Auto Makers Still Expanding Options

posted at 11:58 am on April 29, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

The automobile industry remains in the unenviable position of being stuck between two competing and frequently conflicting market forces. On the one hand they have to provide consumers with a product that they want at a price they can afford. But at the same time they are at least partially subject to the whims of the government in terms of regulations and the secondary effects of government policy, such as skyrocketing gas prices. Combine this with a significant portion of the market that wants “green technology” for their cars, and what’s an industrial giant to do?

A good clue as to how they are reacting to these various forces can be seen again this year at the New York Auto Show. Along with the usual displays of concept cars, some of the next generation of offerings seem to indicate industry trends in response to consumer demands heading in two directions.

Auto Show

First, there is still a lot of demand for traditional, gasoline powered, internal combustion engine vehicles, but they are once again pushing ways to make them more economical and efficient. Some of these, like the Mazda 3 (pictured) and the newest Ford Fiesta have been streamlined to boast 40 mpg averages. In addition to leaner engines, Mazda is employing lighter weight, high tensile strength steel, cutting the vehicle’s weight by up to 8%, further cutting fuel consumption.

But there is apparently still a demand for more “green technology” cars, so they’re pushing a variety of hybrids, clean diesel engine models and all electric cars like the hybrid Chevy Volt and the all electric Nissan Leaf.

What’s not being pushed as much this year seems to be the alternative fuel vehicles which we heard more about a couple of years ago. These include hydrogen fueled cars and CNG (compressed natural gas) engines. The latter in particular is curious to me, since we’re still sitting on an ocean of natural gas here in America and the technology certainly exists to put it to work if we can get the infrastructure in place to allow drivers to refuel them.

Absent a serious change in US energy policy soon, gas prices aren’t going to be going back to traditional levels in the near future. This is going to continue to not only infuriate voters, but suppress travel and other investments. But I’ll give the auto industry credit for one thing. It’s hard to turn a ship that large on a dime, but they certainly seem to be trying to react to the conditions on the ground.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Those little cars are dangeorus. They need handles on the side for the pall bearors.

seven on April 29, 2011 at 12:05 PM

If it can’t cruise at 120 mph, and do 0 – 60 in less than 9 seconds, I’m not interested.

OldEnglish on April 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM

The ultimate regulation:

US citizens are prohibited from travelling more than 48 miles from their place of birth.

BobMbx on April 29, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I remember reading back in the early 2000s that President Bush had allocated over a billion to hydrogen research. Whatever came of that? Was it ever even spent?

WitchDoctor on April 29, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Ever seen one of those little ping pong balls after they got smacked by a full size vehicle?

novaculus on April 29, 2011 at 12:13 PM

Absent a serious change in US energy policy soon, gas prices aren’t going to be going back to traditional levels in the near future. This is going to continue to not only infuriate voters, but suppress travel and other investments. But I’ll give the auto industry credit for one thing. It’s hard to turn a ship that large on a dime, but they certainly seem to be trying to react to the conditions on the ground.

First off, we have plenty of oil supply within our borders. Second, Green Energy, green as in money, is being pushed to benefit Obama and the Progessives supporters, such as GE. Thirdly, Conditions on the Ground can be changed. We’re Americans. Not Europeans.

kingsjester on April 29, 2011 at 12:14 PM

I need a car that runs on coal and uranium so I won’t offend Gaia.

forest on April 29, 2011 at 12:14 PM

You can’t farm with these vehicles.
You can’t transport large amounts of people in them.
You cannot pull a stock trailer with them.
You cannot ship goods from coast to coast with them.
You cannot survive hitting a deer in them.
My horse can probably outrun one (clocked him at over 45mph once).
Here in ND a hybrid would never work bcs it’s so cold in the winter & the distances are longer to get anywhere.
WTF is wrong with these ba$tard$?!

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I want a car that runs on the same stuff that makes air ferns grow.

BobMbx on April 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM

If it can’t cruise at 120 mph, and do 0 – 60 in less than 9 seconds, I’m not interested.

