AutoblogGreen

1. "with cost-effective technology improvements, based on an internal EPA study."

This reminds me of the Union of Concerned Scientists claiming that Ford could make the Ford Escape get 4 more MPG for $500. Of course they failed to ever actually demonstrate it beyond a paper study, and it turns out that most of the technologies mentioned are in GM's BAS system, which fails to live up to the citied performance UCS claimed were possible.

Basically IMHO 35 MPG will happen with a mix of Direct Injection, 6-Speed Trans, Double Clutches, Mild Hybrids, and maybe HCCI. Though i believe it will add about $3,000 to the cost of a car. (though depending on gas prices the savings might be worth it).

75 MPG by 2030 is just impossible, Period.

Sure PHEVS and alike will be possible by then, but for applications were people drive a lot or need a specialty vehicles (IE pickup) getting FE enough to meet that average is unlikely.

Posted at 10:16AM on Apr 17th 2008 by Mike Z

2. Correction, Ford Explorer

Posted at 10:16AM on Apr 17th 2008 by Mike Z

3. You could very easily get 4 more MPG out of a Ford Explorer for no extra cost. All you would have to do is put in a much smaller engine and live with 0-60 times of about 15 seconds. Will Ford do this? No, because people want big fast cars.

Posted at 10:40AM on Apr 17th 2008 by Chad

4. With any reasonable conversion between KWh and MPG, 50 MPG is easily accomplished with current technology.
Battery and oil price trends will make this cost beneficial in 5 or 10 years.

75 MPG might require minor sacrifices such as two passenger cars as one of the three vehicles the average household owns.
This could be accomplished by correcting the market to account for the externalities of oil use, but I think this is highly unlikely absent major supply disruptions.

Posted at 10:48AM on Apr 17th 2008 by TKG

5. I agree 40-50 mpg is possible right now. The question is will Americans buy enough of those cars? You could put a 2.0 liter non turbo engine in a Malibu with a 6 speed automatic and get an easy 32-35 mpg with the right gearing. However, the performance would be awful. By simply reducing engine size and upping transmission ratios, todays cars would get significantly better mileage with no other modifications. Add direct injection, low rolling resistance tires, electric steering and A/C and you could get even more mpg. These add significant cost but the tech is there. Back to my original question, would we buy these cars in enough numbers to make a difference? I say no. If/when regular hits $5.00 per gallon? Maybe.

Posted at 11:42AM on Apr 17th 2008 by Throwback

6. Chuckle of the day.

Technicallly you could improve fuel economy by going to an absurdly small engine. But merging on a US freeway with traffic move 75 mph on a onramp designed for 55 mph is pushing it today. It wouldn't take much degrading of acceleration performance to make that impossible to happen at all.

And buying a third car sort of speaks for itself.

Posted at 12:10PM on Apr 17th 2008 by jpm100

7. jpm100,

Not everyone needs to drive on the highway. I don't for example. You can get to anywhere in the U.S. without using a highway, it just takes a little longer. Or, in my case, when I had to drive 30 miles to Chicago for my old job, it was actually faster to take the regular roads.

Posted at 12:22PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Chad

8. The "nice" thing about being an EPA Beaureaucrat is you can issue paper studies and make public statements but you never have to actually BUILD ANYTHING!!!! It is easy to throw around "75 mpg" and vague engine and fuel improvement statements. Margo has a Masters in Engineering (from the Plastics Engineering School of UMass), 1978 and has been in government service since 1980. This equals virtually NO INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE. Until 1994 or so she was working on radiation and indoor air quality; if there is an application of that experience in ICE I'd like to know what that is.

Applying political correctness, we have people in charge of DOT, NHTSA, EPA and the FAA who know NOTHING ABOUT THE INDUSTRIES THEY REGULATE. Want to know why the FAA is in such a sorry state? Look at what we've had for administrators for the last 20 years.

Posted at 12:27PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Whopper

9. "Not everyone needs to drive on the highway. I don't for example. You can get to anywhere in the U.S. without using a highway, it just takes a little longer. Or, in my case, when I had to drive 30 miles to Chicago for my old job, it was actually faster to take the regular roads."

Chad, of course you realize that "regular roads" includes slower than optimum speeds, more time idling in stop and go traffic, stop lights etc.

Posted at 12:36PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Whopper

10. "While 75 mpg is a fanciful fight we'll leave for another day"

The Aptera Typ-1h in *gas only mode* gets 130mpg. Using normal grid electricity in the Typ-1e or Typ-1h, the CO2 emission equivalent is closer to 200mpg. Clean up the grid, and your CO2 emission equivalent will skyrocket. There have been small diesels on the market in Europe, such as the Citroen AX, that can achieve 75mpg for a while now. These numbers are anything but impossible. Just difficult.

It means largely ditching steel and using more composites. It means very small diesels and gasoline engines, preferably the former, using electric assist or pure electric power for all performance needs (aka, everything at a minimum must at least be a normal hybrid). It means extremely streamlined vehicles -- current style trends be damned. And it means using grid power wherever possible due to its higher efficiency. Do these things, and a *non-cheating* CAFE standard** of 75mpg is certainly possible -- and not even for a ridiculous fee. In fact, your average driver will probably ultimately *save* money, once appropriate batteries go into mass production, by their reduced fuel costs.

