I have a hard time believing the EPA’S numbers. 23.4mpg for your avg passenger car seems low by several mpg’s.

23.4 is very reasonable. If you get a Toyota Camry with a V6 that is probably pretty close to what you'd get if you lived here in Seattle. I think the biggest difference in mileage estimates is that the people who keep track are probably people who drive a lot and thus people who spend more time than average on the highway. Hybrids and subcompacts are still a lot less common than "full-size", "sports" and "luxury sedans".

My point exactly, a Camry V6 does get about 23.4. It is the worst performer in the Toyota Car lineup. The Camry V6 only represents 20% of their car sales, the other 80% get much better MPG's.

VWOA's car fleet MPG's is almost identical to Toyota's. Honda and the big three's cars are lower, but not that much lower. I have owned 3 trucks, the EPA was very close on all 3. Of the 8 different cars I have owned, the EPA has been low by 2-6 mpg's on all 8.

The #'s on the hybrids at near 60 were too high, however, saying the avg Prius, Insight or TDI is 42.5 is too low. In 1999 they have the best car at 40mpg's, that is flat out wrong. The 1999 VW VE engines in the Golf, Beetle and Jetta averaged 46mpg's under the worst conditions.

Anybody for an extra $1/gal over 5 years?

hm, i wonder what that car is in 85-6 that got 56 mpg...

You're a buffoon, Joseph.

These improvements happened in spite of increased safety requirements imposed by the government that added lots of weight. The vehicles are cleaner than ever before, even if that has increased weight for larger catalytics converters, and fuel evaporative equipment and other components like variable valve trains, and beefier GDI fuel injection systems.

Progress is happening even if it is slower than we would like.

Meanwhile we get closer to the coming Electrification of Ground Transport. That Tsunami will start to roll in starting in model year 2010.

Lensovet,

Good question. I also was curious.

Looking at the fueleconomy.gov site, the '86 Honda Civic HF got 57 mpg combined.

GSP

Stan, the weight increase caused by your dreaded "government mandates" has been relatively small over the past 15-20 years. It is mostly due to Detroit (and Japan's) propensity for increasing the size of the offerings in their "light truck" segment.

God help me, I'm about to defend Stan:

It is true that a shift from a car to a truck carries a 500-1000 lb penalty, or more. Compare a 3500 VW passat to a 5000 lb VW Taureg (yes, I'm sure my numbers aren't exact, but you get my drift). And don't get me started on what a waste that is - you get no useful functionality for that extra $15,000 in cash and 1500 lbs of wasted steel.

But Stan is right that cars are creeping up in weight, both due to size creep and to safety concerns. For example, my 2001 Mazda 323 was five passengers, 30mpg all day long, and 2400 lbs. Now a Mazda 3 is five passengers, 25mpg all day long, and 3200 lbs.

I'm about to start to feel better, however. Stan, the problem is not your government. They didn't invent the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the guys that put out all that crap about four stars and five stars. Fundamentally, those guys are shills for the US automakers, driving an arms war where American parents feel good driving FUVs where due to their sheer mass they pose a risk to everyone else's children, especially those children that are 20 year old soldiers being blown up in Iraq so that the FUV drivers can have cheap oil.

But that's not the government, Stan, that's private industry.

Very good points, Dollared.
It's time for disarmament treaty of the streets, whereby cars will be lighten up all across the models in the market.
This, along with higher use of higher-strength steel and better computerized design and modeling, will greatly conserve fuel WITHOUT compromising safety, relative or absolute. Actually, absolute safety will be vastly increased, now with 7-airbags, ABS, traction and slip control etc...

@ Roger,
I agree, when I was a kid registration fees were based on vehicle weight. I say we go back there, and add a dollar for every pound over the median weight of the fleet of current non-commercial vehicles.

Cars are so loaded with excess stuff. If you need traction control it means you need a smaller engine. Anti theft systems are a waste, with the exception of Lojack type systems.

Very true, Dollared and Roger.

Cars gaining weight, and mostly for no reason. There is no way more powerful engine could compensate for excess weight, it is just plain physics. Grasshopper jumps 200 times of his height, but elephant could not jump at all, and even could die if he lays down for half an hour. Weight increases as third power of linear dimensions, yet muscle and bone strength increases only as second power of linear dimensions (according to their cross-section).

Translating to cars, excess weight calls for unproportional increase in weight of chassis structure, suspension components, brakes, tires, etc. Which in turn calls for more powerful engine and stiffer body, and the circle goes on and on. Lighter car will always perform better on the road (road holding, brake distance, cornering ability) than heavy one. Formula one cars built from carbon fibre composite is prime example.

Decreasing weight of vehicles does not necessarily calls for exotic materials and disruptive technologies. Use of lightweight aluminium alloys in: wheels, brake callipers, suspension arms, hood, trunk lid, etc., is conventional practice on some models, but should be used on ALL models. Seats in the cars appear to be cast in iron, and noise insulation materials are also incredibly heavy. Spare wheel and jack also should be light weight, and I do not want to start on stupidity of having full-size spare wheel on family sedan or soccer mom SUV (Hello, VW). Hundreds of brackets, rails, holders and fasteners are solid steel of Homeric dimension and weight.

Use of rust resistant steels in whole exhaust (not just for header and cat, as required by EPA), lighter battery, lightweight muffler shielding, hollowed bolts (aka BMW) – list of non-disruptive weight control measures is virtually endless.

@ Dollared -

the IIHS crash tests are indeed widely publicised, but there are also separate NHTSA crash test procedures that every new model must pass before it can go on sale. Unlike the EU, the NHTSA insists that candidate vehicles must protect occupants from serious harm in these tests even if they are not wearing any seat belts. This is why airbags were developed and why they are much larger (incl. greater explosive charges) in the US than they do in Europe.

Another big reason for the high average weight of the US LDV fleet is the use of ladder frames for large pickups and SUVs. The market is now shifting toward lighter CUVs with monocoque bodies (hence the term crossover), but Detroit is still producing large numbers of personal use vehicles with ladder frames.

A third reason is crash incompatibility. Trucks and SUVs tend to have greater ground clearance. In a frontal crash, the vehicle closer to the ground tends to suffer more severe damage, even if there is no weight difference.

The biggest reason for the still-low mileage of US LDVs is, howeve, a different on: fuel is still cheaper than bottled water.

"fuel is still cheaper than bottled water" in N. America. And that my friend, sums up pretty much everything that has ever been talked about on GCC so don't blame car companies for not building high mpg cars that no-one (in N. America) will buy.

Simple registration fees:
All vehicles below 2000 lbs = $50
Vehicles above 2000 lbs = $50 for the first 2000 lbs + $1 a pound above 2000.
Vehicles above 4000 lbs = $50 + $2000 + $2 a pound above 4000.

Put 50% of all registration fees in the road fund.

Bottled water cheaper than gasoline? Stop listening to the tin hat wearers who must be sniffing gasoline.

First, if you were to distribute gasoline in little 20 oz bottles at every grocery store you would see significantly higher prices.

Here:

http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11150807&search=water&Mo=67&cm_re=1_en-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&lang=en-US&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Sp=S&N=0&whse=BC&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=Text_Search&Dr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ne=4000000&D=water&Ntt=water&No=10&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1

Only 3 gallons purchased here (a very modest one time purchase compared to gasoline where people typically purchase more than 12 gallons at a time) and the water comes out to $2.40 per gallon. So much for that urban myth that is perpetuated out of foolish attempts at cynicism. (and these were even packaged only 1/2 liter per bottle).

Low and behold! Safeway is selling water at $0.12 per pint (that is less than $1 per gallon)...they must be insane or it is a conspiracy!

Not stop this BS about price of gasoline versus price of bottled water because it is BS that took me all of about 45 seconds to research (and 2 minutes typing up this crap).