Five Things Carmakers Will Never Do That Would Boost Gas Mileage
BYD e6 Electric Taxi Fleet Launched In Hong Kong To Cut Pollution
It might not be going on sale to U.S. consumers, but the BYD e6 will eventually appear in the U.S... Read More
- #6LEADERBOARD RANK
- 1815ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 4COMMENTS POSTED
Also See
-
2013 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport Blends Fuel...
-
2013 Nissan Altima: The Most Fuel-Efficient...
-
40-MPG Battle: Elantra Beats Focus To 2012 Car...
See more video »
The auto industry gets plenty of attention for its environmental impact, but it's clear to see that fuel efficiency has made huge strides even in the last five years.
It could be even better, though.
Ultimately, a carmaker has to sell cars to survive--and it does that by creating products that people want, continually refining, and adding "more" of everything.
Below, we look at five things automakers will never do, which could really push efficiency to new levels.
1. Increase noise
Electric cars may put into context how much noise regular vehicles produce, but compared to their predecessors, all cars are pretty quiet.
That particularly applies at speed, where wind roar, tire noise and engine drone have all been minimized, to the point where even smaller cars can comfortably cover large distances. And they do so at speed--speeds which reduce gas mileage.
It wouldn't be popular, but removing sound-deadening material and introducing a bit more noise would encourage people to travel a little slower, where the sounds were more bearable--and all other things being equal, they'd save more gas at those lower speeds.
It would be incredibly simple and cheap to implement--but people like refinement, so don't expect cars to get noisier any time soon.
2. Reduce standard equipment
Even subcompacts come with navigation, climate control and leather seats these days, all of which add quite a bit of weight to the average car. In fact, they add loads. That's before you consider the electrical drain too, requiring an alternator to leech power from the engine in order to keep your radio tuned in.
We all know that reducing weight increases performance, improves handling and reduces fuel consumption--but how many people would really be prepared to sacrifice their creature comforts for a few extra mpg?
3. Radical aerodynamics
Remember the Aptera Type 2e? The teardrop-shaped, three-wheel pod was designed to have incredibly low aero drag.
Of course, it also looked a bit weird, which is more than enough to put off the majority of drivers. Even less extreme shapes, like the first-generation Honda Insight, are an acquired taste.
Radical aero can work wonders for improving gas mileage, but it comes with compromizes. Looks, for one, and practicality for another--the subcompact-sized Insight was only a two-seater, a side-effect of making the car both aerodynamic and small.
Normal cars could get more radical to raise MPG--but for many, the cars may lack usability.
4. Tandem seating
How do you take aero another step further? By making the car as cigar-like and streamlined as possible.
We've actually seen this with several recent concepts, such as the Audi Urban Concepts and the Volkswagen Nils. The former had two, offset-tandem seats, the latter, only a single seat.
There's no doubt that such a product would suit a great many people--but again, customers like utility. A single-seat car may be great for five days of the week, and utterly useless for the other two. You may be wasting 3 or 4 seats on most journeys, but for many that's preferable to buying another car to cover your remaining tasks.
5. Delete gas-guzzling engines from the range
Want to meet those CAFE requirements a few years early?
Logically, the best thing to do would just be to stop making those big V-6 and V-8 engines entirely.
Except carmakers will never do that, as it would be commercial suicide. No carmaker will take the first step towards deleting models like that, lest their customers simply go elsewhere.
And if a company loses money from removing the products people want, then they certainly won't be producing any high-efficiency vehicles either...
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Related Articles
-
Toyota Accelerates Switch To Lithium-Ion Batteries, Still Lags Others
-
Low-Cost Truck For Developing Countries To Come In Flat Package
-
![Elio Motors 84 mpg 3-wheeler [Image: Elio Motors]](http://static.hgmsites.net/images/cache/elio-motors-84-mpg-3-wheeler-image-elio-motors_100427025_130x80.jpg "3-Wheeled, 84 MPG Elio Moves A Step Closer To Reality")
3-Wheeled, 84 MPG Elio Moves A Step Closer To Reality
-
Are Hybrids, Electrics The Car's Future--Or Should Cars Be Shunned Like Cigarettes?
-
Edison2 Unveils Next Iteration Of Very Light Car
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Can Tesla Raise More Than $1 Billion On Soaring Stock Price? 
Audi Startled By Tesla Sales Success? Deleted Press Release... 
The 60 MPG Honda Civic... Not Sold In The U.S. 
Wyoming Lithium To Make U.S. Self-Sufficient In Electric-Car... 
How Are Electric-Car Batteries Made? Photos From Nissan's New... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
Not sure what you mean about carmakers not dropping V6/V8. You should probably change that sentence from "will never do that" to "are doing that right now". Hyundai has dropped V6 options for much of it's lineup and the new Rav4 also drops the V6. This will only continue.
Carmakers are unlikely to chuck out the A/C, stereo systems, electric gadgets and so-on, even if they have small economy benefits tied to them.
Much as it'd do their economy ratings no end of good, Chevy is unlikely to get rid of the Corvette. Ford is unlikely to ditch the F-Series. Chrysler isn't killing the Viper any time soon.
Pickups are sometimes used for frivolous purposes, but many actually work.
You must be a single urban dweller with no family or commercial activities. While I agree big SUVs are often bought just for show, for families, a larger car or van is an economical choice for family activites. And for workers a pickup truck is useful.
So canning an elite flagship vehicle that gets parked in a collectors garage makes more sense then fixing something like a Jeep Wrangler, Chrysler's #1 production vehicle that gets 15-20 mpg with a crappy V6. Or Corvette that gets better than 25mpg instead of the Trailblazer that gets 17mpg.
You're seriously confused.
Thank you, Erik, I could not agree more.
Gas guzzler tax for anything that gets less than the CAFE standard would fix that.
There will always be those who want or need such vehicles, and likewise there will always be those with the means to buy and run them!
It might discourage the casual buyer but Chevy will keep selling those V8 Corvettes to buyers who really, really want a Corvette.
How 'bout this: I bet by 2030 the V-6 will be even more rare then the v-8 is now in new passenger vehicle lineups.
Slowly but surely the electrification of passenger vehicles is happening n by 2030 full hybrids n EVs will likely by the majority of new passenger vehicles sold in the US.
It is perhaps worthy of a reminder that we do *sometimes* use artistic license with words like "never", since "probably never" or "might not" don't really grab attention in the same way ;)
I do believe that most of my points are fairly solid, though it's not beyond the realms of possibility that I might be proven wrong some time in the future :)
But the hope that electric will take over will be a long time coming, if ever. For one, it's not that efficient, since batteries store energy much less densely than fossil fuels and are thus inefficient. Then you have the recharge time problem and lack of recharging infrastructure. Finally, you have the battery cost and limited lifetime, which ruines the economics of vehicles, centered on resale values.
Would love to see some simple cars with the bare necessities that allow the owner to add what they need or just plug in. We're getting to the point where every car needs its own data plan as well as gas to move.
Replacing steel with Ti-Alloy will do it too but it will increase cost significantly.
But to be fair, automakers are already doing some of that stuff on "hybrids" to save gas. Fuel efficient tires (sacrificing performance), smaller engine with Atkinson cycle engine (Performance), less features (weight), better aerodyanmic (lower clearance), ugly shape (lower drag)...etc
The wackos at this site just LOVE cars that are cramped, slow, that you have to plug into a wall. But have they even considered the fact, yes fact, that that transfers the burning of fuels to the power company, who BURNS THE FUEL THE CAR would BURN OR MORE, which they can't see that that does nothing to reduce burning something for energy? This whole "green" thing is a sham.
If you knew as much as you imply about transportation energy use, you'd know there are extensive studies of the carbon profile of traveling on grid power versus that of burning gasoline. In fact, we've covered the topic repeatedly on this very site.
I'm not going to explain it to you here. But the bottom line is that using grid power is ALWAYS greener than burning gasoline in a 25-mpg car. And that's even in the dirtiest states whose grids are > 90 percent coal.
But you knew that, right, even though your post indicates the opposite? Or are scientific studies + facts just too irritating + confusing?
The EPRI-NRDC study of 2007 projected that even if two-thirds of ALL vehicle miles traveled in the U.S. today were suddenly to be powered from the grid, it would add only 8 percent to total demand--and we won't reach that level for decades, if ever.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!