Jump to content

2016 MPG expectations, woww

Posted

http://blog.caranddriver.com/breaking-down-the-new-2016-fuel-economy-standards/

That site says: Under the new rules, combined fleet fuel economy will have to increase to 29.7 mpg for the 2012 model year, ramping up to 34.1 mpg by 2016. The passenger-car slice of that number goes from 33.3 (2012) to 37.8 mpg (2016) while light trucks increase from 25.4 to 28.8 mpg. The current standard is 27.5 mpg for cars and 23.5 mpg for light trucks.

My only question here is, what are they calling a light truck? A ford ranger/dodge dakota/chevy colorado? Even those trucks would be lucky to hit the current 23.5MPG standard. I also wonder what they are going by, highway mileage? I'm pretty sure that's highway mileage and I think thats BS because a lot of these trucks have a much higher highway mpg than the city, so on the highway thats fine (especially using the variable piston use thing like chevy has, which I have heard makes them pretty good on fuel use), but for any city drivers, it does nothing for them. I really don't get it, I'd like to see a more defined writeup of this standard, see the exact things that has to be met. I'll keep digging.

  • Replies 8
  • Views 2.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Featured Replies

the auto makers have been able to classify many vehicles as light trucks. the only one that comes to my mind is the PT cruiser. it was clssfied as a light truck a while back. if that can be classified a light truck god knows what else can be.

Hopefully we'll have a different "regime" in there in this coming election. That said, this is what happens when "congress" cedes it's authority to an "agency" that is immune public scrutiny. If congress actually had to vote on these CAFE standards, and were accountable to "US THE VOTERS" this sort of crap wouldn't happen. The EPA hierarchy decides on these things, and congress "cow-tows" to them!!!! Sad but very true.

  • Owner

First off the big 3 (Ford , Chevy and Dodge) have to quit playing this HP/TQ game of who can haul more. (Really stupid!) Then if Cummins was smart they would roll back to the 12V design because it was efficient of a engine and very simple. Now using all the technology of today and apply it to a 12V engine smaller HP number I'm sure you can get 30-35 MPG out of it and still have a modest 200 HP engine that will tow the family travel trailer, horse trailer etc...

First off the big 3 (Ford , Chevy and Dodge) have to quit playing this HP/TQ game of who can haul more. (Really stupid!) Then if Cummins was smart they would roll back to the 12V design because it was efficient of a engine and very simple. Now using all the technology of today and apply it to a 12V engine smaller HP number I'm sure you can get 30-35 MPG out of it and still have a modest 200 HP engine that will tow the family travel trailer, horse trailer etc...

That is a great blankety-blank thought Mike!!!:thumb1::thumb1::smart: And that same engine would have "mega-torque"!!!

If they keep going at the rate they are on now...... there is no telling what a new truck will cost by 2016

I here ya, I was going out to buy me a replacement welding truck when I found my 05. It is slick, never been drove in the rain and only had 37k on it when I bought it. Average 5k mile a year. Got to buy new tires because there dry rotted :duh:. Gave 24k for it, so it will be the closest think I will ever have to a new truck.Now I am trying to decide weather to buy six new tires or five and use the spare. You think the spare might blow and take a fende out? Its been under truck all this time.Whats a 195.00 bucks compared to running around with no fender :doh::lmao:

i still got my spare that came on the truck in 01. used it twice. last time about 1.5 years ago. did not want to leave it on long so i got the bad one fixed quick. thats one michelene with less than 50 miles on it. reckon it is still good to 100mph? i will send it to you for testing.:lmao:

Go to topic listing