European Fuel Efficiency

Maintenance/Repairs
, ,
41

  1. In Europe most cars are stick shift, which typically adds 2-3 mpg compared to an automatic version of the same model. This also helps compensate a bit for the small horsepower in small cars.

  2. In Europe and in many other countries, you can only drive on the left lane (or right in the UK) of a freeway when passing. Remaining in the “passing lane” when not actively passing or disrupting the flow of faster moving traffic is illegal. Passing from an inside lane is also illegal. Overall, once on a freeway there is usually much less braking and acceleration than on a typical US interstate. This could lead to better mileage.

  3. Someone already mentioned the difference in safety standards. Importing a high-end Mercedez or Volvo from EU to US should not be a problem since they are built to exceed any current standards, but it may not be the case for smaller economy cars. Many Japanese economy cars simply do not make it to the US while they often do to the EU, and when they finally do they are modified to better meet the US safety standard.

  4. Speaking of Japanese cars, CVTs have long been the standard transmission for many economy models sold within Japan, yet less efficient 4-speed automatic transmission is the only automatic option available for the same models sold in the US. In EU most of these are sold with manual transmission anyway.

As with the Astra example, Yaris is available as 1.0 or 1.3L models in Japan and EU, but only the top-of-line 1.5L is offered in the US. I think 1.0L cars are better option than Smartcars in a typical (sub)urban lifestyle in the US, and it is a shame that they are not available. I would certainly be interested in one as an in-town vehicle, and with a stick shift it should be able to perform equally or better than base model Focus or Cobalt with 4-speed AT.

42

You mention the safety ratings that hinder many imports of good cars (or exports in the opposite direction). It is important to note that this does not mean that safety standards in the US are necessarily better and prevent us from all kinds of crapcans that drive around in Europe. They are just different. This was pointed out to me by a friend who works at the Porsche factory in Zuffenhausen, Germany.

He pointed out, that in Europe brands like Renault consistently score 5* in crash test ratings while not being able to enter the US market. Porsche, on the other hand, usually scores slightly lower than these brands but meets standards in both markets. They have to compromise while a specialized brand can optimize towards its target market.

This prevents a lot of good cars (including GM and Ford brands) from being available in the US. And it prevents lots of fine US vehicles form being available to people overseas.

I am not to judge if that’s a good or bad thing.

We are looking at a somewhat similar situation when it comes to environmental standards. None of them is necessarily better but they are not compatible which prevents brands from offering certain configurations in other markets.

43

you’ll need to check with the EPA. because of our very strict emission standards a great many of the most fuel efficient cars (yes even some manufactured by US companies). do we want to do everything possible to “save the planet”? here’s my suggestion. relax the EPA standards temporarily. the “big 3” might be able to un-bury themselves, with the stipulation that within x amount of years they will have used the “bail out money” 100% for research and developement of alternative fuels etc.

well thats my $ .02 worth.

44

Sorry - but it shows a big problem in American attitudes when we are so hurried that taking 12 seconds instead of 6 to get to 100 (and we don’t have an autobahn) is the reason to buy a gas guzzler. In my town the SUV’s rarely go over 35 MPH because all the city folk buy them. The people that really need trucks usually drive “bangers” over 20 years old - and the fuel efficiency is the same as the new ones!

45

You say that like it’s bad thing.

46

My understanding is that Renault has no intension of entering the North American market since it now owns Nissan, which has an established market here. And it probably is a smart decision since I cannot imagine Renault cars succeeding in the US - they are highly tuned to the European driving patterns and driver skills and preferences.

I am curious whether US automakers have even thought of making their Autogas(LPG)-Petrol bi-fuel models (e.g., Astra, Focus, Jeep) available in the US. This should be irrelevant to the safety standard difference between the two markets since all they have to do is to install the Autogas unit (tank and fuel system) they use in EU to the regular gasoline models sold in the US. There are LPG-only vehicles in the US, so the gas cylinder and the fuel line, etc. must be safe enough to meet the US safety standards.

I saw quite a few cars at gas stations with a LPG-gasoline system (therefore at an Autogas pump) in the Netherlands, and apparently they are also available in the UK (http://www.whatgreencar.com/lpg.php). The beauty of it is that LPG is cleaner burning, made from natural gas, and its CO2 emission is 10-15% lower than gasoline. If we could reduce the overall auto-generated CO2 emission in the US by even 5%, it is a great reduction in volume on the global scale.

I have seen TV ads saying that there is enough natural gas buried within North America to to provide energy for it for decades or something like that, stating that natural gas is the way to energy independence. I of course do not take these industry-lead claims at the face value, but if the US is serious about energy independence they should have pursued this avenue before they jumped onto the ethanol bandwagon (which, if made from corn, does not help much in terms of overall energy consumption or CO2 emission - ecologists knew about this for a long time).

47

yeah,but how fast do you americans really NEED to go?

48

ha ha,dont tell the english government,or they will!!!

49

I like the concept of relaxing some of the epa and maybe even the safety standards(btw Americans do seem to like the concept of power: I used to back in my muscle car days), but I’m not sure we’re even thinking logically about how Americans (my point of view which I can speak from; have never been over seas)spend their money. I drive (see above post) a 2000$ old VW Diesel Jetta; I don’t have a car payment, pay very little vehicle tax (side note, from what I understand many European Countries and Japan discourage people from driving older cars through taxes, etc. and I’m not sure I understand why), and have incredible fuel mileage. If one cares about things such as this, my ‘carbon footprint’ is probably very low…)I could go buy (I mean finance) a 25,000$ Prius; but where does that get me? NOW I’m making large monthly payments, have to have full coverage insurance, etc. I’m NOT saving a bit of money (actually losing money) even if I was formerly driving a 15 mpg old car or truck! It would take years; probably the life of the Prius, to make up the difference. We have (as a nation) mortgaged/financed ourselves into the poorhouse. There are so many ways of looking at this problem; but what is the bottom line? are we trying to save money (our own personal finances)? the environment? the car companies? our economy? We preach sacrifice, and frugality, but when it comes down to it, even the ‘greenest greenie’ wants air conditioning in his or her Subaru, and a comfortable seat, and a reliable, safe, economical vehicle. Most Americans live many miles from work; public transportation is not a super option in most places. Plus, do we want the government to dictate what we drive? when we drive it? If I opt to drive a fuel hog of a car (which also equates, usually, to a much bigger=safer car), am I not already paying a penalty by using more fuel (which is my money buying it)? why then, are people advocating taxes penalties on top of this? where do we draw the line or not, in our quest as individuals with individual freedoms? I think we have to decide what the priorities are in our lives… in our countries future, and in the global scheme of things and where we really need to go with these questions. I’m ranting…

50

I like being able to get to 70 MPH from a dead stop in no more than 7 or 8 seconds. Luckily my car can get to 70 MPH in around 5 or 6 seconds. As far as top speed goes, that’s not really important 120 MPH would be plenty. But more is always nice.

51

I have lived in both Europe and Japan. In these areas (and many others) driving is clearly defined as a privilege that you earn and pay for to maintain. If you live in an area without public transport and cannot afford car-related expenses, you simply move to an area with public transport. Period. Living in a remote, quaint area is considered luxury.

Most people buy cars with cash or 2-3 year loan. You buy what you can afford, new or used, and once you buy one, you start saving for the next one. Leasing is for commercial fleet or for those who like driving the newest model every year but cannot be bothered with ownership.

Minimum driving age is typically 18, and you have to finish a rigorous course that costs thousands of dollars. Driving is never a part of secondary education, and many schools discourage or prohibit 18 year olds from getting a license until they graduate to make them concentrate on academics. You take the course and must pass the road tests with a stick shift car, unless you are applying for a special, AT-only license.

Taxation on cars and auto insurance rates are finely graduated by displacement volume. The reasoning being that heavier vehicles damage roads more and require wider roads and railroad crossing, sturdier guardrails, better sound barriers, etc. There are also mandatory governmental inspection of cars every 6-18 months, depending on the age of the car. Brand-new cars are exempt for the first 3-5 years. As a result many ordinary falks keep their cars only for a few more years after they start having the inspection. As a car ages it costs more and more to pass the inspection, and consequently outdated, more polluting and less safe (no 3-point seat belts for back seats, etc.) cars are phased out by the economic principle. In a way it is good since they make everyone stick to the standard specification - with more mingling of pedestrians, bikes and cars than in the US, it is important that people do not mess with bumper heights and attach unnecessary bars, etc.

It is also interesting that in this thread gasoline abroad is called “heavily taxed”, but elsewhere in the world people think that gasoline in the US is “heavily subsidized” - not reflecting all the production, distribution, health and safety and environmental costs. Even before the recent price increase, citizens of most non-OPEC countries worldwide, with all different political systems and taxation schema, paid at least double for gasoline than US citizens did.

I actually like that cars have longer longevity here - that alone contributes to great deal of energy and resource conservation. I however doubt that larger SUVs and non-commercial trucks are any safer than a traditional passenger car overall. People certainly get false feeling of security, though. A friend of mine is a state trooper in a northern state, and he is just so sick of people who think huge 4WD SUVs never lose traction and can stop immediately.

Too many times I see someone driving a huge SUV, with a few kids not properly secured in car seats, a big dog pacing around in the back but no safety barrier between the cargo space and the back seat, the driver talking into a cell phone held in his/her hand, trying to make a left turn across busy traffic without a turn signal AND overly underestimating the gap needed to safely make the left turn (or counting on the oncoming traffic to break for him/her). I doubt that the same person would do the same in granpa’s estate wagon…

52

emissions standards are based on mpg of the vehicle. on diesels the epa requires around 90% reduction of formed NOx for any diesel regardless of mileage. in europe the lowest mileage diesels require about 50% reduction of NOx and if the vehicle gets more than 40 mpg than no reduction is required. why don’t we have highly efficient diesel cars? ask the government.