Ya gotta love ole comrade Joe S ! He was the one to cause to execute, what 25M of his fellow countrymen and worked real hard to keep it "non statistical".
That is not our society's ACTUAL stance at all. Why surely we don't want extra people to die, if we wanted to prevent every accident and death possible, there are many more things we could do. For example, I can list:
First and foremost - stop discretionary driving. Only allow auto makers to make the better performing cars - i.e. best braking distances, best handling. Use racing safety, the same systems that keep NASCAR drivers from death in their high speed wrecks.
So no we don't as a society try to prevent every death possible. We allow teens to hop in a car with their friends, not wearing crash helmets, enjoying the entertainment of their car and cellphones, in vehicles that don't have the best brakes and tires, and drive 150 miles in a day, to simply lay on a beach.
Injuries and deaths increase because we have granted people the freedom to do this. Driving is an increased risk that we take voluntarily. What we are and aren't willing to accept in the name of safety is also something we do voluntarily.
During the Big3 hearings in DC the last few weeks, I was thinking how much less debate there would have been, if Stalin was running this country. Everyone should read at least some of Solzhenitzen's Gulag Archipelago.
ESPECIALLY DURING the Siberian JR. months. UPSTATE NY is home to the USA world wide HARSH (ARCTIC) command, aka, the illustrious and august 10th Mountain Division. link title
Shorts and tee shirt weather is 31 degrees F. :shades: (H20 of course freezes @ 32 degrees.... hoo rah !!!
When I lived in Alaska I could see Siberia from my home. It's interesting that Solzhenitsyn moved to Vermont instead of, say, Panama City.
I'm not sure why this story is dated today; the finding were probably posted in here a year ago. But it makes for a snappy headline to get us back on topic:
And I'm not sure I believe this guy's story - maybe he mistakenly rented a police cruiser? "In two hours in moderate traffic, we saw no one seriously exceeding that 75-mph posted speed limit."
That US DOT report subject matter was literally @ 53 years in the making. It actually ranks as "cursing in church" as it has LONG been dogma and comission of heresy to deviate from "SPEED KILLS" So while a generation or so LATE, I for one welcome the more "transparent look"
I am waiting for one of the other truths to be published, (might take another 53 years) that the overwhelming majority (80% of the fatalities) happen at 45 mph and UNDER.
cdn_tch: Actually the NHTSA brought it up saying that they expect there to be about a 10% (that would be somewhere around 4,000) drop in highway fatalities.
The real story here is that a similar drop occurred during the first fuel crisis in 1974, and it was credited to the enactment of the nationwide 55 mph speed limit.
But 34 years later, a drop of similar magnitude occurs, without any change in the speed limit, but during another big run-up in gasoline prices. Which suggests that the drop in 1974 was due to other factors, not the enactment of the 55 speed limit.
And, on an anecdotal level, I've noted that while traffic volume is down on major highways, people are not slowing down. After Thanksgiving, we traveled on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and most people were driving 75 mph. I kept the speed at 65 mph (the speed limit) as a test for a few miles, and we were passed by virtually everyone.
So, people are driving LESS (gasoline usage and miles driven are both down for the year, if I recall correctly), but they aren't slowing down on limited access highways when they do drive.
cdn_tch: So every death that can be prevented, should be. Lest you be the one delivering or have delivered to you the sad news that someone you care for is never coming home.
Only problem is that imposing an arbitrary and too-low speed limit on limited access highways is a waste of money and law enforcement resources, and won't do anything to prevent deaths.
The real story here is that a similar drop occurred during the first fuel crisis in 1974, and it was credited to the enactment of the nationwide 55 mph speed limit.
But 34 years later, a drop of similar magnitude occurs, without any change in the speed limit, but during another big run-up in gasoline prices. Which suggests that the drop in 1974 was due to other factors, not the enactment of the 55 speed limit.
In '74 some of the enforcement was draconian. so people did slow down then. Also when there are fewer vehicles on the road, the lower congestion will also improve safety.
I kept the speed at 65 mph (the speed limit) as a test for a few miles, and we were passed by virtually everyone.
No you were not. You were only passed by those who were doing at least 75 because at a speed less than that they would not be able to catch and pass you within the few minutes you were doing 65!
cdn_tch: In '74 some of the enforcement was draconian. so people did slow down then. Also when there are fewer vehicles on the road, the lower congestion will also improve safety.
Enforcement didn't become much stricter until the Carter administration, when states were required to prove that a certain percentage of drivers were obeying the 55 mph speed limit, or lose part of their federal highway money. The Carter administration didn't begin until January 1977.
It has also been repeatedly shown that lowering speed limits on limited access highways has little or no effect on how fast most people drive. The only thing it does is increase speed variance between the fastest drivers and the slower ones, who obey the speed limit.
cdn_tch: No you were not. You were only passed by those who were doing at least 75 because at a speed less than that they would not be able to catch and pass you within the few minutes you were doing 65!
We were initially traveling at 65 mph. We passed NO ONE. We were passed by a steady stream of vehicles.
When we sped up to 75 mph, we were going with the flow of traffic...although we were passed by a few cars driving 80 mph and over.
We also passed only one or two cars. We did pass a few tractor trailers.
Using the principles of logical reasoning, based upon observation, one could conclude that most people are driving 75 mph - at least on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
We passed a few (3-4) passenger cars, and 2-3 tractor trailers. But, you are right, we did not pass that many. Meanwhile, there was a constant stream of cars passing us.
I don't want them driving 35 mph. That is too slow. Really, 55 mph is too slow. I've come upon a car driving 55 mph when everyone else is driving at least 70 mph. These slower drivers are major roadblocks. Other drivers overtake them very quickly, and have to move abruptly into the passing lane to get around them, or brake suddenly.
If you can't drive at least 70 mph on a limited access highway in good weather, then stay home. This is 2008, not 1938.
Indeed, that is one reason why I am NOT in favor of 55 mph speed limits !! But like I have said with 65 mph speed limits 35/40 mph is within the LAW !!! I for one do NOT want it lower than that. So here's the gig: want to go slower? Current law allows for 4 blinker light operation and you are good to go !!! (SLOWER than 35 to 45 mph) !! I broke in a new set of Z06 tires on a 80-85 mile per hour defacto speed limit road (65 mph posted). I was passed by what seemed like EVERYBODY; but more significantly, passed by 4 separate highway patrols cars and 3 unmarked County Sheriffs (not to mention 2 various municipality squad cars) out in full predatory mode. They didn't even look over, let alone slow down to look at me. Funny I didnt have any environmentalists' company during that break in.
I think it's happening. Our government and others are using their power and influence to pressure the auto industry to manufacture cars that comply with certain strategic objectives. I'm not suggesting that reducing our dependence on foreign oil, to cite one example, is wrong. It's a desirable political objective. However, it's quite a different objective from building exciting cars to maximize sales and profits. The risk is that the politically correct car will be less saleable the "gotta have" one. Maybe that's partially due to the fact that most members of congress aren't car enthusiasts. In fact, judging from their speeches, many seem to have more contempt than passion for cars.
One could argue that since U.S. vehicle sales reached a peak of ~17 million during this decade, after many years of increasingly tighter laws for mileage, emissions and safety, it's possible to reconcile political and profit objectives.
Will the upward trend in sales resume after we come out of this recession? Will annual U.S. vehicle sales eventually exceed 20 million, or have we reached the tipping point with ever tightening regulations? How likely is it that the automakers can reconcile their former goal of maximizing profits, by building cars that customers lust for, with meeting Washington's ever tighter rules on mileage, emissions and safety?
...the government has been meddling with the auto industry since at least 1968 and really got their dirty fingers in the pie in 1973. Yeah, I really wanted a car with an emasculated smogged anemic engine with 5-mph chrome logs slung on each end. Remember other stupid ideas like the seatbelt interlock?
out there, torque. It's tough to answer right now, because a lot of people would be happy to just get and retain a job. Much less buy new cars, either their "dream" car or a "green" car that is being pushed hard at them by their governement.
This "push" towards green technology seemed to happen naturally for me. And I can even give you the time frame it happened...it was around November or December of 2007. This stupid, explosive raise of our gasoline prices, with ExxonMobil's profits in the $43B large ones mark, really opened my eyes up to wanting to hop off of their imposed gasoline gravy train.
Not only that, ICE engines raise greenhouse emissions. Well, even though I am aware that those who haven't caught the "green bug" like I have have been pointing out for months and months that all-electric drivetrains built in to cars cause emissions, too, that being if the energy used to make them comes from coal-fired electric plants. And I will need to plug my electric car in at night(or day)to charge it back up. This then also "supporting" the coal-fired electrical industry, if you will.
But I'm sold on it. My ICE '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS only has 34,694 miles on it at this time. My wife and I are in no hurry to trade in, I have not really talked to her about all-electric cars. She wouldn't want to hear about it, I am the car nut in our marriage. But I want off the ICE gasoline-fired bandwagon, as soon as a "fit" can be made for us.
I am looking at one hybrid, the 2011 Chevrolet Volt. This one will cost me too much, though I find it's technology interesting and enlightening somewhat. Probably not for us, I'm not paying $40,000 for this particular hybrid. Lower the price to $30,000, Chevy, and with the $7,500 "green rebate" from Obama's Administration, we'll be cookin' with Crisco again.
These two I'm going to mention now are too legit to quit on. The first one is the least likely one I'll buy, and the main reason is it's range. It's range is 153 miles. Top speed is 85 mph. About 6 hours to recharge, and it's got photovoltaic cells on it's roof and front grille to partially re-charge, along with the regenerative braking. I want a range of at least 180 miles, to support trips to Tucson and back, with some buffer miles available to use in Tucson while we're there. The car I'm talking about is the 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar. Some of them will be coming to 3 U.S. test markets later this year, according to the manufacturer's, one being the French battery manufacturer Bollore. They have spent 15 years developing the BlueCar's lithium-polymer battery pack. They make bulletproof claims about the battery system for this car. The car is a small 4-seater. I remain interested and would love to drive the 558 miles west to L.A. to take one for a test-drive. We shall see.
Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar
The other car I am really interested in, and this one is the front-runner for me, is the 2011 BYD (it stands for Build Your Dreams) e6. This car is coming to America in 2010 or 2011, and is a production model as I type this out. It shouldn't have trouble passing emissions, it's an all-electric model. It shouldn't have trouble passing crashworthiness, it's over 4,400 lbs. curbside, though it hasn't been crash-tested yet. BYD will tackle that hurdle with abandon, people. The car is a crossover, supposedly seating 7 people. Seating 7 people comfortably, you might want to know? I'll get back to ya on that one. I don't usually have to seat 7 comfortably, however, if it can be done, fantastic.
BYD e6
The e6 can go 100mph, and here's my purchase plan propper-upper, car nuts. It has a range of 249 miles. Passes my test on that one! Re-charging will take 6 hours on a clothes-dryer house plug-in. However, as is usually happening with all the electric car-builders out there, BYD will offer a "quick re-charge" contraption. It will probably be an option for us, and it will add some cost to the deal. But it is supposed to give 50% more electrical power for your BYD e6 in only 15 minutes. Sounds good to this padre.
Some cost figures? Well, the 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar is going to cost somewhere around $24,000. Give or take a grand or so. Of course, the car will qualify for the $7,500 Obama green energy rebate, remember.
The 2011 BYD e6 is being offered in it's initial sales market at a price that translates to about $28,000 in USD. And it will qualify you for a $7,500 green car rebate, too. The e6 is the most interesting package for me so far.
BYD is the world's 2nd largest producer of cellphone and laptop batteries. They've been at carbuilding since the late 1990's, relative newcomers to the field. They do, however, have my rapt attention with this e6. More on this as more information becomes available. I'm on it like Gary Payton on Michael Jordan in the 1996 NBA Finals between the Seattle Supersonics and the Chicago Bulls.
The market has been unfailingly clear about what kind of cars it wants. Cars big enough to carry family,comfortable enough to drive and powerful enough to get the job done. Even the Japanese have given us these cars. Cars they only make for our market. Americans DO NOT want small,anemic cars. Given new technology,it is possible to build more fuel efficent vehicles. However, raise CAFE enough and technology won't be able to overcome physics.
As for car sales,we will never see 20 million a year. There just aren't enough buyers for that. 16 and 17 million were only possible due to artificial stimulation of the market. I think 14,maybe 15 million is realistic,although I don't think we will see those numbers anytime soon.
As long as I can get RWD cars that weigh @3000 lbs., go 0-60 in less than 5.5 seconds, top out at 150, and have handling and braking to match, I'll be happy.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
"Given new technology,it is possible to build more fuel efficent vehicles. However, raise CAFE enough and technology won't be able to overcome physics."
I agree with your assessment of what americans are looking for in cars. But your statement above makes the engineer in me wonder, have we gotten all we can get out the internal combustible engine?
"If they want a hulking SUV, there are plenty on the after-market and would be so for DECADES if not another SUV were ever built. "
How about a hulking SUV like this one...40 miles on battery then average perhaps 35-38 MPG hwy after that running off the internal generator. 350-400 mile range on trips before refueling... Recharge the battery at night from the grid. Work truck versions (not sure about the possible consumer version) could output enough electricity to power several homes during a power outage.
I agree with your assessment of what americans are looking for in cars. But your statement above makes the engineer in me wonder, have we gotten all we can get out the internal combustible engine?
Probably not. But, you have to factor cost in as well. Make a car w/ an aluminum chassis and Carbon Fiber body panels and you will cut a ton of weight. Of course,it would cost as much as a Veyron!
#5 of 9 Too bad by larsb Apr 08, 2009 (7:53 am) I say "too bad" to anyone who does not want a fuel-efficient or well-designed car.
If they want a hulking SUV, there are plenty on the after-market and would be so for DECADES if not another SUV were ever built.
I want Washington to push for better and better fuel economy and so should everyone.
Nothing wrong with wanting better fuel economy. However, if someone wants a V8 SUV and can afford to buy one,who are you to tell them they can't? Even fuel conscious Europe offers hulking cars with big engines. They just cost more to buy and operate.
In fact we want both. As much as feasibly possible we do want and need more powerful cars to carry the family. Our wide open spaces combined with a general lack of intercity mass transit makes it almost mandatory to have 'family-sized' vehicles.
But the studies also show that well over 80% if not 90% of the driving population also wants more fuel efficient and safer vehicles.
Here's another kicker too. As opposed to the rest of the developed world we don't want to pay high prices for good small vehicles. To us small vehicles are 'economy vehicles' or 'starter vehicles' thus in our collective mind these should be priced lower than midsizers.
Will we be willing to pay $25000 for a Jetta or Corolla or Astra. Not likely.
The challenge to the engineers for the NA market is to get small car fuel economy from midsizers. Then we will be happy. The Ford Fusion and Merc Mariner and Toyota Camry hybrids are the first steps toward that goal. IMO these types of auto's and crossovers will be the standard in 10 yrs.
I'll pay $25,000 minus a $7,500 Barack Obama "green car" rebate for one of these. Goes up to 85 mph and has a range of 153 miles.
2010 Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar
But I'd rather buy one of these BYD e6's to go 249 miles on one charge and hit 100 mph. Also does 0-60 in 8 seconds. This all-electric car will cost an estimated $28,000 minus the $7,500 rebate.
2011 BYD e6
The one that probably has a better chance to make it in the U.S. is the 2011 BYD e6. It's larger(seats 7) and heavier and would probably pass U.S. crash tests easier. More on that very important information later.
But gentlemen, about Nov. or Dec. of 2007 I underwent a magical automobile nut transformation of sorts. I switched wholeheartedly to being a proponent of all-electric automobile propulsion technology. This over-charging us for ghastly, for years, upon whatever whim they want to call it, is going to be over for me ASAP. Done deal. With such a large, costly purchase such as an automobile though, when that switch comes is hard to predict. It could take several years for my wife and I to switch. After all, our 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS only has 34,734 miles on it right now.
But I'm jumping in to another form of propulsion and they can pipe that oil right back up their &*&'.
The electric power has to come from somewhere. There's no free lunch. If you are going to cut oil out, you better find a good source of solar or wind or geothermal or tidal.
Or live with ruined mountaintops and dirty air from "clean coal", or the risk of tritium, iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, sodium, chloride, nitrate, uranium, radioactive americium, cesium, potassium, and radium getting into your aquifer from nukes, as has already happened here in Idaho (INL). And you don't even want to think about running electric generation plants with oil from shale. You want lights or drinking water?
Oil drilled from the ground has its own set of issues, but it's a stable technology with an infrastructure in place that is going to run its course until it's uneconomical to do so.
The best jump in propulsion from that standpoint is a new pair of sneakers. Maybe that's the idea in DC - make cars such a hassle we'll all walk or take the bus? :shades:
The tough new standards to be announced today will result in higher sticker prices, reduced vehicle size and, most likely, less performance. Aren't these the attributes that reduce demand? I predict Washington's remedy will be a second borrow and spend financed cash-for-clunkers program.
While that's my guess, I really hope it plays out differently because less dependence on foreign oil and reduced emissions are worthy goals. It's possible that Americans will embrace the notion of paying more up front for better fuel economy, but until I see evidence of such a change I remain doubtful. Of course, consumers may not have much choice on this matter by 2016, if they want a new car, but more people may deciude to keep their old cars longer.
"A lesson regulators and many in the green community still haven't learned is that autos are still a major investment made as much with emotion as with common sense. It won't matter that the vehicles that result from this national program effort average 50 or 60 miles per gallon if no one wants to buy them."
That number in that quote is nonsense. It's factually incorrect.
The mpg standard fleetwide, cars and trucks, is to be something like 35 mpg by 2016, not 50 or 60. And that 35 is under the super easy and inflated standard the EPA came up with in about 1975.
If you translated that to the current EPA test that you find on the sticker of cars today, which is much more realistic, what the government is asking for is not close 35 mpg, but closer to 25 mpg under the current test. But given that cars and trucks probably only make a fleetwide average of maybe 19 mpg under the current test, that is a jump.
But there will still be some large cars and some high performance cars. It's not the end of the world. On average cars will get a bit smaller, and have more efficient engines, and use less fuel, but it's not going to be as dramatic as it sounds. And given the problems we have with global warming, pollution, middle east terrorism, etc, this is a very practical and doable scenario by 2016.
