Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

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

    Sign in to follow this  

      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

    Sign in to follow this  


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    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.  

    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

    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. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Eh, a Cruze is quickly closing in on 30k. Might save money on gas, but the car payment is much bigger....

    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. 

    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....

    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

    • Upvote 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.

    • Upvote 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

    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!

    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.

    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

    • Upvote 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.

    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.

    • Upvote 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:

    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). 

    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

    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. 

    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.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By Drew Dowdell
      The EPA has officially released its assessment of the 2020 Jeep Wrangler EcoDiesel. The EcoDiesel is only available as a 4-door with an 8-speed automatic and in that configuration, the EcoDiesel manages to get 29 mpg highway, 22 mpg city, and 25 combined. That is slightly better than a 4x4 Ram 1500 with the same powertrain. The next closest model in terms of fuel efficiency is the 2-door, 4-cylinder, manual transmission, rear-wheel drive Wrangler at 24 highway mpg, 22 city mpg, and 23 combined. 
      The diesel engine is a $4,000 option though so you may not ultimately save money. Instead, Jeep believes the EcoDiesel option is best suited for those who need the gobs of torque generated by the V6 diesel when going off-road. With 260 horsepower and 442 lb.-ft of torque, the Wrangler EcoDiesel has torque in spades. To the dismay of many, the Ecodiesel does come standard with electronic stop/start.
      If diesel isn't your thing, there is the 2.0T 4-cylinder which produces 270 horsepower and 295 lb.-ft of torque or the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 which produces 285 horsepower and 260 lb.-ft of torque.  Both engines also come with stop/start or can be upgraded to the eTorque system that smooths out the torque band and either engine is available with a manual transmission or 8-speed automatic.
       

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The EPA has officially released its assessment of the 2020 Jeep Wrangler EcoDiesel. The EcoDiesel is only available as a 4-door with an 8-speed automatic and in that configuration, the EcoDiesel manages to get 29 mpg highway, 22 mpg city, and 25 combined. That is slightly better than a 4x4 Ram 1500 with the same powertrain. The next closest model in terms of fuel efficiency is the 2-door, 4-cylinder, manual transmission, rear-wheel drive Wrangler at 24 highway mpg, 22 city mpg, and 23 combined. 
      The diesel engine is a $4,000 option though so you may not ultimately save money. Instead, Jeep believes the EcoDiesel option is best suited for those who need the gobs of torque generated by the V6 diesel when going off-road. With 260 horsepower and 442 lb.-ft of torque, the Wrangler EcoDiesel has torque in spades. To the dismay of many, the Ecodiesel does come standard with electronic stop/start.
      If diesel isn't your thing, there is the 2.0T 4-cylinder which produces 270 horsepower and 295 lb.-ft of torque or the 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 which produces 285 horsepower and 260 lb.-ft of torque.  Both engines also come with stop/start or can be upgraded to the eTorque system that smooths out the torque band and either engine is available with a manual transmission or 8-speed automatic.
       
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The Ford Explorer hybrid got its EPA ratings finally. They're an improvement over the base 2.3 liter 4-cylinder delivering 27 city, 29 highway, 28 combined for the most efficient RWD model. That is an improvement of 6 mpg for city and 4 mpg combined. The AWD model comes in a bit lower at 23 city, 26 highway, and 25 combined. Unlike the Lincoln Aviator GT, the Ford Explorer Hybrid is not a plug-in model. 
      Powered by a 3.3 liter V6 plus the electrified drive train, the Explorer hybrid has a lot more power than the 4-cylinder with 318 horsepower and 322 lb-ft of torque. It comes with the same 10-speed automatic that all Explorers come with. Compared to the 2.3 liter turbo with 300 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque, we expect the Hybrid to feel faster and more refined due to the extra torque at the low end from the electric motor. 
      The Explorer Hybrid has more power and torque than its only direct competition, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid.  The Highlander does slightly better in fuel economy, but comes up 1,500 lbs short in towing capacity, though the next generation Highland Hybrid is supposed to get 34 mpg in front-wheel drive form.
      The Explorer Hybrid is available as a Limited trim model and starts at $51,780 after delivery charge, a $3,555 increase over an equivalent Limited trim. 
       

      View full article
    • By Drew Dowdell
      The Ford Explorer hybrid got its EPA ratings finally. They're an improvement over the base 2.3 liter 4-cylinder delivering 27 city, 29 highway, 28 combined for the most efficient RWD model. That is an improvement of 6 mpg for city and 4 mpg combined. The AWD model comes in a bit lower at 23 city, 26 highway, and 25 combined. Unlike the Lincoln Aviator GT, the Ford Explorer Hybrid is not a plug-in model. 
      Powered by a 3.3 liter V6 plus the electrified drive train, the Explorer hybrid has a lot more power than the 4-cylinder with 318 horsepower and 322 lb-ft of torque. It comes with the same 10-speed automatic that all Explorers come with. Compared to the 2.3 liter turbo with 300 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque, we expect the Hybrid to feel faster and more refined due to the extra torque at the low end from the electric motor. 
      The Explorer Hybrid has more power and torque than its only direct competition, the Toyota Highlander Hybrid.  The Highlander does slightly better in fuel economy, but comes up 1,500 lbs short in towing capacity, though the next generation Highland Hybrid is supposed to get 34 mpg in front-wheel drive form.
      The Explorer Hybrid is available as a Limited trim model and starts at $51,780 after delivery charge, a $3,555 increase over an equivalent Limited trim. 
       
    • By Drew Dowdell
      Does anyone else notice a big drop in fuel economy when using the air conditioning? For people with automatic climate control do you ever manually turn off the air conditioner? 
  • Posts

    • PHOQUE IT!!!     I want #25!    If it wont be #7 as they blew last year, Ill take #25 this year.      
    • @ocnblu Got it. 3G is the first two digits of the VIN.  3 is country code Mexico and G is for GM.  So it was a Mexican built GM and there were only two of those on the list, the Avalanche and the EXT.  While I wouldn't have said no to an EXT, an Avalanche popped up that I couldn't NOT buy. So, I have bought what is likely the lowest mileage 2013 Avalanche in the country.  All the paperwork and loan has been finalized, I just have to pick it up on Wednesday.  It's a Blue Topaz 2013 LTZ Black Diamond with only 12,800 miles on the clock. I paid $32,990 and Carvana gave me $8,100 for the Cruze. It checks all my boxes for heated/cooled seats, heated steering wheel, remote start. The only thing is doesn't have that I would have liked is a sunroof, but for such a museum piece, I will survive without it.   
    • I saw a strange forest service truck here in the Cleveland suburbs a while back..it was that funky green w forest service decals on the doors...but it was a pre-97 Jeep XJ Cherokee...in very clean shape.  Sort of a WTF moment, though..in what time warp is the forest service driving 25-30 yr old vehicles? 
    • Bleu-Blanc-Rouge      
    • I second @ocnblu  guess. But...what gen Avalanche? Ill go with 1st gen, de-cladded.  
  • Social Stream

  • Today's Birthdays

    1. haypops
      haypops
      (74 years old)
    2. jhonmartin
      jhonmartin
      (31 years old)
    3. Lance Truthhammer
      Lance Truthhammer
      (36 years old)
    4. Munson05
      Munson05
      (46 years old)
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...