New Study Says 3/4 Of Americans Favor 40 MPG By 2010

jnaggs June 6th, 2007 2:54 PM Link

this is rediculous. 3/4 of americans want increase in fuel economy standards. the other 1/4 know what they are talking about.

mandating fuel economy standards is a good way to guarantee that old inefficient cars will stay around a long time. people will buy what they want to buy and no technology on earth is going to get an full size truck or suv into the 40 mpg range. the number of people who want it to be so is irrelivant.

if you want to limit the amount of gas americans use, you have to influence the kinds of cars they buy. the best way to encourage smaller cars is with a gas tax.

now what percentage of americans are for that? i would be willing to bet that it is somewhere around 1/4.

Phil June 6th, 2007 3:06 PM Link

40mpg is very realistic even for SUV’s….. The probability of this happening by 2010 I would say is no likely. There is no reason cars AND SUVs cannot get more then 40mpg. The technology is there and probably has been for years. 3/4S of Amereicans are agreeing with this now obviously because of the high cost of fuel, if the price of gas was under $2.00 right now, no one would care whether they got 40mpg or 10mpg. The auto manufactures are pursuing ways of increasing fuel economy, with hybirds, multiple displacement engines and and a combination of hybird/multi-displ-engines. Finding wasy to reduce the weight of the vehicles will also increase fuel economy, though the cost of light weight materials that have the same strength as the materials that are being used now would cost more. But is the auto manufactures could find away to combine lighter cars with the other technologies 40 mpg is very realistic.

jnaggs June 6th, 2007 3:36 PM Link

“40mpg is very realistic even for SUV’s”

no its impossible, you dont know what your talking about

jnaggs June 6th, 2007 3:48 PM Link

ask an engineer, its never going to happen. a hybrid drivetrain increases efficiency about 25%. if the car was shaped like a sepasatory (spl?) that would add another 25%. so that would get you to maybe 20 combined. and noone is going to buy a $60 suv that lookes like the weinermobile and has no interior space.

even if they find new ways to eek out slightly more milage, its still about half the perposed minimum. so all the cars you sold would have to get at least 50 mpg. the prius doesnt even get that and it is designed from the ground up as a hybrid.

we are way beyond the point of deminishing returns with internal combustion engines. they are already amazingly efficient. there is just no use in squeezing the stone much more.

the only way to hit an avg of 40 mpg by 2020, or whenever, is for the market to decide to buy much smaller cars.

when you join me in the real world, then we can have a meaningful discussion on how best to do that. thanks

CHARLES G. June 6th, 2007 3:51 PM Link

75% are in favor of higher standards, but they probably think SOMEONE ELSE should buy those cars. Wonder what kind of vehicles those 75% drive?

Mena June 6th, 2007 3:52 PM Link

jnagss, the man just supported his argument and all you can is that it’s impossible? Where’s your data to support your assertion? YOU actually don’t know what you’re talking about bud.

detroit9000 June 6th, 2007 3:57 PM Link

Too bad they’re not the 75% with lobbying money.

There’s a simple solution to all of this. A $6 tax on gas. That one move would greatly help polution, lower our dependence on foreign oil, lead to better, more efficient cars, improve city planning, etc. Too bad the economy (which is sort of sick already due to reactive management) would take a massive pounding.

But, with all those diverted tax dollars, public transit would get a huge boost. Rail distribution would finally work _well_. People would stop putting the grocery store 10 miles from the houses.

Jnaggs - I am an engineer. One that even worked in Detroit. And I know how to spell “suppository”. I think you’re defensive and way off with respect to the potential of technology and innovation. These changes aren’t impossible, they’re just unprofitable.

B June 6th, 2007 4:06 PM Link

What a joke. Of course if you ask any schmoo on the street if they support 40mpg they’re gonna say yes.

