Since my return on Friday from the New York Auto Show, my friends and co-workers have been relentlessly asking me, “What was the big story there?” After I tell them the big story — that I saw Mike Stern play in the Village with some friends and then squired two fabulous ladies around New York until 5:30AM — they ask me to shut up about that and tell them about the car story.
Fair enough. The story this year is fuel economy, just like it was thirty years ago. The difference this time? Fuel economy, like every other crappy thing in this world, from Russian vodka to TAG Heuer watches, has gone upscale.
It’s been a long time since EPA ratings were the biggest part of auto advertisements, but those days are back. Forty miles per gallon is the gateway to respectability. Hyundai debuted yet another 40MPG car — the Accent sedan — in what is becoming a very fuel-economy-centric lineup. Kia showed the Rio. Chevrolet asked the world to wait a year for a 38MPG Malibu while Ford put “41 MPG” in bold letters on the side of its aging-but-still-hot Fusion Hybrid. Volkswagen put big numbers on the side of its cars and crossed its fingers that nobody had seen the price of diesel on their way in to the show. Subaru showed a 36MPG Impreza but made a virtue of the number by noting that it was for an all-wheel-drive vehicle. Let’s not forget the new Prius “family of vehicles”, or the upcoming Toyota/Scion iQ.
We’ve seen this race before, back in 1982 when several manufacturers debuted cars with EPA highway ratings of 50MPG or more. TTAC’s Michael Karesh has done the math and notes that 50MPG on the 1982 EPA highway test is really about 35MPG today, so today’s fuel-economy superstars are actually more efficient that their predecessors. I have to wonder how much of the gap comes from computers that can accurately deliver special fuel maps for EPA testing, but perhaps I’m being cynical.
The difference back then was that fuel economy was sold on a purely economic basis. Perhaps there was a tiny bit of fear about fuel rationing in major cities mixed in with the money pitch, but by and large the selling point of the 50MPG car was cost of operation. The mileage champions — Honda 1300FE Civic, Toyota Starlet, Dodge/Plymouth Miser models — were all cheap cars. They looked cheap, they were cheap inside, and they were cheap to buy. This made perfect sense. If the buyer was concerned about saving ten bucks a week on fuel, he was probably also unwilling to buy a top-of-the-line model of any particular car.
Fast-forward to the 2011 NYIAS, and we see that “Eco” and “SFE” packages are all the rage. You pay more to pay less, dontcha know. Although Hyundai and Kia aren’t charging more for their 40MPG cars, neither have they skimped on interior appointments for the base models of those cars. We already know that the Prius commands a significant premium over the equivalent Corolla, and if you insist on comparing it to a Camry, it still costs more than a base 4cyl Camry does. Let’s not forget that VW’s fast-selling TDI models are four to five grand more expensive than their gas-powered equivalents. Fuel economy is becoming a luxury item.
Some rough math: over 100,000 miles, the 40MPG car saves 833 gallons over the 30MPG car. If fuel reaches $5 a gallon everywhere and stays there, that’s a savings of nearly $4200, but that savings takes a long time to arrive. I’d be surprised if most buyers were doing that math and making their decision based on it; instead, I suspect that social acceptability and personal concerns about appearance of consumption are responsible for the newfound popularity of 40MPG cars. In other words, it’s strictly emotional, which means it can be marketed to, which means it can be sold as a luxury good, which means it will cost more, even if it doesn’t have to.
What say you, TTACers? Would you pay more for “SFE”, “Eco”, “HSD”, or “TDI”? And why do you think everybody else might?
It’s becoming a luxury item in order to pay for all that marketing.
Most of my work is from home and most of my driving is for errands or pleasure putting on about 7,000 miles per year. The cost of depreciation on a new car would out weigh any fuel savings. My guess is most new car buyers focus on fuel mileage and do not consider depreciation as the biggest part of their car’s lifetime per-mile cost.
I know I don’t consider depreciation at all, but there are two factors there.
First – my car gets an average of 17,500 miles a year. This year it’s on track for well over 20,000 miles. It’s around 180,000 miles right now, 11 years old – depreciation just doesn’t enter the equation when you get to these figures.
Second – I moved to the U.S. back in 1999 and had always bought used cars up until that point. I looked at the price difference between new and used when I moved here and it was so close that it was worth a little more to get a brand new full warranty dealer supported all known history vehicle – especially as I am not going to work on the thing myself.
I would. I think a lot of other people would, too, just as people pay extra for V6s and turbo fours to get incremental and largely unnecessary performance gains. After all, who buys a 3.5L V6 and calculates how many seconds they’ll save of productive time?
Which is just fine.
Considering some of the foolish things that become fads, using less fuel, even if there’s no sound economical reason for it, isn’t so bad, and it’ll be a “leading edge of the wedge”, like safety, performance and/or luxury: inevitably dragging up the fuel economy of base models as technology trickles down and/or is amortized across whole product lines.
What gets me is that people for whom it’s not important seem to begrudge the economics and the regulatory culture, as if fuel economy is the only metric deserving of criticism. Want standards and labelling for horsepower or interior space? That’s fine and good; accuracy and consistency is a good thing, and we’re all better for being educated for it, and people should be free to buy as big and/or powerful a car as they like. Fuel economy (or emissions) labels that are easy to understand and consistent? It’s ether “You’re an IDIOT for spending MONEY to save GAS! DON’T you KNOW the NUMBERS DON’T WORK OUT FOR FIVE YEARS!!” or “Help, help DA GUBMINT COMIN’ TO TAKE MAH TAHOE!”
Moderated? Really? Damn… I knew I was baiting, but I figured it wasn’t that bad.
Smug filter? :P
I know I have to write P A N T H E R now to get through the filters, no idea why…
What gets me is that people for whom it’s not important seem to begrudge the economics and the regulatory culture, as if fuel economy is the only metric deserving of criticism.
Could it be the same ones who support “smokers rights” while chain smoking and tossing their butts out the window? And could it also be the ones who sit in their trucks at the park and laugh at others who are exercising, as if its beneath their dignity to make an effort to get in shape and lose weight? It’s their right to be selfish and their damn proud of it. Screw the expense to society. Same with fuel economy – it’s their right to drive an F-450 dually and then complain about the price of gas at the local Starvin’ Marvin.
It is my right to be selfish, I know what I like and I’ll do as I please. I have no interest in what you or anyone else thinks is politically correct or socially responsible. I pay for my own insurance, I never complain about the price of gas, and most importantly, I don’t tell other people how to live their lives.
I won’t pay more for it, especially considering it still carries a performance penalty. Without the price difference, it’s a straight trade-off between efficiency and performance. Now the efficiency is largely eliminated by the cost of the technology. I don’t want to pay double for wind power electricity either.
40 MPG is a pointless benchmark. Anything that hits mid-high 20’s city and low 30’s highway is plenty efficient for me. An Acura TSX would be a nice compromise.
Fuel economy is going to be an expected feature in new cars, like airbags and iPod jacks. Consumers will devalue a car that fails this new expectation. I have many customers coming asking, “what do you have that gets 40mpg?” The concept of paying extra for the highest fuel economy model, hibrids excluded, won’t last long. Consumers will see through the scam as soon as the trim level they want doesn’t get the 40 mpg.
Is high fuel economy nice to have? Yes. Is it a luxury item? Depends on how you define luxury. I think the better question is: Will luxurious small cars sell? That I think is the more pertinent question.
Ford has given us an Audi-esqe interior in the Focus (Jack’s words not mine.) You can buy a Hyundai Elantra with a heated REAR seat. Will these cars sell? Time will tell. Car and Driver (yeah I know the mags and their credibility, yada yada…) tested a fair number of small cars in the latest issue and called out the Jetta for clearly having the cheapest looking interior. Focus was the winner but they noted that the Ford, Hyundai, and Chevy all had interiors that were pleasant to spend time in. I’m waiting to see if these cars will sell.
Car & Driver’s usual trick is to compare the bare bones base model (Jetta in this case) with the top the line appointed car they want to feature (Ford Focus)…….
In the past C&D would do this in the family mid class by comparing the Accord EX-V6, with the a base 4cyl Camry.
PlentyofCars…Just read the article actually, and in this case the fault is VW’s. They used a $24/25k Jetta SEL in the comparison, so C/D didn’t spec a 2.0 or anything. I’d say the issue is VW has a GLI for around $24k, and you’d be an idiot to buy a “loaded” 2.5 over that for the same (or more) money. The base 5 cylinder makes sense (SE I think), but it looks like the Jetta 2.5 in top trim really isn’t going to stack well against low-mid 20’s competitors.
