Fuel Economy: Doublespeak at its Best
Merry Christmas! The President has signed the new energy bill in to law and we can all look forward to 35 mile-per-gallon cars and trucks, right?
Bah, humbug! That 35 mpg corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standard in the just-signed energy bill doesn't equate to 35 miles per gallon in real world fuel efficiency!
In fact, an analysis by Edmunds' chief test engineer shows that a car -- or truck -- would need only to achieve 26 miles per gallon combined highway and city mileage in the new Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy tests to turn in the equivalent of a 35 mpg CAFE rating.
By the same token, today's 27.5 mpg CAFE standard for passenger cars equates to about 21 miles per gallon on an EPA window sticker.
"The two numbers are so far apart that consumers and politicians are speaking different languages when they talk about fuel economy," says Dan Edmunds, director of vehicle testing at Edmunds.com.
"The number on the window sticker can't be compared to the CAFE number without two levels of back-calculation that few people can follow."
It's not that there's a big lie in play. The percentage increase in average mileage is about the same whether going from 21 mpg to 26 mpg on the EPA scale (a 24 percent boost) or 27.5 mpg to 35 mpg on the CAFE scale (a 27 percent hike)
But most people have been trained to think only of the EPA numbers when talk turns to fuel economy and aren't aware of the differences between the EPA and CAFE figures. That makes the 35 mpg standard a little misleading.
The disconnect occurs because the formula for figuring CAFE mileage hasn't been changed since it was first drafted in 1975. Meantime, the EPA's fuel economy labeling protocols – which started out the same as the CAFE calculations -- have been updated several times as consumers complained that the window sticker didn't accurately predict real-world mileage.
Changing the EPA tests kept consumers happy, but applying the same changes to CAFE would have been a de facto boost that would have made the auto industry very unhappy. To avoid a political brouhaha, CAFE was left unaltered.
The obfuscation is "politically handy for politicians and automakers alike," Edmunds says. "It makes any change being negotiated seem much larger than it really is."
This can mitigate against boosting CAFE because "it makes it easy to persuade voters, unaware of the fundamental difference, that the change is impossibly hard to make."
That may be the reason we have two sets of numbers to deal with, Edmunds says, "or it may simply be the result of two departments that have different bosses and therefore don't communicate."
The new 35 mpg CAFE requirement has people wondering what kinds of radical changes will have to be made to our cars and trucks to comply, "but it's not as bad as all that, nor as difficult for manufacturers to achieve," he says.
"A 35 mph CAFE requirement just isn't as Draconian as it seems. My calculations tell me that a combined window sticker figure of 26 or 27 miles per gallon is roughly equivalent to 35 mpg in CAFE speak."
We'd all be better off, "if the government kept just one set of books and it was a fully honest set," suggests fuel economy specialist John DeCicco, Detroit-based senior fellow for automotive strategies at the Environmental Defense Fund.
- Posted by
- John O'Dell December 19, 2007, 4:00 PM
- Permalink
- Categories:
- Fuel Economy, Legislation
This is even more confusing, so I checked the NHTSA website for a definition of CAFE. It's an average based on all cars and trucks (under 8500 lbs). As an average, some cars will be above the average, and some cars (and trucks) will be below average. I'd like to see the current CAFE data for the various car manufacturers.
What the green people should be fighting for is a base minimum MPG for cars and trucks. So, any and all cars and trucks would have to make at least 20 mpg (for example) and would be free to do better, of course. For those people who say there should be an exception for cars that get less mpg, we have the solution today--the gas guzzler tax. Why don't we simply expand the gas guzzler tax?
the result is the same, so whats the problem?
if you save x% ethier way, thats the target, not some other magic number
I was aware of the difference but I didn't know what the coefficient was between the 'raw' ratings that CAFE uses and the 'delfated' ones that the EPA uses.
20%?
30%?
Now most trucks and SUVs get about 16 mpg combined under the new 2008 EPA standards. Thus if the 35=27.5 is accurate then the vehicle makers still have some work to do but it's not as bad as it seems..
All the vehicle makers have to do is improve their vehicles from using abt 6 gal / 100 miles driven to 3.65 gal / 100 miles driven.
Consider the math implied here though. At a savings of 2.35 gal per 100 mi a truck under the new standard would save about 350 gal each year it drives 15000. Not especially exciting until you multiply it by 7 million trucks on an annual basis and ~ 50 million trucks over a 7 yr life cycle.
( 50 million x 350 ) / 42 gal = ~ 400 million bbl of oil per year, not used - delayed for future use.
Dan got me curious about this a few weeks/months ago on an Insideline blog posting, so using the internet I was able to round out my CAFE education.
CAFE uses raw EPA data. This was used on window stickers until 1985 (give or take) when the EPA revised city mileage down 22% and highway mileage down 10% to make the values more realistic. For 2008, the EPA adopted new mpg testing protocol (again to make values more representative of real world conditions) which had the effect of lowering city economy by an additional ~12% and highway economy by an additional ~8% (and greater decreases for hybrids). Confused yet?
To simplify, what this means is that, as of the 2008 model year, your city mileage is about 31% lower than the EPA city value used for CAFE; and your highway mileage is about 17% lower.
Here's an example. I own a 2007 Ford Focus with a manual tranny. I'll give the city/highway/combined mpg for each of the three protocols.
* For 2008+ standards: 24 / 33 / 27
* For 1985-2007 standards: 27 / 37 / 31
* Raw data (calculated): 35 / 40-41 / 36-37
This vehicle would meet the new CAFE standard of 35 mpg.
Another example, 2006 Ford Mustang GT, manual tranny.
* For 2008+ standards: 15 / 23 / 18
* For 1985-2007 standards: 17 / 25 / 20
* Raw data (calculated): 22 / 28 / 24
This vehicle doesn't even meet the old CAFE standard of 27.5 mpg.
Like John said in this article, a car with a combined fuel economy of 26-27 mpg would effectively meet the 35 mpg CAFE standard. So in the coming years you can expect several things: (1) smaller, less torquey engines, (2) more diesel and alt-fuel vehicles, (3) more hybrid, direct injection, and turbocharged engines, and (4) smaller, lighter vehicles. For those of you who love to relive the '80s, here's your chance -- to relive the underpowered engine part, at least.
Heres why the actual numbers dont matter, but the % change does.
if the combined has to hit 26-27mpg.
look at trucks like the tahoe. it gets what a combined 16-17mpg? 20 if its the hybrid?
to hit that 27mpg it needs to improve by 33% using the hybrid version. and like 60% using just the gas. now I know theres fleet averages in their. But to make up a 16mpg truck you need a 38mpg car.
If 35 mpg CAFE is equivalent to 26 mpg EPA, then why are the car manufacturers complaining? Even without hybrid technology, 26 mpg EPA is easy to achieve. I reckon a Tahoe would easily achieve this with an efficient turbo-diesel, cylinder de-activation and some weight saving measures!
It was reported in the financial news on a NY radio station a few days ago that auto makers will not be required to actually sell low profit, high fuel mileage vehicles to achieve the new C.A.F.E. standards.
The much heralded C.A.F.E. standards required by H.R.6 and just signed into law by the President will be calculated differently. Previously, the Corporative Average Fuel Economy was based on all the vehicles actually sold by a manufacturer. The new method, as requested by auto manufactures is based on an average of the models for sale in a manufacturer’s line.
Simple example:
This change means that a 10 MPG vehicle could be offset by a 60 MPG “ringer”, thereby achieving the 35 MPG requirement of year 2020. The “ringer” could be a gussied up golf cart that nobody will buy or a very costly dream car that nobody will buy.
The net result of this overlooked change is that there are no longer any fuel economy requirements. It’s no wonder the administration did not oppose this bill!
It should be noted, had the EPA accepted the California CO2 restrictions, that would have negated the H.R.6 “requirements”.
Documentation:
(Old law) Full text of Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) 1975:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/legistlation.htm#
(Old law) Simplified version:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/cafe/overview.htm
ยง 32904. Calculation of average fuel economy:
(a) Method of calculation.--(1) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall calculate the average fuel economy of a manufacturer subject to—
(A) section 32902(a) of this title in a way prescribed by the Administrator; and
(B) section 32902(b)-(d) of this title by dividing--
(i) the number of passenger automobiles manufactured by the manufacturer in a model year; by
(ii) the sum of the fractions obtained by dividing the number of passenger automobiles of each model manufactured by the manufacturer in that model year by the fuel economy measured for that model.
(New law) Full text of H.R.6:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf
H.R.6 pg.8 Sec.102 reads in part:
‘‘(2) FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR AUTOMOBILES.—
‘‘(A) AUTOMOBILE FUEL ECONOMY AVERAGE FOR MODEL
YEARS 2011 THROUGH 2020.—The Secretary shall prescribe
a separate average fuel economy standard for passenger
automobiles and a separate average fuel economy standard
for non-passenger automobiles for each model year beginning
with model year 2011 to achieve a combined fuel
economy average for model year 2020 of at least 35 miles
per gallon for the total fleet of passenger and non-passenger
automobiles manufactured for sale in the United States
for that model year.
Happy motoring,
Bill Herbert
delawaredude: Yup, we ought to expand the gas guzzler tax (raise the dollar amounts and raise the thresholds needed to be hit by the tax) and get rid of the STUPID exemption that all light trucks (SUVs, minivans, pickups and some vans) have. See http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm if you're curious. It's crazy that the biggest guzzlers (aforementioned light trucks) made up 49% of vehicles sales for MY 2007 per http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420s07001.htm and yet they're exempt.
The vehicles w/GVWR of over 8500 lbs like the Hummer H2 don't even need to be tested and don't count against CAFE so they're also exempt.
As far as I am concerned the government is aiding the auto manufacturers in false and deceptive advertising and possibly a conspiracy. I wonder what my 1974 Pontiac Firebird would have gotten for fuel milage had it had the same 350 engine and todays electronic fuel injection and an overdrive transmission with lock-up torque converter. I only checked it's milage on one trip right after I got the car. It was one of the worst trips I ever took, lots of stop and go for 40 miles because of a wreck, and 4 hours of 85+ mph bumper to bumper traffic on 95 to NC, insane! It got 19.56 MPG! I double checked my math 3 times because I just didn't believe it. We also had a 1972 Cadillac Coupe De Ville with a 472cid engine that regularly got 19mpg on trips. Or how about my 78 Ford Granada that got 24mpg with the AC on or off, up hill, down hill, 5 passengers or one, didn't matter. I now have a 25 year old Ford Ranger that gets 25mpg. EPA rating for a 2008? 26mpg. And we all know they will never get close to that. What's up with that? Honda Civics and Geo Metros were getting 45-50mpg in the early 80's. Ford has a car that gets 65mpg, but they won't sell it to us. And how about a 500hp corvette that gets supposedly 24mpg, but a Nissan Maxima barely gets 18mpg at best. Sure seems that the higher powers do not want cars to get better economy, because they have been working very hard designing hi-tech vehicles that don't.