November22
A bipartisan 78 percent of Americans want the U.S. government to impose a 40 mile per gallon fuel-efficiency standard for vehicles sold in the United States, according to a new Opinion Research Corporation (ORC) national opinion survey. The report indicates nine out of 10 Americans expect gas prices to go up “in the near future,” with nearly half (46 percent) “definitely” expecting a resumption of higher fuel prices.
70 percent of Americans are not turning their back on fuel-efficiency concerns and say that they are factoring “expected future gasoline price increases into consideration in thinking about buying a new vehicle.”
The study found temporarily lower gasoline prices are not sending large numbers of Americans rushing back to gas-guzzling SUV and trucks. In fact, nearly half (45 percent) of Americans are now more likely to buy a “hybrid or other fuel-efficient vehicle” than they were six months ago, compared
to 30 percent who are unchanged in their plans and fewer than one in four (24 percent) who are less likely to make such a vehicle purchase.
Other key results of the Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted for the Civil Society Institute include the following:
- Most Americans think Detroit is to blame for its current woes. Respondents were asked: “Do you agree or disagree that U.S. automakers have generally been blind to U.S. consumer needs and tastes by focusing so heavily on fuel-inefficient SUVs and trucks while European and Japanese automakers have focused their efforts on vehicle design and/or improved fuel efficiency?” More than three out of four (76 percent) agreed with the statement, compared to just 22 percent who disagreed.
- Nearly all Americans want President Bush to pressure U.S. automakers to focus more on the latest in fuel-efficiency technology. White House pressure for Detroit to take up such innovations reducing “energy consumption and related global-warming pollution” is backed by 85 percent of Americans, including 58 percent who would strongly support such pressure by President Bush. Political support for White House action on this front is strongly bipartisan: Republicans (82 percent); Independents (81 percent); and Democrats (91 percent).
- Most Americans think “President Bush and Congress could help U.S. automakers be more competitive by increasing the federal fuel-efficiency standard to 40 miles per gallon”. Such a move is supported by 78 percent of Americans, including 45 percent who back it strongly. Support for a 40 mpg fuel-efficiency standard cuts across party lines: Republicans (70 percent); Independents (78 percent); and Democrats (84 percent).
- Most Americans agree that “President Bush and Congress should provide incentives-such as helping to lower health care costs for autoworkers-in exchange for increased investments by Detroit car makers in fuel-efficient technologies to reduce energy consumption and related global-warming pollution.” Two thirds of Americans support this step, compared to less than a third (31 percent) opposing. Strong majorities of Republicans (60 percent), Independents (60 percent) and Democrats (75 percent) would back such an inducement.
- A majority of Americans see Japanese automakers ahead of U.S. car manufacturers. Respondents were asked: “Would you say that U.S. or Japanese automakers are in the lead when it comes to hybrid technology and other more highly fuel-efficient technologies to reduce energy consumption and related global-warming pollution?” Half said Japan was in the lead, compared to only 6 percent who put the U.S. in the pole position. Slightly more than a third (36 percent) see the U.S. and Japan as being roughly neck and neck. Men were more likely than woman to see Japan ahead of the U.S. by a margin of 57 percent to 44 percent, respectively.
- Almost all Americans want Detroit to start selling here at home the highly fuel-efficient vehicles that they make or sell overseas – but not in the U.S. The survey notes that “American automakers produce or sell dozens of car models that achieve over 35 miles per gallon but are not made available to consumers here in the United States. Do you think Detroit carmakers should be encouraged to make available here at home the more fuel-efficient cars they are currently only selling abroad?” An overwhelming 90 percent of respondents said “yes,” including 60 percent who said “definitely yes.” Almost no difference was seen on this question across party lines: Republicans (88 percent); Independents (86 percent); and Democrats (93 percent).