On the other hand, I’d bet VW makes most of their Jetta money on those SEL’s.
Actually, it was a top of the line Jetta SEL, list price a bit under 22 grand.
The chintzy interior is a lot easier to swallow in a $17000 car…but even the Focus and Cruze offer a far nicer interior at that price point than VW does.
VWs are overpriced. Always have been, always will be.
yes, please actually read the test before criticizing the method. They were all equally equipped cars. The new Jetta is just about 4 steps down from the old one, that’s the problem, not the car magazines.
Back in the day, Honda used to offer the Accord EX-L, which had a four cylinder and 5 speed manual trans, but was otherwise loaded to the gills with options, including a moonroof. it was a good car to drive and got good fuel mileage. When I was selling (early 90’s), these were highly desirable cars, even more than some of the V6 versions of contemporary cars. Now every car maker seems to offer a similar model to the old EX-L, which is progress in my book. Getting the highly desirable options without being forced into the bigger engine packages is a good thing.
I think we are getting away from the paradigm where small car = crap car, at least with the US automakers. I find it interesting that the only car to take my kid’s attention away from Audis and BMWs is the new Ford Focus. The first thing she mentions is that it gets great gas mileage… But I think she likes the styling and the pricing, compared to the German makes.
I don’t understand the hate on the VW interiors. I sat in the cars at the local car show, and really found nothing Yugo like in either execution or materials. It all seemed solid, but basic, which is what you would want in an appliance automobile. I’m not a huge VW fan, but I could see myself living comfortably with those cars.
I agree about not getting the hate on VW interiors either, but as I never compared older models to the new Jetta (which I really like), I have nothing to compare to. My 2007 MX5 Sport is all hard plastic interior except for the armrest on the door, which is sort of soft, otherwise, it’s about as luxurious as our ’02 CR-V. My Impala is much nicer in that regard. I believe some confuse “cheap” with “utilitarian”. I’ll go with utilitarian any day of the week.
I’m guessing the hate on the new Jetta interior is from people who knew the older model. Sit in a base Golf and compare it to the new Jetta – the Jetta interior is noticeably chintzier.
To me, the above-class interior and better handling characteristics are the only reasons to buy a VW. It remains to be seen whether VWoA has helped itself in the long term or shot itself in the foot chasing a Walmart pricing strategy.
@EEGeek: I based my comparisons on the older cars, but having seen them now. Some of the interiors didn’t hold up all that well. Remembering though, these cars I’m seeing are my kid’s friends cars, not all of them necessarily take good care of their stuff. But I still think the interiors are absolutely fine for the lower prices they’re (allegedly) asking. I agree with your last sentence though, time will tell how this all plays out.
EEGeek said: “To me, the above-class interior and better handling characteristics are the only reasons to buy a VW.”
yeah, and with the MKVI Jetta they cheapened out the interior to the point of being worse than the mkIII inside, stretched the wheelbase, and gave it a torsion-beam rear suspension, not seen since the last MKIV’s in 2005. Oh, and a 2.0L 8v 115bhp I4 as the base engine, not seen since 1998 mkIII’s. So where’s the appeal?
@Mrb00st, it appears that interior size trumps all for many customers, based on the new Jetta’s sales numbers to date.
@Mrb00st Actually the 2.0 in the new Mk. VI models is a transplant from the Mk. IV generation.
Thinking of my upcoming 100-mile-R/T daily commute in a couple of months, my trusty 2004 Impala 3.4L delivers over 30mpg hwy. I once got almost 35mpg when almost new. 80,000 miles later, it still gets around 33mpg straight highway with A/C on. I figure I should average around 30mpg, at least in warmer weather. Car is paid for, is comfortable, runs nice, A/C works, CD/radio works, still shines, never been wrecked, all maintenance by the book (severe) – it’s probably “cheaper to keep her”. Good? Bad? Middling? One other caveat: If another job comes my way nearer my home, I’ll consider that too. I only need another few years if I can jump out before I turn 65. Five at the most if I can do it, so I’m not too anxious at present, but the increased fuel cost will be, in effect, a pay cut. Anyway I run the numbers, that “new car smell” just doesn’t seem to be worth it just to achieve a few more mpg’s.
Why? This one is paid for.
Always an appropriate response when someone asks you if you’re thinking about a new vehicle for whatever reason.
Of course, Dan, unless the new Impala shows up with three taillights…well, now, that’s another story!
Sounds like a keeper to me. 33 highway is still somewhat above average and until the fleet is renewed at the newer CAFE level will be for a while… a tune-up with new plugs and wires would not seem unreasonable on a seven year old car, btw. That might help with the MPG.
Cars have gotten more reliable since the ’80s, and this is a double-edged sword for manufacturers. Why would anyone pay for a cheap new car, with the skimpiest possible interior appointments (or whatever we’re calling them today)? If they wanted a car without an iPod dock and GPS navigation on a big futuristic-feeling touchscreen and heated shift knobs and whatever other crap they’re shovelling into your dashboard nowadays, they could just get a used car. Sure, you could make a base-model Corolla with the most non-hybrid fuel efficiency gizmos and sell it for a bargain-basement price, but that $12K 2011 Corolla isn’t competing with other $12K 2011 economy cars, it’s also competing with a slightly used Camry or a more-than-slightly used BMW at the same price point.
Buying any car new is a luxury decision, and the automakers know this.
Most annoying (to me) are the models that have minor, relatively simple modifications to boost fuel efficiency. Why the hell not do this across the entire line as standard? The method has already been figured out!!! What could be a better bragging right than merely having a few “special” models.
Yes, the Jetta TDI wagon is at MSRP exactly $5000 more than the gas version yikes! Anything at all that gets us to conserve fuel, even automotive overpriced fashion accessories, is a good thing-even the current very high (for US) gas prices. Pick your reason: Less dependence on oil nations that are not friendly, cleaner air, less smog, less lung disease, less need for “defense”, less climate change if that’s indeed true, etc.
We can’t lose.
@jbltg, Thanks for playing, but you should compare the TDI to the SE, not the base model, as the equipment level is near-identical to the SE.
Comparing the Jetta Sedan on truedelta.com, it shows $1100 as the price difference to get the TDI and a 6MT rather than a 5MT.
Thanks th009 and I haven’t looked but I’m sure you are correct. It’s still a 5K difference to me to get into that model since I would not normally spring for all that extra shit anyway which is irrelevant to me and just more stuff to break on an already quality-challenged brand.
I should clarify that I am not in the market for a new vehicle, having a ’95 that works fine and gets in the low 30’s on each tank of gas. but when the necessity of replacement comes you bet efficiency will be at the top of my shopping list. In terms of oil supply, we are living in a fool’s paradise.
@th009: +1.
Factor in no sales tax on a TDI in many states, plus a $2500 federal tax credit for those who qualify, and the TDI starts looking better and better.
I own a 2010 Jetta TDI. After owning two Civic Hybrids, the TDI has been a breath of fresh air with nary a hint of diesel fumes.
When comparing the two, the TDI comes up short on:
mileage (-10 to 15, but my average speed in the TDI is much higher),
lack of a nav (I elected to go without it, and the touchscreen headunit and audio in my TDI is far superior),
lack of rear seat room.
Otherwise, TDI all around. It’s too bad that VW decontented the 2011 version, extra room notwithstanding. The combination of 240 lb/ft of torque and the DSG is pretty sweet.
when i ran the numbers the base jetta is only $1900 less than the TDI with equal options
wondering where the 4-5 grand comment TDI premium comes from. maybe the toureg ?
in any event when I see those numbers I always think “those ba$terds, they’re creating a more efficient car and finding a way to keep the fuel savings themselves, instead of passing them on to the driver.”
Of course TDIs (and, I assume, hybrids as well) have higher resale value as well, which will make up for some of the price difference.
fair point. the friggin used TDIs with 30000 miles retail the same as a brand spankin new {decontented} model
Shit, shit and more shit from the auto companies!
“when i ran the numbers the base jetta is only $1900 less than the TDI with equal options”
There ya go. People like me don’t want the options, so it’s still a $5k difference to us. I’m getting tired of automakers putting one or two options I’d be interested in inside a massive options package that adds thousands to the bottom line.
I hate buying gas. I hate parting with that money. Problem is, I love driving. So I am in a quandry. I own a VW Golf, great little car, averages about 30 mpg int he real world, fun to toss around. I’m now feeling that I want another car, the VW having arrived at 240,000 miles.
