Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Your Thoughts Regarding The New EPA Mileage Mandate



  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    "I think getting cars to 50+ mpg (at least those not protected, or otherwise deceptive under the new rules) will require one of two things; significant downsizing or use of expensive, and sometimes hard to get, materials and alloys."

    50+ mpg is a lie. You can blame that on Congress. Maybe you can also blame mind-numbing bureaucracy. Or maybe blame the car companies who want to claim and complain about 50+ mpg.

    The gov't doesn't require 50+mpg as a fleet average for the EPA window stickers, and it won't happen.

    The real number is more like 39.

    But there are credits to "buy down" even that.

    And so the real number might be as low as 36.

    Cars that get 36 mpg? You can almost get there with today's tech. Spend a few hundred billion on R & D and you've got it.

    Even that's a fleet average. If you want a big and powerful car, it will still be available. A 2 liter supercharged 4 cylinder today produces more power than most big 8 cylinder engines from 1990.
  • berriberri Posts: 7,969
    The real number is more like 39.
    but there are credits to "buy down" even that.
    And so the real number might be as low as 36.

    Interesting. I guess this is another example of why Americans no longer trust what they hear out of Washington. I don't disagree with much of what you are saying, I just disagree that it requires more bureaucracy and regulation. If fuel economy is the number one sales driver, then I'm pretty sure it will be an industry priority, with or without more govt regulation. There is no oil shortage, just refinery limitations. If this drives gas prices down it could help the economy, but Wall Street derivatives and the like may well limit the price effect because speculation is rampant. Maybe that is where Obama and congress should be investing their effort. Oh wait, Wall Street is a huge source of campaign contributions and lobbyist payola.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    For now, fuel prices are driving most manufacturers to exceed the CAFE requirements. That'll probably be true for the next several years. But what if for some reason fuel prices slump, as they did in the late 1980s? The CAFE of the time kept mpg from collapsing. Although really more should have been done, because between 1985 and 2010 CAFE was flat at 27.5 mpg, which translates into a window sticker of only about 21 mpg. That's a pathetically low standard. The standard for trucks and SUVs was even lower at c. 22 mpg, which is about 16 on the sticker. If instead of being flat for 25 years they'd even targeted modest improvements we'd be in better shape today.

    But, better late than never. The new standards are pretty weak for the next 5 years. Starting in c. 2018 they become significant. Even in 2025, according to Edmunds itself, this is what it equals overall:

    "The 54.5-mpg average for fuel efficiency among new vehicles that the Obama administration is proposing for 2025 will really be somewhere down around 36-38 mpg in real-world terms." - - - tings.html
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    We could save some oil by having our representatives visit Washington to be sworn in. Then make them go home and video conference all their committee meetings and votes. That would put ordinary citizens on a more equal footing with the lobbyists since the people they elected would still be living among them.

    I wonder what "fleet" averages are for India, China, and Russia.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    Like the Toyota Sienna, Honda Odyssey, etc.

    CAFE=EPA window sticker combined mpg
    2012: 24.8=19
    2017: 28.3=22
    2021: 32.1=24
    2025: 38.6=28

    The 2014 Odyssey already gets a combined mpg rating of 22 mpg, and so it already meets the standard for 2017. This is a fairly massive vehicle weighing about 4,400 pounds in base LX form. The top-of-the-line Touring Elite weighs about 4,600 lbs. It has a 3.5 liter V-6 that produces 248 hp. It does have variable cylinder management and a 6 speed auto, but doesn't have direct injection.

    This generation of Odyssey was introduced in model year 2010, and seems to be on a six year design cycle for a full model change-over. And so the next all-new Odyssey will likely appear in about 2 years in the fall of 2015 as a 2016 model. If the next generation shrinks just a little (an inch or so in length, width, and height?) it might lose 10% of its rather massive weight, although it would still weigh a very significant c. 4000 lbs. And then perhaps a smaller 3 liter V-6 could do the job, which would maybe give it an EPA rating of 25 or so? If so, it would already be beyond the standard for 2021.

