Ford on the offensive

[Frank Lee]

Because at 15,000m/yr (typical U.S. motorist):

50 mpg = 300 gallons/yr,

and... lessee... what do we credit the Insight with? 65 mpg? (from fueleconomy.gov)

65 mpg = 231 gallons/yr.

and if the 50 mpg comes with the utility of 4+ passenger and stuff hauling capability... there ya go.

[trebuchet03]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Why do people seem to think 40-50 mpg is good? To me, it seems rather like a 400 lb guy who went on a diet, and stopped to celebrate when he hit 300 :-) There's no reason in the world why they shouldn't have at least one model with fuel economy equal to my 8 year old Honda Insight.

I'm with Frank on this one. It comes down to the limits Frank posted.

Car talk did a similar exercise. What results in less fuel consumption, upgrading your 100mpg car to 200mpg? Or, pumping up the tires on your SUV to get one more mpg ? If driven 15K miles each...

15K miles/year
100mpg = 150g
200mpg = 75g
100->200 = 75 gallons saved

13mpg = 1153g
14mpg = 1071g
15->16 = 81gallons

It would be great to get people out of those vehicles in the first place... but the mind is the hardest thing to change... Products, on the other hand, are very easy For that reason, I'm not entirely against hybrid SUVs. If you're gonna do it, I'd much prefer you don't do it at 10mpg Arguing just solidifies their position....

And that said... If I lost 100lb (from 400 to 300), I'd be celebrating and setting my next goal (a reasonable one, of course ).

[groar]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Because at 15,000m/yr (typical U.S. motorist):

50 mpg = 300 gallons/yr,

and... lessee... what do we credit the Insight with? 65 mpg? (from fueleconomy.gov)

65 mpg = 231 gallons/yr.

300 gal/yr => 300 gal/yr * 3.785 l/gal * 2.44 kg CO2/l = 2.771 tonne CO2/yr
231 gal/yr => 231 gal/yr * 3.785 l/gal * 2.44 kg CO2/l = 2.133 tonne CO2/yr

Currently the Earth can absorb 1.8 tonne CO2/yr/people...

To be at 1.8 tonne CO2/yr an American car (15,000 m/yr) should be at 77 mpg.

notes :

• 2.44 kg CO2/l is for gasoline, use 2.66 kg CO2/l for diesel.
• 1.8 tonne CO2/yr includes all activities : electricity, heating, food, clothes, traveling...

Denis (who didn't updated its sig since 2 months).

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

...and if the 50 mpg comes with the utility of 4+ passenger and stuff hauling capability... there ya go.

And if not having 4+ passenger capability means better mpg, acceleration, handling &c... then you might actually get me to buy one :-)

So if Ford, for instance, were to build such a car AND spend some money actually SELLING the "small, sporty, fun" qualities in the same way that they pushed the "let's tear up some scenery with our SUV" market, then they'd A) increase their fleet mpg considerably; and B) make money. I really can't see how Ford stockholders could object to either :-)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by trebuchet03

Car talk did a similar exercise. What results in less fuel consumption, upgrading your 100mpg car to 200mpg? Or, pumping up the tires on your SUV to get one more mpg ? If driven 15K miles each...

Which is a good example of a trick question, posed so that the answer you get is what the questioner wants to hear. Think outside that box, and you can get a much better answer.

1) I upgrade my 100 mpg hybrid to a new 200 mpg model, saving 75 gallons.

2) I sell my old one to the SUV owner to replace his FSP, saving 1003 gallons

Net savings 1078 gallons, plus

3) SUV gets hauled off to the recycler, saving the resources needed to produce several new 200 mpg hybrids :-)

It would be great to get people out of those vehicles in the first place... but the mind is the hardest thing to change...

Not at all. How did the SUV fad get started? A loophole in the laws, plus a lot of advertising, no? Think about that, and just reverse the process. Of course you won't change ALL the minds right away, but remember that even at the height of the SUV craze, US automakers kept on losing market share to imports, many of which were small cars. The not-so-big any more 3 decided to throw that market share away, and depend on a niche market. Now that niche has become a whole lot smaller...

[RH77]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

How did the SUV fad get started? A loophole in the laws, plus a lot of advertising, no? Think about that, and just reverse the process. Of course you won't change ALL the minds right away, but remember that even at the height of the SUV craze, US automakers kept on losing market share to imports, many of which were small cars. The not-so-big any more 3 decided to throw that market share away, and depend on a niche market. Now that niche has become a whole lot smaller...

I read an article in a car rag that longtime vehicle buyers who bought SUVs, previously drove RWD Olds Cutlasses, Monte Carlos, and Ford Rancheros. Smaller, FWD cars came along just (conveniently) when trucks and SUVs offered more amenities and performance. It's the "V8/RWD Generation". Further, these older folks are hard to convince that smaller, more efficient cars are indeed safe, can have a level of refinement, and even offer performance at the same time.

-Rick

[BlackDeuceCoupe]

Originally Posted by Daox

Maybe its just me...

This excite me as I really would love to buy domestic if they can put something out there worth buying...

No, it's NOT just you!

Allow me to put my twist on it...

I never owned an 'import' in my life - until 2000. I hated them - as many of you still do!!!

That all changed when gas went to $1.699 for a brief period around the turn of the century.

After looking at everything available, I stepped out of my Caddy Coupe deVille Lowrider (affectionately called "The Gangsta Car" by my crew) into a Honda CiViC HX Coupe.

It took me a few years to get into the 'import scene' - lookin' good while passin' the pump - but I finally figured it out - had it figured out WAY before sites like this existed!

I also figured out how to have my cake and eat it too! Hence, my current ride - a lightweight, slammed, rice rocket with 160+ hp swap, 40+ mpg, and 10-inch boom box...

Truthfully, I've never had anybody beat me in a street race. 2 guys kept up with me bumper-for-bumper. Plus, I don't know anybody that gets more FE than me with a B16A2. It's a marriage made in heaven!

The reason I keep putting single quotes around 'import' is because my ride was designed by a domestic Honda team in San Diego, Cali - and built by domestic workers in Maryville, Ohio - out of 80% domestic parts... more domestic parts than any other vehicle I own. And, the custom work was done by domestic gang-bangers in Monterey Park, Cali (L.A.). Sooo...

I guess my point is: If Honda can do it, Ford could do it, but...

They won't! And, even if they did, ppl won't buy it!

Why? Because it ain't a Honda CiViC - the #1 selling car in America (the last I heard) and the most stolen car (several years running), I might add!

The only thing Ford makes "worth buying" are their trucks - which are simply excellent!

Forget Ford cars. Ford F-Series Super Duty FTW - something Honda couldn't build if you put a gun in their mouth!!!

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by RH77

I read an article in a car rag that longtime vehicle buyers who bought SUVs, previously drove RWD Olds Cutlasses, Monte Carlos, and Ford Rancheros. Smaller, FWD cars came along just (conveniently) when trucks and SUVs offered more amenities and performance. It's the "V8/RWD Generation". Further, these older folks are hard to convince that smaller, more efficient cars are indeed safe, can have a level of refinement, and even offer performance at the same time.

Passing over that crack about "older folks", that's only looking at a small slice of the car market. Take for instance the '60s: there were some people who bought the big Ford Galaxies and Lincolns that were being made, but there were also a bunch buying smaller cars like the original Mustang and the Falcon, even as some people were buying the funky imported VW Beetles, and kids like me wanted the MGs and Austin-Healeys. And nobody ever even thought about whether any particular car or style was "safe".

Move on to the '70s: smog controls got added, and gas shortages happened. Domestic automakers responded with the familiar chorus of "but we can't do that, it's too expensive", and started beefing up their products while introducing a few smaller ones, like the Pinto and Chevy Vega, that were full of design & quality-control problems. The imports kept on coming: they just worked, and people bought them - and I finally got that Austin-Healey and a few others, but by then really wanted a Porsche 914 or Lotus Europa.

Pass on to the '80s & '90s, and you find the split widening: domestic vehicles kept getting bigger, but the imports kept gaining market share. It didn't have much to do with generations (excepting as the arrival of kids might have necessitated a back seat). The people who preferred smaller cars kept on buying them, but now their only real options were imports (even when the Big 3 put their name on something made in Japan or Korea).

The point is, you've got a small market segment that really likes big cars, and another that likes small ones. Between those extremes, though, you find the majority who are more inclined to buy whatever advertising convinces them is popular. The not-so-big 3 spent a lot of money convincing people in this middle group that they really wanted SUVs. Unfortuantely for them, they've run into reality in the form of rising oil prices. They either need to change their attitudes (and advertising), or die.

[Formula413]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

2) I sell my old one to the SUV owner to replace his FSP, saving 1003 gallons

FSP = Fuel sucking pig? It wasn't in the glossary, I looked.

Originally Posted by BlackDeuceCoupe

Truthfully, I've never had anybody beat me in a street race. 2 guys kept up with me bumper-for-bumper.

We need to line up sometime.

[Silveredwings]

Ford is to the consumer as Lucy is to Charlie Brown when she's holding the football for him to punt. I've been fooled way too many times to get my hopes up about them.