WOW. What insight – SUVs are less fuel efficient than mid sized autos regardless of who makes them.

This reads like statistics looking for a conclusion.
I think the conclusion is foregone and simple.

Lighter vehicles and lower horsepower are the main drivers of reducing fuel consumption. Technology, by itself, can provide only evolutionary reductions (if we are talking about ICEs, not EVs.)

I question the inclusion of torque. I would think torque from large displacement adds weight (which is already covered) and turbocharging is covered by horsepower - and the plots do not reflect torque as a driver.
Do higher rpm engines have significantly better SFC? Maybe so.

And the assumption that this is impartial is not helped when it comes from California - UC Davis Department of Economics and Institute of Transportation Studies.

It is most unfortunate that, for decades, too many buyers purchased larger-than-needed vehicles.

Plenty of excellent medium and small cars have been available for almost 40 years but they are still only slowly increasing their market share;
and "small", inefficient SUVs are still selling well.

Meeting Proposed Obama Fuel Economy Standards Will Require Downsizing

So more people will die. WHO CARES?!?!?!?! In order to appease the god of Globalwarmism we will sacrifice our children on her altar! Praise be to Algore. Praise be to Algore! Drive small cars or the god of Globalwarmism will be ANGRY!!!

The war in iraq is not being fought over oil but to keep the Zionists in Tel Aviv happy.

Um, guys? The chart shows that the same model of car over 25 years got 50% heavier, and twice as powerful. To be fair, the Honda Accord from the 1980's was probably rightfully considered a compact car, and the civic used to be a subcompact. They both went up a size class, because that's what Honda thought best for the brand, and it sold pretty well.

So...this is not a strict analysis of what would happen to a midsize or compact car today if you tried to put the most fuel efficient 75 hp motor today into a 2200 pound compact car. Have motorist expectations changed in 25 years? Yep. Could they change again? Sure.

Remember the 1960's when Detroit had to make oversized, over-powered cars to appeal to "the buyer," except it turned out it was mostly to push the higher margin features, because the labor costs were about the same on small and large cars? That was the 1990's too. SUV's were already passe before oil hit $140/barrel last year.

Drivers don't necessarily want tons of horsepower, but the do want torque. Sounds like a hybrid or an electric would do. Drivers don't necessarily want a massive vehicle, but they kind of like the idea of safety. 6 airbags, ABS, and decent bumpers pretty much get your there...which smaller cars are starting to come with standard.

The IEA has discovered that what they thought was a pessimistic finding in 2007 that oil fields were declining by 3.7% has really proven to be 6.7%;

For those who think they need an appartment size vehicle for weekends and to drive the overweight family members around, there are many very large size recreational vehicles for sale at a good price.

Alternatively, they could use their 70+ft house-trailer on 18+ wheels, 750+ hp, 200+ gals/tank (with the large boat attached) to drive up and down the street to impress their neighbours.

Of course two Prius III could also move the average large family around but that would be less impressive.

We do have a huge attitude problem to solve.

Status can be a matter of audience. If the general impression that gas guzzling is anti social, then there will be no positive status, only negative. The person seeking status needs and audience to be impressed, if that audience is reviled, then there is no gain to the ego.

@ Mathew,

The safety and emissions specs changes since 1980 (in California, anyway) only need add a couple hundred pounds to the vehicle. Meanwhile, many other components have gotten lighter, cleaner, more hp per liter of displacement, and more efficient at wringing power out of fuel. Smaller engines can offset some the weight.

I don't know if this statistic is still valid, but some years ago researchers claimed that if every American just drove the most fuel efficient version of the make and model they already drove (the 4 cylinder instead of the v-6; the v-6 instead of the v-8), that the US would save something like 2 million barrels of oil per day. All the safety and emissions gear, cargo and passenger spaces would be exactly the same.

My only complaint about Cash-for-Clunkers is that they should have required more than a 4 mpg improvement to receive the incentive.

Have we yet heard from all the new Puritans of the great anchronistic Druid Nature Worsahippers? Hurry up then,and post. As far as a car being adequate with a 0-60 of 15 seconds, I recomend you drive that death trap and I welcome your Darwin award as you achieve your aims in reducing the pressure on resources by a human, in a vaib attempt to merge safely on to a freeway.

Really I look forward to the coming days in a decade or two, when I can have my cake and eat it too.

Only you nouveau GOREan Puritans believe that small cars are what the majority want, in any country. It is merely the compromise that they were forced to accept; and will be abandoned readily everywhere, when fuel and wealth are in greater supply. When Electric Drive substitutes arrive, they will improve and grow in size and comfort.

I expect that the only free vote on car size occurred in the USA in the 50s and 60s, when fuel costs and emission concerns were not a consideration at all.

We have met all the genuine toxic emsissions even on the ICE, and energy will soon return to a commodity NOT in short supply, when we transition from fossil to fission and fusion.

America is still a democracy (of sorts) so if 34% want gas guzzlers and 66% want clean fuel efficient vehicles, then we can make progress. Lots of people think it is their right and freedom to drive a big SUV and have a huge motor home in storage. Those are probably the same people that have "Support Our Troops" bumper stickers.

Just look at the announcements of new car engines on this site. XX more horse-power YY more torque. The full electric cars are 0 to 60 in less than XX seconds 100 plus horsepower.

Yes merging lanes on freeways were designed for danger, but that is no excuse for over-powered cars that sit in the garage or driveway most of the week or even cars that are used to commute every day. Hydraulic hybrid cars can be designed to give all of the acceleration needed. Diesel locomotives proved the versatility of the hybrid drive over eighty years ago.

If every California and Washington DC area car were required to have the ability to creep in traffic jams with electric power or hydraulic power with the engine turned off the the efficiency of that section of the freeway would multiply and the air clean up. It takes less than a horse-power to creep on a freeway even up some fairly steep grades. The engineers and scientists can quicky find that a horsepower is 550 foot pounds per second, and if your car weighs 2200 pounds, a long ton or about a tonne, your car could be pulled vertically into the air at fifteen feet a minute with one horsepower. One horsepower should enable a big car to go 5 to 15 miles an hour on a level freeway with no wind.

CALCARS, Electric car people estimate less than 200 watt hours per mile for average driving. This means that one horsepower is good for nearly four miles an hour in such cars on the average. The battery will allow much faster peak speeds. ..HG..

@SJC,

How fast does it go if you pedal and use the electric assist? I've ridden a segueway at almost 12 miles per hour, and that felt awkwardly fast, but a 10-speed at 15 miles per hour seems pretty controllable?

Do you get about an hour of boost?