and 100% say they would like a fying car, especially if it makes cute bubbling Jetsons noises.

all this demonstrates is that 74% of those surveyed ar ignorant of the reality that changes to vehicle fuel efficiency cannot be done overnight.

even the addition of a smaller engine option to a line of vehicles would probably take 18 months between crash testing, vehicle dynamics adjustments, and other regulatory barriers. and, in the end, the company would have to sell the vehicle for less than the models already on sale.

why would any company do this?

Icelander,
I will disagree, if you look at old projections of official government institutions, you will see that they did not projected rising fuel prices. As I remember even few years ago, they were projecting gas bellow $2 for next 20 years. So if auto executives thought that government is never wrong and that prices would be low for next few years they planned acordingly.
It was only so called green people that were predicting higher oil prices, and as you probably see auto executives don't listen to them.

What is interesting is that, due to importance of oil, there is a lot of info about production and consumption, capacities. If you don't look at official reports but instead look at the raw data (good source: http://omrpublic.iea.org/) it was easy too see that prices were going to rise and stay there. So people that made those projections in official gov. reports, are either really stupid( I doubt that) or have reasons for skewing those reports.

Last year early spring (prices were still little above $2) when I looked at that data from iea, I knew that I am going to see gas above $3 by the end of the summer. It was Economy 101, supply line was very close to demand line, big producers are running at almost 100% capacity, and demand is rising. Slight disruption and prices are going to rise. Simple as that.

Ignorance is a bliss so lets blame oil companies for gauging prices.
cheers

I suspect car companies all over the world are working feverishly on models boasting improved fuel economy. The trouble, as Shaun points out, is that there are long lead times in powertrain R&D (18 months is actually optimistic).

A very big part of the lead time problem are the extremely strict and inflexible emissions regulations in the US. Due to bureaucratic turf wars, fuel economy is the preserve of the Dept of Transportation, whereas air quality is administered by the EPA and CARB. Other countries take into account what is and what is not technologically feasible, especially with regard to NOx.

The result: available fuel efficiency technolgies such as relatively clean diesel and stratified spray-guided GDI cannot be brought to market even in those states and counties where a mild increase in NOx levels for a number of years would not pose a significant health problem.

Meanwhile, marketers have to drum up demand for what is being produced today and basically keep schtumm about what's in the pipeline. In hindsight, US automakers in particular have allowed their small car business to wither on the vine for too long. However, it is virtually impossible to turn a profit on small cars at today's UAW labor rates. As for hybrids, even Toyota was surprised by their success in California and elsewhere.

I find it interesting that 29% believe gas prices can be lowered by the federal government. I know that gas prices are rising because of demand and the new fuel laws. Why shouldn't the oil and gas companies make a profit? They have something we want. If we stopped buying it in massive amounts, they would be forced to cut prices, but we're still buying and so they're still selling.

The UCS has had plans for an SUV that has lots of room, good performance and greater economy available for years.

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/building-a-better-suv.html

If the saying that Americans do not like small econoboxes is true, then they can have an SUV that has much better utility.

I hardly think you need to drive a small econobox to get good mileage. I drove my 2003 Passat 1.8 from Winston-Salem, NC to Arlington, VA yesterday and set the cruise at 65mph out of curiosity. 38.5 mpg is what I got, with the A/C on, in a roomy, comfortable car. Maybe 74% of Americans should stop blaming auto makers and instead look at what they choose to drive and how they choose to drive it. But, that's not as fun as blaming someone else...

Most disturbing fact from this poll: "Two in five (39%) adults think that the profits of the oil and natural gas industry have the greatest influence on rising gas prices." Again, let's blame a convenient target.

talk is cheap. When sales of SUVs and Trucks drop back to 10% of all motor vehicle sales, as they were before the 1990s, call me. Until then spare me the hot air.

I normally find your comments informed and balanced, Rafael, but some of these are a bit out of line.

> Due to bureaucratic turf wars, fuel economy is the
> preserve of the Dept of Transportation, whereas air
> quality is administered by the EPA and CARB. Other
> countries take into account what is and what is not
> technologically feasible, especially with regard to
> NOx.

The turf war comment is true and many ways, and yet totally irrelevant. There is a lot of complexities here, but auto companies have compliance divisions who's whole job is to figure this out. From a development perspective harmonization into one agency would have 0 effect -- there would still be various constituencies lobbying to meet conflicting requirements, and the laws coming out of this process would be convoluted, incomplete, and sometimes contradictory (like tax law, for instance).

