Current Fords less fuel efficent than Model T?
dsm said:
Is there a reason for this stunning exercise in obtuse logic?
Obviously, the Sierra Club is a small, ineffectual part of the public when it comes to cars. It is a "member of the public", but it's not "the public".
Most of the public DOES seem to want the QE II or the New Jersey on Wheels...
Don't ask me why, I don't know, I want my Horizons back, but Fishbob didn't say anything falacious.
jimlintott
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2002
- Messages
- 2,893
This is just going to make their job harder. It would be pointless to pressure the manufacturers to drop all their innefficient vehicles if the public isn't ready (doesn't want them). They should convince them as to why they want a small efficient car. Something I do regularly.
The car companies already build exceptionally efficient and safe vehicles. They are even cheaper and are usually their best sellers. It's the public demand for monstrocities like Yukons or Expeditions that kill the fuel economy average.
I'd like to see a comparison of emissions from say a Taurus to a Model T. Today's vehicles have to be resposible for almost every molecule of fuel that is ever put into it. The only emmisisons are from the tail pipe. A Model T would have spewed pollutants out of ever orifice. It was likely a bigger polluter than the average vehicle of today.
You folks are coming dangerously close to buying the stereotype of the "average consumer that buys a huge SUV to go grocery shopping." People aren't, as a general rule, totally brainless. We are trapped by our need for transportation, and quite often our vehicle has to pull double or tripple duty. On top of that, not everyone has the money to get a newer, more fuel effecient car. We make do with whatever won't break down before the year is out.
There are the folks for whom bigger is better, but everyone I know wants the most fuel effecient car they can get. For many people, just getting any car that runs is a triumph.
Oh, I also agree comparing today's cars with the Model T is ludicrous. That car was a cart on wheels. If Ford were allowed to produce the same thing today, the first people to be killed in an accident would sue them into the stone age.
Jerry
There are the folks for whom bigger is better, but everyone I know wants the most fuel effecient car they can get. For many people, just getting any car that runs is a triumph.
Oh, I also agree comparing today's cars with the Model T is ludicrous. That car was a cart on wheels. If Ford were allowed to produce the same thing today, the first people to be killed in an accident would sue them into the stone age.
Jerry
jj said:
Because it's fun...
Nobody is "THE public", but everyone is a "member of the public".
I haven't seen any major polls lately on whether a majority of the public really want inefficient, large SUVs -- have you? After all, that's what the Sierra Club is complaining about and, if they don't represent the majority, they probably represent a significant minority.
Perhaps not, but it did catch your attention...
fishbob
Seasonally Disaffected
The profit on a big SUV is a whole lot more than on a small economy car. The car makers love it that Americans like the big cars. The car makers market the big cars heavily, and the public buys into the hype.
So - if you are driving a gas hog instead of an economical vehicle - is it your fault or the car maker's fault?
Take some responsibility for the average fuel economy. Buy a 1989 Honda Civic (2,000 lbs, 36/40 mpg) or something similar.
So - if you are driving a gas hog instead of an economical vehicle - is it your fault or the car maker's fault?
Take some responsibility for the average fuel economy. Buy a 1989 Honda Civic (2,000 lbs, 36/40 mpg) or something similar.
I was under the impression that SUVs are increasing in popularity in the US because of a tax loophole available because they use a truck chasssis that make them cheaper than equivalent vehicles on a standard chassis.
Yeah a quick google for "SUV truck chassis tax" gives a lot of info. It's GWB's fault
Yeah a quick google for "SUV truck chassis tax" gives a lot of info. It's GWB's fault
With me, they have completely failed to make their point here, and have managed to look more like nutjobs than rational individuals with legitimate concerns. "Maybe not the best way possible" is too generous.Dancing David said:
Would you care to elaborate here, and perhaps add something more specific to support this generalization? I might learn something that will change how I feel about auto manufacturers.
If a car company offers an argument based on what I consider to be lousy reasoning, then that adversely affects my opinion of that company. The same applies to the Sierra Club, regardless of how noble their aims might be.
Q
_Q_ said:
I don't understand your reasoning here. The Sierra Club seems to be raising the point that, after 100 years of work, it seems strange that Ford's average fuel efficiency has remained (roughly) the same. It's not a scientific argument (at least in the cited article), but more of an emotional point. You yourself said that you think the Ford engineers could do much better and have done better in specific cases. And Ford itself has said that it could have done better in managing the "very real conflicts between Ford's current business practices, consumer choices and emerging views of sustainability".
Sounds like the Sierra Club's message is finally being heard. What's wrong with that?
Since the discussion here was kicked off with a link to an article about an ad...
here's the ad (144K .PDF file)
Q
here's the ad (144K .PDF file)
Q
By the way, anybody happen to know the octane rating difference between the fuel that was put in a Model T vs. current fuel blends? I know back then gas was leaded, which I believe increases the octane (anybody who's more a car person feel free to correct that if wrong).
Just wondering if that's part of the apples and oranges bit as well. I know my friend's Talon gets more MPG than my Focus, but that's just because he has to put premium in his.
Just wondering if that's part of the apples and oranges bit as well. I know my friend's Talon gets more MPG than my Focus, but that's just because he has to put premium in his.
dsm said:
I haven't seen any major polls lately on whether a majority of the public really want inefficient, large SUVs -- have you? After all, that's what the Sierra Club is complaining about and, if they don't represent the majority, they probably represent a significant minority.
Perhaps not, but it did catch your attention...
There ways to catch my attention, and then there are other ways to catch my attention.
As to what the public wants, I can only evaluate that as to watching what they drive.
If you're saying that they buy things they don't want, please feel free to make your case.
My point was that their presentation (to the extent that it's described in the article - I hadn't seen the actual ad at the time of my first posting) doesn't do anything for me. The notion of comparing the fuel economy of one passenger car (the model T) to the average fuel economy of current Ford vehicles (passenger cars, minivans, sport utility vehicles, and light trucks) while ignoring the many and significant other differences (not only between the old and the new, but also among the current crop of vehicles) is, to me, nonsense.dsm said:
Perhaps I've simply misunderstood. If that's not reasoning expected to convince me of something, but instead only an appeal to emotion, then I missed the point, and it didn't "work" on me. (If this helps, be aware that I recently saw some Lincoln ads on television pitching the appeal of their supposedly hopped-up cars, and those didn't seem to "work" on me either. Go figure.)
To be clear, I pointed out that I thought Ford engineers could do much better than a Model T with respect to fuel economy if they were only required to "meet or exceed" other characteristics such as... (list of characteristics).
Anything made is the result of a set of compromises; if the bar were lowered to model T standards on those other characteristics, and the sole goal of the exercise were to maximize fuel economy, then I think they could do some pretty impressive things. Not necessarily useful as such for everyday life, but impressive with regard to fuel economy.
Here's the whole paragraph, just to give a little more context:
"At a recent shareholder's meeting, company officials lamented their success in the SUV category, then threw the mea culpa back at their customers, claiming that the public has an insatiable appetite for their vehicles. While it wasn't exactly "Hang down your head, John Dooley" time at the shareholder's confab, Ford Chairman William Clay Ford, Jr. stated that "there are very real conflicts between Ford's current business practices, consumer choices and emerging views of sustainability."
From the article, I didn't notice it said, in so many words, that Ford thought that this could have been managed better. Either I missed it, or you're referring to things outside the article. Note, however, that I do not dispute this! The article mentions that Ford had been "publicly contrite in recent months regarding its environmental record", and I know that Ford officials have said a number of not-completely-hostile-to-the-environment things at various times (and I think that at times the Sierra Club has responded to some of these with praise, to their credit).
The article you cite (December 2000) seems quite upbeat. It describes the new 40 MPG, small hybrid SUV slated for 2003. It mentions Ford "taking an aggressive stance to change its image" with the "Cleaner, Safer, Sooner" program. It points out impressive results with low emissions for the Windstar and F-series pickup trucks. Super! This is, according to you, evidence that the Sierra Club's message "is finally being heard".
The Sierra Club ad under discussion (June 2003) says that Ford has "fallen behind", and points out that "five years after the introduction of the hybrids, Ford has failed to make and market one of its own". In fact, it has nothing good to say about Ford. "A century of innovation...except at Ford".
In light of this, do you really think that this article (you've cited it twice here, I think) really strengthens your case?
some comments from Q after seeing the actual ad (link a few messages before this one:
The big, eye-catching direct comparison of the model T (25 MPG) to the Ford Explorer (16 MPG) doesn't impress me, for reasons I've explained elsewhere. That's at the heart of my beef with the ad, and I won't rant any more on it here.
The text of the ad has some content I consider to be much more positive than I might have been led to believe from the CNN article:
Q vs the Sierra Club?
I am not intimately familiar with the Sierra Club, but my beef is (currently) limited to the ad cited, for reasons given. I plan to spend some more time at their web site, and may see no small amount of stuff with which I agree. I consider myself to be quite pro-environment in my attitudes, enough so that I'm sure that some of my acquaintances consider me to be a nutjob on that account.
Now, if you don't mind, I have to go outside to pick up my cell phone. You see, the battery ran down this afternoon, and I couldn't find the AC adapter, so I left it charging from the cigarette lighter plug on my Ford Excruciation. Don't worry, I only left the #2 engine running.
Q
edited for a spelling error
_Q_ said:
This is a good point. I misread and thought the article had a newer publication. The Sierra Club ad, I suppose, is a good reminder to Ford of the things they said they were going to do. Note, I don't think the Sierra Club ad is very scientific, so I tend to think it's meant as an emotional appeal to get both the public and Ford thinking about improving its cars.
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
I think you're generalizing here. How do you know what I use my SUV for? I drive an Isuzu Rodeo that gets 15 mpg, I live in the city. I also am in the construction business, my cargo area is loaded w/ tools though you'd never know it by seeing me drive by. I also have to haul material occasionally, just can't fit that sheet of 3/4" plywood or the kitchen cabinets in the Focus!PygmyPlaidGiraffe said:
Other people I know w/ SUV's have boats they tow out to lakes on weekends or haul campers on vacation.
What meets the eye isn't always all there is.