Trucks Lead Fuel Efficiency Gains

The Environmental Protection Agency released a report yesterday stating that the projected average fuel economy for 2007-model-year cars and light trucks is increasing .3 mpg because of higher fuel efficiency in the truck market. The gains are small for sure, but from 2004 to 2007 the average fuel economy for trucks has risen 1.0 mpg, while cars ticked up just 0.3 mpg in the same time frame. The EPA points to higher truck CAFE standards for the gains. It’s also impressive because market share for light trucks — which includes truck-based SUVs — has been steady during this time at 50% of the entire market.

Why aren’t cars gaining faster? The report points to increased weight due to more added features as well as higher performance. Those are two key factors in determining fuel efficiency.

Comments

Moving from 4 speed auto to 5 & 6 speed automatics usually can do that.

Are they also including "crossovers" in this category? That would certainly increase MPG. Also, aren't Subaru Legacies/Outbacks classified as light trucks?

I think the dual-classification system has run its course as people use "light-trucks" as passenger cars. They should fall under the same EPA regulations as passenger cars. Enough is enough. If it's not global warming we need to worry about it's our dependence on foreign oil. 1MPG will not save us. 15 MPG or 30 MPG additional will help.

No crossovers do not count in this category. The Forrester I believe is the Subaru you were thinking of and I'd have to check on that.

Higher performance has nothing to do with increasing weight. People want to be safe in there cars and demand ESP, ABS, and 20 air bags. This is what adds the weight and decreases fule economy.

Performance is an issue.

Cars have bigger and bigger engines.

Take a Mazda6 and a VW Passat.

Look up the engines offered in the US and then compare to Europe. First, Europe gets lots more options. Second, the US engines are much bigger and powerful.

Passats even come as 1.6 l in Europe. Golfs with 1.4 l

sorry I worded that poorly. It should be "as well as higher performance"

If America wasnt so hung up on horsepower,we would be getting better gas mileage now.The 80s K car 2.2 was rated in the 30s mpg,the 2002 Mirage 1.5 came in at 40 mpg,and heck even the 1976 Dodge Dart Lite 225-6 got around 30 mpg.Notice that none of these vehicles got over 100 net hp.Now we expect 260 hp in a car and 300+ in a truck.This costs fuel mileage.Wonder why a NASCAR racer only gets 4 mpg? Its horsepower people.Time to be satisfied with 140hp in a car and around 250 in a truck,and then maybe fuel economy can make bigger advances.

The current Civic is just as big, as heavy, and as powerful as the Accord 10 years ago. Does that tell us why the cars fuel economy does not improve much?(BTW, the wheels on the Civic is 1" bigger than the Accord 10 years ago.)

"Define a truck To consider a passenger vehicle a truck all seats except the driver's can be removed or folded to create a flat cargo floor.
That includes many current (2005) car-chassis based crossover vehicles such as the Chrysler PT Cruiser and Pacifica, Toyota RAV and Highlander, Honda CRV and Odyssey minivan, Ford Escape and Freestyle, Chevrolet Equinox and Saturn Vue and yes, the Subaru Outback which is considered a truck starting with the 2005 model. "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UDO/is_16_15/ai_86444787

http://www.automotivedigest.com/view_art.asp?articlesID=11104

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=27&article_id=8022&page_number=1

"Twenty-nine years later, new vehicles are challenging those definitions. The PT Cruiser, for example, meets the definition of a truck as specified in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 523, section 523.5, paragraph (a), provision (5):

Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo-carrying purposes or other nonpassenger-carrying purposes through the removal of seats by means installed for that purpose by the automobile's manufacturer or with simple tools such as screwdrivers and wrenches, so as to create a flat, floor level, surface extending from the forward-most point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior.

Sure enough, you can remove the PT Cruiser's back seat to produce the requisite flat load floor. Accordingly, the PT Cruiser convertible, which lacks the removable seat, is classified as a car.

Why does Chrysler care whether the PT is a car or a truck? Because classifying PT Cruisers as trucks improves the fuel economy of Chrysler's truck fleet and allows the company to sell more Durango SUVs and Ram pickups without falling below the 20.7-mpg CAFE fleet requirement and incurring millions of dollars in penalties."

