Americans Buy Ever Bigger, More Powerful, More Fuel-Efficient Trucks, SUVs & Cars. EVs Escalate the Horsepower War

“The roughly linear increase in specific power” of ICE vehicles over the past 50 years “does not appear to be slowing”: EPA.

By Wolf Richter for WOLF STREET.

Overall fuel economy of passenger vehicles sold in the US of the model year 2024 rose to a record of 28.0 “real world” MPG, according to data released by the EPA today. Over the five model years since 2019, average fuel economy has surged by 3.1 MPG, or by +12% (red line).

The standout over the past few years was the category of “Car SUV” (light blue), whose average MPG spiked by 47% since the 2019 model year. They’re SUVs based on a car chassis and include the #2 bestseller of all models in the US, the Tesla Model Y,  whose sales exploded since production started in 2020. Other EVs in that category have also come along. EVs are far more efficient than ICE vehicles (including hybrids). The Model Y for 2024 has an equivalent fuel economy of 113.8 “real world MPG,” and the average for all EVs for the 2023 model year was 106.7 MPG, according to the EPA today.

For the 2024 model year, progress in the car SUV category flattened out after the spike, while the MPG in all other categories continued to tick higher.

The data comes from the EPA’s Automotive Trends Report for 2024, released today. The EPA collected this data from automakers for vehicles produced for the US. The EPA divides vehicles into five basic categories: Sedan, “car SUV,” minivan/van, pickup, and “truck SUV” (SUV that by weight or by chassis is closer to a truck than a car).

The longer-term trends boil down to this: more fuel-efficient, more powerful, and heavier.

The Horsepower War.

Overall average horsepower for the 2024 model year rose to a record 267 hp, from 245 hp in the 2019 model year (red in the chart below).

Since 1981, average horsepower has increased by 161%, from the low of 102 hp for the 1981 model year, the nadir of US auto design, when automakers were struggling with emission control requirements. Horsepower started rising again with fuel injection and electronic engine management systems that became more common in the mid-1980s.

Pickups dominate in the horsepower war. The model year 2011 was when they averaged over 300 hp for the first time. For the model year 2024, the average rose to a new record of 347 hp.

EV pickup truck production and sales are ramping up: Ford F-150 Lightning, Tesla Cybertruck, Rivian R1T, and GM’s Silverado EV and Sierra EV currently start with close to 600 hp and go up from there, which is nuts. But they’re new arrivals and don’t weigh in the data yet. As production volume and sales build over the next few years, they will push the horsepower averages even higher.

Overall market share of EVs rose to 9.0% in Q3, and their increased market share will be pushing the horsepower readings even higher going forward.

Automakers made huge progress in ICE technology.

This increase in power with internal combustion engines over the years has occurred as average displacement (engine size) has gotten smaller, and power output relative to engine size has increased.

The specific power of internal combustion engines has increased by about 0.02 horsepower per cubic inch per year for the past 50 years, the EPA said in the report.

For example, for a 302 cubic inch engine, this translates into an average horsepower gain of 6 hp per year, or a gain of 300 hp over the 50 years.

And we can see that. The 2024 Ford Mustang 5.0L Coyote V8 (302 cu. in.) generates 500 hp (about 100 hp per liter). Back in the day, a 1978 Mustang II with the 302 V8 generated about 140 hp (28 hp per liter). The 2024 Mustang’s 2.3L four-banger EcoBoost engine generates 315 hp, or about 137 hp per liter. Over the decades, automakers have made huge progress with their ICE technologies.

“The roughly linear increase in specific power [of ICE vehicles] does not appear to be slowing,” the EPA report said.



To illustrate these trends, the EPA provided a chart of the percentage changes since 1975 for ICE-only vehicles of three key metrics:

  • Horsepower per displacement (such as hp/L) which more than tripled (+210%).
  • Fuel consumption per displacement, which dipped by 11%.
  • Fuel consumption per horsepower fell by 70%.

But Power, luxury, and fancy stuff weigh more.

Overall vehicle weight rose to 4,419 lbs (red). There is a wide range of weight, depending on type of vehicle, equipment, and configuration. And power is heavy.

