Looks like those stats on SUV sales were misleading. Either they were including crossovers as SUVs or....well, I don't know...the large SUV market seems to be declining in the longterm.
Here's another take from Forbes:
"A lot of people, from automotive analysts to manufacturers to marketers, are pretty excited about the growth prospects of this new breed of SUV called the “crossover.”
Sales of these vehicles are climbing while traditional SUV sales are declining. One reason often cited in these times of lofty gas prices is crossovers’ better fuel economy. But there are other factors at play.
“This year, the traditional SUV market will fall below 2 million units sold in the U.S. for the first time since 1995,” says George Pipas, U.S. sales analysis manager at Ford, the company that perhaps reaped the most rewards from the 1990s SUV craze with its then best-selling Ford Explorer and Lincoln Navigator. “At the same time, the crossover utility market this year will be 2.7 to 2.8 million,” a fivefold increase since 2000."
Oh I remember '79 gas stations were closed on Sundays and many had limits on how much you could buy. The only place you could buy gas on Sunday was on the tollway and IIRC they limited you to 5 gallons.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I seem to remember that there was an economist that during the debate about the income tax stated that if enacted income taxes could be as high as 10 percent. He was laughed at and it ruined his career.
To bad he was more than right.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I'm not sure what's wrong with taxing gas up to $5 a gallon like in Europe, and use the money for public transport improvments. Rich Americans can more than afford it.
My idea already exists, but currently isn't applied to SUVs or minvans. It's currently based on EPA estimates, so it's not like I'm pulling this idea out of the air. "The IRS is responsible for administering the gas guzzler program and collecting the taxes from car manufacturers or importers. The amount of tax is posted on the window stickers of new cars - the lower the fuel economy, the higher the tax." http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/index.htm
"You are talking about a penalty to give people a spanking for purchasing a vehicle you deem unworthy. " No, I'm talking about having the gas guzzler tax put on all vehicles lower than a specific MPG and a rebate on those getting good MPG. And I don't consider vehicles with poor MPG as "unworthy," but if the goal is to reduce gas usage/emissions, one way (and yes there are other ways) is to focus attention on those vehicle getting poor MPG.
"You prefer chance, I prefer reality. " There's a difference between statistical probablility and chance...go look in a dictionary. And I don't think it's wise to base anything on a sample size of one.
" To me it is simply an arbitrary number as it doesn’t reflect the reality. If it were the reality, I couldn’t take a car and get different mileage from it." Again, go buy a book on statistics and look up "distribution."
I don't know much about boats to comment on them.
Sorry if this post comes across as rude, but when looking at millions of drivers and millions of cars, there has to be some way of studying and testing them. You can't go out and poll every driver. No test is perfect, but the use of statistics and probability is a well respected science used in countless ways.
Sorry, General Motors bought the Los Angeles Inter-City rail system and dumped it in the ocean (you can look it up).
Let's face it, people always do what is in their best economic interest....well, except in elections LOL!....okay, USUALLY the operate in their best economic interest.
So I'm a big fan of incentive over taxation, as it encourages a move toward reward rather than a shrinking from punishment.
No reason you can't reward the purchaser of energy-efficient products without penalizing the person who doesn't want them. You can give the Prius owner a tax break without punishing the Lincoln Town Car owner. Remember, the idea of incentive is to support new tech not just gas mileage.
People can be encouraged into subcompacts with a little pat on the butt from Uncle Sam.
If there was say a refrigerator that used $100 less electricity a year, and came with a small tax break to offset its higher cost vis a vis an older less efficient design, who wouldn't do that?
It would cost the government a lot less than pork-barrel schemes about ethanol, which is a joke.
Don't know about the EPA MPG estimates but the "Official" MPG figures allocated to each Make/Model/Version of car here in UK are generally optimistic and are increasingly leading to people complaining that they can't achieve the stated gas mileages in real world conditions. Most folk agree that the test cycles need to be reworked. However, we do pay annual tax based on CO2 emmissions................the more your car emits, the more you pay, (and, of course, you're also paying more fuel tax as you're using more fuel). Here in the UK we're paying well over the equivalent of $7 per US Gallon, (i.e. over equiv $9 per Imperial Gallon), for gasoline and it's not going to get cheaper. The average Joe's are finding ways to cope, (I'm on a pension so hardly a fat cat), but the ways they find do not include driving big V8's - or even big V6's. And, our housing and food costs are generally higher than those in USA, (in my experience).
The CO2 system, although not liked, at least has the ability to incentivise innovation to reduce emissions. Think of the moves VW and Mercedes are making - at least partially driven by this. Largely explains, also, the relatively large diesel car population - lower CO2. We will shortly have the Volvo C30 "Efficiency" with emissions so low that owners will not be liable for any annual tax. It can be done, but as had been said; there has to be an incentive and that usually means a financial incentive.
the Honda CRZ concept? Subcompact 2-seater, hybrid powertrain, focus on low weight. It is the successor to the Insight, only with superlative handling. 60 mpg and SI handling in a subcompact package, what's not to like? I am glad that one company at least is still taking subcompacts seriously.
Dodge Hornet, Ford's rebadge of the Mazda2, more subcompacts are on their way. This is a growing segment in the next few years. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'd like to see the Honda Stream make it here. Seats 7, low 30s MPG average. A good option for those with kids who only need the occasional 3rd row use. Right now all we have is the Mazda5 and Kia Rondo, both of which only get in the low 20s MPG average.
I suspect that CO2 measurement is part of fuel economy tests. So, if one is optimistic, the other would be too. The problem with CO2 however, is that people don’t have to pay for it (unless taxed using some standard, no matter how unrealistic it might be). Gasoline/diesel usage is a whole another issue, however.
Yep. And these new offerings and their growing demand is not based on incentives but realization on part of people that they don’t need to go beyond their needs. Often, a more economical (price and fuel) option will fit just fine.
Testing is fine, but relying on them for everything to provide incentives is seriously flawed. The tests should be done to inform people, not to threaten them.