The CARB / EPA split is an very interesting one in this context. There is no reason for the car companies to make two car versions and do two tests -- meeting the CARB standards would be sufficient. The car companies make two versions because they can save money on the 45 state version, and the companies mainly see low emissions as a compliance problem, not something they should deliver as part making good cars. Similarly, many of the Diesel cars sold in Europe could some over as 45 state cars (even without ULSD); only VW does this.

I'm also not sure about your achievable comment. Are you saying that current standards are not achievable, or that 'technology forcing' standards should never be used? This would be a huge loss for everyone; even the most famous 'failed' technology forcing standard, the CARB ZEV mandate, led to massive reductions in tailpipe pollution as car companies demonstrated that there were more cost-effective ways to reduce pollution than EV's. This is the type of failure we should have more often.

> where a mild increase in NOx levels for a number of
> years would not pose a significant health problem.

I believe you were talking about the fact that many air-quality regions are VOC limited? (most famously the LA basin, leading to the 'weekend effect') Although as Fyi CO2 noted the direct effects of NOx are worth considering, I think that you are more correct that starting with the overall biggest problem (ozone in most places) and working our way down in severity would be the most effective way to improve air quality. However, controlling car sales by air quality region would be even more difficult than controlling them by state -- we would be better off using stationary source control to 'tweak' the system.

> However, it is virtually impossible to turn a
> profit on small cars at today's UAW labor rates.

This is a total red herring. Although the American car companies have created some complex labor rate problems for themselves, this does not affect their mix of cars one bit. They have the ability to build cars themselves outside the US (my Focus was built in Mexico), they each have (or have had) Japanese or Korean subsidiaries that could build small cars for them, and VW has competed successfully in the US small car market despite having their own expensive labor problems.

As an example of this, the NUMMI factory in the middle of the San Francisco Bay Area, one of the most expensive regions of the world for anything. This factory makes Pontiac Vibes and Toyota Corollas on basically the same line, and yet the Corolla sells for a premium over the Vibe. Is this because of labor? I believe it is due to marketing, reputation management, and focus -- Toyota cares about these cars, GM doesn't.

> I'm not disputing that there are health costs
> associated with NOx. However, I reckon they pale in
> comparison with the cost - in lives as well as
> dollars - of waging war for all the extra oil
> required to meet those ueberstringent air quality
> standards.

This is again out of line. Air quality standards are not increasing the weight, power, or size of cars. These are the primary drivers of increased consumption.

> As for hybrids, even Toyota was surprised by their
> success in California and elsewhere.

I think this is an important point; Toyota was more lucky than insightful. However, half of luck is what you do with it. Toyota floundered unsuccessfully for 5-6 years to try to follow up the Prius, leaving the door wide open for competitors to come in and make their mark. No one did. I believe that Toyota has found its footing again with the Camry, and that this will firmly slam the door shut (this is certainly not a unique prediction of course).

> Ferdinand Porsche built the first hybrid in 1900.
> It's not a new idea. Audi picked it up in the 90s but
> the technology was not sufficiently advanced to
> achieve success in the marketplace. ... This dubious
> bet turned into marketing gold in the US only when
> CARB, faced with the commercial failure of EVs,
> decided to award credits to hybrids that could be
> counted toward the unchanged ZEV quotas.

This is an odd point to make. Plenty of companies tried to make hybrids and failed, but this does not denigrate Toyota's achievement, it increases it. Their success also didn't come from meeting ZEV quotas (conventional SULEV cars can do this), it came from filling a massive unmet demand which allowed them to sell lots of cars despite a relatively premium price.

Actually, I should point out one glitch: Gen-X is not merely the 30-41 year olds. The traditional timeframe for their birth is 1961-1981 so that would include everyone 25-45.

That being said, it's not going to happen overnight. It will take time to properly develop more efficient powertrains for vehicles given the time, money, and research needed to make proper prototypes, test them, and then make sure they meet all necessary regulations before releasing them to the general public.

The Major car companies HAVE made prototypes of very efficient cars, including hybrids. They just have to get off their high horse and start producing them. Car companies can make a car in 18 months. They have them already tested and ready to go. They just need to do it and stop procrastinating!!!!!