Click n' Clack write Congress for higher fuel economy standards
We've all seen celebrities marching on Capital Hill and appearing before Congress to support their cause du jour of the day. In the same vein, Tom and Ray Magliozzi, also known as Click n' Clack on their public radio program Car Talk, recently sent a letter to the House Select Committee on Global Warming urging the government to increase fuel economy standards. Believe it or not, they deliver just as many jokes when addressing Congress as they do their 3 million+ listeners every week. Their main point is that automakers could achieve a national fleetwide average of 35 MPG in five years if it were a priority. They argue that U.S. automakers have claimed higher fuel economy standards would ruin them for the past 50 years, and each time the bar has been raised a little higher, they've managed to adapt and still deliver unto us our SUVs and muscle cars. At the same time, the brothers remark that it may be time for more appropriately-sized and -powered vehicles, suggesting those days of large SUVs and high-power muscle cars should end. Curiously, they also seem to predicate their call for a higher fuel economy standard on the benefit of energy independence alone, making no mention of the environmental perks that are obviously associated. The letter can be read in its entirety after the jump.
[Source: The Detroit News via AutoblogGreen]
Tom and Ray Magliozzi
Box 3500 Harvard Square
Cambridge MA 02238
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
United States House of Representatives
Washington DC 20515
Oct. 25, 2007
To Members of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
You are about to make a crucial decision that may be a turning point for our country. As you consider how high to raise our nation's CAFÉ standards, you are undoubtedly coming under a barrage of lobbying from various parties. Including us! The obvious question is, who do you believe?
On the one hand, you have people like Ed Markey, who's been trying to increase fuel economy for as long as we can remember. Admittedly, he's from Massachusetts. And yes, we've seen his haircut.
On the other hand, you have the automotive industry (i.e. car salesmen), whose ratings for honesty are below even those of Congress in public opinion surveys. Let's remember why:
In 1972, Ford President Lee Iacocca, told you that if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down." Hm. That wasn't exactly right on the money, was it?
A couple of years later, car makers were back in front of you guys, squealing over proposed new fuel economy standards. Chrysler Vice President of Engineering, Alan Loofborrow, predicted that imposing fuel economy standards might "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years." That thing got a Hemi, Alan?
As the industry triple-teamed Congress to keep America from improving fuel economy, a Ford Executive let fly this whooper: If CAFÉ became law, the move could result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles..." Ask the man who drives an Expedition if that ever came to pass.
The onslaught of "we can't...it'll ruin us... you're denying Americans a choice of vehicles" begins every time we the people-through our elected representatives-try to bring the auto industry, kicking and screaming into the modern era. And every time, their predictions of motorized-skateboard futures have failed to materialize. Let us repeat that, because the historical record bears it out to a tee. Every single time they've resisted safety, environmental, or fuel economy regulations, auto industry predictions have turned out, in retrospect, to be fear-mongering bull-feathers.
Isn't it time we (you) stop falling for this 50 year-long line of baloney?
The truth is, significantly higher average fuel economy can be achieved. In fact it's already being achieved. And if we don't push our own auto industry to set world class standards, they'll be beaten again by the Japanese, the Koreans, and maybe even the Chinese, who will do it with or without U.S. Congressional action.
There are technologies aplenty that already exist that could be used to meet much higher CAFE standards.
- Hybrid-electric vehicles. Hybrids offer, in many cases, a 50% increase in mileage over gasoline versions of the same vehicles. GM just introduced a hybrid Chevy Tahoe, that reportedly gets better city mileage than a Toyota Camry.
- Clean diesel engines. With new, clean diesel fuel now mandated in America, expect a surge of clean diesel engines in the next three to five years that get 25% better fuel economy than their gasoline counterparts.
- Diesel-electric hybrids. Combine the advantages of hybrids with more efficient diesel engines.
- Turbo chargers and super chargers. These force additional air into cylinders to wring more power out of available fuel.
- Cylinder deactivation. Cylinders that are not needed at any given moment, are deactivated, and instantaneously reactivated as soon as the driver demands additional power. Widely available now.
