I simply don't understand auto makers aversion to fuel efficiency

[underpants]

As noted on CrooksandLiars HEREapparently Ford and Chrysler execs talked to Cheney before the EPA suddenly overruled its entire staff and precedent to reject California's application to impose greenhouse-gas regulations greater than those of the Feds.

Okay here is what I really don't understand

Why don't US automakers want to have more fuel efficiency? Why do they even care? They don't sell gas they sell cars why not sell what there CLEARLY is a huge demand for?

I have seen "What happened to the electric car?" as well as watched this happened before but I still don't understand it. Are they in cahoots with the oil companies?? Is it that strong of a alliance? Why?

:shrug: Maybe I am just a witless dolt.

[ThomWV]

1. Of necessity better milage means smaller cars and smaller cars mean less profit

That it.

[underpants]

2. Oh

They can't make better running cars in the full size sedan model? Really? )I know that we both know the answer to that)

I understand what you say but that sounds like an excuse by them

[focusfan]

60. It would be easy to have 35 M.P.G. Crown Victoria just go Diesel

The fed is wanting super clean diesel that is mostly why we don`t have them.In my opinion what is running in Europe is plenty clean enough.Another reason is the way people race from one red light to the next,diesel tend to be a little slower than gas.Most still remember the junk General Motors built in the 70`s and 80`s and are afraid of them.

[Tesha]

16. If they can sell the same-old-shit with minimal engineering and development costs...

If they can sell the same-old-shit with minimal engineering
and development costs, they make more profits. If they need
to develop new engines, new body materials, and the like,
that all costs money.

Also, SUVs were extremely profitable vehicles for the American
car manufacturers. They were, after all, basically nothing but
tarted-up pickup trucks sold for very high prices, and pickup
trucks are extremely inexpensive vehicles to build. Any shift
away from SUVs will cost the manufacturers in terms of profit
margin.

Tesha

[goddess40]

43. and they'd have to admit there isn't enough oil for spoiled Americans

[trogdor]

62. They'd have to pay overtime to a bunch of engineers.

Better to grab a bunch of stuff off-the-shelf and try to convince the public it's not a COTS-mobile.

[mdmc]

3. Detroit can legally make crap for the sheeple

They will always get govt. contracts (fed, local cops, yadda), so why make something fuel efficient when they can profit from crap.

[formerrepuke]

4. There's a greater profit margin for them on trucks and SUVs.. no so much

with compacts.

[catmandu57]

5. To them bigger means more

The bigger the vehicle the more material and the more money that comes in especially on the interest.

[bemildred]

6. Nobody likes to change.

Selling bullshit and image is much less work than competing on quality and cost.

[DS1]

7. because American car execs are useless

overpaid dickheads

[Greyhound]

63. Bingo! There is an aristocracy in the American auto industry that stretches back

to its origins. Nearly all of the top level executives in the American industry were born into their positions. They have no particular qualifications and are only interested in maintaining the status quo.

They squash any innovation and are hostile to any outside influence or control.

[BuyingThyme]

8. Had they had an aversion to better fuel efficiency, would Cheney

have visited them?

Or did Cheney visit them to assure that they would have an aversion to better fuel efficiency.

[OzarkDem]

9. Foreign automakers "get it"

and they still manage to make good profits while producing efficient, well made autos.

Making quick profits and short term benefits with little planning for the future is an integral part of US corporate culture. US business will continue to do business this way as long as we have politicians willing to help them.

[underpants]

11. See post #7

You both bascially said the same thing

[stillcool]

34. nothing changes...

unless the bottom line is affected. I recall that U.S. auto-makers were not spurred into making any advanced safety features until the foreign markets started to chip away at their market share. I'm pretty ignorant about Ralph Nader's contribution to manufacturing, but I guess what ever accomplishments he may have made don't matter anymore, since he's now persona non grata.

[lildreamer316]

10. Here's the really weird thing:

I have a sneaking suspicion that the automakers are starting to make more fuel-efficient models of some cars and just not telling anyone. For whatever reason (lobbyists, oil companies, I dunno but there is some publicity-related reason) they are not wanting the word to be that they are making radical changes (maybe stock profits?); but they really are - on certain cars.
Of course, the ONLY basis I have for this assertion is the fact that I was forced to rent a car this August, and the only car they had available was a 2007 Cadillac DTS 4.6 liter V8. I drove it from Charlotte to G'boro up I-85 and back.
I got 36 mpg on the highway.
Swear. to. Dog. We calculated it three or four times.

Funny also that this would maybe be on a higher-end car, therefore probably saving some rich older person a lot of gas money?

Just an admittedly crazy theory.

[MindPilot]

14. Part of it is technology lag

It takes about three to five years for a new design or new technology to make it from concept to production. Also newer or more advanced technologies will show up on the higher-end cars first simply because the new stuff costs more to make.

Part of it is our--the motoring publics--fault too. We have to buy the stuff in order for them to make it; and of course they have to make it before we can buy it...it can be tough in the corporate engineering juggernauts of the auto industry to break something new into that cycle.

[libbygurl]

20. Except that Europe has long led in fuel-efficient, clean diesel cars. nt

[MindPilot]

25. Right. And in Europe there has been the motivation on both sides

They have for many years dealt with very high gas prices, and more recently a higher degree of environmental awareness than in the US. Also in most places in Europe, car manufacturers are not only competing with each other, the Japanese, and to a much lesser extent the Americans, but against a very effective public transportation system. In the US you almost HAVE to own a car: in Europe--as I learned living in England--it's almost a liability.

[Hannah Bell]

28. i've heard

US manufacturers sell more fuel-efficient cars in europe, in accordance with european standards. so i've wondered why they couldn't just sell those designs here.

[jakefrep]

31. Because they can't make money on them here

In Europe, a Ford Focus is a $25,000 car (a price point where they can actually turn a proift). No way in hell they can get away chraging $25K for even a fully-loaded Focus here.

[sailor65]

38. It's very simple

safety standards in Europe (And most other places) are lower.

You want efficiency? You take off weight.
You want safety? You add weight.

Engineers are forced to find a balance that fits Federal safety standards, when trying to get efficient. TANSTAAFL.

Most people who comment on these subjects don't know a whole lot about automotive design (It's easier to blame the designers, marketers, executives, etc.). Yes, we could have lots of very efficient cars out there. But the only way it's going to happen safely is if they ALL go efficient, all at the same time. Otherwise, you get a huge disparity in safety levels and that means deaths.

And the safety standards right now are such that the super efficient shoeboxes running in Europe don't qualify to run here.

[AllegroRondo]

45. I believe the newer Caddy's can vary the number of cylinders used

So with a V8 engine, its firing on all cylinders when you need to accellerate, but on the highway when it doesnt need the power, it cuts back to just 4 cylinders to save gas.

[MindPilot]

12. They are old and they don't like change.

When seat belts and other safety mandates came along in the sixties, the car companies were afraid it would make their cars appear unsafe and hurt sales. Now, if you'll notice safety is a big selling point.

When emission reductions were ordered in the seventies, the car companies were kicking and screaming about how that would hurt performance and make cars cost more. Well, it did, but while the American companies were bitching and moaning, the Japanese companies got to work solving the problem. Now the freeway signs in LA are actually legible because the American big three had to catch up with Honda, Toyota and Datsun.

Relax, give 'em time, they will figure it out...eventually. Then we will all be treated to ads telling us how, green, efficient and forward-thinking Ford, GM and Chrysler have *always* been.

[underpants]

13. dragged kicking and screaming into capitalism

great examples. Another one- the catalytic converter--I have read that car makers and others were just SURE that catalytic converters would cause cars to suddenly burst into flames....aside from a very few instances of this in the last 30some years they were wrong about that too.

[MindPilot]

21. That was not uncommon back in the days of carburetors

A cat converter runs at a normal temperature of about 1200 degrees, so the fire hazard is real. If the fuel flow into the engine became excessive which was a very common failure with a carburetored fuel system, the converter would overheat and could most definitely set the car on fire. However what USUALLY happened, the cat converted simply destroyed itself internally, plugged the exhaust and the car quit running.

Now with electronic fuel injection and OBDC, those kinds of failure just don't happen.

[The2ndWheel]

15. More cars would be sold to more people

The only thing that might make sense would be that the auto makers don't want more people driving because of the environmental impacts more people driving would have.









Yeah, that doesn't really...

Maximizing efficiency is the whole point of large scale economics. That's the only way to grow. They'll either do that or go out of business. They'll have to catch up to the global economy, or die. It's no longer about the small percentage of the population here. It's 6.5 billion people around the world, and that number is going to keep going up before it doesn't.

