What’s your point. It’s called freedom of choice. Some people choose smart cars due to their fuel efficiency. Others choose Hummers because they feel more safe. So what? This is not some safety “war” resulting in ever increasing size.
Your solution is to force everyone to drive the same car so we are equally at risk. I say the government has no business dictating what we drive. And, thanks to the arbitrary increase in CAFE standards, car manufacturers will be forced to use lighter materials to produce cars. Of course, those who still have their Toyota Hulking Behemoth will eventually run into some driving the new golf carts.
I thought I understood this point but I see the “manufactured for sale” part. I guess this means they can make the fuel efficient cars and park them on a lot while they still count toward the sales-weighted harmonic mean fuel economy?
Of course it is. Who looks at a roadfull of VW bugs and says, “Wow, those are going to roll right over me if I get a VW Bug. Better get a giant truck instead, for the safety.”
So…you’re arguing that it’s a good thing that Behemoth fans will be crunching the golf carts?
This is nonsense. If this were even remotely true you would not see people driving VW bugs or smart cars. Unless you are arguing that these people are thinking “fuck safety…I want 35 MPG”.
So…you’re arguing that it’s a good thing that Behemoth fans will be crunching the golf carts?
[/QUOTE]
Again it depends on the system in the car. If the system is a cycling clutch orifice tube (CCOT) system then yes the compressor runs less than 100% of the time. If on the other hand the system is a expansion valve system (like my car and lots of others) the compressor is set to run 100% of the time, and only shuts off if the driver selects it, the evaporator is in danger of freezing, or the system goes into overpressure.
The fan inside the passenger compartment however does run all the time, unlike the fan in a home AC system. Also unlike a home AC system the fan runs at many variable speeds, where a home system only has one fan speed.
Home AC and car AC systems are not exactly the same.
I stand by my comments.
It’s more like “The odds of getting in an accident are pretty low, but the odds that I’ll burn gas when driving are, well, rather high. (Add in dozens of other factors as well.) …Hmm, all that considered, I’ll take my chances.”
But basically yes, I am arguing that that’s what those people are thinking.
Yes. What I didn’t find in it was a rational argument, except perhaps “We should all be glad that people are able to choose to crunch those idiots who foolishly didn’t say ‘fuck 25 MPG…I want safety’.”
Aren’t they? Lots of people drive convertibles and motorcycles, which are far less safe than fully enclosed cars. Sometimes they do it for even worse gas mileage. I drive a motorcycle, and I’ve at least considered “Fuck safety… I want to have fun!” Absolute safety is not the only priority, but it is part of the decision process.
The discussion of the safety of different sizes of cars seems to have boiled down to thinking that small cars are only less safe because large cars are on the road. But that’s not the case. If every car on the road were small, small cars would still be safe, because small cars will still do worse in all the crashes that don’t involve other cars. It’s nice that you won’t be run over by a hummer, but the brick walls are still just as unforgiving.
As far as CAFE standards go, I’m moderately in favor of an increase. I believe that we’d be much better off with a gas tax than a mandate, but given the political realities involved, I think this is better than nothing.
Here’s the thing, yorick73: A big vehicle may, in some cases, be a little safer for the person in the vehicle (and even that is debated, but we’ll grant it for the sake of argument), but it’s a lot more dangerous for everyone else. By driving a larger vehicle, then, you’re improving things for yourself, but on net, you’re making things worse for society as a whole. This means that, without any regulation, things get worse than they should be. This is exactly the sort of situation where government intervention is a good thing: If government steps in and forces everyone to do the thing that’s best for society, then everyone is better off. Yes, in the world where everyone drives Beetles, everyone has the same amount of safety, and that amount of safety is higher than your safety in the world where you and a bunch of other people drive Hummers. So if your concern is increasing your own personal safety, then you should be asking the government to require small cars for everyone.
