dwightlooi

Well, I hope the Alpha underpins the G4 or G5 rather than the G6. What Pontiac needs is a compact RWD of modest weight. The G6 is not compact and it is not of modest weight even in the current FWD trim. A RWD G6 of similar dimensions is unlikely to be lighter. In fact, holding the weight constant at ~3600 lbs will be a challenge for GM which is not very good at dieting. The average RWD car of the same size from the same manufacturer tends to be about 100~150 lbs heavier. Pontiac already as a mid size RWD -- its called the G8. And at 3900~4000 lbs and with 6 liter V8 power it covers the segment of buyers which wants a larger car with the muscle and handling to be entertaining. A 3600 lbs car is simply to close to that to warrant a new platform. I think they should trim the platform down in size and weight to make it suitable for a Cobalt/G5 sized car in the 3000~3200 lbs weight class. That is the right starting point from which they can build a E36 3-series equivalent. With today's engine technology a 260hp 2.0 liter LNF Ecotec is enough to endow it with E36 (1992~1998) M3 class performance, whereas the 1.8 liter 140 hp ecotec can be the economical base engine. The car doesn't even need to offer a V6, although a the 6L50 6A transmission will be nice. Its a potent combination which will have the entire segment to itself. It will also be VERY salable in foreign markets, especially Europe.

Not the VQ35 -- that's the 60 degree V6 in the Altima, Murano, G35, Maxima, Quest, you name it. The QR25 is the 2.5 liter 4-potter in the Sentra SE-R and also used as the base powerplant in the 4-cylinder Altima and others. It is pretty darn vertical and tall... Here...

Actually, I don't think that is an issue. The 102mm stroke length of the 4.2 I6 is not "unusual". This very similar to that of say the Nissan QR25DE engine used in the Sentra and as the base engine on the Altima for instance. That has a 100mm stroke. The engine, in its truck installations have certain features that make it taller than it has to be -- mainly because it doesn't matter under the tall hood of light trucks and SUVs. The oil pan is taller than it has to be and the intake manifold wraps OVER the top of the engine adding to height for instance. Neither of these parts have to be the way it is. And it is not a big deal to manufacture a different manifold or oil pan for specific applications. In fact, this is frequently done height issue or not.

This is definitely Photoshopped... and not a very good one at that. Some details looks much sharper than others and requisite gap lines are missing.

Actually, a solid axle (live axle) is not all bad. Let's put it this way... (1) A live axle maximizes traction when the car is accelerating (and to a lesser degree braking) in a straight line. This is because all independent suspensions do not keep the tire's contact surface parallel to the ground when compressed (or extended). Instead, the tires gain or lose camber when compressed or extended. The whole purpose of the double wishbone or multilink setup is to control the change in camber such contact patch on the outside tire is maximized when the car rolls during cornering. In short, all else being equal, live axles are FASTER in a drag race because it offers superior traction. (2) When cornering, it is entirely possible to keep a live axle planted and simply roll the body. In fact, when the roll stiffness is optimized for performance and the suspension is sufficiently firm there is no difference between the steady state corning grip between a live axle and an independent rear suspension. (3) The advantage of an independent rear suspension is that a high level of cornering grip can be achieved without a lot of roll stiffness or overly harsh rides. On top of that they tend to be much less twitchy when disturbed while loaded -- such as when you hit a mid corner bump. Overall ride quality is also better because the IRS has much less unsprung mass than the live axle.

If the 551 is indeed going to be a (Zeta) Caprice with the Malibu taking its place, I'll like to see the LL8 engine or is next evolution in it. The LL8 the DOHC 24v VVT 4.2 liter Inline-6 currently used in some SUVs including the Saab 9X. It makes 291 hp and 277 lb-ft on 87 octane and is absolutely the smoothest and most refined engine in GM's stable -- more so than the V8s including the Northstar, and definitely more so than the blah-blah sounding 3.6 VVT. There is really nothing like the smoothness and refinement of an I6. Even in its current, very modest tune, it will set the car apart from its competition such as the Avalon. Of course, with a small displacement bump (already done on the 4 and 5 cylinder siblings of this engine) dual VVT and Direct Injection, this engine is easily to be in the 375hp class. The base engine can be the LLV 190hp /185 lb-ft DOHC 16v VVT 2.9 liter inline-4 or the LLR 242hp/242 lb-ft DOHC 20v VVT 3.7 liter Inline-5.

Actually, the reverse is probably true. The fact that diesels are not widely offered is because diesels are not widely wanted by car shoppers. When it comes time to sell the car used, you may find that 9/10 buyers otherwise interested in the size or model of vehicle won't even call once they see "diesel" on the for sale listing. Lower demand means lower prices, thats market dynamics. The same goes for say a minivan with a stick-shift for instance, possibly upwards of 99% of minivan buyers don't know how to or don't want to row a stick, that reduces demand and hence price of the vehicle.

Actually, I am sorry, but they do not. In general, with a vehicle of the same weight and doing the same typical duty, a TDI is not going to be twice as efficient. At best it is about 20~40% more efficient. And this is assuming we are not expecting the same performance. For instance, the current Jetta TDI is rated for 36/41 MPG, whereas a Jetta 2.0 turbo FSI is rated for 25/31mpg. And remember this is not exactly a fair comparison in that even though the displacement of the two engines are quite close (1.9 vs 2.0 liter) and both are force induced, one is a 100 hp mill whereas the other is a 200hp powerplant. I am SURE that if you replace the Gasoline FSI engine with another engine offering similar acceleration performance to the 100 hp diesel, the difference will be even narrower. The overall efficiency in terms brake specific fuel consumption (fuel use / power; per unit time) between a diesel and a gasoline engine is about 20~25%. To answer the "why not offer miserly diesels as an option?" question, the one question a person has to ask is why isn't GM or any other car manufacturer dropping in small, underpowered gasoline engines into the cars or at least offering that as an option? I mean lets say that instead of a 2.4 liter Ecotec, you get the option to opt for a 1.6 liter Ecotec. That'll yield efficiency gains as well, for ZERO extra dollars and in fact probably a few bucks less. Sure, the car will be slower, but so will a typical diesel optioned car! I think the answer is simple. The typical consumer doesn't want it -- while they may bitch about $3+ gasoline (which really is quire cheap compared to anywhere else in the world; Europe is ~$6.50 for instance) they really still want performance and refinement more than gas savings when making a purchasing decision. And, those really "green" types will buy a Hybrid not a diesel. This is more of a lifestyle decision and "green" statement rather than an economic decision because today's Hybrids DO NOT MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE*. * Let's say you drive a Prius with 51/60 MPG (say 55.5 avg) vs a Corolla 32/41 mpg (say 36.5 avg). If you drive 12,500 miles a year (blue book yearly zero value adjustment allowance), the fuel use difference is roughly 12,500/55.5 - 12,500/36.5 = -117 gallons. At $3 per gallon, thats ~$352 per year. Given the fact that the price difference between a comparably equipped Prius and Corolla is $6000 (~$22000 vs ~$16000), it'll take you 17 years to recover your $6000 investment in the Hybrid drivetrain. Heck, even at $6 per gallon it'll take you 8.5 years to recover that $6000. And, we are assuming you won't have to fork over extra money for a thousand dollar battery somewhere along the way. This is why Hybrids today are not economic vehicles, they are a life are enviromental choice and image statements. If buying and driving one makes you feel better or makes you look better in front of your "green" friends, by all means buy one. But don't tell me you are buying one to save money on gas, because if you really think so you are a total idiot! Plus, while every station offers gasoline, #2 diesels are only available in minority of gas stations. This is an inconvenience.

