“Just think, a little more focus on efficiency and we wouldn’t be forced to go all electric in the future. I love power, so don’t get me wrong. But with such dismal mileage that these vehicles are getting, they’re virtually putting the nail in the ICE coffin.
I would trade some power for some savings at the pump, and the choice to continue to drive a gas or diesel power vehicle in the future. Save the super high performance for a few Vettes or whatever. My truck gets about 11 mpg around town and costs a hundred bucks to fill up. It would be great to get 20 in town. Why not?”
— Kelly Crawford, Car and Driver commentator (2022)
RE:SOURCES
- Crawford, Kelly; 2022. Commentator in “2023 Ford Ranger Raptor Has 392 HP and Is Coming to the U.S.” Car and Driver Facebook page posting Feb. 22.
Also see ‘Auto media largely ignore ‘code red’ IPCC climate change report’
What? The past 20 years have been spent chasing better mileage in every possible way. CVTs, automated manuals, variable displacement, cylinder deactivation, hybrid systems, DI, ignition shut off devices, etc etc etc.
You want 20 MPG don’t buy a big truck for running around town.
I guess this woman never heard of CAFE standards?
She helps create the problem then whines about it.
I agree completely. For 11 mpg that must be a 3500 class pickup. I have an 09 Mits Raider, and I get 20 mpg without trying.
I’m jealous. I keep wishing there’d be a return to even S10 or Ranger size again. Then I’d be interested.
I almost traded for an ’07 Ranger back in 2010 or so: bench seat, crank windows, rubber flooring 4 cyl and 5 speed. Fancy wheels and a bed cover.
Good thing the dealership was closed on a Sunday.
This Mits is my last pickup unless it gets totaled. However, I have been reading a lot of good thins about the new Ford Maverick. That might be what you[re looking for but I understand all 2022 production is spoken for.
I totally agree, the consumer selects the vehicle that fits their desires, but not always their real needs. It’s not like there aren’t a lot of alternatives out there. Even among full size trucks. Mine gets 20 mpg, on the highway. Buyers want the big macho high powered trucks and the manufacturers build them. There are a lot of high mileage hatchbacks, CUVs and sedans out there. The base Mustang has 300hp and gets 30 mpg. on the freeway. Don’t buy something much bigger than you really need and then complain about it.
Jose, I’ve seen it happen too many times.
Gas prices shoot up and people with these huge rigs get featured on the news gassing up at the local station and start talking about how they can’t afford to drive to work.
Great to have a choice, but, poor ones that someone makes are not other people’s emergencies.
It’s the fear of the battery-powered electric vehicle (BEV), which is what I really think the original post is about. Like others mentioned in their posts, every time the price of transportation fuel rises in the US, the news crews head out to local gas stations to interview the “man in the street”, fueling up their King Laredo 3500 4×4 Extendocab Longbed. It’s as reliable as death and taxes. Oddly, they never seem to ask folks filling up a Prius. IINM, the current average internal combustion engined vehicle has never been this fuel efficient or least pollution-emitting (when properly tuned), ever.
In some regards, I don’t know how to feel about the tide of BEVs that are about to be released. The logical side of me is enamored with the idea of being able to “fuel-up” at home every time it’s needed, potentially less maintenance and less materials used and consumed. OTOH, while I own my home and am properly set up for such a scenario, I recognize that many people do not live as I do and conceivably have difficulty charging a BEV in their living situation.
I really do think that once we (collectively) get our minds wrapped around the idea of a vehicle that does not require a large percentage of vehicle space just for fuel storage, delivery and propulsion mechanisms, a new era of creativity will emerge. Just as the widespread adoption of FWD power trains made huge differences in the average automobile, I think the adoption of BEV propulsion will have an even greater effect.
However, people’s minds change slowly, slower than technology evolves. Plus, there is a whole emotional component to our automotive passion that can be blind to technology. I’m also one of those people, as I still would like to have a RWD V8-powered pony car in the future.
I think the slowest minds to change work at the car companies. The average vehicle occupancy in the U.S. is 1.5 people but the car companies continue to sell pipe wrenches to turn 1/4 inch hex heads. Battery electric tech lends itself best to small devices, but for some reason, the thought of such devices offering big-car attributes on the inside, just for fewer people, seems to be beyond the industry’s collective comprehension.
Greetings from Lanark Illinois, the birthplace of the 4×4. Average in this situation means little. Now when I drive my truck I am usually alone and 90% of the time the only thing in the pickup bed is air. However, if I have to haul a power washer to the kaputi shop, get five cases of sale beer at Minhas, or get 30 bags of topsoil at Menard’s nothing else will do.
The rationale for a right-tool-for-the-task vehicle would be based on the reality that one person can’t drive two vehicles at the same time. The small EV (which was still safe and roomy, just for fewer people) would effectively garage the big vehicle most of the time. Over the period of time where a person would have gone through two big vehicles in succession, the two-vehicles-at-a-time model with one being a small EV, would save money. The challenge is in the carrying cost of owning two vehicles at the same time. I need to think about how to get over that consumer hurdle…
When I first saw the specifications and reviews for the 2022 Ford Maverick, I think for the first time in many years, that except for the Koreans (Hyundai and Kia), Honda and the market created by Subaru over the years, a U.S. manufacturer hit a sweet spot. All of the technology that has come together to create a common-sense vehicle for 2022 that will easily fit in most garages, deliver good service at a reasonable cost-per-mile, has come together in the Maverick. It was not what I expected, but it may become my next vehicle. Regardless, the C.A.F.E.-standards and the government-led directions have taken us down the road to B.E.V.s. I was hoping for hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, but I probably won’t live long enough to see them or own one.
The problem with hydrogen is while it’s extremely mass efficient it is about as space inefficient as it gets.
Regarding EVs and fuel efficiency: I was in elementary school when Nixon created the EPA, and then started issuing mandates. One of those mandates was to eliminate tetraethyl lead from motor fuels. This was to take place by model year 1975 and the automakers all had to comply in order to sell in the US. There were exceptions, but the requirements were going to ramp up significantly in the coming years and they would have to be met using unleaded fuel. Thinking about that situation and comparing it to the current edict to switch to BEVs has me thinking about the unleaded fuel mandates. I’m too young to remember what the “man in the street” was thinking at the time, but I think there would have to be some parallels between the two situations.
It would have been impossible to predict the future in 1970 when the unleaded fuel mandates were announced. Here we are 50 years later and enjoy some of the best performance from motor vehicles ever imagined. Powerful, efficient and clean which would have been unimaginable in the 1970’s.
Which brings me to my latest quandary: Porsche announced an investment in a synthetic fuel alleged to meet emissions standards and capture CO2 from the atmosphere. In this scheme, CO2 would be continuously captured and released while ostensibly having a neutral effect on the environment.
I believe there’s merit in this idea as it would extend the useful life of existing vehicles (and other things like infrastructure and distribution channels), particularly in areas that will not be quickly or easily electrified. Electrification is relatively easy in North America, Europe or China, even. But, imagine the hurdles in Africa and parts of Asia? Now, this could also stall the adoption of electrification in more wealthy countries, but like so many other ideas, electrification has to hit that “critical mass”, where the populations believe it is a great idea. Similar to the adoption of the automobile over the horse (or street car). For enthusiasts like myself, this would allow me to keep my existing ICE automobile functional in an EV world.
But my main question really is this: Where is the US EPA regarding a synthetic fuel? I wonder if Nixon were still in office would the EPA be bold enough to mandate a synthetic fuel, similar to the unleaded fuel mandate of the 1970’s? Or has our government gotten so used to the Reagan-era idea of doing as little as possible to hinder business that it just won’t do anything? However, I have little idea of what goes into the shaping public policy and how the government responds, or if it is even obligated to respond. Maybe there’s just not enough public demand or interest in this question.
Here’s a link https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/04/porsche-invests-75-million-in-chilean-synthetic-fuel-startup/?comments=1 to the comments section of an ArsTechnica article about the synthetic fuel Porsche has invested in. Many of these folks seem to have excellent questions and observations concerning this issue.
Yet another perspective, this time from Germany.
https://youtu.be/zDyh-H7AAcg