New Fuel MPG Standards Cut Confusion and Consumption Per Mile; Consumer Tradeoffs Required

Your 2012 - 2016 car/truck will (choose one):

A. Be smaller and lighter?
B. Have less power?
C. Cost more?
D. All (or two) of the above?

Back in January, I published a post in support of a single federal standard for emissions and fuel economy... as opposed to individual states or groups of states setting their own standards. Last week, the Obama Administration announced a proposal for a single 50-state standard that would raise the average fleet fuel economy from 27.5 to 39 mpg for cars, 23.1 to 30 mpg for trucks and 35.5 mpg overall by the year 2016. Reduced fuel consumption would also result in a reduction in CO2 / greenhouse gasses produced by these vehicles. Kudos to the President and his team for eliminating the potential confusion and waste by giving the global automakers a consistent set of rules for the US market.

What this means for consumers is that every vehicle type designed for sale during the 2012 - 2016 time period will be required to go significantly farther on a gallon of fuel, i.e., use less energy. How do you make a vehicle use less energy? The answer is in the four multiple choice questions at the beginning of this post.

Smaller and lighter - Basic physics (and everyday observations) tell us that it takes more energy to move a heavier object than a lighter object. The smaller the vehicle, the lighter the weight, the lighter the weight, the less fuel consumed.

Less power - Basic physics also tells us that more energy is needed to accelerate a vehicle quickly than what is needed to bring it up to (legal) speed moderately; i.e., Toyota Camry V6's that do 0 - 60 MPH in 6.2 seconds consume more fuel (19 city / 28 highway mpg) than 4-cylinder Camry's (21 city / 31 highway mpg) that take 8.8 seconds to reach 60. Global auto manufacturers will offer "more" less-powerful / fuel-saving powertrain alternatives to meet the new US fuel economy standards.

Cost more - Numerous mechanical, electrical and premium material technologies are available to help reduce the weight and increase the efficiency (power output per gallon) of today's vehicles. Examples of these are using light-weight (and more expensive) aluminum in place of steel in certain car body panels; turbo-charging smaller engines to increase their output while minimizing their fuel consumption; advanced electronic fuel metering and delivery systems (direct fuel injection) to boost engine efficiency; electric and hybrid-electric vehicles; diesel engines; and others. The federal government estimates that these technologies will, on average, cost an incremental $1300 per vehicle vs. today, but that consumers will recoup the added cost through fuel savings.

All / some of the above - By accepting a combination reduced size, higher cost and less power, consumers will be able to limit the extent to which they must make compromises in the vehicle attributes that they desire most.

Which trade-offs are you willing to make?
Which will your neighbors make?

The administration estimates that the higher fuel economy standards will save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and avoid emitting 900 million metric tons of CO2 over the 5-year period.

Assuming the price of gas stays the same, will we really achieve this reduction in consumption or will Americans just drive more, walk / bike less and avoid public transportation?