5
Carmakers invest in efficient gas-sipping cars
The Chevrolet Cruze Eco at the New York Auto International Show in New York City.
To view this content, Javascript must be enabled and Adobe Flash Player must be installed.
TEXT OF STORY
Kai Ryssdal: Crude closed lower in New York today, off about a percent and a half or so. But seeing as how oil prices are still in the triple digits, that's a little bit of false promise. Gas prices are higher as well.
All of which has people -- and carmakers -- interested in fuel efficiency once again. Marketplace's Alisa Roth reports they're finding it in a familiar place: the good old internal combustion engine.
Alisa Roth: Talk fuel-efficient vehicles and most people think hybrids, electrics or hydrogen cells. But alternative fuel vehicles only account for a tiny percentage of car sales. Carmakers know there's an easier way to improve fuel efficiency.
John Casesa's an investment banker who specializes in the auto industry.
John Casesa: The fastest, highest reward and lowest risk path to a cleaner car is the improvement of the internal combustion engine. And auto companies around the world continue to spend the preponderance of their R and D dollars on this.
He says a new take on the regular old gas engine vehicle can be a win-win. Carmakers don't have to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. And they're cheaper to produce, so car buyers can get better fuel economy for much less. The latest example is the compact Chevy Cruze Eco, which went on sale in January.
Chuck Russell is one of the car's engineers.
Chuck Russell: Strategy really was to get a great look and a well-equipped vehicle that got great fuel economy.
The new Cruze gets 42 miles per gallon. Engineers took the existing Chevy Cruze and made it lighter, more aerodynamic, and tweaked the design of the transmission and tires.
Russell: There isn't anything there that I would describe as rocket science. It's just been a very, very tactical pointed use of technology where it was necessary.
And with a base price of $17,000, the Cruze is certainly cheaper than GM's much-vaunted Volt, which starts at more than twice that.
I'm Alisa Roth for Marketplace.
Go to youtube and search "1989 Geo Metro Commercial" 58 mpg Hwy 53 mpg City. More than 20 years later 42 mpg does not impress me.
I do not know you guys, but fuel efficiency is just procrastination; I mean... oil will end soon. Spending efforts on that is a waste of time... talk me about EV, or ethanol, or biodiesel, or something like that. Car companies and Oil companies just do not understand...
The internal combustion engines and transmissions actually have been getting steadily more efficient for decades.
The problem is that the car companes have turned around and spent that new efficiency on bigger vehicles and more horsepower.
The Honda Civic is a good example. It just keeps getting bigger with more horsepower year after year, while the basic gas mileage of the vehicle has not changed very much in 20 years and in fact has even dropped a little on average because they eliminated the economical civic hatchback.
In terms of engines I think the electric motor with one moving part will be far less expensive to build and last longer. In addition electric cars can operate without a transmission. The downside to car companies is that income from repairs and parts will go down with electric motors.
The gasoline engine has hundreds of parts that can break down with regular replacement of timing belts, air filter, oil filter, gas filter, oil, radiator fluid, etc.
It's true that battery technology is not quite there, but if we are talking about the reduction of emissions then R&D into battery technology will bring far better long term results.
This story started out suggesting that it was about companies developing more fuel efficient internal combustion engines - and although there was a reference to car companies putting a lot of their R&D dollars into just that, the example of the new Chevy Cruz getting 42mpg is a result of everything BUT modifications to the engine itself - at least as far as what was presented on air. Felt like a bait and switch. Timing weight, aerodynamics and tire rolling resistance are all well and good, but those things just squeeze a few MPG rather than making a monumental leap.
