Comments on: New EPA Fuel Economy Numbers: Ford and GM Show the Most Gains http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/ What is the future of fuel? What's new? What's next? Since 2007, Gas 2 has covered a rapidly changing world coming to terms with its oil addiction. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:40:40 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kris http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-12776 Kris Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:32:31 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-12776 Let's get real about something: Automakers will never ever stop making trucks, because a) they're big profit vehicles that bolster the bottom line and b) they're necessary for the economic growth, whether you're talking big fleets or small business. Arguably, drivers should require a special license to operate pickup trucks (for business use only). By limiting their sale for legitimate needs, you'd automatically lift the overall fuel economy stats. End of story. Let’s get real about something: Automakers will never ever stop making trucks, because a) they’re big profit vehicles that bolster the bottom line and b) they’re necessary for the economic growth, whether you’re talking big fleets or small business. Arguably, drivers should require a special license to operate pickup trucks (for business use only). By limiting their sale for legitimate needs, you’d automatically lift the overall fuel economy stats. End of story.

]]> By: Kris http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-36667 Kris Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:32:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-36667 Let's get real about something: Automakers will never ever stop making trucks, because a) they're big profit vehicles that bolster the bottom line and b) they're necessary for the economic growth, whether you're talking big fleets or small business. Arguably, drivers should require a special license to operate pickup trucks (for business use only). By limiting their sale for legitimate needs, you'd automatically lift the overall fuel economy stats. End of story. Let’s get real about something: Automakers will never ever stop making trucks, because a) they’re big profit vehicles that bolster the bottom line and b) they’re necessary for the economic growth, whether you’re talking big fleets or small business. Arguably, drivers should require a special license to operate pickup trucks (for business use only). By limiting their sale for legitimate needs, you’d automatically lift the overall fuel economy stats. End of story.

]]> By: Emission Scientist (aftertreatment) http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-12775 Emission Scientist (aftertreatment) Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:01:53 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-12775 The emission rates for the oxides of nitrogen through the mid 1980's allowed for a lean strategy at cruise and emissions were essentially uncontrolled at speeds above 57 mph (the maximum speed on the FTP UDDS) until 1990, when new Federal regulations were passed. The comparison of fuel economy from vehicles 1970-1990 to those after the 1990 Clean Air Act does not take into account the measures that had to be taken to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in vehicles from 1991-present. There is a significant fuel economy penalty associated with maintaining the combustion chemistry around stoichiometry. Vehicles are still restrained by NOx emission limits in reaching the most fuel efficient driving modes or in using diesels. While aftertreatment devices (catalytic convertors) exists to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in lean exhaust, they are prohibitively expensive, complicated, new, and until they become more robust, will only be used where it is absolutely required (such as in heavy duty diesels starting in 2010). This said, there was a disincentive among automakers to push fuel economy over power throughout the period of 1990s-2006 because fuel economy was typically the third or fourth most important factor driving consumer purchase decisions behind cost, styling, reliability, etc. You can't sell a product with attributes people don't value, for long. The emission rates for the oxides of nitrogen through the mid 1980′s allowed for a lean strategy at cruise and emissions were essentially uncontrolled at speeds above 57 mph (the maximum speed on the FTP UDDS) until 1990, when new Federal regulations were passed. The comparison of fuel economy from vehicles 1970-1990 to those after the 1990 Clean Air Act does not take into account the measures that had to be taken to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in vehicles from 1991-present. There is a significant fuel economy penalty associated with maintaining the combustion chemistry around stoichiometry. Vehicles are still restrained by NOx emission limits in reaching the most fuel efficient driving modes or in using diesels. While aftertreatment devices (catalytic convertors) exists to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in lean exhaust, they are prohibitively expensive, complicated, new, and until they become more robust, will only be used where it is absolutely required (such as in heavy duty diesels starting in 2010). This said, there was a disincentive among automakers to push fuel economy over power throughout the period of 1990s-2006 because fuel economy was typically the third or fourth most important factor driving consumer purchase decisions behind cost, styling, reliability, etc. You can’t sell a product with attributes people don’t value, for long.

]]> By: Emission Scientist (aftertreat http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-36666 Emission Scientist (aftertreat Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:01:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-36666 The emission rates for the oxides of nitrogen through the mid 1980's allowed for a lean strategy at cruise and emissions were essentially uncontrolled at speeds above 57 mph (the maximum speed on the FTP UDDS) until 1990, when new Federal regulations were passed. The comparison of fuel economy from vehicles 1970-1990 to those after the 1990 Clean Air Act does not take into account the measures that had to be taken to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in vehicles from 1991-present. There is a significant fuel economy penalty associated with maintaining the combustion chemistry around stoichiometry. Vehicles are still restrained by NOx emission limits in reaching the most fuel efficient driving modes or in using diesels. While aftertreatment devices (catalytic convertors) exists to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in lean exhaust, they are prohibitively expensive, complicated, new, and until they become more robust, will only be used where it is absolutely required (such as in heavy duty diesels starting in 2010). This said, there was a disincentive among automakers to push fuel economy over power throughout the period of 1990s-2006 because fuel economy was typically the third or fourth most important factor driving consumer purchase decisions behind cost, styling, reliability, etc. You can't sell a product with attributes people don't value, for long. The emission rates for the oxides of nitrogen through the mid 1980′s allowed for a lean strategy at cruise and emissions were essentially uncontrolled at speeds above 57 mph (the maximum speed on the FTP UDDS) until 1990, when new Federal regulations were passed. The comparison of fuel economy from vehicles 1970-1990 to those after the 1990 Clean Air Act does not take into account the measures that had to be taken to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in vehicles from 1991-present. There is a significant fuel economy penalty associated with maintaining the combustion chemistry around stoichiometry. Vehicles are still restrained by NOx emission limits in reaching the most fuel efficient driving modes or in using diesels. While aftertreatment devices (catalytic convertors) exists to reduce the oxides of nitrogen in lean exhaust, they are prohibitively expensive, complicated, new, and until they become more robust, will only be used where it is absolutely required (such as in heavy duty diesels starting in 2010). This said, there was a disincentive among automakers to push fuel economy over power throughout the period of 1990s-2006 because fuel economy was typically the third or fourth most important factor driving consumer purchase decisions behind cost, styling, reliability, etc. You can’t sell a product with attributes people don’t value, for long.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-12774 Susan Kraemer Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:14:35 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-12774 Tim, the report divided up the comparisons between apples-to -apples categories by vehicle classifications. Chuck, if you look at the data, it shows the full history from the oil shocks of the 70's showing the cars of that era got better mileage. Tim, the report divided up the comparisons between apples-to -apples categories by vehicle classifications.

Chuck, if you look at the data, it shows the full history from the oil shocks of the 70′s showing the cars of that era got better mileage.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-36665 Susan Kraemer Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:14:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-36665 Tim, the report divided up the comparisons between apples-to -apples categories by vehicle classifications. Chuck, if you look at the data, it shows the full history from the oil shocks of the 70's showing the cars of that era got better mileage. Tim, the report divided up the comparisons between apples-to -apples categories by vehicle classifications.

Chuck, if you look at the data, it shows the full history from the oil shocks of the 70′s showing the cars of that era got better mileage.

]]> By: ChuckL http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-12773 ChuckL Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:07:45 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-12773 I am in full agreement with Tim Cleland on this one. In addition I disagree about the fuel efficiency increases in the 70s following the Oil turn off of OPEC in 1973. The emissions laws of the times greatly hampered performance and fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency did not recover until fuel injection was becoming common in the mid 1980's. When Ford brought back the "Boss 302" it had a two barrel carburetor as they attempted to provide some semblance of performance along with fuel efficiency. Amazingly, it worked. I am in full agreement with Tim Cleland on this one. In addition I disagree about the fuel efficiency increases in the 70s following the Oil turn off of OPEC in 1973. The emissions laws of the times greatly hampered performance and fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency did not recover until fuel injection was becoming common in the mid 1980′s.

When Ford brought back the “Boss 302″ it had a two barrel carburetor as they attempted to provide some semblance of performance along with fuel efficiency. Amazingly, it worked.

]]> By: ChuckL http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-36664 ChuckL Tue, 24 Nov 2009 05:07:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-36664 I am in full agreement with Tim Cleland on this one. In addition I disagree about the fuel efficiency increases in the 70s following the Oil turn off of OPEC in 1973. The emissions laws of the times greatly hampered performance and fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency did not recover until fuel injection was becoming common in the mid 1980's. When Ford brought back the "Boss 302" it had a two barrel carburetor as they attempted to provide some semblance of performance along with fuel efficiency. Amazingly, it worked. I am in full agreement with Tim Cleland on this one. In addition I disagree about the fuel efficiency increases in the 70s following the Oil turn off of OPEC in 1973. The emissions laws of the times greatly hampered performance and fuel efficiency. Fuel efficiency did not recover until fuel injection was becoming common in the mid 1980′s.

When Ford brought back the “Boss 302″ it had a two barrel carburetor as they attempted to provide some semblance of performance along with fuel efficiency. Amazingly, it worked.

]]> By: Tim Cleland http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-12772 Tim Cleland Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:18:54 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-12772 Looking at those manufacturers' numbers, some things to consider: 1) Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Volkswagen, and BMW have no offerings in the full-size pickup/SUV category (which is unfair in a sense...if you need one of those vehicles, you have to buy from another manufacturer...lowering that manufacturer's numbers). 2) Although Toyota and Nissan offer full-size pickups and SUVs, because they're relatively new to the class, they don't have anywhere near the market-share of the American brands. So, if GM/Ford/Chrysler stopped making full-sized pickups and SUVs, Americans would buy up all the Tundras, Sequoias, Armadas and Titans, and Toyota's and Nissan's mpg numbers would plummet. 3) Only Toyota, GM, Ford, and Chrysler offer anything in the "Large Sedans" market class (BMW, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, etc. offer "Luxury Sedans" (as do the American brands) which is a different class and they sell a lot fewer of them because of cost). Again, this skews numbers downward for these manufacturers. 4) By offering a "Large Sedan", those manufacturers are giving consumers an alternative to buying an SUV (and large sedans generally get better gas mileage than all but the smallest SUVs). Looking at those manufacturers’ numbers, some things to consider:

1) Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Volkswagen, and BMW have no offerings in the full-size pickup/SUV category (which is unfair in a sense…if you need one of those vehicles, you have to buy from another manufacturer…lowering that manufacturer’s numbers).

2) Although Toyota and Nissan offer full-size pickups and SUVs, because they’re relatively new to the class, they don’t have anywhere near the market-share of the American brands. So, if GM/Ford/Chrysler stopped making full-sized pickups and SUVs, Americans would buy up all the Tundras, Sequoias, Armadas and Titans, and Toyota’s and Nissan’s mpg numbers would plummet.

3) Only Toyota, GM, Ford, and Chrysler offer anything in the

“Large Sedans” market class (BMW, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, etc. offer “Luxury Sedans” (as do the American brands) which is a different class and they sell a lot fewer of them because of cost). Again, this skews numbers downward for these manufacturers.

4) By offering a “Large Sedan”, those manufacturers are giving consumers an alternative to buying an SUV (and large sedans generally get better gas mileage than all but the smallest SUVs).

]]> By: Tim Cleland http://gas2.org/2009/11/23/new-epa-fuel-economy-numbers-ford-and-gm-show-the-most-gains/#comment-36663 Tim Cleland Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:18:00 +0000 http://gas2.org/?p=4167#comment-36663 Looking at those manufacturers' numbers, some things to consider: 1) Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Volkswagen, and BMW have no offerings in the full-size pickup/SUV category (which is unfair in a sense...if you need one of those vehicles, you have to buy from another manufacturer...lowering that manufacturer's numbers). 2) Although Toyota and Nissan offer full-size pickups and SUVs, because they're relatively new to the class, they don't have anywhere near the market-share of the American brands. So, if GM/Ford/Chrysler stopped making full-sized pickups and SUVs, Americans would buy up all the Tundras, Sequoias, Armadas and Titans, and Toyota's and Nissan's mpg numbers would plummet. 3) Only Toyota, GM, Ford, and Chrysler offer anything in the "Large Sedans" market class (BMW, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, etc. offer "Luxury Sedans" (as do the American brands) which is a different class and they sell a lot fewer of them because of cost). Again, this skews numbers downward for these manufacturers. 4) By offering a "Large Sedan", those manufacturers are giving consumers an alternative to buying an SUV (and large sedans generally get better gas mileage than all but the smallest SUVs). Looking at those manufacturers’ numbers, some things to consider:

1) Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Volkswagen, and BMW have no offerings in the full-size pickup/SUV category (which is unfair in a sense…if you need one of those vehicles, you have to buy from another manufacturer…lowering that manufacturer’s numbers).

2) Although Toyota and Nissan offer full-size pickups and SUVs, because they’re relatively new to the class, they don’t have anywhere near the market-share of the American brands. So, if GM/Ford/Chrysler stopped making full-sized pickups and SUVs, Americans would buy up all the Tundras, Sequoias, Armadas and Titans, and Toyota’s and Nissan’s mpg numbers would plummet.

3) Only Toyota, GM, Ford, and Chrysler offer anything in the

“Large Sedans” market class (BMW, Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, etc. offer “Luxury Sedans” (as do the American brands) which is a different class and they sell a lot fewer of them because of cost). Again, this skews numbers downward for these manufacturers.

4) By offering a “Large Sedan”, those manufacturers are giving consumers an alternative to buying an SUV (and large sedans generally get better gas mileage than all but the smallest SUVs).

]]>