Should improving fuel economy of older-model vehicles be a priority? Do you think the public would buy into the concept?
TLT Sounding Board February 2013
TLT readers were far from unanimous on this month’s question. Several survey respondents felt the time and effort that would go into upgrading older cars was worth the cost because there are so many of them still on the road. As the economy is making it tougher to buy new cars, they reasoned, it makes sense to get older cars running longer and more efficiently, thereby protecting the environment. On the opposing side were readers who noted that it doesn’t make sense to invest resources on cars that soon will be off the road. The feeling there is that the public would not voluntarily make any changes without a government mandate. Better to put the time, energy and expense into creating more fuel-efficient new vehicles, they reasoned. And as one noted, “It is always difficult to change the masses.”
Improving fuel economy of older-model vehicles would keep the cars operating longer and more efficiently. Yes, the public would buy into it because everyone is not able to buy a new vehicle in this economy. Therefore, the public would have to make their vehicle last as long as possible.
The vast majority of 5-10-year-old vehicles will go away due to age and mileage. Better to focus on next-generation vehicles.
They may if they see a net benefit.
Yes, fuel costs are high, so it is likely many will respond if there is an appropriate technology.
From an ecological point of view, it is important to raise awareness of fuel economy.
Yes, to improve their performance and to reduce carbon emissions.
It would free up money for other areas of expenses, so yes.
No. Maintenance and care of vehicle will determine who can use top-tier fuel.
Don’t waste your money. Old people are set in their ways. If they aren’t going to buy a new car, they aren’t going to buy your fancy-schmantzy new fuel.
Older-model fuel economy should improve because this makes up the largest segment. It takes at least 20 years for a change in the automotive industry to reach close to full representation. The public will go for it as long as they don’t have to pay for it.
Yes, it has impact on the environment.
Maintaining fuel economy of older models to reduce wear and extend utility should be the goal. Costs most likely will outweigh return on investment when remaining useful life is in question.
The public is not interested in fuel economy unless price of fuel goes over $4.50/gallon.
Yes, this should be within reason. More people are keeping vehicles, but they will all be phased out in a relatively short time period.
Yes, people are like sheep. Look at the current additive and lubricant markets.
No, I think the ability to increase mileage is limited by initial design.
How much do you think the public will pay for a more fuel-efficient lubricant?
Less than 5% more
37%
5%-10% more
45%
11%-20% more
10%
More than 20%
12%
Based on results from 134 TLT readers. Results total more than 100% because some respondents chose more than one answer.
Older vehicles probably have more to gain because there is a larger opportunity (e.g., they are less fuel efficient) and there are more of them.
Older-model vehicles will benefit from new ILSAC (International Lubricants Standardization and Approval Committee) fluids’ improvements in fuel economy by default, if they are used. The public most likely would not buy into the concept because in general, the ILSAC system is unfamiliar to them. The only way the public would become interested would be in the event of a drastic European-type increase in fuel costs.
It’s ridiculous to increase fuel economy. I owned an ‘87 Lincoln town car. It got 29 mpg on the highway, had a 302 V8 engine and it weighed 2.5 tons. Now I drive a Lotus Elise that has a third the engine and weighs less than a ton. It gets 26 mpg. The reason is that they keep adding fillers to our fuel. Ethanol has less than a third the potential energy as real gasoline. So that means you will get less than a third the mileage, and it costs more than gasoline. All you are doing is adding to the cost of fuel while reducing the mileage you get out of it. People are stupid! One company even boasts that it adds nitrogen to its fuel. That’s supposed to make it burn cleaner, they say. Well, the air that the engine sucks in is 78% nitrogen, and last I checked the formation of oxides of nitrogen was one of the worst type of pollutants. It’s like adding lead to the meatloaf. Stupid, just stupid! That’s why I say there is no point in wasting resources on fuel economy.
It has favorable economic benefits. Yes, public will buy into it.
Improved fuel economy in all vehicles should be a priority. Sustainability, reduced environmental impact, energy reduction, etc. Yes, I feel the public would buy into this concept.
To improve the environment and reduce costs in operation.
No. An older model is in the hands of the owner! Furthermore, how many people really look into fuel consumption as a first choice of purchase?
It should not be a priority. It is difficult for individual drivers to see fuel economy benefits due to the many variables other than lubricant that affect fuel economy. Significant fuel economy needs to be demonstrated by whatever combination of lubricant, fuel and hardware makes the most sense.
Older vehicles are difficult to retrofit. Higher fuel prices are the best solution.
No. For older vehicles, probably the easiest and best recommendation is to run on the correct tire pressure and to remove the luggage rack when not transporting something on top.
To minimize friction in future vehicles the lubricant will have to be designed together with the mechanical components. The whole system should be designed as one optimized unit.
Yes, gas is high and everybody wants to save money.
It may sound like heresy, but I am glad about current and projected fuel costs because it will force us to do now what we should have done in the ‘70s!
Some companies already offer products that do this. The public will buy into this if the return on investment is there.
Only if the government mandates it.
No. Older vehicles will phase out on their own.
With shrinking economies in much of the developed world, not as many people are investing in new vehicles and therefore want to be able to save money on their current, older vehicles. Improving their fuel economy is crucial during this age of austerity.
