"Somewhere, Steve McQueen is smiling," is the title of a humorous political evaluation of this year's North American Auto Show on yesterday's OpinionJournal page. The whole essay is hilarious, but here are some favored tidbits.
The moguls and their elaborately coiffed dates and wives were hardly in attendance to celebrate new breakthroughs in high-mileage technology. They instead perused a pack of super cars producing enough horsepower to move Mount Rushmore.
Four hundred horsepower is not unusual. Three hundred horsepower can be found under the hoods of literally dozens of sedans and SUVs. Two hundred horsepower is simply not worth mentioning.
Countering this trend is a nearly invisible collection of hybrids and tiny urban vehicles. Mercedes-Benz is displaying its Euro-version "Smart Car"--a two-seat midget that resembles a Parisian phone booth on wheels. It will arrive in the American market next year, no doubt with a stern warning to never, ever drive the thing within three miles of a Kenworth or Peterbilt 18-wheeler.
There is no debating that hybrids and fuel cells make sense in terms of the environment and reducing fossil-fuel dependence. But until these new powerplants can equal current conventional gasoline engines in terms of performance, cost and durability, auto makers will respond to the harsh realities of the marketplace. No amount of government mandates, media pressure or high-minded pontifications can replace the simple laws of supply and demand.
Posted by JohnGalt at January 15, 2004 12:19 PMI think that hybrids have to make economic sense and pay their own way. I don't support subsidies.
But I read that Saturn is coming out with a hybrid version of its Vue SUV in 2005. The thang gets 40 mpg. I was thinking that might be good for me -- bad idea??
Posted by: jk at January 15, 2004 08:19 PMWhat we really need in this arena is a federal regulation...........Sorry, just pausing to let the screaming stop. Where I am actually going with this is that what we have in this country are basically three vehicle classifications, cars, trucks, and motorcycles. Now, most any modern motorcycle will outperform any of the cars at this years auto show (top speed excepted) regardless of cost or horsepower, and return 50+ mpg while doing it. You see, as any engineer will tell you, power is only half the equation, the other component is weight. Bring the weight down and a measley 100hp is plenty. So what keeps us all from zooming around on high performance and high mileage motorcyles? The advanced skill set to pilot one, exposure to the elements, and safety in a crash to name a few. Here is where that federal regulation comes in, a vehicle classification should be added so that small, lightweight, 4 wheel, enclosed vehicles could be certified with a limited set of crash testing. You get an enclosure against the elements, a limited set of safety protection, and 4 wheels so no new driving skills need to be mastered all of which could be powered very excitingly by an existing internal combustion engine with mileage exceeding the current hybrids. Ah, but I am talking about a 1 or 2 passenger vehicle, how do I take the kids to soccer and tow the boat to the lake on weekends? A third vehicle my friend. Newsweek recently published an article about the increase in vehicle ownership, that so many people have a 3 car garage, and fill it, that the number of cars now significantly exceeds the number of drivers. The same greenies that decry the auto show offerings also protest this trend. But why must the two never meet? Have a small high performance commuter car and park it next to the minivan and SUV. The technology is all there already, all it takes my friend is a federal regulation.
On a side note, engineers are currently developing tiny internal combustion engines that could run for 2 years on a squirt of lighter fluid. They believe that at about 300 times the energy density of a battery these could power laptops and cell phones in the next decade. How ironic would it be to drive a battery operated car while talking on an internal combustion cell phone?
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 16, 2004 11:35 AMSilence seems to be proposing a law to allow exceptions to already existing crash test laws. This law would allow the manufacturers to produce a lighter car with higher MPG's to garage next to my truck and my horse trailer.
I propose a different solution. Why don't we REPEAL all the current crash test laws and allow the manufacturers to produce anything the consumers will buy. Let the consumers be responsible for their own safety and evaluation of vehicles. Private for-profit testing companies would help in this evaluation. Not coincidentally, this would save the taxpayers some money in the government bureau of crash test.
Posted by: dagny at January 16, 2004 11:27 PMWell I guess I am guilty of just not thinking big enough! I agree that dagny's solution to repeal the current crash test laws trumps mine, and would certainly be a better solution. Safety devices such as ABS, airbags, crumple zones and other structural elements have plenty of marketing clout to stand on their own with no government backing. I have just one caveat, heath insurance should then be mandatory like auto insurance. In other words, you must show proof of insurance or sufficient funds to cover your liability. Your personal liberty ends at my wallet. Just as power and weight balance in an engineering equation so do liberty and responsibility balance in a social equation.
Posted by: Silence Dogood at January 19, 2004 09:25 AM