Study: Cars Have Grown Bigger and Faster But Not As Efficient
The first car my best friend ever drove was a early 80’s Honda Accord hatchback. It was little more than an oversized rollarskate with a tiny, 80 horsepower engine, but it beat the hell out of walking. The car itself was cramped and lacked all the amenities one would find standard on today’s cars, even cupholders. Today, the car serves as an immobile flower bed for a maple tree and wildflowers, but the memories will remain.
Flash forward to today, and a new study finds that since the early ’80’s the Honda Accord has packed on over 1,000 lbs, doubled its standard horsepower, and fuel economy has steadily dipped. The study seems to suggest that if vehicle weight, horsepower, and torque were held at their 1980’s levels, then fuel efficiency could have increased by at least 50%, rather than the 15% increase that actually occured. But is it really that simple?
- » See also: GM Working On Efficient, Shape-Changing, Memory Metal Engine
- » Get Gas 2.0 by RSS or sign up by email.
The study, by Christopher R. Knittel, entitled Automobiles on Steroids: Product Attribute Trade-Off s and Technological Progress in the Automobile Sector compares the Honda Accord of today with that of yesteryear. Today’s Accord weighs in at 3,200 lbs, 1,000 lbs more than the old 80’s accord. But it isn’t simply a matter of the cars increasing in length and girth. Since the 80’s, auto manufacturers have had a slew of new safety features forced upon them to improve accident impact. Things we take for granted today, like air bags, stability control, reinforced frames, and crumple zones did not exist back then. These features all add up over time, requiring more room on the car and thereby increasing its weight. Cars may be heavier today, but they are also impeccably safer too.
Comparing trucks results in an even more staggering numbers. The average horsepower on trucks increased by 99 percent, while weight went up by 26%. Sales of light trucks more than doubed between 1984 and 2004 as well, from 20% of passenger vehicle sales to 51%.
I have to take issue with the horsepower factor. I was lucky enough to survive my encounter with the Honda Accord hatchback, but only just. It had no passing power, period. An 80 horsepower motor, even on a lightweight 2,200 lb frame, is only enough power to get from point A to point B. Merging onto a highway was an exercise in patience, as fully loaded with four heavyweight teens, the car could take upwards of 20 seconds to reach even 60 mph. You don’t have to believe me, as I’ve been there. I would never wish anyone the experience of semi-trucks flying past at highway speeds, horn blaring, as the driver struggles to control the car through the strong wind wake while simultainously accelerating.
Besides, I like going fast.
Cars are supposed to improve year by year anyway. Why buy a new car that has the same horsepower rating as the 5 year old car still sitting in your driveway? Not everybody needs 300 horsepower, but I don’t think too many people want to drive an underpowered car either. Unless you live in Europe or do all your driving in the city, where you never go above 45 mph anyway.
The study does recognize that engines have, indeed, become more fuel efficient, as well as less noxious to the environment. The chart is a little deceptive as it fluctuates between 8 mpg, though it looks like a much more dramatic drop. Today’s engines are more powerful because they carry around more weight, but they also pollute less and they do more work on comparetively less fuel. Stick one of those old engines into a new Accord, and see what kind of mileage you get without the benefits of new engines and transmissions.
You could argue that the increase in horsepower was not necessary, but at least in America, where the roads are often long and flat, the power is usually a welcome feature. And remember, car companies are out to make money. That means competing with each other to provide the most attractive car to prospective buyer. If one company is offering 20 more horsepower at the same price as a competitors car, all other variables being the same, where do you think the buyer might drift?
I would like to emphasize, again, that actual fuel economy has dipped. The 80’s Hondas got better gas mileage because they were lighter and had less horsepower. But overall engine efficiency has increased, as the engines make double the horsepower, carry a 1/3 more weight, and still get impressive fuel economy figures, at least in the Accord’s case. Why the study suggests that fuel economy could have increased 50% if all other factors remained the same, I don’t know, because you are then disregarding 25 years of progress in both safety and engine efficiency.
But taking the study for what it is, we can see where car companies priorities have fallen. Amerca has always had big cars, and imports sought to emulate American sucess. The hard truth of the matter is, the car companies, including “green leaders” like Toyota, have always sold us, the consumer, what we wanted. It would be a little hypocritical for us to condemn them for selling us what we asked for.
At least for now though, the world seems to have changed its mind. You can hit the link below to go directly to the study itself.
So, what do you guys think?
Source:
It’s actually pretty amazing that we increased efficiency by anything when you consider the weight increases. Airbags (some cars have 6+ now), steel safety cages, emissions equipment, standard power options & A/C (on all but the cheapest cars), 6-spd transmissions, navigation, etc. have all added on the pounds over the years. Cars are much more safe, environmentally friendly and pleasant to drive, though.
Honda still makes the Civic and the Fit for those who want smaller…it’s just that till recently, we’ve chosen to buy bigger.
“But is it really that simple?”
Yes. I’ve been saying this for years.
Not only do all the safety improvements weigh vehicles down, but modern drivers do not take due care when driving because they feel safe and isolated. Unsafe cars are safer in some ways because the driver becomes more aware and cautious. People would not drive as recklessly as they generally do today if they were still riding on bias-ply tires, drum brakes and swing axles.