    The next generation after that, if the 6 year model cycle holds, would be due for model year 2022. That's the one where Honda might try to get the mpg up to the 2025 standard of 28 mpg, that is if it doesn't use its credits to "buy down" the standard....
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    As a comparison, my '99 Nissan Quest is getting 21.57 lifetime mpg. 170hp, V6.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    So your almost antique Quest pretty much meets the standard for 2017?! That's good, but it shows that the CAFE is not really that tough for that year. Starting in 2018 it slowly starts to become significant.

    You can imagine that in every major car company's design and engineering centers they are putting those CAFE mpg numbers as one of the first goals of the next generation of whatever vehicle it might be. And as we've seen with Mazda's Skyactiv program, this can involve the redesign for greater efficiency of even the a vehicle's smallest and seemingly insignificant component. But slowly a tenth of an mpg here, and a half of an mpg there, and soon you're looking at some real improvements. Longer exhaust manifold, direct injection, higher compression, reducing friction, etc. Here's one of Mazda's Skyactiv videos:

    Similar things are almost certainly happening at other car companies.
  • andre1969andre1969 Posts: 23,046
    That was actually a 1959 Chevy, either a Bel Air or Impala, I think. While a '59 Chevy is bigger than a 2009 Malibu, they're actually very close in weight.

    A Bonneville would have been around 300-400 lb heavier most likely, although I don't know if the results would have been that much different.

    Those wasp-waisted X-frame GM cars did poorly in accidents, not only from the side, but in head-on hits as well. I have a feeling a Ford or Plymouth would have held up much better, however, the occupants probably would have been just as dead from hitting the steering wheel or some other hard spot in the car. Chrysler mounted the steering box much further back from the front of the car than GM did (not sure about Ford), so at least you may not have as much steering wheel intrusion in a Plymouth. But still, by today's standards any of those cars would be death traps.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    Big trucks like the F-150 mostly get a pass from CAFE. That's one of the loopholes. To try to make up for that, small cars face the toughest standard. Here it is:

    CAFE=EPA sticker combined
    2012: 34.6=26
    2017: 41.7=31
    2021: 48.6=36
    2025: 58.4=41

    The 2013 Civic gets an epa rated 32 combined, and so it's already past the goal for 2017. And this Civic doesn't even have the Earth Dreams engine and transmission yet (rumors at say they might be coming as soon as 2014). The 2014 Mazda3 Skyactiv is rated at 33 mpg, and so it's future proofed through c. 2019, by which time the next generation should be out.

    Getting to the 2021 standard without hybrid tech does seem tough, but probably doable. Maybe with a 3 cylinder 1 liter turbo, like Ford has already developed?

    The 41 mpg standard seems right now like it would need some kind of mild hybrid. But if they get close they can just buy down the standard with their credits of various kinds.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    Andre: As usual, you're right. ++ It was Chevy against Chevy. Let us know if you find the exact weights anywhere of a 1959 Bel Air and a 2009 Malibu. I'd be interested.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited July 2013
    So your almost antique Quest pretty much meets the standard for 2017?!

    Before the Quest we had an '89 Voyager for ten years. It got 19 lifetime.

    So I gained 2.5 mpg updating.

    If I got a new Quest today, I'm really looking at staying flat on my gas usage, even though another decade has come and gone. 21 combined EPA (although with the exception of the Voyager, we typically beat EPA by a mile or three). The Odyssey comes in at 22, the Sienna at 21, the Town and Country/Grand Caravan 20, and Sedona 20.

    Bigger, more bells and whistles, but pretty pitiful on the mpg front.

    The star is the Mazda5 with 24 combined. Even comes available with a manual transmission. Unfortunately my wife didn't like it when I sent her to test drive one a few years ago. When we trade, I'll suggest we check out the new ones.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    "The star is the Mazda5 with 24 combined. Even comes available with a manual transmission. Unfortunately my wife didn't like it when I sent her to test drive one a few years ago. When we trade, I'll suggest we check out the new ones."

    I owned a 2010 Mazda5 until a few months ago, when I traded it in on our 2013 Accord. I wasn't leasing, and so obviously I didn't like it that much to trade it in so soon.

