How Will Global Warming Concerns Change The Vehicles We Drive?

tpe · May 2007

Just watch, those boobs will have us all driving electric cars with 0-60 times rated in days

Actually electric cars will be very fast. An electric motor is vastly superior to an ICE. EVs major shortcomings are cost and driving range.

Talking about investing. I understand that bicycle manufacturers are doing well lately. I think bicycles would be very popular where I live if there was such a thing as a bike lane. Anyone who rides a bike in my area better have good medical insurance.

larsb · May 2007

I would hope that some car company would adapt these methods, but it's unlikely to happen.

Better Engine - Anyone want to build it for a car?

Radical engine redesign would reduce pollution, oil consumption
Researchers have created the first computational model to track engine performance from one combustion cycle to the next for a new type of engine that could dramatically reduce oil consumption and the emission of global warming pollutants.

"We're talking about a major leap in engine technology that could be used in hybrid cars to make vehicles much more environmentally friendly and fuel stingy," said Gregory M. Shaver, an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Purdue University.

A key portion of his research, based at Purdue's Ray W. Herrick Laboratories, hinges on designing engines so that their intake and exhaust valves are no longer driven by mechanisms connected to the pistons. The innovation would be a departure from the way automotive engines have worked since they were commercialized more than a century ago.

In today's internal combustion engines, the pistons turn a crankshaft, which is linked to a camshaft that opens and closes the valves, directing the flow of air and exhaust into and out of the cylinders. The new method would eliminate the mechanism linking the crankshaft to the camshaft, providing an independent control system for the valves.

Because the valves' timing would no longer be restricted by the pistons' movement, they could be more finely tuned to allow more efficient combustion of diesel, gasoline and alternative fuels, such as ethanol and biodiesel, Shaver said.

The concept, known as variable valve actuation, would enable significant improvements in conventional gasoline and diesel engines used in cars and trucks and for applications such as generators, he said. The technique also enables the introduction of an advanced method called homogeneous charge compression ignition, or HCCI, which would allow the United States to drastically reduce its dependence on foreign oil and the production of harmful exhaust emissions.

larsb · August 2007

Gary says, "That list kind of squashes the myth that Honda & Toyota are the green car companies. Neither has a V6 that is PZEV. How is that possible? Why are they so slow to build a PZEV V6? BMW and GM both have several."

Toyota and Honda are "so slow to build a V6 PZEV" because they already meet all the clean air regulations because of their hybrids and small car lineups. So they are not forced (like the other companies you mentioned) to clean up their V6 cars.

The common thought among the carmakers (and I have researched this) is that "customers will not pay more for PZEV so why do it?" Unless government clean air regs FORCES them to do it, they will not voluntarily build PZEVs.

GM and BMW have to do that to meet the clean air regs because they sell and produce so many large, more polluting vehicles and don't have a lot of hybrids or small cars to balance their pollution like Toy/Hon have.

And NO - Toyota and Honda being "green car makers" is not a myth, but 100% reality.

My proof? Glad you asked !!!

Honda named Greenest by these guys

And these guys too

These fellows agree also

Toyota seems to be a distant #2.

gagrice · August 2007

I would debate that Toyota is number 2. Is that in the world or just the USA?

I am weary of pointing out Toyota's blatant disregard for emissions outside of a couple hybrids. It is like they are joining the AG team trying to buy their way to a carbon neutral status. It just does not work that way. When they pollute China to build their dirty batteries, they are not just polluting a defined area. It goes everywhere. IF GW is a man made threat, GHG emissions have to be addressed everywhere a company conducts business. The question has to be asked. Can every part of a hybrid be built in Japan or the USA. I don't think so. Check your battery packs and I venture to say they are made in China.

texases · August 2007

Seems like that 5 tons number is off - according to British Airways, a 747 gets about 50 miles/gallon/passenger, so it should have about the same CO2 production as a Civic with one passenger.

m6vx · August 2007

a 747 gets about 50 miles/gallon/passenger

That doesn't seem right.

I guess we can rewrite that as 50 passenger-miles / gallon.

I guess it kinda makes sense.

nippononly · August 2007

Yeah. Now compare it to riding the Greyhound or taking the train...

euphonium · August 2007

Our old Town Car gets 150 passenger miles / gallon.

nippononly · August 2007

My Echo with only four seats gets 164 passenger miles/gallon. ;-)

larsb · August 2007

My Segway gets about 350 passenger/miles for the cost of a gallon of gas......does that count?

It would definitely be "changing the vehicles we drive" if more people used Segways for their commutes.

nippononly · August 2007

if it is GW concerns or merely the rising cost of gas, but the percentage of 4-cylinder cars being sold is rising, and is now the majority of sales in the '07 model year (as of January though, so who knows if this is still the case now):

http://wardsauto.com/ar/smaller_engine_architectures/

For Honda and Toyota, the 4-cylinder take rate among cars is 78-80%. And this is just the cars being built in the U.S. I imagine most of the car imports from Japan would be much more than 50% 4-cylinder - just think of Mazda, Subaru, others.

With gas prices actually slightly lower now than they were this time last year, I wonder if people will begin to reverse the current trend and get back into gas guzzlers...

wtd44 · October 2007

With a little luck and whole lot of good science, global warming will have no bearing on IC powered vehicles. Now, energy sources are another story.

kernick · October 2007

I would just note for everyone that that is "passenger cars". I don't believe that includes all the SUV's (RAV4, Highlander, 4Runner, FJCruiser Sequoia), vans (Sienna), and Pickups that Toyota makes.

I also don't think that 78-80% counts Lexus as a Toyota; as I don't believe many lexus models offer a 4 cyl. Maybe 1 model?

gagrice · October 2007

I think this went un-noticed on Edmund's also.

Conveniently, the American media is largely ignoring a significant statement from a UK High Court judge who said Al Gores An Inconvenient Truth promotes partisan political views and the schools should treat it as such.

As a result the British government was forced to rewrite their website and their guidance and will need to issue a warning before showing the film.

As NewsBusters reported, truck driver, part-time school official and father of two Stewart Dimmock brought a High Court action to ban the film from UK schools, claiming it is unfit for schools because it contains scientific inaccuracies, sentimental mush and is politically biased.

The movie was distributed to more than 3500 schools for children aged 11 to 14-year-olds in Climate Change Packs.

Schools will have to issue a warning before they show pupils Al Gore's controversial film about global warming, a judge indicated yesterday.

Mr Justice Burton is due to deliver a ruling on the case next week, but yesterday he said he would be saying that Gore's Oscar-winning film does promote 'partisan political views'.

This means that teachers will have to warn pupils that there are other opinions on global warming and they should not necessarily accept the views of the film.

The article actually addressed the lack of facts backing up "An Inconvenient Truth":

But during the three-day hearing, the court heard that the critically-acclaimed film contains a number of inaccuracies, exaggerations and statements about global warming for which there is currently insufficient scientific evidence.

Lack of facts and outright lies permeate the movie.

Just google: britain court and global warming for a lot of info.

gagrice · October 2007

October 10, 2007 12:00am
A WORD of advice to the many teachers who have been scaring our children with screenings of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth.

Be aware that a judge this month instructed British teachers showing the film to tell their pupils that Gore makes at least 11 false or unsupported claims.

I hate to think it is necessary to remind our own teachers to do likewise, but I fear the worst.

Every school in the country has now been offered free DVDs of An Inconvenient Truth, by Paramount and Jackgreen International, which makes money from the global warming scare. Even the Environment Protection Authority is urging schools to show it.

And, indeed, with our pop stars lip-synching green platitudes and polls showing Australians are more panicked by global warming than people of almost any other country, it seems all this propaganda is working brilliantly already.

In Britain, though, teachers are at least required to be more careful before force-feeding such hype to children. The Education Act bans the teaching of partisan political views and demands politics be taught in a balanced way, which would be a novel approach in some of our own schools.

