Average U.S. Car Is Tipping Scales at 4,000 Pounds

May 5, 2004 Average U.S. Car Is Tipping Scales at 4,000 Pounds By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, May 4 - Detroit was recently ranked as the nation's most obese city by Men's Fitness magazine. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the Motor City's chief product is also losing the battle of the bulge. The average new car or light-duty truck sold in the 2003 model year tipped the scales at 4,021 pounds, breaking the two-ton barrier for the first time since the mid-1970's, according to a report released by the Environmental Protection Agency last week.

The fattening of the nation's automobiles is a principal reason that average fuel economy has stopped improving and the nation's consumption of crude oil has been swelling: all else being equal, moving more weight takes more energy. Add in the additional pollutants and greenhouse gases released by burning more fuel, and it is not surprising that the upsizing trend is condemned by environmental groups. But ranged against them in an increasingly bitter debate are industry lobbyists and conservative groups who argue that girth is good, for crashworthiness and because people want more space and power, though Honda is a notable dissenter in the industry.

At the center of the debate is the Bush administration's proposed rewriting of national fuel economy regulations. Though work on the plan is still in its early stages, one important aspect of it could lead automakers to make their vehicles even heavier on average. Environmentalists are distressed by the plan, but it has not been embraced by the auto industry, either.

In recent months, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been flooded with nearly 50,000 letters and detailed comments about the plan. Many have come from organizations with an interest in the outcome - automakers, lobbyists, environmental and consumer groups - but the majority have been from individuals, some of them angered by increasingly tanklike vehicles and others by the claims of industry lobbying groups that S.U.V.'s will somehow be regulated out of existence.

And there are other motivations. "One of the things that triggers asthma is air pollution, and vehicular emissions are a significant source," said Dr. Ronald Saff, an asthma specialist in Tallahassee, Fla., concerned about rising asthma rates. Dr. Saff, 45, wrote a letter asking the agency "to make S.U.V.'s safer for families and the environment."

But Carroll Boyle, a 65-year-old retired educator from Manchester, N.H., wrote that tougher regulations "may force people into vehicles that are smaller, less powerful, and not as safe as our current options." She added, "In New Hampshire we have weather that requires an S.U.V. many days a year."

The E.P.A.'s weight statistics show that the average weight of a 2003 car or light-duty truck, like a pickup, sport utility, van or minivan, was heavier than in any model year since 1976, when the average peaked at 4,079 pounds. Just five years later, after the oil shocks of the 1970's, the average had fallen by more than 20 percent, to 3,202 pounds. The figures take into account the sales volumes of different models.

Average fuel economy peaked at 22.1 miles to the gallon in the late 1980's, according to the agency, but has eroded since then to 20.7 miles for the

2003 model year.

The agency expects the 2004 model year to finish with an average weight of

4,066 pounds. New noncommercial vehicles are actually even heavier than the statistics show, because the largest vehicles sold to consumers, including Hummers and Ford Excursions, are not classed as light-duty, so they are not covered by fuel economy rules or counted in average weight calculations. They are also exempt from many safety standards and crash-test requirements.

Government studies say these giant vehicles are increasing the overall number of deaths in accidents, mainly because of the threat they pose to people in cars they hit in collisions. The administration's plan does suggest that manufacturers be pressed to slim down the heaviest of the heavyweights, like the Hummer.

Though new vehicles are back to weighing what they did in the 1970's, they are obviously very different in shape, in part because of the fuel economy rules introduced then. Automakers must meet average mileage targets, now set at 20.7 miles to the gallon for light-duty trucks and 27.5 for passenger cars. By scrapping station wagons and large sedans in favor of minivans and S.U.V.'s, manufacturers have greatly increased the share of their total sales subject to the lower truck standard, and they have fought to preserve the two-tier system.

Federal regulators say safety has suffered as a result, both because S.U.V.'s and larger pickup trucks are more prone to roll over than cars are, and because they do more serious damage to vehicles they hit.

Traffic deaths in the United States rose to 43,220 last year, the most since

1990. Before the S.U.V. boom, the country had the world's lowest highway death rate, taking miles driven into account, but it now ranks behind at least eight other developed nations, including Canada, Australia, Britain and Sweden. Lower rates of seat belt use and other factors play a part, but much of the difference stems from the composition of the national vehicle fleet, researchers say.

The Bush administration contends that most sport utilities should be given room to grow in any new fuel economy system, citing a government study that said lightening any but the largest vehicles would do more harm than good. Thus, one of the administration's leading proposals is to divide the light-duty truck category into classes, with more stringent requirements for heavyweights.

Most major automakers have reacted cautiously, especially to the idea of broadening the system to cover the largest S.U.V.'s.

"Studies show that making vehicles lighter has an adverse effect on safety," said Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, which lobbies on behalf of General Motors, Ford Motor, DaimlerChrysler, Toyota and others. "If all vehicles were made heavier, it would have a positive impact on safety," Mr. Shosteck said.

But Honda, which makes some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles, said its own research found that dimensions, design and materials often made more difference than weight. Honda cited government statistics showing that midsize cars have lower death rates than sport utilities, and that smaller S.U.V.'s do better than midsize S.U.V.'s.

Reply to
Mike K
Loading thread data ...

So are you suggesting my neighbor doesn't really need her 8000+ pound Hummer to pick up her kiddies at soccer or to buy a quart of milk? Hey you never know when you are going to run into a blizzard or two foot deep mud on the way to the Stop and Shop.

This is funny

formatting link

Reply to
Tony Bad

Why doesn't VW sell pickups? I mean, Toyota and Nissan do it.

Reply to
William Park

Oh Bullshit.

- How many SUV are really trucks made to look like cars & have 2WD.

- How many folks have heard of the aircooled VW Beetle? And how it drives in the Snow?

- Don't like VWs? Buy a AWD Subaru. Want to buy American? Build One.

Jeez.

Make new regs, make em smart and level. Encourage competition and excellence.

TBerk

Reply to
T

They would make a fantastic engine for one (the V10 diesel would be kick-ass for a 2500 series truck) and the V8's would be good.... but you do realize that they would go nuts on the rest of the truck, and it would cost about

80000CND... Maybe more.

I'm sure VW is capable of making an swesome trunk, but I would never buy one... they have minimal experience, and I have feelings they would cut corners in areas truck drivers need, and put money into areas where the average truck buyer wouldn't care much about.

Plus pickups aren't seen in Europe.... Contractors use panel vans, and I think they use special purpose cab over wheels flatbeds when they really need to haul stuff like soil, or gravel to a customer.

As far as tow> >

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Caravanning is popular, however, they do it in vans not land yacht RV's, smaller trailers, or even using utility type trailers to haul tents and such.

Reply to
Tony Bad

Yah that's what I noticed when in Europe... they use powerfull enough 4 cylinder and 6 cylinder cars (if they're lucky) to pull reasonably sized trailers loaded with their gear...

Reply to
Rob Guenther

I want a diesel pickup. I do not neccessarily need a 3/4 or 1 ton nor do I want a 300 hp diesel. A smaller diesel in a 1/4 ton that can pull

6,000 lbs would be enough to do the trailer haul>They would make a fantastic engine for one (the V10 diesel would be kick-ass

Jim B.

Reply to
jimbehning

There was the AAV (I think that's what it was called, or maybe it was AAC?) which was a concept car and looked a lot like a Touareg from the front...could have been basically a modified Touareg prototype.

Reply to
Matt B.

Totally. There was an article in CAR magazine that pointed out that in Canada most people drive station wagons and think trucks and SUVs are overkill. If places like that, Sweden, Norway, and Finland can get buy with diesel "estates" how do urbanites across the US justify it? Emanuel

Reply to
E Brown

Here in the USA I think we see "unintended consequences" at work.

Station wagons count as a "passenger car", while SUVs and pickups do not.

The manufacturers MUST keep their CAFE [fuel economy] for the whole passenger car range down. Station wagons get rather poor mileage and would wreck their CAFE if sold in large numbers. Thus most don't even offer station wagons in the USA.

Bingo - we'll make the wagons larger, class them as trucks, charge more, and they won't hurt our CAFE.

Now they're making "crossover" smallish SUVs, but you can be sure they won't be called/classed as passenger cars. Ford would have to literally give away Focuses to keep their CAFE down. I understand that the Focus is already sold near cost for this reason.

So IMO the well-intentioned CAFE requirement has been a significant factor in the promotion of the SUV, an "unintended consequence".

Reply to
R J Carpenter

No, they didn't make the wagons larger, that's exactly what they didn't do. They took trucks and put sheet metal on them to make them more attractive, but keep the truck classification. The issue is that those SUVs that, in reality are passenger cars, should be qualified as passenger cars, not trucks, and contribute to the CAFE. Just cause they are on truck frames doesn't mean they are trucks. They sure don't look like trucks, and the "sport" part has definitely overcome the "utility" part. So they should charge for it.

Me, I bought a real truck for when I need one. The rest of the time it's the Passat wagon.

Reply to
Mike K

If only that were true -- some of the most catastrophically ugly vehicles on the road are SUVs, both the big and the small ones.

Reply to
Brian Running

"Station wagons get rather poor mileage and would wreck their CAFE if sold in large numbers"

Our Station wagon, a Volvo 965, with a 2.9L 201hp inline 6 engine gets 9L per 100kms on the highway, and 12L per 100kms in the city... not bad for an

11 year old car, let alone a fuel wasting station wagon with a 6 cylinder engine.... The 964 counterpart (or 960 sedan) got the same EPA numbers back in the day...
Reply to
Rob Guenther

Neither vehicle is comparable to a full size station wagon, like:

formatting link

Reply to
RJ

Reply to
Rob Guenther

That's right. And that's why people say the disappearance of large vehicles like this is part of the reason why SUVs sold so well.

If you are towing a boat or trailer of any size, it cannot be done with a front wheel drive vehicle, and a small Euro wagon even with RWD or 4WD would, I'm sure, have a much lower tow rating than the old "Roadmonster".

Reply to
RJ

For sure...

Tho I have heard stories of people towing almost 5000lbs with old Volvo

240's (114 horsepower and 136lb-ft of torque in their final revisions....) and I just find that kinda scary.
Reply to
Rob Guenther

There are no pickups in Japan either. But, Toyota/Nissan is selling them around the world. I'm sure VW has good reason...

Reply to
William Park

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.