Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
My ideas more than likely aren't all that different than yours I just see how our society looks at things and realize that we as a nation are not ready for a change to the simpler life style, even if some of us might be. Not enough of us to make a dent in the hold bigger equals better has on our society.
The reason I have so many tools is because I believe one of the reasons we hire work out is because we don't have the tools to do it ourselves.
I feel that having a circular saw is nice and for about 90 percent of the time it is all I need to cut the wood I might be working on. But a table saw is even nicer and works even better. For many Americans that flows over to vehicles as well.
I guess my posts were aimed at the majority of the population living in cities and surbubia.
For how long? Besides, I definitely do not dream of owning a pickup. When I need them, I call Enterprise, and they deliver one to me. When I need a tiller, or an auger, or a roller, or..., I stop by a hardware store instead of opening a personal store in my garage. I only own stuff that I will use regularly enough that renting makes no sense, much like getting 14 mpg in a pickup to drive to work and back, when I have cars getting twice as much and need the utility of a pickup on occasions that happen to be rarer than blue moon.
There has to be a reason Accords and Camry's are the most popular cars in the US. There has to be some reason people did not make the same commitment to the Echo or even the Yaris as they did to the Camry. After all they are made by the same company. Every time they have released a new flock of Sub Compacts in this country they get more HP and or bigger in ten years. I don't think that will change do you?
Look I am not saying what someone should drive. I am not even suggesting that people shouldn't drive a sub compact. I am saying, as it relates to this particular forum, traditionally sub compacts do not constitute a large number of vehicles in the US because of our buying habits. When cars get below a particular size people in the us buy them as second cars not primary cars as a whole. Pull up the sales states for the Fit in the US and pull them up for the Accord. The fit cost less and might even hold as much. You tell me why people still buy Accords? If the answer is because that is what they want then we agree. I simply side with the majority.
The same reason people smoke, drink too much, spend more money than they have, get married to losers...in general because they don't think with the practical part of their brain...or use their brain at all. If they did, then a lot of folks would probably would be buying Fits instead of Accords. You can side with the majority, but the majority isn't always correct or doing things smartly. Democracy is only the best form of government because there hasn't been anything better to come along.
But I'm not saying that only stupid people buy Accords, but just that they're not necessarily buying what they buy for practical reasons. And if everyone bought 4cyl Accords that would be just fine with me too because they get great mileage. If it were up to me, they'd tax cars based on engine size and provide a lot more incentives to reduce our energy consumption. But then I guess the majority would rather have their big cars.
They already do. Its called gas tax!
I get better mileage in my V6 Accord than some folks get with the 4-cyl, so taxing the gas is very appropriate. Heck, have you seen what the major mags average with a Civic?? It is worse than I used to get with my 350Z!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I have yet to do worse than 30 mpg in 3k of driving the Accord, most of the time it hovers around 33 mpg in mixed driving. Based on that, the 10% increase in fuel consumption and $2k in higher purchase price gets me a vehicle that can hold 5 people (well 4+1 baby) and weekend getaway material (which is a relatively common task), cheaper insurance (?) and a more powerful motor.
I personally don't think its so much an issue with a midsize sedan getting over 30 mpg, as with a crossover or SUV getting 15-20mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=browseList2&make=Honda&model=Civic
The Civics numbers look better to me. I think the main reason folks buy civics vs accords is because they're cheaper to buy new, probably by about $5K for similarly equiped vehicles. A friend owns an Accord that cost about $10K more than our Fit and it was my wife that mentioned to me that she feels more comfortable in the Fit and her friend that commented on how much space there was in the Fit and how versatile it was compared to her Accord but that they just never even thought of buying something other than a mid-sized sedan...just trying to stir the thinking pot!
It's a shame they don't make an Accord wagon anymore. Seems to me that would be a versatile vehicle. However, with the lower roofline of the Accord, versus the more upright Fit, I'm sure there would still be some compromises, as you'd have a lot of lateral room, but somewhat limited vertical room. Unless they raised the roof in back. However, that might compromise styling a bit.
So under your plan, those who drive a Prius for maximum economy benefit those who drive with their foot to the floor through osmosis?
Sorry, but I still disagree wholeheartedly. Your plan is nothing more than stereotyping. As I've pointed out, some people with Civics get worse mileage than some people with V6 Accords, so why should all Civic drivers get a pass on the tax you propose when they might very well be getting 23 mpg?
And let's not forget that engine size alone doesn't even dictate mileage for the most miserly drivers. Have you ever perused the RX8 mileage boards? Here we have a 1.3 liter engine that is on par with a 6 liter Corvette. Where does your tax fit in with such an equation??
As I've said, the tax to punish consumption is already in place, and it appropriately taxes BASED on consumption, not assumption.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
That's a really good point, and a prime reason that I've always wondered why some countries put a tax on displacement, anyway. Seems to me if they tax the fuel itself, that's really the fairest way to go, since you only get taxed on what you use.
If I really, REALLY, old-ladied my '85 Silverado and broke 20 mpg, or revved the snot out of a Civic and sunk it to 20 mpg, what really, is the difference?
My Accord was almost exactly the same price (w/in $700) of the Civic's price, and cheaper than the Civic I was initially considering. I also looked at other compact and midsize vehicles.
I have to admit, fuel economy wasn't my primary purchase criteria. I don't normally drive that much, so the amount of gas I would be saving is pretty minuscule. I also think that the Accord's FE is one of its main endearing traits.
I think that there should be a tax for vehicles with a GVWR over a certain amount (maybe 6-7k#)as they create more wear on the road system, and I think if they do have a vehicle tax of sorts for passenger cars, I would rather them go with a gas tax based on consumption.
Also, just becase SOME folks get better MPG in an Accord as compared to a Civic doesn't mean that on AVERAGE a Civic gets better MPG. If you had a million Civics replace a million Accords on the road with the same drivers driving in the same manner, then you'd get a better average MPG out of those million cars, even if some of the Accord owners can get better MPG. You have to look at the averages and not individual cases.
That's where CAFE comes in - you'll often read something like 'Ford loses $1000 (or some such figure) on every Focus it sells'. Why? To enable it to sell the low-mpg, high profit cars and still fit in the CAFE cap. So, while CAFE isn't a displacement tax, it does some of what you're talking about, subsidizing, in effect, small car sales.
why?
so the guy who pedals a bike to work should pay the same vehicles taxes as me because, after all, its about the average, right? Not the individual consumption.
The problem with the gas tax is that it provides not incentive for companies to build more fuel efficient vehicles. By creating some tax incentive on the purchase end, more consumers would be willing to buy the smaller car, and then more manufacturers would have incentive to build them.
that's completely contradictory. On one hand, you are saying that a tax incentive would push more buyers to a more efficient car, which would incentivize manufacturers to build more efficient cars. Ummmm... hey, how about a tax on gas to push people to buy more efficient cars? Oh YEAH! It already exists!
OK ... how about this? What if we go ahead and enstate the tax you are referring to. We tax based on the average consumption of a given vehicle. Would you really be happy paying a tax based on the other guy's usage? If we were all forced into Civics, you WOULD have that clique who beat the snot out of them and get 20 mpg. Those folks would drive down the average, thereby increasing the tax YOU have to pay. so although you eek out 35 mpg, you pay tax based on 27 mpg because that is, after all, the average. How is that fair? It is no different than the guy pedaling a bike to work that I referenced above.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
These big evil companies build what they think the market wants, and if no one bought them, they would change. Ford is putting a big focus (pun intended?) into making cars again after years of neglecting cars for "high profit" trucks.
If there was a tax on gas, that might drive public demand for vehicles. I think the whole government thing saying "thou shalt produce vehicles that get a bazillion MPG" is kind of silly. Crank up gas tax, use it to fund alternative energies research, environmental programs, BIKE LANES, etc.
The idea that people would drive their smaller cars harder and get worse MPG is crazy. If that were the case, then the real-world MPG of Accords would be better then Civics, but that's not the case. And I'm talking about averages because the affects of millions of drivers switching to smaller, more fuel efficent vehicles is more significant than the impacts of a very small minority of Civic owners who pimp their cars and drive like crazy.
As far as the gas tax, if you're in favor of increasing it as a way of incentivising folks to buy smaller cars, then that's another option. But it's not working as such an incentive at it's current rate.
As far as the guy who bikes to work...good for him. Same with the guy who takes a bus. But since don't live in a society that enables everyone to bike or bus to work, there will be more impact to millions of people driving smaller cars than there will to try to incentivise biking or bussing to work because of how spread out we live.
