Workplace incentives for fuel-efficient cars

Apr 4, 2008 9:24 AM

Reading The Wall Street Journal over breakfast a while back, I noticed an interesting article titled "Workers Get Incentives to Live Greener" that mentioned employers who give workers financial reasons to buy fuel-efficient cars. Clif Bar, makers of energy bars, give forgivable loans if you buy a car that gets at least 40 mpg. NRG Systems, who makes wind-measurement equipment, gives a $1,000 bonus to employees who buy a Toyota Prius. And, although it wasn’t mentioned in this article, Google gives $5,000 to workers who buy a car that achieves 45 mpg. (Hybridcars.com has a list of employers who offer such fuel economy and hybrid incentives.)

Another company that offers incentives is Topics Entertainment, a Washington software publisher. Their incentive program is considerably wider-ranging. To get those above incentives, based on what’s on the market today, you’re essentially limited to buying a new Toyota Prius. Not bad, but not for everyone.

Topics’ program covers other ways to improve fuel economy. Employees get $1,000 to trade in their current car for a new one with a smaller engine and additional money for going from a V8 to a four cylinder or buying a hybrid. That gives employees a wider range of vehicles from which to choose.

For the most part, this is a great idea. You don’t need to go all the way from a Suburban, Expedition, or Land Cruiser to a Prius to get considerable fuel economy improvements. For example, trading in a Jeep Commander for a Saturn Outlook would save 3 mpg (13 vs. 16 mpg, overall, in our tests).

As a general rule of thumb, an engine with a lower displacement or fewer cylinders typically consumes less fuel, thus creating less carbon dioxide emissions than a bigger engine with more cylinders. (This is discussed in my earlier blog "You coulda had a V8... but who needs it?' Indeed, some European nations have taxes based on vehicle engine displacement.

But there are some exceptions to the rule:

If you trade this...

For this...

…you can save this many mpg (based on CR's overall fuel economy)

2000 Subaru Outback (2.5-liter, four-cylinder)	2008 Toyota RAV4 V6 (3.5-liter, six-cylinder)	2 mpg (20 vs. 22)
2004 Volvo S60 2.5T (2.5-liter turbo, five-cylinder)	2006 BMW 328i (3.0-liter, six-cylinder)	2 mpg (22 vs. 24)
2005 Chevrolet Cobalt LS (2.2-liter, four-cylinder)	2008 Volkswagen Jetta (2.5-liter, five-cylinder)	1 mpg (23 vs. 24)
2007 Mazda CX-7 (2.3-liter turbo, four-cylinder)	2008 BMW X3 3.0i (3.0-liter, six-cylinder)	1 mpg (18 vs. 19)
2006 Hummer H3 (3.5-liter, five-cylinder)	2008 Volvo XC90 V8 (4.6-liter, eight-cylinder)	2 mpg (14 vs. 16)
2004 Mazda RX-8 (1.3-liter rotary, zero cylinders)	2008 Ford Mustang GT V8 (4.6-liter, eight-cylinder)	2 mpg (18 vs. 20)

Why do some of these disparities exist?

A manufacturer can improve fuel economy in the same engine with continued development. A new Subaru Outback 2.5i, for example, gets 1 mpg better than the 2000 Outback did on our tests.

Typically, the more gears in the automatic transmission, the better the mileage. Cars like the Outback, Cobalt, and H3 only have four-speed automatics.

Small engines pulling heavy vehicles (H3 and CX-7) can struggle, reducing fuel economy.

Rotary engines (RX-8) are very compact, building impressive horsepower per liter, but they aren’t particularly fuel efficient or low in emissions.

To sum up, if you want to improve fuel economy, you usually can’t go wrong by buying a car with a smaller engine. But take a quick look at the fuel economy numbers to make sure.

—Tom Mutchler

Visit our fuel economy hub, and see our list of best cars for fuel economy.

More About: Cars | All Cars News