Truck, SUV Sales Driving Down Fuel Economy Average

Source: Truck, SUV Sales Driving Down Fuel Economy Average | TheDetroitBureau.com

Thanks Captain Obvious but embedded in this report is this survey:

Well now it makes sense:

• 33% - environmental concern
• 28% - long term operating cost
• 25% - USA energy independence

I can't speak to "environmental concern" but relate to "operating cost" and "USA energy independence." The problem is fracking has made the USA independent in gasoline-stock oil. This oil is especially good to make gasoline. In effect, we are facing a surplus that is had led to semantics allowing fracked oil exports. Reflected in more than just a seasonal adjustment in the price of gasoline, we're looking at a long term trend in lower gas prices.

As for environmental concern, areas bounded by mountains like California, are subject to pollution inversion . . . a toxic brew. I remember descending into the Denver bowl and a huge, orange cloud that obscured the mountains once you were in it. So I am sympathetic to those who live in areas including the mega-cities of the East coast. They just don't have enough wind to dilute the concentrated pollution. But I live in Huntsville AL, the biggest a town should be.

I am more sympathetic to low operating cost because of a life-long struggle against the Second Law. My first car was a 1966 VW MicroBus that got 28 MPG and whose mileage was tracked in a blue book. Bought in 1971, it had excellent interior volume which served me well in several cross-country trips. Local commuting was on a bicycle. Heck, I even rebuilt the engine after a brother left red rag in the engine compartment and it blew into the air cooler impeller. But by 1976, safety and emissions regulations meant it was impractical to keep on the road.

Still, I enjoyed finding the survey embedded in the article about USA fleet mileage.

Bob Wilson

 

I sent the following note to Dr. Michael Sivak University of Michigan, Transportation Research Institute, one of the authors:

He e-mailed a copy and I've been reading and rereading it. It is that good (see attachment.) About 7-8 years ago, there were multiple surveys of hybrid owners and many of them left me unsatisfied. This survey is well documented: 35 pages with extensive footnotes; well designed, tracing gender differences previously not covered, and; large sample sets, over 1,002 hybrid owners and 1,038 non-hybrid owners (pp. 6). So I'm going to offer my 2 cents:

• Hybrid owners were 78% female versus non-hybrids, 58% (pp. 7)
• 50-59 years old the transition between hybrid owners, older, and non-hybrids, younger (pp. 8)
• Graduate degrees, 51% hybrid owners, so skews the data, that it makes us seem very educated, 29% non-hybrids (pp. 8.) All lesser education levels favor the non-hybrids.
• Hybrid owners are 35% retired versus non-hybrid owners, 18%, who are full-time employed 61% vs 48% hybrid owners (pp. 9.)
• Salary transition is $50-99K with the lower group, $0-49K, being non-hybrid owners and upper ranges being hybrid owners (pp. 9.)
• Non-hybrid owner dominated regions are East North Central and Middle Atlantic while the Pacific is the only hybrid dominated area, 30% to 19% non-hybrid.
• Reasons for owning a hybrid are gender biased.

	Main reason	Females	Males
1	To reduce the environmental impact	38%	29%
2	Less expensive in the long run	26%	30%
3	To use less energy	25%	25%
4	Other reasons	11%	16%

Now I understand the 'cute' commercials we'd seen before as they might appeal to women. But they left this male observer unimpressed. I didn't realize they were aimed at a different gender group . . . or did they increase the ratio of women owners thus reflected in the June 2014 results? Hummmm.

There are many more 'Easter Eggs' in this well written and crafted survey. Compared to the cr*p survey reports of a decade ago, it is a serious study and well worth reading. My only 'nit' (and it is small) are the use of percentages without the respondent counts. One has to be very, very careful with percentages as they can be based on small response counts that are subject to greater variability. Still, the large sample size, over 2,000, split between hybrid and non-hybrid owners really helps.

Bob Wilson