29 Votes

Why Automakers Don't Sell A Car That Gets 50mpg.

Agent009 submitted on 4/7/2008 Official Bell & Ross Timestamp: 11:52:17 AM

56 user comments | Category: Misc News | Source: | SOURCE: www.newsweek.com

So gas just hit another miserable milestone.

Unleaded regular is averaging a record $3.30 a gallon and seems likely to blast past $4 by Memorial Day. Wouldn't it be great if you could drive a car that gets 50 miles per gallon?

Well, you can. Just hop on a plane and fly to Europe, where all new cars average 43mpg, or Japan, where the average hits 50mpg. Here in the United States, we're stuck at 25mpg in our considerably larger and more powerful cars, trucks and SUVs. So why can't we do better?

Here's the dirty little secret: we can. "If you want better fuel economy, it's just a question of when auto companies want to do it and when consumers decide they want to buy it," says Don Hillebrand, a former Chrysler engineer who is now director of transportation research for Argonne National Labs. "Auto companies can deliver it within a year."

Read Article

Why Automakers Don't Sell A Car That Gets 50mpg.

About the Author

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
— Agent009 (View Profile)

User Comments

Not as much so as we would like to think, engines are far more efficient, just look at the hp/liter now
— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 12:20:27 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

actually 009...dugit is correct. Weight is probably the critical issue. I understand where you are going with this however when it comes to modern vehicles the elephant in the room is... weight.

Newton's 3 Laws apply here quite well.

I know there are other factors that are huge, like drag. However the biggest contributing factor to a cars performance is weight. This can be easily seen when you ask someone to lets say tow a boat. Whereas their truck might have gotten 15-19mpg without the boat...when you ask them how much their mpg (and this is a true story) was when they towed their boat to the ocean...they would say 8-10mpg.

Efficancy is up over the years as is hp/liter however this really only applies when a car is at constant travel at highway speeds in a tall gear(aka low RPM). In modern day stop and go traffic, this dosen't equate. Brute force or Tq becomes the more important number. Especially as it deals with moving increased weight from a stop.

— Spectator (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 2:20:36 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

Weight can be reduced substantially with aluminum and carbon fiber construction but that also requires super-light unsprung components like real magnesium wheels and suspension members. I dispute that a small aluminum car would cost $50K due to the incremental cost of metal alone if economies of scale for steel cars and aluminum cars are similar. The cost of carbon fiber construction will diminish in the future as this technology progresses.

Once again we seem to be hung up on the cost of fuel due to a large world population competing for ever-shrinking supplies of energy. The correct social policy and cure for most of our ills is to limit world population. If we don't find an amicable solution to the world population problem, disease, famine and war will eventually provide a solution for us and then we can start a cycle of despair all over again.

The auto industry knows that aluminum and carbon fiber materials do not rust which increases the product life cycle for vehicles. Auto executives see this as a threat to profits. I would like to point out to these short-sighted executives that failure of the industry to adapt will drive the consumer to mass transportation and the need for fewer vehicles which will be even more devastating to auto industry investors.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 4:30:58 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

A small aluminium car Enn? hHe Audi A2. 30000 US dollars. Way too expensive.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 6:37:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Rupert, obviously aluminum cars have not yet achieved the proper economies of scale and/or the A2 is overpriced.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 8:22:02 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Aluminium is still too expensive - and given the current demand for it in planes, engines, electronics, boats, and even in the home, it is unlikely it will become cheap. Additionally aluminium is made through the use of a lot of electricity (is it called electrolysis?) - and since energy prices are high, aluminium prices are high too. Indeed most metals' prices have risen recently.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 8:33:57 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

Rupert, if you multiply the weight of a steel car by the price per unit weight of steel used and compare that to the equivalent cost of the same car in aluminum, you will find that the incremental cost of the raw aluminum material is not that much higher in absolute dollars. The manufacture of steel requires the burning of polluting coal which is just as "bad" as using electricity to produce aluminum. Hopefully the electricity will be produced by a nuclear power plant or by a hydroelectric dam which is what Alcan did in Arvida, Quebec, Canada where they built their own power plant many decades ago. Aluminum cars have a longer life cycle because they do not rust -- this is a tremendous benefit to the consumer and the environment. aluminum cars are lighter and burn less fuel. Last but not least, tooling for stamping body panels last longer when aluminum is stamped rather than steel.