It would be nice to see a balance in our schools and Universities.
Al Gore a Fraud

stever · October 2007

When I was in third grade back in 1961 or so, my wonderful teacher's husband, Mr. Russell, took us out to the playground and made a model nuclear power plant out of concrete.

I'm sure the AEC was handing out teaching materials to go along with the film strips (not to mention all the other "teacher aids" given away by the coal companies, dairy industry, General Motors - there was one called "Your Local Baker" from Wonder Bread on the importance of bread in the diet).

Didn't work - maybe it tweaked my interest enough to become a nimby on nukes. I think people, even nine-year-olds, are pretty good at cutting through the flack they get bombarded with. The WSJ published a story earlier in the month about how to deal with your kids nagging you to be more environmentally conscious (Inconvenient Youths: The Littlest Eco-Warriors).

gagrice · October 2007

I don't think they have gotten through to my 10 year old grandson. He went with us when I bought the new Sequoia. He was ecstatic about the DVD player in the back seat. He loved the wireless head phones. Not a word about all the CO2 my gas guzzling SUV puts out. He is a math nut so not that interested in the environment yet. I really don't care if they show the movie. As long as they open up a balanced discussion and make it clear that the movie is not all factual.

What is your take on nuclear power today? Still NIMBY?

stever · October 2007

I'm practically NOPE about it. (not on planet Earth). :shades:

Maybe if the waste ... and maybe if they repeal Price-Anderson ... and maybe ... mmmm, doughnuts....

gagrice · October 2007

We still got a lot of coal for electricity

We have a lot of homes with solar in my neighborhood. Mostly out away from the house. Minimum one acre lots have plenty of room for an array of PV cells.

stever · October 2007

Al Gore a Fraud

How about Al Gore a Nobel Laureate? Rumors are flying (and so is Al, lol).

Gore cancels appearance at Boxer fundraiser (SF Gate)

(Coal leaves me cold btw - as much as people complain about Big Oil, drilling holes in the ground is less damaging to people and Gaia than most of the widely available alternatives in my mind).

gagrice · October 2007

How about Al Gore a Nobel Laureate?

The White House graciously applauded his prize. I say Yassar Arafat got the same prize.

I lean toward this group. I doubt I can get close to Al Gore's "Carbon Footprint". At least there is a way we can all compete.

On a Mission - Taking Away Al Gore's Carbon Credits...
We are on a mission to take away every one of Al Gore's meaningless carbon credits by simply providing carbon debits. Help us make this dream a reality by purchasing one of the packages below. Don't let Al Gore assuage his guilt with meaningless penance, heap it back on with carbon debits  every one of which we will let him know about.

Do We Really Kill Trees?
The short answer is "Yes". We run a burgeoning business of clearing trees from grasslands so the Antelope wont be scared. As silly as that previous sentence may sound it is actually true.

http://www.carboncreditkillers.com/default.asp

stever · October 2007

Yasser didn't write a best seller, win an Oscar, and an Emmy. Much less in one year. About all that's left is Time's Person of the Year.

Al's about to join a pretty elite group that includes Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer. Not too shabby for a guy who invented the internet. :shades:

british_rover · October 2007

Hmhh someone should look up if any one person has ever won an Oscar, Emmy and Nobel prize let alone all three in one year.

EDIT:

From what I can tell no one has ever done it before.

George Bernard Shaw Got an Oscar and a Nobel but several years apart.

An emmy isn't really anything special but Times Person of the Year would be.

gagrice · October 2007

Time "Person of the Year" would get him close to GW Bush who was chosen twice. Still not sure what Big Al did to promote PEACE? HMMMMM

Seems he just split the country further with his GW theories.

british_rover · October 2007

You know who else was chosen twice?

Stalin and Hitler... :surprise:

Oh and Clinton and Regan...

FDR has them all beat because he was picked three times.

Ehh but then Churchill comes in with his man of the half century and man of the year awards.

Of course Time says the award is not an honor exactly but more of a recognition of people that cause significant change.

See here.

stever · October 2007

Like it or not, I suspect Big Al is going to change the vehicles we drive.

volvomax · October 2007

Yeah, but he doesn't have to drive them.

stever · October 2007

Right, but the topic isn't How Will Global Warming Concerns Change The Vehicles Al Drives?

Hey, he got his kiddo into a Prius. Too bad it didn't have one of those Onstar gizmos in it to keep the speed under 100.

gagrice · October 2007

If you believe what he wrote in his first book, we will all be riding horses or walking. He would get rid of the ICE if he thought there was a way to do it.

He is really wacko in a lot of ways. He would like to stop all progress. That is good for those that already have it all, like he does. What about the guy in India, Africa or China that would like to have a car like he sees on satellite TV. Everyone of those people in Romania want cars like we drive... How are you going to stop progress?

nippononly · October 2007

Actually, IIRC the Prius won't GO 100. Top speed is like 96 mph, isn't it? In fact, it may be unique among production models currently on the market for its inability to top 100.

Of course, exceeding 100 mph is NEVER necessary on public roads, is always illegal and usually dangerous, and wastes a TON of fuel - so it's bad for the environment and global warming too. ;-)

gagrice · October 2007

Maybe Al Gore Jr has a tuner Prius. He made the headlines with the 100 MPH arrest. He may have had a tail wind!

Making this week easier for late-night talk show hosts everywhere, Al Gore III, the son of former Vice President Al Gore, was arrested on Wednesday after police discovered marijuana and prescription drugs in his car. Gore III had been pulled over on the San Diego Freeway for speeding at about 100 mph in his Toyota Prius. Wait a secondcan a Prius really go 100 miles per hour?

Yes, but just. Speed tests have confirmed that a new Prius can top out between 100 mph and 105 mph.

http://slate.com/id/2169925/

british_rover · October 2007

I think the top speed is 104 in the second gen prius.

daysailer · October 2007

which has recognized mankind's effect on the Earth's complex systems.

I have trouble, however, with Al Gore's use of the word "truth" in any context, since he has long since demonstrated that he has no respect for truth.

rockylee · October 2007

I have trouble, however, with Al Gore's use of the word "truth" in any context, since he has long since demonstrated that he has no respect for truth.

Well compared to Bush, Cheney, Rove, he's a saint when it comes to the truth.

-Rocky

wtd44 · October 2007

Put your faith in GOOD science. It may be hard to identify at times. The laws of the Universe (some of which are known and recorded) are immutable. Even politicos can't change them.

snapcracklepop · October 2007

I may not respect Al Gore as a person, but regardless of that, I think it is hard to deny the facts about global warming. A majority of scientists support this theory and there has been ample studies done that prove it's existence and the effect that humans have had on the earth. The uncharacteristically high temperatures, as well as the increase in hurricanes and melting glaciers reflect changes in the earth that cannot be explained by past cyclical patterns.

rockylee · October 2007

"Watch a planet in Peril" tonight at 9:00ET on Anderson Cooper 360, on CNN

-Rocky

snapcracklepop · October 2007

I missed that Rocky... what did you think of it? Did it have any interesting points?

rockylee · October 2007

Yes, it did !!!!! You would not believe how polluted China, really is. I saw how endangered species are being sold on the black market and just how much the rain forests are being slashed and burned for farm land. Part 2 comes on tonight.

-Rocky

volvomax · October 2007

I may not respect Al Gore as a person, but regardless of that, I think it is hard to deny the facts about global warming. A majority of scientists support this theory and there has been ample studies done that prove it's existence and the effect that humans have had on the earth. The uncharacteristically high temperatures, as well as the increase in hurricanes and melting glaciers reflect changes in the earth that cannot be explained by past cyclical patterns.

How so?
The Earth has been much hotter and much cooler in the past.
All without human intervention.

nippononly · October 2007

...and the Earth did not have to support 6 billion people or more during any of those periods. (Nor has the Earth ever heated up so quickly)

The Earth will be just fine, it's all the PEOPLE that we need to worry about. ;-)

volvomax · October 2007

...and the Earth did not have to support 6 billion people or more during any of those periods. (Nor has the Earth ever heated up so quickly)
the Earth has had to deal with meteor strikes, comet impacts, hyper volcano's, more animal species than are alive today.
It can handle humanity

british_rover · October 2007

...and the Earth did not have to support 6 billion people or more during any of those periods. (Nor has the Earth ever heated up so quickly)
the Earth has had to deal with meteor strikes, comet impacts, hyper volcano's, more animal species than are alive today.
It can handle humanity

Exactly the Earth will be fine but we won't and neither will a large portion of the current species. The Earth will just shrug us off like a bad cold.

Good read

kernick · October 2007

but we won't and neither will a large portion of the current species.

Some species could perish yes, but overall a warmer earth would be good for life. Compare the density and variety of life in an arctic area to that in a tropical area such as the Amazon, SE Asia, or Africa. Yes zones of habitation could change but overall a warmer earth would be good for life.

Now mankind at our current population and growth, with our current energy supplies and technology, is unsustainable at a decent lifestyle; whether it's due to global warming or resource depletion. We could debate how many people the earth can hold at what standard of living, and exactly how much oil, gas, and coal there are; but that's not important. The only important thing to understand is that you can't keep increasing population, and using up finite resources, and expect things to be Hunky Dory forever.

Every year there is going to be more and more competition for resources, and it comes down to who's smarter and makes more $. So if you don't want to be on the forums in a few years complaining about $8/gal gas and you're having to stay home or only have a moped, you're going to have to make more $. Explain that to your kids - that if they like to drive - they better stay in school and be smart (or at least act it, or work on their people-skills and smile a lot!)

volvomax · October 2007

Exactly the Earth will be fine but we won't and neither will a large portion of the current species. The Earth will just shrug us off like a bad cold.

99% of all the species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct.
Someday, humanity may be extinct also.
However, we can live everywhere.
So, I'm not too worried.

gagrice · October 2007

Now mankind at our current population and growth, with our current energy supplies and technology, is unsustainable at a decent lifestyle; whether it's due to global warming or resource depletion.

So it is up to those of us that can afford it to burn up all the fossil fuel before the Globe warms enough to drown us all. Buying a nice boat with sails and a little garden spot on deck might keep you going a little longer than most.

british_rover · October 2007

We can live else where if the stagnation in space technology does not continue. We went to the moon almost forty years ago and haven't been back since 1972.

kernick · October 2007

Sometimes I think the GW proponents would like to get everyone to believe the movie Waterworld, will be the result.

Most Discovery and Science channel shows I've seen have depicted the earth to be rather lush and bountiful during its warmer periods. I don't think our descendents are all going to need boats; some will surely have camels.

nippononly · October 2007

the title of the topic is how will GW CONCERNS change the vehicles we drive.

The pseudo-scientific GW debate here at Edmunds is kind of over, ya' know? There are two camps, and never shall they mix. Fine. The debate is a draw, with no-one changing sides. OK.

But GW CONCERNS are most certainly affecting almost every automaker's product planning now, just as they are affecting upcoming legislation in the U.S. and Europe that directly impacts the auto industry.

THAT might be something interesting to talk about, don't you think?! ;-)

For instance, it looks like one way or another there will be a 35 mpg combined CAFE standard for America in the year 2020.

Europe is currently rethinking its goals in the face of something we are very familiar with here in the States: the automakers whining that they can't do it.
They were shooting for a combined "CAFE average" (they call it something different) over 40 mpg by 2012.

Everyone is rushing their diesels to market, although that is as much because of wild gas prices as anything else. The plug-in hybrid is also virtually certain to be a market reality in less than a decade.

These are changes directly or indirectly related to GW concerns that most certainly affect everyone's future automotive choices.

british_rover · October 2007

The perception of something is just as important if not more important then the actual reality.

How Will Global Warming Concerns Change The Vehicles We Drive?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles