[extropy-chat] Public Transportation

[J. Andrew Rogers]

Brian Lee wrote:
> I'm guessing it's because it is cheaper to make an entry
> level car with a crappy engine that gets 30mpg than an
> entry level car with a less crappy engine that gets 50mpg.


The 50mpg engines were actually less efficient than the 30mpg engines,
they were just much smaller.  Better gas milage has nothing to do with
whether or not the engine is "crappy".

To put it in simple economic terms, the fuel economy differences today
between a two-ton mid-size sedan with a 0-60 in the mid sixes and one of
the funky subcompact hybrids is about 100 gallons per year.  Or
$20/month, and less than a lightbulb's worth of CO2 generation.  This
makes the choice obvious to most people, and the point of the sacrifice
dubious.


What I think has happened is that beyond a certain amount of fuel
economy people are not willing to give up features or performance, even
for people who really do care about fuel economy.  Fuel economy is not
the only driving consideration in vehicle selection.  A lot of people
are willing to accept a 35% reduction in fuel efficiency for a 250%
increase in power, particularly if it buys them other features, like not
having to drive in a sardine tin, more space, or good performance. Fuel
economy has come a long way.  20 years ago, 30mpg got you a 100hp
engine.  Today 30mpg gets you 250-300hp.  Trading all those ponies and
the flexibility in car layout that comes with them for marginal
increases in fuel economy just does not seem worth it for most people,
obviously.  If the high-end of fuel economy was something like 60mpg
typical in a decent car, it might be more compelling.  The closest thing
we have to this today is the micro-diesels (like the Jetta TDI).



j. andrew rogers