- Plug-in, series hybrids. Now on the drawing boards, plug-in hybrids allow drivers to charge up overnight, when the electric grid is underused, and they'll handle most commutes without ever firing up their internal combustion engines.
- Automatic stop-start technology. At least one energy analyst we spoke to believes that this simple technology, in and of itself, could result in a 10% decrease in fuel use. It's already used in hybrid vehicles, foreign and domestic, and is on its way in more vehicles in the next couple of years.
- Higher voltage electrical systems. These save fuel by allowing energy draining systems, such as power steering, and air conditioning, to be run electrically, instead of by draining power from the engine and using fuel.
- Regenerative braking. Captures energy otherwise lost when the car slows down to give further boost to onboard battery systems.
- Safe, lightweight materials. Lightweight steel, aluminum and carbon fiber panels reduce weight, allowing a smaller, more efficient engine to propel a car just as fast on less fuel.
- Better transmissions. Six speed automatic transmissions, widely available now from Ford and others, increase fuel economy by 5% and offer smoother acceleration. Mercedes has seven speeds. Lexus has eight. Nissan has CVTs-continuously variable transmissions. All of these improve mileage AND performance.
- Common rail fuel injection. Now standard on modern diesels, this same high pressure fuel delivery technology is beginning to be used to increase fuel economy in gasoline engines, too.
- All wheel drive systems that use electric motors at the non-driven wheels, like on the Lexus RX350 hybrid, eliminate heavy, gas-wasting differentials and drive train components on cars designed to go in the snow.
- More appropriately sized and weighted cars. When we're facing a future of global oil wars and economy-killing gasoline prices, perhaps having single commuters drive 5,000 pound SUVs is something we'll just have to learn to live without. And modern computer electronics, such as stability control, can now ameliorate any driving dynamic issues that result from lack of mass.
- More appropriately powered cars. In 1964, the most powerful, over-the-top Mustang muscle car you could buy came with an optional, four-barrel, 271 horsepower engine. Today, that's what comes standard on the highest rated minivans. 275 horsepower. To take your kid to nursery school? What does this say about our national priorities? Do we really want to send our kids to fight and die in the desert so that can go 0-60 in eight seconds instead of ten seconds?
Look what American industry did in World War II. Look what we did with the space program. It's time to make energy independence just as high a priority. And it starts with you guys (and gals), our representatives. Don't buy the "can't do" bull this time.
Not only can it be done, but by increasing CAFÉ standards dramatically, you'll be helping the American automotive industry compete-by forcing them to synchronize their priorities with those of the American people, and the populations of other countries where they will be increasingly marketing their cars.
It's the job of private enterprise to design and sell products. But it's the job of Congress to set our national priorities. Trust us, the car companies won't go out of business because America insists that they build the world's best, most efficient cars. We urge you to set the bar high for American ingenuity. We have no doubt out car industry will make the grade-to the benefit of all Americans.
Sincerely,
Tom and Ray Magliozzi
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
theron 7:49PM (11/06/2007)
As much as I like the car guys, and as much as I support liberal/environmental causes generally, I don't buy this concept of forcing the car companies to be more efficient. By all means we should regulate emmissions to protect the public good of air qualilty. But as far as actual fuel mileage I say let the market decide. I'm sure the car makers are aware of what their buyers want.
Reply
Drac 8:00PM (11/06/2007)
How long do we wait for the market to decide?
The oil market is not a free one (as I see it), so how can the rest of the market adapt around it without regulation? As much as we all love cars, we need to be realistic and think about our affect on things more than 20-30 years into the future.
psarhjinian 8:01PM (11/06/2007)
We can either fix the emissions problem now, while we still have a comfort margin, or we can wait until we have no choice, which is probably about when the market will decide.
Me, I'm for avoiding massive environmental damage and/or World War for Oil.
Pure laissez-faire works about as well as pure socialism does.
elprogramer 8:54PM (11/06/2007)
Drac,
So we wave the magic wand and force people to do what we say? The market's working just fine; people are already turning to more fuel-efficient vehicles as fuel prices rise.
Russell 11:39AM (11/07/2007)
I have heard their show, and I definately noticed bias toward oriental car companies. These guys are trying to kill american auto industry and don't comprehend the implications of the result.
Maestro1 7:57PM (11/06/2007)
I'm a big fan of theirs and I agree.
I don't think it should be left entirely up to the market because the market alone can't force fuel economy standards higher since people buy what is available, and if only ugly little economy cars are available which get high MPGs then people will still buy the vehicle they like and put up with the lower fuel mileage.
I do however, think that the government should intervene in this one and actually give subsidies and funds TO the Automakers and help them achieve these higher standards because fuel mileage isn't just a consumer issue, its an environmental issue and therefore good for both the country and the planet.
You can't just force them to raise standards and expect them to deal with the burden because as many people have said, the environment is a universal problem and we all have to do our part to help save it. Now if that means I have to pay a little more taxes in order for those funds to go into R&D for Automakers, then so be it. But that's just me though...
Reply
elprogramer 8:59PM (11/06/2007)
"I don't think it should be left entirely up to the market because the market alone can't force fuel economy standards higher since people buy what is available, and if only ugly little economy cars are available which get high MPGs then people will still buy the vehicle they like and put up with the lower fuel mileage."
So logically there's an untapped market, and whoever reaches it stands to make tons of profit. Which is exactly what Ford and General Motors are doing, by making hybrid/alternative fuel versions of their best selling vehicles.
The market works, but people don't understand it and try to control it, causing more harm than good.
nonsense 9:29PM (11/06/2007)
No, what we have in this case is a market failure. The negative externalities of burning gasoline are not fully realized by the consumer. Until they are, there will be no market for more fuel efficient cars. Forcing higher fuel efficiency on consumers is somewhat half-assed, but its the only solution in the short term.
Jim 10:09PM (11/06/2007)
They are right in saying the priority of automakers over the recent past has been horsepower, not economy. My 1990 Maxima had a "high output" 3.0 V with 160HP, did 0-60 in about 9.5 and got about 25mpg overall. My wife's 06 Accord 2.4L has 165 HP, does 0-60 in about 9.5, and gets about 30mpg overall. Same performance, smaller engine, better economy, but what was "performance" in 1990 is ridiculed by the automotive press as inadequate in 2007.
Today, if I want the luxury of a Maxima, I have to buy the 3.5L and live with 21 mpg (epa) and have 260HP, half of which will (should?) almost never be used by the normal driver. This is where CAFE would help. Why can't the current Maxima have 200 HP and get 28 mpg instead of 260 HP and 21 mpg? Because the Altima has 180, becasue the Sentra has 150, etc... Automakers make these HP output levels to beat each other, not because most buyers even care.
Maestro1 8:06PM (11/06/2007)
Actually, I think we can all solve this problem in ONE simple solution.
The government should buy Mercedes' DiesOtto engine technology for a high price (they're entitled to it if they share the tech) and then spread that tech out over all the relevant automakers so they can adapt it for power and whatnot.
Then everybody gets 30-40mpg minimum and we can all sleep easier.
Reply
psarhjinian 12:20AM (11/07/2007)
Repeat after me:
Emissions does not equal fuel economy
Diesel, per unit of crude used, is often not more efficient than gasoline.
Maestro1 12:44AM (11/07/2007)
Well smartypants. If you did your research you'd know that a DiesOtto is essentially a gasoline engine which achieves the efficiency of a Diesel Engine through Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition (HCCI). So it is not a diesel engine.
You'd also know that diesel fuel has a higher energy density than gasoline, containing approximately 147,000 BTUs of energy compared to a gasoline engine's 125,000 BTUs of energy. So therefore diesel IS more efficient than gasoline. And even if they used diesel fuel they could just use clean-diesel which has lower emissions and it is already widely available these days.
Bennet Pullen 8:27PM (11/06/2007)
Amen!
*than goes out and gets into 25mpg BMW*
Reply
Mason Hill 8:57PM (11/06/2007)
A nice fat tax hike on gas will dictate what people buy. Look at European countries with high gas prices. American roads are plugged by huge vehicles with one occupant. $5.00 per gallon gas will quickly change those choices. Use the money to pay for the Iraq invasion, which was to keep control of the oil in the first place.
mk 10:16PM (11/06/2007)
@mason
TAXES. Always damn taxes.
Has anyone in this country actually taken an economics class? TAXES are the most inefficient, and most entrenched form of price control. Plus it feeds corruptable government bureaucracy.
Not only that, but it will have devastating effects on the economy.
Fuel is an inelastic commodity. People HAVE to buy fuel to go to work, it is just a matter of how much, and how often.
But some people use fuel while AT work, like truck drivers, train engineers, and other transportation and logistics professions.
If you raise taxes on fuel by nearly 70% of it's current level (which is mostly made up of taxes on a per-gallon basis, already, BTW) you will only serve to starve the economy, and drop us all into a recession, or worse.
Groceries, retail goods, local delivery of home heating fuels that require trucks, shipping and parcel services of all kinds, and any goods or services that rely on those things will immediately inflate.
With the falling dollar, every person's salary has less buying power, with rampant inflation of prices due to fuel costs will tank the dollar entirely.
People will be working for money that is worth less and less, have to pay more for the fuel that they need, and have to cut back on all other goods and services due to that effect on household buying power, which will be exacerbated by increasing prices on all sorts of goods and services.
Energy vendors won't go out of business, but they will be hurt by contraction of demand. Demand for other things will dry up completely, and other people will go out of business. Unemployment will rise, as employers with high fuel and other costs have no capital to hire.
I swear that no one in this country has the first clue about economics, and it is evident every time someone wants to tout giving MY money to the government for a political easy-way-out, which will be the worst possible outcome.
Get a clue about the consequences of your suggestions, please. For the sake of yourself, and everyone else.
j-Keeler 1:42AM (11/07/2007)
Oh goody, now some guys on a radio show get to tell me what size car I get to drive. Wow, talk about freedom of choice!
Reply
Darren 6:15AM (11/07/2007)
Let the market decide may ass!! What a totally niave attitude.
This "market" of which you speak is controlled. Utterly and completely. The 'market' is the bean counters looking for the highest profit margin for the littlest output. How else do you think we ended up with all these POS Denalis, Excursions, Durangos et al, and the Grand Pooh-Bah POS the Hummer. All built on ancient, outmoded technology but ohh those profit margins. No one asked the industry for these , They created the market.
Why in the world do you think the American auto industry is in the toilet. They have attempted to either deny or play catch up with the real world. Hence the rise of the Japanese. They have given the real 'market' what we want. And they, above all, are in the best position to meet the proposed increased standards. While the American industry follows the same old path, playing Chicken Little. "Oh, it will be the end of the world".
In a real 'market', these dinosaurs would be in museums by now.
Reply
Du 8:12AM (11/07/2007)
Last time I checked Hummer's Denali's and other large SUV's still sell quite well (better thancompact cars) even with $3 a gallon gas.
Obviously someone is buying them.
That is the market. If people stopped buying SUV's then the automakers would obviously stop making them.
You are a prime example of someone who doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Mike 7:42PM (11/07/2007)
First off, your argument that SUV's are made with old technology is just ignorant. It's plain physics. Large, powerful vehicles require more fuel to move them than small, less powerful ones.
Second, the Japanese didn't come in and wow us with new technology and vehicles that we couldn't build, they came in and undercut the price on small vehicles because the trade deficit and high pay for American labor (both current and legacy) made small cars impossible to make a profit on for domestic manufacturers who kept most of their manufacturing in this country. They realized that people were buying SUVs and trucks and focused their energy on profitable products, just like any good business.
Their folly had been the inability to forsee the rise in fuel costs and the current treehugger campaign from the liberals. Tag onto that the criminal actions in the housing market and you have a massive change that they were, until recently, unprepared for.
The Japanese simply were in the right place at the right time with their products. As you can see, they haven't even learned, as they continue to make their products larger and more powerful and try to tap into the truck market because it still creates $$ that they haven't sucked away from the domestics yet.
500 9:59PM (11/06/2007)
Never liked these guys very much. Have caught their show many times on NPR, and their bias is often evident. Plus, they never seem to recommend anything to callers other than a Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord.
Reply