Weather | Beachcam
Login | Contact Us | Staff | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Electronic Edition | Subscribe to the paper

HomeOpinionOpinion Columnists

Not much has changed since Ford's first car


Download Podcast  Download this story as a podcast!

On this very day in 1903, Ford Motor Co. sold the first Model A (not to be confused with the Roaring Twenties version) to a Chicago dentist named Dr. Ernst Pfenning.

A mere 80.6 million people resided in the United States 105 years ago. Only 8 percent of American households possessed a telephone, a house sold for around $2,000, the average breadwinner's annual salary was $703 and gasoline cost approximately a nickel a gallon.

Although 88 new auto manufacturers entered the marketplace in 1903, an aggressive advertising campaign touting the mass-produced Model A as "Boss of the Road: The Latest and Best," deposited 658 so-called "Fordmobiles" on the nation's highways and byways by mid-May of 1904.

Henry Ford, who is reputed to have quipped, "Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black," rolled out the Model A line in a single color as well — fire-engine red. However, the car, which operated on a two-cylinder, eight-horsepower engine, could be ordered as a two-seater runabout or four-seater tonneau model.

The vehicle's top speed was clocked at a sluggish 30 miles per hour but, with a sticker price of only $850 (when the average for all new cars hovered around $1,157), the Model A introduced a long line of dependable, reasonably priced automobiles that, by 1908, would include the Model T, the vehicle that "put America on wheels" as it puttered along 25 miles of rutted road on a single gallon of gasoline.

As we learned in school, Henry Ford, whatever his personal foibles, can be credited with two innovations that, arguably, contributed to the emergence of America's middle class — the assembly line and $5-a-day wages enabling Ford employees to afford a Ford.

Not even three years would pass before The New York Times would be kvetching about the rapid rise in the price of gasoline. Doesn't that sound familiar? In a March 18, 1906, article, "automobilists" were simply aghast that "the man who buys in only small quantities pays nearly 20 cents (a gallon) for his gasoline." In 2007 CPI-adjusted dollars, that would amount to $4.56 per gallon. Doesn't that also sound familiar?

The 1906 spike in the price of gas was so consternating to the American public that the fledgling (founded in 1902) Automobile Club of America decided to offer "prizes sufficiently attractive to manufacturers and inventors to stimulate their best efforts." Doesn't that also sound familiar? The leading candidate to replace gasoline was — and this is the familiarity topper for the day — denatured alcohol distilled from corn.

Yet, a century ago, not only did seemingly insurmountable challenges in creating efficient alcohol-burning engines exist — chiefly pollution and problems with carburetion — but the greatest drawback, according to The New York Times article, was "the high internal revenue tax (around $2 a gallon) which has made no discrimination between the highest grades of alcohol and the lower or denatured grades." Without the levy, denatured alcohol could have been purchased for 12 to 15 cents a gallon.

The Free Alcohol bill (June 7, 1906), promoted by Big Oil foe Teddy Roosevelt, actually slashed the odious (to alternative-fuel advocates) duty on denatured alcohol but the discovery of new oil fields in Texas the following year, likewise sent the cost of gasoline spiraling downward — at least momentarily.

Congress, on the other hand, was most reluctant to impose a tax on gasoline (as alcohol-friendly officials in France and Germany had done) in order to promote alternative energy sources. Think Standard Oil, et al. Using alcohol to fuel American automobiles, with the exception of racecars, went virtually nowhere until the 21st century.

Now, consider this particular July 23. Americans are fuming — a condition that can only be described as a chronic pain in the gas tank. Big girls do cry as they foot the bill for filling up their SUVs. Greenies tooling around in electric cars look smug as they spot fossil fuel-foulers finally getting their comeuppance.

Even if Detroit refuses to buy global warming, Americans are now demanding honest-to-God-provable fuel efficiency as they trade in gas-guzzlers for hybrids and lofty MPG-getting foreign cars. J.D. Power and Associates predicts diesel engines, which boast 30 percent better mileage than gasoline, will be the next big thing among auto mall-crawlers.

Gas prices may have risen before, but only now, with fuel fees nudging $5 a gallon, are drivers changing their behavior. Mass transit is seeing staggering gains in ridership. Folks are walking (gasp) to Starbucks, biking to their gyms and looking for all manner of ways to conserve gasoline. My question is — just exactly what took so long?

I think Dr. Pfenning might know. Wasn't he the first to fall in love?

— Beverly Kelley, Ph.D., who writes every other Monday for The Star, is an author ("Reelpolitik" and "Reelpolitik II") and professor in the Communication Department at California Lutheran University. Visit http://beverlykelley.typepad.com/my_weblog/. Her e-mail address is Kelley@clunet.edu.

Discussions

Posted by del on July 23, 2008 at 8:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It is interesting to revisit history and see how things are always going full circle. And we keep making the same mistakes.

“It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change.”

Charles Darwin

Posted by beachbabe on July 23, 2008 at 9:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mmshoot misses the point of the article (those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it) and does nothing more than make a series of personal attacks on the writer. The question is "why is JD Powers (a well-respected research firm) making this prediction?" mmshoot can't be bothered to find out. Ignorance is the real enemy of America.

Posted by cslaurie on July 23, 2008 at 9:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have a gas Honda Accord, it gets about 25 mpg average. The Honda Accord diesel coming to the US in 2009, gets about 60 mpg in Europe, but is rated at 52 for the US.

Gas today is 4.23 at Costco, thus 17 cents a mile for my gas Accord.

Diesel is 4.79 at Thrifty today.
So it would cost 9 cents a mile for my new Accord when I buy it.

I would rather pay 9 cents than 17 cents a mile any day.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/...

Posted by tofurr on July 23, 2008 at 9:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mm-

Even at 50 cents higher price, a diesel engine that gets 30% better mileage is cheaper.

Consider two vehicles, one diesel and the other unleaded. Lets say that the unleaded car gets 25 MPG, and the diesel 32 (30% better). Lets also say unleaded costs $4.50 and the diesel, $5.

That works out to be 18 cents per mile for unleaded, or 15 cents per mile for diesel. For a family that drives 10k miles per year, that's a $285 savings.

The point of the article, near as I can tell, is that we've known about the problem of fuel price fluctuations for a very long time and are just now doing anything about it, and the author's question is "Why?".

I'm not sure how your vitriolic last paragraph ties to the article at all. Do you just see diesel as a bad idea, so you think the author has no valid points? Does she hate America? No, in fact the point is that we need more efficient vehicles, and the American public is finally beginning to demand them. More efficient equals less money sent to "countries that mostly hate us" as you put it.

Did we read the same article?

Posted by Jacksprat on July 23, 2008 at 10:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

They could and have built cars with good gas milage, but for some reason,maybe the oil coupanies they don't. I had a 86 Buick, Electra, TStyle. One hot car but great gas milage. Drove across the country, 15000, mile it was not just east to west it was also south to north, but I was getting 30 plus mile per gallon. I was drivng on the freeway about 70 to 75, so as to keep from being run over. So they can do it, but don't.
WHY?

Posted by Citizen on July 23, 2008 at 11:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The technology and infrastructure already exists for diesel engines. They are popular in Europe. They make more since for consumers than paying a fortune for the high demand hybrids. Let's do it.

Posted by jeff93024 on July 23, 2008 at 9:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You get more diesel than gas per barrel of oil. Diesel costs less to refine than gas, because there are fewer steps in the refinement process. Diesel can be stored a lot longer than gasoline without deteriorating that way gas does, and diesel storage facilities cost less to build than gas storage facilities.

Why does it cost more than gasoline?

Posted by shaver_one on July 27, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem with American diesel is that it is dirty and smelly. Just drive behind a diesel-powered bus. Europe has cleaner burning diesel that costs more to refine, and costs more at the pump. American refineries are unwilling to upgrade their process as they, probably, will not be able to recoup the added costs while maintaining their obscene profits. And, Americans still have negative reactions about diesel...remember those diesel-powered buses? America needs to be educated about diesel, non-corn-based ethanol, and compressed natural gas. We also need to be re-educated about regular vehicular maintenance for our gasoline-burners, and proper tire pressure.

Posted by nelsonknows on July 27, 2008 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Don't hold your breath waiting on a car to get 75MPG using diesel, gas or anything else. Congress put a huge tariff on the V.W. Polo diesel that gets 75 MPG using diesel with zero emissions.
Auto trader had 11 '92-94 Geo Metros last week and all sold for $3330-4000, why? because they don't make a car today that gets 50+ MPG that you can buy in the U.S.



Discuss this article
(Requires free registration.)

Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.

Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.

We do not allow the following:

  • Posts that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation or disability.
  • Disparaging remarks, abusive language or obscene comments.
  • Threats, whether obvious or veiled.

We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.

Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Username:

Password:
(Forgotten your password?)

Your Turn:

Loading videos... If you don't see them shortly, you may need to download the Flash Player.