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.

[WVKayaker]

My brother is a "Smoke" fan. I follow Kyle, Joey Legano, Mark Martin, and Carl. It's amazing the dramatic wrecks that can be walked away from...

If you missed the Talledega race, Carl ran to the finish line after that wreck, a la Ricky Bobby... but he was clothed!

[Elsie]

Not crazy expensive as I imagined, but not cheap either.

But how SUBSIDIZED are they??

What does the ELECTRICITY cost to 'fill up the tank'?

[tina07]

1993 - Bristol...not an airborn crash, but wow! Nobody died in that and then there was poor Dale, Sr.

[Elsie]

Ford has high hopes for the Fusion hybrid, which can operate on the electric power at up to 47 miles per hour. The hybrid features a 2.5-liter inline-four with 155 horsepower and 136 pound-feet of torque bolted up to a CVT transmission. Like other hybrids, the system utilizes regenerative braking, an upgraded nickel-metal hydride battery (said to be 20 percent more powerful than previous batteries), and a "smart" climate control system. The new sedan, which Ford says will be in showrooms by March 2009 at the latest, also feature the SmartGuage system to help "coach" drivers into driving more efficiently.

So many questions...

How LONG does it take to charge the batteries?

How FAR can it travel on the gas (what size tank) after the batteries are depleted?

What's the BRAKING DISTANCE compared to a gas only vehicle?

How do the HEATED SEATS suckdown the batteries?

[WVKayaker]

Good morning, Elsie. You do not plug a hybrid into anything.It makes it's energy from th motion of the car.The gas part gets the boost from the electric!

Ford is NOT a bailed-out company. It is not close to bankruptcy, but Zero will try to change that!

Have you driven a Ford lately?

2010 Ford SHO... zoom x2!

[WVKayaker]

How FAR can it travel on the gas (what size tank) after the batteries are depleted?

Actually, the question should be..."How FAR can it travel on the batteries after the gas tank is depleted? Every time you slow down, it makes more juice!

[tina07]

Oh yes, we saw Talledega! My husband’s favorite race. Carl was funny running across the finish line. I haven’t watched that movie yet, we have it stll in it’s wrapper!

Ewwww to the shrub, we are anti-Kyle here. Dale Jr. (who is doing miserably) is our driver. My husband spends most of the time yelling at the tv telling Junior to get rid of Eury, Jr.

[tina07]

I also like Tony, Carl and good for Mark Martin winning last week or was that the week before? Can’t recall who won the All-Star race, the brain is going, eesh! I also like Joey Logano, amazing talent for an 18 yr. old. It’s a little scarey though, him being so young after what happened to Adam Petty. Although that was before the mandatory HANS devices.

[WVKayaker]

Yes, Dale Jr is not Dale, Sr. I put Kyle at the top when he first came along. Now, his team mate Joey is gonna keep it interesting. Flipper is a great guy! Plus, I luv Fords!

But, Kyle is different. He seems fearless, and knows how to get up front. I predict he will exceed all records before it's over... but it ain't over yet! There's plenty of racin' left!

[Elsie]

Every time you slow down, it makes more juice!

So it only can re-use the energy of slowing down?

How does that help HIGHWAY mileage?

[Elsie]

Them '57s were STUTRDY models!!

[tina07]

I tend to think Dale Jr. is a lot better than we’ve seen, his cars are never set up right or something (not into the technicalities of the engines or anything!). His last year or years with DEI were also a battleground behind the scenes with Teresa that we didn’t know about for a while.

Kyle is dangerous IMO sometimes, drives too crazy sometimes. Beats the crap out of his car sometimes too, but he definitely seems fearless, but that might not always be a good thing. He has a bad temper still too. They made Tony get counseling for his, Kyle just walks away silent but maybe he’s had some counseling too and that is how he controls himself now.

I saw part of a show about the drivers homes a bit ago and to Kyle’s credit his was the most modest normal home of the drivers featured. It was the first time I’d seen him off the track so to speak, and he seemed almost normal! Like Harvick’s house is ridiculously large in comparison and museum-like, but Kyle’s seemed like a normal home, not overly extravagant. I was impressed with that for some reason. I think the 3rd driver shown was Hamlin, medium large house. Just can’t see wasting their money on these humongous houses, and it’s not envy by any means.

[WVKayaker]

...Kyle is dangerous IMO sometimes, drives too crazy sometimes. Beats the crap out of his car sometimes too, but he definitely seems fearless, but that might not always be a good thing.

Did you ever watch races 25-30 years ago? Dale Sr. perfected the style. There's a legendary saying, "if you ain't rubbin', you ain't racing'".

"You win some, lose some, and wreck some." - Dale Earnhardt Sr.

"The winner ain't the one with the fastest car, it's the one who refuses to lose." - Dale Earnhardt

"I jumped out of the car to address this thing, knowing I had to address it right then or run from Cale [Yarborough] the rest of my life. And with that, Cale went to beating on my fist with his nose." - Bobby Allison Speaking about the famous fight ending the 1979 Daytona 500

"The competition, of course, is No. 1. Dale Earnhardt Jr., we have to remember, is Dale Earnhardt Jr. He could sell a chocolate popsicle to a woman in a white dress. It's easy. ... Kyle Busch, he wouldn't be able to sell a favorite candy bar to a kid, I guess." - Kyle Busch, on whether marketing and sponsor demographics play a role in his search for a new team.

"There are certain guys who you can race with, and they'll race you hard and clean. "[Earnhardt Sr.] is not one of those guys." - Ricky Rudd about Dale Earnhardt Sr's driving style

[WVKayaker]

So it only can re-use the energy of slowing down?

How does that help HIGHWAY mileage?

*****

Everything has inertia; if it has a mass, it has inertia. A hybrid reclaims energy through the fundamentals of physics. Do you remember any high school or college physics?...

...On a hybrid that has regenerative brakes, you can reclaim some of this energy that would normally be lost due to braking. Using the vehicle's inertia is the key. What is inertia? It is basically what makes something difficult to start moving and what makes something hard to stop moving....

...Thus, through the technology of the motor and motor controller, the force at the wheels becomes torque on the electric motor shaft. The magnets on the shaft of the motor (called the rotor—the moving part of the motor) move past the electric coils on the stator (the stationary part of the motor), passing the magnetic fields of the magnets through the coils, producing electricity. This electricity becomes electrical energy, which is pumped back to the battery. This, in turn, charges the hybrid battery pack. This is where the comment “regeneration” or “reclaiming energy” comes from... http://www.hybridcars.com/components/regenerative-braking.html

[tina07]

No, I only started seriously watching races in 1993 but I’ve seen some old races on tv, and yes, Dale Sr. was intimidating and all that you said! The first race we went to was the June Pocono race, my Father’s Day gift to my husband. It was the next race right after Davey Allison had died. Our first race and our guy won, we were thrilled for that. Him and Rusty battling it out, it was awesome!

We moved here to PA just over a year ago, now we are 8 miles away from the Pocono track! My sister lives outside of Chattanooga with access to Bristol and Talledega even, but she and her family aren’t in to Nascar..what a waste, lol!!

Now they all have to play nice. The last big fight I remember was between Harvick and I think it was Ricky Rudd, when Harvick flew over his car to get to Ricky

[tina07]

I'll always have this to remember any way....his first win after losing his "Daddy"...

[WVKayaker]

I haven't been to Pocono. I have been to Watkins Glen (NY) for a Nascar event. My first "live" race was in Charlotte, 1974.

I love Richmond, and am heading for Dover. Small tracks make for plenty of "rubbin" and lots of racin'!!! Plus, if you get good seats, you can see the whole track.

I take my motor home, but park elsewhere. I like to sleep!

[Shady]

I bought two Ford Focuses in the ‘90s - both cars were total pieces of junk. Never again, never.

[LZ_Bayonet]

"With lighter and smaller cars you get better gas mileage. You also get higher death rates from accidents."

And, IMHO the American people believe their safety is as important or of greater importance than fuel economy. So, why don't conservative organizations develop a new web-based interactive index called the "Family Safety and Fuel Economy" FAMEC (Family,Economy).

The FAMEC Index would give a rating for a vehicle based on screen input by the BUYER, who would simply indicate (on a 1-10 scale) THE BUYERS person value of both Safety and Fuel Economy. An overall value for each vehicle, based on a value of 5 for each parameter would be the "sticker" value. Conservative lawmakers could call for a law making the display of this FAMEC number mandatory on new car window stickers. Comments please!

[WVKayaker]

I always wanted a

59 Caddy