By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
For instance I've heard the theory thrown around that cheap gasoline/higher fuel efficiency encourages people to move further from work, negating any fuel savings. My experience has been that's kind of like putting the horse before the cart. Just about anybody I've known who has moved further away from work has done so because they wanted to live in a less crowded area, more house for your money, etc. Then, once they see how much the increased fuel consumption is costing them, they decide to buy a more fuel-efficient car. Still, buying the fuel efficient car isn't what prompted them to move further away from work; it was just the opposite.
I moved closer to work about 3 1/2 years ago, cutting my round-trip commute from about 26-30 miles (depending on which way I drove) to about 7. However, fuel usage had nothing to do with the situation. Saving 95-115 miles worth of driving per week was a nice bonus, but it wasn't the driving force behind that move.
People are going to drive the amount of miles they need to no matter what fuel costs, unless it gets so prohibitive that it's actually cheaper to move, take public transit, find job closer to home, etc. But if you suddenly trade in one vehicle for another that uses half as much gasoline, it's not a given that suddenly you're going to start driving twice as much!
It's the usual thing Americans do: take no personal responsibility for a problem (which has societywide scope in this case) and point the blame at someone else.
gagrice: from what I have heard, Toyota officials have made the decision to push production and behind-the-scenes incentives on the Prius because they want to significantly increase its sales this year so they can be known as the industry's "hybrid leader". Prius are selling at invoice all over the place now, in some cases even less. After 2-1/2 years of wait lists and order-onlys, most dealers now have a huge stock of Prius ready to sell.
Prius will seat four adults comfortably and could greatly increase fuel savings for many folks using their cars to commute. For the trucks, though, I am still waiting on a bunch of really good 50-state diesels to get out there.
At the $3.50/gallon we are paying for gas in California, if I had an old truck that couldn't exceed 20 mpg, I could buy a 40 mpg small car for commuting using the savings on gas alone, which is exactly what I did (bought a 3 year old Echo to complement my 4Runner about 18 months ago). But I also managed to reduce my driving (number of miles) by 10% last year, and I am working on reducing my miles a bit more this year.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Well, that's not my rationale. I never said it would encourage anyone to drive less. Or more. I said it would lead to less consumption, all else being equal.
It will be irrelevant. When gas rises above $4/gallon the fleet efficiency will automatically increase.
Probably so, but the question is by how much. And if they drop back, it won't be that effective. Assuming that hitting $4 will solve the efficiency problem is not reasonable.
Then maybe a year or two later higher CAFE will get enacted and someone will point to this increased efficiency as proof that CAFE is effective. That's what happened last time.
Not a reasonable conclusion from the data. The efficiency of the fleet has tracked closely to CAFE while gas prices have only now reached 1980 prices in real dollars. For most of the last 25 years, gas price has been lower than in '80, yet efficiency has remained at CAFE levels. Must be magic
Hey, we better not bring up Honda transmissions
I'm sure you won't be driving twice as much, but maybe a little more, maybe not. You certainly won't be driving less or have any incentive to. The claim was made that more efficient vehicles will create an incentive to drive less and that just cannot be supported.
Yes, I know, you wear a red tie
But you know, you are probably a work and spend person. And really, in it's basic form, it's the same thing. You take money, and you use it for some benefit. The amount of money, and the value of the benefit, should be what is considered, not whether we should have any transactions. Ya know what I mean?
I do think that the American people would understand a gas tax if it was presented properly with guarantees of the use of that tax.
I think we agree. And I think that, it would not be easy, and it would take real leadership, and an informed and engaged citizenry, and.......someone wake me up, I'm dreamin
Before something can be passed, it has to be proposed.
At least you've moved (somewhat) beyond the "Bush is opposed to a CAFE increase" mantra, which, as has been shown, is false.
As you said, an informed and engaged citizenry is important in this debate. Of course, it's best to be informed about the issue - and positions of various key players - before speaking about it...or accusing the general citizenry of not knowing about the issue.
Doing otherwise doesn't help one's credibility in the discussion.
I have always acknowledged that CAFE has created a floor that kept efficiency from going down, as it most certainly would have during the height of the SUV craze and $1/gallon gas. However historical data does not prove that CAFE was responsible for the dramatic increase in efficiency that occurred during the mid 70's and early 80's. The increases preceded the mandates, how often does compliance with a government regulation happen before a deadline? So if the goal is to increase, not maintain, the efficiency of the fleet CAFE has not proven itself to be an effective tool.
I don't think the fleet efficiency has been published yet for 2006. I'd be a little surprised if there wasn't an improvement even though CAFE standards didn't change.
me: The people of China thank you and any others for being such humanitarians. By you not burning that gasoline, that simply means that that gasoline will be consumed by someone else.
