Published: Wednesday, Jan. 30 2013 9:55 a.m. MST
Your know, it is easy to identify when someone has been doing their job way too
long and their ideas become myopic. There are just so many problems with the
arguments presented that it is hard to know where to start. The example of the
steam engine and the rebound effect.... what the heck was the option.... stay
with old inefficient technologies so that we don't have industrial
progress? What is the parallel the author is proposing? We keep combustion
engines inefficient so that we don't increase the amount we drive?The whole notion that we can't engineer better cars without compromising
safety is crazy. My wife drives a diesel BMW SUV that averages in the mid to
high 20s for mpg... and still does 0-60 in six seconds. It also happens to
weigh 2 tons. To get that same performance in a gas engine you drop into the
mid teens for MPG. I recently talked to a coworker who is driving a diesel
Passatt to work - and is getting mid to upper 40s for his commute. Another
drives a new ford Fusion hybrid.... mid 50 mpg as we'll. This is not
eco-ness gone amuck.
To those of you who believe the EPA and all of its regulations are for the
"good" of the people why don't you look into all they are really
doing? They are testing and continue to test what they are calling
carsinagens and deadly pathogens on people. Inspite of court rulings to stop.They are lying about all their junk science and using it to increase
regulations. Look into what they have actually been doing with your tax
dollars. Why would any smart person get into one of these little
"cars" and expect they can zig in and out of traffic without getting
themselves killed?They do not consider that large cars, SUVs and
semitractor trailers can not see them. If you are driving one of these you are
taking a big risk with your life everytime you get in your gocart!Don't be self righteous about them either, the semis are paying for the
lion share of your roads!
There is always a PRICE....Example...One Asian vehicle manufacturer has
recently eliminated the spare tire to save weight thus get better mileage. You
now get "run flat" tires on some models; these tires allow aprox 50
miles of use when flat and then must be replaced at a cost of close to $500.00
EACH!Example...Several Asian vehicle manufacturers REQUIRE high
dollar motor oils such as 5w40 or 0w20, these oils double the cost of an oil
change and do help attain a MARGINAL increase in mileage; however the savings DO
NOT pay for the added cost of the oil. Example...One American
manufacturer produces a vehicle that has a plastic underliner to provide better
air flow thus better mileage...but when its damaged it DIMINISHES fuel mileage.
They have become Desperate and your safety is in FACT in question
I drove a Buick Le Sabre it got 28 mpg I buy Kia Spectra 5 it gets any where
between 25mpg to 32mpg not ever consistent. So I figure I probably average 28mpg
and give up a lot of room and the Buick is a heavy car. I don't see how we
can't get better gas mileage in our big vehicles. Shoot we can even try
putting little wind vanes all over our cars to generate electricity to power our
cars at high speed. What ever happened to Brown gas? We have the technology why
not use it? I really don't think we want to or those with all the money
want us to think there is no way it will happen. Secret combinations I tell you,
secret combinations the down fall of our Society as we know it.
How interesting, now I've been in two nearly fatal car crashes in LA in my
Toyota Prius. In both cases, I did not cause the accident and was hit by much
larger, bigger, less fuel efficient SUVs. In both cases, my car saved my life.
The whole front end was smashed in each collision and in the second accident,
the heavier, less fuel efficient older model (read 1980s) SUV not only was
totaled as well, it rolled and the driver was injured. Me? Well, I barely felt
the impact and my airbags didn't even have to deploy. My car is fuel
efficient, safe, elegant and fits the bill to bring us into the energy efficient
future. Why are so many DN subscribers backwards politically, religiously,
socially and apparently know nothing about science or what's going on in
the lives of their neighbors. Maybe a Smart Car is not the icon of safety in a
crash with a large SUV, but the majority of these fuel efficient cars are, just
look at their crash ratings. I think that might be too hard though if all you
can see is how much you hate liberals and Obama.
We should go back to horse and buggy. A horse doesn't require all those
For all those of you who are opposed to the new CAFE standards, hope you like
the Utah air! Breathe in deeply! That's the smell of all those SUVs
getting 12 mpg.
this car looks like it's already been in a head on accident!!
What the problem is we have a writer that has quoted a bunch of Lawyers that
"know" something about cars. I believe the EPA's date is way too
far off. There is absolutely no reason we can't meet the goal in 5 years.
Cars won't have to be made of Carbon Fiber or other exotic materials and
the vehicles will still meet the current safety standards and we can still have
8-12 passenger vehicles. First step is to use diesel engines (these
engines are already in production for Europe) As an example the Porsche Cayenne
with a diesel engine will get 33 mpg might not seem like much but this car
weights over 6500 lbs (as much as a full size 3/4 truck) Second
step is to make the cars lighter - solution aluminium (side affect - AL can
safely absorb more energy than steel, hence a safer car) Third step
is to decrease drag ie rolling resistance and aero.Sure there are
other things that can be done, but these can be done in 5yrs or less. What we don't need is a bunch of naysayers, misleading the public. We
have the best Engineers the Planet has ever seen!
These "laws" about gas mileage remind me of Camelot, where it was
decreed that it only snowed at night time, and the sun shone everyday. Good
luck in enforcing legislation that goes against the laws of nature...or
In 1977, engineers at Shell wrote an interesting book titled 'Fuel Economy
of the Gasoline Engine', published by John Wiley & Sons, New York. Most
interesting of all is the information on page 221, stating that they had
succeeded in achieving a fuel economy of 377 mpg in 1973, using a 1959 Opel.Perhaps it is time to revisit this lost knowledge.I'm
sure that if we did, it would be possible to incorporate it into a car that is
fairly resilient in the event of an accident.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments