Joined
·
1,722 Posts
https://priuschat.com/threads/buick-eassist.180052/
It appears the front page story from a few weeks back got it wrong
It appears the front page story from a few weeks back got it wrong
It's a very old problem. Some folk believe car companies should only make cars people do not want to buy. Car company folk and the public want cars that serve the actual market....
Also makes one wonder why Mary Berra has taken the lead trying to change the CAFE standards.
The I4 engine you picked is high performance turbo in the base camaro, manual states 91 is recommended and by using 87 your fuel economy will suffer...Not what I'd call "economy" yet on the Lacrosse it appears a sub 200hp engine is not available...The number of cylinders has little direct tie in to efficiency or power.
2017 GM I4 2.0L economy engine = 275HP / 295ftlb - 22/25/31 mpg 3410lb
2017 Toyota V6 3.5L economy engine = 268HP / 246ftb - 21/24/30 mpg 3480lb
I would say virtually identical.
This isn't the first time, looks like this was offered as early as 2012 and they claim it improved it by 25% improvement for the 2012 and that's over the four cylinder...Well, they can still count this as one of the "electrified vehicles" GM is introducing this year. I myself have a higher bar for "electrified vehicle", however.
I can agree with all this but it doesn't affect my point. Actually two points. One is that GM is better positioned than most to meet CAFE. Two is that, even if it weren't, having its CEO be the point person on CAFE reduction is simply downright stupid from a PR standpoint. It's not going to succeed so it's tiling at windmills. At the same time it runs the risk of whacking off Millennials who view climate change as the most important issue facing the US. Since Millennials are the largest demographic cohort and the primary customer base for years to come, snubbing this group is something that should be avoided.It's a very old problem. Some folk believe car companies should only make cars people do not want to buy. Car company folk and the public want cars that serve the actual market.
So it's a compromise. Most car companies are making both. The new tighter CAFE goals were to be evaluated as time goes on. The fleets are still improving their economies, even the 'guzzlers' are achieving higher MPGs as time goes on. The question is how fast should we transition without destroying the US economy. Yes, a massive depression would reduce emissions, but might also reduce government programs.
I think this is right. GM went for space and cost. FWIW I thought your article was thought provoking and I enjoyed it.It seems that one reason for this is the small battery can be packaged and still leave good trunk space (the newest eAssist system is discreetly packaged to maintain the LaCrosse’s fold-down rear seat and ample trunk space).
Not necessarily. Most of the time "there is no replacement for displacement" when it comes to performance. Of course the more cylinders, displacement in this case, you have the less fuel efficient your engine will be, in general.The number of cylinders has little direct tie in to efficiency or power.
2017 GM I4 2.0L economy engine = 275HP / 295ftlb - 22/25/31 mpg 3410lb
2017 Toyota V6 3.5L economy engine = 268HP / 246ftb - 21/24/30 mpg 3480lb
I would say virtually identical.