ON-ROAD FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES

Similar documents
BENEFITS OF RECENT IMPROVEMENTS IN VEHICLE FUEL ECONOMY

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 5: UPDATE THROUGH 2012

ENERGY INTENSITIES OF FLYING AND DRIVING

TRANSPORTATION EMISSIONS IN THE CONTEXT

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 9: VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND DISTANCE DRIVEN, 1984 TO 2015

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 2: USE OF LIGHT-DUTY VEHICLES

NEW-VEHICLE MARKET SHARES OF CARS VERSUS LIGHT TRUCKS IN THE U.S.: RECENT TRENDS AND FUTURE OUTLOOK

FUEL-ECONOMY DISTRIBUTIONS OF PURCHASED NEW VEHICLES IN THE U.S.: MODEL YEARS 2008 AND 2014

HAS MOTORIZATION IN THE U.S. PEAKED? PART 10: VEHICLE OWNERSHIP AND DISTANCE DRIVEN, 1984 TO 2016

IS THE U.S. ON THE PATH TO THE LOWEST MOTOR VEHICLE FATALITIES IN DECADES?

RELATIVE COSTS OF DRIVING ELECTRIC AND GASOLINE VEHICLES

ASSUMED VERSUS ACTUAL WEIGHTS OF VEHICLE PASSENGERS

MOTORISTS' PREFERENCES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VEHICLE AUTOMATION: 2016

MOTORISTS' PREFERENCES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF VEHICLE AUTOMATION

Executive Summary. Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through EPA420-S and Air Quality July 2006

Eco-driving: Strategic, Tactical, and Operational Decisions of the Driver that Influence Vehicle Fuel Economy

Fueling Savings: Higher Fuel Economy Standards Result In Big Savings for Consumers

Additional Transit Bus Life Cycle Cost Scenarios Based on Current and Future Fuel Prices

Vehicle Scrappage and Gasoline Policy. Online Appendix. Alternative First Stage and Reduced Form Specifications

Figure 1 Unleaded Gasoline Prices

U.S. Heavy-Duty Vehicle GHG/Fuel Efficiency Standards and Recommendations for the Next Phase

U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle GHG and CAFE Standards

The Impact of Attribute-Based Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards: Preliminary Findings

CONSUMER PREFERENCES AND MOTIVATIONS

DEFENSE AGENCIES Fleet Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition Report Compliance with EPAct and E.O in Fiscal Year 2008

Air Quality Impacts of Advance Transit s Fixed Route Bus Service

Minnesota State Light Vehicle Fleet Sustainability Benchmarks FY 2018

LOW-BEAM HEADLAMP ILLUMINATION AT VERY HIGH ANGLES

Funding Scenario Descriptions & Performance

Benefits of greener trucks and buses

Aging of the light vehicle fleet May 2011

CONSUMER KNOWLEDGE AND USAGE

Automotive Fuel Economy Program. Annual Update Calendar Year National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DOT HS September 2002

Helping Ensure. Electric & Hybrid Vehicles Are Fully Contributing to the Maintenance of America s Transportation Network

Michigan/Grand River Avenue Transportation Study TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #18 PROJECTED CARBON DIOXIDE (CO 2 ) EMISSIONS

ROAD SAFETY WITH SELF-DRIVING VEHICLES: GENERAL LIMITATIONS AND ROAD SHARING

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS GREEN FLEET POLICY

The Funding of Pupil Transportation In North Carolina March, 2001

THE ALTERNATIVE FUEL PRICE REPORT

Where are the Increases in Motorcycle Rider Fatalities?

REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

RESALE VALUES OF ELECTRIC AND CONVENTIONAL VEHICLES: RECENT TRENDS

Figure 1 Unleaded Gasoline Prices

Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Heavy Duty Trucks: Understanding Key Trends,

Electric Vehicle Cost-Benefit Analyses

September 21, Introduction. Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA ), National Highway Traffic Safety

National Center for Statistics and Analysis Research and Development

Alternative Fuel Price Report

Energy Saving Potential Study on Thailand s Road Sector:

The Electrification Futures Study: Transportation Electrification

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 401 INTERIOR TRUNK RELEASE

CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR THE CHARGING OF PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLES BRANDON SCHOETTLE MICHAEL SIVAK SUSTAINABLE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION

Rates of Motor Vehicle Crashes, Injuries, and Deaths in Relation to Driver Age, United States,

Criteria. As background, the US Environmental Protection Agency s Green Vehicle Guide states that:

ALG July/August 2011 Edition Report

Remote Combination Adaptive Driving Equipment Investigation Dynamic Science, Inc. (DSI), Case Number G 1990 Ford Bronco Arizona October

CONSUMER PREFERENCES REGARDING VEHICLE-RELATED SAFETY RECALLS

SANTEE COOPER Biodiesel Fuel Usage. Presentation To National Clean Cities Conference May 5, 2004 Ft Lauderdale, FL

PREFACE 2015 CALSTART

NADA MANAGEMENT SERIES. A DEALER GUIDE TO Fuel Economy Advertising THIRSTY FOR ADVENTURE. NOT GAS. New Hybrid Hillclimber

SMART Emissions Reducer Trial Program Data Report

University of North Carolina at Asheville

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 401 INTERIOR TRUNK RELEASE

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE): A Comparison of Selected Legislation in the 110 th Congress

Winston-Salem State University

U.S. Navy Fleet AFV Program Report for Fiscal Year 2006 February 12, 2007

The Carbon Footprint of Daily Travel

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF FUEL-ECONOMY POLICIES

Used Vehicle Supply: Future Outlook and the Impact on Used Vehicle Prices

REPORT NUMBER: 111-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111 SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CENTER

Heating Comparison of Radial and Bias-Ply Tires on a B-727 Aircraft

REPORT NUMBER: 120-MGA

Direct Injection Ethanol Boosted Gasoline Engines: Biofuel Leveraging For Cost Effective Reduction of Oil Dependence and CO 2 Emissions

Diesel Fleet Fuel Economy Study

Flexible-Fuel Vehicle and Refueling Infrastructure Requirements Associated with Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS2) Implementation

The Hybrid and Electric Vehicles Manufacturing

DOT HS September NHTSA Technical Report

7. Author(s) Shan Bao, Michael J. Flannagan, James R. Sayer, Mitsuhiro Uchida 9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Innovation of Automobile Dealers in Hokkaido

Tomorrow s Vehicles A Projection of the Light Duty Vehicle Fleet Through 2025

The United States Postal Service Ethanol & Bio-Diesel Programs. The Alternative Clean Transportation Conference Long Beach, California May 6, 2014

2011 NDIA GROUND VEHICLE SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY SYMPOSIUM POWER AND MOBILITY (P&M) MINI-SYMPOSIUM AUGUST 9-11 DEARBORN, MICHIGAN

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 114 THEFT PROTECTION

SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 214S SIDE IMPACT PROTECTION (STATIC)

CAPITAL PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SECTION VIII FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MANAGEMENT SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS

Hybrid Electric Vehicle End-of-Life Testing On Honda Insights, Honda Gen I Civics and Toyota Gen I Priuses

EFFECT OF PAVEMENT CONDITIONS ON FUEL CONSUMPTION, TIRE WEAR AND REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

RFS2: Where Are We Now And Where Are We Heading? Paul N. Argyropoulos

Remote, Redesigned Air Bag Special Study Dynamic Science, Inc., Case Number ( C) 1998 Nissan Altima Texas August/1998

REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

Rail Risk: Severe Fires and the Transportation of Spent Nuclear Fuel

Vehicle Systems Engineering and Integration Activities - Phase 3

REPORT NUMBER: 111SB-MGA SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS NO. 111SB SCHOOL BUS REARVIEW MIRRORS

Feeding the Fleet. GreenGov Washington D.C. October 31, 2011

Car Economics Activity

ALTERNATIVELY FUELED VEHICLE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2017

REPORT NUMBER: 114-CAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE TESTING FOR FMVSS No. 114 THEFT PROTECTION AND ROLLOWAY PREVENTION

UMTRI An Examination of the Michigan 2010 Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatality Increase

School Transportation Assessment

Transcription:

SWT-2017-5 MARCH 2017 ON-ROAD FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1923-2015 MICHAEL SIVAK BRANDON SCHOETTLE SUSTAINABLE WORLDWIDE TRANSPORTATION

ON-ROAD FUEL ECONOMY OF VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES: 1923-2015 Michael Sivak Brandon Schoettle The University of Michigan Sustainable Worldwide Transportation Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 U.S.A. Report No. SWT-2017-5 March 2017

1. Report No. SWT-2017-5 Technical Report Documentation Page 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipientʼs Catalog No. 4. Title and Subtitle On-Road Fuel Economy of Vehicles in the United States: 1923-2015 5. Report Date March 2017 6. Performing Organization Code 383818 7. Author(s) Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle 9. Performing Organization Name and Address The University of Michigan Sustainable Worldwide Transportation 2901 Baxter Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-2150 U.S.A. 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address The University of Michigan Sustainable Worldwide Transportation http://www.umich.edu/~umtriswt 8. Performing Organization Report No. SWT-2017-5 10. Work Unit no. (TRAIS) 11. Contract or Grant No. 13. Type of Report and Period Covered 14. Sponsoring Agency Code 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This report documents and analyzes the changes in fuel economy of vehicles on U.S. roads between 1923 and 2015. Information about distances driven and fuel consumed was used to calculate the actual, on-road fuel economy for the entire fleet of all vehicles and for different classes of vehicles, with primary interest in light-duty vehicles (cars, pickup trucks, vans, and SUVs). As a sample from the results, the following are the main findings for the entire fleet of all vehicles. Fuel economy decreased from 14.0 mpg in 1923 to 11.9 mpg in 1973. Starting in 1974, fuel economy increased rapidly to 16.9 mpg in 1991. Thereafter, improvements have been small, with fuel economy in 2015 at 17.9 mpg. 17. Key Words Road transportation, fuel economy, historical trends, cars, light trucks, medium- and heavy-duty trucks 18. Distribution Statement Unlimited 19. Security Classification (of this report) None 20. Security Classification (of this page) None 21. No. of Pages 10 22. Price i

Contents Introduction... 1 Method... 1 Results... 2 Discussion... 4 References... 7 ii

Introduction This study is an update of the analysis in Sivak and Schoettle (2015). That study examined actual, on-road vehicle fuel economy in the United States from 1923 through 2013. The present study extends the data through 2015. Method The data for this analysis consisted of estimated miles driven per gallon of fuel for each year from 1923 through 2015. For 1923 through 1935, fuel economy was calculated by dividing the estimated distance driven (National Safety Council, 2007) by the estimated fuel consumption for highway use (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1957). For 1936 through 1985, fuel economy was calculated from the information in U.S. Department of Transportation (1987). Finally, online versions of annual statistics (U.S. Department of Transportation, annual) were the sources of the information for 1986 through 2015. For 1923 through 1935, fuel-economy information is available only for the entire fleet of all vehicles. For 1936 through 1965, separate estimates are available for cars and trucks. For this time period, cars included motorcycles as well. However, the mileage driven by motorcycles represented only a negligible fraction of the total mileage. This is evidenced by the fact that in 1966 (the first year for which separate mileage information for motorcycles is available), motorcycles accumulated 0.3% of the combined mileage for cars and motorcycles (U.S. Department of Transportation, annual). Starting in 1966, the U.S. Department of Transportation divided the truck category into other two-axle, four-tire vehicles (labeled here light trucks ), single-unit, two-axle, six-tire trucks ( medium-duty trucks ), and combination trucks ( heavy-duty trucks ). 1 The light-truck category originally included only pickup trucks, but was expanded to include vans and SUVs when they were introduced. 1 This classification of trucks by the number of axles and tires does not necessarily correspond to other classifications, such as a classification by gross vehicle weight rating (U.S. Department of Energy, 2015). 1

The analysis also examined the combined group of all light-duty vehicles. Prior to 2007, this group included cars and other two-axle, four-tire vehicles. Starting with 2007, the U.S. Department of Transportation changed the division of light-duty vehicles from cars and other two-axle, four-tire vehicles, to short-wheel-base light-duty vehicles and long-wheel-base light-duty vehicles. For simplicity, in the present report we will be referring to these two groups of vehicles as cars and light trucks throughout. It is important to note that despite the change in 2007 in how all light-duty vehicles were subdivided, the overall classification of the combined group of all lightduty vehicles did not change in 2007. Results 2015. Figure 1 shows the changes in on-road vehicle fuel economy between 1923 and 25 Cars On-road fuel economy (mpg) 20 15 10 5 All vehicles All trucks Light trucks Medium- and heavy-duty trucks All light-duty vehicles 0 1923 1928 1933 1938 1943 1948 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013 2015 Year Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle, University of Michigan Figure 1. On-road fuel economy of vehicles from 1923 to 2015. (In 2007, there was a change in how light-duty vehicles were divided into cars and light trucks; see text.) 2

