Eco-cars - the Volvo LCP 2000 research auto

Whole Earth Review, Fall, 1990 by J. Baldwin

A FEW YEARS BACK, I attended a public debate between the founder of a renowned world-saving organization and the CEO of a coal-mining company. The Bad Guy won the toss, took the mike and said to the large audience of obviously hostile adults, "Before we start, I'd like to know how many of you would be willing to give up your automobiles right now." A loud cheer went up, most hands waving madly in the affirmative. The miner stared maybe a full minute, waiting for the tumult to subside. Then he said quietly, with just a hint of a sneer in his voice, "I'm not about to waste an evening talking to a roomful of liars." And then he walked out.

He had our number. Though we may like to appear eco-chic, we are not about to give up cars, nor will folks in developing countries give up their dream of owning a car. There's good reason for this: cars do the best job of transporting us and our belongings from exactly where we are to exactly where we want to go, at the time, velocity and route of our choice, and with relative security from assault by weather or brigand. Cars offer rare privacy. History shows that people are quite willing to pay for the autos advantages. No existing or proposed Public transportation system can even approach them. In fact, one of Henry Ford's main reasons for developing the Model T was to give ordinary citizens - especially farmers - cheap transportation that would free them from the tyranny of mass transit (rail) rates, routes and schedules.

When people decry the evils of automobiles, what they mostly mean is that they'd like to alleviate the deleterious effects of cars. Cars gobble resources and pollute beyond belief: a typical late-model car dumps its own weight in CO[.sub.2], a greenhouse gas, into the air each year. Cars kill people and animals in large numbers; accidents are the leading cause of death for US citizens under age 45. Roads - the other half of the car - eat land (often arable) and disturb water runoff patterns. There are counties where half of the land area is paved. Freeways concrete about 25 acres a mile, and require about 250,000 tons of gravel - which has to come from somewhere - to do it.

So, assuming you need one, how do you choose one? First, the cheapest way to drive, in miles per dollar, is to use an oldie-but-goodie until it quits. in addition to being cheap to buy and run, the old hog makes full use of the "embodied energy" invested in it during its manufacture. You might also keep in mind that the cost of a complete overhaul is probably less than the interest on a new car loan. if the old car's hunger and pollution smack unbearably of sin, consider that the pollution caused by the making of a new car may well be more than that caused by the using of an old one.

If your decision is to buy a new vehicle, you are faced with a vast but rather sad choice; no sensible "eco-car" or urban vehicle is yet available. However, when it became obvious that the classic "petropig" big cars were doomed to extinction, a few of the more alert auto companies developed prototypes of "eco-cars" as a response to future fuel crises, environmental, or safety regulations. These cars served both to test public opinion and to give the manufacturers and their complex sYstem of suppliers a feel for the technology required if the need became acute. Experience is important; one of the reasons that American auto manufacturers have taken a beating from overseas competition is that until recently, management did not have the training and attitude needed to design for efficiency, or for that matter, to be efficient. Worse, the old guard could not be quickly replaced with new blood because no suitable people were in the educational pipeline. Americans had become such thoughtless energy wastrels that inefficiency was considered normal (if it was considered at all). Today, some companies still regard concern for efficiency and environment as an unwelcome and unnecessary fad. For others, it's a challenge and an accepted responsbility.

One of the better eco-cars is Volvo's LCP (for Light Component Project) 2000. Like similar efforts from Renault, Citroen, Peugeot and Toyota, it got some mid-'80s press, and then was forgotten as oil prices fell from the high levels of the energy crisis years." Figuring that waste is always stupid and environmentally despicable, I present the LCP2000 as an example of what we could have right now if Volvo (and of course, their competitors) was convinced the demand was there. Let's see what this machine offers:

Statistics show that a typical car is used most often to carry less than two people through an urban area at an average speed of less than 35 miles per hour. For this duty, Volvo designed a car about the size, shape, and utility of current small hatchbacks. The only obvious difference is that the individually folding back seats face to the rear for added safety. That novel configuration allows a mid-car transverse, hollow bulkhead that protects the fuel tank, and porvides unusually good resistance to the side impacts so common in urban intersection collisions. Crash protection has been very well worked out - not only as a Volvo tradition, but because a car so extraordinarily light (1,555 lbs - far less than a VW Bug) must be very carefully designed if it is to protect its occupants. Safety (and comfort) is also enhanced by the usual European high standards of suspension, steering and braking. A 90s version would doubtless have airbags. Of course the car sips rather than slurps. Volvo claims 56 miles per gallon city), 81 mpg on long trips, and a combined figure of 65 mpg; certainly cause for applause. The best mileage occurs at 40 mph. At that common urban pace, you could expect an astounding 100 mpg! Moreover, the high-efficiency diesel will accept a diet chosen from a wide range of fuels. The press demonstration car ran on rapeseed oil! (and smelled like a pizza parlor while doing so, according to one reporter. But that's likely to be solved with a bit more development). You might think that a tiny dud would be a noisy dug that had to be flogged down the road with the gearlever. Not so. Volvo designers realized that the public would not joyfully accept a car that wasn't refined and sassy. The machine is, in fact, something of a hotrod; its 0-to-60 mph time of 11 seconds is better than the average of the current car fleet. Top speed is about 110 mph. (Cars with escargoic top speeds are unpleasant and unsafe because they lack the power for safe hillclimbing and passing.) An efficient CVT-type automatic transmission has been developed for later versions of the car, making it even more acceptable and easy to use.