Why the Z may be the perfect car for the next 10 years

[bigoak]

Overall Consumption has to be world wide!!

I suggest that the "using less" discussion needs to be held with China and India FIRST. Every drop of oil we Americans pay to save - fuels China and India's booming industrial economy with cheap oil. It does NOTHING to reduce total consumption. In fact quite the opposite effect.

If you believe the world should use less fossil fuels - then the more we Americans use now, the higher the price of oil will be - the higher the price, the fewer Chinese/Indians will be able to afford it, and the slower their economies will grow.

We've done our share, we've lead the world in reducing air pollution, removing lead from gasoline etc etc etc - now it's time to hold the other 95% of the worlds population to the same standards.

FWIW,

Carl B.

First a disclaimer. I have a Tahoe, a Sequoia and 3 Z cars. Not exaclty a high perch to proselytize from...

Can't believe I'm going to take a run at Carl but here goes.

I agree with the first sentence. Total reduction must be accomplished on a global scale.

After that you might want to pull you head out of butt try seeing the world from a perspective other than one in the lower 48...

First some data on the top 20 oil consuming countries in the world (from the CIA World Factbook)...

Country / % of Global Oil Consumption / Per Capita Index to US

US / 25.9% / 100.0%

China / 8.6% / 7.6%

Japan / 6.7% / 61.4%

Russia / 3.6% / 30.3%

Germany / 3.3% / 46.4%

India / 3.0% /3.1%

Canada /2.9% /100.7%

South Korea / 2.7% /63.2%

Brazil / 2.6% /16.0%

Mexico / 2.6% / 27.6%

Saudi Arabia / 2.5% / 103.7%

France / 2.5% / 45.6%

United Kingdom / 2.3% / 43.6%

Italy / 2.2% / 43.5%

Iran / 2.0% / 36.1%

Spain / 2.0% / 57.7%

Indonesia / 1.4% / 6.8%

Netherlands / 1.3% / 88.7%

Thailand / 1.2% / 20.7%

Australia / 1.1% / 64.0%

What this means is the average Chinese citizen consumes 7.6% of the amount of oil the average US citizen does. The average Indian 3.1%. So the average Indian would have to increase his personal consumption by a factor of 30X to achieve your level of thirst (or mine for that matter). To move to average worldwide levels, US per capita consumption would need to decrease by 82.4%. Where should the balance be in that equation?

The US/North America deserves plenty of credit for the economic growth it has achieved over the last century. Its economic strength (per capita GDP) is the envy of the developed world (probably even the Kiwis...). That economic growth has been fueled by oil. Simple and true.

When countries seek to enhance the standard of living for their people, the US is the benchmark by which this desire is measured. Based on current global technology, the most direct way to achieve that economic expansion is growth based fossil fuel consumption. While this is clearly not desireable from an environmental standpoint, it is hard to argue the desire of these nations seeking to ascend to better quality of life (particularly when it is constantly broadcasted on TV around the world).

If the American principle / dream of being able to work hard and achieve better economic circumstances applies within the borders of the USA, how does it not apply on a global scale?

As far as the future of economic growth, it will be driven by innovation in cost effective energy efficient technologies. The current low price of fuel in North America lowers the need to innovate and actually differentially promotes technological advances in countries where fuel / transports prices are higher.

And if you'd done enough to reduce pollution, you wouldn't be consuming 6X the global average.

Once again, I believe global reduction is necessary and critical. But to demonize economies that seek to achieve better things for their populations is the way to go.

Go buy a hybrid (I'm getting one in December when the Sequoia disappears; unfortunately the Tahoe stays for towing horses).

[Zedyone_kenobi]

While I agree with lots of what you said Big Oak, we simply cannot cut back on the use of oil by 6x to equal the global average. Everything we touch is petroleum based to some degree. Every office laptop, every interior door panel, the entire medical field is based on petroleum products. There is no way we can cut back on our usage that much anytime soon if ever. It would mean an entire lifestyle change, and 'doing without' is not a popular American attitude. We want what we have, and most people feel they deserve what they have worked for. I know its how I feel. I am proud of our abundance in this country, not ashamed of it or apologetic for it. If we have more than any other country, its because we made it that way. For better or worse is debatable. But its not dumb luck we are the most prosperous country in the world.

