[Apr 21, 10:52]Terry [e-mail] If auto makers can figure out a way to increase horsepower the way they have without sacrificing efficiency, then they can figure out a way to get a 30 mpg engine to power a 6,000 pound truck. They just need a little incentive to do it.
[Apr 21, 13:06]Rspaight From the pardonmyenglish link: "Cars get two and three times the mileage they did thirty years ago and yet in many cases, are twice as powerful." Bullcookies. Two and three times? There's only a handful of cars on the US market today that do better than 30 MPG on the city cycle. A 1980 Civic got better mileage than nearly anything on the market today short of a hybrid or diesel. Cars are a lot heavier today, due to safety equipment and the desire for more interior space. "Luxury" sedans from the early 80s (Audi 5000, Toyota Cressida, Datsun Maxima) weighed 2500 pounts, got mid-20s in the city and had 120 horsepower. Cars in the same class today weigh 3500 pounds and get high teens or low 20s with more than 250 horsepower. Of course, many people these days drive 15-MPG SUVs that are wasteful even by 70s standards. Two and three times the MPG? In conservative fantasies, perhaps.
[Apr 21, 13:16]Rspaight Not to mention that guy's delusion that drilling in ANWR would actually bring back $.99/gallon gas. Cheap oil is either gone or soon will be, ANWR or no ANWR. Demand (especially from China and India) has outstripped demand, and there's no more "easy" oil to be drilled. There stuff like the Alberta tar sands, but that's not going to be $20/barrel oil. Instead of whining about $2.50/gallon gas (when it'll be $5 before you know it), you're better off figuring out what the heck you're going to use *instead*. But that requires effort, which doofi like "pardonmyenglish" are allergic to.
[Apr 22, 23:43]Dob [e-mail] For all you folks that would like to reduce America's dependence on oil by requiring an increase in CAFE, is there a specific country that you would like to use as a model? For example, should we reduce our per capita oil consumption until we are at the level of Europe, which has $3 gas? Or Japan, which has $5 gas?
Maybe the easiest and quickest thing to do would be to import some of those European or Japanese 3 ton 30mpg trucks to the US. They must have those, right? That's the only possible explanation as to why they use so much less oil than Americans, which is why we rightfully place so much emphasis on CAFE requirements. Not to mention that the idea of placing a "sin tax" on gasoline (to bring us more in line with what most of the world pays for gas) has replaced Social Security as the "third rail" in politics.
I keep hearing how CAFE goals (and then some) can be easily achieved with "off the shelf", reasonably priced technology, like lightweight materials, more efficient engines, regenerative braking, and hybrid drivetrains. If the stubborn US automakers refuse to use that technology, let's buy the foreign trucks (and cars) which use it today. Problem solved.
[Apr 23, 11:45]Rspaight There's no such thing a 30-mpg 3 ton truck, because only self-absorbed idiots drive a 3 ton truck as personal transportation. There are a myriad of fuel-efficient vehicles sold in Japan and Europe that are not even offered for sale in US, because with our lightly-taxed gas, people are more interested in huge vehicles with powerful engines. We could meet a 33 mpg CAFE today no sweat if the lineup included vehicles like the Mercedes A-class and the Honda Jazz instead of the Chevy Suburban and Chrysler 300 Hemi. We're headed for a huge crisis in the near future when cheap oil runs out. Japan and Europe will be in a better position to weather it because they are much more efficient than we are, and have much better rail and public transportation infrastructures than we do. America will cease being a superpower within the next 30 years, mainly because our entire economy depends on cheap oil that will soon be gone. On the plus side, all the people reduced to poverty will be able to live in their Ford Expeditions.
[Apr 23, 13:54]Dob [e-mail] That's the point I was trying to make. What makes more sense, importing efficient European and Asian vehicles which already exist, or trying to build a 33mpg pickup/SUV?
Of course, we know the reason that the Smart car and the Jazz and super high mileage diesels aren't imported here...the perception is that the public won't buy them (or, in the case or diesels, the misconception that they are still dirty). That may or may not be true (I think the popularity of the Prius has caught everyone by surprise), but your statement of "we could meet 33 mpg CAFE no sweat" implies that enough of these vehicles would be sold to fulfill that requirement. If they didn't, they'd have to be pushed with rebates and discounts, and the margin on these vehicles is usually quite small already. And that doesn't help Ford or GM at all, who don't have many overseas micro models and hardly any diesel models and would be penalized for specializing in making trucks that the public has clearly voted for with their pocketbook.
If the idea of a gas tax is so politically unpalatable, what's wrong with expanding government incentives for efficient vehicles (like the ones for hybrids)?
The American public wants spacious, safe, comfortable, versatile vehicles that can do some hauling/towing if required. That's why full sized trucks and SUVs sell so well, not because they are heavily advertised. Plus they want to be "environmentally friendly" so they can assuage their consciences. And, most importantly, they don't want to have to pay extra (or maybe a token amount extra). The idea is that mileage savings will make up for expensive technology. Oh, really? What's the premium for a Prius (vs the equivalent Toyota) and how many miles have to be driven to make up for it? Don't forget the cost of replacing the battery module when it wears out. And that's not even addressing the rumor that Toyota is subsidizing these cars and that they should be more expensive.
It seems to me that the people that are in favor of CAFE requirements are the ones who consistently drive gas guzzlers and want a free lunch -- i.e., same performance with better mileage...or the ones that drive efficient vehicles and think that everyone else should too. And since we can't force people to buy efficient vehicles we should "force" automakers to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
It's so tempting and convenient to blame a third party, like lazy "no-can-do" automakers and greedy oil companies, instead of realizing that our profligate tendencies are the problem. How many people do you see driving 70 on the freeways? What's their excuse? If they just did the math they'd realize that they'd only save a lousy 4 minutes (on a 20 mile trip) by driving 70 instead of 55. Is 4 minutes that big a deal? The reason folks drive 70 is because gas is (still relatively) cheap. When gas prices start to hurt, folks will slow down.
There are plenty of fuel efficent vehicles (cars and trucks) available for sale in the US already. People are not buying enough of them to support a higher CAFE. How is mandating a higher CAFE going to change that? Why not offer government incentives? Is the thinking that these vehicles don't sell well because they are "poorly designed" (examples, please) and that CAFE would cause them to be better designed? It makes about as much sense as addressing a national obesity problem by requiring clothing manufacturers to make smaller clothes.
Sorry for the rant, but I work for Ford...
[Apr 23, 17:09]Luke [e-mail] A couple of things...
1) CAFE is an *average*. "Big trucks" can get 20 MPG if an equal number of "small cars" get 46 MPG. That is to say, big trucks don't *need* to get 33 MPG.
2) We don't need things like hybrids and ultra compacts to get better mileage. Trucks and SUVs can be designed to get far better mileage (without greatly reducing performance; in fact, performance can even be better). And they don't even have to cost much more (in fact they cost less in the long run).
Yes, it is easy to blame auto makers when they aren't doing things than can easily improve mileage.
[Apr 23, 23:12]Dob [e-mail] 1. Just to make sure we're clear on this, it is an equal number SOLD. If Ford makes a 100mpg street legal go-kart but no one buys it, it won't help their CAFE numbers at all.
2. A bunch of scientists build a virtual vehicle (or a one off prototype) with "existing" technology and make all sorts of wonderful claims for it. It's strange -- you would think that an SUV design with better mileage, better performance, and that costs less in the long run would sell like hotcakes. And these scientists are offering up the plans for free...with competition as cutthroat as ever, it's shocking that none of the automakers have jumped all over this.
Do you know why Ford can't build any more of their popular Escape hybrid? Because the battery pack supplier is at maximum capacity. Sure, everyone's working to increase the capacity but it will take time. But the media imply (at one time implied, anyway) that Ford is deliberately keeping the numbers down for some other nefarious reason, like they're afraid of cannibalizing sales from regular Escapes or Explorers. Big bad Ford once again.
Of course, when you are a "concerned" scientist cobbling up one vehicle, instead of 200,000, you have the luxury of not worrying about things like supplier capacity.
If you're still determined to blame auto makers for "not doing enough," blame them all -- don't give Honda and Toyota and Nissan a free pass like the media do.
EPA estimated mileage:
Honda Ridgeline 4WD (3.5L V6): 16/21
Ford Explorer 4WD (4L V6): 14/20
Toyota Sequoia 4WD (4.7L V8): 15/18
Ford Expedition 4WD (5.4L V8): 14/18
Nissan Armada 4WD (5.6L V8): 13/18
Toyota Tundra 2WD (4.7L V8): 16/18
Ford F150 2WD (4.6L V8): 15/19
[Apr 24, 00:15]Dob [e-mail] Looks like my post got cut off. No great loss.
[Apr 24, 09:53]Rspaight I don't doubt that the reason huge vehicles sell well is because that's what people want. And I can hardly blame auto manufacturers for not pouring money into making vehicles more efficient when that won't necessarily translate into increased sales. The car makers are in business to make money, not protect us from our own short-sightedness.
Gas has been very cheap in this country for a long time. (The oil shocks of the 70s -- which resulted in inflation-adjusted gas prices of $3 a gallon -- should have been a wake-up call, but we went right back to sleep as soon as gas got cheap again in the mid-80s.) Why worry about whether your Explorer makes 16 or 25 MPG when gas costs $1.50 a gallon? Ford doesn't want to spend money developing things like VTEC engines and CVTs when they can sell just as many trucks without them. (And when they finally started selling a hybrid Escape, it used tech they bought from Toyota.)
My point is that those conditions are not going to be the same much longer, if at all. When gas costs $5 a gallon (and you can bet it will in the next few years), we'll see how popular enormous trucks and V-8-powered sedans are. (The question "Has it got a Hemi?", if answered affirmatively, will no longer be followed by "Sweet!", but rather "You dumbass!") At that point, I can promise that no one will be wondering what the ROI on a hybrid is. (Then, when it hits $7, and then $10, well, you can figure that out.)
In Europe and Japan, vehicles are already much more efficient for a few reasons. Firstly, their gas is taxed heavily, so it *already* costs $3-5 a gallon. In addition, roads are a lot smaller over there. An Escalade simply wouldn't fit. Finally, vehicles are often taxed by engine displacement or size. You can argue that those taxes are intrusive, but it's hard to deny that they've left those countries in a better position to deal with the end of cheap oil.
When the market changes, Ford and GM will simply start bringing their European and Asian models over here, much as they did in the 70s (remember the Fiesta?). Ford's got cars like the Ka already on the market over there, and GM's got all kinds of small Opels ready to go. (Plus, Ford has Mazda and things like the Mazda 2.) And, by the way, they *do* have many diesel models in Europe, where at least half of all cars sold are diesels. This, of course, will be painful for everyone over here working in factories pumping out Hummers and Navigators (but hey, they're just making what people want -- live by the market, die by the market).
So, CAFE is largely irrelevant at this point. The end of cheap oil will change the US car market with or without CAFE. The only difference is that if we'd done something about auto efficiency 25 years ago, when the writing was on the wall, we'd be in a better competitive position now. As it is, we're screwed, and no government regs will help at this late date. Talking about CAFE now is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
[Apr 25, 17:44]ron I believe Americans will pay whatever they have to for fuel as long as there are no lines to wait on or rationing or odd/even days. Add the factor of relatively lower gas prices in St. Louis with the appeal of the SUV's and no one seems to care.
[Apr 26, 09:27]Luke [e-mail] Ok, fixed the comments engine. It shouldn't blow up on long threads anymore.
Until some other part breaks, of course.
Continue.
[Apr 26, 22:15]anonymous Ryan, you are unusually well informed about the auto business and I agree with most of your points. Just a couple of corrections:
Ford is actually more committed to CVTs than either GM or Chrysler. Two of Ford’s latest offerings (Freestyle and Five Hundred) prominently feature CVTs. GM had a bad experience with the CVT on the Saturn Vue SUV…plus they are penny pinching so hard that many of their latest vehicles have old tech 4 speed auto transmissions (not to mention pushrod engines). With the advent of practical 6 and 7 speed autos, the CVT advantage is getting smaller, plus those transmissions don’t have the CVT disadvantage of limited torque capacity.
Although Ford has European diesel models, they are widely considered to be far behind in diesel technology. In trying to catch up, they’re buying state of the art diesels from Peugeot. AFAIK, one of the big reasons GM got involved with Fiat is to have better access to their diesel engines, as GM is behind on them as well.
Speaking of buying someone else’s technology…while it’s true that Ford licensed hybrid technology from Toyota, it’s not like the Escape hybrid has a Prius drivetrain. Although I don’t have any first hand knowledge, my understanding is that Toyota has so many hybrid patents covering so many design concepts (many of which are theoretical and exist only on paper), Ford figured it would be easier to get licensing than risk a lawsuit. AFAIK, Ford isn’t using a single Toyota designed part.
I also agree that the era of cheap oil is almost over…in fact, we may have already passed the peak of worldwide production (Hubbert’s peak). In addition, I suspect that some of the foreign oil reserves have been (deliberately?) overstated…a few months ago, one of the big oil companies was involved in a reserve overstating scandal.
