Why C.A.F.E Standards are Dumb

[jtr1962]

The government shouldn't restrict anything, just make sure we pay for it.

Along those lines of thought here's a nice article:

Subsidizing Big Oil

 

[fb]

Carrots are good for consumers, it works great. But the car makers won't be spending millions of dollars on developing these efficient cars unless there are laws that tells them to. It's the same everywhere.

 

[ddrueding]

Carrots are good for consumers, it works great. But the car makers won't be spending millions of dollars on developing these efficient cars unless there are laws that tells them to. It's the same everywhere.

This doesn't make sense to me. Businesses stay in business by making money. Currently, they must not think that making efficient cars is in their best interest. Why is that? What could be done to change that (without simply putting up laws to make them)?

 

[sechs]

I also notice none of you are driving GEO Metro's that get 58MPG on the highway either... Why's that? Shouldn't you lead by example?

Why? I DO NOT OWN A CAR. I get infinite fuel efficiency.

Now, you follow.

 

[Mercutio]

I also notice none of you are driving GEO Metro's that get 58MPG on the highway either... Why's that? Shouldn't you lead by example?

I bought a vehicle that, for its size and interior storage capacity, is fuel efficient. Almost all my driving is highway driving, and very often my car is completely filled with computers, parts or monitors. Under those circumstances, I believe I have the right car for my needs. I certainly could've purchased a giant SUV, and I didn't.

My Element can manage 30mpg on long trips, if I don't run air and use cruise control the whole way.

 

[Howell]

Traffic will move at its own pace based on the road, traffic conditions, a whole bunch of other factors.

Speed Limits On Some Major Streets Too Low, Traffic Engineer Says
http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_108768.asp

 

[Clocker]

One of the easiest and fastest ways we could reduce our automotive reliance on oil is just by reducing the speed limit on freeways to 50-55mph and actually enforcing the laws. MPG will be about 20% higher. DD might kill someone though if his commute time was doubled. ;-)

That would never fly of course because our highways have been neglected all these years and the higher speed is needed just to compensate for the lack of highways. If we had higher gas taxes all this time, the fleet of vehicles in the US would not only be more efficient but we'd probably have better roads as well since the tax dollars could have been used to improve them.

 

[P5-133XL]

I submit that this was a big mistake for two reasons. First, enforcement is pretty much not practical. Traffic will move at its own pace based on the road, traffic conditions, a whole bunch of other factors. The only way to get comliance is with saturation enforcement. However, this costs a fortune, and also results in loss of life from police chases. Second, the presence or absence of speed limits has been found to have very little to do with this pace. The only way to get fairly good compliance is to set the limit at the 95th percentile. This allows enforcement to go only after those who are statistically the most dangerous. By setting limits at the 5th to 10th percentile, which is what we have been doing since the 1970s via legislated speed limits, you basically turn everyone into lawbreakers. Since most people uneventfully drive over the limit, they also feel they can uneventfully violate other traffic laws, such as running red lights. The end result is what we have today-a group of largely incompetent, largely inconsiderate drivers.

I think a better way to encourage fuel efficiency is to use speed limits to the driver's advantage. More fuel efficient cars would be issued special license plates, and allowed legally higher speeds. For example, on a road currently posted at 65 mph, perhaps vehicles with EPA highway ratings of 30 to 40 mpg might be allowed 80 mph, those which get 40 to 50 mpg might be allowed 90 mph, and those which get greater than 50 mpg, as well as EVs, would be allowed 100 mph (about the maximum design speed of most Interstate highways). Conversely, large vehicles with poor fuel economy could be restricted to the truck lanes, and allowed only 45 mph. It will be in the public's best interests to buy more fuel efficient vehicles as it would speed their trip, plus remove the worry of getting speeding tickets. I liken it to using a carrot instead of a stick.

I have no problem with a carrot-stick rule. I was just showing that even at the time CAFE standards were created, there was a recognition that there was a need for multiple points that were addressed and that the CAFE standards were not the only method used to attempt to deal with the national energy crisis. Yes, the 55MPH law did turn out to be a failure because it was not accepted by the citizenship and was eventually replaced allowing higher speeds on Rural insterstates. Even that is basicly ignored ... Look at DD and his self proclaimed 100+MPH commutes.

If there were a way to selectively limit acceleration rates to about 3 mph/sec on local roads, perhaps by means of sensors embedded in these roads, I've long thought this might be a good idea. While high acceleration rates might be justified for highwy merging, they just aren't needed when driving on local streets. However, drivers use the acceleration capabilities of their vehicles to do all sorts of stupid weaving in and out maneuvers to jockey for position. Limit acceleration rates to about that of a city bus for in-town driving, and this selfish behavoir is no longer possible. Frankly, it never made any sense anyway. These drivers waste gas, nearly cause accidents, and then end up a big two car lengths ahead at the next light. Wow, they saved a whole second, if that! Everytime I see these bozos, I think they should be in a commercial with the tag line "Driving is so easy even a caveman can do it."

I would argue that a lead-foot limitation would not be excessively hard or expensive to enact on modern computer-controlled engines: Just a little code would be needed because the speedometer sensor is already built into modern computer-controlled engines. The point would be to computer-limit acceleration whenever the speed is less than say 15-20MPH. Accident avoidence and merging typically not a big issue at those speeds though it would cause more accidents when trying to enter or cross roadways: People would have to adapt and require more space like they nomally do when using a low-performance small car. The point is that it would be necessary to enact such a regulation nationally, for all manufacturers, because no manufacturer would do it unilaterally, making their cars feel slugish as compared to all the other manufacturers: Their cars would not sell ...

It would increase the value for all the cars without such a limitation in the used car market for many years, like catalytic convertors ... I don't know that that is a bad thing though: It would just be a fact of life ...

 

[ddrueding]

Making everyone spend a higher percentage of their time in the car is not a worthwhile trade off. Increased economic efficiency benefits everyone.

Where are the lower coefficient of drag vehicles? Where are my TV camera side-view mirrors? My sixth-surface bodywork? Closer tolerances on all body panels? Covered rear wheel wells? I'm not an engineer and don't know how much these will help, but I know that they would. Where are they?

 

[Clocker]

Where are the lower coefficient of drag vehicles? Where are my TV camera side-view mirrors? My sixth-surface bodywork? Closer tolerances on all body panels? Covered rear wheel wells? I'm not an engineer and don't know how much these will help, but I know that they would. Where are they?

Vehicles are relatively aerodynamic nowadays and performance in that area is largely driven by consumer demand with respect to styling as well as desired vehicle dynamics at high speed (our studio is in the process of 're-theming' a vehicle because it won't be stable enough at 140mph on the Autobahn). TV Camera side view mirrors are not practical from a cost standpoint even with economies of scale (at least for mass-market). Sixth-surface body work is being used on some BMWs and other high end vehicles. We had a supplier here with a modified CTS showing us the concept. Two major issues with it are heat management & cost but there are some mpg gains to be had there. The other trade offs (serviceability, durability, functionality in snowy areas) make the idea less then likely to take off. With respect to covered rear wheel-wells, again, consumer desired styling would bring this out but I think it's damn fugly.

Also, if you think having tighter gap tolerances on body panels than what the norm in the market is today (3-5mm gaps) is going to make a measurable difference with vehicles driven at less then 180mph, I have some special car wax I'd like to sell you which I guarantee will get you and extra 3mpg and some special engine treatment that physically bonds to the metal that will let you run your engine forever w/o oil and get you another 4mpg. Tighter fits will happen will only happen if the customer demands it from a perceived quality standpoint.

 

[timwhit]

Possibly my longest post ever, I had more to say, but I am tired.

2003 Nissan Sentra Spec-V. 30MPG Highway. Less than 400 miles driven year-to-date.

My car sits on the street depreciating and costing me money. I drove it once this month, to find a new parking spot. I need to stop being lazy and sell it, but there are so many better things to do during the summer (which is never long enough).

I take an express bus to and from work. My bus is always packed with pretty girls and takes less than 30 minutes most days. Unless there is a Cubs game at night, then it can take an hour, but it would take that long in a car too, so no point to driving (plus parking would be about $15/day). My transportation costs are $75/month for unlimited rides. Beat that with your car. I bet you can't even do it in fuel costs alone. Not taking into account: depreciation, insurance, maintenance, registration, city stickers (if you have them), moving violations, parking tickets, accidents, etc. I realize I am currently spending money on several of those things. But, when I get off my lazy ass and sell the car, my total monthly transportation expenses will be $75/month.

I also refuse to take cabs, unless it is to the airport with suitcases or skis, so I really don't spend more than $100/year on cabs.

I also ride my bike to work (though rarely), which takes about 20 minutes, but I have to wear business casual clothes and I don't really like the feeling of showing up dripping in sweat. Though, I was planning on riding tomorrow. It's not so bad in jeans and a short-sleeve polo.

Several aldermen in Chicago have proposed a congestion charge, like what London has and what NYC is proposing. I think it is a great idea. Pump the money into our terribly under-funded public transportation system here. I can’t see it happening here though, not enough support.

The other proposal to fund our $100 million deficit (for Chicago only, $200M plus for Chicagoland), under-funded transit system is a gas tax. The mayor is opposed as are a bunch of other legislators. Instead they are waiting for the state to bail out the RTA (Regional Transit Authority). The governor doesn't give a shit about transit and wants to focus on healthcare and education.

The RTA provides ~2 million rides in Chicagoland per week day. If you have ever been to Chicago, maybe you can you imagine 1 million extra people per day driving to work (each way). I sure as hell wouldn't want to see that. The alternative, if that $100 million is not secured will be to raise fares by 85% and then cut service on 60+ bus lines and 3 train lines. What a great idea. If there is less service and the fares are almost double, I bet a whole lot more people will ride the system and pump money into it.

IF THE TRANSIT SYSTEM IS NOT AVAILABLE/RELIABLE, NO ONE CAN/WILL RIDE IT. You know the stupid line, "Build it and they will come."

I don't understand people's fear of public transit. I see so many people driving to work alone in heavy traffic. Wouldn't you be happier if you could sit on a bus or train and read your newspaper or look out the window? My bus’s route takes me down Lake Shore Drive, so I get a nice view of the lake if I care to look out. I have read several things that say commuting by car is deleterious to your health; however, you would have to forcefully rip the steering wheel out of many people’s hands to get them to take a “filthy bus” or train. And, yes I have heard people say this.

For Stereodude and actually everyone else:
If you have the time, this long article written from a conservative point-of-view about public transportation is very interesting. It is a bit old, but most of the themes haven't changed.

 

[timwhit]

I didn't really address CAFE in my post. Seems like a half-assed solution to me. I want change now, not in 9+ years. The only way I see to do this is with a gas tax. I have been telling people for years that we need a federally mandated gas tax in this country.

If I was in charge and didn't care about reelection, I think my solution would be a small federal gas tax of say 50 cents a gallon that would go entirely towards funding public transportation. Based on a quick calculation: 20 million barrels per day consumption * 19.5 gallons per barrel(1) * 365 days = ~142 billion gallons of gas purchased per year. This tax would net $71 billion dollars, not taking into account a lower amount purchased because of the slightly higher price.

$71 billion dollars a year could do a lot to build and repair an ailing and non-existent public transportation system in this country. New train lines could be created. Money could be used for R&D. Ailing transit systems could be revitalized. Like I said in my previous post, if there is no public transportation, then the option isn't even available for people to use. Give them the option, as gas prices continue to rise, ridership will follow. Roads will become less congested. Pollution levels will drop. I don't see the downside here.

It's not like a 50 cent gas tax will make gas exorbitantly more expensive than it already is. At least the money could go to something that can replace transit when petroleum becomes even scarcer. At a certain point gas will become so expensive that the only options for most people will be public transportation or EVs. EVs are not available, and who knows when they will be, so why not hedge your bets and put money into something that already exists or could exist anywhere with sufficient population density.

I also see a suburban/exurban exodus coming. As gas prices go up, people will move closer to work and back to places that have high public transit density. Build the systems up now, so that the capacity is large enough to handle this surge. As an example, most of the train lines in Chicago already operate at more than 100% designed capacity at rush hour. Add a 10-20% increase in ridership and you start to have a real problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would guess that NYC, Boston, DC, and San Francisco are in similar predicaments.

(1) A barrel (42 gallons) of petroleum produces about 19.5 gallons of gasoline after refinement, depending.

 

[jtr1962]

Great posts, Tim. One thing that always annoys me is when people talk about public transportation as if only lepers ride it. For what it's worth, I like the idea of being able to mingle with others when I'm traveling. Who knows, I may even meet my future wife on my next subway ride. Stranger things have happened. Even if not, sometimes you do meet interesting people. To be sure, there are the occasional homeless, or mentally ill, or other unsavory characters. However, you're just as likely to encounter people like that while driving, only they'll be in charge of a 4000 pound lethal weapon instead of sleeping harmlessly on the seat.

The hard fact is that the lone ranger mentality of the automobile is becoming more and more at odds with the ever increasing population density. Regardless of how they're powered, even if they're EVs, they're not an efficient use of land or resources relative to their benefits. A double track subway can carry the equivalent of something like 2 dozen lanes of cars. Public transportation is enjoying the greatest resurgence it has seen in the last 50 years. Problem is the politicians in charge for the most part haven't caught up with this sentiment. Maybe the old saying the wheel which squeaks the loudest gets the oil. Auto drivers tend to be very vocal, so politicians tend to view this as a majority opinion. They neglect at their own peril the fact that a vast majority of the general public actually would use public transportation if it were available, relatively fast, and relatively convenient. Therefore, they continue to starve systems like the CTA where every $1 of subsidies easily saves 5 times that in auto-related expenditures. Penny-wise and dollar foolish if you ask me. As you said, build it and they will come.

For what it's worth, the congestion charge looks like it has a reasonably good chance of passing here. The governor is behind it, and for the most part so is the state legislature. It's mainly a matter of ironing out details. The only thing I would do differently is I would charge the fee for entering NYC proper rather than Manhattan, my goal being to keep out suburban auto commuters who can easily take the LIRR or NJTransit into Manhattan by taking their cars to the suburban stations nearest where they live. They would even save time/money by doing so over driving. Anyway, if the congestion pricing passes here, and works as expected, I think they may very quickly change their tune over in Chicago. Among the things I think need more funding here would be a few more subway lines in the outer boroughs. Northeast Queens, where I live, is grossly underserved by subways. We need to take a bus nearly 3 miles to the nearest subway stop. As traffic has increased the bus ride went from 10-15 minutes 25 years ago to 20-25 now. There was once take of building a spur which incidentally would put a subway line about two blocks away. I hope it gets built in time-it would cut the travel time into Manhattan from about 40 minutes to 25 or so.

I'm in full agreement about the coming suburban exodus. I just don't see how people can continue to commute 50 miles each way when gas prices hit $10/gallon or up (which they will, gas tax or not, as supplies dwindle).

As an example, most of the train lines in Chicago already operate at more than 100% designed capacity at rush hour. Add a 10-20% increase in ridership and you start to have a real problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would guess that NYC, Boston, DC, and San Francisco are in similar predicaments.

Yep, that's why we're building the 2nd Avenue subway. The lines in Manhattan are at capacity during rush hours. Ditto for the lines from Queens even though the 63rd Street tunnel helped when it opened a few years ago. Heck, I don't even get a seat on a 10PM train most of the time, and we're still running trains about 6 minutes apart that time. Maybe we can lengthen the platforms to allow 11-car trains instead of 10-car, but that only buys us a 10% capacity increase.

 

[fb]

This doesn't make sense to me. Businesses stay in business by making money. Currently, they must not think that making efficient cars is in their best interest. Why is that? What could be done to change that (without simply putting up laws to make them)?

I think most manufacturers spend their time to make engines more efficient, bu to get more power out of them. It's sexier to say that new model has 20 hp more than the previous generation, than it is to say that it uses 0.4 litres less fuel per 100km or whatever.

 

[ddrueding]

I've lived in about 20 places in Berkeley and San Francisco over the years. Most of that time I took public transportation BART (subway), trolley lines, busses, and CalTrain (longer distance commuter rail).

There is only one bus I would take if given the option, the Marina Express. "The Marina" is a fairly luxurious neighborhood in SF overlooking the city front (GG bridge, Alcatraz, etc.), 8-figure homes are the norm. There is a bus with only 2 stops; one in the middle of the Marina and the other in the middle of the financial district. This bus is immaculate, full of business people, and incredibly clean. It was often standing room only, but women always got a seat, and the guys would actually take turns.

Every other form of public transportation I took was a negative experience. I was worried about my stuff getting stolen (only happened once), every surface was dirty, and I got sick much more often.

Once, when I was living in Boston, I went home with this girl She lived in the suburbs and took a train home. We got on at the main train station (Fleet-something) and went out to her place. This train was nice, fairly clean, and a pleasant experience. One other thing to say about it was that it was nowhere near capacity; maybe 8 people in the whole car. I can't say what it would have been like if it were actually functioning in an efficient mode.

Most of the problems I've outlined here aren't with public transport per se, just the implementations of them in SF. But I think the more fundamental problem is the population density in the first place. Unless you and the million people around you are comparative saints in a visionary utopia, living in an inner city is not pleasant.

 

[Stereodude]

If I was in charge and didn't care about reelection...

See... There's your problem. The only thing the people in charge care about is getting reelected. That's the #1 priority of any politician.

 

[Stereodude]

I've lived in about 20 places in Berkeley and San Francisco over the years. Most of that time I took public transportation BART (subway), trolley lines, busses, and CalTrain (longer distance commuter rail).

Ride the MARTA in Atlanta for an experience...

 

[sechs]

I'm going to translate this for everybody:
It'd make cars hard to sell and drive up their total cost of ownership (TCO). So, it ain't gonna happen soon.

Vehicles are relatively aerodynamic nowadays and performance in that area is largely driven by consumer demand with respect to styling as well as desired vehicle dynamics at high speed (our studio is in the process of 're-theming' a vehicle because it won't be stable enough at 140mph on the Autobahn). TV Camera side view mirrors are not practical from a cost standpoint even with economies of scale (at least for mass-market). Sixth-surface body work is being used on some BMWs and other high end vehicles. We had a supplier here with a modified CTS showing us the concept. Two major issues with it are heat management & cost but there are some mpg gains to be had there. The other trade offs (serviceability, durability, functionality in snowy areas) make the idea less then likely to take off. With respect to covered rear wheel-wells, again, consumer desired styling would bring this out but I think it's damn fugly.

Also, if you think having tighter gap tolerances on body panels than what the norm in the market is today (3-5mm gaps) is going to make a measurable difference with vehicles driven at less then 180mph, I have some special car wax I'd like to sell you which I guarantee will get you and extra 3mpg and some special engine treatment that physically bonds to the metal that will let you run your engine forever w/o oil and get you another 4mpg. Tighter fits will happen will only happen if the customer demands it from a perceived quality standpoint.

 

[sechs]

I think most manufacturers spend their time to make engines more efficient, bu to get more power out of them. It's sexier to say that new model has 20 hp more than the previous generation, than it is to say that it uses 0.4 litres less fuel per 100km or whatever.

Actually, this is becoming a problem with hybrids. Companies are making parallel hybrid vehicles that allow them to boost performance, rather than serial hybrids that greatly improve fuel efficiency (and, theoretically, could be pluggable).

 

[sechs]

We got on at the main train station (Fleet-something)

North Station. The "main" station in Boston is South Station.

 

[sechs]

Ride the MARTA in Atlanta for an experience...

I'm probably going to be doing that. What's the deal?

 

[Stereodude]

I'm probably going to be doing that. What's the deal?

You will "meet" some very interesting characters on it. That's all... I felt a bit out of place riding it with my luggage from the airport the the end of the line and back the few times I've done it.

 

[fb]

This doesn't make sense to me. Businesses stay in business by making money. Currently, they must not think that making efficient cars is in their best interest. Why is that? What could be done to change that (without simply putting up laws to make them)?

Sorry, but I have to quote this again. It's easy, get the customers interested in the cars. In Sweden we have had different kind of economic rewards if you buy an "environmentally friendly" car. You can get tax-rebates if you have a company car, if you are a private person you get 10000SEK (~$1400) in rebate on the price from the state + that it runs cheaper. You get free parking in some cities and we don't have to pay the congestion charge if we visit Stockholm... and so on..

 

[Howell]

You will "meet" some very interesting characters on it. That's all... I felt a bit out of place riding it with my luggage from the airport the the end of the line and back the few times I've done it.

Bah, you and David are both primadonnas.

 

[timwhit]

Bah, you and David are both primadonnas.

I agree. So what if an "interesting character" tries to sell you some stolen socks, or a hair buzzer on the train. Say no and they will go on to their next prospect.

I have never had anything stolen from me. I have heard of it happening, but as long as you pay attention to your surroundings you should be fine. No one has ever threatened me either. I did break up a fight at about 3am, but no violence was directed towards me, just drunk idiots acting the part.

Remember, David eats at steak restaurants that serve Kobe beef three times a week, can you imagine him riding public transit afterwards?

 

[jtr1962]

The way I usually dress somehow I think I'm very unlikely to be bothered on public transit. Maybe I'll get some fellow riders trying to give me quarters but that's about it.

 

[Howell]

Remember, David eats at steak restaurants that serve Kobe beef three times a week, can you imagine him riding public transit afterwards?

I had Kobe beef cooked on a hot rock (ishiyaki) last Wednesday. It was great!

A couple of years ago I let a guy on the bus use my cell phone so this he could call his ride cause he was getting to the stop early. I could have sanitized it when I got home if I wanted to but I didn't. That would have really been a minor inconvenience compared to the other guy.

You know people are just people.

I've fallen asleep on the subways in NewYork and London. Somebody that I was talking to woke me up so I wouldn't miss my stop.

 

[Howell]

The way I usually dress somehow I think I'm very unlikely to be bothered on public transit. Maybe I'll get some fellow riders trying to give me quarters but that's about it.

That's the thing. Even if I cared how people dress, people riding the bus at 7am and 6PM are going to/from work. My route took me through 2 housing projects. Everyone was dressed for work and cared about the same things: no gum on the seats and a schedule that was on time.

 

[jtr1962]

I've fallen asleep on the subways in NewYork and London. Somebody that I was talking to woke me up so I wouldn't miss my stop.

Did that happen during the week you were in NY and met me, or was it some other time? Yeah, I've fallen asleep more times than I care to think about, especially when I got out of work at 10 or 11. Never had anyone bother me. And you should have seen some of the characters I encountered when I took the IRT (#4 Jerome Avenue line) to high school in the late 1970s. Fortunately their bark was worse than their bite. The subways in general are a lot more pleasant now. Some trains were downright funky back then:

 

[ddrueding]

That is a great picture. Did you take it? Where/when?

 

[jtr1962]

That is a great picture. Did you take it? Where/when?

It's from nycsubway.org. There's thousands of pictures there of both the retired and present fleets. I could spend literally days browsing their huge collection of images. Lots of the pictures of long retired trains take me right back to my childhood or otherwise evoke some long forgotten memory.

The picture above was actually taken in 1983, but that's generally how much of the subway looked from the mid-1970's through the mid-1980s as it began a long downward spiral.

 

[Howell]

Did that happen during the week you were in NY and met me, or was it some other time?

Yep, it was during that time.

 

[Clocker]

I'm going to translate this for everybody:
It'd make cars hard to sell and drive up their total cost of ownership (TCO). So, it ain't gonna happen soon.

You get about a 60%. Good job!

 

[Clocker]

For those of you interested in a dose a reality relative to CAFE standards, here's a good read

http://www.mema.org/publications/articledetail.php?articleId=7751

 

[Howell]

I want a car that I can plug in at night to recharge in the garage. It should go 50 miles between charges. It should also have an engine that will kick in if the battery power gets too low.

It should have a hatchback, have a cargo area in the rear and be sized anywhere between a Honda CRX and a Chevy HHR.

Can you hook me up?

 

[ddrueding]

I want a car that I can plug in at night to recharge in the garage. It should go 50 miles between charges. It should also have an engine that will kick in if the battery power gets too low.

It should have a hatchback, have a cargo area in the rear and be sized anywhere between a Honda CRX and a Chevy HHR.

Can you hook me up?

Here you go.

Very promising technology, IMHO.

 

[fb]

But Europe's car fleet - driven by heavily taxed, ultra-expensive fuel but no fuel economy law - runs about 84 percent four-cylinder, five percent three-cylinder and just one percent eight-cylinder engines, 51 percent of them diesel and 80 percent driving through manual transmissions.

Interesting points... But we really don't need 8 cylinder cars even when driving at the autobahn at 250km/h... So I really don't understand why American moms should need one when they're driving to the mall alone? It seems like the author of the article think it's bad to make cars more efficient? What's the solution then? Maybe you should make laws against efficient cars? Yes, it really sounds like a bright idea...

I need to write my government and tell them about this scientific revelation before it's too late. More than 20% of the cars sold in Sweden right now fits into our definition of "environmentally friendly", I hope it's not too late already.

 

[Stereodude]

Interesting points... But we really don't need 8 cylinder cars even when driving at the autobahn at 250km/h... So I really don't understand why American moms should need one when they're driving to the mall alone? It seems like the author of the article think it's bad to make cars more efficient? What's the solution then? Maybe you should make laws against efficient cars? Yes, it really sounds like a bright idea...

People don't need 3Ghz quad core processors to surf the web, but we let people buy them anyway. The gov't shouldn't be regulating what kind of cars people drive or can buy, which is effectively what they are doing, but that's how gov't likes to work... Nanny state here we come!

 

[fb]

Maybe you are confusing nannying with evolution?

There are already powerful and quite efficient cars that are fun to drive, like the BMW 535d and Saab 9-5 2.3 BioPower, but they aren't sold in the US (yet).

 

[ddrueding]

No more laws! Taxes if necessary.