The Myth of Ever Increasing Fuel Economy

American Thinker ^ | May 23, 2009 | R.H. Higgs

[neverdem]

Two months ago I did what most environmentalists would consider unthinkable. I purchased my first 4X4 vehicle.

Since I wasn't planning on using it as my primary vehicle, I wasn't willing to shell out the multiple thousands of dollars involved in purchasing new. The logical choice was to pick an early 1990's model which was still in good condition. I found one with electronic fuel injection, A/C, and power everything. Even though it's verging on its twenty year birthday, it is still a sharp looking vehicle in very good condition.

So, imagine my surprise at the responses of my friends and acquaintances.

The comment, "You bought what? What a gas guzzler!" was generally quickly followed up by, "you should have purchased something newer for better gas efficiency."

Does that really make sense? Have vehicles improved so drastically compared to older models? Would I be better off tripping the parking brake on my sweet ride and pushing it over a cliff? While many environmentalists would automatically agree with that sentiment, are the savings actually that significant?

I was nursing a little bit of insecurity about my investment, so I went to the EPA's fuel economy website in order to get some hard numbers. I found something very surprising. When comparing my 1993 4X4 to a current offering with a similar size engine block, transmission and carrying capacity, I found the newer model exceeded my fuel economy by an astonishing: 1 MPG.

"No kidding? Whew, I can live with a loss of 1 MPG. I dodged a bullet there!"

The story doesn't end yet. On May 19, 2009, the AP carried the story of Barack Obama and his new "tougher" fuel economy standards. These new standards would require passenger vehicles to achieve 39 MPG and light trucks, 30 MPG. This would result in an overall fleet average of 35.5 MPG. While the media lovingly touted these new standards as progress, I went back to the numbers.

Knowing what I did about my 4X4, I decided to compare the economy of other typical vehicles through http://www.fueleconomy.gov/. In comparing the numbers, I tried to use similar engine sizes, transmissions and other relevant equipment in order to determine whether the evolution of a vehicle over twenty years improves the fuel economy on any comparable newer model. The results are an eye opener.

Toyota Corolla

Records on this vehicle go all the way back to 1985. Throughout the time frame of 1985-2009, it was offered in front wheel drive and a four speed automatic transmission. The only change came in 1993, when the engine displacement was increased from 1.6L to the current 1.8L.  

This is interesting isn't it? The trend of the average fuel economy climbs only slightly between 27 to 30 MPG. Maximum highway fuel efficiency peaked in the early 2000's and then fell back around 35 mpg for the remainder of the decade, essentially unchanging for 10 years. Overall, fuel efficiency gain for highway driving increased only about 10%, city had an increase of 8% both over the period of 24 years.  Typically the auto industry redesigns their vehicles every four years or so, therefore this scale represents at least five separate design cycles of the same model.  Since the Corolla is on its 10^th generation and this chart started in the middle of the fifth generation, it seems Corolla is reflecting typical industry practice.

Considering this class of vehicle has an emphasis on fuel economy, it seems reasonable to expect significantly larger gains, wouldn't you?

Ford Taurus

This four door sedan was easy to compare model years. During its production run of 1989 to 2007, it was offered with a 3.0L V6 engine, a four speed automatic transmission and front wheel drive. In 2008 the base model engine displacement increased to 3.5L.

Even considering the multiple design cycles over twenty years (five for Taurus) there is little to no change in fuel economy. It seems reasonable to assume the engine systems were improved over this 20 year cycle. Including all technological improvements between 1989 and the present, the average fuel economy has continually hovered around 21 MPG. With a trend like this, it seems extremely difficult to nearly double the fuel efficiency on a similar platform in only seven short years.

Ford F-150

Looking through the EPA entries, the high output model of this truck has had more configuration changes than the other vehicles. It makes an interesting point.

In 1985, the truck was offered with a 5.8L V8 and 3 speed automatic transmission. In 1990 one change was made, the 3 speed was discontinued and replaced with a 4 speed automatic.  In 1997, the engine displacement was reduced to 5.4L and finally for the 2009 year, the engine was again reduced to 4.6L.

Why is this interesting?

Notice at 1990, when the transmission was upgraded, the highway economy jumped. This is to be expected, because higher gears allow the engine to be more efficient at higher speeds. Again, in 1997, you see another slight trend upward with the reduction of the engine size. Yet again, in 2009 there is a slight jump with the reduced engine size.

