« No Technical Obstacles to Bringing International Aviation and Shipping Under Post-Kyoto Protocol | Main | Solar Bio-Fuels Consortium Receives Grant to Boost Algal Production of Hydrogen »
Differences Between Automakers’ US MY 2007 New Fleet Fuel Economy Decreases with Increasing Weight of Vehicle
8 October 2007
 |
| Combined laboratory fuel economy values for all new light-duty vehicles by marketing group from 1975-2007. Click to enlarge. |
The 32 years since the implementation of CAFE regulations have seen a convergence in average new fleet fuel economy for light-duty vehicles from the different major marketing groups, according to data published by the EPA in its report Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2007.
Data is for the unconverted laboratory test cycle results—therefore the change in the adjustment methodology made for MY 2008 estimates does not affect the results.
Although GM, Ford and Chrysler improved their total fleet averages over the past 32 years, those averages still are the lowest of the major groups. However Honda, which had the highest average of any group in 1977 with an total average of 35.5 mpg in 1977, has seen that average drop down to a projected 28.7 mpg in 2007 as it diversified its product line. According to the EPA, Toyota will just slightly edge out Honda for the top total new fleet fuel economy average in 2007, with 29 mpg.
 |
| Comparing GM and Toyota average new vehicle fuel economy in the 2,750-3,000 pound and 6,000-6,500 pound weight bands. |
However, when viewed from the different weight-based categories, the differences between companies such as GM and Toyota are not as stark. GM and Toyota turned in relatively equivalent average new car fuel economy results for vehicles in, for example, the 2,750-3,000 pound weight band—until Toyota introduced the Prius and it began having its sales successes. (See chart at right.)
For heavier vehicles between 6,000-6,500 pounds, however, GM comes out on top in 2007 with an expected 20.1 mpg average—the best of any of the automakers.
 |
| Average new fleet fuel economy in mpg by weight category for each of the major automaking groups. Click to enlarge. |
The unadjusted laboratory results for model year 2007 for the major automakers by weight category show increasing convergence in average fuel economy with the increasing size of the vehicle. (See chart at right.)
Resources:
- Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2007. Appendix M: Fuel Economy by Marketing Group, Vehicle Type, and Weight Class
Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2007. Appendix O: MY2007 Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type, Weight and Marketing Group
October 8, 2007 in Fuel Efficiency | Permalink | Comments (46) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/22283006
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Differences Between Automakers’ US MY 2007 New Fleet Fuel Economy Decreases with Increasing Weight of Vehicle:
Comments
Considering the interior space of the Corolla, the weight of the car is very reasonable; 1150 kg (2535 lbs)
this, and the small 1.8 liter engine contribute to the good fuel economy of this car.
The Yaris sedan weights 1050 kg (2315 lbs) but the interior space is not as good as in the Corolla.
Posted by: Jorge | Oct 8, 2007 4:18:44 PM
Normalizing by weight tends to hide the main problem - why does it take a 6000 pound vehicle to move a 200lb person to work and the supermarket - when a 2300lb vehicle could do the job.
- or (in some cases) a 25lb bicycle, or a 0.5lb shoe - (which might yield a 160 lb person).
We discussed this earlier - should mpg be grouped by weight - or interior volume (or ground shadow) or not at all.
All to play for.
Posted by: mahonj | Oct 8, 2007 4:34:08 PM
Dring the last 30+ years of innovative, creative and breath taking engineering and updated CAFE, the world 20 some car manufacturers have managed to reduce how far we drive with one gallon of gas by an average of about 33%. They are not doing better lately.
At that rate, one can wonder where we will be at in another 30 years.
Finding reasons not to improve mpg will not be too difficult, i.e. bigger, faster units; larger brakes and engines; more on board energy consumming gadgets, etc.
Since CAFE and voluntary commitments have not worked, would a progressive $100+/tonne carbon tax applied over 10 years be a better approach?
Posted by: Harvey D | Oct 8, 2007 4:52:39 PM
My '05 Corolla has decent trunk space, interior space in the back for hauling friends, and in the two years I've owned it, has rarely gotten less than 32mpg. I don't really miss my RAV4, though I do sometimes wish I'd gotten a Mazda3i with a stick shift. Sporty, fun to drive, and fuel efficient at the same time.
What bothers me more than anything are the full-sized trucks and SUVs with a 12-18" lift and massive chrome wheels, tires that probably cost $300 each, and growling V8s that probably get worse mileage than a big rig semi.
Posted by: Cervus | Oct 8, 2007 4:52:53 PM
Gas prices go up and mileage goes down. It's amazing how marketing can triumph over economic reason and intellect.
