
America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient - JumpCrisscross
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-05-17/america-s-cars-are-all-fast-and-furious-these-days?cmpid=BBD051717_BIZ&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&utm_term=170517&utm_campaign=bloombergdaily
======
DamnInteresting
A few weeks ago I bought a Chevy Bolt EV...according to the dealer it was the
first one sold in my state (Utah). I'd been on a waiting list for almost a
year.

Sure, ICE engines are getting better, but EVs are rapidly gaining and will
soon surpass. The Bolt is a bit expensive for a car of its body type, but
"gassing up" at home is amazing, the 200+ mile range is great, and the sharply
reduced emissions are a weight off the mind. It's also super quiet, as you
would expect, and _boy howdy_ does it have get-up-and-go. Sure, some of it is
psychological because a) it's whisper quiet as it accelerates; b) the raft of
batteries in the belly keeps that car planted to the road; and c) there's no
pause to down-shift. But I've owned some fast cars[1], and this one _feels_
like the fastest yet.

It's nice that ICE engines are improving, but between the Bolt, Tesla Model 3,
and other soon-to-arrive practical EVs, I believe that the sunset of ICE is
beginning.

[1] Notable examples in order of speediness: 1973 Dodge Charger (340ci), 1970
Dodge Challenger (383ci), 1996 Camaro Z28 (350ci), 2000 Camaro SS (350ci).

~~~
Someone1234
Electric vehicles are a tough sell now though. The Chevy Bolt EV has a 60 kWh
Lithium-ion battery; to charge that fully costs $8.7 in Utah (14.5 cents per
kWh). Per the EPA's measure that gets you 238 miles.

Gas costs approx $2.24/gallon in Utah. A Prius has a 11.3 gallon tank and a
540 miles range (again, EPA standard). That means that $11.15 would get you
the same distance as a full Bolt EV charge in gas.

Now, before electric vehicle fans jump for joy at the $2.45 saving per 238
miles, we also have to account for the cost of the two vehicles. The Bolt EV
costs $36,620, the Prius $23,475.

Therefore for the Bolt EV to make economic sense you have to drive 1,276,942
miles. Or fuel has to get much more expensive, or electricity much cheaper.
Regardless, the economics don't add up at all when compared with hybrid gas
vehicles.

Yes, I know, lower maintenance, but not $13K lower. And before you talk to me
about the cost of driving to and from a gas station, let me remind you about
battery loss due to cold temperatures (this is Utah we're talking about, after
all).

In general people buying electric vehicles in 2017 are buying them for non-
economic reasons. They lose money. Hybrids are likely the best bang for your
buck, and may remain that way even after Tesla ship their $36K competitor
(since no other major metric in the equation changes, electricity is still
very expensive, and gas very cheap).

~~~
vvanders
You forgot oil changes in you calc. Also your $8.70 is only $4.19 in
Washington :).

Costs are dropping on EVs and will continue to drop as economy of scale picks
up. They may not make sense today but there's a good chance they will
tomorrow.

~~~
darrylb42
Interesting. In Vancouver in CDN$ $5.15-$7.72 to charge and $25.80@1.369 per
liter to fill up.

[https://www.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-
use/el...](https://www.bchydro.com/accounts-billing/rates-energy-
use/electricity-rates/residential-rates.html)

~~~
vvanders
Yup, hydro is awesome for cheap renewable electricity.

~~~
dugditches
Try to tell that to an Ontarian.

~~~
randomdata
The hydroelectric generation is cheap in Ontario, but not overly abundant. The
majority of the power in the province comes from much more costly nuclear
sources.

------
drewg123
I'm not sure that I believe their assertion that cars have gotten lighter.
Perhaps the real land-yacht monstrosities have been weeded out (and replaced
with SUVs). But it seems like comfort and safety concerns, coupled with more
power and better fuel economy have been causing equivalent cars to become
heavier (and more expensive) over time.

As an example, one of my first cars was an 84 VW GTI. It weighed ~2000lbs. Try
to find a car that light today. There is a nice comparison of that car and a
modern VW GTI here: [http://www.automobilemag.com/news/then-vs-
now-1984-volkswage...](http://www.automobilemag.com/news/then-vs-
now-1984-volkswagen-gti-v-2015gti/)

I think the same is probably true of most 70s and 80s economy cars vs today's
cars. Today's equivalents are much heavier, but much safer, and much more
pleasant to drive

~~~
Swizec
I have made this argument before on the internet and I have learned that it is
a European vs American perspective.

American cars in the 70s and 80s were _monsters_. Definitely heavier than
modern cars.

For example, here are 10 popular cars in the US from 1984.
[http://www.caranddriver.com/features/1984-10best-
cars-1984-h...](http://www.caranddriver.com/features/1984-10best-
cars-1984-honda-accord-page-4)

    
    
        Audi 5000s: 2850-3100 lbs
        Dodge Daytona: 2830 lbs
        Honda Accord: 2300 lbs
        Honda Prelude: 2220 lbs
        Mazda 626: 2220 lbs
        Pontiac 6000STE:  3000 lbs
        Pontiac Fiero: 2580 lbs
        Porsche 944: 2830 lbs
    

On the heavy side, no?

Then again, the best selling car in the US in 2016 is the Toyota Camry which
is 3,245 to 3,480 lbs so I guess I'm wrong. Maybe US cars were monsters in the
70's then?

