Finally, one of the Big-3 may have seen the light and may produce lighter vehicles. It is an intelligent way to reduce the energy required to move the vehicle. Why use a 4000+ lbs vehicle to move one person around? The technologies required to make lighter vehicles are all there. Moulded plastic, re-enforced with wood derived cristaline cellulose powder, could replace steel panels. Aluminium alloy frames could replace steel frames etc.

Future EVs must weight much less than current ICE vehicles.

What I find most interesting here is how Ford’s top executives now clearly say they do not believe in hydrogen as an auto fuel. This is the first time I have seen such a frank rejection of hydrogen among top executives for any of the global automakers.

I have also noticed that those automakers that started to make some serious development effort on battery EVs and range extended EVs at around 2008 (including GM, Ford, Nissan, Renault, BMW and Mercedes Benz) those automakers have accelerated and expanded their efforts in 2010. It is as if they have discovered that EVs are not only doable it is also fairly easy to make fast progress in the development of their motors, power electronics, batteries and accessories, such as, heat pumps, servo steering and braking systems.

In ten years from now we may very well look back at what happened from 1995 to 2020 and conclude that the entire global auto industry wasted some 20 years of development resources for hydrogen vehicles from 1995 to 2015 only to discover that pure battery EVs and ICE range extended EVs took the entire market for low to zero emission vehicles because they were less expensive to produce than fuel cell vehicles and because they got supported by an all inclusive fast charging/battery swapping infrastructure by 2020.

Ever had to lift a base luxury model leatherseat with 4 electric motors from your average middle class family saloon?
I can tell you It's a result of some fantastic advances in tyre construction that they dont go -pop- under the strain.
But If Mr and Mrs Average consumer , and little Jonny are weighing in at 2X my generation, I can sympathise that supersize wheelchairs, cars clothes, shoes and lifting cranes are as much a necessity to life as a couple of slabs of soft drink (for energy)

That cars weigh heavy with all the you beaut you need it distractions and gadjets to allow us to expand our supersize lives into the petrol bowser or EV, that can barely do around the block twice without stopping fo a breather. Should come as no suprise.

I rather like the Lotus Auminum/cabon composite 1 liter and a bit capacity road rockets that eat the heavyweight sports tanks for breakfast in a race and do it all will sipping quietly on an occasional martini of fuel.

Do you too think Ford should go back to the model A/T/ to learn some facts about basics?

Cars are 1-2000 lbs heavier than they were 30 years ago because they are bigger, faster, safer, don't rattle and don't break down - and fuel was cheap. They also have far better road holding and braking, and loads of electric gadgets.

Also, as engines got better, this was used to keep the fuel consumption going off the scale.

Now we are getting serious about fuel economy, the engineers can start to get the weight out of the cars.

This is an all-way bet as you get the benefits irrespective of what engine technology you use (but especially energy limited electrical power).

It seems like a no-brainer: once the big companies get serious about weight saving you will see the pounds come off (in 3-5 years).

p.s. I wouldn't like to have a crash in either a Model-T, old mini or VW Bug.

Let's see...

Model T. No starter, no fuel pump, no heater, no AC, no roll up windows, no windshield wipers, no adjustable seats, no crash cage, no air bags, flimsy bumpers, vastly underpowered (small, light motor).

Early Bug. No AC, no crash cage, flimsy bumpers, vastly underpowered (small, light motor), no air bags, no cooling system.

That's what I recall off-hand....

The idea that someone over the age of about 12, would actually believe auto makers did not (and do not) FULLY understand that less weight can provide better mpg is surreal.

Do you think they have not done weight/cost tradeoffs for hundreds of parts each year for at least the last 30 years?

If you have no idea why cars are 1,000-2,000lbs heavier than they were 30 years ago, you probably think carbon composite is what they use in pencils.

They are not going to make consumers pay for weight reduction. -
They will determine how much they can spend on light weight materials and still keep the price in line; and HOPE consumers will not just buy the cheaper, heavier competition.
Life is tough; It's even tougher if you don't work for the government.

It is always a good time for specialty vehicles, for those with more money than sense.

Lotus did, and does, offer a variety of super-light, very fast car models, but contrary to what you hear, they rarely outperform an American sedan - rarely, because they are very rare; they haven’t sold many – no market. A bit like the EV1. Every car maker in the whole world does not sell such cars in any quantity.
And ALL of them believe that mass producing such cars is futile, all of them.

You really think Ford should go back to the model A/T/ to learn some facts about basics? Somebody should, not Ford, they are almost a century beyond that.

How about the aluminum, 1850 lb. Insight 1 that Honda killed, or the 2890 lb Prius driving around now; someone should tell them that if they used carbon composite etc, they would weigh much less and these people here would pay the $180k they would cost ($100k, if made in volume).

Once the big companies get serious about talking about weight saving you will hear a lot more talk about weight saving.

Let's not forget the BIGGER delusion that more people would fit in a Suburban than a Corolla.
The result is that many here believe they were brainwashed – I’m not sure they are not right, but I wasn’t.

I think this explains their desire to pay higher taxes.

The junk-fast food industry does not sell big cars.

Yes, push affordable weight reduction and use it in parallel on ICE and EV models.

Actually, I doubt that families buy Suburban's as opposed to Sienna's because of their slightly bigger seating capacity. (Besides most families can't fill either car and even they could, these cars are still mostly driven around with one occupant.)

In any case: Car companies could be supported in their weight reduction efforts, if income taxes where reduced in favor of healthy gas taxes...

Typical 'Big 3' gas mileage remained(s) 20 something mpg for a hundred years, burned away most accessible(cheap) oil, polluted our cities, and gets defended?

Concern about our auto safety? How much does a seatbelt weigh, an air bag? Yet these, like CAFE MPG levels, were fought by US automakers spending $billions and the implementation stalled for decades.

The 926 lb. 2008 Toyota 1/X example I cited gets 100 mpg and meets US safety standards. 1980's Honda Civics got over forty mpg. Yet decades of 4,000 lb. 15 mpg tanks normally moving under 400 lbs are being defended as typical, highly efficient, modern individual transportation in these comments.

If electronics stalled/refused/generated new technology like US automakers, we'd still be marketed "the latest 8 track players" - fifty years later.

Apparently, if sufficiently marketed, many would still stand in line for those 'newest' models.

I suspect that the battery EV market will be a major contributor to progress in the lightweighting field, for the simple reason that while a heavy car with a 25 kWh battery might get a 100 mile range, the lightweighted version might get 140 miles range.

The customer would likely pay a reasonable premium for the extra range, and it may be cheaper to do this by lightweighting than by adding extra battery capacity.

"NO. They chose big cars - freely."

Bigger doesn't have to mean heavier. The 2011 Elantra weighs 2700 lb. and has a more interior(mid-size) space than a 3300 lb Cruze compact at a lower price and 40 mpg.

"I fear that the next gas crisis will result in less corrective action than the last (if that’s even possible)." Disagree.

It's been about 2.5 years since 2008 $4/gal. gas. Instead of historically dropping alternate energy investment after OPEC sets a year+ of cheaper gas, SERIOUS alternate energy investment and research continues. Electric vehicles are finally openly sold and even being praised.

The problem is, even the blind knew this serious oil replacement effort should have been ongoing ever since OPEC proved they could jack gas prices by a factor of three or more ever since their 1973 oil embargo.

Instead, those firms claiming to serve the transportation needs of their customers crushed alternatives(particularly viable EVs, battery patents, light rail, ..) and promoted multi-ton teen mileage SUVs instead.

Some say such leadership merits prison terms and pension forfeitures, besides any market bankruptcies. Thirty or more years seems a long time to have accidentally harmed the public interest.

Sonata weights less and does 50 mpg

Maybe it gets 50 mpg at 50 mph on the highway, but who wants to do that? Is it even rated at 40 mpg EPA highway yet? Better to compare using EPA ratings IMHO...

While we at this reasonably thorough teardown,

Aerodynamics: Sadly often results in either very flat glass that adds enormously to the heat uptake/ loss depending on climate. We wind the windows up to get the air drag savings and end upn with as quoted yesterday by the Taxi (Toyota tarago Wheel chair access van)

"I get 600 k per tank, Always drive with strong aircon, and get 280KLms,"

Thats an easy 33% fuel penalty in city driving.
~ > $ 20.00 Au per shift.

It has been well documented that high pressure intake low pressure outlets work fine for radiaters for engine cooling. Why dont the 'know it alls' at the big 3 big 3- 10 Auto makers give a rats?

If the glass could be positioned to reduce heat gain and loss, even at some small CD loss, we could reduce some of that ~30% aircon (junk machine technology) losses.

But that would mean staying with and evolving incremental changes to an enigmatic unfashionable -but entirely practical lifesaving, nation saving concept.

Now that just wouldn't do.

The car makers are more comfortable with biannual model releases, high cost of spare parts inventory, some new fashioned trinket to flog to the usual rich idle minded "zombie like " customers that seem to appear in droves after rain.

Hey why hold back and apologise for the pathetic state of consumer led destruction that most of the planets inhabitants are experiencing?
Lets not forget it affects people as well.

The US should thank Europe and Japan and CAFE.
As Kelly pointed out, when gas hit $4/gal everyone cared about gas mileage.
Once the price dropped again, everyone in the US forgot about it.
This did not happen in Europe where there was already a load of Tax on fuel - we went from expensive to very expensive.
Then the EU made <130 gms CO2 a fleet wide limit.
The taxes and CO2 limit created a permanent push for more efficient cars that was(is) not dependent on the price of oil. (CAFE also does this, but to a lesser extent).
Now the car manufacturers had a clear, permanent goal: get CO2, (and hence fuel consumption) down.
And they did (and are doing) it.
All the big 3 have links to the European manufacturers (Ford, Opel and Fiat, for instance) and hence they can surf behind the ideas coming out of Europe.
Better again (as in the case with Ford, when they start contributing ideas back from the US to Europe.

Anyway, lets see where they are when oil hits $147 this time. (Which it will, due to demand from China and India).