All vehicles (including cars, motorcycles, trucks, and buses) From 1923 through 1935, on-road fuel economy stayed approximately constant at around 14 mpg. Starting in 1936, fuel economy gradually declined, falling to its lowest level, 11.9 mpg, in 1973 the year of the first oil embargo. Starting in 1974, fuel economy increased rapidly to 16.9 mpg in 1991. Thereafter, improvements have been small, with fuel economy reaching 17.9 mpg in 2015. Cars The data for cars follow a pattern similar to that of all vehicles. On-road fuel economy decreased from 1936 to 1973 (from 15.3 mpg to 13.4 mpg). This was followed by major improvements from 1973 to 1991 (from 13.4 mpg to 21.2 mpg). (The first Corporate Average Fuel Economy [CAFE] standards for new light-duty vehicles were enacted in 1975 and became effective with 1978 model year vehicles.) The improvements since 1991 were modest, with fuel economy at 23.9 mpg in 2015. All trucks For all trucks combined, the on-road fuel economy decreased from 10.2 mpg in 1936 to 7.8 mpg in 1965. (This trend likely reflects, in part, the increases in vehicle size and cargo loads.) Medium- and heavy-duty trucks Since 1966 (when light trucks were split into a separate category), on-road fuel economy of medium- and heavy-duty trucks has improved from 5.6 mpg to 6.4 mpg in 2015. Light trucks On-road fuel economy of light trucks increased rapidly from 9.7 mpg in 1966 to 17.0 mpg in 1991. However, the improvements since 1991 were small, with fuel economy at 17.3 mpg in 2015. 3

All light-duty vehicles (cars and light trucks) On-road fuel economy of the combined group of all light-duty vehicles decreased from 1966 to 1973 (from 13.5 mpg to 12.9 mpg). This was followed by a rapid improvement to 19.6 mpg in 1991. However, the improvements since 1991 were only modest, with fuel economy at 22.0 mpg in 2015. Discussion Changes in fuel economy from 1923 to 1935 From 1923 through 1935, fuel-economy information is available only for the entire fleet of all vehicles. During this period, fuel economy stayed approximately the same (at around 14 mpg). Changes in fuel economy from 1935 to 1973 Fuel economy decreased from 1935 to 1973. This was the case for the entire fleet, as well as for cars and all light-duty vehicles. However, this does not imply that powertrains for vehicles have not improved during this period. Instead of focusing on fuel-economy improvements, vehicle manufacturers focused on increasing power and acceleration. Changes in fuel economy from 1973 to 2015 After the 1973 oil embargo, vehicle manufacturers achieved major improvements in fuel economy. However, the slope of the improvement has decreased substantially since 1991. For example, from 1973 to 1991, fuel economy of all light-duty vehicles improved from 12.9 mpg to 19.6 mpg, representing a compound rate of improvement of 2.4% per year. On the other hand, from 1991 to 2015, fuel economy improved from 19.6 mpg to 22.0 mpg, representing a compound rate of improvement of 0.5% per year. 4

Fleet turnover One fundamental problem with improving the average fuel economy of the onroad fleet is that improvements in fuel economy for new vehicles take a long time to substantially influence the fuel economy of the entire on-road fleet. This is the case because it takes many years to turn over the fleet. For example, the 17.6 million lightduty vehicles sold in the United States in 2016 (CNN, 2017) accounted for only 6.7% of the entire fleet of 264 million registered light-duty vehicles (IHS Markit, 2017), and the average age of light-duty vehicle on the road is currently 11.6 years (IHS Markit, 2017). Where do improvements matter most? As has been eloquently argued by Larrick and Soll (2008), equal absolute increases in fuel economy result in greater absolute fuel savings as the baseline fuel economy of a vehicle decreases (despite what most of us intuitively believe). Consider the following two scenarios, each involving 12,000 miles of driving per year. In the first scenario, an improvement from 40 to 41 mpg yields a reduction of about 7 gallons of fuel per year. In the second scenario, an improvement from 15 to 16 mpg yields a reduction of 50 gallons of fuel per year. This observation, however, does not necessarily argue that we should focus our efforts on those classes of vehicles that currently have the lowest fuel economy, such as medium- and heavy-duty trucks, and buses. For medium- and heavy-duty trucks, the relevant societal measure is not miles per gallon but ton-miles of freight per gallon. Alternatively, the relevant measure for buses is passenger-miles per gallon. The above observations suggest that our focus should be on the lower tails of the distributions of fuel economy in each vehicle class. In other words, society has much more to gain from improving a car from 15 mpg to 16 mpg than from 40 mpg to 41 mpg. Similarly, the benefits to society are greater when improving a heavy-truck from 4 mpg to 4.5 mpg than from 7 mpg to 7.5 mpg (while keeping the load-carrying capacity the same). 5

