• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Average Fuel Economy Of New Cars Remains Unchanged, Tailpipe Emissions Are Improving


    • Thank Low Gas Prices and Increased Consumer Demand for Light Trucks

    The EPA released their annual report on the trends of emissions and fuel economy for light vehicles and the results are a bit mixed.

     

    The average fuel economy of new cars and trucks came to 24.3 mpg for 2014. This was the same fuel economy average for 2013, when the average increased by 0.6 mpg. 2014 was the first year since 2011 where fleet-wide fuel economy didn't increase. Why no increase? The EPA says growing demand for crossovers, SUVs, and trucks along with lower gas prices offset the fleet-wide efficiency gains.

     

    Christopher Grundler, director of the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality tells Automotive News that he's not worried about the slowdown in fleet-wide mpg improvements.

     

    “The whole policy was designed explicitly to preserve consumer choice. In 2014, the mix shifted a little bit, but overall we are exactly where we expected to be with greenhouse gas reductions,” said Grundler.

     

    There was some good news from the report. The average carbon dioxide emissions from new vehicles were 13 grams per mile lower than 2014 targets. Also, the average fuel economy for trucks climbed 0.6 mpg to 20.4. The EPA says that 0.6 mpg increase in the second-highest gain in 30 years.

     

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), EPA

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    I have to believe once the trucks are pushing 30mpg highway things will really start to swing upward. With how many Ford, GM, and Ram trucks that are sold every year they have to be the ones holding down the mpg as a whole. But I do see where somebody who would normally buy a 35mpg compact or mid size now driving something more like 30mpg small cuv. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I kinda think we're comparing things wrong.  Every year X number of new cars enters service and X number of old cars are taken out of service.   The proper comparison isn't "Does a 2016 Model GS1234 have better fuel economy and emissions than a 2015 Model GS1234 and by how much?"  what should be compared is "Does a 2016 Model GS1234 have better fuel economy and emissions than the car it replaced and by how much?"

     

    When someone finally junks their 1998 Durango with 290k miles and buys a new 2016 Durango, there is a huge increase in fuel economy and large decrease in emissions. That's what I think we should be looking at. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    ^ good point Drew is just what did the new auto replace and how much better was the new over the old.

     

    Yesterday my wife and I got onto the freeway behind an old 240Z and it stunk with the unburned exhaust. My wife was shocked it was still on the road polluting, but then I explained how it was an old carburated auto compared to modern day fuel injection.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I kinda think we're comparing things wrong.  Every year X number of new cars enters service and X number of old cars are taken out of service.   The proper comparison isn't "Does a 2016 Model GS1234 have better fuel economy and emissions than a 2015 Model GS1234 and by how much?"  what should be compared is "Does a 2016 Model GS1234 have better fuel economy and emissions than the car it replaced and by how much?"

     

    When someone finally junks their 1998 Durango with 290k miles and buys a new 2016 Durango, there is a huge increase in fuel economy and large decrease in emissions. That's what I think we should be looking at. 

    Very good point, indeed, Drew. 

     

    We just did the same thing with getting rid of the Beretta and replaced it with an Ion. I think it's roughly a 3-4mpg swing if not more because the Beretta wasn't running top top.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. 67impss
      67impss
      (57 years old)
  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Fiat Chrysler Automobiles finds itself in hot water, this time with the EPA. During a conference call this morning, the agency accused FCA of violating diesel emission standards on 104,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0L EcoDiesel from 2014 to 2016. They are also accused of failing to disclose eight different software programs. The EPA alleges the software used on these models allowed them to produce excess pollution. At the moment, the EPA isn't calling the software a defeat device as FCA haven't explained the purpose of this software.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe. We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in a statement. 
      In lab tests done by the EPA, the 3.0L EcoDiesel meet emission standards. But at high speeds or driving for extended periods, the effectiveness of the emission's system was reduced by the software.
      This possibly explains why the 2017 Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 EcoDiesel haven't been given the ok by the EPA as we reported last year.
      The EPA says there is no immediate action for owners to take as the vehicles are safe and legal to drive while the investigation continues. FCA could be fined as much $44,539 per vehicle if they are found to be violating the Clean Air Act (about $4.6 billion).
      In a statement obtained by Bloomberg, FCA said it “intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company's diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements."
      FCA's stock price dropped 16 percent to $9.30 after the news broke. Soon after, trading on the stock was halted.
      We'll be watching this and update this story as more information comes in.
      Source: Reuters, Bloomberg , USA Today , EPA, FCA
      Press Releases are on Page 2


      EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations
      FCA allegedly installed and failed to disclose software that increases air pollution from vehicles WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued a notice of violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC (collectively FCA) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act for installing and failing to disclose engine management software in light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States. The undisclosed software results in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the vehicles. The allegations cover roughly 104,000 vehicles. EPA is working in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has also issued a notice of violation to FCA. EPA and CARB have both initiated investigations based on FCA’s alleged actions.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices. All automakers must play by the same rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage.”

      “Once again, a major automaker made the business decision to skirt the rules and got caught,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “CARB and U.S. EPA made a commitment to enhanced testing as the Volkswagen case developed, and this is a result of that collaboration.”

      The Clean Air Act requires vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate to EPA through a certification process that their products meet applicable federal emission standards to control air pollution. As part of the certification process, automakers are required to disclose and explain any software, known as auxiliary emission control devices, that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. FCA did not disclose the existence of certain auxiliary emission control devices to EPA in its applications for certificates of conformity for model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks, despite being aware that such a disclosure was mandatory. By failing to disclose this software and then selling vehicles that contained it, FCA violated important provisions of the Clean Air Act. 
      FCA may be liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief for the violations alleged in the NOV. EPA is also investigating whether the auxiliary emission control devices constitute “defeat devices,” which are illegal.

      In September 2015, EPA instituted an expanded testing program to screen for defeat devices on light duty vehicles. This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use. As part of the investigation, EPA has found at least eight undisclosed pieces of software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution.
      FCA US Response to EPA

      January 12, 2017 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology employed in the company’s 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter diesel engines.
      FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company’s diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements.
      FCA US diesel engines are equipped with state-of-the-art emission control systems hardware, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR).  Every auto manufacturer must employ various strategies to control tailpipe emissions in order to balance EPA’s regulatory requirements for low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and requirements for engine durability and performance, safety and fuel efficiency. FCA US believes that its emission control systems meet the applicable requirements.
      FCA US has spent months providing voluminous information in response to requests from EPA  and other governmental authorities and has sought to explain its emissions control technology to EPA representatives.  FCA US has proposed a number of actions to address EPA’s concerns, including developing extensive software changes to our emissions control strategies that could be implemented in these vehicles immediately to further improve emissions performance.
      FCA US looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA’s enforcement division and representatives of the new administration to demonstrate that FCA US’s emissions control strategies are properly justified and thus are not “defeat devices” under applicable regulations and to resolve this matter expeditiously.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Fiat Chrysler Automobiles finds itself in hot water, this time with the EPA. During a conference call this morning, the agency accused FCA of violating diesel emission standards on 104,000 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0L EcoDiesel from 2014 to 2016. They are also accused of failing to disclose eight different software programs. The EPA alleges the software used on these models allowed them to produce excess pollution. At the moment, the EPA isn't calling the software a defeat device as FCA haven't explained the purpose of this software.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe. We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance in a statement. 
      In lab tests done by the EPA, the 3.0L EcoDiesel meet emission standards. But at high speeds or driving for extended periods, the effectiveness of the emission's system was reduced by the software.
      This possibly explains why the 2017 Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 EcoDiesel haven't been given the ok by the EPA as we reported last year.
      The EPA says there is no immediate action for owners to take as the vehicles are safe and legal to drive while the investigation continues. FCA could be fined as much $44,539 per vehicle if they are found to be violating the Clean Air Act (about $4.6 billion).
      In a statement obtained by Bloomberg, FCA said it “intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company's diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements."
      FCA's stock price dropped 16 percent to $9.30 after the news broke. Soon after, trading on the stock was halted.
      We'll be watching this and update this story as more information comes in.
      Source: Reuters, Bloomberg , USA Today , EPA, FCA
      Press Releases are on Page 2


      EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations
      FCA allegedly installed and failed to disclose software that increases air pollution from vehicles WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today issued a notice of violation to Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. and FCA US LLC (collectively FCA) for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act for installing and failing to disclose engine management software in light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0 liter diesel engines sold in the United States. The undisclosed software results in increased emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the vehicles. The allegations cover roughly 104,000 vehicles. EPA is working in coordination with the California Air Resources Board (CARB), which has also issued a notice of violation to FCA. EPA and CARB have both initiated investigations based on FCA’s alleged actions.
      “Failing to disclose software that affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in harmful pollution in the air we breathe,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “We continue to investigate the nature and impact of these devices. All automakers must play by the same rules, and we will continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage.”

      “Once again, a major automaker made the business decision to skirt the rules and got caught,” said CARB Chair Mary D. Nichols. “CARB and U.S. EPA made a commitment to enhanced testing as the Volkswagen case developed, and this is a result of that collaboration.”

      The Clean Air Act requires vehicle manufacturers to demonstrate to EPA through a certification process that their products meet applicable federal emission standards to control air pollution. As part of the certification process, automakers are required to disclose and explain any software, known as auxiliary emission control devices, that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution. FCA did not disclose the existence of certain auxiliary emission control devices to EPA in its applications for certificates of conformity for model year 2014, 2015 and 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Dodge Ram 1500 trucks, despite being aware that such a disclosure was mandatory. By failing to disclose this software and then selling vehicles that contained it, FCA violated important provisions of the Clean Air Act. 
      FCA may be liable for civil penalties and injunctive relief for the violations alleged in the NOV. EPA is also investigating whether the auxiliary emission control devices constitute “defeat devices,” which are illegal.

      In September 2015, EPA instituted an expanded testing program to screen for defeat devices on light duty vehicles. This testing revealed that the FCA vehicle models in question produce increased NOx emissions under conditions that would be encountered in normal operation and use. As part of the investigation, EPA has found at least eight undisclosed pieces of software that can alter how a vehicle emits air pollution.
      FCA US Response to EPA

      January 12, 2017 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US is disappointed that the EPA has chosen to issue a notice of violation with respect to the emissions control technology employed in the company’s 2014-16 model year light duty 3.0-liter diesel engines.
      FCA US intends to work with the incoming administration to present its case and resolve this matter fairly and equitably and to assure the EPA and FCA US customers that the company’s diesel-powered vehicles meet all applicable regulatory requirements.
      FCA US diesel engines are equipped with state-of-the-art emission control systems hardware, including selective catalytic reduction (SCR).  Every auto manufacturer must employ various strategies to control tailpipe emissions in order to balance EPA’s regulatory requirements for low nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions and requirements for engine durability and performance, safety and fuel efficiency. FCA US believes that its emission control systems meet the applicable requirements.
      FCA US has spent months providing voluminous information in response to requests from EPA  and other governmental authorities and has sought to explain its emissions control technology to EPA representatives.  FCA US has proposed a number of actions to address EPA’s concerns, including developing extensive software changes to our emissions control strategies that could be implemented in these vehicles immediately to further improve emissions performance.
      FCA US looks forward to the opportunity to meet with the EPA’s enforcement division and representatives of the new administration to demonstrate that FCA US’s emissions control strategies are properly justified and thus are not “defeat devices” under applicable regulations and to resolve this matter expeditiously.
    • By William Maley
      More and more police departments are going towards crossovers and SUVs for their fleets. According to Automotive News Canada, police departments are going with these vehicles over their sedan counterparts as they are able to fit all of their equipment needed on a daily basis. Officers like them as crossovers and SUVs are easier to get in and out.
      “We’re all dealing with the same issue, and that is the vehicles are getting smaller, yet there’s still demand for more gadgets and equipment put into those cars. It’s always a bit of a tradeoff and a challenge to make it all fit,” Julie Furlotte, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's national mobile assets manager.
      The RCMP's current fleet is made up of around 1,200 to 1,300 police package sedans and 1,600 police package utility vehicles. 
      There is also another plus point for utility vehicles, durability. 
      “I’m hearing from my customers anyway that when they look at the sedan versus the SUVs, the SUVs are a little bit more expensive (but) they actually get better durability out of them,” said GM Canada’s manager of fleet marketing and government sales.
      There is the question of the performance gap. Pursuit vehicles are mostly sedans as they offer better than their utility counterparts. But that is changing.  Sgt. Michael McCarthy of the Michigan State Police (MSP) precision-driving team - they're the group behind the annual test of pursuit-rated vehicles - says the performance gap is shrinking.
      “LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) are buying a larger percentage of SUVs than they are of the sedans. They are very capable. They have a fairly short turning radius. They’re deceptively fast.”
      Source: Automotive News Canada (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      More and more police departments are going towards crossovers and SUVs for their fleets. According to Automotive News Canada, police departments are going with these vehicles over their sedan counterparts as they are able to fit all of their equipment needed on a daily basis. Officers like them as crossovers and SUVs are easier to get in and out.
      “We’re all dealing with the same issue, and that is the vehicles are getting smaller, yet there’s still demand for more gadgets and equipment put into those cars. It’s always a bit of a tradeoff and a challenge to make it all fit,” Julie Furlotte, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's national mobile assets manager.
      The RCMP's current fleet is made up of around 1,200 to 1,300 police package sedans and 1,600 police package utility vehicles. 
      There is also another plus point for utility vehicles, durability. 
      “I’m hearing from my customers anyway that when they look at the sedan versus the SUVs, the SUVs are a little bit more expensive (but) they actually get better durability out of them,” said GM Canada’s manager of fleet marketing and government sales.
      There is the question of the performance gap. Pursuit vehicles are mostly sedans as they offer better than their utility counterparts. But that is changing.  Sgt. Michael McCarthy of the Michigan State Police (MSP) precision-driving team - they're the group behind the annual test of pursuit-rated vehicles - says the performance gap is shrinking.
      “LAPD (Los Angeles Police Department) are buying a larger percentage of SUVs than they are of the sedans. They are very capable. They have a fairly short turning radius. They’re deceptively fast.”
      Source: Automotive News Canada (Subscription Required)
    • By William Maley
      The Environmental Protection Agency has today proposed to keep its vehicle emission targets through 2025, shocking a lot of people and possibly setting up a major fight between regulators and the automotive industry. 
      According to Automotive News, the proposal will now enter a 30-day comment period. After this period, the EPA administrator could finalize this proposal and begin enforcing these standards a bit quicker. By 2025, automakers will need to increase their  to 54.5 miles per gallon corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) numbers to 54.5 miles per gallon.
      Why move the proposal up now? A proposal was expected next year with a final decision in 2018. The EPA said in a statement their “extensive technical analysis” has shown no reason as to why the timeframe or standards should be changed. Also, automakers will be able to achieve those 2025 standards at “similar or even a lower cost”.
      “Due to the industry’s rapid technological advancement, the technical record could arguably support strengthening the 2022-2025 standards. However, the administrator’s judgment is [that] now is not the time to introduce uncertainty by changing the standards. The industry has made huge investments in fuel efficiency and low emissions technologies based on these standards, and any changes now may disrupt those plans,” said Janet McCabe, acting assistant administrator for the EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation on a conference call.
      That analysis started back in July and is used to determine whether or not the EPA needs to make adjustments to the regulations or schedule.
      But there might be another reason. With President Obama leaving the White House on January 20th and President-elect Donald Trump, there are concerns that Trump's administration could challenge the regulations. By doing this now, it would make the process of undoing these regulations more complicated - notice and comment requirements, possible court battle with environmental groups, etc. McCabe denied this, saying the decision was based on analysis and a “rigorous technical record,”
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
      Pic Credit: William Maley for Cheers & Gears

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)