Locate an Auto Repair Shop in Leiter, Wyoming

Leiter, WY Car Consumer Discussions

Dewey - Porsche hybrid follow-up

by tagman on Mon Jul 23 08:53:48 PDT 2007

Dewey - As a follow-up to our Porsche hybrid discussion... here's some more specific info... FWIW: To reduce its carbon footprint and improve the fuel-economy of its some of its vehicles, Porsche is developing new hybrid technology with sister brand Volkswagen that’ll be available as an option on its next-gen Cayenne SUV and Panamera four-door coupe. The new Cayenne is scheduled for release in 2010 and should achieve a fuel consumption figure of just 26.8mpg (8.9L/100km). By contrast, the current version gets by with a fuel economy figure of only 18.2mpg (12.9L/100km). The information was revealed by Porsche’s director of hybrid development Michael Leiters in an interview with Automobilwoche. The next Cayenne is expected to be smaller than the current model, featuring shorter overhangs and will lose any pretensions of being a genuine off-road vehicle. Development work for the new Cayenne is being fast-tracked by execs at Porsche, including CEO Wendelin Wiedeking who’s worried about worsening demand for thirsty SUVs and rising oil prices. Being a Porsche, I can't help but wonder about its HP. Well, look at this... here's more info on the situation... As Porsche gets ready to launch a gasoline-electric hybrid system in the 2009 Cayenne SUV and the upcoming Porsche Panamera, Volkswagen will go ahead and introduce a gasoline-electric hybrid Touareg in 2008. According to German Magazine AutoBild, Porsche is said to be working on a hybrid system that features a 50 horsepower electric engine in conjunction with a 3.6 liter V8 engine that produces 280 horsepower. The 2008 Volkwagen Touareg will be the first to get this engine followed by the 2009 Porsche Cayenne. The engine is being built in partnership with Bosch and is expected to have a fuel-economy of 30mpg. Wonder why the VW version gets 30mpg (probably just rounded it off)? Doesn't sound all that powerful... probably slow, considering those vehicles are quite heavy. TagMan

SL oils to stay a while longer

by malachy72 on Wed Jun 19 18:10:48 PDT 2002

Auto Makers Will Postpone GF-4 American and Japanese automakers have decided to delay adoption of GF-4, the next passenger car motor oil upgrade, according to the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association. The association told members Monday that the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee decided last week that it cannot develop the standard fast enough to have GF-4 oils commercially available by the fall of 2003. The standard, prescribed to protect emissions control systems required on model year 2004 cars, figured to be the biggest engine oil upgrade since the auto and oil industries wrote the Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System in 1993. It was widely recognized, however, that the 30-month timeline for developing GF-4 was very aggressive, with some observers expressing skepticism that ILSAC could meet it. Lesser upgrades have taken up to seven years to complete. A spokeswoman for ILSAC’s administrative umbrella, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, refused to confirm or deny the report, which was e-mailed to members of the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association. ILSAC member representatives could not be reached for comment yesterday. Jeff Leiter, legal counsel for the lubricant manufacturers association, said the delay was agreed to after a General Motors representative told an ILSAC meeting early last week that the committee’s timeline for GF-4 was not practical. “He went into the meeting and told people that they needed a reality check,” Leiter said. “He said it was just not going to be possible to do GF-4 for the 2004 model year.” ILSAC members then held a conference call at the end of the week during which they agreed to delay the specification, he said. ILMA officials said they did not know the specific reason for the delay and that ILSAC members plan to meet July 9 to set a new schedule and to draft a statement explaining their decision. More than one significant obstacle for GF-4 has been identified . Perhaps the biggest challenge is the question of whether formulators can develop a motor oil that protects new emissions control devices (and meets other stated goals of improving gas mileage, offering better cold-temperature performance and lasting longer under high temperatures and high loads) while protecting engines in existing cars . Automakers have insisted that GF-4 be backward compatible. Oil and additive companies have said that may not be possible or practical . Another challenge – development of a new test to measure oil oxidation and engine wear – was discussed at last week’s ILSAC meeting, according to Leiter. ILSAC had said it wanted to begin matrix testing of the GM-sponsored IIIG engine sequence test in August, but members are still working to identify funds and will not be able to start testing until fall or winter. Leiter said it is difficult to say if a delay in implementation of GF-4 will benefit the lubricant industry. On the one hand, manufacturers might be relieved to have more time to prepare for such a large change. On the other, automakers have previously warned that they might abandon EOLCS and develop their own motor oil specifications if they believed the cooperative system could not meet their schedule. By Tim Sullivan

Current Sl Oils will stay a while longer

by malachy72 on Wed Jun 19 18:08:30 PDT 2002

Auto Makers Will Postpone GF-4 American and Japanese automakers have decided to delay adoption of GF-4, the next passenger car motor oil upgrade, according to the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association. The association told members Monday that the International Lubricant Standardization and Approval Committee decided last week that it cannot develop the standard fast enough to have GF-4 oils commercially available by the fall of 2003. The standard, prescribed to protect emissions control systems required on model year 2004 cars, figured to be the biggest engine oil upgrade since the auto and oil industries wrote the Engine Oil Licensing and Certification System in 1993. It was widely recognized, however, that the 30-month timeline for developing GF-4 was very aggressive, with some observers expressing skepticism that ILSAC could meet it. Lesser upgrades have taken up to seven years to complete. A spokeswoman for ILSAC’s administrative umbrella, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, refused to confirm or deny the report, which was e-mailed to members of the Independent Lubricant Manufacturers Association. ILSAC member representatives could not be reached for comment yesterday. Jeff Leiter, legal counsel for the lubricant manufacturers association, said the delay was agreed to after a General Motors representative told an ILSAC meeting early last week that the committee’s timeline for GF-4 was not practical. “He went into the meeting and told people that they needed a reality check,” Leiter said. “He said it was just not going to be possible to do GF-4 for the 2004 model year.” ILSAC members then held a conference call at the end of the week during which they agreed to delay the specification, he said. ILMA officials said they did not know the specific reason for the delay and that ILSAC members plan to meet July 9 to set a new schedule and to draft a statement explaining their decision. More than one significant obstacle for GF-4 has been identified . Perhaps the biggest challenge is the question of whether formulators can develop a motor oil that protects new emissions control devices (and meets other stated goals of improving gas mileage, offering better cold-temperature performance and lasting longer under high temperatures and high loads) while protecting engines in existing cars . Automakers have insisted that GF-4 be backward compatible. Oil and additive companies have said that may not be possible or practical . Another challenge – development of a new test to measure oil oxidation and engine wear – was discussed at last week’s ILSAC meeting, according to Leiter. ILSAC had said it wanted to begin matrix testing of the GM-sponsored IIIG engine sequence test in August, but members are still working to identify funds and will not be able to start testing until fall or winter. Leiter said it is difficult to say if a delay in implementation of GF-4 will benefit the lubricant industry. On the one hand, manufacturers might be relieved to have more time to prepare for such a large change. On the other, automakers have previously warned that they might abandon EOLCS and develop their own motor oil specifications if they believed the cooperative system could not meet their schedule. By Tim Sullivan

Sobers...

by 2001civicowner on Wed Feb 20 22:50:40 PST 2002

Give me some kind of proof and not hearsay that the government would pay to subsidize our gas. I don't believe you...I've never heard anything like this before. You may be basing it on the fact that in Europe you pay alot more. Well, there are alot of reasons for this, none being that the US pays for half your gas. European cities are much smaller than US cities. The governments charge gargantuan taxes to cut back on cars on the road. What may be confusing, is that they measure gas in leiters, not gallons. It may sound like they pay alot more than they do. You may be hearing about the price of a barrel of oil. This price is definately 4 dollars or more, and is how you by oil from major dist...They measure in barrels, not gallons. Find me some proof that the government pays for my gas and then taxes me again for it. I'm quite interested. -Ryan-