Unbearable Lightness?

[CSpec]

Unbearable lightness?

To make cars frugal, they will have to become lighter—and more expensive

From The Economist.

WHEN it comes to motor vehicles there is widespread belief—at least in America—that bigger is not only better, but safer too. The assumption is that nothing beats having lots of steel around you in a crash. And it is true, to some extent. All things being equal, the driver of a large SUV (sports-utility vehicle) is less likely to be killed than the driver of a small car in a head-on collision between the two. The downside is that SUV drivers are far more likely than car drivers to die in solitary roll-over accidents induced by the vehicle’s own weight, its high centre of gravity and its truck-like suspension. Collisions with other SUVs can be deadlier still.

An excess of heavy metal imposes other penalties. American motorists are as aware as any that weight is the enemy of fuel economy. However, with pump prices low by international standards, the trade-off between safety and fuel consumption has understandably favoured the former. Adding air-bags, anti-lock brakes, stability control and side-impact beams has saved countless lives, but it has increased vehicle weights disproportionately. Cars and light trucks on American roads today are 30% heavier than they were in the mid-1980s.

Unfortunately, heavier vehicles need beefier engines to lug their extra girth around. As a result, much of the past quarter-century’s improvements in engine and vehicle design—low-friction materials, turbo charging, direct injection, variable valve-timing, cylinder deactivation, stop-start ignition, dual-clutch transmissions, better aerodynamics and low rolling-resistance tyres—have been mopped up by increases in vehicle weight.

It therefore comes as no surprise that last week’s pronouncement by the White House—that cars and trucks sold in America from the 2016 model year onwards will have to achieve a fleet-wide average of 35.5mpg (6.6 litres/110km)—should have awoken fears about vehicles becoming smaller and less safe in order to meet the latest fuel-sipping standards. The new corporate-average fuel economy (CAFE) figure, originally scheduled for 2020 but brought four years forward by the Obama administration, amounts to a 34% increase over today’s actual average of 26.4mpg.

How to achieve such a whopping increase in efficiency over so short a time? The trouble is that most of the low-hanging fruit in combustion engineering have been picked already. At best, the motor industry expects only a 15-20% further improvement can be squeezed from existing petrol engines and their transmissions. A new generation of plug-in hybrids and pure electric vehicles will doubtless help achieve the required goal. But even if their sales triple over the next five years, they will still account for less than 10% of America’s fleet of new cars by 2016.

Though themselves not cheap, clean diesels, with their 35% greater efficiency, would be a better bet—if only Americans could be persuaded to embrace them as Europeans have. Although no longer justified, the diesel’s reputation for being slow, smelly, noisy, unreliable and difficult to start in cold weather has lingered since the 1980s, when Detroit rushed out half-baked designs in response to the oil crisis.

But even if the demand for diesel cars were there, the fuel might not be—at least, not at a price Americans would be willing to pay. As it is, there is already a global shortage of diesel-making capacity. The catalytic crackers used in refineries throughout America are optimised to produce as much petrol as possible. Switching them over to the hydrocracking processes used widely in Europe and Asia for diesel production would take donkey’s years.

So it comes down to this: if half the increase in efficiency demanded by the new CAFE requirements is to come from further improvements in the power-train, then the other half will have to come from reductions in a vehicle’s weight. That prompts two immediate questions: how much will such a weight reduction add to prices, and will hard-won gains in vehicle safety be sacrificed in the process?

Given today’s materials and know-how, automotive engineers reckon a 10% reduction in vehicle weight yields a 6% improvement in efficiency. Meanwhile, trimming the fat from a vehicle’s bodywork, components and accessories costs roughly $2 a pound. Running the numbers for a typical car—say, a Toyota Camry weighing 3,260lb (1,500kg) and averaging 26mpg—suggests it would need to shed a little under a third of its weight, at a cost of roughly $2,000, to meet the 2016 standard. The Environment Protection Agency claims average prices on the forecourt will rise by only $1,300. Someone, somewhere, seems to have got their sums wrong.

In the end, the additional price for “adding lightness”—to borrow a phrase from the late Colin Chapman, the legendary founder of Lotus Cars—comes down to the materials used and how they are formed. To do the same job, HSLA (high-strength low-alloy) steels are up to 30% lighter than traditional carbon steels. They are already used in motor vehicles for components that have to withstand critical loads. Unfortunately, because of their higher strength and toughness, HSLA steels need 30% more energy to form them into useful shapes. Also, because their strength tends to be directional, they can fail under sudden loads from unexpected quarters.

One of the ways that Chapman added lightness to his cars, the use of composite materials such as carbon fibre and glass-reinforced plastic, is not that practical either. Lotuses are turned out in small numbers, but composites require too much manual work for volume production. So the only sensible material for reducing a conventional car’s weight while maintaining its strength is aluminium.

At present, aluminium accounts for 9% of a typical vehicle’s content—mostly in the form of castings and forgings for engine blocks, transmission cases, wheels and suspension parts. For the aluminium content to increase much further means using sheets and extrusions of the stuff for body panels and subframes. That will require further advances in laser welding and other bonding techniques to make production costs competitive.

