Most people who buy SUV’s do so for status. They’re young successful modern professionals who don’t need to worry about little things like money. They’re trendy and they want you to know it. That’s why they’re on their cell phones and swerving into your lane. These are the same fools who were desperatly trying to “SAVE THE RAINFOREST” in the 80’s. Now they fill the skys with smog and are sucking back a latte. This is the same reason you’ll never see a new Mercedes for $14,995. Snob appeal.

Engineering is and always will be about tradeoffs. Cars are much safer now, a lot of that has been due to things that make them heavier. The heavier a car, the lower the fuel mileage. Ford could easily make a $10,000 car that gets 100 mpg–if it only carried one passenger and they didn?t care that the person would die in any accident over 40 mph. There are other reasons too–one thing most people over look is that cars need to work under tremendously varying conditions and for years. And when something breaks, the cheaper and easier it is to replace the happier the consumer is. That is one thing that scares me from the article–for example the move to a camless engine looks to eliminate a major inefficiency. They estimate 18-20% better fuel efficiency. But the idea of having electronic hardware & software control the valves means that if it goes wrong it will be expensive to fix. The ?idle free? engine certainly looks promising too, but the requirement to completely replace the electric system to 42 volts from 12 while still supporting lower voltage needs like radio, lights, etc., is not a minor thing. It will require a major expense to start and an overhaul of pretty much every system on the car. And even so, manufacturers are constantly considering technological improvements but their market research stops them. I bet they have tons of research that shows that people will not pay $2000 more up front for a car that will save them $4000 in gas over 5 years. They?re stuck in the situation where they have to decide if they should eat the cost to make the world better–that?s not a decision companies make very often.

The bottom line is yes, manufacturers could be doing better, but not as much better as everyone seems to think, not without trade offs. Safety, upfront cost and maintenance cost are all part of the mix. And consumers need to show that increased mileage is a priority to them as well. Because lets face it, the auto makers haven?t had much motivation because people don?t seem to care too much or put their money where their mouth is when buying a vehicle.

RANT:
I always hate it when people who really know nothing about the automotive industry spout off about how they could be making cars that get a hundred miles per gallon, but don?t because it?s a conspiracy with the oil companies or something. Anyone who says this should be slapped. Tell me this, if GM could release a SUV that did everything their current one does, and gets 100 mpg do you really think they would sit on it? It would mean they would put Ford and Chrysler out of business and make billions and billions of dollars. It?s just one of those lies that often even intelligent people believe and perpetuate like the 10% brain use myth. That?s not what the article was about, but it?s what most people think so I just wanted to cover it.
/RANT