• 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


    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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. Carguy
      Carguy
      (47 years old)
    2. Elitedragon27
      Elitedragon27
      (30 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
      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 William Maley
      If you thought this tangled web of deceit and lies that is the Volkswagen diesel emission scandal could not go any further, then you would be wrong.
      German newspaper, Bild am Sonntag reports that the California Air Resources Board (CARB) found illegal software on certain Audi models that would reduce CO2 emissions during lab tests. The software monitored the position of the steering wheel and would activate a special program in the automatic transmission if the wheel didn't move more than 15 degrees - signifying it was in the lab. CARB technicians, taking the lessons of the Volkswagen investigation, began turning the wheel during the lab test to simulate being driven on the road, thus revealing the cheat. Bild doesn't say where they got this information from. but the Wall Street Journal was able to confirm this through two sources, saying this was discovered four months back. Another source revealed this cheat was discussed between Audi, Volkswagen, and CARB officials "some months ago".
      What makes this cheat different than the one used on the 2.0L and 3.0L TDI engines is that this software was used on vehicles running gas or diesel. The transmission in question (known internally as AL 551) was used in a number of Audi vehicles such as the A6, A8, and Q5. Reuters says the software in question was used until May 2016, before CARB discovered it in an older Audi model.
      This defeat device was also mentioned during an annual test drive of new vehicles in South Africa, known as 'Summer Drive" back in February 2013. Minutes of a meeting during the drive obtained by the Wall Street Journal reveals that Axel Eiser, the head of Audi’s powertrain division saying, The shifting program needs to be configured so that it runs at 100% on the treadmill but only 0.01% with the customer.”
      These new allegations could put Audi and Volkswagen into a tougher spot in the U.S.
      Stay tuned.
      Source: Bild am Sonntag, Reuters, The Wall Street Journal (Subscription Required)

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

    • Drew Dowdell

      It might not be VW's scandal that kills diesel, it might be Mazda. What if you could get diesel like fuel economy from a gasoline engine and none of the diesel emissions issues? Mazda just might have the solution. HCCI is a type of gas engine that can run in certain situations with the spark plugs off, making for very efficient operation.
      · 0 replies
    • regfootball

      THERE IS BIG INCENTIVES ON CHEVY CRUZE RIGHT NOW
      · 0 replies
    • FordCosworth

      Who thinks lending more money to a country that will NEVER be able to repay its existing loans is solid idea? Oh , right the EU of course ...
      · 0 replies
  • Who's Online (See full list)