I'm not advocating changing the countryside of America, but just to provide more financial incentives for both individuals and companies to purchase/build smaller, more efficient cars to help the environment, the dependency on oil, and traffic accidents involving giant vehicles which do a lot more damage to their surroundings than small cars.
The idea that people would drive their smaller cars harder and get worse MPG is crazy. If that were the case, then the real-world MPG of Accords would be better then Civics, but that's not the case.
You still aren't getting it. Those same people would also drive the accords in such a way as to get bad mileage. Like I said, look at individual results. I forget which mag it is, but one of them has a long-term Civic Si that they've recorded 23 mpg in. It may be crazy, but it is true. So giving someone a tax break for buying a car that they will then get horrible mileage with is a BAD idea, IMHO. It solves nothing for THOSE INDIVIDUALS. They should not get to share in a tax break that someone who WILL get 35 mpg in the same car receives. There is much much more to conserving gas with a vehicle than its EPA estimates or its average consumer consumption dictates.
As far as the gas tax, if you're in favor of increasing it as a way of incentivising folks to buy smaller cars, then that's another option. But it's not working as such an incentive at it's current rate.
Sure it is. That's why you see this new influx of subcompacts, and they are selling quite well. Far better than they would have in the days of 99 cent gas. Maybe it is just not working to the extreme that you want, in which case, if you were in charge, yes, i would suggest more gas tax because that is how you affect actual individual consumption.
or better yet the federal government reimbusing the purchaser so the state doesn't have to pick up the tab
we might be getting a bit too political with this ... but I always find these comments funny. the feds or the states are picking up anything. it comes out of OUR pockets either way!
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I didn't respond because the answer is so obvious...there no proof, evidence or reason to beliew that a higher percentage of Civic owner will idle their car in the driveway any more or less than Accord owners, so this behavior is spread evenly across all vehicles. But the Civic owner will expend less gas during this idle time.
You're right...the tiny percentage of Civic owners that drive crazy will get an incentive as well as the Civic owners that drive normally; however, I'd rather have the Civic owners driving crazy and getting 23mpg (as in your SI example), then having them drive a Mustang crazy and get 10mpg.
"Sure it is. That's why you see this new influx of subcompacts, and they are selling quite well" The increase gas price is the result of the price of oil, not an increase in the gas tax, which has been quite stable for the past several years.
I guess the difference between my and your opinions is that you're trying to incentive driving behavior, which is great but more complicated. My way is simpler, but with more slop (eg the incentives still go everyone). But right now the low gas tax goes to everyone too. So the rich guy filling up their Mercedes pays the same tax as the poor. Some folks may or may not agree with it, but there's a lot of way to incentive. I'd rather do it with tax breaks for owners of small, inexpensive cars, than with a gas tax hike that affects everyone.
But back to the specific nature of this board...what really is wrong with subcompacts other than a lot of folks perceptions that they're too small to meed their needs/wants....
But if you tax the gasoline itself, and not just the size/weight of the car, it encourages people to conserve across all size classes. It will encourage people to cut out unneccessary trips, get them to drive more responsibly, etc.
Now maybe there could be an additional incentive to get people into smaller vehicles, such as revising the way they charger for registrations. For example, in Maryland, if the shipping weight of your car is over 3700 pounds, you get hit for something like $197 every two years. Under 3700, it's $128. I think minivans, SUVs, and crossovers are on the same schedule as cars. Trucks are different, though. I forget what the breakout is, but my '85 Silverado is $154.50 every two years.
However, maybe they could throw out this system and just use either GVWR or curb weight and, say, charge 5 cents per hundred pounds or whatever. That way my Intrepid, with its ~4500 lb GVWR would be $225. My '79 New Yorker, at ~5450 lb, would be $272.50 (they might want to round them off to the nearest 100 lb to make billing simpler). My '85 Silverado, at 5600 GVWR, would be $280 My uncle's '03 Corolla, at around 3500 lb GVWR would come in at $175. And something with a 3000 lb GVWR (if they make cars that lighweight anymore) would be $150.
They could also do the same thing using curb weight instead, but it would be easier with GVWR, as it is listed on every car that's been built since perhaps the early 1970's.
HUH??? We weren't talking about what caused the increase in gas prices, only what the end results was (ie, people buying smaller, more efficient cars).
