One of the few relative successes that Chrysler has had in the past decade has been the Chrysler 300 and Dodge Charger. For a time, the big rear wheel drive sedans were some of the hottest cars on the market. What they were not was particularly fuel efficient. Chrysler intends to improve on that with the redesigned 2011 model. Thanks to the new Phoenix V6 engine family, Frank Klegon, VP of product development expects the new versions to be "CAFE-positive" implying that the cars will exceed the new standards and pull up Chrysler's fleet average. At this point we're not sure if that means only that they will exceed the initial new CAFE levels that take effect in 2010 or the 2015 standard. Another factor expected to help the mileage of the new sedans will be improved aerodynamics. The design department came under Klegon's area of responsibility last year and drag reductions should significantly reshape the 300 and Charger.


[Source: Automotive News (sub. req'd)]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has released its 1,000-page environmental impact study on new fuel economy rules and the final form of those rules could be in place by the middle of next month. When NHTSA announced a draft of the new CAFE regulations last spring, it drew criticism from all sides. The rules went beyond what was mandated by Congress last December, but also contained some very controversial elements. The requirements would be based on the vehicle's footprint (the area between the wheels), meaning that vehicles with a larger wheelbase or track would have a lower standard to meet.

The study indicates that the new regulations will save 19.5 billion gallons of fuel through the end of the next decade. However it also indicates a very small impact on the environment over the next century. The expected change in sea level is only expected to be reduced by 0.11 cm and the temperature is only expected to be cut by 0.013 degrees celcius. Nonetheless, automakers are not happy with the rules because of the inconsistencies. Still, proposals from the initial draft seem unlikely to be significantly changed. At this point, there is a 30-day comment period before the new corporate average fuel economy rules are finalized.

[Source: Detroit News]

I fully agree that we need more fuel efficient vehicles. But I also firmly believe that the vast majority of American drivers (and others around the world) will always buy the biggest, most powerful vehicle they think they can afford to operate. When gas was cheap in this country, they bought big SUVs and trucks because they could afford them, even though there were plenty of small, efficient vehicles offered. Sure, some people bought compacts for a variety of reasons but most people went big. What caused that trend to turn around seemingly overnight? Certainly not anything that politicians and bureaucrats did with fuel economy regulations. Plain and simple, it was that gas prices shot up.

Gore Vidal has dubbed this country the United States of Amnesia because consumers have a notoriously short memory. Raising CAFE standards will not help reduce fuel consumption unless people are willing to buy more efficient vehicles and that's something that is unlikely to happen if fuel prices drop (unless of course our economy continues its collapse, in which case nobody will be buying anything). Over at Motor Trend, editor Angus McKenzie thinks that CAFE combined with low fuel prices has actually made things worse by encouraging automakers (including Toyota and Nissan and to a lesser degree Honda) to build big trucks and consumers to buy them. Instead, he suggests attacking the demand side (as I have done for years) by scrapping the plans for $100 billion in loans to the industry along with the current supply-based CAFE rules. McKenzie says the money should be used to stimulate demand for high efficiency vehicles. McKenzie doesn't mention fuel prices, but I would add that attempts to reduce fuel prices much below $4 / gallon should also be abandoned. As Dr. David Cole has said, a floor price should be set for petroleum to keep demand up for efficiency and then if the market price drops below that, tax it up to the minimum price. This will do a lot more to reduce fuel consumption than the ridiculous footprint-based fuel economy rules now being put forward by NHTSA.

[Source: Motor Trend]

After the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration announced its proposed new Corporate Average Fuel Economy rules last spring there was a public comment period to be followed by revisions before finalizing the regulations. There were certainly some negative comments related to the footprint-based standards but the other aspect that came in for criticism was the cost benefit analysis. In a seemingly surprising move, even the Environmental Protection Agency filed a comment opposing the draft regulation. The energy bill that was enacted last December required NHTSA to set the standards based in part on what was technically and financially feasible. NHTSA set the mileage requirements based on the assumption that gasoline would cost an average of $2.42 in 2016. Given where gas prices are today that seems like a serious under-estimation. Even the EPA that declined to approve a waiver for California's CO₂ regulations felt that NHTSA used too low a price estimate in its analysis. If a higher price was assumed it would make a higher standard more feasible.

[Source: Detroit News]

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the fleet of cars sold in the U.S. through the first half of the year averaged 26.8 mpg. That's a new record, and it is being pushed by the rapid move from larger cars, trucks and SUVs into smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles. For reference, last year's rating stood at 26.6 miles per gallon. While these numbers can be useful for tracking the overall average mileage of new cars in the States, these are actually the CAFE numbers that the government uses for keeping tabs on the automakers. As has been widely covered, these figures aren't really the most accurate numbers available as there are provisions for automakers to improve their scores through the use of alternative fuels. Some manufacturers also carry over credits from past years when they surpassed the CAFE requirements. Still, a fuel mileage improvement is a good thing, and it's likely to only get better as fuel prices remain high enough to impact purchasing decisions.

[Source: The Detroit News]

The energy bill that was passed by Congress last December requiring corporate average fuel economy to be raised to 35 mpg by 2020 had some interesting little known elements in it. Among other things, the bill required NHTSA to set the standards at the maximum feasible level for any given years meaning that the 35 mpg threshold could be reached well before 2020. The problem lies in that word feasible. In setting standards NHTSA was required to factor in projections for what fuel prices would be in future years. That's why when NHTSA released its draft proposal for the first round of fuel economy standards, the average was set at 31.6 mpg by 2015 which caught some people by surprise. However with gas at $4 /gallon this spring, it looked like the reality would overtake the law. It turned out that NHTSA used a projection of $2.42 /gallon in 2016 to set the 31.6 mpg standard. Representatives Ed Markey (D-MA) and Todd Russell Platts (R-PA) this week introduced a bill that would require NHTSA to use more realistic projections in setting the standards. Under this proposal the standard could be moved up to 35 mpg by 2015. Again all of this demonstrates that mandating a fuel economy standard is probably a wrong headed approach. If higher fuel prices suddenly make higher fuel economy feasible, why not just set a minimum floor price for fuel and if prices drop below this level, tax it up to the minimum. We've seen this work in Europe where average fuel economy is much higher than in the US based largely on higher fuel prices. Then there is the issue of the bogus fuel economy calculations.

[Source: markey.house.gov]

TMI. What does that mean? Well, it usually means 'Too Much Information,' but in the case of fuel mileage, there is truly no such thing. Everybody and their brother wants to know what kind of mileage they are likely to get out of their next new car purchase, so we'll take any information we can get. With that in mind, Cars.com has gone to the trouble of calculating the mileage statistics of all the major brands sold in the United States and has sorted them by average miles per gallon. While the list doesn't actually break down each manufacturer further by model, it is still helpful in some way.

As you may be aware, CAFE mileage statistics aren't actually representative of what a given manufacturer is likely to achieve, as they are adjusted for all sorts of reasons. Therefore, Cars.com chose to go by the EPA's mileage ratings to calculate its figures. For the same reason, the impending fuel mileage requirements being proposed by the Feds aren't quite as harsh as they might seem. For instance, CAFE's 2007 rating for Honda's domestic passenger-car fleet comes in at 33.5 mpg, while Cars.com estimates a much more realistic 24.9 mpg. So, the EPA's estimations are still useful for comparing individual car models, and Cars.com's TMI rating is useful for comparing the manufacturers themselves. Remember, though... your mileage may vary.

[Source: Cars.com]

Click above for more high-res shots of the 2007 Toyota Prius Touring

The numbers for last year's combined fleet fuel efficiency for all automakers in the United States has been tallied. The winner? Um, Lotus. But, they don't really count. Too small. For manufacturers that actually offer a full line of automobiles, Toyota with 29.69 mpg just barely edged out the likes of Honda, which posted 29.49, and Hyundai with 29.37. All those Prius hybrid sales surely helped push Toyota to the top this year. Not surprisingly, the Detroit 3 didn't even come close with 25.16 from GM and 25.15 from Ford. DaimlerChrysler propped up the rear with a dismal 23.97 average figure.

Toyota has no plans to give up the mileage crown. In fact, the Japanese giant will increase capacity of its upcoming third-gen Prius sedan by an astonishing 70-percent at the Tsutsumi factory in Japan, allowing for the production of 480,000 hybrid sedans per year. For 2010, Toyota plans to bring its Mississippi plant online, which will further serve to increase capacity. We have a feeling that it'll have little trouble selling every one it manufacturers.


[Sources: NHTSA (.pdf link), Automotive News - sub. req'd]

When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration published an initial draft of the new fuel economy rules this spring, they gave automakers and other interested parties until July 1 to comment before finalizing the rules. That comment period is now over and GM and others have responded. Under the energy bill that was passed in December 2007, NHTSA is supposed to factor in what is technically feasible as well as what kinds of vehicles are expected to be on the market in setting the standards. If large numbers of plug-in vehicles are available they can set the standards higher. In GM's comments, the automaker told NHTSA that plug-in hybrids and extended range electrics will be available by the middle of the next decade but the agency shouldn't expect enough of them to be available to make a major impact on fleet average mileage. GM is currently only forecasting production of 10,000 Volts in 2011, rising to 60,000 the following year. Similarly, the plug-in hybrid Saturn Vue will likely only have limited availability at first. Regardless of what automakers and NHTSA want, if gas prices don't subside, the standards may be a moot point as the market may supersede them.

[Source: Detroit Free Press]

Though BMW was the first automaker to contact the Bush Administration with concerns about the latest CAFE rules, it didn't take long for more to speak up. As represented by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the Detroit 3, Toyota, Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and others have banded together to proclaim the demands too harsh. Especially considering the current state of automotive affairs, the Alliance alleges that it will be too costly to either meet the goals set out in the latest CAFE standards or face the fines for not meeting them. It is certainly true that most automakers are finding it tough to sell vehicles in these days of turbulent fuel prices and a damaged economy in the U.S.

Eighty-percent of the auto market in the states is represented by the Auto Alliances members, so the issues presented by the groups are sure to be taken seriously. With other groups, including Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, wanting to actually increase the CAFE requirements even further, the auto manufacturers seem to have their work cut out for them.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

The deadline for automakers to comment on the latest CAFE standard proposal is today, and at least one manufacturer has decided to speak up. BMW is calling the fuel efficiency standards it would be required to meet 'unattainable.' As you may be aware, the latest proposal takes into account the overall footprint of the vehicle, and manufacturers which sell large vehicles won't be required to meet the same goals as those which produce smaller vehicles. While that's great for manufacturers with truck-heavy lineups, automakers like BMW are in for a world of hurt as they tend to produce smaller, sportier machines. For this reason, BMW would be required to average 37.3 miles per gallon for its cars, quite a bit higher than the 35.7 mpg industry average. The Bavarian's trucks would need to achieve 31.7 mpg, compared to an industry average of 28.6 mpg.

While it may seem a bit unfair (or maybe not) that BMW should be required to hit higher numbers than some other manufacturers, it should be pointed out that BMW currently offers no engines with fewer than six cylinders and is on a bit of a crossover binge as of late. What's more, the marque has proven rather adept at squeezing high power outputs from relatively small displacement, so we'd stop a bit short of suggesting that the numbers being asked of it are unattainable.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

The way the draft rules have been defined for the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, Porsche is at a distinct disadvantage. Because the standards for any given vehicle are based on the size of the vehicle, Porsche's relatively small cars have to meet a higher standard than other manufacturers. Apparently Porsche doesn't really care. Detlev von Platen the new CEO of Porsche Cars North America has declared that the German sports car (and SUV) builder will not downsize its vehicles or engines and will not use diesel engines. Porsche doesn't plan to change the high performance nature of its vehicles according to von Platen, although they will increase the fuel efficiency of those vehicles. The Cayenne SUV and the upcoming Panamera four door will both get a new hybrid powertrain that will be shared with Volkswagen and Audi. However, the Cayenne hybrid won't appear until at least late 2010. Porsche has managed to increase the fuel economy of its vehicles to the point that none of the current models are subject to the gas guzzler tax and last year the company average was high enough to avoid a CAFE fine. Going forward that will almost certainly change as Porsche doesn't have any expectation of meeting the 41.3mpg average the new draft rules would impose on the company by 2015.

[Source: Autoweek]

The average cost for Detroit's Big Three automakers to meet the proposed fuel efficiency targets of 31.6 miles per gallon by 2015 has been pegged at $30.6 billion. In contrast, the average cost for the Japanese automakers sits at less than half that amount at "only" $14.85 billion. These numbers come courtesy of a recent study by Global Insight. In a real shocker, General Motors alone is expected to pay out $15 billion alone. Why the disparity? Simple: the Japanese brands already offer more fuel efficient models. With that reasoning, it seems unlikely that the U.S. companies will get much sympathy from the buying public.

Global Insight also predicts that many new technologies which are just beginning to make a dent in sales today will make up a huger percentage of sales by 2015. These new developments include direct injection, turbocharging and diesel engines. Hybrids, the current darling of the fuel efficient crowd, will continue to gain market share, especially as more new models are rolled out which feature the hybrid drivetrain as an option or as standard equipment.

There is a glimmer of hope out there for automakers which are finding it tough to move vehicles in today's troubled climate. Global Insight predicts that there will be a pent-up demand for the replacement of aging models which owners have clung to in the face of high gas prices and a poor U.S. economy sometime around the year 2015.

[Source: Automotive News - sub. req'd]

When Transportation Secretary Mary Peters announced the first draft of new fuel economy standards last month, the increases actually appeared to exceed those mandated by recent energy bill. Of course a closer inspection of the rules indicated that they weren't all they appeared to be. Because the rules mandated fuel economy based on the footprint of an individual vehicle, there existed an incentive for carmakers to stretch the wheelbase and track of vehicles so that they wouldn't have to achieve the same efficiency as a smaller vehicle. However, the reality of the situation at gas pumps around the nation means that corporate average fuel economy standards are quickly becoming irrelevant. Although manufacturers have long wanted higher fuel prices to spur demand for more efficient vehicles, politicians have been loathe to do anything that electoral opponents could hold against them at the polls.

With gasoline now at $4/gallon (an all-time high for the US, but still ranked only 111th in the world) consumers are making up their own minds. NHTSA did its calculations for the new rules with the assumption that gas would be $2.26/gallon in 2015. This, of course, is consistent with the quality of most of the assumptions made by the current administration and totally unrealistic. At least in this case, the result of drivers moving to smaller more efficient vehicles will likely be positive. At any rate, Peters has indicated that the new rules will be re-evaluated and may be toughened. Perhaps they should just forget gas tax holidays and other silliness and just let the market take its course this time.

[Source: Detroit News]

When NHTSA recently released draft regulations to implement the fuel economy requirements from December's Energy Bill a controversial element of the proposal were the footprint-based thresholds. Rather than setting a single requirement that all manufacturers fleets would have to meet, the proposal set mileage thresholds based on the vehicle's footprint (the wheelbase x track width). Each manufacturer would get a requirement based on a sales weighted average of the footprint values for the vehicles it sells. Companies that sell more vehicles with large footprints would have a lower requirement. At the time, I postulated that this might have the effect of encouraging carmakers to stretch the wheelbase and track of their new models in order to lower the required fuel economy.

Now we have a sighting of what is likely a mule for the next generation BMW 1-series. While this vehicle was obviously built before the recent rule announcement, and it does follow the long time trend of making successive generations of a car bigger, it certainly points to the possibilities of the new rules. Of course I'm using this particular photo to illustrate the possibilities of the rules. Instead of encouraging manufacturers to go smaller, the opposite is the case. The upside is that with fuel prices likely to continue rising, consumer demand for more efficient vehicles will likely outpace anything the feds try to do on this subject and the whole discussion will be moot.

[Source: Motor Authority]