Speaking of statistical probability, explain to me why EPA had to revise its standards. Like I said earlier, I can tune a car to provide two sets of data under single EPA standard. Which of the two would you like to be used?
PS. I'm a math major, so there isn't a need for me to lookup a dictionary to talk about chance/probability and statistics.
"Speaking of statistical probability, explain to me why EPA had to revise its standards. Like I said earlier, I can tune a car to provide two sets of data under single EPA standard. Which of the two would you like to be used?"
That reinforces my point. Why do you want to draw a line using a standard that can’t reflect the reality, instead of something that does: usage? The standard itself can serve as an incentive, but it can’t be used to determine usage.
Another example where standard based incentive sounds lame is assuming two homes. One is equipped with a heating system that is slightly less efficient than the other, and there can be several reasons for the owners taking the route. However, the owner with less efficient system more than compensates for it by optimal settings for thermostat, or using a thermostat that changes temperature settings based on need. The other owner has more efficient system but poor way to control it and as a result consumes more energy.
Your idea is based on rewarding the more efficient system (EPA rating), instead of the complete picture that affects usage (driving style, distance etc). My idea is based on reward by usage, not a number that doesn’t define reality.
Your idea would be rewarding owner of a 40-room home equipped with 40% more efficient electrical system over another with 2-rooms. Incentive should be to discourage excess usage in real world.
bobw3, EPA’s old test had flaws, and so does the new system. Even EPA knows it. They just don't have the motivation (or feel the need to get it right). They noted that there were people complaining about not meeting them. So, while retaining the old processes, they added a few more to literally reduce fuel economy ratings by about 10% for most cars. Does that mean they hit the nail and got EPA ratings reflect real world scenario? IMO, they have not. In fact, with all those disclaimers, they’re well aware of holes.
While I understand that it is impossible to have a standard match real world under every scenario, EPA’s tests are far from realistic. They took a wrong approach. The result is that cars that are designed more realistically, get lower ratings from EPA than they deserve. And you want to tax those vehicles based on that fact? A car that taught me a lesson on fuel economy was a loaner from Acura (TSX) while my TL was being serviced.
TSX is rated 20/28 mpg under new rating. I averaged 28-29 mpg in mixed driving in that car, and this included a major traffic jam that lasted 15-20 minutes. So, observed mileage in mixed driving was better than EPA’s highway rating. Why did that happen? Unlike EPA, I don’t turn off the AC (or moonroof and/or windows can be found open). I accelerate a lot more aggressively than the rates EPA has adopted. I do brake less frequently than most folks but it isn’t something avoidable, more so for a fast driver. And I’m one who drives fast (than EPA does).
This car is a prime example of why not to take EPA rating too seriously. And it helped me understand why some cars and folks have difficulty meeting EPA ratings. And EPA keeps looking for excuses. Here is an example.
If you get a chance, take a TL out. Fill it up and reset the trip computer. Keep AC on (EPA doesn’t do it in most of its processes, so you’ve already taken a step for worse case scenario). Remember, this car is EPA rated at 18/26 for an overall 21 mpg (old rating: 20/29/ overall: 23). On a relatively flat ground (which adds to worse case scenario since EPA uses flat ground), accelerate like you do, keeping up with the traffic. Chances are (and try it), the rate is going to be quicker than EPA’s process. Get up to speed.
If you happen to be driving under 40 mph, the car will continue to feel extremely responsive. Load the car up with people and stuff, and it will still pull well. They key is in transmission logic. Under 40 mph, even with 5-speed transmission, Acura has chosen to keep the car run in fourth gear (it will not get into top gear). The engine has more power under 40 mph by virtue of revving higher. The downside to it is that it consumes more fuel (lower rating) but it creates a more realistic scenario (in fact, takes a worse case scenario).
There is another car (I won’t name it here) you could try the same thing, and see the difference. That car will eagerly shift to the top gear to keep the revs low and fuel economy higher. But, only if you maintain a feather touch throttle (that EPA uses) and don’t have the car loaded up. Add load, and/or operate it at an average acceleration rate that is higher than the feathery EPA style, it will operate in shorter gear. The fuel economy will suffer, and it won’t match EPA’s rating. So, this second car used a loop hole to achieve better fuel economy rating, using a best case scenario. But reality isn’t usually about “best case”. The result, car not meeting EPA rating.
Back to TL. Keep driving it on a reasonable mix of city and suburban streets, and freeway. At the end of the run (or during it), you might see or calculate numbers pretty close to these (average speed, indicated versus average mileage indicated/calculated): 20 mph: 20 mpg 25 mph: 23 mpg 30 mph: 24 mpg 35 mph: 25 mpg 37 mph: 26 mpg 41 mph: 27 mpg
You won’t see 18 mpg unless your average speed was 18 mph or less (implying you spent more time idling/accelerating/braking than you did driving). But that happens to be “city” fuel economy on the car. No wonder I always exceed it.
In fact, my average over every tank (360-380 miles/about 14 gallons) in mixed driving is 25-26 mpg and average speed ranges from 35-38 mph. I drive around 68-70 mph on freeway (occasionally higher), and at or up to 5 mph above posted limit in city streets with lights (30-45 mph). So, I get EPA’s highway rating in city/highway (50-50) driving.
On open road: Under 45 mph: 28-29 mpg 45-55 mph: 30-32 mpg 55-65 mph: 34-36 mpg 65-75 mph: 32 mpg 75-80 mph: 28-29 mpg
Try it, and you just might see it. So, what makes 18/26 mpg rating credible enough to determine tax or incentives? I can guarantee you, that this car is more fuel efficient in real world than some others that have higher EPA rating. Would you like to argue against my guarantee?
And does it guarantee, regardless of EPA rating or real world fuel economy, that a driver with higher EPA rated car is using less fuel, hence conserving? Would I be conserving if I bought the second car which has higher rating but gets worse mileage and drove it more?
And after all this, you continue to fail to understand that there is one standard that takes care of all the variables, and that is: Usage. Use more... pay more. Can't afford it... look for better mileage car. Isn't that a reason why Fit and like are making inroads and behemoths are on the way out from many households?
It's good that you're able to beat the EPA estimates, but I'd rather use the EPA testing standards over the results of one guy in one car in an Edmunds forum. By the way, it's more accurate to manually calculate the MPG than just resetting your trip computer, plus if you're calculating using the trip computer on very short distances (less than 100 miles) then that's even more useless.
Oh well, only one of us finds greater value in observed mileage in the real world than in numbers printed on window sticker. And while I may be the only one on Edmunds dismissing EPA’s ratings, I found 26 others* on EPA’s website that have reported mileage on (2004-2007) TL. Based on their report: Average Mileage: 24.07 mpg (47% city, 53% highway)
Looks like I am not alone. Note again, EPA says this car should get only 21 mpg (it used to be 23 mpg under old standard), or worse if the driver is overly aggressive, terrain is anything but flat, uses AC etc. But the numbers tell me that it might be the EPA who drives aggressively than these folks (me included). And it doesn’t. It doesn’t use AC. It uses flat ground. It uses 60 mph to consider aerodynamics. What did I miss?
What did EPA miss that they had to revise the standard? What do you suggest the guarantee should be that EPA doesn’t change it again (after taxing customer based on a, clearly, flawed baseline).
Why are you against reducing usage (a dynamic factor) to make a point on conservation? That’s like having a driver cruising down the highway at 100 mph in his Prius to raise concerns about conservation. But, he bought a car whose sticker says “high mileage”, right?
* I left one out because one of the contributors is me. I posted 25 mpg once (50-50 mix) which is included in the average. My other entries at the website don't show up, but I do maintain a log at EPA's website.
It's good that you're able to beat the EPA estimates, but I'd rather use the EPA testing standards over the results of one guy in one car in an Edmunds forum.
Good point, and I would just like to utilize a measure with even higher face validity: ACTUAL GALLONS USED
So instead of complaining about who bought what car and this and that, tax the fuel they use. This would make hybrids look better, bio-diesel look better, etc. Tax gasoline.
"What did EPA miss that they had to revise the standard?" That was explained in the web link I provided.
I just looked on the EPA website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm and for 2004-07 Acura TL, the EPA estimate combined was 21MPG (new method) and the reported from 26 users (equals 6.5 drivers per year reporting) was about 23.5MPG, so these 26 drivers reported about 10% better MPG than the EPA estimates. That doesn't seem too bad to me. And since there's no way of determining how they calculated their estimates, who really knows how accurate the 26 people posting really were. Maybe their trip computers just read high...who knows. And even if they are accurate, then they're still only 10% higher than the EPA estimates.
Here's another funny quote from you:
"Why are you against reducing usage (a dynamic factor) to make a point on conservation? That’s like having a driver cruising down the highway at 100 mph in his Prius to raise concerns about conservation. But, he bought a car whose sticker says “high mileage”, right? "
When I start seeing drag-racing Prius's, then you'll convince me
The point is that taxing gasoline can only do so much to reduce gas usage based on our spread-out society with little available public transportation. Now if the manufacturers gave consumers options, such as cars that could hold 6-7 people and achieved 40mpg, then I'd say you're right, just up the gas tax and people would start buying these highly efficient 6-7 passenger vehicles. Even the best cars only average in the mid-30s mpg. So the incentive is designed to encourage manufactures AND consumers, not just the consumer.
The market drives what the manufacturers produce. This is why Ford is making a competitive small and midsize car again instead of Explorers and Expeditions. GM has developed midsized vehicles that are competitive to make up for sales lost on Suburbans. I know two people who went from a Tahoe to a Saturn Aura. Did they go from a Suburban to a Smart? No, but change takes a few minutes. Honda and Toyota have shown the market is strong for small and midsized cars (although Honda responded my making a "large" car), and that motivated other manufacturers to look again. I understand your goal wrt to reduced consumption.
Now if the manufacturers gave consumers options, such as cars that could hold 6-7 people and achieved 40mpg, then I'd say you're right, just up the gas tax and people would start buying these highly efficient 6-7 passenger vehicles.
Okay, are you talking about children or adults here? 7 adults * 150 lbs/person = 1050 lbs. I don't know that you are going to get a non-compression ignition vehicle with the power to support that. That person would either need an SUV/Crossover/Minivan, or a normal car and access to a larger vehicle (ie rent it) when they need that capability.
If you want to encourage automakers to produce something, give them the tax credits.
I will take a wait and see approach. Hybrids have always been over hyped mileage. Plus they tend to come up a bit more in the cost department that tends to offset the increased mileage.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Guess you'll have to move closer and maybe be happier with a smaller house or spend more on gas... choice is yours.
I am basically saying that the American way of life was too good... people in the rest of the developed world would have had to have been much wealthier than the average person in this country to afford a large house in the suburbs with a big truck, a few cars and maybe pleasure watercraft. Unfortunately, that standard of living has consequences, and we probably need to get more in line with the rest of the developed world if we are ever going to do anything about global warming.
Maybe the solution is to get rid of all of the politicians producing CO2 emissions with all of the their hot air. We could solve the CO2 problem while eliminating taxes at the same time! Sounds like a win-win to me!!
"The market drives what the manufacturers produce. "
Sometimes the tail wags the dog. Manufacturers build giant SUVs, advertise them to the public in such a way so people think by driving them people will get an image of them as athletic, sporty, etc, and people buy it. While I do believe the market drives what manufactures somewhat, it's a two way street. The market pushes products to consumers all the time and tries to convince them to buy. And the manufacturer is going to try to convince folks to buy the biggest thing out there with the most gadgets to give them the most profit.
Look at the housing market. If you want to send your kids to a good school district, you have to buy what's available in that school district. If the only thing developers are building are 3000 SqFt houses, but you're looking for a new 2000 SqFt ranch, you're going to have to look at a 20-30 year old house (or do a custom build if you have the $$$). Good schools, less crime, and other social issues are why people live in the suburbs far from work. There is no public transportation that would take me to my workplace even if I lived close enough to a bus line, so that's not an option unless I want to quit my job, but I think another family on welfare is worse than the pollution from my car driving to work!
