Print 43 comment(s) - last by freedom4556.. on Dec 16 at 2:39 PM

The Mazda CX-5 is one of the most fuel efficient crossovers in its class.
EPA says average efficiency has increased 22% since 2004

According to the EPA, the fuel efficiency of 2012 model year cars and trucks in the U.S. hit an all-time high. The average for all 2012 model vehicles was 23.6 miles per gallon. The EPA says that overall fuel economy increased by 1.2 mpg compared to fleet wide 2011 economy numbers, making it the second highest gain in fuel efficiency in the last 30 years.
The overall fuel efficiency increase was attributed to two factors: an industry-wide move towards “greener” powertrains in vehicles and higher fuel prices which in turn pushed customers towards more efficient vehicles.
Mazda was the most fuel-efficient automaker with an average of 27.1 mpg in 2012, up 2.1 mpg compared to the previous year. Honda was second at 26.6mpg, and Toyota was third at 25.6 mpg.
Ford was in eighth place with an overall average of 22.8 mpg followed by GM in ninth with 21.7 mpg. Both of those automakers count trucks among their best selling vehicles.
Both Kia and Hyundai were left out of the rankings due to investigations over false fuel efficiency claims. Those automakers had to change window stickers to reflect corrected fuel efficiency measurements once the EPA did some snooping following customer complaints of poor fuel economy.
Fuel efficiency has increased by 22% since the 2004 model year, and the EPA notes that current trends show that 2013 model year vehicles should boost the average to 24 mpg.

Source: Detroit News

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Going good
By wordsworm on 12/13/2013 3:17:05 PM , Rating: 3
It's a lot slower than I'd like it to be... but progress is progress.

RE: Going good
By The Von Matrices on 12/14/2013 3:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
There's only so much you can do to increase efficiency of a heat engine. Fortunately for advertisers, these fuel efficiency improvements are inverse to the amount of fuel used, so increasing fuel economy by the same number of MPG each year means you need to engineer less and less improvement as time goes on.

Not to dismiss other factors...
By KFZ on 12/13/2013 3:39:08 PM , Rating: 1
But when you regulate an industry with increased standards it's not pure, natural forces at work.

Coincidentally, health insurance plans will begin providing unprecedented benefits to more people than ever before. Gee, I wonder why?

A major cause is gaming the system
By GatoRat on 12/15/2013 6:38:10 PM , Rating: 1
The averages are based on what auto makers are selling, not what people are buying. This not only gives car makers a huge incentive to overstate their mileage numbers (Kia got caught, be all know damn well every car company is doing the same.) They've also found ways to really boost freeway gas mileage, not so much city. (My 2013 Civic gets slightly worse mpg in city driving that my 1999 Civic, but between 5 and 10% better on the freeway.)

Car makers also sell boutique electric and hybrid cars (Cadillac anyone.) They get an additional boost my government mandates which require purchasing these vehicles as fleet vehicles.

Is the news good? Yes. Is it as good as claimed? Not even close.

By marloloh on 12/15/13, Rating: 0
Losing battle
By freedom4556 on 12/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: Losing battle
By chaos386 on 12/13/2013 11:54:38 AM , Rating: 5
I did a quick check:

2014 Chevy Malibu LT, 197 hp, 25/36 MPG, $23,510
2004 Chevy Malibu LT, 200 hp, 23/32 MPG, $22,870 ($28,275 when adjusted for inflation)

2004 source:

Nope, looks like cars are getting cheaper, too.

RE: Losing battle
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 11:59:30 AM , Rating: 4
Plus the 2004 was a turd and the 2014 is a good car.

RE: Losing battle
By degobah77 on 12/13/2013 12:41:42 PM , Rating: 2
Looks like one car may be cheaper, sure.

RE: Losing battle
By Mint on 12/13/2013 2:08:10 PM , Rating: 3
It's not one car.

(google "us average new car price" and click on the first link. DT's f***ing spam filter is a joke and won't let me post the link.)

That works out to 1.7% per year, i.e. less than inflation, and you're getting a WAY better product as well. If you take a well equipped $30k car from 10 years ago and match it feature for feature, it'll be cheaper today.

RE: Losing battle
By Reclaimer77 on 12/13/2013 6:11:20 PM , Rating: 1
DT's f***ing spam filter is a joke and won't let me post the link.)

I would classify most of your posts as useless spam, so I think it's working as intended. :)


RE: Losing battle
By Spuke on 12/13/2013 7:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
I would classify most of your posts as useless spam, so I think it's working as intended. :)

RE: Losing battle
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 11:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
Higher mileage is not all about expensive wiz bang engineering. A lot of it has come from people deciding to buy cars like the cx5 instead of some 4000lbs truck based suv, or as simple as choosing the 4 cyl over the 6 cyl in their mid size sedan.

RE: Losing battle
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 12:04:57 PM , Rating: 3
PS mazda has an obvious edge in mileage in that the basically don't sell trucks.

RE: Losing battle
By Myrandex on 12/13/2013 5:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
They did sell a truck based on the Ford Ranger platform. I'm not sure if they still do or not but I've known a couple of people to have one.


RE: Losing battle
By Flunk on 12/16/2013 9:56:13 AM , Rating: 2
The B-series is discontinued, it and the Ranger went out at the same time. Even that wasn't very big, the CX-9 is the biggest thing they make right now which is a mid-sized to large crossover.

Most of their cars are compact or smaller, they don't even sell the RX-8 any more. It's not really a surprise that they're tops for fuel economy.

RE: Losing battle
By Spuke on 12/13/2013 12:24:11 PM , Rating: 1
as simple as choosing the 4 cyl over the 6 cyl in their mid size sedan
4 cyl sales have always outpaced 6 cyl in mid sized sedans. Not sure where you got that from. Also, people's choices in crossovers as opposed to larger SUV's is mainly due to conquest sales from sedans. Yes, a lot of large SUV's owners have moved to crossovers but if you look at actual sales data and not what the TV says, you'll see that large SUV's NEVER sold in any large amount. Small SUV's on the other hand, before crossovers, have been big sellers (I venture a guess and say those customers all moved to crossovers too).

RE: Losing battle
By amanojaku on 12/13/2013 12:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Fuel economy has never been about lower car costs OR the environment. It originated in the '70s, when rising tensions with the Middle East limited oil supplies. Recognizing the disaster that would occur if oil supply ceased, the government looked to limit cars' use of oil. It was sound reasoning, since you needed oil for heat and electricity. But the government didn't outright ban high-consumption cars; it simply taxed them like crazy. They weren't cost effective for manufacturers, unless you went all out with a sticker price of a few hundred thousand. Or bought a truck or SUV, which wasn't taxed if it was large enough.

This is also when we got the speed limit of 55mph - not for safety, but for fuel consumption.

CAFE is fundamentally an economic tool. The consumer savings is an invention to make CAFE more palatable to gain public support so that car manufacturers are assaulted from all sides. If there are savings, it's purely because the engineers did a damn good job, and the salesmen set a reasonable price.

The environmental stuff is a recent thing, with everyone suddenly wanting to make everything clean and green. CAFE doesn't have any standards on emissions, because it can't possibly dictate that. It simply has consumption goals (e.g. 35mpg) with estimated emissions targets.

RE: Losing battle
By RU482 on 12/13/2013 2:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
I was looking at the specs of the 2014 Chevy SS, and noticed "Gas Guzzler Tax" of something like $1400. 14city/21hwy.

So yea, there are alternatives out there if you could care less about fuel economy, but in general, the industry is getting more fuel efficiency out of comparable engines compared to 10 yrs ago.

RE: Losing battle
By FITCamaro on 12/13/2013 2:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
Because technology is improving and they are being forced to. Even without the EPA though, higher fuel prices and people earning less have made more people wanting cars that cost them less money to operate.

RE: Losing battle
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 12/13/2013 3:36:44 PM , Rating: 2
A gas tax hike would be far better than CAFE trying to dictate the laws of physics. Heck, just price the cost of CENTCOM spending into each gallon of gas sold and bbl of oil imported. It could be revenue-neutral, and make the retail cost of gas reflect its actual cost a bit more closely.

RE: Losing battle
By freedom4556 on 12/16/2013 2:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's still a loosing battle. Diminishing returns will kick in eventually, if they haven't already. The lawmakers can't keep mandating ever increasing fuel economy targets year-on-year and expect the engineers to just 'figure it out.'

It's all a game.
By Tedtalker1 on 12/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: It's all a game.
By JediJeb on 12/13/2013 12:20:25 PM , Rating: 2
Similar to when Hillary wanted to tax cigarettes to stop people from smoking but use cigarette taxes to fund universal health care.

How can you rely on a tax on a product you wish to eliminate?

RE: It's all a game.
By 1prophet on 12/13/2013 12:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
Who says they really wish to eliminate it?

RE: It's all a game.
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 1:51:06 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, smoking tax gives people the opportunity to tax a group they don't belong to. :) I think its pretty much been proven that smokers are overall cheaper on the system because they die younger and so don't spread the cost over a long retirement.

RE: It's all a game.
By Captain Awesome on 12/13/2013 5:16:41 PM , Rating: 2
LOL, if this is true then we need an early childhood smoking program to help pay for healthcare. Imagine the savings on the system if we have kids addicted by the time they're 12!

RE: It's all a game.
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 6:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm just saying the tax on cigarettes isn't justified.

RE: It's all a game.
By marvdmartian on 12/16/2013 9:37:16 AM , Rating: 2
That's why I tell smokers to please continue smoking. While you're working, you're contributing to Social Security, but if you die young enough, due to your smoking, you won't be a burden on the system, which will leave more money for me! ;)

RE: It's all a game.
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 3:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
So long as you end up paying about the same amount I don't mind.

RE: It's all a game.
By Reclaimer77 on 12/13/13, Rating: 0
RE: It's all a game.
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 6:30:28 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe tax gad and diesel different. Also if you are paying for the diesel as part of your business I'm pretty sure its a tax write off.

RE: It's all a game.
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 6:32:56 PM , Rating: 2
eh, gas

RE: It's all a game.
By FITCamaro on 12/16/2013 8:40:50 AM , Rating: 2
How about the poor then? You know that group liberals love to claim they want to help. The poor often drive vehicles with lower mileage because they're older. A higher tax on gas would hit them the hardest. Same goes with higher electric rates and their homes (typically older or just less energy efficient).

Oh right we're supposed to subsidize getting them brand new cars and give them loans they can't afford to buy homes.

RE: It's all a game.
By syslog2000 on 12/16/2013 9:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
So the liberals manage to increase fuel efficiency substantially (and yes, the credit for this goes to liberals) and you somehow manage to dig at them using pretty much a non sequitur in the context of this article.

Way to pander to your own world view!

RE: It's all a game.
By The Von Matrices on 12/14/2013 3:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
There already is a separate supply of untaxed Diesel for farmers, and the fuel taxes of road Diesel as well as the commercial vehicle registration and licensing fees pay for the roads used by trucking. I see nothing wrong with taxes on trucking and shipping because they eventually get passed onto the consumer. If you buy products that require extensive infrastructure to transport them from far away places, then you should be expect to directly pay for that extra infrastructure usage in the cost of the product, not through indirect taxes that split your costs among everyone.

The fuel tax for non-commercial vehicles is far from perfect, but unfortunately other more fair, more direct methods of taxation like measuring a person's usage of roads through odometer checks and taxing based on distance traveled would be rejected as intrusive by a large number of people.

RE: It's all a game.
By bitmover461 on 12/13/2013 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
Earlier this week was the report that the Feds have proposed another 0.15/gal taxes. Your soothsaying is a couple weeks behind schedule, but nonetheless accurate.

RE: It's all a game.
By RU482 on 12/13/2013 2:04:33 PM , Rating: 5
gotta keep in mind those taxes haven't increased in an awful long time. I sure don't want a tax increase, but even more so I don't want the bridges I drive over daily to collapse either.

RE: It's all a game.
By ebakke on 12/13/2013 3:52:40 PM , Rating: 1
In that case, I think I have the perfect solution for you. Tell your politicians to put the tax dollars toward (get this...) the roads. Let them know mass transit, CFL subsidies, PBS, etc are less important to you than structurally sound bridges and the ability to keep your own hard earned money.

RE: It's all a game.
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 6:35:30 PM , Rating: 2
Really PBS funding doesn't add up to anything to any government budget.

RE: It's all a game.
By ebakke on 12/13/2013 8:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
Ok? Are you intentionally trying to change the subject or did you miss my point entirely?

The money's being collected, and it's being spent on things that are not the roads. The OP wants well maintained roads, and doesn't want tax increases. The solution to that problem is to divert funds from other things that you value less than roads. There will be many of those "other things" - some will be large, some will be small. Some you might be willing to eliminate all together, some you'll only want to reduce the current funding levels. I merely gave a few potential examples, hence the "etc".

RE: It's all a game.
By Jeffk464 on 12/13/2013 8:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
got it

RE: It's all a game.
By Nutzo on 12/13/2013 2:17:24 PM , Rating: 2
They've already used this excuse to raise the gas tax in California this year.

"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki