fuel economy research paper

Advertisement

Fuel efficiency drives the auto industry to reduce vehicle weight

• Energy Quarterly
• Energy Sector Analysis
• Published: 27 September 2020
• Volume 44 , pages 920–923, ( 2019 )

Cite this article

• Arthur L. Robinson 1 ,
• Alan I. Taub 1 &
• Gregory A. Keoleian 1  

2917 Accesses

5 Citations

7 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

In this age of global warming, the automotive industry is seeking to minimize the energy required to manufacture and operate its products without sacrificing performance and safety or increasing cost. Toward this end, whether cars and trucks are powered by internal-combustion engines or batteries, lowering vehicle weight is a major contributor to reducing energy consumption by increasing fuel efficiency. “The industry is driven by fuel efficiency,” said David Matlock of the Colorado School of Mines, who has helped develop advanced high-strength steels (AHSSs) used in autos.

According to Alan Taub of the University of Michigan and former General Motors executive, industry researchers have succeeded in squeezing more weight out of auto materials with a three-pronged strategy: Finding stronger, lighter materials than used previously; developing manufacturing processes for parts made from advanced materials that require minimal retooling; and designing parts that use as little material as possible (a process called topology optimization).

Despite lightweighting advances, however, vehicle weight from 1985 to 2000 actually increased, owing to the addition of vehicle features needed to meet government regulations and consumer preferences. After around 2005, the weight of vehicles leveled off as continuing improvements in weight-reduction technology were used to offset further increases in content. During this era, despite no improvement in weight, fuel economy increased as a result of improved powertrain efficiency.

“Future improvements in fuel efficiency are expected through further lightweighting and vehicle electrification,” said Gregory Keoleian, also at the University of Michigan. A useful industry guideline for light vehicles is that a 10% weight reduction generates a 6% improvement in fuel economy, or for electric vehicles, a 14% driving range increase. The numbers may be different, but the same principle holds for other types of vehicles. For example, Keoleian and his colleagues have reported up-to-date and more precise energy savings from lightweighting obtained using physics-based models for a variety of light-duty and heavy-duty vehicles as well as other transportation modes, such as trains and aircraft.

Going forward, two trends have emerged as the foci for further advances in lightweighting. The first is to build vehicles (body, chassis, and engine) using multiple materials rather than just one, whether steel or a lighter alternative (see Figure) . “In addition to weight reduction, combining two or more materials in an optimized design can give better performance than one alone,” said polymer researcher Uday Vaidya of the Institute for Advanced Composites Manufacturing Innovation (IACME) and the University of Tennessee. Eventually, each vehicle subsystem would be made from a material selected as the best alternative based on properties, manufacturability, and cost. The second is the use of Integrated Computational Materials Engineering (ICME) to find improved alloy compositions with the required mechanical properties and acceptable cost and the manufacturing processes to make and shape them, as well as to verify their performance in service. Integrated refers to linking the computational techniques needed, which span length scales from atomic to macroscopic.

For much of the 20th century, ferrous materials dominated the structural portions of automobiles—low-carbon steel alloys for the body and cast iron for the engine block—owing to their low cost and ease of forming parts. To reduce vehicle weight, which also offers advantages beyond increased fuel efficiency, such as improved drivability and (for trucks) carrying larger loads, an interest in replacing low-carbon (mild) steel grew toward the end of the century.

Aluminum, an increasingly common alternative material in autos and trucks, can yield a weight savings of 40–60%, with a cost premium of 1.3–2, as compared to cast iron and low-carbon steel. The comparable figures for even lighter magnesium are 60–75% and 1.5–2.5, according to a 2015 US Department of Energy (DOE) report that also covered AHSSs, titanium, glass fiber composites, and carbon fiber composites (see Table I ). Keeping cost down is a major challenge, said Taub. “When one considers the life-cycle cost from extraction of ore to recycling, it turns out that strong, light materials are more expensive, but the need for less material can offset some of their intrinsically higher cost.”

Today’s vehicles have all of these materials, with steel and aluminum being used most often as the major materials in structural components. Alan Luo of The Ohio State University, who specializes in aluminum and other lightweight metal alloys, pointed to recent models of the Ford F-150 truck. “The truck bodies are aluminum,” said Luo, “reducing the vehicle weight by more than 320 kg and accounting for 13% of the total vehicle weight.” Magnesium and polymer composites are finding increasing use in vehicles, as well. “Polymers and composites now account for 10–15% of some commercial vehicles and up to 50% for performance vehicles,” said Vaidya. The 2019 GMC Denali now offers a carbon fiber truck bed, for example.

