• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Federal Government Says 54.5 MPG Goal for 2025 Isn't Going to Happen


    • That 54.5 mpg fleetwide goal? Yeah, about that...

    The EPA, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and California Air Resources Board have released their draft Technical Assessment Report on the 'Midterm Evaluation of Light-duty Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards for Model Years 2022-2025'.

     

    Despite the long name, this report is important as the results will help determine if the 54.5 mpg corporate average fuel economy target for 2025 needs to be adjusted or not.

     

    Let's begin with the good news. The report says the industry is “adopting fuel economy technologies at unprecedented rates.” Automakers and suppliers have been hard at work on developing new technologies to improve overall fuel economy and emissions. The report goes on to say with the improvements being made on gas engines, automakers will not need to rely as heavily on electric or hybrid vehicles.

     

    Now for the bad news. According to Automotive News, government officals have taken the 54.5 mpg goal off the table. Low gas prices and the high demand for trucks, SUVs, and crossovers have caused officals to rethink the goal. The government now belives the fleet average for mpgs will land between 50 and 52.6 by 2025.

     

    Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required), EPA

    0


      Report Article
    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback




    setting said goal was political theatrics anyways.  And now relaxing that is also theater, 'hey we are letting up our choke hold on you".  Still, 50 or 52.6 is kind of absurd too.

     

    In the meantime, it's still good to have gradual mpg requirement changes.  Enough to help give a little bit of a boot to more hybrids etc......as long as that consumer burden is not overwhelming.  

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    and by gas futures... doesn't look like the pump is going to lighten our wallets more quickly very soon

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    50 is still pretty high, but at least more attainable than 54.5.

     

    If they really want to cut fuel consumption a higher gas tax will do it.  CAFE is pretty pointless. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Considering where we started, 50 - 52mpg average is pretty amazing.

     

    If carbon pricing were added to fuel, we'd probably even exceed the 54mpg mark. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    A good slap in the face for pie-in-the-sky weenies.

    Considering that it is only a 4 mpg re-thinking...

    Its still a victory for the "pie-in-the-sky weenies" rather than a slap in the face.

     

    50-52.6 mpg is still a huuuuuuge number to attain. And if it is attained, Id say the "pie-in-the-sky weenies" have had their way....

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    A good slap in the face for pie-in-the-sky weenies.

    Considering that it is only a 4 mpg re-thinking...

    Its still a victory for the "pie-in-the-sky weenies" rather than a slap in the face.

     

    50-52.6 mpg is still a huuuuuuge number to attain. And if it is attained, Id say the "pie-in-the-sky weenies" have had their way....

     

    Gas Prices and SUVs are not working in the Weenies favor! They might just have to take it up the Asssssssssssssssssssssssss!

     

    If I could remember the song that had that line I would post the youtube here but I am not good with that. :P

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    A good slap in the face for pie-in-the-sky weenies.

    Considering that it is only a 4 mpg re-thinking...

    Its still a victory for the "pie-in-the-sky weenies" rather than a slap in the face.

     

    50-52.6 mpg is still a huuuuuuge number to attain. And if it is attained, Id say the "pie-in-the-sky weenies" have had their way....

     

    The weenies (or should I say... vienna sausages) won't even hit 50 mpg.  They will be so sad and shriveled.  The pool is COLD, weenie bros.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    i think part of the focus should be 'energy diversity'.

     

    And by that, to me is accomplished right now with say, an E85 capable plug in.  Like a Volt that is E85 capable.

     

    That way you can fuel your car with electricity, or gas that could include a shift back to renewables if those developed more.

     

    That said, i am not a big ethanol fan normally, due to it's lower energy output compared to pure gas.  If ethanol can become more cost effective without relying so much on subsidy, ever, at least that the cars running around if E85 capable are set up for gas fuel diversity.

    Edited by regfootball
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Gas Prices and SUVs are not working in the Weenies favor! They might just have to take it up the Asssssssssssssssssssssssss!

