63 mpg cafe in 13 years

[cuspid]

What are we going to be driving, mopeds like the undeveloped world.

[thePill]

A little something that set my mind at ease;

As wrangling over the next round of federal fuel economy regulations filters out to the public, one number will get a lot of attention.
62 mpg.
Under the most aggressive proposal, requiring 6 percent annual improvement in mpg for the 2017-25 model years, corporate average fuel economy would hit 62 mpg.
To get a sense of scale, remember that automakers just started a five-year regimen to get CAFE to 35.5 mpg. So your average consumer who hears about 62 mpg will look at his or her current car, which maybe gets 20 mpg in daily use, and think, “Man, we’re gonna be driving $50,000 carbon-fiber, electric-drive shoeboxes with all the comfort and charm of an airline economy seat.”
Well, maybe not. For one thing, automakers are pushing for a 3 percent annual increase, with a 2025 target of 47 mpg. And the rules won’t be set until July 2012. So there’s a lot of posturing, rhetoric and horse-trading to look forward to.
But here’s another reason: 62 mpg doesn’t really mean 62 mpg.
At least, not in terms of what U.S. drivers would see on window stickers or experience when driving 2025 vehicles. Under a 62 mpg CAFE rule, real-world fuel economy would be just under 50 mpg.
And if CAFE were 47 mpg, the real-world number would be about 38 mpg.
To know why, you have to understand what the CAFE number is -- a sales-weighted average of the mpg ratings for vehicles produced in a given year. Vehicle mpg ratings are based on lab tests using a dynamometer, a sort of treadmill for cars.
Dynamometer testing produces an artificial number, but it does provide controlled conditions. No wind, no rain. And it allows for precise test protocols. For instance, the federal city-driving test cycle lasts 1,874 seconds, with an average speed of 21.1 mph, and has cold- and hot-start segments of 505 seconds each.
That’s where CAFE mpg numbers come from. But -- here’s the curveball -- those numbers don’t appear on window stickers.
In an effort to get closer to real-world fuel economy, CAFE numbers are reduced by 20 to 25 percent, depending on the type of vehicle. So a car that scores 35 mpg on the laboratory test will have a window-sticker rating of 28 mpg.
Does the system confuse consumers? Probably. Does it produce tidy, replicable CAFE tests? Probably.
Anyway, just remember: 62 doesn’t mean 62.


Read more: http://www.autonews.com/article/2011...#ixzz1M8oKVVnI

[TOMS1SS]

I'm not someone who really buys into the panic of these CAFE proposals because some of the numbers aren't realistic in any manner. Look at how many cars actually get 62 MPG or something equal, outside some EVs you won't find any. Unless battery technology improves drastically over the next 14 years this won't happen. Even it does the cost will too high to pass on to the consumer and sanity will settle in. Numbers like 45 MPG by 2025 are more realistic and won't limit the choices consumers have in the long run. One thing is for sure at least for me, I have my performance car and I'm glad I got it before all this took place.

[cab2g]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

I'm not someone who really buys into the panic of these CAFE proposals because some of the numbers aren't realistic in any manner. Look at how many cars actually get 62 MPG or something equal, outside some EVs you won't find any. Unless battery technology improves drastically over the next 14 years this won't happen. Even it does the cost will too high to pass on to the consumer and sanity will settle in. Numbers like 45 MPG by 2025 are more realistic and won't limit the choices consumers have in the long run. One thing is for sure at least for me, I have my performance car and I'm glad I got it before all this took place.

That's the real meat and potatoes of the new regulation. People will be forced to pay a lot more for fuel inefficient cars because full-line manufacturers will have to force consumers to opt to buy more fuel efficient cars in order to make their average fleet MPG number hit the CAFE regulation. I don't like it, BUT I do approve that it is one step to get off our addiction of foreign oil. People may argue that it's not the right way to do it. but we can sit around arguing about it for years or we can do something about it now. So it sort of is a good thing, even though I don't like the fact that I may be practically forced to buy a fart can 4-banger in 10 years because the good sounding V8 engines cost 60k or more and are only available in top of the line performance cars.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by thePill

A little something that set my mind at ease;

If I was a CEO of a major automaker, then I would make a very limited production vehicle that gets 200 MPG to offset the ridiculous EPA requirements.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

If I was a CEO of a major automaker, then I would make a very limited production vehicle that gets 200 MPG to offset the ridiculous EPA requirements.

It doesn't work that way. Its calculated using a harmonic mean, rather than a simple averaging. They divide the total fleet volume by the sum of the volume of each model divided by that models CAFE score. I know, it sounds like gibberish so here is a formula:

A sales + B sales + C sales + D sales + E sales ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A sales/A mpg + B sales/B mpg + C sales/C mpg + D sales/D mpg + E sales/E mpg ...

So if there were say 500,000 cars sold by one particular automaker, with one model making half their sales at 30 mpg, one selling 120k units @ 25 mpg, one selling 100k at 23 mpg, and one selling 30k @ 200 mpg, taking the simple average you'd get 37.6 mpg. But with an harmonic mean it would be 28 mpg. I'm sure this was done to close that very loophole you mentioned and encourage automakers to improve the overall efficiency of their fleet rather than cheat with a few superstars. Superstars (such as the Volt) still help, just not as much.

That said ... they left in a loophole which more or less says that flex fuel capability effectively doubles the CAFE score for any equipped vehicle. So for 2012, V6 Camaros get a huge boost in their CAFE rating ... probably in the 50 mpg range, unless they closed that loophole when they passed the most recent CAFE legislation.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

It doesn't work that way. Its calculated using a harmonic mean, rather than a simple averaging. They divide the total fleet volume by the sum of the volume of each model divided by that models CAFE score. I know, it sounds like gibberish so here is a formula:

A sales + B sales + C sales + D sales + E sales ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A sales/A mpg + B sales/B mpg + C sales/C mpg + D sales/D mpg + E sales/E mpg ...

So if there were say 500,000 cars sold by one particular automaker, with one model making half their sales at 30 mpg, one selling 120k units @ 25 mpg, one selling 100k at 23 mpg, and one selling 30k @ 200 mpg, taking the simple average you'd get 37.6 mpg. But with an harmonic mean it would be 28 mpg. I'm sure this was done to close that very loophole you mentioned and encourage automakers to improve the overall efficiency of their fleet rather than cheat with a few superstars. Superstars (such as the Volt) still help, just not as much.

That said ... they left in a loophole which more or less says that flex fuel capability effectively doubles the CAFE score for any equipped vehicle. So for 2012, V6 Camaros get a huge boost in their CAFE rating ... probably in the 50 mpg range, unless they closed that loophole when they passed the most recent CAFE legislation.

That's really dumb. I'd probably blow up the EPA HQ knowing this.

[Mr. Wyndham]

I've read the Energy Information Administrations 2011 report and they refer to this new proposed CAFE rule.

They're an extension of the the EPA, and they make special note that while super-high fuel economy like the CAFE idea would be nice...it's next to impossible to do without putting the price of the automobile clear out of the reach of the ordinary person, and stressing the capabilities of the auto manufacturers (glad they realize...)

I'm not worried. It's a lot of saber-rattling, and nothing more at this point. Let's just hope the clearer minds prevail when it comes to a peak.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by a_Username

That's really dumb. I'd probably blow up the EPA HQ knowing this.

The way they average or the E85 stuff? The E85 is supposedly justified because the goal is to import less gasoline, and E85 is only 15% gasoline. So more E85 = less gasoline. Not bad so far. Their only problem is that they seem to think that around 60% of E85 capable vehicles use it, with the rest using regular gasoline. Slight over-estimation, lol.

Oh well, it kept the CAFE scores up for the big three for a long time. The HHR and PT Cruiser did wonders for their CAFE truck scores, since almost all of them were flex fuel vehicles, got great mileage, and sold in decent numbers. Went a long way to offsetting pickup trucks that couldn't crack 20 mpg (unless they were E85 capable too, then they were over 30 mpg ... ). It just goes to show you how absurd CAFE really is.

[Number 3]

Be affraid............................be very affraid.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The way they average or the E85 stuff? The E85 is supposedly justified because the goal is to import less gasoline, and E85 is only 15% gasoline. So more E85 = less gasoline. Not bad so far. Their only problem is that they seem to think that around 60% of E85 capable vehicles use it, with the rest using regular gasoline. Slight over-estimation, lol.

Both. Despite the lack of a convincing argument for EPA to even exist, their methods just makes you want to punch a baby.

Oh well, it kept the CAFE scores up for the big three for a long time. The HHR and PT Cruiser did wonders for their CAFE truck scores, since almost all of them were flex fuel vehicles, got great mileage, and sold in decent numbers. Went a long way to offsetting pickup trucks that couldn't crack 20 mpg (unless they were E85 capable too, then they were over 30 mpg ... ). It just goes to show you how absurd CAFE really is.

Agreed x100.

[Captain Awesome]

There are ways to fix these problems. It's called VOTING.

Vote for people who will promise to pull the plug on all these out of control regulations and the flat earthers who are trying to impose them on the rest of us.

[a_Username]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

There are ways to fix these problems. It's called VOTING.

Vote for people who will promise to pull the plug on all these out of control regulations and the flat earthers who are trying to impose them on the rest of us.

Yes... politicians are famous for keeping promises.

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by cuspid

What are we going to be driving, mopeds like the undeveloped world.

Hey mopeds would be cool, they just have to change or open up the laws.
Right now you can’t ride them anywhere but side streets around here. If you live in a big area where most stores are located on a highway. [doesn’t matter if it goes through town and drop to 35, if its a highway route on the map, you will get a ticket] your not allot to ride on it, with a moped or temps on a motorcycle.


Id build one heck of a ped if I could actauly drive it anywhere.


There is only one loop hole in the “moped” allow streets rules, if you get one that is old style with pedals, you can go on any street as its a motorized bicycle, but on those you could get a ticket, you “have” to shut it off and pedal it like a bike. As bicycles can go nearly anywhere.