The bottom line is that aluminum cars are well worth paying a hefty premium for.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 4/10/2008 11:31:17 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

People just want to many use less gadgets nowdays. Nothing that lasts anyhow. TATA - that old hat finally seemed to have a bit of brains under it than V all thought - Finally.
— lankaat (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 12:22:46 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2

I don't think it's a matter of tech or safety, it's just vehicle size and engine power.

I remember when it was a given that a big truck or SUV would be pretty slow. Now it's expected for every vehicle to have a sub-8-second zero to sixty time it seems.

People have to be willing to give up power for economy, at least with gasoline engines anyway.
— answer (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 12:40:06 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 8

Exactly!
— Agent009 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 12:48:39 PM | | Votes: 2

"Now it's expected for every vehicle to have a sub-8-second zero to sixty time it seems."

And this is one of the most retarded values in the US today. We expect big and overweight cars to be fast. That means a powerful engine and shorter gearing and as a result of this fuel economy suffers. Then we expect these same big cars to deliver reasonably good gas mileage.

I'm telling you, the US consumer is one weird entity...
— Willis (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 12:54:00 PM | | Votes: 7

Answer - exactly. Why the hell does an Escalade need to be fast? Or even an X5? The 3.0i is fast enough, never mind the 3.0d or 3.0sd, which are faster yet more fuel efficient. I tell you, you miss out on the diesels we get in Europe.

And small cars don't need to be super quick anyway, my car is tiny and does 0-60 in about 11.5 seconds - it's fine! I have never had a problem with getting up to the speed of traffic. You somehow insist on 1.8 litre minimums for Corollas or Civics or whatever - we get 1.4s! Your Jetta has a 2.3 or something as base? Terrible engine anyway, but we get a 1.6 as our base. You don't 'need' more.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 6:47:16 PM | | Votes: 3

WTF? Please show us dozen European cars that get 43 mpg, let alone "all new cars average 43mpg". I'm not even asking about Japan.
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 1:03:20 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -5

17 of the 24 flavors of BMW's 3 series sedans sold in the UK get combined 43mpg or greater. Through in all varieties of the 1 series and you get the idea. And that's just from one manufacturer. That's the most effort I'm willing to do to answer your question, the rest is up to you.
— johannas (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 1:23:22 PM | | Votes: 1

You see, if your information was backed by some facts, than it would make much more sense. Sorry, but your effort is "blah, blah, blah".

Here are the facts:

BMW 3-series with smallest engine - 318i, gets average of 5.9 litres / 100 km, which translates to about 40 US miles / US gallon.

Should I ask again, where are "all new cars" that gets on average 43 miles per gallon?
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 1:40:05 PM | | Votes: 2

vladyxa

Arte you some kind of proffesional Idiot ??

Now Look up the Mileage figures for the BMW: 118d, 120d, 123d, 125d.{Same for 3-Series & 5-Series Models}

Audi/VW: 1.9TDI, 2.0TDI, 2.7TDI, 3.0TDI

MB: 220 CDI & 320CDI

When you get those bloody figures come back and post them up.

Do some bloody research instead of askng others to do it for you.
— I95SPEEDINGTICKETS (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 3:16:20 PM | | Votes: 2

Hey I95SPEEDINGTICKETS, thank you for confirming that you are... hm, how should I put it... mentally-challenged.

325d gets same mileage and 318i, which makes it 40 US miles. What I said before, applies to you as well - get some facts together, you stupid moron.
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 4:07:09 PM | | Votes: 1

I95SPEEDINGTICKETS

Some more facts, just for you:

* A4 2.0 TDI - 42.8 US mpg (manual)
* A4 2.0 TDI - with AT gets only 40.55 US mpg
* A4 2.7 TDI - gets only 35.64 US mpg

Should I continue with A4 3.00 TDI???

So, if you ever wondering who "professional idiot" is, just look in the mirror.
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 4:36:41 PM | | Votes: 0

vladyxa - try looking at the new A4. And well done for ignoring the 320d, which gets about 50 US mpg, and for 'forgetting' the countless small cars we have like Clios or Meganes or Twingos or whatever.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 6:49:13 PM | | Votes: 1

Sorry you are looking at the new A4.
Just remember all the small cars we get - Fox, Fiesta, 207, 500, Aygo, Clio, C2, C3 - the list goes on.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 8:36:27 PM | | Votes: 1

Rupert.