I think taxing gas is a good idea. If the complaint is that this will be a hardship for some individuals/businesses, why not just have them save their gas receipts and file for a gas tax refund when they file their income tax return?
But most folks get downright irrational when the subject is increasing taxes, regardless of how good the reason.
The problem with CAFÉ is it does not directly or indirectly discourage consumption, like a tax would. Statistically, the law has been a failure. We import more oil than ever, drive more miles than ever, and brag about our hemis, not our fuel economy (except for those wacko Prius drivers). Some feel CAFE is primarily responsible for small, unsafe cars and, as a result, thousands of preventable deaths. And I certainly agree with you that tinkering with the CAFÉ requirements will have a negligible effect on the timing of peak oil.
CAFÉ is pretty much dead, anyway. Looks like the CAFÉ supporters are abandoning federal laws and are gradually hitching their wagons to state level laws that control “emission of pollutants” – specifically, CO2.
[Apr 26, 22:21]Dob That last post was mine...I must've been timed out.
[Apr 27, 15:03]Rspaight "Ford is actually more committed to CVTs than either GM or Chrysler. Two of Ford’s latest offerings (Freestyle and Five Hundred) prominently feature CVTs."
Very true. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out. CVTs have potential that has never been realized, even though they've been around a (relatively) long time. I do agree with you, though, that with 6 and 7-speed automatics, the gap is narrowing considerably between conventional gearboxes and CVTs. Plus, I've read that many drivers get freaked out by the "slipping clutch" sensations of driving a CVT (constant RPMs while accelerating, etc.).
"GM had a bad experience with the CVT on the Saturn Vue SUV…plus they are penny pinching so hard that many of their latest vehicles have old tech 4 speed auto transmissions (not to mention pushrod engines)."
I'm not sure at this point what could help GM. They're so far behind on basic tech (at least in their mainstream models) that they'd have to spend a fortune to catch back up. They're surviving purely on full-size trucks and SUVs at the moment. (As the exception that proves the rule, the Malibu Maxx is a unusually innovative design, at least in terms of packaging.)
"Although I don’t have any first hand knowledge, my understanding is that Toyota has so many hybrid patents covering so many design concepts (many of which are theoretical and exist only on paper), Ford figured it would be easier to get licensing than risk a lawsuit. AFAIK, Ford isn’t using a single Toyota designed part."
Interesting. Toyota could be in for a bonanza if other makers follow that route.
I tend to agree with you on the other points. I was reading an article just today on how some analysts think OPEC is wildly overstating their reserves, and that the Saudis may have actually peaked over 20 years ago. They say we may see $100/barrel oil within three years. (Other analysts, of course, think the first set of analysts are full of it.)
In any case, people need to understand that the situation is going to get worse, not better. It might be preferable to ratchet the price of gas up in a controlled fashion through taxation (to try to spur the market toward more efficiency) than to wait for the inevitable huge spike. But suggesting such a thing in the current climate of "high gas prices" would be suicidal. By 2010, though, I'll bet people will look back in wonder at the days when gas was only $2 a gallon.
[Apr 27, 22:14]Dob [e-mail] "I'm not sure at this point what could help GM. They're so far behind on basic tech (at least in their mainstream models) that they'd have to spend a fortune to catch back up. They're surviving purely on full-size trucks and SUVs at the moment."
At their first quarter conference call, GM refused to give profit guidance for the rest of the year, which is a huge red flag. Yes they are in serious trouble.
Although both Ford and GM (and I suspect DC as well) have seen approximately the same percentage reduction in full size SUV sales, it's very interesting that they have opposite interpretations. Ford feels that the move away from full size SUVs is due to folks suddenly becoming much more conscious of fuel efficiency.
GM, on the other hand, denies this and blames the falloff on the fact that their product is old/stale. In other words, if only they had fresh product, only Ford would be seeing a sales slowdown, not them. As a result, they have scrapped their new Epsilon RWD line of passenger cars and devoted that manpower to getting their scheduled new trucks/SUVs out one year earlier (2006 instead of 2007).
IMO they're making a HUGE mistake and it could end up finally sinking them. We shall see.
[Apr 28, 09:18]Rspaight "IMO they're making a HUGE mistake and it could end up finally sinking them. We shall see."
