Easterbrook on horsepower to weight ratios

If you regulate FE isn't that basically a proxy for HP?

 

Yes! I don't agree with your generalization. While there are many drivers out there with high testosterone levels, or the need to make up for the lack thereof, I used to be one of the former; there are also many older and/or wiser drivers that are interested in fuel economy. Many drivers need a vehicle that can safely merge a family of 4 or more, or a car pool of 4 or more, safely onto a freeway or interstate and keep up with the flow of traffic. There are alot of roads in the country that are not as flat as they are in Oklahoma or Florida.

 

How would you track that though? Those other examples wouldn't work for petrol purchases. It's not like you buy from the same fuel station every time you fill up. There's no way to track (easily anyways) how much one is consuming, thus you'd just have to raise fuel taxes.

The auto mfgs can whinge all they want but it's utter tosh. They can easily make more fuel efficient cars at a reasonable price. The market is already showing this to be very true. They just don't want to change because they'll have to retool and rethink things (heaven forbid they have to exert themselves). The real issue here is dependence on foreign oil and the various economic and national security problems posed by it. Thus, we need to regulate fuel economy because we want to reduce our consumption of foreign oil. What would happen if someone developed an electric car that had crazy horsepower but consumed no liquid fuels? Is that what we want to be regulating? Seems the answer is no. Mind you, there shouldn't be much in the way of regulating HOW a manufacturer achieves the FE improvements (while maintaining a design that passes safely/emissions standards). We don't want to mandate any particular technology, we just want to weed out the ones that don't make the grade.

 

And they don't because ????? They couldn't handle all that profit?

 

Because they want the fat profit margins of SUVs. However, since those profits are toast they're already showing that it can be done. Market preference is for more fuel efficient vehicles. The market is punishing them severely for staying on the SUV gravey train for too long.

Yes, they have to retool to build their current FE cars in greater quantities. Furthermore, trimming a little HP and using more incremental FE engine technologies would be a plus. Ford and GM could simply bring some of their European models over here and easily bump their CAFE numbers. That and retiring things like the Excursion and Expedition would improve things further still.

 

Honda has shown that you don't need to be exotic. Their cars have sold like hot cakes because their fuel efficient. They did a much better job of anticipating the shift, though they do make a few pigs, at least for now.

 

Originally Posted by tripp
........ They can easily make more fuel efficient cars at a reasonable price. ...........


Hey! You're the one that said "they can easily" do it at a "reasonable price". I assumed you're "reasonible price" would include "reasonible" ROI for the stock holders. Either they can or they can't?

 

Jpadc: F.Y.I. Here's an interesting observation of a combination of regulation and voluntary reductions in consumption. Here, in metro Atlanta we have been having a severe draught for some time. The water utilities instituted a graduated scale where you paid a higher rate for greater usage. Also, there was rationing and self imposed restrictions by many citizens, resulting in a significant drop in water usage. So what happened to the water rates? The water utilities are raising the rates because there is not enough revenue coming in to cover oprationing costs. Go figure! We are now paying higher water rates for less water usage. So, I'm just saying, be careful when you think about adding regulation to reduce costs for the little guy. While the reduction in water usage helped our situation, it also raised the costs for those who "can't afford" it. Just passing on an observation.

 

Do not hold forth that kool-aid-drinking argument about how people
"need" to jump out of an on-ramp already going 70 MPH. That is
the number one specious excuse I hear. Does a loaded semi "need"
to go 0-60 in 7 seconds just to enter a highway?? I don't think
so. Drivers of all kinds of vehicles merge onto highways all
day every day, and frankly the presence of more high horsepower-
to-weight-ratio vehicles makes the whole situation WORSE as it
promotes the rampant rudeness we see today.
.
Take it as a challenge to merge SMOOTHLY or let others merge
in and still keep plenty of inter-vehicle distance. That requires
much more brainpower and awareness than just mashing a pedal
and leaving behind a cloud of hydrocarbons and coolant vapor
just because you think it somehow proves something.
.
_H*