There's even a much easier standard for trucks, suvs and vans too. It's just not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
The government can dictate that automakers build highly fuel-efficient vehicles that emit few pollutants, but will customers buy them? Recent history illustrates that customers are not stirred by their conscience but by their wallets, buying smaller, fuel-economy cars only when gas prices rise to the point of hurting them financially.
As soon as the price of gas fell last summer I started seeing new SUVs being bought. At least in my area. Most people are reluctant to get into a little car. Even if it is considered safe by the NHTSA. It is still less safe than a bigger vehicle. For me it is risk and reward. If I am going to get into a little vehicle it has to be a LOT better mileage than the econoboxes we are offered today. Plus I expect it to handle good out on the highway. That eliminates most of the small cars sold in the USA. So when they offer the A4 Allroad Quattro TDI, I will be ready to open my wallet for a small car. It already surpasses the 35 MPG combined in a very safe comfortable wagon with AWD. The Domestics or Japanese have NOTHING to compete with that vehicle being sold today in the EU. Even Steve would like the Allroad for his ski trips at 40+ MPG.
Didn't Mercedes suffer electrical problems in the same time frame as VW? Maybe they used the same suppliers. Probably a US company with UAW labor. :shades:
My neighbor has a 99 Beetle TDI that his wife drives all the time. 160k miles and going strong. He has a big shop and does all his own maintenance. He did not say he had any electrical problems when I asked how he liked it. He did say it gets about 40 MPG on average.
The question is what will the Feds come up with to satisfy our driving needs and their mandates? Are you willing to pay $5k+ to gain a few miles per gallon and look green?
As far as a great hybrid from Subaru. Don't hold your breath. They are not going to get anything but the dregs from their part owner Toyota. If Subaru uses the AWD hybrid system from the Highlander, you can expect about $7k premium over the non hybrid version.
In a perfect world you could have a Subaru Outback AWD with a 2.0L Diesel for about $30k. That would get you about 30 MPG in town and 40 MPG out on the road.
By the time Washington gets done with the Auto Industry a small hybrid AWD SUV will cost $40k BARE MINIMUM. Remember you heard it here first.
Right now I can get a loaded 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid Limited AWD with NAV for $34,340. I don't know if it qualifies for any energy incentives. A comparable gasser is about $10k less.
Lutz claims the Volt will run $32.500 after the energy credits knock the price down from $40k.
In a perfect world, I could get a new FWD Outback for $16k that burns regular, gets 32 mpg combined, doesn't wake up my neighbors knocking and rattling (like the guy's diesels 200' away do) and doesn't give my wife asthma attacks. :shades:
I have a neighbor about that close with a 1995 Ford Powerstroke. Yes it would wake me at 5AM if I was not already up blogging with youse guys. The truck diesels are nothing like the new car diesels from VW, MB and BMW. You can barely here them standing next to the car. They also have the particulates and NoX down as clean as most gassers on the road today. So take a deep breath.
This article, in Edmunds Inside Line is very relevant to this discussion. If you haven't already read it I suggest you do. The writer has a good sense of humor, but there's also some good content.
The Mechanic has it right on. These two points are important.
Freedom of choice be damned. It's of no consequence to Obama and Co. that the market in America for small cars has never developed. What you drive will no longer be a matter of what you choose, but what the government thinks you should own. Want to tow a boat? Better buy a Peterbilt.
Maybe President Obama doesn't remember what it was like to have that choice. Before he began his run for the presidency, he used to drive around in a Chrysler 300C packing a big Hemi V8 under its hood. He could have chosen to drive a Chevy Aveo or Dodge Caliber, but he went for that broad-shouldered muscle sedan instead. It's sort of ironic that he'd be the guy denying that choice to his fellow citizens. Come on, Barack, you don't really think anyone believes you actually wanted to buy that Escape Hybrid, do you?
Of course BO will spend the rest of his life being driven around in a big plush Limo. So the rest of US dregs can have a Yugo to drive. Al Gore the second. Do as I say, Not as I do.
The fallacy in this argument is that presumably the public equally will have the choice to buy an 20 mpg midsized auto or a 35 mpg midsized auto. In fact those won't be the choices available. The only choices that'll be available will be between various hybrid technologies and clean diesel. All of these will get about 35 mpg Combined.
The public certainly will buy them, it'll have no other choices. The public certainly isn't going to walk.
A. Auto fleet @39 mpg CAFE = 32-33 mpg EPA This will be easy to reach for most ICE-only subcompacts and compacts with little or no changes; All high mileage hybrids will blow this away All midsizers are likely to be hybrids or clean diesels in the future All large V8 cars are subject to being deemphasized All sports cars will be small volumes I think.
B. Lt Truck fleet @ 30 mpg CAFE = 22-23 mpg EPA All small crossovers will make this number easily with no changes at all All midsized crossovers will just meet this standard Most or all minivans will meet this standard, there could be some hybrids Any hybrid midsizers or compact crossovers will blow this number away Large SUVs and midsized SUVs are dead except for a few hybrids and maybe a diesel Suburban Small trucks could get smaller but I think they will move to diesel powertrains like in the rest of the world Large trucks are the problem..???? There a couple of hybrids but getting a 16 mpg V8 up to 23 mpg is really tough. That's where all the work has to be. Chrysler and GM already have a 2-Mode solution but Ford and Toyota have nothing apparently.
BTW The Mechanic is a moron. He hasn't read the Clean Energy Act of 2007 and he doesn't understand how the new program works.
No manufacturer must meet the new standards!!!
If there's enough demand for fun cars ( emphasis ) and a maker can make money selling them then that maker can go right ahead and do it. Two caveats.
kdhspyder: This will be easy to reach for most ICE-only subcompacts and compacts with little or no changes;
So that's not too bad, although we don't want one for our next car.
kdhspyder: All high mileage hybrids will blow this away
They also cost more money, unless they are like the new Honda Insight, where the cost savings are readily apparent everytime you sit in the car. Thanks, but no thanks.
kdhspyder: All midsizers are likely to be hybrids or clean diesels in the future
Which means that they will cost more money.
Thank goodness, I was just telling my wife yesterday that our current Accord cost far too little, and I hope to pay lots more for our next one, as we have all of this excess cash just sloshing around in our bank accounts... :P
There's little doubt that choices will be curtailed while prices rise. Taxes will also increase, as the value of our currency erodes. The silver lining, though, is that you'll have less to worry about regarding where to invest all that excess money that's just sloshing around.
The moral is, better hurry and buy that big honking V8 before they're banned, and cash-for-clunkers II eliminates the ones that manage to survive cash-for-clunkers I.
kdhspyder: All midsizers are likely to be hybrids or clean diesels in the future
Which means that they will cost more money.
Thank goodness, I was just telling my wife yesterday that our current Accord cost far too little, and I hope to pay lots more for our next one, as we have all of this excess cash just sloshing around in our bank accounts...
In most cases yes the improvement in fuel efficiency will result in higher initial acquisition costs but lower overall total costs. That depends on a lot of factors like availability and overall market demand. Heck today's Prius' are $2000-$4000 less expensive to buy than last summer's. The new 2010's are even less expensive.
Ironically Honda is the one that appears most at risk in the midsized category unless it can bring its clean diesel to market at an affordable price. Similarly Ford and Toyota seem to be at the most risk in the pick up truck segment.
I feel its a proactive push rather than the typical reactive movement. The problem is by the time consumers decide they really want something, it takes time to make a major shift. Production of something new takes time, and in that time, sales could plummet. For example, when gas shot up, many MFGs with caught in a bad position with overloaded inventories of the wrong product. Had gas prices stuck, the consequences would have been even worse. So forcing them to start doing something about it now ahead of actual demand, may mean that they are ready when it happens again. It also creates a positive image for these companies as even if consumers are not actually buying them, they still like to see that the companies are being conscious about the current and future conditions.
That said, the hype of hybrids, and plug in electrics far exceeds the reality of sales. Hybrid sales represent a tiny percentage of new car sales. And of that small subset, the Prius has a commanding market share making it hard for others. The issue of prices vs non hybrids is also a big barrier.
So to answer the question, yes, they are forcing cars that, at the moment, sales do not support. But it is likely the best thing for the future. I personally would love to see a bigger push for diesel.
As soon as gas goes up people panic and buy "small". Price goes down and its forgotten. Then it's 'oh they are forcing us to buy...' Carmakers just can't win.
Gas is up again, so now people will "want" efficiency. Should always want it, not when people 'feel the need'.
One of the key talents that a large multinational company must have is a good feel for future trends. The companies have to be prepared for all eventualities.
That's true. When designing a car, it just takes too long to act in a "reactive" fashion and react to the market. You have to be proactive to some degree, because it takes years to design a car, and 2-3 years after an event for your "reaction" to appear is too long: the market will have changed significantly.
When gas dropped Ford didn't drop the Fiesta, and didn't stop working on the Fusion Hybrid. You have to cover as much as you can, so that when the market changes, your "reaction" is already there.
Comments
..."(normal PC boiler plate observed) "...
Ditto.
That is not our society's ACTUAL stance at all. Why surely we don't want extra people to die, if we wanted to prevent every accident and death possible, there are many more things we could do. For example, I can list:
First and foremost - stop discretionary driving.
Only allow auto makers to make the better performing cars - i.e. best braking distances, best handling.
Use racing safety, the same systems that keep NASCAR drivers from death in their high speed wrecks.
So no we don't as a society try to prevent every death possible. We allow teens to hop in a car with their friends, not wearing crash helmets, enjoying the entertainment of their car and cellphones, in vehicles that don't have the best brakes and tires, and drive 150 miles in a day, to simply lay on a beach.
Injuries and deaths increase because we have granted people the freedom to do this. Driving is an increased risk that we take voluntarily. What we are and aren't willing to accept in the name of safety is also something we do voluntarily.
.
Shorts and tee shirt weather is 31 degrees F. :shades: (H20 of course freezes @ 32 degrees.... hoo rah !!!
I'm not sure why this story is dated today; the finding were probably posted in here a year ago. But it makes for a snappy headline to get us back on topic:
US DOT Report Confirms Speed Not Major Accident Cause (thenewspaper.com)
And I'm not sure I believe this guy's story - maybe he mistakenly rented a police cruiser? "In two hours in moderate traffic, we saw no one seriously exceeding that 75-mph posted speed limit."
It's time to raise the speed limit (National Post)
I am waiting for one of the other truths to be published, (might take another 53 years) that the overwhelming majority (80% of the fatalities) happen at 45 mph and UNDER.
The real story here is that a similar drop occurred during the first fuel crisis in 1974, and it was credited to the enactment of the nationwide 55 mph speed limit.
But 34 years later, a drop of similar magnitude occurs, without any change in the speed limit, but during another big run-up in gasoline prices. Which suggests that the drop in 1974 was due to other factors, not the enactment of the 55 speed limit.
And, on an anecdotal level, I've noted that while traffic volume is down on major highways, people are not slowing down. After Thanksgiving, we traveled on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, and most people were driving 75 mph. I kept the speed at 65 mph (the speed limit) as a test for a few miles, and we were passed by virtually everyone.
So, people are driving LESS (gasoline usage and miles driven are both down for the year, if I recall correctly), but they aren't slowing down on limited access highways when they do drive.
cdn_tch: So every death that can be prevented, should be. Lest you be the one delivering or have delivered to you the sad news that someone you care for is never coming home.
Only problem is that imposing an arbitrary and too-low speed limit on limited access highways is a waste of money and law enforcement resources, and won't do anything to prevent deaths.
But 34 years later, a drop of similar magnitude occurs, without any change in the speed limit, but during another big run-up in gasoline prices. Which suggests that the drop in 1974 was due to other factors, not the enactment of the 55 speed limit.
In '74 some of the enforcement was draconian. so people did slow down then. Also when there are fewer vehicles on the road, the lower congestion will also improve safety.
I kept the speed at 65 mph (the speed limit) as a test for a few miles, and we were passed by virtually everyone.
No you were not. You were only passed by those who were doing at least 75 because at a speed less than that they would not be able to catch and pass you within the few minutes you were doing 65!
my guess is not many.
