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

      View full article
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)