I remain resolutely skeptical that the new Energy Bill's mpg mandate will fully fulfill its 35mpg by 2020 promise. Once the National Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) tweaks the "attribute based" fuel economy calculations, once the manufacturers figure out how to trade credits to share the "burden," there's every chance that the changes we'll see will be mildly evolutionary, rather than revolutionary. But I could be wrong. Perhaps the environmentalists are right. Maybe we'll all be driving right-sized plug-in hybrids fashioned from lightweight materials, and telling tall tales of the days when SUV roamed the fruited plains (before the sainted tree huggers sent them all to Hell). In any case, Wired assumes the best (worst?), counts the cost of meeting the new standards and suggests all the ways automakers will do their civic duty (as opposed to paying the fines and calling it good). The fact the article features a photo of a SMART gives me the heebie-jeebies, but what the Hell. I cordially invite TTAC's best and brightest to survey this technological conundrum and place your bets on the future of high mileage motoring. Aluminum, magnesium and lightweight steel? Direct injection? Diesel? We report, you deride.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
First, 35mpg by 2020 is evolutionary, not revolutionary, even if the industry actually achieves it. They doubled mileage in what, 10 years? after the first CAFE standards were set. But you can bet that between flex fuels and plenty of other opportunities that this Rube Goldberg bill offers for gaming the system, they won’t achieve it, unless some other carrot or stick comes along. For example, a doubling in the price of gasoline would no doubt get results quick. And maybe, just maybe–please don’t tell me I’m dreaming–we’ll see a carbon tax when Al Gore becomes president.
Revolutionary would be this: http://tinyurl.com/tkrby
Yes…pay that gas guzzler’s tax. I certainly know I will still be opting for my big car in the future. Even if gas prices go to $20 a gallon.
I’d buy a quality, diesel-powered car in a second. Maybe when BMW gets its 3-series diesel to the U.S. Of course, there is always the Accord diesel as well.
Does anyone know the fuel economy (in mpg) for these two?
I think diesel is the best way in the immediate future. As far as the long-term solution goes, I think there is still much research to be done. I also hope the man-made global warming hysteria dies down a bit. I think people are going way over the top with this (Al Gore, et. al.).
You would need…
1) New leadership within the Big 3 (on many levels)
2) Re-settlement of the headquarters outside of Detroit to a far more environmentally conscious part of the world.
3) Government subsidization on many fronts. Tens of billions in research and development funds (and income tax credits). A subisidization of profits for the new models. A further subsidization that would enable folks to convert their current vehicles to more fuel efficient powertrains. Oh, and some type of ‘not so nice’ system that would severely punish owners who bought any type of supposed gas guzzler.
4) You would also need to go well beyond the borders of the U.S.A. as well if it were to have any enduring value. An agreement between as many developed and developing countries as possible to employ the SAME ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS so that cooperation and progress can take place to whatever degree would be necessary.
I can go on into minutiae about what supposedly would be needed. But like many here, I’d probably be good with generalizations and less so with the specifics. If we were to achieve a true 35 mpg standard by 2020, it would require a lot more than just building ‘new cars’ around that standard.
there won’t be any light weight materials. the only way to reduce weight is to make parts thinner and cars smaller. you know what uses lightweight materials? fighter jets. you know what costs millions of dollars? fighter jets.
just like the 60mpg cars in Popular Science years ago, a car made that light through high-tech materials will cost $250,000+. Heck of a way to save a few gallons of gas.
Also, Al, Ti, ceramics, and carbon composites are energy intensive to produce.
Stricter licensing standards would simultaneously make the roads safer and would reduce emissions and fuel consumption by getting idiots (90%+ of drivers) off the road.
I can easily imagine diesel powered vehicles being 50% of new vehicle sales in the US by 2020 much as they already are in Europe. Hybrids of various types will also be common including the cheap mild hybrid such as Aura offers. Cylinder deactivation will be commonplace on V-6 and V-8 gasoline engines. Tire design will probably trend back towards slightly narrower, lower rolling resistance tires instead of the ever wider, ever stickier trend which has dominated for the past two decades. Hydraulic power steering will become a fringe technology. Next generation redesigns of mainstream vehicles are likely to shrink a little instead of growing with each generation. The 2008 Accord is probably the biggest Accord will ever be. In fact, we may see Honda and Toyota go back to worldwide designs for their mainstream cars instead of making XL versions just for the US.
Spark plug makers will take a hit as vehicles move down to 4, 5 or 6 cylinders. Turbo-charging will also see an up-tick in use once again.
The days of driving one person to work in a 10 MPG Suburban or Expedition will likely come to any end. Good riddance.
Rather than seeing this regulatory change as an assault on good driving I’m hopeful that it will bring a new kind of creativity to the US market.
I hope to never again hear “has it got a Hemi?”.
Now’s the time to purchase my 3rd gen F-body . . . .
I remember in the early 70’s that no neighborhood gas stations had diesel pumps; then came the embargo, Mercedes diesels and pumps started popping up all over; and the price of diesel fuel (which was considerably cheaper than gasoline) went up to slighly more than gas. If diesels become the defacto fuel saver tech, then the price of the fuel will increase proportionally, as you’ll be competing with trucks for the same juice.
Damned if you do…
Fighter jets cost millions of dollars because they have far more parts than a car, are much higher-performance, are built in very low volumne and use leading-edge technology everywhere. Less-capable fighter jets (call it 90%-capable technology) are MUCH less expensive. Auto manufacturers can use 90% technology, in high volumes, cost-effectively.
Carbon-fiber technology, for example, is becoming mainstream. My bicycle is built, partly, from CF and there are now bicycles that are almost totally CF. They’re unbelievably light. In fact, my new bike, which wasn’t all that expensive by contemporary bicycle standars, is far lighter than the very good bike I bought in 1979 and actually costs considerably less in inflation-adjusted dollars.
I’m a little skeptical that Amory Lovins’ “Hypercar” (see David Holzman’s link) could be built exactly as described in a short time but I have no doubt that a vehicle with most of its capabilities and efficiency could be built well before 2020. Getting that vehicle by 2012 seems very much achievable to me. I’m just worried that it will be Toyota or Honda that builds it and that Detroit will lag behind.
I would like to see a Hybrid, Cellulose based fuel engines combined with areo bodies to improve MPG and get us off the foreign oil addiction.
I want to keep diesels for the trucking industry. I want the consumers to use Hybrids and renewable fuels. Diesels should be used for commercial use to keep costs of goods down.
If it goes down as planned.I see diesels,plug ins and lighter weights.I agree with jt horner cars are going to shrink.We are going to have to get used to less powerfull engines.
Body on frames,will be history,it a shame,but thats life.
cretinx:3rd gen F body sweet!I got a 4th gen.The poor mans Vette eh?
The diesel supply in North America is currently limited and inelastic – I hear complaints from my E320 CDI driving colleague about the cost of filling up. A big influx in diesel-powered cars would dry up the supply and likely increase the price of fuel in the short term.
If non-automotive magazines really want to push an agenda for fuel efficient vehicles, they surely shouldn’t use a photo of a SmartCar. They aren’t necessarily fuel efficient, given their limited passenger and cargo abilities. Though not flashy, a 5-speed Corolla will get 41mpg highway at $14K w/no worries about long-term battery reliability and recycling. You get 4-doors, a usable trunk and a wee-bit more crinkle zone. Hell, if Toyota would put a Prius-like body on the Corolla frame, that might even get tweeked to 45mpg. But overpriced, rediculously over-gadgetted cars like the Smart, Prius and the new diesels get all the press. Rediculous…
I am amazed at the amount of people who want taxes to go up to pay for all of this. Why should I pay even more? I don’t drive an SUV.
Furthermore, the CAFE standards will have no effect on oil consumption itself. The standards set in the 70s did nothing to stop the increase in foreign import of petroleum.
Find the exemption, and I have your most popular vehicle type in 2020.
If you factor in increased demand it’s not too pessimistic to think we’ll be looking at $15+ a gallon in 2020.
Think of all the people in China and India who’ll be driving then that aren’t now, if you doubt it.
So the people who drive cars that only deliver 35mpg will be the wealthiest amongst us…
Carbon Fiber should get a lot cheaper as they build more plants.
I am hoping for some good hybrid’s of another sort: motorcycle/car hybrids. Put a light body on a bike with a little air conditioner, divide the HOV lane into two half lanes for bikes, and you could double the commuters for about 70% of the pollution.
They would be fun to drive as well. Also, electrically powering one of these would be easy, so you could have a greener source, potentially.
I would really like to see progress on the other side of the equation though. Government should look into all the things GOVERNMENT does that cause us to drive more, and stop doing it.
KixStart, how much did you pay for your bike? If you’re an avid biker, I think what you think is a reasonable price for a bike might be vastly different from what the average person this is a reasonable price. I just did a quick search for carbon fiber frame bikes, and the cheapest one I found was $1700. And that was just the frame.
In my mind that’s a lot to pay for a bike.
Incredible weight savings at a reasonable price might be possible in the future, but I don’t think it can be done today.
There are far more options for bio diesel fuels that do not require using staple food crops. Plus you don’t take a huge mpg hit with bio diesel like with ethanol, not to mention better mpg from the diesel to begin with.
If you can get the algae farm bio diesel systems up and going or something just as good and recycle all the cooking oil restaurants go through. I bet the fast food restaurants in the US could fuel half the country alone on all the old oil they have to pay to dispose of. With all the fried food americans eat how much oil has to be disposed of every year by restaraunts that they PAY people to come clean up. That is basically FREE OIL!
KixStart :
the reason carbon fiber bicycles are cheaper than their inflation-adjusted steel equivalents from the 1970s is reduced labor costs. once the prepreg fabrics are cut, the preforms are hand-placed. most everything else is automated. while one mold is going through its heat and pressure cycle, the operator is free to lay up another set of preforms. your 1979 steel bicycle was likely hand-brazed in a tube and lug configuration, which is even more labor-intensive than welding. if it was welded, it was almost certainly done by hand. today’s automobile construction is so automated, that there isn’t *that* much hand labor to remove from steel operations. for an apples-to-apples comparison, look at a robot TIG welded steel frame compared to a mostly automated carbon bike frame: $150 vs $1000. A modern handbuilt tube and lug steel frame will set you back $1500+
i think it’s awesome that bicycles today can be so good for so little money. however, a fighter jet of a bicycle will cost you $10,000; a ferrari of a bicycle will cost you $5,000. I’m afraid that even 90% level technology will still result in cars that cost $300,000.
there’s a reason scrap steel only goes for a few dollars a ton
I for one am postponing a new car purchase as long as I possibly can. Ten years from now things will be much different, thats for sure.
I’m guessing that the focus on power & speed of the last ten years will be gone, sent to live on in car museums. Ditto the SUV craze. Another oft forgotten item, the pickup truck idiocy will probably shrink considerably, left for work fleets and farmers only and rarely see the paved roads. Europe can accomplish most work truck needs with vans and very small pickups. Just changing the fleet will make a huge difference.
After that, meeting the targets should be easy. I have a ’98 Accord that can get 35 hwy on a good day and never less than 31 hwy on a bad. 25 min for city driving. I’m sure they can make up the difference in 10 years.
Certainly the use of lighter-weight materials could help, but I don’t see these economy targets being met without a dramatic re-adjustment of consumer expectations.
It has been mentioned numerous times here that 0-60 times of 9-11 seconds used to be adequate for family sedans. Now anything slower than 9 seconds is considered “slow.” We are going to have to accept slow again.
I think the manufacturers that can best make small, light, and slow = fun will do well. I’m thinking the spiritual successor to the Datsun 510.
@TexasAg03
“I’d buy a quality, diesel-powered car in a second. Maybe when BMW gets its 3-series diesel to the U.S. Of course, there is always the Accord diesel as well.
Does anyone know the fuel economy (in mpg) for these two?”
BMW has FIVE 3-series diesels in Europe. 320d is the best-seller, 0-60 in 8 seconds is enough for most people. In magazine comparison reviews, BMW’s diesels are consistently about 15% more economical than comparable Mercedes or Audi ones.
Here are the economy figures for the 3-series:
318d (143hp): 41 mpg urban, 57 mpg highway
320d (177hp): 39 mpg urban, 57 mpg highway
325d (197hp): 30 mpg urban, 49 mpg highway
330d (231hp): 29 mpg urban, 48 mpg highway
330xd (231hp): 26 mpg urban, 43 mpg highway
335d (177hp): 26 mpg urban, 44 mpg highway
And here for the Accord: (140hp, thus comparable to the 318d)
Accord 2.2d: 33 mpg urban, 50 mpg highway
I may not be a Carbon Fiber expert, but I do know some of the economics behind it.
Presently, demand exceeds supply. A CF bicycle could cost a lot less if they didn’t have to compete with Boeing and Airbus (not to mention arms companies backed by the government) for the limited production capacity of the material.
If any of the profitable car makers wanted to become self sufficient suppliers of their own CF, they could likely do it on the cheap.
Perhaps someone will pop in and tell us the real cost of the stuff, but I do know that the price has risen over the last few years as demand is growing faster than they can make the fabrication plants.
I think most of the MPG gains are going to have to come from shifting the fleet to smaller vehicles, and not from some magic bullet technology.
People being what they are, by and large they are not going to voluntarily move into smaller vehicles, so the marketplace is going to have to force people to downsize. This is already starting to happen with the increasing price of gas. I think increasing the prices of larger, less fuel efficient vehicles will be what it takes to do the rest.
I don’t see what the big deal is about meeting 35MPG by 2020. A quick Google search brought this paper that compares fleet averages around the world(converted to US CAFE ratings):
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_010605_110719.pdf
According to this the EU is already at >40 MPG. They do this by using more small cars with diesel engines and aligning their purchases more to their needs than their wants.
It seems to me that we’d be halfway there is we just stopped buying big frame on body SUVs to carry around the average families’ 2.something children and tow a boat of something 4 times per year.
Diesel fuel is abundant in the United States. When oil is refined, it is one of the byproducts distilled, along with gasoline, jet fuel, vodka-grade ethanol, etc. We have plenty of it. I believe that we export much of it to diesel-hungry places like Europe.
Blame southern California and its smog problem only endemic to its valleys for the nation’s hatred of diesel. (Well, now European scientists are beginning to link diesel particulates to cancer).
North Americans have to begin to live with smaller cars with smaller displacement engines. A big problem is that no one drives manuals here. A 1.4L 100hp engine in a car the size of an Accord feels pretty sluggish with an automatic. However, a manual transmisson at least makes you “feel like” the car accelerates more quickly, given the driver’s choice perhaps to gun the first several gears. Turbo-charge the engine, and you also get a slight boost without killing economy.
Not only are smaller engines key, but also limiting top speeds on the road of fuel inefficient vans and trucks. In Europe, they limit trucks and commercial vans and such to certain speeds on autoroutes — part of the effect of this is maximizing fuel economy.
However, high fuel prices tend to exacerbate rich-poor differences. In Europe, the rich rich can afford gasoline for their S500s/7 series, even if gas cost $4/litre. However, those at the bottom of society are prevented from driving altogether, due to the cost.
I think a better solution than to tax fuel direclty would be to tax the bejesus out of cars that do not meet a certain fuel economy standard, regardless of class of vehicle (excepting vehicles for commercial use or ppl who need pickups and the like) and use the revenue to fund scientific research into better materials, technology, etc. The rich, who can afford your Ferraris, 911 GTs, S-Classes, Land Rovers, could easily pay at 15-20% tax above and beyond the price of the car, if those cars do not meet the economy standard.
My prediction: We’ll begin to see more compacts with small engines being sold into rental fleets, along with electrics and alt-energy vehicles going into government fleets in order to comply. Meanwhile, with higher fuel prices, you’ll begin to see more smaller-engined cars being sold, anyway. The public will demand them.
Whatever doesn’t get sorted out by these means will end up being compromised through renegotiations of the rules, reinterpretations of the rules, and new loopholes that will allow the rules to be snipped into irrelevance. In politics, 2020 is an eternity and at least two presidents away. It may as well be 2220, for what it matters.
Carbon fiber’s dirty big secret: it’s not recyclable. Can you imagine what the landfills will look like?
Detoit,
However, high fuel prices tend to exacerbate rich-poor differences. In Europe, the rich rich can afford gasoline for their S500s/7 series, even if gas cost $4/litre. However, those at the bottom of society are prevented from driving altogether, due to the cost.
I think a better solution than to tax fuel direclty would be to tax the bejesus out of cars that do not meet a certain fuel economy standard, regardless of class of vehicle (excepting vehicles for commercial use or ppl who need pickups and the like) and use the revenue to fund scientific research into better materials, technology, etc.
No. It all sounds good, but it will fall on it’s butt. First, you want to expempt trucks, but the rich always find the loophole. Many of them are getting large write offs on range rovers and hummers that were meant to help small businesses who need heavy trucks.
Second, if you want to save fuel and pollution, why tax it indirectly? That rarely works as people find ways around it that practically destroy the benefits. For instance, if you tax the bejesus out of a new Rolls, I can rebuild a really old one that gets antique car exemptions. How many ULEV’s do you have to now sell to make up for my Phantom? 30?
Also, it is precisely the socialist intentions to protect the poor’s right to drive that will keep making ecological advancements fail. Why do we on one hand spend billions on public transport while at the same time avoid incentives for the poorest to use it? Increase gas taxes and make the bus/train next to free. Instead of destroying the incentive to work hard and make good economic choices you want to subsidize foolishness at the expense of the environment. Dandy.
Lastly, while it makes sense for government to support some research, it can be insanely poorly spent money if you give them too much to disperse. If anyone can find a way to solve our energy problems, they will be rich. Shouldn’t take a lot government support to get people working on that.
Meeting 35 mpg by 2020 would be easy. Simply sell gas powered, super aerodynamic, econoboxes. But this isn’t going to happen by 2020. Demand for these cars will modestly increase, and more expensive and larger vehicles will feature serial plug in hybrid drive trains, while SUV’s and trucks will survive by relying on the huge loopholes in the CAFE regulations.
Of course by 2020 human caused global warming will a distant memory only referenced to discredit Al Gore who will be running around the world championing an entirely new profit generator, I mean environmental crisis.
Also, after president Hillary Clinton’s huge gas tax on the poor there will be a great revolt, which ushers Jeb Bush into power and largely reverses all fuel economy regulations.
As I drove long-distance through the lethal snow storm this past weekend that dropped 16 inches of snow in one day (Southern Ontario) in my gas-guzzling 4wd Avalance, I pondered what our motoring future would look like in the lead-up to CAFE2020. It was not a nice picture.
All I could think was this; All of these types of policies are made with urban living in mind. In the city, you have an option to take transit or whatnot. Not everyone lives in a city, though, or in SoCal. If you are a northern rural dweller, you do not have the choice to drive a car that’s not capable if you want reliable transportation. Some people need to drive when there’s a foot of snow on the road, or in similar bad conditions.
If the government plans to make us all drive light-weight econoboxes with high-mileage tires on them, then it should be incumbent on them to deliver a road-maintenance program (i.e. plow the snow) that supports that possibility. I don’t see that happening, though.
For one I don’t think that CAFE will work as it is a lame attemp at supply side regulation. However, gas prices will steadily climb due to increased demand worldwide and car makers will respond with more frugal vehicles.
Firstly, there is no need to panic. Even if a “real” 35mpg is implemented you can lose your visions of a post-apocalyptic wasteland where roaming bands of tree huggers pull drivers from their SUVs and turn them into bio-diesel. Most of the technology required is either already here or very near. Here is what it may look like:
1. Trucks
A move towards diesel in heavy commercial vehicles makes sense. Coupled with simple hydraulic hybird systems there is no reason why an F150/Silverado/RAM should not be able to MPGs in the high 20s (when not towing). There will most likely be a decrease in ‘recreational’ truck ownership and as a result the stupidly overpowered V8 trucks of today will most likely become a fringe market.
2. SUVs
I don’t see mid-size SUVs going away any time soon but large Suburban/Expedition size vehicles will most likely become a niche market. Direct injection & self igniting gasoline technology will complement Euro diesels and hybrids to get the most out of the mid size family haulers. The rise of small utes (tall oversized hatchbacks) will also continue as an increasing number of small families will realize that you don’t need a V8 SUV to haul 4 people.
3. Cars
I don’t think that diesel will have a big impact on mainstream cars due the smell, reputation and noise. However, a combination of direct injection, turbo charging and the emergence of self igniting gasoline technology in conjunction with various hybrid technologies can make a 40+MPG mid-size sedan a reality without stretching the imagination too much.
Once thing that will change for all vehicles is the expectation that any vehicle should be able to get from 0 to 60 in less than 7 seconds. Also improved aerodynamics will change the look of cars to improve highway MPGs.
There are also some things that will not change.
1. Those hoping for a return to light weight vehicles: Don’t hold your breath. Consumers will not trade safety for fuel economy and the added hybrid equipment will only add to the mass.
2. Anyone with visions of the majority of American consumers slimming down and running aound in Euro sized micro cars will also be disappointed – not going to happen.
And the exotic hyper cars? Don’t expect too much change, they’ll just pay the fine and pass it on to their mega rich customers.
Overall I don’t see enough of a radical change to get emotional about.
The reason you don’t see those diesels in the US is NOBODY BUYS THEM.
Well, I think I was somewhat mistaken. My new bike was $650. My 1979 bike was $225 (lugged and brazed, double-butted Reynolds 531). This turns out to be almost identical in inflation-adjusted dollars. However, the new one is a better value because it is better in many ways.
And the only CF part is the seat tube. However, with Trek bikes, you can get a CF fork and seat tube for $1149 (on the 1500, on closeout for just $899, nearby). For a little more, you get CF rear stays and for $1499, you can get a Trek 5000, at a nearby shop, on sale, with a carbon frame.
My new bike, however, at the same inflation adjusted price, is still considerably lighter than the old (I didn’t weigh them – I should do that – I just picked each one up for comparison). And it’s measurably better in other ways (24 speeds with index shifting vs 10 standard derailleurs and new-fangled disk brakes, which I love).
So, yeah, CF’s not on $99 Target bikes, yet, but it is making its way down the food chain.
That said, I also saw Paul Niedermeyer’s note about CF’s recyclability and, yep, that’s a concern. Anytime 6 billion of us do something, it has an impact. Maybe CF is unrealistic for that reason.
Don’t have time to read all the other responses. Mine is this:
Overall, you will see a return to emphasis on fuel economy and less on high perfomance. Just as we have during past “energy crisis’. Not that hp will go away entirely, just not so much main stream. The mandate will be “met” by a combination of minor fuel economy improvement, loop holes in the system, fines and “prove it” responses by the industry, when accused of not meeting the standard. Those that are still with us at that point. (And won’t it be interesting if the vast majority of cars are made by “foreign manufacturers; a little tougher if you have to go to Japan to kick there ass instead of Detroit)
More lightweight materials will likely never be mainstream. Aerodynamics don’t mean much below 50 mph. Tit for tat, diesels will always be dirtier, heavier, and slower than gas. We won’t all be driving diesels. If we’re smart and figure the cost and source of the electricity to power electric cars vs. gasoline, it doesn’t solve much.
Wanna save fuel? Stay home.
I’m wondering why we don’t rethink transportation altogether. Okay…we’re all a bunch of gearheads here who ENJOY the control of getting there, but most of those buying cars just want to get there in relative comfort and carry their cargo with them…safely.
So the greens would like us to move towards electricity. But then the cost of transport should be measure in miles per kilowatt and the overall environmental cost to generating those kilowatts. Ultimately, along the chain of transport from building the vehicle, selling the vehicle, fuel, maintenance, everybody needs to make a small profit. So there are costs associated in all aspects of transport. Simply substituting one fuel for another is just moving those cost buckets of cost around. We’re still going to drain resources. We’re stuck with gasoline because you can carry the fuel with you in a relatively safe manner and when you run out, it is easily available. I’m hoping to see if we go to electric vehicles, battery stations where one can simply exchange battery packs in, say 5 minutes or less? Plugging in your car overnight every night is not really a viable solution. Hydrogen may be a crapshot as carrying it around is relatively dangerous.
Perhaps mandating 35mpg is a kick to our scientists to figure out how to get more of that stored energy in whatever fuel we use to convert to kinetic motion rather than dissipate into heat, friction, and other energy losses. I am of the impression that in the 60’s, perhaps 10 to 15% of the energy in fuel was actually being used to move the car. Today, we’re probably around 20%? and I would think the goal is to get it to over 50%. – hopefully somebody here can add some credibility to my guess on these numbers. I do applaud our scientists for making efficiency gains on our current internal combustion engines.
I don’t think making cars smaller and lighter is the total answer. We probably need to change the concept of the motor itself. So currently, we only have two ways of a motor working. Good old fashion burning something (fire and explosions) and magnets (electricity to control the strength of the magnets). Surely there are other ways of converting energy.
Personally, I’m hoping they come up with a transporter like on Star Trek before I get too old and die, but I won’t be holding my breath. The concept of scattering my molecules all over the universe sounds intriquing…
Forgive me for not answering the question directly Mr Farago. Id rather focus on increasing the proportion of my driving that is enthusiast versus commuting, than do the mental gymnastics regarding mpg or miles per watt etc..
Why dont we simply assess the amount of travel necessary before suggesting taxation or regulation to economically drive people to give up freedoms?
As I write, Im sitting in a tall building, full of cubicle dwelling employees, overlooking a sea of commuter cars parked below. I can think of very few people, who actually could NOT do these jobs from the family room at home.
Introducing just a little creativity to this issue certainly wouldnt hurt. Instead, our elected leaders do more of the same ‘lockbox’ thinking and demand someone else solve the problem at the ultimate expense of the consumer (and taxpayer). Yet we wonder what happened to this country as we ridicule people’s choices in the automotive marketplace and suggest even more legislation?
Rant over.
smaller cars would help. bring back the real mini (less its lucas electrics & oil spewing a-series mouse motor)! $deity knows why one commuter needs to be surrounded by several tons of metal & plastic …
NICKNICK: “just like the 60mpg cars in Popular Science years ago, a car made that light through high-tech materials will cost $250,000+.”
Umm, 60 mpg cars like, say, the Prius? That was the 2007 EPA mileage, anyway–that’s been revised downward to 48 – 45, but that’s still almost 50 mpg from a $21,000 car.
KixStart:
Your new bike is likely better in every single way compared to your old one. With modern bikes costing upwards of $5,000, $650 isn’t exactly high end…yet it’s better than any bike money could buy 30 years ago. Heck, today’s mid level mountain bikes are better than anything produced just 10 years ago.
Not that that’s relevant or anything. I love bikes.
About 12 years ago there were concerns about CF’s recyclability in the bicycle world, and it was thought that thermoplastics would be the answer. It never really went anywhere, though, and it disappeared from the market. Maybe it’ll come back. I don’t know about it’s reusability, but i think glass-filled nylon is underrated. That might be a good low-cost weight saver.
socsndaisy :
AMEN! If there really was concern for the environment and not just a concern for political grandstanding someone in the government, environment lobby, media, etc. would be pushing TELECOMMUTING!!!! People who do office work and sit on the phone and computer all day don’t need to go to an office to do this. You could instantly reduce oil use and C02 emissions by far more than this CAFE legislation has any chance to and help single moms and families reduce day care expenses in one shot.
Simply making everything a hybrid, like Toyota could do, would gain the 40% required.
So for Toyota it’s pretty much a no-brainer.
Besides that: manufacturers can raise the price of large vehicles. That will steer consumers towards smaller vehicles. The profits on large vehicles can then help pay for the smaller vehicles to keep the industry healthy.
At least the large vehicles are not taxed like in Europe, so the industry continues to benefit from them.
Many people have been buying large vehicles, simply to protect themselves from other people with large vehicles. They don’t really need or want something large, but are scared into it.
Just getting rid of that phenomenon, and creating smaller vehicles that are smaller, but also very strong, very safe and comfortable, will get us a long way.
(I’m one of those people. I have a minivan, whereas a stationwagon would be perfectly fine. I also have a midsize car that could just as easily be a compact car, if I weren’t afraid being run over by a monster truck)
I was impressed by the improvements in bicycle weight partly because bicycles were already fairly light in 1979, there seemed little room for improvement. Any improvement represents a really significant step forward in the core of the bike (because that’s all their is, a frame and not much in the way of accessories).
In a car, however, it seems to me that there’s opportunity for weight reduction everywhere and in a million ways.
Frames and/or bodies are heavy. The engine is heavy. The transmission and drivetrain are heavy. Brakes are heavy. The dash is probably heavy. The battery is heavy. The alternator is heavy. The radiator and all the fluid is heavy. Seats are heavy. Even the headliner adds weight. Mirrors are probably a few pounds. What about the jack? The radio?
If we get beyond the just mass of the vehicle and refocus on mpg, there’s lots of opportunities for change there, too. Engine, drivetrain, vehicle size and mass, aerodynamics, hybridization, alternate propulsion, regenerative braking, etc, are all areas to examine to improve vehicle efficiency.
Maybe we’ve just reached the limit in what reasonable engineering can do. I always come back to this topic when talking about cars. Mechanical engineering is a very mature field with _lots_ of very smart people thinking about these problems. And they’ve been doing it for 100 years (in the case of cars). Look back to the Model-T, fuel economy is estimated to be 13-21 MPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_T), and the Model A was 20-30 MPG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_A_%281927%29). Not too much different from today. So now with 100 years of evolution and smart people thinking about the problems, we’re still in the same area. Now you may say that cars today are much heaver, more luxurious, have more electronics (which require fuel to power), and that’s true, but still we’re maybe only a factor of 2 better than 100 years ago.
I’m not a mechanical engineer, nor do I specialize in automotive design, but my guess is that there are very smart people in the field that understand these problems and realize that maybe we just _can’t_ do any better. There may be fundamental limitations that we just can’t beat(E.g. as a chemist, I know that there are fundamental thermodynamic limitations that we’ll never be able to beat because it’s the Law).
You can’t make something magically appear through legislation.
Miked,
You have an excellent point, but we are not there yet. There is a certain amount of energy it will take to get a 1.5 ton car up a hill. Even at 100% efficiency, a gasoline powered car can only get so much energy from a gallon of gas. I forget how efficient we are now, but there is PLENTY of R&D spent on this area already.
We are very close to the limit on aerodynamics. I would say the tire guys are close to maxxed out as well (we just generally choose performance over efficiency for various reasons, but they can make a tire as nearly as good as theory says we can).
We are nowhere near the limits on lightness, and we can obviously go down to two thin tires (motorcycle sort of proves that).
Light is what we need to really use alternate sources. Everyone is hoping we can use Hydrogen because it will allow you to use a heavy car, but unless we build a LOT of nuke, solar, wind, and hydro plants you still need to be lighter.
Presently, we can get better gas mileage with an aircraft than a car because we can make a really light airplane that is acceptable safety wise because we rarely run into each other. Perhaps technology will make cars stop crashing, and we can get them much lighter.
thalter:
People being what they are, by and large they are not going to voluntarily move into smaller vehicles, so the marketplace is going to have to force people to downsize.
Correct. The market is slowly moving people in that direction. Ownership of truck-like vehicles will decline for the near future.
And for people for whom the cost is easily affordable (the rich) or necessary (owners of boats, etc), don’t underestimate the power/ruthlessness of the greens in quietly regulating the ownership of remaining private trucks and SUVs out of existence. Their model should be southern voting laws of the 1930’s and 40’s – just substitute ‘SUV owners’ for ‘blacks’.
I’m with “sk8inkid” I don’t care what kind of car in out in the future, I will still be driving my car.
“Maybe we’ve just reached the limit in what reasonable engineering can do.”
The energy efficiency of cars has increased an average of 5.3% per year for the last 30 years.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/04/looking_back_pr.html
Since 1988 this increased efficiency has been used exclusively to increase mass and power.
“I want the consumers to use Hybrids and renewable fuels.” Bio-diesel is a superior fuel to ethanol. Bio-diesel has nearly the same energy density as does conventional diesel, and higher energy density than gasoline. Ethanol is a horrible fuel energy density wise by comparison.
Bio-diesel is easier to make than is ethanol and can be derived from plant oils and/or animal fats. It is also easily transported through existing conventional diesel infrastructure because it doesn’t have the water absorption and corrosion problems which prevent ethanol from being pumped through existing pipelines.
I am an engineer and the current US personal transportation fleet is nowhere close to it’s maximum efficiency potential. During the 1970s and 1980s when CAFE regulations were getting tighter on a regular basis the car makers kept up. Once the rules stopped getting tighter, ta da, cars and trucks stopped getting more efficient. Instead that got bigger and faster, faster and bigger year after year after year. Guess what, the human beings buying cars today are by and large just like the ones who bought cars and trucks in 1987. The rules of the game greatly effect the way it is played.
The gosh, we just give people what they want argument is disingenuous. The entire purpose of modern marketing is to shape the wants of the population. If you think that what most people want is primarily a product of their own internal thought processes then you haven’t studied sales and marketing. There is a reason it’s practitioners talk about demand creation.
Sadly, I think that 35mpHOUR maximum is a just as likely prospect by then. :-)
Spoilsport that I am. But I recently rode an EV three-wheel, low slung, canting open prototype – and have never had as much fun at 30mph in my life. And possibly above that speed, for that matter.
Engineering question: How long until the entire drive train is replaced by a generator (engine) that powers electric motors at each wheel?
10 years?
15 years?
50 years?
Never?
This shouldn’t be so hard to meet. Hell, peugot it putting out cars in europe that’re C-class and shattering this right now.
Personally, I get 55MPG, so I know it’s possible.
——–
http://www.ecomodder.com
Benjamin Jones
I’m confident that 35 mpg is not as technically difficult as Detroit complains. We won’t need Unobtainium alloy frames or Mr. Fusion powerplants, we just need sensible design compromises.
Every market segment will respond in different ways. Light trucks, SUVs and people-carriers will probably go to smaller diesels, or even diesel-electric hybrids. No more Triton V-10s, that’s for sure.
Small cars will likely avoid serious price hikes by shrinking a little (back to the Civic and Accord sizes of the early 1990s, for example) and keeping their gasoline engines. Sensible design compromises in these smaller cars already yield good mileage without having to resort to exotic powertrains or micro-compact chassis. There are many popular designs that already get 35 combined, and these (Yaris, Fit, Corolla, Versa, etc.) point the way for others.
Performance car makers will probably just pay the penalty and move on. Others will focus on power-to-weight instead of raw BHP, and we might see more cars like the Lotus Elise and fewer Mustang GT500s.
Luxury cars will go to turbodiesel or gas-hybrids like Mercedes, Audi and Lexus. They’ll probably never get 35 mpg in this market segment, but they’ll get to 25 or maybe 30 and they’ll offset the rest by selling other thriftier models.
There’s so much room for improvement in efficiency; the only unavoidable casualties will be makes like Suzuki and Daewoo, which somehow combine small size, low power, and poor mileage. We’ll soon see the end of the Detroit pushrod V6 and V8, and this will be the end of the 3 (or even 4-) speed automatic transmission. All-wheel drive will become less common.
I’m optimistic. I hope I can wait to replace my current car until the next generation of higher-efficiency cars comes out in maybe 5 or 10 years. It will be a brave new world, to have such automobiles in it.
I agree with almost everything cjdumm posted so eloquently, expect for the bit about pushrod V-6 and V-8 designs. Overhead cam, four valve engines are not inherently better for fuel efficiency than are similar sized pushrod engines.
Go to fueleconomy.gov and compare the Chevy Silverado fuel economy readings to similarly equipped Toyota Tundras.
Chevy 4.8l V-8, 4-speed automatic: 14/19 city/highway.
Chevy 6.0l, 4-speed: 13/18.
Toyota 4.7l, 5-speed automatic: 14/17.
Toyota 5.7l, 6-speed automatic: 14/18.
In all cases the Chevy engine is pushrod while the Toyota is a high tech double overhead cam design. Toyota’s automatic transmissions also have more gears than the competing GM units. However, the only matchup where Toyota came out ahead was by 1 mpg in city driving for the big engine, and that probably is more due to the 6 speed transmission than anything else. Chevy is the winner for highway economy with it’s small V-8. If Chevy had it’s new 6 speed automatics in those trucks it would probably win all the matchups.
Compare V-6 powered Saturn Auras to similar Honda Accords and you will see Aura at 18/29 and Accord at 19/29. Hardly a big advantage for the much more technically sophisticated Honda engine. GM’s 3.5l V-6 is an iron block, pushrod, 2 valve per cylinder engine with fixed relationship variable vavle timing. Honda’s engine is a DOHC, 4 valve per cylinder design with variable lift, variable intake and exhaust timing, cylinder deactivation and just about every other modern technology available.
Don’t get me wrong, modern full featured V-6 engines are a wonder to behold and sing right up to their high redline while the GM pushrod V-6s are rather retro, but retro doesn’t mean bad fuel economy. Money is an issue as well. I’m sure it costs GM a whole lot less to make it’s 3.5l engine than it costs even a manufacturing powerhouse like Honda to produce it’s V-6 masterpieces.
Now if you want to say that V-6 and V-8 powered cars are likely to disappear from the under $30k price category you might have an argument.
One last comment. Subaru may be forced to give up it’s All Wheel Drive only mission statement. All Wheel Drive has a fuel economy penalty even when not engaged. All that extra weight and rotating mass has a price to be paid. Physics always wins.
This is an example of playing politics and not sound economics. The solution is simple (but politically unpalatable): increase the gas tax to raise gas prices (maybe by a $1.00 or more). Raise the price of gas to the point where the consumer decides to shift to more fuel efficient vehicles. This wipes out the games auto manufacturers are currently playing with fleet mileage requirements AND raises revenues to address highway infrastructure needs.
No doubt a carbon tax, or even a guaranteed minimum price floor for motor fuels, would set us on a better course more effectively than complex CAFE calculations. But I welcome the new, higher standard, regardless.
I don’t have to tax my imagination to picture a 35mpg vehicle, of course. It’s sitting in my driveway now, a five-year-old VW Golf TDI. Since it’s cursed with an auto transmission, it’s not the 45-mpg car it could be, but still it makes the new CAFE curve, even with some city driving mixed in. It seats all my nuclear family and carries a decent load of cargo. It’s quiet (off idle) and powerful, even on steep grades at high altitudes (I live in Denver, where the most interesting roads lead westward and upward, rapidly). I don’t have any trouble finding diesel pumps, and when I do they’re not the sticky messes described by anti-diesel writers at sources like Car & Driver. Now that I’ve found a few biodiesel pumps, the car really delivers on the promise made by my vanity plate: “LESSCO2.”
So what do we need to do to bring the industry standard up to the level of my cult car? It’s not all engineering, folks. Yes, America has a taste for trucks to do a car’s job, but that’s a learned attitude. Let’s try reversing several decades of mass advertising that struck fear in the hearts of anyone considering less than a two-ton vehicle. Let’s reverse pricing policies that seduce novice buyers with the “more steel for less money” philosophy.
Detroit has its own reasons for preferring to sell us trucks. Body on frame is easier to manufacture, and there’s little engineering progress expected from model to model. Now, with a 35-mpg CAFE, they will have to respond to a contrary incentive. If they do, they will have a chance of surviving in a global marketplace against Asians and European makers who take fuel costs and climate change seriously.
Here’s what I’d like to know- what’s the equivalent average fuel economy of the auto fleet in Europe? I’d be surprised if they don’t average to close to 35 mpg already.
The problem with fuel taxes high enough to discourage consumption is that they fall disproportionately hard on those of modest incomes. To the minimum wage earner or retiree an extra several dollars per gallon may be a big deal, while to the CEOs and entertainers taking home 10s of millions of dollars per year it would be inconsequential.
Imagine if automobile pollution was controlled by taxation instead of decree. Instead of any kind of maximum pollution limits per vehicle you could have a system where at the annual registration each person was required to pay X dollars per hundred pounds of pollutants their vehicle emitted per year. People with lots of money would be driving cars with no pollution controls whatsoever and thus have the privilege of enjoying the even higher power outputs possible without those pesky emissions limits getting in the way. The cost of pollution control option packages for modest cars would likely be rather higher than is the pass through cost when all vehicles are required to be so equipped. All in all taxing automotive pollution would be less fair and less effective than is regulating it. Why is the question of fuel efficiency really any different? Both are questions of regulating individual behaviors for the sake of the common good.
I don’t believe that CAFÉ standards – as written – will make a significant difference in fuel consumption. Using the Department of Energy’s data, I put it at 5% reduction at best, under the new standard.
If we insist on CAFÉ Standards, rather than consumer incentives, then I’m in favor of a 60 mile per gallon standard by 2020.
Why? Because we might realize 45-50 real-world mpg out it. Consider that auto manufacturers certify to a EPA emissions driving cycle (Urban and HWFET) which produces 20% higher fuel economy numbers than that which we see on window stickers.
Automakers are still allowed nearly-treble fuel economy credits – eventually phased out – for flex fuel vehicles that may never use E-85 fuel, unless it’s widely available. When was the last time you saw an E-85 pump?
The Democrats crowed, and the AP and NPR reported, that the combined effect of the new energy bill would save 4 million barrels a day of oil by 2030 and claimed that this was more than twice the daily imports from the Persian Gulf.
But the numbers say otherwise. According to the DOE, we depend on imports for 60% of our oil, 16% of which comes from the Persian Gulf. IF the new energy bill reaches its reduction target of 4 million barrels a day, and we consume 21 million barrels a day, that’s about 19% reduction in oil consumption, or 3% more than Persian Gulf imports of 16%, nowhere close to twice the daily imports, which would be 32%.
Also, keep in mind that IF it were possible to come up with 36 billion gallons of Ethanol annually, to “replace” gasoline, we’d still have the gasoline equivalent of about 27 billion gallons since Ethanol has about 70% of the energy density of gasoline; and, though Ethanol has a higher octane rating, flex-fuel vehicles can’t take advantage of it, because they have to design for the least common denominator – namely, gasoline.
If we are heading for a climate crisis and if someday we’ll runout of petroleum before we have a serious alternative, then this Energy Bill is too little and maybe too late.
“Both are questions of regulating individual behaviors for the sake of the common good.”
Right. So shutting down this website to prevent the waste of electricity (and resulting pollution) would be different how? Where does that logic end? Who decides? Why should one work hard if they are going to be constantly penalized for their success? What happened to equality in this country? When did it mean that we all got to have the same things no matter what we earned? Is polluting some how less harmful when done by the poor? How is that moral?
“The reason you don’t see those diesels in the US is NOBODY BUYS THEM.” -Juniper
And, unfortunately, on one sells them now. But could you kindly direct me to the stocks of unsold ’06 VW TDIs cluttering up dealers’ lots? They’re all gone, and there’s a two-year gap on new TDI availability, so used ones are priced through the roof. Having no spark plugs under the hood of a Golf or Jetta guarantees you around 50% of the new price on today’s resale market. TDIs are sold on the internet to multiple bidders nationwide, at 40% premiums over gas equivalents.
“Tit for tat, diesels will always be dirtier, heavier, and slower than gas.”-ralphSS
Gee, I haven’t weighed my Golf TDI vs the 2.0 model I had before it. Even if it was lighter, the gasser certainly was slower. With no turbo, it ran out of lungpower on the highest stretches of Interstate 70 above 10,000 feet, where it could barely maintain 75 mph. In the TDI, I’m backing off after 85 up there. And “dirtier”? How so? A recent emission test shows my car’s exhaust clarity is eight times better than the state standard. I’m running an avg. of 40% biodiesel, lowering my net CO2 emissions, and with ULSD, there’s no more sulfur smell. The most troublesome diesel pollutant is NOX, but that only cooks into smog in hotter conditions. And diesel has the often-overlooked advantage of almost zero evaporative emissions from the fuel tank.
It sounds like many of these diesel “experts” haven’t driven a modern turbodiesel vehicle. I have, so I don’t really care whether the Olds 88 diesel you bought in ’78 was a good car or not. Time to wake up, guys, and smell the (lack of) sulfur.
Wheat,
How does running biodiesel lower your carbon emissions? Does it produce less CO2 for the same energy?
Glad you asked. I call it “net” CO2, because I consider the renewable, “bio-” share of my fuel blend to be qualitatively different from conventional petroleum. It’s not a fossil fuel, bringing back old, long-buried carbon from the age of the dinosaurs. Instead, the carbon in the soy-based biofuel came out of the atmosphere last spring. Next year’s crop will help reclaim my current emissions, and so on. Think of it is the difference between spending your earnings, versus your savings. It’s not free energy, since modern agriculture uses petroleum intensively. But I think it’s the best thing going in renewable fuels, and the best science agrees with that.
HCCI engines with electro-mech valves combined with lighter/stronger materials like carbon fiber and ceramics. AMT transmissions as well. 35 (combined) mpg from a Chevy Tahoe for $35K by 2020…Not likely at all. The “rich” will just pay the fine or move to a freer country.
The HCCI engines will run on a low octane hydrocarbon fuel and maybe a high-carbon summer-blend…lighter than diesel though.
Alternatives to mining hydrocarbons will become viable after nuclear power. Petroleum oil is created (constantly) from carbonates and water under high pressure and temperature deep in the earths crust. It is not derived from rotting animals and plants…Or Iraq may have been the hot-spot for ageing dinosaurs to retire and die kinda like Florida for humans.
Interesting…..
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html
“Petroleum oil is created (constantly) from carbonates and water under high pressure and temperature deep in the earths crust. It is not derived from rotting animals and plants…” -Luther
If you believe this kind of Stalinist science/magical/wishful thinking, I have a bunch of Pennsylvania oil fields to sell you. After all, first drilled, first refilled, right? Since you know more about finding oil than all the world’s oil companies, let’s see you bring a gusher from a depleted well…
BTW, Luther, I’ve contacted Toshiba for confirmation of this nuke reactor product. They’re on holiday until Jan. 6, so we’ll have to trust you that long… if anyone does.
I do find it curious when folks are bold and futuristic enough to bet their future on abiotic magic oil, and welcome nuclear power into their home. Change their global climate? No problem, they’ll adapt. Just don’t mess with their cars! Because that’s the one perfect technology that should never, ever change, should it?
Where does petroleum come from there wheatridge?
Just claimed the article “Interesting” what did you think I meant by that? Please let us know what Toshiba says.
Until today, I had no reason to doubt the standard explanation that it’s the residue of millions of years of algae, plankton, and other flora and fauna, compressed and distilled over geologic time. After all, my wife and I spent a combined total of nine years at the Colorado School of Mines, where they study these things intently, without ever hearing differently.
Your post caused me to do a little research, though. I’d suggest you read this paper, which respectfully rebuts the theory that “abiotic” oil is some magic antidote to peak oil.
http://www.energybulletin.net/2423.html
As my wife said when I posed your theory, “Well, it’s taken all geologic time for the oil we have today to be created.” How long will it take the reservoirs to be replenished by abiotic oil, if it exists? Whether you believe the world is 4 billion years old, or, as I suspect you might believe, 6,000 years old, we’re using oil much faster than that nowadays.
Petroleum is basically a hydrocarbon…Hydrogen and Carbon slammed together really hard.
Organic material (Anything containing carbon) + Hydrogen (water) + heat/pressure (Sun Energy) creates natural petroleum.
I have no idea if the process creates more petroleum than we use. More oil will be discovered in the future so to say there is only 3.2T barrels of oil left is wrong. There has not been a year where the oil we all used was not replaced with an even greater discovered supply.
The Earth is at least 4 billion years old.
Four billion years? Sounds like we agree on at least one thing.
The Toshiba mini reactor checks out, as authentic vaporware, at least. One tech site breathlessly described it as a “fusion” reactor. Really? You ought to make a call to your home insurance company before ordering, and check your liability coverage. My underwriter gets nervous when I mention the words “wood stove.”
I’ve long puzzled over how some folks will reject current fuel-saving technologies like TDIs and hybrids, but they seem happy to accept much more daring high-tech dreams like the ones Luther mentions. Now I realize that the answer isn’t technical- it’s psychological. As long as they’re awaiting some completely transformational technology that promisesr free energy– or guilt-free energy, at least — they feel no pressure to take practical, presently available steps here and now to improve the situation. They’re like smokers who won’t quit, because they just know that the cure for cancer is about to be discovered.
I think the opposite way. I’m using current, proven technologies for renewable energy. I’ve burned biodiesel for years, and my home solar PV system is now in the process of installation. These are modest changes to my household economy, with little impact on my lifestyle. I’m not “shivering in the dark,” not “driving around in a tin can.” It feels good to me to take small steps on the right track, without waiting for some scientific or supernatural savior to arrive at the last minute and save us from our mistakes.
Wheatridger, I happen to be a petroleum geologist myself…the average individual’s knowledge (or lack thereof) concerning hydrocarbons and their generation has always amazed and thoroughly frustrated me.
“The Toshiba mini reactor checks out, as authentic vaporware, at least.”
How did you draw this conclusion…Did Toshiba get back to you with this?
“One tech site breathlessly described it as a “fusion” reactor.”
Your claiming it was a Tech Site?
Macca – Please explain to us how hydrocarbon are formed naturally…It would be interesting to know. Even the creation of hydrocarbons in a lab environment from raw elements.