Enforcement didn't become much stricter until the Carter administration, when states were required to prove that a certain percentage of drivers were obeying the 55 mph speed limit, or lose part of their federal highway money. The Carter administration didn't begin until January 1977.
It has also been repeatedly shown that lowering speed limits on limited access highways has little or no effect on how fast most people drive. The only thing it does is increase speed variance between the fastest drivers and the slower ones, who obey the speed limit.
cdn_tch: No you were not. You were only passed by those who were doing at least 75 because at a speed less than that they would not be able to catch and pass you within the few minutes you were doing 65!
We were initially traveling at 65 mph. We passed NO ONE. We were passed by a steady stream of vehicles.
When we sped up to 75 mph, we were going with the flow of traffic...although we were passed by a few cars driving 80 mph and over.
We also passed only one or two cars. We did pass a few tractor trailers.
Using the principles of logical reasoning, based upon observation, one could conclude that most people are driving 75 mph - at least on the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
This was a trip of about 55 miles.
If you can't drive at least 70 mph on a limited access highway in good weather, then stay home. This is 2008, not 1938.
One could argue that since U.S. vehicle sales reached a peak of ~17 million during this decade, after many years of increasingly tighter laws for mileage, emissions and safety, it's possible to reconcile political and profit objectives.
Will the upward trend in sales resume after we come out of this recession? Will annual U.S. vehicle sales eventually exceed 20 million, or have we reached the tipping point with ever tightening regulations? How likely is it that the automakers can reconcile their former goal of maximizing profits, by building cars that customers lust for, with meeting Washington's ever tighter rules on mileage, emissions and safety?
This "push" towards green technology seemed to happen naturally for me. And I can even give you the time frame it happened...it was around November or December of 2007. This stupid, explosive raise of our gasoline prices, with ExxonMobil's profits in the $43B large ones mark, really opened my eyes up to wanting to hop off of their imposed gasoline gravy train.
Not only that, ICE engines raise greenhouse emissions. Well, even though I am aware that those who haven't caught the "green bug" like I have have been pointing out for months and months that all-electric drivetrains built in to cars cause emissions, too, that being if the energy used to make them comes from coal-fired electric plants. And I will need to plug my electric car in at night(or day)to charge it back up. This then also "supporting" the coal-fired electrical industry, if you will.
But I'm sold on it. My ICE '08 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS only has 34,694 miles on it at this time. My wife and I are in no hurry to trade in, I have not really talked to her about all-electric cars. She wouldn't want to hear about it, I am the car nut in our marriage. But I want off the ICE gasoline-fired bandwagon, as soon as a "fit" can be made for us.
I am looking at one hybrid, the 2011 Chevrolet Volt. This one will cost me too much, though I find it's technology interesting and enlightening somewhat. Probably not for us, I'm not paying $40,000 for this particular hybrid. Lower the price to $30,000, Chevy, and with the $7,500 "green rebate" from Obama's Administration, we'll be cookin' with Crisco again.
These two I'm going to mention now are too legit to quit on. The first one is the least likely one I'll buy, and the main reason is it's range. It's range is 153 miles. Top speed is 85 mph. About 6 hours to recharge, and it's got photovoltaic cells on it's roof and front grille to partially re-charge, along with the regenerative braking. I want a range of at least 180 miles, to support trips to Tucson and back, with some buffer miles available to use in Tucson while we're there. The car I'm talking about is the 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar. Some of them will be coming to 3 U.S. test markets later this year, according to the manufacturer's, one being the French battery manufacturer Bollore. They have spent 15 years developing the BlueCar's lithium-polymer battery pack. They make bulletproof claims about the battery system for this car. The car is a small 4-seater. I remain interested and would love to drive the 558 miles west to L.A. to take one for a test-drive. We shall see.
Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar
The other car I am really interested in, and this one is the front-runner for me, is the 2011 BYD (it stands for Build Your Dreams) e6. This car is coming to America in 2010 or 2011, and is a production model as I type this out. It shouldn't have trouble passing emissions, it's an all-electric model. It shouldn't have trouble passing crashworthiness, it's over 4,400 lbs. curbside, though it hasn't been crash-tested yet. BYD will tackle that hurdle with abandon, people. The car is a crossover, supposedly seating 7 people. Seating 7 people comfortably, you might want to know? I'll get back to ya on that one. I don't usually have to seat 7 comfortably, however, if it can be done, fantastic.
BYD e6
The e6 can go 100mph, and here's my purchase plan propper-upper, car nuts. It has a range of 249 miles. Passes my test on that one! Re-charging will take 6 hours on a clothes-dryer house plug-in. However, as is usually happening with all the electric car-builders out there, BYD will offer a "quick re-charge" contraption. It will probably be an option for us, and it will add some cost to the deal. But it is supposed to give 50% more electrical power for your BYD e6 in only 15 minutes. Sounds good to this padre.
Some cost figures? Well, the 2010 Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar is going to cost somewhere around $24,000. Give or take a grand or so. Of course, the car will qualify for the $7,500 Obama green energy rebate, remember.
The 2011 BYD e6 is being offered in it's initial sales market at a price that translates to about $28,000 in USD. And it will qualify you for a $7,500 green car rebate, too. The e6 is the most interesting package for me so far.
BYD is the world's 2nd largest producer of cellphone and laptop batteries. They've been at carbuilding since the late 1990's, relative newcomers to the field. They do, however, have my rapt attention with this e6. More on this as more information becomes available. I'm on it like Gary Payton on Michael Jordan in the 1996 NBA Finals between the Seattle Supersonics and the Chicago Bulls.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Cars big enough to carry family,comfortable enough to drive and powerful enough to get the job done.
Even the Japanese have given us these cars. Cars they only make for our market.
Americans DO NOT want small,anemic cars.
Given new technology,it is possible to build more fuel efficent vehicles. However, raise CAFE enough and technology won't be able to overcome physics.
As for car sales,we will never see 20 million a year. There just aren't enough buyers for that.
16 and 17 million were only possible due to artificial stimulation of the market.
I think 14,maybe 15 million is realistic,although I don't think we will see those numbers anytime soon.
