Are you suggesting that the government mandate small cars for all? If you want government to increase safety for all then maybe we should implement a 10 mph speed limit. Sure…everyone may be safer but much more inconvenienced.
Whatever the reason people are not buying ever larger cars for safety reasons. Some people like the hulking Hummer…I have no idea why, but safety probably wasn’t their first thought.
Sigh…my point is that there will still be these older, larger cars on the road. Those who are forced to buy a golf cart will be put at risk through no fault of their own.
Several states in the Northeast use California emission standards rather than federal.
Right. CA can get a waiver and then other states can follow. But other states cannot, alone, get waivers.
Nobody is suggesting that the government mandate Smart Fortwos for everybody. My point is that overall risk is reduced, or at least constant, as people shift towards smaller cars.
A fleet-wide vehicle average seems like a poor way to mandate fuel efficiency. It allows for weird gaming the system like building a small amount of econoboxes that get good efficiency that allow you to sell more bloated SUVs on the other end. It’d also unfairly punish companies that wanted to specialize in larger vehicles.
Even when society decides it’s good for a government intervention, it’s generally smoother to incentivize or deincentive the market and allow the market to work within that framework, rather than setting rigid arbitrary regulations.
In this case, raising gas taxes would be a reasonable solution. Or giving tax breaks to people who buy efficient vehicles (or punish people who buy vehicles below a certain effiency). Even if you want to mandate precise MPG numbers, I don’t know if a fleet-wide average is the best way to accomplish that. Why not something like a weight/efficency ratio demanded of all vehicles? A 28 mpg SUV is more efficient than a 34 mpg car in that way.
I think the most compelling thing we could do for our CAFE standards now is to actually loosen the regulations that keep diesels out of the market. Ford actually makes some quality, efficient diesel cars that they can’t even sell in the US market because we have some stringent particulate matter regulations. Turbo-diesel seems to be a good solution for efficiency and performance and they’re virtually absent from the US market.
Honestly I think there’s a lot more to ‘safety’ in people’s minds than tonnage - I’d be more interested in handling, braking distance, and winter driveability myself, given that I have this personal habit of avoiding those head-on collisions where driving a panzer will give you the most dramatic benefit.
And I bet the vast majority of people are more concerned with other, more important things than safety anyway - like if it’s ‘cute’ or not. :rolleyes:
Well, when you start talking about things like deliberately reducing the average car size, there’s necessarily going to be a ‘transition period’, perhaps decades long unless you take some sort of draconain steps to force people to replace out their decaying old vans. But the fact that people could choose to hang on to their giant monsters and happily crush and kill anything that they happen to run into would be a nigh-unavoidable part of the process, not something to cheer about.
An SUV is a utility vehicle with a high powered engine (thus the Sport part of it). A standard Escape is more like a station wagon. In comparison, a dodge magnum IS a station wagon but it has a high performance engine. It’s a sports car. That’s the distinction I wanted you to understand.
Also, you’re comparing 2 different sized vehicles for gas mileage. An Escape has 26 cubic feet more storage space than the Prius. You would have to buy 2 Prius’s to haul the same amount of stuff or make 2 trips. Both vehicles have their place based on driver needs and should be compared in their respective classes.
I don’t think we are arguing this point. This was started as a response to HookerChemical’s assertion that there is a size war going on due to perceived increase in safety. I don’t care what people drive…it’s their choice.
Who is cheering about this?!? I’m not sure why you are trying to pick a fight with me over something I did not say or imply. For the third time I said that this will be the reality.
Nitpick. An SUV is a larger vehicle that has the ability to tow or carry more weight. Similar to a truck. The ‘Sport’ part of SUV has nothing to do with, and never had anything to do with speed. It had to do with getting your desired sport (boat, camping, skiing, etc, etc.) to your location.
In my case, it’s also about getting home. It’s snowing right now. May 21st.
From what I saw you were lauding the people’s right to choose, and then segueing neatly into how they were choosing to kill people.
But whichever, it hardly matters. I’m going home. I hope I don’t get crushed en-route.
Snow in May, jeeeesh. Good luck.
I would point out that SUV’s are usually powered by gasoline engines versus diesel so towing isn’t the specific goal (not exclusive either). People like them because they sit high, haul stuff, and get out of their own way (and can tow).
These things have technical definitions, folks. Look 'em up.
A sports car is a two seater with two doors, with tight handling. It may, in fact, sacrifice raw power for the tight handling. They generally also sacrifice space to put things in. But they look fantastic.
