Light-Duty Automotive Technology,
Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel
Economy Trends:
1975 Through 2011
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
-------
Light-Duty Automotive Technology,
Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel
Economy Trends:
1975 Through 2011
Transportation and Climate Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
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.
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-12-001
March 2012
-------
Table of Contents
Page
I. Executive Summary i
II. Introduction 1
III. Fuel Economy Trends 6
IV. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trends 18
V. Fuel Economy Trends by Vehicle Type, Size, and Weight 32
VI. Fuel Economy Powertrain Technology Trends 48
VII. Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make 77
VIII. References 86
-------
Table of Contents, continued
Appendices
APPENDIX A -- Database Details and Calculation Methods
APPENDIX B -- Model Year 2011 Nameplate Fuel Economy Listings
APPENDIX C -- Fuel Economy Distribution Data
APPENDIX D -- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type
APPENDIX E -- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Size
APPENDIX F -- Car Fuel Economy Data Stratified by EPA Car Class
APPENDIX G — Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Weight Class
APPENDIX H — Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Drive Type
APPENDIX I — Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Transmission Type
APPENDIX J -- Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Cylinder Count
APPENDIX K — Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type, Engine Type and
Valves Per Cylinder
APPENDIX L - Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Vehicle Type and Manufacturer
APPENDIX M — Fuel Economy by Manufacturer, Vehicle Type and Weight Class
APPENDIX N — Fuel Economy and Ton-MPG by Manufacturer, Vehicle Type and Size
APPENDIX O - MY 2011 Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type, Weight and Manufacturer
APPENDIX P - Fuel Economy Data Stratified by Manufacturer and Vehicle Type
-------
I. Executive Summary
Introduction
This report summarizes key trends in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, fuel economy, and CO2- and fuel
economy-related technology for gasoline- and diesel-fueled personal vehicles sold in the United States, from model
years (MY) 1975 through 2011. Personal vehicles are those vehicles that EPA classifies as cars, light-duty trucks
(sport utility vehicles, minivans, vans, and pickup trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings up to 8500 pounds), or,
beginning in MY 2011, medium-duty passenger vehicles (sport utility vehicles or passenger vans with gross vehicle
weight ratings between 8500 and 10,000 pounds). The data in this report cover the MY 1975-2011 timeframe,
supersede the data in previous reports in this series, and should not be compared with data from previous years'
editions of this report due to changes discussed below. Except when noted, CO2 emissions and fuel economy values
in this report have been adjusted to reflect "real world" consumer performance and therefore are not comparable to
CO2 emissions and fuel economy standards.
Data for MY 2010 are final, but data for MY 2011 are preliminary. The fleetwide average real world MY
2010 personal vehicle CO2 emissions value is 394 grams per mile (g/mi) and fuel economy is 22.6 miles per gallon
(mpg), both slight improvements over MY 2009 and the most favorable levels since this analysis began in 1975.
Preliminary projections for MY 2011 are for continued slight improvements for both CO2 emissions and fuel
economy. For more discussion of the key conclusions of this report, see the five Highlights at the end of this
Executive Summary.
What's New This Year
Most small, 2 wheel drive SUVs have been reclassified from trucks to cars for the entire MY 1975-2011
database. This reflects a regulatory change made by the Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards beginning in MY
2011 and which will apply for the joint EPA/NHTSA greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards that have been
finalized for MY 2012-2016 and proposed for MY 2017-2025. Some examples of the impacts of this change are that,
for MY 2010, nearly 1.1 million vehicles are classified as cars that in previous years would have been classified as
trucks, the absolute truck share is nearly 10% lower, the projected average adjusted CO2 emissions for cars are about
9 g/mi higher, the projected average adjusted CO2 emissions for light trucks are 17 g/mi higher, and the projected
average adjusted fuel economies for cars and for light trucks are both 0.7 mpg lower than they would have been under
the previous classification approach. Since this classification change does not affect the overall number of vehicles,
or vehicle emissions/fuel economy performance, it has no impact on the average adjusted CO2 emissions and fuel
economy for the overall (car plus light truck) fleet. When the car fleet is further subdivided into sub-classes, these re-
classified vehicles are referred to as "non-truck SUVs," while the remaining SUVs are termed "truck SUVs."
Beginning with MY 2011, the database now includes medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), which
include larger sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and passenger vans, but not the larger pickup trucks, in the 8500-10,000
pound gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) range. This change was made because NHTSA includes MDPVs in its
CAFE standards beginning with MY 2011, and EPA and NHTSA include MDPVs in future greenhouse gas
emissions and CAFE standards (and vehicle labels as well). While EPA will be including MDPV data for all years
beginning with MY 2011, EPA does not have data for MDPVs for MY 1975-2010, so there is and will continue to be
a very small discontinuity in the database beginning in MY 2011. The inclusion of MDPVs in MY 2011 increases
projected average adjusted CO2 emissions for light trucks by about 0.5 g/mi (even less for the overall fleet
-------
decreases projected average adjusted fuel economy for light trucks by 0.02 mpg (less for the overall fleet) compared
to the fleet without MDPVs.
Important Explanation of Data Contained in This Report
Final MY 2010 data are based on formal end-of-year CAFE reports submitted by automakers to EPA and will
not change. The preliminary MY 2011 data in this report are based on confidential pre-model year production
volume projections provided to EPA by automakers during MY 2010 for the fuel economy label program.
Accordingly, there is uncertainty in the MY 2011 data used in this report. For example, while the final MY 2010
values for CO2 emissions and fuel economy in this report are essentially the same as the projected MY 2010 values
that were provided in last year's report, in some previous years the preliminary projections were not good predictors
of actual CO2 and fuel economy performance. This report will often focus on the final MY 2010 data, rather than on
the preliminary MY 2011 data, as we have done in prior reports.
The reader is advised to be cautious in making data comparisons between MY 2009 and MY 2010 as the
former was a year of considerable turmoil in the automotive market. Due primarily to the economic recession, light-
duty vehicle production was 34% lower in MY 2009 than in MY 2008, and the lowest since the database began in
1975.
The great majority of the CO2 emissions and fuel economy values in this report are adjusted (ADJ) EPA real-
world estimates provided to consumers and based on EPA's 5-cycle test methodology (which represent city, highway,
high speed/high acceleration, high temperature/air conditioning, and cold temperature driving) that was first
implemented in MY 2008. Appendix A provides a detailed explanation of the method used to calculate these
adjusted fuel economy and CO2 values, which last changed with the 2007 version of this report. In 2011, EPA and
NHTSA revised the fuel economy and environment label to include, among other things, CO2 emissions per mile and
a fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions rating (76 Federal Register 39478, July 6, 2011).
In some tables, the report also provides unadjusted EPA laboratory (LAB) values, which are based on a 2-
cycle test methodology (city and highway tests only) and are the basis for automaker compliance with CO2 emissions
and CAFE standards. All combinations of adjusted or laboratory, and CO2 emissions or fuel economy values, may be
reported as city, highway, or, most commonly, as composite (combined city/highway, or COMP).
Because the underlying methodology for generating unadjusted laboratory CO2 emissions and fuel economy
values has not changed since this series began in the mid-1970s, these values provide a basis for comparing long-term
CO2 emissions and fuel economy trends from the perspective of vehicle design, apart from the factors that affect real-
world driving that are reflected in the adjusted values. These unadjusted laboratory values form the basis for
automaker compliance with CO2 emissions and CAFE standards. Laboratory composite values represent a harmonic
average of 55 percent city and 45 percent highway operation, or "55/45." For 2005 and later model years, unadjusted
laboratory composite CO2 emissions values are, on average, about 20 percent lower than adjusted composite CO2
values, and unadjusted laboratory composite fuel economy values are, on average, about 25 percent greater than
adjusted composite fuel economy values.
Regulatory Context
CAFE standards have been in place since 1978. NHTSA has the responsibility for setting and enforcing
CAFE standards. EPA is 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 2011, the footprint-
based CAFE standards are projected to achieve average industry-wide compliance levels of 30.4 mpg for cars
-------
(including a 27.8 mpg alternative minimum standard for domestic cars for all manufacturers) and 24.4 mpg for light
trucks (75 FR 25330, May 7, 2010). There are no greenhouse gas emissions standards for MY 2011.
For MY 2012 and later, EPA and NHTSA have been jointly developing a harmonized National Program to
establish EPA greenhouse gas emissions standards and NHTSA CAFE standards that allow manufacturers to build a
single national fleet to meet requirements of both programs while ensuring that consumers have a full range of
vehicle choices. The National Program has 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 harmonized standards for MY 2012-2016 (75 Federal Register 25324,
May 7, 2010). The standards for MY 2012 are now in effect. By MY 2016, the average industry-wide compliance
levels for these footprint-based standards are projected to be 250 g/mi CO2 and 34.1 mpg CAFE. The 250 g/mi CO2
compliance level would be equivalent to 35.5 mpg if all CO2 emissions reductions are achieved through fuel economy
improvements. In 2011, the agencies proposed additional harmonized standards for MY 2017-2025 (76 FR 74854,
December 1, 2011). Under the currently-proposed footprint-based standards, by MY 2025 the average industry-wide
compliance levels are projected to be 163 g/mi CO2 and 49.6 mpg CAFE. The 163 g/mi CO2 compliance level would
be equivalent to 54.5 mpg if all CO2 emissions reductions are achieved solely through improvements in fuel
economy. For both MY 2012-2016 and MY 2017-2025, the agencies expect that a portion of the required CO2
emissions improvements will be achieved by reductions in air conditioner refrigerant leakage, which would not
contribute to higher fuel economy.
These projected levels for MY 2025 represent an approximate halving of CO2 emissions and doubling of fuel
economy levels since the National Program was announced in May 2009. Taken together, the MY 2011 CAFE
standards, the MY 2012-2016 greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards, and the proposed MY 2017-2025
greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards are projected to save approximately 6 billion metric tons of
greenhouse gas emissions and 12 billion barrels of oil over the lifetimes of the vehicles produced in MY 2011-2025.
Based on the agencies' most recent estimates of the cost and effectiveness of future technologies, Department of
Energy forecasts of future fuel prices, and other assumptions, the fuel savings to consumers are projected to far
outweigh the higher initial cost of the vehicle technology that will be necessary to meet the new standards.
With real world (i.e., 5-cycle label) adjustments, alternative fuel vehicle credits, and test procedure
adjustments, fleetwide CAFE compliance values are a minimum of 25 percent higher than EPA adjusted (5-cycle)
fuel economy values. See Appendix A for a detailed comparison of EPA adjusted and laboratory fuel economy
values and CAFE compliance values.
in
-------
Highlight #1: MY 2010 had the lowest COi emission rate and highest fuel economy since the database
began in 1975.
MY 2010 adjusted composite CO2 emissions were 394 g/mi, a record low for the post-1975
database and a 3 g/mi decrease relative to MY 2009. MY 2010 adjusted composite fuel economy
was 22.6 mpg, an all-time high since the database began in 1975, and 0.2 mpg higher than in MY
2009. Preliminary MY 2011 values are 391 g/mi CO2 emissions and 22.8 mpg fuel economy,
reflecting slight improvements over MY 2010.
While year-to-year changes often receive the most public attention, the greatest value of the historical trends
database is the identification and documentation of long-term trends. Since 1975, overall new light-duty vehicle CO2
emissions have moved through four phases: 1) a rapid decrease from MY 1975 through MY 1981; 2) a slower
decrease until reaching a valley in MY 1987; 3) a gradual increase until MY 2004; and 4) a decrease for the seven
years beginning in MY 2005, with the largest decrease in MY 2009. Since fuel economy has an inverse relationship
to tailpipe CO2 emissions, overall new light-duty vehicle fuel economy has moved in opposite phases.
The recent improvements in CO2 emissions and fuel economy reverse the trend of increasing CO2 emissions
and decreasing fuel economy that occurred from MY 1987 through MY 2004. From MY 2004 to MY 2010, CO2
emissions decreased by 67 g/mi (15 percent), and fuel economy increased by 3.3 mpg (17 percent). Priorto MY
2009, the previous records for lowest CO2 emissions and highest fuel economy were in MY 1987. Compared to MY
1987, MY 2010 CO2 emissions were 11 g/mi (3 percent) lower, and fuel economy was 0.6 mpg (3 percent) higher.
Adjusted COi Emissions
Adjusted Fuel Economy
O
o
700
600
.2, --' 500
"
400
Cars
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
O
Q_
T3
CD
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
MY 2010 unadjusted laboratory composite values, which reflect vehicle design considerations only and do
not account for the many factors which affect real world CO2 emissions and fuel economy performance, were also at
an all-time low for CO2 emissions (313 g/mi) and a record high for fuel economy (28.4 mpg) since the database
began in 1975.
IV
-------
Highlight #2: MY 2010 truck market share increased by 5 percent compared to MY 2009, but is at
the second lowest level since 1996.
Light trucks, which include SUVs, minivans/vans, and pickup trucks, accounted for 36 percent of
all light-duty vehicle sales in MY 2010. This represents a 5 percent increase over MY 2009, but
that was a year of market turmoil and MY 2009 truck share was 8 percent lower than MY 2008.
Truck market share is now at the second lowest level since MY 1996 and 9 percent lower than the
peak in MY 2004. The MY 2011 light truck market share is projected to be 38 percent, based on
pre-model year production projections by automakers.
There were two changes to the database this year that affect truck market share. The first change, as
discussed above, is that most small, 2 wheel drive SUVs from MY 1975-2011 have been reclassified from trucks to
cars. This lowers the absolute truck share, particularly since the mid-1980s when SUV sales began to increase
rapidly, so truck share values in this report should not be compared to those in past versions of this report. For
example, for MY 2010 data in this report, nearly 1.1 million vehicles are reclassified from trucks to cars, representing
a 10 percent absolute change in both the car and truck production share. The second change, also discussed above, is
that, for the first time, the preliminary data for MY 2011 include MDPVs. EPA does not have data for MDPVs for
MY 1975-2010, so there is a small discontinuity in the database beginning in MY 2011. The projected production
volume for MDPVs in MY 2011 is approximately 10,000 vehicles, which increases the projected truck share of the
overall fleet in MY 2011 by less than 0.1 percent.
Production Share by Vehicle Type
100%
80%
ro 60%
OD
o
••§
"§ 40%
20%
0%
Cars (Including Non-Truck SUVs)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
-------
Highlight #3: MY 2010 weight and power increased from MY 2009, but decreased relative to MY 2008.
MY 2010 vehicle weight averaged 4002 pounds, an increase of 85 pounds compared to MY 2009,
but the second lowest average weight since MY 2004. The average car and truck weight both
increased by about 25 pounds each, and the remaining difference was due to higher truck market
share. In MY 2010, the average vehicle power was 214 horsepower, an increase of 6 horsepower
since MY 2009, but lower than in MY 2007-2008. Car power increased slightly and truck power
was unchanged, so the primary factor in increasing the overall power level was higher truck
market share. Estimated MY 2010 O-to-60 acceleration time decreased slightly to 9.6 seconds.
Weight, Horsepower and O-to-60 Performance
4000
3800
3600
3400
220
200
180
160
140
120
14
13
12
11
10
9
Weight (Ib)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Horsepower
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
O-to-60 Time
(seconds)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
Vehicle weight and performance are two of the most important engineering parameters that help determine a
vehicle's CO2 emissions and fuel economy. All other factors being equal, higher vehicle weight (which supports new
options and features) and faster acceleration performance (e.g., lower O-to-60 mile-per-hour acceleration time), both
increase a vehicle's CO2 emissions and decrease fuel economy. Automotive engineers are constantly developing
more efficient vehicle technologies. From MY 1987 through MY 2004, on a fleetwide basis, this technology
innovation was generally utilized to support market-driven attributes other than CO2 emissions and fuel economy,
such as vehicle weight, performance, and utility. Beginning in MY 2005, technology has been used to increase both
fuel economy (which has reduced CO2 emissions) and performance, while keeping vehicle weight relatively constant.
Preliminary MY 2011 values suggest that average vehicle weight and performance will both increase, though
these projections are uncertain and EPA will not have final data until next year's report.
VI
-------
Highlight #4: Most manufacturers increased fuel economy in MY 2010, resulting in lower COi
emission rates.
Ten of the 13 highest-selling manufacturers increased fuel economy (which also reduced CO2 g/mi
emission rates) from MY 2009 to MY 2010, the last two years for which we have definitive data,
and 4 manufacturers increased fuel economy by 1 mpg or more.
Adjusted CO2 emissions and fuel economy values are shown for the 13 highest-selling manufacturers, which
accounted for 99 percent of the market in MY 2010, in order from lowest to highest CO2 emissions for MY 2010.
Manufacturers are defined in accordance with current NHTSA CAFE guidelines, and these definitions are applied
retroactively for the entire database back to 1975 for purposes of maintaining integrity of trends over time. In MY
2010, the last year for which EPA has final production data, Hyundai had the lowest fleetwide adjusted composite
CO2 emissions performance, followed very closely by Kia and then Toyota. Hyundai and Kiatied for the highest
fleetwide adjusted composite fuel economy value. Daimler had the highest CO2 emissions (and lowest fuel
economy), followed by Chrysler and Ford. Kia had the biggest improvement in adjusted CO2 (and fuel economy)
performance from MY 2009 to MY 2010, with a 37 g/mi reduction in fleetwide CO2 emissions (and 2.8 mpg fuel
economy improvement), followed by Hyundai (26 g/mi reduction in CO2 emissions) and Mazda (19 g/mi reduction in
CO2 emissions).
Preliminary MY 2011 values suggest that 11 of the 13 manufacturers will improve further in MY 2011,
though these projections are uncertain and EPA will not have final data until next year's report.
MY 2009-2011 Manufacturer Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions
(Adjusted Composite Values)
MY2009
Manufacturer MPG
Hyundai
Kia
Toyota
Honda
VW
Mazda
Subaru
Nissan
BMW
GM
Ford
Chrysler
Daimler
All
25.1
24.2
25.4
24.6
23.8
23.2
22.6
23.6
21.9
20.6
20.3
19.2
19.5
22.4
MY2009
CO2 MY2010
(g/mi) MPG
355
367
349
361
379
383
393
377
407
432
437
464
457
397
27.0
27.0
25.4
24.9
25.0
24.4
23.4
23.1
22.1
21.3
20.4
19.5
18.9
22.6
MY2010
CO2 MY2011
(g/mi) MPG
329
330
350
357
363
364
379
384
404
418
435
455
471
394
27.5
27.2
25.1
25.7
25.2
25.0
23.9
24.2
23.0
20.6
21.3
19.7
20.0
22.8
MY2011
C02
(g/mi)
323
327
354
345
360
355
371
368
389
431
417
451
447
391
EPA fuel economy and CO2 emissions data is based on model year production. This means that year-to-year
comparisons can be affected by longer or shorter vehicle model year designations by the manufacturers. Section VII
has greater detail on the fuel economy and CO2 emissions for these 13 manufacturers, as well as for these
manufacturers' individual makes (i.e., brands).
vn
-------
Highlight #5: Many new technologies are rapidly gaining market share.
Several advancedpowertrain technologies are making significant inroads into the mainstream
market. For example, in terms of market share, gasoline direct injection doubled in MY 2010 and
is projected to triple from MY 2009-2011, turbocharging is projected to double in MY 2011,
cylinder deactivation is projected to nearly double in MY 2011, and both 6-speed and 7-speed
transmissions approximately doubled from MY 2009-2011. These and other technology trends
help to explain the improvements in CO2 and fuel economy over the last seven years.
Personal vehicle technology has changed significantly since the database began in MY 1975. New
technologies are continually being introduced into the marketplace, while older and less effective technologies are
removed from the market. For example, in MY 1975 most engines relied on carburetors to deliver fuel to the engine.
Carburetors were replaced by fuel injection systems in the 1980s. Now, in some vehicles, conventional fuel injection
systems are being replaced by gasoline direct injection systems.
Understanding trends in these technologies and their relationship to CO2 emissions and fuel economy enables
a better understanding of the personal vehicle market. Below is a snapshot of several important technologies for
seven selected model years. The first column of data is from MY 1975, the first year of data for this report. The
next two years, MY 1987 and 2004, were historical inflection points for CO2 emissions and fuel economy (see
Highlight #1). The table also contains data from several recent years.
Light Duty Vehicle Characteristics for Seven Model Years
Adjusted CO2 Emissions (g/mi)
Adjusted Fuel Economy (MPG)
Weight (Ib)
Horsepower
0-to-60Time (sec.)
Truck Production
Four-Cylinder Engine
Eight-Cylinder Engine
Multi-Valve Engine
Variable Valve Timing
Cylinder Deactivation
Gasoline Direct Injection
Turbocharged or Supercharged
Manual Transmission
Continuously Variable Transmission
6 Speed Transmission
7+ Speed Transmission
Hybrid
Diesel
1975
681
13.1
4060
137
14.1
19%
20%
62%
-
-
-
-
-
23.0%
-
-
-
-
0.2%
1987
405
22.0
3221
118
13.1
27%
55%
15%
-
-
-
-
-
29.1%
-
-
-
-
0.3%
2004
461
19.3
4111
211
9.9
45%
28%
24%
62%
39%
-
-
2.9%
6.8%
1.2%
3.0%
0.2%
0.5%
0.1%
2008
424
21.0
4085
219
9.7
39%
38%
17%
76%
58%
6.7%
2.3%
3.3%
5.2%
7.9%
19.4%
2.0%
2.5%
0.1%
2009
397
22.4
3917
208
9.7
31%
51%
12%
84%
72%
7.4%
4.2%
3.5%
4.7%
9.5%
24.7%
2.6%
2.3%
0.5%
2010
394
22.6
4002
214
9.6
36%
50%
14%
85%
84%
6.4%
8.3%
3.5%
3.8%
10.9%
38.1%
2.8%
3.8%
0.7%
2011
391
22.8
4084
228
9.3
38%
47%
16%
85%
94%
11.1%
13.7%
7.4%
5.1%
10.8%
52.4%
4.9%
4.0%
0.6%
Vlll
-------
Additional Notes on Data Contained in This Report
This report supersedes all previous reports in this series. Users of this report should rely exclusively on data
in this latest report, which covers MY 1975 through 2011, and not make comparisons to data in previous reports in
this series. There are several reasons for this.
One, EPA revised the methodology for estimating "real-world" (i.e., label) fuel economy values in December
2006. Every adjusted (ADJ) fuel economy value in this report for 1986 and later model years is lower than given in
reports in this series prior to the 2007 report. See Appendix A for more in-depth discussion of the current
methodology and how it affects both the adjusted fuel economy values for individual models and the historical fuel
economy trends database. This same methodology is used to calculate adjusted CO2 emissions values as well. Two,
as discussed above, for the first time in this version of the report, EPA reclassifies most small, 2 wheel drive SUVs
from trucks to cars for the entire MY 1975-1011 database. Beginning with this report, all car/truck classifications in
this database are consistent with determinations made by NHTSA for CAFE standards beginning in MY 2011 and
EPA for CO2 emissions standards for MY 2012 and later. Three, when EPA changes a manufacturer or vehicle make
definition to reflect a change in the industry's current financial arrangements, EPA makes the same adjustment in the
historical database as well. This maintains a consistent manufacturer/make definition over time, which allows the
identification of long-term trends. On the other hand, it means that the database does not necessarily reflect actual
past financial arrangements. For example, the 2011 database, which includes data for the entire time series MY 1975
through 2011, accounts for all Chrysler vehicles in the 1975-2011 timeframe under the Chrysler manufacturer
designation, and no longer reflects the fact that Chrysler was combined with Daimler for several years.
Through MY 2010, the CO2 emissions, fuel economy, vehicle characteristics, and vehicle production volume
data used for this report were from the formal end-of-year submissions from automakers obtained from EPA's fuel
economy database that is used for CAFE compliance purposes. For MY 2011, EPA has exclusively used confidential
pre-model year production volume projections from automaker label submissions. Accordingly, MY 2011
projections are uncertain. Historically, the differences between the initial estimates based on vehicle production
projections and later, final values have ranged between 0.4 mpg lower to 0.6 mpg higher. But, the market turmoil in
MY 2009 was a major exception in this regard, as the final MY 2009 value from the 2010 report was 1.3 mpg higher
than the preliminary value for MY 2009 from the 2009 report based on projected production volumes.
The database in this report includes data from vehicles certified to operate on gasoline or diesel fuel, from
laboratory testing with test fuels as defined in EPA test protocols (e.g., with zero ethanol). It includes data from
ethanol flexible fuel vehicles, which can operate on gasoline or an 85 percent ethanol/15 percent gasoline blend or
any mixture in between, operated on gasoline only. Data from the small number of vehicles that are certified to
operate only on alternative fuels or are expected to operate frequently on alternative fuels (such as plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles or dual-fuel compressed natural gas vehicles) are not included in this database because they currently
represent less than 0.2 percent of all sales and because the emissions and fuel economy data from alternative fuel
vehicles raise issues with respect to the metrics that are used in this report.
Vehicle population data in this report represent production delivered for sale in the U.S., rather than actual
sales data. Automakers submit production data in formal end-of-year CAFE compliance reports to EPA, which is the
basis for this report. Accordingly, the production data in this report may differ from sales data reported by press
sources, because not all vehicles produced for sale in a given model year will necessarily be sold in that model year.
In addition, the data presented in this report are tabulated on a model year, not calendar year, basis.
IX
-------
For More Information
Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 through 2011
(EPA-420-R-12-001) is available on the Office of Transportation and Air Quality's (OTAQ) Web site at:
www. epa.gov/otaq/fetrends .htm
Printed copies are available from the OTAQ library at:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Transportation and Air Quality Library
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
(734)214-4311
A copy of the Fuel Economy Guide giving city and highway fuel economy data for individual models is available at:
www.fueleconomy.gov
or by calling the U.S. Department of Energy at (800) 423-1363.
For information about EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards, see:
www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations.htm
For information about the EPA/Department of Transportation (DOT) Fuel Economy and Environment Labels, see:
www. epa.gov/otaq/carlabel
For information about DOT's Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program, including a program overview,
related rulemaking activities, and summaries of the fuel economy performance of individual manufacturers since
1978, see:
www.nhtsa.dot.gov/fuel-economy
-------
II. Introduction
This report examines light-duty vehicle technology, CO2 emissions, and fuel economy trends since MY
1975 using the latest and most complete EPA data available. Pre-2009 reports in this series [1-35]: presented fuel
economy and technology trends only, and did not include CO2 emissions data. Beginning in 2009, reports [36-37]
have included key CO2 emissions summary tables as well. When comparing data in this and previous reports,
please note that revisions are made for some prior model years for which more complete data have become
available. In addition, important changes have been made periodically in the database, e.g., reflecting changes in
manufacturer definitions, the methodology by which we calculate adjusted fuel economy values, car-truck
classifications, and whether MDPVs are included in the database. Thus, it is often not appropriate to compare
values from this report with others in this series and it is not necessary to do so since each report reflects the entire
database back to MY 1975.
The EPA CO2 emissions and fuel economy database used in this report was frozen in October 2010.
Through MY 2010, the CO2 emissions, fuel economy, vehicle characteristics, and production volume data used for
this report came from the formal end-of-year submissions from automakers obtained from EPA's database that is
used for CAFE compliance purposes, and can be considered to be final. For MY 2011, EPA has exclusively used
confidential pre-model year production projections submitted to EPA by automakers. Vehicle population data in
this report represent production delivered for sale in the U.S., rather than actual sales data. Accordingly, the vehicle
production data in this report may differ from sales data reported by press sources. In addition, the data presented
in this report were tabulated on a model year, not calendar year, basis. In years past, manufacturers typically used a
consistent approach toward 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 be introduced in the spring or summer, rather than the fall. This means that a model year
for an individual vehicle can be "stretched out." Accordingly, year-to-year comparisons can be affected by these
model year anomalies, though these even out over a multi-year period.
All fuel economy values in this report are production-weighted harmonic averages (necessary to maintain
mathematical integrity) and all CO2 emissions values are production-weighted arithmetic averages. In earlier
reports in this series through MY 2000, the only fuel economy values used were the unadjusted laboratory-based
city, highway, and composite (combined city/highway) mpg values—which are used as the basis for compliance
with the fuel economy standards and the gas guzzler tax. Since the laboratory mpg values tend to over predict the
mpg achieved in actual use, adjusted mpg values are used for the Government's fuel economy information
programs: fueleconomy.gov, the Fuel Economy Guide, and the Fuel Economy and Environment Labels that are on
new vehicles. Starting with the MY 2001 report, this series has provided fuel economy trends in adjusted mpg
values in addition to the laboratory mpg values. Now, most of the tables exclusively show the adjusted CO2
emissions and fuel economy values. A few tables include both adjusted city, highway, and composite fuel
economy values and laboratory 55/45 fuel economy values. In the tables, these two mpg values are called
"Adjusted MPG" and "Laboratory MPG" and are abbreviated as "ADJ" MPG and "LAB" MPG. These same
metrics are used for CO2 emissions values as well.
Where only one CO2 or mpg value is presented in this report and it is not explicitly identified otherwise, it
is the "adjusted composite" value. This value represents a combined city/highway CO2 or fuel economy value, and
is based on equations (see Appendix A) that allow a computation of adjusted city and highway values based on
laboratory city and highway test values.
Numbers in brackets denote references listed in the references section of this report.
1
-------
It is important to note that EPA revised the methodology by which EPA estimates adjusted fuel economy
values in December 2006. Every adjusted fuel economy value in this report for 1986 and later model years is lower
than given in pre-2007 reports. Accordingly, adjusted fuel economy values for 1986 and later model years should
not be compared with corresponding values from older reports. These new downward adjustments are phased in,
linearly, beginning in 1986, and for 2005 and later model years the new adjusted composite values are, on average,
about six percent lower than under the methodology previously used by EPA. This same methodology is used to
generate adjusted CO2 emissions values as well. See Appendix A for more in-depth discussion of this new
methodology and how it affects both the adjusted CO2 and fuel economy values for individual models and the
historical trends database.
Data are tabulated on a model year basis, but some figures use three-year moving averages which
effectively smooth the trends, and these three-year moving averages are tabulated at their midpoint. For example,
the midpoint for model years 2009, 2010, and 2011 is MY 2010. The fuel economy values reported by the
Department of Transportation (DOT) for compliance with the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program
are higher than the data in this report for three reasons:
1. The DOT data do not include the EPA real world fuel economy adjustments for city and highway mpg;
2. The DOT data include CAFE credits for those manufacturers that produce dedicated alternative fuel
vehicles and flexible fuel vehicles (credits generated through the production of flexible fuel vehicles are
currently capped at 1.2 mpg per fleet);
3. The DOT data include credits for test procedure adjustments for cars.
Accordingly, the fuel economy values in this series of reports are always lower than those reported by
DOT. Table A-6, Appendix A, compares CAFE data reported by DOT with EPA adjusted and laboratory fuel
economy data for MY 1975 -2011. Table A-7 shows a more detailed comparison for MY 2010, by manufacturer, of
values for EPA laboratory fuel economy, alternative fuel vehicle credits, test procedure adjustment credits for cars,
and NHTSA CAFE performance.
Beginning in MY 2011, footprint data is obtained from the pre-model year reports provided by automakers
to DOT/NHTSA. For MY 2008-2010, EPA generated footprint data from external sources such as individual
manufacturer websites, Edmonds.com, and Motortrend.com. Since the MY 2008-2010 footprint data was
generated in a more piecemeal fashion, there is some uncertainty associated with this data.
In the various appendices to this report, when there is no entry under "Model Year," that means there was
no production volume for the parameter in question.
While this report contains data through MY 2011, it is important to emphasize that the data through MY
2010 is based on formal end-of-year CAFE data submitted by automakers to EPA and therefore is final data that
will not change. On the other hand, the MY 2011 data is based on confidential pre-model year production volume
projections provided by manufacturers to EPA in the spring/summer of 2010 and therefore are projections that may
well change when final production data is presented in the next report. Given the uncertainty in the MY 2011 data,
this report will often focus more on the MY 2010 data than on the MY 2011 data.
-------
Other Variables
All vehicle weight data are based on inertia weight class (nominally curb weight plus 300 pounds). For
vehicles with inertia weights up to and including the 3000-pound inertia weight class, these classes have 250-pound
increments. For vehicles above the 3000-pound inertia weight class (i.e., vehicles 3500 pounds and above), 500-
pound increments are used.
The light truck data in this report include vehicles classified as light-duty trucks with gross vehicle weight
ratings (GVWR) up to 8500 pounds as well as, for the first time beginning with MY 2011, medium-duty passenger
vehicles (MDPVs). MDPVs are large SUVs and passenger vans with GVWRs between 8500 and 10,000 pounds
(MDPVs do not include the much larger number of pickup trucks in the same GVWR range). EPA does not have
data for MDPVs for MY 1975-2010, so there is and will continue to be a small discontinuity in the database
beginning in MY 2011. For the overall fleet in MY 2011, the inclusion of MDPVs increased projected average
adjusted CO2 emissions by 0.3 g/mi and decreased projected average adjusted fuel economy by 0.01 mpg compared
to the fleet without MDPVs. For the light truck fleet in MY 2011, the inclusion of MDPVs increased proj ected
CO2 emissions by 0.5 g/mi and decreased average adjusted fuel economy by 0.02 mpg.
"Ton-MPG" is defined as a vehicle's mpg multiplied by its weight in tons. Ton-MPG is a measure of
powertrain/drive-line efficiency. Just as an increase in vehicle mpg at constant weight can be considered an
improvement in a vehicle's efficiency, an increase in a vehicle's weight at constant mpg can also be considered an
improvement. "CO2/ton" is the equivalent CO2 metric and is reported in Section IV.