Pickup trucks were the heaviest. Overall, their average weight rose to 5,397 lbs, according to the EPA today. Big 4X4 4-door pickups with 500 hp and up are the heaviest. For example, a Ford 4×4 Crew Cab pickup with a big diesel weighs in at 6,500 to 7,500 pounds, according to Ford specs. Four-door 4×4 EV trucks with 600-plus horsepower, such as the Cybertruck, are in the 6,500 to 6,900 lbs range. ICE pickups with two doors, rear-wheel drive, and base engines start at about 4,600 lbs.

Sedans are the least heavy. Their average weight rose to a record 3,676 lbs (green), about 2,000 lbs. lighter on average than pickups.

And it costs a lot more…

…as documented by our infamous F-150 XLT & Camry LE Price Index, which tracks the MSRPs by model year of the base Ford F-150 XLT and the base Camry LE going back to 1990. For details, including the historic price cut for the 2025 base F-150 XLT and the historic price increase for the 2025 base Camry LE, now only available as a hybrid, please read our article about it.

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.



  83 comments for “Americans Buy Ever Bigger, More Powerful, More Fuel-Efficient Trucks, SUVs & Cars. EVs Escalate the Horsepower War

  1. VintageVNvet says:

    Thanks for this excellent summary of the great improvements in our vehicles Wolf.
    Some of us are hoping and holding out for the EV that will be able to be plugged in at home OR not need any outside energy due to every horizontal surface being a solar energy receptor.
    Certainly seems feasible and actually has been done anecdotally already.
    That should last us until theoretical physicists and subsequent engineering folx perfect the Gravity Mirror to make transporting stuff actually create more energy than it consumes…

    • Wolf Richter says:

      1. It works fine with solar panels on the roof of your house, and lots of people who are retired or are working from home are doing it. For this to work, the car has to be park at home during part of the day.

      2. In terms of your “or”: There is not enough surface on a car for this many solar cells, unless you drive very rarely, and then very little, and park the car in the sun every day. The math is pretty clear. Solar panels don’t generate that kind of power per square meter.

      • Wendell says:

        Aptera has pre-production prototypes that do mount solar panels on the car, and are capable of a modest amount of daily driving. If you are in Arizona or southern CA, you might get more than 30 miles a day. Farther north, or cloudy geography will get substantially less.

        The caveat is 2 seater and HEAVILY optimized for aerodynamic efficiency. The aero efficiency is how they make the math work.

        The other caveat is they are not yet in production.

      • Brant Lee says:

        I have an idea that solar panels could run fans in parked cars to keep the interiors from overheating. It could save the lives of people and pets caught in this situation.

        • Wolf Richter says:

          My uncle who passed away 12 years ago had a contraption like that in his ancient VW. He put the small solar panel on the dash and it powered a small fan that blew outside air into the car. I’m not sure it did a lot of good, but it was kind of nifty.

        • Z33 says:

          The Fisker Karma has that already…not just runs the fans but the actual ac when parked using the solar panel roof. Solar energy (total) I think is about 1,300 watts per sq meter. Less than 2 hp. Powering a car strictly with real-time solar and no battery would be extremely difficult lol.

        • N00dle says:

          There are several cars that already do this. A Pruis has had it since 2010.

      • VintageVNvet says:

        ”””The math is pretty clear. Solar panels don’t generate that kind of power per square meter.””
        YET, eh?
        How’s a boot a similar article about the vast improvements in solar panels?
        IIRC, there were some fairly serious improvements by a company in Troy, MI back in the 1980s era alone, and we can hope those improvements do and will continue.
        The brain power demonstrated on this site alone should be enough to double the power from solar panels sufficiently to make a small car entirely independent within a decade.
        ”Git out there and git to work young uns!!!”’

        • Anthony A. says:

          Brain power? You must mean the Hot Wind! LOL

        • DoubeD says:

          We’re only about 23% efficiency with solar cells. I think the record is 48%, but with technology that would be difficult and cost prohibitive to scale (for now). You’d need a trailer full of panels to have a meaningful impact. Again, until some technical wizard asks why it must be that way and figures it out. That’s why I love this country. As Taleb said, it’s all created in America and handed to the world to refine and build.