It's one of the smoothest, creamiest engines ever. The light reciprocating elements of the 2.5 liter mill, 60-degree bank angle and relatively low 9.2:1 compression all helps I guess. But one of the things they did with the K-series (including the 1.8, 2.0, 2.5 and the 2.3 SC-Miller) was engineer the block to eliminate low frequency resonances. 7000 rpm in a K-series feels like 3500 rpm in terms of shakes and there is absolutely no strain or valve train racket. It was an all whirl no rumble engine, and particularly endearing because of it. Unfortunately, these engines aren't particularly high performance. 164hp (later 170hp) isn't much out of a 2.5 and 156 lb-ft (later 160 lb-ft) is really on the soft side. Whats worse is that the engines doesn't seem to get "on cam" until about ~4000 rpm or so. They are also a little "old fashioned" in their use of a traditional distributor fired ignition and a "bullet plug" style mechanical MAF meter which is quite restrictive. It was a traditional timing belt engine with 60K replacement intervals so thats a little annoying especially when you buy a used car with it. Well, its also a non-interference engine so you can -- if you really want -- drive it till the belt snaps and all you will be forking out will be the towing bill. The V-RIS variable manifold system doesn't do very much. Flaps open at 3800~4000 rpm to connect the plenums of both banks to raise the reasonance frequency. For some reason thy close off again after 6000~6200 rpm. I tried tying them to be open all the time and noticed a little softness off idle to ~2000 rpm. No difference after that. I wasn't too impressed. Ford continue to use this general intake design and layout on their Duratecs -- which unfortunately do not share the creamy smooth character of the K-series. There was a 200hp version of the K-series... but it was never available in the US market Mazdas or Fords.

I don't think some people are getting the point I was trying to make. I am not against engine covers per say. What I was trying to say is that GM's covers are so cheap looking and so poorly integrated with the engine or the bay that they are better off simply saving the money. If they want to do it, do it right! Do it in a way that actually makes the engine bay look premium! This is really no better than... ...this! If GM wants to play dress up, they should do it right. Like this!

GM has picked up the habit of putting dress up covers on their engines which succeed only to:- (1) Make the build quality look cheap -- even Hyundai has nicer and higher quality (appearing) covers. (2) Make some otherwise very good looking engines and manifolds look like a Rubbermaid trashcan. This is the latest rendition... can anyone say that the "covered" engine (below) looks sexier, higher quality or more advanced? Jeez... enough of these garbage can lids already. They are not worth $0.05. How about spending the money on say a suede leather cover for the owner's manual (or whatever) instead!

1 8 11 2

Actually, I think we need to clear things up a little. To the best of my knowledge, nobody is attempting pneumatic actuation. So far it doesn't exist and there is no good reason for it to exist. Hydraulic actuation is something else altogether and there is nothing pneumatic about it. I know that Sturman Industry has been working on a Hydraulic valvetrain since the mid 90s. I haven't heard of a major manufacturer signing on for it though. Their design uses a central hydraulic pump to supply a reservoir of pressurized hydraulic fluid. These are fed to each valve but blocked by a electrically controlled solenoid valve. The valve can either supplies this pressurized liquid to the driving piston which depresses the valve or it bleeds it off to the return system leading to the hydraulic pump (and ultimately back to the reservoir, or do neither (blocks access both ways). The speed at which the valve opens cannot be controlled. But when it opens (feed connect) and when it closes (return connect) can be controlled precisely. To control how far the valve opens, the system cuts off the connection to both the feed and return system and causes the valve to "stay" at its current position which maybe partway open. The valve is closed by a mechanical spring. The system offers infinitely variable timing, lift and duration. The potential problem with the system lies in the longevity of the solenoid valves and the limits in "ramp" rates (opening speed) which a pumping a liquid through small passages can support. They have a running engine. But I don't know if they have convinced anyone to adopt their system. Pneumatic Actuation on the other hand does not really exist. What is commonly called Pneumatic Actuation and used in F1 since the 80s is not really pneumatic actuation but rather pneumatic closure. The F1 engines use camshafts and cam lobes to open the valves. The "pneumatic" part is simply that instead of metal springs they uses gas pressure to close the valves. Each valve has a cylinder where the spring resides. This is kept pressurized with an inert gas (usually nitrogen). Each cylinder has a one-way valve for the most parts which means the gas can get into it but not out of it. The gas supply is regulated (usually 100~150 psi). When the valve opens it compresses the gas in the cylinder and this pressure helps push the valve back. The system has two advantages. The first is that metallic springs react too slowly when operating at 15000 to 20000 rpms. Actually, this is also the reason why valved 2-stroke engines couldn't be made feasible -- because the valving speeds are too slow for a closure system that relies on a solid bending and contouring itself from one shape to another. The gas closure system is fast enough as there is no "plasticity lag" inherent of solid metal springs. The other advantage is that gas pressure is at its highest when the valve is fully opened and is a fraction of that when it is closed and the cylinder is not compressed. With a compression ratio of 10:1 the pressure is roughly 10 times higher when valve starts to close than when it is closed. This highly progressive nature of pneumatic closure puts applies maximum "spring rates" when it is most needed, but very little pressure when it is not. This not only reduces overall wear, but also reduces mechanical frictional drag.