 

The problem is that there needs to be far sighted policy. Also, regulating HP doesn't really get at the problem. Like I mentioned previously, if you're regulating HP and someone comes up with an EV that has lots of horsepower, are you really doing the country a service with your policy? I say that you are not. Fuel consumption and it's impact on public health, trade imbalances, national security, and the environment is the real issue. Yes, HP is a proxy, but it doesn't directly address the problem. FE does and will take care of the HP issue as well (though that's not really a problem is HP isn't tied to the superfluous consumption of petrol). Consumption of petrol is the issue. The Tesla roadster, for example, has loads of HP, but it doesn't use much in the way of petrol (and then it's quite indirect). Should we be regulating it more than a turbo cooper mini because it has more HP? That seems silly to me.

 

So what you're saying is that if you used up all of your water you'd be better off? You'd sure be paying less for the water that you didn't use so you're right there. Basically what I'm hearing is that you're paying a little more for a system that might actually be sustainable, versus one that is cheaping in the short term but extremely detrimental in the mid/long term.

 

Yes, but the beauty of electric motors is that they aren't less efficient at lower outputs like Otto cycle ICEs. Further, from many of the POVs that I mentioned, the high HP vehicle is still considerably more efficiency, consuming a lot less energy than any ICE on the road. In addition to that, the energy that it does consume comes from a variety of domestic resources, not largely foreign ones. Also, what about the bloke that's got the PV array on his roof and charges his car at home? You can't do that with any ICE or CNGV so what then?

 

It would help if you had a clue as to what you were talking about. I did not mention anythin about 70mph. You have obviously never driven in or around the metro Atlanta area. Many of the ramps or short and they have begun adding stop light at the end of the ramps to try to control the flow. You need to be able to merge smoothly, as you pointed out, whether you are alone in the car or have a full load of passengers. Perhap the driving conditions are different in your area or perhaps you just cut in forcing others to brake or perhaps you just don't care. I had given you more credit than that, from some of your other posts. But when you attack my opinion as kool-aid-drinking, I realized I do not need to respect you opinions any longer, since you know it all and have no respect for someone else's opinion.
When I'm driving my car, with my wife and family, including our grandchildren, and have to pull out and merge into traffic or make speed adjustments for lane changes, here in metro Atlanta where speeds can range from 45 to 85 and above, on the interstates, many ramps are short and drivers overly agressive, and there can be as many as 8 or more lanes to navigate, since on/off ramps can be on either the right of the left, I need to be confident that I can make my lane changes smoothly and safely.
If I still lived back in Lancaster or York Pennsylvania, I probably could avoid those types of situations.
I still respect your mechanical knowledge but your respect for anothers opinion could use a little adjustment.

 

The real question is "what do you want?" Do you want the unrestrained freedom to run this country into the ground or do you step back and say, "wait a minute, we need to do something here to protect ourselves from a confluence of several dangerous problems". I'm for the latter. We need some policy to help steer this country to a better future. That doesn't mean that we regulate companies into the ground (the market is already doing that for some of them) but that we provide some guidance. "this is where we want to be... etc". It doesn't matter what technology gets us there, we shouldn't legislate this tech or that. We should support all techs that help us get to where we want to be. We might also want to steer people away from high HP vehicles. Gas guzzler taxes plus the cost of fuel will help with that.

I did find it interesting that a 263HP sedan can accelerate as fast as a 427 HP V8 coupe (Tarus vs 1968 'vette). Engine technology has come a long way but it's defo serving the wrong master at the moment.

 

So what kind of car do you use in that situation? I'm assuming that it's not a prius...

 

Sure. What's the ROI for GM's stockholders using their current business plan? Compare that to Honda...

The old saying "You've got to spend money to make money" comes to mind... or in the case of GM, "You've got to spend money to stay out of chapter 7".

And they are... GM to Double Global Production of Small Four-Cylinder Engines by 2011; New $370M Plant in Flint