Posted by: James White | Oct 8, 2007 10:37:57 PM
One solution for improving the fuel efficiency of large personal vehicles: Restrict maximum acceleration performance of all personal vehicles, in proportion to the weight of the vehicle. For example, a 2500-lb vehicle is allowed 0-60 mph time of not under 9 seconds, a 3000-lb vehicle is allowed 10.5 seconds...and a 6,000 lb vehicle is allowed 16-18 seconds...etc.
On the surface, it may appear cumbersome for the auto mfg's to have to remember all the numbers, but, in reality, if properly instigated, it allows the auto mfg's to build ONE ENGINE that will satisfy ALL MODELS, regardless of size or weight! For example, a 2,500 lb Corolla with its 4-cyl. 120-hp engine is pretty zippy, at 9 seconds, but put that 120-hp 1.8 liter engine into a Camry and performance would still be fast at 10.5 seconds, put the same 4-cyl 120-hp engine in an Avalon of 3500-4000 lbs and 0-60 at ~12 seconds would still be very adequate...and putting the same engine in a 5,000-lb SUV (Highlander) (eh...make it an UV, or Utility Vehicle, scratch out the Sport) will give time of about 15-16 seconds...not very exciting but hey, what do you want in an Utility Vehicle with a main purpose of hauling commercial stuffs and off-road capacity? Remember that at 120 hp, a 5,000-6,000 SUV's still is 3x overpowered in comparison to a 80,000-lb tractor-trailer rig having a 450 hp engine.
This will greatly reduce the sale potential of over-weight SUV's, restricting them to those with legitimate needs to have such a vehicle instead of for vanity reasons...and this will greatly improve the mpg's of such heavier personal vehicles! (without any expensive gimmicks such as hybrids, diesel, 2-mode hybrid, cylinder de-activation...etc.)
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 9, 2007 12:11:06 AM
Roger, what about towing capacity? How is a 120hp Highlander supposed to pull even a small boat? Or a travel trailer? Don't forget that semi-truck is using a very torquey diesel engine, not gasoline. And the engines themselves are huge. You don't see a 1.8L diesel in a semi. Freightliner lists displacements of 12.8-15.2L for its Cascadia line.
Look, as much as I hate those lifted pickups, I'm not willing to ban them for efficiency reasons. Safety reasons, maybe.
Acceleration is not the problem. It's the overall efficiency of the system under various duty cycles. Acceleration doesn't matter that much to a semi-truck because they spend the vast majority of their time at highway speeds.
Posted by: Cervus | Oct 9, 2007 12:42:27 AM
Hilarious.
Posted by: chillpill | Oct 9, 2007 1:23:02 AM
@ Cervus,
I agree with Roger, Though I would bump up the HP limit to say 160. What about towing capacity? Mostly it is about braking. If you need to pull a travel trailer over the mountains, you get a turbo, gas or diesel. (or a smaller travel trailer, or a tent).
The performance Roger speaks of is basically what we saw in the late 70's and early 80's. V8 Fords made no more than 140HP. In fact, a Ford Fiesta was as fun to drive as a V8 Mustang, if both were stock.
It is all about overconsumption, and for what? ego?
Posted by: John Schreiber | Oct 9, 2007 4:53:27 AM
To Roger regarding vehicle acceleration:
Maybe in Vietnam or Cuba they maight accept such poor acceleration. Do you even live in the United States? Would the gang bangers and their cherry bombed Civics would go along.
Complain to Ralph Nader about vehicle weight. We have now mandated airbags, 35mph crash etc etc. All good things admittedly that unfortunately translate into a lot of weight. We should also mandate that everyone remove all their radios and speakers (consumes electricity and adds weight), Certainly no airconditioning (I don't really care about people in Florida/Arizona (I live in Ohio - only 3 months of hot weather, No power steering and certainly no tilt or telescope, Everyone should go back to 13" tires with steel wheels and no hubcaps....
Let's just invite the Soviets to plan our economy! We can all drive Ladas (1974 Fiats for those familiar, kind of like a Yugo).
Also note in the article that Toyota is not the most efficient in large vehicle category, GM is the leader.