        • MussSyke says:

          I am not able to say with certainty, but I believe that solar power is only so much per square meter this far out, and theoretically, we can only improve the efficiency of solar panels so much, meaning there is some limit. That said, limits and theories change all the time.

          And…I suppose if we go back to depleting the ozone, we could probably eke out more wattage per area…

        • VintageVNvet says:

          Thanks AA,,, and to be sure,
          Not only clear and continuing improvements in solar panel yields combined with clear and continuing improvements in EV efficiencies will provide for most of us until Gravity Mirror comes to ALL of us…
          WE, in this case WE below 30 degrees know full well how very full of power the sun is here, as opposed to those, especially those at 38 North.
          Good Luck and God bless those of the north, eh

        • Wolf Richter says:

          VintageVNvet,

          No, the sun doesn’t produce that kind of power per square meter at the surface of the earth. On average, the sun produces about 1,370 watts per square meter under perfect conditions. So if solar cells facing the sun were 100% efficient and could capture all of it under perfect conditions, one square meter of solar panels could power an electric tea kettle. But even the best solar panels are only about 50% efficient. Most are in the 15% to 20% range. So in reality, a square meter of solar panels under perfect conditions cannot even power that tea kettle.

          People who want to power a street-legal passenger car by solar panels on the car need to turn up the volume of the sun by many multiples.

          Vehicles take a lot of energy to move. You can power your house from the battery of the Ford F-150 Lightning via a special Ford charger designed to reverse the flow of electricity so you can use the battery in the EV as backup power. That battery that has a range of 320 miles (5 hours of steady highway driving at 64 mph) can fully power your house for three days, and for up to 10 days if “usage is properly rationed,” according to Ford.

          You see, the power consumption of a house is relatively small compared to the power consumption of a moving motor vehicle. That’s why solar panels work great on a house (lots of space on the roof, not a lot of power consumption) especially when combined with a battery that can absorb the brief load spikes, but don’t work on a car (small space, lots of power consumption).

          People who promote solar-panel-powered street-legal vehicles are charlatans.

        • fullbellyemptymind says:

          Real time solar won’t power cars in my lifetime (20-30 years if I play it right).

          But when you consider that only 15%-25% of the energy consumed by today’s vehicles goes toward moving the passengers we could get ~4x closer by downsizing the units.

          But that ain’t gonna happen, y’all want them big ol’ trucks sitting in a garage 23 hours/day.

        • NBay says:

          Proud to be in the country that is leading the charge over the cliff.

          (I mean the drive.)

    • Rob B. says:

      You’re “holding out for the EV that will be able to be plugged in at home”!?

      You can have that now, as long as you don’t drive a lot.

      I’m currently leasing a Tesla Model 3. I didn’t feel like installing a dedicated charging circuit for a lease ,so I just bought the mobile charger.

      I plug it into a regular 15amp plug. I’m also using an extension cord so I only end up with 9amps instead of the max of 12amps. That still gets me 3miles/hour charge rate, which has been enough for someone who works at home.

      If I decide I want 10x faster charging then I’ve priced out the parts I’d need and it is less than $500.

    • danf51 says:

      The solar panels I have on my house measure about 3 feet by 6. Each panel can produce about 350 watts in optimum conditions. Given 10 hours of production in optimum conditions that would add up to 3.5 KW. A typical EV battery stores 75 KW. In addition, optimum conditions are almost impossible to achieve, so the panels real world output is probably 75 or 80% of it’s max rated. Additionally solar panels lose another 10-15% of efficiency in warmer climates.

      EV’s will eventually be solid general purpose transportation devices. For now they are unbeatable as urban commute cars. The bottleneck is all about battery tech. The batteries we need are 5 year out, longer if we succeed in keeping Chinese battery tech out of the US.

      EV makers emphasis horsepower and 0-60 because thats all they have. Ironically, they could improve range, reduce costs (a bit), improve insurability by reducing horsepower and thereby increasing efficiency and extending range somewhat. For myself, I just dont need 500 HP in an EV. I’d be happy with 350HP and another 25 or 50 miles of range.

      • Wolf Richter says:

        Plenty of EVs have a longer range than my 300+ hp ICE sports sedan had. It maxed out at 25 MPG on the highway, and if you had a nervous foot, it would drop to 15 MPG. Talk about range anxiety on top of wallet anxiety. Thank God we got rid of it a few years ago before gasoline got expensive.

  2. Jas says:

    Got an email from Dodge yesterday about their new Dodge Charger EV and it’s whopping 650hp. I thought my Challenger with 375hp was fast. I can’t imagine what 650hp looks like!

    • ShortTLT says:

      At some point I gotta ask: do you want *that* much power?

      Ever watch the video of the guy with the ferrari who turned his traction control off?

    • Biker Chique 01 says:

      Have no fear! Car manufacturers learned that placating insurance companies’ with various restrictive features, (electronic speed limiting governors, Rev limiter, Electronic traction control, and soon Intelligent Speed Assistance -ISA-) will have tamed those 650hp, so you will not experience of shear power and terror of potentially uncontrollable acceleration. ( Cannot dismiss the likelihood that within few years, acceleration and highway speed of a vehicle will be limited/controlled by some state managed GPS system – yes… you will, for example, not exceed the posted speed limit by more than 5 mph, or accelerate at a greater velocity than 7 seconds per 60 miles)
      Bit of irony in the horsepower race . it is quite likely that the cost to double the horsepower of an ICE is much less than the cost of designing systems to control its acceleration and “safe” handling.
      Those 650 horses probably feel less exhilarating than enjoying the acceleration of a 1969 Z28, 1975 Chevelle SS 454, 1970 Mustang 429R, 1970 Charger Hemi, et al.
      In the words of a famous blues singer, BB King, “the thrill is gone”

      • VintageVNvet says:

        ”Love it” BC,
        Thank you, and please continue to help us on Wolf’s Wonder,,, especially those of the younger type,,,

  3. Home toad says:

    I can’t help but think if Bonnie and Clyde had more horsepower under that flathead V-8 Ford they stole they might be alive. 65HP was all it provided. The car died 90 years ago (1934) shot full of holes. And yes Faye dunaway still acts at 833 years old.

  4. ShortTLT says:

    “The 2024 Mustang’s 2.3L four-banger EcoBoost engine generates 315 hp, or about 137 hp per liter. Over the decades, automakers have made huge progress with their ICE technologies.”

    Forced induction is now common – no longer reserved for performance cars. I’d wager that’s responsible bigly for the increase in HP per unit displacement.

    With the right bolt-ons and tune, that 2.3T mustang could smoke the V8.

    Hell, my spouse’s brother has a 2016 Focus ST pushing 300 HP on its little 2.0T. Intake, intercooler, tune, and straight-pipe catless exaust – although that car isn’t emmissions legal in a bunch of states lol.

    • ThePetabyte says:

      I guess there was a replacement for displacement after all. Some of the performance models even come with forged internals from factory, allowing the tuning a good margin of error before grenading the engine.

  5. ShortTLT says:

    Wolf,

    On the weights graph, what’s up with the car SUV category in 1982?

    Also, could you elaborate on the car / truck SUV distinction? I’m looking at figure F-1 in the appendix which is a flowchart that determines which is which. It seems like any crossover with AWD and sufficient ground clearance would be considered a truck SUV instead of a car SUV, which doesn’t make sense to me.

    • Wolf Richter says:

      Your #1. That category as a mass-market category didn’t go back that far. It’s essentially a new category that has grown to be one of the most popular ones. What existed in the 1970s and 1980s that fit into that category were low-volume weirdo vehicles. So the mix of that small-volume group might have changed, with one model going out of production, for example, before another model came along.

      Your #2. You’re thinking about the approach, breakover, and departure angles. Those are fairly high-off-the-ground vehicles to have those angles.

