First some folks will bend over backwards and touch their ankles to defend the energy interest here in America. It is kind of like "thank you can I have another" concerning why does the most technologically advanced country in the history of Mankind not have the ability to market a car that gets 100 mpg? And IMO it is an interesting answer. We have the technology, the means and even today the demand. So what gives?
As you said, you have to be able to market it. Engineering is all about compromise. If you push mileage, you have to sacrifice something - performance, size, comfort/features or price. And different people will have different needs/preferences. Traditionally, mileage was a low priority for Americans due to relatively low gas prices compared to Europe and size is favored over performance due to ridiculously low speed limits.
In 1978 I thought that I was so F ing cool when I ordered a brand new 1978 Trans Am at 18. It was custom ordered with all the shit and got about 18 mpg with a 400, 6.6L. turbo 400 transmActyission.
Actually that is not that bad for the era. And besides, my dad's V6 Highlander gets about that much in the city.
If you floored it on the freeway going to Las Vegas you could actually watch the gas gauge move.
To be honest, if you push any car to the limit the mileage will suffer.
Top Gear once did an experiment where they had a Prius go around their track with a BMW M3 following it. Because Prius was driven as fast as possible and M3 hardly broke a sweat keeping up it actually used less gas! That is also a reason why (at least outside the US where a variety of engines are on offer per model) taking the smallest engine is not a good choice if it means you will have to go full throttle a lot!
In 1979 will had the second gas crisis. You remember odd days even days to buy gas and the panicked ensued.
No, quite a bit before my time.
In 1978 the Volkswagen Rabbit diesel had a waiting list to get/order as it got 40 mpg. It was a cool chick car and came in a convertible. Fast forward to today 35 odd years later and you be lucky to get 40 mpg in your car. What gives?
Well for one a 78 Golf Mk1 (aka Rabbit) only had 48 brake horse power. On a modern, Mk7 Golf the smallest diesel engine (as part of the Bluemotion line) produces 90 bhp and the overall car is bigger, almost twice as heavy and has many more safety and other features. And still it gets much better mileage than the Mk1, at 73 mpg.
Also the driveablility of diesel engines has improved a lot in the last few decades.
Is there some kind of energy/auto interest collusion going on for the last 40 years? I would say yes and no. Are they trying to keep this awesome concept car the XL1 out of the American markets? Well not in today's mpg conscious market. So why has it only been lately that little light weight wheel barrels of cars have taken to the mainstream if the gas shocker of the 70's happen so long ago? Why are the cars today barley getting a little over 40-50 mpg when the cars were almost getting this in the 70's? And the answer has been brought up here and there in this thread. It is all about marketing. The great America way is to make you want and buy shit you do not need and or drains your pocket book. It is the American way of waste and conspicuous consumption. Our vehicles are our statements and our status symbols in this rat race.
Well oil shocks of the 70s produced some small, fuel efficient cars. But the technology was still such that they were by and large horrible. And then you had the oil glut of the 90s which gave us very cheap gas and monstrosities like Ford Excursion and the Hummer. I think the technology is now ready for more fuel efficient cars that don't suck.
Look at the remake of the Mustang, the Camarro, the Challenger, etc in today's domestic market.They all pretty much suck at mpg. The Ford, Dodge, Chevy and GMC trucks are the mainstay in the auto industry.
Yes, but even many truck ads advertise with efficiency. You would not have seen that 10 years ago.
And how many people are usually in these trucks? Why usually one person! So the marketing aspect of driving cars, trucks and SUV's that get a MPG just south of 20 mpg is one of reflection. And we always hear the need and utility of big cars and trucks. You know my kids, my stuff and my need for the safety of my kinds and stuff. IMO all just marketing ploys.
I think it is pretty ridiculous that many parents think they need a minivan or SUV as soon as they pop out their second child. There is plenty of room in the back of a regular car.
We have the technology to get 100 mpg cars and trucks on the roadway today. Yet the people will not want to drive these kind of cars because the perception and the cool factor. I mean look how stupid the H2 was in the 90's and 2000's. It is obvious that the car manufactures make more money selling bigger cars that get lesser mpg. And marketing has done this quite well for years.
Well a 100 mpg vehicle would be pretty limited size and performance wise no matter the technology. But if you could get a fleet average to double in the next 10 years that'd be a big accomplishment.
It is obvious that marketing cars with lower mpg's is a pleasant added plus for the energy interest. And since the first gas crisis cars today are barley getting better mpg then 40 years ago. So the question beckons why?
As I said with the 78 Golf Diesel, cars nowadays are bigger, have more features (including safety features, that Golf had neither air bags nor ABS) and are therefore heavier and still get better mileage.
GM had a whole line of electric cars in the 80's that were all recalled. Why did they have to kill the electric domestic car in the 80's? And of course you are going to hear that is was the, fill in the gap; the batteries, the safety issue, the parts cost too much and so on and so forth.
It was mid-90s rather than 80s but basically the technology wasn't ready yet. Hell, the first EV1 used lead-acid batteries! Also, gas prices were low making gasoline cars more competitive.
Tesla can do it against all the attacks and odds. So why can not the others do it?
Much more mature technology (lithium ion batteries, very efficient motor), higher gas prices, starting with an existing platform to save costs (Lotus Elise), conscious decision to start upmarket with performance and luxury cars where high price of electric technology would not adversely affect the overall price like it would in the economy market segment.
And the others are doing it. I can't drive more than a few miles around here without spotting a Nissan Leaf. Ford is making an electric Focus, VW an electric Golf, BMW an electric i3 and hybrid i8. McLaren P1 and Porsche 918 Spyder are competing hybrid electric supercars. The dam has been broken.
More and more Americans are following their European counterparts and understanding that a car is to get you from point A to B.
I think Europeans like their cars as much as Americans but put on average different emphasis on different things. After all, most luxury and sports car brands are European.
But man or man I tell you. My brother's Pirus sure sucks. It is about a few inches above the ground and rides like a wheel barrel. But it looks cool though even with the lame ass interior and winky dink tires! I shall take my Ford Explorer any day of the week over those match boxes on wheels. At least it holds my dog and the ice chest with ease. Ah nothing like America.
It's Ford Explorer you are comparing it to? Really?
Between the two I'd sue take the Prius.