However, even accounting for the nearly 30% average improvement in fuel economy over 24 years, it seems like the average 30 mpg mark is a long way off. In fact, even though engines cannot be continually refined to ever increasing heights of efficiency, let's assume they do for a moment. Let's also assume this historical data is representative of the trend for this type of vehicle. With these assumptions, if the average economy is 12 mpg in 1985 and 16 mpg in 2009, at the current rate of progress, it would be 2093 before this particular model of light truck would have a fuel efficiency of 30 mpg.

This is not to impugn the automotive industry, if it were possible to design an engine that achieved 200 mpg, I have no doubt they would have succeeded by now. The automotive market is competitive like any other and companies are always trying to maintain an edge on their competition.  Achieving any exponential increase in fuel economy would make them market leaders in a moment. Unfortunately, internal combustion is a mature technology which we understand very well. Because the basic concept has stayed the same for a hundred years, engineers spend their time making minute tweaks in order to achieve gains of one type or another.  These gains are not mutually inclusive. An engine sacrifices power and torque for fuel efficiency or vice versa.

Engineering is the science of making compromises in order to create a product which functions. If an engineer increases the gearing in a transmission, the vehicle gets heavier; at a certain point, increased gearing brings no fuel efficiency benefit thanks to the extra weight. If an engineer decreases engine displacement, efficiency will increase to a point, then decline as the power to weight ratio becomes unfavorable. This will continue right up to the point where the vehicle is unable to move its own weight.

Another option is to reduce the weight of the vehicle to get the gains Obama so desires. Continuing down this path, the automobile quickly becomes a motorcycle.

As many others have pointed out, this results in designs where a vehicle becomes lighter and proportionally less safe as the inertia is decreased.

That's obvious, but not the point.

The point is, since the 1970's fuel economy has become one of the yardsticks by which all vehicles are measured. Arguably, to some it has become the most important. People seem to naturally assume that a new vehicle is going to perform yards above that of its predecessor. Hence, there becomes an expectation that fuel economy can and will always increase. Looking at the plotted fuel economies of the above representative vehicles, this expectation doesn't show true.

We're expecting miracles from a technology which has truly reached its limits. This is unreasonable. For each class of vehicle, the unique characteristics of its mission almost appear to dictate its fuel economy. An economy car isn't comfortable for carrying a family of five and a sedan will never carry a couple yards of topsoil for your garden. The sedan will never rival the economy car in fuel efficiency because it has different requirements it has to meet.  From the buyer's standpoint, within vehicle classes, a 10 year old car is economically the same as a new one.

By proposing a set limit for economy on all classes of passenger vehicles, Barack Obama has basically said one of two things: In 2016, he wants only economy cars to be sold in the US or he is instructing car companies to squeeze gas from a stone. Since he cannot change the laws of physics, I envision the date those proposed standards take effect will either be repealed by the next administration, or continually be delayed.

This is just another dictate similar to all the rest of Obama's plans: not based in reality, but wishful thinking.

Note: Many will note I only compared regular gas vehicles and did not include hybrids and alternative fuel vehicles in the mix. Neither type of vehicle has enough fuel efficiency history to establish a trend. At most, the oldest models of hybrid vehicle are currently on their second design iteration and alternative fuels have not yet been shown to be viable. Regardless, there is no reason for me to believe that any of these variations on the internal combustion engine are immune to the same constraints that govern modern automotive design.

[eclecticEel]

Aye, the solution is to get new friends.

[PizzaDriver]

Another “not mentioned” thing... Government MPG Tests have been done with “standard equipment wheels and tires”, rather than the most ordered Wheels and Tires.

There is an ugly rumor that Pelosi and Gore will set a new standard. A standard that will BAN dealerships from offering Optional wheels or tires “that might lower MPG numbers”.

[Vendome]

I have owned a Ford vehicle for every year I have driven. That is 30 years. I have owned a Pinto, an EXP, 2 Thunderbirds and 4 Taurus’ and now own a Ford 500 (renamed Taurus this year). My mileage is about the same as always, about 21-23mpg. I know this because the computers tell me my averages.

I like to power and size of my car and the mileage is acceptable. It meets any need I have for business to carrying backpack for hiking and snowboard gear with passengers.

Good car. I will miss it in 2014 when all cars will be manufactured to GMO standards. May have to buy a truck thingy or whatever they will be called then.

[Vendome]

It says that your mileage does not really vary year to year in model and make.

[Vendome]

Under Obama’s plan less people will visit Disneyland or the Potomac.

