Average US fuel economy, getting better but still bad.
 

Autoblog Green reports triumphantly Spike in small-car sales ups average fuel economy to 22.7 mpg in first quarter of 2011:


Yet it only shows how badly the US is doing in availability and market acceptance of fuel efficient cars.

22.7 mpg is a staggering 10.36 L/100 km on average.
For gasoline, that corresponds to a CO2 output of 247.8 gram/km.

For comparison, in Portugal the CO2 output of new cars sold in 2010 was 127.4 gram/km (#1 of 21 EU countries) , 130.8 in France (#2), and 133.9 in Belgium (#6).
If we translate the Belgian average (mostly diesel cars) to mpg, we're talking about 46.1 mpg !


PaleMelanesian once computed that new-EPA is 85% of the less realistic NEDC.
Accounting for that, those 46.1 mpg would become a more realistic 39.2 mpg.

Still a whopping 73 % better than the US average mpg !

It would be interesting to see some kind of comparison between average FE and fuel costs adjusted to a common currency - Euro or USD.

Maybe also including mean income.

EDIT - I meant to add it may answer some questions about how costs affect purchasing decisions.

This reminds me of a thought I had. I wish there were an option on the car page to add in 2 more "epa average" values.

One for average mpg in your country

One for average mpg of your previous vehicle


That way the stats could include not just how much better you are doing than the EPA of your own vehicle, but also how much better you were doing before you switched to a more efficient vehicle (if you did) and how you're doing compared to the average Joe.

I think having those stats would be really cool/a lot of fun.

I'll be honest with you. I went over to the UK in the summer of 2007 and hired a Saab 9.5 TDI Estate Car for my trip (I was traveling with a bike, so I needed a larger car). Despite the mediocre mileage of 36-40mpg and the high price of diesel at the time of 1.30 (pounds, not dollars, but I can't figure out how to make that symbol), I brought my US attitude and didn't care. We're raised with a sense of entitlement and a culture of 'freedom is the open road' that we (as a society in general) rarely even think about how much we're using. It's not likely to change until fuel prices stabilize over $4.50 a gallon or more and even then, only for those who make less than $75k/year. For the rest, it's a right they intent to take full advantage of because they can.

These short spikes in prices really do little to change where people buy their homes, where they choose to work, and what kind of car they drive. All signs are pointing toward this price spike is nearing the end of its course and it saddens me that soon we'll be back under $3.25/gallon and people will be back to buying Suburbans and pick ups they don't use*. It doesn't bode well for any of our future.


*I have no problem with those who own Suburbans and haul around a crew of six or seven all day long or a pick up truck that sees a load of stuff every day. I just have concerns when there's folks having a hard time putting food on the table on the other side of the world because the excessive unnecessary demand in the US forces up energy costs, which in turn forces up food costs.

BTW the 1.30GBP you were paying was for a litre(er), you need 3.69 of those for a US gallon - so you were getting under 10m per litre. :D

I forgot to add, I'm not preaching or attempting to get people to change - I just think it would just be interesting from a stats / behaviour point of view. I wonder if GapFinder has this stat ?

I didn't take it as preaching, I think you're on track to some degree that there's a price that will change behaviour, but there's also other social factors that will be hard to make go away. We're a nation of wanderlusters and it's going to take some real economic pain to change our ways. The time is coming, without a doubt, but most folks aren't thinking that far ahead and these short-term spikes only reassure folks that it's only short-term pain.

I don't think that's quite the root of the problem. I mean, why doesn't this sense of entitlement translate into a lot more people wanting "the old two-seater": updated versions of classic British sports cars? (And, of course, open roads to drive them on.) That'd be a lot more like freedom to me.

Instead, we get these oversized behemoths driving in mostly straight lines on divided highways, and "safety" being a big selling point. Seems to me there's a lot of fear & sense of inadequacy buried in there not too far below the entitlement.

Seems most folks I know prefer a huge vehicle (for safety reasons), and are willing to pay the MPG penalty for it.

I still don't see many (read: NONE) carpoolers. Still lots of single person drivers in behemoths.

You might be more accurate, but I still see the Chevy Chase 'Vacation' as a rite of passage, which is why we're scared to death of a vehicle with a limited range of 40 miles, even though we rarely go further. I also know that in my 20s I racked up 400,000 miles exploring all points west of the Colorado state line in a dizzying array of criss-cross patterns. I agree that fear is a primary driver right now, but it's funny how folks still don't look at the actual data. Some of the smaller cars have been outperforming the big SUVs for safety for years because they don't roll over (one of the deadliest kinds of crashes).

In any case, I'm not sure if our sense of entitlement to cheap gas will ever go away or even if prices rise we'll suddenly change our collective way of thinking. Nothing will be overnight, but I do like seeing trends like the original post brought up. When the dollars at the new car lots tilt hard enough on the side of economy, we'll start seeing the mpgs all of us envy in the European car markets.

Have a question; why is it that when it comes to bringing the more fuel efficient cars, minivans, and trucks to the US market that the usual answer is that they don't meet the emission and crash standards? It doesn't make sense.

It's almost saying, " Europeans and those in the world markets have to have more polluting and less safe vehicles because of where they are. "