Why? Because on the surface, why not? But if you told those people that they’d have to drive cars no bigger than a Honda Civic, with small, slow powertrains, how many you think would still support it? Cause you can’t get SUV’s, crossovers, etc to that number without an ungodly amount of expense, and even then it might not be possible. Even a midsize sedan like a Honda Accord would have issues averaging that amount. And if SUV’s can’t hit it, that means other cars will have to be higher to balance it out.

What a stupid question.

And beyond that, mandating 40mpg new cars doesn’t really actually mean they’ll end up on the streets! If that 40mpg car costs me an arm and a leg to buy it, while the price of gas stays low, you bet your behind (and most other people’s behinds too) that we’re gonna keep driving our low-mpg USED cars for a long time. Why would you want to spend all that money for something new when you can save a ton by driving used? They can add a $5000 hybrid drivetrain to everything on the road. Most people won’t be interested.

The previous poster is correct. High gas prices are the ONLY way to make this work, and quickly. If gas is $6/gallon, people will rush out to buy the brand new high-mpg stuff. The auto companies will produce it because the public demands it. People will stop driving as far and as often, stop living an hour each way from work, we’ll have tons of extra tax money floating around to maintain our road network, invest in world-class mass transit (that might actually be used since driving is expensive), and it might actually stop suburban sprawl. I see it as a win win win win all around, except for those who want to drive far and in large cars. But even then, the government isn’t saying they can’t be sold, people will still be free to choose to spend their money on whatever is available. High CAFE standards pretty much mean the companies won’t sell what doesn’t meet the standard. So even the people with desire and the money to still drive a SUV will likely find there probably won’t be many to choose from.

Anyway, this poll is so dumb. Its like asking people “do you want a mansion”? Hell yeah I do!! Without ever mentioning they’re gonna have to pay for it.

Phil June 6th, 2007 4:16 PM Link

Jnaggs-And I assume you know what you are talking about? Because you are an expert? The possibilty is there. The Ford Freestyle front wheel drive and the cvt transmission , can get up to 31mpg on the highway, and most average 27-28mpg highway. This isnt Ford Claims but from people who own the vehicle. If they would make it a Hybird, or Multi-disp-Engine, as you said there is a 25% increase that would give it a possible 38mpg… closing in on 40mpg. Then if they could reduce the weight say 200-300 lbs (which is possible, but would have a higher manufacturing cost depending on the materials), without sacrificing quality or structure of course, 40mpg doesn’t seem to impossible now does it. I can see you are a very positive thinker by saying “Thats impossible”. Like Detroit9000 say… they aren’t impossible just unprofitable and thats what it boild down too. When these technologies start to become more readily available and the cost factor is reduced then we will see them start to become more readily available. muti-disp-engines have been around more then 25 years. Cadillac introduced them in the early 80’s, the 4-6-8 engine. The problem was the computer technology wasnt up to par to properly and efficiently control these engines so it was abandoned. Now its back in many GM vehicles. So once again…. FAR from Impossible.

Mark Arnold June 6th, 2007 4:20 PM Link

A new study by the Pointless Question Institute says that more than three-quarters of Americans favor drastic changes to federal top speed standards. The survey’s findings indicate that 76 percent of Americans (and 78 percent of projected 2008 voters) favor a 240 mile-per-hour standard by 2010.

Travis June 6th, 2007 4:28 PM Link

My everyday driver is a 1986 Buick Electra (FWD). Granted its environmental qualities are not as good as today’s vehicles, but it still gets an honest 30-35 MPG on the highway. If GM could do that over twenty years ago with a full size car we should have vehicles that deliver substantially better mileage today. The manufacturers need to be pushed and the government not give in to their whinning excuses.

Don June 6th, 2007 4:37 PM Link

Translation: 3/4 of Americans want their giant-assed SUV’s to get 40 mpg by 2010.

RG June 6th, 2007 5:42 PM Link

To me there is not enough good information for me to place any value in this article. As with most statistical analysis the numbers appear the way the organization funding the analysis wants it to. Several things contribute to this, with questions asked being among the top. Without the data, parameters and survey itself it is hard to accept this article as represented here. The sample size seems extremely small for what is represents. 1019 / 302 million (current US population)=.00034% This sample is small even for a major city 1019 / 8.2 million (New York) = .012%

Christopher June 6th, 2007 6:01 PM Link

This sort of survey is crappy science. If you want to know people’s true preferences, see what they do.

The real reason so many Americans buy gass-guzzling SUVs is far simpler: they want them, plain and simple, and they’re willing to pay the price of running them.

If you want to reduce fuel consumption, if you want to encourage manufacturers to invest in alternative fules (without paying them to do so), if you want to reduce dependence on foreign oil, then TAX GAS. That’s the obvious answer and any serious economist will agree with you.

CAFE standards are ineffective and silly. Adding ethenol to gasoline is not only a bad idea but one that will actually accomplish the opposite of what it ostensibly is intended to accomplish (in truth, it’s pork barrel politics for corn farmers with good “optics”).

But what will work is taxing fuel consumption. Do that, and all else will follow…

Mena June 6th, 2007 6:24 PM Link

detroit9000,
“There’s a simple solution to all of this. A $6 tax on gas. That one move would greatly help polution, lower our dependence on foreign oil, lead to better, more efficient cars, improve city planning, etc. Too bad the economy (which is sort of sick already due to reactive management) would take a massive pounding.” The economy wouldn’t just take a massive pounding, it would grind to a near halt. You forget that we have a LARGE amount of property here in the US with 300 million people sprinkled everywhere. Is everyone going to just stop driving and take buses everywhere? What about vacations? Look at Memorial Day weekend and the drop in travel because of the current gas prices. Just imagine $6/gal. Vacation traveling would be non-existent. Vacation spots would dry up. National parks would not be visited and the revenue used for upkeep and such would vanish. But, hey, we’d be saving the environment and loosing our dependency on foreign oil!!!

Iain June 6th, 2007 6:35 PM Link

To those of you who say that a 40 mpg SUV is not possible, take a look at the performance of the diesel Nissan Qashqai (no, I have no idea how to pronounce that either) in Europe - 52 mpg according to Car Magazine. That equates to 41.6 mpg on a US gallon.

The point here is that with a decent (if small) diesel engine and a cross-over design, you can get an SUV-type vehicle with decent mileage. No, it will not pull a boat or seat 14 people. But it is still called an SUV, marketed an SUV and looks like an SUV.

Never say never…

And yes, this is a stupid question.

Christopher June 6th, 2007 7:43 PM Link

All public policy issues involve tradeoffs and costs. There’s no way around that fact of life. The problem with a lot of the debate about fuel economy is that nobody’s willing to be realistic about the tradeoffs, or the costs.

There’s no doubt that the only efficient way of reducing fuel consumption is through taxes. All other methods are not only inefficient, but potentially counterproductive. If you make cars more efficient, who’s to say that people won’t just drive more? Or drive even bigger vehicles that generate the same crappy mileage that today’s mid-sized SUV generate?

I’m all for improving the efficiency of vehicles, but only if that’s done via MARKET incentives. Subsidies to manufacturers (of any sort, including those to “spur” investment in new technologies), paying farmers to plant corn to add ethanol to gasoline, mandating higher fuel “standards” are NOT market incentives, they aren’t efficient, they spread costs to taxpayers in ways that are hard to measure (and essentially unfair).

If you want hugely more fuel efficient vehicles (for any reason), just increase the cost of fuel hugely. If you’re willing to live with more modest gains, tax fuel modestly. But politicans (and folks like us) have got stop pretending that somehow we accomplish the policy objectives without paying a price for them. It’s disingenous and makes for BAD policy decisions.

The recent announcement (this afternoon’s NYT) by Democrats to Detroit — that the manufacturers will have to expect higher CAFE standards — is exactly that. Bad public policy.

Johnny Rocket June 6th, 2007 7:50 PM Link

It’s fair to say most of these studies are bogus. We see a new study coming up with obviously stupid results. Let’s say carmakers do have a CAFE rating of 40 mpg by 2013. That would require removing a huge chunk of trucks from the market, dependence on small I-4 engines, and huge investmentds in engine modification resulting in low-output. That would subtract the stricter EPA mileage standards from the equation. Factoring that in…I don’t even want to think about it.

Russ Bellinis June 6th, 2007 11:58 PM Link

How can they interview 1000 people and then come to the conclusion that millions of Americans want high mileage vhicles. If their survey were true, why do suvs & pick ups out number Minis at least 100 to one on LA freeways?

Rip June 7th, 2007 12:34 AM Link

The Long Emergency, a book on oil and how it will shape our future - along with members of the President’s Energy Council, all agree that we’d better get used to $4 and then $5 per gallon.

For all of you who believe that burying your head in the sand is a sound solution ….. I hope you enjoy pushing your 5,000lb 14mpg truck!! Think of it this way, it’ll be the exercise program you never got around to doing!!

the law June 7th, 2007 12:38 AM Link

many people buy suvs and trucks for status.
why not charge a status tax, if the low mileage vehicle (under 35 mpg)is not used for business?
along with a moderate tax on fuel.
with the money from both taxes fix public transport make it world class.give a federal tax brake to those who own and use 35+ mpg vehicles.
diesel-hybrids are the way to!
who cares about global warming?
the Earth is the 3rd planet from the sun(which is HOT)! of course it is going to warm up eventually.when you put food in the oven does it warm up over time?or is that global warming heating your food ;)~
you tell me the people that can’t cure and purely don’t know what AIDS or cancer. know how gas or anything else effects the warming of our planet!

larry June 7th, 2007 1:56 AM Link

Everyone just calm down.. I think Christopher makes the most intelligent and reasonable point. It can be done. It may take a long time to do so, but sooner or later, either us or our children will have realize this. It’s always easier to do nothing.. just look at the biggest example. America is supposed to be the land of big ideas, insight, leadership, and innovation.

Jeff June 7th, 2007 7:59 AM Link

Lower the CDL requirement to 8000lb GVWR, excluding rented vehicles like U-Hauls. Allow loan interest to be deducted, just like mortgage interest, on vehicles that get 10% above CAFE or higher. There are several things we can do to disincentivize gas guzzlers.

No one has yet mentioned aerodynamics. SUVs can only be made so aerodynamic. Frontal area will always be a problem. A certain amount of power, and thus fuel, is needed just to overcome aerodynamic drag. You can’t change the laws of physics. Trying to make a fuel-efficient SUV is like putting lipstick on a pig. It make look a bit better, but it’s still a pig. The same efforts applied to proper passenger cars will yield much bigger rewards.

Russ Bellinis June 7th, 2007 1:18 PM Link

I think the governments “cafe” standards have already had an adverse effect on the energy situation, and I doubt that tougher standards will do anything but make it worse. Families need vehicles large enough to provide transportation for the whole family. They may have a second or even second and third small fuel efficient car, but they must have at least one big enough to haul the whole family. The cafe standards effectively outlawed the traditional station wagon and forced families into large suv’s. A traditional station wagon can be made more streamlined to give it better fuel mileage than the truck based suv, but because of weight, it can’t meet cafe standards. If the cafe standards are raised to force people out of their truck based suv, expect families to buy what ever the smallest vehicle they can get that will give them the room they need for the family vacation, hauling the kids to soccer practice, etc. Adding taxes to fuel, which then gives people a choice as to whether to buy that bigger vehicle and pay the extra cost for the fuel is the way to go, but it won’t happen. Tougher cafe standards “looks” like a “painless” way to solve the problem. Unfortunately, we don’t have any tough politicians who will have the courage to do what needs to be done. They all will try to weasel out and put a bandaid on it, and leave the tough choices to the next politician elected to the office they now hold.

Mark June 7th, 2007 1:27 PM Link

First, this is a poll from a very biased activist group promoting an agenda. On those grounds alone, it is useless.

If people supported this, they would be buying the current vehicles today that are high fuel mileage. They are more than in the past, but not anywhere to the degree that this pool implies.

This is useless PR nonsense. It should be ignored, instead it will be embraced by the media and politicians.

In 10 years, when people are back to driving cars that go 0-60 in 20 seconds, the same 3/4 of the population will bitch about how slow they are now. Too funny. Careful what you wish for.

Mark June 7th, 2007 1:33 PM Link

Here’s another thought. Let’s regulate the hell out of people that drive long distances to work. Driving 40 miles to work in a 40 MPG car is much worse that 5 miles to work in a 20 MPG car. How about people that travel in heavy traffic? Let’s regulate them too so they can’t go to work when there is traffic.

Get used to the idea that the extremists want to control where and how you live.

Christopher June 7th, 2007 1:52 PM Link

While it may be true that there are extremists in this country and perhaps they even want to control where (and how) folks live, but I don’t really think they’re central to this debate.

To my mind, what’s happening here is that the democratic process is doing what it should: it’s sorting through competing objectives and balancing competing interests/agendas. That part of it is all fine and good.

Not only do I *not* have a problem with looking closely at issues like global warming, pollution, conservation, and reducing our dependence on foreign inputs, I think it’s critical that we do look closely at those issues.

I may not necessarily agree with the positions different folks take, but that doesn’t mean that these issues aren’t important or that they don’t merit consideration by all of us, directly, and through our representatives. That’s part of living in society.

The problem I have is that nobody’s being honest about the tradeoffs involved or the costs in addressing these issues.

I’m appalled when ethenol gets put forward as a viable solution to reducing energy dependence (it’s not; in fact, net-net, it’s likely to increase energy consumption when you add in the fuels used by farmers to grow corn) or an economical way of reducing fuel costs (it’s not; in fact, it’s a subsidy to big corporate farms from everyone who pays taxes).

I’m appalled when politicians subsidize automobile manufacturers to develop new technologies. All that means is that there’s insufficient demand in the marketplace for improved fuel efficiency, so manufacturers don’t feel the need to invest on their own. Why should I have to pay GM to produce something I don’t want to buy?

The problem with the debate surrounding fuel consumption is that politicians aren’t willing to talk honestly about it. And they aren’t willing to talk honestly about it because WE, the TAXPAYERS and the CITIZENS, allow it. In the end, we’re the problem because we refuse to be grownups and engage in an adult conversation about how to best weigh the tradeoffs and costs in this important debate.

Shame on us. All of us.

jnaggs June 8th, 2007 1:23 PM Link

oh boo ho, im mean and i cant spell things that go up the butt.

the fact remains, a full size suv is not going to get anywhere near 40 mpg. if the whole thing were made out of carbon fiber, it was a dual mode hybrid and the engine was a clean diesel and came with all the cylinder deactivation and other fuel saving gizmos, then it might get close. but that is a $200k+ vehicle. if you owned the vehicle for 10 years and the price of gas rose to $10/gal, it would never come anywhere near breaking even.

if it isnt economically feasable, thats the same thing as it being impossible. GM, Ford and Toyota are not NASA. They do not have unlimited budgets to achive a one time goal. They have to come up with solutions that they can sell for slightly less than what its costs them.

engineering is all about tradeoffs. you cannot have a vehicle that is safe, efficient, big enough for 5 people and all their stuff, has a decent range with a refillable fuel source, and is affordable. something has got to give.

since safty is already mandatory, and efficency is about to become mandatory, do you want a small car or an outrageously expensive car? those are your 2 choices.