Fact: The shift towards larger vehicles in general hasn't exactly helped, but it hasn't hurt, per se, either.
Since my parents bought their first Chevy Suburban in the early/mid 1990s, I wondered why people thought mpg was the only important metric. A Suburban, my not-quite-adult brain reasoned, could carry ~60% more people, and more stuff than a sedan, so mpg/person or some other metric made for a more apples-to-apples comparison. In this light, the Suburban was "equivalent" to a sedan getting ~20 mpg, while it may have only achieved 12mpg itself. Of course this logic was imperfect, but my curiosity back then was the same as it is now; are all the accusations lumped upon SUV inefficiency true? Are they really the gas-guzzling Earth-destroying behemoths many critics would have us believe, or is there more to the story?
Well, the results are interesting, although not too surprising in thindsight.
Since 1990, Light Truck fuel efficiency (as measured by weighted average mpg ) has increased 72%, while car efficiency decreased 23%, although the latter appears to be affected by the substantial shift away from small cars we discussed yesterday. So, despite the shift away from small cars, and Medium and Large SUV sales increasing 392% and 2575%, respectively, total fleet-wide fuel efficiency actually increased, but only barely so, at a paltry 1%.
On an absolute basis (i.e. not weighted for market share), large SUV fuel efficiency increased 25% and mid-size SUV increased 29%. As a matter of fact, fuel efficiency has increased mostly across the board since 1990, and even more since 1980. Here's the same chart including data from 1980 and 1985 showing the gains in fuel efficiency during the 1980's:
I should mention here that this data is fairly noisy, as firm's
try to game C.A.F.E
and other regulations, Automakers' marketing and incentive schemes change, etc. Regardless, what we've seen over
the better part of the past two decades is that while consumers
consistently preferred larger new vehicles - both cars & trucks - to smaller ones, overall
fuel efficiency (again, for new vehicles) has effectively stayed
constant, driven primarily by gains in fuel efficiency across virtually
all vehicle classes. Of course, if consumers and producers had
incentives to purchase and produce more fuel-efficient vehicles, we'd
see an increase, but that's a discussion for another time. Besides,
former Car & Driver Editor Csaba Csere said it far better than I
can here, way back in 2007 even.Editor's Note: Wednesday this author debunked his first US Auto Myth: That Americans want smaller cars.
Just to clarify, as I used it, Weighted Average Fuel Economy = category mpg * category market share of U.S. New Vehicle sales. The purpose of this calculation is to capture the contribution of both sales mix (consumer preference) and vehicle fuel efficiency increases.
The 12 mpg suburban in your example is only equivalent to a 20 mpg sedan when it is in fact carrying 60% more people than the sedan does. How often does that happen? Most vehicles are driven with one person in them which is why mpg is the only reasonable metric.
As I said, my childhood logic was imperfect, but the problem is while anectodal evidence lends support to your point, I'm not sure what data is available from which to draw any conclusions. For what its worth, growing up there were usually at least 4 of us in the car with lots and lots of stuff, having the Suburban definitely was a plus in that regard.
Also, let us not forget about newer technologies that are beginning to permeate the truck/suv market such as hybrid powerplants, cylinder de-activation, etc, relatively recent additions to the fleet that can make substantial differences in fuel economy.
Imperfect? How about your market predictions, old buoy? You dismiss anecdotal data, turn right around, and ask us to accept - anecdotal data. Yours. What's the matter? Don't like ours?
Fine. There IS plenty of actual, hard observation on how many bodies fill cars and trucks, on average. The figure I recall is not very encouraging, either. And it invites a snicker at anal cyst's claim that there's any passenger-capacity justification for having an SUV rather than a sedan.
The very fact - and fact it is - that real fuel economy has increased by so meager an amount testifies both to the inertia in habit and to the huge improvements, savings, and increased security we might easily attain by driving more efficient vehicles.
If I were less of a gentleman, I'd quote the Principal from "Billy Madison" in response to your incoherent comment, lucky for you, I'm not in such a prickly mood.
To what or which prediction(s) are you referring? I'm not quite sure what you're talking about, but if you have some additional information you'd like to contribute, please do for all of our benefit.
I rode a moped back in the 70s, getting 120 mpg. At the time, Consumer Reports pointed out that a station wagon (remember them?) with six passengers got as good fuel economy per person than one person on a moped. Assuming I could find six reliable carpoolers, and that we could agree who had use of the wagon when, that would certainly be the way to go, but:
"Even more pronounced, however, has been the increase in the number of
work trips made by driving alone, adding 22 million vehicles to the nation's roads over the 1980s. Driving alone is now the mode of choice for almost three-fourths of all U.S. commuters." (1998)
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rrd_30.pdf
Thanks for the link, I appreciate it!
In either part 3 or 4 I'll be delving into some areas including miles driven, patterns, etc, so stay tuned!
Isn't this in some ways the reverse of the hoped-for result from the Cash for Clunkers program?
Sales of new SUVs and/or light trucks (however you want to categorize them) goes up and replace a car, or sale of a car, which could be getting higher mileage. Granted I in no way think MPG is the one and only driver of demand.
Also I saw at least one article, in BusinessWeek I think, as GM moved to bankruptcy that indicated one reason it couldn't move production away from SUV's was its legacy benefit costs. The extraordinary benefits, compared to competitors, acted like a fixed cost that demanded short-term decisions to ensure enough cash came in to pay them. This pulled money away from developing a diverse fleet of vehicles that may have helped GM avoid its current situation. Throw GM's creaky and sclerotic management on top of this and well, we see where they landed.
The BW article
I think that's maybe 1/2 true (the 1st part of your comment); GM and Ford both have foreign (non-US) subsidiaries that make cool (enough) small cars, they just don't sell them here...
Also, I'm pretty excited to see what the UAW does now that they're both the cost and shareholder with mutually exclusive, conflicting goals. The question becomes then, do they screw existing retirees/beneficiary, or do they screw the new ones? One thing is certain, they're going to end up screwing themselves one way or another.
It seems like the only meager attacks readers are able to levy against your anal_ysis is in regards to what you yourself call an imperfect logic. While it would obviously be great if, when people drove alone, they drove small sedans, and when they drove in groups, used the SUV's only then, that's really not quite how the world works. Unfortunately, I also only have anecdotal evidence, but growing up, in a family of 5, my mother would drop myself and my 2 siblings off at school out of her minivan, then drive an hour through Los Angeles to work. We weren't the type of family with the money for 2 cars.
I think my point is that driver occupancy is not a one dimensional discussion, and it seems very difficult to quantify in anything other than very broad terms. Moreover, it doesn't even seem to be the main point of your post, which appears to me to be that SUV's have improved in fuel efficiency. I've enjoyed both of your posts so far, just as I usually enjoy your comments on other posts, and look forward to the rest of the series!
Brad Blasiar
Glad you enjoy, I'll try not to disappoint going forward.
You are correct, that based upon the data I analyzed, SUV's are actually getting MORE fuel efficient, and while they may not compare to a car with the same passenger capacity (not to say GVWR), they're getting much better.
The whole myth/reality approach though was spurred by all of the flapping heads, industry types, and lawmakers spouting off whatever nonsense serves their interests without citing fact or data. So far we've seen that Americans have been buying bigger vehicles, and that while SUV's have room for improvement in efficiency, they're making progress, contrary to much of what I've seen/heard.
Sure, don't blame the SUV for the increase in fuel prices. But the other comments make some valid points. Rarely do SUVs carry around more people and more things than could fit in a Corolla or some other small sedan. Granted, the data you show exhibits an improvement in SUV mpg. In a perfect world where those vehicles were filled to capacity, I'd say Yay! and run out and buy a Land Cruiser.
The problem is, SUVs aren't good vehicles for quick trips with just one or two people running errands. They aren't good vehicles in light of the extra materials it takes to build them. They aren't good vehicles in any situation EXCEPT when filled to capacity. And even then, I would argue that an equal number of people and cargo could be fit in a more fuel efficient vehicle.
