Guest Post by Eric Peters
Uncle admits that his current fuel economy fatwas have added $1,800 (laughable; it’s much, much more) to the price tag of every new car – a sum that renders the savings achieved at the pump an irrelevance.
The current MPG mandatory minimum is 35.5 MPG (average) vs. 27.5 (what it was back in 2010, before Uncle kicked it up).
Most new cars don’t average 35.5 MPG; a very few hit that mark (like the Prius hybrid) but most fall far short. But let’s – for the sake of discussion – say that Uncle’s fatwa achieved its stated goal of forcing the car companies to build cars that average 35.5 MPG.
That’s an 8 MPG improvement for $1,800.
Is it worth it?
Compare what it costs to feed a car that averages 27.5 MPG vs. one that averages 35.5 MPG and see for yourself.
Assume a full tank (15 gallons, for the sake of discussion). The 27.5 MPG car can travel 412.5 miles. The 35.5 MPG can go 532.5 miles. The difference is 120 miles.
If gas costs about $2.20 a gallon, the car that gets 35.5 MPG saved you about $7.25 (about 3.3 gallons’ worth of gas, which you’d otherwise have had to buy if you had been driving the 27.5 MPG car, to travel the additional 120 miles).
That’s a “savings” of about $30 a month – about $350 annually.
It will take you about five years to reach break even, the point at which the cost of Uncle’s fatwa has been amortized by money you didn’t have to spend on gas (but had to spend on the car).
Such a deal!
Keep in mind that – per above – only a handful of cars actually do average 35.5 MPG and only a tiny handful do better.
Most do worse – but all cost more.
I just finished test-driving and reviewing the latest VW Beetle (see here). It is one of the more fuel-efficient new gas-engined/non-hybrid cars available. It averages 28 MPG (25 city, 34 highway).
Do that math (a .5 MPG “gain” for $1,800).
And now Uncle’s about to double down.
Sometime later this year, the decision will be made – by arbitrary regulatory fiat – to uptick the federal fuel economy fatwa to a loony 54.5 MPG.
No matter what it costs us.
Expect this to be a not-small sum.
If it took $1,800 per car to get from 27.5 MPG to 35.5 MPG (and keep in mind, most don’t make it to 35.5 MPG) imagine with it will cost to ascend to 54.5 MPG (which not one car currently available – not even the Prius – achieves).
The current (all-new/just redesigned) 2016 Prius averages a mere 52 MPG.
Its base price is $24,200. The inside dope is that Toyota “sells” each one at a loss – the profitable cars in its inventory picking up the difference. To sell these things at a profit, they’d probably need to be priced around $28k to start.
But let’s assume $24k – because it’ll give us some idea of what we’ll be paying for cars post the 54.5 MPG fatwa.
$24,200 is $6,900 more than the cost of an IC-engined 2016 Toyota Corolla – typical of current medium-small economy sedans and so comparable to the Prius in mission as well as size/space if not in price.
$6,900.
To average 52 MPG (not quite what Uncle will soon require) vs. 31 (what the Corolla averages).
How long will it take to earn back the almost $7k it took to achieve that? Even given the 21 MPG advantage the Prius has, it’s going to be awhile.
Seven grand buys a lot of gas.
How much gas?
About 3,200 gallons (assuming $2.20 per). This is enough fuel to take the 31 MPG Corolla just under 100,000 miles.
That’s not a whole lotta savings going on… Prius-wise.
And it doesn’t factor in something you’ll never hear the mainstream automotive press mention: While an IC-engined car’s fuel economy should be stable over the course of its entire lifetime – which is a long time, these days – the fuel efficiency of a hybrid, which is dependent on the performance of its batteries, will decline over its lifetime. Batteries – even carefully managed – gradually lose their capacity to hold a charge as time goes by. A 12-year-old hybrid with 100,000-plus miles will probably not deliver the mileage it did when it was new – without replacing its battery pack with a fresh one.
IC engines do wear – and become less efficient as they wear. But most any current-year (or recent vintage) IC-engined car will probably give you at least 150,000 miles of service without major expense and delivering the same mileage as it always did.
For $7k less, in the case of a car like the Corolla.
So – as OJ used to say – look out!
Your next new car is probably going to cost you more than $1,800 extra.
But hey – it gets great gas mileage!
It isn’t about saving YOU money. And isn’t it funny how the elite and all government vehicles will NOT be of the fuel efficient variety?
EV’s cannot compete in any logical means, so it seems by raising the bar to 53 mpg, which can’t be reached by IC engines, this will force all auto makers to produce just EV’s.
OR, maybe Trump can have it rescinded.
Only if he is elected which will require people to actually vote for him.
It isn’t sensible since we have no shortage of petroleum.
If something comes along that actually competes with it then the market will dictate the change, trying to force one on us will just make life for the average American more difficult and more expensive.
But it is not the position of the average American to have a say so in how he lives, that is the governments privilege.
“They” claim that the MPG minimums are not about “we the people” saving money. “They” claim that “we the people” must sacrifice our money in order to “save the planet” from “global warming” caused by the use of “fossil” fuels. But in addition to the extra money we’re being charged for the new “fuel efficient” models there are extra steps and equipment required in the manufacturing of these vehicles. Which means that extra “fossil” fuels are required to manufacture these “fuel efficient” vehicles. Are they really that “fuel efficient” if you factor in the “fossil” fuels required over the entire lifetime of the car and not just the fuel that you put in the gas tank? If they really did believe in anthropogenic “global warming” they would be taking this into account, but they’re not. So there’s something else going on here.
Why can’t they remake the MG Midget or Triumph? Mine got 39 MPG using a carburetor and points; modern fuel injection, electronic ignition and overdrive might boost MPG to maybe 45 or 50. Dang nicer and reliable cars to own and drive too.
In 1992 I bought a Ford Festiva (NOT a Ford Fiesta – different animal entirely) for $6500 out the door. 43MPG. It only took undoing two bolts to take out the back seat and you could pack an amazing amount of stuff in it as long as the stuff wasn’t too heavy. If they would start making it again you might be able to talk me into buying a new car instead of 10 year old used ones.
Those cars wouldn’t be allowed to made again today because they aren’t ‘safe’ by today’s govt standards. They don’t have enough side impact or rollover protection. A car that weighed that much but made with modern engine technology should easily exceed 55 mpgs. A 20 year old Honda Civic gets nearly the same milage as a new one even with the newer, more efficient engines because the new ones weigh so much more. Meeting both safety and efficiency standards will be nearly impossible. Most people won’t want to buy them, which is why they must be forced to buy them in the future.
All of these things also make maintenance more expensive. Turbo chargers and direct injection make power and efficiency gains, but the engines probably won’t last as long. Same goes with 6-8 speed automatic transmissions. The end goal, of course, is forcing us all into public transportation and ending the prevelance of individually owned vehicles.
Don’t worry though, our rulers will still be ferried around in suburbans and armored limos.
My first car was a 1965 Austin A40 (1098cc A series engine). Consistently provided over 40MPG around town, and a bit more on a run.
Interesting that our current “car” – a Korean built Kia Carnival Diesel (8 seater MPV) returns a consistent 47 – 48 MPG which is not at all bad for such a heavy machine.
The part that upsets me most is that 55 MPG would easily be achievable in the diesels if the emissions laws weren’t so ridiculous.
Is the math wiz who calculates this bullshit counting the emissions of all the supertankers and tanker trucks that eliminates? I doubt it. They still think nuclear power emits no carbon dioxide because they don’t count the mining process or what it takes to manufacture those fancy vaults to store the waste for the next 100,000 years.
And while the irrelvant media was busy freaking out about some VW’s emitting a few ppm of something I pay my dentist extra for, they completely overlooked TEPCO’s admission that it has been covering up the fact that Fukushima Daichi experienced full meltdowns and they have no idea where the nuclear fuel has gone.
http://enenews.com/ap-officials-admit-deadly-fukushima-meltdown-coverup-unprecedented-nuclear-disaster-about-bad-tepco-president-lied-about-meltdowns-cover-grave-issue-unpardonable-breach-trust-video
My best guess is that Hillary must be on the TEPCO board of directors.
Most people don’t care that much if they spend an extra 1000 dollars a year to drive whatever they want. Where i live everyone seems to have a big 4wd pickup. I recommend having two vehicles. A truck for towing stuff,Maybe 4wd if you are into off roading and hunting.And a car that gets you the MPG you can live with to drive to work.This way you also have a spare if one of them needs repairs.
Prius don’t do as well in the winter,The cold affects the batteries.I think they are ok though. I wonder about how well they do in an accident versus a truck. My family’s best MPG car was a Alfa Romeo spider that my dad put a dodge colt engine in. It was getting 51 mpg in 1977.I wonder what the person who bought it thought of this Italian car with a jap engine.My dad sold it while i was in the military and various members of the family drove it.Must have put about 400,000 miles on it.