New Mileage Standards Announced

Agree good but 35.5 MPG in 6 years !? A Yukon XL should have done that years ago ...

 

Anybody know the details ? Mostly I am wondering if the mpg is calculated by CAFE

 

Here are the rules...

This is actually an advancement of the standards that were stipulated in the 2007 Energy bill, H.R.6 of the 110th Congress. This law set up the 35 mpg industry average standard. It's no longer a Corporate Average Fuel Economy system. The entire industry has to meet the standard*. This is a good thing.

Now the details. Each vehicle maker can be in compliance a) if the industry meets the standard and b) if the individual maker is within 92% of the standard ( ~3 mpg ). Google H.R.6 of the 110th Congress.

The original law stipulated only an industry average and left the details to be worked out by the NHTSA, Natl Academy of Sciences, industry and other interested groups.

President Obama and California and all the rest of the interested parties decided to create this comprimise.
auto fleet ............................ = 39 mpg Comb
light truck fleet ( 10000 GVWR ) = 30 mpg Comb

Instead of multiple standards state-by-state all the states and the Feds and industry will have one standard ( the industry cheers ).










Now the really tiny details.

• The CAFE program is monitored by the NHTSA as part of the DOT.
• The Fuel Economy ratings we all know are determined and monitored by the EPA a separate agency.
• NHTSA uses the EPA testing system originally devised in 1975
• EPA now uses a simpler carbon-capturing system at the tailpipe
• EPA takes its test date and then discounts it by about 20-25% to get the 'realistic' 'real world' numbers shown on its website and on the stickers.
• NHTSA does not discount the raw test data!!!! It still uses the 1975 tests but applied to new vehicles.
• As a result the EPA numbers are about 20-25% lower than the NHTSA numbers which are used for the CAFE standards
• Both programs use the Combined Rating, not City nor Hwy
• Confused yet?
• NHTSA uses a sales-weighted harmonic average to determine the CAFE rating for a vehicle. Essentially its based on usage; i.e. 'gpc' not 'mpg'. This is much much more accurate because it measures usage. Mathematically, performing an averaging on rates is erroneous.
• 'Trucks' include vehicles like the Sienna, Odyssey, HHR, RAV, Tacoma, Pilot, Tahoe, Escalade and Sierra.

The results.... this is good for all of us.

• All the true hybrids are well above the new 2016 standard, both cars and crossovers;
• The BOF 2-Mode hybrids from GM are just below the new standard and need a little tweaking;
• Many current compact ICE-only vehicles are just below the 2016 standard and need just a little tweaking;
• All midsized 4 cyl ICE-only autos are below the new standard;**
• All V6 and V8 ICE-only autos are well below the new standard;***
• All non-hybrid pickups are well below the new standard;****
• All non-hybrid BOF SUVs are well below the new standard****
• Most other crossover non-hybrid 'trucks' are just below or just at the new standard, they need only a little tweak

The new standards:

• If the CAFE auto standard is 39 mpg Combined that is roughly equal to an EPA Combined value of 30-32 mpg on the EPA website;
• If the CAFE Lt Truck standard is 30 mpg Combined that is roughly equal to an EPA Combined value of 21-23 mpg on the EPA website.

*The original law simply mandated a 35 mpg standard. It has since been revised to 39 mpg for autos and 30 mpg for trucks with the expectation that autos will outsell trucks weighting the average higher.

** HUGE new innovations coming. Unless the vehicle makers are sandbagging in the labs none of the current ICE-only 4 cyl vehicles will meet the standard. Therefore it is very likely that every midsized auto by 2016 will be a hybrid of one kind or another!!!!!! This is a HUGE volume of vehicles that the public will be driving.

*** There is no way that the current technologies in V6 or V8 ICEs will be able to meet the new auto fleet standard in 2016. The likelihood is that the V6's will go to some turbo-charging system or some hybrid system and most if not all V8s will simply disappear or shrink to ultra-niche status; LS 460.

**** Ditto on the BOF vehicles. The current V8 ICEs are too far away from the new standard to be able to get close. However the GM/Chrysler 2-Mode is a great advancement for this segment. These vehicles are currently just below the new standard for 2016, they need only a little tweak. The big issue here is what do Ford and Toyota have up their sleeves. Neither has announced any hybrid developments on the BOF vehicles.

Clean diesel for heavy BOF vehicles?

 

Actually that 'discount' two years ago was the second one that the EPA did. There was an earlier one I believe in the early 90s for the same reason. Each 'discount' was about +/-10% for a total of 20-25%. However to create the sticker numbers I believe that the EPA just applies a coefficient to the carbon-capture tailpipe test.

The NHTSA doesn't use this test. It uses the original EPA tests from 1975 with no adjustments for the purposes of CAFE.

The NHTSA views the fuel economy of the Gen 2 Prius at about 60 mpg Combined!! The new standard for 2016 will be 39 mpg. This number is unrelated to the EPA value found on it's website. This number is used only for CAFE calculation purposes.

 

I believe (and would appreciate factual confirmation or denial) that regulations/rules are within the existing law which establishes the rule making body. If Obama says that this rule will be established, DOT/NHTSA/EPA can make it happen without a new law.

 

H.R.6 of the 110th Congress..H.R. 6 [110th]: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (GovTrack.us)
read the 'Full Text' at your leisure.

The new regs are a continuation of this law from Dec 2007.

To his credit this was all G Bush's iniative. However it had little or anything to do with the environment. It was all about national security.

 

While I agree that better fuel economy is a good thing (reducing imports, reducing money sent out of our economy, national security, and cheaper gas), I think that mandating it is not the way to go.

There are some technologies up and coming such as direct injection, electronic valvetrains and HCCI, however all of those things take lots of research and development (which = $$$$$). Our domestic auto industry is already hurting, but is already moving in the right direction (hybrids, two-mode hybrids, mild hybrids, electric and range-extended electrics...). Pushing them harder in these tough times would only contribute to them falling right over.


I do think this subject is a tricky one. Americans are fickle when it comes to what we choose to drive. Last year, when gasoline hit over $4/gal, we saw that choice change pretty dramatically. Then the bubble burst and gas prices came back down, and there was a lot of reversion.

How do we get the consumer to shift their choice in the direction of more efficient vehicles? This is the serious question.

Increasing taxes on gasoline is one way, but there would be a lot of anger around this. Given I'm conservative, I would be one of the angry people.

I'd much rather let the free market influence consumers. And if at this time it doesn't lead them to buying more efficient vehicles, then the market isn't ready for it. It's like taking your teenage daughter to the gynocologist for the first time - she just might not be ready for it, and if she's forced, she might be scarred from the experience.

 

DeadPhish,

Do I understand correctly that car and truck mpg fleet requirements are still based on raw circa 1975 EPA city/highway testing; that is, the same numbers that are currently used for CAFE compliance today ?

Will the ethanol credit still be offered ? (What a lobbying loophole THAT is).
Will the loopholes that allow cars to be labeled as trucks (like the Chevy HHR and Subaru Forester) still be around ?

Thanks for posting and educating us! I am very skeptical of fuel economy regulations actually making a big difference in national energy use, but I'm more than happy to be proved wrong.

 

It's the tests themselves which were designed in 1975 by the EPA that the NHTSA still uses. I don't have the specifics but one I remember from the old tests they disconnected all the parasitic devices like the AC that drew off power and basically ran just the engines to get the fuel ratings.

Ethanol is a boondoggle that's going to be phased out under the 2007 law. Yes the HHR and Forester and RAV and Odyssey are all 'trucks'.

Actually this is a very good move for the nation as a whole. Is it an amazing advancement? No. But it will stretch out the usage of petro-products and reduce the emissions of CO2 from our national fleet quite significantly. It also addresses the most critical problem first, the larger, heavier least fuel efficient vehicles.

I ran a very broad scenario over at Edmunds on a simlar discussion where I estimated that on a 10 million new vehicle sales fleet in 2016 that the new standards would save
our national Lt Truck fleet 900 million gallons of fuel the first year, 1.8 billion gallons of fuel the 2nd, 2.7 Billion gallons the 3rd yr, 3.6 Billion gallons the 4th, etc, etc
our national auto fleet 400 million gallons of fuel the first year, then 800 million, 1.2 billion, 1.6 billion, etc, etc.

Altogether by 2020 the two fleets would have 'saved' 13 billion gallons of fuel in just 4 yrs. The fifth year of the program the fleet of 10 million new units along with the 40 million units created over the prior 4 yrs will 'save' 6.5 billion gallons. It begins to grow huge.

Now 'saved' is a relative term. It assumes that the national fleet never grows beyond 10 million units which is almost assuredly incorrect. By that time we will have recovered from this mess where next year the national new vehicle fleet is likely to be 10 million units. But in 2016 and 2020 we will likely be back above 15 million units annually simply due to the growth of our population and to the growth of the economy. The 'savings' will actually be far in excess of the numbers above.

IF...HUGE qualifier...the national fleet never got larger than 10 million units from 2016 through 2021 and IF...a 2nd HUGE qualifier...the price of fuel was constant at $3/gallon then due to these new measures by the end of 2021 the country will have saved 20 Billion gallons of fuel at $3/gal. That's $60 Billion that wasn't burnt up and shipped to others.

 

Actually every major industrial area has mandated standards simply because it is not in the interests of the vehicle makers to spend money if they don't have to. There are three major western standards..

• Japan limits the size of the engine by taxation at the time of purchase
• Europe limits the use of fuel by very high taxation at the pump
• NA limits the use of fuel by mandating fuel standards
• India and China will soon follow with their own as the need arises.

