THE RESPONSE OF THE AUTO INDUSTRY AND
CONSUMERS TO CHANGES IN THE EXHAUST
EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS ( 1975 –
2003): A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF CHANGES IN
TECHNOLOGY, PRICES, AND SALES OF VARIOUS
CLASSES OF VEHICLES
UCD- ITS- RR- 04- 4
June 2004
by
Andrew Burke
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis 95616, USA
Ph ( 530) 752- 9812
Fax ( 530) 752- 6572
afburke@ ucdavis. edu
and
Ethan Abeles
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis 95616, USA
Ph ( 530) 752- 9812
Fax ( 530) 752- 6572
ecabeles@ ucdavis. edu
with
Belinda Chen
Institute of Transportation Studies
University of California, Davis 95616, USA
Ph ( 530) 752- 9812
Fax ( 530) 752- 6572
bschen@ ucdavis. edu
Institute of Transportation Studies
One Shields Avenue
University of California
Davis, California 95616
Tel: 530- 752- 0247 Fax: 530- 752- 6572
http:// www. its. ucdavis. edu/
email: itspublications@ ucdavis. edu
1
The Response of the Auto Industry and Consumers to Changes
in the Exhaust Emission and Fuel Economy Standards ( 1975-
2003): A Historical Review of Changes in Technology, Prices,
and Sales of Various Classes of Vehicles
Andrew Burke
Ethan Abeles
Belinda Chen
UCD- ITS- RR- 04- 4
June 2004
Prepared for the California Air Resources Board
Research Division
Contract 02- 310
Project No. 008545
2
Abstract/ Executive Summary
The objectives of this study were ( 1) to assess the responses of the auto ind ustry
and consumers to changes in the exhaust emission and fuel economy standards that have
occurred in the United States and California in the past thirty years ( 1975- 2003), ( 2) to
relate qualitatively these responses to technology developments and changing economic
factors, such as vehicle prices, consumer income, inflation, and fuel prices over the same
time period, and ( 3) to correlate quantitatively vehicle sales for the periods 1975- 1985
and 1986- 2001 for various vehicle classes to vehicle attributes and macro- economic
factors using multiple regression analysis. The studies was done to provide information
and data to the Research Division of the California Air Resources Board as they consider
CO2 emission standards in response to directives in AB 1493 passed by the California
Legislature in 2001. The primary thrust of the study was to perform a historical review
of what has occurred in the auto industry for 1975- 2003 and to assemble a large data base
containing the characteristics, prices, and sales of vehicle models from many
manufacturers for of the years from 1975 to 2003. The data base was then analyzed
using SPSS, ACCESS, and EXCEL software to determine historical trends of vehicle,
price, and sales parameters in response to changes in government regulations. The trends
are shown graphically and in tabular form in the report. The data in the data base for the
various vehicle models and size classes were also analyzed using multiple regression
analysis techniques.
The historical review indicated that the changes in emissions and fuel economy
regulations forced the industry to develop an impressive sequence of new and improved
technologies that were rapidly introduced in passenger cars, vans, SUVs, and light duty
trucks starting in about 1976. The result has been gasoline fueled, light duty vehicles
with ultra- clean emissions ( ULEV and SULEV) and improvements in fuel economy of
60- 75% relative to comparable 1975 models. The MSRP prices ( 2001$) of the models in
the various vehicle classes have increased between 1975- 2001 by a factor of 1.5 to 2.0
based on the general consumer price index ( cpi). The sales- weighted average MSRP
price of vehicles has increased over the same period by 46% ( a factor of 1.46). Of that
increase 33% of the increase is due to government regulations and 67% is due to
increased quality of the vehicles. The price analyses indicated that the actual prices of
cars of constant quality increased slower in the period of interest than the general price
index. If that had not been the case, the average price of cars between 1975 and 2001
would have increased by 73% rather than 46% in constant 2001$. The fuel economy of
the new vehicles reached a peak in about 1987 and the fleet fuel economy for new
vehicles has actual gone down as the sales of vans and SUVs has increased until in 2001
total sales of vans and SUVs are about the same as passenger cars. Total vehicles sales
have been between 13- 17 million annually since 1984 with most of the year- to- year
fluctuation due to changes in the economic conditions. The increase in vehicle prices has
been accommodated by increases in disposal income and creative financing of sales
through longer loan periods and leasing. Vehicle sales have remained high in periods of
favorable economic conditions through periods of significant changes in government
regulations.
3
Table of Contents
1. Introduction................................................................................................................... .......................................... 5
1.1 Literature Review......................................................................................................................... ...................... 5
2. Changes in Regulations ............................................................................................................................... ......... 8
2.1 Vehicle Emissions...................................................................................................................... ........................ 8
2.2 Fuel economy ( CAFE) ............................................................................................................................... ........ 9
3. Industry/ consumer data base........................................................................................................................... ... 11
4. Industry response....................................................................................................................... ............................ 15
4.1 Historical review of technology changes....................................................................................................... 15
4.2 Historical review of changes in vehicle characteristics............................................................................... 19
4.3 Historical Review of vehicle price changes .................................................................................................. 20
4.4 Vehicle prices in California ............................................................................................................................. 27
5. Consumer response....................................................................................................................... ......................... 29
5.1 Historical review of vehicle sales ................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Historical review of the effect of fuel prices and macro- economic .......................................................... 30
factors on vehicle sales.......................................................................................................................... ................. 30
Year........................................................................................................................... ................................................. 32
5.3 Historical review of innovative financing and marketing strategies......................................................... 34
References ............................................................................................................................... ...................................... 39
References for the Literature Review Section ( 1.1) ........................................................................................... 39
General References for the report ( numbered).................................................................................................... 41
Appendices..................................................................................................................... ............................................... 44
Appendix I: Timeline of new technologies to reduce emissions and improve fuel economy ..................... 44
Appendix II: Detailed history of the performance and price of selected vehicle models ............................ 45
Appendix III: Average Attribute Trends Generated from the ITS Davis Database – MSRP, Acceleration,
Fuel Economy, Curb Weight, Horsepower.......................................................................................................... 90
Appendix IV: Vehicle Technology Trends with respect to Fuel Economy and Performance for Passenger
Cars and Light Trucks ( 1975 to 2003) .................................................................................................................. 95
4
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1 U. S. Tailpipe Emission Regulations............................................................................................................. 8
Figure 2 Sales- weighted fuel economy history for GM cars.................................................................................... 9
Figure 3 Timeline of Technology Change with Fuel Economy & Emissions Requirements Overlay ........... 16
Figure 4 History of Passenger Car Fuel Economy ( CAFE) ................................................................................... 17
Figure 5 Car Technology Penetration Years after Significant Use....................................................................... 18
Figure 6 Fuel Economy, Performance, Weight & Sales Fraction Trends for Cars ( 1975- 2003) ..................... 21
Figure 7 Fuel Economy, Performance and Weight Trends for Vehicles ( 1970- 2003)...................................... 22
Figure 8 MSRP Trends in $ 2002 for a Selection of Compact Cars ...................................................................... 23
Figure 9 MSRP Trends in $ 2002 for a Selection of Midsize Cars ........................................................................ 23
Figure 10 MSRP Trends in 2002$ for a Selection of Large Cars.......................................................................... 24
Figure 11 MSRP Trends in 2002$ for a Selection of SUVs and Minivans......................................................... 24
Figure 12 Trends in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( 1968- 2002) .................................. 26
Figure 13 Average Changes in MSRP vs. Price Changes due to Quality Adjustments .................................... 29
Figure 14 Relationship of Domestic Motor Vehicle Sales( 1) to the Overall Economy GDP( 2) ..................... 33
Figure 15 Macro relationship between costs of regulation( 1), industry corporate profits( 2) and GDP ......... 34
Figure 16 Trends in Annual Income and New Car Prices ($ 2001)....................................................................... 34
Figure 17 Ratio of the Utilization Index to the Capacity Index for Auto Production in the US ...................... 35
Figure 18 Incentives as a Percentage of Sales Price ( 1996- 2002)......................................................................... 36
Figure 19 Average Amount Financed for a New Car and Average Maturity Rate of Auto Loans ................. 36
Figure 20 Trends in New Ca r Financing and Pricing; And in Disposable Income ($ 2001) ............................. 37
Tables
Table 1 Federal and California Emission Standards................................................................................................ 10
Table 2 Federal Fuel Economy Standards ( CAFE) .................................................................................................. 11
Table 3 Data Sources used in the report and the assembly of the UC Davis Vehicle Database...................... 13
Table 4 Description and source of Data in the UC Davis Vehicle Database....................................................... 14
Table 5 Historical Vehicle Sales - Total and by class............................................................................................. 19
Table 6 Retail Price Changes and Average Change in Transaction Price ( 1975- 2002).................................... 28
Table 7 Sales Breakdown by Engine & Cam Type for 2002 Model Year........................................................... 30
Table 8 Gasoline Prices during 1970- 2002 ............................................................................................................... 31
Table 9 Light- Duty Vehicle Market Shares by Size Class ( 1976 - 2001)............................................................ 32
Table 10 U. S. Market Lease Penetration Rates by Vehicle Segment................................................................... 38
5
The Response of the Auto Industry and Consumers to Changes
in the Exhaust Emission and Fuel Economy Standards ( 1975-
2003): Changes in Technology, Prices, and Sales of Various
Vehicle Classes
Andrew Burke
Ethan Abeles
Belinda Chen
1. ı Introduction
This report is concerned with assessing the response of the auto industry and
consumers to changes in exhaust emission and fue l economy standards since 1975. During
the period 1975- 2004, the emission standards, especially for passenger cars, have been
tightened markedly in both the United States and California and the fuel economy ( CAFE)
standard was increased from 18 to 27.5 mpg from 1977- 1985. These changes in the
regulations have resulted in large changes in the technology incorporated into vehicles
presently being marketed by the auto companies compared to vehicles marketed in 1975. The
technology changes were introduced ove r the years as needed to meet the changing
regulations. It is of interest to track historically the effect of these technology changes on the
characteristics ( size/ weight, acceleration, and fuel economy), price, and sales of various
classes of vehicles as a means of projecting how the auto industry and consumers would
likely respond to possible future changes in regulations that would require significant
reductions in CO2 emissions.
There are data available from many sources that are appropriate for this study and
a relatively large fraction of the data is available over the internet making it relatively easy to
transfer it into a single data base for analysis. Hence in the initial part of this study, a large
data base was assembled that included technology, performance, emissions, fuel economy,
price, and sales data for many of the vehicle models marketed by most of the auto companies
in the world during the period 1975- 2003. Much of the effort in the study was concerned
with the analysis of this data using SPSS, ACCESS, and EXCEL software to determine the
historical trends of the vehicle, price, and sales parameters in response to changes in the
regulations and technology. These trends are shown graphically and in tabular form in the
various sections of the report that follow.
1.1 Literature Review
A large body of literature is available that examines the many issues surrounding
government regulation of the automobile industry. Gerard and Lave ( May 2003), for
example, argue that regulations stemming from the 1970 Clean Air Act led to significant
technological changes and environmental improvements. There are many other studies that
focus on the technology forcing nature of automotive industry regulation, particularly with
respect to emissions control, and to a lesser extent, automobile safety ( e. g. airbags). The
CAFE standards are not, strictly speaking, a technology- forcing policy since automakers
could meet the requirement through changes in the mix of vehicles offered. Three essays in a
6
1999 collection of essays ( Gomez- Ibanez, 1999) on the topic of transportation economics and
policy investigate three important aspects of government regulation and the auto industry.
These include “ The Politics of Controlling Auto Air Pollution” by Howitt and Altshuler,
“ Fuel Economy and Auto Safety Regulation: Is the Cure Worse than the Disease?” by
Charles and Lester Lave, and “ Technology- Forcing Public Policies and the Automobile” by
Leone. Howitt and Altshuler discuss policy instruments intended to control auto emissions,
and in the ‘ future implications’ section of their paper, discuss the applicability of past
regulations to future greenhouse gas emission policies. The Laves conclude that Federal
legislation and regulation of automobiles focus almost exclusively on an immediate concern,
and in the process, ignore possible system effects and behavioral changes. Due to the
complex and interdependent nature of the transportation system, the authors believe that
‘ solution- caused problems’ should be better anticipated and handled. Leone offers another
perspective with special attention paid to technology- forcing regulations. Leone argues that
while technology- forcing mandates often achieve positive results, such policy measures
should be approached with skepticism to ensure that the use of society’s resources is
optimized.
A number of books and government reports have emerged over the last 25 years that
examine the complex nature of automobile regulation. Some of the more prominent examples
include Regulating the Automobile ( Crandall, 1986), Corporate Strategies of the Automotive
Manufacturers ( Schnapp, 1978), Use of Advertising and Marketing Incentives to Promote
Sales of Fuel Efficient Vehicles ( Donnelly, 1981), Motor vehicle regulations ( 1992):
Regulatory cost estimates could be improved , Assessing regulatory impacts ( 1981): The
Federal experience with the auto industry, Cleaner Cars: The History and Technology of
Emission Control Since the 1960s ( Mondt, 2000), and numerous other recordings of
Congressional proceedings, Ph. D. theses and books. These sources tend to be dated ( i. e. from
the late 1970s into the 1980s) because that is the era when these regulations were both
contentious and actively being enacted. A number of the more update analyses are identified
and discussed in the following sections.
Emissions Control Requirements
Many relevant papers concerning the economic impacts of automobile emissions
regulations can be found in the business and economics journal literature. Some notable
examples are Bresnahan and Yao ( 1985, Wang, Kling and Sperling ( 1993, and Anderson and
Sherwood ( 2002. For a fuller treatment of relevant emissions control literature, see Chen et
al.( 2003).
Safety and Occupant Protection Standards
Papers that deal with the economic impacts of occupant crash protection include
Graham ( 1984), Gomez- Ibanez ( 1997), Mannering and Winston ( 1995), Peltzman ( 1975),
Arnould and Grabowski ( 1981), Dunham ( 1997), and others. These papers examine costs and
benefits and compliance costs, as well as offsetting behavior and societal costs. For a
complete literature review of the relevant airbag and passive restraint literature, see Abeles et
al.( 2003).
7
CAFE Standards
CAFE standards have been the object of intense scrutiny by economists and other
policy analysts since they were first adopted. In 1981, Gsellman ( 1981) questioned whether
the 1981- 84 standards could be achieved ( Reference 20a). McNutt ( 1983) discusses the
consumption effects achieved through U. S. fuel economy policy prior to 1983. Many
economists have argued that CAFE only became a binding constraint on auto manufacturers
after gasoline prices fell in the 1980s from a peak of $ 2.81 ( 2001$) in 1982. They concluded
that CAFE standards increased when the market alone would have produced greater fuel
efficiency because of the high fuel prices. When the CAFE standards stopped increasing in
1985, the sales mix corresponding to what consumers wanted to purchase required
manufacturers to produce more fuel- efficient vehicles. ( Leone, 1990). Manufacturers were
thus forced to make larger price markups for their larger, less fuel efficient ( lower mpg)
vehicles, and smaller price markups for their smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles ( Porter,
1999). A study looking at CAFE standards and their impact on automobile prices for 1978- 80
concluded that U. S. automakers initially adopted a strategy of adjusting relative automobile
prices to meet the standards, but by the end of the period, automakers were meeting the
standards by improving the design of their automobiles to enhance fuel economy, and by a
fuel- price driven shift in consumer demand ( Falvey, 1986). A 1997 study concludes that
CAFE standards may have contributed to the decline in average fuel efficiency of the new
vehicle fleet by shifting sales toward vans, trucks, and SUVs that met lower CAFÉ standards
than passenger cars. ( Thorpe, 1997). The less stringent CAFE standards for the larger light-duty
vehicles facilitated the large increase in the sales of those vehicles ( particularly SUV)
from about 20% of total light- duty vehicle sales in 1981 to over 50% in 2001. In 1998,
Goldberg used a series of discrete choice models to compare CAFE standards with
alternative policies with respect to sales, prices, and fuel consumption ( Goldberg, 1998). The
results of this study call into question the true achievements of CAFE standards. In 1997,
Espey concluded that under current tailpipe emissions standards, increases in fuel economy
would increase emissions of the new vehicle fleet and that significantly higher fuel taxes
would be required to achieve the same level of pollution reduction ( Espey, 1997). A number
of other studies have investigated the offsetting costs and benefits of CAFE standards
( Crandall, 1989, Dowlatabadi, 1996, Ross, 1994. There is evidence from these studies that
supports the claim of offsetting effects that impact vehicle safety and emissions.
