Plenty of 40 mpg cars overseas, just not in the US
In spite of rising gas prices in the United States, the number of cars capable of exceeding 40 mpg seems to be dropping. The Civil Society Institute will be releasing a report on February 14 indicating that although more and more high-mileage cars are becoming available in other markets, they aren't available here. According to a poll that they conducted, many Americans want higher mileage cars. However, wanting higher mileage cars and buying them are two different things. American car-buyers seem to have a schizophrenic (and please don't bother to explain what schizophrenia really is because I know, I'm just using the word to make a point that people will understand) attitude. They want big, imposing cars and trucks with lots of power and high mileage, with the former taking priority. They don't seem to be willing to go with smaller, less powerful vehicles to get efficiency. This is of course a generalization since many people do buy smaller cars, but the majority still go big. So there just isn't enough demand (at least until gas prices go significantly higher) to support a larger supply of high mileage cars.
Another major issue in the drop in high mileage car availability is the temporary absence of the many of the diesel models that were previously available. This is of course due to changes in diesel emissions rules. The new engines that meet the new standards are becoming available in 2007, and more will be in the future. Over the next few years many more diesel vehicles will be available in the US along with plug-in hybrids and EVs. This should help to reverse the trend. Nonetheless, until American drivers start putting their money where their mouths are on mileage, it can only go so far.
[Source: TheAutoChannel]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Phil L. 1:05PM (2/13/2007)
There weren't that many diesel models available in the US, even before the latest round of emissions rules.
Reply
Brian Hague 2:15PM (2/13/2007)
The nice thing about diesel is the amount of perceived power. Most people who drive a diesel LOVE them, I can punch mine around town, never letting the throttle off while accelerating, and still get upper 30's lower 40's for mileage. on the highway I "only" get 46-48 MPG. There are freaks that like to drive without A/C and manage mid 50's by driving like my grandma.
The fuel is more stable, does not evaporate, and has more BTUs per gallon. Just because the tailpipe is cleaner doesn't mean the car is cleaner. Just look at the distribution, how much pollution is there from just filling up?
The engines last for hundreds of thousands of miles with regular maintenance. Cost less in the long run, and have a higher resale value.
Why lease when you can own a diesel? oh wait... you can't own a diesel yet... special thanks goes to the US Government on that one.
Reply
EnviroBob 2:09PM (2/13/2007)
People buy functional vehicles and small econoboxes basically aren't functional for anyone isn't single. Furthermore, when large sedans, such as the Impala average 21MPG, it's hard to convince consumers that the 3 - 4 MPG gain they get in real world use is worth the sacrifice in vehicle utility and safety.
Reply
pdx 2:25PM (2/13/2007)
#2:
Not true. A Jetta TDI Wagon is not an "econobox", and works quite well for a family of 4, and in real world driving can get over 50mpg on the highway.
It is also most likely safer than the Impala.
A Passat TDI is not an econobox either and gets 40mpg real world.
These are mileages from people I know who ACTUALLY ARE GETTING THOSE MILEAGES. ( http://www.tdiclub.com )
So you say that people would rather have an Impala that gets 21mpg than a Passat that gets 40mpg?
Why is that?
We have a Jeep Liberty CRD that gets 30mpg highway, and Jeep sold almost double their estimates - yet they still only made 20k for the USA. The same engine in Europe is put in the Voyager minivan. Why not in the USA? In the Voyager that engine could get 35mpg highway in a 7 passenger minivan.
The USA is so anti-diesel it is crazy.
The "econo-boxes" you speak of don't get 3 to 4 mpg more than the Impala. The "econo-boxes" everywhere else in the world get 60mpg. Just not in the USA.
If the car companies won't make them, we can't buy them.
VW Diesels sell so fast that dealers never have any on the showroom floor. A Passat Wagon TDI is almost better than gold. They hold their resale value way better than gasoline versions, and sell very quickly.
Hopefully some of this will change in the coming years as we get more diesel models.
And we do not need to sacrifice power or size either. Diesel engines are MORE powerful than their gasoline counterparts. The Audi diesel Q7 has 700lbs of torque! That is more than Chevy and Ford HEAVY DUTY pickups.
My little 4cyl Jeep Liberty CRD has 300lbs of torque and tows our boat much better than the V6 van we used to have, and the Jeep gets TWICE the mileage.
Reply
Brian Hague 2:30PM (2/13/2007)
EnviroBob:
Imagine Whirled Peas for a moment...
I drive a 2000 Golf TDI, It weighs about 3000lbs, it gets upper 40's on the highway, it has a five star frontal crash test rating...
My wife drives a 2004 Passat TDI, It weighs about 3200lbs, it gets mid 40's on the highway, it has a five start frontal crash test rating, and a four star side impact rating...
The 2006 Impala weighs about 3500lbs, it gets upper 20's on the highway with the 3800 N/A, it has a five star frontal crash test rating, a five star drivers side crash test rating, and a four star passengers side rating.
