The US Environmental Protection Agency has released its annual report for fuel economy and carbon dioxide emissions trends, and it shows that 2012 was a banner year for both with average fuel economy of 23.6 miles per gallon and average CO2 emissions of 376 grams per mile – both all-time records since the figures were first tracked in 1975. Even better, early figures show that 2013 will continue this trend, and Automotive News reports that the industry is on pace to meet the 54.5-mpg target in 2025.

Compared to 2011, the average fuel economy increased by 1.2 mpg, marking the second-largest year-over-year improvement in 30 years. According to the data, nearly every automaker had higher fuel economy for 2012, and coming out on top was Mazda with an average of 27.1 mpg, while Honda (26.6 mpg), VW (25.8 mpg), Toyota (25.6 mpg) and Subaru (25.2 mpg) rounded out the top five. Helping to fuel this across-the-board fuel-economy increase was the fact that sales of light trucks (SUVs, vans, crossovers and trucks) accounted for 36 percent of new-car sales, which is a 6-percent drop from 2012 and marks the second-lowest percentage since 1993.

The database also tracks many other trends that deal with fuel economy. On average, vehicles sold in 2012 were 150 pounds lighter (averaging 3,977 pounds) than 2011, although horsepower was also down (averaging 222 hp, which is a drop of 6 horses from 2011). Another helpful factor was the increase of various technologies over the last five years, with the biggest gains coming from transmissions with additional gears, gasoline direct-injected and turbocharged engines. The number of fuel-efficient vehicles has also risen since 2008 – there were five times as many cars offering 30 mpg and quadruple the number of cars offering 40 mpg sold in 2012 over the previous year; diesel engines and electrification have made large increases in this period as well.

Numbers for 2013 probably won't be announced until close to this time next year, but the report shows that an increase of 0.6 mpg and a decrease of 6 grams/mile of CO2 are expected. Scroll down for the highlights of the report, or head over to the EPA if you feel like trudging through the whole thing.
Show full PR text
Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 - 2013

EPA's annual report shows model year (MY) 2012 is an all time record high for car and truck average fuel economy!

Note: These values represent real world fuel economy and emissions. They are not comparable to automaker standards compliance levels

-MY 2012 fuel economy averaged 23.6 mpg, 1.2 mpg higher than MY 2011
-MY 2012 CO2 average emissions were 376 grams per mile, down 22 g/mile from MY 2011
-Preliminary MY 2013 data projects a further 0.4 mpg increase in fuel economy and 6 g/mile decrease in CO2 emissions



Average vehicle CO2 emissions rate and fuel economy achieved record levels in MY 2012 and have improved in 7 of the last 8 years

The final model year (MY) 2012 adjusted, real world CO2 emissions rate is 376 g/mi, which is a 22 g/mi decrease relative to MY 2011. MY 2012 adjusted fuel economy is 23.6 mpg, which is 1.2 mpg higher than MY 2011. Both values represent all-time records since the database began in MY 1975, and the authors believe that these represent historical records as well. The 1.2 mpg fuel economy improvement from MY 2011 to MY 2012 is the second largest annual improvement in the last 30 years.

CO2 emissions and fuel economy have now improved in seven of the last eight years. This recent positive trend reversed the long negative trend from MY 1987 through MY 2004.

Preliminary MY 2013 adjusted values are 370 g/mi CO2 emissions and 24.0 mpg fuel economy, which, if achieved, will again represent all-time records. Final values for MY 2013 will be published in next year's report.

While the direction and magnitude of changes from year-to-year often receive the most public attention, the greatest value of the historical Trends database is the documentation of long-term trends. This is because: 1) year-to-year volatility can reflect short-term trends (e.g., the economic recession and Cash for Clunkers rebates in 2009 and the impact of the tsunami on Japan-based manufacturers in 2011) that may not be meaningful from a longterm perspective, and 2) the magnitude of year-to-year changes in annual CO2 emissions and fuel economy tend to be small relative to longer, multi-year trends.

Based on the final Trends data through MY 2012, CO2 emissions have decreased by 85 g/mi, or 18.

Light truck market share decreased in MY 2012 but continues to be variable

Light trucks, which include pickups, minivans/vans, and truck SUVs (SUVs that must meet light truck GHG emissions and fuel economy standards), accounted for 36 decrease relative to MY 2011, and essentially offsets the 5, based on premodel year projections by automakers.

Light truck market share has been variable in recent years, e.g., truck share has changed by 4% or more in each year for MY 2009-2012, with two years of increases and two years of decreases. Three factors that have likely contributed to the volatility in truck share include: 1) MY 2009 was a particularly unusual year due to the serious economic recession that led to much turmoil in the automotive market and almost certainly led to an artificially low truck production share in that year; 2) the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS), commonly referred to as Cash for Clunkers, managed by NHTSA, which provided incentives of up to $4500 for the trade-in of a vehicle with lower fuel economy and purchase of a new vehicle with higher fuel economy, resulted in 677,081 new vehicle purchases in 2009, and 3) the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear tragedies in Japan in March 2011, which decreased the supply of cars from Japan, and likely contributed to the truck share increase in MY 2011 (as well as to the projected truck share decrease in MY 2012).

Cars include conventional cars and car SUVs (SUVs that must meet car GHG emissions and fuel economy standards).

Vehicle weight trend is flat and increasing vehicle power trend is slowing

Vehicle weight and performance are two of the most important design parameters that help determine a vehicle's CO2 emissions and fuel economy. In general, all other factors being equal, higher vehicle weight and faster acceleration performance (e.g., lower 0-to-60 miles-per-hour acceleration time), both increase a vehicle's CO2 emissions and decrease fuel economy.

MY 2012 vehicle weight averaged 3,977 pounds, a decrease of 150 pounds compared to MY 2011. Average MY 2012 vehicle power was 222 horsepower, a decrease of 8 horsepower from MY 2011. Estimated 0-to-60 acceleration time in MY 2012 was unchanged at 9.4 seconds. Average vehicle footprint declined by 0.7 square feet in MY 2012. The decrease in light truck market share was a major factor in the lower weight, horsepower, and footprint.

Preliminary MY 2013 values suggest that average vehicle weight and power will both increase, though these projections are uncertain, and EPA will not have final data until next year's report. The preliminary MY 2013 average weight is relatively unchanged over the last decade. The preliminary MY 2013 horsepower value would tie the record first set in MY 2011.

From MY 1987 through MY 2004, on a fleetwide basis, automotive technology innovation was generally utilized to support vehicle attributes other than CO2 emissions and fuel economy, such as weight, performance, and utility. Beginning in MY 2005, technology has been used to increase both fuel economy (which has reduced CO2 emissions) and power, while keeping vehicle weight relatively constant.

Many new technologies are rapidly gaining market share

New technologies are continually being introduced into the marketplace, replacing older and less effective technologies. Technological innovation is a major driving force behind the recent improvements in CO2 emissions and fuel economy, and the majority of the carbon and oil savings from current vehicles is due to new gasoline vehicle technologies. The figure below shows changes in market share over the five-year period from MY 2008 through MY 2013 for several key engine and transmission technologies for which Trends gathers data.

Two engine technologies first introduced over 20 years ago-variable valve timing (VVT) and multi-valve engines-are both projected to be used on over 90% of MY 2013 vehicles.

Gasoline direct injection (GDI) engines have increased market share ten-fold from less than 3 in MY 2013. Turbochargers, which are often used in conjunction with GDI, have increased market share by a factor of five since MY 2008.

Transmissions with 6 or more speeds and continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) cumulatively accounted for about 30 market share in MY 2013.

Compared to the engine and transmission technologies discussed above, there has been far less growth in the production shares of hybrid and diesel powertrains (see Highlight 5 for the increase in the number of hybrid and diesel models), and cylinder deactivation (CD).

Consumers have an increasing number of high fuel economy/low CO2 vehicle choices

Consumers have more choices than ever when shopping for vehicles with higher fuel economy and lower tailpipe CO2 emissions. These choices reflect both a more diverse range of technology packages on conventional gasoline vehicles as well as more advanced technology and alternative fueled vehicles.

There are 15 MY 2013 pickup and minivan/van models for which at least one variant of the model has a combined city/highway label fuel economy rating of 20 mpg or more, compared with nine models five years ago. There are over twice as many SUV models that achieve 25 mpg or more in MY 2013 than in MY 2008. The number of non-hybrid SUVs that achieved 25 mpg increased from four in MY 2008 to 17 in MY 2013, more than a fourfold increase. The number of car models where at least one variant has a combined city/ highway label fuel economy of 30 mpg or more increased by five-fold, and the number of car models at 40 mpg or more have increased from three to over 20 (all hybrid, electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles).

There are also many more advanced technology vehicle choices. In MY 2013, there are three times as many hybrid offerings as there were in MY 2008. In addition, the number of diesel offerings has doubled, and there are growing numbers of electric vehicles and plugin hybrid electric vehicles as well.

Section 8 provides more detail about the methodology for this "model count" analysis, and also shows that, within individual models, consumers have a wider range of high fuel economy performance from which to choose.

Nearly every manufacturer increased fuel economy in MY 2012, resulting in lower CO2 emission rates

Ten of the eleven manufacturers shown below increased fuel economy from MY 2011 to MY 2012, the last two years for which we have definitive data. Preliminary MY 2013 values suggest that most manufacturers will improve in MY 2013 as well, though these projections are uncertain, and EPA will not have final data until next year's report.

In MY 2012, for the 11 manufacturers shown, Mazda had the lowest fleetwide adjusted composite CO2 emissions and highest adjusted fuel economy performance, followed by Honda. Chrysler-Fiat had the highest CO2 emissions and lowest fuel economy, followed by Daimler. Daimler had the biggest improvement in adjusted CO2 emissions performance from MY 2011 to MY 2012, with a 43 g/mi reduction, followed by Honda with a 35 g/mi reduction. Honda had the biggest fuel economy improvement from MY 2011 to MY 2012, of 2.5 mpg, while Mazda had the second largest increase of 2.1 mpg.

Section 4 has greater detail on the fuel economy and CO2 emissions for these manufacturers (e.g., for individual manufacturer car and light truck fleets), as well as for individual makes (i.e., brands).

Manufacturers are selling many vehicles today that can meet future CO2 emissions targets

EPA evaluated MY 2013 vehicles against future footprint-based CO2 emissions regulatory targets to determine which vehicles could meet or exceed their future targets in MY 2016-2025. These comparisons were based on current powertrain designs, assuming improvements only in air conditioner refrigerants and efficiency. EPA assumed air conditioning improvements since these are considered to be among the most straightforward and least expensive technologies available to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. It is important to note there are no CO2 emissions standards for individual vehicles. Rather, there are manufacturer-specific compliance levels for both passenger car and light truck fleets. The compliance levels for each manufacturer are derived from the footprint-based CO2 emissions target curves, and the production volumeweighted distribution of vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. by each manufacturer.

The figure below shows that 28% of projected MY 2013 vehicle production already meets the MY 2016 CO2 emissions targets, or can meet these targets with the addition of expected air conditioning improvements. The bulk of this production share is accounted for by non-hybrid gasoline vehicles, although other technologies, including diesels, hybrids, plug-in electric hybrids, electric vehicles, and compressed natural gas vehicles, are also represented.

Looking ahead, about 5% of projected MY 2013 production could meet the MY 2025 CO2 emissions targets. Vehicles meeting the MY 2025 CO2 targets are comprised solely of hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and electric vehicles. Since the MY 2025 standards are over a decade away, there's considerable time for continued improvements in gasoline vehicle technology.


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
  • 88 Comments
      dsmithsfamily
      • 1 Year Ago
      there is a lot to this big picture. as much as i like my muscle vehicles, my k 20 is not a car, they are more occasionally used recreational toys and to use them on a full time manner like for commuting seems like a huge waste of resources
      usa1
      • 1 Year Ago
      An excellent article on the CAFE targets and how automakers will get there is here: http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-cafe-numbers-game-making-sense-of-the-new-fuel-economy-regulations-feature
      That Guy
      • 1 Year Ago
      Gee imagine that. You force automakers to build tiny little POS tin cans and the average mileage goes up. Thank God my two vehicles have proper V8s.
        Krazeecain
        • 1 Year Ago
        @That Guy
        What tin cans? Thanks to crazy safety regulations, automakers can't even make genuinely small, cheap cars anymore. And they're not even being forced to make compact cars either, people WANT fuel efficient cars. They're just following market demand.
          mycommentemail
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          Drill here eh? Ok, I'll bite. Where would we drill? How much oil would we get out of it (as a percentage of world wide production)? How much per year? And how long would it take to start getting the oil out? Finally, what sort of a price drop would that lead to? I'll give you a hint: almost none.
          Smilez1105
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx Click on the 10-year. Come back when you're not blinded by ignorance.
          mycommentemail
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          Granola is delicious. So is reality. Adjusted for inflation, gas was nowhere near $2 at the end of Bush's term. Closer to $3.80. That's why research is your friend and simple "I remember when" isn't.
          mycommentemail
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          Except that it wasn't that cheap... it's just you (and other parrots of the same b.s.) that wants it to be so. Also, since you seem to have such a conviction that gas would be cheap if only... I don't know what... why not answer my questions above? Then we would be able to find out where these convictions are based in reality. Or, more likely, that they aren't.
          Nick Kordich
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          @That Guy - Weekly retail gasoline prices spiked at $4.16 in July 14, 2008, before they crashed to $1.67 in the week of December 29th then recovered just as quickly (see the sharp dip in 2008/2009 in the gasbuddy and inflation data charts). Extreme price swings are not a testament to wise energy policy, only indicators of an unstable market - in this case, the oil market during 2007-2009 financial crisis. Home prices crashed (dropping to about 80% of what they were pre-crash, which they've returned to now) and the stock market tanked (dropping to less than half what it is now), but oil prices dropped from a high of over $123/barrel in June 2008 to just over $34/barrel by the end of the year since the world economy came to the verge of collapse. From a commodities perspective, oil and gasoline prices have recovered, in spite of weak demand in the US domestic market, though not to the point that speculators had them prior to the oil crash at the end of 2008. Did President Bush actually do anything during that time that could affect gas prices? He did lend out 650,000 barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (worth about 80 million dollars) to three oil companies affected by Hurricane Gustav. It was a tiny fraction of one day's US oil consumption, however, so it wouldn't have had an effect on oil prices directly, though it might have signaled to the market that the government would get involved to bring down the price of oil. Incidentally, that loan also allowed the companies to repay the loans 'in kind' (with oil) after the price bottomed out when the oil was worth a quarter of what it was when it was borrowed, but, just as you got to spend under $2.00/gallon, that was more of side-effect than the aim of strategic planning or an energy policy. Whether your point was Presidential action or free market forces came to your rescue in the winter of 2008, it was a bubble bursting, not a stable price resulting from policy. The weekly average price of gasoline hasn't reached as low as under President Bush but neither has it reached as high (almost $4.50 when adjusted for inflation). It's resumed its growth trend that it exhibited throughout President Bush's administration (with the exception of the last 6 month bubble/crash) that has more to do with the growing international demand for oil than anything that the President can do, in spite of campaign promises from any desperate politicians...speaking of which, if you won't listen to me, listen to reason - reason.com, that is - on the limited influence of a US President over gas prices: http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/13/gingrichs-despicable-gasoline-price-prom
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          [blocked]
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          Gasoline was under $2.00 at the end of President Bush's term. Try again.
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          Anything Fiesta sized and smaller. And "market demand" just isn't true. Artificial demand is more like it. When the price of gas is kept artificially high by this administration, people will be forced into these unsafe tin cans. You drill here and build that pipeline like they should gas will drop as it should.and people will buy the vehicles they want to buy...Trucks and Thankfully I have a good enough job as to afford two V8 powered vehicles and am not forced into a tin can
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Krazeecain
          It wasn't that cheap? I remember paying it. Amazing how you granola eaters will change history to fit your damaging and misguided agenda.
        graphikzking
        • 1 Year Ago
        @That Guy
        Before you build pipelines do drop gasoline prices etc, you need to increase fuel taxes drastically to cover the road repairs. The amount of "road tax" that we pay in gasoline has stayed relatively the same for the last 25 years yet we've added millions of miles of highways, more traffic = more wear and tear etc. Also, my Prius is not a "tin can". It's not luxurious by any means, but it's WORLDS better interior and quieter than any V8 domestic car up until about 6 years ago. It wasn't until foreign companies started making better large cars that Detroit stepped up their game to make nice large cars. The ford Taurus from the mid/late 90's was TERRIBLE. The Ford 300 was also a terrible car. The Bonneville terrible. The Chevy Impala (police car), Ford Crown Victoria were both terrible cars with V8's. NOW that Toyota and Hyundai have come out with the Genesis and Avalon, NOW toyota has a Proper Ford Taurus and Chevy has a nice SS. (Heck even the G8 was a GREAT car but it took 30+ years for a good domestic V8 large sedan to come to market. ) The Honda Accord, Fusion Hybrid prove you can have a nice large car (larger than a midsize car even though they are classified as such), better technology, quieter smoother ride, faster than most V8's of the 90's and they all get triple the fuel economy of the 90's V8s.
        flammablewater
        • 1 Year Ago
        @That Guy
        So you're proud of the fact that you wilfully and unnecessarily consume more resources and waste money for the privilege of doing so. You're a real credit to humanity.
          flammablewater
          • 1 Year Ago
          @flammablewater
          You already said that you have 2 vehicles. Do you need two trucks to tow your boat?
          flammablewater
          • 1 Year Ago
          @flammablewater
          I also have a tow vehicle, an Astro Van, that is used exclusively for towing and hauling but I have a "tin can" for commuting on a daily basis.
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @flammablewater
          I'm proud that I can drive anything I want. And I do not consume more resources than necessary. I drive my truck for a reason....I have a inboard boat to pull. Or are you saying that to save resources I should buy a complete other vehicle? Yea, that's smart.
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @flammablewater
          A boat is a vehicle. And it makes no sense to have two vehicles when one will suffice. That's consuming FAR more resources than I am.
        Nick Kordich
        • 1 Year Ago
        @That Guy
        "MY 2012 vehicle weight averaged 3,977 pounds" (from the press release), down from a peak of 4079lbs for MY1976. Are you attributing a 30%+ increase in fuel economy to a 2.5% reduction in weight?
          mycommentemail
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          Nah. He's just a victim of pop culture where he thinks (on a very deep level) that his masculinity is defined by the car he drives. And since he has such a tenuous sense of confidence in his own masculinity, the idea of smaller cars becoming popular is hugely threatening.
          mycommentemail
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          You know what? I apologize for my previous post. It was an uncalled for ad hominem attack. It's too easy to call people names on the internet and while I try to keep from doing it, every so often I succumb to the temptation. I always hate the fact that I have done it after the fact. And this site won't let me edit my posts. That Guy is almost always completely wrong in all of his posts, but that is nothing compared to being an a$h01e like I was being. I don't think that is what he is responding to, but mea culpa anyway.
          axiomatik
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          @That Guy You are calling modern cars "tin cans" despite the fact that modern cars are pretty much just as heavy as they were 30 years ago. That was his point.
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          Where are you getting that from? I didn't say any of that.
          Nick Kordich
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Nick Kordich
          @That guy - Are you disputing my numbers of mycommentemail's mocking mock psychoanalysis?
        flammablewater
        • 1 Year Ago
        @That Guy
        I'm going to guess that your gas guzzlers have "support our troops" stickers on them, while your troops are fghting in oil producing countries and you don't see the problem with at all.
          Shawn
          • 1 Year Ago
          @flammablewater
          And I'm going to guess your Honda or Hyundai has American flag and Obama stickers on it...whats your point? if That Guy has the money to pay for his fuel then whats your issue? We could all live in tar paper shacks and save building materials and electricity but I imagine most of us dont. Maybe he would rather enjoy his commute to work instead of enduring it like most economy car owners do. I know I enjoy mine and I wont ever give up having a fantastic car with personality. I applaud the fact that you are doing a responsible thing by driving a no nonsense fuel sipping awful car but please dont try to pass it off like you are trying to help me or anyone else. Fact is that you have different priorities than I do. And I'm not a cheap trashy douche...