Mixing materials brings some challenges. While steel alloys are relatively easy to form into the desired shape and the technology is well developed for joining parts by welding, bolting, and riveting, this is not always the case for alloys based on other materials. For example, steel can be made into many shapes by stamping sheets at room temperature, while aluminum may need to be heated. Joining steel and aluminum parts raises another problem. “Steel parts can be readily welded together, and so can parts made from aluminum, but joining steel and aluminum requires more expensive techniques, such as self-pierce riveting,” said Luo.

Mixing materials poses a significant challenge to recycling, as well. Steel alloys have a long history of recyclability. The same is not so true for lighter materials. “Lightweight materials often have a complicated end-of-life phase, with issues including incomplete recovery, separation challenges, contamination, and lack of a closed-loop recycling path,” said Keoleian, who with Taub and other collaborators has enunciated green principles for vehicle lightweighting, with recycling holding a prominent position in more than one of the principles. They cite the example of overcasting (or overmolding for composites), in which two materials are brought into contact to form a reaction zone that creates a continuous bond between the two. This technique has enabled the use of mixed-material construction to reduce the mass of automotive subsystems, but the mixing can present issues at end of life because separating the two materials is not always technically or economically feasible.

Researchers have also found that it takes more than simply mixing a variety of materials. To find out how much weight savings can result from choosing the optimum material for each vehicle subsystem, a DOE-funded project carried out by Ford and Vehma International that ended in 2015 aimed to demonstrate a multimaterial lightweight vehicle based on a 2013 Ford Fusion. The most advanced design made extensive use of magnesium and carbon fiber and aspired to a weight saving of a little more than 50%, as compared to the Fusion, but fell short, owing to materials-performance limitations.

In the search for an alloy with improved performance, materials engineers have traditionally relied on tables listing the properties of the various alloys available. However, in the search for new, lighter, stronger alloys, such tables either may not exist or are incomplete. Usually, lengthy trial-and-error methods investigating many compositions and microstructures are the backup approach to developing new materials.

To see why the process takes so long (10 years or more in the auto industry), consider that an alloy’s properties depend not only on a composition characterized by a complex phase diagram with multiphase regions (and sometimes metastable phases). They also rely on microstructural features such as grain size, second-phase precipitates, dislocations and other defect configurations, and texture, all of which can be altered for better or worse during manufacturing processes common in the auto industry, such as casting, thermomechanical processing, and powder consolidation for metals and various thermo-forming approaches for polymer composites. With interest dawning in even more complex materials such as high-entropy alloys, the problem will only grow.

Figure . With the goal of making a lighter-weight vehicle without sacrificing performance and safety or increasing cost, the trend is toward using multiple materials for the various structural subsystems. Here, the mix of materials comprising the “white body” protecting driver and passengers on a demonstration vehicle based on a 2013 Ford Fusion is shown. Image courtesy of A. Taub et al., Annu . Rev. Mater. Res . 49, 327(2019).

“In today’s fast-paced environment,” said Gregory Olson of QuesTek Innovations LLC and Northwestern University, “a competitive advantage goes to those who can compress the materials development and concurrent engineering cycle.” As an expression of the Materials Genome Initiative, ICME has emerged during the last decade as a fast-growing tool for multiscale modeling of materials, from electronic and atomic structure to microstructures and manufacturing processes, and to macroscopic behavior in service. QuesTek, for example, has based its business on ICME and related computational approaches to develop several new alloys, such as its Ferrium® steels for the aerospace industry.

As for the auto industry, Matlock points to a succession, now in the third generation, of AHSSs developed over the decades. “There have been big advances in steels based on detailed microstructural control at each step, and new products are now on the market supporting a growing industry,” said Matlock. A 2017 report from the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy by a multi-institutional industrial-academic consortium, including General Motors and Ford, showed how ICME could contribute. According to the report, the project demonstrated the potential for third-generation AHSSs to achieve up to 30% weight savings in an automotive structure at a cost penalty of only USD$0.32–$1.26 per pound of weight saved. The model enables the user to design third-generation steels to desired mechanical properties in terms of strength and ductility.

Similar progress is seen for lightweight materials, such as aluminum and magnesium. “ICME has a big role now. We can use older techniques like CALPHAD (CALculation of PHAse Diagrams) to predict phases, and ICME simulation tools to predict grain size, precipitates, and so on to optimize strength,” said Luo.

But what is the reliability of the ICME predictions? asked Raymond Decker of Thixomat Technologies LLC, which develops magnesium-based materials for consumer electronics, automobiles, and biocompatible devices. “Today, to validate the ICME predictions for materials properties, it is often necessary to make trial heats of the materials and test them, but we still get the end result faster,” said Decker. As new data tables are completed and confidence grows, this need should fade.

One way to lighten materials for automobiles does not require new materials. Topology optimization is the term that describes the process of designing parts that minimize the amount of material needed to provide the required performance. In one startling example, simply relocating the bolt holes in an engine block produced a 30% weight savings. “Topology optimization is primarily a geometrical distribution of material over a given design domain, but independent of materials microstructure,” said Luo, “and design software to achieve it is now commercially available.” Eventually, though, materials engineers will want to integrate it with ICME techniques for further weight saving and performance improvement.

As for the future, materials engineers are not on their own in the quest for weight reduction; numerous consortia with government, industrial, and academic partners have come into being in recent years to fast track the development. One is Lightweight Innovations for Tomorrow (LIFT), operated by the American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing Innovation Institute, a public-private partnership to develop and deploy advanced lightweight materials manufacturing technologies. Another is IACME, the composites institute. Comparable groups exist in Europe and Asia, most notably the Fraunhofer Institutes in Germany. Not only do these consortia provide a vehicle for information sharing and collaboration forming, some such as the Lightweight Materials (LightMAt) consortium provide access to advanced facilities at DOE national laboratories.

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

NEW! Original Research in Energy & Sustainability

MRS Energy & Sustainability will now publish original research articles highlighting recent breakthroughs in energy and sustainability research that emphasize materials science developments integrated with objective economic, sociological, and policy factors. This research will span a wide range of topics including energy generation, storage, and distribution; carbon capture; life-cycle analysis of energy and non-energy materials; technologies for optimizing water resources, and more.

Within the scientific and technological communities, global sustainability challenges cannot be addressed without also considering the integration of broader societal, economic, and policy issues framing the adoption of innovative technologies. Putting materials, energy, and environment in the framework of sustainability is a primary focus of MRS Energy & Sustainability , defining the context for this field and leading its scientific development. The journal’s intended readership is a broad spectrum of scientists, academics, policymakers, and industry professionals.

Originally a review-only journal, the addition of original research to the reviews, commentaries, and perspectives delivered by the journal will inform and educate on the scientific, technological, socio-economic, and policy complexities for energy and sustainability, establishing the unique character and scope of the journal in serving numerous communities of researchers.

Proposals for original research papers are solicited in the following areas, including but not limited to :

Energy generation (solar, wind, and nuclear)

Energy storage (batteries, biofuels, solar fuels, supercapacitors)

New forms of energy distribution and usage enabled by these new materials (such as future electronics, neuromorphic devices, sensors, etc.)

Electrocatalysis and photocatalysis

Materials for carbon capture and storage

Life-cycle analysis (LCA) of new energy materials and systems

Life-cycle analysis for applications other than energy (electronics, plastics)

Reducing or making substitution for use of rare or toxic materials

Designing materials properties for long life or transience

Use of plastics in the environment

Artificial intelligence to speed research for sustainability solutions

Synthetic biology for materials development

Technologies for water purification or conversion

Submission of Proposals

To be considered, proposals outlining new but complete and previously unpublished results significant to the development of this field should be submitted via the MRS Energy & Sustainabilit y electronic submission system. The proposal form and author instructions may be found at mrs.org/energy-sustainability-proposal-form .

Editor-in-Chief

Y. Shirley Meng

University of California, San Diego

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Michigan, USA

Arthur L. Robinson, Alan I. Taub & Gregory A. Keoleian

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Arthur L. Robinson .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Robinson, A.L., Taub, A.I. & Keoleian, G.A. Fuel efficiency drives the auto industry to reduce vehicle weight. MRS Bulletin 44 , 920–923 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2019.298

Download citation

Published : 27 September 2020

Issue Date : December 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1557/mrs.2019.298

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox

It is often asserted that consumers undervalue future gasoline costs relative to purchase prices when they choose between automobiles, or equivalently that they have high "implied discount rates" for these future energy costs. We show how this can be tested by measuring whether relative prices of vehicles with different fuel economy ratings fully adjust to time series variation in gasoline price forecasts. We then test the model using a detailed dataset based on 86 million transactions at auto dealerships and wholesale auctions between 1999 and 2008. Over our base sample, vehicle prices move as if consumers are indifferent between one dollar in discounted future gas costs and only 76 cents in vehicle purchase price. We document how endogenous market shares and utilization, measurement error, and different gasoline price forecasts can affect the results, and we show how to address these issues empirically. We also provide unique empirical evidence of sticky information: vehicle markets respond to changes in gasoline prices with up to a six month delay.