~~~
Retric
Don't forget 'car' is a rather arbitrary category. The car > minivan > SUV
'soccer mom' transition added these beasts:

    
    
      Infiniti QX80 – 5,633 pounds
      Toyota Sequoia – 5,730 pounds
      Toyota Land Cruiser – 5,765 pounds
      Lincoln Navigator – 5,830 pounds
      Lexus LX 570 – 6,000 pounds

~~~
theparanoid
The Toyota Land Cruiser is not like the others, it's popular with militant
groups. And has been in production since _1951_.

~~~
Retric
That's a connection more or less in name only. Much like the connection
between a military hummer and an H3. The 1950 FJ and BJ was a jeep knockoff
with a cloth roof. [https://www.fj.co/blog/history-of-the-toyota-fj-
series/](https://www.fj.co/blog/history-of-the-toyota-fj-series/)
[http://www.toyota-
global.com/showroom/vehicle_heritage/landc...](http://www.toyota-
global.com/showroom/vehicle_heritage/landcruiser/collection/model_bj_1.html)

The FJ40 from 1960 is somewhat comparable, but weighed 1/2 (3263 lbs) what the
modern beast weighs.

The FJ60
([http://tlc4x4.com/fj60.htm#sthash.nB2cpi4h.dpbs](http://tlc4x4.com/fj60.htm#sthash.nB2cpi4h.dpbs))
from 1981 was even closer and heavy at 4246 lbs, but again still 1,500 lb
lighter than the current version.

------
old-gregg
I suspect that people of the future will look back and be amazed that for more
than a century we've been legally allowing our slow-reacting bodies [1] to
ride around at 80mph in a 2-ton hideous mechanical equivalent of a horse,
killing ourselves [2] and simultaneously destroying our cities [3].

I myself used to be a "petrolhead" my 20s and it's quite amazing to observe
this awakening when looking in the mirror. I suspect it was caused by the
revolution in electric/self-driving tech and traveling more and comparing car-
centric US cities to other places.

    
    
      [1] 250ms delay at best, for young and healthy adults.
      [2] #1 cause, ahead of all guns, including suicides.
      [3] https://progressivetransit.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/cars-kill-cities

~~~
valuearb
In the US only about 1 out of every 70 deaths is from an auto accident. As a
single cause of death, it's not even in the top 10.

Less than 1 in 3 accidental deaths is auto accident related.

More people commit suicide (42,000) than die in auto accidents (40,000).

[http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php](http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php)

Deaths per mile driven have plummeted over time. From 24 per million miles in
1921, to 7 per hundred million miles in 1950, to 2.5 PHMM in the 1980s, 1.5
PHMM in early 2000s and now about 1.1 per hundred million miles.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year)

They are set to plunge further as automated braking and collision avoidance
become standard features over the next decade.

Edits: Corrected to deaths per 100M miles, not deaths per 1M miles.

~~~
fiblye
1 out of 70 is pretty damn huge. We have global campaigns about preventing
cancers that are less dangerous than car accidents. There was panic over
Ebola, which killed essentially nobody compared to car accidents.

Yet the general response to 1/70 people deaths being because of cars is "meh,
oh well."

~~~
exclusiv
Agreed. Part of the problem is that we use the word "accident" when it's
almost always someone's fault.

Everytime I see someone driving terribly I know there's a 50%+ chance they
have a sizable dent on their car from a car crash or from them hitting some
inanimate object. It's actually a game I play - I'll see someone driving
poorly and then say "where's the dent" and look for it. Sometimes I'll even
switch lanes to check the other side where it will inevitably be. For certain
cars like the Pontiac Grand-Am, my theory puts the dent % and dent damage much
higher.

In many ways, insurance and how we treat collisions as "accidents" enables
them to drive with no regard. By the time they're dropped from insurance, they
probably already hurt someone.

~~~
valuearb
Except that statistically car injury accidents are so rare, they probably
haven't.

~~~
exclusiv
I was talking about those that get dropped by insurance (usually multiple
crashes) and also - you can get injured and not report it.

But anyway, 4.6 M injuries isn't rare. "But there are also millions more who
are seriously injured — an estimated 4.6 million in 2016 according to NSC" [1]

[1] [http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-
year/](http://fortune.com/2017/02/15/traffic-deadliest-year/)

------
kmm
I always wondered why American cars are so inefficient. Seems such a waste of
your significantly cheaper gas :)

I drive an Opel Astra H 1.7 CDTI and I can get up to 50 mpg (4.7 l/100 km) on
the highway, and I never dip under 40 mpg (5.8 l/100km) even when doing a lot
of city driving. I understand that my car is comparatively somewhat smaller
(1200 kg) and underpowered (100 hp), yet I can't imagine needing more
horsepower. It's a very comfortable ride as well.

But even my parents' larger car doesn't get even remotely as low as 25 mpg.
First time I saw a car with less than 30 mpg was when I drove a company van.

When I compare these numbers with my American friends, they're incredulous as
to how low they are, and they're not exactly driving SUVs either. What do you
get in the place for this lower efficiency? Are American cars that much
heavier? More comfortable? Faster?

~~~
rsync
"What do you get in the place for this lower efficiency? Are American cars
that much heavier? More comfortable? Faster?"

I cannot speak for everyone, but as someone who lives in the US and also
spends a lot of time in Europe, there is a very big lifestyle difference at
play here.

First, I have a five person family (wife and three kids) and you[1],
statistically, as a European, have 1.6 children - and as a highly educated HN
reader, probably less (on average).

Second, Americans move around _a lot more than most europeans do_. On the
occasions that I have lived in Europe, I always spoke of how interesting it
was that we could just "drive to St. Petersburg" or "just drive to
Transylvania" or whatever, and otherwise smart and interesting european
friends would look at me like I was a crazy person. It is very, very rare to
meet Europeans who drive across multiple countries for leisure.[2]

So when I drive five people, weighing over 500 lbs total and accompanying
luggage the equivalent of one Europe away and over two mountain ranges[3] I am
going to need something more than a lawnmower engine. This is not an edge-case
- this is something we do multiple times per year.

That being said, there are some very interesting cultural differences in the
other direction ... once while in Denmark I saw a decent sized horse trailer
being hauled by a nice, new Audi A8. Basically 100% of the driving public in
the US would have considered this a gaping tear in the fabric of reality.

[1] Not _you_ , but you _on average_.

[2] Zurich to Transylvania is 1800km - about the same as SF to Denver which is
~2000 km.

[3] CA to MN, for instance, over the Sierras and then the Rockies.

~~~
adekok
> It is very, very rare to meet Europeans who drive across multiple countries
> for leisure

Then you've never been to the south of France in the summer.

It's _filled_ with license plates from all over the EU. Mainly Dutch, UK,
German. I've even seen Estonian plates.

It's ~1200Km from the Netherlands to the south of France. People do it in
camper vans all of the time.

~~~
molf
Also Italy, north Spain, Croatia. And Germany/Austria/Switzerland in winter
season.

It might not be as widespread to travel long distances by car as it is in the
US, but it is definitely not "very, very rare". I would even say it's common
for many Dutch, Danish, German, Belgian, Polish (from what I can observe).

------
trjordan
My first car crush was in high school: the 2002 Subaru WRX. It would be fine
to get some souped-up monster, and high-end BMWs are always fast, but when I
first saw those silly little bug eyes and the trademark blue color? God did I
want one.

It was weird to figure out that it only came with a 2 liter engine. Apparently
turbos help a lot. It was even weirder when the 2005 STI came out with the
same engine ... and a bigger turbo. And it was yet weirder when I looked at a
2014 BMW 3 series ... and they have twin turbos and tiny engines.

To me, the last 15 years have been car manufacturers figuring out that with
the right kind of engineering, you can get rid of turbo lag, and if you don't
have lag or reliability problems, turbos make everything better. Smaller,
faster, more fuel-efficient. My dad's sedan has a twin turbo these days. It
gets 35 mpg.

I get that it's only one piece of the puzzle, but it's been so fun to see that
tech go from niche-y to ubiquitous.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
In F1 they now have waste heat recovery systems, as I understand it (please,
F1 engineers, correct me if I'm wrong) in the form of mechanically decoupled
turbine and compressor wheels on the turbo. The (exhaust) turbine generates
electricity which it can feed either to the battery or to the compressor wheel
motor (acting like a regular turbo in the latter case). In this configuration,
you can also electrically spool up the compressor wheel from the battery,
giving exactly zero turbo lag, and they can also recover impressive amounts of
energy that would otherwise be wasted - about 1 kWh in a 90 second lap.

[For a longer while, we've had anti-lag systems on racecars that basically
burn petrol in the manifold, always keeping the turbo spinning. These are
horribly fuel-inefficient and destroy turbos etc. quickly.]

I sincerely hope that electrically coupled turbo systems are adopted in road
cars. The recent Audi/Bentley top-end (diesel!) SUVs with electric turbos are
promising in this regard, but I don't think they do waste heat recovery _per
se_.

~~~
davewritescode
The coolest thing about current F1 engines is that they eliminate a major
inefficiency of turbos. In a modern turbocharged, once the turbo hits maximum
boost an electronically actuated wastegate opens to avoid over boosting the
engine which wastes all the energy you worked to create.

Coupling the turbine shaft to a generator allows you to recapture that energy
normally lost to the wastegate.

------
irixusr
Article is interesting but gets a few things wrong:

1\. Starting the analysis in 1975 is misleading (the Ford administration). The
most interesting cars are from the late 60s early 70s before emission
regulations, oil crisis, car bumpers, ect kicked in (and dealt a huge drop in
power, increase in weight, ect).

2\. Cherry picking a muscle car for its weight is also misleading. Muscle cars
weren't light. Some had 6 or 7 liter engines (That's a lot of iron!). They
were quick-ish because they were powerful. Muscle cars might be the only cars
to have lost weight in the last 40 years, since its ridiculous to have a
"sports" car weigh as much as a family SUV.

Look at the accord, or the civic and see the weight gains.

In fact, cars _have_ been getting lighter but over the past 5 years, because
they've become ridiculously heavy. This is new and excited (they're still
whales though)

3\. Yes my SUV has 300 hp, which is insane. But I go around a mountain corner
much slower in it with it's 4000 lb than I would a FIAT 127 (kids, remember to
downshift to keep the drum breaks cool!).

Point is, a car isn't a good performance just because it has a good
weight/power. Just the weight itself is important (light always wins for the
same power weight ratio).

~~~
davewritescode
Minor nit:

1\. I think you have to start with 1975 because emissions requirements are the
biggest component of why car performance started to drop in the late 70s. It's
really hard to compare a car with and without emissions equipment.

2\. Like others have said, model bloat accounts for a lot the weight gain
within a specific model. The Accord used to be a small sedan that's grown into
a full size. The modern Civic is bigger than the 92 Accord my family had when
I was a kid.

3\. A Nissan GT-R weighs nearly 2 tons as well and will outhustle the Fiat and
the SUV around that mountain :)

------
vlucas
I have a 2016 Ford Mustang GT/CS and consistently get 23-24 MPG with mostly
highway/freeway driving. It's unreal that a 5.0L V8 with 435HP (stock) gets
that good gas mileage. The materials and fit & finish is better all around
too.