Electro-magnetic valve actuation hasn't panned out. It hasn't panned out because:- (1) The coils needed to drive valves at the requisite speeds to operate an engine at the typical redline of say 5000~6500 rpm is pretty darn big -- about the size of a can of coke. (2) The voltage needed to operate these coils effectively (100~300 volts) typically are not available on typical cars which only has 12~14v power supplies. (3) Because electro-magnetic actuation is not a positive engagement drive it causes a whole magnitude of control problems. When a cam lobe pushes down on a valve it is not going anywhere but down in exactly the amount that the lobe depresses it. When an electro-magnetic force is applied on the valve it is like you are pushing it down against the valve spring with a heavier spring. There is no positive engagement there, and how much movement actually happens depends on various things like the rpm (hence valve speed), the residual pressure in the chamber and the pressure or vaccuum stacked on the valve in the intake tract. In otherwords, it keeps changing with driving conditions and the computer must smartly, accurately and promptly map the right amount of current to apply on the coil each and every time. (4) Valve float at higher rpms is actually a lot worse than with cam and spring drives because the valve itself has to have a spring, a stem and a magnetic puc. This makes the driven mass heavier. (5) Assuming that none of the above matters, the system of at least 8 coils, a high voltage power supply and control system is notably heavier and a pair of camshafts and a chain or belt. The ONLY advantage of EM valve actuation is that it is by default capable of continuously and infinitely variable timing, lift and actuation profile. Both timing and lift can already be varied with mechanical valvetrains -- CVVT is everywhere, Valvetronic does CVVL. We can also switch between two or three completely distinct camlobes with systems like VTEC, MIVEC or VVTL-i.

Looks like the 1 week extension paid off! # of entries practically doubled.

I think that they should ditch the 1.0 liter gasoline engine for this... 30 kWe (~40hp of generation capacity) Recuperated microturbine. Runs on gasoline, kerosene, diesel, propane, pretty much anything that burns and does not leave behind gunk. Manufacturer's product brief page One moving part. No coolant, no pumps, no chains, no belts, no radiator needed. Just put in where you put the spare tire. If the 20~40 mile range Li-Ion battery doesn't work out drop in a Prius grade battery which is good for 5 miles on electric power. It'll still be a good hybrid. When long-life Li-Ion batts become available and get cheap enough they can be phased in later.

LOL... yeah. I guess we got carried away.

