The Good News and Bad News On U.S. Fuel-Economy Trends
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
The Good News and Bad News On U.S. Fuel-Economy Trends
The Wall Street Journal; “Eyes On The Road”, October 1, 2007
What Will It Take for Americans To Give Up Speed, Power and Size?
Looking for some bedtime reading? I have one for you: "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1995-2007."
J.K. Rowling, Michael Crichton and Elizabeth Gilbert have nothing to fear. This annual Environmental Protection Agency survey of the state of automotive technology and energy efficiency was published last week just as the United Auto Workers and General Motors Corp. were battling toward their historic new labor agreement. I caught up with it on about four hours of sleep. I don't like warm milk, and was grateful for the effective substitute.
Still, when Congress returns to the subject of climate change, energy security and automotive fuel efficiency, reading this document, prepared by the automotive technology experts at the EPA, will make you a smarter judge of the preaching and posturing to come.
Bear with the dry prose and you will get a fascinating study of America's character. We really are the Bigger is Better nation. We are in love with speed, size and power. It's not just a Hollywood or Madison Avenue image. Our cars give us away.
Compared with 1987, the average weight of the vehicle we drive has risen by 923 pounds, or 29%. The average time it takes for a vehicle to go from zero to 60 miles per hour time has dropped to 9.6 seconds -- the fastest since the EPA started compiling this data in 1975. Our average car or truck has 223 horsepower, and the most horsepower per pound on record.
There is some good news: The 17-year decline in the average fuel efficiency of America's new car fleet that began in 1987 appears to have stopped. The EPA forecasts that the average fuel economy of 2007 model cars and trucks will be 20.2 miles per gallon, the same as 2006 and slightly better than 19.9 mpg measured for 2005. That would make three straight years when the new vehicle fleet's fuel economy was no worse, or slightly better, than it was in 2004.
Using one EPA measurement, "ton-miles per gallon," or the miles per gallon multiplied by the weight of the car, 2007 vehicles are the most efficient on record. This is a laudable achievement by the industry, for which it will get little credit.
The average fuel efficiency of light trucks has increased by one mile per gallon since 2004, a shift that coincides with higher gas prices, a turn away from heavy, truck-frame sport utility vehicles, and -- sorry, auto industry friends -- an increase in the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard to 22.2 mpg in 2007 from 20.7 mpg in 2004.
Why sympathy for the car industry folks? Because they don't want Congress to get the idea that raising the CAFE mileage standards is the only way to get them to produce more efficient vehicles. Unfortunately for them, this report strongly implies that's the case.
The coming energy debate will be portrayed as Greens vs. "Detroit." But in this case, "Detroit" is just about all the major car makers. Since 1997, only one major automotive group in the U.S. has increased its overall average fuel economy: Toyota, and not by much. All the big auto makers are down compared with 1987. True, the Detroit Three have the lowest average fuel economy scores among the eight major automotive groups. Honda Motor Co. is the overall best. DaimlerChrysler (now Chrysler LLC) is the worst.
My favorite part of this report is toward the end, where the EPA experts imagine what the fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet would be if cars and trucks had stayed the same weight and size as in 1981 or 1988. In 1981, cars had the lowest average weight and horsepower, while in 1988, the car fleet achieved its highest laboratory fuel economy.
Recalculated that way, if 2007 cars were as light on average as 1981 cars, our national average car fuel economy (according to the unadjusted EPA lab figures) would be 13% better than current reality. If 2007 model trucks were the same weight as the average for 1981, their fuel efficiency rating would be 35% better.
Who brought this about? Look in the mirror. We bought cars and trucks that were safer, and more luxurious and more powerful. That tended to make them heavier, which in turn increased our demand for power.
"All other factors being equal, higher vehicle weight (which supports new options and features) and faster acceleration performance (e.g. lower 0-to-60 mile-per-hour acceleration time) both decrease a vehicle's fuel economy," the EPA authors write.
Until about two years ago, most of us weren't that concerned.
Regular readers will note that I drive a Subaru Impreza WRX which was rated, when I bought it in the pre-$3 gas era, at 227 horsepower and has a curb weight of 3,085 pounds. That puts its horsepower/weight ratio at about 0.0735, compared with the 2007 EPA average of 0.0534. My stick shift car's EPA rated mileage is 20 mpg city, 27 mpg highway -- and that's with premium gas, which these days I feed to my car on the same days I have caviar for lunch.