"Okay, are you talking about children or adults here? "
I'd say the vast majority of people using 7 passenger vehicles use it for a combination of adults and kids. There are cars right now in Japan and Europe that can hold 7 passengers and get MPG in the 30s using a regular engine. Again...it's a matter of getting the manufactures to bring them here and develop better technologies.
"This is why Ford is making a competitive small and midsize car again instead of Explorers and Expeditions. "
Ford has had the Focus and Taurus for years, but they were successful in marketing the Expedition to familes who could have bought a Taurus wagon (when the made them) and Explorers to people who could have done just as well with a Focus wagon.
I agree though the tide is slowly turning against large vehicles, but it's a slow moving tide that I'd like to see move faster. It's a big risk for manufacturers to bring in a small car, so I understand that they need to test the waters but again, right now there's not much advantage in bringing over more efficient vehicles because while gas is high, it's still not enough to make a dent to most folks.
Look at the housing market. If you want to send your kids to a good school district, you have to buy what's available in that school district. If the only thing developers are building are 3000 SqFt houses, but you're looking for a new 2000 SqFt ranch, you're going to have to look at a 20-30 year old house (or do a custom build if you have the $$$). Good schools, less crime, and other social issues are why people live in the suburbs far from work. There is no public transportation that would take me to my workplace even if I lived close enough to a bus line, so that's not an option unless I want to quit my job, but I think another family on welfare is worse than the pollution from my car driving to work!
So instead of taking in interest in the city and revitalizing your community, you move further away, spend more time on the roads burning more fuel and adding to congestion. You spend more time in traffic and less time actually with the kids since people feel that since their children are in a good school, they can outsource the child rearing duties. This is the first time in my life I have lived to far from work to ride my bike - something that will be remedied shortly. That means what ever vehicle I had (that you may or may not want to tax) sits idle as I commute by bicycle while you drive your vehicle every day instead of living in a close proximity to work. That doesn't sound fair to me.
There are cars right now in Japan and Europe that can hold 7 passengers and get MPG in the 30s using a regular engine. Again...it's a matter of getting the manufactures to bring them here and develop better technologies.
Wow, thats amazing. I wonder why those evil car companies wouldn't want to bring those over to the states. Do you have any links or references for those vehicles?
Wow! Do you have any idea what it would cost me to move every time I get a new job?! Obviously not. Hey, I wish I worked in a world where companies don't fold every day, but I don't. And not a damned thing I can do about it but find the next job. So ... let's see ... in my 7 years of marriage and home ownership, I would have moved 7 times and looking at my 8th very soon. In closing costs and realtor fees ... hell, I don't even know ... I gotta estimate at least $150k. Gee, yeah, sounds like a swell idea!
Your home life is much more important than your work life (ie, family comes first). So where you set up your family is much more important than where you work. If you are uprooting your family to follow your job, then your priorities are off base, IMHO. And, no, you can't just find a job close to home, because the jobs are obviously not always there. You can't force someone to hire you and you can't force a company to open an office near your house.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
And not a damned thing I can do about it but find the next job. So ... let's see ... in my 7 years of marriage and home ownership, I would have moved 7 times and looking at my 8th very soon.
Wow is right. You must be in a different line of work or a consultant or something because if I changed jobs every year for even 3-4 years, I would never get another job.
So where you set up your family is much more important than where you work. If you are uprooting your family to follow your job, then your priorities are off base, IMHO.
I think having your family where you can be part of their lives and not leaving before the kids wake up and getting home after dinner time is more important. In my 10 year career, there has only been one "uprooting" and that was pre-family. If you can't work close to home, why are you doing what you are doing, especially if it requires changing jobs every year?
not leaving before the kids wake up and getting home after dinner time is more important.
Well, sure, but that's the opposite extreme of riding your bike to work. My goal is always to find a job within an hour's drive. Some folks wouldn't consider such a commute, while some would consider that short. Either way, it is not in "close proximity" to my home, as you stated earlier it should be.
And if it is an hour away (ie, 50 miles), a subcompact can save me alot of money. [that one's for you, texases]
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The underlaying discussion is why do you need a sub-compact car if 1. you don't use it very often, 2. or you don't travel very far, 3. or it is a very small FE/CO2 penalty?
I think the outgrowth was about lifestyle choices that impact commutes requiring more driving time.
I think your modern European diesel van can do that...take 7 people around at about 30 mpg.
THAT would be a hard "people/miles per gallon" number to beat in ANY vehicle made in the USA.
PMG is something maybe we oughta talk about regarding subcompacts.
Anyone care to do the math? Let's compare a subcompact like a Scion xA getting 35 mpg and presuming that realistically only 3 people are comfortable in it for commuting 1+ hours.
Let's say a typical SUV like an RX330 or some such holds 5. I don't know the AVERAGE EPA (not the top number) for the RX330.
Of course, this presumes that both vehicles are always "full" and that they are achieving the average of the two EPA numbers.
There are cars right now in Japan and Europe that can hold 7 passengers and get MPG in the 30s using a regular engine.
I think your modern European diesel van can do that...take 7 people around at about 30 mpg.
Since I had mentioned diesels in my post and was shot down, I thought there was another magical conventional engine Bob was talking about. I would love to see more diesels in the US, especially running on a soy-based bio-diesel, but apparently we are waiting to address some environmental concerns with diesels and the fuel they use. I would think that the push to smaller vehicles would be offset by the environmental impact of diesel (and I know this is a temporary set-back, I am a big fan of diesel technology).
Anyone care to do the math? Let's compare a subcompact like a Scion xA getting 35 mpg and presuming that realistically only 3 people are comfortable in it for commuting 1+ hours.
Do you know what the "payload" or GVWR is on an xA? I am just curious.
Do you know what the "payload" or GVWR is on an xA? I am just curious.
I'd be curious about that, too. BTW, does anybody know what the GVWR on a Corolla is? I've looked in the doorjamb of my uncle's '03 in the past, but can't remember. But for some reason, the numbers 3200 and 3500 lb are both sticking in my mind. I think the car weighs around 2600 lb, so I'm guessing it's probably 3500 for the GVWR?
I've noticed that sometimes, bigger cars really don't have a bigger payload (GVWR minus curb weight) than smaller cars. For instance, I've seen 70's slant six Valiants and Darts with a GVWR around 4800 lb...cars that probably only weigh around 3200 lb. But then I've seen behemoths such as a ~73 Olds 98, probably pushing 5000 lb, with a GVWR of only ~6100 lb.
I remember one fundamental problem with the Excursion was that, even though it was based on a heavier-duty 3/4 ton truck, the body itself ate up so much of the GVWR that the actual payload was less than something like a 1/2 ton Suburban!
If I were to take a wild guess, I'd estimate the GVWR of an xA is around 3000-3100 lb?
It may seem funny to you, but is it impossible? I could use examples, and some of it will turn this into a political debate, so I will stay away from it. But don't ignore the reality.
And, since you brought in calories and the stomach in an earlier post, let me reuse it again.
There are two snack boxes, one with 100 calories/serving with 12 servings and the other with 150 calories/serving with six servings. You might think that everybody should go for the first box since it has a static number printed “100 calories” which is lower than on the other box. But, I need to have something more substantial, but not so much that I exceed it. The sweet spot happens to be 150 calories. So, I would prefer the second box.
This addresses an important thing, the realization that I don’t need to go overboard by getting the first box and eat two at a time. OTOH, your assumption that first box would be better doesn’t go into the reality. It sticks with a static number. The key to conservation is understanding consumption. It is dynamic. Unless you can ration fuel, static numbers aren’t going to help.
I don’t know about you, but I have noticed a trend in urban development and choice of automobiles people have been making in recent years. I live in Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex, which is larger than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined but with only 6 million people (fourth, behind NYC, LA and Chicago). Clearly, space is abundant, and so are the distances. And people here have traditionally loved their trucks, with bigger is better attitude. But it didn’t take an incentive to notice a new found interest in smaller vehicles, and more compact urban growth in the form of condos and townhomes than single family homes, and right along public transportation corridors.
I know several people who are already scrambling to get into smaller vehicles, and some are having tough time selling their SUVs (as they still owe more than they are getting for it). Why is this happening?
Incentive to buyers or manufacturers isn’t the right thing because not only is it easy to get around the road blocks, which in turn can penalize those with more honest approach, but also it doesn’t address the key issue: consumption.
xA.. 2300 lbs? We need to look this up... Even little tiny cars are 2700-2800 now....
I just googled "Scion xA GVWR" and went to the first thing that came up. It listed "N/A" fo the GVWR. However, curb weight is listed at 2340 for the stick, 2380 for the automatic. So GVWR is probably around 3100-3200 lb.
For the Corolla CE, which is what my uncle has, its curb weight is 2530/2595 (stick/automatic), and GVWR is 3585.
Comments
Here's another take from Forbes:
"A lot of people, from automotive analysts to manufacturers to marketers, are pretty excited about the growth prospects of this new breed of SUV called the “crossover.”
Sales of these vehicles are climbing while traditional SUV sales are declining. One reason often cited in these times of lofty gas prices is crossovers’ better fuel economy. But there are other factors at play.
“This year, the traditional SUV market will fall below 2 million units sold in the U.S. for the first time since 1995,” says George Pipas, U.S. sales analysis manager at Ford, the company that perhaps reaped the most rewards from the 1990s SUV craze with its then best-selling Ford Explorer and Lincoln Navigator. “At the same time, the crossover utility market this year will be 2.7 to 2.8 million,” a fivefold increase since 2000."
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
To bad he was more than right.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Sail boats, row boats and canoes use might little fuel
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"The IRS is responsible for administering the gas guzzler program and collecting the taxes from car manufacturers or importers. The amount of tax is posted on the window stickers of new cars - the lower the fuel economy, the higher the tax." http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/index.htm
"You are talking about a penalty to give people a spanking for purchasing a vehicle you deem unworthy. " No, I'm talking about having the gas guzzler tax put on all vehicles lower than a specific MPG and a rebate on those getting good MPG. And I don't consider vehicles with poor MPG as "unworthy," but if the goal is to reduce gas usage/emissions, one way (and yes there are other ways) is to focus attention on those vehicle getting poor MPG.
There's a difference between statistical probablility and chance...go look in a dictionary. And I don't think it's wise to base anything on a sample size of one.
" To me it is simply an arbitrary number as it doesn’t reflect the reality. If it were the reality, I couldn’t take a car and get different mileage from it." Again, go buy a book on statistics and look up "distribution."
I don't know much about boats to comment on them.
Sorry if this post comes across as rude, but when looking at millions of drivers and millions of cars, there has to be some way of studying and testing them. You can't go out and poll every driver. No test is perfect, but the use of statistics and probability is a well respected science used in countless ways.
Let's face it, people always do what is in their best economic interest....well, except in elections LOL!....okay, USUALLY the operate in their best economic interest.
So I'm a big fan of incentive over taxation, as it encourages a move toward reward rather than a shrinking from punishment.
No reason you can't reward the purchaser of energy-efficient products without penalizing the person who doesn't want them. You can give the Prius owner a tax break without punishing the Lincoln Town Car owner. Remember, the idea of incentive is to support new tech not just gas mileage.
People can be encouraged into subcompacts with a little pat on the butt from Uncle Sam.
If there was say a refrigerator that used $100 less electricity a year, and came with a small tax break to offset its higher cost vis a vis an older less efficient design, who wouldn't do that?
It would cost the government a lot less than pork-barrel schemes about ethanol, which is a joke.
The CO2 system, although not liked, at least has the ability to incentivise innovation to reduce emissions. Think of the moves VW and Mercedes are making - at least partially driven by this. Largely explains, also, the relatively large diesel car population - lower CO2. We will shortly have the Volvo C30 "Efficiency" with emissions so low that owners will not be liable for any annual tax. It can be done, but as had been said; there has to be an incentive and that usually means a financial incentive.
