Number of the Day: 38 MPG

Seeing as how the UK is roughly the size of Oregon and surrounded by water == my question is why are they still driving 60% as much as we are. That certainly seems wasteful.

"Seeing as how the UK is roughly the size of Oregon and surrounded by water == my question is why are they still driving 60% as much as we are. That certainly seems wasteful."

It's not like most people in the US drive most of their miles going from state to state. Most of them are just people commuting, going to the store, etc, and those are probably not that hugely different in the US than from the UK. 40% is still pretty significant, and it can account for those big trips that Americans take a few times a year.

The reason people drive 60% as much as Americans do is straightforward. Public transport doesn't go directly to where you want to go, especially if you live or work somewhere outside of a major city. London, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Glasgow and the Tyne & Wear area of England have very good bus systems. They run until about 11pm, though in some (but not all) of these places there are night buses. If you have no night bus and finish work after 11, as many people (especially the low-paid) do you need a car because taking a cab is too costly.

The government is investing money in cycling but really we have years to wait and see if it really cares or if it's just lip service.

According to these statistics Americans drive 40% more on average which is notable from a consumption point of view, but what interests me is not consumption, but rather pollution. I am curious what to know which Countries vehicles is spewing less pollutants. If they are primarily using diesel in the UK, though it is more fuel efficient it may lead to just as much pollution as the American cars.

looking into the future It will be interesting to see if the UK converts to eletric cars... it would be much easier to set up plug in stations in the UK then it would be in the US

IIRC, California is using more diesel than any single (non-US!) country including China for example, thus more than the UK, thus the pollution comparison here isn't going to work. IE, if diesel is bad, CA is the pits. B^>

Rgds

Damon

These statistics are based off of the "Average passenger car" I would hedge my bet and say that California is not running too many diesel powered passenger cars.

"IIRC, California is using more diesel than any single (non-US!) country including China for example, thus more than the UK, thus the pollution comparison here isn't going to work. IE, if diesel is bad, CA is the pits."

The problem with the UK's transportation "system" as it were is TAX.
The government for the last 10+yrs has used heavy heavy taxation to try and force people to do this and that, in the mean time all that tax money they collected has been spent and the polititians have gotten used to it coming in for their pet projects. The amount of tax that comes through fuel and VED tax is staggering, and the polititians spend it all.
However I think people realise now in the UK it really doesn't matter if they do what the government is trying to push or not (get rid of cars and take the bus for example) because in the end the tax burden will stay the same, so that means this huge taxation will just switch to something else, house tax, income tax, whatever.

Even if the public all started driving electric cars, it wouldn't save them not one penny, so where is the incentive now?

So how come the USA uses as much gasoline as the next 20 countries combined? (in 2003) Is that all due to non-passenger vehicles, i.e. mostly trucks? Or are there simply a huge number more cars in the USA?

Japan's average fuel economy for passenger cars is 45 mpg, so there's even further room for improvement. Like Britain, they use heavy fees to discourage car ownership. Car registration called a shakken is required every two years and usually runs about $3000. That's about ten times what I currently pay for my car for two years here in the state of Hawaii.

Let's face it....we (U.S.) consumes everything. Our mentality is "Excess is Progress." We need to chill. We need to drive less, quit driving big SUV's and muscle cars, and we need to start being environmentally conscious. We should have put more money in public transportation from the beginning and less on roads....we only made the big car companies and oil companies rich. We need to ride bicycles more, walk more, and for god sakes lose some weight.

We Americans are selfish. It's quite simple. We are a very consumer based economy where people want nice things and a comfortable life for themselves instead of thinking of the greater good. This includes land and space to spread out, which means moving to the burbs for affordable land, which means we can't bike to work since it's too far, which also means we can't build effective mass transit systems, because the burbs are so spread out. We now spend a large amount of our lives in cars and we want them to be big and comfortable. Now all this was possible as long as oil was cheap and we didn't worry about air pollution...

The average European has accepted living in apartments in dense city centers and being taxed like crazy for universal health care and good public transit. Yes, we have more land to spread out, but we don't actually have to. Historically we Americans have had a pioneering spirit to spread out and also to resist socialism, big taxes, and big government. This cultural difference isn't good for the environment and world at large...

It shouldn't be too difficult to build public transport into spacious suburbs.

Build light rail stations at regular intervals through the suburbs, and provide free (or very cheap) bike parking in the station building. If you're more than five minutes walk from the station and don't want to walk it, you'll have maybe a five minute cycle to the station (so not long enough to get sweaty, along safe, small suburban roads). Give your bike to the parking attendant, who gives you a ticket. Take the train. On your return, you use the ticket to get your bike back.

The UK is about the size of oregon, and yes Oregonians don't generally drive out of state. BUT, the UK has roughly 60 million people, whereas Oregon has about 2 million so population density is about 30 times greater in the UK. This means that the distance from your house to all the errands you do is going to be a lot greater in Oregon, hence the 40% more miles driven by US residents.

That's pretty fuzzy math, Mike. I doubt that the people of oregon are spread out evenly over the surface. Like the british, I'm pretty sure that most are clumped together.

These numbers are highly suspect. I drive a 2008 Subaru Outback in Houston, and am a very fuel-conscientious driver. However, I only get an average of 20 mpg per tank of gasoline. There is absolutely no way that the average mpg in America is 22.4 when you look at all the big Dodge Rams and Hummers all over the road. Either this is wishful thinking by the US Federal Government, or I am a much worse driver and un-huggable than I ever thought. I would guess that the average MPG in the US is actually closer to 10.

