If We Really Wanted To Save Gas…
By Eric Peters, Automotive Columnist
There’s an old saying about going around the block to cross the street that applies to our current problem with escalating fuel prices. We could be saving a lot more fuel — easily and relatively cheaply. But we choose not to.
How so?
We could have 60 mpg commuter cars tomorrow, if we wanted them — and without expensive/elaborate hybrid technology or alternative fuels.
All we’d have to do is alter or get rid of existing federal regulations that have made it all but impossible to build light weight/high-efficiency economy cars. These regulations range from bumper-impact standards to requirements that all new cars be fitted with things like dual front seat air bags.
New economy cars are definitely more crashworthy — and safer — than the economy cars of the past. But they are also much heavier than the economy cars of the recent past, because of all the additional equipment they carry — as well as the structural reinforcements that are necessary to comply with the endless litany of federal requirements now in effect.
How much heavier? Several hundred pounds, on average. The typical ’08 model compact car weighs closer to 3,000 lbs. than 2,000 lbs. — and there are no 2008 model economy cars that are under 2,000 lbs.
A 1979 Renault LeCar weighed about 2,100 lbs. A 2008 Honda Civic weighs 2,586 lbs. Guess which car got 38-49 mpg?
In fact, it’s not even close. The ’08 Civic only manages 26 mpg in city driving and 34 mpg on the highway. In other words, the ’08 Civic’s highway economy is less than the ’79 LeCar’s city economy.
It’s sad.
And it’s not an isolated example. Here are some more stats form the past to chew on:
- 1980 Plymouth Champ: 34 city, 46 highway
- 1981 Pontiac Phoenix: 41 city, 51 highway
It goes on like that.
Meanwhile, today, there are no “economy” cars on the market (in the U.S.) capable of tickling 50 mpg without hybrid drivetrains. The vast majority of today’s “economy” cars are solidly in the mid-high 30s on the highway; a few get close to 40 mpg. That’s it. And that’s with the benefit of almost 30 years of engineering advances — everything from electronic fuel injection to variable valve/cam timing to overdrive transmissions and low-rolling resistance tires.
If the advances of the past several decades could be applied to cars such as the ’78 LeCar, the ’80 Champ and others of its type, we’d have 50 mpg economy cars, easy — and without batteries or electric motors and all the expense and complexity that comes with them.
Just cutting the weight by several hundred pounds would allow today’s econo-cars to by propelled by smaller, less powerful (and thus, thirsty) engines — with equivalent performance.
Add diesel to the equation and we could have 60 mpg cars. Even 70 mpg cars.
Doubt it? Volkswagen currently sells just such a car — the Lupo. But not to us. Our government and its endless red tape have made it virtually impossible for VW to export the Lupo (and diesel passenger cars generally) to the United States.
And not just economy cars.
Mercedes and BMW sell (and have sold, for years) diesel versions of their mid-sized, rear-drive luxury-sport sedans that deliver 40 mpg on the highway — vs. under 30 mpg for another wise similar but gasoline burning mid-sized, rear-drive luxury-sport sedan. But only in Europe and other “export” markets.
We’ll be getting such cars later this year. Finally. But why did it take the prospect of $4 per gallon to make it happen?
Similarly, why do we tolerate government requirements that force us to drive uneconomical economy cars that are 10-20 percent less efficient than the economy cars of the ’70s and ’80s? — and probably 20-30 percent less efficient than they might be, otherwise?
Certainly, safety is important. But so, after all, is fuel efficiency. Or so we pretend, at any rate.
Given the debacle of $40 fill-ups at $4 per gallon, maybe the balance should tilt a bit toward economy vs. safety-at-any-cost. Is a higher theoretical risk of increased injury in a potential accident that may never happen worth more than the actuality of 50 mpg, every time we drive?
The truth is we could have high-mileage cars — we just prefer not to have them. Or rather, we want to have our cake and eat it, too.
