Of Sports and Opined Journalism

I've been reading this guy's column for a number of years. And a couple seasons ago he was fired, (another interesting story), but he's back now. His writings are mostly around the weekend's football, but sandwiched in between those ravings are tidbits like this from last week's column. There are links embedded in the article and to view them you should read the original column here:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/pag [...] ook/080909


Gregg Easterbrook - Tuesday Morning Quarterback


Hold Your Horsepower: Gasoline demand has declined slightly since 2005. And a few months ago, Congress enacted the first tightening of vehicle fuel economy rules in two decades; barrel prices of oil are declining. So far, so good. But oil is still well over $100 per barrel, versus about $74 at this time last year, and gasoline still costs nearly a dollar more per gallon than at this time last year. The longer-term picture is bleak. In 1973, America imported 6 million barrels of petroleum daily. Currently it imports more than 13 million barrels each day. Yesterday I heard a radio announcer say, "Now that the gasoline price crunch is over …" Don't make the mistake of thinking for one minute that America's petroleum addiction is even close to fixed.

For cars, SUVs and light trucks, there are two forces at play in oil-addiction trends, but only one is generally recognized. Everybody knows the fad of big vehicles increases petroleum needs -- according to the EPA, the average weight of passenger vehicles has risen 30 percent since 1988, while average MPG is down. The other factor, little acknowledged, is horsepower, which has risen even more sharply than weight. Twenty years ago, the average new passenger vehicle sold in the United States had 120 horsepower. For this model year the figure is 230, almost double. There will be no fundamental change in oil import levels until horsepower numbers change.

Like weight, horsepower depresses fuel economy. Simply knocking a third off the horsepower of new U.S. passenger vehicles would, in about a decade -- as efficient new vehicles replace wasteful old ones -- eliminate approximately the amount of oil the United States imports from the Middle East. Yes, it's that simple. Race cars need lots of horsepower; suburban family cars do not. Excessive horsepower causes the United States to be dependent on Middle East dictatorships, engages military commitments to those dictatorships, drives up the price of oil and pushes down the value of the dollar. Horsepower is also the enabler of road rage -- rapid acceleration allows cutting off, drag racing and sudden lane changes. Road rage entered national consciousness as a problem in the mid-1990s, exactly when the horsepower ratings of new vehicles began to spike.

Yet nearly all auto companies selling in the United States continue to introduce overpowered cars that require far too much fuel. The problem transcends brands, whether domestic or international. The new BMW 550i sedan has 360 horsepower and records just 18 MPG. Pontiac's new 361-horsepower G8 GT is a small car that gets just 18 MPG. Only in America do small cars waste gasoline. Ford's new Taurus sedan has a 263-horsepower engine which delivers only 22 MPG in its front-wheel-drive variant, an awful 19 MPG in the all-wheel-drive version. The Taurus isn't a sports car, it's a family car! Toyota's new Camry, another family car, offers 263 horsepower and just 22 MPG. The Dodge Avenger, a family car, when ordered with the optional 255-horsepower engine posts just 18 MPG. Infiniti's 320-horsepower FX45, Cadillac's 403-horsepower Escalade and the 500-horsepower Porsche Cayenne Turbo achieve a dreadful 14 MPG. (All mileage figures in this column are the "combined" numbers that blend city and highway driving. Under real-world circumstances, especially stop-and-go commuting, many drivers average well below the official number.) Plus, the more horses, the more greenhouse gases. According to the EPA, a Porsche Cayenne Turbo emits 13.1 tons of greenhouse gases annually. Check any car's MPG and greenhouse numbers here.

A 1968 Corvette -- which had less muscle than a typical 2008 family car.
Less horsepower would mean better fuel efficiency, diminished petroleum imports and lower carbon emissions but, inevitably, reduced acceleration. Don't buyers crave speed? Most cars are already too fast! Thirty years ago, the average passenger vehicle did zero to 60 MPH in 14 seconds; for 2008, the average is about 8.5 seconds. That new 263-horsepower Ford Taurus family sedan does zero to 60 in 6.5 seconds -- the same acceleration as the 1968 Corvette with the famed 427 big-block V8. The new Camry and Honda's comparable new Accord do zero to 60 in about 7 seconds. Acceleration of this type is not needed for everyday driving; such power is useful mainly for speeding, running lights and cutting others off. Lexus has aired ads boasting that its new IS-F model, with a 416-horsepower engine, does zero to 60 in 4.6 seconds; the new 480-horsepower Nissan GTR is even faster at 3.8 seconds. Both have dismal mileage ratings. Lexus is telling the business media the IS-F is intended for the United States and won't be pushed in the company's home market of Japan. There, the IS-F's road-rage engineering and 10.2 tons of greenhouse gases released annually might be controversial.

In addition to reducing fossil-fuel use, dialing down horsepower would reduce highway deaths. Researcher Michael Sivak of the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute has found that highway fatalities dropped sharply earlier this year as gas prices shot up, with highway deaths declining 22 percent in March and 18 percent in April. (Note: You can reach the Transportation Research Institute only by car.) This spectacular decline in deaths, receiving little public notice, came about, Sivak found, mainly when drivers slowed down in order to improve MPG. High-horsepower vehicles encourage speeding, because they make soaring above the speed limit feel effortless. If horsepower were reduced by sensible amounts, there would be less driving 80 MPH in 60 MPH zones, or 50 MPH in 30 MPH zones. Sivak's numbers suggest that if America became sensible about speed, perhaps 8,000 lives per year could be saved. Eight thousand lives per year would represent more Americans saved than if all incidents of drowning were eliminated.

Federal legislation to regulate the horsepower of passenger vehicles, perhaps by establishing a power-to-weight standard, would reduce petroleum consumption, cut greenhouse gas emissions, lower U.S. oil imports, strengthen the dollar, and take some of the road-rage stress out of driving. So what are we waiting for? Whatever your answer, don't reply, "No one can tell me what I can drive." Courts consistently rule that vehicles using public roads may be regulated for public purposes, such as safety and energy efficiency. NASCAR races occur on private property -- there, horsepower is nobody's business. On public roads, horsepower is very much everybody's business. You'd be laughed at if you asserted a "right" to drive a locomotive down the freeway. Where is it written we have the "right" to operate an overpowered car that wastes oil and pollutes the sky?

NASCAR cars need high horsepower, cars bound for suburban shopping malls do not.
Meanwhile, all the talk lately has been about getting drivers into hypothesized future vehicles that might get excellent mileage, such as plug-in hybrids. Even assuming such cars someday are in showrooms, the payoff is greater for getting people out of low-mileage vehicles right now, because low-mileage vehicles are disproportionate consumers of fuel. Assume an average year of 12,000 miles traveled. The driver who trades in a 15 MPG SUV or high-horsepower car for a 20 MPG standard-engine full-size car would reduce fuel use by 200 gallons. The driver who trades in a 20 MPG full-size car for a 25 MPG midsize would reduce fuel use by 120 gallons. The driver who trades in a 25 MPG midsize for a 30 MPG compact would cut fuel use by 80 gallons. The driver who trades in a 30 MPG compact for a 35 MPH current-technology hybrid would save 60 gallons. And the driver who trades in a 35 MPG current-technology hybrid for a 40 MPG advanced plug-in hybrid would save 40 gallons. By far the best oil-reduction bang for the buck lies in people giving up large SUVs, pickup trucks used for commuting, plus any type of overpowered vehicle, in favor of driving regular cars. The math is presented in detail in this paper by Richard Larrick and Jack Soll of Duke University. This suggests that instead of tax policy being focused on credits for buyers of high-mileage hybrids, and federal subsidies being focused on the development of high-mileage hypothesized future designs, tax policy should reward those who junk SUVs in order to buy regular cars. Tax programs to encourage drivers to junk old high-polluting automobiles were successful, so a junk-your-SUV program might work, too.

Interesting...

A woman on my route commutes 1.6 miles, (I measured) from her home to her insurance office in a Hummer H2. Alone. And goes home for lunch. It's kinda' like a tattoo on your face, it announces in no uncertain terms you're insanely insecure.

WTF does that mean? Shoot the messenger?

Or economics or marketing. . .

I suppose it has more to do with whether you think CAFE (Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975) has been a good thing or a bad thing. This journalist seems to think that CAFE is above reproach and that the private industry, and by extension, you and me, eat the cost; Whether via subsidy or fines (for failing to meet), we will all-- as consumers or tax payers-- ultimately pay (some with our lives).

This journalist also fails to realize CAFE is mandated with the express intent of eliminating consumption in the amount of oil imported from "Middle East". Since CAFE's inception, engine efficiency increased 120% (hp to displacement), and yet fuel consumption increases and steadily increases with every increase in CAFE. Simple economics: with increased efficiency (lower cost) comes greater use.

EDIT: Word choice

CAFE has never been about MPG..... It was only a way for the government to dictate content to the auto co.s... It has more that doubled the price of a car since it's inception.... Testing & validation has cost untold millions to the auto co.s..... As a auto engineer I've dealt with CAFE since it's inception & it has only cost the consumer in the long run....

A few examples of CAFE I had to design around that add not one wit to MPG.....

ABS brakes.... Never mandated, but almost required..... Added cost about $600 per vehicle.... No MPG increase.....

Locking doors when you shift into drive..... Never mandated, but almost required..... Added cost about $400 per vehicle.... No MPG increase.....

Park brake lock out..... Have to put your foot on the brake to shift out of park.... Never mandated, but almost required..... Added cost about $400 per vehicle.... No MPG increase.....

Day Time running Lights.... Mandated in Canada, given to the US as it was easier for all North American cars.... Added cost about $400 per vehicle.... No MPG increase.....

One of the biggest, OBD II, fuel vapor recovery system that is a bomb attached to every car sold in the US.... This one cost $1400 per car.... No MPG increase..... Yea, Big Oil beat the auto industry on this one!!!! This could, & should have been done at the gas station level.... It would've required every gas station to have a vacuum, sucking in vapors as you fuel.... Cost per station between $1000 to $2000 & you wouldn't be riding around with a fuel vapor canister bomb under your trunk & cost you $1400.... Big Oil didn't want to be responsible for CAFE validation itself.... They felt let the auto industry handle it.....

Take a look at the cars now since CAFE.... You can't tell one from another.... They all have to fit the CAFE standard & so that lends to the current design produced by all car co.s selling in the US.... One box is the same as the other box.....

I could go on & on with this one.... CAFE was one of the biggest ruses pulled on the American people that I personally have witnessed in my life time!!!!!

Although we should probably not be too critical of their spelling.

Fortunately the Republicans have never had a bad piece of legislation, ever.

Absolutely. They are all fine, honest, upstanding citizens who absolutely have not got their snouts so far into the trough that they can no longer see daylight. No sir. [/delusional to Riser levels]