How We'll Get To 54.5 Mpg By 2025

concealment writes "At the end of August this year, the US Department of Transport's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced new standards to significantly improve the fuel economy of cars and light trucks by 2025. Last week, we took a look at a range of recent engine technologies that car companies have been deploying in aid of better fuel efficiency today. But what about the cars of tomorrow, or next week? What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings that will get to the Obama administration's target of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025?"

Comments

nothing new at all needed

[iggymanz]

cars suitable for average daily use by more than half the people with that kind of fuel efficiency have been available for decades.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[SecurityGuy]

Spot on. I half intended to make a sarcastic post about how all we need is to get everyone to be willing to drive a plastic car with a 40 hp engine, but truly for a lot of people including me, a small (but safe) car is sufficient.

I actually sold cars briefly. One customer who stuck in my mind was a little old lady who really wanted an 8 cylinder engine. This was about 1990. She might have settled for a 6, but a 4 was no sale, no way. Blew my mind. My own 4 cylinder car sitting in the parking lot, barely out of econo-box class, would do 120 mph. What the hell did she think she needed an 8 cylinder engine for?!? She would not be swayed. A lot of us, me included, are not so different from that old lady.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[locopuyo]

A poorly designed merge section from one highway to another is what convinced me I needed a quick car.
It isn't safe merging into 60+ MPH traffic at 30 MPH. Top speed typically isn't a problem but acceleration on cars with wimpy engines is.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[TC Wilcox]

I drive a pretty wimpy car around a really busy city (Austin, TX) and I've never had a problem getting up to a safe merging speed. In fact, the bigger risk around here is people going 60 mph on the on ramp for a highway when traffic on the highway is only going 20 mph. Perhaps there are other reasons besides safety that you feel you need to drive a car with a lot of get up and go? Of course, as everything I mentioned is anecdotal your mileage may vary....

Re:nothing new at all needed

[Solandri]

Yeah, the problem is getting people to actually buy the high-mileage cars. Here's U.S. car and light truck sales data since 1931. Light trucks are a separate category under CAFE, and don't have to get as high MPG. Consequently they can be built bigger (relatively) and with more powerful engines. From 1931 to the 1970s (when CAFE was first implemented), light truck sales represented about 15%-20% of passenger vehicle sales. Since CAFE was implemented, light truck sales have climbed to over 50%.

People in general want the big, powerful "cars" and don't care if they get crappy mileage. Forcing the manufacturers to improve mileage isn't going to change that. It makes me think CAFE is partially based on the conspiracy theory that automakers could make 100 MPG cars, but are all in cahoots with oil companies to keep mileage low. That simply isn't the case - consumers are the ones favoring low mileage cars because of the advantages they offer: extra space, extra safety, more power.

If you want to encourage increased average vehicle mileage, this supply-side market manipulation just doesn't work that well. It needs to be done via demand-side market manipulation. Jack up fuel taxes to make gasoline more expensive. Then people will start to favor fuel economy more over size, safety, and power.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[rgmoore]

And acceleration despite a relatively wimpy engine is on major problem that hybrids are designed to tackle. The electric motor isn't enough to drive you very far or very fast on its own, but combining the power of the relatively wimpy internal combustion engine with the power of a relatively wimpy electric motor gives you enough power to merge onto a freeway or go up a steep hill with some confidence. When you don't need that extra power, the relatively wimpy engine is well chosen to give you good fuel economy at highway cruising speed.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[Anonymous Coward]

A poorly designed merge section from one highway to another is what convinced me I needed a quick car.

It isn't safe merging into 60+ MPH traffic at 30 MPH. Top speed typically isn't a problem but acceleration on cars with wimpy engines is.

Exactly, people don't usually want more horsepower for greater top speed, they want the greater acceleration. Sure my car doesn't need 300 hp to get to 141 MPH (which I'll rarely get to) but being able to go 0-60 in under 6 seconds even with passengers is what's worth it. With all the highway driving I do that does indeed make me feel much safer.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[harrkev]

Part of what you say is true, but that is not the whole story.... Some people don't just WANT large inefficient cars, they NEED large gas-guzzling vehicles.

Take, for example, me. I have five kids (three are adopted, so no preaching about overpopulating the Earth). Add the wife, and I need a vehicle to carry at least seven people. Good luck finding a 50 MPG car that can do that. If the whole world drove tiny 50 MPG cars, I would need TWO of them to get anywhere on the weekend -- making an effective 25 MPG.

Look at it this way: on the weekend, I typically have 7 or 8 people in my average 18.8 MPG van. Not great gas mileage, but that works out to be 150 miles/gallon/PERSON. To match that, you would have to cram four people in a Prius.

Don't get me wrong. I would love to have better fuel efficienty. If my wife and I did not have any kids, I would likely get a smart car or some other little econo-box. But that simply will not work for my family. I live in a rural area. It is pretty common to see a pickup pulling a trailer with a couple of tons of hay for horses/cattle. How many trips woult that take in a Volt with the back seat crammed full of hay? Sometimes, bugger IS better.

I am worried about the day when fuel efficiency is mandated such that larger vehicles are essentially no longer produced.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[SydShamino]

I live in Austin, and my family has a wimpy car (16-year-old Miata with a manual transmission) and newer cars (BMWs with both manual and automatic transmission).

Getting the Miata up to highway speeds can be a challenge. I have to merge onto Mopac north and south every day, including taking the north-bound Mopac on-ramp from 2222, where the on ramp is a tight loop. I can wind out the transmission but if people don't get over I'm not going to merge successfully. The 645 can merge wherever because I can meet and beat highway speeds to find a safe gap.

Honestly though, I think the problem with wimpy engine cars is the poor quality of turbochargers. My wife used to have a few Jettas and the turbo lag was atrocious. I recently saw though that there was new turbocharger technology that can "pre-charge" them or somesuch, effectively eliminating the lag. If those become standard, then turbochargers are great and smaller engines will be significantly more successful. (Also, as I see someone else mention, hybrids can solve this easily as well, as electric motors can provide the merge boost too.)

Re:nothing new at all needed

[peragrin]

ah but that is the point it isn't average daily use we buy a car for. most of us can only afford one maybe two cars. therefore we need something that is not only suitable to dealing with average daily use, but also the use that we enjoy. weather it is hauling boats for once a month weekend trips, loading up for vacations, or even hauling your kids and their friends around to various sporting events(both with them as players and just going out).

I owned a full size jeep for years. terrible milage but that vehicle took me every where I wanted to go hauling all sorts of fun stuff. my next car I couldn't do that with. it may be fuel efficient but if the roads aren't perfect it doesn't like it. I miss my jeep several times a year when i need to go move something, drag something or simply go somewhere where the roads aren't in great condition.

Being able to rent a trailer and is much easier than renting a truck or van that's big enough.

Average daily use isn't what we buy a car for we buy for all of our needs and it mostly gets used for average daily needs.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[SuperQ]

Yea, afaik all of the modern VW/Audi turbos are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable-geometry_turbocharger. This lets them engage at lower RPM eliminating the turbo lag.

Most of the time I find people complain about turbo lag I find that they are shifting too soon which keeps the turbo spooled down. Small 4-cyl engines like to be above 2000+rpm compared to 1500rpm that you find in V8/V6 engines.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

The number who actually need less efficient cars are far fewer than those that actually have them. So, yes there are exceptions, but honestly, there are very few people who actually have five kids these days.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[Tharkkun]

Yeah, the problem is getting people to actually buy the high-mileage cars. Here's U.S. car and light truck sales data since 1931. Light trucks are a separate category under CAFE, and don't have to get as high MPG. Consequently they can be built bigger (relatively) and with more powerful engines. From 1931 to the 1970s (when CAFE was first implemented), light truck sales represented about 15%-20% of passenger vehicle sales. Since CAFE was implemented, light truck sales have climbed to over 50%. People in general want the big, powerful "cars" and don't care if they get crappy mileage. Forcing the manufacturers to improve mileage isn't going to change that. It makes me think CAFE is partially based on the conspiracy theory that automakers could make 100 MPG cars, but are all in cahoots with oil companies to keep mileage low. That simply isn't the case - consumers are the ones favoring low mileage cars because of the advantages they offer: extra space, extra safety, more power. If you want to encourage increased average vehicle mileage, this supply-side market manipulation just doesn't work that well. It needs to be done via demand-side market manipulation. Jack up fuel taxes to make gasoline more expensive. Then people will start to favor fuel economy more over size, safety, and power.

If you can show me a hybrid van/sport utility that can hold 7+ people for around 25k then I'm sure the rest of the world will upgrade. Because right now the cost I would save in gas versus paying more for a Hybrid won't break even until I hit 100k miles. That's a pretty fair look into the future.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[ShanghaiBill]

I recently saw though that there was new turbocharger technology that can "pre-charge" them or somesuch, effectively eliminating the lag.

Years ago I read an article about a research vehicle that contained a compressor and air tank. When the engine had spare power it would compress air and fill the air tank. When it needed extra power, it would use the compressed air to supercharge the engine (burn more fuel on each piston stroke).

But then they took it a step further: you could use household electric power to pre-fill the air tank. Then you could use the compressed air (without fuel) to start the engine, eliminating the need for a starter motor and big lead acid battery. And for short trips, and in places where tailpipe emissions are a problem (such as tunnels, or underground garages) you could run entirely on compressed air to move the pistons without burning any fuel.

By reducing the size of the engine, eliminating the starter motor, reducing the battery size, and shifting part of the energy load from gasoline to grid electricity, they estimated this vehicle could consume 20% less gas while costing less to manufacture.

Does anyone else remember seeing this? Does anyone know why this idea never took off?

Re:nothing new at all needed

[CubicleZombie]

I am worried about the day when fuel efficiency is mandated such that larger vehicles are essentially no longer produced.

The station wagon was legislated away and the SUV took its place. I figure once they mandate away SUVs, we'll start seeing commercial vehicles converted for passenger use. I look forward to my future Mack or Kenworth 18 wheeled family car.

Seriously, though, I bought a Ford Escape Hybrid for my wife and baby. The rear cargo area holds exactly one stroller, one pack'n'play, and one duffel bag. Nothing more. I posted about this once before and the slashdot community accused my wife and I of being too obese to fit in the car, which is absolutely not the case. It's just not that big. Of course, around here, they think you should let your offspring cling to your neckbeard as you go vacation in the park next to your highrise city apartment.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[harrkev]

I do absolutely agree with you. There is a difference between "want" and "need." A few "need" and a lot "want." The problem is, however, who determined the difference? Raising gas prices by an insane amount would certainly drive people to cheaper cars, but it would have a disproportional impact on people like me who legitimately NEED a larger vehicle. Should you have to show proof that you need a larger car before buying one?

Honesty, I think that $3.63/gallon right now where I live is certainly an incentive in what you buy. I remember when I was younger, people really did not even pay attention to the gas mileage rating of a car. Now, it is a selling point, so a lot of people are getting it.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[fridaynightsmoke]

Because the truth is that American cars are much bigger, heavier, and generally safer than European cars. Numerous, (rather popular!) European cars that get excellent fuel economy (better than 40 MPG) simply cannot be imported because they'd miserably fail the crash tests.

To be sold in America, new cars must have a crash cage around the passenger compartment, around which are various crumple zones that absorb impact and improve passenger safety. Crash cages, by design, must be very strong in order to prevent passengers from getting crushed by stupid amounts of energy. This makes them heavy, and that makes it darn hard to get decent fuel economy, especially in stop & go traffic. (weight isn't nearly as much of a penalty on freeways, particularly on flat ground, though hills steep enough to require braking on the downhill runs can get rather inefficient rather quickly)

Bullshit. All cars sold in Europe follow safety standards equivalent to those in North America, and have had 'crash cages' for nearly 50 years.

The main difference is cultural expectations about car size. As an example, the Ford Focus, what Americans consider to be a 'small' car, has 2 models smaller than it in Europe (the Ka and the Fiesta), and the Focus is considered here in the UK to be a 'medium' sized family car. The Ford Mondeo, very similar to the Fusion in the USA, is considered to be 'large'. Ford do not sell a larger car than the Mondeo in Europe.

Engine size expectations are similar. Here a 2.0L I4 is considered a normal, reasonably powerful engine. An 'economy' car would have a 1.4 or a 1.6. A 3.0L V6 would be considered a 'fast car' here. V8s are almost unheard of.

Amusingly European cars generally have faster top speeds than American cars, despite the smaller engines. Some years ago I took an American on a road trip (along with other people) and he was amazed that my 1.8L Ford Escort could achieve 135mph. Here if a V6 can't get to at least 150mph it's considered to be a bit crap.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[mbourgon]

Ditto. I climbed in a Prius V expecting to have to cram in - and came out astonished. My 50-pound daughter "fell" off the seat onto the floor - and had more than enough room to sit cross-legged and then stand up. It had more room in the back seat than most of the SUVs (and, it turns out the EU version actually seats 6 because it uses a different battery pack).

Didn't buy it (wife didn't like acceleration), but damn if it wasn't in the final 3 (out of 20+ tested).

Tell people where it counts - driving 20k miles a year (which we do - we live in a large state) would have cost me $100 a month less to drive the Prius than the SUVs getting 24.

Re:nothing new at all needed

[Twanfox]

To play Devil's Advocate for a moment... is there any particular need to give tax breaks for people needing to buy large vehicles for large families? Do we give tax breaks because large families consume a larger dollar figure in food too? Or is it just the cost of having a large family?

I'm not picking one side or the other, but the notion that the large families NEED tax breaks because it costs more seems off to me.

the easiest way

[Picardo85]

Start importing cars made for the european market. We have loads of those cars here.

Re:the easiest way

[Sez Zero]

Start importing cars made for the european market. We have loads of those cars here.

Pretty much this. Later this year VW will release a 73 mpg Golf. They'll sell a lot of those, which will make room under the corporate umbrella for a whole bunch of 30 mpg cars.

Re:the easiest way

[vlm]

Combined with redefinition. Unemployment is low and dropping because labor force participation rate is dropping even faster. Eventually none of us will have jobs, but as we stand in the soup lines we'll see unemployment has dropped to merely 5% and good times are right around the corner.

So we'll simply redefine such that the only "automobiles" on the road subject to the 60 mpg limit will be smart cars and Fiat Puntos (a real car, I rented and drove one in Ireland, and it was a fun and surprisingly comfortable little car). Tahoes Expeditions Escalades and the like will be redefined to be 4-wheeled motorcycles thus exempt from the 60 mpg regulation.

Re:the easiest way

[Convector]

I don't think the color matters, since it's even more un-American to actually use the turn signals. If you must use one, then leave it on for at least fifteen minutes. By no means should you actually do what the signal indicates.

Re:the easiest way

[godrik]

I live in the US now, but I lived in France until a few years ago.
The market is quite different in ways most people do not see.

First of all, the weather condition in the US are very variating from a region to the other one. I live in ohio and we get snow about 5 month per year. That's a mid alps type of snow. Having a good traction is important. Most people will get "all seasons tires", which is fairly stupid, but that's what people do.

Then, the road condition are different. I was reading recently that US policitians prefer opening new roads than fixing existing ones. The road are bad in the US in general compared to your average road in France. Having a car that can take bad roads is important.

Most people will travel long distance, having a confortable car is important. You frequently hear "I'll drive there, it is only 18 hours driving away". People think whenever they buy a car, that they might travel for days in it.

There might be issues on familly sizes as well, but I could not find good comparative data on it (beside fertility rate which does not mean too much).

In France, half the problem of having a car is parking it. Parking is typically not an issue here. So there is less incentive for small cars.

Importing car from the european market is difficult. European cars are more expensive to buy and to insure than american or japanese cars.

Re:the easiest way

[Tyler Eaves]

Don't forget that US Gallons != Imperial gallons.

54mpg imperial is only 45mpg US.

Re:the easiest way

[Anonymous Coward]

Those are in English gallons, not U.S. gallons.

When your gallons are 20% larger it's easier to get high MPG numbers.

The car would get 61 MPG in US gallons. Still great, but not as great as 73 sounds.

Re:the easiest way

[Grishnakh]

There's nothing legal preventing American cars from having amber turn signals. My 90s Acura has them from the factory. Many/most American-made cars have red signals simply because the law allows it, and it's cheaper from a manufacturing perspective (they just use the same lens color as the brake lights).

The problem with turn signals is as "Convector" here says: it's un-American to actually use them properly. Either you don't use them, or you leave them on for your entire drive, or if you're in Mississippi, you use them to signal that people in front of you are turning, even though you intend to continue straight.

Ford makes the engin allready.

[Anonymous Coward]

For produces the 3 cylinder turbo direct inject engine here in America. But due to tax regulations and big oil with their hand in every pot of the USA they are not allowed to sell them in the USA. Many German cars in there diesel versions in Europe can exceed the 60MPG mark due the necessity of their higher fuel prices than the US.

Re:Ford makes the engin allready.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our emission standards are flawed. They calculate emissions per gallon, but need to calculate the emissions per mile.

Re:Ford makes the engin allready.

[jo_ham]

As far as I know, there aren't ant european diesels than can pass our current emission standards, regardless of the milage.

This is not true any more. Euro diesels since about 05 and above have exceeded the US emissions standards. The only thing holding it back now is misinformation and the stigma of diesel as something only for big rigs and tractors.

Re:Ford makes the engin allready.

[Alioth]

Where do you get that idea from? Diesel is from a different fraction than gasoline (petrol). One is not an opportunity cost for the other when you refine the oil. You can't "dial back" gasoline to get more diesel and vice versa.

Re:Ford makes the engin allready.

[mordred99]

I am sorry - but this is not true. Why is it that if I want to purchase a diesel from VW, Mercedes, or BMW, and do the European pickup (where you pay $3k, they fly you to the factory, you drive the car for a week, and then they ship it to the US for you), you have to SPECIFICALLY get the US emissions, which is $3-5k more than the European standards? You have to have all the specifics in documentation. I know the NO2 is like one tenth the US level which requires the Urea and regenerative particulate filters (thus eating about 3-5 US MPG). Many of the European car companies are implementing these on their Euro models now so that they are "greener" and that they can lower costs to not have to build two lines.

Try to Buy a European Diesel engine. So for example, I want to buy a VW engine so I can put that in a Jeep Wrangler. Great, I have to buy the US model, and all the extras for it just to make it US EPA compliant, while already by default Euro compliant.

Re:Ford makes the engin allready.

[Solandri]

Diesel cars are not a panacea.

1) European (UK) gallons are 20% bigger than US gallons.

2) European fuel mileage is determined using a different test than U.S. EPA mileage. There's less stop-and-go in the EU tests.

Consequently it's not unusual for models which hit 50+ MPG in the EU to not even break 40 MPG in the EPA tests. CAFE uses a different test than EPA though. I'm not sure how CAFE mileage stacks up to EU mileage.

3) Diesel contains about 12%-15% more mass and energy per gallon. Consequently it also puts out about 12%-15% more pollutants per gallon. So unless you're comparing on price or range on same sized fuel tank, you need to tweak diesel's MPG down to draw a fair comparison with gasoline MPG.

4) When you distil a barrel of oil, some of it will naturally distil into diesel, some into gasoline. It's relatively easy to convert heavy fuels like diesel into gasoline. It's very difficult and expensive to convert light fuels like gasoline and kerosene into diesel. Consequently the most energy-efficient approach is to just take the fractions of diesel and gasoline which comes out naturally from the distillation process. The next-most energy-efficient approach is to favor gasoline.

So for consumption you want to err on the side which favors gasoline consumption. Diesel is only a cost-effective fuel competitor to gasoline because there are lots of gas-consuming cars. If you lower gasoline consumption below the production from natural distillation, diesel starts to become much more expensive. Whereas if gasoline consumption rises above natural production fractions, you can simply cook diesel a bit to break it down and make more gasoline.

Re:Ford makes the engin allready.

[jo_ham]

Probably for the same reason the USA charges me $14 to submit an ESTA application to tell them something that they already know and have on file every time I travel to the US.

There are probably lots of hoops to jump through, all put there by well-funded lobbying.

My Civic CRX got 56 MPG in 1985

[MpVpRb]

Why was it apparently so easy back then?

Re:My Civic CRX got 56 MPG in 1985

[seinman]

Safety standards, or lack thereof. Cars have to be heavy now to pass the government-required safety tests. Lighter materials don't hold up as well in an accident.

Re:My Civic CRX got 56 MPG in 1985

[icebrain]

Your 1985 Civic would probably fail today's crash tests and emissions checks (in the areas that require them), and likely lacked features most consumers prefer these days.

-Higher crash standards demand more structure and additional equipment like airbags
-Higher emissions standards dictate more additional equipment (catalytic converters, etc.) and different combustion profiles
-Consumer expectations for performance (acceleration/handling), size, and comfort (features, sound insulation, etc) have gone up

All of the above add weight to the vehicle (making for inefficiency) Oh, and the mandated use of ethanol reduces mileage even further.

Replace every tollbooth...

[Type44Q]

A) Instead of building lots of new tollbooths (you know they will), replace each of 'em with a Taco Bell drive-through.

B) Build a methane-capture device into every driver's seat...

Campaign contributions

[vlm]

What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings that will get to the Obama administration's target of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025?

Campaign contributions to get that bad boy dropped to about 8 MPG.

Followed by Sierra Club campaign contributions to raise it to 700000 MPG.

Followed by auto industry contributions to drop it back to 8 MPG

You get the idea. Very profitable, for campaign advertising directors, the legacy media platforms who get most of the ad budget, etc. For everyone else, we get screwed but thats business as usual.

Re:I'm no car expert..

[MightyYar]

Yeah, and if people stopped eating meat we'd need a lot less grain. And if people started keeping their thermostats at 55F, we'd need a lot less gas/electric/oil. If people would top watching TV, that would also save a lot of energy.

But people like to eat meat, they like to stay warm, they like to watch TV... and wait for it... they like fast cars.

Lobbyists...

[flatt]

What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings that will get to the Obama administration's target of 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) by 2025?"

Lots and lots of lobbyists who will get this number reduced before it goes into effect.

Not anti American

[AdmV0rl0n]

I'm a Brit. I understand the tradition, and history of US cars, and that this holds a place for many American people. But your business and political angles don't work well for you here. Most of the US car makers already make fuel efficient engines and models for other parts of the world. I don't know if its parts of the US car industry and some political levels that are messing around - but they should stop.

At some stage the US will face a fuel hit. It would be much better to have the things lined up than be caught out. Your citizens should not face that having mistakenly bought high fuel consumption models after being decieved or lied to by car makers or political fools. The car is central to life in the US. The fuel munching car has no real future in this.

Re:Not anti American

[ColdWetDog]

Americans can always be counted on to do the right thing.

After they've exhausted all other possibilities.

- W. Churchill

Re:Not anti American

[Sez Zero]

The car is central to life in the US. The fuel munching car has no real future in this.

Not the car. The truck.

The Ford F-150 has been the best selling vehicle (car or truck) in the US for the past 35 years. In 2011 here are the ranks (from this source):

1. Ford F-150 (584,917 sold)
2. Chevrolet Silverado (415,130)
3. Toyota Camry (308,510)
4. Nissan Altima (268,981)
5. Ford Escape (254,293)
6. Ford Fusion (248,067)
7. Ram Pickups (244,763)
8. Toyota Corolla (240,259)
9. Honda Accord (235,625)
10. Chevrolet Cruze (231,732)

For all the people complaining about Suburbans, Escalades and Expeditions, it is trucks, not SUVs that sell in the US.

