Tom, Ray and your car's MPG

Maintenance/Repairs
221

Your observation of the changing economic landscape is dead on. The evolution of our economic core, especially to a consumer centric economy, has produced serious, long term implications for our country and is a topic of hot debate among our best economic thinkers It is shifting the capital markets and foreign producers are dependent on American consumers (actually consumers everywhere, but America is by far the dominant market). While part of my premise is based on personal economics (people vote with their wallets), the larger and much more complex issue is national and global economics. Passing laws will be a stop gap measure at best and may produce undesired and unintentional consequences. The longer term answer lies in managing the inter relationships of multiple forces, including economic and social, as well as political.

As for ?blaming? Congress, you are correct in noting that we as voters put them there. That makes us culpable. On the other hand, your comment about ?blaming the president? is also true (regardless of who happens to be president at the time). Yet, the ?actionable body? in our government is the Congress. They alone have the power to create and pass laws, and they control the public funds. That?s a pretty powerful combination. One business school definition of ?Leadership? and ?Management? states that we manage things, and we lead people. In that context, the President?s job is to lead and Congress?s job is to manage. Predictably, when leaders and managers don?t agree, progress isn?t made very easily or very well.

Periodically, we see surveys that show how few Americans can name their Congressmen (or women for the PC crowd) or Senators. That means even fewer take the time to write to their elected officials. This level of apathetic non-involvement leaves us with a Congress that simply doesn?t get held accountable. Oddly, public opinion polls about the quality and credibility of Congress is at an all time low, barely above 20%. Yet, those same people who believe Congress isn?t doing a good job trusts them with matters of the greatest national importance. Amazing. No CEO or corporate president would EVER trust his most critical business matters to an employee whose performance ratings are in the bottom quintile.

The old comic character, Pogo, once observed ?We have met the enemy, and he is us?. Ultimately you?re right. We have to share the blame ? not with Congress, but for Congress.

Thanks for your comments.

222

Thank you for this input. I ?knew? that was the case, but could only offer personal empirical evidence. I didn?t have decent numbers to support that thesis, so I didn?t address it. However, your numbers make the point well.

My empirical data was based on living in Tokyo a number of years in the 70?s. While there, I drove Japanese cars. I was advised before leaving the U.S. not to take my American car with me. When I got there, I found that nearly all of the streets around Tokyo (and most cities) are roughly the same width as a large sidewalk in the U.S. Trying to drive a large American car down those crowded and VERY narrow streets was nearly impossible.

Couple that with the fact that Japanese houses are tiny compared to U.S. standards. The price of land is so astronomically high, that all most people can afford is a very small plot of land with just a house, with no garage (even for one car), and their house is pushed up to the curb on a very narrow street. What that meant was that Japanese were generally forced to buy and drive very small cars. It was what would fit. Literally.

The government didn?t have to mandate fuel economy standards (although they did address emissions). The small size of the cars took care of that. While there, I drove most of my kilometers in a Dihatsu micro van. Like a minivan, except it held only four people ? cramped tightly. It was powered by a 360cc engine with a 5 speed manual transmission and a belt drive (forget the drive shaft). With a 360cc engine, fuel economy was great.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and the Japanese were driving fuel efficient cars because it was what their life style dictated, not the government.

This isn?t to say they abhorred muscle cars. As I mentioned, I was advised to not take my American car with me. Once there, I found that while 99% of the population drove small cars out of necessity, there was a small group of very affluent young Japanese (all male) who would literally pay someone to sit at the ship docks and watch for any American cars being off-loaded for their American owners. Before they left the dock, they would track the American owners and make an offer for a large sum of money (easily3 times the cost of the car in the States). And muscle cars ? Mustangs and GTO?s ? brought even higher prices.

While the Americans were admiring the fuel efficient Japanese, some Japanese were admiring muscle. Datsun (now Nissan in the States), was selling the 240Z in the U.S. A nice sports car that got its speed from a light weight chassis and a 2.4 liter engine. In Japan, they made a domestic version of the identical chassis and body with a 4.2 liter engine (never released in the U.S.). Huge engine with two seats strapped on. The Japanese National Police drove them because they were the only cars that could catch another one.

The point here is that the Japanese life style and economy produced cars that met their national desires and needs. Government didn?t really intervene. The Japanese were not exercising ?social responsibility? in their choice of cars. They drove to match their situation, and if their situation allowed, gas guzzling muscle cars were part of the ?status? automotive portfolio, but stateside Americans seldom, if ever, saw that.

Thanks again for the input.

223

Thanks for taking the time to try and influence our elected ooficials. But, methinks you are not jaded enough. Would you watch a reality TV show called “Who is more full of crapola” were every week a new set of issues or politicians was highlighted? I see a world where intelligence and reason are on the same footing as ignorance and greed. I wish we had a better democratic process, where folks like me could say, Ray and Tom have my proxy on all matters car related.

224

free market certainly affected car fuel mileage in the late 70s and early 80s.

Probably older then you are Ranck…GM started offering smaller cars as a STOP GAP…but they did $0…REPEAT $0 in research to make their CURRENT vehicles more efficient. That didn’t come about until it was MANDATED.

If the market had ANY effect on GM and Ford making more fuel efficient cars then WHY are their fleet numbers no more then .1 of the MANDATED Cafe’ numbers. You’re telling me that people don’t want better fuel efficiency. If there’s NO car to buy that meets your needs AND gets good gas mileage…then what are you suppose do…buy a bike??? The market is ONLY influenced by consumers IF AND ONLY IF there is SOMETHING in the market to buy. Very simple way of keeping the public from influencing the market…DON’T OFFER IT.

225

Importantly, Congress did not mandate ?reliability and quality standards? on the auto industry.

You’re right…Instead…States passed Lemon Law bills, and congress passed legislation that gave power to DOT to ORDER safety recalls on any vehicle that was deamed unsafe.

That said, I still believe Congress is not the answer to all of our problems.

I agree with you…But letting BIG BUSINESS what’s best for the country isn’t either. Does anyone HONESTLY think companies like GM and Ford will do what’s BEST for the consumer and this country??? I sure don’t. As I stated…they can EASILY remove the consumer from having ANY influence…by simply NOT offering it.

Getting union endorsement (and money) was a plum for any serious candidate who hoped to be elected.

Getting BIG BUSINESS (and money) IS a plum for any serious candidate who hoped to be elected. Who do you think has more control over congress…Big Business or the UAW??..UAW in Michigan…(MAYBE)…Our senators and congressmen in NH get MILLIONS every year from Big Business. You mentioned the 50’s…Remember the Tucker??? You think it was Congress that killed that car?? It was Big Business (GM, Ford, Chryco and AMC) BUYING congress that killed that car. In the 70’s and 80’s Big Business influenced congress to limit imports into this country…AND influenced them to enforce a HIGH-TAX on these vehicles. In the 90’s it was the SUV tax when SUV’s were becomming hot. The consumer didn’t want these taxes. But when Big Business OWNS congress it’s easy for them to get what they want.

Two years ago there was the Drug Bill pushed through by a limited number of people in congress and PAID FOR by the Drug company. But let’s just keep letting Big Business control our congress…My grandkids (which I don’t even have yet) and their grandkids will be paying dearly for that EXTREMELY COSTLY bill.

226

They need to set the MPG standards because the ego driven Americans who have to have those huge SUV and Pick’em Up Trucks for what I think is a reflection of a subconscious phallic insecurity!

Personally I don’t think the government will have the ___s to much of anything - they are too far up the Corporations’ back sides and are afraid they would not get re-elected because the American Consumer would get mad because they can’t buy their Hummers and Escalades. I especially like the ones who own a Huge pick up truck but are white collar and never even us the bed of the truck - just don’t understand.

To answer your question - yes!

227

Tom & Ray:
I think the oil companies and car manufacturers are in cahoots and are lobbying congress (buying our elected officials) to stop them from increasing mpgs.

Bob Waterman

228

Normally, I believe that the marketplace should be the “driving” force for change. In this case, however, the American public has shown for the past 30 years a complete disregard for the well-being of the country as we continue to buy over-powered gas-wasters. Several alternatives:

  1. The “traditional” solution: force car manufactuers to raise their CAFE. Unfortunately, Congress has shown a considerable lack of intestinal fortitude (i.e., GUTS!) in keeping this type of rule in place.

  2. Tax vehicles based on the fuel efficiency (or lack thereof): “fuel tax” of $50,000 - ($1000 * highway MPG). Someone wants to drive a 13 mpg beast, let 'em pay $27K extra in taxes. This will never happen because it will hurt large families that need a large vehicle more than the “soccer mom’s” who can afford it.

  3. Allow the big 3 to go out of business, so we have to buy all our vehicles from Toyota, Nissan, etc. Not a good idea.

  4. Offer tax incentives for people to buy smaller vehicles. Hey, it worked in the '70’s to get people to insulate their houses. Why not now for vehicle fuel consumption?

  5. Let the price of gas reach $5/gallon. Tax gas to force it to $5/gallon. Maybe that will get people out of the SUV’s.

(BTW, I own 2 Toyota Corollas, a Saturn L200 and a Dodge Grand Caravan. We’re trying to sell the Caravan since we don’t need a vehicle that large any more. Once that is gone, our “FAFE” (Family Average Fuel Economy) will be around 33mpg highway)

229

I agree. If we do nothing, as some suggest, we will eventually be paying more than $5 per gallon. That will take the potential crisis that could have been avoided through enlightened leadership and throw it in everyone’s face. Imagine what it will be like when it costs $300 to fill the fuel tank of a Suburban and a bottle of soda costs $3 because of shipping costs. Everything we buy will be more expensive, and we will have everyone who was against reducing demand to thank for it. I think when that happens I will invest in a 250 cc motorcycle for commuting. Moped sales will skyrocket. It may even make Hybrid cars financially sound purchases!

230

FYI: I drive a 2002 Audi A4 3.0 with CVT. EPA mpg estimates are 19 City / 27 Highway. My overall average mpg for this car, combined city/highway driving for the past 16 months, is 32 mpg. I have averaged as high as 37 mpg on a 150 mile stretch. 16 gallons of premium has taken me over 500 miles on a regular basis. This is achieved mostly by driving the speed limit (rather than 10-20 mph over the speed limit like everyone else) and planning ahead (don’t tailgate, RARELY brake on the interstate, coasting rather than braking to a stoplight, etc.).

So you’re asking if 35mpg can be reached in 5 years? I would be willing to bet we could get there THIS year if enough people would just change the way they drive.

As to whether the market is driving automotive research or the government… Sure you have to have a choice to make a choice, but I think the car manufacturers are looking at their sales numbers as a small part of their “research decisions.” Probably the biggest influence on domestic car research is foreign car imports. Right now Toyota is the undisputed leader in hybrid technology, followed by Honda. There is no domestic car maker that even comes close, and some even lease the Toyota Hybrid Synergy Drive system from Toyota. That is going to change in the next 5 years, and again 5 years later. You think GM, Ford, etc aren’t doing anything, but what is really happening is that our domestic companies are looking for SOLUTIONS, not band-aids. This is taking a LOT longer to do. The Chevy Volt will be an ELECTRIC car with a gas generator (gas generator could be replaced by any generator fairly easily, like solar, hydrogen, nuclear, etc). This is the exact opposite of the Toyota design which uses a gas engine to actually drive the car and the electric as a boost and low speed propulsion. Ford is working on Hydrogen powered cars that produce their own electricity, and California (lead by the honorable Arnold Shchowwoecanzennoid…terminator) is working on becoming the first place in the world with a wide spread infrastructure of Hydrogen refueling stations.

