A good article that adds realism to the argument! (MPG)

Kyle2k · 03-09-2013, 01:11 PM

I have been waiting for an article like this. You can't always legislate your problems away.

Autoblog

Text from article:

The good news is that the average fuel fuel economy of the entire US light-duty fleet improved by 40 percent over the past four decades (increasing from 13 miles per gallon to 21.6 mpg). The bad news is that Americans drive more, and with fewer passengers in each vehicle, undercutting the impact of the fuel economy gains.

That's the official conclusion of a study just released by the Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). Without getting too technical, the researchers found that the "occupant fuel economy" (a figure that takes mpg and vehicle occupancy into account) dropped as vehicle loads decreased by 27 percent (from 1.9 to 1.38 persons, on average) over the years. Combine the additional distance driven, up a whopping 155 percent, and that average fuel economy improvement of 40 percent drops to an occupant fuel economy gain of just 17 percent.

So what does this all mean? Saving fuel on a grand scale is more than just bumping fuel economy on the cars in the showroom. Consumers will need to drive more efficient vehicles, but they also must drive less and learn how to carpool. Easier said than done.

*Mr. Wyndham* · 03-09-2013, 07:48 PM

It's like swimming upstream....but you can't very well turn off the stream, so stop fighting!!

...You can't force people today to be efficient unless it's convenient...and making the cars more fuel efficient isn't really helping anything, as the evidence suggests. So why bother?

Kyle2k · 03-09-2013, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

It's like swimming upstream....but you can't very well turn off the stream, so stop fighting!!

...You can't force people today to be efficient unless it's convenient...and making the cars more fuel efficient isn't really helping anything, as the evidence suggests. So why bother?

I will admit that because we have made improvements in fuel economy we may have come out a little ahead (not to mention there are probably a lot more vehicles on the road) but it is definitely at a point of diminishing returns and I think that separates intelligent legislation from pie in the sky ideology.

BloodRain · 03-09-2013, 09:25 PM

How about, no. The people who write these things can carpool and drive a gutless wonder. Humans suck, keep me as far away from them as possible. My extra seats are for dogs.

Angrybird 12 · 03-09-2013, 09:29 PM

I'm doing my part, I used to own three vehicles and would normally put 20K miles a year on each one. I now have two vehicles on one I will probably put 12-13k on it and the other will be lucky to get 5k on it. That's what happens when nobody in the household has a job any more.

BloodRain · 03-09-2013, 10:14 PM

Most local services are close enough for a walk for me anyways. Nothing like a 45 min walk with 80lb of dog food on the shoulder =)

Scalded Dog · 03-10-2013, 10:52 AM

I have friends with a family equivalent in size to mine (7 members each). They require two vehicles to move their family around... avg. fuel economy is 20 MPG for each vehicle. I, on the other hand, have a Suburban, and can move MY seven member family around in ONE vehicle, at 16 MPG.

The "other family" can't believe what a gas hog/ irresponsible bastard I am. Trying to explain, using logic, reason, and those ever- pesky "facts," is futile... they think that they are saving the world by driving two "fuel efficient" vehicles," while I continue to wantonly pollute with my beastly 'burban.

Seriously.

Bad@ssCamaro · 03-10-2013, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kyle2k

I will admit that because we have made improvements in fuel economy we may have come out a little ahead (not to mention there are probably a lot more vehicles on the road) but it is definitely at a point of diminishing returns and I think that separates intelligent legislation from pie in the sky ideology.

If population growth has an impact on the avg. mpg's, at what rate of population growth does this have a negative/ and or positive effect? Is this country heading towards zero population growth? and will this have a negative impact on the economy that will offset any gains in an increase in avg. mpg's.

I think that if government is forcing manufacturer's to be more efficient to produce vehicles that will help sustain our natural resources, it has to be a good thing, especially for future generations. As long as we're allowed to have our gas guzzlers, I don't see a problem...

Scrappy Doo · 03-10-2013, 11:27 AM

Im 33. When I was a kid, my parents didn't drive us around much, or leave town a whole lot.

Now, The wife and i won't blink an eye at making a 150 mile round trip to meet friends for dinner. Different lifestyles now I guess.

03-09-2013, 01:11 PM	#1
Kyle2k LVL 50 Troll Stomper Drives: 2010 Camaro Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 3,463	A good article that adds realism to the argument! (MPG) I have been waiting for an article like this. You can't always legislate your problems away. Autoblog Text from article: The good news is that the average fuel fuel economy of the entire US light-duty fleet improved by 40 percent over the past four decades (increasing from 13 miles per gallon to 21.6 mpg). The bad news is that Americans drive more, and with fewer passengers in each vehicle, undercutting the impact of the fuel economy gains. That's the official conclusion of a study just released by the Sustainable Worldwide Transportation at University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI). Without getting too technical, the researchers found that the "occupant fuel economy" (a figure that takes mpg and vehicle occupancy into account) dropped as vehicle loads decreased by 27 percent (from 1.9 to 1.38 persons, on average) over the years. Combine the additional distance driven, up a whopping 155 percent, and that average fuel economy improvement of 40 percent drops to an occupant fuel economy gain of just 17 percent. So what does this all mean? Saving fuel on a grand scale is more than just bumping fuel economy on the cars in the showroom. Consumers will need to drive more efficient vehicles, but they also must drive less and learn how to carpool. Easier said than done. __________________

03-09-2013, 07:48 PM	#2
Mr. Wyndham I used to be Dragoneye... Drives: 2018 ZL1 1LE Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 31,873 View My Garage	It's like swimming upstream....but you can't very well turn off the stream, so stop fighting!! ...You can't force people today to be efficient unless it's convenient...and making the cars more fuel efficient isn't really helping anything, as the evidence suggests. So why bother? __________________ *"Keep the faith."* - Fbodfather

03-09-2013, 09:29 PM	#5
Angrybird 12 7 year Cancer Survivor! Drives: 17 Cruze RS, 07 G6 GT, 99 Astro Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: East Tennessee Posts: 21,546	I'm doing my part, I used to own three vehicles and would normally put 20K miles a year on each one. I now have two vehicles on one I will probably put 12-13k on it and the other will be lucky to get 5k on it. That's what happens when nobody in the household has a job any more. __________________ Cancer's a bitch! Enjoy life while you can! LIVE, LOVE, DRIVE... The Bird is the word!

03-09-2013, 09:25 PM	#4
BloodRain Account Suspended Drives: 1LE Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canada Posts: 217	How about, no. The people who write these things can carpool and drive a gutless wonder. Humans suck, keep me as far away from them as possible. My extra seats are for dogs.

03-09-2013, 10:14 PM	#6
BloodRain Account Suspended Drives: 1LE Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Canada Posts: 217	Most local services are close enough for a walk for me anyways. Nothing like a 45 min walk with 80lb of dog food on the shoulder =)

03-10-2013, 10:52 AM	#7
Scalded Dog Drives: 2011 1LT Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Crestline, CA Posts: 3,029	I have friends with a family equivalent in size to mine (7 members each). They require two vehicles to move their family around... avg. fuel economy is 20 MPG for each vehicle. I, on the other hand, have a Suburban, and can move MY seven member family around in ONE vehicle, at 16 MPG. The "other family" can't believe what a gas hog/ irresponsible bastard I am. Trying to explain, using logic, reason, and those ever- pesky "facts," is futile... they think that they are saving the world by driving two "fuel efficient" vehicles," while I continue to wantonly pollute with my beastly 'burban. Seriously.

03-10-2013, 11:27 AM	#9
Scrappy Doo Drives: Callaway Rogue Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: W8n 4 Snow, Minnesota Posts: 4,731	Im 33. When I was a kid, my parents didn't drive us around much, or leave town a whole lot. Now, The wife and i won't blink an eye at making a 150 mile round trip to meet friends for dinner. Different lifestyles now I guess.