CAFE Footprint Formula Explained
Published May 5, 2008
Last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced its new formula to calculate fuel efficiency standards based on the footprint of vehicle lines—rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. The proposed rules mean that Porsche vehicles will have to reach 41.3 mpg by 2015, while Chrysler’s target is 33.6 mpg. HybridCars.com interviewed John DeCicco, senior fellow for automotive issues at Environmental Defense, to get a better understanding of the logic of the new rules.
NHTSA is taking public comments over the new two months. According to Automotive News, the Bush administration plans to adopt the new rules before the end of the year.
HybridCars.com: The baseline for the new CAFE laws is 35 mpg by 2020. Beyond that, things start to get complicated.
John Decicco: Thirty-five mpg is the overall average of cars and trucks. Each manufacturer is going to have anywhere between one and three different standards they have to meet, based on their fleets. The three different kinds of fleets—and this one of the key things that the domestic automakers sought to preserve—are domestic car fleets, imported car fleets, and light truck fleets.
What’s the rationale for breaking it up between domestic and import?
If you roll back the clock to 1975 during the time of the first oil shock, most of domestic production was cars and it was classic boatmobiles. Truck share was right around 20 percent or less and it was mostly pickups. The SUV as we know it today had really not been invented. The minivan had not been invented. The UAW in particular was very worried that if import and domestic fleets weren’t treated separately, then automaker would outsource small car production to Asian countries in order to counterbalance their big car production if it was all averaged together in one fleet.
Were the mpg targets different for those two?
No, the targets were historically identical. Now, the targets vary based on the new footprint formula. There are a couple of rationales for the footprint-based formula. The most fundamental but understated rationale is the distinction between full-line and limited-line manufacturers, which again is a Big Three versus Asian issue. A footprint-based standard essentially sets a lower standard for larger vehicles, where largeness is measured by footprint: wheelbase times track width. A manufacturer whose fleet has a greater share of larger vehicles will get a lower standard, so that provides a relative advantage for say, General Motors or Ford versus Honda or Toyota.
This is weighted by number of units sold?
Yes, it’s all sales-weighted. It’s basically a sales-weighted average footprint that determines the standard, under the new proposal.
When you get the final numbers, you get a range—like Porsche being required to hit 41.3 miles per gallon, all the way down to Chrysler’s target of 33.6 mpg.
It makes intuitive sense. Porsche—think about the 911 and the Boxster—has a small footprint. You see that their standard is close to Suzuki’s, even though they’re in very different segments. For the footprint, you take the car, drop it in the sand, lift it up, and see where the four tire points are.
Email
Print
Digg
del.icio.usMost Popular Pages
Free Email Newsletter Sign-up
All the latest news in a free and engaging bundle. Totally free!
I can argue on both sides of this. Surely, you can't require GM who has large cars and trucks, to equal the mileage of Suzuki.
On the other hand, if we want to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, we need to encourage reduction in the size of vehicles. The CAFE approach does not appear to do this.
However, it doesn't matter what CAFE does. When gas exceeds $5/gallon (and it will within the next year or so), GM won't be able to sell full size SUV's getting less than 25 mpg. They will need to downsize and improve mileage of all their vehicles.
The old Cafe standards were a joke, and the new Cafe standards are a joke. The technology that will improve gas mileage is the hybrid electric drive under the new standard, just as fuel injection improved mileage under the old standard.
Have any CAFE standards ever been enforced?
This seems like the wrong type of government interference to me.
I hate tio suggest it, but why not just develop a tax on carbon emmissions, or a tax on fuel economy, or a tax on vehicle weight?The states do the vehicle weight tax on 18 wheelers already - to pay for road use.
Everybody hates taxes, but isn't the CAFE standards a form of tax anyway? If the manufacturers don't meet the standards they get fined (taxed).
What good is a Corvette or Porsche if it cannot perform?
If big pickups and SUVs are taxed so that only businesses can afford them then the mission is accomplished. If people want fuel consuming vehicles make them pay through the nose. That will leave a market for Porsches and other performance vehicles (and pickups and SUVs, but it would be a much smaller market.
I agree with Need2Change - that as gas prices rise the consumer will select more efficient vehicles.
It is too bad so many Americans think they need big SUVs and want to blame the oil companies for the high price of fuel. The rest of the world is buying more oil and we'll need to consider that when making our vehicle choices.
Dumbbells
the next thing u will see is hippo size guzzlers or better still super long & wide cars with low seating position & passenger legs stretched flat big footprint
"What good is a Corvette or Porsche if it cannot perform?"
A properly designed EV can blow the doors off those cars.
I agree. Once gas prices gets near $5.00 a gallon. The Big Three will essentially be forced to design and make more fuel-efficient vehicles if only to keep up with the demand for such vehicles. $3.20 - $3.99 has already triggered a switch to smaller more fuel-efficient cars by consumers.
IN & NC voters: Don't vote for short term, useless solutions to resolve the issue with gas prices, vote for the guy who's going to give the truth to ya straight and who will invest in longer term solutions.
legislation is irrelevent - its the gas price, stoopid
A few replies:
To Gerald Shields: I voted early in NC. Go Obama, Go Obama, Defeat Panderer, Go Obama.
To MoisheK: This will be the end of wheels to the corners for full line auto makers. What a crock for determining a vehicle's class. Make a few classes and determine CAFE's for each class if you must.
To Shines: I would love to see a carbon tax. Make it large, but take the first bit of it and make it a income tax credit. So people who use very little fuel, get a big break. People who use a lot get hit hard. The income tax credit for business use would have to be large to be fair.
To the article: If we all drove smaller vehicles, we would all be safer. Small cars do better in single vehicle crashes. Make driving a large vehicle (>4500) require a commercial drivers license and require a five year good driving record to get a commercial license. This would save a lot of teenager's lives.
I know, never going to happen, but it should.
Unfortunately, CAFE standards are basically a joke and redendered completely pointless by the prevailing gas prices -- whether they be low or, finally, high.
With low gas prices over the last 2 decades, the interviewee pointed out that basically most of the automotive research went toward more horsepower and better 0-60 times even with CAFE standards in place.
Now, the high gas prices will get people to buy truly fuel efficient cars regardless of the CAFE standards. For goodness sake, we're talking about only 33 MPG a full 12 years from now!! If gas prices aren't at $6 or more per gallon by then, I'll be shocked. And people will be thinking that 33 MPG is a joke.
Once again, Detroit is happy because they think they've pulled a fast one by having the size of the vehicle factored in. But, in reality, they've screwed themselves further by setting a standard that will be way out of touch with what the market (and planet) will demand.
Detroit did not "screw" us, the Democrats in the Congress did. Feel good legislation that does nothing was passed years ago, and has now been passed again. Everyone knows what needs to be done, create a fuel pricing structure so that the more you use, the more you pay per unit of volume. This is how we conserve water and electricity. But where is the program for fuel? Nowhere!
Post a new comment