I could have bought a second-hand Toyota Corolla, or Ford Focus, or even for that matter a Chevy Impala to get better highway mileage than my turbocharged, street legal rally car. (The much larger Impala's city mileage rating is only 1 mpg worse than my car.) There was no one with a gun forcing me to buy a twitchy, turbocharged, all-wheel-drive Japanese sedan. I did it voluntarily, with full knowledge that the only justification for my choice is my compulsion to rage against the constraints of middle age.
The question is what will persuade me and my countrymen (and women) to make different choices in the future.
Michigan U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a long-time friend of the auto industry, recently proposed a bill that would raise the tax on gasoline (but not diesel fuel) by 50 cents, put a $50 a ton tax on carbon, and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for McMansions larger than 4,200 square feet.
Mr. Dingell's bill cuts a wide swath in part because cars and trucks contribute 20% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, according to the EPA. Mr. Dingell calls attention to the other 80%.
It's pretty likely this bill will go nowhere. But Mr. Dingell already has made his point. If you want people to change their behavior, you have to make it worth their while, or knock them on the head, or both.
Preaching alone won't do it.
What Will It Take for Americans To Give Up Speed, Power and Size?
Looking for some bedtime reading? I have one for you: "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1995-2007."
J.K. Rowling, Michael Crichton and Elizabeth Gilbert have nothing to fear. This annual Environmental Protection Agency survey of the state of automotive technology and energy efficiency was published last week just as the United Auto Workers and General Motors Corp. were battling toward their historic new labor agreement. I caught up with it on about four hours of sleep. I don't like warm milk, and was grateful for the effective substitute.
Still, when Congress returns to the subject of climate change, energy security and automotive fuel efficiency, reading this document, prepared by the automotive technology experts at the EPA, will make you a smarter judge of the preaching and posturing to come.
Bear with the dry prose and you will get a fascinating study of America's character. We really are the Bigger is Better nation. We are in love with speed, size and power. It's not just a Hollywood or Madison Avenue image. Our cars give us away.
Compared with 1987, the average weight of the vehicle we drive has risen by 923 pounds, or 29%. The average time it takes for a vehicle to go from zero to 60 miles per hour time has dropped to 9.6 seconds -- the fastest since the EPA started compiling this data in 1975. Our average car or truck has 223 horsepower, and the most horsepower per pound on record.
There is some good news: The 17-year decline in the average fuel efficiency of America's new car fleet that began in 1987 appears to have stopped. The EPA forecasts that the average fuel economy of 2007 model cars and trucks will be 20.2 miles per gallon, the same as 2006 and slightly better than 19.9 mpg measured for 2005. That would make three straight years when the new vehicle fleet's fuel economy was no worse, or slightly better, than it was in 2004.
Using one EPA measurement, "ton-miles per gallon," or the miles per gallon multiplied by the weight of the car, 2007 vehicles are the most efficient on record. This is a laudable achievement by the industry, for which it will get little credit.
The average fuel efficiency of light trucks has increased by one mile per gallon since 2004, a shift that coincides with higher gas prices, a turn away from heavy, truck-frame sport utility vehicles, and -- sorry, auto industry friends -- an increase in the federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard to 22.2 mpg in 2007 from 20.7 mpg in 2004.
Why sympathy for the car industry folks? Because they don't want Congress to get the idea that raising the CAFE mileage standards is the only way to get them to produce more efficient vehicles. Unfortunately for them, this report strongly implies that's the case.
The coming energy debate will be portrayed as Greens vs. "Detroit." But in this case, "Detroit" is just about all the major car makers. Since 1997, only one major automotive group in the U.S. has increased its overall average fuel economy: Toyota, and not by much. All the big auto makers are down compared with 1987. True, the Detroit Three have the lowest average fuel economy scores among the eight major automotive groups. Honda Motor Co. is the overall best. DaimlerChrysler (now Chrysler LLC) is the worst.
My favorite part of this report is toward the end, where the EPA experts imagine what the fuel efficiency of our vehicle fleet would be if cars and trucks had stayed the same weight and size as in 1981 or 1988. In 1981, cars had the lowest average weight and horsepower, while in 1988, the car fleet achieved its highest laboratory fuel economy.
Recalculated that way, if 2007 cars were as light on average as 1981 cars, our national average car fuel economy (according to the unadjusted EPA lab figures) would be 13% better than current reality. If 2007 model trucks were the same weight as the average for 1981, their fuel efficiency rating would be 35% better.
Who brought this about? Look in the mirror. We bought cars and trucks that were safer, and more luxurious and more powerful. That tended to make them heavier, which in turn increased our demand for power.
"All other factors being equal, higher vehicle weight (which supports new options and features) and faster acceleration performance (e.g. lower 0-to-60 mile-per-hour acceleration time) both decrease a vehicle's fuel economy," the EPA authors write.
Until about two years ago, most of us weren't that concerned.
Regular readers will note that I drive a Subaru Impreza WRX which was rated, when I bought it in the pre-$3 gas era, at 227 horsepower and has a curb weight of 3,085 pounds. That puts its horsepower/weight ratio at about 0.0735, compared with the 2007 EPA average of 0.0534. My stick shift car's EPA rated mileage is 20 mpg city, 27 mpg highway -- and that's with premium gas, which these days I feed to my car on the same days I have caviar for lunch.
I could have bought a second-hand Toyota Corolla, or Ford Focus, or even for that matter a Chevy Impala to get better highway mileage than my turbocharged, street legal rally car. (The much larger Impala's city mileage rating is only 1 mpg worse than my car.) There was no one with a gun forcing me to buy a twitchy, turbocharged, all-wheel-drive Japanese sedan. I did it voluntarily, with full knowledge that the only justification for my choice is my compulsion to rage against the constraints of middle age.
The question is what will persuade me and my countrymen (and women) to make different choices in the future.
Michigan U.S. Rep. John Dingell, a long-time friend of the auto industry, recently proposed a bill that would raise the tax on gasoline (but not diesel fuel) by 50 cents, put a $50 a ton tax on carbon, and eliminate the mortgage interest deduction for McMansions larger than 4,200 square feet.
Mr. Dingell's bill cuts a wide swath in part because cars and trucks contribute 20% of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, according to the EPA. Mr. Dingell calls attention to the other 80%.
It's pretty likely this bill will go nowhere. But Mr. Dingell already has made his point. If you want people to change their behavior, you have to make it worth their while, or knock them on the head, or both.
Preaching alone won't do it.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
I'd like to see a report of what percentege of that weight increase has been driven by federal safety regulations, which I would imagine have added far more weight since 1981 than "consumer driven" accessories have. I'm all for safe cars, but I think we have to look at NHTSA, too - not just the automakers and cosumers.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,887
From: northeast Miss.
How about the size, weight, power, and fuel economy of a 1987 Suburban or Silverado versus a 2007? He starts out with the trucks and quickly moves to cars because he is about to shoot his own article in the head. I dont know the weight right off but I know the new trucks have a lot more power, are way faster, AND get better fuel economy.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,688
From: Middle of Kansas
I'd like to see a report of what percentege of that weight increase has been driven by federal safety regulations, which I would imagine have added far more weight since 1981 than "consumer driven" accessories have. I'm all for safe cars, but I think we have to look at NHTSA, too - not just the automakers and cosumers.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
How about the size, weight, power, and fuel economy of a 1987 Suburban or Silverado versus a 2007? He starts out with the trucks and quickly moves to cars because he is about to shoot his own article in the head. I dont know the weight right off but I know the new trucks have a lot more power, are way faster, AND get better fuel economy.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymod...Suburban.shtml
I think it fair to say that the Suburban of today is a much better vehicle than its 1987 counterpart. As for MPG estimates; the 1987 2WD with the 5.0L automatic (which had the best rating with a gasoline engine) the estimate under the new standards was 12/17 while approximately the same model in 2007 (as near as I can figure anyway) is 15/21 so it has definetly gotten better in those 20 years.
However, if the vehicle has also gotten significantly larger/heavier then I think it's appropriate to wonder what the EPA estimate would be for the '07 if the Suburban had remained at a smaller size?
I'm sure a significant part of the weight is a result of safety regulations that did not exist in 1987 but I don't thik safety regulations "required" vehicles to get larger and I suspect the larger size accounts for weight more than safety regulations.
The industry has come a long way in applying technology to give us both better performing vehicles and better fuel effecient vehicles as well but you can't help but wonder where would we be without the added size that most vehicles have seen over the last couple of decades...I think that's what the EPA report, and the article, are trying to get at.
I had a 1993 F150 long bed but compared to any "standard" sized pick-up today, that F150 would hardly qualify as a "mid-sized"!
I for one like a "big", powerful (and comfortable/safe) vehicle for most of my driving and I don't really care much about MPG but I also know the trend of ever larger vehicles will have to stop.
Last edited by Robert_Nashville; Oct 1, 2007 at 02:17 PM.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
Flowmotion -
I disagree. Size for size cars are much heavier than they were in the 1980s. All of the bumper standards, airbags, crumple zones, and other safety accessories made necessary since then don't come free.
A transfer case isn't a consumer accessory. Choosing a 4x4 vs. a car isn't what we're talking about here. Transfer cases, if anything, are probably lighter than they were in the 80s.
They're talking about power accessories, infotainment systems, power heated mirrors, heated seats, etc., etc. that add only a few pounds each, but add up pretty quickly.
Nonetheless, I'd say they've still contributed less to weight than safety gear.
I disagree. Size for size cars are much heavier than they were in the 1980s. All of the bumper standards, airbags, crumple zones, and other safety accessories made necessary since then don't come free.
A transfer case isn't a consumer accessory. Choosing a 4x4 vs. a car isn't what we're talking about here. Transfer cases, if anything, are probably lighter than they were in the 80s.
They're talking about power accessories, infotainment systems, power heated mirrors, heated seats, etc., etc. that add only a few pounds each, but add up pretty quickly.
Nonetheless, I'd say they've still contributed less to weight than safety gear.
Last edited by Eric77TA; Oct 1, 2007 at 02:02 PM. Reason: clarifying that response was to Flowmotion rather than Robert...
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 681
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,502
I'm not even questioning that safety engineering adds weight, just in the big picture the roads used to be filled with hatchbacks and now there's SUVs everywhere.
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,958
From: Kansas City, MO
Yes, there are lots of SUVS, but the Fits and Yaris and Aveos of today don't deliver the mileage numbers that the much ligher and less powerful subcompacts of yore did, either. And many of those vehicles have had to grow in size and weight to meet new safety standards. Remove SUVS from the equation and the result remains the same.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,179
From: Ballwin, MO
I wonder how his WRX likes getting fed 87. However, given that it is a mid life crisis car, he is probably always 5 mph under the limit, and never gets past half throttle. There are a lot of people in my local F-Body club that complain about having to run 93. I kist want to look at them and ask, "Why the **** did you buy one of these, if this was a concern of yours?"
Lounge Moderator
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 357
From: Mi Scusi!
I was actually wondering earlier today what the effects would be if government started imposing weight restrictions on consumer-level vehicles. Start forcing manufacturers to use advances in plastics/alloys/chemical engineering to make lighter cars. Enforce this for about 10 years and the safety reinforcement materials wouldn't have to be so robust since two lighter cars hitting each other involves a lot less force than two heavy ones.
And I'm still waiting for the collision foam from Demolition Man, but that's neither here nor there.
And I'm still waiting for the collision foam from Demolition Man, but that's neither here nor there.
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,938
I was actually wondering earlier today what the effects would be if government started imposing weight restrictions on consumer-level vehicles. Start forcing manufacturers to use advances in plastics/alloys/chemical engineering to make lighter cars. Enforce this for about 10 years and the safety reinforcement materials wouldn't have to be so robust since two lighter cars hitting each other involves a lot less force than two heavy ones.
And I'm still waiting for the collision foam from Demolition Man, but that's neither here nor there.
And I'm still waiting for the collision foam from Demolition Man, but that's neither here nor there.
You also have to keep in mind that even if most “personal” vehicles were “smaller” on average than they are today after ten years of government standards; what happens when your little vehicle gets hit by a bus, dump truck or one-ton pick-up hauling a trailer or a semi???
I think the bottom line is that smaller/lighter vehicles will always have an edge in fuel economy than a larger/heavier counterpart and the thrust of the article, IMHO, is that vehicles have gotten larger and larger than vehicles of 20 years ago for no good reason other than marketing.
The trade-off, however, is that any “small” vehicle is always going to be somewhat less safe than a larger vehicle even with advances in safety technology (however that “foam” from the Demolition Man movie might really be a good idea!).
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2000
Posts: 10,285
From: Albany, NY
I was actually wondering earlier today what the effects would be if government started imposing weight restrictions on consumer-level vehicles. Start forcing manufacturers to use advances in plastics/alloys/chemical engineering to make lighter cars. Enforce this for about 10 years and the safety reinforcement materials wouldn't have to be so robust since two lighter cars hitting each other involves a lot less force than two heavy ones.
