Ex-Tesla VP Says Congress Should Tax Gas to $6 per Gallon

[Sephirius]

Why would someone need a car with extremely wasteful 5 - 6 liter engine for everyday driving. I have driven my friend`s VW Passat equipped with 2.5 liter TDI engine and it has plenty acceleration if you need to overtake someone on a highway, has no problems maintaining 140 km/h, can comfortably seat 4 people, has enough space for everyday luggage (folding down rear seats allow to carry even some sizable items like fridge or washing machine) and consumes on average 6 - 8 liters/100km of fuel.

Too bad you look as boring as a German cement salesperson in one- it's devoid of soul or passion man! It's a car that seems to have been designed by a commitee specifically to be as bland and unoffensive as possible and without anyone doing it for the love of the automobile.

Of course that TDI has good acceleration, Diesel engines by nature have great wads of torque- but does the top end suffer? Is it pleasant to listen to? Don't misunderstand me- a car can be a good car or a bad car, but if it has no flair, no soul to it then what's the point? I have nothing against diesel as a fuel, it's just that 99% of them are as bland as uncooked celery. Now if they started cars like the Jaguar XJ TDI over things would be different. The problem is that all ecomobiles in North America right now are as boring as watching grass grow or just plain unfeasible. Because 'green' vehicles are a niche market at best, most car manufacturers have decided to style them to appeal to a broad range of people(Read: aluminum railings have more personality) in order to try and sell more than they probably would; which hasn't worked so well so far. If someone would bother to take a chance on a hybrid car in terms of design or character, then maybe the American market would take interest- the Chevrolet Volt is a case in point, it's a great looking car.
It all comes down to this- When I get into my car I want to feel SOMETHING other than boredom- I want to be able to just DRIVE and enjoy it something that seems lost on many people. You are what you drive.

[aerius]

It all comes down to this- When I get into my car I want to feel SOMETHING other than boredom- I want to be able to just DRIVE and enjoy it something that seems lost on many people. You are what you drive.

Well that explains a hell of a lot about your ravings. I finally get where you're coming from, and it's fucking hilarious in a sad way.

[Starglider]

Well that explains a hell of a lot about your ravings. I finally get where you're coming from, and it's fucking hilarious in a sad way.

Having nice things because they make you feel good isn't ridiculous, or rather it's no more ridiculous than the rest of the human condition. There's nothing wrong with a bit of design flair and sacrificing a bit of MPG would be ok if fuel taxes were high enough to reflect the true costs. The problem is that US car buyers seem to want vehicles that are two or three times heavier and less efficient than a sane design (not even counting hybrids etc) for their actual usage pattern. They also want to drive unusually dangerous vehicles with minimal driver training. This is not a sane or sustainable situation.

[Sephirius]

Sorry for doubletap but-

Even so... have you seen NCAP tests of those monster-SUV's? I'd rather be in a Swift than a penismobile.

Funny, that's a rebadged Mazda BT-50. Not even sold in North America. The REAL Ford Ranger is a bit bigger and a bit heavier- and I hardly ever see those anyway; the Ford F series is much more common (best selling car in North America) and has a ~2500 lb weight advantage AT LEAST.

Also, the current F-150 has a 'Best Pick' for crash safety by the IIHS.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=192


Also, someone in physics correct me if I'm wrong, but EuroNCAP tests don't account for two vehicles of dissimilar weight nailing each other- it's always an immovable object, wouldn't a 1.5 ton object hitting a much lighter one impart more momentum and thereby be more damaging?

[folti78]

Sorry for doubletap but-

Even so... have you seen NCAP tests of those monster-SUV's? I'd rather be in a Swift than a penismobile.

Funny, that's a rebadged Mazda BT-50. Not even sold in North America. The REAL Ford Ranger is a bit bigger and a bit heavier- and I hardly ever see those anyway; the Ford F series is much more common (best selling car in North America) and has a ~2500 lb weight advantage AT LEAST.

You are right, thats what Ford solds in the EU under the Ranger name, so the NCAP guys tested that.

<snip>
Also, someone in physics correct me if I'm wrong, but EuroNCAP tests don't account for two vehicles of dissimilar weight nailing each other- it's always an immovable object, wouldn't a 1.5 ton object hitting a much lighter one impart more momentum and thereby be more damaging?

I'm not a physicist either, but the results will depend on many factors, which will make safety qualification impossible.
These factors are: the relative speed of the vehicles, the type of crash(frontal, side, tailgating, etc), layout and weight distribution* differences, crumple zones, etc.

