IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

A benefit-cost assessment of new vehicle technologies and fuel economy in the U.S. market


  • Simmons, Richard A.
  • Shaver, Gregory M.
  • Tyner, Wallace E.
  • Garimella, Suresh V.


Increasingly stringent fuel economy and emissions regulations alongside efforts to reduce oil dependence have accelerated the global deployment of advanced vehicle technologies. In recent years, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and consumers have generally been successful in mutually deploying cleaner vehicle options with little sacrifice in cost, performance or overall utility. Projections regarding the challenges and impacts associated with compliance with mid- and long-term targets in the U.S., however, incur much greater uncertainty. The share of existing new vehicles that is expected to comply with future regulations, for example, falls below 10% by 2020. This article explores advanced technologies that result in reduced fuel consumption and emissions that are commercially available in 2014 Model Year compact and midsize passenger cars. A review of the recent research literature and publicly available cost and technical specification data addressing correlations between incremental cost and fuel economy is presented. This analysis reveals that a 10% improvement in the sales-weighted average fuel economy of passenger cars has been achieved between 2011 and 2014 at costs that are at or below levels anticipated by the regulations by means of reductions in weight, friction, and drag; advancements in internal combustion efficiency; turbocharging combined with engine downsizing; transmission upgrades; and the growth of hybrids. Benefit-cost analyses performed on best-selling models in the selected classifications reveal that consumers thus far are not substantially incentivized to purchase fuel economy. Under baseline conditions, benefit-cost ratios are above a breakeven value of unity for only 6 of 28 models employing improved fuel-economy technologies. Sales-weighted data indicate that the “average” consumer that elected to invest in greater fuel economy spent $1490 to realize a 17.3% improvement in fuel economy, equating to estimated savings of $1070. Thus savings were, on average, insufficient to cover technology costs in the baseline scenario. However, a sensitivity analysis reveals that a majority of new technologies become financially attractive to consumers when average fuel prices exceed $5.60/gallon, or when annual miles traveled exceed 16,400. The article concludes with techno-economic implications of the research on future fuel economy regulations for stakeholders. In general, the additional cost consumers incur in exchange for a given level of fuel economy improvement in the coming years will need to be steadily reduced compared to current levels to ensure that the expected benefits of fuel savings are financially warranted.

Suggested Citation

  • Simmons, Richard A. & Shaver, Gregory M. & Tyner, Wallace E. & Garimella, Suresh V., 2015. "A benefit-cost assessment of new vehicle technologies and fuel economy in the U.S. market," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 940-952.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:157:y:2015:i:c:p:940-952
    DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.01.068

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Greene, David L. & Evans, David H. & Hiestand, John, 2013. "Survey evidence on the willingness of U.S. consumers to pay for automotive fuel economy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1539-1550.
    2. Nathan Wozny & Hunt Allcott, 2011. "Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox," 2011 Meeting Papers 222, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    3. Ross Morrow, W. & Gallagher, Kelly Sims & Collantes, Gustavo & Lee, Henry, 2010. "Analysis of policies to reduce oil consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions from the US transportation sector," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1305-1320, March.
    4. Hunt Allcott & Jean-Nathan Wozny, 2010. "Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox," Working Papers 1003, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
    5. David L. Greene, 2010. "Why the New Market for New Passenger Cars Generally Undervalues Fuel Economy," OECD/ITF Joint Transport Research Centre Discussion Papers 2010/6, OECD Publishing.
    6. Hunt Allcott & Nathan Wozny, 2014. "Gasoline Prices, Fuel Economy, and the Energy Paradox," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(5), pages 779-795, December.
    7. Atabani, A.E. & Badruddin, Irfan Anjum & Mekhilef, S. & Silitonga, A.S., 2011. "A review on global fuel economy standards, labels and technologies in the transportation sector," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 15(9), pages 4586-4610.
    8. Cheah, Lynette & Heywood, John, 2011. "Meeting U.S. passenger vehicle fuel economy standards in 2016 and beyond," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 454-466, January.
    9. Greene, David L, 1991. "Short-run Pricing Strategies to Increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 29(1), pages 101-114, January.
    10. Thomas Klier & Joshua Linn, 2012. "New‐vehicle characteristics and the cost of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 186-213, March.
    11. Greene, David L. & Duleep, K. G., 1993. "Costs and benefits of automative fuel economy improvement: A partial analysis," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 217-235, May.
    12. Turrentine, Tom & Kurani, Kenneth S, 2007. "Car buyers and fuel economy?," Institute of Transportation Studies, Working Paper Series qt56x845v4, Institute of Transportation Studies, UC Davis.
    13. Turrentine, Thomas S. & Kurani, Kenneth S., 2007. "Car buyers and fuel economy?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 1213-1223, February.
    14. Schipper, Lee & Tax, Wienke, 1994. "New car test and actual fuel economy: yet another gap?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 1(4), pages 257-265, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Krause, Jette & Small, Mitchell J. & Haas, Armin & Jaeger, Carlo C., 2016. "An expert-based bayesian assessment of 2030 German new vehicle CO2 emissions and related costs," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 197-208.
    2. Galvin, Ray, 2016. "Rebound effects from speed and acceleration in electric and internal combustion engine cars: An empirical and conceptual investigation," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 172(C), pages 207-216.
    3. repec:eee:appene:v:203:y:2017:i:c:p:506-521 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Ruan, Jiageng & Walker, Paul & Zhang, Nong, 2016. "A comparative study energy consumption and costs of battery electric vehicle transmissions," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 119-134.
    5. Diao, Qinghua & Sun, Wei & Yuan, Xinmei & Li, Lili & Zheng, Zhi, 2016. "Life-cycle private-cost-based competitiveness analysis of electric vehicles in China considering the intangible cost of traffic policies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 567-578.
    6. repec:eee:appene:v:204:y:2017:i:c:p:544-559 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:2033-:d:152768 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Huebner, Gesche M. & Shipworth, David, 2017. "All about size? – The potential of downsizing in reducing energy demand," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 186(P2), pages 226-233.


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:appene:v:157:y:2015:i:c:p:940-952. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.