Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate

stever · October 2014

California's cap and trade law has been in effect for a couple of years now. Next year the "carbon tax" kicks in on motor vehicle fuels. No one really knows yet how much gas prices will go up at the pump, but it sounds like they will go up. Chevron hates it. (richmondconfidential.org)

berri · October 2014

This whole cap and trade stuff sounds to me a bit like the gov using business sounding titles for the actual business of gov interfering in the marketplace. Seldom turns out good for anyone. Bottom line - expect the middle class consumer to pay while the rich and corporations use high priced lawyers to find the loopholes to get around it!

stever · October 2014

berri said:
Bottom line - expect the middle class consumer to pay while the rich and corporations use high priced lawyers to find the loopholes to get around it!

Not exactly - the connected get high priced lawyers to write the laws with the loopholes installed so they really don't have to go hunting to find them.

berri · October 2014

Bingo!

Mr_Shiftright · October 2014

Clunkiest bit of engineering since Cadillac's 8-6-4.

stever said:
Looks like the start-stop system really works, judging by two in-house tests using Edmunds.com fleet cars.

stever · October 2014

I want it.

Naturally it's only available in a lower trim of the Soul and not an option on the pricier version that we'd buy.

berri · October 2014

I find the stop start, at least in a rented Malibu, to be a bit awkward. You go to pull out into heavy traffic and get a bit of lag. Not a confidence builder. Can't imagine driving one in heavy rush hour traffic somewhere like Phoenix in the summer or Minneapolis in winter. Also got to wonder how these turbo's will do long term with their higher operating pressure and temperatures. Potential impacts on electronics and long term durability. I'm already hearing that some of these aren't meeting mileage estimates and are needing higher octane fuel to run smoothly without pinging. Remember the light bulb bill of goods industry and Congress tried to foist on us!

This whole mandate thing reminds me of the mid 70's. Government regulations resulted in cars becoming poor performers with mechanical reliability issues, while prices skyrocketed. Meanwhile, the manufacturer's started looking for short cuts to hold down price pressure, making matters even worse. It all really hurt the auto industry and the consumer. Government regulation has costs. I also just don't think the target is realistic. North America is not Europe. We are spread out geographically, so we don't have the train and bus infrastructure and need more from our personal vehicles. BTW, are places like Europe and Asia also doing this, or are Americans yet again having to sacrifice more than the rest of the world in global matters?

fintail · October 2014

I think Europe kind of mandates it in a different way, via huge taxes, which then pay for mass transit infrastructure, good roads, and other social goods that the Randian nincompoops in the US think are some kind of Bolshie revolution. Same for Japan - people moved to efficient vehicles because of fuel costs. Government at work, but different strategic theories.

That being said, stop-start is more like stop-gap, lots of work for a usually insignificant result. We could probably see more if cities were mandated to properly manage their traffic controls, or lose all pension funding for that part of the workforce.

stever · October 2014

berri said:
BTW, are places like Europe and Asia also doing this, or are Americans yet again having to sacrifice more than the rest of the world in global matters?

"Volkswagen debuted its first production stop-start system in 1983 with the Europe-only Polo Formel E." (Car and Driver) Sounds like it's biggest in the EU but it's easy tech to implement and growing fast all over.

benjaminh · January 2015

A story in the New York Times that potentially makes a case for why CAFE is even more important now:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/upshot/gas-still-not-as-cheap-as-it-used-to-be.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&abt=0002&abg=0

"....Then there is the other side of the oil price equation: demand. A second reason that gas prices fell so rapidly in the early 1980s was the series of conservation efforts that followed the 1970s oil shocks. Fuel-economy standards, signed by President Gerald Ford in 1975, forced automakers to replace gas guzzlers with smaller, more efficient cars....

Left to its own devices, the energy market will repeat this cycle. Low prices will cause supply to grow more slowly, both clean and dirty energy, and demand to grow more quickly. It’s happening already.Sales of S.U.V and pickup trucks were 12 percent higher in December 2014 than December 2013."

But in part because of CAFE these SUVs get much higher mpg than those of 10 years ago.

berri · January 2015

I think overtime industry would have made many of those changes anyway. Crossovers and SUV's have far larger profit margins. When gas prices go up a lot, the market generally buys more sedans and compacts, but given the margins the industry wants to keep the mix heavy on the trucks. Even if Detroit drags it's butt, Japan is usually responsive to these things forcing Detroit's hand.

benjaminh · March 2015

Even as gas prices have fallen the overall mpg of the new vehicles being bought has gone up slightly. The biggest increase has been in the trucks....

http://wardsauto.com/north-america/february-us-fuel-economy-13

"...All segments recorded index rating gains, but pickups were the most improved, jumping 9.9% to 18.6 mpg (12.6 L/100 km). Midsize cars were up the least, 0.3%.