Yes agreed. But the Energy Act of 2007 specifically set aside $25 Billion for the D3 to tap into in order to finance their new R&D into more fuel efficient vehicles. Ford just dipped into the funds; GM and Chrysler can't until they exit BK court.

Yep and here's the answer. Don't give Mr/Mrs Buyer any options except very efficient ones. This is no different than in Europe where you have no option to say buy $2 fuel instead of $6 fuel.

Mr/Mrs Buyer are going to have the choices I noted above. All are good choices. There won't be any bad ones.

Gas taxes would definitely work, as we see already in Europe. But the side effects are like listening to a TV adv for the newest drug. It'll relieve the symptoms of what ails you today but in two months it'll kill ya.

A gas tax is regressive. It also must be large enough to hurt in order to be effective. $2/gallon is about right. Of course that's on top of whatever the market price is. But at $2/gal tax at the pump that's $1 Billion per day taken out of our wallets and sent to Treasury ( Oh there's a good place for it ) after we have our personal withholding tax paid.

 

Agreed. This is my view as well. FE is primarily an issue of national security, of national economic security and ( having lived through gas lines during the OPEC embargo ) of keeping peace in the streets at home.

Our population today is 305 million. In 2030 it will be 400 million.
Today we use 20 MM bbl/day of oil. In 2030 we will need 30 MM bbl/day.
70-75 % of this usage is for transportation.

This is just for our own domestic usage in order to keep us all in our vehicles going to and from work.

 

I'd like to offer some reflections. Please accept steam blowing with no offense intended to any of our wonderful PC Members...

I wish Free Market Pressures would effectively work on this issue. I don't like being told what, when, and how by Big Brother or my mother. However If we've learned anything from the ENRON/Banking disclosures it is that, unfortunately, we must have government interference-leadership-oversight to remove/reduce the human greed factors involved. It seems most of us including investors, CEOs and COOs think short term when pocketbooks and profits are concerned and longterm when forced to by some sort of crisis or authority figure.
Seatbelt usage, helmet usage, and speed limits ....low personal savings rates, high credit card usage, excess mortage values and loans, insufficient food, health and medicine oversight
I only wish I knew the proper limits.

Thanks for listening...Prius friends. :focus:

 

Will this have an impact on the Toyota hybrid warranty. Toyota has a 10 year 150,000 mile warranty for California. If the rest of the country is going to match California, does our warranty change?

 

If higher mileage standards cause big problems on PC, then something is a little strange, is it not?

I wish that were the case as well. However, the opposite is actually the real situation. The big auto maker options for electric cars are......zero. The big auto makers options for PHEV are.....zero. The American options for high quality American built small cars.....are close enough to zero to be zero. The American options for hybrids might be zero if were not for Toyota and Honda.

So while the gut reaction is that this is taking away "freedom", I'm wondering if it actually may be legislation that increases "freedom". Is there anything that is actually limiting consumer choice in any way? It seems to me, that the best way for the manufacturers to meet these demands are to make appealing cars with really high mpg.

Two distinctions help me out. Regulations on personal freedoms need to be examined closely. Regulations on business activities need to be generated and enforced closely, since the "freedom" usually be defended is the "right" to take as much money away from someone as possible.

 

DeadPhish,

I wasn't clear in my earlier post. I mean circa '75 EPA test *methods*, not 35 year old results

You might find this table interesting:
PriusChat Forums - SageBrush's Album: CAFE 2008 -- by vehicle - Picture
It lists all the cars (from 2008 I think) that have a CAFE mpg over 35, grouped by manufacturer. You had written earlier that CAFE numbers are 20 - 25% higher than window sticker EPA mpg. Just eyeballing, I say the differences are more in the 33 -50% range.

So it is an improvement ? Sure. Is it dramatic ? Hardly. Off-hand, I guess about what $3.5 fuel would accomplish. It shines after an era of SUV pigs, but that is akin to a woman liking her figure compared to the circus fat lady.

 

The answer is pretty simple: increase fuel costs and let the free market work out solutions to the price. Either that or we can wait for the inevitable crash and burn that comes from an unregulated free market bent on short term gratification...oops, too late, we've already done that.

Increasing gas taxes is a must if we were going to even maintain our infrastructure, let alone improve it. Gas taxes have been too low for far too long as a result of the very conservative attitudes you mention as well as American unwillingness to pay for what we use. Increase fuel taxes about $1/gal as a starter. Put more folks to work doing things that are helpful to our country and that actually make us more economically competitive in the long run. It's strategic vision and reinvestment, something we have been sorely lacking for the past 8 years.

As a conservative columnist stated (Krauthammer), if we increase our fuel taxes then we can use it internally, rather than shipping that money overseas. It's more like putting in a price floor to smooth out the peaks and valleys. This will result in saner long term investment.

It's not like keeping gas taxes low has done anything positive for the nation. Two of the three automakers are going bankrupt anyway...perhaps partially because of the low fuel taxes. And our old bridges and such are falling apart.