New Mileage Standards Announced

Great find. When I was typing my prior post I was looking all over the NHTSA website and I couldn't find it. I had seen it a couple of years ago but couldn't find it again. Yes those numbers are the actual ones being used for CAFE purposes.

Do you still have the link?

Is it a remarkable change? Not really except for the fact that IMO there will no longer be any ICE-only midsized or large sedans after 2016. This is a huge volume of buyers that are now in vehicles getting 22-26 mpg (Combined EPA ) but in 2016 all of these drivers will be buying vehicles getting 31-33 mpg (Combined EPA ).

Most full sized SUVs and all midsized SUVs will be gone due to lack of interest or at most they will be ultra niche vehicles.

Midsized and large crossovers will all be hybrids of one kind or another.

Midsized trucks like the Tacoma are likely to be diesels of one kind or another.

Large trucks are a problem. Some will be hybrids but the rest???

 

Higher gas prices will work there's no doubt about that. It's surprising that a conservative commentator would recommend such a position though. I truly think that such a plan is a non-runner in the US. The mostly conservative populace ( financially ) would be up in arms over a $2 per gallon tax even as a goal. It smells like political death to me.

Everybody is in favor of using less fuel though, ergo more fuel efficient vehicles.

Again the problems I have with a fuel tax are

1. It's regressive in the extreme. Lower income workers will need weekly gas ration coupons just as they do food stamps just to be able to get to work at those lower paying jobs.
2. At $2 / gallon it would directly be a tax-on-after-tax-income taking $1 Billion per day out of the US economy and sending it to Treasury. It would come out of our paychecks, after withholding, and be taken directly at the pump.

It will work though. It will do the job and get everybody into smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.

 

Off topic a bit --- a flat gas tax is no more "regressive" than any other cost. Like a vacation to Hawaii, healthcare premiums, or clothes. The corollary is that a low wage is "regressive".

Second, taxes are *always* on top of other taxes. Except of course, when other taxes are repealed. Third, the argument that $1B/day would be removed from the economy assumes current consumption patterns. Aren't we forgetting the reason to institute the tax in the first place ?

[/rant off]

 

Doesn't have to be as painfully regressive as to force gas ration coupons for lower income workers. Sadly, I believe gas taxes are the only sensible way to go, but delayed and on a known schedule.

It would be crushingly regressive if enacted suddenly. But why not index in gas taxes in a manner that increases and smoothes gas prices - just as CAFE standards are?

For example (use your own variant), tax gas such that gas prices are $3.00/gal starting in 2010, $3.50/gal in 2011, $4.00/gal in 2012, $4.50/gal in 2013 (yes, I realize the underlying gas costs will result in flucuating taxes and therefore revenues - but there is flucuation now). Consumers and automakers would know well in advance what to expect. Automakers could retool for more efficient cars knowing that consumers would buy them - given the known future costs of gas. Right now automakers can't know what to build since consumers can change on a dime (far faster than they can produce or retool), Prius sales vs gas prices have shown this clearly. In this way, lower income workers would not be punished as badly, many would move to higher mileage vehicles over the years of gas price implementation. And the US is going to move to increase tax revenues anyway, why not accomplish something specific instead of just higher income taxes?

It will definitely work. If you don't think so, aren't you conceding that Europeans and the other countries with higher average MPG's are smarter than we are? Of course they aren't.

Political will, and mainstream population support, is undoubtedly the biggest obstacle.

CAFE standards alone will not work. Higher average MPG's without increased gas prices only induces people to drive more, as has been shown over the past several decades.

 

What a question. That's like asking my wife if she still has her dress from the 6th grade.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/epadata/07data.zip

Props to Wayne Gerdes from cleanmpg.com for finding the data. If I remember right, the file is a text delimited table. I imported it into OpenOffice.

Addendum: I found these links on the fueleconomy website while poking around. I'm not sure of their value ...
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/index.htm
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/factshts/fefact01.pdf

 

Uggh. Can we *please* stop co-opting words for political sway ? A regressive tax is one that decreases as income increases. If you want to say that this tax will take a bigger chunk percentage wise out of smaller salaries assuming stable consumption, I'll agree. But you have assumed a lot in your assertion regarding consumption.

 

This article from Edmund's (who would have thunk ?) sums up the ACTUAL improvement requirements pretty well: "CAFE vs. EPA: Obama's MPG targets are closer than you think" Edmunds Daily

 

Just Google gas tax regressive and you'll find many credible sources that would consider gas taxes regressive FWIW...they would certainly have the same effect.

