# Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2014



# Report

EPA-420-R -14-023 a October 2014

## 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.

# T **ABLE OF**  

# C **ONTENTS**

I. Introduction

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

2. Fleetwide Trends Overview

................................................................................................ ........................................... 3
A. Overview of Final MY 2013 Data

................................................................................................ ...................................... 3
B. Overview of Preliminary MY 2014 Data

........................................................................................................................... 3
C. Overview of Long

- Term Trends

................................................................................................ ........................................ 6
3. Vehicle Class, Type, and Attributes

.............................................................................................................................. 14
A. Vehicle Class

................................................................................................ ................................................................... 14
B. Vehicle Type

................................................................................................ .................................................................... 16
C. Vehicle Footp rint, Weight, and Horsepower

.................................................................................................................. 22
D. Vehicle Acceleration

................................................................................................ ....................................................... 32
4. Manufacturers and Makes

................................................................................................ .......................................... 37
A. Manufacturer and Make Definitions

.............................................................................................................................. 37
B. Manufacturer and Make Fuel Economy and CO 2 

### Emissions

........................................................................................... 39
C. Manufacturer Technology and Attribute Trends

............................................................................................................ 47
5. Powertrain Technologies

................................................................................................ ............................................. 52
A. Tr ends in Engine Power and Size (Cylinders and D isplacement)

.................................................................................... 52
B. Trends in Fuel Delivery Methods and Valvetrains

.......................................................................................................... 56
C. New Powertrain Strategies: Turbo Downsizing, Hybrids, and Diesels

............................................................................ 59
D. Trends in Transmission Types

................................................................................................ ......................................... 73
E. Trends in Drive Types

................................................................................................ ...................................................... 77
6. Techology Adoption Rates

................................................................................................ ........................................... 83
A. Industry

- Wide Technology Adoption Since 1975

........................................................................................................... 84
B. Technology Adoption by Manufacturers

........................................................................................................................ 85
C. Technology Adopt ion i n the Last Five Years

................................................................................................................... 91
7. Alternative Fuel Vehicles

................................................................................................ ............................................. 92
A. Methodology

................................................................................................ .................................................................. 92
B. Historical Trends

................................................................................................ ............................................................. 94
C. MY 2014 Vehicles

................................................................................................ ............................................................ 96
D. Overall Impact of Alternative Fuel Vehicles

................................................................................................................. 106
8. High Fuel Economy/ Low CO 2 

### and Advanced Technology Choices

.............................................................................. 108
A. Methodology

................................................................................................ ................................................................ 108
B. High Fuel Economy Vehicle Offerings

........................................................................................................................... 110
C. Advanced Technology Vehicle Offerings

...................................................................................................................... 111
9. Regulatory Context

................................................................................................ .................................................... 112
A. Personal Vehicle Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards

................................................................ 1 12
B. Current Vehicles That Meet Future EPA CO 2 

### Emissions Compliance Targets

............................................................... 113
C. Comparison of EPA and NHTSA Fuel Economy Data, 1975

- 2014

................................................................................. 115
D. Comparison of MY 2013 Unadjusted, Laboratory and Estimated CAFE Data by Manufacturer

.................................. 117
10. Additional Database and Report Details

.................................................................................................................. 119
A. Sources of Input Data

................................................................................................ ................................................... 119
B. Harmonic Averaging of Fuel Economy Values

.............................................................................................................. 120
C. Adjusted vs. Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Economy Values

........................................................................................ 121
D. Vehicle Tailpipe CO 2 

### Emissions Data

............................................................................................................................ 129
E. Vehicle

- Related GHG Emissions Sources Other Than Tailpipe CO 2 

### Emissions

.............................................................. 131
F. Other Database Methodology Issues

............................................................................................................................ 133
G. Comparison of Preliminary and Final Fleetwide Fuel Economy Values

....................................................................... 134
H. Definitions and Acronyms

................................................................................................ ............................................ 136
I. Links for More Information

................................................................................................ ............................................ 138
J. Authors and Acknowledgements

................................................................................................ .................................. 139 References

................................................................................................ .................................................................... 1 40



# ii

# L **IST OF** 

# F **IGURES**

Figure 2.1 Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions by Model Year

...................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2.2 Adjusted Fuel Economy by Model Year

...................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2.3 Adjusted Fuel Economy, Weight, and Horsepower by Model Year

............................................................................ 8 Figure 2.4 Adjusted Fuel Economy Distribution by Model Year

................................................................................................ 10 Figure 3.1 Car and Truck Production Share by Model Year

...................................................................................................... 15 Figure 3.2 Vehicle Classes and Types Used in This Report

........................................................................................................ 16 Figure 3.3 Car Type Vehicle Production vs. Interior Volume for High Volume Manufacturers, MY 1978 and MY 2014

........... 17 Figure 3.4 Vehicle Type Production Share by Model Year

........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 3.5 Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions, Adjusted Fuel Economy and Other Key Parameters by Vehicle Type

............................... 27 Figure 3.6 Car and Truck Production Share by Vehicle Inertia Weight Class

............................................................................ 28 Figure 3.7 Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Consumption vs. Footprint, Cars and Trucks, MY 2013

............................................. 29 Figure 3.8 Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Consumption vs. Inertia Weight, Cars and Trucks, MY 1975 and MY 2013

.............. 30
F

igure 3.9 Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Consumption vs. Car Interior Volume Cars, MY 1978 and MY 2013

......................... 31 Figure 3.10 Calculated 0

- to

- 60 Acceleration Performance

....................................................................................................... 32 Figure 3.11 Acceleration Performance by Vehicle Type

............................................................................................................ 33 Figure 3.12 Comparison of Two Methods for Calculated 0

- to

- 60 Acceleration Performance

.................................................. 35 Figure 4.1 Highest Technology Adoption Based on Projected MY 2014 Production

................................................................ . 47 Figure 4.2 Adjusted Fuel Economy and Percent Truck by Manufacturer for MY 1975

- 2014

.................................................. 51 Figure 5.1 Engine Power and Displace ment

............................................................................................................................. 53 Figure 5.2 Percent Change for Specific Engine Metrics

............................................................................................................ 54 Figure 5.3 Production Share by Number of Engine Cylinders

................................................................................................... 55 Figure 5.4 Production Share by Engine Technology

.................................................................................................................. 57 Figure 5.5 Engine Metrics for Different Engine Technology Packages

..................................................................................... 58 Figure 5.6 Market Share of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles

................................................................................................................ 60 Figure 5.7 Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and Horsepower, MY 2010

- 2014

................................ . 61 Figure 5.8 Hybrid Production MY 2000

- 2014 (With 3

- Year Moving Average)

........................................................................ 62 Figure 5.9 Hybrid Adjusted Fuel Economy Distribution by Year, Cars Only

.............................................................................. 63 Figure 5.10 Hybrid and Non

- Hybrid Fuel Economy for Midsize Cars, MY 2000

- 2014

............................................................. 64 Figure 5.11 Highway/City Fuel Economy Ratio for Hybrids and Non hybrids

........................................................................... 65 Figure 5.12 Percent Improvement in Adjusted Fuel Consum ption for Hybrid Vehicles, MY 2013

............................................ 66 Figure 5.13 Percent Improvement in Adjusted Fuel Consumption for Diesel Vehicles, MY 2013

............................................. 68 Figure 5.14 Percent Improvement in CO 2 

### Emissions for Diesel Vehicles, MY 2013

................................................................... 69 Figure 5.15 Transmission Production Share

............................................................................................................................. 74 Figure 5.16 Average Number of Transmission Gears for New Vehicles (excluding CVTs)

........................................................ 75 Figure 5.17 Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Adjusted Fuel Economy

..................................................... 76 Figure 5.18 Front, Rear, and Four Wheel Drive Usage

- Production Share by Vehicle Ty pe

..................................................... 78 Figure 5.19 Differences in Adjusted Fuel Consumption Trends for FWD, RWD, and 4WD/AWD Vehicles, MY 2013

............... 79 Figure 6.1 Industry -W ide Car Technology Penetration after First Significant Use

................................................................... 85 Figure 6.2 Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key Technologies

....................................................... 87 Figure 6.3 Maximum Three

- and Five

- Year Adoption for Key Technologies

............................................................................. 89 Figure 6.4 VVT Adoption Details by Manufacturer

................................................................................................................... 90 Figure 6.5 Five Year Change in Light Duty Vehicle Technology Penetration Share

................................................................... 91 Figure 7.1 Historical Production of EVs, PHEVs, and Dedicated CNG Vehicles, MY 1995

- 2013

.............................................. 95 Figure 8.1 Number of Models Meeting Fuel Economy Thresholds in MY 2009 and MY 2014

................................................ 110 Figure 8.2 Advanced Technology and Alternative Fueled Vehicle Models in MY 2009 and MY 2014

.................................... 111 Figure 9.1 MY 2014 Vehicle Production That Meets Future CO 2 

### Emission Targets with Current Powertrains

....................... 114



# iii

# L **IST OF** 

# T **ABLES**

Table 2.1 Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions, Adjusted Fuel Economy, and Key Parameters by Model Year

.............................................. 5 Table 2.2 Comparison of MY 2013 with MY 2008 and MY 2004

.............................................................................................. 10 Table 2.3 Top Ten Highest Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Economy Gasoline/Diesel Vehicles Since 1975

................................ 12 Table 2.4 Top Ten Highest Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Economy Gasoline/Diesel Truckss Since 1975

................................ . 13 Table 3.1 Vehicle Type Production Share by Model Year

.......................................................................................................... 20 Table 3.2 Car

- Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less

........................................................ 21 Table 3.3.1 Car Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions, Adjusted Fuel Economy, and Key Parameters by Model Year

.................................. 24 Table 3.3.2 Tru ck Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions, Adjusted Fuel Economy, and Key Parameters by Model Year

............................... 26 Table 3.4 Comparison Between 0

- to

- 60 Acceleration Time Calculation Methods by Model Year (seconds)

........................... 36 Table 4.1 Manufacturers and Makes for MY 2012

- 2014

........................................................................................................ 38 Table 4.2 Ad justed Fuel Economy (MPG) by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2012

- 2014

..................................................... 41 Table 4.3 Adjusted CO 2 

### Emissions (g/mi) by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2012

- 2014

..................................................... 43 Table 4.4 Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Economy (MPG) by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2012

- 2014

............................. 45 Table 4.5 Unadjusted, Laboratory CO 2 

### Emissions (g/mi) by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2012

- 2014

............................. 46 Table 4.6 Footprint (square feet) by Manufacturer for MY 2012

- 2014

.................................................................................. 48 Table 4.7 Adjusted Fuel Economy and Production Share by Vehicle Classification a nd Type for MY 2013

.............................. 49 Table 4.8 Vehicle Footprint, Weight, and Horsepower by Manufacturer for MY 2013

............................................................ 50 Table 5.1 Distribution of MY 2014 Turbocharged Engines (Excludes Diesel)

............................................................................ 60 Table 5.2.1 Engine Technologies and Parameters, Both Cars and Trucks

................................................................................ 70
Ta ble 5.2.2 Engine Technologies and Parameters, Cars Only

................................................................................................... 71 Table 5.2.3 Engine Technologies and Parameters, Trucks Only

............................................................................................... 72 Table 5.3.1 Transmission and Drive Technologies, Both Cars and Trucks

................................................................................ 80 Table 5.3.2 Transmission and Drive Technologies, Cars Only

................................................................................................... 81 Table 5.3.3 Transmission and Drive Technologies, Trucks Only

................................................................................................ 82 Table 7.1 MY 2014 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Classification and Size

......................................................................................... 96 Table 7.2 MY 2014 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Powertrain and Range

........................................................................................ 98 Table 7.3 MY 2014 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fuel Economy Label Metrics

.............................................................................. 100 Table 7.4 MY 2014 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Label Tailpipe CO 2 

### Emissions Metrics

................................................................ 102 Table 7.5 MY 2014 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Upstream CO 2 

### Emission Metrics

........................................................................ 105 Table 7.6 MY 2013 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Impact on Manufacturer Ave rages

................................................................... 107 Table 9.1 EPA Adjusted, EPA Unadjusted Laboratory, and CAFE Values by Model Year

........................................................ 116 Table 9.2 Comparison of MY 2013 EPA Unadjusted, Laboratory and Estimated CAFE (MPG) Values by Manufacturer

........ 118 Table 10.1 Unadjusted, Laboratory and Adjusted Fue l Economy (MPG) for MY 1975

- MY 2014, Cars and Trucks

............... 123 Table 10.2 Four Different Fuel Economy Metrics for the MY 2005 Honda Insight

................................................................ . 128

................................................................................................ ........................................................................................... 130 Table 10.3 Factors for Converting Industry

- Wide Fuel Economy Values from this Report to Carbon Dioxide Emissions Val ues

Table 10.4 Comparison of Preliminary and Final Fuel Economy Values, Both C ars and Trucks

.............................................. 135



# iv

# Introduction

This annual report (often referred to as the “Trends” report) is the authoritative reference

on new light

- duty (or personal ) vehicle carbon dioxide (CO 2 

## ) emissions, fuel economy, and powertrain technology trends in the United States. These vehicles include passenger cars, sport utility vehicles, minivans, and all but the largest pickup trucks and vans. This report
uses the most comprehensive database of its kind, both because it is c omprised of detailed
new vehicle test data provided, under statute, to EPA by automobile manufacturers

, and because the database has been rigorously maintained since 1975. Since major methodological changes are generally propagated backwards through the h istorical database in order to maintain the integrity of long

- term trends, this report supersedes previous versions in the series and should not be compared to past reports.

Except where noted, all data reflect the 99+ % of new personal vehicles that are dedicated to or are expected to operate primarily on gasoline or diesel fuel (including flexible fuel and conventional hybrid vehicles

, but excluding plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles ). Section s 7- 9 provide

r elevant data from electric, plug

- in hybrid electric, and compressed natural gas vehicles produced for the U.S. market. Trends generally uses the term “fleetwide” to represent gasoline and
diesel fueled vehicles, which account for 99+% of all vehicles produced since
1975.

Trends uses harmonic averaging for fuel economy,
which is essential to maintain mathematical integrity. 

## The CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy data in this report are generated from EPA test procedures that have been refined over

time. The CO 2 

## emissions data in this report reflect the sum of the vehicle tailpipe emissions of CO 2 

## , carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon s , with the latter two converted to equivalent CO 2 

## levels on a mass basis. While carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions add, on average, less than one percent to overall CO 2 

## tailpipe emissions values, these compounds are included because they are converted to CO 2 

## relatively quickly in the atmosphere , and to maintain consistency with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards compliance

. The tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions data do not reflect other vehicle greenhouse gases (such as methane, nitrous oxide, or air conditioner refrigerants) or CO 2 

## emissions associated with vehicle production a nd disposal, or fuel production and distribution , all of which are briefly discussed in Section 10

.
The data in this report are tabulated on a model year (MY), not calendar year, basis and
reflect MY 1975

- 201 4

. Data through MY 2013 are final, while data for MY 2014 are preliminary and will be finalized in next year’s report. Vehicle population data represent production volumes delivered for sale in the U.S. market, rather than actual sales.

Most of the data in this report reflect arithmetic production

- weighted averages of indivi dual CO 2 

## emissions values and harmonic production

- weighted averages of individual fuel economy values (see Section 10 for an explanation of why harmonic averaging is necessary for fuel economy) . The data in Sections 7 and 8 reflect individual
model count s independent of production volumes. Trends uses vehicle production data, not vehicle sales data, and aggregates production data for model years, not calendar years.



# 1

### -

-

- -

- -

- 

## Unless noted, the CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy values in this report are expressed as adjusted values based , in recent years, on EPA’s 5

- cycle test methodology (reflecting urban commuting , rural highway, high speed/acceleration, high temperature/air conditioning, and cold temperature operation). These adjusted values use a 43 % city/57 % highway weighting in order to be consistent with the national driving activity analysis underlying the development of the 5

- cycle test methodology , and yield EPA’s best estimate of real world

CO 2 

## emissions and fuel consumption. See Section 10 for a detailed explanation of the methodology for how these adjusted values are calculated over the historical database

.



## Type of CO 2 

## and Fuel
Ec onomy Data Purpose City/Highway Weighting

Adjusted Best estimate of real world performance 43%/57%

Unadjusted, Laboratory Basis for automaker compliance
with standards 55%/45% 

## Test Basis

5 cycle (see text)

2 cycle (see text)



## This report occasionally provides unadjusted, laboratory CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy
values based on EPA’s 2

- cycle test methodology (reflecting urban commuting and rural highway operation only). T hese unadjusted values are weighted 55 % city/45 % highway
when used as the basis for automaker compliance with GHG emissions and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards . A djusted CO 2 

## emissions values are, on average, about 25% high er than un adjusted CO 2 

## values, and adjusted fuel ec onomy values are about
20% low er th an un adjusted fuel economy values

. Because the methodology for determining unadjusted, laboratory values has remain largely unchanged while the methodology for adjusted values has evolved over time to better reflect real world driving

, the former values pr ovide a much better metric for comparing trends in vehicle design.

This report does not provide formal compliance values, which are based on unadjusted, laboratory values as well as various credits, for eith er GHG emissions or CAFE standards.
Information about automaker compliance with EPA’s GHG emissions standards, including EPA’s Manufacturer Performance Report for the 2012 Model Year, is available at epa.gov/otaq /regs/ld

- hwy/greenhouse/ld

- ghg.htm . NHTSA’s “Summary of Fuel Economy Performance,” summarizing automaker compliance with fuel economy standards, is
available at nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel

- economy

.



## C

hanges to this year’s report:

• Section 3 has an expanded discussion of 0 to 60 mph acceleration projections, with a new approach for calculating 0 to 60 values

• Section 7 has a new sub section discussing the potential impact of including alternative fuel vehicles on autom aker CO 2 

### emissions and fuel economy values



# 2

### I 

# Fleetwide Trends Overview

This section provides an overview of important fleetwide data for MY 1975

- 2014, including a reference table for

CO 2 

## emissions, fuel economy, and several other key parameters. Fleetwide refers to the production

- weighted analysis of the 99+% of new vehicles that are dedicated to or are expected to operate primarily on gasoline or diesel fuel. Unless otherwise noted, al l CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy data are adjusted values that reflect real world performance, and are not comparable to unadjusted, laboratory values that are the basis for EPA GHG emissions and NHTSA CAFE standards compliance. Subsequent sections of the report analyze the Trends data in
more detail.



# A. O VERVIEW OF 

# F INAL 

# MY 201 3 D ATA

Table 2.1 shows that the fleetwide average real world CO 2 

## emissions rate for new vehicles produced in MY 2013 is 369 grams per mile (g/mi), a 7 g/mi decrease from MY 2012. The MY 2013 fuel economy value is 24.1 miles per gallon (mpg), a 0.5 mpg increase from MY 2012. These MY 2013 values, which represent an all- time record low for CO 2 

## emissions and record high for fuel economy, are based on final data. Both CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy have improved in eight of the last nine years, the first time this has occurred since the database began in 1975.

Truck pro duction share of the overall personal vehicle market increased by 1 percentage point

in MY 2013. Car- truck production share had been very volatile in recent years, and has had significant impacts on other parameters. Average personal vehicle weight increa sed by 38 pounds (1.0%) in MY 2013. Power increased by 5 horsepower (2.3%), and is at its second highest level ever. Average vehicle footprint increased by 0.4 square foot (0.8%), remaining within a fairly narrow band over the last few years.

Tables 3.3. 1 and 3.3.2, shown later in this report, disaggregate the data in Table 2.1 for the
individual car and truck fl ee ts, respectively, for MY 1975 -2014.



# B. O VERVIEW OF 

# P RELIMINARY 

# MY 201 4 D ATA

Preliminary MY 2014 adjusted values are 367 g/mi CO 2 

## emissions and 24.2 mpg fuel economy, which, if achieved, will represent record levels and a slight improvement over MY

2013. The preliminary MY 2014 data suggest that truck production share will increase by 2%, vehicle weight will increase somewhat, footprint will remai n unchanged, and power will reach
an all

- time high.

We caution the reader about focusing on these preliminary MY 2014 values for several reasons. The production estimates for these values were provided to EPA by automakers in
2013. As discussed in Section 10, over the last decade the final fuel economy value has been
more favorable than the preliminary value in seven of those years. Two manufacturers, Hyundai and Kia, adopted unusually short MY 2014 production time frames for some of their


# 3

## highest fuel econ omy vehicles. Estimating the possible impact, by excluding Hyundai and Kia data, yielded annual fuel economy increases for all other manufacturers of 0.4 mpg for both MY 2013 and preliminary MY 2014. Final values for MY 2014, based on actual production
val ues, will be published in next year’s report.



# 4

# Table 2. 1
Adjusted CO 2 

## Emissions
, Adjusted Fuel Economy, and Key Parameters by Model Year 1 , 2



### New Gasoline and Diesel Vehicles Alternative
Fuel Vehicle Adj Adj Fuel Share of All
Model Production CO 2 

### Economy Weight Footprint Car Truck Vehicle
Year (000) (g/mi) (MPG) (lb) HP (sq ft) Production Production Production

1975 10,2 24 681 13.1 4060 137

- 80.7% 19.3% 0.0%

1976 12,334 625 14.2 4079 135

- 78.9% 21.1% 0.0%

1977 14,123 590 15.1 3982 136

- 80.1% 19.9% 0.0%

1978 14,448 562 15.8 3715 129

- 77.5% 22.5% 0.0%

1979 13,882 560 15.9 3655 124

- 77.9% 22.1% 0.0%

1980 11,306 466 19.2 3228 104

- 83.5% 16.5% 0.0%

1981 10,554 436 20.5 3202 102

- 82.8% 17.2% 0.0%

1982 9,732 425 21.1 3202 103

- 80.5% 19.5% 0.0%

1983 10,302 426 21.0 3257 107

- 78.0% 22.0% 0.0%

1984 14,020 424 21.0 3262 109

- 76.5% 23.5% 0.0%

1985 14,460 417 21.3 3271 114

- 75.2% 24.8% 0.0%

1986 15,365 407 21.8 3238 114

- 72.1% 27.9% 0.0%

1987 14,865 405 22.0 3221 118

- 72.8% 27.2% 0.0%

1988 15,295 407 21.9 3283 123

- 70.9% 29.1% 0.0%

1989 14,453 415 21.4 3351 129

- 70.1% 29.9% 0.0%

1990 12,615 420 21.2 3426 135

- 70.4% 29.6% 0.0%

1991 12,573 418 21.3 3410 138

- 69.6% 30.4% 0.0%

1992 12,172 427 20.8 3512 145

- 68.6% 31.4% 0.0%

1993 13,211 426 20.9 3519 147

- 67.6% 32.4% 0.0%

1994 14,125 436 20.4 3603 152

- 61.9% 38.1% 0.0%

1995 15,145 434 20.5 3613 158

- 63.5% 36.5% 0.0%

1996 13,144 435 20.4 3659 164

- 62.2% 37.8% 0.0%

1997 14,458 441 20.2 3727 169

- 60.1% 39.9% 0.0%

1998 14,456 442 20.1 3744 171

- 58.3% 41.7% 0.0%

1999 15,215 451 19.7 3835 179

- 58.3% 41.7% 0.0%

2000 16,571 450 19.8 3821 181

- 58.8% 41.2% 0.0%

2001 15,605 453 19.6 3879 187

- 58.6% 41.4% 0.0%

2002 16,115 457 19.5 3951 195

- 55.3% 44.7% 0.0%

2003 15,773 454 19.6 3999 199

- 53.9% 46.1% 0.0%

2004 15,709 461 19.3 4111 211

- 52.0% 48.0% 0.0%

2005 15,892 447 19.9 4059 209

- 55.6% 44.4% 0.0%

2006 15,104 442 20.1 4067 213

- 57.9% 42.1% 0.0%

2007 15,276 431 20.6 4093 217

- 58.9% 41.1% 0.0%

2008 13,898 424 21.0 4085 219 48.9 59.3% 40.7% 0.0%

2009 9,315 397 22.4 3914 208 48.1 67.0% 33.0% 0.0%

2010 11,110 394 22.6 4002 214 48.6 62.7% 37.3% 0.0%

2011 12,003 398 22.4 4127 230 49.5 57.8% 42.2% 0.1%

2012 13,438 376 23.6 3977 222 48.8 64.4% 35.6% 0.4%

2013 14,846 369 24.1 4015 227 49.2 63.2% 36.8% 0.7%

2014 (prelim)

- 367 24.2 4072 233 49.2 61.3% 38.7%

-

1 

### Adjusted CO 2 

### and fuel economy values reflect real world performance and are not comparable to automaker standards compliance levels. Adjusted CO 2 

### values are, on average, about 25% higher than the unadjusted, laboratory CO 2 

### values that form the starting point for GHG



# 5 stand ards compliance, and adjusted fuel economy values are about 20% lower, on average, than unadjusted fuel economy values.

2 

### 0- to

- 60 Time has been deleted from this table; see Section 3.D for a new methodology for calculating 0

- to

- 60 acceleration time.

# C. O VERVIEW OF 

# L ONG 

# -T ERM 

# T RENDS

While the most recent annual changes often receive the most public attention, the greatest value of the Trends database is to document long

- term trends. This is because: 1) year

- to - year variability can reflect short

- term trends (two examples are the Cash for Clunkers rebates in 2009 and the impact of the tsunami aftermath on Japan

- based manufacturers in 2011) that may not be meaningful from a long

- term perspective, and 2) the magnitude of year

- to - year changes in annual CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy tend to be small relative to longer, multi

year trends.

Figures 2.1 and 2.2 show fleetwide adjusted CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy from Table 2.1
for MY 1975- 2014. For both figures, the individual data points represent annual values, and the curves represent 3

- year moving averages (where each year represents the average of that model year, the model year prior, and the model year following, e.g., the value for MY 2012 represents the average of MY 2011 -2013) which “smooth out” the year- to - year volatility. The

t wo curves are essentially inversely proportional to each other, i.e., vehicle tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions (grams per mile) are proportional to fuel consumption (gallons per mile), which is the reciprocal of fuel economy (miles per gallon).



# Figur e 2. 1
Adjusted CO 2 

## Emissions by Model Year

390 440 490 540 590 640 690Adjusted CO2Emissions (g/mi)

340

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

### Annual Value 3-year Moving Average

Model Year



# 6

### - 

# Figur e 2. 2
Adjusted Fuel Economy by Model Year

26Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG) 24

22

20

18

16

14

12 

### Annual Value 3-year Moving Average

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



## These two figures show that fleetwide adjusted CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy have
und ergone four clearly defined phases since 1975.



## Long

- Term CO 2 

## Emissions and Fuel Economy Phases:

• Rapid improvements from MY 1975 through MY 1981, with fleet wide adjusted CO 2 

### emissions decreasing by 36% and fuel economy increasing by 56% over those six years

• Slower improvements from MY 1982 through MY 1987

• A slow, but steady reversal of improvements from MY 1988 through MY 2004, with CO 2 

### emissions increasing by 14% and fuel economy decreasing by 12%, even as technology innovation continued to evolve

• A very favorable trend beginning in MY 2005, with annual CO 2 

### emissions and fuel economy improvements in eight of the nine individual years, and with CO 2 

### emissions decreasing by 20% and fuel economy increasing by
25% since MY 2004



## Figure 2.3 shows fleetwide adjusted fuel economy, weight, an d horsepower data for MY 1975

- 2014 from Table 2.1. All of the data in Figure 2.3 are presented as percentage changes since 1975. Vehicle weight and horsepower are critical vehicle attributes in that higher values, other things being equal, generally increase CO 2 

## emissions and decrease fuel economy for conventional gasoline and diesel vehicles.



# 7

# Figur e 2. 3
Adjusted Fuel Economy, Weight, and Horse power by Model Year

100%

80%Percent Change Since 1975

60%

40%

20%

0%

− 2 0%

− 40% Adjusted Fuel Economy

Horsepower

Weight

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



## Figure 2.3 shows some very significant long

- term trends. Both average vehicle weight and horsepower decreased in the late 1970s as fuel economy increased. During the two decades
from the mid

- 1980s to the mid

- 2000s, vehicle weight and horsepower rose cons istently and significantly, while fleetwide fuel economy slowly and steadily decreased. It is clear from Figure 2.3 that the considerable technology innovation during these two decades, on a fleet

wide basis, supported attributes such as vehicle weight an d power (and associated utility functions such as vehicle size, acceleration performance, safety features and content), but did not improve fuel economy. Since MY 2005, new automotive technology has improved both fuel economy and power, while keeping vehi cle weight relatively constant. As a result, recent vehicles have greater acceleration performance, higher fuel economy, and lower CO 2 

## emissions.

Table 2.1 also shows data for vehicle footprint. Footprint is a critical vehicle attribute since it
is the b asis for current and future GHG emissions and fuel economy standards. The Trends database includes footprint data from informal, external sources beginning in MY 2008, but
because formal footprint data has only been provided by automakers since MY 2011, i t is impossible to discern any long

- term footprint trends at this time.

Table 2.1 no longer includes 0

- to - 60 time acceleration data, which are not provided by automakers and are calculated by EPA using equations from the literature. See Section 3 for a
di scussion of a new methodology for calculating 0

- to - 60 acceleration time projections, as well as for more detail on weight, horsepower, and footprint data.



# 8

## Table 2.1 also shows that truck share increased consistently from 1980 through 2004. The truck share increases from 1988 through 2004 were a critical underlying factor in the increase in fleetwide weight and power discussed above, as well as in the higher fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions and lower fleetwide fuel economy over that same period. Since 2004, tr uck s hare
has been volatile , affected by factors such as the economic recession of 2009, the Car Allowance Rebate System (also known as Cash for Clunkers) in 2009, and the aftermath of
the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011. For more data and discussion o f relative car/truck production share, as well as data for the separate car and truck fleets, see Section 3.

Table 2.2 shows a comparison, for fuel economy and several other key attributes, of final MY 2013 data with MY 2008 and MY 2004 data.

MY 2008 is se lected for comparison for three reasons: 1) five years provide a sufficient time to see meaningful multi

- year trends, 2) it preceded a multi

- year period of variability beginning in MY 2009, and 3) there have only been relatively minor changes in key vehic le attributes that influence fuel economy in the five years that followed. From MY 2008 to MY 2013, weight decreased by 1.7% (which would be expected to result in a slight increase in fuel economy, other things being equal), while horsepower increased by 3.7% (which would be expected to result in a slight decrease in fuel economy), so these two impacts counter balance to some degree. Footprint remained essentially unchanged. Fuel economy, on the other hand, increased by 3.1 mpg, or 15%, from MY 2008 to MY 2013.

MY 2004 is shown in Table 2.2 primarily because it is the “valley year,” i.e., it is the year with the lowest adjusted fuel economy since MY 1980 and therefore now represents a 33

- year low. As with the comparison of MY 2008 and MY 2013 above, the c hanges in weight and horsepower from MY 2004 to MY 2013 have gone in opposite directions— weight has decreased by 2.3% and horsepower has increased by 7.6%. We do not have footprint data for MY 2004. From MY 2004 to MY 2013, fuel economy has increased by 4.8 mpg, or 25%.

These fuel economy increases of 15% since MY 2008 and 25% since MY 2004 are the largest of the last 30 years. As shown in Table 2.1, the only other period with a greater and more rapid fuel economy increase was from MY 1975 through MY 1981.

Table 2.2 also shows fuel savings that would accrue to consumers who owned and operated average MY 2013 vehicles relative to MY 2008 and MY 2004 vehicles. Table 2.2 is based on the assumptions used to generate the 5

- year savings/cost values shown on curre nt Fuel Economy and Environment Labels: consumer operates the new vehicle for five years, averaging 15,000 miles per year, gasoline prices of $3.50 per gallon, and no discounting to reflect the time value of money (of course, people can drive more or less miles per year and gasoline prices can vary significantly). As shown in Table 2.2, the 3.1 mpg increase in average fuel economy from MY 2008 to MY 2013 would save a typical consumer $1600 over five years, and the 4.8 mpg increase from MY 2004 to MY 2013 would save the same consumer $2700.



# 9

# Table 2.2

Comparison of MY 201 3 with MY 2008 and MY 200 4*

MY 2013 Relative to MY 2008
Adjusted Fuel Economy 5

- Year Fuel Savings Weight Horsepower Footprint

+3. 1 MPG +1 5 % $1,600



### MY 2013 R - 1. 7 %



### e +3. 8 %



### lative to MY 2004 +0.6%



### Adjusted Fuel Economy 5

- Year Fuel Savings Weight Horsepower Footprint

+4.8 MPG +2 5 % $2,700

- 2. 3 % +7. 8 %

-
*Note: some of the % values in this table may differ slightly from calculations based on the absolute values in Table 2.1 due to rounding.



## Figure 2.4 shows t he production

- weighted di stribution of adjusted fuel economy by model year, for gasoline (including conventional hybrids) and diesel vehicles (excluding alternative fuel vehicles). It is important to note that the methodology used in this report for calculating adjusted fuel economy values has changed over time (see Section 10 for a detailed explanation). For example, the adjusted fuel economy for a 198 0s vehicle in the Trends database is somewhat higher than it would be if the same vehicle were being produced today as the methodology for calculating adjusted values has changed over time to reflect real world vehicle operation. These changes are small fo r most vehicles, but larger for extremely

- high fuel economy vehicles. For example, the “Best Car” line in Figure 2.4 for MY 2000 through MY 2006 represents the original Honda Insight hybrid, and the several miles per gallon decrease over that period is pr imarily due to the change in methodology for adjusted fuel economy values, with just a 1 mpg decrease due to minor vehicle design changes during that time.



# Figur e 2. 4
Adjusted Fuel Economy Distribution by Model Year

Car TruckAdjusted Fuel Economy (MPG)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2005 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2010 2005 2015 2015

Bottom 25% Top 25%

Bottom 25% Top 25%

Worst Car Best Car

Worst 5%

Worst Truck Best Truck

50% of Cars Best 5%

Worst 5% 50% of Trucks Best 5% First Hybrid Car



### Model Year



# 10

## Since 1975, half of car production has consistently been within several mpg of each other. The fuel economy difference between the least efficient and most efficient car increased from about 20 mpg i n MY 1975 to nearly 50 mp g in MY 1986 (when the most efficient car was the General Motors Sprint ER) and in MY 2000 (when the most efficient car was the original Honda Insight hybrid), and is now about 40 mpg . Hybrids have defined the “Best Car” line

since MY 2000. The ratio of the highest

- to - lowest fuel economy has increased from about
three

- to - one in MY 1975 to n early five

- to - one today, as the fuel economy of the least fuel efficient cars has remained roughly constant in comparison to the most fuel efficient cars
whose fuel eco nomy has nearly doubled since MY 1975.

The overall fuel economy distribution for trucks is narrower than that for cars, with a peak in the fuel economy of the most efficient truck in the early 1980s when small pickup trucks
equippe d with diesel engines were sold by Volkswagen and General Motors. As a result, the fuel economy range between the most efficient and least efficient tru ck peaked at about 25 mpg in the early 1980s . The fuel economy range for trucks then narrowed, and is now about 20 mpg. Lik e cars, half of the trucks built each year have always been within a few mpg of each year's average fuel economy value.

All of the above data are adjusted, combined city/highway CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy
values for the combined car and truck fleet. Ta ble 10.1 provides, for the overall car and truck fleets, adjusted and unadjusted, laboratory values for city, highway, and combined city/highway. Appendices B and C provide more detailed data on the distribution of adjusted fuel economy values by model ye ar.

Table 2.3 shows the highest fuel economy gasoline and dies el vehicles for the MY 1975 -2014 time frame (while the Trends report database began in MY 1975, we are confident that these are also the highest fuel economy values of all time for mainstream ve hicles in the U.S. market). Note that alternative fuel vehicles, such as electric and plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles, are excluded from this table (see Section 7 for information on alternative fuel vehicles). See Appendix A for a listing of the highest and lowest fuel economy vehicles, based on unadjusted fuel economy values, for each year since 1975.

Unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy (weighted 55% city/45% highway) values are used to rank vehicles in Table 2.3, since the test procedures and methodolo gy for determining unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values have remained largely unchanged since 1975. Accordingly, unadjusted, laboratory values provide a more equitable fuel economy metric, from a vehicle design perspective, over the historical time frame, than the adjusted fuel economy values used throughout most of this report, as the latter also reflect changes in real world driving behavior such as speed, acceleration, and use of air conditioning.

For Table 2.3, vehicle models with the same powert rain and essentially marketed as the same vehicle to consumers are shown only once, as are “twins” where very similar vehicle designs are marketed by two or more makes or brands. Models are typically sold for several years before being redesigned, so the convention for models with the same fuel economy for several years is


# 11

## to show MY 2014, if applicable, and otherwise to show the first year when the model achieved its maximum fuel economy. Data are also shown for number of seats and inertia weight class.



# Table 2. 3

Top Te n Highest Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Economy Gasoline/ Diesel Vehicles Since 1975

Unadjusted, Laboratory
Combined Inertia Model Fuel Economy Number Weight
Year Manufacturer Model Powertrain (MPG) of Seats Class (lbs)

2000 Honda Insight Gasoline Hybrid 76 2 2000

2014 Toyota Prius Gasoline Hybrid 71 5 3500

2014 Toyota Prius c Gasoline Hybrid 71 5 2750

2014 Toyota /Lexus CT 200h Gasoline Hybrid 71 5 3500

2014 Honda Accord Gasoline Hybrid 70 5 4000

1986 GM /Chevrolet Sprint ER Conv. Gasoline 67 4 1750

19 94 GM /Geo Metro XFi Conv. Gasoline 66 4 1750

1986 Honda Civic CRX HF Conv. Gasoline 64 2 2000

2014 Honda Civic Gasoline Hybrid 64 5 3000

2014 VW Jetta Gasoline Hybrid 61 5 3500



## As expected, all of the vehicles listed in Table 2.3 are cars. Somewhat more surprisingly, no
diesel cars made the list. 3 

## The top fuel economy vehicle is the MY 2000 Honda Insight, a two

seater that was the first hybrid vehicle sold in the U.S. market. The MY 2000 Insight had an unadjusted, laboratory value of 76 mpg, 5 mpg higher than the MY 2014 Toyota Prius, Prius c,
and Lexus CT 200h vehicles, all of which have unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values of 71 mpg. The MY 2014 Honda Accord hybrid has a 70 mpg unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy value.

Six of the highest ten fuel economy gasoline and diesel vehicles of all time are on the market in MY 2014, and all of these are conventional hybrids. Other than the MY 2000 Insight, also a conventional hybrid, the remaining three vehicles in Table 2.3 are non

- hybrid gasoline vehicles from the late 1980s and early 1990s. The non - hybrid vehicle with the highest fuel economy is the 1986 Chevrolet Sprint ER with an unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy of 67

mpg.

One of the most important lessons from Table 2.3 is that there are important differences between the highest fuel econom y vehicles of the past and those of today. All of the pre -MY 2014 vehicles in Table 2.3 had 2 or 4 seats, while the MY 2014 vehicles all seat 5 passengers. The older vehicles had inertia weight class values of 1750 -2000 pounds, while the MY 2014
vehicles are in inertia weight classes of 2750 -4000 pounds, or 1000-2000 pounds heavier.

3 

### The most fuel efficient diesel car in the historical Trends database is the Nissan Sentra from the mid

- 1980s which had an unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy of 56 mpg. Volkswagen has sold several diesel cars with unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values in excess of 50 mpg. The most efficient MY 2014 diesel car is the BMW 328d, which has an unadjusted, laboratory value of 50 mpg. 

# 12

## Though not shown in Table 2.3, the MY 2014 vehicles also have faster acceleration rates and are also required to meet more stringent EPA health

- related emissions standards an d DOT safety standards than vehicles produced in the earlier model years. One clear conclusion from Table 2.3 is that conventional hybrid technology has enabled manufacturers to offer high fuel economy vehicles with much greater utility, while simultaneous ly meeting more stringent emissions and safety standards, than the high fuel economy vehicles of the past.

Finally, since all of the vehicles in Table 2.3 are cars, Table 2.4 shows a comparable table for the highest fuel economy gasoline and diesel trucks since MY 1975. The methodological approach for selecting the trucks shown in Table 2.4 is the same as discussed above for cars in Table 2.3. The most fuel efficient gasoline/diesel truck in the historical Trends database is a small Volkswagen diesel pickup truck sold in the early 1980s with an unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy of 45 mpg. Interestingly, this small pickup truck had the same number of seats, and nearly the same inertia weight class, as the most fuel efficient car in Table 2.3, the 2000
Honda Insight. The three other trucks with unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values greater than 40 mpg are the early 1980s GM diesel 2WD pickups, the early 1980s Grumman Olson Kubvan, and the 2014 Subaru XV Crosstrek AWD . Six of the trucks in Table 2.4 are t wo passenger diesel pickup trucks from the 1980s, and the remaining four trucks are recent model year gasoline hybrid SUVs. As with Table 2.3 for cars, gasoline hybrid technology has enabled automakers to offer high fuel economy vehicles with greater seati ng capacity and inertia weight than the high fuel economy diesel trucks of the early 1980s, while simultaneously meeting more stringent emissions and safety standards.



