US Vehicle Efficiency Hardly Changed Since Model T

Is that why the Japanese, in particular, are kicking the market out from under them?

Exactly! MPG is only part of the efficiency picture - one has to factor "load carrying" capability into the equation. If you look only at "miles per gallon", modern railroads and huge freight carrying planes like the 747SP and its brethren would not seem so attractive.

You brought up a good point, as they say figures don't lie but liars do figure. I don't know what the maximum gross vehicle weight was for trucks in the 20s and 30s but I'm sure it did not approach the maximum gross weight of today's commercial trucks.

The article is also somewhat misleading when referring to the fuel economy of the 1970s vehicles and subsequent improvement.

Emissions standards of the early 70s were met at the cost of fuel economy, lower compression ratios etc. horsepower per cubic inch also dropped dramatically.

1973 was probably the worst year, after which catalytic converters allowed some retuning of the engines.

Mandating higher fuel economy undoubtedly accelerated the development of technologies such as electronic engine management, which allowed the engines to be retuned for peak efficiency and minimize emissions, however computer technology was in its infancy in the 70s.

Don't forget speed..... I doubt the model T could do 120 kph and get 25 mpg

Personally, I think top speed would still not violate most school zone speed limits.

Granddad used to say that his T "would go 60 (100 kmh) but you real soon wished you were doing 50."

Okay, let's pretend that the difference in mileage is zero, which 3 mpg essentially is.

So, I ask the question, which car would you rather own as a daily driver?

Most people have a set of criterial such as safety, comfort, power, style, etc.

Let's compare the air conditioning between the two cars. How about brakes? What about acceleration? What about impact resistance? How about ride quality? How far can I drive between filling up? How much luggage space is there? How many will it comfortably seat. How well does it handle in dry, rain, ice, and snow? How well does the heater work?

I personally hope that the tax payer did not pay much (or at all) for this study.

That is a very cool treasure you own.

Nevertheless, people, in general, are also loath to own a flyweight vehicle in the face of other SUVs, delivery trucks, and semi-tractor-trailers closing in on their rear view mirrors.

I did not realize the Model T could go 60 MPH. had A/C, wipers, reliable starter, nice suspension, or did Michael Sivak and Omer Tsimhoni at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute in Ann Arbor piss away a $100,000.00 grant to come up with that.

phoenix911

In answer to the last question. Most likely. Unfortunately, while the money spent on this type of study SHOULD be recoverable (such cr*p) no one who is involved with awarding these studies will ever challenge them. (ie: NO QUALITY CONTROL ON SPONSORED RESEARCH)!!!

Just remember that the reporter has "cherry picked" a few lines out of a (probably) lengthy report and may not be accurately paraphrasing the conclusion.

Quite irresponsible of the granter, to issue $100,000 for research on google topic categories

An excellent example of intellectual biggotry...

Also non-inclusive are diesel and hybrid fueled vehicles.

Did the oil industry support prohibition I wonder? Practically eliminating a competing fuel type?

On the other end, The basic concept is quite valid.

I have two friends who used to drive late 80's Honda CRX's. With a few performance modifications they both reliably achieved 50+ MPG (and the cars were quite fast!). Why are we seemingly locked into this ~35MPG efficiency? I believe we have come quite a way since the 80's in technological advancements. With all this concern to "Go green" why does the brand new 2009 "economy" fleet not get better than the low to mid 40's in MPG? I mean, C'mon, the 2009 Honda civic hybrid gets 40-45 MPG, which is LESS mileage than the 1980's (non fuel injected) CRX, AND ITS A HYBRID for Christs sake! Granted, the CRX is a small, lightweight, economy sports car that only seats 2, but still... If big oil and big auto weren't married things might be a bit different.

Geesh... My old 86 Honda civic hovered around 35-40 MPG... and it was a carburated four door with junk in the trunk!

Reread some of these posts. That car you had compared to a new car are two different animals (weight, size, and performance).

The reason the difference is mileage is so little is because the evil and misinformed consumers have once again run amok and determined for themselves what they want to drive (instead of listening to Al Gore). ;-)

I completely understand they are two different cars. My point is the best mileage you can get from any Honda on the market today is no better than that of the 80's. The "Green" movement has brought out "Smart" cars which are smaller, lighter, and less comfortable than that of the cars I gave examples of, with WORSE mileage! (and ugly as well)

I share the Exact same sentiment with you about Al Gore.

My point is that If I wanted a "standard" car without AC, or power windows, or any fancy stuff that gets 50+ MPG I have to go back in time 20+ years. Today's Hybrid Vehicles get worse mileage than the CRX, Isn't the whole point to get better milage with this Tech? I dont care If they have all the creature comforts to keep you cool, and comfortable on your hour commute. Its just sad that we dont have the option to pick up a 75+MPG off the lot If I wanted one, I guarentee we have the tech to build one.

Quick side story: I knew a guy who drove a 79 honda civic hatchback cross country (option A pictured below). He logged well over 1,000,000 miles on the origional engine, with only minor repairs. He chose that car because it was comfortable, and got 35+ MPG.

Which would you rather drive?

A: 41/54MPG

B:42/51MPG

Or...

C:33/41MPG

Now you tell me that that smart car is safer, and more comfortable than either of the other two... WITH LESS MILAGE! Lets see... Its not as fast, Its lighter, Much less attractive... I fail to see that we are really making a full scale attempt at actually making more efficient vehicles... Its a big Joke, and we are the punchline.

Always love the Convo. AH.

I know, I know.. It's just Crazy!

Great points and data. In the end it all gets down to what the customer wants. If people really had high mileage as their number one criteria when shopping for a car, then there would be many, many more cars with much higher mileage ratings than we have today. However, it simply isn't the priority that drives the market. Just look at the horse power ratings for a lot of sedans these days. Many are getting close to 300 hp! Crap, 200 hp back in the 80's was a big deal. Mine is just shy of 400!!!

I see the tide turning just a little, but gas prices are not high (from a consumer perspective) and there is not enough pain to drive changes in the manufacturing sector.

My memory is foggy on this, but wasn't there a change in the way the EPA mileage standards were calculated (by the government) about 10 to 15 years ago?

I know that my car far exceeds its actual sticker ratings on the highway. It was rated at about 24 mpg, but I get easily 27 at 80 mph and can get over 30 if I drop that speed to about 65 mph. I have seen 33+ on some trips, but it is a pretty boring way to drive. ;-) Around town I get about what the sticker claims, but I have a bit of a lead foot. ;-)

You made a great point too when you wrote, "If people really had high mileage as their number one criteria when shopping for a car, then there would be many, many more cars with much higher mileage ratings than we have today."

It is rather ironic that our auto manufacturers are really good about giving us what we want, when our children and grandchildren will pay dearly for it.

I've often wondered (out loud at the Ford dealership) why a 2008 Ford Ranger 3.0L gets 12.5% worse mileage than a 1986 Ford Ranger 2.9L. (The 2008 has 8 more horsepower-Yea Ford!) The sad fact is that if Ford can produce a vehicle that gets 12.5% less mpg and only 6% more hp than the same model produced twenty-two years ago, and people will buy it, why should they spend a dime to change anything.

"It is rather ironic that our auto manufacturers are really good about giving us what we want, when our children and grandchildren will pay dearly for it."

Let's explore that statement a little. Who do you believe is at fault here? Should manufactures wag their fingers at us and say, "Shame on you" and build what they think we should drive? Or is it the consumers' fault for being naive?

Should the government step in and say, "You have been acting childish and selfish, so we are going to take that decision away from you"?

Would we really want a world where we empower government and/or the manufacturing sector to make important decisions for us?

I don't think the answer is an easy one, but I certainly do not like the idea of government acting as our nanny. One look at the exploding deficit and US debt tells us that we already have a situation where our descendants will be paying dearly for it, so I see no responsible help in that direction. I think the responsibility squarely sits on our shoulders, so how do we begin to act socially responsible on these issues?

"... and people will buy it, why should they spend a dime to change anything." Exactly!

I totally agree with you... And to strengthen your points...

I drive a Jeep Wrangler with a 4.0L which gets ~20MPG, so I really cant say much without looking like a hypocrite. I have definitely given up mileage, for the "fun to drive" aspect.

I just wish the potential we have from a tech standpoint was reflected in the cars we have to choose from when we go auto shopping. But the priorities (in the US at least) are escalades, and hummers, which ironically (pulling this figure out of thin air) 95% of probably never have their 4WD engaged, or ever see anything but pavement. At least I frequent the wilderness in my jeep, and use the 4WD often.

