Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 3:23 AM
Sun Nov 22
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/20/09
08/20/09
The Model T Ford got 30mpg with it's 16HP engine. Today, the average MPG is still 30. All our progress has gone towards making more power because gas up til recently (I mean the 70's) was so cheap.
It's not that the automakers couldn't do it, it's because we never demanded it from them with our buying habits.
The Saudi oil fields have an estimated 40 years of current production levels left before the decline starts, and Canada has a lot more, but it's packed in sand and getting the oil out of the sand uses as much energy as you get from the oil. At least technology may help in the future.
A car with 100hp is all anyone needs. We want more but we don't need more than that. 33hp is ridiculous when you put 4 passengers in a car, with the mountainous terrain we have. I agree there.
Gobs of power is great for a sports car or tow vehicle, but it's not needed for everything.
China is going through what we did 100 years ago, they've let pollution run rampant and with a 1.2 billion people it's staggering how much worse it's going to get for them. Put 500 million cars on their roads and it's environmental Armageddon.
The Saudis won't admit they're going to run of oil eventually, but when things run dry, that's going to be the time when China has 200 million cars on the road.
We need to get our own house in order in the meantime. It's a balance, we don't all need a Z06 but at the same time a 33hp anything won't cut it on our roads.
08/19/09
08/19/09
I second that. Volkswagen employs a turbo I-4 which basically has V-6 power and 4-cyl. efficiency. Why aren't more American carmakers catching on and doing this?
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
We have lots. Besides transit there are bicycles, neighborhood electric vehicles ("golf carts"), and Segways. But marketing, urban planning, and culture has redefined "sensible" to mean a 4,000 pound tank to take your fat ass 8 miles to the store and back with 20 pounds of groceries, and 400 HP is the new 250 HP.
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
[www.american-automobiles.com]
My particular favorite is the 1915 Gadabout with its wicker (or reed) body- "the aristocrat of cyclecars".
[newarkbusiness.org]
08/19/09
@econobiker: This is what we really need.
08/19/09
08/19/09
This highlights the fundamental way in which the "green" interests have it all wrong: their vision seems to be to return to a "simpler" lifestyle based upon excessively romanticized and nostalgic views of the past. Another problem I have with greenies is that they don't seem to understand the concept of "fun" or "recreation", or (even more importantly) why it IS a desirable and appropriate part of life; I really think people of this ilk believe we should all just sit around like houseplants doing nothing! (What do these folks themselves do for fun/hobbies/entertainment anyway?)
The problem is, they completely forget (or ignore) the fact that the "earthy" lifestyle led by Westerners 100 years ago WAS NOT some flowery rainbow-infused utopia where everyone loved each other and took only what they needed from the earth, living in peace and harmony with each other and "nature". The reality in turn-of-the-century America was that for most people, lives were short, difficult, and mostly devoid of any "luxury". People back then tended to work very hard toward "progress", knowing that the result would be longer, more comfortable, more enjoyable lives for successive generations. As you pointed out, these severely compromised vehicles (with "enough" power) are being purchased in droves because the owners are upgrading from bicycle and animal-based transportation (progress and desire for a better life rearing its ugly head again); I don't expect any of them to abandon their Nanos in order to return to bicycles and asses, but this is exactly what greenies expect us Westerners to do (for us, it would be a downgrade to something like a Nano or some overgrown golf cart).
Gasoline, electricity, advances in chemical/materials engineering, and the development of personal transportation options are mostly responsible for the world we live in now. Sure, there are plenty of negative consequences to all this "progress", but the majority of the impact has been overwhelmingly positive. Most of the world has access to quality of life that folks 100 years could never have dreamed of, and it's all a result of "progress". In fact, without all of this maligned "energy consumption", many many more people in the world would be starving because we would not have the modern agricultural techniques which have boosted food production by orders of magnitude per unit of land area; if we abandon modern technology, starvation will skyrocket because there is no way "traditional" agricultural methods would come close to producing enough food for the world population.
I'm growing very weary of the intellectual dishonesty and blatant disregard for the HUMAN SPIRIT which seems to permeate the "green" interests. There ARE legitimate environmental and resource concerns, but these people seem unable/unwilling to consider the issue from every possible angle, focusing instead on punishing people for being "wasteful" and limiting the availability of goods/services to what they "need". Sometimes it seems they are more concerned with re-engineering society to conform to their world view (Humanism be damned) than they are at actually cleaning things up or "conserving".
We definitely need to get some things in order in terms of the environment and resource usage, but stepping on people's liberty and dictating to them what they do and don't "need" is NOT the answer (and yes, I'm convinced the green movement would love nothing more than to wield this level of power over people).
Didn't mean to rant so long, but these people frustrate me to no end because it's just as difficult to engage them in rational discussion as it is folks who believe that creationism is science; everything is based more upon BELIEF than actual empirical observation.
08/19/09
I tend to be generous with the heart click, but you deserve it 10 times over.
08/19/09
You acknowledge there are negative consequences of human activities; environmentalists pay attention to those (using a ton of science and very little "BELIEF") and try to figure out what to do about them. That's all it is. What's your proposal?
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
If we were content to make vehicles the way we did in the 1980s, only with smaller engines instead of more powerful ones, your garden-variety Toyota Corolla, which is the exact same size as an 80s Camry, would only require 1300cc of displacement and get 50 MPG. That would, in turn make the car even lighter, and make the 90 or so HP produced worth more insofar as acceleration is concerned than if you just pulled the engine out of a 20 year old Camry, rebuilt it, and stuck it under the hood. Unfortunately, the mentality industry-wide seems to be that as long as the resulting Corolla-class vehicle gets 35 MPG, it's all good. That's capitalism, like it or not.
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
"a home using Home Energy Station IV to help produce [from natural gas] heat and electricity and also to refuel an FCX Clarity [with H2] can reduce CO2 emissions by an estimated 30 percent and energy costs by an estimated 50 percent."
But that's from 2007 and I can see no evidence that Honda has actually put one in a home. For that matter, where are all the FCX Claritys?
08/19/09
08/19/09
I sure am sick of elitists telling us, and the rest of the world for that matter, what we can and can't do. They underestimate people's ability to make the right decision for themselves. I may not agree with the soccer-mom buying a Tahoe or Oddesy to tote her and two kids around. But that is none of my business. If I were in her shoes I would probably get an Astra 5-door but so what.
08/19/09
Birth control. That's how I feel about it. There are too many people already. Adding more will leave no quality of life for anyone. Not just gasoline but food, water, even habitable space.
Here's food for thought. The fastest growing populations on earth are in oil producing and exporting countries. The slowest growing (or declining) populations are in developed oil importing countries.
Why are the tree huggers talking to us about saving the planet? They should talk to India, Africa and the Middle East. Tell 'em to put a rubber on it.
08/19/09
Right now, it seems like we're sort of in a transition period. The developing nations are wealthy enough that people aren't starving to death or dying by age 40, but they aren't yet educated enough to start reducing birth rates. It sets us up for explosive population growth for a while, and eventually there will be stabilization and probably a gradual decline in the overall population of earth.
08/19/09
Maybe we should divide household horsepower by the number of children. We give each household 500 horsepower.....
08/19/09
Maybe we should divide household horsepower by the number of children. We give each household 500 horsepower.....
08/19/09
Deep buckets, small cabins, high transmission tunnels have tried mightily...
08/20/09
Education, social stability, and rising economic standards tends to be reflected in a rapid decline in the birthrate.
08/19/09
08/19/09