[Apr 21, 10:52] Terry [e-mail]
If auto makers can figure out a way to increase horsepower the way they have without sacrificing efficiency, then they can figure out a way to get a 30 mpg engine to power a 6,000 pound truck. They just need a little incentive to do it.
[Apr 21, 13:06] Rspaight
From the pardonmyenglish link: "Cars get two and three times the mileage they did thirty years ago and yet in many cases, are twice as powerful." Bullcookies. Two and three times? There's only a handful of cars on the US market today that do better than 30 MPG on the city cycle. A 1980 Civic got better mileage than nearly anything on the market today short of a hybrid or diesel. Cars are a lot heavier today, due to safety equipment and the desire for more interior space. "Luxury" sedans from the early 80s (Audi 5000, Toyota Cressida, Datsun Maxima) weighed 2500 pounts, got mid-20s in the city and had 120 horsepower. Cars in the same class today weigh 3500 pounds and get high teens or low 20s with more than 250 horsepower. Of course, many people these days drive 15-MPG SUVs that are wasteful even by 70s standards. Two and three times the MPG? In conservative fantasies, perhaps.
[Apr 21, 13:16] Rspaight
Not to mention that guy's delusion that drilling in ANWR would actually bring back $.99/gallon gas. Cheap oil is either gone or soon will be, ANWR or no ANWR. Demand (especially from China and India) has outstripped demand, and there's no more "easy" oil to be drilled. There stuff like the Alberta tar sands, but that's not going to be $20/barrel oil. Instead of whining about $2.50/gallon gas (when it'll be $5 before you know it), you're better off figuring out what the heck you're going to use *instead*. But that requires effort, which doofi like "pardonmyenglish" are allergic to.
[Apr 22, 23:43] Dob [e-mail]
For all you folks that would like to reduce America's dependence on oil by requiring an increase in CAFE, is there a specific country that you would like to use as a model? For example, should we reduce our per capita oil consumption until we are at the level of Europe, which has $3 gas? Or Japan, which has $5 gas?
Maybe the easiest and quickest thing to do would be to import some of those European or Japanese 3 ton 30mpg trucks to the US. They must have those, right? That's the only possible explanation as to why they use so much less oil than Americans, which is why we rightfully place so much emphasis on CAFE requirements. Not to mention that the idea of placing a "sin tax" on gasoline (to bring us more in line with what most of the world pays for gas) has replaced Social Security as the "third rail" in politics.
I keep hearing how CAFE goals (and then some) can be easily achieved with "off the shelf", reasonably priced technology, like lightweight materials, more efficient engines, regenerative braking, and hybrid drivetrains. If the stubborn US automakers refuse to use that technology, let's buy the foreign trucks (and cars) which use it today. Problem solved.
[Apr 23, 11:45] Rspaight
There's no such thing a 30-mpg 3 ton truck, because only self-absorbed idiots drive a 3 ton truck as personal transportation. There are a myriad of fuel-efficient vehicles sold in Japan and Europe that are not even offered for sale in US, because with our lightly-taxed gas, people are more interested in huge vehicles with powerful engines. We could meet a 33 mpg CAFE today no sweat if the lineup included vehicles like the Mercedes A-class and the Honda Jazz instead of the Chevy Suburban and Chrysler 300 Hemi. We're headed for a huge crisis in the near future when cheap oil runs out. Japan and Europe will be in a better position to weather it because they are much more efficient than we are, and have much better rail and public transportation infrastructures than we do. America will cease being a superpower within the next 30 years, mainly because our entire economy depends on cheap oil that will soon be gone. On the plus side, all the people reduced to poverty will be able to live in their Ford Expeditions.
[Apr 23, 13:54] Dob [e-mail]
That's the point I was trying to make. What makes more sense, importing efficient European and Asian vehicles which already exist, or trying to build a 33mpg pickup/SUV?
Of course, we know the reason that the Smart car and the Jazz and super high mileage diesels aren't imported here...the perception is that the public won't buy them (or, in the case or diesels, the misconception that they are still dirty). That may or may not be true (I think the popularity of the Prius has caught everyone by surprise), but your statement of "we could meet 33 mpg CAFE no sweat" implies that enough of these vehicles would be sold to fulfill that requirement. If they didn't, they'd have to be pushed with rebates and discounts, and the margin on these vehicles is usually quite small already. And that doesn't help Ford or GM at all, who don't have many overseas micro models and hardly any diesel models and would be penalized for specializing in making trucks that the public has clearly voted for with their pocketbook.
If the idea of a gas tax is so politically unpalatable, what's wrong with expanding government incentives for efficient vehicles (like the ones for hybrids)?
The American public wants spacious, safe, comfortable, versatile vehicles that can do some hauling/towing if required. That's why full sized trucks and SUVs sell so well, not because they are heavily advertised. Plus they want to be "environmentally friendly" so they can assuage their consciences. And, most importantly, they don't want to have to pay extra (or maybe a token amount extra). The idea is that mileage savings will make up for expensive technology. Oh, really? What's the premium for a Prius (vs the equivalent Toyota) and how many miles have to be driven to make up for it? Don't forget the cost of replacing the battery module when it wears out. And that's not even addressing the rumor that Toyota is subsidizing these cars and that they should be more expensive.
It seems to me that the people that are in favor of CAFE requirements are the ones who consistently drive gas guzzlers and want a free lunch -- i.e., same performance with better mileage...or the ones that drive efficient vehicles and think that everyone else should too. And since we can't force people to buy efficient vehicles we should "force" automakers to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
It's so tempting and convenient to blame a third party, like lazy "no-can-do" automakers and greedy oil companies, instead of realizing that our profligate tendencies are the problem. How many people do you see driving 70 on the freeways? What's their excuse? If they just did the math they'd realize that they'd only save a lousy 4 minutes (on a 20 mile trip) by driving 70 instead of 55. Is 4 minutes that big a deal? The reason folks drive 70 is because gas is (still relatively) cheap. When gas prices start to hurt, folks will slow down.
There are plenty of fuel efficent vehicles (cars and trucks) available for sale in the US already. People are not buying enough of them to support a higher CAFE. How is mandating a higher CAFE going to change that? Why not offer government incentives? Is the thinking that these vehicles don't sell well because they are "poorly designed" (examples, please) and that CAFE would cause them to be better designed? It makes about as much sense as addressing a national obesity problem by requiring clothing manufacturers to make smaller clothes.
Sorry for the rant, but I work for Ford...
[Apr 23, 17:09] Luke [e-mail]
A couple of things...
1) CAFE is an *average*. "Big trucks" can get 20 MPG if an equal number of "small cars" get 46 MPG. That is to say, big trucks don't *need* to get 33 MPG.
2) We don't need things like hybrids and ultra compacts to get better mileage. Trucks and SUVs can be designed to get far better mileage (without greatly reducing performance; in fact, performance can even be better). And they don't even have to cost much more (in fact they cost less in the long run).
Yes, it is easy to blame auto makers when they aren't doing things than can easily improve mileage.
[Apr 23, 23:12] Dob [e-mail]
1. Just to make sure we're clear on this, it is an equal number SOLD. If Ford makes a 100mpg street legal go-kart but no one buys it, it won't help their CAFE numbers at all.
2. A bunch of scientists build a virtual vehicle (or a one off prototype) with "existing" technology and make all sorts of wonderful claims for it. It's strange -- you would think that an SUV design with better mileage, better performance, and that costs less in the long run would sell like hotcakes. And these scientists are offering up the plans for free...with competition as cutthroat as ever, it's shocking that none of the automakers have jumped all over this.
Do you know why Ford can't build any more of their popular Escape hybrid? Because the battery pack supplier is at maximum capacity. Sure, everyone's working to increase the capacity but it will take time. But the media imply (at one time implied, anyway) that Ford is deliberately keeping the numbers down for some other nefarious reason, like they're afraid of cannibalizing sales from regular Escapes or Explorers. Big bad Ford once again.
Of course, when you are a "concerned" scientist cobbling up one vehicle, instead of 200,000, you have the luxury of not worrying about things like supplier capacity.
If you're still determined to blame auto makers for "not doing enough," blame them all -- don't give Honda and Toyota and Nissan a free pass like the media do.
EPA estimated mileage: Honda Ridgeline 4WD (3.5L V6): 16/21 Ford Explorer 4WD (4L V6): 14/20 Toyota Sequoia 4WD (4.7L V8): 15/18 Ford Expedition 4WD (5.4L V8): 14/18 Nissan Armada 4WD (5.6L V8): 13/18 Toyota Tundra 2WD (4.7L V8): 16/18 Ford F150 2WD (4.6L V8): 15/19
[Apr 24, 00:15] Dob [e-mail]
Looks like my post got cut off. No great loss.
[Apr 24, 09:53] Rspaight
I don't doubt that the reason huge vehicles sell well is because that's what people want. And I can hardly blame auto manufacturers for not pouring money into making vehicles more efficient when that won't necessarily translate into increased sales. The car makers are in business to make money, not protect us from our own short-sightedness.
Gas has been very cheap in this country for a long time. (The oil shocks of the 70s -- which resulted in inflation-adjusted gas prices of $3 a gallon -- should have been a wake-up call, but we went right back to sleep as soon as gas got cheap again in the mid-80s.) Why worry about whether your Explorer makes 16 or 25 MPG when gas costs $1.50 a gallon? Ford doesn't want to spend money developing things like VTEC engines and CVTs when they can sell just as many trucks without them. (And when they finally started selling a hybrid Escape, it used tech they bought from Toyota.)
My point is that those conditions are not going to be the same much longer, if at all. When gas costs $5 a gallon (and you can bet it will in the next few years), we'll see how popular enormous trucks and V-8-powered sedans are. (The question "Has it got a Hemi?", if answered affirmatively, will no longer be followed by "Sweet!", but rather "You dumbass!") At that point, I can promise that no one will be wondering what the ROI on a hybrid is. (Then, when it hits $7, and then $10, well, you can figure that out.)
In Europe and Japan, vehicles are already much more efficient for a few reasons. Firstly, their gas is taxed heavily, so it *already* costs $3-5 a gallon. In addition, roads are a lot smaller over there. An Escalade simply wouldn't fit. Finally, vehicles are often taxed by engine displacement or size. You can argue that those taxes are intrusive, but it's hard to deny that they've left those countries in a better position to deal with the end of cheap oil.
When the market changes, Ford and GM will simply start bringing their European and Asian models over here, much as they did in the 70s (remember the Fiesta?). Ford's got cars like the Ka already on the market over there, and GM's got all kinds of small Opels ready to go. (Plus, Ford has Mazda and things like the Mazda 2.) And, by the way, they *do* have many diesel models in Europe, where at least half of all cars sold are diesels. This, of course, will be painful for everyone over here working in factories pumping out Hummers and Navigators (but hey, they're just making what people want -- live by the market, die by the market).
So, CAFE is largely irrelevant at this point. The end of cheap oil will change the US car market with or without CAFE. The only difference is that if we'd done something about auto efficiency 25 years ago, when the writing was on the wall, we'd be in a better competitive position now. As it is, we're screwed, and no government regs will help at this late date. Talking about CAFE now is re-arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
[Apr 25, 17:44] ron
I believe Americans will pay whatever they have to for fuel as long as there are no lines to wait on or rationing or odd/even days. Add the factor of relatively lower gas prices in St. Louis with the appeal of the SUV's and no one seems to care.
[Apr 26, 09:27] Luke [e-mail]
Ok, fixed the comments engine. It shouldn't blow up on long threads anymore.
Until some other part breaks, of course.
Continue.
[Apr 26, 22:15] anonymous
Ryan, you are unusually well informed about the auto business and I agree with most of your points. Just a couple of corrections:
Ford is actually more committed to CVTs than either GM or Chrysler. Two of Ford’s latest offerings (Freestyle and Five Hundred) prominently feature CVTs. GM had a bad experience with the CVT on the Saturn Vue SUV…plus they are penny pinching so hard that many of their latest vehicles have old tech 4 speed auto transmissions (not to mention pushrod engines). With the advent of practical 6 and 7 speed autos, the CVT advantage is getting smaller, plus those transmissions don’t have the CVT disadvantage of limited torque capacity.
Although Ford has European diesel models, they are widely considered to be far behind in diesel technology. In trying to catch up, they’re buying state of the art diesels from Peugeot. AFAIK, one of the big reasons GM got involved with Fiat is to have better access to their diesel engines, as GM is behind on them as well.
Speaking of buying someone else’s technology…while it’s true that Ford licensed hybrid technology from Toyota, it’s not like the Escape hybrid has a Prius drivetrain. Although I don’t have any first hand knowledge, my understanding is that Toyota has so many hybrid patents covering so many design concepts (many of which are theoretical and exist only on paper), Ford figured it would be easier to get licensing than risk a lawsuit. AFAIK, Ford isn’t using a single Toyota designed part.
I also agree that the era of cheap oil is almost over…in fact, we may have already passed the peak of worldwide production (Hubbert’s peak). In addition, I suspect that some of the foreign oil reserves have been (deliberately?) overstated…a few months ago, one of the big oil companies was involved in a reserve overstating scandal.
I think taxing gas is a good idea. If the complaint is that this will be a hardship for some individuals/businesses, why not just have them save their gas receipts and file for a gas tax refund when they file their income tax return? But most folks get downright irrational when the subject is increasing taxes, regardless of how good the reason.
The problem with CAFÉ is it does not directly or indirectly discourage consumption, like a tax would. Statistically, the law has been a failure. We import more oil than ever, drive more miles than ever, and brag about our hemis, not our fuel economy (except for those wacko Prius drivers). Some feel CAFE is primarily responsible for small, unsafe cars and, as a result, thousands of preventable deaths. And I certainly agree with you that tinkering with the CAFÉ requirements will have a negligible effect on the timing of peak oil.
CAFÉ is pretty much dead, anyway. Looks like the CAFÉ supporters are abandoning federal laws and are gradually hitching their wagons to state level laws that control “emission of pollutants” – specifically, CO2.
[Apr 26, 22:21] Dob
That last post was mine...I must've been timed out.
[Apr 27, 15:03] Rspaight
"Ford is actually more committed to CVTs than either GM or Chrysler. Two of Ford’s latest offerings (Freestyle and Five Hundred) prominently feature CVTs."
Very true. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out. CVTs have potential that has never been realized, even though they've been around a (relatively) long time. I do agree with you, though, that with 6 and 7-speed automatics, the gap is narrowing considerably between conventional gearboxes and CVTs. Plus, I've read that many drivers get freaked out by the "slipping clutch" sensations of driving a CVT (constant RPMs while accelerating, etc.).
"GM had a bad experience with the CVT on the Saturn Vue SUV…plus they are penny pinching so hard that many of their latest vehicles have old tech 4 speed auto transmissions (not to mention pushrod engines)."
I'm not sure at this point what could help GM. They're so far behind on basic tech (at least in their mainstream models) that they'd have to spend a fortune to catch back up. They're surviving purely on full-size trucks and SUVs at the moment. (As the exception that proves the rule, the Malibu Maxx is a unusually innovative design, at least in terms of packaging.)
"Although I don’t have any first hand knowledge, my understanding is that Toyota has so many hybrid patents covering so many design concepts (many of which are theoretical and exist only on paper), Ford figured it would be easier to get licensing than risk a lawsuit. AFAIK, Ford isn’t using a single Toyota designed part."
Interesting. Toyota could be in for a bonanza if other makers follow that route.
I tend to agree with you on the other points. I was reading an article just today on how some analysts think OPEC is wildly overstating their reserves, and that the Saudis may have actually peaked over 20 years ago. They say we may see $100/barrel oil within three years. (Other analysts, of course, think the first set of analysts are full of it.)
In any case, people need to understand that the situation is going to get worse, not better. It might be preferable to ratchet the price of gas up in a controlled fashion through taxation (to try to spur the market toward more efficiency) than to wait for the inevitable huge spike. But suggesting such a thing in the current climate of "high gas prices" would be suicidal. By 2010, though, I'll bet people will look back in wonder at the days when gas was only $2 a gallon.
[Apr 27, 22:14] Dob [e-mail]
"I'm not sure at this point what could help GM. They're so far behind on basic tech (at least in their mainstream models) that they'd have to spend a fortune to catch back up. They're surviving purely on full-size trucks and SUVs at the moment."
At their first quarter conference call, GM refused to give profit guidance for the rest of the year, which is a huge red flag. Yes they are in serious trouble.
Although both Ford and GM (and I suspect DC as well) have seen approximately the same percentage reduction in full size SUV sales, it's very interesting that they have opposite interpretations. Ford feels that the move away from full size SUVs is due to folks suddenly becoming much more conscious of fuel efficiency.
GM, on the other hand, denies this and blames the falloff on the fact that their product is old/stale. In other words, if only they had fresh product, only Ford would be seeing a sales slowdown, not them. As a result, they have scrapped their new Epsilon RWD line of passenger cars and devoted that manpower to getting their scheduled new trucks/SUVs out one year earlier (2006 instead of 2007).
IMO they're making a HUGE mistake and it could end up finally sinking them. We shall see.
[Apr 28, 09:18] Rspaight
"IMO they're making a HUGE mistake and it could end up finally sinking them. We shall see."
MHO agrees with YHO.
Ryan