Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: This thing's ugly  (Read 8810 times)

Description:

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Ilwrath

Re: This thing's ugly
« on: August 11, 2004, 05:57:58 AM »
Quote
...and automakers have failed to realise the genius of the "wagon" design. Same body/frame as the regular car, but without a trunk. There's not a SINGLE auto line nowdays that has a car with a wagon option. I only need one truck damnit, but it'd be nice if my second car could be something useable too.


Oh boy... I feel a good ole' Detroiter's rant coming on!


In the US, you can thank your local greenie weenies for the death of the station wagon.  

To understand what happened, you need to understand a thing called Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE).  Basically, what it means is that for each class of vehicle an automaker sells, the entire volume of sales in that class must average out below the mandated miles per gallon (mpg) figure for that class.  Currently, the standard for passenger cars is 27.5 mpg, while for light trucks it is only 20.7 mpg.  

So, in other words, if, say, Ford sells 10 SVT Mustang Cobras at 15 mpg each, they'll need to sell 20 base i4 Focus models at 34 mpg each to offset it and come in below average for their car lineup, provided those 30 cars are all that are sold that year.

So the idea to get from this example is that for every fuel-hog that gets sold, several fuel efficient models must be sold to offset it.

Now, wagons eat more fuel than passenger cars.  They have to.  They're larger vehicles.  They have more weight from size, extra safety features, etc, so they need a larger engine to still maintain a base drivability that consumers look for.

There are only two CAFE classes for passenger vehicles.  Cars and Trucks.  Originally there was also to be a third class of vehicles, which would have included station wagons and full-size vans.  This was dropped because the environmentalists petitioned the EPA to hold station wagons to the same fuel economy standards as the cars they are based off of.

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that automakers are shifty and want to make as much profit as possible.  Station wagons hurt their average fuel economy ratings, but don't bring in as much money as high-end sports cars.  Which one do you think they cut out of their lineup to help their average fuel economy?

So, now station wagons are still wanted, but automakers refuse to make them, because of the negative impact each station wagon sold has on their car class CAFE.  

But, remember, light trucks go in a seperate class.  So, now to fill the demand for station wagons, the SUV (a light truck with a full passenger shell) is introduced.  Well, thats fine and dandy, except they're a lot less efficient and more dangerous than the station wagon they replaced.  But, it's all good, because they only count against the higher truck CAFE, which they can usually meet or beat.  As a bonus for the automakers, the volume of SUVs sold gives them enough room to introduce even larger high-end (high-markup) luxury trucks and sell them for a fortune, too.  So the automakers are high on the hog, and huge SUVs and trucks now rule the US roads, much to the chagrin of the environmentalists....

So the next time you nearly get run off the road by a soccer mom in an Expedition, remember to thank your local short-sighted environmentalists at least as much as the profit-hungry automakers for making it all possible.

 

Offline Ilwrath

Re: This thing's ugly
« Reply #1 on: August 11, 2004, 09:37:48 PM »
As for pretty cars....

If I had the coin, you'd see me show up in one of these....  (Power and style to spare!)

But, I have to move the decimal place one spot to the left and shop in the under $30,000 catagory, so I managed to snag one of these, instead.  Black on black with charcoal interior.  :-)  So I guess you'd say I'm the performance guy who'll choose power over style, when forced to.  ;-)