With 2007 gasping its last breath, the Detroit Free Press asked local civic and industry leaders for their thoughts on the upcoming year. GM's Slick Rick Wagoner took the conservative approach and wished for "an end to the housing and auto recessions in the U.S. in 2008; a comprehensive U.S. energy policy, and continued success in emerging markets." Mark "The Mullet" Fields from FoMoCo took an equally optimistic view, hoping "we don't continually talk ourselves into a recession" and wishing "cars and crossovers will outsell trucks and SUVs for the first time in many years." But every auto journalist's favorite sound bite machine Maximum Bob Lutz didn't mince words: "Now that we have the 35 miles-per-gallon fuel economy mandate by 2020, I am hoping that in 2008 'Professor Doktor' David Friedman (research director, clean vehicles program, Union of Concerned Scientists) and his 'highly-qualified' band of allegedly concerned, self-proclaimed scientists will turn their energy toward showing the world's automotive industry exactly how those numbers, using existing technology and 'costs of a few hundred dollars at the most' can be attained with a vehicle selection that even remotely resembles the cars and trucks Americans want to buy today." Go get 'em Bob!
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Don’t get to say this very often, so here goes:
Nicely played, Mr. Lutz!
It’s really hard to get so many points across in one sentence but maxi-Bob managed to do it. That’s why he makes the big bucks.
@GS650G:
Maximum arguments. Maximum sentence. Maximum Bob.
I’m with Bob on this one.No doubt every auto maker,import,transplant and domestic is thinking the same thing.At least he has the guts to stand up and say it.
Key words “what Americans want to buy today”
” Go get em Bob!Exactly what thier saying in the back rooms at Toyota,BMW Honda V.W.and everybody else in the buisness of selling cars in America.
Bob is just using a new version of one of Detroit’s favorite responsibility avoidance maneuvers: Blame The Customer. The warranty department has that one written down on their cue card in 13 languages.
The car company that thrives in the next ten years will be the one that successfully uses marketing techniques to sell Americans on the types of vehicles that can achieve the new targets.
Twenty years ago, 120 million Americans weren’t sitting around saying “Damn, I wish someone would build me a freaking gigantic 5000 pound station wagon on stilts so I compensate for my little wee wee.” No, they did just fine with full-size sedans, wagons and this new-fangled mini-van thingy. The SUV was created to get around a CAFE loophole, then it was marketed in such a way that Americans made it the most popular new vehicle style despite the fact that almost nobody needed one. The want was entirely manufactured through marketing.
The same thing can be done again.
I (Heart) Bob.
Now, now MaxBob, you underestimate the ecological ardor of the American motorist. The technology already exists, and has for many years. Just replicate the 1948 Citroen 2CV, and customers will flood GM showrooms. Chrysler’s Sebring emulated the 2CV’s “ripple” hood, and look how that modest step made sales skyrocket.
Dear Mr. Lutz,
I hereby offer my services as a consultant to help you raise your fleet fuel economy by 20% with minimal engineering and tooling costs.
Here’s my brilliant 3-step plan:
1) De-bore and de-stroke all engines for 10% lower displacement
2) Make all final drive ratios 10% ‘taller’
3) Reprogram ECUs/TCUs to account for displacement/gearing changes.
Yes, it’s true that Chevy Malibus will do 0-60 in about 8 seconds instead of 6.5, but with the money your customers save on gasoline they might actually be able to make their car payments.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/easy-credit-car-loans-the-perfect-storm-gathers/
See enclosed invoice of $10 million for consulting fee.
Sincerely,
Captain Obvious
The answer to Bob’s challenge lies within the statement itself: “with a vehicle selection that even remotely resembles the cars and trucks Americans want to buy today.”
What GM struggles to get is that Americans don’t particularly want to buy what’s on sale at the local GM dealership (any of the 8 varieties). Some examples:
I have no doubt that plenty of tradesmen would love a diesel pickup that had sufficient grunt but got 25 mpg. As it is, there is little to differentiate a Silverado from F150/Tundra/Ram, let alone GMC, so a small V8 diesel would be great.