The national average gasoline price was $2.301 a gallon, up 4.2% from January, resulting in the first month-to-month increase since last June. Even with that uptick, prices were 33% below prior-year. February sales of gasoline-powered vehicles rose as hybrids and plug-in hybrids saw declines from 2014...."

benjaminh · March 2015

Could the CAFE standards for 2025 be weakened? Perhaps....As most here know, the "54.5" bogeyman is not the number you would be seeing on your window sticker in 2025 even if the regs are kept. The window sticker mpg is calculated in a significantly different way now, closer to what people actually get, plus there are credits car makers get for various things. The bottom line is that a midsize car like the Accord, which now gets 31 mpg combined on the window sticker, would need to get to c. 38 mpg by 2025. That's still a big increase in mpg, but far short of the fake "54.5" number that some people complain about.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/2015/03/17/changing-buyer-tastes-may-cause-lowered-mpg-standards/24936119/

“We agreed the midterm review would take a fresh look ... That those (regulations) would be based on updated data, updated information,” Kevin Green, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration CAFE Program Office chief, told The Detroit News following a presentation at Automotive World’s Megatrends USA conference in Dearborn. “I can’t see how we would not use an updated assessment of the market.”

Green, during his presentation, said the 54.5 mpg targets are “not solid ground” because each automaker’s number is going to differ based on fuel economy credits, their mix of light-duty trucks and passenger cars, and other factors.

Chris Nevers, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers director of climate and fuel economy, told The News consumer behavior is going to be “key” for the midterm review.

“This is a consumer-driven program,” he said. “These vehicles have to be sold, not just produced.”

stever · August 2015

Vehicle Fuel Economy Shows Dramatic Increases Since 1974, But There's a Catch

benjaminh · October 2015

Some gas cars from a variety of car companies are beginning to show us how we are eventually going to get to that mythical "54.5" number by 2025. As maybe everyone reading here knows, the real number on your EPA sticker in c. 10 years actually only needs to get to c. 36-37 mpg combined to equal the 54 mpg as measured by CAFE. Here are the CAFE numbers for various sizes and type of vehicle by year up through 2025:

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/good-and-bad-news-emerges-from-cafes-fine-print.html

The 2015 Mazda3 was the class leader for compact cars for mpg, getting 34 combined, but now the 2016 Civic has passed that with a rating of 35. Both of these cars, which have nice levels of power, are way past the current CAFE standards.

For 2017 compact cars need to get a CAFE number of c. 42, but that translates to an EPA number of c. 29. The rough translation is to multiply the CAFE number by .7 and then round down to account for various credits that companies get.

The CAFE number for 2021 for "midsize" cars is c. 45, which translates to c. 31 on the sticker. Since the 2016 Civic is now classified as a midsize by the EPA, it also easily cruises past this standard 5 years in the future.

By then, no doubt, we'll have an another all-new Civic, but actually the 2016 Civic isn't that far off from the CAFE standard for 2025. That imaginary "54" mpg number will, to say it again, actually only be c. 37 mpg on the window sticker. The current Civic is only 2 mpg away from that, and we can assume that with 10 more years and several billion dollars of R & D two more mpg can be found by Honda and other companies.

If anyone thinks the CAFE standards for 2025 are impossible, it happens that some cars aren't that far from meeting them right now.

hpmctorque · July 2016

Update...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160718/OEM/160719863/54-5-mpg-target-is-off-the-table-u-s-regulators-say

benjaminh · July 2016

hpmctorque said:
Update...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160718/OEM/160719863/54-5-mpg-target-is-off-the-table-u-s-regulators-say

It seems what this means is that the targets for each class of vehicle are staying the same, but the mix of vehicles has shifted even more toward pickups and SUVs.

Even by 2025, I think full size pickups only need to get a combined window sticker epa of c. 20 mpg, while a midsize car needs to get to c. 37. Since cars as a proportion of total vehicles is falling, and the shares held by pickups and SUVs are rising, the already mythical "54.5" won't be met.

But still, cars and trucks are significantly more efficient now than they were 10 years ago, in part because of CAFE, and 9 years from now they will have made another big jump, in part because of CAFE.

The increasing fuel economy of the US fleet of cars will help to moderate fuel prices by holding down demand. It will also put a small dent in the increase in global warming, although we are still on track, unfortunately, for significant rises in sea levels in the next 50 years.

The main thing is that consumers will see the cost of vehicle ownership moderate a bit. Even big SUVs and big trucks are more efficient than they were 10 years ago, even though they are more powerful than ever.

benjaminh · July 2016

hpmctorque said:
Update...

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160718/OEM/160719863/54-5-mpg-target-is-off-the-table-u-s-regulators-say

To be more accurate, the headline should have read:

"37 mpg target is off the table: 34 mpg more likely" since those are closer to the window sticker numbers.

benjaminh · July 2016

Again, this thread should probably be retitled:

"Your Thoughts Regarding the 36 MPG Mandate"

Because that's the number that will actually be found on the window sticker of your midsize car in 2025. For 2017 some midsize cars already get about 30 mpg combined on their window stickers, and so although 36 is a significant 20% increase from that over the next 8 years, it's not the moon.

54.5 is based on how the EPA measured mpg back in 1975—which was more or less driving 55 mph without the AC on. Since no one got that mpg, and everyone constantly complained, the EPA subsequently lowered how mpg looks on your window sticker (but strangely didn't lower it for CAFE purposes) in 1985, and lowered it again in 2008, and now have lowered it yet again for 2017 vehicles.

That 54.5 mpg number, which again is totally fiction, drives some on the right of the political spectrum nuts because it seems to show how crazy liberals are. And the standard won't be anywhere close to 36 mpg for full size trucks and big SUVs. The standard for vehicles like that is c. 22 mpg combined.

The bottom line is that these standards won't take away your gas-guzzling F-150 King Ranch Crew Cab 4 x 4, if that's what you want to drive, it just won't guzzle gas quite as fast. If you're a driver of one of those vehicles this thread could be retitled:

"Your Thoughts Regarding the 22 MPG Mandate."

This might lower the blood pressure for some people.

benjaminh · July 2016

We are now in the midterm review period for the CAFE standards. Some auto makers, like Ford and GM, are trying to get the standards weakened. This is a bad idea for many reasons, which this article lays out....

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/dont-weaken-obamas-fuel-standards-000173

Don't weaken Obama's fuel economy standards
Low gas prices don't change anything. The standards are still critical for combating climate change.
By Varun Sivaram
07/22/16 04:15 PM EDT

"....So there is a real possibility that regulators could ultimately weaken the standards. This isn’t an unrealistic worry. In fact, regulators did just that in the wake of the mid-1980s oil price collapse. After passenger car standards were relaxed in 1986, they stagnated for more than two decades, during which American automakers took advantage of the reprieve to design cars with more horsepower and torque but unimproved efficiency. Only by the late 2000s, as oil prices rose soared, did regulators belatedly react and begin raising standards again.This time, in the face of another collapse in oil prices, it is important not to make the same mistake and undercut the administration’s rising fuel economy targets.. A colleague and I recently studied how lower oil prices might alter the benefits of CAFE standards and discovered that the benefits of current mileage targets still substantially exceed their costs...."

More at the link.

benjaminh · July 2016

Again, the title for this thread should more accurately read:

"Your Thoughts Regarding the 36 MPG Mandate"

Because that's the number that will actually be on the window sticker of your midsize car in the year 2025.

The 54.5 number, which is totally fictional, is based on how the EPA measured mpg back in 1975, which was more or less driving 55 without the AC on. Since no one got that mpg number, and people rightly complained about it, the EPA subsequently lowered the mpg number on the window sticker (but not, strangely, for CAFE) in 1985. The EPA lowered window sticker mpg again in 2008, and lowered it yet again for model year 2017.

The bottom line is that a car that gets 36 mpg combined on the window sticker in 2017 gets about 54 in terms of CAFE.

Some midsize cars already get c. 30 mpg combined on their window stickers, and so although getting to 36 over the next 8 years is a substantial 20% increase, it's not the moon.

And if you drive a Ford Ranch King Crew Cab 4 x 4, the standards for vehicles like that are about 21 mpg combined on the window sticker in 2025. And so if you drive a vehicle like that the title of the thread should read:

"Your Thoughts Regarding the 21 MPG Mandate."

You'll still be driving a gas-guzzler, but it just won't guzzle gas quite as fast. But perhaps some people will still be saying, "It's the end of the world! The darn Guvmint is making my truck get 21 mpg!"

berri · July 2016

54.6 is not realistic with the move to trucks and SUV's. Before responding that keeping it will move people back to cars, remember that it was these gov regulations that pushed people with families out of sedans and into the larger trucks to begin with. Unintended consequences! The auto buying market and preferences is more driven by gasoline prices than EPA mandates.

benjaminh · July 2016

berri said:
54.6 is not realistic with the move to trucks and SUV's. Before responding that keeping it will move people back to cars, remember that it was these gov regulations that pushed people with families out of sedans and into the larger trucks to begin with. Unintended consequences! The auto buying market and preferences is more driven by gasoline prices than EPA mandates.

The real number is not 54. The actual epa window sticker number on a midsize sedan will be c. 36 in 2025. The window sticker number on a full size truck will be c. 21. Read above for an explanation.

I wish we could get a gort to change the heading on this. Perhaps: "Your Thoughts on Future Mandated MPG Improvements"

Anyway, this link below is helpful, because it shows that CAFE is not "one mpg standard fits all." The standard for small cars will be c. 58 mpg via CAFE, but that translates to just c. 39 mpg on the window sticker. While, as mentioned, the standard for a large truck is just c. 21 mpg combined on the window sticker. A Ford Explorer or similar would need to get c. 27 mpg on the window sticker in 2025. That's still a big increase from today, since a 2WD Explorer is rated at 22 mpg combined. But with the use of aluminum and other lightweight materials, smaller turbo engines, 8+ speed transmissions or CVTs, etc., it's probably possible to get there without the use of a hybrid. But it will take some significant engineering by 2025, which is why some auto makers are trying to get the standards weakened.

