I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
MonteQuest wrote:
All you can buy is a small, slow, no AC, no heater, no powersteering, no smog control, no safety vehicle that won't go over 45?
They made the VW Bug. Why didn't everyone buy one?
Hey, on the rare occasions it actually ran, the VW Wabbit I used to own did a solid 46 mph (going downhill, with a tailwind). Don't dis the Vee Dub yo.
Last edited by Loki on Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:36 pm; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
Those things are all accessories. The basic function of a car is to move people. If you were concerned about moving people efficiently, you would not sacrifice efficiency for accessories.
Yes, the same reasoning my grandfather used when he purchsed his 63 Biscayne. No "accessories."
We live and lived in a free market where competition for consumer demand is high. You suggest we need a sterile environment with only the People's Car? Only comes in drab gray?
SPG, you could say the same thing about every single thing ever manufactured.
What's your beef? _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
Loki wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
All you can buy is a small, slow, no AC, no heater, no powersteering, no smog control, no safety vehicle that won't go over 45?
They made the VW Bug. Why didn't everyone buy one?
Hey, on the rare occasions it actually ran, the VW Wabbit I used to own did a solid 46 mph (doing downhill, with a tailwind). Don't dis the Vee Dub yo.
I'm not. I've owned several. Very efficient form of transportation.
People didn't buy them because they wanted comfort, speed, and performance, not efficiency. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:41 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
I'm suprised at you Monte. This is the kind of logic an economist would love "OK sure, it uses more gas, but really it's MORE efficient because now it has air conditioning."
Hogwash! You still don't get the point. These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier. Not too mention, people drive them 75-80 mph, not 45.
The mass the more efficient engine has to move is greater and the accessories rob horsepower, so sure, you get less mpg. It goes without saying. Basic physics. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:44 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
MonteQuest wrote:
SPG, you could say the same thing about every single thing ever manufactured.
What's your beef?
No beef. Just thought it was a pretty amazing statistic. Secondarily, I wonder if the 1908- 1950 portion of that vehicle efficiency graph doesn't make the opposite argument vis a via Jevon's paradox that the 1950-1990 portion does. Seems that fuel usage has been increasing since 1908 pretty much irrespective of efficiency. Efficiency goes down, and fuel usage goes up. Efficiency goes up, and fuel usage goes up. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:46 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
MonteQuest wrote:
These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier.
Only if you define "car" to not include the accessories, or the body. But that's the definition of an engine. A car includes the accessories, the engine, the body, etc. It's a package deal. An engine doesn't carry you from one place to another. A car does. An engine is only one determinant of the efficiency of a car. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
SPG, you could say the same thing about every single thing ever manufactured.
What's your beef?
No beef. Just thought it was a pretty amazing statistic. Secondarily, I wonder if the 1908- 1950 portion of that vehicle efficiency graph doesn't make the opposite argument vis a via Jevon's paradox that the 1950-1990 portion does. Seems that fuel usage has been increasing since 1908 pretty much irrespective of efficiency. Efficiency goes down, and fuel usage goes up. Efficiency goes up, and fuel usage goes up.
No, look back at the cost of gasoline over those years. Also, these were the growth years of the auto industry. Oil was $.6 cents a barrrel at times.
Not to mention population growth. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 10:51 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier.
Only if you define "car" to not include the accessories, or the body. But that's the definition of an engine. A car includes the accessories, the engine, the body, etc. It's a package deal. An engine doesn't carry you from one place to another. A car does. An engine is only one determinant of the efficiency of a car.
Of course.
Quote:
The mass the more efficient engine has to move is greater and the accessories rob horsepower, so sure, you get less mpg. It goes without saying. Basic physics.
One wouldn't expect anything different than that most current cars don't get better mileage than a Model T.
Some do. Like the VW and my grandad's 63'. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:00 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
MonteQuest wrote:
Also, these were the growth years of the auto industry.
Exactly. Efficiency was declining and the industry grew, but Jevon says the industry is supposed to grow when efficiency INCREASES.
As for oil prices, I'm not sure how that relates. Does Jevon not apply to cheap energy sources?
Quote:
One wouldn't expect anything different than that most current cars don't get better mileage than a Model T.
Well...maybe one Montequest wouldn't. One smallpoxgirl would. If you'd asked me two weeks ago, I would have guessed a model T got maybe 5 mpg. I think it's pretty shocking that we've engineered so much crap into cars that efficiency has gone down over the last 100 years. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
Loki wrote:
But aren't you a Jevons devotee? Isn't all that efficiency just increasing our overall fuel use? Shouldn't we all be driving Hummers, ya know, to save the Earth and stuff?
That Jevons Paradox says that increased efficiency of a resource leads to greater use of that resource, in no way means we should practice wanton consumption or not conserve.
That is a strawman argument often used to bash Jevons "devotees"
It has no basis in fact, and does not represent the position in any way.
It means our expected results are going to be the opposite. That is why it is a paradox. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
Exactly. Efficiency was declining and the industry grew, but Jevon says the industry is supposed to grow when efficiency INCREASES.
As the efficiency of a resource grows, so does it's use. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
I think it's pretty shocking that we've engineered so much crap into cars that efficiency has gone down over the last 100 years.
It has not gone down. Mass to move has gone up.
MPG has gone down for those who chose to buy the heavier more powerful cars and for those who chose to drive faster. The industry built what the market demanded.
I have shown you the data.
Ignore the facts if you insist. I've boiled this ocean long enough. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Sun Jan 28, 2007 11:42 pm; edited 2 times in total
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 12:26 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
MonteQuest wrote:
It has not gone down. Mass to move has gone up.
So now obesity is the cause? The mass is the car. Fat car = inefficient car. No mystery.
In answer to your question. No I am not ASE certified. No need to be. These days, I only work on my own car. Have I built race engines? No. All the engines I've built have been for street use. I have built race CARS...professionally. And I know that if you want a car to go fast and be efficient, you strip off all the unnecessary accessories. If you cross the finish line last, you loose. I suppose you could tell people that you really didn't loose because you're car has air conditioning and the others don't. I don't think anyone would accept it though. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
Joined: Jun 05, 2006 Posts: 237 Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 1:59 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
MonteQuest wrote:
Hogwash! You still don't get the point. These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier. Not too mention, people drive them 75-80 mph, not 45.
Since it was SPG who made the original point, I have to think that it is you who is missing it. I’ve read many of your posts elsewhere and the ones on this thread seem to be out of character. I’m not sure if you are doing it deliberately or not, just to prolong a discussion, but the points you are making do not discredit the original observation that over the past 100 years or so, the US auto fleet has averaged around a 25mpg fuel consumption.
To a certain degree, it is irrelevant that engine efficiencies have improved, because, as a result, they have simply become larger, more powerful and drive more weight and luxuries. Whatever fuel consumption benefits that have ensued from engine technology have simply been lost in powering other onboard systems. At this point, I have to think that engines from any auto company must be performing at close to the theoretical maximum. It seems that a goal of the US auto industry has never been to minimize the fuel consumption capability. Given such a long history of cheap oil, there has never been any incentive to do that. Contrast that with Europe, where gasoline prices have been at least double the NA prices for decades. There are many autos there that will do 50mpg or better using conventional engine technology. Yes, they are small, yes they are uncomfortable, likely stick shift and with no air conditioning. It is very possible to be vastly more efficient in fuel usage. You can mount a 500cc motorcycle engine on a three wheeler and get something over 75mpg as was done in the UK in the 1930’s and ‘40s. What you give up is weight, comfort, performance etc ie all the extras that the motoring public have come to consider as basic.
To a large degree, the auto industry, and for that matter, the country, are victims of the industry’s own innovation and marketing. (As goes GM, so goes the country) The problem is, the more ‘improvements’ that are developed, the more the consumer expectations are raised. Until the day comes, barring mandated intervention, that the majority of people realize that truly basic, low fuel consumption transportation trumps air conditioning, speed, size and so on, there is likely to be little change in the fleet average. By then of course, it will be too late and hay burners will be in vogue. Me, I’m learning to make buggy whips.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:18 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
lper100km wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:
Hogwash! You still don't get the point. These cars get less miles to the gallon because of AC and the like. The cars themselves are much more efficient, they just have things that suck the horsepower from the engine, and they are bigger and heavier. Not too mention, people drive them 75-80 mph, not 45.
Since it was SPG who made the original point, I have to think that it is you who is missing it. I’ve read many of your posts elsewhere and the ones on this thread seem to be out of character. I’m not sure if you are doing it deliberately or not, just to prolong a discussion, but the points you are making do not discredit the original observation that over the past 100 years or so, the US auto fleet has averaged around a 25mpg fuel consumption.
To a certain degree, it is irrelevant that engine efficiencies have improved, because, as a result, they have simply become larger, more powerful and drive more weight and luxuries.
Duh? Exactly what I said. Plus people drive faster. It is not the automotive engineers who are to blame, it is the buying and driving habits of the people behind the wheel.
Overall car engineering is more efficient today, the mileage has not improved due to the above reasons.
The true culprit seems to be advertising, not poor engineering. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:38 am; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
The mass is the car. Fat car = inefficient car. No mystery.
