Toon: That would be too difficult!

[n2doc]

[Tesha]

1. I don't normally defend the automakers but there's some truth in that caption.

It's easy to add gee-gaws and gizmos and the driving public seems
to have both an unlimited appetite for them and a willingness to pay
for them.

But increasing the fuel efficiency of personal automobiles *IN A WAY
THAT THE BUYING PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT* is a very hard technical
challenge. The public doesn't want smaller cars (that will be more
aerodynamically efficient). The public doesn't want lighter cars (that
would have less mass to accelerate). The public doesn't yet accept
alternative fuels like diesel or electricity.

And because of the underlying physics of the situation, there's very
little room left with which to improve the efficiency of big gasoline-
powered cars.

So what should be done?

We'll probably just keep driving big inefficient gasoline-powered cars
until we can't afford to do it anymore. But at least we'll have holographic
heads-up navigation displays and in-car 3-D entertainment systems...

Tesha

[jimlup]

2. Yes but I think all those add ons are just cost increase gimicks

I don't want any of them. I don't even want power windows. I'd rather just have a working and efficient car but that isn't what the automakers want to sell me.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. You are a tiny, tiny portion of the market.

I feel the same way about bicycles, and the damn suspension they insist on putting in on one end, the other, or both. It's useless to me, makes the bike feel 'squishy', it's a maintenence problem, and I just don't want it.

Good luck getting anything but a road bike frame without it. Especially in the less-expensive models.

manual transmissions in cars are going the same way. I skipped Ford and Chevy for a Nissan truck, (I do need a truck for some things, but absolutely do not use it as a commuter) simply because Nissan offered a manual 6-speed, and neither ford nor chevy offered on at all, except on specific big diesels.

they offer the options that they can still capture the most consumers with, and that's it. Doesn't matter which product we're talking about.

[Schema Thing]

3. what should be done?

higher fleet mpg should be mandated, of course. Then the public can make their choices from a better menu.

[unblock]

4. i don't think mandating average fleet mpg is a particularly good way to do it

it permits the automakers to give the public a choice and the public, or at least a large segment thereof, seems to gravitate to the guzzlers. so the automakers have to supply a wide range of efficiencies, which is more expensive and the presence of the big, heavy guzzlers reinforces the "need" in the public's mind for big and heavy vehicles.

if instead, cars below a certain minimum were simply banned, or a large surtax placed on them, or more simply a higher gas tax (accompanied with aid for the poor), i think the incentives would work better.

if the automakers made ONLY fuel-efficient cars, there would be fewer hulks on the road and therefore the public would gradually accept the lighter, smaller cars.

[Enthusiast]

5. We need the option of

small displacement turbo-diesels.

[Tesha]

6. No kidding!

Europe is full of high-performance, fun-to-drive, economical
diesels. Here in America, we have a choice of VW TDIs or
uhh, does Mercedes still import any?

Tesha

[Enthusiast]

7. Sometimes I think the PTB want us

to continue driving SUVs. If we only could have valued conservation in the 1980s.