This literature review has indicated that past studies of the relationships between
industry and consumer responses have been more narrowly focused than the study
undertaken in the present project and for the most part were completed before the important
developments of the 1990s. The previous studies have focused on a single type of regulation
– fuel economy, emissions, or safety – and did not include consideration of the various classes
of vehicles, including light trucks and SUVs. In addition, they did not span the complete
period of 1975 to the present ( 2003). Also past studies did not have available for analysis an
extensive data base of vehicle attributes and price characteristics like that compiled at UC
Davis as part of the present study for the historical period of interest in which government
regulations become a dominant consideration for the auto industry.
8
2. Changes in Regulations
2.1 Vehicle Emissions
Vehicle emissions have been regulated since the early 1960s starting with the
control of crankcase emissions in 1961- 63 and fuel evaporative and tailpipe emissions in
1970- 71. The early emission standards were set primarily based on work done in
California to reduce smog in the South Coast Air Basin. National vehicle emission
standards resulted from the passage of the Clean Air Acts and amendments in 1963,
1965, 1967, and 1970. The emissions standards and how they have changed over the
years are shown in Figure 1 ( Reference 1). Up until 1975, it was possible to meet the
standards by controlling engine spark timing and air- fuel ratio and using exhaust gas
recirculation ( EGR) and secondary air addition in the exhaust manifold. Unfortunately
these changes in the engine operation resulted in a significant fuel economy penalty at a
time when the country was very concerned about the availability and price of oil.
Figure 1 U. S. Tailpipe Emission Regulations
Source: Mondt, Reference 1.
The more stringent emission standards mandated by the Clean Act of 1970 were
implemented in 1975. These new standards ( 1.5 gm/ mi HC, 15 gm/ mi CO, and 3.0
gm/ mi NOx) were met using an oxidation catalytic converter. This new technology was
the beginning of a long series of technology improvements that resulted in both large
decreases in emissions and significant increases in fuel economy. This is illustrated in
Figure 2 ( Reference 1) for the period 1975- 1982. During this period, vehicle exhaust
emissions were reduced to .4 gm/ mi HC, 3.4 gm/ mi CO, and 1.0 gm/ mi NOx and the
average fuel economy of the new car fleet doubled from 12 to 24 mpg. The large
reduction in NOx emissions was made possible through the introduction of three- way
oxidation/ reduction catalytic converters, electronic ignition, fuel injection, and engine
computer control. Improvements in these technologies in the period 1990- present have
9
resulted in further reductions in vehicle emissions to the current California ULEV and
SULEV standards. These California emission and the EPA Tier 2 standards are
summarized in Table 1. Several auto companies are marketing mid- size passenger cars in
2003 that meet the SULEV standards and have near – zero evaporative emissions. In
California, these vehicles are termed PZEVs ( partial zero- emission vehicles). Hence the
new technology introduced in automobiles in less than 30 years has resulted in the
reduction of HC and NOx emissions by more than 99%.
2.2 Fuel economy ( CAFE)
In 1975, the Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act which
established Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards ( CAFE) for passenger cars. The
standards ( Table 2) became effective in 1978 starting at 18 mpg increasing to 27.5 mpg in
1985. The rate of increase in mpg was highest in the period 1980- 1984. Light truck
CAFE standards were also established starting at 17.5 mpg in 1982 increasing to 20.7
mpg in 1996. These standards are currently applicable to light trucks, minivans, and
sport utility vehicles. The light truck standard will increase by 1.5 mpg to 22.2 mpg in
2007.
Figure 2 Sales- weighted fuel economy history for GM cars
Introduction of
Catalytic Converters
22
24.1
23.2
21.9
19.0 19.1
17.8
16.7
12.0
15.4
24
20
19
18
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982
Year
Regulated
Source: Mondt, Reference 1.
The auto industry was successful in increasing fuel economy in the early years
( 1978- 1985) when the standards were changing significantly from year to year. During
that period, many vehicles ( especially in the larger vehicle classes) were downsized with
significant weight reductions. This redesign of the vehicles and the incorporation of
engine improvements needed to meet the changes in the emission standards imposed in
the same period resulted in large increases in fleet fuel economy. Since 1985, the fleet
average fuel economy of passenge r cars has changed very little remaining at about 28
10
mpg. Engines with variable valve actuation/ timing and 4, 5, and 6 speed automatic
transmissions with lockup in several of the gears have been introduced in more recent
years. These technology improvements result in increased driveline efficiency and the
potential for increased fuel economy, but the auto industry has utilized them to increase
vehicle performance ( decrease 0- 60 mph acceleration times). Mid- size cars are now
marketed ( 2003) with 4 cylinder ( 160 HP) engines and 4- speed automatic transmissions
that have a composite fuel economy of 32 mpg ( uncorrected), which is well above the
CAFÉ standard of 27.5 mpg. These cars have a 0- 60 mph acceleration time of 8.5 sec and
meet the California SULEV emission standard ( designated PZEVs).
Table 1 Federal and California Emission Standards
Federal Standards ( g/ mi – fleet average)
ULEV Tier 2( 1)
Cars LDT2 LDV, MDV
HC 0.09 0.13 0.09
CO 4.2 5.5 4.2
NOx 0.3 0.5 0.07
California Standards ( g/ mi)
ULEV SULEV Tier 2 ( Bin 5)
HC 0.04 0.01 .09
CO 1.7 1.0 4.2
NOx 0.05 0.02 0.07
PM 0.01 0.01 0.01
1993 ? 2003 ( g/ mi – fleet average)
HC 0.4 ? 0.06
CO 1.7 ? 1.0
NOx 0.2 ? 0.05
Table Notes: ( 1) 120,000 mile durability, phased in by 2007 for all light- duty vehicles, phased in by 2009
for medium- duty vehicles ( 8,500 – 10,000 lbs.)
The improved engine and transmission technologies have also been utilized in the
light truck, minivan, SUV classes of vehicles. This has resulted in composite fuel
economies in 2003 of 22.2 mpg ( uncorrected) for several light trucks, 24.6 mpg for
several minivans, and 24.2 mpg for several mid- size SUVs. All these vehicles use 3 liter,
V6 engines ( 220 HP), 4- speed automatic transmissions, and have 0- 60mph acceleration
times of about 8.5 sec. The CAFE fuel economy standard for these vehicles 20.7 mpg.
Hence vehicles are presently being marketed that have fuel economies above the standard
for 2007.
11
Table 2 Federal Fuel Economy Standards ( CAFE)
Model
Year Cars
Light
Trucks Model Year Cars
Light
Trucks
1978 18.0 - 1990 27.5 20.0
1979 19.0 - 1991 27.5 20.2
1980 20.0 - 1992 27.5 20.2
1981 22.0 - 1993 27.5 20.4
1982 24.0 17.5 1994 27.5 20.5
1983 26.0 19.0 1995 27.5 20.6
1984 27.0 20.0 1996 27.5 20.7
1985 27.5 20.5 1997 27.5 20.7
1986 26.0 20.5 1998 27.5 20.7
1987 26.0 20.5 1999 27.5 20.7
1988 26.0 20.5 2000 27.5 20.7
1989 26.5 20.5 > 2000 27.5? 22.2 ( phase- in by
2007)
Source: Reference 8, Tables 7.18 and 7.19.
3. Industry/ consumer data base
In order to assess the response of the auto industry and consumers to the
changes in emissions and fuel economy regulations from 1975- 2003, it is necessary to
study closely the changes in the characteristics of the vehicles marketed during that
period and the prices and sales of those vehicles. Fortunately there are data available on
most aspects of the automobile industry and the products they market from many sources
including industry publications, consumer car magazines and buyers guides, and
government agencies. A summary of data sources used in this study is given in Table 3.
Data on the production and sales of vehicles and components for each year are
given in industry publications such as the Automotive News and Ward’s Automotive
Yearbooks. Data on vehicle and accessory prices are given in consumer magazines and
buyer’s guides as well as the industry publications. The data in these sources are given
for the various models for each of the auto manufacturers. Fuel economy data ( adjusted
for real world driving) for the various vehicle models are given in the Fuel Economy
Guide compiled annually by EPA and DOE. Dynamometer test data for emissions and
fuel economy for many vehicle models are given in an electronic data base prepared by
EPA ( Reference 2). Detailed characteristics of many popular vehicle models are
available in special issues of Consumers Report and car magazines such as Car and
Driver and Road and Track. These publications independently test the various vehicles
for acceleration, handling, and fuel economy and publish the results. Key sources of
macro- economic and vehicle related price data are the Bureau of Economic Analysis in
the United States Department of Commerce and the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS) in
the Department of Labor. The BLS prepares annual summaries of the average price of
automobiles with breakdowns of the contribution of various component groups to price
changes.
A computer data base has been prepared using data obtained from the various
sources given in Table 3. The vehicle data for each year ( 1975- 2003) are organized by
12
vehicle class and model using the model names given by the various manufacturers.
Sales data are given by vehicle class, manufacturer, and model group. Sales of different
models within a model group were difficult to find. Some such data are available in
Reference 3. Macro- economic data from the Commerce and Labor Departments are
included for each year of interest in the study. The types of data included in the UC
Davis Vehicle Data base are summarized in Table 4. The database includes information
on between 89 ( 1975) and 186 ( 2002) models for each year and in total contains about
9500 complete data entries. Experience with the database has shown it is easily and
quickly accessed and analyzed using SPSS, ACCESS, and EXCEL. Data from the UC
Davis Data base are given in Appendix II for selected vehicles and calculated average
values for vehicle characteristics in the various classes are given in Appendix III.
13
Table 3 Data Sources used in the report and the assembly of the UC Davis Vehicle Database
Source Data Description
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel
Economy Guide Database, 1978- 2002, See:
http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ fedata. htm.
See Table 2.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Test Car List
Database, 1984- 2002, See:
http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ tcldata. htm.
See Table 2.
Ward’s Communications ( Various Years) Ward’s
Automotive Yearbook. Annual. New York: Primedia,
Inc., 1970- 2002.
See Table 2.
Consumer Reports ( Various Years) Annual Auto
Issue. Mount Vernon, NY: Consumers Union. 1975-
2003.
See Table 2.
Database
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic
Analysis, Office of Automotive Affairs. See:
http:// www. ita. doc. gov/ td/ auto/ qfact. html.
Average transaction price, motor
vehicle output and sales, motor
vehicle industry corporate
profits, employment, and
personal income.
U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
( 2003) Consumer Price Index— All Urban
Consumers, http:// www. bls. gov/ cpihome. htm.
Consumer Price Indices
U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics
( 2003) Producer Price Index,
http:// www. bls. gov/ ppihome. htm.
Producer Price Indices
Automotive News ( Various Years) Market Data
Book. Detroit: Crain Communications, 1980- 2003.
Confirmation and addition to
Ward’s data
U. S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables -
Households, See:
http:// www. census. gov/ hhes/ income/ histinc/ h05. html
Household Income
Davis, Stacy G. ( 2002) Transportation Energy Data
Book: Edition 22. Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
U. S. Department of Energy. See: http:// www-cta.
ornl. gov/ cta/ data/ Index. html
Comprehensive collection of
relevant transportation data.
Hellman, Karl H. and Heavenrich, Robert M. ( 2003)
Light- Duty Automotive and Fuel Economy Trends:
1975 Through 2003. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Mobile Sources, April 2003.
( EPA420- R- 03- 006) See:
http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ cert/ mpg/ fetrends/ r03006. p
df
Latest annual report tracking fuel
economy and vehicle attribute
trends.
Tables & Figures
14
Table 4 Description and source of Data in the UC Davis Vehicle Database
Column Header Description EPA Wards CR
Year Model Year X
Class EPA Vehicle Class ( available only for 1978 - 2003) X
Manufacturer Manufacturer name ( note that some manufacturers have been omitted) X
carline name Model name ( note that vehicle series are not distinguished) X
wheelbase Length of wheelbase in inches X
curb weight Curb weight in pounds X
gross vehicle weight Gross vehicle weight ( curb weight + maximum rated load + passenger weight) in
pounds for light trucks only X
maximum rated load Maximum rated load in pounds X
horsepower Net horsepower X
traction Traction Control: Blank= none; 1= optional; 2= standard X
abs Anti- lock Brakes: Blank= none; 1= optional; 2= standard X
hp- ca Net horsepower for California vehicles ( only early imports) X
msrp Manufacturer suggested retail price in nominal dollars X
airbag Airbags: Blank= none; 1= driver; 2= dual; 3= side; 4= rear/ side; 5= ceiling X
Towing Capability ( lb.) Towing capability in pounds ( mostly light trucks) X
0- 30 Acceleration 0- 30mph in seconds X
0- 60 Acceleration 0- 60mph in seconds X
45- 65 Passing acceleration in seconds X
195- mile trip fuel economy Consumer Reports road trip test fuel economy in mpg X
Fuel Econ City Driving Consumer Reports city test fuel economy in mpg X
Fuel Econ Express- wayDriving Consumer Reports highway test fuel economy in mpg X
cyl Number of cylinders X
DISP CI Engine displacement in cubic inches X
fuel system
Number of carburetor barrels or type of fuel injection: MPFI= multiport fuel
injection; SFI= sequential fuel injection; IDI= indirect fuel injection; TBI= throttle-body
injection; EFI= electronic fuel injection; VV= variable venture
X
displ ( liters) Engine displacement in liters X
optional disp Optional displacement in liters X
trans Transmission type ( A= automatic; M= manual; L= lockup) X
overdrive OD= overdrive, EOD= electronic overdrive; AEOD= automatic overdrive X
catalyst Y= catalyst; N= no catalyst X
drv Drive axle type: FWD, RWD, 4WD X
cty Adjusted city fuel economy X
hwy Adjusted highway fuel economy X
cmb Adjusted combined fuel economy X
ucty Unadjusted city fuel economy X
uhwy Unadjusted highway fuel economy X
ucmb Unadjusted combined fuel economy X
fl Fuel type: L= leaded gasoline; U= unleaded gasoline; D= diesel X
G Gas guzzler vehicle X
eng dscr 1 Engine description 1 X
eng dscr 2 Engine description 2 X
eng dscr 3 Engine description 3 X
trans dscr Transmission description X
cls Valves per cylinder ( 2000 and later) X
15
4. Industry response
In this section of the report, the industry response is described and analyzed in
terms of historical trends in changes in technology, weight/ size and performance
characteristics, and prices for vehicles marketed in the various vehicle classes. These
changes can be overlayed with the emissions and fuel economy regulations and economic
activity in the years of interest ( 1975- 2003). When possible, special consideration will be
given to changes directly related to California emission standards that are in some years
significantly different than those of most other states.
4.1 Historical review of technology changes
This review of technology changes in autos and other light duty vehicles is
concerned with the period 1975 to the present. Development of emission control
technology started in the 1960s ( Reference 1) with the advent of the early emission
standards in California and the Clean Air Acts of 1963 and 1965, but the technology
developments of interest in this study are those that have been the major contributors to
the achievement of the present ultra- clean vehicles ( ULEV and SULEV) and the large
improvements in fuel economy that followed the imposition of the CAFE standards in
1978. It is those technology changes along with the battery and electric driveline
developments from the ZEV Mandate ( Reference 4), which will form the foundation for
future vehicle designs that can result in significant reductions in CO2 emissions from
those vehicles. It is of interest to note that many of the technologies developed to meet
the stringent emission standards have played a large role in improving fuel economy and
the performance of the vehicles presently being marketed.
In this section, technologies are identified and the time periods in which they
were introduced cited in relationship to the changing emissions and fuel economy
regulations. For each of the technology changes, their consequences relative to
improvements in vehicle emissions and fuel economy and the years of large scale
introduction are presented in Appendix I. Time- lines for the introduction of the
technologies are shown graphically in Figure 3 in a form that can be compared easily
with a similar presentation of the time- lines for the changes in regulations. The
technology time- lines will be used in later sections of the report to compare with time-based
changes in vehicle price and sales.
As shown in Figure 3, the periods of most rapid technology change were the
second half of the 1970s and the first half of the 1980s. The first changes in the 1970s
were a downsizing of the cars both in terms of size ( wheel base) and weight in order to
increase fuel economy. This downsizing involved primarily the larger cars ( mid- and
full- size). Weight reductions of 1000- 1200 lbs were achieved in the full- size cars. In
addition, many of the car designs were changed to front- wheel drive as part of the
downsizing. During this period, closer attention was given to aerodynamics with the
resultant decrease of 10- 20% in the drag coefficient of the vehicles. Further reductions in
road load were achieved by the use of improved radial tires with lower rolling resistance.
Accessory loads were reduced where possible. For example, electric radiator cooling
fans replaced the fans driven off the engine. In general, maximum engine power was
reduced with the utilization of 4 – cylinder engines and V- 6s in place of V- 8s. Vehicle
acceleration times remained relatively unchanged during this period. Most of the larger
16
Figure 3 Timeline of Technology Change with Fuel Economy & Emissions Requirements Overlay
Year Emissions Fuel
Economy
Technology
1975
1976
——————?
Oxidation Catalyst
Radial Tires, Reduced CD
? ——————
1977
1978
? ——
1.5g/ mi HC
15g/ mi CO
3.1g/ miNOx
18?
Front- wheel Drive
——————?
Electronic Engine Control
? ——————
1979 ? 19 ? — Weight Reduction
1980 20?
1981 ? 22
1982 24?
Three- Way Catalysts
——————?
4- Speed Automatic Trans-mission
with Lockup
1983 ? 26
1984
——?
.41g/ mi HC
3.4g/ mi CO
1.0g/ miNOx
27?
? ——————
Electronic ignition and
SP fuel injection
V- 6 Engines
1985 ? 27.5
1986
1987
——————?
Computer control of
engines; MP fuel injection
1988
1989
1990
? ——————
4- Valve per cylinder
engines
1991 27.5?
1992
Batteries and electric
drives
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
? ——————
Variable Valve Timing
1998
1999
2000
5 & 6- speed Auto Trans-mission
with Lockup
——————?
2001
NLEV
.09g/ mi HC
4.2g/ mi CO
0.3g/ miNOx
——?
2002
Hybrid- electric
powertrains
? ——————
Ultra Clean Emissions
2003
2004
2005
Tier 2 ( 2007)
.07g/ mi HC
4.2g/ mi CO
.09g/ miNOx
? ——
cars used 3- speed automatic transmissions, but close attention was given to matching the
gearing and shift strategy to the engine to improve fuel economy. As shown in Figure 4
( Reference 5), these technology changes resulted in marked improvements in the CAFE
fuel economy ( composite of FUDS and Highway) of all classes of passenger cars. The
increase was 40- 50% in each of the classes by 1980. In addition to the technology
changes to improve fuel economy, there were changes to reduce emissions. The most
significant of these changes was the use of a two- way oxidation catalytic converter in the
exhaust system of the engine which permitted the optimization of the spark timing and
EGR near that for the best engine efficiency at each torque and speed. As result of the
use of the oxidation catalyst, the vehicle emissions were reduced from 3 to 1.5 gm/ mi
17
HC, 28 to 15 gm/ mi CO, and 3 to 2 gm/ mi NOx and at the same time the fuel economy
was improved as previously cited.
A second period of rapid technology change was initiated in early 1980s with the
change in the emission standard to .4 gm/ mi HC, 3.4 gm/ mi CO, and 1 gm/ mi NOx.
These reductions in the emission standards lead to the use of a three- way,
oxidation/ reduction catalytic converter in place of the two- way, oxidation catalytic
converter. For the three- way catalyst to function at high conversion efficiency for all
three pollutants, the engine air- fuel ratio must be maintained very near ( within about 1%)
to stoichiometric. To operate the engine in this manner required several new engine
technologies- namely, fuel injection, electronic ignition, an O2 sensor, and computer
control of engine operation. By 1985, nearly all new passenger cars were equipped with
these new technologies, which in addition to greatly reducing emissions, also resulted in
continued improvements in fuel economy. Note from Figure 4 that the average CAFE
fuel economy of small cars increased to 30 mpg, that of mid- size cars to 25 mpg, and that
of large cars to 22 mpg. During this period, the 0- 60 mph acceleration times decreased by
about 1.5 seconds. This was the beginning of a trend in decreasing acceleration times
that would continue up to the present time.
Figure 4 History of Passenger Car Fuel Economy ( CAFE)
10
15
20
25
30
35
1976 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2001
mpg
Subcompact
Compact
Midsize
Large
Source: Reference 8, Table 7.7.
In the period 1985- 1995, the emissions and fuel economy standards remained
essentially unchanged except for the beginning of the tightening of emission standards in
California as part of the LEVI program. During this period, the auto industry refined the
advanced engine control technologies introduced in the first part of the 1980s. In
addition, there was considerable engine development resulting in the introduction of 4-
valve per cylinder engines and increases in the compression ratio from 8.5 to 9.5 or
higher. This resulted in higher engine efficiency and large improvements in engine
specific power ( HP/ liter displacement). In addition, 4- speed automatic transmissions
with lockup in 4th gear were developed and utilized in the larger cars. The average CAFÉ
fuel economy for small and mid- size cars remained essentially unchanged during this
period, but the average fuel economy of the large cars increased to 25 mpg. The
acceleration times decreased continuously reaching 10- 11 seconds from 13 seconds ten
years earlier. Hence the improvements in engine and transmission technologies
developed from 1985- 1995 were utilized primarily to improve vehicle performance rather
than fuel economy. Nevertheless, these technology improvements were significant and
18
set the stage for even more impressive developments in the future. Note from Figure 5
that even for new technologies that have clear advantages, it takes 10- 15 years before the
old technology is almost completely replaced by the new technology.
Figure 5 Car Technology Penetration Years after Significant Use
Source: Reference 29, p. 27, Figures 26 & 27.
Consider next the period from 1995 to the present ( 2003). During this period, the
refinement of the engine and transmission technologies continued. In the case of engines,
the multi- point fuel injection systems were developed, compression ratio was further
increased with some engines having a ratio of 10 or greater, and variable valve
actuation/ timing was introduced by several auto companies. These new technologies
resulted in further improvements in engine efficiency and exhaust emissions. By 2003,
Honda, Toyota, Ford, Volvo, and several other manufacturers were marketing cars that
meet the California SULEV standard ( see Table 1). Most of the auto companies are
marketing some cars that meet the California ULEV standard. Transmission
development continued with the introductio n of 5 – speed automatic transmissions with
lockup in several gears. The combination of engine and transmission improvements has
lead to significant improvements in fuel economy. For example, the 2003 Honda Accord
has a composite CAFÉ fuel economy of 32.3 mpg along with its SULEV emissions. This
fuel economy is 17% greater than the 27.5 mpg CAFÉ standard. The Accord has a 4
cylinder, 160 HP engine and a 5- speed automatic transmission resulting in a 0- 60 mph
acceleration time of 9 seconds. Many mid- and full- size cars have V- 6 engines. These
cars have lower fuel economy and better acceleration times than the 4- cylinder versions
and presently meet only the ULEV emission standard. It can be expected that the
advanced engine technologies cited above will be further improved and be used in most
of the cars of all classes in the near future ( within five years).
19
4.2 Historical review of changes in vehicle characteristics
There have been major changes in the characteristics of the vehicles marketed by
the auto industry worldwide since 1975. These changes have accelerated in the last 10
years. Table 5 shows the changes in the sales fractions of light- duty vehicles in the
Table 5 Historical Vehicle Sales - Total and by class
Car Sales ( millions) Car Sales (%)
Year
Domestic Import Total small midsize large
Vans,
SUVs,
Light
Trucks
Total
Sales
( millions)
1975 7,053 1,571 8,624 55.4% 23.3% 21.3% 20.9% 10,905
1976 8,611 1,499 10,110 55.4% 25.2% 19.4% 22.6% 13,066
1977 9,109 2,074 11,183 51.9% 24.5% 23.5% 23.5% 14,613
1978 9,312 2,002 11,314 44.7% 34.4% 21.0% 25.2% 15,122
1979 8,341 2,332 10,673 43.7% 34.2% 22.1% 23.7% 13,984
1980 6,581 2,398 8,979 54.4% 34.4% 11.3% 21.4% 11,419
1981 6,209 2,327 8,536 51.5% 36.4% 12.2% 20.4% 10,725
1982 5,759 2,223 7,982 56.5% 31.0% 12.5% 23.6% 10,452
1983 6,795 2,387 9,182 53.1% 31.8% 15.1% 24.5% 12,166
1984 7,952 2,439 10,391 57.4% 29.4% 13.2% 27.1% 14,254
1985 8,205 2,838 11,043 55.7% 28.9% 15.4% 28.8% 15,501
1986 8,215 3,238 11,453 59.5% 27.9% 12.6% 28.6% 16,047
1987 7,081 3,197 10,278 63.5% 24.3% 12.2% 31.0% 14,888
1988 7,526 3,099 10,626 64.8% 22.3% 12.8% 31.1% 15,426
1989 7,073 2,825 9,898 58.3% 28.2% 13.5% 31.8% 14,508
1990 6,897 2,404 9,301 58.6% 28.7% 12.8% 32.8% 13,849
1991 6,137 2,038 8,175 61.5% 26.2% 12.3% 33.5% 12,298
1992 6,277 1,937 8,213 56.5% 27.8% 15.6% 36.0% 12,842
1993 6,742 1,776 8,518 57.2% 29.5% 13.3% 38.6% 13,869
1994 7,255 1,735 8,990 58.5% 26.1% 15.4% 40.2% 15,023
1995 7,129 1,506 8,635 57.3% 28.6% 14.0% 41.2% 14,688
1996 7,255 1,271 8,526 54.3% 32.0% 13.6% 43.3% 15,045
1997 6,917 1,355 8,272 55.1% 30.6% 14.3% 46.6% 15,069
1998 6,762 1,380 8,142 49.4% 39.1% 11.4% 47.3% 15,441
1999 6,979 1,719 8,698 47.4% 40.0% 12.5% 48.1% 16,771
2000 6,831 2,016 8,847 47.5% 34.3% 18.2% 48.7% 17,234
2001 6,325 2,098 8,423 50.9% 32.3% 16.8% 50.5% 17,021
Source: Reference 8, Table 7.6; Reference 5, Table 2.
20
various classes. In 1976, over 80% of vehicles sold were passenger cars with 56% of
those cars being small cars ( subcompact and compact). In 2000, less than 52% of the
vehicles sold were passenger cars and only 47% were small cars. In recent years, the
vehicle class with the most rapid sales increase has been sport utility vehicles ( SUVs).
In 2000, SUVs accounted for 20% of sales with mid- size SUVs being the largest fraction
at 12.5%. Sales of vans and pickup trucks have increased from 1975 to 2000, but not as
much as SUVs. The sales of pickup trucks increased from13% to nearly 17% in that
period while sales of vans increased from 4.5% to 9.5%. In total, sales of trucks, vans,
and SUVs accounted for 48% of sales in 2000. In 2002, the sales fraction was 50.6% and
it is projected to increase to 52.8% by 2005 ( Reference 6). Note in Table 5 that the total
sales of light duty vehicles ( cars, minivans, SUVs, and light trucks) have increased from
about 14 million in 1976- 8, to 15 million in the mid- 1980s, and to 17 million in 2000.
The changes in the characteristics of passenger cars since 1975 are shown in
detail in Figure 6. The new technologies were introduced first in these vehicles to meet
the emissions and fuel economy standards. To some extent the new technologies have
also been used in the larger light duty vehicles, but not completely as the emissions and
fuel economy requirements for the vans, SUVs, and light trucks were not as demanding
as for passenger cars. The changes of vehicle characteristics for the larger light- duty
classes are given in Figures 7 ( Reference 5). The data shown in Figure 6 and 7 are for the
mid- size models of each of the vehicle classes. As in the case of passenger cars, there
has been a significant improvements in both the acceleration performance and fuel
economy of vans, SUVs, and light- duty trucks since 1975. The 0- 60 mph acceleration
times have decreased from 15 to 10sec. This resulted from a small weight reduction and
an increase in engine HP to 200- 240 from 120- 150 HP. As indicated in Figures 7, the
fuel economy increased by 50- 75% with most of the increase occurring before 1990.
After 1990, except for the vans, the fuel economy of the larger light duty vehicles either
was flat or showed a slight decrease. As in the case of passenger cars, the emission
standards for the vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks were greatly reduced for all three
pollutants – HC, CO, and NOx.. The small and mid- size models fall into the LDT2
category with GVWR between 3751 and 5750 lbs. The emission standards for these
vehicles are .13 gm/ mi HC, 5.5 gm/ mi CO, and .3 gm/ mi NOx ( 100,000 miles durability).
The emission standards in 1975 were 2, 20, and 3.1 gm/ mi for HC, CO, and NOx,
respectively. Hence even though, the large light- duty vehicles have significantly higher
emissions than passenger cars their emissions have been greatly reduced since 1975 and
their fuel economy has been significantly increased. Further improvements in both
emissions and fuel economy will result when all the new technologies presently
incorporated into the most advanced passenger cars are applied to the larger vehicles.
4.3 Historical Review of vehicle price changes
The price history and characteristics of a number of light- duty vehicles are given
in Appendix II for 1975- 2003. The price history for a selected number of those vehicles
is shown in Figures 8- 11. The prices shown are the MSRP for the baseline models for
each year. The car models selected for plotting were ones that have been offered for sale
for the complete period of interest or for a substantial fraction of it. Most of models
selected remained in the same class for the entire period. The four figures include models
21
from the compact, midsize and large car segments, as well as one for SUVs and
minivans. Prices are given in 2002$ using the general consumer price index ( Figure 12).
