New cars might be getting more efficient, but if there's an economic slowdown (and the Fed now seems to be getting trapped into more interest rate rises by the inflationary pressures that are due in large measure to energy prices), reduction in car sales will limit the benefits.

IMO this is a very important concern, and it goes beyond vehicle mileage to energy efficiency generally. The world has been awash in liquidity lately, but that state of affairs appears to be unlikely to continue. It isn't just the Fed that one has to watch (see for instance The Nightmare Carry Trade Scenario). I would argue that credit tightening is both inevitable and imminent, and that it is likely to have a very significant effect on the availability of resources for funding efficiency improvements on all fronts.

US consumers are over-stretched and any further tightening could easily push them over the edge, particularly in relation to housing. Altering structural inefficiency is an expensive business. People who are underwater on their mortgage and struggling with credit card debt are unlikely to be buying more efficient vehicles, even if the fuel consumption of their current vehicle is crippling them. The same argument would apply to replacing inefficient appliances or installing improvement such as solar domestic hot water. Rather than increasing efficiency, people are likely to be forced to keep using their current vehicles and other energy-consuming items, but to use them less as energy prices rise relative to other costs.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/update/images/fuel_econ_year.jpg

This graph suggests that rapid changes in fuel efficiecny can occur during a time of economic stagflation as this is exactly what happened in the 70' & 80's.  Granted the lifespan of a car is longer today so the impact will not be seen as quickly but if there are several models on the market today that get 40+ mpg, why couldn't there be a gradual shift over 10 to 15 years from our (U.S.) current efficiency of 22 mpg to 30 or 40 mpg?  Actually I hope we abandon the car as the centerpiece of our transportation infrastructure and choose mass transit and local communities as a response to peak oil but I fear Americans will try to keep the suburban "lifestyle" as long as possible.    

That picture is the fuel economy of new vehicles (I think).  My point is that this graph can be a bit misleading because the volume of new vehicles goes down at the same time the average fuel economy of them goes up, so the deployed vehicle fleet efficiency doesn't go up as much as the new vehicle efficiency might lead one to hope.
/ the deployed vehicle fleet efficiency doesn't go up as much as the new vehicle efficiency might lead one to hope./

Indeed, the question becomes how quickly could a turnover occur.  Certainly not as fast as it was in the 70's and 80's as cars are on the road longer but you've put forth the argument several times that if decline rates are modest say 2 to 3% society might be able to absorb that.  Could we not improve fleet efficiency by 2 or 3% a year as gas guzzlers are slowly retired in favor of more efficient vehicles?

According to Peter Tertzakian, every single new car sold in the US would have to be a hybrid to make any real difference.

I would want to see the context of the remark by Peter Tertzakian.

For example, if a sizable percent of the fleet were converted to a non hybrid Diesel model, example of what is currently available in Europe below...
http://www.vwvortex.com/artman/publish/printer_319.shtml

Would that not have an effect on fuel consumption in a big way?

Several posters here in the debates about bio-fuels have also pointed out that bio Diesel has much better energy return on energy invested than ethanol, but is only held up by the fact that most Americans do not like Diesel cars AT ALL.  But, if fuel prices continue to climb, a 70 mile per gallon small "suburb saver" begins to make sense.  With a hybrid electric drive or some version of hydrualic hybrid, this could be theoretically raised to around 100 miles per gallon, and with plug hybrid as batteries improve, the sky becomes the limit.

Would a person be willing to accept this kind of solution if the other choice is to abandon a quarter million dollar or more investment in the suburbs, their friends and social network, schools lifestyle, etc.,  and flee to a cave or shed in the country?  
oh yeah.
The suburbs ain't going anywhere soon.....

Roger Conner known to you as ThatsItImout

I think the main thing is that Tertzakian sees the oil crunch coming in the next ten years.  None of the current hybrid plans are going to foster a replacement fast enough to work with that timeframe.

We'd need to make every new car a high efficiency model (be it hybrid or something else), and we'd have to enforce retirement of older guzzlers.

Is that going to happen?

Exactly. There are something like 220 million cars in the US. You can't just replace them all when the price of gasoline gets to high. You have to build them before you can sell them. I will look up Tertzakian's passage for you when I get home, Roger.
Hey Folks !

Transportation is only 2/3 of US Oil Consumption.  Private auto use is about 9 million of 21 nillion barrels/day.

Cutting 9 million in half would be a good first step. BUT IT WOULD NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM

-4.5 out of 21 is (round #s) just a 21% reduction in US oil use.  If, as seems likely to me, the US will be forced by economics to take a higher than average reduction in world wide oil use. this might be equal to a global -14% reduction in world oil production.  Perhaps 5 years past peak ?

A graph of US oil use by demand type.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/Dem_image_US_co ns_sector.htm

I was going to say much the same thing although I would also include goverment financed energy efficiency programs.  I differ in that I believe that people will continue to consume energy at the rate they currently are but cut down on "stuff" consumption to pay for it.