-
THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS. Non-hybrids can achieve 40 mpg regularly and easily. It is people who don’t think far enough ahead and don’t have any concerns about how their actions affect the rest of their friends, neighbors, and the rest of the world, that want unnecessarily large vehicles.
-
While some of the uses of large vehicles is justifiable, a good portion of their usage is NOT. Take a look at the people driving these vehicles. Many of them are alone, making the vehicle get about 7-15 people-miles per gallon (and are probably rarely, if ever, used to any extent of their original purpose, except showing off wealth). In contrast, a fully loaded civic, corolla, or other car of the type can acheive approximately 200 people-miles per gallon when loaded with people. “…you’re so fat we are only going to make small sized clothes so that you have to lose weight…” : What would people say if a (hypothetical) group of people were confined to a small space, and due to their expanded wastelines, young children were being denied the opportunity to survive?
this was sent to me
Subject: A Modern Day Parable
A Modern Day Parable
A Japanese company ( Toyota ) and an American
company (General Motors decided to have a canoe race
on the Missouri River Both teams practiced long and
hard to reach their peak performance before the
race.On the big day, the Japanese won by a mile.
The Americans, very discouraged and depressed,
decided to investigate the reason for the crushing
defeat. A management team made up of senior
management was formed to investigate and recommend
appropriate action. Their conclusion was the
Japanese had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering,
while the American team had 8 people steering and 1
person rowing.Feeling a deeper study was in order, American
management hired a consulting company and paid them
a large amount of money for a second opinion. They
advised, of course, that too many people were
steering the boat, while not enough people were
rowing.Not sure of how to utilize that information, but
wanting to prevent another loss to the Japanese, the
rowing team’s management structure was totally
reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area
steering superintendents and 1 assistant
superintendent steering manager. They also
implemented a new performance system that would give
the 1 person rowing the boat greater incentive to
work harder. It was called the ‘Rowing Team Quality
First Program,’ with meetings, dinners and free pens
for the rower. There was discussion of getting new
paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation
days for practices and bonuses.The next year the Japanese won by two miles.
Humiliated, the American management laid off the
rower for poor performance, halted development of a
new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all
capital investments for new equipment. The money
saved was distributed to the Senior Executives as
bonuses and the next year’s racing team was
out-sourced to IndiaSadly, the End.
Sad, but oh so true! Here’s something else to think
about: Ford has spent the last thirty years moving
all its factories out of the US, claiming they can’t
make money paying American wages. Toyota has spent
the last thirty years building more than a dozen
plants inside the USThe last quarter’s results:
Toyota makes 4 billion in profits while Ford racked
up 9 billion in losses. Ford folks are still
scratching their heads.IF THIS WASN’T SO SAD IT MIGHT BE FUNNY
Governments do NOTHING well when it comes to the marketplace, except take away our freedoms and choices with stupid regulations that never really work until the free market decides to send a signal to consumers. Anyone who thinks the government (and it doesn’t matter if they are Democrats or Republicans) should be involved in anything other than national defense needs to get an intelligence test so they can understand how ignorant they are, and they should not be allowed to vote, that is how we got the bad government we have now who wants to dictate to us what cars we can drive. They are not qualified to tell me that.
I have to agree with Tom and Ray on this one. The interest groups have run rather amok for quite some time, and we see their reluctance to move into the 21st century everyday. They refuse to adhere to international standards, and by doing so have put us well behind our global counterparts, in addition to creating much needless drama. With all this talk on the international news sources and intense focus on carbon footprints and world change, its hard to see why they would be so reluctant, abeit their own financial interests. Perhaps car sales are declining not due to government regulation, but a new desire in our country to take care of what precious resources we do have.
When looking for a new vehicle, my husband and I finally decided to park the jeep, and go with a motorcycle (granted i understand that not everyone has this option, we dont have children, and live in an area that doesnt see much snow, and we live a stones throw from the grocers). It seemed pretty clear to us that 3 gallons of gasoline to put on the same amount of miles that our jeep gets in its huge 20 gallon tank, seemed like the best step we could take, mainly for our own finances.
This is a growing concern, as it has been for years, and will probably continue to be. People don’t want to spend a ton of money on grossly inefficient cars, nor do people want to feel guilty about the state of the ecology. Get with the program car makers! Regulation never hurt them before, and really, their just hurting themselves making cars no one wants. They should quit spending vast sums of money on marketing big gas guzzlers and put it into reinventing transportation for an ecologically concerned planet.
It is logical and even smart to make transportation decisions based on personal finances. The same is true of personal style preferences and performance choices for cars, motorcylces, etc. However, it is the height of human hubris and folly to actually think your transportation choices are going to save the planet from whatever trendy Hollywood disaster is in vogue (and promoted by “political” scientists who have an agenda of government control of your life), such as global warming, environmental destruction, saving the whales, polar bears, etc. People cannot change the weather or climate by driving a small car, nor will they save the earth. If you feel guilty about destroying the planet because you want to drive a big SUV or enjoy 500 HP and 0-60 in 4 seconds, you are not thinking clearly and need to go to counselling to discover how insignificant your personal choices are in the grand scale of mother nature’s earth systems. Or better yet go get an education about the earth and the forces of nature.
Individual decisions do not move climate change very much, but worlwide collective decisions do. However, if Americans want a laissez-faire approach to the problem, it will take a few years longer to get to $7.50/gallon gas, due to shortages. In either case, large cars and SUVs will die a natural death and the US car industry may catch up to the rest of the world. However, there is always the possiblity that foreign powers may withhold shipping oil to the US until it puts consumption restrictions in place. This type of thing has happened before, albeit for political reasons. The choice is yours.
OK, I choose any car I want and I don’t care about mpg but do about style and HP and acceleration and room. If Detroit doesn’t make it, somebody will because too many people want vehicles like that and always will. The Germans and Italians make the biggest, baddest HP machines and gas guzzlers on the planet, not Detroit. As a scientist who knows the earth and it’s climate processes, no, even if everyone cut driving on fossil fuels to zero tomorrow it would not change the weather or climate soon or ever. It just doesn’t work that way, there are too many factors other than SUV CO2 to worry about with climate, SUV CO2 is minuscule and insignificant.
So, forget about the climate and put on your econmist’s hat and draw a demand/supply and enter different price scenarios.
High horspower manufacturers in Europe have very small volume; Rolls Royce only makes 3500 cars per year, Ferrari also very few. The US produces these guzzlers in large quantity, that is the problem. Aristocrats wasting energy will not have much of an impact on the climate.
So in the final analysis, price will dictate what we buy, with or without the help of the government. However, all laissez-faire economic systems OVERSHOOT the equilibrium point, and gut-wrenching shortages will likely precede a balanced situation.
The economic argument is much more convincing than the environmental one. But then I heard some very smart guys with PhDs tell the world that tobacco did not cause lung cancer.
The US imports 13% of its gasoline and 52% of its crude oil. The security of supply of this amount of oil is by no means guaranteed. The world is not finding developing new reserves as fast as it is consuming existing ones, in spite of record setting expenditures. So, draw your own conclusions.
Anyone who thinks the government (and it doesn’t matter if they are Democrats or Republicans) should be involved in anything other than national defense needs to get an intelligence test so they can understand how ignorant they are, and they should not be allowed to vote
You are soooooo right. The Tennessee Valley Authority was a huge failure. Everyone knows that private power companies were already working to bring electricity to all those poor country homes and that those selfless privately owned power companies could be trusted not to price gouge. Those who believe that government should regulate the Enrons of the world are complete idiots, especially the ones who lost their retirement accounts. I am so glad that you think all of those who have been abused in nursing homes and believe in their regulation are “ignorant.” You are right. To hell with them. Who the hell do they think they are to ask for protection from their government?!?!? Oh, and while you are at it, since you think government should only be involved in national defense, let’s stop prosecuting pedophiles. It is a waste of tax dollars!
I used to think that nursing homes needed to be regulated and that pedophiles needed to be prosecuted. Thank you for straightening me out. Your immense wisdom and compassion are truly enlightening!
I question two of your proposals:
*Turbo/Supercharging to boost MPG. I understand these devices are used to enable combustion of additional fuel. I have seen nothing to suggest that they boost combustion efficiency, as you imply.
*Higher voltage electrical systems. I remember the conversion from 6 to 12 V in the '50s. Huge increase in performance of starting motors, w/s wipers, headlights, etc. But I fail to understand how conversion of p/s, a/c, and other “parasitic” accessories from mechanically to electrically driven would necessarily curb “power” drain (I think you mean energy drain.) from the engine. After all, the engine has to drive the alternator mechanically, does it not? Even if the rotor is mounted directly on the crankshaft/flywheel assembly (to echo Henry Ford’s Model T). And alternators and electric motors are not 100% energy efficient.
Your comment implies that electrical energy to power such devices is “free”. It ain’t. Less “expensive”? Perhaps. But your piece doesn’t elaborate.
Nobody is talking about taking away your vehicle of choice. Nobody is talking about taking away horsepower, acceleration or room. All we are talking about is increasing fuel economy standards, which can be done without sacrificing any of these traits. Please see http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html for proof that fuel economy can be improved without sacrificing horsepower, acceleration, or vehicle size.
It isn’t coincidence that fuel economy has improved as cooling fans have become electric instead of belt-driven. Just look at all of the electric hybrids and their fuel economy. Using an engine as a generator to power an electric motor is simply more efficient than using an engine to generate momentum. Yes, all of the accessories that draw power from the engine hurt fuel economy, but the ones that use electricity from the alternator are more efficient than the ones that use the engine’s kenetic energy directly. You can also look at RVs as an example. Most motor homes use less fuel running the generator and the cabin air conditioner than using the engine-based air conditioner as they drive around. Ask around and motorhome owners will tell you they use less fuel running the air conditioner off the generator than they use running the air conditioner off the engine, whether they are driving on the highway or around town.
The idea behind turbo-charging and super-charging is like the idea of adding more valves. All of these technologies allow the engine to breathe easier, which in most cases, allows for increased fuel economy. That is one reason every 18 wheeler you see on the road is turbo charged. It allows the diesel engine to more efficiently use fuel. Look at it this way, adding more valves, designing interference engines, and using turbos allow for a more efficient combustion cycle becuase more of the fuel gets burned and less unburned fuel is pushed out of the exhaust. By they way, this also makes the engine burn cleaner.
Many of the import auto manufacturers agreed to higher mileage standards for the U.S. market late in 2007(1). Only when pressured will things change. Thank you for writing the open letter!
(1) http://www.leftlanenews.com/import-automakers-accept-35-mpg-cafe-fuel-standard.html
Yes you are, sorry, but only 2 cars currently meet 35 mpg standards, the Prius and Civic hybrids. These are junky little econoboxes with no style, no power, no room, and no interest to most car buyers. That is the kind of junk I expect to see on the raods when a 35 mpg fleet average is forced on Americans against their will. It will be a replay of the junky cars we had in the late '70s and the '80s when they tried it (CAFE) before. The cheap and tinny Datsuns, Hondas, Fords, Chevys, etc. that had no power, no styling, no room and no safety. If I thought you could really build a car that makes 35 mpg and is like todays super cars with all the HP, room and style at reasonable prices, I would say fine, but that is IMPOSSIBLE. You will pay more, you will get less car and we will all be forced into cars the liberal northestern elites want, mostly because they live like sardines in a crowded can and take public transit to work, so they could care less about real cars.
You really are mis-inforned aren’t you???
35mpg…My wifes Accord got 36mpg…Since the 60’s we’ve seen a 40% INCREASE in gas mileage for the SAME WEIGHT vehicle. So you don’t think it’s possible to increase gas mileage again??? Why??? Cars today are SAFER, FASTER and have far better mpg then the cars of 30 years ago.
would say fine, but that is IMPOSSIBLE. You will pay more, you will get less car and we will all be forced into cars the liberal northestern elites want, mostly because they live like sardines in a crowded can and take public transit to work, so they could care less about real cars.
HUH???..Where are you getting your stupid mis-information from…MOST people in the NE DRIVE to work. Only people who live in big cities like NYC or Boston or Philly have the luxery of mass-transit.
Anyone who thinks the government (and it doesn’t matter if they are Democrats or Republicans) should be involved in anything other than national defense needs to get an intelligence test so they can understand how ignorant they are, and they should not be allowed to vote, that is how we got the bad government we have now who wants to dictate to us what cars we can drive.
You’re right…HOWEVER…You are also EXTREMELY NIEVE…If you think that it is our Congressman and Senators who run this country…you need to take an IQ test to show stupid you really are. Lets continue our course of Exxon and Wallmart dictating how to SCREW the citizens…Yup…you really know a lot about government.
Did you even look at the site I asked you to look at? There is a guy out there modifying Hummers to get 60 MPG while ADDING horsepower. If he can do it, why can’t GM?
My car is 11 years old. It isn’t a hybrid. I get 36 MPG on the highway. Welcome to reality.
You are not only dangerously ignorant, you are stubborn. You should read what you wrote. Specifically, read the “35 mpg fleet average” part. Do you know how averages are calculated? There will be some cars that get fuel economy higher than 35 MPG and some that get lower than 35 MPG. No one is going to stop you from buying one of the vehicles that gets less than 35 MPG. Are you really a doctor? I thought that doctors knew how averages are calculated!
We have been hindered by those who say that things are not impossible…those who say “it can’t be done.” Thank goodness Congress, the President, and even the auto industry (who have now all agreed to the passage of the energy bill) know better. The bill has been passed and will soon be signed by the President. The skeptics have lost this battle to impede progress!
It was my understanding that Toyota was against the higher federally-mandated MPG standards like the big 3 American auto makers. Any real (non-media-frenzy) reason why? If Toyota is against the higher standards, are there problems with the standards?
WASHINGTON - President Bush signed into law Wednesday legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it “a major step” toward energy independence and easing global warming.
The legislation signed by Bush at a ceremony at the Energy Department requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency by 40 percent to an industry average 35 miles per gallon by 2020. It also ramps up production of ethanol use to 36 billion gallons a year by 2022.
Congratulations Tom and Ray…
You efforts have had a positive influence and have made a difference for a better country for generations to come…
Thank You, Thank You, Thank You !!!
No, Toyota also makes more money on gasguzzling SUVs and pickup trucks. That is why they went through the motion (hypocritically) of objecting. In the other 99 or so countires Toyota operates in they meet all the economy and tail pipe emission regs.
There is also apossiblity that if the new regs bankrupt the Big Three, Toyota will face anti-trust suits like IBM early in the computer age and now Microsoft.