Changes in fuel economy versus changes in energy consumed The measure used in the present analysis miles per gallon is based on the distance driven (in miles) and the amount of fuel consumed (in gallons). The following considerations do not allow us to make direct inferences from the presented data regarding changes in total energy consumed (e.g., total Btu). Gasoline versus diesel. The energy content of diesel is about 14% greater per volume than the energy content of gasoline (EIA, 2017). No attempt was made to document the proportion of gasoline to diesel usage, or to account for changes in that proportion over time. Ethanol. The energy content of ethanol is about 33% less than the energy content of pure gasoline (EIA, 2016). In 2015, ethanol accounted for about 10% of the total volume of finished gasoline consumed in the United States (EIA, 2016), primarily due to sales of ethanol blends such as E10 (10% ethanol; 97% of all gasoline sold) and E85 (also called flex fuel; 51%-83% ethanol) (AFDC, 2017b). Again, no attempt was made to document the proportion of ethanol to pure gasoline usage, or to account for changes in that proportion over time. Biodiesel. As with ethanol-blended gasoline, biodiesel blends contain slightly less energy per volume than petroleum diesel. For example, B20 (6% to 20% biodiesel) contains about 1-2% less energy than petroleum diesel, while B100 (100% biodiesel) contains approximately 7% less energy than petroleum diesel (AFDC, 2017a). Similarly, no attempt was made to document the proportion of biodiesel to petroleum diesel usage, or to account for changes in that proportion over time. Plug-in vehicles. Plug-in hybrids consume some electric energy (in addition to consuming gasoline), while battery-electric vehicles rely entirely on electric energy. However, the contribution of electric energy to the total energy consumed by all lightduty vehicles is currently very small: Even if all plug-in vehicles that were sold in the U.S. through December 2015 (about 406,000; Inside EVs, 2017) were still on the road, they would represent only about 0.2% of all registered light-duty vehicles in 2015. 6

References AFDC [Alternative Fuels Data Center]. (2017a). Biodiesel blends. Available at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/biodiesel_blends.html AFDC [Alternative Fuels Data Center]. (2017b). Ethanol blends. Available at: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_blends.html CNN. (2017). Car sales set another U.S. record. Available at: http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/04/news/companies/car-sales-2016/ EIA [Energy Information Administration]. (2016). How much ethanol is in gasoline, and how does it affect fuel economy? Available at: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=27&t=10 EIA [Energy Information Administration]. (2017). Energy explained. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm/index.cfm?page=about_energy_u nits IHS Markit. (2017). Vehicles getting older: Average age of light cars and trucks in U.S. rises again in 2016 to 11.6 years, IHS Markit says. Available at: http://news.ihsmarkit.com/press-release/automotive/vehicles-getting-olderaverage-age-light-cars-and-trucks-us-rises-again-201 Inside EVs. (2017). Monthly plug-in sales scorecard. Available at: http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/ Larrick, N. and Soll, J.B. (2008). The MPG illusion. Science, 320, 1593-1594. National Safety Council. (2007). Injury facts. Itasca, IL. Sivak, M. and Schoettle, B. (2015). On-road fuel economy of vehicles in the United States: 1923-2013. Available at: http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/115486/103218.pdf U.S. Department of Commerce. (1957). Highway statistics summary to 1955. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy. (2015). Vehicle weight classes & categories. Available at: https://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/widgets/10380 7

U.S. Department of Transportation. (1987). Highway statistics summary to 1985. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Transportation. (annual). Highway statistics. Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm 8