I didn't respond because the answer is so obvious...there no proof, evidence or reason to beliew that a higher percentage of Civic owner will idle their car in the driveway any more or less than Accord owners, so this behavior is spread evenly across all vehicles.
Yes, but the question isn't to the type of car. I don't care what the type of car is in the equation, it is the results. No matter what car I buy, if I am paying the average tax penalty, the wasters will drive me to pay higher taxes, regardless of how conservative I am. THAT is the problem with an "average tax."
So the rich guy filling up their Mercedes pays the same tax as the poor.
Only if the poor person is getting the same mileage. And, if they are, they should rethink their transportation choice.
I'd rather do it with tax breaks for owners of small, inexpensive cars, than with a gas tax hike that affects everyone.
Hmmm... wait a sec. Are you saying to NOT increase taxes, but to merely decrease taxes for buyers of more efficient cars, as in the hybrid rebate? Again, tax breaks come out of our pockets one way or another, but I can't say I'm opposed to the hybrid rebate.
By the way, why does the car have to be inexpensive to be energy efficient?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Do you think that tomorrow, if all Accord drivers started driving Civics, after one year of driving, would they have paid more or less for gas then the year they drove an accord? If your answer is anything but "less gas cost" then there's not point in further discussion.
By the way, yes, I could probably get better mileage in a Civic ... but not enough to warrant a smaller and slower car. I'm quite pleased with 27 mpg and a potential 0-60 in about 6 secs and room for 3 adults in the back seat .... which, by the way, could get us into a whole other discussion about gas per person, so I won't go there.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
And if everyone who bought Accords really bought them because they needed to carry 3 adults in the back seat on a regular basis...that's great too. But I think that most Accord drivers probably drive most of the time by themselves, sometimes with one passenger, and rarely with 5 adults in the car. So if you could get 20% better MPG througout the year by having a smaller car but buy a bigger one just for the one or two times you needed to fit 5 comfortably, then as far as MPG, it would be better just to take 2 cars on those rare occasion. But if you're carrying 5 adults in an Accord on regular basis, then you're doing a lot better then the folks driving giant SUVs, CUVs, pickup trucks, etc...all averaging below 20MPG.
It would be great a lot of folks driving big gas guzzling vehicles would drive something like an Accord...better still in a Fit (unless they need to carry 5) :P And like you said, a tax benefit to these efficient vehicles is a way to encourage it.
well, let's not get carried away again. Generalizations are generally bad ideas. ;b
I mean, just look across the board at ... oh, let's say a 2.0 to 2.5 liter engine bracket. That would include vehicles such as a WRX STi and Toyota Prius, Volvo S60R and aforementioned Civic, Mitsu Evo and Honda Fit. Etc. etc.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Or better yet, how many engines in the ~1.7 liter range are pulling down 51/72? :P
So as we have noticed by absolute fuel mileage statistics smaller isn't always best.
If a person is driving a vehicle that already gets 15 MPG and his neighbor is driving a vehicle that gets 30 MPG the neighbor is already getting a break every time they fill up. The 15 MPG person knows what fuel costs and more than likely has taken that into account before they bought their vehicle. Why do we need to punish the wallet of the 15MPG person again?
And as with every tax plan how do you protect the consumer from the increased tax from commercial fuel sales? Will your beef be delivered in Sub Compacts? Put the tax on fuel and travel expenses will increase. Taxes aren't like a scalpel that only effects people who drive SUVs they effect us all more like a hammer.
As a matter of fact, tax based on displacement or HP or whatever is equally bad idea. Just keep it on gas/diesel. You use it, you pay for it. A lot of variables are taken out that way.
BTW, despite power (270 HP versus 150 HP), engine (3.2/V6 versus 2.3/I-4) and weight (3550 lb versus 3150 lb) discrepancies, I get same overall mileage from my TL and from my Accord. bBth consistently get 26 mpg in mixed driving and both get about 32 mpg at 75 mph on freeway. So, why should TL be taxed more?
As a matter of fact, the new Accord is using 3.5 not because it needed that displacement for that power, but for better fuel economy (VCM would be more effective with larger displacement than small).
Besides, tax based on standard formula won't stop people from burning gas like there is no tomorrow. How much they pay at the pump, regardless of their choice, will.
I would say that depends on how much they drive. Don't you agree?
No...why would they all of a sudden drive more or less just because they have a different vehicle?
No...they'll burn gas either anyway, but at least they'll be burning gas in a more efficient vehicle, thus burning less gas.
Based on your explanation, we might be able to put discussion on at least one aspect aside (tax by displacement).
Actually high taxes encourages cheating. The higher the tax the greater the incentive to cheat.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Well, it all depends. If the gov't starts providing incentives to get into smaller vehicles, such as tax credits, rebates, etc, it might get some people into them. And I see nothing wrong with that except that it's using EVERYBODY's tax dollars to subsidize those relatively few who do buy a small vehicle. Other than that though, it's not flat-out punishing anyone who buys a bigger, thirstier vehicle. And if it does get some people to switch, it does some good.
However, if they go the other way, and start slapping on big taxes, sanctions, punishments, etc to those who buy bigger vehicles, that may get people to think twice about their purchases. However, if someone really wants a big vehicle, then they're going to find a way to get one. Most likely, going used. Plus, there's often enough profit built into big vehicles that the manufacturers and dealers can afford to offer incentives to offset any extra taxes and fees. It'll probably also start forcing people to hold onto their vehicles longer, so that they don't have to pay that fee the next time they buy another.
Taxing it at the pump is still the way to go. That way everybody pays for what they use, and it doesn't play favorites to any one group. There are so many more factors at play than just fuel economy. For instance, someone with an Excursion and a 12 mile commute to work might use the same amount of fuel as someone with a Prius who lives 50 miles from work. So they both pay the same tax. You could argue that the guy with the Excursion should trade for a Prius, but couldn't you also argue that the guy with the 50 mile commute could either get a new job or move closer?
The people that are really going to get hurt are the poor. That's a sad, but harsh, reality. However, it is nothing new. Just about ANYTHING that involves money hurts the poor.
The gas tax is a good way to incentive folks to drive more efficiently and think about purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles, but since the price of gas is so low as compared to inflation, it doesn't have that effect.
Now if that gas tax were adjusted to keep gas rising with inflation, then I think that the gas tax would be enough. That would mean that today, gas would be about $5/gal, so you'd be paying 74% more on gas then you spend today. And then every year the federal gas tax would be adjusted to ensure that the final price at the pump would go up approximately in step with inflation.
But I think we're now waaaaay off topic. :P
It's tougher to cheat when paying at the pump than on the income tax return, at least that's the logic.
Well.... maybe. But the way I see it, what you are arguing overall that "what is wrong with these subcompacts" is that gas isn't expensive enough.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
On the other hand, MPG isn't the only reason to buy a subcompact. I went from a Corolla to a Honda Fit. The MPG is about the same, but I end up driving the Honda Fit more because it's more versatile and has more cargo room. So rather than take the bigger Ford Freestyle on weekend road trips, we can take the Fit because it has more cargo space behind the second row. Plus when I have both cars in our 2-car garage, I have more available space because the Fit is so short. And it's easier to get in/out of the Fit because the seats are up higher as compared to the Corolla. So for me it's all these little things that I like about the Fit over something like a Corolla or even a Camry or Accord. Plus the fact that I get in the upper 30s on the highway, and that the Fit saved me a couple of thousand over a Corolla or Civic and over $5K over the price of a similarly equiped Accord or Camry.
No, there won't ever be 2 Fits in our garage because we'll always need to keep a 3 row vehicle for our needs, but we'll always have one small and another medium sized vehicle, and it's hard for me to imagine any situation where a family of four couldn't at least consider having a subcompact as a second vehicle.
And I'd be interested in the reasons for not considering one...
Oh, that's a simple one, at least in my case. Pardon the pun, but I just don't FIT in one! :P I mean yeah, I could force myself to get into one if I really had to. Doesn't prove anything. Heck, I could sit on the toilet all day if I really had to...doesn't mean I'm going to find it comfortable!
You might want to consider increasing fiber content in your diet. :P
With the 3.5L V6, the highway gas mileage was an actual calculated 31 MPG, and this is while driving between 70 and 80 on the highway. This is excellent mileage for such a large car, and engine size. At 75 MPH, the engine was turning just a tad over 2,000 RPM. Heck, at 40 MPH, it was at 1,050 RPM. I think this is GM's theory on fuel economy - a torquey, but low RPM turning engine for good highway fuel economy - in fact, it's always been their theory.
