The average fuel economy of new cars sold in the US is going back up after dropping for a couple of months. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) calculated a 24.8 mpg average for new light-duty vehicles sold in the US during November 2013. That's not as high as the 24.9 reported in August, but the numbers have been coming back up. The November rating was up 0.1 mpg from October.

Corporate average fuel economy is up 4.7 mpg since UMTRI researchers began documenting the data in October 2007. The figure is calculated by monthly sales figures of individual vehicle models and their combined city-highway fuel economy ratings published in the US Environmental Protection Agency's EPA Fuel Economy Guide.

The Institute's Eco-Driving Index also has seen improvements since the reporting began in 2007. The index tracks greenhouse gas emissions from a US driver who bought a new vehicle during the month. For September, the index was 0.80 for the fifth month in a row. That indicates a 20-percent improvement from the base score of 1 set in October 2007, said researcher Michael Sivak in a statement. The Eco-Driving Index figures in both the fuel used per distance driven and the amount of driving, Sivak said.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 92 Comments
      • 1 Year Ago
      The technology to get better gas mileage has been around for a long time. It is the oil companies that dictate what the situation will be. As consumers we are squeezed with higher gas prices, right to the breaking point. Then when we can't afford to buy gas....... low and behold...... car that get better mileage. Coincidence, I don't think so. It's all planned. In the early 70's a friend had ordered a big full size Chrysler, yeah, people ordered cars back then. It arrived, and he was getting 60+ miles per gallon. Well, at first he thought he gas gage was broken so he took it back to the dealer. He explained the problem, and they thought he was crazy. Then in a couple, of weeks they came to him and offered a new more expensive car in exchange of this problem car. It turns out they accidentally sent him a test car. So the car companies can give us all the mileage they are allowed to.
      KEN
      • 1 Year Ago
      If it wasn't for Obama, putting his foot down. We would still be getting crappy fuel mileage. Iam getting 46.7 mpg in mostly in city driving, in my 2013 Ford Fusion
        comment814
        • 3 Months Ago
        @KEN
        hahahahah, your a complete total 100% stupid idiotic IDIOT! and you know it! that idiot in the white house has nothing to do with it!! it would happened anyway with or without him, please GROW A BRAIN!!!
        joeypad
        • 3 Months Ago
        @KEN
        another obama arse kisser
        mikelookup
        • 3 Months Ago
        @KEN
        Of course you had to name drop. This man you speak of had nothing to do with the change in gas mileage!
      Tammy
      • 1 Year Ago
      Now, I drive a Mercedes SLS AMG Roadster....a big double middle finger salute to the aholes that control gas prices. The MPG varies from 9-20MPG.
      JRivers
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is great, IF the vehicles actually achieve the rated mileage. Law suits and manufactureres reducing claimed mileage come to mind.
      comment814
      • 1 Year Ago
      BULL! !!!!!
      thecommentator2013
      • 1 Year Ago
      At 590+ mpg with my Volt.
        comment814
        • 1 Year Ago
        @thecommentator2013
        let me guess, i bet you only drive it 5miles /day!! and down hill !
        Jesse Gurr
        • 1 Year Ago
        @thecommentator2013
        This only counts rated MPG when the car is sold, not real world experience results. Also, 590MPG doesn't take into account the power and cost of electricity you used while using no gas. So its probably closer to 100 MPGe
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Jesse Gurr
          @ Jesse Gurr You have missed the point, " thecommentator2013 ", is reporting on how his Volt has reduced his gas consumption. He wasn't comparing operating economics, it's not relevant how much the electricity cost, he consumed less gasoline ! ( Besides, he may have only used solar power )
          thecommentator2013
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Jesse Gurr
          @Marcopolo Quite right, that. Less fuel. FAR LESS Fuel. Others then Keep talking and boo-ing. Instead of using less fuel. For whatever reason they seem right. No, they know everything better. So they talk. and talk. and talk. and talk.... and no. No, no solar. Yet. Coming. And being happy.
          Jesse Gurr
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Jesse Gurr
          @Marcopolo, No, I got the point. I guess it depends on what you focus on. If you are focusing on reducing gas usage then that's fine. However, if you are focusing on energy efficiency, then you should be accurate with how much energy is being used and ignoring the fact that you are pulling energy from the grid, or solar is just you lying to yourself. I guess that is one thing the EPA is good for, accounting for the energy use of the vehicle and not just the gasoline use.
        oollyoumn
        • 1 Year Ago
        @thecommentator2013
        Yeah, and that suck compared to infinite+ mpg in a Leaf.
          Marcopolo
          • 1 Year Ago
          @oollyoumn
          @ oollyoumn Not so fast, the Volt can undertake trips and usage for which the Leaf is unsuited, so trying to compare the two is counter-productive. Just be happy that both vehicles are contributing to less fuel consumption.
        Marcopolo
        • 1 Year Ago
        @thecommentator2013
        @ thecommentator2013 Good for you.
          thecommentator2013
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Marcopolo
          Just happy with my Volt, that's all it's about. Really a truly amazing car. I mean, I Keep repeating this but what else can I say? It's just true *shrug my shoulders*. ...and I chuckle when I read from those hating know-alls. They entertain me.
        Ziv
        • 1 Year Ago
        @thecommentator2013
        My Cyber Volt is at just 287 mpg and I have had to buy a whopping 5 gallons of gas since June, but I am pretty happy with it! ;-) http://www.voltstats.net/Stats/Details/3381
          comment814
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Ziv
          let me guess, you probably only drive it about 10miles /day!!!!
      Les
      • 1 Year Ago
      You might have noticed the article refers to "cars sold" that affected the milage numbers. This article tells more about purchasing choices of vehicles getting better milage, than it does of producing a more efficient vehicle. Even though newer vehicles are becoming more efficient, this article focuses more on purchasers economic choices than it does on higher MPGs.
      EZEE2
      • 1 Year Ago
      And yet I am voted down. Tough crowd I tell you what!
      Mark
      • 1 Year Ago
      In the 1990's I bought a Ford Festiva It was a bare bones low option car but it got 46 miles per gallon it was a 4 cylinder car. How come the automakers could achieve that kind of mileage back then but not now?
        BipDBo
        • 3 Months Ago
        @Mark
        *More difficult crash tests require more steel and encourage larger proportions, so cars are heavier and larger. Just look at the height of the average subcompact compared to that of 20 years ago. Aerodynamic Cds are down, but when frontal area is up, the car has more drag. *The way CAFE credits are calculated encourages larger car proportions, so cars have grown in size. *Customer standards are up. They want bigger, roomier and more powerful. They also want more features, which also add weight. The Festiva had about 60 hp. Nobody in the US would buy that today. * CAFE emission standard are more strict. Often, you need to burn more fuel to have a cleaner tailpipe. It's not all that bad. I just made a trip a rental car, a Ford Focus, a few years old. Much larger, safer, nicer and faster than a 90s Festiva. I got 42 mpg.
        epalmerjr
        • 3 Months Ago
        @Mark
        There are quite a few cars today that can achlieve 46 or better mpg.
      usci1
      • 1 Year Ago
      Embarrasing!
        comment814
        • 3 Months Ago
        @usci1
        exactly! at least you and I are not blinded by it, if this is progress to some, they are just pathetic
      EZEE2
      • 1 Year Ago
      I am proud of you people (no, really). I had put in my standard comment about this being good news so everyone be happy (I used duragatory terms for unclean leftists from the 60's era in my normal lovable ways) but the comment got censored! But where I am proud of you people is that EVEN WITHOUT my admonition to be happy about this because it was good news, all of you actually WERE! Rak you had your little dig, but were you wrong? No. Toyota has hammered their hybrids, ford has hybrids and Eco boost, Mazda has skyactiv.... And now, when I type that out loud, Toyota and ford are not only not hurt, but, they are thriving. Mazda has some wildly cool cars as well. Makes that previous story on the Germans complaining about mpg stuff even worse, really. So thanks to all of you for being happy and not complaining. Made me smile as I sat with my coffee at Starbucks. :) :) :) And 590mpg on a volt, how cool. I need to ask my friends what their mileage has been lately. Like me, they are evil right wingers but love their Volt. Funny unrelated thought...how do you know if someone has an apple computer, does P90X, or owns a Volt? Just wait a few minutes and they will tell you! :D Keep being happy!
        thecommentator2013
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        @EZEE2 LOL, you're hilarious!
        brotherkenny4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @EZEE2
        Yes, all, be happy that we get what we are allowed. Your masters fully intend to make your slavery a tollerable one. EZEE2 is here to confirm the intent of our industrial overlords to sell only what will keep you from independence. Be happy too, that your purpose is to consume, and not to be free.
          EZEE2
          • 3 Months Ago
          @brotherkenny4
          Slavery? Using that term means you should be tied down and people should deficate and urinate in your mouth! MSNBC taught me that any time anyone uses the slavery term improperly, that should happen.
      raktmn
      • 1 Year Ago
      Gee, I remember when all the car companies said that having to raise their MPG would destroy them. They just couldn't afford to raise fleet MPG's. MPG up. Total units sold in the US up. Profits now in the black compared to losses in the red. Stock prices for the car companies up. Adverts even for large trucks tout their improved MPG. Why is it that every time the car makers fight something, it turns out to be great for the auto industry?
        brotherkenny4
        • 1 Year Ago
        @raktmn
        Historically, seatbelts, catalytic converters and airbags were also supposed to destroy the car industry. Of course, what did destroy the car industry, which was saved by the government and tax payers, was the overdependence of the car companies on large inefficient vehicles such as pick-up trucks and SUVs.
        crazybabydoc
        • 1 Year Ago
        @raktmn
        1) Sales are up but that's in comparison to the recession 2007-2009. Then again, some would argue pre-recession sales were inflated by inappropriate loans. But you could argue the sales gains are fantastic given many people don't qualify for loans and many that do are choosing to keep their current car. 2) Profits are indeed in the black but GM, Chrysler (sort of) and Ford all received fantastic loans from the US government. Ford and Chrysler paid there's back. GM stock will leave the Treasury short by $10B. 3) GM stock was worthless. Chrysler was nearly worthless. Ford stock was what? $4? Almost nowhere to go but up. 4) I do agree about the hypocrisy. Airbags (expensive, even dangerous), advanced seatbelts (too expensive), backup cameras (expensive, kids are replaceable), lighter materials (too expensive, dangerous), lower displacement engines (nobody will buy them), fuel efficiency (nobody cares gas will be cheap forever). 5) Contrary to mylexicon, CAFE didn't force manufacturers to produce road pigs. Who could have predicted the majority of manufacturers would chose to be slavishly beholden to quarterly returns instead of long-term profits and sustainability? It's not like any of our oil supply comes from the most volatile region of the world. I mean who really needs more than a 5-speed tranny?
        mylexicon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @raktmn
        The actual economy numbers are better than CAFE requirements. CAFE is acting as a fail-safe to prevent consumptive back-tracking if prices ease, and no one is particularly concerned about this phase of CAFE. In 2017, it's a different story. The standards become more aggressive, and the regulations are unduly burdensome on small non-hybrids, CUV's, and full-size sedans. Last time we implemented CAFE standards like 2017-2025, we created the SUV/Truck boom. If we are lucky, the 2017-2025 phase will be abandoned or modified during a scheduled Congressional review.
          raktmn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          Car companies are ahead of schedule because typical cycles to revamp a model is 3-6 years. Engine/drivetrain revamps are typically even longer, with engines/transmissions traditionally being carried over with minor changes when a model is revamped. They are ahead of CAFE because they cannot afford to be behind by the time their next revamp is scheduled, and they can't afford to revamp every car every year or two just to stay barely caught up with CAFE.
          Vlad
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          So you are saying that because Congress failed to close a loophole once we should abandon all legislative efforts?
          mylexicon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          No. I'm saying that CAFE should not be used as revolutionary policy to command the market. It fails miserably in that capacity, and the last time regulators tried to command the market with CAFE, they unintentionally put us in worse long-term condition. These CAFE regulations, Phase II and Phase III particularly, disadvantages non-hybrid small cars and CUVs, which are both preferable to larger, lower-mpg cars and trucks. CAFE should be bobbing along at 1%-2% per year, acting as a fail safe for the US economy to prevent oil import addiction. If we want the market to outperform CAFE, we should use incentives, like point of sale rebate, to encourage people to drive fuel-efficient vehicles that reduce pollution and close our trade deficit.
        Technoir
        • 1 Year Ago
        @raktmn
        Because they are mostly run by white haired, senile individuals bereft of vision.
        Jack
        • 1 Year Ago
        @raktmn
        It is similar to them and the rest of corporate America complaining about high taxation and then making more money.
    • Load More Comments