While everyone’s heard the jokes about the USA being the land of the monster truck, it’s not until you actually go there and wander round a shopping mall carpark that you appreciate just how gargantuan the average American family vehicle is. The typical American car isn’t a car at all, it’s a Ford F-150 SuperCrew, a 2500 kg behemoth. They’re terrible to drive, by all reports, and get about 13mpg – or, if you like, use 18 litres for every 100 kilometres driven. But, since 2001, sales of “light-duty trucks” of this ilk have exceeded total sales of passenger cars in the United States, helped not only by cheap fuel but a collection of tax write-offs that encouraged their purchase.
But maybe, just maybe, that trend is reversing. According to Green Car Congress, sales of passenger cars are growing, while sales of light trucks are plummeting. For the second month in a row, sales of cars have been higher than those of trucks. General Motors has cancelled a shift at its SUV and pickup truck plants. Meanwhile, gasoline consumption in the USA has actually reduced in 2008 compared to 2007. While the general recession in the United States is a major contributor, it’s probably not the entire explanation.
One final fuel-related link. Robert Rapier is a noted skeptic towards biofuels, particularly anything ethanol-related. But he’s been impressed by Choren, a German company that uses an entirely different approach to making fuels from biomass – essentially, turn it into “wood-gas”, and then convert the wood-gas into diesel using the existing Fisher-Tropsch process (which has been used for 50 years to make fuel from coal. He has a lengthy post on his visit to the plant.
Do Australian tariffs still favour 4WDs over sedans? 5% v 10%?
Last link broken. This isn’t about cellulosic ethanol?
wilful: I think – assuming that the Bracks review of the automotive industry doesn’t jack up tariffs again – that tariffs for passenger cars and 4WDs will be equalized at 5% by 2010.
I’ve also fixed the link. Choren produces synthetic diesel, chemically all-but-identical to the real thing. It’s a thermochemical process, not biological. No microbes involved.
The greatest problem with biofuel is the diversion of food crops, corn in particular, for fuel for cars and trucks. The problem is mainly in the US, and it comes down mainly to the smirking chimp himself.
silkworm, have another read. This isn’t biofuels.
the blog psot cleared up a few things. 68 000 tonnes of woodchips creates fuel for 15 000 cars, and 50 MW. Victoria could easily supply 6.8M tonnes of woodchips from a mix of plantation and native forests, providing fuel for 1.5M cars (almost our entire fleet?) and 5 GW (most of our electricity?), without massive changes in policy settings. The only killer would be having to build the plants relatively close to the fuelstock.
There are many things American made going unsold. In a very recent conversation (this morning) I was told that a manufacturer of very expensive US refrigerators is holding massive stocks of unsold product. Probably a good indication of all over performance. America tends to make the big stuff and import the small stuff, so in the current climate this can lead to a dramatic flip not unlike what we are all worried about with climate. The problem with American industry is that they think big and act big, and when it all comes down around their ears they lobby big. And the government invariably folds and props up these monstrosities simply to disguise the governemnt’s lack of guidence and to prevent massive loss of economic performance. This should be market forces at work but instead it becomes the exact opposite, despite the US’s contrary preachings to every other economy in similar circumstances to where they are now headed.
As an aside have a look at:
https://matteranenergy.us/
view the animation.
It’s not until you go there that you realise just how gargantuan the american family is (and Australians are just as bad i.e. fat). Americans have always loved big, flashy vehicles and every time they take a turn towards “economy” cars, it turns out to be a temporary blip: think the 1970s and the Honda Civic, or the 1980s and the Chrysler K-car. Every time oil gets too expensive, the big cars and trucks get dumped but it only has to come back 20% for those monsters to start rolling out of US factories again (even Toyota builds a big truck for US consumption and the LandCruiser is profligate in every way). Having said that, my avatar is just one of those monsters from an earlier time, and I love driving it when I can afford to put fuel in it. Big, creamy, burbling US V8’s are just plain fun. Irresponsible, tyre chirping, fuel guzzling, neighbour annoying fun, but fun in a way that some sober economy cars just aren’t.
David Rubie
Are the hubcaps decorated with baby seal skins, as in the old “I’m an A**hole!” song?
Apologies David,
it was whaleskin hubcaps
http://www.metrolyrics.com/im-an-asshole-lyrics-dennis-leary.html
On my way back from shopping this afternoon, I happened to pass our local primary school right on 3.30. There were about 40 cars lined up outside, and almost half of them were 4WDs/SUVs.
As an educated guess I would say that almost all of the 4WD drivers were young mothers whose husbands had driven to work in the other car, which would be a slightly more efficient car, but nevertheless, a family car.
I think I know what I am talking about. I have two brothers, both with large families, and both of them have 4WDs, and both of them have more than one car. The 4WDs are clearly designed for the comfort of larger families, and I can only say, as an environmentalist, that this is how traditional Catholicism (my brothers were both married to Catholics at the time of purchasing the 4WDs), with its push for larger families, has contributed indirectly, but nevertheless substantially, to our greater environmental problems.
further to Wilful’s post @ 1.43, there’s a company in central Victoria working on this. http://www.gasificationaustralia.com/
Ambigulous, sadly my Jeep does not have whale skin hubcaps, but in it’s defense if I ever got 13mpg in the old money, I’d have a little party. It’s never broken 20l/100km even with a new carburettor. Thankfully for the world in general, it has a broken back window that is apparently irreplaceable (still working on that) and rusted heater for which I have a brand new core but no time to fit.
I drove little european cars and japanese cars for years until I bought this thing. I can really see the appeal of a giant f*ck-off vehicle, even if I don’t drive it all the time. It gets the attention of other drivers, small children point at it, traffic stops. If the roads were full of them, the appeal would be greatly diminished (as it is in the US) but here, it’s like the 4 Desert Duellers of the Apocalypse on their way to pick up the groceries, and nothing says “look at me” quite like having a car you literally have to climb up to and which is so loud it sets off car alarms in shopping centre car parks. Who knows why being anti-social is so much fun, but occasionally you just have to go with it.
Motorcycle, David. All of the anti-social value or more, a fraction of the expense.
(My one-cylinder, one-wheel drive gets around 4-5L/100km and wonderful neighbourhood disapproval).
Go David! Nice to live in a country where you can drive the thing if you want to.
The issue ignored in the main post is that across much of the US, pick-up trucks are used in the manner they were designed to be, a thoroughly utilitarian light truck which can also be used as a domestic vehicle. They are built to truck specifications, not car specifications. This makes them simple and cheap to make. They use no exotic materials until you get to the slick city versions and even there it’s flash and trim.
That city dwellers buy tarted up versions and do not use the vehicle as designed is their issue. Same thing with Toorak tractors here.
Wander out to the US id-west, or head into small-town Pennsylvania or Maryland, Vermont or Maine, and you will see these things everywhere, and a heck of a lot of them have full cargo beds. Everything from livestock to furniture to hay to firewood. The oddest load I have ever seen in one was a very large bear, the result of a successful hunting expedition, I assumed at the time.
Either that or Uncle Fred was inside it and they were going to get him out!
MarkL
Canberra
MarkL wrote:
I’m not sure I want to be in the business of telling people what they should be driving – the fundamental problem I see is that for a family, the old-style 1970s-1980s station wagon was so unappealing that the 4wd inherited that role by default. Back when the trend started, they even had less import duty on them (that’s been fixed now, but the legacy remains). I love my truck (it even has a name: Gaston) but I’m on my bicycle for commuting or I fire up a ratty Alfa 164 instead. I’d be lucky to use the beast once a week. In fact, moving from the city to a small town we reduced our fuel bill from $500 a month to $50 and fuel has increased by a third in price in that time.
Liam, I agree a motorcycle would be an environmentally friendly way to give society the finger, but you can’t fetch a load of wood in one or move building material, so it’s out.
I’m not sure exactly why we aren’t offered the same small people movers that the europeans get (little, diesel powered, huge inside). Surely there’d be a market for them if the macho image of the LandCruiser can be parodied in Territory ads.
Robert, good to see you reading Robert Rapier’s blog.
RE: Reduced gasoline usage in the US, Jeff Vail argues there is no significant demand destruction and that year-on-year gasoline consumption actually increased in the week after your Kansas City story was written.
Also, there was an interesting interview with Joe Stiglitz on Lateline last night where Tony Jones uttered the words “Hubbert’s Peak”.
Wandering round the new cars at the local expo, I did notice that the new Landcruiser had a little fuel consumption sticker that claimed 10.8l/100km….so improving I guess over previous incarnations. That said, the (work) Commodore I drive regularly on a 400km round trip delivers poorer fuel consumption than the one I drove 4 yeasr ago.
Personally, i don’t feel too bad driving the Prado around – with 5 of us inside it’s fuel efficient on a per capita basis!
Yeah that would be the diesel. According to the Toyota website the petrol engine uses 14.5L/100km and the diesel uses 10.3L/100km.
Oh and the diesel has almost the same power (195kW vs 202kW) but more than 50% more torque (650Nm vs 410Nm).
Is it any surprise that diesels now dominate the most advanced car market in the world (Europe) where fuel prices are higher than just about anywhere.
Sorry Robert, but I won’t keep banging on about this.