President Barack Obama lamented the nation's dependence on foreign oil when visiting an electric car testing center in California on March 19, 2009.
"The problem is that, for decades, we have avoided doing what must be done as a nation to turn challenge into opportunity," Obama said. "As a consequence, we import more oil today than we did on 9/11. The 1908 Model T earned better gas mileage than a typical SUV sold in 2008. And even as our economy has been transformed by new forms of technology, our electric grid looks largely the same as it did half a century ago."
We've written about Obama's positions on imported oil and the electric grid before. But the Model T gets better mileage than an SUV? Really?
To answer this question, we first wanted to look at the mileage for "a typical SUV sold in 2008."
There are many ways to slice and dice fuel efficiency numbers, and looking up the mileage for your own particular vehicle is far easier than deciding on mileage for a "typical SUV." But the Environmental Protection Agency found that light trucks — the class of vehicle to which SUVs belong — averaged 18.1 miles per gallon for model year 2008. The most efficient SUVs do much better than that — a Jeep Compass gets 23 mpg in the city and 28 on the highway — but Obama said "typical."
To find out what a Model T averaged, we consulted Bob Casey, author of The Model T: A Centennial History , and the curator of transportation at the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich. (The museum is named for Ford but independent of the Ford Motor Co.)
He said the best estimate for a Model T's mileage is 20 miles per gallon, though it might be able to get 25 under the right conditions.
So technically Obama is right.
But his implication is that we haven't gotten more fuel efficient in 100 years. And that's a reach.
Let's look at the differences between today's SUVs and the Model T of 1908.
To start with, Casey said, Model Ts reached top speeds of only 40 miles an hour. They guzzled motor oil, about a quart a month. The original tops were made of canvas, and they had no heating or cooling systems. They also had none of the safety features of modern cars: no bumpers, no air bags, no seat belts, no antilock breaks.
The cars had large, skinny wheels to more easily clear the obstacles on rocky, rutted roads. Corner them too fast and they could tip over. And if you crashed, the windshield would usually shatter into sharp, jagged pieces that could slice you to ribbons.
"The government would not allow anyone to sell Model Ts today because they're so unsafe," Casey said. "It's a car that no one would use on a regular basis today. It's not a fair comparison."
We agree that the two cars are totally different. But Obama was careful in the way he phrased his statement: "The 1908 Model T earned better gas mileage than a typical SUV sold in 2008." As long as you don't consider any factors other than mileage, he's right. We rate his statement Mostly True.
Oh, Model T's only reached top speeds of 40 mph.
hmmm, let's check a Top Gear Video... Prius (estimated 48 mpg) vs. BMW M3 (estimated 20 mpg)
After the Top Gear test at maximum Prius speed -- (17.2 mpg Prius) vs. (19.4 mpg) following the Prius...
How would today's "typical suv's" do in the same test against a 1908 Model T? (remember, maximum speed of 40 mph)
I say politifacts rushed to judgment.
(** Environmentally favorable Prius??)
1
Mith Dude
ID: 01629107 Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 08:03
Obama said: The 1908 Model T earned better gas mileage than a typical SUV sold in 2008.
I fail to see the relevence of the mileage you get from midsize cars )one being a hybrid, no less) in discussing the validity of a comparison the president made between the Model T and modern SUVs.
I'm not even sure which side of the argument you're taking here because the work you've done doesn't show anything.
2
Perm Dude
ID: 3347318 Sat, Apr 04, 2009, 11:20
Top speed doesn't affect the milage differences, as mileage is compared between the same speeds.
3
weykool
ID: 2842717 Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 15:57
Comparing a Model T to the cars of today is rediculous. A motorcycle can get well over 50 MPG...is that a fair comparision? Before all of the tougher environmental restrictions a Honda Civic was rated at 55+ MPG. The next year when cars were required to have catalytic converters the numbers drpped below 30MPG for the same cars. Would a Model T even meet the environmental standards required by the Federal government? NO....just another silly statement by Obama. Take away the environmental restrictions and I'm sure with today's thechnology we could have SUV's getting 40+ MPG and maybe even 50+ MPG.
