New fuel standards: Costlier cars, but less expensive to run

New US fuel standards will force cars to be 60 percent more fuel-efficient by 2025. But gas-powered engines and basic outlines of today's cars won't disappear.

Jason Pang Show Heng/Shell/AP/File
A fuel-cell car from Taiwan's National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences makes a ceremonial start at the 2011 Shell Eco-marathon energy efficiency challenge in Malaysia. By 2025, cars will be far more fuel-efficient than today's average model but most will still be using gas.

One year on, debate still rages over the federal government’s new fuel standards.  Will stricter rules, forcing a 60 percent rise in fuel economy by 2025, help consumers – or hurt them?

The answer’s not easy because a big swing in oil prices or an unexpected technology breakthrough can change the calculations. But barring that, there are discernible trends within the auto industry that are likely to shape the future. Here are three:

  • Consumers will pay more for their cars up front, but they’ll save overall because they’ll be able to use far less gasoline.
  • Gasoline engines won’t disappear. Despite all the attention given to electric cars right now, the American auto fleet will remain gasoline-powered – overwhelmingly so – through 2025.
  • Fuel efficiency won’t radically alter car design. The industry intends to make its technological changes as invisibly as possible.

“Americans don’t have to sacrifice affordability, comfort, or even the ‘wow’ factor when they’re shopping for gas-sipping cars,” said James Guest, chief executive of Consumer Reports, at a Consumers Union conference in Yonkers, N.Y., earlier this year. The next wave of consumer automobiles won’t look or feel wildly different from what’s on the market today, he adds. 

For consumer pocketbooks, however, the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards represents a big change. Starting in 2017 and moving up incrementally through 2025, CAFE standards will rise from the current 34.2 miles per gallon to 54.5 m.p.g. That’s an average for each automaker’s fleet, so some  cars will get even better mileage, some will be worse.

All those incremental fuel-saving changes come at a cost. Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, estimates they will boost the sales price by less than $2,000 (in 2010 dollars).  But drivers will save so much in fuel costs that they will still net an average savings of $700 a year – or $4,600 over the useful lifetime of a new vehicle.

Another consumer concern is product choice.  In 1971, new federal “exterior protection” standards forced all new passenger cars to adopt much bulkier bumpers, which dramatically altered styling. This time, changes will be more subtle, auto experts say.

Visually, you can expect more streamlining.  Aerodynamic improvements are relatively low-hanging fruit for automakers. According to the US government’s fuel economy findings, only about 14 to 26 percent of energy from fuel in a contemporary automobile is used to propel the vehicle; the rest is consumed by losses to heat and vehicle sub-systems, such as interior climate control and electronics.

Inside, car companies are likely to take advantage of advances, such as start-stop technology (engines that shut down when vehicles idle), more seamless integration of vehicle engines and transmissions, and better engine cooling to improve efficiency. Such changes are more likely than a wholesale move to electric cars. 

“We do not expect electric drive to be the predominant technology in 2025,” says Ann Schlenker, director of the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.