Posted by: tmo8844 | Oct 9, 2007 5:45:47 AM
See link on article for vehicle weight:
http://wardsautoworld.com/ar/auto_curbing_curb_weight/
Posted by: tmo8844 | Oct 9, 2007 6:15:38 AM
Roger's idea is sensible if the engine is a turbo - for the added torque. However, he doesn't take into account the brilliance of the auto marketers. They'd respond by making the ownership of a slow vehicle seem sexy. Then they'd respond by making the ownership of two slow vehicles seem as if you were slumming. "Don't be caught by your friends driving the same car every day. You wouldn't wear the same dress every day now would you dear?" With the entertainment media's utter obsession with wealth being ratcheted up each and every year (witness Disney), there's no limit with what they can do to distort the people's passion for acceptance to achieve their own goals - namely to separate us from our hard earned money. The bottom line for auto manufacturers has little to do with selling efficient vehicles. It has everything to do with sexual imagery; and imagery can and is manipulated by these companies and their media servants every day.
The solution lies in a universal, worldwide carbon tax. The solution would be helped enormously by a US president who daily advocates for efficiency, and by a US congress which holds the media's feet to the fire to encourage the association of efficiency with sexiness, and inefficiency with ugliness. If Fox won't play along, decertify them. That would quickly put the media where they belong, at the service of the people.
Posted by: JC | Oct 9, 2007 6:40:37 AM
When I was a millwright we used to have two jokes when things didn't go right: "Don't force it, get a bigger hammer," and "Always use the right tool. Make sure you have the right size crescent wrench when you pound on something."
Behavior and morphology are the two key problems in American automotive use and design. We use the wrong tool for the task, on average requiring 4,000 pounds of machine to move a 200 pound payload. In Europe, which has expensive fuel, fleet fuel economy is nearly twice as high as in America, but transportation utility and safety is not reduced. In America we tend to buy a vehicle for its ultimate use and then actually use it at a very low duty rate. For example, you get a pickup to pull a trailer six times a year and then commute with it daily. That's not a good use of mass.
American vehicles, whether built by American or other nations' companies are extremely inefficient from a weight and size utilization standpoint. The original Austin Mini had an 80% space utilization efficiency. Only 20% of the volume of the car was taken up by mechanicals. Nobody comes close to that today.
At any time, nearly 90% of the vehicles on the road are traveling with one occupant. We need small, safe, inexpensive "go-fer" commuter vehicles which coddle one passenger, maybe two, because most of the time that's all we need. The back seat might as well be a plank, for all the use it will ever get. The utility or mega-passenger vehicle we occasionally need could be leased as needed and not driven on a daily basis. This would simplify the problem of increasing fuel efficiency. We would not then have the near impossible task of getting 80 mpg out of a 4,000 pound vehicle.
Learn to use parsimony as a problem solving tool. The auto industry is addicted to complexity.
"Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem."
Posted by: fred schumacher | Oct 9, 2007 6:56:06 AM
The original early 1960's BMC Mini Cooper that weighed 1300+ lbs. was the best car ever design for passenger space / car size and performance with 45mpg economy. Plus you had equal or better handling than nearly any popular sports car at that time.
http://www.supercars.net/cars/2047.html
Posted by: gary | Oct 9, 2007 8:28:03 AM
fred schumacher;
Using the right tool for the job makes sense but does not seem to apply to personnal transportation vehicles in USA/Canada.
My car must be bigger, faster and have better accelleration (and even nosier) than yours are more important. That's what we've been brainwashed to believe for many decades. Undoing that is not easy. The vroom-vroom society is part of our acquired addictions and culture.
Using smaller, lighter, more efficient, quieter, more aerodynamic PHEVs and BEVs represents a major behavior change for many. Our young drivers will certainly find ways to add artificial noises reminiscent of the noisy ICE days.
I (and many others) can't wait for the day when noisy inefficient polluting ICE motor-bikes, cars, a light trucks are replaced with quiet extended electric range PHEVs and BEVs.
Posted by: Harvey D | Oct 9, 2007 8:38:55 AM
I’m absolutely horrified by the number of control freaks on this board, “Mandate”, “Force”, “Regulate”, sounds like the old Soviet Union or Communist China.
A carbon tax is the way to go, that way everyone pays for what the use and emit. CAFE was, and still is, one of the worst possible ways to reduce fuel consumption.
Why does it bother so many of you that other people choose to drive and pay to buy, insure and fill with fuel, large vehicles? It doesn’t bother me, even though I don’t own any large vehicles. What bothers me the most are regulations and limitations on my choices and freedoms?
Live Free or Die!
Posted by: Yukaburbahoe | Oct 9, 2007 10:19:00 AM
fred,
I would still have to have a vehicle with 3 or more seats even though I only utilize those seats 3.5 days a week...as would most people with children.
Get a second car? Hmm, that would be nice if the cost of the 4 seater and 1-2 seater put together equaled the cost of my current $15,000 4 seater (considering all new prices for every vehicle). Now I would also have to find a place to park my second car since every apartment in the city (other than the very wealthy places) offer only one parking spot. Perhaps I should move out of the city and add 10-15 miles to my 2 mile commute so I can purchase a home or find apartments with more than one parking spot so I can have one ultra-efficient 1-2 seater vehicle.
What you offer does not sound very practical to me and everyone living at my apartments with children.
Posted by: Patrick | Oct 9, 2007 10:25:01 AM
Thanks, Cervus and John for your supportive comments of my low-tech solution.
You have a good point regarding a heavier-duty cycle vehicle will need a more beefed-up engine for durability, for example, a 2.5-liter 4-cylinder 120-hp diesel engine instead of a 1.8 liter. The low torque is not a problem, as it can be remedied thru proper gearing, for example, a six-to-eight-speed transmission. Surprisingly, a 120-hp engine can pull a boat or a trailer up a 7-degree grade just fine, even though the owner must buy a "towing" package with larger radiator, oil cooling radiator, and a transmission fluid cooler.
tmo8844,
Thanks for your feedback as well. We are facing a looming crisis in a near future. As such, it calls for drastic measures, just as in WWII, there was rationing of every daily-essential items, from gasoline to tires to cigarettes to flour, etc. That was how the war was won. Now, we have an equivalence of war against global warming and against the disruption of peak oil.
A slower vehicle's acceleration will have negligible impact upon the total trip time or commuting time, but will have tremendous effect upon vehicular fuel economy. You can raise the engine's operating thermal efficiency from 20% to 30%, thereby achieving a 50% improvement in mpg while saving cost and weight at the same time by such a low-tech practice of engine-downsizing.
We need to put less engineering capacity onto making the huge petroleum-burning engines more efficient, by simply using smaller, simpler and cheaper engines, while devoting our engineer power on designing and building facilites for making synthetic fuels from solar and wind energy, and by making engines or FC that can run on synthetic fuels such as H2, methane, NH3, etc. This will take trillions of dollars of investment, and will create a lot of technological and manufacturing jobs, but will be a sustainable solution.
JC,
You are right about the marketer's tremendous power to influence purchasing decision. But, if people are still going to buy bigger vehicles, they will be more efficient with engine downsizing. The carbon tax is exactly what will be needed, but may be the word "tax" can be change to "environmental [restoration] fee" for users, or something more soothing, since politicians don't like to raise taxes!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 9, 2007 10:55:26 AM
Roger:
You'll find that making peak oil or global warming the "equivalence of war" will be a very hard sell to the public. As pressing as these matters are, I don't think they merit a war footing, which itself implies a whole bevy of social controls, especially the rationing you mention.
Posted by: Cervus | Oct 9, 2007 11:04:48 AM
Wow, just Wow,
I'm with Yuka, some of you folks scare me.
A carbon tax would not do what you want it to do. It would most likely do more damage to the Economy than serve any green proliferation.
Posted by: Joseph | Oct 9, 2007 12:14:57 PM
Let's just invite the Soviets to plan our economy!
God, there's some stupid people who comment here.
Posted by: jack | Oct 9, 2007 12:48:19 PM
From some of the blather here, you'd think someone was proposing gulags and chain gangs. 35 miles per gallon average, that's all that's been floated in DC. Very modest, very acheivable, very overdue.
Posted by: Jim G. | Oct 9, 2007 12:59:05 PM
jack and Jim G:
In the very next post, JC proposes:
If Fox won't play along, decertify them. That would quickly put the media where they belong, at the service of the people.
Government control of media, if they don't toe the line. A rather authoritarian viewpoint, don't you think?
Posted by: Cervus | Oct 9, 2007 1:04:44 PM
What are people going to tow their, snow machines/boats/4 wheelers/campers with? Last time I checked, banning vehicles capable of towing large loads is limiting freedom of choice. Or would you also ban fossil fuel consuming toys?
I actually don’t own or use any of the above toys and own relatively efficient vehicles. I just can’t tolerate being told what to do. I’ll do what I want, when I want, with whomever I want to do it with. The left seems to agree with freedom of choice in certain areas (interpersonal relations and consumption of various herbs and pharmaceuticals), but they seem to have a real problem when people exercise their freedoms while consuming resources other than herbs or bodily fluids. I’m a relatively pure libertarian, and am appalled by those on the left and right who would severely limit some freedoms, while encouraging self destructive excesses in other arenas.