You have my sympathies. But there are two vantages here. The first is yours. If you had insurance when you got hospitalized, the most you will be hit with will be the maximum yearly deductible. Usually its between $500 and $5000 depending on your policy for PPOs or practically zero for HMOs (Homicide Management Organizations). But in your specific case, the presence of an available public assistance program certainly benefits you. And in your case it is a good thing. BTW, if you did not have insurance at the time, did you ever consider why that is the case? I mean health insurance is not that expensive even with our pretty screwed up system right now. It is about $100~250 a month for most people depending on what you buy and how old you are. Even if you work at Taco Bell and make $1400 a month, it is not a heavenly sum. It is a notable burden yes. But so is rent and utilities. Why is it that people tend to prioritize rent and utilities over health insurance even when these are all essentials? In fact, many prioritize getting a car or buying nicer clothes or getting a cell phone over health insurance! Because they KNOW that they'll get care regardless. You don't pay rent you get evicted. You don't pay the electric company you can mull around in the dark. You don't get health insurance, they treat you anyway. Don't you think people in general will prioritize differently if not having insurance means that you can DIE and the hospital will maybe help put you in a bodybag? Even more than poverty or stingy employers, the leading reason we have so many uninsured is that the consequence of not having insurance is... well... quite tolerable. The second is the contax of the healthcare system as a whole -- which is pretty darn broken. It is broken for two reasons. To start with most paying customers in healthcare consume under what is best called an indirect payment system. That is the consumer pay some relatively insignificant co-payment or deductible regardless of the price of the service/goods provided. This basically eliminates price competition in the medical industry. Imagine shopping for a car, a TV or chocolate bars and paying some fixed co-payment or deductible and what do think is going to happen? Will you even care how much they cost? Secondly, you have a situation where most hospitals are required by law to treat first and bill later. Basically, if you use the ER as your defacto source of care and then never ever pay your bill. The Hospital is basically screwed. They can't do much other than write you letters which you'll ignore anyway and perhaps ding your credit report which may been so bad you don't give a damn anyway. So what happens is that they have to eat the cost pass it on to the paying patients (or rather their insurance companies). The combination of these two factors caused a ridiculous situation -- there is no direct price competition hence no market mechanism to reduce pricing, the presence of a mechanism by which the socially responsible are being ripped off by the socially irresponsible and lastly the availability of a dead beat avenue by which people CAN get by while acting as total and deliberate parasites. Socializing health care WILL NOT introduce price competition, all it'll do is change the way an uncompetitive industry is paid -- through taxation and bureaucratic wrangling. It will also transform a situation where the responsible are ripped off to subsidize the irresponsible, to one where everybody gets to be completely irresponsible with regard to health care. What you will create is a situation where costs remain high but and taxes need to be higher than it already is to fund it. It'll also make it yet more attractive to be a total bum and let your working and tax paying neighbors take care of this addition one thing in life, while making it ever more unattractive to become an highly paid professional because the IRS will take more than half of what you earn and you are still oging to get the same $h!ty socialized medicine as the homeless bum. In the end, the country bankrupts herself over time and everyone gets $h!ty, expensive care paid for indirectly by a tax bill which takes 7 months of work a year to pay. Everyone loses, although the capable and diligent loses more than the bums. If you choose to be endlessly compassionate to the barbarian, in the end you'll become a endlessly barbaric to the compassionate.

(1) Nuclear waste will have to be buried, stored or otherwise quarantined. It'll be a problem, but you deal with it. On the bright side, they are relatively compact and hence relatively easy to store and quarantine. The storage of nuclear waste is a problem that can be dealt with. The inability of non-nuclear energy sources to produce anywhere near enough power for contemporary human civilization is not a problem that can be dealt with. (2) Conservation is not a solution. It is at best a mitigating measure. Nobody wants to go back to having one lamp in the house, crossing oceans on sailing ships, riding bicycles or using manual labor in factories instead of machinery. Any reasonable degree of conservation will not cut our energy needs by 90% and it will not change the inevitable nuclear future. At the very best it'll reduce the number of nuclear power plants we need. (3) My view is that welfare, social security, socialized health care and public education should be eliminated. Individuals should save for their own retirement, get their own health insurance and education should be provided by the private sector. None of these things should be a communal affair funded by taxation. The government should not be engaged in social services providence at all. The government should only engage in national defense, public safety and in activities that provide a safe and orderly environment where individuals and companies can compete. The capable will be rewarded, the meek will not. Life will be good if you have ability, it'll suck if you don't. And that is the way it should be. The opposite of Right is not Left. The opposite of Right is Wrong.

