1956 Ford Fairlane on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Big electric trucks won't save the planet, says the NYT

When The New York Times decides that an issue is an issue, be prepared to read about it at length. Rarely will a week passes these days when the esteemed news organization doesn’t examine the realities, myths and alleged benefits and drawbacks of electric vehicles, and even The Atlantic joins in sometimes. That revolution, marked by changes in manufacturing, consumer habits and social “consciousness,” may in fact be upon us. Or it may not. Nonetheless, the newspaper appears committed to presenting to the public these pros and cons. In this recently published article titled, “Just How Good for the Planet Is That Big Electric Pickup Truck?”—wow, thatÂ’s a mouthful — the Times focuses on the “bigness” of the current and pending crop of EVs, and how that impacts or will impact the environment and road safety. This is not what news organizations these days are fond of calling “breaking news.” In October, we pointed to an essay in The Atlantic that covered pretty much the same ground, and focused on the Hummer as one particular villain, In the paper and online on Feb. 18, the Times' Elana Shao observes how “swapping a gas pickup truck for a similar electric one can produce significant emissions savings.” She goes on: “Take the Ford F-150 pickup truck compared with the electric F-150 Lightning. The electric versions are responsible for up to 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions per mile.” But she right away flips the argument, noting the heavier electric pickup trucks “often require bigger batteries and more electricity to charge, so they end up being responsible for more emissions than other smaller EVs. Taking into consideration the life cycle emissions per mile, they end up just as polluting as some smaller gas-burning cars.” Certainly, itÂ’s been drummed into our heads that electric cars donÂ’t run on air and water but on electricity that costs money, and that the public will be dealing with “the shift toward electric SUVs, pickup trucks and crossover vehicles, with some analysts estimating that SUVs, pickup trucks and vans could make up 78 percent of vehicle sales by 2025." No-brainer alert: Big vehicles cost more to charge. And then thereÂ’s the safety question, which was cogently addressed in the Atlantic story. Here Shao reiterates data documenting the increased risks of injuries and deaths caused by larger, heavier vehicles.

Nuclear-powered concept cars from the Atomic Age

In the 1950s and early 60s, the dawn of nuclear power was supposed to lead to a limitless consumer culture, a world of flying cars and autonomous kitchens all powered by clean energy. In Europe, it offered the then-limping continent a cheap, inexhaustible supply of power after years of rationing and infrastructure damage brought on by two World Wars.
The development of nuclear-powered submarines and ships during the 1940s and 50s led car designers to begin conceptualizing atomic vehicles. Fueled by a consistent reaction, these cars would theoretically produce no harmful byproducts and rarely need to refuel. Combining these vehicles with the new interstate system presented amazing potential for American mobility.
But the fantasy soon faded. There were just too many problems with the realities of nuclear power. For starters, the powerplant would be too small to attain a reaction unless the car contained weapons-grade atomic materials. Doing so would mean every fender-bender could result in a minor nuclear holocaust. Additionally, many of the designers assumed a lightweight shielding material or even forcefields would eventually be invented (they still haven't) to protect passengers from harmful radiation. Analyses of the atomic car concept at the time determined that a 50-ton lead barrier would be necessary to prevent exposure.

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.