I get your point, Mike, but it was the confluence of fuel injection and microprocessors that really influenced gas mileage numbers, and I would argue that it would have been inevitable without regulatory influence.
I don’t see it. If it would eventually have come…then why didn’t MPG increase one bit from 1990 to 2010. The has got to be the biggest increase in Microprocessors cost/performance in the history of the computer chip. Based on the numbers…I contend that the manufacturers didn’t WANT to do any research in increasing gas mileage. If they did…then we’d have seen an increase during that time period. And note that in 2012…with the NEW Cafe’ standard…their numbers increased.
People want cars that get better mileage. They have since the gas crisis in the early '70s.
I contend that the market plus the economics would have ultimately driven multiport injection systems without government mandates. And the same changes that improved mileage also reduced emissions. If you improve one, you improve the other.
Remember, improvements in automotive technology were continuous until the early '70s when government mandates caused manufacturers to focus on meeting the mandates rather than improving the cars. As a result, the '70s and '80s were terrible for automotive technology advancement.
If you believe Bob Lutz, it was the Japanese lobbyists that were pushing the CAFE standards because they were in a perfect position to meet them. GM and Ford were put at a distinct disadvantage trying to convert big cars to then meet the standard. Then came front wheel drive, unibody, fuel injection, and computers. Probably a necessary step to push the US manufacturers to better designs but in the process we almost turned the whole industry over to the same people we fought not too many years ago.
Schiese happens, sometimes its forced(via Gov’t)ometimes market forces,the problem is the manus try to control the market and some Folks are so brainwashed that they think if Henry or Loius,Bob,Bunkie or whomever did it ,its the best,“by gollys thats way we always done it,so it has to be right”-Kevin
I contend that the market plus the economics would have ultimately driven multiport injection systems without government mandates.
Possibly. But I contend that IF they wanted to make more fuel efficient vehicles in the 90’s thru now…they would have. There have been some minor increases here and there…but nothing major. We are now starting to hear about new things coming down the pipe…but that’s because the manufacturers have been told about the new Cafe’ numbers years ago. They needed to ramp up the R&D.
I personally want to see an mid-size SUV getting 30mpg. One that I know of meets the mark…The new Grand Cherokee Diesel. That’s it. And I’m not about to pay $60k for it. So I have to contend with what’s available. I have no other choice. And the manufacturers know that.
Mike, I would argue that DOD and NASA’s willingness to invest in the purchase of new technology for defense and space program use was a definite driver in the development of microprocessors.
A review of the history of silicone valley will show countless partnerships between the government and silicone valley companies. I could list the companies, but let me suggest instead a quick search for the history of silicone valley. There are numerous sites defining the government’s relationships, probably the best known being with HP.
Mountainbike, where did you get the idea that this is a US Government mandate? It isn’t; it is an insurance industry test conducted by IIHS/HLDI. Is it acceptable now that you know the government has no part in it?
Nice catch Jt. For a moment I thought you might have caught me with my pants down. But then I realized that the National Highway Traffic Safety Association establishes the test standards. I included a link to the crash test standards for NHTSA for ease of reference. And that NHTSA can mandate recalls as well as removal from the marketplace for vehicles not meeting federal standards. http://www.nhtsa.gov/Vehicle+Safety/Test+Procedures?procedurePage=2
If crash test safety standards were not mandates, than yes, that would make a difference. Manufacturers being as disinclined as they are to add cost, they’d probably become options rather than requirements.
Like the EPA, I think NHTSA has done a great deal of good. And, like the EPA and all other regulatory agencies, I don’t think they’ll ever get to a point where they’ll stop issuing new mandates regardless of their cost or their effects. Regulatory agencies are a necessary fact of life to protect us from life’s predators. But they grow and propagate more and more regulations totally unchecked. Somehow IMHO there have to be checks and balances on regulatory agencies.
Mike, I would argue that DOD and NASA's willingness to invest in the purchase of new technology for defense and space program use was a definite driver in the development of microprocessors.