1. Above figures for Audi are for new 2008 models,
2. 320d gets average 38.56 US mpg, so check your sources and/or your math before you make statements,
3. Article said that in Europe "all cars" get at least 50 mpg. And so far, it looks like the list of european cars that do not make 50 mpg mark, will be lot longer, than cars that can get 50 mpg.

So, why all this blah, blah, blah when you cannot get any facts to back it up? Go to manufacturer websites, do some research, do the math.
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 8:39:47 PM | | Votes: 0

Rupert,

I just wanted to point out that my whole point is about "all cars" getting over 50 mpg.

I agree with you about many cars that can get that great mileage, but not all european cars, as mentioned in that story.
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 8:43:00 PM | | Votes: 1

320d gets (in UK gallons which I have converted to US gallons):
58 UK MPG combined = 48 US MPG

http://www.bmw.co.uk/bmwuk/pricesandspecifications/0,,1156___bs-Mw%3D%3D%40bb-M0xJ%40sit-bmwuk,00.html

Maybe what the author meant was cars ON AVERAGE get 43 US mpg, not all cars get 43. I'm not sure I believe the figure though, but maybe he meant highway mpg?

And the article says cars getting 43 in Europe, and 50 in Japan.
"Just hop on a plane and fly to Europe, where all new cars average 43mpg".
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 6:04:45 AM | | Votes: 1

What A Twit

The Story states " In Europe, where all new cars average 43mpg"

So logic would state 43 European MPG AVERAGE.

There are some real morons on this site.

And there is a 118d variant with better mileage than the 320d you keep bringing up.

— I95SPEEDINGTICKETS (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 10:17:40 AM | | Votes: 0

I95SPEEDINGTICKETS

Babe, I'm sure you're hot, but let guys talk about cars. Go do something with your hair, instead. Time well spent, you should call it.

Rupert

If that what author meant, than it would make more sence. That is the problem with the media, they write sometimes, without checking the data, or just mis-representing the data, omitting detail. And now this is all some blonde hot babes will be chatting during their regular day - how their Bugs or Priuses are gasoline-eating monsters, comparing to european cars.
— vladyxa (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 12:41:12 PM | | Votes: -2

Lets just go back to the 70's oil crisis cars and drive Ford Pintos..... Everyone knows how safe those were. But they got good gas mileage and crappy performance. Give me a BMW 120d that gets 40+ and still has good performance and is fun to drive.
— mlevere1992 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 1:40:56 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

I had to sell my new 1972 Imperial after only one year and 20,000 miles because of the gas crisis at the time. I could not take the chance of having to wait in gas lines to fill up. Had Chrysler developed a diesel Imperial back then, I might have been driving that car to this day.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 4:38:51 PM | | Votes: 0

0-60 in 5.4 seconds and 26mpg on average w/ my car.

Still far from 40, or 50 for that matter.
— M35MT (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 1:52:25 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

I think many people would sacrifice 0-60 performance for mpgs. Most people who are truly interested in a high-mpg car don't care about 0-60 times. The bigger stigma I believe is safety. Nobody wants to get into an accident with a Tahoe or an Escalade while behind the wheel of a Lupo or a Mini.
— Anthony (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 2:10:39 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 5

Get a small diesel -- they have plenty of torque for reasonable acceleration.
— EnnNorak (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 4:40:25 PM | | Votes: 0

I have a Lupo - I feel perfectly safe, it has a 4 star ENCAP rating.
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 6:50:54 PM | | Votes: 2

Rupert, with respect, you don't drive down I-95 with a stampede of SUV's doing 80+ mph
— M35MT (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 12:26:26 PM | | Votes: 2

No, I drive down the M1, where everyone does 90. And I keep up with them. (Just not with the wind against me).
— Rupert (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 6:28:41 PM | | Votes: 2

I get decent gas milage (28 mpg average on a 400 mile road trip recently) have 5 star crash ratings, seat 4, and have plenty of get up and go, and its American. I love my car!
— Obliv (View Profile)

Posted on 4/9/2008 4:26:03 PM | | Votes: 1

I also think gas price still isn't an issue YET. Look at what the US pays, and what Europe pays...it's still a large gap. Yes, it's been steadily increasing, but I don't think it's really "hit" the people yet. Once you start seeing $5, $6 or $7 a gallon, then people will start to think twice about starting their Tahoe, Expedition, Sequioa or whatever tank they're driving as a daily driver.
— bigmotov (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 2:36:15 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

Yeah, I am stationed over here in Germany and the next German gas station from base cost super plus 1.56 euro cents per liter and that works out to about $10.00 per gallon and you dont see to many Germans driving monster trucks with V-8's........
— simmonsdp (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 4:41:48 PM | | Votes: 2

you COULD buy a prius. or even a yaris.
— ChicaneShooter (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 5:43:31 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 3

I second bigmotov.
Fuel prices apparently are not nearly high enough to get Americans to get rid of their 5,000 lb SUV. It thought $3.50/gal would get our people to abandon their leviathans but I was wrong. I'll try again:
Gas prices will have to reach $5/gal for giant SUVs to become extinct. Time will tell.
— BMW995 (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 3:35:24 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

I kind of agree with you but I think that its half of the solution. The other half is that Americans must change their mentality and driving habits.Europeans only drive if neccesary,ie driving to work or for food shopping or take care of multiple things on one trip. Many Americans drive off somewhere for every little fart or drive,, well, just to drive. I am sure if you save several trips per week that arent really needed then the savings would be very large......
— simmonsdp (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 4:53:36 PM | | Votes: 1

Simmonsdp, you are correct and that is exactly my point. Our mentality is that way because that's all we've known. We've been driving for every little thing because we can. Our roads are huge, America is sprawled out, our gas is cheap (still), small economy vehicles aren't as profitable as trucks/SUVs, and our people are fat.

Right now and moving forward, I think the "trigger" that's going to change it all is the gas price, more so than the concerns of the environment (sad to say) because gas prices DIRECTLY effect our wallet. It's gotta reach a certain level before people take notice, and it's not there YET.

I have to admit, I'm the guy in the tank (new Sequioa). Why? Because of kids, my lifestyle, hobbies...etc. Yes, gas is way more expensive, but not expensive enough for me to change yet because it's easier to use the Sequioa. But let's say it's $6,$7/gallon and $200+ for every fill-up...I will defintely rethink my priorities and only use the tank when I NEED it. Fine, I'm a jerk.
— bigmotov (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 6:24:17 PM | | Votes: 1

simmonsdp..... you've clearly never lived in the rural U.S. A vehicle of some sort is pretty much the most efficient form of transportation in these areas.

It's rare for any American to actually live within reasonable walking or biking distance of their place of employment, in any case.

If Americans assumed the mentality of Europeans with respect to fuel conservation, we'd be a nation of social misfits. The majority of us don't have an alternative to cars....that's where work ethic comes into play. We have no problem working 60-80 hours a week(even more in some cases)at 2 or more jobs just to pay the bills, and still enjoy our ourselves - with our cars.
— Bmw8ter (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 10:36:25 PM | | Votes: 1

Yes, I am over here in Germany and have two jobs on a US Airbase.My second job is partime working at the base gas station and hearing everyone cursing about the gas prices while they are filling their monster trucks and I try to see the positive side that we as Americans are still damn lucky compaired to others that are paying almost 3 times more off base.Like I said all we need to do is change our driving habits and it will ease the pain. I have a Mercedes 230k station wagon and a 280 sedan and drive the 230k more often to work because its better with gas and I drive it slower on the autobahn because of the automatic, the 280 is a stick and always asks for more.I will probably always owne a 6 or 8 cylinder because I do need my "fix" once in a while on these unreal country roads and autobahns, that need for speed.......
— simmonsdp (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 6:50:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

Then why in the hell did they stop building the Chevette? Get fuel economy, roomy, indestructible(my cousin wrecked his multiple times and it kept running)and damn sporty with some Cragars on it.
— rocker (View Profile)

Posted on 4/7/2008 10:32:24 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

There are plenty of cars available in the US that will get you high MPG. Folks can buy those if they want to. Their called subcompacts. What is the big mystery? It works out that if people can afford to buy LOTS of gas, then they probably don't mind driving a Big car or truck. I agree, if you get in an sort of accident in a small vehicle, you are likely not to survive.
— TexLandRover (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 12:23:09 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0

To Bmw8ter, oh really I have lived and have land in upstate New York and I DO KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE, I was trying to say maybe plan somewhat better with your driving plans. I am not European but I serve the U.S. in Germany. I am a prior active duty veteran of war who now is a DOD civilian and contractor who has also worked up to 90 hours in a week. I mainly drive my four cylinder to work than my 6........
— simmonsdp (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 5:10:49 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

And to add...

There are small companies that provide "kits" for just about any road-going vehicle to improve fuel consumption DRASTICLY. These kits can be installed by any knowledgable auto repair/maintenance shop with the provided instructions. The "kit" could easily included in the regular assembly of each vehicle for minimal manufacturing costs to the auto maker.

All the consumer is asked to do is add a special chemical every few months to keep the system working correctly. Most of the available "kits" are $2k-$3k, but they would pay for themselves after a couple of years maybe. But the fuel cost savings would be almost immediate.
— dumpsty (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 1:02:20 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: -1

A few companies are testing the "actual" performance of these fuel-saving kits on vehicles that will eventually be tested by the EPA for certifications.
— dumpsty (View Profile)

Posted on 4/8/2008 1:04:26 PM | | Votes: 0

The "kit that dramatically increases fuel economy on any car" goes hand-in-hand with the belief that car companies deliberately ship vehicles to burn a lot more gas than they have to, but this can be easily defeated with a simple kit.

People who know that this is true: Please contact me off-line to purchase shares in the company that makes the kit. You can get a block of shares for as little as $10,000.

Why buy just the snake oil, when you can buy the entire snake?
— Steve (View Profile)

Posted on 4/10/2008 6:33:32 PM | | Votes: 1

Automakers getting kickbacks from OPEC...lol.
— Porschinator (View Profile)

Posted on 4/10/2008 3:14:10 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

well at the least, i bet they hold a lot of BigOily stock shares!

— ChicaneShooter (View Profile)

Posted on 4/11/2008 3:45:29 AM | | Votes: 1

Consumers vote for what they want with the dollars they spend. Mass-market manufacturers make products that they hope to sell to lots of consumers. This equasion is pretty simple to understand.

Another reality is that you can't take a 3 ton SUV and get it to make a legitimate 50 mpg on a gallon on gasoline. If the consumer wants 50 mpg, he'll have to make some sacrifices, like not being able to seat 7, or shaving off some of those 3 tons of weight. So if you want to sell cars that get 50 mpg, you have to have consumers who are motivated to trade off other things to get that 50 mpg. Create that consumer desire, and manufacturers will make products to fill it.

Picture this scenario: Gasoline in the US edges up from the current $3.30/gallon, by a rate of 25 cents per quarter. Regular as clockwork. Long before the price hits $9.30 in April 2014, consumers will have changed their buying patterns to ones that burn a lot less gasoline. SUVs will be a distant memory. People would pay a hefty premium to import foreign cars that get 50+ mpg if they couldn't get domestic ones that do.

FWIW, I realize that the price of gasoline in the US affects many other segments of the economy. The point I am making is that as long as US gas is relatively cheap, it'll be hard to make people want to burn a whole lot less of it.
— Steve (View Profile)

Posted on 4/10/2008 5:58:33 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1

yup. ole Bill's "It's the economics, stupid" is as true as ever.

two of my friends, who happen to be builders, are smart enuff to NOT USE trucks as an everyday driver. for one, the daily driver is a subaru. for the other, a honda Hybrid.

we also have national policies of ensuring CHEAP FOOD. so is it any surprise americans also have the MOST FATTIES per capita?

and is it any wonder, these people are also the LEAST LIKELY to get small, economical cars?

— ChicaneShooter (View Profile)

Posted on 4/11/2008 3:54:34 AM | | Votes: 1

Add your Comments

Images hosted in your AgentSpace can now be posted in the comments section using the following syntax (case matters): [img]IMAGE URL[/img]
Example: [img]http://agent001.myautospies.com/images/sample.jpg[/img]

Email Me When Someone Replies To My Message

Why Automakers Don't Sell A Car That Gets 50mpg.

About the Author

User Comments

Add your Comments

Submit an article

Photo Galleries

Cars

Autoshows

Latest Articles