By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
tidester
Host
SUVs
But one magazine looked at the hybrid Civic and concluded it would take 10 years to recover your investment. So it's hard to argue for it from a financial stand point.
So if they can't sell them on price, what about technology? Electric motors produce great torque even at zero rpm, what if this was used for off road purposes? Acceleration off the line?
Another alternative would be to have a FWD powertrain, and have a small electric engine powering the rear tires, for a through-the-road AWD system. They could even be independent, so if one fails the other could limp home at least.
Just some ideas. Fuel efficiency alone won't sell a car, so the technology has to deliver in other key areas.
-juice
If they did that I would agree with you...but I thought there was some talk about it and it never happened...is that wrong?
In any case, gas tax and CAFE work completely different so I don't know if stupidity in gas tax policy can be transferred to stupidity in CAFE policy ;-)
Gas is cheap, so people don't care much.
...and Paisan asks who cares.
My comment on those two comments is...the polls say that Americans do care about gas consumption, esp dependance on imported oil. OTOH, vehicle (esp SUV) sales show that they are not interested in doing the heavy lifting themselves. That's why CAFE is usefull, IMO...but...is that on-topic???? ;-)
$4-$5 gas tax is politically impossible, IMO. Probably anything over $1 is.
CAFE is ridiculous. The truck fleet gets 20.7 mpg? Gimme a break. Try 16 mpg real world. How do they even measure it? All highway down hill?
-juice
-mike
-mike
-juice
I agree...that response was ridiculous and pure politics.
CAFE is ridiculous. The truck fleet gets 20.7 mpg? Gimme a break. Try 16 mpg real world.
Actually, it's because of what models are included. Mini-utes are included and they get 21 on average (the best sellers get more)...the RAV4 gets 25...and mid SUvs average about 19. Also included are things like the PT cruiser and some heavier station wagons. They actually do average 20.7, according to NHTSA.
In view of this, don't you think we should be reducing our reliance on foreign sources and don't you think that improving efficiency are desirable?
jaw: The source of McDonald's "food" is a closely guarded secret in the same way Coca Cola's formula is locked up in a vault the size of Fort Knox. I understand the latter is a helpful aid in digesting the former. ;-)
baggs: Food IS manmade in the sense we sow, cultivate, harvest, process and genetically engineer it. We don't actually MAKE much energy either - we simply transform what Nature provides into more useful forms.
tidester
Host
SUVs
Your scenario is mostly correct...but you can't assume the replacement will be cheap...cheaper than the horrendously high price that gas will be at that point, yes...but that may be high.
In any case, there are other reasons to cut down now...first, we don't have a viable alternative now and fuel cells may be 10-15 years away. Second, there are strategic reasons for us to minimize our dependance on imported oil...we can't eliminate that but we can minimize it. Third, there's emissions including CO2...the more gas we burn the worse it gets.
Your question cannot be answered in the manner that you desire, without some additional understanding.
If we reduce our dependence won't the price escalate, cause and effect.
Action inverse re-action.
WHere does it end.
Hydro cars - mushroom accidents?
Elelctric cars - megawatt energy waste to make and charge them.
Cause, effect, action, re-action.
Change the status quo too much and you have Barry Goldwater or George McGovern -- two folks who were on opposite extreme ends of the status quo for their times. What happened? They both were trounced and that is being nice.
Cannot something be learned from that OFF TOPIC EXAMPLE (ALERT ALERT) that might better explain the realities of why we are where we are generally speaking of course.
It is also difficult to put Mike's "comfort" requirements into an efficiency equation. I am not looking for a czar to invent a "one number fits all" level of efficiency that we all would have to abide by. I'm looking for your thoughts!
tidester
Host
SUVs
But that would be cool if there was one AND it was accurate
(I take it you are either in EE or physics.)
tidester
Host
SUVs
For example, the was against Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was primarily about oil and the protection of Saudi Arabia. The recent decision to send forces to Georgia is primarily to try to stabilize the region and protect the existing and new pipelines in that area. In fact US foreign policy in the Middle East is almost entirely dictated by the desire to secure a reliable supply of oil to the U.S. (Israel notwithstanding).
Every day U.S. citizens in our armed forces are asked to go in harms way to protect the status quo and ensure that oil imports continue uninterrupted.
Imagine how much more flexibility the U.S. would have in foriegn policy if we were NOT dependent on oil imports.
Of course SUVs are but a small part of the problem of enormous energy consumption per capita in the US. Dependency on trucks for 90% of goods deliveries (rather than rail), the desire for larger and larger air-conditioned and heated houses and electrical gadgets of all shapes and sizes.
There are no easy answers, and I'm not sure the US government has the backbone to make any tough decisions in this area.
I for one know that I would only buy an SUV or truck if I needed to haul or tow alot of stuff on a regular basis (i.e. more than two or three times a year), UNLESS it had fuel consumption on a par with a family sedan.
-mike
'The Military' is not a robot that you pay for and use indiscriminantly. Its made up of US citizens like you and me. It doesn't sit well with me knowing that there are people dying out there so that I can drive a less fuel-efficient vehicle...
I know, simplistic viewpoint, but lives are more important than lifestyles, no?
No. At least here in the States. We fought this war a few hundred years ago for just that...lifestyles. Many lives lost. Does anyone remember that???
I do agree though 'It doesn't sit well with me knowing that there are people dying out there so that I can drive a less fuel-efficient vehicle...'
I don't see an SUV as a lifestyle though. I don't define myself by my vehicle, although others may. I define myself through other ways, but then again, that could just be me.
-mike
It would require some real long-term thinking and some sacrifice on all our parts, so it is doomed.
OK list every form of energy and transportation that does not have a draw back.
From the 2nd law it's the only one which doesn't increase entropy of a thermodynamic system. All other alternative forms of energy/transportation increase entropy. Now...does anyone want to make this machine for me???
OK I see I left that one too open. How about what we can really do. Not what we wish we could do.
http://www.sae.org/news/01supermile.htm
James has you on this one! As an ME, you of all people here should know that a perpetual motion machine is impossible! The key word in james' post was transportation which means useful work is being done - ergo - entropy increases!
Thermodynanics says entropy either increases or remains the same in a finite system and it can only remain constant if no work is done! :-)
tidester
Host
SUVs
Of course, there are none.
Your question, it seems, is asking the (rhetorical) question "what alternative energy form is perfect?". Wouldn't the better question be "what energy form is better than the one we use today?". Especially considering that it will run out in the not-too-distant future.
Fuel cells are better (although not ready for prime time)...they are more efficient, less polluting and require no imports.
of course tide...but then again if we broke the sound barrier we would die...theories of relativity abound...the moon was made out of cheese and you never know what kooks are gonna come up with next
While I agree that fuel cells are more efficient and less polluting when one looks at only the vehicle in the process, I truly wonder how efficient and polluting they are.
Gasoline vehicle:
1) Collect oil
2) Transport to processing plant
3) Process
4) Transport to gas pumps
5) Pump into cars
6) Combust in car engine with mechanical power, heat, and a variety of gasses as byproducts.
Fuel Cell Hydrogen:
1) Collect oil
2) Transport to processing plant
3) Process
4) Transport to power plant
5) Combust in large turbine with electricity/heat/and a variety of gasses as byproducts.
6) Generate electricity
7) Send electric current through H2O: not quite known how efficient or polluting these systems are (although they shouldn't be very polluting)
8) Collect Hydrogen
9) Pump hydrogen to pumps
10) Pump into Cars
11) Cars process the H2 with O2 back into H2O with electricity/heat/H2O as byproducts.
Now if only we could follow all of these steps from beginning to end...we would be getting somewhere.
1) Nuclear
2) Wind
3) Hydro
4) Solar
These are just a few of them.
I'm sure you've heard of the problems with nuclear so I'll go onto wind.
#2 Wind:
1) Changes wind speed of an area (it has to get its’ energy from somewhere).
2) Ugly
3) Destroys landscape as these must be setup over vast areas to give any reasonable amount of electricity
4) ...
#3 Hydro:
1) Destroys river life
2) ...
#4 Solar:
1) Ever seen the production process of one of these?
2) aren’t very efficient
3) take up landscape which disturbs natural wildlife
4)...
'slow down, drive less, car-pool, keep the car in repair'
Agreed
The whole structure of our society is built around long trips in an automobile -- why? GMC, mostly. And the Interstate System. We could just as easily -- more easily -- have had a different model; and the current model could change to one of walkable distances -- a village/ small town model. Large cites are going to a satellite town model -- Atlanta comes to mind -- and with good public transport, the trip into the city or to the next city becomes more efficient on a per-user basis.
I live in Las Cruce NM. NM is largely empty except for a corridor along the Rio Grande (sorry Carlsbad, Farmington, Roswell, Gallup, Grants etc.) where the three largest cities are located. The administrative centers for NM are on that corridor and consist of those three largest cities - Las Cruces, Albuquerque, Santa Fe. We could have a really fast train running from El Paso (technically not a part of NM, but look at the history and you'd see what I mean)to Taos (I like to ski) and it would be great. Georgia is mostly Atlanta, population wise. Florida is an H, West Coast, East Coast, Orlando. Those are the ones I know about. Fast trains, shuttles, and bikes -- paradise! I'd be in Taos every two weeks to ski (gotta recouperate).
I love my car. I love to drive aimlessly looking at the scenery. But if I could ride a train cheaply, especially in the winter, I'd love it. And if it saves fossil fuels -- great!
Also who says we are running out of oil any time soon?
My old man told me that in the 50's with the current use of oil the middle-East would be out of oil on 25 years. and this was from the experts at the time. Well we have not run out of oil and we are using more oil world wide every year. So where is the oil shortage? Are these the same exports that say it will take 10 years to get the maximan production of oil out of the so called arctic wildlife reserve that will run dry in 6 months?
I used to drive a 1995 Subaru Legacy Wagon 2.2L Fuel Injected motor. It got 30 mpg on the highway and was a lot of fun to drive. The cost of owning this wonderful vehicle, bought used for $18K, was significant. I sold it about 3 years later for $9K. If I recall correctly the cost of Insurance (full coverage) and California Registration were more than I spent on fuel for driving 30K a year. Plus $3K a year depreciation. Due to a recent physical disability I could no longer drive my beloved Subaru as my legs would go numb within 30 minutes of driving. So I bought a 1985 K-5 Blazer (full sized 4x4) with a 5.7L motor and it gets less than 1/2 the mileage yet due to the facts that the cost of the registration and insurance is 1/4 of what I was paying, it costs significantly less to operate then the Subaru did.
By the way during those 3 years I replaced 4 struts and some bushings on the Subaru which cost about $1000. So my costs for 3 years driving the Subaru independent of fuel and regular maintaince was over $14K. I bought the Blazer for $5k and figure with the lower costs of ownership and maintaince it will be many years before I will have spent $14k driving it including all of the costs of fuel and maintaince. I also really enjoy being able to go to the local Auto Parts store and get the parts today instead of having to wait for them to be ordered and that my air filters and other maintaince items such as water pumps, brake rotors, radiators, etc. cost 1/2 or less of what it cost for the Subaru. By the way I can drive the Blazer for hours and my legs do not go numb yet if I get in a Subaru or similar vehicle I can only travel a short distance. So when you think about efficiency consider how much it costs as well. Thank you Kris
So when you think about efficiency consider how much it costs as well.
Good point! There are factors in the efficiency equation that are specific to the needs of the individual and they are hard to quantify.
tidester
Host
SUVs
What I wonder is......what exactly does premium fuel contain that regular fuel does not. Where is it made, what impact does it have on the environment, and what is the trade-off. I wouldn't be surprised to learn premium fuel has a higher environmental cost than regular.
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/autos/gasoline-faq/part1/preamble.html
good luck