.
Your link does not match the text that you quoted.
In response to your above-quoted text:

We all know that smaller engines; and therefore, reduced horsepower increases fuel efficiency. We could take all vehicles on the road today and reduce engine size (liters/litres) and horsepower by 50%, and we would reduce oil consumption significantly. That is exactly what automakers did back in the 1970s, when they scaled back on horsepower. This author is about 35 years behind the times.

However, with the innovation of hybrid electric technology, and as a result of today's improved computer and battery technology, we don't have to compromise on horsepower. Every once in a while, you end up in a situation where you need that horsepower. Sometimes it's a safety situation, like if you need to get out of the path of another driver's out of control vehicle, and your acceleration needs to be quick.
What I am really waiting for is a turbocharged 0.9L engine coupled to a hybrid drive.

I STRONGLY DISAGREE with this author's [deceptively optimistic] statement that "If hybrids could increase their market share to 55 percent by 2035, fuel use could be slashed by as much as 40 percent." By 2035, it will be too late! And 40% is too little! Too little, too late!

[duplicate]

The best cheapest single innovation that could be applied to new vehicles is an instantaneous fuel economy display on the dash. In-your-face feedback immediately starts changing driving techniques *and driver expectations for the vehicle*.

The advance that will do most to reduce use of *fossil* fuel is artificial fuels made from non-fossil carbon, because they will work perfectly well in all vehicles. For one method see
Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL): Synthetic Fuel Concept to Steal CO2 From Air

Heh. I noticed the exact same phrase stuck on a car at the
New England Auto Show last year. Nobody there was really making
any nods toward fuel economy, but we were still in those bygone
dirt-cheap days at $3.xx!
.
The Europeans have been perfectly happy with vehicles that
accelerate 0-60 in what, 20 seconds or more ... not FIVE.
.
_H*

Article title makes it sound like a slam against Mazda.

I don't know if this is entirely accurate. I had a CRV with a small 2.4 Liter 4 cylinder, which returned 19 mpg. I also have a Sienna with a 3.3 Liter 6 which returns 19mpg. Part of the reason that the CRV returned such a low mgp, I believe, is that its engine is forced to work hard(er than the Sienna) to move that mass. If the CRV had a slightly bigger engine, it probably would not have to pant/gasp to move itself and would probably return a better mileage. Now if in addition to reducing engine size and horsepower, we also got to remove a lot of mass, then we might see gains in consumption.

I could be totally wrong, but that's my $0.02.

Thanks
Dan

Ditto. If oil use is an issue of public policy, an MPG gauge out to be mandatory. I'd certainly rank it ahead of putting a noisemaker on every hybrid.

Buy everyone a scan gauge for christmas! I have one in out Subaru, and with diligent driving I can get 20% or better mileage! Some of the techniques learned from the Prius however.

Icarus

You may be right in part, but the aerodynamics of the Sienna are way better than the CRV. In addition, the CRV assuming it is 4wd carries a huge wieght as well as friction penalty. The higher CG of the CRV adds aerodynamic losses under the car that are also significant. This is one of the huge reasons that SUV do so poorly in FE. Even my Subaru outback gets terrible mileage for it's size. The all wheel drive, while it is great in snow, is nothing but a drag on FE 364 days a year in most places.

The great myth is that soccer Moms need the security of 4wd. Bull! With the amount of sand and salt DoT's use, if you just wait a few hours the road is clear. I grew up in the time of station wagons. We never got stuck! In the mountains put on chains if it is that bad, or stay home for a few hours.

Driving around 4 tonnes of Detroit iron for the 3 snowy days a year is crazy.

Icarus

While we're waiting for all that....how about a national speed limit of 55?