There has been so much in the news lately about a new era of automobiles prompted by growing concerns over air pollution and global warming, the average motorist has to wonder: What kinds of vehicles are we going to see in showrooms?
The answer from many experts, for the short term at least, is few of us will discern any differences.
New technologies are coming, but not for some time.
“They’re still down the road a ways,” says Stan Pinelli, sales manager at Paul Bailey’s Warwick Ford Inc. in Warwick, R.I.
The most imminent change affecting motorists is a tough new set of emissions standards set for 1999 automobiles. Pinelli says some of the vehicles he sells comply with those standards. And other experts say most people won’t notice any differences in their cars’ acceleration or mileage.
In an agreement reached last winter among automakers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, all automobiles and light trucks must meet federal emission standards that are 70 percent tougher than current standards.
That sounds like a lot. But most new vehicles will meet the standards through modifications of their computer controls and improved catalytic converters. As Pinelli pointed out, some cars on local showroom floors meet the new standards.
The only way the average person can tell the difference is by reading a sticker under the hood. Some cars may also sell for a bit more–maybe $100 or so.
“I think it will be seamless for most people, unless you’re really interested and look at the sticker,” says Steven Majkut, who runs the air pollution program at the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.
Give some credit to the auto industry, Majkut says, for finding ways to meet the tough new standards of the so-called National Low Emissions Vehicle program (NLEV) without overloading consumers with huge costs.
“The technology has gotten so good, and manufacturers have gotten so good at making clean cars, even the drivability will be the same,” Majkut says.
That’s not to say there is a agreement on where the country is going with auto emissions. California still has tougher standards than those in the NLEV program. Massachusetts and New York have adopted the California standards. Vermont and Maine are planning to do so. And automakers are challenging them in court.
An important part of the California standards is the requirement that a certain percentage of cars sold in each state have zero emissions. That is one factor prodding automakers to design unusual new vehicles powered by electricity and other fuels.
The deadline for meeting the new requirements had been 1998, but now it’s 2002. It could be postponed again.
Two other regulatory factors have automakers’ attention.
The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review air standards by 2001. If it determines cars must be made cleaner, new restrictions would be required by 2004.
At the same time, automakers and the federal government have been working on a five-year collaborative research program called the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles.
The companies have agreed to show concept cars by 2000 and production prototypes by 2004 for mid-size vehicles that could get up to 80 miles per gallon. Better mileage tends to go hand in hand with reduced emissions.
At the Detroit Auto Show, automakers responded by unveiling an incredible array of new vehicles designed to run clean and deliver high mileage.
– General Motors Corp. introduced a two-seater called EV-1 and a mid-size car called EV that would get 60 to 80 m.p.g., using power plants ranging from electric motors to a special compact turbine engine similar to the ones used in cruise missiles.
– Ford’s prototype featured a super lightweight body and a new diesel engine.
– Chrysler showed off the ESX2, a full-size, super lightweight car made with the same plastics used in soda bottles and powered by a hybrid diesel-electric powertrain.
John F. Smith Jr., GM’s chairman and chief executive, said no car company will be able to thrive in the 21st Century if it relies solely on internal-combustion engines.
For years people have said electric vehicles would be the answer to the automotive air pollution problem. And now there are a few interesting electric cars on the market, mostly in California.
But there have been lots of problems with electrics. They tend to be expensive and heavy and don’t have enough energy to provide good pickup and range.
Honda, for instance, is leasing its EV Plus in California for $499 a month. But because its batteries cost $30,000 and have an estimated three-year lifespan, it’s apparent that Honda is losing money on the program. Honda officials reportedly concede that for now, they are content to lease a few hundred vehicles.
METHANOL, HYDROGEN, NAT GAS FUELS OF FUTURE
To overcome the limitations of electric power, carmakers are experimenting with hybrid engines with electric motors powered by batteries and small automotive engines or generators that run on gasoline, natural gas, methanol or hydrogen.
Toyota is selling Prius, the first hybrid for the general public. It starts with electric power and the gasoline engine kicks in at higher speeds so quietly you can scarcely notice the difference.
The car gets 66 m.p.g. and easily meets the California emission standards.
But Toyota sells the cars in Japan for the equivalent of $17,000 each and reportedly loses thousands of dollars on each one. Toyota is waiting a year to sell Prius in the U.S.
On-board, fossil-fuel generators recharge batteries in electric vehicles, giving them much greater range. Many experts are excited about their potential–but again, it’s still just potential.
Another approach has been to try alternative fuels in conventional engines.
Chris Bannister, chairman of the automotive department at the New England Institute of Technology in Warwick, R.I., says Ford has a natural gas pickup, and Honda is producing a natural gas Civic. General Motors has come out with bi-fuel vehicles–a GMC Sierra and Chevy C/K pickup as well as a Chevy Cavalier sedan– powered by natural gas and regular gasoline.
There are advantages to natural gas. It burns so much cleaner that cars require fewer oil changes and tuneups.
But they cost more initially. Also the vehicles’ gas tanks are large and heavy and often leave less trunk room.
It’s a chicken-and-egg situation. People would be more likely to buy if there were more fuel sources, but there won’t be more fuel sources until there’s a bigger market.
A global-climate-change summit in Kyoto, Japan, last winter wrestled with another issue. Though some still question whether increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are caused by man, and are entirely bad, the nations of the world committed to enormous rollbacks in the production of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
That has caused some to worry about car pooling or mass transit. But the government hasn’t talked about what regulations it might impose to reduce CO2 emissions if the U.S. ratifies the treaty.
President Clinton has proposed $6.3 billion in tax incentives to promote low-emission vehicles, according to Lucy Edmundson of the Environment Protection Agency’s Boston office. That includes $4,000 toward the purchase of a vehicle that gets twice the average fuel economy of cars in its class. But such fuel-efficient cars don’t exist, she said.
“Most reports I read talk about these things beginning sometime early in the next century,” Edmundson said.