The thing is that it'll all be done by one or two corporations either way, and it won't be a "US", "Japanese", "German", or "Swedish" corporation(since they either don't exist, or are quickly dying). If the US auto makers fall, we'll still get our cars. Some "Americans" may lose a job or two, but you can't stop progress. Another job will be created for them somewhere, doing something...anything. We're all just interchangeable cogs anyway. We're being efficiently maximized.

You're right, unless the US auto makers have grown a heart, maybe they no longer want to compete. They know it'll all be one global corporation making the cars eventually, so, why not just get it over with.

[ThomWV]

17. Now here's the shitball in the soupbowl, there will be a price premium on efficient cars too

No shit, when they finally get around to making truly efficient vehicles they will charge a huge premium on them so in the end you, my dear fellow milkcow, will still be drained of every dime you can earn.

[underpants]

18. OR

will it be so the cars will fail and they can claim "TOLD YOU SO!" :P ????

Either way again I refer to post #7

[lildreamer316]

19. Could that already be happening, per my above post?

I wonder. (post #10, btw).

[Saturday]

22. Just as a heads up....

Brian Williams is doing a piece on the electric car on tonights newscast. 12/26/07

[wishlist]

23. There is a large Saudi investment in at least one auto company

Almost certainly there have been sweetheart deals between the oil interests and auto manufacturers plus heavy lobbying with politicians. There seems to be no other explanation for the stonewalling obstruction of fuel efficiency, since technological advances must be available that would make more efficiency attainable and not that difficult or costly. I read an article during the last 2 years that mentioned 40% Saudi ownership of one of the major car companies, but I can't recall which one.

The claim that auto companies will suffer serious financial losses doesn't seem justified enough to explain such fierce opposition to higher efficiency standards, but if the auto companies have major stockholders with large investments in oil too, the obstruction makes more sense.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. Besides big gas guzzlers being more profitable...

there are a few other things--

In the profit calculations are the investment in plants and designs making the big gas guzzlers that were selling very well until recently. It takes Detroit up to 5 years and close to a billion bucks to come up with a completely new model, and gas has been around 3 bucks for how long?

Gas mileage has been slowly moving up due to new technologies, but until recently people were buying performance, not economy. And maybe still are. Case in point is that in 2000 Saturn LS, Camry, and Accord were pretty much the same size and all could be had 4 cylinder engines that gave an honest 35 highway mpg.

Problem is, nobody liked them-- people bought power, not economy and a four just doesn't cut it. I think Toyota and Honda are still selling the four in their big cars, but Saturn dropped it because nobody bought it. Mercedes dropped their 4 cylinder engine completely, and you can't get one here.

Maybe nobody's noticed all the ads for better mileage-- I've been seeing it all over. And, nobody's noticed all the action over fuel economy at the auto shows, or in Ford and GM subsidiaries around the world.

Around here, there are Dodge and Ford dealers in town who do pretty good business. New pickups, Durangos and Expeditions are all over the place, but nary a Focus or Caliber.

So, they don't hate fuel economy, just don't want to be ordered to provide it.

Why they would talk to Cheney specifically about California might have been because they don't want yet another set of rules for California and a couple of other states. It costs big bucks and is a great annoyance to make a California-specific car, and it could actually get a little in the way of R&D for even better stuff.

[zabet]

26. The company I retired from

had a running hydrogen fuel cell
car in the late '80s. The government
and the big oil companies fought this
relentlessly.
They then made a hydrogen fuel cell
to power a house, this was fought
against relentlessly also.

[dysfunctional press]

27. how much would the hydrogen fuel cell have cost?

making one that works isn't a problem- making one that works that's affordable- that's a problem.

hydrogen is generally not an efficient fuel source.

[zabet]

29. At the time,

early to mid 1990s, a fuel
cell to power a house was
estimated to be 3000 to 5000
dollars depending on size of
the cell for the size of the
house. They would run the
house for 3 years minimum with
average use. I signed up for
the testing for a unit for my
home but, my name was not picked.
I do know that this company holds
the patent on an electrical current
carrying 'membrane' that was used
in the making of their fuel cells.
I do not know how other companies
make theirs.

[dysfunctional press]

32. would that be power only, or power & heat?

$5000 for 3 years of electricity in the early 90's doesn't necessarily sound that great of a deal.

[zabet]

33. I am not sure...

it never went past testing
stages into production, though
the company does sell the membrane.
I was not closely enough involved
with this project to offer many
details. I worked with one of the
precursors to the final perfluorinated
membrane product.

[dysfunctional press]

36. the reason i ask is because i've understood the cost to be extremely high for autos.

which is why the new honda fuel-cell car will ONLY be available as a lease- that way the company can probably write-off the losses. Norway was recently touting a fuel-cell car as well- but they've got very few actual cars, and the cost is about $1million per unit.

the movie "who killed the electric car" actually has some good info on fuel cells.

[donsu]

30. car barons hold hands with oil/gas barons - fill my pocket, I'll fill yours

barons of a feather flock together.


and all of them are aginst hemp.

hemp can save the world.

[Orsino]

35. Cheaper for them if they crank out the same old crap...

...and we shut up and buy it. Retooling for more efficient technology is something of a risk, and would take cash they don't have.

[ProudDad]

37. Because they make sh*t loads of money on

those god damn SUVs ---

They're VERY cheap to make (just trucks with cheap plastic filled tin bodies on the frame) and have the HIGHEST PROFIT MARGINS...

The corporate capitalist masters don't give a shit about the survival of the planet, just the increase of their profits and wealth...

Follow the Money!

[sailor65]

39. You're not a witless dolt.

You just have never been given the whole story.

One of the problems with California's stance is that it creates a safety disparity with other states. As I've said below and in the past, there are safety standards which must be met when cars are designed. Efficiency requires less weight, safety requires more (Under current standards.) weight. There is a fine balance that automotive engineers are constantly striving for between those two facts.

A vehicle manufactured under a "Special" set of efficiency guidelines will not meet the same safety standards as vehicles manufactured to match other states. But the owners of those vehicles then want to drive their cars outside California, into areas where standards are different. That can't, and shouldn't, be allowed. Whatever changes are to be made must be made across the board.

And for the record, the "Automotive Industry" has no problem with efficiency. We've been constantly working for more of it over the years. But we can't change the laws of Physics.

You want the same efficiency the Europeans are getting? Drop the standards so we can drop the weight. But unless you find a way to maintain balance against the vehicles already out there, hold on to your seat because at least in the short term, the road will get very messy.

[Tesha]

40. Bullshit.

The laws of physics say top-heavy SUVs with crappy suspensions
will be more likely to roll-over in an accident than a low-
slung well-suspended sedan.

But that didn't stop you from cranking out Ford Explorers
with blow-out prone Firestone tires, did it?

Your "explanation" doesn't wash, and I'll match my relatively-
light-weight Audi A8 against your "safer" piece of crap any day.

Tesha

[sailor65]

41. How many years

have you spent designing automobiles?

And I'm not talking about rollovers (I wasn't on the Explorer program).

I'm talking about what we refer to as "Mutual Kinetics." Collisions, obviously.

If you had bothered to read my post, you will have noticed that I said a requirement would be to get them all efficient AT THE SAME TIME, meaning that the Explorers, Expeditions, etc be pulled off so that there is less disparity between the high kinetics and the low kinetics, and therefore more collision safety overall, so that the guy driving the 50mpg car we'd love to put out there has a longer lifespan.

By the way, I should thank you for your emotional, if somewhat misguided, post. You have demonstrated my point quite well. Since you mentioned the A8, would you also like to post your mileage? I already know what it is.

Now, why don't you take all those years of engineering experience you obviously have and tell me what your mileage COULD have been if the car could have been designed to lower collision standards just like I said?

Go learn math and get back to me when you figure it out.

[Tesha]

47. Sorry, but your attempt to bamboozle people with "Physics" won't work.

All American cars meet the same safety standards. And,
oddly enough, these standards are better than those
set for heavier "light trucks".

But also strangely enough, all American cars *DON'T*
get high mileage. Toyota Priuses get about 45-50 MPG
as do VW turbo diesels (when the diesels are driven
on the highway). My aluminum-bodied A8 easily gets
27 MPG on the highway (while doing about 75) and
about 20-22 in a typical "around town and some
highway" mix. When it's driven without a leaden
foot, it exceeds 30 MPG on the highway. And those
cars and light trucks made by GM? Well, generally
speaking, they don't come close.

The difference isn't safety standards, although
I realize that safety standards have been used by
the American car manufacturers since Day One as a
whipping boy to explain their failures. The difference
is a mind set that says that efficiency matters, and
that people will be willing to pay for a car that
offers both efficiency and safety. But instead,
Detroit has usually worried more about how many
cup holders are placed within easy reach of the
driver and whether or not the vehicle "has a Hemi".

Detroit grew fat and lazy on the easy money to
be had by duping people with SUVs (yes, all SUVs,
not just Ford Explorers). And now that they're
about to be forced off the tit, they're raising
their usual holy hell about how it's just not
feasible to raise economy standards, even though
auto manufacturers around the world have found
it perfectly feasible.

Give up; the days of gas guzzlers are finally
ending.

Tesha

[sailor65]

58. Ah yes, the "Bamboozle" argument....

last great refuge of the uninitiated.

Where to start? Your Audi getting 20-22 typical "Around town" mileage (While unlikely to be the common case) is possible, it's no great shakes in this argument. In our (Detroit automotive engineering) it still qualifies as a guzzler. You said that generally speaking cars out of Detroit don't come close. Rather than listing a bunch of examples, use the link;

Here, play around a bit and see:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm

Combined MPG values for most vehicles classed with you are equivalent or superior to yours. Heck, even Jeep has two vehicles that beat it soundly.

And Audi got to the mileage they did largely BECAUSE of the aluminum body (I guess you just really needed that 5 second 0-60 time so you could help the environment, right?)! Sounds a lot like "Drop weight, save gas." So my original question stands; how much MORE mileage do you think your A8 would get if Audi was not restricted to the impact standards dictated by the fact that there are too many Expeditions and Yukons out there (And if you weren't so attached to your 0-60)? If Audi did not have to concern itself with "Meet-n-Greets" between you and the elephants, your stellar 20MPG could easily be twice that.

Now in each of my posts, I have stated that my opinion (And the opinion of most automotive engineers) is that we need to get the elephants off the road so that we can "Normalize" vehicle size out on the highway and maintain safety while also driving MPG through the roof. We can't do that yet, because Joe Schmo wants his Escalade, and you want all your trim, acceleration, and 20MPG. And that's what the guy next door has to think about when he wants to put little Suzie in the back seat of a 50MPG car that might meet up with one of you. Your choice of vehicle suggests to me that you would be unwilling to take such a risk yourself.

Did you not read all of my posts and see that in ideal concept I do not disagree? I have also said that Europe has indeed gone in that direction because designers of vehicles for that market have more leeway given to them to shave weight than we do. Europe has more collectively reduced overall vehicle SIZE on their roadways, which is EXACTLY what I said we needed to do. So while you do seem to be attacking me, you don't really seem to have worked on my argument at all, since the claims you make about Europe vs US in standards are pretty close to the same thing I'm saying.

Don't get me wrong, the A8 is a beautiful car and nicely designed, but it does not support your argument at all. As a matter of fact, it was a pretty poor example of choice.

[Tesha]

61. So why don't you stop addressing my A8 and figure out how dismiss the Prius and TDI?

(Two cars that are up in the 50 MPG mileage stratosphere.)

By the way, I've seen the naked body/spaceframe of the A8
(it's in the Musée d'Orsay in Paris) and I think you'll
find that the same body/spaceframe (or just about the same
body/spaceframe) is used worldwide.

There aren't enough A8s sold to vary them much for the
US market.

Tesha

[sailor65]

64. They don't bear dismissing,

they support the argument. They are good examples of the reason we haven't reached full MPG potential.

Both should get much better mileage than they do. The reason they don't is the same argument I've been making, and the reason for all the disparity. When the Prius can head out into the world unthreatened by massive vehicles, then then watch how the Prius' mileage can improve. The thing that's the most ingenious about the Prius is that it gets to its current MPG under current ratings (Just barely), but those ratings simultaneously cripple the Prius from what it could be.

When standards are changed, both those designs will see huge increases and ALL vehicles will follow suit (That's been my point all along). And as I've said so many times in this thread, I want the standards to change, and the elephants gone so that overall vehicle size/weight can drop.

And I think you're right, the A8 sheet metal is about the same across the board, but the A8 doesn't see MPG gains across the pond, either. It was never designed to be truly efficient. It's a very well appointed performance platform. I only bring the A8 up again because you did.

So you think we need to put high MPG cars out there, I think we need to put high MPG cars out there, and the only fight here is in regard to the reason why it hasn't happened yet. My reason is an engineering one, yours is a profitability one. Neither one of us appears to be swaying the other, so let's just agree the A8 is a SWEET ride and with any luck in 5-7 years I'll finally be assigned to a 100MPG vehicle program and we can finally use some of these killer small powertrain designs we have sitting around (In case you hadn't figured it out yet, I'm in Powertrain).

:pals:

[underpants]

44. Didn't "California emmissions" change one standard?

I know this isn't in regard to the weight issue but didn't California already change the standard for everyone once with their emmissions requirements? They not only had the ability to require progression in that area but the financial weight (no pun) that made the automakers redesign their entire line of cars. Vermont could have done the same thing and still been ignored by auto makers who could ignore them since the size of that market isn't close to making them change while California's is that large.

Isn't the same thing at play here?

[Tesha]

48. California changed emission standards for the traditional pollutants.

Now they're trying to classify C)₂ as a pollutant
(which will force a certain fuel economy standard);
this is what has the American auto industry and their
good friends the oil industry and the Bushes throwing
apoplectic fits.

See:

o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Air_Resources_Board

Tesha

[sailor65]

51. You are correct

in that the "California Emissions" was a more localized change that required some redesign (In the end, it was a national benefit because it did force a rethink of emission control). But back then you were talking about changing the NATURE of the emissions (Which reduced overall HP in similar displacements), in order to make the emission less damaging per volume. The weight or base HP wasn't as much of an issue, controlling the quality of the fuel burn was the main issue.

This is a somewhat different situation. Emissions can (And should) be cleaner as they were made to be then, but the overall MPG is what we're after now. This is to reduce the LEVEL of emission rather than its nature. Basically, use less fuel overall to move the same distance means we produce less carbon overall for that distance. A terrific idea, but right now we're dependent on the HP we can get out of a smaller engine, and the power to weight ratio we can get into a car. To reach this target, we have got to shed some weight, period.

We're all for it, but the weight drop required to get to 35 combined MPG and then 50, then 100, is enormous.

And even though engineers don't get sued when people die in cars (Corps do), we aren't excited at the prospect of sending people out there in cars that get 100 MPG to subsequently be smeared by the Expeditions and Yukons all over the place. Can you picture putting your kids into one knowing that? That is a big part of the problem (Well, that and the light penalties for people shaving and putting on makeup while driving said Yukon and smearing said car, but that's another subject.).

That's why I said earlier that much of this has to be done all at once. I would not be unhappy to see the Expeditions and Yukons (And all the rest of the similarly classed vehicles) gone, so that we can safely see families in 50-100MPG cars. Eventually, I have no doubt that's exactly where we will be, and as an engineer, I hope it's during my career because I love the prospects.

Think about it, opening up that market here would be like a playground to people like me. The new ideas and methods that would be available to us would be the engineer's dream.

[Vinca]

42. What really makes no sense is that the company to be the first out

with a super efficient, affordable and reliable car will be raking in money once the vehicle is on the market. If you have your choice between a 35 MPG car (in 2020) and a 100 MPG car, which would you choose? If we can put men on the moon with the technology of that era, I don't see why this is such a hurdle.

[blues90]

46. I can tell you since I worked for ford dealers

That the cars and trucks are completely separate departments and not connected at all at ford . also if you look up and I can't recall the name of this huge advisory group that was in the news with qwest also being owned by them they also advise the big three and when the phone companies where found out to be giving away personal info qwest was owned by them , I just can't recall the name . They however tie the big three with big oil .

[bullwinkle428]

49. If gas passes $4/gallon, the Prius will become the #1 selling

car in America!

It broke into the top-10 within the last year, and should soon be in the top-5 at the current rate of sales. Any significant increase in the price of fuel will take the demand to previously-unforeseen levels...

[sentelle]

52. not really.

If gas tops $4/gallon, people will just take it, just like they do now.
When I moved to Western Washington (in 2003) gas was at $1.50/gallon. I thought, if i had to spend $20 to fill my gas tank, that would be bad. Then gas went to $2/gallon. I think we all thought that that would pass quickly. We got used to the new normal. Then after Katrina, it went to $3/gallon, and we all thought that it would go down quickly, and we got used to the new normal.... and now $3/gas is common here. Next Memorial Day, when gas is at $4/gallon, and we all think, it will go down quickly, we will also adjust to the new normal....

Priuses are still in short supply, and the premium is still not worth the price, based on gas prices, cost of replacement of the battery (every 5 years)...

So what choice do we have really? Outside the big cities (New York, Chicago, Boston, SF, for example) the public transportation infrastructure is poor to non-existant..... and its too expensive to add in now... so what happens now?

the answer is the same as it always is, bending over and taking it.

[Lorien]

57. I've noticed a HUGE increase in the number of Prius on the roads

several friends have them. They only cost about 23k and every person I know who owns one LOVES their car. I expect it to become the #1 selling auto in America within the next three years or so.

[sentelle]

50. A simplistic explanation

To design, or even retune an engine requires Research and Development. R&D costs money. R&D doesn't sell cars. Marketing and Manufacturing sells cars.

Changing a body style doesn't require much R&D. Changing fuel to air mixes to optimize efficiency instead of power requires tweaking. Tweaking is a long process, and involves trade-offs. Would you buy an SUV that couldn't tow well, just to get max fuel efficiency? Would you pay an extra $2000 to do buy an SUV that gets 5 mpg more and couldn't tow much?

Next question: who is their market? For most cars we see in the US, these cars were built for the US market. Ford (for example) small cars in the UK for the UK market (see an example http://www.ford.co.uk/ka/ ). Why is it not here? Market research costs $$$ and if they are wrong, they could lose big. Lets face it, most of the US is still into its big honkin car phase (I am always reminded about that Robocop advert (in the movie) about the 6000 SUX, an american classic (9 mpg) that goes really fast and has really crappy gas milage).

I see a lot of SUV's on the road, even with the complaints about gas prices. I see them with one person in them, acting very unfriendly on the road, forcing their way at 4 way stop-signs, and daring you to get in their way. It attracts those who are frustrated with their lives, at least here they can intimidate others. (and you wonder why we have road rage?) Of course, with so many SUV's on the road, it means that we have an SUV war, always bigger, to out intimidate the other SUV's, not to mention the cars.

me? I ride a bicycle to work, well, except for the ferry ride.

The reason why we don't have better milage rules is because we don't demand it.... and thats because our actions, our buying habits don't match our verbiage.

[Touchdown]

53. Check out an old '80s film "Tucker: The Man and his Dream"

Jeff Bridges, Joan Allen, Martin Landau.

It tells the story you're asking about perfectly. Kind of romanticized Horatio Alger, but mostly true story.

He designed a late 1940's car with *GASP* seat belts, fuel injection, rear engine, padded dashboards, safety glass, Aerodynamic design, pop out windshields...lots of other shit. One problem. He was building his cars in Chicago, and his cars were too good. Detroit got him and his car destroyed. He built 50 cars. By 1988 (the year the film was made) 48 were still road worthy.

"The Big 3 in Detroit should be tried for manslaughter!" -Preston Tucker

[Kansas Wyatt]

54. Helping the connected at the hip.... Big Oil

They're all tied together, and piss on the rest of us.

[fascisthunter]

55. Collusion Between "Big Oil" and Auto manufacturers

Same vehicles in Europe made by US companies out perform those bought in the US. There is NO good reason for such low mpg's.

[Lorien]

56. Not sure, but I say "screw 'em" I'm trying to reserve my Aptera instead:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4237853.html?series=19

Some people are tired of waiting for the big three to "get it" and are putting something far better into production on their own. The Aptera gets 300 mpg, costs under 30k and has great safety features, many of which exceed Federal standards. It's not the perfect car for everyone, but it'll work for my needs. I've long suspected that the major auto manufacturers were in bed with Big Oil in this country. Why else would there be so many more fuel efficient vehicles in every other country?

[Blue_Tires]

59. a couple of major trends which have to be reversed

1. average (car) vehicle weight is skyrocketing...i few years ago, i never thought i'd hear a 3500-lb car being called "lightweight," but that is where we are now, with cars being made bigger and loaded down with more electronics...

2. high-performance cars have been back in style for a good 10 years now...big engines and big power are king (with more power, you need heavier and more durable components to handle the performance, and people also want more stable, better-handling cars (i.e., stiffer frames which need more reinforcement)...

3. it isn't just the U.S. automakers...not counting compacts, other countries' (especially germany) cars are just as heavy and thirsty, with fat fuel consumption taxes slapped on them...