    It did have positives, such as the slick shifting manual and great (for a small minivan) handling.

    But it has drawbacks as well. First, it's a lot smaller than other minivans. That means the third row seat seems like a joke to most people. Small kids can fit ok, but many adults would feel it was punishment. And then the cargo area behind the third row seats, which in most minivans is fairly big, has about enough room for 2 grocery bags. We fixed that problem with a Mazda-approved aftermarket luggage rack and luggage bubble, but....

    Then there's the mpg. Compared to the Honda it's an improvement, but not a big one considering that it's a much smaller vehicle. Here are some comparisons:

    Mazda5 Odyssey
    length: 180.5 202.9
    width: 68.9 79.2
    height: 63.6 68.4
    weight: 3417 4396

    So they are really different classes of minivan. The Mazda5 is a mini-minivan, for lack of a better term. Microvan? That is reflected in the interior room:

    Mazda5 Odyssey
    Legroom, 3rd row 30.5 42.4
    cargo w/3rd row dwn 44.4 93.1
    cargo max 172.6 97.7

    As you can see, the Odyssey has a whole foot more of legroom in the far back, and the Odyssey has as much cargo space while carrying 4 passengers as the Mazda5 has carrying two.

    The Mazda5 can hold a max of 6 people, and that's really squeezing. The Odyssey EX and above can hold 8 people much more comfortably, plus a good amount of luggage.

    Fully loaded, the Mazda5 struggles to accelerate adequately. The Odyssey with its big V-6 engine never lacks for power, even with stuff on the roof rack.

    Given that, the fact that they are both rated 28 mpg on the hwy makes the Mazda5 even less impressive.

    Plus the Mazda5 has big blind spots in the back, which drove me mad. The far back window behind the driver has such thick pillars that it's not really useful.

    In another year or so Mazda will give the 5 the Skyactiv treatment, and then it should get impressive mpg. I'd wait at least until then if I were you. But really, I think the Quest or Odyssey might be a better option.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited July 2013
    I'd like to downsize a bit. The first thing I did with the Quest was toss one row of seats - we rarely have passengers, but like having room for bikes and camping gear. The immobile Mazda5 seats are a negative and power doors would be a nice option but aren't available last I checked. (I really like those on my brother's Odyssey).

    Hope to drive the Quest another year or two. I can buy a lot of gas for what one year of depreciation on a new car is going to cost me. :shades:
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 11,152
    My brother had a Camry for a while (can't remember.... 2011 or 2012?), and drove it mostly highway. He bought it specifically because it was a big family car that was rated fairly well on the highway. The problem was, he consistently came in 3-5 mpg UNDER the rated highway fuel rating. After nearly a year of that, he was so disgusted that he dumped it.

    The strong resale values worked in his favor, but (of course) he still lost money on it.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 11,152
    edited July 2013
    Speaking of minivans, I saw my old DGC on Saturday! It was parked at the local Safeway, so I parked next to it. Didn't look too worse for the wear overall (I sold it three years ago, and it had 215,000 miles on it at that time). There was a piece of trim that was torn off, and the rear window's rubber stripping around the top was starting to fall out (it was bulged in one place when I had it).

    But, I don't think it is driven overly much, since it still has the tires I put on it back in April of 2009 before our cross-country trip, and they look like they're probably at 50% tread life. If my prior set of those tires is any indication, they should go 70,000 miles, and I put about 20 on them, so I doubt the van has more than 230/235K miles at this point.

    Fun to see my old nags still kicking! I care for them well, so that definitely gives them a leg up for the next owner. ;)

    Oh, and I guess I should note that this van, also a 1998 like Steve's Quest, pulled down 18-20 consistently around town, and approximately 24 (sometimes as high as 26 at ~60mph if I wasn't loaded down with people/things) on the highway.... and that with AWD. A good van; really a shame that they did away with the AWD option for the 2005 MY.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    That's always fun.

    At the rate minivans are going, we'll be lucky to even have a Chrysler/Dodge with sliding doors in the near future. The Routan is going fleet only for 2014.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    "If I got a new Quest today, I'm really looking at staying flat on my gas usage, even though another decade has come and gone. 21 combined EPA ..."

