Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Naturally it's only available in a lower trim of the Soul and not an option on the pricier version that we'd buy.
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?
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.
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®ion=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.
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...."
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.”
Vehicle Fuel Economy Shows Dramatic Increases Since 1974, But There's a Catch
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.
http://www.autonews.com/article/20160718/OEM/160719863/54-5-mpg-target-is-off-the-table-u-s-regulators-say
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.
"37 mpg target is off the table: 34 mpg more likely" since those are closer to the window sticker numbers.
"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.
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.
"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!"
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
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2014 MINI Countryman S ALL4
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?
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and let us know! Post a pic of your new purchase or lease!
MODERATOR
2015 Subaru Outback 3.6R / 2014 MINI Countryman S ALL4
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.
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?
At least the EPA numbers are easily beaten by a reasonable driver.
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.
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
That car was luxurious, rode and handled well for its day, and was space efficient.
I hope they don't reduce the height of the next Accord.
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....?
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.
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.
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.
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
"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/
"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.
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. "
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.
"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.
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.
And then there's taking advantage of some of the dumbest tax policy that exists today.