- Most Americans would support federal gasoline taxes devoted to renewable energy/clean tech R&D. Respondents were asked: Do you think President Bush and the Congress should dedicate a portion of existing or increased gasoline taxes for investment in research and development of renewable energy and related clean technologies?” Nearly three out of four (74 percent) said yes, compared to just 24 percent who said no. Support was little changed on the basis of party affiliation, with Republicans (70 percent), Independents (73 percent) and Democrats (78 percent) in agreement on such a tax policy.
first, gas prices aren’t “lower” - they’re just not $3.25 anymore.
second, americans will support anything when the question is posed in a way that sounds appealing.
third, while everyone wants fuel economy, what we really want is a true apollo-like energy plan to take us through this century and beyond.
and yes, this presumes jeebus will not come and rapture all the believers up and leave the rest of us here to burn for eternity.
burn, using what i’m not sure, but i’m gonna guess hydrogen at this point.
like thats ever gonna happen
Don’t worry, we won’t burn in eternity; There won’t be enough fossil fuels left for us to burn for eternity.
78% of Americans are stupid if they want a 40mpg legislation. and gas prices are lower, if only lower than 3.25, but if many americans want 6’s and 8’s, were going to NEED jesus to come back and give us some sort of super-powered god engine that runs on sin and gives off neighborly love. Americans just seem to be too unwilling to comprimise.
40 mpg is a nice idea but we don’t have the technology for most vehicles to achive those kind of numbers.
yea seriously shut up you god damn hippies, what a ****ty inaccurate survey aiming at an outlandish “goal”.
dont mean to sound so hostile but its a rediculous claim, and if the government were to listen, youd never see a new dodge challenger
at the expense of what i think you can achieve 40mpg but your power output will be pretty damn low or you will have to drive micro cars and ultra expensive ultra low weight
If jeebus did rapture all those believers, we’d have more than enough cheap fuel for the rest of us to drive V8’s and few enough humans left that we wouldn’t make a dent on the environment. That’d be super sweet.
New study’s conclusions are out! 100% of the surveyed are completely out of tune with the contemporary auto industry, mostly consist of tree-hugging hippies, and drive Ford Excursions but are thinking of purchasing a hybrid becuase Al Gore thinks cars are the cause of global warming (”You mean, global warming is a natural phenomanon that I can’t stop by backing political movies?”). I assure you, the surveyed were handpicked so these results could be achieved.
Not only is a near future with only 40 mpg cars available sickening to think of (Dammit! I want a Corvette!), but it is unreasonable with today’s technology if people still want to get places in reasonable amounts of time without flying.
Sounds like a pretty biased study to me…I mean, look at this question in particular:
“Do you agree or disagree that U.S. automakers have generally been blind to U.S. consumer needs and tastes by focusing so heavily on fuel-inefficient SUVs and trucks while European and Japanese automakers have focused their efforts on vehicle design and/or improved fuel efficiency?”
I’m not saying their findings are bad, but a lot of the questions just seem less than objective, and overly hostile towards Detroit. They know what answer they’re looking for, and they make it obvious in the question.
Bull****.
This survey is so off.
I’m happy to get 17 mpg imy car now. My X5 had me at 12 mpg.
40mpg is not hard. plenty of cars get mid to high 30s. Diesels get well over 40mpg. Im sure if manufactures HAD to build these cars they could. they deff need to raise the average fuel econ. for each manufacture. i think its 27 right now. give it a bump to 35 by 2012. It can be done. soccer moms will have to give up there hummers they have no use for. truck owners who dont use there trucks for anything you need a truck for, will have to look at something more practical. Oh well. i dont think its stupid manufacture can classify crossovers as trucks to raise there truck mpg average. anything that carries ppl should be considers a passenger vehicle. period. a manufactures average fuel economy much by 35mpg. period. if they cant meet that, they dont get to sell cars here. BMW doesn’t meet the current setup and all they do is pay the fine and keep moving. Whats the point.
78% of America? Yea right! More like 32%
Instead of the government “imposing” anything, why don’t people simply use their money to make a statement. If you want a 40mpg car, go buy a Civic. Manufacturers will make what people will buy. If people want 15mpg SUVs, then the manufacturers will make them, and they should. That’s the way a free market economy should be.
The only reasonable rule that could be imposed is that for every 4 under-30mpg models a manufacturer builds, they must have one over-40mpg offering. that way hummer still doesnt have to bother with one
It’s an interesting thought that the market will make what people will buy. I suppose this is why foreign manufacturers have been consistently gaining market share over the past 20 or more years. I think the mere notion that people can be lead by the wording of a question also suggests that people can be lead by what manufacturers produce, and what they choose to market. Could the questions be leading? Sure, but ever single respondent had the option to disagree, and yet most of them chose not to.
Furthermore, how can we have the audacity to applaud Ford for listening to consumers and adding a bit more plastic to the front fascia of the Edge, and then just shrug off a study such as this?
What absolutely sickens me the most about this whole debate is the idea realism. As far as I’m concerned it is the absolute foe of innovation. By focusing on realistic goals we’re essentially saying that we’re happy with the status quo, which 78% of Americans are apparently not. Putting men on the moon is a perfect example. For President Kennedy to declare the US’s intention to put a man on the moon within a decade was a pretty unrealistic goal. That being said, it was established as a goal, and lo and behold, it was accomplished. Even if it hadn’t been accomplished, the effort put into the program would have made a trip to the moon much more feasible at a much earlier date than if Kennedy had set a realistic target like 1995. If that was the case, we’d still never have done it. I believe the saying is something along the line of, “Shoot for the moon, and even if you miss, you’ll still end up among the stars.”
And for all those who are completely convinced that performance and economy are irreconcilable, I give you the Audi A8 4.2 TDI Quattro. It’ll do 0-62 in 5.9 and is capable of averaging 40mpg. It might not be a Corvette, but don’t sit there and say a high performance vehicle with good fuel economy is unrealistic. Or, at the very least, be honest and say it’s an unrealistic goal for an American manufacturer. Let’s see how long they last in free market.
/no
Did they add to the question “do you want 40mpg legislation IF IT MEANS YOU DRIVE AN UNCOMFORTABLE UNDERPOWERED PILE OF **** THAT COSTS $50,000 AND A HELL OF A LOT IN UPKEEP?”
.
No, they did not. Those questions were so stupidly simplistic that it is impossible not to be on the enviro-side. Build a bit of reality and objectivity into the questions and you’ll get vastly different results.
I want better tasting popcorn at the movies with a large soft drink that doesn’t cost me ten dollars.
nowei - you win. perfectly said.
DIESEL IS THE FUTURE! say waht you will but look at Europe…that us in 5…10…15…20years. get use to it
ive been saying diesel is the future for years…
Okay my car a Citroen AX 1.1 does 33mpg. Its a car that was designed in the 80’s so i think it shouldnt be to hard to achieve 40mpg. This car was however small and had no amenities like power steering, airco, or power windows. So if you want to be green you have to suffer a bit. but really do we need everything to be electronic? personaly i dislike it because it just makes everything more complicated. Oh and about fun i probably had as much fun in my 60hp 687kg fwd french suspensioned car as someone in a corvette. It was fast enough to scare me round a roundabout in the wet so thats good enough for me.
Worthy goal. but as they say
‘Lie’s, Damn Lie’s and Statistics’ (or polls in this case).
anytime i see a statement with a question mark at the end i am leery at best. of course everybody wants better fuel economy (the bait) but most of us also want to make an educated decision based on what goes along with it (the hook).
If 78% of America wants a vehicle that gets them 40+ MPG, why do the majority of Americans decide to purchase either an SUV or some sort of pick up truck? If you want a fuel efficient vehicle, than buy one. The auto industry is going to provide the consumer with what it wants, until recently Americas interest was having the biggest thing on the road, and its Detroit’s fault that were behind in fuel efficiency? If you want something that fuel efficient, great! I don’t, at least I don’t care for one right now, I’m only 25. Just don’t force one on me, some people still like driving a car that has good looks, quick and not the size of a bath tub. Some of us would still like to be in a Z06, which by the way, a 427ci 505hp car that’s achieving 16/26 mpg is pretty damn good! I think this survey represents what the tree huggers and mommy crowd are looking for in a vehicle, that or the survey was taken in California.