** -- I consider, say, calling the Aptera Typ-1h a "300 mpg car" cheating, since it's really "300mpg plus electricity". You need to account for that electricity.

Now, all of this said, transportation isn't the main source of CO2 emissions. It shouldn't have to bear the brunt alone; that would be foolhardy. Electricity generation, despite its efficiency, is the main culprit, simply because we use so much of it.

Also, the meat industry really needs to pick up the tab for its share of GHGs; meat production consumes a *LOT* of energy when you trace back things like the energy that went into making all of the feed. Unfortunately, world meat consumption has, in general, been rising in the past decade as poorer countries get wealthier.

Posted at 12:41PM on Apr 17th 2008 by KarenRei

11. "Chad, of course you realize that "regular roads" includes slower than optimum speeds, more time idling in stop and go traffic, stop lights etc."

Highways during rush hour don't exactly flow either. I got EXACTLY the same gas mileage in my Toyota celica (34 mpg) driving on the regular roads during rush hour as I did in stop and go highway traffic.

What's better driving a slower car with a tiny engine that can get say 40 mpg in realistic city driving or a faster car that can get 35 mpg on the highway under optimum conditions?

Posted at 1:20PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Chad

12. You could get 4 extra mpg out of the explorer: by using electric power steering, synthetic 75w-90 gear oil, rear drive, ZF 8 speed automatic, direct injection EcoBoost 2.0 I4.
Wait, that would be 5mpg more. (and no 0-60 of 15 seconds)


If GM wanted to, they could destroke the 2.4 ecotec I4 (88mm bore x 98mm stroke) by 16mm, for an even 2 liters. Use light weight conrods/pistons, and then you could skip the balance shafts. It should put out circa 155hp. Connect to the 6t40, call it a day.

Posted at 2:00PM on Apr 17th 2008 by MikeW

13. "You could get 4 extra mpg out of the explorer: by using electric power steering, synthetic 75w-90 gear oil, rear drive, ZF 8 speed automatic, direct injection EcoBoost 2.0 I4.
Wait, that would be 5mpg more. (and no 0-60 of 15 seconds)"

Yes, but how much would that add to the price of the car?

Posted at 2:08PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Chad

14. Current technology is easily capable of achieving 50 MPG with NO reduction in performance.
The ONLY compromise would be in the outside shape of the vehicle and this is a matter of taste that is pointless to debate, degustubus non est disputandum.
If it is in their interest, advertisers will make aerodynamic cars desirable.

At this point 50 MPG cars don't make economic sense, however, gas is going to go up and batteries are coming down.
In the near future, we will reach a tipping point and they will dominate the new car market.

Posted at 2:09PM on Apr 17th 2008 by goehring

15. "The ONLY compromise would be in the outside shape of the vehicle"


Which is a fancy way of saying 'Ugly'

Posted at 2:29PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Mike Z

16. "What's better driving a slower car with a tiny engine that can get say 40 mpg in realistic city driving or a faster car that can get 35 mpg on the highway under optimum conditions?"

That depends on what your time is worth.

Posted at 2:41PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Whopper

17. "Which is a fancy way of saying 'Ugly'"

Not everyone agrees with current styling trends. I find cars that are "chopped" trying to look sporty to be hideous, with their oversized front ends and tiny windows. What, do people have an aversion to being able to see ahead of their vehicle or something? On the other hand, I find the Aptera, with its smooth organic curves, large windows, and airplane heritage, to be one of the most beautiful vehicles I've ever seen. From the pics and videos of the Aptera mixed in with normal traffic, it feels like like watching a typical '90s or '00s car drive amidst a bunch of Model Ts.

To each their own, I suppose. But my "own" makes 75mpg not only possible, but not actually that hard, while yours limits us to far lower mpgs.

Posted at 2:44PM on Apr 17th 2008 by KarenRei

18. "Current technology is easily capable of achieving 50 MPG with NO reduction in performance."
Absolutely, I get that now...on my Sportster. goehring, today's technology isn't going to get you 50 mpg without a reduction in performance unless you are willing to sacrifice passanger capacity. It isn't just a matter of appearance, it is a matter of practicality/functionality.

Posted at 3:21PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Whopper

19. "What's better driving a slower car with a tiny engine that can get say 40 mpg in realistic city driving or a faster car that can get 35 mpg on the highway under optimum conditions?"

"That depends on what your time is worth."

I'm sorry I should have said a less quick (meaning acceleration wise) car. It would still be capable of 60 or 70 mph. You wouldn't waste that much time in a car that has slower acceleration.

Posted at 3:41PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Chad

20. KarenRei, I need some education since I am not familiar with the Aptera. Yes, I've seen photos, but I'm very curious about the suspension and crash testing results. Having ridden a trike I am familiar with a three wheeler's stability, or lack of it. Granted a two wheel front and single rear drive wheel is more stable, but still not as good as a four wheel setup, in my opinion. Are they using the articulated wheel suspension where the tires tilt in on turns like a two wheeler? Work in that area has shown a significant improvement over simple three wheel configurations. Without that system they will have to feature a very low CG or risk rollover problems.

Posted at 4:41PM on Apr 17th 2008 by Whopper