July 21, 2014

Google Logo Add Us On GoogleAdd SciAm

Fuel/Cost Savings of Improving Fuel Economy from 12->15 mpg = 30->60 mpg

Consumer tip-of-the-day: increasing efficiency of fuel economy on a miles-per-gallon scale is not linear, as more miles-per-gallon (mpg) are initially better for your wallet and the planet than you might expect, and eventually trail off with diminishing returns.

By Tali Trigg

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American

Consumer tip-of-the-day: increasing efficiency of fuel economy on a miles-per-gallon scale is not linear, as more miles-per-gallon (mpg) are initially better for your wallet and the planet than you might expect, and eventually trail off with diminishing returns.

Last week, a friend pointed out a good blog post by Nicholas Chase and the Energy Information Administration (EIA), in which we glean several important points:

  1. If you are considering the fuel economy of a vehicle you are purchasing, remember the non-linearity of the metric when comparing options, as you might be comparing apples to oranges. Whether or not mpg is a good metric in the first place, I’ll leave to others to discuss.

  2. Moving from the current US fleet average of 25.5 mpg, as of June, to the mandated 54.5 mpg (equivalent to 163 grams/mile of CO2) by 2025 for light duty cars and trucks, is going to save a lot of energy. According to the EIA, the share of transportation energy use from light-duty vehicles is going to fall from 63% (2012) to 51% by 2040.

  3. An implication of improving conventional vehicle fuel economy is that electric vehicles and other alternative fuel vehicles will face a harder time competing with conventional vehicles as they increase in efficiency. Of course, as I have pointed out before, zero-emission vehicles are a long-term ambition, and at some point we need to switch away from conventional vehicles, so this does not make the overall effort void, rather it highlights the importance of interim market share gains.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Ultimately, this is all basic math, but as Nest seems to show, how you present information is often as important as what that information is in the first place. Another example is EPA’s on-going effort to convey how much you will save by buying a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). It’s quite an ambitious effort considering it is unclear how much you will drive in electric-versus-gasoline/diesel mode, but still: you have to start somewhere.

So next time you’re in the market for a new car, remember that the differences in fuel economy might be deceiving. For example, 22 mpg versus 20 mpg is not equal to a 10% increase in efficiency; in fact, you might be saving more than you think. Now multiply that out by the US light-duty vehicle fleet of 96.6 million, and you’ll see why initial fuel economy improvements are essential to reducing energy use in the US.

UPDATE: As suggested by reader Daniel Kolomeets-Darovsky, I've here included a fuel economy calculator which allows for quick-and-easy comparisons: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/savemoney.shtml

Tali Trigg is an energy analyst, technology policy advisor and writer. His work includes research and analysis on energy and transportation, with an emphasis on the role of cities in shaping transport energy demand and mobility solutions. His blog covers the wide range of mobility and energy, with deep-dives into numbers and maps, but is keen to cover anything transport-related and under-reported. Opinions are his own.

More by Tali Trigg

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe