Science Chic wrote: To clarify, the government didn't tell the manufacturers that they had to remove spare tires, the industry itself decided to do that in response to mandates to improve fuel efficiency. And really? Removing a spare tire saves that much weight? Give me a break, that's just stupid!
They are the predictable results of the government deciding how efficient the vehicles must be. Ever take a micrometer to the steel in the fenders of a car made in the 1950's versus one made today? Wonder why all the cars today are unibody instead of body on frame? Wondered why the A arms in your suspension are now made of aluminum instead of steel, or why your wheels are now aluminum instead of steel? The "donut" spare tire was the first response to the fuel efficiency mandates - it weighs about half of what a standard tire and rim do. The metal in your block is thinner than it was - the connecting rods are not as robust as they once were, the pistons are thinner. Engines have timing belts instead of timing chains, your dash is plastic instead of metal - the lenses for your headlights are plastic instead of glass - the frame for your seat is thinner and lighter. All of it intended to reduce the mass that the engine must propel to increase the number of miles traveled on a gallon of fuel to comply with governmental mandates.
Know what else those mandates do? They increase the expense of manufacturing and purchasing the vehicle - as well as maintaining it. When my '66 Rambler was not running properly, or at all for that matter, it was a simple thing to diagnose and fix. A new set of points and capacitor, maybe a new set of plugs and wires. If the thing wouldn't start, you could pop the hood, remove the air cleaner and manually pump fuel into the carburetor. No fuel? Pump or filter. Fuel? Move onto the ignition system. Check the cap, rotor, coil, points, condenser, plugs - you get the picture. Think someone on a limited amount of income has that same ability with the cars today that have resulted from all of these mandates? Not a chance. If the car doesn't start it is still a matter of lacking fuel or spark, but the reasons for either have expanded greatly. It could be the fuel pressure is just a little too low - which in the old days meant that the car didn't run right, but it still ran, while today it means the car simply won't start because the pressure isn't within specs. Not to mention the throttle position sensor, the brake switch sensor, the Park/Neutral position sensor, cam position sensor, air bag readiness sensor, mass airflow sensor, electronic ignition failure, main computer failure, inability for the engine and the transmission to talk to each other.......and that's the short list of why your car might not start at all now. Want to get your transmission rebuilt in a modern computer controlled transmission? Yeah, good luck with that - a down payment on a new car is less money out of pocket.
The point is that technology can only accomplish so much and beyond that point mass must be sacrificed to increase efficiency. What this latest round of mandates is attempting to do is eliminate the internal combustion engine as the means of powering vehicles. A minivan won't get 50 mpg, ever, with an internal combustion engine powering it, nor will a half ton truck, nor will a full sized sedan - even if they are hybrid drives. The CAFE mandates in place now are intended to force consumers into altering their habits by limiting the products available for purchase. A prime example of the government deciding for you what is best for you if there ever was one.
It is always a balancing act building cars, safety mandates has increased the weight of many cars as they add side air bags, etc, but this has decreased mileage.
The old Civic HF's would get 50+MPG but the new hybrids have a hard time getting that good of gas mileage. And if America's EPA was friendlier to diesels, we could import many high milage small Euro diesel cars.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The issue gets to be that CAFE is a fleet average. Compacts, hybrids, full sized sedans, minivans and pick-up trucks all contribute to that average. If the average mandated is 50 mpg and you have a minivan getting 30, you have to have another vehicle that gets 70 to bring the average to the required 50. IIRC correctly, and I think I do, it is not even an average of models offered, it is an average of vehicles manufactured or sold in any given year - making it even harder for the goal to be met than it would be if it were simply an average of models offered for sale by any given manufacturer.
It is entirely conceivable that the most efficient models would have to be sold at or below cost in order to sell enough of them to offset the number of minivans that were sold and arrive at the CAFE mandate. That isn't going to help companies to be profitable. Or, it could just as easily wind up greatly distorting the price of the minivan such that it was not something that the family which desired to own it could afford to own.
Full size spare? Actually a full size won't fit in the compartment in my truck. So if I lose the donut, I will have to store the full size in the truck bed.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Oh goodness, a tire in a truck bed, what shall we do...strap it to the roof or the back or the side if you have an issue. I am sure you could order a spare tire mount out of a jeep catalog. If style is your issue, then remember how nice you will look alone at night on the highway.
Something tells me you are talking about a compact car not meant for much work or towing, I could not imagine a salesmen trying to sell me a full size rig without a full size spare. You cannot have a rig with 3000# in the back and a trailer have anything but a full sized and load rated spare.