Now, let's transplant a 160HP 320ft/lb diesel engine from VW Europe into that same home grown USA Impala from GM. You would get the same 0-60 times, and have better fuel economy (like lower 40's, upper 30's)... put a stick shift option in the impala (SS badge???) and you would see upper 40's on the highway with proper gearing. The other benefit would be bringing back the performance of the 60's where torque made the world go round, and tree stumps were pulled at idle.
Reply
Brian Hague 2:43PM (2/13/2007)
EnviroBob... one more thing...
NADA Average retail value
2000 Impala 175,000 miles: $6050
2000 Golf TDI 175,000 miles: $8175
I paid $17,500 for my Golf... your Impala would have cost $22,900
2004 Impala 40,000 miles: $16050
2004 VW Passat TDI 40,000 miles: $21575
The impala in 2004 cost $24,500... My Wife's Passat TDI cost us $23,000
Reply
pdx 4:26PM (2/13/2007)
And I have used both vehicles (Passat and Impala) for carrying kids. The back seats in both are just about the same when it comes to fitting three booster seats.
And bioidesel has a higher energy return and can be used in higher percentages and can be made from more sources and is more stable, safer, and less toxic than ethanol.
There is no reason we should not be moving to more diesel powertrains. The technology exists NOW and is cost-effective to raise our vehicle mileages.
The only reason the USA has not focused on mileage is because our fuel price is kept artificially low.
Reply
Mark_H 8:14PM (2/13/2007)
Well, I liked enviroBob's comments. Gasoline is cheap and most americans are comfortable and happy with their gasoline powered cars. Gas isn't particularly expensive, so we think "why change?" Don't get me wrong, I look forward to seeing more diesels sold in America in years to come, but if gasoline remains relatively inexpensive -- and yes I believe $2.25 is relatively inexpensive -- then I wouldn't want to predict a huge boom in the diesel market. I don't think Americnas are anti-diesel, per se, we're simply comfortable with the technology we know and are familiar with. It's human nature.
I also don't think the fuel price is kept 'artificially low' here. Not like Iran or Venezuela where the masses pay $.35 or so. Fuel is relatively cheap for most americans because we have a high standard of living and $30-$50 to fill up the car simply isn't a big deal for most of us.
Reply
TiP 1:15AM (2/14/2007)
I want a car that gets at least 60MPG. I don't care if it's not the fastest thing around and only has two seats. I do want it to cost under $15K because I'm not asking for much in the way of bells & whistles. It can be diesel (in fact that would probably be a plus because I could run it on used veggie oil if needed). It could be electric if it has at least a 60 mile range between charges and can go at least 60MPH.
I know this must be possible. In the 80's I had a Chevy Sprint (one of those 3 cylinder jobs) that cost about $5K new. I used to regularly get 52MPG on the hiway and in the 40's around town. (though I would like a bit more durability than the old Sprint had) Considering inflation, it seems that something like that should be available now for under $15K. I'm holding onto my 20 year old honda until one becomes available. The closest thing at this point is the Yaris, but it still doesn't get good enough MPG...
Reply
MR42HH 3:24AM (2/14/2007)
Hm... Toyota has a 90HP diesel yaris in Europe - 59 mpg hwy and 44 city, 52 combined. 90 hp in such a small car is not slow at all.
Volkswagen has the Polo Bluemotion, which is a Polo 1.4 TDI with a few aerodynamic tweaks, tall gearing and low roll resistance tires. 74 mpg hwy, 46 city. 60 mpg combined. Not underpowered at all with that engine.
Then there is the new Smart, if two seats are what you want. 69 mpg combined.
If you are a GM guy, there's the Corsa: CDTI Ecotec gets 51 mpg combined.
If you want a Ford, the 90 hp Duratorq diesel in the Fiesta gets 60/45.
The list goes on and on. i converted everything using US gallons.
Reply
Brian Hague 9:38AM (2/14/2007)
I personally would like to see:
A G5 with a 4cyl diesel and a 6 speed with a really tall 6th.
A G6 with a 4 and 6 cyl diesel option and a 6 speed with a really really tall 6th (like 2000 RPM at 75 mph).
A G8 with a 6 and an 8cyl diesel option and a 6 speed with the same 2000 RPM @ 75mph as the G6 above.
Now we are driving excitement!
None of these are "small cars", the G8 is trying to be a sports car.
BMW has a V10 diesel that with mild tuning is just a beast from the depths of hell. Rev it up pop the clutch in third, and leave two perfectly straight 200' skid marks... more smoke from the tires than the exhaust too...
Reply
Jim 11:08AM (2/14/2007)
Brian, all those VW resale numbers would go out the window the day more diesels were available. The fact that the TDI Passat was only sold for a year or two is what keeps it scarce, and therefore higher priced used. Another case of 'if we all do it, it won't work'.
The real issue as I see it is that the cars sold in America are given bigger engines than they need. Take the Mazda3 hatch. Base engine in the UK is something like a 1.6L, whereas here it is a 2.3L. The new Toyota Auris mentioned yesterday on Autoblog as coming here in 2008 will come with a base 2.4L, but in the UK it has a 1.6L. WHY?
Becasue people think they need all that power. Why is that? Maybe because they've been told they do, when so many auto publications review a car like a V6 Honda Accord with 240HP and say it's 'a bit underpowered'.
Compared to what? My 1990 Maxima SE 3.0L was called the "4-door sports-car" in it's day and had 160HP. Back then it was considered quick enough for a sports sedan, if not blazingly fast. Today an Accord V6 with almost 100 HP more is reviewed by Car & Track Trend and they say it's underpowered becasue some other similar car has 250HP. What a crock of BS!
Reply
Brian Hague 12:05PM (2/14/2007)
As you can see Jim, I keep my cars forever, or at least until they break something major. Resale is not a big issue for me, but you do bring up a good point, the same cars I listed in Europe (where half are diesels) are the same resale value as their petrol counterparts.
I agree with you 100%. The next car I buy will be the 4 cyl diesel Accord when my Golf finally bites the dust in 50,000 more miles or so. hopefully they will have ULSD everywhere by then.
Do me a favor, and go find a Golf/Jetta/Beetle TDI, and drive it versus a 2.0l, or find the Passat 2.0l TDI from 1994,1995 and test it versus the 2.0l 4 cyl gas engine, you will be impressed not only by the performance numbers, but also the mileage numbers.
No one who has taken me up on this challenge likes the gas engine, they all choose diesel.
Reply
pdxbiodiesel 3:12PM (2/14/2007)
"Gasoline is cheap and most americans are comfortable and happy with their gasoline powered cars. Gas isn't particularly expensive, so we think "why change?""
Cheap is not free.
Even at $2 a gallon, going from 20mpg to 40mpg saves money. At $3 or $4 a gallon you really start to see savings.
But you, like most people, have ignored the other costs of burning gasoline.
1. Emissions. No matter what you want to reduce, the easiest way to reduce it is to burn less. Even if "global climate change" is not a priority for you, the fact that kids who live near highways grow up with smaller lungs and asthma should be enough to want to reduce emissions. Or the fact that most of the things that are emitted when we burn fuel cause cancer. There are REAL costs for this. Medical costs. Lost productivity. Cleanup costs. By reducing the amount of fuel burned, you reduce emissions, and therefore reduce costs overall. And then we could throw in the global warming bit if need be...
2. Fuel supply chain costs. It costs a lot of money to protect the oil supply. I have seen many analisyses that claim that foreign oil and all of the "issues" it causes costs us from $2 a gallon to $10 a gallon depending on which source your refer too. So sure, gas may be $2 at the pump but you still pay other costs associated with getting that gas to the pump. So reducing consumption reduces costs.
3. Time. It is really nice to fill up half as many times.
4. Lifespan of the motor. Diesel engines typically last longer. They operate at lower temperatures, have fewer moving parts, and run at lower RPMs. All lend themselves to longer life when maintained properly. Diesel's do have slightly higher maintenance costs - but longer maintenance intervals so they even out somewhat. But over the life of the car it means less energy consumed to make the car per miles driven. It means better economy for longer time periods. And unlike gasoline engines, diesel engines typically get *cleaner* as they age (although after a certain point almost immesurably).
Anyway you cut it, consuming less is better - especially when you don't have to sacrifice anything. Why would anyone buy a car that gets 30mpg when there is a 60mpg version of the SAME car? I just don't understand that.
"I also don't think the fuel price is kept 'artificially low' here."
http://www.progress.org/2003/energy22.htm
"The report divides the external costs of gasoline usage into five primary areas: (1) Tax Subsidization of the Oil Industry; (2) Government Program Subsidies; (3) Protection Costs Involved in Oil Shipment and Motor Vehicle Services; (4) Environmental, Health, and Social Costs of Gasoline Usage; and (5) Other Important Externalities of Motor Vehicle Use. Together, these external costs total $558.7 billion to $1.69 trillion per year, which, when added to the retail price of gasoline, result in a per gallon price of $5.60 to $15.14."
The reports that page summarizes are done by the "International Center For Technology Assessment":
http://www.icta.org/
The International Center for Technology Assessment (CTA) is a non-profit, bi-partisan organization committed to providing the public with full assessments and analyses of technological impacts on society. CTA is devoted to fully exploring the economic, ethical, social, environmental and political impacts that can result from the applications of technology or technological systems.
They cite all of their sources in their reports.
Reply
JP 9:08PM (2/14/2007)
Reasons why diesel has not "caught on" in the US:
1. Gas is cheap
2. Diesel exhaust is stinky and dirty
3. See #1
I know that newer, clean burning diesels make #2 go away, but the average american consumer only sees the buses & semis spewing out black stinky diesel exhaust and will not get a car with diesel.
Reply