Subject: RE: [extropy-chat] Public Transportation

From: "J. Andrew Rogers" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:02:16 -0800

Brian Lee wrote:
> I'm guessing it's because it is cheaper to make an entry
> level car with a crappy engine that gets 30mpg than an
> entry level car with a less crappy engine that gets 50mpg.

The 50mpg engines were actually less efficient than the 30mpg engines,
they were just much smaller.  Better gas milage has nothing to do with
whether or not the engine is "crappy".

To put it in simple economic terms, the fuel economy differences today
between a two-ton mid-size sedan with a 0-60 in the mid sixes and one of
the funky subcompact hybrids is about 100 gallons per year.  Or
$20/month, and less than a lightbulb's worth of CO2 generation.  This
makes the choice obvious to most people, and the point of the sacrifice
dubious.

What I think has happened is that beyond a certain amount of fuel
economy people are not willing to give up features or performance, even
for people who really do care about fuel economy.  Fuel economy is not
the only driving consideration in vehicle selection.  A lot of people
are willing to accept a 35% reduction in fuel efficiency for a 250%
increase in power, particularly if it buys them other features, like not
having to drive in a sardine tin, more space, or good performance. Fuel
economy has come a long way.  20 years ago, 30mpg got you a 100hp
engine.  Today 30mpg gets you 250-300hp.  Trading all those ponies and
the flexibility in car layout that comes with them for marginal
increases in fuel economy just does not seem worth it for most people,
obviously.  If the high-end of fuel economy was something like 60mpg
typical in a decent car, it might be more compelling.  The closest thing
we have to this today is the micro-diesels (like the Jetta TDI).

j. andrew rogers

_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
[email-masked]
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat

---

From: Samantha Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:05:06 -0800

> makes the choice obvious to most people, and the point of the sacrifice

What do you mean?  I used to commute 500 miles a week.  At 50mpg that 
is 10 gallons.  At 25 mpg it is 20.  That is 500 gallons a year 
difference wthout even considering non-commute miles.  So exactly what 
are you claiming?  That most Americans average around 50 miles a week?  
I very much doubt it.

---

From: MB <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:44:49 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

I am sadly out of step with the mainstream. Have been looking for 10
years for a car like my Geo, but have not found it, no matter the gas
mileage. Don't like big size, don't want all those "features", don't
like the styles, all pointy in back with tiny rear windows and poor
visibility. My Geo is so old now that it's become a "county" car and I
have to use something else for long trips.

For me the little car was comfortable: the seats were comfortable,
visibility was excellent, the car was nimble and handled nicely,
zipping up our hills and merging onto the interstate, carried lots of
stuff, parked in a tiny space (which was good after the parking spaces
on our local streets were redone to size "extra-small") and could run
all over the place for a couple of weeks on one tank of gas.

Which is why I still have and use that car every day. My other car
... well, better not get started on that topic. ;)

Mournfully,
MB

On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> The 50mpg engines were actually less efficient than the 30mpg
> engines, they were just much smaller.  Better gas milage has nothing
> to do with whether or not the engine is "crappy".
>