[tina07]

My husband was in a head-on too, July 1999. He was in a 1990 or '91 Mercury Topaz that saved his life. Also stopped making a left turn, rear-ended and pushed into oncoming traffic in the opposite lane. Hit by a station wagon, thrown into an oncoming Chevy Tahoe. He was then stuck in the car for 45 minutes with live wires across the car from the telephone pole that the Tahoe took out after hitting my husband head-on. My husband received a broken knee (torn lateral meniscus and tibia fracture to be precise :)) and was out of work for 8 months. One sort of funny part, but definitely not to him at the time, was when his car had finally come to a stop after the rear hit and then the head-on that had turned the car around, he tried to look at himself in the rear-view mirror and could not see himself. The mirror had fallen to the floor but he thought he couldn't see himself because he must have been dead. He also later had a pulmonary embolism in the hospital which was another scarey time for him, again he thought he was dying. He even later, at home recuperating, had the first of a couple of anxiety attacks and thought he was dying of a heart attack. It was a really scarey time for him the whole ordeal. Here are some pics of his wreck:~~~

and the b*tch that hit him...

oh yeah, he would surely buy one of Obama's Government Motors boxcars...NOT!

[tina07]

sorry, should have made my post with a couple of paragraphs...

[WVKayaker]

A friend was just given a 1971 Plymouth Valiant. He had lost his 98 Saturn to a deer a couple of weeks ago.

He hit another deer Friday night with the Valiant. It didn't even leave a dent! There was fur to confirm his story!

[tina07]

Oh dear about the deer! They don’t make cars like they used to for sure. My son hit a deer a few weeks ago, a VW Jetta, messed up the whole front, hood and a fender...luckily he’d bought a bodykit for it a while back so was able to have it put on through his insurance.

We have tons of deer here in PA, herds walk through our yard. My husband just saw a newborn one yesterday. We left the bears in NJ and now are surrounded by deer!

[WVKayaker]

Ford has a car that will get 65 mpg available right now.

Thing is, it's Diesel, it's only 88 hp, 1.6 liter engine, and... It's only available in Europe and Great Britain.

Ford Fusion Hybrid: 1,445.7 Miles, One Tank of Gas.

How far can you go on one tank of gas? A team of drivers has driven 1445.7 miles on one tank of gas in a 2010 Ford Fusion Hybrid, averaging a remarkable 81.5 miles per gallon on roads in the Washington DC area. Team members included CleanMPG.com’s Wayne Gerdes, NASCAR driver Carl Edwards (shown below), and four Ford engineers, Sherif Marakby, Gil Portalatin, Tom Rolewicz, and Steve Burke. - http://www.mpgomatic.com

[tina07]

oh, I love the pic too, LOL! I hate driving bug-eyed worrying about hitting deer!

[WVKayaker]

I try not to drive early in the AM or just after dark. I live in deer city! Last night, I counted 37!!!

I enjoy googling for pics. There are lots of creative people around to help express our ideas.

[tina07]

Do people need to have Carl (Backflip!) Edwards’ income to afford that car??

[tina07]

Here's one I had saved...and it's funny, he's in the 14 car now!

[WVKayaker]

As its name implies the Ford Fusion Hybrid is a gas-electric version of the the popular midsize family sedan. The hybrid model was introduced along with the completely redesigned Fusion in 2009. Starting at $27,270, basic features include: dual-zone climate control, automatic headlights, keyless entry, power windows, mirrors, and locks, capless refueling, traction control, and ABS. Also included is a six-speaker stereo, eco-responsible seats, 17-inch wheels, traction control, and a reverse sensor....
- http://www.leftlanenews.com/ford-fusion-hybrid.html

[tina07]

my pic came out rather small :(

Thinking how you mentioned that Saturn hitting a deer, I thought they were deer proof? We had a Saturn rental car once and a deer ran into it, hit the door and left no mark...??

[goat granny]

Here is Michigan its called bumper hunting....my s-i-l- hit 2 at the same time....my son got one deer bumper hunting, going into town from camp for a beer, his friend got one also bumper hunting..You don’t try for them, it just happens (a lot in Michigan)

[tina07]

thanks for the info! Not crazy expensive as I imagined, but not cheap either.

[Elsie]

 

<--- Shouldn't the AVERAGE be HALFWAY between the red/green lines?

 

And... What's with the AVERAGE increase in 2009, when NEITHER of the other values CHANGED from 06 -07 -08!!

[tina07]

Geez, two at the same time! My daughter, back when she was in college, had one hit her brandy new little Neon. Scared the crap out of her but luckily only took off her side mirror.