Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate

benjaminh · January 2014

Andre points out a fascinating thing: when adjusted for inflation, the prices of some vehicles have actually fallen in the last few decades.

That might not seem impressive, since after all manufacturing is getting more efficient and automated, but a car or truck today is almost always much better in every way than its ancestors from past decades. Cars today have more advanced engines, more advanced transmissions, much more ultra high strength steel, more comfort and convenience features etc.

For example, back in 2002 the msrp of an Accord LX with auto trans was about $19,700 (Andre, by any chance can you look up the exact number? I can't find it). Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $25,000 today.

But in fact, you can get a 2014 Accord LX auto for an msrp of $23,545 (and in the real world, discounts of c. $2000 off of this are possible, but they were for the 2002 Accord as well).

Anyway, at first it seems like the price has declined slightly from a 2002 Accord LX to a 2014 Accord LX when adjusting for inflation.

But when you adjust for the different levels of equipment, in fact the price has fallen dramatically imho.

Having owned a 2002 Accord LX, I can say that although it was a nice car for its day, it was pretty spartan compared to today's cars. For instance, a 2002 Accord LX did not have the following things that are all found on the 2014 Accord LX: anti-lock brakes, side air bags, stability control, dual climate control, bluetooth, smart phone integration, rear back up camera, direct injected engine, ultra high strength steel body, etc., etc.

Plus, the 2002 Accord LX had a lot of road noise and just seemed much more of a basic car compared to today's Accord, which has moved toward an Acura-level of comfort, luxury, and features. (I test drove an Acura a few years ago, and considered one.)

There are only two areas where I've found that the 2002 Accord is better than today's: Back in 2002 you had a "ski-pass through" in the middle of the back seat. I think I only used it once for skis, but I did use it a couple of times for lumber. Anyway, that's gone (but you can still fold down the seat). Second, the 2002 Accord's doors had "puddle lights" down low, and those are gone too. Honestly, I don't miss either feature yet. They were kinda nice little things, but if I can get a much better engine (faster and more economical), better transmission, less road noise, bluetooth, many more safety features, etc., it seems like an easy trade to make.

Bottom line: some vehicles today are almost a "bargain" compared with 10-30 years ago, once you adjust for inflation, and take into account how much better cars and trucks are today, and how many more features they have--including, to fit with this thread, significantly higher mpg!

bpeebles · January 2014

@benjaminh said:

But another effect of OBD II, which I remember reading about in some car magazines in c. 1995-96 when it went into effect, was that no car company wanted their check engine lights to go off for the first owner under normal conditions, because it would be annoying and make the car seem unreliable. And so each car company's engineers were tasked with making the various systems of a car more reliable and more robust so that the darn check engine light wouldn't come on.

Your conclusions are somewhat skewed. First of all, OBDII was intended to ONLY monitor that the emission-controls were doing their job....not to help fix a car.

WHY?, Along with OBDII, the law also forced the manufacturers to warantee all emission-controls for 100,000 miles or more. (regardless of any other automobile warantee they chose to offer.)

In other words, the auto manufacturers are 'on the hook' to fix for free ANY emission-controls which do not last over 100,000 miles.

As a related discussion - many people are not even aware that the emission-controls are covered for such a long time and do not take advantage of free repairs. (emission-controls cover all kinds of stuff such as fuel-injection, catalytic-converter, ignition and many other items which commonly need repair)

I have personally had to point out to dealerships the federal emission-controls warantee (separate warantee that comes with every automobile sold) and that THEY will be footing the bill to fix things like fuel-injection problem.

In other words, any failed component on a vehicle which causes it to fail emmissions-test are covered by the federal emission-controls warantee. Based on the manufacture-year of the vehicle, the number of miles it is effective change. (Read the federal emission-controls warantee for YOUR car to see your coverage)

Basically, if the CEL (Check Engine Light) comes on, the dealer is likely fixing it for free.

stever · January 2014

On-board diagnostics (Wikipedia)

andre1969 · January 2014

I just googled it, and it looks like cars.com is a good source for info such as original MSRP on used cars. Here's their page for the '02 Accord: http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/2002/

It lists an '02 LX sedan at $18,890, but doesn't mention which transmission that would be. My guess is that if that's for a manual, then your price of $19,700 for an automatic would be reasonable. It also lists a destination charge of $460.