Did I like the Monte Carlo - no, but it certainly impressed me from a highway MPG point-of-view. I couldn't live with the car: poor ergonomics, somewhat questionable materials and workmanship, etc. Today's subcompacts, all of them, should easily get at least 40 MPG on the highway - but, it's just not happening.
No, they aren’t. And this is based on observation. It will only promote tailoring of cars around EPA standards and that would be worse. Some already do that, going for best case scenario while the reality differs. As a result, some cars don’t achieve the EPA ratings. Those that went for the worst case, mostly do. So, if two vehicles are rated 20 mpg, it doesn’t mean that they are equally efficient.
I will give you an example. Most of EPA’s procedures involve a maximum acceleration of 3.2-3.3 mph/second, assuming a typical driver takes over 11 seconds to get up to 35 mph. Most of their procedures also have speed under 40 mph.
Now, while my driving style involves plenty of 40 mph or less driving, it doesn’t involve taking 11-12 seconds to 35 mph. So, a tailored vehicle may excel in EPA’s system, it won’t meet that rating under the conditions I, or most people, drive. Also note that power rating of the engine plays virtually no role here. All cars in EPA’s world have equal performance, be it 100 HP Aveo or 500 HP Corvette.
Assume a vehicle designed to keep the revs low (meaning shifting quickly to the tallest gear) as long as acceleration is below 3.4 mph/s. And around 30 mph, the transmission is already in the tallest gear, able to cruise under those specific conditions (a “standard size” driver on the seat to add to the curb weight, drag etc). This vehicle becomes a candidate for good EPA rating. And I know these vehicles exist.
Take another, which is designed for more realistic situation (higher acceleration than EPA’s criteria), for heavier load and drag, lower gear hunting. It won’t shift into top gear until past 40 mph. This vehicle may get similar rating as the one above or worse. I know these vehicles exist as well.
Assuming similar rating, we’re treating them as equals. But are they? That I figure out when I drive those vehicles that took different approach to meet EPA’s rating requirements. In one, I generally come away disappointed. In the other, I happen to easily meet or exceed the rating.
If I were to use EPA rating as the benchmark, do you not think it would be either unfair to the second vehicle which is designed around realistic situations or biased towards the first which is tailored around EPA’s standards? Why add unnecessary complications to reward cars when there is also a huge possibility of rewarding the wrong ones?
At this time, I’m driving three vehicles a lot (almost 3K miles/month, combined). I will consider one that isn’t meeting the EPA rating, and one of the other two that is.
Vehicle A:
EPA rating 19/27, overall: 22 mpg. Observed (mixed): 20.7 mpg over three tanks
Vehicle B:
EPA rating 18/26, overall: 21 mpg. Observed (mixed): 25.8 mpg over 10K miles
In defense of vehicle A, it is almost new (about 1000 miles), so mileage should improve a bit but I doubt it can improve almost 25%. May be it will, but then if EPA rating is accurate (as much as it can be), the least I should expect is average better than 26 mpg in vehicle A, right?
That is why people should pay for, what they use. Not something hypothetical (argument on displacement) or standardized tests (that are easy to find loopholes in). Unfortunately, people do consider EPA ratings.
But I think we're now waaaaay off topic.
Actually we are on it. Initial cost may be one reason to buy subcompacts, but ownership costs over time also plays a role, and gasoline is a big part of it. As a matter of fact, while posting this message, I decided to approximate number of fillups in my 98 Accord over 182K mile. Assuming a lifetime average of 26-27 mpg, about 7000 gallons!
This plays a huge role in countries where gasoline (or petrol) comes with an obscene price tag. And that makes tiny little cars with little engines appealing. That would be a reason Honda sells Fit with 1.3-liter engine (1.5 is optional) in Japanese market, and a 1.2-liter engine in Europe (along with the 1.3 which is “called” 1.4).
The small engine/car advantage is more visible in city. I used to own a (2000) Civic EX which averaged 32 mpg in mixed driving (IIRC, it was rated 28/35 mpg, back in the day).
With a car like Fit (especially the new version that I'm looking forward to test driving), I expect to see 35 mpg in mixed driving. It would be an impossible order under my driving style for the larger/more powerful cars to achieve, which are stuck at 26 mpg mark (Accord has broken 27 mpg mark only once, over thousands of fillups in 182K miles). But I expect the difference to shrink a bit in "all freeway" driving.