The Silverado and the F-150 are the only 2 cars in the top 15 best-selling cars in the US which are particularly fuel inefficient.

The best selling cars for quite some time have been decently fuel efficient in the US.

Even when gas prices are expensive - the US has never been selling a lot of cars like the Fiat 500.

> The Silverado and the F-150 are the only 2 cars in the top 15 best-selling cars in the US which are particularly fuel inefficient.

Sure, however the F-150 was by far the biggest selling vehicle at least up until 2019. Over 3 times as many sold as the second most popular vehicle.

My father's F-150 is _more_ fuel efficient than my 4-cylinder crossover - both in the mid-20's for mpg.

In order to get a meaningful reduction in consumption, you need to be driving a sedan or coupe.

----

Many of the bigger vehicles have unnecessarily large engines. However, that's not necessarily true across the board.

Best of both worlds of capacity and fuel economy is a station wagon.

With the Golf Sportwagen (EU name Golf Variant) off the market in North America now, it leaves Volvos and Subarus as the only option.

I predict that in the next decade, station wagons will get rediscovered as manufacturers try to maximize range and reduce battery volume as electrification marches on.

Edit: forgot about Subarus

I just checked and it seems the Subaru Outback is bigger than the Golf Variant and has otherwise similar stats.

Are they not the same class of car?

Different size class. The Outback is a lifted large sedan with an extended trunk, there aren't any vehicles on the market that compare to it except perhaps the Toyota Venza.

Outback "competes" with the crossovers which are usually shorter in length and have taller interior space.

Don't they sell the Mercedes E-Class T Model in the US?

Volvo wagons start at about $51k CAD, MB C-Class starts at $57k CAD and an E-Class starts at $81k CAD. This is out of reach of Jonny Everyman (including me).

I purchased a base Golf Sportwagen with 4Motion back in 2017 for around $29k which was surprisingly nicely equipped (DSG, tunable engine, decent soundsystem). A similarly equipped Suburu would have been mid-to-high $30s.

If I had freedom to "flex", I would have gone for the Volvo because of the safety street cred.

Perhaps, Mercedes is luxury though. People are more likely to purchase something that provides better value/size/gas mileage that costs 40% less.

My mistake. I did forget about this one!

I hope you’re right. I’ve been driving wagons for years, but the US market for them has been shrinking consistently since crossovers became a thing. Europeans seemingly have oodles of options, but God forbid automakers allow Americans a sporty AWD wagon with a manual transmission…

The very hard edge on the tail of a wagon makes it a terribly great at producing turbolence which is bad for fuel efficiency. I think shooting break or sort of stretched-out hatchbacks will be where it's at.

Isn't the Subaru Outback still a station wagon even if they try to disguise it with crossover inspired body panels.

It has quite a bit of ground clearance despite it's low profile. It's higher off the ground than more popular models like the CR-V, RAV4, Highlander, etc.

What 4-cylinder crossover is getting mid-20s (at least hwy mpg)?

Certainly a lot of these lil crossovers with natural-aspirated 4-cylinder engines can really strain to heft a bigger vehicle up from a stop (I'm looking at you, Subaru!), but once one is driving hwy speeds they are really quite fuel-sipping.

The examples listed are Honda Element and Nissan Murrano, which are decidedly not small, fuel efficient vehicles but instead blown-up heavier counterparts built on a shared platform with a 4 cylinder engine. These cars are often less practical than their smaller, more fuel-efficient counterparts. So these are not exactly arguments against buying smaller, lighter and more fuel efficient cars.

One reason why SUVs are as popular as they are is that car manufacturers are allowed to produce less efficient cars if they are larger and with off-road capability. This allows bigger, less efficient cars compete with the more efficient ones because the sale price ends up being close enough to the more efficient counterparts for this to not matter.

> One reason why SUVs are as popular as they are is that car manufacturers are allowed to produce less efficient cars if they are larger and with off-road capability

This was true like in the 1990s. It hasn't been true in a very long time (almost 20 years now). The only limit at which these standards don't apply is truly heavy duty (5000 pounds) and not even a hummer is over that threshhold.

> The only limit at which these standards don't apply is truly heavy duty (5000 pounds) and not even a hummer is over that threshhold.

Edmunds has the 2004 H1 at 7,608 lbs. [0] and the 2009 H2 at 6,614 lbs. [1] 2004 and 2009 are the newest Edmunds has for those models. Looks like the new GMC Hummer EV is going to be over 9,000 lbs. [2] The lightest 2022 Chevrolet Tahoe that I could find on Edmunds was 5,473 lbs. [3]

[0] https://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h1/2004/features-specs/

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/hummer/h2/2009/features-specs/

[2] https://www.motortrend.com/news/2022-gmc-hummer-ev-pickup-ed...

[3] https://www.edmunds.com/chevrolet/tahoe/2022/features-specs/

My mistake, the limit isn't 5000 but 8500 pounds. In 2027 these will also be covered under fuel-efficiency standards.

https://www.motorbiscuit.com/why-dont-heavy-duty-trucks-have...

Basically the entire segment: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/suvs-best-gas-mileage

Now, keep in mind, I'm talking about actual fuel usage. Not "ideal testing conditions". For example, my Chevy Equinox is supposed to get 32 highway - but it really only gets 26 (cruising at 70mph with no traffic).

My 2009 Honda Element gets 22-24mpg. A friend had a Nissan Murano that got similar.

> Many of the bigger vehicles have unnecessarily large engines. However, that's not necessarily true across the board.

"Unnecessarily large engine" sure sounds like something that would have negative consequences, but Cylinder Deactivation (CDA) is a thing. Just like your CPU, your engine doesn't need to spin up every "core" if it's not loaded to 100%. And fewer concurrent explosions per second, means less gas needed to drive all those explosions. A V8 that's only driving 4 of its 8 cylinders in most situations, is likely going to be even less gas-guzzling than a V6 that always has to drive all 6 cylinders. (Well, other than the fact that the V8 has to work slightly harder to move a car that's heavier from the additional engine weight.)

Of course, not all vehicles have CDA. But more and more do.

And, relevant to the discussion — as of the 2021 model, the F-150 has CDA. (https://pickuptrucktalk.com/2020/10/2021-ford-f150-5-0l-v8-e...)

I've owned sedans and coupes before. Never again. Lifting heavy objects out of a trunk is just too hard on my back.

A Forster or outback is not a coupe or sedan and the forester mpg is 33 highway.

Mostly fleet purchases or commercial vehicles which contradicts the parents point about individual purchasing decisions. I know a lot of people who drive trucks as their primary vehicle, none of them drive f150’s. It’s absurd.

18 of the top 25 selling cars in the U.S. are SUVs or pick-ups. Which are inherently less efficient than a sedan.

Not really. The top selling SUVs (RAV4, CRV, and Rogue) all get 35 mpg on the highway. That's better than the non-hybrid Honda Accord, for example.

I've always found the "highway" thing to not be very useful. Yes, if you're on cruise control on the open highway at constant speed, you will get good mileage in an SUV.

But in practice that sort of situation only applies during road trips. Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic, which is a lot less efficient.

> Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic, which is a lot less efficient.

Is that statistical, or anecdotal? It's counter to my personal driving patterns. Even in moderate congestion my Hyundai gets mileage closer to its "highway" MPG than "city" (when using cruise/distance control).

Hybrids mainly helps frequent stop city driving rather than constant highway driving, SUVs aren't good for Cd value that's important for highway driving. Because of that, pure ICE sedans should get relatively good value for highway mileage, but not good for city.

> Most people's actual highway driving is driving in traffic

When I had cars I used them mostly to get out on weekends or for longer trips on vocations. May be I’m an outlier but during the pandemic time work from home is common and this allows to avoid driving in traffic.

Its not that bad. I've had daily commutes that were 70% highway at 40-60, and that's much closer to the EPA "highway" cycle than it should be.

The highway cycle is actually not all high speed driving.

35mpg == 15 km/L

Wow, that's not good... A large Sedan from early 2000s driven well can easily beat that..

I regularly hear about small cars doing 70 mpg == 30km/L

My Toyota Yaris is not fuel efficient at 130 km/h on the highway, but it still manages 40mpg = 17 km/L

Of course, it's not SUV.. I basically decided against buy a big car until EVs are ready -- they are now, but that doesn't mean I should throw out my existing car :)

I think you've made an incorrect conversion to metric units.

First off, if you're not in the US, make sure that you are converting from a US gallon, and not imperial gallon.

35 MPG (US gallons) = 6.72 Liters per 100 km

Mileage is really a mess... Some place in the EU uses L / 100km, others km/L, I was using Google so I think the unit was correct.

Any case, my car does roughly 17 megameters / meter^3 -- that's proper SI units :)

In Europe the common metric is l/100km. 35 mpg translates to a little above 6.7 l/100km, which is good - average for a car in Europe (average is 7.8l/100km = 30mpg). I guess today there is a smaller difference in fuel efficiency. This is for gasoline, not diesel engines.

US cars are a bit bigger than european or asian models, so they are probably a bit heavier. Still, I think fuel efficiency is pretty optimized in all modern cars regardless of where you live.

Civic gets 36 combined, Corolla is 33 combined, Rav4/CRV are both 30 combined. A Prius is 54 combined. Not sure where you are hearing about 70 mpg.

My Toyota Yaris is rated at 27 km/L = 63mpg

But maybe that's only downhill -- I'm certainly not reaching it :)

But other mini cars like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo

Or so I hear...

The Toyota Yaris gets 40mpg highway / 35 mpg combined: https://www.cars.com/articles/2020-toyota-yaris-mpg-can-frug...

Yes really. That is not a very good benchmark.

My Toyota Yaris gets over 50mpg on motorways, so about 50% better.

Though having 25% larger gallons in the UK helps too. (Not that there isn't truth in European cars having been more efficient for thirty years).

Very good point! I always forget this!

The point is that if they were smaller cars they'd get even better MPG.

And be a less useful vehicles for doing the kinds of things that most people ask of them, carrying stuff that doesn't fit in a standard sized trunk like furniture and appliances.

All those sedans would be way more fuel efficient if they were motorcycles too, but I don't think you'd agree that they're comparable.

Do most people ask that their vehicle carry furniture and appliances on a regular basis?

Honestly any time I have a larger item either being hauled to my place or away from it, it's someone else's vehicle, e.g. delivery of a new appliance or pricing it to move quickly on craigslist so someone comes and takes it away.

Someone from Craigslist comes and takes it away? On what, their back?

So your solution to not needing to move things is for other people with suitable vehicles to come and move things? How is that gonna work when everyone has a sedan?

It's true for everyone I know who has children and owns a house in the burbs. The cost of taking delivery from everything from TVs, lawn mowers, dirt, mulch, Costco trips, adds up and SUVs aren't really more expensive than sedans.

Like I get you, I live a very privileged urban apartment dweller life and can afford to just pay for people to move things for me the few times I need it but renting tools and labor is expensive for a family.

> How is that gonna work when everyone has a sedan?

People who specialise in it? Like moving vans or toe trucks?

> but renting tools and labor is expensive for a family.

Compared to the extra cost of the vehicle and gas? I mean how often do you buy new furniture? People ask how I manage without a car: simple I bus or take a cab. "cabs are expensive" per trip sure... but per year? Nothing compared to the cost of car ownership. If big cars aren't false economy yet, then they will be once we start paying for our carbon. Most of us could get around 90% of the time in a coupe.

It's not different. That's the whole point.

    2020 Honda Accord: $28k total cost of ownership [1] 30/37 mpg 282 g/m emissions rating [3]

    2020 Honda CR-V: $28k total cost of ownership [2] 28/34 mpg 294 g/m emissions rating [3]

[1] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/accord/2020/cost-to-own/?style...

[2] https://www.edmunds.com/honda/cr-v/2020/cost-to-own/?style=4...

[3] https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=42071&...

According to [3] the yearly fuel cost difference is $50. For reference on the emissions numbers a 2010 H3 Hummer is 555g/m.

Society survived without SUVs. We have everything delivered in an instant.

We don't need all this crap, and we don't need SUVs to carry it around.

Yeah, we had minivans, station wagons, and small pickup trucks. Then we had what are now called "full-size" SUVs. Midsize SUVs today are just slightly bigger cars.

The point is that crossover/SUVs get good enough MPG. Fuel economy is not the only, or even the primary, consideration when buying a car.

If the price of gas keeps rising at the same pace for the next seven years, it will be.

Most SUVs are intentionally just taller hatchbacks. They're maybe a couple mpg less fuel efficient than a similar sedan, but in return you get a more comfortable feeling car.

And far more utility than a traditional sedan, I own one of each and my midsized SUV that covers a lot of small truck use cases. I can strap things to the roof racks, I can open the back and lay down the seats and carry small and extended cargo. It has all wheel drive and handles bad weather conditions better than a front wheel drive car. It's higher up and provides better visibility than my sedan. It can handle hauling small trailers. Sedans _typically_ don't come equipped to handle dirty things like outdoor sports and pets while my SUV has rubber floor mats/trays everywhere. For road trips and camping trips I can pack almost twice as much stuff in the SUV and those things are more easy accessed than a car trunk.

SUVs existing _prevent_ me from buying a small to midsized truck so to me the view is "look at the efficiency gained compared to the Ranger or Tacoma" instead of "look at how inefficient the Outback or Escape is compared to a Civic".

That's when you realize that there are station wagons with better mpg more utility and your head explodes.

I'm not ignorant of them but there simply aren't that many wagon options on the market new or used and peak MPG isn't the only metric for purchasing a vehicle.

Your post seemed pretty ignorant of other choices besides SUVs and trucks. Mercedes has 6 station wagons/shooting brakes, VW has 4, BMW has 4, Toyota has 5, Hyundai has 4, Kia has 3, Honda got 5 every big car manufacture has at least 3 station wagons in their portfolio. I know there are more SUVs because of the SUV hype in the last years but stating that there are no options on the market is just not true.

> Mercedes has 6 station wagons/shooting brakes, VW has 4, BMW has 4, Toyota has 5, Hyundai has 4, Kia has 3, Honda got 5

Okay, and now go to each of these manufacturer's US websites and check how many are available in the US.

Also, consider that Mercedes and BMW only offer luxury models at luxury prices in the US.

I literally did not make the claim that no wagon options exist anywhere in what I wrote. What are you even arguing here? Why even make that strawman?

I compared SUVs to sedans and trucks because those are more available by volume by a long shot when purchasing, and most wagons actually fail to meet most of the utility criteria I listed, and those that do are designed far more like a low-clearance SUVs than as a "wagonized" version of a base sedan model.

Enjoy your day and whatever agenda it is that you're pushing. Goodbye.

You left the most popular utility car option out of your reasoning there is no agenda at all. In the international market the station wagon is still first as utility vehicle and it is on the rise in the US as well. I don't know why you get so agetated about it.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/25864/station-wagon-sales-are-...

Some Ford F-150 models get 25 mpg combined fuel economy. That's pretty good. At that rate a typical owner will spend only a few hundred dollars per year extra on fuel compared to a smaller car.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=43614

I was reading car and drivers list of worst mpg vehicles today, not surprisingly pick up trucks are awful. 16mpg highway with giant gas tanks.

No wonder people feel the pain when they have to pay like $200 to fill up and be able to drive ~400miles. I don’t have sympathy except for the ones that legitimately use it for work. Otherwise it’s massively wasteful and all that’s different now is they can feel how wasteful their car is.

Is that the reason, though? I heard on the news (unfortunately don't remember where) that oil production decreased when people were driving less, then as people resumed driving, production didn't increase as fast as demand.

Which would make sense to me because there have been a ton of situations where some pandemic event has caused some previously generally stable thing to shift (up or down) to some new level, then we have chaos as other things try to adapt and find a new equilibrium. Then when the pandemic stops forcing that thing to an unusual level, it springs back toward its normal level, and again other things take time to adapt and find an equilibrium.

So actually we seem to get two edge-triggered periods of chaos where something shifts from value V1 to V2 (that's one edge trigger) and then shifts back from V2 to V1-ish (the other edge trigger).

And if you look at crude oil prices over the last few years, they were lower during 2020 than in previous years. Now they are higher. So that fits the pattern I'm describing.

> Then when the pandemic stops forcing that thing to an unusual level, it springs back toward its normal level, and again other things take time to adapt and find an equilibrium.

There will be no stable equilibrium for a long time ahead. Governments around the world continue to introduce lockdowns on a short notice when cases rise and we are nowhere near COVID-restrictions free international travel. Any change in restrictions would change oil demand too.

> Now, suddenly, everyone is shocked, shocked that oil prices have gone back up.

We also had ten years worth of truck and SUV purchases prior to inauguration day early this year, and I recall everyone paying almost a dollar and a half less per gallon during that time period.

> The shortsightedness of people is amazing: since the '70s, when oil prices go down, people reliably buy wasteful and large cars. Then they go up, and people reliably do the opposite.

You don't want people to respond to economic incentives? That means there is no point to adding gas taxes to incentivize fuel efficiency - or do you believe that people only respond to increasing gas prices and not decreasing prices?

How, in your view, would such an asymmetric response function work?

are you trying to tell me finite resources aren't infinite? You ain't mur'ican den buddy.

How much does the gas mileage of consumer automobiles in the USA actually affect oil prices?