Gas mileage- is this carmakers' responsibility?

[Art Vandelay]

Looking at how much mileage can change between "city" and "highway", and even within one of those categories, I wonder if we're overlooking a major opportunity for increased inefficiency. Does it make sense to be trying to get car manufacturers to squeeze out another few percent of efficiency, when different road conditions can account for as much as a factor of two? Maybe instead of trying to force car companies to bear the cost of developing more efficient engines, the government should be looking at why mileage can have such a large range, and what they can do to push mileage to to high end of that range. After all, both car companies and customers already have economic incentives to raise to efficiency to as much as is cost effective. City planning, on the other hand, is an area in which government involvement makes sense.

 

[Just thinking]

Far too many variables affect mileage -- that's the problem. How one drives, how much traffic is present, where and what you are driving, what the weather is like, etc. But regardless of all the above, if a vehicle is more finely tuned to get the most energy out of a gallon of gas, it will do better in each category. The really big one, though, is size (no pun intended). The more mass you have to haul around, and stop and accelerate, the more fuel you will use. Today SUV's and huge pick-ups are the rage, even though I seldom see them hauling around more than one person at a time. Incentives for better mileage don't seem to matter squat to many consumers. As long as this trend persists, your suggestions (in my opinion) as to getting better fuel economy from non-auto manufacturer sources is both highly unlikely and far from cost effective.

 

[Zbu]

I think one of the factors that can be changed to make the most good is getting rid of those freaking SUV and trucks or at least limiting how can drive them given their gas-guzzling. While trucks can have their uses in hauling stuff, SUVs simply have no purpose outside of status symbols. While this wouldn't be an issue if energy prices were lower, right now they're just causing a drag by wasting precious fuel.

Plus on a personal level, I can't imagine why these same people couldn't just buy a station wagon or a huge luxury car. The gas would still be high but they wouldn't waste as much plus get more benefits if they try rising the old 'but my kids are safer in this laborious monster of a vehicle I drive.'

 

[ChristineR]

Fuel consumption is one of those things known as "market failures." Even though there are costs associated with SUVs and gas guzzlers, those costs are not reflected accurately in the price of the SUV or the gasoline.

By the way, Zbu, SUVs are extremely unsafe. The most dangerous vehicle you can drive is the Ford Explorer. The safest vehicles are the Volvo station wagons and their ilk. Everyone talks about the situation where an SUV plows into a compact car--wouldn't you rather be in the SUV? Duh. But no one mentions the far more common situation of SUV rollover. I'd rather be in the compact car driving past safely, thank you.

 

[Soapy Sam]

My car is easily capable of 125mph, nearly twice the legal UK speed limit. This is a common model of hatchback.

If the government is serious about fuel economy and reducing speed related road accident, they need only enact legislation setting standard power:weight ratios for all vehicles.
They could then get rid of the cameras that cause traffic chaos and increase pollution wherever they are installed.

 

[Just thinking]

My car is easily capable of 125mph, nearly twice the legal UK speed limit. This is a common model of hatchback.

If the government is serious about fuel economy and reducing speed related road accident, they need only enact legislation setting standard power:weight ratios for all vehicles.
They could then get rid of the cameras that cause traffic chaos and increase pollution wherever they are installed.

You are working your assumptions out on perfect driving requirements and a perfect driving environment. High horsepower does in fact allow cars to exceed speed limits, but it also allows for safer driving -- far safer. Being able to accelerate onto a highway without causing a slowing down of other vehicles is one example. Being able to drive normally with greater than average loads is another. You can maintain your speed much better over hilly roads. Accident avoidance is sometimes achieved by being able to out maneuver another vehicle with a quick burst of speed. In other words, it's far better to have more than you need than to need it and not have it -- I believe the former is safer than the latter.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

If I am correct in thinking that you are saying that the top speed of cars should be reduced to improve efficiency and safety, you are wrong. It is quite easy to drop the top speed of a car, but that kills the efficiency of the car. The high top speeds are not intended to be used on a regular basis, that would kill the car. The high speed ensures that the car's peak efficiency is somewhere near the road speed limits.

 

[CriticalThanking]

City planning is indeed important. But cars have a limited lifetime, usually less than 200k miles/10 years. Forcing the replacement to be more efficient guarantees overall usage to be more efficient over time.

A city street, however, lives nearly forever despite the maintenance costs. It is almost impossible to "move" one. Creating new roads to adapt to changing traffic patterns is time consuming and costly. Yes, had many cities been more attentive/dilligent/farsighted, they could have had better impact. At this point, about the fastest impact a city can have may be in the area of public transportation (IMHO).

CriticalThanking