The technology information I have referenced has come mostly from shows like “Eco-tech”, “Modern Marvels”, and other discovery channel, learning channel, history channel, and national geographic channel specials. These shows are replayed on a regular basis and generally air at least one a month.

231

Great letter guys, but the clowns who inhabit our broken down Congress will soon send it to the big round file on their way out to lunch with their automotive/petroleum buddies. Now if you were to attach a check to the tune of one million bucks to your letter I garantee you would get a reply that they were “working on it right now” and keep those letters coming.
Richard Hammond

232

Right on. While we’re at it, who in blue blazes designed the testosteronemobiles (SUV’S and SUPER SIZE PICKUPS)? They are used to cart one redneck to wherever it is he is going with a completely empty pickup (including the head of the driver) but designed to carry six. Their headlights shine directly in my eyes while I am driving my granny-mobile to or from work. As if that is not bad enough, they guzzle gasoline like it was still 25c per gallon, rattle and clang and make noise and just generally offend and terrorize the rest of us.

233

MPG ! Ha…

I don?t understand why we have such low MPG. Big muscle cars of the ?60 got as good if not better MPG than today’s SUV?s

My first car, a ?75 4D Pontiac Lemans got 16 MPG + on the highway! My second car…a ?90 integra got 32-34 in every day driving (Suburb driving) My fianc??s 96 geo gets 32 MPG, the new 2006 civic gets 32-34 MPG all of these cars are actually fun to drive with 5 speeds, yes they can even be fairly quick. Heck the ?90 integra at Watkens glenn got 16 MPG during a drivers ed events and yes…held it?s own against the sports cars.
But now with today?s gas prices, I want more?Hybrid? The Pirus, yes, but others? Come on, not worth it! The civic hybrid gets about 37-38 MPG? Only about 4 MPG getter then the base civic? Hybrids are great in city driving, but they loose the edge on highway. At speed you still need to push the air!

We need more aerodynamics! We need smaller frontal area…and lower rolling resistance.

What happened to the coef of drag advertisements back in the ?90?s? the integra had a CD of 0.3. the ford probe 0.28 if I remember correctly.

As for laws, we need to make some changes, but the average consumer needs to change their mentality.

Small cars is the answer, but current laws do not allow them. Safety reasons? Too small when compared to say a truck? Why can?t one have a single seater commuter car? Oh but we do…its? a motorcycle! But even these do not obtain very good mileage.

I looked into mopeds for commuting (and to solve the parking problem at work) But I can?t . I can not legally take them on the high way, I also legally can not take the bike path over the bridge, so I have no legal way to use a moped to get to work. Here the laws need to change and view vehicles such as small cars, mopeds and bicycles as viable transportation and not just as a toy for some kid to ride on.

Now if we can find a way to capture the heat generated in a car and use that to heat our homes, I think we would be all set well for the winter time at least. ?

234

I don?t understand why we have such low MPG. Big muscle cars of the ?60 got as good if not better MPG than today’s SUV?s

A SUV has the added FRONT drive system. Plus they are no where near as aerodynamic as ANY sedan of the 60’s.

Take a car today of the same weight and size of any car in the 60’s and the car built today will get about 30% or BETTER gas mileage.

235

Having participated in the amazing result of John F. Kennedy saying that we will have a man on the moon in ten years it just makes me want to have at least one of the crowd now trying to run for president to simply say that if I am elected, I promise you we will have a 35 mpg standard for our automobiles in five years. Your letter to congress clearly provides an explanation for how simple the available technology is to reach this goal so the congress needs to adopt the code we had to land on the moon and that was “Failure Is Not An Option”.

Thank You

236

Dan, you hit the nail on the head! I just pulled out a copy of the National Geographic with an article entitled “Oil, The Dwindling Treasure” by Noel Grove and Emory Kristof. In it the US Secretary of Energy tells Americans not to panic and stated that “we can move to energy self-suffuciency through conservation”, which he called the ‘New Ethic’. He further stated that Americans must change their life-style to achieve this.

On another page is a photo of the Secretary of State meeting with the King of Saudi Arabia and trying to get him to raise oil production to 20 milliom barrels/day. The present maximum capacity is 16 million barrels/day. The king states that Saudi Arabia will develop its oil at its own pace, thank you, and the 20 million barrels/day would
deplete Saudi reserves in 40 years (not true).

Before you run out to get a copy of this magazine, I have to tell you that it is the JUNE, 1974 ISSUE! The Energy Secretary is William Simon, appointed the first energy csar by Richard Nixon. The Secretary of State is none other than Henry Kissinger.

So, those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it!!

The rest of the developed world took the first oil crisis seriously, and geared their consumption and lifestyle to a depleting resource. Th US and some other countries stuck their head in the sand.

237

Tom and Ray – You’re right on the money. The baby boomers and the X, Y & Z (?) generations all have one thing in common – they don’t believe in self-sacrifice for the greater good of our country or the environment. I’m a capitalist at heart, but believe that the market’s equilibrium is off kilter.
We currently tax gasoline on the federal and state level in order to fund road creation and maintenance. Maybe we should add a “war surcharge” to gasoline. Thus, the more gasoline you purchase, the more our country has to put its military at risk to protect oil resources around the world.
This situation may simulate a true market condition for all involved.

238

Good point! Economists are now eveluating various activities and consumption in terms of INTERNAL (direct) costs and EXTERNAL (indirect) costs. If gasoline taxes cover the maintaining and building of roads, some other tax must cover the “Dumping Charge” of putting greenhouse gasses (CO2 & others) into the atmosphere, as well as the Medicare and Medicaid costs of traffic injuries not covered by private insurance.

Environmentalists suggest a cost of $35 per ton of carbon (CO2) to be charged to each car. Plus the medical costs paid by the PUBLIC for all car accidents and injuries. Plus the public prosecutor costs for traffic court cases. A typical car might generate 14 tons of CO2 or $490 per year. This would be an automatic annual charge, ajusted & based on miles driven. Add to that the portion of medical costs incurred in the state and divided by the number of motor vehicles, etc. You get the picture.
Cities would have a surcharge for widening streets and building bridges to accommmodate traffic. These charges would be eliminated for persons not owning cars.

Singapore is already doing most of this; it is very expensive to own a car there, but taxis are relatively cheap and the cost of living and taxes are reasonable.

239

That would be true if the domestic market was 100% competitive. But when an entire industry bands together to prevent improvements that would benefit the consumer (and the common good), then the market fails to function as it should. Our role as citizens is to pressure government to act for the common good. The government’s role is to regulate markets that not only foster competition, but serve the common good. By improving fuel efficiency standards, auto makers will be forced to compete with each other to meet those standards. In the spirit of the free market - let the best company win!

P.S. In the end, if nothing is done to raise the bar in the domestic market, the world market will decide. We’ll see Chinese imports gobbling up market share in a few years.

240

The person who can’t afford a new car probably could benefit from buying a used (possibly very used) small, efficient car when it comes time to replace their vehicle. It would probably be cheaper than other used alternatives as well. Furthermore, with the exception of the hybrids, or other specialty efficiency driven models, efficient cars are generally cheaper than others. For example, a Civic is cheaper than an Accord. A Focus is cheaper than a Taurus. An Accent is cheaper than a Sonata.

I’d rather have a Prius in front of me, behind me, or hitting me, than an Expedition (I can’t see around the abnoxiously large Expedition, I can’t see with one behind me due to its headlights at the eye-level of most sensible car owners, and I will likely be killed by a collision with one of those bohemouths) I’m not being specific to expeditions. Excursions, Tahoes, ESCALADES, Durangos, NAVIGATORS, and others are equally hazardous nuisances to the sensible driver.