Would you ban downhill skiing, my favorite winter sport because it wastes energy and contributes to climate change? Surely the electricity and water for lifts and snowmaking are a silly waste of resources just so folks like me can slide down the slopes. You can argue that owning a 300 HP boat and towing it with an Expedition is a self destructive extreme. But that’s the problem with all command and control solutions like CAFE, someone’s excessive extreme is someone else’s favorite recreational pursuit. Again, this is why taxing carbon, or whatever you are trying to reduce the use of, is the simplest and best solution.
Posted by: Yukaburbahoe | Oct 9, 2007 1:46:19 PM
Well, for the record, Cervus, I'm not in favor of that, and casually assuming that the large group of people supporting 35 mpg CAFE would like that is a ridiculous smear.
Notice how the auto industry PR regularly ducks behind the consumer. "The customer made us do it!" The consumer is effectively the human shield shoved in there to rhetorically protect Detroit from attack on the points where its policies are most silly and backward and indefensible.
It's from this first obfuscation that the second one comes: that having automakers take even the most paltry efforts to improve fuel economy somehow restricts consumers' freedom. CAFE standard increases are about air quality and fuel use.
There is no reason in physics that a large, strongly built car cannot also be a lot lighter than is made now. The minute these regs are adopted, the auto companies will do the same thing they did when seat belts and airbags came in, they'll adopt them, adapt to them, and they continue selling their cars and making money.
Posted by: Jim G. | Oct 9, 2007 1:52:17 PM
@JimG
"Well, for the record, Cervus, I'm not in favor of that, and casually assuming that the large group of people supporting 35 mpg CAFE would like that is a ridiculous smear."
It is, but JC and Roger are both proposing some very radical solutions. And that's very off-putting.
"There is no reason in physics that a large, strongly built car cannot also be a lot lighter than is made now."
We've had some significant advances in materials lately, and while the physics may allow it, the real issues are engineering (manufacturing) and economic. You could make a car body out of carbon fiber panels, and it'd be very light, but how much would it cost?
Posted by: Cervus | Oct 9, 2007 1:56:51 PM
Government control of media, if they don't toe the line. A rather authoritarian viewpoint, don't you think?
The airwaves are owned by the public, and corporations are state-certified entities. There's no such thing as an absolute right to do whatever one pleases with whatever property one pleases.
The irony, of course, is that Fox is pretty much the US version of old Soviet Pravda, and here you are worrying about "government control of the media." The former press secretary was a prominent TV figure from that company.
Perhaps you should choose a different example.
Posted by: jack | Oct 9, 2007 2:22:34 PM
@Jack:
I'm talking what he said and extending it to every media outlet, no matter what Administration is in office, and no matter what its own political bent. From ABC News to the Washington Times.
Do you really want the Federal government to start shutting down news networks, newspapers, blogs, talk radio programs, etc., which do not agree with its politics? Are you really willing to cross that line?
It's one thing for the President to advocate efficiency as a matter of policy. It's quite another for that President to start shutting down news channels who criticize him/her.
Posted by: Cervus | Oct 9, 2007 4:00:57 PM
@ Harvey D,
Carbon taxes which only remove money from both consumers and suppliers to give it to to undeserving non doers, is not a real solution. Your $100 per ton carbon tax is less than the annual fluctuation in gasoline prices in the USA, right now. Why would that be any more conducive to better vehicles when you have not provided the money to either the suppliers to be able to build more efficient vehicles; or more money to the consumers to purchase them?
You sound like the old physicians that just believed you could cure someone by "Bleeding them" a little, or a lot.
@Yakaburbahoe, Cervus and Joseph,
The number of would be central planners here, that would force, regulate and coerce the stupid proletariat masses into doing what the "enlightened ones" desire, is not surprising.
Totalitarians have always been with us; but usually they at least have some basis for attempting their seizure of power. A tiny non threatening increase in temperatures over a century that probably isn't even man made, and that is mostly beneficial, is not it. But then the Statist Socialists of the National variety thought Jewish and Gypsy pollution was an immanent threat were pretty stupid too. But no any more than then the Marxist-Leninist variety of Socialists though Kulaks were a threat that should be starved and exterminated.
The thing I find amazing is that these wunderkinden, haven't learned a damn thing. You would think after trying it in over 75 countries and 160 years, only to have it lead to utter failure everywhere and everytime, It only yields mostly misery every time would cause them to think they just might be on the wrong track. Psychotics and Socialists of whatever stripe, keep on trying the same thing expecting a different result.
"Alas, the capacity of human beings to swallow horsersh!t and regurgitate in murderous ways is truly appalling." R Heinlein
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Oct 9, 2007 4:21:31 PM
Cervus wrote: "You'll find that making peak oil or global warming the "equivalence of war" will be a very hard sell to the public. As pressing as these matters are, I don't think they merit a war footing, which itself implies a whole bevy of social controls, especially the rationing you mention."
