54.5 mpg target is off the table, U.S. regulators say

[bhtooefr]

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...-table-u-s-regulators-say?X-IgnoreUserAgent=1

Basically, looks like technology's advanced faster than the EPA expected, but people kept buying SUVs and crossovers, so the automakers think they can't meet the standards. So, the EPA's backing off the 54.5 MPG CAFE requirement.

By the way, a list of liquid-fueled (no PHEVs, BEVs, or hydrogen fuel cells) vehicles, their window sticker (5-cycle) MPG, and their CAFE MPG, for model year 2016, that beat 54.5 MPG CAFE:

Toyota Camry Hybrid XLE/SE: 40/40/38, 54.8519
Ford C-Max Hybrid: 42/40/37, 54.9862
Lexus ES 300h: 40/40/39, 55.2009
Toyota Avalon Hybrid: 40/40/39, 55.2009 (yes, it’s the same as the ES 300h, that’s because it’s the same car)
Hyundai Sonata Hybrid: 39/41/43, 56.3403
Toyota Camry Hybrid LE: 43/41/39, 57.4438
Lexus CT 200h: 43/42/40, 57.4981
Hyundai Sonata Hybrid SE: 40/42/44, 58.1370
Toyota Prius v: 44/42/40, 58.9105
Lincoln MKZ Hybrid: 41/40/39, 59.6009
Ford Fusion Hybrid: 44/42/41, 59.6009 (that’ll be because of the FTP-75/HWFET cycle not picking up the differences between the cars, but the 5-cycle test doing so)
Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid: 42/44/48, 60.7663
Chevrolet Malibu Hybrid: 47/46/46, 61.4574
Toyota Prius c: 53/50/46, 70.7819
Toyota Prius: 54/52/50, 73.9715
Toyota Prius Eco: 58/56/53, 80.8472

It's worth noting that CAFE fuel economy is based on the 1978 fuel economy test cycle, and incorporates none of the changes from the 1985 (22% lower on FTP-75 (city) MPG, 11% lower on HWFET (highway) MPG) or 2007 (complete revamp of the testing procedures by adding three additional test cycles) cycles.

In any case, there's a public comment period, and I plan on commenting opposing the move away from the 54.5 MPG standard.

 

[Powder Hound]

Someone must have told the EPA that they'd never make 54.5 without diesels. That would do the trick.

Cheers,

PH

 

[gulfcoastguy]

Someone must have told the EPA that they'd never make 54.5 without diesels. That would do the trick.

Cheers,

PH

However quite a few diesels are being introduced in pickups and SUVs. BMW and Mercedes haven't given up on them either. I'm waiting to see if VW can get the 2016's that it was not allowed to sell certified as 2017's. I think all that they have to do with them is add a sensor that verified that the DEF is actually DEF rather than water and road test them to prove that the cheat ware isn't on there anymore. It will take VW too long to put out 200 mile range plus electric cars, not that a lot of people would bite until they have a 400 mile range.

 

[Powder Hound]

My comment was 98% joke, as in the EPA would give up a lot of other stuff if it can instead get rid of diesels entirely.

Cheers,

PH

 

[nwdiver]

54.5 MINIMUM mpg is easily achievable... just not with an Internal Combustion Engine.... time to move on to better technology.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

However quite a few diesels are being introduced in pickups and SUVs. BMW and Mercedes haven't given up on them either. I'm waiting to see if VW can get the 2016's that it was not allowed to sell certified as 2017's. I think all that they have to do with them is add a sensor that verified that the DEF is actually DEF rather than water and road test them to prove that the cheat ware isn't on there anymore. It will take VW too long to put out 200 mile range plus electric cars, not that a lot of people would bite until they have a 400 mile range.

2016 4 cylinder diesels will not be sold here. There are two rumors about them: one is they're being shipped to Africa, the other is they're being crushed. But they never had EPA certification and VW apparently has decided not to bother to certify them. We may get '17s, but no firm commitment yet.

 

[Cincy_TDI]

May never see a VW diesel again. Read an article that they were done with diesel in America. Will look for the article and edit and post the link.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

Read that article, not the headline. VW is most likely not done with diesel in NA. They may skip '17, and may, at the extreme, make diesels available only in Audi. But they're not done.

 

[meerschm]

the mpg standards are up for review, but one thing to note is that there are likely to be standards tailored to the vehicle size, so they can continue to increase. (cars and suvs will each have increasing standards to meet)


light reading here:

http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy

 

[waltzconmigo]

2016 4 cylinder diesels will not be sold here. There are two rumors about them: one is they're being shipped to Africa, the other is they're being crushed. But they never had EPA certification and VW apparently has decided not to bother to certify them. We may get '17s, but no firm commitment yet.

IBW---if the '15s and '16's have the same engine (they do), why is VW not allowed to implement the fix on the latter? is this because the fix does not bring them into actual compliance but to the lesser, now applicable standard? i understand that at this point any "info" is just conjecture/rumor.

 

[meerschm]

Pardon me for answering a direct question posed to IBW

There is a process to qualify a model and year for sale in the US.

It just costs time and money to do so, and at this point, VW has long ago decided to withdraw the application for the model year 2016 TDI versions.

VW could apply the fix and go through the steps to get the model year certified, but at this point it is a business decision.

I think that any reduction in standards relates only to the fix of produced, approved, models which had the "cheat" and would not apply to new model year cars as they are approved for sale.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

What meerschm said. Exactly what I understand. Not worth going through the certification process for cars that are already a year old.

On the topic of the 54.5 MPG standard, it's a shame that the US has gotten so SUV crazy. It seems like it's most of what I see on the road, and the Northeast probably has more sedans than other regions. I honestly don't get it. I drove a Grand Cherokee diesel the other day and was completely underwhelmed. I felt like I was in a bunker. And it wasn't particularly roomy.

I know high fuel prices are unpopular, but I'm convinced that regulating gasoline to a minimum of $5/gallon may be the only way we can break this habit. Otherwise no one cares about saving energy.

 

[bhtooefr]

I drove a Grand Cherokee diesel the other day and was completely underwhelmed. I felt like I was in a bunker.

And that's actually part of it - the lizard brain wants to feel like it's in a bunker, because that's what makes them feel safe.

Some of it's also because if you want a versatile cargo vehicle, and don't want a Volkswagen, Volvo, Mercedes, or BMW... you're getting a crossover or a van.

 

[waltzconmigo]

mike and peter---thanks for the clarification, just seems that with the engines/cars being the same that certification could/should be simple enough. be we are going to end up with this. how many '16's are there? google tells me that a cargo ship can carry between 5-40k vehicles, huge variation, so could a few trips or many.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=454627&highlight=cargo+ships

 

[S2000_guy]

And that's actually part of it - the lizard brain wants to feel like it's in a bunker, because that's what makes them feel safe.

Some of it's also because if you want a versatile cargo vehicle, and don't want a Volkswagen, Volvo, Mercedes, or BMW... you're getting a crossover or a van.

A large part of the fascination with SUVs is the "posermobile syndrome." I've heard many yuppies state that "I'd never own a minivan; it's an SUV." Apparently, they believe the rest of us think they're butch as they schlep a teenage girls' soccer team from the subdivision to the park.

I've even heard the minivan, suburban soccermom lifestyle referred to as the "SUV lifestyle." That one made me laugh out loud.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

Especially since more and more "SUVs" are minivan based. Honda Pilot and Nissan Pathfinder, to name two.

 

[aja8888]

SUV's

Well, my wife loves her 2013 Hyundai Santa Fe. She's not giving it up and it serves her well, especially with her volunteer work for the church and carrying around handicapped widows, etc. That won't work very well in a Fit or Prius.

Me, I'm good with the diesels and the old Jetta suits me fine, although I won't ever see those high MPG numbers the Feds want. You will have to put me in a straight jacket to get me in another Prius after having a rental for two days in Midland, TX.

Plug in electric is not in my future unless I'm ready for a wheelchair. And hybrids just have too high a price premium over conventional ICE models.

Some of us are just happy where we are.

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

What meerschm said. Exactly what I understand. Not worth going through the certification process for cars that are already a year old.

On the topic of the 54.5 MPG standard, it's a shame that the US has gotten so SUV crazy. It seems like it's most of what I see on the road, and the Northeast probably has more sedans than other regions. I honestly don't get it. I drove a Grand Cherokee diesel the other day and was completely underwhelmed. I felt like I was in a bunker. And it wasn't particularly roomy.
I know high fuel prices are unpopular, but I'm convinced that regulating gasoline to a minimum of $5/gallon may be the only way we can break this habit. Otherwise no one cares about saving energy.

Or regulators could just stop pandering to the automotive industry. If automakers were sufficiently motivated (ex. Hit this fleet MPG average number, or else)...we'd have 30+ MPG 1/2 ton trucks and 20+ MPG full-size SUVs.

This isn't an SUV or truck problem, it's an automakers are not sufficiently motivated to utilize the technology that is at their disposal problem. Think about it...if you're GM...why would you spend your money developing a 27+ MPG truck when 22 MPG is just fine (as far as the government is concerned)?

 

[waltzconmigo]

bgs---seems to me this is more of an "purchasers preference" problem. are you ready to be buy a new model year vehicle with the equivalent of a DPF when that is not required? Who would take that risk if not required to meet standards? Gov't is not always the answer, thou at times it can be.

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

bgs---seems to me this is more of an "purchasers preference" problem. are you ready to be buy a new model year vehicle with the equivalent of a DPF when that is not required? Who would take that risk if not required to meet standards? Gov't is not always the answer, thou at times it can be.

It's only a purchasers preference problem to people that don't like trucks and SUVs. That's part of the problem here...people not recognizing that not everyone wants to be crammed into a small vehicle and that not everyone is satisfied with a 1,000 lb towing and payload capacity.

If it were priced fairly and came with a good warranty...yes...the average person would go for it. As an example...see the Ram 1500 Ecodiesel. When it was introduced...LOTS of people lined up to pay the premium to get: 1. A half ton diesel, and 2. 5+ MPG better than a comparably priced gasser half ton. That was the case even though it came with a complicated and failure prone emissions system and sketchy warranty repair fulfillment odds.

At this point...the Ecodiesel Ram is selling for not much more than a comparably equipped gasser half ton. They're selling fine, despite them having some of the same emissions component issues as VW TDIs (ex. DEF fluid heater).

It would be the same story if a gasoline or diesel hybrid 1/2 ton was introduced. If one of those was introduced tomorrow and got 30+ MPG (there's no reason that shouldn't be possible if an all fossil fuel Ecodiesel with a CARB compliant tune can get 30+ MPG)...yes...i'd take one, if the price and warranty was right.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

I just get tired of sharing the road with trucks and SUVs. Can't see around them, can't safely back out of a parking space between, many of the drivers can't fit them in one space, and it just seems wasteful for one person to drive around in a 5,000 lb. vehicle that gets FE in the teens. It's congested here, and SUVs add to that feeling.

Regarding space and towing, the vast majority of SUVs I see have one occupant. And most of the pickups around here won't ever carry a load, except perhaps bringing something home from IKEA.

I've lived in suburbs all my life, but the wastefulness of suburban living troubles me. SUVs just make it more visible. But I don't think I have a lot of say in the matter.

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

I just get tired of sharing the road with trucks and SUVs. Can't see around them, can't safely back out of a parking space between, many of the drivers can't fit them in one space, and it just seems wasteful for one person to drive around in a 5,000 lb. vehicle that gets FE in the teens. It's congested here, and SUVs add to that feeling.

Regarding space and towing, the vast majority of SUVs I see have one occupant. And most of the pickups around here won't ever carry a load, except perhaps bringing something home from IKEA.

I've lived in suburbs all my life, but the wastefulness of suburban living troubles me. SUVs just make it more visible. But I don't think I have a lot of say in the matter.

Most of that...the "wastefulness"/fuel economy, single occupant, etc. is just not your problem. You might be annoyed by it...and that's just super...but that doesn't mean that it has an actual impact on your life, beyond the bias and perception that you have of them.

As for visibility...increase your following distance. I manage to drive in and around big rigs every day and not have a problem.

I've driven in/around Boston. Your traffic sucks. It sucks due to an overcrowded area, poor urban planning, construction, idiots getting into fender benders, etc. None of that is going to change if all of the SUVs were gone tomorrow.

As for those people trying to park a behemoth in the city. Some people are going to be inconsiderate a******* whether or not they're driving a huge vehicle. They'll probably still take up two spots with a Prius.

 

[aja8888]

I've lived in suburbs all my life, but the wastefulness of suburban living troubles me. SUVs just make it more visible. But I don't think I have a lot of say in the matter.

Not a lot of us do have much of a say. The U.S. is a consumption based economy and has been for a century now. We pioneered steel and auto production and learned how to mass produce goods to fight wars and fill houses with appliances. Now that fuel prices are down, auto manufacturers push high profit vehicles. Like they say, it is what it is as the demand is there.

With respect to low fuel prices, the masses love it. I work in the oil business and have since 1980. We can produce enough crude oil in the U.S. (now) to support our needs (with Canada's help), but since hydrocarbons are a commodity, we have to compete in a world market. If you want $5 gallon for gasoline, that's not going to happen with tax increases or wishful thinking. In my opinion, unless there is a war that curtails crude oil production for a long period of time, we are going to see these lower fuels prices for some time to come.

 

[bhtooefr]

The thing is, it's not like it's "cramming" into, say, a midsize car.

54.5 CAFE can be exceeded today by cars that are as big as the NMS Passat - the Camry, ES/Avalon, Sonata, Prius v, and MKZ/Fusion are all in that size class. And, the Prius v is also a tallish wagon.

As far as the towing and payload capacity, rentals.

And, frankly, wastefulness does affect everyone in a way that is banned from discussion on TDIClub.

And, if I increase my following distance behind an SUV enough to see around it, another one will cut in front of me. And, that doesn't help when pulling out of parking spaces. (And I say the last part as a Miata owner, not just something like my Prius - I can at least usually see some through a car's windows, but SUVs, I just see a wall of metal, and have to back out very slowly and hope that there isn't anything coming or if there is, that it'll stop.)

 

[bubbagumpshrimp]

The thing is, it's not like it's "cramming" into, say, a midsize car.

54.5 CAFE can be exceeded today by cars that are as big as the NMS Passat - the Camry, ES/Avalon, Sonata, Prius v, and MKZ/Fusion are all in that size class. And, the Prius v is also a tallish wagon.

As far as the towing and payload capacity, rentals.

And, frankly, wastefulness does affect everyone in a way that is banned from discussion on TDIClub.

And, if I increase my following distance behind an SUV enough to see around it, another one will cut in front of me. And, that doesn't help when pulling out of parking spaces. (And I say the last part as a Miata owner, not just something like my Prius - I can at least usually see some through a car's windows, but SUVs, I just see a wall of metal, and have to back out very slowly and hope that there isn't anything coming or if there is, that it'll stop.)

You're correct. Space wise...for the average person or family...in most situations...a mid-size car is just fine. However, if you take trips on a regular basis with two or more people, a 90 lb dog, and all the stuff associated with those people and critter (we have to lug around a sizable platform feeder because he is too tall to feed from floor level)...a midsize vehicle gets pretty cramped pretty quickly. If I went and bought say an Accord as a replacement vehicle...we would have to continue taking the GF's aging crossover on road trips, because an Accord is just not going to be big enough, cargo capacity wise.

To me....the upside of a small or midsize car is the fuel economy. Period. I'm not saying that is the only VALUE to vehicles in these categories. I'm saying that...to me...that's the only upside. A full-size truck is more comfortable (to me) on long road trips, has better visibility in town, and is just all around a more useful vehicle. That's not just my $.02...that's the opinion of many people out there.

As far as parking goes...i's the same story in my Jetta when I'm parked between cars at work. Every day I back out VERY slowly and hope that someone doesn't whack me. I can't really tell if anyone is coming until I'm about halfway out of the spot.

 

[ketchupshirt88]

I am absolutely convinced that we can have our cake and eat it too... but not without diesels and not as long as manufacturers choose to pander to investors instead of try to achieve better mpg's. That is why backing down on the MPG target is a bad idea.

We won't ever get this to be the rule instead of the exception in the US though because the profit margin on selling a diesel Ranger/explorer/escape or base trim F150 w/ a diesel is slim while the margin on a fully loaded excursion/expedition/f350 is much much higher... so Ford (and everyone else for that matter) just refuse to offer the diesel in smaller, cheaper trucks and suv or in the base trims. VW does the same thing, a base trim TDI is a rarity...

As was stated, diesel cars as big as NMS and fairly capable trucks like the Ram 1500 ECOdiesel can get MPG's nearly 20% higher than their gasser counterpart.

Its not about whether they CAN do it or not, its about whether they can make the profit margins that investors want while offering these higher MPG cars and trucks that customers (and CAFE) want.

As for customers not wanting diesels, i call BS. The only reasons i ever hear is cold weather starts (easily dismissed, its just not an issue with CR's) and the higher per gallon cost. Anytime someone says "'isnt diesel more expensive" i ask whether they would give their car premium if it could get 40-45mpg instead of low 30's on reg??? everyone of them say they would, and the cost of diesel vs premium actually falls in favor of the diesel.

 

[bhtooefr]

Mind you, things like wagons exist - note that I listed the Prius v, after all, in that 54.5+ MPG CAFE bigger cars list. That greatly improves cargo flexibility. Also, liftbacks really help with getting things into the cargo area that you've got, and I wish sedans were killed by liftbacks here. (It's worth noting that the European-market Ford Mondeo is a liftback in the same body shape as the US Fusion, as one example.)

In any case, diesel isn't enough to get 54.5 MPG CAFE - people do a lot more city mileage than most on TDIClub realize, the CAFE numbers account for this, and diesel doesn't help that much in city mileage. The numbers I listed in the original post in the thread were for model year 2016, so none of the VW TDIs, and no Cruze diesels, were available... but in model year 2015, the only car that isn't a hybrid that hit 54.5 CAFE was the Mitsubishi Mirage with a CVT. The best diesel was the 328d, at 49.5715 MPG CAFE, and the best VW TDI was the Jetta with a DSG at 49.1703 MPG CAFE.

You really need the benefit that hybridization does to city mileage to get a good CAFE score.

And, in my opinion, given the goals of CAFE, diesel should be given a MPGe rating for CAFE calculation purposes.

 

[IndigoBlueWagon]

I'm a bit puzzled about how CAFE and EPA MPG figures correlate. Last Prius V I saw showed an EPA combined FE or 40 MPG. How does it get to 54.5?

And do we really need 4 decimal places on fuel economy?

 

[ketchupshirt88]

In any case, diesel isn't enough to get 54.5 MPG CAFE - people do a lot more city mileage than most on TDIClub realize, the CAFE numbers account for this, and diesel doesn't help that much in city mileage.

You really need the benefit that hybridization does to city mileage to get a good CAFE score.

But a diesel electric hybrid would... im talking series like a train, not parallel like a prius.

The population here in north central WI is spread out while the jobs are centralized so the ppl i know with prius's can barely beat the mpg of my 20 year old passat that i flog mercilessly because there is no way around commuting.

If i lived in milwaukee, my wife would own a hybrid like a prius V, it makes sense. She might even get a hybrid for her next car, whether i like it or not...

She already does 75% city and gets ~35mpg (nasty 01m) while my sisters MK5 2.5l gets under 30 with much more highway driving.

Obviously it's all anecdotal evidence but i think parallel hybrids take the win in 75%+ city driving and diesel wins everywhere else. A series hybrid powered by diesel could be the best of both worlds.

I think pure gas engines belong in motorsports and small engines, not in commuting and daily driving and definitely not in larger vehicles like suv/trucks.

I'm a bit puzzled about how CAFE and EPA MPG figures correlate. Last Prius V I saw showed an EPA combined FE or 40 MPG. How does it get to 54.5?

im curious on that as well, i understand they are different testing procedure but why do the numbers vary so widely?

 

[bhtooefr]

So, for starters, both EPA and CAFE cycles are weighted for combined results to be 55% city, 45% highway.

There are five test cycles that are used to determine fuel economy:

FTP-75: City test
HWFET: Highway test
Cold cycle: FTP-75 run at 20 F
SC03: Air conditioning test
US06: High speed/high acceleration

So, the original CAFE cycle for model year 1978 consisted of simply reporting the fuel economy that FTP-75 returned as the city fuel economy, and the fuel economy that HWFET returned as the highway fuel economy. This is also what CAFE MPG is today.

For model year 1985, the EPA fuel economy was revised - 22% lower city MPG, 11% lower highway MPG, for everything - due to people finding that the CAFE MPG was unrealistic.

For model year 2007, EPA mileage estimates were further revised, adding the cold cycle, SC03, and US06. (In some cases, there are extrapolations from either the FTP-75+HWFET cycle, or FTP-75+HWFET+US06 available, using scaling factors set by the EPA for that model type, based on what the EPA knows about true 5-cycle fuel economy for vehicles of that type. Those scaling factors are here: https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=35113&flag=1)

So, what's reported on window stickers is 2007+ standards. What's reported towards the CAFE averages is 1978 standards.

And, the EPA reports these numbers to 4 decimal places, at least in some places. The 2016 Prius v (to use it as an example) is CAFE rated at 59.9822 city, 57.6515 highway, for 58.9105 combined, per the EPA's 2016 fuel economy data file. Contrast to 44 city (unrounded, 43.5923), 40 highway (unrounded, 40.4309), 42 combined (unrounded, 42.1106). Also, those particular numbers are set through a derived 5-cycle method (meaning they didn't do the full fuel economy tests, instead reporting using an EPA-approved skew factor).