Time to give SUV drivers a break? 5

[jmw]

In an article in Novembers "What Car?"; "how green is your car?" (

http://www.whatcar.com/news-special-report.aspx?NA=222582)

According to CNW's table of 96 cars sold in the UK, the Honda Civic Hybrid finished 73rd and the Toyota Prius 74th, .......the Range Rover Sport finished higher in the list. Top of the table was the Jeep Wrangler ........

This is based on a "dust to dust" analysis which measure the "carbon footprint" for the car and takes into account not only the fuel use and CO2 emissions but the energy costs of production and end of life costs.

Of course, the report mentions the different manufactruing technologies involved so we should anticipate improvements as the hybrid car technologies improve (super capacitors? see thread769-165886) but will it improve enough?

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[moltenmetal]

The fact is, until fuel prices rise considerably, fuel consumption will continue to rank rather low in the list of criteria people consider when choosing which vehicle to buy. And while that is the case, car companies will, quite correctly, continue to design and market vehicles to satisfy their customers' actual desires.

There's no point in banning vehicle types etc. SUVs are appropriate where roads are poor. Pickup trucks are important for commercial uses. Etc etc etc. As long as everybody is paying the true, full cost of their fossil fuel consumption- both in terms of the lifecycle cost of the vehicle itself AND the fuel it consumes, including a disposal charge for its emissions- then it's no longer my business which vehicle you choose for yourself. But until you do, it IS my business.

FYI, we live where we can walk or take public transit to everything we need. That means three of the four people in my family have no need of a vehicle. Because of the design of our urban environment, I have to drive to work. I have the cheapest vehicle that Honda makes, assembled locally. Low capital cost means, comparatively, lower input costs of fabrication than something more expensive- which of course suits my budget. These vehicles have a deserved reputation of going a long distance before they fail- that means low energy impact per year of ownership, which also suits my budget. I don't lug excessive metal or excessive frontal area around with me everywhere I drive, which means lower fuel consumption. When we need a bigger vehicle, we rent one. When it comes down to it, while morality does guide my decisions, I don't do this because I'm virtuous- I do it because I'm cheap. I don't see myself as much different than anybody else. It's far more effective to guide people to decisions of collective benefit by appealing to their wallets rather than to their sense of morality.

 

[Ashereng]

In terms of environmentally friendly, and non-polluting, let's face it - unless you are Amish or Mennonite, chances are, you are somewhat destroying the environment, and polluting a little.

Yes, we can reduce car emissions. However, how about the energy we use to cool/heat the 5000 sq ft homes (think Arizona and Utah)? Or the electricity for the dishwasher, TV, computer, outside lights at halloween and Christmas? How about all the water diversion (think California) to get water to desert urban areas?

What one person thinks is "foolish", another may not. Should we give a break to SUV drivers? Should we give a break to pick-up drivers? Should we give a break to hybrid drivers? Where do we draw the line?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics, I assure you mine are far greater."
Albert Einstein
Have you read FAQ731-376 to make the best use of Eng-Tips Forums?

 

[bvanhiel]

No. They don't deserve a break. Not until their vehicles are forced to conform to the same rules (MPG and safety) as passenger cars.

The govt. (USA) has tried to infer use by vehicle weight. It was assumed that light trucks were for commercial uses, and standards were set lower. The market discovered the loophole and exploited it. We are essentially subsidizing these vehicles vs. passenger cars through this imbalance in standards.

I agree wholeheartedly with moltenmetal. I don't have an issue with you driving a dump truck if you're prepared to absorb the full cost. The problem is that SUV drivers do not.

And before you ask: I drive an '88 civic.

-b

 

[UcfSE]

How can you get a truck that can pull a 12,000-pound trailer to also get 30 miles per gallon? How can you then ask that getting hit by this behemoth also do no more damage that getting hit by a 2000-pound tuna can? Remember conservation of energy and momentum? Are these reasonable requirements or wishes?

 

[corus]

The report itself (contested by manufacturers) seems to compare SUVs with SUVs and doesn't compare SUVs (or 4x4s as they are known in the UK) with so called 'ordinary' cars.
I doubt that a 4x4 has any comparison with an ordinary family car in terms of how 'green' they are and seems to only confirm to those who use them (mainly the american market) that they are somehow justified in using them. I suspect that the main use in the UK is taking Lucinda to school and are rarely used off-road. This probably explains the popularity of fake mud which users can buy and spray on their vehicles to give them that look of authenticity.

corus

 

[VisiGoth]

No, they do not deserve a break. For the same reason that I do not let a Cadillac cut into traffic but will let any number of cute slug bugs (VW's) cut in line. It is pure jealousy. Other than that it is just a slight case of holier than thou attitude (my car might be just a little more fuel efficient).

That is probably not the answer youwanted to hear.

 

[bvanhiel]

How can you get a truck that can pull a 12,000-pound trailer to also get 30 miles per gallon?

Easily resolved: impact fees. By driving such a vehicle you are increasing the collective risk and polluting the shared environment. If you want to drive one you should pony up the cash. Impact fees would encourage consumers to re-examine their needs and maybe more of them will just choose to rent a slip for their boats.

-b

 

[jmw]

I think we need an alternative to public transport.
This week I returned to the trains and buses to attend a week of meetings in London (Public transport out of necessity, Red Ken making it the least financially damaging option).

This isn't the public transport system I used to know:
1) frighteningly expensive
2) totally unreliable
3) a health risk


Surface train to London: Day one on time and I got a seat.
Tube to Westminster: signalling problems so the train loaded up with people and just sat for 10 minutes. This allowed me to appreciate the heat and smell.
Return: Actually, not bad.

Day two: Surface train to London, no seats. Victoria Tube stations closed because of "safety reasons" (Too many people on the platforms waiting for non trains). So I took a bus.
Home not too bad but lot's of delays on the tube.

Today, surface train OK and a seat. Tube OK though crowded.
Home: Tube from Westminster to Victoria... didn't stop at Victoria because the tube station was closed.... sewage leak. Had to get a bus from Sloane Suqare (£1.50 cost.... the tube system seems to have the same business model as Ryan Air and Easy Jet...it doesn't include customer service)

Train from Victoria: The speaker system was defective so we could all hear the driver and Guard talking:
"'ere, we're on time today, what the 'ell do we tell the passengers?"
This was greeted with mirth, the last.
This was a stopping train but some strange fault (that could only be revealed once we were all on the train so we couldn't get off) meant that though the trains could run through the various stations, they were unable to stop... "Power surge at Purley" was the overheard excuse.... quite why the trains couldn't stop at the usual stations was never explained. (If anyone knows a logical reason for this, don't be shy, share)
This meant I had to travel on to Gatwick and get a taxi... again at my expense.

Health:
I guess if you don't regularly travel by public transport it's a bit like having a virus checker on your PC that's ten years out of date.... yes, for the first time in a decade or more I have flu.... Perhaps there ought to be a set of travel jabs for public transport just as there are for overseas visits.

I have two more days of this. If it is London's Public transport or a Humvee, I'm getting a Humvee amd the irony is that these meetings are all about environmental protection!


JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[KENAT]

How can you get a truck that can pull a 12,000-pound trailer to also get 30 miles per gallon?

By trailer do you mean what Brits would call a caravan.

If so then I have a solution. Get a smaller, cheaper, more fuel efficient vehicle. With the money saved get a hotel room

Plus it's one less of the #$%#$ things (trailers) on the roads to get in my way;-)

 

[UcfSE]

Well, a boat would be nice, but I was referring to tools and equipment for people who need to actually get their hands dirty for a living. A construction trailer, for instance, can get extremely heavy, to the point that an '88 civic would roller over and pee on itself. You need a vehicle with some ass to get the job done.

As for charging more fees and allowing government to decide what I can drive, we're not all communists or socialists, thank God. Our men and women didn't give all they had so Jon B.H. Liberal could take away our rights and freedoms.

 

[SomptingGuy]

In response to JMW's all-too-common experiences, here's a short summary of my most recent use of public transport for work travel (I usually cycle, but I had to go to London that day):

Bus from outside my house to small local train station. Clean, quick and quite pleasant.

Train direct to Victoria. Virtually empty when I got on, full by London.

Bus from Victoria to Hammersmith. Always a nice trip and less hot/smelly than the tube.

The return was only different in that the train was full.

Total cost was about £25. A one day travelcard covered everything except the local bus.

 

[moltenmetal]

UcfSE: again, you have no right to anything that you do not pay for- in its entirety. And society has a right, expressed through our democratic governments, to limit individual freedoms for collective benefit, or to minimize collective harm. THAT is what those folks fought and died to defend!

Pay the full cost and my concern about the fuel efficiency of your vehicle etc. goes away- your choices once again become entirely your own.

Nobody has a problem with the farmer or contractor and their pick-up, or the guy living up some mountain road who needs a 4x4. But until fuel prices rise to include a cost for dumping the combustion products into the air my kids breathe, those tools driving their Escalades and Hummers from the suburbs into downtown every day deserve their own special hell.

To turn your phrase: those same men and women didn't give their all to defend the right of some people to p*ss in the pool that we've all got to swim in (and drink from for that matter!).

 

[aardvarkdw]

Just my 2 cents. I live (by nessesity, not by choice) 45 min at 60mph from where I work. I drive a '93 explorer (again not entirely by choice) because it was what I could afford to purchase at the time and it fits my needs (driving kids around, hauling tools, etc..). I would love to take public transport, but the only way for me to do that is to spend the same amount on bus fare as I spend on gas each day and spend 2 hours on the bus each way, more if traffic is bad. Instead, I get to spend time with my wife and kids, I actually save myself money, and I take the less congested roads so I am not contributing to traffic. I even carpool. I see more instances of one person in a brand new hybrid, clogging up the freeways, racing to work which is 20mins away from home by walking, that could and should be taking the bus. Why arn't we taxing them?

 

[Ussuri]

In the UK at the moment we pay about £1 a litre. Which if I have done my sums correctly is about $7 a US gallon. Around 75% of that goes to the government as tax.

How much does fuel cost in the US?

 

[aardvarkdw]

In Washington State we are paying about $2.40/gal, which is down from about $3.50/gal over the summer.

 

[corus]

UcfSE,
I know of no socialist or communist government that decides what you can drive. I do know of countries that impose severe limits on the speed that you can freely drive at, however. I think the worst is the USA.

Ussuri is quite right to rhetorically compare the low price of fuel in the US compared to other countries such as the UK. A link to higher pollution in the US, perhaps?


corus

 

[VisiGoth]

corus,
The higher price in the UK is for the forced funding of socialism. On the backs of the poor who are most impacted by fuel cost, the bureaucracy grows

In the USA the private help for the poor of the world is appreciated by some and expected and despised by others. However, it is system of individual choice.

The farmers who had their land stolen by the government in communist countries had their ability to decide what vehicle they would own. By state sponsored sloth and official confiscation the communist idea at the same time takes from the poor and centralizes the power and wealth.

Freedom to drive at any speed is like saying there should be freedom to scream fire in a crowded theatre. Do you really have a comparison to make or is this a jealousy response?


jsolar

 

[CajunCenturion]

==> I think the worst is the USA.
What do you mean by worst in this sense?

Is it not also true that slower speeds produce less pollution, and in fact conserve fuel?



Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[UcfSE]

molten - again, government deciding what I can and cannot drive, given that I am licensed for that weight class, does not sound very democratic to me. Nobody died to have their freedoms taken away because someone was offended. If people wanted more control over who can drive what, they would vote for it. If people all wanted to drive a tuna can, they would buy them. SUV's will go away when there is no market for them. That's the way it works where I'm from. I don't know about where you are.

Until you get up and put your money where your mouth is, like running for office, it's all just bloated talk and opinions, and we all know what those are worth. My exhaust offends you, your exhaust offends me, BFD.

At any rate, I think we've hijacked the good OP's thread quite enough. What do you say we move on?

 

[KENAT]

Is it not also true that slower speeds produce less pollution, and in fact conserve fuel?

Not from what I understood, at least in terms of mpg.

If you look at the vehicle as a system there is actually a sweet spot.

If I understand correctly, there is a point at which the engine running at optimum efficiency verses the drag/resistance is optimum. Going slower leaves the engine at below optimum rpm for efficiency. Going faster increases resistance so the engine has to work harder, reducing efficiency.

I believe it's in the high 50s (mph not km) for most cars.

I’m sure one of the automotive guys could be more exact.