I agree with your first sentence, Cervus.
Unfortunately, the "War" has already started, after 911, out of hate for America from American's inteference with the internal affairs of oil-producing countries to assure that the American Oil industry got in on the oil spigots.
Oh, no, the "war" really started out much earlier, when the US instigated a "coup" against the legally-elected democratic government of Iran who plan to nationalize their oil resources, hence cutting out Anglo-American companies, who put the Shah of Iran in power and ruled the country of Iran as a corrupt dictator. The Shah was later deposed by the holy clergy Ayatullah Khomeini, who kept American Ambassy personel hostages, forcing Jimmy Carter out of power, only to release the hostages to Reagan (who secretly negotiated the infamous "Iran-Contra affairs") after the election...Long story...fast fwding...Saddam then, was used as a counter balance to the anti-American Iranian...until Saddam developed a mind of his own and plan to nationalize the oil resources of his country... then, Saddam was no longer useful for the US/Anglo oil interests who have been in control the US government up to the present...First, Saddam planned to sell oil when there was an oil glut...the West said no-no, and came Operation Desert Storm designed to shut down oil flow from Iraq...except for the corrupt "oil-for-food program."...Then, when oil became scarce, guess what? We have got to go in after the "Weapon of Mass Destruction." Regime change...blah blah blah...So, Operation Iraqi Liberation (O.I.L) was planned...waiting for the right opportunity...then the FBI and CIA neglected the warnings from their field officers about an impending 911 plot...
Now, we have an indefinitely-long "War on Terror" that Bush and Co. have been milking every drops of it ever since 9-11-01. The Gov. now has the right to read your email and listen-in to your phone conversation...Human rights is in suspension...War against Iran is in the planning phase?
Declaring the "War" on Global Warming mean puting the end on the most unholy "Oil War(s)" that have been brewing since the early of this century.
Increasing, with the on-going proliferation of nuclear weapons, which will, as a matter of time, get into the hand of the American-hating terrorists, continuing to playing with the dirty "Oil War" is like playing Russian Roulette! (I can see Putin nodding his head!)
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 9, 2007 7:42:14 PM
"Alas, the capacity of human beings to swallow horsersh!t and regurgitate in murderous ways is truly appalling." R Heinlein
I agree, like believing that NO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Posted by: jack | Oct 9, 2007 8:01:38 PM
Isn't the underlying point of this article that no auto maker has a silver bullet that allows its vehicles to have better gas mileage (and thus reduce greenhouse gases)? Honda and Toyota have better CAFE numbers because they produce and sell more light vehicles, their hybrids notwithstanding.
This emphasizes the importance of Socolow's wedge model. Reduction of greenhouse gases from transportation will require action on a number of fronts. Improvements to ICEs and reduction of vehicle weights could be two wedges that contribute to the reduction. These need to be accompanied by development of alternative fuels for ICEs, as well as alternative propulsion mechanisms like electric motors.
A carbon tax can also help reduce greenhouse gas production by providing a disincentive to generate it. The tax need not adversely affect the economy. One approach is to accompany the tax phase in with reductions of income taxes, including those on corporations. The incentives for corporations to avoid US income taxes through accounting or moving activities off shore are reduced, while incentives to employ technologies that produce less carbon are increased. Of course, these carbon-reduction technologies must themselves be researched, productionized and sold, economic activity that will create new businesses and jobs.
Finally, I agree with earlier comments that leadership on the GHG issue is lacking in the US. I am cynical as to whether that will change, at least within the circles of political power. Perhaps our system discourages individuals with leadership skills from running for high offices; maybe it even prevents them.
Given our consumer culture, perhaps we need a company with a talent for product design and marketing to make environmentalism sexy. Anyone for an iCar?
Posted by: Scott | Oct 10, 2007 6:23:03 AM
Did anyone read the Autoworld link to understand the reason cars are so heavy.
Point is, Activists that advocate mandates for safety, features etc are in no small part responsible for the excessive weight of vehicles today.
Even Honda and Toyota are complicit by responding to the market (convenience features and power) and the government regulation ie airbags, crash testing requirements that call a foot injury catastrophic etc…
Read how much heavier the Accord is 2008 vs 2007 [no more hybrid here]. Same for Toyota Highlander. All you central planners cannot beat the market. The market is moving rather quickly in engineering terms because of the high cost of fuel. This is a good thing. Central planning [also known as mandates] is a proven failure..
Posted by: tmo8844 | Oct 10, 2007 6:25:15 AM
All you central planners cannot beat the market.
These kinds of comments on DARPAnet, I mean the Internet, always amuse me.
Posted by: jack | Oct 10, 2007 8:18:42 AM
safety has a price in increased weight. increased weight means you have to have a bigger engine, bigger engine means less economy.
take a look at the honda cvcc from back in the day, that thing couldn't have weighed more than 1500lbs soaking wet and it all ran on a 1.2liter 75hp motor that was smaller than the engine in my RC car, it got roughly 40mpg.
todays cars, you're lucky if you can find one under 3000lbs. or less than 2.0 liters...
granted the cars back then were rolling tin cans and if you got hit you wouldn't have to worry about whether the insurance would total it, cause you'd be dead.
but now, thanks to all of these safety cells, blah blah blah, I can drive around with piece of mind that when I get smashed by someone not paying attention that I will survive to drive another day!
Posted by: sam | Oct 10, 2007 11:07:31 AM
The solution is announced. BYD (China) will mass produce low cost PHEVs and BEVs with much lower cost iron based batteries (rechargeable in 10 minutes) by mi-2008.
Put your orders in.
Posted by: Harvey D | Oct 10, 2007 2:30:00 PM
How much of the weight due to safety concerns is caused by the presence of over sized vehicles on the roads? If you didn't have to worry about some bozo speeding in an Escalade hitting you or flipping over onto you, would we really need such extensive safety systems. Its similar to how much protection you would wear in the rain if it were a drizzle verses a heavy downpour.
Posted by: greg | Oct 10, 2007 3:57:23 PM
Western Europe's high fuel taxes makes fuel efficiency a priority for its vehicle owners. As a result, its combined average fuel economy is nearly twice as high as America's. The bigger vehicles in America, however, have not given us greater safety than Europe, where the vehicle death rate per mile is 1/3 lower than America's.
The original Austin Mini was 10 feet long and could seat 5 adults (the modern Mini is longer but can't). My 1993 Dodge minivan is shorter than a newer Honda Civic. The Dodge Caliber, which replaced the Neon, weighs as much as my minivan, but has much less space and utility. My plain-jane 1998 Neon with 5-speed averages 38 mpg. in mixed driving and gets 44 on the highway. The Caliber, with its more efficient engine won't come close to that. My wife and I use our Neon for 80% of our driving.
Americans primarily use their vehicles as personal transportation pods. Most of the time we drive alone. Our gross inefficiency has been possible because of cheap, readily available fuel. Those days are rapidly ending. We can choose a soft landing or a hard landing, but land we will. It's not if, but when.
Visualizing the primary purpose of a non-commercial vehicle as a "pod" instead of a multi-use, swiss-army knife "transporter" allows us to achieve significant efficiency improvements with existing technology and materials.
I'm arguing for a taxonomy that breaks down vehicles into two classes: "minimalist pods" which are used for 80% of total miles, and "generalist transporters" to haul large numbers of people and goods for the remaining 20% of miles.
For example, the Smart car is a minimalist pod, designed specifically for Europe's narrow city streets and lack of parking space. Three Smart cars can nose into one American parallel parking slot. The minivan, on the other hand, is Detroit's greatest innovation, the best generalist transporter yet designed.
You should own the vehicle that best fills your need 80% of the time. Lease the vehicle that fills occasional needs. The market is flooded with vehicles that are generalists, but most of the time all we need are pods, and those vehicles are not available.
I'm arguing for a change in user behavior and vehicle morphology. It can be accomplished through a stiff carbon tax. It can also be accomplished through societal collapse.
I grew up in a refugee camp after WWII. We had nothing and we got by. We walked a lot. A bicycle was worth its weight in gold. I knew of only one person, a doctor, who owned a car. Before I came to the U.S., I only had had one ride, and that was in a truck.
Posted by: fred schumacher | Oct 10, 2007 5:30:34 PM
Great points, Fred.
Those with only occasional needs of large personal hauler should be able to quickly rent those at the supermarket or local gas station by the hours or by the days, while daily commute can be done using much more fuel-efficient cars.
Joint or group or shared ownership of these personal large haulers or specialty vehicles is another possibility. Each of these ownership club will have hundreds of joint owners and a number of different vehicles ranging from sport cars, minivans, larger vans, trucks, etc...depending on your purpose at the time, whether to impress your new date with a red Corvette, or take your whole in-law family to a retreat with a 9-seat GM Suburban, or to go to a ghetto slump in a beat-up 1978 smoky clunker, or to go to collect debts in a...? black MB S600 with totally darken windows...etc.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Oct 10, 2007 8:29:58 PM
Jadk,
I try to be charitable to your jibes at everyone you don't agree with, including me. You have revealed yourself to be an anti-American fabulist ever eager to beleive whatever conspiracy thoery has been cooked up and agrees with your prejudices. But once agains i ask you to please desist wiuth the ad hominems.
Your wise ass comments about a typographical error, N2O versus NO2 when we both knew that I was discussing and meant nitrous oxide is absurd.
Unless you really do not think that nitrous oxide is a GHG. In such a case, I recall you asked for references. Try reading something of substance for a change, than your left wing Marxist drivel.
Try the IPCC AR4 Section 2 pages 34-43 which certainly reveals nitrous oside to be a GHG of substantial strength. Unless you think the IPCC Interim Report IV is is a hotbed of anthropogenic anti-global warming hysteria.
Remember...
Jerk also rhymes with Jack.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Oct 11, 2007 2:45:19 PM
Jadk,
I try to be charitable to your jibes at everyone you don't agree with, including me. You have revealed yourself to be an anti-American fabulist ever eager to beleive whatever conspiracy thoery has been cooked up and agrees with your prejudices. But once again I ask you to please desist wiuth the ad hominems.
Your wise ass comments about a typographical error, N2O versus NO2 when we both knew that I was discussing and meant nitrous oxide is absurd.
Unless you really do not think that nitrous oxide is a GHG. In such a case, I recall you asked for references. Try reading something of substance for a change, than your left wing Marxist drivel.
Try the IPCC AR4 Section 2 pages 34-43 which certainly reveals nitrous oside to be a GHG of substantial strength. Unless you think the IPCC Interim Report IV is is a hotbed of anthropogenic anti-global warming hysteria.
Remember...
Jerk also rhymes with Jack.
Posted by: Stan Peterson | Oct 11, 2007 2:46:53 PM
a typographical error
LOL!!!!!!!!
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
You just happened to make this "typographical error" repeatedly and insulted me repeatedly about it. Be a man for once and admit you have no idea what you're talking about.
Unless you really do not think that nitrous oxide is a GHG.
Unlike you, Stanley, I'm well acquainted with the literature. But that's probably because I spend my time reading and understanding instead of spending inordinate amounts of time trying to think of clever ways to brag about myself and demean most of the human race with pure gibberish.
Jerk also rhymes with Jack.
LOL!! It does?
You're a friggin loon, Stan. You should be locked up.
Posted by: jack | Oct 11, 2007 11:11:47 PM
Oh, Stanley, here's that thread:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/08/vienna-talks-re.html
"NO2 levels in the atmosphere are stabilized, and not rising." - Stan Peterson
"Who knew that nitrogen dioxide was a (major) greenhouse gas?" - Jack
[note how I specifically called NO2 its correct name - now watch Stanley's reply]
"The IPCC knows that NO2 is a GHG. They discuss is at length in all their interim IPCC Reports. Try reading the TAR III or the current AR4. But then you wouldn't know that. The Elmer Gantry flunkout, showed you a movie and you converted." - Stan Peterson
That's quite a "typographical error" there, Stanley. You said NO2, I laughed at the fact that you said nitrogen dioxide is a GHG, then you doubled down and said that the UN knows that NO2 is a GHG and babbled on with a half dozen more acronyms and your standard pablum about Elmer Gantry.
Now in this thread you act like you were talking about nitrous oxide, even though you said NO2 twice and didn't flinch when I spelled it out as nitrogen dioxide.
Face it, Stanley - you're full of crap and everyone here knows it. Please stop making a fool of yourself by posting here. It's downright sad.
Posted by: jack | Oct 11, 2007 11:19:47 PM
"You have revealed yourself to be an anti-American fabulist ever eager to beleive whatever conspiracy thoery has been cooked up and agrees with your prejudices. But once agains i ask you to please desist wiuth the ad hominems."
So Stanley, after you lay into me with an extended ad hominem (a logical fallacy you employ in every single comment you make), you ask someone to desist with ad hominems?
YOU FIRST, LOONIE. LEAD BY EXAMPLE.
Posted by: jack | Oct 11, 2007 11:22:49 PM
We could make cars lighter without exotic technologies. It is just easier and more profitable to make them the way that they always have made them. Engineers can design a light safe car that would sell at a good price. It is my belief that the decision makers want the same thing that has made them money all along.
Posted by: sjc | Oct 15, 2007 8:49:45 PM
BOTTOM LINE: GM makes the best over-weight gas guzzlers you can buy.
Posted by: DS | Oct 22, 2007 3:13:40 PM
