Economy Car Catch 22
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
One thing that’s interesting but unnoticed by most is that economy car performance (fuel efficiency wise) was stronger 15-20 years ago.
In the ’80s, for example, there were several models getting 40-plus MPG. I think there may be one (or possibly two) current models that do as well (non-hybrids). Most don’t come close. The typical new/2009 model year economy car gets in the low-mid 30s on the highway and mid-high 20s in city driving. Average real world economy (combined city/highway) for the typical ’09 economy car is probably around 28-30 mpg. So, we’re “down” by roughly 5-10 mpg.
Why?
Two main reasons:
First, new/late model economy cars are considerably heavier than their equivalents of the past. For example, an ’09 Honda Fit — one of the smallest new economy cars on the market — has a curb weight (without any people on board) of 2,489 pounds. Compare that to say a 1990 Geo Metro (remember that one?). It weighed 1,620 pounds, or almost 1,000 pounds less. That is an enormous difference.
And it’s why the Geo’s fuel economy stats — 38 city/41 highway — are so vastly superior to the current “state of the art” economy car (the Fit comes in at a so-so 27 highway, 33 highway).
The added weight means modern economy cars require larger, more powerful — and less fuel efficient — engines. While the Geo got by with a 1 liter, 3-cylinder engine rated at 49 hp, the ’09 Fit is powered by substantially larger 1.5 liter four that produces literally more than twice as much horsepower (117).
It has to, of course. You can’t pull a 2,500 pound vehicle with 49 hp. That would be serious mechanical abuse — as well as torment for its owner.
But you can’t expect to get 40 mpg with 117 hp, either.
That’s the econo-car Catch 22 we’re dealing with today.
Part of the blame, if you want to assign it, is due to the government — which mandates an ever-growing roster of weight-adding crashworthiness and safety requirements (air bags, etc.) all of which have (to date) bloated up the curb weight of the typical econ-car from around 1,800-2,000 lbs. to 2,500 lbs. or more.
Improved safety/crashworthiness is a fine thing — but it’s not cost-free. You can have one thing (a safer car) but not the other (optimum/best-possible fuel efficiency). At least, not in the same car. Not without a compromise or cost somewhere along the way.
No free lunches — either at the soup line or in engineering.
Part of the blame is also due consumers — who now expect weight-adding/power-sapping creature comforts like AC, electric windows and sunroofs, etc. They also want a car that can reach 60 mph in under 11 seconds.
In the ’80s and before, economy cars were slow. I mean crippled old man slow. Something like an original Beetle needed as much as 30 seconds to achieve 60 mph and topped out — barely — at 80-ish mph. The Geo Metro cut that down some, but not by much. If memory serves, it needed 15-20 seconds to get to sixty. On the highway, it was dangerously underpowered. It was literally out of its element. Might be ok as an in-city commuter. But you almost had to buy something else if you needed to operate on roads where the traffic flow was above 60 mph.
That kind of performance is consumer unacceptable today. You’ll hear commentators accuse the automakers of suckling the public on the teat of inefficiency, but the plain truth is people — most people — would never buy a car like the ’90 Geo Metro today. Even if it did get 40 mpg.
So, as much as people complain about gas mileage, the truth is they have unrealistic expectations — whether they’re aware of them or not. You could almost certainly engineer a small car that gets 45-50 mpg with today’s technology very easily. But it’s just as true that you’d never get it past federal safety requirements, meet consumer expectations about minimal levels of creature comforts and make it reasonably quick, too — at least, not without either drastically increasing its cost or its weight. Or sacrificing economy, to some extent at least.
Which ought to help you understand why today’s economy cars aren’t quite as economical as their forbears.
The upside is they’re a lot less miserable — and can actually be driven without taking your life in your hands every time you get behind the wheel.
Keeping up with traffic is nice, too. Even if it does cost a few MPGs.
Other Related Articles
To change the picture next to your comments, sign up at Gravatar.com. Each picture is associated with a particular email address. (This is a third-party service not affiliated with NMA.)
Good article. I used to drive a ’91 Ford Escort with a 1.9 liter fuel-injected engine, got 30/33 mpg & great performance. Sold it with 125,000 miles on it and no problems besides rust. Recently I test drove a 2009 Honda Fit, and I was so surprised and disappointed. It really struggled to climb a low hill. So my new car is a Ford Focus hatchback and average 35 mpg (ranging 32-38) . It can go everywhere, and holds its own on the highway. I’m not trying to sell anything, but beware of the hype, and don’t worry about the bells & whistles and you can still get an affordable efficient car. Also check out the Hyundai Accent, I haven’t but it looks decent.
My car will get well over 40 mpg if I would drive it the same as the 49 hp car he brought up in the article. I would imagine with 49 hp you would have a hard time getting up to 65 mph but then again that was when the speed limit was only 55 mph so you did not have to worry about it. If I keep at 55 mph or under and crawl ahead in the city like I would with a 49 hp car I could easily get in the mid 40s with a normal newer car non-hybrid.
Theres a better way to make a hybrid instead of useing an electric motor to help out a gasoline engine use a electric motor as the main drive then use a small gasoline motor to drive a generator to power it up this is similar to way a diesel locomotive works such a car would get 80mpg and because electric motors have a lot of torque it would outperform many of todays V8′s a diesel locomotive gets 476mpg also if you want to have the mileage of a hybrid and the power of a regular car get one with a V6 turbodiesel it will give you 42mpg with 300hp we can also keep the price of diesel fuel from going up too high by legalizeing industral hemp you can make large amounts of biodiesel cheaply from hempseed oil also the plants remove a lot of CO2 from the air but the government won’t go along with this because the think it will lead to legal marijuana it is the same old if you make the speed limit 65mph it will lead to makeing the speed limit 75mph kind of logic.
That’s kind of how the Chevy Volt works; a pure electric drive train with a separate gas engine to keep the battery charged. But I really don’t believe that a diesel locomotive gets 476mpg.
Yeah we def need to legalize hemp. It will benefit us alot more than just bio-diesel. hemp wood, paper, oil, rope, food, clothing, ect. Even would help with “global warming.” Stupid gov’t ruins everything again.
Trains run on near-flat, near-frictionless rails, with slow acceleration and deceleration. And while they may get the equivalent of 476mpg compared to the same load as hauled by trucks, they are actually getting 20gpm.
But if you give the economy cars more hp then they’ll be able to break the speed limit more and kill everyone on the road. Men, women and children will be fleeing for their lives as the economy cars start going 1 mph over the limit. I mean really do you want someone behind the wheel of a 4 cylinder 2500 pound economy car barreling down the road as if gas grew on trees. How dare they speed down the road AND get 30 miles to the gallon and think that they should not get any speeding tickets or survive a crash, which will most certainly happen since they are speeding.
Thanks Randy.
[...] Economy Car Catch 22 – National Motorists Association Blog [...]
I like your site and the article about Toyota solving the floor mat problem with zip ties. FYI, I fix the cracked frame on my car with gorilla glue and it turns out to be a workable solution, although I need to reapply glue every few months to ensure that the frame not completely broken into multiple pieces.
Randy & Randy committing serious mechanical abuse and owner torment. 49hp pulling 2,500LB vehicle
http://cache.static.tsavo.com/wordpress/uploads/2009/06/fat-guys-scooters-1.jpg
Aptera, Tesla and Loremo are some other cars that are interesting although they may not make sense for some people.
2002 VW TDI 1.9L Golf was able to get about 50MPG highway with ease.
It was a comfortable small car with reasonable performance and room.
================================================
I think it does come to choosing the best vehicle for the needed purpose.
If you need a car for primarily commuting to/from work than a smaller car makes sense.
If you need to transport 30+ people than a bus than gets 6mpg may be the right vehicle for the job.
================================================
When I look for a car I look for one that
1) gets at least 30+mpg
2) seat 4 people comfortably with a decent sized trunk
3) any performance is a plus (can live with 12-14 sec 0-60mph times)
If on a regular basis I needed to move many people and thing often I would consider a station wagon or minivan.
==============================================
I would consider the 1L by VW although this would primarily be a commuter vehicle. I probably would still need a larger car on occasion. Renting may be an option if it is not needed often.
http://gas2.org/2009/09/14/volkswagens-diesel-hybrid-1l-concept-gets-170-mpg-available-by-2013/
Hey! My car!