Quote:
Originally Posted by euromodder
Half the vehicle market is HUGE, and what share of the fuel market do they swallow ?
|
Yes, yes it is! Half of the market is cars that get 'marginally' better mileage than the truck. I was going to bring up the mileage testing or smaller engines, but we were talking about aerodynamics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clev
Ford has sold 562,000 trucks and SUVs this year so far, versus only 342,000 cars. That's more like 2/3 of the market.
|
And Honda & Volkswagen are mostly car companies with only a few trucks.
The percentage between trucks & cars floats every year, but the market is close enough to 50/50 that it means a *lot* of car shoppers really weren't interested in high mileage cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis
All those European cars you see in the US are matched by about 5-6x as many with smaller and more economical engines sold in Europe. 3-series - I can buy a 1.6 Petrol, or a 1.8 Diesel one. In the US, 2.5 is the base ?
|
So why not use significantly better aerodynamics instead of a smaller engine? I'm not bashing small engines as a choice, just saying with aerodynamic improvements, one can get a bigger engine *and* better mileage. Or use the small engine and get *really good* mileage. Companies balance sales of 'high' mileage cars with low ones to hit the government targets, not consumer preferences. If consumer preference was for high mileage, Hybrids should have hit a decade earlier in Europe. Aerodynamics should be producing a fleet average of below 0.25 (or so) Cd.
Consumers don't like aerodynamic cars. Not just the truck and SUV crowd. It seems very odd to me, since all the high cost supercars use aerodynamics for downforce, and enough drag reduction (combined with Hp of course) to go past 200 mph. Our aspirational vehicles are aerodynamic, why not regular cars?