AD #2066 – Trump Admin to Review CAFE Standards, Dodge Demon’s Crate of Goodies, Nissan Shakes Up Design Team

March 15th, 2017 at 11:39am

Runtime: 8:13

To watch this episode on YouTube click here.

- Trump Administration to Review CAFE Standards
- Ford Electrifies Work Trucks
- Dodge Demon’s Crate of Goodies
- Magna & Ford Develop Carbon Fiber Subframe
- Nissan Shakes Up Design Team
- Mazda MX-5 Miata: Hardtop vs. Soft Top

Visit our sponsors to thank them for their support of Autoline Daily: Bridgestone , Dow Automotive Systems and Lear Corporation.

»Subscribe to Podcast | iTunes | RSS | Listen on Phone Stitcher | YouTube

Thanks to our partner for embedding Autoline Daily on its website:

15 Comments to “AD #2066 – Trump Admin to Review CAFE Standards, Dodge Demon’s Crate of Goodies, Nissan Shakes Up Design Team”

  1. Buzzerd Says:

    I wonder what the price difference is between a C.F. subframe compared to steel or aluminum.

  2. Lisk Says:

    In 1968 when the Hemi Darts came out, they had but one purpose; to win at the dragstrip. Fast forward 40 years and now we have the Demon, kind of a modern day Hemi Dart. The big difference is the Demon can be a daily driver, it can sit in traffic, and make pass after pass at the dragstrip without failing. Plus it will be a good second and a half faster (or more if this actually dips into the 10s) in the quarter then those Hemi Darts. I doubt you will see many Demons competing at the dragstrip, but all in all it’s pretty awesome. Kudos to the Dodge boys building such a piece.

  3. Lex Says:


    Wouldn’t been easier and cheaper just to put a “T” top roof on the Miata and have the glass panels be placed in a pocket behind the driver’s and passengers’s seats? How heavy could those two small glass panels have been? Another over engineered toy car IMHO.

  4. Kit Gerhart Says:

    It seems that Mazda is spending a lot of money on different iterations of the Miata, considering the low volume of the car. As Lex says, a T-top would be much simpler and cheaper to do than the retractible, but why not a fixed roof “Cayman” version, as a quieter, more theft-proof version?

  5. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Carbon fiber is strong, strong, strong, but also brittle; hopefully there will be some sort of integrity checks (after a collision). A metal subframe may also be damaged but probably wouldn’t catastrophically fail had it been compromised sometime earlier. (I’m just thinking of the shards/pieces that can come off the F1 cars after making unintended contact of a superior force).

    The new MX5 (fastback) is quite the styling vehicle. It has evolved into a nice looking piece.

  6. Chuck Grenci Says:

    The Demon project is a brilliant marketing tool. The car is very good and the projection creates a synergy that goes beyond the actual product; meaning it is not ‘that’ good. What I’m trying to say is, is that there are some ‘smokes and mirrors’ involved in this Challenger iteration. They, FCA are trying to create a future collectible of awe and reverence but I feel they should have earned it before professing it, which I believe they are trying to do.

  7. Dan Hudgins Says:

    Chuck – Those carbon fiber shards are from very thin pieces of the body work or wings. The carbon fiber tubs that have been in use for decades won’t shatter.

  8. Roger T Says:

    The MX-5 hard top looks really cool!

  9. Albemarle Says:

    Repairability of carbon fibre structures is better than steel. Permanently bending steel reduces it’s strength so the pulled back into shape car is not as strong as it was originally. However, carbon fibre structures can be rebuilt to be equivalent to new.

    When you see the refurbished carbon fibre Volvo 70 race boats, even ones that have been torn in half on reefs, they are every bit as good as brand new.

  10. Drew Says:

    @3 – Lex – The cockpit of the MX5 is very cozy. I am barely 70″ tall and use most of the seat travel, so T-top panels really wouldn’t fit vertically behind the seat. Some form of Corvette-like horizontal storage would be required.

  11. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Speaking of roof panels, I’ve never had the one out on my Corvette, and I’ve had the car more than a year. I would have gotten a solid roof, had it been an option.

  12. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Dan #7 and Albe #9: comments noted, but may I add to my earlier comments; some of the F1 hardware are not just shards, i.e., some load bearing suspension pieces that have sustained damage (after moderate to severe hits) and laps later catastrophically failed. And repair-ability, I don’t have a problem with, but my contention was having some way of knowing that integrity had been or not been compromised leading to a need for repair (or not). Not arguing, just thinking out loud (about some of my concerns and thoughts). Thanks for the dialogue fellas.

  13. Kit Gerhart Says:

    Repairability of damaged carbon fiber, or other composite to original strength is not likely. If the carefully laid fibers are broken, putting short fibers and resin along side them is not going to be as strong. For non-structural parts, like a Corvette roof, it doesn’t matter, but for sub frames and suspension parts, it does matter.

  14. Albemarle Says:

    12. Chuck – Ultrasound is a well documented and popular technique for finding internal flaws in carbon fibre structures. Common in high tech as well as America’s Cup and offshore racing. It will be transitioned to auto repair shops. With this sort of testing, which is not expensive, hidden structural problems can be found.

  15. Chuck Grenci Says:

    Thanks Ian; used to race model boats (fiberglass), repairs were as strong as original (if you did it correctly). Carbon fiber may be coming but probably on lower production vehicles (due to cost, at least initially).