I wonder how much the manufacturers save these days, by not doing annual styling changes like they did back in the day? Plus, a lot of styling features are simpler. For instance, the grille on my 2012 Ram looks like it's just one big piece of cheap, black, semi-flexible plastic, with a logo stuck on. In contrast my '85 Silverado, while still plasticky, has a few more pieces to it, and is more intricate in design. And while I don't think Chevy necessarily changed their truck grilles every single year, I think the '85 was different from the '84 and '86. I'm sure the Ram's grille has been the same since 2009.

Oh, as for more inflation trivia...my 2000 Intrepid had an MSRP of $20,950, which included a $560 destination charge. Now, I bought that car in November 1999, so I don't know if I should use 1999 or 2000 as my start point, since it was so late in the year? Anyway, adjusting from 1999, that would be $29,294 in today's dollars. Adjusting from 2000 would be about $28,342.

For comparison, a 2014 Charger SE MSRP's for $27,990, including the $995 destination. And that's for a car that's going to have a better engine (3.6 versus 2.7) more advanced transmission (5-speed versus 4-speed), ABS/Traction control (my 'Trep didn't have that), most likely more airbags (mine just had the two up front), 17" alloy wheels (mine had 16" with hubcaps), keyless entry (I had that installed, with an alarm, after mine got broken into, for about $350), dual zone manual a/c (I just had single), 6-way power driver's seat (mine was manual adjust), 60/40 folding rear seat (mine was stationary), tilt/telescope steering wheel (mine just tilted, but I have a feeling the Charger uses that clunky setup where you slide the lever, position the column where you want it, and then slide the lever back to lock it in place), 6-speaker stereo with a CD (mine was 4-speaker with a tape player, but I had the dealer throw in a 12-disc CD changer). My Intrepid was EPA-rated 20/29 at the time, but under the new ratings was downgraded to 18/27. The Charger rated the same, despite having 92 more hp (292 versus 200) and about 500 pounds more weight (~3900 versus ~3400)

1999/2000 doesn't seem that long ago to me, but throwing these numbers into an inflation calculator shows just how much of a toll inflation can take over time, even during periods of seemingly low inflation.

bpeebles · January 2014

Lets get back to the subject!

So far, It appears the consensus is that TECHNICALLY the 54.5 MPG Mandate may be achievable.... but there is concern that the cost to meet this will be passed on to consumers.

Personally, (barring any breakthroughs in battery technology) I feel we are approaching a point where the 'cost' of higher MPG will be more than any savings at the pump. I am defining 'cost' as both purchase-price and maintenance of the complexity.

Keep in mind that my opinion above is coming from an Engineer who is familiar with the formulas which tell us how much energy is available in the fuel and the (relatively low) efficiency of an internal-combustion engine.

benjaminh · January 2014

I agree with bpeebles that we should try to refocus on the subject, the so-called "54.5 Mandate."

Both part of this—"54.5" and "Mandate"—need to be put in perspective.

First, for reasons explained above and available on the web, "54.5" actually translates into an EPA window sticker of c. 38 mpg combined city/hwy on your actual car. And so it's not nearly as significant a move as it sounds.

Currently a Nissan Altima has a window sticker of 31 for city and highway, without any hybrid technology. And so what CAFE is encouraging, if my math is right, is a c. 23% improvement in mpg in the next dozen years for midsize cars, by 2025.

That is a significant jump, but it doesn't seem impossible. The car itself will need to become somewhat smaller and maybe 10-15% lighter. The engine will need to be significantly smaller, and perhaps be able to deactivate 2 cylinders in highway cruising. But interior space, performance, and safety should be similar to what we have today. It's just that everyone who owns one will save another c. $500 a year in gas compared to today's Altima. It is obviously also a small help for global warming, although that's really another topic.

In other words, I think this goal not just doable, but economically beneficial for the owner of the car.

In terms of it being a "Mandate," I'm not sure it totally qualifies. A mandate implies an order, with dire consequences if you don't comply. But the fines for CAFE haven't changed since the 1970s. If a company doesn't meet the mandate, they pay what amounts to a relatively small fine. No one goes to jail. The fine, as I've said, is pretty small for large corporations, as long as they get within reach of the goal.

I do agree that with our current tech that we shouldn't go beyond c. 38 mpg on the window sticker for midsize cars. But if, in 2025, there's been some technological breakthrough in mpg (probably in part because of CAFE), then perhaps it can be looked at again by people getting toward the middle of the 21st century. But we don't need to worry about that now....

benjaminh · January 2014

@andre1969 said:
I just googled it, and it looks like cars.com is a good source for info such as original MSRP on used cars. Here's their page for the '02 Accord: http://www.cars.com/honda/accord/2002/

It lists an '02 LX sedan at $18,890, but doesn't mention which transmission that would be. My guess is that if that's for a manual, then your price of $19,700 for an automatic would be reasonable. It also lists a destination charge of $460...

Thanks, Andre, 18,890 was exactly the list price of my 2002 Accord LX, which was a manual. Iirc, the auto cost c. $700 more, and then if you add the destination it gets to almost 20k for the auto version of the car.

You're right that styling changes in the old days cost a lot of money. These days that money goes into other things, like mpg!

benjaminh · February 2014

The next Mini Cooper is another example of a creative solution to CAFE. With its new 3-cylinder turbo designed by BMW, the next Mini is supposed to get as much as 15% higher mpg than the current Mini, even though it's larger, more powerful, and faster. The current Mini is rated by the epa at 29 city, 37 hwy, and 32 combined, which might mean the new one will get as much as c. 33 mpg city and c. 42 hwy. Sounds like an appealing car. Might test drive one myself someday. That would save me c. $500 in gas a year over my 2008 Accord....

benjaminh · February 2014

VW shows off a "BlueMotion" Passat that gets 42 mpg on the highway. It has a turbo 1.4 4 cylinder that shuts off two cylinders at highway speed. My guess is that some others might be going this route in a while, but probably with larger engines....

http://www.autoweek.com/article/20140108/CARNEWS/140109875

benjaminh · March 2014

We'll see if it happens, but according to the EPA:

"The combined National Program for MYs 2012-2016 and MYs 2017-2025 is projected to save families more than $1.7 trillion in fuel costs and reduce America’s dependence on oil by more than 2 million barrels per day in 2025, which is equivalent to one-half of the oil that we currently import from OPEC countries each day. In addition, the combined program will cut 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases over the lifetimes of the vehicles sold in MYs 2012-2025 – more than the total amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States in 2010. Consumers who purchase a new MY 2025 vehicle will save more than $8,000 in fuel costs over that vehicle’s lifetime (when compared to a vehicle meeting the MY 2011 CAFE
standards)."

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regs-light-duty.htm#new1

benjaminh · March 2014

By 2025...

A minivan will need to get c. 30 mpg on the sticker in combined mpg, compared to the 22 that an Odyssey gets today.

A midsize car will need to get c. 38 mpg on the sticker in combined mpg, compared to the 30 that an Accord gets today.

A compact car will need to get c. 42 mpg on the sticker in combined mpg, compared to the 33 that a Civic gets today.

So, it's nowhere near the "54.5" mpg that's falsely advertised for this program, but it still means that there needs to be a very big increase in mpg the next ten years. Hundreds of billions of dollars and millions of person hours of engineering will go into meeting these goals.

My guess is that almost by accident they hit on almost the "sweet spot" with these goals, which are tough to reach but not impossible. They will spur technological innovation the likes of which hasn't been seen for a long time in ICE vehicles. It's already happening to a very significant degree....

Ford is going to a largely aluminum truck and rolling out its Ecoboost engines, Mazda has Skyactiv, Honda has Earth Dreams, Toyota has the Prius, BMW has Efficient Dynamics, etc.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/good-and-bad-news-emerges-from-cafes-fine-print.html

benjaminh · March 2014

Mazda is hard at work on Skyactiv 2, for which they hope to use Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition. If it's successful, this would eliminate spark plugs on a regular gas engine by using high compression to ignite the fuel. There are many technological challenges to overcome, but if it's successful, it might boost mpg in new Mazda cars by as much as 30% in the year 2020 over today's Skyactiv 1:

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/08/mazda-skyactiv-2-engine-hcci/

"....the next-gen Skyactiv 2 engines will use Homogeneous Charge Compression Ignition, or HCCI. This type of ignition is very similar to how a diesel engine operates (with high compression and using the compression stroke for fuel combustion rather than spark plugs), a method said to provide a cleaner and more efficient fuel burn – to the tune of a 30-percent improvement in fuel economy compared to current Skyactiv engines. Other automakers, including Hyundai, have already announced they are developing HCCI powerplants with similar technology and characteristics, so Mazda likely won't be a lone wolf here....."

benjaminh · March 2014

It's not just CAFE that is spurring this one, but also the mpg goals in Europe:

"....executive officer of powertrain development Mitsuo Hitomi said the new technologies are being pursued to meet Europe's changing emissions standards, which tighten to 95 grams per kilometer in 2020, and 65 grams per kilometer in 2025. Current Skyactiv-G mills feature a compression ratio of 14:1, which Mazda claims is the highest used in any gasoline engine. For Skyactiv 2, compression will be bumped up to 18:1 to achieve the same combustion temperature of a traditional gas engine while using a leaner mix of fuel. With such a high compression ratio, the fuel-air mixture would ignite on its own due to the high pressure and heat, a process called HCCI. This diesel-like combustion scheme allows for a more complete burn, along with lower nitrogen oxide emissions...."

Read more: http://wot.motortrend.com/1401_mazda_skyactiv_2_engines_to_feature_hcci_tech_debut_by_2020.html#ixzz2vTUeyzj1

benjaminh · March 2014

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/news/auto-blog/in-february-americans-bought-greener-cars-than-ever-before-16558025

"....Americans keep on buying more and more efficient cars, at least taken on average. According to transportation expert Michael Sivak at the University of Michigan, all the cars, SUVs, vans, and truck sold in the U.S. last month averaged a fuel economy of 25.2 miles per gallon. That's the highest number he has recorded, beating the 25.1 mpg for January. For comparison, the number was 20.1 mpg as recently as October 2007....."

benjaminh · March 2014

http://www.edmunds.com/car-news/new-car-average-fuel-economy-reaches-24-9-mpg.html

"...That's a 21 percent improvement since October 2007, when researchers began compiling data...."

stever · March 2014

That sounds pretty good.

I'm at 21.6 lifetime mpg on the '99 Quest. So my next vehicle should get 4.5 mpg more or 26 mpg.

But honestly, I want to get 100% more and average a bit over 40mpg. That'd mean downsizing and maybe a hybrid. I'm still not convinced about going down in size and we can get by with one car for the two of us, and that could justify blowing off a higher mpg.

bpeebles · March 2014

@Stever@Edmunds said:
That sounds pretty good.

I'm at 21.6 lifetime mpg on the '99 Quest. So my next vehicle should get 4.5 mpg more or 26 mpg.

But honestly, I want to get 100% more and average a bit over 40mpg. That'd mean downsizing and maybe a hybrid. I'm still not convinced about going down in size and we can get by with one car for the two of us, and that could justify blowing off a higher mpg.

You are forgetting DIESEL which ALREADY gets over 50 MPG. My 2003 VW often hit 56 MPG on long trips with 4 passengers and the AC blowing. (well over 700 miles on 14gallon tank)

The DIESEL engine has several inherent advantages over gasoline:

*) NO THROTTLE PLATE (the engine is never wasting energy sucking a vacuum in the intake manifold)

*) FUEL HAS MORE ENERGY PER GALLON (about 30% more)

*) Can run on virtually ANY oil. (Rudolf Diesel originally intended to run on Peanut-oil)

Also, the processing required to make DIESEL fuel is farrr less than gasoline so the cost of fuel should technically be LESS than gasoline. (But it is taxed more!!)

stever · March 2014

As I mentioned over in the Car Commercials discussion, diesels aren't an option for us.

benjaminh · March 2014

@Stever@Edmunds said:
That sounds pretty good.

