(first posted 11/7/2016) The EPA has issued its “Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2016”report). (The updated report through 2020 is here). It’s a bit long and technical, but I found it quite interesting. But it’s some of the charts that make for the best stories, like this one, which charts calculated 0-60 times. Does this confirm that 1982 was Peak Malaise?
First stop is to look at the big picture of fleetwide adjusted fuel economy, expressed as MPG, over the whole time period. We can see the very rapid improvement from 1975 – 1981,with a 56% increase. That was followed by further but slower improvement from 1982-1987, followed by a steady reversal through 2004. The current favorable trend began in 2005 and has resulted in a 28% improvement since then.
The next chart puts those numbers in perspective, adding in horsepower and weight. The dramatic drop in both hp and weight during the 1975-1981 period directly corresponds to the equally dramatic increase in economy during that same time, given that the technology of the time essentially mandated it. Cars and their engines were drastically downsized as the only viable means to improve fuel economy.
But clearly, the correlation begins to change by about 1985. Horsepower begins a long and steep increase, weight a less dramatic rise. But the drop in fuel economy is modest in relation to them for the first decade or so, but by 2004, economy begins to improve while hp continues to rise and weight stays mostly steady.
The rapidly improving efficiency of gasoline engines during this period is of course well known, due to a number of new technologies. And there’s not really any meaningful trade-off; modern engines can operate at high levels of output, yet also run very efficiently at lower speeds.
Here’s a list of the ten highest fuel economy vehicles since 1975, but using the unadjusted laboratory numbers, not the adjusted ones as commonly used. Not too many surprises, except maybe the Accord Hybrid, which give its weight class, did very well. And for those that will feel compelled to comment about how well the Sprint ER and Metro XFi did without hybrid drive, please keep in mind that they are in a totally different league, in terms of size, comfort, safety, etc..
And here’s the highest trucks. Again, those diesel compact trucks from the 1980s are in a totally different realm.
This chart says it all in terms of how the market has evolved since 1975. The surprise to me was that pickups don’t have as big a share of the market as I might have assumed, given that they’re the top selling vehicles. But that’s a segment with relatively few entrants, compared to the very crowded other segment.
Generally speaking, SUVs are defined as trucks if they either weigh over 6000 lbs and have certain characteristics or have 4WD. There’s other details in that definition, but the point is that “Truck SUV” is not limited to BOF SUVs. So that category is particularly large due to the preponderance of AWD in CUVs.
This chart is a breakout of the chart I showed at the top of this post. please note that these 0-60 times are calculated according to a formula. That may mean that any given vehicle might not be accurate, but it works well enough on a fleet-wide basis. And it certainly shows the huge progress made. And isn’t it a bit ironic that pickups are now the quickest category of vehicle?
Time to look at some trends in driveline technology. Here’s a chart showing the various share for different engine technologies.
Here’s one showing the dramatic improvement of gasoline engine output. The average specific output today of almost 1.4 net hp per cubic inch is phenomenal as these were once a challenge for racing car engines to meet. Of course, the increase of turbocharged engines is having an effect here.
Another chart showing the very impressive linear improvement in gas engine metrics.
Respective shares of engine cylinder count has been shifting, and is clearly heading towards more four cylinder engines, cars and sixes in trucks. The V8’s share is steadily shrinking.
Turbos are playing a big role in boosting the shares of these smaller engines.
Hybrid car and truck share (3 year moving average shown in lines) shows a drop in car hybrids and an uptick in truck hybrids. Low gas prices and the increasing fuel efficiency of non-hybrid cars explains the former; more hybrid SUVs, like the RAV4, explains the latter. Also, the growth of EVs is likely affecting car hybrid sales.
This chart reinforces the shrinking gap between non-hybrid cars and hybrid cars, although it’s pretty subtle here.
But a more apples-to-apples comparison of midsize cars more clearly shows this trend.
Here we look at the changing landscape of transmission types and their respective share.
And here’s one of the reasons why automatics are so common: their fuel economy exceeds that of the manuals.
Is RWD becoming an endangered species?
