Laissez Faire Today

The Laissez Faire Club Daily e-Letter

The Case of the Missing Low-Mileage Car

How would you like to drive from New York to Los Angeles with just one stop for gas? It seems incredible and wonderful, but it can happen. In late 2010, the Volkswagen Passat BlueMotion set a new world record for the “longest distance traveled by a standard production passenger car on a single tank of gas.” It travels 1,526.63 miles. It translates to a fuel economy of 75 miles per gallon.

Sweet! Only one thing — this passenger car is for the U.K. You can’t drive this car in the United States. We have a Passat, but it gets nowhere near this excellent mileage. Even stranger, many of the engines in these, which are driven all over Europe, are actually built in the U.S. The trouble is that it can’t jump through the regulatory hoops in the land of the free.

This fact was first brought to my attention by a video blogger who had been driving a van version of this amazing car in the U.K. He came home to ask his Volkswagen dealer about it. The dealer quickly informed him that this model is not allowed on U.S. roads. The Passat in Europe runs on a 54.1-fluid ounce common-rail four-cylinder engine. The standard in the U.S. is a 67.6-fluid ounce engine. For this reason and a few others, the version you can drive here gets 45 miles per gallon.

The blogger was furious as he reported this, and he further explained the absurdity. It seems that the emissions regulations are calculated based on a per gallon basis. The U.K. Passat does not pass because its emissions pollutants are slightly over regulation.

The blogger further pointed out the silliness: The car goes much farther than the American version on a single gallon, resulting in less overall pollutants. But that doesn’t matter, given the manner in which fuel-efficiency happens to be calculated. In the U.S., a car with low emissions could get 1 mile per gallon and pass, but one with slightly higher emissions couldn’t get through, even if it went 100 miles on a gallon.

Infuriating, yes. But because the video was widely circulated, the revisionists started getting to work to debunk the claim. One blogger called Volkswagen. The spokesman made several salient points. A gallon in the U.K. is actually slightly larger than in the U.S., thereby reducing the mileage disparity between the U.K. and U.S. models. Further, these 54.1 engines are actually not that popular in the U.S. market because Americans don’t really care that much about mileage. Finally, mileage is actually calculated differently in the U.K., so the cars aren’t quite comparable in this sense.

Now, that’s all very interesting, and provides an interesting corrective, but it begs the critical question: Can this record-breaking, high-mileage car be sold in the U.S.? It would appear that the claim of the original video blogger stands: It cannot. You might want this car. VW might want to sell it. Europeans love it. But we, as Americans, are not permitted to buy it, and VW is not permitted to sell it. Regardless of the details, these are facts. The VW spokesman was really just talking around the point, as all corporations do when they are confronted with the awfulness of regulations.

The original blogger suggested conspiracy. But then, there is Hanlon’s razor: Never attribute to conspiracy what can easily be explained by stupidity. Regulations are inherently stupid because they presume the perpetuation of an existing technology and production model. They can never account for change or improvement.

No matter how you write them, no matter how smart you are, there will come a time when the intended results of all regulations will reverse themselves. They will inhibit, rather than advance, progress. They will degrade, rather than improve, products. They will block, rather than inspire, technological improvement. This is an unavoidable fate, no matter how smart the regulators are.

In a private market, rules and standards adapt to change. This is because private parties get that the point of a rule or standard isn’t the rule or standard but the results. The point is to achieve results. If the exact reverse of the point is observed, the rule is changed over time. In this way, private markets are flexible in ways that government regulations can never be.

Let’s raise a point about another incredible and wonderful thing: the flying car. It appears that the Terrafugia “roadable aircraft” is finally going into production and might be available for purchase sometime next year. It has recently been subjected to vast media attention, and that’s all to the good.

Now, one might suppose that the journalism on this car would focus on what an amazing thing this really is, how it takes us a step toward the Jetsons’ world, how it might make a contribution to unclogging highways and so on.

But no, that’s not what the stories have been about. It seems that the major “work” that has gone into the engineering behind this flying car has nothing to do with making it amazing for you and me. It is all about the endless government regulations that have stood in its way. The bureaucrats, not the consumers, rule the day.

Imagine: It’s hard enough to build a car that complies with regulatory bureaus. It’s hard enough to build an airplane that complies with the mandates of regulatory bureaus. It appears to be darn near impossible to make something that complies with both! It has to pass emissions tests, crash tests, navigation tests, design tests, mileage tests and a million other tests. Then there’s the problem of licenses for the drivers and fliers and the compliance with airport and road regulations. What a nightmare! It seems that the bulk of the energy of the company has been spent on this.

The actual reality of the flying car has been around since the 1930s. It keeps being revived again and again. What’s making it flounder? The problem is that this innovation is neither fish nor fowl from the point of view of government bureaucrats. Therefore, they don’t know what to do with it.

The results are, quite frankly, rather disappointing. The Terrafugia is a small plane with foldable wings so that you can drive it around. That’s it. There will be no levitating out of traffic. There will be no landing in your driveway. You have to drive it like a car to the airport, and then take off, fly, land and drive home again. That’s kind of cool, yet it raises the question: Why not just park your car and hop in your airplane?

You have to have a wild imagination to see the world that would exist were it not for government controls. These controls wreck innovation. They deny us access to seeming utopias. They kill the entrepreneurial spirit and set society back. They thwart progress and forbid us from working toward a future that is better than the past.

We will never know what we are missing so long as we continue to allow government to throw the whole of society into a regulatory thicket. Life is pretty amazing, true, but it could be far more so. Instead, we suffer in ways we don’t know. This is the big, horrible picture.

  • Marschall Clark

    In case you think I am kidding, here is the new skoda greenline car. It is not a small car

    http://www.skoda.de/index.php?e=348-9-5-10

  • Marschall Clark

    my 2002 czech skoda with 280,000 km gets 4.8 ltrs/100 km or about 60 miles per gallon. It is a midsize car. The Skoda octavia Green gets 3.8 Ltrs/100 km or close to 70 miles per gallon. So does VW passat which is the same engine and a eqivilent car. UK gallons do not factor in.

  • Sean

    Thanks for addressing this issue.

    Could you tell me why you’re concluding that the sale of BlueMotion cars is inhibited by U.S. regulations? I didn’t see anything in the statement by the company rep to confirm or disprove that.

    Could it simply be that VW hasn’t taken the steps necessary to market it here? Thanks for any insight. This topic has proven tricky in terms of finding official responses.

  • john hunt

    Consider what happens in the pharmaceutical realm. FDA not only regulates, but controls all facets of pharmaceutical development, causing massively elevated development expenses and prolonged delays. At the end of their whimsical regulatory process, the products end up only being obtainable by the patients after approval (prescription) by their doctor–a relatively unique situation among the nations of the world–because the pharmaceutical companies gain a liability shield that way and massively enlarged profits, competitors cannot afford to compete, and the government gets to stretch its nanny muscles to prevent patients from taking the “wrong” cholesterol lowering drug and otherwise controlling the situation. Can you say “fascism”?

  • Ragnar Redbeard

    I doubt you even remember the days prior to the government mandating emissions and exactly what that did to automobile mileage. Fortunately, over time engine design has overcome the regulations and cars today get respectable mileage — but, as you pointed out, they could get much better mileage. However, I experienced it from the other side.

    In the 1950′s, my dad had a 1956 Chrysler. There were six of us in our family, plus a dog. In 1959, we all piled into that Chrysler, with a 16 foot boat behind, and drove from St Paul, MN to Lake of the Woods. On that drive, we got 22 MPG. When we tried to put the boat in the water, the water came over the transom because we had too much weight in the boat. That was a very heavy load, but the V8 engine in the 1956 Chrysler got that kind of mileage. That engine only ran about 350K miles in six years.

    My dad liked Chrysler products but when he got a 1972 Chrysler, he only got about 14 MPG, and the performance was terrible.

    Similarly, I had a 1957 VW Beetle, and it regularly got 28 to 32 MPG. It did not have a gas gauge in it so I had to figure the amount remaining by the mileage and I just figured it at 30 MPG. With the 10 gallon fuel reservoir it would go about 250 miles before refueling, to have a comfortable cushion. So the 1950′s cars really got good mileage.

    My grandfather had a 1954 Ford and he could get over 28 MPG with that car, driving from Minnesota to Texas and back again.

    I don’t share this to brag about our driving abilities. It was just that the cars were getting really good mileage until the government stepped in. The actual amount of pollution went up, not down, with their mandates, due to the extra amount of fuel consumed. It raised the cost of owning the vehicle, both for the original purchase price and the cost of the fuel and the performance of the engines.

    No wonder so many people switched from automobiles to trucks because the trucks originally were not regulated. In 1977 I purchased a Jeep Wagoneer and my brother-in-law purchased a Chevrolet Suburban. Those were not regulated, had wonderful V8 engines, and got good mileage.

  • http://blog.russnelson.com/ Russ Nelson

    Progressives see government as the only bastion between them and rapacious corporations. You know, the greedy ones who sell lousy products that kill people, like flying cars. Big business.

    Yet in reality, the regulations form a big lump of fixed compliance cost, so that companies end up becoming big business even if they didn’t want to.

    Progressives wear shoes from Target. You know, the ones with the corporate logo on the tongue.

  • Jack

    I can’t help but see it as a conspiracy. Not at the level of the specific car but rather higher up the chain. The people at the top, the people with the power, money and influence know what these regulations do. They may be sociopaths but they’re very smart…or clever.

    And I can’t imagine that a government so obsessed with control, as ours is, would EVER allow a flying car…especially one where you could just take off from your driveway. That’s just too much freedom for us mundanes.

    Down with the state! Great article!