Hey, at least you got until April 17 this year... TWO FULL DAYS later than usual to cough up your tax return. The main problems with the gas turbine as an automobile engine are as follows:- (1) The gas turbine is extremely laggy. That is you can floor the throttle now and it may take the turbine 5 seconds to reach full power. Think turbo lag, but 100 times worse. However, this is completely irrelevant in when you use the turbine solely as a electric generator since it is completely isolated from the task of putting torque to the tires. The electric motor will respond immediately using juice from the battery, hence there is zero lag. (2) The gas turbine has a very narrow efficiency band. That is something designed to operate optimally at say 100,000 rpms may not run at all under 30,000 rpm. Hence, idle efficiency is always horrible. And, the turbine isn't all that efficient across most of its operable range either. Unlike a piston engine where the compression ratio is (barring partial filling due to flow restrictions at very high rpms) more or less constant and driven up the piston displacement and chamber volume, the gas turbine's compression ratio is a function of its rotating speed. Imagine an engine whose compression ratio is 2:1 at 2000 rpm bu 12:1 at 6000 rpm and you get a rough idea of the issue. This is why gas turbines are very efficient in power stations for making electricity where they stay more or less at a constant speed, but not that efficient as an engine driving a vehicle where it has to idle and go up and down in the rev range. Again, this is irrelevant if the way you operate the turbine is to run it at its optimal speed or shut it down completely. (3) The exhaust temperature can be very high if the turbine is not recuperated (that is the exhaust heat is not transferred to the compressed air coming out of the compressor). With recuperation it is not much if at all higher than a piston engine's exhaust. Recuperation also makes the turbine 4~8% more efficient than it otherwise will be by capturing otherwise wasted heat energy in the exhaust and transferring it to the intake charge after it has been compressed but before it reaches the combustor.The other alternative to recuperation is combined cycle operation. Here the exhaust heat is not passed on to the compressed intake air, but is used to boil water in a heat exchanger. The steam produced is used to drive a separate steam turbine. The combined efficiency of both turbines can exceed 50% (~15% better), beating out even the best piston diesels. This is popular with power stations and has been used in cruise ships. But it may be more complex and bulky than is feasible for a car especially when the goal is to make the turbine generator so compact that it practically disappears from the engine bay.

