U.S. automakers are complaining about the federal government’s plan to raise the average fuel efficiency of vehicles. A L.A Time article quotes Reg Modlin, head of environmental and energy planning for Chrysler Group, who claims that the proposed new bill would require fuel efficiency improvements of 2% to 2.2% per year and that this would be a “significant challenge” from the 1.5% per year seen over the past two decades.

In early September, we reported on the government’s proposed “symbolic change” to the fuel efficiency standards and asked you to contact your representatives asking for real changes. Many of you did (thanks to those that copied us on your letters and mentioned us) as did countless others that read our article thanks to bloggers spreading the word. It is good to see the government responding to the pressure from voters and not listening to lobbyists on this topic, but this is only a first step.

Even with these small required improvements, the U.S. will still be well behind other nations in average fuel efficiency. Automakers claim that this will be difficult and costly, but that should not be the case.

Improvements in powertrain efficiencies over the past 15 years would have shown large improvements in gas mileage in the States, but U.S. automakers have drastically improved the weight of vehicles during this same time, resulting in a net zero effect from these (and other) efficiency improvements.

Many people generally buy much larger vehicles than they need because 1) they have a false belief that they are safer 2) they feel that they may need the extra room at some point 3) marketing programs have done a great job of convincing people that they are “hip” if their vehicle can do something even if they will never use the vehicle for that purpose.

On safety topic, one common example heard is that “I will be crushed if I am driving a Civic that gets hit by an Expedition or Hummer”. There is an increased risk to smaller vehicles due to the ever increasing size of trucks/SUVs, but these larger vehicles have many additional risk factors that make them as dangerous, if not more (e.g. rollovers). Every vehicle has pluses and minuses in terms of risk, and in the case of the potential impact of larger vehicles causing more damage, insurance companies are beginning to raise rates even high on these vehicles, so the actual cost is increasing even more than by gas prices.

The next two desires that lead to people buying larger vehicles than they need go together. Most SUVs will never be taken off road (and pulling off a paved road into a grass parking lot or field does not count, since even a Dodge Neon can do this). Yet, SUVs and trucks have become “cool” because they could go through rugged trails if the desire (and time) was there. There are times when being able to load six to twelve people, with bags, will need to be done, but these are rare. Almost all consumers could save large amounts of money (purchase price, maintenance, fuel) by buying a smaller vehicle and renting or borrowing a larger one for those few instances.

The higher fuel prices seen in the States is quickly causing consumers to rethink vehicle choices. Automakers have responded by increasing the marketing and talk of hybrid vehicles, but major financial journals have said that the extra cost of hybrids do not make sense for most consumers and likely will not for a number of years.

Automakers are businesses and should be run as such, but they have a responsibility to the community at large to make vehicles for consumers’ actual needs. This means improving fuel efficiency technologies, lowering the weight of vehicles and anticipating consumers’ future needs. With the ever increasing shift from automakers to larger vehicles, this has not happened. Free market forces work well in the long-term, but sometimes it takes the government to step in and give a gentle nudge. The first automaker (foreign or domestic) to offer a real solution for consumers will see a definite improvement in sales and loyalty.