I'm at 21.6 lifetime mpg on the '99 Quest. So my next vehicle should get 4.5 mpg more or 26 mpg.

But honestly, I want to get 100% more and average a bit over 40mpg. That'd mean downsizing and maybe a hybrid. I'm still not convinced about going down in size and we can get by with one car for the two of us, and that could justify blowing off a higher mpg.

That's good mpg for a Quest. How many miles do you have on it? Do you need to be able to carry 7 passengers?

benjaminh · March 2014

I vaguely recall that we've mentioned this before, but you are exceeding the epa estimate for your Quest by a significant degree. By the downward revised 2008 measure, your Quest is rated 18 mpg combined city/hwy. A new Odyssey, in contrast, is rated at 22. But with your seemingly very careful driving you might well beat that by 2-4 mpg with an Odyssey like you do with your Quest....In other words, you probably would get c. 5 mpg better, even with a minivan that's more powerful than what you've got today. And minivans are the true extra value meal of the automotive world these days. The Odyssey, for instance, has a big V-6 engine that Honda uses in its Acura cars, and weighs c. 4400 pounds, and yet can be had for as little as $27,500, according to CarsDirect. By the pound and horsepower, that's one of the least expensive cars you can get--just $6.25 a pound! A Civic weighs c. 2800 pounds and costs c. $19,000--c.$6.80 a pound. Perhaps not the way to look at it lol!

stever · March 2014

Yeah, it took about 15,000 miles before the lifetime mpg broke 20. The mpg stalled out for a while when I changed the plugs at 124k but has improved a bit since then. We have a bit over 195,000 miles on it and are getting ready to hit the road this week to push it closer to my goal of 200k.

My spreadsheet is six months out of date but mpg is at 21.65. Funny how it just keeps creeping up every year except for the two year "tune-up" plateau.

One thing that helped the mpg was throwing away the middle seat when it was new. It's been a 5 seater forever.

My brother has a '13 Odyssey (his second) and likes them. But we think we're ready to downsize a bit. The room sure spoils you though, and we like the upright seating position.

benjaminh · March 2014

When I was a kid, my parents took out the middle seat in our 69 VW Bus too. We put a pad and carpet in there, and it became almost like a clubhouse. We didn't wear belts in those days, and I suppose it's remarkable we survived with that car for 15 years.

But, if you can make do with five seats, you might save some serious money with a hybrid. The epa says that a 99 Quest has estimated annual fuel costs of about $2900, while an Accord Hybrid can be fueled for more like $1100 a year. Saving c. $1800 a year won't pay for another car, but it would add up pretty quickly....

I've decided my next dream car is an Accord hybrid. As far as I can tell, Honda is not passing on the huge engineering and manufacturing costs of this all-new powerplant to consumers. The regular Accord had a new engine and transmission for 2013, but they can spread the costs of that over 350,000 cars a year in the US alone. It looks like they are only going to sell about 15,000 of the hybrids a year, and yet my guess is that it costs them at least a billion dollars to develop that model, and maybe more. It's not that they're cheap, and I might be wrong about this, but it seems like Honda is almost "giving away" this technology at below cost to create a "halo" car.

fintail · March 2014

I think all of the current Accords are high value propositions. If I was seeking one, I'd get the hybrid too - the priciest, but tons of content.

The halo Honda sedan is the RLX hybrid, which is like a 4:3 scale Accord at twice the price.

