backtop


Print 83 comment(s) - last by protosv.. on May 11 at 9:49 PM


Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen TDI
The majority of vehicle shopper support increased fuel efficiency standards

The Consumer Federation of America recently released a report that it calls the first progress report on the 54.5 mpg fuel efficiency standard. According to the CFA, consumers are demanding more fuel-efficient vehicles. According to the poll, the majority of Americans support federal government requirements increasing fuel economy for new cars.

“Looking at current market offerings, consumer purchasing trends and our surveys of consumer demand, there is no doubt that the federal effort to significantly raise fuel economy is benefiting, consumers, car companies, autoworkers and the environment”, said Jack Gillis, report co-author who is CFA’s Director of Public Affairs and author of The Car Book.

Those federal regulations stipulate that new cars achieve 35 mpg fleetwide average by 2017 and an average of 55 mpg by 2025. 85% of respondents to the survey said that they support these requirements with 54% saying they strongly support the standards.

Fuel efficiency is highly sought after when it comes to purchasing new vehicles with 88% respondents to the survey saying that in their next vehicle purchase, fuel economy will be an important factor and 59% say fuel economy will be a very important factor influencing the purchase.

Survey respondents who say fuel economy is very important to them expect their next vehicle to get 12 mpg more than the current vehicle. Consumers who already have a relatively efficient vehicle getting at least 24 mpg the intended purchase a new vehicle in the future want at least a seven mpg increase putting their desires at approximately 31 mpg.

The survey also found that 50% of respondents who said they intend to purchase an SUV want fuel efficiency of at least 25 mpg.

“These results should lay to rest any concerns that some car dealers had about consumer demand for more fuel efficient vehicles,” said Gillis.  In spite of the support of car companies, unions, consumer and environmental groups, the National Automobile Dealers Association was the only major entity opposed to the new requirements.

Source: ConsumerFed



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Uh-huh
By Motoman on 5/8/2013 11:33:33 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The majority of vehicle shopper support increased fuel efficiency standards


Sure they do. But what percentage of them have the slightest clue what that's going to do to vehicle prices?

If you ask someone "do you want cars to be more fuel efficient," what kind of a retard is going to say "no?" The actual question that should be asked is "how much of a price premium are you willing to commit to in order to gain X amount of additional MPG?"

The mouth-breathing hordes think that auto manufacturers can just flip some switch and magically make all their cars be more efficient, and they're just holding back because they're dicks.

If fuel economy was the primary concern, no one would be driving anything but econoboxes now. But that's not what people drive. It's eminently clear that when it comes time to buy a vehicle, people are going to buy the vehicle they want to suit some purpose, or even to fit some kind of image.

Soccer mom can *say* she wants highly efficient cars, but she's the one driving the 4x4 Suburban.

It's like people demanding healthy food options at fast food places. All kinds of ruckus about that, but what do people actually buy when they go to McDonald's? Big Macs and french fries.




RE: Uh-huh
By Philippine Mango on 5/8/2013 2:44:51 PM , Rating: 1
but they are purposefully holding back so that they can do their incremental updates. Why else would the Prius have single VVTI while they've already updated the Camry Hybrid to dual vvti? If they weren't holding back, the Prius would have Direct Injection and not only dual VVTI but valvematic as well.


RE: Uh-huh
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 3:01:12 PM , Rating: 3
they're not. It's because of cost. It's not a piece of electronic that you slap on an engine. You pretty much do a minor redesign on the engine. The R&D cost is too high for a low volume unit. The Camry is their cashcow and high volume. Of course, they will implement the tech there first.

The area needed improvement in the Prius was the electric motors and battery anyways. You can't have everything for $24k.


