# Light

- Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2010

# Light

- Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2010

Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division
and Transportation and Climate Division

Office of Transportation and Air Quality U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

NOTICE

This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or positions. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues using data that are currently available. The purpose in the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public of technical developments.

EPA-420-R-10-023
November 2010

## Table of Contents

Page

I. Executive Summary

............................................................................................................. i

II. Introduction

......................................................................................................................... 1

III. Fuel Economy Trends

......................................................................................................... 5

IV. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trends

................................................................................... 17

V. Fuel Economy Trends by Vehicle Type, Size, and Weight

.............................................. 31

VI. Fuel Economy Technology Trends

................................................................................... 47

VII. Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make

...................................................................... 75

VIII. Charact eristics of Fleets Comprising Existing Fuel

- Efficient Vehicles

........................... 84

IX. References

......................................................................................................................... 92

## Table of Contents, continued

Appendices

APPENDIX A

-- Database Details and Calculation Methods

APPENDIX B

-- Model Year 2010 Nameplate Fuel Economy Listings

APPENDIX C

-- Fuel Economy Distribution Data

APPENDIX D

-- Fuel Economy D ata Stratified by Vehicle Type

APPENDIX E

-- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Size

APPENDIX F

-- Car Fuel Economy Data Stratified by EPA Car Class

APPENDIX G

-- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Weight Class

APPENDIX H

-- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Drive Type

APPENDIX I

-- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Transmission Type

APPENDIX J

-- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Cylinder Count

APPENDIX K

-- Fuel Economy Dat a Stratified by Vehicle Type, Engine Type and Valves Per Cylinder

APPENDIX L

-- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Manufacturer

APPENDIX M

-- Fuel Economy by Manufacturer, Vehicle Type and Weight Class

APPENDIX N

-- Fuel Economy and Ton- MPG by Manufacturer, Vehicle Type and Size

APPENDIX O

-- MY2010 Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type, Weight and Manufacturer

APPENDIX P

-- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Manufacturer and Vehicle Type

APPENDIX Q

-- Characteristics of Fleets Comprised of Fuel Efficient Vehicles

## I. Executive Summary

Introduction

This report summarizes key trends in carbon dioxide (CO 2 

## ) emissions, fuel economy and technology usage related to model year (MY) 1975 through 2010 light -duty vehicles sold in the United States. Lightduty vehicles are those vehicles that EPA classifies as cars or light -duty trucks (sport utility vehicles

, minivans, vans, and pickup trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings up to 8500 pounds). The data in this report supersede the data in previous reports in this series.

Earlier this year, EPA , in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) , p ublish ed the first

- ever light

- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards, under the Clean Air Act, for MY2012 -2016 (75 Federal Register 25324

, May 7, 2010 ). These standards are part of a joint,

harmonized National P rogram that also includes corpor ate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for the same years established by NHTSA . By MY2016, the average industry

- wide compliance level s are projected

to be 250 grams per mile (g/mi) CO 2 

## and 34.1 miles per gallon (mpg) CAFE . The 250 g/mi CO 2 

## compliance level is equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all CO 2 

## emissions reductions are achieved through fuel economy improvements. On May 21, 2010, the President announced that EPA and NHTSA would be extending the
National Program for MY2017 and beyond, and on October 13, 2010 the agencies published a Notice of Intent to propose new greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards by the fall of 2011 (75 Federal Register 62739). Accordingly, t his is the second year that Section IV of this report includes tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions data in addition to the fuel economy dat a that have been the cornerstone of this report since 1975. Tailpipe

CO 2 

## emissions data represent 90 to 95 percent of total light- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

Final MY2009 data are based on formal end-of- year CAFE reports submitted by automakers to EPA and will not change. MY2009 was a year of considerable turmoil in the automotive market. Due primarily to the economic recession, light- duty vehicle production totalled 9.2 million units, the lowest of any year since this database began in 1975. This represente d a 34% reduction in total vehicle production compared to MY2008, and a 40% drop since MY2007. The Car Allowance Rebate System (or “Cash for Clunkers” ) likely impacted consumer demand. Fuel prices remained high relative to historic levels , though lower than in the previous three years. The turmoil introduced by these factors is demons trated by the fact that the fin al
MY2009 values for CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy in this report are 25 g/mi lower and 1.3 mpg higher, respectively, than the projected MY2009 values that were provided in last year’s report.

The preliminary MY2010 data in this report are based on confidential pre-model year production volume projections provided to EPA by automakers during the MY2009 market turmoil. Accordingly, there

is uncertainty in the MY2010 data (for example, t otal projected vehicle production is significantly higher

than actual sales as reported by trade sources). T his report will often focus on the final MY200 9 data , rather
than on the preliminary MY2010 data.

The great majority of the CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy values in this report are adjusted (ADJ)

EPA "real

- world" estimates provided to consumers and based on EPA’s 5- cycle test methodology . Appendix

A provides a det ailed explanation of the method used to calculate these adjusted fuel economy and CO 2 

## values , which last changed with the 2007 version of this report. On August 30, 2010, EPA and NHTSA proposed to revise the fuel economy labels to include, among other things, tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions levels, but

i

## this proposal does not affect the methodology for calculating the adjusted CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy levels provided in this report (75 Federal Register 58078, September 23, 2010) . In a few cases , the report also provides unadjusted EPA laboratory ( LAB) values, which are based on a 2 -cycle test methodology and

used for automaker compliance with CO 2 

## emissions and CAFE standards. All combinations of adjusted or laboratory, and CO 2 

## emissions or fuel economy values, may be reported as city, highway, or, most commonly, as composite (combined city/highway, or COMP).

Since 1975, overall new light -duty vehicle CO 2 

## emissions have moved through four phases:

1. A rapid decrease from 1975 through 1981;

2. A slower decrease until reaching a valley in 1987;

3. A gradual increase until 2004; and

4. A decrease for the six years beginning in 2005 , with the largest decrease in 2009

.

The fleetwide average adjusted (or real world ) MY2009 light -duty vehicle CO 2 

## em issions value is
397 g/mi, which is a 27 g/mi reduction relative to MY2008 and an all

- time low since the database began in

1975. The projected fleetwide average MY20 10 level is 395 g/mi. This projected MY2010 value is essentially the same as the final MY2 009 value, and it is impossible to know, at this time, whether the actual MY2010 value will be higher or lower than the MY2009 value.

Since fuel economy has an inverse relationship to tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions, overall new light -duty vehicle fuel economy h as also moved through four phases , with the trends in fuel economy mirroring those

of CO 2 

## emissions :

1. A rapid increase from 1975 through 1981;

2. A slower increase until reaching its peak in 1987;

3. A gradual decline until 2004; and

4. An increase for the six years beginning in 2005, with the largest increase in 2009.

The fleetwide average adjusted MY2009 light -duty vehicle fuel economy is 22.4 mpg, an increase of

1.4 mpg since MY2008, and the highest since the database began in 1975. The projected fl eetwide average

MY20 10 value is 2 2.5 mpg. Again, i t is impossible to predict whether actual MY20 10 fuel economy will be higher or lower than the preliminary MY2010 value

.

Because the underlying methodology for generating unadjusted laboratory CO 2 

## emissio ns and fuel economy values has not changed since this series began in the mid -1970s, these values provide an excellent basis for comparing long- term CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy trends from the perspective of vehicle design, apart from the factors that a ffect real

- world driving that are reflected in the adjusted values. These unadjusted laboratory values form the basis for automaker compliance with CO 2 

## emissions and CAFE standards. Laboratory composite values represent a harmonic average of 55 percent c ity and 45 percent highway operation, or "55/45." For 2005 and later model years, unadjusted laboratory composite CO 2 

## emissions values are, on average, about 20 percent lower than adjusted composite CO 2 

## values, and unadjusted laboratory composite fuel economy values are, on average, about 25 percent greater than adjusted composite fuel economy values. The final MY2009 unadjusted laboratory composite values of 3 16 g/mi and

28.2 mpg represent a record low for CO 2 

## emissions and an all -time high for fuel econ omy since the database began in 1975.

ii

## NHTSA has the overall responsibility for the CAFE program. For 2010 , the CAFE standards are

27.5 mpg for cars and 23.5 mpg for light trucks (for light trucks, individual manufacturers can choose between the fixed, unreformed 23.5 mpg standard and a reformed vehicle footprint-based standard which

y ields different compliance target s for each manufacturer). In March 2009, NHTSA promulgated new footprint- based CAFE stand ards for MY2011. These standards projected averag e MY2011 industry- wide compliance levels of 30.2 mpg for cars (including a 27.8 mpg alternative minimum standard for domestic cars for all manufacturers) and 24.1 mpg for light trucks. Because of real world adjustments, alternative fuel vehicle credits, a nd test procedure adjustments, fleetwide NHTSA CAFE values are a minimum of 25 percent higher than EPA adjusted fuel economy values.

Characteristics of Light Duty Vehicles for Six Model Years

1975 1987 1998 2008 2009 2010

Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions (g/mi) 681 405 442 424 397 395
Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG) 13.1 22.0 20.1 21.0 22.4 22.5

Weight (lb) 4060 3221 3744 4085 3917 4009

Horsepower 137 118 171 219 208 220

0 to 6 0 Time (sec.) 14.1 13.1 10.9 9.7 9.7 9.5

Percent Truck Production 19% 28% 45% 47% 40% 41%

Percent Front

- Wheel Drive 5% 58% 56% 54% 63% 59%

Percent Four

- Wheel Drive 3% 10% 20% 27% 24% 24%

Percent Four

- Cylinder Engine 20% 55% 36% 38% 51% 48%

Percent Eight

- Cylinder Engine 62% 15% 18% 17% 12% 16%

Percent Multi

- Valve Engine

- 11% 41% 76% 84% 86%

Percent Variable Valve Timing

- - - 58% 72% 86%

Percent Cylinder Deactivation

- - - 7% 7% 7%

Percent Gasoline Direct Injec tion

- - - 2.3% 4.2% 8.5%

Percent Turbocharger

- - 1.4% 3.0% 3.3% 3.2%

Percent Manual Transmission 23% 29% 13% 5% 5% 7%

Percent Continuously Variable Transmission

- - 0% 8% 10% 10%

Percent Hybrid

- - - 2.5% 2.3% 4.3%

Percent Diesel 0.2% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.5% 0.4%



### iii

## Highlight #1: MY2009 had the lowest CO 2 

## e mission rate and h ighest f uel economy, partly due
to the economic conditions that led to the lowest vehicle production , since the database began in 1975.

MY2009 adjusted composite CO 2 

## e missions were 397 g/mi , a record low for the post-1975

database. The 27 g/mi (6 percent ) decrease compared to MY2008 wa s the largest yearly CO 2 

## decrease since 1981. MY2009 adjusted composite fuel economy wa s 22.4 mpg, an all- time high since the database began in 1975, and the 1.4 mpg (7 percent) increase over MY2008 wa s the biggest f uel economy increase since 1980. Vehicle production totalled 9.2 million units, the lowest for any year in the database. Projected MY2010 values of 395 g/mi CO 2 

## emissions an d

22.5 mpg fuel economy, reflecting slight improvements over MY 2009, are uncertain given the market turmoil when these projections were provided to EPA



## .

The previous records for lowest CO 2 

## emissions and highest fuel economy were in MY1987, and the

recent improvements in CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy reverse an opposite trend from MY 1987 through

MY 2004. Compared to the previous best year of MY1987, MY2009 CO 2 

## emissions were 8 g/mi ( 2 percent ) lower, and fuel economy was 0.4 mpg (2 percent) higher. From MY 2004 to MY 2009, CO 2 

## emissions decreased by 64 g /mi ( 14 percent), and fuel economy increased by 3.1 mpg (16 percent).

Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions by Model Year Adjusted Fuel Economy by Model Year

700



### Cars Both TrucksAdjustedFuelEconomy(mpg) 24

22

20

18

16

14

12 

### Cars

Both

TrucksAdjustedCO2(g/mi) 600

500

400

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### Model Year Model Year



## MY2009 unadjusted laboratory composite values, which reflect vehicle design considerations only and do not account for the many factors which affect real world CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy performance, were also at an all

- time low for CO 2 

## emissions (3 16 g/mi) and a record h igh for fuel economy (2 8.2 mpg) since the database began in 1975. These values are 27 g/mi (8 percent) lower and 2.3 mpg (9 percent) higher than the previous best values in MY1987.

iv

## Highlight #2: MY2009 truck market share dropped by 8 percent to its lowes t level since 1995.

Light trucks, which include SUVs, minivans/vans, and pickup trucks, accounted for 40 percent of all light

- duty vehicle sales in MY2009 , an 8 percent decrease since MY 2008 and a 12 percent decrease since the peak in MY2004. Truck marke t share is now at the lowest level since MY 1995.
The MY20 10 light truck market share is projected to be 4 1 percent, based on pre-model year production projections by automakers.

Historically, growth in the light truck market was primarily driven by the explosive increase in the market share of SUVs (EPA does not have a separate category for crossover vehicles and classifies many crossover vehicles as SUVs). The SUV market share increased from 6 percent of the overall new light -duty

vehicle market in MY1 990 to a peak of about 30 percent in MY 2004, dropping to 25 percent in MY2009. By comparison, market shares for both vans and pickup trucks have declined since 1990, with van market share falling by over half from 10 percent to 4 percent . The increased overall market share of light trucks, which in recent years have averaged 120 – 140 g/mi higher CO 2 

## emissions and 6 – 7 mpg lower fuel

economy than cars, accounted for much of the increase in CO 2 

## emissions and decline in fuel economy of the overall new ligh t-duty vehicle fleet from MY1987 through MY2004.



## Production Sha re by Vehicle Type

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%



### Model YearProductionShare 

## Car

SUV

Van

Pickup

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### v

## Highlight #3: MY2009 had the largest annual decrease in vehicle weight and power since 1980.

MY2009 vehicle weight averaged 3917 pounds, the lowest averag e weight since MY 2001. This reflects a decrease of 168 pounds ( 4 percent) from MY 2008, and the largest annual decrease since

MY 1980. The average truck weight dropped by about 100 pounds, the average car weight dropped by about 60 pounds, and the remainin g difference was due to lower truck market share. In MY2009, the average vehicle power was 208 horsepower, the lowest value since MY 2003. Average horsepower dropped by 11 horsepower (5 percent), the largest annual decrease since

MY 1980, with most of the decrease explained by cars having lowe r horsepower levels and trucks having a lower market share. The f our- cylinder engine market share grew from 38 percent in MY2008 to 51 percent in MY2009 (and comprised nearly 70 percent of the car market ).
Estimated M Y2009 0- to

- 60 acceleration time remained constant at 9.7 seconds.



## Weight, Horsepower and 0

- to

- 60 Performance

3400 3600 3800 4000

120 140 160 180 200

10 11 12 13 14 

### Weight (lb)

Horsepower

0 to 60 Time (seconds)

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

### Model Year



## Vehicle weight and performance are two of the most important engineering parameters that help

determine a vehicle's CO 2 

## emissions and fuel e conomy. All other factors being equal, higher vehicle weight (which supports new options and features) and faster acceleration performance (e.g., lower 0- to

- 60 mile -per

hour acceleration time), both increase a vehicle's CO 2 

## emissions and decrease fuel eco nomy. Automotive engineers are constantly developing more advanced and efficient vehicle technologies. From MY 1987 through MY 2004, on a fleetwide basis, this technology innovation was utilized exclusively to support

market -driven attributes other than CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy, such as vehicle weight, performance, and utility. Beginning in MY2005, technology has been used to increase both fuel economy (which has
reduced CO 2 

## emissions) and performance, while keeping vehicle weight relatively constant

.

MY2010 projections are for an increase in both vehicle weight and performance , but these projections are uncertain.

vi

## Highlight #4: Nearly every manufacturer increased fuel economy in MY2009, resulting in l ower CO 2 

## emission rate s.

All but one of the 14 highest -selling manufacturers increased fuel economy (which also reduced

CO 2 

## g/mi emission rates ) from MY2008 to MY200 9 , the last two years for which we have definitive data, and 7 manufacturers increased fuel economy by 1 mpg or more.



## Adjusted CO 2 

## emi ssions and fuel economy values are shown for the 14 highest- selling manufacturers, which accounted for 99 percent of the market in MY2009. Manufacturers are defined in accordance with current NHTSA CAFE guidelines, and these definitions are applied retroa ctively for the entire database back to 1975 for purposes of maintaining integrity of trends over time. In MY2009 , the last year for which EPA has final production data, Toyot a had the lowest fleetwide adjusted composite CO 2 

## emissions (and highest fuel ec onomy) performance, followed by Hyundai and Honda. Chrysler , the one manufacturer that did not improve in MY2009, had the highest CO 2 

## emissions (and lowest fuel economy), followed by Daimler and Ford. Toyota had the biggest improvement in adjusted CO 2 

## (a nd fuel economy) performance from MY2008 to MY2009, with a 40 g/mi reduction in fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions (and 2.6 mpg fuel economy improvement), followed by Nissan (29 g/mi reduction in CO 2 

## emissions) and Ford (22 g/mi

reduction in CO 2 

## emissions)

.

Prelimi nary MY2010 values suggest that most manufacturers will improve further in MY2010, though these projections are uncertain and EPA will not have final data until next year's report.

MY2008–2010 Manufacturer Fuel Economy and CO 2 

## Emissions (Adjusted Com posite Values)

MY2008 MY2009 MY2010

MY2008 CO 2 MY2009 CO 2 MY2010 CO 2 Manufacturer MPG (g/mi) MPG (g/mi) MPG (g/mi)

Toyota 22.8 389 25.4 349 24.5 363
Hyundai 24.4 364 25.1 355 25.9 343

Honda 23.9 372 24.6 361 25.6 346

Kia 22.9 388 24.2 367 25.1 3 54

VW 22.3 398 23.8 379 24.6 367

Nissan 21.9 406 23.6 377 23.8 373

Mitsubishi 22.3 399 23.5 379 24.2 367

Mazda 23.1 385 23.2 383 22.7 391

Subaru 22.3 399 22.6 393 23.3 382

BMW 21.2 419 21.9 407 22.3 399

GM 19.6 452 20.6 432 20.8 427

Ford 19.3 459 2 0.3 437 20.5 434

Daimler 19.3 464 19.5 457 19.4 459
Chrysler 19.3 460 19.2 464 19.2 463

All 21.0 424 22.4 397 22.5 395



## EPA data is based on model year production, as is CAFE data. This means that year

- to

- year comparisons can be affected by longer or shorter model year designations by the manufacturers. Section VII has greater detail on the fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions for these 14 manufacturers, as well as for these manufacturers’ individual makes (i.e., brands).

vii

## Important Notes with Respect to th e Data Presented in This Report

Most of the CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy va lues in this report are adjusted composite (combined city/highway) CO 2 

## emissions or fuel economy values , consistent with the real

- world estimates for city and highway fuel economy provided to consumers on new vehicle labels, in the EPA/DOE Fuel Economy Guide,

and in EPA's Green Vehicle Guide

. These adjusted values are based on 5

- cycle testing where additional test procedures provide a more accurate representation of real world vehicle usage.

In some t ables and figures, laboratory composite (combined city/highway) CO 2 

## or fuel economy
values are also shown. These laboratory composite values are based on the 2

- cycle results from the EPA Federal Test Procedure and Highway Fuel Economy Test, which are two of the five cycles used for the adjusted CO 2 

## and fuel economy values. Because the underlying methodology for generating and reporting laboratory values has not changed since this series began in the mid -1970s, these laboratory values provide an excellent basis for comparing long- term CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy trends from the perspective of vehicle design, apart from the factors that affect real -world CO 2 

## and fuel economy that are reflected in the adjusted values. For 2005 and later model years, laboratory composite fuel economy values are, on average, about 25 percent greater than adjusted composite fuel economy values, and laboratory composite CO 2 

## emissions values are, on average, about 20 percent lower than adjusted composite CO 2 

## values.

Formal CAFE compliance data a s reported by NHTSA do not correlate precisely with either the adjusted or laboratory fuel economy values in this report. While EPA's laboratory composite fuel economy data form the cornerstone of the CAFE compliance database, NHTSA must also include credits for alternative fuel vehicles and test procedure adjustments (for cars only) in the official CAFE calculations. Accordingly, NHTSA CAFE values are at least 25 percent higher than EPA adjusted fuel economy val ues for model years 2005 through 2010.

This report supersedes all previous reports in this series . In general, users of this report should rely exclusively on data i n this latest report, which covers the years 1975 through 20 10 , and not make comparisons to data in previous reports in this series. There are two main reasons for this.

One, EPA revised the methodology for estimating real-world fuel economy values in December

2006. This is the fourth report in this series to reflect this revised real

- world fuel economy methodology, and every adjusted (ADJ) fuel economy value in this report for 1986 and later model years is lower than given in reports in this series prior to the 2007 report. Accordingly, adjusted fuel economy values for 1986 and later model years should not be compared with the corresponding values from pre-2007 reports. These new downward adjustments are phased in, linearly, beginning in 1986, and for 2005 and later model years the new adjusted composite (combined city/highway) values are, on average, about six percent lower than under the methodology previously used by EPA. See Appendix A for more in-depth discussion of th e current methodology and how it affects both the adjusted fuel economy values for individual models and the
historica l fuel economy trends database. This same methodology is used to calculate adjusted CO 2 

## emissions

values as well.

Two, when EPA changes a ma nufacturer or make definition to reflect a change in the industry's current financial arrangements, EPA makes the same adjustment in the historical database as well. This

mainta ins a consistent manufacturer/make definition over time, which allows the identification of long- term

tren ds . On the other hand, it means that the database does not necessarily reflect actual past financial arrangements. For example, the 2010 database, which includes data for the entire time series 1975 through

viii

## 2010, accounts for all Chrysler vehicles in the 1975 -2010 timeframe under the Chrysler manufacturer designation, and no longer reflec ts the fact that Chrysler was combined with Daimler for several years.

In general, car/truck classifications in this database parallel classifications made by NHTSA for CAFE purposes and EPA for vehicle emissions standards. However, this report relies on engineering judgment, and there are occasional cases where the methodology used for classifying vehicles for this report results in differences in the determination of whether a given vehicle is classified as a car or a light truck. See Appendix A for a list of these exceptions.

Vehicle population data in this repor t represent production delivered for sale in the U.S., rather than

actual sales data. Automakers submit production data in formal end-of- year CAFE compliance reports to EPA, which is the basi s for this report. Accordingly, the production data in this report may differ from sales data reported by press sources. In addition, t he data presented in this report are tabulated on a model year

basis

. In years past, manufacturers typically used a co nsistent approach toward model year designations, i.e., from fall of one year to the fall of the following year. More recently, however, many manufacturers have used a more flexible approach and it is not uncommon to see a new or redesigned model be introd uced in the spring or summer, rather than the fall. This means that a model year for an individua l vehicle can be "stretched out." Accordingly, year

- to

- year comparisons can be affected by these model year anomalies, though, these even out over a multi

- ye ar period. In addition, some of the figures in this report use three

- year moving averages that effectively smooth the trends, and these three

- year moving averages are tabulated at the midpoint. For example, the midpoint for model years 2008, 2009 , and 20 10 is MY200 9 . Figures are

based on annual data unless otherwise noted.

All of the data in this report are from vehicles certified to operate on gasoline or diesel fuel, from laboratory testing with test fuels as defined in EPA test protocols. There are no data from the very small number of vehicles that are certified to operate only on alternative fuels. The data from ethanol flexible fuel vehicles, which can operate on both an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend or gasoline or any

mixture in between, are from gasoline operation.

While CO 2 

## emissions values can be arithmetically averaged, all average fuel economy values were calculated using harmonic rather than arithmetic averaging, in order to maintain mathematical integrity. See Appendix A.

The EPA database for this report was frozen in June 2010.

Through MY2009 , the CO 2 

## emissions, fuel economy, vehicle characteristics, and vehicle production volume data used for this report were from the formal end-of- year submissions from automakers obt ained from EPA's fuel economy database that is used for CAFE compliance purposes. Accordingly, values for all model years through 2009 can be considered final.

For MY2010, EPA has exclusively used confidential pre-model year production volume projections. Accordingly, MY2010 projections are uncertain, particularly given the recent changes in the automotive marketplace driven by the economic recession

, fuel prices , and other factors. Historically, the differences

between the initial estimates based on ve hicle production projections and later, final values have ran ged between 0.4 mpg lower to 0.6 mpg higher. But, the market turmoil in MY2009 proved to be a major exception in this regard, as the final MY2009 value reported herein is 1.3 mpg higher than the preliminary

value for MY2009 in last year's report based on p rojected production volumes.

ix

## For More Information

Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through

20 10 (EPA420 -R-10-023) is available on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s (OTAQ) Web site

at:

www.epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm

Printed copies are available from the OTAQ library at:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Transportation and Air Quality Library
2000 Traverwood Dr ive Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 214-4311

A copy of the Fuel Economy Guide giving city and highway fuel economy data for individual models is

available at:

www.fueleconomy.gov

or by calling the U.S. Department of Energy at (800) 423-1363.

EPA's Green V ehicle Guide providing information about the air pollution emissions and fuel economy performance of individual models is available on EPA’s web site at:

www.epa.gov/greenvehicles

For information about the Department of Transportation (DOT) Corporate A verage Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, including a program overview, related rulemaking activities, and summaries of the fuel economy performance of individual manufacturers since 1978, see:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ fuel-economy

x

## II. Introduction

Light -duty automotive technology, carbon dioxide (CO 2 

## ) emissions, and fuel economy trends are examined here, using the latest and most complete EPA data available. Pre -2009 reports in this series [1-35] 1 

## presente d fuel economy and technology trends only, and did not include CO 2 

## emissions data. Beginning in 2009, reports [36] have included key CO 2 

## emissions summary tables as well

. When comparing data in this and previous reports, please note that revisions are ma de for some prior model years for which more complete and accurate production and fuel economy data have become available. In addition, changes have been made periodically in the way EPA calculates adjusted fuel economy values. Thus, it is not appropriat e to compare adjusted fuel economy values from this report with others in this series. Finally, manufacturer definition s also change over time to reflect changes in the financial arrangements within the automobile industry.

The EPA CO 2 

## emissions and fue l economy database used in this report was frozen in June 2010. New data beyond that used in last year's report was added for model years 2009 and 2010. Through MY2009, the CO 2 

## emissions, fuel economy, vehicle characteristics, and production volu me data used for this report cam e from the

formal end-of- year submissions from automakers obtained from EPA's database that is used for CAFE compliance purposes, and can be considered to be final. For MY2010, EPA has exclusively used confidential pre- model year production projections submitted to EPA by automakers. Vehicle population data in this report represent production delivered for sale in the U.S., rather than actual sales data. Accordingly, the vehicle production data in this report may differ from sales data reported by press sources. In addition, the data presented in this report were tabulated on a model year, not calendar year, basis. In years past, manufacturers typically used a consistent approach toward model year designations, i.e., from fall of one year to the fall of the following year. More recently, however, many manufacturers have used a more flexible approach and it is not uncommon to see a new or redesigned model be introduced in the spring or summer, rather than the fall. This means tha t a model year for an individual vehicle can be "stretched out." Accordingly, year- to

- year comparisons can be affected by these model year anomalies, though these even out over a multi-year period.

All fuel economy values in this report are production- we ighted harmonic averages (necessary to maintain mathematical integrity) and all CO 2 

## emissions values are production

- weighted arithmetic averages . In earlier reports in this series through MY2000, the only fuel economy values used in this series were the laboratory- based city, highway, and composite (combined city/highway) mpg values - the same ones that are used as the basis for compliance with the fuel economy standards and the gas guzzler tax. Since the laboratory mpg values tend to over predict the mpg achieved in actual use, adjusted mpg values are used for the Government's fuel economy information programs: the Fuel Economy Guide , the Fuel Economy Labels that are on new vehicles , and in EPA's
Green Vehicle Guide. Starting with the MY2001 report, thi s series has provided fuel economy trends in adjusted mpg values in addition to the laboratory mpg values. Now, most of the tables exclusively show the adjusted CO 2 

## and fuel economy values. To facilitate comparison with data in older reports in this seri es, a few data tables include laboratory 55/45 fuel economy values as well as the adjusted city, highway, and composite fuel economy values. In the tables, these two mpg values are called "Laboratory MPG" and "Adjusted MPG," and abbreviated "LAB" MPG

and "ADJ" MPG. These same metrics are used for CO 2 

## emissions values as well.

Where only one CO 2 

## or mpg value is presented in this report and it is not explicitly identified otherwise, it is the "adjusted composite" value. This value represents a combined city/highway CO 2 

## or fuel economy value, and is based on equations (see Appendix A) that allow a computation of adjusted city and highway values based on laboratory city and highway test values.

1 

### Numbers in brackets denote references listed in the references section of this report.

1

## It is important to note that EPA revised the methodology by w hich EPA estimates adjuste d fuel economy values in December 2006. This is the fourth report in this series to reflect this new metho dology, and every adjusted fuel economy value in this report for 1986 and later model years is lower than given in pre -2007 reports

. Accordingly, adjusted fuel economy values for 1986 and later model years should not be compared with corresponding values from older reports. These new downward adjustments are phased in, linearly, beginning in 1986, and for 2005 and later mode l years the new adjusted composite values are, on average, about six percent lower than under the methodology previously used by EPA. This same methodology is used to generate adjusted

CO 2 

## emissions values as well. See Appendix A for more in -depth discussion of this new methodology and how it affects both the adjusted CO 2 

## and fuel economy values for individual models and the historical trends database.

Data are tabulated on a model year basis, but some figures use three

- year moving averages which
effecti vely smooth the trends, and these three

- year moving averages are tabulated at their midpoint. For example, the midpoint for model years 2008, 2009, and 2010 is model year 2009 (See Table A-2, Appendix A). The fuel economy values reported by the Departmen t of Transportation (DOT) for compliance with the Corporate Average
Fuel Ec onomy (CAFE) program are higher than the data in this report for four reasons:

1. The DOT data do not include the EPA real world fuel economy adjustments for city and highway mpg;

2. The DOT data include CAFE credits for those manufacturers that produce dedicated alternative fuel vehicles and flexible fuel vehicles (credits generated through the production of flexible fuel vehicles are currently capped at 1.2 mpg per fleet);

3. Th e DOT data include credits for test procedure adjustments for cars; and

4. There are a few differences in the way vehicles are classified as cars and trucks for this report compared to the way they are classified by DOT.

Accordingly, the fuel economy va lues in this series of reports are always lower than those reported by

DOT. Table A -6, Appendix A, compares CAFE data reported by DOT with EPA adjusted and laboratory fuel economy data for MY1975-2010. Table A-7 shows a more detailed comparison for MY200 8 and MY2009, by manufacturer, of values for EPA laboratory fuel economy, alternative fuel vehicle credits, test procedure adjustment credits for cars, and NHTSA CAFE performance.

In the various appendices to this report, when there is no entry under “Mo del Year,” that means there was no production volume for the parameter in question. Also, there may be some historical technology data elements, such as carbureted fuel systems or rear wheel drive, that have been deleted from some tables because of space limitations. In these cases, technology options may not always add up to 100% for previous years in the database.

While this report contains data through MY2010, it is important to emphasize that the data through
MY2009 is based on formal end-of- year CAFE data submitted by automakers to EPA and therefore is final data that will not change. On the other hand, the MY2010 data is based on confidential pre-model year production volume projections provided by manufacturers to EPA in the spring/summer of 2009 and are more uncertain than in most years due to the economic recession, volatile oil prices, and other factors. The uncertainty introduced by these factors is demonstrated by the fact that the actual MY2009 values for CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy are 25 g/mi lower and 1.3 mpg higher, respectively, than the projected MY2009 values that were provided in last year’s report. Given the greater uncertainty in the MY2010 data than in other years (for example, the total projected vehicle sales for MY2010 provid ed to EPA by automakers are significantly higher than actual MY2010 sales as reported by trade sources), this report will often focus as much or more on the MY2009 data than the MY2010 data.

2

## Other Variables

All vehicle weight data are based on inertia wei ght class (nominally curb weight plus 300 pounds). For vehicles with inertia weights up to and including the 3000- pound inertia weight class, these classes have 250 -pound increments. For vehicles above the 3000-pound inertia weight class (i.e., vehicles 3500 pounds and above), 500

- pound increments are used.

The light truck data used in this series of reports include only vehicles classified as light trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) up to 8500 pounds (lb). The most recent estimates we h ave made for the impact of greater than 8500 lb GVWR vehicles was made for model year 2001. In that year, there were roughly 931,000 vehicles above 8500 lb GVWR. A substantial fraction (42%) of the MY2001 vehicles above 8500 lb GVWR was powered by diesel en gines, and three -fourths of the vehicles over 8500 lb GVWR were pickup trucks. Adding in the trucks above 8500 lb GVWR would have increased the truck production share for that year by three percentage points. Based on a limited amount of actual laborator y fuel economy data, MY2001 trucks with GVWR greater than 8500 lb GVWR are estimated to have fuel economy values about 14% lower than the average of trucks below

8500 lb GVWR. The combined fleet of all vehicles under 8500 lb GVWR and trucks over 8500 lb G VWR is estimated to average a few percent less in fuel economy compared to that for just the vehicles with less than 8500 lb

GVWR.

"Ton

- MPG" is defined as a vehicle's mpg multiplied by its weight in tons. Ton

- MPG is a measure of powertrain/drive- line efficiency. Just as an increase in vehicle mpg at constant weight can be considered an improvement in a vehicle's efficiency, an increase in a vehicle's weight at constant mpg can also be considered an improvement. "CO 2 

## /ton" is the equivalent CO 2 

## metric and is reported in Section IV.

"Cubic- feet -MPG" for cars is defined in this report as the product of a car's mpg and its interior volume, including trunk space. This metric associates a relative measure of a vehicle's ability to transport both passengers

an d their cargo. An increase in vehicle volume at constant mpg could be considered an improvement just as an increase in mpg at constant volume can be. "CO 2 

## /cubic feet" values are given in Section IV.

"Cubic- feet -ton- MPG" is defined in this report as a co mbination of the two previous metrics, i.e., a car's mpg multiplied by its weight in tons and also by its interior volume. It ascribes vehicle utility to fuel economy, weight and volume. "CO 2 

## /ton

- cubic feet"" is the equivalent CO 2 

## metric and is shown in Section IV.

This report also includes an estimate of 0- to -60 mph acceleration time

-- calculated from engine rate d horsepower and vehicle weight

-- from the relationship:

t = F (HP/WT) -f



## where the coefficients F and f are empirical parameters determined in the literature by obtaining a least

- squares fit

for available test data. The values for the F and f coefficients are .892 and .805, respectively

, for vehicles with automatic transmissions and .967 and .775, respectively , for those with manual transmissions [37]. Other authors [38, 39, and 40] have evaluated the relationships between weight, horsepower, and 0- to

- 60 acceleration time and have calculated and published slightly different values for the F and f coefficients. Since the eq uation form and coefficients were developed for vehicles with conventional powertrains with gasoline-fueled engines, we have not used the equation to estimate 0- to -60 time for vehicles with hybrid powertrains or diesel engines. Published values

are used f or these vehicles instead.

3

## The 0

- to -60 estimate used in this report is intended to provide a quantitative time "index" of vehicle performance capability. It is the authors' engineering judgment that, given the differences in test methods for measuring 0

- to -60 time and given the fact that the weight is based on inertia weight, use of these other published values for the F and f coefficients would not result in statistically significantly different 0

- to

- 60 averages or trends.

The results of a similar calcu lation of estimated "top speed" are also included in some tables.

Grouping all vehicles into classes and then constructing time trends can provide interesting and useful results. These results, however, are a strong function of the class definitions. Cl asses based on other definitions than those used in this report are possible.

For cars, vehicle cla ssification as it relates to vehicle type and size class generally follows the fuel economy label, Fuel Economy Guide , and fuel economy standards protocols. F or example, car and wagon classes are based

on the interior volume (passenger plus cargo) thresholds described in the Fuel Economy Guide (since interior

volume is und efined for the two

- seater class, this re port assigns an interior volume value of 50 cub ic feet for all

two

- seaters) . E xceptions to these protocols are listed in Appendix A, Table A-3. In many of the passenger car tables, large sedans and wagons are aggregated as "Large," midsize sedans and wagons are aggregated as "Midsize," and all other cars are aggregated as “Small .” In some of the car tables, an alternative classification system is used, namely: Large Cars, Large Wagons, Midsize Cars, Midsize Wagons, Small Cars, and Small Wagons with the EPA Two

- Seater, Mini -Compact, Subcomp act, and Compact car classes combined into the "S mall Car" class. In some tables and figures in this report, only four vehicle types are used. In these cases, wagons have been merged with cars. This is because the wagon production fraction

, for some instances

, is so small that the information is more conveniently represented by combining the two vehicle types. When they have been combined, the differe nces between them are insignific ant.

The truck classification scheme used for all model years in this report is s lightly different from that used in some previous reports in this series, because pickups, vans, and sports utility vehicles (SUVs) are sometimes each subdivided as "Small," "Midsize," and "Large." These truck size classifications are based primarily on p ublished wheelbase data according to the following criteria:

Pickup Van SUV

Small
Midsize Large Less than 105"

105" to 115"
More than 115" Less than 109"
109" to 124"

More than 124" Less than 100"

100" to 110"
More than 110"

This classification scheme is similar to that used in many trade and consumer publications. For those vehicle nameplates with a variety of wheelbases, the size classification was determined by considering only the smallest wheelbase produced.

Published data from external source s is also used for three other vehicle characteristics for which data is not currently being submitted to EPA by the automotive manufacturers, or to supplement data that is submitted to EPA: (1) engines with variable valve timing (VVT) that use either cam s or electric solenoids to provide variable intake and/or exhaust valve timing and in some cases valve lift; (2) engines with cylinder deactivation, which involves allowing the valves of selected cylinders of the engine to remain closed under certain driving conditions; and (3) vehicle footprint, which is the product of wheelbase times average track width and upon which future CAFE (MY2011 and later) and CO 2 

## emissions standards are based.

4

## III. Fuel Economy Trends

Figure 1 and Table 1 depict time trends in car, light truck, and car-plus- light truck fuel economy, as well as truck production share, with the individual data points representing the data for each year, and trend lines representing three- year movin g averages . Since 1975, the fuel economy of th e combined car and light truck fleet has moved through several phases:

1. A rapid increase from 1975 through 1981;

2. A slow increase until reaching its peak in 1987;

3. A gradual decline until 2004; and

4. An increase beginning in 2005, with the largest increase in 2009.

Figure 1

Adjusted Fuel Economy and Percent Truck by Model Year (with Three

- Year Moving Average)PercentTruckAdjustedCompositeMPG 24

22

20

18

16

14

12

60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 

### Car

Both

Truck

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

### Model Year

Model Year 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### 5

## Table 1

Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars

Lab Lab Lab Adj Adj Adj Cu Ft

Model Production Production City Hwy 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton

- Cu Ft

- Ton

Year (000) Percent MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG

1975 8237 80.6% 13.7 19.5 15.8 12.3 15.2 13.5 27.6

- -
1976 9722 78.8% 15.2 21.3 17.5 13.7 16.6 14.9 30.2

- -
1977 11300 80.0% 16.0 22.3 18.3 14.4 17.4 15.6 31.0 1780 3423

1978 11175 77.3% 17.2 24.5 19.9 15.5 19.1 16.9 30.6 1908 3345

1979 10794 77.8% 17.7 24.6 20.3 15.9 19.2 17.2 30.2 1922 3301

1980 9443 83.5% 20.3 29.0 23.5 18.3 22.6 20.0 31.2 2136 3273

1981 8733 82.7% 21.7 31.1 25.1 19.6 24.2 21.4 33.1 2338 3547

1982 7819 80.3% 22.3 32.7 26.0 20.1 25.5 22.2 34.2 2419 3645

1983 8002 77.7% 22.1 32.7 25.9 19.9 25.5 22.1 34.7 2476 3776

1984 10675 76.1% 22.4 33.3 26.3 20.2 26.0 22 .4 35.1 2482 3776

1985 10791 74.6% 23.0 34.3 27.0 20.7 26.8 23.0 35.8 2553 3884

1986 11015 71.7% 23.7 35.5 27.9 21.2 27.6 23.7 36.2 2598 3899

1987 10731 72.2% 23.9 35.9 28.1 21.2 27.7 23.8 36.2 2584 3872

1988 10736 70.2% 24.2 36.6 28.6 21.4 28.2 24.1 3 6.9 2631 3963

1989 10018 69.3% 23.8 36.3 28.1 20.9 27.9 23.7 36.8 2591 3977

1990 8810 69.8% 23.4 36.0 27.8 20.5 27.5 23.3 37.1 2528 3984

1991 8524 67.8% 23.6 36.3 28.0 20.5 27.6 23.4 37.0 2540 3970

1992 8108 66.6% 23.1 36.3 27.6 20.0 27.5 23.1 37.4 253 4 4071

1993 8456 64.0% 23.6 36.9 28.2 20.3 27.9 23.5 37.7 2580 4098

1994 8415 59.6% 23.4 36.9 28.0 20.0 27.7 23.3 37.9 2554 4108

1995 9396 62.0% 23.6 37.6 28.3 20.0 28.1 23.4 38.3 2584 4171

1996 7890 60.0% 23.5 37.6 28.3 19.8 28.0 23.3 38.3 2572 4186

1997 8335 57.6% 23.7 37.7 28.4 19.8 28.0 23.4 38.3 2565 4168

1998 7972 55.1% 23.7 37.9 28.5 19.7 28.0 23.4 38.7 2565 4210

1999 8379 55.1% 23.4 37.4 28.2 19.4 27.5 23.0 38.7 2531 4237

2000 9128 55.1% 23.5 37.3 28.2 19.3 27.3 22.9 38.6 2534 4246

2001 840 8 53.9% 23.7 37.6 28.4 19.4 27.3 23.0 39.1 2551 4280

2002 8304 51.5% 24.0 37.6 28.6 19.4 27.2 23.1 39.3 2572 4331

2003 7922 50.2% 24.2 38.1 29.0 19.5 27.5 23.3 40.0 2591 4394

2004 7538 48.0% 24.1 38.2 28.9 19.3 27.4 23.1 40.3 2601 4464

2005 8027 50.5% 24.7 38.7 29.5 19.6 27.6 23.5 41.0 2677 4590

2006 7993 52.9% 24.4 38.5 29.2 19.4 27.5 23.3 41.6 2655 4649

2007 8085 52.9% 25.4 39.7 30.3 20.1 28.3 24.1 42.8 2733 4734

2008 7329 52.7% 25.6 40.0 30.5 20.3 28.5 24.3 43.3 2749 4784

2009 5562 60.2% 27.0 41. 7 32.1 21.3 29.7 25.4 44.5 2863 4900

2010

- 58.9% 27.6 42.3 32.7 21.7 30.1 25.8 46.1 2947 5100



### 6

## Table 1 (Continued)

Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Trucks

Lab Lab Lab Adj Adj Adj
Model Production Production City Hwy 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton

Year (000) Percent MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG

1975 1987 19.4% 12.1 16.2 13.7 10.9 12.7 11.6 24.2

1976 2612 21.2% 12.8 16.9 14.4 11.5 13.2 12.2 26.0

1977 2823 20.0% 14.0 18.1 15.6 12.6 14.1 13.3 28.0

1978 3273 22.7% 13.8 17.5 15.2 12.4 13.7 12.9 27.5

1979 3088 22.2% 13.4 16.8 14.7 12.1 13.1 12.5 27.3

1980 1863 16.5% 16.5 21.9 18.6 14.8 17.1 15.8 30.9

1981 1821 17.3% 17.8 23.9 20.1 16.0 18.6 17.1 33.0

1982 1914 19.7% 1 8.1 24.4 20.5 16.3 19.0 17.4 33.7

1983 2300 22.3% 18.3 25.2 20.9 16.5 19.6 17.8 34.0

1984 3345 23.9% 17.9 24.8 20.5 16.1 19.3 17.4 33.5

1985 3669 25.4% 18.0 24.9 20.6 16.2 19.4 17.5 33.7

1986 4350 28.3% 18.8 25.9 21.4 16.8 20.2 18.2 34.3

1987 4134 27.8% 18.8 26.5 21.6 16.8 20.5 18.3 34.2

1988 4559 29.8% 18.3 26.2 21.2 16.2 20.2 17.9 34.5

1989 4435 30.7% 18.1 25.8 20.9 15.9 19.8 17.6 34.7

1990 3805 30.2% 17.8 25.9 20.7 15.6 19.8 17.4 35.1

1991 4049 32.2% 18.3 26.6 21.3 15.9 20.3 17.8 35.3

1992 4064 33.4% 17.8 26.2 20.8 15.5 19.9 17.4 35.4

1993 4754 36.0% 17.9 26.5 21.0 15.5 20.1 17.5 35.7

1994 5710 40.4% 17.8 26.1 20.8 15.3 19.7 17.2 35.7

1995 5749 38.0% 17.5 25.9 20.5 15.0 19.5 17.0 35.7

1996 5254 40.0% 17.7 26.5 20.8 15.1 19.9 17.2 36.6

1997 6124 42.4% 17.6 26.1 20.6 14.8 19.5 17.0 36.9

1998 6485 44.9% 17.7 26.6 20.9 14.9 19.8 17.1 36.8

1999 6839 44.9% 17.4 26.0 20.5 14.6 19.2 16.7 37.0

2000 7447 44.9% 17.7 26.2 20.8 14.7 19.4 16.9 37.1

2001 7202 46.1% 17.6 26.0 20.6 14.6 19.1 16.7 37.4

2 002 7815 48.5% 17.6 26.0 20.6 14.4 19.1 16.7 38.0

2003 7853 49.8% 17.8 26.5 20.9 14.6 19.3 16.9 38.7

2004 8173 52.0% 17.7 26.5 20.8 14.3 19.2 16.7 39.4

2005 7866 49.5% 18.2 27.4 21.4 14.6 19.8 17.2 40.2

2006 7111 47.1% 18.5 27.8 21.8 14.9 20.1 17.5 40. 9

2007 7192 47.1% 18.7 28.3 22.1 15.1 20.4 17.7 42.1

2008 6571 47.3% 19.2 29.1 22.7 15.5 21.0 18.2 43.0

2009 3673 39.8% 20.1 30.5 23.8 16.2 21.9 19.0 43.8

2010

- 41.1% 20.2 30.6 23.8 16.2 22.0 19.1 45.3



### 7

## Table 1 (Continued)

Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars and Trucks

Lab Lab Lab Adj Adj Adj
Model Production City Hwy 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton

Year (000) MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG

1975 10224 13.4 18.7 15.3 12.0 14.6 13.1 26.9

1976 12334 14.6 20.2 16.7 13.2 15.7 14.2 29.3

1977 14123 15.6 21.3 17.7 14.0 16.6 15.1 30.4

1978 14448 16.3 22.5 18.6 14.7 17.5 15.8 29.9

1979 13882 16.5 22.3 18.7 14.9 17.4 15.9 29.5

1980 11306 19.6 27.5 22.5 17.6 21.5 19.2 31.2

1981 10554 20.9 29.5 24.1 18.8 23.0 20.5 33.1

1982 9732 21.3 30.7 24.7 19.2 23.9 21.1 34.1

1983 10302 21.2 30.6 24.6 19.0 23.9 21.0 34.5

1984 14020 21.2 30.8 24.6 19.1 24.0 21.0 34.7

1985 14460 21.5 31.3 25.0 19.3 24.4 21.3 35.3

1986 15365 22.1 32.2 25.7 19.8 25.0 21.8 35.7

1987 14865 22.2 32.6 25.9 19.8 25.3 22.0 35.7

1988 15295 22.1 32.7 25.9 19.6 25.2 21.9 36.2

1989 14453 21.7 32.3 25.4 19.1 24.8 21.4 36.2

1990 12615 21.4 32.2 25.2 18.7 24.6 21.2 36.5

1991 12573 21.6 32.5 25.4 18.8 24.7 21.2 3 6.5

1992 12172 21.0 32.1 24.9 18.2 24.4 20.8 36.8

1993 13211 21.2 32.4 25.1 18.2 24.4 20.9 37.0

1994 14125 20.8 31.6 24.6 17.8 23.8 20.4 37.0

1995 15145 20.8 32.1 24.7 17.7 24.1 20.5 37.3

1996 13144 20.8 32.2 24.8 17.6 24.0 20.4 37.6

1997 14459 20.6 31.8 24.5 17.4 23.6 20.1 37.7

1998 14458 20.6 31.9 24.5 17.2 23.6 20.1 37.9

1999 15218 20.3 31.2 24.1 16.9 23.0 19.7 38.0

2000 16574 20.5 31.4 24.3 16.9 23.0 19.8 37.9

2001 15610 20.5 31.1 24.2 16.8 22.8 19.6 38.3

2002 16119 20.4 30.9 24.1 16.6 22.5 1 9.4 38.7

2003 15775 20.6 31.3 24.3 16.7 22.7 19.6 39.4

2004 15711 20.2 31.0 24.0 16.3 22.4 19.3 39.9

2005 15893 21.0 32.1 24.8 16.8 23.1 19.9 40.6

2006 15105 21.2 32.6 25.2 17.0 23.4 20.1 41.2

2007 15277 21.8 33.4 25.8 17.4 24.0 20.6 42.5

2008 13900 22.1 34.0 26.3 17.7 24.4 21.0 43.2

2009 9235 23.8 36.4 28.2 18.9 26.0 22.4 44.2

2010

- 23.9 36.5 28.3 19.0 26.1 22.5 45.8



### 8

## As shown in Table 1 , the final fleetwide MY2009 adjusted composite fuel economy is 22.4 mpg, an alltime high. This MY2009 value is 1.4 mpg higher than in MY2008, and the greatest annual increase since 1980. The previous fuel economy high was in MY1987, and the MY2009 value is 0.4 mpg higher than in MY1987. The MY2009 adjusted fuel economy value is 3.1 mpg higher than in MY200 4, a 16% increase. The projected MY2010 fleetwide fuel economy valu e is 22.5 mpg, but there is uncertainty about MY2010 projections given that they are based on automaker submissions to EPA in the spring and summer of 2009 when there was considerable mar ket turmoil. Projected industry-wide MY2010 production is not shown i n Table 1, as it is expected that actual MY2010 production will be considerably lower than automaker projections. Average fleetwide fuel economy has now increased for five consecutive years and is projected to increase for a sixth year. These increases reverse the longer term trend of declining adjusted composite fuel economy from 1987 through 2004. As shown in Table 1 , based on laboratory 55/45 fuel e conomy values which reflect vehicl e design considerations only, the MY2009 unadjusted fuel economy value of 28.2 mpg is an all-time record, and is 2.3 mpg higher than the previous peak of 25.9 mpg in

1987 and 1988

.

Figure 1 shows that the light truck share of the market, based on the thre e- year moving average trend, peaked at 52% in 2004 and has decreased to near 40% in 2009 and 2010. Figure 2 compares laboratory 55/45 fuel economy for the combined car and truck fleet and the production fraction for trucks.

The MY2009 adjusted fuel econo my for cars is estimated to average 25.4 mpg, which is an all -time high. For MY2009, the adjusted fuel economy for light trucks is estimated to average 19.0 mpg, also a record high. Fuel economy standards were unchanged for MY1996 through MY2004. In 2003, DOT raised the truck CAFE

sta ndards for MY2005 – 2007, and DOT subsequently raised the truck CAFE standards for MY2008 – 2016 through three separate final rules . The recent fuel economy improvement for trucks is likely due, in part, to these higher standards. The CAF E standard for cars has not changed since 1990, but will change for MY2011 – 2016 as a result of two recent final rules. The final rule for MY2012 -2016 for both cars and trucks is at 75 Federal Register 25324, May 7, 2010.

Figure 2

Truck Production Share vs

. Fleet MPG by Model Year

30

25

20

15

10Lab55/45MPG



### 1975 1980 1985

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%



### Percent Truck

9

## The di stribution of fuel economy b y model year is of interest. In Figure 3 , highlights of the distribution of car and truck mpg are shown. Since 1975, half of the cars have consistently been within a few mpg of each other. The fuel economy difference between the least efficient and most efficient car increased from about 20 mpg i n 1975 to nearly 50 mpg in 1986 . The increased production share of hybrid cars accounts for the in crease in the fuel economy of the best one percent of cars with the cut point for this stratum now about 40 mpg. The ratio of the highest to lowest has increased from about three to one in 1975 to nearly five to one today, because the fuel economy of the least fuel efficient cars has remained roughly constant in comparison to the most fuel efficient cars whose fuel economy has nearly doubled since 1975.

The overall fuel economy distribution trend for trucks is narrower than that for cars, with a peak in the efficiency of the most efficient truck in the early 1980s when small pickup trucks equipped with diesel engines

were sold. As a result, the fuel economy range between the most efficient and least efficient truck peaked at about 25 mpg in 1982. The fuel economy range for trucks then narrowed, but with the introduction of the hybrid Esca pe SUV in MY2005, it is now about 20 mpg. Like cars, half of the trucks built each year have always been within a few mpg of each year's average fuel economy value. Ap pendix C contains additional fuel economy distribution

data.

Figure 3

Production Weighted Fuel Economy Distribution



## Car Truck

Best Car First Hybrid Car

Best 1%

Worst 1%

Worst 1% Best 1%

Worst Car Worst Truck Best TruckAdjustedCompositeMPG

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

50% of Cars

50% of Trucks

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### Model Year

10

## As shown in Table 2 , MY2009 vehicle weight averag ed 3917 pounds, the lowest average weight since

2001. Thi s reflects a decrease of 168 pounds (4%) from MY2008, and is the largest annual decrease since MY1980. The average truck weight dropped by about 100 pounds, the average car weight decreased by about 60 pounds, and the remaining difference was due to lower truck production share. In MY2009 , the average vehicle

power was 208 horsepower, the lowest value since MY2003. Average vehicle power dropped by 11 horsepower (5%), the largest annual decrease since MY1980, with most of the decrease explained by cars ha ving lower

horse power levels and trucks having lower production share.

Table 2 also includes vehicle footprint in square feet since MY2008 . Footprint is one metric for vehicle size, and is the product of wheelbase and average track width. Essentially, footprint is the area defined by the four points where the tires touch the ground. Footprint is of interest as MY2008 – 2010 light truck CAFE standards allow manufacturers the option to choose footprint

- based standards, MY2011 passenger car and light truc k CAFE standards are based exclusively on footprint-mpg curves, and MY2012 – 2016 CAFE and CO 2 

## emissions standards are footprint

- based as well. EPA does not receive comprehensive footprint data from manufacturers, so the

MY2008 – MY 2010 footprint data in Table 2 is tabulated from external sources such as individual manufacturer websites, Edmonds.com, and Motortrend.com.

For MY2009, industry-wide footprint values were 45.2 square feet for cars, 52.7 square feet for trucks, and

48.2 square feet for cars and trucks combined. Car and truck footprints were both slightly smaller in MY2009 than in MY2008 (less than 1%); however, the overall industry footprint was down nearly 2% due to the decline in truck share. Industry projections for MY2010 cars are unchanged from MY2009. The average footprint for trucks in MY2010 is projected to increas e 2.5%, resulting in a fleetwide average near that of MY2008.

The long-term trend since 1981 for both weight and power has been steady increases. Even with the

decreases in MY2009 for both weight and power, MY2009 weight is over 700 pounds greater, and MY2009 power has more than doubled, as compared to MY1981. As shown in Figure 4 , since 1975

, Ton -MPG for both cars and

tr ucks increased substantially ( over 67% for cars an d 87% for trucks ) . Typically, Ton

- MPG for both vehicle types has increased at a rate of about one or two percent a year.

11

## Table 2

Vehicle Size and Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars

Adj
Model Production Comp Vol Weight Footprint HP/ 0- to

- 60 Top

Year Percent MPG (cu ft) (lb) (sq ft) HP Weight Time Speed Small Midsize Large

1975 80.6% 13.5

- 4058

- 136 0.0331 14.2 111 55.4% 23.3% 21.3%

1976 78.8% 14.9

- 4059

- 134 0.0324 14.4 110 55.4% 25.2% 19.4%

1977 80.0% 15.6 110 3944

- 133 0.0335 14.0 111 51.9% 24.5% 23.5%

1978 77.3% 16.9 109 3588

- 124 0.0342 13.7 111 44.7% 34.4% 21.0%

1979 77.8% 17.2 109 3485

- 119 0.0338 13.8 110 43.7% 34.2% 22.1%

1980 83.5% 20.0 104 3101

- 100 0.0322 14.3 107 54.4% 34.4% 11.3%

1981 82.7% 21.4 106 3076

- 99 0.0320 14.4 106 51.5% 36.4% 12.2%

1982 80.3% 22.2 106 3054

- 99 0.0320 14.4 106 56.5% 31.0% 12.5%

1983 77.7% 22.1 109 3112

- 104 0.0330 14.0 108 53.1% 31.8% 15.1%

1984 76.1% 22.4 108 3099

- 106 0.0339 13.8 109 57.4% 29.4% 13.2%

1985 74.6% 23.0 108 3093

- 111 0.0355 13.3 111 55.7% 28.9% 15.4%

1986 71.7% 23.7 107 3041

- 111 0.0360 13.2 111 59.5% 27.9% 12.6%

1987 72.2% 23.8 107 3031

- 112 0.0365 13.0 112 63.5% 24.3% 12.2%

1988 70.2% 24.1 107 3047

- 116 0.0375 12.8 1 13 64.8% 22.3% 12.8%

1989 69.3% 23.7 108 3099

- 121 0.0387 12.5 115 58.3% 28.2% 13.5%

1990 69.8% 23.3 107 3176

- 129 0.0401 12.1 117 58.6% 28.7% 12.8%

1991 67.8% 23.4 107 3154

- 132 0.0413 11.8 118 61.5% 26.2% 12.3%

1992 66.6% 23.1 108 3240

- 141 0.042 8 11.5 120 56.5% 27.8% 15.6%

1993 64.0% 23.5 108 3207

- 138 0.0425 11.6 120 57.2% 29.5% 13.3%

1994 59.6% 23.3 108 3250

- 143 0.0432 11.4 121 58.5% 26.1% 15.4%

1995 62.0% 23.4 109 3263

- 152 0.0460 10.9 125 57.3% 28.6% 14.0%

1996 60.0% 23.3 109 3282

- 1 54 0.0464 10.8 125 54.3% 32.0% 13.6%

1997 57.6% 23.4 109 3274

- 156 0.0469 10.7 126 55.1% 30.6% 14.3%

1998 55.1% 23.4 109 3306

- 159 0.0475 10.6 127 49.4% 39.1% 11.4%

1999 55.1% 23.0 109 3365

- 164 0.0481 10.5 128 47.7% 39.7% 12.6%

2000 55.1% 22.9 110 3369

- 168 0.0492 10.4 129 47.5% 34.3% 18.2%

2001 53.9% 23.0 109 3380

- 168 0.0492 10.3 129 50.9% 32.3% 16.8%

2002 51.5% 23.1 110 3391

- 173 0.0504 10.2 131 48.6% 36.3% 15.1%

2003 50.2% 23.3 110 3417

- 176 0.0510 10.0 132 50.6% 33.5% 15.9%

2004 48.0% 2 3.1 110 3462

- 182 0.0521 9.8 133 47.4% 35.5% 17.0%

2005 50.5% 23.5 111 3463

- 182 0.0518 9.8 133 44.2% 38.9% 16.8%

2006 52.9% 23.3 112 3534

- 194 0.0540 9.6 136 46.2% 32.9% 20.9%

2007 52.9% 24.1 110 3507

- 189 0.0531 9.6 135 44.6% 40.0% 15.4%

2008 52.7% 24.3 110 3527 45.4 193 0.0536 9.6 136 44.7% 35.8% 19.5%

2009 60.2% 25.4 110 3463 45.2 184 0.0520 9.8 133 48.2% 34.6% 17.2%

2010 58.9% 25.8 110 3499 45.2 192 0.0537 9.5 136 47.8% 38.5% 13.8%



### 12

## Table 2 (continu ed)

Vehicle Size and Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Trucks

Adj
Model Production Comp Weight Footprint HP/ 0- to

- 60 Top

Year Percent MPG (lb) (sq ft) HP Weight Time Speed Van SUV Pickup

1975 19.4% 11.6 4072

- 142 0.0349 13.6 114 23.0% 9.4% 67.6%

1976 21.2% 12.2 4155

- 141 0.0340 13.8 113 19.2% 9.3% 71.4%

1977 20.0% 13.3 4135

- 147 0.0356 13.3 115 18.2% 10.0% 71.8%

1978 22.7% 12.9 4151

- 146 0.0351 13.4 114 19.1% 11.6% 69.3%

1979 22.2% 12.5 4252

- 138 0.0325 14.3 111 15.6% 13.0% 71.5%

1980 16.5% 15.8 3869

- 121 0.0313 14.5 108 13.0% 9.9% 77.1%

1981 17.3% 17.1 3806

- 119 0.0311 14.6 108 13.5% 7.5% 79.1%

1982 19.7% 17.4 3806

- 120 0.0317 14.5 109 16.2% 8.5% 75.3%

1983 22.3% 17.8 3763

- 118 0.0313 14.5 108 16.6% 12.6% 70.8%

1984 23.9% 17.4 3782

- 118 0.0310 14.7 108 20.2% 18.7% 61.1%

1985 25.4% 17.5 3795

- 124 0.0326 14.1 110 23.3% 20.0% 56.6%

1986 28.3% 18.2 3738

- 123 0.0330 14.0 110 24.0% 17.8% 58.2%

1987 27.8% 18.3 3713

- 131 0.0351 13.3 113 26.9% 21.1% 51.9%

1988 29.8% 17.9 3841

- 141 0.0366 12.9 115 24.8% 21.2% 53.9%

1989 30.7% 17.6 3921

- 146 0.0372 12.8 116 28.8% 20.9% 50.3%

1990 30.2% 17.4 4005

- 151 0.0377 12.6 117 33.2% 18.6% 48.2%

1991 32.2% 17.8 3948

- 150 0.0379 12.6 117 25.5% 27.0% 47.4%

1992 33.4% 17.4 4056

- 155 0.0382 12.5 118 30.0% 24.7% 45.3%

1993 36.0% 17.5 4073

- 162 0.0398 12.1 120 30.3% 27.6% 42.1%

1994 40.4% 17.2 4125

- 166 0.0403 12.0 121 24.8% 28.4% 46.7%

1995 38.0% 17.0 4184

- 168 0.0401 12.0 121 28.9% 31.6% 39.5%

1996 40.0% 17.2 4225

- 179 0.0423 11.5 124 26.8% 36.0% 37.2%

1997 42.4% 17.0 4344

- 187 0.0429 11.4 126 20.7% 40.0% 39.3%

1998 44.9% 17.1 4283

- 187 0.0435 11.2 126 23.0% 39.8% 37.2%

1999 44.9% 16.7 4412

- 197 0.0446 11.0 128 21.4% 41.4% 37.2%

2000 44.9% 16.9 4375

- 1 97 0.0448 11.0 128 22.7% 42.2% 35.1%

2001 46.1% 16.7 4463

- 209 0.0466 10.6 131 17.1% 47.9% 35.0%

2002 48.5% 16.7 4546

- 219 0.0482 10.4 134 15.9% 53.6% 30.5%

2003 49.8% 16.9 4586

- 221 0.0481 10.4 134 15.7% 52.8% 31.5%

2004 52.0% 16.7 4710

- 236 0.050 1 10.0 137 11.7% 57.7% 30.7%

2005 49.5% 17.2 4668

- 237 0.0505 10.0 137 18.8% 51.9% 29.2%

2006 47.1% 17.5 4665

- 235 0.0502 10.0 137 16.4% 52.8% 30.8%

2007 47.1% 17.7 4752

- 248 0.0520 9.8 140 11.8% 58.8% 29.4%

2008 47.3% 18.2 4707 53.0 247 0.0521 9.7 140 12.0% 60.7% 27.3%

2009 39.8% 19.0 4605 52.7 245 0.0528 9.6 140 10.0% 63.0% 26.9%

2010 41.1% 19.1 4738 54.0 259 0.0544 9.4 143 8.5% 60.7% 30.8%



### 13

## Table 2 (continued)

Vehicle Size and Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars and Trucks