I wonder if the US will get the Bluetec hybrid that will exist on the upcoming C-class for more developed markets - should be capable of respectable mpg.

benjaminh · March 2014

The next generation MB C-class looks great. It seems certain they'll put a diesel in it to equal the 45 mpg hwy that BMW gets with the 328d.

benjaminh · March 2014

Stever: Actually, I think you might make a case that in your situation a hybrid car could pay for itself. Since your Quest is 15 years old and has 200k miles, you're probably driving on borrowed time. I don't think the odds are very good that your engine and transmission are going to survive another 10 years. And so if you factor in an engine job (c. $5000?), plus a transmission (c. $3000?), plus other repairs and maintenance (another c. $3000?), it might be c. $11,000 to keep the Quest running for another decade, if it can even be done.

If instead you got a Prius or Accord Hybrid, you'd save c. $18,000 on gas over a decade, plus c. $11,000 on repairs and maintenance, which would more than pay for a Prius, and would almost even pay the c. $30,000 list price of the Accord Hybrid. Maybe my math is wrong somewhere, but it seems like a case can be made....

benjaminh · March 2014

It's still tricky for me (and most people, I assume) to figure out how to translate the window sticker mpg into CAFE mpg. Here's a page that does it for some models though:

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature

There must be some formula for generating these numbers, but I haven't yet found it. Does anyone out there have it?

Anyway, the very rough way to do it, I think, is to discount CAFE mpg by c.27% to get window sticker mpg.

And so, if you look at that chart, the Prius is actually rated 68.7 mpg for CAFE purposes, which translates into a window sticker of 50 mpg combined.

68.7 x .73 = c. 50

stever · March 2014

@benjaminh, the van seems bulletproof, but we're a bit tired of it finally. Most stuff still works on it and we've talked about taking a few dings out and having it well detailed.

The Prius v is our current first choice for a replacement vehicle but haven't driven one. The '82 Tercel worked fine for 17 years but we don't think we want to go to a sedan. Even a hatch may be too low for us (if I'm going low, I'm going for a Miata). If we don't like the ride of the Prius v, maybe I can convince my wife to get the paint buffed, maybe replace the burned out bulbs in the dash and spring for new shocks and struts and see if we can live with it for another 5 years. But I'm really jonsing for more tech and gizmos and more airbags. Better mpg is more gravy than the deal breaker but 40 mpg would be sweet.

Funny about your van. There was a '69 VW Bus in my family back in the day. I remember taking the seat out at the drive-in and sitting outside on it, and taking it out one time to haul someone's goat across town. Fun rig but the head gasket went in the first year and it got dumped.

benjaminh · March 2014

My sister owns a Prius V. There's more good than bad with that vehicle, but it has flaws. The good: excellent mpg, nice cargo room, and Toyota reliability. The bad includes poor crash test results with IIHS small offset, and very poor rear visibility. There are small windows in the back that look like they should be usable, but the reality from the driver's seat is that it's difficult if not impossible to see out of them. The side mirrors and back-up camera help, but....The bottom line is that they are looking to get rid of it at some point.

A goat in a VW Bus!? Funny.

We went through three engines in our 69 Bus. But we had a guy who worked on VWs and was friends with my mom. He would do a rebuild on a VW engine for c. $1000 for us back in c. 1980. Even then that was amazingly cheap. We would only get c. 70,000 miles per engine before they died. They were radically underpowered and overworked for the size and weight of that vehicle. 0-60 in c. 25 seconds? Something like that. Yikes. That was the car I learned to drive on, and it was a manual too.

But come to think of it, that VW, like your Quest, has great visibility out the back compared to a Prius V. Or compared to a regular Prius as well, which also has small rear windows that are essentially useless.

stever · March 2014

I keep seeing reports that Prius owners aren't repeat buyers. And that's a bit of a concern since we drive them forever. But we liked the "original" Prius we tested a few years back and we aren't going back to Nissan most likely - so much for the repeat buyer theory.

The more I shop around, the better the old beater Quest looks. And I can buy a lot of gas for $30,000.

bpeebles · March 2014

Just yesterday, I read an article which compared REAL WORLD MPG of the Prius against Mercedes Diesel .... believe it or not, the Diesel came out ahead by a slim margin.

stever · March 2014

If I was going for pure mpg, the Jetta or Passat TDIs would be near the top of my list.

fintail · March 2014

This might be the article....might not be the driving that every motorist encounters, but for that road,commendable.

Funny thing about the repeat buyers. My friend with a Prius is about 2 years into a 3 year lease. He likes the mpg, but little else. I told him that if he leases another Toyota, they might let him do a "pull forward" kind of thing, and get out early. He more or less said "no thanks".

benjaminh · March 2014

But, since diesel fuel costs significantly more, I think the annual fuel cost advantage is still with the Prius....?

bpeebles · March 2014

I think not - A gasoline engine has regular maintenance items that a Diesel just does not have (like sparkplugs) Additionally, the Prius has that expensive battery-pack to replace when a Diesel is starting to get into its prime. (The MPG on my TDI went up Up UP over the first 30,000 miles)

To compare vehicles of differing fuel-types... one CANNOT use "cost of fuel". Instead use "Cost Per Mile"

benjaminh · March 2014

Good point.

I didn't know that maintenance costs were lower on a diesel. By any chance can you find an article that talks about that?

And you're right that the battery packs on hybrids can and do "die." One of my brothers-in-law got a new Prius in c. 2005, and a couple of years ago his mpg started going down until it was almost like a regular (although high mpg) gas car. The batteries were almost worthless. Toyota eventually replaced them for free, but it took some arguing.

If he'd had to pay for it, however, I assume a new battery assembly would be several thousand dollars, esp. when you include labor?

Engines these days, whether diesel or gas, can probably go to 150,000 miles or more, but the battery packs don't last that long as far as I can tell.

On the other hand, I think the gov't requires manufacturers to warrant the hybrid stuff for 8 years and 100k miles. That's about as long as I keep my cars anyway, and so I guess a hybrid is still on my list....

Hmmm. A lot to think about.

stever · March 2014

We've had the maintenance discussion before and there's nothing that I've seen that indicates that diesel passenger cars are any cheaper to maintain than gassers. TCO for a '13 Prius v is lower than a '13 VW Jetta diesel. Fuel costs are less with the TDI but repairs and maintenance are more.

Plus, I'd think the number of diesel mechanics is more limited, especially indy's working on passenger cars, so the labor rates might swing the advantage to gassers. Then again, not many indy shops advertise that they specialize in hybrids.

There's not many doom and gloom stories out there about failing battery packs either. Nor are they any more expensive than an engine or transmission rebuild, plus you can get refurbs.

btw, I track every tank of gas. It took about 15,000 miles for my mileage to get ahead of the "revised" EPA ratings. I got a tune-up at 124k and my mpg went down to around 21.3 and plateaued for around two years. Now it's going up again so my current 21.6 is the highest average ever, at ~195k miles.

In honor of Tidester, I should really say the mpg is 21.65 - at least I quit counting out to six decimal places, lol. But every little increment helps.

benjaminh · March 2014

Stever: Good points.

Different topic....

If I had a car that went to 200k for me, I'd sure put that brand on my list next time. How is it that Nissan has lost your business?

bpeebles · March 2014

I have a spreadsheet for EVERY vehicle I own. Being an engineer, I meticulously keep records of everything.

2003 VW Jetta TDI cost-per-mile is less than my 650cc motorcycle!!!!

I can tell you that Turbocharged gasser (which REQUIRES hi-test gasoline) is the most-expensive cost-per-mile.

stever · March 2014

Spreadsheets are fun. One reason to get a new car is to have some of that "odd stuff" available in the dash. My Quest isn't anything to write home about - the cost per mile is running around $0.38 a mile. The old Tercel was hard to beat that way.

@benjaminh, it's not so much that Nissan has lost my business, it's more that we're not much interested in anything they offer right now. They'd be in the running for another van, but the new Quests seem to people movers and less versatile for our cargo hauling lifestyle.

My favorite rig in their current lineup, dare I say, is the Murano CrossCabroilet, but it's stupid expensive with stupid mpg. (I know everyone just stopped reading at stupid LOL). The Versa Note would be worth a look - @PFFlyer@Edmunds here has three Versas in his family and really likes them.

stever · June 2014

"Automakers and their allies gripe mightily about strenuous federal fuel economy regulations. But as push comes to shove, the combination of those standards and consumer demand for ever-better fuel efficiency is pushing the industry to comply.

A new study by the Consumer Federation of America shows that almost all major automakers were able to build one or more models this year that comply with federal standards for 2014."

54.5 MPG? Automakers are On Track Says Consumer Federation

benjaminh · June 2014

Interesting story. I just wish they could stop using that inaccurate "54.5" number in the headlines. As most of us here know, that's the number from the 1970s test, which has been revised downward twice since for the factory stickers of today. The mpg number by today's test would be more like "40 mpg"—and that's closer to the combined city/hwy number that CAFE is encouraging. But that just doesn't make much of a headline, I guess.

benjaminh · July 2014

54.5 will will actually mean a window label average of about 35 mpg in 2025, according to this study.

Now we see why people keep using this crazy and completely inaccurate 54.5 number. It just doesn't look impressive to say: "MPG of 35 by 2025"

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/Translating-Standards-into-On-Road.pdf

benjaminh · July 2014

But 35 does still mean something. It's an average, and so some vehicles will need to get higher than that, and some lower.

A Civic that gets an epa combined mpg of 33 today will probably need to get up to about about 40 in 11 years. That's significant and will take a lot of engineering.

An Accord that gets an epa mpg of 30 today will probably need to get up to about 36 by 2025. An improvement of 6 mpg doesn't sound like that much, but that means that two generations of design from now an Accord will need to get significantly better mpg than today's Civic.

benjaminh · July 2014

Article on "5 reasons why cars in the US are more fuel efficient than ever."

Has some nice charts that show that the average weight of new vehicles, after increasing for 20 some years, is now finally moderating.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/3/5867813/cars-in-the-us-are-more-efficient-than-ever-heres-why

andre1969 · July 2014

I think those averages are weighted averages, as well, rather than just a numerical average, so to get to 35 mpg is really impressive.. For example, the average of 10 and 20 is 15 (30/2) but the weighted average of 10 mpg and 20 mpg is actually 13.3 mpg. For instance, if you drove 200 miles on a tank of gas, and 100 miles of it was local driving getting 10 mpg, and 100 miles was a trip getting 20 mpg, you would have used 15 gallons total, in those 200 miles, or 13.33... mpg total

benjaminh · July 2014

I think it's weighted by sales numbers as well. And so if Ford, for instance, is selling 700,000 F-150s that get an average of 22 mpg, you have to sell a lot of vehicles that get over 35 to make up for that.

So you're correct that 35 mpg is significant. But it's broken down by category of car, plus they get "extra credit" for hybrids, electrics, AC coolant, etc.

I think that they did somehow probably hit about the "sweet spot" on this. Getting an Accord up to 36 mpg combined in 2025 will be a challenge, but I think it's doable.

And for CAFE calculations, I think the Prius already gets c. 70 mpg or something like that....

benjaminh · July 2014

A few mildly interesting mpg numbers over time...

1994 Civic, 1.5 engine, 173 inches, 28 mpg

2004 Civic, 1.7 engine, 175 inches, 29 mpg

2014 Civic, 1.8 engine, 177 inches, 33 mpg

2014 Civic HF, 35 mpg

The "High Fuel Efficiency" Civic available now is already getting closer to that 40 mpg that it needs to hit by 2025. Each generation of Civic for decades has usually been a little bigger, a little more powerful, a little heavier, and somewhat safer than the previous generation. And so the fact that a bigger car with a bigger engine can get higher mpg is significant.

Losing vehicle weight while maintaining safety seems to be one of the keys to the puzzle....

stever · July 2014

It's fun to talk about weighted averages and cars losing weight.

Good point about how manufacturers can "game" the system by the extra credits they get from making EVs or hybrids. The coolant thing is a new one to me.

stever · September 2014

Looks like the start-stop system really works, judging by two in-house tests using Edmunds.com fleet cars.

hpmctorque · October 2014

Do you think government should regulate mileage standards, or would you prefer a more market based approach, such as a carbon tax or a graduated pollution tax on new and used vehicles?

Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles