Chrysler's Jason Vines responds to Model T mileage myth
The November 5 issue of the New Yorker magazine has an article on fuel efficiency and the fabled car of the future. As is so often the case, comparisons are made without providing proper context. In this case, the current fleet average for new cars, 20 mpg, is compared unfavorably to the almost century old Ford Model T. The T, of course, got more than 20 mpg in its time. Chrysler's VP of Communications Jason Vines has posted a rebuttal to this argument by fleshing out some of the details that make the comparison pointless. Car-makers could undoubtedly create cars vastly more efficient than the ones currently offered for sale or even compared to the Model T. However, it would not be possible do so while still meeting modern safety requirements and customer expectations. You can read Jason's comments after the jump.
[Source: Chrysler]
Gas Fumes and the Model T Myth
Another day, another strange claim about fuel economy that has my head spinning.
There's an article in the Nov. 5 edition of The New Yorker magazine that claims that "the average new car sold in the U.S. today gets twenty miles to the gallon, which is...-remarkably enough-less than Henry Ford's Model T got when it went on the market, ninety-nine years ago last month."
A number of members of Congress have also perpetuated this myth. We join with those in Congress who are in favor of higher fuel economy standards. But comparing the Model T with today's vehicles is like comparing the Wright Brothers glider with the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. You don't hear people complaining that the Dreamliner doesn't get as good fuel economy as a glider.
There's a reason the Model T weighed 1,200 pounds, less than half the weight of most vehicles sold today. The Model T didn't have safety features like dual airbags, reinforced safety cage, anti-lock brakes and traction control. The Model T didn't have electric windows, interior lights, air conditioning, a radio and CD player. That Model T four-cylinder, 22-horsepower engine had a top speed of 45 miles per hour, and it spewed out far more noxious emissions than today's vehicles because it didn't have a catalytic converter. And the brakes on a Model T? Make sure you plan ahead. Assuming the laws of gravity apply in New York, all those extra features add a lot of weight to a vehicle.
We agree, the Model T was great for its time, but so was Boone's Farm wine, woolen underwear and spam.
It all comes down to choices.
I'm certain that Henry Ford would be amazed by the efficiency of today's internal combustion engines. Advancements in powertrain technology are why, as we've said many times before, were in favor of increasing the fuel economy regulations while preserving the distinction between cars and trucks.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Paul Nicholson 8:01AM (5/19/2008)
The Model T was an economy car when it was built. Even though gasoline was probably less than 15C/gal, 15 cents was probably worth $4 in todays currency.
The engine is not as efficient and was designed with low compression since gas was only 50 octane then. Most of the improvements in auto performance have come from improvements in gasoline refining.
I have a Model T and it is amazingly dependable and for short trips as functional as a new car.
The mileage is good because the weight is low. Even though it lacks computer control, you can adjust the carburetor while driving to get the optimum mixture manually as well as adjust the ignition by the spark control lever.
Reply
Joel 4:30PM (9/11/2009)
I'm sure he'd be impressed with the Chevy Tahoe Hybrid (yeah right!) top of the line technology and gets 21-22 mpg. What a joke!
Reply
Throwback 10:32AM (11/07/2007)
Vines makes a good point. This comparison is worthless. Cars could be made lighter to improve mpg, but how much would a carbon fiber chassis cost? The fact is car buyers are unwilling to sacrifice safety or connivence. How many cars are even available with manual windows and locks these days?
Reply
Hank 11:29AM (11/07/2007)
Tell the NYer author to buy a Model-T as a daily driver for a year and then see if the article still makes sense.
Reply
Tony Belding 11:53AM (11/07/2007)
I've seen a similarly misleading comparison between early BEVs (Detroit Electric, Baker Electric, et. al.) and modern electric cars. Jay Leno wrote that his 1909 Baker could go 100 miles on a charge, and modern BEVs can manage about 100 miles on a charge, therefore technology has not advanced in the last hundred years.
We should remember there was no such thing as an EPA driving cycle in 1909. The way those old-time electric car companies figured mileage was by putting special low-rolling resistance tires on the car, preparing a special, smooth-and-level test track, and then running the car around the track at a steady 10 MPH until it wouldn't go any more. That's the range they advertised. Maybe it could do 100 miles that way, which was certainly a great thing to put in a newspaper ad. Maybe it could do 20-30 miles in "real world" driving, on city streets with traffic, hills, pot holes, higher speeds, etc. The owner could find that out for himself.
An EV1 with the better lead-acid batteries (Panasonic, not Delco!) could go upwards of 100 miles on a charge. That's driving on real streets at modern speeds and with modern amenities (A/C, power windows, stereo). So even with lead-acid it was a very significant improvement over the antique cars. After they changed to NiMH cells it could do about 140 miles. Now the Tesla Roadster with Li-ion cells is rated for 245 miles.
Reply
Snowdog 11:57AM (11/07/2007)
Compare the American fleet with the Euro fleet average fuel econonmy and you will see a large differnce. The main culprit is the American tendency to buy large SUVs.
You can buy a modern car that gets much better mileage than a Model T, most people choose not to. That is the problem.
The car makers have a legitimate argument. They are selling what the public wants.
More gas taxes that give a relatively constant $4/Gallon Gas would probably spur a fast increase in the average fuel economy.
If everyone started buying Yaris/Fit/Prius/VW clean Diesels, there would be a race to produce even more efficient vehicles.
With Large Sedan and SUVS as the middle of the market, those fuel efficient cars are the fringe products and there is little incentive to build even more efficient (more fringe) products.
Reply
Tomas S 4:33PM (11/07/2007)
If the T weighed in at half of a modern cars weight, and had a 22hp-mill, why couldn't todays cars then have 44hp-engines? Why is it that new cars have to have 150hp+ to even attract the most basic customers?
I don't see it as a basic human right or need to accelerate fast with a four-wheeled cart.. or to travel in excessive speeds.
Reply
MikeW 7:37PM (11/07/2007)
The model T engine was very underpowered, whether that was intentional to keep specific stresses low, or maybe due to cost cutting measures. Also the compression ratio was something like 4.5:1, so Ford got as much power/durability as 2.9 lliters can provide. As the Model T aged it also got heavier.
The earlier model T had a top speed of just over 40mph, so 20mpg@40mpg isn't all that good.
Didn't VW tandem two seater get like 200mpg@40mph?
Reply
Bill 5:20PM (11/09/2007)
The point about the compression ratio of the model T illustrates an important point. Modern engines have much higher compression ratios which should make them more efficient. Modern cars have computer operated fuel injection, high energy ignition systems and multivalve engines.
Focusing on the improvements in safety standards while ignoring any other improvements in engineering is a nice bit of spin from the Crysler but not much else.
Reply
mike 12:19AM (11/08/2007)
>> They are selling what the public wants.
BS, you don't have the option on most of GM's or Fords cars to pick the "Luxury level" and then pick the Engine Size. You get the bigger engine Forced on you in the Nicer car.
Reply
Keith Jones 7:22AM (11/08/2007)
I had a '79 Plymouth Arrow econobox that got 42 mpg and a buddy had a '75 Civic that got 50 mpg. While both were the barest form of transportation, I have to question whether any improvements have been made in the last 30 years. By all rights, today, a Chevy Aveo with a five speed manual (try to find one) should be getting 50 - 60 mpg.
Reply
Throwback 8:03AM (11/08/2007)
Check the weight of the Arrow and the Civic against the Aveo. That's the major reason why the mileage is much less. Also, dealers would stock manual transmissions but very few people want manuals. Even BMW sells more automatic 3 series, than manuals. Except for us enthusiasts, most people don't want a manual transmission or even know how to drive one.
Reply
valenr 2:40PM (11/08/2007)
"If everyone started buying Yaris/Fit/Prius/VW clean Diesels, there would be a race to produce even more efficient vehicles."
This is simply not going to happen. Many people have need of a larger vehicle or a vehicle with different capabilities. I myself would never purchase a Yaris or a Prius simply because I don't comfortably fit in them. At 6'4" I feel very cramped in those cars, I would assume the Fit is the same but I haven't ridden in one so I will reserve judgement there. Any family with more than two kids will probably want something with more room as well. Also anyone who has a camper trailer or trailers a boat/snowmobiles/atv's places will need a vehicle capable of towing.
The "if everyone would just buy a prius" argument is completely impractical. Time and energy would be better spent on providing better fuel economy and less emissions in the other segments buyers want, which is why it always amuses me when people trash the GM hybrid SUVs. Sure the mileage is still bad, but a lot of people driving something that gets 18mpg is better than those same people driving something that gets 12mpg.
As for the manuals throwback hit it square on the nose. Sadly most people don't know how to drive a manual anymore and have no desire to learn. I wish there were a lot more options for manuals, sadly I'm stuck with an automatic right now because manual wasn't offered with the options I have.
Reply
Snowdog 6:01PM (11/08/2007)
I never said everyone should drive a Prius. I listed a number of vehicles including the clean Diesel VWs.The amount of people that actually need a vehicle larger than a Jetta Wagon is probably about 1%, the amount driving a vehicle larger than a Jetta wagon is probably above 70%.
I had a friend driving a Durango until it was in a accident, he replaced it with a Nissan Versa. No real change for what he needed it to do. Though it isn't as "cool". He is a big guy too at 6'3 250lbs, he has plenty of room. Maybe a Versa is in your future.
It should be pretty obvious why GM's 18mpg are laughed at. First they are a $10000+ option. You can almost buy a spare economy car to drive the 90% of the time you don't need that monstrous beast for the 1% that actually need it. C&D got 22mpg in a similar sized Diesel.
http://www.caranddriver.com/previews/14282/first-drive-2008-chevrolet-tahoe-hybrid-4wd-competition-page4.html
But again. Most people driving these monsters, don't need them. They want them. Geez these beasts are practically unheard of in Europe. How is it only Americans "need" them? I wonder how many will need them when gas hits 5$/Gallon?
Reply
the great beyond 1:15PM (11/09/2007)
I have always agreed with the argument that some people do "need" large SUVs - construction companies might, logging, people who live way out in the boonies. That all makes sense.
It's been said that CAFE standards are a bogus way to try and increase fuel efficiency, because it puts the onus on the seller instead of the buyer (not very free market).
In Europe, high gas taxes force buyers to consider the cost of fuel in their purchase decisions. So they tend towards higher mileage cars. Okay.
But I think that's still inefficient. What if there were a Suburban that got 50 mpg? Same size and amount of materials, but better gas mileage? If you're going to tax people for excess, I think you have to deal with this issue as well.
What I'm saying is, there should be some way to *prove* that you need a bigger vehicle. Either having a business license, purchasing a trailer, having more than a certain number of children, that sort of thing. Then, if you couldn't prove that, there would be a tax on the vehicle *size*. In this way, individuals without need for larger vehicles would be discouraged, and Hummer/Escalade-type luxury behemoths would be fewer.
Just a thought.
Reply