I drive a 1987 VW Jetta. It weighs 2,250 lbs, had 96 horsepower when it was new, is a five speed and is still quite capable of getting out of its own way and onto a highway safely while loaded. I also get 35mpg on the highway.
And Tim, today’s Civic is much larger than the Accord mentioned in the article.
Forgot to say, put a modern 80 horsepower motor in a 2,200 pound car like that old Accord and your gas mileage will be rather impressive.
We can all drive more fuel efficient cars without spending a dime – it’s a matter of adjusting your driving habits. I learned a ton at an eco-driving workshop at this summer’s Midwest Renewable Energy Fair. Check out the top ten tips at http://digginginthedriftless.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/10-ways-to-cut-gas-costs-and-save-the-planet/
Happy eco-driving,
Denise Thornton
bluetoes:
As my father always says, it is the other a-holes on the road you have to look out for.
You can be the safest driver in the world, but if the nitwit in an Escalade isn’t paying attention when he rams you off the road at 90 mph, you’re 20 year old Jetta won’t hold up nearly as well as modern metal.
Also, my Jeep still has drum brakes without ABS: it is an absolute horror show to stop in the rain. I don’t know why you would want anybody to have to drive like that. I see what your saying; people might drive safer if their car wasn’t so safe, but the reality I feel is far different.
Now, put a roll cage in your Jetta and you might have an argument. I’ve seen well-built roll cages withstand 150+ mph accidents with the driver walking away.
“Besides, I like going fast” You are the problem!
Power and size are all about Ego, little gutless cars get no respect but the idea that small light and low powered is dangerous is total BS. Big horsepower overweight cars are MUCH more dangerous to their drivers and other road users.
A Lotus Elise goes plenty fast and doesn’t have much power or weight!
Automakers are just as guilty as the dopes who buy the cars in feeding the arms race of size and power.
How many cars in show rooms these days have over 200kw when it wasn’t too long ago even a 5 lt V8 didn’t have that much power.
If you want more power you have to use more fuel.. simple, but it’s usually just to push more weight around, speed limits haven’t changed much and cars aren’t really that much faster these days.
BTW…
manufactures only ever quote FUEL efficiency but N.E.V.E.R quote ENERGY efficiency which has not improved AT ALL in the last 100 years.
They can improve fuel efficiency by changing the gearing or making the car more aero but a petrol fired ICE has and always will be approx 25% energy efficient at the flywheel and 15% at the wheels… $85 out of every $100 spend at the fuel bowser is converted into un-usable waste heat… a sad but true fact!
It’s a well kept secret!
If any car had an energy efficiency rating on it we’d all park them in discust until EVs were in showrooms.
You are right about the inefficiency of Internal Combustion Engines.
But I don’t think being green means you have to go slow. I enjoy speed, I have had several fast, fun cars in my time, and it is addicting.
I don’t see why green and speed have to be mutually exclusive. They don’t. And I am obviously not the only one who likes to go fast.
Life is too short to spend cooped up in a car all day.
Fuel consumption vs. performance and weight. Cases in point;
1956 Chevrolet 2 door sedan 150 series, 265 cu. In V-8, weight about 3300 pounds, 3.56 : 1 axle ratio, 1:1 top gear in the transmission, 3 Holley 94 carburetors (That was Holley’s copy of a Stromberg 94, for those of you old enough to remember.) carbs re-jetted to produce a nice light rust color in the tailpipes rather than the 1/8” of soot in the tail pipes of most of my buddies’ cars. Highway (60 to 80 mph) 16-17.5 mpg. Better at higher speed which I attribute to being in a speed range that was closer to peak torque and therefore better BSFC.
City about 14-16 mpg.
1986 Mustang 5.0 coupe, weight almost the same, about 3400 pounds, five speed transmission and overall top gear about 2.7:1. This was Ford’s initial sequential fuel injector V-8 in the Mustang. Highway, long distance cruise up to 130 MPH 20.98 mpg. (one trip, one tank of gas filled up after the high speed trip.) Effectively an interstate highway cruising at about 105 MPH, (2500RPM and still below torque peak RPM) 23.5 mpg. Typical highway 60-80 MPH about 27 mpg.
City 15-17 mpg. (couldn’t use 5th gear below 40 MPH. That equates to about 1000 RPM)
Both vehicles were 0 to 60 MPH in 6.7 to 6.9 seconds and a quarter mile drag strip at very near 14 seconds and 98 MPH.
On one slow long distance trip following an under performing rental truck this Mustang got almost 32 mpg average for over 2000 miles.
My conclusion is that the mileage differences in these different vehicles is closely related to the gearing of the vehicle. And just for the record, neither vehicle was ever crashed. Of course, both were driven within their and the drivers’ capabilities, and they were reasonably maintained.
The Chevrolet was definitely above average performance at its time. It is interesting that “hopping it up” improved not only the straight line performance but also the fuel efficiency when compared to the standard Chevrolet V-8s of the time.
Where not designated the fuel averages are long term, not single trip averages. At no time was fuel mileage a concern. What I got was without special attempts to economize.
Sorry that reference to a Sstromberg 94 should read Stromberg 97.