Why Cars Don't Get 50 mpg

[jwight]

Article from April, but some interesting comments on the mpg wars, and the smart:

Why Cars Don't Get 50mpg | Newsweek Voices - Keith Naughton | Newsweek.com

Still, all the major automakers are putting their cars on a crash diet. Ford wants to drop 250 to 750 pounds in all its models by 2012. Toyota and Nissan want to cut the fat by 10 to 15 percent. But this slim-fast campaign is running into the drive for more safety features in automobiles. Back in the 1980s, the Honda CRX-HF and the Geo Metro each got more than 50mpg, but they didn't have airbags or steel beams in their doors to protect occupants in a crash. These days, cars are equipped with six air bags, steel safety cages and electronic stability control to prevent spinouts. That makes cars much safer—but a lot fatter. "We are working in two directions," says Toyota's Reinert. "One is to make cars as safe as possible, and that generally makes them heavier. And the other is to make cars as fuel efficient as possible."

Downsizing also has its drawbacks. For starters, U.S. highway statistics show the smallest cars have death rates 2.5 times higher than the biggest. What's more, wimpy engines often (under) power small cars and that's a drawback many Americans won't abide. I recently drove the diminutive Smart car for a week. While it's certainly cute, its puny 70-horsepower engine and slow-shifting transmissions made me feel like Fred Flintstone could outrun me. That might be enough power for twisty Old World roads, but here in America, we have a need for speed. "Going zero to 60 in 15 seconds doesn't fit the average American consumers idea of mobility today," says Reinert. "That's too doggy."

[vwW12]

Originally Posted by jwight

some interesting comments on the mpg wars

Like many other articles of its politically-correct ilk, this one evades talking about the big elephant in the room: the mileage cost of ever more arcane pollution regulations.

Cars today positively throw away exhaust which by law mandate is often cleaner than the air the car took in. It ain't free: you pay for it by burning extra of your fuel:

(1) Power reductions due to gas friction losses in the ever more complex and cumbersome catalytic converters: you gotta hit the gas pedal harder.

(2) Power reductions due to gas recirculation and obvious pumping power losses: you gotta hit the gas pedal harder.

(3) Power reductions due to combustion chamber constraints —engineers are forced to choose "burning up all the particles" as opposed to "maximizing energy yields." The Honda Civic VX engine, one of the most fuel efficient ever in the 1990's, had to be killed because it did not meet the California exhaust regulations of 1996. The Civic lived on, just with a less efficient engine. You gotta get a less efficient engine to placate the greenies.

(4) Additional gas consumption to warm up the catalytic converter after a cold start. Most cars today positively dump gasoline into the engine in the first minutes of operation not to move your car, but to warm up the converter. Cold catalytic converters do no catalize anything, hence the gasoline dump.

(5) Additional fuel consumption to burn ash: the latest diesels actually store up exhaust particles. When the storage fills up, additional fuel is automatically used up to burn the exhaust particles. That would be your fuel being used up for something other than transporting you.

Hey, I am not saying it is all bad. I like clear air as much as the next guy. All I'm saying is that people who spend $50 worth of gas should be aware that perhaps $15 went towards maintaining Los Angeles smog free, even if they live in the middle of Montana.

[p1nball]

Same "OLD" American story! The press won't let it go!! Telling the public that it has to go big and fast!! U.S. auto makers have tried this before. From the mid 1950's, mid 1960's, mid 1970's,mid 80's, and mid 90's. Yes most were crappy!!! From the early Ford Falcon, Dodge Dart, Chevy Nova, and so on. It was the press and printed motor articles that killed the movement foward. If gas prices keep sliding back, the American public will go back to large gas hog's and just pay the price. Just got back from NYC, and there using Ford Escape's as Taxi's!!(HYBRID} Also Mini Vans and more Ford Crown Vic's then all the P.D.'s in the whole USA. ONLY FOUND THREE SMARTS parked or on the roads!! So it's like what happened going to work yesterday, a Yank Tank(Chevy Tahoe} stopped and passenger rolled down the window and yelled" What kind of miles you get on that???" When I answered, and said about 43-47, He looked supprised!! and said "That's ALL!!" He LOL and said he would rather be in his vehicle then mine!!! It will be a Very Hard sell for most American's to Do!!! Yes the older less safe cars did indeed get 50mpg's. But there were not enough buyers to support them, and they all died on the vine. I hope this time we can support the sales and move foward and get way over 50-60 MPG's. while also having safe vehicles.

[jwight]

Here's another approach to looking at the mpg issue and costs - total cost.

Fuels and Society - Effect of Catalytic Converters on Auto manufacturers

As it turned out, the auto industry did not collapse under the weight of the regulations, and in fact, the health benefits of reducing lead alone were estimated in 1985 to be worth 10 to 13 times the cost, or at least $17 billion per year. (EPA, 1985). (See Lead Phase Out).

As pointed out, the cumulative cost of catalytic converters, unleaded gas and higher mpg standards is not insignificant. However, weighed against the decrease in health-related costs, the total overall cost is less. Again, it's not an either or proposition as so many like to paint it; we can have a cleaner environment and still drive a variety of cars that sell and operate at reasonable prices. Just my .02.

[jediknight36]

I honestly believe that the auto industry and the oil industry are in bed together. Look at the electric vehicles that they had in teh mid 90's. Their gone now.

[bigcritter]

QUOTE::::I recently drove the diminutive Smart car for a week. While it's certainly cute, its puny 70-horsepower engine and slow-shifting transmissions made me feel like Fred Flintstone could outrun me. That might be enough power for twisty Old World roads, but here in America, we have a need for speed. "Going zero to 60 in 15 seconds doesn't fit the average American consumers idea of mobility today," says Reinert. "That's too doggy." END QUOTE

I wish "Reinert" would have been in the car with me last night once I broke through all the road construction on Interstate 5 and got through to the "other side!" Doggy, my *ss! There was one red sports car that managed to "hang" with me when I busted out! All the rest were left sitting back wondering where we went! Plus, the idiot that pulled over in front of me for no apparent reason is probably STILL wondering what that little blue streak was that blew by him! I'd show him DOGGY!!

[smartRRparts]

Originally Posted by bigcritter

I wish "Reinert" would have been in the car with me last night once I broke through all the road construction on Interstate 5 and got through to the "other side!" Doggy, my *ss! There was one red sports car that managed to "hang" with me when I busted out! All the rest were left sitting back wondering where we went! Plus, the idiot that pulled over in front of me for no apparent reason is probably STILL wondering what that little blue streak was that blew by him! I'd show him DOGGY!!

I agree, I don't feel the smart is a dog at all. In automatic mode I think the shift points make it do 60 mph in about 15 seconds, but I swear it does it in under 10 seconds in manual mode with the right input. Anyone else agree?

[pdboilermaker]

The people that criticize the smart car for being slow are the same idiots that criticize my beloved h3 for using too much gas. Idiots. Imagine that,

1. I have a smart car with a little engine that gets great mileage but performs sub par in the 1/4 mile and doesnt go through deep snow, couldnt do the Rubicon trail and cant pull a 5th wheel imagine that

2. I have a h3 it goes through snow great, gets ok mileage (20) with the 5 cylinder but is dogged for not having enough power, gets poor mileage, is difficult to parallel park imagine that

3. I want a Dodge Challenger but I can hear them now while it rips up the 1/4 mile, the gas mileage is not so good, it doesnt seat a family of 6 it can pull a 5th wheel blah blah blah

Why dont these people that are so good at criticizing build their own car/truck/suv they know what will sell and at what price. Idiots, I hope they remember that they have 2 camps fighting within the governmnet one that says mileage at all costs which says safety at all costs. Both good ideas but they kind of work against each other. Dont forget the consumer cheap, safe, powerful, goes through anything, excellent mileage, sexy good looks, easily repaired at home, dependable, unbreakable, 0 tailpipe emissions, jack rabbit stops and starts.

I want to see the cars the criticizers make to quote a movie "Build it Reinert, they will come" Idiot

[Dunerunner]

Originally Posted by jediknight36

I honestly believe that the auto industry and the oil industry are in bed together. Look at the electric vehicles that they had in teh mid 90's. Their gone now.

They cost a fortune to manufacture. The production was mandated. Most were only available on a lease program because people couldn't or wouldn't pay the high price for them. If EV's were profitable, manufacturing companies would build them, believe that. They are not profitable, they have no range, they are a hazmat nightmare to dispose of, they still cost a fortune to build.

[gadgets]

free enterprise works very well unregulated. The government can't manage their way out of a wet paper sack!!