot harder than the bureaucrats realize.

That's new. That MAY just save them!

I wonder if they'll hush up the improprieties or go through with the investigations.

Solar is only 20% efficient at the moment, so the benefits will improve as the technology does. I also favor the building of new efficient power stations, both traditional (coal / nuclear) and alternative.

The useful efficiencies were "just around the corner" back in the 70's. With current tech, it would cost me well over $25000 to be able to generate 4.4 Kilowatts (enough to replace a small power generator,I looked into this after Hurricane Ike left me powerless for a week). That would only be for about 6 hours a day and wouldn't even let me run my air conditioners. To totally go off the grid would be over $100,000 and lots of extra stoage capacity. All the "success" solar power stories I've read involve reducing energy uses by something like 2/3rd's AND huge tax rebates. Solar as a major player is just a no go anytime in the near future. Wind power is much better......IF you live in the right place. :D

Yes, going off grid with solar just isn't feasible unless you live like you're in the 19th century. There are some feasible solar concepts using solar collectors to generate steam (which can be stored). Photovoltaic cells have a long way to go.

The whole house generators I've looked into are natural gas or propane. We loose power several times a year, this winter we lost power for a week during a ice storm with temperatures near 0F. At first I tried to keep the house warm using the fireplace but that was a losing battle. Eventually I got smart and hooked an inverter up to my truck and wired it up to my gas boiler so that the ignition system and circulater pumps would work. Idling my truck the gas tank lasted about 2 days. Obviously a full on generator would be more efficient than a 300W inverter.