Nah, I disagree with most of it. (1) Firstly, the reason countries like China is buying up US currency is not to topple us with financial attacks. The purpose is to keep the Dollar overvalued and the Yuan undervalued by artificially shorting the dollar supply. The reason this is done is to increase their export competitiveness and prolong the trade imbalance. (2) The USA was 50% of the world economy at one point post WWII. If this is what we are trying to hold on to -- or bring back rather -- we can forget about it. There is nothing we can do to stop others from developing. The global economic landscape will even out and we will be less of the pie than we are today. This is inevitable unless the other guys screw around and not develop. Even if they did screw around like morons -- like China did with dubious dictatorial leaderships running a command economy from 1949 through the 70s -- it is only a matter of time before they get back on track. (3) Can the world overtake the USA? Of course it can. Will it? We don't know. China and India's problem is that they have more population than their land mass really supports. This means that they'll always have the encumbrance of excessive mouths to feed and not enough use of excessive hands. This will get worse as the parents of their one child generation ages and create a massive dependent class situation. (4) The US national debt is actually very reasonable despite what some people will have you believe. US national debt is about 8.9 trillion right now. It is roughly 67% of our 13.3 trillion GDP. It is like owing $67,000 in mortagage and/or other long term debts when you make $100,000 a year. Most hoome buyers owe three to four times their annual income in mortages. This is also relatively low compared to just about every developed country. Japan for instance owes $8.24 trillion on a $4.85 trillion GDP -- a whopping 170%. France owes $1.5 trillion on a $2.1 trillion economy or 74% of its GDP and their debt is rising faster than any other country in the world including the USA. (5) The problem we have is not national debt. The problem is all the socialist entitlement programs we have allowed to creep into our national commitments over the years. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Bush's prescription drug benefit, welfare, you name it. None of these things should have existed in the first place as they do nothing but breed dependency and discourage individual responsibility. Not only that, but tax financed wealth redistribution schemes like these basically punish success, competence and diligence, while they reward failure, incompetence and bum-ism. I suppose all successful countries with good quality of life will have some bleeding heart tendencies, but the degree to which we are spending on these entitlement rackets WILL bankrupt us like no war and no trade imbalance ever will. Do you know for instance that we spend about 16.7% of the government budget on defense but 61% on social services? Not only that, but about half of that 61% are entitlement payouts and this is expected to DOUBLE in a decade and a half to three decades? (6) Our economic problems can only be solved by de-socialization and a reversion to a more purely capitalistic economic model -- which is what China has today while we slide towards the chasm of euro-socialism under the pinks like Pelosi, Hillary, Boxer and yes to some extent Bush. And the reason we are sliding that way is simple. This nation, like Europe, has been afflicted by a mental disease epidemic called Liberalism. Forget breast cancer and heart disease, if we don't find a cure for Liberalism in the next few decades this country is finished. (7) The energy issue is much simpler. I can tell you exactly where we'll go right now because there is only ONE route to go -- Nuclear. Oil won't disappear suddenly and for the next deacde or two it will continue to be the cheaper solution despite the fact that a lot of it comes from a$$-hole territories like the Middle east and Venezuela. But at some point it'll become expensive enough that alterntive energy sources will make sense. And I'll tell you this there isn't enough solar, hydro-electric, tidal, geo-thermal or wind power to meet even 10% of our energy needs. We can't grow enough corn for ethanol either and the ethanol making process right now doesn't yield energy at all because the amount of energy put into the growing, harvesting and processing of corn into ethanol is roughly the same as the energy content we get out of ethanol fuel! This leaves only ONE option - whole scale Nuclear adoption for electric generation. Vehicles will at some point transition to electric power. Hydrogen is nothing but an energy carrier and while we can use nuclear generated electricity to make hydrogen and then use hydrogen for propulsion I don't think It'll happen. It won't happen because Hydrogen is a horrible energy carrier. It is extremely hard to keep liquid and even when it is liquid it is 1/5 as dense as gasoline. In otherwords, batteries of a similar volume will store similar energy without the need for extreme pressurization, cryogenic refrigeration or a fuel cell stack to convert it back to electric power. Combustion engines also won't go away. I forsee alchohol or fossil fuel based evapourate fuel (similar to gasoline) being used in applications where energy density is paramount. For instance electric airplanes won't get you to tokyo so jets will need to burn something -- if not JP10 then some other combustible equivalent. Also, if we all go with battery powered cars we won't be able to make 1000 mile drives from San Francisco to Las Vegas for instance since realistically batts will last at best 200 miles. Hence, while the typical commute can be battery powered, most cars will need to retain a combustion engine for long trips which they will only use sparingly because combustible fuel will be costly. My bet is on micro gas turbine generators for on board generation running on an evaporate fuel. But that is still way more practical than trucking in and storing either a -423 degrees liquid or lighter than air gas at service stations, then filling cars with it.

You can get a Honda Ridgeline! Its a FWD fullsize pickup!

I'll tell you something though... CAFE is really not much of a problem unless we get silly about it. In the previous example where 2 million cars miss the CAFE standard by 1.8 mpg and the manufacturer pays a $198 million fine, well guess what? That is $99 per car. Miss it by a whopping 10 mpg and its still "only" $550 per car. If you really want performance so bad, you can always speak with your wallet and simply have the manufacturer pass the cost down to you! If you run a car company and you are not castrated by political correctness, you can also declare yourself as the self-proclaim "bad boy" car maker, give the environmentalists the finger and give EPA the finger. Tell them that you will totally disregard CAFE and make gas guzzlers because that is what your customers want. As a corporation you can declare hostility towards the enviroment movement and the government if you want, there is nothing illegal about it! You can also put a sticker on every car indicating the CAFE fine your are passing on to them with the banner... "$298 CAFE penalty -- This is the government and reaping you off. Don't bitch to us; unelect the representatives who passed this law. For a list of congressmen and senators who voted yes on CAFE, please consult the back of this car's brochure." Hey, you may even get a rabid cult following amongst car enthusiasts as the bad ass, politically incorrect brand with gigantic balls. This IS a free country. The reason a lot of things are happening is because we let it happen. Why is GM caving to the Global Warming scam artists why they shut the door on you? Because, the environmental activists yell very loud, get a lot of attention and do a lot to lobby their causes. Why aren't YOU doing as much? The same thing goes for the illegal aliens amnesty problem and everyone seeming to cave in to activism from racist organizations like La Raza. If you really believe in something speak up. If you shut up, you deserve to be shoved into the corner and ignored.

