New Vehicles Must Average 40 MPG By 2026, Up From 28 MPG (apnews.com) 272
New vehicles sold in the U.S. will have to average at least 40 miles per gallon of gasoline in 2026, up from about 28 mpg, under new federal rules unveiled Friday that undo a rollback of standards enacted under President Donald Trump. The Associated Press reports: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said its new fuel economy requirements are the strongest to date and the maximum the industry can achieve over the time period. They will reduce gasoline consumption by more than 220 billion gallons over the life of vehicles, compared with the Trump standards. They're expected to decrease carbon dioxide emissions -- but not as much as some environmentalists want -- and raise new vehicle prices in an industry already pressed by inflation and supply chain issues. For the current model year, standards enacted under Trump require the fleet of new vehicles to get just under 28 miles per gallon in real-world driving. The new requirements increase gas mileage by 8% per year for model years 2024 and 2025 and 10% in the 2026 model year.
Moot (Score:2)
...the next Republican President will just cancel the edict.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. What should've been done instead is legislative effort to actually make it into a law, while democrats control all legislative branches and executive branch.
40 or 49 mpg? (Score:2)
Most new stories are saying the new 2026 standard will be 40 mpg, but some are saying 49 mpg. The NHTSA page [nhtsa.gov] says 49 mpg. Then again, the Title 49.B.V.531.5 standard [ecfr.gov] says 43.1 mpg. Lots of confusing numbers.
How it works (Score:3)
Here's how this works. The carmakers do not and cannot readily make ICE cars any more efficient. Instead, in order to increase fleet AVERAGE fuel efficiency, they need to sell a larger fraction of EV and hybrid cars. The price of EV's is limited below by cost of production, so demand is limited. So, the only way the carmakers have is to reduce the number of ICE vehicles they sell, which they can do either by increasing price or reducing production.
So, unless you can afford an EV, you will simply be paying a higher price for your car, and/or waiting longer to get one.
Re: (Score:3)
Follow the money (Score:3)
What happened? (Score:3)
I drove a car in 1985 that got 70 mpg on the highway. It was a 1985 Chevy (nee Suzuki) Sprint. I drove it a couple of times from my home in San Diego, the 340 miles to Las Vegas. Upon arriving in Las Vegas, I went to a gas station to fill up and was astounded that I got 70 mpg on the trip. Not to forget the car was very peppy, and I was able to hold it at 70 mph going up the 15-ish mile Halloran grade just east of Baker California. This was with me and my wife and a backseat full of luggage. Brand new, I paid a little over $5K for it, and kept it for several years. I got 40-50 mpg around town.
WHY can't we get THIS kind of mileage today? Yeah, I know, all the smog malarky that wasn't on that little car. I would have thought that hybrids could approach this kind of mileage, but they seem to be stuck around 50 on the highway. We seem to be going backwards here, folks..
Re: (Score:3)
If you got hit in that thing by one of these land beast SUVs we have everywhere now, you'd be vaporized. They'd have to pick you up with a moist towelette. A lot of it is just that cars have gotten heavier because it's expensive to make them crash safe without adding mass. Some of it is added asphalt or other weighty sound deadening material because we expect even cheap cars to be quiet. And sure, some of it is emissions, but frankly a lot of what's been done in the name of emissions makes cars more efficie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The punishment is in the cost.(trickle down economy)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except, of course, people who want safer cars. Or who want to spend that money on something else.
There are tradeoffs to higher fuel requirements, meeting them doesn't come for free. Less safe cars and thus more people hurt/killed in car accidents is one. Lost opportunity cost for what people would've otherwise chosen to spend those resources on if not forced to spend them on more expensive safety features is another.
TANSTAAFL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: hmm, sounds like quite a boost there, Butch (Score:2)
This just means more optimization for EPA testing.
Hyundai Elantra GT had EPA rating of 40 mpg but did 25mpg.
I expect more of the same.
Re:hmm, sounds like quite a boost there, Butch (Score:4, Insightful)
It means mild hybrids with small turbocharged engines, and performance cars will have V6s or less and also be hybrids. Big whoop. American automakers have been throwing the old cheap tech into the vehicles because they could. Now we're going to see the engines shrink again, but they'll still be plenty powerful.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to see how well giant land barges like a Chevy Suburban or a Nissan Titan will run with a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine. It's not going to be pretty, especially if they try to tow something with it.
Re: hmm, sounds like quite a boost there, Butch (Score:2)
People have literally made over 2500 horsepower from a turbo 2.0 4 cylinder.
