How far have we come in terms of fuel efficiency? Based on my 10-year old car, not very far.
Ten years ago I bought a 1998 Saturn SL2. I drive it about 4,500 miles per year (I travel another 1,400 miles per year by bicycle). The Saturn has proven to be a perfectly reliable car. If parts continue to be available, I won’t reach 100,000 miles on my Saturn for another ten years. That would be perfectly fine by me.
Out of curiosity, today I reviewed the fuel efficiency of brand new cars, including many cars that tout their fuel efficiency, such as the tiny new Honda “Fit.” I was amazed that there hasn’t been more progress in ten years. Obviously, fuel efficiency has not been a priority for most people and most manufacturers.
My Saturn gives me about 30 mpg in the city, and about 40 mpg on the highway. These stats resemble the mileage numbers reported by others (and see here). Compare these numbers with most of today’s leaders regarding fuel economy. My old Saturn beats the Yaris, the Mini-Cooper, the Scion, the Corolla and the Fit. Other than the new hybrids, not many cars outdo the stats of the small cars from ten years ago. You can see from the above site, for example, that the Ford Focus gets only 24 mpg in the city and 33 on the highway, and these aren’t real world numbers, like the above numbers for my Saturn.
More incredible, many cars from 1998 were more fuel efficient than my Saturn. For example, I got the following numbers from MPG-o-Matic:
1998 Chevrolet Metro 4 cylinder 1.3 liter R (M5) Manual 39 43
1998 Chevrolet Metro 3 cylinder 1.0 liter R (M5) Manual 44 49
1998 Dodge Neon 4 cylinder 2.0 liter R (M5) Manual 29 41
1998 Honda Civic HX 4 cylinder 1.6 liter R (M5) Manual 36 44
1998 Mitsubishi Mirage 4 cylinder 1.5 liter R (M5) Manual 33 40
1998 Plymouth Neon 4 cylinder 2.0 liter R (M5) Manual 29 41
1998 Suzuki Swift 4 cylinder 1.3 liter R (M5) Manual 39 43
1998 Volkswagen Jetta 4 cylinder 1.9 liter D (M5) Manual 40 49
1998 Volkswagen Beetle 4 cylinder 1.9 liter D (M5) Manual 41 48
Therefore, one way to achieve progress in fuel efficiency, would apparently be to tear up the blueprints of many vehicles currently being advertised as “high mileage” and to go back in time ten years.
My first car was a 1968 volkswagen. It got about 40 mph on the highway. Lets go back 40 years.
Erich wrote: "I was amazed that there hasn't been more progress in ten years. Obviously, fuel efficiency has not been a priority for most people and most manufacturers."
Of course, that's true, but we should acknowledge that cars *have* been significantly improved in many other ways, including safety (e.g., air bags, ABS, stability control, etc.), emissions (e.g., closed-loop O2 monitoring systems), reliability (100,000 mile warranties) and excess performance capability (e.g., 200+ horsepower from a production 4-cylinder engine, top speeds above 180 mph for a production sports car, etc.). Auto makers and consumers both were comfortable with getting about 20 mpg, so that number remained essentially unchanged while people focused on other features. Also, to a great extent, vehicle weight determines its maximum fuel economy, and many of the safety features that have increased crashworthiness have added considerable weight — a tradeoff most consumers and manufacturers have been eager to accept.
My solution for better fuel economy would be to make engine output more appropriate for American speed limits. Cars in America — even basic mid-priced sedans — have excess performance capacity that *far* exceeds what is necessary for driving at legal speeds anywhere in North America, and that excess capacity requires burning more gas even if the capacity is never or rarely used. Most cars cruising down the highway are using only about 20 horsepower, regardless of what their car's engine is capable of producing.
Not only that, the new Smart car, which has only three wheels, little storage capacity, seats two snugly, and is easily creamed by your average SUV, gets . . . 35 mpg in the city.
Fifty mpg, or sixty–now that's smart. Not thirty-five, fer Chrissake.
A PBS program that I watched not long ago (NOVA? Frontline? I don't remember.) asserted that, over the past decade or so, average weights of American cars have increased by 1000 lbs, and average power has doubled. As a result, despite advances in engine technology, average fuel economy has actually dropped slightly.
My "newest" vehicle is a 2000 Explorer. (Yeah, an SUV. Just try to find a car that fits when you're 6'4" tall and weigh 220 lbs.) My previous vehicle was a 1991 Explorer. The 1991 model was 1000 lbs lighter than the 2000 model. The 1991 model got better fuel mileage in the city than the 2000 model does on the highway.
On the other hand, my motorcycle gets over 50 mpg on the highway, and can outrun exotic supercars. Why do we all need to ride around in 5000 lb armored personnel carriers?
BTW, have you noticed how many car companies have suddenly switched their advertising away from emphasizing performance and onto emphasizing fuel efficiency, despite the fact that car designs have obviously not significantly changed recently?
Grumpy: That's why I wrote the post. I saw many commercials indicating that we should by a "fuel efficient" new car that got 28 mpg on the highway. It occurred to me that that is not very fuel efficient and that my old car does a lot better than that.
Apparently the most "green" thing about today's cars is the liberal use of green pixels in their ads….