Ironic how your vehcile is one of those reviled SUVs, eh? Maybe a nice $600,000 electric vehicle (that IS what they cost to build), or maybe a hybrid, which costs $2,000 - $4,000 more than the gas-powered equivalent, but barely gets over 40 mpg (in actual use.)
true true... it's
one of the bad guys. but it's a little fella compared to the big
gas gluttons out there. did you know that a bunch of small
bridges on the east coast had to be retrofitted to accommodate
today's 3 ton hogs? besides, the pathfinder is retired - merely a
rolling billboard. i don't know much about the electric cars - i
suppose that charging them means burning something somewhere to
generate the power. the hybrids are very cool. even if the cost
is 2-4k, it makes up for the money spent on gas. if there were
more of a demand for hybrids the cost per vehicle would go way
down... wouldn't you rather the bucks went to American high tech
companies rather than straight into the pockets of oppressive
regimes?
thanks for the email!
the Pig
www.gaspig.com
Well, I can tell you this about
today's modern SUVs: They are actually remarkably efficient when
compared to cars of only a few years ago, and even with some of
today's "efficient" cars.
For example, the Honda Civic gets around 35 mpg. A Ford
Expedition egts aorund 15. The civic weighs in at around 2200 lbs
while the Expedition weighs in around 5500 lbs. If one uses the
Expedition as a baseline for fuel economy, the Honda should get
37.5 mpg. And the Civic can only hold 2 people and their stuff
while the Expedition can carry 6 adults and enough stuff for a
week on the road. As one who enjoys driving vacations with a
couple we know, I could load myself, my wife and newborn son,
plus my 2 friends and THEIR newborn son, plus all our stuff into
the Expedition and go anywhere we like, with interior room to
spare. And get around 18 mpg on the highway.
As for electrics, the fact that car companies have to make them
is both a tragedy and a farce. I am actually an expert in the
field of electric cars and I can tell you right here, right now,
they will NEVER be a viable alternative without a fundamental
breakthrough in battery technology. This could happen tomorrow,
or it could take 50 years; who knows? Today's modern electric car
gets only slightly greater range than a 1912 Detroit Electric
(100 miles vs 80), the biggest difference being the top speed (85
vs. 35.) And all EVs generate MORE pollution that the typical
modern gasoline-powered
car; they just relocate the source of pollution, Ed Begley's
rantings to the contrary notwithstanding.
And EVs are also VERY dangerous to service, in spite of double
(and sometimes triple) redundant safety systems. The average
person can be killed by as little as 600 milli-amps at 1 volt.
Most EVs run on 345 volt 200 AMP systems. Those lucky enough to
survive an electrocution would liklely have had an arm or hand
blown off.
And finally, they still cost hundreds of thousands of dollars
apiece, and no amount of mass production will change that. It
comes down to this:
Even an excellent EV such as the Nissan Altra-EV (based on a
production vehicle) still costs about $65,000 - not counting the
$25,000 import duty Nissan has to pay per vehicle (and California
is FORCING Nissan to build these cars and can't help with the
import fees...) The batteries (which must be replaced after no
more than 3 years - much less in colder climates) still costs
between $175,000 and $275,000, depending on the specific battery
technology required by the particular vehicle (California keeps
changing its mind about things like battery controller location,
etc.)
As for the hybrids, CARB does not allow any partial EV credit to
companies who sell them. Honda and Toyota are selling their
hybrid cars strictly for the PR credit they get - plus they can
see how customers are beginning to respond and they are
developing products accordingly (without state of federal
coercion, by the way.) Most people in the auto industry, myself
included, believe that hybrids are the way-to-go for the next 15
years or so (fuel cell cars are still pretty scary.) But the
State of California is actually discouraging automakers from
developing hybrids, instead insisting that the utterly ridiculous
EV mandate continue in the face of every single scientist to
speak at various CARB meetings saying that they were technically
and economically infeasible as replacements for normal, every-day
cars.
Today's hybrids are pretty cool, but they make no sense
economically. They don't reduce pollution by much and it would
take almost 10 years at today's gas prices to break even.
Assuming the car is still running. Ford, however, has it right.
THey are developing a hybrid SUV. The Ford Escape Hybrid goes on
sale next year and is expected to get 35-40 mpg, albeit at a
$4000 premium.