Figure 6 Fuel Economy, Performance, Weight & Sales Fraction Trends for Cars ( 1975- 2003)
Source: Reference 29, Figures constructed from datasets.
22
Figure 7 Fuel Economy, Performance and Weight Trends for Vehicles ( 1970- 2003)
Source: Reference 29, p. 36, Figures 33 – 36.
Note that there is a steady increase in the price of the cars even in the adjusted real
dollars. This is not surprising as the value of the vehicles to the car owner and society
has continuously increased with greatly reduced emissions and improved fuel economy
and the addition of many amenities, such as enhanced interiors, climate control, CD
players, and cruise control, etc. In addition, over this period numerous safety regulations
have been instituted, including driver side
23
Figure 8 MSRP Trends in $ 2002 for a Selection of Compact Cars
5000
10000
15000
20000
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
$
Ford Escort
Honda
Civic
Toyota
Corolla
Chevrolet
Cavalier
VW Jetta
Nissan
Sentra
Figure 9 MSRP Trends in $ 2002 for a Selection of Midsize Cars
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
$
Buick Century
Honda Accord
Toyota Camry
Nissan Maxima
Ford Taurus
Chevrolet
Monte
Carlo/ Lumina
24
Figure 10 MSRP Trends in 2002$ for a Selection of Large Cars
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
1975
1978
1981
1984
1987
1990
1993
1996
1999
2002
$
Buick LeSabre
Ford Crown
Victoria
Pontiac
Bonneville
Cadillac Seville
Lincoln Town
Car
BMW 7 Series
Figure 11 MSRP Trends in 2002$ for a Selection of SUVs and Minivans
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
$
Nissan
Pathfinder
Isuzu Trooper
Ford Explorer
Mazda MPV
Oldsmobile
Silhouette
airbags. The cost of the air bags alone is likely to be at least several hundred dollars
( Reference 7).
The shape of the price curves vs. time ( years) varies between the various vehicles
with the periods of maximum rate of price increase occurring at different times. One
would expect that the maximum price increases would occur for years in which new
technology is added to the vehicles in response to changes in regulations whether the
changes are in emission, fuel economy, or safety. A close look at the price data in
Appendix 2 shows that in general this is the case if one considers two relatively short
25
periods of time in which the technology changes were concentrated. These periods are
1977- 1982 and 1990- 94. Price increases occur nearly every year, but for the periods
cited the price increases for many of the models are significant greater than the average
for at least one year in the period. The new technology is integrated into the various
models in different years as the models change. Also in some cases it appears that for
marketing reasons the total cost of the new technology is included in price increases over
several years rather than all in one year. In current dollars, the price increase from year
to year can be as much as $ 1000-$ 2000 for the smaller cars and up to $ 3000-$ 4000 for
the larger more expensive cars. Note that after 1995 the price increases are smaller than
in the earlier years when regulations were changing significantly. Note also in Figure 12
that the consumer price index for new vehicles leveled off after 1995. The average list
price increases in 2001$ for passenger cars are shown in Table 6 and Figure 13. The
price increases are the largest in 1977- 1982 and 1990- 92 when there were large changes
in the emissions and fuel economy standards.
Part of the vehicle price increase each year is due to improvements ( higher quality
and value of the vehicle to the buyer) in the vehicle and some is due to higher general
costs to the manufacturer. These two costs on an average basis for all vehicles sold in a
given year have been tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics ( BLS). The data are
included in Table 6 for the period 1970- 2001. Note in Table 6 that the value/ quality price
increases are higher than average in the two periods cited previously both in terms of
current dollars and 2000$. Most of the quality/ value price increase is likely due to the
introduction of new technology in the vehicles- both in the powertrain and for safety. The
average quality price increases during the peak change years are in excess of $ 1000 in
2000$.
The question is often asked as to how the value of a new car increased over the
years relative to the value of other products. One way of answering this question is to
compare the general consumer price index ( cpi) and the new vehicle consumer price
index ( vpi). It is seen in Figure 12 and in the table below that the cpi increases more
rapidly than the vpi especially in the years after 1990. For the period 1975- 2001, the ratio
of the change in the two indices is 1.46 with the cpi showing the larger increase. This
indicates that although the price of cars has inc reased significantly in real dollars over the
period of interest, car buyers have gotten a better value for their money than purchasers
of most other products.
Year cpi vpi cpi/ cpi1975 vpi/ vpi1975 cp ratio
1975 53.8 62.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
1980 82.4 88.4 1.53 1.41 1.085
1985 107.6 106.1 2.0 1.69 1.183
1990 130.7 121.4 2.43 1.91 1.272
1995 152.4 139.0 2.83 2.21 1.28
1998 163.0 143.4 3.03 2.28 1.33
2000 172.2 142.8 3.2 2.27 1.41
2001 177.1 142.1 3.29 2.26 1.46
Source: World Almanac 2003, base year 1983= 100
26
Figure 12 Trends in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers ( 1968- 2002)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
Price Index
General CPI
New Vehicle
Motor Vehicle Maintenance/ Repair
Motor Vehicle Insurance
Medical Care
Housing
Source: U. S. Department of Labor, Reference 27.
The question is also often raised as to how much of the average price increase in
constant dollars of vehicles over the period 1975- 2001 has been due to government
regulations and how much to improvements in the quality of the vehicles. This has been
estimated in the following manner. In current dollars, the sales- weighted average price of
vehicles sold in 1975 was $ 4345 and in 2001 it was $ 20896. Applying the vpi index to
the 1975 price, the price of the car of the same quality as 1975 would be $ 9820 in 2001$.
Hence the price difference between the 1975 and 2001 quality cars would be $ 11076. It
has been estimated in Ward’s Automotive Yearbook ( 2002) that the price of regulations
in 1975 was $ 586 resulting in a cost of $ 1324 in 2001$. Hence without government
regulations the cost of the 1975 vehicle in 2001 would have been $ 8496 and the price
difference with the 2001 models would have been $ 12400. The estimated total price of
regulations in 2001 has been estimated by Ward’s to be $ 4018. Hence the price of the
1975 vehicle with 2001 regulations would have been $ 12514 resulting in a price
difference of $ 8382 due to quality improvements between 1975 and 2001. Hence the
fraction of the price increase in 2001 due to quality improvements is 67.6% and due to
government regulation is 32.4%.
Next consider what the price of the average vehicle sold would have been if the
prices of vehicles had increased between 1975- 2001 as fast as the general commodity
index cpi. Without government regulations, the price of the 1975 vehicle in 2001 would
have been $ 12368 ( 3.29 x $ 3759). Adding the same $ 12400 price differential determined
previously, the price of a 2001 vehicle would be $ 24748. Hence the actual price in 2001
was 18.5% or $ 3872 less than it would have been had the auto industry price increases
followed the general consumer price index. The average price of vehicles sold in
constant dollars have increased by 46% between 1975- 2001 rather than by 73% that
would have been the case if the prices of the cars had increased the same as general sales
items.
27
4.4 Vehicle prices in California
Questions have been asked as to how the prices of vehicles in California might
differ from those in most other states because of the more stringent emission standards in
California. The Federal and California standards began to be significantly different in
1993 with the implementation of the LEVI standards in California, which reduce the fleet
average HC standard from .4 to .04 gm/ mi and the NOx standard from .4 to .05 gm/ mi by
2004. The lower limits of the California standards are ULEV and SULEV ( see Table 1).
The Federal emission standards, termed NLEV ( National Low Emission Vehicle) or
sometimes referred to as the 50- state standard, are .09 gm/ mi HC, 4.2 gm/ mi CO, and .3
gm/ mi NOx. It is not surprising that the auto companies are certifying various models of
their passenger cars to different standards ranging from NLEV to SULEV. The
certification data given in the EPA emissions data base ( Reference 2) indicates that for
2002 ( the most recent data available) nearly all the cars are certified to HC less than .09
gm/ mi and in some cases less than .05 gm/ mi; the NOx certification values are in most
cases less than .1 gm/ mi and often less than .05 gm/ mi; the CO certification values are
nearly always less than 1 gm/ mi. Even some minivans are being certified at very low
values. For example, the Honda Odyssey with the 240HP V6 engine was certified at .057
gm/ mi HC, .56 gm/ mi CO, and .03 gm/ mi NOx.
Discussions with technical contacts at Honda and Toyota indicated that those
companies do not certify different models for California and the states with less stringent
emission standards. In addition, when ULEV and SULEV models are available, they are
sold in all states and there is not a price premium charged anywhere. For example, the
prices charged for the complete Honda line ( Civic to Odyssey) is the same for all models
regardless of where they are sold in the United States. This is likely the result of the
Federal and California emission standards being set based on a fleet average. The fleet
average standards for both HC and NOx are becoming more stringent, but there is
allowance for the inclusion of vehicles with different levels of emissions. Even when the
Tier 2 Federal standards are completely phased in by 2007 for light- duty vehicles,
including most minivans and SUVs, and by 2009 for medium- duty vehicles ( 8500- 10000
lbs GVWR), the California standards will be more stringent for all these vehicles.
However, based on present emission certification and pricing practices of the auto
industry, it can be expected that the prices of the vehicles will be the same in California
and the other states.
28
Table 6 Retail Price Changes and Average Change in Transaction Price ( 1975- 2002)
Average Retail Equivalent
Price of All Motor Vehicle
Quality Changes for New
Cars( 1)
Average Change in MSRP for
New Cars from Previous
Year( 1)
Average
Change in
Transaction
Price for
New Cars( 2)
Year
( Current $) ( 2000 $) ( Current $) ( 2000 $) ( 2000$)
1975 $ 129.90 $ 415.78 $ 386.00 $ 1,235.49 $ 336
1976 $ 15.60 $ 47.21 $ 198.00 $ 599.22 $ 553
1977 $ 59.15 $ 168.08 $ 382.30 $ 1,086.34 $ 124
1978 $ 50.12 $ 132.37 $ 424.49 $ 1,121.12 $ 327
1979 $ 46.35 $ 109.94 $ 300.30 $ 712.28 -$ 607
1980 $ 241.51 $ 504.71 $ 365.85 $ 764.56 -$ 412
1981 $ 530.85 $ 1,005.64 $ 536.14 $ 1,015.66 $ 1,051
1982 $ 126.32 $ 225.41 $ 562.64 $ 1,004.01 $ 769
1983 $ 128.04 $ 221.37 $ 263.92 $ 456.30 $ 689
1984 $ 110.08 $ 182.44 $ 221.70 $ 367.44 $ 516
1985 $ 151.45 $ 242.38 $ 268.20 $ 429.22 $ 92
1986 $ 186.50 $ 293.02 $ 745.52 $ 1,171.34 $ 933
1987 $ 47.13 $ 71.44 $ 776.38 $ 1,176.87 $ 413
1988 $ 245.56 $ 357.44 $ 458.66 $ 667.64 -$ 11
1989 $ 182.89 $ 253.98 $ 559.35 $ 776.77 -$ 323
1990 $ 216.40 $ 285.11 $ 804.91 $ 1,060.49 -$ 139
1991 $ 215.06 $ 271.90 $ 672.77 $ 850.59 -$ 253
1992 $ 259.79 $ 318.86 $ 917.30 $ 1,125.87 $ 485
1993 $ 89.10 $ 106.18 $ 616.54 $ 734.73 $ 55
1994 $ 363.63 $ 422.52 $ 612.74 $ 711.97 $ 697
1995 $ 173.35 $ 195.87 $ 543.21 $ 613.78 -$ 510
1996 $ 193.03 $ 211.85 $ 494.98 $ 543.25 $ 316
1997 $ 185.53 $ 199.05 $ 333.34 $ 357.64 $ 347
1998 $ 230.81 $ 243.84 $ 363.27 $ 383.77 $ 558
1999 $ 15.50 $ 16.02 $ 125.27 $ 129.48 -$ 161
2000 $ 169.05 $ 169.05 $ 408.42 $ 408.42 -$ 997
2001 $ 212.67 $ 206 .79 $ 422.51 $ 410.82 $ 652
2002 $ 63.80 $ 65 .38 $ 377.94 $ 361 .76 NA
Sources: ( 1) U. S. Department of Labor, Reference 32 ( 2) U. S. Department of Commerce, Reference 26.
29
Figure 13 Average Changes in MSRP vs. Price Changes due to Quality Adjustments
$ 0
$ 200
$ 400
$ 600
$ 800
$ 1,000
$ 1,200
$ 1,400
1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002
Total Quality Adjustment Price Change MSRP Change
Sources: U. S. Department of Labor, Reference 32 & U. S. Department of Commerce, Reference 26.
5. Consumer response
In this section of the report, the responses of consumers to changes in the
characteristics and prices of the vehicles offered for sale by the auto industry are
presented and analyzed based on historical trends in vehicle sales of various vehicle
classes and macro- economic factors.
5.1 Historical review of vehicle sales
There are a number of sources ( References 5,6, and 8) of vehicle sales
information, including sales by class and vehicle characteristics, for the period 1970 to
the present ( 2003). Such information is also available in the UC Davis Vehic le Data Base
discussed in Section 3. Total sales of all light- duty vehicles and percent of sales by class
are given in Table 5. As noted previously, the sales fractions of the larger light duty
vehicles ( vans, SUVs, and light trucks) have increased rapidly over the last ten years and
are expected to increase further in the years ahead. At the present time ( 2003), the sales
fraction of all cars has decreased to about 50% of the total vehicle sales. The sales
fraction of mid- size cars has increased and tha t of small ( subcompact and compact) cars
has decreased over the years such that in 2000 the sales fraction for mid- size cars was
37% and that of small cars was 47% of the total automobiles sold. The sales fraction of
small cars ( subcompact and compact) peaked at 64.8% in 1988. Large cars are a
relatively small percentage ( 15%) of the car market. About 23% of the cars sold in the
United States in 2000 were imported. Import sales are largest in California and the
Northeast. Total vehicle sales have fluctuated over the years, but with a general increase
from about 14 million in the late 1970s to slightly over 17 million by 2000- 2001.
All of the auto manufacturers offer multiple ( two or three) versions of vehicles in
each model group. The different vehicles in a model group can have different engines,
transmissions, accessories, and/ or interior/ exterior trim. The key differences of interest in
this study are those related to the powertrain – primarily the engine, which can
significantly effect the emissions and fuel economy. In many instances, the model
options are differentiated by the power rating of the engine and whether it is a 4- cylinder
or V6 configuration. Information on sales of various models with different engines is
given in Reference 3. Selected data from that database showing the sales breakdown for
30
a number of car, van, and SUV models using different size engines are given in Table 7.
Note that unless performance is clearly the prime consideration to the buyer, the majority
of the car buyers opt to purchase models with the lower power 4 cylinder engines when
they have a choice. Buyers of vans and SUVs tend to purchase higher power V6 engines
even when 4 cylinder engines are available. Within each model group, there is a
significant price difference of at least $ 2000-$ 3000. Sales data seem to indicate that
buyers tend to prefer the lower price options in the model group, but as indicated in Table
7, there are still significant sales of the higher priced vehicles in the group. Hence buyers
are willing to pay several thousand dollars more if they feel they are receiving higher
value in the vehicle, especially when they feel that high power is necessary.
