Fuel-economy standards to add $2,600 to average vehicle cost

[AZhitman]

Ouch.

http://www.freep.com/article/20130213/B ... -standards

Someone handy with math will have to help me on this, but would today's average MPG vs 2025 MPG (at today's fuel prices) save $2,600 over the average duration of ownership?

Thoughts? Is this realistic?

[elwesso]

I think one thing that isn't clear in that statement is if that factors in inflation. I would expect the "same" car to cost at least that much more in 12 years, if not more....... So is that assuming $2600 in 2011 dollars, I would assume...?

It also depends on how many miles you drive.. I drive about 25k miles a year (if not more), so saving $2500 going from say 20 to 40MPG would not take long.

[Looneybomber]

Well
$2,600/$5/gallon*20mpg = 10,400miles.

So, at $5/gallon, the extra 2600 you spend for a 40mpg car would net you 10,400 miles in your 20mpg car. 15,600 in a 30mpg car.

[float_6969]

Yea, I'm with Wes on this, that article is kinda vague.

[s0m3th1ngAZ]

Also don't forget that once we achieve high-MPG greatness, they'll tax the crap out of us because we don't buy as much fuel anymore.
WIN-WIN right?

[float_6969]

Yea, they're already having issues with this. The increase in fuel economy, hybrids, and especially full electric vehicles has started to cut into the federal highway funds and they're already feeling the decrease in tax dollars coming in. Not sure how they're going to tax the miles that EV's are putting on the roadways....

[RicerX]

Here's the problem with this entire thing - the ideal thing is to double your fuel economy. How many people will really do that?

Realistically, for people to achieve this, they need to start trading their Dodge Ram for a Toyota Prius. NO ONE is doing that. People that need a full size truck for their daily driver MIGHT move from 14 MPG city to 16 or 18 MPG city.

Back to the argument - is the extra $2,600 worth it? Let's break down the realistic scenario - average Joe upgrades his old Dodge Ram for a new Dodge Ram.

Let's say the average ownership duration is 5 years, and the average joe drives 15,000 miles a year in his Dodge Ram.

Let's say Joe has an older Ram, making roughly 14 MPG city. The new one makes say 18 MPG city. (this obviously isn't exact but it gives us an idea). The same truck for the same truck basically, but the new one is the extra $2,600.

Let's use $5 a gallon for simple math. All things equal - at 14MPG and $5/gallon, driving 15k miles a year means you require roughly 1071.5 gallons of fuel per year, costing ~$5356 annually. Over 5 years, you spend ~$26,785 on fuel.

Substitute for 18MPG - 833.33 gallons of fuel per year, $4166.66 annually. Over 5 years - $20,833.33.

Basically, to recoup the cost and start seeing savings, you need to keep the vehicle for at least 2.5 years. Average Joe will probably keep it 5 years, but the illusion of the cost savings with the MPG sticker doesn't really take into account the fact that several other things will impede that savings for longer than 2.5 years, such as potentially higher insurance rates for a newer car as well as higher registration fees due to overall higher vehicle value.

That's given averages for everything. I would assume there are extreme cases where Joe needs to keep his vehicle for 5 years. Given the obvious increase in car payment and all these other things, trading up for a couple more miles per gallon is obviously not worth the expense.

Joe decides to give up his construction business and grab a Prius, then that extra $2,600 won't even matter in a year.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm significantly more concerned about the FUNCTIONAL repercussions of these standards than their costs.

[Looneybomber]

You know, as float points out - taxation, is an issue too, just like so many other things are. Every solution is in return a multifaceted problem. But what I am slowly learning about engineering politics is everything's a trade-off and once you solve your problem, any other problem is for another department. Pass the buck!

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm significantly more concerned about the FUNCTIONAL repercussions of these standards than their costs.

What would all the functional repercussions be? Smaller, crappier cars?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Maybe I'm weird, but I'm significantly more concerned about the FUNCTIONAL repercussions of these standards than their costs.

What would all the functional repercussions be? Smaller, crappier cars?

Not necessarily. I'm more worried about BS like engine start-stop, crappy final-drive ratios, low-rolling-resistance tires that couldn't stop a bicycle, hippie-a** "eco-mode" throttle intervention, and who knows what other enjoyment-killing stuff automakers will have to implement in order to meet mandates.