Hold on now, we “can” blame our own vehicle manufacturing companies as the other companies took risks in producing fuel efficient vehicles—that they sold and keep selling. Our boys just kept shuckin’ and jivin’ the same old warmed-over crap.
this survey was obviously flawed.
A). far less than 78% of the drivers i encounter on the road drive little, fuel efficiant econoboxes
B). far more then 78% of the drivers i encounter on the road try to “race” me to the next stop light in their QX45’s and H2’s with V8s and 30 kids in the 89 rows of seats, just wasting gas and time
a 40 mpg legislation would not be needed if people would just buy as much room as needed instead of enourmous SUVs (or SAV if you have a Bimmer) that have too much space. my wife had twins two weeks ago, and i realised it was time for a larger car, but did i buy a Suburban? NO. i bought an A4 2.0T, and it has plenty of room and relativly good milage. almost no one needs an SUV.
IM A FATHER!!!
Your right F451, to an extent. The domestics did fall behind in the 80s and 90s, they just gave up the car market for the most part. But fuel was cheep and most people wanted a larger vehicle. If the market wouldn’t have demanded a 8,000lbs Suburban, and instead wanted something that from the start that was getting good fuel economy, than our boys wouldn’t be playing catch up. Japan has had very strict laws about pollution etc. They don’t want large vehicles, they want smaller cars that get good fuel economy. They have been doing it for ever, and that’s why better at it right now. We used to like big cube’s and HP. Now that Americans are waking up to the fact that were not as special as we once thought we were, and have to pay the high gas prices like the rest of the world, all of a sudden Detroit’s at fault for providing us with what we wanted for the longest time. Sure they could have reacted to things sooner, but the blame doesn’t rest solely on GM, Ford and Chrysler. Americans can take some of the blame.
I think many of y’all are missing the point. I don’t think any of the people polled would want ONLY cars that get 40MPG to be sold; they just want that option when they go to buy a new car. Go ahead and make the Tahoes and Challengers, but ALSO make the fuel efficient cars.
sure, American wants better fuel economy, but Not at the expense of HP and size.
Various Recent Manufacturer sales reports showed that truck sales rebounded as soon as the price of gas went back down, and hybrid and economy car sales were significantly reduced.
If the manufacturers manage to improve fuel economy without diminishing horsepower and size, that will help them sell more of those vehicles as the customer is in a win-win situation.
Scott, while that may be the intentions of the people polled, this “A bipartisan 78 percent of Americans want the U.S. government to impose a 40 mile per gallon fuel-efficiency standard for vehicles sold in the United States” says to me that Americans want it to be imposed to all vehicles. GM and Ford are making fuel efficient vehicles, )its Chrysler that’s lagging behind) their just not doing it as well as Toyota and Honda at this point. I also find this to be stupid, “Nearly all Americans want President Bush to pressure U.S. auto makers to focus more on the latest in fuel-efficiency technology.”. While GM & Ford are at the top of the list with Hybrids, they do have them, along with cylinder deactivation, direct injection and GM who’s in my opinion leading the way why Hydrogen fuel cell technology. I think domestics have come a long way, I just wish people wouldn’t be so stubborn to the fact that the American auto industry is trying, and making great strides to improve quality, and fuel efficiency.
I think the other point here is that domestic manufacturers have been producing cars they think Americans want. And they’ve got it sort of right, except they really just haven’t offered enough choice. Over the past 20 years, if you wanted a powerful domestic vehicle that offered a spirited driving experience you had to buy a monstrous car with an engine that was almost certainly a V8 displacing five or more litres. If you wanted a reliable, reasonable, everyday car you had to buy a boring, poorly built POS. I think part of the reason that Japan and Europe gained so much ground was because they built smaller, efficient vehicles that still used rear or all wheel drive and had spirited engines. Add to that a generally superior level of build quality and reliability, and the scale tips heavily in favour of imports.
Take, for example, the Miata (even though it’s somewhat of a niche vehicle). When it came out, it was pretty much the only simple two-seater roadster on the market (the Corvette and the Viper, while great cars, do not count). BMW saw the success the Miata had, copied the formula and sold a ton of Z3s. Finally, after 15 or so years, GM introduces the Solstice. While Ford and Chrysler have made some relatively pitiful attempts with the Thunderbird and the Crossfire. Maybe not bad, but not really good, and way too overpriced.
/no
Yes, it’s possible, the technology is definitely there. Diesel (and later on Hydrogen) + Carbon Fiber (let’s make it cheap for mass production *right now*) = 40+ MPG car. It can’t get sweeter than that.
40 mpg will put a major damper on GM’s lineup of gas guzzling monstrosity’s. Kill the GMT900 and you’ve eliminated like half of their lineup.
Oh and while you’re at take that oversized waste of metal you call SLUMMER and put a fork in it. The joke is old, we get it.
I wouldn’t say that every thing they made over the past 20 years was a POS. I have owned nothing but GM made products in my life, and have yet to have one with any real problems, with the exception of having to replace brakes or something, they have all been very reliable, going back from a 1972 Skylark to my 2002 Monte Carlo SS. I certainly didn’t find anything all that great about my brothers CRX (talk about a boring POS), in fact my parents 1986 Monte Carlo SS was 10 times the car the CRX was with the exception of gas mileage. But yes they depended on trucks to heavily, and allowed the rest of the market to slip away by not providing any real competitive cars. Now their playing catch up, and its looking like its going to be rather tough, Americans hate American products.
Yea modern diesel engines are great but you when you convert the whole country like US to diesel, we get the rest of the world banging on their door choking.
At least the GMT900’s are real trucks, not the excuse that Toyota threw at us, which by the was isn’t all that fuel efficient, especially for its lack in size and grunt. Apparently the joke isn’t old enough, Hummer keeps expanding their line up, and their monthly sales continue to grow. Whys it so hard for some people to let something go?
Note to bb_454, you have to learn to simply ignore people like GarbageMotorsCo, he somehow manages to drag his hate for GM into nearly every topic he posts in. I like yourself have owned many GM vehicles, and have enjoyed excellent reliability with everyone of them. I’m guessing he’s had a bad experiance with GM in the past, and has now made it his life mission to condem anything and everything GM.
As far as the 40 mpg study is concerned, I think the results would have been much different if they were also asked to give up size and power to make it happen. I do agree however that the auto industry should be continualy looking for ways to improve there mileage.
Another thing I might like to comment on is the “fuel of the future” discussion. I really brought up diesels to demonstrate the feasiblity of this proposal now with little or compromises in performance.
I actually think that electric cars will probably be the future. My argument is essentially based on the idea that solar power is becoming much more efficient and feasible, and it is pretty much 100% free and green energy. The ultimate question is really how can we be as energy efficient as possible, and internal combustion engines, whether they’re gas or diesel or whatever, are grossly inefficient. The amount of energy actually extracted from the fuel is pretty pitiful.
i.e. if you wanted to get 100% of the energy out of a gallon of gasoline, you’d need a gallon of anti-gasoline. you could then throw the two together and probably destroy the entire planet with the energy released from the ensuing reaction.
Of course, I realize that absolute energy efficiency is pretty lofty goal. Yet it disturbs me that we, as a technological society, are so very aware of the wastefulness around us, and yet consider it to be perfectly reasonable. With the internal combustion engine we’re basically burning fuel, and that’s not unlike the system devised by cavemen in order to keep warm. The difference is that fire was a fantastic leap for early man, whereas the internal combustion is just the ultimate evolution of that same idea.
Why can’t I have a house covered in solar panels and a plug that fills up my car with effectively boundless energy from the sun (which, incidentally, is the ultimate source of all energy on earth, anyway)? And I really don’t see why this car can’t be efficient enough to be fast. The fact is, this is nowhere near as impossible as so many people choose to believe it is.
People should check out this car: http://www.wrightspeed.com/
I’ll classify it as a work in progress, but I think it’s coming along quite nicely.
/no
Generally, I like this idea. If a car’s only intended purpose is trendy transportation, most people would be happy to have a 40mpg vehicle.