I priced a GTD, and it is expensive. Spending that money seems to revolve around whether it is better to add the 5g cost to the purchase price and then pay for it over time as part of the purchase price, or to get the GTI that I really want, and pay the money to the petroleum companies. I lean towards the GTI in this example. Not because I love gas companies, but i hate banks even more.
My friend just got a 2 yr old Mustang ragtop with the rumbling V8, a car thats also on my list, but that gets worse mileage. Would listening to that teriffic engine with the top down on a gorgeous spring day such as this make me steam less about the price of gas? I would have to hope so.
How bout brand new Mustang V6? 305hp, regular gas, 30mpg hwy.
Educator Dan, Yes its on my list. Since that I know that the mustang is not a sports car but a grand tourer, I expect I could grand tour just as well on the v6. However, the sound of the v8 is intoxicating.
Yeah it occurred to me a few years ago that the reason the Thunderbird is no longer needed is because you can get a V6 Mustang with leather. For the majority of the population that would have bought a Thunderbird, that is an acceptable substitute. (Personally I like grand tourers, especially one’s that don’t cost more than about $25,000.)
The V6 faux pony is a fine car. Definitely out-paces a GTI on the straights, with very similar eco-numbers. That said, remember that sometimes a grand tour requires more than two adult passengers.
That’s an interesting question, Jack. I was at my wife’s family for Easter and her relatives are heavy automotive consumers, all of whom complain mercilessly about bad mpg in cars. They will definitely spend more to get better mileage and I would put them in the “normal” section of the bell curve. I never understood this mentality. I was extolling the merits of the GM 5.3 V8 and how smooth, torquey and wonderful this engine is and all they could say is that it’s a “guzzler.” This is from a crowd who wastes money in every conceivable automotive way except for the gas bill.
When I was a kid, I always wondered why anyone would spend good money on a slow, clattery, black smoke-emitting Mercedes diesel, when you could have a perfectly good V8. It seemed to me like the ultimate contradiction. You pay a tremendous amount of money for the car, but you’re a cheapskate on fuel?
because 30 years later many of those clattery MB Diesels are still on the road.
Well, I do the math. I’d pay a little more, but not thousands.
To expand on the 80’s theme, my dad’s 78 Fiesta got an actual 40-44 mpg highway back then, but it wasn’t as clean, powerful, safe, roomy, or well-appointed as today’s econocars. MPG isn’t the whole story.
Pretty clearly fuel economy already is a luxury item when it comes to the sale of hybrids, diesels and, probably, EVs. If you do the math none of them, with the possible exception of the Prius, deliver a return on your additional investment over a similar gasoline-engine only car.
I think the “40 MPG” craze is driven by gas prices exceeding $4/gallon in most metro areas . . . so it’s a way to get people into the showroom, because they’re thinking that they ought to replace their “gas guzzler” that they currently own. Dollars to donuts, once people get in the showroom, I imagine many of them will elect — for various reasons — not to buy the max MPG version of the vehicle. For example, it’s going to be interesting to see how many people will pay for the FWD – 4-cylinder “ecoboost” version of the Ford Explorer, as opposed to the V-6 alternative.
Clearly, most folks don’t “do the math” when making buying decisions like this, although the dismal sales of the Chevy Volt appear to show that if the calculus is really terrible — as it is with that car — people “get” that.
Everything you said!
It is reminiscent of household appliances. Governments want to encourage us to spend thousands of dollars on more efficient appliances. Why would you spend money on a new ‘fridge when the one you’ve got is perfectly fine and may well outlive you?
It is no wonder our planet is in such distress. I’m no tree hugger but some of our thinking is seriously flawed.
Simon, because in 10 years, that new fridge can save enough energy to pay for itself. Pretty nifty website with savings calculator here:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=refrig.calculator
Same logic applies to cars. Buying a new car to replace a perfectly good 2 year old vehicle and gain 5 mpg is stupid–and yes, I know people who do that. Replacing a 15 year old car that’s nickel and diming you in repairs and gets crappy mileage makes sense. Spending a little extra to get maximum mpg may or may not make sense. I think the Prius is pretty cool tech, and the Cruz Eco as well. Does paying a premium for them make any less sense than springing for the V8 in the Mustang because you like sound of the exhaust?
You open a can of worms with that comment – so true! Have you tried to repair an appliance lately? Try getting parts! For example, I have a very nice Rigid shop vac that doubles as a blower. The switch burnt out. It took me weeks to get a new switch. I got one and the vac works fine, although it is getting old, but at least I get a few more years out of it. Anything “cordless” – when the batteries exhaust their life cycle, it is cheaper to throw away a perfectly good device for the sake of the cost of replacing batteries – inexcusable! Where does the appliance wind up? In a landfill! What a waste! Sad…
Zack, I hear you, and I agree it’s nuts. My 15 years old fridge has some corroded contacts I have to clean every 6 months or so, can’t find replacements and it takes a couple hours to get the fridge apart. Next time they go out I’ll probably just get a new fridge.
@Zackman, it’s our disposable culture at work. I spend time looking for higher-quality, more durable products but often they don’t even exist: either there is no market, or the manufacturers have not yet found that market.
There are more and more options to recycle any used appliance, so that it doesn’t have to be thrown in a landfill. In the area where I live there’s an electrics/electronics recycler that will take “anything with a plug” and some things without, so I almost never have to throw any appliance or device in the trash anymore.
Thanks Zack. I was having a very good day until you reminded me that the refrigerator repair man , and I, have been on a first name basis for some time. “Cheap Parts”
“Replacing a 15 year old car that’s nickel and diming you in repairs and gets crappy mileage makes sense.”
Uh, I donno about that. Spending $500 every 6 mo in repairs sounds a helluva lot better to me than $300/mo, every month for the next several years.
Sort of. Difference being that appliances are junked most frequently (very few are donated; even those with useful life left in them) and vehicles with any use are resold as the market for them is very vibrant (and the parts market even more so).
I completely agree, though, that the disposable society is really sad. We had a great dishwasher in our house – top of the line 6 years ago when the previous owners redid the kitchen – it worked great, was fairly quiet, had some cool features – but the racks were rusting and all the little tines that hold dishes in were breaking off. I attempted to fix, but the coating had enough holes in it that both entire racks were rusting all over. I priced out replacement racks – over $400 – and there were no used ones available anywhere, despite the fact Maytag had made many thousands of these dishwashers. So what did I do? I picked up a Home Depot Black Friday special, installed, that cost less than the replacement racks would have. It doesn’t quite have all the features of the old one – but close to it – plus it is more energy efficient and quieter – but without having an idea how much more life was left in the old one, there was no economic reason to NOT replace it. It really made me sad, though.
The auto company marketers think the hoi polloi with ante up for eco models because lots of celebrities drive Priuseseses. Well my goodness, if the Hollywood brain trust drive around in them, then why wouldn’t everyone else aspire to?
Things have gotten so bad that having a “V6” badge on a car denotes the higher end model. Personally, I’m not willing to pay more for higher fuel economy. In fact, the cars I drive (SRT8 and S550) get terrible gas mileage. What kills me is that when I watch old movies like “Riding with Death”, the promise of alternative energy and “freedom from foreign oil” date back so far, it’s like watching rhetoric.
The fact is some of those cars from 80-82 did get 50MPG hwy in the real world. My dad had the Starlet and in his mostly freeway commute regularly returned 49-51 MPG and my now wife had the Tercel and on the freeway with 2 passengers it too would return ~50 MPG. Of course that was back in the days of straight gas so I wouldn’t be surprised to see them return ~45 MPG using the E7 to E10 found at many or all pumps in many areas of the US. Still that puts them on Par with the real world reports of Prius Hwy MPG. I know a couple of people who have 2-4 year old Priuses and the best they report is 45 MPG on the E7-E10 we get around here.
They may keep up with hybrid mileage on the freeway, but I suspect even the mildest of hybrids would stomp them flat in stop and go city traffic, which is where you really gain economy in a Prius.
Those 80s shitboxes approached 50 mpg on the open road because you crawled up to speed and rarely broke 60 mph. Not out of intentional hypermiling but because going any faster made the car sound and feel like it was about to break.
A 2011 Civic or Corolla will do at least that well if you can force yourself to drive that slow. A skinny tired suppository like the Prius would be in the mid 60s.