If you look at the rate at which our population is growing compared to how fast we are developing new energy savings technologies, its a grim picture. Combine that with two very important facts.

1) Going 'green' is mostly for the middle to upper class, as green technologies are expensive and or inconvenient. Lower income families are too busy worried about paying their bills to worry about being green, and...

2) The fastest growing part of the US population are from lower income families whose main goal is not to save the planet, but to feed their children.

Unless going green is made cheaper nothing is going to happen. Only when non petroleum product substitutes are made less expensive will people switch. Not one second sooner.

[bigoak]

I'm not suggesting a 6X reduction is realistic, just pointing out the disparity.

As for the cost of going green. The point you make would have been the same about car ownership 100 years ago. The question is at what point the true cost of environmental impact will be included in costs of goods. Carbon credits / taxes are coming in one form or another and this will spur innovation in greener technologies and reduce their price dramatically (through volume growth and technological advancement).

Green for the masses...

[Zedyone_kenobi]

I think to some degree that has already started. Disposal of goods is becoming a real issue that is even being considered in early design. After the product is built, its too late to worry about how to dispose of it. Of course this in the earliest of stages.

I am far from a green fanatic. In fact, I am so sick of the word green, I get nauseated when I hear it. However, when I walk down the grocery store isle, its apparent something needs redirect our thinking. Everything is disposable, from mops, to wipes of all sorts, etc. Its not the correct path to reduce waste.

Anyway, I hear what your saying, thanks for the points to think about.

[7277]

unfortunately i agree with 240znz. don't me wrong, i love our USA and would give my life or my country, but after visiting europe in 2005, i came back and realized the amount we americans consume. not only gas but food and supplies for the 'Mcmansion' in the burbs, etc) it's pretty disgusting actually. most of the cars i saw in italy were very practical gas-sipping little things (Smart car, et al.). i came back here and truly so NO REASON for a 5'2" housewife to drive an H2 or similar. i've grown to hate gas guzzling cars. i do have to own a ford van for my business, and ONLY wished it got better mpg....

on topic though, i will always be in favor of classic cars, as they are limited use and preserve the history of the automobile....

[Carl Beck]

I'm not suggesting a 6X reduction is realistic, just pointing out the disparity.

But the disparity you point out - is between the Past 100 years and the present. The disparity we should be worried about is that of the future. The disparity between North America with it's clean air acts, EPA, CARB and OSHA's etc etc... vs. China/India with none of the aforementioned. The disparity between the damage done by three hundred million people vs that which is going to be done by an additional three or four billion people if they are allowed to continue on their present path.

As for the cost of going green. The point you make would have been the same about car ownership 100 years ago. The question is at what point the true cost of environmental impact will be included in costs of goods. Carbon credits / taxes are coming in one form or another and this will spur innovation in greener technologies and reduce their price dramatically (through volume growth and technological advancement).

Green for the masses...

I agree - but the masses are in China/India/Southeast Asia. When they work to become as green as we already are - then we can work on a level playing field from there. It's not just oil - its all fossil fuels. How much soft coal is Canada burning? How much is China burning today? The air is so dirty in China that many Olympic Teams are talking about not attending the games there for fear of their health.

I truly believe we need to put the focus on where the major part of the problem will be - not where it was in the past.

Of even more concern to me - is the effects of deforestation. If you want to go green - we have to stop cutting every tree in the world down... and that has NOTHING to do with CAFE.

FWIW,

Carl B.

[xray]

I love how the greenies promote wind and corn/ethanol as better alternatives. Then, they fail to mention how the windmills kill migratory or endangered birds, and how corn demand for ethanol exacerbates poverty as well as encourages Amazon deforestation (clear more acreage for more soybean farms so US farmers can farm corn)...

