Feds To Mandate Up To 62 MPG By 2025; What Does It Mean For You?
Can Tesla Raise More Than $1 Billion On Soaring Stock Price?
Investors in startup electric-car maker Tesla Motors [NSDQ:TSLA] have had quite the wild ride... Read More
- #4LEADERBOARD RANK
- 2896ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 1944COMMENTS POSTED
Add to circle
Also See
-
NASCAR Star Builds Racing Prius In Toyota...
-
Blind Man Drives Prius, With A Little Help From...
-
Toyota Takes You On Safari To Prius Kingdom...
See more video »
Two days ago, the NHTSA said that it would require annual gas-mileage improvements of somewhere between 2 and 7 percent each year between 2017 and 2025.
Corporate average fuel economy requirements have already been set through 2016, an action facilitated by the Obama Administration soon after taking office.
In 2016, across the entire vehicle fleet weighted by sales, new-vehicle gas mileage will have to average 34.1 miles per gallon.
47 to 62 mpg?
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency adminstrator Lisa Jackson and President Barack Obama
Enlarge PhotoNow, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has issued a notice in the Federal Register on its rulemaking for the period after that, for model years 2017 through 2025.
Final rules will be issued next year.
The notice says the agency won't require less than 2 percent increase in gas mileage each year, but it said it has "tentatively concluded" that the maximum possible improvement that automakers could achieve would be 7 percent.
That would mean average fuel efficiency reaching 47 to 62 miles per gallon by 2025--though the agency said it would assess the progress of technology in about 2020 before finalizing numbers for 2022-2025.
Costs and payback periods
The NHTSA is now researching the impacts of the different improvement levels, including the environmental benefits, the costs--to automakers and consumers--and the effects on auto safety.
Depending on the final level, vehicle cost would increase from $770 to $3,500, the agency said. Consumers would see a payback on the higher cost of a 6-percent improvement within four years, according to its modeling.
Projections from the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Michigan, are more dire. A fleet average of 60 mpg, it says, would raise vehicle prices 22 percent, slash sales 25 percent, and cost hundreds of thousands of auto-industry jobs.
Unfortunately, retail car buyers historically overweight the initial puchase price and undervalue the impact of total ownership cost, including fuel expenses.
In other words, lower price is always more important than running costs--even if it doesn't make economic sense.
Same safety, more hybrids
But what would the increases mean for car-buying consumers?
Related Articles
-
Is 400 PPM Actually The Most Important Metric Ever For Cars?
-
GM Becomes First Automaker To Sign Call For Action On Climate Change
-
Nominee To Head EPA Had Key Role in 2025 Gas-Mileage Rules
-
Clean Fuels In Beautiful Places: U.S. Parks Service Goes Even Greener
-
U.S. EPA Sets Gas Mileage Standards: 54.5 MPG By 2025
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Tesla Model S Vs Chevy Volt: Owner Compares Electric Cars 
Electric Cars: Eight Important Things Everyone Should Know (But... 
Is Tesla About To Offer Battery-Pack Swapping For Model S? 
BMW CEO To Germans: Get Over Your Angst, Buy Electric Cars... 
Diesel Cars: Six Important Things Everyone Should Know (But May... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
The point is that you get decreasing benefits the higher up you go on the very non-linear MPG scale. Do the math.
If you reread my comment, I didn't argue with your math, I argued with your attitude. An attitude that says that all that matters in MPG is dollars. A 24% improvement is a big deal and you make it out to be nothing.
But regarding your distraction regarding ridiculous non-existent 8 MPG vehicles, let met say this. These are CAFE numbers so they are the averages. So when the average moves up by 24%, that means all vehicles are moving up in MPG not just the high MPG vehicles.
On the first page it says 2% to 7% increase results in 47-62mpg. On the second page it says that 3% results in 47mpg. They can't both be true.
Also, by my calculations, 2%-7% yearly increase results in 40.8 to 62.7 MPG. The 40.8 mpg number is a long way from the 47 MPG listed in the article.
What am I missing?
I believe it's important to point out that some 24-percent improvements make more difference in terms of GALLONS OF GASOLINE than other 24-percent improvements.
It's the other end of the scale from your Prius, granted, but we test a lot of cars at High Gear Media, and mileages like that do exist in the real world.
Finally, the sad fact is that for *most* car buyers, it IS true that "all that matters in MPG is dollars." Clearly environmentally-minded buyers exist, of course, you among them, but they are a minority: http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1050748_why-buy-green-cars-for-the-cost-savings-not-the-planet-survey-says
I'm happy to review and publish countervailing data if you can provide it.
Also the idea that you are providing "context" to readers is laughable. The context you provide here is money, not CO2, not pollutants, not foreign trade, etc, as some other authors on routinely do in the green space.
So here the simple factoid error that I have now confirmed. The 47 to 62 MPG corresponds to a 3% to 6% improvement, not the 2% to 7% improvement.
You state 2 to 7% and in the next sentence say "That would mean average fuel efficiency reaching 47 to 62 miles per gallon." Actually, it doesn't mean 47 to 62 MPG.
Peter B Posted: 5/16/2011 10:48pm PDT
boris Posted: 5/17/2011 7:21pm PDT
ColtsChiefsTitans Posted: 5/18/2011 2:25pm PDT
Lay off Mr. Voelcker already! He's doing a decent job diluting the tecno-nerd data down into something the rest of us can understand & not fall asleep reading. And his point on GALLONS CONSUMED is right on - as in, every Gallon in reduced consumption reduces CO2 emissions, etc. --- so wouldn't most environmentalists rather get all the 15 MPG SUV's & trucks up to 25 MPG instead of trying to get small sedans from 35 MPG to 45 MPG? 10 MPG increase but drastically different # of gallons consumed per 100 or 1,000 miles driven! Which is better for the environment? To me it's obvious.... score one for Mr.Voelcker!
Unfortunately, You are just one more poor soul that John Voelcker has managed to misguide.
These are CAFE standards, they are the average for all vehicles. So when he says that a 24% change in CAFE is nothing, he is saying that a 24% change in all vehicles is nothing.
No one at the EPA is proposing just improving car MPG and not truck MPG no matter how many times John Voelcker claims otherwise.
To answer your question, environmentalist would like to see both trucks AND cars improve, not one or the other. Your question implies a very, very false choice.
Later,
John C. Briggs
http://www.cleanenergycouncil.org/files/Topline_Strategy_Report_Why_People_Really_Buy_Hybrids.pdf
You have also claimed that it does not make financial sense against a Toyota Corolla.
You have claimed that people primarily purchase it to save money not the environment.
You have also claimed that it is not a fun car.
Well the link has some survey data suggesting otherwise.
35% of respondents would have purchased a more expensive car if they had not purchase a Prius. This suggest the car is immediately less expensive.
89% of respondents have reduce energy usage in their house suggesting and consistent environmental train of thought.
These customers, if they had not purchased a Prius would have purchased a vehicle "costing thousands of tens of thousands more such as the Audi A6, BMW X3, or Acura TL.
The report talks about the "Prius' ability to tap into a broad market segment - upper middle class Americans who care about the environment, but are not necessarily active in the environmental movement."
In other words, people how are taking action to improve the environment, not just make a public statement.
Go ahead, a dare you to publish that. I suspect you have never put "Prius" and "fun car" in the same sentence without a negation in there somewhere.
And even the 10 MPG trucks get 15 MPG highway or nearly twice your reference figure of 8 MPG.
Not sure why you insist on using as a reference an MPG rating that is beyond the worst of the worst. Perhaps you might use the CAFE 27.5 MPG as a comfortable reference the next time you need to compare something.
and meaningless one million electric car goal is a perfect example of yet another oxymoron goal from the WH ox and fearless leader). Of course, even if we are still using gasoline at that future date, I can see a very large portion of the driving public simply refusing to buy one of these baby buggys. I'll keep what I have.
Electric cars will be required to achieve 5 or 6 miles per kilowatthour (it's not yet settled), which will thus disqualify the Tesla Model S, the Tesla roadster, and anything with the same efficiency as either the Volt or the Leaf. These vehicles are simply way too profligate in their consumption of
precious electricity.
32/37 KWH/100miles Chevy Volt
33/36 KWH/100miles Nissan LEAF
32/33 KWH/100miles Tesla Roadster
So the roadster is the most efficient (if the EPA is to be believed anyway).
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!