I like my sedan and think crossovers are generally pretty boring looking and driving (with some exceptions). I also really like pickup trucks and real SUV's like the Tahoe. But to think that this is just a short term shift towards trucks and crossovers versus sedans is very wrong. Look at something like the Buick Encore - it's basically a Chevy Cruze, gets 30 mpg, but it's jacked up (easy to get in and out of) and has a little additional cargo space. Great vehicle usability. I know if some of the guys here were in charge, the only vehicles sold in the US would be the Crown Vic and Buick Century, but consumers have spoken - cars just aren't as good as crossovers for probably 90%+ of use cases. Some of us like to have fun driving, so that's why performance is the only exciting area in sedans and coupes these days. But for everyone else, crossovers are perfect.
New Car Sales
- Thread starter Zee09
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
They want to sell cars? Remove all CAFE requirement on cars that will deliver 60 + MPG and watch things change.
That's not really so. Today's best engines are 40 and 41% thermally efficient. The amount of work that needs to get done (powering a well designed full sized car) has not changed.
Example: the 2018 Toyota Camry has a 40% eff engine. It gets roughly 40 real world MPG highway. The unreachable Carnot limit is 60% thermal efficiency. The best mankind has ever been able to do, with the worlds largest diesel engine, is about 50%.
Mercedes has produced a conventional F1 engine with exhaust driven energy recovery turbines (driving generators) . This allows the engine to reach 50% thermal efficiency. NOTE: we used power recovery turbines in WW-II on various aircraft (to improve eff)
At 50% thermal efficiency, a feat never reached in real world engines, a Toyota Camry would achieve just over 50MPG highway. And, that is that.
They want to sell cars? Remove all CAFE requirement on cars that will deliver 60 + MPG and watch things change.
That's not really so. Today's best engines are 40 and 41% thermally efficient. The amount of work that needs to get done (powering a well designed full sized car) has not changed.
Example: the 2018 Toyota Camry has a 40% eff engine. It gets roughly 40 real world MPG highway. The unreachable Carnot limit is 60% thermal efficiency. The best mankind has ever been able to do, with the worlds largest diesel engine, is about 50%.
Mercedes has produced a conventional F1 engine with exhaust driven energy recovery turbines (driving generators) . This allows the engine to reach 50% thermal efficiency. NOTE: we used power recovery turbines in WW-II on various aircraft (to improve eff)
At 50% thermal efficiency, a feat never reached in real world engines, a Toyota Camry would achieve just over 50MPG highway. And, that is that.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: wag123
In 2008 my elderly father even panicked. Given the low number of miles he was driving (he had a LaSabre that he was driving less than 3K miles per year) and the fact that he didn't have many years of driving left, I tried (in vain) to talk him out of doing anything rash, he did it anyway. Even showing him the math on paper didn't convince him, he was obsessed with the high gas price and there was NO reasoning with him.
I am an environmentalist of sorts. As I'm all for not wasting fuel. Technology can help a great deal here.
Your story brings to mind the obsession with MPG. The American people tend not to understand energy, how much of it we use and where it goes. Only 16% of our national energy use is for personal cars/trucks. Another 12% goes towards aviation, trucking and rail with a few percent used in transportation elsewhere.
The remaining 70++ percent of our energy use goes towards residential and business heating, industrial needs, and electrical power generation.
Quite simply, cars are low hanging fruit. Few people know or care about the huge quantities of energy used elsewhere.
Additionally, heating is far more energy intensive than cooling. Mostly due to the temperature differential required. We don't have to cool a home from an outside temp of 140 to 70, for example. But we do have to heat from 0 to 70.
In 2008 my elderly father even panicked. Given the low number of miles he was driving (he had a LaSabre that he was driving less than 3K miles per year) and the fact that he didn't have many years of driving left, I tried (in vain) to talk him out of doing anything rash, he did it anyway. Even showing him the math on paper didn't convince him, he was obsessed with the high gas price and there was NO reasoning with him.
I am an environmentalist of sorts. As I'm all for not wasting fuel. Technology can help a great deal here.
Your story brings to mind the obsession with MPG. The American people tend not to understand energy, how much of it we use and where it goes. Only 16% of our national energy use is for personal cars/trucks. Another 12% goes towards aviation, trucking and rail with a few percent used in transportation elsewhere.
The remaining 70++ percent of our energy use goes towards residential and business heating, industrial needs, and electrical power generation.
Quite simply, cars are low hanging fruit. Few people know or care about the huge quantities of energy used elsewhere.
Additionally, heating is far more energy intensive than cooling. Mostly due to the temperature differential required. We don't have to cool a home from an outside temp of 140 to 70, for example. But we do have to heat from 0 to 70.
Last edited:
There is diminishing returns with fuel economy to consider as well. Going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg is a significant upgrade which cuts your fuel usage in half. Going from 20 to 30 is another great increase in economy, but you don't cut fuel usage in half. And from 30 to 40 you aren't saving as much at the pump as when you went from 10 to 20. So with CUV's hitting 30 mpg+, a sedan with a significant decrease in usability but slightly better fuel economy doesn't have a value proposition for fuel economy.
Originally Posted By: dareo
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I'm curious how many of those people that buy new have insane 84 month loans with crazy interest.
... Its quite hard to find a good deal on a used or new F150 these days. Even with the market flooded with grey market canadian imported trucks. I recently lucked out on a 2016 Sierra bank sale scenario and now some relatives really want a newish F150 and its very hard to find anything with meaningful savings.
I see at least 2 carriers loaded with 5 trucks headed to USA while on my commute every day. I have been told it is an all day every weekday practice. Flooding indeed. They sell them for the same price or more in $USD than they are worth $CDN. It is a very lucrative business currently with exchange the way it is.
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
I'm curious how many of those people that buy new have insane 84 month loans with crazy interest.
... Its quite hard to find a good deal on a used or new F150 these days. Even with the market flooded with grey market canadian imported trucks. I recently lucked out on a 2016 Sierra bank sale scenario and now some relatives really want a newish F150 and its very hard to find anything with meaningful savings.
I see at least 2 carriers loaded with 5 trucks headed to USA while on my commute every day. I have been told it is an all day every weekday practice. Flooding indeed. They sell them for the same price or more in $USD than they are worth $CDN. It is a very lucrative business currently with exchange the way it is.
Originally Posted By: VetteElite
There is diminishing returns with fuel economy to consider as well. Going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg is a significant upgrade which cuts your fuel usage in half. Going from 20 to 30 is another great increase in economy, but you don't cut fuel usage in half. And from 30 to 40 you aren't saving as much at the pump as when you went from 10 to 20. So with CUV's hitting 30 mpg+, a sedan with a significant decrease in usability but slightly better fuel economy doesn't have a value proposition for fuel economy.
Yes, even the new 460hp Mustang GT gets low 20s just driving around combined average, so my economy cars weren't really saving anything significant (maybe $10 per week at the most).
There is diminishing returns with fuel economy to consider as well. Going from 10 mpg to 20 mpg is a significant upgrade which cuts your fuel usage in half. Going from 20 to 30 is another great increase in economy, but you don't cut fuel usage in half. And from 30 to 40 you aren't saving as much at the pump as when you went from 10 to 20. So with CUV's hitting 30 mpg+, a sedan with a significant decrease in usability but slightly better fuel economy doesn't have a value proposition for fuel economy.
Yes, even the new 460hp Mustang GT gets low 20s just driving around combined average, so my economy cars weren't really saving anything significant (maybe $10 per week at the most).
Originally Posted By: Silverado12
Yes, even the new 460hp Mustang GT gets low 20s just driving around combined average, so my economy cars weren't really saving anything significant (maybe $10 per week at the most).
Agree completely. I've got the worst MPG economy of the Mustang GT (6 speed) and am at 21.7 in mixed driving. The sad part is it's not much worse than my Taurus SHO. The only thing that hurts is the Mustang gets premium by my choice.
Yes, even the new 460hp Mustang GT gets low 20s just driving around combined average, so my economy cars weren't really saving anything significant (maybe $10 per week at the most).
Agree completely. I've got the worst MPG economy of the Mustang GT (6 speed) and am at 21.7 in mixed driving. The sad part is it's not much worse than my Taurus SHO. The only thing that hurts is the Mustang gets premium by my choice.
- Status