MPG Now Almost as important as CPV
by Andrew Posner, Providence, Rhode Island on 02.23.08
Here at treehugger we often talk about miles per gallon, be it in the form of an efficient, sporty diesel car, a souped down 1959 Opel, a modified hybrid or a plug-in hybrid, to name a few. Our interest in MPG is rooted in economic, geopolitical and environmental concerns. After years of struggling to gain traction, we now have new CAFE standards and MPG is finally becoming a more important part of what consumers look for in a new vehicle. In fact, General Motors says "buyers now rate fuel economy as third among reasons to buy a GM vehicle (behind styling and value). " However, for all the talk of miles per gallon, a CNW Marketing Research Study found that CPV (cup holders per vehicle) is still more important to consumers than efficiency. According to CNW
interior conveniences like heated seats and cup holders are higher in priority (73%) for shoppers than fuel efficiency (67%). Mike J. Jackson, chief executive of AutoNation, the country's largest public dealer network, with 322 stores in 16 states, sees this all the time. And he says consumers may talk fuel efficiency, but they don't necessarily buy it.
We should, however, take the CNW study with a grain of salt, as they are the same folks that prepared a dubious life cycle analysis claiming that Hummers used less energy than the Prius.
With that caveat in mind, the article goes on to argue it isn't that people aren't interested in fuel economy, it's just that "they just don't want to pay for it, and they don't want to give up anything they have--horsepower, speed and size." The solution, according to Mr. Jackson, is to "increase the price of gasoline--give them (consumers) an economic incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Sixty percent of consumers [consider] hybrids. Two percent buy one. What happened? They literally take the back of an envelope and say, 'A hybrid costs X, gas costs X, it'll take ten years to get my money back. Show me something else.'"
What do you think, readers: is that will it will take? Or will the cost of more efficient technology come down enough over time to render the argument moot?
Via: ::Forbes and ::AutoBlogGreen
See Also: ::Forget MPG and CAFE, Think About VMT, ::Sierra Club Launches MPG Calculator, ::Next Generation Prius: 94 MPG in 2008?, ::Team Achieves 110 MPG Average in Prius, ::Hybrid Cars: What's in a Name?, ::The Hidden Cost of Roads, ::The Anatomy of the Plug-In Hybrid--Part 1: What the Heck is it? and ::Using Solar Roofs to Power Hybrids
People have no incentive to internalize the cost of pollution from their cars. If the cost of cars reflected their external costs on the environment (and the health of others) people would choose the more fuel efficient option.
Exactly, like RFK Jr. says, let the price of gas reflect all the costs, from health costs to the cost of providing security to oil companies in the Middle East. The free market would dictate the price of gas should be closer to $10 a gallon. So why don't all these free-market conservatives let the market decide the price of gas? Oh, right, then everyone would drive plug-in hybrids and gas consumption would plummet, along with oil company profits. Can't have that.
It's a good thing that my Prius has at least 4 cup holders and 2 "bottle holders"
Perhaps if you actually had a choice in fuel efficient cars in the USA it wouldn't be down to the gas guzzler v Prius.
Our fuel is way more expensive in Europe yet almost nobody buys the Prius because there's plenty of other much cheaper, fuel efficient cars to choose from.
I just want to bang my head against the wall. It isn't about gas guzzler vs prius... Toyota brings out Prius, they bring out Tundra. Two contradictions.
It really is about common misconceptions and lack of care for the environment. "What? I can't step on the gas and speed towards the next red light, with max horsepower? I don't want it...by the way does it come with 6 cup holders for my 3 children who are fat and need a huge SUV to fit?"
That is a gluttonous American, of which there is a majority. Its breed into us because our system is based on cars... not ped or bike friendly cities.
Shaun is living in the future as far as North America goes. When gas prices hit Europe price you will see the same things here. The $20,000 small diesel will be king.
The good news is at least people have escalated the mpg concern. I think the photo showing plastic bottles in the cup holders says it all! We have a ways to go. We still have a propensity to gravitate towards what we are accustomed to and resist the perceived discomforts of living with less, smaller and healthier. I personally love my Prius and after becoming accustomed to driving a high gas mileage vehicle it becomes very uncomfortable flushing dollars from my wallet out my tailpipe. Sadly, I had to drive a vehicle that got terrible gas mileage when my Prius was down for a bit that had speed/power/size and the cost difference became crystal clear. Thanks for the story Andrew!
I switched to a smaller vehicle with fewer cup holders, but it gets about 50% better gas mileage.
I love bucking trends.
What I had never realized was what a serious risk SUV drivers expose themselves to...... I never realized there were thousands who died every year of the effects of the Dreaded Dehydration..... Forget mileage. They should have drinking fountains installed in every seat! (and perhaps a "relief station" as well.....)
;-)
(Ps Sorry. This is probably neither civil, nor intelligent)
Us American's are to blame. Yes, we need and like to be able to travel freely - but...We can travel the very same distance for the very same money even if gas cost 2-3 times as much as it does today.
So, why not fix several things at one stroke?
1) Add 100% gas on gasoline and fix the national deficit and trade deficit and lower consumption overall
2) The new high prices will make people buy smaller cars that are 2-3 times more fuel efficient and thereby the cost per kilometer will remain the same.
This isn't about driving a disiel, hybrid, or a strictly one source fuel car. This is about the fact that people equate HP with speed, when you can go as fast in a lighter car with a smaller engine.
Deplete a car's weight by 25% and what would we see for MPG's?
Im sorry but Soccer Mom Suzy doesn't need to haul around 3 kids (100lbs each) plus her in a 5,000lb vechicle. A light 2000lb car, which still isn't light could do just as good of a job. If we could show that SUV's aren't as safe and regulars are still spacious and safe you'd get alot of people to switch over.
I have to throw in my two cents because once I saw that CNW (the Oregon marketing firm which generated the dust-to-dust analysis that Hummers use overall less energy than Prius), I just said "wait a second here. " All readers should take everything with a grain of salt, but CNW analysis seems flawed at best.
Marketing is all about what questions you ask (really, you'd buy a 13 MPG Suburban because it has more cup holders...all cars have at least 42) and judgment. Based on analyzing CNW's 400 page marketing analysis concluding that hybrids are overall use less energy than heavy gas guzzlers, I think they just crank out analysis to prove a point they (or a research buyer) already have and that will got lots of media hits on their "contrarian" 'ah-has'. I'm even suspect they are part of the team that throws doubt into the marketplace about green change.
I actually printed out the report and went through it and was just amazed at the assumptions to prove that heavier vehicles weren't less efficient. Yes, driving a gas sipping hybrid isn't emmission-free, but Prius/Civic hybrid drivers don't just use it as a 3rd car, and chuck it after 150k while Hummers last 300k miles--that assumption kind of did it in for hybrids.
Common sense tells me that a car decision in today's times with economic uncertainty, higher gas prices and our need to get what we desire is more complicated than "people choose cup holders over MPG. "
I feel better :)
Roger,
"Im sorry but Soccer Mom Suzy doesn't need to haul around 3 kids (100lbs each) plus her in a 5,000lb vechicle. A light 2000lb car, which still isn't light could do just as good of a job."
Show me a 2000 lb car that can do just as good of a job hauling 3 kids as a 5000 SUV/minivan.
Safety standards conflict with efficiency. With all of the airbags, abs, side intrustion beams, etc. the Honda Fit is about 2500 lbs, and Toyota Yaris is about 2300 lbs, so both of those (two of the smallest) are already too heavy by your standard.
Second, we are now told (and many states require) that each of those three kids should be in a safety/booster seat in the rear seat of the car until they are 8 years old. I recently installed a required rear-facing child seat in the back seat of my 2600 lb car (which is larger than either the Fit or Yaris). The child seat was too large front-to-rear to fit with the front seat in any position except fully forward, which would cause the driver or front passenger to be dangerously close to the required airbags, and the child seat was more than 1/3 of the width of the vehicle seat, and the required spacing of the LATCH points are such that no more than 2 positions fit in anything narrower than a full-sized vehicle, so a third child, to be properly restrained, now requires a third row. The smallest vehicle with three rows of seats is the Kia Rondo, which weighs more than 3300 lbs.