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.

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.

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.)

Hilarious.

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.

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.

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

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.