200hp per liter is cake these days so you think 400hp wouldnt move an SUV that has a crappy 5.7 liter V8s making mid 300s and less torque too?
Just hate on cylinder count.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting decent fuel economy once you add enough boost to come close to those horsepower numbers.
I've owned cars with a big V8, and I've owned cars with a Twin-Turbocharged V6. They both made good power, but they both had lousy (around 25 MPG) highway mileage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you push beyond certain power and torgue limit on displacement, engines rapidly lose reliability. Mitsubishi rally car inspired engines that they used a lot in 1990s and 2000s were notorious for having too much power and torque for displacement, having major reliability issues compared to similar engines from other manufacturers of the time that had more reasonable power and torque outputs.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you get Miles Per Gallon without using imperial measurements?
Re: (Score:2)
Short answer: A US gallon has a different volume to an Imperial gallon.
Longer answer: Imperial units are part of the Imperial System of Units. In Imperial, like metric, there is a relativel small set of preferred units. In practice this means that engineers in the UK have a much smaller book of conversion factors than a US engineer.
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting decent fuel economy once you add enough boost to come close to those horsepower numbers.
True, but at least it won't be guzzling gas 100% of the time, even when it's idling.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to see how well giant land barges like a Chevy Suburban or a Nissan Titan will run with a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine. It's not going to be pretty, especially if they try to tow something with it.
They work just fine in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
That's because those engines power mostly sedans. If you want a US-style truck to do the towing, we have much bigger engines and they're usually diesel on top of it for more torque.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't wait to see how well giant land barges like a Chevy Suburban or a Nissan Titan will run with a turbocharged 4 cylinder engine ..
They work just fine in Europe.
No they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only in the sense that nobody drives this monstrosities here
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine that there will be sixes at least for some time. Not having to accommodate the eight in a model means being able to move the firewall forwards and get more interior space and/or sound deadening so being forced into that might actually be appealing to Ford in particular, who has been trying to shrink their overall package ;) for years now. The motor is tucked back far enough under the cowl that maintenance of rear cylinder equipment is a real PITA. I'd welcome two less cylinders if I could get a mi
Re: (Score:2)
Products of that nature have already been available in one form or another in the United States. The "old cheap tech" is what sells. Not that your characterization of engine technology in gas guzzlers is terribly accurate (save perhaps various Dodge muscle cars all built on the same platform).
Re: hmm, sounds like quite a boost there, Butch (Score:2)
Now ask them to do any major work.
Servicing is so easy you should be doing it yourself if you had half a clue.
Local garage here for an engine swap on two identical VWs.. Wouldn't start. They had to pay the dealer almost as much again to 'code' the engine to the new chassis.. Took 5 minutes with their 'special' computer, but impossible without it.
Re: (Score:2)
They had to pay the dealer almost as much again to 'code' the engine to the new chassis.. Took 5 minutes with their 'special' computer, but impossible without it.
It's almost as if you believe there's no way to change that.
Believe it or not, "Right to repair" laws are starting be passed.
Re:hmm, sounds like quite a boost there, Butch (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. That is a 40% increase over the REDUCED rate. What, you think they suddenly forgot how to make the vehicles. Originally the rule was 5% increase every year. Trump cut it down to 1.5%, Biden's rule exactly undid Trump's garbage.
The actual numbers are a 20% over 4 years, which the industry said they could do. Trump lowered the numbers so much that when we restored them to what they were before, it now looks like a 40% increase.
Any company that believed Trump will be in trouble. But the companies involved complained about his crap. None of them took his rules seriously. They all planned for this and will be able to make it.
Mainly by creating all electric vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
If the industry said they could do it, then why would they need a law (since when does the president get to write laws)?
If the better gas milage really is more economical, then why would customers need a law (isn't Congress exclusively supposed to write the laws)?
Mainly by creating all electric vehicles.
Ah, there it is: It's actually a tax on poor people.
Re: (Score:2)
then why would they need a law (since when does the president get to write laws)?
Not a law. A regulation. Congress has the power to delegate particular power to an independent agency. Congress indicates a broad mandate and the agency is to implement the minor details to that mandate. Whenever an independent agency does any kind of regulation, they do so by indicating, "by the power vested to us by Congressional law XX USC xx.xxx.xx" and then towards the end indicate "as an agency acting with the authority of the President of the United States we place this regulation in effect/comma
Re: (Score:2)
If the industry said they could do it, then why would they need a law
We can do a lot of great things. What we however *will* do is the bare minimum in the goal of maximising profits. You think we removed lead from petrol because of the kindness of CEOs?
Ah, there it is: It's actually a tax on poor people.
Oh fuck off. That applies to every form of social progress in history. It's a tired lame retort.
Re:hmm, sounds like quite a boost there, Butch (Score:4)
Going to 40 mpg isn't going to be that much of a stretch. My 2012 Honda already gets 32 mile to the gallon.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. I had a 2006 Chevy Aveo. It got 32 mpg in the real world commuter duty. And it had a bog simple 4 banger, nothing fancy at all. 2500 lbs, 115 Hp. 5 speed stick, it was actually fun to drive. I only sold at after I retired because the cost of registration and insurance was more than the cost to put the extra gas in the truck.
I think the EPA mileage was 35, getting it to 40 would not be that hard.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Shit my 2004 Honda gets 40mpg in regular use, and I had it down to 45 too. Granted it's pretty small and gutless, but it's also literally 20 year old tec without any hybrid nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean unsafe? We already have cars that meet or exceed those standards. Don't be one of the maroons that buys a heavy truck for a one mile commute because you think sedans aren't safe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If only ... bring oooon the "small, unsafe cars." It's pretty fucking pathetic that 90% of Found on Road Dead's and Generic Morons' offerings are bloated land barge guzzlebus stinkin' useless vehicles and trashy trucks.
Of course, those are all light trucks, and aren't covered by this anyway. This mostly affects cars that are already small.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, a 40%+ increase in performance in four years? Good luck with that.
I expect that that means a LOT of cars that are unsafe in case of accident, and a LOT of cars that already exist being run FAR past their normal useful life....
You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact that in Europe and Asia cars that can do this have already existed for quite some time and have good safety ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this ^
It's an easy target to hit because manufacturers already hit these target years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology to do this already exists, because it's been mostly pioneered in many European nations quite a while ago. The problem is that it means moving to small, far less powerful engines with stringent systems to control power and torque vs CO2 emissions.
And selling much worse performing cars at the same or greater price is going to be the real problem. Americans really like big powerful cars. It will require a culture shift to put them into small underpowered European style sedans instead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True that top tier models sold here that don't really sell are sold as average in US.
More typical stuff sold here is 1.6l sedans. I switched to older 2.4l hatchback, and it's night and day. Both in power/torque and in tax and insurance you need to pay for it. Which is why most people buy those low power sedans.
Re: (Score:2)
It will require a culture shift to put them into small underpowered European style sedans instead.
I'm not sure where you're getting "underpowered" from.
Re: (Score:2)
From driving them my entire life.
UK Already Beats This (Score:3)
So, a 40%+ increase in performance in four years? Good luck with that.
It's hardly a challenge. The UK already had an average of 52.6 mpg for new cars back in 2020. Even allowing for the pint-sized US gallon which is only 3.8 litres vs. the Imperial Gallon's 4.5 litres that's still better than 40 mpg and that was two years ago.
Regen breaking (Score:2)
A tech savvy person claims the Climate Crisis can be solved by purchasing an automobile with regen breaking?
We are so, hosed!
Re:Bring back the CARS ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yah, they focus too much on light trucks, some of which technically don't even count as light anymore. Because that's where the biggest profit margins are. In other words, they overcharge for the trucks. Also a lot of these are bypassing the emissions rules, we should extend the rules to apply to trucks also.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody needs further reminder that you hate your country and its people.
Re: (Score:2)
The irony being that it will take years of driving that ID.4 to offset the amount of carbon it took to build the ID.4 in the first place. Also good luck actually getting a 2022 ID.4, unless VW is building them in China. Zwickau shut down at least temporarily due to parts shortages brought on by Putin's adventurism, and VW still can't build them in the United States.
Re: (Score:2)
Well they aren't going to sell vehicles that no one wants. SUVs and light trucks are what people are buying (often as luxury goods). Small cars are certainly available but just don't sell that well.
Maybe the NTSB needs to be involved with these mandates as it is their regulations that have led to the current size and weight of vehicles. Crash test standards over the years have dramatically added to the weight of vehicles. Even lighter-weight small cars are significantly heavier than they were in the lat
Re: (Score:2)
Higher fuel prices will force people to want different things. What people "want" is largely driven by economics and advertising.
The weight thing is more-or-less a BS excuse ... there are 2000-3000 lb range cars that meet minimum nancy standards in the US. The problem is that Americans are generally cowards who think "huger is safer", so the market dictates bloat.
Re: Bring back the CARS ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are there any 1400lb cars though? something like the Daihatsu mira [wikipedia.org] from the 90's?
Youth and frugal adults that care about saving over appearances would grab them.
Re: (Score:2)
If the US wants to get serious on energy consumption it needs to impose increasingly stringent standards on combustion vehicles, combi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
posting to unmod, I modded you funny and you got flamebait. I do not know why.
But I agree with you, this move to large vehicles is quite bad, some are so large they cannot even fit in a parking spot.
And while I am at it, these days, it is almost impossible to find a car with a manual tranmision in this dumb country.
Re: (Score:2)
Other than electric cars, maybe Found on Road Dead and Generic Morons might actually start selling cars, vs just overweight, oversize SUVs for cowards afraid of muh tractor-trailers.
The Ford Maverick Hybrid gets 40 MPG right now, and its a TRUCK. The technology has been available for years, but instead of making things go farther, the Big 3 focused on making things go faster. Instead of Viagra on wheels, the Big 3 could just focus on making things better. For years, the Big 3 have avoided making compact or midsize trucks, but Ford has had to stop orders of the Maverick because overwhelming demand. Instead of pandering to the penis-extension crowd and vapid, status-seeking suburbanites,
Re:Forget reliability (Score:5, Insightful)
and yet, Honda and Toyota will do it, while GM... is GM
Re: (Score:2)
You're joking, right? Look how many models Toyota sells in the United States that get well below 40 mpg.
https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... [fueleconomy.gov]
The 4Runner and Tundra will be DOA, unless the EPA lets Toyota continue to sell small numbers of ultra-efficient vehicles to offset massive sales of larger gas-guzzlers.
https://pressroom.toyota.com/t... [toyota.com]
In 2021, Toyota sold ~59k Prius units vs ~144k 4Runners. Add in the Tacoma and Tundra sales, plus the non-hybrid Rav4, and Toyota's MPG is dropping like a rock already.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those hybrids are low-volume sales units intended to bring fleet fuel economy numbers up to meet CAFE standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you make people stop buying the cars you hate so much?
No.
But you're quick to ask the government to do it for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When there's a truck coming at you, it's not cowardice to try to get out of the way. It's not being suicidal.
Re: (Score:2)
such large increase in fleet mileage would mean drop in reliability
Based on what? Cars are more reliable than they ever have been in the past despite the evil electronics stuff.
Can I interest you in Stoneagedot? It's News for nerds, stuff that matters before they invented electricity. Right up your alley it seems.
Re: (Score:2)
How? Will it not require engineers?
Will it not sell new vehicles?
Would a return to 10mpg bring more jobs?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Unironically this would be a good option if not for size of US. Just make sure trains have enough train cars for moving passenger vehicles and have enough rail network to function as hubs for long range transport from which cars would serve as "last hundred miles".
The problem is that country is just too big and too sparsely populated for this solution to be workable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they can't afford 50k+ vehicles en masse anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody sane wants to drive the Geo Metro.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly we have just outlawed the ICE via a executive order.
Have we? My 2019 Ford Focus 1.5 TDCi manages 70MPG (Imperial gallon). My previous car, a 2010 2.0 TDCi Ford Mondeo (equivalent to Taurus in the USA) managed 55-60MPG (imperial gallon) as did the 2004 Mondeo before it. I've not had a petrol car that's managed as low as 25MPG US since the early 1990s.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they'll just vote Democrats out of office and beat the tar out of people like you. Hell I don't even like F150s but you are such an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't speak for others, but personally I prefer older cars because I can work on mine, and if there's something I can't figure out, I can take it to a neighbourhood mechanic to fix. Almost nothing requires me to go to the dealer to get fixed or replaced.
On newer cars, good luck with keeping them maintained without brand's certified repair shop/dealership. A lot of stuff is basically DRM'd from repairs.
Re: (Score:2)
People will hold onto their older cars that much longer because they can't afford to upgrade.
Why won't they be able to afford something more fuel efficient for the same price as something less fuel efficient?
Keeping the old clunker going (Score:2)
For some, doing repairs on an old gas-guzzling car along with paying for expensive gas might be cheaper than the payments on a new EV or more efficient gasoline car. Especially since all newer cars of the same size may be more fuel efficient, but their prices have gone through the roof.
This is about EVs (Score:2)
No engineering resources were wasted in the making of this Slashdot post.
The intended consequence of the rule change is indeed to accelerate the transition to EVs. EVs count towards the new rules.