That's the question posed by a series of articles in Automotive News today. It's one that's going to be asked quite often in the coming years as tougher fuel economy rules are scheduled to take effect in 2016.
How much more will the new crop of cars and trucks cost? It's debatable, but as the article points out, most of the easy fixes have already been made to most cars. Substantially improving mileage at this point is going to involve more costly changes.
On the low-end, compact cars will have to adopt technology like dual-clutch transmissions, direct injection engines and variable-valve timing. Midsize cars will have to consider more costly materials to save weight along with start-stop systems and hybrid drivetrains. Full-size trucks will finally have to offer light-duty diesel engines which sounds great, but will add substantial up-front cost.
How much? Conservative estimates say that cars will add roughly $1,800 to the bottom line while more realistic estimates predict double that amount. For trucks, it's even higher as a typical diesel engine adds $6,000 to $8,000 in up front cost. Think consumers are ready for the added costs?
brn says:
05:55 AM, 03/22/10
I'm glad others are willing to pay more for new tech. I'm not ready yet. I'd rather have an efficient gasoline motor. The good news is, I get to pay less, rather than more, for the privilege.
mrryte says:
07:21 AM, 03/22/10
Agreed brn.
I'll pay more IF AND ONLY IF the new technology has been proven to be better and more reliable. I usually wait till the 2nd gen of a new technology before I buy into it (by then most of the 1st gen kinks and faults would have been worked out.)
Till then....
throwback says:
07:44 AM, 03/22/10
Like brn I am glad some people are willing more. I will continue to buy used cars which offer the best value. I would love to see more diesels as I think they are better suited our driving styles. Same for EVs, I just won't be paying 30-40K for a 100 mile EV. Now if there was a 500 mile EV for 30K I would be tempted.
wizard8873 says:
08:18 AM, 03/22/10
Great that they offer it but would be nice to have an option for this. If I was concerned about fuel economy, then I would look for it. Otherwise why would I want to complicate and already complex engine more just for maybe a little bit more mileage and even then depending on the way that I drive. I would rather see diesels to offset the fuel economy for companies. I would pay extra for one if it was to be a daily driver for me.
church123 says:
08:54 AM, 03/22/10
I'm with wizard and then some. If fuel economy was particularly important to me I'd just start by driving differently. Between my driving style and commute route I'm costing myself about a 30% reduction in economy. (15mpg instead of 20mpg). But I love the twisty, hilly fun route that I take and drive it as such.
I will also be buying more used cars in the immediate future. What is coming down the pipe doesn't excite me much, particularly from a cost and complexity standpoint. Just look at all the DPF and EGR deposit problems showing up on late model medium duty diesel pickups. This is a sign of things to come.
stovt001 says:
10:30 AM, 03/22/10
How much am I willing to pay for increased efficiency? The answer is easy: precisely equal to the amount of money I would save on gas over the life of the car when compared to an otherwise similar but less efficient vehicle. If it costs less, then great, I save money. If it costs more, then why would I spend more money than what I'm saving?
inlinesix says:
11:32 AM, 03/22/10
brn and stovt have great points.
Good fuel efficient gasoline engines have been out for a long time. I'd personally be open to buying a smaller car (Honda Fit, Mazda 2, used S2000, or Fiesta Turbo) when gas gets to about $5.00 a gallon. I'd also get another 65mpg motorcycle and have some fun at the same time.
greenpony says:
11:32 AM, 03/22/10
There's all this focus on increased cost due to high-tech powertrains, exotic lightweight materials, etc. But no one ever talks about paring back horsepower. Is this taboo? What does a compact car need with 170 hp? Or a midsize with 270? Decrease power and you (to a point) increase economy.
What about taking a step back from mandating this from the supply side, and instead focusing on infrastructure? More "smart" intersections that let pulses of cars see nothing but green lights. Fewer bottlenecks. More limited-access roads/highways. Or the cheapest one of all: lower speed limits (35-45 mph would be ideal for fuel economy).
firstwagon says:
12:34 PM, 03/22/10
"How much am I willing to pay for increased efficiency? The answer is easy: precisely equal to the amount of money I would save on gas over the life of the car when compared to an otherwise similar but less efficient vehicle"
So you place no value on reduced oil consumption and a reduction in all the types of pollution that would go with it? No value on reducing dependance on foreign oil? No value leaving some of a valuable resource to our children and their children?
People are willing to pay big money for all sorts of meaningless fluff (leather, nav systems, fancy oversized wheels etc, etc) , why not throw in a little extra for the future?
brn says:
01:22 PM, 03/22/10
firstwagon: "So you place no value on reduced oil consumption and a reduction in all the types of pollution that would go with it? No value on reducing dependance on foreign oil? No value leaving some of a valuable resource to our children and their children?"
Then diesel is the wrong answer.
greenpony: "no one ever talks about paring back horsepower. Is this taboo? What does a compact car need with 170 hp? Or a midsize with 270?"
I couldn't agree more. The current Focus has 140hp and that's overkill. The Fit manages well with 117hp. With very few exceptions, there are no underpowered vehicles anymore. Why is a 9 second 0-60 considered lethargic?
Gonna have to take you out over speed limit suggestion though. ;)
throwback says:
01:56 PM, 03/22/10
brn, I think if more testers focused less on 0-60mph times reducing HP would not be a big deal. In Europe and Japan you can get a 1.3L Fit which gets approx 10% more mpg. Yes 0-60mph increases but how often do folks drive at WOT and upshift at the redline?
stovt001 says:
04:39 PM, 03/22/10
"So you place no value on reduced oil consumption and a reduction in all the types of pollution that would go with it? No value on reducing dependance on foreign oil? No value leaving some of a valuable resource to our children and their children?"
Sure I do, but my individual reduction in fuel consumption will have no significant effect on overall oil consumption nor pollution. I would receive no benefit from unilaterally reducing my gas use besides cost savings. The externalities you speak of should be factored into the price of the fuel, and that is a separate discussion.
oscarmv says:
12:33 PM, 03/24/10
For those counting savings in fuel, remember also to take into account resale value. At least so far for diesels it's excellent (not sure about hybrids).