It received little notice in the national media but an item that appeared last week while I was on vacation on Autoblog by Eric Loveday should have sparked a cacaphony of remarks, analysis, and responses here in the nation's capital.
Quite simply, the latest sales numbers for cars with EPA CAFE ratings of 30 mpg or better were down by 10 percent in May, according to data cited by Loveday and compiled by Ward's Auto in it's Fuel Economy Index (FEI).
Overall, fuel efficiency for cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. continues to rise, but in order to reach President Obama's radical mandate for 35 mpg CAFE by 2016, automakers are going to have to sell millions more of the high mileage models tracks by Ward's Auto's FEI.
But the numbers are hardly encouraging, as Autoblog's Loveday noted:
"As the numbers show, vehicles with a rating of 30-plus miles per gallon have suffered a dramatic drop in sales. For the first five months of 2010, sales of vehicles with that 30-plus MPG rating have dropped by 10 percent compared to the same period in 2009," Loveday said.
"Overall, these high-efficiency cars accounted for four percent of the market in 2009, but now only hold a three percent share," Loveday continued.
"A few of these efficient vehicles suffered mightily: sales of the Toyota Camry Hybrid dropped 40 percent, Civic Hybrid sales plummeted by 77 percent and Honda Fit numbers fell off by 19.7 percent. Ward's Auto suggests that low gas prices have led to the decreased interest in fuel-efficient vehicles, which, can lead right into a discussion about the need for a gas tax once again."
Note that in one year sales of the highest milege vehicles dropped by 25 percent, when measured according to their market share.
So why aren't Americans buying these significantly more efficient cars? I suggest three main reasons. First, smaller cars simply aren't as practical for American families, especially those with school-age children.
If you've ever tried to take a Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday trip to Granny's and packed everything needed for two adults and three kids between the ages of three and 15 into a Honda Fit, you know exactly what I mean.
In short, there is a reason why God created the minivan. The reality is higher CAFE standards are the enemy of American family transportation.
Second, they may not be able to cite the academic studies or the NHTSA data that demonstrates it beyond any shadow of a doubt, but most Americans know in their gut that in crashes involving big cars and small cars, the latter lose, every time.
And when small cars run into big cars, more people die and are injured. The same ironclad truth applies when single small car accidents occur involving off-road excursions into immovable objects like trees.
Third, small, highly fuel efficient vehicles offer fewer comfort and convenience features. Features like power windows, orchestral-quality sound systems, and computerized navigation draw current. The more current going to the stereo, the less there is to make the wheels go round and round.
Automakers have done an impressive job of finding ways to equip high-mileage vehicles with enough comfort and convenience features to make them acceptable for daily use, but at a cost, both on the bottom line and in the ultimate fuel economy ratings achieved.
The reality is that every car or truck ever made represented a balance among a variety of factors, including price, weight, power, convenience, comfort, safety, and practicality. Boost one of these factors significantly higher relative to all other factors and something has to give: Less weight for more fuel efficiency means less power, comfort, safety and convenience.
But this is a reality policymakers in Washington, D.C. particularly those in the Oval Office, EPA and the Department of Transportation aren't interested in hearing.
You can read the full Autoblog post here.
UPDATE: The Auto Prophet offers more reasons
He's an engineer for one of the Big Three, so I tend to put great stock in the assessments of The Auto Prophet, especially in matters involving design and functionality. He offers four additional reasons to explain the paucity of enthusiasm among American buyers for small cars.
In doing so, The Auto Prophet points to a factor I had not considered, the apparent divide within the marketplace between buyers for whom great handling is a priority and those who prefer their vehicles to display comfortable ride characteristics traditionally associated with larger vehicles.
"Americans seem to be divided on how they want their cars to handle. Some of the best selling cars (Toyota Camry, Corolla) are comparatively squishy, while others (Honda Accord, Civic) have sharper handling and firmer rides. While it is not impossible to produce a small car with a softer ride, light weight and short suspension travel limits do make it more difficult," The Auto Prophet explains.
"Also, when efficiency is the overriding design factor, one of the easiest places to lose weight is in sound isolation materials. Do the 'silent majority' want little cars with go-kart manners (Mini, Smart) or do they want scaled down couches? Currently, most small cars are tuned more towards go-kart."
Like I said, it's all a balance among multiple factors, many of which are contradictory. You can read the full post from The Auto Prophet here.
Comments
Well stated, Mark!
Instead of government bureaucrats deciding what's best for Americans to drive, how about letting the American people make their own choices.
CAFE has been a disaster, that's why the SUV market was created. The federal government made car makers manufacture small cars that Americans didn't want. Through a CAFE loophole, car makers could make SUV's, which were the large vehicles Americans really wanted in the first place that had the room to comfortably and safely carry their families.
"If you've ever tried to take a Thanksgiving or Christmas holiday trip to Granny's and packed everything needed for two adults and three kids between the ages of three and 15 into a Honda Fit, you know exactly what I mean."
I know exactly that your assertion is flat wrong. I own an '04 Civic and have been able to pack 2 adults, 3 kids and all the gear needed for a weekend getaway. And everyone says it is more comfortable for the hours+ drive than the minivan. My Civic regularly hits 40 MPG on a tankful of mixed driving; in line with the EPA estimates for the Fit so I'm not buying the assertions.
The idea of CAFE is absurd. Now we're going to have to suffer AGW Morons in Congress with cap and trade BS.
My wife and I just returned from a nearly 500 mile trip in our 2002 Toyota Avalon. It's a six cylinder automobile and we got 32+ miles to the gallon. I do not want a tiny, uncomfortable box that costs $ 25,000 +.
ctd.
"Features like power windows, orchestral-quality sound systems, and computerized navigation draw current. The more current going to the stereo, the less there is to make the wheels go round and round."
Bravo Sierra again! To run those various features for an hour each takes the tiniest fraction of the kWh needed to get a 2 ton Civic moving from a dead halt. And I've got plenty of these items running in my Civic.
I think the real reason is that folks realize that the vaunted gas savings of hybrid vehicles do not translate into cost savings. I would have to drive a Civic Hybrid for hundreds of thousands of miles before I save enough gas money to offset the higher purchase price above that of a regular Civic.
Anyways, you can get 80 MPG for real cheap by driving a Vespa scooter.
Allow me to suggest another reason for America's preference for larger vehicles: We're getting older. When we purchased our last new vehicle, one of the factors we considered was how easy it would be for my father to get into and out of the car. He simply doesn't bend as well as he used to and it's hard for him to fit his 6 foot frame into a car with a low roof line. Similarly, while my wife and I can still get into smaller cars, it's not as easy as it used to be. Given that our population is aging, I'd have to think such concerns are playing an increasing role in vehicle choice.
The lack of hi-mileage car sales are partly a function of pricing. Dealers try to cash in on green-revolution buyers, by raising the car price to divert some of the driver's mileage savings to themselves. They've gone too far. If they'd sell high-mileage cars at reasonable prices, instead of trying to pocket the driver's future gas savings too, those sales would be higher than we now see.
I would say it has more to do with the simple fact that nobody really wants an econobox, or at least anything like that which currently comprises the economy market segment. Back in the day, if you wanted a tiny, reliable economy car for commuting or the 16-year-old or whatever, you bought a Honda Civic or similar. Because it was tiny, simple, reliable and cheap.
These days, a Honda Civic is next to none of those things, and has more in common with a Camry than the tiny runabouts of old.
I'd say that if Fiat, for example, actually does bring the 500 Abarth to the US market, you'll find a whole lot of people buying one. Not because it's a small, fuel efficient car. But because it's a fun fuel efficient car that is somewhat more interesting to drive than is the plain cheese pizza represented by the current market of econoboxes.
The CAFE nonsense is, has been, and always shall be a complete waste of time and money.
Once MPG gets above 22 or so, it's basically off-the-radar unless you're buying a long-distance commuter car or are a committed enviro. And even enviro families will have a Prius for a daily commuter and a Grandma roadtrip vehicle as their second car.
Another reason: I'm 6'9". What am I supposed to do with a Civic or Fit? One on each foot?
I think David hit one of them: when my parents looked for a new vehicle, the Explorer won in part because it was a LOT easier for mom to get in and out of it, compared to a low-slung car. Add in the greater space and safety, no contest.
Dad has worked just about every kind of accident you can think of over the years, and refuses to buy a car that doesn't have a frame precisely because he considers them safer. And most small vehicles tend to be unibody.
Technical factors such as safety, handling, or even operating cost don't seem to explain the drop in market share, because they were just as true when small car sales were higher as they are now. I expect there's a simpler explanation: smaller cars are more likely to be second (or even third) cars, and families are holding back on such purchases in the present economic climate.
Don't worry. Our betters in gov't will force the car companies to build only the cars they think we should have! It'll be a brave new world!
If you consider that a large portion of the public are two vehicle households, there's a couple of more reasons for the lackluster sales of efficient vehicles:
- People are being forced towards self-employment. Trades and services are the easiest to enter. If you have your family car with sufficient cargo space (or two), the decision is then fuel efficiency vs self-employment support. An additional influence in this regard is that fuel expenses on the self-employment support vehicle is a business cost. Sure, it reduces the bottom line, but it's still a business cost.
- Darn, now I forgot the other one. I'lll beeee back!
When I'm back home in Europe I drive mid size cars that easily get 40 m.p.g plus. And small cars that can do 60 m.p.g plus. They are called diesels. Maybe if the California Air Management Board can get over its pathological (and purely ideological) hatred of diesels we will start seeing some sanity and reason.
Plus why cannot I use a LPG conversion kit for my Subaru that has been sold and safely used in the Netherlands for more than 20 years without it being certified by the ARB? A process that costs many tens of thousands of dollars.
The ARB is one of the most reactionary and institutionally stupid organizations around. Just look at the MTBE fiasco which damaged hundreds of thousands of cars (cost me $300 in repairs) and did billions of dollars of environmental damage.
So, we trade higher fatalities for fuel savings. Whatever happened to no blood for oil?
I have a Diesel Jeep Liberty. I get 26+ MPG toodling around the city and 30+ MPG highway. This car has four wheel drive, a full frame, and weighs 4300 pounds. Works for me.
I'd love to have a 30mpg vehicle so long as it can haul me, my wife, two Saint Bernards and a weeks worth of groceries.
One missed, but obvious reason why Americans buy bigger cars is because Americans still have children. You know children, they are the people who are going to support you in your old age. So you are taking your son to hockey practice, you pick up another two or three kids, and you put them and the hockey equipment where? |You take your own three children somewhere. Have you seen the backseats of these small cars? Where do the children fit?
Why won't Americans all move to urban areas that have efficient transit systems obviating a need for cars?
That Freedom & Liberty thingie is so inconvenient!
Another practical but policy-driven factor is child safety seats.
I have two children in full-size seats and one in a booster. When we had two children, we drove an '03 Civic sedan but realized when the third child arrived that we couldn't fit three safety seats across the rear.
In the market for something accommodated three children in car seats, we checked all manner of cars on the market but it was readily apparent that we needed either a minivan, or a 7-seater SUV or a king-cab pickup, neither of which are incredibly fuel efficient.
We selected a Honda Odyssey. Interestingly, I get approximately 33 MPG on the highway with the family aboard.
"I know exactly that your assertion is flat wrong." CR, you know that his assertion is flat out wrong for you, but it might be flat out correct for other people. Just because a compact car is suitable for your family, doesn't mean that it's suitable for mine. Not everyone is physically built the same way, packs the same gear, has children of similar ages, or goes to the same places. You can't assert the reasonableness of CAFE standards based on your experience alone. Besides, some of us think that Honda Civics have all the comfort and feel of a bumper car.
Way back in the 1970's I owned a car that got 34 MPG freeway. It was a VW beetle: just a shell of sheet metal, no AC, no airbags, no comfort. I don't want to go back to that.
Several people have noted how fuel-efficient cars nowadays are neither simple nor cheap like the VW beetle of yesteryear. Given the higher cost of repairs and insurance (because smaller cars lose in accidents), and the equally-high cost of maintenance (because everything under the hood is computerized on small cars too) the actual total cost of ownership may often turn out to be equal to that of larger cars.
electric vehicles will see energy costs go up as well if congress gets it's way. fossil fuels create some 75% of our electricity.
We have a 2006 Chevy Silverado 2500 HD diesel that gets about 22 mpg on the highway. I would not happily give up our truck, with all its amenities.
I remember some years ago when I had a 1994 or 95 Honda Civic that would get 50 mpg if you never went over 55 mph with it. I took a trip to western South Dakota in August, and I found out that you could either run the AC and overheat the baby 4-cyl engine, or roast. Western SD in the summer resembles hell, so I opted for the AC as much as possible.
The comment about aging is so true. I'm 56, and still in good shape, but there are things I don't want to do again. I had a '73 Superbeetle many moons ago, and it was a pretty basic car, but not very comfy. I do not fondly remember "beetle butt" after a long day on the road in uncomfortable seats, and I would not be happy to return to those days. Not to mention the "2-55" AC--two windows open at 55 (or should I say 70) mph when it's 95 degrees. That does tend to wear you out after a while.
Can it really be true? I mean, we've all heard President Obama blabbing on and on about forcing the automakers to make the tiny little fuel efficient cars Americans want. He couldn't be wrong, could he?
>>>but in order to reach President Obama's radical mandate for 35 mpg CAFE by 2016
See, this is what I don't understand. Since it is as easy as passing a piece of legislation, why no mandate 100 miles per gallon?
"I know exactly that your assertion is flat wrong. I own an '04 Civic and have been able to pack 2 adults, 3 kids and all the gear needed for a weekend getaway."
CR, not sure where you did your driving but it would not have been legal in Florida, where I live, if the kids were pre-teen. It is simply not possible to fit the three legally required children's safety seats in back seat of a civic.
CA$H FOR CLUNKERS shifted demand for fuel efficient vehicles to 2009. Consumers are now regressing towards the mean.
Rented a Saturn Aura and drove 2000 miles over a week. Averaged 30 mpg. That was a month ago and I'm still suffering from a strained back getting in and out of that scooter.
Give me a Chevy pickup or Ford SUV that gets 30 mpg and sells for $30K, I might buy a new vehicle. But stick me with a Toyota Corolla for the same money, no sale. In the meantime I think I'll keep my paid for, 10 year old, 17 mpg pickup.
Where I live it's common to drive down the highway and see countless vehicles towing trailers full of ATVs, personnal watercraft, boats and in the winter months, snowmobiles. Not to mention the folks with their travel trailers of all shapes and sizes. But nobody will be able to tow a 40 foot fifth wheel travel trailer with a Prius. It will destroy countless sectors of our economy if these people can no longer tow a trailer full of toys to their favorite vacation spot.
Technical factors such as safety, handling, or even operating cost don't seem to explain the drop in market share, because they were just as true when small car sales were higher as they are now. I expect there's a simpler explanation: smaller cars are more likely to be second (or even third) cars, and families are holding back on such purchases in the present economic climate.
If you browse through different cars in fueleconomy.gov, you will see that many cars used to get a lot better mileage. Take the Honda Civic DX. In 92, it got like 52 MPG. Now you're lucky to break 35. I just traded my 02 Focus 4-door for a 95 Thunderbird with 4.6 v8. They get the exact same mileage on my 35 mile commute and occasional jaunt to town, and the T-bird is a ton more comfortable, quieter, handles better, and is a lot faster if I care to step in it..
Missing the largest component of the drop in sales: people who buy fuel efficient vehicles are doing so in order to save money on gas. Considering how bad the economy is, those potential customers are now instead choosing to save money by not buying a new car.
People who can afford the gas for a gas guzzler are continuing to shop as normal. People who are looking to decrease their expenses aren't car shopping...even for the relatively thrifty new cars.
Right now I save more in gas by carpooling in my minivan (we've got 3 kids) than I would by driving a prius. I would love a more fuel efficient car, provided it still allows me to be fuel efficient by combining trips and driving other people's kids around.
The other thing is that gas is just not that big a piece of the cost of operating a new car - If you drive 12000 mi/yr, the difference between 20 and 30 mpg is 200 gallons/yr or $500-600/yr. Going to 40 mpg only saves 50% more. The average new car costs ~$30k - 4-5 years of gas savings is in the same range as taxes and tags in some states.
Get rid of the billions in subsidies for big oil, then watch the prices at the pump rise and the thirst for fuel efficient cars skyrocket.
Why is the govt. mandating what companies build in the first place? The market should decide what is built, not the simpletons in D.C. Those of you who are willing to accept the many limitations of a small car, fine. Buy one. But do NOT advise the rest of us, with vastly different needs and desires than yourselves, on what we should be driving. Especially the obscenely rich, limo driving/riding hypocrites in the Democratic party.
Here's a way to increase the fuel efficiency of every gasoline vehicle on the road. GET RID OF THAT CRAPPY WATER(ALCOHOL)-GAS MIXTURE THAT WAS FORCED ON US A FEW YEARS BACK. My gas milage dropped 10% when I had to start using that crap in Virginia. I suspect that figure is close to the norm for every vehicle using that crap.
Had the Congresses and Presidents from 1990 to the present been steadily raising the CAFE standards over these past 20 years, people might be in more fuel efficient cars.
From 18 MPG in 1978, to 27.5 MPG in 1990, and no change at all in 20 years is both sad and pathetic.
There was approximately a rise of .8 MPG a year for 12 years at the start of CAFE. Had that progress continued, we'd be at 43.6 MPG today and in all likelihood both GM and Chrysler would still be solvent.
Interesting that the article mentioned a difference between cars tuned for comfort (large cars) and handling (small cars). Greater weight inherently creates better stability so big cars ride best.
I think our generally awful roads are an excellent reason why people are biased towards better ride. When I lived in Pittsburgh, the bumpy roads made me really appreciate the luxury of a large, heavy, great-riding car, and you can get great handling too if you spend the big bucks on a Mercedes or BMW.
I currently drive a borrowed Honda Fit, and I definitely hate the bumpiness, jerkiness and feeling of poorer quality I get.
A Mercedes S500 averages almost 20 miles a gallon. The Fit looks like it could average 40. In my current area in Florida, almost everything is less than 10 miles away. So typically it will cost me $3 round trip in the Mercedes or $1.50 in the Fit. Unless savings of $45 a month excite you, you're not going to care much about your car's economy.
D
My 2000 Jetta diesel gets 49 mpg highway even when driving hard, and 42 city. It replaced an old Geo Metro XFi that got 59 highway (1 liter 3-cyl engine, totaled in a hit-n-run, no injuries). The VW has fine handling, heated seats, A/C, power just about everything. I can't replace it now with anything else with similar mileage except a Prius or Insight; I don't like either of those cars. I'm not replacing it until it dies, or I can get a sedan / small wagon that gets at LEAST 45 mpg.
Left unmentioned is that according to the govts' own figures every 1 mpg increase in C.A.F.E. results in an additional 3,000 highway deaths per year. Ranks right up there with those manditory air bags that have killed or mained how many people? Count on big brother to consistently make matters worse.
Continually amazes me how Americans only consider half of the safety issues of cars. They only think about what happens once you hit something. Here's a news flash: that's PASSIVE SAFETY and it's just half of the issue.
The other half of auto safety is ACTIVE SAFETY. That's the ability to avoid the accident in the first place. Small cars with their better handling and lesser bulk are often better able to avoid an accident in the first place. This "other half" of the safety equation should also be considered by anyone buying a car.
Try driving an EV/Smart car in northern climes, in 10 ft. of snow and subzero weather or up and down a mountain or a country road! It seems that most of the commentaters are southern urban dwellers that haven't had that experience and are divorced from reality. Just how long will the battery last trying to get out of a "ditch"? That's why we still love our 4WD SUV's.
IIHS has published numbers disproving the myth that higher CAFE numbers mean more deaths. Same is true of the myth that bigger is safer.
Here's a fourth reason to add to your first three: When you're out of a job, buying a car that gets a few more miles per gallon doesn't make a lot of sense.
Interesting article but you make the same mistake most Americans do regarding safety: you only consider passive safety.
Auto safety consists of two parts: Active and Passive. Active safety is the car's ability to avoid an accident in the first place, and in this, small, agile cars excel, far more safe in this regard than tall, awkward handling SUVs.
SUVs are top heavy and roll over with much greater frequency than small, ground hugging cars. Their roofs crumple and people die.
Statistics bear this out, with SUVs having more passenger deaths per mile driven than conventional cars.
In short, SUVs are proven to be less safe than regular cars.
Yeah, but real men don't care.
For all the talk about children ("Where will I pack their hockey sticks?" etc), there's really very little interest in actually looking out for our children and grandchildren. They'll look back on conversations like these and hate us for trading fuel savings for soft, cushy rides in our big ol' pickups. Imagine if the Romans had invented internal combustion engines, and our civilization never found any oil at all because the Romans were the ones who had the party? Think about how soft and cushy your horse and buggies would be right now.
It come down to money. the newer more fuel efficient cars cost more than an average person can afford. Given the need to pay the mortgage, feed the family and keep the lights on, who has the $350 to $500 per month it cost to pruchase one, or two for most families who lead normal surbubran lives. The market should determine what is built, not the government. Where in the constitution doess it state that the government is in charge of transportation for each citizen? I shopped hard to find an acceptable car to drive that still cost me $325.00/month for a payment and has the reasonable space and comfort - and it gets 24 MPG in general driving. I'd love to be able to buy a $25,000 to $35,000 car, but since my office closed and I'm out of work I'll be lucky to keep what I have now.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!