If they want a hulking SUV, there are plenty on the after-market and would be so for DECADES if not another SUV were ever built.
I want Washington to push for better and better fuel economy and so should everyone.
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
I agree with your assessment of what americans are looking for in cars. But your statement above makes the engineer in me wonder, have we gotten all we can get out the internal combustible engine?
How about a hulking SUV like this one...40 miles on battery then average perhaps 35-38 MPG hwy after that running off the internal generator. 350-400 mile range on trips before refueling... Recharge the battery at night from the grid. Work truck versions (not sure about the possible consumer version) could output enough electricity to power several homes during a power outage.
http://www.heraldextra.com/content/view/305567/17/
http://www.rasertech.com/media/pdfs/100_MPG_PHEV_02.pdf
http://www.rasertech.com/media/pdfs/Series_PHEV_Drive_System_Flyer_07.pdf
http://www.rasertech.com/media/movies/html/fev_jan09.html
Probably not. But, you have to factor cost in as well.
Make a car w/ an aluminum chassis and Carbon Fiber body panels and you will cut a ton of weight.
Of course,it would cost as much as a Veyron!
I say "too bad" to anyone who does not want a fuel-efficient or well-designed car.
If they want a hulking SUV, there are plenty on the after-market and would be so for DECADES if not another SUV were ever built.
I want Washington to push for better and better fuel economy and so should everyone.
Nothing wrong with wanting better fuel economy.
However, if someone wants a V8 SUV and can afford to buy one,who are you to tell them they can't?
Even fuel conscious Europe offers hulking cars with big engines.
They just cost more to buy and operate.
In fact we want both. As much as feasibly possible we do want and need more powerful cars to carry the family. Our wide open spaces combined with a general lack of intercity mass transit makes it almost mandatory to have 'family-sized' vehicles.
But the studies also show that well over 80% if not 90% of the driving population also wants more fuel efficient and safer vehicles.
Here's another kicker too. As opposed to the rest of the developed world we don't want to pay high prices for good small vehicles. To us small vehicles are 'economy vehicles' or 'starter vehicles' thus in our collective mind these should be priced lower than midsizers.
Will we be willing to pay $25000 for a Jetta or Corolla or Astra. Not likely.
The challenge to the engineers for the NA market is to get small car fuel economy from midsizers. Then we will be happy. The Ford Fusion and Merc Mariner and Toyota Camry hybrids are the first steps toward that goal. IMO these types of auto's and crossovers will be the standard in 10 yrs.
2010 Pininfarina-Bollore BlueCar
But I'd rather buy one of these BYD e6's to go 249 miles on one charge and hit 100 mph. Also does 0-60 in 8 seconds. This all-electric car will cost an estimated $28,000 minus the $7,500 rebate.
2011 BYD e6
The one that probably has a better chance to make it in the U.S. is the 2011 BYD e6. It's larger(seats 7) and heavier and would probably pass U.S. crash tests easier. More on that very important information later.
But gentlemen, about Nov. or Dec. of 2007 I underwent a magical automobile nut transformation of sorts. I switched wholeheartedly to being a proponent of all-electric automobile propulsion technology. This over-charging us for ghastly, for years, upon whatever whim they want to call it, is going to be over for me ASAP. Done deal. With such a large, costly purchase such as an automobile though, when that switch comes is hard to predict. It could take several years for my wife and I to switch. After all, our 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS only has 34,734 miles on it right now.
But I'm jumping in to another form of propulsion and they can pipe that oil right back up their &*&'.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
Or live with ruined mountaintops and dirty air from "clean coal", or the risk of tritium, iodine-129, strontium-90, technetium-99, sodium, chloride, nitrate, uranium, radioactive americium, cesium, potassium, and radium getting into your aquifer from nukes, as has already happened here in Idaho (INL). And you don't even want to think about running electric generation plants with oil from shale. You want lights or drinking water?
Oil drilled from the ground has its own set of issues, but it's a stable technology with an infrastructure in place that is going to run its course until it's uneconomical to do so.
The best jump in propulsion from that standpoint is a new pair of sneakers. Maybe that's the idea in DC - make cars such a hassle we'll all walk or take the bus? :shades:
I love Sunday morning rants.
While that's my guess, I really hope it plays out differently because less dependence on foreign oil and reduced emissions are worthy goals. It's possible that Americans will embrace the notion of paying more up front for better fuel economy, but until I see evidence of such a change I remain doubtful. Of course, consumers may not have much choice on this matter by 2016, if they want a new car, but more people may deciude to keep their old cars longer.
I have a feeling the question should be more like:
Is Washington Pushing Automakers To Build Cars Enthusiasts Don't Want To Buy?
:shades:
New Fuel Rules: Automakers May Build Them, But Will Customers Buy Them? (AutoObserver)
The mpg standard fleetwide, cars and trucks, is to be something like 35 mpg by 2016, not 50 or 60. And that 35 is under the super easy and inflated standard the EPA came up with in about 1975.
If you translated that to the current EPA test that you find on the sticker of cars today, which is much more realistic, what the government is asking for is not close 35 mpg, but closer to 25 mpg under the current test. But given that cars and trucks probably only make a fleetwide average of maybe 19 mpg under the current test, that is a jump.
But there will still be some large cars and some high performance cars. It's not the end of the world. On average cars will get a bit smaller, and have more efficient engines, and use less fuel, but it's not going to be as dramatic as it sounds. And given the problems we have with global warming, pollution, middle east terrorism, etc, this is a very practical and doable scenario by 2016.
There's even a much easier standard for trucks, suvs and vans too. It's just not as big a deal as some people are making it out to be.
As soon as the price of gas fell last summer I started seeing new SUVs being bought. At least in my area. Most people are reluctant to get into a little car. Even if it is considered safe by the NHTSA. It is still less safe than a bigger vehicle. For me it is risk and reward. If I am going to get into a little vehicle it has to be a LOT better mileage than the econoboxes we are offered today. Plus I expect it to handle good out on the highway. That eliminates most of the small cars sold in the USA. So when they offer the A4 Allroad Quattro TDI, I will be ready to open my wallet for a small car. It already surpasses the 35 MPG combined in a very safe comfortable wagon with AWD. The Domestics or Japanese have NOTHING to compete with that vehicle being sold today in the EU. Even Steve would like the Allroad for his ski trips at 40+ MPG.
