The other issue is that there now really is a market hole for a stripped down car which is just a car. (I.e., not an electronics platform that happens to have an engine, transmission, and gas tank thrown in for the heck of it.) However, I suspect that such a vehicle would not pass regulatory muster and so wouldn't be street legal. What a paradox.
It is always a fight between what is mandated by those making decisions based on emotions and those making decisions based on marketing and customer demand. Of course, marketing does tend to prmote those choices that deliver the most profit. On the other side, it makes little sense to build products that customers don't want, and will not buy.
There is always a fight between safety, performance, emissions, and economy. We do know that safety does not sell, it never did, except for Volvos. Nobody would buy airbags if they were an extra cost option, nobody bought them when they were. The same for the stability control, the next option being forced on us.
So the result will be very interesting, since the vehicles that got the better mileage were not as big sellers as the larger vehicles that did not get such good mileage.
The best choice would be for our lawmakers to find a way to make the more fuel efficient vehicles more attractive, while not placing penalties on those who buy the big vehicles. One simple change would be to make the yearly license plate fee dependant on vehicle weight, like it was back prior to 1970, instead of taxing them bythe original purchase price, which is how it has been done in Michigan for many years now. That would be a simple change, not needing any technical breakthroughs at all.
Nice wrap-up, Chuck. While EVs are getting plenty of coverage, the multicore processors look like they may deliver promising results. We may find that a very smart traditional engine delivers more significant environmental advances than EVs that are essentially powered by coal burning electrical plants.
I will be watching (and waiting) with great interest to see the implementation of these technologies. I just can't, however, see automakers reaching the 55 mpg mark without an outrageous price tag - not for several years, anyway. For the standard to truly be effective, these autos need to be available to everyone, sooner rather than later.
I didn't have time to wade through 9+ pages of comments on the blog you referenced, but I don't recall ever seeing anyone look at it this way: the automakers who agreed to meet the 54+MPG target MAY have considered this as a "supply vs. demand" opportunity! Think about it: the giovernment has very little power to repeal the laws of economics, despite their continuing efforts to do so. IF the demand for larger vehicles (e.g. full-size pickup trucks, together with large SUVs) is relatively inelastic (as it would be for those whose egos/incomes allow them to exercise that preference, combined with the large numbers of businesses and individuals who NEED those vehicles to earn their living), then if meeting the target means severely restricting production volume of those vehicles, then there is a HUGE opportunity for greatly-enhanced PROFIT margins. Especially given the recent travails oof the industry, that may indeed represent the (maybe temporary) salvation of the industry! Just a thought.....
The big question with the technologies aimed at gas and hybrid vehicles is whether the U.S. auto industry can reach the holy grail of a 55 MPG CAFE (fleet with 54.5 mpg). It's possible in theory with current technology but the big stumbling block is whether it can be done in a cost-effective manner (both on the production end and creating cars consumers are willing to buy). Tough questions which will get illuminated a little more to some extent in 2012. For more, see "How Do We Engineer Autos for 54.5 MPG?"
In many engineering workplaces, there’s a generational conflict between recent engineering graduates and older, more experienced engineers. However, a recent study published in the psychology journal Cognition suggests that both may have something to learn from another group: 4 year olds.
Conventional wisdom holds that MIT, Cal Tech, and Stanford are three of the country’s best undergraduate engineering schools. Unfortunately, when conventional wisdom visits the topic of best engineering schools, it too often leaves out some of the most distinguished programs that don’t happen to offer PhD-level degrees.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.