Dodge Hornet, Ford's rebadge of the Mazda2, more subcompacts are on their way. This is a growing segment in the next few years. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Speaking of statistical probability, explain to me why EPA had to revise its standards. Like I said earlier, I can tune a car to provide two sets of data under single EPA standard. Which of the two would you like to be used?
PS. I'm a math major, so there isn't a need for me to lookup a dictionary to talk about chance/probability and statistics.
Here's a link that should answer your questions.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/why_differ_detailed.shtml
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/
Another example where standard based incentive sounds lame is assuming two homes. One is equipped with a heating system that is slightly less efficient than the other, and there can be several reasons for the owners taking the route. However, the owner with less efficient system more than compensates for it by optimal settings for thermostat, or using a thermostat that changes temperature settings based on need. The other owner has more efficient system but poor way to control it and as a result consumes more energy.
Your idea is based on rewarding the more efficient system (EPA rating), instead of the complete picture that affects usage (driving style, distance etc). My idea is based on reward by usage, not a number that doesn’t define reality.
Your idea would be rewarding owner of a 40-room home equipped with 40% more efficient electrical system over another with 2-rooms. Incentive should be to discourage excess usage in real world.
While I understand that it is impossible to have a standard match real world under every scenario, EPA’s tests are far from realistic. They took a wrong approach. The result is that cars that are designed more realistically, get lower ratings from EPA than they deserve. And you want to tax those vehicles based on that fact? A car that taught me a lesson on fuel economy was a loaner from Acura (TSX) while my TL was being serviced.
TSX is rated 20/28 mpg under new rating. I averaged 28-29 mpg in mixed driving in that car, and this included a major traffic jam that lasted 15-20 minutes. So, observed mileage in mixed driving was better than EPA’s highway rating. Why did that happen? Unlike EPA, I don’t turn off the AC (or moonroof and/or windows can be found open). I accelerate a lot more aggressively than the rates EPA has adopted. I do brake less frequently than most folks but it isn’t something avoidable, more so for a fast driver. And I’m one who drives fast (than EPA does).
This car is a prime example of why not to take EPA rating too seriously. And it helped me understand why some cars and folks have difficulty meeting EPA ratings. And EPA keeps looking for excuses. Here is an example.
If you get a chance, take a TL out. Fill it up and reset the trip computer. Keep AC on (EPA doesn’t do it in most of its processes, so you’ve already taken a step for worse case scenario). Remember, this car is EPA rated at 18/26 for an overall 21 mpg (old rating: 20/29/ overall: 23). On a relatively flat ground (which adds to worse case scenario since EPA uses flat ground), accelerate like you do, keeping up with the traffic. Chances are (and try it), the rate is going to be quicker than EPA’s process. Get up to speed.
If you happen to be driving under 40 mph, the car will continue to feel extremely responsive. Load the car up with people and stuff, and it will still pull well. They key is in transmission logic. Under 40 mph, even with 5-speed transmission, Acura has chosen to keep the car run in fourth gear (it will not get into top gear). The engine has more power under 40 mph by virtue of revving higher. The downside to it is that it consumes more fuel (lower rating) but it creates a more realistic scenario (in fact, takes a worse case scenario).
There is another car (I won’t name it here) you could try the same thing, and see the difference. That car will eagerly shift to the top gear to keep the revs low and fuel economy higher. But, only if you maintain a feather touch throttle (that EPA uses) and don’t have the car loaded up. Add load, and/or operate it at an average acceleration rate that is higher than the feathery EPA style, it will operate in shorter gear. The fuel economy will suffer, and it won’t match EPA’s rating. So, this second car used a loop hole to achieve better fuel economy rating, using a best case scenario. But reality isn’t usually about “best case”. The result, car not meeting EPA rating.
Back to TL. Keep driving it on a reasonable mix of city and suburban streets, and freeway. At the end of the run (or during it), you might see or calculate numbers pretty close to these (average speed, indicated versus average mileage indicated/calculated):
20 mph: 20 mpg
25 mph: 23 mpg
30 mph: 24 mpg
35 mph: 25 mpg
37 mph: 26 mpg
41 mph: 27 mpg
You won’t see 18 mpg unless your average speed was 18 mph or less (implying you spent more time idling/accelerating/braking than you did driving). But that happens to be “city” fuel economy on the car. No wonder I always exceed it.
In fact, my average over every tank (360-380 miles/about 14 gallons) in mixed driving is 25-26 mpg and average speed ranges from 35-38 mph. I drive around 68-70 mph on freeway (occasionally higher), and at or up to 5 mph above posted limit in city streets with lights (30-45 mph). So, I get EPA’s highway rating in city/highway (50-50) driving.
On open road:
Under 45 mph: 28-29 mpg
45-55 mph: 30-32 mpg
55-65 mph: 34-36 mpg
65-75 mph: 32 mpg
75-80 mph: 28-29 mpg
Try it, and you just might see it. So, what makes 18/26 mpg rating credible enough to determine tax or incentives? I can guarantee you, that this car is more fuel efficient in real world than some others that have higher EPA rating. Would you like to argue against my guarantee?
And does it guarantee, regardless of EPA rating or real world fuel economy, that a driver with higher EPA rated car is using less fuel, hence conserving? Would I be conserving if I bought the second car which has higher rating but gets worse mileage and drove it more?
And after all this, you continue to fail to understand that there is one standard that takes care of all the variables, and that is: Usage. Use more... pay more. Can't afford it... look for better mileage car. Isn't that a reason why Fit and like are making inroads and behemoths are on the way out from many households?
Average Mileage: 24.07 mpg (47% city, 53% highway)
Looks like I am not alone. Note again, EPA says this car should get only 21 mpg (it used to be 23 mpg under old standard), or worse if the driver is overly aggressive, terrain is anything but flat, uses AC etc. But the numbers tell me that it might be the EPA who drives aggressively than these folks (me included). And it doesn’t. It doesn’t use AC. It uses flat ground. It uses 60 mph to consider aerodynamics. What did I miss?
What did EPA miss that they had to revise the standard? What do you suggest the guarantee should be that EPA doesn’t change it again (after taxing customer based on a, clearly, flawed baseline).
Why are you against reducing usage (a dynamic factor) to make a point on conservation? That’s like having a driver cruising down the highway at 100 mph in his Prius to raise concerns about conservation. But, he bought a car whose sticker says “high mileage”, right?
* I left one out because one of the contributors is me. I posted 25 mpg once (50-50 mix) which is included in the average. My other entries at the website don't show up, but I do maintain a log at EPA's website.
Good point, and I would just like to utilize a measure with even higher face validity: ACTUAL GALLONS USED
So instead of complaining about who bought what car and this and that, tax the fuel they use. This would make hybrids look better, bio-diesel look better, etc. Tax gasoline.
I just looked on the EPA website http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm and for 2004-07 Acura TL, the EPA estimate combined was 21MPG (new method) and the reported from 26 users (equals 6.5 drivers per year reporting) was about 23.5MPG, so these 26 drivers reported about 10% better MPG than the EPA estimates. That doesn't seem too bad to me. And since there's no way of determining how they calculated their estimates, who really knows how accurate the 26 people posting really were. Maybe their trip computers just read high...who knows. And even if they are accurate, then they're still only 10% higher than the EPA estimates.
Here's another funny quote from you:
"Why are you against reducing usage (a dynamic factor) to make a point on conservation? That’s like having a driver cruising down the highway at 100 mph in his Prius to raise concerns about conservation. But, he bought a car whose sticker says “high mileage”, right? "
When I start seeing drag-racing Prius's, then you'll convince me
The point is that taxing gasoline can only do so much to reduce gas usage based on our spread-out society with little available public transportation. Now if the manufacturers gave consumers options, such as cars that could hold 6-7 people and achieved 40mpg, then I'd say you're right, just up the gas tax and people would start buying these highly efficient 6-7 passenger vehicles. Even the best cars only average in the mid-30s mpg. So the incentive is designed to encourage manufactures AND consumers, not just the consumer.
Honda and Toyota have shown the market is strong for small and midsized cars (although Honda responded my making a "large" car), and that motivated other manufacturers to look again.
I understand your goal wrt to reduced consumption.
Now if the manufacturers gave consumers options, such as cars that could hold 6-7 people and achieved 40mpg, then I'd say you're right, just up the gas tax and people would start buying these highly efficient 6-7 passenger vehicles.
Okay, are you talking about children or adults here?
7 adults * 150 lbs/person = 1050 lbs. I don't know that you are going to get a non-compression ignition vehicle with the power to support that. That person would either need an SUV/Crossover/Minivan, or a normal car and access to a larger vehicle (ie rent it) when they need that capability.
If you want to encourage automakers to produce something, give them the tax credits.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Automakers DO NOT always give people "what they want".
This practice is called "going out of business".
I am basically saying that the American way of life was too good... people in the rest of the developed world would have had to have been much wealthier than the average person in this country to afford a large house in the suburbs with a big truck, a few cars and maybe pleasure watercraft. Unfortunately, that standard of living has consequences, and we probably need to get more in line with the rest of the developed world if we are ever going to do anything about global warming.
Maybe the solution is to get rid of all of the politicians producing CO2 emissions with all of the their hot air. We could solve the CO2 problem while eliminating taxes at the same time! Sounds like a win-win to me!!
Sometimes the tail wags the dog. Manufacturers build giant SUVs, advertise them to the public in such a way so people think by driving them people will get an image of them as athletic, sporty, etc, and people buy it. While I do believe the market drives what manufactures somewhat, it's a two way street. The market pushes products to consumers all the time and tries to convince them to buy. And the manufacturer is going to try to convince folks to buy the biggest thing out there with the most gadgets to give them the most profit.
Look at the housing market. If you want to send your kids to a good school district, you have to buy what's available in that school district. If the only thing developers are building are 3000 SqFt houses, but you're looking for a new 2000 SqFt ranch, you're going to have to look at a 20-30 year old house (or do a custom build if you have the $$$). Good schools, less crime, and other social issues are why people live in the suburbs far from work. There is no public transportation that would take me to my workplace even if I lived close enough to a bus line, so that's not an option unless I want to quit my job, but I think another family on welfare is worse than the pollution from my car driving to work!
I'd say the vast majority of people using 7 passenger vehicles use it for a combination of adults and kids. There are cars right now in Japan and Europe that can hold 7 passengers and get MPG in the 30s using a regular engine. Again...it's a matter of getting the manufactures to bring them here and develop better technologies.
Ford has had the Focus and Taurus for years, but they were successful in marketing the Expedition to familes who could have bought a Taurus wagon (when the made them) and Explorers to people who could have done just as well with a Focus wagon.
I agree though the tide is slowly turning against large vehicles, but it's a slow moving tide that I'd like to see move faster. It's a big risk for manufacturers to bring in a small car, so I understand that they need to test the waters but again, right now there's not much advantage in bringing over more efficient vehicles because while gas is high, it's still not enough to make a dent to most folks.
So instead of taking in interest in the city and revitalizing your community, you move further away, spend more time on the roads burning more fuel and adding to congestion. You spend more time in traffic and less time actually with the kids since people feel that since their children are in a good school, they can outsource the child rearing duties. This is the first time in my life I have lived to far from work to ride my bike - something that will be remedied shortly. That means what ever vehicle I had (that you may or may not want to tax) sits idle as I commute by bicycle while you drive your vehicle every day instead of living in a close proximity to work.
That doesn't sound fair to me.
Wow, thats amazing. I wonder why those evil car companies wouldn't want to bring those over to the states. Do you have any links or references for those vehicles?
Your home life is much more important than your work life (ie, family comes first). So where you set up your family is much more important than where you work. If you are uprooting your family to follow your job, then your priorities are off base, IMHO. And, no, you can't just find a job close to home, because the jobs are obviously not always there. You can't force someone to hire you and you can't force a company to open an office near your house.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Wow is right. You must be in a different line of work or a consultant or something because if I changed jobs every year for even 3-4 years, I would never get another job.
So where you set up your family is much more important than where you work. If you are uprooting your family to follow your job, then your priorities are off base, IMHO.
I think having your family where you can be part of their lives and not leaving before the kids wake up and getting home after dinner time is more important. In my 10 year career, there has only been one "uprooting" and that was pre-family.
If you can't work close to home, why are you doing what you are doing, especially if it requires changing jobs every year?
not leaving before the kids wake up and getting home after dinner time is more important.
Well, sure, but that's the opposite extreme of riding your bike to work. My goal is always to find a job within an hour's drive. Some folks wouldn't consider such a commute, while some would consider that short. Either way, it is not in "close proximity" to my home, as you stated earlier it should be.
And if it is an hour away (ie, 50 miles), a subcompact can save me alot of money. [that one's for you, texases]
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
The underlaying discussion is why do you need a sub-compact car if
1. you don't use it very often,
2. or you don't travel very far,
3. or it is a very small FE/CO2 penalty?
I think the outgrowth was about lifestyle choices that impact commutes requiring more driving time.
THAT would be a hard "people/miles per gallon" number to beat in ANY vehicle made in the USA.
PMG is something maybe we oughta talk about regarding subcompacts.
Anyone care to do the math? Let's compare a subcompact like a Scion xA getting 35 mpg and presuming that realistically only 3 people are comfortable in it for commuting 1+ hours.
Let's say a typical SUV like an RX330 or some such holds 5. I don't know the AVERAGE EPA (not the top number) for the RX330.
Of course, this presumes that both vehicles are always "full" and that they are achieving the average of the two EPA numbers.
I think your modern European diesel van can do that...take 7 people around at about 30 mpg.
Since I had mentioned diesels in my post and was shot down, I thought there was another magical conventional engine Bob was talking about.
I would love to see more diesels in the US, especially running on a soy-based bio-diesel, but apparently we are waiting to address some environmental concerns with diesels and the fuel they use.
I would think that the push to smaller vehicles would be offset by the environmental impact of diesel (and I know this is a temporary set-back, I am a big fan of diesel technology).
Anyone care to do the math? Let's compare a subcompact like a Scion xA getting 35 mpg and presuming that realistically only 3 people are comfortable in it for commuting 1+ hours.
Do you know what the "payload" or GVWR is on an xA? I am just curious.
I'd be curious about that, too. BTW, does anybody know what the GVWR on a Corolla is? I've looked in the doorjamb of my uncle's '03 in the past, but can't remember. But for some reason, the numbers 3200 and 3500 lb are both sticking in my mind. I think the car weighs around 2600 lb, so I'm guessing it's probably 3500 for the GVWR?
I've noticed that sometimes, bigger cars really don't have a bigger payload (GVWR minus curb weight) than smaller cars. For instance, I've seen 70's slant six Valiants and Darts with a GVWR around 4800 lb...cars that probably only weigh around 3200 lb. But then I've seen behemoths such as a ~73 Olds 98, probably pushing 5000 lb, with a GVWR of only ~6100 lb.
I remember one fundamental problem with the Excursion was that, even though it was based on a heavier-duty 3/4 ton truck, the body itself ate up so much of the GVWR that the actual payload was less than something like a 1/2 ton Suburban!
If I were to take a wild guess, I'd estimate the GVWR of an xA is around 3000-3100 lb?
That would be too low. Usually, most small cars would be able to handle 750-800 lb of payload. If curb weight is 2700 lb, the GVWR would be 3500 lb.
I thought an xA was only around 2300 lb, though? Now the xD is probably more of a porker, especially with the Camry engine.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
And, since you brought in calories and the stomach in an earlier post, let me reuse it again.
There are two snack boxes, one with 100 calories/serving with 12 servings and the other with 150 calories/serving with six servings. You might think that everybody should go for the first box since it has a static number printed “100 calories” which is lower than on the other box. But, I need to have something more substantial, but not so much that I exceed it. The sweet spot happens to be 150 calories. So, I would prefer the second box.
This addresses an important thing, the realization that I don’t need to go overboard by getting the first box and eat two at a time. OTOH, your assumption that first box would be better doesn’t go into the reality. It sticks with a static number. The key to conservation is understanding consumption. It is dynamic. Unless you can ration fuel, static numbers aren’t going to help.
I don’t know about you, but I have noticed a trend in urban development and choice of automobiles people have been making in recent years. I live in Dallas-Ft Worth metroplex, which is larger than the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined but with only 6 million people (fourth, behind NYC, LA and Chicago). Clearly, space is abundant, and so are the distances. And people here have traditionally loved their trucks, with bigger is better attitude. But it didn’t take an incentive to notice a new found interest in smaller vehicles, and more compact urban growth in the form of condos and townhomes than single family homes, and right along public transportation corridors.
I know several people who are already scrambling to get into smaller vehicles, and some are having tough time selling their SUVs (as they still owe more than they are getting for it). Why is this happening?
Incentive to buyers or manufacturers isn’t the right thing because not only is it easy to get around the road blocks, which in turn can penalize those with more honest approach, but also it doesn’t address the key issue: consumption.
xB is almost 3100 lb now, and xD is lighter, at about 2700 lb.
From Edmunds.. for a stick-shift..
Length: 154.1 in. Width: 66.7 in.
Height: 60.2 in. Wheel Base: 93.3 in.
Ground Clearance: 5.7 in. Curb Weight: 2340 lbs.
Gross Weight: 3305 lbs.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
I just googled "Scion xA GVWR" and went to the first thing that came up. It listed "N/A" fo the GVWR. However, curb weight is listed at 2340 for the stick, 2380 for the automatic. So GVWR is probably around 3100-3200 lb.
For the Corolla CE, which is what my uncle has, its curb weight is 2530/2595 (stick/automatic), and GVWR is 3585.