Tag: Autos

CAFE = FAIL

Posted by – May 23, 2009

The change to the CAFE regulations from the Obama administration seem to be much less stringent than I originally thought. The 35.5 MPG requirement is filled with as many loopholes as our street are with potholes.

The largest loophole is that instead of a strict, clear cut rule, the automakers will be able to base the fuel mileage in 2016 on estimates of what the Green House Gas emissions from that year will be. What this will allow the automakers to do is to reduce the Green House Gases by improving the Air Conditioners in their vehicles, which will effectively reduce their estimated fuel mileage that is being based on Green House Gas emissions. Huh?

Perhaps even more dumbfounding than the convoluted and idiotic fuel mileage mess is the provisions that will allow automakers to reduce their CAFE requirements based on the “footprint” (square footage) of the vehicles that they sell. The larger the vehicle, the less stringent the CAFE requirement. This also means that the CAFE standard for each company will be different based on the size of the vehicles they sell. How is this different than what we have now? How is this “Change We Can Believe In”?

President Obama, we do not need more of the same. The leadership of the last few administrations has left this country in dire straits regarding foreign oil dependence and emissions standards. Please, simply set strict rules without loopholes and allowances. Allow all car companies to compete on a level playing field and let them know what is required of them. Why is this so difficult to do in Washington D.C.?

CAFE Standards Increase

Posted by – May 19, 2009

Via: Autoblog

President Obama has recently announced an increase and standardization of the CAFE Standards for new vehicles. For those of you who think I may be talking about coffee the CAFE Standards are the minimum fuel economy standards automakers in the US must conform to, These changes are a big step forward, especially considering the utter lack of progress made over the last eight years.

These new standards apply more stringent fuel economy requirements and (of equal importance) these rules are to be standardized across Federal agencies (EPA and DOT) as well as being adopted by the individual states. Recently, California was involved in a court battle with the Federal government because California wanted more stringent emissions requirements than the Bush Administration (aka rich, white, oil magnates) would allow.

Unfortunately, these new regulations will only increase the CAFE by 5% each year until 2016 when cars will be required to average 42 MPG and light trucks will be required to average 26 MPG. While this is certainly a significant improvement, I would like to see more. I would like to see something in the range of 60 MPG and a mandatory minimum of 30 MPG. I think this is an extremely important part of weaning us from our dependence on foreign oil, not to mention the environmental significance.

In addition, I think that separate standards for passenger cars and light trucks is a serious flaw in the current regulations. The overwhelming majority of light trucks (which includes most SUVs) are used primarily to ferry passengers to and fro, just like a passenger car. I see no need for a separate standard for these vehicles. I understand that there are legitimate cases where a light truck or SUV may be required (contractors or other business uses) and I would not mind a separate standard for these, perhaps based upon a different licensing scheme (commercial vs. personal). Allow vehicles licensed for commercial use to be excluded from the passenger vehicle CAFE standard and instead fall under a commercial vehicle CAFE standard. This would allow anyone that needs an SUV or light truck to license it appropriately, perhaps even paying a higher licensing fee for the increased environmental costs associated with that vehicles operation. In California, this system is already in place with personal and commercial plates having different numbering schemes.

Pretty Fords

Posted by – April 3, 2009

Ford Fiesta

I never thought this day would come, but I am realizing that a US car maker has actually made a few cars that I don’t hate. Specifically the Ford Edge, Ford Fusion and forthcoming 2011 Ford Fiesta. The Fiesta is getting a lot of buzz right now, and I think it may actually be deserved.

I had long since given up on any US offerings from the “not so big 3″. Up until now they have utterly failed to excite any of my senses. There are a few holdouts from years past, but they aren’t the mass market cars that normal people can afford or that are practical for everyday life. That being said, Ford looks positioned to be rather successful in the coming years as both GM and Chrysler spiral ever downwards towards their inevitable end.

Ford Edge

Now all Ford needs to do is embrace clean diesel technology with both of these cars and I may line up to buy one. Unfortunately, Ford doesn’t seem to planning to offer either of these with a fuel-sipping diesel. The european market Fiesta ECOnetic, with the fantastic little diesel engine gets 65 MPG! 65! That easily best the fuel economy of a hybrid drive system like in the Toyota Prius or forthcoming Honda Insight without the environmentally unsound use of NiMH batteries. While the diesel engine equipped Fiesta is certainly no rocket ship (it only has 88 HP), it would get me back and forth to work on 1/2 of a gallon of gasoline!

Ford Fusion

So, Ford, wake up! Don’t let your middle-America biased, all placating, uninspired market research teams and penny-pinching accountants turn your otherwise exciting products into something resembling your offerings from the past quarter century. Do something bold, be a leader. Offer the American people a car that they don’t know they want! Show them that you are capable of designing a good looking, fun to drive car that is environmentally sound. Market them as vehicles that will decrease American independence on foreign oil and help free us from it’s shackles. Do this and I think you will begin to see more Ford’s on the road than at any time since the Model-T era.

Cars I like

Posted by – December 8, 2008

Amidst all the turmoil in the US auto industry I have decided to compile a short list of cars that, if offered in the US by any of the Big 3 would sell well and perhaps reverse their current state of affairs. Common to all three of the cars in this list, small, economical, good quality, safe, fun to drive, not made by the Big 3. I don’t want a giant truck or a car designed by accountants and built for fleet sales.

Honda Civic (UK)

Honda Civic (UK)


1. Honda Civic 3 Door: Unfortunately, this vehicle is only available outside of the US. Apparently the major auto manufacturers don’t think that Americans want to buy sporty, economical and uber-convenient hatchbacks.

Subaru Imreza WRX

Subaru Imreza WRX


2. Subaru Impreza WRX: Unlike the Civic, this one is available in the US. Fortunately Subaru have seen the error of their ways in regards to the less than stellar performance of the 2008 model year and have made the 2009 WRX more like it’s predecessors. Only time will tell if it will maintain the iconic rally car status of years past. Unfortunately, the gas mileage is not all that impressive.

Audi A3

Audi A3


3. Audi A3: This is such a nice car! The only problem with this one is, of course, the price.

Signs of the times

Posted by – July 11, 2008

The New York Times is reporting that Toyota is planning to stop production of it’s Tundra truck and Sequoia SUV for three months this year to adjust for decreasing demand (Toyota Scales Back Production of Big Vehicles). They have also decided to re-purpose a new plant in Mississippi to manufacture their hybrid Prius instead of trucks.

I think this is a fantastic move for Toyota who, in my opinion, misjudged the market when the revised their truck lineup to make the Tundra and Tacoma trucks larger. This is especially true of the Tacoma, I owned a 2004 Toyota Tacoma and absolutely loved that truck. I thought it was sized perfectly. The new Tacoma is larger, but doesn’t really add any more utility. It seems as though Toyota made the truck larger for the sake of making it larger. I would have preferred that they focused on making the existing truck better, not just bigger.

Trucks… Keep Right!

Posted by – February 27, 2008

Having recently moved I have been dealing with the unfortunate reality of an extended commute on a number of California’s highways. My commute is 39 miles, one way, the majority of which is spent on one highway or another. As a result of this commute I have found myself becoming increasingly frustrated with large trucks, spefically the lanes in which they choose to occupy.

On any given day, on any given highway I run across numerous trucks that, through their choice to violate certain sections of the California Vehicle Code (CVC), consume far more than their fair share of the road. Through an entirely non-scientific and casual observation of traffic, I have found that trucks make up around 15% of the road going traffic while using well over 50% of the road. I did a little research today and found the following:

21655. (a) … (b) Any … vehicle subject to the provisions of Section 22406 shall be driven in the lane or lanes designated … whenever signs have been erected… . …, when a specific lane or lanes have not been so designated, … those vehicles shall be driven in the right-hand lane for traffic or as close as practicable to the right edge or curb. If, however, a specific lane or lanes have not been designated on a divided highway having four or more clearly marked lanes for traffic in one direction, … those vehicles may also be driven in the lane to the immediate left of that right-hand lane, … When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction, the driver shall use either the designated lane, the lane to the immediate left of the right-hand lane, or the right-hand lane for traffic … This subdivision does not apply to a driver who is preparing for a left- or right-hand turn or who is entering into or exiting from a highway or to a driver who must … drive in a lane other than the right-hand lane to continue on his or her intended route.

This tells me that trucks should stay in the right lane (unless there are four or more available lanes). I continually run across trucks in the right 2 lanes on a 3 lane highway. I have even run across trucks in all 3 lanes on 3 a lane highway. But wait, it gets worse… I have been on a five lane highway with trucks in all but the leftmost lane! One thing that I have never seen is a truck being stopped by the California Highway Patrol for any of these violations.

So what can be done? Well, how about pressing the CHP to cite violators for starters? I for one would love to see a law enacted mandating that trucks stay in the right most lane irregardless of the number of lanes. I would also like to see a significant penalty for lane violations, including both a stiff fine and a number of “points” on the driver’s record.

Great!

Posted by – January 2, 2008

Via: BBC News

Oil trades at $100 per barrel. I guess the good news is that our current administration fought against an increase to the CAFE standards, so at least we know they are working hard to help out.

MIT’s Stackable Car

Posted by – November 14, 2007

via: Inhabit

MIT's stackable city car MIT has created a site with a mock-up of a super compact car for use in a city. This is a really interesting concept! As you can see from the picture, the car is super compact when stacked and not too small when flattened out. A quote from MIT’s site

By placing stacks in urban spaces and key points of convergence, the vehicle allows the citizens the flexibility to combine mass transit effectively with individualized mobility.

This would certainly address a key problem associated with the use of mass transit.

Amazing F1 Battle!

Posted by – November 6, 2007


Rain Heroes from FUROBOT on Vimeo.

F1 USGP

Posted by – June 18, 2007

Fernando Alonso at the 2007 USGP

Formula 1 racing returned to the United States this weekend. While always enjoyable, this race typically leaves quite a bit to be desired. The design of the track forces the teams to set their cars up for high speed runs through a portion of the famed Indianapolis Motor Speedway. While it is great to see these marvels of engineering hurtling down the track, I prefer to watch them battling through the infield. Unfortunately, the infield racing at Indy is less than spectacular. The trade-offs the teams have to make to achieve high speeds down the straights mean that they have to remove a majority of the aerodynamics that provide the necessary down-force for high speeds throughout the rest of the track. I think it would behoove the FIA to find a track in the United States that better lends itself to the spectacle that is F1 racing. They need a more balanced track. If I wanted to watch cars going fast in straight lines, I would watch an IRL race, or even NASCAR, but I don’t care about that kind of racing. I want to see cars slicing and dicing through tight corners and high speed arcs, not flying down a straight road.