Auto industry too old school?
Stuck in the last century?So, I was watching CNBC this morning and I caught a feature regarding GM's future, and the products that are going to drive their future. Cadillacs, Camaros, and Corvettes dominate, in addition to the new and improved Malibu, which is a very solid auto. Still, the feature felt more like a blast to the past, although these vehicles will all probably be hot sellers.
Then, later today, I saw a headline from CarandDriver that caught my attention: Five Fuel-Saving Technologies - Feature that focused on clean diesel, direct injection, variable displacement/cylinder deactivation, turbochargers, and variable valve timing and lift. All great fuel saving technologies, however, the article didn't even mention hybrid cars.
To be fair, the CarandDriver article closes the opening paragraphs with the statement that the article is about"current engine technologies that help make more power and improve efficiency". Obviously, hybrid technology is about more than just engines, so maybe it was fair to keep hybrids off the list.
Still, isn't the entire auto industry - from press to manufacturers - still too old school?
Labels: fuel economy, Hybrid Vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
11:41 AM
7 Comments:
After watching "Saving General Motors" on CNBC, I can't say I'm impressed... Basically it seemed like an hour-long commercial for GM cars-- There was very little in the program about GM's plans to turn around its business. They are still focused on making cars that are comparable in "build quality" to Japanese and European imports (with the segments about the new Camero and the Buicks' success in China), while not focusing much on fuel economy except with the Volt.
What GM needs to realize is that not only do they need to put out cars with build quality as good as a Toyota, they need to make a midsize car with the fuel economy of a Corolla to be competitive. I see no evidence of that.
I came away with my view of GM unchanged-- It's a sinking ship.
I haven't seen it yet, I'm watching at 10:00 PM, Pacific, although you're making me think I should just go to bed early instead.
As I posted on my blog when linking this, I wonder if media and eco-activism isn't driving public opinion ahead of where we can be right now in terms of innovation?
Seems to make sense to get the most out of existing fuel paradigms while we move toward new ones aggressively.
I think that's an interesting point. For example, I agree to some extent that the extreme focus on PHEVs and EVs might be unrealistic at this point in time. Instead of 2000 Chevy Volts in 2010, I'd rather have 100,000 full Malibu hybrids, even 100,000 mild Malibu hybrids. Toyota has already proven this is possible and Honda will prove it next year.
Yet, adding cylinder deactivation to every automobile might have an even greater effect at a cheaper overall cost. Then again, as history has shown, small, steady increases in fuel economy have always been coupled with increases in horsepower and weight, thereby squashing most positive gains.
Thus, I think automakers need to raise the bar significantly, especially US automakers. Today US automakers are still just reacting - they have no choice.
Where is the vision? The leadership?
Toyota is moving aggressively ahead with hybrids. Honda has now kicked it up a big notch. Yet, US automakers still appear to be dragging their feet, or acting as if they can quickly and easily leapfrog Toyota's technology with technology that might not be widely available for another decade.
This kind of thinking has led to decades of increased foreign oil dependency and lost marketshare, and I'll bet the future holds only more lost market share for the Big 3 because they've given consumers - other than big SUV and truck fans - little in which to believe. Unfortunately for US automakers, most Americans have no interest in such vehicles and they've buying foreign cars for years now because of US automakers myopic focus.
And, why ever go back unless US automakers do something truly great?
Obviously, combining the hybrid technologies with the other new technologies--including sutainable alternative and renewable fuels--is the way to proceed. Americans will never give up their one-person, one car proclivity: I cannot do so myself as a single solution, depite my desire to do so. Our entire culture would have to change before we would accept any fome of mass transit as the only solution--unless the solution is a humdinger.
I think Dahcredyns is right, but there's more to it. Almost everyone would switch to fuel saving technologies if they could. There are two major issues with the idea that new cars are going to revolutionize the world and save the environment.
First, most people can not afford to buy a new car period. That means that 5 to 10 years from now, there will be a strong population of 2005 to 2008 vehicles on the road. Unless the government is going to start giving out new car stimulus checks - let's not even go there.
Second, the new technologies are expensive to develop, pushing the new car prices even higher, perpetuating the older vehicle issue stated previously.
We need technologies that change the fundamental thermodynamics inside the four to eight cylinder engines that have been around in basic form since 1876. Can you believe that with all of the advances in technology, Nicolaus Otto would be able to look under the hood of your car and say "Wow, I can't believe you're still using my 1896 design". Of course behind that smile he would be thinking "What happened to all of the smart people?"
We need something that is 90+ percent efficient with whatever form of energy it uses. This 1 to 3 percent overall efficiency to move people around is rediculous. If you are going to spend the money developing some hybrid technology, make it work with older cars in some sort of retrofit kit, or get out of the game - that is of course just my opinion.
realitysetsin70-
i think they say it takes about 12 years to recycle the US auto fleet. so even if we could immediately replace all new cars with a new technology, it would still take at least 12 years to retire most of the current fleet.
in the best case scenario, we are decades away from fundamental change. how sad.
still, it makes your retrofitting opinion seem quite valid, even key to any idea of a quick change.
Post a Comment
<< Home