OK... OK... there is a misconception here. No imports are NOT given a pass. Here is the problem... CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy is a rule which penalizes car manufacturers if the total sum of the tested fuel economy number of each of their vehicles divided by the total produced (hence average) exceeds the guideline for that year. Manufacturers pay a fine of $5.50 per 1/10th on an mpg under the CAFE standard times their total production volume. So if you make 2,000,000 cars and your CAFE is 24.2 mpg when the standard is 26 mpg, you pay a fine of $198 million. Ouch! For passenger cars, each manufacturer is considered to have two fleets which are counted separately. One is the import fleet and one is the domestic fleet. Any care that does not have a 75% US and/or Canadian content is considered an import. So all the cars GM sells which are made in Korea by Daewoo, in Australia by Holden and in Belgium by Opel or whatever is counted in one fleet. Everything made in th USA is counted in the other fleet. Both have to meet the same CAFE standard and fines -- if applicable -- are assessed separately. This means that no matter how economical one fleet is, it cannot offset the gas guzzlers in the other fleet. On the same note all the fines on one fleet is levied only based on the volume of that fleet and does not carry over to the other in any way. This applies to Toyota, Hyundai and GM alike. The problem is that Hyundai practically makes nothing here and Toyota has exceeded CAFE expectations in both their US and foreign produced fleets. GM on the other hand makes many of their small, efficient cars overseas where labor is cheaper, while they make most of their big, heavy, luxury models here in the USA. This means that improving and selling more small cars will not make any difference in increasing their CAFE for the domestically produced fleet. Hence, an Impala if economical can offset a Cadillac which is not, but a Korean built Aveo cannot. GM has lots of models which are under CAFE and needs to be offset. That is GM's problem. And for the most parts it is the result of them choosing to build their small and efficient cars abroad. SUVs and light trucks are in their own fleet class, so no car can offset an SUV or truck or vice versa. SUVs and light trucks ARE given a pass because the CAFE standard is LOWER for them. This also applies to both import and domestic makers. However, it can be argued that having a separate standard for light trucks is giving domestic makers a pass because they make most of the SUVs.

The gas turbine generator does not rely on thrust at all. Basically the turbine is used to mechanically turn a generator the car is moved solely by electric motor(s). The gas turbine recharges the battery as you drive so it never runs out of juice. This can be done in two ways... the first is the so called direct drive coupling. Basically, the compressor, turbine and generator's input shaft is the same. In 2-shaft designs it is usually the low pressure spool that is connected to the generator. The large 57,600 hp LM6000 gas turbine generators used in marine applications for instance is a direct drive setup. Most gas turbines however rely on a power turbine. That is the gas turbine produces thrust which is used to spin a power turbine. Either a generator or direct mechanical drive is connected to the power turbine. This arrangement is more complex and in most ways no more efficient. However, it has the advantage that drive line shocks are isolated from the high speed turbine core itself. Hence most applications that drives wheels, propellers, tracks or whatever else directly with a gas turbine uses a power turbine. The AGT1500 and LV100 gas turbines used in the M1 Abrams tank uses a power turbine. In our hypothetical 40~60hp mini gas turbine generator for a plug in hybrid, the direct drive arrangement will be preferrable for three reasons. (1) It is more compact, lighter and just as efficient. (2) Since the turbine only turns the generator there won't be any shock loads that it needs to be isolated from. (3) Because the generator is also easily a motor, the direct drive setup eliminates the need for a separate starter motor to spin up the turbine to ignition speeds. This is the M1A1's AGT1500 gas turbine engine. In this application the AGT1500 puts 1500hp onto the power turbine (left hand side shaft in picture) which is connected to the tank's transmission.