# Table 2. 4

Top Te n Highest Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Economy Gasoline/ Diesel Trucks Sin ce 1975

Unadjusted, Laboratory
Combined Inertia
Model Fuel Economy Number Weight
Year Manufacturer Model Powertrain (MPG) of Seats Class (lbs)

1980 VW Pickup 2WD Diesel 45 2 2250

1982 GM Pickup 2WD Diesel 43 2 2750

1983 Grumman Olson Kubvan Diesel 42 2 2250

2014 Subaru XV Crosstrek AWD Gasoline Hybrid 41 5 3500

2010 Ford Escape Gasoline Hybrid 39 5 4000

2014 Toyota Highlander AWD Gasoline Hybrid 39 8 5000

2014 Toyota/Lexus RX 450h AWD Gasoline Hybrid 39 5 5000

1984 Toyota Truck 2WD Diesel 38 2 3000

1984 GM S10 Pickup 2WD Diesel 38 2 3000

1983 Chrysler/Mitsubishi Ram 50/Pickup 2WD Diesel 38 2 3000



# 13

### I 

# Vehicle Class , Type, and Attributes

A. V EHICLE 

# C LASS

We use “class ” to refer to the overall division of light

- duty (or personal) vehicles into the two
classes of “cars” and “trucks.” This car

- truck distinction has been recognized since the
database was originally created in 1975 , though t he precise definitions associated with these two classes have changed somewhat over time. Car

- truck classification is important both because of functional differences between the design of many cars and trucks, and because
there are now separate footprint

- based CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy standards curves for cars and trucks. The regulatory challenge has been where to draw the line between cars and trucks, and this has evolved over time.

Car and truck classifications in this report are based on the current regulatory definitions used by both EPA and NHTSA for CO 2 

## emissions and CAFE standards. These current definitions are somewhat different than those used in older versions of this report. The most imp ortant recent change was re - classification of many small and mid

- sized , 2

- wheel drive sport utility vehicles (SUVs) from the truck category to the car category. As with other such changes in this report, this change has been propagated back throughout the entire historical database. This

re - classificati on reduced the absolute truck share by approximately 10% for recent years

. A second recent change was the inclusion of medium

- duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), those SUVs and passenger vans with gross vehicle weight ratings between 8 ,500 and 10,000 pounds and which previously had been treated as heavy

- duty vehicles, into the li ght

- duty truck category. T his is a far less important change, since the number of MDPVs is much smaller than it once was (e.g ., only 6 ,500 MDPVs were sold in MY 2012). In this repor t, “cars” include passenger cars and most small and mid

- sized , 2 wheel

- drive SUVs, while “trucks”
include all other SUVs and all minivans and vans, and pickup trucks below 8500 pounds gross vehicle weight rating.

Figure 3.1 shows the car and truck producti on volume shares using the current car

- truck definitions throughout the MY 1975-2014 database.



# 14

# Figure 3 .1

Car and Truck Production Share by Model Year

100%Production Share 

### 75%

50%

25%

0% Truck Car

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



## Model Year

Truck share was around 20% from MY 1975-1982, and then started to increase steadily through MY 2004, when it peaked at 48%. The truck share increases from MY 1988-2004 , a period during which inflation

- adjusted gasoline prices remained at or near historical lows,
were a critical factor in t he increased fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions and decrease in fleetwide fuel economy over that same period. Since 2004, truck share has been volatile, affected by factors such as the economic recession of 2009, the Car Allowance Rebate System (also known as
Cash f or Clunkers) in 2009, and the earthquake and tsunami aftermath in Japan in 2011.

The final tr uck share value for MY 2013 is 37%, a 1 percentage point inc rease relative to MY 2012 and 11 percentage points lower than the peak truck share of 48% in MY 2004. The preliminary MY 2014 truck ma rket share is projected to increase to 39%.



# 15

# B. V EHICLE 

# T YPE

We use vehicle “type” to refer to secondary divisions within the car and truck classes. Vehicle type is not relevant to standards compliance, as all cars (and, s eparately, all trucks) use the same footprint

- CO 2 

## emissions and footprint

- fuel economy target curves, but we believe that certain vehicle type distinctions are illustrative and meaningful from both vehicle design and marketing perspectives.

This report br eaks the car class into two types

— cars and car SUVs. The truck class is split into three types

— truck SUVs, pickups, and minivans/vans. This is a simpler approach than that used in some older versions of this report.



# Figure 3 .2

Vehicle Classes and Types Us ed in This Report

Personal vehicles

Car

class

Car

type Car SUV

type Truck

class

Truck SUV

type Pickup

type Minivan/Van

type

For cars, pre

- 2013 versions of this report generally divided the car class into as many as 9 types/sizes (Cars, Wagons, and Car SUVs, each further subdivided into small, medium, and large sizes based on interior volume). We no longer use wagons as a car type in this report.

More importantly, we believe that interior volume (the sum of passenger volume and cargo volume, typically measured in cubic feet), the metric that wa s historically used to differentiate various car types and sizes, is not as informative as it once was. For example, Figure 3.3 shows vehicle production volume versus interior volume for car type vehicles for two years, MY 1978 and MY 2014, for high- volum e manufacturers. Figure 3.3 excludes alternative fuel vehicles.



# 16

# 17 Figure 3

. 3

Car Type Vehicle Production vs. Interior Volume for High Volume Manufacturers, MY 1978 and MY

2014

The data in Figure 3.3 illustrate the “compression” in the range of interior volumes for car type vehicles since 1978 (2- seater cars are excluded from this figure as automakers do not provide interior volume data fo r 2

- seaters and each bar represents a band of 5 cubic feet). In MY 1978, there were mainstream car type vehicles on the market with interior volumes ranging from about 70 cubic feet to about 160 cubic feet, with meaningful production volume
at both ends o f the spectrum. Today, mainstream offerings range from about 80 cubic feet to about 130 cubic feet (some 4

- seat cars in the 55

- 60 cubic feet interior volume range do not show up in this figure due to very low production volume) . The compression is even g reater when considering production volumes. We reviewed the data for one high

- volume make that offered seven car type models in MY 2012. The interior volume of these seven models ranged
from 97

- 124 cubic feet, with 75% of sales within a very narrow interio r volume range of 104

- 111 cubic feet, and about 50% of production (representing 3 models) with essentially the same 1978

2014 0 1,000,000 2,000,000

0 1,000,000 2,000,000

50 100 150 200



### Interior Volume (sq ft)Production

## interior volume (110 -111 cubic feet).

Accordingly, we believe that interior volume is no longer very useful as a differentiator for the

car types in the Trends database. We believe that vehicle footprint is a more appropriate
indicator of car size because it is the basis for both CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy standards (and it is relevant to both cars and trucks). Interior volume data for car type vehicles will still
be included in the Trends database.

This report divides the car class into two types: 1) a car SUV type for those SUVs that must meet the car GHG emissions and fuel economy standards, and 2) a car type for all other vehicles in the car class, including the fueleconomy.gov designations of minicompact, subcompact, compact, midsize, large, two

- seater cars, and station wagons. For propagating back in the historical database, station wagons are generally allocated to the car type.

For trucks, pre

- 2013 versions of this report divided the truck class into 9 types/sizes (SUVs, Pickups, and Vans (including minivans), each further subdivided into small, medium, and large sizes based on vehicle wheelbase). This report retains the three h istorical truck types because we believe that there continue to be meaningful functional and marketing differences between truck SUVs (those SUVs that must meet the truck GHG emissions and fuel economy standards), pickups, and minivans/vans. See Section 10 for the definitions for SUVs, pickups, minivans, and vans and for more information about car

- truck classifications. We use engineering judgment to allocate the very small number of special purpose vehicles (as designated on fuel economy.gov) to the thre e truck types.

It is important to note that this report no longer uses wheelbase to differentiate between truck type sizes. The rationale for this change, similar to that for car interior volume above, is that
the wheelbase metric is not as informative as it once was. For example, under the wheelbase thresholds that were used in the 2012 report, 99% of MY 2011 pickups were “large” and 99% of MY 2011 minivans/vans were “medium.” In addition, wheelbase is one of the two factors that comprise vehicle footpri nt (wheelbase times average track width).



# 18

## Figure 3.4 shows the car and truck production volume shares for MY 1975 -2014, subdivided into the two car types and three truck types. Table 3.1 shows the same data in tabular form.



# Figure 3 .4

Vehicle Type Produ ction Share by Model Year

100%Production Share 75%

50%

25%

0% Minivans/Vans Truck SUVs

Pickups Cars

Car SUVs

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



## Model Year



# 19

# Table 3 .1

Vehicle Type Production Share by Model Year

Model Car Truck Minivans/ All
Year Cars SUVs All Cars SUVs Pickups Vans Trucks

1975 80.6% 0.1% 80.7% 1.7% 13.1% 4.5% 19.3%

1976 78.8% 0.1% 78.9% 1.9% 15.1% 4.1% 21.1%

1977 80 .0% 0.1% 80.1% 1.9% 14.3% 3.6% 19.9%

1978 77.3% 0.1% 77.5% 2.5% 15.7% 4.3% 22.5%

1979 77.8% 0.1% 77.9% 2.8% 15.9% 3.5% 22.1%

1980 83 .5% 0.0% 83.5% 1.6% 12.7% 2.1% 16.5%

1981 82.7% 0.0% 82.8% 1.3% 13.6% 2.3% 17.2%

1982 80 .3% 0.1% 80.5% 1.5% 14.8% 3.2% 19.5%

1983 77.7% 0.3% 78.0% 2.5% 15.8% 3.7% 22.0%

1984 76.1% 0.4% 76.5% 4.1% 14.6% 4.8% 23.5%

1985 74 .6% 0.6% 75.2% 4.5% 14.4% 5.9% 24.8%

1986 71.7% 0.4% 72.1% 4.6% 16.5% 6.8% 27.9%

1987 72.2% 0.6% 72.8% 5.2% 14.4% 7.5% 27.2%

1988 70 .2% 0.7% 70.9% 5.6% 16.1% 7.4% 29.1%

1989 69.3% 0.7% 70.1% 5.7% 15.4% 8.8% 29.9%

1990 69.8% 0.5% 70.4% 5.1% 14.5% 10.0% 29.6%

1991 67 .8% 1.8% 69.6% 6.9% 15.3% 8.2% 30.4%

1992 66.6% 2.0% 68.6% 6.2% 15.1% 10.0% 31.4%

1993 64.0% 3.6% 67.6% 6.3% 15.2% 10.9% 32.4%

1994 59 .6% 2.3% 61.9% 9.1% 18.9% 10.0% 38.1%

1995 62.0% 1.5% 63.5% 10.5% 15.0% 11.0% 36.5%

1996 60 .0% 2.2% 62.2% 12.2% 14.9% 10.7% 37.8%

1997 57.6% 2.5% 60.1% 14.5% 16.7% 8.8% 39.9%

1998 55.1% 3.1% 58.3% 14.7% 16.7% 10.3% 41.7%

1999 55 .1% 3.2% 58.3% 15.4% 16.7% 9.6% 41.7%

2000 55.1% 3.7% 58.8% 15.2% 15.8% 10.2% 41.2%

2001 53.9% 4.8% 58.6% 17.3% 16.1% 7.9% 41.4%

2002 51 .5% 3.7% 55.3% 22.3% 14.8% 7.7% 44.7%

2003 50.2% 3.6% 53.9% 22.6% 15.7% 7.8% 46.1%

2004 48.0% 4.1% 52.0% 25.9% 15.9% 6.1% 48.0%

2005 50 .5% 5.1% 55.6% 20.6% 14.5% 9.3% 44.4%

2006 52.9% 5.0% 57.9% 19.9% 14.5% 7.7% 42.1%

2007 52.9% 6.0% 58.9% 21.7% 13.8% 5.5% 41.1%

2008 52 .7% 6.6% 59.3% 22.1% 12.9% 5.7% 40.7%

2009 60.5% 6.5% 67.0% 18.4% 10.6% 4.0% 33.0%

2010 54 .5% 8.2% 62.7% 20.8% 11.5% 5.0% 37.3%

2011 47.7% 10.1% 57.8% 25.6% 12.3% 4.3% 42.2%

2012 54.9% 9.4% 64.4% 20.6% 10.1% 4.9% 35.6%

2013 53 .3% 9.9% 63.2% 22.4% 10.6% 3.8% 36.8%

2014 51.3% 10.0% 61.3% 23.3% 11.5% 3.9% 38.7%



## The data from Table 3.1 show that car type market share has dropped from around 80% in
the MY 1975

- 1985 timeframe to about 50% today. Pickups accounted for most of the remaining market share in MY 1975 -1985. In the late 1980s, both minivans/vans and truc k SUVs began to erode car type market share, with truck SUV market share reaching as high as



# 20

## 26% in MY 2004 and MY 2011, before declining slightly to about 23% today. More recently, car SUVs have increased market share to about 10%. Total SUVs, including both car SUVs and truck SUVs, have achieved market share in the 30

- 35% range over the last few years. Pickup market share was approximately 15% from MY 1975 through MY 2005, but has declined to about 11% today.

One particular trend of interest is associated with small SUVs that are classified as cars if they
have 2

- wheel drive and as trucks if they have 4

- wheel drive. For this analysis summarized in Table 3.2, we reviewed MY 2000- 2014 SUVs with inertia weights of 4000 pounds or less (SUVs with in ertia weights in excess of 4000 pounds are typically categorized as trucks regardless of whether they are 2

- wheel or 4

- wheel drive). Note that we have propagated the

current car - truck definitions back to previous years in the Trends database in order to maintain the integrity of historical trends (i.e., some vehicles that were defined as trucks in past years are now defined as cars for those same years in the Trends database).



# Table 3 .2

Car

- Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less

Car SUV Percent Model Production Truck SUV Total SUV Percent Truck Year (000) Production Production Car SUV SUV

2000 617 796 1,413 43.7% 56.3%

2001 743 920 1,663 44.7% 55.3%

2002 603 928 1,531 39.4% 60.6%

2003 575 994 1,569 36.6% 63.4%

2004 599 1,116 1,715 34.9% 65.1%

2005 753 867 1,620 46.5% 53.5%

2006 691 758 1,449 47.7% 52.3%

2007 761 843 1,604 47.4% 52.6%

2008 748 799 1,547 48.4% 51.6%

2009 539 575 1,115 48.4% 51.6%

2010 659 854 1,512 43.5% 56.5%

2011 985 1,044 2,029 48.5% 51.5%

2012 1,043 869 1,912 54.6% 45.4%

2013 1,134 1,205 2,338 48.5% 51.5%

2014

- - - 52. 5 % 47. 5 %



## Table 3.2 shows that the fraction of SUVs with curb weights less than 4000 pounds that are classified as trucks, using the current car

- truck definitions propagated back in time, has been declining somewhat over the last decade, from around 60% in the early 2000s to around 50%
in recent years.

Appendix D gives additional data stratified by vehicle type.



# 21

# C. V EHICLE 

# F OOTPRINT 

# , W EIGHT 

# , AND


# H ORSEPOWER

This sub

- section focuses on three key attributes that impact CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy. These attributes are footprint, weight, and horsepower. All three attributes are relevant to all light

- duty vehicles and were included in the Table 2.1 fleetwide data. Vehicle acceleration is discussed in the following sub

- se ction.

Vehicle footprint is a very important attribute since it is the basis for the current CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy standards. Footprint is the product of wheelbase times average track width (or the area defined by where the centers of the tires t ouch the ground). We provide footprint data beginning with MY 2008, though it is important to highlight that we have higher confidence in the data beginning in MY 2011. Footprint data from MY 2008

- 2010 were aggregated from various sources, some independ ent of formal automaker data, and EPA has less confidence in the consistency and precision of this data. Beginning in MY 2011, automakers began to formally submit reports to EPA with footprint data. With these caveats, Table 2.1 above shows that average fleetwide footprint has hovered around 49 square feet since MY 2008, with MY 2013 footprint of 49.2 square feet representing a 0.4 square foot increase relative to MY 2012. The preliminary MY 2014 footprint value is 49.2 square feet,
which if realized wou ld be unchanged from MY 2013. Future footprint trends will be a major topic of interest in future Trends reports as we continue to add to the formal data that we began to collect in MY 2011.

Vehicle weight is a fundamental vehicle attribute, both because it can be related to utility functions such as vehicle size and features, and because higher weight, other things being equal, will increase CO 2 

## emissions and decrease fuel economy. All Trends vehicle weight data are based on inertia weight class. Each i nertia weight class represents a range of loaded vehicle weights, or vehicle curb weights plus 300 pounds. Vehicle inertia weight classes are in 250

- pound increments for inertia weight classes that are less than 3000 pounds, while inertia weight classes o ver 3000 pounds are divided into 500- pound increments. Table 2.1 shows that average fleetwide vehicle weight decreased from nearly 4100 pounds in MY 1976 to 3200 pounds in MY 1981, likely driven by both increasing fuel economy standards (which, at that

ti me, were universal standards, and not based on any type of vehicle attribute) and higher gasoline prices. Average vehicle weight then grew slowly but steadily over the next 23 years (in part because of the increasing truck share), to 4111 pounds in MY 200 4. Since 2004, average vehicle weight has stayed fairly constant in the range of 4000 to 4100 pounds, reaching 4127 pounds in MY 2011, an all- time high since the database began in 1975. Average MY 2013 weight was 4015 pounds, a 38 pound increase relative to MY 2012. The preliminary MY 2014 value for weight is 4072 pounds, which if realized would represent a 57 pound increase compared to MY 2013.

Horsepower (hp) is of interest as a direct measure of vehicle power. In the past, higher power



# 22

## generally incr eased CO 2 

## emissions and decreased fuel economy, though this relationship is now less important with turbo and hybrid packages. Trends horsepower data for all gasoline (including conventional hybrids) and diesel vehicles in the Trends database reflect engine rated horsepower. Average fleetwide horsepower dropped from 137 hp in MY 1975 to 102 hp in MY 1981. Since MY 1981, horsepower values have increased just about every year (again, in part due to the increasing truck share through 2004), and current leve ls are over twice those of the early 1980s. Average MY 2013 horsepower was 227 hp, a 5 hp increase relative to MY 2012. The preliminary value for MY 2014 is 233 hp, which, if achieved, would represent an
all

- time high.

The following two tables provide da ta for the three attributes discussed above for the car and truck classes separately (these data are shown for the entire fleet in Table 2.1 above).

Table 3.3.1 shows that car adjusted fuel economy reached an all

- time record of 27.6 mpg in MY 2013, which i s more than twice the MY 1975 level of 13.5 mpg. Car weight and footprint increased by less than 1% in MY 2013, while car horsepower increased by 3%. Car weight and horsepower are projected to increase slightly in MY 2014, while car footprint is projected to remain unchanged. The interior volume data shown in Table 3.3.1 is only for car type vehicles, as EPA does not collect interior volume data for car SUVs.



# 23

# Table 3

. 3.1

Car Adjusted CO 2 

## Emissions
, Adjusted Fuel Economy, and Key Parameters by Model Year 4



### Gasoline
and Diesel Car Adj Adj Fuel
Model Production Production CO 2 

### Economy Weight Footprint Interior
Year (000) Share (g/mi) (MPG) (lb) HP (sq ft) Volume*

1975 8,247 80.7% 661 13.5 4057 136

- - 1976 9,734 78.9% 598 14.9 4059 134

- - 1977 11,318 80.1% 570 15.6 3944 133

- 110

1978 11,191 77.5% 525 16.9 3588 124

- 109

1979 10,810 77.9% 517 17.2 3485 119

- 109

1980 9,444 83.5% 446 20.0 3101 100

- 104

1981 8,734 82.8% 418 21.4 3076 99

- 106

1982 7,832 80.5% 402 22.2 3053 99

- 106

1983 8,035 78.0% 403 22.1 3112 104

- 109

1984 10,730 76.5% 397 22.4 3101 106

- 108

1985 10,879 75.2% 387 23.0 3096 111

- 108

1986 11,074 72.1% 375 23.7 3043 111

- 107

1987 10,826 72.8% 374 23.8 3035 113

- 107

1988 10,845 70.9% 369 24.1 3051 116

- 107

1989 10,126 70.1% 376 23.6 3104 121

- 108

1990 8,875 70.4% 382 23.3 3178 129

- 107

1991 8,748 69.6% 382 23.3 3168 133

- 107

1992 8,350 68.6% 389 22.9 3254 141

- 108

1993 8,929 67.6% 386 23.0 3241 140

- 108

1994 8,747 61.9% 386 23.0 3268 144

- 108

1995 9,616 63.5% 382 23.3 3274 153

- 109

1996 8,177 62.2% 384 23.1 3297 155

- 109

1997 8,695 60.1% 384 23.2 3285 156

- 109

1998 8,425 58.3% 386 23.0 3334 160

- 109

1999 8,865 58.3% 392 22.7 3390 164

- 109

2000 9,742 58.8% 395 22.5 3401 168

- 110

2001 9,148 58.6% 393 22.6 3411 169

- 109

2002 8,904 55.3% 390 22.8 3415 173

- 110

2003 8,496 53.9% 386 23.0 3437 176

- 110

2004 8,176 52.0% 389 22.9 3492 184

- 110

2005 8,839 55.6% 384 23.1 3498 183

- 111

2006 8,744 57.9% 386 23.0 3563 194

- 112

2007 9,001 58.9% 375 23.7 3551 191

- 110

2008 8,243 59.3% 372 23.9 3569 194 45.3 110

2009 6,244 67.0% 356 25.0 3502 186 45.1 110

2010 6,969 62.7% 346 25.7 3536 190 45.4 110

2011 6,934 57.8% 348 25.6 3617 200 46.0 111

2012 8,648 64.4% 329 27.0 3516 192 45.7 111

2013 9,377 63.2% 322 27.6 3545 198 45.9 110

2014

- 61.3% 320 27.9 3572 201 45.9 111


### *Interior volume calculated using "Car" type only.

4 

### 0- to

- 60 Time acceleration data has been deleted from this table; see Section 3.D for a discussion of a new methodology for calcu lating 0

- to

60 acceleration time projections. 

# 24

## Table 3.3.2 shows, for trucks only, the same data provided for cars in Table 3.3.1 above and for the overall light vehicle fleet in Table 2.1. Truck adjusted fuel economy was also a record high in MY 2013 at 19.8 mpg, which was a 0.5 mpg increase over MY 2012. Truck weight, horsepower, and footprint were all slightly higher in MY 2013. Truck fuel economy, weight, and horsepower are projected to increase in MY 2014, while truck footprint is projected to decline slightly.



# 25

# Table 3

. 3.2

Truck Adjusted CO 2 

## Emissions
, Adjusted Fuel Economy, and Key Parameters by Model Year 5



### Gasoline
and Diesel Truck Adj Adj Fu el
Model Production Production CO 2 

### Economy Weight Footprint
Year (000) Share (g/mi) (MPG) (lb) HP (sq ft)

1975 1,977 19.3% 764 11.6 4073 142

- 1976 2,600 21.1% 726 12.2 4155 141

- 1977 2,805 19.9% 669 13.3 4136 147

- 1978 3,257 22.5% 687 12.9 4152 146

- 1979 3,072 22.1% 711 12.5 4257 138

- 1980 1,863 16.5% 565 15.8 3869 121

- 1981 1,821 17.2% 523 17.1 3806 119

- 1982 1,901 19.5% 516 17.4 3813 120

- 1983 2,267 22.0% 504 17.7 3773 118

- 1984 3,289 23.5% 512 17.4 3787 118

- 1985 3,581 24.8% 509 17.5 3803 124

- 1986 4,291 27.9% 489 18.2 3741 123

- 1987 4,039 27.2% 486 18.3 3718 131

- 1988 4,450 29.1% 498 17.8 3850 141

- 1989 4,327 29.9% 506 17.6 3932 146

- 1990 3,740 29.6% 512 17.4 4014 151

- 1991 3,825 30.4% 500 17.8 3961 150

- 1992 3,822 31.4% 512 17.3 4078 155

- 1993 4,281 32.4% 507 17.5 4098 160

- 1994 5,378 38.1% 518 17.2 4149 166

- 1995 5,529 36.5% 524 17.0 4201 168

- 1996 4,967 37.8% 518 17.2 4255 179

- 1997 5,762 39.9% 528 16.8 4394 189

- 1998 6,030 41.7% 521 17.1 4317 188

- 1999 6,350 41.7% 535 16.6 4457 199

- 2000 6,829 41.2% 528 16.8 4421 199

- 2001 6,458 41.4% 538 16.5 4543 212

- 2002 7,211 44.7% 539 16.5 4612 223

- 2003 7,277 46.1% 533 16.7 4655 224

- 2004 7,533 48.0% 538 16.5 4783 240

- 2005 7,053 44.4% 526 16.9 4763 242

- 2006 6,360 42.1% 518 17.2 4758 240

- 2007 6,275 41.1% 512 17.4 4871 254

- 2008 5,656 40.7% 499 17.8 4837 254 54.0

2009 3,071 33.0% 480 18.5 4753 252 54.0

2010 4,141 37.3% 474 18.8 4784 253 53.8

2011 5,069 42.2% 466 19.1 4824 271 54.4

2012 4,791 35.6% 461 19.3 4809 276 54.5

2013 5,469 36.8% 450 19.8 4822 277 54.7

2014

- 38.7% 442 20.1 4866 282 54.4

5 

### 0- to

- 60 Time acceleration data has been deleted from this table; see Section 3.D for a discussion of a new methodology for calcula ting 0

- to

- 60 acceleration time projections. 

# 26

## Figure 3. 5 includes summary charts showing long

- term trends for adjusted CO 2 

## emissions, adjusted fuel economy, footprint, weight, and horsepower for the five vehicle types discussed above. Most of the long

- term trends are similar across the various vehicle types, with the major exception being pickups, for which CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy have not reached all

- time records in recent years (unlike the other vehicle types) due to considerably greater increases in weight and horsepower relative to the other vehicle types. It is also noteworthy that truck SUVs have achieved the largest reduction in CO 2 

## emissions since 2000, followed by car SUVs.



# Figure 3. 5

Adju sted CO 2 

## Emissions, Adjusted Fuel Economy and Othe r Key Parameters by Vehicle Type

10 15 20 25 Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG)

Footprint (sq ft)

Weight (lb)

Horsepower Car Car SUV Truck SUV Pickup Minivan/Van

2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

45 50 55 60 65

100 150 200 250 300 300 400 500 600 700 800 Adjusted CO 2 Emissions (g/mi)

30

6000

350 70201520102005200019951990198519801975201520102005200019951990198519801975201520102005200019951990198519801975201520102005200019951990198519801975201520102005200019951990198519801975



## Model Year

Figure 3.6 shows the annual production share of different inertia weight classes for cars and trucks. This figure again shows the “compression” on the car side that was also discussed with respect to interior volume

— in the late 1970s there were significan t car sales both in the <2750 pound class as well as in the 5500 pound class (interestingly, there were more 5500 pound cars sold in the late 1970s than there were 5500 pound trucks). Today, both the lightest and heaviest cars have largely disappeared from the market, and over 95% of all cars are in just three inertia weight classes (3000, 3500, and 4000 pounds). Conversely, the heavy end of the



# 27

## truck market has expanded markedly such that 4500 pounds and greater trucks now account
for over 80% of the truck market.


# Figure 3 .6

Car and Truck Production Share by Vehicle Inertia Weight Class

Car TruckProduction Share 100% Weight

<2750

2750 75%

50%

25%

0% 3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

>6000201520102005200019951990198519801975201520102005200019951990198519801975



### Model Year



## The next three figures, Figures 3. 7 through 3.9, address the engineering relationships between efficiency and three key vehicle attributes: footprint, weight, and interior volume (car type only). It is important to emphasize that, in order to best reflect the engineering relationships

inv olved, these figures differ from most of the figures and tables presented so far in three important ways. One, they show fuel consumption (the inverse of fuel economy), because fuel consumption represents a linear relationship while fuel economy is non

- li near (i.e., a 1 mpg difference at a lower fuel economy represents a greater change in fuel consumption than a 1 mpg difference at a higher fuel economy). The metric used for fuel consumption is gallons per 100 miles, also shown on new vehicle Fuel Economy and Environment Labels. Fuel consumption is an excellent surrogate for CO 2 

## emissions, as well. Two, Figures 3.7 through

3.9 show unadjusted, laboratory values (for fuel consumption), rather than the adjusted values shown primarily in this report, in orde r to exclude the impact of non

- technology factors associated with the adjusted fuel economy values (e.g., changes in driving speeds or use of air conditioning over time). Three, there is no sales weighting in either the calculations of the
individual data points or the regression lines as the purpose of these figures is to illustrate the technical relationships between fuel consumption and key vehicle attributes, independent of
market success. The non

- hybrid gasoline, diesel, and gasoline hybrid data point s in these figures are averages for each integer footprint value, are plotted separately to illustrate the differences between these technologies, and the regression lines are based on the non -hybrid gasoline data points only. As would be expected, the co nventional hybrid and diesel data points almost always reflect lower fuel consumption that the regression line representing non



# 28

## hybrid gasoline vehicles.

Figure 3.7 shows unadjusted, laboratory fuel consumption as a function of vehicle footprint
for the MY 2013 car and truck fleets. On average, higher footprint values are correlated with greater fuel consumption. Car fuel consumption is more sensitive to footprint (i.e., greater slope for the regression line based on conventional gasoline vehicles) than t ruck fuel consumption, though this relationship is exaggerated somewhat by the fact that the highest footprint cars are low

- volume luxury cars with very high fuel consumption. Most cars have footprint values below 50

- 55 square feet, and at these footprint levels, the average car has lower fuel consumption than the average truck. For the much smaller number of cars that have footprint values greater than 55 square feet (typically performance or luxury cars), these cars generally have higher fuel consumption than trucks of the same footprint.



# Figure 3 .7

Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Consu mption vs

. Footprint, Cars and Trucks, MY 201 3

1 2 3 4 5 6Gal / 100 miles

30 40 50 60 70 80 30 40 50 60 70 80 Car Truck

Conventional

Diesel
Hybrid



### Footprint (sq ft)



# 29

## Figure 3.8 shows unadjusted, laboratory fuel consumption as a function of vehicle inertia weight for the MY 1975 and MY 2013 car and truck fleets. On average, fuel consumption increases linearly with vehicle weight, and the regressions are particularly tight for the data
points representing non

- hybrid gasoline vehicles. In 1975, trucks consistently had higher fuel consumption than cars for a given weight, but in 2013, the differences were much smaller, and at 5000 pounds and above, the average car had higher fuel consumpti on than the average truck, again likely due to the fact that very heavy cars are typically luxury and/or performance vehicles with high fuel consumption. At a given weight, most cars and trucks have reduced their fuel consumption by about 50% since 1975, with the major exception being the heaviest cars which have achieved more modest reductions in fuel consumption.



# Figure 3 .8

Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Consumption vs

. Inertia Weight
, Cars and Trucks, MY 1975 and MY

201 3

Car TruckGal / 100 miles

2000 4000 6000 8000 2000 4000 6000 8000 2 4 6 8 10

1975

2013 Conventional

Diesel Hybrid



### Weight (lb)



# 30

## Finally, Figure 3.9 shows unadjusted, laboratory fuel consumption as a function of interior volume for MY 1978 and 2013 for the car type only. This figure excludes two - seater cars, as interior volume data is not reported for two

- seaters. The data for MY 1978 is much more scattered than that for MY 2013. The slope of the regression line for non

- hybrid gasoline vehicles in 2013 is nearly flat, suggesting that there is no longer much of a relationship between interior volume and fuel consumption within the car type. This MY 2013 data further confirm the point made earlier in this section that interior volume is no longer a good attribute for differentiating within the ca r type.


# Figure 3 .9

Unadjusted, Laborato ry Fuel Consumption vs. Car Type Interior Volume
, MY 1978 and MY

201 3

1978 2013

0 100 150 100 150Gal / 100 miles

0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0

50 0 50 1978

2013 Diesel
Hybrid Conventional



### Volume (cu ft)



# 31

# D. V EHICLE 

# A CCELERATION

Vehicle performance can be evaluated in many ways, including vehicle handling, braking, and acceleration. In the context of this report, acceleration is an important metric because there is a general correlation between how quickly a vehicle can accelerate and fuel economy. The most common vehicle acceleration metric, and one of the most recognized vehicle metrics overall, is the time it takes a vehicle to accelerate from 0

- to - 60 miles per hour, also called the 0

-

to - 60 time. There are other metrics that are releva nt for evaluating vehicle acceleration, including the time to reach 30 miles per hour or the time to travel a quarter mile, but this
section is limited to a discussion of 0

- to - 60 acceleration times and the methodology used to
calculate 0

- to - 60 times. Acce leration times are calculated since this data is not reported by manufacturers to EPA, nor is there a comprehensive source.

**Trends in 0**

**- to**  **- 60 Times** 

Since the early 1980s, there has been a clear downward trend in 0- to - 60 times. Figure 3.10 shows the average new vehicle 0

- to -60 acceleration time from MY 1978 to MY 2014 based on a calculation methodology described below. The average new vehicle in MY 2014 is projected to
have a 0

- to - 60 time of about 8.2 seconds, which is the fastest average 0

- to - 60 time since the database began in 1975. Average vehicle horsepower has also substantially increased since MY 1982, as shown in Figure 2.3, and clearly at least part of that increase in power has been focused on decreasing acceleration time (some has also been used to support larger, heavier vehicles).


# Figure 3

. 10

Calculated 0

- to

- 60 Acceleration Performance

10.0 12.5 15.0

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Seconds 17.5

7.5

1975



### Model Year



# 32

## The decreasing long

- term trend in 0

- to - 60 times is consistent across all vehicle types, as shown

in Figure 3.11. The trend of decreasing acceleration time appears to be slowing somewhat in recent years for cars, car SUVs, and truck SUVs. The opposite is true for pickup trucks, where
calculated 0

- to - 60 times continue to steadily decrease. Pickups are gen erally designed to emphasize towing and hauling capabilities, while maintaining adequate driving performance. The continuing decrease in pickup truck 0

- to - 60 times is likely due to the increasing towing and hauling capacity of pickups, which decreases the calculated 0

- to - 60 times of pickups.



# Figure 3

. 11

Acceleration Performance by Vehicle Type

7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5

7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5

7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5

7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 

### Car

Car SUV

Truck SUV

Pickup

Minivan/Van

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Seconds

7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5



### Model Year



## Vehicle acceleration is determined by many factors, including weight, horsepower, transmission design, engine technologies, and body style. The impacts of these, and other 

# 33

## factors, on 0

- to - 60 times have been evaluated in the literature (MacKenzie, 2012). M any of the same factors that affect acceleration also influence vehicle fuel economy, the result being a general correlation between faster 0

- to - 60 times and lower fuel economy. All other things equal, a vehicle with more power will likely have faster 0 -to- 60 acceleration and lower fuel economy. However, there are factors that can improve both 0- to - 60 acceleration and fuel economy, such as reducing weight.

Acceleration remains an important parameter that will be tracked in this report to evaluate
vehicle performance. The 0

- to - 60 metric is only one of many performance metrics (e.g. stopping distance, skid pad g’s, lane change maneuver speed, etc.), but it remains an important parameter that will be tracked in this report due to its strong association with v ehicle fuel economy and emissions.

**Methodology for Calculating 0**

**- to**  **-60 Times**

Unlike most of the data presented in this report, 0

- to - 60 times are based on calculations and not data submitted to the EPA by manufacturers. The 0

- to -60 metric is a very commonly used automotive metric, however there is no standard method of measuring 0 -t o60 times. Nor, to our knowledge, is there a complete published list of measured vehicle 0

- to - 60 acceleration times. This report relies on calculated 0

- to - 60 times based on published methodologies. This year, the report is changing to a newer and more acc urate methodology.

This report has long reported 0

- to - 60 acceleration times for conventional gasoline vehicles calculated from vehicle weight and horsepower data reported to EPA. Past versions of this report calculated 0

- to - 60 acceleration times for conventional gasoline vehicles based on the following equation :

t = F (HP/WT) **-f**



## where t is acceleration time; HP and WT reflect Trends data for horsepower and weight, respectively; and the coefficients F and f are empirical parameters determined in the literature by obtaining a least

- squares f it for available test data. This approach uses .892 and .805 for the
F and f coefficients , respectively, for vehicles with automatic transmissions and .967 and .775, respectively, for tho se with manual transmissions (Malliaris 1976). Since the equation form and coefficients were developed for vehicles with conventional gasoline powertra ins
, we have used published values from external sources to estimate 0

- to -60 acceleration time for vehicles with hybrid powertrains or diesel engines. Given that the above equation and coefficients were initially developed in the 1970s , there has been increasing concern that the calculated 0

- to -60 acceleration times associated with this methodology may not be representativ e of actual vehicle performance.

A recent study presented a much more in depth methodology for calculating 0

- to - 60 times. Mackenzie (MacKenzie 2012) used actual 0- to - 60 test results from Consumer Reports, spanning from MY 1975 to MY 2010. This new approac h includes weight and horsepower,



# 34 but also captures the effects of many additional parameters, including engine type,

## transmission type, number of transmission gears, drive type, and body style. The results include estimates of fixed effects for each year to account for technology changes over time and for factors not directly accounted for in the defined parameters.

The 0

- to -60 analysis presented above uses the method presented by MacKenzie for MY 1978

- 2014. The authors believe that this new methodology is more accurate than the method historically used in this report, particularly for newer vehicles. MacKenzie’s methodology also better differentiates between different technologies, which is important given the wide range of new technologies entering the ma rket that affect both 0

- to -60 times and fuel economy. The methodology is applied beginning in 1978, since prior to that there is not enough data to apply the methodology. Additionally, MacKenzie’s method requires an annual factor that changes over time. The authors of this report assumed a constant annual factor for MY 2011 to MY 2014, which is consistent with the last several years of data examined by MacKenzie.

Changing methodologies for the 0

- to - 60 time calculation affects the results. For comparison, Figure 3.12 shows the overall trend in 0

- to - 60 acceleration times for new vehicles through MY 2014 using both calculation methodologies. The MacKenzie methodology suggests that overall,
new vehicle 0

- to - 60 acceleration is almost a full second faster than projected by the Malliaris methodology for MY 1990 -2014. Both of the methodologies show a downward trend in 0- to 60 acceleration times since at least MY 1982, however there are some clear differences between the two methods over time. The newer methodology shows a much faster reduction in 0

- to -60 times from MY 1982 until about MY 1993 (in part due to a higher 0- to - 60 times in the early 1980s). Since then, the rate of decrease in 0

- to - 60 times has been much more consistent
between the two methods.



# Figure 3

. 12

Comparison of Two Methods for Calculated 0

- to

- 60 Acceleration Performance

17.5

15.0

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Seconds

Malliaris Method 12.5 MacKenzie Method

10.0

7.5



### Model Year



# 35

## Table 3.4 provides the calculated 0

- to - 60 times for both methodologies, and the di fferences in values based on the two methods. For more information on each methodology, please see the
cited references. 

# Table 3 .4

Comparison B etween 0- to

- 60 Acceleration Time Calculation Methods by Model Year (seconds)

Model
Year Car Truck All Vehicles

Malliaris
Method MacKenzie Method Malliaris
Method MacKenzie Method Malliaris
Method MacKenzie Method Difference

Between Methods % Difference

Between Methods

1975 14.2

- 13.6

- 14.1

- - - 1976 14.4

- 13.8

- 14.3

- - - 1977 14.0

- 13.3

- 13.8

- - - 1978 13.7 13.7 13.4 13.4 13.6 13.6

- - 1979 13.8 14.5 14.3 15.0 13.9 14.6 +0.7 +5.1%

1980 14.3 15.5 14.5 15.7 14.3 15.6 +1.2 +8.6%

1981 14.4 15.6 14.6 15.7 14.4 15.6 +1.2 +8.2%

1982 14.4 16.6 14.5 16.6 14.4 16.6 +2.2 +15.6%

1983 14.0 14.8 14.6 15.3 14.1 14.9 +0.8 +5.7%

1984 13.8 14.5 14.7 15.3 14.0 14.7 +0.7 +5.3%

1985 13.3 13.9 14.1 14.7 13.5 14.1 +0.6 +4.5%

1986 13.2 13.2 14.0 13.9 13.4 13.4 0.0 +0.3%

1987 13.0 13.3 13.4 13.6 13.1 13.4 +0.3 +2.2%

1988 12.8 13.3 13.0 13.3 12.8 13.3 +0.5 +3.6%

1989 12.4 12.5 12.8 12.7 12.5 12.5 0.0

- 0.2%

1990 12.1 11.4 12.6 11.8 12.2 11.5

- 0.8

- 6.3%

1991 11.9 11.3 12.5 11.8 12.1 11.4

- 0.6

- 5.1%

1992 11.5 10.8 12.5 11.5 11.8 11.0

- 0.9

- 7.2%

1993 11.5 10.1 12.2 10.6 11.8 10.3

- 1.5

- 12.9%

1994 11.4 9.9 12.0 10.4 11.7 10.1

- 1.6

- 13.5%

1995 10.9 9.8 12.0 10.6 11.3 10.1

- 1.2

- 10.6%

1996 10.8 10.1 11.6 10.7 11.1 10.4

- 0.7

- 6.7%

1997 10.7 10.0 11.4 10.5 11.0 10.2

- 0.8

- 6.9%

1998 10.6 10.2 11.2 10.7 10.9 10.4

- 0.4

- 4.1%

1999 10.5 10.1 11.0 10.5 10.7 10.3

- 0.5

- 4.3%

2000 10.4 9.5 11.0 10.1 10.6 9.8

- 0.9

- 8.2%

2001 10.3 9.4 10.6 9.6 10.5 9.5

- 1.0

- 9.5%

2002 10.2 9.4 10.3 9.5 10.2 9.4

- 0.8

- 8.0%

2003 10.0 9.1 10.4 9.4 10.2 9.3

- 0.9

- 9.0%

2004 9.8 9.0 10.1 9.2 9.9 9.1

- 0.9

- 8.8%

2005 9.9 9.0 10.0 9.1 9.9 9.0

- 0.9

- 9.1%

2006 9.6 8.8 10.0 9.1 9.8 8.9

- 0.8

- 8.7%

2007 9.6 8.9 9.8 9.0 9.7 8.9

- 0.8

- 8.0%

2008 9.6 8.9 9.7 9.0 9.7 8.9

- 0.7

- 7.5%

2009 9.8 8.9 9.7 8.7 9.7 8.8

- 0.9

- 9.6%

2010 9.6 8.8 9.7 8.8 9.6 8.8

- 0.8

- 8.7%

2011 9.5 8.6 9.2 8.4 9.4 8.5

- 0.9

- 9.3%

2012 9.5 8.6 9.1 8.3 9.4 8.5

- 0.9

- 9.3%

2013 9.4 8.5 9.2 8.3 9.3 8.4

- 1.0

- 10.3%

2014 9.5 8.3 9.2 8.1 9.4 8.2

- 1.1

- 12.0%


### * The value for the actual difference between methods for 1986 is 0.04, and for 1989 it is

- 0.03, which round to 0.0



### . 

# 36

# Manufacturers and Makes

This section groups vehicles by “manufacturer” and “make.” Manufacturer definitions are those used by both EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for purposes of implementation of GHG emissions standards and the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) program, respectively. Each year, the
authors ensure that the manufacturer definitio ns in the Trends database are consistent with those used for

r egulatory compliance.

