- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Car Guy
Safety Inefficiency
Several state governments are going to a four-day workweek to save money. Some are issuing IOUs to taxpayers in lieu of tax refunds. Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures.
So how come the same breaks aren't being cut for the auto industry -- and car buyers?
Why not, for example, at least temporarily suspend federal requirements that force the automakers to build 3,000 pound, 30 mpg "economy" cars that can't match the fuel efficiency of the mid-sized cars of 20 years ago and which cost thousands more than they need to?
Yes, you can thank Uncle Sam -- well-intentioned, as always -- for the fact that if you want a car capable of 40 mpg or better, your choices are very slim, or very expensive. Only hybrids and diesels make the 40 mpg cut. The best of today's "economy" cars are in the 35-38 mpg range.
Most are closer to 32 mpg.
Yet back in the early '80s, it was routine for economy cars to get 40 mpg. A few -- such as the 1982 Dodge Omni -- were in the 50s on the highway. The Mercury Lynx got 44 on the highway, the Chevy Cavalier 42 mpg's. This was with Disco-era technology such as four-speed manual transmissions, incidentally. (Almost every new car sold today has at least a five-speed transmission.)
There were literally dozens of cars available in the early-mid 1980s that got more than 40 mpg.
There is not one available today -- unless you count elaborate/expensive hybrids and diesels.
Doesn't "progress" mean we go forward? What happened?
Government happened.
Over the past 25 years, our friends in Washington -- who are always looking out for us, of course -- have demanded, under penalty of law, that new cars be made ever "safer," both in terms their ability to withstand a crash and also in terms of their ability to protect the occupants in every conceivable type of crash -- frontal, side, offset. You name it.
Thus the weight of the average "economy" car has increased by 500-800 pounds (heavier, more reinforced bodies provide better crashworthiness) while on the inside, at least two and more typically four air bags have been fitted.
Thus modern cars are a lot safer. But they're also much less economical.
Given a quarter-century of technological improvement (everything from five and six-speed transmissions to very sophisticated engine management systems that were not around in the early '80s), it would be simple -- and cheap -- to build a 50 mpg economy car today.
If the government would allow it.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Michael Ledeen on Iran and Democracy
- The Right of Conscience in the Age of Obama
- ‘Call Fox’
ADVERTISEMENT
Motown Mike| 3.9.09 @ 8:06AM
One of the best cars I ever had was from that era: Plymouth Champ. Got 38 mpg and was fun to drive.
stu.b.con| 3.9.09 @ 8:39AM
1978 Mustang II- 35 miles to the gallon, 4 speek stick and shag carpeting $9800. Awesome
V-Dub Ed| 3.9.09 @ 9:13AM
1965 VW Bug. Drove it practically forever. Good milage and would float if need be.
Jerry Dunleavy| 3.9.09 @ 10:11AM
This brief little article sums things up quite nicely
Whenever I hear someone discussing the MPG that their Toyota Hybrid gets, I note that I regularly got over 40 MPG in my 1979 Plymouth Horizon with a 4 speed and a normally aspirated engine. I note that the car cost a small fraction of a hybrid. Then I add that my little Horizon could have, from the line, literally blown the doors off of the hybrid and practically any other economy car on the market today.
And, it was NOT that great a car; which REALLY puts the auto industry today into perspective.
Liv Driver| 3.9.09 @ 10:35AM
And remember, our gas back then was not watered down with MBTE or Ethanol.
Pecos Pete| 3.9.09 @ 11:14AM
And, how much weight with how many safety features will be allowed in an all electric car? Betcha the government loosens restrictions on the little suckers.
I drove a 1963 VW bug until it literally fell apart. Cost = $1,900. The oil plug vibrated loose while driving on a brick paved road and the engine blew out the back.
Paul Milenkovic| 3.9.09 @ 12:44PM
Two factors. One is that back in the day, even though no one was paying attention to the 55 MPH speed limit, it was a 55 MPH limit we were disregarding, not a 65, 70, or perhaps even higher limit in some places. Like the substitute school teacher who asked the class "to keep it down to a dull roar," the lower speed limits meant lower speeds because there is only a certain amount people will go over the limit. So we were driving slower in the Disco Age.
The other thing is that a 32 MPG EPA does not translate to a 32 MPG EPA from back in the day. The EPA test procedure has stayed the same because otherwise that would be changing the rules in mid game for the CAFE standards.
The window sticker EPA numbers, have been adjusted downward twice in relation to the actual tests, once in the mid 1980's and once recently. The idea is that the average person driving whatever-the-cops-allow over the 65 limit is not going to get the EPA highway numbers. Those numbers are based on travel on a California freeway during the day in off rush hour traffic levels, and the average speed on that test is 50 MPH.
Were a person to find a level section of road on a calm wind day and put the cruise control at 52 MPH with creating a road rage incident, oh, and fill the tank with non-ethanol summer-season blend of gas, and were that person to hook up that Scan Gauge device that plugs into the smog-inspection connector, that person would see gas mileage numbers much higher than the current EPA sticker, numbers very close to the "raw" EPA numbers you can find by digging around the EPA Web site for that car, and gas mileage much higher than experienced in everyday highway driving.
Mustang Blue 44| 3.9.09 @ 12:48PM
My brother wrecked my parents Dodge Omni when he and 3 of his "friends" went out drinking and driving. Two guys walked away with scrapes, my brother nearly lost his eye, but otherwise only has a few scars, and a girl was in a coma for a few days but recovered . The car itself was completely totalled: the rear axel was torn free, all the windows were broken, and they have to use the "jaws of life" to open it up to get everyone out.
Sure it was a serious crash, but I don't think that car did much worse than a more modern vehicle would have in a similar situation.
Peter| 3.9.09 @ 1:04PM
While Mr. Peters makes a compelling case, this idea is a pipe dream without a massive overhaul of product liability law. The fact that the safety technology is available and deliberately not chosen to be implemented in this hypothetical (regardless of how educated the consumer's choice) would be a boon to the plaintiff's bar.
Good luck on achieving a product liability law overhaul in this political environment.
JOE| 3.9.09 @ 1:08PM
I have a question for Mr. Peters. Does the gasoine we are required to buy now with so much ethenol more fuel efficient? This is another Gov't mandate.
marty howard| 3.9.09 @ 2:01PM
I was driving a 1989 (in 2003/4) Honda CRX that consistently gave me over 40 mpg.
Seymour Glass| 3.9.09 @ 3:25PM
V-Dub Ed: right you are. To steal from the old Lampoon, just think how things would be if Teddy K had been driving a (floating) Beetle in the summer of '69...
Ryan| 3.9.09 @ 4:14PM
The article fails to note that such cars are STILL available in EUROPE. Anything large is rarely seen, unless it's a Benz. They also have highly efficient diesel motors that won't meet emission standards over here as well.
Matt| 3.9.09 @ 5:02PM
It should also be pointed out that heavier cars aren't necessarily safer cars. More mass, equals more momentum and higher energy crashes at the same speed.
DaveS| 3.9.09 @ 8:09PM
When my daughter asked me what methanol (in gasoline) was, I merely said it was kind of a pre-burned gas (i.e. it has less BTU/gallon than gasoline because it has oxygen in it already) that foisted upon us by the government. Also, my carburetor-Corolla (1.8L 1980, 5-speed, 2250 lb) got 40 mpg with the air conditioning on. A Prius today is rated 48/45. So what?
rich| 3.9.09 @ 8:51PM
In answer to the ethanol question, the BTU content of a fuel (sorry, not octane) determines how much energy it contains and therefore what kind of mileage it will get. Most references give gasoline a value of 125,000 - 133,000 BTU/gal while ethanol has only a content of 76,000 to 81,000 BTU/gal. Do the math. With my own car (normally getting 29 mpg) I noticed a loss of 2 mpg when I went to 10% ethanol gas. Funny thing about the BTU values - my older textbooks gave higher values for gasoline and lower values for ethanol than the "greenest" web sites. I included them above - that explains the range. Oh, yeah, diesel fuel is 139,200 - 143,000.
John B.| 3.9.09 @ 9:06PM
I had a Mercury Lynx. Best I did was 46 MPG on a 2 day trip.
By the way, the "smart car" European version gets mch better mileage because it is lighter. Can't be sold here, of course.
Bruce| 3.9.09 @ 9:10PM
The Europeans have, for years, had tiny little that got great gas mileage with minimal safety equipment. It doesn't seem that the Europeans are dying en masse in auto accidents. If the current administration wants to emulate the European model, here's a place to start!
Chuck Horn| 3.9.09 @ 10:31PM
This was not JUST the Government. 40 years ago when I was Mayor of Kettering, Ohio I said while having dinner with the then Vice Chair of the GM Board, " I would really like to buy an AMERICAN fuel efficient small car" His reply, "Buy a foreign car, we do not care, America will NEVER go for these small cars" Right!
Carcrash| 3.11.09 @ 1:43AM
Jeezus, thank god you people have shut up. You would have people just fucking dying to prove your shitty little point. Thank God you fucking losers are done. Don't even try to pretend that this hasnt been your bread and butter for years.
hillbilly| 3.14.09 @ 9:13AM
Everyone in the 70's knew they could be injured in a car crash,therefore defensive driving was the norm.Very few 5000+ pound vehicles and no 4 ounce distraction (cell phone/text etc.)were on the highways.
Only problem is,who will assume responsibility?You know everything that happens is someone elses fault,and just as soon as a suit hits the courts we'll be back in our gas guzzlers.
Many problems need solved that's for sure,and something needs to be done.
Pingback| 3.15.09 @ 7:19PM
Politics & Prosperity » GDP Growth since WWII links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
tiffany jewellery| 8.14.09 @ 3:58AM
Very good to see the tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery tiffany jewellery links of london hollister clothing ed hardy christian audigier abercrombie
feeling quite.
Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 3:21AM
I have read through this article, Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
Bridal Gowns
I do not understand what it meant ah
groupshoes| 10.24.09 @ 3:04AM
Nice airtical, i would like to tell all of my friends about it. By the way, i would like to introduce everyone of you a very nice website, it offers cheap air max trainers for men and women. Such as Air max 1, air max 2, air max 90, nike air max 2009+, air max 2010 new, nike air max TN, nike air ltd trainers, air max 95. Dunk SB shoes, nike shox shoes. You can find almost all the nike series there, in huge collection and varies colorways. They have Latest style and classic style. Though their price are low, don't worry about it's quality. They are realll ones!!! I have bought from them for so many times, and very satisfied with the their goods and service. Come on, you'll love it.