Jump to content
William Maley

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

Recommended Posts

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


View full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, I bet even the 50 will be hard to meet without making everything go hybrid. :P

Share this post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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 post


Link to post
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.
Reply to this topic...

×   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.


  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 42 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online



  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Before the new Corolla hatchback hits dealers later this summer, Toyota has revealed pricing and fuel economy numbers.
      The base SE will set you back $20,910 (includes a $920 destination charge), while the XSE begins at $23,910. That will net you a new 2.0L four-cylinder with 168 horsepower and a six-speed manual. A CVT is available for an additional $1,100.
      This is what you get on either trim:
      SE:  Toyota Safety Sense 2.0 with automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection, adaptive cruise control, and lane departure warning; 8-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay compatibility, and 16-inch wheels. XSE: 18-inch wheels, LED fog lamps, upgraded infotainment system, leather-and-fabric upholstery, and heated front seats.  As for fuel economy, the SE with the CVT is the mileage leader with EPA estimates of 32 City/42 Highway/36 Combined. The XSE CVT is next with figures of 30/38/33. For the manual, Toyota only has figures for the SE which are 28/37/31. Numbers on the XSE manual are coming soon.
      Source: Toyota

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Before the new Corolla hatchback hits dealers later this summer, Toyota has revealed pricing and fuel economy numbers.
      The base SE will set you back $20,910 (includes a $920 destination charge), while the XSE begins at $23,910. That will net you a new 2.0L four-cylinder with 168 horsepower and a six-speed manual. A CVT is available for an additional $1,100.
      This is what you get on either trim:
      SE:  Toyota Safety Sense 2.0 with automatic emergency braking with pedestrian detection, adaptive cruise control, and lane departure warning; 8-inch touchscreen with Apple CarPlay compatibility, and 16-inch wheels. XSE: 18-inch wheels, LED fog lamps, upgraded infotainment system, leather-and-fabric upholstery, and heated front seats.  As for fuel economy, the SE with the CVT is the mileage leader with EPA estimates of 32 City/42 Highway/36 Combined. The XSE CVT is next with figures of 30/38/33. For the manual, Toyota only has figures for the SE which are 28/37/31. Numbers on the XSE manual are coming soon.
      Source: Toyota
    • By dfelt
      EPA - Fuels New Standard - Premium?
      Current administration has been doing everything they can to gut the EPA even though Auto companies have stated just push out the MPG standard till 2030 or so giving us time to delivery the results. Yet with that, the auto industry is trying to get onboard with Europe to a single standard. In Europe, 95 RON is their baseline fuel standard. This is equal to our 91 octane and while we have a 40 to 50 cent premium standard for 91 octane fuel, this only makes up 11% of the gas produced in the US. Making 91 the new base standard would increase gas creation resulting in lower prices for that gas and cleaner running engines along with a 3-4% increase in fuel economy for new Auto's.
      The story does say that you would not see a drop right away overnight but over a couple of years in the price of premium.
      This brings up some interesting questions:
      What about the cost hit to the lower income parts of society? Could they handle seeing a hit to buy gas as automakers stop producing auto's that run on regular or mid grade?
      Could they just drop Mid grade and like Costco, offer only regular or premium at the same price to help transition people to Premium autos everywhere?
      What else could be done to help with a change to a superior fuel?
      The Drive Story
    • By William Maley
      We all know someone who takes things a bit a too far. In the case of automakers, that someone is EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Back in April April, Pruitt announced a serious rollback of fuel economy regulations that were set in stone during the Obama administration. In a summary of the proposed draft, the EPA would rollback the fleetwide average from 46.8 mpg for the 2026 model year to around 37 mpg - the fleetwide average for the 2020 model year. The draft also mentions pre-empting "California's authority" on setting their own emission standards under the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act. This move has caused California and a collation of other states to file suit over the proposed changes.
      According to Automotive News, the changes proposed by Pruitt go a bit too far for automakers. All they wanted was the emission targets for the 2022-2025 model years to "ratchet up more gradually and offer more compliance flexibility." Now, they have to worry about litigation and uncertainty.
      "I don't think anybody in industry, when asked for reopening of standards, asked to level out to zero," said an unnamed lobbyist for a major automaker.
      However, certain groups argue that automakers should have expected something far-reaching under this current administration.
      "You've got to know your audience. If you go to [EPA Administrator] Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump and say you want relief from the rules and they are going to cost jobs, this is what you end up with," said Andrew Linhardt, deputy director of the Sierra Club's clean energy campaign.
      Later this week, executives from the major automakers will be meeting with officials at the White House to see if they can get the federal government and California to agree to some sort of comprise.
      Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)

      View full article
  • My Clubs

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Reader Rides

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.