The handful of aluminium-bodied cars in production have mostly been low-volume luxury models, such as the Honda NSX, the Audi A8 and the Jaguar XJ. Their body weights have typically been 10% to 15% lower than those of their steel equivalents. However, if all the parts made of iron and steel in cars today were replaced with aluminium, the vehicle would weigh 45% less. And it would be stronger, too. Pound for pound, aluminium is up to two-and-a-half times stronger than conventional steel—and can absorb twice the energy in a crash.

In short, making vehicles lighter does not mean they have to be smaller or less safe. If anything, cars with a high aluminium content have tended to be bigger and stronger than their steel-bodied predecessors. Replacing steel with aluminium allows additional interior space to be offered, along with larger crumple zones at the front and rear for even better crash protection, all without paying a heavy penalty in fuel consumption.

But there is a snag: cost. Aluminium is three to four times more expensive than steel. On the plus side, aluminium cars do not rust, and therefore last longer than conventional cars. And, at the end of their lives, they have a much higher scrap value. Add in the fuel saving, and the lifetime cost of an aluminium car—from raw material and manufacturing to daily use and final disposal—can be comparable to that of a conventional car. And the higher petrol prices go, of course, the sooner an aluminium car becomes as cheap overall as a conventional one.

The stumbling block in this analysis is that the person who walks into a showroom to buy a brand new aluminium car is unlikely to capture all those lifetime benefits. Nor is the manufacturer—at least, not immediately. So expect the initial sticker prices to be at least $2,000 higher for enlightened compact cars, and $4,500-6,000 more for trimmer luxury cars and SUVs. The only consolation will be not having to fill up the tank quite so often.

[regfootball]

great. how does the consumer win, especially when gas prices go up 40% or whatever CAFE does. Cuz that's what will happen.

[Camino LS6]

Another view that shows just how stupid the CAFE approach really is. The unimaginative idiots that write such legislation have no clue about the implications, and they just fall back on old solutions (CAFE) which failed in the past.

It's the wrong approach, and delays the sort of changes we really need to make.

[Drew Dowdell]

What's the problem with "added lightness"? cars are super porkers these days.

All this talk about the Hyundai Sonata's low weight at 3199lbs? Well Yippie... it's down to the weight of a 1989 Lesabre!

The Lacrosse, as much as I like it, is often cited as an example of being too heavy because it can weigh as much as B-Body station wagon!

[regfootball]

3200 is fine but too many cars down in that 2300-2500 pound range. Cars like that are too light for crosswinds, winter driving, and overall solidity. Part of the reason lots of folks bought huge SUV's was because they like that built like a tank feel. Especially in inclement weather, blizzard driving, etc.

What's the problem with "added lightness"? cars are super porkers these days.

All this talk about the Hyundai Sonata's low weight at 3199lbs? Well Yippie... it's down to the weight of a 1989 Lesabre!

The Lacrosse, as much as I like it, is often cited as an example of being too heavy because it can weigh as much as B-Body station wagon!

that 89 lesabre didnt push an extra 400 pounds of tech, wiring and airbags and other things that have been added since too.

to use your lacrosse example. the lacrosse is a just about right feeling car on the road. it doesn't feel light and insubstantial like many of the cheap midsizers, and it doesn't feel like a porky luxo barge. it feels like its got substance, and is somewhat agile at the same time. to me, its got the weight, size, and agility factor down pretty well.

Edited April 9, 2010 by regfootball

[CSpec]

All this talk about the Hyundai Sonata's low weight at 3199lbs? Well Yippie... it's down to the weight of a 1989 Lesabre!

Yes, but how many orders of magnitude safer is the Sonata? And with how many extra toys?

[Drew Dowdell]

Lightweight steel, carbon fiber, aluminum, and composite construction have all come a long way since 1988. These should have been added to cars in tandem with the other new technologies to keep vehicle weights relatively stable.

[Drew Dowdell]

to use your lacrosse example. the lacrosse is a just about right feeling car on the road. it doesn't feel light and insubstantial like many of the cheap midsizers, and it doesn't feel like a porky luxo barge. it feels like its got substance, and is somewhat agile at the same time. to me, its got the weight, size, and agility factor down pretty well.

Note that the 4100lbs Lacrosse is the CXS with AWD, but I agree with you on the feel of the Lacrosse, I just think it's pushed the weight a bit too far. The 3400lbs original CTS felt very solid and is very agile... and is only 200lbs more than a Sonata.

[CSpec]

Lightweight steel, carbon fiber, aluminum, and composite construction have all come a long way since 1988. These should have been added to cars in tandem with the other new technologies to keep vehicle weights relatively stable.

Why so? As this article mentioned, people in the US are willing to sacrifice fuel economy for safety (and size) because of the relatively low price of gas. In an ideal world, we could have a free lunch and have the light cars also be safe and cheap, but obviously there are trade offs in real life. Heavy, safe cars seems like a rational choice to me if gas is cheap.