Most of the tables in this section show, for new gasoline and diesel vehicles, adjusted CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy data which are the best estimates for real world CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy performance, but are not comparable to regulatory compliance values. Two tables in this section show unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions values, which form the basis for regulatory compliance values, though the y do not reflect various compliance credits, incentives, and flexibilities available to automakers. Adjusted CO 2 

## values are, on average, about 25% higher than the unadjusted CO 2 

## values that form the starting point for GHG standards compliance. Adjusted fu el economy values are about 20% lower, on average, than unadjusted fuel economy values (note that these values differ because CO 2 

## emissions are proportional to fuel consumption, both expressed in units of “per mile,” while fuel economy is the mathematical inverse of fuel consumption) that form the starting point for CAFE compliance. Section 7 contains additional data for alternative fuel vehicles that are not included in the gasoline/diesel values in this section.

Information about compliance with EPA’s GHG emissions standards, including EPA’s Manufacturer Performance Report for the 2012 Model Year, is available at epa.gov/otaq/regs/ ld

- hwy/greenhouse/ld

- ghg.htm . NHTSA’s “Summary of Fuel Ec onomy Performance,” summarizing automaker compliance with fuel economy standards, is

available at nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel

- economy

.



# A. M ANUFACTURER AND 

# M AKE 

# D EFINITIONS

Table 4.1 lists the 13 manufacturers which ha d production of 100,000 or more gasoline or diesel vehicles in MY 2012 or MY 2013 , which together accounted for approximately 98% of total industry

- wide production. There are no changes in the list of manufacturers in Table 4.1 included in this year’s rep ort. Make is typically included in the model name and is generally equivalent to the “brand” of the vehicle. Table 4.1 also lists the 29 makes for which data are
shown in subsequent tables. The production threshold for makes to be included in Tables 4. 2 through 4.5 is 40,000 vehicles in MY 2013 , though some makes below this threshold are included if they are of particular interest

. One change in this report is that Porsche is now included as a make under Volkswagen.



# 37

# Table 4.1

Manu facturers and Makes for MY 2012

- 2014

Manufacturer Makes Above Threshold Makes Below Threshold

General Motors Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, GMC
Toyota Toyota, Lexus, Scion

Ford Ford, Lincoln Roush, Shelby

Honda Honda, Acura Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, Fiat Ferrari, Maserati

Nissan Nissan, Infiniti Hyundai Hyundai

Kia Kia

BMW BMW, Mini Rolls Royce Volkswagen Volkswagen, Audi

, Porsche Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti

Subaru Subaru

Daimler Mercedes

- Benz, Smart Maybach

Mazda Mazda

Others*



### *Note: Other manufacturers below the manufacturer threshold are Mitsubishi, Volvo, Rover, Suzuki, Jaguar, Spyker (Saab), Aston Martin, Lotus, VPG, and Tesla (which only produces EVs).



## It is important to note that when a manufa cturer or make grouping is modifi ed to reflect a change in the industry's current financial structure, EPA makes the same adjustment to the

entire historical database. This maintains consistent manufacturer and make definition s over time, which allows a better identification of long

- term trend s. On the other hand, this means that the current database does not necessarily reflect the actual corporate arrangements of the past. For example, the 20 14 database no longer accounts for the fact that Chrysler was combined with Daimler for several years, and includes Fiat, Ferrari, and Maserati in the Chrysler

- Fiat manufacturer grouping for the entire database even though these other companies have been f inancially connected to Chrysler only recently

.

Automakers submit vehicle production data, rather than vehicle sales data, in formal end

- of

year CAFE and GHG emissions compliance reports to EPA . These vehicle production data are tabulated on a model year basis. Accordingly, the vehicle production data presented in this report often differ from similar data reported by press sources , which typically are based on vehicle sales data reported on a calendar 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 manufacturers have used a more flexible approach

, and it is not uncommon to see a new or redesigned model in troduced with a new model year designation in the spring or summer, rather than the fall. This means that a model year for an individual vehicle can be either shortened or lengthened. Accordingly, year

- to - year comparisons can be affected by these model y ear anom alies, though the overall trends even out over a multi

- year period.



# 38

# B. M ANUFACTURER AND 

# M AKE 

# F UEL 

# E CONOMY

AND 

# CO 2 

# E MISSIONS

Tables 4.2 through 4.5 provide comparative manufacturer

- and make

- specific data for fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions for the three years from MY 2012-2014 . Data are shown for cars only, trucks only, and cars and trucks combined. By including data from both MY 201 2 and

2013 , with formal end

- of

- year data for both years, it is possible to identify meaningful changes from year

- to - year. Because of the uncertainty associated with the preliminary MY 201 4 projections, changes from MY 201 3 to MY 201 4 are less meaningful.

In this section, tables are presented with both adjusted (Tables 4.2 and 4.3) and unadjusted, laboratory (Tables 4.4 and 4.5) data. Tables 4.2 and 4.3 provide adjusted data for fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions, and therefore are consistent with tables presented earlier in the report. The data in these tables are very similar to the data used to generate the EPA/DOT
Fuel Economy and Environment Labels and represent EPA’s best estimate of nationwide real world fuel consumption and CO 2 

## emissions.

It is impo rtant to note that Tables 4.2 and 4.3 show rows with adjusted fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions data for 11 manufacturers and 27 makes, while the table footnotes provide similar data for two additional manufacturers, Hyundai and Kia. On November 2, 2012, EPA announced that Hyu ndai and Kia would lower their F u el Economy and Environment L abel estimates for many vehicle models as the result of an EPA investigation of test data. Hyundai
and Kia submitted corrected MY 2011 - 2013 fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions data to EPA
and re -labeled many of their model year 2012 and 2013 vehicle s on the market. This report
uses the corrected fuel economy values submitted by Hyundai and Kia for four MY 2011
vehicles and for many Hyundai and Kia vehicles for MY 2012 and 2013. The magnitude of the changes between the original label values and the corrected label values ranges from 1 mpg to 6 mp g. For the changes in the label values for individual vehicles, see epa.gov/fueleconomy/labelchange.htm . Since EPA’s investigation into Hyundai and Kia data submissions is continuing, Hyundai and Kia -s pecific values are not shown in rows in the following tables that list the fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions performance for various manufacturers, but are provided in footnotes to the tables with adjusted fuel economy and

CO 2 

## emissions. Hyundai and Kia data are included in industry

- wide values, including the “All” rows in the following tables, throughout this report.

It is also important to note that the data in the following tables reflect underlying data that are
consistent with the revised fuel e conomy label values that were adopted in 2013 for the Ford C-Max hybrid, and in 2014 for several Ford vehicles.

Of the 1 1 manufacturers sh own in the body of Table 4.2, 9 manufacturers increased adjusted fuel economy from MY 2012 to MY 2013, and Mazda had t he highest ad justed fuel economy in MY 2013 of 28.1 mpg. Honda had the second hig he st adjusted fuel economy of 27.4 mpg,



# 39

## followed by Subaru at 26.7 mpg. Chrysler

- Fiat had the lo west adjusted fuel economy of 20.9 mpg, followed by General Motors and Ford. Nissan achieved the largest increase in adjusted
fuel economy from MY 2012 -2013 of 2.1 mpg, followed by Subaru at 1.5 mpg and Daimler at

1.3 mpg. The two manufacturers with lower adjusted fuel economy values in MY 2013 are Ford and Toyota. Ford’s overall MY 2013 decline of 0.6 mpg is explained by a 12% increase in truck share, as the fuel economies for its individual car and truck fleets both increased in MY 2012. Toyota’s 0.5 mpg fleetwide decrease in MY 2013 is partially explained by its increased
truck share of 5%, but while its truck fleet fuel economy increased, its car fleet fuel economy decreased by 0.4 mpg.

For MY 2013 cars only, Honda, Toyota, and Mazda had the highest adjusted fuel economy values of 30.2 and 30.3 mpg, while Daimler reported the lo west adjusted car fuel economy of
24.1 mpg. For MY 2013 trucks only, Subaru had the highest adjusted fuel economy of 26.0 mpg, while General Motors had the lowest at 18.1 mpg.



# 40

# Table 4.2
Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG) by Manufacturer and Make for MY 201 2 - 201 4*

Manufacturer Make Final MY 2012 Final MY 2013 Preliminary MY 2014

Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks

Mazda

Honda

Honda

Honda

Subaru

Nissan

Nissan

Nissan

VW

VW

VW

VW Toyota Toyota Toyota Toyota

BMW

BMW

BMW
Daimler

Daimler

Daimler

Ford

Ford

Ford

GM

GM

GM

GM

GM Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat

Other All

Honda

Acura

All

All

Nissan
Infiniti

All

VW
Audi

Porsche

All
Toyota

Lexus

Scion

All

BMW

Mini

All

Mercedes

- Benz

Smart
All

Ford

Lincoln

All

Chevrolet

GMC
Buick

Cadillac

All Dodge Chrysler
Jeep

Ram

Fiat

All

All 29.3

29.9

24.5

29.3

27.5

27.5

21.9

26.9

27.2

24.0

22.0

26.2

31.8

24.8

27.2

30.7

23.3

29.9

25.3

22.4

35.7

22.6

27.2

22.6

26.9

25.7

23.7

24.0

20.5

24.8

22.7

23.8

22.2

- 31.5

23.7

24.2 21.9 27.1

22.8 27.2

18.4 21.8

22.2 26.6

24.0 25.2

18.9 24.5

17.0 20.5

18.8 24.1

22.8 26.9

21.5 23.1

19.5 20.8

21.5 25.5

19.7 25.7

20.7 23.5

- 27.2

19.7 25.6

20.1 22.0

- 29.9

20.1 23.7

18.4 20.9

- 35.7

18.4 21.1

18.5 22.9

17.6 20.9

18.5 22.8

18.0 22.4

18.0 19.3

19.6 22.1

15.5 19.6

18.1 21.7

20.2 21.4

20.9 22.6

18.7 19.2

16.1 16.1

- 31.5

18.6 20.1

18.4 21.7 30.2

30.8

25.8

30.3

27.9

30.2

21.7

29.2

27.5

23.8

23.0

26.4

32.0

25.3

27.0

30.3

25.0

30.2

26.0

23.5

36.5

24.1

27.3

23.5

27.1

26.5

24.3

24.8

21.5

25.5

24.4

23.5

24.8

- 31.7

24.5

24.4 23.8 28.1

23.0 27.9

20.4 23.5

22.7 27.4

26.0 26.7

21.1 27.0

20.1 21.0

21.0 26.2

22.5 27.2

21.7 23.2

20.1 21.6

21.6 25.7

20.1 25.4

20.4 23.6

- 27.0

20.2 25.1

20.7 23.5

- 30.2

20.7 24.5

19.3 22.0

- 36.5

19.3 22.4

19.1 22.3

18.2 21.2

19.0 22.2

18.2 22.6

18.0 19.3

20.5 23.6

15.4 20.5

18.1 22.0

20.2 22.4

20.6 22.3

18.6 19.1

16.6 16.6

- 31.7

18.8 20.9

19.2 21.6 31.9 24.2 28.8

31.3 23.0 28.1

25.9 22.7 24.8

30.4 22.9 27.6

28.6 26.9 27.5

30.6 21.0 27.4

23.3 21.0 22.3

29.8 21.0 26.8

29.2 22.5 28.7

24.0 22.1 23.4

22.7 20.1 21.8

27.6 21.9 26.7

33.1 19.8 26.1

25.1 20.1 23.5

28.2

- 28.2

31.4 19.8 25.8

26.1 22.9 25.4

30.6

- 30.6

26.7 22.9 26.0

24.7 19.6 22.8

36.5

- 36.5

24.8 19.6 22.8

28.1 19.3 23.4

26.9 19.6 23.2

28.0 19.3 23.4

26.6 18.9 22.8

23.3 18.5 19.2

25.1 21.1 23.4

22.1 15.4 21.0

25.5 18.8 22.0

23.5 20.4 22.1

23.2 20.9 22.1

24.8 20.4 21.4

- 17.5 17.5

29.3

- 29.3

24.0 19.7 21.1

24.9 20.6 22.4

All All 27.0 19.3 23.6 27.6 19.8 24.1 27.9 20.1 24.2



### *Note: Hyundai and Kia are not included in this table due to a continuing investigation. In November 2012, Hyundai and Kia corrected fuel economy labels for many vehicle models. Based on these corrected data, Hyundai’s values are 28.3 mpg for MY 2012, 29.0 mpg for MY 2013, and 27.3 mpg for MY 2014. Kia’s values are 26.5 mpg for MY 2012, 27.4 mpg for MY 2013, and 25.7 mpg for MY 2014. Hyundai and Kia adopted unusually short MY 2014 production time frames for some high fuel economy model s, which the authors believe is the primary reason for their lower preliminary MY 2014 valu es. The corrected Hyundai and Kia data are included in industry

- wide or “All” values.



# 41

## In terms of the makes shown in Table 4.2 for MY 201 3 , the Smart make had the highest adjusted fuel economy at 36.5 mpg. The Smart Fourtwo is the smallest and lightest car in the

U.S. market and has relatively low production. Other makes with high fuel economy include Fiat at 31.7 mpg and Mini at 30.2 mpg.

Preliminary projections suggest that 10 of the 11 manufacturers shown will improve adj usted fuel economy further in MY 2014, though EPA will not have final data for MY 2014 until next year’s report. The preliminary MY 2014 value for GM would represent no change relative to MY 2013. Hyundai and Kia adopted unusually short MY 2014 production time frames for some of their highest fuel economy vehicles, and the authors believe this is the primary reason for the lower preliminary MY 2014 values for Hyundai and Kia as shown in the footnote

.

Table 4.3 sho ws manufacturer

- specific values for adjusted CO 2 

## emissions for the same manufacturers, makes and model years as shown in Table 4.2 for adjusted fuel economy. Of
the 1 1 manufacturers show n, 9 manufacturers decreased adjusted CO 2 

## emissions from MY

2012 to M Y 2013 . Manufacturer rankings for CO 2 

## emissions are generally similar to those for fuel economy, though there can be some differences due to diesel vehicle production share (since diesel has a higher carbon content per gallon than gasoline). Of the 11 ma nufacturers shown in Table 4.3, Mazda had the lowest adjusted CO 2 

## emissions in MY 2013 of 316 g/mi, followed by Honda at 324 g/mi and Subaru at 332 g/mi. Chrysler

- Fiat had the highest adjusted CO 2 

## emissions of 425 g/mi, followed by General Motors and Ford . Nissan achieved the largest decrease in adjusted CO 2 

## em issions from MY 2012 -2013 of 30 g/mi, followed by Daimler at 27 g/mi and Subaru at 20 g/mi. Preliminary values suggest that 10 of the 11

ma nufacturers will likely reduce CO 2 

## emissions in MY 201 4 , w ith GM constant . The make rankings for adjusted CO 2 

## emissions in Table 4.3 are also similar to those for adjusted fuel economy in Table 4.2.



# 42

# Table 4.3
Adjusted CO 2 

## Emissions (g/mi) by Ma nufacturer and Make for MY 2012

- 2014 *

Manufacturer Make Final MY 2012 Final MY 2013 Preliminary MY 2014

Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks
Mazda

Honda

Honda

Honda

Subaru

Nissan

Nissan

Ni ssan
VW

VW

VW

VW Toyota Toyota Toyota Toyota

BMW

BMW

BMW
Daimler

Daimler

Daimler

Ford

Ford

Ford

GM

GM

GM

GM

GM Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat

Other All

Honda

Acura
All

All

Nissan
Infiniti

All

VW
Audi

Porsche

All
Toyota

Lexus

Scion

All

BMW

Mini

All

Mercedes

- Benz

Smart

All

Ford

Lincoln

All

Chevrolet

GMC
Buick

Cadillac

All Dodge Chrysler
Jeep

Ram

Fiat

All

All 304

298

362

303

323

323

406

330

334

372

405

345

280

358

326

290

382

297

352

398

249

394

327

393

330

346

375

371

434

358

392

373

401

- 282

376

368 406 328

390 327

482 407

400 334

371 352

470 363

524 434

474 369

405 338

419 388

455 427

421 355

452 345

429 378

- 326

450 347

452 407

- 297

452 377

495 430

- 249

495 426

479 389

505 425

480 390

494 396

493 461

454 401

574 453

492 410

439 416

425 393

474 463

553 553

- 282

478 442

484 410 294

289

344

294

319

294

409

304

332

373

386

343

278

352

329

294

356

295

342

378

244

370

324

375

327

336

366

359

413

349

364

378

359

- 281

363

364 374 316

386 319

436 378

391 324

342 332

421 329

441 424

424 339

404 336

414 385

455 419

420 353

442 350

435 377

- 329

441 354

430 378

- 295

430 363

469 407

- 244

469 399

466 399

488 418

467 400

489 393

494 460

433 377

577 434

490 404

441 396

432 398

477 466

535 535

- 281

473 425

463 411 279 368 309

284 387 317

344 392 358

292 388 322

310 330 324

290 422 324

381 423 398

298 422 332

314 403 319

372 415 385

391 453 412

329 418 340

268 450 340

354 443 377

315

- 315

283 449 344

343 393 353

291

- 291

335 393 344

361 463 394

244

- 244

360 463 393

316 460 379

330 453 384

317 460 380

335 470 391

382 480 464

354 421 380

403 578 423

348 472 404

378 436 402

384 425 402

359 435 415

- 508 508

304

- 304

370 451 420

357 432 397

All All 329 461 376 322 450 369 320 442 367



### *Note: Hyundai and Kia are not included in this table due to a continuing investigation. In November 2012, Hyundai and Kia corrected fuel economy labels for many vehicle models. Based on these corrected data, Hyundai’s CO 2 

### emissions values are 314 g/mi for MY 2012, 306 g/mi for MY 2013, and 326 g/mi for MY 2014.
Kia’s CO 2 

### values are 336 g/mi for MY 2012, 324 g/mi for MY 2013, and 345 g/mi for MY 2014. Hyundai and Kia adopted unusually short MY 2014 production time frames for some high fuel economy model s, which the authors believe is the primary reason for their higher preliminary MY 2014 CO 2 

### emissions values. The corrected Hyundai and Kia data are included in industry

- wide or “All” values.



# 43

## Tables 4.4 and 4.5 provide unadjusted, laboratory data for both fuel e conomy and CO 2 

## emissions for MY 2012 -2014 on a manufacturer- specific basis. Unadjusted, laboratory data is
relevant in a manufacturer

- specific context because it is the foundation for EPA CO 2 

## emissions and NHTSA CAFE regulatory compliance, and because it provides a basis for comparing long

- term trends from the perspective of vehicle design only, apart from the factors that affect real world performance that can change over time (i.e., driving behavior such as
acceleration rates or the use of air conditioni ng). Note that EPA has not released corrected unadjusted, laboratory values for some Hyundai and Kia models for MY 2011 -2013.

In general, manufacturer rankings based on the unadjusted, laboratory values in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 are very similar to those for t he adjusted values in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. On average, in recent years, unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values are about 25% greater than adjusted fuel economy values (slightly greater at higher mpg levels), and average unadjusted, laboratory

CO 2 

## emiss ions values are about 20% less than adjusted CO 2 

## emissions (slightly greater at
lower CO 2 

## emissions levels).



# 44

# Table 4.4
Unadjusted, Laboratory Fuel Economy (MPG) by Manufacturer and Make for MY 201 2 - 201 4*

Manufacturer Make Final 2012 Final 2013 Preliminary 2014

Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks

Mazda

Honda

Honda

Honda

Subaru

Nissan

Nissan

Nissan

VW

VW

VW

VW Toyota Toyota Toyota Toyota

BMW

BMW

BMW
Daimler

Daimler

Daimler

Ford

Ford

Ford

GM

GM

GM

GM

GM Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler

- Fiat
Other All

Honda

Acura

All

All

Nissan
Infiniti

All

VW
Audi

Porsche

All
Toyota

Lexus

Scion

All

BMW

Mini

All

Mercedes

- Benz

Smart

All

Ford

Lincoln

All

Chevrolet

GMC
Buick

Cadillac

All Dodge Chrysler
Jeep

Ram

Fiat

All

All 37.4

38.1

30.9

37.3

35.2

35.3

27.4

34.4

34.2

29.5

27.3

32.8

41.4

31.5

35.2

39.8

29.4

38.7

32.2

27.8

49.5

28.2

34.5

28.4

34.1

32.2

29.8

29.7

25.4

31.1

28.1

29.5

28.2

- 41.1

29.6

30.4 27.8 34.6

28.6 34.5

23.3 27.5

27.8 33.6

30.5 32.2

23.7 31.1

20.9 25.5

23.5 30.5

28.9 33.9

26.7 28.5

24.6 26.1

26.9 31.9

24.8 33.0

26.1 29.8

- 35.2

24.9 32.8

25.0 27.7

- 38.7

25.0 30.0

23.1 26.1

- 49.5

23.1 26.3

23.2 28.8

21.9 26.1

23.1 28.7

22.3 28.0

22.4 24.1

24.5 27.5

20.1 24.6

22.4 27.0

25.1 26.5

25.9 28.0

23.5 24.1

19.8 19.8

- 41.1

23.1 25.0

22.9 27.2 38.9

39.7

32.5

39.0

35.7

39.2

27.2

37.8

34.7

29.6

28.8

33.2

41.8

32.2

34.6

39.3

31.4

39.0

32.9

29.4

50.3

30.2

34.8

29.7

34.5

33.4

31.0

30.9

26.7

32.1

30.5

29.2

31.8

- 41.3

30.6

30.8 30.4 36.1

28.9 35.6

25.6 29.6

28.5 34.9

33.3 34.2

26.8 34.7

25.3 26.3

26.5 33.6

28.5 34.3

27.2 28.9

25.2 27.0

27.1 32.2

25.4 32.5

25.7 29.9

- 34.6

25.4 32.2

25.8 29.4

- 39.0

25.8 30.8

24.4 27.6

- 50.3

24.4 28.2

23.8 28.0

22.7 26.6

23.8 27.9

22.5 28.3

22.4 24.2

25.8 29.4

19.9 25.6

22.6 27.5

25.0 28.0

25.4 27.7

23.4 24.0

20.5 20.5

- 41.3

23.4 26.0

23.9 27.1 41.2 30.9 37.0

40.4 28.8 35.8

32.6 28.4 31.2

39.1 28.8 35.1

36.7 34.5 35.3

39.7 26.6 35.2

29.3 26.5 28.1

38.5 26.6 34.3

36.6 28.5 36.0

29.8 27.6 29.1

28.4 25.2 27.2

34.5 27.4 33.4

43.4 25.0 33.6

32.0 25.2 29.9

36.6

- 36.6

40.9 25.0 33.1

32.6 28.9 31.9

39.7

- 39.7

33.6 28.9 32.7

31.0 24.8 28.7

50.3

- 50.3

31.1 24.8 28.8

35.7 24.1 29.5

34.4 24.5 29.3

35.6 24.2 29.5

33.6 23.5 28.5

29.8 23.1 24.0

31.9 26.6 29.7

27.4 20.1 26.3

32.2 23.5 27.6

29.2 25.2 27.4

28.6 25.9 27.3

31.5 25.6 27.0

- 21.6 21.6

37.6

- 37.6

30.1 24.6 26.4

31.4 25.5 27.9

All All 34.3 24.1 29.8 35.2 24.8 30.5 35.5 25.2 30.6



### * Note: Hyundai and Kia are not included in rows in the table above due to a continuing investigation. On November 2, 2012, EPA announced that Hyundai and Kia would lower their fuel economy estimates for many vehicle models as the result of an EPA investigation of test data. EPA has not yet released formal, corrected unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values for Hyundai and Kia.



# 45

# 46 Table 4.5
Unadjusted, Laboratory CO 2 

## Emissions (g/mi) by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2012 - 2014 *

Final MY 2012 Final MY 2013 Preliminary MY 2014

Manufacturer Make Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks

Mazda All 238 319 257 229 293 246 216 288 240

Honda Honda 233 311 258 224 307 250 220 308 248

Honda Acura 288 382 323 273 347 300 273 313 285
Honda All 238 319 264 228 312 254 227 309 253
Subaru All 252 292 276 249 267 259 242 257 252

Nissan Nissan 252 375 286 227 332 256 224 334 252

Nissan Infiniti 325 425 348 327 352 338 303 335 316

Nissan All 258 378 291 235 335 265 231 334 259 Toyota Toyota 215 358 269 213 350 273 205 356 265
Toyota Lexus 282 340 299 276 346 297 278 353 298
Toyota Scion 252 - 252 257 - 257 243 - 243
Toyota All 223 357 271 226 349 276 217 356 268

VW VW 266 319 268 263 319 266 250 319 254

VW Audi 303 337 314 301 331 309 301 333 310

VW Porsche 325 362 341 309 363 335 313 362 330

VW All 276 336 283 273 334 281 263 333 272

BMW BMW 303 363 324 283 345 302 274 312 281

BMW Mini 230

- 230 228

- 228 224

- 224

BMW All 276 363 299 270 345 289 266 312 273
Daimler Mercedes

- Benz 320 394 344 302 370 324 288 366 313
Daimler Smart 180

- 180 177

- 177 177

- 177
Daimler All 316 394 341 294 370 317 286 366 312

Ford Ford 258 384 309 255 374 317 249 368 301

Ford Lincoln 313 406 340 299 391 334 258 362 304
Ford All 261 384 310 257 374 318 250 368 302

GM Chevrolet 276 399 318 266 394 314 265 379 312

GM GMC 298 396 369 286 397 367 298 385 370

GM Buick 299 363 323 288 344 302 279 334 300

GM Cadillac 350 443 362 332 446 347 324 442 337

GM All 286 396 329 277 394 323 276 379 322 Chrysler

- Fiat Dodge 316 354 335 292 355 318 304 352 325 Chrysler

- Fiat Chrysler 301 343 318 305 349 321 311 343 325 Chrysler

- Fiat Jeep 315 379 369 279 379 370 282 347 329 Chrysler

- Fiat Ram

- 448 448

- 433 433

- 411 411 Chrysler

- Fiat Fiat 216 - 216 215 - 215 236 - 236 Chrysler

- Fiat All 301 384 355 290 380 341 296 362 337
Other All 292 389 327 289 372 329 283 349 318

All All 259 369 298 253 359 292 251 353 290



### * Note: Hyundai and Kia are not included in rows in the table above due to a continuing investigation. On November 2, 2012, EPA announced that Hyundai and Kia would lower their fuel economy estimates for many vehicle models as the result of an EPA investigation of test data. EPA has not yet released formal, corrected unadjusted, laboratory CO 2 

### emissions values for Hyundai and Kia.

# C. M ANUFACTURER 

# T ECHNOLOGY AND 

# A TTRIBUTE


# T RENDS

Figure 4.1 shows the “top three” of the 13 largest manufacturers, in terms of the percent of
each manufacturer’s projected MY 2014 production that uses various technologies discussed in more detail in Section 5, as well as the projected industry

- wide average technology production share for MY 2014.



# Figure 4.1

Highest Technology Adoptio n Based on Projected MY 2014 Production

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% GDI Turbo

BMW Daimler Kia All BMW VW Daimler All

Cylinder Deactivation Non-Hybrid Stop/Start

GM Honda Chrysler

− All BMW Daimler VW All Fiat

CVT 7 or More Gears

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%

Subaru Nissan Honda All Daimler BMW Chrysler

− All Fiat 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%Percent of 2014 Manufacturer Projected Production

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Hybrid Diesel

Toyota Honda Ford All VW Daimler BMW All 

# 47

## In terms of individual technologies, BMW has the highest projected production share for turbocharging (96%) and non -hybrid stop/start (75%), Daimler for transmissions with 7 or more gears (99%), Toyota for hybrids (15%), and Volkswagen for diesels (20%). BMW, Daimler, and Kia are projected to use gasoline direct injection engines in about 90% of their fleets, General Motors and Honda are proj ected to use cylinder deactivation in about 35% of their production, and Subaru and Nissan are projected to use continuously variable
transmissions in about 85% of their fleets.

In terms of the “top three” for these eight technologies in Figure 4.1 , BMW an d Daimler are represented five times each, and Honda and Volkswagen are represented three times each. Of the 13 largest manufacturers, 11 are represented in the “top three” for at least one of the eight technologies

. T he two manufacturers not represented in any of the “top three” in Figure 4.1 are Hyundai and Mazda , both of which have low truck production shares, low average footprint, low average weight, and low horsepower values relative to most other manufacturers.

Table 4.6 shows footprint by manufactu rer for MY 2012 -2014. In recent years, industry- wide footprint has been fluctuating around 49 square feet. GM, Ford, and Chrysler

- Fiat had the largest footprint values in MY 2011 in the 51 .5 to 53.5 square feet range, and Subaru and Mazda had the lowest footprint values of 44 to 45 square feet. The remaining manufacturers
had avera ge footprint values in the 46 to 48 square feet range.



# Table 4.6
Footprint (square feet) by Manufacturer for MY 2012

- 2014

Manufacturer MY 2012 MY 2013 MY 2014

Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks Cars Trucks Cars and
Trucks

Ford 45.3 59.4 50.9 47.0 59.5 53.5 46.2 58.4 51.6

GM 47.0 60.1 52.1 46.5 60.4 52.0 46.4 61.1 52.9 Toyota 45.1 53.4 48.1 45.1 52.5 48.1 45.0 53.7 48.2 Chrysler

- Fiat 47.2 53.6 51.4 47.6 54.5 51.5 47.2 50.8 49.4

Honda 45.0 50.5 46.8 44.9 49.3 46.3 45.7 50.4 47.2

Nissan 45.0 51.6 46.8 45.8 50.8 47.3 45.5 52.7 47.5 Hyundai 46.4 46.4 46.4 46.1 46.8 46.2 45.9 46.5 46.0

VW 45.0 49.5 45.6 45.2 49.6 45.8 45.3 48.9 45.8

Kia 45.6 52.0 46.2 45.5 45.6 45.5 45.5 49.9 45.8

BMW 45.9 51.4 47.3 46.2 50.8 47.4 46.8 50.7 47.4
Subaru 44.3 44.7 44.5 44.0 44.6 44.4 44.1 44.6 44.4
Daimler 46.5 51.8 48.2 45.5 51.5 47.3 47.6 51.6 48.9

Mazda 43.9 48.1 44.9 43.6 47.6 44.7 44.9 47.5 45.8
Other 45.6 47.9 46.5 45.9 47.8 46.8 45.9 48.2 47.1

All 45.7 54.5 48.8 45.9 54.7 49.2 45.9 54.4 49.2



## Manufacturer

- specific MY 2013 car footprint values varied little, within 44 -48 square feet. MY 2013 truck footprint values were much more variable, ranging from 45 (Subaru) to 60 (General Motors) s quare feet.



# 48

## In terms of change in footprint values from MY 2012 to MY 2013, six manufacturers increased footprint, with Ford having the largest increase of 2.6 square feet. As with its MY 2013 fuel economy decrease, this is heavily influenced by its 12% in crease in truck share, as its average truck footprint is 12.5 square feet greater than its average car footprint. Six manufacturers decreased footprint, with the biggest decreases reported by Daimler (0.9 square foot), Kia (0.7 square foot) and Honda (0.5 square foot). Industry

- wide footprint is projected to remain unchanged in MY 2014.

Table 4.7 shows manufacturer

- specific values for adjusted fuel economy and production share for the two classes (cars and trucks) and the five vehicle types (cars, car SUVs , truck SUVs, pickups, and minivans/vans) for 11 manufacturers for MY 2013. Toyota had the highest adjusted fuel economy for the car type, while Mazda led for car SUVs. For the truck types, Subaru reported the highest adjusted fuel economy for truck SUVs, Toyota and Nissan had the highest pickup fuel economy among manufacturers that make a significant number of pickups, and Mazda had the highest adjusted fuel economy for minivans/vans. Subaru had the highest truck share of 59%, followed by Chrysler

- Fiat at 57%.

Industry

- wide, car type vehicles averaged 3.8 mpg higher than car SUVs in MY 2013, with this difference decreasing by 0.6 mpg since MY 2012. Among truck types, minivans/vans had the highest adjusted fuel economy of 21.1 mpg, followed by truck SUVs a t 20.9 mpg, and pickups at 17.4 mpg. The biggest fuel economy increases since MY 2012 were from car SUVs at 1.1 mpg and truck SUVs at 0.9 mpg.



# Table 4.7

Adjusted Fuel Economy and Production Share by Vehicle Classification and Type for MY 2013 *

Manufacturer Cars Car SUVs All Cars Truck SUVs Pick ups Minivan s/Vans All Trucks
Adj FE (MPG) Prod
Share Adj FE (MPG) Prod
Share Adj FE (MPG) Prod
Share Adj FE (MPG) Prod
Share Adj FE (MPG) Prod
Share Adj FE (MPG) Prod
Share Adj FE (MPG) Prod
Share
Ford 28.4 34.1% 24.3 14.1% 27.1 48.2% 20.8 23.4% 17.5 26.5% 22.7 1.9% 19.0 51.8%

GM 25.9 43.9% 24.4 16.7% 25.5 60.6% 19.0 21.1% 17.3 17.6% 16.1 0.7% 18.1 39.4% Toyota 31.3 52.1% 24.4 7.3% 30.3 59.3% 21.2 23.2% 18.0 11.7% 21.1 5.8% 20.2 40.7% Chrysler

- Fiat 24.5 40.7% 23.6 2.8% 24.5 43.4% 19.0 26.9% 16.5 12.8% 20.6 16.9% 18.8 56.6%
Honda 31.0 59.6% 26.0 8.8% 30.3 68.4% 23.1 24.3% 18.1 1.2% 22.4 6.1% 22.7 31.6%
Nissan 30.1 61.8% 24.3 8.8% 29.2 70.5% 21.7 23.0% 17.9 5.1% 22.7 1.4% 21.0 29.5%

VW 26.5 84.3% 23.6 2.6% 26.4 86.9% 21.6 13.1%

- - - - 21.6 13.1%

BMW 26.0 75.4%

- - 26.0 75.4% 20.7 24.6%

- - - - 20.7 24.6%
Subaru 27.9 40.8%

- - 27.9 40.8% 26.0 59.2%

- - - - 26.0 59.2%
Daimler 24.2 65.5% 22.1 4.4% 24.1 69.9% 19.3 30.1%

- - - - 19.3 30.1%
Mazda 30.3 60.1% 29.5 12.9% 30.2 73.0% 23.5 20.8%

- - 24.8 6.3% 23.8 27.0%
Other 24.2 39.3% 25.1 12.9% 24.4 52.2% 19.2 47.8%

- - - - 19.2 47.8%

All 28.3 53.5% 24.5 9.9% 27.6 63.2% 20.9 22.4% 17.4 10.6% 21.1 3.8% 19.8 36.8% 

### *Hyundai and Kia are not included in this table due to a continuing investigation.



## Table 4.8 shows average MY 2013 manufacturer- specific values, for all cars and trucks, for three important vehicle attributes: footprint, weight, and horsepower. The footprint data in
Table 4.8 were also sh own in Table 4.6 and discussed above. Ford had the highest average 

# 49

## weight of 4492 pounds, followed by General Motors and Daimler. Mazda reported the lowest average weight of 3295 pounds, followed by Hyundai and Kia. Daimler also had the highest

average horsepower level of 284 hp, followed by Chrysler

- Fiat, BMW, and Ford. Mazda also reported the lowest horsepower level of 165 hp, followed by Subaru.



# Table 4 .8
Vehicle Footprint, Weight, and Horsepower by Manufacturer for MY 2013

Footprint Weight
Manufacturer (sq ft) (lb) HP

Ford 53.5 4492 265

GM 52.0 4404 250
Toyota 48.1 3926 203 Chrysler

- Fiat 51.5 4328 268

Honda 46.3 3606 192

Nissan 47.3 3723 205 Hyundai 46.2 3313 183

VW 45.8 3779 204

Kia 45.5 3363 184

BMW 47.4 4012 267

Subaru 44.4 3629 174

Daimler 47.3 4352 284

Mazda 44.7 3295 165

All 49.2 4015 227



## Finally, Figure 4.2 provides a historical perspective, for both adjusted fuel economy and truck share, for each of the top 13 manufacturers. Adjusted fuel economy is presented for cars only, trucks only, and cars and trucks combined. One noteworthy result in Figure 4.2 is that there is very little difference between the adjusted fuel economy values for Subaru cars and trucks, the only manufacturer for which this is the case.

More information for the historic Trends database stratified by manufacturer can be found in Appendices J and K

.



# 50

# Figur e 4.2
Adjusted Fuel Economy and Percent Tr uck by M anufacturer for MY 1975

- 2014Percent TruckAdjusted MPGPercent Truck Adjusted MPG 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Nissan Hyundai Kia BMW VW 10 15 20 25 30 Toyota Honda Chrysler-Fiat

10 15 20 25 30

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Car

Truck Both Car

Truck Both Car

Truck Both

Car

Truck Both Car

Truck Both Car

Truck

Both Car

Truck Both Car

Truck Both Car

Truck Both

Truck Both Car Ford GM

1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000

Subaru Daimler Mazda Other

30Percent Truck Adjusted MPG 25

20

15

10

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 1980 1990 2010 2000 Car

Truck Both Car

Truck

Both Car

Truck Both Car

Truck Both



# 51

### I 

# Powertrain Technologies

Technological innovation is a major driver of vehicle design in general, and vehicle fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions in particular. Since its inception, this report has tracked the usage of key technologies as well as many major engine and transmission parameters. This section of the report will focus on the larger technology trends in engine and transmission production and the impact of those trends on vehicle fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions.

Over the last 35 years, one trend is strikingly clear: automakers have consistently developed and commercialized new technologies that have provided more benefits to consumers. As discussed previously in Sections 2 and 3, the benefits provided by new technologies have varied over time. New technologies have been introduced for many reasons, including to increase fuel economy, reduce CO 2 

## emissions, increase vehicle power and performance, increase vehicle content and weight, or some combination of all the above.



# A. T R ENDS IN 

# E NGINE 

# P OWER AND 

# S IZE 

# (C YLINDERS

AND 

# D ISPLACEMENT 

# )

One of the most remarkable trends over the course of this report is the increase in vehicle

p ow er since the early 1980s. From 1975 through the early 1980s, average horsepower decreased, in combination with lower vehicle weight (see Table 2.1 and Figure 2.3) and smaller engine displacement (see below). Since the early 1980s , the average new vehicle h orsepower has more than doubled . Average h orsepower climbed consistently from MY 1982 to MY 2008

. Since MY 2008, horsepower trends have been less consistent, but still appear to be generally increasing. Horsepower is projected to reach a new high in MY 2014, at 233 hp. The trend in horsepower is mainly attributable to improvements in engine technolog y, but increasing production of larger vehicles and an incr easing percentage of truck production have also influenced the increase of average new vehicle horsepower. The trend in average new vehicle horsepower is shown in Figure 5.1.

Engine size, as measur ed by total displacement, is also shown in Figure 5.1. Three general phases in engine displacement are discernible. From MY 1975 to 1987, the average engine displacement of new vehicles dropped dramatically by nearly 40%. From MY 1988 to 2004, displacement generally grew slowly, but the trend reversed in 2005 and engine displacement has been slowly decreasing since. In MY 2013 , engine displacement was just slightly higher than the lowest average displacement in MY 1987.