Thank ya, was not aware of that type of system. Even then, the compressor is not run at a constant 100% output, does not need the engine to be turning it with all of its effort, and the pulley is exhibiting some parasitic loss.
Unlike gasoline made from corn, Bio-diesel does not require farm crops or farm land. It can be made from algae. At the present technological stage, we don’t have a problem growing enough algae, it’s the conversion that is cost prohibitive. The advantage of growing bio-diesel from algae is that co2 can be stripped from coal electric plants for nourishment and cars that run on it burn less fuel. It would take money going to unfriendly nations and return it directly to our own economy. It would also revive the auto industry and put people back to work. It’s a win/win from every standpoint. supposedly, the new Honda Accord diesel gets 62.8 mpg on the highway which is a vehicle that could tow a trailer (something a hybrid cannot).
This, IMHO, is outdated thinking. The tide is already turning away from the big, gas-guzzling “(ideal) American car” to more fuel-efficient sedans. Further, American auto manufacturers are finally beginning to compete with the Japanese with some success. Granted they still have a long way to go, but Japanese and European CAFE standards indicate much better fuel efficiency is achievable. Since American automakers must meet foreign CAFE standards when selling their vehicles overseas, it’s safe to assume that they can design and manufacture vehicle that meet higher standards in the US, especially when our newly adopted standards continue to lag behind those of the Europe.
I couldn’t disagree with you more. There has already occurred a paradigm shift in American attitude towards fuel efficiency and that is reflected in the list of best- and worst-selling autos year after year. Last year, according to Forbes, seven of the top ten best-selling autos were sedans that averaged 26 MPG; admittedly, the other three, including the top two best-selling autos were trucks averaging 16 MPG and together represented 35% of those sales. Nine of those were also best-sellers in 2007 (the new entry being the Ford Focus at #10); nor was it much different in 2006, same three trucks and virtually all of the same sedans.
Taking a look at 2008’s worst-selling autos, we see nine SUVs and one minivan (including two Hummers, the most pilloried of the lot). It’s clear America’s love affair with the gas-guzzling SUV is over. Now, if the Big 3 can wrap their minds around that, they jettison the SUV fleet in favor of even more efficient models to offset the inefficiency, but true utility, of the pickup truck. Lose the Suburban, GM, and make the upcoming Cruze more fuel efficient than the Cobalt (2006 best-seller). Seriously, America is coming around, it’s the manufacturers that need to get a clue. It’s hard to understand why Detroit hasn’t been able to match the design mindset of the Japanese, considering how long they’ve dominated the market by so many benchmarks (i.e., safety, reliability, fuel efficiency, sales, etc.). IMHO, it’s a big part of why they were failing to begin with: outmoded thinking.
The government’s already helping. Admittedly, I’m one of those that think they deserved to fail and should have been left out to dry, because they were not able to innovate with same success that the Japanese did in the late 70s and early 80s. They thought they understood the American car-buying public, but they didn’t. They remained steadfast in their misjudgment year after year while being blown out of the water by the Hondas and Toyotas of the industry. One would hope that this little humility lesson in FAILURE (all caps) makes a lasting impression on them. If the auto industry head honchos weren’t sitting at Obama’s press conference with their tails shamefully tucked between their legs in utter capitulation, they are seriously in for a bumpy ride.
Cite? By the Forbes list, the best selling sedans average 26 combined mpg. If these are their most fuel efficient cars, they really do have a problem. Well, for Toyota and Honda, they most certainly aren’t if you take their hybrids into consideration.
Where’s Ford’s hybrid? Oh yeah, the Escape Hybrid. An SUV. :smack: Remind me again how much we Americans love our SUVs?
Where is GM’s hybrid? Oh yeah, the Chevy Malibu Hybrid with a combined mpg of 31. Isn’t fuel efficiency why you buy a hybrid? They don’t even come close to the efficiency of the top-selling Toyota Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid.
