mobile-menu-icon
GM Authority

U.S. Consumers Want Better Fuel Economy, Study Shows

The majority of Americans, perhaps unsurprisingly, want greater fuel economy – leading to more fuel-efficient, lower-emission cars that will cost less to drive over a given distance. They support legislation that will push automakers toward improving mileage, a new study by Consumer Reports shows.

Two-thirds of respondents in the study rated fuel economy as extremely important in their vehicle purchase decisions, and 96 percent said they considered fuel economy as one of the factors in their buying choice.

Traffic on an overpass, costs affected by fuel economy standards.

A majority of U.S. automotive buyers also think that the government should – and needs to – intervene to push automakers into fuel economy improvements, the research also found. About 73 percent believe that car companies will not try to provide the best fuel economy on their own initiative and 64 percent think fuel economy standards should be increased over time by the government.

CR senior policy analyst Chris Harto remarked that people “across the political spectrum want to spend less to fuel their vehicles, and they think there’s significant room for improvement by automakers.” Harto also observes that “strong, incremental, and technology-neutral standards for vehicle efficiency and emissions” are the best mechanism for continuing to offer greater fuel savings into the future.

Fuel economy measurements on a GMC Sierra.

Critically, the data also shows that the steady advance of standards has cut lifetime expenditures on fuel by $9,000 for a current new vehicle model compared to an equivalent vehicle from the 2021 model year.

Consumer Reports also points out that a range of powerplant options – including ICE, hybrid, PHEV, and EV powertrains – is now available thanks to fuel economy laws, each with their own advantages and “excelling in different driving situations.”

A GMC Hummer EV charging.

Fuel efficiency standards may be frozen by the incoming administration of 47th U.S. President Donald Trump. Previously, fuel efficiency was to increase to 50.4 miles per gallon by 2031 under Biden administration plans, a cut from the earlier 58 mpg standard but still a major increase from current levels. This figure is likely to be slashed under Trump.

Automakers, unlike many American drivers, are generally supportive of reduced fuel mileage standards, but want the new president to keep the federal tax credit of up to $7,500 for EVs.

Subscribe to GM Authority

For around-the-clock GM news coverage

We'll send you one email per day with the latest GM news. It's totally free.

Comments

  1. Bring the price of gas and diesel down and see how those poll numbers skew. On the other hand, the market should dictate what automakers build. If customers pick the most fuel efficient model in a competitive set, then that maker will benefit, and will prompt others to compete. Laws of physics still rule. A Suburban won’t match the fuel mileage of a Trax, for example. We have to be realistic. We still need vehicles that can do the job we ask of them.

    Reply
    1. It’s not easy to bring down oil/diesel prices. Even if the US wants to drill for a lot more oil it would take years to build new oil rigs and refining capacity. On top of that oil is a traded commodity, so the cost of it is market driven. So if the US drills more, OPEC drills less and the price of oil doesn’t change. The world is bigger than the US.

      Reply
      1. There’s far more ways of doing it than your global elitist strawman.

        Reply
        1. If gas is cheap we are almost always in a recession. Oil much below $70/barrel for any sustained period (3-6months) will cause a cessation in high cost exploration. Within 6-12 months there will be a shortage and price spike. Some of the oil the world needs to satisfy demand costs $40-$50/barrel to get out of the ground. Unless oil is close to $70, companies just wont drill for oil that costs $50/barrel to extract. I don’t know why most people can’t understand this simple fact. Check out any long term oil price chart if you don’t believe me. When oil is cheap for any long period, very few oil companies make any money, so they stop exploring and the result is an eventual shortage and price spike. Econ 101.

          Reply
      2. Oil companies do not want to oversupply the market and drive down prices. The best possible situation is relatively stable long term prices so oil companies can make good investment decisions and gas is not too expensive to hurt economic growth.

        Reply
        1. So your saying Kia now wants to withdraw from the US market to drive up car prices???? Oil companies want market share. There’s a balance between market share and profits per barrel. Right now US companies are itching for market share. The Saudis not so much, but US companies would love to double their output even if oil goes down to 30-40$/barrel.

          Reply
          1. Well, we just found the Trump University graduate!

            Reply
      3. The number of down votes you’ve received proves the comment section has a large number of chuckle heads who can’t understand your comment. Unfortunately we have to listen to them chanting drill baby drill, just like the Chuckle head now occupying the oval office.

        Reply
        1. Thanks for your Political-attack comment which the Editors should have immediately censored and deleted. The fact that they didn’t tells those of us who disagree with your attack/insult exactly what the Politics and biases are of those owning and running this thing.

          Reply
  2. People always say they want better fuel economy. Then they go buy a Tahoe.

    If they really wanted better fuel economy, they’d drive an economical car. They just want their cake and to pig out on it, too.

    I have a truck, a V-8 coupe, etc- but I keep a 4 cyl sedan for commuting.

    Reply
  3. If you are driving 12k miles per year the difference in month gas costs between a 20 mpg and 28 mpg (which is a LARGE gap in vehicle/engine choice and most people don’t cross shop vehicles THIS far apart in mpg), you save up to a whopping $50/mo in gas. If less than $50/mo will break you, please buy something used. I also can’t imagine letting that small difference in monthly expenses turn me away from a vehicle I liked more than another.

    In reality, most people are likely cross shopping vehicles within a couple mpg of each other and factoring in a ~$8/mo difference in gas costs way too heavily.

    Reply
    1. And this is largely why the Trax is selling so well vs a Corolla despite the Corollas MPG advantage. The cheaper drivetrain of the Trax is definitely a draw.

      Reply
  4. Here is the trouble. Consumers was more MPG but they don’t want the cars that get the MPG.

    We are now faced with Turbo 3 cylinders and EV models to increase MPG and range. but people are not crazy about these. This survey is a bit one sided.

    Getting gas prices done can happen in the short term by oil companies turning on wells they already have. It was done 8 years ago. Flood the market over the next few years and open more wells it will let America control global prices not the middle east or Russia

    Reply
    1. Flood the market so oil companies can become non-profits (literally) or go bankrupt? You will really love oil prices a year after you drive a bunch of oil companies out of business and there is a massive shortage. Oil prices need to be high enough for the most expensive oil to extract needed to meet global demand is profitable in the long term, or you get lots of volatility with very high and very low price swings.

      America can’t control global oil prices, we are about 20% of global oil supply and demand, far too low a percentage to control prices. And if we did control prices, all the US oil companies would want a price as high as possible that doesn’t significantly hurt demand or economic growth. Than number is probably about $100/barrel based on what I have read, so be carful what you wish for.

      Reply
      1. In 2016, when oil prices were on avg. $41 a barrel, Exxon profits were $7.8 billion. In 2017 it was $51 a barrel, their profits were $19.7 billion. Then in 2018 at $71 a barrel, they were $20.8 billion. Poor Exxon and their non-profit like earnings in 2016. How would they ever survive should those prices continue?

        Reply
  5. Since we generally keep vehicles for 100-150k+ miles, I’ll gladly take a little less fuel economy over long term durability and reliability. So much tech from CVTs, to 8-9-10 speed transmissions, turbo 3s, AFM, start-stop, etc, (not just a gm issue by any means) ekes out incremental gains in fuel economy, but at what costs to long term TCO? Keeping a car on the road economically for 200k miles is going to have far greater environmental benefit that consuming two vehicles in the same timeframe that are marginally more fuel efficient.

    Reply
    1. I think another factor is how many miles people drive per year. Yes, all this tech is complicated and may be prone to failure before 200,000 miles – or maybe not. But we should also look at the long commutes many people are forced into because the housing they can afford is so far from their jobs. We have a national problem with the locations and availability of affordable places to live. The cheaper places are way out of town and so gas consumption goes way up.

      Reply
      1. And that all the businesses are leaving big cities forcing workers to drive out to their place of work because regulation in cities that are implementing “green polices” are forcing them out. How ironic, the greenies have forced people to drive 3-4X as much and burn significantly more fuel.

        Reply
        1. Plus, who wants to live in highly population dense areas anymore? Humans were not meant to live stacked on top of millions of other humans. It causes nothing but problems and hassles.

          Reply
  6. They say this then they buy a full size truck to commute to work.

    Reply
  7. Agree with other who say consumers want more MPG, but buy big SUV and complain. Also, as long as the market demands more HP, MPG will suffer. And who cares about Fuel economy, everybody wants to drive fast today on the interstates and blow the economy off anyway. Set the EPA standards at 75-80 and see that number. People will cry.

    Reply
  8. No one ever asked me my opinion
    Better fuel economy at what cost?
    we are right now where pounds are reduced to improve mileage
    when we complain about the plastics and safety lost trying to reach these goals
    this also goes for EV’s
    will come the point where we have reached a plateau
    Now I have a 5K P/U and it get’s 22 mpg hwy
    that’s huge living in the country, all driving is at about 55 MPH

    Reply
  9. I’m old enough to remember when my dad’s Country Squire, with vinyl wood siding got around 6-7 MPG. Honestly, consumers have no idea how good they do have it these days.

    Reply
  10. US wants the V6 and V8s back.

    Reply
  11. LOL , better fuel economy but yet still drive 10-15 mph OVER the posted speed limit !! If people would SLOW DOWN some and not be in such a freakin hurry it WOULD HELP WITH FUEL ECONOMY !!! People don’t really care about fuel economy , when gas in the mid west was over 5 bucks a gallon did they slow down , HELL NO !! They just don’t care !!

    Reply
    1. WTF do you live that people drive that fast regularly? All the idiots here drive 10-15 UNDER.

      Reply
      1. What really pisses you off is the people that drive 10 to 15 mph under the speed limite want to drive in the left lane.

        Reply
  12. Read this article. Then looked outside and watched the majority of the vehicles driving past that are all too big, fat, heavy and have the design of a brick. So this report is flawed or the people saying this are so stupid that they think driving an SUV like a cement block will give them good MPG’s.

    Can’t wait for the day when gas hits $7.00 a gallon nationwide and never comes down. Then things will change.

    Reply
    1. Have you ever heard of the 40’s/50’s/60’s? Today’s “large vehicles” are just a return to what cars looked like before the 70’s oil crisis and EPA was created. It’s taken decades to return to the “American normal” a Chevy chevette isn’t the ideal size of a car when they were first being built from carriages back in the day. A Ford explorer/Tahoe is actually the size of those cars. And if we’re being honest, it’s the EPA mandates that push smaller cars to reduce fuel consumption that has made them unbearable pushing people to buy large cars. If they would let companies make a good comfy car, maybe less people would buy trucks/BOF SUV’s. Maybe less people would roll coal in spite at the feds.

      Reply
      1. I agree with you 100% I owned a 1965 Chevrolet Impala with a 283-V8 and a 2 speed power glide transmission, This was a full size car that I got 28-30 driving to Florida from Ohio and back, Then I replaced it with a 1980 Chevrolet Citation after I put 327,000 miles on my Impala, the Citation averaged 40-45 mpg with no hybrid, so I’m here to say they can do it if they want with gas powered vehicles

        Reply
      2. Steve: The problem with your response is that in the 40’s through 60’s the car were getting about the same MPG as these over-sized blocks (Ford Expedition, Chevy Tahoe, Toyota 4Runner, etc). It was the later 60’s and 70’s when I believe MPG’s dropped to the worst levels and vehicles were the largest. So what progress have we made if now, 50+ years later, we are still driving similar vehicles in size that get the same MPG?

        Do you watch a TV made in the 60’s? Would you today? Do you sit down and type your comment on a typewriter and mail it off to GMA or did you knock this out on a modern keyboard? My point is that outside of less tailpipe emissions from todays tank SUV’s, we have not progressed at all. The majority of us are still driving vehicles that get less than 20 MPG average. We have actually gone backwards from the late 80’s and 90’s where a lot of drivers were getting better MPG’s. But guess what changed. Now everyone thinks they need a huge SUV to drive around their 1.8 kids and a couple of soccer balls. And don’t even get me started on the bland and ugly styling of these SUV’s compared to when we could go out and buy nice looking sedans.

        Reply
        1. ????? How is a land barge impala from the 60’s getting 7 mpg at 55mph to a suburban getting 20mpg at 80 mph “getting the same fuel consumption” if your referring to the model A Ford getting 20 mpg, remember that that was at 40mph, and the model A was the size of today’s equinox which has more power and gets 30 at interstate speeds, 40-50 when hypermiling at 40 mph. Is that not improvement???

          Reply
      3. Mostly agree. NHTSA ‘footprint’ and car/truck tiers with c.a.f.e have to get scrapped, EPA at least drastically pulled back. 3-row crossovers everywhere as light trucks is ridiculous. Crewcab plow/salt trucks is ridiculous. The smallest/cheapest cars needing the highest/expensive mpg is ridiculous.

        Reply
  13. The “survey” seems like it has an agenda. Specifically, government intervention.

    Setting that aside, I do wish manufacturers were more willing to experiment. I still think of the Honda CR-X that offered consumers 52mpg without any hybrid technology. Instead of offering a gamut of affordable options that cover the market, every company makes the same two or three products with only the slightest shades of difference. Playing it safe can work, but it leaves a lot on the table. We need visionaries again.

    Reply
  14. Maybe get mileage to where it was?

    Currently have a 3.6 LaCrosse that averages 30. A GM replacement would be a CUV with 1/3 less mileage, 4 cylinders, AND double the price. How is this progress??

    Reply
  15. American taxpayers overall do not support the EV tax credit. The ones that do support the EV credit just want the easy money. It is a subsidy to a consumer group. This is discriminatory. Why favor one group over another? Maybe purchasers of EVs should pay a battery disposal fee upfront to insure the proper handling of waste batteries. It’s like posting a performance bond.

    Reply
    1. You hit the nail on the head

      Reply
    2. Battery disposal is not needed. How often do you read about batteries being disposed? They are recycled! Even EVs that were in collisions have their batteries recycled. Yet no one talks about all the burnt oil and other petroleum products in our air which we breathe every day! That cannot be recycled!

      Reply
  16. I’d say it you want to make it fair then give the EV $7500 rebate to everyone weather you are buying an ice vehicle or EV. Or just lower your over priced vehicles and quit raping your customers

    Reply
  17. Everyone here wants better mpg, period. You are lying out your tooth if you say otherwise. We all love our money and not to part with it, well better mpg means we part with less of it. My truck gets 16-17 mpg on average, less when towing or off road. I would like it to get 20+ for sure, whether it does or doesn’t I will still buy another as it necessitates my need for a truck, but I would certainly like it to do better. Plus, it does help the environment a little bit for each one that does. Why is anyone against saving a little extra and being a little easier on mother earth for our great grand kids?

    Reply
    1. Of course we all want to spend less money. Better MPG has nothing to do with it. MPG is the polar opposite of everything else good in a vehicle. But the everything else is ultimately more important. So that’s what people are going to choose. So that’s what’s always going to make money. Which means that’s what’s always going to be made.

      Most people aren’t against saving money or not hurting the environment. Of which poor MPG is an incredibly small part. But they are against obnoxious people and establishments with clear personal and political agendas, who just like to feel sanctimonious, and want to have control over everyone else. Such as Consumer Reports, who are about as trustworthy as an angry scorpion. And random strangers who say disingenuous words like “mother earth.” Rather or not you personally care stops being relevant as soon as you start using that kind of lingo.

      If my truck is destroying the environment (it’s not), so be it. I will have what I want.

      Reply
  18. Having serviced and driven gas vehicles since 1967, I practice many techniques to improve MPG. My best achievement was with my 1995 Buick Regal LS with a NA 3.8 L V6. I kept the tires overinflated by 10%, replaced the AC Delco spark plugs with Diamond Fire plugs (with a ground electrode that surrounds the center electrode), and replaced the paper air filter with a K&E oiled cloth filter that has less air resistance and does not clog when dirty.

    The torque improved so much that the MPG increased over 19%, the V6 could run at 70 MPH with only 1,700 RPM (I took a picture of the dash readings as proof), and the idle speed (parked) was less than 600 RPM. When it was taken for the annual emission inspection, the idle was so low that the tech told me that “something was wrong” with the engine!

    But now the only way you can get better MPG is to drive very slow at night (less traffic), drive less distances, or buy a vehicle with a smaller engine. The best way is to avoid burning gasoline completely, so my next car will be electric. I can charge it at home for free!

    Reply
    1. Hippie!

      Reply
  19. BS! We want naturally aspirated engines. F turbos. F EVs. Hybrids, you’re cool.

    Reply
  20. Instead we want low gas prices!

    Reply
  21. We don’t really want “better fuel economy.” We just want it to cost us less. Few people who responded to this survey probably come from the real world, and probably have little idea what the real world needs/means.

    When people say they want better fuel economy, it just means they want lower gas bills. And no, they aren’t going to make the necessary changes. Or allow the government or automakers to force them.

    They just want to see fewer dollars leaving their bank accounts.

    Reply
  22. Our Gen 2 Chevy VOLT has a lifetime 168 MPG ( 65 MPGe ) over 45,000 miles. That’s 267 gallons of gas used since September 2018. This is a “Range-extended Electric Drive Vehicle”. GM needs to revisit this technology.

    Reply
  23. Drilling down on the underlined word “study” in the article tells you a lot about the respondents who also want lower vehicle purchase prices but totally fail to understand the financial challenges of creating 50mpg fuel economy vehicles that will amount to motorized roller skates incapable of doing any towing or actual Utilitarian work for the owner.

    Reply
    1. Seriously. Expecting 50 MPG is completely idiotic, and should never have been entertained. Vehicles that can get 35 MPG already can’t do anything more than roll back and forth in perfect weather. No capability at all. And nobody buys those, as it is. Someone in government actually thinks we would accept what it takes to make 50 MPG vehicles? Screw off.

      Reply
  24. “Consumer Reports”

    Reply
  25. Okay, now ask consumers if reliability or fuel economy is more important to them. The majority of recent fuel economy improvements have come with big decline in reliability and a big increase in repair costs.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Cancel