Table 7 Sales Breakdown by Engine & Cam Type for 2002 Model Year
Type Small Car Large
Car Minivan Small
Truck
Large
Truck
L4 Gasoline 73.04% 25.33% 2.90% 20.48%
L4 Diesel 0.97%
L6 Gasoline 4.92% 0.48% 15.41% 0.82%
V6 Gasoline 16.43% 60.51% 97.10% 57.22% 16.02%
V8 Gasoline 2.87% 13.59% 5.42% 83.16%
Engine
V12 Gasoline 0.01% 0.08%
OHV 13.30% 31.30% 68.00% 20.70% 59.20%
SOHC 32.30% 23.60% 3.20% 27.10% 32.80%
Cam
DOHC 54.40% 45.00% 28.80% 52.20% 8.00%
Source: Reference 3, Martech Database.
5.2 Historical review of the effect of fuel prices and macro- economic
factors on vehicle sales
In the previous section, total vehicle sales and sales by vehicle class were
reviewed for the period 1970- 2002, but there was no consideration of why the sales
varied as they did or how changes in model prices affected their sales. In this section, the
influence of the various factors affecting sales are assessed qualitatively to evaluate
consumer responses to them.
First consider the effect of fuel prices on vehicle sales and fraction of sales in the
various vehicle classes. The variation in the price of gasoline from 1970- 2001 is shown
in Table 8 in terms of current and chained 1996. The table indicates that in real dollars
the price of gasoline has varied significantly and was a maximum during the period 1979-
1983 and was relatively flat and low during 1990- 1994. Hence the level and large
increase in gasoline prices would be expected to be market drivers in 1979- 83 and
changes in gasoline prices less of a factor in 1990- 1994. Table 9 indicates that in 1979-
1983 the high gasoline prices resulted in a large shift in the sales of passenger cars to
smaller cars with higher fuel economy- compact to subcompact and large to mid- size
cars. In addition, as shown in Table 6, the sales of US manufactured cars decreased and
31
the sales of imported cars increased from 1979- 1983 as the market demanded smaller,
high fuel economy cars. Total car sales decreased by about 30% during that period.
Table 8 Gasoline Prices during 1970- 2002
Year current $/ gal 1996$/ gal
1970* $ 0.36 $ 1.23
1971* $ 0.36 $ 1.19
1972* $ 0.36 $ 1.14
1973* $ 0.39 $ 1.16
1974* $ 0.53 $ 1.45
1975* $ 0.57 $ 1.42
1976 $ 0.61 $ 1.45
1977 $ 0.66 $ 1.46
1978 $ 0.67 $ 1.39
1979 $ 0.90 $ 1.73
1980 $ 1.25 $ 2.18
1981 $ 1.38 $ 2.21
1982 $ 1.30 $ 1.96
1983 $ 1.24 $ 1.80
1984 $ 1.21 $ 1.70
1985 $ 1.20 $ 1.63
1986 $ 0.93 $ 1.23
1987 $ 0.95 $ 1.22
1988 $ 0.95 $ 1.18
1989 $ 1.02 $ 1.23
1990 $ 1.16 $ 1.35
1991 $ 1.14 $ 1.27
1992 $ 1.13 $ 1.23
1993 $ 1.11 $ 1.18
1994 $ 1.11 $ 1.16
1995 $ 1.15 $ 1.17
1996 $ 1.23 $ 1.23
1997 $ 1.23 $ 1.21
1998 $ 1.06 $ 1.03
1999 $ 1.17 $ 1.11
2000 $ 1.51 $ 1.41
2001 $ 1.46 $ 1.34
2002 $ 1.36 $ 1.23
Table Notes: Corrected to chained 1996 dollars using gross domestic product implicit price deflators. * -
1970- 75 is for leaded regular gasoline; 1976- 2002 is for unleaded regular gasoline. Source: U. S.
Department of Energy, Reference 34.
Next consider the effect of the growth rate ( percent change in GDP) of the
economy on vehicle production and sales. This effect is shown in Figure 14. Also
indicated in the figure are the time periods 1977- 1982 and 1990- 1994 in which previous
analysis in Section 4.3 indicated the vehicle price changes were the largest in response to
changes in emissions, fuel economy, and/ or safety regulations. Figure 14 indicates that
increases in sales are strongly correlated with periods of economic expansion more or
32
less independent of other factors. This correlation seems to hold even during periods in
which vehicle prices had large increases. In the period 1977- 1982, the economic growth
rate was falling ( a recession) and vehicle sales also decreased. However, for most of the
period 1990- 1994, the economy was expanding and vehicle production and sales
increased even though the price of vehicles showed a significant increase. The effects of
economic growth and the cost of auto regulations on auto industry profits are shown in
Figure 15. Industry profits decreased during the 1977- 82 period and showed an increase
during the later part of the 1990- 94 period. This would be expected as during the first
period sales decreased ( especially those of US auto companies) and in the second period,
sales increased. Hence Figures 14 and 15 indicate that the key factor in assessing the
effect of changing regulations on vehicle sales and industry profitability is the status of
the general economy when the changes are made. The changes should be made in a way
that does not adversely affect economic growth.
Table 9 Light- Duty Vehicle Market Shares by Size Class ( 1976 - 2001)
Year Minicompact Subcompact Compact Midsize Large
Two
Seater
Percent
of Light
Vehicles
Total
1976 0.0% 21.7% 23.5% 15.0% 18.3% 1.7% 80.2%
1977 6.5% 15.5% 21.8% 15.6% 20.0% 1.7% 81.0%
1978 6.7% 15.0% 12.0% 26.1% 17.6% 1.5% 79.0%
1979 4.3% 24.4% 6.7% 26.9% 15.4% 1.7% 79.4%
1980 3.8% 30.4% 5.3% 27.2% 11.8% 1.9% 80.4%
1981 3.9% 31.2% 5.4% 27.9% 12.1% 2.0% 82.5%
1982 2.7% 26.6% 10.8% 28.3% 10.1% 2.2% 80.6%
1983 2.1% 23.2% 12.6% 24.5% 9.6% 2.0% 74.0%
1984 0.3% 18.2% 20.0% 22.1% 10.9% 2.4% 73.9%
1985 0.3% 15.7% 23.2% 20.5% 10.0% 2.5% 72.1%
1986 1.2% 15.9% 23.6% 19.1% 9.4% 1.8% 71.0%
1987 1.0% 13.6% 27.1% 16.9% 9.3% 1.6% 69.5%
1988 0.6% 13.1% 27.8% 16.9% 9.1% 1.2% 68.6%
1989 0.1% 13.1% 24.7% 19.7% 9.4% 1.1% 68.1%
1990 0.6% 14.8% 23.0% 18.3% 9.3% 1.2% 67.1%
1991 0.6% 17.5% 19.8% 18.8% 9.4% 1.1% 67.1%
1992 0.9% 16.6% 19.6% 18.0% 9.1% 0.7% 64.9%
1993 0.6% 14.5% 19.8% 18.2% 8.8% 0.5% 62.4%
1994 0.4% 13.8% 21.0% 16.1% 9.2% 0.5% 60.9%
1995 0.3% 10.4% 22.4% 17.0% 9.0% 0.4% 59.5%
1996 0.2% 8.8% 23.5% 16.7% 8.5% 0.4% 58.1%
1997 0.3% 10.2% 19.9% 17.1% 7.9% 0.5% 55.9%
1998 0.1% 9.8% 15.2% 20.4% 6.9% 0.7% 53.1%
1999 0.1% 9.7% 14.2% 20.2% 7.1% 0.6% 51.9%
2000 0.1% 10.4% 13.9% 19.4% 7.5% 0.7% 51.9%
2001 0.2% 5.6% 18.7% 16.3% 9.2% 0.7% 50.9%
Source: TEDB 22, Reference 8.
The changes in the vehicle class sales fractions in the 1990- 1994 period were very
different that those that occurred in the 1977- 1982 ( see Table 9). The primary shifts were
from subcompact to compact cars and the beginning of the purchase in large numbers of
SUVs. The market share of SUVs nearly doubled between 1990 and 1995 and increased
33
further by another 50% by 2000. Gasoline prices were low and stable in this period and
buyers were clearly not concerned about fuel economy of the vehicles they were
purchasing. In general, buyers also seemed not to be concerned with the relatively large
price increases ($ 1000-$ 2000 per model year) that often occurred in 1990- 1994.
Another economic factor that could be expected to influence the response of
consumers to vehicle price increases is the income of families. The change in the mean
and median income of families in the period 1970- 2002 is shown in Figure 16. Since the
early 1980s, the mean income has increased more rapidly than the median income
indicating the income of more affluent families has increased faster than the lower
income families. The average prices of new domestic and imported cars are also shown
in Figure 16. Percentage- wise the prices of cars have increased more rapidly than family
incomes over most of the period of interest. Note that after about 1990 the average price
of domestic cars has leveled off, but the average prices of imported cars have continued
to increase at a relatively fast rate. These trends can also be seen in the cost data given in
Appendix 2 for the various vehicle models. In the case of SUVs, the prices of the
vehicles in real dollars have been nearly level or even decreasing. The more rapid
increase of the mean income and the relatively level price of SUVs may explain why the
more expensive car models and SUVs have sold so well and are gaining a greater share of
the vehicle market. Further discussion of how consumers have coped with the increasing
cost of new vehicles is given in the next section.
Figure 14 Relationship of Domestic Motor Vehicle Sales( 1) to the Overall Economy GDP( 2)
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
18,000,000
20,000,000
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
- 4
- 2
0
2
4
6
8
%
Total U. S.
Motor
Vehicle
Sales
Percent
Change in
GDP
Source: ( 1) Ward’s Communications, Reference 25 ( 2) U. S. Department of Commerce, Reference 33.
34
Figure 15 Macro relationship between costs of regulation( 1), industry corporate profits( 2) and GDP
$ 0
$ 100
$ 200
$ 300
$ 400
$ 500
$ 600
$ 700
$ 800
1968
1972
1976
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
- 15
- 10
- 5
0
5
10
Billions $ or %
Costs of Auto Regulation per vehicle ( left axis)
Percent Change in GDP ( Right Axis %)
Motor Vehicle Industry Corporate Profits ( Right Axis Bil$)
Source: ( 1) U. S. Department of Labor, Reference 32 ( 2) U. S. Department of Commerce, Reference 26.
Figure 16 Trends in Annual Income and New Car Prices ($ 2001)
$ 10,000
$ 20,000
$ 30,000
$ 40,000
$ 50,000
$ 60,000
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
Median HH Annual Income Mean HH Annual Income Per Capita Annual Income
AverageNew Car Price ( Domestic) Average New Car Price ( Import)
Source: ( 1) U. S. Department of Commerce & U. S. Census Bureau, References 26 & 30.
5.3 Historical review of innovative financing and marketing strategies
Automakers and dealers have increasingly used flexible financing plans and
incentives to maintain high sales volumes even during economic downturns. These
marketing strategies have undergone a crescendo in the aftermath of September 11th as
evidenced by a proliferation of zero percent financing and rebates as high as $ 5000. In
October 2002 it was reported that the Big 3 automakers were spending an average of
$ 3,764 per vehicle, or 14 percent of the selling price, on all types of incentives
( Reference 36).
Cut- rate financing and cash rebates are nothing new for the auto industry. These
measures began in the mid- 1970s as a means to move end- of- the- year inventory and
particularly slow- selling models. Such marketing approaches have remained a way to
35
reduce inventory and maintain market share, and have not been a means for generating
higher total revenues. The excess capacity in the auto industry, particularly for the
domestic carmakers, explains why the auto companies would continue to build more
supply than normal expected demand. This excess demand is created through generous
incentives. Bill Lovejoy, V. P. of GM, summed up this concept in stating that, “ incentives
will stay in place until demand is more aligned to capacity.” Figure 17 shows the trend in
capacity utilization for the production of autos and light trucks in the U. S.
Figure 17 Ratio of the Utilization Index to the Capacity Index for Auto Production in the US
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
70%
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
Source: ( 1) U. S. Department of Commerce, Reference 26.
There are two types of rebates used in the auto industry: ( 1). manufacturer rebates
( e. g. the auto manufacturer gives the customer a $ 1,000 rebate upon the purchase of a
specific vehicle, which the customer assigns as reduction to the purchase price), and ( 2)
dealer rebates ( e. g. an auto dealer receives a $ 500 incentive from the auto manufacturer
for every vehicle sold of a specific model in a given period). In the case ( 1), the rebate is
part of the dealer’s gross receipts, while in the second example, it is not. American
automakers in particular have increased incentives markedly over the last few years
( Figure 18). General Motors, the acknowledged bellwether with regard to incentives, has
gone so far as to offer its 159,000 U. S. employees, and tens of thousands of employees at
GM suppliers and dealers, a $ 1,000 discount on a new car or truck in an attempt to boost
vehicle sales in September 2003 ( Reference 37). Automakers use incentives other than
cash to motivate consumers. For instance, GM offered a free Dell ™ computer system
with the purchase or leasing of a 2003 model year Saturn car or truck during September
2003 in addition to the incentives already in place ( Reference 39).
36
Figure 18 Incentives as a Percentage of Sales Price ( 1996- 2002)
0
5
10
15
%
' 96 ' 97 ' 98 ' 99 ' 00 ' 01 ' 02
American
Automakers
Asian Automakers
Source: CNW Marketing/ Research, Reference 31.
Changes in financing options have also made cars increasingly affordable to
consumers whose incomes have been increasing slower than the price of new cars.
Figure 19 shows that the average maturity rate for auto loans has nearly doubled over the
last 32 years, while Figure 20 indicates that the car price, the amount financed, and
disposable personal income all in constant dollars have tracked closely together. Monthly
payments are thus smaller and more manageable for the consumer.
Figure 19 Average Amount Financed for a New Car and Average Maturity Rate of Auto Loans
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1971
1973
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
2003
Months
$ 0
$ 5,000
$ 10,000
$ 15,000
$ 20,000
$ 25,000
$ 30,000
Average Maturity Average Amount Financed ($ 2001)
Source: ( 1) U. S. Department of Commerce, Reference 26.
Although most car loans are between 36 and 60 months, a number of independent
finance companies in the western United States have recently offered loans as long as 96
months ( Reference 38). The maturity rate for car loans has stabilized considerably since
the mid to late 1980s, but recent record low interest rates provide the greater flexibility
for potentially longer term car loans.
37
Figure 20 Trends in New Car Financing and Pricing; And in Disposable Income ($ 2001)
$ 5,000
$ 10,000
$ 15,000
$ 20,000
$ 25,000
$ 30,000
1971 1975 1979 1983 1987 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
Average New Car
Transaction Price
Disposable
Personal Income
per capita
Average Amount
Financed for a
New Car
Source: U. S. Department of Commerce & U. S. Census Bureau, References 26 & 30. Table Notes:
Disposable income is the amount of Personal income an individual has after taxes and government fees,
which can be spent on necessities, or non- essentials, or be saved. Figure data are every other year preceding
1991 and every year thereafter.
In addition to amenable loan terms and interest rates, lease financing has
flourished in the last 15 years. Table 10 highlights the dramatic increase in the lease
penetration rate from 3.5 percent of new vehicle transactions in 1985 to 31.5 percent in
2002. Leasing allows the consumer to have lower affordable monthly payments and the
opportunity to receive a new vehicle every 3 to 5 years.
