Last week, President Obama announced a plan to boost the fuel economy of vehicles sold in the U.S. from 27.5 to 54.5 mpg beginning in 2017—effectively doubling fuel economy standards by 2025.

This important step—agreed upon by the auto industry after some wrangling—to reducing America’s reliance on foreign oil requires annual fuel-economy increases of 5 percent for cars. Light trucks, such as pickups will be able to raise fuel-economy at 3.5 percent for the first five years the rule is in effect—then at a rate of 5 percent thereafter as reported by Bloomberg Businessweek.

“This program will result in significant cost savings for consumers at the pump, dramatically reduce oil consumption, cut pollution and create jobs,” the administration said in an official statement.

Recent studies show that automakers could reach the 54.5 mpg threshold with just tweaks to existing car design. And, while these incremental improvements are a step in the right direction toward mitigating the economic and environmental impacts of oil use, RMI experts suggest that the time is right for automakers to seize an opportunity to reestablish themselves as global leaders in innovation, manufacturing and performance.

Reinventing Fire, slated for publication this fall, offers a comprehensive vision for weaning the transportation sector off fossil fuels. One key enabler of the transition is to apply integrative design, vehicle fitness and new manufacturing methods, which can save far more fuel at a similar sticker price by simplifying automaking and shrinking powertrains.

“We are currently on the tail end of a 100-year learning curve, where we see design improvements flattening out,” said Greg Rucks, RMI transportation consultant. “Instead of wringing the last bit of innovation left in current designs, the same amount of innovation and design effort could be more productively applied toward revolutionary autos that exceed 100 mpg with better safety and performance. Automakers who recognize this early will be in the best position to capture market share.”

Out-Innovating the Competition

Some smart automakers have already achieved efficiency improvements by making their cars lighter. Audi, for example reduced the weight of their TT-RS 35 percent over a standard steel frame by using aluminum steel hybrid technology. But even this effort falls short, achieving an mpg rating of just 35.6.

Meeting the 54.5 mpg standard with existing (or incrementally improved) technologies will require design innovation to shed additional pounds.

“There is only so much lightweighting we can achieve with conventional materials,” Rucks said. “If automakers are putting in the effort to achieve 35 percent weight savings in a current platform, we have the opportunity to open up a completely new design space.”

The key to taking significant amount of weight out of a vehicle without making it smaller is to substitute lighter, yet stronger materials such as advanced composites like carbon fiber. Transitioning to advanced composites—as compared to design optimized for metals—could vault automakers into the realm of 150 + mpg, and capture safety and performance benefits (at only one-third the density of steel, carbon fiber is able to absorb up to six times more crash energy than aluminum).

“The difference between achieving 54.5 mpg vs. 100+ mpg is the difference between meeting a mandate versus out-innovating your competitors and transforming the market,” Rucks said. “A fuel savings gap that significant would make efficiency a far greater factor in consumer buying behavior.”

Getting to Revolutionary Vehicles

For automakers, a shift to advanced materials requires significant retooling both in the boardroom and on the factory floor.

“While clean-sheet integrative design yields the largest benefits, we can’t assume that Detroit can tackle plants, people, products and processes all at once,” Rucks said. “However, taking the right steps in the right order can mitigate risk and maximize competitive advantage.”

For example, in its M3 sedan, BMW introduced a carbon fiber roof as an option. Adding this feature required hiring the right people to understand the processes, and buy new tooling for that specific part. “Offering advanced versions as an alternative option to current models carries the added benefit of gauging how much efficiency and the performance benefits of carbon fiber are worth to the consumer,” Rucks said.

As automakers move further down the learning curve and continue to pursue vehicle fitness, introducing smaller fleets allows companies to test the market.

“Right now, the U.S. is far behind German or Japanese automakers in the use of advanced composites,” Rucks said. “Reaching a 54.5 mpg standard will put a big dent in our oil consumption, but revolutionary lightweight cars can reposition the U.S. auto industry as a world leader.”

Kelly Vaughn is public relations specialist for Rocky Mountain Institute.

Comments

  1. Alvin Woo
    Singapore
    August 3, 2011, 10:24 pm

    People are generally not very receptive to changes, even if its beneficial as stated above. I hope that US would overcome the economic crisis and the government may be able to set up an all new subsidiary automotive company whose direction is advanced technology manufacturing and hire skilled engineers, train workers to be equipped with skills that allow them to work in advanced manufacturing sectors.
    I doubt that existing companies would be very receptive to the changes stated above, cause if they did, the electric cars wouldnt have died out 2 decades ago, nor would a concept as useless as hybrid cars be manufactured. Hybrids were only created as a bridge, between petrol and electricity but the concept is seriously half-fu**ed. True that electric cars will not be as successful anywhere else in the world. But if anyone could make it successful, it would either be US or Japan.

  2. lighthouse
    August 4, 2011, 10:10 am

    Fuel economy by free choice
    is fine – forcing it on consumers by regulation is wrong.

    The same applies to energy efficiency regulations on Buildings, Washing machines, Light Bulbs etc

    1. Arguably no product-targeting policy is needed:
    Any shortage of oil or other fuels/energy sources raises the price and reduces their use anyway.
    Emissions can be dealt with directly, as required.

    If oil use REALLY is a big worry:
    apart from looking for new oil supply,
    then put an import duty on it, or tax it
    - much simpler than a multitude of car regulations,
    and much easier to remove or adjust, as required.

    2. Products are not banned for being unsafe to use, but simply to reduce energy consumption.
    If Products must be targeted for that reason, whether GOP or Democrat, other policies are better:

    Democrat – TAX
    A big deficit state like California, and Obama’s Budget solving
    Federal Government,
    could Tax not Ban popular but energy using types of Cars, Buildings, White Goods, TV sets, Light Bulbs etc
    Gives a big State /Fed Govmt income,
    can also help finance price reduction to give cheaper energy saving alternatives (or electric car subsidies etc).
    So markets are equilibrated, people are not just “hit by taxes”, and they know that a ban is the alternative.

    GOP – MARKET COMPETITION
    Competition rather than Regulation (or Taxation),
    gives not only greater voluntary energy efficiency by say competing utilities keeping down their energy cost in generation and grids so as to keep profits,
    it also gives desirable energy saving products, which people have always bought, and which could be marketed properly (compare with Energizer bunny etc commercials “Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run”)
    New fuel/energy efficient start-ups can be supported temporarily, also giving local jobs,
    local jobs also easier to set up for small co-operatives etc if simple technology is still allowed.
    A better policy overall – if any policy is needed.

    Car Policies
    Beyond Market Competition:
    Regulation versus Taxation, if fuel use or emissions still need a targeted reduction http://ceolas.net/#cc25x

  3. Greg Rucks
    Snowmass, CO
    August 4, 2011, 1:39 pm

    One major reason electric cars died out 20 years ago is that automakers found they could make more money marketing acceleration, weight, and sheer size rather than efficiency, and thus focused their efforts on SUVs and trucks. Trucks still represent the most profitable vehicle type for U.S. automakers, but last year the most popular SUV was outsold by a Japanese subcompact, and the volatility of the truck-based business model (as indicated by the 2008 oil price spike and subsequent plunge in truck sales) is leading automakers to pursue lightweight, energy-efficient models as a means of offsetting that risk (and offsetting penalties associated with CAFE standards).

    The business environment is ripe for the breakthrough efficiency offered by electric vehicles in a way it never was before, and several automakers, such as BMW (i3), Volkswagen (XL1), Nissan (Leaf), Toyota (1/X), and GM (Volt) have recognized this. Consumers are responding to high fuel prices, and policy is providing unprecedented incentives for efficiency–including a $7500 federal tax credit.

    Manufacturing techniques with carbon fiber composites have have meanwhile advanced to the point that vehicles can be manufactured at scale (i.e. the BMW i3) and provide unprecedented lightness, performance, safety and handling, providing the ideal platform for a sporty electric powertrain to which auto enthusiasts are likely to be highly responsive.

  4. cis
    August 5, 2011, 6:02 am

    when the american economy is hitting rock-bottom, they’re letting the car makers do what they should have done decades ago; it’s pure hypocrisy, as US are the biggest polluters and they’ve done nothing so far to reduce their fuel consumption, on the contrary; now, out of the “blue”, they effectively let the car makers do their job and produce fuel-efficient cars; dozens of fuel-efficiency and
    “green” techonologies have been put to sleep just for the sake of high oil consumption in US; until now, the oil came through war and they had to burn it as much as possible to have a reason to squeeze the trigger; now they don’t have the money for war anymore, therefore… let’s run on less fuel…
    hypocrisy…