The contrasting trends in horsepower (all

- time high) and engine displacement (near an all

- time low) highlight the continuing improvement in engines due to introduction of new technologies (e.g., port fuel injection) and smaller engineering improvements that are not tracked by this report (e.g., reduced internal friction). One additional way to examine the relationship between engine horsepower and displacement is to look at the trend in specific power, which is a metric to compare the power output of an engine relative to its size. Here,
engi ne specific power is defined as horsepower divided by displacement.



# 52

# Figure 5 .1

Engine Power and Displacemen t

175 200 225 250 275 100 150 200



### Displacement Horsepower

125 175 225



### Average Specific Power

0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Cubic inchesHP/DisplacementHP



### Model Year



## Since the beginning of this report, the average specific power of engines across the new vehic le fleet has increased at a remarkably steady rate, as shown in Figure 5. 1. Since MY 1975, the specific power of new vehicle engines has increased, on average, by 0.02 horsepower per cubic inch every year. Considering the numerous and significant changes t o engines over this time span, changes in consumer preferences, and the external pressures on vehicle purchases, the long standing linearity of this trend is noteworthy. The roughly linear increase in specific power does not appear to be slowing, although the projected MY 2014 specific power is flat. Turbocharged engines, direct injection, higher compression ratios, and many other engine technologies are likely to continue increasing engine specific power.

Figure 5.2 summarizes three important engine metric s, each of which has shown a remarkably linear change over time. Specific power, as discussed above, has increased more than 150% since MY 1975 and at a very steady rate. The amount of fuel consumed by an engine, relative to the total displacement, has fallen about 15% since MY 1975, and fuel consumption relative to engine horsepower has fallen nearly 65% since MY 1975. Taken as a whole, the trend lines in Figure 5.2 clearly show that engine improvements over time have been steady, continual,
and have resu lted in impressive improvements to internal combustion engines.



# 53

# Figure 5.2

Percent Change for Specific Engine Metrics

− 50%

0% 50% 100% 150%Percent change since 1975 HP/Displacement

Fuel Consumption/HP Fuel Consumption/Displacement

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



## Another basic engine design parameter that is useful to explore is the number of engine cylinders. Since 1975, there have been significant changes to the number of cylinders in new vehicles, as shown in Figure 5.3. In the mid and late 1970s, the 8-cylinder engine was dominant, accounting for over half of new vehicle production. In MY 1980 there was a significant change in the market, as 8- cylinder engine production share dropped from 54% to 26% and 4 -cylinder production share increased from 26% to 45%. The 4- cylinder engine then continued to lead the market until overtaken by 6

- cylinder engines in MY 1992. Model year 2009 marked a second major shift in engine production, as 4- cylinder engines once again became the production leader with 5 1% of the market (an increase of 13% in a single year), followed by 6

- cylinder engines with 35%, and 8

- cyinder engines at an all

- time low of 1 2 %. Production of 4 -cylinder engines decreased slightly in MY 2010 and MY 2011, but increased back to a new high of 56% in MY 2013. En gine displacement per cylinder has been relatively stable over the time of this report (around 35 cubic inches per cylinder since 1980), so the reduction in overall new vehicle engine displacement shown in Figure 5.1 is almost entirely
due to the shift tow ards engines with fewer cylinders. In MY 2014, the sales of three cylinder engines is projected to be less than 20,000, but growing.



# 54

# Figure 5.3

Production Share by Number of Engine Cylinders

Number of CylindersProduction Share

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

Other

8

6

4

3

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



# 55

# B. T RENDS IN 

# F UEL 

# D ELIVERY 

# M ETHODS AND 

# V ALVETRAINS

One aspect of engine design that has changed significantly over time is how fuel is delivered into the engine. In the 1970s and early 1980s, nearly all engines used carburetors to meter fuel delivered to the engine. Carburetors were replaced over time with throttle body injection systems (TBI) and port fuel injection systems. More recently, engines with gasoline direct injection (GDI) have begun to replace engines with port fuel injection. Eng ines using GDI were first introduced into the market in very limited amounts in MY 2007, and only 6 years later GDI engines were installed in about 30 % of new vehicles in MY 2013 and are projected
to achieve a 38% market share in MY 2014.

Another key asp ect of engine design is the valvetrain. The number of valves per cylinder and the ability to alter valve timing during the combustion cycle can result in significant power and efficiency improvements. This report began tracking multi

- valve engines (i.e., e ngines with more than 2 valves per cylinder) for cars in MY 1986 (and for trucks in MY 1994), and since that time nearly the entire fleet has converted to multi

- valve design. While some three and five valve engines have been produced, the vast majority of multi

- valve engines are based on 4 valves per cylinder. In addition to the number of valves per cylinder, engine designs have evolved that allow engine valves to vary the timing when they are opened or closed with respect to the combustion cycle, creating more flexibility to control engine efficiency, power, and emissions. This report began tracking variable valve timing (VVT) for cars in MY 1990 (and for trucks in MY 2000), and since then nearly the entire fleet has adopted this technology. Figure 5.4 shows the evolution of engine technology, including fuel delivery
method and the introduction of VVT and multi

- valve engines.

As clearly shown in Figure 5.4, fuel delivery and valve

- train technologies have often developed over the same time frames. Nearly all carbureted engines relied on fixed valve timing and had two valves per cylinder, as did early port injected engines. Port injected engines largely developed into engines with both multi

- valve and VVT technology. Engines with GDI are almost exclusively usin g multi

- valve and VVT technology. These four engine groupings, or packages, represent a large share of the engines produced over the lifetime of the Trends
database.

Figure 5.5 shows the changes in specific power and fuel consumption between each of thes e engine packages over time. There is a very clear increase in specific power of each engine package, as engines moved from carbureted engines, to two

- valve port fixed engines, to multi

valve port VVT engines, and finally to GDI engines. Some of the increa se for GDI engines may also be due to the fact that GDI engines are often paired with turbochargers to further increase power. Figure 5.5 also shows the reduction in fuel consumption per horsepower for each of the four engine packages.



# 56

# F igure 5.4

Producti on Share by Engine Technology

Car

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%Production Share



### 0%

25% 50% 75% 100%

Truck

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 6

5 11

7 3 10

1

4 8 11

6

5

7 3 1 11 11 9

2

8 10



## Model Year

Fuel Delivery Valve Timing Number of Valves Key Carbureted Fixed Two-Valve 1 Multi-Valve 2 Throttle Body Injection Fixed Two-Valve 3
Multi-Valve 4 Port Fuel Injection Fixed Two-Valve 5 Multi-Valve 6
Variable Two-Valve 7
Multi-Valve 8 Gasoline Direct Injection (GDI) Fixed Multi-Valve 9 Variable Multi-Valve 10
Diesel 11



# 57

# Figure 5. 5
Engine Metrics for Different Engine Technology Packages

0.8 1.2 1.6

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Specific Power (HP/Displacement)

Carb Technology Fixed and Two-Valve Technology Multi-Valve Variable and GDI



### Model Year

0.06Fuel Consumption/HP ((gal/100 mi)/HP)

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02 Technology Multi-Valve Variable and

GDI Technology Fixed and Two-Valve Carb

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



# 58

# C. N EW 

# P OWERTRAIN 

# S TRATEGIES 

# : T URBO 

# D OWNSIZING 

# , H YBRIDS 

# , AND 

# D IESELS

Two powertrain strategies that are relatively new to this report are turbo downsizing and hybridization. Vehicles that employ turbo downsizing use a smaller displacement engine with a turbocharger in place of a larger naturally aspirated engine. Hybrid vehicles feature larger batteries that provide a second source of on

- board power. Diesel engines, while certainly not new to the market or to this report, are also included in this section of the report due t o the
increased interest in diesel vehicles.

**Turbo**

**- downsizing** 

Many manufacturers have introduced engines that are considered “turbo downsized” engines. This group of engines generally has three common features: a smaller displacement than the engines they are replacing, turbochargers, and (often, but not always) GDI. Turbo downsized engines are an approach to engine design that provides increased fuel economy by using a smaller engine for most vehicle operation, while retaining the ability to provide more power via the turbocharger, when needed.

Turbocharged engines are projected to capture approximately 16 % of new vehicle production

in MY 201 4, with 10 of the 13 largest manufacturers (as discussed in Section 4) offering turbocharged engine packages. This i s a significant increase in market penetration over the last decade, and it is a trend that appears to be accelerating rapidly , as shown in Figure 5. 6. Prior
to the last few years, turbochargers (and superchargers) were available, but generally only on hig h performance, low volume vehicles. It is only in the last few years that turbochargers have been available as part of a downsized turbo vehicle package, many of which are now available in more mainstream vehicles. The sales of these vehicles are driving the increase in turbochargers across new vehicles. Both cars and trucks have rapidly added turbocharged engine packages, as shown in Figure 5.6. Projected 2014 data does show a drop in turbocharged trucks from 12.1% to 11.1%, however after a 6% market share increase the year before the trend still appears to be generally positive for turbocharged trucks.

Turbochargers are most frequently combined with 4

- cylinder engines. Excluding diesel engines, over 75% of turbocharged engines are combined with 4

- cylinder engines and about
18% are combined with 6

- cylinder engines. Nearly 60% of turbocharged engines are projected
to be installed in 4

- cylinder cars in MY 2014. The overall breakdown of turbocharger
distribution in the new vehicle fleet is shown in Table 5.1.

I n current engines, turbochargers are often being used in combination with GDI to allow for more efficient engine operation and to increase the resistance to engine knock (the use of variable valve timing also helps to reduce turbo lag). In MY 2014, 80% of new vehicles with gasoline turbocharged engines also use GDI.



# 59

# F igure 5.6

Market Share of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles

15%Production Share 10%

5%

0% Trucks Cars

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



# Table 5.1
Distribution of MY 2014 Turbocharged Engines (Excludes Diesel)

Category Turbo Share

Car

4- cylinder Car 64.7%

6- cylinder Car 5.0%

8

- cylinder Car 3.6%
Other Car 1.0%


### Truck

4

- cylinder Truck 13.1%

6- cylinder Truck 11.1%

8- cylinder Truck 1.5%



# 60

# Figure 5.7

Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and Horsepower, MY 2010

- 201 4

Horsepower Displacement (cubic inches)Production (000) 

### 1,000

750

500

250

0 1,000

750

500

250

0 1,000

750

500

250

0 1,000

750

500

250

0 1,000

750

500

250

020102011201220132014 Mean Displacement,

all trucks

Mean Displacement,

all trucks

Mean Displacement, all cars

Mean Displacement, all cars Mean Displacement, all cars Mean Displacement, all cars

Mean Displacement,

all trucks

Mean Displacement,

all trucks Mean HP, all trucks

Mean HP,

all cars Mean HP,

all cars

Mean HP,

all cars

Mean HP,

all cars Mean HP, all trucks

Mean HP, all trucks Mean HP, all trucks

Mean HP,

all cars Mean HP, all trucks Mean Displacement, all cars

Mean Displacement,

all trucks



### 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400



## Figure 5.7 examines the distribution of engine displacement and power of turbocharged engines for MY 2010 (top) to MY 2014 (bottom). Note that the production values for cars and trucks in each bar are additive, e.g., there are projected to be nearly 750,000 gasoline cars with turbochargers in the 200 -300 horsepower range in MY 2014, with another 250,000 gasoline trucks with turbochargers in the same horsepower range. In MY 2010, turbochargers were used mostly on cars, and were available on engines both abov e and below the average engine displacement. The biggest increase in turbocharger use over the last few years has been in cars with engine displacement well below average displacement. In addition, many more engines with turbochargers are at or below the new vehicle average horsepower, for both cars and Truck

Car



# 61

## trucks. This trend towards adding turbochargers to smaller, less powerful engines reinforces the conclusion that most turbochargers are currently being used for turbo downsizing, and not simply just to add power for performance vehicles.

**Hybrids**

Hybrid vehicles utilize larger battery packs, electric motor(s), and other components that increase vehicle fuel economy for several reasons including: 1) regenerative braking can capture energy that is otherwise lost in conventional friction braking to ch arge the battery, 2)
two sources of on

- board power can allow the engine to be operated at or near its peak efficiency more often, and 3) the engine can be shut off at idle. The introduction of the first hybrid into the U.S. marketplace occurred in MY 2000. Since then, hybrids have slowly increased market share and are projected to reach 4 .0 % of all new vehicles produced in MY 2014. Hybrid production has fluctuated from year to year, but the general trend has been increasing over time as shown in Figure 5.8. A large factor in the fluctuating hybrid production is the fact that hybrid sales are still largely dominated by one vehicle, the Toyota Prius. Production of the Toyota Prius, like many other vehicles produced in Japan, was impacted by the earthquake and tsunami that hit Japan in 2011, as well as by a shortened model year in MY 2009 due to the introduction of a redesigned vehicle.



# Figure 5. 8

Hybrid Production MY 20 00

- 201 4 (With 3

- Year Moving Average)

600,000

400,000Production

200,000

0 Car Hybrids

Truck Hybrids

2000 2005 2010 2015



## Model Year



# 62

## The first hybrid vehicle was introduced in the U.S. in MY 2000 as low production, specialty vehicle with very high fuel economy. Over time, more hybrids models were introduced into the market, and hybrids represented a broade r range of vehicle types. Hybrid powertrains are now frequently offered as options on many popular models and are nearly indistinguishable
from their non

- hybrid relatives. Most hybrids provide higher fuel economy than comparable vehicles, although some hyb rids have been offered as more performance

- oriented vehicles with more minor fuel economy improvements.

Figure 5.9 shows the production

- weighted distribution of fuel economy for all hybrid cars by year. Hybrid cars, on average, have fuel economy more tha n 50% higher than the average non

hybrid car in MY 2014. As a production weighted average, hybrid cars achieved 42 mpg for MY 2014, while the average non-hybrid car achieved about 27 mpg. From MY 2000 to MY 2014, the number of hybrid models available has i ncreased from 1 to nearly 40. The increasing spread between the highest and lowest fuel economy of available hybrid cars is a reflection of the widening availability of hybrid models. Figure 5.9 is presented for cars only since the production of hybrid tru cks has been limited.



# Figure 5.9

Hybrid Adjusted Fuel Economy Distribution by Year, Cars Only

60Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG) 

### 50

40

30

20

10

0 Average Non-Hybrid Car Lowest Hybrid Car Average Hybrid Car Highest Hybrid Car



### 2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



## While the average fuel economy of hybrid cars remains higher than the average fuel economy
of non

- hybrid cars, the difference appears to be narrowing. Average hybrid car fuel economy has been relatively stable since MY 2001, while the fuel economy of the average non

- hybrid car has increased 25%. Figure 5.10 further explores this trend by examining midsize cars. While generally this report has moved away from using vehicle sub

- classes such as midsize sedans, it is



# 63

## a well

- established and recognized category and about 65% of hybrid cars are in the midsize class. Comparing average midsize hybrids to average midsize non

- hybrid cars, gasoline only, is an apples

- to - apples comparison.



# Figure 5.10

Hybrid and Non

- Hybrid Fuel Ec onomy for Midsize Cars, MY 2000

- 2014

0 10 20 30 40 50

2000 2005 2010Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG)



### 2015 Average Non-Hybrid Midsize Car Average Hybrid Midsize Car



### Model Year



## Since MY 2004, the difference in fuel economy between the average hybrid midsize car and the average non

- hybrid midsize gasoline car has narrowed from about 24 mpg to 15 mpg. The primary reason for this trend is continued improvements to the internal combustion engine. Additionally, many technologies introduced or emphasized in early hybrids, such as improved aerodynamics, low rolling resistance tires, and increased use of lightweight materials, have also
become more common on non

- hybrid vehicl es. This lower fuel economy differential between midsize hybrid cars and midsize non

- hybrid cars may be one reason why hybrid sales have grown slowly in recent years.

One unique design aspect of hybrids is the ability to use regenerative braking to capture some of the energy lost by a vehicle during braking. The recaptured energy is stored in a battery and is then used to help propel the vehicle, generally during vehicle acceleration. This process results in significantly higher city fuel economy ratings fo r hybrid vehicles compared to non

hybrid vehicles, and in fact the city fuel economy of many hybrids is about equal to their highway fuel economy. Figure 5.11 shows the ratio of highway to city fuel economy for hybrid cars and trucks. Hybrid models have a ratio of highway to city fuel economy near 1.0 (meaning



# 64

## the city and highway fuel economy are nearly equivalent) which is much lower than the 1.4 ratio of highway to city fuel economy for non

- hybrid models. This is one aspect of operating a hybrid that is fundamentally different from a conventional vehicle and appears to be relatively steady over time.



# Figure 5.11
Highway/City Fuel Economy Ratio for Hybrids and Non

- Hybrids

0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4Adjusted Highway/Adjusted City Non-Hybrid Car

Non-Hybrid Truck

Hybrid Car

Hybrid Truck

2000 2005 2010 2015



### Model Year



## Th e relationship between hybrids and non

- hybrids is clearer if vehicles of the same footprint are compared directly . As shown in Figure 5.12 , the fuel consumption of vehicles increases as the footprint increases at about the same rate for both hybrid and non

- hybrid vehicles. Hybrids do achieve a higher percentage improvement in smaller vehicles, and achieve more than 30% lower fuel consumption, on average, for vehicles with a footprint of 45 square feet,
which is about the size of a standard midsize sedan. Th e percent improvement figure at the bottom of Figure 5.12 describes the fuel consumption improvement for hybrid vehicles as compared to conventional vehicles over the range of footprints for which both hybrid and

conven tional vehicles are available. It dep icts the percentage difference between the ‘best fit’ lines for hybrid vehicles and conventional vehicles shown in the upper part of Figure 5.12

.



# 65

# Figure 5.12

Percent Improvement in Adjusted Fuel Consumption for Hybrid Vehicles, MY 2013

10Fuel Consumption (gal/100 miles)Percent Improvement 8

6

4 Non-Hybrid V ehicles

Hybrid V ehicles

2

40 60 

## Footprint (sq ft) 80

50%

25%

0%

40 60 80 

## Footprint (sq ft)



# 66

## Diesels

While diesel engines are not a new technology, interest in diesel engines for light duty passenger applications has grown in recent years. Light duty diesel vehicles are projected to increase to about 1.5% of new vehicle production for MY 2014, the highest level since MY 1984. As with hybrid vehicles, diesels generally achieve higher fuel economy than non

- diesel vehicles. However, for diesel vehicles available in MY 2013, the percent improvement is more pronounced in vehicles with a smaller footprint than in vehicles with a larger footprint. This is partly explained due to the fact that MY 2013 larger footprint diesel offerings are limited to higher power offer ings from luxury manufacturers. The relationship between diesel vehicles and all new vehicles is shown in Figure 5.13.

While diesel engines generally achieve higher fuel economy than comparable gasoline vehicles, there is less of an advantage in terms of C O 2 

## emissions. Some of the fuel economy benefit of diesel engines is negated by the fact that diesel fuel contains about 15% more carbon per gallon, and thus emits more CO 2 

## per gallon burned than gasoline. Figure 5.14 shows the impact of diesel vehicles on CO 2 

## emissions by comparing the CO 2 

## emissions of MY 2013 diesel and gasoline vehicles by footprint.

**Other Technologies**

Table 5.2.1 presents comprehensive annual data for the historic MY 1975 -2014 database for all of the engine technologies and parameters d iscussed above and several additional technologies. This is the first year that this report has included engine stop/start technology (for non

- hybrid vehicles), and already stop/start technology is projected to be included on more than 4% of

new non - hybrid vehicle production in MY 2014 (note that total use of stop/start is nearly 9% of the market since hybrids typically utilize stop/start as well). Cylinder deactivation, another technology not discussed above, has also grown to capture a projected 11.7% of production in MY 2014. Tables 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 provide the same data for cars only and trucks only, respectively. This data, and additional data, is further broken down in Appendices E through I.



# 67

# Figure 5.13

Percent Improvement in Adjusted Fuel Consumption for Diesel Vehicles, MY 2013

10.0Percent ImprovementFuel Consumption (gal/100 mile)



### 7.5

5.0 Non-Diesel Vehicles



### 2.5 Diesel Vehicles



### 40 60


## Footprint (sq ft) 80

0% 25% 50%

40 

## Footprint (sq ft) 60 80



# 68

# Figure 5.14

Percent Improvement in CO 2 

## Emissions for Diesel Vehicles, MY 2013

800Percent ImprovementCO2Emissions (g/mile)

600

200 400 Non-Diesel V ehicles

Diesel V ehicles

40


## Footprint (sq ft) 60 80

50%

0% 25%

40 

## Footprint (sq ft) 60 80



# 69

# Table 5.2.1

Engine Technologies and Parameters, Both Cars and Trucks

Model
Year Powertrain Fuel Delivery Method Avg. No. of Cylinders CID HP Multi

Valve VVT CD Turbo Non

Hybrid Stop/

Start Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid Diesel Carbureted GDI Port TBI Diesel

1975 99.8%

- 0.2% 95.7%

- 4.1% 0.0% 0.2% 6.82 293 137

- - - - - 1976 99.8%

- 0.2% 97.3%

- 2.5% 0.0% 0.2% 6.87 294 135

- - - - - 1977 99.6%

- 0.4% 96.2%

- 3.4% 0.0% 0.4% 6.94 287 136

- - - - - 1978 99.1%

- 0.9% 95.2%

- 3.9% 0.0% 0.9% 6.69 266 129

- - - - - 1979 98.0%

- 2.0% 94.2%

- 3.7% 0.1% 2.0% 6.53 252 124

- - - - - 1980 95.7%

- 4.3% 89.7%

- 5.2% 0.8% 4.3% 5.59 198 104

- - - - - 1981 94.1%

- 5.9% 86.7%

- 5.1% 2.4% 5.9% 5.50 193 102

- - - - - 1982 94.4%

- 5.6% 80.6%

- 5.8% 8.0% 5.6% 5.43 188 103

- - - - - 1983 97.3%

- 2.7% 75.2%

- 7.3% 14.8% 2.7% 5.54 193 107

- - - - - 1984 98.2%

- 1.8% 67.6%

- 11.9% 18.7% 1.8% 5.49 190 109

- - - - - 1985 99.1%

- 0.9% 56.1%

- 18.2% 24.8% 0.9% 5.46 189 114

- - - - - 1986 99.6%

- 0.4% 41.4%

- 32.5% 25.7% 0.4% 5.26 180 114 3.4%

- - - - 1987 99.7%

- 0.3% 28.4%

- 39.9% 31.4% 0.3% 5.17 175 118 10.6%

- - - - 1988 99.9%

- 0.1% 15.0%

- 50.6% 34.3% 0.1% 5.31 180 123 14.0%

- - - - 1989 99.9%

- 0.1% 8.7%

- 57.3% 33.9% 0.1% 5.36 185 129 16.9%

- - - - 1990 99.9%

- 0.1% 2.1%

- 70.8% 27.0% 0.1% 5.39 185 135 23.1%

- - - - 1991 99.9%

- 0.1% 0.6%

- 70.6% 28.7% 0.1% 5.32 184 138 23.1%

- - - - 1992 99.9%

- 0.1% 0.5%

- 81.6% 17.8% 0.1% 5.50 191 145 23.3%

- - - - 1993 100.0%

- - 0.3%

- 85.0% 14.6%

- 5.50 191 147 23.5%

- - - - 1994 100.0%

- 0.0% 0.1%

- 87.7% 12.1% 0.0% 5.58 197 152 26.7%

- - - - 1995 100.0%

- 0.0%

- - 91.6% 8.4% 0.0% 5.59 196 158 35.6%

- - - - 1996 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 99.3% 0.7% 0.1% 5.59 197 164 39.3%

- - 0.2%

- 1997 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 99.5% 0.5% 0.1% 5.65 199 169 39.6%

- - 0.4%

- 1998 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 99.8% 0.1% 0.1% 5.63 199 171 40.9%

- - 0.8%

- 1999 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 99.9% 0.1% 0.1% 5.75 203 179 43.4%

- - 1.4%

- 2000 99.8% 0.0% 0.1%

- - 99.8% 0.0% 0.1% 5.74 200 181 44.8% 15.0%

- 1.3%

- 2001 99.7% 0.1% 0.1%

- - 99.9%

- 0.1% 5.76 201 187 49.0% 19.6%

- 2.0%

- 2002 99.6% 0.2% 0.2%

- - 99.8%

- 0.2% 5.77 203 195 53.3% 25.3%

- 2.2%

- 2003 99.5% 0.3% 0.2%

- - 99.8%

- 0.2% 5.79 204 199 55.5% 30.6%

- 1.2%

- 2004 99.4% 0.5% 0.1%

- - 99.9%

- 0.1% 5.90 212 211 62.3% 38.5%

- 2.3%

- 2005 98.6% 1.1% 0.3%

- - 99.7%

- 0.3% 5.75 205 209 65.6% 45.8% 0.8% 1.7%

- 2006 98.1% 1.5% 0.4%

- - 99.6%

- 0.4% 5.73 204 213 71.7% 55.4% 3.6% 2.1%

- 2007 97.7% 2.2% 0.1%

- - 99.8%

- 0.1% 5.64 203 217 71.7% 57.3% 7.3% 2.5%

- 2008 97.4% 2.5% 0.1%

- 2.3% 97.6%

- 0.1% 5.56 199 219 76.4% 58.2% 6.7% 3.0%

- 2009 97.2% 2.3% 0.5%

- 4.2% 95.2%

- 0.5% 5.21 183 208 83.8% 71.5% 7.3% 3.3%

- 2010 95.6% 3.8% 0.7%

- 8.3% 91.0%

- 0.7% 5.27 188 214 85.5% 83.8% 6.4% 3.3%

- 2011 97.1% 2.2% 0.8%

- 15.4% 83.8%

- 0.8% 5.35 192 230 86.4% 93.1% 9.5% 6.8%

- 2012 96.0% 3.1% 0.9%

- 22.7% 76.4%

- 0.9% 5.12 180 222 91.9% 96.7% 8.1% 8.4% 0.6%

2013 95.6% 3.5% 0.9%

- 30.4% 68.7%

- 0.9% 5.08 177 227 93.0% 97.6% 7.9% 14.1% 2.3%

2014 94.5% 4.0% 1.5%

- 37.9% 60.6%

- 1.5% 5.17 182 233 93.7% 97.5% 11.7% 15.7% 4.6%



# 70

# Table 5.2.2

Engine Technologies and Parameters, Cars Only

Model
Year Powertrain Fuel Delivery Method Avg. No. of Cylinders CID HP Multi

Valve VVT CD Turbo Non

Hybrid Stop/

Start Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid Diesel Carbureted GDI Port TBI Diesel

1975 99.8%

- 0.2% 94.6%

- 5.1%

- 0.2% 6.71 288 136

- - - - - 1976 99.7%

- 0.3% 96.6%

- 3.2%

- 0.3% 6.75 287 134

- - - - - 1977 99.5%

- 0.5% 95.3%

- 4.2%

- 0.5% 6.85 279 133

- - - - - 1978 99.1%

- 0.9% 94.0%

- 5.1%

- 0.9% 6.52 251 124

- - - - - 1979 97.9%

- 2.1% 93.2%

- 4.7%

- 2.1% 6.38 238 119

- - - - - 1980 95.6%

- 4.4% 88.7%

- 6.2% 0.7% 4.4% 5.48 188 100

- - - - - 1981 94.1%

- 5.9% 85.3%

- 6.1% 2.6% 5.9% 5.36 182 99

- - - - - 1982 95.3%

- 4.7% 78.4%

- 7.2% 9.8% 4.7% 5.23 175 99

- - - - - 1983 97.9%

- 2.1% 69.7%

- 9.4% 18.8% 2.1% 5.39 182 104

- - - - - 1984 98.3%

- 1.7% 59.1%

- 14.9% 24.3% 1.7% 5.34 179 106

- - - - - 1985 99.1%

- 0.9% 46.0%

- 21.3% 31.8% 0.9% 5.29 177 111

- - - - - 1986 99.7%

- 0.3% 34.4%

- 36.5% 28.7% 0.3% 5.09 167 111 4.7%

- - - - 1987 99.8%

- 0.2% 26.5%

- 42.4% 30.8% 0.2% 4.98 162 113 14.6%

- - - - 1988 100.0%

- 0.0% 16.1%

- 53.7% 30.2% 0.0% 5.02 161 116 19.7%

- - - - 1989 100.0%

- 0.0% 9.6%

- 62.2% 28.1% 0.0% 5.07 163 121 24.1%

- - - - 1990 100.0%

- 0.0% 1.4%

- 77.4% 21.2% 0.0% 5.05 163 129 32.8% 0.6%

- - - 1991 99.9%

- 0.1% 0.1%

- 77.2% 22.6% 0.1% 5.05 164 133 33.2% 2.4%

- - - 1992 99.9%

- 0.1% 0.0%

- 88.9% 11.0% 0.1% 5.23 171 141 34.0% 4.4%

- - - 1993 100.0%

- - 0.0%

- 91.5% 8.5%

- 5.19 170 140 34.8% 4.5%

- - - 1994 100.0%

- 0.0%

- - 94.8% 5.2% 0.0% 5.20 169 144 39.9% 7.7%

- - - 1995 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 98.6% 1.3% 0.1% 5.23 168 153 51.4% 9.6%

- - - 1996 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 98.8% 1.1% 0.1% 5.18 167 155 56.4% 11.3%

- 0.3%

- 1997 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 99.2% 0.8% 0.1% 5.10 165 156 58.4% 10.8%

- 0.7%

- 1998 99.8%

- 0.2%

- - 99.7% 0.1% 0.2% 5.15 167 160 59.6% 17.4%

- 1.4%

- 1999 99.8%

- 0.2%

- - 99.8% 0.1% 0.2% 5.21 168 164 63.2% 16.4%

- 2.5%

- 2000 99.7% 0.1% 0.2%

- - 99.7% 0.1% 0.2% 5.22 168 168 63.2% 22.2%

- 2.2%

- 2001 99.5% 0.2% 0.2%

- - 99.8%

- 0.2% 5.19 167 169 65.3% 26.9%

- 3.3%

- 2002 99.3% 0.3% 0.4%

- - 99.6%

- 0.4% 5.12 167 173 69.9% 32.8%

- 3.9%

- 2003 99.1% 0.6% 0.3%

- - 99.7%

- 0.3% 5.13 166 176 73.4% 39.8%

- 2.0%

- 2004 98.9% 0.9% 0.3%

- - 99.7%

- 0.3% 5.16 170 184 77.1% 43.7%

- 3.6%

- 2005 97.6% 1.9% 0.4%

- - 99.6%

- 0.4% 5.08 168 183 77.2% 49.4% 1.0% 2.4%

- 2006 97.9% 1.5% 0.6%

- - 99.4%

- 0.6% 5.17 173 194 81.3% 58.2% 2.0% 3.2%

- 2007 96.7% 3.2% 0.0%

- - 99.7%

- 0.0% 5.00 167 191 84.6% 63.3% 0.9% 3.6%

- 2008 96.7% 3.3% 0.1%

- 3.1% 96.9%

- 0.1% 4.97 166 194 88.0% 62.7% 2.0% 4.5%

- 2009 96.4% 2.9% 0.6%

- 4.2% 95.2%

- 0.6% 4.70 157 186 92.2% 79.1% 1.8% 4.0%

- 2010 93.6% 5.5% 0.9%

- 9.2% 89.9%

- 0.9% 4.70 158 190 93.8% 91.8% 2.1% 4.1%

- 2011 95.6% 3.4% 0.9%

- 18.4% 80.7%

- 0.9% 4.74 161 200 94.6% 94.9% 1.3% 8.2%

- 2012 94.4% 4.6% 1.0%

- 27.8% 71.2%

- 1.0% 4.54 151 192 98.2% 97.7% 1.7% 9.7% 0.9%

2013 93.5% 5.3% 1.2%

- 37.3% 61.5%

- 1.2% 4.51 148 198 98.4% 98.1% 1.9% 15.3% 3.0%

2014 92.6% 6.0% 1.5%

- 42.5% 56.0%

- 1.5% 4.55 150 201 98.0% 97.6% 3.1% 18.7% 6.2%



# 71

# Table 5.2.3

Engine Technologies and Parameters, Trucks Only

Model
Year Powertrain Fuel Delivery Method Avg. No. of Cylinders CID HP Multi

Valve VVT CD Turbo Non

Hybrid Stop/

Start Gasoline Gasoline Hybrid Diesel Carbureted GDI Port TBI Diesel

1975 100.0%

- - 99.9%

- - 0.1%

- 7.28 311 142

- - - - - 1976 100.0%

- - 99.9%

- - 0.1%

- 7.31 320 141

- - - - - 1977 100.0%

- - 99.9%

- - 0.1%

- 7.28 318 147

- - - - - 1978 99.2%

- 0.8% 99.1%

- - 0.1% 0.8% 7.25 315 146

- - - - - 1979 98.2%

- 1.8% 97.9%

- - 0.3% 1.8% 7.05 299 138

- - - - - 1980 96.5%

- 3.5% 94.9%

- - 1.7% 3.5% 6.15 248 121

- - - - - 1981 94.4%

- 5.6% 93.3%

- - 1.1% 5.6% 6.15 247 119

- - - - - 1982 90.6%

- 9.4% 89.9%

- - 0.7% 9.4% 6.26 244 120

- - - - - 1983 95.2%

- 4.8% 94.6%

- - 0.6% 4.8% 6.07 232 118

- - - - - 1984 97.6%

- 2.4% 95.0%

- 2.0% 0.6% 2.4% 5.99 225 118

- - - - - 1985 98.9%

- 1.1% 86.5%

- 8.9% 3.5% 1.1% 5.97 225 124

- - - - - 1986 99.3%

- 0.7% 59.4%

- 22.1% 17.8% 0.7% 5.71 212 123

- - - - - 1987 99.7%

- 0.3% 33.6%

- 33.3% 32.8% 0.3% 5.69 211 131

- - - - - 1988 99.8%

- 0.2% 12.4%

- 43.2% 44.3% 0.2% 6.00 228 141

- - - - - 1989 99.8%

- 0.2% 6.5%

- 45.9% 47.5% 0.2% 6.04 234 146

- - - - - 1990 99.8%

- 0.2% 3.8%

- 55.0% 40.9% 0.2% 6.17 237 151

- - - - - 1991 99.9%

- 0.1% 1.7%

- 55.3% 42.8% 0.1% 5.95 229 150

- - - - - 1992 99.9%

- 0.1% 1.6%

- 65.7% 32.6% 0.1% 6.09 236 155

- - - - - 1993 100.0%

- - 1.0%

- 71.5% 27.5%

- 6.13 235 160

- - - - - 1994 100.0%

- - 0.4%

- 76.2% 23.4%

- 6.19 241 166 5.2%

- - - - 1995 100.0%

- - - - 79.4% 20.6%

- 6.22 245 168 8.0%

- - - - 1996 99.9%

- 0.1%

- - 99.9%

- 0.1% 6.25 245 179 11.2%

- - - - 1997 100.0%

- 0.0%

- - 100.0%

- 0.0% 6.47 251 189 11.1%

- - - - 1998 100.0%

- 0.0%

- - 100.0%

- 0.0% 6.30 244 188 14.8%

- - - - 1999 100.0%

- 0.0%

- - 100.0%

- 0.0% 6.50 252 199 15.7%

- - - - 2000 100.0%

- - - - 100.0%

- - 6.48 245 199 18.6% 4.6%

- - - 2001 100.0%

- - - - 100.0%

- - 6.58 249 212 25.9% 9.3%

- - - 2002 100.0%

- - - - 100.0%

- - 6.57 249 223 32.8% 16.0%

- - - 2003 100.0%

- - - - 100.0%

- - 6.56 248 224 34.6% 19.7%

- 0.2%

- 2004 100.0% 0.0% 0.0%

- - 100.0%

- 0.0% 6.70 258 240 46.2% 32.9%

- 0.8%

- 2005 99.8% 0.1% 0.1%

- - 99.9%

- 0.1% 6.58 251 242 51.1% 41.2% 0.5% 0.7%

- 2006 98.4% 1.5% 0.1%

- - 99.9%

- 0.1% 6.50 247 240 58.4% 51.5% 5.9% 0.6%

- 2007 99.1% 0.8% 0.1%

- - 99.9%

- 0.1% 6.57 253 254 53.3% 48.7% 16.4% 1.0%

- 2008 98.5% 1.3% 0.2%

- 1.1% 98.7%

- 0.2% 6.42 246 254 59.5% 51.6% 13.5% 1.0%

- 2009 98.8% 0.9% 0.3%

- 4.2% 95.4%

- 0.3% 6.23 236 252 66.7% 56.0% 18.3% 1.7%

- 2010 98.8% 0.9% 0.4%

- 6.8% 92.9%

- 0.4% 6.22 237 253 71.5% 70.5% 13.8% 1.8%

- 2011 99.1% 0.4% 0.5%

- 11.3% 88.1%

- 0.5% 6.18 236 271 75.2% 90.7% 20.6% 4.9%

- 2012 98.9% 0.4% 0.7%

- 13.5% 85.8%

- 0.7% 6.16 234 276 80.6% 94.9% 19.6% 6.1% 0.2%

2013 99.1% 0.4% 0.5%

- 18.6% 80.9%

- 0.5% 6.05 227 277 83.6% 96.9% 18.0% 11.9% 1.1%

2014 97.5% 0.8% 1.6%

- 30.5% 67.8%

- 1.6% 6.15 233 282 86.9% 97.2% 25.4% 11.1% 2.1%



# 72

# D. T RENDS IN 

# T RANSMISSION 

# T YPES

Transmission technologies have been rapidly evolving in new light duty vehicles. New transmission technologies have been gaining market share, and nearly all t ransmission types have been increasing the number of gears. Dual clutch transmission (DCTs), continuously variable transmissions (CVTs), and automatic transmissions with greater numbers of gears are increasing production shares across the fleet.

Figure 5.1 5 shows the evolution of transmission production share for cars and trucks since MY 1980. For this analysis, transmissions are separated into manual transmissions, CVTs, and automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are further separated into those with and without lockup mechanisms, which can lock up the torque converter in an automatic transmission under certain driving conditions and improve efficiency.

Dual clutch transmissions are relatively new to the light duty vehicle market. DCTs are

essent ially automatic transmissions that operate internally much more like traditional manual transmissions. The two main advantages of DCTs are that they can shift very quickly and they
can avoid some of the internal resistance of a traditional automatic transm ission by eliminating the torque converter. Currently, automaker submissions to EPA do not explicitly identify DCTs as a separate transmission category. Thus, the introduction of DCTs shows up in Tables 5.3.1 through 5.3.3 as a slight increase in automatic transmissions without torque converters (although some DCTs may still be reported as traditional automatic transmissions). EPA’s long

- term goal is to improve DCT data collection, and transmission classifications in general, and to be able to quantify DCTs in future Trends reports.

Figure 5.15 shows transmission production share for the individual car and truck fleets, and begins with MY 1980 because EPA has incomplete data on the number of transmission gears for MY 1975 through 1978. In the early 1980 s, 3 speed automatic transmissions, both with and without lockup torque converters (shown as L3 and A3 in Figure 5.15) were the most popular transmissions, but by MY 1985, the 4 speed automatic transmission with lockup (L4) became the most popular transmis sion, a position it would hold for 25 years. Over 80% of all new vehicles produced in MY 1999 were equipped with an L4 transmission. After MY 1999, the production share of L4 transmissions slowly decreased as L5 and L6 transmissions were
introduced into t he market. Production of L5 and L6 transmissions combined passed the production of L4 transmissions in MY 2007). Interestingly, 5 speed transmissions were never the leading transmission technology in terms of production share. Currently, L6 transmissions are projected to be installed in over 60% of new vehicles produced in MY 2014, and the percentage of vehicles with L6 transmissions is still trending upwards.



# 73

# Figure 5.15

Transmission Production ShareProduction Share 

### 100%

75%

50%

25%

0% A3 CVT L3 L4 L5 L6 M4 M5

A4

A6 Other

L8 L7 M6



### Car

100%

75%

50%

A3 CVT L3 L5 L6

M4 M5

A4

A6 M3 L7

L4 L8 M6



### Truck

25%

0%

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015



## Model Year

Transmission Lockup? Number of Gears Key

Continuously Variable Automatic Semi-Automatic Automated Manual No 3 A3
4 A4 5 A5 6 A6

Yes 2 L2 3 L3 4 L 4 5 L5 6 L6 7 L 7 8 L8 CVT Manual 3 M3 M4 4 M5 5 M6 6 Other Other



# 74

## Continuously variable transmissions have shown a large increase in production. In MY 2013, 14.8% of new vehicles were produced with CVTs, and production is expected to reach 19.3% in MY 2014. This is a significant increase considering that, as recently as MY 2006, CVTs were installed on less than 3% of vehicles produced. Automatic transmissions with 7 or more speeds have also been increasing, and are expected to be over 11% of production for MY 2014. Manufacturers are publicly discussing the development of transmissions with as many as 10 or more gears, so this is a trend that the authors also expect to continue.

Figure 5.16 shows the average number of gears in new vehicle transmissions since MY 1980 for automatic and manual transmissions. During that ti me, the average number of gears in a new vehicle has grown from 3.5 to a projected level of 6.1 in MY 2014. The average number of gears in new vehicles is climbing for car, trucks, automatic transmissions, and manual

transmissions.