     

     

     

    If I could remember the song that had that line I would post the youtube here but I am not good with that. :P

     

     

    I wish I could lend you a hand and find that song for you, but alas, I may not know that song.

    "Take your job a shove it" is as close as I could get.

     

    The weenies (or should I say... vienna sausages) won't even hit 50 mpg.  They will be so sad and shriveled.  The pool is COLD, weenie bros.

     

     

     

     

    The electric car revolution will probably help achieve this goal.

    Many automakers are going full tilt in EVs...

     

    VW is the latest to be thunderstruck.

     

    PS: I like the metaphor!

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    i think part of the focus should be 'energy diversity'.

     

    And by that, to me is accomplished right now with say, an E85 capable plug in.  Like a Volt that is E85 capable.

     

    That way you can fuel your car with electricity, or gas that could include a shift back to renewables if those developed more.

     

    That said, i am not a big ethanol fan normally, due to it's lower energy output compared to pure gas.  If ethanol can become more cost effective without relying so much on subsidy, ever, at least that the cars running around if E85 capable are set up for gas fuel diversity.

    E85 was just poorly implemented by the manufacturers. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. There just isn't a huge advantage in putting 110 octane fuel in a low compression 220 HP V6 pushrod. Put the same fuel in a 220 HP 1.6t with the boost turned way up and see some real fuel savings.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well I was outside all day, so certain parts of me are salty.  Since you asked.  :smilewide:

    So one big or small salt lick? :P

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    i think part of the focus should be 'energy diversity'.

     

    And by that, to me is accomplished right now with say, an E85 capable plug in.  Like a Volt that is E85 capable.

     

    That way you can fuel your car with electricity, or gas that could include a shift back to renewables if those developed more.

     

    That said, i am not a big ethanol fan normally, due to it's lower energy output compared to pure gas.  If ethanol can become more cost effective without relying so much on subsidy, ever, at least that the cars running around if E85 capable are set up for gas fuel diversity.

    E85 was just poorly implemented by the manufacturers. There is nothing inherently wrong with it. There just isn't a huge advantage in putting 110 octane fuel in a low compression 220 HP V6 pushrod. Put the same fuel in a 220 HP 1.6t with the boost turned way up and see some real fuel savings.

     

     

     

    This. The problem with ethanol is that cars aren't tuned to run it with it's true optimization in mind.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There is nothing beneficial to government intervention in any market or industry. This is born out in every record-able metric in the past 50 years. The government is the lowest common denominator and the least cost effective means to an end. Look no further than displacement taxes that encourage turbocharging 1.0L-1.5L motors despite the lack of any real world benefit vs equally advanced N/A engines. People making laws dictating OUR lives know LESS about cars than we do on this forum.

     

    Free market business works the best when innovation is determined by the MARKET, by supply and demand, and by competition. Instead we have $20,000 sub-compact "economy" cars with 10 standard airbags ($1,000+ to repair each one that goes off in an accident) and expensive small displacement, turbocharged, direct-injection engines to meet ever increasing government regulations.

     

    Ethanol fuel is a goddamn sham. Look what its done to the agricultural industry when the world is producing more oil reserves than ever, with new oil extraction methods broadening our oil supply beyond anything we imagined. E85 is also nowhere near as efficient as pure gasoline in any vehicle that offers ethanol compatibility. It's another government subsidized mistake taking billions of dollars from the taxpayers and causing increased cost of food and produce while DECREASING our fuel economy.

    1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There is nothing beneficial to government intervention in any market or industry. This is born out in every record-able metric in the past 50 years. The government is the lowest common denominator and the least cost effective means to an end. Look no further than displacement taxes that encourage turbocharging 1.0L-1.5L motors despite the lack of any real world benefit vs equally advanced N/A engines. People making laws dictating OUR lives know LESS about cars than we do on this forum.