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=30073
If I save gasoline it is simply for personal financial reasons; to save or spend the $ otherwise. I have no illusions that the gasoline I save won't simply be purchased by someone else. I also have no illusion that we're going to appeal to the masses of the world who haven't had cars and gasoline, that they should not covet a car and gasoline, as we already have.
I'm asking because I'm assuming the autos of Europe have better mpg than the U.S. (just by having so many diesels), and I'm wondering if that is because of a mandate or occurred due to market forces (i.e. cost of fuel. Is Europe set for 35mpg? and the manufacturers are hitting 35.1mpg? Or is there no mandate or a mandate at 30mpg, and the manufacturers are far exceeding that at 35.1mpg?
I gave my own story only to provide some examples of changes people could make to save some gas money. Isn't that what this thread is about?
Oil consumption will go up worldwide by 50% in the next decade, most likely, and if all Americans reduce their consumption by 10%, that won't make much of a dent in the global increase. But all those Americans will be saving money, won't they? And maybe a move like that would prompt automakers to really get serious about offering gas-saving models for sale in the U.S.
To address one of your points a little bit: the automotive industry is totally globalized at this point, so if we induce automakers here and in Japan and Europe to invest more in improving fuel efficiency while reducing emissions, it will mean that all those cars being sold in the rapidly growing markets of Asia will be more fuel-efficient and less smoggy and smoky too.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I think what people are saying is that there are two parts to the fuel consumption equation.
consumption = (miles traveled)/(mpg of car)
Slapping a tax on gas to increase the cost will have an impact on reducing the miles traveled. Increasing the CAFE standards or whatever will increase the mpg. Both will decrease consumption. Both have their place as policy tools. Personally, I prefer the CAFE approach because it attacks the equation directly at the source and does not rely on trying to change the behavior of stubborn people.
All I can do is agree to disagree with the tax crowd.
Sure, but it don't mean much until passed.
At least you've moved (somewhat) beyond the "Bush is opposed to a CAFE increase" mantra, which, as has been shown, is false.
I really don't want to be sidetracked by politics here, but no, I haven't moved an inch. Bush is totally opposed to CAFE, but he's not opposed to pretending that he is.
. Of course, it's best to be informed...
Yada yada. Best to stick to the subject, it ain't me. Esp considering that you were misinformed about my POV.
LOL, yes, in other words, it worked.
However historical data does not prove that CAFE was responsible for the dramatic increase in efficiency...
Nothing does. Nothing proves anything did, either. There are far too many variables to do that.
The increases preceded the mandates...
This is extremely misleading and, strictly speaking, false. It implies that ALL the increases preceded ALL of the CAFE settings. The initial increase in efficiency preceded CAFE, but after that they all came after. The sharp price spike in 1980 (and the memory of '73) caused the initial move to greater efficiency but after that, gas prices dropped to even lower than before 80, but efficiency continued to improve and stayed there, after CAFE.
Once again, here's the chart. Look at it and try to tell us that it was gas prices and not CAFE that put that blue line where it is:
Last year with the Avalanche:
14,880 miles
First year with HCH:
15,980 miles
Drove a little bit more with the hybrid but spent FAR LESS money on fuel.
No they don't but I've read that some countries are considering a mandated CO2 emissions average for the fleet, which would be essentially the same thing as CAFE.
Yes vehicles in Europe are, on average, significantly more fuel efficient than here. And the use of diesel is also more widespread. The question becomes whether this higher efficiency was just the by-product of using diesel or was diesel adopted specifically because of a desire to achieve this higher efficiency, which was driven by higher fuel costs. My guess is it primarily the latter but those that argue against the effectiveness of market forces would disagree.
I don't think that is possible. Globally we are consuming about 80 million barrels of oil per day. You are talking about increasing that to 120 million barrels a day. Right now there is only about 4-5 million barrels a day of extra capacity and new discoveries have not kept pace with consumption. Where is this oil going to come from? I guess if the price gets high enough the supply will be found but I suspect it will be a very high price, which will significantly eat into this demand. Bottom line is there isn't much wiggle room when it comes to supplying the world's appetite for oil. A slight disruption will have far greater significance than it would have had 10 years ago.
Anyway, talk of future CAFE requirements started surfacing in 1974, and since GM was so dependent on big cars, they took 1974 as a wakeup call and started plans to drastically downsize their cars. Sure, they probably did it kicking and screaming and fighting the government all the way, but they did it. And in those days, where GM led, everybody else usually followed. GM's downsized 1977 models were a smash hit, and prompted Ford and Chrysler to hastily play catch-up.
No. But China does.
...and I'm wondering if that is because of a mandate or occurred due to market forces...
There's not much to wonder about. Gas is around $6/gal in most of Europe. Makes $4 gas sound cheap. No, they did not wake up one morning and say "I think I'd rather use diesel". Market forces at $6 are much stronger than that at $4. Of course, if we adopted that 50 cent/year increase over 4 years that I mentioned earlier, we'd be approaching that point, too and there would, no doubt, be a shift. Even more because we'd know that it wasn't going to slide back anytime soon.
LOL, yes, in other words, it worked.
Whether it worked or not depends on what it was supposed to do. If it was supposed to raise fleet efficiency then I cannot conclude that it worked. I've looked at the graph you've provided. In fact I'd seen it before. We are drawing totally different conclusions. When you ask what put the blue line where it is I have two answers. Up until 1983 prices put the blue line where it was, after that it was CAFE. So CAFE has proved to be effective at maintaining a flat line and prices have proven to be effective at creating a line that goes up. What kind of line do we want to create in the future? If the goal is a line that goes up then why not choose the proven method?
It is very easy to say since so much is out of our control there's not much we can do but that is silly. We are now and will likely still be then the biggest consumers so if we can improve our efficiencies it will make a big difference.
I'm still supporting CAFE. There is all this stuff going on with whether BUSH is supportive or not. The basic answer is he did a flip flop. This is hardly unusual for a politician. I do think he saw that the public is moving towards wanting to see some action and he sees this as a relatively painless (in terms of the electorate) way of doing something.
He has also honed his position on it so that nothing really happens until he is out of office, thus moving what is perceived as a negative reaction onto the nest president. Again, this is not unusual - he did the same thing with his tax programs.
I really do not care how he came around - I'm just happy he did.
It would be REALLY NICE if GM could move ahead of requirements again and develop systems that will increase the efficiency by 50% in that decade and license teh technology world wide. They'd profit, the country would profit and the world demand would not be as high.
That's a bit of a leap. From 1978 to 1982, prices rose (and then hovered) from 1.50 to 3.00 (in 2006 dollars). Over the same period, car CAFE standards rose from 18 mpg to 24 mpg. It's not reasonable to assume that all (or even most) of the improvement was due to gas prices and not CAFE.
Furthermore, if gas price was the main reason for the improvement, why did efficiency not go down after the price dropped in 1982, all the way back (and then lower) to pre 1980 levels? Clearly, gas prices were not the main mechansim.
Even if one were to postulate that the price rise "caused the increase in efficiency", to get a similar effect now, gas price would have to double....to well over $6 a gal. And then, even according to your theory, we would need CAFE to sustain the improvement. Hardly irrelevant.
If the goal is a line that goes up then why not choose the proven method?
What method? Double the price of gas, then implement a higher CAFE level with a concurrent halving of the price of gas? I agree, that would work
2 Drive the Civic as much as possible.
3 Revel in the upcoming wave of innovation.
4 Be smug about the fact that I already did the above for 20 years.
But I'm using the bicycle more, so I can still get to scare myself to death without the EVO.
I remember riding a rented bike over the Golden Gate about 10 years ago. Had I known then I'd stop and say hello....
Being from the East the idea of a bridge that big with real pedestrian and bicycle access was a real surprise.
Now, while being terribly out of shape, I may have to decide that the 5 mile or so commute might be bicycle worthy. I've done it a few times but not recently. From peoples' reactions at work you would have thought I came in on a unicycle or walked five miles on my hands!
Yeah, I would say that's about right. I just have to start up the habit. I generally have about half an hour between getting the kids onto the school bus (I was nuts enough to have two more kids at 50 so I've got teenagers now, get a break for three years and repeat process) and being at work.
I've got a brother who has done that most of his working life. I don't think they went to having two cars until they'd been marries at least 20 years. Given the cars they buy this is a good thing.
I mean, a person can walk 3 mph.
Never been there, but I heard New Jersey was the designated state for refineries. Did they run out of space already?
Joking aside, we need more oil. Lower refinery capacity causes shortage and increase in demand/prices. This will also cause a drop in the sales of the big gas guzzlers that Detroit sells to make the most money. Will be interesting to watch the capitalistic forces fighting each other - Auto makers wanting cheaper gas to increase profit from sales of Hummers and Expeditions, oil companies not being interested - to make more money from refining/producing the same amount of gas as they do today.
Back to the topic:
As a consumer, I cannot do much except to gripe and adjust my budget (not going out for lunch, fewer road trips, reduced budget for Xmas, etc.). I have to commute to work, got no choice there. This is like giving up my standard of living slowly, to the oil merchants of the world. I think that is true for most people. If you are forced to drive a sub-compact or hybrid car because of fuel restrictions, that is rationing in effect - not good.
Around here we have a restriction on water use - you cannot water your lawn more than once a week, and cannot wash your car on the driveway. Imagine the nation doling out gas coupons to citizens - "Here's your quota - you may not consume more than 25 gallons of gas a month". That is bad, really bad! I am afraid we are heading in that direction, if we keep fighting about when/where/if/how we are to build more refineries.