No, the public will not buy into this. But initially older cars have to be considered because the current economic situation precludes widespread purchasing of new vehicles. Besides, past technology has provided the longevity of older vehicles, and the argument can be used that older vehicles provide useful research data on protection.
Yes, since it might be much more environmental friendly to improve older existing cars than to manufacture new ones. Improving older vehicles also will help the people that cannot afford to buy a new car reduce their fuel costs.
This is a matter of environment regulation and protection, so regardless of vehicle age people will buy in or not depending on their environmental sense of responsibility.
Yes, of course it is important, but it takes $$.
Fuel costs are only going to increase. No, because low viscosity lubes can damage engines.
Improving fuel economy of older-model vehicles must address environmental issues.
No, the public will support new technology to improve fuel economy of new vehicles. The general public will not spend money to retrofit older-model vehicles.
The focus lately seems to be on changing the type of fuels we use—biodiesel and ethanol, but with gas stations moving toward E15 gasoline and older cars not being able to burn it, somebody should develop a way of providing better fuel economy for older vehicles. There might even be government grants available if results could be proved!
No. Humans resist change. People who drive older-model vehicles are either older (and do not want any change) or cannot afford to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, so they won’t want to pay to improve the fuel economy of the vehicle they already own. If they had the money they would just buy a newer one.
How much do you think fleet operators will pay for a more fuel-efficient lubricant?
Less than 5% more
24%
5%-10% more
40%
11%-20% more
21%
More than 20%
18%
Based on results from 134 TLT readers. Results total more than 100% because some respondents chose more than one answer.
It should be a priority because there are more old than new cars on the road.
Less global consumption of fossil fuels should be of interest to mankind.
My thinking is not to make it a priority. If you can achieve significant fuel economy gains you will drive the purchase of new vehicles. This helps the economy and the environment.
Only if we can find a way to make old technology new. Old is old and not worth spending money on.
It should be a large priority as people are keeping vehicles much longer now due to the economy and cars seeming to last longer.
It’s foolhardy to waste gas and cause more pollution.
It should be a priority along with ensuring durability of the oil to reduce potential failure and maximize service of the vehicle.
Only a small percentage would buy into it.
Improving fuel economy will improve vehicle emissions. The general public should support moves to improve this type of technology.
There are more older vehicles on the road than newer ones. The public would accept if the fuel economy gains can be verified.
With ethanol being added to fuel, we would be lucky just to get back to the mpg that the vehicle should have with 100% gasoline. I don’t think this is going to work.
As the average age of the fleet increases, we would do a disservice to ignore the older automobiles when considering fuel economy. I think as volatility in fuel prices becomes the norm, friction-modified lubes will have an impact that consumers can see in their pockets, especially in older engine designs.
Too many different variables to be addressed.
As vehicles age, the octane requirement increases. This occurs for a variety of reasons. Attempting to improve the fuel economy of older vehicles is a lesson in futility. The public will not buy into this concept. Also, the older vehicles will soon vanish from the highways.
Improving fuel economy of older vehicles should not be a priority. Attrition of old vehicles is the best method to improve the fuel economy of the vehicle population. There is not an incentive plan out there that is economically justified for older vehicles. Best approach is to make new vehicles so good that there is natural incentive to trade up and make the used vehicles more affordable for low-income and low-annual-mileage families.
It would be harder to improve fuel economy on older model cars. The public would not buy into the fact that older models would not have the newer technologies needed to improve fuel economy.
Older-model vehicles have restrictions on viscosity, so they won’t drive next-generation fuel economy.
Improving the fuel economy of the current fleet would have the largest impact over the shortest time as more vehicles could be impacted if the technology was readily implemented and cost effective.
I suspect the money could be better spent elsewhere.
This would reduce dependence on foreign oil and, yes, the public would be agreeable.
Older vehicles should not be a priority as they lack the transmissions, gearing, electronics, fuel management, etc., to see any appreciable gains in fuel economy.
Technology insertion through new product acquisition is a very slow process for systems improvement; the commercial aviation sector is testament to this. The public might buy into maintaining fuel economy for aging vehicles, but it is difficult to justify that significant improvements can be realized in older-model vehicles.
Synthetic lubricants are the first thing that will improve fuel economy in older vehicles. Initial cost is the barrier to using these lubricants, even though the total cost is actually lower.
The public normally considers the age of the vehicle as the first factor in replacement decision, and a 10-year-old vehicle is normally the one which is at the end of its economic life benchmark. Improving fuel economy on an older vehicle will be less than 5% value to the end-user.
Yes, today’s car owners are hanging on to their cars for many years.
Yes. With the high cost of vehicles and people keeping vehicles longer, fuel economy increases would be of high benefit.
People who keep cars for a long time would probably not normally volunteer to spend more money on them, so there would have to be government regulations to meet economy standards and that would be very hard to enforce. Doubt it would work, if prioritized or not.
Editor’s Note: Sounding Board is based on an e-mail survey of 13,000 TLT readers. Views expressed are those of the respondents and do not reflect the opinions of the Society of Tribologists and Lubrication Engineers. STLE does not vouch for the technical accuracy of opinions expressed in Sounding Board, nor does inclusion of a comment represent an endorsement of the technology by STLE.