RE: Uh-huh
By Philippine Mango on 5/8/2013 3:17:52 PM , Rating: 2
The area needed for improvement on the Prius was not just electric motors and batteries because that only works so much. You watch, the 2015 Prius will get 60mpg and they'll achieve that by slapping on dual vvti, there are more Prius than Hybrid Camry yet Hybrid Camry got the needed update. Didn't you notice how the MPG of hybrid Camry jumped from 33mpg for the '07-'11 model but now is 40mpg for the '12 Hybrid model? That the hybrid Camry gets 40mpg with a 2.5L engine while the Prius V with the same crappy 1.8L single VVTI engine as Prius and a few hundred pounds less in weight than Camry gets the same 40mpg?

Every vehicle that has gotten the dual VVTI update has seen significant MPG improvements and power improvements. If they'd cut the crap and just give us dual vvti with valvematic, we would already have a 70+mpg Prius with 150HP or a 50mpg Camry. Those higher efficiency engines aren't sold in the US but in Japan and Europe. It's going to be easily another 10 years before Toyota gives us a Valve Matic engine in their economy cars what with how slow they've been to introduce us to Dual VVTI to their 4 cylinder engines.


RE: Uh-huh
By Spuke on 5/8/2013 2:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Soccer mom can *say* she wants highly efficient cars, but she's the one driving the 4x4 Suburban.
BAM!!! Right on point. People buy what they want, period. Automakers make what we want, period.


RE: Uh-huh
By cyberguyz on 5/8/2013 3:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
She's also the one toting around half a dozen kids, soccer balls and a dog. And she's driving a V6 minivan cause with all those kids she can't afford a Suburban.

let her lose the kids and I bet she's much happier driving a Jetta TDI.


RE: Uh-huh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/8/2013 4:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe pull a page from China's playbook and start limiting people to 2-3 kids maximum.


RE: Uh-huh
By Just Tom on 5/8/2013 5:52:15 PM , Rating: 2
Is this a serious comment?

America is already below replacement fertility for native born women. Mandating smaller family sizes would be demographic suicide.


RE: Uh-huh
By Philippine Mango on 5/8/2013 3:28:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well I want a 50mpg Toyota Pickup that resembles the old Tacomas of the late 90s early 2000s and so do many others yet I don't see anyone making one... Instead all I've seen is the size inflation of these vehicles with no MPG improvements whatsoever. Maybe the automakers have confused the idea that people are buying cars because they're too dumb to repair what they've got and not because they actually like their choices.


RE: Uh-huh
By Motoman on 5/8/2013 8:18:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well I want a 50mpg Toyota Pickup


...and people in hell want iced tea.

I want a Lamborghini.

We all have the same chance of getting what we want: 0.

I won't get a Lambo because I'm not an independently wealthy multimillionaire.

People in hell won't get iced tea because...it's hell.

And you're not going to get a 50MPG pickup truck because the physics don't f%cking work out at anything vaguely approaching that number.


RE: Uh-huh
By Philippine Mango on 5/9/2013 1:55:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
...and people in hell want iced tea...

I'm sure there are plenty of people in Florida that have Iced Tea....

quote:
And you're not going to get a 50MPG pickup truck because the physics don't f%cking work out at anything vaguely approaching that number.

Lol! Buahaha you have the faintest idea of "physics" to make a statement like that! To put things into perspective, there are tractor trailer trucks that can pull 40 TONS and when unloaded, they're capable of 18mpg... meanwhile a shitty little toyota pickup can barely muster 30mpg on the highway? Yeah no. There is plenty of room for improvement and 50mpg was actually a conservative request.


RE: Uh-huh
By Azethoth on 5/8/2013 8:56:32 PM , Rating: 2
Mmm, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream is 1/2 a block away. McDonalds is across the street from that so further. La Victoria Taqueria is about the same distance further.

Do I:
a) Get B&J ice cream and bulk up on solid food by buying some of their brownies?
b) Walk the extra distance to McDonalds for a burger and fries and get a sunday + hot fudge so I don't have to stop off at B&J on the way back?
c) Burger and Fries at McDicks and ice cream at B&J?
d) Lie on the couch and think about it.
e) Hit up the taco place instead for a super-corn quessadilla with carne asada, no guacamole (their guac sux)? Also, the meat tastes good and not like dead mystery mix.


"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki