ArcaMax

The engine - because it's constantly being cycled off and on (most wear and tear occurs at start-up and these stop-start systems trigger potentially dozens of start-stop cycles per day vs. the typical two or three). The starter - because it's being used much more frequently and the more often you use something, the sooner it will wear out.

A growing number of new cars also have electrically-boosted power steering - once again, to eke out a slight MPG improvement by slightly reducing parasitic drag on the engine (by eliminating the engine-driven power steering pump).

But - Thermodynamics 101 - there is no free lunch. You can source energy from different places; convert it, etc. But it's never without cost.

The question at hand is whether the costs being imposed (remember, we're not given a choice) are worth it. Arguably, they are not. Which explains why we aren't given the choice. Would you - if it were optional (and the extra cost fully disclosed) buy a new non-hybrid car equipped with a hybrid-esque regenerative braking system, knowing it would likely kill your 12V battery in two or three years (at a replacement cost of $150) vs. four or five in order to "save" you $50 worth of gas over the same period of time? Probably not.

It was the same with air bags. They were offered - but not bought - because most people didn't consider the cost worth the benefit. So they made air bags mandatory.

Now, they're force-feeding us regenerative braking, auto-stop/start and more to come, surely. They're not formally mandated in the way that air bags are. But the government's fuel efficiency mandates amount to the same thing. The government doesn't dictate how new cars will manage to average 35.5 MPG by 2016. Just that they do. With the cost (and hassle) passed on to us.

========

www.ericpetersautos.com or EPeters952@aol.com for comments.