A sign of health from the larger body politic spotted at, of all places, the Detroit Auto Show. Brock Yates of the Wall Street Journal notes that the massively cool show features gargantuan amounts of the horsepower so beloved of the masses, and very little of that underpowered PC crap prescribed by our putative betters.
Utopians might expect that the auto makers will offer countless octane-stingy hybrids and zero-emission fuel-cell vehicles to a public seeking to wean itself from all addiction to the cursed internal combustion engine. Sadly, this is not the case. Tree-huggers and Friends of the Earth would be better advised to picnic on the banks of the Love Canal than to set foot in the vast precincts of Detroit’s Cobo Hall.
On the pole position, as it were, was the rakish Chrysler ME412, a so-called halo car (read image-builder) coupe that, thanks to four turbochargers pumping high-test into its gasping 12 cylinders, produces 850 horsepower. DaimlerChrysler engineers who developed the monster claim it will generate top speeds approaching 250 miles an hour.
Throughout Cobo Hall lurk dozens of such muscle cars, Ferraris, Vipers, Lamborghinis, BMWs, Jaguars, Audis, Acuras, et al., ready and willing to tear up pavements and strike the fear of God into unwitting passengers at the touch of the throttle. Four hundred horsepower is not unusual. Three hundred horsepower can be found under the hoods of literally dozens of sedans and SUVs. Two hundred horsepower is simply not worth mentioning.
Sounds like fun to me. Chicago is having its auto show in a few weeks. Its been a few years since I went, so I do believe I will drive (yes, drive – probably in my full-size pickup, thank you) down for a look. The larger point is slipped in at the end of the piece:
The lure of the open road increases by the day. With it comes the romance–perceived or otherwise–of a freedom ride at the wheel of an automobile. This is a hateful thought for greenies, social engineers, media elites and intellectuals everywhere, but the lunatic love affair with the car remains in a state of steamy passion.
There is no debating that hybrids and fuel cells make sense in terms of the environment and reducing fossil-fuel dependence. But until these new powerplants can equal current conventional gasoline engines in terms of performance, cost and durability, auto makers will respond to the harsh realities of the marketplace. No amount of government mandates, media pressure or high-minded pontifications can replace the simple laws of supply and demand.
The internal combustion automobile is one of the biggest engines of personal liberty ever created, right up there with the firearm. With it, the individual is free to leave the jurisdiction, free to travel on his own schedule, and free to haul an enormous amount of stuff around with him if he desires. “Mass” transit trains its users to be livestock, and so it is no wonder that our putative betters are constantly trying force us into its cattle cars. The old saw about totalitarian governments making the trains run on time cuts deeper than many think. By contrast, the automobile makes you captain of your own ship.
Enough with the mixed metaphors. The American insistence on bigger and more powerful automobiles, and continued avoidance of mass transit except as an utter last resort, should give lovers of liberty cause for cheer.
whoo hoo, go muscle car. I am exceedingly glad to hear that. I will be even happier if someone DOES make an engine that equals or surpasses the power of these fine machines that runs oil free. And I will be the happiest of all if Im the inventor or investor that gets to reap some of the profits of it. Go capitalism!
In the mean time, I think I am going to look into a turbo for my Honda….
Utopians might expect that the auto makers will offer countless octane-stingy hybrids and zero-emission fuel-cell vehicles to a public seeking to wean itself from all addiction to the cursed internal combustion engine. Sadly, this is not the case.
—
Funny, some reports coming from Detroit suggest hybrids are “stealing the show” – particularly the new Lexus model. Also, I heard Ford was shuttling reporters to the conference using their new hybrid suv.
Ah well, i guess the correspondents see what they want to see.
…makes you captain of your own ship.
The first time I sailed in Maine as a teenager, I was blown away by the freedom that came with having your own vessel. The ability to go where you wanted, when you wanted, with no interference and not even a need for fuel (just wind), was amazing. I loved that feeling. And after that I could not wait to get my own car; I saw it, as R.C. was pointing out, as my own little ship that granted similar freedom. Vinalhaven here I come.
Nina, I suspect you are exactly right. Most reporters for mainstream media are ardent environmentalists; Ford’s use of its hybrid SUV to cart them around is inspired, and of course the enviros will think that the handful of eco-cars steal the show.
Based on the sheer numbers of massively powerful cars, as opposed to only a few eco-buggies, well, you can draw your own conclusions about who is trying to spin the show for their own purposes.
I’m broadly in agreement with the idea of the car as a great engine of personal freedom. It’s huge – I’d rate it higher than the gun myself.
Although its not universally practical – one of the great things about the USA is the space to really have cars. I’ve lived in too many places where the car is basically unusable and what you really want is a clean, fast, reliable mass transit system.
:-/
Did anyone else Google for some pics of the Chrysler car? HOLY CRAP! That thing is SWEET!!
Oh, and the gun is always the greatest engine of freedom. If they have guns, and you don’t, your car is of limited use. Most tires aren’t bullet proof. God praise Sam Colt.
Unfortunately, neither guns nor cars are of very practical in Manhattan. Parking is too expensive, and there are metal detectors everywhere if you spend any time in government buildings (which, being a law student, I do).
That’s ok though – this urban lifestyle is temporary. I look forward to being landed American gentry one day, king of my castle and captain of my automobile. Man was not meant to live in caves of glass & steel.
Based on the sheer numbers of massively powerful cars, as opposed to only a few eco-buggies, well, you can draw your own conclusions about who is trying to spin the show for their own purposes.
—
My guess is both parties are.
I doubt the half-dozen hyrbids are “nearly invisible”, especially if reporters are being shuttled around on the things.
And at the same time, it doesn’t sound as if the new technology is the center of attention… not when there are supercars with “enough horsepower to move Mount Rushmore”
“All Hail The Great Feast of Ostentatious Consumption”
Gas it on, ladies and gentlemen.
That’s what I always say.
I commented on this over at the transport blog – although that was in the context of public v private transport. Trains have their place, of course. An efficiently operated railway provides a service to those who don’t have their own transport or don’t want to use it for a particular journey.
What governments miss is the point about personal liberty – to go where we want when we want and take whatever we want with us. Dangerous concept, that.
The politically correct would have us use bicycles – for some this is fine, but for many it is impracticable and undesirable. So we come back to the car. If you like big powerful gas guzzlers, then fine – I can understand this desire. Personally I like big motorcycles, the same principle applies – I’m free of the shackles of public transport. Oh, and it’s a lot more fun.
That’s a curious coincidence.
It snowed like hell in Detroit last afternoon, way worse in the northern suburbs than in the city.
On my way home, I stopped to help the driver of a Honda Insight (gas-electric hybrid) who had come to a stop on an upgrade – the hill northbound on Haggerty from 8-Mile, if anyone cares. I’m in a full-size, extended-cab pickup, but I was still in 2WD and not having any trouble getting along. It was pretty slick, though . . .
The Honda was just – stopped. The little three-squirrel motor in the back was just humming, but if the driver was to be believed, the electric drive system controls were preventing him from getting any drive because the road was too slick. I don’t know if this was true or not, but it’s a fact that he could just mash down on the accelerator and the wheels weren’t turning.
Since he had traffic on a major artery stopped dead, several right-thinking citizens hopped out and gave him a push onto slightly more level ground, at which point, the electrons decided to cooperate again and away he went. Not very fast, mind you, and plowing snow with all points on the bodywork, but at least he was moving.
It’s not just horsepower. It snows like hell in the northern tier of the US, every winter, without fail. Customers are not going to buy cars, no matter how sweet the technology or how good the gas mileage, if they can’t get around tolerably in the snow. Some compromise is tolerable – a Corvette or a Mustang is expected to have some difficulties! – but a basic grocery-getter car that decides to quit applying horsepower to the road, for reasons of its own, is not going to penetrate this market well at all.
I’d appreciate if anyone who knows more about how the Insight works could explain why this thing up and quit. The several right-thinking citizens described above commented – to a man – that it would be a much colder day than it already was, in a place usually known for its excessive warmth, before anyone would buy one of those.
llater,
llamas
“No amount of government mandates, media pressure or high-minded pontifications can replace the simple laws of supply and demand.”
That sums it up. The tree huggers cannot accept this simple fact – the marketplace is ruled by supply and demand.
A cool thing may yet come to pass – the environment crowd and Joe-6-Pack will both one day be able to get excited about the same car. Hats off and a billion dollar retirement fund to the man who produces a car that is good looking, powerful, sexy and clean. It can’t be beyond the wit of man to produce. Even the best gasoline IC engines are less than 50% efficient today. All the stop / start energy of braking and accelerating is wasted (although I believe some buses do now use regenerative braking – which seriously improves fuel efficiency). I don’t think the two different sets of motivations and aspirations need necessarily be mutually exclusive.
As further evidence of the unending allure of power cars, just look at the hordes of people playing Need for Speed Underground…The car is almost always a sign of an individual’s freedom.
Wish I had the dough to buy the game… And a steering wheel, and a set of foot pedals, and…
Heh.
A cool thing may yet come to pass – the environment crowd and Joe-6-Pack will both one day be able to get excited about the same car.
I have to disagree here, Patrick. The envirofascists will never be happy with anything other than the rolling back of technology. They may claim that they want cleaner cars, but what they really want is less cars. They know that this technology isn’t exactly close, and if they get their emissions/consumption control demands granted, it will reduce the number and size of cars while we all wait for the wonder technology to come along.
These people are Luddites, after all. Believing they want progress is foolish and naive.
Michael Crichton has a great speech on how enviromentalism is merely a new religion.
There is no particular reason why a hybrid can’t be powerful. A reasonable highly optimized gasoline powered generator hooked up to a batter bank that also uses regenerative braking and electric motors on all four wheels could be quite powerful. It wouldn’t be able to sustain full output for as long, but gasoline engines rarely have to put out full power for more than a few seconds at a time.
The problem is that existing hybrids are optimized for gas mileage. They should compromise a bit and make cars with better (but not astounding) gas mileage *and* more power.
I’d buy that one…
Bolie IV
… so Alfred, the visible (& smellable) filth put out by motor cars has nothing to do with it at all, does it? It’s because they hate people.. umm.. and stuff! Hmm… when was human-hatred last a big factor in history or social movements? Greed, yes, self-interest, definitely… Care for others, compassion, consideration? Sometimes. A general Satanic hatred of everyone? Can’t think of any instances offhand. Even those who perpetuated great evil usually did it either for personal gain or some wider idea of what they thought would be good.
You speak like a man who knows nothing, who imagines only total nuts are interested in environmentalism. Well, I am (interested, not a nut!), and I’ve known many people who have been, & none of them were luddites. Many of them were very excited by the latest technology, & keen to have all the new gadgets.
Personally, I completely agree that the car is a wonderful thing; freeing people to travel where they wish. I love my 17-year-old VW golf, and would be extremely displeased if it were to disappear, or anyone tried to forbid me from driving it. However, it’s also a dangerous thing, & a polluting thing. I would prefer if it gave out no toxic emissions, as I prefer not to make such impositions on my fellow human beings.
Now, are you able to come out & play in the real world with the rest of us, or are you happier in your strange imaginary playground where all environmentalists are aligned with the hippy nutter fringe (which exists, but is hardly representative), and are motivated primarily by some twisted form of evil?
A_t
“Even those who perpetuated great evil usually did it either for personal gain or some wider idea of what they thought would be good.”
There were here some posts on the horrors of communism. Of course, those horrors were perpetrated “for … some wider idea of what they thought would be good.” That’s not much consolation to the tens of millions tortured and dead. (Of course the environmentalist’s mistakes are not, let’s hope, on such a horrendous scale).
“. I would prefer if it gave out no toxic emissions, as I prefer not to make such impositions on my fellow human beings. ”
And I would prefer that I were a millionaire, and nobody on Earth was poor or sick.
In real life these ideal options aren’t available.
Bolie IV:
“I’d buy that one…”
Even if it costs 2-3 times what a normal car costs ?
A_t – driving around in a 17 year old car is environmentally irresponsible. That thing pollutes much more than current cars, and I am sure it is less efficient to boot.
Trucks and underpowered PC cars are both boring.
Go Detroit!
Just imagine how much more Saudi ass we get to kiss!
Michael – bit of a typo there – I think you meant “kick”, not “kiss”. 😉
R C Dean, that 17 old car may be more polluting and less efficient than a more modern car but it would likely be more polluting and use more energy to scrap it and replace it with a new one.
Well, Richard, A_t doesn’t have to scrap it – he could donate to his favorite charity.
Besides, the car will have to be scrapped someday. Whether it is scrapped now or 5 years from now, the environmental effect of junking it will be the same. From an environmental perspective, I don’t think there is any net gain in waiting to junk it.
In the meantime, his old clunker is imposing an opportunity cost, if you will, on the environment – instead of driving a clean new car, he is driving a dirty old one.
R C Dean:
On your first point, it doesn’t really matter whether it is dontated to a charity or not. pollution wise.
To your second point though, It is not just the pollution from scrapping the car itself but the energy used and pollution generated by creating the new car too. And it does indeed make a difference whether the car is scrapepd now or in five years time otherwise it would make sense (other than financially) to scrap your car any time any minor efficiency increase occurred, even if that was once a month or so. There will clearly be a break-even point somewhere in between. Hold on, let me find the back of an envelope…
Let’s call the Environmental impact of producing a new car Pn, the environmental impact of running the new car per year dPnr, the environmental impact of running the old car per year dPor and the lifetime of a new car Ln.
The environmental impact of the production of the new car can be amortised over its lifetime, call it dPna=Pn/Ln
So the impact of running a new car is dPna+dPnr
So dPna+dPnr has to be less than dPor for it to be (environmentally) worth buying a new car. Given that Pn is pretty large, it’d be a hard push, possibly even if you assume a dPnr approaching zero.
Of course, dPor will increase over time as parts wear and smoke starts belching out of the exhaust. And this totally ignores specific cases and assumes the general.
Rich
I should add that it also depends what you base your P on. If it’s just pollution in general, it’s obviously different than if you measure it as kilograms of soot blown into the face of be-pushchaired toddlers.
Rich
Hmm… for all this talk of old cars giving off far more pollution, the emissions from my car were relatively low last time i had it tested; it’s been well maintained, & is pretty efficient. German engineering, eh?
As for polluting much less than current cars… well, depends what kind of current car you’re talking about. If i were to upgrade to one of the cars you’re all raving about; a supercar or a hefty (& utterly stupid, in the context of London) SUV, i’m pretty certain i’d be burning quite a lot more petrol. So unless catalytic converters have become much better recently, I can’t see how I’d be cleaner.
Plus it’s not much used; maybe once or twice a week. The rest of the time I use public transport, as I live in a city, & it’s the most sensible way to get around. So I’m hardly filled with guilt by your comments, & I think Richard’s bang on the money when he suggests the impact of me scrapping this car & buying a new one would probably be worse overall for the environment (not to mention my wallet!).
Also, on the Detroit thing, of course the most exciting things will be supercars & SUV’s; they’re inherently exciting in a way that the latest family runabout or economical city car are not; we all know this. But it doesn’t mean that these are what people will necessarily buy (tho’ the SUV thing is a current trend, & looks unlikely to abate). The most obvious limiting factor is cost; how many people can actually afford say, the new GT40? Building a *good* proper sports car (as opposed to a sheep in wolf’s clothing) costs money that most people don’t have.
You speak like a man who knows nothing, who imagines only total nuts are interested in environmentalism.
A_t, did you read the Crichton speech, or just fall into your usual “I must be contrary” pattern? Come on, a little reading won’t hurt you.
Oh, and your 17-year old car is far more polluting than any modern car no matter how much you try and spin it. Unless you had the motor completely redone, your cylinders, pistons, and rings are worn, and you burn oil–plus your compression is way down and you require more gas to retain horsepower. I don’t give a rat’s ass what you say about its emissions–remember that they give older cars much greater leeway in emissions tests.
I bet my 15 mpg Ford Explorer has far better emissions than your old Krautmobile. Maybe you could go the full granola-crunchy route and get an ancient Volvo with lots of envirofascist bumper stickers and burn even more oil (plus gas–those things weigh a ton and can’t get out of their own way). Hypocrisy is a special skill, duder.
Alfred, precisely what I meant. You can’t stay away from those tasty little stereotypes, can you? “krautmobile”, “envirofascist”…. so as soon as I express any concern about pollution or anything, I have to be a nut, yeah? Yeah. Clearly you *do* prefer your fictional world to the real one. Fair enough. Well, either that or you know me better than I know myself, which would be pretty impressive on the basis of a few comments on the web!
As for emissions, you *may* be right; i’m not sufficiently knowledgable about cars, but as I pointed out above, I hardly use it much, and am not loaded, & therefore can’t justify the expense that a new (& potentially less polluting) car would impose on me.
As for hypocrisy, it’s a skill which almost every human alive exercises regularly. I make no particular secret of mine, & don’t think I have been particularly hypocritical in any of the stuff I’ve said above. I’m conscious that my old car is more polluting than I’d like, but hey! I’m only human; my local, short-term concerns often trump my granola-eating inner hippie “help everyone else” self. There’s usually a gap between how a person would ideally be and how they really are. Oops.. meant to give more to charity than I do. Meant to spend more time with my partner, drink less coffee, not scowl at people in the street, or push past people who are slow on the tube, have a more positive attitude all round, get out of London more often…. That’s life, “duder” (where the hell did that come from??? is this a new teenage yankee imperialist dog term?)
Oh, sorry.. Yes, I did read the Crichton speech. I Thought he made a lot of good points. However, at no point did he say “hey! don’t give a rat’s ass…just operate as though nothing could harm the planet”, which seems to usually be the reaction. He just pointed out that many of the eco-lobby’s hobby horse topics may have shaky foundations.
This is true, but a blithe faith in being able to do whatever we like & get away with it is just as dumb, just approaching it from the other side.
We have plenty of powerful forces pushing the “hey, screw the consequences” approach, and a few the other (eco-whatever) side. Occasionally eco-advocates go too far; prosecute where there is no need, but so? Would you ditch the entire police force because of a few prosecutions which turned out to be unfounded? Or a couple of wrongful convictions? (essentially the kind of thing he’s describing)
Personally, I think independent bodies concerning themselves with these issues are a good idea, & what’s more, back on the car issue, in my personal value set/aesthetics, compact packages which use resources efficiently trump ostentatious power/consumption any day, whether in a car or a line of code, & I don’t think i’m alone in this.
Btw, does anyone know why US car manufacturers always seem to get far less power than Europeans out of engines of equivalent sizes? (is it to do with longevity; dealing with the longer distances the average American drives?)
So, A_t, duder (not a new term, but I’m not surprised that you don’t use it in limeyland), get to both be “against pollution” and be a polluter. And I live in a fantasy world? And such priceless excuses–“yes, maybe my car pollutes a lot but I don’t know much about cars and I don’t use it a whole lot.” Holy shit, hypocrisy may be a human condition, but you seem to be superhuman in this regard.
I mean, if some chemical company executive said “I’m for protecting the environment–I didn’t know that our silver nitrate runoff was bad because I just don’t know much about chemistry”, you’d flay the guy alive. But it’s OK for you, of course, because you care.
Mein Gott, do you even think about what you say?
Also, just because hypocrisy is human doesn’t mean you shouldn’t resist it. Killing people and taking their shit is human too. If we can resist that, I think maybe we could make a dent in hypocrisy. Give it a shot for just one minizzle. Duder. (I can slang you to death.)
Oh, and way to completely avoid responding to or reading the Crichton speech.
Whoops, looks like you did read the Crichton speech.
I have no idea why my Explorer’s 5.0 liter engine gets 215 HP while my grandfather’s Lexus’ 4.3 liter gets 250+, and why my cousin’s 3.0 liter BMW Bavaria could beat a 5.0 Mustang in a drag race (the dual carburetors probably had something to do with it).
I think US manufacturers are still somewhat complacent about wringing every last bit of HP from engines.
By the way, I’m still not letting you off the hook for hypocrisy.
Regarding the ‘old-car=more pollution?’ question – it’s absolutely true.
A couple of years ago, there were a couple of morons in California who went around ‘tagging’ SUV’s with bumper stickers decrying their polluting ways. These two dingbats were proud of what they themselves drove – one drove a 10-year-old BMW compact sedan (gas) and the other an even older BMW motorcycle.
I was a columnist for a US magazine at the time, and I researched this. With the help of an emissions engineer at the Detroit-area EPA testing facility, I established that the 10-year old BMW sedan was allowed up to 170 times the tailpipe emissions as a current model year SUV. Even the BMW motorcycle could produce up to 10x the tailpipe emissions as a monster SUV of current production was permitted.
As the engineer said to me at the time – after about 1 minute of running, it’s all academic anyway – the only thing of any significance coming out the tailpipe is water vapour and carbon monoxide. 99% of noxious emissions are produced in that time, before the converter has warmed up to operating temperature.
For a diesel, I would expect it to be even worse. The latest crop of sequentially-injected, pressure-modulated, electronically fedback injection systems have dramatically reduced diesel tailpipe emissions. A 17-year-old diesel, even if in blueprint condition, can’t help but produce a whole lot more emissions.
llater,
llamas
Alfred, i’m just saying how my life is; i know it’s not perfect… & your example about a chemical plant manager is just loony; last time I checked, buying a car didn’t incur any particular obligation to know much about how it works… no more so than buying a CD player requires knowledge of jitter or oversampling. Someone who’s managing a chemical plant ought to know something about what it’s doing, or at least have access to experts who can tell him.
And where did I say “it’s ok”? I didn’t. I’m uneasy about it, but hey! I’m also uneasy about my continued smoking habit. So I’m weak… sue me! My convenience in getting to the supermarket, which would take me 35 mins to walk to, has swayed me. I’m the same as most people; we give something of a shit about the larger issues, but at the end of the day, local, immediate concerns (like not walking 35 mins in pissy English rain) often override them. If you have no little hypocrisies in your life, well done, cast as many stones as you like in my direction. Otherwise, take it easy man; I’m not an in-your face eco terrorist… I’m not lecturing you on how you should live your life or whether you should drive your boring-looking Ford. All I was doing was suggesting that your take on people who give ecological ideas the time of day is somewhat divorced from reality.
btw, llamas, when you say
“I established that the 10-year old BMW sedan was allowed up to 170 times the tailpipe emissions as a current model year SUV.”,
do you mean “according to US regulations”? I don’t quite get who ‘allows’ this; do regulations over there specify that over a certain age, a car has less of an obligation on the pollution front? I’m genuinely curious; not contesting your statement.
If this is the case, does anyone know what the situation in the UK is?
Oh yeah, & in case anyone wants a further pop at me, it’s a petrol engine, so go for it! & the reason why I mentioned that I don’t use it much is that you’d have to compare the pollution caused by producing any new car plus the reduced emissions from that car, with the small amount of weekly emissions mine produces as is.
A_t,
If the eco-nuts had their way you would be *forced* to give up your old car, and either buy a new one or walk in the rain.
Maybe you would welcome this intervention that helps you overcome your weakness and mend your dubious ways. Maybe not.
I gues most libertarians just love to be free to sin and abhor interference.
A_t wrote:
‘I established that the 10-year old BMW sedan was allowed up to 170 times the tailpipe emissions as a current model year SUV.”,
do you mean “according to US regulations”? I don’t quite get who ‘allows’ this; do regulations over there specify that over a certain age, a car has less of an obligation on the pollution front? I’m genuinely curious; not contesting your statement.’
Understood, I should have been more clear.
This took place in the Los Angeles basin, where air quality law compliance requires automobiles and light trucks to undergo a yearly emissions test as a condition of registration renewal. A vehicle will be tested to ensure that its emissions do not exceed what the manufacturer specified and certified for it when it was new. I believe there is some adjustment for age. There is also a cap set on the amount that an owner has to pay to try and bring the vehicle into compliance if it fails. Vehicles over a certain age are exempt, which may be one reason that one sees so many rolling antiques in CA, although, of course, they don’t rust there either.
Emissions standards have been continually tightened over the years, with the CARB standards being consistently the strictest. California motorists typically pay a premium over the regular cost of an automobile in the rest of the nation for the added cost of compliance with CARB requirements. The emissions testing kicks in when air quality standards fall below levels set forth in the Clean Air Act, and has, from time to time, been enforced in other areas when the air quality was sub-standard.
The emissions testing is a stone joke. Any amount of study has shown that 99% of the automobile emissions are produced by 1% of the automobiles. Most late-model autos (less than 10 years old), unless seriously undermaintained, pass the emissions testing by vast margins. One particular study in Greeley, CO, a few years back, showed that it would be vastly more economical and effective (in improving air quality) to identify the polluting autos, buy them, scrap them, and buy the onners new autos, than to impose across-the-board testing of a vehicle fleet which, for the most part, is putting out emissions several orders of magnitude lower than just 10 or 15 years ago.
But, of course, the federal law defines what the response will be, and it’s a nice little earner for auto repair shops.
I can’t speak for the exact figures, I didn’t do the testing but took the expert at his word. I do specifically recall that there were some pollutants (oxides of nitrogen) for which there was no limit set for the older vehicles, but which are now strictly regulated. I will try and dig up the column if you are interested.
llater,
llamas
Hybrid and electric technology won’t truly capture the hearts of motorists (outside of Greenie cities like my hometown Seattle) until they start delivering tire-smoking performance as well.
It is a shame automakers haven’t yet tapped this side of the technology, because it really does have some awesome performance benefits. For instance, whereas an internal combustion engine’s torque is produced along a curve, with output varying at different RPMs, the torque produced by an electric motor is available at any time, at any speed. There is no need to find a sweet spot, the tire-twisting force is simply always there at maximum levels.
Fortunately, there are signs that some automakers are starting to tinker with this. At the Detroit Auto Show, Mitsubishi’s new Eclipse concept uses a normal V6 coupled with an electric motor at the back wheels, a combination they say is good for 0-60 in five seconds. Now you’ve got my attention!
“Eclipse concept uses a normal V6 coupled with an electric motor at the back wheels”
Look, when you have a decent car with a decent V6 motor, that already has good performance, adding an electrical motor can’t hurt (provided you don’t mind the additional expense).
But the whole idea of the greenees is to take away that V6 motor !
“Hybrid and electric technology won’t truly capture the hearts of motorists (outside of Greenie cities like my hometown Seattle) until they start delivering tire-smoking performance as well.”
Can’t remember if anyone’s posted this up here before, but
this might be a step in the right direction; 0 to 60 in 4.1 seconds anyone?
The only thing about all these guys is, where’s the noise? I know in theory it’d be nice to have quiet cars, but even modern petrol cars are treacherously quiet; it’s much easier crossing the road when you can hear things coming!