    Although you're right the original sticker of your 1999 Quest said 21 mpg combined, those ratings were retroactively reduced in the 2007 EPA revision to 18 combined. And so a new 2013 Quest, which gets 21, is an increase of 3 mpg over what you've now got. Since you tend to do better than the ratings, you would probably get more like 23-24, which still isn't very impressive, but is a bit of a jump....
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited July 2013
    Yeah, I know but I still prefer to use the "original" EPA numbers. But I wasn't even hitting 18 the first 7,000 miles.

    Next thing you know, they'll massage the numbers so that the current fleet magically meets the 2020 standards.
  • berriberri Posts: 7,969
    Seems to me that to get a 2 ton minivan from 19 to 28 CAFE you are either going to have to significantly reduce it's size (which kind of takes away the reason to buy one) or use lightweight alloys and composites, or hybrid type technology (all of which will drive up it's price beyond more buyer's affordability point). If you've been following the new Ford C-Max, you have realized the horrendous overstatement EPA makes in it's fuel mileage estimate calculations. Maybe the government can start by eliminating it's agribusiness give away on ethanol mandates. That's probably good for around an incremental 2 mpg, not to mention offsetting the affect from this mandate driving up food costs through things like the cost of livestock feed or food sweeteners. It affects the price of some plastics resins too. Also, be careful thinking a smaller engine will always improve fuel efficiency. I have a pretty new 4 cylinder CRV. EPA says high 20's on the highway. Problem is I really get mid 20's if conditions are good. Throw in bad weather, hilly terrain and the like and I'll see 21 or 22 mpg on the Interstate at best, not much difference from a larger crossover in reality. Apparently the EPA doesn't do physics any better than it does business and economics.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    Due for MY 2015....That's 80mpg by the Japanese measure. Does anyone have a way to translate that into EPA? It's lower, but probably about 60 mpg. The Civic IMA hybrid gets 44 mpg, and the new system is supposed to represent a 30% improvement in mpg, which would give a number of about 57 or so mpg, which would far exceed the standard for that size car for 2025. Anyway, this is the kind of innovation that's being encouraged these days by high few prices as well as cafe.

    from Auto News

    "....Honda also is making another go at the small hybrid segment with the gasoline-electric version of the Fit.

    The new hybrid system, dubbed Sport Hybrid Intelligent Dual Clutch Drive, greatly boosts fuel economy over the current system. Honda has been using the outgoing Integrated Motor Assist system for years in such cars as the Insight.

    But entries such as the Insight, CR-Z and Civic Hybrid have failed to gain traction in the United States, even while rival offerings such as Toyota's Prius C successfully carved out a niche.

    Through June, U.S. sales of the Prius C subcompact climbed 27 percent to 20,575 units. That total is more than double Honda's hybrid volume during that period.

    The new hybrid version of the Fit hatchback, which will be sold in Japan, is expected to achieve fuel economy of 36.4 kilometers per liter, or 86 mpg, under Japan's testing regime. That marks a 30 percent improvement over the hybrid version of the current Fit, which is sold in Japan but never made it to North America.

    Those fuel economy figures don't translate directly into U.S. EPA ratings because the testing cycle differs in Japan.

    The car has not yet received an EPA fuel economy rating.

    Read more:
    Follow us: @Automotive_News on Twitter | AutoNews on Facebook
  • berriberri Posts: 7,969
    edited July 2013
    Is EPA really helping us with things like this? At first, it looks good on paper. But here's the reality of it; many of these super fuel efficient vehicles don't really work well with Americans and their families. The size of the family and the dimensions of Americans generally are going to dictate something bigger than a Civic, let alone the even smaller stuff like Fit. So what happens in the marketplace? The car companies have to sell these small things at very meager margins (or a loss) to meet government regulations. That means family sized vehicles have to be marked up higher to offset that artificial pricing. The reality is the EPA is forcing middle class Americans to pay more than they should for a family vehicle. We're not Europe and we're not Asia here. Americans have to travel longer distances and generally have larger size issues.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    Many people do get the EPA numbers these days, since the 2007 correction, but not everybody. It's about right on the button for me, unless I do too many quick trips to the store. My 2013 Accord is rated 36 on the highway, and on one trip we got 38. Some people at are taking pix of their mpg computers that show figures as high as 41 for a whole tank. But, as they say, YMWV. Sorry you're not getting the quite the mpg you want. The next gen CRV is supposed to be a bit better on gas.

    Agree that they should stop the silly subsidy of ethanol, which seems like pure boondoggle, to the tune of hundreds of billions of bucks over the last few decades.

    And you might be right about how difficult it will be to get an Odyssey up to 28 mpg. Time will tell. My guess is that Honda and the other companies will be able to do it, but the minivan of 2025 would need to be a bit smaller and lighter.

    Here are my make-believe guesses

    2014 Odyssey (22mpg) 2016 Odyssey (25mpg?) 2022 Odyssey (28mpg?)
    Length: 202.9 in c. 200? c.197?
    width: 79.2 c. 78? c. 77?
    height: 68.4 c. 67? c. 66?
    weight: 4396 c. 4000? c. 3800?
    engine: 3.5l c.3.2? c. 2.4/4cylinder turbo??

    So yes, there would be a little bit of downsizing, but nothing very radical.

    I don't know how old you are, but my guess is that you're younger than my 49 years.

    To take you back a little in time, in the mid 70s, after the first CAFE regs passed, the car magazines like Motor Trend ran ominous op eds about the end of the car as we know it. The gov't was going to come and take away your Caddy! My sucker 12-13 year old self believed it, and was against the CAFE of the time for a year or so. But by the late 70s and early 80s things weren't looking nearly so bad.

    Here's an example of a car I myself owned that was downsized due to CAFE, the 1985 Oldsmobile 98. This was a radical downsize compared to the 1984 98

    1984 Olds 98 1985 Olds 98
    Length: 221 inches 196 inches
    Width: 76 in 72 in
    Weight: 4024 3300
    engine: 5.0l V-8 3.8l V-6
    front HR: 39.5 39.3
    front LR: 42.2 42.4
    rear HR: 38.1 38.1
    rear LR: 41.7 40.8
    trunk: 20.5 16.2
    mpg: c. 16? c. 20? (couldn't find these numbers)

    Anyway, as you can see, the 1985 Olds 98 lost a whopping 700 pounds compared to the previous year, but had almost the same amount of interior room. It wasn't as wide, but otherwise the headroom and legroom were virtually identical. You lost 4 cu ft. of luggage space, but you accelerated to 60 faster and got something like 30% higher mpg (3 speed auto on the 84 Olds vs. 4 speed on the 85).

    Until 6 years ago I owned a 1988 Olds 98, and it was one of the best cars I've ever had. Amazing comfort, visibility, and good enough handling and power.

    So, I'm not sure I believe these days those who say doom on you when there's a little downsizing.

    For instance, for the Odyssey, if it has a smaller engine it'll need a smaller engine compartment, which might mean that's where much of the length gets taken out. The passenger compartment might be almost the same size. And right now the Odyssey is huge and cavernous. It's also rather ponderous to drive around town. I think it would be less of a chore to drive if it were a little bit smaller.

    Frankly you could take an inch out of the leg room for each of the three seating positions and you'd still have more legroom than you have in most cars. In other words, in the next ten years I think with good engineering, they can probably take 600 pounds out of the Odyssey and still have almost as much interior room as the model today, and probably get 28 mpg combined without hybrid tech. If you had a big 4 cylinder turbo that turned off 2 cylinders for highway cruising, you might get c. 36 on the highway. Just my 2 cents. Time will tell. And man am I trying to waste time on this today lol!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    It's been a huge source of frustration to me to have hit 29.9 mpg twice in my minivan but I've never been able to crack 30. :D
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    "Americans have to travel longer distances and generally have larger size issues."

    On the distance part, that's all the more reason to encourage higher mpg. Average American families will save thousands and be better able to take family trips.

    If someone has size issues, the big vehicles will still be available, and also get better mpg.