In any case, if you take the inflated "CAFE number" found in this chart and then multiply it by about .67 that will give you an approximation of the number that you'd find on the actual window sticker.

http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/good-and-bad-news-emerges-from-cafes-fine-print.html

Michaell · July 2016

Fixed the title .. perhaps we will see a bit more activity in this thread...

benjaminh · July 2016

Michaell said:
Fixed the title .. perhaps we will see a bit more activity in this thread...

Thanks. We probably won't see any more activity. But at least people won't start out with "54 mpg? That's crazy!"

Michaell · July 2016

benjaminh said:

Michaell said:
Fixed the title .. perhaps we will see a bit more activity in this thread...
Thanks. We probably won't see any more activity. But at least people won't start out with "54 mpg? That's crazy!"

Yeah, there's the 'guvmint' number and there is the real world number.

Not even close to one another.

Though, I'd be pretty happy with 36 MPG combined. Does that still assume a 55% hwy / 45% city split?

benjaminh · July 2016

I thought it was a 50/50 split, but according to the guvmint the combined number on the window sticker is "a weighted average of City and Highway MPG values that is calculated by weighting the City value by 55% and the Highway value by 45%."

More guvmint stuff about the epa mpg window sticker at the link:

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/label/learn-more-gasoline-label.shtml

In terms of the EPA stickers, I don't think anyone in the world could get the numbers on their window sticker from 1975 to 1984. Even after they lowered the window sticker number in 1985 to reflect more real world values, my guess is that maybe only one out of ten people could hit their numbers. After that, starting in the late 80s (or was it the early 90s) the double nickels speed limit went away, which again meant that the EPA numbers were way out of touch with how people were really driving.

Finally, with the 2008 correction, they got close to real world mpg. My guess is that about half of drivers, mostly the more aggressive ones, never met their epa numbers, but the other half could meet them and sometimes exceed them.

As we know, of course, BMW, Hyundai, Ford, and others gamed their numbers until they were finally caught by the underfunded EPA. But if you didn't have one of those cars, there was a chance at least that you could meet your numbers, or if you "hypermiled" a bit you might beat them.

With this latest lowering of the numbers for the 2017 model year, probably more than half of drivers will meet or beat their numbers, and the drivers who don't hit the numbers will finally be a minority, although still probably a pretty large one. 30-40%?

I just got a new 2016 Accord with the CVT, and my city number is 27, my highway number is 37, and my combined number is 31.

For the identical 2017 Accord with the CVT, however, the numbers on the window sticker are 26 city, 36 hwy, and 30 combined.

I've so far met or beaten my epa highway estimate on every jaunt of more than 50 miles. Once I got 39 mpg, even with the AC on going c. 65-70 mph.

Anyway, the bottom line is that more people are probably going to feel happy with their vehicle's actual gas mileage when compared to their window sticker.

stever · July 2016

It may not matter too much now that the emphasis has been focused on fleet averages for a while and lots of cars were redesigned to meet the number - people like getting better mpg and they'll gravitate toward the cars that offer better mpg even if the standards are lowered. Kind of like how back-up cams were required, but once word got out about how useful they are, most makes and models have added them before the (still upcoming) deadline.

Just look at the dairy lobby - they didn't want BGH regs but consumers want the BGH free stuff and voted with their pocketbook. Big resellers like Walmart pressured the dairy farmers to avoid the stuff too.

The stupidest new reg concerns GMO foods. The consumers got the labeling but they lobbyists got their way to obfuscate the label so you can't simply read the label and tell if your tomato is GMO or not - you literally have to have a smartphone and an app that lets you scan the code. If the stuff is so safe, what's the beef about telling us?

That's as idiotic as the date codes on tires - why not just stamp a real date on the sidewall?

fintail · July 2016

I think the dumbest bought-and-paid-for labeling regulation is not requiring country of origin on foodstuffs.

At least the EPA numbers are easily beaten by a reasonable driver.

benjaminh · August 2016

There's no doubt that CAFE is one of the main drivers for engineering improvements in vehicles these days, just as CAFE was also a driver for engineering changes back in the late 1970s and 1980s.

As an example from the olden days, one of the most radical changes at GM back then was the shift in 1984 to 1985 from the body-on-frame, rear wheel drive, V-8 powered Oldsmobile 98, which was driven by a 3-speed transmission, to the 1985 98, which was a unibody front-drive car powered by a 6-cylinder engine and a 4-speed transmission. I used to own a 1988 Olds 98, and it was a great car in its day.

With all of those changes, the 1985 Oldsmobile 98 lost about 900 pounds in weight compared to the 1984 model, and yet it accelerated faster and had almost as much interior room. And in terms of mileage, the EPA combined numbers went from c. 16 all the way to c. 20. That may not sound very impressive, but it's a 25% improvement.

Mainly because of low gas prices, CAFE standards were stagnant from 1985-2010. In that 25 year period mpg standards for cars did not change one bit. But as gas prices rose a decade ago, and concerns about global warming increased, even President Bush started to move toward a substantial increase in CAFE before he left office. And then President Obama, of course, got enacted a much more aggressive increase in CAFE, although at 36 mpg on the sticker by 2025 it's not nearly as radical as all of the "54.5 mpg" headlines make it seem.

How that change affects vehicles can be found in microcosm in my last car, a 2008 Accord rated at 24 mpg combined, and my 2016 Accord, which is rated at 31. That's a healthy 29% increase in mpg, very much like what GM achieved for the Olds 98 back in the mid-1980s. To get there the car has lots of little weight saving measures, a more advanced direct-injected engine, CVT transmission, better aerodynamics, etc.

And in just a year, the next all-new Accord is going to be introduced for the 2018 model year. The 2018 Accord is going to have a completely new architecture that will probably reduce weight by another c. 150 pounds or so, it will also have an all-new turbo 1.5 to replace the VTEC 2.4, a revised CVT, etc.

But getting improvements in mpg gets more challenging as you go higher, especially if you're trying to improve safety and performance at the same time.

Still, my guess is that the 2018 Accord might be rated as high as 33 mpg combined. If the Accord keeps to a 5-year design schedule that would mean the next all-new Accord after that would be coming out for the 2023 model year. Although it's not quite clear how they will get there, by then a midsize car is supposed to be getting close to 36 mpg. Seems tough but doable.

benjaminh · August 2016

Another thing is that the Accord and most other "midsize" cars are only a little bit away from being "full-size." And the CAFE standards for "full size" cars is c. 35 for 2025.

The new CAFE standards no longer reward "downsizing," because the are based on a vehicle's footprint. And so my guess is that some midsize cars are going to become full sized, which means growing just an inch or so in wheelbase, which then eases the standards by c. 1 mpg.

As usual, wikipedia has a very good in-depth article on the history and math of CAFE that goes into some mind-numbing detail explaining all of this and much more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

stever · August 2016

The new Civic is getting great press for those same reasons. Fun to drive yet it's getting hybrid or diesel mpg.

benjaminh · August 2016

stever said:
The new Civic is getting great press for those same reasons. Fun to drive yet it's getting hybrid or diesel mpg.

Yes, and the new Civic has moved up in size by the EPA measure from "compact" to "midsize" at the same time. Since, as mentioned, CAFE no longer rewards downsizing, the 2016 Civic is already close to meeting the standards for a "midsize" car in 2025.

hpmctorque · August 2016

benjaminh said:
There's no doubt that CAFE is one of the main drivers for engineering improvements in vehicles these days, just as CAFE was also a driver for engineering changes back in the late 1970s and 1980s.

As an example from the olden days, one of the most radical changes at GM back then was the shift in 1984 to 1985 from the body-on-frame, rear wheel drive, V-8 powered Oldsmobile 98, which was driven by a 3-speed transmission, to the 1985 98, which was a unibody front-drive car powered by a 6-cylinder engine and a 4-speed transmission. I used to own a 1988 Olds 98, and it was a great car in its day.

With all of those changes, the 1985 Oldsmobile 98 lost about 900 pounds in weight compared to the 1984 model, and yet it accelerated faster and had almost as much interior room. And in terms of mileage, the EPA combined numbers went from c. 16 all the way to c. 20. That may not sound very impressive, but it's a 25% improvement.

Mainly because of low gas prices, CAFE standards were stagnant from 1985-2010. In that 25 year period mpg standards for cars did not change one bit. But as gas prices rose a decade ago, and concerns about global warming increased, even President Bush started to move toward a substantial increase in CAFE before he left office. And then President Obama, of course, got enacted a much more aggressive increase in CAFE, although at 36 mpg on the sticker by 2025 it's not nearly as radical as all of the "54.5 mpg" headlines make it seem.

How that change affects vehicles can be found in microcosm in my last car, a 2008 Accord rated at 24 mpg combined, and my 2016 Accord, which is rated at 31. That's a healthy 29% increase in mpg, very much like what GM achieved for the Olds 98 back in the mid-1980s. To get there the car has lots of little weight saving measures, a more advanced direct-injected engine, CVT transmission, better aerodynamics, etc.

And in just a year, the next all-new Accord is going to be introduced for the 2018 model year. The 2018 Accord is going to have a completely new architecture that will probably reduce weight by another c. 150 pounds or so, it will also have an all-new turbo 1.5 to replace the VTEC 2.4, a revised CVT, etc.

But getting improvements in mpg gets more challenging as you go higher, especially if you're trying to improve safety and performance at the same time.

Still, my guess is that the 2018 Accord might be rated as high as 33 mpg combined. If the Accord keeps to a 5-year design schedule that would mean the next all-new Accord after that would be coming out for the 2023 model year. Although it's not quite clear how they will get there, by then a midsize car is supposed to be getting close to 36 mpg. Seems tough but doable.