38
Table 10 U. S. Market Lease Penetration Rates by Vehicle Segment
Segment 1985 1990 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Passenger Cars
Budget 2.2 5.5 12.1 13.6 13.4 12.1 12.0 10.3 10.0 9.7
Small 1.8 5.3 18.9 18.5 15.4 14.8 14.4 14.2 12.1 10.4
Lower
Middle
8.2 12.8 26.9 27.3 28.1 27.3 27.2 25.7 24.5 22.2
Core
Middle 11.5 16.2 30.4 31.8 31.1 28.6 27.3 26.9 26.3 25.7
Upper
Middle 11.5 14.7 26.2 27.3 28.1 29.1 29.4 29.2 30.0 31.9
Near
Luxury
16.6 25.2 50.5 52.6 57.3 58.3 58.8 59.7 58.9 60.2
Luxury 39.6 52.6 62.0 64.2 65.9 65.2 57.8 51.3 55.5 58.8
Specialty 11.1 24.6 59.7 61.3 58.5 57.5 55.3 50.4 52.3 51.1
Sport 16.2 18.8 26.2 30.4 34.4 39.3 40.2 41.1 44.4 47.8
Light Trucks
Compact
Pickup
1.3 4.4 14.6 15.2 16.3 15.7 15.6 15.7 15.8 16.1
Compact
SUV 5.2 9.6 34.3 36.7 38.4 39.7 41.2 40.7 42.2 44.7
Full Size
Pickup
4.6 8.2 18.3 19.4 22.7 25.3 28.1 26.3 27.1 27.3
Full Size
SUV 4.2 9.3 36.9 38.2 42.1 42.7 44.4 46.5 45.9 46.7
Full Size
Van 7.1 12.1 20.0 21.3 22.7 22.4 21.9 21.1 21.0 20.7
Minivan 4.2 8.4 25.8 28.1 32.8 33.5 35.7 32.3 36.6 37.3
Total 3.5 7.3 24.2 27.2 29.3 31.5 29.1 28.7 29.2 31.5
Source: CNW Marketing/ Research, Reference 31. Table Notes: Figures shown are estimates representing lease
transactions as a percent of new vehicle retail transactions. The total of all segments combined is based on a weighted
average.
39
39
References
References for the Literature Review Section ( 1.1)
Gerard, David and Lester Lave, “ Implementing Technology- Forcing Policies: The 1970
Clean Air Act Amendments and the Introduction of Advanced Automotive Emissions
Controls,” Center for the Study and Improvement of Regulation, Department of
Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, May 2003
.
Gómez- Ibáñez, José A., William B. Tye, editor, Clifford Winston, Eds., Essays in
Transportation Economics and Policy: A Handbook in Honor of John R. Meyer, The
Brookings Institution Press: Washington, DC, 1999.
Crandall, Robert W. et al., Regulating the Automobile, The Brookings Institution Press:
Washington, DC, 1986.
Schnapp, John B., Corporate Strategies of the Automotive Manufacturers, Prepared for
U. S. DOT, NHTSA. Contract No. DOT HS- 7- 01783, November 1978.
Donnelly, Julie H., Use of Advertising and Marketing Incentives to Promote Sales of Fuel
Efficient Vehicles, Prepared for the U. S. DOT. Contract No. DTNH22- 80- C- 07131, June
1981.
Motor vehicle regulations: Regulatory cost estimates could be improved, Report to the
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and
Commerce, House of Representatives. United States General Accounting Office, 1992.
Assessing regulatory impacts: The Federal experience with the auto industry, Submitted
to United States Regulatory Council, ICF Incorporated. Contract No. CORC 02, March
1981.
Mondt, J. Robert, Cleaner Cars: The History and Technology of Emission Control Since
the 1960s, SAE International, 2000.
Bresnahan, Timothy F. and Dennis A. Yao. “ The nonpecuniary costs of automobile
emissions standards.” Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 16, No. 4, 437- 455, Winter
1985.
Wang, Quanlu, Catherine Kling, and Daniel Sperling. 1993. “ Light- Duty Vehicle
Exhaust Emission Control Cost Estimates Using a Part- Pricing Approach.” J. A ir Waste
Manage. Assoc. 43, 1461- 1471, 1993.
40
40
Anderson, John F. and Todd Sherwood. “ Comparison of EPA and Other Estimates of
Mobile Source Rule Costs to Actual Price Changes,” SAE Publication 2002- 01- 1980,
2002.
Chen, Belinda et al. “ Effect of Emissions Regulation on Vehicle Attributes, Cost, and
Price,” Institute of Transportation Studies, Report for the California Air Resources Board,
December 2003.
Graham, John. “ Technology, Behavior and Safety: An Empirical Study of Automobile
Occupant- Protection Regulation.” Policy Sciences 17, 141- 51, October 1984.
Gomez- Ibanez, Jose A. “ Recission of the Passive Restraints Standard: Costs and
Benefits.” C16- 83- 562. Harvard University, Kennedy School of Government Case
Program, 1997.
Mannering, Fred and Clifford Winston. “ Automobile Air Bags in the 1990s: Market
Failure or Market Efficiency,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. XXXVIII, pp. 265-
279, October 1995.
Peltzman, Sam. “ The Effects of Automobile Safety Regulation.” Journal of Political
Economy 83, 677- 725, 1975.
Arnould, R., and Grabowski, H. “ Auto Safety Regulation: An Analysis of Market
Failure,” The Bell Journal of Economics 12, No. 27, 1981.
Dunham, W. R. “ Are automobile safety regulations worth the price: Evidence from used
car markets.” Economic Inquiry 35, No. 3, 579- 589, 1997.
Abeles, Ethan et al. “ Automaker Response to Passive Restraint Regulation with respect to
Actions, Economics, Technology and Marketing.” Institute of Transportation Studies,
Report for the California Air Resources Board, December 2003.
Gsellman, L. R. " The 1981- 84 Automobile Fuel- Economy Standards - Can They Be
Achieved." Applied Energy 8( 3): 143- 173, 1981.
Mcnutt, B. D. " United- States Automobile Fuel- Economy Policies and Consumption
Effects." Resources and Conservation 10( 1- 2): 9- 24, 1983.
Leone, R. A. and T. W. Parkinson Conserving Energy: Is There a Better Way? A Study of
CAFE Regulation. Association of International Automobile Manufacturers. Washington
DC, 1990.
Porter, Richard C. Economics at the Wheel. Academic Press: San Diego, 1999.
Falvey, R. E., J. Frank, et al. " Fuel- Economy Standards and Automobile Prices." Journal
of Transport Economics and Policy 20( 1): 31- 45, 1986.
41
41
Thorpe, S. G. " Fuel economy standards, new vehicle sales and average fuel efficiency."
Journal of Regulatory Economics 11( 3): 311- 326, 1997
Goldberg, P. K. " The effects of the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency Standards in the
US." Journal of Industrial Economics 46( 1): 1- 33, 1998.
Espey, M. " Pollution control and energy conservation: Complements or antagonists? A
study of gasoline taxes and automobile fuel economy standards." Energy Journal 18( 2):
23- 38, 1997
.
Crandall, R. W. and J. D. Graham " The Effect of Fuel- Economy Standards on
Automobile Safety." Journal of Law & Economics 32( 1): 97- 118, 1989
.
Dowlatabadi, H., L. B. Lave, et al. " A free lunch at higher CAFE? A review of economic,
environmental and social benefits." Energy Policy 24( 3): 253- 264, 1996.
Ross, M. " Automobile Fuel Consumption and Emissions - Effects of Vehicle and Driving
Characteristics." Annual Review of Energy and the Environment 19: 75- 112, 1994.
General References for the report ( numbered)
1. Mondt, J. R., Cleaner Cars: The History and Technology of Emissions Control since the
1960s, book, SAE Publications, 2000
2. EPA emissions and fuel economy test data, emissions: epa. gov/ otaq; fuel economy:
fueleconomy. gov/ feg/ download. shtml
3. MarTech data base from ARB
4. Burke, A. F. and Kurani, K., Study of the Secondary Benefits of the ZEV Mandate,
Report No. UCD- ITS- RR- 00- 7, August 2000
5. Light- duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2000,
Report EPA 420- R00- 008, December 2000
6. Market Data Book- 2003, published by the Automotive News, 2003
7. Abeles, E., Air Bag Thesis, 2003
8. Davis, S. C., Transportation Energy DataBook, Editions 17, 20, 21, 22, published by
the Center for Transportation Analysis, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. See: http:// www-cta.
ornl. gov/ cta/ data/ Index. html
9. Buchholz, K., Why Diesel, Why Now?, SAE Automotive Engineering International,
August 2003
10. Ashley, S., Diesel cars come clean, Mechanical Engineering, Vol. 119, No. 8, August
1997
11. Tomazic, D., integration of Emission Control Systems for CIDI Engines to Achieve
PZEV, PZEV Emissions Technology: Regulations and Challenges, SAE TOPTEC,
January 24- 25, 2002, San Diego, California
42
42
12. Johnson, J. H., Diesel Nitrogen Oxide Emissions – Landmark Research 1995- 2001,
SAE Publication PT- 89, 2002
13. Johnson, J. H., Diesel Particulate Emissions- Landmark Research 1994- 2001, SAE
Publication PT- 86, 2002
14. “ No diesel without Filter Campaign”, Diesel Fuel News, May 12, 2003, Page 1- 5
15. Diesel Car magazine, published in the UK, June 2001
16. Cars Road Tests 2003- Winners and Losers, published by Consumers Report, Spring
2003
17. New Car Preview- 2002: Ratings, Reviews, and Reliability, published by Consumers
Reports, Winter 2002
18. Hermance, D., Toyota Hybrid System, 1999 SAE TOPTEC conference, Albany,
N. Y., May 1999
19. Hirose, T., Takaoka, T., Ueda, T., and Kobayashi, Y., the New High Expansion Ration
Gasoline Engine for the Toyota Hybrid System, JSAE paper 9739552, October 1997
20. Ogawa, H., Masato, M., and Takahiro, E., Development of a Power Train for the
Hybrid Automobile- The Civic Hybrid, SAE paper 2003- 01- 0083, March 2003
21. Burke, A. F., Saving Petroleum with Cost- effective Hybrids, SAE paper 2003- 01-
3279, November 2003
22. An, F. and Santini, D., Mass Impacts on Fuel Economies of Conventional vs. Hybrid
Vehicles, paper to be presented at the 2004 SAE World Congress, March 2004
23. Description and Rationale for Staff’s Additional Proposed Modifications to the
January 10, 2003 ZEV Regulatory Proposal, California Air Resources Board, March 5,
2003
24. Consumer Guide- Cars and Trucks, June 2003, published by Publications
International, Lincolnwood, Illinois
25. Ward’s Communications, Ward’s Automotive Yearbook. Annual. New York:
Primedia, Inc., 1970- 2002.
26. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Office of Automotive
Affairs. See: http:// www. ita. doc. gov/ td/ auto/ qfact. html.
27. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Consumer Price Index— All
Urban Consumers, http:// www. bls. gov/ cpihome. htm.
28. U. S. Census Bureau, Historical Income Tables - Households, See:
http:// www. census. gov/ hhes/ income/ histinc/ h05. html.
29. Hellman, Karl H. and Heavenrich, Robert M., Light- Duty Automotive and Fuel
Economy Trends: 1975 through 2003. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Mobile Sources, April 2003. ( EPA420- R- 03- 006) See:
http:// www. epa. gov/ otaq/ cert/ mpg/ fetrends/ r03006. pdf.
30. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Disposable Personal
Income, Series: DSPI. A Guide to the National Income and Product Accounts of the
United States ( NIPA, See: http:// www. bea. doc. gov/ bea/ an/ nipaguid. pdf.
31. CNW Marketing/ Research, See: http:// www. nvo. com/ cnwmr/ door/.
32. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “ Quality Adjustment Releases
for Motor Vehicles,” 1975- 2002, See: http:// www. bls. gov/ ppi/ ppicarqa. htm.
33. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, National Economic
Accounts. See: http:// www. bea. doc. gov/ bea/ dn/ home/ gdp. htm.
43
43
34. U. S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy
Review, 2002, Washington, D. C.
35. Ward's Automotive Reports, September 22, 2003.
36. “ U. S. Carmakers Losing Ground to Imports, Despite Deals,” The New York Times,
October 23, 2002, p. 1.
37. “ GM Adds Employee Incentives to Boost Vehicle Sales,” Automotive News,
September 25, 2003. See: http:// www. autonews. com/ news. cms? newsId= 6478& bt= incentive.
38. “ Car loans stretch to 8 years,” Automotive News, September 22, 2003.
39. “ GM’s Saturn to Offer Dell Computers with Saturns,” Automotive News, September
5, 2003.
44
44
Appendices
Appendix I: Timeline of new technologies to reduce emissions and
improve fuel economy
Year Technollogy Commenttss
1975 Two- way oxidation catalyst Needed to meet the 1975 HC and
CO standards
1975 – 1982 Weight reduction by downsizing and
use of light weight materials
Needed to meet the CAFE
standards ( 1978 – 1985?)
1976 – 1980 Improved radial tires and reduced
aerodynamic drag
Lower road load
1977 – 1980 Electronic engine controls Reduce emissions ( NOx)
1978 – 1985 Front- wheel drive in many models Improve driveline packages and
reduce weight
1978 – 1990 4- speed automatic transmission with
lockup
Improve fuel economy
1980 - V6 engines New high power engine replacing
some V8s
1980 Three- way, oxidation / reduction
catalyst
Needed to meet the 1981
emissions standard ( particularly
NOx)
1980 Electronic ignition and single- point
fuel injection
Needed by the three- way catalyst
to control A/ F ratio
1982 – 1985 Computer control of the engine and
transmission
Reduce emissions and fuel
economy
1985 Multi- point fuel injection Further reduce emissions
1986 – 1995 Use of 4- valves per cylinder in
engines
Increase specific power
( kW/ Liter) of the engine and
improve part- load bsfc
1995 Variable valve actuation and timing Further improve emissions and
fuel economy
2000
5- and 6- speed automatic
transmissions with lockup in
multiple gears
Improve fuel economy and
acceleratio n performance
2000 Ultra- clean emission control Meet ULEV and SULEV
emissions standards
2000
Continuously Variable Transmission
( CVT)
The engine speed/ drive wheel
speed ratio can be altered to
enhance vehicle performance or
fuel economy.
45
45
Appendix II: Detailed history of the performance and price of selected
vehicle models
Buick Century – Midsize Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
46
46
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
Buick Century
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 116 3869 110 $ 3,828 $ 8,356 $ 11,292 6 . . 21 15.7
1976 116 3712 105 $ 4,105 $ 8,425 $ 11,435 6 . . 21 15.7
1977 116 3645 105 $ 4,363 $ 8,509 $ 11,421 6 . . 21 15.5
1978 108 3172 90 $ 4,486 $ 8,126 $ 11,271 6 3.2 A 21 15.7
1979 108 3172 105 $ 4,699 $ 7,887 $ 10,778 6 3.2 M3 21 13.6
1980 108 3201 110 $ 5,646 $ 8,769 $ 11,665 6 3.8 A3 22 13.5
1981 108 3201 110 $ 7,094 $ 10,395 $ 13,410 6 3.8 M3 20 13.2
1982 105 2712 90 $ 9,581 $ 13,506 $ 17,078 4 2.5 A3 30 13.8
1983 105 2712 92 $ 9,416 $ 12,941 $ 16,123 4 2.5 A3 29 13.6
1984 105 2738 90 $ 9,697 $ 12,951 $ 15,975 4 2.5 A3 29 13.9
1985 105 2738 92 $ 9,959 $ 12,888 $ 15,884 4 2.5 L3 27 13.7
1986 105 2754 92 $ 10,642 $ 13,211 $ 16,654 4 2.5 L3 26 13.8
1987 105 2753 98 $ 11,403 $ 13,662 $ 17,251 4 2.5 L3 26 13.1
1988 105 2762 98 $ 12,218 $ 14,350 $ 17,836 4 2.5 L3 26 13.1
1989 105 2792 98 $ 12,879 $ 14,835 $ 18,038 4 2.5 L3 26 13.2
1990 105 2869 110 $ 13,700 $ 15,546 $ 18,267 4 2.5 L3 26 12.3
1991 105 2832 110 $ 14,265 $ 15,631 $ 18,359 4 2.5 L3 25 12.2
1992 105 2790 110 $ 14,295 $ 15,286 $ 17,959 4 2.5 L3 25 12.5
1993 105 2949 110 $ 14,705 $ 15,354 $ 18,021 4 2.2 L3 26 12.6
1994 105 2974 120 $ 16,020 $ 16,173 $ 19,232 4 2.2 L3 27 11.8
1995 105 2993 160 $ 17,220 $ 17,009 $ 20,188 6 3.1 L4 23 10.4
1996 105 2950 160 $ 17,260 $ 16,760 $ 19,703 6 3.1 L4 23 10.4
1997 105 3215 160 $ 18,225 $ 17,765 $ 20,363 6 3.1 L4 23 10.3
1998 109 3335 160 $ 18,765 $ 18,312 $ 20,666 6 3.1 L4 23 10.3
1999 109 3353 160 $ 19,335 $ 19,016 $ 20,858 6 3.1 L4 23 10.3
2000 109 3368 175 $ 20,440 $ 20,205 $ 21,336 6 3.1 L4 23 9.6
2001 109 3353 175 $ 20,895 $ 20,895 $ 21,235 6 3.1 L4 23 9.6
2002 109 3353 175 $ 20,895 $ 20,895 $ 20,895 6 3.1 L4 23 9.6
47
47
Buick LeSabre – Large Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
48
48
Buick LeSabre
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 124 4449 165 $ 4,911 $ 10,720 $ 14,487 8 . . 18 12.7
1976 124 4210 105 $ 4,871 $ 9,997 $ 13,568 6 . . 20 17.4
1977 116 3577 105 $ 5,092 $ 9,931 $ 13,330 6 . . 20 15.3
1978 116 3510 105 $ 5,459 $ 9,888 $ 13,716 6 3.8 A 20 15.0
1979 116 3600 115 $ 5,780 $ 9,702 $ 13,257 6 3.8 A3 21 14.3
1980 116 3459 110 $ 6,769 $ 10,513 $ 13,986 6 3.8 A3 20 14.3
1981 116 3485 110 $ 7,805 $ 11,437 $ 14,754 6 3.8 A3 22 14.4
1982 116 3649 110 $ 8,886 $ 12,526 $ 15,840 6 3.8 A3 22 15.0
1983 116 3620 110 $ 9,869 $ 13,564 $ 16,899 6 3.8 A3 22 14.9
1984 116 3649 110 $ 10,615 $ 14,177 $ 17,488 6 3.8 A3 22 15.0
1985 116 3587 110 $ 11,078 $ 14,336 $ 17,668 6 3.8 L3 22 15.0
1986 111 3600 125 $ 13,026 $ 16,171 $ 20,385 6 3 L4 21 12.0
1987 116 4160 140 $ 15,199 $ 18,210 $ 22,994 8 5 L4 19 13.7
1988 116 4160 140 $ 16,520 $ 19,403 $ 24,117 8 5 L4 20 13.7
1989 116 4209 140 $ 16,530 $ 19,015 $ 23,151 8 5 L4 19 13.8
1990 111 3270 165 $ 16,555 $ 18,785 $ 22,073 6 3.8 L4 22 9.9
1991 111 3231 165 $ 17,715 $ 19,412 $ 22,799 6 3.8 L4 22 9.8
1992 111 3417 170 $ 19,125 $ 20,451 $ 24,026 6 3.8 L4 21 10.0
1993 111 3343 170 $ 20,490 $ 21,394 $ 25,110 6 3.8 L4 22 9.8
1994 111 3449 170 $ 21,435 $ 21,640 $ 25,732 6 3.8 L4 22 10.1
1995 111 3442 170 $ 21,309 $ 21,048 $ 24,981 6 3.8 L4 22 10.1
1996 111 3430 205 $ 22,620 $ 21,964 $ 25,822 6 3.8 L4 23 8.6
1997 111 3430 205 $ 22,620 $ 21,918 $ 25,274 6 3.8 L4 23 8.6
1998 111 3443 205 $ 23,070 $ 22,513 $ 25,407 6 3.8 L4 23 8.6
1999 111 3443 205 $ 23,340 $ 22,955 $ 25,178 6 3.8 L4 23 8.6
2000 112 3591 205 $ 25,000 $ 24,355 $ 26,096 6 3.8 L4 23 8.9
2001 112 3567 205 $ 24,762 $ 24,477 $ 25,165 6 3.8 L4 23 8.9
2002 112 3567 205 $ 24,975 $ 24,975 $ 24,975 6 3.8 L4 23 8.9
49
49
Cadillac El Dorado – Luxury Car
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
50
50
Cadillac El Dorado
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 126 5254 190 $ 9,948 $ 21,715 $ 29,345 8 . . 11 12.9
1976 126 5231 190 $ 10,586 $ 21,726 $ 29,487 8 . . 11 12.9
1977 126 5101 180 $ 11,187 $ 21,818 $ 29,285 8 . . 11 13.2
1978 126 5100 180 $ 11,921 $ 21,593 $ 29,952 8 7 A 11 13.2
1979 114 3900 125 $ 14,955 $ 25,102 $ 34,300 8 5.7 A3 24 14.2
1980 114 4080 105 $ 13,800 $ 19,984 $ 28,512 8 5.7 A3 24 17.0
1981 114 3930 140 $ 16,492 $ 24,166 $ 31,176 8 6 A3 18 13.1
1982 114 3625 125 $ 18,716 $ 26,383 $ 33,362 8 4.1 A4 20 13.4
1983 114 3748 135 $ 19,334 $ 26,572 $ 33,106 8 4.1 A4 20 13.0
1984 114 3734 135 $ 20,842 $ 27,837 $ 34,336 8 4.1 A4 21 12.9
1985 114 3734 135 $ 21,431 $ 27,733 $ 34,180 8 4.1 L4 18 12.9
1986 108 3365 130 $ 24,751 $ 30,726 $ 38,734 8 4.1 L4 20 12.2
1987 108 3360 130 $ 23,740 $ 28,442 $ 35,915 8 4.1 L4 20 12.2
1988 108 3398 155 $ 25,416 $ 29,851 $ 37,104 8 4.5 L4 19 10.7
1989 108 3421 155 $ 27,288 $ 31,432 $ 38,218 8 4.5 L4 20 10.8
1990 108 3426 180 $ 29,045 $ 32,958 $ 38,727 8 4.5 L4 19 9.6
1991 108 3469 200 $ 31,825 $ 34,873 $ 40,959 8 4.9 L4 20 8.9
1992 108 3604 200 $ 33,070 $ 35,362 $ 41,545 8 4.9 L4 19 9.2
1993 108 3840 270 $ 34,490 $ 36,011 $ 42,267 8 4.6 L4 19 7.5
1994 108 3774 270 $ 37,915 $ 38,277 $ 45,516 8 4.6 L4 19 7.5
1995 108 3774 275 $ 38,855 $ 38,380 $ 45,551 8 4.6 L4 19 7.4
1996 108 3765 275 $ 41,135 $ 39,942 $ 46,958 8 4.6 L4 20 7.3
1997 108 3821 275 $ 38,660 $ 37,460 $ 43,196 8 4.6 L4 20 7.4
1998 108 3843 275 $ 39,160 $ 38,214 $ 43,128 8 4.6 L4 20 7.5
1999 108 3843 275 $ 39,905 $ 39,248 $ 43,047 8 4.6 L4 20 7.5
2000 108 3843 275 $ 39,815 $ 39,159 $ 41,561 8 4.6 L4 21 7.5
2001 108 3814 275 $ 40,756 $ 40,287 $ 41,419 8 4.6 L4 20 7.4
2002 108 3814 275 $ 42,610 $ 42,610 $ 42,610 8 4.6 L4 21 7.4
51
51
Cadillac Seville – Luxury Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
52
52
Cadillac Seville
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 114 4341 180 $ 11,788 $ 24,898 $ 34,773 8 . . 16 11.6
1976 114 4340 180 $ 12,479 $ 25,611 $ 34,760 8 . . 16 11.6
1977 114 4300 180 $ 13,359 $ 26,054 $ 34,971 8 . . 16 11.5
1978 114 4300 180 $ 14,267 $ 25,842 $ 35,847 8 5.7 A 16 11.5
1979 114 4290 170 $ 15,646 $ 26,262 $ 35,885 8 5.7 A3 16 12.0
1980 114 4185 105 $ 19,662 $ 30,538 $ 40,624 8 5.7 A3 24 17.3
1981 114 4167 105 $ 21,088 $ 30,901 $ 39,864 8 5.7 A3 23 17.3
1982 114 3706 125 $ 23,433 $ 33,032 $ 41,770 8 4.1 A4 20 13.7
1983 114 3844 135 $ 21,440 $ 29,467 $ 36,712 8 4.1 A4 20 13.2
1984 114 3804 135 $ 22,962 $ 30,668 $ 37,829 8 4.1 A4 21 13.1
1985 114 3803 135 $ 23,759 $ 30,746 $ 37,893 8 4.1 L4 18 13.1
1986 108 3428 130 $ 27,256 $ 33,836 $ 42,654 8 4.1 L4 20 12.4
1987 108 3419 130 $ 26,326 $ 31,541 $ 39,828 8 4.1 L4 20 12.4
1988 108 3449 155 $ 28,152 $ 33,065 $ 41,098 8 4.5 L4 19 10.8
1989 108 3469 155 $ 30,300 $ 34,901 $ 42,437 8 4.5 L4 20 10.9
1990 114 3543 180 $ 28,090 $ 31,874 $ 37,453 8 4.5 L4 19 9.8
1991 114 3512 200 $ 34,545 $ 37,853 $ 44,459 8 4.9 L4 20 9.0
1992 114 3591 200 $ 32,340 $ 34,582 $ 40,628 8 4.9 L4 19 9.1
1993 111 3648 200 $ 37,590 $ 39,248 $ 46,066 8 4.6 L4 19 9.2
1994 111 3830 270 $ 41,615 $ 42,013 $ 49,958 8 4.6 L4 19 7.5
1995 111 3892 275 $ 42,570 $ 42,049 $ 49,906 8 4.6 L4 19 7.5
1996 111 3832 275 $ 43,635 $ 42,370 $ 49,812 8 4.6 L4 20 7.4
1997 111 3900 275 $ 40,660 $ 39,397 $ 45,430 8 4.6 L4 20 7.5
1998 112 3972 275 $ 43,160 $ 42,117 $ 47,533 8 4.6 L4 20 7.7
1999 112 3970 275 $ 44,025 $ 43,300 $ 47,492 8 4.6 L4 20 7.7
2000 112 3970 275 $ 44,775 $ 44,037 $ 46,738 8 4.6 L4 21 7.7
2001 112 3970 275 $ 42,655 $ 42,164 $ 43,349 8 4.6 L4 20 7.7
2002 112 3992 275 $ 44,269 $ 44,269 $ 44,269 8 4.6 L4 21 7.7
53
53
Chevrolet Camaro – Sports Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
54
54
Chevrolet Camaro
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 108 3531 105 $ 3,553 $ 7,756 $ 10,481 6 . . 19 15.1
1976 108 3531 105 $ 3,283 $ 6,738 $ 9,145 6 . . 19 15.1
1977 108 3479 110 $ 4,113 $ 8,022 $ 10,767 6 . . 19 14.4
1978 108 3403 110 $ 4,414 $ 7,995 $ 11,090 6 4.1 A 19 14.1
1979 108 3392 115 $ 5,073 $ 8,515 $ 11,635 6 4.1 A3 19 13.6
1980 108 3328 115 $ 5,499 $ 8,541 $ 11,362 6 3.8 A3 22 13.4
1981 108 3330 110 $ 6,780 $ 9,935 $ 12,817 6 3.8 A3 22 13.9
1982 101 2850 90 $ 7,630 $ 10,756 $ 13,601 4 2.5 M4 28 14.1
1983 101 2883 92 $ 8,450 $ 11,613 $ 14,469 4 2.5 A4 29 14.3
1984 101 2892 92 $ 8,409 $ 11,231 $ 13,853 4 2.5 M4 28 14.0
1985 101 2881 88 $ 8,399 $ 10,869 $ 13,396 4 2.5 M5 26 14.4
1986 101 2900 88 $ 9,349 $ 11,606 $ 14,631 4 2.5 M5 27 14.5
1987 101 3062 125 $ 10,409 $ 12,471 $ 15,747 6 2.8 M5 20 11.5
1988 101 3055 125 $ 11,409 $ 13,400 $ 16,655 6 2.8 M5 20 11.5
1989 101 3082 135 $ 11,934 $ 13,746 $ 16,714 6 2.8 M5 21 10.9
1990 101 3107 135 $ 11,434 $ 12,974 $ 15,245 6 3.1 L4 21 11.1
1991 101 3103 140 $ 12,649 $ 13,860 $ 16,279 6 3.1 M5 20 10.7
1992 101 3103 140 $ 12,565 $ 13,436 $ 15,785 6 3.1 M5 20 10.7
1993 101 3355 160 $ 13,399 $ 13,990 $ 16,420 6 3.3 L4 23 10.3
1994 101 3247 160 $ 13,989 $ 14,123 $ 16,794 6 3.3 L4 23 10.1
1995 101 3390 160 $ 14,995 $ 14,812 $ 17,579 6 3.3 L4 23 10.4
1996 101 3306 200 $ 15,495 $ 15,046 $ 17,688 6 3.8 L4 22 8.5
1997 101 3307 200 $ 16,740 $ 16,220 $ 18,704 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
1998 101 3331 200 $ 17,150 $ 16,736 $ 18,888 6 3.8 M5 23 8.6
1999 101 3306 200 $ 17,160 $ 16,877 $ 18,511 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
2000 101 3306 200 $ 17,490 $ 17,202 $ 18,257 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
2001 101 3306 200 $ 17,560 $ 17,358 $ 17,846 6 3.8 L4 23 8.5
2002 101 3323 200 $ 18,655 $ 18,655 $ 18,655 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
55
55
Chevrolet Cavalier – Compact Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
56
56
Chevrolet Cavalier
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1982 101 2413 88 $ 7,137 $ 10,061 $ 12,722 4 1.8 M4 31 12.6
1983 101 2403 88 $ 6,369 $ 8,753 $ 10,906 4 2 A3 30 12.8
1984 101 2389 88 $ 6,592 $ 8,804 $ 10,860 4 2 M4 32 12.5
1985 101 2339 85 $ 6,976 $ 9,027 $ 11,126 4 2 M4 30 12.6
1986 101 2342 85 $ 7,258 $ 9,010 $ 11,358 4 2 M4 28 12.6
1987 101 2345 85 $ 7,819 $ 9,368 $ 11,829 4 2 M4 28 12.7
1988 101 2363 90 $ 8,595 $ 10,095 $ 12,547 4 2 M5 29 12.2
1989 101 2423 90 $ 9,020 $ 10,390 $ 12,633 4 2 M5 29 12.4
1990 101 2471 95 $ 9,245 $ 10,490 $ 12,327 4 2.2 L3 28 12.3
1991 101 2444 95 $ 8,725 $ 9,561 $ 11,229 4 2.2 M5 28 12.0
1992 101 2509 110 $ 9,374 $ 10,024 $ 11,776 4 2.2 L3 26 11.1
1993 101 2520 110 $ 9,095 $ 9,496 $ 11,146 4 2.2 M5 29 11.0
1994 101 2520 120 $ 9,470 $ 9,561 $ 11,369 4 2.2 M5 29 10.2
1995 104 2617 120 $ 10,545 $ 10,416 $ 12,362 4 2.2 M5 29 10.5
1996 104 2676 120 $ 11,195 $ 10,870 $ 12,780 4 2.2 M5 29 10.7
1997 104 2676 115 $ 11,680 $ 11,317 $ 13,050 4 2.2 M5 27 11.1
1998 104 2630 115 $ 12,310 $ 12,013 $ 13,557 4 2.2 M5 28 10.9
1999 104 2676 115 $ 12,481 $ 12,275 $ 13,464 4 2.2 M5 28 11.1
2000 104 2676 115 $ 13,770 $ 13,543 $ 14,374 4 2.2 M5 28 11.1
2001 104 2676 115 $ 13,780 $ 13,621 $ 14,004 4 2.2 M5 27 11.1
2002 104 2676 115 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 $ 14,500 4 2.2 M5 28 11.1
57
57
Chevrolet Corvette – Sports/ Luxury Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
58
58
Chevrolet Corvette
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 98 3529 165 $ 6,810 $ 14,865 $ 20,088 8 . . 18 10.5
1976 98 3541 180 $ 7,605 $ 15,608 $ 21,184 8 . . 18 9.8
1977 98 3534 180 $ 8,647 $ 16,864 $ 22,636 8 . . 17 9.8
1978 98 3572 185 $ 9,352 $ 16,940 $ 23,497 8 5.7 A 17 9.7
1979 98 3503 195 $ 10,220 $ 17,154 $ 23,440 8 5.7 M4 15 9.1
1980 98 3334 190 $ 13,140 $ 20,409 $ 27,149 8 5.7 A3 17 9.0
1981 98 3307 190 $ 15,248 $ 22,343 $ 28,824 8 5.7 A3 17 8.9
1982 98 3367 200 $ 18,750 $ 26,431 $ 33,422 8 5.7 A4 19 8.7
1983 96 3117 200 $ 21,800 $ 29,961 $ 37,329 8 5.7 A4 20 8.1
1984 96 3192 205 $ 23,835 $ 31,834 $ 39,267 8 5.7 M4 20 8.1
1985 96 3216 230 $ 24,878 $ 32,194 $ 39,678 8 5.7 L4 18 7.5
1986 96 3101 230 $ 27,502 $ 34,141 $ 43,039 8 5.7 M4 19 7.3
1987 96 3216 240 $ 28,474 $ 34,114 $ 43,077 8 5.7 L4 19 7.2
1988 96 3229 245 $ 29,955 $ 35,182 $ 43,730 8 5.7 M4 19 7.1
1989 96 3223 245 $ 32,045 $ 36,911 $ 44,881 8 5.7 L4 20 7.1
1990 96 3255 245 $ 32,479 $ 36,854 $ 43,305 8 5.7 M6 19 7.2
1991 96 3223 245 $ 32,985 $ 36,144 $ 42,452 8 5.7 L4 19 7.1
1992 96 3380 300 $ 33,635 $ 35,966 $ 42,255 8 5.7 M6 20 6.3
1993 96 3333 300 $ 35,145 $ 36,695 $ 43,070 8 5.7 M6 20 6.3
1994 96 3309 300 $ 36,735 $ 37,086 $ 44,100 8 5.7 L4 19 6.2
1995 96 3309 300 $ 37,345 $ 36,888 $ 43,781 8 5.7 M6 20 6.2
1996 96 3298 300 $ 37,790 $ 36,694 $ 43,139 8 5.7 M6 20 6.1
1998 105 3245 345 $ 38,060 $ 37,140 $ 41,916 8 5.7 M6 21 5.5
1999 105 3245 345 $ 38,777 $ 38,138 $ 41,831 8 5.7 M6 22 5.5
2000 105 3221 345 $ 39,730 $ 39,075 $ 41,472 8 5.7 M6 22 5.5
2001 105 3115 350 $ 40,475 $ 40,009 $ 41,133 8 5.7 M6 22 5.5
2002 105 3255 350 $ 43,225 $ 43,225 $ 43,225 8 5.7 M6 22 5.5
59
59
Chevrolet Monte Carlo/ Lumina – Midsize Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
60
60
Chevrolet Monte Carlo/ Lumina
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 108 3531 105 $ 3,553 $ 7,756 $ 10,481 6 . . 19 15.1
1976 108 3531 105 $ 3,283 $ 6,738 $ 9,145 6 . . 19 15.1
1977 108 3479 110 $ 4,113 $ 8,022 $ 10,767 6 . . 19 14.4
1978 108 3403 110 $ 4,414 $ 7,995 $ 11,090 6 4.1 A 19 14.1
1979 108 3392 115 $ 5,073 $ 8,515 $ 11,635 6 4.1 A3 19 13.6
1980 108 3328 115 $ 5,499 $ 8,541 $ 11,362 6 3.8 A3 22 13.4
1981 108 3330 110 $ 6,780 $ 9,935 $ 12,817 6 3.8 A3 22 13.9
1982 101 2850 90 $ 7,630 $ 10,756 $ 13,601 4 2.5 M4 28 14.1
1983 101 2883 92 $ 8,450 $ 11,613 $ 14,469 4 2.5 A4 29 14.3
1984 101 2892 92 $ 8,409 $ 11,231 $ 13,853 4 2.5 M4 28 14.0
1985 101 2881 88 $ 8,399 $ 10,869 $ 13,396 4 2.5 M5 26 14.4
1986 101 2900 88 $ 9,349 $ 11,606 $ 14,631 4 2.5 M5 27 14.5
1987 101 3062 125 $ 10,409 $ 12,471 $ 15,747 6 2.8 M5 20 11.5
1988 101 3055 125 $ 11,409 $ 13,400 $ 16,655 6 2.8 M5 20 11.5
1989 101 3082 135 $ 11,934 $ 13,746 $ 16,714 6 2.8 M5 21 10.9
1990 101 3107 135 $ 11,434 $ 12,974 $ 15,245 6 3.1 L4 21 11.1
1991 101 3103 140 $ 12,649 $ 13,860 $ 16,279 6 3.1 M5 20 10.7
1992 101 3103 140 $ 12,565 $ 13,436 $ 15,785 6 3.1 M5 20 10.7
1993 101 3355 160 $ 13,399 $ 13,990 $ 16,420 6 3.3 L4 23 10.3
1994 101 3247 160 $ 13,989 $ 14,123 $ 16,794 6 3.3 L4 23 10.1
1995 101 3390 160 $ 14,995 $ 14,812 $ 17,579 6 3.3 L4 23 10.4
1996 101 3306 200 $ 15,495 $ 15,046 $ 17,688 6 3.8 L4 22 8.5
1997 101 3307 200 $ 16,740 $ 16,220 $ 18,704 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
1998 101 3331 200 $ 17,150 $ 16,736 $ 18,888 6 3.8 M5 23 8.6
1999 101 3306 200 $ 17,160 $ 16,877 $ 18,511 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
2000 101 3306 200 $ 17,490 $ 17,202 $ 18,257 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
2001 101 3306 200 $ 17,560 $ 17,358 $ 17,846 6 3.8 L4 23 8.5
2002 101 3323 200 $ 18,655 $ 18,655 $ 18,655 6 3.8 M5 23 8.5
61
61
Chrysler LeBaron – Midsize Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
62
62
Chrysler LeBaron
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1978 113 3654 110 $ 5,270 $ 9,546 $ 13,241 6 3.7 A 19 15.0
1979 113 3429 100 $ 5,122 $ 8,597 $ 11,748 6 3.7 M4 21 15.0
1980 113 3375 90 $ 6,103 $ 9,479 $ 12,610 6 3.7 A3 20 16.5
1981 113 3375 90 $ 6,495 $ 9,517 $ 12,278 6 3.7 A3 20 16.5
1982 100 2416 84 $ 8,237 $ 11,611 $ 14,683 4 2.2 M4 31 13.1
1983 100 2464 94 $ 8,154 $ 11,207 $ 13,962 4 2.2 M5 34 12.2
1984 100 2560 99 $ 9,465 $ 12,641 $ 15,593 4 2.2 A3 28 12.2
1985 100 2559 99 $ 9,707 $ 12,561 $ 15,482 4 2.2 A3 24 12.2
1986 100 2566 97 $ 10,525 $ 13,066 $ 16,471 4 2.2 A3 25 12.5
1987 100 2566 97 $ 11,105 $ 13,305 $ 16,800 4 2.2 A3 24 12.5
1988 100 2592 93 $ 11,715 $ 13,759 $ 17,102 4 2.2 L3 25 13.0
1989 103 2714 93 $ 11,945 $ 13,759 $ 16,730 4 2.5 M5 27 13.2
1990 100 2863 100 $ 12,960 $ 14,706 $ 17,280 4 2.5 L3 24 13.3
1991 100 2853 100 $ 13,650 $ 14,957 $ 17,568 4 2.5 L3 24 13.2
1992 101 2863 100 $ 13,998 $ 14,968 $ 17,585 4 2.5 L3 24 13.3
1993 101 2863 100 $ 14,554 $ 15,196 $ 17,836 4 2.5 L3 25 13.3
1994 104 2971 100 $ 15,626 $ 15,775 $ 18,759 4 2.5 L3 24 13.7
63
63
Ford Escort – Compact Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
64
64
Ford Escort
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1981 94 2021 65 $ 5,158 $ 7,558 $ 9,750 4 1.6 M4 33 13.9
1982 94 2007 70 $ 5,518 $ 7,778 $ 9,836 4 1.6 M4 36 13.0
1983 94 2094 70 $ 6,154 $ 8,458 $ 10,538 4 1.6 M4 38 13.5
1984 94 2080 70 $ 5,937 $ 7,929 $ 9,781 4 1.6 M4 44 13.4
1985 94 2074 70 $ 6,135 $ 7,939 $ 9,785 4 1.6 M4 38 13.4
1986 94 2201 86 $ 6,360 $ 7,895 $ 9,953 4 1.9 M4 33 11.9
1987 94 2180 90 $ 6,895 $ 8,261 $ 10,431 4 1.9 M4 35 11.4
1988 94 2222 90 $ 6,895 $ 8,098 $ 10,066 4 1.9 M4 37 11.6
1989 94 2313 90 $ 7,299 $ 8,407 $ 10,223 4 1.9 M4 36 12.0
1990 94 2310 90 $ 8,476 $ 9,618 $ 11,301 4 1.9 M4 36 12.0
1991 98 2355 88 $ 9,029 $ 9,894 $ 11,620 4 1.9 M5 32 12.4
1992 98 2355 88 $ 9,858 $ 10,541 $ 12,384 4 1.9 M5 33 12.4
1993 98 2360 88 $ 10,172 $ 10,621 $ 12,466 4 1.9 M5 33 12.4
1994 98 2371 88 $ 10,925 $ 11,029 $ 13,115 4 1.9 M5 33 12.4
1995 98 2371 88 $ 11,530 $ 11,389 $ 13,517 4 1.9 M5 33 12.4
1996 98 2323 110 $ 10,455 $ 10,152 $ 11,935 4 1.9 M5 34 10.3
1997 98 2457 110 $ 11,430 $ 11,075 $ 12,771 4 2 M5 31 10.7
1998 98 2468 110 $ 11,745 $ 11,461 $ 12,935 4 2 M5 32 10.8
1999 98 2468 110 $ 11,870 $ 11,674 $ 12,805 4 2 M5 32 10.8
2000 98 2468 110 $ 12,200 $ 11,999 $ 12,735 4 2 L4 32 10.8
2001 98 2468 110 $ 13,435 $ 13,280 $ 13,653 4 2 L4 29 10.9
2002 98 2468 110 $ 14,450 $ 14,450 $ 14,450 4 2 L4 29 10.9
65
65
Ford Mustang – Sports Car
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
( in./ lb./ hp)
Wheelbase Weight / 10 Horsepower
-
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($/ mpg/ sec.)
MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi / 1000 mpg comb z60 accel
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
1975
1977
1979
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
1997
1999
2001
($)
MSRP MSRP $ 2002 new vehicle cpi MSRP $ 2002 standard cpi
66
66
Ford Mustang
Year
Wheel
base
Curb
Wgt
Horse
power
MSRP
Current
$
MSRP
$ 2002
new
vehicle
cpi
MSRP
$ 2002
standard
cpi
Cyl
Dis
( L)
Tran
mpg
cmb
Zero
to
60
accl
( sec)
1975 96 2759 87 $ 3,529 $ 7,703 $ 10,410 4 . . 25 14.4
1976 96 2779 92 $ 3,525 $ 7,234 $ 9,819 4 . . 24 13.9
1977 96 2735 89 $ 3,702 $ 7,220 $ 9,691 4 . . 25 14.1
1978 96 2698 88 $ 3,555 $ 6,439 $ 8,932 4 2.3 A 25 14.0
1979 100 2532 88 $ 4,071 $ 6,833 $ 9,337 4 2.3 M4 24 13.1
1980 100 2588 88 $ 4,884 $ 7,586 $ 10,091 4 2.3 A3 25 13.6
1981 100 2588 88 $ 6,171 $ 9,042 $ 11,665 4 2.3 M4 27 13.3
1982 100 2683 86 $ 6,345 $ 8,944 $ 11,310 4 2.3 M4 26 13.9
1983 100 2679 90 $ 7,101 $ 9,759 $ 12,159 4 2.3 M4 31 13.4
1984 101 2664 88 $ 7,472 $ 9,980 $ 12,310 4 2.3 M4 29 13.6
1985 101 2782 88 $ 7,259 $ 9,394 $ 11,577 4 2.3 M4 26 14.1
1986 101 2733 88 $ 7,563 $ 9,389 $ 11,836 4 2.3 M4 25 13.9
1987 101 2724 90 $ 8,645 $ 10,357 $ 13,079 4 2.3 M5 27 13.6
1988 101 2751 90 $ 9,209 $ 10,816 $ 13,444 4 2.3 M5 27 13.7
1989 101 2754 88 $ 9,956 $ 11,468 $ 13,944 4 2.3 M5 25 14.0
1990 101 2960 88 $ 10,300 $ 11,520 $ 13,733 4 2.3 M5 26 14.8
1991 101 2759 105 $ 10,587 $ 11,601 $ 13,625 4 2.3 M5 25 12.2
1992 101 2775 105 $ 11,163 $ 11,937 $ 14,024 4 2.3 M5 25 12.2
1993 101 2775 105 $ 11,285 $ 11