The comment is true but I would not put much stock in the Top Gear review. Everyone is entitled to their objective opinion but suggesting kids in the street will be run over because the Prius is quiet is just stupid. Then saying, not really, the kid will go through puberty before you can hit them and citing a 13+ second 0-60 is wrong. It was accurate for the 2001-2003 model, but the current design is just over 10 seconds (the amount of time traffic usually takes to get to 35 MPH). He also claims a top speed of 99 MPH, splitting hairs, but it is 104 and Al Gore's son proved it by getting a ticket in California a few months back. Given the max legal speed in any state in the U.S. is 75 MPH, I don't think a 104 MPH limit is a problem.
But to top it off, he compared it to a VW Lupo because it got much better mileage. True, it would, as do all the very small diesels popular in Europe. I think it will be quite some time before the American car buying public will shift from BIG AND/OR FAST to small and frugal.
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.
The hybrid Accord failed because it was a lot of money for little gain. The V-6 Variable Cylinder Management engine has more than enough power (and is standard on 2008 V-6 Accords). The intent of Honda's hybrid design is to give the gas engine help when needed. Only it never would be needed. I suspect it would have sold if they put a small 4 in it instead. I don't know if the Hybrid Camry is a failure or not, but I can't figure out why it gets 10 MPG less than a Prius given they are about the same size. I think Toyota would do well to put different body styles on the Prius frame. They could easily have a 2 door sedan, 4 door sedan, and wagon to go with the current hatch back, all getting 46 MPG (2008 EPA). If I didn't live where it got cold (Vermont) my Prius's average lifetime MPG would be 52 or better (my summer averages) instead of 47.
And I argue with the claim that a lot of (American) people can not make do with a smaller car than the big SUVS and trucks they now own. Sure, you have a 6 person family, you need a 6 person car. But they don't need the weight of a truck based chassis to accomodate 6 people. Most mid-size SUVs only hold 5 anyway. A little thought when packing can get a LOT in a smaller space, add a car top carrier for the occasions you need more space. Why drag around the extra weight ALL the time? Sure, some businesses need to haul around some heavy equipment, but most of the pickups I see are way over sized in both towing and cargo weight capacity. Of course the auto companies don't make small pick-ups any more so the consumer has NO choice. Even the smallest (Ford Ranger has a 5,500# tow capacity and 1,500# payload) & (Dodge Dakota 3000# & 1,600#). Maybe you see a lot of those wherever you live but I see few. For non commercial use, most of the trucks I see are F150 size and bigger, used as commuter vehicles, never tow anything and carry nothing larger than I can fit INSIDE my Prius. But they are manly men, because they drive big trucks.
The reason that the Hybrid Camry gets 10 less MPG is the fact that it was not originaly designed to be a hybrid. The Camry does not have as good of a drag coefficient as the Prius (.27 vs .26) and weighs almost 750 pounds more.
I do agree that many people should use smaller vehicles. But if you constantly need to put a carrier on your car you are constantly going to worse fuel mileage because you are putting something on the roof that drastically increases the drag coefficient. So it may be a better idea to get a larger, slightly less fuel efficient car in this case.
Yes, your Prius may be able to carry many objects that will not fit in some trucks (a bit of a stretch), but you have to fold down almost all of your seats, you are limited in the hight of the object, and this object has to be solid and clean. Whereas with a pickup you can carry taller items, not loose seating capacity, not have to worry about scratching the interior, and you can carry piles of dirt, leaves, or rocks without having to spend hours cleaning out the interior (simply hose out the bed).
True, but the market does limit what is available for sale. If only higher mileage vehicles are available, then that is what will sell. There may be a reduction in sales as people make other choices (mass-transit?) However I do believe that if more efficient, higher mileage vehicles are available they will sell. If there is a demand for 6 passenger safe cars that meet the minimum mileage standards, the manufacturers will find a way to produce them.
You're right, the market does dictate. Car makers build what we ask for. We are just embarrased by our choices and would rather blame Detroit or ask our government to. We won't accept the blame. We obviously want luxury (which includes performance) above all else. Then we want safety. These features add much weight to the car and require much more energy. My 1990 Ford Festiva weighed 1800 lbs and got 42 mpg in the city using 1980s technology. (Yes, it had no luxury and was a death trap.) So the market is asking for superbly luxurious, high performance cars that are NASCAR safe and that may weigh 3800 lb. Then all we're asking for on top of that is 35MPG. Any engineer knows that this is a problem. You want better milage? Give up 1000 lbs of luxury and performance. The car makers have tried to offer these and the cars sat on the dealers lots.
- 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?
I keep seeing that the US, with 5% of the world's population consumes over 20% and some say 25% of the current supply of petroleum. This is not sustainable and vehicle fuel consumption is a part of that.
The EPA should, by order from Congress, should increase the average fuel mileage requirement for new primarily passenger carrying vehicles by 1% per 5 years. The purchase of a pickup truck should require a permit to screen out those who buy pickups who have nothing to haul that a small trailer or a hatchback auto couldn't do.
What Tom and Ray should do is let everyone know what kind of cars they drive, how many times a month they walk somewhere while running an errand, how large their homes are, how much energy is used to heat and cool them, etc. instead of asking a loaded "do you beat your wife on a regular basis" question.
I've shared my thoughts and don't expect an answer this time either since it was never addressed twice previously when I brought it up.
Well, here is my answer. I have a 2007 Toyota Corolla and a 1994 Nissan Sentra (115,500 miles). My house is 2140 square feet, well insulated with a High Efficiency (96% seasonal) Carrier condensing gas furnace. The water is also heated by a Sears Energy Miser gas heater. The house is cooled by mother nature, with help of a couple of fans, since we live close to the Rocky Mountains. We use a battery operated lawnmower. We have over 35 fluorescent energy-saving bulbs in addition to all LED Christmas lighting. We walk daily with the dog. In the summer we mountain hike, and in winter we cross-country ski or snow shoe. When I need to go downtown I only drive to the train station and take the commuter train in. Most of my work is either from the home based office, or in other cities, since my work takes me all over.
Our total annual energy consumption is:
Elecricity 6800 kilowatt hours/year
Gas 142 million BTUs
Gasoline about 450 gallons for 2 cars
Yes, higher Federal standards push auto makers to do better. There is however, a point of diminishing ability to eek out extra mileage with an internal combustion engine, better aerodynamics and weight reductions. Remember, to get where we are today in fuel economy and low emmissions your new car costs have skyrocketed. We may now get 25 to 30 MPG but the vehicle also costs a LOT more, requires a rocket surgeon to work on it and has many more very specific maintenace requirements. Can there be a 40MPG car in two years that's bigger than a lawn mower? Probably, but at what cost initially and then through the next five years of operation.
American car buyers are very fickle. We want or agree with much higher MPG for many reasons stated already. We also don't or won't pay the ever higher price tag for this accomplishment. We also want this vehicle to be 22 feet long and haul/handle/pull anything.
Having said all this, the free market will ALWAYS dictate. Hybrids and toy size cars are available today with the best mileage. They are a small percentage of the market and cost more or are diminished in size and capability. Most Americans don't want them cause they do not fill the need they have. There is an entire world of discovery to be made in diesel technology and should be advanced much greater than currently available.
Bottom line is this. Mileage has absolutely nothing to do with the supply and demand for oil and gasoline. This especially applies to national security. If this were important, why is there still no national energy policy? It is easy and lazy to target the obvious. The heavy lifting has to be done in Washington on what direction the country will go in.
PS: A tax has never done anything but take money permanently out of the economy and put it into government coffers for follies that abound. Check out how much federal and state taxes you already pay on a gallon of fuel where you live. How have these existing taxes raised mileage, reduced consumption and cut pollution? Clue-they haven't, at all, ever, but you don't have that money. :-}
The day they get something the size of a Town Car to get 50 MPG while towing a horse trailer, and have a 0-60 time of 5 seconds doing it, that'll be the day Americans wake up and buy a fuel efficient vehicle.
And on that day, Detroit will come out with a car the size of a bus that gets 25 MpG while towing two horse trailers and can do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds-- and the American new car buyer will buy it over the wussy car you have described.
There have been many, many advances in automotive technology since the last round of fuel mileage regulations came out, but they have been used to increase speed and size instead of economy. The singular reason for this is that compared with the premium people pay to own a new car, fuel costs are relatively insignificant-- by the time "the market" gets fuel prices up to a point that new car buyers take note, you will already have effectively immobilized the working poor in this country and we will have a major economic if not humanitarian crisis. Same general idea with a gas tax, which is good in theory but in this country ends up being very regressive. European countries can, as a matter of public policy, charge more for fuel because driving is not the necessity of living there that it is here.
Yes, I recognize that the government cannot legislate technologies into existance, but technology isn't the only way to make a fuel efficient vehicle. Remember economy cars from the 70's and 80's? They were able to get better mileage than practically anything you can buy today because they were willing to compromise accelleration for economy. There's cars sold in Europe that, at the track, probably perform about as well as a Pinto or a Vega did, but get 80+ MPG. Those aren't safe for US-style highway driving, but even the "economy" cars sold here are overkill for basic transportation. Something along the lines of a VW Polo would be perfectly safe on an Interstate highway and would get 60-70 Mpg.
And I say, if you need a Suburban-type vehicle (as some people do), you should be able to tolerate one with a smaller engine that may not be as fast as they are now, but will get acceptable mileage. This would also have the effect of dissuading people who don't need an SUV. If you need to tow, get a diesel one-- the large displacement gasoline engine has been obsolete for years. Even most sedans these days are pretty overpowered-- a modern 4-cylinder engine can produce enough power to give a mid-sized car enough power to safely merge onto a freeway. It's just that there's an "arms race" amongst car manufacturers-- nobody wants their model to be slower than the competition! Government regulation would be a good way to break this deadlock.
There's cars sold in Europe that, at the track, probably perform about as well as a Pinto or a Vega did, but get 80+ MPG
My wifes Lexus ES350 is BIGGER, FASTER, HEAVIER...bigger engine (v6)....and fuel economy is 50% BETTER then the Vega or Pingo....and polutes 1000% less.
There have been many, many advances in automotive technology since the last round of fuel mileage regulations came out, but they have been used to increase speed and size instead of economy.
That's right because they want to INCREASE profits. Larger cars = HIGHER profits. But without the Cafe' numbers they'd be selling these same size cars with MUCH WORSE gas mileage and polute a LOT more.
Well, that's why I said "practically", although now that I think about it, I was forgetting how crappy the Vega and Pinto truly were. But say something like some of the older VW's or Hondas were decent, slow little cars that got decent mileage.
I also forgot that the only time you saw Vegas and Pintos at the track was when they were getting run over by monster trucks.
The VW Beetle was the first small car that would stand up to daily hard use and long distance driving on US roads. That, with a good dealer network, assured its place in history as the ultimate cult car. This was an extremely difficult act to follow for British, French,Italian, US, and early Japanese cars like the Toyopet, the Datsun Bluebird, etc. The Japanese persisited, and adapted their cars to North Amercan requirements. The British, French and Italians did no such thing and are no longer around. One more example of Charles Darwin's "suvival of the fittest" theory.
Remember, to get where we are today in fuel economy and low emmissions your new car costs have skyrocketed.
Really...show me....Factoring in inflation, cars are the same price or cheaper then they were 40 years ago.
Having said all this, the free market will ALWAYS dictate.
You obviously know nothing about how the market works.The automobile market hasn't been a free market since the 50's or 60's.
One other thing to consider...Unless there is a MAJOR SUDDEN advancement in technology you'll NEVER see TRUE FREE MARKET competition in the automotive industry. Advancements in fuel economy polution control come SLOWLY small increments. The cost to R&D these small increments won't be rewarded in increased sales, so they are very reluctent to do the R&D.
Hybrids and toy size cars are available today with the best mileage.
That doesn't mean that the larger cars don't get good gas mileage. My wifes Lexus is bigger, heavier roomier then MOST mid-size vehicles of the 60's and 70's. Yet has FAR BETTER performance and MUCH BETTER gas mileage and polutes 1000% less. And NON of that was driven by the market.
Mileage has absolutely nothing to do with the supply and demand for oil and gasoline.
You're right...Mileage has ONLY improved because it's been mandated by government regulations.
If this were important, why is there still no national energy policy?
You're kidding right??? Do you have any idea how powerfull the Oil Lobby is??? The oil companies spend BILLIONS...yes BILLIONS in their Lobbiest every year. They've been able to squash ANY new competition that has come along in the past 20 years. Ask Conservative Republican Pat Robertson. He tried to open a oil refinery, but the oil companies dried up the funding.
There is an entire world of discovery to be made in diesel technology and should be advanced much greater than currently available.
You're right....Why isn't it??? Market Driven??? I don't think so.
>> We may now get 25 to 30 MPG but the vehicle also costs a LOT more
Umm, not necessarily. Does my Prius cost more than a Honda FIT? Yes, about 50% more. But they are not comparable vehicles. While nicely fitted out, the base FIT for $14,000 doesn't have the same features. My Prius is also bigger (5" of rear leg room will matter but only if you have rear passengers over 4' tall) and I get 50% better mileage and pollute less. But if the smaller car fits (sorry) your needs, it looks like a good buy.
>> has many more very specific maintenance requirements.
Um, like WHAT?? Prius maintenance schedule is oil and filter every 5,000 miles. Engine and cabin air filters at 15K to 30K depending on how dirty your air is :-) Various "inspect" items every 15K, no different than any other car, inspect valve clearance at 60K. When you get to 120K you replace the spark plugs. I have nearly 55K on my '04 Prius, the front brake pads are at 75%, the rear at 80%.
>> Can there be a 40MPG car in two years that's bigger than a lawn mower? Probably, but at what cost initially and then through the next five years of operation.
Based on my guesstimated average for my '95 Odyssey of 20 winter, 22 summer, In 3 years I have saved nearly 1500 gallons of gas (good for the planet) and about $4,000 in gas cost (good for me!) alone. The maintenance costs on the Odyssey were much higher, both routine, and the "rear disks are pitted again" replacements - 3 times by 60K miles.
Actually, 40mpg has already been reached with a plain internal combustion engine. I have a 1996 Saturn SL that routinely achieves better than 40 mpg. Most of the emissions requirements are choking the engines so that they burn more gasoline, even if it might be cleaner. Bottom line, it's in the government's best interests to keep mpg low, because that means more money for them from gasoline taxes.
11/05/2007 10:56:27 AM