[regfootball]

Note that the 4100lbs Lacrosse is the CXS with AWD, but I agree with you on the feel of the Lacrosse, I just think it's pushed the weight a bit too far. The 3400lbs original CTS felt very solid and is very agile... and is only 200lbs more than a Sonata.

the lacrosse i drove was fwd without sunroof and all that. i am guessing it was around 3800, just like my old 500 which also felt very solid on the road but wasnt as agile.

i will not comment on whether the sonata actually feels substantial or not as i havent driven it yet.

a lot of folks like the AWD option and will gladly put up with a couple hundred pounds in return for more traction.

i havent seen the CTS curb weight consistently posted that low.

[Intrepidation]

More weight doesn't mean it's safer. I bet you a Smart weighs a lot less than a Venture...but guess which is the deathtrap?

[regfootball]

Why so? As this article mentioned, people in the US are willing to sacrifice fuel economy for safety (and size) because of the relatively low price of gas. In an ideal world, we could have a free lunch and have the light cars also be safe and cheap, but obviously there are trade offs in real life. Heavy, safe cars seems like a rational choice to me if gas is cheap.

steel is the key. steel is cheap manufacture, but people also need to remember that many cars need to be repaired often, and crash costs with aluminum might push your insurance rates through the roof.

[Drew Dowdell]

Why so? As this article mentioned, people in the US are willing to sacrifice fuel economy for safety (and size) because of the relatively low price of gas. In an ideal world, we could have a free lunch and have the light cars also be safe and cheap, but obviously there are trade offs in real life. Heavy, safe cars seems like a rational choice to me if gas is cheap.

How long will your last statement be true? If you believe CERA, OPEC and the cornucopians there are at least 1,350 billion barrels of conventional oil in known reserves. But those are made up numbers. One famous example is Kuwait, which has only 48 billion barrels of proven (95% sure) and probable reserves (50/50 chance of being there) but continues to claim 102 billion barrels of proven reserves. Once you take out the lies, worldwide the figure is closer to 850 billion barrels, or quite possibly as little as 600 billion. The world uses over 30 billion barrels a year.

[Drew Dowdell]

the lacrosse i drove was fwd without sunroof and all that. i am guessing it was around 3800, just like my old 500 which also felt very solid on the road but wasnt as agile.

i will not comment on whether the sonata actually feels substantial or not as i havent driven it yet.

a lot of folks like the AWD option and will gladly put up with a couple hundred pounds in return for more traction.

i havent seen the CTS curb weight consistently posted that low.

I was off by 100lbs. The 2004 was 3500lbs.

More weight doesn't mean it's safer. I bet you a Smart weighs a lot less than a Venture...but guess which is the deathtrap?

A SMART will even wipe out half the hood area of an E-class while maintaining it's passenger compartment.

[CSpec]

How long will your last statement be true? If you believe CERA, OPEC and the cornucopians there are at least 1,350 billion barrels of conventional oil in known reserves. But those are made up numbers. One famous example is Kuwait, which has only 48 billion barrels of proven (95% sure) and probable reserves (50/50 chance of being there) but continues to claim 102 billion barrels of proven reserves. Once you take out the lies, worldwide the figure is closer to 850 billion barrels, or quite possibly as little as 600 billion. The world uses over 30 billion barrels a year.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that with gas prices as they are (and perhaps, were), the cars for sale for here were rational. You were implying that all the manufacturers without exception were myopic and stupid for not building every car like the old XJ.

More weight doesn't mean it's safer. I bet you a Smart weighs a lot less than a Venture...but guess which is the deathtrap?

It's not a 1-1 relationship, but it's a very high correlation. You also need to compare apples to apples. The smart and Venture have very different dimensions. You'll note that the smart doesn't have nearly the fuel economy you would expect for a car that small, because the smart is very very heavy for a car of its size.

[Drew Dowdell]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that with gas prices as they are (and perhaps, were), the cars for sale for here were rational. You were implying that all the manufacturers without exception were myopic and stupid for not building every car like the old XJ.

while it shouldn't have been taken to the XJ extreme, there could have been some things done to favor lightness. Throwing steel at a car to make it safer is the cheep way out.

However, facing the reality of our coming fuel issues, auto makers should be working on much lighter vehicles today. So that when the next gas prices spike and don't come back down. We won't be facing the same mad rush for efficiency we had last time.

There is a BIG reason GM put the 4-cylinder in the Lacrosse. As a country, we might need to dial back our expectations on beige sedan performance a bit.

[regfootball]

I was off by 100lbs. The 2004 was 3500lbs.

A SMART will even wipe out half the hood area of an E-class while maintaining it's passenger compartment.

yeah but that Smart will ping pong off a nice semi tractor and trailer......

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that with gas prices as they are (and perhaps, were), the cars for sale for here were rational. You were implying that all the manufacturers without exception were myopic and stupid for not building every car like the old XJ.