We are truly living in the middle of another "golden age" of automobiles.
Watch out though - here come the EVs :)

~~~
onion2k
24 MPG is embarrassingly bad. A 1970s Datsun 240Z gets the same fuel economy.
Compared to a modern luxury car, a new BMW 3 Series will get 80 MPG on a
freeway. There's nothing wrong with buying a gorgeous car like yours, there
are plenty of reasons to have one, but trying to claim it's environmentally
friendly is just ridiculous.

~~~
vlucas
Whoa there. I never said it was "environmentally friendly". That is indeed
ridiculous. Just saying that _for the amount of power it has_ , it gets better
than expected gas mileage.

Also, it looks like a 1970s Datsun 240Z averages significantly worse:
[http://www.fuelly.com/car/datsun/240z/1973](http://www.fuelly.com/car/datsun/240z/1973)
\- further proving my point, and the one of the article in question.

------
Animats
The most useful result is that almost everything on the road can go uphill
without slowing down. Even heavy trucks. This requires not just engine power
but better cooling.

~~~
barsonme
I see you haven't met my 2000 corolla. :-)

~~~
sp332
Median car horsepower has increased 50% since your car was made!

~~~
Nition
Not for Toyota Corollas incidentally. The 2001 model 1.8L Corolla RunX with
189hp is still just about the most powerful Corolla ever made. New Corollas
top out at 138hp.

~~~
justin66
They can go up just about any grade without slowing down, though (unless
you're talking about "slowing down" from some speed near the limit of the
car's performance and transitioning to a steep grade, I guess).

Given the CVT and the soft suspension and brakes designed for being a mild-
mannered passenger car, it'd be a little goofy to make an option for a much
more powerful Corolla. You'd end up with something not a lot of fun to drive,
or a completely different car.

------
sp332
I think it's weird that they didn't weight any of the charts by how many of
each car were sold. It only measures how many car configurations were
available.

------
djrogers
> Cylinder deactivation debuted about 10 years ago

No, it debuted over 100 years ago, and was standard on every Cadillac V8 for
sale in 1981 - 36 years ago. Sure today's versions are better, but the quote
above is about as literally false as one can get.

[1][https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2008/04/Cadillac-V-8-6...](https://www.hemmings.com/magazine/hmn/2008/04/Cadillac-V-8-6-4/1610045.html)

------
6stringmerc
They have to be a lot more efficient to haul around all the extraneous shit
that people have demanded be put into cars over the years. Of course it's
always extreme in "Top of the Line" products like this Bentley
([http://blog.caranddriver.com/it-takes-a-lot-of-wiring-to-
kee...](http://blog.caranddriver.com/it-takes-a-lot-of-wiring-to-keep-a-
modern-vehicle-moving-witness-this-bentleys-harness/)) but the trickle-down
effect is inevitable. Happened with air bags, IIRC. Look how many companies
are adding variations of "Auto Pilot" or driver assists.

Basically we painted ourselves into a corner. Technology and Distractions have
an inverse relationship with Driver Attention and Performance. People don't
like hearing that, but I don't like having to honk at people weaving into my
lane because they're on their phone at 70 MPH.

~~~
nradov
The sensors and actuators used in active safety driver assistance systems are
light and take up very little space. Most of the extra weight comes from
passive safety improvements such as stronger unibodies. Those are far from
extraneous.

Plus cars are simply growing because most people prefer larger vehicles. A
long drive in a tiny penalty box car is a miserable experience.

~~~
chadgeidel
Another "hidden" weight adder is the dreaded "NVH" (Noise, Vibration, and
Harshness). Basically car manufacturers add "heavy stuff" to make the car
quieter and ride better.

------
perryh2
The chart makes me sad. My Subaru BRZ (2013-) "sports car" comes with only
200hp. Many people looking for more power install aftermarket superchargers.

~~~
chadgeidel
A nearly perfect car. I say "nearly" because of the slight torque dip in the
mid-range. It's too bad no one is buying them because they don't have "enough
power". I am waffling on either a BRZ or a MX-5. I'm leaning towards the MX-5
because it seems like the BRZ/GT-86 may not be around much longer.

~~~
bacongobbler
I once owned an FR-S (totaled from someone rear-ending it on the highway,
going to buy another next year) and currently I own a '90 Miata and a '94
Skyline GT-R. Comparing between the ND Miata and the BRZ I would go for the
BRZ in a heartbeat.

Two reasons:

1\. The NC/ND Miata crowd is a much older demographic, keeping their precious
car in the garage over the winter, keeping it bone stock, bringing it to the
dealership instead of working on it themselves and only taking it out on sunny
days. I don't click with that crowd.

2\. The aftermarket support for the FR-S/BRZ/GT86 is completely overwhelming.
Want a completely different exhaust setup or want to run flex fuel?
Turbocharged? Supercharged? There's quite a few choices to select from. ND
Miatas have some selection, but not nearly at the same cost or availability.

You can get rid of that torque dip quite easily if it's bothering you, by the
way. Just need new UEL exhaust headers and a tune. You'll even make a bit more
power when you're finished with it, so win/win.

Personally I'm loving that people aren't buying them because it's been keeping
the barrier of entry way down. They truly are remarkable cars... There's a lot
more to a car than the numbers. The suspension/geometry and chassis with 55/45
weight distribution, MacPherson struts, Torsen limited slip differential comes
standard, and low center of gravity due to its boxer engine are top-notch
compared to something like a 370Z.

~~~
chadgeidel
Hmm, that's surprising. I am a bit of a track rat and figured the Miata had
more aftermarket support. Flyin' Miata has a ton of parts and upgrades. I
don't see a lot of Miatas on the track where I am, the ones I do see have a
substantial number of mods.

Most of the BRZ/GT-86/FR-S I see in my neck of the woods are all blinged out
visually with not many good "handling/performance" mods (aside from giant
supercharger or turbocharger setups which IMHO is the last thing one should
modify).

------
oppositelock
These new engine technologies are really cool if you enjoy driving performance
cars, and it's amazing how it's possible to comply with EPA requirements while
delivering so much power, but all these systems add a lot of complexity.

Direct fuel injection, turbos and fancy transmissions are the min technologies
which make these powerful efficient cars possible, but they're all impossibly
complex to service!

DFI leads to carbon fouling of intake valves, because port fuel injection
"washed" fuel over the valves, cleaning them and burning up residue. Turbos
are high RPM, high heat parts which have nowhere near the longevity of a
modern engine, and there are lots of cars with 8 and 10 speed automatic
transmissions to get every last bit of efficiency out of the engine.

All these expensive technologies make for less reliable cars that need more
maintenances, and cars are much younger when scrapped because they're simply
not economical to fix. Your local transmission shop won't rebuild a 10-speed
auto, they'll buy a remanufactured one from a specialist, which costs many
thousands.

It's a bummer for a weekend mechanic like myself, that cars are becoming so
impractical to run for a long time. I consider it wasteful to scrap a
perfectly nice ten year old car because of a bad transmission or blown motor,
but there are increasingly more of these.

~~~
mywittyname
Cars are far more reliable than every before. The median age of cars on the
road has been steadily creeping up for years.

Turbocharging does not make an engine less reliable: every big rig on the road
is turbocharged and designed to go hundreds of thousands of miles while seeing
engine loads unheard of for passenger cars..

I'm not sure why people have the perception a 10 speed auto is less reliable
than a 4 speed auto. Planetary automatics, by design, add gears exponentially.
Almost all 5+ speed automatic uses a Lepelletier gearset, which is basically a
traditional four-speed with another planetary gearset in front of it. It's not
that different from how big-rigs turn a four-speed manual into a 12-speed, or
a 6-speed into an 18.

Fact is, as gear ratios grow in autos, they get more robust. ZF builds 8-speed
automatics capable of __1000ft.lbs of torque __which is way more than the gold
standard of four-speeds (the GM 4L60e) could handle in it 's highest output
applications (380ft.lbs).

~~~
oppositelock
The machinery we build is more reliable than ever because of improved
manufacturing tolerances, CAD stress analysis, better understanding of
materials, etc, but manufacturing isn't perfect and materials aren't perfect.

When you add more complexity, you add more opportunities for failure, that's
just a fact. Twin engine airplanes have twice as many engine-out emergencies
as single engine airplanes.

I have the perception that 10 speed transmissions are less reliable than four
speed because I've messed with the innards of both. There are size and weight
constraints in cars, and you have to get those 10 gears into similar space
where you used to get 4, particularly in transverse applications.
Transmissions almost never fail due to the gear set failing. What happens is
that some chunk of a clutch plate breaks off and causes havoc, or some
solenoid gets weak and allows for clutch slippage and the clutch plates
overheat and damage the fluid, which cascades pretty quickly. Big rig
transmissions are seriously big and heavy duty, car transmissions are dainty
things by comparison. Your Getrag example is an exception - it's a high
performance transmission meant for expensive cars. Yes, once cost isn't a
constraint, things do get beefier and more reliable.

My point was that the complexity of these things makes it very hard to fix
them, so cars reach end of life sooner. You could have Jimbob's Local
Transmission Shop rebuild your transmission in the past, now Jimbob is over
his head. He has to send it out to a rebuilder, who will charge several
thousand dollars for this thing, so it's only cost effective to fix cars which
are relatively new.

Turbos are used to make smaller engines behave like bigger ones, they help
generate more heat and more pressure to develop more power, but weight and
size are still constraints, so everything operates closer to maximum stress
tolerances. I've been racing cars for almost ten years, and on hot days, it's
not the naturally aspirated engines which blow up, it's the turbos. As with
transmissions, big rig turbos are not constrained by size, weight and cost
like passenger car turbos. They have gotten a LOT better, don't get me wrong,
but a turbocharged engine is a much more complex system than a naturally
aspirated one.

In my opinion, the sweet spot for technology/simplicity is behind us. Cars
built between about 2000 and 2010 have simple port injected engines, very good
engine management systems which result in very clean emissions, and generally
no turbos. You can cost effectively keep one of these things running forever,
and what happens is that the body and interior fall apart before the engine
quits being cheap to maintain.

I'm a car guy, I love working on the things and hacking on engines and ECU's.
Don't get me wrong, I think new cars are wonderful, but they're becoming
tightly integrated systems with little in the way of user serviceable parts -
throwaways like cell phones.

------
squozzer
They picked an interesting starting point for their comparisons, which was
1975, several years after the following:

1) HP ratings went from SAE gross (at flywheel with no accessories) to SAE net
(at flywheel with accessories and stock exhaust) 2) Smog controls (AIR, EGR,
and cats) 3) Lower static compression ratios to handle unleaded fuel

That said, computer-controlled spark and fuel, and now direct injection, makes
modern cars a lot more fun if maybe a little same-looking.

