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

It's all a game.
By Tedtalker1 on 12/13/2013 12:01:59 PM , Rating: -1
The more efficient our automobiles become, the more taxes they will levy on a gallon of fuel. You didn't have to be Nostradamus to see it coming.

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.

"It's okay. The scenarios aren't that clear. But it's good looking. [Steve Jobs] does good design, and [the iPad] is absolutely a good example of that." -- Bill Gates on the Apple iPad

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