Basically, respondents want cars that are 25% more fuel efficient, as long as they don't have to pay any extra (10% more up front is about the same as they would save in fuel).
On top of that, they don't want to compromise size or performance.

The survey question may as well have been "would you like to get something for nothing?"

In Southern California, if people lived closer to where they work and drive 60 mph on the highway, we could save 25%. Hybrids help, but are not all that much better on the highways. EVs would be good, but people think that they need 400 mile range.

There is going to have to be some compromises with personal transportation. People may have to give up something, but are waiting for someone to give them everything without having to make any personal changes.

I would settle for a good series/parallel hybrid like the BYD with electric turbo compounding. It would preform well and get maybe 50 mpg. You could really not ask for much more..but some people probably will.

I hear lots of people saying "somebody better do something quick", as if it is up to others to solve their problems for them. Behavioral changes like reducing commuting miles, proper tire pressure, tune ups, driving 60 mph would do something right away and it is something that they can do themselves.

The consistent downsizing of engines for French and Italian vehicles and the third generation of diesel engines (multijet, HDi and dCi) are examples of how this has nothing to do with getting something for free. The cars I am referring to actually cost LESS than their more polluting alternatives. Likewise, the cars on this list cost LESS than cars with much higer emissions:
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petrol

The only people here trying to get a free ride are the German automakers, who think they can get away with polluting more in EVERY CAR CLASS (see above list) and be thanked for it. If the situation weren'r as drastic as it is they would perhaps have had a chance of doing this.

The consistent downsizing of engines for French and Italian vehicles and the third generation of diesel engines (multijet, HDi and dCi) are examples of how this has nothing to do with getting something for free. The cars I am referring to actually cost LESS than their more polluting alternatives. Likewise, the cars on this list cost LESS than cars with much higer emissions:
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petrol

The only people here trying to get a free ride are the German automakers, who think they can get away with polluting more in EVERY CAR CLASS (see above list) and be thanked for it. If the situation weren'r as drastic as it is they would perhaps have had a chance of doing this.

Karl-Uwe,

Nice try, but you forgot to read the article.
The article says that the vast majority of people who answer such surveys would like to drive a car that consumes 25% less fuel, as long as their net cost is €0.00. They are willing to pay slightly more for the car itself, but only about as much as they would be saving in fuel costs.
One would assume that a large number of respondents already drive cars that use "3rd generation diesel engines," if they were a representative sample of the European population.

So what we learn from this is that people are not against the idea of making the world a better place, just as long as they are not asked to contribute any effort at all...

sjc:

I like your common sense approach but the majority of us lost much of our common sense years ago and most want to barrel down the streets and highways with 3 to 4-tonne 4 x 4 with at least 7 seats and 20-in wheels. To get 50+ mpg with such vehicles would required an engineering miracle.

However, it would be possible to build 1-tonne, 4 passenger cars capable of 50+ mpg. Many European and Asian car builders are doing it or will do it very soon.

I doubt that it will cost more to build such vehicles. In fact it sould cost less.

Maybe we just have to go through this process to get there, but I hope that we do get there soon. It is one of those issues that hangs over people's lives that they do not really want to face. Will we have abundant affordable energy for the rest of our lives? The answer is probably yes, but a few simple changes will have to be made.

Most of the Ford Focus class diesels in europe can get > 64mpg (UK) which would be 50 mpg US.

The smaller cars are slightly better.

These are ideal for long commutes and big enough for most families. They weigh 1.3 - 1.4 tons.

The problem is that most cars are ridiculously over-specced in terms of max speed, acceleration and load carrying capacity.

if people bought what they need for 98% of their driving instead of 99.8% and rented larger vehicles when they really needed to tow stuff, we could drop the carbon footprint quite a bit without any new technology.

But, if people keep using cars as wealth display vehicles, we are doomed.

I'm a big dude and I prefer big vehicles - I would definitely have a full size truck or sports car with a big V-8 if gas was cheap enough.....and I wouldn't have any guilt for my carbon footprint like so many weirdos out there. Instead of engineering for small vehicles that accelerate 0-60 in 60 seconds, are deathtraps in crashes and have 25 HP engines, I hope that some company will still make big vehicles in the future with big horsepower, but uses cheap & clean fuel.

"But, if people keep using cars as wealth display vehicles, we are doomed"

We are doomed then .... Get the sandbags out!

"One would assume that a large number of respondents already drive cars that use "3rd generation diesel engines," if they were a representative sample of the European population."

this is obviously a wrong assumption, otherwise we wouldn't have the high CO2 levels in the first place. There certainly are plenty of such cars around, but still they represent a proportion of the European car fleet which still isn't high enough. The same is true for the latest petrol engines and the comprehensive list of both types is to be found here -
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/information/how-to-use-the-data-tables.asp#petrol

Just which part of "the above list of most efficient European cars is also the list of the LEAST expensive" don't you understand?

"I'm a big dude and I prefer big vehicles". We've got big dudes over in Europe too (unless you mean spherical), but we still prefer compact cars because these are recognised as win-win vehicles - good for the pocket, efficient in getting around town and good for the environment. People here have stopped believeing in the 700hp marketing bit....
The difference between the US and Europe is that given the damage done by tractors, politicians here have actually done their jobs and have put in force measures (with the exception of Germany) which promote the use of more efficient vehicles.
http://www.transportenvironment.org/Publications/prep_hand_out/lid:513
Compare (page 13) the performance of countries like Italy and France (second and third position) with Germany (15th position) which has enacted no such measures. e.g. in Germany last year 25% more vehicles were sold compared with Italy, but Germany had disproportionately 44% more average emissions.....

A debate has started this week in Bruxelles to decide which measures to take against car manufacturers which continue to produce vehicles that have absurdly high emissions. On the one hand these measures are very urgent, and on the other you have a very powerful German mafia group which has already had its way several times in Bruxelles.

No matter which way the tide turns, individual European countries (11 to be exact) except Germany are doing the right thing anyway to curb tractors and unnecessary pollution from their streets. The comprehensive list of measures by country can be found here:
http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20080302_CO%202%20tax%20overview.pdf

A 25% fuel consumption reduction has already been achieved by A segment vehicles in Europe, compared with their predecessors, and at a net cost of zero, by introducing engines such as the 1.3 multijet (Fiat, Opel, Suzuki, Tata, Saab with the TST, Ford), and by introducing weight, aerodynamics, tyre and gear ratio changes. The same thing is happening again with the new 900cc engine and the new generation of HDi and dCi engines. Cars such as the Toyota IQ are also going to achieve such targets, without being 2-seaters......

The revealing part of the story is that a majority would pay more to cut fuel consumption by 25% if they did not sacrifice performance and size.

Good for them. They will be offered that chance.

The rest of the story is a tangled mess and not useful.

Those polled had to choose between measures that might cost them and measures that were certain to cost them. And between measures certain to work and those less likely.

Surprise! People prefer measures that will work and might cost. They reject those that might work and are certain to cost.

"The poll...probed ... 5,000 people in the five countries. 46% of respondents think that requiring manufacturers to reduce the fuel consumption of vehicles is the best approach... ahead of tax incentives (27%) and promoting fuel-efficient cars through better information (13%). Seven percent support restrictions on the use of cars."

sjc wrote:
> Hybrids help, but are not all that much better on the
> highways. EVs would be good, but people think that they
> need 400 mile range.

I don't know, my Prius (running on 5 year old hybrid tech now) is the best highway car on the market. I routinely get 45mpg+ without trying, and 50mpg+ is easily achievable if I keep speeds below 65mph or lower. The next two best selling hybrids, the Camry and Civic are also significantly better on the highway and even better off the highway than their non-hybrid counterparts.

HarveyD wrote:
> However, it would be possible to build 1-tonne, 4
> passenger cars capable of 50+ mpg. Many European and
> Asian car builders are doing it or will do it very soon.

Rumors have a number of 4+ passenger hybrids getting 50+ mpg showing up on the market in 2009. We'll see if the new hybrid from Honda and the redesigned 2010 Prius both due to hit the market next year hit those numbers or not.

"...consumed 25% less fuel but had the same size and performance; 26% would pay 6-10% more; 21% would pay 11-20%..."

This says to me that 47% would pay about 10% more for a car that got the same performance with the same size and got 25% better fuel economy.

So a car that got 20 mpg and sells for $20,000 could sell for $22,000 if it got 22 mpg. Maybe GM and the BAS is on the right track.

Fuel efficient car are enviournment friendly.

Man this is rich. Is anyone actually surprised that most people don't trust the car companies. The car companies have been in bed with 'big oil' for 75+ years. The car companies, and I talking about all of them, have spent 100s of millions to fight Cafe standards. The car companies have played games and dragged their feet on proven technology for years.

Why should I have to pay more for the Car Companies to do what the should have done a DECADE ago!!!!

Ah... it's all talk.

When you get inside the car showroom, with the strobe lights flashing and music blaring. You'll all fall in love with the spangly, sparkly, 6 litre, luxury interior, 25 airbag, i-phone connected, steel safety cage, 9 seater with spare dog kennel.

Everyone wants to jump on this tiny car bandwagon. I am all for free markets, and people should have the right to buy tiny cars. Just remember that Europeans have 30-50-80+ car pile-ups with mass numbers of fatalities on their highways much more frequently than in the U.S. - and do you think that the survival rate in a tiny car is going to be higher than in a big car? Instead of engineering for small vehicles that accelerate 0-60 in 60 seconds, are deathtraps in crashes and have 25 HP engines, I hope that some company will still make big vehicles in the future with big horsepower, but uses CHEAP and CLEAN fuel. The U.S. government has usually favored projects that produce cheap and clean energy - look at the Tennessee Valley Authority projects, or the big Bureau of Reclamation projects in the western states. I am all for clean air, but I will jump on the tiny car bandwagon only as a last resort - and it won't be based on junk climate science or enviro-guilt.

My comment on hybrid highway mileage is compared to a standard model. While the Prius is not the Echo, you can still see that the fuel savings are greater in city driving with the hybrid.

Until they have a method like turbo compounding and/or heat recovery to get better highway mileage, the hybrids will do better in the city. Some hybrids even have numbers better in the city than on the highway.

We pretty much all know why this is. Start/Stop, regenerative braking and power take off all help in stop and go driving. I suppose that if the highway had many hills and valleys, you would recover some energy, but that is not common highway driving.

Small cars aren't death traps at all. The fuel-efficient compacts listed above have, in most cases, the FULL FIVE euroncap stars (www.euroncap.com). Euroncap currently has more stringent standards than in the US, so much so that the US standards are soon to be toughened. At the same time, given so many cars in Europe now (including small cars) with the full rating, the EURONCAP standards will also be toughened:
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2008/08/euro-ncap-to-overhaul-car-safety-ratings--155063.jsp

In some cases small cars have very large frontal crumpling areas as well as SEVEN airbags, all at a very affordable price.
They can, admittedly, be death traps if we all start to drive around in tractors - but these will soon face extinction in Europe. More than anything I'd say this is a mentality issue -

@ Karl Uwe:

Again, Europe routinely has accidents involving 30-50-80+ cars, with many fatalities. This occurs much more often there than in the U.S. (fog+busy Autobahn=trouble). If I am in a collision with a semi-truck or full-size truck, chances are much higher that I will walk away if I'm in a full size truck or S.U.V. versus a small car with airbags up the wazoo. While I am not calling for a ban on small cars, I am obviously for making big cars and trucks better. If governments create the right incentives & fund the right research, we can have cheap & clean fuel for big, safe cars and trucks. This makes a lot more sense than trying to create a tiny-car world without banning big vehicles outright. If we could create/mandate/legislate a 100% tiny car world, I might be for it - but realistically it will never happen. We need semi-trucks & other special duty trucks to haul our goods & materials, put out our fires, etc. As long as there are going to be big trucks on the road, and I have no choice (again, realistically no choice) but to use the same roads, then I would want myself & family to be in a big car/truck/suv also (that I can afford to drive, that uses cheap & clean fuel).

More hype from the defeated AGW set. Garbage.

@ejj

First of all what you call "full-size" is, on this planet (not sure what happens elsewhere) full-size ONLY in the US of A. It doesn't matter whether you are in Europe, Asia, Africa or Sotuh America, the US "full-size" is a tractor elsewhere (a bit like metre and feet and ISO, non-ISO if you like).

Secondly please note how I have provided various links above to the claims I made (acea website, transport and environment website, etc.). "Again, Europe routinely has accidents involving 30-50-80+ cars, with many fatalities. This occurs much more often there than in the U.S...." Would you care to provide a link (even to some non-reputable source) to substantiate your claims? Despite having lived so far in no less than FIVE european countries, not only have I never witnessed such an accident, but I've never even heard of an accident involving 30 cars (let alone 50, 80...)

As I already mentioned above, the only evidence there is that European cars are safer, given the www.euroncap.com has stricter standards. Do compacts in the US come standard with 7 airbags?) Related links:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/12/think-suvs-keep-you-safe-us-insurance-institute-for-highway-saf/
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/new_research_su.html