Click to read Part I

Part II: Why we are not to be trusted with our own destiny.

We, as a nation, are gluttons. Our voracious appetite for oil has served to dictate foreign policy, cause economic instability, and--some say--lead us to war. And yet we continue to belly up to the oil bar despite the fact that our own history tells us we're heading for one heck of an ulcer.

A July '73 Datsun ad touted fuel economy. It claimed that by switching from your "average" car to a Datsun, you could save one gallon of fuel a day. (Ed note: Datsun later changed its name to Nissan.)

Our first taste of vulnerability came in the form of the Arab Oil Embargo of late 1973. When a decrease in the flow of oil from the Middle East prompted a huge hike in gas prices, the government decided the best way to limit our nation's dependency on foreign oil was to use less of it. And it was decided the best way to do that was to require cars to get better fuel economy.

To that end, the government introduced the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. They were to take effect for the 1975 model year, and in today's light, the early figures seem quite modest: 18.0 mpg for cars, 15.8 mpg for trucks. But at the time, this represented a huge step; in 1973, it's estimated that domestic cars averaged just 12.2 mpg. By contrast, imports (most of which were quite small), averaged 22.6.

Whether or not it was part of the original intent, the CAFE standards also served to help save U.S. automakers from themselves. Because the huge, gas-guzzling beasts Detroit was offering had taken a sales beating from the thriftier imports during the fuel crisis, it wouldn't do our nation's economy any good if those same behemoths were forced into a rematch should another gas crisis occur. Which indeed it did.

In 1978, President Carter asked the nation to "honor the 55 mph speed limit, set thermostats no higher than 65 degrees and limit discretionary driving." This was in an effort to stem our nation's thirst for foreign oil.

Brought on by a conflict in the Middle East, Gas Crisis II of 1979 was in many ways worse than the first. Prices shot up once again, but this time supplies were tighter. Some states even instituted rationing programs.

Worse, too, was the buying shift to foreign cars. Despite the fact many of the largest U.S.-built vehicles had been downsized and joined by smaller economy models, imports still topped the mileage charts.

After the '79 crisis, import market share ballooned: From 18 percent in 1978 to nearly 30 percent within four years. And one shudders to think what it might have been had the U.S. companies not downsized their fleets. In any event, imports had gained a foothold, and their market share climbed from there. Today, foreign nameplates account for about 40 percent of new vehicle sales. And guess who's making most of the high-mileage vehicles we'll turn to if today's high gas prices keep escalating?

For the 2005 model year, the government's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirement is 27.5 mpg for cars, 21 mpg for light trucks (that includes minivans, SUVs, and pickups), which now make up more than half of new passenger-vehicle sales. Unlike the car requirement--which has stayed the same for years--the truck requirement has just been raised from its long-standing figure of 20.7 mpg, and goes up each year through 2007, when it will be 22.2.

While it's nice to see the truck standard rising, it's too little way too late. Why the 27.5-mpg standard didn't include light trucks from the beginning is a sore point to many. But when the standards were first enacted, trucks didn't make up anywhere near the percentage of total vehicles they do today. As the truck market exploded over the next two decades, manufacturers didn't want the standards raised because it would mean trimming down their biggest vehicles--which had turned into cash cows returning some of their biggest profits, and they wanted to milk them for all they were worth. And manufacturers yield some pretty strong lobbying power.

Japan-based automaker Subaru has a long history of providing fuel-efficent vehicles. However, its newest model, the B9 Tribeca, has an EPA city rating of just 18 mpg.

It's difficult to tell where we'd be today if the 27.5-mpg standard had covered all vehicles, but it's safe to say we'd be better off. Just looking at recent history--say the last five years--gives us a clue.

For the sake of argument, let's say trucks and cars always met their CAFE requirements. (In reality, some years they beat it--in which case they earn "credits"--some years they cash in credits or pay a fine.) Since trucks closely matched cars in sales volume, essentially half the new vehicles averaged 20.7 mpg, the other half 27.5. That means the total fleet averaged 24.1. So in the past five years, if the average had instead been 27.5 mpg, it would have been 3.4 mpg--or about 14 percent--better. Which means that fleet of vehicles would have used 14 percent less gas.

Now, those who read Part I might recall we get 15 percent of our oil from the volatile Middle East and be tempted to say "aha, if we used 14 percent less gas, we could virtually ignore that source all together!" An exciting conclusion, but sadly, not an accurate one.

You see, each 42-gallon barrel of crude oil results in only about 20 gallons of gasoline. The rest goes to make jet fuel, diesel fuel, heating oil, lubricants, and those little plastic toys you get in your Happy Meal. So unless we cut back on all those other "necessities" by 14 percent, we wouldn't be saving enough to boycott Middle East oil.

So where does that leave us? Do we increase CAFE standards in order to force consumption to be reduced, or do we just let the ever-tightening--and ever more expensive--supply of gas do it for us?

Some feel the government should stay out of the whole mess and let customer preference dictate what automakers build. But is the customer always right? Do they always know what's best? Are they going to put the good of the country ahead of their own desires?

Are you kidding?

Eleven nations have joined OPEC since the organization's inception in 1960. Today, these nations supply 40 percent of the world's oil.

Ever since the oil crisis of 1973, we've known that our thirst for fuel was making us vulnerable. Even those who weren't around back then have been reminded of it with periodic shortages and price spikes. Yet virtually every new gas-guzzling SUV has been greeted with open arms, the bigger and stupider the better. And manufacturers aren't going to ignore that kind of reception.

While we often think of laws as being in place to protect us from each other, they are also there to protect us from ourselves. That's why, for instance, drugs (such as steroids) that give an initial benefit but are found to be a long-term health hazard are made illegal. And why car batteries--which are loaded with toxic lead that can leak into and poison ground water--are required to be recycled rather than just thrown in the trash, which would be easier for all concerned.

This might be the ultimate oxymoron to some, but there are times the government knows best.

The bottom line is that our appetite is out of control, and as a nation, we need to change our diet. And that isn't likely to happen without some regulatory influence--at least, it isn't likely to happen in time.

So if the government is going to step in to save us from ourselves, what's the best way to go about doing it? We'll explore some possibilities--including some radical ideas--in Part III. Stay tuned.

Catch up with Part I.

Reader's Comments In response to Rick Cotta's questions in his article "We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us", the answer is that you are very wrong, and yes indeed the customer is always right. The good of the country is expressed by what those customers are demanding. If people are paying to fill up their tanks, then what business is it of yours to tell them they shouldn't? How big is your house Rick? Is that size really necessary, or for the good of the country? So yes, if people want bigger cars and trucks, and pay their own money to get and fuel them, keep your busybody utopia dreams to yourself. If and when people decide to consume less, they'll do so for their own reasons, not your fascist dictate that they should because you've decided its better for them. WE are the country. D. Williams, Philadelphia, PA

A car nut since his first breath, Rick Cotta has been an auto editor with Consumer Guide® for the past 15 years. As a former automotive technology major, ASE Certified Technician, and technical editor for an automotive trade publication, Rick is the resident nuts-and-bolts guy, as well as the department's motorcycle editor. He has attended TrackTime driving school and performs some of Consumer Guide's® timed acceleration tests at a remote location yet to be discovered by the local authorities.

"Driver's Seat" is a continuation of Consumer Guide® Automotive's IMHO articles. Focused on the auto industry and written by Consumer Guide's® experienced editors, Driver's Seat editorials are intended to provoke thought and present opinions. They are not necessarily the views of Consumer Guide®.