Of the top 10: 1,533,174 cars (51%); 1,244,810 trucks (41%); 254,293 SUVs (8%)

How many trucks sold in Europe?

Re:Not anti American

[Sez Zero]

+ insightful. Ford make EcoBoost. It really is a good bit of kit from what i've read. They had to make it or fail as a company on the world stage as they had nothing to match Europe or Asia makers.

Ford sells the EcoBoost in the latest F-150, which is the most popular vehicle sold in the US. That's how it is going to happen: trucks will get 30 mpg and cars will get 70 mpg. Sell in equal numbers (which cars and trucks usually do in the US) and you'll be right at your CAFE average.

Re:Not anti American

[Sez Zero]

How many trucks sold in Europe?

To reply to my own question, no trucks were in the top 10 in Europe. In fact the top European seller for 2011 (VW Golf) sold 100k fewer units than the F-150.

Re:Not anti American

[Alkonaut]

This is 99% cultural/political i suppose. Unless you haul a dirtbike or sheep *most* of the time when you use the vehicle, you don't need a truck. There is no way all those F150 and similar are actually used to haul things even 10% of the time. It's absolutely imperative that the US govt remove any tax advantages on trucks/SUVs unless they already have. A regular 4x4 with a cheap trailer does the exact same job, but also hauls 5 people and luggage so you don't need a truck AND a car. Here is also a big difference between the EU and the US. We often have a car per family, not person. With a single car, the F150 just isn't as versatile as a full size estate.

Re:Not anti American

[GameboyRMH]

American trucks and their owners are such a fucking joke. They put these giant cartoon pickup bodies on little wheels with street tires, give them ground clearance that still gives them obstacle-clearing capability similar to a car, waste tons of bed space on big bulging fenders and then most of them don't get used for anything a compact or mid-sized car couldn't do.

The only sensible American pickups are some of the "compact" ones like the newer Ranger, which aren't even primarily aimed at the US market.

Mitt Romney

[bryanbrunton]

There will be no next Obama administration. Didn't you see that last presidential debate?

Obama is too stupid and lazy to be president.

Mitt knows that it isn't possible to "heal the planet", (insert Romney smirk here), or begin to slow the rise of the oceans.

So when Mittens is elected all of these silly MPG ratings will be rolled back once we achieve North American energy independence.

Re:Mitt Romney

[GodfatherofSoul]

Very interesting. I, too, would like to subscribe to the cable TV network you get your news from.

Re:Mitt Romney

[MetalliQaZ]

Only after he puts on his cloak and wizard hat.

Re:Mitt Romney

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah 'mittens' has no clue about how a car company should work. OH thats right his dad pioneered the fuel economy wave at AMC... Then got eaten alive by toyota and datsun in cost.

BTW just stop with the derogatory remarks. Ok you dont like the guy. But name calling already (mittens? really?)? What are you in grade school? I call out both sides when the do this btw...

Unfortunately Obama did not try for bipartisanship (like he said he would). Then instead went for 'do it my way or its not bipartisan'. What a wasted opportunity.

Too much f-ng cheerleading and not enough 'lets fix this'. Your 'mittens' remark does not help any more than 'obummer' does.

Both sides have good points. Both sides unfortunately have taken a 'we vs they' mentality. You are playing into it and it does not help. Stop being a cheerleader. Want to evoke real 'change' in our nation? Stop doing that one thing. Call out everyone who does it. It lets the people in charge divide you into small manageable groups of 'special interests'. It lets people who want to pass legislation dictate who to 'sell' it to. Instead of having to get past all of us we manage to let small tiny groups screw us all...

Re:Mitt Romney

[dkleinsc]

You cannot reach energy independence and still burn oil at greater rates

Sure you can. Here's the plan, which, couched in nicer terms, is basically what the Project for a New American Century advocates:
1. Take over oil-rich areas via military force.
2. Install puppet governments to rule over those areas.
3. Demand that your puppet states sell you oil really cheaply, and charge a really high tariff to sell it to anyone else. If they refuse to comply, depose and replace the puppet. Repeat as many times as necessary until you get a compliant puppet.
4. Use the oil to improve your military forces even more, so you can take over another oil-rich area. Repeat until you have control over all the oil on the planet and have the rest of the world at your mercy.

Of course, that only works if the rest of the world hasn't either united to resist you or come up with some better way of extracting energy.

Re:I'm no car expert..

[HornWumpus]

OK. I'm down to 10mpg average when I really flog it. To get any lower I've got to start driving a 3 ton behemoth so outrageous it was banned by the demotion derby. Really ought to just be left to appreciate, but sense you insist I'll drive it (6mpg) more often.

Re:Here's an idea

[SuricouRaven]

Cars in the US are stupidly large because that's the type of car people will buy. The manufacturers know the market, and produce that which they calculate will sell.

Re:I'm no car expert..

[arpad1]

Yes, but those people must, quite properly, defer to their moral and intellectual superiors who know how much meat is allowable, if any and who know how warm you can be allowed to be in winter and who know whether you ought to be allowed to watch TV, how much and what programs and, well, pretty much everything.

Now, isn't it reasonable that the superior should advise the inferior and dictate to them if their inferiority prevents them from properly obeying?

Autonomous Cars

[Konowl]

The answer to better mpg, traffic shaping, less accidents is - as much as I hate to say it - is autonomous cars.

They can drive at the best measured MPG zone, they don't get distracted, they have faster response times than human drivers. They don't hit the gas pedal stopping you from merging onto the highway or changing lanes, they don't pass illegally or drive recklessly. Numerous studies have shown that traffic jams are simply caused by people following too closely.

I don't know for sure, but I really think the next evolution of vehicle transport will be autonomous.

Buy a diesel and get both ;)

[Tyler Eaves]

My diesel VW Golf as 140HP, 240ft-lbs of torque, and gets 45MPG on the highway.

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

We Dutch are the tallest people in the world, on average. Yet we have little trouble with cars. You can have both good MPG and a spacious interior.

Re:I'm no car expert..

[caseih]

As an aside I was talking to a truck driver as I loaded him up (45 tonnes of bulk) and he said with the new generation of big diesel rigs with scads of horsepower (600 is typical) and lots of torque (pulling along at 1500 rpm is easy) that he gets fantastic fuel economy. On flat roads while crusing, he gets about 6 mpg! That's amazing fuel economy for a big rig! Might be imperial gallons so not as amazing. But still we have come a long ways in fuel efficiency.

Despite our love of fast cars, we now drive cars now that are much more efficient, have much more power, and way more torque than before. But the main difference is they now weigh thousands of pounds more than they used to. If we put modern engine and transmissions in a compact car from the 70s or 80s, it'd likely get 50-60 mpg easily.

Why is this the governments business?

[judoguy]

Seriously, why does the government get to dictate this to me? If I drive an inefficient pos, I pay more taxes.

Isn't that the dream of the Obamas of the world, people paying more and more taxes?

Re:Why is this the governments business?

[PTBarnum]

Think of it like an indirect form of cap and trade. Nobody says you can't drive a giant SUV, just that if you do you have to find someone else who will agree to drive small car. If there are not enough of the latter to go around, then they can demand a significant fee for this service. The government is artificially limiting the amount of Gallons per Mile in the marketplace, but the allocation of that commodity is still left to supply and demand.

Re:Here's an idea

[GodfatherofSoul]

Oh yeah, some people in the US are stupidly large, for no good reason either.

Have you seen my wife?

That is not a necesasry trade-off

[betterunixthanunix]

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57506088-48/volkswagen-unveils-the-seventh-generation-golf-tsi-tdi/

140 horsepower and just under 50MPG, or 100~ horsepower and just over 60MPG. Yes, diesel, but really it is not as bad as people seem to think.

Re:That is not a necesasry trade-off

[Stargoat]

I've got a 2011 diesel TDI stationwagen. In a combined city/highway/leadfoot, I average 40 mpg. On the Interstate, at about 55 MPG, I'm near 50mpg.

Plain and simple: petrol is dumb. Fossil fuels may not be great, but there's no reason to keep using petrol in the face of the superior MPG we get from diesel.

Re:Here's an idea

[Wrath0fb0b]

We'll use European cars that already get that sort of milage! Not sure if Americans know, but cars in the US are stupidly large for no good reason. Might help the fuel bills to get a smaller, more practical car. Oh yeah, some people in the US are stupidly large, for no good reason either. Might help food bills...

Tell you what, you can put those "more practical" Europoean cars at the dealerships right next to the "stupidly large" cars that are there now. We'll even mandate that each car will have affixed a sticker that details the predicted impact to one's fuel bills. Heck, we can even subsidize that small car and penalize the ones that don't meet efficiency targets.

Then we'll let the car buyer decide whether the double-extra cost of the larger vehicle, both from increased base cost and penalties, is worth it and my bet is still on the larger car because that's where the consumer preference lies. That's the bottom line -- that you are at variance with what people actually want to buy and the "fight" to sell more smaller vehicles is a fight against those desires.

[ Note, FWIW, when I had a car, I drove a small sedan because that's where my preference lay. I would pay no heed to belittling condescension that called my choice stupid irrespective of whether I drove that or a SUV. ]

[ Note2, There are a lot of neat smaller cars (Ford Fusion, VW Golf) that American consumers will buy. I assure you, however, none of them were sold on those cars by someone calling larger cars "stupid" or by insulting consumers. Instead, they actually made a positive contribution by designing a small car that consumers like. ]

2000 Honda Insight, Metros/Swifts, Honda CRX HFs..

[Bananatree3]

The 2000 Honda Insight came out 12 years ago and drivers regularly beat this standard. Geo Metros, Suzuki Swifts, Honda CRX HFs, VW Diesel Rabits, VW TDIs.... the list goes on and on.

The issue isn't making a fuel efficient car, it's making a Ford F150 get 54.5MPG

Re:Top Gear already done this...

[Rogerborg]

Didn't Jeremy Clarkson get this in a Jag...

No, he got it in a Jaaaaag.

Re:Top Gear already done this...

[ciderbrew]

53mpg whilst not trying as I recall.
The boys race from Switzerland to Blackpool on one tank of fuel part 1 (series 12, episode 4)
http://www.topgear.com/uk/videos/the-one-tank-challenge-1

ridiculous

[anonieuweling]

55 miles per gallon = 0.0427662879 l / kilometer says google.
1 liter per 23,382903897 per kilometer is nothing special and is done with normal cars TODAY.
So the goal of doing that by 2025 is quite ridiculous.
See the modern Volkswagens, maybe the Prius (although the hybrid stuff is debatable), etc.
Also do think about diesel instead of 'gas': it is way more easy to have high MPG with diesel.

Re:ridiculous

[Jon_S]

The thing is, it is not all attributable to efficiencies (although diesel's higher compression ratios do help in that regard). Diesel averages much longer-chain hydrocarbons and thus has a higher ratio of higher-energy C-C bonds to lower energy C-H bonds per gallon, and thus has more energy per gallon. This also means more CO2 per gallon. So you can't really compare MPG between gas and diesel engines. Us nerds would prefer to see kilometers per kilojoule for a better comparison, but we probably won't.

I do know that in Europe, where they report CO2 per kilometer, you can see that these emissions don't scale directly with the mileage comparing gas and diesel versions of the same car.

From a UK PoV its wrong to scoff

[CdBee]

I run a 2.0 litre 4-cyl Volvo V40 compact estate (station wagon), which is now 11 years old. Over my last 10,000 miles I have had an average fuel economy (brim to brim method) of 37.5mpg - in imperial gallons. So you might say my technologically crude car is pretty close and a little improvement such as start-stop, higher final gearing ratios, low-rolling-resistance tyres, maybe a mild hybrid system, and use of aluminium instead of steel for structures might get it there

BUT: That's about 31.2mpg in US gallons. I wonder how many Brits are reading this, thinking 'My diesel car does better than that' - and not realising that actually the Americans have set themselves a bar thats 20% higher than it appears to us as their gallons are smaller - 65mpg in fact.

A handful of cars do manage that - VW's Bluemotion range for instance, and equivalents from other makers. But a Prius doesn't and my Volvo never will (I'm planning to convert it to LPG instead)....

a target that will be easy to hit

[Zimluura]

a few months ago on jay lenos garage they showed these things:
http://www.viamotors.com/powertrain/

serial hybrids that get an epa rating of 100mpg, for huge suvs. but if you can charge them at your home outlets the number quickly becomes meaningless.

still to be overcome:
* gotta figure out a way to tax electrics fairly for the road wear that is normally covered by gas tax.
* used market will need expensive fresh batteries.

Re:All We Need is Legislation

[geoskd]

You speak with a certain amount of sarcasm, but the laws actually have an interesting effect, and do affect the gas mileage.

The way it works is this. Each company must keeps its CAFE above the legal limit. To do this, they may not (by law) sell cars that are below the CAFE if their corporate average is currently below the CAFE. So, that means that Ford cant sell trucks because they are below the limit, but can sell Fusions and Focus'. Then when they sell enough of the little jobs, and their average comes up a little, then they can sell a few SUVs. The end result is that law of supply and demand will drive the cost of those SUVs through he roof, but the little econ o-box will get cheaper and cheaper. In fact, car companies may be willing to take a small loss on the econ o-box just so it can sell one high margin SUV. For the average citizen, it will make the gas-guzzlers financially out of reach, which is the way it should be.

I know a guy who bought a pickup truck (16 MPG), and drives it 40 miles a day commute because he can only afford the one vehicle. He got the truck because twice a year he uses it to haul yard materials home from the garden store... I suggested he could just rent a u haul, but he said he didn't want to spend the $100 bucks for a u haul... Just goes to show that most Americans have the financial savvy of a 10 year old.

-=Geoskd

Re:Here's an idea

[Viol8]

What a crock. I live in london , I'm over 6 foot and 210lbs and I've never had any trouble fitting in any car. Unless you're the height of a basket ball player or you're a 400 lb ball of sweaty lard because you can't leave off the donuts then there's no reason you can't either.

Simple enough.

[jensend]

1. Realize safety is one goal among many and that we have to deal with tradeoffs. Over the past 30 years it's been "the engineer giveth and the safety inspector taketh away" as overblown concerns about collision readiness have turned into absurd safety regulations and a curb weight arms race.

2. Raise the gas tax to reflect the real costs of driving- the tremendous spending on road construction and maintenance, the externalities associated with road congestion and pollution, etc. Everyone who's willing to be honest about the impact of different policies, from Greg Mankiw (former chairman of the CEA and an adviser to Romney) to Steven Chu (Obama's energy secretary), knows that this is the only realistic way forward.

Higher gas taxes would be much much less distortionary and harmful to the economy than simply mandating higher fuel standards. The gas tax is also a better way to raise revenue than most other taxes; a revenue-neutral bill raising the gas tax while lowering the taxes on labor and productivity (payroll, corporate, income, etc) would be a huge boon to the economy.

Of course, I don't expect either of these two things to happen, since political bickering and accusations ("you want to see more Americans dying on the highways! you want to put the pain on us every time we go to the pump!") will probably trump any kind of attempt to bring our policies back in contact with reality.

Re:Here's an idea

[mr1911]

Have you seen my wife?

Only the top of her head. Why?

Re:All We Need is Legislation

[akboss]

The only reason why we don't have Hummers and Semi's getting 150mpg is because we don't have the courage to pass a law demanding it.

I take it your not a driver of a semi nor the O/O of one. They are already turbo charged, they already have to meet air quality standards that make the exhaust cleaner than the air the engine takes in. All of that pollution control makes for a 8 MPG vehicle when it is pulling 48,000 pounds of goods.

Demand that semi's get better mileage is admirable but really short sighted. Force the trucking companies and O/O to meet unrealistic goals just means they WILL pass that cost onto each and every bit of freight they haul

care for $10 pound ground beef? Milk costing $7 or $8 a gallon? That is what will happen if laws like that are passed.

And yes I am a truck driver hauling Cattle for your dinner

Bird in the hand syndrome

[CdBee]

I'm the same, but with a less extreme difference: I'm a single guy, no large family to lug around, but I love camping, mountain biking and going on road trips with my friends. So I drive a compact estate car (Volvo V40) and take the economy hit for the practicality of having it always there, never having to worry about having too much stuff with me for the trip, etc. I know I should buy a Ka or Micra and borrow or rent larger vehicles as needed.. but the convenience of permanent ownership means a lot even though I know its silly.

Re:EV, obviously

[geoskd]

The real question is going to be what that does to the electric grid. No way we are ready for even 10% of the cars to be EV today - we simply do not have the generation capacity. Oh, and such cars are going to charge at home at night, so any solar PV system is useless. I do not see suburbs putting up wind turbines between houses, so we are going to have a real electric supply problem.

Electric vehicles do not use as much power off the grid as people think. To put it in perspective, a 20 mile per day commute uses the same electricity monthly as leaving four CRT monitors on all the time. They use only 25% of the consumption of a 4-TON AC unit during June, July and August (typical household AC) They use the same power monthly as a single 8000 BTU window air conditioner... Converting all of the private commuter vehicles to EVs today would only increase electricity consumption by 20%. While this would require some increase in infrastructure, it is not the end-of-the-world scenario that everyone keeps claiming. It is well within what we could achieve within the scope of normal market supply and demand. The introduction of the television had a much more profound impact on our electricity consumption...

-=Geoskd

Re:I'm no car expert..

[Sir_Sri]

intellectual superiors

Sometimes, a lot of times, yes. Remember that story from a couple of days ago about people shooting lasers at aircraft? People don't always see the big picture or have time to focus on the details of the environmental/health/safety impacts of all of their choices, because they have shit to do. So they pay the government to make those decisions for them.

When I walk into a supermarket I *want* someone to have written a bunch of food safety standards so that I'm reasonably confident in the food I buy, and reasonably confident that if there is a recall (as we are going through in canada right now) there will be some press about it, rather than some local guy covering it up. If 'dependence on foreign oil' is a serious problem, which for Japan for example it was for a long time, and for Europe, who depend on Russia, it creates some very serious complications, that may trump my desire for cheap oil/methane/etc because if I'm depending on something that can be cut off or significantly inflated in price later I'm essentially like those people who got mortgages for double the value they could ever afford to pay off.

With each of your points:

Meat: People don't want irradiated meat, even though that would eliminate a lot of the food safety issues with it, but the 'intellectual superiors' have a solution, that's been rejected by the intellectually inferior masses due to the word 'irradiated'. Meat takes a lot of grain, and, in effect, is an inefficient system of distributing nutrition, except that there are health benefits to eating some meat. But in the case of serious drought or crop failure we'd be be better off to go vegetarian for a year than have a few million people starve to death so we can keep having steaks. Fortunately we haven't had a problem like that lately, but the drought in the US, locusts in Africa, pollution in china and india can make for some very bad things happening to the food supply.

Temperatures in the winter: Consumes energy/oil. As I said, there are serious strategic implications (and economic ones in terms of balance of trade and currency value). This is the argument japan is going through right now. Nuclear is expensive, but the VAST majority of that spending is local or to economies with robust trade and strong economies. Natural gas is popular because it's not nuclear, but means the Japanese are going to need to find someone to sell them natural gas. And remember they're still technically at war with Russia from WW2, who is the largest supplier of Natural gas. As a result of their power shortages they've needed to have government mandates about working times and so on. Yes yes, nanny state. But the choice was make people work strange inconvenient hours, or cut power to millions of people, and now Japan is going to expand its massive dependency on foreign everything. Not a good situation to be in when you're technically at war with one neighbour, and perpetually on the brink of war with 2 others.

TV: The government licences spectrum. The government has always licenced content in creative works to varying degrees. That's not new, and between that and the rules about content safe for children it doesn't seem like governments in civilized countries are going too much farther down any path here, so I guess I can continue to look at this video of your straw man as long as you'll let me? If anything the lack of regulation in the US, which allows things like faux news spewing lies as facts all the time (and early al jazeera being something similar) has actually make a portion of the US public less informed and creates a dangerous world of people believing that the president is actually a kenyan indonesian muslim communist fascist trying to take over. What could possibly go wrong with that?

Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[Bananatree3]

You don't need a V6 to merge quickly. Hell, even a whimpy 80s econobox can merge quickly if you have a good driver and manual transmission.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[eclectus]

I used to own an '84 Chevy DIESEL Chevette, and it could get up to 65 to merge onto the interstate. (assuming no headwind) Having 200+ hp in a family sedan is overkill.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[omnichad]

You don't need manual transmission for that. Push the pedal to the floor in an automatic and it will drop to a low gear to accelerate.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[snowraver1]

But 240 hp with awd in the snow is freaking awesome!

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[hierophanta]

you've just correlated yourself to the 80 year old lady who wanted the V8

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[sumdumass]

Anyone can merge if the ramp is long enough. The problem the op described was the short ramps in which i find new 4 cylinder cars have difficulty getting up to speed. There are a lot of clover loop ramps in the east and mid west. These are particularly problematic because you have to merge on the off ramp of the same lane you are trying to pull into. You are literally trying to get up to speed while dodging people slowing down to exit.

Also, the older 4 and 6 cyl engines were something wanting compared the v8 engines. The automatic transmissions of the time seemed to amplify this lacking of abilities quit a bit. It was still noticeably in standard shift cars but not as drastic. The old lady in question is probably going from experience over the years. I have driven some pretty peppy 4 cylinder cars and some v6 engines that would rival a v8. To this day, I'm still skeptical about small engines and automatic transmissions until I drive them and see it isn't the crap of yesteryear.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[coyote_oww]

227hp awd in the snow is indeed fun. and not unreasonable, IMHO. Wanting a V8 was her generation's "I want a car that isn't klunky". That it doesn't have to be a V8 anymore is her ignorance of the changes in engine technology. But, for the young whipersnappers out there, keep in mind that in the early 80s, Mustangs with "sport tuned" engines had V8s that made 140hp. Seriously. The old lady probably experienced a 4-banger of that era, which were uniformly pathetic. As an ex-Pinto owner, I understand her feeling.

As a car salesman, you need to put her into a 16valve 4cyl turbo to help her understand that cylinders alone does not measure power very well. :-) And it would be funny...

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[digitalsolo]

Since you wanted someone to disagree, here you go.

As a general rule, you are correct, a manual transmission will allow for more accurate application of power, and a torque converter does "cost" more horsepower than a clutch (excluding a locked up converter, but an automatic is still generally less efficient). However, considering a large portion of the discussion has included turbocharged cars, things get much different at that point. An automatic allows you to increase load on the engine without having to bring the RPMs down, out of the powerband. This allows a turbocharger to spool more quickly, bringing you into the most effective part of your powerband with the turbo already spooled up, bringing you quicker acceleration. This is why turbocharged drag cars use automatics, as well as why turbocharged manual cars use "anti-lag" which helps work around the fact that you cannot load the engine in this way with a manual transmission.

FWIW, I'm not speaking from my rectum here. I own a turbocharged drag car that previously ran a manual transmission and now has an automatic, for this exact reason. Again, as a general rule, you are correct, but as a blanket statement, there is a rather large range of vehicles for which the opposite is true.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[Gordonjcp]

That's nice and all, but why bother? It doesn't go any faster than my 1600cc diesel van. It might accelerate from 0 to 60 a bit faster, but how often do you need to accelerate from a dead standstill to 60mph, as quickly as possible? I can't think of a single time when I've needed to do that, in practical day-to-day driving.

On the drag strip, it's a different matter. But you're not on a drag strip, so you shouldn't drive like you are.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[superdave80]

... it could get up to 65 to merge onto the interstate.

Well of course it could. No one thinks that 4 cylinder cars can't reach highway speed. The question is how long does it take. Some on ramps are long enough for even the wimpiest car to get up to speed before merging. Some on ramps you need some serious acceleration to get up to highway speed before you run out of room.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[superdave80]

All ramps are legally required to be of a sufficient length for any properly maintained car to reach merging speed.

That is the most vague, made up shit I have every heard on /.

"Properly maintained" doesn't sound like a very well defined legal definition.

You are supposed to accelerate around the curve before you get to the straightaway...

Would you care to explain how you are suppose to drive 55-65 MPH on a 35-45 MPH (or less) curve?

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[reboot246]

All ramps are legally required to be of a sufficient length for any properly maintained car to reach merging speed.

Oh, really? Check out the onramp from Alabama Hwy 25 to northbound I-65. You either accelerate quickly to merging speed or you hit a bridge. Even a fast car has trouble merging onto the interstate there, and many slower cars have met the bridge.

That's just one of dozens I could tell you about. Get out and drive somewhere. Remember, what's mandated by law and what actually gets built are two very different things.

Re:Manual econoboxes accelerate just fine

[sumdumass]

lol.. and that does what for the poor sap behind you?

BTW, I used to drive truck. The speed limits on the raps are especially important when riving an 18 wheeler. The solace I had while driving truck was that the rig was so big that I wouldn't feel the pain of an accident involving a smaller vehicle merging.

The big difference is that people know they do not stand a chance with a big rig. They tend to change lanes (if their head isn't up their ass) r compensate their speed. Driving a truck, I realized why a lot of people hated us, they are constantly having to adapt their driving to account for us. This is especially the case in areas with a split speed limit where trucks do 55 and cars do 65 or 70 or so. What I have found in a car though is the exact opposite most of the time. Cars will push the limits thinking you will too. Even if they are watching and willing to put the breaks on, it leads to a lot of anxiety in the process.

Re:Here's an idea

[AlXtreme]

I drive 40+ miles to work each day. I am about to drive 250+ miles to meet with a customer. America is not as densely populated as Europe. Cars are how we travel. This is why we won't buy the small cars that are popular in Europe.

This is rubbish, the average commute is rather short and comparable on both sides of the pond, and I regularly drive straight through France and Germany. We too drive a lot.

The real reason why large cars don't sell and small cars do sell in Europe is because of the insane gas prices. When you pay $10/gallon you will change your driving habits or your type of car.

I just got myself a new car which is quite large for European standards, it goes 40mpg which is decent. But more and more commuters are going for efficient smaller cars (50-60mpg) because of increasing fuel costs, the difference means that the car pays for itself within a few years.

If fuel costs were the same I'd bet every family here would want an SUV too.

Re:Here's an idea

[somersault]

If Jeremy Clarkson at 6'5" can be comfortable in a VW Polo, I think you're either doing it wrong or just are really unlucky with the cars you're getting. The Polo is hardly a gas guzzler. It's in the "mini" category, the only smaller one being "supermini".

Re:Here's an idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I tend to find european compacts handle tall people much better than their japanese counterparts.

I can ride in the back seat of a VW golf/jetta just fine without hitting my head (and sufficient leg room with a reasonable compromise with the person in the front seat) but can hit my head in the back of something like a honda accord or nissan altima (which aren't even the smallest options available in the US from those makers).

You've got to be pretty big around the waistline before the choice of car actually matters--up until maybe the 250-300lb mark (depending on height), the limiting factors are going to be legroom and headroom.

Re:1984

[EmagGeek]

I loved my 1987 CRX HF. It wasn't useful for much other than commuting though, and only for 2 people. That kind of car is useless to 80% of households out there, who need a car to do more than just move one or two people from point A to point B.

I can't take my family anywhere in a sub 1-ton 2-seater.

Of course, the other end of that spectrum is the drove of people who drive solo to work every day in a Suburban, and then bitch about gas prices.

The answer is certainly not to force everyone to make do with a car that doesn't serve their needs.

Re:2000 Honda Insight, Metros/Swifts, Honda CRX HF

[Anonymous Coward]

Except that the F150 will not have to get 54.5MPG by 2025. It will only need to hit 30MPG by then due to the cluster fuck of regulations that CAFE is. That 30MPG only translates to about 23MPG in real world driving. Part of the problem is that a lot of the CAFE standards are based around the footprint of the vehicle. This provides the car manufacturers with no incentive to give the US small cars since they have to meet much tougher efficiency standards. Go read the link for more information.
http://jalopnik.com/5948172/how-the-government-killed-fuel-efficient-cars-and-trucks

Re:I'm no car expert..

[Gilmoure]

Yup.

My '68 Chevy II Nova weighed 2850 lbs and had a 250 c.i. straight six engine (cast iron with 1 barrel carb and log exhaust manifold, and two speed automatic transmission) that made 150 hp. Car got around 17 mpg.

My '07 Chevy Trailblazer weighed 5500 lbs and had a 254 c.i. Straight six engine (4.2 L aluminum block with fuel injection, variable valve timing, and factory headers, and 4 speed automatic transmission) that made 295 hp. Truck got around 19 mpg.

So, twice the vehicle weight but twice the power from same size engine (that has a lighter block) and better gas milage. Truthfully, I prefer to have the '68 Nova again but put the modern engine in it (and upgrade the black vinyl seats and AC). As far as safety goes, I was t-boned by an old lady in a '63 Impala and other than messing up driver side fender and door skin, was ok. Didn't even break the rolled down window in driver side door.

Re:I'm no car expert..

[h4rr4r]

You think enforcing fuel economy standards will turn us into the USSR?

I have a much better idea, tax gasoline at $5/gallon.
Add a dollar a year until you get to that level, so people have time to adjust. Consumer demand will move to more efficient vehicles.

Honda CRX HF

[future assassin]

Been there done that..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X#First_generation
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml

Re:Honda CRX HF

[EmagGeek]

Yep, I had one, too. They're useful for commuting, and nothing else. But, they are fantastic for commuting, and shockingly had very good crash ratings for a 2000lb car.

Unfortunately, you could not replicate a CRX HF today, because the EPA no longer allows lean-burn motors, due to the increased emission of NOx compounds that is the result of such a high combustion temperature. Cars have to run richer to reduce NOx emissions, at the expense of fuel economy.

Re:Get the semis off the road

[j-turkey]

Yes - take the safest, most experienced drivers off of the road. Great idea. Question: How does the freight get from the trains stations and river barge depots to its destination with trucks off of the road?

In any case, car crash standards aren't written to save cars from trucks. They're to save occupants who crash with other cars and stationary objects.

What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo?

[rainhill]

>>What do Detroit, or Stuttgart, or Tokyo have waiting in the wings?

you surely mean, China.

Re:I'm no car expert..

[MightyYar]

What problem? That was my whole point - I don't see the problem. People like big, fast cars, and the market supplies them - that's a pretty good problem to have. Raising the fuel efficiency standards will just make those cars cost more. Your example is an example of this: the 1.6 in the Fiesta is a nice little mass-produced Sigma thing... actually pretty respectable given it's cost. The EcoBoost is more complicated and more expensive. It isn't rocket science - people with too much money have been turbo charging their cars for years. And it's not that much better from a fuel economy point of view - the Ford Escape is available with the old 2.5L normally aspirated and the new 1.6L Ecoboost for $2500 more (you also get a trim-level upgrade). The EPA estimated mileage is almost identical.

Now I'll agree that use of gasoline has it's problems. Personally, I'd like to see the price of gas reflect it's external cost.

For instance, set up a bipartisan commission (like the CBO) to come up with an estimate of what portion of our national defense budget is spent on protecting our oil supplies - then raise that money through gas taxes on oil that comes from that region.

But whether you raise taxes on gas or inflate the price of cars in general through economy standards, it amounts to a regressive tax.

Re:Buy a scooter

[fl!ptop]

Buy a scooter, 1 gallon will get you 70 miles.

Ok, so what do you do when it's 13 deg. F (-10.5 C) outside, with a 40 mph wind? Have you ever driven a 2-wheeled vehicle on ice or in the snow? Or when it's pouring down rain?

What do you do when you have to take your kid to hockey practice? You may be able to fit all the "weekly shopping" on it, but will it hold all the pads, bags and sticks required for hockey? What if you have 3 kids that play hockey?

Just because something works fine for you doesn't mean that's the case for everyone.

Re:Incorrect

[Grishnakh]

Nope. Lighter materials could be as safe as heavier materials; you could use advanced aluminum honeycomb structures for instance to absorb energy (didn't the McLaren F1 have a chassis with this stuff?). However, doing so is much more expensive than using the same stamped-and-welded steel that cars have been using since the early 1900s.

What do Americans use the F-150 for?

[evilandi]

Blimey. Just had a look at the Ford F-150. To provide an overview for my fellow Britons:

That thing (F-150) is five and a half metres long, two metres wide and one point nine metres tall. Even if you're really, really tall, you still wouldn't be able to see over the roof, you'd still be able to lie down in it sideways, and it would take six paces to walk from the front bumper to the rear. It won't fit into a standard European parking space through the two horizontal dimensions, and won't fit vertically through most multi-storey car park "Max Headroom" barriers either. It weighs over two tonnes even before you put anyone or anything inside it.

For comparison, a massive gas-guzzling British car such as the Vauxhall Zafira 7-seater has a maximum engine size of 1.9 litres, produces only 148hp and weighs 1.5 tonnes.

The F-150's smallest engine is 3.5 litres and produces 350hp. That is roughly the same as a high-end BMW 5-series. Yup, their smallest engine is the same as a top-end BMW engine. That 3.5 litre, 350hp engine is branded the "eco" version.

I could understand this if Americans drove everywhere. But from my repeated and frequent trips to the USA, my experience is - they don't. They drive hardly anywhere - they generally just drive to the shops or to work, plus a few outings to nearby towns and parks within a couple of hundred miles. Sure, Americans make a lot of journies, but they don't tend to be very long ones. Anywhere much further, they FLY and get a hire car. They don't generally, for example, take their cars on long-distance holidays like Europeans do. They don't ever get in their car in, say, New York and drive all the way to Charleston; they fly. Whereas lots of Europeans would think nothing of getting in our cars in, say, Manchester, and driving all the way to Bordeaux, or starting a journey in Rome and driving to Zurich.

So I'm mystified by what Americans use an F-150 for.

Re:What do Americans use the F-150 for?

[epyT-R]

Our infrastructure relies on trucking so we have problems when fuel prices fluctuate too much. I'm not talking about F150s, I'm talking about 18wheelers. Abusing the concept of tax for the sake of modifying behavior is not a good idea, anyway, but in this situation, it does nothing but cause more economic damage. It has already done so.

The F150 is used by just about every contractor/construction worker in the US. Pretty much anyone who's involved in building/making anything of significant mass ends up with one at some point. If you've got few tons of lawn equipment to haul, you'll need that 350hp.. same thing with hauling construction material, or a few workbenches worth of tools.. or, hey, even hauling the boat down to the river for a saturday afternoon. The truck is #1 for a reason, and it's not gluttony despite what the trolls in the european media say about us (we're not the only ones with trollish media).

Re:What do Americans use the F-150 for?

[jonwil]

The obvious question is why doesn't anyone in the US sell a smaller more fuel efficient pickup truck.

Lots of people need trucks for work or DIY or towing a boat or camping or whatever. But I bet a whole bunch of those people could get by with something that isn't anywhere near as large (or as gas guzzling) as the full-size trucks.

Some companies make "smaller" trucks (e.g. Chevrolet Colorado) but they are almost as big, almost as gas guzzling and almost as expensive as the full-size trucks.

No reason why a truck similar to the current Australian-model Toyota Hilux, Mitsubishi Triton or similar couldn't sell in the US if it had the right range of models, the right engines and the right marketing.

All it takes is $10 per/gal GAS

[na1led]

and we will have cars that get 55 MPG within 1 year!

Re:Here's an idea

[Grishnakh]

How can they simultaneously be deathtraps and for pussies?

When you're dealing with people like this, this, this, or this, there's no use in trying to apply logic.

Re:I'm no car expert..

[TubeSteak]

As an aside I was talking to a truck driver as I loaded him up (45 tonnes of bulk) and he said with the new generation of big diesel rigs with scads of horsepower (600 is typical) and lots of torque (pulling along at 1500 rpm is easy) that he gets fantastic fuel economy. On flat roads while crusing, he gets about 6 mpg! That's amazing fuel economy for a big rig!

Daimler (of Daimler-Benz) has been working for years on a 10mpg tractor trailer.
They've finally managed 9+mpg under real world conditions and 10+mpg using a streamlined trailer on a test track.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-05-30/daimler-unveils-big-rig-50-percent-more-efficient-than-average.html
Part of the magic is extensive aero tweaks and the other part is a fancy diesel engine from Detroit (tm)

The difference between 6mpg and 9mpg is 50%, which is an enormous amount of savings for a trucking company or a driver who owns his own truck.

Re:Here's an idea

[dunkelfalke]

A 65 km commute isn't anything special for Europe. Neither is driving 400 km to a customer. We manage pretty fine. Actually, I know a guy who has got a 60 km commute and he takes a bicycle when it is not too cold or raining/snowing, so you are just being a pussy.

Answer: Double cab trucks not tax deductable in UK

[evilandi]

epyT-R wrote:
>The F150 is used by just about every contractor/construction
>worker in the US. Pretty much anyone who's involved in
>building/making anything of significant mass ends up with one
>at some point.

I think this argument does have some merit. We Brits are comparing the F-150 with family cars, whereas your post indicates that it is used both as a family car AND a tradesman's vehicle.

In the UK, a tradesman with a family would typically own both a Ford Transit PLUS a small/medium family car.

In the UK a tradesman would not own one vehicle to perform both work and family tasks, since (and here's the clincher) the British tax system penalises tradesmen for using their work vehicles for family purposes; for example, there is a restriction on claiming tax back on "double cab" vehicles unless you can prove that you frequently move more than 3 workmen around in the same vehicle. Using tax-deductable expenses such as vehicles for domestic purposes is viewed, in the UK, as cheating the tax system.

Whereas, if a British tradesman buys a single-cab van or truck, the cost is much easier to claim against tax. So a tradesman's family will buy a gas-guzzling van for the tradesman, which he will essentially get for free if he pays enough tax, and a cheap-to-run medium-sized MPV for the homemaker (or maybe even a compact/hatchback).

If you start comparing an F-150 with a Ford Transit (the most popular trade vehicle in the UK), rather than a family MPV, then the F-150 starts looking like less of a monster.

Engine size (basic): F-150 3.5 litres, Transit 2.4 litres
HP: F-150 365, Transit 140
Torque (Nm): 570, Transit 285
Length: F-150 5.8 metres, Transit 5 metres
Width: F-150 2 metres, Transit 2 metres
Height: F-150 1.9 metres, Transit 2 metres
Kerb weight: F-150 2 tonnes, Transit 1.8 tonnes

What's interesting here is that, with the Ecoboost engine, the F-150 is a far, far more efficient work vehicle than the Transit, both in terms of horsepower (where you would expect the F-150 to win) and in terms of torque (where you would expect the Transit to win).

When you factor in dual use for both trades and family, the F-150 suddenly looks like a very sensible purchase even by European standards.

Now there's something you don't see every day; a discussion on Slashdot actually discovering an answer. What do Americans use the F-150 for? Answer: As a multi-purpose vehicle for both trades and domestic family use, a purpose which is almost entirely absent from the British market due to the way tax claims are made more difficult for mixed-use capital expenditure.