You can't extrapolate a 5 year trend (especially the most recent time frame).
The price of gas has to be looked at over a 10, 20 and 30 year, or more, trend.

Inflationdata.com
The price of gas, adjusted for inflation has barely budged over its long term average.
In 1978-1980 time frame, people were convinced that they'd see $100/barrel. It hit $19/barrel a few years later.
I'm not saying it will return to the lows of a few years ago, but gas, like everything else in this world is a commodity, whose price goes up...and down.
BTW, comaring the price of gas to another era, such as in 1978 (roughly equivalent to the current prices, adjusted for inflation) is totally meaningless, since today's cars (including non-hybrids) are significantly more efficient than they were 30 years ago.

 

That is an interesting chart. It shows that for the past 10 years gas prices have done nothing but soar. This could be because of the emergence of countries like China, a trend that is picking up steam fast. One could speculate that it is the trend of the past 10 years that will continue and will perhaps pick up steam as well. If the 10 year trend continues, gas will be nearly $8 by 2018. I happen to think it will pick up steam.

 

My experience for decades, in my various cars, has been that on long interstate trips I could do up to 15% or even 20% better than the (old) EPA highway numbers, but in my usual (disastrously short-trip) city driving I can usually only get 60% to 75% of the EPA city numbers. And I have never had a tank average that comes anywhere near the so called "combined" number.

The TCH has been no exception to my own experience.

In short, I have, in fact, always found that the EPA numbers provide a very good basis for me to form RELATIVE mpg expectations between different cars for my own driving patterns, but they are pretty worthless as absolute predictors of what I will get.

 

Don't worry about the averages...

... a scientist is one who put his feet in a bucket of ice and his head inside a hot oven? He said that, on the AVERAGE, he was quite comfortable!...

Are you going to save the world if you get 42.76 MPG instead of the 36.817 MPG that someone elso got?

Should you sue if the EPA is rated 34 MPG, but you got only 31 MPG?

It's a car, not a science experiment.

Enjoy it...take it to the park, take it to the beach or take it to the ice cream store.

Don't fret the mileage, life's way too short.

 

Blaspheme

Starting with the first car that I owned featuring an accurate trip computer ('89 BMW 325is, FWIW) and well before the days of the ScanGauge. Driving has become a science experiment. Ok, so more like SCIENCE ENTERTAINMENT.

The EPA numbers give some sorta of range with a big YMMV. In this case rburt07, smilin' jack and myself find correlation between EPA estimates and observed FE. However, Consumers Report has been a strong advocate of the EPA numbers being misleading. Here is a summary of results/estimates for my non-hybrid daily driver:

14/30/21 - Consumer Reports
24/31/27 - Original EPA
21/29/24 - Updated EPA
27-38/32 - Observed FE over 9 years/140K miles, all driving <= 50% city

FWIW, 2007 TCH
28/41/34 - Consumer Reports
40/38/39 - Original EPA
33/34/34 - Updated EPA
26-50/37 - Observed FE on greenhybrid of cars reporting >20 tanks

From this we can derive...

FE_obs (YMMV) = [ CR(YMMV) + EPA_orig(YMMV) + EPA_new(YMMV) ] / 3

 

Sure I can! You may not agree that the next five years will be like the last five years, but that just happens to be my best guess. Well, not exactly, but I still think the price of gas trend will continue upward faster than inflation (as opposed to the last 30 years). I see China and India (maybe even Rusia) continuing their consumption ramp ups, and the US consumers (on average) continuing their ramp down, but not enough to make up for the BRIC countries. Admittedly, this is just speculation on my part.

I agree that todays vehicles are more fuel efficient, and that is a good thing. And the presures for fuel efficient vehicles, and other energy sources, will increase as the price of gas goes up.

 

Breaking news:

In the ongoing online forum discussion of the Consumer Reports take on the $ savings that could possibly be achieved with a Camry hybrid, Haroldo (could he be an existentialist?), quipped:


"It's a car, not a science experiment.

Enjoy it...take it to the park, take it to the beach or take it to the ice cream store.

Don't fret the mileage, life's way too short."

DOSAC (possibly speaking up for all the gearheads) disagreed, replying:

In an attempt to resolve this, an emergency meeting of the PARIS panel was convened.

The Pragmatist immediately sided with the existentialists and parodied John Prine, saying,
"I'm with Haroldo, we've got no complaint.
This car's what it is, and it ain't what it ain't.
A car's good if it gets from point A to point B,
and using less gas makes it better with me."

The Analyst advised that the gearheads and the CR reporters have a point, but noted, "If you truly want to figure out the expected savings vs. some other car, you need to take into account a lot more than just the sticker price and EPA estimate comparisons. Every driver's mpg achievement will be different, and market forces may change incentives, discounts or 'up-charges' tomorrow. Also, there's the possible future market fluctuations in the car's resale value and in the price of gas as well as the effects of inflation and future interest rates and the time value of money all to be considered.

The Realist said, "There's no way that we can accurately predict all of those things, and, besides, all of these decisions we make have a way of turning out for the better or worse for reasons we don't even consider at the time we make the decisions. Look at what happened with the ethanol incentives and the price of food. We ought to just pick the car we like best at the time and "go on down the road."

The Idealist screamed, "You guys make me sick. Why can't you all wake up and see that there's more at stake here than just dollars and cents. Efficiency, economy and conservation are noble pursuits regardless of the financial results. And we have a moral duty to reduce air pollution as well as carbon dioxide emissions, no matter the costs, in order to save the planet for future generations."

The Synthesist and panel convener, Jack, in his usual manner, just smiled and said, "Before I even try to synthesize all of this into a coherent conclusion, I'm going to open the floor for further discussion from the community."............................
.........................................
........................................

 

Haroldo says "you can blow your TCH savings on a few lattes, unlimited texting or a ticket to a professional football game".
Nobody hyperanylizes their Starbucks purchases, nor would they think twice about sending a text message, or two, or a few hundred.
If you drive 15,000 miles a year and increase your mileage from 30-40 MPG, you've saved 125 gallons @$3.50/gal is $437.50 per year.
That's 1.19/day.
That's equal to one Dunkin Donuts donut per day.
That's equal to one ball park beer every four days
High speed internet costs $1.50 per day.

When you put it in that context, one needs to ask if the minutia is worth it.

Is it?

 

It's all relative.

To someone that doesn't live paycheck to paycheck it's no big deal.
To the person that does live paycheck to paycheck that could be a months rent.
To someone that has kids that could be several boxes of diapers and some formula. (Formula right now is running me $26 /can)

Since I've owned my TCH and tracked all of my gas purchases my lifetime avg savings has come out to $70/per fillup. I am seeing more than a 50% saving at the pump. However, the loan payment went up some but not enough that I am still seeing a decent savings.

Like I said it's all relative.

 

Don't get me wrong...I have 2 college tuitions to pay, so I am well aware of savings opportunities.