# Figure 5.16

Average N umber of Transmission Gears for New Vehicles (excluding CVTs)

Car TruckAverage Number of Gears

4 5 6

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 3

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 

### Manual

Automatic Automatic Manual



## Model Year



## In MY 1980, automatic transmissions, on average, had fewer gears than manual transmissions. However, automatic transmissions have added gears faster than manual transmissions and now the average automatic transmission has more gears than the average manual transmission. There has also been a large shift away from manual transmissions. Manual transmission production peaked in MY 1980 at nearly 35% of production, and has since fallen to 3.5% in MY 2013. Today, m anual transmissions are used primarily in small vehic les, some sports cars, and a few pickups.

Generally, automatic transmissions have been less e fficient than manual transmissions, largely


# 75

## due to inefficiencies in the automatic transmission torque converter. Figure 5.17 examines this trend over time by comparing the fuel economy of automatic and manual transmission options where both transmissions were available in one model with the same engine. The average fuel economy of vehicles with automatic transmissions appears to have increased to a point where it is now approximately the same as the average fuel economy of vehicles with
manual transmission s. Two contributing factors to this trend are that automatic transmission design has become more efficient (using earlier lockup and other strategies), and the number of gears used in automatic transmissions has increased much quicker than in manual

transm ission s.


# Figure 5.17

Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Adjusted Fuel Economy

16 18 20 22 24 26 28

1980 1990 2000 2010Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG)

2015 2005 1995 1985 Manual

Automatic



### Model Year



# 76

# E. T RENDS IN 

# D RIVE 

# T YPES

There has been a long and steady trend in new vehicle drive type away from rear wheel drive vehicles towards front wheel drive and four wheel drive vehicles, as shown in Figure 5.18. In MY 1975, over 91% of new vehicles were produced with rear wheel drive. During the 1980s, production of rear wheel dr ive vehicles fell rapidly, to 26% in MY 1990. Since then, production of rear wheel drive vehicles has continued to decline, albeit at a slower rate, to a projected 13% for MY 2014. Current production of rear wheel drive vehicles is mostly limited to pickup trucks and some performance vehicles.

As production of rear wheel drive vehicles declined, production of front wheel drive vehicles increased. Front wheel drive vehicle production was only 5.3% of new vehicle production in MY 1975, but it became the most popular drive technology across new vehicles in MY 1985, and has remained so since. Since MY 1986, production of front wheel drive vehicles has remained, on average, at approximately 55% of production.

Four wheel drive vehicles (including all wheel drive), have slowly but steadily grown across new vehicle production. From 3.3% in MY 1975 to a projected 31% in MY 2014, four wheel drive production has steadily grown at approximately 0.6% per year, on average. The majority of four wheel drive vehicles are pick up trucks and truck SUVs, but there is also a small but slowly growing number of cars featuring four wheel drive (or more likely) all

- wheel drive systems.



# 771990 100% 

### Drive

75% F our Wheel Drive

50% Front Wheel Drive

25% Rear Wheel Drive

0%197519751980198019851985

Minivan/Van Truck SUV199019752000

Pickup

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%19951980200519901995200020051985201020102015201519952000197519751980198020051985198520102015199019901995199520002005200520102010201520152000 

# F

igure 5.18

Front, Rear, and Four Wheel Drive Usage

- Production Share by Vehicle Type

Car Car SUV

100%

75%

50%

25%

0%



## There are noticeable differences in fuel economy between vehicles with different drive types. Figure 5.19 shows the fuel consumption of MY 2013 vehicles separated by dri ve type and footprint. Rear wheel drive vehicles and four wheel drive vehicles have on average the same fuel consumption for equivalent footprint vehicles. Front wheel drive vehicles have much lower fuel consumption than rear wheel drive or four wheel driv e vehicles of the same footprint. For 45 square foot vehicles, front wheel drive vehicles have fuel consumption about 22% lower. There are certainly other factors involved (the rear wheel drive vehicles are likely more performance oriented, for example), but this is a noticeable trend across new vehicle production . The points in Figure 5.19 are generated for each combination of adjusted fuel consumption and footprint.



# 78

## Tables 5.3.1, 5.3.2, and 5.3.3 summarize transmission and drive technology production dat a by year for the combined car and truck fleet, cars only, and trucks only, respectively.



# Figure 5.19
Differences in Adjusted Fuel Consumption Trends for FWD, RWD, and 4WD/AWD Vehicles, MY 2013

10.0

7.5



### CarFuel Consumption (gal/100 miles) 

### 5.0

2.5 Four-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive

Front-Wheel Drive


### 10.0 Rear-Wheel Drive



### 7.5



### Truck

5.0

2.5

20 40 60 80 

### Footprint



# 79

# Table 5.3.1

Transmission and Drive Technologies, Both Cars and Trucks

Model
Year Manual Automatic with Lockup Automatic without Lockup CVT 4 Gears

or Fewer 5
Gears 6
Gears 7
Gears 8
Gears 9
Gears

or More CVT Average Number of Gears Front Wheel
Drive Rear Wheel
Drive Four Wheel
Drive

1975 23.0% 0.2% 76.8%

- 99.0% 1.0%

- - - - - - 5.3% 91.4% 3.3%

1976 20.9%

- 79.1%

- 100.0%

- - - - - - - 4.6% 90.6% 4.8%

1977 19.8%

- 80.2%

- 100.0%

- - - - - - - 5.5% 89.8% 4.7%

1978 22.7% 5.5% 71.9%

- 92.7% 7.3%

- - - - - - 7.4% 86.0% 6.6%

1979 24.2% 7.3% 68.1%

- 93.8% 6.2%

- - - - - 3.3 9.2% 86.5% 4.3%

1980 34.6% 18.1% 46.8%

- 87.9% 12.1%

- - - - - 3.5 25.0% 70.1% 4.9%

1981 33.6% 33.0% 32.9%

- 85.6% 14.4%

- - - - - 3.5 31.0% 65.0% 4.0%

1982 32.4% 47.8% 19.4%

- 84.4% 15.6%

- - - - - 3.6 37.0% 58.4% 4.6%

1983 30.5% 52.1% 17.0%

- 80.9% 19.1%

- - - - - 3.7 37.0% 54.8% 8.1%

1984 28.4% 52.8% 18.8%

- 81.3% 18.7%

- - - - - 3.7 42.1% 49.8% 8.2%

1985 26.5% 54.5% 19.1%

- 80.7% 19.3%

- - - - - 3.8 47.8% 42.9% 9.3%

1986 29.8% 53.5% 16.7%

- 76.8% 23.2%

- - - - - 3.8 52.6% 38.0% 9.3%

1987 29.1% 55.4% 15.5%

- 76.2% 23.8%

- - - - - 3.9 57.7% 32.8% 9.6%

1988 27.6% 62.2% 10.2%

- 76.8% 23.2%

- - - - - 3.9 60.0% 29.5% 10.5%

1989 24.6% 65.5% 9.9% 0.1% 78.5% 21.4% 0.0%

- - - 0.1% 3.9 60.2% 29.3% 10.5%

1990 22.2% 71.2% 6.5% 0.0% 79.9% 20.0% 0.1%

- - - 0.0% 4.0 63.8% 26.1% 10.1%

1991 23.9% 71.6% 4.5% 0.0% 77.3% 22.6% 0.0%

- - - 0.0% 4.0 59.6% 28.1% 12.3%

1992 20.7% 74.8% 4.5% 0.0% 80.8% 19.2% 0.1%

- - - 0.0% 4.0 58.4% 30.4% 11.2%

1993 19.8% 76.5% 3.7% 0.0% 80.9% 19.0% 0.1%

- - - 0.0% 4.0 59.9% 28.8% 11.3%

1994 19.5% 77.6% 3.0%

- 80.8% 19.0% 0.2%

- - - - 4.1 55.6% 29.2% 15.2%

1995 17.9% 80.7% 1.4%

- 82.0% 17.7% 0.2%

- - - - 4.1 57.6% 26.3% 16.2%

1996 15.2% 83.5% 1.3% 0.0% 84.7% 15.1% 0.2%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 60.0% 24.3% 15.7%

1997 14.0% 85.5% 0.5% 0.0% 82.4% 17.3% 0.2%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 56.1% 24.9% 19.0%

1998 12.8% 86.7% 0.5% 0.0% 82.1% 17.7% 0.2%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 56.4% 23.5% 20.1%

1999 10.1% 89.4% 0.5% 0.0% 84.4% 15.3% 0.3%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 55.8% 22.9% 21.3%

2000 9.7% 89.5% 0.7% 0.0% 83.7% 15.8% 0.5%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 55.5% 24.3% 20.2%

2001 9.0% 90.3% 0.6% 0.1% 80.7% 18.5% 0.7%

- - - 0.1% 4.2 53.8% 24.2% 22.0%

2002 8.2% 91.4% 0.3% 0.2% 77.1% 21.6% 1.1%

- - - 0.2% 4.2 52.7% 22.3% 25.0%

2003 8.0% 90.8% 0.1% 1.1% 69.2% 28.1% 1.7%

- - - 1.1% 4.3 50.7% 24.3% 25.0%

2004 6.8% 91.8% 0.3% 1.2% 63.9% 31.8% 3.0% 0.2%

- - 1.2% 4.4 47.7% 22.4% 29.8%

2005 6.2% 91.5% 0.1% 2.3% 56.0% 37.3% 4.1% 0.2%

- - 2.3% 4.5 53.0% 20.2% 26.8%

2006 6.5% 90.6% 0.0% 2.8% 47.7% 39.2% 8.8% 1.4%

- - 2.8% 4.6 51.9% 22.3% 25.8%

2007 5.6% 87.1% 0.0% 7.2% 40.5% 36.1% 14.4% 1.5% 0.2%

- 7.2% 4.8 54.3% 19.6% 26.1%

2008 5.2% 86.8% 0.2% 7.9% 38.8% 31.9% 19.4% 1.8% 0.2%

- 7.9% 4.8 54.2% 18.5% 27.3%

2009 4.8% 85.5% 0.2% 9.4% 31.3% 32.2% 24.5% 2.5% 0.1%

- 9.4% 5.0 62.9% 13.6% 23.5%

2010 3.8% 84.1% 1.2% 10.9% 24.6% 23.5% 38.1% 2.7% 0.2%

- 10.9 5.2 59.5% 13.8% 26.7%

2011 3.2% 86.6% 0.3% 10.0% 14.2% 18.7% 52.4% 3.1% 1.7%

- 10.0 5.6 53.8% 13.8% 32.4%

2012 3.6% 83.7% 1.1% 11.6% 8.0% 18.2% 56.7% 2.8% 2.6%

- 11.6 5.7 61.4% 10.9% 27.7%

2013 3.5% 80.7% 1.2% 14.7% 5.2% 13.1% 60.0% 2.9% 4.1%

- 14.7 5.9 59.1% 11.3% 29.6%

2014 3.7% 75.9% 1.1% 19.3% 1.3% 7.2% 61.0% 3.4% 6.7% 1.1% 19.3 6.1 56.0% 12.8% 31.2%



# 80

# Table 5.3.2

Transmission and Drive Technologies, Cars Only

Model
Year Manual Automatic with Lockup Automatic without Lockup CVT 4 Gears

or Fewer 5
Gears 6
Gears 7
Gears 8
Gears 9
Gears

or More CVT Average Number of Gears Front Wheel
Drive Rear Wheel
Drive Four Wheel
Drive

1975 19.7% 0.3% 80.0%

- 98.7% 1.3%

- - - - - - 6.5% 93.5%

-
1976 17.2%

- 82.8%

- 100.0%

- - - - - - - 5.8% 94.2%

-
1977 16.9%

- 83.1%

- 100.0%

- - - - - - - 6.8% 93.2%

-
1978 19.9% 7.1% 73.0%

- 90.7% 9.3%

- - - - - - 9.6% 90.4%

-
1979 21.1% 8.8% 69.6%

- 93.1% 6.9%

- - - - - 3.3 11.9% 87.8% 0.3%

1980 30.9% 16.8% 51.6%

- 87.6% 12.4%

- - - - - 3.5 29.7% 69.4% 0.9%

1981 29.9% 33.3% 36.2%

- 85.5% 14.5%

- - - - - 3.5 37.0% 62.2% 0.7%

1982 29.2% 51.3% 19.1%

- 84.6% 15.4%

- - - - - 3.6 45.6% 53.6% 0.8%

1983 26.0% 56.7% 16.8%

- 80.8% 19.2%

- - - - - 3.7 47.1% 49.9% 3.1%

1984 24.1% 58.3% 17.5%

- 82.1% 17.9%

- - - - - 3.7 53.5% 45.5% 1.0%

1985 22.8% 58.9% 18.4%

- 81.4% 18.6%

- - - - - 3.7 61.1% 36.8% 2.1%

1986 24.7% 58.1% 17.1%

- 79.7% 20.3%

- - - - - 3.8 70.7% 28.2% 1.0%

1987 24.8% 59.7% 15.5%

- 78.4% 21.6%

- - - - - 3.8 76.4% 22.6% 1.1%

1988 24.3% 66.2% 9.5%

- 80.2% 19.8%

- - - - - 3.8 80.9% 18.3% 0.8%

1989 21.1% 69.3% 9.5% 0.1% 81.9% 17.9% 0.0%

- - - 0.1% 3.9 81.6% 17.4% 1.0%

1990 19.8% 72.8% 7.4% 0.0% 82.4% 17.5% 0.1%

- - - 0.0% 3.9 84.0% 15.0% 1.0%

1991 20.6% 73.7% 5.7% 0.0% 81.0% 18.9% 0.1%

- - - 0.0% 3.9 81.1% 17.5% 1.3%

1992 17.6% 76.4% 6.0% 0.0% 83.6% 16.3% 0.1%

- - - 0.0% 3.9 78.4% 20.5% 1.1%

1993 17.5% 77.6% 4.9% 0.0% 83.2% 16.6% 0.2%

- - - 0.0% 4.0 80.6% 18.3% 1.1%

1994 16.9% 78.9% 4.1%

- 83.4% 16.3% 0.3%

- - - - 4.0 81.3% 18.3% 0.4%

1995 16.3% 81.9% 1.8%

- 83.4% 16.2% 0.4%

- - - - 4.1 80.1% 18.8% 1.1%

1996 14.9% 83.6% 1.5% 0.0% 84.9% 14.7% 0.3%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 83.7% 14.8% 1.4%

1997 13.9% 85.2% 0.8% 0.1% 84.1% 15.5% 0.3%

- - - 0.1% 4.1 83.8% 14.5% 1.7%

1998 12.2% 87.4% 0.3% 0.1% 82.8% 16.8% 0.3%

- - - 0.1% 4.1 82.9% 15.0% 2.1%

1999 10.8% 88.6% 0.6% 0.0% 83.4% 16.1% 0.5%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 83.2% 14.7% 2.1%

2000 10.8% 88.1% 1.0% 0.0% 81.3% 17.9% 0.8%

- - - 0.0% 4.1 80.4% 17.7% 2.0%

2001 11.0% 88.0% 0.8% 0.2% 78.5% 20.2% 1.2%

- - - 0.2% 4.2 80.3% 16.7% 3.0%

2002 10.9% 88.4% 0.2% 0.4% 77.4% 20.3% 1.9%

- - - 0.4% 4.2 82.9% 13.5% 3.6%

2003 10.9% 87.7%

- 1.4% 67.5% 27.9% 3.1%

- - - 1.4% 4.3 80.9% 15.9% 3.2%

2004 9.8% 88.2% 0.2% 1.7% 64.5% 28.4% 5.0% 0.4%

- - 1.7% 4.4 80.2% 14.5% 5.3%

2005 8.8% 88.4% 0.1% 2.8% 57.3% 33.7% 5.8% 0.4%

- - 2.8% 4.5 79.2% 14.2% 6.6%

2006 8.8% 88.4% 0.1% 2.7% 47.5% 35.4% 12.5% 1.9%

- - 2.7% 4.7 75.9% 18.0% 6.0%

2007 7.8% 82.5% 0.0% 9.7% 36.8% 34.7% 16.5% 1.9% 0.4%

- 9.7% 4.8 81.0% 13.4% 5.6%

2008 7.2% 81.7% 0.3% 10.8% 39.3% 28.2% 19.0% 2.2% 0.4%

- 10.8 4.8 78.8% 14.1% 7.1%

2009 6.2% 82.4% 0.3% 11.1% 35.1% 31.4% 19.3% 2.9% 0.2%

- 11.1 4.9 83.5% 10.2% 6.3%

2010 5.0% 79.5% 1.6% 13.9% 29.5% 20.2% 33.0% 3.1% 0.3%

- 13.9 5.1 82.5% 11.2% 6.3%

2011 4.6% 83.0% 0.5% 11.9% 15.8% 12.9% 53.8% 3.9% 1.6%

- 11.9 5.6 80.1% 11.3% 8.6%

2012 4.9% 78.8% 1.7% 14.6% 6.7% 14.8% 57.8% 3.2% 2.9%

- 14.6 5.8 83.8% 8.8% 7.4%

2013 4.9% 75.1% 1.8% 18.2% 5.5% 9.0% 59.8% 3.4% 4.2%

- 18.2 5.9 83.1% 9.5% 7.4%

2014 5.3% 66.6% 1.9% 26.2% 1.5% 4.3% 58.6% 4.1% 4.8% 0.6% 26.2 6.2 80.8% 10.6% 8.6%



# 81

# Table 5.3.3

Transmission and Drive Technologies, Trucks Only

Model
Year Manual Automatic with Lockup Automatic without Lockup CVT 4 Gears

or Fewer 5
Gears 6
Gears 7
Gears 8
Gears 9
Gears

or More CVT Average Number of Gears Front Wheel
Drive Rear Wheel
Drive Four Wheel
Drive

1975 36.9%

- 63.1%

- 100.0%

- - - - - - - - 82.8% 17.2%

1976 34.7%

- 65.3%

- 100.0%

- - - - - - - - 77.0% 23.0%

1977 31.6%

- 68.4%

- 100.0%

- - - - - - - - 76.2% 23.8%

1978 32.1%

- 67.9%

- 99.3% 0.7%

- - - - - - - 70.9% 29.1%

1979 35.1% 2.1% 62.8%

- 96.0% 4.0%

- - - - - 3.3

- 81.9% 18.1%

1980 53.0% 24.5% 22.4%

- 89.2% 10.8%

- - - - - 3.5 1.4% 73.6% 25.0%

1981 51.6% 31.1% 17.3%

- 86.1% 13.9%

- - - - - 3.6 1.9% 78.0% 20.1%

1982 45.9% 33.4% 20.7%

- 83.8% 16.2%

- - - - - 3.7 1.7% 78.1% 20.2%

1983 46.3% 36.0% 17.4%

- 81.6% 18.4%

- - - - - 3.9 1.4% 72.5% 26.1%

1984 42.5% 34.6% 22.9%

- 78.6% 21.4%

- - - - - 3.9 5.0% 63.5% 31.5%

1985 37.6% 41.1% 21.2%

- 78.6% 21.4%

- - - - - 3.8 7.3% 61.4% 31.3%

1986 43.0% 41.5% 15.5%

- 69.1% 30.9%

- - - - - 4.0 5.9% 63.4% 30.7%

1987 40.5% 43.8% 15.7%

- 70.1% 29.9%

- - - - - 4.0 7.6% 60.2% 32.2%

1988 35.8% 52.5% 11.7%

- 68.4% 31.6%

- - - - - 4.1 9.2% 56.7% 34.1%

1989 32.8% 56.4% 10.8%

- 70.3% 29.7%

- - - - - 4.1 10.1% 57.1% 32.8%

1990 28.1% 67.5% 4.4%

- 74.1% 25.9%

- - - - - 4.1 15.8% 52.4% 31.8%

1991 31.5% 66.8% 1.7%

- 69.0% 31.0%

- - - - - 4.2 10.3% 52.3% 37.3%

1992 27.5% 71.3% 1.2%

- 74.6% 25.4%

- - - - - 4.2 14.5% 52.1% 33.4%

1993 24.7% 74.2% 1.1%

- 76.0% 24.0%

- - - - - 4.2 16.8% 50.6% 32.7%

1994 23.7% 75.3% 1.0%

- 76.7% 23.3%

- - - - - 4.2 13.8% 47.0% 39.2%

1995 20.7% 78.5% 0.9%

- 79.6% 20.4%

- - - - - 4.2 18.4% 39.3% 42.3%

1996 15.6% 83.4% 1.0%

- 84.4% 15.6%

- - - - - 4.1 20.9% 39.8% 39.2%

1997 14.1% 85.8% 0.1%

- 79.9% 20.1%

- - - - - 4.2 14.2% 40.6% 45.2%

1998 13.6% 85.8% 0.6%

- 81.1% 18.9%

- - - - - 4.2 19.3% 35.5% 45.1%

1999 9.2% 90.4% 0.4%

- 85.8% 14.2%

- - - - - 4.1 17.5% 34.4% 48.1%

2000 8.2% 91.5% 0.3%

- 87.3% 12.7%

- - - - - 4.1 20.0% 33.8% 46.3%

2001 6.3% 93.4% 0.3%

- 84.0% 16.0%

- - - - - 4.2 16.3% 34.8% 48.8%

2002 4.7% 94.9% 0.3% 0.0% 76.7% 23.3%

- - - - 0.0% 4.2 15.4% 33.1% 51.6%

2003 4.6% 94.4% 0.3% 0.6% 71.1% 28.2%

- - - - 0.6% 4.3 15.4% 34.1% 50.4%

2004 3.5% 95.6% 0.3% 0.6% 63.2% 35.5% 0.8%

- - - 0.6% 4.4 12.5% 31.0% 56.5%

2005 2.9% 95.3%

- 1.8% 54.3% 41.9% 2.1%

- - - 1.8% 4.5 20.1% 27.7% 52.2%

2006 3.3% 93.7%

- 3.1% 48.0% 44.3% 3.8% 0.8%

- - 3.1% 4.6 18.9% 28.0% 53.1%

2007 2.6% 93.8%

- 3.7% 45.8% 38.0% 11.5% 1.0%

- - 3.7% 4.7 16.1% 28.4% 55.5%

2008 2.2% 94.1%

- 3.6% 37.9% 37.4% 19.9% 1.2%

- - 3.6% 4.8 18.4% 24.8% 56.8%

2009 2.0% 92.0%

- 6.0% 23.5% 33.7% 35.1% 1.6%

- - 6.0% 5.2 21.0% 20.5% 58.4%

2010 1.8% 91.9% 0.4% 5.9% 16.4% 29.1% 46.7% 1.9%

- - 5.9% 5.4 20.9% 18.0% 61.0%

2011 1.3% 91.4% 0.0% 7.3% 11.9% 26.5% 50.5% 1.9% 1.9%

- 7.3% 5.5 17.7% 17.3% 65.0%

2012 1.4% 92.4%

- 6.2% 10.3% 24.4% 54.6% 2.2% 2.2%

- 6.2% 5.6 20.9% 14.8% 64.4%

2013 1.1% 90.2%

- 8.7% 4.7% 20.2% 60.4% 2.0% 4.0%

- 8.7% 5.8 17.9% 14.4% 67.7%

2014 1.1% 90.5%

- 8.4% 1.1% 11.8% 64.8% 2.2% 9.8% 1.8% 8.4% 6.1 16.6% 16.2% 67.2%



# 82

### I 

# Technology Adoption Rates

Technology in new vehicles is continually changing and evolving. Innovative new technologies are regularly being introduced, replacing older and less effective technologies. This continuous cycle of improvement and re

invention has been the driving force b ehind nearly all of the trends examined in this report. Section 5 detailed many specific technological changes that have taken place since 1975. This section provides a detailed look at the rate at which the automotive industry as a whole has adopted new technology, the rate at which individual manufacturers have adopted technology, and the differences between the overall industry and manufacturer adoption rates. In recent years, several other studies have examined technology penetration trends in the

autom otive industry , notably researchers at Argonne National Laboratory (Plotkin, et al. 2013), MIT's Sloan Automotive Laboratory (Zoepf and Heywood 2013)

, EPA, and The University of Michigan (DeCicco 2010)

.
It is important to note that this section focuses on “successful” technologies, those technologies that have achieved widespread use by multiple manufacturers and, in some cases, by all or nearly all manufacturers. This section does not look at “unsuccessful” technologies which never achieved widespread use. One consequence of a competitive and technology

- driven enterprise like the automobile industry is that there will certainly be a number of unsuccessful technologies. A technology may prove to be unsuccessful for one or more of many reasons: cost, effectiveness, tradeoffs with other vehicle attributes, consumer acceptance, or, in some cases, the technology may be successful for a time but later displaced by a newer and better technology. The Trends database does not provide data on why technologies fail, bu t it does provide data on how quickly successful technologies can penetrate the marketplace, and the latter is the subject of this section.

One inherent limitation in using the Trends database to track the introduction of new technologies is that there is often a lag between the introduction of a new technology and the modifications to the formal EPA vehicle compliance information system that are necessary to ensure proper tracking of the new technology. Accordingly, for many of the technologies discussed i n this section, the Trends database did not begin tracking production share data until after the technologies had achieved some limited market share. For example, as shown in Tables

5.2.2 and 5.2.3, Trends did not begin to track multi

- valve engine data unt il MY 1986 for cars and MY 1994 for trucks, and in both cases multi

- valve engines had captured about 5% market share by that time. Likewise, turbochargers were not tracked in Trends until MY 1996 for cars and MY 2003 for trucks, and while turbochargers
had less than a 1% market share in both cases at that time, it is likely that turbochargers had exceeded 1% market share in the late 1980s. Cylinder deactivation was utilized by at least one major manufacturer in the 1980s, well before being tracked by Trends

.
Accordingly, this section best addresses the question, “How quickly have successful technologies moved from limited use to widespread use,” for both industry

- wide and for individual manufacturers, and does not address other important issues such as how l ong it takes for technologies to be developed or to achieve limited market share, or why many technologies fail to ever achieve widespread use.



# 83

# A. I NDUSTRY 

# -W IDE 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# A DOPTION 

# S INCE 

# 1975

Automotive technology has continually evolved since 1975, resu lting in vehicles that have better fuel economy, more power, and more content. One of the most notable examples of this continual improvement is the evolution of fuel delivery in gasoline engines. Carburetors, the dominant fuel delivery system in the late 1970s and early 1980s, were replaced by port fuel injection systems, which in turn are being replaced by direct injection systems. This trend, and the substantial impact on engine fuel economy and performance, is explored in Figures 5.4
and 5.5.

Figure 6. 1 has been published in this report for many years, and has been widely cited in the literature. This figure shows industry

- wide adoption rates for five mature technologies in passenger cars that have achieved wide adoption across the entire industry. Adoption rates for these technologies in trucks are similar, with the exception of front wheel drive. To provide a common scale, the adoption rates are plotted in terms of the number of years after the technology was first introduced into the market (in some c ases very limited use of the technology may have occurred before being tracked in this report). The five technologies included in Figure 6.1 are fuel injection (including throttle body, port, and direct injection), front wheel drive, multi

- valve engines (i .e., engines with more than two valves per cylinder)

, engines wit h variable valve timing, and lockup transmissions. For each of these technologies, it took at least a decade to attain an industry wide production fraction of 60% after first use, and
another five to ten years to reach maximum penetration. While some of these technologies may eventually be adopted in 100% of new vehicles, there may be reasons that other technologies, like front

- wheel drive, will likely never be adopted in all vehicles. Figure 6.1 shows that it has historically taken about 20 years for the industry to widely adopt a new technology after it was first introduced into the marketplace.



# 84

# Figure 6. 1

Industry

- Wide Car Tec hnology Penetration a fter First Significant Use

Fuel Injection

Multi-Valve Lockup

Front Wheel Drive

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%Production Share

0 10 20 30 40 Variable Valve Timing



### Years after First Use



# B. T ECHNOLOGY 

# A DOPTION B Y 

# M ANUFACTURER S

The rate at which the overall industry adopts technology, as shown in Figure 6.1, is actually determined by how quickly, and at what point in time, individual manufacturers adopt the technology. While it is important to understand the industry

- wide adoption rates over time,
the trends in Figure 6. 1 mask the fact that not all manufacturers introduced these technologies at the same time, or at the same rate. The “sequencing” of manufacturers introducing new technologies is an important aspect of understanding the overall industry trend of technology adoption.

Figure 6.2 begins to disaggregate the industry

- wide trends shown in Figure 6.1 to exa mine how individual manufacturers have adopted new technologies. The first four technologies shown in Figure 6.2, which are also shown in Figure 6.1, have reached (or are near) full market penetration for all manufacturers. Also included in Figure 6.2 are three additional technologies that are quickly increasing penetration in new vehicle production, and are projected to be installed on at least 15% of all MY 2014 vehicles. These technologies are advanced transmissions (defined here as transmissions with 6 or more speeds and CVTs), gasoline direct injection (GDI) systems, and turbocharged engines. Figure 6.2 shows the percent penetration of each technology over time for the industry as a whole, and individually


# 85

## for the top seven manufacturers by sales. Figur e 6.2 focuses on the length of time each manufacturer required to move from initial introduction to 80% penetration for each technology. After 80% penetration, the technology is assumed to be largely incorporated into the manufacturer’s fleet and changes b etween 80% and 100% are not highlighted.

The technologies shown in Figure 6.2 vary widely in terms of complexity, application, and when they were introduced into the market. For each technology, there are clearly variations between manufacturers, both in terms of when they began to adopt a technology, and the rate with which they adopted the technology. The degree of variation between the manufacturers also varies by technology.

The data for variable valve timing (VVT), for example, shows that several manu factures were able to adopt the technology much faster than the overall industry rate might suggest. As shown in Figure 6.1, it took a little over 20 years for VVT to reach 80% penetration across the industry as a whole. However, Figure 6.2 shows that seve ral individual manufacturers were
able to implement at least 80% VVT in significantly less time than the overall industry. Therefore, it was not the rate of technology adoption alone, but rather the staggered implementation time frames among manufacturers that resulted in the longer industry

- wide

average.

Fuel injection systems show the least amount of variation in initial adoption timing between manufacturers, which resulted in a faster adoption by the industry overall (see Figure 6.1) than technologies l ike VVT. One important driver for adoption of fuel injection was increasingly stringent emissions standards. Advanced transmissions, and turbocharged engines, have been available in small numbers for some time, but have very rapidly increased market penetr ation in recent years. Turbocharged engines and GDI systems are only recently beginning to reach significant parts of the market, and while both technologies are showing variation in adoption between manufacturers, it is too early to tell whether, and how quickly, they will ultimately be adopted industry- wide.

A different way to look at technology adoption patterns is to look at the maximum rate of change that manufacturers have been able to achieve for each technology. Figure 6.3 uses this approach to look at technology adoption for the same manufacturers and technologies examined in Figure 6.2. For each technology and manufacturer, Figure 6.3 shows the maximum change in technology penetration that each manufacturer achieved over any 3- year and 5- year perio d.



# 86

# Figure 6.2
Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key Technologies *

All Manufacturers Hyundai Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota

GM Fuel Injection

1980 1990 2000 2010

Ford GM Toyota Chrysler

− Fiat Lockup Honda Nissan Hyundai All Manufacturers

1980 1990 2000 2010

All Manufacturers Hyundai Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota

GM
Multi-ValveManufacturer Ford GM Toyota Chrysler

− Fiat Honda Nissan Hyundai All Manufacturers

Ford GM Toyota Chrys ler

− Fiat Honda Nissan Hyundai All Manufacturers

Ford GM Toyota Chrysler

− Fiat Honda Nissan Hyundai All Manufacturers

Ford GM Toyota Chrysler

− Fiat Honda Nissan Hyundai All Manufacturers 1980 1990 2000 2010

Variable Valve Timing

1980 1990 2000 2010

Advanced Transmissions

1980 1990 2000 2010

Gasoline Direct Injection

1980 1990 2000 2010

Turbocharged

1980 1990 2000 2010



### Model Year

Percent of Production

20% to 25%

0% to 5% 10% to 15%

25% to 50%

5% to 10% 15% to 20%{ 75% to 80%{

50% to 75%{ 80% to 100%{



### * This figu re is based on available data. Some technologies may have been introduced into the market before th is report began tracking them. Generally these omissions are limited, with the exception of mult i- valve engine data for Honda. Honda had already achieved 70% penetration of multi

- valve engines when this report began tracking multi

- valve engines in 1986, so this figure does not illustrate Honda’s increase prior to 1986.


# 87

## There are many examples of manufacturers that were able to apply new technology to a large percentage of their new vehicles in only 3 to 5 years. For example, each of the manufacturers was able to increase the percentage of their new vehicles with fuel injection systems by over 50% in 5 years, and three manufacturers were able to increase the percentage of their new vehicles with VVT by more than 85% i n that time. For VVT, all of the manufacturers achieved close to or above a 70% penetration change in a 5

- year period, but the industry as a whole only achieved a 40% change over any 5 years. This data reinforces the conclusion that the staggered timing of VVT adoption by individual manufacturers resulted in an overall industry adoption period that is longer than actually required by many (if not most) individual
manufacturers.

One important note for Figure 6. 3 is that, in some cases, individual manufac ture rs were already at high rates of adoption of some technologies before Trends started collecting data for that technology (for example, Honda was using multi

- valve engines throughout its fleet when EPA starting monitoring multi

- valve data in the mid

- 1980s). Data for “rates o f increase” in
such cases are artificially low.

Figure 6. 4 takes a more detailed look at the introduction of VVT by individual manufacturers by combining aspects of both Figure 6.2 and Figure 6.3. For each manufacturer, Figure 6. 4
shows t he actual percent penetration of VVT over time (solid red line) versus the average for all manufacturers (dotted grey line), and compared to the maximum penetration by any manufacturer (solid grey line) over time. Figure 6.4 also shows when the largest increase in VVT penetration over any 1, 3, and 5 year period occurred as green, orange, and yellow boxes.

VVT was first tracked in this report for cars in MY 1990 and for trucks in MY 2000. Between MY 1990 and MY 2000, there may be a small number of trucks wi th VVT that are not accounted for in the data. However, the first trucks with VVT produced in larger volumes (greater than 50,000 vehicles) were produced in MY 1999 and MY 2000, so the discrepancy is not enough to noticeably alter the trends in the previou s figures.



# 88

# 89 Figure 6. 3

Maximum Three - and Five

- Year Adoption for Key Technologies

* This figure is based on available data. Some technologies may have been introduced into the market before this report began tracking them. Generally these omissions are limited, with the exception of multi

- valve engine data for Honda. Honda had already achieved 70% penetration of multi

- valve engines when this report began tracking multi

- valve engines in 1986, so this figure does not illustrate Honda’s increase prior to 1986. All Manufacturers Hyundai

Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota GM



### Advanced Transmission Fuel Injection

Lockup

Multi-Valve

Variable Valve Timing

Gasoline Direct Injection

Turbocharged

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%



## Fastest Multi-Year Penetration Increase All Manufacturers Hyundai

Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota GM

All Manufacturers Hyundai

Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota GM

All Manufacturers Hyundai

Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford

To yota GM

All Manufacturers Hyundai

Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota GM

All Manufacturers Hyundai

Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota GM

All Manufacturers Hyundai

Nissan Chrysler

− Fiat Honda

Ford
Toyota GM 

### 5-Year Increase 3-Year IncreaseManufacturer 

### * *

# Figure 6.4

VVT Adoption Details by Manufacturer

Chrysler-Fiat GM

Honda Hyundai Nissan 0% 25% 50% 75% 100%199019952000200520102015Percent of vehicles with VVT

Toyota Ford

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

Best 1-year increase

Best 3-year increase

Best 5-year increase

Highest

Fleet Average Manufacturer All Manufacturers199019952000200520102015199019952000200520102015



## Model Year

As shown in Figure 6. 2 , each manufacturer clearly followed a unique trajectory to adopt VVT. It took over 20 years for nearly all new vehicles to adopt VVT; however it is also very clear that individual manufacturers were able to adopt VVT across their own vehicle offerings much
faster. All of the manufacture r s show n in Figure 6. 4 were able to adopt VVT across the v ast majority of their new vehicle offerings in under 15 years, and many accomplished that feat in under 10 years. As indicated by the yellow rectangles in Figure 6.4, several manufacturers
increased their penetration rates of VVT by 75% or more over a 5

- year period. It is also important to note that every manufacturer shown was able to adopt VVT into new vehicles at
a rate faster than the overall industry

- wide data would imply. As noted earlier, the industr y average represents both the rate that manufacture r s adopted VVT and the effect of manufacturers adopting the technology at different times. Accordingly, the industry average shown in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.4 does not represent the average pace at which individual manufacturers adopted VVT, which is considerably faster.



# 90

## Figures 6.2 through 6.4 examine manufacturer specific technology adoption in different ways, but all three figures clearly support the conclusion that some manufacturers have been able to adopt technology much faster than industry

- wide data suggest, and that there is significant variation in how individual manufacturers have adopted technology.



# C. T ECHNOLOGY 

# A DOPTION I N THE 

# L AST 

# F IVE 

# Y EARS

Over the last five years, engines and transmissions have continued to evolve and adopt new technologies. Figure 6.5 shows the penetration of several key technologies in MY 2009 and the projected penetration for each technology in MY 2014 vehicles. Over that five

- year span, VVT

is projected to increase mark et share by 26 %, GDI by over 30%, and 6 speed transmissions by

over 35% across the entire industry. These are large changes taking place over a relatively short time. As discussed in the previous section, there are manufacturer specific changes in this

tim eframe that are even more impressive.



# Figure 6. 5

Five Year Change in Light Duty Vehicle Technology Penetration Share

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%Production Share MY 2009
MY 2014

VVT Multi- GDI Turbo Cyl. Non- Hybrid Diesel Six Seven CVT Valve Deact. Hybrid Speed Speed+ Stop/Start



## There are many factors outside the scope of this report that influence the rate and timing of when technology is adopted by individual manufactures (e.g., price, manufacturing constraints, regulatory drivers, etc.) While no attempt is made here to identify the unde rlying causes, it is important to recognize that variation between manufacturers for given technologies can be masked when only evaluating industry

- wide trends. A s the data in this
section suggest, adoption by individual manufacturers is generally more rap id than has previously been reported for the overall industry, and it is clear that the penetration of important technologies has grown significantly over the last 5 years.



# 91

### I 

# Alternative Fuel Vehicles

This section addresses original equipment manufactu rer (OEM) 6 

## vehicles that are dedicated to, or are designed and expected to frequently operate on, alternative fuels such as electricity and natural gas. Ethanol flexible fuel vehicles are widely available, but the great majority of these vehicles are operated primarily on gasoline and
therefore are not included in this section. OEM vehicles that operate predominantly on other alternative fuels, including hydrogen, methanol, propane, etc., will be included in future reports if they become generally available to the public.

Increasing interest in alternative fuel vehicles is being driven by several factors: sustained high oil prices, concerns about future oil supplies and greenhouse gas emissions, and economic and national security issues associated
with oil imports. This is an emerging area, with several new OEM alternative fuel vehicle models introduced in MY

201 4 and more planned for subsequent model years. Often, alternative fuel vehicle models are initially
introduced in sele cted areas of the country, but many alternative fuel vehicle models are now available on a nationwide basis. The main focus of this section will be preliminary data on MY 2014 vehicles, and a new discussion of the impact of alternative fuel vehicles on overall new MY 2013 fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions
values.

Fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions data in this section reflect values from the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels. These values are similar to the methodology used for the adjusted fuel economy and CO 2 

## values in Sections 2

- 6 of this report, except the analysis in this section, unless otherwise noted, uses the 55% city/45% highway weighting reflected in new vehicle labels.



# A. M ETHODOLOGY

The Trends analyses provided in Sections 2 -6 include vehicle data from 1975 to the present only for vehicles that are dedicated to or are expected to operate primarily on petroleum fuels, i.e., gasoline and diesel fuel . The primary reason for this is simply that the small number of OEM vehicles that predominantly u se alternative fuels would have a very small impact on the analyses in Sections 2

- 6. In contrast, this section focuses on vehicles that are designed and expected to operate on other fuels, namely electric vehicles (EVs), plug

- in hybrid vehicles (PHEVs), an d compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.

Vehicles that can operate on both a petroleum

- based fuel and an alternative fuel pose an analytical challenge. There are currently a large number of “flexible fuel vehicles” (FFVs) in the market that are capable of using either gasoline or E85 (a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline, by volume), or any blend in between. H istorically , these vehicles have operate d predominantly on gasoline (and ethanol

- gasoline blends with low levels of ethanol). 7 

## EPA
believes that there are many reasons why most consumers use gasoline in their FFVs: limited E85 fuel availability, greater vehicle range on gasoline, and E85 fuel pricing such that the fuel cost per mile is typically cheaper on gasoline. Accordingly, this report continu es to assume that

6 

### This section, like the rest of the report, focuses only on OEM produced vehicles. There are aftermarket converters who modify OEM gasoline vehicles to operate on alternative fuels, but those vehicles are not accounted for in this section.

7 

### Based on data from the Energy Information Administration, EPA projects that FFVs were fueled with E85 less than 1 percent of the time in 2008; see 75 Federal Register 14762 (March 26, 2010). 

# 92

## ethanol FFVs operate primarily on gasoline, with the analyses in Sections 2 -6 including data
from FFV operation on gasoline and excluding data from FFV operation on E85. If, in the future, FFVs operate more often on E85 fuel, EPA will con sider adding FFVs to this
alternative fuel vehicle analysis.

Two other technologies that can use both a petroleum

- based fuel and an alternative fuel are plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and dual

- fuel compressed natural gas (DF

- CNG)
vehicles. While it is almost certain that PHEVs and DF

- CNG vehicles will use at least some gasoline, there are two factors that strongly suggest that most owners of these vehicles will seek to use the alternative fuel as much as possible: 1) they have paid a substantial p remium to buy a vehicle that can use the alternative fuel, and 2) the alternative fuel is considerably cheaper than gasoline, and provides an opportunity for the vehicle owner to recover the higher upfront cost of the vehicle through ongoing fuel savings. Because we expect PHEVs and DF

- CNG vehicles to operate frequently on alternative fuels, they are included in this section and not in the primary Trends analyses in Sections 2 -6.

With respect to other vehicles that may be introduced in the future that can o perate on both petroleum and alternative fuels, EPA will determine on a case

- by

- case basis whether it is more appropriate to include them in the primary petroleum fuel analyses or in this separate
alternative fuel vehicle section.

The number of alternative fuel vehicle s produced is still too small (less than 1.0 percent of MY 2013 production ) to have a large impact on the overall technology, CO 2 

## emissions, and fuel economy trends; however, many additional alternative fuel vehicle models are expected to enter the market over the next few years. 8 

## At some point in the future, as the sales of alternative fuel vehicles continue to increase, EPA will consider merging alternative fuel
vehicle data into the primary Trends analysis

.
Another issue with comparing the fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions of conventional vehicles with alternative fuel vehicles is choice of metrics. For example, choice of an energy metric is complicated by very different feedstocks and production processes for various fuels. This

section use s the energy metric of mpge (miles per gallon of gasoline

- equivalent, i.e., the miles
that an alternative fuel vehicle can travel on an amount of alternative fuel with the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline) in order to be consistent with its use on the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Label. But, there are other energy metric options that could be considered, such as 1) mpge plus net fuel life

- cycle energy, which would also reflect differences in upstream energy consumption in producing the al ternative fuel relative to gasoline

- from

- oil; and 2) miles per gallon of petroleum, which would only count petroleum use and not other forms of energy. Compared to mpge, using the mpge plus net fuel life

- cycle energy metric would generally result in lower numerical fuel economy values, and using the miles per gallon of petroleum metric would yield higher fuel economy values. For CO 2

8 

### For example, see list of potential future EVs and PHEVs at fueleconomy.gov/feg/evnews.shtml



### . 

# 93

## emissions metrics, this section primarily uses tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions, but also presents some upstream CO 2 

## emissions values as well.

Except where noted, this section (and sections 8 and 9) reports combined fuel economy and

CO 2 

## values based on the 55% city/45% highway weighting used for the Fuel Economy and Environment Labels and for GHG emissions and fuel economy standards compliance, and not on the 43% city/57% highway weighting used for adjusted fuel economy values throughout sections 2

- 6 of this report.



# B. H ISTORICAL 

# T RENDS

Alternative fuel vehicles have a long history in the U.S. automotive market. Electric vehicles, for example, were available at least as far back as the early 1900s. Gasoline and diesel vehicles, however, h ave long dominated new light vehicles sales. Over the course of this report, OEM

v ehicles that operate frequently on alternative fuels have been available only in small
numbers

, 9 

## though those limited production vehicles have in some cases created significant
consumer and media interest. Since MY 2011, renewed interest in alternative fuel vehicles has resulted in many new vehicle launches, and growing sales.

In the mid

- 1990s, the state of California passed legislation creating the Zero Emission Vehicle ( ZEV ) mandate. In response to the ZEV mandate, OEMs began to produce limited numbers of
electric vehicles. Most of these vehicles were leased, rather than sold, in the state of California. The majority of these electric vehicles were small passenger cars , SUVs

, or pickup trucks, including the GM EV1, the Toyota RAV4 EV, and the Ford Ranger EV.

Dedicated CNG vehicles have been available in limited numbers for the last twenty years, most commonly during and after periods of rising gasoline prices. CNG vehicles h ave spanned a wider range of vehicles, from work trucks and vans to the Honda Civic Natural Gas, which has
been available in select markets since MY 1998.

In MY 2000, five electric vehicles ( EVs ) , seven dedicated CNG vehicles, and one DF

- CNG
vehicle were a vailable in the U.S. market. Chrysler

- Fiat , Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan, and Toyota all produced at least one alternative fuel vehicle in MY 2000 , with total production of about 3,500 vehicles. Most of these vehicles were produced in very small volumes and only for a few model years. However, b y MY 2006, only one alternative fuel vehicle was available, the Honda Civic Natural Gas. The Tesla Roadster, a dedicated electric vehicle, was introduced with limited production in MY 2008. From MY 2008 through MY 2010, the Civic Natural Gas and the Tesla Roadster were the only two alternative fuel vehicles produced by OEMs. From MY 1995 (which is as far back as reliable alternative fuel vehicle data was available for this report) to MY 2010, over 99.9% of all new OEM veh icles were petroleum fueled, with annual production of alter native fuel vehicles less than 3,5 00 per year.

9 

### Millions of ethanol FFVs have been sold in recent years, but these vehicles have operated primarily on gasoline. 

# 94

## The market for alternative fuel vehicles began a dramatic change in MY 2011 with several new vehicles, including the high profile launches of the Che vrolet Volt PHEV and the Nissan Leaf

EV. The Volt and Leaf had combined production of nearly 13,000 vehicles in MY 2011, so production of these two vehicles alone triple d the total number of alternative fuel vehicles produced in MY 2011 relative to any mod el year since at least 1995. Production of the Volt and Leaf has continued to climb through MY 2013, with over 55,000 combined sales in MY 2013. In MY 2013, there were eleven EVs available in the market, and four PHEVs, with more new models expected in MY 2014 and beyond. The Honda Civic natural gas model averaged production of under 1,000 vehicles per year from MY 1998-2011, with a production record in MY 2012 of over 3,000 vehicles. When it was initially introduced, the Honda Civic Natural
Gas was availab le only to fleet customers, but it subsequently became available for retail in California, New York, Utah, and Oklahoma, and is now available in many states across the country. OEMs other than Honda have not directly offered CNG vehicles, and the Civic

Nat ural Gas remains the only OEM light

- duty natural gas vehicle on the market.

The combined production of alternative fueled vehicles has increased from under 1,200 in MY 2010, to nearly 105,000 in MY 2013. While alternative fueled vehicles still represent a very limited portion of overall new vehicle production (0.7% of overall light

- duty vehicle production in MY 2013), this increase by a factor of about 100 in three years is both notable and significant. Figure 7.1 shows the historical sales of EVs, PHEVs, a nd dedicated CNG
vehicles since 1995 (we do not have reliable data on alternative fuel vehicles back to 1975).



# Figure 7 .1

Historical Production of EVs , PHEVs, and Dedicated CNG Vehicle s, MY 1995

- 2013

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110

1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Production (000)

CNG EV PHEV



## Model Year



## Consistent with the rest of this report, Figure 7.1 was largely compiled from manufacturer CAFE submissions. Some of the historical sales data was supplemented with data from Ward’s
and other publically available production data. Figure 7.1 includes dedicated CNG vehicles,



# 95

## but not dual fuel CNG vehicles as sales data were not available for dual fuel vehicles. The data only includes offerings from OEM s, and does not include data on vehicles converted to
alterna tive fuels in the aftermarket.



# C. MY 2014 V EHICLES

Since sales of alternative fuel vehicles have historically been limited, this section of the report will focus on currently available alternative fuel vehicles produced by OEMs and introduce
several metric s that are important for alternative fuel vehicles, instead of analyzing aggregated
new vehicle data . Table 7.1 shows the alternative fuel vehicles available from OEMs in MY
2014 , as well as the powertrain type of each vehicle, inertia weight class (IWT)

, 10 

## and footprint. These vehicles constitute a wide array of vehicle design, size, and function.



# Table 7.1

MY 201 4 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Class ification and Size 11

Fuel or Car or IWT Footprint Make Model Powertrain Truck (lbs) (sq ft)

Chevrolet Spark EV Car 3000 36.1

BMW i3 EV Car 3000 43.5

BYD e6 EV Car 5500 47.4

Fiat 500e EV Car 3000 34.9
Ford Focus EV Car 4000 44.0
Honda Fit EV Car 3500 39.7
Mercedes

- Benz B-class EV Car 4000 45.0
Mitsubishi i EV Car 2750 38.4

Nissan Leaf EV Car 3500 44.7

Smart Fortwo EV Car 2250 26.8
Tesla Model S (60kW

- hr) EV Car 4500 53.5
Tesla Model S (85kW

- hr) EV Car 4500 53.5 Toyota RAV4 EV Car 4000 44.6

BMW i3 REX PHEV Car 3500 43.5

BMW i8 PHEV Car 3500 48.5
Cadillac ELR PHEV Car 4000 45.9
Chevrolet Volt PHEV Car 4000 45.3
Ford C

- MAX PHEV Car 4000 43.8
Ford Fusion PHEV Car 4000 48.4
Honda Accord PHEV Car 4000 47.5

McLaren P1 PHEV Car 3500 46.9
Porsche Panamera S PHEV Car 5000 52.2 Toyota Prius PHEV Car 3500 44.2
Honda Civic CNG Car 3000 43.5

10 

### Each inertia weight class represents a range of loaded vehicle we ights, or vehicle curb weights plus 300 pounds. Vehicle inertia weight
classes are in 250

- pound increments for inertia weight classes that are less than 3000 pounds, while inertia weight classes over 3000 pounds are divided into 500

- pound increments.

11 

### There are several other non

- petroleum fueled vehicles that have been in limited lease and/or demonstration programs

, including hydrogen fuel cell vehicles such as the Honda FCX Clarity and Hyundai Tucson Fuel Cell

. However, these vehicles have not been av ailable to the general public at large and are therefore not discussed in this section. 

# 96

## As shown in Table 7.1, there are twelve EVs available in MY 2014 (the two Tesla S variants are considered one model, as explained in Section 8), ten PHEVs, and one dedicated CNG vehicle. The footprint of the largest vehicle, the Tesla S, is double that of the smallest vehicle, which is the Smart Fortwo. The weight of these vehicles also significantly varies, from an IWT
of 2250 to 5000.

This report has not previously tracked or analyzed data on the range of vehicles using petroleum fuels because gasoline and diesel vehicles can generally travel at least 300 miles without refueling, and gasoline and diesel fuel stations are common and well distributed across the United States ( although there are some rural areas where range may in fact be an important consid eration). Most alternative fuel vehicles are expected to have lower vehicle range than gasoline and diesel vehicles, when operated on the alternative fuel, and all alternative fuel vehicles are likely to have more limited public refueling infrastructure. R ange is of particular concern with electric vehicles, as today’s battery technology limits the range of

EV s to considerably less than that of comparable petroleum

- fueled vehicles. The availability of dedicated EV charging stations is also currently limited , especially for stations powerful enough to be capable of “fast” charging

. 12 

## For each of the vehicles listed in Table 7.1, Table
7.2 shows the label driving range for alternative fuel vehicles when operating on the alternative fuel, total electricity plus gasoline range for PHEVs, and introduces the concept of a utility
factor for PHEVs (explained below).

12 

### While dedicated EV charging stations are currently limited, electricity is available in nearly all but the most remote parts of the country. EVs can generally be rech arged from a standard 110v outlet, though charging will be slower than at a dedicated 220v charging station. 

# 97

# Table 7.2

MY 201 4 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Powertrain and Range

Alternative Total
Fuel or Fuel Range Range Utility
Make Model Powertrain ( miles )* ( miles ) Factor
Chevrolet Spark EV 82 82 N/A

BMW i3 EV 81 81 N/A

BYD e6 EV 127 127 N/A

Fiat 500e EV 87 87 N/A

Ford Focus EV 76 76 N/A
Honda Fit EV 82 82 N/A

Mercedes

- Benz B-class EV 87 87 N/A
Mitsubishi i EV 62 62 N/A

Nissan Leaf EV 84 84 N/A

Smart Fortwo EV 68 68 N/A
Tesla Model S (60kW

- hr) EV 208 208 N/A
Tesla Model S (85kW

- hr) EV 265 265 N/A
Toyota RAV4 EV 103 103 N/A

BMW i3 REX PHEV 72 150 0.83

BMW i8 PHEV 15 330 0.37
Cadillac ELR PHEV 37 340 0.65
Chevrolet Volt PHEV 38 380 0.66
Ford C

- MAX PHEV 20 550 0.45
Ford Fusion PHEV 20 550 0.45
Honda Accord PHEV 13 570 0.33

McLaren P1 PHEV 19 30 0 0. 43
Porsche Panamera S PHEV 16 540 0.39 Toyota Prius PHEV 11 540 0.29
Honda Civic CNG 192 192 N/A


### * Many PHEVs are capable of operating in blended mode and may use some gasoline to achieve the given alternative fuel range.



## PHEVs blend EV technology with more familiar powertrain technology from petroleum

- fueled vehicles. Current PHEVs feature both an electric drive system designed to be charged from an electricity source external to the vehicle (like an EV), and a gasoline internal combustion engine. There are generally three ways that a PHEV can operate:

1. Charge depleting e lectric only mode

– In electric only mode the vehicle operates like an EV, using only energy stored in the battery to propel the vehicle.

2. Charge depleting b lended mode

– In blended mode the vehicle uses both energy stored in the battery and energy from t he gasoline tank to propel the vehicle. Depending on the vehicle design and driving conditions, blended operation can
include substantial all

- electric driving.

3. Charge sustaining mode

– In charge sustaining mode, the PHEV has exhausted the external energy from the electric grid that is stored in the battery and relies on the gasoline internal combustion engine. In charge sustaining mode, the vehicle will operate much like a traditional hybrid.



# 98

## The presence of both electric drive and an internal combustion e ngine results in a complex system that can be used in many different combinations, and manufacturers are each choosing to operate PHEV systems in different ways. This complicates direct comparisons among PHEV models in this report. For each MY 2014 PHEV, T able 7.2 shows the estimated range on alternative fuel and estimated total range. For PHEVs like the Chevrolet Volt, which cannot operate in blended mode, the alternative fuel range represents the estimated range operating in electric only mode. However, f or PHEVs that operate in a blended mode, the alternative fuel range represents the estimated range of the vehicle operating in either electric only or blended mode, due to the design of the vehicle. For example, the Prius uses electricity stored
in its bat tery and a small amount of gasoline to achieve an alternative fuel range of 11 miles.
The C

- Max and Fusion PHEVs did not use any gasoline to achieve an alternative fuel range of
20 miles on EPA test cycles; however , certain driving conditions (e.g., more aggressive accelerations, higher speeds, and air conditioning or heater operation) would likely cause these vehicles to operate in a blended mode instead of an all

- electric mode

. Table 7.2 also introduces the concept of a ut ility factor. The utility factor is directly related to the electric range for PHEVs, and is a projection, on average, of the percentage of miles that will be driven using electricity (in electric only and blended modes) by an average driver.

The one vehi cle that operate s on CNG h as a traditional internal combustion engine. Many internal combustion engines designed to run on CNG are based on gasoline engines, with upgraded fuel systems and tanks designed specifically for natural gas.

Table 7.3 shows five e nergy - related metrics for the MY 2014 alternative fuel vehicles (no entry is shown if the metric is not applicable to that vehicle technology). These data are generally included on the EPA/NHTSA F uel Economy and E nvironment labels beginning in MY 201 3.

Com paring the energy or fuel efficiency performance from alternative fuel vehicles raises complex issues of how to compare different fuels. For example, consumers and OEMs are familiar and comfortable with evaluating gasoline and diesel vehicle fuel economy i n terms of miles per gallon, and it is the primary efficiency metric in this report. To enable this comparison for alternative fuel vehicles, the fuel efficiency of vehicles operating on CNG and electricity are evaluated in terms of miles per ga llon of gas oline equivalent (an energy metric described in more detail below).

The fourth column in Table 7.3 gives electricity consumption rates for EVs and PHEVs. The units for electricity consumption are kilowatt

- hours per 100 miles (kW -hrs/100 miles). As
shown on the vehicle label, the electricity consumption rate is based on the amount of electricity required from an electric outlet to charge the vehicle and includes wall

- to - vehicle charging losses. The values for all of the EVs and PHEVs reflect the electricity consumption rate required to operate the vehicle in either electric

- only or blended mode operation. PHEVs that are capable of operating in a blended mode may also consume some gasoline in addition to electricity. Any additional gasoline used is shown in the fifth column. For example, the Prius PHEV consumes 29 kWh and 0.2 gallons of gasoline per 100 miles during this
combination of electric

- only and blended modes.



# 99

# Table 7.3

MY 201 4 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fuel Economy Label Metrics

Make Model Fuel or
Powertrain Charge Depleting Charge Sustaining Overall
Fuel Economy ( mpge ) Electricity (kW

- hrs/ 100 miles) Gasoline (gallons/ 100 miles) Fuel Economy ( mpge ) Fuel Economy ( mpg )
Chevrolet Spark EV 28 N/A 119 N/A 119

BMW i3 EV 27 N/A 124 N/A 124

BYD e6 EV 54 N/A 63 N/A 63

Fiat 500e EV 29 N/A 116 N/A 116
Ford Focus EV 32 N/A 105 N/A 105
Honda Fit EV 29 N/A 118 N/A 118
Mercedes

- Benz B-class EV 40 N/A 84 N/A 84
Mitsubishi i EV 30 N/A 112 N/A 112

Nissan Leaf EV 30 N/A 114 N/A 114

Smart Fortwo EV 32 N/A 107 N/A 107
Tesla Model S (60kW

- hr) EV 35 N/A 95 N/A 95
Tesla Model S (85kW

- hr) EV 38 N/A 89 N/A 89 Toyota RAV4 EV 44 N/A 76 N/A 76

BMW i3 REX PHEV 29 N/A 117 39 88

BMW i8 PHEV 43 0 .1 76 28 37
Cadillac ELR PHEV 41 N/A 82 33 54
Chevrolet Volt PHEV 35 N/A 98 37 62
Ford C

- MAX PHEV 37 0.0 88 38 51
Ford Fusion PHEV 37 0.0 88 38 51
Honda Accord PHEV 29 0.0 115 46 57

McLaren P1 PHEV 25 5.7 18 17 17
Porsche Panamera S PHEV 52 0.5 50 25 31 Toyota Prius PHEV 29 0.2 95 50 58
Honda Civic CNG N/A N/A N/A N/A 31



## The sixth column simply converts the electricity consumption data in the fourth column and the gasoline consumption data in the fifth column in to a combined miles per gallon of gasoline

- equivalent (mpge) metric. The mpge metric is a measure of the miles the vehicle can travel on an amount of energy that is equal to the amount of energy stored in a gallon of gasoline. For a vehicle operating on electricity, mpge is simply calculated as 33.705 kW

hrs/gallon divided by the vehicle electricity consumption in kW

- hrs/mile. For example, for the Leaf, 33.705 kW-hrs/gallon divided by 0.30 kW

- hrs/mile, which is equivalent to 30 kW

hrs/100 miles, is 114 mpge. 13 

## Because the Prius PHEV consumes both electricity and gasoline over the alternative fuel range of 11 miles, the electric consumption value of 95 mpge includes both the electricity and gasoline consumption, at a rate of 29 kW

- hrs/100 miles of electricity and 0.2 gal/100 mil es of gasoline.

The seventh column gives label fuel economy values for vehicles operating on gasoline only, which is relevant here only for the PHEVs operating in charge sustaining mode

. For PHEVs,

13 

### The actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may result in a slightly d ifferent 

# 100 number due to rounding error.

## the EPA/NHTSA label shows both electricity consumption in kW

- hrs/100 miles and mpge, when the vehicle operates exclusively on electricity or in a blended mode, and gasoline fuel economy in mpg, when the vehicle operates exclusively on gasoline.

The final column gives the overall mpge values reflecting the overall energy efficiency of the
vehicle on all of the fuels on which the vehicle can operate. While mpge does not reflect how all alternative fuels are sold (natural gas is in fact sold in gallons of gasoline equivalent, but electricity is not), it does provide a common metric with which to compare fuels that are sold in different units, and mpge is generally included on the EPA/NHTSA labels for that reason. For PHEVs, the mpge metric can also be used to determine the overall equivalent fuel economy for a vehicl e that operates on two unique fuels. In addition to the energy metrics in the previous columns, the one key additional parameter necessary to calculate a combined electricity/gasoline mpge value for a PHEV is the utility factor that was introduced in Table
7.2

. The MY 2014 Volt, for example, has a utility factor of 0.6 6 , i.e., it is expected that , on

average, the Volt will operate 6 6 % of the time on electricity and 3 4 % of the time on gasoline. Utility factor calculations are based on an SAE methodology that EPA has adopted for regulatory compliance (SAE 2010). For E V s and natural gas vehicles, the last column simply reports the mpge values that are on the EPA/NHTSA label. CNG vehicle mpge values are based on the energy equivalency assumption that a gallon of gasoline contains the same energy as 121.5 standard cubic feet of natural gas.

Tables 7.4 and 7.5 show several key CO 2 

## emissions metrics for MY 201 4 alternative fuel
vehicles.

Table 7.4 gives vehicle tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions values. EPA and vehicle manufacturers have been measuring tailpipe emissions since the early 1970s using standardized laboratory tests.
Table 7.4 gives tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions values that are i ncluded on the new EPA/DOT F uel

E conomy and E nvironme nt labels (and reflected in the label’s Greenhouse Gas Rating) that are currently used for advanced technology vehicles. These label values reflect EPA’s best
estimate of the CO 2 

## tailpipe emissions that these vehicles will produce , on average, in real
worl d city and highway operation based on the EPA 5

- cycle label methodology and using a 55% city/45% highway weighting . EV s, of course, have no tailpipe emissions. For the PHEVs,
the label CO 2 

## emissions values utilize the same utility factor s discussed above t o weight the

CO 2 

## emissions on electric and gasoline operation. For natural gas vehicles, these values are
based on vehicle test data and our 5

- cycle methodology. It is important to note that, to be
consistent with CO 2 

## emissions data elsewhere in this repor t , the tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions values given in Table 7.4 for CNG vehicles do not account for the higher global warming potency associated with methane emissions, which have the potential to be higher for some CNG
vehicles.



# 101

# Table 7.4

MY 201 4 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Label Tailpipe CO 2 

## Emissions Metrics

Fuel or Tailpipe CO 2 Make Model Powertrain (g/mi )

Chevrolet Spark EV 0

BMW i3 EV 0

BYD e6 EV 0

Fiat 500e EV 0
Ford Focus EV 0
Honda Fit EV 0
Mercedes

- Benz B

- class EV 0
Mitsubishi i EV 0
Nissan Leaf EV 0

Smart Fortwo EV 0
Tesla Model S (60kW

- hr) EV 0
Tesla Model S (85kW

- hr) EV 0 Toyota RAV4 EV 0

BMW i3REX PHEV 40

BMW i8 PHEV 198
Cadillac ELR PHEV 91
Chevrolet Volt PHEV 81
Ford C- MAX PHEV 129
Ford Fusion PHEV 129
Honda Accord PHEV 130

McLaren P1 PHEV 463
Porsche Panamera S PHEV 206 Toyota Prius PHEV 133
Honda Civic CNG 218



## Table 7.5 accounts for the “upstream” CO 2 

## emissions associated with the production and distribution of electricity used in EVs and PHEVs. Gasoline and diesel fuels also have CO 2 

## emissions associated with their production and distribution, but these upstream emissions are
not reflected in the tail pipe CO 2 

## emissions values discussed elsewhere in this report. Combining vehicle tailpipe and fuel production/distribution sources, gasoline vehicles emit about 80 percent of total CO 2 

## emissions at the vehicle tailpipe with the remaining 20 percent
of total CO 2 

## emissions associated with upstream fuel production and distribution. Diesel fuel
ha s a similar approximate relationship between tailpipe and upstream CO 2 

## emissions. CNG
vehicle upstream CO 2 

## emissions data is not included in Table 7.5

. 14 

## On the other hand,
vehicles powered by grid electricity emit no CO 2 

## (or other emissions) at the vehicle tailpipe;
therefore all CO 2 

## emissions associated with an EV are due to fuel production and distribution. Depending on how the electricity is produced, these fuels can have very high fuel production/distribution CO 2 

## emissions (for example, if coal is used with no CO 2 

## emissions control) or very low CO 2 

## emissions (for example, if renewable processes with minimal fossil energy inputs are used).

14 

### There is considerable uncertainly and ongoing research on the topic of GHG emissions from natural gas production, particularly with respect to hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) processes. 

# 102

## An additional complicating factor in Table 7.5 is that electricity production in the United States varies significantly from region to region. Hydroelectric plants provide a large percentage of electricity in the northwest, coal

- fired power plants produce the majority of electricity in the Midwest , and natural gas has increased its electricity market share in many regions of the country

. Nuclear power plants and renewable energy make up the balance of

U.S. electricity production. In order to bracket the possible GHG emissions impact
, Table 7.5 provides ranges with the low end of the range corresponding to the California powerplant emissions factor, the middle of the range represented by the national average powerplant emissions factor, and the upper end of the range corresponding to t he powerplant emissions
factor for the Rockies.

Based on data from EPA’s eGRID powerplant database (TranSystems|E.H. Pechan 2014) , and accounting for additional greenhouse gas emissions impacts for feedstock processing upstream of the powerplant (Argonne 2 014) , EPA estimates that the electricity GHG emission factors for various regions of the country vary from 346 g CO 2 

## /kW

- hr in California to 986 g CO 2 

## /kW

- hr in the Rockies, with a national average of 648 g CO 2 

## /kW

- hr . Emission rates for the region encompassi ng New York City are approximately equal to those in California, and small regions in upstate New York and Alaska have lower electricity upstream CO 2 

## emission rates than California. However, California is a good surrogate for the “low” end of the range
bec ause California is a leading market for current EVs and PHEVs. Initial sales of electric vehicles have been largely, though not exclusively, focused in regions of the country with powerplant CO 2 

## emissions factors lower than the national average, such as Ca lifornia, New York, and other coastal areas

. Accordingly, in terms of CO 2 

## emissions
, EPA believes that the

current “ sales

- weighted average” vehicle operating on electricity in the near term will likely fall somewhere between the low end of this range and the national average. 15



## The fourth through sixth columns in Table 7.5 provide the range of tailpipe plus total upstream CO 2 

## emissions for EV s and PHEV s based on regional electricity emission rates. For comparison, the average MY 2014 car is also included in Table 7.5. The methodology used to calculate the range of tailpipe plus total upstream CO 2 

## emissions for EV s, is shown in the following example for the MY 2014 Nissan Leaf:

• Start with the label (5- cycle values weighted 55% city/45% highway) vehicle electr icity consumption in kW

- hr/mile, which for the Leaf is 30 kW -hr/100 miles, or 0.30 kW

hr/mile

• Determine the regional powerplant emission rate, regional losses during electricity distribution, and the additional regional emissions due to fuel production ups tream of the powerplant (for California, these numbers are 277 g/kW -hr, 6.8%, and 16%).

15 

### For an individual who wants to know the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with operating an EV or PHEV in his or h er geographical area, use the emissions calculator at fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2 

# 103

## • Determine the regional upstream emission factor (for California 2 77 g/kW

- hr / (1

- 0.0 68 ) * (1+0. 16) = 346 gCO 2 

## /kW

- hr) 16



## • Multiply by the range of Low (California = 346 gCO 2 

## /kW

- hr), Av erage (National Average = 648 g CO 2 

## /kW -hr), and High (Rockies = 986 gCO 2 

## /kW

- hr) electricity upstream GHG emission rates, which yields a range for the Leaf of 1 04 -296 grams/mile.

The tail p ipe plus total upstream CO 2 

## emissions value s for PHEV s include the upstream CO 2 

## emissions associated with electricity operation and both the tailpipe and upstream CO 2 

## emissions associated with gasoline operation, using the utility factor discussed above to weight the values for electricity and gasoline operation. The tailpipe plus total upstream CO 2 

## emissions value s for the average car are the average MY 2014 car tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions (from Table 4.3) multiplied by 1.25 to account for upstream emissions due to gasoline production.

The values in columns four t hrough six are tailpipe plus total upstream CO 2 

## emissions. But, all of the gasoline and diesel vehicle CO 2 

## emissions data in the rest of this report refer to tailpipe only emissions and do not reflect the upstream emissions associated with gasoline or dies el production and distribution. Accordingly, in order to equitably compare the overall relative impact of EVs and PHEVs with tailpipe emissions of petroleum

- fueled vehicles, EPA uses the metric “tailpipe plus net upstre am emissions” for EVs and PHEVs (note that this same approach has been adopted for EV and PHEV regulatory compliance with the 2012 -2025 light

- duty vehicle GHG emissions standards for sales of EVs and PHEVs in MY 2012 -2016 and MY 2022-2025 that exceed sales thresholds). The net upstream emissi ons for an EV is equal to the total upstream emissions for the EV minus the upstream emissions that would be

expe cted from a comparable

- sized (size is a good first

- order measure for utility and footprint is
the size

- based metric used for standards complian ce ) gasoline vehicle. The net upstream emissions for PHEVs are equal to the net upstream emissions of the PHEV due to electricity
consumption in electric or blended mode multiplied by the utility factor. The net upstream emissions for a gasoline vehicle are zero.

For each EV or PHEV, t he upstream emissions for a comparable gasoline vehicle are determined by first using the footprint based compliance curves to determine the CO 2 

## compliance target for a vehicle with the same footprint. Since upstream emissio ns account for approximately 20% of total CO 2 

## emissions for gasoline vehicles, the upstream emissions for the comparable gasoline vehicle are equal to one fourth of the tailpipe

- only compliance target.

The final three columns of Table 7.5 give the tailpipe plus net upstream CO 2 

## values for the EVs and PHEVs using the same Low, Average, and High electricity upstream CO 2 

## emissions rates discussed above. These values bracket the possible real world net CO 2 

## emissions that
would be associated wi th consumer use of these vehicles. For the Leaf, these values are simply
the values in columns four through six minus the upstream GHG emissions of a comparably

16 

### T he actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may result in a slightly di fferent number due to rounding error. 

# 104

## sized gasoline vehicle. Based on the MY 2014 CO 2 

## footprint curve, the 5

- cycle ta ilpipe GHG

emis sions for a Leaf

- sized gasoline vehicle meeting its compliance target would be approximately 307 grams/mi, with upstream emissions of one

- fourth of this value, or 77 g/mi

. The net upstream for the Leaf are determined by s ubtracting this value, 77 g/mi , fro m the total upstream emissions for the Leaf. The result is a range for the tailpipe plus net upstream
value of 27-219 g/mile as shown in Table 7.5 , with a more likely typical value in the 27-118 g/mi range.

For PHEVs, the tailpipe plus net upstream emissio ns values use the utility factor value s discussed above to weight the individual values for electric operation and gasoline operation.



# Table 7.5

MY 201 4 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Upstream CO 2 

## Emission Metrics

Make Model Fuel or
Powertrain Tailpipe + Total Upstream CO 2 Low Avg High (g/mi ) (g/mi ) (g/mi ) Tailpipe + Net Upstream CO 2 Low Avg High (g/mi ) (g/mi ) (g/mi )

Chevrolet Spark EV 97 181 276 26 110 205

BMW i3 EV 93 175 266 18 100 191

BYD e6 EV 187 350 532 103 266 449
Fiat 500e EV 101 189 288 30 118 216
Ford Focus EV 111 208 316 35 132 241
Honda Fit EV 99 185 281 27 114 210
Mercedes

- Benz B-class EV 138 259 394 61 182 317
Mitsubishi i EV 104 195 296 33 123 225
Nissan Leaf EV 104 194 296 27 118 219
Smart Fortwo EV 109 204 311 38 133 239
Tesla Model S (60kW

- hr) EV 122 229 348 32 139 258
Tesla Model S (85kW

- hr) EV 131 246 374 41 156 284 Toyota RAV4 EV 153 287 436 76 210 360

BMW i3 REX PHEV 134 207 288 61 134 216

BMW i8 PHEV 303 351 404 223 271 324
Cadillac ELR PHEV 206 286 377 132 213 303
Chevrolet Volt PHEV 180 249 326 109 178 255
Ford C

- MAX PHEV 219 269 326 153 203 259
Ford Fusion PHEV 219 269 326 150 200 256
Honda Accord PHEV 196 225 257 136 165 198
McLaren P1 PHEV 617 650 687 466 499 536
Porsche Panamera S PHEV 328 389 457 242 303 372 Toyota Prius PHEV 195 221 249 140 165 194 Average Car Gasoline 400 400 400 320 320 320



## While there are still relatively few OEM alternative fuel vehicles in MY 2014 , this represents a significant increase in both the number of models available and the total production of
alternative fuel vehicles. Based on manufacturer announcements and projected sales, this segment of the market will continue to grow in MY 201 5 and beyond. This report will continue to track the metrics presented in this section and report on trends in alternative fuel
vehicle CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy as more models are introduced and more data becomes available in future years.



# 105

# D. O VERALL 

# I MPACT OF 

# A LTERNATIVE 

# F UEL 

# V EHICLES

In the past, this report has treated alternative fuel vehicles separately from gasoline and diesel vehicles, with the vast majority of analysis limited to gasoline and diesel vehicles only. Since
alternative fuel vehicle production has generally been less than 0.1% of total vehicle production until very recently, the impact of excluding alternative fuel vehicles was negligible. However, with alternative fuel vehicles now approaching 1% of new vehicle production, these
veh icles are in fact beginning to have a measurable and meaningful impact on overall new vehicle fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions.

Determining an equitable approach to integrate gasoline, diesel, and alternative fuel vehicles is challenging, as discussed earlie r in this section. For the first time, this section presents a brief analysis of the impact of alternative fuel vehicles on overall new vehicle fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions. In order to introduce this analysis, the authors chose to use the overall fuel

e conomy in mpge, from Table 7.3, and the tailpipe CO 2 

## emission values from Table 7.4 for alternative fuel vehicles. These values are used on the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and
Environment Label and are the metrics that are most often associated with these vehicle s. Including net upstream CO 2 

## emissions for vehicles operating on electricity, as shown in Table 7.5, would reduce the positive impact of alternative fuel vehicles on fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions.

Table 7.6 shows the impact of alternative fuel vehicles on MY 20 13 manufacturer adjusted mpg and CO 2 

## emissions fleet averages. Unlike the discussion in the rest of this section, Table
7.6 is based on MY 2013 vehicles, since final production values are available for MY 2013 vehicles. Seven of the thirteen largest manufa cturers produced AFVs in MY 2013. Additionally, three smaller manufacturers not discussed elsewhere in this report produced AFVs and are included (in italics). The alternative fuel vehicle fuel economy and CO 2 

## emissions values were recalculated from label values weighted 55% city and 45% highway, to adjusted values weighted 43% city and 57% highway to be consistent with the adjusted numbers presented in most of the sections of this report. For further discussion of the methodology behind the adjusted fuel economy and CO 2 

## values, see Section 10.



# 106

# Table 7.6

MY 201 3 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Impact on Manufacturer Averages

Adjusted Fuel Economy Adjusted Tailpipe CO 2 Total
Sales AFV % Without

AFVs (mpg) With AFVs (mpge) Change (mpge) Without
AFVs (g/mi ) With AFVs (g/mi ) Change (g/mi )

Nissan
General Motors
Ford Toyota
Daimler Chrysler

- Fiat
Honda
Tesla
Coda

BYD

All 26.2 26.6 0.4
22.0 22.2 0.2
22.2 22.3 0.1
25.1 25.2 0.1
22.4 22.5 0.1
20.9 20.9 0.0
27.4 27.4 0.0 n/a 90.6 n/a n/a 72.0 n/a n/a 63.2 n/a

24.1 24.2 0.1 339 332

- 7
404 400 -4
400 398

- 2
354 353

- 1
399 398

- 1
425 424

- 1
324 324 0 n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a n/a 0 n/a

369 366

- 3 26

, 167
27

, 484
18

, 525
11

, 129

880
2

, 353
985 17,813

37
32 2.0 %
1.2 %
0. 8 %
0. 5 %
0. 3 %
0. 2 %
0. 1 %
100%
100%
100%

0.7%



## Alternative fuel vehicles comprised 0.7% of new vehicle production in MY 2013. Including mpge and tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions from alternative fuel vehicles increases the overall MY 2013 new vehicle fuel economy by 0.1 mpg, and reduc es the overall CO 2 

## emissions by 3 g/mi . Of the largest manufacturers with production of over 100,000 vehicles (see section 4), Nissan had the highest concentration of AFV production at 2.0%, followed by GM at 1.2%. Including AFVs improves Nissan’s perform ance the most, increasing MY 2013 fuel economy by 0.4 mpge overall, and decreasing Nissan’s MY 2013 CO 2 

## emissions by 7 g/mi

.
Tesla, which sells exclusively EVs, had the highest fuel economy of any manufacturer in terms of mpge. Coda and BYD are two additi onal manufacturers that produced only EVs in MY 2013, albeit in very small numbers.

The impact of AFVs on overall manufacturer numbers is still relatively small, and does not change the manufacturer rankings, for either adjusted fuel economy or adjusted CO 2 

## emissions, that are shown in Tables 4.2 and 4.3. This report will continue to track alternative fuel vehicles and may show more analysis including alternative fuel vehicles in future reports. This will be especially important if sales of alternative fuel vehicles continue to increase at the rapid rate of the last three years.



# 107

# High Fuel Economy/Low CO 2 

# and Advanced Technology Choices

Consumers shopping for vehicles with comparatively high fuel economy and low tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions have

more vehicles to choose among in MY 201 4 than five years earlier

. These choices reflect both a more diverse range of technology packages on conventional gasoline vehicles as well as more advanced technology and alternative fuel vehicles. Section 5 analyzes important trends for a number of conventional gasoline and diesel vehicle technologies and for advanced technologies like hybrid vehicles. Section 7 provides data on individual
alternative fuel vehicle models such as electric vehicles, plug

- in hybrid electr ic vehicles, and compressed natural gas vehicles. This section focuses specifically on trends related to the fuel economy and advanced vehicle purchase choices available to consumers in the new vehicle market

.



# A. M ETHODOLOGY

There are some important metho dological differences in the analysis in this section relative to

Sections 1 -6

. First, the data in this section are not weighted by vehicle production levels, but instead reflect “model counts,” which is more appropriate for evaluating vehicle choices for

consumers. This is because, to an individual consumer in the market for a new vehicle, it makes little or no difference if a particular model has high or low production. Second, this section includes alternative fuel vehicles, whereas sections 1

- 6 gener ally analyze only gasoline
and diesel vehicles. Third , the analysis in this section focuses on the changes between MY
2009 and MY 201 4, rather than trends over multiple decades . These two model years are used
because a 5

- year period is long enough to ide ntify meaningful multi

- year trends.

This “model count” analysis requires assumptions about how to define a model. Our objective in this analysis is to count models that are generally marketed and perceived by consumers to be unique vehicle choices, but no t to count multiple configurations that are generally marketed and perceived by consumers to be the same model. The application of this approach requires considerable judgment , and we have made every effort to be consistent for both MY 2009 and MY 2014

. The most important guidelines used to classify vehicle configurations

into un ique “models” for this analysis are:

• Vehicles with the same name are generally counted as one model (e.g., all Honda Civics are counted as one model), with exceptions noted below

. Vehicle options included as one model include:

o Engine and transmission options (including hybrid, diesel, CNG, EV, PHEV,

t urbo, and ECO variants)

o 2WD and 4WD versions

o Trim levels

o Convertible, hatchback, and wagon body styles

o FFV and non

- FFV models

o BMW series. For example, all BMW 5 series variants are included as one model, including the ActiveHybrid 5



# 108

## • The model count methodology was updated for this year’s report to better capture performance vehicles with their base counterparts. Generally perf ormance and non

performance vehicles are counted as one model, even if they have distinct names. Vehicle variants counted as one model include:

o Audi A4 and Audi S4

o BMW M3 in included in the BMW 3 series

o Volkswagen Golf and Volkswagen GTI

• Vehicles that ar e substantially similar, but are sold in multiple divisions, ( o ften called “twins”) are counted as separate models. For example:

o Ford Escape and Mercury Mariner are counted as separate models

o Chevrolet Equinox and GMC Terrain are counted as separate models

• Vehicles that are generally marketed as distinct models are counted as separate models. For example:

o Prius, Prius v and Prius c are counted as distinct models

• The model count methodology was updated for this year’s report, such that the Mini Cooper vehicles are grouped and counted as four models (Mini Cooper, Mini Cooper Roadster, Mini Cooper Clubman, Mini Cooper Countryman /Paceman ), generally based on wheelbase, with multiple trim models within each wheelbase counted as the same
model

• If a t least one variant of an individual model meets a threshold defined in the analysis (e.g., cars with fuel economy greater than 3 0 mpg), the model is counted only once, regardless of the number of model variants that meet the threshold. For instance, if hybrid, CNG, and gasoline variant Honda Civics exceed 30 mpg, only one Civic is counted as exceeding 30 mpg

These “model count” guidelines resulted in approximately 300 models for both MY 2009 and
MY 2014.

