The related issue is that oil really is a finite resource, and we need to use what is left wisely and very slllooowwlly to run mission critical infrastructure. Tight oil is expensive and messy no matter what kind of gasoline you are making.
As for reformulated gas, I am with you part of the way on that-- I think. I haven't looked into the ethanol blends in a long time, but last time I did a medium-deep dive, the amount of water and land we need for the corn that creates the ethanol is not an efficient use of resources and has its own unintended consequences. And yes, it also is not great for cars-- and the higher the percentage, the worse the damage. The MX5's fuel pump failed at 37,000 miles, though the CRX doesn't seem to mind the stuff. Only non-maintenance mechanical problem the MX5 has had in six years. I'll always wonder if it was the ethanol that killed the fuel pump, but I have no way of knowing, it's definitely a wild theory. (The CRX doesn't really even need gas, I just give it to him as a treat because he's such a good boy.)
The detergent additives in high-end gas do seem to help. My cars have always run better on 76 and Chevron. I also always buy premium, even for the CRX. I have never believed that there is no difference in fuel economy, though I admit that is speculative. It always seemed to get slightly better mileage with 91 octane than with 89. As for the extra money, the car is so efficient, hey, who cares? I think it may burn a little cleaner, too, though the science on that is above my pay grade. For some cars that have a 'ceiling' on the automatic timing advance, mm, maybe 91 is really unnecessary. I think the CRX is old enough, and its little brain is small enough, so that it has no 'ceiling' that stops the timing from advancing to a more efficient setting. (Though now, I want to look into this. This may be an utterly false belief.) And anecdotally, mine is one of the relatively few I've heard of that routinely exceeds EPA estimates for fuel economy by a wide margin. It's rated at 47 highway, but 51 is not uncommon. Drivers who are more disciplined than me have gotten 55 with the car fully loaded. which means 58 is possible, and a few outliers report fuel economy in the low 60s.
I also agree that EVs need to be more practical. I think the first step is overhauling safety regulations-- and I know that's not a popular idea, but it's critical to save weight. The sheet metal in vehicles does not have to be as thick as is now. I kind of think that people should just learn to be more careful drivers at this point so they can drive lighter cars. Fewer distractions would help, and I personally, I don't think any car should have an LCD display-- particularly touch screen-- for any reason. It's also another point of failure, something else that will need to be replaced. For whatever reason, and I know it's not very scientific, but everyone I know who has been seriously injured in an accident was driving a heavy car that was supposed to be safe. I have wrecked the CRX in several complex accidents, and it's held up shockingly well, never had any structural damage, despite the fact that the body metal is so thin you can bend it literally by just bouncing the hood with your hand to test the shocks. Also, all eJunk must be optional! Blind spot monitors, backup cameras, navi, infotainment, even electric windows must never be standard equipment! I think manufacturers should be mandated by law to offer bare-bones models-- and if they did, people would buy them and the captive market for eJunk would be destroyed.
I would buy a bare-bones EV sports car with a 300+ mile range, provided it can also manage 0-60 in around 5 seconds or a little less and tops out at 130 with decent acceleration up to 100. But it will never be offered, so I'll probably drive the cars I have until my dirt nap.
We should stop pretending that the auto industry is being compelled to add all this crap because people are crazy about it. Maybe that was true, vaguely, 15 or 20 years ago, but generally, we just buy stuff because it's what's available, it's what's being offered. It's what we are forced to buy. People don't use touch-screen phones and voice recognition because they've been dreaming about it since they were little children, they use eJunk because they have no choice. The market doesn't respond to consumers' needs-- this is fantasy that was only true for a heartbeat in time after the industrial revolution. There's no reason to think the market would behave the same way indefinitely, when the power differential between industry and consumers has changed so dramatically, and now that scarcity of material is a real factor in product development and design. Also, with a mandated 'bare-bones' model, I think carmakers would be forced to rethink the way their cars are designed so that they were more efficient and reliable.
I absolutely do not have a problem with government's boot planted firmly on the throat of industry. That's how my own business operates. It's annoying, and there are some stupid rules I have to find loopholes for in some high-risk situations, and yes, that adds some risk for some patients. But it's WAY safer than the dark days when my profession was completely unregulated.
The only reason I bought the MX5 was because they offered a bare-bones model that didn't have any eJunk except for electric windows, which I despise, even though I have dual rotator cuff syndrome and it hurts to turn the crank. Literally, there was no car on the market that interested me between 1991 and 2016. And indeed, look where we are now, six years later: The most common point of failure for the ND MX5: eJunk. On Miata.net, countless tales of people's dashboards lighting up like Christmas trees, their cars developing bizarre intermittent problems and gremlins that take months to track down-- and it's always some unnecessary system that caused the problem, some digital gimcrack that, thankfully, isn't on the Sport.
Okay, rant off! I should buy a single-malt for anyone who had the patient to read all that!
www.wideopencountry.com
!
!