My neighbor has a 99 Beetle TDI that his wife drives all the time. 160k miles and going strong. He has a big shop and does all his own maintenance. He did not say he had any electrical problems when I asked how he liked it. He did say it gets about 40 MPG on average.
The question is what will the Feds come up with to satisfy our driving needs and their mandates? Are you willing to pay $5k+ to gain a few miles per gallon and look green?
As far as a great hybrid from Subaru. Don't hold your breath. They are not going to get anything but the dregs from their part owner Toyota. If Subaru uses the AWD hybrid system from the Highlander, you can expect about $7k premium over the non hybrid version.
In a perfect world you could have a Subaru Outback AWD with a 2.0L Diesel for about $30k. That would get you about 30 MPG in town and 40 MPG out on the road.
By the time Washington gets done with the Auto Industry a small hybrid AWD SUV will cost $40k BARE MINIMUM. Remember you heard it here first.
Lutz claims the Volt will run $32.500 after the energy credits knock the price down from $40k.
In a perfect world, I could get a new FWD Outback for $16k that burns regular, gets 32 mpg combined, doesn't wake up my neighbors knocking and rattling (like the guy's diesels 200' away do) and doesn't give my wife asthma attacks. :shades:
I have a neighbor about that close with a 1995 Ford Powerstroke. Yes it would wake me at 5AM if I was not already up blogging with youse guys. The truck diesels are nothing like the new car diesels from VW, MB and BMW. You can barely here them standing next to the car. They also have the particulates and NoX down as clean as most gassers on the road today. So take a deep breath.
Obama, CAFE and the End of Performance Cars
I think I agree more with the first commenter though. :P
Freedom of choice be damned. It's of no consequence to Obama and Co. that the market in America for small cars has never developed. What you drive will no longer be a matter of what you choose, but what the government thinks you should own. Want to tow a boat? Better buy a Peterbilt.
Maybe President Obama doesn't remember what it was like to have that choice. Before he began his run for the presidency, he used to drive around in a Chrysler 300C packing a big Hemi V8 under its hood. He could have chosen to drive a Chevy Aveo or Dodge Caliber, but he went for that broad-shouldered muscle sedan instead. It's sort of ironic that he'd be the guy denying that choice to his fellow citizens. Come on, Barack, you don't really think anyone believes you actually wanted to buy that Escape Hybrid, do you?
Of course BO will spend the rest of his life being driven around in a big plush Limo. So the rest of US dregs can have a Yugo to drive. Al Gore the second. Do as I say, Not as I do.
The public certainly will buy them, it'll have no other choices. The public certainly isn't going to walk.
A. Auto fleet @39 mpg CAFE = 32-33 mpg EPA
This will be easy to reach for most ICE-only subcompacts and compacts with little or no changes;
All high mileage hybrids will blow this away
All midsizers are likely to be hybrids or clean diesels in the future
All large V8 cars are subject to being deemphasized
All sports cars will be small volumes I think.
B. Lt Truck fleet @ 30 mpg CAFE = 22-23 mpg EPA
All small crossovers will make this number easily with no changes at all
All midsized crossovers will just meet this standard
Most or all minivans will meet this standard, there could be some hybrids
Any hybrid midsizers or compact crossovers will blow this number away
Large SUVs and midsized SUVs are dead except for a few hybrids and maybe a diesel Suburban
Small trucks could get smaller but I think they will move to diesel powertrains like in the rest of the world
Large trucks are the problem..???? There a couple of hybrids but getting a 16 mpg V8 up to 23 mpg is really tough. That's where all the work has to be. Chrysler and GM already have a 2-Mode solution but Ford and Toyota have nothing apparently.
BTW The Mechanic is a moron. He hasn't read the Clean Energy Act of 2007 and he doesn't understand how the new program works.
No manufacturer must meet the new standards!!!
If there's enough demand for fun cars ( emphasis ) and a maker can make money selling them then that maker can go right ahead and do it. Two caveats.
So that's not too bad, although we don't want one for our next car.
kdhspyder: All high mileage hybrids will blow this away
They also cost more money, unless they are like the new Honda Insight, where the cost savings are readily apparent everytime you sit in the car. Thanks, but no thanks.
kdhspyder: All midsizers are likely to be hybrids or clean diesels in the future
Which means that they will cost more money.
Thank goodness, I was just telling my wife yesterday that our current Accord cost far too little, and I hope to pay lots more for our next one, as we have all of this excess cash just sloshing around in our bank accounts... :P
The moral is, better hurry and buy that big honking V8 before they're banned, and cash-for-clunkers II eliminates the ones that manage to survive cash-for-clunkers I.
Which means that they will cost more money.
Thank goodness, I was just telling my wife yesterday that our current Accord cost far too little, and I hope to pay lots more for our next one, as we have all of this excess cash just sloshing around in our bank accounts...
In most cases yes the improvement in fuel efficiency will result in higher initial acquisition costs but lower overall total costs. That depends on a lot of factors like availability and overall market demand. Heck today's Prius' are $2000-$4000 less expensive to buy than last summer's. The new 2010's are even less expensive.
Ironically Honda is the one that appears most at risk in the midsized category unless it can bring its clean diesel to market at an affordable price.
Similarly Ford and Toyota seem to be at the most risk in the pick up truck segment.
That said, the hype of hybrids, and plug in electrics far exceeds the reality of sales. Hybrid sales represent a tiny percentage of new car sales. And of that small subset, the Prius has a commanding market share making it hard for others. The issue of prices vs non hybrids is also a big barrier.
So to answer the question, yes, they are forcing cars that, at the moment, sales do not support. But it is likely the best thing for the future. I personally would love to see a bigger push for diesel.
Gas is up again, so now people will "want" efficiency. Should always want it, not when people 'feel the need'.
Its a proactive move and for once the industry can lead instead of follow, whether or not they are being forced to do so.
When gas dropped Ford didn't drop the Fiesta, and didn't stop working on the Fusion Hybrid. You have to cover as much as you can, so that when the market changes, your "reaction" is already there.