 

If true, all the more reason to question the recent CAFE legislation:

 

Heh. Agreement by the Detroit car manufacturers should have told you that. I do think that SUV monsters in any numbers will not be sustainable under the new CAFE requirements, but that is probably a sign of the times anyway, and would have happened regardless. In many ways the manufacturers "gave up" what they planned to cut back on anyway.

I think the real importance of this legislation is the future: carbon is a pollutant, and the EPA can follow aggressive state goals if it wants, and demand national compliance. The political irony is that the manufacturers are happy with a national standard, too. Their stated reasons, of saving money by not having a patchwork of regulation to adhere to, and market stability are probably true; but they neglect to mention what they *really* like: one place they can apply all their political and courtroom leverage to retard progressive requirements. Framed another way, CARB is not a friend, so better to transfer the game to the EPA, where at least they can hope for future republican administrations.

 

I don't see the gas tax as particularly regressive. It is a user pays system since we need the money for the very roads being used anyway. Furthermore, if it will result in average and lower income drivers having higher mileage vehicles as well. What I expect is that paying a bit more per gallon will result in the same basic fuel bill...just fewer gallons and less money wasted on monstrosities that aren't really needed and don't fit into parking spaces or garages anyway.

In the end while it might appear to be regressive, the actual effect will be to reduce other costs to this very same taxpayer. Wouldn't surprise me if the return was 1:1 or even >1 in the taxpayer's favor over the long haul.

 

The Odyssey and RAV4 being "light trucks" isn't surprising. All minivans and AFAIK, all small SUVs fall under the "light truck" classification. I knew about the HHR being a "light truck" but that one that's more ridiculous and has been known for a long time is that PT Cruiser.

Yep, since it wasn't mentioned earlier here, I wanted to point out that ~60% of that 20 million barrels/day we consume is imported. During the previous oil crises, IIRC, that figure was ~30%.

The US at ~300 million people is <5% of the world's population yet we consume almost 1/4 of the world's daily oil production. We're going to be at odds w/developing countries >1 billion people such as China and India.

The oil related figures can be found at EIA - Petroleum Basic Data.

Also, for those who are curious to see how manufacturers are doing now against the CAFE standard and calculation method, look at Summary of Fuel Economy Performance under CAFE | National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) | U.S. Department of Transportation. Toyota's and Honda's domestic and import passenger car fleets are already past "35 mpg" for MY 2009.

BTW, Edmunds has another piece on the "35 mpg" plan that recently signed: New Math: 35 MPG Is Really 26 MPG Under Obama Plan. When the earlier bill called for "35 mpg" by 2020 instead of 2016 under the new plan, Edmunds also talked about the window sticker # vs. the number being thrown around in the press at "Fuel Economy: Doublespeak at its Best" Green Car Advisor.

 

You assume that the public will buy more fuel efficient vehicles. That is the problem with CAFE. CAFE is a mandate for manufacturers to make more fuel efficient vehicles but it gives buyers no incentive to purchase them. So if vehicle buyers don't buy the more efficient vehicles, nothing changes. Vehicle buyers make decisions based on the price of gas.

The other problem with CAFE is that it has no teeth. Currently the NHTSA fines a automaker $100 for every mpg a vehicle is under CAFE. So if that $35,000 V8 SUV only gets 25 mpg under CAFE tests instead of 30 mpg the manufacturer will be fined $500. The manufacturer adds 1.5% to the MSRP and the fine is just part of doing business.

You also assume that a conventional ICE can't meet these new CAFE requirements. If the new CAFE numbers really are only 29 mpg for cars and 23 mpg for trucks by current EPA methods than these goals are easily achievable with conventional ICE technology. The Chevrolet Malibu gets 26 mpg combined right now and doesn't have direct injection yet. Chevy and Ford have both stated that they plan to meet the new CAFE regulations using direct injection, turbocharging, and improved transmissions.

I personally see vehicles sold in 2016 to be very similar to those sold today. ICE Hybrids might increase to ~10% market share but the majority of vehicles will still be conventional ICE with smaller engines.

 

I understand this argument but the rejoinder is that there will be no other choices IMO. The choices for autos will be..

• ultra efficienct vehicles like the Prius, Insight II, HCH and others;
• ICE-compacts almost exactly like today's vehicles with some tweaks
• hybrid or clean diesel midsizers only
• hybrid or clean diesel full sized autos only.
• some small volume performance autos

The public will have no other options. This is a great benefit for the country.

I made no such assumption at all. In fact I consistently have said that the current small cars will have to do ... nothing. They already meet the standards.

It's the midsizers and full sized autos that will have to change. Some may be able to attain the new 29-31 mpg combined rating by a 15% increase in the efficiency of the ICE but most will not. Most midsized ICE 4c vehicles are in the 25-27 mpg range today. Most V6 midsizers are in the low 20 mpg range today. The 4 cyl models might be able to be tweaked 15% or so to meet the standard but the V6 models will need a significant improvement of 40-50%. In view of this I can see the makers offering only the 4 cyl and hybrid options while de-emphasizing the V6's.

The problem with just reducing the size of the ICEs is that performance suffers dramatically unless it's turbo boosted and the ICE still needs to be improved to meet the new standard.

Adding hybrid technology solves both problems elegantly.

 

The 2010 Chevrolet Equinox is an excellent example of how an ICE vehicle can meet the new standards:

-------------------------------- 2009 --------------- 2010
Engine ---------------------- 3.4L V6 -------------- 2.4L I4
Horsepower ---------------- 185 HP -------------- 182 HP
Transmission ------------- 5 Speed Auto ------ 6 Speed Auto
Weight ---------------------- 3699 lbs -------------- 3761 lbs
Fuel Economy -------------- 17/20/24 ------------ 22/26/32
Base MSRP ----------------- $24,315 -------------- $22,440

So by GM replaced a 3.4L V6 with a direct injection I4 they lost only 3 horsepower but improved fuel economy 30%. The 2010 Equinox easily beats the 2016 requirement for SUV's and meets the average for the fleet. No hybrid technology, lose of performance, or downsizing of vehicle required. They even dropped the price.

I agree that manufacturers will downsize engine sizes and the number of cylinders. This is already happening because engine technology now makes the extra cylinders unnecessary to put out the power required. Ford has already announced that they will be replacing many V8's with twin turbo V6's and V6's with I4's. GM has made similar announcements. The added benefit is that engines with less cylinders have less parts and are less expensive to make.

My point is this. The 2016 fuel economy standards will not eliminate the ICE and replace it with ICE hybrids. ICE hybrid technology is not needed to meet the required increase in mileage.


I notice you didn't have any comments on the possibility that automakers will simply choose to pay the low fines and pass that cost on to the customer.

 

Isn't that easily solved with updated legislation making the fines significantly bigger? As a similar example, Pacific Gas & Electric decided to not follow the PURPA legislation (1978 laws for CA utilities to buy renewable energy). The California Public Utilities Commission then actually changed PG&E's rate of return until they complied. Nothing like eliminating a companies profit to get their attention. It seems a very dangerous position to base your business on the legislation intentionally being ignored and the government accepting this.

 

It could be easily solved by increasing fines for non-compliance but the NHTSA has shown no interest in doing that. Many manufacturers have actively decided to ignore US CAFE law for decades. Instead they weigh the cost of fines against cost of compliance and decide that it is less expensive to pay the fines. Mercedes paid a record $30.3 million in fines for the 2006 model year. (2006 is the most recent year that data have been supplied by the NHTSA.)

 

Is the NHTSA under the federal executive branch ? Directives coming out of the White House these days are different than the past 8 years.

 

Again I didn't state that all vehicles would become hybrids. The crossovers are perfect examples of the future of what we will drive in the next 10 yrs. It'll be a mixture of advanced technologies such as turbo boosted-ICEs, clean diesels and hybrids.

The days of the ICE-alone vehicle are gone IMO unless the vehicle is compact size and smaller. This is a big number of buyers but it's also the most price sensitive group. Nothing has to change for this group for the next 6-8 yrs.

However the midsized vehicles ( autos and crossovers ) are going to have to change relatively little, but all will have to change, with the implementation of smaller ICE+turbos, clean diesels and hybrids. This is a huge and growing segment of buyers.

Assuming that 30 mpg Combined is the number that autos should meet then of the most popular 4 cyl vehicles...
Camry.....22 / 32 / 26...20% improvement needed
Accord....21 / 30 / 24...20+% improvement needed
Corolla.....26 / 34 / 29...minor improvement needed
Civic.......25 / 36 / 29...minor improvement needed
Altima......23 / 31 / 26..20% improvement needed
Sonata....22 / 32 / 25...20% improvement needed
Mazda6...21 / 30 / 24...20+% improvement needed
Malibu.....22 / 33 / 26...20% improvement needed
Fusion.....22 / 31 / 25...20% improvement needed
Cobalt.....24 / 33 / 27...10% improvement needed
Focus......24 / 33 / 27...10% improvement needed


The large V6 autos will have to undergo significant changes as will the large V8 luxury segment.

BOF trucks and SUVs are also in the bright glare of the spotlight. Only the GM 2-Modes are close to the new standards as of today.