I hope whoever created these statistics figured in that a UK gallon is 25% more than a US gallon. Of course even so the UK is still doing a lot better than the US and if our gas prices were double what they are now I think the US would start to catch up pretty darned quickly (just as soon as all those SUVs have been crushed).

If you go to the UK you will notice there are many sub-compact diesel 30+ mpg cars as we have SUVs now which is probably just as well given how narrow the roads are compared to the USA.

--
editor: The UK MPG figure has been converted in US gallons in this post, so it is comparing apples to apples.

20 MPG - thats 11,7 l per 100 km. Are You sure? Outback has a pretty powerful engine and 4 WD, but still...
And as for 22,4 MPG average - now I see why americans are complaining about their car-makers. Thats still like 10,5l per 100 km? I feel sorry for You guys and hopefully You get more efficient cars soon.
Look on the bright side, at least there is plenty of room for improvement:P

"closer to 10" - you've got to be kidding. A Hummer gets 10 - so how could that be the average? Think #1 selling car - Camry - combined mileage is probably 27 - and people get 23.

Now - you do live in truck country so that may slant your view. There is absolutely nothing green about an Outback. Yes - it is worse than average - don't try and kid yourself.

Think of all the Civics and Corollas getting over 30. That balances the Hummers. A Tahoe probably averages around 16 - so a Civic could balance 2 Tahoes to 22 mpg. Now throw in the 5th best selling car - Prius - at real world 45 mpg or so. It balances about 5 Tahoes (to 22 mpg). So when you are driving and see 5 SUVs for every Prius - there you go 22 mpg. Now in Houston - I don't know but in lots of places there are relatively far more Priuses. In San Fran - I bet there might be 1 Prius for every 2-3 SUVs.

All the comparisons between England and Oregon are a little pointless. Sounds like people trying to justify wasting more oil because of our geography in the US. Yes we are more spread out - yes we are a bigger country and yes we drive more because of it - doesn't make it better. But it sure means we should have more efficient cars ... Right?

god DAMN. 38 MPG *average*.. that means there are a lot of vehicles that get MORE than 40mpg in the UK. US car companies PATHETIC showing here. and stop trotting out the "US safety regulations are worse in the US and those safeties kill mileage" what, people in the EU and UK dont enjoy equal or superior levels of consumer protection? STOP LYING.

UK Gallon is 4.5 Litres
US Gallon is 3.78 Litres

so the corrected MPG (or MP-USG) should be 32 MPG and not the quoted 38 MP-UKG

--
ed: No, the figure was already converted to US gallons.

Possible reasons for the difference.
Now don't get me wrong, Americans in general have some of the largest cars, the largest fuel consumptions, etc. There are a couple factors to consider,
Emissions and Safety standards, these are two major aspects of it. The US emissions and safety standards actually are more stringent than those required (currently) by folks in Europe and the UK.
Emissions means a car in the UK can have higher compression ratios, and release more various chemicals into the air, but consequently eek out a bunch more mpg. Diesel is one such fuel that loves higher compressions and can be amazingly efficient with really high MPG numbers, but releases a lot of particulate matter, and a lot of other chemicals into the air. Newer advances in Diesel have helped a great deal, but I've heard BMW's new clean BlueTec Diesel is still having trouble passing emissions requirements in many states in the US.
Safety in the US has a lot more requirements, which recently made cars even less aerodynamic (I think) to help with pedestrian impacts, more safety features inside and outside, all adding up to much more weight. More weight means more mass that the engine is having to move around, which means lower efficiency. I've heard it said if you haul 100lbs less weight in your car, your fuel economy will in general increase 2-6% ... imagine what 300lbs of safety equipment would do.
Between those two, where's the trade off point, Better MPG or lower chemicals being released, and what's the optimum point? I am not sure.

And you wonder why people don't take the "Green" movement seriously. Reading this article just shows how when massaged number and statistics can show anything and then a biased comparison is made to show that here in the US we hate the planet. I can't help but shake my head. The UK is tiny in comparison to the US and you are saying that an additional 3800 miles is just outrageous. I have never been so disheartened to see how harshly people react when they find out that in a country that is roughly the size of one state people drive less than people here in the HUGE nation that is the US. That is like being outraged that the population in road island is less than that of California... Apples to Wreaking balls comparison, WAY TO GO.

Anthony, stop playing the outraged victim. The article just gives number, doesn't say much about how to interpret them.

Why are cars in the US so thirsty? I drove a new Ford Mondeo for a distance of 119 miles at a steady 56mph and got 61.32 miles to a US gallon. The Mondeo is a 1.8l Turbo diesel but a big car as well. Admitted, it generally did nearer 42mpg (US) around town, but this is still far better than you are getting in the States.

The only reason cars are so fuel thirsty in the US is the market and people's acceptance of poor fuel consumption which lets the carmakers off the hook. If the demand was for lighter, efficient cars, this is what they would make as the technology exists - Ford and GM know how to do this.

As for diesels being more polluting than petrol - maybe slightly with NOX and PM10's, but in general terms, they are cleaner for C02 than petrol and far more efficient. To be honest, a modern diesel is far better to drive as well with loads more torque than a gasoline engine.

Demand efficient cars from the dealer and you can bet they will start building them. America has a huge car industry and could lead the world in this field - if it wanted to.

Unlike other posters, I actually looked at the British data. Now I may be missing something, but looking at section 3.4 "Average fuel consumption by age and type of vehicle and type of fuel", I can't find any MPG value for any year or vehicle type or combination of year or type that comes close to 45 miles per imperial gallon (approx 38 miles per US gallon). The average for all cars is 31 or 32 miles per imp. gallon which is about 26 or 27 miles per US gallon.