I think they are trying to do that already with pickup trucks, which is smart because Americans want pickups as they represent way more utility than SUVs. But they need to learn how to make hybrids that actually have the fuel efficiency hybrids are obviously capable of achieving. And then they need to get ahead of the game and do even better than that. If Ford and GM can meet European CAFE standards, they can find a way to meet the new US CAFE standards.
Bullshit. Stop selling fuel inefficient cars that nobody wants. You get those stupid SUVs out of your fleet and reduce the horsepower in your muscle cars and you will most certainly improve your fleet’s mpg. Further, start selling fuel efficient hybrids that can compete with those of Toyota and Honda and a) you’ll start dominating the market and b) your new fleet fuel efficiency will continue to meet CAFE standards.
The demand is there. In 2000, Honda sold the first hybrid in the US. The following year, the Prius debuted and subsequently became the best-selling hybrid. As of 2009, there are 27 different hybrid vehicles available to the American public. None are as efficient as they could be and should be, but auto manufacturers realize that demand for hybrids is steadily increasing. What they need to really understand is that a hybrid that gets barely five mpg over the non-hybrid version is not efficient enough to move vehicles. To the average American, the added cost of the hybrid and uncertainty of the relatively new technology is not worth a savings of only five mpg. Step it up, Detroit, and start making hybrids that aren’t a joke. Oh, and when you do figure it out, don’t list it at $40,000 if your goal is to actually sell a significant number. Good luck with that, GM.
Or, people will pay a bit more for a lot more efficiency, not the few mpg Detroit has been willing to give them.
You got that right, but Detroit was trying to sell hybrids, too. They just couldn’t compete with Toyota because the Prius is actually an efficient hybrid.
Did they ever really have an interest or were they just going through the motions? Now that their necks are on the chopping block, they just might be inclined to get with the program, I think.
Rising gas prices certainly puts more pressure on Detroit and the government to start making some real headway towards significantly reducing our oil dependence, but it seems pretty obvious that Detroit is going to drag their feet as long as they possibly can without the government’s kick in the backside. It’s truly a shame they weren’t as forward thinking as foreign automakers and governments. We are so behind as a nation, as a result.
It seems that GM did a pretty good job on their own of making themselves less profitable. If they can’t rise to the challenge now, they truly didn’t deserve the bailout. Like all businesses in trouble, they need to suck it the hell up. It’s not rocket science, for Pete’s sake. Are they that starved for innovators? They manufacture two of the top-selling vehicles of 2008, what is it about running a business do they not understand?
Are you solely referring to their hybrids? If so, they are not that fuel efficient by industry standards, hence the likely reason they are taking a bath on them. Still hoping for a cite on this. Again, if they are relying on poorly selling inefficient hybrids to meet CAFE standards, they need seriously need to reevaluate their SUV sales.
We get out of the auto industry because we obviously are too stupid to do it right.
It is. If they do that, they absolutely should fail because it makes no sense to simply adjust prices downward without innovating to make a better (read: more efficient) product while simultaneously determining that the market will no longer support your least efficient vehicles.
If they would run their businesses more like successful companies, they wouldn’t require subsidizing. Yes, innovation is key along with recognizing what they market truly wants. They haven’t been able to do this with a measure of success that would have kept them profitable in addition to poorly anticipating the market trend towards greater fuel efficiency.
That may certainly help change a few people’s minds, but I do believe that you underestimate the trend already in progress. Again, look at the Forbes lists of best- and worst-selling vehicles.
Neither am I, but only from the standpoint that it pays for the innovation and productivity that allows us to not only match European CAFE standards, but to exceed them. Further, to the extent that it completely eliminates the auto industry’s dependence on oil and creates a vehicle industry that is ecologically sustainable, that would be money very well spent.
Call it a nitpick but the acronym SUV is getting morphed into meaning “anything large”. It stand for Sport Utility Vehicle. The Escape Hybrid is a just that, a Hybrid. It uses the same Atkinson-cycle engine and battery supplemented electric motor found in other hybrids. For Parents who need something larger than a Prius Ford has provided a vehicle that meets that need.
Well, that is weight you are carrying around, but it is at least not directly impeding the rotating force of the engine. If I carry the same pulley and wheel in the back seat, not attached to the belts, the loss is less than if it were being spun by the crankshaft, and losing more energy through friction.
Removing accessories from the engine mounting also allows for more flexibility in the design of the vehicle. You still have the same general size of the components, but you can move them around more freely, allowing you to change the shape of the packaging, theoretically allowing for aerodynamic gains. You could also build the devices themselves to operate more efficiently. With an electric drive, you can design it to be efficient at a specific rpm, and run it at that rate. The current accessories need to be able to handle between 1000-9000 rpm on a modern Honda high performance engine (reduced by the pulley ratio, of course), and do some version of work correctly in that entire range. Magiver, thank you for the information on algae produced biodiesel, It actually makes me have some hope for that solution. 3 of my last 4 vehicles have been turbo diesels. They’re great. Nothing beats a flat torque curve for day-to-day driving. If I had known that they were bringing across the 335di, I would have taken the financial hit, and it would have been 4 of 4.
The Ford Escape Hybrid is classed as a compact SUV. It is an SUV. Regardless of the fact that it’s built with the same fuel-economizing technologies as the Prius, it gets a combined 32 mpg for its FWD model and 28 mpg for its 4WD model; compared to 46 mpg for the Prius, it’s a marginal effort at best. Yes, it is 75% more efficient than its non-hybrid counterpart, but the point is that Ford is missing the boat on better fuel economy by neglecting to produce a hybrid sedan. Why don’t they offer one that is capable of competing with the Prius? Sales for the Escape Hybrid are flat and very low by comparison to the Prius (yes, I realize sales were down last year) and Civic, which is not surprising considering it follows the pattern as nearly every other SUV on the market.
I understand Ford is about release a new hybrid sedan…finally. The Ford Fusion is a mid-size sedan with a combined 38 mpg (only 6 mpg more than the SUV?) and base MSRP of $27,270 (comparable to it’s competitors’ hybrid products). While it beats the Camry, Altima, and Chevy Malibu in fuel economy, it’s still not as efficient as the Prius. It is, however, a step in the right direction. My guess is that, barring any mechanical/design problems, sales for it will be a lot better than the Escape Hybrid.
Wow. Ford builds a vehicle that is 75% more efficient than its non hybrid counterpart and that is a marginal effort? Tough room.
You do realize that the Escape is larger, heavier, and less aerodynamic than a Prius and those factors alone probably accounts for most if not all of the fuel mileage difference.
Same with the Fusion hybrid, which BTW gets 41 city and 36 highway. Cite In a 4 way comparison test of midsized hybrid sedans the Fusion kicked the other three cars ass. It was the best by far according to Car and Driver Magazine. IIRC the other cars competing were the Toyota Camry, the Honda Accord and the Chevy Malibu.
I supposed if you are going to slam car makers for producing hybrids that don’t get Prius like MPG numbers you should include Toyota in your bashing. The Camry hybrid (a direct competitor to the Fusion) gets 33/34 MPG, and the Highlander hybrid gets 27/25. Are those both also marginal efforts?
I think it is time that the USA had a national energy policy. That said, I don’t see the need to set MPG standards for vehicles. It would make much more sense to simply tax vehicles based upon engine size/displacement (as is done in France). Then you can build any size vehicle you want-it will jsut be underpowered.
anyway, as fuel prices rise, people wil buy smaller-engined cars. The market will sort the whole thing out.
Detroit got snookered because of the cheap gasoline we had from 1995-2004. This was an abnormal condition, caused by the Saudis and the Russians overproducing like crazy. Because gas was cheap, Detroit made SUVs-which yielded enormous profits. When gasoline prices rose, nobody bought SUVs-the market functioned perfectly. Screwing around with markets is unlikely to yield good results.