No I don’t think that good gas mileage is a luxury or upscale item. Because the price of a barrel of oil is not the only issue, we’re in an economic slump. Willingness to spend a lot to save a little is not an option for most of us. Perhaps it is for some dimwits with more money than sense but for the rest of us with a limited supply of currency, no. If anything improved MPG is a given for the automotive consumer, just as we now expect that any model of car we buy have automatic transmission, electric windows, keyless door locks, MP3 compatability, etc. etc. At one time those were all options, and in many models if you want to roll the windows yourself you’ll have to ask for it. Decent fuel economy has become an expectation of the consumer it is a part of the overal package that is offered for a given price.
Some rough math: over 100,000 miles, the 40MPG car saves 833 gallons over the 30MPG car. If fuel reaches $5 a gallon everywhere and stays there, that’s a savings of nearly $4200, but that savings takes a long time to arrive.
I agree that the math doesn’t work out for hybrids, diesels and other fuel sipping technologies given past history. The great unknown is what will happen in the future with both energy prices and availability.
Political turmoil in Lybia took 1M barrels per day offline in one week. It’s not inconceivable that similar could happen in major export countries where the USA does import oil from, i.e. Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, etc. We also know that Mexico’s oil production is in serious decline and Venezuela is doing everything in their power to find buyers that are not American. And don’t kid yourself that Canada’s oil sands or shale oil in N. Dakota will save us. Flow rates are key and there’s no way either can ramp up and provide the 20,000,000+ barrels of oil the US burns each and every day. Ditto that for every other source of domestic and “friendly” energy sources.
Simple fact of the matter is that we’ll be damn lucky if we don’t see gas lines in our lifetime, and I’m betting it’ll be sooner than later. If that does happen you’ll be very happy you are getting that extra 10 MPG as it’ll mean you’re traveling an extra 100+ miles vs. the guy that “did the math” or was more concerned about performance. That’s my 2 cents.
Simple fact of the matter is that we’ll be damn lucky if we don’t see gas lines in our lifetime, and I’m betting it’ll be sooner than later.
Been there, done that (in the 70’s)… and it’s no damn fun, even when the gas was under a dollar. Drill here, drill now will help some, but not in the short term, but it has to be done. Being near the big recent gas discoveries makes me hope for a big expansion of CNG for automotive use.
Well, sure. What you’re doing is hedging against future fuel price increases during the time you own the car. Nothing wrong with that, it’s just one more component in “doing the math,” i.e. figuring out how much the price of gasoline has to increase from today’s level for you to come out money ahead.
One can play that game in the other direction, too, at least on the used car market. If you drive 6,000 miles a year, like I do, you can afford to go shopping for a “gas guzzler” that might be cheaper to buy than a fuel-sipper. If you do the math right, you might come out ahead on the deal.
It’s primarily marketing. There are obviously valid reasons to try and conserve gas – save money, reduce smog, etc., but it just happens that 40 MPG is a nice round figure and therefore it makes magic in advertising.
Jack gives some figures around the difference between 30 MPG and 40 MPG, but I bring it a bit closer and ask myself – self, would you pay extra money for that SFE or ECO badge, when it’s a difference between 38 MPG and 40 MPG? And self answers no. The figures just don’t add up, and I do high mileages. This year I’m on track to hit well over 20k miles in 12 months, but the amount of fuel saved by getting an additional 2 MPG…well, it’s inconsequential*.
Now, if the difference gets to 5 MPG or more between different cars, and they’re otherwise more or less equivalent to me, then yes, that’d be persuasive. But right now I have a 2000 Camry that real world is doing 28 MPG on my daily commute and that I know can easily top 30 MPG on the highway. And has been paid off for several years and doesn’t cost me very much in repairs.
When it gets too expensive to maintain, I’ll be looking for something that’s fairly economical because I don’t have buckets of money and I’m probably atypical for a TTAC reader in that cars aren’t a hobby or a passion for me. But to spend extra cash just to get a bonus 2 or 3 MPG…nope, just doesn’t make sense.
Like I said at the beginning – I think it’s marketing. People want nice new shiny toys, and if the ECO trim offers a couple more baubles as well as that pretty ECO badge, well, hey, the marketing is going to work.
* And by the way, isn’t one of the ways they get that extra MPG on the SFE or ECO models by using special, low resistance tires? Which cost more? Which negates any minimal fuel savings over the life of the car?
I can’t see why hard, skinny tires should be more expensive than other tires…but that doesn’t mean they aren’t. On the plus side, they should last a long time.
I can’t see why hard, skinny tires should be more expensive than other tires…
The expense of eco tires isn’t the tires. It’s the rest of the car when they slide you into the ditch or better yet the oncoming lane.
@Russycle, not just hard and skinny (see Michelin Pilot 3 for a counter-example). It’s mostly about reducing rolling resistance, and there is more than one way to skin the cat.
Being a veteran of waiting in gas lines in 73 and then 79, I would rather pay $5/gallon and get all I want vs. not being able to buy any at all. When availability is the key issue, and it will be once Saudi Arabia hits political turmoil, more trucks and SUVs will be abandoned and ANYTHING with decent mileage will double in value.
Omnifan: You just reminded me of the first oil shock in March, 1973! I was still in northern California in the service and one fine day I gassed up my car at the normal price. A few days later in Marysville/Yuba City, I noticed gas went from 25.9¢/gallon to 31.9¢/gallon overnight everywhere! The horror! The shockwaves this sent through everyone including me was tremendous! I immediately lowered my speed to 55 mph, long before it was mandated! Prophetic! Later that summer, gas in San Francisco was $1.00/gallon in some places and people were up in arms! No shortage yet and no gas lines at that point – that came in September after I returned home from the air force! Fun, fun, fun…
Hopefully the government will not repeat the effort, made in those years, to impose price controls . . . which were the real reason there were availability issues.
If you don’t ration a product by price, then you ration it by making people wait in lines. Just ask any resident of any former Communist country.
It depends.
I would not TRADE my current car (’00 BMW 5-speed) for an [expensive] Hybrid. On a TRADE it would be for a manual transmission Accord/Camry/Legacy. This is just me getting old and having different priorities.
However, once I truly finalize the lifespan of my car (currently @ 160K miles, shroud last at least another 5 years 200K miles), I would consider purchasing a TCH or Prius for another long-term ownership.
Jack,
I much enjoy your writing and perspectives on things automotive and musical.
I agree that fuel economy is being sold these days as a luxury good compared to the 70’s and 80’s. Having lived through both those fuel price shocks, I am not willing to drive the small cars that that we did back then, even if they are better appointed. I want to have my cake an eat it too. I want a big SUV or a large sedan that gets significantly better fuel mileage than what we now have. Right now we are pretty much stuck with BMW, Mercedes and Audi with their turbo diesels. I am weary of a decade of paying to service Euro cars and don’t want any more of it. What I really want is the new Jeep JC and Chrysler 300 with a modern turbo diesel, and I’ll wait for them until the wheels fall off my current rides.
FYI. The whole economic analysis is pointless. Those people are all over at Consumer Reports buying toaster ovens with wheels. I don’t care as much about the cost of the car as I do about shelling out $100 at the pump every week. It’s called psychology.
I think perceived fuel efficiency has indeed become a kind of luxury or prestige item, and for at least two reasons:
1. Behavioral norms are powerful things (and extremely important as well), and most people want to at least give the appearance of fitting in with accepted social, political, and ethical norms, whatever they happen to be. The environmental movement has been a powerful force in helping to reshape certain social, political and ethical norms to the point where more and more people are being judged by how environmentally ‘friendly’ their purchases, practices, and general lifestyle appears to be. Buying a fuel efficient vehicle, especially one that is clearly identifiable as being such (either by its name, its shape, its model type, and so on) is a fairly easy and conspicuous way of showing others that you are one of the good guys, that you’re ‘normal’ as it were (insofar as you are conforming to the newly emerging norms). The perceived environmental ‘friendliness’ of your vehicle (and your lifestyle in general) is made even stronger if the vehicle in question costs a little more than the ‘standard’ vehicle, the vehicle becoming a conspicuous display of your willingness to ‘sacrifice’ your hard-earned money to meet the newly emerging behavioral norms. (I realize this sounds incredibly cynical, and that not everyone purchases a fuel efficient vehicle for these ‘conformist’ reasons, nor are all environmental choices made for mere appearances, but I would still venture that this is likely true of a significant proportion of high MPG vehicle owners).
2. Luxury is a moving target. As past ‘luxuries’ become today’s ‘norm,’ new standards of luxury need to be invented and the bar for what counts as a luxurious lifestyle needs to be reset. For most people, the pursuit of luxury always ends up being a zero-sum game, for once you get a feature that was once luxurious, the ‘luxury’ bar has already been reset. Making MPG a high cost feature is one way of resetting the current luxury bar, making it yet another badge to mark those who can afford a certain item or feature from those who cannot. In this respect, the clever marketing of MPG associated with certain types of vehicles has indeed become another way in which those with excess money can make a conspicuous display of that fact.
3. Combine 1 and 2.
Fuel economy used to be cheap because you gained those extra mpg by purchasing the stripped version of a given car. No power windows, manual transmission, steel wheels… a base model 80’s Civic needed nothing extra to gain mpg. Back then less was more! However we are now in opposite world, where an 8 speed auto connected to a hybrid system is needed to squeeze out another 3 mpg… and of course this technology cost extra. A better question is would building a total stripper that got 50 mpg sell? I doubt it, because people have come to expect a higher level of basic features in today’s car. Personally I would pay a little extra ($2-5K) for something (Ecoboost, TDI) that saves fuel in the long run, but cutting edge stuff like a $40K Volt makes no sense… so far.
@JMII: to your point about building a stripper car for mileage: The way cars are built today, the power windows and locks and etc. are all included because it’s cheaper to build the car with these items, than to offer a version without. One set of interior door panels, one type of dashboard pad, one way of installing the same part thousands of times in many different assembly plants, (possibly) across the world.
Realistically, I could see where it could cost even MORE to make the stripper cars we remember fondly. What could we quantifiably gain in mileage? Would the result be spectacular mileage? I really don’t know, but doubt it. Would the return on that particular investment be worth it, especially if you were buying the car? I’m not being argumentative here, but I’m really questioning our old assumptions. The cars we see today are certainly set up to get the most mileage for a given platform. Maybe our old paradigm of the stripper car no longer applies?
psar: The big wheels. Here lies the rub. Why in the h*ll does a 4 cylinder family car (like a Malibu or an Altima) need 17″ or 18″ wheels? Is there a big brake package I’m not aware of? That used to be the reason why you would Plus 1 or Plus 2 wheel and tires.
To me, this fetish for the biggest wheels is lunacy. Is there such a huge advantage in handling or something else to make up for the wasted space and the expensive and heavy wheels & tires? I know the larger wheel rotates fewer times per mile, but the 17’s on my Pontiac seemed to wear out at about the same mileage the 16’s did on the previous Chevy… This makes no sense to me.
Considering that most of the mass of a car is a) frame, b) engine, c) seats and d) wheels, a stripper would save you very little mass, and negligible electric load. We rail about “gizmos and gadgets’, but really, they’re not what costs you gas. That big engine on the nose, those comfy seats, the big wheels; those are the killers.
If you want to save fuel, you buy a small car with a small engine. If city mileage is important, then mass should be your primary target; if it’s highway, you can gain a few pounds for a more slippery shape. And that’s what “Eco” models to: supply a small engine and a few aero tweaks—especially the latter since most people only look at the highway number, anyway
Back when fuel efficiency required the crash structure of a popcan it made sense to offer strippers. But back then, many cars had the aerodynamics of a barn door, needed a six-liter V8 to put out more than 200hp, were terribly packaged and used more fuel sitting in the sun and not running than the Prius does at highway cruise. It’s not needed, not anymore
If fuel economy is a luxury- it’s amazing how many people pass up on a little bit of luxury that’s available for free.
Stop jack-rabbiting your 2 ton barge at the green just to have to slam on the brakes at the next red and you’ve just bought yourself some no-cost luxury!
I can’t tell you how many people tailgate me slowing down to stop at a red- and I’m not exactly hyper-miling.
It’s like people that buy expensive diet products instead of just eating healthier. It’s best to look at behavioral changes you can make before laying down the money for some cure-all. Or they just can’t help themselves I guess.
This seems to be the standard driving style here in LA. Lotta gas and brake pads consumed for nothing or to cut 60 seconds off a trip. Big deal.
Evidently, it is too much to ask for individuals to take a little personal ownership and responsibility for this important national issue. I am 52 and well remember the 70’s and early 80’s oil shocks. We dealt with it by driving like evey drop freaking counted and lived to tell!
Even the many Prius here are routiney driven so that their comparative mileage advantages are surely eliminated.
I honsestly believe that some people think the car will instantly stop moving forward if they take their foot off of the accelerator. It’s the only way I can explain people that accelerate into stops.
yes i agree. Significant fuel savings can be had by just slowing down – but no one is. Seems every other car here is an suv, all going 80 mph or more, then i suppose complaining that gas is to expensive. If people were really concerned about milage, they would slow down and stop jackrabbiting. Until then, fuel mileage numbers are the new tailfins – the bigger bigger they are, the more fashionable.
As was stated, humorously and accurately, in a prior post: suggesting people to slow down to save fuel is like suggesting they turn down the thermostat and wear a sweater.
Instead of a Georgia peanut farmer, they should’ve enlisted Old Navy and their “hooray for everything!” bunch of fresh faced kids to push sweaters onto an unsuspecting populace.
So true! I want a sign to hold up – “hey, good job, you got to the red light a good six seconds before me”.
There’s a guy here at work who recently traded in his perfectly good small truck (Ford Ranger or equivalent) on a Toyota Tundra. He has a long commute, and he’s gone from probably low 20s to high teens real world MPG. In terms of absolute numbers, say 5 MPG – but as a percentage it’s significant because the numbers are already so low, so he’s just seen a 20% or so drop in his real world fuel economy. If it was in the range where you’re getting 33 MPG and you drop down to 28, it’s 15% drop instead.
The really, really dumb part – he did it because he wanted to have a big truck like everyone else does around here (Philadelphia suburbs), and now he’s got a car payment and significant fuel costs that he can’t afford. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Not only that, on a recent trip to Vermont, I set the cruise on I-89 in New Hampshire on 75. Almost every car that passed me was an Escalade, Tahoe, Sequoia, Expedition of similar barge. I was getting 27-28 in my 328, and when a cop merged on the highway, and I set the cruise on 64. My mileage jumped to 30 right away. I have to believe the benefit for those heavy, V8 powered cars with huge tires and massive front surface area is even greater. If you have a car with a lot of drag, you can improve your mileage a ton by slowing down.
it can be unnerving for me to be in my vw golf at the speed limit, often 55 here. even 65 is not safe. Occasionally i use a fleet DTS for work, its jet black, smoked windows, huge and menacing, like an fbi car or something. Few people bother me in that rig at 55. Milage is like 23-25 if driven well. Not bad really. and so what if it takes longer to get there? the inside is like a private jet.
@slance66:
You were going 75mph on I-89 in New Hampshire and people were passing you?!? Massachusetts must’ve let out! I regularly pass left lane squatters on that route while doing 65.
Here we go again…Why in the world do these men (and women) that drive the big trucks and SUV’s drive like crazy people? I mean, on my commute, I see these clowns dogging it just to get a 1-second jump in traffic, only to slam the brakes and even weave contantly from lane to lane? Add to that the speeds these same individuals drive their behemoths! I bet you could see the gas gauge visibly moving down! I shake my head and wonder: Why? I usually meet these same drivers if they happen to be going my way not very far ahead of me until the highway opens up and traffic thins a bit nearer to my community. They clearly earn too much money and it burns a hole in their wallet!
There’s people willing to pay more for decontenting to improve hp/lb, why not let marketing see if they can do the same with mpg? Probably not the TTAC definition of “performance”, but apparently it works for some.
I’m sure you can buy a less expensive model, sell the almost-new tires, and replace them with low-rolling-resistance rubber for most of the “SFE” benefit. If you sell the package alloys and go with smaller steel rims (taller sidewalls), you might give up some handling, but you’ll probably smooth out the potholes and come out ahead on costs.
Some rough math: over 100,000 miles, the 40MPG car saves 833 gallons over the 30MPG car. If fuel reaches $5 a gallon everywhere and stays there, that’s a savings of nearly $4200
Of course if we were really being anal about all of this, we’d calculate the present vs. future values of those dollars being saved, since a dollar saved/not spent today (on purchase price) is more valuable than one saved on gas in 60k miles.
AND… (also of course) the other key to understanding fuel economy is grocking that MPG is not linear and the difference (in gallons per distance driven) between say 30 and 40 MPG is much less than between 15 and 25.
Not necessarily disagreeing with you- but would also add that dollars spent on better MPG now are at a locked in cost to today’s dollar value…
If the future inflation of gas prices is higher than the interest on money saved, the dollar spent now to reduce future gas purchases is actually worth more than the dollar saved now. No?
Given that fuel prices are rising faster than any other consumer segment, future fuel savings are probably worth more than is assumed in the rough calculation. It only makes sense to calculate net present value when you’re talking about cash.
All I can say is that, in 1980 I bought a new Audi 5000 diesel on the strength of the smart guys’ predictions of a never-ending increase in the price of oil. Mind you, this was a car with all of 67 HP that had difficulty maintaining 60 mph in rolling countryside carrying my wife, my 1-year old child and me with a modest amount of lugguage and the a/c running. (I eventually installed an a/c compressor cut-out switch that turned off the compressor at maximum throttle.) And that required a lot of shifting between 5th and 4th gear.
The car got 30 mpg of diesel on the highway and was hardly a “tin can.”
Of course, after peaking in 1981, the price of oil fell steadily afterwards. So, I’m not much on predictions. The demand for petroleum is highly inelastic in the short term, which means that small changes in supply produce big changes in price. In the longer term, demand is elastic (i.e. it responds to price) as is supply.
I think it’s only an extra-cost luxury item for those who want green-cred or those who are bad at math. Otherwise, it’s all about operating expense. Measuring fuel economy in mpg, I think, really misleads the general public on how much they’ll save by getting a more efficient car, as witnessed by all the people trading their Civics in for Priuses. L/100km or something similar would be much more illustrative on how much different cars would save you at the pump. Here’s a cut and paste from something I put on another forum the other day (discussing how much bike racks affect mpg on different cars)
The % saved as a proportion of the original fuel economy comes out the same whether you use mpg or L/100km. The difference is that with L/100km, you see how much extra fuel you’ll need to buy on a given trip, and can direclty compare across multiple very different vehicles. Using L/100km lets us calculate the affect to the car just as easily as with mpg, but it also lets us more easily compare the affect between cars, and also makes it much more apparant how much the change will affect our bottom line.
Same goes for air-con use. A 4-cyl family sedan will see a bigger mpg hit with the AC on than the V6 version of the same car, but if you look in L/100km you’ll probably find that the AC takes the same amount of extra fuel in either car.
Lets compare upgrades from inefficient cars to efficient cars. Lets say you start out with a 15mpg truck and upgrade to a 30mpg car. Gas gets expensive and you consider upgrading again another 15 mpg to 45…or maybe even another 100% to 60 mpg. You drive 10,000 miles per year and gas is, say, $4/gal
15 mpg = 15.7 L/100km = 666.7 gal/year = $2666.7/year
30 mpg = 7.8 L/100km = 333.3 gal/year = $1333.3/year-
A $1333.3/year savings. That all looks in order…double mpg, L/100km drops in half…expenses drop in half. Lets do another 15 mpg
45 mpg = 5.3 L/100km= 222.2 gal/year = $888.8/year
We saved…uhhh…$445 this time. Huh…this 15 mpg improvement didn’t seem as beneficial as the last 15 mpg. It only saved us 1/3 as much money and gas. Of course, if you look at L/100km, it’s clear why this is: you’re only saving 2.5L every 100km you drive, vs. the 7.8L savings you got before. Well, lets try a 100% improvement in mpg instead of a fixed 15 mpg…
60 mpg = 3.9 L/100km = 166.7 = $666.6/year
Huh…a 100% improvement from 15 to 30 saved us $1333/year, but another 100% improvement only saved us half of that amount. Of course, if you look at the L/100km column, it’s clear why this is, because you get a much better feel for how much fuel per year two cars will cost you: You’re saving 3.9L for every 100km you drive, vs. 7.8L savings for the last 100% improvement you had
Lets double mpg again to 120 mpg. These are some huge mpg numbers!
120 mpg = 2L / 100km = 83.3 gal/year = $333.3/year
Wow- even quadrupeling that 30 mpg doesn’t save us as much money per year as going from 15 to 30 mpg. MPG numbers just get really inflated as returns diminish. If you look in L/100km, you can see the linear relationship. It becomes clear that going from 15 to 30 mpg will save you $5.33 every day on your 40 mile commute, but jumping to 60 mpg will only save you an additional $2.66.
L/100km is the preferably metric because it’s a linear relationship with fuel burned, and because people generally have fixed distances they need to drive, rather than a fixed number of gallons they plan to burn after which they’ll just stop driving. If that was the case, knowing how many miles you could go on that many gallons might be useful. But, what most people want to know is how much fuel will they need for the driving they plan on doing, and how much a different car, a bike rack, etc. will affect how much fuel they need to buy.
Electric cars are already transitioning to this. They have their mpge rating, but also a Kwh/100 miles rating.
It;s the rule of diminishing returns. Nothing really fancy going on here and your point while illustrative is really lost in a way. Each time you’re using LESS to start with so each reduction is going to be LESS. I agree it doesn’t necessarily make sense to get an engine to 60MPG when 30MPG SEEMS plenty. The difference is that the cost of getting from 30MPG to 40 or 50 is a minimal issue when dealing with hybrids. Increasing the size of the electric motor while increasing battery size can do it. Even shrinking displacement and using turbos (which is rare in the US and still a surprisingly cheap option per-car) can do the job.
In other words, a little over $2600 is substantially less than $5900 saved while the overall cost to reach 120 MPG in a 4-door compact sedan is probably a premium of about 5-10k by adding a turbo, hybridization, and aerodynamic trickery. VW has done it before and could have sold it but the cost premium wasn’t worth it then. As gas creeps up towards $5 permanently it is becoming a more realistic deal.
You missed the point. I think most people think a 15 mpg improvement is a 15 mpg improvement. Or, that cutting fuel use in half is cutting fuel use in half. mpg gives this impression. However, with L/100km it’s clear how much you’re saving.
I don’t think it’s so much that fuel economy is becoming a luxury – it’s that it’s becoming part of the whole value equation built into any vehicle. That’s healthy, as far as I’m concerned.
The entire value equation of any new vehicle is New=Luxury, and that isn’t healthy as far as I’m concerned. Anybody ponying up for a new ride expects the world out of it because they sure as heck seem to be paying for it. Anybody interested in economy on the whole buys used.
Anybody interested in economy on the whole buys used.
With the rise in used car prices that really hasn’t been true for many years.
I will pay more when I get better fuel efficiency and some other advantage. For example, an automatic transmission with 6+ gear ratios can make a 4 cylinder engine with a narrow power band easier to live with. Good aerodynamics can also pay dividends in lower wind noise. Making engine blocks from aluminum instead of cast iron reduces weight, improve weight distribution, and the heater works faster too. Variable valve timing improves both fuel efficiency and peak horsepower. Win-win incremental improvements to fuel economy and something else are good.
I’ve considered buying the VW Golf TDI because I liked the way it drove in stoplight to stoplight suburban driving. Good fuel efficiency with enough torque to grab open space in front of other cars leaving a stoplight. Hairshirt economy cars consign the driver to forever looking at the tailights of other cars and the back end of trucks. Just wish ultra-low sulfur diesel wasn’t 15% more expensive than regular unleaded gasline.
Would an updated version of the Geo Metro with a cushy interior, current crash standard compliance, and better fuel mapping to keep the 50 mpg hwy rating sell in today’s market? I’d buy one if I had an older car, but not to replace my 2010 Accent.
A “Geo Metro’ with a cushy interior and current crash standard survivability compliance is the textbook definition of oxymoron…..mutually friggin’ exclusive sets of parameters….
200k-min got close to the vein here. We’re collectively investing a great deal of money in our transportation, based on our current personal needs. Transportation is not quite as bad in this respect as commercial and residental buildings, but these vehicles could have a useful life of 20 years, I’ve had many 20 year old boats. What will the cost of fuel be in one, ten, twenty years?? This decision is somewhat a bet, so if I spend a bit more on some fuel saving tech. you’re betting it might go up…and of course vis-versa. So some of this extra $ is a bit a insurance against higher energy costs. You’re also investing in engineering, manufacturing and r&d with some of the fuel saving tech or options, instead of energy. It seems purchasing the vehicle is always framed as a personal decision and then when energy costs spike it’s now a collective problem and somebody’s got to do something about it. It’s a pretty easy decision for me where to put my dollars.
I thought a 2010 Accent *was* the updated version of the Geo Metro??
You might be right, but if so I’d expect the mileage to be better. I’m averaging 28 mpg in mostly city with some expressway driving.
Isn’t there also the possibility that many consumers are being the change they want to see? As a tangential idea, I use my MP3 player about as much as I use traditional CDs – given the availability of music at no cost (ignoring the ethical issues behind that idea, and that I appreciate having a physical product), I could move away from CDs entirely. But, by going out and purchasing them, I am voting with my dollars, that I want more of this. Likewise, every time a consumer buys a hybrid or a diesel or a fuel economy special (particularly at a premium), they are voting that they appreciate efficient vehicles, and that manufacturers should build more of them. And, when a “slow” car gets to 60 in 10 seconds, there’s no reason not to pursue efficiency advancements over power for the average driver.
Plus, I drive about 25,000 miles per year – if I bumped my fuel economy from the 35mpg I currently get, to 40mpg, I’d save about $450 per year. I’m not about to go trading my car in for something more fuel efficient, but unless I get to start driving a lot less, it’ll remain a priority.
The main reason some people (not me) might consider 40 MPG a “luxury”: we have not had a policy in this country in the last 30 years that would have encouraged people to expect this as an acceptable baseline number for a new vehicle, rather than to consider it something extraordinary.
Forget that hippy crap.
I’m waiting for gas to hit $5 or $6/gallon so that I can get something awesome like a 928 or 850i on the cheap.
We Americans are being so schizo about our cars….at the same time gas is hitting $5 a gallon and the national freak-out begins, car-makers are putting on the market new rides which have north of 400 HP….(I’m looking at YOU, Mustang, Camaro, Challenger and BMW M3)….how utterly silly is that?
At a time of near-world wide crisis in energy costs, is our engineering talent being devoted to solve the problem? Nope…..we are trying to figure out how to get from stop-light to stop-light a nano-second more quickly. Insane.
Sometimes, I am ALMOST ready to start buying into the Liberal nonsense that the government knows best and that the free market isn’t the best allocator of resources. It isn’t, when the LIBERAL media and dumbed-down schools have bred several generations of people who can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag. It will be, if people ever become wise enough to understand what is and isn’t in their own best economic issues and stop buying stupid, purposeless wasteful vehicles just because the marketing people have convinced them they need to feed their ego.
In some paralel universe, Honda is still engineering wonderfully simple, efficient, beautifully designed and robustly manufactured cars that quietly achieve a balance between efficiency, function and aesthetic appeal. Not bloated exo-barges for the wannabes.
Who are you people, and what have you done to the sane, simple universe in which I grew up?
The 400-horsepower cars you mention are all specialty models aimed at a specific market niche. If you can afford a 400-horsepower Mustang or BMW M3, you can afford the gas to power it, even if gas hits $6 a gallon. Plus, virtually all of these cars are bought as toys, and not as daily drivers. They are about as relevant to this discussion as a 1930s Cadillac V-16 and Packard V-12 were to a 1934 discussion that focused on the price of brand-new cars relative to the average American’s income.
Your point is well made. I remember when the 442s, and the GTOs were our daily drivers,and my Accord does not come close to delivering the same degree of pleasure. The AMG is closer, but still lacks something.
@geeber, those may be, but 300+ hp cars are definitely not specialty models. Countless times I have seen people ranting on Internet forums about how model X is an epic fail because manufacturer Y decided to give it an engine rated at under 300 hp.
But how are those sub-300 horsepower cars selling? If we looked solely at internet postings, we’d think that VW is the best-selling car brand, people are clamoring for more rear-wheel-drive cars, and the Dodge Charger and Chrysler 300 are among the top-selling models.
For all of the hoopla surrounding the V-6 Accord and Altima from about 7-8 years ago, I seem to recall that something like 75 percent of those cars sold were equipped with four-cylinder engines. And this was before gas prices spiked upward.
Indeed, many people are buying cars with under 300 hp (or under 200 hp, or even under 150 hp) engines. Base Camry, Corolla, Civic, Jetta 2.0 etc.
But many enthusiasts still view 300 hp (or V8, or Hemi, or high-output turbo, or whatever) as mandatory.
Enthusiasts don’t drive the market…if they were, the Camry and Corolla would not be top sellers. If they can afford to buy and run a vehicle with that much horsepower, then more power to them.
Sure. But claiming that cars with less power should not be made is either incredibly naive or totally self-centred. Not all Audi/BMW/Lexus/MB buyers have a need for that much power, either.
I don’t believe that anyone is saying that those cars shouldn’t be made. If customers want them, they will buy them. If they don’t want them, however, they won’t be made. And it’s best to allow buyers of cars – whether those cars are Honda Fits or Mercedes S-Classes – to decide how much power they want. Whether we think that they need that much horsepower doesn’t matter. It’s really none of our business.
In the universe I live in, most of the the dumber and less informed people I know watch Fox News, and almost all of the media is owned by rich conservative white guys. In the universe I live in it’s the conservatives who want to cut school funding and force them to teach psudeoscience as an ‘alternative’. Also, in the universe I live in, most of the population has been unable to think their way out of a wet paper bag since the dawn of time. These days, the main difference is that they’re a little less racist than they used to be.
Also in this universe Honda still makes the Fit, a simple, efficient, beautifully designed and robustly manufactured car that quietly achieve a balance between efficiency, function and aesthetic appeal. I own one. Of course they also make the Crosstour.
The most poorly informed people I know believe that spending more on education increases student achievement, when there is no proof of this whatsoever. They also believe that other news outlets are more accurate than Fox News, when reputable studies have shown that they are all pretty much peas in a pod.
@Jellodyne: Pretty much agreed.
I find conservatives are mostly narrow-minded but well-intentioned and undereducated, lower-iq idiots; and liberals are over-cultured, unwise, ‘dumb smart-people’ +usually spectacularly so.
Dogmatic morons on Both sides, really.
@Jack Baruth: Enough of this car bullshit.
Tell us about Stern and the ladies.
Did you get a chance to stop by Cafe Reggio?
By the way, Baruth…..you simmered down after the story several years ago about driving a Phaeton on I-95 @ 116 mph or whatever, and had started to write pretty coherently about cars. But now I fear the clamoring of the B&B has gone to your head and every piece you post has to have some reference to the amazing women who accompany you around all the time, etc., etc. Bully for you, but it is getting to the point at which we begin to think about the jumping of sharks. Your stories about guitars and women, etc. are amusing when they are the EXCEPTION, not the rule of your writing; when they add context and flavor, not constant self-congratulation. Stop being a rock star and just. write. about. cars. dammit.
Please.
I bought a 18 mpg SUV last year, out of concerns that it may be the last chance. Traded in my 26 mpg SUV for it, too. Soon everyone will be putzing along in their 40 mpg expensive shoeboxes and I’ll be cruising over them LIKE A BOSS, I thought. The reality was not quite like that, but oh well.
Maybe the automobile is not part of the solution here.
To paraphrase that engineering axiom: affordable, spacious, economical. Choose two.
Given that us corn-fed Americans are usually unwilling to give up space, something else has got to go. So, economy as a luxury makes sense.
Yes. Fuel economy is a luxury item.
Parents with more than two children must drive a vehicle that meets the Federal regulations for child safety in automobiles. This means that if you have more than two children, you need a vehicle that can transport a couple, at least three children, an occassional extra, and all the stuff necessary. Stuff means extra clothing, diapers, food, snacks, seats, strollers, feeding chairs, pack-n-play, movies, books, toys and liquids.
Young families have a need for economy, yet the vehicles young families need to do their daily chores, are not MPG economical, unless you take into consideration MPG per occupant. Which is something Washington and other morons fail to take into consideration when belittling families with many children and the large vehicles we need and the “8 miles per gallon” stereotypes which died around the time that the Chief Accuser was driving around in his humongous Jeef Grand Cherokee in 2004.
So today’s high mileage cars are perfect for the family-less drivers on the road, who can often afford a luxury-ish car and many who are old enough to have owned high mileage cheap cars back in 1982.
Today’s dads cannot stuff their families in little cars without provoking the nearest law enforcement officer to call the nearest Child Care Bureaucrat for prosecution.
We are not fat. We are productive adults who are also reproductive.
I remain convinced that Child safety seat laws were among the primary reasons for the growth of SUVs in the United States. I think it also contributed to the increased girth of such family staples as the Camry and Accord. Three cars seats won’t fit in anything smaller.
As a former “family guy” (3 kids all grown), here’s my list of vehicles, over the eyars.
Kid #1 arrives in 1981: Audi 5000 (equivalent to today’s A6) sedan
Kid #2 arrives in 1984: Jeep Wagoneer (4cylinder) replaces the unreliable Audi. Known more widely as the Jeep Cherooke (different exterior trim), this car was made for 20 years.
Kid #3 arrives in 1991: Toyota Previa minivan replaces the by now aging Wagoneer. After dealer trashes inteior of ’91 Previa, it’s replaced in ’94 with another one.
2002 Kid #1 is in college on the Left Coast; kid #2 is about to graduate high school: Saab 9-5 Wagon replaces 2nd Previa.
2008: both Kid #1 and Kid #2 are working on the Left Coast, kid #3 about to graduate high school and go to college in midwest: Honda Pilot replaces Saab Wagon. WTF, right!!?
Go figure! (Wife says Saab is “too small.”) The observed highway fuel economy of all of these vehicles ranged from a high of 30 (Audi diesel; Saab 9-5) to a low of 22 (Pilot). The Previas and the Jeep were about equal at 24 – 26.
I think today’s minivans can still hit pretty close to that number, although they are all more powerful than the Previa. Maybe the crossovers can, too. Obviously, if you’re one of the few families who has more than 3 kids, something really big like a Suburban might be appropriate. But, my point is that most folks with two kids can do fine with a two-row SUV or, better yet, station wagon. All you have to is find one, right? Lotta people in my area had Volvo V70 wagons; the more loaded ones had Benz E-class wagons, which have even more room for “stuff.”
Volvo V70 wagons?
Benz E-class wagons?
People in your area?
Where do you live? 99.9% of the folks in this Midwestern city cannot afford those vehicles. In our world, we drive vehicles that cost under $40,000.
This is a bit of an odd discussion since buying a new car is never a rational financial decision. There is no car on the market that is a better value than a used car.
That being said, the most important thing about your new car is depreciation. You will lose far more money on the value of the car than you will ever spend on fuel, no matter what car you can buy. If getting a hybrid or TDI slows the pace of depreciation, it is a good financial move whether you make up the cost in fuel savings or not.
“buying a new car is never a rational financial decision”
If the industry can convince people they need a van for two kids and that a pickup truck or SUV is a luxury vehicle, they can make fuel economy a luxury just as easily.
There is no car on the market that is a better value than a used car
You obviously haven’t priced used civics recently have you? Your comment might have been true 20 years ago but it certainly isn’t true now.
Ah, the “new cars are always the solution” troll.
http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/cto/2335847995.html
This Hyundai will easily go another 100k with fluid changes and brakes. At worst, maybe a clutch. And it’s easily $10k less than a comparable new Elantra.
“You will lose far more money on the value of the car than you will ever spend on fuel” I have to diagree with this statement. At 140K Miles my fuel expenses on my 4Runner have already exceeded the depreciation. Maximum depreciation of a vehicle will always be limited to the purchase price, while fuel expenses can keep going on and on and on, and up and up and up as fuel prices rise over the years. Cars have become so reliable that a few miles per gallon difference could translate into significant dollars over the long life of a vehicle.
We already know that the Prius commands a significant premium over the equivalent Corolla, and if you insist on comparing it to a Camry, it still costs more than a base 4cyl Camry does.
Just a clarification: the “best” comparison for the Prius is neither the Corolla nor Camry, but the Matrix, and to equip a Matrix such that it’s on par with the Prius requires you to step up to about the XRS. Depending on whether or not you’re Canadian and restricting ourselves to MSRP, that results in a Prius that’s slightly more than, or slightly less than, the Matrix. And the Prius is still roomier, about as quick around town, and has more features.
So how about that green premium, again?
+1 you beat me to it on saying the Matrix is the proper comparison. Passenger room, weight, outside dimensions. Just about any way you compare it the Matrix is the closest thing to a non hybrid Prius Toyota makes.
I’m wondering how many times we have to say this before a site called The TRUTH about cars can catch up?
The manufacturers charge more for better mileage cars because…consumers pay for it.
Same as charging more for the trucks and SUVs.
Consumers must think, then buy.
You can buy Insight…or a Fit. Pretty much the same mileage. To me the Insight is the best looking Honda out there, so I would consider it.
But you still have these jokers paying $20K++ for a Fiat 500 or Smart or some other overhyped junk that Corolla can beat on mpg any day.
You can all pay out the nose for 40MPG if you want. I’ll just cruise by laughing in my $5000, 65 MPG Insight.
If you want to be economical, why would you even consider a new car? My little Honda is good for as long as I want to keep it, you can’t beat the MPG and it’s actually pretty good to drive. Speaking of which, the new CR-Z is a joke. The real CR-X successor was the first generation Insight.
Ever since the Industrial Revolution, less emphasis is placed on material goods as a marker for upper class. BMWs and Mercedes, like gold watches or whatever, are a dime a dozen. Blue-collar workers often lease 3-series and C-classes. Thus, they are no longer suitable to be symbols wealth and class. People with money must differentiate themselves from people without. What communicates class and wealth is now LIFESTYLE. Rich people now wear diving watches, saying “I can afford to take time off from work, buy all the scuba equipment, and travel to tropical beaches to snorkel and dive!” Northface jackets say “I ski and spend tons of money on ski chalets!” Likewise, hybrid cars and fuel-efficient vehicles communicate a different lifestyle, something along the lines of “I care about the environment!”
Plus, people are less ashamed of buying a cheap, poor-man’s car if marketing can convince them that they don’t look poor driving that 12k penalty box, but “eco-conscious” and “forward-thinking.” Mainly this reason, though.
I paid less to get better mileage.
Three months ago I was driving a 2007 4Runner that was getting a calculated 16mpg (22+ according to the dash computer). I traded it in for a 2008 Camry LE, 4cyl, auto. I’m getting a calculated 29 around town and upto 33 on the freeway. If I keep it at 80, the mileage drops to 29.
I drive 40000 miles a year.
The savings for me are significant.
I say:
I expect to keep my ‘HSD’ longer than 100k miles. A lot longer; and
2, its MPG in our hands is about 55 mpg lifetime over 125k miles thus far.
Hmm… increase your estimate by 2.5*55/40 for fuel savings.
*Someone* is going to whine that they do not keep the car until its end of life. They should check out prices of used Prius now that fuel prices are high. The savings are seen in the (much) lower depreciation.
To the point, let me rephrase your question: should we snub cars that cost us the same (over time) as other choices, but pollute less, conserve precious oil, and send less dollars to OPEC ?
I couldn’t care less about fuel economy. I drive a jeep wrangler which I’m soon selling for different reasons and probably getting the recent V6 mustang (which will probably average around 22 mpg, 5 better than my jeep). I don’t drive much at all each year and am about to drive a LOT less (military training).
Fuel economy isn’t a luxury… It’s a marketing tool to make people feel good about themselves as if they’re saving the earth. If people really wanted to save money they’d buy a used corolla and drive it conservatively. The cost of entry is low, maintenance cost is low, fuel cost is low.
The Mustang is a good car, I’ve a friend who’s owned one as every car he’s had and he’ll probably replace his current one with this new one.
BTW, thank you for your service.
Anyone who pays more for a car than they will ever save monetarily in fuel efficiency over the lifetime of the car is a tool.
If you do want to save the environment like some friends of mine, ride a bike or ride the bus. Don’t go buying a ‘fuel efficient’ car and then pretend that makes you more environmentally friendly and therefore a better person. By driving a car with an internal combustion engine in it you are doing damage to the environment no matter how many CC’s, cylinders or batteries are packed under the bonnet. The hydrocarbon burning part of the environmental cost of a motor car is only small part of a cars overall impact.
So fuel efficiency – the only reason it makes sense is if you want to save money, and if you want to save money the likelihood that you will pay over the odds for a new fuel efficient car is non existent, so the only reason overpriced new ‘gas misers’ exist is for the ever expanding, ever smug, green-wash brigade. It’s ‘keeping up with the Joneses’ again, but this time the one-up-manship is fuel economy.
Well put, dunno if I could say that any better.
I did… bought a 335d and love it!
I looked into cost of converting my vehicle to propane. It’s $3,600 Canadian for a V6 engine. Gas here is $5.80 a gallon, donkey p*ss (aka with ethanol) is $5.24. Propane is about 50% of donkey p*ss. So, conversion would pay for itself in about 40 full fill ups.