4
Razor
ID: 41323216 Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 21:03
Take away the environmental restrictions and I'm sure with today's technology we could have SUV's getting 40+ MPG and maybe even 50+ MPG.
Why don't they in spite of the "restriction" which apparently you don't think are important? Can you think of any major technology that has progressed so slowly over the past 80 years?
5
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Mon, Apr 06, 2009, 21:20
The mindset that liberals should be able to get scientific advances by political willpower and fiat is most amusing...and lame, Razor.
6
sarge33rd
ID: 32322118 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 00:55
A motorcycle can get well over 50 MPG...is that a fair comparision?
It can also get under 30.
Point here is, Pres Obama made a statement and it is largely true. That statement amounted to;
The original automotive choice available, got better mileage than a 'typical' family SUV of today.
That statement is factually correct. So why even debate it? Razor is right, in asking why *in spite* of safety/environmental requirements, have we not managed to engineer a more efficient internal combustion engine for daily commuter use? I think that question, is far more worthy of discussion, than is nit-picking the president's statement. (Unless of course, the real purpose is to attempt to bash the man.)
7
Mith
ID: 2894309 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 10:16
Someone should foward Wilmer and Weykool's posts to Sarah Palin to clue her in on the meaning of the phrase "to split hairs".
The point Obama stresses in referring to the Model T is that our effective cultural standards for fuel effeciency have changed very little since back when automotive technology was still new. It was not a scientific or technical comparison of modern technology with the Model T.
8
Frick
ID: 3410551012 Tue, Apr 07, 2009, 11:35
The engines produced today are significantly more efficient than engines manufactured 25 years ago, let alone engines manufactured 100 years ago.
But those engines are being placed into significantly bigger cars with more safety features. Cars are also being designed to be much, much faster, not only top speed, but acceleration.
Today a 4-cylinder Honda Accord will do 0-60 in 7.5 seconds. A 1984 Ferrari Testarossa did 0-60 in 5.2 seconds (by comparison an 84 Accord did it in 13.0)
Why the big improvement? The fuel economy between the two Honda's is very close despite the fact that the new one is significantly faster, produces less emissions and is safer.
Engines have gotten better, but the focus has been on performance, not on mileage. Auto manufacturers make more efficient cars, they just don't bring them to the US because American's historically haven't purchased them.
The Rabbit was upgraded with a new VW diesel engine and transmission (that was further modified to increase fuel economy) The result was a car that get 70mpg and does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds.
Granted it doesn't have air-bags, ABS, traction control or crumple zones.
'GM's old failed CEO wrongly thot Americans wanted SUV's but I knew better. How I look back fondly on my old college years'...
...trabant.'
11
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:01
Spokesmodel...
Demi Moore says, 'Ditching this Lincoln Navigator is the least I can do for my president'.
12
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:32
Meanwhile the American public, not content with the stock Traba...er Puma...
13
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:51
It's now official...
Chrysler has caved to Obama's demands and now Fiat owns 35% of Chrysler...
The future is so bright in the People's Republic of Obama, you just gotta wear shades and contain yer enthusiasm or you'll just faint from sheer joy.
14
Perm Dude
ID: 336813 Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 20:58
This is a bad thing? When the market works the Right complains about Obama. And when the market doesn't the right complains about--Obama.
15
Razor
ID: 41323216 Wed, Apr 08, 2009, 23:50
What's the downside of Chrysler getting support from another company?
16
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 02:07
Did I not illustrate that?
17
Perm Dude
ID: 336813 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 03:34
Are you going to show some bad Chrysler products to show what a bad idea it is for Fiat to join up with them, too?
18
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 04:41
My last three vehicle purchases were Chrysler products and if Obama and Fiat don't screw it up too badly so will my next one.
20
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 05:08
By all means produce a picture of the Perm Dude tooling around in his next Obamamobile. Will it be the Puma then?
Does the fact that I published the term Obamamotors first, give me copyright? If so he will pay dearly.
21
Razor
ID: 371502414 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 09:35
My last three vehicle purchases were Chrysler products and if Obama and Fiat don't screw it up too badly so will my next one.
Do you not realize that if it were not governmental pressure and Fiat that you would not have had the opportunity to buy another Chrysler? Either you are in favor of some sort of government intervention or you are in favor of GM and especially Chrysler collapsing and hundreds of thousands of jobs being impacted. Which is it?
22
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 11:54
I am indeed in favor of government rescue but not government takeover and not private ownership combined with government control which is the historic and textbook definition of fascism. [a definition lost on generations of liberal smear artists]
23
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 11:56
I am however only willing to concede the need for government rescue because of the reality that government caused the situation in the first place.
24
weykool
ID: 2842717 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 12:35
Point here is, Pres Obama made a statement and it is largely true. That statement amounted to;
The original automotive choice available, got better mileage than a 'typical' family SUV of today.
That statement is factually correct. So why even debate it? Razor is right, in asking why *in spite* of safety/environmental requirements, have we not managed to engineer a more efficient internal combustion engine for daily commuter use? I think that question, is far more worthy of discussion, than is nit-picking the president's statement. (Unless of course, the real purpose is to attempt to bash the man.)
Sarge: Just because something is "factually correct" doesnt make it relevant. Obama's statement was pure stupidity. He is comparing apples to oranges as Frick and others have pointed out. It has nothing to do with bashing but doing everything we can to stop his socialist agenda and the government takeover of industries like the banks and the automakers.
25
sarge33rd
ID: 30356715 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 12:48
A) the banks NEED to be reigned in something fierce. Or have you not been paying any attention to the financials over the past 24 months?
B) Socialist???? LMAO You on the right, label anything not utterly regulation-free, as 'socialist'. Best get a clue, cause you're not on track atm.
C) His statement was akin to hyperbole. A factually accurate statement, meant to make a point. A point which was made, unless you take the absolute literal view and then use that view to attempt to smear.
D) Take over of the automakers? lol This forum, along with several others, has decried the domestic auto manufacturer for years. Now suddenly, they are the 'good guys; fighting a governmental intrusion???? Pick a story/side and stick to it. Flip-flopping for political points, should be beneath you.
26
Perm Dude
ID: 336813 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 12:55
doing everything we can to stop his socialist agenda
I don't think you have a clear understanding of what socialism actually is. I don't mean this as a slam but the government giving billions of dollars to private companies (banks and car companies, etc) is not socialism.
Hopefully you reject the notion, by Baldwin, that Fiat's interest in Chrysler (an example of the free market at work) is another piece of evidence for Obama's socialism. For him, black proves white, and vice versa.
27
Baldwin
ID: 132854 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 14:30
Free market? Are you insane?
1) President tells Chrysler it's accept Fiat's offer or die.
2) Chrysler walks into Fiat's office hat in hand and asks what Fiat is willing to pay.
Oh yeah, there is the free market in action. I'd love to hear you describe a mugging. That would be surreal.
28
Razor
ID: 371502414 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 14:53
There is no government takeover here. Just the opposite. The government wants nothing to do with Chrysler sucking at its teat, so it called for an expeditious merger of two companies that need each other but keep flirting without consummating the deal. Fiat buying into Chrysler is most certainly free market. Chrysler was forced to do something, but not by the government. It was their own dreadful short term outlook that forced them into letting a foreign investor buy into their company. The government did the right thing by the taxpayers by limiting the long term financial aid to Chrysler. Do you not like the government limiting spending?
29
Perm Dude
ID: 336813 Thu, Apr 09, 2009, 15:50
Baldwin will slam him either way, Razor: Either Obama is a socialist for encouraging the free market to partner with a struggling auto maker, or he's a socialist if he doesn't.
Like a lot of the looney Right, Baldwin has already decided what he wants to say about Obama--facts are merely decorative items to help convey his "righteous" anger that he's been holding in for 8 years.
If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com