~~~
davimus
The EPA data only goes back to 1975.
[https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/download-co2-and-fuel-
econom...](https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/download-co2-and-fuel-economy-
trends-report-1975-2016)

~~~
dredmorbius
Yeah, it turns out that a lot of environmental and energy stuff didn't exist
until the 1970s.

Nixon created the EPA, Carter the DoE, 1970 and 1977, respectively.

It wasn't until the 1973 Arab Oil Embargo that concerns over automobile
efficiency even registered for most Americans. Gas was cheap. Cars were big.
Life was good.

(That being the thinking, if not the reality.)

------
strictnein
I've definitely seen it in my last two vehicles.

My old 2003 Ford Explorer had a 4.6 L V8 with 239hp. 0-60 in 8.8 seconds.
14/19 mpg. 4,381 lbs

My current 2014 Ford Explorer Sport has a 3.5L V6 twinturbo with 365hp. 0-60
in 6.0 seconds. 16/22 mpg. 4,697 lbs

------
olivermarks
These are incredible times for performance ICE powered vehicles. You can buy a
very fast car from the showroom, but the aftermarket and hot rod world has a
cornucopia of options to build (or buy as crate motors) just about as much
power as you want. Street driven twin turbo drag racing 'door' cars running 7
second quarter mile times are common. With electric performance in drag racing
and hill climb (such as pikes peak) rapidly improving to it's an amazing time
to be alive...except for the shortage of race tracks where these cars can be
safely put through their paces.

------
Tepix
What the heck do you need all that horsepower for? You got the speed limit
anyway. If you'd make the cars lighter and put in a 100hp engine you'd end up
using half as much gas. Yikes!

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So they can win social Top Trumps at parties? Beyond "dick swinging" the
utility is probably limited.

------
roflchoppa
I was driving a 1960's Classic Mini Cooper the other day, just leave my body
in there if we crash.

------
dmix
This part was interesting, fuel injection has been optimized to the point of
modeling the way the fluid vaporizes so it perfectly mists out, making sure to
never hit the walls of the pistons:

> It’s also put to use in the Camaro V6, the middle-of-the pack, Goldilocks
> choice that makes 335 horsepower. This machine highlights one of the most
> critical things in engine evolution: direct fuel injection. Carburetors that
> mixed fuel with air disappeared from assembly lines long ago.

> But it was only in the 21st century that engineers perfected the practice of
> shooting a mist of gasoline directly into the cylinder. Less fuel is wasted
> and the engine is more powerful because it stays cooler. (The gas actually
> evaporates before it explodes, cooling the cylinder in the same way that
> sweat cools the skin of an athlete.)

> “Today, we can model it, we can visualize it, and we can make sure the fuel
> ends up in the air, not on the cylinder wall,” said Prabjot Nanua, director
> of Detroit-based GM’s advanced engine and racing engineering.

------
rpeden
The most fun car I've ever driven was my 1985 Toyota Tercel, with all of 65
horsepower.

I don't think any car I've had since then has gotten better fuel economy than
that old Tercel. But the old Tercel probably polluted the atmosphere a lot
more, and I'm sure it would've disintegrated if I'd ever been in a collision
with a larger vehicle.

~~~
specialist
I beat the hell out of my '96 Tercel. Took it every where (hiking, camping).
Not a single amenity. Loved that car. 42/mpg highway.

Still brings a tear to my eye.

------
laughfactory
Faster and more efficient doesn't equal good for the environment. Buying a new
car is almost always a net negative for the environment. It doesn't even
matter if it's more fuel efficient, or electric. What matters is the vast
amount of resources required to produce each vehicle, and the amount of toxic
emissions and waste generated in the production process. And, even if it's
electric, the electricity has to come from somewhere. And electricity
frequently comes from environmentally unfriendly sources like coal power
plants.

So if you're in the market for _any_ new car, keep that in mind: you're not
doing the environment any favors, nor your bank account.

------
Lagged2Death
Soccer Moms' Revenge

[https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-
reven...](https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-revenge/)

 _Once we unloaded our gear, luggage, tires and a bunch of other junk from the
same Honda Odyssey—a minivan, remember—that had just carried us 400 or so odd
miles while watching DVD movies in air-conditioned comfort while sitting our
bourgeois asses on cushy leather seats, it proceeded to storm around the
autocross course in 49.09 seconds. In other words, it cruised to a near dead-
heat with the Porsche [356]._

------
galdosdi
Past a certain point (like, not being able to maintain highway speed limit up
a modest grade), I am not sure this extra horsepower is such a good thing.

The thing I really notice when driving lower usable power-to-weight vehicles
like a heavy truck or an unpowered bicycle or a car with a dying clutch or is
this: they force you to think further ahead, work harder at predicting the
possible movements of all other road users and in short, be a better, safer,
more aware driver. I actually find them more fun (except on the track or an
empty parking lot of course) too for this reason.

Is it possible excessive horsepower is making us shittier drivers?

~~~
wiredfool
It is much more fun driving a lower powered car at the limit than an
overpowered on at 25%.

(source -- owner of 1990 miata. 120hp, 2000lbs. Steer the front with the
wheel, the back with the throttle.)

~~~
gambiting
Yep. I think I made a slight mistake in buying my last car as I wanted to
prioritize power, so I got an AMG with 381bhp - and yeah, the car is a
monster, it does 0-60 in 4 seconds, but I very quickly found out that when
going on some twisting mountain roads it's just too much power to really have
fun - you get out on a straight, and are instantly doing 80mph+, on a 60mph-
limit road, so you just end up cruising until the next turn which is neither
interesting nor fun.

In a lower powered car, on a sufficiently technical road it's hard to stay at
the speed limit, so you end up working the car and having loads of fun(like I
am sure you do in your Miata). In a super powerful car that part is gone, and
the drive becomes slightly less enjoyable because of it.

------
azernik
For a good anecdotal, non-American example:

My grandmother lives in quite a hilly town. Her old car was from the mid-80s,
with few airbags and basically zero crumple zone, so at a certain point her
kids (my mom and uncle) persuaded her to get a new one.

Her worry was power - the old car was a pretty upcharged model to make it
uphill to her house, and she was not looking forward to figuring out which new
models had the same power-to-weight. Turns out she needn't have worried - you
can't even _find_ a car in her preferred (pretty small) size range with that
little power anymore.

------
mavhc
I try to drive as little as possible to stop destroying the planet, no need to
travel 100s of miles, there's lots of interesting things close to you, and if
you walked to them you'd live longer too

~~~
falsedan
Nice intention, but have you been to suburban america? There's nothing there.

~~~
mavhc
Sounds like a good place to not live then.

~~~
falsedan
This sounds like you think they should die. The US lower/middle class live
according to their means, and the housing created for them to live in is
horribly dependent on cars. You are fortunate to have falling into a
location/social class where your potential properties are pedestrian-friendly
& close to point-of-interest. Hundreds of millions of people do not share your
fortune.

------
staticelf
When I visited America, the first thing I noticed when getting out of the
airport was the big ass cars everywhere. Most of the cars in my country is
smaller.

Superminis are very popular here. As of now though, I drive an Chevrolet Tahoe
and it's rare to meet a car as big as it is.

Why there is not much big cars here it's because there is heavy taxation on
both the cars CO2 per km and on the gas itself. Gas in Sweden costs maybe 3-4
times as much as it does in the US.

------
internalfx
This doesn't take into account that manufacturers used to under-rate the
horsepower on their cars. Legend has it for the purposes of insurance and the
NHRA.

~~~
coredog64
There were also corporate rules. At one point, GM wouldn't allow one of their
cars to have a better power to weight ratio than a Corvette. The answer for
Pontiac was to sandbag on the advertised power.

------
Animats
Another implication of all this power is that there is now little need for
"passing". Everybody can reach the speed limit easily on almost all roads.

------
voodooranger
The huge stride in efficiency recently has been made possible by direct
injection. Engines no longer have to work hard to pull intake air through a
mostly closed butterfly valve. Attributing this advancement to govt regulation
is preposterous. Just as regardless of whether govt had mandated faster
processors, industry would have created them anyway.

~~~
oppositelock
Direct injected engines still have throttle butterfly valves, or something
complex like VANOS to simulate one with valvetrains. Air and fuel must mix at
a correct ratio, if you're requiring little power, you need little air and
little fuel. Lots of air and low fuel gets you detonation.

------
geff82
The last 3 cars I owned here in Germany had the following real life
consumption:

45 mpg (bought 2002) 35 mpg (bought 2013) 42mpg (bought 2017)

~~~
hvidgaard
I'm fairly certain that the reason the 2002 car was that efficient was because
there was less emission regulations back then. They could simply use a more
efficient burn at the cost of more polution. This was exactly what the VW
scandal was all about.

~~~
geff82
It was a VW Polo Diesel and the others are gas :)

------
sehengratis
Would love to see a similar article on motorcycle improvements. Seems like the
line between top-of-the-line MotoGP bikes and the most expensive street bikes
is becoming quite thin.

[https://www.clippp.com/](https://www.clippp.com/)

------
skanga
I'd love to see a chart of the power/weight ratio of engines over time.

~~~
tsomctl
Not particularly impressive. You can make an engine significantly lighter by
changing the short block from cast iron to aluminum. The only problem is long
term reliability (if an aluminum block ever overheats, it is significantly
more likely to destroy itself than cast iron).

~~~
jabl
My car as a cast iron engine block; alas, it doesn't have replaceable cylinder
liners nor are bigger piston rings manufactured, so when the workshop managed
to crack a piston they ended up having to change the entire engine. Yet
another example of the throwaway society, eh... :(

------
nibstwo
2016 Ford Taurus SHO has an Ecoboost 2.5L engine with twin turbo and I chipped
it and added high performance intake/exhaust. ~550hp, 25 mpg. My beater from
98 was worse on mileage at 150hp. Strange.

------
jdlyga
If there's an affordable, reliable car that performs well that's better than
what Honda and Toyota have to offer, I'll sure as hell buy it. I don't care if
its a Chevy

~~~
gph
Article title is misleading you, this isn't about American-based car companies
it's about the cars Americans drive including Honda/Toyota/BMW/etc.

------
komali2
Would love to see a similar article on motorcycle improvements. Seems like the
line between top-of-the-line MotoGP bikes and the most expensive street bikes
is becoming quite thin.

------
jhallenworld
Direct injection is a mixed bag: on my 2010 VW CC you have to "decarb" the
intake valves every 30-40K miles because they do not get washed by the fuel.

------
jbuhl
In what applications will electric engines not be able to replace internal
combustions engines? I don't want these improvements to go to waste long-term!

~~~
clarry
Small scale power generation.

------
gozur88
>If a 1976 driver were to somehow get his hands on a car from 2017, he’d be at
grave risk of whiplash. Since those days, horsepower in the U.S. has almost
doubled, with the median model climbing from 145 to 283 stallions.

1976 was right in that era where gas prices took a huge jump, and to keep
Americans from buying the more fuel efficient Japanese cars US car makers were
producing seriously underpowered vehicles with better mileage. I wouldn't be
surprised if that year represents the nadir of horsepower in American cars.

~~~
wtallis
> I wouldn't be surprised if that year represents the nadir of horsepower in
> American cars.

And yet, a graph in the article shows more than 25% drop in horsepower from
'76 to '83\. Are you claiming that was entirely due to an increase in Japanese
car models dragging down the average even as American models bounced back?

------
azinman2
For all the talk by liberatians and their ilk that regulation is bad and
unnecessary, that chart of median fuel effeciency due to government
requirements should give them pause. Wow. Well over a decade of non-progress
until a path forward is mandated. Suddently the needle starts moving, with car
owners, the environment, and energy import needs as big winners here.

~~~
grandalf
Libertarians are not anti-regulation, they just believe that the good and bad
consequences of regulations should be understood.

Often, those who are not libertarians will support a regulation simply because
they agree with its stated aim... things like "the patriot act" or "the
affordable care act".

Those names are chosen to sound good, not because they reflect the intent of
legislation or the outcome of it.

To give you an example of the folly of fuel economy regulation, consider that
90% of automotive pollution is created by the oldest 10% of cars on the road.
Does it really make sense to force all buyers of new cars to pay extra? Why
not charge a tax that increases for every year a car gets older, so that the
person driving the smoke-emitting clunker has an incentive to upgrade into
something that is cleaner and safer.

Libertarians value having a clean environment just like anyone else does. The
question is how to create regulations that are fair and don't create
disincentives for innovation. Note that several automakers needed government
bailouts partly due to the cost of complying with fuel economy regulations.
But rather than letting those companies fold and allowing Tesla to rise to
prominence much sooner, our regulators propped up the makers of the most
polluting cars, a move which set back US emissions significantly (compared to
the counter-factual I described).

~~~
lisper
> Libertarians are not anti-regulation

Yes, they are. See [https://www.lp.org/issues/the-
economy/](https://www.lp.org/issues/the-economy/)

"Libertarians believe that the only proper role of government in the economic
realm is to protect property rights, adjudicate disputes, and provide a legal
framework in which voluntary trade is protected."

~~~
grandalf
First, the Libertarian Party is not "all libertarians".

Second, environmental regulation falls out of property rights, since pollution
spreads onto people's property. If you pollute a stream, the stream carries
the pollution to someone else's property and damages it.

~~~
vacri
And the libertarian response to that issue is not the ounce of prevention, but
the pound of cure.

Rather than have _a priori_ environmental legislation, the libertarian
position is to wait until the (possibly irreversible) damage is done, then try
and find the person who did it (if you can, and good luck if it was a variety
of entities), then take them to a court, then prove them at fault (not a
given, especially if more than one party), get a judgement of fiscal damages
against them (hopefully they have enough money for recompense, but not enough
money to tie you up for years), then actually get the money from them, and
finally put that money towards cleaning up the spill (again, if it's not
irreversible).

~~~
demilicious
Not at all. A perfectly viable libertarian response to your hypothetical is a
carbon tax or pollution tax - some cost applied to a negative externality.

~~~
greglindahl
Did I miss the stampede of Libertarians advocating that?

------
m3kw9
Yes, as soon as they sense competition from electrical vehicles

------
nepotism2016
I just came back from Boston, every other car was a SUV

------
mal34
there's nothing better than a german cars !

------
mgarfias
My '87 Camaro weighed 3300lb. The equivalent model today weighs 3700lb. A '77
weighed 3500.

My 2001 corvette weighs 3040lb dry, a new Z06 is 3700.

Tell me again how things are lighter?

~~~
whatnotests
The new ones seem...poofier...larger...maybe less dense?

Less mass per cubic meter?

------
hack3rbr3ws
How is this article not called "Too Fast Too Fuel Efficient?"

------
subterfudge4
The arbitrary speed limits on US highways have hurt US Auto industry and world
auto industry a lot in terms of kinds of roads we build and the kind of cars
we built.

Imagine how much innovation that could not happen there.

------
evanlivingston
I've always been baffled by the lack of progress in increasing MPG for
automobiles.

my 2001 toyota echo: ~35 mpg

my 92 VW cabriolet: ~28 mpg

my 2001 ford ranger 4x4: ~25mpg

These vehicles all got better or equivalent of vehicles made 20 years later.

~~~
valuearb
1992 Golf Cabrio:

MPG: 28 city/ 32 highway

HP: 110

0-60: 9.5 secs

Length: 153" Weight: 2193 lbs

2017 Golf Cabrio:

MPG: 25 city/36 highway

HP: 170

0-60: 6.6 secs

Length: 167" Weight: 3,000 lbs

Over the last 25 years the VW Golf has gotten almost 50% larger, is far safer,
far more comfortable, far faster, and has basically identical gas mileage.

~~~
evanlivingston
This is one of the points of confusion for me. I didn't buy a cabriolet to
take kids to and from school, to haul gear around or to beat some other kid in
muscle car off the line. Increased safety is a nice, but bigger? faster? I
would trade speed any day for better mileage. But apparently better mpg is
less of a demand than bigger and faster.

------
kakarot
If only the auto industry hadn't canned Henry Ford's efforts to mass produce
cars with hemp-composite materials.[0]

They would be arguably faster, lighter, more efficient, and safer than
anything on the market.

But, ya know. Car wrecks are good for business, and efficiency is bad for
business.

[0]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srgE6Tzi3Lg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srgE6Tzi3Lg)

~~~
Aloha
In other words, a Trabant.

Hemp is not a magic fiber, it's just able to be grown with a much lower
environmental impact than cotton. Otherwise its just another fiber.

~~~
jabl
And if you're involved in a tragic crash where the wreck of your car catches
fire, at least you'd die happy, eh?

(yes, I know hemp grown for fibers doesn't contain THC or whatever the active
ingredient in weed is called. It's a joke, you see)