* Like there is a possibility that in a frontal crash a SUV will "park" on the passenger compartment of our little Swift because it's chassis hoisted higher and the Swifts nose could act as a wedge under it's nose.

[Phantasee]

Suzuki Swifts' (known as Geo Metro or Chevrolet Sprint in the US) unlucky encounters with oversized and overweight tank-on-wheels SUVs?

Even so... have you seen NCAP tests of those monster-SUV's? I'd rather be in a Swift than a penismobile.

Thanks, for the links. The Swift safeties are fairly good for it's size, but the question is how it fares against a 2 or 3 times heavier penismobile during a crash?

Swits even here are considered a bit of deathtraps, although it's more the result of crashes with disproportionally larger vehicles and the shoddy quality of the first batches coming out from the Suzuki factory in Esztergom during the early 90s.

Is that really a fair test? The Ford Ranger hasn't really changed much in basic design since being introduced. My uncle's Ranger is almost identical to my Explorer, which was based on the Ranger originally, except his is a 2005 Ranger and I'm driving a 1992 Explorer. Modern vehicles have much different architecture designed to improve safety, and I doubt the Ranger has benefited from such architecture. Hell, the interior was almost the same as my Explorer's until recently (as in, same parts/panels).

[Elessar]

Having nice things because they make you feel good isn't ridiculous, or rather it's no more ridiculous than the rest of the human condition. There's nothing wrong with a bit of design flair and sacrificing a bit of MPG would be ok if fuel taxes were high enough to reflect the true costs. The problem is that US car buyers seem to want vehicles that are two or three times heavier and less efficient than a sane design (not even counting hybrids etc) for their actual usage pattern. They also want to drive unusually dangerous vehicles with minimal driver training. This is not a sane or sustainable situation.

Not to mention that this desire is so widespread in the US that the government has basically subsidized this waste of a resource. Free market economics indeed!

[Ma Deuce]

I see plenty of people here towing sailboats and caravans with standard family cars.

Unless those are very small sailboats or caravans, then they shouldn't be doing that. I don't know how it is over there, but few passenger cars here are rated to tow more than 1,000lbs, regardless of what engine they have. Minivans (Large MPVs to you) and larger crossovers are usually rated to tow about 2,000 out of the box, but are often available with heavy-duty towing packages to increase that figure even further.

Even so... have you seen NCAP tests of those monster-SUV's? I'd rather be in a Swift than a penismobile.

Dude, nobody over here buys a lowly Ford Ranger (which is THE smallest pickup truck you can buy in North America) as a "penis compensator". Frankly, with a curb weight of just over 3,000 lbs for the 2wd version, that's even lighter than a BMW 1 series (which ironically is far more likely to be bought for penis compensation). Vehicles that are bought for such purposes based on size tend to weigh at least 5,000lbs, something the size of an Escalade. You'll get no argument out of me that full-sized SUVs are an abomination that needs to die, but you Europeans frankly seem to have very little understanding of the North American auto market.

While the notion that SUVs are safer than smaller cars has long been disproven, on average the only way they are less safe to their own occupants is their tendency to roll over (unless you'd care to prove otherwise by providing more than one example). If safety were my overriding concern when buying a car, I'd take a large sedan, especially since I have to share the road with said SUVs. Weight is an advantage in crashes with other cars, and safety features do add weight: take the Toyota Camry: In 1992, it weighed 2900 lbs, and now it weighs around 3400, this despite the fact the car's external dimensions have changed very little, and the car's structure now uses much higher-strength steel.

[Starglider]

I don't know how it is over there, but few passenger cars here are rated to tow more than 1,000lbs, regardless of what engine they have. Minivans (Large MPVs to you) and larger crossovers are usually rated to tow about 2,000 out of the box, but are often available with heavy-duty towing packages to increase that figure even further.

Say what? 1000lbs? Maybe with a supermini. My car is rated to tow 2100kg (~4600 lbs), and as mentioned above it's a fairly standard V6 station wagon. It has the factory tow bar which is attached to the underbody by a harness-like arrangement of four struts. Strangely the US version is only rated to 3300 lbs despite being almost exactly identical, but that should still suffice for most non-commercial use. Frankly if you do have something bigger than that to tow, do you really tow it often enough that it justifies wasting so much fuel driving your oversized vehicle the rest of the time? I'd happily buy an enormous old pickup truck cheaply second hand if I had a huge fishing boat I had to tow around, but the other 28 days of the month I'd leave it sitting in the driveway.

You'll get no argument out of me that full-sized SUVs are an abomination that needs to die

Some people do have a genuine need for them. It's just that market is a tiny fraction of the size of the current (or at least, mid-2000s) market for them.

[Knife]

Which empty musing would those be?

Well, you for starters, not one post after the OT,

For some nebulous reason many Americans refuse to believe you can get by with a 1200cc, 60Bhp, 50MPG car. The last time I tried asking why someone who commuted six miles over flat streets needed a five-litre V8 it had to do with overtaking, which apparently is some kind of magical act reserved for monstrously wasteful cars.

Starglider follows up with his version of my car is better than yours;

I have a 4WD station wagon and it is more than sufficient to carry all our camping gear and a week's worth of supplies down assorted rutted tracks, muddy fields and mountain roads (admittedly if we had kids I'd need a roof rack). This already puts us in a tiny percentage of the population who bother to do such things. Only a very tiny minority actually drive around in rough terrain looking for remote places to camp - and they drive proper SUVs, not the crap fake ones so popular in the US.

Then back to you;

What confuses me here is not so much that Americans like their big engines, it's that they seem to like big wasteful engines. A straight-six can get 40MPG with conservative driving and proper engineering; you don't need a itty-bitty two-stroke to get decent economy. Yet people - certain people here - are fawning over 25MPG cars as if they're the second coming of Christ in terms of mileage, as if the concept of a big, frugal engine doesn't even occur to them.

Or this bizarre idea that smaller cars (not tiny cars, smaller ones) are somehow death traps by default. "Cramped cabins"? I'm 6 foot and change and even in the back of a Fiesta I'vfe got head- and legroom to spare - you don't need a voluminous cabin to have a spacious one when you're good at using the space you have.. Where are these misconceptions coming from?

Then you again;

I'm starting to get the distinct impressions some Americans think car development stopped sometime around 1972, or that every "small" car is a cardboard Yugo.

Back to Starglider;

Sometimes I wonder if all this 'oh you can't convince us to abandon huge cars' business is actually just the fear of the petrolhead minority that their hobby will get more expensive if monstrous cars become the exception rather than the norm.

And though Sephirius seems to be a retard on the other side of the coin, you and Manus Celer Dei do a little circle jerk about your awesome insights;

There's people who actually take that crap seriously? Jesus christ.

Now, granted, you've added some good stuff to the thread, it is just this weird ass notion you have and the little choir you've seemed to assemble to pat yourselves on the back for your insights, that you've got your finger on the pulse of American buyers and it baffles you.

What tripe. American's wanting bigger, more wasteful cars is easy to understand, just like geeks wanting a bigger more powerful computer rig, or music buffs wanting the best stereo money can buy. American's have been sold on the myth of being a rugged outdoors type and for that they are sold a huge truck. Not that hard to understand, and since you could probably point out a similar phenomenon in most cultures, just change the item, you all seem hollow.

Don't take this as I support their position, I think Sephirius is rather typical of the sentiment I don't like about our car buying habits but he's right in one aspect, as long as the little box cars have little but a good MPG rating, you're going to have problems selling them to a lot of American buyers.

[Ma Deuce]

Say what? 1000lbs? Maybe with a supermini.

Nope, I'm dead serious. Take a look at the spec sheets of some family sedans available here, even the midsized-larger ones (Toyota Camry, Chevy Malibu, Honda Accord etc), and you will be very hard pressed to find a tow rating greater than that. Of course, those are sedans, and those particular examples don't come in any other bodystyle, save the Accord which is also offered as a coupe. The only towing options for most sedans are a basic hitch bolted to the rear subframe. Of course this wasn't always the case: The old-style "yank tank" full-sized sedans (which were RWD and built body-on-frame like trucks) could sometimes be optioned to tow as much as 7,000lbs. The only car of that type still in production is the Ford Crown Victoria and it's siblings, and then almost entirely for the police and taxicab/limosuine markets.

Station wagons do tend to have a higher towing capacity than sedans for some reason (the Ford Taurus wagon was rated for at least 2,000lbs for example, double that of it's sedan counterpart). But station wagons have fallen out of favor here, having been replaced in the market by minivans, crossovers and SUVs. Only a few European marques carry them, and even then they only comprise a tiny fraction of those brands' sales.

Some people do have a genuine need for them. It's just that market is a tiny fraction of the size of the current (or at least, mid-2000s) market for them.

Those people who actually need such a large vehicle generally serve that need with a full-size pickup truck rather than an SUV, which are slightly lighter and have far better utility and customization options.

[folti78]

Is that really a fair test? The Ford Ranger hasn't really changed much in basic design since being introduced. My uncle's Ranger is almost identical to my Explorer, which was based on the Ranger originally, except his is a 2005 Ranger and I'm driving a 1992 Explorer. Modern vehicles have much different architecture designed to improve safety, and I doubt the Ranger has benefited from such architecture. Hell, the interior was almost the same as my Explorer's until recently (as in, same parts/panels).

For europeans, yes. The EuroNCAP tests cars sold on the EU markets. As long as Ford sells rebadged Mazda B-series or Mazda BT-50 here as the Ranger, they'll test those cars. Keep in mind that this Mazda B-series are not the same as the North American version. This version of the Ranger/BT-50 failed on the Australian NCAP tests too.(NZ Transport agency's article)

[Bounty]

Too bad you look as boring as a German cement salesperson in one- it's devoid of soul or passion man! It's a car that seems to have been designed by a commitee specifically to be as bland and unoffensive as possible and without anyone doing it for the love of the automobile.

Which is simply a result of you not understanding the German idea of "passion". They have a hard-on for over-engineering and tweaking, not roars. A Scirocco is, in its own geeky way, just as passionate as any American musclecar... but with better mileage

It all comes down to this- When I get into my car I want to feel SOMETHING other than boredom- I want to be able to just DRIVE and enjoy it something that seems lost on many people. You are what you drive.

You are loud, wasteful, form over function and blow a lot of hot air?

See, this is what I've been getting at when I say I don't understand how some Americans approach cars(Knife, these would be my "empty musings"): you seem to have this weird idea that cars are either sane, frugal and boring, or passionate, big and wasteful. But not only is there a massive overlap between the two, with nearly every brand having at least a few "drivers' cars" that still get good economy, it's also a very bizarre way to approach the purchase of an item that is, at the end of the day, a tool. If you plan on using a car every day for the supermarket run you don't buy a sportcar, or a grand tourer, you buy something practical; it's a different set of requirements. Your idea of choosing a vehicle is akin to someone buying a boiler for his house because it has speed stripes, makes a manly roar and has a drinking problem; sure those are great qualities when you're buying a 1971 Challenger as a hobby project, but not when you try to warm your house. Or commute.

Dude, nobody over here buys a lowly Ford Ranger (which is THE smallest pickup truck you can buy in North America) as a "penis compensator". Frankly, with a curb weight of just over 3,000 lbs for the 2wd version, that's even lighter than a BMW 1 series (which ironically is far more likely to be bought for penis compensation). Vehicles that are bought for such purposes based on size tend to weigh at least 5,000lbs, something the size of an Escalade.

I used the Ranger because it's the biggest 4x4 NCAP has tested. I couldn't find the US equivalent that does crash tests

you Europeans frankly seem to have very little understanding of the North American auto market.

Probably because form our point of view, it doesn't make a lick of sense. American cars are... odd.

[Ma Deuce]

I used the Ranger because it's the biggest 4x4 NCAP has tested. I couldn't find the US equivalent that does crash tests

Our crash test ratings come either from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (a private organization funded by auto insurers) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The NHTSA being a government agency would be our equivalent of the NCAP, however the IIHS's testing method is generally considered superior, especially for frontal ratings, since they use an offset impact model.

[Phantasee]

Bounty, you mentioned that you can get more power out of a straight-6 with less waste than other engines. Could you or someone else show me what is different about it? I know that all our diesel trucks run on straight-6s, no matter the make or model of the engine (CAT, Detroit Diesel, Cummins, Mercedes).

[Bounty]

I know that all our diesel trucks run on straight-6s, no matter the make or model of the engine

As far as I know - not very far - industrial engines are usually straight-six diesels because they're the best combination of power, serviceability, low vibration and high torque. Four-cilinders don't have the oomph, eight-in-lines are too big, V-shaped engines too rattly.

I just pulled the exmaple of a straight-six out of my ass partly because I've just been driving a BMW with a straight-six (250+bhp, 40MPG, goes like stink despite being a station car), partly because it's an engine that was popular in the US in the past and would probably receive less resistance from the public. It seems like a decent marriage of RAWR POWAH and economy.

[Phantasee]

40MPG is very impressive, to be honest. I haven't driven many fuel-efficient cars, myself, but I've driven a couple BMWs and I have enjoyed the power in their straight-6s. Which did you drive?

[Bounty]

40MPG is very impressive, to be honest. I haven't driven many fuel-efficient cars, myself, but I've driven a couple BMWs and I have enjoyed the power in their straight-6s. Which did you drive?

530. Officially it gets 35.8mpg, 0-60 in 6.8s, 155mph top speed. Oddly enough, the fueleconomy.gov site is trying to convince me even the saloon version only does 20MPG... even though I got twice that (or at least, the car said it did). Either the automatic transmission in the US version gulps fuel, or there's something funny going on.

I'm trying to find a comparable engine in a more affordable model.

[Phantasee]

40MPG is very impressive, to be honest. I haven't driven many fuel-efficient cars, myself, but I've driven a couple BMWs and I have enjoyed the power in their straight-6s. Which did you drive?

530. Officially it gets 35.8mpg, 0-60 in 6.8s, 155mph top speed. Oddly enough, the fueleconomy.gov site is trying to convince me even the saloon version only does 20MPG... even though I got twice that (or at least, the car said it did). Either the automatic transmission in the US version gulps fuel, or there's something funny going on.

I'm trying to find a comparable engine in a more affordable model.

Amusing. I get better mileage than that in my minivan (12.3L/100km usually). Which is apparently what the "Fuel Economy Estimates from Drivers Like You" thinks I should be getting. Even the new EPA estimate is high for my minivan (low if in MPG).

[Bounty]

There's some really bizarre figures on that site. I'm not sure how you can burn through gas at 22MPG in an A4 even if you tried...

[Phantasee]

Clearly part of a vast Arab conspiracy to force Americans to consume massive quantities of oil

I sometimes wonder about the accuracy of the onboard computers, though. How long do you have to drive after resetting it for it to get a good picture of your driving habits? If I was the exclusive driver for a period of time, would I get a good picture of my habits after a day? week? month? And I know it gets averaged out between different drivers, but even I don't drive the same every day. Some days you just go slow and steady, others you open it up a bit. And the weather surely has a huge effect? Several days at -20C or lower would definitely affect that computer.

[aerius]

There's some really bizarre figures on that site. I'm not sure how you can burn through gas at 22MPG in an A4 even if you tried...

Take it on a race track and lead-foot it. You'll be shocked at how fast your car sucks gas when you do that.

[Ma Deuce]

530. Officially it gets 35.8mpg, 0-60 in 6.8s, 155mph top speed. Oddly enough, the fueleconomy.gov site is trying to convince me even the saloon version only does 20MPG... even though I got twice that (or at least, the car said it did). Either the automatic transmission in the US version gulps fuel, or there's something funny going on.

I have found the new EPA numbers to be pretty close to reality, and they line up almost exactly to the observed fuel consumption of my van and several other cars I've driven since the new system took effect. In fact, the only criticisms I've heard of the new numbers is that they're still too optimistic (though the people I know personally who say that are usually lead-footed assholes).

So, if the EPA says a BMW 530i consumes 21 MPG on average, I'm gonna believe them: The difference isn't explained by manual/automatic either, as both have virtually the same rating. Note however that that rating is for regular (87 octane/91 RON) gas. They also rate it's mileage on premium (91 Octane/95 RON, which it's designed to run on), which goes up to 24 average, and 30 on the highway. 30 US gallons = 36 Imperial gallons. Always remember the 20% difference between US and Imperial gallons when comparing fuel economy of US and European cars.

For another comparison, I'll point out that the new V6 Camaro will supposedly by rated at 18 city and 26-27 Highway (22/32 Imperial) despite producing over 300 hp, and being able to go from 0-60 in 6 seconds or less, with a top speed of 155mph (from a naturally aspirated 3.6L V6 tuned to run on regular gas). That's actually a smidge better than the BMW 535i's rating, which also gets 300hp from a 3L turbocharged I6 tuned to run on premium. So much for the notion that European cars are way more efficient than American cars of similar performance.

There's some really bizarre figures on that site. I'm not sure how you can burn through gas at 22MPG in an A4 even if you tried...

On which engine? Note that we only get the 2L turbo and the 3.2L VR6 on the North American A4, neither of which have particularly impressive efficiency (in fact, the efficiency VW's gas engines do seem to lag behind most of their competition in North America).

[Bounty]

30 US gallons = 36 Imperial gallons. Always remember the 20% difference between US and Imperial gallons when comparing fuel economy of US and European cars.

My mistake. I just plugged the numbers into Google thinking it did US gallons - those must've been Imperial. If only there was some sort of standardised system... something metric ...

So much for the notion that European cars are way more efficient than American cars of similar performance.

Of course, you're comparing a two-door sports car to a foor-door saloon.

[Knife]

Of course, you're comparing a two-door sports car to a foor-door saloon.

Haha. You need more than one door on a saloon so the good customers don't see you throw the drunk bums out on their head.