MOVING FORWARD: Automakers are looking for new ways to meet the nation's first-ever greenhouse gas standard, which requires a 40 percent hike in fuel economy.
Image: Ford Motor Company and Wieck Media Services, Inc.
This week, a new Ford assembly plant in central Mexico began cranking out a first for Detroit automakers: a "dual clutch" automatic transmission designed to save fuel because it emulates a stick shift, only a computer is at the helm.
Ford is also planning to turn its entire fleet to six-speed transmissions by 2013, bumping up its average miles-per-gallon rating with more exactly calibrated gears. The transmission will be paired with a more efficient engine and will appear next year in the Ford Fiesta, a compact European model the company is reintroducing in the United States after it failed to stick in the 1970s.
These moves -- advanced transmissions, efficient engines and some smaller cars -- represent one strategy that would help an automaker meet the nation's first-ever greenhouse gas standard. The final U.S. EPA rule will be released today jointly with a Department of Transportation regulation to boost fleetwide car and light-truck fuel economy to 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, a level 40 percent higher than today's average.
Often lost in the buzz over electric and hydrogen-powered cars of the future is how much the rules push the auto industry to adapt their gasoline-run fleets. "We keep chasing after the silver bullets the magic wands that will solve our problems overnight," said David Friedman, research director at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Clean Vehicles Program.
"These rules are less about driving the development of new technologies. It's driving the application of solutions engineers have been working on for years," he said.
Automakers don't expect the rule to dictate how they should comply. As a result, within each manufacturer's compliance plan will be its own bet on what consumers will demand -- and be willing to trade off -- in the name of long-term fuel savings and reduced greenhouse gas emissions, experts said.
"Consumers will make the final decisions on this. This is the bet that all the companies have to make," said Bruce Belzowski, assistant research scientist at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
As the auto industry seeks to emerge from ashes, many manufacturers already are trying for the right mix of approaches, experts said.
Some will try to sell more hybrids. Others are introducing not-so-gas-guzzling SUVs. They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta.
Will car buyers miss the zip?
Sticker price increases will also be involved. Fuel-saving technologies such as direct-injection turbocharged engines and the advanced transmissions may save buyers money over time but are today more expensive. Because engines and transmission last so long, Belzowski said that manufacturers would be reluctant to make these changes without the regulations.
Buyers may also be asked to accept less powerful cars, Belzowski said. While fuel economy levels flat-lined over the last two decades, efficiency did improve. Those energy savings, however, went to building 26 percent bulkier cars with double the horsepower, Friedman said. The rules would likely reverse this trend, he said.
In the end, most manufactures are trying all of these approaches, and many others. Ford, for example, is not just betting consumers will buy more compact cars. It is also squeezing efficiency improvements from SUVs by introducing "start-stop" engines that automatically shut down at stoplights, Friedman said. The engine restarts as the driver's foot leaves the brake but before it touches the gas pedal.
The regulation is also about more than fuel. By 2016, reduced greenhouse gas emissions from air conditioners and other non-fuel emissions reductions would equate to 1.5 mpg in fuel savings under the rule, according to Ann Mesnikoff, a Sierra Club advocate. Manufacturers might also get credit for lower-tech fixes such as painting car roofs white, a measure California wants to implement.
See what we're tweeting about
13 Comments
Add CommentThis is silly. I used to own a Geo Metro XFI. It didn't have all this fancy stuff like fuel injection, or a crazy computer controlled transmission, the air conditioner didn't even come standard! The thing was a three cylinder, low HP, low weight vehicle that got 58 MPG. This was also a car built in 1992! I purchased it used, which made it pretty cheap $685 TTL, and I only had to fill it up once every 1.5 months. With that being an 8 gallon tank, it only cost me about $17. I now own a Geo Metro LSI, which has more HP, but only 32 MPG.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy point is that we have the technology. We just don't use it. Instead, we go for all this crazy and unnecessary BS. The Geo Metro is a perfectly respectable car. It was cheap to build, it's cheap to maintain, and it's cheap to drive. The problem is that people want high HP, which we don't need. I just need a vehicle to get me from point A to point B, and occasionally point C.
What we need are vehicles that are small, light, low HP, efficient and simple (without all the extra bits, bobs and thingamajigs that we only think we need). We also need to put a bit more focus into aerodynamics. There are people out there that have gotten their Geo Metro's MPG up to 60-80 mostly through aerodynamic body mods.
Another thing to point out is that while the Geo Metro is now cheap to buy used, it wasn't as cheap to buy new when they did actually sell them. So while these newer cars might be more expensive now, when they get onto the used market, they'll be much cheaper.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey will meet it easily as gas in 2016 will be about $8/gal so the public will demand far better mileage than the standards are.
In fact the new Nissan Leaf and Ford Focus EV's will over 10 yrs pay for themselves in gasoline savings.
I too owned a Diesel rabbit that got over 50mpg on used veg oil and now drive EV's that get 300 and 600mpg equivalents so tech is easily there.
I agree with Nathaniel. A friend of mine had a Ford Fiesta back in the early 90's. Nothing fancy (didn't even come with a stereo or AC) but got great gas mileage.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPeople just need to stop being such divas.
The profit margins are in the luxury items, which include comfort, convenience, size/room and power, because that's what people are willing to pay for. While marketing makes buyers, customers make products. Buy only what you need.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgree with the other posts. Smaller, lighter cars with high-performance (efficient) engines need to be produced. I had a FIAT 850 in the 1970's. Small, lightweight and got over 40MPG then.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe technology is there, the willpower finally seems to be catching up.
If the US automobile manufacturers CEO's had put more money and faith into their engineers instead of the ad boys, they would have had a sound industry with whatever mpg goals they wanted...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpiff
I would just like to reinforce the argument for reducing weight: the lower limit is probably a racing bicycle that weighs 15 lbs.. With a fairing an elite rider with an output 0f 0.5 hp can reach over 50 mph. Cyclists go to great lengths to reduce the weight, similar efforts have not been made with automobiles, possbly now they will be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps the most effective way to minimize the environmental impact of individual transportation (which is necessary in this country) is an effective marketing campaign to counteract the now ingrained psychological need for a comforting SUV with 400 bhp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a reason everyone thinks they need one: either make the advertising message illegal or counteract it in the media. This would require a marketing campaign as effective as those of the manufacturers, not some lame public service message.
jerryd...what ev's do you use...i'm looking but not quite there...just need a push;-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjtdwyer...just one fault on the lower power thing...when i'm trying to get up to speed so i can merge with traffic...the little cars(read low power) are only going 40 mph when the traffic is moving at 70+...so i need to be able to get from 40 to 70 very quickly...ps...i do try to avoid the freeways as much as possible;-)
Wayne Williamson - Slow drivers can only be eliminated by raising and enforcing the minimum speed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven with gas burners small size & low consumption doesn't necessarily mean poor performance. It's all about power/weight. Like many of the other commentators I bought a brand new '73 Honda Civic & drove it for 10 years. The first 3 years I was commuting 30 miles each way to work on 2 lane highway. The Civic moved fast enough to collect several speeding tickets each year.
With dis/engageable clutched superchargers, electronic dual clutch trannys & other technological advancements, along with weight reductions to match power, you should be able to pass the slow drivers quick enough. Keep in mind that old folks like me tend to slow down quite a bit - until I get into my car!
The only manufacturer who is getting it right is Aptera.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThey have the weight down using carbon fiber. They have the drag coefficient lower than anyone. There is the possibility of developing Mark Holtzapple's (at Texas A&M) low speed jet engine achieving nearly 60% efficiency versus even a turbo diesel maxing out at just over 20%. This engine has 10% of the parts count, is in pure rotation, and is cheaper to make so the argument that alternative tech is too expensive is pure fud from an industry that simply won't do their job.
Combine these existing known approaches and you could move 4 people at 100 mpg, easily exceeding the target.
So I conclude the industry are not really trying at all and are playing games with us at the behest of the oil industry. They are deliberately ignoring applicable aircraft tech this country still leads the world in.
The US had the opportunity to lead the world with the tech mentioned above. We are throwing this possibility in the trash can so the Chinese will take it. America has totally lost its vision and this is shameful today and will be more shameful for our children.
I would put Burt Rutan of Spaceship one fame on a mission to transform the automotive industry and make the rest of world catch up if they can. Sadly there is no leadership to make this happen and an American public too unaware to see what is going on and demand that leadership do its job.
Look at Apples success in a down economy. I don't see them making excuses. They exceed all expectations and there exist the means, right now and with no additional tech, to do the same in automotive.
If you want to talk about improving existing technology, why not discuss the electric systems and alternative fuels that are ready now? In the end, this article does not address the fact that we are still burning fossil fuels. We must move away from them... not continue using them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand by the way, the Chevy Volt far surpasses the fuel standards. It can be done. But, many of us are still addicted to fossil fuels and refuse to see anything else.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this