It's not a 1-1 relationship, but it's a very high correlation. You also need to compare apples to apples. The smart and Venture have very different dimensions. You'll note that the smart doesn't have nearly the fuel economy you would expect for a car that small, because the smart is very very heavy for a car of its size.

amazing how poor at fuel mileage the smart car is. its small, not a good car for general use, it's a toy. And yet you can't get much above 35 mpg in the real world with one. this is the road our leaders want us on. in smart cars.

[CanadianBacon94]

yeah but that Smart will ping pong off a nice semi tractor and trailer......

with passengers ping ponnging around within the passenger compartment

you jjust cant safely stop with 8" of crush zone vs. 3-4' of crush zone

[Camino LS6]

What's the problem with "added lightness"? cars are super porkers these days.

All this talk about the Hyundai Sonata's low weight at 3199lbs? Well Yippie... it's down to the weight of a 1989 Lesabre!

The Lacrosse, as much as I like it, is often cited as an example of being too heavy because it can weigh as much as B-Body station wagon!

The short answer is nothing. Because that is not what I was addressing.

What I am saying is that cars, and by extension their weight, are the wrong targets when attempting to solve this problem.

It is the fuels we should be concentrating on.

All the "added lightness" in the world won't make oil less finite. So instead of attempting to make the cars safer while mandating increased fuel economy, while trying to keep prices under control, while hoping the economy rebounds, we should be concentrating on viable alternatives in fuel. Otherwise, we stifle everything else in the hope that we might delay the end of the oil supply.

I think it's time to solve the problem instead.

[smk4565]

What I don't like is the separate standards for cars and trucks. Why should someone that wants a V8 performance car get penalized while someone that wants a V8 pickup is not. Diesel is going to play a big role in this too, automakers will have to push it, especially in SUVs and trucks.

[CSpec]

What I don't like is the separate standards for cars and trucks. Why should someone that wants a V8 performance car get penalized while someone that wants a V8 pickup is not. Diesel is going to play a big role in this too, automakers will have to push it, especially in SUVs and trucks.

While this sounds annoyingly Marxist, there is more of a "need" for V8 pickups in construction etc, while V8 cars tend to be toys. Not that that's a real defense of the different standards, but that probably explains why Congress did it that way.

Regarding diesel, I draw your attention to this part of the article:

"As it is, there is already a global shortage of diesel-making capacity. The catalytic crackers used in refineries throughout America are optimised to produce as much petrol as possible. Switching them over to the hydrocracking processes used widely in Europe and Asia for diesel production would take donkey’s years."

[CanadianBacon94]

Camino

is there a way to run an engine on straight ethanol? safely? reliably?

[CanadianBacon94]

is there a way to run an engine on straight ethanol? safely? reliably?

not that we could make 30 billion barrels of e100 a day

Edited April 10, 2010 by CanadianBacon94

[Camino LS6]

Camino

is there a way to run an engine on straight ethanol? safely? reliably?

Sure. Internal combustion engines can use a wide variety of fuels, both liquid and gaseous.

What we lack is production and distribution capacity for anything other than oil-based fuels.

What I hope for is some action on that front, and a diversification of both fuels and propulsion systems used in automobiles. We should never again have our economy rest on the supply of a single commodity.

We need electric cars, extended-range electric cars, cars that run on ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen, bio-fuels, propane, as well as gasoline and diesel. With each car optimised for its intended use as well as its intended energy source.

We should push flex-fuel vehicles, make retro-fits easier to do on older cars and trucks via EPA reform, assist in infrastructure development for alt fuels, and keep R&D going full-steam ahead.

There is simply no reason why we can't make it happen, to say otherwise is to make excuses and limit possibilities.

There is no "magic fuel", and that's a good thing - look what believing in one has already done to us.

[Drew Dowdell]

The short answer is nothing. Because that is not what I was addressing.

What I am saying is that cars, and by extension their weight, are the wrong targets when attempting to solve this problem.

It is the fuels we should be concentrating on.

All the "added lightness" in the world won't make oil less finite. So instead of attempting to make the cars safer while mandating increased fuel economy, while trying to keep prices under control, while hoping the economy rebounds, we should be concentrating on viable alternatives in fuel. Otherwise, we stifle everything else in the hope that we might delay the end of the oil supply.

I think it's time to solve the problem instead.

I agree with you that we should be addressing the fuel issue first... but I see no reason why we can't tackle weight as well. We have the technology already, it's not like someone has to go out and invent the stuff or build an infrastructure around it.

[Drew Dowdell]

Camino

is there a way to run an engine on straight ethanol? safely? reliably?

Brazil does it now. They started their conversion to pure alcohol engines about 12 years ago. They are the furthest along getting to an entirely bio-fuel fleet.

[PurdueGuy]

What I hope for is some action on that front, and a diversification of both fuels and propulsion systems used in automobiles. We should never again have our economy rest on the supply of a single commodity.

We need electric cars, extended-range electric cars, cars that run on ethanol, natural gas, hydrogen, bio-fuels, propane, as well as gasoline and diesel. With each car optimised for its intended use as well as its intended energy source.

I agree. To some degree electric cars have an automatic diversification of fuels, as there are so many ways to make electricity. Unfortunately, there are 2 problems: the fact that pure electric vehicles still don't make good sense for primary vehicles, and there is still a risk that electric companies would become too powerful and gouge.

[Drew Dowdell]

Electric companies in most states are regulated heavily.... and in the ones where they aren't regulated, there is very healthy competition.... far more than the oil companies have.

[loki]

cars have gotten very cheap over the last 10 years....but here's an example from before that too...

model T first year "$825.00. Over ten thousand were sold in its first year, establishing a new record. Four years later the price dropped to $575.00"

the first year was ~41 ounces of gold... the 4th year was ~29

huge inflation leading up to the 70's

"Buick Le Sabre $3,337 1970 "

that was ~95 ounces of gold, but obviously isn't a bare bones car like the model T

"Ford Pinto $2,078 1972 "

~60 ounces. if it was $35/..

but looked up the high/low and it's average was 57.. so that'd be 36 ounces

a new aveo?

"MSRP1: Starting at $11,965 "

that's ~ 11 ounces

so even with all the regulations, prices for a car are practically rock bottom... until GM (and others) has to raise prices because of previous and most likely more future inflation

so of course if prices increase substantially, very few people could afford it, so i don't see any positives from these "urgent regulations"...or it just shows how bad things are gonna get if it raises the $$ prices >10%...? ... if they have to keep raising prices, they'll corner themselves, except for exports.... i'll stop there.

[loki]

Electric companies in most states are regulated heavily.... and in the ones where they aren't regulated, there is very healthy competition.... far more than the oil companies have.

where aren't they regulated?

and the first part, obviously.. they're given monopoly status, they better be regulated.

[pow]

This article is poorly researched as it doesn't take into consideration two important facts: CAFE uses the old EPA driving cycle raw measurements, not the adjusted consumer MPG; and the new CAFE uses an attribute-based system supported by the industry, which sets lower targets for manufacturers of larger cars and trucks.

Running the numbers for a typical car—say, a Toyota Camry weighing 3,260lb (1,500kg) and averaging 26mpg—suggests it would need to shed a little under a third of its weight, at a cost of roughly $2,000, to meet the 2016 standard.

Wrong. The 22/33-mpg Camry, the typical large family sedan, already averages 35 mpg in CAFE-speak. With the 19/31-mpg 305-hp Mustang, Ford has managed to average 30 mpg CAFE using simple improvements (VVT, electric steering, six-speeds), even without EcoBoost, lightweight materials, or stop-start assist. The Cruze is 30% more efficient than a five year old Cobalt, while being one of the safest cars ever tested by Euro NCAP. There have been lots of opportunities to improve fuel efficiency cheaply, but manufacturers are only really focusing now because of CAFE.

These efficiency mandates may increase vehicle prices by a few hundred, but their implications on the national energy picture are far greater. As to improving vehicle safety, an arms race to higher curb weights isn't the answer - it's more about vehicle crash compatibility, road design, and driver training. Heavier vehicles handle more poorly, rollover more frequently, and when it comes to a head-on crash with a semi, you're still screwed.

Edited April 10, 2010 by pow

[Drew Dowdell]

cars have gotten very cheap over the last 10 years....but here's an example from before that too...

model T first year "$825.00. Over ten thousand were sold in its first year, establishing a new record. Four years later the price dropped to $575.00"

the first year was ~41 ounces of gold... the 4th year was ~29

huge inflation leading up to the 70's

"Buick Le Sabre $3,337 1970 "

that was ~95 ounces of gold, but obviously isn't a bare bones car like the model T

"Ford Pinto $2,078 1972 "

~60 ounces. if it was $35/..

but looked up the high/low and it's average was 57.. so that'd be 36 ounces

a new aveo?

"MSRP1: Starting at $11,965 "

that's ~ 11 ounces

so even with all the regulations, prices for a car are practically rock bottom... until GM (and others) has to raise prices because of previous and most likely more future inflation

so of course if prices increase substantially, very few people could afford it, so i don't see any positives from these "urgent regulations"...or it just shows how bad things are gonna get if it raises the $ prices >10%...? ... if they have to keep raising prices, they'll corner themselves, except for exports.... i'll stop there.

Again, the reason for these weight reductions is where fuel costs are going to go in the future. It's a much easier bet to reduce the weight of a vehicle <and hence it's fuel economy> than it is to make a bet on an alternative fuel infrastructure being built. Gas will hit $4.00 a gallon again this summer.

[Drew Dowdell]

where aren't they regulated?

and the first part, obviously.. they're given monopoly status, they better be regulated.

New York, New Jersey, Maryland, Texas, Michigan, Illinois, Ohio (partially), Rhode Island, Connecticut, Pennsylvania (partially), Florida (partially), California (was deregulated, then re-regulated after Enron, moving towards deregulation again). I'm sure there are others, but those are the states my company does business in.