We want “economy” compacts that are as crashworthy as mid-sized cars (and thus, as heavy as mid-sized cars), as opulently equipped as luxury cars once were (GPS, climate control AC, power everything) and as quick as sports cars once were (“acceptable” economy car zero to 60 mph times are now in the 7-8 second range — about what a 1978 Trans Am with a 6.6 liter V-8 delivered — vs. the 10-15 second times that were typical of cars like the Renault Le Car, Plymouth Champ and so on).
This is untenable — and undoable.
But we’ll continue to insist on the impossible — and complain about high gas prices while we’re doing it.
Comments?
www.ericpetersautos.com
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.)
a 1955 Belair with a 283 V8 engine got 23 mpg why is it so hard to get v8s with better gas mileage now. I also doubt the stats that are quoted above:
1980 Plymouth Champ: 34 city, 46 highway
1981 Pontiac Phoenix: 41 city, 51 highway
Keep dreaming! there were no such cars in the 1980s that got such mileage.
This entire article is a bunch of crap just like the rest of the editorial articles that grace this website. They are saying here that we should sacrafice safety features to make a lighter car that gets better gas mileage. In other articles they claim we should be allowed to drive faster than we currently are. It is in fact those heavy additional safety features that allow us the safety to drive faster without increasing the fatality rates or counts. I have a 400hp, V8, 34,000# car that gets 32mpg on the highway and about 20 around town. why is that technology only available in V8 form why can’t a 200hp V6 or L4 get 40-45mpg? If the NMA feels we should lean toward economical instead of safety how do they feel if we do that and then reduce the speed limits to compensate for the lack of crashworthiness?
I dunno about you, but its just basic physics that, in a given collision between two vehicles, the vehicle which is larger will take less damage, inflicting more damage to the smaller vehicle. Your lack of concern for human life is just astounding! Sure, 50mpg or more is a great thing to have, but at what cost? Picture this: a Smart car is involved in a head-on crash with a transport truck on my local Hwy. 401 in Ontario (about the busiest highway in north america). I’ll give you one guess which driver is more likely to be killed, and if you manage to get this wrong, you should see a shrink, pronto!
And as a last side note, if we wanted to save fuel, we’d be more like Europe and build inner city tram rail lines, underground or above, whichever is best. But since there’s not much to see except urban sprawl and congestion across this country, underground won’t be missing much.
I lived in Europe when I was a child, and loved riding the subway and differnt rail lines at the train station. I don’t see any reason these rail lines can’t be powered by solar energy or hydrogen, since Mercedes already has fuel cell buses running in Europe since 2004.
Oh, and the reason the US govt. made it so strict to sell diesels is most likeley they knew it would SCREW the dumb old ‘merican auto worker. Well, the US has screwed itself by refusing to conform to the rest of the fuel efficiecy of Europe.
But the Germans can’t be let off the hook that easliy. What’s that you say? BMW shipping their diesel over here? Well it’s bullshit, because it’s none other than a twin turbo DIESEL GUZZLER. Apparently they feel even with almost $5 diesel, it’s worth it to pay $50,000 for a 35 MPG diesel. Complete idiots. They don’t get the clue that those numbers should be reversed.
This year VW will be reintroducing their Jetta diesel, and next year Audi with their A4, but not before bringing over the Q7 SUV, another diesel guzzler.
Mercedes BLEW it by not bringing over the SMART diesel FIRST, or at the same time as the gas version. They’re also blowing it by not demanding the US govt. let them sell their ACTROS semi here. The one that recently got put into the guinness book for best fuel economy.
New Mercedes-Benz Actros Recorded As World’s Most Economical Series
http://www.roadtransport.com/blogs/big-lorry-blog/2008/06/-how-does-1453mpg-or.html
We already have 60 mpg cars, they’re called GERMAN DIESELS.
You’re right Brian. My Mother lives in Las Vegas and drives a VW Golf Diesel (1,9L 101PS). The roads are so poorly engineered and the almost total lack of traffic control (other than more and more traffic lights and stop signs) causes her overall highway/city consumption to be slightly over 7 Liters/100Km.
Test consumption of a similar car done in Germany ( where cars are driven much harder than in the States) yielded a consumption rate of 5,9 due to the Country’s superior roads and traffic control.
What a terrible article.
I used to pilot a ’94 Mercury Villager (with Nissan VG30 V6 engine)
It would get 30mpg@70mph (without AC & windows closed) and 25@75 with.
The mileage went downhill when the eEGR failed…
The Honda civic (automatic) can get 30mpg@90mph.
I’ve seen a 44mpg 300 mile trip (with E10 gasoline) and the moving average was very good.
The US needs diesel vehicle. Just look at the old Audi A2 ’3 litre’, it outpriused the prius
http://www.autozine.org/Graveyard/html/Audi/A2_2000.html
The US is still five years behind were we need to be in the transmission development.
Big engined large cars can get good mileage, they just need appropriately tall gearing for the highway.
For example, 1996 Buick Roadmaster. 2.56 axle ratio, unfortunately it only had a 4 speed automatic. So it was slow off the line, slow for passing, just slow about everywhere, perfect for its intended demographic.
The gearing was so tall, the car about made it to 60mph in first gear. 2nd gear would take you to 100mph.
Top gear was about 45mph per 1000rpm
A five speed automatic would have done wonders back then.
So 6 speed automatic should be the minimum, 7/8 speed autos should expand beyond Mercedes-Benz, Infiniti, Lexus, (and BMW when it feels like replace the ZF 6speed transmission with the 8 speed)
Eric, I think you give a couple things short shrift. One, early 80′s fuel economy numbers aren’t really directly comparable to current vehicles, even prior to the 2008 changes in computation, due to the changes in 1985. I would agree that vehicles back then did get comparable or better mileage than current vehicles, but the numbers aren’t really a good way to show it (I don’t know if there’s a better one, tho).
The other main thing that you touch on, but don’t really explore, is that engines in cars have gotten many times more efficient than they used to be… but that efficiency has been given over to increased power, not to better gas mileage. While some is necessary to haul around the heavier cars that are mentioned, most is just unnecessary power increases. Why do small cars like the Yaris have 105 horsepower, or the Honda Fit with 109? No, we don’t really want 30 second 0-60 times, but I think 15 seconds is an acceptable number.
In response to Brian, it doesn’t really help to say ‘I shouldn’t have to do anything, because the roads suck.’ That doesn’t excuse bad driving behaviors, or even having a long commute. One paradigm shift that will HAVE to happen if as a culture we are to make a dent in our energy consumption is that more people will need to live where they work and work where they live. If cheap transportation has allowed you to live an hour away from your job until now, I’m glad you’ve enjoyed it, but that doesn’t mean that has to, or even can, continue.
Finally, don’t be looking for highway departments and municipalities to be doing much in the way of roadway construction or upgrades in the next few years. The economy is hitting governments hard, and they’re going after a nice easy target – the transportation funds – to get more funding for politically popular spending. It’s certainly not something I want to see, since I design highways, but it’s the reality of the situation.
How about this… If states spent more money on transportation infrastructure, we’d save a ton of gas.
Five days a week I commute an hour to work and an hour home. Half of each commute is spent on the highway and the other half going through town roads. In this commute I drive through over crowded, pot hole infested streets that force me to constantly slow down and speed up, which wastes tons of fuel.
I also idle at traffic light after traffic light while only a few cars cross the intersection. Another great waste of fuel. And the highways here in Mass are no better. The highways are so underbuilt that my average speed to work and home during “rush hour” is about 40mphs (on 65mph roads). I know, “slower = better fuel economy”, but stop and go traffic adds 30 minutes (total) per day of extra fuel consumption, not to mention the fact that the traffic is stop and go, so I am again required to speed up and slow down numerous times over my commute. Overall, a colossal waste of valuable fuel.
During the prime vacation times of the year (when the highways are not as busy) I fill my tank up once a week. The rest of the year I fill up twice a week. Multiply the same conditions by thousands of drivers per day and I think you can see my argument. Bad roads = poor fuel econonomy.
I’m so sick of hearing how drivers can save fuel by “driving better”. Fix the roads first! They need to be repaired more often and they need to be built to handle today’s traffic volumes.