However… what about light and medium duty trucks that many people use for their work? And of course I am definitely going to ask how I can buy a 350 horsepower turbo sportscar that also gets 40mpg. Pretty obvious answer to that one as long as we’re talking about internal combustion engines.
A heavily revised version of the tiered fuel economy model for US vehicles would do much better, without completely leaving contractors and car enthusiasts out to dry. Also, how does this affect heavy commercial vehicles such as semis?
I am one of those folks who is interested in buying a 40MPG car…. as a daily driver. Even so, there is no way I am giving up having a high performance vehicle in my garage. On the other hand, I don’t feel the need to drive a 12mpg SUV as a commuter.
81% of all statistics are made up.
What should the government have to do with any of this? If people want 40mpg cars, then people should buy what 40mpg cars there are now. If nobody’s buying a manufacturer’s cars because of their gas mileage, then the manufacturer will have incentive to raise their mpg.
Government regulation shouldn’t be as motivating to manufacturers as the voice and actions of its customers.
That’s my libertarian two cents.
I work in the airline manufacturing industry. Very few Americans realize that airplanes get more fuel efficient every time a new model comes out. Planes today get much better “mileage” than they did in the 70’s. Cars on the other hand are about the same, some even worse. So auto makers are telling us that they can’t do the same thing. Yeah right.
What has driven airplane manufacturers to build more fuel efficient planes is our customers telling us that they wouldn’t buy them if we didn’t. Imagine if consumers did the same for cars.
I felt I had to register just to say this…
The current MPG regulations specify…I believe….20-23mpg (combined) So according to just about every single person that has posted above me, there are no cars that get less than 20mpg. That’s a fallacy and almost ALL of you are reading the regulations this way. The fact is, the CAFE (corporate average fuel economy which is what you guys are actually discussing) COULD EASILY exceed 40 or 50mpg. In fact, the industry seems to think 65-75mpg is about the limit with gasoline internal combustion engines….did you know the old 3cyl Metros and Honda Civic HXs could achieve nearly 65mpg? That’s nearly double the “impossible” new proposal of 40mpg AVERAGE. To attain this average, they would only need to make a few cars that got nearly 60mpg, a few that got 35-45, and upgrade their trucks to about 25-30. This would “even out” the distribution…the same way it is now, allowing for the 14mpg suvs and the “economy” 30mpg cars. By the way….the really low mpg SUVs generally exceed the CAFE weight limit and don’t have to meet the standards anyway. (escalade els, suburbans, excursions etc)
Hey this is not going to help american car manufacturers.
shoblime makes a good point. Its the average fuel economy of a manufacturer’s fleet. DCX cheated by calling its PT Cruiser a “truck” and that allowed its Dodge Ram to get worse mileage. I’m sure other manufacturers have done the same.
But yeah, increase the model line-up to include more small cars (ala Fit, which is quite quick), and more small CUV’s to take over the jobs of many un-needed SUV’s. Why get a Tahoe when you could get the Saturn Outlook? If you don’t tow much, but want some carrying space and a bit of ground clearance, get a vehicle that gets 17/24 instead of 15/21. It may not seem like much, but the thousands sold will make a big difference.
I don’t know what Americans they talked to, because I certainly (nor any of the hundreds of ppl I know) was not surveyed. If they think that the stupid liberals in California equate to 78% of the country, we’re all screwed. Hog gas. Who cares? We’ll never run out. Don’t believe the lies you hear on the news. The government should have no saying whatsoever in fuel economy. That’s right - kill CAFE! And the whole damned EPA too. All it is is another excuse for the liberals in the government to screw the American people out of their freedom.
Great! A world of smart cars!!! yet the american government is using fuel like it is air with thier military vehicles! This is a dumb survey and it is typical to see if the people will suffer even more!! Geeze, where do I Sign??? people need to do a survey on where the majority of the fuel is purchased for and you will see its not with the public believe it or not.
EX. “90% of greenhouse gases are produced by the military”. Researchers have shown this to be true! if that is true, who is burning the fuel? and this is part of the reason we are paying for it!!!