A look into the high-CAFE future: lighter, taller, smaller cars
Actual debate on the fate of legislation that would raise CAFE standards is just getting starting this week in the U.S. Senate, but Automotive News' Rick Kranz has been thinking about what the law might do to the look of cars cruising American roads for the next decade or more. The short, short version of his article (subs req'd): vehicles will probably be lighter, slightly smaller and taller.
Kranz says cars like the Ford Five Hundred (Taurus), seen above, and the Dodga Caliber, hint at the body styles we're likely to see more of as automakers change cars to meet the rules. The reason is that different model classifications might have different fuel economy targets. If the rules are decided by where the wheels hit the road, for example, then you can gain space by making the car taller instead of wider or longer where you'd bump into the next mpg category.
The whole article is worth reading (if you've got a subscription). How would taller, slightly smaller cars fit into your lifestyle?
[Source: Automotive News]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
kballs 5:58PM (6/11/2007)
Seems like you'd want to make them taller so you can gain more interior space while keeping the same drivetrain and MPG of a smaller car (by not increasing its weight significantly).
Actually making the car longer/wider would put it into a LOWER MPG category, so on that side automakers could choose to build long/wide cars that have same drivetrain/MPG as the smaller car but meet the MPG requirements easier by going into a lower slot but not weighing significantly more than the smaller car.
So there are 2 games automakers can play here:
1. reshape their cars to move them into lower MPG categories so they don't have to upgrade the drivetrain efficiency
2. reshape their cars to give their customers more space/comfort without needing more weight and thirstier drivetrain
If they are smart they'll pick option 2 because that's what will sell (more space AND higher MPG).
Reply
Tman 3:37AM (6/12/2007)
We should all look to Europe and japan on how future US cars will begin to look like. Its well known that European cars have greater space efficiency than anything one can find in the US. Its true customers like space. Where the US customers find that space in the oversized sedans and SUVs, Europeans find similar space in mini mpvs like the Renault scenic,ford Cmax, Opel Zafira. etc. All these cars are equipped with the same engines as their hatchback siblings and despite the slight weight increase, still get close to the same fuel consumption. When the new CAFE laws pass, expect more MPVs like the Mazda five to flood the US market and expect another shift from CUVs like the Honda CR-V, Toyota RAV4,Chevy equinox to MPVs.
Reply
jcwinnie 8:08AM (6/12/2007)
Another example of old paradigm thinking. We gotta think dis way 'cause dee Otto Mobile companies, dey say it is the only way to think.
Sebastian Blanco, Michael Brylawski; Bry, Seb.
Sport, you wanna Big Butt Utility Vehicle for your socket momma, no problem. You wanna do it with the same old lines, no way.
See the thinking... it is O.K. to lay off thousands of workers, shutdown factories that disrupt local economics, but change a production line, Man, do you know what kinda of thought that requires. Easier, buy a few more Congressmen, eh?
Reply
GoFastGo 10:02AM (6/12/2007)
I don't see why Kranz thinks stricter CAFE standards are necessary for us to see such redesigns. I do some consulting work on this issue, and anyone familiar with the history of CAFE standards know that the standards haven't changed for years, but MPG has steadily increased for decades due to market demand and technological advances. The bottom line is that manufacturers don't need Congress to mandate what they already know the public wants.
Reply
kballs 1:27PM (6/12/2007)
MPG has not steadily increased for decades. Horsepower has steadily increased for decades while MPG has been stagnant.
You are right that the market now wants higher MPG and that we don't really need higher CAFE rules to keep the market functioning... but in this free market, the automakers that fight the higher CAFE rules the most and continue to avoid big investment on big MPG will go bankrupt. The real purpose of CAFE is not to keep the market functioning, but to keep our oil imports down, lower air pollution, and keep the government fuel budget down, regardless of current market demand for high MPG vehicles.
Reply
Azrael4h 3:49PM (6/12/2007)
Unfortunately, you're not looking at this accurately. Yes, MPG numbers have remained stagnant in some cases. Not all. Compare a 1987 Chevrolet Sierra 1/2 ton in fuel economy to a 2007 Sierra 1/2 ton with the 5.3l DoD engine. Add in hundreds of pounds of safety equipment that's also mandated by the federal government. Air bags, crumple zones, traction control, ABS; all adds weight. Weight means reduced performance, fuel economy, handling, everything. Add more weight for amenities that most feel they can't live without. Like A/C, radio, Browning M2-HB .50 cal machine guns. Heck, I keep about 80 lbs of tools, a jack, 12v air compressor, among other things; in my trunk as standard accessories with every vehicle I drive.
Horse power has increased without a significant disadvantage to fuel economy or emissions. Weight has increased to the harm of fuel economy and performance. Even so, a full size, V8 powered car now gets the same gas mileage as a mid size V6 car from the '80s. The larger vehicles have jumped incredibly in fuel economy. The V8 Chevy Impala gets the same gas mileage as the V6 model it replaced, with a big jump in horsepower (though the wheels are spinning on the wrong end). And that Impala is worlds safer than driving an old full size, heck it's worlds safe than driving a new compact.
Horse power had to increase, otherwise cars wouldn't be able to move. My '92 Honda Civic had an A/C system that couldn't cool an ice cube down; much less a hot car. And it bogged the engine down so much that I couldn't run it in city driving. It'd stall out. It was far too weak to be a practical car. Test driving two newer Civics, an '04 and '06, last year showed that while they were better; they still had weak A/Cs that greatly bogged down the engines.
Weight had to increase. Otherwise, we'd be driving cars like the early '80s Civic. About as safe as a blind man walking on the Autobahn at rush hour. I don't know about you, but I'll be damned before I'll put my wife in a car like that.
Fuel efficiency and economy have increased, particularly on larger models. I'm sure the Bugatti's and Masarati's are still poor for that, but then they aren't my Cobalt either; which got 47.8mpg on 90% highway; with an average speed of around 85mph. Not bad for a much more powerful 144hp car than the 70hp Civic, to get better fuel economy. And it's A/C will freeze you in the dead heat of Summer. Without stalling the engine.
I'm sure I left out some more facts; and you'll compare a SRT-8 300C to a '76 Plymouth Feather Duster (36mpg!) to "prove your statements". Of course, I had a Duster, a '74 with a 318 V8 and 3 speed torque-flight, and that combo brought a steady 24mpg until the wiring caught fire. It probably could then too, but I didn't like driving it afterwards. But don't make a blanket statement about fuel economy being the same. It's not, it much better. It needs to get better still. The problem stems not from the cars themselves, but the drivers in them. most buy them as status symbols; and then drive them idiotically. This burns much more fuel than the vehicles normally would.
Reply