The Car the Automakers Can – and Should – Be Making
by Union of Concerned Scientists 
on 03. 5.07
Imagine cutting the amount of global warming pollution coming out of cars by over 40 percent – without using fuel cells, hybrid batteries or other state-of-the-art technology. Vehicles engineers at the Union of Concerned Scientists have done just that. By combining a suite of technologies including biofuels, improvements in engine efficiency and load reduction, already found piece-meal in over a hundred models from major manufacturers, UCS has designed a car that fights global warming and saves drivers money.
Cars using the Vanguard technology package would beat California’s global warming standards, which 10 other states of adopted. But instead of making the cars people want, automakers – led by their legal and lobbying group, the Auto Alliance – are trying to eliminate these clean car rules.
The Vanguard minivan design has eight key components – including improvements in the engine, transmission, air conditioner, fuel system, tires and aerodynamic design – that can be found piecemeal in more than 100 vehicle models on the road today. The Vanguard is not a hybrid. It uses conventional technology to achieve significant reductions in global warming pollution. For example:
- The Vanguard engine features variable valve timing, currently used in most Toyota and Honda models as well as many Ford vehicles, which better controls the flow of air and fuel into the engine, leading to more efficient combustion and improved performance.
- The Vanguard's six-cylinder engine can deactivate two cylinders when it requires less power, a feature currently found in 20 vehicle models.
- The minivan's "automatic manual" transmission electronically adjusts its six gears to increase performance and efficiency.
- Stronger hoses and tighter connections in the Vanguard's air conditioning system reduce the amount of concentrated global warming pollutants, called hydrofluorocarbons, which leak into the air. The minivan also uses a less-polluting refrigerant.
- The Vanguard is designed to run on either pure gasoline or a mixture of gasoline and as much as 85-percent ethanol. Using 85-percent corn-based ethanol can reduce global warming pollution from 10 percent to 30 percent. Using "cellulosic" ethanol could cut global warming pollution by as much as 90 percent. There are currently 32 types of flex-fuel vehicles on the road.
The Vanguard dismantles the automakers’ arguments, showing that conventional passenger vehicles can be clean, affordable and safe.
After you take a look at the Vanguard, tell the new president of the Auto Alliance, Dave McCurdy, that you want global warming solutions like the UCS Vanguard, not more spin and lawsuits.
Follow @TreeHugger on Twitter & get our headlines with @TH_rss!
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Focus Earth: May 23, 2009: New Fuel Standards and Hurricane Forecast
- 7 Ways the Troubled Automotive Industry Could Change Your Car and Your Commute
- Avoid Evaporating Gas: Park in the Shade and Buy Gas When it's Cool
- Does Your Car Qualify for the Federal 'Cash for Clunker' Program?
- Increase the Life of Your Car, Gas Mileage by Using The Correct Motor Oil
- 5 Reuses for: Watermelon
Hmm then they can buy Chrysler, retool the plants and show up all the auto companies.
Everything listed there is currently on the road today. Honda, Toyota, GM, etc all have variable valve timing engines, GM and Chrysler have engines which deactivate cylinders, I remember seeing a couple cars that have manual transmissions with computer controlled clutches to shift, every vehicle since the 90's uses the newer refrigerant and there are a lot of vehicles on the road today which can run on e85, sounds to me like its already been done.
That's exactly the UCS' point. Everything is already on the road. It's just not often found in a single vehicle, and there's no reason why most vehicles wouldn't have ALL these things.
I'll take one, but only if it's not a minivan. An Aveo-sized four-door hatch would be perfect for me.
How many MPG? That is the only true test. Some SUV's are only approved because they CAN run on e-85. Doesn't make them green.
The availability of ethanol is very low in the northeast. I think there might be one gas station selling it in a 20 mile radius (in an area of NJ with about 2-3 stations per square mile).
I wonder if the reason some of these technologies have not been combined into one car is because they are patented. The patent process is going to significantly slow down the hybrid market alone as Toyota rushes to shut out many of the technologies from other companies. Although patents are essential to justify investments in technoligy, it is going to be one reason hybrid technology creeps to a halt. The hybrid automobile technolgy alone is a minefield of problems for any automaker. There needs to be a group of autmakers that is formed that agrees that if they have technologies that are benefitial to the industry that they will be willing to "patent swap" ideas with others in the group to incorporate as many of these superior technologies in every vehicle manufactured. If an automaker does not want to join the group it needs to be made clear that they are not cooperating toward "total vehicle improvement". Cooperation is the only way to see "all" automakers strive for the greenest autos possible.
I'm guessing Foosfan has part of the picture: patented technology. I'm guessing the other problem is the green. Not the good green either. Bringing all those technologies together into one vehicle probably puts it out of the "reasonable" price range for consumer America. At 20K+ tag of the Prius is too high in my opinion -- you shouldn't have to pay for all the gas you're not going to buy when you buy a fuel efficient car.
I digress, designing a car is one thing, but actually brining the technologies together is another. The integration and manufacturing could cause unforeseen problems. Someone needs to build one, show its economically viable, and then turn to Big Automotive and say, "now what?"
I think it's a great idea, but money and marketing drive the average consumer, not the environment.
Patents are the ONLY way any thing gets done. They are really the key source of any company's profitability. Eventually, however, they expire, and then the technology is available to anyone for free. Any company can make an offer to license any patent too, although they have to pay, like Nissan did with Toyota's hybrid drive.
But it's pure capitalism. If people didn't get paid, they wouldn't do research, and our technologically centered world would collapse like a flan in a cupboard.
You can't really monkey with the patent regime, as patent rights are established in the Constituion, not statute. It's never gonna change. Nor would I want to monkey with it, just so people could drive cars as much as they want, affordably. You just don't screw with the Constitution for that.
The Founding Fathers were REALLY concerned that people otherwise wouldn't do research, and they were right. From this research we get medicine, computers, and all other good things.
There IS a solution, though. What you do is promote more government investment in research that the for-profit sector isn't interested in, like Carter did with Synfuels in the 70s. The patents that result from those that are available to anyone willing to license them for a fee set by law.
Before we screw with the patent system, we must experiment with raising taxes, imposing higher efficiency standards, mandating mass transit, anything rather than screw with the lifeblood of American brain power.
I certainly am in favor of patents, but I think they should be reformed and should last a lot less time. Back in the days of the steam engine and telegraph, a couple of decades were okay.. But in today's world, that's excessive. 7 years ago nobody had cellphones, 1 year ago Youtube didn't exist. Heck, 12 years ago almost nobody was on the internet and hard drives were around 100 megs. 20 years is too long and SLOWS innovation.
Lots of people buy cars that are a lot more expensvie than even hybrids, and lots of people in the US wish we had small cars with good quality and lots of features just like in Europe.
"Build it and they will come."
Where are these "lots of people" who are supposedly interested in small cars? The fact is, SUV and light truck sales still outstrip car sales in North America. So there may be people who express a casual interest in purchasing a tiny car, but the people who are actually *buying*, tend to buy trucks and SUVs.
http://www.bts.gov/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2006/html/figure_11.html
The problem is with a small scale combustion engine. The maximum efficiencies are in the realm of 30%. The far better option is the use the fossil fuels to generate electricity, which can attain 45+% efficiency (a 50% increase), then transmit the power with high voltage lines (losing about 7%), and store it in lithium ion batteries (loss of ~10%), then convert that to motion (loss of 5%). Overall you still have a net gain of 50-7-10-5 = 28%. And with a centralized generation plant, you can sequester carbon and virtually eliminate NOx emissions. You can also burn more than just fluid fuels. Add to that the facts that electric engines are virtually silent (eliminating noise pollution), accelerate better than fossil fuel engines, can recharge themselves while braking, and involve fewer moving parts, and it becomes apparent: The future isn't in fossils.
The future is electric.
Please,remember the automobile has been around for a century.Remember when we were all kids seeing them b&w movies of the year 2000 and those flying cars?I think the auto industry has been sitting on it's laurels for long enough!
Where quality and attractive small cars are offered, they are popular. But in the US, the only small cars available are usually cheap and crappy. Bring some of the fun to drive, well equipped European and Asian small cars over and things will improve..
I'd rather take a diesel variant, run it on Biodiesel, and go without the A/C - I live in Portland. =)