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @flammablewater
          Nope. Not even close. I don't put stickers on my vehicle.
        flychinook
        • 1 Year Ago
        @That Guy
        Generally speaking, each new generation of a given vehicle INCREASES in size. Now the mid 80s to the early 90s, there were some true tin cans. Cars like the Metro, Festiva, Spectrum and the Excel. All built and sold during the Regan and HW Bush years. Gee, imagine that.
      groingo
      • 1 Year Ago
      And as always, none of the top mileage getting cars was US built.
        Robert Hayes
        • 1 Year Ago
        @groingo
        Some of the most efficient cars on sale are US built. Volt, Leaf, Model S, Focus Electric, C-Max Hybrid, Camry Hybrid, Civic Hybrid, gasoline Civic, Cruze, Focus, Dart, Sonic, and many, many more I won't take the time to name.
        john96xlt
        • 1 Year Ago
        @groingo
        A very narrow minded and idiotic point of view. The US automakers average fuel economy is lower because they sell more larger vehicles than the other manufacturers. Compare how many F-Series Ford sells to how many Tundra's Toyota sells, for example. Domestic cars are very competitive with imports in fuel mileage. Compare the Ford Fiesta to Honda Fit, for example.
          chanonissan
          • 1 Year Ago
          @john96xlt
          I agree the domestic have indeed improve, why toyota made the list is their wide range of hybrids that help moves those numbers up. who else have that wide range? no one else.
          manure
          • 1 Year Ago
          @john96xlt
          It is very interesting to note the shameful scourge of large un-utilized fashion trucks bought all across America.
      manure
      • 1 Year Ago
      The simple fact is, we could require 54 MPG for all cars today and they would be just fine. The Prius and Accord Hybrid prove that. Truck buyers could get self esteem counseling and everyone would come out ahead.
        Mike
        • 1 Year Ago
        @manure
        54mpg, the Prius gets a legitimate average of 35, same as the Corolla. The MKVII VW Golf TDi gets over 70mpg though, no hybrid needed. The VW hybrid XL-1 gets 265mpg, that's 210mpg better than the Prius' max.
      James
      • 1 Year Ago
      The average is going up because the Detroit automakers are lying about their MPG numbers. Fortunately, for Detroit automakers, the average buyer of a Detroit vehicle is a dumb blue collar worker or an affirmative action educated white collar worker who usually lives within a few hundred miles of Metro Detroit. These dummies can't calculate their MPG because they can't do division, so Detroit lies to them.
      Michael Page
      • 1 Year Ago
      The average could've been a lot higher but me and others bought a wrangler.17-18 mpg's-Murican v6!!
        mylexicon
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Michael Page
        Wranglers, SUVs and trucks are not a problem. People who commute from the exurbs in trucks, SUV's and Wranglers are a problem.
          mycommentemail
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          Ok. Wranglers, SUV's and trucks are not a problem. People who commute from the exurbs in trucks, SUV's and Wranglers are a problem.
          mylexicon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          Look at our balance of trade. We're fracking and CAFE-ing because exurb/suburb truck commuters are making our country broke. It's not just the imbalance of trade for oil. US demand and trade imbalance keeps prices high, which causes shipping inflation and more expensive Chinese imports. Our trade deficit with China continues to reach new highs.
          That Guy
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          No its not. Try again.
          Smilez1105
          • 1 Year Ago
          @mylexicon
          mylexicon Good thing you didn't go overboard with your...false theory.
        jauffins
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Michael Page
        I'd rather you buy a Wrangler than a half ton pick-up truck you don't need and won't use. At least you'll save a little cash on gas.
          mylexicon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jauffins
          Look at Wrangler's EPA numbers
          mylexicon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jauffins
          @ 2wheel It's all relative. Wrangler is designed to maintain offroad clearance and approach/departure angles. The transmissions all have a granny gear to accommodate tire upgrades so Jeeps are all 4spd or 5spd. Solid axles are also a must on a Wrangler. Considering the Wrangler's design and purpose, the mpg isn't too horrible, though the exponential weight growth between the TJ and JK is not a good trend.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @jauffins
          Lol; yeah.. you would be hard pressed to design a car that small yet so wildly inefficient.
      Grendal
      • 1 Year Ago
      They've only got one car but I think Tesla should top the list with 89 MPGe.
        That Guy
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Grendal
        Yea but the Tesla burns a lot so that plastic fueled fire negates any sort of benefit to the earth.
          2 wheeled menace
          • 1 Year Ago
          @That Guy
          Statistically, less tesla cars have caught fire than ordinary internal combustion engine cars. Oh wait, you must be an environmentalist who cares about pollution of all things. Let's go on a bike ride :D
        Koenigsegg
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Grendal
        so the Tesla gets 89 Miles per gallon? MPGe is the most useless and irrelevant thing that exists
          Joeviocoe
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Koenigsegg
          MPGe is irrelevant to a conversation of fuel savings and/or emissions. It is meant to calculate only overall efficiency.
      Pj Taintz
      • 1 Year Ago
      I would love to see a comparo that leaves all pickups out of the equation. If the pickups were not counted against GM and ford their numbers would look so much better as their cars are getting wonderful mileage these days.
        flammablewater
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Pj Taintz
        But that's running under the assumption that all pickups are bought for farms and construction and we all know that's simply not true.
          axiomatik
          • 1 Year Ago
          @flammablewater
          No, that isn't the assumption at all. Whenever lists are produced like the one in the article, *that list* assumes that all carmakers are alike, and that they sell similar products. However, different manufacturers sells vastly different product mixes. The Big 3 are the only manufacturers that sell large trucks in large quantities, thus pulling down their overall average. The OP simply would like to see a more direct comparison between manufacturers (by taking product mix into account). When VW sells almost nothing larger than a mid-size sedan, comparing it to GM is pointless.
        waetherman
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Pj Taintz
        If pickups weren't included in these kinds of reports (or regulations) there would be little reason for car makers to improve efficiency in those vehicles.
          Pj Taintz
          • 1 Year Ago
          @waetherman
          point taken, but the fact remains, Id like to see a breakdown by class rather than brand as brands have as little as 1 or 2 models up to double digits
      Chongkai Zhu
      • 1 Year Ago
      "on pace to meet the 54.5-mpg target in 2025" ??? I don't think so. This means at least 2mpg improvement per year. I can't see that happening.
        chanonissan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Chongkai Zhu
        They can, this is a 2012 report, Manufacture now are going HEV, PHEV, EV, and soon to come Fuel cell, we know about toyota hybrids and honda and fords hybrids, but nissan, subaru, mazda and mitsubishi will bring out HEV and PHEV 2014 and 2015, diesel engines for trucks are coming also, we seen BMW and daimler and audi hybrid system this year, there will be a significant jump for 2016 but as I write this can only be achieve with the help of some kers or hybrid or electrical setup, or some hybrid air like PSA system, but they are going in production. Now the bigger question to this is can they make them affordable?
          chanonissan
          • 1 Year Ago
          @chanonissan
          and I forget the Gm series hybrid system for the volt.
        axiomatik
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Chongkai Zhu
        The 54.5 mpg target is the "uncorrected" mileage. This report for 2012 uses the "corrected" mileage numbers. The EPA testing results produce the "uncorrected" mileage number (this is the number that *used* to be put on the window stickers). However, the EPA then revises the numbers to take into consideration factors such as air conditioning, higher highway speeds (the original test procedure was written under the national 55mph speed limit), etc. Once the correction factors are applied to the test results, the "corrected" figure is put on the window sticker. Once you apply that correction factor to the 54.5mpg target, the result is somewhere around 36-39mpg. Shouldn't be terribly hard to hit that.
        Timothy Tibbetts
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Chongkai Zhu
        1.2 MPG over 1 year? We certainly can easily hit 2 and then some. The hybrids and electric vehicles are still brand new and as sales continue to climb I would be willing to be you that 2 MPG per year is easily obtainable and more in about 5 years as a guess.
          Andrew Pappas
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Timothy Tibbetts
          The problem is diminishing returns. Is like losing weight... the start you could lose a lot, but those last five pounds... good luck. Automakers are hitting the low hanging fruit.
      Mart
      • 1 Year Ago
      Remember that EPA is counting each alternate fueled vehicle as more than one. http://green.autoblog.com/2012/08/29/under-new-cafe-rules-plug-ins-natural-gas-hydrogen-cars-are-i/ "This multiplier approach means that each EV/PHEV/FCV/CNG vehicle would count as more than one vehicle in the manufacturer's compliance calculation. EPA is finalizing, as proposed, that EVs and FCVs start with a multiplier value of 2.0 in MY 2017 and phase down to a value of 1.5 in MY 2021, and that PHEVs would start at a multiplier value of 1.6 in MY 2017 and phase down to a value of 1.3 in MY 2021. EPA is finalizing multiplier values for both dedicated and dual fuel CNG vehicles for MYs 2017-2021 that are equivalent to the multipliers for PHEVs. All incentive multipliers in EPA's program expire at the end of MY 2021 (page 57)."
      CarCrazy24
      • 1 Year Ago
      Glad to see Mazda on top, a job well done for a relatively small independent manufacturer.
        A P
        • 1 Year Ago
        @CarCrazy24
        You are an idiot. They dont sell trucks or big SUVs and their sales volume is a joke. How hard can a good CAFE be?
    • Load More Comments