Adj
Model Comp Weight Footprint HP/ 0- to

- 60 Top

Year MPG (lb) (sq ft) HP Weight Time Speed

1975 13.1 4060

- 137 0.0335 14.1 112

1976 14.2 4079

- 135 0.0328 14.3 111

1977 15.1 3982

- 136 0.0339 13.8 1 12

1978 15.8 3715

- 129 0.0344 13.6 112

1979 15.9 3655

- 124 0.0335 13.9 110

1980 19.2 3228

- 104 0.0320 14.3 107

1981 20.5 3202

- 102 0.0318 14.4 107

1982 21.1 3202

- 103 0.0320 14.4 107

1983 21.0 3257

- 107 0.0327 14.1 108

1984 21.0 3262

- 109 0.0332 14.0 109

1985 21.3 3271

- 114 0.0347 13.5 110

1986 21.8 3238

- 114 0.0351 13.4 111

1987 22.0 3221

- 118 0.0361 13.1 112

1988 21.9 3283

- 123 0.0372 12.8 114

1989 21.4 3351

- 129 0.0382 12.5 115

1990 21.2 3426

- 135 0.0394 12.2 117

1991 21.2 3410

- 138 0.0402 1 2.1 118

1992 20.8 3512

- 145 0.0413 11.8 120

1993 20.9 3519

- 147 0.0416 11.8 120

1994 20.4 3603

- 152 0.0420 11.7 121

1995 20.5 3613

- 158 0.0438 11.3 123

1996 20.4 3659

- 164 0.0447 11.1 125

1997 20.1 3727

- 169 0.0452 11.0 126

1998 20.1 3744

- 171 0.0457 10.9 126

1999 19.7 3835

- 179 0.0465 10.7 128

2000 19.8 3821

- 181 0.0472 10.6 129

2001 19.6 3879

- 187 0.0480 10.5 130

2002 19.4 3951

- 195 0.0493 10.3 132

2003 19.6 3999

- 199 0.0496 10.2 133

2004 19.3 4111

- 211 0.0511 9.9 135

2005 19.9 4059

- 209 0.0512 9.9 135

2006 20.1 4067

- 213 0.0522 9.8 137

2007 20.6 4093

- 217 0.0525 9.7 137

2008 21.0 4085 49.0 219 0.0529 9.7 138

2009 22.4 3917 48.2 208 0.0523 9.7 136

2010 22.5 4009 48.8 220 0.0540 9.5 139



### 14

## Figure 4

Ton

- MPG by Model Year (with Three

- Year Moving Average 

## )

45

40

35

30

25



### Model Year



## Another dramatic long

- term trend has been the substantial increase in performance of cars and light trucks as measured by their estimated 0

- to -60 mph acceleration time. These tr ends are shown graphically in Figure 5

, which plots fuel economy versus performance for model years since 1975. Both graphs show the same story: in the late 1970s and early 1980s, responding to the regulatory requirements for mpg improvement, the industry increased mpg and kept performance roughly constant. After the regulatory mpg requirements stabilized, mpg improvements slowed and performance dramatically improved. This trend toward increased performance is as important as the

truck production share t rend in understanding trends in overall fleet mpg.

Figure 6 is similar t o Figure 5, but shows the trends in weight and laboratory fuel economy and that the era of weight reductions that took place for both cars and trucks between 1975 and the early 1980s has been followed by an era of weight increases until recently.Ton-MPG 

## Car

Truck

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### 15

## Figure 5

Laboratory MPG vs. 0- to -60 Time by Model Year55/45LaboratoryMPG

15 20 25 30

15 20 25 30 

### Car

Truck

1975 1980 1985

1990 1995 2000

2005 2010 2010 2005

2000 1995

1985 1980

1975 1990

10 11 12 13 14



### 0 to 60 Time (sec.)



## Figure 6

Laboratory MPG vs. Vehicle Weight by Model Year55/45LaboratoryMPG

15 20 25 30

15 20 25 30 

### Car

Truck

1975 1980 1985 1990 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1995

1990 2000

2005 2010

1995

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 

### Weight (lb)

16

## IV. Carbon Diox ide Emissions Trends

This section focuses on light-duty vehicle tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO 2 

## ) emissions data that are measured over the EPA city and highway test procedures.

CO 2 

## is the most important greenhouse gas, responsible for a majority of all global, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Light

- duty vehicles directly emit approximately 17% of total U.S. CO 2 

## emissions. 2 

## In April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that CO 2 

## is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act 3 

## , and in December 2009, EPA p ublished two findings that CO 2 

## and other greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and ne w motor vehicle engines contribute to air pollution, and that the air pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health and welfare. 4 

## In May 2010, EPA and NHTSA published the first

- ever light -duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards, under the Clean Air Act, for MY2012-2016. 5 

## These standards are part of a new, harmonized National Program that also includes new CAFE standards for MY2012-2016, esta blished and administered by DOT's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . One of the goals of the National Policy is to establish a harmonized set of greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards that automakers can meet with a single nation al fleet. On May 21, 2010, the President announced that EPA and NHTSA would be extending the National Program for MY2017 and beyond. 6 

## On October 13, 2010, EPA and NHTSA published a Notice of Intent to propose new greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards, for 2017 and beyond, by the fall of

2011. 7



## Pre -2009 reports in this series have presented fuel economy data only and have not included CO 2 

## emissions data. Beginning with the 2009 report, EPA has added CO 2 

## emissions data. Rather than adding CO 2 

## emissions data to all or most of the large number of tables and figures in this report, we are providing a few key summary tables and figures dedicated to CO 2 

## emissions in this section as well as a methodology with which a reader can convert fuel economy values from other sections of this report to equivalent CO 2 

## emissions levels. EPA also intends to expand its annual Compliance Report to include CO 2 

## information. 8 

## Section III and Sections V through VIII of this report, as well as all of the appendices, continu e to focus exclusively on fuel economy data.

The light- duty vehicle tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions data provided in this report represent the sum of three pollutants that EPA and automakers directly measure in the formal emissions certification and fuel economy

c ompliance test programs:

● CO 2 

## emissions;

● Carbon monoxide emissions, converted to an equivalent CO 2 

## level on a mass basis by multiplying by a factor of 1.57, which is based on the ratio of molecular weights; and

● Hydrocarbon emissions, converted to an equivalent CO 2 

## level on a mass basis by multiplying by a factor of approximately 3.17, which is dependent on the measured carbon weight fraction of vehicle test fuel.

2 

### U.S. EPA, 2009, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990

- 2007, EPA 430 -R- 09

- 004.

3 

### 549 U.S. 497 (2007).

4 

### 74 Federal Register 66496 (December 15, 2009).

5 

### 75 Federal Register 25324 (May 7, 2010)

6 

### Remarks by the President at Signin g of Presidential Memorandum on Fuel Efficiency Standards, The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, May 21, 2010.

7 

### 75 Federal Register 62739 (October 13, 2010).

8 

### 2007 Progress Report: Vehicle and Engine Compliance Activities (EPA

- 420 -R- 08

- 11).

17

## While including the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions adds, on average, less than one percent to

the tai lpipe CO 2 

## - equivalent emissions for late model year light -duty vehicles, they are included in the CO 2 

## emissions values for three reasons:

● Atmospheric processes convert carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons to CO 2 

## relatively quickly compared to the much longer atmospheric lifetime of CO 2 

## ;

● Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are included, along with CO 2 

## , in the "carbon balance" equations that EPA uses to calculate fuel economy values, so they must also be included in the CO 2 

## values to maintain the mathematical integrity of the equations given below to convert between CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy values; and

● Including carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions is consistent with EPA's light-duty vehicle CO 2 

## emissions standard

- setting approach.

EPA routinely measure s CO 2 

## , carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions as part of its compliance programs. In fact, the individual fuel economy test values that comprise the EPA fuel economy trends database are calculated from a set of "carbon balance" equations based on direct measurement of CO 2 

## , carbon monoxide, and total hydrocarbon emissions. Since carbon is neither created nor destroyed in the combustion process, quantifying

the various carbon -containing compounds in the vehicle exhaust as well as the carbon weight fraction of the gasoline test fuel allows the precise calculation of the amount of fuel that was combusted in the vehicle engine

. Ironically, while the fuel economy values are calculated from CO 2 

## , carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions data, the historic EPA fuel economy trends database files do not include the direct emissions data. In order to add

CO 2 

## emissions data to the historical database, EPA has back

- calculated the CO 2 

## emissions (and associated carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, converted to CO 2 

## on a mass basis) levels fr om fuel economy values by reversing the carbon balance equations.

As with the fuel economy data in this report, the light -duty vehicle CO 2 

## emissions values are expressed in two ways: unadjusted/laboratory values (which will be used for CO 2 

## emissions regulatory compliance beginning in MY2012) and adjusted/real world values (which are used for consumer information and environmental analysis).

The CO 2 

## emissions values do not represent total light

- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, as there are other sources of greenhouse gas em issions beyond the tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions values. It is also impo rtant to note that the tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions data in this report do not reflect greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehicle assembly, component manufacturing, or vehicle disposal, nor upstream fuel-related production or distribution.

The unadjusted/ laboratory CO 2 

## emissions values are the direct emissions data measured over the EPA city and highway tests. The vehicle air conditioner is turned off during these tests. The EPA city and highway tests will be used for compliance with future EPA light-dut y vehicle CO 2 

## emissions standards (CO 2 

## standards allow the use of air conditioning and other credits so that the unadjusted CO 2 

## emissions data in this report may not align perfectly

with the EPA CO 2 

## standards). For late model year vehicles, the unadjusted CO 2 

## emissions values represent about 90% of total unadjusted light

- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The remaining 10% of total light -duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions is comprised of air conditioner efficiency

- related CO 2 

## emissions (about 4%), air conditioner hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant emissions leaks (approximately 5%), tailpipe nitrous oxide emissions (about 2%), and tailpipe methane emissions (methane is one hydrocarbon compound with a longer atmospheric lifetime and higher global warming potency, but its mass emissions are so low from gasoline vehicles that its
potency- adjusted CO 2 

## -equivalent emissions are about 0.2% of total light- duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions). 9

9 

### 75 Federal Register 25421

- 25425 (May 7, 2010).

18

## The adjusted CO 2 

## emissions values are calculated by adjusting the d irect CO 2 

## unadjusted/laboratory emissions test data upward to account for the many variables that can affect real world vehicle CO 2 

## emissions. For a detailed discussion of the methodology that EPA uses to convert unadjusted vehicle fuel economy values to adjusted fuel economy values, see Appendix A. This same methodology is used to calculate adjusted CO 2 

## emissions values as well. On average, based on the current fleet mix, adjusted CO 2 

## emissions levels are about 25% higher than unadjusted CO 2 

## values. Because the adjusted CO 2 

## values take the impact of air conditioner operation on vehicle tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions into account, these values represent about 95% of total adjusted real world light

duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, with the remainder compose d of air conditioner hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant emissions leaks, tailpipe nitrous oxide emissions, and the higher global warming potency associated with tailpipe methane emissions.

Table 3 gives key light -duty vehicle CO 2 

## emissions data for the entire data series from 1975 through 2010 for cars only, trucks only, and cars and trucks combined. Table 3 is very similar to Table 1, except that the fuel economy data in Table 1 is replaced with CO 2 

## emissions data in Table 3 . Projected industry-wide MY2010 production volumes, which represent the sum of manufacturer-specific production projections provided by automakers to EPA in the spring and summer of 2009, are not shown in Table 3 as it is expected that actual MY2010 production will be considerably lower than projected values due to the recent economic downturn.

19

## Table 3

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars

Lab Lab Lab Adj Adj Adj City Hwy 55/45 City Hwy Comp CO 2 /
Model Production Production CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 / CO 2 / Ton/

Year (000) Percent (g/mi) ( g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Ton Cu Ft Cu Ft

1975 8237 80.6% 649 457 563 722 586 660 327

- -
1976 9722 78.8% 584 418 509 649 536 598 297

- -
1977 11300 80.0% 556 399 485 618 51 2 570 290 5.2 2.7

1978 11175 77.3% 516 363 447 573 466 525 294 4.9 2.8

1979 10794 77.8% 503 362 440 559 464 517 298 4.8 2.9

1980 9443 83.5% 439 308 380 488 395 446 289 4.4 2.9

1981 8733 82.7% 412 288 356 458 369 418 273 4.0 2.7

1982 7819 80.3% 401 273 343 445 350 402 264 3.9 2.6

1983 8002 77.7% 402 273 344 447 350 403 259 3.8 2.5

1984 10675 76.1% 397 267 339 441 343 397 256 3.8 2.5

1985 10791 74.6% 388 259 330 431 333 387 250 3.7 2.4

1986 11015 71.7% 375 250 319 419 322 375 247 3.6 2.4

1987 10731 72.2% 373 248 317 419 320 373 247 3.6 2.4

1988 10736 70.2% 367 243 311 415 315 368 242 3.5 2.3

1989 10018 69.3% 374 245 316 425 319 375 243 3.5 2.3

1990 8810 69.8% 380 247 320 434 323 381 241 3.6 2.3

1991 8524 67.8% 377 245 318 434 322 380 241 3.6 2.3

1992 8108 66.6% 385 245 322 445 324 385 239 3.6 2.3

1993 8456 64.0% 376 241 315 439 319 379 237 3.5 2.2

1994 8415 59.6% 379 241 317 444 321 382 236 3.6 2.2

1995 9396 62.0% 377 236 314 445 316 379 233 3.5 2.2

1996 7890 60.0% 378 237 314 448 318 381 233 3.5 2.2

1997 8335 57.6% 376 235 313 449 318 380 233 3.5 2.2

1998 7972 55.1% 375 235 312 450 318 380 231 3.5 2.2

1999 8379 55.1% 380 237 316 459 323 386 230 3.6 2.2

2000 9128 55.1% 379 238 316 461 326 388 231 3.6 2.2

2001 8408 53.9% 374 237 312 459 32 5 386 229 3.6 2.1

2002 8304 51.5% 371 237 310 458 326 385 228 3.6 2.1

2003 7922 50.2% 367 233 307 456 323 382 224 3.6 2.1

2004 7538 48.0% 369 233 308 462 324 384 222 3.6 2.1

2005 8027 50.5% 360 230 301 454 322 378 219 3.5 2.0

2006 7993 52.9% 364 231 3 04 459 324 382 216 3.5 2.0

2007 8085 52.9% 349 224 293 442 314 369 211 3.4 2.0

2008 7329 52.7% 347 222 291 439 311 366 208 3.4 1.9

2009 5562 60.2% 329 213 277 418 300 350 202 3.2 1.9

2010

- 58.9% 323 210 272 410 295 345 197 3.2 1.8



### 20

## Table 3 (continued)

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Trucks

Lab Lab Lab Adj Adj Adj City Hwy 55/45 City Hwy Comp
Model Production Production CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 /

Year (000) Percent (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Ton

1975 1987 19.4% 733 548 650 815 702 764 374

1976 2612 21.2% 693 525 617 770 673 726 349

1977 2823 20.0% 633 490 569 703 628 669 323

1978 3273 22.7% 646 507 583 717 650 687 330

1979 3088 22.2% 663 530 604 736 679 711 333

1980 1863 16.5% 541 407 481 602 521 565 294

1981 1821 17.3% 502 374 445 558 479 523 275

1982 1914 19.7% 496 368 438 551 472 515 272

1983 2300 22.3% 488 355 428 542 455 503 268

1984 3345 23.9% 497 360 435 552 461 511 270

1 985 3669 25.4% 494 357 432 548 458 508 267

1986 4350 28.3% 474 343 415 529 441 489 262

1987 4134 27.8% 472 336 411 530 434 486 262

1988 4559 29.8% 485 340 420 547 441 497 260

1989 4435 30.7% 491 344 425 557 448 506 258

1990 3805 30.2% 498 344 429 568 449 511 256

1991 4049 32.2% 486 335 418 558 439 500 254

1992 4064 33.4% 498 340 427 574 447 512 253

1993 4754 36.0% 496 335 424 575 443 509 251

1994 5710 40.4% 500 341 428 582 452 516 251

1995 5749 38.0% 507 343 433 594 456 523 251

1996 5254 40.0% 50 1 335 426 590 448 516 245

1997 6124 42.4% 506 340 431 598 456 524 243

1998 6485 44.9% 501 334 426 596 449 519 243

1999 6839 44.9% 510 342 434 610 462 531 242

2000 7447 44.9% 501 339 428 603 459 525 241

2001 7202 46.1% 504 342 431 610 466 532 240

2002 7815 48.5% 506 341 432 616 466 533 236

2003 7853 49.8% 499 335 425 610 460 526 231

2004 8173 52.0% 503 336 428 620 462 531 227

2005 7866 49.5% 490 325 415 607 449 517 223

2006 7111 47.1% 481 320 408 596 443 509 219

2007 7192 47.1% 475 314 403 590 436 502 213

2008 6571 47.3% 462 305 391 574 423 488 209

2009 3673 39.8% 441 292 374 550 405 467 204

2010

- 41.1% 441 291 373 550 404 467 198



### 21

## Table 3 (continued)

Carbon Dioxide Emissions Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars and Trucks

Lab Lab Lab Adj Adj Adj City Hwy 55/45 City Hwy Comp
Model Production Production CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 CO 2 /

Year (000) Percent (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Ton

1975 10224 100.0% 666 474 580 740 608 681 336

1976 12334 100.0% 607 440 532 674 565 625 308

1977 14123 100.0% 571 418 502 635 535 590 296

1978 14448 100.0% 545 396 478 606 508 562 302

1979 13882 100.0% 539 399 476 599 512 560 306

1980 11306 100.0% 456 324 397 507 416 466 290

1981 10554 100.0% 428 303 371 475 388 436 274

1982 9732 100.0% 419 292 362 466 374 425 266

1983 10302 100.0% 421 291 363 468 373 426 261

1984 14020 100.0% 421 290 362 467 371 424 259

1985 14460 100.0% 414 284 356 461 364 417 255

1986 15365 100.0% 403 276 346 450 356 407 251

1987 14865 100.0% 400 272 343 450 352 405 251

1988 15295 100.0% 402 272 343 454 353 407 248

1989 14453 100.0% 410 275 349 466 359 415 248

1990 12615 100.0% 415 276 353 475 361 420 245

1991 12573 100.0% 412 274 350 474 360 418 2 45

1992 12172 100.0% 423 277 357 488 365 428 244

1993 13211 100.0% 419 275 354 488 364 426 242

1994 14125 100.0% 428 281 362 500 374 436 242

1995 15145 100.0% 426 277 359 501 369 434 240

1996 13144 100.0% 427 276 359 505 370 435 238

1997 14459 100.0% 431 280 363 512 376 441 237

1998 14458 100.0% 431 279 363 516 377 442 236

1999 15218 100.0% 438 285 369 527 386 451 236

2000 16574 100.0% 434 283 366 525 386 450 236

2001 15610 100.0% 434 285 367 529 390 453 234

2002 16119 100.0% 436 287 369 534 394 457 232

2003 15775 100.0% 432 284 366 533 391 454 228

2004 15711 100.0% 439 286 370 544 396 461 225

2005 15893 100.0% 424 277 358 529 385 447 221

2006 15105 100.0% 419 273 353 523 380 442 218

2007 15277 100.0% 409 266 345 511 371 431 212

2008 13900 1 00.0% 401 261 338 503 364 424 208

2009 9235 100.0% 374 245 316 470 342 397 203

2010

- 100.0% 371 243 314 467 340 395 198



### 22

## Figure 7 plots the adjusted CO 2 

## emissions values over time, for cars only, trucks only, and both cars and

trucks combined.

Fig ure 7

Adjusted CO 2 

## Emissions by Model Year (grams/mile)AdjustedCO2(g/mi) 700

600

500

400

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

### Cars Both Trucks

Model Year



## Table 3 and Figure 7 show that, over the last 35 years, adjusted (real world) CO 2 

## emissions rates have gone through four distinct phases. Most dramatically, adjusted composite (city/highway) CO 2 

## emissions rates for the combined car/truck fleet fell sharply from 681 grams per mile ( g/mi ) in MY1975 to 436 g/mi in MY1981, for a 36% reduction over 6 years. Adjusted CO 2 

## emissions continued to decline, though much more slowly, reaching 405 g/mi in MY1987, which represents a 41% reduction from MY1975. The trend then reversed, as adjusted CO 2 

## levels rose slowly over the next 17 years, reaching 461 g/mi in MY2004, a 14% increase relative to the MY1987 low. Adjusted CO 2 

## emissions have decreased for each of the last six years. The MY2009 value, based on final CAFE reports, is 397 g/mi, which is an all-time low, and represents a 14% reduction relative to MY2004. The 6% decrease from MY2008 to MY2009 is the largest single year

- to

- year decrease since 1981. The preliminary MY2010 value, based on automaker production projections made prior to the beginning of the model year, is 395 g/mi, which if accurate, would be another all- time low.

Laboratory CO 2 

## emissions values are also given in Table 3 . Because laboratory values do not reflect the changes that EPA made to its methodology for adjusting fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions levels for real world estimates for consumers, they are the best metric for evaluating CO 2 

## emissions trends sole ly on vehicle design considerations. Based on the 55/45 (city/highway) laboratory CO 2 

## values in Table 3 , the 316 g/mi value in MY2009 and the preliminary MY2010 value of 314 g/mi also represent all- time lows.

Table 4 shows key light

- duty vehicle characte ristics, along with the adjusted composite CO 2 

## emissions values, for the 1975 through 2010 timeframe for cars only, trucks only, and cars and trucks combined. Table 4 is very similar to Table 2 , except that the fuel economy data in Table 2 is replaced wit h CO 2 

## emissions data in Table

4.

23

## Table 4

Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars

Adj Comp
Model Production CO 2 Vol Weight Footprint HP/ 0- to

- 60 Top

Year Percent (g/mi) (cu ft) (lb) (sq ft) HP We ight Time Speed Small Midsize Large

1975 80.6% 660

- 4058

- 136 0.0331 14.2 111 55.4% 23.3% 21.3%

1976 78.8% 598

- 4059

- 134 0.0324 14.4 110 55.4% 25.2% 19.4%

1977 80.0% 570 110 3944

- 133 0.0335 14.0 111 51.9% 24.5% 23.5%

1978 77.3% 525 109 3588

- 124 0.0342 13.7 111 44.7% 34.4% 21.0%

1979 77.8% 517 109 3485

- 119 0.0338 13.8 110 43.7% 34.2% 22.1%

1980 83.5% 446 104 3101

- 100 0.0322 14.3 107 54.4% 34.4% 11.3%

1981 82.7% 418 106 3076

- 99 0.0320 14.4 106 51.5% 36.4% 12.2%

1982 80.3% 402 106 3054

- 99 0.0320 14.4 106 56.5% 31.0% 12.5%

1983 77.7% 403 109 3112

- 104 0.0330 14.0 108 53.1% 31.8% 15.1%

1984 76.1% 397 108 3099

- 106 0.0339 13.8 109 57.4% 29.4% 13.2%

1985 74.6% 387 108 3093

- 111 0.0355 13.3 111 55.7% 28.9% 15.4%

1986 71.7% 375 107 3041

- 111 0.0360 13.2 111 59.5% 27.9% 12.6%

1987 72.2% 373 107 3031

- 112 0.0365 13.0 112 63.5% 24.3% 12.2%

1988 70.2% 368 107 3047

- 116 0.0375 12.8 113 64.8% 22.3% 12.8%

1989 69.3% 375 108 3099

- 121 0.0387 12.5 115 58.3% 28.2% 13.5%

1 990 69.8% 381 107 3176

- 129 0.0401 12.1 117 58.6% 28.7% 12.8%

1991 67.8% 380 107 3154

- 132 0.0413 11.8 118 61.5% 26.2% 12.3%

1992 66.6% 385 108 3240

- 141 0.0428 11.5 120 56.5% 27.8% 15.6%

1993 64.0% 379 108 3207

- 138 0.0425 11.6 120 57.2% 29.5% 13.3 %

1994 59.6% 382 108 3250

- 143 0.0432 11.4 121 58.5% 26.1% 15.4%

1995 62.0% 379 109 3263

- 152 0.0460 10.9 125 57.3% 28.6% 14.0%

1996 60.0% 381 109 3282

- 154 0.0464 10.8 125 54.3% 32.0% 13.6%

1997 57.6% 380 109 3274

- 156 0.0469 10.7 126 55.1% 30.6% 14.3%

1998 55.1% 380 109 3306

- 159 0.0475 10.6 127 49.4% 39.1% 11.4%

1999 55.1% 386 109 3365

- 164 0.0481 10.5 128 47.7% 39.7% 12.6%

2000 55.1% 388 110 3369

- 168 0.0492 10.4 129 47.5% 34.3% 18.2%

2001 53.9% 386 109 3380

- 168 0.0492 10.3 129 50.9% 32.3% 16.8%

2002 51.5% 385 110 3391

- 173 0.0504 10.2 131 48.6% 36.3% 15.1%

2003 50.2% 382 110 3417

- 176 0.0510 10.0 132 50.6% 33.5% 15.9%

2004 48.0% 384 110 3462

- 182 0.0521 9.8 133 47.4% 35.5% 17.0%

2005 50.5% 378 111 3463

- 182 0.0518 9.8 133 44.2% 38.9% 16.8%

2006 52.9% 382 112 3534

- 194 0.0540 9.6 136 46.2% 32.9% 20.9%

2007 52.9% 369 110 3507

- 189 0.0531 9.6 135 44.6% 40.0% 15.4%

2008 52.7% 366 110 3527 45.4 193 0.0536 9.6 136 44.7% 35.8% 19.5%

2009 60.2% 350 110 3463 45.2 184 0.0520 9.8 133 48.2% 34.6% 17.2%

2010 58.9% 345 110 3499 45.2 192 0.0537 9.5 136 47.8% 38.5% 13.8%



### 24

## Table 4 (continued)

Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Trucks

Adj Comp
Model Produc tion CO 2 Weight Footprint HP/ 0- to

- 60 Top

Year Percent (g/mi) (lb) (sq ft) HP Weight Time Speed Small Midsize Large Van SUV Pickup

1975 19.4% 764 4072

- 142 0.0349 13.6 114 10.9% 24.2% 64.9% 23.0% 9.4% 67.6%

1976 21.2% 726 4155

- 141 0.034 0 13.8 113 9.0% 20.3% 70.7% 19.2% 9.3% 71.4%

1977 20.0% 669 4135

- 147 0.0356 13.3 115 11.0% 20.4% 68.5% 18.2% 10.0% 71.8%

1978 22.7% 687 4151

- 146 0.0351 13.4 114 10.9% 22.7% 66.3% 19.1% 11.6% 69.3%

1979 22.2% 711 4252

- 138 0.0325 14.3 111 15.2% 19.5 % 65.3% 15.6% 13.0% 71.5%

1980 16.5% 565 3869

- 121 0.0313 14.5 108 28.4% 17.6% 54.0% 13.0% 9.9% 77.1%

1981 17.3% 523 3806

- 119 0.0311 14.6 108 23.2% 19.1% 57.7% 13.5% 7.5% 79.1%

1982 19.7% 515 3806

- 120 0.0317 14.5 109 21.1% 31.0% 47.9% 16.2% 8.5% 75.3%

1983 22.3% 503 3763

- 118 0.0313 14.5 108 16.6% 45.9% 37.6% 16.6% 12.6% 70.8%

1984 23.9% 511 3782

- 118 0.0310 14.7 108 19.5% 46.4% 34.1% 20.2% 18.7% 61.1%

1985 25.4% 508 3795

- 124 0.0326 14.1 110 19.2% 48.5% 32.3% 23.3% 20.0% 56.6%

1986 28.3% 489 3738

- 123 0.0330 14.0 110 23.5% 48.5% 28.0% 24.0% 17.8% 58.2%

1987 27.8% 486 3713

- 131 0.0351 13.3 113 19.9% 59.6% 20.6% 26.9% 21.1% 51.9%

1988 29.8% 497 3841

- 141 0.0366 12.9 115 15.0% 57.2% 27.8% 24.8% 21.2% 53.9%

1989 30.7% 506 3921

- 146 0.0372 12.8 116 13.9% 58.9% 27.2% 28.8% 20.9% 50.3%

1990 30.2% 511 4005

- 151 0.0377 12.6 117 13.4% 57.1% 29.6% 33.2% 18.6% 48.2%

1991 32.2% 500 3948

- 150 0.0379 12.6 117 11.4% 67.2% 21.4% 25.5% 27.0% 47.4%

1992 33.4% 512 4056

- 155 0.0382 12.5 118 10.4% 64.0 % 25.6% 30.0% 24.7% 45.3%

1993 36.0% 509 4073

- 162 0.0398 12.1 120 8.8% 65.3% 25.9% 30.3% 27.6% 42.1%

1994 40.4% 516 4125

- 166 0.0403 12.0 121 9.8% 63.1% 27.2% 24.8% 28.4% 46.7%

1995 38.0% 523 4184

- 168 0.0401 12.0 121 8.6% 63.5% 27.9% 28.9% 31.6% 39.5%

1996 40.0% 516 4225

- 179 0.0423 11.5 124 6.5% 67.1% 26.4% 26.8% 36.0% 37.2%

1997 42.4% 524 4344

- 187 0.0429 11.4 126 10.1% 52.5% 37.3% 20.7% 40.0% 39.3%

1998 44.9% 519 4283

- 187 0.0435 11.2 126 8.9% 58.7% 32.4% 23.0% 39.8% 37.2%

1999 44.9% 531 4 412

- 197 0.0446 11.0 128 7.7% 55.8% 36.5% 21.4% 41.4% 37.2%

2000 44.9% 525 4375

- 197 0.0448 11.0 128 6.7% 55.7% 37.5% 22.7% 42.2% 35.1%

2001 46.1% 532 4463

- 209 0.0466 10.6 131 6.6% 47.6% 45.9% 17.1% 47.9% 35.0%

2002 48.5% 533 4546

- 219 0.0482 10.4 134 7.1% 43.5% 49.4% 15.9% 53.6% 30.5%

2003 49.8% 526 4586

- 221 0.0481 10.4 134 5.8% 48.0% 46.1% 15.7% 52.8% 31.5%

2004 52.0% 531 4710

- 236 0.0501 10.0 137 5.1% 46.2% 48.7% 11.7% 57.7% 30.7%

2005 49.5% 517 4668

- 237 0.0505 10.0 137 2.8% 47.3% 49.9% 1 8.8% 51.9% 29.2%

2006 47.1% 509 4665

- 235 0.0502 10.0 137 2.0% 49.0% 49.0% 16.4% 52.8% 30.8%

2007 47.1% 502 4752

- 248 0.0520 9.8 140 2.0% 44.9% 53.1% 11.8% 58.8% 29.4%

2008 47.3% 488 4707 53.0 247 0.0521 9.7 140 2.5% 49.6% 47.9% 12.0% 60.7% 27.3%

200 9 39.8% 467 4605 52.7 245 0.0528 9.6 140 2.1% 52.6% 45.3% 10.0% 63.0% 26.9%

2010 41.1% 467 4738 54.0 259 0.0544 9.4 143 1.4% 45.7% 52.9% 8.5% 60.7% 30.8%



### 25

## Table 4 (continued)

Vehicle Size and Design Characteris tics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Cars and Trucks

Adj Comp
Model CO 2 Weight Footprint HP/ 0- to

- 60 Top

Year (g/mi) (lb) (sq ft) HP Weight Time Speed

1975 681 4060

- 137 0.0335 14.1 112

1976 625 4079

- 135 0.0328 14.3 111

1977 590 3982

- 13 6 0.0339 13.8 112

1978 562 3715

- 129 0.0344 13.6 112

1979 560 3655

- 124 0.0335 13.9 110

1980 466 3228

- 104 0.0320 14.3 107

1981 436 3202

- 102 0.0318 14.4 107

1982 425 3202

- 103 0.0320 14.4 107

1983 426 3257

- 107 0.0327 14.1 108

1984 424 3262

- 109 0.0332 14.0 109

1985 417 3271

- 114 0.0347 13.5 110

1986 407 3238

- 114 0.0351 13.4 111

1987 405 3221

- 118 0.0361 13.1 112

1988 407 3283

- 123 0.0372 12.8 114

1989 415 3351

- 129 0.0382 12.5 115

1990 420 3426

- 135 0.0394 12.2 117

1991 418 341 0

- 138 0.0402 12.1 118

1992 428 3512

- 145 0.0413 11.8 120

1993 426 3519

- 147 0.0416 11.8 120

1994 436 3603

- 152 0.0420 11.7 121

1995 434 3613

- 158 0.0438 11.3 123

1996 435 3659

- 164 0.0447 11.1 125

1997 441 3727

- 169 0.0452 11.0 126

1998 442 3744

- 171 0.0457 10.9 126

1999 451 3835

- 179 0.0465 10.7 128

2000 450 3821

- 181 0.0472 10.6 129

2001 453 3879

- 187 0.0480 10.5 130

2002 457 3951

- 195 0.0493 10.3 132

2003 454 3999

- 199 0.0496 10.2 133

2004 461 4111

- 211 0.0511 9.9 135

2005 44 7 4059

- 209 0.0512 9.9 135

2006 442 4067

- 213 0.0522 9.8 137

2007 431 4093

- 217 0.0525 9.7 137

2008 424 4085 49.0 219 0.0529 9.7 138

2009 397 3917 48.2 208 0.0523 9.7 136

2010 395 4009 48.8 220 0.0540 9.5 139



### 26

## Table 4 shows that average, combined car/truck, weight and horsepower levels declined significantly from MY1975 through MY1981, with weight decreasing by over 850 pounds (21%) and power decreasing by 35 horsepower (26%). Average vehicle weight grew slowly in the 1980s, and more rapidly thereafter, and by MY2004 average weight had reached an all -time high of 4111 pounds. It was relatively constant through 2008, but fell by 168 pounds in MY2009 and is now almost 200 pounds less than the all- time high in MY2004. Average vehicle horsepower gre w steadily since MY1981, until decreasing by 11 horsepower in MY2009. The projected MY2010 level of 220 horsepower represents a 61% increase over MY1975, and a 116% increase relative to MY1981, which

was the all

- time low for this data series. Table 4 als o shows that average MY2009 footprint values were 45.2 square feet for cars, 52.7 square feet for trucks, and 48.2 square feet for cars and trucks combined.

This report adopts a new approach for grouping vehicles by “Manufacturer” and “Make” compared to previous reports in this series. The manufacturer definition is that used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for purposes of implementation of and manufacturer compliance with the CAFE program. Make is typically included in the model name and is generally recognized by consumers as the “brand” of the vehicle. The Pontiac and Saturn makes no longer exist, but are included since Table 5 also includes model years 2008 and 2009. For more details on this vehicle grouping approach, a nd the thresholds that were used to identify the 14 manufacturers and 32 makes shown in Table 5 , see the more detailed discussion in Section VII. It is important to note that when a manufacturer or make grouping is changed to reflect a change in the indus try's financial structure, EPA makes the same adjustment in the historical database back to 1975. This maintains a consistent manufacturer (or make) definition over time, which allows a better identification of long- term trends. On the other hand, this a lso means that the current database does not necessarily reflect actual financial or structural arrangements in the past. For example, the 2010 database no longer accounts for the fact that Chrysler was combined with Daimler for several years, and Table 5 shows data for a Chrysler Ram make for 2008 and 2009, even though Ram did not formally become a separate make until MY2010.

Table 5 gives adjusted CO 2 

## emissions values for cars, trucks, and cars and trucks combined for MY2008

- 2010, for the 14 highest

- selling manufacturers and 32 largest makes associated with those manufacturers. Manufacturers are listed in order of increasing MY2009 car plus truck CO 2 

## emissions rate. Due to the higher -than

usual uncertainty associated with the MY2010 projections (becaus e they were submitted by automakers to EPA during the market turmoil of 2009), three years of data are shown in these tables. By including data from both MY2008 and MY2009, with formal end-of- year data for both years, it is possible to identify meaningful changes from year

- to -year (though MY2009 was admittedly a very unusual year in terms of economic recession and industry sales). Because of the uncertainty associated with the MY2010 projections, changes from MY2009 to MY2010 are less meaningful. EPA anti cipates that the 2010 results for all manufacturers will change after the final MY2010 data has been submitted to EPA, and the final MY2010 data will be included in next year’s report.

27

## Table 5

Adjusted Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Manufacturer and Make for MY2008

- 2010 (g/mi)

Manufacturer Make

Toyota Toyota
Toyota Lexus
Toyota Scion
Toyota All
Hyundai All

Honda Honda

Honda Acura

Honda All

Kia All

Nissan Nissan

Nissan Infiniti

Nissan All

VW VW

VW Audi

VW All

Mitsubishi All

Mazda All

Subaru All

BMW BMW

BMW Mini

BMW All

GM Chevrolet

GM Pontiac

GM GMC

GM Buick

GM Cadillac

GM Saturn

GM All

Ford Ford

Ford Lincoln

Ford Mercury

Ford Volvo

Ford All

Daimler Mercedes Benz

Daimler Smart

Daimler All
Chrysler Dodge
Chrysler Chrysler
Chrysler Jeep Chrysler Ram Chrysler All

Other All

Fleet 2008

Cars

292

396

350

317

334

321

401

328

339

335

441

351

373

399

385

378

353

391

422

307

406

371

388

- 429

456

381

387

385

432

426

424

398

461

239

439

393

411

-

- 401

398

366 2008
Trucks

469

456

- 467

435

430

504

437

458

500

519

502

541

549

545

460

440

425

482

- 482

517

437

522

471

560

437

510

503

498

454

532

501

544

- 544

489

452

491

548

495

529

488 2008

Cars
and
Trucks

386

422

350

389

364

365

443

372

388

396

465

406

381

423

398

399

385

399

434

307

419

448

393

522

444

488

415

452

461

465

437

457

459

482

239

464

434

426

491

548

460

462

424 2009

Cars

305

390

350

314

333

319

381

325

326

332

418

341

357

391

367

373

360

389

417

293

390

359

376

- 366

465

350

371

3 52

437

435

414

379

454

239

432

403

404

-

- 403

411

350 2009
Trucks

424

466

- 430

431

420

496

428

447

444

492

447

435

488

456

415

422

397

491

- 491

514

438

517

464

562

425

507

478

465

406

530

475

542

- 542

467

452

494

563

490

527

467 2009

Cars
and
Trucks

341

425

350

349

355

354

424

361

367

371

437

377

365

410

379

379

383

393

432

293

407

430

379

517

390

487

393

432

438

443

422

432

437

476

239

457

429

436

494

563

464

453

397 2010

Cars

2010 2010 and

Cars Trucks Trucks

296 471 358

376 415 394

344

- 344

307 461 363

336 381 343

309 411 338

394 472 420

317 418 346

319 438 354

330 451 364

414 475 435

340 455 373

340 447 351

370 467 390

352 458 367

359 399 367

361 438 391

373 398 382

425 486 437

302

- 302

384 486 399

361 477 421

- - -

- 468 468

417 454 425

442 475 455

- - - 375 472 427

361 483 436

422 481 433

379 436 401

411 471 438

375 481 434

442 525 467

239

- 239

432 525 459

414 468 440

399 450 426

- 474 474

- 558 558

409 489 463

400 548 476

345 467 395



### 28

## For MY2008, Hyundai’s overall, adjusted CO 2 

## emissions performance of 364 g/mi was the lowest of any manufacturer, followed by Honda at 372 g/mi and Mazda at 385 g/mi. Daimler had the highest adjusted CO 2 

## emissions performance in MY2008, at 464 g/mi, followed closely by Chrysler and Ford.

All bu t one of the 14 manufacturers reduced CO 2 

## emissions in MY2009, and the industry level of 397 g/mi represents an all -time low. In terms of manufacturers, Toyota had the lowest MY2009 adjusted CO 2 

## emissions performance of 349 g/mi, followed by Hyundai at 355 g/mi and Honda at 361 g/mi. Chrysler had the highest MY2009 adjusted CO 2 

## emissions performance for any manufacturer, 464 g/mi, and was followed by Daimler at 457 g/mi and Ford at 437 g/mi. In terms of improvement from MY2008 to MY2009, Toyota had the l argest reduction of 40 g/mi, followed by Nissan at 29 g/mi and Ford with 22 g/mi.

In terms of makes in MY2009, the Smart had the lowest CO 2 

## emissions of 239 g/mi. Of course, the Smart Fortwo is the smallest and lightest car in the U.S. market and has rel atively small production volumes. The make

with the second

- lowest CO 2 

## emissions performance in MY2009 is the Mini, which also produces relatively low volumes of small vehicles, at 293 g/mi. Of the makes with higher production, Toyota (that is, Toyota manu facturer vehicles sold under the Toyota brand) had the lowest overall CO 2 

## emissions at 341 g/mi, followed by Honda at 354 g/mi and Hyundai at 355 g/mi.

Preliminary projections suggest that 11 of the 14 manufacturers will improve CO 2 

## emissions performance further in MY2010, though EPA will not have actual data for MY2010 until next year. Hyundai, Honda, and Kia are projected to be the overall CO 2 

## emissions leaders for MY2010, with the same three manufacturers projected to make the biggest gains in MY2010.

While Tables 3

, 4, and 5 provide key summary CO 2 

## emissions data, EPA recognizes that many users will

want the CO 2 

## emissions values equivalent to the fuel economy values in many other tables in this report. Converting fuel economy values from tables in th is report to approximate equivalent CO 2 

## emissions values is fairly straightforward.

If it is known that a fuel economy value in this report is based on a single gasoline vehicle, or a 100% gasoline vehicle fleet, one can calculate the precise correspondin g CO 2 

## value by simply dividing 8887 (which is a typical value for the grams of CO 2 

## per gallon of gasoline test fuel, assuming all the carbon is converted to CO 2 

## ) by the fuel economy value in miles per gallon. For example, 8887 divided by a gasoline vehicle fuel economy of 30 mpg would yield an equivalent CO 2 

## emissions value of 296 grams per mile.

Since gasoline vehicle production has accounted for 99+% of all light-duty vehicle production for all model years since 1975 except for the six years from 1979 through 1984, this simple approach yields very accurate results for most model years.

Diesel fuel has 14.5% higher carbon content per gallon than gasoline. To calculate a CO 2 

## equivalent value for a diesel vehicle, one should divide 10,180 by the diesel vehicle fuel economy value. Accordingly, a 30 mpg

diesel vehicle would have a CO 2 

## equivalent value of 339 grams per mile.

Table 6 should be used by those who want to make the most accurate conversions of industry- wide fuel economy values to CO 2 

## emissions values

. Table 6 gives model year

- specific industry

- wide values for grams of CO 2

## per gallon based on actual light-duty gasoline and diesel vehicle production in that year. Using these model yearspecific values and dividing by the fuel economy value in mil es per gallon will allow accurate conversions of industry- wide fuel economy values to industry

- wide CO 2 

## emissions values.

29

## Readers will have to make judgment calls about how to best convert fuel economy values that do not represent industry

- wide values (e.g., just small cars or vehicles with 5

- speed automatic transmissions). If the user knows the gasoline/diesel production volume fractions of the individual database component, it is best to generate a weighted value of grams of CO 2 

## per gallon based on the 8887 (gasoline) and 10,180 (diesel) factors discussed above. Otherwise, the reader can choose between the model year

- specific weighting in Table 6 (which implicitly assumes that the diesel fraction in the database component of interest is similar to that for the overall fleet in that year) or the gasoline value of 8887 (implicitly assuming no diesels in that database component). In nearly all cases, any error associated with either of these approaches will be relatively small.

Table 6

Factors for Converting Industry

- wide Fuel Economy Values from this Report to
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Values

Gasoline Diesel Weighted CO 2 Model Production Production per Gallon

Year Share Share (grams)

1975 99.8% 0.2% 8890

1976 99.8% 0.2% 8890

1977 99.6% 0.4% 8892

1978 99.1% 0.9% 8899

1979 98.0% 2.0% 8913

1980 95.7% 4.3% 8943

1981 94.1% 5.9% 8963

1982 94.4% 5.6% 8959

1983 97.3% 2.7% 8922

1984 98.2% 1.8% 8910

1985 99.1% 0.9% 8899

1986 99.6% 0.4% 8892

1987 99.7% 0.3% 8891

1988 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1989 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1990 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1991 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1992 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1993 100.0%

- 8887

1994 100.0% 0.0% 8887

1995 100.0% 0.0% 8887

1996 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1997 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1998 99.9% 0.1% 8888

1999 99.9% 0.1% 8888

2000 99.9% 0.1% 8888

2001 99.9% 0.1% 8888

2002 99.8% 0.2% 8890

2003 99.8% 0.2% 8890

2004 99.9% 0.1% 8888

2005 99.7% 0.3% 8891

2006 99.6% 0.4% 8892

2007 99.9% 0.1% 8888

2008 99.9% 0.1% 8888

2009 99.5% 0.5% 8893

2010 99.6% 0.4% 8892



### 30

## V. Fuel Economy T rends by Vehicle Type, Size, and Weight

Figure 8 shows production share trends by ve hicle type and size. Of the five vehicle classes: cars, wagons, sports utility vehicles (SUVs ), vans, and pickups, the biggest overall increase in production share since 1 975 has been for SUVs, which increased from le ss than two percent in 1975 to 25% in MY2010 . The biggest overall decrease has been for cars, down from 71% of the fleet in 1975 to 54% in MY2010. By comparison, the production fraction for pickup trucks has remained relatively constant at about 12% of overall production.

Figure 9 (within vehicle type) and Table 7 (across the entire market) compares production fractions by vehicle type and size with the fleet again stratified into five vehicle types: cars, station wagons, vans, SUVs, and pickup trucks; and three vehicle sizes: small, midsize, and large. Small cars have historically been the leading car segment, though midsize cars have nearly pulled even with small cars in the last few years and the overall market share of small cars has fallen from 40% to less than 25%. Wagons have decreased from about 10% of production in 1975 to about 5% of production today, with small wagons dominating the low-volume segment.

Since 1975, the largest increases in pro duction fractions have been for midsize and large SUVs (including crossovers). These two classes are expected to account for 24% of all light vehicles built this year, compared to combined totals of about 1.3 and 4.5% in 1975 and 1988, respectively. Minivans and vans, whose popularity peaked in the 1990s, now account for less than 5% of production , similar to 1975 levels. Almost all of the vans sold today are midsize minivans. Pickups are now dominated by large pickups.

Figure 8

Production Share by Vehicle Type

10 0%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%ProductionShare Car

Wagon SUV

Van

Pickup

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

### Model Year

31

## Figure 9

Production Share by Vehicle SizeProductionShare 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

### Car

Wagon

SUV

Van

Pickup Small

Midsize

Large

Small

Midsize

Large

Small

Midsize

Large

Small

Midsize

Large

Small

Midsize

Large

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

### Model Year

32

## Table 7

Production Shares of Model Years 1975, 1988, and 2010 by Vehicle Size and Type

Difference Difference Difference Vehicle Type Size 1975 1988 2010 1975 to 2010 1975 to 1988 1988 to 2010

Car Small 40.0% 43.8% 23.7%

- 16.3% 3.9%

- 20.2%

Car Midsize 16.0% 13.8% 21.9% 5.9%

- 2.1% 8.1%

Car Large 15.2% 8.5% 8.0%

- 7.2%

- 6.7%

- 0.5%

Car All 71.1% 66.2% 53.6%

- 17.6%

- 5.0%

- 12.6%
Wagon Small 4.7% 1.7% 4.5%

- 0.2%

- 3.0% 2.8%

Wagon Midsize 2.8% 1.9% 0.8%

- 2.1%

- 1.0%

- 1.1%

Wagon Large 1.9% 0.5% 0.1%

- 1.8%

- 1.4%

- 0.4%

Wagon All 9.4% 4.0% 5.3%

- 4.1%

- 5.4% 1.3%

Van Small 0.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3%

- 0.3%

Van Midsize 3.0% 6.2% 3.3 % 0.3% 3.2%

- 2.8%

Van Large 1.5% 0.9% 0.1%

- 1.4%

- 0.6%

- 0.8%

Van All 4.5% 7.4% 3.5%

- 1.0% 2.9%

- 3.9%

SUV Small 0.5% 1.9% 0.5% 0.0% 1.4%

- 1.4%

SUV Midsize 1.2% 4.0% 14.0% 12.8% 2.8% 10.0%

SUV Large 0.1% 0.5% 10.4% 10.3% 0.3% 10.0%

SUV All 1.8% 6.3% 25.0% 23.1% 4.5% 18.6%
Pickup Small 1.6% 2.2%

- - 1.6% 0.7%

- 2.2%
Pickup Midsize 0.5% 6.9% 1.4% 0.9% 6.3%

- 5.5%
Pickup Large 11.0% 7.0% 11.2% 0.2%

- 4.1% 4.3%
Pickup All 13.1% 16.1% 12.7%

- 0.5% 2.9%

- 3.4%

All Trucks 19.4% 29.8% 41.1% 21.7% 10.4% 11.3%



## Figure 10 shows annual trends in adjusted fuel economy, weight, and performance for cars, wagons, vans, SUVs, and pickups. For all five vehicle types, there has been a clear long term trend towards increased weight, moderating since 2005 for most type s.

Table 8 shows the lowest, average, and highest adjusted mpg performance by vehicle class and size for three selected years. For both 1988 and 2010, the mpg performance is such that the midsize vehicles in all classes have better fuel economy than the corresponding entry for small vehicles in 1975. In Table 9 , the percentage changes obtainable from the entries in Table 8 are presented. Average mpg for five classes (midsize cars, large cars, midsize wagons, midsize SUVs, and large SUVs) has improved over 80% since 1975. Since 1988, average fuel economy has decreased for large wagons, smal l SUVs, and midsize pickups with the largest impr ovements in average mpg being over 30% for midsize and large SUVs, respectively. Tables 10 and 11 present this same data in terms of fuel consumption.

33

## Figure 10

Fuel Economy and Performance by Vehicle Type

12 14 16 18 20 22 24

3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

8 10 12 14 16 

## Car Wagon Van SUV Pickup

Adjusted Composite MPG

Weight (lb)

0 to 60 Time (seconds)20102000199019802010200019901980201020001990198020102000199019802010200019901980



## Model Year

34

## Table 8

Lowest, Average, and Highest Adjusted Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type and Size

Car or Vehicle 1975 1975 1975 1988 1988 1988 2010 2010 2010
Truck Type Size Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High

Car Car Small 8.6 15.6 28.3 7.5 25.7 54.4 10.1 26.7 42.9

Car Car Midsize 8.6 11.6 18.4 10.5 22.6 27.7 12.2 26.1 49.4

Car Car Large 8.4 11.2 14.6 10.0 20.6 26.0 12.6 22.7 26.4

Car Car All 8.4 13.4 28.3 7.5 24.2 54.4 10.1 25.8 49.4

Car Wagon Small 11.8 19.1 24.1 17.1 26.3 33.2 20.0 26.8 35.7

Car Wagon Midsize 8.4 11.3 25.0 17.5 22.2 27.7 18.5 22.6 25.5

Car Wagon Large 8.4 10.2 12.8 19.2 19.4 19.4 16. 5 16.8 20.9

Car Wagon All 8.4 13.8 25.0 17.1 23.3 33.2 16.5 25.9 35.7

Truck Van Small 16.2 17.5 18.5 15.5 20.6 25.0 24.1 24.1 24.8

Truck Van Midsize 8.2 11.3 18.4 11.3 18.4 23.4 18.4 20.2 23.5

Truck Van Large 8.9 10.7 14.5 9.9 14.3 16.8 14.7 16.0 17.4

Truck Van All 8.2 11.1 18.5 9.9 17.9 25.0 14.7 20.1 24.8

Truck SUV Small 10.2 13.7 16.3 15.6 20.4 27.7 17.0 17.1 17.6

Truck SUV Midsize 8.2 10.2 18.4 10.2 16.5 23.6 13.4 21.6 31.9

Truck SUV Large 7.9 10.3 13.7 12.2 14.0 18.8 12.4 18.7 27.0

Truck SUV A ll 7.9 11.0 18.4 10.2 17.2 27.7 12.4 20.2 31.9

Truck Pickup Small 13.0 19.2 20.8 13.3 21.0 24.6

- - - Truck Pickup Midsize 17.8 17.9 18.0 15.3 21.3 25.9 15.9 19.9 24.3

Truck Pickup Large 7.6 11.1 18.5 9.8 15.2 21.0 14.4 16.6 21.8

Truck Pickup All 7.6 1 1.9 20.8 9.8 18.1 25.9 14.4 16.9 24.3

Car All All 8.4 13.5 28.3 7.5 24.1 54.4 10.1 25.8 49.4

Truck All All 7.6 11.6 20.8 9.8 17.9 27.7 12.4 19.1 31.9

All All 7.6 13.1 28.3 7.5 21.9 54.4 10.1 22.5 49.4



### 35

## Table 9

Percent Change in Lowest, Average, and Highest Adjusted Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type and Size

1975 to 1975 to 1975 to 1975 to 1988 to 1988 to

Car or Vehicle 1975 to 2010 2010 1975 to 1988 1988 1988 to 2010 2010
Truck Type Size 2010 Low Average High 1988 Low Average High 2010 Low Average High

Car Car Small 17% 71% 52%

- 13% 65% 92% 35% 4%

- 21%

Car Car Midsize 42% 125% 168% 22% 95% 51% 16% 15% 78%

Car Car Large 50% 103% 81% 19% 84% 78% 26% 10% 2%

Car Car All 20% 93% 75%

- 11% 81% 92% 35% 7%

- 9%

Car Wagon Small 69% 4 0% 48% 45% 38% 38% 17% 2% 8%

Car Wagon Midsize 120% 100% 2% 108% 96% 11% 6% 2%

- 8%

Car Wagon Large 96% 65% 63% 129% 90% 52%

- 14%

- 13% 8%

Car Wagon All 96% 88% 43% 104% 69% 33%

- 4% 11% 8%

Truck Van Small 49% 38% 34%

- 4% 18% 35% 55% 17%

- 1%

Truck Van Mi dsize 124% 79% 28% 38% 63% 27% 63% 10% 0%

Truck Van Large 65% 50% 20% 11% 34% 16% 48% 12% 4%

Truck Van All 79% 81% 34% 21% 61% 35% 48% 12%

- 1%

Truck SUV Small 67% 25% 8% 53% 49% 70% 9%

- 16%

- 36%

Truck SUV Midsize 63% 112% 73% 24% 62% 28% 31% 31% 35%

T ruck SUV Large 57% 82% 97% 54% 36% 37% 2% 34% 44%

Truck SUV All 57% 84% 73% 29% 56% 51% 22% 17% 15%

Truck Pickup Small

- - - 2% 9% 18%

- - - Truck Pickup Midsize

- 11% 11% 35%

- 14% 19% 44% 4%

- 7%

- 6%

Truck Pickup Large 89% 50% 18% 29% 37% 14% 47% 9% 4%

Truck Pickup All 89% 42% 17% 29% 52% 25% 47%

- 7%

- 6%

Car All All 20% 91% 75%

- 11% 79% 92% 35% 7%

- 9%

Truck All All 63% 65% 53% 29% 54% 33% 27% 7% 15%

All All 33% 72% 75%

- 1% 67% 92% 35% 3%

- 9%



### 36

## Table 10

Adjusted Fuel Consu mption (Gal./100 miles) by Vehicle Type and Size

Car or Vehicle 1975 1975 1975 1988 1988 1988 2010 2010 2010
Truck Type Size Low Average High Low Average High Low Average High

Car Car Small 11.6 6.4 3.5 13.3 3.9 1.8 9.9 3.7 2.3

Car Car Midsize 11.6 8.6 5.4 9.5 4.4 3.6 8.2 3.8 2.0

Car Car Large 11.9 8.9 6.8 10.0 4.9 3.8 7.9 4.4 3.8

Car Car All 11.9 7.5 3.5 13.3 4.1 1.8 9.9 3.9 2.0

Car Wagon Small 8.5 5.2 4.1 5.8 3.8 3.0 5.0 3.7 2.8

Car Wagon Midsize 11.9 8.8 4.0 5.7 4.5 3.6 5.4 4.4 3.9

Car Wagon Lar ge 11.9 9.8 7.8 5.2 5.2 5.2 6.1 6.0 4.8

Car Wagon All 11.9 7.2 4.0 5.8 4.3 3.0 6.1 3.9 2.8

Truck Van Small 6.2 5.7 5.4 6.5 4.9 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0

Truck Van Midsize 12.2 8.8 5.4 8.8 5.4 4.3 5.4 5.0 4.3

Truck Van Large 11.2 9.3 6.9 10.1 7.0 6.0 6.8 6.2 5.7

Truck Van All 12.2 9.0 5.4 10.1 5.6 4.0 6.8 5.0 4.0

Truck SUV Small 9.8 7.3 6.1 6.4 4.9 3.6 5.9 5.8 5.7

Truck SUV Midsize 12.2 9.8 5.4 9.8 6.1 4.2 7.5 4.6 3.1

Truck SUV Large 12.7 9.7 7.3 8.2 7.1 5.3 8.1 5.3 3.7

Truck SUV All 12.7 9.1 5.4 9.8 5.8 3.6 8.1 5.0 3.1

Truck Pickup Small 7.7 5.2 4.8 7.5 4.8 4.1

- - - Truck Pickup Midsize 5.6 5.6 5.6 6.5 4.7 3.9 6.3 5.0 4.1

Truck Pickup Large 13.2 9.0 5.4 10.2 6.6 4.8 6.9 6.0 4.6

Truck Pickup All 13.2 8.4 4.8 10.2 5.5 3.9 6.9 5.9 4.1

Car All All 11.9 7.4 3.5 13.3 4.1 1.8 9.9 3.9 2.0

Truck All All 13.2 8.6 4.8 10.2 5.6 3.6 8.1 5.2 3.1

All All 13.2 7.6 3.5 13.3 4.6 1.8 9.9 4.4 2.0



### 37

## Table 11

Percent Change* in Adjusted Fuel Consumption by Vehicle Type and Size

1975 to 1975 to 1975 to 1975 to 1988 to 1988 to

Car or Ve hicle 1975 to 2010 2010 1975 to 1988 1988 1988 to 2010 2010
Truck Type Size 2010 Low Average High 1988 Low Average High 2010 Low Average High

Car Car Small 15% 42% 34%

- 15% 39% 49% 26% 5%

- 28%

Car Car Midsize 29 % 56% 63% 18% 49% 33% 14% 14% 44%

Car Car Large 34% 51% 44% 16% 45% 44% 21% 10% 0%

Car Car All 17% 48% 43%

- 12% 45% 49% 26% 5%

- 11%

Car Wagon Small 41% 29% 32% 32% 27% 27% 14% 3% 7%

Car Wagon Midsize 55% 50% 3% 52% 49% 10% 5% 2%

- 8%

Car Wagon Large 49 % 39% 38% 56% 47% 33%

- 17%

- 15% 8%

Car Wagon All 49% 46% 30% 51% 40% 25%

- 5% 9% 7%

Truck Van Small 34% 28% 26%

- 5% 14% 26% 37% 16% 0%

Truck Van Midsize 56% 43% 20% 28% 39% 20% 39% 7% 0%

Truck Van Large 39% 33% 17% 10% 25% 13% 33% 11% 5%

Truck Van All 44% 44% 26% 17% 38% 26% 33% 11% 0%

Truck SUV Small 40% 21% 7% 35% 33% 41% 8%

- 18%

- 58%

Truck SUV Midsize 39% 53% 43% 20% 38% 22% 23% 25% 26%

Truck SUV Large 36% 45% 49% 35% 27% 27% 1% 25% 30%

Truck SUV All 36% 45% 43% 23% 36% 33% 17% 14% 14%

Truck Pic kup Small

- - - 3% 8% 15%

- - - Truck Pickup Midsize

- 13% 11% 27%

- 16% 16% 30% 3%

- 6%

- 5%

Truck Pickup Large 48% 33% 15% 23% 27% 11% 32% 9% 4%

Truck Pickup All 48% 30% 15% 23% 35% 19% 32%

- 7%

- 5%

Car All All 17% 47% 43%

- 12% 45% 49% 26% 5%

- 11%

Truck All All 39% 40% 35% 23% 35% 25% 21% 7% 14%

Both All All 25% 42% 43%

- 1% 39% 49% 26% 4%

- 11%



## *Note: A negative change indicates that fuel consumption has increased.

38

## Cars and light trucks with conventional drive trains have a fuel consumption and weight relationship which is well known and is shown in Figure 11 . Fuel consumption increases linearly with weight. Because vehicles with different propulsion systems, i.e., diesels and hybrids, occupy a different place on such a fuel consumption and weight plot, the data for hybrid and diesel vehicles are plotted separately and excluded from the trend lines shown on the graphs. At constant weight, MY2009 cars consume about 40% less fuel per mile than their MY1975
counterparts.

On this same constant weight ba sis, this year's vehicle s with diesel engines nominally consume 20 – 25% less fuel than the conventionally powered on es, while this year's hybrid vehicle s are about 30 – 40% better. Similarly, at constant weight this year's conventionally powered trucks a chieve about 50% better fuel consumption
than MY1975 vehicles did.

Figure 11

Laboratory 55/45 Fue l Consumption vs . Vehicle Weight, MY1975 and MY2010



## Car TruckGal/100miles 10

8

2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 

## 1975

1975

2010

2010 Conventional

6 

### Diesel

Hybrid

4

2



## Weight (lb)

39

## Figure 12 shows that the relationship between interior volume and fuel consumption is currently not as important as in the past. The data points on both of these graphs exclude two seaters and represent production weighted average fuel consumption calculated at increments of 1.0 cu. ft. As was done for Figure 11, the data points for hybrid and diesel vehicles were plotted separately from those for the conventionally powered vehicles.

Figure 12

Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Consumption vs. Interior Volume, MY1978 and MY2010 CarsGal/100Miles

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 

## 1978

2010 Conventional

Diesel

Hybrid

60 80 100 120 140 160 180


## Volume (cu ft)

40

## Figure 13 shows laboratory 55/45 fuel consumption versus footprint for cars and trucks, respectively, again with the regression lines excluding the hybrid and diesel data points. Car fuel consumption is more sensitive to footprint than truck fuel consumption. For a given footprint, trucks generally have somewhat higher fuel consumption than cars, though this is not the case at the very highest footprint levels.

Figure 13

Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Consumption vs. Footprint, MY2010 VehiclesGal/100miles

0 2 4 6 8 10

0 2 4 6 8 10 

## Car

Truck Conventional

Diesel

Hybrid

40 50 60 70 

## Footprint (sq ft)

41

## Figure 14 shows the improvement that occurred between 1975 and 2010 for fuel consumption as a function

of 0- to

- 60 acceleration time for cars and trucks.

Figure 14

Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Consumption vs. 0- to -60 Time, MY19 75 and MY2010 Vehicles

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0 2 4 6 8 10 12Gal/100miles 

## 1975

1975 2010

2010 Car

Truck Conventional

Diesel

Hybrid

0 5 10 15 20 25



## 0 to 60 time (sec.)

42

## Figure 15 compares Ton

- MPG data versus 0

- to -60 time and shows that at constant vehicle performance, there has been substantial improvement in Ton- MPG, particularly for hybrid and diesel vehicles.

Figure 15

Ton

- MPG vs . 0- to -60 Time, MY1975 and MY2010 VehiclesTon-MPG 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 20 40 60 80 100 

## 1975

1975 2010

2010 Car

Truck Conventional

Diesel

Hybrid

0 5 10 15 20 25 

## 0 to 60 time (sec.)

43

## Figure 16 and Table 12 show some of the changes in the distribution of weight that have occurred over the years for the light -duty fleet. In 1975, 13% of all light- duty vehicles had weights of less than 3000 lb compared to less than 4% in 2010. Since 1988, production share for vehicles with weight s of 5000 pounds or more has
increased from 3% to 20%.

Figure 16

Distribution of Light Vehicle Weight for Th ree Model Years

25%

20%

15% 

### 1975
10%

5%

0%

25%

20 %

Type 15% 

### 1988 Truck 10%

Car 5%

0%

25%

20%

15% 

### 2010
10%

5%

0%



### Vehicle Weight



## Table 12

Light Vehicle Production Share by Weight Class for Three Model Years

Weight

(lb) MY1975 MY1988 MY2010

<3000 13.4% 27.2% 3.8%

3000 8.7% 25.4% 15.6%

3500 10.6% 25.2% 25.3%

4000 20.6% 13.2% 23.7%

4500 21.3% 6.0% 12.5%

5000 16.7% 2.4% 8.2%

5500 8.7% 0.5% 4.5%

>5500 0.0% 0.0% 6.4%

Avg Wt 4060 3283 4009ProductionShare

1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500



### 44

## Figure 17 provides data for the annual production share of different weight vehicles for cars and truck s. In 1975, about 40% of the cars were in weight classes greater than 4000 pounds, compared to less than 5% this year. For MY2009, three weight classes (3000, 3500, and 4000 lbs) account for over 90% of all cars. Conversely, the production share of truc ks in the weight classes of 4500 lb or more have increased substantially, and these vehicles currently account for over 70% of all trucks, compared to about 30% in 1975. Figure 18 provides additional details of the truck data presented in Figure 17 for va ns, SUVs, and pickups respectively. Appendices D, E, and F contain a series of tables describing light

- duty vehicles at the vehicle size/type level of stratification in more detail; Appendix G provides similar data by vehicle type and weight class.

Fi gure 17

Production Share by Vehicle Weight Class

Car Truck

100%

80%
Weight

<2750 60%
2750

3000
40% 3500

4000

20 % >4000

0%ProductionShare

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### Mod el Year



### 45

## Figure 18

Production Share by Vehicle Type and Vehicle Weight Class

Van



### 15% 20% 25% 30%

0% 5% 10%

SUVProductionShare



### 0%

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Weight

<3500

3500

4000

4500

5000

>5000 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Pickup



### 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



## Model Year

46

## VI. Fuel Economy Technology Trends

Table 13 repeats the production fracti on and adjusted composite fuel economy data from Tables 1 and 2 and adds three measures of powertrain information: engine displacement (CID), horsepower (HP), and specific power (HP/CID). This table also includes production fraction data which specifies t he percent of vehicles that:
have front -wheel drive (F WD) or four- wheel drive (4WD ); have manual, lockup, or continuously variable

transmissions (CVT) ; have gasoline direct injection (GDI) , port fuel injection or throttle body fuel injection (TBI)

or are d iesels; are equipped with engines that have more than two valves per cylinder; use variable valve timing (VVT); have turbochargers; use cylinder deactivat ion (CD); and use hybrid technology.

For the overall MY2010 fleet, FWD a ccounts for about 60% of pro duction and 4WD for nearly one-quarter of the fleet. Regarding trans missions, manuals represent about seven percent of production, w hile CVTs have
grown to over ten percent . Multi -valve engines and VVT both account for about 85% of the MY2010 vehicles produced. Turbochargers are used on about three percent of the fleet. Hybrids represent about four percent of the fleet, while diesels represent 0.4% of the projected MY2010 production. Appendix K contains additional data on fuel metering and number of va lves per cylinder.

Table 14 compares technology usage for MY2010 by vehicle type and size. As discussed earlier, wheelbase is used in this report to distinguish whether a truck is small, mid

- size, or large, and four EPA car classes (Two

- Seater, Minicompa ct, Compact, and Subcompact) have been combined to form the small car class. For this table, the car classes are separated into cars and station wagons, so that the table stratifies light

- duty vehicles into a total of 15 vehicle types and sizes. Note that this table does not contain any data for small pickups, because none have been produced for several years.

Front- wheel drive (FWD) is used heavily in all of the car classes, small wagons and small and midsize vans. Conversely, four- wheel drive (4WD ) is used heavily in SUVs and pickups. A large portion of the midsize and large wagons also have 4WD, but very little use of it is made in vans and cars.

Manual transmissions are used primarily in small vehicles, some sports cars, and midsize pickups. Eng ines with more than two valves per cylinder and VVT are now prevalent for nearly all vehicle types and sizes.

Detailed tabulations of different technology types, including technology usage percentages for other model years, can be found in the Appendices.

47

## Table 13

Powertrain Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles (Percentage Basis)

Cars

Adj Front Four Model Production Comp HP/ Wheel Wheel Manual Lockup GDI Port TBI Multi

Year Share MPG CID HP CID Drive Drive Trans Trans CVT Meter ing Metering Metering Diesel Valve VVT Turbo CD Hybrid

1975 80.6% 13.5 288 136 0.515 6.5%

- 19.6% 0.3%

- - 5.1%

- 0.2%

- - - - - 1976 78.8% 14.9 287 134 0.502 5.8%

- 17.1%

- - - 3.2%

- 0.3%

- - - - - 1977 80.0% 15.6 279 133 0.516 6.8%

- 16.8%

- - - 4.2%

- 0.5%

- - - - - 1978 77.3% 16.9 251 124 0.538 9.6%

- 19.8% 7.1%

- - 5.1%

- 0.9%

- - - - - 1979 77.8% 17.2 238 119 0.545 11.9% 0.3% 21.1% 8.8%

- - 4.7%

- 2.1%

- - - - - 1980 83.5% 20.0 188 100 0.583 29.7% 0.9% 30.9% 16.8%

- - 6.2% 0.7% 4.4%

- - - - - 1981 82.7% 21.4 182 99 0.594 37.0% 0.7% 29.9% 33.3%

- - 6.1% 2.6% 5.9%

- - - - - 1982 80.3% 22.2 175 99 0.609 45.6% 0.8% 29.2% 51.4%

- - 7.2% 9.8% 4.7%

- - - - - 1983 77.7% 22.1 182 104 0.615 47.3% 3.1% 26.1% 56.7%

- - 9.5% 18.9% 2.1%

- - - - - 1984 76.1% 22.4 179 106 0.637 53.7% 1.0% 24.1% 58.3%

- - 15.0% 24.4% 1.7%

- - - - - 1985 74.6% 23.0 177 111 0.671 61.6% 2.1% 22.8% 58.7%

- - 21.4% 32.0% 0.9%

- - - - - 1986 71.7% 23.7 167 111 0.701 71.1% 1.1% 24.8% 58.0%

- - 36.7% 28.4% 0.3% 4.8%

- - - - 1987 72.2% 23.8 162 112 0.732 77.0% 1.1% 24.9% 59.5%

- - 42.5% 30.5% 0.3% 14.7%

- - - - 1988 70.2% 24.1 160 116 0.759 81.7% 0.8% 24.3% 66.1%

- - 53.7% 30.0% 0.0% 19.9%

- - - - 1989 69.3% 23.7 163 121 0.783 82.5% 1.0% 21.0% 69.3% 0.1%

- 62.4% 27.8% 0.0% 24.4%

- - - - 1990 69.8% 23.3 163 129 0.829 84.6% 1.0% 19.6% 72.9% 0.0%

- 77.5% 21.1% 0.0% 33.0% 0.6%

- - - 1991 67.8% 23.4 163 132 0.851 83.2% 1.4% 20.5% 73.6% 0.0%

- 78.0% 21.8% 0.1% 34.1% 2.4%

- - - 1992 66.6% 23.1 170 141 0.868 80.8% 1.1% 1 7.4% 76.4% 0.0%

- 89.5% 10.4% 0.1% 35.0% 4.6%

- - - 1993 64.0% 23.5 166 138 0.865 85.1% 1.2% 17.8% 77.0% 0.0%

- 91.6% 8.4%

- 36.7% 4.8%

- - - 1994 59.6% 23.3 168 143 0.884 84.4% 0.4% 16.7% 79.3%

- - 94.9% 5.1% 0.0% 41.0% 8.0%

- - - 1995 62.0% 23.4 167 1 52 0.945 82.0% 1.2% 16.3% 81.9%

- - 98.8% 1.2% 0.1% 52.2% 9.8%

- - - 1996 60.0% 23.3 165 154 0.958 86.5% 1.5% 14.9% 83.6% 0.0%

- 98.8% 1.1% 0.1% 57.3% 11.7% 0.3%

- - 1997 57.6% 23.4 164 156 0.974 86.5% 1.7% 13.5% 85.8% 0.1%

- 99.1% 0.8% 0.1% 58.6% 11.3% 0.7%

- - 1998 55.1% 23.4 164 159 0.993 87.0% 2.3% 12.3% 87.3% 0.1%

- 99.7% 0.1% 0.2% 61.4% 18.4% 2.4%

- - 1999 55.1% 23.0 166 164 1.009 87.2% 2.2% 10.9% 88.4% 0.0%

- 99.7% 0.1% 0.2% 64.6% 17.1% 3.3%

- - 2000 55.1% 22.9 165 168 1.032 84.9% 2.1% 11.2% 87.7% 0.0%

- 99.7% 0.1% 0.2% 65.1% 23.4% 2.3%

- 0.1%

2001 53.9% 23.0 165 168 1.042 84.1% 3.2% 11.4% 87.5% 0.2%

- 99.7%

- 0.3% 67.2% 28.3% 3.6%

- 0.0%

2002 51.5% 23.1 166 173 1.066 84.9% 3.8% 11.2% 88.1% 0.4%

- 99.6%

- 0.4% 69.9% 33.9% 4.2%

- 0.3%

2003 50.2 % 23.3 165 176 1.086 82.0% 3.5% 11.2% 87.9% 0.9%

- 99.6%

- 0.4% 73.8% 41.3% 2.1%

- 0.6%

2004 48.0% 23.1 168 182 1.106 80.8% 5.4% 10.2% 88.2% 1.4%

- 99.7%

- 0.3% 77.2% 44.2% 4.0%

- 0.9%

2005 50.5% 23.5 166 182 1.115 79.8% 5.8% 9.3% 88.0% 2.6%

- 99.6%

- 0.4% 78.2% 51.6% 2.7% 1.1% 2.1%

2006 52.9% 23.3 172 194 1.146 75.8% 5.8% 9.4% 88.1% 2.4%

- 99.4%

- 0.6% 80.8% 60.6% 3.6% 2.2% 1.5%

2007 52.9% 24.1 165 189 1.157 80.5% 5.7% 8.5% 81.1% 10.4%

- 99.6%

- 0.0% 84.8% 65.2% 3.7% 1.0% 3.4%

2008 52.7% 24.3 165 193 1.178 77.8% 7.3% 8.0% 80.2% 11.5% 3.2% 96.8%

- 0.1% 87.8% 63.5% 4.7% 2.3% 3.4%

2009 60.2% 25.4 155 184 1.190 82.5% 6.8% 6.7% 81.9% 11.0% 4.6% 94.7%

- 0.7% 91.9% 80.7% 4.4% 2.1% 3.0%

2010 58.9% 25.8 159 192 1.205 79.8% 6.5% 10.0% 76.0% 13.8% 6.7% 92.7%

- 0.5% 93.4% 91.5% 3.9% 3.1% 6.1%



### 48

## Table 13 (continued)

Powertrain Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles (Percentage Basis)

Trucks

Adj Front Four Model Production Comp HP/ Whee l Wheel Manual Lockup GDI Port TBI Multi

Year Share MPG CID HP CID Drive Drive Trans Trans CVT Metering Metering Metering Diesel Valve VVT Turbo CD Hybrid

1975 19.4% 11.6 311 142 0.476

- 17.1% 37.0%

- - - - 0.1%

- - - - - - 1976 21.2% 12.2 319 141 0.458

- 22.9% 34.8%

- - - - 0.1%

- - - - - - 1977 20.0% 13.3 318 147 0.482

- 23.6% 32.0%

- - - - 0.1%

- - - - - - 1978 22.7% 12.9 314 146 0.481

- 29.0% 32.4%

- - - - 0.1% 0.8%

- - - - - 1979 22.2% 12.5 298 138 0.486

- 18.0% 35.2% 2.1%

- - - 0.3% 1.8%

- - - - - 1980 16.5% 15.8 2 48 121 0.528 1.4% 25.0% 53.0% 24.6%

- - - 1.7% 3.5%

- - - - - 1981 17.3% 17.1 247 119 0.508 1.9% 20.1% 51.6% 31.1%

- - - 1.1% 5.6%

- - - - - 1982 19.7% 17.4 243 120 0.524 1.7% 20.0% 45.7% 33.2%

- - - 0.7% 9.3%

- - - - - 1983 22.3% 17.8 231 118 0.543 1.4 % 25.8% 45.9% 36.1%

- - - 0.6% 4.7%

- - - - - 1984 23.9% 17.4 224 118 0.557 4.9% 31.0% 42.1% 35.1%

- - 1.9% 0.6% 2.3%

- - - - - 1985 25.4% 17.5 224 124 0.586 7.1% 30.6% 37.1% 42.2%

- - 8.7% 3.5% 1.1%

- - - - - 1986 28.3% 18.2 211 123 0.621 5.9% 30.3% 42.7% 42.0%

- - 21.8% 18.7% 0.7%

- - - - - 1987 27.8% 18.3 210 131 0.654 7.4% 31.5% 39.9% 44.8%

- - 33.3% 33.6% 0.3%

- - - - - 1988 29.8% 17.9 227 141 0.650 9.0% 33.3% 35.5% 53.1%

- - 43.3% 44.4% 0.2%

- - - - - 1989 30.7% 17.6 234 146 0.653 9.9% 32.0% 32.7% 56.8%

- - 45.9% 47.6% 0.2%

- - - - - 1990 30.2% 17.4 237 151 0.668 15.5% 31.3% 28.2% 67.4%

- - 55.2% 40.8% 0.2%

- - - - - 1991 32.2% 17.8 228 150 0.681 9.7% 35.3% 31.0% 67.4%

- - 55.0% 43.2% 0.1%

- - - - - 1992 33.4% 17.4 234 155 0.685 13.6% 31.4% 27.3% 71.5%

- - 65.9% 32.5% 0.1%

- - - - - 1993 36.0% 17.5 235 162 0.710 15.1% 29.4% 23.3% 75.7%

- - 73.4% 25.7%

- - - - - - 1994 40.4% 17.2 239 166 0.717 13.1% 36.9% 23.5% 75.1%

- - 77.2% 22.5%

- 5.6%

- - - - 1995 38.0% 17.0 244 168 0.715 17.7% 40.7% 20.5% 78.6%

- - 79.8% 20.2%

- 8.4%

- - - - 1996 40.0% 17.2 243 179 0.757 20.1% 37.1% 15.6% 83.5%

- - 99.9%

- 0.1% 12.4%

- - - - 1997 42.4% 17.0 248 187 0.775 13.9% 43.2% 14.6% 85.0%

- - 100.0%

- 0.0% 13.7%

- - - - 1998 44.9% 17.1 242 187 0.795 18.7% 42.0% 13.4% 86.0%

- - 100.0%

- 0.0% 15.8%

- - - - 1999 44.9% 16.7 249 197 0.814 17.4% 44.6% 9.1% 90.5%

- - 100.0%

- 0.0% 17.3%

- - - - 2000 44.9% 16.9 242 197 0.832 19.4% 42.4% 8.0% 91.7%

- - 100.0%

- - 19.9% 4.7%

- - - 2001 46.1% 16.7 243 209 0.882 18.5% 43.8% 6.3% 93.4%

- - 100.0%

- - 27.6% 9.3%

- - - 2002 48.5% 16.7 244 219 0.918 18.5% 47.6% 5.0% 94.7% 0.0%

- 100.0%

- - 35.6% 16.2%

- - - 2003 49.8% 16.9 243 221 0.927 19.1% 46.7% 4.8% 93.7% 1.2%

- 100.0%

- - 37.1% 19.7% 0.2%

- - 2004 52.0% 16.7 252 236 0.953 17.2% 52.3% 3.7% 95.0% 1.0%

- 100.0%

- 0.0% 48.4% 33.3% 0.8%

- 0.0%

2005 49.5% 17.2 244 237 0.983 25.7% 48.3% 3.0% 95.0% 2.0%

- 99.9%

- 0.1% 52.8% 39.8% 0.6% 0.5% 0.1%

2006 47.1% 17.5 240 235 0.992 25.1% 48.4% 3.2% 93.5% 3.3%

- 99.9%

- 0.1% 61.4% 49.6% 0.5% 5.3% 1.4%

2007 47.1% 17.7 244 248 1.034 24.9% 49.0% 2.5% 93.9% 3.7%

- 99.9%

- 0.1% 57.0% 48.5% 1.3% 14.3% 0.9%

2008 47.3% 18.2 237 247 1.059 28.0% 49.6% 2.0% 94.1% 3.9% 1.2% 98.6%

- 0.2% 63.6% 52.3% 1.1% 11.7% 1.4%

2009 39.8% 19.0 226 245 1.103 32.7% 49.3% 1.8% 91.0% 7.3% 3.8% 96.0%

- 0.2% 71.1% 58.9% 1.6% 15.3% 1.2%

2010 41.1% 19.1 236 259 1.121 30.2% 48.2% 2.0% 92.8% 5.2% 11.0% 88.8%

- 0.2% 75.6% 79.2% 2.2% 12.5% 1.6%



### 49

## Table 13 (continued)

Powertra in Characteristics of 1975 to 2010 Light Duty Vehicles (Percentage Basis)

Cars and Trucks

Adj Front Four
Model Comp HP/ Wheel Wheel Manual Lockup GDI Port TBI Multi

Year MPG CID HP CID Drive Drive Trans Trans CVT Metering Metering Metering Diesel Valve VVT Turbo CD Hybrid

1975 13.1 293 137 0.507 5.3% 3.3% 23.0% 0.2%

- - 4.1% 0.0% 0.2%

- - - - - 1976 14.2 294 135 0.493 4.6% 4.8% 20.9%

- - - 2.5% 0.0% 0.2%

- - - - - 1977 15.1 287 136 0.510 5.5% 4.7% 19.8%

- - - 3.4% 0.0% 0.4%

- - - - - 1978 15.8 266 12 9 0.525 7.4% 6.6% 22.7% 5.5%

- - 3.9% 0.0% 0.9%

- - - - - 1979 15.9 252 124 0.532 9.2% 4.3% 24.2% 7.3%

- - 3.7% 0.1% 2.0%

- - - - - 1980 19.2 198 104 0.574 25.0% 4.9% 34.6% 18.1%

- - 5.2% 0.8% 4.3%

- - - - - 1981 20.5 193 102 0.580 31.0% 4.0% 33.6% 33.0 %

- - 5.1% 2.4% 5.9%

- - - - - 1982 21.1 188 103 0.593 37.0% 4.6% 32.4% 47.8%

- - 5.8% 8.0% 5.6%

- - - - - 1983 21.0 193 107 0.599 37.0% 8.1% 30.5% 52.1%

- - 7.3% 14.8% 2.7%

- - - - - 1984 21.0 190 109 0.618 42.1% 8.2% 28.4% 52.8%

- - 11.9% 18.7% 1.8%

- - - - - 1985 21.3 189 114 0.650 47.8% 9.3% 26.5% 54.5%

- - 18.2% 24.8% 0.9%

- - - - - 1986 21.8 180 114 0.678 52.6% 9.3% 29.8% 53.5%

- - 32.5% 25.7% 0.4%

- - - - - 1987 22.0 175 118 0.710 57.7% 9.6% 29.1% 55.4%

- - 39.9% 31.4% 0.3%

- - - - - 1988 21.9 180 123 0.726 60.0% 10.5% 27.6% 62.2%

- - 50.6% 34.3% 0.1%

- - - - - 1989 21.4 185 129 0.743 60.2% 10.5% 24.6% 65.5% 0.1%

- 57.3% 33.9% 0.1%

- - - - - 1990 21.2 185 135 0.781 63.8% 10.1% 22.2% 71.2% 0.0%

- 70.8% 27.0% 0.1%

- - - - - 1991 21.2 184 138 0 .796 59.6% 12.3% 23.9% 71.6% 0.0%

- 70.6% 28.7% 0.1%

- - - - - 1992 20.8 191 145 0.807 58.4% 11.2% 20.7% 74.8% 0.0%

- 81.6% 17.8% 0.1%

- - - - - 1993 20.9 191 147 0.809 59.9% 11.3% 19.8% 76.5% 0.0%

- 85.0% 14.6%

- - - - - - 1994 20.4 197 152 0.816 55.6% 15.2% 19.5% 77.6%

- - 87.7% 12.1% 0.0% 26.7%

- - - - 1995 20.5 196 158 0.857 57.6% 16.2% 17.9% 80.7%

- - 91.6% 8.4% 0.0% 35.6%

- - - - 1996 20.4 197 164 0.878 60.0% 15.7% 15.2% 83.5% 0.0%

- 99.3% 0.7% 0.1% 39.3%

- 0.2%

- - 1997 20.1 199 169 0.890 55.8% 19.3% 14.0% 85.5% 0.0%

- 99.5% 0.5% 0.1% 39.6%

- 0.4%

- - 1998 20.1 199 171 0.904 56.4% 20.1% 12.8% 86.7% 0.0%

- 99.8% 0.1% 0.1% 40.9%

- 1.4%

- - 1999 19.7 203 179 0.921 55.8% 21.3% 10.1% 89.4% 0.0%

- 99.9% 0.1% 0.1% 43.4%

- 1.8%

- - 2000 19.8 200 181 0.942 55.5% 20.2% 9.7% 89.5% 0.0%

- 99.8% 0.0% 0.1% 44.8% 15.0% 1.3%

- 0.0%

2001 19.6 201 187 0.968 53.8% 21.9% 9.0% 90.2% 0.1%

- 99.9%

- 0.1% 49.0% 19.6% 2.0%

- 0.0%

2002 19.4 203 195 0.994 52.7% 25.0% 8.2% 91.3% 0.2%

- 99.8%

- 0.2% 53.3% 25.3% 2.2%

- 0 .2%

2003 19.6 204 199 1.007 50.7% 25.0% 8.0% 90.8% 1.1%

- 99.8%

- 0.2% 55.5% 30.6% 1.2%

- 0.3%

2004 19.3 212 211 1.026 47.7% 29.8% 6.8% 91.8% 1.2%

- 99.9%

- 0.1% 62.3% 38.5% 2.3%

- 0.5%

2005 19.9 205 209 1.049 53.0% 26.8% 6.2% 91.4% 2.3%

- 99.7%

- 0.3% 65.6% 45.8% 1.7% 0.8% 1.1%

2006 20.1 204 213 1.073 51.9% 25.8% 6.5% 90.6% 2.8%

- 99.6%

- 0.4% 71.7% 55.4% 2.1% 3.6% 1.5%

2007 20.6 203 217 1.099 54.3% 26.1% 5.6% 87.1% 7.2%

- 99.8%

- 0.1% 71.7% 57.3% 2.6% 7.3% 2.2%

2008 21.0 199 219 1.122 54.2% 27.3% 5.2% 86.8% 7.9% 2.3% 97.6%

- 0.1% 76.4% 58.2% 3.0% 6.7% 2.5%

2009 22.4 183 208 1.156 62.7% 23.7% 4.7% 85.5% 9.5% 4.2% 95.2%

- 0.5% 83.6% 72.0% 3.3% 7.4% 2.3%

2010 22.5 191 220 1.170 59.4% 23.6% 6.7% 82.9% 10.3% 8.5% 91.1%

- 0.4% 86.1% 86.4% 3.2% 7.0% 4.3%



### 50

## Table 14

MY2010 Technology Usage by Vehicle Type and Size (Percent of Vehicle Type/Size Strata)

Front Four
Vehicle Vehicle Wheel Wheel Manual Multi

Type Size Drive Drive Trans Valve VVT

Car Small 74% 4% 17% 92% 88%

C ar Midsize 88% 7% 4% 99% 99%

Car Large 74% 6% 1% 78% 84%

Car All 80% 5% 9% 93% 92%

Wagon Small 93% 7% 22% 100% 94%

Wagon Midsize 33% 67% 5% 100% 48%

Wagon Large

- 100%

- 100% 100%

Wagon All 83% 17% 19% 100% 88%

Van Small 100%

- 6% 100% 100%

Van Mid size 99% 1%

- 59% 46%

Van Large

- 12%

- - 49%

Van All 96% 1% 0% 58% 47%

SUV Small

- 96% 28%

- -
SUV Midsize 40% 57% 1% 96% 87%

SUV Large 33% 52% 0% 83% 84%

SUV All 36% 55% 1% 89% 84%
Pickup Midsize

- 32% 28% 100% 100%
Pickup Large

- 49% 1% 49% 75%
Pickup All

- 47% 4% 55% 78%



## Figure 19 shows trends in drive use for the five vehicle classes. Cars and wagons used to be nearly all rear

wheel drive, but are now more than 80 % front

- wheel drive . The trend towards increased use of front wheel drive
fo r vans is very similar to that for cars, except it started a few years later. Over 90% of vans currently use front

wheel drive, compared to essentially none before 1984, which coincides with the introduction of minivans to the

U.S. market. SUVs are mostl y 4 WD ; but a trend toward front-wheel drive SUVs started in MY2000, concurrent with the increased production of crossover vehicles. Pickups remain the bastion of rear-wheel drive, but 4WD is approaching 50% of pickup production.

51

## Figure 19

Front, Rear, and Four Wheel Drive Usage

- Production Share by Vehicle TypeProductionShare 

### Car

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Model Year



### SUV

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Model Year



### Pickup

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Model Year 

### Wagon

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Model Year



### Van

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Model Year

Drive

Four Wheel Drive

Front Wheel Drive

Rear Wheel Drive



### 52

## The increasing trend in Ton-MPG shown in Table 1 can be attributed to better vehicle design, including more efficient engines, better transmission designs, and better matching of the engine and transmission. Powertrains are matched to the load better when the engine operates closer to its best efficiency point more often. For many conventional engines, this point is approximately 2000 RPM and two-thirds of the maximum torque at that speed. One way to make the engine operate more closely to its best efficiency point is to increase the number of gears in the transmission and, for automatic transmissions, employing a lockup torque converter. Three important changes in transmission design have occurred in recent years:

1. The use of additional gears for both automatic and manual transmissions;

2. For the automatics, conversion to lockup (L3, L4, L5, L6 ) torque converter transmissions; and

3. The use of continuously variable transmissions (CVTs).

Table 15 compares Ton -MPG by transmission and vehicle type for 1988 and this year. In 1988, every transmission type shown in the table achieved less than 40 Ton

- MPG. This year, nearly every transmission type

achieves at l east 40 Ton

- MPG. Figure 20 indicates that the L4 transmission has lost its position as the predominant transmission type for all vehicle classes. L5 and L6 transmissions combined now account for over half of all production in all classes except cars, with the car market a diverse mix of L4, L5, L6, M5, M6, and CVTs. Manual transmissions are used essentially only in cars and pickups, and the M5 transmission now predominates.

Transmissions alter the ratio of engine speed to drive wheel speed. In conven tional transmissions, this speed ratio is limited to a fixed number of discrete values, but for a CVT, the ratio is continuous. These
transmissions differ from conventional automatic transmissions and manual transmissions in that CVTs do not have

a fixed number of gears with the advantage that the engine speed/drive wheel speed ratio can be altered to enhance vehicle performance or fuel economy in ways not available with conventional transmissions.

More data stratified by transmission type can be found i n Appendix I.

Table 15

Ton

- MPG by Transmission and Vehicle Type (Conventionally Powered Vehicles 

## )

Car Car Van Van SUV SUV Pickup Pickup

Transmission 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010

M4 37.0

- 33.6

- 38.0

- 32.4

-
M5 37.7 42.8 37.7 43.4 33.1 42.2 35.3 41.0

M6

- 40.7

- - - 38.2

- 36.3

CVT

- 46.1

- - - 43.1

- -
L3 36.1

- 37.1

- 33.5

- 31.4

-
L4 37.9 43.6 36.6 43.7 33.8 41.9 33.8 42.2

L5

- 44.3

- 47.3

- 43.7

- 40.0

L6

- 45.0

- 44.8

- 46.8

- 46.9



### 53

## Figure 20

Transmission Production Share by Model YearProductionShare

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 

### Car Van

M3

M5 M5 M6

A3

A3

L3 L4

L4 L5

L5

L6 L6

CVT CVT

Other Other M4 M4



### SUV Pickup

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% M3

M5 M6

A3

L3 L4

L5

L6

CVT Other M4 M3

M5 M6

A3

L3 L4

L5

L6 Other M4

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### Model Year



## Table 16 and Figure 21 show production share stratified by number of engine cylinders. Engines with 8, 6, and 4 cylinders have accounted for 97 to 99% of all engines produced since 1975. The 8- cylinder engine was dominant in the mid and late 1970s, accounting for over half of production. Subsequently, while production share stratified by number of engine cylinders varied over time, there were two years with notable production shifts. The first major shift was in MY1980, when 8-cylinder engine production share dropped from 54% to 26%, and 4

- cylinder production share increased from 26% to 45%. The 4-cylinder engine continued to lead the market until overtaken by 6

- cylinder engines in MY1992. The second major shift was in MY2009, when 4-cylinder engines once again became the production leader with 51% (an increase of 13% in a single year), followed by 6-cylinder

54

## engines with 35%, and 8-cyinder engines at an all-time low of 12%. Figure 22 breaks out the data for engine cylinders by vehicle type. It can be seen that 4 -cylinder engines account for nearly 70% of cars and about 30% of SUVs, but are used only rarely in pickups and vans. Vans are almost exclusively powered by 6- cylinder eng ines, and pickups use mostly 8-cylinder engines. Over one-half of all SUVs use 6-cylinder engines.

Table 16

Production Share by Number of Cylinders

Model Year Other 8 Cylinder 6 Cylinder 4 Cylinder

1975 0.6% 61.9% 17.7% 1 9.8%

1976 0.4% 62.2% 19.3% 18.2%

1977 0.2% 65.4% 16.0% 18.4%

1978 0.3% 57.1% 20.0% 22.6%

1979 0.7% 53.6% 19.5% 26.2%

1980 1.1% 25.6% 28.3% 45.1%

1981 0.9% 23.1% 28.7% 47.3%

1982 1.1% 21.9% 28.0% 49.0%

1983 1.2% 25.9% 25.3% 47.6%

1984 1.1% 24.1% 26.1% 48.7%

1985 1.4% 23.7% 25.7% 49.2%

1986 1.4% 18.4% 26.5% 53.8%

1987 1.2% 15.4% 28.1% 55.3%

1988 1.1% 16.3% 33.0% 49.6%

1989 0.8% 15.8% 36.4% 47.0%

1990 0.7% 15.0% 39.2% 45.1%

1991 1.1% 13.2% 39.9% 45.7%

1992 1.2% 14.8% 45.6% 38.4%

1993 1.2% 13.6% 47.7% 37.6%

1994 1.2% 16.5% 46.0% 36.4%

1995 0.6% 16.7% 46.0% 36.7%

1996 0.9% 16.1% 46.9% 36.2%

1997 0.5% 20.1% 42.1% 37.4%

1998 0.8% 17.9% 45.4% 35.9%

1999 0.4% 19.9% 47.2% 32.4%

2000 0.5% 19.0% 48.9% 31.7%

2001 0.6% 20.4% 47.1% 32.0%

2002 0.5 % 19.6% 48.8% 31.1%

2003 0.3% 21.3% 46.6% 31.8%

2004 2.0% 23.9% 46.1% 28.0%

2005 2.1% 20.0% 46.2% 31.7%

2006 2.6% 18.9% 47.0% 31.5%

2007 2.1% 19.3% 42.1% 36.5%

2008 2.1% 16.8% 43.4% 37.7%

2009 1.9% 12.4% 35.0% 50.8%

2010 1.1% 16.5% 34.0% 48.4%



### 55

## Figure 21

Production Share by Number of CylindersProductionShare

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Cylinders

Other

8

6

4

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 

### Model Year

56

## Figure 22

Production Share by Cylinder Count and Vehicle Type

Car

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

VanProductionShare

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SUV Cylinders

Other

8

6

4

Pickup

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### Model Year

57

## Table 17 and Figure 23 compare horsepower (HP), displacement (CID), and specific power or horsepower per cubic inch (HP/CID) for cars, vans, SUVs, and pickups. For all four vehicle types, significant CID reductions occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Engine displacement has been flat for cars and vans since the mid

1980s and has declined for SUVs since the mid-1990s, but has been increasing for two decades for pickups. Average horsepower has increased substantially for all of these vehicle types since 1981 (with a small decrease in MY2009) with the highest increase occurring for pickups whose HP is now more than double what it was then (i.e.,
295 HP versus 115 HP). Light-duty vehicle engines, thus, have also improved in specific power with the highest specific power being for engines used in passenger cars and SUVs.

Table 17

MY2010 Engine Characteristics by Vehicle Type

Multi

- Cylinder Vehicle Type HP CID HP/CID Valve VVT Deactivation

Car 192 159 1.21 93% 92% 3%

Van 217 215 1.01 58% 47% 15%

SUV 247 209 1.20 89% 84% 6%

Pickup 295 295 1.00 55% 78% 25%

All 220 191 1.17 86% 86% 7%



### 58

## Figure 23

Horsepower, CID, and Horsepower per CID



## Car Van SUV Pickup

100 150 200 250

200 250 300

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 

## HP

CID

HP/CID20102005200019951990198519801975201020052000199519901985198019752010200520001995199019851980197520102005200019951990198519801975



## Model Year

Table 18 compares HP, CID, and HP/CID by vehicle type and number of cylinders for model years 1988
and 2010. Table 18 shows that the increase in horsepower shown for the fleet in Table 13 extends to all vehicle type and cylinder number strata. These increases in horsepower range from 46 to 123%. Because displacement has remained relatively constant, it can be seen that the primary reason for the horsepower increase is increased specific power -- up between 39 and 111% from 1988 to 2010.

At the number -of- cylinders level of stratification, model year 2010 cars and SUVs generally achieve h igher specific power than vans or pickups. One reason for the lower specific power of some truck engines is that these vehicles may be used to carry heavy loads or pull trailers and thus need more "torque rise," (i.e., an increase in torque as engine speed falls from the peak power point) to achiev e acceptable drivability. Engines equipped with four valves per cylinder typically have inherently lower torque rise than two valve engines with lower specific

power.

59

## Table 18

Changes in Horsepower and Specific Power by Vehicle Type and Number of Cylinders

HP HP Percent CID CID Percent HP/ HP/ Percent Vehicle Type Cylinders 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change CID 1988 CID 2010 Change

Car 4 95 152 60% 118 128 8% 0.805 1.190 48%

Car 6 142 261 84% 193 209 8% 0.744 1.253 68%

Car 8 164 365 123% 301 319 6% 0.544 1.148 111%

Van 4 98 143 46% 145 126

- 13% 0.678 1.134 67%

Van 6 149 222 49% 213 222 5% 0.722 1.001 39%

Van 8 168 320 90% 322 323 0% 0.520 0.991 91%

SUV 4 94 180 91% 122 148 21% 0.773 1.219 58%

SUV 6 147 259 76% 212 212 0% 0.706 1.224 73%

SUV 8 183 348 90% 338 329

- 3% 0.541 1.061 96%
Pickup 4 97 159 64% 142 159 12% 0.685 1.001 46%
Pickup 6 142 229 61% 229 240 5% 0.644 0.957 49%
Pickup 8 180 320 78% 329 320

- 3% 0.544 1.000 84%



## Table 19 shows similar data to those in Table 18, but the stratification is based on vehicle weight. This table clearly shows that, for nearly every case for which a comparison can be made between 1988 and 2010, there were increases in HP, decreases in CID, and substantial increases in specific power ranging from 40 to 198%.

60

## Table 19

Changes in Horsepower and Specific Power by Vehicle Type and Weight

Cars

Weight HP HP Percent CID CID Percent HP/CID HP/C ID Percent

(lb) 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change

2000 59 70 19% 77 61

- 21% 0.770 1.148 49%

2250 73 225 208% 90 110 22% 0.808 2.045 153%

2500 79 106 34% 100 91

- 9% 0.785 1.165 48%

2750 97 115 19% 123 97

- 21% 0.804 1.182 47%

3000 114 139 22% 145 115

- 21% 0.797 1.208 52%

3500 1 51 180 19% 212 152

- 28% 0.732 1.184 62%

4000 160 255 59% 289 209

- 28% 0.569 1.230 116%

4500 144 329 128% 305 274

- 10% 0.474 1.231 160%

5000 207 363 75% 408 275

- 33% 0.509 1.329 161%

5500 205 300 46% 412 236

- 43% 0.498 1.263 154%

6000 205 381 86% 412 3 13

- 24% 0.498 1.181 137%



## Vans

Weight HP HP Percent CID CID Percent HP/CID HP/CID Percent

(lb) 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change

3500 123 143 16% 166 126

- 24% 0.736 1.134 54%

4500 169 216 28% 321 222

- 31% 0.528 0.975 85%

5000 156 241 54% 312 225

- 28% 0.500 1.081 116%

5500 195 320 64% 347 323

- 7% 0.562 0.991 76%

6000 126 320 154% 379 323

- 15% 0.332 0.991 198%



## SUVs

Weight HP HP Percent CID CID Percent HP/CID HP/CID Percent

(lb) 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change

3500 147 179 22% 210 151

- 28% 0.712 1.180 66%

4000 135 209 55% 190 169

- 11% 0.723 1.250 73%

4500 148 258 74% 312 214

- 31% 0.494 1.211 145%

5000 181 269 49% 330 223

- 32% 0.545 1.217 123%

5500 200 314 57% 350 259

- 26% 0.572 1.229 115%

6 000 162 345 113% 368 329

- 11% 0.445 1.050 136%



## Pickups

Weight HP HP Percent CID CID Percent HP/CID HP/CID Percent

(lb) 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change 1988 2010 Change

3500 130 155 19% 184 154

- 16% 0.719 1.010 40%

4000 154 206 34% 282 212

- 25% 0.555 0.972 75%

4500 174 240 38% 322 239

- 26% 0.539 1.009 87%

5000 193 304 58% 342 307

- 10% 0.565 0.985 74%

5500 178 308 73% 363 315

- 13% 0.495 0.979 98%

6000 140 335 139% 379 328

- 13% 0.369 1.024 178%



### 61

## Figure 24 shows that increases in HP per CID apply to all of the engines, except for a few cases of engines with three valves. Engines with more valves per cylinder deliver higher values of HP per CID. Engines with only two valves per cylinder deliver approximately twice as much horsepower p er CID than they used to. The increases

in HP and HP/ CID are due to changes in engine technologies.

Figure 24

HP/CID by Number of Valves per Cylinder (with Three Year Moving Average)

Car VanHorsepower/CID 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 

### SUV Pickup 2

2 2 2 3

3

3 3 4

4

4 4

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### Model Year

62

## Figure 25 shows that usage of multi

- valve engines is increasing for all vehicle types and as shown in Table 17 for MY2010, is now about 90% for cars and SUVs, and over 50% for vans and pickups.

Figure 25

Production Share by Valves per Cylinder

Car VanProductionShare

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% SUV Pickup Valves

2

3

4

5

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



### Model Year

63

## Figure 26 and Table 20 show how the car and truck fleet have evolved from one that consisted almost entirely of carbureted engines in the 1970s and early 1980s, to one which is now almost entirely port fuel injected, and increasingly dominated by variable valve timing.

Figure 26

Production Share by Engine Type

Car TruckProductionShare



### 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Carb Carb
TBI TBI Port Fixed

Port Fixed

Port

GDI GDI Diesel Diesel Hybrid Hybrid Variable Port Variable



### 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010



## Model Year

Table 20

Production Share of MY1988 and MY2010 Light Vehicles by Engine Type and Valve Timing

Cars Cars Vans Vans SUVs SUVs Pickups Pickups All All Engine Type 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010

Carb 16%

- 0%

- 16%

- 16%

- 15%

-
TBI 30%

- 43%

- 37%

- 48%

- 34%

- Port Fixed 54% 8% 57% 53% 47% 16% 35% 22% 51% 13%

Port Variable

- 79%

- 47%

- 63%

- 78%

- 74%

GDI Fixed

- 0%

- - - - - - - 0%

GDI Variable

- 7%

- - - 18%

- - - 8%

Diesel 0% 1% 0%

- 0% 0% 0%

- 0% 0%
Hybrid

- 6%

- - - 3%

- 0%

- 4%



## Over the last decade, automotive manufacturers have been increasingly using engines which use either cams or electric solenoids to provide variable intake and/or exhaust valve timing and in some cases valve lift (earlier engines used camshafts which were permanently synchronized with the engine's crankshaft so that they operated the valves at a specific fixed point in each combustion cycle regardless of the speed and load at which the engine was operated). The ability to control valve timing allows the design of an engine combustion chamber with

64

## a higher compression level than in engines equipped with fixed valve timing engines which in turn provides greater engine efficiency, more power and improved combustion efficiency. Variable valve timing (VVT) also allows the valves to be operated at different points in the combustion cycle, to provide performance that is precisely tailored to

th e engine's specific speed and load at any given instant with the valve timing set to allow the best overall performance across the engine's normal operating range. This results in improved engine efficiency under low-load conditions, such as at idle or highway cruising, and increased power at times of high demand. In addition, variable valve timing can result in reduced pumping losses from the work required to pull air in and push exhaust out of the cylinder.

Because automobile manufacturers are not curr ently required to provide EPA with data on the type of valve timing their engines have, the database used to generate this report was augmented to indicate whether a vehicle had fixed or variable valve timing. The data augmentation was based on data from trade publications and data published by automotive manufacturers. In addition, no differentiation between engines which used cams or solenoids to control the valve timing was made, nor was valve lift considered. For cars, the augmented data covers model years 1989 to 2010, while for trucks the augmentation covered model years 1999 to 2010.

Table 21 compares horsepower, engine size (CID), specific power (HP/CID), Ton

- mpg, and estimated 0

- to -60 acceleration time for two selected MY1988 and five 2010 engi ne types.

Table 21

Comparison of MY1988 and MY2010 Cars by Engine Fuel Metering, Number of Valves and Valve Timing

Ton Ton 0- to

- 60 0- to

- 60
Fuel Number HP HP CID CID HP/CID HP/CID MPG MPG Time Time Metering of Valves Valve Timing 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010

Carb Fixed 88

- 131

- 0.75

- 37.2

- 14.3

-
TBI 2 Fixed 97

- 141

- 0.71

- 36.9

- 13.7

-
Port 2 Fixed 137 313 193 301 0.74 1.07 36.6 37.6 11.9 7.5

Port 4 Fixed 137 191 131 168 1.05 1.14 37.9 42.8 11 .1 9.8

Port 4 Variable

- 184

- 151

- 1.21

- 44.3

- 9.7

GDI 4 Fixed

- 200

- 121

- 1.65

- 45.9

- 8.9

GDI 4 Variable

- 261

- 177

- 1.50

- 45.0

- 8.2



## Percent Change over 1988 Port Two Valve, Fixed Valve Timing Base Model

Ton Ton 0- to

- 60 0- to

- 60
Fuel Number HP HP CID CID HP/CID HP/CID MPG MPG Time Time Metering of Valves Valve Timing 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010 1988 2010

Carb Fixed

- 35.8%

- - 32.1%

- 1.4%

- 1.6%

- 20.2%

-
TBI 2 Fixed

- 29.2%

- - 26.9%

- - 4.1%

- 0.8%

- 15.1%

-
Port 2 Fixed

- 128.5%

- 56.0%

- 44.6%

- 2.7%

- - 37.0%

Port 4 Fixed

- 39.4%

- 32.1%

- 13.0% 41.9% 54.1% 3.6% 16.9%

- 6.7%

- 17.6%

Port 4 Variable

- 34.3%

- - 21.8%

- 63.5%

- 21.0%

- - 18.5%

GDI 4 Fixed

- 46.0%

- - 37.3%

- 123.0%

- 25.4%

- - 25.2%

GDI 4 Variable

- 90.5%

- - 8. 3%

- 102.7%

- 23.0%

- - 31.1%



### 65

## Because 1988 was the peak year for car fuel economy until recently, and because the two valve, fixed valve timing, port injected engine accounted for about half of the car engines built that year, the 1988 version of this engine was selected as a baseline engine with its average characteristics compared to five MY2010 engine configurations. As shown in Figure 27, all of these MY2010 engine types had substantially higher horsepower than the baseline MY1988 engine, and subst antially higher specific power. Not all of these improvements in engine design for these engine types that occurred between 1988 and 2010 were used to improve fuel economy as indicated by the nominal 20% decrease in 0- to

- 60 time each achieved. As mentioned earlier, in this report vehicle performance for conventionally powered vehicles is determined by an estimate of 0- to

- 60 acceleration time calculated from the ratio of vehicle power to weight. Obtaining increased power to weight in a time when weight is trending upwards implies that horsepower is increasing. Increased horsepower can be obtained by increasing the engine's displacement, the engine's specific power (HP/CID), or both. Increasing specific power has been the primary driver for increases in p erformance for the past two decades.

Figure 27

Percent Difference in MY2010 Vehicle Characteristics from MY1988 Port 2 Valve Fixed Car Engine

0 to 60 Time

Ton MPG

HP/CID

CID

HP

40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% Engine

Port 4 Valve Variable

Port 4 Valve Fixed

Port 2 Valve Fixed

GDI 4 Valve Variable

GDI 4 Valve Fixed



### Percent Change



## For the current model year fleet, specific power has been studied at an even more detailed level of stratification with both car and truck engines being classified according to: (1) the number of valves per cylinder, (2) the manufacturer's fuel recommendation, (3) the presence or absence of an intake boost device such as a turbocharger or supercharger, and (4) whether or not the engine had fixed or variable valve timing. Higher HP/CID is associated with: (a) more valves per cylinder, (b) higher octane fuel, (c) intake boost, and (d) use of variable

66

## valve timing. The technical appro aches result in specific power ranges for cars and trucks from about .9 to about

1.9. The relative production fractions in Table 22 are just for each technical option in the table and exclude hybrids.

Table 22 shows the incremental effect, on a producti on weighted basis, of adding each technical option, but not all of the technical options are production significant. The effect of the use of higher octane fuel cannot be discounted, because roughly 15% of the current car fleet is comprised of vehicles which use engines for which high octane fuel is recommended. By comparison, about 12% of this year's light trucks require premium fuel.

Engine technology which delivers improved specific power thus can be used in many ways ranging from reduced displacement and improved fuel economy at constant (or worse) performance, to increased performance and the same fuel economy at constant displacement.

Table 22

HP/CID and Production Share by Fuel and Engine Technology

Model Year 2010 Cars

2 Valve 2 Valve 3 Valve 3 Valve 4 Valve 4 Valve Total
Valve HP / Production HP / Production HP / Production Production
Fuel Boost Timing CID Fraction CID Fraction CID Fraction Fraction
Regular No Boost Fixed 0.94 1.5%

- - 1.12 6.0% 7.5%
Regula r No Boost Variable 1.07 4.8% 1.12 0.6% 1.18 71.4% 76.8%
Regular Boost Fixed

- - - - 1.72 0.0% 0.0%
Regular Boost Variable

- - - - 1.73 0.7% 0.7%

Premium No Boost Fixed 1.88 0.2%

- - 1.35 0.0% 0.2%

Premium No Boost Variable 1.16 0.0% 1.06 0.0% 1.33 11.3% 11.3%

Premium Boost Fixed 1.49 0.1%

- - 1.64 0.2% 0.3%

Premium Boost Variable

- - 1.56 0.0% 1.72 2.6% 2.6%

Diesel Boost

- - - - 1.17 0.5% 0.5%

Total

- - 6.6%

- 0.7%

- 92.7% 100.0%



## Model Year 2010 Trucks

2 Valve 2 Valve 3 Valve 3 Valve 4 Valve 4 Valve Total
Valve HP / Production HP / Production HP / Production Production
Fuel Boost Timing CID Fraction CID Fraction CID Fraction Fraction
Regular No Boost Fixed 0.88 11.4% 1.01 3.2% 1.16 6.2% 20.7%
Regular No Boost Variable 0.98 13.0% 0.94 4.1% 1.18 49.4% 66.6%
Regular Boost Variable

- - - - 1.6 0.2% 0.2%

Premium No Boost Fixed

- - - - 0.96 0.0% 0.0%

Premium No Boost Variable 1.13 0.0%

- - 1.24 10.3% 10.3%

Premium Boost Variable

- - 1.51 0.0% 1.72 1.9% 1.9%

Diesel Boost

- - - - 1.24 0.2% 0.2%

Total

- - 24.4%

- 7.3%

- 68.2% 100.0%



### 67

## A relatively recent engine development has been the reintroduction of cylinder deactivation, an automotive technology that was used by General Motors in some MY1981 V-8 engines that could be operated in 8- , 6- and 4

- cylinder modes. This approach, which has also been called by a number of names including 'variable displacement', 'displacement on demand', 'active fuel management' and 'multiple displacement', involves allowing the valves of selected cy linders of the engine to remain closed and interrupting the fuel supply to these cylinders when engine power demands are below a predetermined threshold, as typically happens under less demanding driving conditions, such as steady state operation or during idle . Under light load conditions, the engine can thus provide better fuel mileage than would otherwise be achieved. Although frictional and thermodynamic energy losses still occur in the cylinders that are not being used, these losses are more than offset by the increased load and reduced specific fuel consumption of the remaining cylinders. Typically half of the usual number of cylinders is deactivated. Challenges to the engine designer for this type of engine include mode transitions, idle quality, and noise and vibration. For MY2010, as shown previously in Table 17 , it is estimated that about seven percent of all vehicles are equipped with cylinder deactivation.

Table 23 compares six examples of individual MY2010 vehicles with and without cylinder deactivation. For the Dodge Charger, cylinder deactivation is offered with a smaller, less powerful engine, resulting in 19% higher fuel economy relative to the larger engine without cylinder deactivation. The Dodge Challenger is offered with an engine of the same size, though slightly less powerful, resulting in a 2% higher fuel economy. In the three cases shown where cylinder deactivation was coupled with a larger, more powerful engine, this combination led to 4-15% lower fuel economy compared to the smaller engine.

Table 23

Comparison of MY2010 Vehicles with Engines with Cylinder Deactivation

Model Year 2010 Cars and Trucks

Lab Lab MPG 55/45 Cylinder HP % %
Car Class Model Name Drive Transmission Weight CID HP mpg Cylinders Deactivation Change Change

Small Car Challenger Rear L5 4500 348 359 24.1 8 Yes

- 5% 2%

Challenger Rear M6 4500 348 376 23.6 8 No
Small Car TSX Front L5 4000 214 280 28.0 6 Yes 28%

- 15%

TSX Front L5 3500 146 201 32.3 4 No Large Car Charger Rea r L5 4500 348 359 24.1 8 Yes

- 18% 19%

Charger Rear L5 4500 372 425 19.6 8 No Large Car Accord 4DR Sedan Front L5 4000 214 280 29.4 6 Yes 32%

- 11%

Accord 4DR Sedan Front L5 3500 146 190 32.6 4 No Large Pickup Ram 1500 Pickup 2WD Rear L5 5000 348 3 90 20.4 8 Yes 23% 3%

Ram 1500 Pickup 2WD Rear L5 5500 287 302 19.8 8 No Large SUV C1500 Yukon 2WD Rear L6 6000 378 403 21.0 8 Yes 25%

- 4%

C1500 Yukon 2WD Rear L6 6000 323 301 21.8 8 No



### 68

## Figure 28 compares market penetration rates for six passen ger car technologies, namely port fuel injection (Port FI), front -wheel drive (FWD), multi- valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per cylinder), lockup transmissions, engines with variable valve timing, and CVTs. The production fraction fo r VVT car engines has increased in a similar fashion to the others shown in the figure. This indicates that, in the past, it has taken a decade for a technology to prove itself and attain a production fraction of 40 to 50% and as long as another five or

t en years to reach maximum market penetration.

Figure 28

Car Engine Technology Penetration After First Significant UseProductionShare 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 

### CVT Front Wheel Drive

Lockup Multi Valve Port FI

Variable Valve Timing

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

### Years After First Use



## A similar comparison of five technologies whose production fraction peaked out is shown in Figure 29

. This figure shows that, in the past, it has taken a number of years for technologies such as throttle body fuel injection (TBI), lockup 3- speed (L3) and 4 -speed (L4) transmissions to reach their maximum production fraction, and, even then, use of these tec hnologies has often continued for a decade or longer. For the limited number of historical cases studied, the time a given technology has taken to attain and then pass a production share of about 40 to 50% appears to be one indicator of whether it later attains a stabilized high level of market penetration. L4

transmissions and both two - and four- valve, port injected, fixed valve timing car engines (Port 2V - and 4V- Fixed) now can be classified with technologies such as TBI engines and L3 transmissions which have reached their peak production fractions and, thus, are likely to disappear from the new vehicle fleet.

69

## Figure 29

Car Engine Technology Penetration After First Significant UseProductionShare 100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% 

### TBI Port 4 Valve Fixed Valve Port 2

Fixed

L3 L4

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 

### Years After First Use



## Table 24 compares fuel economy ratings, the ratio of highway to city fuel economy, and ton-mpg of the MY2010 hybrid and diesel vehicle s with those for the average MY2010 car and truck. All of t he hybrid vehicles in the table have a lower highway/city rat io than the average car or truck.

In add ition, there are several cases in the table for which the highway to city ratio is less than 1.0, and these represent cases where a vehicle achieves higher fuel economy in city than in highway driving. This year's diesel

cars achieve ton

- mpg values that a re roughly the same as some of the hybrid cars. For MY2010, the Toyota Prius
achieves 86 Ton -mpg, which is 87% higher than that of the average car.

70

## Table 24

Characteristics of MY 2010 Hybrid and Diesel Vehicles

Hybrid Cars

Lab Adj Adj Adj Hwy/ Weight CID 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton

- City
Model Name Transmission (lb) (cu in) MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG Ratio

CAMRY HYBRID CVT 4000 144 45.9 33.4 34.1 33.8 67.6 1.0

CIVIC HYBRID CVT 3000 79 58.8 40.2 45.3 42.9 64.4 1.1

FUSION HYB RID FWD CVT 4000 153 54.2 41.4 36.4 38.4 76.8 0.9

GS 450h CVT 4500 211 30.8 21.9 25.3 23.8 53.5 1.2

HS 250h CVT 4000 144 47.3 35.3 33.6 34.3 68.6 0.9

INSIGHT CVT 3000 79 57.6 40.1 43.3 41.9 62.8 1.1

LS 600h L CVT 5500 303 26.9 19.6 21.8 20.8 57.2 1.1

MALIBU HYBRID Other 4000 146 38.6 25.8 34.0 29.9 59.8 1.3

MILAN HYBRID FWD CVT 4000 153 54.2 41.4 36.4 38.4 76.8 0.9

PRIUS CVT 3500 110 70.9 50.9 48.3 49.4 86.4 0.9

S400 HYBRID Other 5000 213 27.5 18.6 25.1 21.8 54.6 1.3

All 2010 Cars 3499 159 32.7 21 .7 30.1 25.8 46.1 1.4



## Hybrid Trucks

Lab Adj Adj Adj Hwy/ Weight CID 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton

- City
Model Name Transmission (lb) (cu in) MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG Ratio
ActiveHybrid X6 Other 6000 269 23.1 16.7 19.2 18.0 54.1 1.2

C15 SIERRA 2WD HY BRID CVT 6000 366 28.4 21.2 22.0 21.6 64.9 1.0

C15 SILVERADO 2WD CVT 6000 366 28.4 21.2 22.0 21.6 64.9 1.0

C1500 TAHOE 2WD HYBRID CVT 6000 366 28.4 21.2 22.0 21.6 64.9 1.0

C1500 YUKON HYBRID 2WD CVT 6000 366 28.4 21.2 22.0 21.6 64.9 1.0

ESCALADE 2WD HYBRID CVT 6000 366 28.4 21.2 22.0 21.6 64.9 1.0

ESCAPE HYBRID 4WD CVT 4000 153 38.8 30.2 27.1 28.4 56.7 0.9

ESCAPE HYBRID FWD CVT 4000 153 44.1 34.0 30.5 31.9 63.9 0.9

HIGHLANDER HYBRID 4WD CVT 5000 202 35.2 27.3 25.1 26.0 65.0 0.9

K15 SILVERADO 4WD CVT 6000 366 28.3 21.1 21.8 21.5 64.6 1.0

K1500 TAHOE 4WD HYBRID CVT 6000 366 28.3 21.1 21.8 21.5 64.6 1.0

K1500 YUKON 4WD HYBRID CVT 6000 366 28.3 21.1 21.8 21.5 64.6 1.0

MARINER HYBRID 4WD CVT 4000 153 38.8 30.2 27.1 28.4 56.7 0.9

MARINER HYBRID FWD CVT 4000 153 44.1 34.0 30.5 31.9 63.9 0.9

ML450 HYBRID 4MATIC Other 5500 213 29.6 21.2 24.2 22.8 62.7 1.1

RX 450h CVT 5000 211 40.4 31.5 27.9 29.4 73.4 0.9

RX 450h AWD CVT 5000 211 39.2 30.2 27.7 28.7 71.7 0.9

TRIBUTE HYBRID 2WD CVT 4000 153 44.1 34.0 30.5 31.9 63.9 0.9

TRIBUTE HYBRID 4WD CVT 4000 153 38.8 30.2 27.1 28.4 56.7 0.9

VUE FWD HYBRID L4 4000 146 36.7 24.8 32.2 28.5 57.0 1.3

All 2010 Trucks 4738 236 23.8 16.2 22.0 19.1 45.3 1.4



### 71

## Table 2 4 (continued)

Diesel Cars

Lab Adj Adj Adj Hwy/ Weight CID 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton

- City
Model Name Transmission (lb) (cu in) MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG Ratio

335d L6 4000 183 36.0 22.7 36.1 28.8 57.6 1.6

A3 L6 3500 120 46.2 29.7 42.0 35.7 62.4 1.4

GOLF L6 3500 120 46.2 29.7 42.0 35.7 62.4 1.4

GOLF M6 3500 120 45.7 29.7 41.0 35.2 61.6 1.4

JETTA L6 3500 120 46.2 29.7 42.0 35.7 62.4 1.4

JETTA M6 3500 120 45.7 29.7 41.0 35.2 61.6 1.4

JETTA SPORTWAGEN L6 3500 120 46.2 29.7 42.0 35.7 62.4 1.4

JETTA SPORTWAGEN M6 3500 120 45.7 29.7 41.0 35.2 61.6 1.4

R 350 BLUETEC Other 5500 182 26.3 17.9 23.9 20.9 57.5 1.3

All 2010 Cars 3499 159 32.7 21.7 30.1 25.8 46.1 1.4



## Diesel Trucks

Lab Adj Adj Adj Hwy/ Weight CID 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton

- City
Model Name Transmission (lb) (cu in) MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG Ratio

GL 350 BLUETEC Other 6000 182 24.8 16.9 22.7 19.8 59.3 1.3

ML 350 BLUETEC Other 5000 182 27.1 18.4 24.7 21.5 53.7 1.3

Q7 L6 6000 183 24.2 15.9 23.8 19.6 58.9 1.5
Touareg L6 5500 183 26.2 17.5 24.7 21.0 57.7 1.4

X5 xDrive35d L6 5500 183 28.4 19.1 26.2 22.5 62.0 1.4

All 2010 Trucks 4738 236 23.8 16.2 22.0 19.1 45.3 1.4



## Most of the vehicles in Table 24 have conventionally powered counterparts. Table 25 compares the adjusted composite fuel economy and an estimate of annual fuel usage (assuming 15,000 miles per year) for these vehicles with their conventionally powered (baseline) counterparts. The comparisons in both tables are limited to a basis of model name, drive, weight, transmission, and eng ine size (CID). Differences in the performance attributes of these vehicles complicate the analysis of the fuel economy improvement potential due to hybridization and dieselization. In particular, hybrid vehicles are sometimes reported to have faster 0 -to- 60 acceleration times than their conventional counterparts, while vehicles equipped with diesel engines have higher low-end torque, but

slower 0

- to -60 times. In addition, some hybrid vehicles use technologies such as cylinder deactivation and CVT transmissions that are not offered in their counterparts.

Fuel economy improvements and fuel savings per year for the hybrid vehicles in Table 25 vary considerably from 5-10% for the larger, luxury hybrid vehicles to nearly 50% for several others. Ten years after the introduction for sale in the U.S. of the first hybrid vehicle, the MY2000 Honda Insight (a two- seater that is not comparable to the current Honda Insight), hybrid vehicles now account for about four percent of the combined
car/truck fleet. Simil arly, Table 26 shows fuel economy improvements for diesels range from 20% to 50 %, and these vehicles also offer relatively high fuel savings. In addition, the production fraction for diesels remains at or below 0.5%, an order of magnitude smaller than their 5.9% production fraction in 1981.

72

## Table 25

Comparison of MY 2010 Hybrid Vehicles with Their Conventional Counterparts

Hybrid Version Baseline Version Improvement

Adj Comp Gal Per Adj Comp Gal Per Adj Comp Gal Per
Model Name Weight CID Trans MPG Year Weight CID Trans MPG Year MPG Year

FUSION HYBRID

FWD 4000 153 CVT 38.4 391 3500 153 L6 26.0 576 47% 185

MALIBU HYBRID 4000 146 A4 29.9 501 3500 146 L4 25.9 580 16% 78

CIVIC HYBRID 3000 79 CVT 42.9 349 3000 110 L5 29.6 506 45% 157

GS 450h** 4500 211 CVT 23.8 631 4000 211 L6 22.4 669 6% 37

LS 600h L** 5500 303 CVT 20.8 721 5000 281 L8 19.2 781 8% 60

CAMRY HYBRID 4000 144 CVT 33.8 444 3500 152 L6 26.8 560 26% 116

HIGHLANDER

HYBRID 4WD 5000 202 CVT 26.0 577 4500 211 L5 19.7 76 0 32% 183
ActiveHybrid X6 6000 269 L7 18.0 831 5500 269 L6 15.4 977 18% 146

ML450 HYBRID

4MATIC 5500 213 A8 22.8 657 5000 213 L7 17.3 866 32% 209

TRIBUTE HYBRID

2WD 4000 153 CVT 31.9 470 3500 153 L6 24.3 617 31% 147

TRIBUTE HYBRID

4WD 4000 153 CVT 28.4 529 4000 153 L6 23.3 644 22% 115

ESCAPE HYBRID

4WD 4000 153 CVT 28.4 529 4000 153 L6 22.9 656 24% 127

ESCAPE HYBRID

FWD 4000 153 CVT 31.9 470 3500 153 L6 24.3 617 31% 147

MARINER HYBRID

4WD 4000 153 CVT 28.4 529 4000 153 L6 22.9 656 24% 127

MARINER HY BRID

FWD 4000 153 CVT 31.9 470 3500 153 L6 24.3 617 31% 147

MILAN HYBRID

FWD 4000 153 CVT 38.4 391 3500 153 L6 26.0 576 47% 185

ESCALADE 2WD

HYBRID 6000 366 CVT 21.6 693 6000 378 L6 17.1 878 27% 185

C15 SILVERADO

2WD HYBRID 6000 366 CVT 21.6 693 5000 32 3 L6 17.9 840 21% 146

K15 SILVERADO

4WD HYBRID 6000 366 CVT 21.5 697 5000 323 L6 17.6 850 22% 153

C1500 TAHOE 2WD

HYBRID 6000 366 CVT 21.6 693 6000 323 L6 17.6 850 23% 157

K1500 TAHOE 4WD

HYBRID 6000 366 CVT 21.5 697 6000 323 L6 17.6 850 22% 154

C15 SI ERRA 2WD

HYBRID 6000 366 CVT 21.6 693 5500 323 L6 17.9 839 21% 146

C1500 YUKON

HYBRID 2WD 6000 366 CVT 21.6 693 6000 323 L6 17.6 850 23% 157

K1500 YUKON 4WD

HYBRID 6000 366 CVT 21.5 697 6000 378 L6 16.7 898 29% 201

VUE FWD HYBRID 4000 146 A4 28.5 526 4000 146 L4 22.6 663 26% 136

RX 450h 5000 211 CVT 29.4 511 4500 211 L6 21.5 699 37% 188

RX 450h AWD 5000 211 CVT 28.7 523 4500 211 L6 21.1 712 36% 189

S400 HYBRID** 5000 350 A7 21.8 688 5000 546 L7 17.6 852 24% 164

* Note: Gallons per year calculation i s based on all vehicles being driven 15,000 miles.

**Note: Baseline version used for the GS 450h comparison is the GS 350. Baseline vehicle used for the LS 600HL comparison is the LS 460L. Baseline versions used for the Rx 450h and Rx 450h AWD compari son were the Rx 350 and the Rx 350 AWD. Baseline version used for the S400 comparison is the S550 4MATIC

.



### 73

## Table 26

Comparison of MY 2010 Diesel Vehicles with Their Conventional Counterparts

Model Name Weight CID Diesel Version

Trans Adj Comp

MPG Gal

Per
Year* Weight Baseline Version

CID Trans Adj Comp

MPG Gal Per
Year* Improvem ent

Adj Comp

MPG Gal

Per
Year*

335d 4000 183.0 L6 28.8 521 4000 183.0 L6 21.3 704 35% 183

A3 3500 120.0 L6 35.7 420 3500 121.0 L6 24.6 610 45% 190

Golf 3 500 120.0 L6 35.7 420 3000 151.0 L6 25.1 598 42% 177

Golf 3500 120.0 M6 35.7 420 3000 151.0 M5 24.0 625 49% 205

Jetta 3500 120.0 L6 35.7 420 3500 121.0 L6 27.2 551 31% 131

Jetta 3500 120.0 M6 35.7 420 3500 121.0 M6 24.9 602 43% 182

Jetta Sportwagen

Jetta Sportwagen

GL 350
Bluetec** 350 0

3500

6000 120.0

120.0

182.0 L6

M6

L7 35.7

35.7

19.8 420

420

758 3500

3500

6000 151.0

151.0

285.0 L6

M6

L7 24.9

23.8

15.0 602

630

1000 43%

50%

32% 182

210

242

ML 350
Bluetec** 5000 182.0 L7 21.5 698 5000 213.0 L7 17.3 867 24% 169

Q7

R 350
Bluetec** 6000

5500 183.0

182.0 L6

L7 19.6

20.9 765

718 5500

5500 219.0

213.0 L6

L7 16.3

16.5 920

909 20%

27% 155

191

Touareg

X5
xDrive35d** 5500

5500 183.0

183.0 L6

L6 21.0

22.5 714

667 5500

5000 219.0

183.0 L6

L6 16.3

18.3 920

820 29%

23% 206

153

* Note: Gallons per year calculation is based on all vehicles being driven 15,000 miles.

**Note: Baseline version used for the R350 Bluetec comparison is the R350 4MATIC. Baseline version used for the GL350 Bluete c comparison is the GL450 4MATIC. Baseline version used for the ML350 Bluetec comparison is the ML350 4MATIC. Baseline version used for the X5 xD rive 35d comparison is the X5 xDrive 30i.



### 74

## VII. Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make

This report adopts a new approach for grouping vehicles, by manufacturer and make, compared to previous reports in this series. The initial reports in this series examined fuel economy and technology trends for the "Domestic" and "Import" vehicle categories which are part of the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program. Over time, this classification approach evolved into a market segment approach in which cars were apportioned to a "Domestic," "European," and "Asian" category, with trucks classified as "Domestic" or "Imported." More recent reports in this series used “Marketing Groups” to better reflect the financial arrangements and transnational nature of the modern automobile industry.

This report is the first in this series to group vehicles by “Manufacturer” and “Make.” The manufactu rer definition is that used by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for purposes of implementation of and manufacturer compliance with the CAFE program. Table 27 lists the 14 manufacturers which had MY2009 production of 100,000 vehicles or more, which together accounted for approximately 99% of total industry -wide production, and for which data ar e shown in Tables 28 through 32 (industry- wide tables in the rest of this report also include production from those manufacturers that do not meet the 100,000 production threshold).

Make is typically included in the model name and is gene rally equivalent to the “brand” of the vehicle.

Table 27 also lists the 32 makes for which data are shown in Tables 28 and 29. The MY2009 production threshold for makes to be included in Tables 28 and 29 is 40,000 vehicles, though the Smart was included as well because of the high interest in this make. The Pontiac and Saturn makes no longer exist in 2010, but are included since Tables
28 and 29 also provid e data for model years 2008 and 2009, during which Pontiacs and Saturns were produced.General Motors provided projected production volumes for both Pontiac and Saturn for MY2010, since the premodel year projections were submitted to EPA prior to the corporate decision to end the Pontiac and Saturn brands. EPA has retained the projected production volumes for Pontiac and Saturn in the MY2010 database and concluded that the impact of the combined Pontiac/Saturn data on GM’s projected overall MY2010 fuel economy performance is very small.

Table 27

Manufacturers and Makes in This Report

Manufacturer Makes Above Threshold Makes Below Threshold
General Motors Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, GMC, Pontiac, Saturn Hummer, Isuzu, Daewoo

Ford Ford, Lincoln, Mercury, Volvo Saleen, Roush, Shelby Chrysler Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram Toyota Toyota, Lexus, Scion

Honda Honda, Acura

Nissan Nissan, Infiniti Hyundai Hyundai Volkswagen Volkswagen, Audi Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti

Kia Ki a Subaru Subaru

BMW BMW, Mini Rolls Royce, Phantom

Mitsubishi Mitsubishi

Daimler Mercedes

- Benz, Smart Maybach

Mazda Mazda

Others Jaguar, Land Rover, Spyker, Saab, Ferrari, Maserati, Aston Martin, Lotus, Suzuki, Porsche



### 75

## It is important to note that when a manufacturer or make grouping is changed to reflect a change in the industry's current financial structure, EPA makes the same adjustment for the entire historical database back to
1975. This maintains a consistent manufacturer or make defini tion over time, which allows a better identification of long- term trends. On the other hand, this also means that the current database does not necessarily reflect actual financial or structural arrangements in the past. For example, the 2010 database no longer accounts for the fact that Chrysler was combined with Daimler for several years, and Tables 28 and 29 show a separate Chrysler Ram make for 2008 and 2009, even though Ram did not become a separate make until MY2010.

Automakers submit vehicle production data, rather than vehicle sales data, in formal end-of- year CAFE compliance reports to EPA. Accordingly, the vehicle production data in this report may differ from sales data reported by press sources. In addition, the vehicle production data prese nted in this report are tabulated on a model year basis. In years past, manufacturers typically used a more consistent approach for model year designations, i.e., from fall of one year to the fall of the following year. More recently, however, many manuf acturers have used a more flexible approach and it is not uncommon to see a new or redesigned model be introduced in the spring or summer, with a new model year designation, rather than the fall. This means that a model year for an individu al

vehicle can be either shortened or lengthened. Accordingly, year

- to

- year comparisons can be affected by these model year anomalies, though, of course, these even out over a multi-year period.

Tables 28 and 29 give laboratory and adjusted fuel economy values for cars, trucks, and cars and trucks combined for MY2008-2010, for the 14 manufacturers and 32 makes shown in Table 27 . Due to the higher -than

usual uncertainty associated with the MY2010 projections (because they were submitted by automakers to EPA during the market turmoil of 2009), three years of data are shown in these tables. By including data from both MY2008 and MY2009, with formal end-of- year data for both years, it is possible to identify meaningful changes from year

- to -year (though MY2009 was admittedly a very unusual year in terms of economic recession and industry sales). Because of the uncertainty associated with the MY2010 projections, changes from MY2009 to MY2010 may be less meaningful.

The relative fuel economy comparisons for manufacturers and makes in Tables 28 and 29 will be similar, of course, since the relative offset between laboratory and adjusted values will be similar across manufacturers and makes. The following discussion will be based on the adjusted composite fuel economy data fro m Table 29

.

For MY2008, Hyundai’s overall, adjusted composite fuel economy of 24.4 mpg was the highest of any manufacturer, followed by Honda at 23.9 mpg and Mazda at 23.1 mpg. Chrysler, Daimler, and Ford all had the lowest adjusted composite fuel economy values of 19.3 mpg.

MY2009 was a landmark year for fuel economy, with 13 of the 14 highest- selling manufacturers increasing fuel economy and the industry reaching an all-time high of 22.4 mpg. In terms of manufacturers, Toyota had the highest MY2009 a djusted composite fuel economy of 25.4 mpg, followed by Hyundai at 25.1 mpg and Honda at

24.6 mpg. Chrysler had the lowest MY2009 adjusted fuel economy for any manufacturer, 19.2 mpg, and was followed by Daimler at 19.5 mpg and Ford at 20.3 mpg. In terms of improvement from MY2008 to MY2009, Toyota had the largest improvement of 2.6 mpg, followed by Nissan at 1.7 mpg and Volkswagen at 1.5 mpg. While Toyota improved both its car mpg (the highest in the industry) and its truck mpg in MY2009, a major factor in its 2.6 mpg overall improvement was a 17% decrease in its truck production share, from 48% in MY2008 to 31% in MY2009, which was the largest decrease in truck production share in the industry (see Table 30 ).

In terms of makes in MY2009, the Smart make was the leader at 37.1 mpg. Of course, the Smart Fourtwo is the smallest and lightest car in the U.S. market and has relatively low production. The make with the secondhighest fuel economy in MY2009 wa s the Mini, which produces a relatively low number o f small vehicles, at 30.3

76

## mpg. Of the makes with higher production, Toyota (that is, Toyota manufacturer vehicles sold under the Toyota brand) had the highest overall fuel economy at 26.1 mpg, followed by Honda and Hyundai, both at 25.1 mpg.

Preliminary projections suggest that 10 of the 14 manufacturers will improve fuel economy further in MY2010, though EPA will not have actual data for MY2010 until next year. Hyundai, Honda, and Kia are projected to be the overall fuel economy leaders for MY2010, with the same three manufacturers and Volkswagen projected to make the biggest gains in MY2010.

Table 30 shows footprint by manufacturer for MY2008 -2010, along with truck production share by manufacturer. GM, Ford, and Chrysler had the largest footprint values in MY2009 at 51-52 square feet, with most of the other manufacturers having average footprint values in the 44 -46 square feet range. Overall footprint declined by 0.8 square feet in MY2009, with the largest decreases for Toyota, Nissan, and BMW. Chrysler had the largest increase in footprint, followed by Mazda and Hyundai. Chrysler had the highest MY2009 truck share at 70%, followed by Ford at 61%, while Volkswagen, Mitsubishi, and BMW had the lowest truck shares, all between 13% and 16%. Industry- wid e footprint and truck share is projected to grow in MY2010, but these projections are very uncertain this year.

Table 31 (actual MY2009) and Table 32 (MY2010 projections) show the adjusted fuel economy values broken out by manufacturer and vehicle size and type. For example, Kia had the highest small car fuel economy in MY2009 at 30.5 mpg. Of course, these tables rely on the threshold definitions for small/midsize/large vehicle sizes that have been discussed earlier in this report, and a vehicle that jus t crosses the threshold into the next largest class can be a fuel economy leader in that class, while it may have been a relatively poor performer in the next smaller

class.

For a long -term perspective going back to 1975, Figure 30 shows the adjusted fuel economy values (cars, trucks, and both cars and trucks) and truck production shares for each of the 14 highest -selling manufacturers. More information for the historic database stratified by manufacturer can be found in Appendices L through P.

77- - -

- - - 2010 

## Table 28

Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make for MY2008 -2010

2008 2009

Cars Cars Cars
2008 2008 and 2009 2009 and 2010 2010 and
Manufacturer Make Cars Trucks Trucks Cars Trucks Trucks Cars Trucks Trucks

Toyota Toyota

Toyota Lexus

Toyota Scion

Toyota All
Hyundai All

Honda Honda

Honda Acura

Honda All

Kia All

VW VW

VW Audi

VW All

Nissan Nissan

Nissan Infiniti

Nissan All

Mitsubishi All

Mazda All

Subaru All

BMW BMW

BMW Mini

BMW All

GM Chevrolet

GM Pontiac

GM GMC

GM Buick

GM Cadillac

GM Saturn

GM All

Ford Ford

Ford Lincoln

Ford Mercury

Ford Volvo

Ford All

Daimler Mercedes

- Benz

Daimler Smart

Daimler All

Ch rysler Dodge
Chrysler Chrysler
Chrysler Jeep
Chrysler Ram
Chrysler All

Other All

Fleet 39.5

28.1

32.5

36.0

33.8

35.1

27.6

34.3

33.3

29.9

27.8

28.9

33.9

25.1

32.2

29.8

32.0

28.7

26.1

37.2

27.2

29.9

28.5

-
25.5

24.0

29.3

28.6

28.9

25.4

25.8

26.0

27.9

24.0

49.5

25.3

28.4

27.0

-

-
27.8

27.9

30.5 23.8

24.7

-
23.9

2 5.6

25.9

22.1

25.5

24.2

20.4

20.0

20.2

22.1

21.2

22.0

24.2

25.4

26.4

22.9

-
22.9

21.3

25.3

21.1

23.4

19.3

25.3

21 .6

22.0

22.1

24.6

20.6

22.1

20.8

-
20.8

22.6

24.4

22.7

20.2

22.4

20.8

22.7 29.2

26.5

32.5

29.0

30.9

30.7

25.0

30.1

28.8

29.2

26.2

27.9

28.3

23.8

27.6

28.1

29.2

28.1

25.4

37.2

26.3

24.7

28.2

21.1

24.7

22.4

26.7

24.4

24.1

23.6

25.3

24.1

24.1

23.0

49.5

24.0

25.6

26.0

22.7

20.2

24.2

23.9

26.3 37.5

28.5

32.5

36.3

33.8

35.4

29.2

34.6

34.8

32.1

28.6

31.0

34.3

26.5

33.3

30.2

31.2

28.9

26.4

39.2

28.4

31.0

29.7

-
30.5

23.6

31.8

30.0

31.8

25.2

25.3

26.7

29.4

24.3

49.5

25.6

27.6

27.6

-

-
27.6

27.0

32.1 26.5

24.0

-
26.1

25.9

26.6

22.4

26.1

25.0

25.7

22.9

24.5

25.2

22.4

25.0

27.1

26.6

28. 4

22.7

-
22.7

21.5

25.3

21.3

23.8

19.3

26.1

21.7

23.2

23.7

27.6

20.7

23.4

20.8

-
20.8

23.6

24.4

22.6

19.5

22.5

20.8

23.8 33.3

26.2

32.5

32.4

31.7

31.7

26.3

31.1

30.7

31.3

27.3

30.0

30.5

25.3

29.9

29.7

29.3

28.7

25.6

39.2

27.3

25.7

29.5

21.3

28.5

22.4

28.3

25.6

25.4

24.9

26.2

25. 5

25.4

23.3

49.5

24.3

25.9

25.4

22.6

19.5

23.9

24.4

28.2 38.8 23.6 31.6

29.9 27.1 28.5

33.0

- 33.0

37.2 24.2 31.2

33.5 29.5 32.8

36.7 27.1 33.3

28.2 23.7 26.5

35.7 26.7 32.5

35 .6 25.5 31.9

34.1 25.1 32.9

30.5 24.3 28.9

32.5 24.7 31.1

34.4 24.8 31.0

26.8 23.2 25.4

33.3 24.6 30.2

31.4 28.3 30.7

31.1 25.4 28.6

30.2 28.3 29.5

25.9 23.0 25.3

37.9

- 37.9

28.9 23.0 27.9

30.8 23.1 26.3

- 23.5 23.5

26.2 24.3 25.8

24.8 23.3 24.2

29.6 23.4 25.9

31.0 23.0 25.5

26.2 23.0 25.5

29.4 25.6 27.8

26.9 23.4 25.2

29.7 23.1 25.6

24.9 21.2 23.7

49.5

- 49.5

25.6 21.2 24.1

26.8 23.6 25.1

27.9 24.4 26.0

- 23.6 23.6

- 19.7 19.7

27.1 22.6 23.9

27.8 20.0 23.1

32.7 23.8 28.3



### 78

## Table 29

Adjusted Composite Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make for M Y2008-2010

Manufacturer Make

Toyota Toyota

Toyota Lexus

Toyota Scion

Toyota All

Hyundai All

Honda Honda

Honda Acura

Honda All

Kia All

VW VW

VW Audi

VW All

Nissan Nissan

Nissan Infiniti

Nissan All

Mitsubishi All

Mazda All

Subaru All

BMW BMW

BMW Mi ni

BMW All

GM Chevrolet

GM Pontiac

GM GMC

GM Bui ck

GM Cadillac

GM Saturn

GM All

Ford Ford

Ford Lincoln

Ford Mercury

Ford Volvo

Ford All

Daimler Me rcedes

- Benz

Daimler Smart

Daimler All

Chrysler Dodge

Chrysler Chrysler

Chrysler Jeep

Chrysler Ram
Chrysler All

Other All

Fleet 2008

Cars

30.4

22. 4

25.4

28.1

26.6

27.7

22.2

27.1

26.2

23.8

22.3

23.1

26.6

20.1

25.3

23.5

25.2

22.7

21.1

29.0

21.9

24.0

22.9

-

20.7

19.5

23.4

23.0

23.1

20.6

20.9

21.0

22.4

19.3

37.1

20.3

22.6

21.6

-

-

22.2

22.3

24.3 2008
Trucks

19.0

19.5

-

19.0

20.4

20.7

17.6

20.3

19.4

16.5

16.2

16.3

17.8

17.1

17.7

19.3

20.2

20.9

18.5

-

18.5

17.2

20.3

17.0

18.9

15.9

20.3

17.4

17.7

17.8

19.6

16.7

17.7

16.6

-

16.6

18.2

1 9.7

18.1

16.2

18.0

16.8

18.2 2008

Cars
and
Trucks

23.0

21.0

25.4

22.8

24.4

24.4

20.1

23.9

22.9

23.3

21.0

22.3

22.4

19.1

21.9

22.3

23.1

22.3

20.5

29.0

21.2

19.8

22.6

17.0

20.0

18.2

21.4

19.6

19.3

19.1

20.3

19.5

19.3

18.6

37.1

19.3

20.5

20.9

18.1

16.2

19.3

19.2

21.0 2009

Cars

29.2

22.8

25.4

28.3

26.7

27.9

23.3

27.3

27.3

25.4

22.7

24.6

26.8

21.3

26.1

23.8

24.7

22.8

21.3

30.3

22.8

24.8

23.6

-

24.3

19.1

25.4

24.0

25.2

20.3

20.4

21.5

23.5

19.6

37.1

20.6

22.0

22.0

-

-

22.0

21.6

25.4 2009
Trucks

21.0

19.1

-

20.7

20.6

21.2

17.9

20.8

19.9

20.4

18.2

19.5

20.0

18.1

19.9

21.4

21.1

22.4

18.3

-

18.3

17.3

20.3

17.2

19.2

15.8

20.9

17.5

18.6

19.1

21.9

16.8

18.7

16.7

-

16.7

19.0

19.6

18.0

15.8

18.1

16.9

19.0 2009

Cars
and
Trucks

26.1

20.9

25.4

25.4

25.1

25.1

21.0

24.6

24.2

24.8

21.7

23.8

24.0

20.3

23.6

23.5

23.2

22.6

20.6

30.3

21.9

20.7

23.5

17.2

22.8

18.2

22.6

20.6

20.3

20.1

21.1

20.6

20.3

18.8

37.1

19.5

20.7

20.4

18.0

15.8

19.2

19.6

22.4 2010

Cars

2010 2010 and

Cars Trucks Trucks

30.0 18.9 24.8

23.7 21.4 22.5

25.8

- 25.8

28.9 19.3 24.5

26.4 23.3 25.9

28.8 21.6 26.3

22.6 18.8 21.1

28.1 21.2 25.6

27.9 20.3 25.1

26.9 20.0 25.9

24.1 19.3 22.9

25.7 19.6 24.6

26.9 19.7 24.4

21.5 18.7 20.4

26.2 19.5 23.8

24.7 22.3 24.2

24.6 20.3 22.7

23.8 22.3 23.3

21.0 18.5 20.4

29.4

- 29.4

23.1 18.5 22.3

24.6 18.6 21.1

- - -

- 19.0 19.0

21.3 19.6 20.9

20.1 18.7 19.5

- - -

23.7 18.8 20.8

24.6 18.4 20.4

21.1 18.5 20.5

23.4 20.4 22.1

21.6 18.8 20.3

23.7 18.5 20.5

20.1 17.0 19.1

37.1

- 37.1

20.6 17.0 19.4

21.5 19.0 20.2

22.3 19.7 20.9

- 18.8 18.8

- 15.9 15.9

21.7 18.2 19.2

22.2 16.2 18.7

25.8 19.1 22.5



### 79

## Table 30

Footprint (sq ft) and Truck Share by Manufacturer for MY2008 -2010

2008 2009 2010

Cars 2008 Cars 2009 Cars 2010

2008 2008 and Percent 2009 2009 and Percent 2010 2010 and Percent
Manufacturer Cars Trucks Trucks Trucks Cars Trucks Trucks Trucks Cars Trucks Trucks Trucks

