U.S. Vehicle Fuel Economy Hits Record Low

WASHINGTON, DC, October 5, 2001 (ENS) - The average fuel economy of all car and truck models sold in the U.S. has fallen to 20.4 miles per gallon, the lowest level in two decades, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reported this week.

The finding comes as the National Academy of Sciences holds a meeting today to reopen debate on its July 2001 report, which found that automakers could achieve an average fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon without compromising vehicle safety or sticker price.

The average fuel economy of 2001 model year vehicles is 20.4 miles per gallon (mpg), a 21 year low, according to the newly released Fuel Economy Trends Report (1975-2001) from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The lowest fuel economy since 1980 can be attributed to the increase in light trucks on America's roads, the EPA said.

Light trucks - including sport utility vehicles, vans, minivans and pickup trucks - are less fuel efficient than other passenger vehicles. Model year 2001 sport utility vehicles average just 17.2 mpg, pickup trucks 16.5 mpg, and vans and minivans 19.3 mpg, while model year 2001 cars average 24.2 mpg.

If manufacturers increased fuel economy by as little as three miles per gallon, consumers would save as much as $25 billion a year in fuel costs, reduce 140 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year, and reduce the United States' reliance on foreign oil by a million barrels of oil each day, the EPA said.

The EPA position echoes a report released this summer by the National Academies' National Research Council, which recommended a slate of improvements to national fuel economy standards, ranging from the adoption of tradable fuel economy credits, to the elimination of the "two fleet" rule that sets standards separately for domestic fleets and imports.

But today, responding to pressure from the auto industry, the National Academies are holding a meeting to reopen debate on their July report. Today's information gathering session was scheduled after representatives from General Motors and DaimlerChrysler were given a private, closed door meeting with the National Research Council in August.

The National Research Council's July report found that the passenger vehicle fleet could reach 33 to 47 miles per gallon, with an average of 40 mpg, while saving consumers and automakers money and without compromising vehicle standards

"Industry's concerns will not impact the study's bottom-line conclusion that large fuel economy gains are cost effective," said David Friedman, senior analyst in the Union of Concerned Scientists' (UCS) clean vehicles program. "The study demonstrates that a 40 mpg fleet is achievable while saving the average driver more than $900 over their vehicle's life."

The auto industry's concerns are focused on the National Research Council's methodology for the higher fuel economy estimates. But UCS believes that the methodology used by the National Research Council may have underestimated the low end of the fuel economy range, suggesting the possibility of achieving even higher average fuel economy.

"Holding an emergency session to facilitate one sector's interest after a peer reviewed report is issued violates every principle of scientific study," said Friedman. "While we too might complain about the study's treatment of technology, economics, and safety, reopening the report after the fact is wrong."

Late last month, a coalition of environmental and consumer groups sent a letter to the National Academy of Sciences and the National Research Council urging them not to make changes to their report requested by automakers.

"Just as General Motors and DaimlerChrysler have taken issue with the final report, we also have identified problems, missed technologies, and flaws in the analysis. No doubt this report, or any report the NAS issues, is open to criticism, but it is unprecedented that a dissatisfied interested party would prevail upon the NAS to secure changes to a final report even under the guise of clarifying language," reads the letter in part.

"The NRC can't seem to say 'no' to General Motors," said Ann Mesnikoff, global warming and energy representative for the Sierra Club. "We're calling on the National Research Council to stop allowing itself to be manipulated by GM."

Environmental groups say that improving the fuel economy of cars and trucks continues to be one of the most prudent steps towards addressing the economic, political, and environmental implications of U.S. dependence on foreign oil supplies.

"With Congress considering strategies to improve energy security, more efficient cars will deliver greater oil savings cheaper, cleaner, and faster than increased drilling," said Michelle Robinson, senior advocate for the Union of Concerned Scientists' clean vehicles program. "The NRC report continues to offer proof that technologies abound to reduce oil reliance through fuel efficient vehicles."

Interesting news in light of the underlying concerns about U.S. and world economic dependence on Middle East oil.

Of course, the unspoken question is how many more people would be killed in auto accidents if CAFE standards are raised. EPA doesn't address that, apparently (yet they are concerned about 100 or so bladder cancer deaths that might be prevented if arsenic concentrations in drinking water are lowered).

I know our next car is going to have better fuel efficiency - even though there are 6 of us. But it's going to be a few years at least before it's time to buy another. In the meanwhile we are trying to combine trips and use the smaller car more. Conserving isn't the whole answer by any means - but we're fools to be so dependent on Arab oil. In your face Americanism has traditionally driven a big SUV and the give peace a chance keep your laws off my body hug a tree bumper sticker cars are compacts. I wonder how the car as a symbol will change. Little red white and blue mini, anyone?

Mrs VS

...automakers could achieve an average fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon without compromising vehicle safety or sticker price.

If they could, why wouldn't they do it???!!! Imagine the marketing advantage Ford would have if they could get the Explorer up to 30mpg and the Expedition up to 25mpg. If it didn't cost them anything.

What the NAS probably means is that they would have to accept fewer PROFITS to keep the sticker price the same.

...automakers could achieve an average fuel economy of 40 miles per gallon without compromising vehicle safety or sticker price.

Bullsh!t Alert! Higher mpg = lower vehicle weight = worse safety (especially in collisions with trucks).

This is CAUSED by government regulation. Instead of letting the market choose the types of vehicles we can buy, our commissars have decided that we shall trade space, comfort, and safety for fuel economy. But they also exempted trucks and SUVs from that requirement, so that people opt for these beasts when many would simply want a large car (now much more expensive as makers price them to divert demand to more economic models to keep under CAFE thresholds).

With all the high, rigid-framed, and heavy SUVs on the road, people have an even greater demand for large cars and SUVs, creating a "standing-in-the-bleachers" effect.

Eliminate CAFE, or at least make it equal across the board, and people will gravitate back to the safer, moderate to large CARS they would ondinarily prefer. The roads will get safer, and demand will shift to slightly more economic vehicles.

CAFE is the true "blood-for-oil" issue.

I would love to see the US fully independant from Middle East oil, through a combination of new sources, and, if needed, through an increase in fuel efficiency. Yep, smaller cars and/or more efficient engines. I am not going to MANDATE it however, but its still something I would like to see, from a national security standpoint.

Let get off that oil nipple and then tell the middle east to F itself..

I think this is GREAT news! The government has no business attempting to mandate certain scientific outcomes. It's no different than trying to legislate the value of pi.

If I were rich, I would go out of my way to buy the least fuel-efficient car possible, just to spite the nanny state.

You can acheive the same thing already - buy extra gas, take it home, and set it on fire. Leave your car idling over night. Pile extra luggage or people in whenever you go anywhere. Better yet, just pull a $20 out of your pocket right now and tear it into a dozen tiny pieces.

Ideas no less sensible than your own.

! The government has no business attempting to mandate certain scientific outcomes

The article states that average mpg is lower than it has been in the past meaning, the technology already exists to lower the current average mpg.

"If they could, why wouldn't they do it???!!! Imagine the marketing advantage Ford would have if they could get the Explorer up to 30mpg and the Expedition up to 25mpg. If it didn't cost them anything."

That would be sacrificing power and performance which is very dangerous!
I'll keep my '90 Ford full size Eddie Bauer 4X4 351 cid Bronco that gets 15 mpg and my '01 Ford F-150 SVT Lightning with its 330 blown cid engine producing 400+ HP and it gets 16 mpg...they are perfect transportation for my wife and myself...

Safe at any speed!!

Let's roll!!

Be ever vigilant!!

Molon Labe!!

Biggest, easy to change factor, is actually engine size. Americans still want more and more horsepower. Cut engine size in half and all cars and trucks get much greater MPG. 0-60 times would have to go from 8 to 16 seconds, but the car could stay the same mass.

The article states that average mpg is lower than it has been in the past meaning, the technology already exists to lower the current average mpg.

Of course the technology exists ... all they have to do is build cars that are smaller, lighter, and won't accelerate as well. These cars are notoriously impossible to sell to people who have any other choice. That's what Timesink is driving[sic] at.

The article states that average mpg is lower than it has been in the past meaning, the technology already exists to lower the current average mpg.

I didn't write a very good post there. I didn't mean to imply that the feds are attempting to legislate the impossible; it obivously is easily possible. What I should have spelled out is that I don't like them mandating certain outcomes at a time where we don't really have the technology to get such high milage without making major safety compromises. (As others have already posted, the main way to get the government-compelled results is to make the cars into far more deadly econoboxes.)

If manufacturers increased fuel economy by as little as three miles per gallon, consumers would save ...

What it really should say is, "If consumers would only buy cars that the manufacturers already make with three miles per gallon better fuel economy, consumers would save ...

This is just ridiculous. The decline is due to consumer decisions, not due to some nefarious plot by manufacturers to make less fuel-efficient vehicles.

Hey, I'll buy a more fuel efficient vehicle if they would make one that would tow my 6,900 pound travel trailer as well as my 250 truck does (which gets about 5-6 mpg while towing). Just doing my part to consume...

Bingo!

This is exactly why so many are buying pickups and SUVs, including myself. There is no way to tow a boat or camper or larger utility trailers without buying these vehicles. There are no V8 staion wagons anymore, and cars are getting better gas mileage all of the time. It's just that they finally built them so small and light that big families and people with towing need were squeezed into pickups and SUVs.

The decline is due to consumer decisions, not due to some nefarious plot by manufacturers to make less fuel-efficient vehicles.

So true. The government is and has been fighting against what is left of "free market competition". All those lobbyists and special interest groups buying political power/favors can only do so because politicians and bureaucrats put "their" government power up for sale in the first place. Whoring themselves and government power at taxpayers expense. Creating problems that need not exist.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.