Speaking of differentiation, while the Aura seems fine, it really does not stand out against Accord/Altima/Fusion, let alone Malibu. Why not make the light hybrid standard. You’ll make up the extra cost with increased sales and by finally giving Saturn some brand differentiation. Rethink American, Bob!
Equally, I know a lot of American who would love a 40 mpg B-class car that was quality built in North America. Where are those, Bob?
That new dual-mode hybrid Tahoe sounds great, but who has $50K for what is essentially a macho looking $30K minivan? Start pricing these puppies at marginal cost (i.e. excluding the sunk engineering costs) and build a real market for the dual-modes, Bob!
Given the enthusiasm for the Volt concept, I would bet it could be one of the top 10 sellers in America, if GM could deliver a decent vehicle for under $25K. Maybe Bob could assign a few more engineers to the Volt project in place of all the PR flacks currently working on it.
It’s fine that Bob is angry. It would be best if Lutz could convert his anger into more action.
So, Bob, you’re telling me that not only is there no reason for me to shop GM today but there will be no reason for me to shop GM in 2020, either?
This “can’t do” attitude from GM’s top “car czar” is very depressing.
Haha, I didnt know the US was embroiled in an “auto recession.”
Rather than lashing out like a 5 year old after a disappointing Christmas, maybe Lutz should rise to the challenge and put something other than sound bites into action. Or is he just prepping the public for failure in advance so no one will be surprised?
Ahh, Bob Lutz. His public statements have the unique candor and confidence of a man who confidently expects his golden parachute and retirement package to land him in Barbados long before actual consequences materialize. (Remember, kids, benefits for workers promote terrorism, but executive pension packages are a sacrament!)
While I can smile at Mr. Lutz’s statement and even empathize with it to some extent, that’s because I don’t think the government should be in the business of forcing me to be “environmentally responsible.” I like horsepower and torque in my everyday driver, even though as a classic car owner, I know that this country used to get along just fine with truck engines producing barely over 100 hp and less than 200 lb-ft of torque, even in real work trucks not just the everyday 1/2 ton pickups. With modern engines and transmissions, a truck getting 35 or even 40 mpg would be doable, but would it sell? Would people be willing to accept 0-60 times of “when it gets there” and top speeds of 75 mph (that’s with modern transmissions, the work trucks of the 50’s topped out at 45 mph and the 1/2 tons topped out at 60 mph). If I were in the market for a work truck, as long as it could haul and tow what I needed it to, acceleration and top speed would be very far below fuel economy for me. But then, that’s thinking as a business person where gasoline is an expense and excess horsepower and torque serve no purpose.
Such a bunch of technological pessimists! Max Bob wants to replace good ol’ American know-how with good ol’ big corporate don’t-know-how.
Car and Driver had a wonderful column (probably Csaba Csere) in the late ’90s or early ’00s where he wrote about how horsepower was going up and up and up, and how great that was. Towards the end, he alluded to the fact that power and gas mileage were two sides of the same coin, and said “don’t tell Kerry and McCain” who were sponsoring new CAFE legislation at that time.
Dear Mr. Lutz,
I hereby offer my services as a consultant to help you raise your fleet fuel economy by 20% with minimal engineering and tooling costs.
Here’s my brilliant 3-step plan:
1) De-bore and de-stroke all engines for 10% lower displacement
2) Make all final drive ratios 10% ‘taller’
3) Reprogram ECUs/TCUs to account for displacement/gearing changes.
Yes, it’s true that Chevy Malibus will do 0-60 in about 8 seconds instead of 6.5, but with the money your customers save on gasoline they might actually be able to make their car payments.
https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/news-blog/easy-credit-car-loans-the-perfect-storm-gathers/
See enclosed invoice of $10 million for consulting fee.
Sincerely,
Captain Obvious
I’m no engineer, so maybe that’s why I fail to see how a smaller engine that that’s working harder to move the same amount of mass will use less fuel than a larger engine that doesn’t have to work so hard.
