Miles to Go

I cannot understand the focus of the article. i am an owner of a Prius (three years this May) and my average MPG is well over 52.5. So you can buy a car in the US that gets 50 plus miles per gallon

Interesting that the Honda Insight was skipped over completely in this article, Gee only about 14,000 of them were sold in the US. I own one and acheive over 75mpg avg through the spring, summer and fall and in the low 60 mpg's in the winter. And yes many people pass me on the highway, even when I'm driving it over 65mph. Once I complete the Mima modification to the car, it will approach 90+ mpg in the summer months. All this for a used car that cost 9K last year, which I could make a nice profit on if I were to sell it today. Oh - it's also nearly 8 years old, is mostly aluminum, cost Honda over 50K each to build (they sold in the 20K range new)and was one of the smartest decisions I've made. If America would just drive a little slower thousands of gallons of fuel would be saved each day, and avg mpg would go up for all. Driving above 62 or so increases wind resistance and will lower fuel economy on anything on the road.

I take issue with the Author's statement that all new cars in Europe get 43MPG. Germany has BMW 3, 5 & 7 series, various classes of Mercedes and even Saab and Volvo don't acieve anywhere near that. Even if you are talking average for all vehicles (cafe) it shure would take a lot of microcars to offset those makes I have mentioned, even with the good economy figures posted by the Golf, Hondas, Toyotas and Nissans and deisels available over there. And by the way, our EPA is making the hybrids restae their mileage claims more accurately.
Just proves you can't believe everything you read, particularly in Newsweek.

In all of this discussion no one mentions the possibility of rethinking the way we use the automobile. Using EIA data one can discover that if we drove cars that weighed the same as 1980 cars, accelerated the same as 1980 cars (0 ??? 60 fleet average time 15 seconds) and drove the same number of miles per capita that we would be consuming significantly less oil than in 1980. As it is, we are using twice as much oil, driving bigger cars that accelerate faster (0 ??? 60 fleet average time 10 seconds) and we drive twice as many miles per capita. At least half of the added consumption of oil is a direct result of doubling the per capita miles we drive per year.

Apologists will claim that our increased driving is a result of increased commuting mileage. This is not true. According to EIA data, most of the increased mileage is attributable to leisure and recreational driving. Not surprisingly, the biggest percentage increase (not the biggest absolute increase) is mileage attributable to shopping. It might be useful to imagine gulping down the cup of gasoline typically used to go one-half mile out of ones way (each way) to purchase a cup of coffee, or a crummy greasy hamburger.

It seems that every solution proposed to address our profligate energy consumption is for someone else to invent something that will allow us to continue to avoid any examination of the things we do personally. The biggest quantum leap in both gasoline consumption and automobile safety could come about by simply returning to the personal transportation patterns we practiced in 1980 ??? somewhat smaller cars, somewhat slower cars and a significant reduction in automobile usage. Returning to the level of usage we practiced in 1980 (annual miles per capita) with the technology which has developed since then would simultaneously reduce oil consumption attributable to cars and light trucks by one-half, reduce automobile casualty losses by one-half and double the useful life of our cars.

Like everyone else, I recognize the impracticality of achieving this level of change, but our failure to even discuss the modest gains that might result from a fifteen or twenty percent reduction in our use of automobiles suggests to me that our energy discussions are not really serious. We are just a bunch of little kids dreaming through the pages of Popular Science.

I just bought a Smart car and it has more power and pep that my V6 Honda Accord. So why do you say it has no power. You're flat wrong. I love my Smart and it's lots of fun to drive.

Sorry, but the argument that the consumer is not interested is b*******. The fact of the industrial/military machine our system is sadly based upon is a simple one: we can only buy what wallstreet wants us to buy. The naive thought that we are a free consuming nation is absurd. We can only buy (or want to buy) what the rulers of our economy give us to buy thru an overbloated system of hooks and chains called advertisement. As long as human greed is the mainstay of this 'great' nation, we will stupidly follow what equally overbloated CEO's and execs dangle in front of us. Wake up America and smell the 'illusion' of freedom.

The one

What's interesting is not one word of mention about the very real prospe ct of "Peak Oil". Peak Oil is the time when world production of Oil reaches it's peak and then starts it long inexorable decline. In Australia and Europe Peak Oil is becoming a national movement whereas in the good ole USA it sia mind-numbing "Business as Usual", we'll get by approach.

If you care to be informed about it go to Google and key in "Peak Oil". There are literally thousand of blogs and web-sites devoted to "Peak Oil" which is about to replace "Global Warming" as the biggest threat to civilization.

Since aluminum is 1/3 the weight of steel and 1/3 the strength of steel, you could cut the thickness of steel by 1/3, use clever shapes and bends to increase the rigidity of the steel (frame and body) and end up close to the orifinal strength of the members at 1/3 the weight of the original car. The engine block is a different matter, you would have to us aluminum there is place of steel.

I drive a 1996 Ford Aerostar van, 3700 pounds with a 130 horsepower engine. The average 3700 pound vehicle in the USA has at least twice that horsepower. And yet the performance of my van is just fine--I can drive it on freeways, haul lots of people, and go up the steepest hills. Americans' cars have much more horsepower than they need. Even without reducing size or amenities, it would be very practical to save a lot of oil just by using much smaller, less powerful engines. What would be sacrificed? Only the opportunity to behave in the immature ways described by rsacks below. Ed Desmond

In 2010 VW will have a diesel-hybrid Rabbit that will get 69 MPG. If I drive my VW Jetta TDI at 55 mph and keep the rpms below 2000, I get 50 mpg today. I just filled up last night - 700 miles on 14 gallons of diesel. Why didn't this guy do an article on this?

In 2004, I purchased a Civic Hybrid for under $20K, including 6 year, 100,000 mi warranty. It has a steel frame and 6 air bags, just like a "real" car. As I drove it home, I reset the trip-meter B, and haven't touched it since. Right now, that meter reads an average of 52.6 mpg.

The way we drive has a tremendous affect on fuel economy. Want to get better mileage to make those $100 fill-ups less frequent? Do two things. SLOW DOWN -- going 80 instead of 60 on a 20 mile trip saves you less than 4 minutes, quadruples your chance of killing yourself or someone else, and makes your mileage plummet. And: STOP DRIVING LIKE A SCHMUK. When the light ahead is red, there's no reason to accelerate towards it so that you can cut someone off and then slam on your brakes. When you're getting off the freeway, slow down and pull in behind that guy next to you instead of accelerating to get ahead of him. Every time you touch your brakes, you're wasting fuel.

OINK OINK AMERICA!!!!!

A very interesting article, but I don't agree with some of the automakers statements.

I recently purchased a 2000 Honda Insight, which easily averages 50 MPG. On my 25 mile commute this morning, I topped 64 MPG. Many Insight drivers do better than that. The downside is that it's a two-seater. It's made primarily of aluminum and did not cost $ 50,000 new. It is equipped with a 1 liter engine, but the hybrid technology provides very zippy performance if I choose to drive it that way. It's equipped with airbags, ABS, and air conditioning. The only option I miss is cruise control. I do not feel in danger while driving it down the highway next to a big rig.

Unfortunately, Honda stopped making these in 2006. The American public never really warmed up to it when gas cost $ 2.00/gallon. I think that may change.

By the way, I bought this used for about $ 6,000.

I would be stunned if more Insight owners don't respond to this article.

Until American Pig Consumers learn...errrr....are forced to learn the hard lessons (tort law) that our very highway and road safety designs are shoddy at best. WTF is whrong with Americans that we cannot operate like the French and the Germans and the Austrians, and the oh whatever you call them thar Europeeons that have autobaans and strict driving rules, roundabouts instead of red lights, and trains to take people from town to town???!!!

If this war mongering overweight illiterate dysfunctional country could get the Governemtn to overhaul itself we just might be able to overhaul our own infrastructure and the mindsets of our citzens to catch up with the rest of the world. This flag waving bible thumping "We are the greatest nation on earth!" is pure propagandist bull honky!!!! HEY AMERICA WAKE YUP YOU FAT PIG!!!!

5th generation Texan here...

The article is pure BS. I drive a 1985 CRX-HF. I bought it nearly 3 years ago just before Katrina. It was the 3rd CRX I have owned. I also owned an '84 and an '88 Si. Even the Si that was the performance model got 40+ mpg running 80 -90 down I55. Both cars had well over 200k miles when I traded them in. My current HF is rated at 52 mpg. I get anywhere from mid 40's to near 50. Best I ever got was 63 mpg. A friend had an '89 CRX HF rated at 54 mpg that he consistently got 50 - 55 mpg in. He got into the 60's regularly and did 72 MPG once. It can be done and was done once. I bought a new Chevy Aveo three years ago. I figured once it got broke in it would get 40 or so. No way. 31-33 avg and maybe 37 if it's babied. It is quiet and it is suprisingly roomy for it's size. It makes the same hp as my CRX Si yet mileage is much worse. One reason is it's geared lower. At 60 mph it is turning nearly 1k rpm more than my current CRX. I have a feeling I'll still have the Honda when the CRX is long gone. I read an article recently of a Honda available in Europe turbo, 6 speed tranny, 60+mpg We don't get it Looked much like a CRX.

And this idea of hybrids and electric vehicles ... how much energy is it going to take to produce the electricity to charge the batteries, mine the ore for the batteries, refine said ore, manufacture and ship said batteries, etc. etc.? Make the gas engines more efficient and peoplr will buy them!

Sorry for the double post - the computer locked and I did not know the first had gone through.

As Yoda said, "there is another". And that is software. Yes, with a simple reprogramming of the engine management software in most newer vehicles, you can easily boost your fuel effeciency by a good 10-20 percent right now, and I mean now. The downside is a reduction in power.

All modern engines use sophisticated software that contain "maps" for the engine. These maps control the engine by sensing all kinds of stuff, like speed, outside airtemperature, timing, fuel flow, and so forth to make the engine perform according to specification. You just need to change the specification to a lower rating for the engine. Many after-market speed shops offer software to boost power by tweaking these maps. There is absolutely no reason why you can't go the other way. There is also no reason why you couldn't make the power rollback optional. Say I want to do a brisk drive, well I set it for Performance. If I want to sip my gas, I set it for economy. With the appropriate software, you can do the reprogramming in 15 minutes or less.