I would like to start off by saying I would love to drive a car that gets more than 35 mpg. That would be 10 mpg more than my current vehicle, saving me roughly $250.00 a year (based on 10,000 miles/year at $2.17/gallon). The savings are almost as much as my car payment was before I paid the car off in 2003. I gave President Bush credit when he set that goal a few years ago, and I credit Obama today.
My only concern over Obama’s call for speeding up the conversion to more fuel-efficient cars is the impact on the type of cars we might end up with. By speeding up the deadline, car companies might aim for smaller vehicles with lower horsepower. That is fine if you are living in the city or large metropolitan areas, but if you are in the suburbs or in rural regions, it becomes an economic burden. The further from the city you get the large and more powerful vehicle you need. To save fuel and time, drivers try to decrease the number of trips they make by doing all of their errands in one trip. You won’t be able to put the volume of cargo you can carry in an SUV into the back of a Smart Car, for example.
Ideally, the automotive industry would continue to release the most advanced vehicle in line with the technology. General Motors was catching up with the times by preparing to release the Chevy Volt, but due to the drop in fuel prices and the company’s economic decline, the Volt will be delayed. And even when it is produced, it will require government subsidies or tax credits to make the vehicle cost-effective for the buyer. This dose of reality has kept most of the automakers from constantly upgrading their vehicles, since the price of innovation makes the new vehicles cost prohibitive. This differs from products sold in the cellphone and computer industries, for example.
The goal of 35 mpg is attainable. Toyota and Honda have proven it. Can our struggling American companies redesign and retool their lines today in order to start production in three years? How much money is the federal government going to invest in the Big Three so they can reach Obama’s goal? It is my hope that the ingenuity of the American Spirit can spark a unique design that is both practical and cost-effective. After all, a 35-mpg Ford Edge would look nice in my driveway … if the price is right.
Related articles:
MyWay – “Obama’s new rules will transform US auto fleet”
Daily Mail – “The end of the great American gas guzzler as Obama gets set to unveil toughest U.S. policy ever on fuel efficiency”
Yahoo News – “Obama takes aim at climate-warming car emissions”
Reuters – “GM bankruptcy plan eyes quick sale to gov’t”
Loading ...
Pingback: Daily News About Environment : A few links about Environment - Tuesday, 19 May 2009 20:32
The problem is, all the hybrids that are out now don't sell that well. And the technology is expensive. Most companies at the moment actually lose money on every hybrid they sell.
I'm a mechanical engineer and in school I focused on internal combustion engines. In order to meet these goals I fear a repeat of the 70's. Basically muscle cars died then and the same could happen again except you would have to include most suvs and some trucks.
There are two basic ways to improve the mpg of a car without large sudden technological advances. You decrease the power and make the car lighter. Hence why sport cars died in 1975. Did you ever wonder why our cars are basically made of plastic now? The car companies had to start getting rid of all the metal in order to lighten the car and meet the CAFE standards.
Something most people don't realize but every year a few thousand people in the U.S. die because of those cafe standards. Had they been in pre-1975 cars the metal would have protected them better in the crash. There was a study on this, I'll have to try and find it later.
Only 0.117% of all CO2 is caused by man. Water vapor is the biggest cause. Saying reducing CO2 is a reason for this is BS. Engines are already amazingly efficient. Another stupid “feel good” rule.
For all the hoopla, I wonder why I can't calculate the same savings as those claimed by the White House. I've done a spreadsheet assuming sales of about 15 million cars per year with all but one million of that number retired in the same year. Average economy starts at 17.1 mpg and the retired vehicles are assumed to be three MPG less efficient than the overall average that year. I get numbers of one-quater to one-third of those touted by the White House.
Shouldn't they be publishing their assumptions and their math as well as the results?
The real truth of this mess is that the automobile will be so expensive that few will be able to afford “new” cars and the poor won't be able to afford anything except maybe a bicycle. The american standard of living will go down and frankly, the quality of life will too as people come to feel ever more trapped, hemmed in and unable to escape their misery. But……..a majority of people voted for this, so be it!
He's the Messiah, he doesn't need math.
John – You and I have something else in common (we both have engineering backgrounds). I agree on the points regarding hybrids. I actuall wrote about the need for new batteries last year, and how that current “advanced” batteries are too expensive. In this article, I don't specify how the car is powered, just that I would love a more fuel-efficient vehicle, but current concepts are not cost-effective.
In regards to the old metal vehicles of the past, I do accept that lightening of the outer shell of modern vehicles have led to better internal structual design, making them safer than the old cars 30 years ago. If you have two tanks colliding at 50 mph, that is more force being applied to the human body inside the vehicles than if two balloons colliding at the same speed. My fear would be a tank colliding with a ballon, or in this case, a semi colliding with a SmartCar. As recent crash tests show, the SmartCar would be flung off the road in a head-to-head collision.
Harrison – You are dead on regarding water vapor. While I don't disagree that we need to be better stewards of our planet, to always blame humans on global warming is rediculous. And we have done a better job of taking care of our planet, from replanting acres that we have deforested, cleaning our water, and decreasing the toxins we put in the air. There is always room for improvement, and I think we need to work towards that goal. However, I do not subscribe to the “man is bad” green movement.
DCC – I never trust dollar figures put out by the government, no matter if it is run by Democrats or Republicans.
Ringo – I'm waiting for someone tinkering in his or her garage to come up with a “oh my goodness, the answer is so simple” solution and bypass government and corporate hurdles. Unfortunately, I think that is just as likely as Obama divesting himself from GM this year.