      I just looked this up:

      The Toyota RAV4 has an approach angle of 19.0°. So it’s a car SUV. The Toyota Highlander has an approach angle of 17°. To be a truck SUV they would have to have an approach angle of > 28°.

      By contrast, the Toyota Land Cruiser has an approach angle of “up to” 31°. It also qualifies as truck under the breakover and departure angles minimums. So it’s a truck SUV. And it looks like one too.

      There may be some cases where this part of the definition is a close call. But most of the time it seems pretty obvious.

      • Wolf Richter says:

        So, with nothing else to do at this time of the night, I just went back to the EPA data and looked up when car SUVs became mass market in terms of production numbers; it was in the mid-1990s.

        One of the Stellantis brands had a car SUV going back all the way to 1975 in very low volume (a few thousand a year). I don’t know what that was, maybe a Dodge?

        Toyota had a low volume car SUV in the early 1970s (a few thousand a year) then stopped, and not again until 1990.

        GM had a low-volume car SUV in 1975-1978 (few thousand a year) then stopped, and then again after 1982, also low volume.

        Honda started making car SUVs in 1996, Hyundai & Nissan in 2000.

        Ford started making car SUVs in 1987.

        • ShortTLT says:

          Thanks for the explanaions. I hadn’t encountered approach, breakover, and departurr angles as a defining characteristic of cars before.

          I’m looking at the CRV – objectively a car SUV in my mind as it’s based on the Accord platform – and oddly enough, I can’t find the breakover angle spec. But approach & departure angles put it in the car SUV category like the RAV4.

        • MussSyke says:

          I would have thought one of those low volume weirdo vehicles was the Subaru Outback. Those older ones always looked like a high up station wagon…for total weirdos.

        • Wolf Richter says:

          MussSyke,

          The Outback came along in the mid-1990s, I believe.

        • Russell says:

          MussSyke – In Texas, all Outbacks come with a BETO sticker pre-affixed.

      • Russell says:

        Had to look that one up. My 4Runner is definitely a truck SUV.

      • NBay says:

        Interesting off road specs…..all new to me. Takes wheelbase into account, and body overhang?
        Still doesn’t cover all important road “side profile and texture”, for lack of better words.

        Ski friend had Subaru Brat late 70’s(?). Kinda looked like small El Camino, but not much ground clearance. He was just interested in AWD for snow/ice.

  6. Gary says:

    Reminds me of the future vehicle prediction in George Lucas’s movie THX1138. Why not put a jet turbine in the car. Only problem with all this horsepower is the tires, it has been decades since cars had those big TA radials on the back. Besides what front wheel drive transmission can handle that power, it has to be rear wheel drive. In the day I could “light” the back skinny bias ply tires with a 66 mustang running premium gas in the stock 289 and a 2 barrel carb – the manual applied coat hanger wire to prop open the choke plate to start it on a cold day was a optional accessory.

    • Anthony A. says:

      Chrysler made a turbine car in the 1960’s, I recall. It was experimental and worked pretty well for what it was. It had a lot of limitations, but went pretty well in a straight line.

      • NBay says:

        Think it melted the pavement when stopped very long.

        But was ideal for Indy race car…too ideal….got banned.

    • MussSyke says:

      Remember when Homer Simpson designed a car, and put his brother out of business? Back in the first decade when the show wasn’t horrible.

  7. William McDonald says:

    In ten years it will be rare for urban dwellers to drive and in 15 for anyone to own a car as automation accelerates. These are advancements in horse breeding on the eve of ICE development.

    • ShortTLT says:

      In 10 years, American cities will have tons of little electric scooters zipping around. That’s the growing trend in urban transportation.

      Even 50cc motor scooters like the ubiquitous GY6 are falling out of style vs electrics.

      • MussSyke says:

        Dude…we are going to need some regulations or something regarding all that. Just got back from Spain where every worthless shitbird is whizzing around on those things not obeying road rules or pedestrian rules, and making dodging dog turds and all the crowds that much more stressful.

        • Sean Shasta says:

          Regulations for electric scooters, really?

          Don’t know which world you live in. Lots of people don’t seem to want regulations…in fact, they want to remove EPA and clean air regulations and “increase government efficiency”.