And no, electric generation companies don't have a monopoly status there is a lot of competition there. The distribution companies (the wire owners) have a monopoly, but they aren't allowed to charge a markup on the cost of the power.

Without revealing who I work for, we are in the top 5 nationally in a very crowded market. Our expertise is in the commercial sector. We can analyze the hourly usage of a customer (say Home Depot or a GM Manufacturing plant) and make predictive purchases of power on that customer's behalf. We lock that customer in at a set KWH rate and then it's our job to find the best price for that customer's power.

Our company and companies like it help to drive down the cost of power on the wholesale market while at the same time giving a stable price to the end user.

[CanadianBacon94]

Another thing maybe for their next gen GM should attempt to make there wieght lightest by 500 pounds instead of heaviest by 500 Lbs

Edited April 10, 2010 by CanadianBacon94

[CSpec]

Wrong. The 22/33-mpg Camry, the typical large family sedan, already averages 35 mpg in CAFE-speak.

Could you explain this further? How is its average higher than the highway rating?

[Drew Dowdell]

I think because CAFE uses the old EPA rating system rather than the new one that went into affect in 2008

[pow]

Could you explain this further? How is its average higher than the highway rating?

CAFE uses the raw score obtained from the original EPA driving cycles:

The Guide and Label values are adjusted to account for the in-use short fall of EPA

numbers (EPA conducted a study and determined that real drivers in actual conditions get

90% of EPA’s city value and 78% of EPA’s highway value). The city value is multiplied

by 0.90 and the highway value is multiplied by 0.78.

Furthermore, in 2008 the EPA added additional driving cycles, which further widened the gap between the raw EPA number used for CAFE and the figures consumers actually see.

[CSpec]

Fascinating. So is that just a giveaway to the carmakers? It's confusing to have two different sets of numbers for fuel economy--so if you use the new (and presumably more realistic) EPA numbers, what is the actual CAFE 2016 goal?

[pow]

Fascinating. So is that just a giveaway to the carmakers? It's confusing to have two different sets of numbers for fuel economy--so if you use the new (and presumably more realistic) EPA numbers, what is the actual CAFE 2016 goal?

Not a giveaway... it's always been that way. It wouldn't be fair to automakers if their efficiency improvements were erased each time the test procedure changed and got harder. What's more important is the percentage improvements each year.

I would estimate the actual 2016 CAFE goal to be 25 "new MPG" city/highway combined.

[Camino LS6]

I agree with you that we should be addressing the fuel issue first... but I see no reason why we can't tackle weight as well. We have the technology already, it's not like someone has to go out and invent the stuff or build an infrastructure around it.

I never said we couldn't. But stong-arming the manufacturers to do it via CAFE is the wrong way to get there. It is limiting.

[loki]

Again, the reason for these weight reductions is where fuel costs are going to go in the future. It's a much easier bet to reduce the weight of a vehicle <and hence it's fuel economy> than it is to make a bet on an alternative fuel infrastructure being built. Gas will hit $4.00 a gallon again this summer.

ok, but if silver keeps going like it has ... towards $20 an ounce... that's still like .20 a gallon if we used silver dollars... that's not horribly that expensive. right now it's ~2.60/gal and $18 / ounce, that's like 14 cents per gallon...that's pretty damn cheap. but silver is prolly under valued right now because of probable fraud in the paper silver market.

update:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/gas-prices-history.html

1950 - 1959 $0.19 to $0.26

http://inflation.us/coins/coin_details.php?coinID=20

$3.2782652989664 is the melt value for the 1932-1964 Washington Quarter on Apr 10, 2010.

using the local price of ~2.65 ....price of gas would be 20.1 cents. on the low side of the 50's price, but not as low as it is right now.

Edited April 10, 2010 by loki

[Z-06]

I never said we couldn't. But stong-arming the manufacturers to do it via CAFE is the wrong way to get there. It is limiting.

Unfortunately the energy lobby is stronger than the auto manufacturer lobby.

[smk4565]

Camino

is there a way to run an engine on straight ethanol? safely? reliably?

Brazil does that, they use sugar cane ethanol.

A problem in the country for sure is the lack of production facilities to produce more ethanol and more diesel. We have a lot of dated refineries, and as was already mentioned, they aren't set up to produce diesel. Europe already beats our 2016 CAFE standards, if they did it, we should be able to do it. And Even if it does take 10 years to get new refineries up and running, that isn't an excuse not to build any, in fact it means we better start expanding now because it does take so long.

[Camino LS6]

I consider energy diversification to be a national security issue - one that we are ignoring.

[CSpec]

Brazil does that, they use sugar cane ethanol.

A problem in the country for sure is the lack of production facilities to produce more ethanol and more diesel. We have a lot of dated refineries, and as was already mentioned, they aren't set up to produce diesel. Europe already beats our 2016 CAFE standards, if they did it, we should be able to do it. And Even if it does take 10 years to get new refineries up and running, that isn't an excuse not to build any, in fact it means we better start expanding now because it does take so long.

Also, the US blocks the import of Brazilian cane ethanol and insists on subsidizing the Iowa-grown garbage to the hilt.

[Camino LS6]

Cornbelt ethanol is fine, as long as it is used close to home.

[dwightlooi]

My take of CAFE is to simply ignore it.

Let me explain... I am not against fuel efficiency. It is prudent to have fuel sipping offerings in a manufacturers line up in case fuel prices sky rocket and consumers flock to such vehicles as a 3~4 year development cycle is too long for an adjust on demand strategy. Having said that, the market should be the mechanism that decides what vehicles are built and in what numbers, not ideologues in Washington DC or some one's theory on "corporate social responsibility".

The way the CAFE law is written, there is nothing preventing automakers from completely ignoring it and still manufacture and sell cars. All it stipulates is a $5.50 penalty per 0.1 mpg per car manufactured if the manufacture does not meet CAFE standards. Let's put that into perspective...

Let's say the CAFE standard is 36 mpg. And you come up short at a 31 mpg (GM is currently at 31.3 BTW, Ford is at 31.1). What this means is that every car hitting the showrooms will carry a (36-31) x 10 x 5.50 = $275 CAFE "tax". That's all there is to it.

Now, what I recommend is that a manufacturer should have a full range of vehicles -- all designed to what they believe each segment of consumers want based on their best market research and understanding. They should then manufacture the vehicles in numbers, again, based solely on consumer demand. As for CAFE? They should let it fall where it may. However, to be fair, I'll amortize the entire CAFE tab only on those vehicles over CAFE mpg ratings. Beyond that, let's allow the market to decide. If you are a Global Warming coolaid drinker, prefer fuel economy over performance or if that couple of hundred dollars make or break your buying decision, buy the cars under CAFE ratings with no surcharge. If you want that Corvette or Tahoe? Well, they are there for you at a few hundred dollars more courtesy of Congress (and clearly marked as such on the sticker).

What an automobile manufacturer shouldn't be doing is making cars around the artificial CAFE standard -- performance cars that don't perform as well as they otherwise would, big SUVs that isn't as big as their buyers prefer, trucks that don't tow as much as their owners want, family cars with engines less refined due to reduced cylinder count, or saddle every buyer with "green technology" which they don't care for and don't want to pay for. They should also not gate production volume of various models to meet CAFE and end up with under supplying certain models and oversupplying others (which then leads to an unhealthy combination of heavy premiums and generous discounting).

I say the above based on the following premise:-

• It is perfectly legal to ignore CAFE.
  
• The CAFE penalty is small compared to the selling price of vehicles.
  
• It may cost more to meet CAFE that pass on the penalty.
  
• It is fundamentally unhealthy to the bottom line to meet the ideologies of the political class rather than market demands.
  

[daves87rs]

This article is poorly researched as it doesn't take into consideration two important facts: CAFE uses the old EPA driving cycle raw measurements, not the adjusted consumer MPG; and the new CAFE uses an attribute-based system supported by the industry, which sets lower targets for manufacturers of larger cars and trucks.

Wrong. The 22/33-mpg Camry, the typical large family sedan, already averages 35 mpg in CAFE-speak. With the 19/31-mpg 305-hp Mustang, Ford has managed to average 30 mpg CAFE using simple improvements (VVT, electric steering, six-speeds), even without EcoBoost, lightweight materials, or stop-start assist. The Cruze is 30% more efficient than a five year old Cobalt, while being one of the safest cars ever tested by Euro NCAP. There have been lots of opportunities to improve fuel efficiency cheaply, but manufacturers are only really focusing now because of CAFE.

These efficiency mandates may increase vehicle prices by a few hundred, but their implications on the national energy picture are far greater. As to improving vehicle safety, an arms race to higher curb weights isn't the answer - it's more about vehicle crash compatibility, road design, and driver training. Heavier vehicles handle more poorly, rollover more frequently, and when it comes to a head-on crash with a semi, you're still screwed.

Creepy, As I was just thinking along the same lines....

Just time for the automakers to get their asses in gear....

My take of CAFE is to simply ignore it.

Let me explain... I am not against fuel efficiency. It is prudent to have fuel sipping offerings in a manufacturers line up in case fuel prices sky rocket and consumers flock to such vehicles as a 3~4 year development cycle is too long for an adjust on demand strategy. Having said that, the market should be the mechanism that decides what vehicles are built and in what numbers, not ideologues in Washington DC or some one's theory on "corporate social responsibility".

The way the CAFE law is written, there is nothing preventing automakers from completely ignoring it and still manufacture and sell cars. All it stipulates is a $5.50 penalty per 0.1 mpg per car manufactured if the manufacture does not meet CAFE standards. Let's put that into perspective...

Let's say the CAFE standard is 36 mpg. And you come up short at a 31 mpg (GM is currently at 31.3 BTW, Ford is at 31.1). What this means is that every car hitting the showrooms will carry a (36-31) x 10 x 5.50 = $275 CAFE "tax". That's all there is to it.

Now, what I recommend is that a manufacturer should have a full range of vehicles -- all designed to what they believe each segment of consumers want based on their best market research and understanding. They should then manufacture the vehicles in numbers, again, based solely on consumer demand. As for CAFE? They should let it fall where it may. However, to be fair, I'll amortize the entire CAFE tab only on those vehicles over CAFE mpg ratings. Beyond that, let's allow the market to decide. If you are a Global Warming coolaid drinker, prefer fuel economy over performance or if that couple of hundred dollars make or break your buying decision, buy the cars under CAFE ratings with no surcharge. If you want that Corvette or Tahoe? Well, they are there for you at a few hundred dollars more courtesy of Congress (and clearly marked as such on the sticker).

What an automobile manufacturer shouldn't be doing is making cars around the artificial CAFE standard -- performance cars that don't perform as well as they otherwise would, big SUVs that isn't as big as their buyers prefer, trucks that don't tow as much as their owners want, family cars with engines less refined due to reduced cylinder count, or saddle every buyer with "green technology" which they don't care for and don't want to pay for. They should also not gate production volume of various models to meet CAFE and end up with under supplying certain models and oversupplying others (which then leads to an unhealthy combination of heavy premiums and generous discounting).

I say the above based on the following premise:-

• It is perfectly legal to ignore CAFE.
• The CAFE penalty is small compared to the selling price of vehicles.
• It may cost more to meet CAFE that pass on the penalty.
• It is fundamentally unhealthy to the bottom line to meet the ideologies of the political class rather than market demands.

I love it!

Rumor is Ford is considering that very Idea with their Trucks....

[CSpec]

Brilliant post. Thanks for the dose of reality.

[pow]

My take of CAFE is to simply ignore it.

Let me explain... I am not against fuel efficiency. It is prudent to have fuel sipping offerings in a manufacturers line up in case fuel prices sky rocket and consumers flock to such vehicles as a 3~4 year development cycle is too long for an adjust on demand strategy. Having said that, the market should be the mechanism that decides what vehicles are built and in what numbers, not ideologues in Washington DC or some one's theory on "corporate social responsibility".

The way the CAFE law is written, there is nothing preventing automakers from completely ignoring it and still manufacture and sell cars. All it stipulates is a $5.50 penalty per 0.1 mpg per car manufactured if the manufacture does not meet CAFE standards. Let's put that into perspective...

Let's say the CAFE standard is 36 mpg. And you come up short at a 31 mpg (GM is currently at 31.3 BTW, Ford is at 31.1). What this means is that every car hitting the showrooms will carry a (36-31) x 10 x 5.50 = $275 CAFE "tax". That's all there is to it.

Now, what I recommend is that a manufacturer should have a full range of vehicles -- all designed to what they believe each segment of consumers want based on their best market research and understanding. They should then manufacture the vehicles in numbers, again, based solely on consumer demand. As for CAFE? They should let it fall where it may. However, to be fair, I'll amortize the entire CAFE tab only on those vehicles over CAFE mpg ratings. Beyond that, let's allow the market to decide. If you are a Global Warming coolaid drinker, prefer fuel economy over performance or if that couple of hundred dollars make or break your buying decision, buy the cars under CAFE ratings with no surcharge. If you want that Corvette or Tahoe? Well, they are there for you at a few hundred dollars more courtesy of Congress (and clearly marked as such on the sticker).

What an automobile manufacturer shouldn't be doing is making cars around the artificial CAFE standard -- performance cars that don't perform as well as they otherwise would, big SUVs that isn't as big as their buyers prefer, trucks that don't tow as much as their owners want, family cars with engines less refined due to reduced cylinder count, or saddle every buyer with "green technology" which they don't care for and don't want to pay for. They should also not gate production volume of various models to meet CAFE and end up with under supplying certain models and oversupplying others (which then leads to an unhealthy combination of heavy premiums and generous discounting).

I say the above based on the following premise:-

• It is perfectly legal to ignore CAFE.
  
• The CAFE penalty is small compared to the selling price of vehicles.
  
• It may cost more to meet CAFE that pass on the penalty.
  
• It is fundamentally unhealthy to the bottom line to meet the ideologies of the political class rather than market demands.
  

The fact major automakers would rather abide by CAFE than pay the fines is telling enough. Improving fuel economy to 26 "new" MPG by 2016 is hardly as difficult or expensive as initially thought. And I think most consumers would rather pay an additional $300 for 10% better fuel economy - savings that will add up in the long run - than a dubious tax that has no immediate benefit to them.

Further, costs of any new technology, green or not, are amortized more quickly when you have economies of scale. Not investing in better fuel economy only puts you at a competitive disadvantage. And as for ignoring CAFE, that would give a brand such a crappy image... nobody wants to buy from a company that has to be dragged kicking and screaming into making technological improvements.

Soichiro Honda allegedly said that if higher efficiency standards are proposed, Honda would 50 more engineers to tackle the challenge whereas GM would hire 50 more lawyers. Whether that's true or not, it certainly helped them sell Hondas...

Edited April 11, 2010 by pow