    The big secret of CAFE is that it isn't really a mandate, at least not the way I would think about what a mandate means, which is "An authoritative command or instruction," with something dire happening if you don't obey.

    You know what happens if a car company doesn't hit CAFE? They pay a small fine. Mercedes has missed CAFE at least half a dozen times, pretty much by choice so that they can sell big ultra powerful cars. The fines haven't gone up one dollar since 1978 for missing the targets, and so have been eroded by inflation. MB just pays a few million dollars out of the billion or so dollars in profit they make every year in US, and then they go on their merry way.

    CAFE isn't really punitive. It's more like it's a good idea, and they are giving guidelines and encouraging everyone to do it. But companies can sell credits to other companies, use all sorts of loopholes and extras, and there's even a time in c. 2020 when they get a chance to derail the whole last 5 years, if they can claim it's too hard. But I don't think they'll even do that. The car companies already lobbied successfully to get standards that are low enough that probably almost all the manufacturers are going to make it.
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    You hit 29 mpg on a car rated 18? That's incredible. Truly. You'd probably hit 42 in my Accord. I've got too much of a lead foot. How fast were you going? 55?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    edited July 2013
    The first time it happened was nearing the end of a long road trip in '99 and we were heading to Arizona at the time. So easy highway cruising in loafing vacation mode. Then I had a 29.9 tank in March '04, followed by a 29.3 one the next tank. But there was a 15.2 tank before those two, so I could see throwing out the 29.9 as an anomaly. But not two great tanks in a row. :-)

    No idea why the perfect storm hit in '04. I looked back on my calendar and was just running around town mostly that month. Maybe the station screwed up and filled the regular tanks up with ethanol free stuff.

    We won't talk about the 10.3 and 11.1 tanks in '99. Had a 12.7 five tanks after a "tune-up" in August '08. Next worst was 13.1 in May 2011.

    Fascinating stuff eh? Kind of like watching slide shows of some stranger's vacation cataloguing wheat varieties. :shades:.
  • xwesxxwesx Fairbanks, AlaskaPosts: 11,152
    Hahahahaha; excellent visual, Steve!

    I posted a couple of sub-18 tanks on my 2010 Forester. The complicating factor on those, however, is that I was pulling a trailer that was, um, less-than-aerodynamically-ideal, at ~70mph. I could have done that well with a full-size pickup pulling the same trailer, and had a lot more room to boot! But, the ~28 I get on that car during the times I *don't* pull said trailer more than makes up the difference.
    2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2008 and 2013 Subaru Forester(s), 1969 Chevrolet C20 Pickup, 1969 Ford Econoline 100, 1976 Ford F250 Pickup
  • benjaminhbenjaminh Posts: 2,933
    edited July 2013
    Understandably, they left room for big powerful pickups in cafe, and so they don't have as much of an increase from 2012 to 2015. I agree with this, actually, because a lot of people and businesses do use their trucks for work.

    For instance, small cars like Corolla and Civic are encouraged to move their EPA sticker combined mpg from 27 in 2012 to 43 by 2025. That's a c.60% increase

    Trucks, like the F-150, are encouraged to move their EPA sticker from 17 in 2012 to 23 by 2015, which is an increase of 35%. And most of that increase is focused in the last few years. Here's how it plays out for large trucks:

    2012: 17
    2014: 18
    2016: 19
    and then it stays at 19 for several years
    2022: 20
    2023: 21
    2024: 22
    2025: 23

    So between 2012 and 2021, a period of 10 years, CAFE only goes up by 2 mpg for F-150s. That's an increase of 12% for a whole decade.

    Between 2012 and 2021, a Corolla is encouraged to go from 27 to 37, which is an increase of 37%.

    Again, I actually mostly agree with this loophole for big trucks, but it is definitely something of a gap in CAFE.

    The current F-150 with the 3.5 Ecoboost that has 360hp and 420lb of torque gets 18mpg.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    What's the mpg?

    Who cares?

    What's the gpm? That's the number that matters.

    A Closer Look at an Ill-Conceived Fuel Economy Standard
Sign In or Register to comment.