The other problem with SUVs isn't the vehicles themselves, but the mindset behind the purchase of such vehicles. Bigger = Better was the motto in the past. This has to change. People need to look for the smallest purchase - whether cars or houses or whatever - that they need. Not the largest they could imagine a use for.
Lastly, while I respect your attempt to dispel a myth, I wonder: What good does this post actually do? At best, every SUV owner suddenly begins packing 7 people inside with enough equipment to outfit a high school football program. At worst, it allows someone to justify getting their SUV on the CHANCE that they might someday, in some situation, fill it to capacity.
If you are going to post here, can you get a different name? I feel bad for Wendell Holmes, Sr. seeing his magazine is publishing an author whose pen name is a pun on anal sex.
If "Weighted Average Fuel Economy = category mpg * category market share" you should adjust the Y axis title on the graph to the correct title (not mpg). It almost looks like a deliberating misleading graph to make it seem like small cars are getting worse mpg during the time period, or that the mpg of the cars themselves are converging as opposed to a vague index of consumer demand for car mileage in general.
You should address Nate Silver's arguments in a future installment, where the real issue is miles driven not cars owned.
I could be wrong, but due to experience with previous postings by the author, and his "anal" insistence on only debating through verifiable facts and studies, as well as the author's insistence on questioning sloppy studies, I had always assumed the anal in anal_yst was more a reference to the obsessive compulsive type of anal. Also, note the response to Donal, where he says in a future post he will be addressing miles driven, driving patters, etc.
You'd be correct in that interpretation. A little back story for ya'll, around Analyst training a Director noticed I had slightly more than a keen eye for finding inconsistencies in font size/typeface, alignment, etc, so when it came time to come up with a moniker, Anal_yst seemed appropriate. Of course, some interpret it as sexual, and its their prerogative, but it'd be wrong, for whatever its worth.
Again, not a play on anal s@x, but moving on to your material critiques. Since you're more mathematically inclined than I (seriously, I've read your blog and like it alot), I would rather swallow what little pride I've got left and stand corrected than present misleading material, although I promise there is no intention to do so.
I'm not quite sure I understand why MPG isn't an appropriate Y-axis label here, though. Would "weighted average mpg" be more appropriate? Appreciate the commentary, please keep it up!
Hahaha Anal like obsessive. Sorry! Oliver Wendell Holmes roles back right-side-up in his grave :)
Is the data on the Y-axis "mpg * consumer market share" or some other consumer data? On a first read, without reading any text, I assume the graph is showing me that small cars and SUVs converge in mpg. That during the time period the average small car lost mpg.
I agree with you that mpg isn't always the best measure for these stories, but that graph makes me think the opposite (small cars lost mpg) of what happened (small cars gained mpgs, market bought less of them) happened. All good stuff though.
I believe that, if you check some stats, you'll find that average fuel economy for a vehicles (excluding commercial ones) on the road around 2007 was about the same as it was for 1975. That average mileage had been on a downward trend for years.
One logical reason would be the increase in very inefficient suvs and pickups. Beginning with the second gas shortage of 1979, the average size of autos had been decreasing. Midsize cars like the Camry and Accord became the norm while large vehicles like the Crown Victoria became a rarity. SUV and pickup sales increased dramatically during the 90s
The SUV replaced the station wagon, another vehicle that became a rarity. The minivan was another form of station wagon replacement. Also the very form of the SUV, at any size, seems to be inefficient. Small SUVs/CUVs get much less mileage that similarly sized, and even bigger cars. Compare a Honda CRX to an Accord or a Rav4 to a Camry and it becomes obvious.
One other thing that contributed to reduced gas mileage was an increase in weight for most vehicles. As an example, one can look at a 1975 VW Rabbit (which I owned) and see that it weighed about 1800 lbs and got about 40 mpg highway. An 09 Rabbit weighs about 3000 lbs and gets about 30 mpg on the highway. You can replicate that with virtually all brands and models. Some people attribute the weight gain to safety and emissions requirements. I do not know that, but I do know that the weight of newer cars is far heavier than similarly sized ones of 30 years ago. The increased weight means that cars need bigger engines. That 75 Rabbit had 78 hp and was fast as hell. Today the Rabbit has 170.
So, you would have an overall decline in CAR efficiency do to heavier weight. However, since most cars sold are midsize or smaller, It would not be that great, as the midsize and compacts replaced very large, very inefficient full size cars. So you're back to the big jump in inefficient SUVs and pickups. Many of the popular ones of the 90s and earlier 2000s got mileage that's far worse than giants like the Oldsmobiles and Lincolns of the 70s
Ed,
Did you not look at the above charts, or even read the post? I'll be putting-up the data for you to check yourself, but I don't think you and I are looking at the same dataset, given your comment. Care to enlighten me where you found numbers to support those conclusions?
What is this "weighting" you're using? It shows average car fuel economy at about 15 mpg. That's insane. It's virtually impossible to buy a car that gets 15mpg. Why are you using any "weighting" in the first place? Mileage isn't fungible. It is what it is. Are you still saying that, since a big vehicle holds more people it should be weighted? Stand on any corner and watch the cars, and SUVs, go by. 90% will have one occupant. That's reality.
Your chart from 80 onward does show a drop in average CAR mileage, which ties to my comment about weight increasing. However, your assertion that people "abandoned small" cars would have to be taken in light of what "small" means. Is a Camry small? Well it's a lot smaller than an 80 Impala.
Midsize cars rule the roost as far as car sales go, and that's been the norm for many, many years. Also. 79-80-81 was a banner period for small cars due to the Carter gas shortage. After Reagan deregulated oil prices dropped and people started buying bigger cars, but not gargantuan ones. Later SUVs became "cool" and they started to sell.
Look at just one "midsize" SUV from; The Chevy Trailblazer from 02 through 08. It gets a whopping 16 mpg combined and never improved. The bigger they got from that the worse the mileage. Even if they "improved" the mileage still stank. Now, makers did introduce smaller SUVs. That could make it look like mileage was getting better. However, as I mentioned in the first post, their mileage is far WORSE than comparable sized cars. Just look at the specs on ANY car makers site.
I hope you realize that you're in a world of one with claims that the growth of SUV sales did NOT lower mileage. You can't even find an employee from one of the Detroit 3 that will dispute that.
By the way, when you want to look this stuff up, cars.com and edmunds.com are your friend.
The data is weighted toward market share for that year.
You should probably read the EPA's report on this:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r08015.pdf
The increase in light truck fuel efficiency is attributed to the use of advanced technologies (variable valve timing). The manufacturers resorted to using these technologies largely due to CAFE standards, which have increased in recent years for light trucks while car CAFE standards have been unchanged. To some degree CAFE standards worked as intended, but are ultimately a totally backwards way to increase fuel economy among cars people buy. The most efficient way to do this is to impose a hefty gas tax that will create a semi-permanent economic incentive for consumers to buy fuel efficient vehicles. I say "hefty" because 2008 demonstrated the price inelasticity of gasoline.
I think every reasonable person I talk to who knows something about the auto industry acknowledges the ineffectiveness of CAFE standards and the power of a gasoline tax. Unfortunately, the conclusion we always come to is along the lines of "it'd really take some balls to institute a $2 gas tax".
I suggest re-doing your graphs because they're small and hard to read with your color choices.
Sorry, I didn't see your post before I posted mine below. Thanks for the link to the EPA report.
Sorry about the graphs, when I post the Excel files (which inlcude all of the original data, links to where that data was Dl'd from, etc) they'll be better.
Here is some information from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_09.html
The table shows that the average miles per gallon ramped up from 13.3 to 16.4 between 1980 and 1990, but then has ranged between 16.6 and 17.2 (the last two years of the table, possibly due to when gas started going up). There are a load of good reasons in the comments why this may be so, and one of the effects of more efficient SUVs is that they make a replacement choice for a larger sedan.
Cheap gas and the choice not to increase CAFE led to the demand and/or choice to buy more powerful cars, and thus increase our overall need for oil, but the increase in gas prices is also due to the global demand that has recently shot up due to increased wealth (at least prior to the recent crash). I wish CAFE (and clean air standards for that matter) would include trucks in the calculations, but that takes a government with more backbone. Whoops, sorry for the digression.
To point to one variable (buying SUVs) as the cause for our increase in dependence on foreign oil is a gross oversimplification of what has been happening globally, so SUVs are not the cause of all that ails the country and the car industry. But I still get peeved when someone needs to make a 20-point turn with their Hummer to get into a parking space.
Do you what do your comments sound like when we pay attention to them from here in INDIA? You sound like a group pf murders who are celebrating the fact that instead of using a knife with jarred edge you people now use a smooth knife.
The most popular car sold in INDIA is the Maruti 800. Most Americans laugh when they hear about its configuration. The car has only an 800cc engine and runs 18kms in one liter that is roughly 32 miles to a gallon whne it carries 4 people. It was released in the market in 1985 and to this day it sells like hot cakes. The main reason is the INDIAN mentality that a car is a vehicle it should carry people from point A to Point B and secondly there is no pride in burning green stuff and throwing it in the air. Even cars that were released in 2008 with latest technology that match Euro II emission norms and safety standards, like the A-star boast of 30 miles to a gallon. These are verifiable facts you can go check them out.
The Indians usually do not link their egos to the size of their vehicle. That is not rational thinking. The air polluted in India will affect an Austrian's lungs just as bad. The air polluted in USA will hurt and Australian just as much because ecology knows no political bouindaries. So lets save our planet.
Do you what do your comments sound like when we pay attention to them from here in INDIA? You sound like a group pf murders who are celebrating the fact that instead of using a knife with jarred edge you people now use a smooth knife.
The most popular car sold in INDIA is the Maruti 800. Most Americans laugh when they hear about its configuration. The car has only an 800cc engine and runs 18kms in one liter that is roughly 32 miles to a gallon whne it carries 4 people. It was released in the market in 1985 and to this day it sells like hot cakes. The main reason is the INDIAN mentality that a car is a vehicle it should carry people from point A to Point B and secondly there is no pride in burning green stuff and throwing it in the air. Even cars that were released in 2008 with latest technology that match Euro II emission norms and safety standards, like the A-star boast of 30 miles to a gallon. These are verifiable facts you can go check them out.
The Indians usually do not link their egos to the size of their vehicle. That is not rational thinking. The air polluted in India will affect an Austrian's lungs just as bad. The air polluted in USA will hurt and Australian just as much because ecology knows no political bouindaries. So lets save our planet.
First of all, that's all well and good for the cars you drive, but what about the rest of Indian industry? Just googling country rankings in pollution gave me this website:
http://www.photius.com/rankings/
The second group of rankings is Environment. In greenest countries, the US is 23, India is 104. In the environmental performance index, US is 39, India is 120. In the most dangerously polluted cities category, India has 5 of the top 20, including 2 of the top 3, while the US has none.
As far as the type of pollution that "knows no political boundaries", which is true, the type of pollution you refer to, that affects Austrians' lungs just as bad, does know geographic boundaries. As anecdotal evidence, take Los Angeles in the late 80's and early 90's: the smog was so bad that there were red flag days where children weren't allowed outside due to harm to lungs. San Francisco, which is much closer to Los Angeles than India, had no such days, because the smog problem was due in part to the geography of the area, namely the Pacific winds pushing the smog against the Rocky Mountains such that it had no room to dissipate. For a graphic representation, see this chart on deaths from urban air pollution:
http://www.allcountries.org/maps/urban_air_pollution_maps.html
If you subscribe to the Global Warming theory, you would be more correct, but you didn't. In any event, while I admit there is more the US can do to work on our impact on the environment, these types of lambasting, proofless rants seem to me to be the exact purpose of this myth-busting series by anal_yst. There is so much disinformation assumed without any proof it makes addressing the problem, whether it be pollution or Global Warming, next to impossible, and actually harms the process much more than it helps.
Ego often prevents people from admitting their own fault. Especially when all that logic is presented by someone from an inferior and weaker nation. You do not realise that the argument you just presented actually reinforced my postion. Industries in India pollute the environment to produce goods that are eventually used by people in USA and other developed countries. The same goes for other developing countries like China, Indonesia, Taiwan, Thailand and Malaysia. The profit generated by this production is scooped up by your banks blissfully. The developing countries pollute and produce goods, for the developed ones to purchase and then, enjoy profits fromthe same. So you are not purged of guilt.
When you decided to stop these industries a decade ago, you did not actually stop them. You just decided to shift them to other countries so that the weaker countries bear the social and environmental burden. The fact that doing all of that would be cheaper in the weaker countries convinced the industrialists and politicians.
When your companies in USA etc. exclaim about the markets in India and China they imply that USA is still the LARGEST market, but it will not grow any bigger so they are worried about future growth. However India and China offer a cheaper alternative for production today and a hope for a big market later.
Developed countries still consume most of the world's profits directly or indirectly. Then you face another dilemma. If you buy the goods made in these developing countries you pollute. If youdo not then the bank that gave you the credit card may not have enough funds.
There has to be a more environmentally way of running these industries. Ultimately, if the buying stops the killing can too.
Indians may not link the size of their car with their ego, but they also don't seem to link it to the amount of pollution their cars produce:
Rapid Increase in Number of Private Vehicles in New Delhi Threatens to Erase Air Quality Gains Since 2000
The small cars burn lesser fuel than the bigger cars. When the cars are remarkably more fuel efficient for their own size then the pollution caused by them is far more tolerable.
Inspite of that articles such as the ones mentioned above can be seen because when those small cars are concentrated in one city then inspite of being less damaging to the environment the small amount of smoke generated by them is concentrated in one area. Such situations alarm environmentalists.
The panick is fuelled when they compare the situation with a decade a ago when roads were few and vehicles on them were fewer still. Today each car produces lesser smoke because it burns lesser fuel and the total amount of vehicular traffic is still far lesser in Delhi when compared to large cities in USA.
We cannot stop travelling in cars but we can use public transport more often. I wonder why Brad cannot apreciate the introduction of Metro Rail in DILLI. Metro Rail will help reduce pollution. More electric scooters are being purchased to deliver pizzas in DILLI i've seen the in the PANDARA Road Market. These and several other measures can be adopted for the benefit of entire humanity.
Wow, your post is a nice illustration on what Churchill meant in his famous quote about statistics. The facts about rising or falling fleet mileages have absolutely nothing to do with the question you are trying to address.
I believe the quote you're searching for is attributed to Mark Twain (Samuel Longhorn Clemens), but that is most certainly not the biggest weakness in your comment.
If you disagree with a point, fine, don't just run your mouth, provide some actual evidence to the contrary. I don't even know what you're trying to say, so why even bother saying it?
These graphs might support the argument that cars became less affordable as automakers shifted to producing larger vehicles and SUV's.
Average vehicle price in real 2006 dollars looks like it remained relatively flat, slightly downward trend after 2000 or so.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/facts/2008_fotw520.html
Nominal average income in the U.S.
http://www.visualizingeconomics.com/2006/08/15/average-income-in-the-united-states/
American income growth has slowed since 1970 or so and that would tend to make bigger, more expensive, vehicles less affordable. So there's a decent chance that Americans had limited choices and there was a lack of smaller, affordable, entry level vehicles.
Comerica's auto affordability index only goes back to 1979, but it didn't decline until 1997:
http://www.comerica.com/Comerica_Content/Corporate_Communications/Docs/Auto_Affordability_Index.pdf
And with a major demographic group like baby boomers (~30% of US population)aging, they would tend to buy larger and larger vehicles during the period you look at. They loved the Mustang and original Beetle when they were kids in the '60s, but wanted bigger cars for their families, and suburban lives, later. Other (younger and older empty-nesters) demographic groups have likely been underserved by automakers because of the baby boomers dominance in the past 40 years or so. Which means a lack of development of smaller, affordable cars during this era.
Still not blaming the SUV for our MPG woes, because I think there are plenty of other factors at work.