GM 46.3 56.7 51.8 53.1% 46.6 59.1 52.1 44.6% 46.7 57.4 52.4 53.2%

Toyota 44.1 52.8 48.3 48.3% 44.3 51.0 46.4 30.6% 44.3 54.5 47.9 36.0%

Honda 44.7 48.4 46.2 40.5% 44.6 48.3 45.9 34.7% 44.3 48.5 45.5 29.3%

Ford 46.7 53.7 50.9 59.9% 45.7 54.3 50.9 60.6% 46.1 56.2 51.7 55.9%

Nissan 45.4 53.7 48.4 36.2% 45.0 50.3 46.8 33.7% 44.8 50.8 46.6 29.3%
Chrysler 47.7 51.8 50.3 62.5% 48.1 52.1 50.9 69.6% 49.6 53.5 52.2 67.3%
Hyundai 44.2 47.0 45.0 29.4% 45.0 46.8 45.4 22.1% 45.5 47.0 45.8 14.4%

VW 43.6 52.6 44.3 8.2% 43.4 48.5 44.0 12.7% 43.6 48.1 44.2 14.1%

Kia 45.1 49.3 46.8 41.6% 44.6 49.2 46.2 34.5% 44.4 51.0 46.3 29.7%

BMW 45.4 50.0 46.2 17.4% 44.3 51.2 45.4 16.4% 44.2 50.6 45.1 14.8%

Subaru 44.4 44.5 44.4 24.8% 44.4 43.4 43.9 47.6% 44.8 43.4 44.3 35.6%

Daimler 48.1 52.5 49.1 23.9% 47.7 52.2 48.7 22.8% 47.8 50.7 48.7 29.6%

Mazda 44.0 47.5 45.3 36.8% 45.0 47.2 45.8 36.6% 45.3 48.6 46.6 3 9.2%

Mitsubishi 43.9 45.8 44.4 25.9% 44.5 44.2 44.5 13.3% 44.1 44.5 44.2 20.3%

Other 41.9 48.0 44.9 48.8% 42.9 49.1 45.2 36.5% 43.4 48.3 46.1 51.3%

All 45.4 53.0 49.0 47.3% 45.2 52.7 48.2 39.8% 45.2 54.0 48.8 41.1%



### 80

## Table 31

MY2009 Adjusted Composite Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type and Size for Largest Manufacturers

Vehicle Type/Size GM Toyota Honda Ford Nissan Chrysler Hyundai VW Kia BMW Subaru Daimler Mazda Mitsubishi All

Cars

Small 25.6 30.0 29.4 26.3 23.1 19.1 30.2 24.5 30.5 23.5 23.0 21.4 25.5 24.0 26.4

Midsize 23.8 27.6 21.5 21.5 26.5 25.0 28.5 22.1 27.1 21.1

- 19.9 23.7 23.4 25.6

Large 21.6 23.7 25.1 20.4 19.4 20.7 25.1 19.0 20.2 17.6

- 16.7

- - 22.8

All Sizes 23.8 28.6 27.0 23.5 26. 0 22.1 26.7 24.3 28.0 22.8 23.0 20.7 24.7 23.8 25.4

Wagons

Small 25.6 25.7 30.6 23.4 28.7 21.8 26.9 27.5

- 21.6 22.8

- - - 26.2

Midsize

- - - 18.9

- - - 22.8 23.0 20.1 22.7 18.4

- - 22.3
Large

- - - - - - - - - - - 17.2

- - 17.2

All Siz es 25.6 25.7 30.6 19.8 28.7 21.8 26.9 27.0 23.0 21.2 22.7 17.4

- - 25.5

All Cars

Small 25.6 29.2 29.7 26.2 24.5 20.1 29.8 24.8 30.5 23.5 22.9 21.4 25.5 24.0 26.4

Midsize 23.8 27.6 21.5 21.3 26.5 25.0 28.5 22.2 26.4 21.1 22.7 19.8 23.7 23. 4 25.5

Large 21.6 23.7 25.1 20.4 19.4 20.7 25.1 19.0 20.2 17.6

- 16.8

- - 22.8

All Sizes 24.0 28.3 27.3 23.5 26.1 22.0 26.7 24.6 27.3 22.8 22.8 20.6 24.7 23.8 25.4

Vans

Small

- - - - - - - - - - - - 23.8

- 23.8

Midsize

- 20.8 20.4 19.6 19.7 19.8

- - 19.2

- - - - - 20.1
Large 16.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.0

All Sizes 16.0 20.8 20.4 19.6 19.7 19.8

- - 19.2

- - - 23.8

- 20.1

SUVs

Small

- - - - - 16.6

- - - - - - - - 16.6

Midsize 21.6 21.8 21.0 22.1 22.7 18.7 20.7 21. 2 20.6

- 22.4

- 20.6 21.7 21.2

Large 18.2 15.1

- 17.9 19.5 19.1 18.9 18.0 18.7 18.3

- 16.7 18.2

- 18.3

All Sizes 18.4 21.6 21.0 20.6 20.6 18.3 20.6 19.5 20.1 18.3 22.4 16.7 19.5 21.7 19.9
Pickups

Midsize 19.8 19.3

- 19.9

- - - - - - - - 23.4

- 19.5

Large 16.6 15.6 17.6 16.3 16.4 15.8

- - - - - - 15.1 16.3 16.4

All Sizes 16.8 18.7 17.6 16.8 16.4 15.8

- - - - - - 22.3 16.3 16.9

All Trucks

Small

- - - - - 16.6

- - - - - - 23.8

- 18.1

Midsize 21.0 21.1 20.9 21.6 22.4 19.3 20.7 21.2 20.2

- 22.4

- 20.7 21.7 20.8

Large 17.3 15.5 17.6 16.8 18.7 17.1 18.9 18.0 18.7 18.3

- 16.7 18.2 16.3 17.3

All Sizes 17.5 20.7 20.8 18.7 19.9 18.1 20.6 19.5 19.9 18.3 22.4 16.7 21.1 21.4 19.0

Fleet

All Sizes 20.6 25.4 24.6 20.3 23.6 19.2 25.1 23.8 24.2 21.9 22.6 19.5 23.2 23.5 22.4



### 81

## Table 32

MY2010 Adjusted Composite Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type and Size for Largest Manufacturers

Vehicle Type/Size GM Toyota Honda Ford Nissan Chrysler Hyundai VW Kia BMW Subaru Daimler Mazda Mitsubishi All

Cars

Small 24.4 29.7 30.7 24.5 22.9 20.1 26.6 25.6 29.5 24.7 22.6 21.2 25.9 24.7 26.7

Midsize 23.5 29.0 21.3 24.5 26.8 25.1 30.0 22.2 25.7 20.7 24.7 20.7 23.7 25.4 26.1

Large 22.0 2 3.7 25.2 20.6 19.5 20.6 24.4 19.2

- 17.8

- 18.3

- - 22.7

All Sizes 23.5 29.2 27.7 23.8 26.0 21.7 26.4 25.3 28.7 23.2 23.7 20.8 24.6 24.9 25.8

Wagons

Small 25.5 25.6 30.6 23.4 28.8 21.7 26.9 29.8 27.2 21.6 21.8

- - 23.5 26.8

Midsize

- - - 19.2

- - - 24.9 22.3 20.0 24.4

- - - 22.6
Large

- - - - - - - - - - - 16.8

- - 16.8

All Sizes 25.5 25.6 30.6 19.6 28.8 21.7 26.9 29.1 25.5 20.6 23.9 16.8

- 23.5 25.9

All Cars

Small 24.7 29.0 30.7 24.5 24.3 20.5 26.7 26.0 29.0 24.7 22.3 21.2 25.9 24.6 26.7

Midsize 23.5 29.0 21.3 24.1 26.8 25.1 30.0 22.7 24.5 20.7 24.5 20.7 23.7 25.4 26.0

Large 22.0 23.7 25.2 20.6 19.5 20.6 24.4 19.2

- 17.8

- 17.8

- - 22.6

All Sizes 23.7 28.9 28.1 23.7 26.2 21.7 26.4 25.7 27.9 23.1 23.8 20.6 24.6 24.7 2 5.8

Vans

Small

- - - - - - - - - - - - 24.1

- 24.1

Midsize

- 20.8 20.4 23.5

- 19.7

- - 19.8

- - - - - 20.2
Large 16.0

- - - - - - - - - - - - - 16.0

All Sizes 16.0 20.8 20.4 23.5

- 19.7

- - 19.8

- - - 24.1

- 20.1

SUVs

S mall

- - - - - 17.1

- - - - - - - - 17.1

Midsize 22.1 22.2 21.8 22.0 22.1 19.5 24.0 21.2 21.5

- 22.3 18.5 21.4 22.3 21.6

Large 19.8 15.6

- 17.9 18.9 19.9 19.5 18.8 18.7 18.5

- 16.4 18.3

- 18.7

All Sizes 19.9 21.0 21.8 20.1 20.4 18.9 23.3 19.6 20.7 18.5 22.3 17.0 20.0 22.3 20.2
Pickups

Midsize 21.1 19.5

- 21.9

- - - - - - - - - - 19.9

Large 17.4 15.8 17.6 16.6 16.5 16.1

- - - - - - - - 16.6

All Sizes 17.5 16.9 17.6 16.8 16.5 16.1

- - - - - - - - 16.9

All Trucks

Small

- - - - - 17.1

- - - - - - 24.1

- 17.8

Midsize 21.9 21.5 21.5 22.1 22.1 19.6 24.0 21.2 20.5

- 22.3 18.5 21.4 22.3 21.2

Large 18.7 15.7 17.6 17.0 18.0 16.7 19.5 18.8 18.7 18.5

- 16.4 18.3

- 17.5

All Sizes 18.8 19.3 21.2 18.5 19.5 18.2 23.3 19.6 20.3 18.5 2 2.3 17.0 20.3 22.3 19.1

Fleet

All Sizes 20.8 24.5 25.6 20.5 23.8 19.2 25.9 24.6 25.1 22.3 23.3 19.4 22.7 24.2 22.5



### 82

## Figure 30Adj.Comp.MPGAdj.Comp.MPGAdj.Comp.MPG 

## Manufac turer Adjusted Fuel Economy and Percent Truck by Model Year

GM Toyota Honda Ford Nissan

30

25

20

15 Car

Both

Truck Car Car

Car Car

Both Both

Both Both

Truck Truck

Truck Truck

1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005

Chrysler Hyundai VW Kia BMW

30

25

20

15 Car Car Car Car

Car

Both Both Both Both

Both

Truck Truck

Truck Truck

Truck

1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005

Subaru Daimler Mazda Mitsubishi

30

25

20

15 Car Both Car Car

Truck Car Both Both

Both Truck

Truck Truck

1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005



### 83

## VIII. Char acteristics of Fleets Comprising Existing Fuel

- Efficient Vehicles

This section is limited to a discussion of hypothetical fleets of vehicles composed of existing fuel

- efficient vehicles and the fuel economy and other characteristics of those fleets. Whil e it includes a discussion of some of the technical and engineering factors that affect fleet fuel economy, it does not attempt to evaluate either the benefits or the costs of achieving various fuel economy levels. In addition, the analysis presented here also does not attempt to evaluate the marketability or the public acceptance of any of the hypothetical fleets that resul t from

the scenarios discussed below.

There are several different ways to look at the potential for improved fuel economy from the li ght -duty vehicle fleet. Many of these approaches utilize projections of more fuel efficient technologies that are not currently being used in the fleet today. As an example, a fleet made up of a large fraction of fuel cell vehicles could be considered. Such projections can be associated with a good deal of uncertainty, since uncertainty in the projections of market share compound with uncertainties about the fuel economy performance of yet uncommercialized technology. These uncertainties can be thought of as a combination of technical risk ( i.e., can the technology b e developed and mass produced?) and market risk (i.e., will people buy vehicles with the new technology and improved fuel economy? ).

One general approach used in this report is to consider only the fuel economy performance of those technologies which exist in today's fleet. This eliminates uncertainty about the feasibility and production readiness of the technology, but does not address market risk. Therefore, the analysis can be thought of as the fuel economy potential now in the fleet, with no new technologies added, if the higher mpg choices available were to be selected by a much higher percentage of consumers.

As was shown in Figure 3, there is a wide distribution of fuel economy. Bec ause of the interest in the high end of this spectrum, this portion of the database was examined in more detail using three "best in class" (BIC) analysis techniques. This type of technique is not new, and in fact was one of the methods used to investigat e future fleet fuel economy capability when the original fuel economy standards were set in the 1970s.

In any group or class of vehicles there will be a distribution of fuel economy performance, and the "best in

class" method relies on that fact. The ana lysis involves dividing the fleet of vehicles into classes, selecting a set of high mpg "role model" vehicles to represent the fuel economy of that class, and then calculating the average characteristics of the resultant fleet using the same relative produ ction proportions for each class as in the baseline

fleet.

One potential problem with a BIC analysis is that the high mpg vehicles used in the analysis may be unusual in some way - so unusual that the hypothetical BIC fleet may be deficient in some other attributes considered desirable by vehicle buyers. Because the BIC analysis is also sensitive to the selection of the best vehicles, three different procedures were used to select the role models.

Two of these selection procedures use the EPA car size classes (which for cars are the same as those used
for the EPA/DOE Fuel Economy Guide ) and the truck type/size classes described previously in this report. The

third best- in

- class role model selection procedure is based on using the vehicle weight classes u sed for EPA 's vehicle testing and certification programs.

The advantage of using and analyzing data from the best- in

- size

- class methods is that if the production proportions of each class are held constant, the production distribution of the resultant fle et by vehicle type and size does not change. This means that the size of the average vehicle does not change a lot, but there can be some

84

## fluctuation in interior volume for cars because of the distribution of interior volume within a car class. Similarly, an advantage of using the weight classes to determine the role models is, if the production proportions in each weight class are held constant, the production distribution of the resultant fleet by weight does not change, and in this case, the average weight remains the same.

One way of performing a best

- in

- class analysis is to use as role models the four nameplates with the highest fuel economy in each size class. (See Tables Q -1 and Q-2 in Appendix Q.) Under this procedure, all vehicles in a class with the same nameplate are included as role models regardless of vehicle configuration. Each role model nameplate from each class was assigned the same production weighting factor, but the original production weighting distribution for different vehicle co nfigurations within a given nameplate (e.g., transmission type, engine size, and/or drive type) was retained. The resulting values were used to recalculate the fleet average values using the same relative proportions in each of the size classes that constitute the fleet. In cases where two identical vehicles differ by only one characteristic, but have slightly different nameplates (such as the two

- wheel drive Chevrolet C1500 and the four-wheel drive Chevrolet K1500 pickups), both are considered to be diff erent nameplates. Conversely, in the cases where there are technically identical vehicles with different nameplates, only one representative vehicle nameplate was considered in the BIC analysis.

The second best- in

- class role model selection procedure involves selecting as role models the best dozen vehicles in each size class with each vehicle configuration (some of which may have the same nameplate) considered separately. Tables Q -3 and Q- 4 in Appendix Q give listings of the representative vehicles used in this method. As with the previous procedure, in cases where technically identical vehicle configurations have different nameplates, only one representative vehicle was considered. Under this best

- in -class method, the production data

for each role mod el vehicle in each class was assigned the same value, and the resulting values were used to re

calculate the fleet values again using the same relative proportions in each of the size classes that constitute the

fleet.

The third best

- in

- class procedure in volves selecting as role models the best dozen vehicles in each weight class. As with the previous method, each vehicle configuration was considered separately. (See Tables Q -5 and Q

6 in Appendix Q for a listing of the vehicles used in this analysis.) It should be noted that some of the weight classes have less than a dozen representative vehicles. In addition, as in the previous two best

- in

- class methods, where technically identical vehicle configurations with different nameplates exist, only one representative vehicle

was included. As with the two best

- in

- size class methods, the production data for each role model vehicle in each class was assigned the same value, and the resulting values were used to recalculate the fleet values again using the same relative proportions in each of the size classes that constitute the fleet.

Tables 33 to 35 compare, for cars, trucks, and both cars and trucks, respectively, the results of the best

- in

class analysis with actual average data for model year 2010. As discussed earlier, for the size class scenarios, the percentage of vehicles that are small, midsize, or large are the same as for the baseline fleet, and in the weight class scenarios, the average weight of the BIC data sets is the same as the actual one.

In general, the vehicles used for the BIC analysis have less powerful engines, have slower 0

- to -60 acceleration times, and are more likely to be equipped with front wheel drive, VVT, CVTs, and hybrid powertrains

than the entire fleet as a whole.

As shown in Table 33, depending on the BIC scenario chosen, MY2010 cars could have achieved from 16% to 26% better fuel economy than they did. Table 34 shows that the potential truck BIC fuel economy improvement ranges from 12% to 25%, and the combined car and tru ck fleet could have been 15 % to 26% better as
shown in Table 35.

85

## The best

- in -class analyses can be thought of as the mpg potential now in the fleet with no new technologies added if the higher mpg choices available were selected. As such, the best

- in

- class analyses provide a useful reference point reflecting the variation in fuel economy levels that results in large part from consumer preferences as opposed to technological availability.

Table 33

Best in Class Results 2010 Cars

Best 4 Best 12 Best 12
Vehicle Actual Nameplates in Vehicles in Vehicles in Category Characteristic Data Size Class Size Class Weight Class

Fuel Economy Lab. 55/45 32.7 42.8 39.4 38.8
Adjusted City 21.7 29.4 26.5 26.0
Adjusted Highway 30.1 35.2 34.0 34.0
Adjusted Composite 25.8 32.4 30.4 30.0

Vehicle Size Weight (lb.) 3499 3407 3233 3499
Volume (Cu. Ft.) 110 109 109 106

CID 159 125 124 129

HP 192 148 145 162
HP/CID 1.21 1.19 1.17 1.26
HP/WT 0.054 0.043 0.044 0.046

Percent Multival ve 93% 88% 92% 93%

Percent Variable Valve 92% 98% 94% 81%

Percent Diesel 0.5% 1.6% 5.5% 14.2%

Performance 0- 60 Time (Sec.) 9.5 9.9 10.3 9.9
Top Speed 136 122 122 125

Ton

- MPG 46.1 57.7 50.3 53.7

Cu. Ft. MPG 2947 3698 3394 3282

Cu. Ft. Ton

- MPG 5 100 6339 5502 5701

Drive Front 80% 95% 95% 84%

Rear 14% 5% 4% 6%

4WD 6% 1% 1% 10%

Transmission Manual 10% 10% 37% 28%
Lockup 76% 42% 36% 32%

CVT 14% 48% 24% 37%
Hybrid Vehicle 6.1% 46.4% 20.6% 18.9%



### 86

## Table 34

Best in Class Results 2010 Trucks

Best 4 Best 12 Best 12
Vehicle Actual Nameplates in Vehicles in Vehicles in Category Characteristic Data Size Class Size Class Weight Class

Fuel Economy Lab. 55/45 23.8 31.1 29.5 27.1
Adjusted City 16.2 22.4 20.5 18.6
Adjusted Highway 22.0 25.1 25.5 24.2
Adjusted Composite 19.1 23.9 23.0 21.4

Vehicle Size Weight (lb.) 4738 4733 4329 4738

CID 236 221 192 210

HP 259 232 211 244
HP/CID 1.12 1.08 1.12 1.18
HP/WT 0.054 0.048 0.049 0.051

Percent Multivalve 76% 76 % 88% 88%

Percent Variable Valve 79% 95% 91% 89%

Percent Diesel 0.2%

- 6.3% 5.8%

Performance 0- 60 Time (Sec.) 9.4 8.6 9.3 9.3
Top Speed 143 135 133 139

Ton

- MPG 45.3 57.7 50.5 51.1

Drive Front 30% 33% 41% 36%

Rear 22% 28% 26% 13%

4WD 48% 40% 3 3% 52%

Transmission Manual 2% 4% 25% 6%
Lockup 93% 33% 45% 75%

CVT 5% 56% 28% 18%
Hybrid Vehicle 1.6% 62.7% 28.0% 16.5%



### 87

## Table 35

Best in Class Results 2010 Light Duty Vehicles

Best 4 Best 12 Best 12
Vehicle Actual Nameplates in Vehicles in Vehicles in Category Characteristic D ata Size Class Size Class Weight Class

Fuel Economy Lab. 55/45 28.3 37.2 34.6 33.0
Adjusted City 19.0 26.1 23.7 22.3
Adjusted Highway 26.1 30.3 29.9 29.2
Adjusted Composite 22.5 28.3 26.9 25.8

Vehicle Size Weight (lb.) 4009 3941 3684 4009

CID 191 163 152 162

HP 220 182 173 196
HP/CID 1.17 1.15 1.15 1.23
HP/WT 0.054 0.045 0.046 0.048

Percent Multivalve 86% 83% 90% 91%

Percent Variable Valve 86% 97% 93% 84%

Percent Diesel 0.4% 0.9% 5.8% 10.7%

Performance 0- 60 Time (Sec.) 9.5 9.4 9.9 9.6
Top Speed 139 127 127 131

Ton

- MPG 45.8 57.7 50.4 52.6

Drive Front 59% 70% 73% 64%

Rear 17% 14% 13% 9%

4WD 24% 16% 14% 27%

Transmission Manual 7% 7% 32% 19%
Lockup 83% 38% 39% 50%

CVT 10% 51% 26% 29%
Hybrid Vehicle 4.3% 53.0% 23.6% 17.9%



### 88

## Another general approach for determining potential fuel economy improvement is to study the effects on fuel economy caused by the changes that have occurred in the distributions of vehicle weight and size. This technique involves preserving the average characteristics of vehicles within each size or weight strata in today's fleet, but re -mixing the production distributions for each size or weight strata to match those of a baseline year and then calculating the fleet wide averages for the hypothetical fleet using the re -mixed production data. The production distribution of the resultant fleet is by vehicle type and size, thus it is forced to be the same as that for the base year. As with the best in car size class technique, there can be some fluctuation in average interior volume for cars because of the distribution of interior volume within a car class. Similarly, if the production proportions in each weight class are held the same as the base year s, the production distribution of the resultant fleet by weight remains the same as that for the base year change, and the recalculated average weight is the same as the base years.

It is important to note that, for Tables 36 and 37 below, both hybrid and diesel vehicles were excluded so that only vehicles with conventional powertrains were considered. Accordingly, the data in the rows for actual 2010, 1981, and 1988 typically differ slightly from data reported elsewhere in this report.

Table 36 compares weight, interior volume, engine CID and HP, estimated 0- to -60 time and laboratory fuel economy for conventionally powered MY2010 cars as calculated from the projected 2010 production distribution and then recalculated using the size and weight distributions from MY1981 and MY1988. The base years of 1981 and 1988 were chosen because 1981 was the year with the lowest average weight and horsepower levels, and 1988 was, until recently, the year with the highest LAB fuel economy. This table includes the actual 1981 and 1988 fleet averages as a point of reference. In both of the weight distribution cases, the fuel economy of the re-mixed MY2010 fleet would have been higher than actually is: 7% if the 1981 weight distribution is used, 12% if the 1988 weight distribution is used. For both re- mixed weight cases, interior volume and horsepower are substantially lower. Using the MY1981 and MY1988 size mix distributions did not change car fuel economy.

Table 36

Characteristi cs of 2010 Cars

Calculated From:

Vehicle Weight Interior Volume CID HP 0- to

- 60 Time Lab 55/45 MPG

2010 Actual Distribution 3493 110 162 197 9.5 31.7
1981 Weight Distribution 3043 98 133 173 9.6 34.0
1988 Weight Distribution 3053 103 127 156 10.2 35.5

1981 Size Distribution 3482 108 161 198 9.5 31.7

1988 Size Distribution 3449 108 160 194 9.6 32.0

Reference: 1981 Actual 3043 106 178 99 14.1 24.9

Reference: 1988 Actual 3047 107 160 116 12.8 28.6



## Percent Change:

Vehicle Weight Interior Vo lume CID HP 0- to

- 60 Time Lab 55/45 MPG

1981 Weight Distribution

- 13%

- 11%

- 18%

- 12% 1% 7%
1988 Weight Distribution

- 13%

- 6%

- 21%

- 21% 8% 12%

1981 Size Distribution 0%

- 2%

- 1% 0% 0% 0%

1988 Size Distribution

- 1%

- 2%

- 2%

- 1% 0% 1%

Reference: 1981 Ac tual

- 13%

- 4% 9%

- 49% 48%

- 22%

Reference: 1988 Actual

- 13%

- 3%

- 1%

- 41% 34%

- 10%



### 89

## Table 37 shows similar data for trucks, and as with the car class cases using either the 1981 or the 1988 production distribution by weight class, results in higher recalculated fuel economy than using the corresponding size class production distribution. Figure 31 compares actual fuel economy for all model years from 1975 to 2010 with what it would have been had the distributions of weight or size been the same as 1981 or 1988. For both cars and trucks, using either the 1981 or 1988 weight class distribution, results in significantly higher fuel economy improvements than the similar size class cases.

Table 37

Characteristics of 2010 Trucks

Calculated From:

Vehicle Weight CID HP 0- to

- 60 Time Lab 55/45 MPG

2010 Actual Distribution 4734 237 260 9.4 23.7
1981 Weight Distribution 4185 192 223 9.7 26.2
1988 Weight Distribution 4083 188 216 9.7 26.7

1981 Size Distribution 5060 277 276 9.5 21.7

1988 Size Distribution 4551 232 235 10.0 23.6

Reference: 1981 Actual 3841 252 121 14.4 19.7

Reference: 1988 Actual 3838 227 141 12.9 21.2



## Percent Change:

Vehicle Weight CID HP 0- to

- 60 Time Lab 55/45 MPG

1981 Weight Distribution

- 12%

- 19 % - 14% 2% 11%
1988 Weight Distribution

- 14%

- 21%

- 17% 3% 13%

1981 Size Distribution 7% 17% 6% 1%

- 8%

1988 Size Distribution

- 4%

- 2%

- 10% 5% 0%

Reference: 1981 Actual

- 19% 6%

- 53% 52%

- 17%

Reference: 1988 Actual

- 19%

- 4%

- 46% 37%

- 10%



### 90

## Figure 31

Effect of Weight and Size on Fuel Economy

Car TruckLab55/45MPG(lineshowsactualMPG) 35

30

25

20

15

35

30

25

20

15 

### 1981



## Parameter

Size

Weight



### 1988

1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 

### Model Year

91

## IX. References

1. "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel Economy and Emission Control," November 1972.

2. "Passenger Car Fuel Economy - Trends and Influencing Factors," SAE Paper 730790, Austin and Hellman, September 1973.

3. "Fuel Economy of the 1975 Models," SAE Paper 740970, Austin and Hellman, October 1974.

4. "Passenger Car Fuel Economy Trends Through 1976," SAE Paper 750957, Austin and Service, October 1975.

5. "Li ght -Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1977," SAE Paper 760795, Murrell, Pace, Service, and Yeager, October 1976.

6. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1978," SAE Paper 780036, Murrell, February 1978.

7. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1979," SAE Paper 790225, Murrell, February 1979.

8. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1980," SAE Paper 800853, Murrell, Foster and Bristor,

June 1980.

9. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1981," SAE Paper 810386, Foster, Murrell and Loos, February 1981.

10. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1982," SAE Paper 820300, Cheng, LeBaron, Murrell, and Loos, February 1982.

11. "Why Vehicles Don't Achieve EPA MPG On the Road and How That Shortfall Can Be Accounted For," SAE Paper 820791, Hellman and Murrell, June 1982.

12. "Light-Duty Automobile Fuel Economy Trends through 1983," SAE Paper 830544, Murrell, Loos, Heavenrich, and Cheng, February 1983.

13. "Passenger Car Fuel Econom y - Trends Through 1984," SAE Paper 840499, Heavenrich, Murrell, Cheng, and Loos, February 1984.

14. "Light Truck Fuel Economy - Trends through 1984," SAE Paper 841405, Loos, Cheng, Murrell and Heavenrich, October 1984.

15. "Light- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy - Trends Through 1985," SAE Paper 850550, Heavenrich, Murrell, Cheng, and Loos, March 1985.

16. "Light-Duty Automotive Trends Through 1986," SAE Paper 860366, Heavenrich, Cheng, and Murrell, February 1986.

17. "Trends in Alternate Measures of V ehicle Fuel Economy," SAE Paper 861426, Hellman and Murrell, September 1986.

92

## 18. "Light-Duty Automotive Trends Through 1987," SAE Paper 871088, Heavenrich, Murrell, and Cheng, May

1987.

19. "Light-Duty Automotive Trends Through 1988," U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/ CTAB/88

- 07, Heavenrich and Murrell,

June 1988.

20. "Light-Duty Automotive and Technology Trends Through 1989," U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/CTAB/89-04, Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman, May 1989.

21. "Downward Trend in Passenger Car Fuel Economy

-- A View of Recent Data," U.S. EPA,
EPA/AA/CTAB/90 -01, Murrell and Heavenrich, January 1990.

22. "Options for Controlling the Global Warming Impact from Motor Vehicles," U.S. EPA,

EPA/AA/CTAB/89 -08, Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman, December 1989.

23. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1990," U.S. EPA,

EPA/AA/CTAB/90

- 03, Heavenrich and Murrell, June 1990.

24. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1991," U.S. EPA/AA/CTAB/91-02, Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman, M ay 1991.

25. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1993," U.S. EPA/AA/TDG/93-01, Murrell, Hellman, and Heavenrich, May 1993.

26. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1996," U.S. EPA/AA/TDSG/96-01, Heavenrich and Hellman, July 1996.

27. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1999," U.S. EPA420-R-99-018, Heavenrich and Hellman, September 1999.

28. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2000," U.S. EPA420-R-00-008, Heavenrich and Hellman, December 2000.

29. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2001," U.S. EPA420-R- 01 -008, Heavenrich and Hellman, September 2001.

30. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2003," U.S. EPA420-R- 03 -006, Heavenrich and Hellman, April 2003.

31. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2004," U.S. EPA420-R- 04 -001, Heavenrich and Hellman, April 2004.

32. "Light- Dut y Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2005," U.S. EPA420-R- 05 -001, Robert M. Heavenrich, July 2005.

33. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2006," U.S. EPA420-R- 06 -011, Robert M. Heavenrich, July 2006.

93

## 34. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2007," U.S. EPA420-S-07

- 001, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, September 2007.

35. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2008," U.S. EPA420-R-08

- 015, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, September 2008.

36. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2009," U.S. EPA420-R-09

- 014, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, September 2009.

37. "Concise Description of Auto Fuel Economy in Recent Years," SAE Paper 760045, Malliaris, Hsia and Gould, February 1976.

38. "Automotive Engine

-- A Future Perspective," SAE Paper 891666, Amann, 1989.

39. "Regression Analysis of Acceleration Performance o f Light -Duty Vehicles," DOT HS 807 763, Young, September 1991.

40. "Determinates of Multiple Measures of Acceleration," SAE Paper 931805, Santini and Anderson, 1993.

94