The only current viable alternative is nuclear, but conveniently the Greenies won't discuss that.

[240znz]

Nuclear, like oil, is also another finite fuel. Cost of new nuclear plants is enormous.

For the amount one would cost to build one here in NZ (which would never happen), we could supply many older homes with:

1. Thick ceiling insulation

2. More efficient hot water cylinders (HWC)

3. Solar panels to heat the ground water before it hits the HWC. After all, IIRC the most cost in heating water to 50degrees C is from 5 to 10 degrees via emersion elements.

4. Fit low energy light bulbs - every little bit helps.

World governments should introduce building costs that include.

1. Solar panels for HWC, free energy source.

2. Solar heat store walls, free energy source.

3. Heat recovery from shower trays. Simple, coil your incoming HWC cold pipes under the shower tray so that it gets heated up before hitting the HWC itself. Free energy transfer, yes a small amount but everything counts and it wouldn't cost a lot.

4. Recover grey water for WC flushing.

The idea is to make everything more efficient, not build more plants to meet the rising demands of an energy inefficient and hungry planet.

If you can afford a Hydrid car then you should get one. An article in todays paper has a Toyota Prius averaging 66.9MPG. You can't argue that that isn't bloody good for our planet and wallet.

[conedodger]

Upon reviewing all the new CAFE standards and the extremely strict emissions people will have to meet, it seems that besides all the current wonderful things the Z offers, it has yet another feather in its cap.

Let me explain. With the feds clamping down on pure bred sports cars, they could very well cease to exist in the next 5-10 years. According to the new Cafe standards, Porsche and Ferrari must be at over 35 mpg by 2015, hardly possible. And while a company like Ferrari can just pass the fuel penalties over to the public (whats another $3000.00 anyway), companies like Porsche who mass produce cars simply cannot meet that standard and stay competitive in the US marketplace. Cars like the 911 may very well cease to be sold in America in a worse case situation. Porsche will not sell a watered down version of their cars here just to meet CAFE. The Staunch Germans would rather pull out than to compromise their principals.

Having said that, the solution to this is simple and elegant. Buy classics.

Here me out... here. With more and more cars becoming generic cookie cutouts of a prius of some sort, without souls, or any kind of character that can last more than a model year, classics offer a sublime alternative.

Classics never go down in value. Their styling is timeless. They are completely immune to all the latest Federal CAFE rules and regulations. They are free from needing expensive emissions equipment. They are easy to fix and maintain.

I say to the man who is ready to spend 50000 dollars for a newer 911. Redirect your thinking my friend. Spend 50000 dollars on a pristine restored 1970 911S. You now have a car that will go UP in value, will never look old or dated, performs amazingly and can be improved upon quite easily, and every time you drive off, you are now a connoisseur, not a rich yuppie.

I give you my fellow lovers of the Z....that classics are destined to be greatest choice to free yourselves of the shackles of CAFE and the green weenies.

By next year Porsche will have a Hybrid Cayenne. Over half of Porsche production goes to the US and about half of that goes to California. I see a couple of scenarios that would meet the standard. One is that Porsche now has a controlling interest in VW and VW can easily meet that standard. They might appeal and say that Porsche and VW should be considered one company. They are also in the process of producing a new model called the Panamera. This will be a four door sedan and could also be a hybrid model.

Basically when you say that Porsche may pull out of the US market and cease to produce the 911 you are saying that the company will cease operations. I disagree...

[conedodger]

...in the long term, the environment, economy, political situation in this country, not to mention our pocketbooks, can't suffer from the use of fossil fuels.

And there's no reason why a hybrid or electric car can't be a performance car. Some already are. We need to be moving in that direction. I wouldn't mind a hybrid Z (isn't there a forum for that?), because the increase in mileage would be worth it to me, and consider the fact that if the gas engine is downrated in terms of horsepower, a more powerful electric engine can be added. Eventually it'd be 100% electric, fast, and no one would mind.