          Recent articles that Musk’s company has been dumping toxic water into sewers. But he is going to improve government efficiency.

        • MussSyke says:

          Sean,

          LMFAO all the time about this. Musk isn’t so smart after all: the Government cannot be efficient by design. Trying to make it efficient will waste billions, maybe trillions.

        • ShortTLT says:

          Same here in Boston. It’s a free-for-all with all the bicycles and e-scooters not following the rules of the road.

          At least with a 50cc, you need a license and registration. No way to ticket an e-scooter or bicycle.

  8. KGC says:

    Over the past year I have driven more than a dozen different makes and models of cars, partially due to travels, and partially as a search for a new vehicle to replace my 17 year old sedan. I am increasingly drawn to the small 2024 Mitsubishi I had for 2 weeks, with 70 hp, manual trans, and mostly analog. It was inexpensive, would drive on the Autobahn at 130kph, and while not luxurious, it did everything I needed it to do. Plus it reminded me a lot of the old Honda I had back in the late 80’s.

    Now I’ll admit the BMW 240i I just returned is a lot nicer car. But there’s $55,000 difference in the price between the two. That’s extremely hard to justify.

    • SoCalBeachDude says:

      I have and prefer BMW’s 540i, 650, and 740i models all of which have BMW’s superb 5.4 liter engine and beautiful appointments.

    • Saxons Wrath says:

      Slow cars are ALWAYS much more fun to drive fast….

      Fast cars are ALWAYS much harder to drive slow…. boring, even!!!

  9. dearieme says:

    What is “equivalent fuel economy” for an EV? How is it calculated?

    • Wolf Richter says:

      For the EV equivalent of MPG, the EPA uses the energy standard of 1 gallon of unleaded gasoline contains on average an energy content of 115,000 British Thermal Units, or BTU (simplified, the amount of heat you’d get from burning 1 gallon of gasoline). It takes 33.7 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity to create the same amount of heat. So the standard is that 1 gallon of gasoline has the same energy content as 33.7 kilowatt-hours of electricity. In other words, if an EV can travel 100 miles on 33.7 kWh, it gets the equivalent of 100 MPG (or “MPG equivalent” or MPGe)

  10. AllstarChris says:

    CAR/SUV must be like that Chevy Traxx i’ve been eyeing.

  11. Max Power says:

    Regarding the price increase disparity between passenger cars and light trucks… and since tariffs are a hot issue nowadays…

    I think one might be able to argue that perhaps part of the reason for the disparity is the fact that imported trucks have a significant tariff on them while passenger cars only have a negligible tariff. This may serve to reduce competition and help with prices rising faster for trucks than cars.

    So, when it comes to tariffs, the lesson might be… be careful what you wish for.

    • Anthony A. says:

      The vast majority of pickup trucks sold here are made here. For instance, Toyota has a huge truck plant in Texas. I don’t know what manufacturer is importing large numbers of trucks? The main brands are Chevrolet, GMC, Ford, Ram, Toyota, Nissan, and some Hondas.

      Hyundai/Kia does not make a pickup truck (maybe a joint venture with GM in the works).

      • Max Power says:

        No manufacturer is importing large large number of trucks specifically because of the tariff on them.

        So yes, this causes most trucks are made in the USA… but potentially at a cost of much higher prices compared to passenger cars. That was the point of my post.

    • MussSyke says:

      Well, I don’t know any place in the world that even uses* American-style pickup trucks, except for some used ones floating around Latin America and Hiluxes in the Third World and for enthusiasts in Europe.

      Which begs the question: are tariffs the reason we don’t have any consumer sized flat bed trucks where all the sides come down like in many other countries (esp. Asia)? Because those seem a lot more convenient to me. Or is it just because those offend American countrymens’ sensibilities?

      • NBay says:

        We have tailgates that fold 6 different ways.

      • NBay says:

        Only upper management can be trusted to deal with concepts like “why”. So naturally they make the big bucks.

    • Redundant says:

      The trade wars ahead — and currency wars will be entertaining, like watching Pkabet of the Apes:

      “The European Union has also raised concerns about foreign direct investment in its member states. In January, the bloc proposed plans to review its vetting mechanism for foreign investment and impose tighter controls on technology outflows.”

      The dynamics of china building new car plants all over the world will be an entirely new game of whack a mole

      I’m not expecting an explosion in demand but more likely a huge build up in supply.

      • Max Power says:

        At least the EU attempted to compute the value of Chinese EV subsidies when they came up with their Chinese EV tariffs and also adjusted by manufacturer since different ones received different levels of state support. We just pulled 100% out of our behinds… ‘cause it’s a ‘nice round number’.

      • BS ini says:

        Absolutely as manufacturer production increase and new manufacturing techniques and technology will drive down prices and provide employment for the construction production and maintenance for decades with the new generation of EV and ECE . Without new plants the old plants cost rise and become a burden . Try living in a 100 year old home built in 1930 vs one built in 2030 . Long live new . Just my sprinkler system alone which is 10 years old the components including the piping are breaking and I spend days repairing an antique system (10 years) .

    • BS ini says:

      Norway and Denmark have massive tariffs on their ICE vehicles upwards of 200 percent . They don’t call it tariff they call it VAT or some other term.
      Tariffs are used globally for many purposes to protect the economic vitality of a nation. Also production controls such as OPEC. Wonder what that tariff cost the USA when implemented in the 1970s . Having worked in the energy business overseas for a couple of decades tariffs are used on a global scale to the detriment of USA manufacturing. In many cases they are disguised. One example is the Middle East . Many of those countries require one to open a local business owned at least 50 percent by local citizens. Profits are shared 50/50. So to do business there one has to raise prices to cover the cost of local ownership (the local owner does not fund anything usually but expects free loans loan payments etc) and the local company entity has to have a 95 percent local labor pool vs expat staff. Having built towns in the Sahara desert for oil operations to house 10000 male local staff and pay for their commute the costs are mind blowing. Many forms of tariff is my discussion that benefits the local economies . Price controls on imports is another form of tariffs as well . The USA has an abundance of energy and a labor pool that can be unleashed to help with many of the opportunities that Mr. Richter points out frequently . Infrastructure projects take years to envision plan finance and implement all to the benefit of the local community and economy. Decisions are seldom perfect but the decision to do let the local workforce compete globally has tremendous long term benefits .

  12. Max Power says:

    Yeah, 1981 was pretty much peak “malaise era” (there’s even a wiki article for this term) for vehicles in the US.

    A 1969 Chevy Camaro Z28 with a 4.9Liter displacement engine produced about 300HP. By 1982, the 5L engine Camaro was down to a laughable 145HP thanks to emissions controls and fuel economy regulations in wake of the oil shocks of the mid 70s and early 80s. In 2017, the 3.6L Camaro was up to 335HP.

    Much of this incredible improvement is thanks to the increased power of computers which have enabled advanced computer modeling and simulation as well as helping with advancements in metallurgy and material sciences.

  13. MussSyke says:

    So what’s the deal with minivans? According to the first two charts, they seemed to buck the trends in both fuel economy and power as a temporary blip back in ~2020.

    Guessing this segment may have lost a prominent model temporarily at the time. I know that minivans keep getting less and less cool, so the segment is probably pretty small in the first place…

    • ThePetabyte says:

      SUVs and CUVs have largely cannibalized into this segment, if I’m not mistaken.

  14. Redundant says:

    Fascinating times ahead for EVs and the economy at large — it’ll be interesting to to watch, as greatness unfolds:

    “Flavio Volpe, the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, told the New York Times: “Half of the cars made in Canada are made by American companies, and half of the parts that go into all the cars made in Canada come from US suppliers, and more than half of the raw materials are from US sources.
    “We are beyond partners. We are almost as inseparable as family.”

  15. SoCalBeachDude says:

    BMW is going to end up as the best vehicle manufacturer with absolutely zero competition if notions regarding vehicles continues in the direction of some of the silly nonsense suggested by some commentators. No vehicles even begin to compare with BMW as the ultimate driving machines.