OldEnglish on April 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Must have a six speed manual tranny! Not a “clutch car”.

marinetbryant on April 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM

I’d like to see CNG pushed extensively as part of a comprehensive energy plan aimed at eliminating our dependence on Middle East oil. Isn’t the lady from up north pushing a natural gas pipeline? Seems like they might go hand in hand.

CTSherman on April 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM

All part of the plan. Get gas to $5, $6, $10 a gallon and force everyone into driving econoboxes. Good luck with one of those in an accident. I’ll gladly pay a little more to drive my SUV knowing if I have a collision with a Mazda 3 I will walk away with a scratch or 2 while the occupants of the Mazda 3 may very well die.

angryed on April 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM

I thought all cars produced after 2008 were suppose to run on Hope & Change?

portlandon on April 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Here in ND a hybrid would never work bcs it’s so cold in the winter & the distances are longer to get anywhere.
WTF is wrong with these ba$tard$?!

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM

So move to the city you redneck racist.
– liberal

angryed on April 29, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Must have a six speed manual tranny! Not a “clutch car”.

marinetbryant on April 29, 2011 at 12:25 PM

Clutch and front-wheel drive – for corner braking and acceleration out.

OldEnglish on April 29, 2011 at 12:29 PM

So move to the city you redneck racist.
– liberal

angryed on April 29, 2011 at 12:27 PM

LMAO!
*locks & loads*
Make me liberals!

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:29 PM

I’m waiting for the first winter story about some Leaf or Volt owner freezing to death on their way to work.

GarandFan on April 29, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Anti-lock brakes suck, too.
I know how to use brakes.
Gimme the option of having them.
I want to stop when I’m going down a mud hill with 2 big round bales on the back of the pickup without the effing brakes doing nothing.
Meddling ba$tard$!

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM

The guy who invents a car that will run on flatulence will win the Nobel Prize.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM

I’m waiting for the first winter story about some Leaf or Volt owner freezing to death on their way to work.

GarandFan on April 29, 2011 at 12:31 PM

LOL!
I’m betting most Northa Dakotans are smart enough to not buy one.
But I have seen some hybrids.

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:33 PM

The ultimate regulation:

US citizens are prohibited from travelling more than 48 miles from their place of birth.

BobMbx on April 29, 2011 at 12:09 PM

….without government permission.

While I’m trying not to be a conspiracy theorist, I can’t figure out any other reason for all-electric cars. If you examine power production in depth, they are NOT more efficient than cars which use portable fuel: they require oil, gas, coal, or nuclear power…just not at the point of use. In addition to the non-portable power problem, there is the matter of large power losses due to transmission and TWO conversions: electricity to chemical (to battery), and chemical (from battery) to electricity. In addition, there is the “inconvenient truth” that the electrical grid CANNOT provide enough power to run a significant fleet of all-electric vehicles. And without portable power, how do you operate the tow trucks or bulldozers necessary to clear the highways in the event of an electric power failure??

Requiring plug-in to a stationary grid…all of which is centrally controlled by government…endangers both personal freedom AND national security: an enemy could simply take out a power plant, major transmission line, or control point and cripple ALL transportation…which in turn could cause food, medicine, and other critical supply shortages.

Our current fleet of portable fuel vehicles gives us tremendous national security for our way of life. Why would any sane person want to throw this away???

landlines on April 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM

The latter in particular is curious to me,

Dear leader Obama isn’t directing Government Motors to promote/produce them. Obama wants us all driving electric hybrids. Promoting natural gas vehicles would overshadow this effort of cars that run on electric and ethanol.

Plus, natural gas is a “clean” fuel alternative for running our electrical generation plants. Which is Obama’s other agenda, switching our coal fired plants to natural gas.

So, anyway, once we get all our corn production focused on ethonol, and natural gas generating electricity, we can all drive “clean” cars.

Not sure what we’re going to do for food and heat.

I suppose we switch from natural gas heat to electric?

And maybe some brilliant scientist will figure out a way for us to turn petroleum and coal into a food source.

I dunno. It’s all really crazy.

Lawrence on April 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Absent a serious change in US energy policy soon, gas prices aren’t going to be going back to traditional levels in the near future. This is going to continue to… suppress travel and other investments.

Øbama won’t change his policy because suppressing travel and energy development is his mission. Restricting energy development will drive us into electric clown cars and bullet trains by driving up gas prices and making travel otherwise unaffordable except for the rich. He won’t give more than lip service to natural gas and CNG because they are practical and doable, and would put the wind and solar boondoggles out of business.

He enforces his “green” economy on the backs of the very people he purports to represent, the poor and middle class

petefrt on April 29, 2011 at 12:40 PM

Guess my link is blocked. Whatevs.
Has anyone heard anything on the Brown’s Gas cars? (Running on water kits)

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM

So move to the city you redneck racist.
– liberal

angryed on April 29, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Exactly. In Libland, everyone lives in cities and the countryside belongs to the people government. Øbama’s policies are designed to ‘nudge’ us out.

petefrt on April 29, 2011 at 12:46 PM

I’ll gladly pay a little more to drive my SUV knowing if I have a collision with a Mazda 3 I will walk away with a scratch or 2 while the occupants of the Mazda 3 may very well die.

angryed on April 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM

Amen!!!

I fondly remember my ’72 Buick, which was rear-ended twice during the 25 years I owned it (for all I know, it’s still on the road). Both collisions totalled the offenders’ cars, while my Buick suffered only a slight dent in the trunk lid…and no functional damage whatsoever. A full 4000 pounds of comfort and safety…with a real 350 engine!

landlines on April 29, 2011 at 12:48 PM

If it can’t cruise at 120 mph, and do 0 – 60 in less than 9 seconds, I’m not interested.

OldEnglish on April 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=369h-SEBXd8

unclesmrgol on April 29, 2011 at 12:50 PM

Here’s a catchy new tag line that GM can use:

Chevy Volt. The world’s only all-electric vehicle that sometimes runs on an internal combustion engine.

Your welcome.

Cicero43 on April 29, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I need a car that runs on coal and uranium so I won’t offend Gaia.

forest on April 29, 2011 at 12:14 PM

I would prefer to have an automobile that runs on EnviroNazis…

oldleprechaun on April 29, 2011 at 12:53 PM

I still want my 1/2 ton pickup truck.

hawkman on April 29, 2011 at 12:53 PM

3/4 ton pickup truck. It will haul what other trucks will not haul.

IowaWoman on April 29, 2011 at 12:55 PM

WTF is wrong with these ba$tard$?!

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Short answer? They are NOT “Win The Future” ba$tard$,

they’re NationalSocialists!

(Sorry ’bout the WTF, I couldn’t help myself.)

oldleprechaun on April 29, 2011 at 12:55 PM

So move to the city you redneck racist.
– liberal

Some libtard was actually saying this on NRO’s Corner a few days ago. He actually called anyone who lived outside the city a “looter”.

He shut up real fast when I reminded him that since he could eat his high-rise he wouldn’t mind if we decided not to ship any food into his city.

SDN on April 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I would prefer to have an automobile that runs on EnviroNazis…

oldleprechaun on April 29, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Me too, so long as you don’t have to listen to them.

petefrt on April 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM

I sometimes wonder how long CNF cars will be on the road after the lawyers savage a company for the first explosion.

OBQuiet on April 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM

What happens when you try to start an electric car during a MN winter with temperatures below 10 degrees?

Nothing.

Danny on April 29, 2011 at 1:00 PM

If it can’t cruise at 120 mph, and do 0 – 60 in less than 9 seconds, I’m not interested.

OldEnglish on April 29, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I happily roll over 110 in my 09 Toyota Yaris 3-door on a regular basis, plus pulling ewies and weaving in and out of traffic is a snatch – parking, obv, is a cinch. Not recommended for drivers who aren’t paying attention, but few people ever push their cars anywhere near as fast as they’ll actually go – I’m not one of them (126 mph 2/9/09 I44 heh). Some people actually enjoy *driving* a vehicle, ya know.

Most of you will no doubt be appalled by such tomfoolery, but life goes on. The larger point being for all the mockery little cars get, they don’t roll over like SUVs and they get better mileage, even when blazing more than 100.

Yep, if you hit me with your Excurision, I’m gonna be in trouble – at least I’ll know that your insurance premiums will skyrocket for the rest of your life and assuming I live I can pay off my house. I hope that cockiness remains when you rearend someone at a high speed because you were jacking around on your Android marveling at how grand life is and nearly kill the person in front of you. It happens every day, and the cocoon of safety that so many SUV driver’s buy turns into the sensory deprivation chamber that regularly hurts other drivers.

I like a lot of SUVs, just not an SUV guy myself – I like going *fast*. Nice thing about a free market is we can all make our choices, for now at least. Safe driving, people.

elcapt on April 29, 2011 at 1:01 PM

All part of the plan. Get gas to $5, $6, $10 a gallon and force everyone into driving econoboxes. Good luck with one of those in an accident. I’ll gladly pay a little more to drive my SUV knowing if I have a collision with a Mazda 3 I will walk away with a scratch or 2 while the occupants of the Mazda 3 may very well die.

angryed on April 29, 2011 at 12:26 PM

In my Mazda 3, I once witnessed an Excursion going down the freeway on its roof. I have no idea whether the driver walked away without a scratch, but he did stay in his lane.

As for my 3, it stayed on its wheels.

unclesmrgol on April 29, 2011 at 1:03 PM

But there is apparently still a demand for legislation forcing manufacturers to sell more “green technology” cars or face massive fines, so they’re pushing…

 
Fixed.

rogerb on April 29, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Guess my link is blocked. Whatevs.
Has anyone heard anything on the Brown’s Gas cars? (Running on water kits)

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:41 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown%27s_Gas

The amount of energy needed to make “Brown’s Gas” from water is greater than the energy obtained by “burning” it due to inefficiencies in the manufactory apparatus.

unclesmrgol on April 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM

Oh, and:
 

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe”
 
- Steven Chu, Obama’s Energy Secretary

rogerb on April 29, 2011 at 1:14 PM

While I’m trying not to be a conspiracy theorist, I can’t figure out any other reason for all-electric cars.

landlines on April 29, 2011 at 12:38 PM

This is about environmentalists wanting to eliminate fossil fuel pollution which is supposedly changing our environment and killing our planet.

It has very little to do with anything else. As far as they are concerned we should all buy a horse, or ride a bicycle.

They are allowing electric hybrids solely for the purpose of avoiding open revolt.

Lawrence on April 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM

WTF is wrong with these ba$tard$?!

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 12:19 PM

They all live in a metropolis such as LA, DC, or NYC where no one goes over 10 MPH due to traffic jams and figure that’s how the rest of us live.

teke184 on April 29, 2011 at 1:38 PM

He shut up real fast when I reminded him that since he could eat his high-rise he wouldn’t mind if we decided not to ship any food into his city.

SDN on April 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM

If I didn’t have obligations to the bank, I wouldn’t sell my calves every fall & just sell it to other country dwellers.
Let them starve & then see what happens.

It has very little to do with anything else. As far as they are concerned we should all buy a horse, or ride a bicycle.

Lawrence on April 29, 2011 at 1:30 PM

Horses would then be licensed & regulated.
You’d probably have to obtain their permission to ride them.
‘Course this would get rid of a lot of stupid people.
Horse accident fatalities were very common back when.

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 2:31 PM

They all live in a metropolis such as LA, DC, or NYC where no one goes over 10 MPH due to traffic jams and figure that’s how the rest of us live.

teke184 on April 29, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Yes I know & it is disgusting to me.
Wish I could educate more liberals about real life.
Have them live here on the ranch for one year so they would know.

Badger40 on April 29, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Re ‘water car’, I had a water torch once, operated by breaking water into oxygen and hydrogen, which was burned to make the flame. For a stationary torch, it made sense, but in a vehicle it wouldn’t, due to very heavy weight, the need for distilled water, the continual fouling of the posts and maintenance issues, and need for external power.

They can legislate all they want, let them try repealing the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Fools.

jodetoad on April 29, 2011 at 2:34 PM

The ultimate regulation:

US citizens are prohibited from travelling more than 48 miles from their place of birth.

BobMbx on April 29, 2011 at 12:09 PM

-
Make it retroactive and you’ve got a deal… ‘Barry to Hawaii… er Kenya… what’ever. Just get the hell outta the WH.’

RalphyBoy on April 29, 2011 at 3:19 PM

But there is apparently still a demand for more “green technology” cars, so they’re pushing a variety of hybrids, clean diesel engine models and all electric cars like the hybrid Chevy Volt and the all electric Nissan Leaf.

-
That’s right… Keep the “green” thing in quotes. There is no proof that hybrids or electrics are “green”. The batteries are not “green”… and the energy has to come from somewhere… which could even be the dirtiest generation plant on the planet…
-
But hey… Let’s trash the entire economy changing over to the unicorn of “green”…
-
BTW… I work in the battery industry (Lith-ion mostly). I just saw the most bizarre waste of money ever the other day. When I questioned why the company that made the parts would do so using the most wasteful method possible I was told that they wanted to see what it looked like going with that method. It was an inside surface that no one would ever see again after final assembly. Me thinks a brother-in-law needed a few days overtime on that job.
-

RalphyBoy on April 29, 2011 at 3:33 PM

I think the push for econo-box deathtraps is the result of N-stage thinking about solutions to the Medicare and SS funding problems. i.e. ‘If only we could get more seniors in these little cars…’

sirnapsalot on April 29, 2011 at 4:31 PM

Nanny state speed limit laws are providing cover for the fact that none of these alternative vehicles actually have performance on par with gasoline engines.

Resolute on April 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM

I would prefer to have an automobile that runs on EnviroNazis…

oldleprechaun on April 29, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Me too, so long as you don’t have to listen to them.

petefrt on April 29, 2011 at 12:58 PM

That’s what mufflers are for…

landlines on April 29, 2011 at 5:54 PM

Having been smashed in the drivers-side by a loaded dumptruck (he was dodging an imminent head-on collision, no points, no tickets), I hereby attest that this “Oh small cars are just coffins without handles”, meme is bunk.

Quicker, nimbler, more responsive than SUV’s and pickups they are NOT the ‘tin cans’ of days gone by. I have ‘driven out’ of more bad situations by dint of these maneuverability attributes than I can count.

My old F-150 was eating me alive in fuel, insurance and repairs, while the Scion Xb I moved into saved me enough dough to buy a house.

Replacement of the rear bumper on the Ford after a minor accident? $1600.
Replacement of all the sheet metal on the left side of the Scion? $1445.

Oh! And I drove away from the accident. No frame damage, injury or even airbag deployment. It’s my only car to this day.

You can drive a cast-iron pig, a light, sporty car or a motorcycle. It’s your choice, and there are up- and down-sides to each.

For me? Keeping as much dough in my wallet as is practicable and safe is the key. I need to get to work, pick up the groceries, and make short trips.

You need to haul cinderblocks, and tow a 2-ton trailer? Small is not for you, and I do NOT question your judgement in your choice of vehicles.

Just quit parroting this small car rubbish and claiming a halo for doing so.

heldmyw on April 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM

Sorry guys, but I reviewed the Mazda3 for The Truth About Cars and it’s a great car (other than that goofy yet sinister grin). The steering is superb, perfectly weighted, and the car handles very nicely. It can easily do 0-60 in less than 9 seconds (the Mazda6 with the V6 can do it in less than 6) and while I didn’t take up over 100, there’s no reason why it can’t cruise at extralegal speeds all day long.

Frankly I’m disappointed at how many ignorant statements about cars my fellow right-wingers are making. I like small cars, I like big cars, I just like cars period.

The car companies would be researching alternative fuels even if Washington wasn’t pushing EVs. It’s their business to be ahead of the curve.

As for those who dismiss the Volt because in a few limited situations the combustion engine provides motive power, it’s no big deal. You’re ignoring just how great a job the engineers did on that car. TTAC is known for its criticism of the domestic automakers, particularly General Motors. The site’s founder, Robert Farago was the first person to predict GM’s bankruptcy. Still, my editor, Ed Niedermeyer, gave the Volt a fairly positive review (disappointing some of our readers who won’t give Detroit a break). It’s a very impressive piece of engineering.

rokemronnie on April 29, 2011 at 11:00 PM

Nanny state speed limit laws are providing cover for the fact that none of these alternative vehicles actually have performance on par with gasoline engines.

Resolute on April 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM

And you say that based on what?

The Volt is actually quicker to 60 mph than the Chevy Cruze (the Volt is based on the Cruze platform) and it handles better (the battery puts weight low in the car which lowers the center of gravity). I say that based on tests of the cars by people that I know personally. While I haven’t driven the Volt, I have ridden in it, two of my editors have driven it, and a cousin of mine recently took delivery of a new one (he’s an early adopter of new tech and has the money to indulge that passion). As I said above, speaking strictly about the Volt as a car (not about the $7000 tax credit or CAFE or anything else, just the car) it’s a very impressive piece of engineering.

The truth is that electric motors have maximum torque at stall. That means they’re potentially much faster from a dead stop than a car powered with a combustion engine that creates maximum torque at much higher RPM.

BTW, there’s a startup called Ecomotors that will start production on their OPOC (opposed piston, opposed cylinder) engine in the next couple of years. It weighs 300 lbs and puts out 300 HP and close to 500 lb/ft of torque (it’s a diesel, hence the high torque), from a very compact design. The company is backed by Bill Gates and Vinod Khosla and their engine works. I saw what was effectively generation 5.5 (Gen V external parts, Gen VI internal parts) of the motor running on a dyno. The design is inherently balanced with very low friction (there are only two main crankshaft bearings and swept area is lowered to reduce friction) and it’s the smoothest running engine I’ve ever seen. You could do the mythical Rolls-Royce stand a coin on its edge trick easily. A beaker of water on top of the running engine has no ripples. Gen VI is on the dyno now and next they’ll be making the production motor.

The combustion engine is far from dead but there are also very good reasons why car companies should devote some resources and research to alternative power sources.

Long before their was a bailout, in fact long before there was a President Obama, in the mid 1960s General Motors made a couple of EV concepts based on the Corvair, and a fuel cell powered van. My colleague at Cars In Depth, Marty Densch, wrote a couple of articles to accompany 3D photos and video I shot at the General Motors Heritage Center, GM’s corporate car collection.

You can read about the Electrovair II here and the Electrovan here.

rokemronnie on April 29, 2011 at 11:24 PM

The guy who invents a car that will run on flatulence will win the Nobel Prize.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on April 29, 2011 at 12:32 PM

If we could generate electricity from flatulence, Michael Moore and Rosie O’Donut would be precious national energy resources. They still wouldn’t be able to generate the power to trundle their own bulk around, though.

Random Numbers (Brian Epps) on April 29, 2011 at 11:47 PM

heldmyw on April 29, 2011 at 6:22 PM

I just like to be on the winning side when two colliding bodies meet. The Newtonian representation of this event is:

M1*V1 = M2*V2

You can’t cheat M*V: If you haven’t got the M (mass), you’ll definitely get the V (velocity at which you are thrown asunder until slowed by an even larger object).

Note that Einstein’s correction to classical Newtonian mechanics will not help you in this case: all it can do is assure that you will be a few picoseconds younger when you expire at high velocity than if you had been driving a larger vehicle.

:)

Each to his own.

landlines on April 30, 2011 at 11:34 AM

Some choose SUV’s that can drive through a brick wall. Some of choose fast and nimble sports cars that those SUVs could never catch to hit in the first place. This is a different question then the green police that would force us to drive in slow cars made of marshmellow that get 90 miles to the gallon.

This argument jumped the shark because Mazda and Land Rover are pretty much on the same end of the political spectrum.

Resolute on April 30, 2011 at 12:12 PM