IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Can proactive fuel economy strategies help automakers mitigate fuel price risk?

Listed author(s):
  • McManus, Walter

Detroit automakers have opposed mandated improvements in fuel economy since legislation was first proposed in the 1970’s. Their opposition is based, among other considerations, on the assumption that their customers value fuel economy only when fuel prices are high. This paper presents the findings of our on-going research that strongly refutes this assumption. Using data on sales, prices, and attributes of vehicles in 2005, we find that consumers are willing to pay, on average, $578 per MPG for higher fuel economy. At the price of gasoline prevailing in 2005, $2.30 per gallon, the $578 per MPG that consumers are willing to pay for fuel economy implies that consumers put more weight in choosing vehicles on future fuel savings than most analysts (including ourselves) had thought. The paper incorporates these new data-driven estimates of the value of fuel economy into an automotive market simulation model that has three components: a consumer demand function that predicts consumers’ vehicle choices as functions of vehicle price, fuel price, and vehicle attributes (the new estimates of the value of fuel economy are used to set the parameters of the demand function); an engineering and economic evaluation of feasible fuel economy improvements by 2010; and a game theoretic analysis of manufacturers’ competitive interactions. Using our model, we estimated the market shares and profits of automakers in 128 separate scenarios defined by alternative plausible values for the price of fuel and consumers’ discount rates. Under the fuel price risks and the competitive risks that automakers face, our analysis concludes that a proactive strategy of pursuing fuel economy improvements— above and beyond what is required by law—would increase annual profits for Ford ($0.5 billion to $1.4 billion), GM ($0.2 billion to $0.5 billion, and DaimlerChrysler ($0.1 billion). Even if the uncertainty over fuel price were removed, all three automakers would increase profits by pursuing fuel economy improvements, though the gains are smaller with fuel at $2.00/gallon.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 3460.

in new window

Date of creation: 14 Sep 2006
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:3460
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany

Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2459
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-992459
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Molly Espey & Santosh Nair, 2005. "Automobile Fuel Economy: What Is It Worth?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 23(3), pages 317-323, July.
  2. Steven Berry & James Levinsohn & Ariel Pakes, 2004. "Differentiated Products Demand Systems from a Combination of Micro and Macro Data: The New Car Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(1), pages 68-105, February.
  3. David L. Greene & K.G. Duleep & Walter McManus, 2004. "Future Potential of Hybrid and Diesel Powertrains in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Market," Industrial Organization 0410003, EconWPA.
  4. Kenneth E. Train & Clifford Winston, 2007. "Vehicle Choice Behavior And The Declining Market Share Of U.S. Automakers," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(4), pages 1469-1496, November.
  5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
  6. Ye Feng & Don Fullerton & Li Gan, 2013. "Vehicle choices, miles driven, and pollution policies," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 4-29, August.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is featured on the following reading lists or Wikipedia pages:

  1. Studies on the automobile industry

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:3460. 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: (Joachim Winter)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.