"This is the provision that gets car-based SUVs into the truck fleet. In fact, if a vehicle meets these particular standards, it must be classified a truck. Subaru's new 2005 Outback sedans and wagons have greater ground clearance and more elevated front and rear bodywork to make them more appealing to customers, according to Subaru, but those qualities have now made them trucks in the eyes of NHTSA. The irony is that Subaru isn't in any CAFE trouble and won't benefit by moving those vehicles into its truck fleet."

Consumers want power along with size. They expect decent if not average fuel numbers from cars of this category. But technology is getting better with time. We as people are picky with everything including indulgence in drive. Auto makers are even under more pressure as they strive to boost economy under the competition. The balance will be a very hard one to find but they are searching day in day out with extraneous testing and bring forth new ideas. This increase is subtle but indeed shows how important saving gas in any class is required by any means. Its also a major standpoint for sales.

I think its important to keep in mind that weight is the main dividing line between cars and trucks and that is still the biggest factor in fuel economy. If a vehicle is of a certain weight it should be in a different category.

Also, I bet the biggest reason for the rise in fuel economy is consumer demand and not government regulation. If people want trucks that weight less but get higher gas mileage - then thats what auto makers will build. I do some work with the Auto Alliance and Congress right now is working on new CAFE standards actually. Its important that they keep cars and trucks separated and continue to let consumers choose what cars they want to buy. AutoChoice.org has a lot of great info on current car buying trends and even breaks it down by where you live too.

I agree: cars have gotten larger and more powerful. The Accord today is considered a midsize, but compared to ten years ago todays Accord is just shy of what was then considered a full size.

Power does have some to do with it, but a Honda S2000 gets much better MPG (so long as its not driven like a performance car) than many cars with far less horsepower. An important indicator is really the number of liters the engine displaces: if an engine displaces 6 liters, it does not matter if it has 200 horses or 300, its going to get worse gas mileage than a 5 liter that has the same horsepower.

Old Accords and Civics displaced far fewer liters than today. However, I would like to make a point that is lost here: todays cars still get far better mileage than trucks of any year and we'd use far fewer barrels of oil if people who drive SUVs without needing to would just drive cars.

Also, todays best mileage cars do get better gas mileage than older cars. A 1990 Civic and a 2007 Fit might be closer in size than the new Civic to the old, but I will bet money that if driven the same, the Fit will get better mileage than the old Civic.

That makes me wonder: should automakers be allowed to keep the name of the car if they move it up a size? Should you be allowed to call it a Civic if its really a midsize, when the Civic was always a compact? In other words, should car makers have to register a name and that name cannot come out of a certain segments size?

tom l: I don't agree with nor would such a rule ever pass. I think a simple tax on horsepower or engine size would be more effective. And I think the new Accord is rated as a full-size. Bummer.

Tom L, You cannot look just at displacement either, it is not that simple. You have to look a combination of many factors as to each cars economy, such as weight, gearing, transmission, hp/torque, displacment, compression, induction and the list goes on.

Just as exmaple when I was looking at used sports car a few years ago I compared the 2002 S2000, Camaro along with some others. I figured the S2000 would kill the big V8 in fuel economy especially given the V8 had over 100 more hp, over double the torque, more space, weight and pretty much everything. I was wrong as I found out with a manual in both the S2000 was rated 20/25, the Z-28 20/28. Having gotten over 29 mpg on highway out of the Camaro I can say those numbers are pretty realistic. I drive something much more fuel efficient and practical as a daily driver.

In Europe they do tax on displacement. That is also why it is popular to put a turbo on so many of their engines over there. The bigger thing that helps them to choose the more economical car is the price of their gas. Hard to blame manufacturer 100% when we make the choice of what to buy. If everyone was fighting to buy the most fuel efficient cars out there you can bet each manufacturer would be fighitng to make theirs do better then the next guy.

I agree with the other above if we want better fuel efficient we need to stop choosing the bigger, more powerful etc and instead look at which car can get the job done with best fuel economy.

How you drive does make a huge difference. I have seen the same car on the same trip with same conditions very as much 5 mpg. That is a huge difference. The difference seemed to all be attributed to holding constant speed and easy acceleration instead of punching the gas pedal.

Cars are noe becoming more efficeitnt in fuel coumption. But that does nto mean they will loose charm of being a speed bullets. I am in next few days we might see a fast car with very less fuel immiation

I agree with nor would such a rule ever pass. I think a simple tax on horsepower or engine size would be more effective. And I think the new Accord is rated as a full-size