Oh Bob, so Mercurial. What Bob will show up tomorrow? Philosophical Bob? Bluster Bob? Blunder Bob? 2010 Impala FWD Bob? 2010 Impala RWD Bob? Chrysler Bob? GM Bob? Angry Bob (No, never the same Bob two days in a row…)
quasimondo wrote
I’m no engineer, so maybe that’s why I fail to see how a smaller engine that that’s working harder to move the same amount of mass will use less fuel than a larger engine that doesn’t have to work so hard.
All things being equal, it doesn’t matter if you are generating 200 hp from 2 liters, 3 liters or 5 liters. The amount of fuel burned will be about the same.
Where smaller engines give substantial fuel economy advantages is away from the power peak.
At idle, for example, there’s a certain minimum amount of fuel that must be injected just to have the engine run. That fuel is determined by the amount of air an engine is pumping and that relates directly to displacement. An 8 liter Viper is going to burn much more fuel at idle than a 1.8 liter Civic.
Under some part-throttle regimes, the smaller engine will again gain a fuel economy advantage because it is generating the same power at a larger throttle opening, thereby spending less energy overcoming pumping losses.
I suggested the 10% displacement drop/10% taller gearing because our cars could accelerate 20% more slowly and we’d merely be back to early-1990s performance levels. I think we can live with that.
I suggested the 10% displacement drop/10% taller gearing because our cars could accelerate 20% more slowly and we’d merely be back to early-1990s performance levels. I think we can live with that.
Well sure we can. After all, millions of Americans lived with farm life for generations before they saw Paris. Theoretically it can be done.
I know I’m psyched.
I suggested the 10% displacement drop/10% taller gearing because our cars could accelerate 20% more slowly and we’d merely be back to early-1990s performance levels. I think we can live with that.
I have my doubts. Since most folks are used to post 1990 performance, they’ll flog these smaller overworked engines harder than they did when they were the norm in pre-1990 America, throwing whatever fuel economy gains were achieved out the window.
See, Maximum Bob does add value. Personally, I like it when people speak freely and keep their jobs. It gives me hope.
Quasimodo, the savings at idle will certainly take care of it. Much of my daily commute is spend idling.
Of course, another advantage of the smaller engine is that it’s smaller; less mass to move around. However, from recent comments, it seems like GM has lost the art of making smaller engines smaller, so perhaps I hope for too much.
It would be an interesting study to try to determine how much performance is “enough”.
One of my first cars was a 1989 Honda CRX Si. I never felt like it was underpowered, yet it’s actual 0-60 time was 8.5 – 9 seconds.
I’ve owned/driven quicker cars since then, but few that truly wowed me.
So I wonder, is 0-60 in 5 seconds subjectively all that more impressive than 0-60 in 6 seconds in real-world driving conditions?
If anyone wants to fund the research, I volunteer to be a test subject (he he)…
I’ve been perfectly happy with cars that probably 0-60 in about 14-15 seconds (Volvo 240 wagons). I have owned one vehicle that I thought was actually underpowered, with 109 horsepower pushing 2 full tons, but even that only bothered me at altitude, uphill, in the mountains.
But performance and fuel economy are also affected by vehicle weight, which is not a strong suit for Maximum Bob’s efforts. The Corolla seems to have an interior about equal in space and comfort to the Cobalt but the Corolla is lighter by 400lbs or so. It can easily get by with its smaller engine (which is part of the reason it’s lighter…) and, naturally, it’s going to get better fuel economy.
>>>So I wonder, is 0-60 in 5 seconds subjectively all that more impressive than 0-60 in 6 seconds in real-world driving conditions?
The investment adviser Ric Edelman told a class that I took that the difference in happiness betw having $5 million and $10 million is very small, that beyond a certain point, having more money matters little. The same is true of acceleration, or just about anything else.
But I’m still amazed at how technologically pessimistic some TTAC readers are. (I suspect Lutz knows there is plenty that can be done to get better mileage without sacrificing performance–I think he’s spinning). Check these URLs for a few ideas:
http://tinyurl.com/yntdut
http://tinyurl.com/tkrby
I also must say a lot could be done, as some other posters have noted above, by trimming weight. I recently considered a low mileage 2002 BMW 325 a friend and neighbor was selling for a decent price. I drove the car. Had it felt lighter than my Accord, I might have sprung for it, but it didn’t. On the other hand, I recently drove a friend’s new ’95 Saturn SL, a car that I used to have, which weighs about 800 lbs less than the Accord or the BMW I tried. THAT made a big difference in the feel of the handling.
I hate the way cars are porking out.
Of course, another advantage of the smaller engine is that it’s smaller; less mass to move around. However, from recent comments, it seems like GM has lost the art of making smaller engines smaller, so perhaps I hope for too much.
Smaller in displacement doesn’t necessarily mean smaller in dimensions. Displacement is merely a function of cylinder bore x stroke. Altering the size of the crankshaft or the diameter of the pistons can change the displacement without using a different engine block.
Even if there is a difference in block sizes, whatever weight savings you might gain are easily overshadowed by the use of aluminum blocks which are significantly lighter than cast iron blocks. It should be noted that GM already uses aluminum blocks for their LS, Ecotec, and their latest family of V6 engines produced for the CTS, Malibu/Aura, and Lambda-series SUV’s.
Here’s something else to consider: The 2008 Ford Taurus uses a 3.5-litre V6 rated at 265 hp. The 2005 Ford Five Hundred used a 3.0-litre V6 rated at 208 hp. Although the new engine chopped acceleration down by nearly two seconds, it only lost 1 mpg in combined EPA ratings. If that doesn’t tickle your fancy, consider this: The 1986 Taurus, with it’s 140 hp V6 shared similar fuel economy ratings, even though it is lighter by 700 lbs.
To be honest, I think it’s really a testament to automotive engineering that the more powerful engine moving a heavier vehicle doesn’t return lower fuel economy numbers, especially when the weight gain is attributed to increased crash protection and other safety reinforcements.
Working this kind of engineering feat clearly isn’t a job for Captain Obvious.
P.S. I got bored, so I looked at all of the fuel economy ratings for the Honda Accord starting with the 1986 model and I noticed something interesting. As the 4-cylinder engines grew from 2.0-litres to its current 2.4-litres, fuel economy actually went up, a direct contrast to the hypothesis that smaller engines yield better fuel efficiency numbers.
I would hope that, pound for pound, cubic inch for cubic inch and gallon for gallon, a contemporary engine would outperform one that was a decade old. Do you suppose that 1986 Honda had variable valve timing?
It’s still the case that there’s a tradeoff between power and fuel economy. If Ford used the technology in today’s 3.5 in a smaller engine, the car would be less capable but would get better fuel economy. However, Ford supplies 265 hp to meet some imagined consumer need, rather than 200hp and better fuel economy. Most Camrys and Accords roll out with ~160hp engines and their customers are perfectly happy, so it’s hard to imagine what this “need” might be.
And I understand that displacement is a function of bore and stroke. However, it appears that GM is building fewer blocks and modifying them to the displacement required, rather than building an optimized block for each displacement required.
Which engine will be lighter? A 2.5L engine carved out of a 3.5L block? Or a purpose-built 2.5L engine that’s only as massive as needs be? Even if the engine is aluminum, less aluminum is lighter than more aluminum.
I would hope that, pound for pound, cubic inch for cubic inch and gallon for gallon, a contemporary engine would outperform one that was a decade old. Do you suppose that 1986 Honda had variable valve timing?
VTEC wasn’t introduced in the accord until 1994, I even went and pulled up the figures for non-VTEC engines to to make the comparisons between the entire lineup more compatible.
It’s still the case that there’s a tradeoff between power and fuel economy. If Ford used the technology in today’s 3.5 in a smaller engine, the car would be less capable but would get better fuel economy. However, Ford supplies 265 hp to meet some imagined consumer need, rather than 200hp and better fuel economy. Most Camrys and Accords roll out with ~160hp engines and their customers are perfectly happy, so it’s hard to imagine what this “need” might be.
The technology used in the 3.5 engine is the same technology used in the 3.0 engine. Both engines are from the same Duratec family of engines.
It’s not about what the customer ‘needs’ but what they desire. Sure the 3.0 was adequate, but it was a dog compared to the more powerful V6 Camry and Accord. If it’s that sluggish, then people are going to look elsewhere for their vehicle. This isn’t to say a weak engine is the only reason the Five Hundred didn’t sell, but it can’t be discounted either.
And I understand that displacement is a function of bore and stroke. However, it appears that GM is building fewer blocks and modifying them to the displacement required, rather than building an optimized block for each displacement required.
It’s much more cost effective to use one block casting across a range of displacement sizes rather than design a different block if you want a smaller or larger engine. Every manufacturer does this.
Which engine will be lighter? A 2.5L engine carved out of a 3.5L block? Or a purpose-built 2.5L engine that’s only as massive as needs be? Even if the engine is aluminum, less aluminum is lighter than more aluminum.
It’s a rather moot question when you consider that all it takes to alter the displacement of any aluminum engine is a change of cylinder linings and crankshaft. The use of aluminum in engine manufacturing provides a significant amount of weight savings that it would make more sense for a manufacturer to seek other significant weight savings elsewhere in their vehicles rather than spend millions of dollars to save a few more pounds.
Quasimodo,
Consider the Lexus IS-250 and IS-350. The IS-250 (2.5L engine) enjoys a significant fuel economy advantage over the IS-350 (3.5L). And, per Edmunds, the IS-250 weighs about 80 lbs less. The features lists are identical, so if that 80 lb difference isn’t due to the engine and/or transmmission, it’s a mystery to me what is responsible for the difference.
And 80 lbs won’t make for a 4mpg difference at cruise. If that’s not displacement-related, it’s also going to be hard to explain.
When 0-60 figures are quoted (in the context of “Why do people need to go so fast?!”), they are always the figures for the top-of-the-line V-6 version of the Accord and Altima.
With the Accord, at least, the four-cylinder models routinely outsell the V-6 versions. If I recall correctly, over 65 percent of all Accords sold are four-cylinder models. And those figures were tabulated BEFORE the current run-up in gas prices. It was the same for the Camry (don’t know about the Altima).
One of the reasons given for the lackluster sales of domestic cars in this class is that a four-cylinder is not available, or, if it is available, it functions as a price-leading, rolling penalty box.
So it’s not as though the majority of customers are putting rapid, off-the-line acceleration first at the expense of everything else.
Honda, Toyota and Nissan have the right approach – offer an excellent four-cylinder version for the majority of buyers, but offer V-6 versions for people who want more “oomph.” If some people vote with their wallets in favor of more power versus better fuel economy, that is their business. It appears as though the majority of customers have a different balance of priorities.
And, for the record, I have a 2003 Accord EX four-cylinder, and, on limited access highways, I rarely loaf along at today’s ridiculously underposted speed limits. So the smaller engine doesn’t always mean “slower.” If Honda can figure out a way to give me a few more miles per gallon while maintaining current performance levels – fine. But I’m not giving up performance for it.
Less displacement WILL GIVE YOU BETTER MILEAGE all other things being equal. A good example of this is GM’s technology to shut down cylinders when not needed. The reality of this technology is that people are carrying around extra cylinders for acceleration they want. That costs fuel. Period. No discussion. Sorry. I am neither an engineer or a scientist and even I know this. Give up on all the gobbledygook, it’s a FACT. Smaler engines are more efficient.
HP correlates to acceleration. Carrying around all the weight that comes with that acceleration (heavier engine, transmission, suspension, etc.) isn’t doing you any good either. If you want it, buy it, but let’s be real, it does cost fuel.
The smartest thing car builders could start doing is creating efficient engines that run smoothly at high revs, and have good “zoom”. Zoom has been defined as the acceleration of acceleration (v cubed). The original Miata’s have it. Even though they were not great performers in acceleration, they felt fast because they accelerated faster and faster while the engine was smooth and sounded good all the way to the revline. I think they did this with about 130 hp or so.
The other thing to do is what Honda does. They sell a lot of 4 cylinders with decent performance, but they sell a powerful version of the same car. This avoids the car having a “slow” image. Did GM create a slow image for some of their cars so they could make more money selling the higher performance cars? If so, I don’t think it worked well over the long run. Then again, maybe the cars were just slow?
Consider the Lexus IS-250 and IS-350. The IS-250 (2.5L engine) enjoys a significant fuel economy advantage over the IS-350 (3.5L). And, per Edmunds, the IS-250 weighs about 80 lbs less. The features lists are identical, so if that 80 lb difference isn’t due to the engine and/or transmmission, it’s a mystery to me what is responsible for the difference.
And 80 lbs won’t make for a 4mpg difference at cruise. If that’s not displacement-related, it’s also going to be hard to explain.
It could be a number of things that are more than feature-list deep, like structural reinforcements to support the increased power of the larger engine, or a more aggressive tune that sacrifices fuel economy in the name of performance, it’s misleading to believe that the 80 extra pounds is going to come solely from the engine (if you can even save that much by dropping a litre of displacement). If that were true, the front/rear weight distribution between the two would be off.
If displacement were the be-all end-all, I’d expect a more significant difference in mileage with vehicles like Mercedes C300 and C350 or the BMW 328i and 335i.
The smartest thing car builders could start doing is creating efficient engines that run smoothly at high revs, and have good “zoom”. Zoom has been defined as the acceleration of acceleration (v cubed). The original Miata’s have it. Even though they were not great performers in acceleration, they felt fast because they accelerated faster and faster while the engine was smooth and sounded good all the way to the revline. I think they did this with about 130 hp or so.
Zoominess works when you have a tossable car, like the Miata, or CRX, or Sentra SE-R. With a larger car, I’ll venture to say it’ll be like running the iditarod dogsled race with a pack of chihuahuas.
p.s. Don’t forget the ‘n’ in QuasiMondo
Quasi,
So you now agree that smaller IS more efficient?
And, yes, zoomy will not work for land yachts. Detroit knows how to make those so I would not suggest they learn to do so. (I think they are presently squeezing every ounce out of that particular pile of grapes). I was making a suggestion on how to build a more efficient car that is fun to drive so it will sell. Honda and Mazda can make cars like this, and I suspect they will start gaining market share.
Quasimondo,
With respect to the 80 lbs difference, “It could be a number of things that are more than feature-list deep…”
Like lighter structural members? They’re going to do that and not make the engine lighter, too? And 80 lbs altering the balance in a luxury car isn’t going to be seen as a big deal (it’s not like that becomes an 8% difference in f/r weight distribution; you’d get a bigger shift adding a rear seat passenger).
Be that as it may, the most significant difference between the two cars is the 1.0L displacement difference and, as near as I can tell, it’s the only one. And the truly smaller engine gets fuel economy that can’t be explained by the weight savings; it’s the improved efficiency do to the smaller engine. By the way, I believe that car 0-60s in under 8 seconds with the smaller engine, which would be good enough (and then some) for me.
As for your counter-suggestion of the BMW 328/335, one of those is turbo’ed and the other is not. That’s hardly the same kind of comparison (and the “larger” model, surprise, gets worse fuel economy).
Face it, the earlier advice to win on fuel economy by dialling back on the horsepower wars is good advice that Detroit could implement quickly.
I finally tracked it down. The service weight for the IS350’s engine is 180kg, the service weight for the IS250’s engine is 177kg.
http://pressroom.com.au/press_kit_detail.asp?clientID=3&navSectionID=13&categoryID=1000&kitID=116#1781
http://pressroom.com.au/press_kit_detail.asp?clientID=3&navSectionID=13&categoryID=1000&kitID=76#1349
Wherever the weight differences are, it’s not found in the engines.
I’ll admit, I did mess up by including the BMW’s.