backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by RaggedClaws.. on Sep 8 at 1:40 AM


The EPA's 2008 sticker design (click to enlarge).  (Source: EPA/DOT)

One of the new sticker designs.  (Source: EPA/DOT)

The other proposed new sticker design.  (Source: EPA/DOT)
Sticker is one of two proposed designs, each with new information to help consumers choose their next vehicle

Spiking oil prices in the 1970s inspired the U.S. Congress to pass the Energy Tax Act of 1978, a phased in tax that hits people who buy inefficient vehicles.  Around the same time Congress also mandated that the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Transportation put fuel efficiency labels on all new cars sold at dealerships in the U.S.  Those stickers became a familiar, relatively unchanging sight over the next 30 years.

Starting in 2008, the stickers underwent their first big overhaul.  Today, with new types of automobiles like plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and battery electric vehicles preparing to hit the market, the DOT and EPA are looking to roll out yet another shakeup to the dealership sticker design. 

The government organizations aired two alternative designs for labels today.  The first design more closely resembles the 2008 label and its contents.  It adds several additional statistics, as well -- offering metrics on CO2 emissions (in g/mile from the tailpipe), "other emissions" (on a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being the best possible), how many gallons are used every 100 miles, how the vehicle compares fuel economy-wise with other vehicles in its class, and how the vehicle compares to all other vehicles (including those outside its class) in fuel economy.

The second design is a more radical redesign offering a letter grade to the vehicle in terms of fuel economy.  According to the EPA/DOT proposal page shows a battery electric vehicles getting an "A+", a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle receiving an "A", a compressed natural gas vehicle getting an "A-", and a "flexible fuel" (ethanol-ready) vehicle receiving a "B".  The page insists, though:

Please note that these labels are examples and do not represent real automobiles. 

Thus, it is unclear whether these labels are indicative to what kind of letter grades the actual vehicles in these classes would succeed.  Interestingly, there's no room for failure under the new system.  The worst rating one can get is a "D".

The design bumps the average yearly cost of fuel to a text subnote and instead emphasizes the amount the vehicle "saves" per year, "compared to the average vehicle".  It also bumps the note on how the vehicle stacks up within its class to a text subnote.

Both labels feature special QR Codes that allow smartphones to pull up additional info on fuel efficiency and the model.  Both labels also include special "effective MPG" ratings, to encompass electric vehicle performance.  Electric vehicles have their costs tallied as an "Annual Electric Cost".

The first sticker also includes, for the first time, a short disclaimer on how the fuel costs are calculated (a gas price of $2.80 USD is assumed in the sticker shown).  The letter-grade sticker doesn't include the disclaimer, though both stickers remind customers to go to www.fueleconomy.gov to learn more on the topic.

The EPA is seeking public comment on both designs, in order to decide which to adopt.  You can leave your thoughts, comments, criticism, and suggestions here.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By Gungel on 8/31/2010 8:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"They are blatant pandering of enviromentalist agenda by washington."

Wrong, reason number one is to reduce our oil imports from foreign countries. This year alone we had to import 2.15 billion barrels of oil which amounts to US$150 billion (at $70p/Barrel). Our trade deficit for the same period was about $300 billion.
There are a lot of other good reasons to reduce our oil dependency.


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By bug77 on 8/31/2010 8:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are a lot of other good reasons to reduce our oil dependency.


Maybe so, but are they good enough to replace that dependency with dependency on China's rare earths? At least most of that oil comes from Canada and Mexico.


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By Gungel on 8/31/2010 8:32:37 AM , Rating: 2
Quote:
"At least most of that oil comes from Canada and Mexico. "

Wrong. most oil imports are from countries that belong to OPEC. Here is the data if you're interest:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/PET_MOVE_IMPCUS_A2...


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By bug77 on 8/31/2010 10:31:50 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you showed me.

June 2010
OPEC: 164,768
Non-OPEC: 212,929

Canada: 81,978
Mexico: 36,231
Saudi Arabia: 40,576


By Gungel on 8/31/2010 11:26:08 AM , Rating: 2
Total Oil imports for June 2010 was 377,697,000 barrels.
Just to clarify, Canada and Mexico made up less than one third.


RE: Since We're Adopting School Methods
By namechamps on 8/31/2010 4:11:07 PM , Rating: 2
Fail

Are you failed by your own source.

quote:
most oil imports are from countries that belong to OPEC


Let me fix that for you.

A minority of oil imports are from countries that belong to OPEC (per your own source).

The two largest sources of oil are from Mexico & Canada. OPEC nations provide a minority of the oil we use.


By Gungel on 8/31/2010 4:20:39 PM , Rating: 2
OPEC a minority? hardly:
OPEC 165 million barrels for June of 2010
Mexico and Canada 118 million barrels


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki