
The road ahead: How we’ll get to 54.5 mpg by 2025 - iProject
http://arstechnica.com/features/2012/10/the-road-ahead-how-well-get-to-54-5-mpg-by-2025/
======
holri
We are facing 2 problems:

1.) To much fossil energy consumption 2.) disease and overweight because of
lack of exercise

well, there is a very old and simple invention solving both problems:

>>> the bicycle <<<

~~~
_delirium
Europe has been moving in that direction, with an increase in biking, and
improvements in biking infrastructure even in countries that weren't
traditionally very bike-friendly (like Spain). But it's hard to replicate that
in the U.S. because the cities are so much less compact. You would need more
than just improvement in roads, but shorter distances, and better transit for
the places where you do have longer distances. In the suburb I grew up in, my
dad drove 50 miles roundtrip to get to work, the nearest grocery store was 3
miles away, the nearest restaurants/bars were 5 miles away, and there was no
transit system at all. So biking tended not to be too popular, except among
kids going to friends' houses within the same neighborhood.

~~~
holri
You forget the new electric motor assist bikes.

------
zwieback
I had a 55mpg Geo Metro back in '92, 20 years later we have a Prius C with
about the same mileage (although the Prius is much better around town.)

But we also have a station wagon and an old pickup. I think one thing that
makes it hard for the average US car owner to go for very efficient vehicles
is that at least some trips will require more passenger and/or cargo space.
Given that gas is still relatively cheap there's not enough incentive to buy
an efficient car if it's the only car you buy.

Seems like it would be pretty easy these days to insure/register/tax a fleet
of cars for a household and encourage the cheapest alternative. Soccer mom
could still use the minivan a couple times a week but use the Prius for
shopping trips. You could meter each car and then pay a usage-based fee at the
end of the month.

------
willmitchell
There are already many vehicles that will do far over 55mpg on a "fossil fuel"
powered engine. Unfortunately, higher mpg = higher carbon emissions. As long
as the Govt and Oil industries control environmental regulations, they can
easily control maximum mpg by regulating how much emission can come from the
engine (and thus, how efficiently the engine can burn gas).

Simple logic, theyre just hoping everybody keeps buying the environmentalism
sales tactic so they can continue to force us to buy electric cars or low mpg
cars. You are either buying their lithium, or overpaying for their gas...

~~~
tspiteri
I'm finding it a bit hard to make sense of your comment.

I don't know of that "many vehicles that will do far over 55mpg on a fossil
fuel powered engine."

And how is "higher mpg = higher carbon emissions"? Higher mpg means less gas
per mile, leading to less emissions per mile. As for the claim that government
"can easily control maximum mpg", really?

So either I'm not seeing it properly, or the comment is anything but "simple
logic".

~~~
Someone
Slight nitpick: higher MPG does not necessarily mean less emissions per mile;
car engines do differ in the amount of emissions they produce per gallon of
gas consumed.

For example, adding a catalytic converter to a car may decrease both MPG and
emissions
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#Environment...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#Environmental_impact)),
so removing it may increase both MPG and emissions. And that is even
disregarding the fact that adding that converter increases the weight of the
car.

~~~
zurn
Also the fuel has a large impact on the MPG since fuels differ in energy
content per volume.

------
mikestew
I like how the first picture is of a Ferrari engine. I don't think high fuel
mileage is Ferrari's main selling point, is it? :)

The article (which I mostly just skimmed) seem to center on technological
solutions. But since CAFE is a fleet average, I wonder if makers won't just
throw an EV or two in their lineup. With an EPA rating of 99mpg or more for
EVs, that ought to bring the average right up. I guess that means people still
have to buy them, though.

~~~
pilom
I believe it was in the article as an example of an engine using Direct Fuel
Injection which the article examines as one possible way to improve fuel
efficiency.

~~~
bradleyland
I was a bit disappointed in the direct injection portion of the article. I'm
not sure why the author chose high-performance vehicles as the poster child
for direct injection, because they definitely weren't the first to use it, and
definitely not the ones to use it in large numbers.

Some of the earliest uses of direct injection in production cars were Japanese
makes in rather pedestrian sedans. VW went all out with direct injection
around 2000 in their 2.0T engine, which is available in every car (except the
Toureg) they sell in the US, ranging from the Golf, to the Tiguan, to the CC.
I would not be surprised if VW sold the greatest number of direct injection
engines in the world.

By contrast, Ferrari just started using direct injection in 2009. BMW just
started using it in 2006. Despite the image we're sold by performance brands,
they often lag behind in technology, simply because they don't have the
budgets to do the R&D. They leave that to the big guys, then license the
technology once it's been deployed in large numbers.

------
tspiteri
54.5 mpg using US gallons is 65.5 mpg using imperial gallons, so it is harder
than it sounds for those of us more used to imperial gallons.