I’ve worked in this field too long. Including 10+ years in engineering for Digital (for 10+ years the maker of the fastest computer chip in the world). The early crude chips out of TI were used by NASA. But those were very crude and didn’t resemble later computer chips by Intel. Digital, Intel, AMD, IBM were all working on building faster computer chips…and NOTHING to do with DOD or NASA. High-end super computers like the Cray’s or even earlier CDC computers - YES…They had great influence. Back in the 90’s chips were still only running at most 100mips. Where the super computers were already in the BIP (Billion Instructions per Second). The market was already driving the chip speed market. New software for PC’s demanded faster chips. Plus there was very good competition. Digital with their Alpha chip…Intel and AMD kept leap-frogging each other on who could build the fastest chip.
Usually the government will step in to foster the technology. The the need for this technology was already there. The government didn’t have to give any incentives. Now there were some ventures for specialized chips. But these chips were just using existing technology and tailoring it to specific needs.
Mike, your post supports my contention that progress happens even without government intervention…
I’ve worked many technical development programs for the government myself, but not in the areas of thin film and microprocessors. I bow to your in depth knowledge of these sectors.
Mountainbike, I don’t see how your NHTSA references address the offset test in the original post. The NHTSA requires a full frontal test, and one of the references at the top discussed possible changes that include an offset frontal test, but did not define the offset. The URL below shows the source of the test in this thread, and it is done by the IIHS, not a government.
Mike, your post supports my contention that progress happens even without government intervention
It does in certain technologies. But NOT all. The chip manufacturers had MAJOR incentives (i.e. profit) to keep building smaller and faster chips. The latest trend has been to build cooler and less power hungry chips. Some of the new super computers use over 100,000 chips.
There has NOT been the market or need for car manufacturers to build more efficient vehicles. That’s why they didn’t make any advancements in the Cafe’ numbers in the past 20+ years. Market demands will only take things so far. Do you think the market is what drove the auto industry to build less polluting vehicles? I sure don’t. Was it the market that drove the auto industry to build SAFER vehicles?
Actually, I belive there is a segment of the market that make their buying decision based on actual or percieved safety, a lot of vehicles go beyond the federal minimum, likewise with gas mileage and perhaps even pollution.
I believe our 57 Ford had safety features that were not mandated by the feds. The recessed steering wheel, seat belts, padded dash, padded arm rests, and I’m sure a few others that I don’t remember. Prior to that manufacturers were afraid to talk safety because they thought that would mean the public would think cars unsafe. Then it started to become a sales point.
So I think you can argue both ways. If the public demands it, usually eventually the manufacturers will respond. Likewise, the feds should be following the public demand, not going way beyond it. After some very necessary and fruitful regulations I believe they are over-stepping what the public is demanding. Whoever demanded that small engines conform to EPA testing except California? Non-adjustible carbs, leaned out and only the beginning. For what? Hard to see the need for a lawn mower in the middle of Nebraska, and they don’t need them in DC or Chicago.
Bing, I believe that was the “Lifeguard” design, one of the features didn’t turn out so well,was the padded dash I think seems like in a crash,you could go through the dash padding and mess up your skull on the metal backing,but it was a good effort and I don’t think the gov’t required it.
One of the problems in LA,is simply to many people,dont worry a bunch of unelected bureaucrats with increasing power will increase the difficulty of our lives by saving us from ourselves-Kevin
Mike, the car market changed dramatically during the gas shortage of the '70s. After standing in long lines fighting to get gas, drivers did want more efficient cars. And they still do.
The past 20 years have produced the Prius, the original Honda Insight, (which, unfortunately, was discontinued), the Tesla, and other hybrid and EV cars and technologies that are only now beginning to come together in a meaningful way. As well as a few experiments that didn’t fly such as the LNG cars. I would argue that a lot has happened in the area of automobile efficiency in the last 20 years. As you know, this stuff takes time. The biggest barrier has been getting the cost down to where the working man can afford the new technology. And, yet, the Prius has largely accomplished that.
And the same forces that improve gas mileage reduce pollution.
Not really. Lean burn, for one, reduces power-specific fuel consumption but produces unacceptable NOx. Diesels have lost much of their efficiency edge, meeting emissions. Running a smog pump on malaise-era car is a parasitic draw. Tuned headers could improve highway MPG by creating a standing wave at cruise RPMs…but you can’t run a close-coupled cat with them, so they’re out.
What? Diesels have lost much of their efficiency? That will be news to owners of the Passat TDI who regularly get 50+ mpg on the highway…and to the folks below who averaged 78 mpg (yeah, OK, at 45 mph…but still impressive).