And thisis consistent with my thinking: Show me a Honda Civic
that gets 50 mpg and I'll yawn. Show me a Chevy Suburban that
gets 28 mpg and I'll jump for joy. As someone in the Product
Planning Department at Nissan (I help design large trucks and
SUVs) I can tell you that this is a view shared within my
department. As my company recovers financially (by selling lots
of my big trucks and SUVs, hopefully), we will be able to afford
the $1 billion or so it would take to actually develop a true
hybrid powertrain for our big vehicles. (Even if we adopted an
existing system, such as that developed by Allison Corporation
for buses) the EPA certification costs would exceed $300 million.
You gotta sell a LOT of big trucks and SUVs to pay for THAT!
Anyway, I hope we can enjoy a friendly dialogue about this topic.
We appear to have differing views, but that doesn't mean that we
can't inform one another.
And one other point: When you speak of "oppressive
regimes" are you referring to Argentina (our biggest source
of oil), Mexico (our 2nd biggest source), Saudi Arabia (our 3rd),
or Russia (our 4th - soon to become 1st.)
I don't want to support tyrants anymore than you do. However, oil
- as a global commodity - like money, is fungible. In other
words, not buying any oil from the Saudis would not change
anything. We would by more oil from, say, Brazil. And the people
who normally buy from Brazil would buy from - guess who - the
Saudis.
Our best course of action is to operate on several fronts:
1. Work through a number of channels to influence events in Saudi
Arabia. In
short, convince them to come out of the 4th Century.
2. Develop more efficient cars, trucks and SUVs, as we currently
are doing.
(Today's cars, trucks and SUVs are so clean that you can't kill
yourself by
sucking exhaust fumes.)
3. Get government (espacially CARB) the hell out of the
car-designing
business. They are idiots and they are VERY expensive.
Friendly
dialogue? sorry, i can't be a friend unless you agree with me
entirely.
honestly, your letter comes as a breath of fresh air in the
debate. technically impaired as i am, posting gaspig has been a
real eye opener. i think the hybrids are the way to go too, given
today's technology. if a suburban could get 28mpg, i'd be excited
too. course i wouldn't want to be hit by one. when an expedition
or suburban pulls up next to my accord its engine compartment is
almost as high as my roof. so even if its bumper is lowered, its
weight is still aimed at my head and upper body. a crippling blow
i'm sure the driver of the suburban would feel horrible about
even if he or she walked away unscratched. then again, if they
knew about my website they might think "bullseye!".
electric cars have another disadvantage. you can't hear them
coming! i really don't know much about them but i'm sure i'll
learn as letters like yours come in.
my pathfinder even when it was new didn't get better than an
average 15mpg so its a stretch to imagine an expedition getting
18mpg hwy. if you look at the aerodynamic profile of a sedan vs
an SUV its simple thinking to assume that the SUV is pushing
against a lot more air, especially on the highway. as a designer
of SUVs you know far more about it than me - i'm taking a guess
there.
regarding oil imports - i'm going to change my index page. your
perspective makes a lot of sense and my alarmist comments didn't
consider them. i was going off an editorial i'd read. i'll post
something a bit more rational when i learn more. a question that
comes to mind though is why is the US so militarily present in
the middle east and places like Nigeria. I read about corrupt and
oppressive government leaders tapping all the profits from oil
exports while their people live in squalor. I understand the US
can't police the world but it seems these same leaders get US
protection as long as they keep the pipes open...
the "farm vehicle" or "utility vehicle"
loophole that helped transform utility vehicles into the family
truck bothers me. it seems to me that clever lawyers found a way
around keeping vehicles as clean as the law required. i haven't
heard the other side of the argument. how do you feel about it?
and it seems most of the scientific community is concerned about
global warming and pollution? call me a tree hugger - but why
does our stuff all have to be super-sized? when you load up the
expedition with all your stuff and six people, then overall
you're doing better than the guy in the civic next to you. but
what bothers me and lots of people is the lone commuter or lone
shopper rolling along in something just as big. if you sit by a
busy road and watch cars and trucks go by, almost all of them are
driven by one person and there are no passengers. i think that's
why SUVs are getting so much flack.
the same companies that sell SUVs will bring in the cutting edge
technology that will make future cars super clean, no doubt. i've
got nothing against Ford or Nissan or any manufacturer. Consumer
demand dictates what they make. all my ranting accomplishes
nothing compared to even a slight increase in the price of fuel.
but i enjoy being active rather than passive even if i'm not 100%
on the right side of the argument.
unfortunately, i've got a day job too so i have to sign off. i
appreciate the time you took to write. all the best!
the Pig
www.gaspig.com
THIS CHAIN OF LETTERS CONTINUES... READ MORE