That was 2 more cents from me. Best regards, - MS.
Gas rationing - my mom used to talk about that. That's what we did during WWII. Back then the idea that if the war is worth winning it was worth sacrificing for actually meant something. They also had a 35 MPH speed limit and if you lived out on the coast a blackout at night. We had U boats not five miles from my house. (At the time neither my house nor I existed.)
Naturally there were folks who figured out how to get more (including some people who actually did use all their gas and sold the coupons). My dad got gas the hard way - he enlisted. Managed to stay in the USA for the war and had military gas and access to an Air Corps car.
The cost of gas is indeed slowly eroding our quality of life. We are going to be the ones who are going to have to be the ones to lead.
All this coming from the refinery capital of the USA - New Jersey.... (I'm no where near that, BTW - far enough into the woods that we almost got evacuated for a forest fire - missed by 4 blocks!)
What happens if a person switches from a Dodge Ram SRT to a Toyota Corolla, driving 15,000 miles a year?
Gas Bill Dodge Ram SRT (premium fuel, California) = $5,505.00
Gas Bill Toyota Corolla (reg fuel, California) = $ $1,394.00
source: infoplease.com
But seriously, we've all got to cut back somewhere. I recently traded my F-150 SuperCrew for a Civic. I sometimes miss the truck, but I cut my monthly fuel bill in half. I also lowered my payment and insurance is less on the car.
On the subject of gas prices in Europe, I've read that some of the countries also tax cars depending on engine size, so people driving more powerful cars pay more in tax for them. I'm not sure if this is aimed at saving gas though.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't know about the SRT but I did own a Corolla for awhile and was able to get 35 mpg, so that part's reasonable.
The IIHS gave the new Honda Civic their best rating for safety. How would it do in a collision with the SRT? Probably not too good. How would the SRT do in a collision with a full sized tractor trailer? Again, probably not too good. So what's causing the danger here, the Civic's small size or the SRT's large size?
I borrowed my uncle's '03 Corolla a couple times, and once on a trip to Carlisle and back, I got around 37.4 mpg. IIRC it's EPA-rated 30/38. As for a Ram SRT, I couldn't find any EPA numbers, but for the regular Hemi, it's EPA-rated at 15/19. So, presuming that you can come close to the EPA estimates with your driving, I'd say figure that the Corolla's going to cut your fuel bill roughly in half.
And that's about what my uncle says he's experienced, on average. He had been driving a 1997 Chevy Silverado. 4.3 V-6, but it was the extended cab model with a camper shell on it, so it's kinda heavy. He'd get around 17-19 with it, commuting to work (mostly highway driving, but often ground to a halt in rush-hour traffic). He gets around 34-38 with the Corolla.
Since he's had the Corolla, it's gone about 136,000 miles. If you figure an average of 18 mpg for the pickup, 36 for the Corolla (taking his estimates right down the middle), I figure that the Corolla has sipped down about 3777 gallons since he's had it. If he had just kept driving his truck and never bought the Corolla, it would've been ~7555 gallons Plus today he'd have a truck with about 250,000 miles on it, and probably on its last legs and ready to be replaced, rather than the ~115,000 it currently has).
So figure at $3.00 per gallon, the Corolla would have saved him about $11,300 just in fuel! Now the reality is that it would've been less, as fuel has ranged from maybe $1.30 per gallon on up to spikes of ~$4.00 over the 5 years has had the Corolla. Still, that's a pretty big savings, gallon-wise.
My uncle has mentioned the possibility of getting a newer, smaller truck, just enough that he still has the utility of a pickup. He said he'd give me his '97 Silverado if I wanted to retire my '85. The fuel savings would be nice, as I'm lucky to see 12-13 mpg in local driving, whereas I might get 15-16 with his truck. But the transmission in his truck scares me. It's already had one rebuild under warranty, and one rebuild out of warranty. That last one was about $1800! That could buy a lot of gas! And it makes me thankful that my '85 has the nice old fashioned THM350C tranny, which tends to last forever and, in the event of needing a rebuild, is more like $800.
I really ought to take a day trip on the Trace in my Civic just to see what kind of mileage it could really get with the lower speed limit.
On that same note - it would probably amaze everyone just how much fuel they would save just by slowing down a little bit. I know in the F-150 I had, Highway mileage was usually around 18.5 to 19 mpg running 70-75 mph. Slow it down to 65 and it increased to 21-22 mpg. That's a 10% increase in gas mileage. Now I know that not every car is going to show that kind of dramatic increase, but some might even have more.
Years ago the Mississippi Highway Patrol adopted the little slogan, "55 saves lives." While that sounds nice, the truth was that "55 saves gas."