• Jul 29, 2011
Following the big CAFE announcement this morning – which called for a 54.5 mpg fuel economy standard by model year 2025 – EPA administrator Lisa Jackson (pictured) gave a bit more information on how the proposal will affect the vehicle landscape in the U.S. She said that there is no expected percentage of what kinds of powertrains (diesel or plug-in or more efficient gasoline engines) will make up the fleet of vehicles sold in 2025, just that the rule requires those vehicles need to be cleaner than the ones produced today. Jackson told AutoblogGreen that gasoline and diesel vehicles "are treated the same" under the new proposal, something that Volkswagen is not too happy about since diesel doesn't get any of the miles per gallon equivalency incentives, the way that plug-in and fuel cell vehicles do. The EPA says that the proposal also gives, "Credits for technologies with potential to achieve real-world CO2 reductions and fuel economy improvements that are not captured by the standards test procedures," that's apparently not good enough for VW. The White House proposal also gives a lot of love to big trucks, and Jackson said that, "full-size pickups are where we decided to make some accommodations," since that segment is running a bit behind the rest of the industry in terms of getting better fuel economy.

We also gathered a few numbers from various press releases that were put out today. There have been a some negative comments issued (see VW and the American Road & Transportation Builders Association, below), but most are positive:
  • Savings to the consumer of $1.7 trillion at the pump (Source: EPA)
  • Alternate number: Savings of $107 billion at the pump (Ceres)
  • Savings of $8,000 per vehicle by 2025 (EPA)
  • A loss of $65 billion in federal funding for state and local highway, bridge and transit improvements (ARTBA)
  • The entire program will save 12 billion barrels of oil (EPA)
  • By 2025, oil consumption should be reduced by 2.2 million barrels a day (EPA)
  • 54.5 mpg is the same as 163 grams per mile of CO2 emissions
  • 54.5 mpg "would create roughly 484,00 jobs nationwide" (Ceres)
More details after the jump.

[Source: EPA, Ceres, ARTBA]
Show full PR text
President Obama Announces Historic 54.5 mpg Fuel Efficiency Standard
Consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump, $8K per vehicle by 2025


WASHINGTON, DC – President Obama today announced a historic agreement with thirteen major automakers to pursue the next phase in the Administration's national vehicle program, increasing fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. The President was joined by Ford, GM, Chrysler, BMW, Honda, Hyundai, Jaguar/Land Rover, Kia, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Toyota and Volvo – which together account for over 90% of all vehicles sold in the United States – as well as the United Auto Workers (UAW), and the State of California, who were integral to developing this agreement.

"This agreement on fuel standards represents the single most important step we've ever taken as a nation to reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said President Obama. "Most of the companies here today were part of an agreement we reached two years ago to raise the fuel efficiency of their cars over the next five years. We've set an aggressive target and the companies are stepping up to the plate. By 2025, the average fuel economy of their vehicles will nearly double to almost 55 miles per gallon."

Building on the Obama administration's agreement for Model Years 2012-2016 vehicles, which will raise fuel efficiency to 35.5 mpg and begin saving families money at the pump this year, the next round of standards will require performance equivalent to 54.5 mpg or 163 grams/ mile of CO2 for cars and light-duty trucks by Model Year 2025. Achieving the goals of this historic agreement will rely on innovative technologies and manufacturing that will spur economic growth and create high-quality domestic jobs in cutting edge industries across America.

These programs, combined with the model year 2011 light truck standard, represent the first meaningful update to fuel efficiency standards in three decades and span Model Years 2011 to 2025. Together, they will save American families $1.7 trillion dollars in fuel costs, and by 2025 result in an average fuel savings of over $8,000 per vehicle. Additionally, these programs will dramatically cut the oil we consume, saving a total of 12 billion barrels of oil, and by 2025 reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day – as much as half of the oil we import from OPEC every day.

The standards also curb carbon pollution, cutting more than 6 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas over the life of the program – more than the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the United States last year. The oil savings, consumer, and environmental benefits of this comprehensive program are detailed in a new report entitled Driving Efficiency: Cutting Costs for Families at the Pump and Slashing Dependence on Oil, which the Administration released today.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT) have worked closely with auto manufacturers, the state of California, environmental groups, and other stakeholders for several months to ensure these standards are achievable, cost-effective and preserve consumer choice. The program would increase the stringency of standards for passenger cars by an average of five percent each year. The stringency of standards for pick-ups and other light-duty trucks would increase an average of 3.5 percent annually for the first five model years and an average of five percent annually for the last four model years of the program, to account for the unique challenges associated with this class of vehicles.