I bought a well maintained 1985 Olds 98 Brougham in 1988, with ~31,500 miles on it. I agree that it was a very nice car for its day. The main weak spot was the transmission, which was replaced the first time by the original owner (under warranty) at about 25,000 miles. I replaced the second one at about 130,000 miles. I knew the transmission was a point of weakness on the '85s-'87s, so I changed the fluid every 30,000 miles, and didn't abuse it. When it gave out for the third time at 154,000 miles, I drove it to the junk yard, figuring that the car owed me nothing at that point.

That car was luxurious, rode and handled well for its day, and was space efficient.

hpmctorque · August 2016

benjaminh said:

stever said:
The new Civic is getting great press for those same reasons. Fun to drive yet it's getting hybrid or diesel mpg.
Yes, and the new Civic has moved up in size by the EPA measure from "compact" to "midsize" at the same time. Since, as mentioned, CAFE no longer rewards downsizing, the 2016 Civic is already close to meeting the standards for a "midsize" car in 2025.

Yes, but the new Civic is low, height wise, for a sedan, making entry and exit more difficult than the previous generations. That's my main gripe. Also, I'm not crazy about the styling; to my eyes they tried to hard.

I hope they don't reduce the height of the next Accord.

benjaminh · August 2016

hpmctorque said:

I bought a well maintained 1985 Olds 98 Brougham in 1988, with ~31,500 miles on it. I agree that it was a very nice car for its day. The main weak spot was the transmission, which was replaced the first time by the original owner (under warranty) at about 25,000 miles. I replaced the second one at about 130,000 miles. I knew the transmission was a point of weakness on the '85s-'87s, so I changed the fluid every 30,000 miles, and didn't abuse it. When it gave out for the third time at 154,000 miles, I drove it to the junk yard, figuring that the car owed me nothing at that point.

That car was luxurious, rode and handled well for its day, and was space efficient.

Yes, I loved that Olds 98. One of the things that was most luxurious to me about it were the plush "velour seats." They had buttons like a fancy couch from the 1960s and were amazingly soft. That fabric was very high quality, because even though the car was parked outside it looked near perfect when I donated the car to charity in 2008, when it was 20 years old.

benjaminh · August 2016

hpmctorque said:

benjaminh said:

stever said:
The new Civic is getting great press for those same reasons. Fun to drive yet it's getting hybrid or diesel mpg.
Yes, and the new Civic has moved up in size by the EPA measure from "compact" to "midsize" at the same time. Since, as mentioned, CAFE no longer rewards downsizing, the 2016 Civic is already close to meeting the standards for a "midsize" car in 2025.
Yes, but the new Civic is low, height wise, for a sedan, making entry and exit more difficult than the previous generations. That's my main gripe. Also, I'm not crazy about the styling; to my eyes they tried to hard.

I hope they don't reduce the height of the next Accord.

Here are some spy shots of a 2018 Accord with camo from C & D. Compared to the Civic it still seems fairly upright. But the swoopy rear profile seems similar to the new Civic.

http://blog.caranddriver.com/sleeker-2018-honda-accord-spied/

Hard to tell from these pix, but imho the 2018 Accord looks just as big as my 2016—and maybe a little bit bigger....?

hpmctorque · August 2016

Yeah, I saw those spy shots. I'm not a fan of the semi-fastback look, but I'd overlook that if the new Accord is good in other respects. I expect it will be excellent or outstanding, as past Accords have been.

Circling back to the 2016 Civic, it's gotten rave reviews. I rather liked the styling at first, but now that the newness has worn off I like it less. As far as ease of entry and exit, it's certainly tolerable, but not as easy as I'd like. And, I'm a little less than average height and trim, so it shouldn't be an issue. The reviewer for The Wall Street Journal had the same complaint, but otherwise praised the new Civic.

hpmctorque · August 2016

benjaminh said:

hpmctorque said:

I bought a well maintained 1985 Olds 98 Brougham in 1988, with ~31,500 miles on it. I agree that it was a very nice car for its day. The main weak spot was the transmission, which was replaced the first time by the original owner (under warranty) at about 25,000 miles. I replaced the second one at about 130,000 miles. I knew the transmission was a point of weakness on the '85s-'87s, so I changed the fluid every 30,000 miles, and didn't abuse it. When it gave out for the third time at 154,000 miles, I drove it to the junk yard, figuring that the car owed me nothing at that point.

That car was luxurious, rode and handled well for its day, and was space efficient.
Yes, I loved that Olds 98. One of the things that was most luxurious to me about it were the plush "velour seats." They had buttons like a fancy couch from the 1960s and were amazingly soft. That fabric was very high quality, because even though the car was parked outside it looked near perfect when I donated the car to charity in 2008, when it was 20 years old.

I agree that those velour seats were plush and comfortable.

Other than the transmission, the engine held up well. The rest of the car didn't do badly either. The power steering exhibited "morning sickness", but I lived with that rather than replace the rack and pinion. I also replaced the struts and the starter once or twice, plus the alternator and the head liner. I guess that's not too bad for a mid-'80s Detroit car that went 154,000 miles.

benjaminh · August 2016

hpmctorque said:
Yeah, I saw those spy shots. I'm not a fan of the semi-fastback look, but I'd overlook that if the new Accord is good in other respects. I expect it will be excellent or outstanding, as past Accords have been.

Circling back to the 2016 Civic, it's gotten rave reviews. I rather liked the styling at first, but now that the newness has worn off I like it less. As far as ease of entry and exit, it's certainly tolerable, but not as easy as I'd like. And, I'm a little less than average height and trim, so it shouldn't be an issue. The reviewer for The Wall Street Journal had the same complaint, but otherwise praised the new Civic.

I still really like the style of the new Civic. And the performance is clearly class-leading. If you get the turbo, the new standard Civic has faster acceleration than a 2015 Civic Si, and yet some people are getting as much as 50 mpg on the highway (without AC).

But one thing I don't like about the Civic's style is that rear visibility is now poor. I'm worried that will be true for the next generation Accord as well.

But the next Accord will probably in the real world get more than 40 mpg on the highway, since I can already get 39 in my 2016.

benjaminh · August 2016

"Sparks fly over 54.5"

Headline for a video review of CAFE discussion at conference at Automotive News.

It's so crazy that they keep using this figure. If the EPA just started saying "36 by 2025—Plus 21 for Big Trucks" that would probably ease some of the panic and resistance.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20160803/VIDEO/308039991/sparks-fly-over-54-5

benjaminh · August 2016

As the Auto dealers, Ford, GM, etc. push to weaken CAFE....

"NADA chairman wants lower 2025 fuel economy goals
Chairman fears strict fuel economy requirements will drive up car prices.

As we get closer to the EPA's final decision on Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, more voices are joining the debate on both sides. One of those voices comes from the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), and it wants the EPA to reduce the 54.5 mpg target for 2025.

The NADA's regulatory affairs chairman and the president of a Chrysler dealer group in Jackson, Michigan, Wes Lutz, spoke out against the fuel economy goal. He said his concern was that requiring automakers to meet such a high standard will make cars too expensive for the average consumer...."

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/08/03/nada-epa-fuel-economy-standards-report/

benjaminh · August 2016

National Automobile Dealers Association comes out against CAFE

"NADA Urges Regulators to Confront Affordability Problem in Fuel Economy Mandates

TRAVERSE CITY, Mich. (Aug. 2, 2016)-NADA 2016 Regulatory Affairs Chairman Wes Lutz on Tuesday joined other automotive industry leaders in warning regulators about the significant costs to consumers of implementing overly aggressive fuel economy standards.

Speaking at the Center for Automotive Research Management Briefing Seminar in Traverse City, Mich., Lutz explained that new vehicles are already becoming unaffordable for millions of consumers, and he urged regulators to consider that reality before adopting stringent fuel economy mandates that will only add thousands of dollars to prices of all new cars and trucks.

“The manufacturers have sounded the warning: The drastic upswing of the miles-per-gallon compliance curve from now until 2025 is going to have a dramatic effect on vehicle prices - and not just on the most fuel-efficient vehicles in the fleet, but up and down the entire lineup,” said Lutz, who is also the president of Extreme Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep, RAM Inc. in Jackson, Mich. “Every car, every truck, every SUV could soon be $5,000 more expensive than it is today. On an average 60-month contract, $5,000 increases the monthly payment by approximately $100.”

https://www.nada.org/affordability-in-fuel-economy-mandates/

The cost issues are real, but I think that NADA is exaggerating them by a factor of c 4x. Other studies have shown a significantly lower estimated cost of getting to the goals.

benjaminh · August 2016

In some ways, CAFE was already seriously weakened when the new standards were put into place several years ago. In fact, if I'm understanding it correctly, Corporate Average Fuel Economy is no longer quite that anymore. It used to be that each vehicle manufactuer had to reach a sales-weighted average of a certain mpg. But now they don't. Instead, each class of vehicle, whether large truck or midsize car, or medium-sized SUV, has to reach its own individual target.

If, for instance, Ford sells as it does a huge number of giant trucks, and only a very small percentage of high mpg compact cars, that's now just fine, although its total corporate average fuel economy will be nowhere near the goal. That's part of what some have called the "truck and big SUV loophole."

That's why the EPA itself has already said that the already fictional "54.5" won't happen. Because the mix of trucks and SUVs has risen from about 1/3 of the market to half of it, the sales-weighted average mpg will more likely be c. "50" in 2025—and that's if the standards aren't weakened. But "50" still needs to be in quotes, because that translates to a window sticker mpg number of c. 34 once various "extra-credits" (for better AC systems, etc., etc.) that the industry pushed for and which were put in the CAFE rules are taken into account.

To quote from wikipedia on CAFE:

"Still, the paper says that the 54.5 mpg goal is unrealistic. That goal was based off a market that was 67 percent cars and 33 percent trucks and SUVs. American customers aren't buying that many cars -- the market is still about 50/50 and will likely stay that way. The paper says more realistic goals are 50 mpg to 52.6.[50]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_Average_Fuel_Economy

And here's from the EPA's c. 100 page

"Midterm Evaluation of Light-Duty
Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission
Standards and Corporate Average Fuel
Economy Standards for Model Years
2022-2025"

https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/mte/420d16900.pdf

To quote from that report:

"A wider range of technologies exist for manufacturers to use to meet the MY2022-2025
standards, and at costs that are similar or lower, than those projected in the 2012 rule.

Advanced gasoline vehicle technologies will continue to be the predominant technologies,
with modest levels of strong hybridization and very low levels of full electrification (plugin
vehicles) needed to meet the standards.

Based on the agencies’ draft assessments, the reduced operating costs from fuel savings over time are expected to far exceed the increase in up-front vehicle costs, which should mitigate any potential adverse effects on vehicle sales and affordability.

Based on the extensive updated assessments provided in this Draft TAR, the projections for
the average per-vehicle costs of meeting the MY2025 standards (incremental to the costs already
incurred to meet the MY2021 standard) are, for EPA’s analysis of the GHG program, $894 -
$1,017. "

benjaminh · August 2016

Edmunds came out with some articles on CAFE in 2010-2013, but it's been a while. I hope Edmunds is working on a new article about this attempt to weaken CAFE—and for gosh sakes if Edmunds does I hope it avoids using that maddening and false "54.5" number in the headline...

benjaminh · August 2016

The challenge the industry faces is that even if they somehow get the EPA to weaken the CAFE rules, they then would still have to face the California Air Resource Board. CARB, as VW found out, is if anything tougher than the EPA.

And the CAFE rules are not really a "mandate"—they are more like guidelines with fines—and given that they date from c. 2011 they aren't really "new" either.

I don't know if a gort is willing to tinker with the title of this thread a bit more because of those things....?

from an article in Hybrid Cars:

http://www.hybridcars.com/automakers-spar-with-regulators-during-annual-industry-conference/

"In fact, the rules are not a “mandate,” as others have reported, and the rules for 2025 set in motion in 2012 allow for fluctuations in consumer preference and sales volume in trucks versus cars. Roughly, it would work out to 35-40 mpg or so on window stickers by 2025."

When it comes to CARB and its zero emissions electric vehicle requirement, however, the word "mandate" is appropriate, as the article explains. CARB upsets the industry much more than the EPA does....

"Automakers continued to press the issue of California’s Zero Emission Vehicles standards. Those regulations, in place in California and nine other states, were crafted by the California Air Resources Board.

Mike McCarthy, chief technology officer of CARB, acknowledged that automakers are capable of making more fuel-efficient vehicles at less cost by making gasoline-engine vehicles more fuel efficient. But California has not no intention of backing off its ZEV targets for sales of electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, McCarthy said.

McCarthy said the standards are designed to force automakers to develop technology that will make a bigger difference in the long run. Federal agencies are making clear during the midterm review that its 54.5 mpg goal is only a guideline and not a mandate.

“We do have a ZEV regulation. It is a mandate and we openly call it a mandate,” McCarthy said.

benjaminh · August 2016

Although it seems EPA's CAFE is probably quite doable, CARB's electric vehicle or ZEV mandate seems much harder to meet in c. 5 years without significant financial losses for the industry. It seems the auto industry would have to "give away" ZEV vehicles at a loss to meet CARB's mandate. To some degree that's already happening. But that again is CARB's mandate and not the EPA's.

hpmctorque · August 2016

"Based on the agencies’ draft assessments, the reduced operating costs from fuel savings over time are expected to far exceed the increase in up-front vehicle costs, which should mitigate any potential adverse effects on vehicle sales and affordability."

The increased up-front cost can be further mitigated by greater use of longer term loans or leases, in addition to the fuel savings. I think it's risky to go out beyond 84 months, but you'll probably see a greater proportion of 60, 72 and 84 month loans, and correspondingly longer leases, than you do today. Of course, that'll impact new vehicle sales negatively, which will increase per unit costs and reduce profitability.

Maybe a reasonable compromise would be to extend the timetable for 54.4 by, say, three years, while increasing the the mileage standard in the interim.

benjaminh · August 2016

Meanwhile, just yesterday Elon Musk was attacking CARB for being too weak in its standards and for bowing to pressure from the industry!

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/03/elon-musk-is-furious-at-a-small-california-state-agency.html

"Elon Musk is furious at a small California state agency
Robert Ferris | @RobertoFerris

Musk said:

"The California Air Resources Board is being incredibly weak in its application of ZEV credits," he said. "The standards are pathetically low. They need to be increased, there is massive lobbying by the big car companies to prevent CARB from increasing the ZEV credit mandate, which they absolutely damn well should. It is a crying shame that they haven't. And as a result, you can barely sell a ZEV credit for pennies on the dollar. CARB should damn well be ashamed of themselves."

A spokesperson for CARB wasn't immediately available.

fintail · August 2016

Musk is awfully snippy. Doesn't he get massive deals from CARB, something like carbon credits to offset the damage caused by battery production, or similar? Would the expensive toys exist without CARB?

And then there's taking advantage of some of the dumbest tax policy that exists today.

Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles