Ford Model T
“The Ford Model T, which was invented in 1908, got 25 miles to the gallon, whereas in 2004 the average car got only 20.8 miles per gallon. Not only was the Model T more efficient than many of today’s vehicles, it was also capable of running on either gasoline or ethanol. Of course, the Model T had a much smaller engine and lower top speed than today’s cars, but consider that 100 years of engineering has given us cars that, while fast, safe and comfortable, deliver worse fuel economy than did the first production vehicle.” Treehugger.com Pop Quiz: Model T vs. Modern
The comparison is disingenuous and poorly researched, but their overall point has merit.
According to Wikipedia the T achieved between 13-21 mpg from a displacement of just under 3 liters. So the engine was not “much smaller” than today’s examples, in fact it’s right in the middle of the range of displacement you see today. The claim that the T’s 4-cylinder was “more efficient” is patently false, and overwhelmingly so. The engine generated just 20hp from those 3 liters, whereas modern engines, using the same amount of fuel, routinely produce over ten times more – 250 to 300hp. If anything has been learned over a century of reciprocating internal-combustion engineering, it’s efficiency – how to squeeze more power out of the same amount of fuel.
And this is the point the authors could have rightly made. If today’s cars are so much more efficient, why do they still burn the same amount of fuel as Tin Lizzie? Manufacturers made a conscious decision: Wherever efficiency gains have been realized, they have been used to produce more power from the same fuel consumption, instead of the same amount of power on less gas.
Granted, cars have gotten much safer and luxurious over the century as well, and the added structure and equipment means more mass for the engine to haul around – an Accord would struggle up its own driveway on 20hp.
But it does make you wonder what an alternate reality would be like, in which a shortsighted horsepower war among manufacturers had been tempered by a more valuable goal, to finally stick it to OPEC. Who wouldn’t have been behind that? Instead we’re just drag-racing to the next stoplight.
Totally agree Matthew. Weight, power-sucking amenities and seemingly bad data make Treehugger.com’s stance fizzle, but it really sparks conversation. And made me think we need to question fuel economy progress.
The hydrogen distribution issue is real, yet I hold out hope that we can improve fuel cell capacity while finding a retail model that can at least work around large metro areas. Fingers crossed.
-g