• 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

  • Similar Content

    • 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
    • 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
    • By dfelt
      C&D published the following story about the 70's special edition trucks. Some are just so funny as I never heard or saw them, others are clearly not PC in today's world and others are just funny as heck. What was marketing thinking? A special set of stickers makes the truck better than the default truck of the same package?
      Some will like certain models just like me. I actually like the GMC Diablo, which really is just an rebadge El Camino. Never knew that the Chevy Luv truck was sold in 77 as a Mighty Mike version, but nothing better other than a 10hp bump in the engine. Seems all the domestic makers went through a clearly Indian theme on blazers, broncos and the trucks with their feather motif.
      Check it out, pretty surprising on some, meh on others.
      http://www.caranddriver.com/flipbook/mondo-macho-special-edition-trucks-of-the-70s-k-billys-super-badge-and-stripe-jobs
    • By William Maley
      In 2016, nine brands sold 20 diesel models in the U.S. But in light of the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal, a number from Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche have been sidelined. But there are diesel models from GM, FCA, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, and Land Rover still being offered. But the only 2017 models you can buy at the moment are from Jaguar and Land Rover. Where are the rest? In limbo thanks to a new battery of tests being doing by the EPA.
      Automotive News reports that since last October, the EPA has been subjecting diesel models to new tests to determine if other automakers are pulling any sneaky cheats. The EPA hasn't said anything publicly about the tests aside from them keeping the vehicles and testing them in unpredictable ways. So far, the new tests haven't uncovered any cheating.
      "It is true that diesel vehicles are getting extra scrutiny and that has extended the certification process longer than normal. In general, manufacturers have been supportive of this additional testing and have adjusted their timing to account for the additional test duration," EPA spokesman Nick Conger said to Automotive News.
      Case in point, BMW will not be launching their 2017 3-Series and X3 diesels until the end of the year, with the X5 following in January. Meanwhile, sources at GM tell Automotive News they're awaiting approval for 2017 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon diesels before they start sending them out to dealers. FCA doesn't have any 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee or Ram 1500 EcoDiesels at the moment despite press details saying they would be offered. An FCA spokesman declined to comment to Automotive News - our guess is that FCA is waiting.
      Mercedes-Benz could be the big loser with this extensive testing. The German automaker was planning to sell four diesel models; C-Class sedan, GLC, GLE, and GLS. Mercedes-Benz spokesman Robert Moran tells Automotive News in an email that the priority for the moment is getting the certification for the GLS. Moran declined to say if Mercedes is planning to offer diesel versions of the GLC and GLE. However, the C-Class diesel has been taken off the table due to "product strategy reasons." This model was supposed to go on sale at the beginning of this year.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      In 2016, nine brands sold 20 diesel models in the U.S. But in light of the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal, a number from Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche have been sidelined. But there are diesel models from GM, FCA, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, and Land Rover still being offered. But the only 2017 models you can buy at the moment are from Jaguar and Land Rover. Where are the rest? In limbo thanks to a new battery of tests being doing by the EPA.
      Automotive News reports that since last October, the EPA has been subjecting diesel models to new tests to determine if other automakers are pulling any sneaky cheats. The EPA hasn't said anything publicly about the tests aside from them keeping the vehicles and testing them in unpredictable ways. So far, the new tests haven't uncovered any cheating.
      "It is true that diesel vehicles are getting extra scrutiny and that has extended the certification process longer than normal. In general, manufacturers have been supportive of this additional testing and have adjusted their timing to account for the additional test duration," EPA spokesman Nick Conger said to Automotive News.
      Case in point, BMW will not be launching their 2017 3-Series and X3 diesels until the end of the year, with the X5 following in January. Meanwhile, sources at GM tell Automotive News they're awaiting approval for 2017 Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon diesels before they start sending them out to dealers. FCA doesn't have any 2017 Jeep Grand Cherokee or Ram 1500 EcoDiesels at the moment despite press details saying they would be offered. An FCA spokesman declined to comment to Automotive News - our guess is that FCA is waiting.
      Mercedes-Benz could be the big loser with this extensive testing. The German automaker was planning to sell four diesel models; C-Class sedan, GLC, GLE, and GLS. Mercedes-Benz spokesman Robert Moran tells Automotive News in an email that the priority for the moment is getting the certification for the GLS. Moran declined to say if Mercedes is planning to offer diesel versions of the GLC and GLE. However, the C-Class diesel has been taken off the table due to "product strategy reasons." This model was supposed to go on sale at the beginning of this year.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)