Finally, the last methodological difference betw een this section and most other sections of this report is that two key parameters

- vehicle classifications and combined city/highway fuel economy values

- are generally aligned with the Fuel Economy and Environment label in order
to be consistent with the information available to consumers when they are considering new vehicle purchases. The vehicle classifications in Figure 8.1 are based on Fuel Economy and Environment label classifications which differ slightly from the definitions of cars and light

truc ks used in Sections 1

- 6 in this report (for example, in Figure 8.1, all SUVs are combined into a single category consistent with fuel economy labels and are not split into car SUVs and truck SUVs as is done for compliance with standards and elsewhere in th is report). The label classes are simplified into four broader categories: cars, SUVs, pickups and minivans/vans. If variants of a model were in more than one of these four broader categories, then the variant was counted once in each relevant category. Th e combined fuel economy values used in Figure



# 109

## 8.1 are based on the 55% city/45% highway weighting used on fuel economy labels, and not on the 43% city/57% highway weighting used for adjusted fuel economy values presented elsewhere in this report. For PHEV s, the mpge value is the combined, utilitized value. These values can be found in the “Overall Fuel Economy” column of Table 7.3.



# B. H IGH 

# F UEL 

# E CONOMY 

# V EHICLE 

# O FFERINGS

Figure 8.1 shows the change from MY 2009 17 

## to MY 2014 in the number of models for which at least one model variant meets various fuel economy thresholds. The threshold values for EVs, PHEVs, and CNG vehicles that are represented in Figure 8.1 all use miles per gallon of gasoline

- equivalent (mpge), i.e., the miles the vehicle can travel on an amount of electricity that has the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline . See Section 7 for a detailed discussion of EVs, PHEVs, CNG vehicles, and mpge.



# Figure 8 .1

Number of Models Meeting Fuel Economy Thresholds in MY 200 9 and MY 201 4

MY 2009 MY 2014

0 20 60Number of Models

40

Pickups and Minivans/Vans ≥ 20 MPG SUVs ≥ 25 MPG Cars ≥ 30 MPG Cars ≥ 40 MPG Includes city/hwy combined label MPG estimates for gasoline, diesel and hybrid vehicles, and MPGe estimates for EVs and PHEVs

10 30 50 70



## Figure 8.1 shows that there are 16 MY 2014 pickup and minivan/van models for which at least one variant of the model has a combined city/highway label fuel economy rating of 20 mpg or more, a slight increase over five years ago. Five minivans/vans met or exceeded a 20 mpg threshold in MY 2009, but in MY 2014 more than ten minivans/vans meet the 20 mpg threshold. While the number of minivans/vans meeting or exceeding 20 mpg has increased in the last five years, the number of pickups has decreased as several small pickups are no longer produced. Three times as many MY 2014 SUV models achieve 25 mpg or above compared to MY 2009. Of the SUVs that achieved 25 mpg in MY 2009, more than half (five) were hybrids.
More than 20 non- hybrid, gasoline or diesel SUVs a chieve at least 25 mpg in MY 2014, as well as two electric, and six hybrid SUVs that achieve at least 25 mpg; These total to more than the

17 

### The MY 2009 Tesla Roadster is included in this data. Before MY 2012, manufacturers that produced only EVs were not required to have an EPA fuel economy label; however, for purposes of figure 8.1, the MY 2009 Tesla Roadster is assumed to have fuel economy that is over
40 MPGe and therefore meets the car thresholds for 30 MPGe and 40 MPGe. 

# 110

## 26 models shown in Figure 8.1 because two of the hybrid SUVs and one of the electric SUVs
also has either a diesel or gasoline variant that crosses the 25 MPG threshold. There are now more than 60 car models available where at least one variant has a combined city/highway label fuel economy of 30 mpg or more, a more than three -fold increase over MY 2009. Of MY
2014 car models that have a combined label value greater than or equal to 30 mpg, about half reach this threshold with at least one conventional gasoline or diesel variant. In addition, more than 25 MY 2014 cars achieve 40 mpg or higher, and 17 of the MY 2014 cars have at least one variant that achieves 50 mpg or higher. One of the MY 2014 cars that achieves at least 40 mpg is a conventional gasoline vehicle, but the rest of the cars achieving at least 40 mpg consist of hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles a nd plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles.



# C. A DVANCED 

# T ECHNOLOGY 

# V EHICLE 

# O FFERINGS

Figure 8.2 shows that consumers also have many more alternatives to conventional gasoline vehicles. In MY 2009, the only advanced technologies for which there were meaningful

c hoices were hybrids and diesels, with one EV and one dedicated compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicle. In MY 2014, there are almost twice as many hybrid offerings as there were in MY 2009. In addition, the number of diesel offerings has doubled, and there are growing numbers of electric vehicles and plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles as well. In MY 2014 there are more than ten EVs; there are ten PHEVs; and there is one dedicated CNG vehicle. 18 

## Production share is also increasing for advanced technology vehicles. For a more detailed discussion of hybrids and diesel vehicles, see Section 5, and see Section 7 for more
information about alternative fuel vehicles.

For Figure 8.2, the “model count” methodology is modified slightly to allow models that have
more tha n one alternative fuel variant to be counted in each alternative fuel category (e.g., a Ford Fusion is available as both an HEV and PHEV, so the model was counted once in each category).


# Figure 8.2

Advanced Technology and Alternative Fueled Vehicle Models in MY 200 9 and MY 201 4Number of Models 40

30

20

10

0 MY 2009 MY 2014

Diesel Hybrid EV PHEV CNG



# 111 18 

### Some advanced technology vehicles are generally available only in selected markets. Fuel cell vehicles may also be available to a small
number of consumers in select markets through limited lease and/or demonstration programs, but are not included in this analysis

.

# Regulatory Context

A. P ERSONAL 

# V EHICLE 

# F UEL 

# E CONOMY AND 

# G REENHOUSE 

# G AS 

# E MISSIONS 

# S TANDARDS

National fuel economy standards have been in place in the United States for cars and light
trucks since 1978. The Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ), has the responsibility for setting and enforcing fuel economy

sta ndards through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program

. Since the inception of fuel economy standards, EPA has been responsible for establishing fuel economy test procedures and calculation methods, and for collecting data used to determine vehicle fuel economy and manufacturer CAFE levels.

For MY 2012 through 2025, EPA and NHTSA have jointly developed a historic and coordinated National Program, which established EPA greenhouse gas emissions standards
and NHTSA CAFE standards that allow manufact urers to build a single national fleet to meet requirements of both programs while ensuring that consumers have a full range of vehicle choices. The standards have been supported by a wide range of stakeholders: most major automakers, the United Auto Workers, the State of California, and major consumer and environmental groups.

In 2010, the agencies finalized the first coordinated standards for MY 2012-2016 (75 Federal Register 25324, May 7, 2010). By MY 2016, the average industry

- wide compliance level s for these footprint

- based standards are projected to be 250 g/mi CO 2 

## and 34.1 mpg CAFE

. The 250 g/mi CO 2 

## compliance level would be equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all CO 2 

## emissions reductions are achieved through fuel economy improvements. In 2012, the agencie s finalized additional coordinated standards for MY 2017-2025 (77 Federal Register 62624, October 15, 2012). By MY 2025, the average industry- wide compliance levels are projected to be 163 g/mi

CO 2 

## and 48.7 to 49.7 mpg CAFE. 19 20 

## The 163 g/mi CO 2 

## compliance level would be equivalent to 54.5 mpg if all CO 2 

## emissions reductions are achieved solely through improvements in fuel economy. 21 

## For both MY 2012-2016 and MY 2017-2025, the agencies expect that a portion of the required CO 2 

## emissions improvements will be achieved by reductions in air conditioner refrigerant leakage, which would not contribute to higher fuel economy. These coordinated standards are expected to yield “continuous improvement”
reductions in CO 2 

## emissions and increases in fuel economy levels t hrough MY 2025.

19 

### The final rule establishing these standards requires EPA to conduct a midterm evaluation of the MY 2022

- 2025 standards.

20 

### NHTSA CAFE standards for model years 2022

- 2025 are not final, and are augural. NHTSA is required by Congress to set CAFE standards for no more than five years at a time. NHTSA will conduct a new and full rulemaking in the future to establish standards for model years
2022- 2025. NHTSA projects the augural standards would require a combined fleetwide fuel economy of 48.7

- 49.7 mpg.

21 

### While many assumptions must be made to convert from projected standards compliance levels to projected adjusted (real world) levels, EPA has projected that MY 2025 standards compliance levels, with no over compliance, would result in adjusted levels of 223 g/mi CO 2 

### and 40 mpg (77 Federal Register 62773, October 15, 2012). 

# 112

## Prior to the national program, truck CAFE standards began to increase in MY 2005, and have increased every year since. Truck CAFE standards were constant from MY 1996 – MY 2004,
and car CAFE standards were constant from MY 1990 until MY 2010.

Automaker compliance with the above CO 2 

## and CAFE standards is based on unadjusted, laboratory CO 2 

## and fuel economy values, along with various regulatory incentives and credits, rather than on the adjusted CO 2 

## and fuel economy values that are used thro ughout most of this report. Neither unadjusted, laboratory nor adjusted CO 2 

## and fuel economy values reflect various incentives (e.g., for flexible fuel vehicles for both CO 2 

## and CAFE standards) and credits (air conditioner and other off

- cycle technologies for CO 2 

## standards) that are available to manufacturers for regulatory compliance. Fleetwide CAFE standards compliance values are
a minimum of 25% higher than adjusted fuel economy values and fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions standards compliance values are a minimum of 20% lower than adjusted CO 2 

## emissions values (these offsets can be greater due to alternative fuel vehicle, air conditioner, and/or other compliance credits)

. EPA (at epa.gov/otaq/regs/ld

- hwy/greenhouse/ld

- ghg.htm ) and NHTSA (at nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel

- economy ) publish separate documents summarizing formal automaker compliance with GH G emissions and CAFE standards. NHTSA will prepare an updated report after EPA provides NHTSA with complete and final data through MY 2013. NHTSA may also update this report at other times when additional data is available.



# B. C URRENT 

# V EHICLES 

# T HAT 

# M EET 

# F UTURE 

# EPA
CO 2 

# E MISSIONS 

# C OMPLIANCE 

# T ARGETS

This section evaluate s MY 2014 vehicles against future footprint

- based CO 2 

## emission targets to determine which current vehicles could meet or exceed the ir targets in model years 2016-2025

, based on current powert rain designs and only assuming credits for future improvements in air conditioner refrigerants and efficiency. EPA assumed the addition of air conditioning improvements since these are considered to be among the most straightforward and least

expen sive t echnologies available to reduce CO 2 

## and other greenhouse gas emissions

.
It is important to note there are no CO 2 

## emissions standards for individual vehicles. Rather,
there are manufacturer

- specific compliance levels for both passenger car and light truck fleets. The compliance levels are derived from the footprint

- based CO 2 

## emissions target curves, and the production volume

- weighted distribution of vehicles produced for sale in the U.S. by each
manufacturer. Since vehicles with emissions levels below the ir CO 2 

## targets will generate credits (and those above their targets will generate debits), manufacturers are likely to achieve fleetwide compliance with 40% to 60% of their models meeting or bettering their targets.

Figure 9.1 shows that 34% of projected M Y 2014 vehicle production already meets the MY

2016 CO 2 

## targets , or can meet these targets with the addition of expected air conditioning
improvements. The bulk of current vehicle production that meets the MY 2016 targets is accounted for by non

- hybrid gasoline vehicles, although other technologies, including diesels,



# 113

## hybrids, plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles, electric vehicles and compressed natural ga s vehicles, are also represented.

Looking ahead, nearly 4% of projected 2014 production already meets the MY 2025 CO 2 

## targets. V ehicles meeting the MY 2025 CO 2 

## targets are comprised solely of hybrids, plug

- in hybrids, and electric vehicles. S ince the MY 2025 standards are over a decade away, there’s considerable time for continued improvements in gasoline vehicle technology.



# Figure 9.1

MY 201 4 Vehicle Production That Meets Future CO 2 

## Emission Targets with Current Powertrains

40%

35%

30% 

### Fuel
CNG 25% 

### EV

PHEV

HEV

15% 20%



### Diesel

Gasoline 10%

5%

0%

2016 2017 2020 2025


### Target Year



# 114

# C. C OMPARISON OF 

# EPA AND 

# NHTSA F UEL 

# E CONOMY 

# D ATA 

# , 1975

- 2014

Table 9.1 compares CAFE performance data reported by NHTSA (“Summary of Fuel Economy Performa nce” report dated June 26, 2014 and available at nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel

economy ) with the adjusted and unadjusted

, laboratory fuel economy data in this report. With only minor exceptions over 30 years ago, t he NHTSA values are higher than the EPA unadjusted, laboratory va lues

, due primarily to alternative fuel vehicle credits, and secondarily

to test procedure adjustment factors for cars. In recent years for which both Agencies report final data, the NHTSA values are typically 0.6

- 1.0 mpg higher than the EPA unadjusted,
la boratory values. MY 2012 is the most recent year for which both agencies report final data, and NHTSA’s final CAFE performance value is 1.0 mpg higher than EPA’s final unadjusted, laboratory value. For MY 2013, NHTSA’s mid

- model year value does not include Hyundai and
Kia due to the ongoing fuel economy investigation, however EPA’s final unadjusted, laboratory value does include Hyundai and Kia. Accordingly, the smaller 0.4 mpg difference is to be expected. For MY 2014, both agencies report preliminary valu es, and NHTSA’s preliminary value is 1.0 mpg higher (1.0 mpg for cars and 1.2 mpg higher for trucks) than EPA’s unadjusted, laboratory value. These preliminary MY 2014 projections are based on
different data sets. The EPA MY 2014 value is based on automak er submissions in the spring
and summer of 20 13 to support vehicle fuel economy labels. The NHTSA MY 2014 value is
based on automaker pre - model year CAFE reports later in 20 13 . Final MY 2014 results will be reported in next year’s report.

The EPA car and t ruck fuel economy values shown in Table 9.1 for years prior to MY 2011 differ from the values found elsewhere in this report. Beginning with the 2011 report, EPA reclassified many small and mid

- sized, 2

- wheel drive SUVs from trucks to cars for the entire
h istorical database. This reflects a regulatory change made by NHTSA for CAFE standards beginning in MY 2011 and applies to the joint EPA/NHTSA greenhouse gas emissions and
CAFE standards that have been finalized for MY 2012-2025. These changes were not in effect for years prior to MY 2011, and accordingly NHTSA’s CAFE fuel economy values prior to MY 2011 are based on the previous car and truck definitions. To enable an apples

- to - apples comparison to the NHTSA values, the EPA car and truck values in Table 9. 1 through model year 2010 were calculated using the previous car and truck definitions, which is not consistent with the rest of this report. While the individual car and truck values in Table 9.1 are unique,
the car and truck definitions do not affect the overall (car plus truck) fuel economy values, which are consistent with the rest of this report.



# 115

# Table 9.1

EPA Adjusted, EPA Unadjusted Laboratory, and CAFE Values by Model Year

Model
Year Cars Trucks Both Cars and Trucks

EPA Adj. (MPG) EPA Unadj.,

Lab (MPG) NHTSA
CAFE (MPG) Diff. (NHTSA

- Lab) (MPG) EPA Adj. (MPG) EPA Unadj.,

Lab (MPG) NHTSA
CAFE (MPG) Diff. (NHTSA

-

Lab) (MPG) EPA Adj. (MPG) EPA Unadj.,

Lab (MPG) NHTSA
CAFE (MPG) Diff. (NHTSA

-

Lab) (MPG)

1975 13.5 15.8 N/A

- 11.6 13.7 N/A

- 13.1 15.3 N/A

- 1976 14.9 17.5 N/A

- 12.2 14.4 N/A

- 14.2 16.7 N/A

- 1977 15.6 18.3 N/A

- 13.3 15.6 N/A

- 15.1 17.7 N/A

- 1978 16.9 19.9 19.9 0.0 12.9 15.2 N/A

- 15.8 18.6 19.9 1.3

1979 17.2 20.3 20.3 0.0 12.5 14.7 18.2 3.5 15.9 18.7 20.1 1.4

1980 20.0 23.5 24.3 0.8 15.8 18.6 18.5

- 0.1 19.2 22.5 23.1 0.6

1981 21.4 25.1 25.9 0.8 17.1 20.1 20.1

- 20.5 24.1 24.6 0.5

1982 22.2 26.0 26.6 0.6 17.4 20.5 20.5

- 21.1 24.7 25.1 0.4

1983 22.1 25.9 26.4 0.5 17.8 20.9 20.7

- 0.2 21.0 24.6 24.8 0.2

1984 22.4 26.3 26.9 0.6 17.4 20.5 20.6 0.1 21.0 24.6 25.0 0.4

1985 23.0 27.0 27.6 0.6 17.5 20.6 20.7 0.1 21.3 25.0 25.4 0.4

1986 23.7 27.9 28.2 0.3 18.2 21.4 21.5 0.1 21.8 25.7 25.9 0.2

1987 23.8 28.1 28.5 0.4 18.3 21.6 21.7 0.1 22.0 25.9 26.2 0.3

1988 24.1 28.6 28.8 0.2 17.9 21.2 21.3 0.1 21.9 25.9 26.0 0.1

1989 23.7 28.1 28.4 0.3 17.6 20.9 21.0 0.1 21.4 25.4 25.6 0.2

1990 23.3 27.8 28.0 0.2 17.4 20.7 20.8 0.1 21.2 25.2 25.4 0.2

1991 23.4 28.0 28.4 0.4 17.8 21.3 21.3

- 21. 3 25.4 25.6 0.2

1992 23.1 27.6 27.9 0.3 17.4 20.8 20.8

- 20.8 24.9 25.1 0.2

1993 23.5 28.2 28.4 0.2 17.5 21.0 21.0

- 20.9 25.1 25.2 0.1

1994 23.3 28.0 28.3 0.3 17.2 20.8 20.8

- 20.4 24.6 24.7 0.1

1995 23.4 28.3 28.6 0.3 17.0 20.5 20.5

- 20.5 24.7 24.9 0.2

1996 23.3 28.3 28.5 0.2 17.2 20.8 20.8

- 20.4 24.8 24.9 0.1

1997 23.4 28.4 28.7 0.3 17.0 20.6 20.6

- 20.1 24.5 24.6 0.1

1998 23.4 28.5 28.8 0.3 17.1 20.9 21.0 0.1 20.1 24.5 24.7 0.2

1999 23.0 28.2 28.3 0.1 16.7 20.5 20.9 0.4 19.7 24.1 24.5 0.4

2000 22.9 28.2 28.5 0.3 16.9 20.8 21.3 0.5 19.8 24.3 24.8 0.5

2001 23.0 28.4 28.8 0.4 16.7 20.6 20.9 0.3 19.6 24.2 24.5 0.3

2002 23.1 28.6 29.0 0.4 16.7 20.6 21.4 0.8 19. 5 24.1 24.7 0.6

2003 23.2 28.9 29.5 0.6 16.9 20.9 21.8 0.9 19.6 24.3 25.1 0.8

2004 23.1 28.9 29.5 0.6 16.7 20.8 21.5 0.7 19.3 24.0 24.6 0.6

2005 23.5 29.5 30.3 0.8 17.2 21.4 22.1 0.7 19.9 24.8 25.4 0.6

2006 23.3 29.2 30.1 0.9 17.5 21.8 22.5 0.7 20.1 25.2 25.8 0.6

2007 24.1 30.3 31.2 0.9 17.7 22.1 23.1 1.0 20.6 25.8 26.6 0.8

2008 24.3 30.5 31. 5 1.0 18.2 22.7 23.6 0.9 21.0 26.3 27. 1 0. 8

2009 25.4 32.1 32. 9 0.8 19.0 23.8 24. 8 1.0 22.4 28.2 2 9.0 0.8

2010 25.8 32.7 33. 9 1.2 19.1 23.8 2 5.2 1.4 22. 6 28. 4 29. 3 0.9

2011 25.6 32.3 33.1 0.8 19.1 23.9 24.7 0.8 22.4 28.1 29.0 0.9

2012 27.0 34.3 35.3 1.0 19.3 24.1 25.0 0.9 23.6 29.8 30.8 1.0

2013 27.6 35.2 36.0 0.8 19.8 24.8 25.5 0.7 24.1 30.5 30.9 0.4

201 4 27. 9 35.5 36. 5 1.0 20.1 25.2 2 6.4 1.2 24. 2 30. 6 31.6 1.0



# 116

# D. C OMPARISON OF 

# MY 2013 U NADJUSTED 

# , L

ABORATORY AND 

# E STIMATED 

# CAFE D ATA BY


# M ANUFACTURER

The primary differences between EPA unadjusted

, laboratory fuel economy data and EPA
estimated CAFE values are flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) credits that are available to manufacturers that produce vehicles capable of operation on an alternative fuel ( E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline), and test procedure adjustment (TPA) credits that apply to manufacturers of passenger cars. Any remaining offsets are due to production of alternative fuel vehicles, which are not included in the unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values provided in this report (see Section 7, Alternative Fuel Vehicles).

Table 9.2 shows how the unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values in this report, the production of alternative fueled vehicles (AFVs), FFV credits, and TPA credits “add up” to
estimated CAFE values for each of the eleven highest volume manufacturers (excluding Hyundai and Kia) for cars, trucks, and cars plus trucks. The FFV credits, TPA credits, and estimated CAFE values in Table 9.2 were obtained directly from EPA’s fuel economy compliance program. The data is from the annual manufacturer CAFE Reports, and based on data provided to EPA and NHTSA by automakers. The authors calculated the impact of AFVs on CAFE levels for those manufacturers that produce AFVs. For some manufacturers, the numbers in Table 9.2 do not add up exactly due to rounding.

The CAFE program recognizes three categories, domestic passenger vehicles, import passenger vehicles, and light trucks. The passenger car FFV, TPA, and estimated CAFE numbers in Table 9.2 are calculated from the domestic and import passenger vehicle categories. The truck
values were obtai ned directly (trucks are not eligible for TPA credits). The combined car and
truck FFV and TPA credits were generated using car and truck sales

. This column is shown for illustrative purposes only, since there are no CAFE standar ds for combined cars and tr ucks.

For MY 2013

, five manufacturers earned FFV credits for cars and seven manufacturers did so for trucks. All manufacturers were eligible for the TPA credits for cars.



# 117

# Table 9.2
Comparison of MY 2013 EPA Unadjusted, Laboratory and Estimated CAFE (M PG) Values by Manufacturer *

Manufacturer Passenger Car Light Truck Both Cars and Trucks

EPA Unadj.,

Lab AFVs FFV Credit TPA Credit Est.
CAFE ** EPA Unadj.,

Lab AFVs FFV Credit TPA Credit Est.
CAFE ** EPA Unadj.,

Lab AFVs FFV Credit TPA Credit Est.
CAFE **

Ford 34.5 0.4 1.2 0.3 36.3 23.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 25.0 27.9 0.2 1.2 0.1 29.4

General Motors 32.1 0.4 1.2 0.2 33.9 22.6 0.0 1.2 0.0 23.8 27.5 0.2 1.2 0.1 29.0
Toyota 39.3 0.2 0.0 0.4 39.9 25.4 0.0 0.5 0.0 26.0 32.2 0.1 0.3 0.1 32.8 Chrysler

- Fiat 30.6 0.1 1.2 0.2 32.1 23.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 24.5 26.0 0.0 1.2 0.1 27.3

Honda 39.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 39.4 28.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.5 34.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 35.2

Nissan 37.8 1.0 0.0 0.3 39.1 26.5 0.0 0.6 0.0 27.1 33.6 0.6 0.3 0.2 34.7 Volkswagen 33.2 0.0 0.8 0.2 34.2 27.1 0.0 1.2 0.0 28.3 32.2 0.0 0.9 0.2 33.3

BMW 32.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 33.1 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.8 30.8 0.0 0.0 0.2 31.0

Subaru 35.7 0.0 0.0 0.3 36.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 33.3 34.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 34.4

Daimler 30.2 0.1 1.2 0.2 31.7 24.4 0.0 1.2 0.0 25.5 28.2 0.1 1.2 0.1 29.5

Mazda 38.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 39.4 30.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.4 36.1 0.0 0.0 0.3 36.4



### * Hyundai and Kia are not included in the table above due to a continuing investigation. On November 2, 2012, EPA announced that Hyundai and Kia would lower their fuel economy estimates for many vehicle models as the result of an EPA investigation of test data.
** EPA calculates the CAFE value for each manufacturer and provides to NHTSA per EPCA. NHTSA publishes the final CAFE values in its annual “Summary of Fuel Economy Performance” reports at nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel

- economy.



# 118

# Additional Database and Report Details

This section addresses several Trends database topics in greater detail. While the key parameters of the Trends database that are of the most importance to users were highlighted in Section 1, this section will help those readers who want to further understand how the database is developed and various nuances associated with the
database.



# A. S OURCES OF 

# I NPUT 

# D ATA

Nearly all of the recent model year input for the Trends database is extracted from EPA 's

current vehicle compliance information system, VERIFY

, into which automakers submit data required by congressional statute and EPA regulations. Prior to the beginning of each model year, automakers submit General Label information required to suppor t the generation of the joint EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy and Environment Labels that appear on all new personal vehicles. Automakers report p re - model year vehicle production projections for individual models to EPA in the General Label submissions; these proj ections are considered by EPA and
automakers to be confidential business information. A few months after the end of each model year, automakers subm it Final GHG/CAFE data, which EPA and NHTSA use to determine compliance with GHG emissions and CAFE standard s. These end

- of

- the

- year submissions include final production volumes. The production volume levels automakers provide in their Final CAFE reports may differ slightly from their Final GHG reports (less than 0.1%) because the EPA emissions certification re gulations, including GHG regulations, require emission compliance in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, whereas the CAFE program requires data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico only. To maintain consistency with previous versions of this report, the Trends database will continue to use the production volumes for CAFE reporting. Both the General Label and Final GHG/CA FE data submissions contain a broad amount of data
associated with CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy, vehicle and engine technology, and vehicle performance metrics. The Trends database extracts only a portion of the data in the VERIFY
database.

This report reflects data from VERIFY as of June 2014 . Through MY 2013 , all Trends data is
considered final since it is based on the F inal GHG/CAFE complia nce reports . For MY 2014

, all Trends data is prel iminary since it is based on c onfidential pre

- model year produ ction projections. Fi nal MY 2014 values will be published in next year's report. See Section 10.G below for a historical comparison of preliminary and final values.

While nearly the entire Trends database comes from formal automaker submissions, it also
contains a small amount of data from external sources. For example, label fuel economy data
for Sections 7 and 8 are from fueleconomy.gov . As another example , we rely on published



# 119

## data from external sources for ce rtain parameters of pre -MY 2011 vehicles, which are not universally available through automaker submissions: (1) engines with variable valve timing (VVT); (2) eng ines with cylinder deactivation ; and (3) vehicle footprint, which is the product
of wheelbase times average track width and upon which CO 2 

## emissions and CAFE standards are based. Beginning with MY 2011, automaker submissions have included data on these

parameters. Finally, vehicle 0

- to - 60 acceleration values are not provided by automakers, but
rather are calculated from other Trends data as discussed in Section 3.



# B. H ARMONIC 

# A VERAGING OF 

# F UEL 

# E CONOMY 

# V ALUES

Averaging multiple fuel economy values must be done harmonically in order to obtain a correct mathematical result. Since fuel economy is expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), one critical assumption with any harmonic averaging of multiple fuel economy values is whet her the distance term (miles, in the numerator of mpg) is fixed or variable. This report makes the assumption that the distance term in all mpg values is fixed, i.e., that for purposes of calculating a harmonically averaged fuel economy value, it is assume d that the distance term (representing miles travelled) is equivalent across various vehicle fuel economies. This assumption is the standard practice with harmonic averaging of multiple fuel economy values (including, for example, in calculations for CAFE standards compliance), and simplifies the
calculations involved.

Mathematically, when assuming a fixed distance term as discussed above, harmonic averaging of multiple fuel economy values can be defined as the inverse of the average of the reciprocals
of t he individual fuel economy values. It is best illustrated by a simple example.

Consider a round trip of 600 miles. For the first 300

- mile leg, the driver is alone, with no other passengers or cargo, and, aided by a tailwind, uses 10 gallons of gasoline, fo r a fuel economy of 30 mpg. On the return 300

- mile trip, with several passengers, some luggage, and a headwind, the driver uses 15 gallons of gasoline, for a fuel economy of 20 mpg. Many people will assume that the average fuel economy for the entire 600

- mile trip is 25 mpg, the arithmetic (or simple) average of 30 mpg and 20 mpg. But, since the driver consumed 10 + 15 = 25 gallons of fuel during the trip, the actual fuel economy is 600 miles divided by 25 gallons, or 24 mpg.

Why is the actual 24 mpg les s than the simple average of 25 mpg? Because the driver used more gallons while (s)he was getting 20 mpg than when (s)he was getting 30 mpg.

This same principle is often demonstrated in elementary school mathematics when an airplane makes a round trip, wi th a speed of 400 mph one way and 500 mph the other way. The average speed of 444 mph is less than 450 mph because the airplane spent more time going 400 mph than it did going 500 mph.

As in both of the examples above, a harmonic average will typically yield a result that is slightly



# 120

## lower than the arithmetic average.

The following equation illustrates the use of harmonic averaging to obtain the correct mathematical result for the fuel economy example above:

2 Average mpg = = 24 mpg ቀ 1

30 + 1 20 ቁ

The above example w as for a single vehicle with two different fuel economies over two legs of a single round trip. But, the same mathematical principle holds for averaging the fuel economies of any number of vehicles. For example, the average fuel economy for a set of 10

v ehicles, with three 30 mpg vehicles, four 25 mpg vehicles, and three 20 m pg vehicles would be (note that, in order to maintain the concept of averaging, the total number of vehicles in the numerator of the equation must equal the sum of the individual nume rators in the denominator of the equation):

10 Average mpg = = 24 .4 mpg ቀ 3

30 + 4 20 ቁ 25 + 3

Note that arithmetic averaging , not harmonic averaging, provide s the correct mathematical result for averaging fuel consumption values (in gallons per mile, the inverse of fuel economy)
and CO 2 

## emissions (in grams per mile). In the first, round trip, example above , the first leg had a fuel consumption rate of 10 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.03333 gallons per mile. The second leg had a fuel consumption of 15 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.05 gallons per mile. Arithmetically averaging the two fuel consumption values, i.e., adding them up and dividing by two, yields 0.04167 gallons per mile, and the inverse of this is the correct fuel economy average of 24 mpg. Arithmetic averaging also works for CO 2 

## emissions values, i.e., the average of 200 g/mi and 400 g/mi is 300 g/mi CO 2 

## emissions.

In summary, fuel economy values must be harmonically averaged to maintain mathematical integrity, while fuel consumption values (in gall ons per mile) and CO 2 

## emissions values (in grams per mile) can be arithmetically averaged.



# C. A DJUSTED VS 

# . U NADJUSTED 

# , L ABORATORY 

# F UEL 

# E CONOMY 

# V ALUES

**Change in Emphasis from Unadjusted, Laboratory to Adjusted Data Beginning in 2001** 

Prior to 2001, EPA’s Trends reports o nly included unadjusted , laboratory fuel economy values, which are used as the basis for compliance with standards and passenger car gas guzzler

tax es. Beginning in 2001, Trends reports also included adjusted values which are EPA’s best
estimate of real w orld fuel economy performance. Now, most of the tables and figures in this



# 121

## report exclusively show adjusted fuel economy (as well as adjusted CO 2 

## emissions) values.

One important distinction between the adjusted and the unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values is that the methodology for determining the former has evolved over time to better reflect real world performance (see the next sub

- section for more details). Some of the changes to the adjusted fuel economy value methodology are intended to accoun t for changes in consumer driving behavior over time (e.g., higher speeds, higher acceleration rates, greater use of air conditioning). Since adjusted Trends values are intended to represent real world performance at any given time, modifications to the a djusted value methodology that reflect changes in consumer driving behavior have not been "propagated back" through the historical Trends database. We note that this is an exception to our general policy of “propagating back” changes throughout the histor ical Trends database, but in this case doing so would skew the historical fuel economy performance data (for example, by assuming that drivers in 1975 used air conditioning much more frequently, or traveled at higher speeds, than they did).

On the other ha nd, the methodology for determining unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values has remained largely unchanged since this series began in the mid -1970s. 22 

## Unadjusted
values therefore provide an excellent basis with which t o compare long

- term trends in vehic le design, apart from the factors tha t affect real world performance that are reflec ted in the adjusted values.

Table 10.1 shows both unadjusted, laboratory and adjusted fuel economy values, for the
overall new car and truck fleet for MY 1975

- 2014, for cit y, highway, and combined city/highway. It also shows how the ratio of adjusted

- to -unadjusted fuel economy has changed over time, reflecting that the methodology for adjusted fuel economy values has evolved, while the methodology for unadjusted fuel economy values has not changed.

In addition to Table 10.1, the following tables also include unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values: Tables 2.3, 4.4, 9.1, 9.2, 10.2, and 10.4.

22 

### There were some relatively minor test procedure changes made in the late 1970s that, in the aggregate, made the city and highway tests slightly more demanding, i.e., the unadjusted fuel economy values for a given car after these test procedure changes were made are slightly lower relative to prior to the changes. EPA has long provided CAFE “test procedure adjustments” (TPAs) for passenger cars in recognition of the fact that the original CAFE standards were based on the EPA test procedures in place in 1975 (there are no TPAs for light trucks). The resulting impacts on the long

- term unadjuste d fuel economy trends are very small. As shown in Table 9.2, the TPAs for cars vary, and are typically in the range of 0.2

- 0.5 mpg for cars, or 0.1

- 0.3 mpg when the car TPAs are averaged over the combined car/truck
fleet. 

# 122

# Table 10.1
Unadjusted, Laboratory and Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG) for MY 1975

- 2014, Cars and Trucks

Model
Year Unadjusted City (MPG) Unadjusted Highway

(MPG) Unadjusted
Combined

(55/45) (MPG) Adjusted City (MPG) Adjusted Highway

(MPG) Adjusted
Combined

(43/57) (MPG) Ratio of Adjusted
Combined to Unadjusted
Combined

1975 13.4 18.7 15.3 12.0 14.6 13.1 85.2%

1976 14.6 20.2 16.7 13.2 15.7 14.2 85.1%

1977 15.6 21.3 17.7 14.0 16.6 15.1 85.1%

1978 16.3 22.5 18.6 14.7 17.5 15.8 85.1%

1979 16.5 22.3 18.7 14.9 17.4 15.9 85.1%

1980 19.6 27.5 22.5 17.6 21.5 19.2 85.2%

1981 20.9 29.5 24.1 18.8 23.0 20.5 85.2%

1982 21.3 30.7 24.7 19.2 23.9 21.1 85.2%

1983 21.2 30.6 24.6 19.0 23.9 21.0 85.3%

1984 21.2 30.8 24.6 19.1 24.0 21.0 85.3%

1985 21.5 31.3 25.0 19.3 24.4 21.3 85.3%

1986 22.1 32.2 25.7 19.8 25.0 21.8 85.0%

1987 22.2 32.6 25.9 19.8 25.3 22.0 84.7%

1988 22.1 32.7 25.9 19.6 25.2 21.9 84.4%

1989 21.7 32.3 25.4 19.1 24.8 21.4 84.2%

1990 21.4 32.2 25.2 18.7 24.6 21.2 83.9%

1991 21.6 32.5 25.4 18.8 24.7 21.3 83.6%

1992 21.0 32.1 24.9 18.2 24.4 20.8 83.4%

1993 21.2 32.4 25.1 18.2 24.4 20.9 83.1%

1994 20.8 31.6 24.6 17.8 23.8 20.4 82.9%

1995 20.8 32.1 24.7 17.7 24.1 20.5 82.7%

1996 20.8 32.2 24.8 17.6 24.0 20.4 82.4%

1997 20.6 31.8 24.5 17.4 23.6 20.2 82.2%

1998 20.6 31.9 24.5 17.2 23.6 20.1 81.9%

1999 20.3 31.2 24.1 16.9 23.0 19.7 81.7%

2000 20.5 31.4 24.3 16.9 23.0 19.8 81.3%

2001 20.5 31.1 24.2 16.8 22.8 19.6 81.0%

2002 20.4 30.9 24.1 16.6 22.5 19.5 80.7%

2003 20.6 31.3 24.3 16.7 22.7 19.6 80.4%

2004 20.2 31.0 24.0 16.3 22.4 19.3 80.2%

2005 21.0 32.1 24.8 16.8 23.1 19.9 79.8%

2006 21.2 32.6 25.2 17.0 23.4 20.1 79.8%

2007 21.8 33.4 25.8 17.4 24.0 20.6 79.6%

2008 22.1 34.0 26.3 17.7 24.4 21.0 79.5%

2009 23.8 36.4 28.2 18.9 26.0 22.4 79.1%

2010 24.1 36.6 28.4 19.1 26.2 22.6 79.0%

2011 23.6 36.4 28.1 18.8 26.1 22.4 79.4%

2012 25.1 38.6 29.8 19.9 27.6 23.6 78.9%

2013 25.8 39.5 30.5 20.3 28.1 24.1 78.6%

2014 25.8 39.7 30.6 20.4 28.3 24.2 78.7%



# 123

## Methodological Approaches for Adjusted **Fuel Economy Values** 

EPA has improved its methodology for estimating adjusted (or real world) fuel economy (and

CO 2 

## emissions) performance over time. EPA’s last methodological revisions for how we
calcul ate city, highway, and combined fuel economy label estimate s for cars and light -duty
trucks were established in a December 2006 rulemaking (EPA 2006, 77872)

.


## This current methodology incorporates equations that directly account for several important
factor s that affect fuel economy performance in the real world, such as high speeds, aggressive accelerations and decelerations, the use of air conditioning, and operation in cold temperatures, and indirectly account (through the use of a 9.5% universal downward adjustment factor) for a number of other factors that are not reflected in EPA laboratory test data such as changing fuel composition, wind, road conditions, etc. While some of these factors may not have changed (or may not have changed much) over time a nd therefore new estimation methods that account for these factors could be "propagated back" throughout the historical Trends database, we believe that many of the factors have changed significantly over time (e.g., highway speeds, acceleration rates, use of air conditioning), and therefore new estimation methods could not be fully "propagated back" through the historical Trends database without impacting the integrity of the historical database with respect to real world fuel economy performance.

There a re two important consequences of this approach for users of this report. First, every adjusted fuel economy value in this report for 1986 and later model years is lower than shown
in pre

- 2007 reports. Second, we employed unique approaches for generating a djusted fuel economy values in the historical Trends database for three distinct time frames. The following
discussion will first address the MY 1975 -1985 time frame, then the MY 2005- 2014 time frame, and then, finally, the approach for the MY 1986 -2004 ti me frame that represents a "phased -in" approach between the 1975-1985 time frame and the 2005- 2014 time frame.

For the MY 1975-1985 time frame, the adjusted fuel economy values in the Trends database are calculated using the methodology adopted by EPA in an April 1984 rulemaking that
established universal fuel economy label adjustment factors of 0.9 for city fuel economy and
0.78 for highway fuel economy that took effect for MY 1985 vehicles (EPA 1984). Accordingly, for MY 1975-1985, adjusted city fuel econ omy is equal to 0.9 times the unadjusted, laboratory city fuel economy value, and adjusted highway fuel economy is 0.78 times the unadjusted, laboratory highway fuel economy. A single, combined adjusted fuel economy value is based on a 55% city/45% highwa y weighting factor . We believe that these adjustment factors a re appropriate for new vehicles through the 1985 model year.

For the MY 2005-2014 time frame, the adjusted city and highway values in the Trends database for vehicles that undergo full "5

- cycl e" fuel economy testing (Federal Test Procedure for urban stop

- and

- go driving, Highway Fuel Economy Test for rural driving, US06 test for high speeds and aggressive driving, SC 0 3 test for air conditioning operation, and cold FTP test for cold temperature o peration) are calculated by weighting the 5

- cycle test data according to


# 124

## the "composite" 5- cycle equations (EPA 2006, 77883-77886). The combined city/highway adjusted fuel economy value for these vehicles is based on a 43% city/57% highway weighting.

In MY 2014 , about 13% of all vehicle fuel economy data were generated from the full 5

- cycle test protocol.

It is important to emphasize that the 43% city/57% highway weighting used for adjusted 5

- cycle fuel economy values beginning in MY 2005 is different f rom the 55% city/45% highway weighting used to generate adjusted fuel economy values for MY 1975-1985 in the Trends database. EPA’s analysis of real world drivi ng activity underlying the 5

- cycle f uel economy methodology assumed a "speed cutpoint" of 45 mi les per hour to differentiate between (and "bin" the amount of) city and highway driving (EPA 2006, 77904) . Based on this speed cutpoint, the correct weighting for correlating the new city and highway fuel economy values with real world driving, on a mile s driven basis, is 43% city/57% highway , and therefore this weighting is necessary in order to maintain the integrity of projections of fleetwide fuel economy performance based on Trends data . The 55% city/45% highway weighting is still
used for both Fuel Economy and Environment Labels and the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance program s.

Most current vehicles do not undergo full 5

- cycle testing; instead manufacturers derive 5

- cycle
values from 2

- cycle fuel economy test results (EPA Federal Test Procedure an d Highway Fuel Economy Test) based on the relationship between 2 -cycle and 5- cycle fuel economy data for the industry as a whole. Beginning with MY 2011, manufacturers are required to evaluate whether the fuel economy estimates for certification vehicles from 5- cycle tests are comparable
to results from the less resource

- intensive “derived 5

- cycle” method. If the results are comparable, manufacturers can use the derived 5

- cycle method for all vehicle models represented by the certification vehicle. If th e full 5- cycle method yields significantly lower fuel economy estimates than the derived 5

- cycle method, then the manufacturer must use the full
5- cycle method for all mo dels represented by the certification vehicle.

For vehicles that can use the derived 5

- cycle method, the following equations are used to convert unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values for city and highway to adjusted fuel economy values.

1 ADJ CITY = 1. 1805 ቀ 0. 003259 + LAB CITY ቁ

1 ADJ HWY = 1. 3466 ቀ 0. 001376 + LAB HWY ቁ

As above, these val ues are weighted 43% city/57% highway in order to calculate a single, adjusted combined fuel economy value.

For more details on the specific equations that allow an automaker to calculate new label



# 125

## values using either the vehicle

- specific 5

- cycle test data or the derived 5

- cycle approach, and the impact of these changes on average fuel economy label values, see the preamble to the 2006 regulations (EPA 2006)

.
How much of a difference, on average, are the fuel economy values based on the derived 5

- cycle method from the values based on the universal adjustment factors for MY 1975 -1985?
These derived 5

- cycle method values are lower than values based on the univer sal adjustment
factors for MY 1975

- 1985, and the differences are greater for higher fuel economy vehicles than for lower fuel economy vehicles. F or example, compared to the use of the universal adjustment factors for MY 1975 -1985 , a 15 mpg city value will be reduced by an additional 10%, while a 50 mpg city value will be reduced by an additional 18%. Likewise, a 20 mpg highway value will be reduced by an additional 7%, while a 50 mpg highway value will be reduced by an additional 11%. In the 2006 rulemak ing, EPA projected an overall average fleetwide adjustment of 11% lower for city fuel economy and 8% lower for highway fuel economy, beyond that in the older label adjustment methodology. The appropriate fleetwide
factors to convert adjusted MY 1975-1985 fuel economy values to the adjusted derived 5

- cycle, 43% city/57% highway weighting, fuel economy values are dependent on the city fuel

economy - to - highway fuel economy ratios in the fleet. On average, for the current fleet, combining the 11% lower adjustm ent for city fuel economy, the 8% lower adjustment for highway fuel economy, and the shift to the 43% city/57% highway weighting, the combined city/highway fuel economy values are 7% lower than those based on the older label adjustment methodology. This 7 % lower value is the average impact for a fleet with the mpg and city fuel economy

- to - highway fuel economy characteristics of the current fleet, and would not be the appropriate value for individual models, partial fleet segments, or for past or future
fle ets with different mpg and city fuel economy

- to - highway fuel economy distributions.

Finally, manufacturers have the option of voluntarily using lower fuel economy label estimates than those resulting from the full 5

- cycle or derived 5

- cycle approaches disc ussed above. In the rare cases where automakers choose to do so, we base adjusted values on these voluntary lower fuel economy labels, again using the 43% city/57% highway weighting.

For the MY 1986- 2004 time frame, we calculated adjusted fuel economy values based on the simplifying assumption that the impacts of the factors that have led to lower real world fuel

economy , as outlined in the 2006 rulemaking and discussed above, have occurred in a gradual (i.e., linear) manner over the 20 years from 1986 through 2005. We did not attempt to perform a year

- by

- year analysis to determine the extent to which the many relevant factors (including higher highway speed limits, more aggressive driving, increasing vehicle horsepower

to - weight ratio s , suburbanization, congestion, greater use of air conditioning, gasoline composition, et al) that have affected real world fuel economy since 1985 have cha nged over time. We simply assumed 1/20 of the fully phased

- in downward adjustment for city and highway values would be reflected in the 1986 data, 2/20 of this adjustment would be reflected in the 1987 data, etc., up to 19/20 of this adjustment in 2004 and the full adjustment in 2005 and later years. Likewise, EPA has assumed the 55/45 city/highway



# 126

## weighting changes to a 43/57 city/highway weighting in a linear fashion over the 1986 to 2005 time period as well.

One consequence of the approach used in this report is that there are, in effect, 21 different sets of numerical adjustments for determinin g adjusted fuel economy values: a constant numerical adjustment for MY 1975-1985, unique numerical adjustments for each of the 19 model years from 1986 through 2004, and a constant numerical adjustment for MY 2005

- 2014. Due in part to this, the ratio of t he adjusted

- to - unadjusted fuel economy values have been changing over time. As shown in Table 10.1, the adjusted

- to - unadjusted fuel economy

ratio wa s around 0.85 for MY 1975-1985 data, and decreased during the phase- in period from MY 1986-2004, and has be en appr oximately 0.80 since MY 2005. The ratio is 0.79 in MY 2013, and is projected to remain at 0.79 in MY 2014. Even though the basic methodology for determining adjusted fuel economy values is now fixed, it is possible that the adjusted

- to unadjusted f uel economy ratio may change in the future. Any changes in this ratio would be due to the fact that the current adjusted fuel economy methodology now incorporates tests unique to the adjusted methodology and is no longer strictly calculated from the labor atory fuel economy results. On the one hand, all other things being equal, use of the derived 5

- cycle equations would be expected to lower this ratio over time since, as discussed earlier, the equations apply a greater percentage reduction to high fuel ec onomy values than to low fuel economy values (this has, in fact, led to a slight reduction in the ratio since 2005). On the other hand, it is also possible that vehicle powertrain designs may be more robust in the future with respect to a broader set of i n- use driving conditions, and given that the 5

- cycle methodology is data driven, it is impossible to predict the direction of changes in the adjusted

to - unadjusted fuel economy ratio in the future. This report will continue to monitor this data

driven adj usted

- to - unadjusted fuel economy ratio.

**One Illustrative Example of Multiple Fuel Economy M**  **etrics and Values**

One potentially confusing element of any discussion of historical fuel economy values is the various metrics by which fuel economy can be expresse d. As an illustration to help the reader understand the various fuel economy values that can be associated with an individual vehicle, Table 10.2 shows four different ways to express the fuel economy of the MY 2005 Honda Insight.

Unadjusted, laboratory city and highway fuel economy values are direct fuel economy
measurements from the formal EPA 2

- cycle city (Federal Test Procedure, or urban commute) and highway laboratory tests. These values form the basis for automaker compliance with CAFE standards, and are harmonically averaged, and weighted 55% city and 45% highway, to generate a combined value. The 2005 Honda Insight had an unadjusted city value of 68 mpg, an unadjusted highway value of 84 mpg, and an unadjusted combined value of 74 mpg.

At the time, the MY 2005 Honda Insight had an original city label value of 61 mpg, which was calcul ated by multiplying its unadjusted city test value of 68 mpg by 0.9. Likewise, its original highway value was 66 mpg, calcul ated by multiplying its unadjusted highway te st value of 84


# 127

## mpg by 0.78. Harmonically averaging these values, with a 55% city/45% highway weighting, led to a combined original MY 2005 label value of 63 mpg.

Today, as a used car, the 2005 Honda Insight would have lower label values based on the 5

-

cyc le method (reflecting, in addition to 2

- cycle urban commuting and rural highway operation, additional conditions such as high speed/high acceleration, high temperature/air conditioning, and cold temperature operation) for determining city and highway value s, first implemented in MY 2008, and discussed in the previous sub-section. For the 2005 Insight,
the 5 -cycle method yields a city label value of 48 mpg and a highway value of 58 mpg. Today’s labels continue to use a 55% city/45% highway weighting, and t he harmonically averaged, 55% city/45% highway weighted, combined value for the 2005 Insight is 52 mpg. These current label values, based on the 5

- cycle methodology, are considerably lower than the original label values.

Finally, for the MY 2005 Honda Ins ight, this Trends report uses the adjusted fuel economy methodology discussed in the previous sub

- section, that is used in the Trends report for all vehicles beginning in MY 2005. The adjusted Trends city and highway values are the same as
those for the c urrent label, since both the current label and the adjusted Trends approach use
the same 5

- cycle methodology. But, the adjusted Trends approach uses a city/highway weighting of 43% city/57% highway to best correlate with the driving activity studies
unde rlying the 5

- cycle methodology. This different city/highway weighting leads to a 53 mpg combined value, slightly higher than the 52 mpg combined value for the current label.



# Table 10.2
Four Different Fuel Economy Metrics for the MY 2005 Honda Insight

Fuel Economy Metric Fuel Economy Value (MPG)

Comb City Hwy Basis City/Highway Weighting

Unadjusted, Laboratory

Original MY 2005 Label

Current Label

Current Adjusted Trends 74 68 84

63 61 66

52 48 58

53 48 58 Unadjusted 2

- cycle city and highway test values

City test x 0.9 Highway test x 0.78

Adjusted 5

- cycle methodology

Adjusted 5

- cycle methodology 55%/45%

55%/45%

55%/45%

43%/57%



# 128

# D. V EHICLE 

# T AILPIPE 

# CO 2 

# E MISSIONS 

# D ATA

CO 2 

## emissions data were added to the entire historical Trends database beginning with the 2009 report. All CO 2 

## emissions values in this report are calculated from corresponding fuel economy values using the fuel

- specific emissions factors described below. Accordingly, the adjusted and unadjusted, laboratory CO 2 

## emissions values in this report reflect the methodological approaches underlying the adjusted and unadjusted, laboratory fuel economy values that were discussed in detail in the previous section.

While CO 2 

## em issions data is included in several key summary tables and figure s in the report, there are many oth er tables and figures that present fuel economy values but not CO 2 

## emissions values. This section provides a simple method that a rea der can use to estimate CO 2 

## emissions values from any fuel economy value in the report.

If a fuel economy value is given fo r a single gasoline vehicle, or a 100% gasoline vehicle flee t, one can calculate the corresponding CO 2 

## emissions 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

conve rted 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. This is the methodology used to generate the CO 2 

## emissi ons values for all of the gasoline vehicles in the Trends database.

Since gasoline vehicle production has accounted for 99+% of all light

- duty vehicle production for most of the model years since 1975, 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 woul d have a CO 2 

## equivalent value of 339 grams per mile. This is the methodology used to generate the CO 2 

## emissions values for the relatively small number of diesel vehicles in the Trends database.

T o make the most accurate conversions of industry

- wide fuel e conomy values to CO 2 

## emissions values , readers should divide model year

- specific industry

- wide values for grams of

CO 2 

## per gallon in Table 10.3, which are based on actual light

- duty gasoline and diesel vehicle production in that year , by industry- wide fuel economy value s in miles per gallon.

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

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

- speed automatic transmissions). If the user knows the gasoline/diesel production volume fractions for t he vehicles of interest, 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 CO 2 

## emissions per gallon weightings in Table 10.3 (which implicitly

ass ume that the diesel fraction for the vehicles of interest is similar to that for the overall fleet


# 129

## 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

ne gligible

.


# Table 10.3
Factors for Converting Industry -W ide Fuel Economy Values from this Report to Carbon Dioxide
Emissions Values

Gasoline Diesel Weighted CO 2 Production Production per Gallon
Model 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 99.3% 0.7% 8896

2011 99.2% 0.8% 8897

2012 99.1% 0.9% 8899

2013 99.1% 0.9% 8899

2014 98.5% 1.5% 8907



# 130

# E. V EHICLE 

# -R ELATED 

# GHG E MISSIONS 

# S OURCES 

# O THER


# T HAN 

# T AILPIPE 

# CO 2 

# E MISSIONS

The CO 2 

## emissions data in this report reflect the sum of the vehicle tailpipe emissions of CO 2 

## , carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon s , with the latter two converted to equivalent CO 2 

## levels
on a mass basis. While carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions add, on average, less than one percent to overall CO 2 

## tailpipe emissions values, these compounds are included in the tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions data because they are converted to CO 2 

## relatively quickly in the atmosphere , and to maintain consistency with greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions standards compliance

. EPA regulations refer to this sum as “carbon related exhaust emissions” or CREE, but we use the term CO 2 

## emissions in this report for simplicity.

It is important to emphasize that tail pipe CO 2 

## emissions do not represent the entire GHG burden associated with a personal vehicle, and there are at least six other vehicle

- related GHG sources. While this report cannot provide authoritative data for each of these other vehicle

related GHG sources, they will be briefly identified and discussed below for context, with an emphasis on the approximate magnitude of each source relative to the magnitude of the tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions that are documented in this report.

**Tailpipe emissions of nitrous ox ide (N**  **2** 

## O)

Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas and a constituent in the exhaust from internal combustion engines. It is emitted from gasoline and diesel vehicles during specific catalytic converter temperature conditions conducive to its formation. EPA does not currently require N 2 

## O emissions measurement as a part of the formal EPA vehicle certification process (it will begin to be required in the MY 2017

- 2019 timeframe), so we only have limited test data at this time. Based on this limited data, EPA estimat es typical N 2 

## O emissions from late model gasoline cars to be on the order of 0.005 g/mi (EPA and DOT 2010, 25422). With a global warming potential of 298, this yields a CO 2 

## - equivalent value of approximately 1.5 g/mi. or about 0.4% of the 369 g/mi adjusted fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions value for MY 2013. Under the National Program regulations for MY 2012 -2025, EPA has established an N 2 

## O per

- vehicle emissions cap of 0.010 g/mi, which is not intended to reduce N 2 

## O emissions, but rather to ensure that there

are no i ncreases in the future (EPA and DOT 2010, 25421).

**Tailpipe emissions of methane (CH 4**  

## )

Methane is a greenhouse gas and also a constituent in internal combustion engine exhaust. As the simplest hydrocarbon compound (one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms), it is one of the large number of hydrocarbon compounds formed during the imperfect combustion of hydrocarbon

- based fuels such as gasoline and diesel (and the most prominent hydrocarbon compound in compressed natural gas vehicle exhaust). EPA requires that CH 4 

## emissions be measured during the formal EPA vehicle certification program. Typical methane emissions from late model gasoline cars are about 0.015 g/mi (EPA and DOT 2010, 25423). With a



# 131

## global warming potential of 25, this yields a CO 2 

## - equivalent value of approximately 0.4 g/mi, or about 0.1% of the 369 g/mi adjusted fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions value for MY 2013. Under the National Program regulations for MY 2012 -2025, EPA has established a CH 4 

## per - vehicle emissions cap of 0.03 g/mi, which is not intended to reduce CH 4 

## emissions, but rather to ensure that there are no increases in the future (EPA and DOT 2010, 25421 and EPA and DOT 2012, 62770).

**Vehicle GHG**  **emissions associated with air conditioner refrigerants**

Nearly all new personal vehic les in the U.S. are equipped with air conditioners. Until very recently, all automotive air conditioners used the refrigerant HFC

- 134a, which is a very strong greenhouse gas with a global warming potency of 1,430. Small amounts of refrigerant leakage can occur during everyday operation, during maintenance and servicing, and during ultimate disposal. Based on the combination of relatively small mass leakage with the extremely high global warming potency, EPA estimates typical HFC

- 134a CO 2 

## - equivalent values of 13.8 g/mi for cars and 17.2 g/mi for light trucks, or about 4% of the 369 g/mi adjusted fleetwide CO 2 

## emissions value for MY 2013 (EPA and DOT 2012, 62805). There are no standards under the

MY 2012- 2015 National Program for the control of air conditi oner refrigerant leakage emissions, but automakers can earn credits for reducing leakage emissions that can be used to help achieve compliance with the tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions standards. Our recent Manufacturer Performance Report for MY 2012 showed that automakers generated, on average, about 4 g/mi CO 2 

## - equivalent credit due to reduced air conditioner refrigerant leakage in MY 2012 (EPA 2014). Beginning with MY 2013, some automakers are beginning to use a new air conditioner refrigerant, HFO

- 1234yf, which h as a much lower global warming potency of 4.

**GHG emissions associated with fuel production and distribution**

Motor vehicle fuel production and distribution (often referred to as “upstream” emissions) can produce significant GHG emissions. The relative relationship between vehicle tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions and vehicle fuel

- related production/distribution GHG emissions can vary greatly. For example, for typical gasoline today, a rule

- of

- thumb is that gasoline production/distribution (all steps including oil production, oil transport, refining, and gasoline transport to the service station) yields about 25% of the GHG emissions associated with vehicle tailpipe CO 2 

## emissions. Based on this rule

- of

- thumb, gasoline production/distribution

- related GHG emissions assoc iated with the 369 g/mi adjusted
fleetwide CO 2 

## vehicle tailpipe emissions value for MY 2013 would be about 92 g/mi, for a total adjusted fleetwide MY 2013 CO 2 

## tailpipe plus gasoline production/distribution GHG emissions value of about 461 g/mi. Other fuel s currently used in personal vehicles, such as diesel from crude oil, ethanol from corn, and compressed natural gas, can also have significant fuel production/distribution GHG emissions. However, like gasoline, these GHG emissions are typically much smalle r than those from the vehicle tailpipe.

But, of course, some other fuels have very different vehicle tailpipe vs fuel production/distribution characteristics. For example, electric vehicles have zero tailpipe



# 132

## emissions, and so all GHG emissions associated with electric vehicle operation are associated with the generation and distribution of electricity. The same goes for hydrogen. On the other hand, carbon

- based fuels produced from renewable feedstocks could have similar vehicle tailpipe emissions (note th ere is an accounting issue here, while Trends would assign tailpipe emissions to the vehicle, current IPCC rules do not count tailpipe emissions for renewable fuels), but “negative” fuel production/distribution

- related GHG emissions if little or no fossil fuels are used in the production/distribution of the fuel and the “carbon uptake” associated with renewable fuels is accounted for at the production/distribution step.

There is an exhaustive literature on the relative vehicle versus fuel

- related GHG emissions for various fuel/feedstock combinations, and the reader should consult the literature for detailed analyses.

**GHG emissions associated with vehicle manufacturing and assembly**

Some studies estimate that the GHG emissions associated with vehicle and component manufacturing and assembly for conventional gasoline vehicles are on the order of 10 -15% of
total life

- cycle vehicle GHG emissions (where vehicle tailpipe and fuel production/distribution accounts for nearly all of the remaining vehicle life cycl e emissions). 23 

## Based on the approximate 461 g/mi adjusted fleetwide value calculated above for MY 2013 CO 2 

## tailpipe plus gasoline production/distribution GHG emissions, this would imply that typical vehicle and component manufacturing and assembly GHG emi ssions would be on the order of approximately 50

- 80 g/mi.

**GHG emissions associated with vehicle disposal**

The GHG emissions associated with vehicle disposal, or end

- of

- life, are typically not more than a few percent of total life

- cycle vehicle emissions for a conventional gasoline vehicle. Based on the above approximations, this would imply that GHG emissions associated with vehicle disposal might be on the order of 10 g/mi or less.



# F. O THER 

# D ATABASE 

# M ETHODOLOGY 

# I SSUES

**Changes in Car**

**- Truck Classification De**  **finitions**

Car

- truck definitions through the 2010 report were based EPA’s engineering judgment. Until recently, EPA and NHTSA had slightly different regulatory definitions for car

- truck classifications with respect to health

- related emissions and fuel economy, respectively, and the Trends report followed a third approach, though in practice there was broad (though not universal) agreement among the three approaches.

23 

### For example, see Samaras, C. and Meisterling, K. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for Policy. Environmental Science & Technology 2008, 42 (9):3170

– 3176, or Notter, D. et al. Contribution of Li

- Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles . Environmental Science & Technology 2010, 44 (17): 6550 -6556. 

# 133

## Beginning with the 2011 report, Trends car

- truck classifications followed current regula tory definitions used by both EPA and NHTSA for CO 2 

## emissions and fuel economy standards. See definitions for passenger automobiles (cars) and non

- passenger automobiles (trucks) later
in this section. These current definitions diff er from those used in ol der versio ns of this report, and reflect a decision by NHTSA to reclassify many small, 2

- wheel drive, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) from the truck category to the car category , beginning with MY 2011

. When
this re

- classification was initiate d in the 2011 report, the absolute tru ck share decreased by approximately 10%.

The current car

- truck definitions have been “propagated back” throughout the entire historical
Trends database to maintain the integrity of long

- term trends of car and truck production
share . Since we did not have all of the requisite technical information on which to make

retroactive car

- truck classifications, we used engineering judgment to classify past models.

**Inclusion of Medium**

**- Duty Passenger Vehicles** 

Beginning with the 2011 report, me dium

- duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), those SUVs and

passenger vans (but, not pickup trucks) with gross vehicle weight ratings between 8500 and 10,000 pounds, are included in the light

- duty truck category. This coincided with new regulations by NHTSA to t reat these vehicles as light

- duty, rather than heavy

- duty, vehicles beginning in MY 2011. This represents a minor change to the database , since the number of

MDPVs is much smaller than it once was (e .g., only 6500 MDPVs were sold in MY 2012). It
should b e noted that this is one change to the database that has not been "propagated back" through the historic database, as we do not have MDPV data prior to MY 2011. Accordingly, this represents a small inflection point for the database

-- for the overall car and truck fleet in MY 2011, the inclusion of MDPVs decreased average adjusted fuel economy by 0.01 mpg and increased average adjusted CO 2 

## emissions by 0.3 g/mi, compared to the fleet without MDPVs. The impacts on the truck fleet only were about twice as high, but still very small in absolute

terms.



# G. C OMPARISON OF 

# P RELIMINARY AND 

# F INAL 

# F LEETWIDE 

# F UEL 

# E CONOMY 

# V ALUES

In recent years, the data for the last model year included in each report has been preliminary (i.e., based on projected vehicle production volume s provided by automakers prior to the beginning of the model year), while the data for all other model years has been final. This leads to the logical question, how accurate have the preliminary projections been?

Table 10.4 compares the preliminary and fi nal fleetwide fuel economy values for recent years (note that the differences for CO 2 

## emissions data would be similar, on a percentage basis).

For the adjusted fuel economy data, values are only shown beginning in MY 2007, as final adjusted values in thi s report reflect the revised methodology for calculating adjusted fuel 

# 134

## economy values beginning with the 2007 report and therefore the comparable preliminary values prior to MY 2007 would not reflect an apples

- to - apples comparison. Since MY 2007,
the fina l adjusted fuel economy values have typically been a little higher than the preliminary adjusted fuel economy values. The major exceptions have been MY 2009, when the final value was 1.3 mpg higher, and MY 2011, when the final value was 0.4 mpg lower.

Comparative unadjusted fuel economy data are shown back to MY 2000. For a majority of the years, the final unadjusted fuel economy values have been higher than the preliminary fuel economy values, and typically the final value is within 0.5 mpg of the pre liminary value. As with the adjusted data, the biggest outlier was MY 2009, when the final unadjusted value was

1.8 mpg higher than the preliminary value. There was considerable market turmoil in MY 2009 driven by the economic recession.



# Table 10.4

Co mpa rison of Preliminary and Final Fuel Economy Values, Both Cars and Trucks

Model Year Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG) Unadjusted Fuel Economy (MPG)
Preliminary

Value Final
Value Final Minus Preliminary Preliminary
Value Final
Value Final Minus Preliminary

2000

- - - 24.0 24.3 +0.3

2001

- - - 23.9 24.2 +0.3

2002

- - - 24.0 24.1 +0.1

2003

- - - 24.4 24.3

- 0.1

2004

- - - 24.4 24.0

- 0.4

2005

- - - 24.6 24.8 +0.2

2006

- - - 24.6 25.2 +0.6

2007 20.2 20.6 +0.4 25.3 25.8 +0.5

2008 20.8 21.0 +0.2 26.0 26.3 +0.3

2009 21.1 22.4 +1.3 26.4 28.2 +1.8

2010 22.5 22.6 +0.1 28.3 28.4 +0.1

2011 22.8 22.4

- 0.4 28.6 28.1

- 0.5

2012 23.8 23.6

- 0.2 30.0 29.8

- 0.2

2013 24.0 24.1 +0.1 30.3 30.5 +0.2

2014 24.2

- 30.6

-



# 135

# H. D EFINITIONS AND 

# A CRONYMS

Electric vehicle (EV) means a motor vehicle that is powered solely by an electric motor drawing current from a rechargeable energy storage system, such as from storage batteries or other portable electrical energy storage devices . For the Trends report, electric vehicles do not

gene rally include fuel cell vehicles.

Flexible fuel vehicle (FFV) means any motor vehicle engineered and designed to be operated on a petroleum fuel and on a methanol or ethanol fuel, or any mixture of the petroleum fuel
and methanol or ethanol. Methanol

- fuele d and ethanol

- fueled vehicles that are only marginally functional when using gasoline ( e.g., the engine has a drop in rated horsepower of more than 80 percent) are not flexible fuel vehicles

.
Footprint means the product of average track width (rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch) and wheelbase (measured in inches and rounded to the nearest tenth of an inch), divided by 144 and then rounded to the nearest tenth of a square foot, where the average track width is the average of the front and rear track wi dths, where each is measured in inches and rounded
to the nearest tenth of an inch.

Fuel cell vehicle (FCV) means an electric vehicle propelled solely by an electric motor where energy for the motor is supplied by an electrochemical cell that produces elec tricity via the

non - combustion reaction of a consumable fuel, typically hydrogen.

Gasoline gallon equivalent means an amount of electricity or fuel with the energy equivalence of one gallon of gasoline. For purposes of the Trends report , one gallon of gaso line is equivalent to 33.705 kilowatt

- hours of electricity or 121.5 standard cubic feet of natural gas.

Hybrid electric vehicle (HEV) means a motor vehicle which draws propulsion energy from onboard sources of stored energy that are both an internal combus tion engine or heat engine using consumable fuel, and a rechargeable energy storage system such as a battery, capacitor, hydraulic accumulator, or flywheel, where recharge energy for the energy storage system comes solely from sources on board the vehicle.

Light Truck means an automobile that is not a car or a work truck and includes vehicles described in paragraphs (a) and (b) below :
(a) An automobile designed to perform at least one of the following functions: (1) Transport more than 10 persons; (2) Provi de temporary living quarters; (3) Transport property on an open bed; (4) Provide, as sold to the first retail purchaser, greater cargo

- carrying than passenger

carrying volume, such as in a cargo van; if a vehicle is sold with a second

- row seat, its

cargo -c arrying volume is determined with that seat installed, regardless of whether the manufacturer has described that seat as optional; or (5) Permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo

- carrying purposes or other

nonpassenger - carrying purposes through: 

# 136

## (i ) For non -passenger automobiles manufactured in model year 2008 and beyond, for vehicles equipped with at least 3 rows of designated seating positions as standard equipment, permit expanded use of the automobile for cargo

- carrying purposes or other nonpass enger - carrying purposes through the removal or stowing of foldable or pivoting seats so as to create a flat, leveled cargo surface extending from the forwardmost point of installation of those seats to the rear of the automobile's interior. (b) An automobi le capable of off

- highway operation, as indicated by the fact that it: (1)(i) Has 4

- wheel drive; or (ii) Is rated at more than 6 000 pounds gross vehicle weight; and (2) Has at least four of the following characteristics calculated when the automobile is

at curb weight, on a level surface, with the front wheels parallel to the automobile 's longitudinal centerline, and the tires inflated to the manufacturer's recommended

pressure — (i) Approach angle of not less than 28 degrees. (ii) Breakover angle of not les s than 14 degrees. (iii) Departure angle of not less than 20 degrees. (iv) Running clearance of not less than 20 centimeters. (v) Front and rear axle clearances of not less than 18 centimeters each.
*Please see Section 10. F for Changes in Car

- Truck Classification Definitions over time

.

Minivan means a light truck which is designed primarily to carry no more than eight passengers, having an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver, passenger, and load

- carrying compartments, and rear seats readil y removed, folded, stowed, or pivoted to facilitate cargo carrying. A minivan typically includes one or more sliding doors and a rear liftgate. Minivans typically have less total interior volume or overall height than full sized vans and are commonly
advertised and marketed as “minivans.”

Mpg means miles per gallon

.

Mpge means miles per gasoline gallon equivalent (see gasoline gallon equivalent above)

.
Pickup truck means a light truck which has a passenger compartment and an open cargo bed.

Plug

- in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) means a hybrid electric vehicle that has the capability to charge the battery from an off

- vehicle electric source, such that the off

- vehicle source cannot be
connected to the vehicle while the vehicle is in motion.

Special purpose vehicles means automobiles with GVWR less than or equal to 8,500 pounds
and medium- duty passenger vehicles which possess special features and which the Administrator determines are more appropriately classified separately from typical
automobiles

.

* Fo r purposes of the Trends report, we used engineering judgment to allocate the very small number of vehicles, labeled as special purpose vehicles at fuel economy.gov, to the three truck types : truck SUV, van/minivan, or truck

Sport utility vehicle (SUV) mea ns a light truck with an extended roof line to increase cargo or


# 137

## passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to the passenger compartment, and one or more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying. Generally, 2- wheel drive SUVs

equa l to or less than 6000 lbs GVWR are passenger cars for CAFE and GHG standards compliance, but continue to be labeled as SUVs.

Station wagon means cars with an extended roof line to increase cargo or passenger capacity, cargo compartment open to the passen ger compartment, a tailgate, and one or more rear seats readily removed or folded to facilitate cargo carrying.

Track width

– means the lateral distance between the centerlines of the base tires at ground, including the camber angle.

Van means any light tru ck having an integral enclosure fully enclosing the driver compartment and load carrying compartment. The distance from the leading edge of the windshield to the foremost body section of vans is typically shorter than that of pickup trucks and SUVs.

Wheelb ase is the longitudinal distance between front and rear wheel centerlines.



# I. L INKS FOR 

# M ORE 

# I NFORMATION

This report, Light

- Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2014 (EPA

- 420 -R-14- 023) is available on the EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality’s (OTAQ) web site at: epa.gov/otaq/fetrends.htm . The Executive Summary of this report (EPA -420-S-14- 001) is available at the same we b site.

A copy of the Fuel Economy Guide giving city and highway fuel economy data for individual
models is available at: fueleconomy.gov or by calling the U.S. Department of Energy at (800)
423-1363.

The website fueleconomy.gov provides fuel economy and environmental information for vehicles from model year 1984 through the present. The site has many tools that allow users
to search for vehicles and find information on vehicle fuel economy, fuel consumption, estimated annual fuel cost, and CO 2 

## emissions. The site also allows users to personalize fuel economy and fueling cost estimates based on personalized inputs for fuel cost, annual mileage, and percentage of city versus highway driving

.
EPA’s Green Vehicle Guide ( epa.gov/greenvehicles ) is designed to help car buyers identify the cleanest, most fuel

- efficient vehicle that meets their needs. The site includes information on SmartWay certified ve hicles, how advanced technology vehicles work, and infographics and videos that provide tips on saving money and reducing emissions through smarter vehicle
choices.



# 138

## For detailed information about EPA’s GHG emissions standards for motor vehicles, see: epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm

.
For information about automaker compliance with EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions standards, including a detailed Manufacturer Performance Report for the 2012 Model Year,

see: epa.gov/otaq/regs/ ld

- hwy/greenhouse/ld

- ghg.htm

.
For detailed information about DOT’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, including a program overview, related rulema king activities, and summaries of the formal CAFE performance of individual manufacturers since 1978, see: www.nhtsa.gov/fuel

economy

.
For more information about the EPA/Department of Transportation (DOT) Fue l Economy and Environment Labels, see: epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/

.


# J. A UTHORS AND 

# A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of this year's Trends report are Jeff Alson, Aaron Hula, and Amy Bunker, all of
whom work for the EPA Of fice of Transportation and Air Quality's (OTAQ) Transportation and Climate Division, at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Colleagues from OTAQ's Compliance Division, including Sara Zaremski, Linc Wehrly, Robert Pea vyhouse, Karen Danzeisen

, and Rob French provided critical access and
expertise pertaining t o the formal VERIFY data that comprise the Trends database. OTAQ colleagues Robin Moran, Kevin Bolon, and Susan Burke also provided helpful comments.
The authors also want to thank Gwen Dietrich and David Levin of OTAQ for greatly improving the design and layout of the report. SRA International, under contract to OTAQ ( contract number EP -C-11- 007 ), provided key support for database maintenance, and table and figure generation . DOT/NHTSA staff reviewed the report and provided comments. Of course, the EPA authors take full responsibility for the content and any errors

.
The authors also want to acknowledge those OTAQ staff wh o played key roles in creating and maintaining the Trends database and report since its inception in the early 1970s

. Karl Hellman, who conceived of and developed the initial Trends reports with Thomas Austin in the early 1970s, was the guiding force behi nd the Trends report for over 30 years. The late Dill Murrell made significant contributions from the late 1970s through the early 1990 s, and
Robert Heavenrich was a lead author from the early 1980s through 2006.



# 139

# References

Amann, Charles A . 1989. Th e automotive engine

- a future perspective. SAE. Paper 891666.

Austin and Hellman 1973. Passenger Car Fuel Economy

- Trends and Influencing Factors

. SAE. Paper 730790, September 1973.

Austin and Hellman 1974. Fuel Economy of the 1975 Models. SAE. Paper 7 40970, October 1974.

Austin and Service 1975. Passenger Car Fuel Economy Trends Through 1976. SAE. Paper 750957, October 1975.

Argonne National Laboratory 2014. GREET 1 2013 Model. http://greet.es.anl.gov/. Accessed March 2014.

Blanco, Sebastian. Honda Civic hybrid now available nationwide, CNG model in 37 states. 2014 AutoBlog Green. Feb. 4, 2014. http://green.autoblog.com/2014/02/04/2014

- honda

- civic

- hybrid

- now

- available

- cng

- model

in

- 37

- states/ . Accessed April 2014.

Cheng, LeBaron, Murrell, and Loos 19 82. Light

- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1982. SAE

. Paper 820300, February 1982.

DeCicco, J.M. 2010. A fuel efficiency horizon for U.S. automobiles. Technical Report, University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment. Report prepared for The Energy Foundation http://energy.umich.edu/info/pdfs/Fuel%20Efficiency%20Horizon%20FINAL.pdf.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 1972. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel Economy and Emission Control, November 1972.

(EPA) Environ mental Protection Agency 1984. Fuel economy of motor vehicles; Revisions to improve fuel economy labeling and the fuel economy Data base. 49 Federal Register , 13832

- 13855, April 6, 1984.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2006.Fuel economy labeling of motor Vehicles; Revisions to improve calculation of fuel economy estimates; Final rule. 71 Federal Register, 77871

- 77969, December 27, 2006.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2007. 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.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2008. 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.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2009. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2009. U.S. EPA420 -R- 09

- 014, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, November 2009.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2010a. Light

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

- 420 -R- 10

- 023, Off ice of Transportation and Air Quality, November 2010.



# 140

## (EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2010b. Regulation of fuels and fuel additives: Changes to renewable fuel standard program; Final rule. 75 Federal Register, 14669

- 15320, March 26, 2010.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2012a. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2011. U.S. EPA

- 420 -R- 12

- 001, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, March 2012.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agenc y 2012b. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Final Rulemaking for 2017

- 2025 Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards

. EPA

- 420 -R- 016, August 2012

.
(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2013a. Light

- Duty Aut omotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2012. U.S. EPA

- 420 -R- 13

- 001, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, March 2013.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2013b. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2013. U.S. EPA

- 420 -R- 13

- 001, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, December 2013.

(EPA) Environmental Protection Agency 2014. Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Light

- Duty Vehicles — Manufactur er Performance Report for the 2012 Model Year, EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality,

EPA

- 420 -R- 14

- 011, April 2014.

(EPA and DOT) Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation 2010. Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule . 75 Federal Register , 25324

- 25728, May 7, 2010.

(EPA and DOT) Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation 2012. 2017 and Later Model Year Light

- Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Standards

. 77 Federal Register, 62624

- 63200, October 15, 2012.

Foster, Murrell and Loos 1981. Light

- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1981. SAE . Paper 810386, February 1981.

Heavenrich and Hellman 1996. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1996. U.S. EPA/AA/TDSG/96

- 01, July 1996.

Heavenrich and Hellman 1999. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1999. U.S.

EPA420 -R- 99

- 018, September 1999.

Heavenrich and Hellman 2000. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2000.

U.S. EPA420 -R- 00

- 008, December 2000.

Heavenrich and Hellman 2001. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2001.

U.S. EPA4 20 -R- 01

- 008, September 2001.



# 141

## Heavenrich and Hellman 2003. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2003.

U.S. EPA420 -R- 03

- 006, April 2003.

Heavenrich and Hellman 2004. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1 975 through 2004.

U.S. EPA420 -R- 04

- 001, April 2004.

Heavenrich and Murrell 1988. Light

- Duty Automotive Trends Through 1988 U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/CTAB/88

- 07, June

1988.

Heavenrich and Murrell 1990. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1990. U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/CTAB/90

- 03, June 1990.

Heavenrich, Cheng, and Murrell 1986. Light

- Duty Automotive Trends Through 1986. SAE . Paper 860366, February 1986.

Heavenrich, Murrell, and Cheng 1987. Light

- Duty Automotive Trends Through 1987. SAE

. Paper 8710 88 , May

1987.

Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman 1989. Light

- Duty Automotive and Technology Trends Through 1989. U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/CTAB/89

- 04, May 1989.

Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman 1991. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through

19 91. U.S. EPA/AA/CTAB/91

- 02, May 1991.

Heavenrich, Murrell, Cheng, and Loos 1984. Passenger Car Fuel Economy

- Trends Through 1984. SAE . Paper 840499, February 1984.

Heavenrich, Murrell, Cheng, and Loos 1985. Light

- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy

- Trends Through 1985. SAE

. Paper 850550, March 1985.

Heavenrich, Robert M. 2005. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2005.

U.S. EPA420 -R- 05

- 001, July 2005.

Heavenrich, Robert M. 2006. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2006.

U.S. EPA420 -R- 06

- 011, July 2006.

Loos, Cheng, Murrell and Heavenrich, 1984. Light Truck Fuel Economy

- Trends through 1984. SAE . Paper 841405, October 1984.

MacKenzie, D., Heywood, J. 2012. Acceleration performance trends and the evolving relationship among power, weight, and acceleration in U.S. light

- duty vehicles: A linear regression analysis. Transportation Research Board, Paper No. 12

- 1475, TRB 91st Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, Janua ry 2012.

Malliaris, A.C., Hsia, H., and Gould, H. 1976. Concise description of auto fuel economy and performance in recent model years. SAE

. Paper 760045.

Murrell 1978. Light

- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1978. SAE. Paper 780036, February 19 78.



# 142

## Murrell 1979. Light

- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1979. SAE . Paper 790225, February 1979.

Murrell and Heavenrich 1990. Downward Trend in Passenger Car Fuel Economy

- A View of Recent Data. U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/CTAB/90

- 01, January 1990.

Murr ell, Foster and Bristor 1980. Light

- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1980. SAE . Paper 800853, June 1980.

Murrell, Hellman, and Heavenrich 1993. Light

- Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1993. U.S. EPA/AA/TDG/93

- 01, May 199 3.

Murrell, Loos, Heavenrich, and Cheng 1983. Light

- Duty Automobile Fuel Economy Trends through 1983. SAE

. Paper 830544, February 1983.

Murrell, Pace, Service, and Yeager 1976. Light

- Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1977. SAE. Paper 760795, Oc tober 1976.

Notter, D. et al. 2010. Contribution of Li

- Ion Batteries to the Environmental Impact of Electric Vehicles

. Environmental Science & Technology

. 2010, 44 (17): 6550

- 6556, August 2010.

Plotkin, S., Stephens, T.

, McManus, W. 2013. Vehicle Technology Deployment Pathways: An Examination of Timing and Investment Constraints. Transportation Energy Futures Report Series . Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by Argonne National Laboratory. DOE/GO

- 102013

- 3708, March 2013.

SAE 2010. Utility f actor definitions for plug

- in hybrid electric vehicles using travel survey data. SAE

. J2841, September 2010.

Samaras, C. and Meisterling, K. 2008. Life Cycle Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles: Implications for Policy. En vironmental Science & Technology

. 2008, 42 (9): 3170

– 3176 , April 2008

.
Santini, Danilo J. and Anderson, John. 1993. Determinates of multiple measures of acceleration. SAE, Paper

931805.

Shuldiner, Herb 2013. Honda forecasts steady sales of pioneering CNG C ivic. Wards Auto . March 19, 2013. http://wardsauto.com/sales

- amp

- marketing/honda

- forecasts

- steady

- sales

- pioneering

- cng

- civic . Accessed
December 2013.

TranSystems|E.H. Pechan. 2014. The emissions & generation resource integrated database technical support

d ocument for the 9 th 

## edition of eGRID, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, February

2014.

Wards Automotive, 1996 – 2008 Annual Databooks.

Young. 1991. Regression analysis of acceleration performance of light

- duty vehicles. DOT HS

. 807 76 3, September 1991.

Zoepf, S. and Heywood, J. 2013. Characterizations of Deployment Rates in Automotive Technology. National Academy of Sciences Meeting, March 2013.


# 143