Many have mentioned were still comparing apples to oranges. Emissions standards continue to march forward, as do safety standards. My avatar weighs 3840 pounds, much smaller vehicles weigh more today. My 1964 GTO was comparable size and weighed 3450 pounds or so. By 1970 additional crash standards had added 400 pounds to the same size car.

So possibly the real debate should be how safe is safe, and how clean do we really need. Emissions have been reduced by an off the top of the head figure of 97% to 99% for A current model year car compared to the 1960 uncontrolled emissions.

There is no free lunch, Newton's laws of motion still apply whether we want them to or not. Thermal dynamics still apply trade-offs are made for safety and emissions.

I'm confused as to how emissions have been reduced, yet all the "laws" still apply.

The laws of thermodynamics with Einstein's theory of relativity give me the impression that the only possible way to reduce emissions is to increase fuel efficiency. Anything else is just a patch.

I guess I should be content with a bad gas (co) being changed to a different bad gas (co2). I probably would be, if I were a tree.

HelloBarchetta:

You Said "I'm confused as to how emissions have been reduced, yet all the "laws" still apply".

As long as you're using a fuel that contains other elements besides hydrogen and as long as you're ingesting an atmosphere that contains more than oxygen there are other emissions to deal with.

Compression ratios have been lowered to not only to deal with NOx emissions but due to the reduced octane of current fuel.

The thermal dynamics of the situation is squeezing the explosion into a smaller space causes higher cylinder pressure and increased efficiency. Previous test run in the early 70s revealed that it was actually cheaper to run a high compression premium fuel engine than a low compression regular fuel engine.

Not only was there more horsepower per cubic inches available but the fuel economy increase more than paid for the difference in the cost of the fuels i.e. regular to premium.

You can use Einsteinian equations if you want, there's a minimal difference in the results however. Newtonian mechanics remain valid 1/2 MV² tells you simply that more energy is required to accelerate a heavier object to the same velocity.

I don't know the exact figures and obviously they would vary by the vehicle however producing crash hardened vehicles increases their weight, there's no doubt about this if you compare the the weight of current vehicles to previous generations.

Other factors also apply in dealing with emissions. Removing lead from gasoline for example.

Lead is not only poisonous to us, but also to various components of the emission systems i.e. catalytic converters and oxygen sensors.

Previously in their greed oil companies added prodigious amounts of tetraethyl lead to fuel to increase the octane rating. Tetraethyl lead is cheap.

Adding lead to fuel to increase the octane is a rapidly diminishing return, comparatively small amounts raised fuel octane considerably.

To completely remove lead from fuel requires additional refining (to obtain the desired octane rating) and results in less usable gasoline per barrel of oil.

So my point is simple, and I don't pretend to have the answer. Where is the balance between emissions safety and fuel economy?.

Should the increased mining, pumping, and other parasitic cost and related emissions increases, be factored in to a "total emissions" figure when setting emissions standards?

My personal opinion is we need to consider the consumption of our natural resources when setting emissions and safety standards.

If we are to sustain the world population we can't return to the horse and buggy.Global population has already exceeded the ability of our planet to support with current technology indefinitely. In a recent well popularize incident "Octomom" the outcry was Primarily financial in origin.

Nobody wants to address the real subject of irresponsible family sizes and the impact it is having on our planet.

Therefore the only remaining solution is to make the most of our natural resources and accept that life is hazardous, and compromises have to be made.

We ran into this with large diesel trucks designed to meet the latest emissions standards. Fuel economy went down, and the amount of waste heat being thrown off by the engines went way up, to the point it made the cabs nearly uninhabitable in summer. So we ended up buying A/C for the newest trucks (more fuel use and waste heat.) All this to meet politically imposed limits on stack emissions.

An engineering based solution would have been to optimize the engines to get the most horsepower/hours per gallon (kwh/litre) of the best available fuel. Push the thermodynamic efficency as far as you can, and you reduce fuel consumption per ton/mile, which reduces overall emissions and fossil fuel use.

Hello Mark:

It is a shame but it still seems that not just our legislators and the public suffer myopia when dealing with environmental issues, some scientists and engineers are afflicted.

Normally I would be hesitant to quote from a sitcom such as I dream of Jeannie however I remember a line from my childhood days "your world is a complex place".

Who says there's no wisdom on television merely moving pollution i.e. increase mining and drilling from one area of the world to another to reduce emissions at a point becomes the height of insanity.

Devouring natural resources in a quest for a paper zero emissions is unthinkable. Unfortunately many environmentally minded people apparently still believe in genies and not engineering and science.

The pure engineering view that you expressed could easily be balanced against environmental concerns and a reasonable compromise reached. Unfortunately I sincerely doubt that will ever happen.

Here in California we once again have set our own standards for emissions, currently a lawnmower produces more emissions per year than a new car, when is enough enough!

http://www.peoplepoweredmachines.com/faq-environment.htm

Not only are we paying premium prices for our vehicles and experiencing reduced fuel efficiency , but we are also covering the bureaucratic overhead.

I have had friends who worked for import car manufacturers and therefore I have some first-hand knowledge of the bureaucracy. If a car comes into California with 49 state emissions, it is actually more economically viable to destroy the vehicle and take the tax deduction than deal with the bureaucracy to export it to another state.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it myself. Talk about waste.

"... currently a lawnmower produces more emissions per year than a new car, when is enough enough!"

I don't think so.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Story?id=98532&page=1

If the above study is true, and the average car goes 12,500 miles per year, that equates to 125 hours of mowing! I live in Florida and I don't come anywhere close to that number of hours!

Actually, my riding tractor has 35.5 hours on it after almost 2 years of use on our lawn. That's less than 20 hours a year in sunny Florida.

I think that statement is more environmental BS to make people feel guilty! It works because few people bother to check facts or even use their brain to run a reality check on the numbers.

You are spot on to ask, "when is enough enough!" ;-) Wish more people would ask questions.

This is not the only reference I've seen referring to lawnmower emissions. I may not totally believe the statistics, If you wish view it as satirical sarcasm. You might as well use their own lies against them.

One thing for sure the EPA is a self-serving organization, they have to find something to keep to bureaucracy going.

I believe we have reached a point of rapidly diminishing returns in further reducing emissions. Emphasis should be placed on improving fuel economy instead of reducing emissions. Even if that means revisiting current emission standards.

My six-year-old motorcycle has just reached 11,000 miles, and supposedly produces far less emissions than lawnmowers and is driven far less than a car.

The state of California in their infinite wisdom has recently enacted legislation that will require motorcycles to have a biannual smog inspections.

The new legislation will only increase the cost of ownership add to bureaucracy and do little or nothing to promote cleaner air. Admittedly the motorcycle is a luxury and not a necessity. However three quarters of its mileage is short trip single passenger usage. If the motorcycle wasn't sitting in the garage, all those miles would be on a pickup truck that gets one third of the fuel economy (not nearly as fast or fun to drive ) .

So there after riding lawn mowers motorcycles now. Instead of increasing the cost of non-necessary vehicles, perhaps another tact should be taken.

I have my high fuel economy vehicle and will always require a pickup truck. Instead of legislating us to death with ever increasing expenses. Emissions and fuel economy concerns could be addressed by making it easier to own a second limited use vehicle. Whether that is a motorcycle or disposable tin box economy car.

I'm confused as to how emissions have been reduced

The state of California simplified it by requiring fresh air to be pumped into the exhaust system

"The state of California simplified it by requiring fresh air to be pumped into the exhaust system"

Not necessarily a bad thing, if the air is being introduced upstream of the catalyst.

Only during the first seconds of starting the engine, then the air is turned off.

Essentially it is a legal cheat used by all automakers to pass CA smog check.

It does absolutely nothing to reduce total emissions since the operational time is only a few seconds, but think of how good you can feel knowing that the CA legislators have done their good job.

The only downside is that you, the consumer, pay extra money for the car (due to the cost of the smog pump) and you have to pay maintenance to fix it when/if it breaks so you can pass the next smog test.

I know a number of friends that have a particular car that requires about $5,000 worth of work to fix clogged SAI ports. When carbon plugs the ports, it will not pass smog tests and you have to tear down the top end of the engine to decarbonize the ports.

"I know a number of friends that have a particular car that requires about $5,000 worth of work to fix clogged SAI ports. When carbon plugs the ports"

Bylaw there is a limit to how much you can spend for repairs before being exempted. Of course the fault could trip the system into an open loop and potentially result in decreased performance and fuel economy.

It might be worth trying some preventive maintenance.

http://www.kronowit.com/porsches/sai-flush.html

An excellent link!