As gas prices across the United States hover near $4 a gallon, a new survey finds a majority of Americans support requiring automakers to meet a 60-mile-per-gallon standard by 2025.
The findings come as the Obama administration is expected to propose new fuel-efficiency regulations in September. Environmental groups say a 60-mpg standard would save U.S. drivers $101 billion per year. In 2009, the administration set the standard for light cars and trucks to 35.5 mpg by 2016.
The nationwide survey of 2,000 adults was released Monday and commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA), a left-leaning nonprofit. It found that 75 percent of Americans say improving fuel economy standards is important. Sixty-two percent supported federal regulation requiring automakers to meet 60 m.p.g. standards by 2025.
A majority of people across the political spectrum supported such a measure, especially if fuel savings would negate the extra cost of a fuel-efficient cars within five years of purchase. Sixty-two percent of Republicans were in favor of a 60 mpg standard, and 71 percent of Democrats supported the measure. Independents were the least supportive, with 56 percent favoring the measure.
Economic, not environmental, concerns seem to be driving attitudes about improved fuel economy, with gas prices averaging $3.81 per gallon in May, according to AAA.
“Gas prices are the main driver of smaller-vehicle or more fuel-efficient vehicle purchases,” says Camyrn Craig, a research analyst at Kelley Blue Book, which tracks car sales. Her company found that gas mileage was a consideration for 84 percent of car buyers in April.
Kelley Blue Book research shows that when gas prices are between $3.07 and $3.41 per gallon, the majority of consumers do not rank gas mileage as a key consideration when purchasing a car.
“At $4, 70 percent said it would be a consideration,” says Craig. “At $5, 92 percent said it would be a consideration.”
A study by Consumer Reports magazine released in February found the financial savings for buying a hybrid to be mixed.
The Toyota Prius fared best, with its $5,000 higher price tag easily outstripped by fuel savings in the first five years. Other cars made up the extra cost, but only if gas prices are moderately high. For the Ford Escape hybrid to make up its higher cost in five years, gas would need to be at least $3.60 a gallon. Still others don’t fare well at all. The hybrid version of the Lexus RX would require a gas price of at least $8.77 a gallon.
For those concerned with pollution, fuel-efficient cars are a good bet, say environmentalists, as long as you aren’t ditching a reliable vehicle to buy one.
In “How Bad Are Bananas? The Carbon Footprint of Everything,” emissions expert Mike Berners-Lee advises people to stick with the cars they’ve got for as long as they can, as long as their cars are reliable and don’t get “ridiculously poor” gas mileage. This is because that the carbon footprint of manufacturing a car is bigger than driving a somewhat less fuel-efficient one, he argues.
After the Obama administration proposes new fuel-economy regulations this fall, the public will be able to comment on the plan for several months. The administration's 35.5 mpg standard was based on the standard developed by California and later adopted by 13 other states.
More like this
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
33 comments
-
30 comments
-
26 comments
-
20 comments
-
19 comments
Comments (3)
Gosh, darned, golly! A 60MPG car would be really "swell"!!!!!!!!.
The last filling of the tank on my 4 cylinder standard transmission Ford Ranger ran $50. Sending money on gas is "fun" in the same way that we are supposed to buy lottery tickets because it is "fun".
The first thing is that we have to talk of actual "tank to tank" fuel consumption, not that fiction known as EPA ratings.
The tiny detail of the ACTUAL 60 MPH have to do with physics and money. You can reduce weight and frontal drag. Weight reduction can come from new steel alloys. My 2005 Ranger has a lot lighter frame than the early Rangers. If you go to more aluminum and composite plastics you can save weight but these materials are far more expensive. For example the 4 cylinder engine in my Ranger is an aluminum block (with cast iron cylinder sleeves). This saved forty pounds. Losing weight is difficult.
The ACTUAL mileage difference with a flex fuel seems to reflex the alcohol/gas mix fuel energy. There may be a few tricks like a diesel style common rail direct fuel injection system but this is costly. You can go with smaller engines and possibly use a turbo but the turbo-lag is very annoying. (read up on the turbo-diesel Volkswagen).
Hardly anyone talks about manual transmissions but these save 10% and give 10% more power.
The other way to increase mileage is to decrease the size of the vehicle.
A "conditional" survey includes the reality behind the choice. Like "duhh! No one likes paying money to gas up the car. An added factor is that if you don't drive much a more "spartan" vehicle can suffice and especially in urban areas, a smaller vehicle is more practical. One the other hand if your low usage urban you don't burn that much fuel.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
It's about thinking ahead big picture -- The first hybrid Honda Insight we bought new in 2001 [when gas was $1.29/gal] but we knew it was the way of the future. My husband & I logged 200K on it before I crushed it against a pickup & wayward snowdrift. Tough little car! It got 70 MPG in summer, 48 winter.
We mourned but then promptly found a used low-miles 2005 Insight [drove to Iowa in January to get it], and we're been continuing to enjoy excellent mileage [58.9 MPG lifetime average]. In fact, I'm at the dealer now, in the service lounge for a routine oil change -- this vehicle is solid, reliable and is being fully pampered as it has saved my family TONS of cash. I commute 70 miles daily in Greater Minnesota -- that's a gallon a day in summer.
You could wait until 2025, or you can find a classic Insight coupe (2001-'06).
I checked Edmunds.com and the newer Insights seem to have been "super-sized".
I checked the 2001 nsight http://www.edmunds.com/honda/insight/2001/features-specs.html
For a "hybrid" they appear to have used a conventional drive on one axle and electric boost motors on the other. Clever design!
It has an aluminum unibody for a curb weight of only 1856 versus 3100 for my base 2x4 Ranger. It has a 1 liter 3 cylinder versus a 2.4 liter 4 in my Ranger. Both are "stick" transmissions but it looks like the "automatic" Insight uses a snowmobile type belt drive which should fairly efficient.
The old Insight is definitely aerodynamic (think rear wheel skirts). Your long rural drives are contrary to the accepted logic that hybrids work best in urban traffic.
I tend to believe that you actually figure actual fuel consumption. I live in the middle of the city. I've asked many hybrid owners here about their actual mileage and they became evasive over ACTUAL mileage.