"These standards will help spur economic growth, protect the environment, and strengthen our national security by reducing America's dependence on foreign oil," said U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. "Working together, we are setting the stage for a new generation of clean vehicles."

"This is another important step toward saving money for drivers, breaking our dependence on imported oil and cleaning up the air we breathe," said EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. "American consumers are calling for cleaner cars that won't pollute their air or break their budgets at the gas pump, and our innovative American automakers are responding with plans for some of the most fuel efficient vehicles in our history."

A national policy on fuel economy standards and greenhouse gas emissions provides regulatory certainty and flexibility that reduces the cost of compliance for auto manufacturers while addressing oil consumption and harmful air pollution. Consumers will continue to have access to a diverse fleet and can purchase the vehicle that best suits their needs.

EPA and NHTSA are developing a joint proposed rulemaking, which will include full details on the proposed program and supporting analyses, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and its effects on the economy, auto manufacturers, and consumers. After the proposed rules are published in the Federal Register, there will be an opportunity for public comment and public hearings. The agencies plan to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking by the end of September 2011. California plans on adopting its proposed rule in the same time frame as the federal proposal.
Given the long time frame at issue in setting standards for MY2022-2025 light-duty vehicles, EPA and NHTSA intend to propose a comprehensive mid-term evaluation. Consistent with the agencies' commitment to maintaining a single national framework for vehicle GHG and fuel economy regulation, the agencies will conduct the mid-term evaluation in close coordination with California.

In achieving the level of standards described above for the 2017-2025 program, the agencies expect automakers' use of advanced technologies to be an important element of transforming the vehicle fleet. The agencies are considering a number of incentive programs to encourage early adoption and introduction into the marketplace of advanced technologies that represent "game changing" performance improvements, including:

Incentives for electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and fuel cells vehicles;
Incentives for advanced technology packages for large pickups, such as hybridization and other performance-based strategies;
Credits for technologies with potential to achieve real-world CO2 reductions and fuel economy improvements that are not captured by the standards test procedures.

In addition, EPA plans to propose provisions for:
Credits for improvements in air conditioning (A/C) systems, both for efficiency improvements and for use of alternative, lower global warming potential refrigerant;
Treatment of compressed natural gas (CNG);
Continued credit banking and trading, including a one-time carry-forward of unused MY 2010-2016 credits through MY 2021.

###

Ceres Releases Job Numbers from Obama's MPG Announcement,
Results of New Report Showing Economic Benefits of Strong MPG


54.5 MPG standard by 2025 would create roughly 484,00 jobs nationwide, including 43,000 jobs in auto sector; Consumers would save $107 billion at the pump

BOSTON – President Obama announced an agreement today for the next round of fuel efficiency improvements for model year 2017-2025 cars and light duty trucks at 54.5 MPG by 2025. Ceres, a national coalition of investors and public-interest organizations, today released "More Jobs Per Gallon," an economic analysis by the independent firm Management Information Services, Inc. that quantifies what stronger fuel economy/GHG standards would mean for the U.S. economy.

Obama's announcement of 54.5 mpg by 2025 means cars would be required to average a 5 percent improvement in fuel economy each year from 2017 through 2025, while trucks would only need to rise 3.5 percent a year through 2021. This most closely aligns with the 4 percent per year improvement for CAFE mileage and GHG emission reduction in the Ceres report. Key findings from the 4 percent scenario are:
Approximately 484,000 jobs would be created by 2030 (as opposed to nearly 700,000 jobs under 60 MPG).
43,000 of those jobs would be in the auto sector (as opposed to 63,000 auto sector jobs under 60 MPG).
Consumers would save approximately $107 billion at the pump (as opposed) to $152 billion under 60 MPG.
Net job gains in 49 states, and greatest job gains under strongest standards.

"We commend the Obama Administration on today's important step to boost fuel economy and reduce vehicle emissions, which will create jobs, drive innovation, save consumers money and reduce our dependence on foreign oil," said Mindy S. Lubber, president of Ceres. "Our report makes clear that the stronger the standards, the greater the economic benefits, and we urge the Administration to ensure a strong national program."

Ceres' new report, available at www.ceres.org, evaluated different regulatory scenarios under consideration for CAFE mileage and GHG emissions improvements – specifically, improvements of three, four, five and six percent per year for model years 2017-25.

Among the report's key findings:

· The six percent scenario (roughly 60 MPG) would generate an estimated $152 billion in fuel savings for consumers in 2030 compared to business as usual. Of the $152 billion saved at the pump, $59 billion would be expected to be spent in the auto industry as drivers purchase cleaner, more efficient vehicles. The remaining $93 billion will be spent across the rest of the economy, boosting consumers' discretionary income for everything from retail purchases to restaurant trips to increased spending on health care.

· Nearly 700,000 new full time jobs would be created under the six percent scenario, compared to only about 350,000 jobs under the three percent (roughly 47 MPG) scenario.

· 63,000 new, full-time domestic auto industry jobs would be created in 2030 under the six percent scenario; more than double the 31,000 jobs under the three percent scenario.

· States seeing the biggest gains in terms of relative impact on their job markets also have some of the largest auto industry sectors. Again, job growth would be significantly higher under the six percent scenario. The top 12 states in terms of percentage job increases include Indiana, Michigan, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Vermont, Oregon, New York and Missouri.

· Net jobs gains in 49 states, and greatest job gains under strongest standards. Each of the four regulatory scenarios analyzed would bring substantial economic and job benefits for the U.S. economy in 2030.

· Effects on state GDPs would be overwhelmingly positive. States seeing the biggest percentage GDP gains under the strongest fuel efficiency standard have large auto industry sectors. The biggest gainers would be Michigan and Indiana, followed by Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, Alabama and Oregon. Compared to the three percent scenario, the six percent scenario would bring 382,000 more jobs, a $15.7 billion increase in gross economic output (sales), $10.3 billion more in personal income, and $9.5 billon more in tax revenue for cash strapped federal, state and local governments.

For more details and to read the full report, visit: www.ceres.org/more-jobs-per-gallon

About Ceres: Ceres is a national coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public interest organizations working with companies to address sustainability challenges such as climate change. www.ceres.org

###

New Fuel Efficiency Standards = $65+ Billion in Lost Revenue for Highway & Transit Improvements Between 2017-2025

07/29/11

A July 29 Obama Administration proposal to increase fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks to an average 54.5 miles per gallon (mpg) between 2017 and 2025 would result in the loss of more than $65 billion in federal funding for state and local highway, bridge and transit improvements, an analysis by the American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA) shows.

The impact on the nation's transportation improvement program, ARTBA President Pete Ruane says, would be like eliminating all federal highway funding for nearly two years.

"Like everyone else, we are supportive of efforts to reduce carbon emissions and improve fuel economy. However, from a public policy perspective, this is a classic case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing," Ruane said. "It's irresponsible to advance such proposals without acknowledging and attempting to mitigate the adverse effect they would have on other areas of federal responsibility like making infrastructure improvements that improve safety, reduce traffic congestion, create jobs and help grow the economy."

Per gallon federal gasoline and diesel taxes collected at the pump are deposited into the federal Highway Trust Fund (HTF). By law, these excises are the primary revenue source for financing road, bridge and transit projects. The less motor fuel used by drivers, the less revenue generated for improvements financed through the HTF.

The analysis, conducted by Dr. William Buechner, a Harvard-trained economist and ARTBA vice president of economics & research, assumes the increase in fuel efficiency standards between now and 2016 will occur as required (the Obama Administration in 2010 put in place an increase from an average 28.3 to 34.1 mpg by 2016). It also assumes the mpg requirement will be phased in at five percent per year from 2017 through 2025 as proposed. The baseline for calculating revenue losses is the U.S. Treasury's February 2009 projections of HTF revenues. As new cars and light trucks are purchased in the future and old ones retired, average fuel economy will improve, reducing the 2009 forecast of gasoline sales and HTF revenues.

The HTF is already taking a revenue hit with the standards put in place in 2010, Buechner says. From fiscal years 2010-2016, he estimates that action will cost the HTF about $9 billion. Thus, if the new standards are enacted, the total loss of revenue for transportation improvements through 2025 is projected at $75 billion.

Given the nation's overwhelming infrastructure needs, Ruane said the nearly two-year overdue federal highway and transit program reauthorization bill provides a ripe opportunity for Congress and the President to identify all possible options to generate the revenues necessary to maintain and improve the system.

Established in 1902 and headquartered in the Nation's Capital, ARTBA represents the public and private sectors of the U.S. transportation design and construction industry.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 40 Comments
      • 3 Years Ago
      Pure theatrics. You honestly believe that FOURTEEN years from now, government regulations will be driving fuel efficiency? It seems that we are now AT OR BEYOND Peak Oil. The USA will likely no longer likely exist by then, in its current form. Nothing but stalling tactics, pure and simple.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 1 Day Ago
        I don't know if it'll be THAT bad, but oil is going to be freaking expensive, if it keeps rising at this price. You'll want a 54.5mpg car!
        Marco Polo
        • 1 Day Ago
        Goodness me, Mark, "the USA will no longer exist in fourteen years" ? Panic, panic, oh, hey...you've just been listening to either Harold Camping, or some other demented fundamentalist, haven't you?
          Marco Polo
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Well, far be it from me to dissuade you from immigration to NZ. NZ is a truly beautiful little nation with a fascinating history, I spend a good deal of time in NZ, and the Polynesian Islands of the South Pacific. I am Australian citizen. (although I live some of the year in the UK). But, if I were a US citizen, I would not abandon my country, and run away to the ends of the earth. I have absolute faith in the ability of the USA to recover from it's current problems and enter the new Millennium a stronger and more innovative nation. It should be the desire of every US citizen to remain loyal to the US during this difficult time of transition. You may find that the US has more friends than you imagine. NZ is not the safe haven you imagine. NZ experienced a wave of European and US citizens in the 1960's. These people were also fleeing the absolute certainty of an Armageddon(nuclear) , that never occurred! Economically, NZ, is almost totally dependant on Australia. Australia is one of the USA's strongest allies. The economic theories you have adopted with such fervour, appear to be based in the long discredited predictions of the leftist think tank, 'The Club of Rome'. Before you panic, at least be accurate. The total world derivative market is valued at 15 trillion, not '1.5 thousand trillions' ! Even then this is not real money. You have misunderstood the nature of derivatives. If the whole derivative market disappeared tomorrow, the fundamental economy would remain intact. The value of derivatives are not comparable to total amount of stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange. Saying there's X trillion in derivatives floating out there, is like saying every lottery ticket sold is worth the full value of the jackpot. If the jackpot is $100 million and lottery organisers sell 2 million tickets, "that's $200 trillion worth of lottery wealth that's circulating! Derivatives are a sophisticated sort of insurance option. The value is illusionary. But derivatives and other complicated capital instruments are evidence of the tremendous surplus of wealth the world has accumulated in the last 50 years. The nation best able (apart from Switzerland) to adapt to radical economic change is the USA. Free market economies always suffer the first upheavals, but they also recover faster. The Peoples Republic of China (PRC), is not the mecca of prosperity some people believe. The structural and economic problems faced by PRC are far more complicated than the US, and PRC lacks the cultural and political flexibility to adapt with ease to changing circumstance. Mark, I took the time to read your treatise/blog. I found it very well written and lucid. However, you have made some fundamental economic errors, which if you like I will address in a more suitable forum than ABG. In the meantime, if you are migrating to NZ, I hope you are fond of sheep!
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Marco Polo
          Hardly, I've been studying in great detail economic fundamentals, and how this relates to the biological and physical processes of the planet which support our economies, getting down to the nitty gritty until all my questions have been answered satisfactorily. I suggest you do the same. Basically, we are living at the peak of the greatest Ponzi scheme in history, the US dollar, and we are on the verge of a global Malthusian collapse. This is being hidden through market manipulation by the Fed, specifically in the $1.5 thousand trillion derivatives market. When it crashes the entire world's finacial system will go with it, of course including all your money. Do you live in the US? I suggest you get out ASAP. I've got my immigration papers in process for New Zealand, hopefully that should come through soon. Actually, I will refine my statement that the USA will no longer exist (in its current form) in 14 years. I predict 5. http://www.chrismartenson.com/ http://www.zerohedge.com/ And of course, I've brought it all together in an ecological / thermodynamic context: http://markbc.wordpress.com/thermodynamics-for-economists/
      krona2k
      • 3 Years Ago
      waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
      • 1 Day Ago
      Thanks usbseawolf2000, Now I see how the fuzzy cals work. In the real world my flex fuel car gets 15 mpg on E85 and 20 on reg gas, if I drive 200 miles, (half on E85 and half on gas), that means I use 5.0 gals of gas and 6.67 gals of E85, but since E85 is only 15% gas I used (0.15 x 6.667=0.9 gals) 0.9 gals per CAFE standards, so for the total trip of 200 miles I used 5.9 gals. 200 / 5.9 = 33.4 mpg per CAFE standards, but in the real world I really used 11.67gals, so 200 miles divided by 11.67 = 17.13 mpg. Heck with this crazy logic that means for the 54.5mpg, 2025 standards my car really only needs to improve to 27 by 2025.
        cwerdna
        • 1 Day Ago
        BTW, the E85 (flex fuel vehicle) scam/incentive IIRC is going away in the next few years. I don't recall the timeframe. I wrote about the scam at http://my350z.com/forum/other-vehicles/221422-altima-hybrid-pics-2.html#post2849523. Sorry about all the typos there. It let's an 07 Tahoe get "35 mpg" for CAFE purposes instead of "21 mpg". CR got 14 mpg combined on gasoline and 10 mpg combined on E85.
      • 3 Years Ago
      I don't know how they compute this but if I go to the gov fuel economy web site and search for all small cars in 2008 that get an average of 30 mpg or more I find NO american models listed. If I search for the next lower mpg rating, 25 or better I only find a Chev Cobalt, a Chev Aveo, a pontiac G5, a Ford Focus and No chrysler products. It's really hard for me to belive in any way that Ford sold enough focus's, or GM enough Cobalts and Aveo's to offset all of the other cars they sold to average 27 mpg. Good old common sense tells me there something wrong here. I think the real CAFE is more like 19 mpg at the most.
        cwerdna
        • 1 Day Ago
        The summary of fuel economy performance on the right side of http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy lists how each automaker did in their 3 fleets (IP, DP and LT). Again, remember the numbers that count towards CAFE are NOT the Monroney sticker numbers. http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/12/fuel-economy-doublespeak-at-its-best.html Per http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/07/automakers-to-endorse-545-mpg-standard-by-2025.html, "54.5 mpg" translates into ~40 mpg comined on the sticker. Before seeing that, I calculated ~38 mpg combined (accounting for the roughly 30% difference between the unadjusted and adjusted numbers).
        usbseawolf2000
        • 1 Day Ago
        Go to http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml Column M in the spreadsheet is the combined unadjusted MPG. That's the number from the dyno before adjusted for the EPA label. That's the number used for CAFE.
          • 1 Day Ago
          @usbseawolf2000
          I don't see a column M. That's the site I went to and used search for cars by MPG and found no America cars in 2008 that got 30 mpg or better, and only a few that got 25 mpg or better. The gov must be using fuzzy logic in their math.
          usbseawolf2000
          • 1 Day Ago
          @usbseawolf2000
          My bad, it is actually column O.
      • 3 Years Ago
      I like your glasses, its looking so cool. http://michaldewn.livejournal.com/517.html
      Julius
      • 1 Day Ago
      Just a thought for all those saying "my Prius does that now"... It will take an awful lot to bring a WHOLE FLEET up to the 54MPG average - remember the Avalon only gets 23 combined now. And remember, when you average a 23 mpg Avalon with a 50 mpg Prius, you get a 31.5 mpg average (not (23+50)/2=36.5)... and that's not counting the 15 mpg combined Tundra or the 18 mpg combined Sienna.
      Rotation
      • 3 Years Ago
      If Diesel got a mpg equivalency, it would be that a gallon of Diesel consumed counts for MORE than 1 gallon of gas. VW should be happy they don't have to deal with that.
      • 3 Years Ago
      Does anyone know if Ford, GM, or Chrysler meet the CAFE standards for 2007,thru 2010 or did they just pay the fines. Its hard for me to believe that they meet 27.5 mpg The fines can easily just be added to the hidden prices of the cars.
        cwerdna
        • 1 Day Ago
        Remember that the "27.5 mpg" for passenger car fleets is not the actual window sticker combined mileage. You need to multiply it by ~0.7. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml as usbseawolf pointed out in the comb unadj will show you the mileage they get towards CAFE, not including the E85 scam. You can read more about the E85 scam at http://my350z.com/forum/other-vehicles/221422-altima-hybrid-pics-2.html#post2849523. Current CR links about their E85 testing are http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/ethanol/overview/index.htm and http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/ethanol/test-results-e85-vs-gasoline/index.htm. From CR: "the government assumes that an FFV [flex fuel vehicle, one that can run on E85] will run on E85 half the time and gasoline the other half. For CAFE purposes, the E85 half is calculated as using only the 15 percent that is gasoline. So the government rates FFVs at about 1.5 times the fuel economy that they actually get on gasoline, even though the vast majority may not be run on E85 at all. A two-wheel-drive version of our 2007 Tahoe, for example would normally be rated for CAFE purposes at 21 mpg. But because it's built to run on E85, it's rated at 35 mpg instead." The above FFV Tahoe got 14 mpg combined in CR testing on gasoline and 10 mpg on E85.
          cwerdna
          • 1 Day Ago
          @cwerdna
          More example articles about the stupid mileage doublespeak that the govt and press like that use. They use unadjusted EPA dyno numbers whereas what we see on the Monroney sticker is much less than those numbers. http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/12/fuel-economy-doublespeak-at-its-best.html http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1770394 http://www.autoobserver.com/2011/06/white-house-floats-562-mpg-cafe-plan-for-2025.html
        Smith Jim
        • 1 Day Ago
        I can see how you might get the impression that the "big three" domestic auto manufactures would not meet 27.5 mpg average with all their SUVs. The old CAFE standards did not include trucks. SUV's and minivans are classified as trucks for the purposes of CAFE standards.
        Rotation
        • 1 Day Ago
        GM has never paid CAFE fines. They built up a lot of credits and then actually did a pretty godo job of keeping the fleet mix mpg to be not too bad. GM actually never made a vehicle which was subject to the gas guzzler tax until the GTO (automatic version) in 2004.
          Danaon
          • 1 Day Ago
          @Rotation
          This is correct. Even the current Corvette is exempt from the gas guzzler tax. The base model is even rated 26 mpg hwy.
        2 Wheeled Menace
        • 1 Day Ago
        I don't think Ford and GM are paying the fines. Notice that starting in 2008, Ford and GM revised a lot of their engines after about a decade of stangancy, minus a few blips like the ecotect motors and various revisions to Ford's variant of Mazda's 4 cylinder motors.
          Andrew
          • 1 Day Ago
          @2 Wheeled Menace
          http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/CAFE_fines_collected_summary.pdf from http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy lists who has paid CAFE fines and how much. http://www.nhtsa.gov/staticfiles/rulemaking/pdf/cafe/2011_Summary_Report.pdf also from the above page lists how each automaker is doing against current (of the time) CAFE standards for each of their 3 fleets.
      uncle_sam
      • 3 Years Ago
      I can get with my old 2004 Prius 52 mpg easily. The Prius is 7 years old, and they are WHYNING about 54mpg beeing unachievable? I also managed to get 58 mpg with hypermiling so how do they plan to stay competitive? The 2009 Prius does this even better, and the following models plug-in will be savvier too. That is the situation today in the near future 2012-2013 so 2025 the standard is doeable with a 2004 prius. brilliant. and of course VW is complaining. THE BLOCKHEAD of mr winterkorn hates hybrids and EVs. Diesel only he says. but 17% ov VW is owned by Quatar. so no wonder...
        cwerdna
        • 1 Day Ago
        @uncle_sam
        It's not only doable w/an 04 (to 09) Prius, it's already done. It already counts as getting "65.7778 mpg" for CAFE purposes. The 3rd gen (2010+) Prius gets "70.7791 mpg" for CAFE purposes.
      electronx16
      • 3 Years Ago
      VW wants MPGe incentives for diesels? Why, are they going to make sure all diesel is non fossil by 2025?
      Chris M
      • 3 Years Ago
      VW is squawking because it doesn't favor diesels, which is their current interest, and they're way behind schedule for EVs and PHEVs.
      2 Wheeled Menace
      • 3 Years Ago
      BTW a lot of these numbers are pretty damn fuzzy. You won't save money to get to this MPG number. The choice will be either electric ( $$$ currently ), hydrogen ( $$$^3 currently ), hybrids / diesels ( kinda spendy ) or underpowered tiny cars like the smart car or Toyota IQ. This is not going to be easy or painless, there is no drop in solution.. most people can't afford a hybrid, and the idea of driving a microcompact is not too appealing. My problem with this data from the EPA is that they don't mention the downsides.
        usbseawolf2000
        • 1 Day Ago
        @2 Wheeled Menace
        There is no need to downsize or pay a lot of money. These mass produced cars already achieve or exceed the CAFE 54.5 MPG. You can buy them today and they start from $18k to $30k. Honda Civic Hybrid (Compact) Honda Insight (Compact) Lexus CT 200h (Luxury Compact) Nissan Leaf (midsize) Toyota Prius (midsize) For some reason, Chevy Volt does not come up for some reason. Probably due to the 37 MPG gas engine. These are the upcoming cars that should meet or exceed as well: Toyota Prius v (midsize wagon) Toyota Prius c (compact) Toyota Prius PHV (midsize plugin) Ford C-Max hybrid (midsize?) Ford C-Max Energi (midsize? plugin) Hyundai Blue Will
    • Load More Comments