We thank Alberto Abadie, Soren Anderson, Josh Angrist, Orley Ashenfelter, David Autor, Lucas Davis, Henry Farber, Kelly Gallagher, Penny Goldberg, Michael Greenstone, Jerry Hausman, Mark Jacobsen, James Kahn, Ryan Kellogg, Lutz Kilian, David Laibson, David Lee, Henry Lee, Robin Lee, Lars Lefgren, Erin Mansur, Erich Muehlegger, Sendhil Mullainathan, Richard Newell, Ariel Pakes, Nancy Rose, Jesse Rothstein, Stephen Ryan, Jim Sallee, Jorge Silva-Risso, Rob Stavins, Chris Timmins, Roger von Haefen, Glen Weyl, Matt White, and seminar participants at the Air Force Academy, Analysis Group, Carnegie Mellon, Colorado School of Mines, Harvard, Kent State University, Mathematica Policy Research, MIT, NBER Summer Institute, Northwestern, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile, Princeton, Society for Economic Dynamics, Stanford University, Stanford Institute for Theoretical Economics, Texas A&M, Universidad de los Andes, University of California Energy Institute, University of Delaware, University of Wisconsin, University of Toronto, and Washington University for their feedback. Funding for this project was provided by Princeton's Industrial Relations Section, Harvard's Energy Technology Innovation Policy group, the Harvard University Center for the Environment, and the Sloan Foundation. We thank JD Power for providing vehicle transaction price data. Thanks to Lonnie Miller at RL Polk for helpful conversations. We thank Manheim Consulting for providing auction data and Gary George, Nirmeet Kacheria, Pete Sauber, and Tom Webb at Manheim for sharing their expertise. We thank Carmen Collyns and Jordon Ricks for research assistance on this and related projects. We especially appreciate meticulous research assistance by Sounman Hong. Code for replicating the estimation is available from Hunt Allcott's website. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Non-Technical Summaries

• Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox Author(s): Hunt Allcott Nathan Wozny While relative automobile prices do move substantially in response to gasoline prices, they do not move as much as one might expect...

Published Versions

Working groups, more from nber.

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

Working Papers

A series of research studies conducted by ourselves and our partners into issues about fuel economy.

WP24: Implementing the ASEAN fuel economy roadmap

WP23: Low Carbon Global Road Freight: Moving Beyond Fuel Economy Standards

WP22: Vehicle fuel economy in major markets 2005-2019

WP21: Decarbonising Transport: Driving Implementation Actions and Turning Targets into a Transformation

WP20: Prospects for fuel efficiency, electrification and fleet decarbonisation

WP19: Fuel economy in major car markets: Technology and policy drivers 2005-2017

WP18: The role of plug-in electric vehicles to improve fuel economy

WP17: Wider, taller, heavier: Evolution of LDV size over generations

WP16: Can we reach 100 million electric cars worldwide by 2030?

WP15: International comparison of LDV fuel economy 2005-2015

WP14: Estimating fuel efficiency technology potential of heavy-duty trucks

WP13: Can we achieve 100 million plug-in cars by 2030?

WP12: Technology and policy drivers of the fuel economy of new LDVs

WP11: Light-duty vehicle fuel economy: 2005 to 2013

WP10: Vehicle Technology and Fuel Efficiency: Across 10 countries

WP9: How to save $2 trillion and fund transition to plug-in vehicles

WP8: Light-duty vehicle fuel economy update to 2011

WP7: Policy Handbook for the Regulation of Imported Second-Hand Vehicles

WP6: Financial Support Mechanisms for Vehicle Fuel Economy: A Guide

WP5: International comparison of light-duty vehicle fuel economy

WP4: Car Fleet Renewal Schemes: Environmental and Safety Impacts

WP3: Reducing Emissions in Central and Eastern Europe

WP2: Proceedings of Mexico Climate Change Mitigation Workshop

WP1: Improving Vehicle Fuel Economy in the ASEAN Region

Fuel Economy Home Page

Find & Compare Cars

• Compare Side-by-Side
• Power Search
• Find-a-Car App

• Calculate or Share Your MPG
• Estimates from Drivers Like You

• Gas Mileage Tips
• Fuel Cost Calculator
• Find the Cheapest Gas

Hybrids & Electrics

• Plug-in Hybrids
• All-Electric Vehicles

Calculators and Other Tools

• Fuel Savings Calculator
• Trip Calculator
• Used Car Label Tool
• Developer Tools
• Find a Car Widget
• GHG Emissions Calculator
• Can a Hybrid Save Me Money?
• My Plug-in Hybrid Calculator

New on fueleconomy.gov…

• 2024 Fuel Economy Guide
• 2024 Best and Worst Fuel Economy
• 2024 Top Ten Vehicle Lists
• 2024–25 Fuel Economy Data
• New federal tax credits for clean vehicles

Quick Picks

• Top 10 - Most Efficient Vehicles
• Compare Old vs. New EPA MPG
• Find a SmartWay Vehicle
• Extreme MPG
• Find a Car App

Related Links

• VW, Bentley, Audi and Porsche MPG Estimates Revised
• Clean Cities and Communities
• Vehicle Cost Calculator
• Station Locator
• EV Explorer

This website is administered by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

This website is administered by Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the U.S. DOE and the U.S. EPA.

Site modified: Wednesday May 08 2024

• Credit cards
• View all credit cards
• Banking guide
• Loans guide
• Insurance guide
• Personal finance
• View all personal finance
• Small business
• Small business guide
• View all taxes

You’re our first priority. Every time.

We believe everyone should be able to make financial decisions with confidence. And while our site doesn’t feature every company or financial product available on the market, we’re proud that the guidance we offer, the information we provide and the tools we create are objective, independent, straightforward — and free.

So how do we make money? Our partners compensate us. This may influence which products we review and write about (and where those products appear on the site), but it in no way affects our recommendations or advice, which are grounded in thousands of hours of research. Our partners cannot pay us to guarantee favorable reviews of their products or services. Here is a list of our partners .

What Is a Vehicle’s Fuel Economy?

Many or all of the products featured here are from our partners who compensate us. This influences which products we write about and where and how the product appears on a page. However, this does not influence our evaluations. Our opinions are our own. Here is a list of our partners and here's how we make money .

The terms fuel efficiency and fuel economy are often used interchangeably, but only fuel economy provides a specific number for a vehicle’s fuel consumption. Fuel economy measures how far a vehicle can travel on a certain amount of fuel — in the U.S., that measurement is miles per gallon (mpg) for gas-powered cars.

For example, a vehicle with a fuel economy rating of 30 mpg means it can go 30 miles on a gallon of gas. Fuel efficiency is a general term that refers to how well a certain vehicle uses fuel, so the higher a car’s fuel economy the more fuel-efficient it is.

Vehicles with a lower fuel economy rating burn more fuel to travel the same distance as cars with a better rating, so they tend to cost more to operate and emit more pollution.

Where to find fuel economy and mpg information

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determines the mpg rating for specific makes and models of cars, based on the car manufacturer’s self-reporting and the EPA’s testing. You can research fuel economy ratings for vehicles dating back to 1984 at fueleconomy.gov , which uses EPA data.

When you buy a new car or certain trucks at a dealership, you can find the vehicle’s estimated mpg on the window sticker where it’s federally mandated to appear.

The EPA provides this information in three categories: city driving, highway driving and combined (an average of city and highway). That’s because the amount of gas used differs by the kind of driving. For example, driving in a city usually requires more stopping and starting than on a highway. Accelerating more often uses more gas and lowers a car’s mpg and fuel efficiency.

The EPA’s mpg figures offer general guidance when determining a vehicle’s fuel efficiency, and the information is useful for comparing vehicles. However, the actual mpg each car obtains depends on many factors, such as whether the car owner does regular maintenance or tends to regularly drive at excessive speeds.

» MORE: 11 easy ways to save money on gas

How to figure your vehicle’s fuel economy

If you’re trying to determine your vehicle’s fuel economy and efficiency, there are several approaches you can take.

Use this formula . Take note of your odometer reading when filling your gas tank. When it’s time to fill your tank, note the new odometer reading and how many gallons of gas it took to fill the tank. Subtract the first odometer reading from the second one to determine how many miles you went between gas fill-ups. Divide that figure by how many gallons of gas it took to fill your car the second time. This will give you the mpg. You may want to do this several times to get an average, because driving may change between fill-ups.

Use an online calculator . NerdWallet’s gas mileage calculator and comparison tool figures your car’s mpg based on your input. You can also compare your car’s annual fuel cost with other vehicles.

Check your car’s dashboard . Most newer vehicles keep track of how efficiently your car is using fuel and will show you a digital mpg display.

What is MPGe?

An MPGe rating, or miles per gallon equivalent, is used for hybrid and electric cars. It was developed by the EPA to measure and compare an electric vehicle’s energy consumption level to a gas-powered vehicle’s fuel consumption. According to the formula, using 33.7 kWh of power is equivalent to using 1 gallon of gas. So, an electric vehicle that travels 100 miles on 33.7 kWh would have a 100 MPGe rating.

» MORE: How much does it cost to charge an electric car?

Why do fuel economy and fuel efficiency matter?

With the average gas price in the U.S. at more than $3 a gallon, operating a gas-powered vehicle can be expensive, especially if you drive a lot. Choosing a more fuel-efficient car can result in significant cost savings over time.

Consider this example based on 15,000 miles driven annually and a fuel cost of $3.58. If you drive a vehicle that gets 30 mpg, compared with one that gets 20 mpg, it will cost you $895 less in fuel annually. Over five years, driving the 30 mpg vehicle will save $4,475.

On a similar note...

RideRambler

2024’s Top Fuel-Efficient Cars That Aren’t Hybrids

Posted: May 8, 2024 | Last updated: May 8, 2024

In light of a 2018 study by Michael Sivak and Brandon Schoettle from the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute, the annual cost of running a gas-powered car was pegged at $1,117. With today’s escalating fuel prices, this figure has undoubtedly increased.

To mitigate soaring fuel expenses, prioritizing fuel-efficient vehicles becomes essential. Although hybrid and electric vehicles are gaining traction, traditional internal combustion engines remain prevalent.

For those aiming to reduce gasoline expenditure without investing heavily in hybrid or electric technology, here’s a look at the top gas-only models, according to EPA estimates, that promise to keep fuel costs in check.

Mini Hardtop and Convertible

• EPA combined/city/highway: 32/29/38 mpg

The Mini Hardtop and Convertible, particularly in the three-cylinder Cooper version with an automatic transmission, stand out for their fuel efficiency at 32 mpg combined.

These models, available in two and four doors, balance a playful drive with economical performance. Even when opting for the six-speed manual or the Cooper S model, the fuel economy remains commendable.

With a starting price of $26,795, these Minis offer a good mix of economy and enjoyment, delivering 29 mpg in the city and 38 mpg on the highway, embodying a smart choice for those seeking both style and substance.

Acura Integra

• EPA combined/city/highway: 33/30/37 mpg

The 2024 Acura Integra, returning 33 mpg combined, echoes the Honda Civic’s legacy, merging premium features with practicality in a hatchback format.

This model shines in its base form, which promises the best fuel economy, thanks to smaller wheels that contribute to its efficiency. Despite forgoing the sportier upgrades of its pricier counterparts, the standard Integra still packs a 200-hp turbocharged engine.

Priced at $32,695, it offers 30 mpg city and 37 mpg highway, positioning itself as a blend of luxury and frugality for the discerning driver.

Nissan Kicks

• EPA combined/city/highway: 33/31/36 mpg

The Nissan Kicks, with its 122-horsepower four-cylinder engine, focuses on fuel efficiency, achieving 33 mpg combined. This subcompact SUV is tied to a continuously variable automatic transmission (CVT), enhancing its economy on the road.

While its performance is modest, its fuel efficiency is a standout feature. However, frequent fuel stops might be needed due to its smaller tank.

With a base price of $22,155 and fuel economy ratings of 31 mpg in the city and 36 mpg on the highway, the Kicks offers a budget-friendly option for those prioritizing fuel savings.

Nissan Sentra

• EPA combined/city/highway: 33/30/40 mpg

Economical yet stylish, the Nissan Sentra delivers a solid 34 mpg combined, thanks to its 149-hp 2.0-liter engine paired with a CVT.

This sedan strikes a balance between affordability and fuel efficiency, presenting an attractive option for cost-conscious drivers, especially when fuel prices are high. The Sentra’s smaller tank size also means less pain at the pump during fill-ups.

Priced at $21,745 and offering 30 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway, the Sentra stands out as a practical choice for efficient and economical driving.

Volkswagen Jetta

• EPA combined/city/highway: 34/30/41 mpg

The Volkswagen Jetta, with its 158-hp turbocharged engine, merges enjoyable driving dynamics with unexpected spaciousness.

Opting for the eight-speed automatic transmission optimizes fuel efficiency, achieving 34 mpg combined. Nevertheless, the six-speed manual option remains tempting for those willing to trade a bit of fuel economy for engagement.

With a starting price of $22,585 and mileage ratings of 30 mpg in the city and 41 mpg on the highway, the Jetta offers a balanced package of performance, space, and fuel efficiency.

Positioned beneath the K5 in Kia’s lineup, the Forte offers economical driving with a 147-hp engine and a continuously variable transmission (CVT), leading to a combined fuel efficiency of 34 mpg.

While it may not top the excitement charts, the Forte stands out with its comprehensive feature set, competitive pricing, and efficient base engine.

The Forte, priced at $20,915 and delivering 30 mpg in the city and 41 mpg on the highway, presents a value proposition for buyers prioritizing cost-effectiveness and fuel economy in their vehicle choice.

Toyota Corolla/Hatchback

• EPA combined/city/highway: 35/32/41 mpg

The Toyota Corolla, in both sedan and hatchback forms, epitomizes efficiency with a 169-hp Dynamic-Force 2.0-liter engine, achieving a commendable 35 mpg combined.

Equipped with a 10-speed transmission, it balances power and efficiency, providing 32 mpg in urban settings and 41 mpg on highways.

The Corolla also offers a practical cargo space of 17.8 cubic feet. With a starting MSRP of $23,505, it’s a smart choice for those seeking a reliable and fuel-efficient vehicle that doesn’t compromise on space or driving pleasure.

Nissan Versa

• EPA combined/city/highway: 35/32/40 mpg

The Nissan Versa, powered by a 122-hp four-cylinder engine, excels in fuel economy at 35 mpg combined when paired with the CVT.

While it may not be the quickest on the road, the Versa shines in value, boasting significant interior room and a comprehensive suite of standard features.

With an attractive base price of $17,245 and fuel economy figures of 32 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway, the Versa positions itself as an ideal option for budget-conscious buyers who still demand efficiency and comfort.

Hyundai Elantra

• EPA combined/city/highway: 36/31/42 mpg

The Hyundai Elantra, with its 147-hp inline-four engine and CVT, stands out with an EPA-estimated 36 mpg combined fuel efficiency. For those prioritizing fuel savings, a hybrid version is available, enhancing its eco-friendly appeal.

Starting at $22,590, the Elantra offers a stylish and well-appointed option, boasting 31 mpg in the city and 42 mpg on the highway, making it a compelling choice for drivers seeking a blend of economy, aesthetics, and value.

Honda Civic

• EPA combined/city/highway: 36/33/42 mpg

The Honda Civic, often recognized for its versatility and consistent high rankings, excels with a 180-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter engine, achieving 36 mpg combined with a CVT.

Available in both sedan and hatchback versions, the Civic caters to various preferences, with the hatchback offering up to 35 mpg combined. The sedan model, equipped with the standard 2.0-liter engine, also delivers commendable fuel efficiency at 33 mpg combined.

With a base price of $25,045 and achieving 33 mpg in the city and 42 mpg on the highway, the Civic is a top contender for those seeking an all-around efficient and reliable vehicle.

Mitsubishi Mirage

• EPA combined/city/highway: 39/36/43 mpg

The Mitsubishi Mirage, with its modest 78-horsepower three-cylinder engine, leads in fuel economy, boasting an impressive 39 mpg combined with its CVT.

Available as both a hatchback and a sedan (Mirage G4), it prioritizes efficiency over speed. The Mirage G4, slightly less economical, achieves 37 mpg combined. Despite its leisurely acceleration, with a tested 0 to 60 mph time of 12.8 seconds, the Mirage’s appeal lies in its fuel-sipping nature and affordability.

Priced at $17,950, with city and highway efficiencies of 36 and 43 mpg respectively, it offers an excellent value for those seeking maximum fuel efficiency on a budget.

More From RideRambler – 25 SUVs We Don’t Encourage You To Buy

25 SUVs We Don’t Encourage You To Buy

More From RideRambler – 15 Reasons The New Chevy 70/SS Chevelle Deserves A Spot In Your Garage

15 Reasons The New Chevy 70/SS Chevelle Deserves A Spot In Your Garage

More From RideRambler – What You Need To Know About Michelin’s New Airless Tires (With Pictures)

What You Need To Know About Michelin’s New Airless Tires (With Pictures)

More for You

I was fired from a new job in less than a week after I started. It taught me not every opportunity is a good opportunity.

Australian rock legend dies aged 67

17 Phrases Confident People Use to Stand Up For Themselves

‘Never heard it put like that before’: Author’s remark about weight stuns Dr. Gupta

25 Facts You Learned in School That Are No Longer True

Sabrina Carpenter’s Met Gala After-Party Minidress Was Made Out of Flowers

7 Smells That Ants Absolutely Hate

Employers Are Avoiding Hiring Gen Z Workers- Here's Why

Burger King Is Giving Away Free Whoppers, Birthday Pie Slices and More After You Spend 70 Cents

Television Network Makes Historic Decision Regarding Caitlin Clark's WNBA Games

30 things Americans consider normal but no one else understands

Leaving These 13 Things by the Front Door Could Keep You Safe

Here's How Much Electricity It Takes to Charge A Tesla

15 Shocking Reasons Why More Baby Boomers Are Getting Divorced

Putin's NATO Message Is Landing With Americans

10 Kitchen Items You Should Always Buy at Dollar Tree To Save Money

Who wore Met Gala’s ‘Garden of Time’ theme best?

If you use any of these 4 phrases you have higher emotional intelligence than most

10 best new Netflix originals you need to add to your watch list

Home prices keep climbing nationally, but they’re falling in these 15 markets

Is the Wisconsin Taxpayer Stingy?

Junjie Guo, Kim Ruhl and Ananth Seshadri

Executive Summary:

• Recent reports note that Wisconsin is 42nd in the nation when it comes to funding the UW-System. Wisconsin allocates a larger share of higher-education appropriations to 2-year institutions than most other states and a smaller share to 4-year This distinction is becoming less meaningful as the 2-year technical colleges offer liberal arts transfer degrees as a pathway to a 4-year institution and the UW-System schools are increasingly focused on majors that satisfy workforce demands.
• This paper addresses the question: Is the Wisconsin taxpayer rather stingy in funding higher education in Wisconsin and, in particular, funding UW-Madison?
• Wisconsin is 22nd in the nation when it comes to total higher-education appropriations per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate, which includes both UW-System and technical college While this measure declined in the last decade, it also declined between 2003 and 2010. Despite the decline, it has remained higher than the median in the United States for more than the last two decades.
• After accounting for state income per capita, Wisconsin’s appropriations per FTE undergraduate are appreciably higher than the national average, casting doubt on the notion that the Wisconsin taxpayer is stingy.
• State appropriations per FTE undergraduate are higher for UW-Madison than the median of other Big-10 universities and the median of other public institutions in the Association of American Universities (AAU).
• As a share of university revenue, state appropriations for UW-Madison are similar to the median of other Big-10 universities and the median of other public AAU institutions.
• States exert influence over in-state Reservegate led to a decade-long tuition freeze in Wisconsin. Focusing on the sum of tuition and fees and state appropriations, we find that UW-Madison is slightly below the median of Big-10 peers.
• In the past, UW System tuition rose to offset declines in state support to protect the university system. That implicit contract is now broken. If the state deems UW- Madison worthy of additional support, it ought to come from increases in in-state tuition and not on the backs of the Wisconsin taxpayer.

Read White Paper #5

• Facebook Logo
• Twitter Logo
• Linkedin Logo

• Companies & Markets
• Banking & Finance
• Reits & Property
• Energy & Commodities
• Telcos, Media & Tech
• Transport & Logistics
• Consumer & Healthcare
• Capital Markets & Currencies

Singapore Airlines orders 1,000 tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel from Neste

The national carrier aims to have at least 5 per cent of sustainable aviation fuel in its total fuel uplift by 2030

Sharanya Pillai

SINGAPORE Airlines : C6L 0 % (SIA) has agreed to purchase 1,000 tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel from renewable fuel producer Neste, the national carrier announced on Monday (May 6).

This will make SIA and its budget airline Scoot the first carriers to receive sustainable aviation fuel produced at Neste’s Singapore refinery. It will also be Neste’s first direct supply of the fuel to airlines at Changi Airport.

Neste will blend the sustainable aviation fuel – known as neat Neste MY Sustainable Aviation Fuel – with conventional jet fuel, as per safety requirements. It will deliver the blended jet fuel to Changi Airport’s fuel hydrant system in two batches: first in the second quarter of this year, and the second in Q4.

The sustainable aviation fuel is fully made from renewable waste and residue raw materials, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80 per cent over its life cycle, Neste said.

The agreement is an “important milestone” in SIA’s journey to have at least 5 per cent of sustainable aviation fuel in its total fuel uplift by 2030, said the group’s chief sustainability officer Lee Wen Fen.

From May, SIA will also offer 1,000 sustainable aviation fuel Book and Claim Units (BCUs) that its corporate travellers, shippers, and freight forwarders can purchase. Each BCU represents one tonne of neat sustainable aviation fuel with its associated carbon dioxide reduction benefit.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Purchasers can claim the associated environmental benefits for flights related to their business travel and operations, “validating the demand for (sustainable aviation fuel) BCUs and supporting the development of the nascent (sustainable aviation fuel) industry”, SIA said.

An industry standard known as the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials Book and Claim system will be used to ensure the traceability and credibility of the transactions.

Alexander Kueper, Neste’s vice-president for renewable aviation, expressed hope that the delivery of sustainable aviation fuel to SIA, coupled with the recently announced national sustainable aviation fuel target, will encourage the wider adoption of such fuels across the Asia-Pacific.

“We are looking forward to expanding our cooperation with SIA as well as supplying visiting carriers at Changi Airport,” he said.

SIA shares ended Monday at S$6.55, up S$0.03 or 0.5 per cent.

KEYWORDS IN THIS ARTICLE

• Singapore Airlines could post highest-ever earnings of about S$2.7 billion for FY2024, says analyst

BT is now on Telegram!

For daily updates on weekdays and specially selected content for the weekend. Subscribe to   t.me/BizTimes

Prudential shutters Hong Kong wealth unit Pulse

Singapore has to be realistic on global trends plaguing its stock market: dpm wong, google deepmind unveils next generation of drug discovery ai model, aem holdings q1 net profit tumbles 85% to s$2.4 million, world’s biggest tea buyer lipton’s sale of last farms is a strategy shift, jpmorgan, nomura limit segantii exposure on hong kong case, support south-east asia's leading financial daily.

Get the latest coverage and full access to all BT premium content.

Browse corporate subscription here

• International
• Opinion & Features
• Startups & Tech
• Working Life
• Events & Awards
• Breaking News
• Newsletters
• Food & Drink
• Style & Travel
• Arts & Design
• Health & Wellness
• Paid Press Releases
• advertise with us
• privacy policy
• terms & conditions
• cookie policy
• data protection policy

SPH MEDIA DIGITAL NEWS

MCI (P) 064/10/2023 © 2024 SPH MEDIA LIMITED. REGN NO. 202120748H