Note the two seats, two doors. Two plus two barely qualifies. I used my Matrix to blow the doors off of M5s, but it wasn’t a sports car. Heck, it was too big to be a hot hatch. Many sports cars also had no hard roofs, and tended towards european styling. The classic modern sports car is the Miata.
A SUV is a vehicle like a station wagon, but built on a light truck frame. A crossover is a vehicle like a station wagon, built on a car chassis, styled to look like it’s on a light truck frame.
An Escape is a crossover.
Yeah, plus when you run the heater in the winter with the recirculated air option, your compressor IS in fact running. It doesn’t only run when the air conditioner is on.
No unmodified Matrix can “blow doors” on an M5, sorry.
I am aware that there are other times that the a/c compressor is in use. Still, the compressor is not running at 100% of it’s output or 100% of the time in most cars, certainly not when defrosting or dehydrating the air. If you are not using the accessories in a manner to intentionally use its full capacity, constantly: It’s not used all the time. There’s no need to spin the extra weight 100% of the time.
This already has become commonplace in cars for power steering pumps in the name of efficiency. Both my current cars are using this arrangement. if you drove to work like you were running a slalom, you’d be using the power steering pump all the time. Most people don’t, so it makes sense to drive the pump with an electric motor if you want to eliminate some of the mass the engine has to spin. Most a/c units aren’t running 100% of the time, or at 100% output.
It always depends on who’s driving. I’ve “blown doors” on both a stock Mustang GT (both PAX and raw time) and a Stock 335i (more than 4 seconds, yay me!) with a stock MINI S at an autocross track, and I am certainly not very good. I am sure the guy in the stock OZ model Lancer (no, not an EVO) who took me by almost 4 seconds was so proud of every other car he beat, stock and modified, that he did not notice that he beat me (the man beat a 2 different vettes and an Exige around an autocross course, for god’s sake). It always depends on who’s driving. Even in a drag race a lot depends on the driver. The same cooper has set times faster than the (modern) GTO in the lane next to it at the drag strip. It shouldn’t happen, but it does.
2001 XRS with the Lotus Elise engine. (2ZZ-GE and really high gearing.) The car does not match the specs provided. When the second cam profile engages, it howls like a banshee, and accelerates like it has a supercharger. One of the strongest cars I’ve ever driven at speeds between 60 and 130 MPH, provided you keep it between 6100 and 8100 RPM. Which you can do, if you shift right.
Only lightly modified.
I gave up after I dueled a Lancer Evo MR… the one with roof strakes? for thirteen miles, and he passed me twice and I passed him twice. I figured that was enough for me.
Also, I meant M3s. But I took M5s with it too.
I have no idea just what you are claiming here. On an expansion valve climate control system the AC compressor is designed to run 100% of the time unless one of the three override conditions I mention exist. They are A) Driver selects compressor off, B) Evaporator is in danger of freezing, or C) The system goes into overpressure. I would note that both B and C are abnormal conditions, and are rarely if ever experienced. So assuming that the driver does not select the compressor off, it runs 100% of the time. If you are saying that most cars don’t have an expansion valve system, then I must ask for a cite that backs you up.
Your 100% output really has me puzzled. If you are talking about volume of refrigerant pumped, you are wrong, there is only off and on. If you are talking about pressure, compressor output pressure is a function of ambient temperature. The hotter it is, the higher the pressure the system runs at.
This morning when I drive to work, the high side pressure on my compressor might be 150 lbs. In the middle of a hot summer day it might be 350 lbs. but in both cases that pressure will remain fairly constant dependent on outside temp. I have no idea what you are claiming here. In any case if the compressor is running 100% of the time, it will be less efficient to run it via an electric motor due to conversion losses.
Extra weight? What extra weight am I spinning? a fan belt and a compressor clutch? Together they weigh what 2 lbs maybe 3? You do realize that an electric motor capable of turning the AC compressor is going to weigh 5-10 times that much right? Not to mention the extra heavy wire and relays to run the system. An electric system will be heavier.
We moved to electric power steering on on platform of cars back in 2004. In all of the training material on the subject there was no mention of increased fuel efficiency. The Swedes have never been shy about claiming environmental benefits for their product when such a benefit exists. They made no such claim. The switch was for packaging reasons only. On this particular car, there just flat isn’t any room on the front of the engine for a power steering pump.
Of course I do. Did Ford when they decided to break into the hybrid scene with the Escape? I simply question why they didn’t start out with something already built for better fuel economy without the hybrid technology. You know, kind of like the way Toyota did when they said, “Let’s make a hybrid compact sedan!”
I do believe I covered that. The hybrid Malibu only came late to the show in 2008 and only improves by 2 mpg over its non-hybrid version, so from that POV we should be patting Ford on the back for besting GM? Or, maybe we should be asking why American automakers can’t/won’t make an efficient hybrid along the lines of what Japanese and European automakers can achieve.
Yes, they are. Let’s see what else Toyota offers in the way of fuel efficiency. Oh look, it’s the Prius! Can Toyota do better with their other hybrids? Yes, they can. Given their track record, I expect they will. GM wants to focus hybrid technology on trucks and SUVs and only integrate partial hybrid tech in its line of sedans, therefore, without some real breakthrough, they will never see the efficiency numbers that Toyota and Honda is seeing. As America further embraces fuel efficiency as a priority, I see it becoming as much a ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ as horsepower and tonnage has been. Without some real efficiency in sedans, which the majority of drivers purchase, GM/Ford/Chrysler are not going to a) be able to meet rising CAFE standards or b) successfully compete with foreign automakers which will inevitably prolong their economic instability.
Here’s an example of what I see is the fundamental disconnect in the American auto industry:
I’ll give him trucks, but what year is this guy stuck in? As I pointed out, nine of the worst-selling vehicles in America are SUVs. Two of them are Hummers! The guy is the division head of GM’s Hummer division, so I can understand he wants to shine the best light on his product, and the extreme lack of fuel efficiency was probably the primary reason for its failure. However, there were other criticisms of the vehicle that it appears GM is prepared to ignore. Yet, it seems to make good business sense to continue to pour money into an obvious failure?
I remain very skeptical of GM’s claim that the Hummer can achieve 100 mpg and I also question why, if they truly are capable of that kind of innovation, do they not implement it into a more successful product? To me, it’s a disconnect. It seems quite clear that GM does not fully understand *today’s *American consumer, nor do they seem all that inclined to doing business differently to achieve a different result than the one that necessitates a financial bailout of epic proportions.
Finally, I indicated I agree with the wisdom of increasing the efficiency of trucks, but at the same time, I feel that American automakers need to step it up with the greater efficiency potential of sedans and smaller vehicles. Size is *not *everything and I do wish the Big 3 would stop shoving this fallacy down our collective throats. If they really want to meet future CAFE standards, they are going to have to take a two-pronged approach: make more efficient top-selling trucks and exceed the benchmark that Toyota and Honda have set with top-selling sedans. Only the combined ultra-efficiency of cars and improved efficiency of trucks will match the level of fuel-saving Europe and Japan have been seeing for years.
Full disclosure: I drive a Dodge Dakota, which I’m purchasing from my in-laws via affordable payments (we can’t afford payments on a newer vehicle right now). Our other family vehicle is a 1999 Ford Windstar, which we are hoping to trade-in as soon as the truck is paid off for a hybrid. My husband loves the Prius, but I’m looking at the new 2nd generation Honda Insight for its affordability. In the meantime, both of us drive for the best fuel efficiency possible in our relatively inefficient vehicles. It’s very important to me, personally, to see the auto industry continue to produce more efficient cars at more affordable prices. It’s precisely the reason why Honda will likely get our future business.
I’m not sure why understanding *your *distinction is going to shed any light on this. There are at least two classifications in use in America, the ACRISS classification used by rental car agencies and the EPA classification which sets mpg standards. I’m not really concerned with the ACRISS classification, which, by the way, classes the Escape as a crossover (a marketing term defined by Edmund’s as an SUV on a car chassis). The EPA’s classification is more pertinent to the topic at hand. The Ford Escape Hybrid is classified by the EPA as an SUV by market perception and by size. Another common term for this type of vehicle is compact SUV, although I’m can’t determine the origination of that term. Another one is CUV, which stands for Crossover Utility Vehicle.
Yes, that would be my point. The point is that Ford (along with every other American auto manufacturer) fails to offer a vehicle that even attempts to compete directly with the best-selling, most fuel efficient hybrid on the market. I see that as a indicative of the fundamental barrier to success for the American auto industry. Further, they have not marketed fuel efficiency with any of the aggressiveness that Toyota and Honda have. It’s like an afterthought for them.