A graphic representation of new technology adoption over time.
Some manufacturers have adopted certain technologies more broadly than others.
Well, that’s probably enough to digest in one sitting, and to stimulate a bit of conversation.
The updated EPA report through 2020 is here.
Very interesting data.
I am curious to know why the average “adjusted” fuel economy spiked upwards around 2005. It is quite dramatic. Is it an accounting trick, or was some new technology deployed that I am not aware of. ( I don’t keep up much on new car tech)
Perhaps someone out there can shed some light in this?
From 2005, EPA jiggered the formula for calculating fuel economy and recalculated everything that had come before to match the new standard. For instance, the 2005 Honda Element and 2006 Honda Element were identical, but the 2006 was rated for 2 mpg less highway because of the formula change.
That said, some older vehicles actually got a bump according to the new formula. I have no examples, but the official explanation said some gained, some lost, and I have no reason to doubt it.
That doesn’t explain his question. These charts are all apples-to-apples comparisons of adjusted numbers, or raw laboratory numbers.
The improvements starting in 2005 were the result of gas prices spiking, hence the fleet mix changed, as well as actual improvements in fuel economy due to new technology, etc. There has been genuine improvement in the fleet average since 2005; it’s not the result of changed parameters.
Gas prices spiked. People bought fewer trucks, more efficient cars. Prius sales soared. These are fleet averages.
Looks like the beginnings of a Doctoral Thesis, Paul.
A doctorate in what? I have no idea. 🙂
In copy and paste? 🙂
I didn’t make these charts; just lifted them from the report.
Curbsideology.
I’d really love to know what vehicle had a 2-speed automatic with lockup torque converter.
Honda Civic with the Hondamatic. And 1980 was its last year.
Is there nothing you don’t know?? LOL
Unfortunately way too much. 🙂
OK Paul, here’s a real test of your knowledge: what was the 3 speed manual truck transmission that seemed to soldier on until about 1990?? And no, I don’t know the answer.
The Big Three all still offered 3 speed on the column transmissions in pickups and vans well into the 80s. The last that I’m aware of is the 1987 Chevy pickup. I can’t come up with anything past that year. Maybe I’m missing something, or maybe it’s bad info.
Another odd thing is the 7-speed manual transmissions but seemingly no 6-speeds in trucks. It may well be correct, but seems strange.
Packard’s first generation Ultra Matic.
That was long gone by this time.
And on a related note, who is still offering a non-lockup 6-speed today? A6 has a small presence in the lower right of that chart.
That first graph is a perfect example of the economic law of diminishing returns. Fuel mileage went up substantially from 1975-1987. Those changes were not cheap, and had quite a learning curve. Still, they got us to basics like lighter weight, better aerodynamics and better engine and combustion management.
Even the 1988-2002 period of slow decreases came along with a substantial increase in performance and vehicle size that would have taken us right back down to 1975’s figure with the old tech. Instead, even with the Mustang GTs and Suburbans on the road, we still never went below figures for about 1982.
My fear is that those gains we have seen since 2005ish have been expensive gains. We are now seeing lots of turbocharging, 7, 8 and 9 speed transmissions, electric hybrids and (in the case of the new F series) non-traditional metals used in body construction. We are going to be paying for those gains in many ways, mostly through shorter lives of increasingly complex vehicles. Look for the average age of vehicles on the road to get older as those of modest means are forced to keep fixing the simpler old stuff.
Well said!
The mpg gains now are very “expensive” in terms of cost and complexity.
The govt should simply regulate tailpipe emissions, and set basic (ESSENTIAL) safety standards, back to about 1975.
Then they should tax gasoline and fix the roads.
Won’t happen–but it it did, driving would be more pleasant, the air would be cleaner, and we would prolong our supply of “affordable and accessible” oil.
The changes may not have been cheap at the time, but are now older proven technology. I remember the reaction when electronically-controlled 4-speed autos came out, and of course for a while they were 2 or 3 times the cost to rebuild, but later versions of those same gearboxes will run 600,000 miles plus in taxis.
Cars are cheaper now in real terms than they were 25 years ago, and much more durable. Of course there will be some dud items but equally there will be many that are bulletproof.
Interesting that auto weights hit a low around 1985 around the culmination of GM’s downsizing efforts. The weight then creeped back to mid seventies levels. This was despite the increase in import market share.
With technology improving there was less reason to keep size and engine displacement down, but one wonders how high the mileage would be on say an 85 C body 98 with the 1.4 turbo from the current Cruze.
I remember Ford in the late nineties had one of those tech demostrators that the government pays for that combined an ovoid Taurus body rendered in aluminum with a powertrain consisting of an Orbital 2 stroke 3 cylinder teamed with a CVT. 80 MPG if I remember correctly.
We taxpayers paid a huge amount of money for PNGV technology (80 mpg family sedan IIRC); did we ever get anything for it?
The Toyota Prius? The 2016 Prius Eco gets 81 mpg on the unadjusted EPA test, exceeding the goals of that project.
Seriously, it was a dead end. And in the big picture of the finances of the US, it was barely a grain of sand. And once the Prius appeared, there was no point to throw any more money at that type of project.
This is fascinating material — I could spend hours looking at these charts. I find the production share charts to be particularly interesting and this report answers a lot of questions that have been sitting in the back of my mind for years (like the growing popularity of 4wd pickups, or plotting the demise of carburetors, etc.).
Thanks for digging up the report and sharing it here!
Malaise probably started in earnest in ’73, but this analysis is probably spot on for identifying peak malaise. While there were some real dogs hanging around, it seemed like by 1983 there were a few signs that things might actually improve.
It might be fair to also tack bad styling, reliability, and quality control issues into the malaise equations. Seeing that the 1980 Thunderbird was still with us in 1982, GM’s diesel mess was becoming apparent, Chrysler’s EFI Imperial was infuriating its top dollar customers, and AMC’s car line was down to variations of the 1970 Hornet, 1982 seems to be the definitive peak malaise year in US domestic automotive history.
I’m so glad I never made a career in anything involving charts. I had to rest my eyes after reading this!
And here’s one of the reasons why automatics are so common: their fuel economy exceeds that of the manuals.
Well let’s not get too carried away, that exceed point only occurred this year(which I find odd), and doesn’t amount to much, it’s been about even since 2008, which isn’t too surprising since up to that point many transmissions were 4 speed OD holdovers from the 80s and 90s. The extra gears being added to the automatics since then no doubt is boosting those figures, and while I don’t have much desire to manually shift 9 gears, I suspect this is a matter of continued investment in automatic transmissions, and divestment in manuals, soldiering on with 6. Plus the lack of manual shift isn’t a recent phenomenon, it was rare 16 years ago when the gap was wider. Main reason is what it’s always been, laziness, poor training in the practice, and unsubstantial purchase value, creating a feedback loop as time marches on.
RWD and V8s suffered similar fates – the intrinsic qualities aren’t so much as rendered obsolete by the more popular alternatives, it’s just that the popular alternatives receive more attention. The V8’s dominance by the 60s netted the same effect on inline 6s, there you had an architecture with a lot of inherent qualities, but in those years was relegated to economy bottom feeder status with stagnant development. RWD, same thing – how many FWD cars in the beginning with superior ride and handling were being praised as such in a playing field of rear drivers on buggy springs? – It’s the result of an ever homogenized industry. There’s very little reason for competition at this point since it’s all based on value, not what the brand promises in terms of substance. What used to be something unique and marketable to one brand is now labeled with terms such as “archaic” or “technological dead end” if it doesn’t reflect what the more dominant other brand is pursuing.
Good points all. I believe a manual g/box in the hands of someone who knows what he or she is doing will always win under real conditions, and where you can see it is in trucking where manual 18sp boxes can still be ordered in preference to the automatic ones. Add the potential for unreliability and it’s a no brainer (was certainly the main reason why I insisted on manual when I bought my current vehicle).
A point that seems worth adding to this (even six years after the fact) is that fuel economy is inevitably measured using standardized test regimes, and if you know what those regimes are (as manufacturers obviously do), modern automatics lend themselves to shift programs that optimize performance on those tests. How that translates into real-world economy and performance is potentially another matter, which has been true going back to stuff like the early Ford AOD transmission, which performed well on EPA tests and not in any other way.
Of course, modern automatic transmissions have many more speeds than they used to, and, being part of integrated powertrain control systems with more input data, they do at least have the potential to be smarter than most human operators. (I would not particularly want to manage eight, nine, ten, or more manual gear choices in a passenger car.) On the other hand, a fair number of modern automatics are so relentlessly optimized for pre-programmed fuel consumption and emissions test cycles that they’re pretty maddening if you just want them to do their thing as invisibly as possible.
I was born in 1982, sounds about right
1982 is also the year that MotorWeek premiered. That just can’t be a coincidence. John Davis cured Malaise.
Perhaps 1982 was the year the market reacted to Oldsmobile making diesel as appealing as public transportation. The ones built at the time were glacially slow with the exception of the 300SD, which was merely slower than jogging.
The true base year for the malaise is 1973. Just drive any car from this time frame and all you get is hesitation, stalling, backfire, surge, vapor lock, and Big Bumpers!!
Also, a tsunami called OPEC came to town.
My first car was an ’82. But it was the first year of the brand new A-body Buick Century, with its 110hp carbureted LK9 3.0L V6. 15 seconds 0-60 and 25mpg.
It was an all around nice car, and considering how slow cars were at the time, you didn’t really notice the poor performance because almost everyone on the road was just as slow. It was pretty good on gas, especially for the time.
My aunt’s 1985 Ciera wagon had this same engine but tied to the 440 overdrive automatic and snappier 3.06 gears. We saw 27 MPG on several highway runs and it did 0-60 in 13 seconds according to my stop watch. Not bad for the time
The data is fascinating. But equally interesting to me is that the EPA would publish something showing 0-60 times. Who says they don’t care about driving fun??!!
I just noticed that Figure 5.16 shows some (small) usage of 7 speed manuals in trucks, but not cars. Shouldn’t it be the other way around (Corvette, Porsche)?
Good question. Seems like it. I can’t vouch for the accuracy of these.
I thought it was odd too, but the percentage of Corvettes and Porsches wouldn’t appear on the graph. I’m not sure where the 7-speed truck transmissions are coming from though, perhaps it is a typo and should be 6-speed of which there appear to be none?
There are few things such as the higher initial manual transmission percentage for trucks and more rapid near-elimination of them, plus a significant number of hybrid-CVT’s in cars but not trucks, that seem correct.
Not sure if the graph covers them, but many medium-duty trucks use 7-speed gearboxes.
Probably not often that the EPA gets a random internet comment about doing a good job, but this is great data visualization. Good job EPA. (Especially from us GenXers who were sliding down all those graphs.) I’m bookmarking this page for inevitable future old car argumentaton
And of course props to CC for breaking their normal format to report on this, and I think this will really help illuminate cars from the 70s/80s. The traditional way to do it was to say “But, according to Motor Trend, the Ford did X and Y, and welll I guess ya had to been there.” Now there are actual charts and graphs.
Yes, and it is interesting to look at it and try to figure out the factors that drive the various changes.
1982 was a bad time for performance fans of American cars. The F-body cars were downsized and lightened and lost the 350 V8’s and turbo 301 motors and instead got low calorie 145 HP and 165 HP 305 V8’s. An automatic Mustang’s top V8 automatic was a 255 V8 making 120 HP. The top V8 gas option for a Cutlass Supreme coupe or sedan was a 100 HP 260 V8. The Grand Prix and G-body Bonneville didn’t even have an optional gas fired V8 nor did the Buick Regal lineup. Cadillac’s top V8 choice was a 125 Hp 4100 V8 in 4000 LB sleds. Won’t even mention the 105 HP 5.7 diesel.
Ford’s Fairmont lost it’s V8 option this year and it’s top engine offering was a 88 HP 200 six. The more expensive Granada/Cougar’s top engine was a 105 HP 3.8 Essex V6. The J-body GM’s started life with the wheezy agricultural sounding carbureted 1.8 engines which thankfully only lasted one year. And lets not forget the Chrysler 90 HP slant sixes, the 130 HP 318’s, the 84 HP 2.2 and the 92 Hp 2.6 Mitsubishi POS. Sad times indeed
My ’82 Civic 1500 with 67 bhp certainly felt peppy, at least for the time. And now, we have all this horsepower and many drivers still merge heedlessly onto the freeway at 52 mph, accelerating steadily at 0.3 mph per second and drift over to the fast lane, without signaling, until they’re going 80. But I guess EPA regulations and good engineering can’t solve all the world’s problems. And please don’t suggest self-driving cars!
Self driving cars will have to be incredibly cautious in many situations that they will struggle to comprehend, categorize, process and decide what to do!
Amazing info, Paul! Imagine how much more efficient the fleet would have been in the 90’s, and maybe even today, if there wasn’t a loophole to classify passenger SUV as trucks and exempt them from fuel consumption standards.
Was this loophole established after lobbying big the Detroit three? Without their huge SUV sales in the 90’s maybe they would have gone bankrupt much earlier… or maybe they would have actually adapted and offered competitive sedans to beat the Japanese instead of filler old cars just to meet EPA fleet averages.
All these metrics say, really, is that in 1982 we were trading off fuel economy for performance. After that we were still pursuing FE but the technology breakthrough allowed the HP to go up at the same time. I guess if you define peak malaise as lowest HP year, maybe, but to me malaise has more to do with quick solutions to tough problem and poor quality. The period begins in 1972 with the Pinto and Vega, peaks in 75-76 and is pretty much done by ’78 with the Fairmont. There were a lot of great cars in the early 80s. A peak in ’82 would mean those were worse than the 75-76s which doesn’t make sense. Does malaise just mean HP to folks?
A fleet average (I assume that’s the calculation) at 16 1/2 seconds zero-to-sixty in 1982 was very bad, and roughly half the cars and light trucks were slower than that. As of 2016, it’s looking like about 8 1/2 seconds, which seems about right.
Traffic accelerated more slowly back then, but taking nearly twenty seconds to get up to freeway-ish speeds was really dreadful, in hindsight, with what we have available today. The term “malaise” can cover many aspects of ‘70s and early ‘80s cars, but this 0-60 element of it was not really open to interpretation, as the styling and features elements could have been. It was what it was.
In the context of 16 1/2 second average acceleration times, those “strangled” performance cars that could only do 11 or 12 second zero-to-sixty don’t look so bad, in their time.
Is there a timeline available showing when changes in US emissions and CAFE standards took effect?
I’m curious if the ’82 power trough was caused by either standard, or by a delayed reaction to the ’79 gas crisis, whose resultant high prices continued several years after the shortages ended, or by the severe ’82 recession discouraging people from optional engines (or are these graphs not weighted by sales?). 1982 was the first year of the HT4100 and the only year of the J car’s 1.8L engine, so not surprising it was the nadir. I still believe the ’73-4 model years had the worst engine driveability issues (stalling, rough starts, etc).
As someone who focuses on numbers more than perhaps they should, you might say I zero in on them, the data in the charts is incredible. Not that I have anything newer than the charts, but either an update with current data, or even just a link to where you sourced it all would be fantastic.
Super job regardless.
The link at the beginning of the article is broken (the EPA apparently reorganized where stuff is located on their sites and hasn’t set up automatic redirects), but the report’s new location is:
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/pdfs/420r16010.pdf
More trends data, including newer data through 2021, is available at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/highlights-automotive-trends-report
(The 2021 report has the same kind of data and data presentation, but it has an additional five years of data.)
Thanks; I’ll update with the new links.
You’ll need to update the link at the end of the article as well, it looks like
It appears that the portion of diesel vehicle sales peaked in 1982/83 and that could explain a bit of the peak malaise phenomenon. For example, the significant increase in 0-60 times and sharp decrease in hp.