I’ve found the perfect car for you.
“It's the first car I've ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn't have to drive it any more.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article6294116.ece
Yes, hip hip hooray.
Only a decade late and with us footing the massive bill for the car boyz abject incompetence.
Ten days late and $100 dollars short---viva the "free market"!
Posted by euzoius at May 20, 2009 07:35 AMTo be fair to Ford, they have managed far better than GM and Chrysler. Yeah, they built the Extinction -- I mean, the Excursion -- but they also were the first American manufacturer to push a real hybrid, using technology licensed from Toyota rather than the fake-hybrid that GM sells. Their initial SUV, the Exploder -- I mean, Explorer -- wasn't so bad either. It was when people began upgrading from the Exploder to the Chevy Subhuman -- I mean, Suburban -- that Ford came out with the Execution -- I mean, Expedition -- in response.
At the same time Ford was the only American manufacturer to offer a viable small car, the Fusion. The Neon was a poor quality joke, as was the small car from Chevy/Pontiac. The Fusion even had features designed to protect occupants in the event of collision with an Extinction, ironically.
So, give Ford at least some credit. They are the best run of the big three.
Posted by Anonny at May 20, 2009 08:32 AM“It's the first car I've ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn't have to drive it any more.”
That's a funny article. But then Honda is a funny manufacturer. Whereas Toyota tends to lean conventional in their solutions -- even the Prius used conventional wisdom in deciding which technologies to develop -- Honda design is often driven by certain religiously-held tenets that they push to extremes. Sometimes this works, sometimes not.
On the plus side, this has resulted in tremendous improvments in driver erognomics and passenger comfort. But on the minus side, they've had their share of failures. For example, Honda has been religious about front wheel drive from early on, choosing it even for cars that other companies would have used for rear wheel drive, only relenting relatively recently for a few performance cars. They were adamant about maximizing their cars' interior space, to the detrement of anyone who had to service their engines. They opposed the minivan concept of sliding doors and a high roof until their first Odyssey was a market failure.
Their first attempt at a hybrid was a similar failure because they insisted, apparently for religious reasons, on the "weak hybrid" approach. As a result their hybrids cost more, saved less gas, and lost out to Toyota.
Honda does learn from mistakes (witness how the 2nd generation Odyssey set the standard that everyone follows), so this time around they adopted the Toyota approach. But it sounds like they are overdoing the eco-thing, or perhaps the author is correct and they are trying to meet unrealistic price targets. Toyota did something similar with the first generation Prius, making it too small and including all kinds of compromises such as low-friction tires which cost more and reduced safety through increased breaking distances. Toyota quickly learned that Hybrids should be like other cars except for the engine, and the 2nd generation Prius, and all their other hybrids, are exactly that. I'm surprised to see Honda repeat a mistake Toyota did 10 years ago, but then that is typical of Honda ... if they believe religiously in something they'll stick with that tenet until the market clearly proves them wrong.
Posted by Anonny at May 20, 2009 10:08 AMEven though Obama's action was overdue, it does not go far enough. Fuel efficiency of 35 mpg has been already achieved by Japanes. Why it is so difficult for US car companies? Why do they need until 2016 to get there?
Posted by suresh at May 20, 2009 11:30 AMFuel efficiency of 35 mpg has been already achieved by Japanes. Why it is so difficult for US car companies? Why do they need until 2016 to get there?
It has to do with fleet composition. The Japanese dominate in the small and medium-sized car segment which puts their CAFE number much lower. It's not just about making small/medium cars, it's about making cars that can sell. Detroit could surely build more Neons or Vespas, but who would buy them when Scions and Civics are available at attractive prices?
Yes, even the Japanese still make gas guzzlers (see Lexus.com if you doubt this), but they are a small percentage of their overall fleets.
Posted by Anonny at May 20, 2009 11:46 AMSince CA is the largest domestic market for vehicles, Detroit was making decisions based on CA. The reason Detroit was slow to advance on fuel efficient cars was because of the environmentalist movement in CA.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) didn't accept hybrids as a clean fuel-efficient car. The CARB demanded that automakers produce electric cars and that electric cars make up 5% of the CA vehicle fleet. Unfortunately, the technology wasn't there to make it happen, and consumers wanted to buy other things.
****
Everyone is worried about the $3000-8000 per car that Obama's new mileage requirements will cost.
Toyota USA CEO said that as of 2009, the technology doesn't exist to make larger cars more fuel efficient. It will require new innovation, new metals, new engine design, and redesigning the safey features to deal with the risks of a smaller and lighter car.
While conventional large-size cars will still be available after Obama's MPG hike, expect those prices to rise to subsidize the costs of the smaller cars.
In reply to JFixx:
Since its easier(read: cheaper) to make smaller cars more fuel efficient than larger vehicles wouldn't the price increases have a stronger uptick for the larger vehicles? Wouldn't it also follow that more people may decide that they don't really need to drive a dumptruck sized vehicle to putz around town in?
As far as smaller cars not being as safe due to lighter materials, that depends on if the lighter materials lack the same strength of heaver materials. I remember seeing in a PBS documentary (I'm sorry that I can't remember which one, but the guys who hose the Car Talk NPR radio show were in it) something about a way to use plastic and carbon fiber to create frames that were as strong as titanium.
This may not help much if a smaller lighter car were hit by a larger heavier vehicle, physics are physics, but maybe if there were a disincentive to drive larger heavier vehicles the danger would be reduced.
Posted by Jolly Sapper at May 20, 2009 01:30 PMEveryone is worried about the $3000-8000 per car that Obama's new mileage requirements will cost.
You bet...since Detroit built the car and last sold it 10 years ago in the United States for $6,000.00 dollars, and sold it in China as recently as 2007. I guess that means the only ones really worried about it are assclown republi-KKKon idiots.
Posted by phidipides at May 20, 2009 02:44 PMahhh jwest is R teh fUnn33 today!
So easy to pick out a bad car review by someone who makes a living driving $300,000+ cars around a test track to imply this is what we'll all have to deal with if we keep pushing for better fuel efficiency/alt-fuels.
HAAAHAAAAHHAHA! jwest is so R the fuNN33!!1!
I particularly like the complaint that Jeremy has about the CVT transmission; shorter Jeremy:
"The transmission and engine sounds don't match! It feels weird! screw this toy baby crap.. gimmee back my Bugatti!"
Using this in an attempt to make an argument against fuel efficiencies is ass-clown territory (even for you), but you like it down in them thar parts, dont ya?
Large cars are, in fact, more dangerous than small cars - both to their drivers and to others. That's why they cost more to insure. And in the "physics department": higher mass, higher kinetic energy.
The 3000-8000 figure is simply a lie. 600-800 dollars are the published estimates and that doesn't include gasoline savings.
Republicans: wrong about everything. But what else would you expect from a gang of creationist climate change deniers?
Posted by Marc at May 21, 2009 06:03 AMWhhhaaaat, you mean conserva-turd idiot JFarts LIED?
Whoda thunk it?
Posted by euzoius at May 21, 2009 06:43 AMLarge cars are, in fact, more dangerous than small cars - both to their drivers and to others. That's why they cost more to insure. And in the "physics department": higher mass, higher kinetic energy.
Very true... that is why on the Autobahn there are statiscally less fatalities at even higher speeds.
Posted by Seven of Six at May 21, 2009 07:29 AMI've never understood the half-assed stupid approaches the US always seems to take in dealing with issues like this.
If you're gonna burn hydrocarbons at all to provide mobility, it makes sense to do it in the most efficient way possible, right? And large combustors are inherently more efficient than small ones, are they not? I mean, isn't that why coal-fired and nuclear power plants are designed with large capacities? Efficiencies of scale and all that?
So take all that stimulus money and use it to create large petroleum, natural gas, and ethanol-fueled power plants (or some combination thereof), an upgraded distribution grid, and a network of electric filling stations. That would create plenty of jobs, which fulfills the intent of the stimulus plan. Then get these morons in Detroit to build fleets of all-electric cars with sufficient range to be usable. It is possible, but only if the filling stations are created in tandem.
It's infinitely easier and cheaper to filter out pollutants from several large combustion sources than from millions of little ones. It would also be easier to capture the carbon when the technology to do so efficently becomes available, or to convert over to hydrogen, when that is. Besides, carrying hydrogen fuel in cars is incredibly dangerous.
It would seem a plan like this should be easy to implement, because unlike all the other approaches, the petroleum/gas lobby wouldn't fight it by paying all the politicians to kill it. Neither would the vested interests in ethanol. Nor the coal or nuclear outfits already on the power grid. They would happily jump on board. They don't care why their fuel gets burned, only that it does.
And folks should be happy to not have to smell exhaust and breathe smog every day on their commutes.
Posted by JayDee at May 23, 2009 07:58 PM