I suspect that the first performance hybrids (probably Japanese first, before Ferrari and Porsche catch on) will market their auxiliary electricalness as a "boost", similar to a turbo or supercharger, as the electric engine's horsepower slowly creeps up. So as long as companies actually innovate instead of become stodgy and stubborn, I don't think performance will suffer.

Hopefully, the challenge of building cars that meet the 35mpg requirement will mean cars that are lighter and better engineered in general (I have a feeling the Lotus Elise could be modified to meet the requirement and still be very fun).

Yes, the Z is a classic. I've gravitated towards cars like the Z and the Lotus Esprit, which shouldn't be as good as they are if you consider how old they are, were the first movers in terms of innovative technology and format, and weren't only good for their time but stand up well against the offerings of now.

In terms of styling, it's true that designers are limited by safety and etc., but let me just say that steel is being bent in more complex, adventurous ways now than it ever has... There'll always be a place for classics, but looking at things realistically, new cars are better than they ever have and as long as manufacturers keep up the progress, that can continue.

The Porsche Cayenne hybrid which will come out next year suffers almost no performance disadvantage to it's fossil fuel brothers the Cayenne and Cayenne S. No kidding!

[conedodger]

So me a Porsche owner who is going t work on the car himself.....

Ummm... Me.

[Carl Beck]

If you can afford a Hydrid car then you should get one. An article in todays paper has a Toyota Prius averaging 66.9MPG. You can't argue that that isn't bloody good for our planet and wallet.

I can't, but many people seem to be doing just that. Perhaps the thought that started this thread is more correct than not.

The media discussion, the political propaganda and the responding automobile marketers all depend on everyone sucking up the 15 second "feel good" sound bits, and then repeating them as though they were true.

Most of us are old enough, experienced enough to know that subjects of this nature are extremely complex to say the least. The problem is we don't usually have the time to personally research any of these "Green Slogans" to find what is being traded-off for the reported end result. We also allow ourselves to be diverted from the objective we all support - ie a cleaner/greener earth for everyone - when we are refocused on simplistic solutions.

Simplistic Solution #1 - Americans should drive cars that get better fuel economy.

Is the Prius the car that serious environmentalists should put their money into? I use the term "environmentalists" here to actually mean the people that want to care for the earth, in scientifically proven ways; as opposed to the new Socialists politically correct "environmental movement" that is based mostly on junk science and feel good propaganda.

For Example:

Go Green - Buy a Used Car. It's better than a Hybrid.

"As Matt Power notes in this month's issue of Wired, hybrids get great gas mileage but it takes 113 million BTUs of energy to make a Toyota Prius. Because there are about 113,000 BTUs of energy in a gallon of gasoline, the Prius has consumed the equivalent of 1,000 gallons of gasoline before it reaches the showroom. Think of it as a carbon debt -- one you won't pay off until the Prius has turned over 46,000 miles or so.

There's an easy way to avoid that debt -- buy a used car. The debt has already been paid. But not just any used car will do..... See: http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/05/the-ultimate-pr.html

or

Toyota Prius proves a gas guzzler in a race with the BMW 520d.

http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/driving/used_car_reviews/article3552994.ece

Here is another interesting perspective:

Hummer vs Prius - the Hummer is Greener...

http://www.vegfamily.com/earthtalk/hummer-prius.htm

Everything is a trade-off, I think we all realize that - - and if we are to really make a difference in the future of our environment - we need to know the entire story. I'm not saying any of the above are true or even perfectly factual - just that they deserve your consideration, and if we are serious about the environment - perhaps we should seek more comprehensive information. We may be lead to doing more harm than good, so that others can profit in the short term.

When chicken little is running around yelling "the sky is falling in" - we should learn from experience and be very very critical of that warning... and we should start looking for who is paying that chicken.

Keep driving that old Z - its greener than most people realize.

FWIW,

Carl B.