the fuel-efficient car?
i was listening to Rush Limbaugh earlier this week, and the question came up. a listener who drives a Geo Metro called in, pointing out that the Metro and the Honda CR-X (specifically the HF model, though he didn’t point this out) were no longer available from new in the US market.
the Metro can get over 40 mpg in city driving, and the CR-X is almost as frugal. both could acheive seemingly absurd highway fuel economies, with reports of well over 50 mpg common.
but the only way to get close to these numbers with a new car today is with a vehicle like the Toyota Prius (or other hybrids).
and the caller wanted to know why.
El Rushbo, with his right-wing slant, proposed the idea that it was government regulation – specifically CAFE standards affecting fleet buying habits – that killed these cheap, frugal cars.
and, in a way, he was right. though completely wrong in the details.
it was government regulations that killed the cheap, fuel efficient car. but not fuel economy regulations – safety regulations. the nanny state, in its infinite, benificent wisdom, decided our cars were dangerous. too many people were dying or being injured in crashes. so, instead of looking to the horrendous state of driver education, they decided it was the cars.
passive restraint systems, airbags, revised crumple zones, you name it: all of these were added or expanded in the twenty or so years since the CR-X HF came on the scene. and all of these things add something other than safety: weight.
the closest surviving “relative” to the Honda CR-X is the Honda Civic. the CR-X was, essentially, a 2-seat Civic coupé. the 1988 Civic hatchback weighed less than 2000 pounds; a 2009 Civic coupé weighs 600 pounds more. over a ten percent increase in weight – thanks primarily to increased safety equipment – can have nothing but a negative effect on fuel economy. combine that with the demand from the buying public for ever better performance – leading to ever larger engines – and you’re going to have a significant fall in fuel economy.
there are conventional modern cars with similar fuel economies to the old Metro and CR-X; Tata’s Nano gets over 45 mpg, and the US-spec smart fortwo gets over 40 mpg highway. but neither of these cars is acceptable to the mass consumer in the USA; the smart is too pricy and too tiny, while the Nano wouldn’t likely pass US safety or emissions regulations, much less be driveable on our roads (14 seconds to 43 mph probably wouldn’t fly here). and it’s tiny.
but cars get heavier over time anyway (as much as i hate that fact). the 1955 Chevrolet Bel Air tipped the scales at 3140 pounds; the current Corvette Z06 weighs 3180. but the Bel Air is a “mid-size” (today, it would be a full-size) car, a smidge over 16 feet long, loaded with pretty much all the “luxury” appointments of the day. the Corvette is a “lightweight” or “stripper” model, with creature comforts omitted for performance reasons (although it’s far from Spartan). the ‘Vette is also about a foot and a half shorter than the ‘55, with a body made from plastic (sorry, “composite and carbon fiber“). the ‘55? steel frame, steel chassis. steel just about everything, really. the 1955 engine is cast iron, too (while the Corvette’s is all-aluminium).
but the Corvette, for all its absurdist 198 mph top speed and plastic body, is the safer car. thanks to all the fancy safety systems that help make it porkier than its elderly relative.
it’s up to you whether this is a good or bad thing, as it’s the way that cars have gone since Herr Benz built his Patent Motorwagen in the 19th century. personally, i’m not a fan – i prefer light, small cars. but they’re pretty much dead and gone in affordable price ranges.
and the government’s why.
quote of the day:
“Simplify and add lightness.” – Colin Chapman
