Rethinking & Replanning: higher MPG

[Bruce Nunnally]

http://www.caranddriver.com/dailyautoinsid...el-on-hold.html

Car&DRiver and several other media sources are quoting Bob Lutz as saying that GM's mid-term and long-term vehicle development plans are on hold until they determine if the recent plans for changes in the CAFE MPG requirements are real. If GM (and everyone else) has to meet much higher fuel economy requirements, they will have to move away from the fun high-HP muscular cars that people seem to want and toward high-fuel economy models.

[jackc]

They need to be doing better.

And I think they were in the mid 90's and could have improved from there. I had a 96 Cutlass Supreme 2 door with a 3.1 and that car got me 31 mpg consistently in real world driving. Now the styling left something to be desired, but it was not an econobox. Drove like a heavy luxury coupe. Had good power. And that was without quadruple overhead whiz bangs, variable this-and-that's and other latest-greatest technological what have you's.

Collectively, we're off-track in applying our technologies and need to get back on track.

[95SevilleSLS]

They need to be doing better.

And I think they were in the mid 90's and could have improved from there. I had a 96 Cutlass Supreme 2 door with a 3.1 and that car got me 31 mpg consistently in real world driving. Now the styling left something to be desired, but it was not an econobox. Drove like a heavy luxury coupe. Had good power. And that was without quadruple overhead whiz bangs, variable this-and-that's and other latest-greatest technological what have you's.

Collectively, we're off-track in applying our technologies and need to get back on track.

I agree, I had a 90 buick century with the 3.4 and 188,000 miles on it and got 22 MPG around town and was just as much fun to drive as my new caddy. Except the new caddy gets 12 MPG around town. I loved the colors back then too. White ext. with blue int. Don't see that anymore.

[JasonA]

Increasing fuel economy is actually INCREASING our fuel consumption, not reducing it. Yes, higher efficiency equals higher consumption, almost invariably.

Think about computers. 20 years ago, it would have taken you an hour to boot up, prepare a small ledger, wait for the dot matrix printer to spool it out, and be done. Today, you can do the same thing in 5 minutes. So we should be on the computer very little today right, because they're so efficient? Right...

Back when you had dial-up modem, at 14.4 or 28.8 speeds, it'd take you forever to download even text email. Todays broadband, with speeds in the megabit/second range, we can get it instantly. So it takes us a fraction of the time as it did before, so we should never be on the Internet right? Right...

No, as things become increasingly efficient, we begin to build our lives around them. We have built our lives around our computers. Because the Internet is so efficient today (more downloads in the same amount of time), we consume our time on Internet forums such as this. We download music, we find all sorts of ways to use our new efficiency.

Same thing with cars. We think nothing of jumping in the car and going ANYWHERE. Now that we have cars that get 25+ mpg, it's so easy to just hop in the car and run to the store for a box of cereal. There's no trip planning anymore, no thought as to how much fuel we use. No, but if we all drove '73 Lincolns, that got 7-8 mpg, we'd think a lot more before we went somewhere, and we'd use a heckuva lot less fuel.

I guarantee it.

[Spurlee]

Increasing fuel economy is actually INCREASING our fuel consumption, not reducing it. Yes, higher efficiency equals higher consumption, almost invariably.

Think about computers. 20 years ago, it would have taken you an hour to boot up, prepare a small ledger, wait for the dot matrix printer to spool it out, and be done. Today, you can do the same thing in 5 minutes. So we should be on the computer very little today right, because they're so efficient? Right...

Back when you had dial-up modem, at 14.4 or 28.8 speeds, it'd take you forever to download even text email. Todays broadband, with speeds in the megabit/second range, we can get it instantly. So it takes us a fraction of the time as it did before, so we should never be on the Internet right? Right...

No, as things become increasingly efficient, we begin to build our lives around them. We have built our lives around our computers. Because the Internet is so efficient today (more downloads in the same amount of time), we consume our time on Internet forums such as this. We download music, we find all sorts of ways to use our new efficiency.

Same thing with cars. We think nothing of jumping in the car and going ANYWHERE. Now that we have cars that get 25+ mpg, it's so easy to just hop in the car and run to the store for a box of cereal. There's no trip planning anymore, no thought as to how much fuel we use. No, but if we all drove '73 Lincolns, that got 7-8 mpg, we'd think a lot more before we went somewhere, and we'd use a heckuva lot less fuel.

I guarantee it.

Very perceptive and probably right on the money

[thu]

Efficiency has increased, but so has the number of miles driven.

[jackc]

Not to be argumentative - but oh, what the heck.

We bought a new car for the wife 5 weeks ago. Smaller mid-size american, v6, fwd, all the goodies. Nice. We love it. But EPA mileage is 26 highway, and thats what it gets. Now mind you, I was getting 31 hwy 10 years ago. 31 10 years ago. So why doesn't this car give 36? Because its not designed to, and that's because we don't insist on it. We're addicted to automotive technology that makes us smile - not to technology that maximizes efficiency.

Heck - alot of what we're addicted to doesn't even make us smile. Consider that the parking lot at a soccer game or grocery store could just about be mistaken for a dang equipment auction lot. Half of us are driving around in glorified dump-trucks and we've bought them because that's what the builders were building. The rest of us think that anything that gets better mileage than one of those monsters is just great.

So yeah - I say raise the bar. Give me something that still makes me smile, but gets mileage that's at the upper end of what can be made. They can do it and will if we demand it.

Go Bob.

[GreenMachine]

3.6L direct injection engine? Have your cake and eat it to! 300HP and same or better fuel economy as the non DI one.

Thats where the future is going, haveing best of both worlds.

[JohnnyG]

Increasing fuel economy is actually INCREASING our fuel consumption, not reducing it. Yes, higher efficiency equals higher consumption, almost invariably.

Think about computers. 20 years ago, it would have taken you an hour to boot up, prepare a small ledger, wait for the dot matrix printer to spool it out, and be done. Today, you can do the same thing in 5 minutes. So we should be on the computer very little today right, because they're so efficient? Right...

Back when you had dial-up modem, at 14.4 or 28.8 speeds, it'd take you forever to download even text email. Todays broadband, with speeds in the megabit/second range, we can get it instantly. So it takes us a fraction of the time as it did before, so we should never be on the Internet right? Right...

No, as things become increasingly efficient, we begin to build our lives around them. We have built our lives around our computers. Because the Internet is so efficient today (more downloads in the same amount of time), we consume our time on Internet forums such as this. We download music, we find all sorts of ways to use our new efficiency.

Same thing with cars. We think nothing of jumping in the car and going ANYWHERE. Now that we have cars that get 25+ mpg, it's so easy to just hop in the car and run to the store for a box of cereal. There's no trip planning anymore, no thought as to how much fuel we use. No, but if we all drove '73 Lincolns, that got 7-8 mpg, we'd think a lot more before we went somewhere, and we'd use a heckuva lot less fuel.

I guarantee it.

--------------------

Jason

2001 Cadillac Seville Touring Sedan

White Diamond / Neutral Shale Leather

1997 Cadillac Seville Luxury Sedan

Shale Metallic / Neutral Leather

** FOR SALE **

"Northstar power is distinctly habit-forming" -- Car & Driver, February 1997

So, the Amish were right all along? I think I'll go paint my bumpers black right now.

[JasonA]

Efficiency has increased, but so has the number of miles driven.

This is indeed true, and I don't believe the two are separable.

By most measures, the US population growth rate over the last few years has been on the order of about 1% per year, or even less (Source). During the same period, actually over the past decade, the number of Vehicle Miles Traveled, or VMT, has increased by 2.5% per year (Source). We are increasing our miles traveled faster than we're growing. We're driving more and more, per capita, than we used to.

Don't get me wrong. This is not a bad thing. Higher efficiency (in everything) enables a growing economy, such as ours. And a growing economy and society will simply consume more energy, regardless of its order ("order" being petroleum, solar, wind, hydro, etc, essentially its "form"). When it all comes down to it, every single bit of energy we consume is one form of solar energy or another. Petroleum is solar energy from billions of years ago stored as crude. Hydro is solar energy in the form of lifted water droplets as part of the hydrological cycle. Wind is also solar energy, via temperature differences.

Of course, our quality of life is better today than in the past. I'm not AT ALL saying that we are "guilty" of anything. My only point is that a higher efficiency enables, sustains, a growing economy. And a growing economy will consume more...in whatever form that may be.

[thu]

Yah, other circles, this would be called "Productivity Gains". Nothing new or mysterious here.

[JohnnyG]

Jason, I can tell that you've thought about this a lot. At first, I thought you may have just been spouting someone else's agenda, but it doesn't appear so. I believe you are correct in all of your statements, and do not want to minimalize them in any way. I do think that hydrogen is the "ultimate" fuel, but it is not a viable alternative in today's society.

I am left with only one question. The energy of the Sun was used and stored as biomatter which was eventually converted to petroleum, (in its various forms) which we use today. How is the energy that we consume today, being stored for future use? Are we going to "mine" the huge landfills we are creating today at sometime in the future?

Too deep for me! Let's get back to cars.

[JasonA]

How is the energy that we consume today, being stored for future use? Are we going to "mine" the huge landfills we are creating today at sometime in the future?

That may not be too far out in left field. I understand there is research into using MSW (Municipal Solid Waste) as a feedstock for ethanol. That may be a very energy-intensive process right now, I don't know. But in theory...I relish the notion of turning our trash into fuel for our cars.