     

    Free market business works the best when innovation is determined by the MARKET, by supply and demand, and by competition. Instead we have $20,000 sub-compact "economy" cars with 10 standard airbags ($1,000+ to repair each one that goes off in an accident) and expensive small displacement, turbocharged, direct-injection engines to meet ever increasing government regulations.

     

    Ethanol fuel is a goddamn sham. Look what its done to the agricultural industry when the world is producing more oil reserves than ever, with new oil extraction methods broadening our oil supply beyond anything we imagined. E85 is also nowhere near as efficient as pure gasoline in any vehicle that offers ethanol compatibility. It's another government subsidized mistake taking billions of dollars from the taxpayers and causing increased cost of food and produce while DECREASING our fuel economy.

    FOR TRUTH  :metal:

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    There is nothing beneficial to government intervention in any market or industry. This is born out in every record-able metric in the past 50 years. The government is the lowest common denominator and the least cost effective means to an end. Look no further than displacement taxes that encourage turbocharging 1.0L-1.5L motors despite the lack of any real world benefit vs equally advanced N/A engines. People making laws dictating OUR lives know LESS about cars than we do on this forum.

     

    Free market business works the best when innovation is determined by the MARKET, by supply and demand, and by competition. Instead we have $20,000 sub-compact "economy" cars with 10 standard airbags ($1,000+ to repair each one that goes off in an accident) and expensive small displacement, turbocharged, direct-injection engines to meet ever increasing government regulations.

     

    Ethanol fuel is a goddamn sham. Look what its done to the agricultural industry when the world is producing more oil reserves than ever, with new oil extraction methods broadening our oil supply beyond anything we imagined. E85 is also nowhere near as efficient as pure gasoline in any vehicle that offers ethanol compatibility. It's another government subsidized mistake taking billions of dollars from the taxpayers and causing increased cost of food and produce while DECREASING our fuel economy.

     

     

    Not touching the political points of what you posted, but your technical points on E85 are incorrect or missing the point. If you tried to run peanut oil fuel through your gasoline engine you'd get less than ideal fuel economy also.  E85 is a great fuel when it is put in engines it is designed for as the primary fuel.   In Brazil they use sugar alcohol, essentially E100, in their cars. I don't know what the octane is, but it's gotta be over the 110 that E85 is here. The little 1.0 liter Chevy compacts run around with compression ratios equal to that in the V10 in the old M5 (basically, pretty darn high by industry standards). 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    There is nothing beneficial to government intervention in any market or industry. This is born out in every record-able metric in the past 50 years. The government is the lowest common denominator and the least cost effective means to an end. Look no further than displacement taxes that encourage turbocharging 1.0L-1.5L motors despite the lack of any real world benefit vs equally advanced N/A engines. People making laws dictating OUR lives know LESS about cars than we do on this forum.

     

    Free market business works the best when innovation is determined by the MARKET, by supply and demand, and by competition. Instead we have $20,000 sub-compact "economy" cars with 10 standard airbags ($1,000+ to repair each one that goes off in an accident) and expensive small displacement, turbocharged, direct-injection engines to meet ever increasing government regulations.

     

    Ethanol fuel is a goddamn sham. Look what its done to the agricultural industry when the world is producing more oil reserves than ever, with new oil extraction methods broadening our oil supply beyond anything we imagined. E85 is also nowhere near as efficient as pure gasoline in any vehicle that offers ethanol compatibility. It's another government subsidized mistake taking billions of dollars from the taxpayers and causing increased cost of food and produce while DECREASING our fuel economy.

     

     

    Not touching the political points of what you posted, but your technical points on E85 are incorrect or missing the point. If you tried to run peanut oil fuel through your gasoline engine you'd get less than ideal fuel economy also.  E85 is a great fuel when it is put in engines it is designed for as the primary fuel.   In Brazil they use sugar alcohol, essentially E100, in their cars. I don't know what the octane is, but it's gotta be over the 110 that E85 is here. The little 1.0 liter Chevy compacts run around with compression ratios equal to that in the V10 in the old M5 (basically, pretty darn high by industry standards). 

     

     

    The loss of fuel economy and the political ramifications are unavoidable. We're forced to have that E15 blend in our gas for our cars engineered to run best on pure gasoline. This is the crux of the subsidized ethanol scam. I see no US automakers developing engines to run E85 or E100 in a way that compares to pure gasoline.

     

    But that's beside the point because our agricultural infrastructure cannot support corn production in a way that will replace gasoline in a significant manner without, again, wreaking havoc on food and produce costs. Meanwhile, we're at a point that so much agricultural production has adjusted for government ethanol subsidies and fuel supply, that we literally cannot stop what they've started without bursting the agricultural economic bubble.

     

    Is there a pattern here?

     

    Government gets involved in housing loans in the 90s - housing bubble.

     

    Government subsidizes interest free college loans - tuition skyrockets (pesky supply and demand), college loan bubble balloons to a trillion dollars in bad debt.

     

    Government subsidizes medical care - hospital/doctor costs shoot astronomically high, $20 for an aspirin, $1000 for overnight stay

     

    Government "corrects" medical cost problem with universal healthcare - insurance rockets premiums and deductibles (simple risk/benefit economics)

     

    Government subsidizes ethanol based on bad science - agricultural bubble (more like a house of cards)

    Edited by cp-the-nerd
    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    BIG GUB'MENT BAD

     

    That's because the USA half-asses everything and their government decisions reflect that half-assedness.

     

    Which is weird because the American people have more than enough ass to go around. 

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

     

    BIG GUB'MENT BAD

     

    That's because the USA half-asses everything and their government decisions reflect that half-assedness.

     

    Which is weird because the American people have more than enough ass to go around. 

     

     

    Has zero to do with "half-assing" anything. Increased government control is universally the least efficient way of accomplishing anything.

    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

    Loading...



  • Popular Stories

  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Mitsubishi Motors brought in investigators to answer a question; why did they manipulate fuel economy figures on a number of their models? The results of the investigation were announced yesterday and it was a combination of various decisions and factors that led to it.
       
      The investigation criticized the company for "not having the manufacturing philosophy of an automaker". A key example comes from the company not rallying their workers to help them back on track after two major scandals. Instead, it was focused on cutting costs wherever it could. This caused Mitsubishi engineers to pull off the impossible task of improving fuel economy on their current engines and not developing new ones. There was also the feeling that workers couldn't speak up about reaching these impossible targets.
       
      The investigation also revealed that management failed to the address the possibility of something fishy going on with the fuel economy testing. In 2005, a new employee brought up concerns about fuel economy figures being made up. This was brushed off by managers. Six years later, a compliance survey addressing other falsifications were not brought to Mitsubishi executives.
       
      “The problem is not only with the testing, certification, or the development department. It’s a collective failure of Mitsubishi Motors as a whole, starting from the management,” said Yoshiro Sakata, one of the investigators appointed by the company at a briefing yesterday.
       
      “I take the panel’s recommendation seriously,” Mitsubishi Motors Chairman Osamu Masuko in a statement.
       
      “The efforts we’ve been making since I took over in 2005 haven’t been enough.”
       
      The investigators made a number of recommendations to prevent something like this from happening again. They include,
      Revamping development Making vehicle certification department independent from the research and development department Restructure the organization structure Being more transparent Understanding laws Be willing to find and tackle violations

      Source: Bloomberg, Reuters
    • By William Maley
      One of the stumbling blocks for Volkswagen with the diesel emission scandal has been trying to find a fix that the feds would agree to. Previous attempts for the 2.0 and 3.0L TDI have ended with rejection from the California Air Resources Board due to the "submissions are incomplete, substantially deficient, and fall far short of meeting the legal requirements to return these vehicles to the claimed certified configuration." But it seems progress is being made on this.
       
      In an interview with Reuters, CARB's head Mary Nichols said they are working with Volkswagen on testing potential fixes for the three generations of the 2.0L TDI four-cylinder engine.
       
      “They brought in a whole new team of people to work on various aspects of this. There’s just a greater sense that we’re dealing with people who have access to the decision makers in Germany, and who understand their credibility is on the line," said Nichols.
       
      The potential fixes must improve emissions by 80 to 90 percent of federal pollution standards. This seems odd since regulators wanted Volkswagen to get the vehicles fully meeting standards, but they are willing to give the company some breathing room as Volkswagen will be paying $2.7 billion to reduce the excess NOx emissions spewing from their vehicles.
       
      Getting a fix approved could be Volkswagen's saving grace as they could offer owners the choice of either having their vehicles bought back or having them fixed, which in turn could lessen the hurt of buying back all of the affected vehicles. Whether this pans out remains to be seen.
       
      Source: Reuters


      Click here to view the article
    • By William Maley
      One of the stumbling blocks for Volkswagen with the diesel emission scandal has been trying to find a fix that the feds would agree to. Previous attempts for the 2.0 and 3.0L TDI have ended with rejection from the California Air Resources Board due to the "submissions are incomplete, substantially deficient, and fall far short of meeting the legal requirements to return these vehicles to the claimed certified configuration." But it seems progress is being made on this.
       
      In an interview with Reuters, CARB's head Mary Nichols said they are working with Volkswagen on testing potential fixes for the three generations of the 2.0L TDI four-cylinder engine.
       
      “They brought in a whole new team of people to work on various aspects of this. There’s just a greater sense that we’re dealing with people who have access to the decision makers in Germany, and who understand their credibility is on the line," said Nichols.
       
      The potential fixes must improve emissions by 80 to 90 percent of federal pollution standards. This seems odd since regulators wanted Volkswagen to get the vehicles fully meeting standards, but they are willing to give the company some breathing room as Volkswagen will be paying $2.7 billion to reduce the excess NOx emissions spewing from their vehicles.
       
      Getting a fix approved could be Volkswagen's saving grace as they could offer owners the choice of either having their vehicles bought back or having them fixed, which in turn could lessen the hurt of buying back all of the affected vehicles. Whether this pans out remains to be seen.
       
      Source: Reuters
    • By William Maley
      The California Air Resources Board has rejected Volkswagen's plan to fix the 3.0L TDI V6.
       
      "VW's and Audi's submissions are incomplete, substantially deficient, and fall far short of meeting the legal requirements to return these vehicles to the claimed certified configuration," CARB wrote in a letter to the German automaker.
       
      This comes as a bit of a surprise as last month, Volkswagen's lawyer Robert Giuffra said the company was close to a fix for this engine and it wouldn't affect overall performance.
       
      Volkswagen apparently did not learn its lesson when its proposed fix for the 2.0L TDI four-cylinder was rejected by CARB earlier this year for the same reasons.
       
      Complicating matters further is CARB saying that certain test data would not be available until December. They need this data to help make a determination if a fix would work for the all of the affected models or if Volkswagen needs to set up a buyback program similar to the one for the 2.0 TDI.
       
      Source: Reuters, California Air Resources Board


      Click here to view the article
    • By William Maley
      The California Air Resources Board has rejected Volkswagen's plan to fix the 3.0L TDI V6.
       
      "VW's and Audi's submissions are incomplete, substantially deficient, and fall far short of meeting the legal requirements to return these vehicles to the claimed certified configuration," CARB wrote in a letter to the German automaker.
       
      This comes as a bit of a surprise as last month, Volkswagen's lawyer Robert Giuffra said the company was close to a fix for this engine and it wouldn't affect overall performance.
       
      Volkswagen apparently did not learn its lesson when its proposed fix for the 2.0L TDI four-cylinder was rejected by CARB earlier this year for the same reasons.
       
      Complicating matters further is CARB saying that certain test data would not be available until December. They need this data to help make a determination if a fix would work for the all of the affected models or if Volkswagen needs to set up a buyback program similar to the one for the 2.0 TDI.
       
      Source: Reuters, California Air Resources Board
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)