    • ShortTLT says:

      If that’s so, why do I rarely see old BMWs on the road?

      • SoCalBeachDude says:

        Many are collectors cars today and garaged. A BMW 2002 went for around $50,000 just the other day and fine examples of excellent condition and fine examples of BMW classics are on BAT all the time for connoisseurs to buy.

  16. SoCalBeachDude says:

    Barron’s: Trump Tariff Threat Unleashes Carpocalypse. Why GM Stock, Other Autos Are Getting Hit.

    • Redundant says:

      I’m assuming tariffs will help car manufacturers just as much as they helped wash machine manufacturers in that prior era. The tariffs whack o mole dynamics all have unintended consequences — especially as all the game pieces are wiped off the board.

      The unhappy stability that produced the election mandate, most likely ends up making more people very unhappy — and very confused about the mess.

      From 2019:

      “ Research to be released on Monday by the economists Aaron Flaaen, of the Fed, and Ali Hortacsu and Felix Tintelnot, of Chicago, estimates that consumers bore between 125 percent and 225 percent of the costs of the washing machine tariffs”

      • Wolf Richter says:

        Cherry-picked bullshit produced by globalization-mongers.

      • rojogrande says:

        The whole final quote appears to be nonsense. So if the tariff is x, consumers paid between x plus 25% and x plus 125%? Generally, the cost of tariffs are split in some way between the consumer and manufacturers. Your quote suggests the manufacturer actually raised prices in the face of tariffs. It doesn’t pass the straight face test without evidence prices increased more than the actual tariffs. Which leads to a further question, was that “research” actually released on Monday? Why not provide a quote from the actual research since this quote is patently absurd? 2019 was 5 years ago and you can go to the actual research can’t you?

  17. Biker Chique 01 says:

    Wolf,
    Excellent article, graphs and demonstrated impressive knowledge of the automotive industry, ICE powerplants. .
    While I enjoy the thrill of driving my sports cars and few trucks, while I find the horsepower race a very compelling reason to buy a new “performance truck – 4 door, GVRW 7500 lbs, Diesel powered, AWD, 650 HP, 1100 lbs torque, I will hold off, for few more years.
    I am hoping that the new truck that I will be able to drive off the showroom floor, will be at least equal to the HP and Torque output of the Class 8 (road tractor / semi-truck) that delivered 23 pallets of groceries (about 40,000 lbs) to the super market where I occasionally pick up few shopping bags of groceries, about 20 lbs.
    I am expecting Detroit family truck makers will soon match the HP/Torque specifications of the Peterbilt 389 series trucks; 650Hp, 2050 Lbs Torque. The HP rating is now in the bag, just need an additional 1,000 Lbs/ft of torque.

  18. Bear Hunter says:

    I wonder when the lawsuits will start when people get hurt by two and three ton personal vehicles on roads not designed for them. The tv lawyers must be foaming at the mouth. Could be a way to make some easy money! Oh my neck hurts!

    • tom says:

      Honest question from fly over country.
      Are you talking weight restrictions? There are no
      roads in my work area that would restrict a 2-3 ton vehicle.

      We have weight restrictions when frost is coming out of the roads.
      Nothing in the 2-3 ton range.

    • BS ini says:

      How about some limits on lawsuit damages? And some stiffer penalties for abuse of the traffic laws ?

  19. Peter says:

    It grinds my gears that they got rid of Camry LE. It was impossible to get one in the last couple of years anyway. They just want you to get XLE or SE or whatever more expensive model.

  20. SoCalBeachDude says:

    MW: Barron’s Used-Car Prices Are Rising Again. That Could Be a Problem for the Federal Reserve

  21. Harrold says:

    Gas prices go down, people splurge on big trucks and SUVs. Gas prices go up, they sell them and get small sedans. This happens over and over again every few years.

    My new minivan gets 26mpg overall, but 33 on the highway. Better than the 95 accord it replaced. I live in a small town, so city driving has very little cost. On road trips I have an efficient mobile camper that saves me a lot on hotel fees.

Comments are closed.