" Cubic-feet-MPG" for cars is defined in this report as the product of a car's mpg and its interior volume,
including trunk space. This metric associates a relative measure of a vehicle's ability to transport both passengers
and their cargo. An increase in vehicle volume at constant mpg could be considered an improvement just as an
increase in mpg at constant volume can be. "CO2/cubic feet" values are given in Section IV.
" Cubic-feet-ton-MPG" is defined in this report as a combination of the two previous metrics, i.e., a car's
mpg multiplied by its weight in tons and also by its interior volume. It ascribes vehicle utility to fuel economy,
weight and volume. "CO2/ton-cubic feet"" is the equivalent CO2 metric and is shown in Section IV.
This report also includes an estimate of O-to-60 mph acceleration time—calculated from engine rated
horsepower and vehicle weight—from the relationship:
t = F (HP/WT)-f
where the coefficients F and fare empirical parameters determined in the literature by obtaining a least-squares fit
for available test data. The values for the F and f coefficients are .892 and .805, respectively, for vehicles with
automatic transmissions and .967 and .775, respectively, for those with manual transmissions [38]. Other authors
[39, 40, and 41] have evaluated the relationships between weight, horsepower, and O-to-60 acceleration time and
have calculated and published slightly different values for the F and f coefficients. Since the equation form and
coefficients were developed for vehicles with conventional powertrains with gasoline-fueled engines, we have not
used the equation to estimate O-to-60 time for vehicles with hybrid powertrains or diesel engines. Published values
are used for these vehicles instead.
The O-to-60 estimate used in this report is intended to provide a quantitative time "index" of vehicle
performance capability. It is the authors' engineering judgment that, given the differences in test methods for
-------
measuring O-to-60 time and given the fact that the weight is based on inertia weight, use of these other published
values for the F and f coefficients would not result in statistically significantly different O-to-60 averages or trends.
Car-truck classifications are based on the regulatory definitions used by NHTSA for fuel economy
standards compliance beginning in MY 2011 and by EPA for CO2 emissions standards compliance beginning in
MY 2012. Accordingly, some small 2 wheel drive SUVs that had previously been considered trucks in previous
versions of this report are now classified as cars throughout the entire MY 1975-2011 database. In some tables and
figures, these vehicles are identified as "non-truck SUVs." The overall car class is typically sub-divided into cars,
wagons, and non-truck SUVs. The reclassification of small 2 wheel drive SUVs from trucks to cars affects about
1.1 million vehicles in MY 2010 and MY 2011, and reduces the absolute truck share by about 10% compared to the
classification used in previous reports.
Cars and wagons are sometimes further divided into sub-classes in three different ways. One approach
generally follows the fuel economy label and Fuel Economy Guide protocol. With this approach, sedan and wagon
sub-classes are based on the interior volume (passenger plus cargo) thresholds described in the Fuel Economy
Guide (since interior volume is undefined for the two-seater class, this report assigns an interior volume value of 50
cubic feet for all two-seater cars):
Class Interior Volume
(cubic feet)
Minicompact sedan Up to 84
Subcompact sedan 85 to 99
Compact sedan 100 to 109
Midsize sedan 110 to 119
Large sedan 120 or more
Small wagon Up to 129
Midsize wagon 130 to 159
Large wagon 160 or more
In the second approach for car sub-classes, large sedans and wagons are aggregated as "Large," midsize sedans and
wagons are aggregated as "Midsize," and all other cars are aggregated as "Small." The third approach uses Large
Cars, Large Wagons, Midsize Cars, Midsize Wagons, Small Cars, and Small Wagons with the EPA Two-Seater,
Mini compact, Subcompact, and Compact sedan classes combined into the "Small Car" class. In some tables and
figures in this report wagons have been merged with cars. This is because the wagon production fraction, in some
instances, is so small that the information is more conveniently represented by combining the two vehicle types.
When they have been combined, the differences between them are insignificant.
The truck sub-classification scheme divides pickups, vans, and SUVs into "Small," "Midsize," and "Large."
These truck size classifications are based primarily on published wheelbase data according to the following criteria:
Pickup Van Truck SUV
Small Less than 105" Less than 109" Less than 100"
Midsize 105" to 115" 109" to 124" 100" to 110"
Large More than 115" More than 124" More than 110"
-------
This classification scheme is similar to that used in many trade and consumer publications. For those
vehicle nameplates with a variety of wheelbases, the size classification was determined by considering only the
smallest wheelbase produced.
Published data from external sources is also used for three other engine or vehicle characteristics for which
data has not always been submitted to EPA by the automotive manufacturers, or to supplement data that is
submitted to EPA: (1) engines with variable valve timing (VVT) that use either cams or electric solenoids to
provide variable intake and/or exhaust valve timing and in some cases valve lift; (2) engines with cylinder
deactivation, which involves allowing the valves of selected cylinders of the engine to remain closed under certain
driving conditions; and (3) vehicle footprint, which is the product of wheelbase times average track width and upon
which future CAFE (MY 2011 and later) and CO2 emissions standards are based. Beginning with MY 2012,
manufacturers will be submitting data on these engine or vehicle characteristics to EPA.
-------
III. Fuel Economy Trends
Figure 1 and Table 1 depict time trends in car, light truck, and car-plus-light truck fuel economy, as well as
truck production share, with the individual data points representing the data for each year, and trend lines
representing three-year moving averages. Since 1975, the fuel economy of the combined car and light truck fleet
has moved through several phases:
1. A rapid increase from 1975 through 1981;
2. A slow increase until reaching its peak in 1987;
3. A gradual decline until 2004; and
4. An increase beginning in 2005, with the largest increase in 2009.
Figure 1
Adjusted Fuel Economy and Percent Truck by Model Year
(with Three-Year Moving Average)
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Model Year
2000
2005
2010
-* 60%
2 50%
h1 40%
c 30%
8 20%
o5 10%
°- 0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Model Year
2000
2005
2010
-------
Table 1
Fuel Economy of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
(000)
8265
9754
11344
11213
10819
9448
8736
7837
8037
10735
10895
11083
10836
10853
10138
8882
8755
8361
8941
8747
9708
8379
8897
8570
9019
9899
9549
9484
8937
8649
9088
9070
9345
8546
6368
7147
-
Production
Percent
80.8%
79.1%
80.3%
77.6%
77.9%
83.6%
82.8%
80.5%
78.0%
76.6%
75.3%
72.1%
72.9%
71.0%
70.1%
70.4%
69.6%
68.7%
67.7%
61.9%
64.1%
63.7%
61.5%
59.3%
59.3%
59.7%
61.2%
58.8%
56.7%
55.1%
57.2%
60.0%
61.2%
61.5%
69.0%
64.3%
62.4%
Lab
City
MPG
13.7
15.2
16.0
17.2
17.7
20.3
21.7
22.3
22.1
22.4
22.9
23.7
23.8
24.2
23.7
23.4
23.4
22.9
23.2
23.2
23.3
23.1
23.3
23.3
23.0
23.0
23.1
23.2
23.6
23.5
24.2
24.0
24.8
25.1
26.4
27.3
27.5
Lab
Hwy
MPG
19.4
21.3
22.2
24.5
24.6
29.0
31.1
32.7
32.6
33.2
34.2
35.5
35.8
36.5
36.2
35.9
35.9
35.9
36.1
36.4
37.1
36.7
36.8
36.9
36.5
36.2
36.2
36.1
36.9
36.9
37.6
37.5
38.5
38.9
40.6
41.7
42.7
Lab
55/45
MPG
15.8
17.4
18.3
19.9
20.2
23.5
25.1
26.0
25.9
26.3
26.9
27.8
28.0
28.5
28.1
27.7
27.8
27.4
27.6
27.7
28.0
27.7
27.9
27.9
27.6
27.5
27.6
27.7
28.2
28.1
28.8
28.6
29.5
29.8
31.4
32.3
32.8
Adj
City
MPG
12.3
13.7
14.4
15.5
15.9
18.3
19.5
20.1
19.9
20.2
20.6
21.2
21.2
21.4
20.8
20.4
20.3
19.8
19.9
19.8
19.8
19.5
19.5
19.4
19.1
18.9
18.9
18.9
19.0
18.8
19.2
19.1
19.7
19.9
20.9
21.5
21.7
Adj
Hwy
MPG
15.2
16.6
17.3
19.1
19.2
22.6
24.2
25.5
25.5
25.9
26.7
27.5
27.7
28.1
27.8
27.4
27.4
27.2
27.2
27.4
27.8
27.3
27.3
27.3
26.8
26.5
26.4
26.2
26.7
26.5
26.9
26.8
27.5
27.8
29.0
29.7
30.4
Adj
Comp
MPG
13.5
14.9
15.6
16.9
17.2
20.0
21.4
22.2
22.1
22.4
23.0
23.7
23.7
24.1
23.6
23.3
23.2
22.9
23.0
23.0
23.2
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.5
22.4
22.4
22.3
22.7
22.5
22.9
22.8
23.5
23.7
24.8
25.5
25.9
Ton-
MPG
27.5
30.2
31.0
30.6
30.2
31.2
33.1
34.2
34.7
35.1
35.8
36.2
36.2
36.9
36.8
37.1
37.0
37.3
37.4
37.7
38.2
38.1
38.1
38.5
38.5
38.3
38.8
39.0
39.7
40.1
40.8
41.4
42.5
43.1
44.2
46.4
47.4
CuFt-
MPG
-
-
1779
1907
1921
2136
2338
2418
2476
2481
2551
2597
2581
2627
2587
2526
2532
2524
2555
2541
2571
2549
2540
2542
2512
2505
2525
2548
2573
2583
2664
2652
2725
2748
2860
2998
3039
CuFt-
Ton-
MPG
-
-
3424
3344
3300
3274
3547
3644
3776
3778
3888
3901
3874
3963
3977
3984
3974
4071
4097
4107
4174
4196
4174
4222
4249
4248
4322
4391
4442
4525
4648
4723
4820
4878
4988
5275
5405
-------
Table 1 (Continued)
Fuel Economy of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
(000)
1959
2580
2779
3235
3063
1859
1818
1896
2266
3285
3564
4282
4030
4442
4316
3733
3818
3811
4269
5378
5436
4766
5562
5887
6200
6675
6061
6635
6838
7061
6806
6035
5932
5354
2867
3964
-
Production
Percent
19.2%
20.9%
19.7%
22.4%
22.1%
16.4%
17.2%
19.5%
22.0%
23.4%
24.7%
27.9%
27.1%
29.0%
29.9%
29.6%
30.4%
31.3%
32.3%
38.1%
35.9%
36.3%
38.5%
40.7%
40.7%
40.3%
38.8%
41.2%
43.3%
44.9%
42.8%
40.0%
38.8%
38.5%
31.0%
35.7%
37.6%
Lab
City
MPG
12.1
12.8
14.1
13.8
13.4
16.5
17.8
18.1
18.3
17.9
18.0
18.8
18.8
18.3
18.1
17.8
18.2
17.8
18.0
17.7
17.5
17.7
17.5
17.6
17.3
17.7
17.3
17.3
17.6
17.3
17.8
18.1
18.2
18.7
19.5
19.8
20.0
Lab
Hwy
MPG
16.2
16.9
18.1
17.5
16.8
22.0
23.9
24.4
25.1
24.7
24.8
25.9
26.4
26.1
25.8
25.8
26.5
26.1
26.6
26.0
25.9
26.5
26.0
26.6
25.8
26.2
25.5
25.7
26.1
26.0
26.9
27.2
27.6
28.3
29.5
30.0
30.5
Lab
55/45
MPG
13.7
14.4
15.6
15.3
14.7
18.6
20.1
20.5
20.8
20.4
20.6
21.5
21.6
21.2
20.9
20.7
21.2
20.8
21.0
20.7
20.5
20.8
20.5
20.8
20.3
20.7
20.2
20.3
20.6
20.4
21.0
21.3
21.5
22.1
23.0
23.4
23.6
Adj
City
MPG
10.9
11.6
12.7
12.4
12.1
14.8
16.0
16.3
16.5
16.1
16.2
16.8
16.8
16.2
15.9
15.6
15.9
15.4
15.5
15.2
14.9
15.0
14.8
14.8
14.5
14.7
14.3
14.2
14.3
14.1
14.4
14.6
14.7
15.0
15.6
15.9
16.0
Adj
Hwy
MPG
12.7
13.2
14.2
13.7
13.1
17.1
18.6
19.0
19.6
19.3
19.4
20.2
20.5
20.1
19.8
19.8
20.2
19.9
20.1
19.6
19.5
19.8
19.4
19.7
19.1
19.3
18.7
18.8
19.0
18.9
19.4
19.7
19.9
20.4
21.3
21.6
21.9
Adj
Comp
MPG
11.6
12.2
13.3
13.0
12.5
15.8
17.1
17.4
17.7
17.4
17.5
18.2
18.3
17.9
17.6
17.4
17.8
17.3
17.5
17.2
17.0
17.2
16.9
17.1
16.6
16.9
16.4
16.4
16.6
16.4
16.9
17.1
17.3
17.7
18.4
18.7
18.9
Ton-
MPG
24.2
26.0
28.0
27.5
27.3
30.9
33.0
33.8
34.0
33.5
33.7
34.3
34.2
34.5
34.7
35.1
35.4
35.5
36.0
35.8
35.8
36.7
37.1
37.0
37.2
37.4
37.5
38.2
38.9
39.6
40.4
41.0
42.4
43.3
44.2
45.2
46.6
-------
Table 1 (Continued)
Fuel Economy of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars and Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
(000)
10224
12334
14123
14448
13882
11306
10554
9732
10302
14020
14460
15365
14865
15295
14453
12615
12573
12172
13211
14125
15145
13144
14459
14458
15218
16574
15610
16119
15775
15711
15893
15105
15277
13900
9235
11111
-
Lab
City
MPG
13.4
14.6
15.6
16.3
16.5
19.6
20.9
21.3
21.2
21.2
21.5
22.1
22.2
22.1
21.7
21.4
21.6
21.0
21.2
20.8
20.8
20.8
20.6
20.6
20.3
20.5
20.5
20.4
20.6
20.2
21.0
21.2
21.8
22.1
23.8
24.1
24.1
Lab
Hwy
MPG
18.7
20.2
21.3
22.5
22.3
27.5
29.5
30.7
30.6
30.8
31.3
32.2
32.6
32.7
32.3
32.2
32.5
32.1
32.4
31.6
32.1
32.2
31.8
31.9
31.2
31.4
31.1
30.9
31.3
31.0
32.1
32.6
33.4
34.0
36.4
36.6
37.1
Lab
55/45
MPG
15.3
16.7
17.7
18.6
18.7
22.5
24.1
24.7
24.6
24.6
25.0
25.7
25.9
25.9
25.4
25.2
25.4
24.9
25.1
24.6
24.7
24.8
24.5
24.5
24.1
24.3
24.2
24.1
24.3
24.0
24.8
25.2
25.8
26.3
28.2
28.4
28.6
Adj
City
MPG
12.0
13.2
14.0
14.7
14.9
17.6
18.8
19.2
19.0
19.1
19.3
19.8
19.8
19.6
19.1
18.7
18.8
18.2
18.2
17.8
17.7
17.6
17.4
17.2
16.9
16.9
16.8
16.6
16.7
16.3
16.8
17.0
17.4
17.7
18.9
19.1
19.1
Adj
Hwy
MPG
14.6
15.7
16.6
17.5
17.4
21.5
23.0
23.9
23.9
24.0
24.4
25.0
25.3
25.2
24.8
24.6
24.7
24.4
24.4
23.8
24.1
24.0
23.6
23.6
23.0
23.0
22.8
22.5
22.7
22.4
23.1
23.4
24.0
24.4
26.0
26.2
26.6
Adj
Comp
MPG
13.1
14.2
15.1
15.8
15.9
19.2
20.5
21.1
21.0
21.0
21.3
21.8
22.0
21.9
21.4
21.2
21.3
20.8
20.9
20.4
20.5
20.4
20.1
20.1
19.7
19.8
19.6
19.5
19.6
19.3
19.9
20.1
20.6
21.0
22.4
22.6
22.8
Ton-
MPG
26.9
29.3
30.4
29.9
29.5
31.2
33.1
34.1
34.5
34.7
35.3
35.7
35.7
36.2
36.2
36.5
36.5
36.8
37.0
37.0
37.3
37.6
37.7
37.9
38.0
38.0
38.3
38.7
39.4
39.9
40.6
41.2
42.5
43.2
44.2
45.9
47.1
-------
As shown in Table 1, the final fleetwide MY 2010 adjusted composite fuel economy is 22.6 mpg, an all-
time high. This MY 2010 value is 0.2 mpg higher than in MY 2009 and 3.3 mpg higher than in MY 2004, a 17%
increase. The projected MY 2011 fleetwide fuel economy value is 22.8 mpg, but there is uncertainty about MY
2011 projections given that they are based on automaker submissions to EPA in the spring and summer of 2010.
Average fleetwide fuel economy has now increased for six consecutive years and is projected to increase for a
seventh year. These increases reverse the longer term trend of declining adjusted composite fuel economy from
1987 through 2004. Based on laboratory 55/45 fuel economy values which reflect vehicle design considerations
only, the MY 2010 unadjusted fuel economy value of 28.4 mpg is an all-time record, and is 2.5 mpg higher than the
previous peak of 25.9 mpg in 1987 and 1988.
Table 1 also shows that light truck production share peaked at 45% in 2004, decreased significantly to 31%
in MY 2009, and is 36% in MY 2010. It is not clear whether the 5% increase in truck production share in MY 2010
is significant, given that truck production share had decreased by 7.5% in MY 2009, and that MY 2009 was a year
of considerable market turmoil. The MY 2011 projection is for truck production share to increase by 2%.
Figure 1 shows the long-term fuel economy trends and truck market share trends with a three-year moving
average, which tends to even out year-to-year fluctuations, such as in MY 2009. Figure 2 shows laboratory 55/45
fuel economy values for the combined car and truck fleet plotted against truck production share.
The MY 2010 adjusted fuel economy for cars is 25.5 mpg, which is an all-time high. For MY 2010, the
adjusted fuel economy for light trucks is 18.7 mpg, also a record high. Fuel economy standards were unchanged
for MY 1996 through MY 2004. In 2003, DOT raised the truck CAFE standards for MY 2005-2007, and DOT
subsequently raised the truck CAFE standards for MY 2008-2016 through three separate final rules. The recent
fuel economy improvement for trucks is likely due, in part, to these higher standards. The CAFE standard for cars
has also been raised for MY 2011-2016 as a result of two recent final rules. The final rule for MY 2012-2016 for
both cars and trucks is at 75 Federal Register 25324, May 7, 2010.
Figure 2
Truck Production Share vs. Fleet MPG by Model Year
O
CL
^
m
•
-------
The distribution of fuel economy by model year is of interest. In Figure 3, highlights of the distribution of
car and truck mpg are shown. Since 1975, half of the cars have consistently been within a few mpg of each other.
The fuel economy difference between the least efficient and most efficient car increased from about 20 mpg in
1975 to nearly 50 mpg in 1986. The increased production share of hybrid cars accounts for the increase in the fuel
economy of the best one percent of cars with the cut point for this stratum now over 40 mpg. The ratio of the
highest to lowest has increased from about three to one in 1975 to nearly five to one today, because the fuel
economy of the least fuel efficient cars has remained roughly constant in comparison to the most fuel efficient cars
whose fuel economy has nearly doubled since 1975.
The overall fuel economy distribution trend for trucks is narrower than that for cars, with a peak in the
efficiency of the most efficient truck in the early 1980s when small pickup trucks equipped with diesel engines
were sold. As a result, the fuel economy range between the most efficient and least efficient truck peaked at about
25 mpg in 1982. The fuel economy range for trucks then narrowed, but with the introduction of the hybrid Escape
SUV in MY 2005, it is now about 20 mpg. Like cars, half of the trucks built each year have always been within a
few mpg of each year's average fuel economy value. Appendix C contains additional fuel economy distribution
data.
Figure 3
Production Weighted Fuel Economy Distribution
Car Truck
CL
Q.
E
O
T3
0
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Best Car
\
Worst Car
Best 1 %
Best Truck
Worst 1%
Worst Truck
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
11
-------
As shown in Table 2, MY 2010 vehicle weight averaged 4002 pounds. This reflects an increase of 85
pounds (2%) compared to MY 2009. This is the largest annual increase since MY 2004, but this is due in part to an
unusual MY 2009 when weight decreased by 168 pounds and even with the increase this year, MY 2010 weight is
still less than in MY 2008. The average car and truck weight in MY 2010 both increased by about 25 pounds, and
the remaining impact was due to higher truck production share. In MY 2010, the average vehicle power was 214
horsepower. Average vehicle power increased by 6 horsepower (3%), with most of the increase explained by cars
having higher horsepower levels and trucks having higher production share. Both weight and power are projected to
increase in MY 2011, with the biggest increase by far being a 25 hp, or 10%, increase in truck power levels.
Table 2 also includes vehicle footprint in square feet since MY 2008. Footprint is one metric for vehicle
size, and is the product of wheelbase and average track width. Essentially, footprint is the area defined by the four
points where the tires touch the ground. Footprint is a very important parameter as MY 2011 passenger car and
light truck CAFE standards, and MY 2012-2016 CAFE and CO2 emissions standards, are all footprint-based, i.e.,
vehicles with different footprint values have different fuel economy and CO2 compliance targets. The MY 2008-
2010 footprint data in Table 2 is tabulated from external sources such as individual manufacturer websites,
Edmunds.com, and Motortrend.com, while the MY 2011 data came from pre-model year CAFE reports provided to
DOT/NHTSA from the manufacturers. Accordingly, due to the more piecemeal way that the 2008-2010 footprint
data were obtained, there is some uncertainty in comparing values through MY 2010 with values beginning in MY
2011 and the most meaningful footprint trends will be those based on comparisons in MY 2011 and later.
For MY 2010, industry-wide footprint values were 45.4 square feet for cars, 54.1 square feet for trucks, and
48.5 square feet for cars and trucks combined. Car and truck footprints were essentially unchanged in MY 2010
compared to MY 2009; however, the overall industry footprint increased by 0.3 square feet due to the increase in
truck production share. Industry proj ections for MY 2011 cars are for an increase of 1.1 square feet compared to
MY 2010. The average footprint in MY 2011 is projected to increase by 0.4 square feet for cars, and by 1.8 square
feet for trucks, but again there is some uncertainty in these comparisons since the footprint data sources for MY
2011 are different than for MY 2010, as discussed above.
The long-term trend since 1981 for both weight and power has been steady increases. MY 2010 weight is
800 pounds greater, and MY 2010 power has more than doubled, as compared to MY 1981. As shown in Figure 4,
since 1975, Ton-MPG for both cars and trucks increased substantially (nearly 70% for cars and 90% for trucks).
Typically, Ton-MPG for both vehicle types has increased at a rate of about one or two percent a year.
12
-------
Table 2
Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
Percent
80.8%
79.1%
80.3%
77.6%
77.9%
83.6%
82.8%
80.5%
78.0%
76.6%
75.3%
72.1%
72.9%
71.0%
70.1%
70.4%
69.6%
68.7%
67.7%
61.9%
64.1%
63.7%
61.5%
59.3%
59.3%
59.7%
61.2%
58.8%
56.7%
55.1%
57.2%
60.0%
61.2%
61.5%
69.0%
64.3%
62.4%
Adj
Comp
MPG
13.5
14.9
15.6
16.9
17.2
20.0
21.4
22.2
22.1
22.4
23.0
23.7
23.7
24.1
23.6
23.3
23.2
22.9
23.0
23.0
23.2
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.5
22.4
22.4
22.3
22.7
22.5
22.9
22.8
23.5
23.7
24.8
25.5
25.9
Vol
(cuft)
-
110
109
109
104
107
106
109
108
108
107
107
107
108
107
107
109
109
109
109
110
109
110
110
111
111
113
112
113
114
114
113
113
113
114
114
Weight
(Ib)
4058
4060
3945
3590
3485
3102
3076
3054
3112
3101
3098
3044
3036
3052
3105
3179
3169
3255
3242
3268
3284
3325
3315
3348
3404
3414
3450
3472
3481
3534
3524
3594
3577
3592
3525
3552
3589
Footprint
(sq ft) HP
136
134
133
124
119
100
99
99
104
106
111
111
113
116
121
129
133
141
140
144
153
155
157
160
165
169
171
176
179
186
185
195
192
45.6 195
45.5 188
45.4 191
45.8* 198
HP/
Weight
0.0331
0.0324
0.0335
0.0342
0.0338
0.0322
0.0320
0.0321
0.0330
0.0338
0.0354
0.0360
0.0365
0.0375
0.0387
0.0401
0.0413
0.0427
0.0427
0.0432
0.0459
0.0461
0.0467
0.0473
0.0479
0.0489
0.0490
0.0503
0.0509
0.0520
0.0517
0.0536
0.0530
0.0535
0.0522
0.0529
0.0541
O-to-60
Time
14.2
14.4
14.0
13.7
13.8
14.3
14.4
14.4
14.0
13.8
13.3
13.2
13.0
12.8
12.4
12.1
11.9
11.5
11.5
11.4
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.4
10.3
10.1
10.0
9.8
9.9
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.8
9.6
9.5
Small
55.3%
55.3%
51.8%
44.6%
43.7%
54.4%
51.5%
56.6%
53.0%
57.1%
55.2%
59.1%
63.1%
64.5%
57.9%
58.4%
60.4%
55.4%
54.7%
57.0%
55.8%
51.7%
52.8%
46.9%
45.1%
45.1%
46.3%
43.8%
45.5%
41.9%
39.6%
40.7%
38.7%
38.4%
42.1%
41.4%
34.8%
Midsize
23.4%
25.3%
24.6%
34.4%
34.2%
34.4%
36.4%
31.0%
31.9%
29.7%
29.6%
28.4%
24.9%
22.8%
28.8%
29.0%
27.7%
29.4%
32.8%
28.2%
30.7%
35.5%
33.6%
41.8%
42.6%
37.4%
37.0%
39.0%
38.2%
40.9%
42.5%
37.9%
43.9%
41.5%
39.8%
41.4%
44.3%
Large
21.3%
19.4%
23.5%
21.0%
22.1%
11.3%
12.2%
12.5%
15.0%
13.2%
15.2%
12.5%
12.1%
12.7%
13.3%
12.6%
12.0%
15.2%
12.6%
14.8%
13.6%
12.8%
13.6%
11.3%
12.4%
17.5%
16.7%
17.2%
16.3%
17.2%
17.9%
21.5%
17.4%
20.1%
18.1%
17.2%
20.9%
*Note: the footprint value for MY 2011 is preliminary, and is based on different data sources than values for MY 2008-2010.
13
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
Percent
19.2%
20.9%
19.7%
22.4%
22.1%
16.4%
17.2%
19.5%
22.0%
23.4%
24.7%
27.9%
27.1%
29.0%
29.9%
29.6%
30.4%
31.3%
32.3%
38.1%
35.9%
36.3%
38.5%
40.7%
40.7%
40.3%
38.8%
41.2%
43.3%
44.9%
42.8%
40.0%
38.8%
38.5%
31.0%
35.7%
37.6%
Adj
Comp
MPG
11.6
12.2
13.3
13.0
12.5
15.8
17.1
17.4
17.7
17.4
17.5
18.2
18.3
17.9
17.6
17.4
17.8
17.3
17.5
17.2
17.0
17.2
16.9
17.1
16.6
16.9
16.4
16.4
16.6
16.4
16.9
17.1
17.3
17.7
18.4
18.7
18.9
Weight Footprint
(Ib) (sqft)
4069
4153
4133
4150
4256
3867
3805
3812
3772
3786
3800
3740
3716
3849
3931
4013
3961
4078
4099
4149
4199
4246
4386
4320
4463
4425
4556
4635
4676
4818
4774
4776
4906
4871 54.5
4788 54.3
4811 54.1
4905 55.9*
HP
142
141
147
146
138
121
118
120
118
118
124
123
131
141
146
151
150
155
160
166
168
180
189
188
199
199
212
223
224
241
242
240
256
256
254
254
279
HP/
Weight
0.0349
0.0340
0.0356
0.0351
0.0325
0.0313
0.0311
0.0317
0.0313
0.0310
0.0326
0.0330
0.0351
0.0365
0.0371
0.0377
0.0379
0.0380
0.0391
0.0401
0.0400
0.0422
0.0429
0.0434
0.0445
0.0448
0.0464
0.0479
0.0478
0.0499
0.0505
0.0502
0.0519
0.0521
0.0526
0.0525
0.0564
O-to-60
Time
13.6
13.8
13.3
13.4
14.3
14.5
14.6
14.5
14.6
14.7
14.1
14.0
13.4
13.0
12.8
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.2
12.0
12.0
11.5
11.4
11.3
11.0
11.0
10.6
10.4
10.4
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.1
Van
23.3%
19.5%
18.5%
19.3%
15.7%
13.0%
13.5%
16.4%
16.9%
20.6%
24.0%
24.4%
27.6%
25.5%
29.6%
33.8%
27.1%
32.0%
33.8%
26.4%
30.6%
29.6%
22.8%
25.3%
23.6%
25.3%
20.3%
18.7%
18.0%
13.5%
21.8%
19.3%
14.3%
14.8%
12.8%
14.1%
11.9%
SUV
8.1%
8.2%
8.6%
10.6%
12.3%
9.7%
7.3%
7.6%
11.2%
17.2%
17.7%
16.5%
19.1%
19.1%
18.7%
17.0%
22.6%
19.7%
19.3%
24.0%
27.7%
29.4%
33.9%
33.7%
35.3%
35.5%
38.1%
45.4%
45.8%
51.0%
44.4%
44.4%
50.1%
51.7%
52.6%
53.7%
50.7%
Pickup
68.5%
72.3%
72.9%
70.1%
72.0%
77.3%
79.2%
76.0%
71.9%
62.2%
58.3%
59.1%
53.3%
55.3%
51.7%
49.2%
50.3%
48.3%
46.9%
49.6%
41.8%
41.0%
43.3%
41.0%
41.0%
39.1%
41.6%
35.9%
36.2%
35.5%
33.8%
36.3%
35.6%
33.5%
34.5%
32.2%
37.5%
*Note: the footprint value for MY 2011 is preliminary, and is based on different data sources than values for MY 2008-2010.
14
-------
Table 2 (continued)
Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars and Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Adj
Comp
MPG
13.1
14.2
15.1
15.8
15.9
19.2
20.5
21.1
21.0
21.0
21.3
21.8
22.0
21.9
21.4
21.2
21.3
20.8
20.9
20.4
20.5
20.4
20.1
20.1
19.7
19.8
19.6
19.5
19.6
19.3
19.9
20.1
20.6
21.0
22.4
22.6
22.8
Weight
(Ib)
4060
4079
3982
3715
3655
3228
3202
3202
3257
3262
3271
3238
3221
3283
3351
3426
3410
3512
3519
3603
3613
3659
inn
3744
3835
3821
3879
3951
3999
4111
4059
4067
4093
4085
3917
4002
4084
Footprint
(sq ft) HP
137
135
136
129
124
104
102
103
107
109
114
114
118
123
129
135
138
145
147
152
158
164
169
171
179
181
187
195
199
211
209
213
217
49.0 219
48.2 208
48.5 214
49.6* 228
HP/
Weight
0.0335
0.0328
0.0339
0.0344
0.0335
0.0320
0.0318
0.0320
0.0327
0.0332
0.0347
0.0351
0.0361
0.0372
0.0382
0.0394
0.0402
0.0413
0.0416
0.0420
0.0438
0.0447
0.0452
0.0457
0.0465
0.0472
0.0480
0.0493
0.0496
0.0511
0.0512
0.0522
0.0525
0.0529
0.0524
0.0527
0.0549
O-to-60
Time
14.1
14.3
13.8
13.6
13.9
14.3
14.4
14.4
14.1
14.0
13.5
13.4
13.1
12.8
12.5
12.2
12.1
11.8
11.8
11.7
11.3
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.3
10.2
9.9
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.3
*Note: the footprint value for MY 2011 is preliminary, and is based on different data sources than values for MY 2008-2010.
15
-------
Figure 4
Ton-MPG by Model Year
(with Three-Year Moving Average)
50
45
40
CD
CL
2 35
c
o
30
25
Car
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
Model Year
2000
2005
2010
Another dramatic long-term trend has been the substantial increase in performance of cars and light trucks
as measured by their estimated O-to-60 mph acceleration time. These trends are shown graphically in Figure 5,
which plots fuel economy versus performance for model years since 1975. Both graphs show the same story: in the
late 1970s and early 1980s, responding to the regulatory requirements for mpg improvement, the industry increased
mpg and kept performance roughly constant. After the regulatory mpg requirements stabilized, mpg improvements
ended and performance dramatically improved through 2005 or so. In recent years, both fuel economy and
performance have improved.
Figure 6 is similar to Figure 5, but shows the trends in weight and laboratory fuel economy. Weight
decreased from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, then increased dramatically until about 2005 or so, and has been
more stable in recent years.
16
-------
CD
Q_
o
-t-J
ro
o
_Q
ro
LO
LO
30
25
20
15
30
25
20
15
Figure 5
Laboratory MPG vs. O-to-60 Time by Model Year
2010
Car
1975-
1985
Truck
1975-^e
10
11 12 13
O-to-60 Time (sec.)
14
O
Q.
30
25
20
15
O
-I— •
E
o
ro 30
55 25
10
20
15
Figure 6
Laboratory MPG vs. Vehicle Weight by Model Year
2500
1995
2010
3000
1975-
2010
1985
1980
Car
Truck
1975
3500 4000
Weight (Ib)
4500
5000
17
-------
IV. Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trends
This section focuses on light-duty vehicle tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions data that are measured
over the EPA city and highway test procedures. As discussed below, the CO2 emissions data, along with data for
carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, are used to calculate the vehicle fuel economy levels presented in the
rest of this report.
CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, responsible for a majority of all global, anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions. Light-duty vehicles directly emit approximately 17% of total U.S. CO2 emissions.2 In
April 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act3, and in December
2009, EPA published two findings that CO2 and other greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor
vehicle engines contribute to air pollution, and that the air pollution may reasonably be anticipated to endanger
public health and welfare.4 In May 2010, EPA published the first-ever light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions
standards, under the Clean Air Act, for MY 2012-2016.5 These standards are part of a new, harmonized National
Program that also includes new CAFE standards for MY 2012-2016, established and administered by NHTSA.
One of the goals of the National Policy is to establish a harmonized set of greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE
standards that automakers can meet with a single national fleet. In December 2011, EPA and NHTSA proposed
new light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions and CAFE standards for MY 2017-2025.6
Pre-2009 reports in this series presented fuel economy data only and did not include CO2 emissions data.
Beginning with the 2009 report, EPA has added CO2 emissions data. Rather than adding CO2 emissions data to all
or most of the large number of tables and figures in this report, we are providing a few key summary tables and
figures dedicated to CO2 emissions in this section as well as a methodology with which a reader can convert fuel
economy values from other sections of this report to equivalent CO2 emissions levels. Section III and Sections V
through VII of this report, as well as all of the appendices, continue to focus exclusively on fuel economy data.
The light-duty vehicle tailpipe CO2 emissions data provided in this report represent the sum of three
pollutants that EPA and automakers directly measure in the formal emissions certification and fuel economy
compliance test programs:
• CO2 emissions;
• Carbon monoxide emissions, converted to an equivalent CO2 level on a mass basis by multiplying by a
factor of 1.57, which is based on the ratio of molecular weights; and
• Hydrocarbon emissions, converted to an equivalent CO2 level on a mass basis by multiplying by a factor of
approximately 3.17, which is dependent on the measured carbon weight fraction of vehicle test fuel.
U.S. EPA, 2009, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007, EPA 430-R-09-004.
3 549 U.S. 497(2007).
4 74 Federal Register 66496 (December 15, 2009).
5 75 Federal Register 25324 (May 7, 2010)
6 76 Federal Register 74854 (December 1, 2011).
18
-------
While including the carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions adds, on average, less than one percent to
the tailpipe CO2-equivalent emissions for late model year light-duty vehicles, they are included in the CO2
emissions values for three reasons:
• Atmospheric processes convert carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons to CO2 relatively quickly compared to
the much longer atmospheric lifetime of CO2;
• Carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions are included, along with CO2, in the "carbon balance"
equations that EPA uses to calculate fuel economy values, so they must also be included in the CO2 values
to maintain the mathematical integrity of the equations given below to convert between CO2 emissions and
fuel economy values; and
• Including carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions is consistent with EPA's light-duty vehicle CO2
emissions standard-setting approach.
EPA routinely measures CO2, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions as part of its compliance
programs. The individual fuel economy test values that comprise the EPA fuel economy trends database are
calculated from a set of "carbon balance" equations based on direct measurement of CO2, carbon monoxide, and
total hydrocarbon emissions. Since carbon is neither created nor destroyed in the combustion process, quantifying
the various carbon-containing compounds in the vehicle exhaust as well as the carbon weight fraction of the
gasoline test fuel allows the precise calculation of the amount of fuel that was combusted in the vehicle engine.
Ironically, while the fuel economy values are calculated from CO2, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon emissions
data, the historic EPA fuel economy trends database files do not include the direct emissions data. In order to add
CO2 emissions data to the historical database, EPA has back-calculated the CO2 emissions (and associated carbon
monoxide and hydrocarbon emissions, converted to CO2 on a mass basis) levels from fuel economy values by
reversing the carbon balance equations.
As with the fuel economy data in this report, the light-duty vehicle CO2 emissions values are expressed in
two ways: unadjusted/laboratory values (which will be used for CO2 emissions regulatory compliance beginning in
MY 2012) and adjusted/real world values (which are used for consumer information and environmental analysis).
The CO2 emissions values do not represent total light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, as there are other
sources of greenhouse gas emissions beyond the tailpipe CO2 emissions values. It is also important to note that the
tailpipe CO2 emissions data in this report do not reflect greenhouse gas emissions associated with vehicle assembly,
component manufacturing, or vehicle disposal, nor upstream fuel-related production or distribution.
The unadjusted/laboratory CO2 emissions values are the direct emissions data measured over the EPA city
and highway tests. The vehicle air conditioner is turned off during these tests. The EPA city and highway tests will
be used for compliance with future EPA light-duty vehicle CO2 emissions standards (CO2 standards allow the use
of air conditioning and other credits so that the unadjusted CO2 tailpipe emissions data in this report may not align
perfectly with the EPA CO2 standards or tailpipe compliance values). For late model year vehicles, the unadjusted
CO2 emissions values represent about 90% of total unadjusted light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions. The
remaining 10% of total light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions is comprised of air conditioner efficiency-
related CO2 emissions (about 4%), air conditioner hydrofluorocarbon refrigerant emissions leaks (approximately
5%), tailpipe nitrous oxide emissions (about 2%), and tailpipe methane emissions (methane is one hydrocarbon
compound with a longer atmospheric lifetime and higher global warming potency, but its mass emissions are so
19
-------
low from gasoline vehicles that its potency-adjusted CO2-equivalent emissions are about 0.2% of total light-duty
vehicle greenhouse gas emissions).7
The adjusted CO2 emissions values are calculated by increasing the unadjusted/laboratory CO2 emissions
test data to account for the many variables that can affect real world vehicle CO2 emissions. For a detailed
discussion of the methodology that EPA uses to convert unadjusted vehicle fuel economy values to adjusted fuel
economy values, see Appendix A. This same methodology is used to calculate adjusted CO2 emissions values as
well. On average, based on the current fleet mix, adjusted CO2 emissions levels are about 25% higher than
unadjusted CO2 values. Because the adjusted CO2 values take the impact of air conditioner operation on vehicle
tailpipe CO2 emissions into account, adjusted CO2 values represent about 95% of total adjusted real world light-
duty vehicle greenhouse gas emissions, with the remainder composed of air conditioner hydrofluorocarbon
refrigerant emissions leaks, tailpipe nitrous oxide emissions, and the higher global warming potency associated
with tailpipe methane emissions.
Table 3 gives key light-duty vehicle CO2 emissions data for the entire data series from 1975 through 2011
for cars only, trucks only, and cars and trucks combined. Table 3 is very similar to Table 1, except that the fuel
economy data in Table 1 is replaced with CO2 emissions data in Table 3.
7 75 Federal Register 25421-25425 (May 7, 2010).
20
-------
Table 3
Carbon Dioxide Emissions of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
(000)
8265
9754
11344
11213
10819
9448
8736
7837
8037
10735
10895
11083
10836
10853
10138
8882
8755
8361
8941
8747
9708
8379
8897
8570
9019
9899
9549
9484
8937
8649
9088
9070
9345
8546
6368
7147
-
Production
Percent
80.8%
79.1%
80.3%
77.6%
77.9%
83.6%
82.8%
80.5%
78.0%
76.6%
75.3%
72.1%
72.9%
71.0%
70.1%
70.4%
69.6%
68.7%
67.7%
61.9%
64.1%
63.7%
61.5%
59.3%
59.3%
59.7%
61.2%
58.8%
56.7%
55.1%
57.2%
60.0%
61.2%
61.5%
69.0%
64.3%
62.4%
Lab City
C02
(g/mi)
650
584
556
517
504
439
412
401
402
397
389
376
374
368
375
380
379
388
384
383
381
384
382
382
386
387
384
383
376
379
368
371
358
355
336
326
323
LabHwy
C02
(g/mi)
457
418
400
364
363
308
288
273
273
268
260
251
249
244
246
248
247
248
246
244
239
242
241
241
244
245
245
246
241
241
236
237
231
229
219
214
208
Lab 55/45
C02
(g/mi)
563
510
486
448
440
380
356
343
344
339
331
319
317
312
317
321
320
325
322
320
317
320
319
318
322
323
322
321
315
317
309
311
301
298
284
275
271
Adj City
C02
(g/mi)
722
649
618
574
560
488
458
445
447
441
432
420
420
416
427
435
437
449
447
449
449
456
456
458
467
470
470
471
467
473
463
467
452
448
426
414
410
Adj Hwy
C02
(g/mi)
586
536
513
466
465
395
369
350
350
343
333
323
321
316
320
324
325
327
326
325
320
325
325
326
331
335
337
339
333
335
331
332
323
320
307
300
293
Adj Comp
C02
(g/mi)
661
598
571
526
517
446
418
403
403
397
387
375
374
369
376
382
382
389
387
386
383
388
388
388
394
397
397
398
392
395
388
390
379
375
358
349
343
C02/
Ton
327
297
290
294
298
289
273
264
259
256
251
247
247
243
243
241
242
240
239
237
234
234
234
232
232
233
231
230
226
224
220
217
212
209
203
197
192
COJ
CuFt
-
-
5.2
4.9
4.8
4.4
4.0
3.9
3.8
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.1
coj
Ton/
CuFt
-
-
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.9
2.7
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.7
21
-------
Table 3 (continued)
Carbon Dioxide Emissions of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
(000)
1959
2580
2779
3235
3063
1859
1818
1896
2266
3285
3564
4282
4030
4442
4316
3733
3818
3811
4269
5378
5436
4766
5562
5887
6200
6675
6061
6635
6838
7061
6806
6035
5932
5354
2867
3964
-
Production
Percent
19.2%
20.9%
19.7%
22.4%
22.1%
16.4%
17.2%
19.5%
22.0%
23.4%
24.7%
27.9%
27.1%
29.0%
29.9%
29.6%
30.4%
31.3%
32.3%
38.1%
35.9%
36.3%
38.5%
40.7%
40.7%
40.3%
38.8%
41.2%
43.3%
44.9%
42.8%
40.0%
38.8%
38.5%
31.0%
35.7%
37.6%
Lab City
C02
(g/mi)
733
692
632
645
663
541
502
496
489
497
494
473
472
485
492
499
487
500
494
501
508
502
508
504
514
503
513
513
506
513
499
491
488
476
457
449
445
LabHwy
C02
(g/mi)
548
525
490
507
530
406
374
368
356
361
358
343
336
341
345
344
335
340
335
342
343
336
341
335
344
340
348
346
340
342
331
327
322
314
301
296
292
Lab 55/45
C02
(g/mi)
650
617
568
583
604
481
444
439
429
436
433
415
411
420
426
429
419
428
422
429
434
427
433
428
437
430
439
438
432
436
423
417
413
403
387
380
376
Adj City
C02
(g/mi)
815
769
703
716
737
601
558
552
543
552
549
529
530
548
558
569
559
576
573
584
595
591
602
600
614
606
621
624
619
631
618
609
605
591
568
559
555
Adj Hwy
C02
(g/mi)
702
673
628
650
679
521
479
472
456
462
460
441
434
441
449
449
439
447
442
453
457
448
458
450
465
461
474
473
467
471
457
452
446
435
418
411
405
Adj Comp
C02
(g/mi)
764
726
669
687
711
565
523
516
504
512
508
489
486
498
506
511
500
512
507
518
524
517
526
521
534
527
541
540
534
541
527
519
514
502
483
475
469
COJ
Ton
374
349
323
330
333
294
275
272
268
270
267
261
261
259
258
255
253
252
249
250
250
244
241
242
241
240
239
235
230
226
222
218
211
207
203
199
193
22
-------
Table 3 (continued)
Carbon Dioxide Emissions of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars and Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
(000)
10224
12334
14123
14448
13882
11306
10554
9732
10302
14020
14460
15365
14865
15295
14453
12615
12573
12172
13211
14125
15145
13144
14459
14458
15218
16574
15610
16119
15775
15711
15893
15105
15277
13900
9235
11111
Production
Percent
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Lab City
C02
(g/mi)
666
607
571
545
539
456
428
419
421
421
414
403
400
402
410
415
412
423
419
428
426
427
431
431
438
434
434
436
432
439
424
419
409
401
374
370
369
LabHwy
C02
(g/mi)
474
440
418
396
399
324
303
292
291
290
284
276
272
272
275
276
274
277
275
281
277
276
280
279
285
283
285
287
284
286
277
273
266
261
245
243
240
Lab 55/45
C02
(g/mi)
580
532
502
478
476
397
371
362
363
362
356
346
343
343
349
353
350
357
354
362
359
359
363
363
369
366
367
369
366
370
358
353
345
338
316
313
311
Adj City
C02
(g/mi)
740
674
635
606
599
507
475
466
468
467
461
450
450
454
466
475
474
488
488
500
501
505
512
516
527
525
529
534
533
544
529
523
511
503
470
465
465
Adj Hwy
C02
(g/mi)
608
565
535
508
512
416
388
374
373
371
364
356
352
353
359
361
360
365
364
374
369
370
376
377
386
386
390
394
391
396
385
380
371
364
342
340
335
Adj Comp
C02
(g/mi)
681
625
590
562
560
466
436
425
426
424
417
407
405
407
415
420
418
427
426
436
434
435
441
442
451
450
453
457
454
461
447
442
431
424
397
394
391
COJ
Ton
336
308
296
302
306
290
274
266
261
259
255
251
251
247
247
245
245
243
242
242
240
238
237
236
235
236
234
232
227
225
221
218
212
208
203
197
192
23
-------
Figure 7 plots the adjusted CO2 emissions values over time, for cars only, trucks only, and both cars and
trucks combined.
Figure 7
Adjusted CO2 Emissions by Model Year (grams/mile)
o
o
700
600
o o>
.^, ^ 500
s
400
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
Table 3 and Figure 7 show that, over the last 35 years, adjusted (real world) CO2 emissions rates have gone
through four distinct phases. Most dramatically, adjusted composite (city/highway) CO2 emissions rates for the
combined car/truck fleet fell sharply from 681 grams per mile (g/mi) in MY 1975 to 436 g/mi in MY 1981, for a
36% reduction over 6 years. Adjusted CO2 emissions continued to decline, though much more slowly, reaching
405 g/mi in MY 1987, which represents a 41% reduction from MY 1975. The trend then reversed, as adjusted CO2
levels rose slowly over the next 17 years, reaching 461 g/mi in MY 2004, a 14% increase relative to the MY 1987
low. Adjusted CO2 emissions have decreased for each of the last seven years. The MY 2010 value, based on final
CAFE reports, is 394 g/mi, which is an all-time low, and represents a 15% reduction relative to MY 2004. The
preliminary MY 2011 value, based on automaker production projections made prior to the beginning of the model
year, is 391 g/mi, which if accurate, would be another all-time low.
Laboratory CO2 emissions values are also given in Table 3. Because laboratory values do not reflect the
changes that EPA made to its methodology for adjusting fuel economy and CO2 emissions levels for real world
estimates for consumers, they are the best metric for evaluating CO2 emissions trends solely on vehicle design
considerations. Based on the 55/45 (city/highway) laboratory CO2 values in Table 3, the 313 g/mi value in MY
2010 and the preliminary MY 2011 value of 311 g/mi also represent all-time lows.
Table 4 shows key light-duty vehicle characteristics, along with the adjusted composite CO2 emissions
values, for the MY 1975 through 2011 timeframe for cars only, trucks only, and cars and trucks combined. Table 4
is very similar to Table 2, except that the fuel economy data in Table 2 is replaced with CO2 emissions data in
Table 4.
24
-------
Table 4
Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
Percent
80.8%
79.1%
80.3%
77.6%
77.9%
83.6%
82.8%
80.5%
78.0%
76.6%
75.3%
72.1%
72.9%
71.0%
70.1%
70.4%
69.6%
68.7%
67.7%
61.9%
64.1%
63.7%
61.5%
59.3%
59.3%
59.7%
61.2%
58.8%
56.7%
55.1%
57.2%
60.0%
61.2%
61.5%
69.0%
64.3%
62.4%
Adj Comp
C02
(g/mi)
661
598
571
526
517
446
418
403
403
397
387
375
374
369
376
382
382
389
387
386
383
388
388
388
394
397
397
398
392
395
388
390
379
375
358
349
343
Vol
(cuft)
-
110
109
109
104
107
106
109
108
108
107
107
107
108
107
107
109
109
109
109
110
109
110
110
111
111
113
112
113
114
114
113
113
113
114
114
Weight Footprint
(Ib) (sq ft)
4058
4060
3945
3590
3485
3102
3076
3054
3112
3101
3098
3044
3036
3052
3105
3179
3169
3255
3242
3268
3284
3325
3315
3348
3404
3414
3450
3472
3481
3534
3524
3594
3577
3592 45.6
3525 45.5
3552 45.4
3589 45.8*
HP
136
134
133
124
119
100
99
99
104
106
111
111
113
116
121
129
133
141
140
144
153
155
157
160
165
169
171
176
179
186
185
195
192
195
188
191
198
HP/
Weight
0.0331
0.0324
0.0335
0.0342
0.0338
0.0322
0.0320
0.0321
0.0330
0.0338
0.0354
0.0360
0.0365
0.0375
0.0387
0.0401
0.0413
0.0427
0.0427
0.0432
0.0459
0.0461
0.0467
0.0473
0.0479
0.0489
0.0490
0.0503
0.0509
0.0520
0.0517
0.0536
0.0530
0.0535
0.0522
0.0529
0.0541
O-to-60
Time
14.2
14.4
14.0
13.7
13.8
14.3
14.4
14.4
14.0
13.8
13.3
13.2
13.0
12.8
12.4
12.1
11.9
11.5
11.5
11.4
10.9
10.8
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.4
10.3
10.1
10.0
9.8
9.9
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.8
9.6
9.5
Small
55.3%
55.3%
51.8%
44.6%
43.7%
54.4%
51.5%
56.6%
53.0%
57.1%
55.2%
59.1%
63.1%
64.5%
57.9%
58.4%
60.4%
55.4%
54.7%
57.0%
55.8%
51.7%
52.8%
46.9%
45.1%
45.1%
46.3%
43.8%
45.5%
41.9%
39.6%
40.7%
38.7%
38.4%
42.1%
41.4%
34.8%
Midsize
23.4%
25.3%
24.6%
34.4%
34.2%
34.4%
36.4%
31.0%
31.9%
29.7%
29.6%
28.4%
24.9%
22.8%
28.8%
29.0%
27.7%
29.4%
32.8%
28.2%
30.7%
35.5%
33.6%
41.8%
42.6%
37.4%
37.0%
39.0%
38.2%
40.9%
42.5%
37.9%
43.9%
41.5%
39.8%
41.4%
44.3%
Large
21.3%
19.4%
23.5%
21.0%
22.1%
11.3%
12.2%
12.5%
15.0%
13.2%
15.2%
12.5%
12.1%
12.7%
13.3%
12.6%
12.0%
15.2%
12.6%
14.8%
13.6%
12.8%
13.6%
11.3%
12.4%
17.5%
16.7%
17.2%
16.3%
17.2%
17.9%
21.5%
17.4%
20.1%
18.1%
17.2%
20.9%
*Note: the footprint value for MY 2011 is preliminary, and is based on different data sources than values for MY 2008-2010.
25
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Production
Percent
19.2%
20.9%
19.7%
22.4%
22.1%
16.4%
17.2%
19.5%
22.0%
23.4%
24.7%
27.9%
27.1%
29.0%
29.9%
29.6%
30.4%
31.3%
32.3%
38.1%
35.9%
36.3%
38.5%
40.7%
40.7%
40.3%
38.8%
41.2%
43.3%
44.9%
42.8%
40.0%
38.8%
38.5%
31.0%
35.7%
37.6%
Adj Comp
C02
(g/mi)
764
726
669
687
711
565
523
516
504
512
508
489
486
498
506
511
500
512
507
518
524
517
526
521
534
527
541
540
534
541
527
519
514
502
483
475
469
Weight
(Ib)
4069
4153
4133
4150
4256
3867
3805
3812
3772
3786
3800
3740
3716
3849
3931
4013
3961
4078
4099
4149
4199
4246
4386
4320
4463
4425
4556
4635
4676
4818
4774
4776
4906
4871
4788
4811
4905
Footprint
(sq ft) HP
142
141
147
146
138
121
118
120
118
118
124
123
131
141
146
151
150
155
160
166
168
180
189
188
199
199
212
223
224
241
242
240
256
54.5 256
54.3 254
54.1 254
55.9* 279
HP/
Weight
0.0349
0.0340
0.0356
0.0351
0.0325
0.0313
0.0311
0.0317
0.0313
0.0310
0.0326
0.0330
0.0351
0.0365
0.0371
0.0377
0.0379
0.0380
0.0391
0.0401
0.0400
0.0422
0.0429
0.0434
0.0445
0.0448
0.0464
0.0479
0.0478
0.0499
0.0505
0.0502
0.0519
0.0521
0.0526
0.0525
0.0564
O-to-60
Time
13.6
13.8
13.3
13.4
14.3
14.5
14.6
14.5
14.6
14.7
14.1
14.0
13.4
13.0
12.8
12.7
12.6
12.6
12.2
12.0
12.0
11.5
11.4
11.3
11.0
11.0
10.6
10.4
10.4
10.1
10.0
10.0
9.8
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.1
Small
10.7%
8.8%
10.7%
10.7%
14.9%
28.4%
23.3%
20.7%
16.3%
19.7%
19.8%
23.9%
19.8%
14.5%
13.5%
12.9%
10.8%
9.8%
8.7%
9.2%
8.6%
6.3%
9.2%
8.4%
7.4%
5.5%
5.4%
6.6%
5.8%
5.2%
2.6%
2.3%
2.3%
3.0%
2.7%
2.9%
2.0%
Midsize
23.8%
20.0%
20.0%
22.5%
19.3%
17.4%
19.0%
30.9%
45.6%
45.6%
47.0%
47.7%
59.1%
56.9%
58.5%
56.9%
66.4%
62.9%
62.5%
61.9%
61.8%
64.6%
49.9%
56.9%
53.2%
53.6%
43.0%
41.0%
44.0%
41.3%
43.9%
44.5%
39.7%
43.6%
46.1%
46.3%
36.2%
Large
65.5%
71.3%
69.3%
66.9%
65.8%
54.1%
57.8%
48.4%
38.1%
34.7%
33.2%
28.5%
21.1%
28.6%
27.9%
30.1%
22.7%
27.3%
28.8%
28.9%
29.6%
29.1%
40.8%
34.8%
39.3%
40.9%
51.6%
52.5%
50.1%
53.5%
53.5%
53.2%
58.1%
53.4%
51.2%
50.8%
61.8%
Van
23.3%
19.5%
18.5%
19.3%
15.7%
13.0%
13.5%
16.4%
16.9%
20.6%
24.0%
24.4%
27.6%
25.5%
29.6%
33.8%
27.1%
32.0%
33.8%
26.4%
30.6%
29.6%
22.8%
25.3%
23.6%
25.3%
20.3%
18.7%
18.0%
13.5%
21.8%
19.3%
14.3%
14.8%
12.8%
14.1%
11.9%
SUV
8.1%
8.2%
8.6%
10.6%
12.3%
9.7%
7.3%
7.6%
11.2%
17.2%
17.7%
16.5%
19.1%
19.1%
18.7%
17.0%
22.6%
19.7%
19.3%
24.0%
27.7%
29.4%
33.9%
33.7%
35.3%
35.5%
38.1%
45.4%
45.8%
51.0%
44.4%
44.4%
50.1%
51.7%
52.6%
53.7%
50.7%
Pickup
68.5%
72.3%
72.9%
70.1%
72.0%
77.3%
79.2%
76.0%
71.9%
62.2%
58.3%
59.1%
53.3%
55.3%
51.7%
49.2%
50.3%
48.3%
46.9%
49.6%
41.8%
41.0%
43.3%
41.0%
41.0%
39.1%
41.6%
35.9%
36.2%
35.5%
33.8%
36.3%
35.6%
33.5%
34.5%
32.2%
37.5%
*Note: the footprint value for MY 2011 is preliminary, and is based on different data sources than values for MY 2008-2010.
26
-------
Table 4 (continued)
Vehicle Size and Design Characteristics of MY 1975 to 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars and Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Adj Comp
C02
(g/mi)
681
625
590
562
560
466
436
425
426
424
417
407
405
407
415
420
418
427
426
436
434
435
441
442
451
450
453
457
454
461
447
442
431
424
397
394
391
Weight
(Ib)
4060
4079
3982
3715
3655
3228
3202
3202
3257
3262
3271
3238
3221
3283
3351
3426
3410
3512
3519
3603
3613
3659
inn
3744
3835
3821
3879
3951
3999
4111
4059
4067
4093
4085
3917
4002
4084
Footprint
(sq ft) HP
137
135
136
129
124
104
102
103
107
109
114
114
118
123
129
135
138
145
147
152
158
164
169
171
179
181
187
195
199
211
209
213
217
49.0 219
48.2 208
48.5 214
49.6* 228
HP/
Weight
0.0335
0.0328
0.0339
0.0344
0.0335
0.0320
0.0318
0.0320
0.0327
0.0332
0.0347
0.0351
0.0361
0.0372
0.0382
0.0394
0.0402
0.0413
0.0416
0.0420
0.0438
0.0447
0.0452
0.0457
0.0465
0.0472
0.0480
0.0493
0.0496
0.0511
0.0512
0.0522
0.0525
0.0529
0.0524
0.0527
0.0549
O-to-60
Time
14.1
14.3
13.8
13.6
13.9
14.3
14.4
14.4
14.1
14.0
13.5
13.4
13.1
12.8
12.5
12.2
12.1
11.8
11.8
11.7
11.3
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.7
10.6
10.5
10.3
10.2
9.9
9.9
9.8
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.6
9.3
*Note: the footprint value for MY 2011 is preliminary, and is based on different data sources than values for MY 2008-2010.
27
-------
Table 4 shows that average, combined car/truck, weight and horsepower levels declined significantly from
MY 1975 through MY 1981, with weight decreasing by over 850 pounds (21%) and power decreasing by 35
horsepower (26%). Average vehicle weight grew slowly in the 1980s, and more rapidly thereafter, and by MY
2004 average weight had reached an all-time high of 4111 pounds. It has dropped slightly since. Average vehicle
horsepower grew steadily since MY 1981, until decreasing by 11 horsepower in MY 2009 and then increasing by 6
horsepower in MY 2010. The projected MY 2011 level of 228 horsepower represents a 66% increase over MY
1975, and a 124% increase relative to MY 1981, which was the all-time low for this data series. Table 4 also shows
that average MY 2010 footprint values were 45.4 square feet for cars, 54.1 square feet for trucks, and 48.5 square
feet for cars and trucks combined.
The manufacturer definitions in this report are those used by NHTSA for purposes of implementation of
and manufacturer compliance with the CAFE program. Make is typically included in the model name and is
generally recognized by consumers as the "brand" of the vehicle. The Pontiac, Saturn, and Mercury makes no
longer exist, but are included since Table 5 also includes MY 2009 and 2010. For more details on this vehicle
grouping approach, and the thresholds that were used to identify the 13 manufacturers and 30 makes shown in
Table 5, see the more detailed discussion in Section VII. It is important to note that when a manufacturer or make
grouping is changed to reflect a change in the industry's financial structure, EPA makes the same adjustment in the
historical database back to 1975. This maintains a consistent manufacturer (or make) definition over time, which
allows a better identification of long-term trends. On the other hand, this also means that the current database does
not necessarily reflect actual financial or structural arrangements in the past. For example, the 2011 database no
longer accounts for the fact that Chrysler was combined with Daimler for several years, and Table 5 shows data for
a Chrysler Ram make for MY 2009, even though Ram did not formally become a separate make until MY 2010.
Table 5 gives adjusted CO2 emissions values for cars, trucks, and cars and trucks combined for MY 2009-
2011, for the 13 highest-selling manufacturers and 30 largest makes associated with those manufacturers.
Manufacturers are listed in order of increasing MY 2010 car plus truck CO2 emissions rate. By including data from
both MY 2009 and MY 2010, 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 MY 2011 projections, changes from MY
2010 to MY 2011 are less meaningful. EPA anticipates that the MY 2011 results for all manufacturers will change
after the final data has been submitted to EPA, and the final MY 2011 data will be included in next year's report.
28
-------
Table 5
Adjusted Carbon Dioxide Emissions by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2009-2011 (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Hyundai
Kia
Toyota
Toyota
Toyota
Toyota
Honda
Honda
Honda
VW
vw
VW
Mazda
Subaru
Nissan
Nissan
Nissan
BMW
BMW
BMW
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Daimler
Daimler
Daimler
Other
Fleet
2009
Make Cars
All
All
Toyota
Lexus
Scion
All
Honda
Acura
All
VW
Audi
All
All
All
Nissan
Infiniti
All
BMW
Mini
All
Chevrolet
CMC
Buick
Cadillac
Pontiac
Saturn
All
Ford
Mercury
Lincoln
All
Dodge
Chrysler
Jeep
Ram
All
Mercedes-Benz
Smart
All
All
348
347
312
401
350
322
330
381
334
360
391
370
373
389
341
421
349
417
293
390
362
519
366
466
378
371
374
371
417
439
384
418
404
436
-
417
454
239
432
395
358
2009
Trucks
447
461
437
482
442
428
496
438
456
488
475
414
397
459
506
462
491
-
491
517
517
464
574
447
462
514
507
443
480
505
498
452
512
563
501
542
-
542
526
483
2009 Cars
and 2010
Trucks Cars
355
367
341
425
350
349
354
424
361
365
410
379
383
393
371
437
377
432
293
407
430
517
390
487
379
393
432
438
422
443
437
429
436
494
563
464
476
239
457
419
397
325
318
293
385
343
306
321
382
327
341
380
351
352
373
338
420
346
422
305
390
360
356
420
434
348
404
371
364
387
430
370
410
398
424
-
409
451
241
446
391
349
2010
Trucks
386
445
463
416
454
418
473
425
451
463
459
431
382
482
554
487
480
-
480
487
484
459
489
450
485
513
463
470
510
461
452
500
556
488
522
-
522
517
475
2010 Cars
and 2011
Trucks Cars
329
330
343
397
343
350
349
413
357
346
404
363
364
379
378
449
384
434
305
404
407
465
435
449
348
432
418
437
401
441
435
428
430
484
556
455
474
241
471
436
394
318
316
301
353
314
310
313
373
318
332
379
347
346
371
332
406
341
398
290
377
343
346
396
431
-
357
357
405
420
363
391
386
405
-
392
441
239
421
382
343
2011
Trucks
395
395
448
416
-
444
405
472
416
421
429
427
455
371
456
522
461
448
-
448
496
496
454
508
-
-
495
483
416
488
483
463
425
488
553
484
509
-
509
493
469
2011 Cars
and
Trucks
323
327
354
373
314
354
338
417
345
338
395
360
355
371
361
421
368
408
290
389
421
484
413
461
-
431
416
406
440
417
421
409
471
553
451
462
239
447
413
391
29
-------
Eleven of the 13 manufacturers reduced CO2 emissions in MY 2010, and the industry level of 394 g/mi
represents an all-time low. In terms of manufacturers, Hyundai had the lowest MY 2010 adjusted CO2 emissions
performance of 329 g/mi, followed closely by Kia at 330 g/mi. Toyota was next lowest at 350 g/mi. Daimler had
the highest MY 2010 adjusted CO2 emissions performance for any manufacturer, 471 g/mi, and was followed by
Chrysler at 455 g/mi and Ford at 435 g/mi. In terms of improvement from MY 2009 to MY 2010, Kia had the
largest reduction of 37 g/mi, followed by Hyundai at 26 g/mi and Mazda with 19 g/mi.
In terms of makes in MY 2010, the Smart had the lowest CO2 emissions of 241 g/mi. Of course, the Smart
Fortwo is the smallest and lightest car in the U.S. market and has very small production volumes. The make with
the second-lowest CO2 emissions performance in MY 2010 is the Mini, which also produces relatively low volumes
of small vehicles, at 305 g/mi. Of the makes with higher production, Hyundai had the lowest CO2 emissions at 329
g/mi, followed by Kia at 330 g/mi and Toyota and Scion at 343 g/mi.
Preliminary projections suggest that 11 of the 13 manufacturers will improve CO2 emissions performance
further in MY 2011, though EPA will not have actual data for MY 2011 until later this year. Hyundai, Kia, and
Honda are projected to be the overall CO2 emissions leaders for MY 2011.
While Tables 3, 4, and 5 provide key summary CO2 emissions data, EPA recognizes that many users will
want the CO2 emissions values equivalent to the fuel economy values in many other tables in this report.
Converting fuel economy values from tables in this report to approximate equivalent CO2 emissions values is fairly
straightforward.
If it is known that a fuel economy value in this report is based on a single gasoline vehicle, or a 100%
gasoline vehicle fleet, one can calculate the precise corresponding CO2 value by simply dividing 8887 (which is a
typical value for the grams of CO2 per gallon of gasoline test fuel, assuming all the carbon is converted to CO2) 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 CO2 emissions value of 296 grams per mile.
Since gasoline vehicle production has accounted for 99+% of all light-duty vehicle production for all model
years since 1975 except for the six years from 1979 through 1984, 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 CO2 equivalent value
for a diesel vehicle, one should divide 10,180 by the diesel vehicle fuel economy value. Accordingly, a 30 mpg
diesel vehicle would have a CO2 equivalent value of 339 grams per mile.
Table 6 should be used by those who want to make the most accurate conversions of industry-wide fuel
economy values to CO2 emissions values. Table 6 gives model year-specific industry-wide values for grams of CO2
per gallon based on actual light-duty gasoline and diesel vehicle production in that year. Using these model year-
specific values and dividing by the fuel economy value in miles per gallon will allow accurate conversions of
industry-wide fuel economy values to industry-wide CO2 emissions values.
Readers will have to make judgment calls about how to best convert fuel economy values that do not
represent industry-wide values (e.g., just small cars or vehicles with 5-speed automatic transmissions). If the user
knows the gasoline/diesel production volume fractions of the individual database component, it is best to generate a
weighted value of grams of CO2 per gallon based on the 8887 (gasoline) and 10,180 (diesel) factors discussed
above. Otherwise, the reader can choose between the model year-specific weighting in Table 6 (which implicitly
assumes that the diesel fraction in the database component of interest is similar to that for the overall fleet in that
30
-------
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 relatively small.
Table 6
Factors for Converting Industry-wide Fuel Economy Values from this Report to
Carbon Dioxide Emissions Values
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Gasoline
Production
Share
99.8%
99.8%
99.6%
99.1%
98.0%
95.7%
94.1%
94.4%
97.3%
98.2%
99.1%
99.6%
99.7%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
99.7%
99.6%
99.9%
99.9%
99.5%
99.3%
99.4%
Diesel
Production
Share
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.9%
2.0%
4.3%
5.9%
5.6%
2.7%
1.8%
0.9%
0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
Weighted CO2
per Gallon
(grams)
8890
8890
8892
8899
8913
8943
8963
8959
8922
8910
8899
8892
8891
8888
8888
8888
8888
8888
8887
8887
8887
8888
8888
8888
8888
8888
8888
8890
8890
8888
8891
8892
8888
8888
8893
8896
8895
31
-------
V. Fuel Economy Trends by Vehicle Type, Size, and Weight
Figure 8 shows production share trends by vehicle type. Of the six vehicle classes shown—cars, wagons,
non-truck SUVs, truck SUVs, vans, and pickups—the biggest overall increase in production share since 1975 has
been for the two categories of SUVs, which, combined, increased from less than two percent in MY 1975 to nearly
30% in MY 2011. The biggest overall decrease has been for cars, down from 71% of the fleet in MY 1975 to about
50% in MY 2011. By comparison, the production fraction for pickup trucks has remained relatively constant at
about 15% of overall production.
Figure 9 (size within vehicle type) and Table 7 (across the entire market) compares production fractions by
vehicle type and size with the fleet again stratified into six vehicle types (cars, station wagons, non-truck SUVs,
vans, truck SUVs, and pickup trucks) and three vehicle sizes (small, midsize, and large). Small cars have
historically been the leading segment, but midsize cars now have the highest share. Wagons have decreased from
about 10% of production in MY 1975 to about 4% of production today, almost exclusively small wagons.
Since 1975, the largest increases in production fractions have been for SUVs. Truck SUVs and non-truck
SUVs (those now classified as cars for regulatory purposes) are expected to account for nearly 30% of all light
vehicles sold in MY 2011, compared to combined totals of about 2% in MY 1975 and 6% in MY 1988,
respectively. Minivans and vans, whose popularity peaked in the 1990s, now account for less than 5% of
production, similar to MY 1975 levels. Almost all of the vans sold today are midsize minivans. Pickups are now
dominated by large pickups.
Figure 8
Production Share by Vehicle Type
100%
0) 80%
ro
c 60%
o
"§ 40%
20%
0%
Car
Non-Truck SUVS
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
32
-------
Figure 9
Production Share by Vehicle Size
£
CO
CO
c
o
'•5
3
T3
O
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Small
Car
Small
Wagon
Non-Truck SUV
Van
Small
Truck SUV
Small
Pickup
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
33
-------
Table 7
Production Shares of MY 1975,1988, and 2011 by Vehicle Size and Type
Vehicle Type
Car
Car
Car
Car
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Van
Van
Van
Van
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Size
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
All Trucks
1975
40.0%
16.0%
15.2%
71.1%
4.7%
2.8%
1.9%
9.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
0.0%
3.0%
1.5%
4.5%
0.5%
1.1%
0.0%
1.6%
1.6%
0.5%
11.0%
13.1%
19.2%
1988
43.8%
13.8%
8.5%
66.2%
1.7%
1.9%
0.5%
4.0%
0.3%
0.5%
-
0.8%
0.4%
6.2%
0.9%
7.4%
1.6%
3.5%
0.5%
5.6%
2.2%
6.9%
7.0%
16.1%
29.0%
2011
17.7%
21.4%
9.9%
49.0%
3.9%
0.0%
-
4.0%
6.3%
3.1%
9.4%
4.3%
0.1%
4.5%
0.8%
8.7%
9.6%
19.1%
0.6%
13.5%
14.1%
37.6%
Difference
1975 to 2011
-22.2%
5.4%
-5.3%
-22.1%
-0.7%
-2.8%
-1.9%
-5.4%
-0.1%
6.1%
3.1%
9.1%
0.0%
1.4%
-1.4%
0.0%
0.3%
7.6%
9.6%
17.5%
-1.6%
0.1%
2.4%
1.0%
18.5%
Difference
1975 to 1988
3.9%
-2.1%
-6.7%
-5.0%
-3.0%
-1.0%
-1.4%
-5.4%
0.2%
0.4%
-0.1%
0.5%
0.3%
3.2%
-0.6%
2.9%
1.2%
2.4%
0.4%
4.0%
0.7%
6.3%
-4.1%
2.9%
9.9%
Difference
1988 to 2011
-26.1%
7.5%
1.4%
-17.2%
2.3%
-1.8%
-0.5%
0.0%
-0.3%
5.7%
3.1%
8.6%
-0.4%
-1.8%
-0.7%
-2.9%
-0.9%
5.2%
9.2%
13.5%
-2.2%
-6.3%
6.5%
-2.0%
8.6%
Figure 10 shows annual trends in adjusted fuel economy, weight, and performance for cars, wagons, non-
truck SUVs, vans, truck SUVs, and pickups. For all six vehicle types, the recent trends, since 2005, have been
increasing fuel economy, fairly stable weight, and decreasing 0-60 acceleration time (or increased performance).
Table 8 shows the lowest, average, and highest adjusted mpg performance by vehicle type and size for
three selected years. For both MY 1988 and 2011, the mpg performance is such that the midsize vehicles in all
vehicle type/size combinations have better fuel economy than the corresponding entry for small vehicles in 1975.
In Table 9, the percentage changes obtainable from the entries in Table 8 are presented. Average mpg for four
vehicle type/size combinations (midsize cars, large cars, midsize truck SUVs, and large truck SUVs) has more than
doubled since 1975. Since 1988, average fuel economy has decreased for midsize wagons and small truck SUVs.
Tables 10 and 11 present this same data in terms of fuel consumption.
34
-------
Car
Figure 10
Fuel Economy and Performance by Vehicle Type
Wagon Non-Truck SUV Van Truck SUV Pickup
25
20
15
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
16
14
12
10
Adjusted
Composite MPG
Weight
(Ibs)
O-to-60
Time (sec)
to
oo
o
to o o to to o o
co o -^ oo co o -^
ooo oooo
-^ -^ K) K)
to to o o
00 (O O -^
oooo
-^ -^ K) K)
to to o o
00 (O O -^
oooo
CO CO
00 CO
o o
K) K)
o o
o -^
o o
-^ -^ K) K)
CO CO O O
00 CO O -^
oooo
Model Year
-------
Table 8
Lowest, Average, and Highest Adjusted Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type and Size
Car or
Truck
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Car
Truck
Fleet
Vehicle Type
Car
Car
Car
Car
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Van
Van
Van
Van
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
All
All
All
Size
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
All
All
All
1975
Low
8.6
8.6
8.4
8.4
11.8
8.4
8.4
8.4
10.2
9.9
10.4
9.9
16.2
8.2
8.9
8.2
12.8
8.2
7.9
7.9
13.0
17.8
7.6
7.6
8.4
7.6
7.6
1975
Average
15.6
11.6
11.2
13.4
19.1
11.3
10.2
13.8
10.2
12.6
11.1
11.6
17.5
11.3
10.7
11.1
14.3
10.0
8.8
10.9
19.2
17.9
11.1
11.9
13.5
11.6
13.1
1975
High
28.3
18.4
14.6
28.3
24.1
25.0
12.8
25.0
10.2
18.4
13.7
18.4
18.5
18.4
14.5
18.5
16.3
16.7
11.1
16.7
20.8
18.0
18.5
20.8
28.3
20.8
28.3
1988
Low
7.5
10.5
10.0
7.5
17.1
17.5
19.2
17.1
18.6
11.6
-
11.6
15.5
11.3
10.0
10.0
15.6
10.2
12.2
10.2
13.3
15.3
9.8
9.8
7.5
9.8
7.5
1988
Average
25.7
22.6
20.6
24.2
26.3
22.2
19.4
23.3
19.4
18.5
-
18.8
20.6
18.4
14.3
17.9
20.5
16.2
14.0
17.1
21.0
21.3
15.2
18.1
24.1
17.9
21.9
1988
High
54.4
27.7
26.0
54.4
33.2
27.7
19.4
33.2
20.3
23.6
-
23.6
25.0
23.4
16.8
25.0
27.8
22.4
18.8
27.8
24.6
25.9
21.0
25.9
54.4
27.8
54.4
2011
Low
10.4
13.3
14.2
10.4
14.7
19.6
-
14.7
18.3
18.2
18.2
13.5
11.3
11.3
17.2
14.3
12.2
12.2
20.1
12.7
12.7
10.4
11.3
10.4
2011
Average
27.1
27.2
24.5
26.5
26.9
20.0
-
26.8
-
23.2
22.0
22.8
-
21.3
14.8
20.9
17.5
21.6
18.8
19.9
-
21.7
17.1
17.3
25.9
18.9
22.8
2011
High
42.9
49.3
28.8
49.3
35.6
23.0
-
35.6
31.9
27.0
31.9
23.2
17.4
23.2
17.5
29.4
24.4
29.4
24.3
22.1
24.3
49.3
29.4
49.3
36
-------
Table 9
Percent Change in Lowest, Average, and Highest Adjusted Fuel Economy
by Vehicle Type and Size
Car or
Truck
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Car
Truck
Fleet
Vehicle Type
Car
Car
Car
Car
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Van
Van
Van
Van
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
All
All
All
Size
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
All
All
All
1975 to
2011
Low
21%
55%
69%
24%
25%
133%
-
75%
-
85%
75%
84%
-
65%
27%
38%
34%
74%
54%
54%
-
13%
67%
67%
24%
49%
37%
1975 to
2011
Average
74%
134%
119%
98%
41%
77%
-
94%
-
84%
98%
97%
-
88%
38%
88%
22%
116%
114%
83%
-
21%
54%
45%
92%
63%
74%
1975 to
2011
High
52%
168%
97%
74%
48%
-8%
-
42%
-
73%
97%
73%
-
26%
20%
25%
7%
76%
120%
76%
-
35%
19%
17%
74%
41%
74%
1975 to
1988
Low
-13%
22%
19%
-11%
45%
108%
129%
104%
82%
17%
17%
-4%
38%
12%
22%
22%
24%
54%
29%
2%
-14%
29%
29%
-11%
29%
-1%
1975 to
1988
Average
65%
95%
84%
81%
38%
96%
90%
69%
90%
47%
-
62%
18%
63%
34%
61%
43%
62%
59%
57%
9%
19%
37%
52%
79%
54%
67%
1975 to
1988
High
92%
51%
78%
92%
38%
11%
52%
33%
99%
28%
-
28%
35%
27%
16%
35%
71%
34%
69%
66%
18%
44%
14%
25%
92%
34%
92%
1988 to
2011
Low
39%
27%
42%
39%
-14%
12%
-
-14%
-
58%
-
57%
-
19%
13%
13%
10%
40%
0%
20%
-
31%
30%
30%
39%
15%
39%
1988 to
2011
Average
5%
20%
19%
10%
2%
-10%
-
15%
-
25%
21%
-
16%
3%
17%
-15%
33%
34%
16%
-
2%
13%
-4%
7%
6%
4%
1988 to
2011
High
-21%
78%
11%
-9%
7%
-17%
-
7%
-
35%
-
35%
-
-1%
4%
-7%
-37%
31%
30%
6%
-
-6%
5%
-6%
-9%
6%
-9%
37
-------
Table 10
Adjusted Fuel Consumption (Gal./100 miles) by Vehicle Type and Size
Car or
Truck
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Car
Truck
Fleet
Vehicle Type
Car
Car
Car
Car
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Van
Van
Van
Van
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
All
All
All
Size
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
All
All
All
1975
Low
11.6
11.6
11.9
11.9
8.5
11.9
11.9
11.9
9.8
10.1
9.6
10.1
6.2
12.2
11.2
12.2
7.8
12.2
12.7
12.7
7.7
5.6
13.2
13.2
11.9
13.2
13.2
1975
Average
6.4
8.6
8.9
7.5
5.2
8.8
9.8
7.2
9.8
7.9
9.0
8.6
5.7
8.8
9.3
9.0
7.0
10.0
11.4
9.2
5.2
5.6
9.0
8.4
7.4
8.6
7.6
1975
High
3.5
5.4
6.8
3.5
4.1
4.0
7.8
4.0
9.8
5.4
7.3
5.4
5.4
5.4
6.9
5.4
6.1
6.0
9.0
6.0
4.8
5.6
5.4
4.8
3.5
4.8
3.5
1988
Low
13.3
9.5
10.0
13.3
5.8
5.7
5.2
5.8
5.4
8.6
-
8.6
6.5
8.8
10.0
10.0
6.4
9.8
8.2
9.8
7.5
6.5
10.2
10.2
13.3
10.2
13.3
1988
Average
3.9
4.4
4.9
4.1
3.8
4.5
5.2
4.3
5.2
5.4
-
5.3
4.9
5.4
7.0
5.6
4.9
6.2
7.1
5.8
4.8
4.7
6.6
5.5
4.1
5.6
4.6
1988
High
1.8
3.6
3.8
1.8
3.0
3.6
5.2
3.0
4.9
4.2
-
4.2
4.0
4.3
6.0
4.0
3.6
4.5
5.3
3.6
4.1
3.9
4.8
3.9
1.8
3.6
1.8
2011
Low
9.6
7.5
7.0
9.6
6.8
5.1
-
6.8
-
5.5
5.5
5.5
-
7.4
8.8
8.8
5.8
7.0
8.2
8.2
-
5.0
7.9
7.9
9.6
8.8
9.6
2011
Average
3.7
3.7
4.1
3.8
3.7
5.0
-
3.7
4.3
4.5
4.4
4.7
6.8
4.8
5.7
4.6
5.3
5.0
4.6
5.8
5.8
3.9
5.3
4.4
2011
High
2.3
2.0
3.5
2.0
2.8
4.3
-
2.8
-
3.1
3.7
3.1
-
4.3
5.7
4.3
5.7
3.4
4.1
3.4
-
4.1
4.5
4.1
2.0
3.4
2.0
38
-------
Table 11
Percent Change* in Adjusted Fuel Consumption by Vehicle Type and Size
Car or
Truck
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Car
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Truck
Car
Truck
Fleet
Vehicle Type
Car
Car
Car
Car
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Van
Van
Van
Van
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
All
All
All
Size
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
All
All
All
1975 to
2011
Low
17%
35%
41%
19%
20%
57%
-
43%
-
46%
43%
46%
-
39%
21%
28%
26%
43%
35%
35%
-
11%
40%
40%
19%
33%
27%
1975 to
2011
Average
42%
57%
54%
49%
29%
43%
-
49%
46%
50%
49%
-
47%
27%
47%
19%
54%
54%
46%
18%
36%
31%
47%
38%
42%
1975 to
2011
High
34%
63%
49%
43%
32%
-7%
30%
-
43%
49%
43%
-
20%
17%
20%
7%
43%
54%
43%
-
27%
17%
15%
43%
29%
43%
1975 to
1988
Low
-15%
18%
16%
-12%
32%
52%
56%
51%
45%
15%
-
15%
-5%
28%
11%
18%
18%
20%
35%
23%
3%
-16%
23%
23%
-12%
23%
-1%
1975 to
1988
Average
39%
49%
45%
45%
27%
49%
47%
40%
47%
32%
38%
14%
39%
25%
38%
30%
38%
38%
37%
8%
16%
27%
35%
45%
35%
39%
1975
to
1988
High
49%
33%
44%
49%
27%
10%
33%
25%
50%
22%
22%
26%
20%
13%
26%
41%
25%
41%
40%
15%
30%
11%
19%
49%
25%
49%
1988
to
2011
Low
28%
21%
30%
28%
-17%
11%
-
-17%
-
36%
-
36%
-
16%
12%
12%
9%
29%
0%
16%
-
23%
23%
23%
28%
14%
28%
1988 to
2011
Average
5%
16%
16%
7%
3%
-11%
14%
-
20%
-
17%
-
13%
3%
14%
-16%
26%
25%
14%
-
2%
12%
-5%
5%
5%
4%
1988
to
2011
High
-28%
44%
8%
-11%
7%
-19%
-
7%
-
26%
-
26%
-
0%
5%
-7%
-58%
24%
23%
6%
-
-5%
6%
-5%
-11%
6%
-11%
*Note: A negative change indicates that fuel consumption has increased.
39
-------
Cars and light trucks with conventional drive trains have a fuel consumption and weight relationship which
is well known and is shown in Figure 11. Fuel consumption increases linearly with weight. Because vehicles with
different propulsion systems, i.e., diesels and hybrids, occupy a different place on such a fuel consumption and
weight plot, the data for hybrid and diesel vehicles are plotted separately and excluded from the trend lines shown
on the graphs. At constant weight, MY 2011 cars consume about 40% less fuel per mile than their MY 1975
counterparts.
On this same constant weight basis, this year's vehicles with diesel engines consume 20-30% less fuel than
the conventionally powered ones, while this year's hybrid vehicles are about 20-60% better. Similarly, at constant
weight this year's conventionally powered trucks achieve about 50% better fuel consumption than MY 1975
vehicles did.
Figure 11
Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Consumption vs. Vehicle Weight, MY 1975 and MY 2011
10
CO
CD
O
O
CO
CD
2011
D D
1975
• Conventional
A Diesel
D Hybrid
O O O
000
O O O
c\i co ^r
o
O
O
in
o
o
o
CO
o o
o o
o o
r- c\i
o
o
o
CO
o
o
o
o o o
ooo
o o o
in co r-
Weight (Ib)
40
-------
Figure 12 shows that the relationship between interior volume and fuel consumption is currently not as
important as in the past. The data points on both of these graphs exclude two seaters and represent production
weighted average fuel consumption calculated at increments of 1.0 cu. ft. As was done for Figure 11, the data
points for hybrid and diesel vehicles were plotted separately from those for the conventionally powered vehicles.
Figure 12
Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Consumption vs. Interior Volume, MY 1978 and MY 2011 Cars
12
10
8
6
4
(/)
(D 2
O 0
o
3 10
1978
• Conventional
A Diesel
n Hybrid
2011
60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Volume (cu ft)
41
-------
Figure 13 shows laboratory 55/45 fuel consumption versus footprint for MY 2011 cars and trucks,
respectively, again with the regression lines excluding the hybrid and diesel data points. Car fuel consumption is
more sensitive to footprint than truck fuel consumption. Most cars have footprint values below 50 square feet, and
at these footprint levels cars generally have lower fuel consumption than trucks. For the much smaller number of
cars that have footprint levels greater than 50 square feet (often high performance cars), these cars generally have
higher fuel consumption than trucks of the same footprint.
Figure 13
Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Consumption vs. Footprint, MY 2011 Vehicles
10
CO
CD
o
o
(0
CD
10
D m
Car
• Conventional
A Diesel
n Hybrid
Truck
40 50 60 70
Footprint (sq ft)
42
-------
Figure 14 shows the improvement that occurred between MY 1975 and 2011 for fuel consumption as a
function of O-to-60 acceleration time for cars and trucks.
Figure 14
Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Consumption vs. O-to-60 Time, MY 1975 and MY 2011 Vehicles
co
-------
Figure 15 compares Ton-MPG data versus O-to-60 time and shows that at constant vehicle performance,
there has been substantial improvement in Ton-MPG.
Figure 15
Ton-MPG vs. O-to-60 Time, MY 1975 and MY 2011 Vehicles
2
100
80
60
40
20
100
80
60
40
20
1975
2011
1975
Car
o Conventional
A Diesel
n Hybrid
Truck
5 10 15 20
O-to-60 time (sec.)
25
44
-------
Figure 16 and Table 12 show some of the changes in the distribution of weight that have occurred over the
years for the light-duty fleet. In MY 1975, 13% of all light-duty vehicles had weights of less than 3000 Ib
compared to less than 4% in MY 2011. Since MY 1988, production share for vehicles with weights of 5000
pounds or more has increased from 3% to 21%.
Figure 16
Distribution of Light Vehicle Weight for Three Model Years
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
25%
I 20%
W 15%
I 10%
o
| 5%
°- 0%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1975
.-.II
1988
Type
Truck
Car
2011
1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000
Vehicle Weight
Figure 17 provides data for the annual production share of different weight classes for cars and trucks. In
MY 1975, about one-half of the cars were in weight classes greater than 4000 pounds, compared to about one-tenth
this year. For MY 2011, three weight classes (3000, 3500, and 4000 Ibs) account for over 90% of all cars.
Conversely, the production share of trucks in the weight classes of 4500 Ib or more have increased substantially,
and these vehicles currently account for about 80% of all trucks, compared to about 40% in 1975. Figure 18
provides additional details of the truck data presented in Figure 17 for vans, SUVs, and pickups, respectively.
Appendices D, E, and F contain a series of tables describing light-duty vehicles at the vehicle size/type level of
stratification in more detail; Appendix G provides similar data by vehicle type and weight class.
45
-------
Table 12
Light Vehicle Production Share by Weight Class for Three Model Years
Weight
(Ib)
<3000
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
>5500
Avg Wt
MY 1975
13.4%
8.7%
10.6%
20.6%
21.3%
16.7%
8.7%
0.0%
4060
MY 1988
27.2%
25.4%
25.2%
13.2%
6.0%
2.4%
0.5%
0.0%
3283
MY 2011
4.0%
10.0%
28.2%
22.2%
14.6%
8.0%
7.3%
5.7%
4084
Figure 17
Production Share by Vehicle Weight Class
Car Truck
100%
>4000
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
46
-------
03
.C
C/5
c
o
T3
O
Figure 18
Production Share by Truck Type and Weight Class
Van
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Truck SUV
Pickup
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
47
-------
VI. Fuel Economy Powertrain Technology Trends
Table 13 presents an overview of key engine technology trends for the MY 1975-2011 database.
Conventional gasoline vehicles continue to account for over 95% of all light-duty vehicles. While engine size has
been decreasing slightly in recent years, overall engine horsepower has continued to increase, with the notable
exception of MY 2009. Nearly all engines now have multiple valves (approximately 85%) and variable valve
timing (projected to approach 95% in MY 2011). One very important trend is the recent introduction of several
new engine technologies. For example, gasoline direct injection engine production share has increased from
essentially zero in MY 2007 to 8% in MY 2010, and is projected to be 14% in MY 2011. The use of cylinder
deactivation has increased to 6% of all engines in MY 2010 and is proj ected to grow to 11 % in MY 2011. The use
of boost technologies, turbocharging or supercharging, has been in the 2-4% range since MY 1998, but is projected
to increase to 7% in MY 2011. Appendix K contains additional data on fuel metering and number of valves per
cylinder.
Table 14 presents an overview of key transmission and drive technology trends for MY 1975-2011. The
data in this table suggest two important trends with respect to transmission design. One, the use of continuously
variable transmissions has increased significantly in recent years, growing from nearly zero in 2002 to over 10% of
the fleet. The second trend is an increase in the number of transmission gears. The average number of gears has
grown from 4 throughout the 1990s to over 5 in MY 2010, and is projected to be 5.6 in MY 2011. The use of 6-
gear transmissions has exploded from less than 5% in 2005 to nearly 40% in MY 2010 and is projected to exceed
50% in MY 2011. Figure 19 shows the same transmission data in graphical format. More data stratified by
transmission type can be found in Appendix I. With respect to drive technologies, the market seems to have
approximately stabilized, with about 60% front wheel drive, 15% rear wheel drive, and 25% four wheel drive.
The rest of this section examines the engine, transmission, and drive trends in Tables 13 and 14 in more
detail.
Table 15 disaggregates some of the engine and transmission technologies for MY 2011 by vehicle type and
size. As discussed earlier, wheelbase is used in this report to distinguish whether a truck is small, mid-size, or
large, and four EPA car classes (Two-Seater, Minicompact, Compact, and Subcompact) have been combined to
form the small car class. For this table, the car classes are separated into cars, station wagons, and non-truck SUVs,
so that the table stratifies light-duty vehicles into a total of 18 vehicle types and sizes. Note that this table does not
contain any data for large wagons, small non-truck SUVs, small vans, or small pickups, because none have been
produced for several years. Front wheel drive (FWD) is used heavily in all of the car, wagon, non-truck SUV, and
van classes, except midsize wagons. Conversely, four wheel drive (4WD) is used heavily in truck SUVs and large
pickups. Manual transmissions are used primarily in small vehicles, some sports cars, and midsize pickups.
Engines with more than two valves per cylinder and WT are now prevalent for nearly all vehicle types and sizes.
Detailed tabulations of different technology types, including technology usage percentages for other model
years, can be found in the Appendices.
48
-------
Table 13
Engine Characteristics of MY 1975 to MY 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Powertrain
Gasoline
99.8%
99.7%
99.5%
99.1%
97.9%
95.6%
94.1%
95.3%
97.9%
98.3%
99.1%
99.7%
99.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.7%
99.7%
99.4%
99.1%
98.9%
97.7%
97.8%
96.7%
96.7%
96.5%
93.9%
93.7%
Gasoline
Hybrid
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.5%
0.8%
1.9%
1.7%
3.2%
3.2%
2.9%
5.3%
5.5%
Diesel
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.9%
2.1%
4.4%
5.9%
4.7%
2.1%
1.7%
0.9%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
-
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.1%
0.6%
0.9%
0.8%
Fuel Injection
Carbureted GDI
94.7%
96.6%
95.3%
94.0%
93.2%
88.7%
85.3%
78.4%
69.7%
59.2%
46.1%
34.5%
26.6%
16.1%
9.6%
1.4%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.0%
4.3%
8.0%
13.9%
Metering Method
Port TBI
5.1%
3.2%
4.2%
5.0%
4.7%
6.2% 0.7%
6.1% 2.6%
7.2% 9.8%
9.4% 18.8%
14.9% 24.2%
21.2% 31.8%
36.5% 28.7%
42.4% 30.8%
53.6% 30.3%
62.1% 28.2%
77.3% 21.2%
77.2% 22.6%
88.9% 11.0%
91.5% 8.5%
94.8% 5.2%
98.6% 1.3%
98.9% 1.0%
99.2% 0.7%
99.7% 0.1%
99.8% 0.1%
99.7% 0.1%
99.8%
99.7%
99.7%
99.7%
99.6%
99.4%
99.7%
97.0%
95.1%
91.2%
85.3%
Diesel
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
0.9%
2.1%
4.4%
5.9%
4.7%
2.1%
1.7%
0.9%
0.3%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
-
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.6%
0.0%
0.1%
0.6%
0.9%
0.8%
Avg.
Number
of
Cylinders
6.71
6.75
6.85
6.53
6.38
5.48
5.36
5.23
5.39
5.34
5.30
5.09
4.98
5.02
5.07
5.06
5.05
5.23
5.19
5.20
5.24
5.21
5.14
5.17
5.23
5.25
5.23
5.19
5.18
5.20
5.10
5.19
5.02
4.99
4.73
4.72
4.74
CID HP
288 136
287 134
279 133
252 124
238 119
188 100
182 99
175 99
182 104
179 106
177 111
167 111
162 113
161 116
163 121
163 129
164 133
171 141
170 140
169 144
169 153
169 155
167 157
168 160
170 165
170 169
170 171
171 176
170 179
173 186
170 185
175 195
169 192
168 195
158 188
159 191
159 198
HP/ Multi-
CID Valve
0.515
0.502
0.516
0.538
0.545
0.583
0.594
0.609
0.615
0.637
0.671
0.701 4.7%
0.732 14.5%
0.758 19.7%
0.781 24.1%
0.828 32.7%
0.847 33.2%
0.864 33.9%
0.859 34.7%
0.880 39.9%
0.939 50.9%
0.948 55.7%
0.965 57.7%
0.981 59.7%
0.997 62.8%
1.017 62.8%
1.030 64.0%
1.055 68.3%
1.077 72.9%
1.093 76.0%
1.106 77.9%
1.134 81.0%
1.150 84.4%
1.172 88.1%
1.190 92.2%
1.200 93.5%
1.248 94.6%
WT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.6%
2.4%
4.4%
4.5%
7.7%
9.5%
11.0%
10.6%
17.1%
16.1%
21.8%
26.6%
32.9%
40.6%
44.0%
50.4%
59.0%
63.8%
63.2%
79.7%
91.0%
95.3%
Boosted
(Turbocharged
or
CD Supercharged)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3%
0.7%
2.5%
3.6%
2.8%
3.7%
4.1%
2.4%
4.6%
0.9% 3.6%
2.5% 3.9%
1.4% 4.0%
1.9% 4.6%
2.3% 4.4%
2.6% 4.4%
2.9% 8.5%
49
-------
Table 13 (continued)
Engine Characteristics of MY 1975 to MY 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Powertrain
Gasoline
Gasoline Hybrid
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.2%
98.2%
96.5%
94.4%
90.6%
95.2%
97.6%
98.9%
99.3%
99.7%
99.8%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% 0.0%
99.8% 0.1%
98.6% 1.2%
99.3% 0.6%
98.5% 1.3%
98.7% 1.0%
98.6% 1.0%
98.2% 1.4%
Diesel
-
-
0.8%
1.8%
3.5%
5.6%
9.4%
4.8%
2.4%
1.1%
0.7%
0.3%
0.2%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
-
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3%
Fuel Injection
Carbureted GDI
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.1%
97.9%
94.9%
93.2%
89.9%
94.6%
95.0%
86.4%
59.3%
33.5%
12.4%
6.5%
3.9%
1.7%
1.6%
1.0%
0.4%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.1%
4.1%
8.8%
13.3%
Metering Method
Port TBI Diesel
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1% 0.8%
0.3% 1.8%
1.7% 3.5%
1.1% 5.6%
0.7% 9.4%
0.6% 4.8%
2.0% 0.6% 2.4%
9.0% 3.5% 1.1%
22.2% 17.8% 0.7%
33.4% 32.9% 0.3%
43.2% 44.2% 0.2%
46.0% 47.3% 0.2%
55.1% 40.9% 0.2%
55.3% 42.9% 0.1%
65.6% 32.7% 0.1%
71.4% 27.6%
76.2% 23.4%
79.0% 21.0%
99.9% - 0.1%
100.0% - 0.0%
100.0% - 0.0%
100.0% - 0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0% - 0.0%
99.9% - 0.1%
99.9% - 0.1%
99.9% - 0.1%
98.6% - 0.2%
95.6% - 0.3%
90.8% - 0.4%
86.4% - 0.3%
Avg.
Number
of
Cylinders
7.28
7.31
7.27
7.24
7.05
6.15
6.15
6.26
6.06
5.99
5.96
5.70
5.68
6.00
6.04
6.17
5.95
6.09
6.13
6.19
6.23
6.25
6.47
6.30
6.49
6.47
6.61
6.60
6.59
6.75
6.61
6.54
6.62
6.47
6.29
6.25
6.40
HP/ Multi-
CID HP CID Valve
311 142 0.477
320 141 0.458
318 147 0.483
315 146 0.481
299 138 0.485
248 121 0.528
247 118 0.508
244 120 0.524
232 118 0.542
225 118 0.557
224 124 0.585
212 123 0.620
210 131 0.652
228 141 0.649
234 146 0.653
237 151 0.667
229 150 0.681
236 155 0.682
235 160 0.704
241 166 0.713 5.2%
246 168 0.712 8.1%
245 180 0.754 10.5%
251 189 0.770 10.5%
244 188 0.791 13.6%
252 199 0.811 15.2%
245 199 0.830 18.1%
250 212 0.870 25.4%
250 223 0.907 31.8%
249 224 0.915 32.7%
259 241 0.944 45.4%
252 242 0.974 49.3%
248 240 0.982 57.6%
255 256 1.018 51.8%
248 256 1.041 57.7%
239 254 1.081 64.5%
238 254 1.087 71.0%
245 279 1.165 68.4%
Boosted
(Turbocharged
or
WT CD Supercharged)
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
4.8%
8.5%
14.4%
17.4% - 0.5%
31.8% - 0.8%
39.6% 0.6% 0.6%
50.0% 5.3% 0.8%
47.2% 16.6% 1.1%
50.2% 14.3% 1.3%
55.0% 18.7% 1.5%
71.0% 13.4% 1.9%
91.2% 24.6% 5.6%
50
-------
Table 13 (continued)
Engine Characteristics of MY 1975 to MY 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars and Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Powertrain
Gasoline
Gasoline Hybrid
99.8%
99.8%
99.6%
99.1%
98.0%
95.7%
94.1%
94.4%
97.3%
98.2%
99.1%
99.6%
99.7%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.6%
99.5%
99.4%
98.6%
98.1%
97.7%
97.4%
97.2%
95.6%
95.4%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.3%
0.5%
1.1%
1.5%
2.2%
2.5%
2.3%
3.8%
4.0%
Diesel
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.9%
2.0%
4.3%
5.9%
5.6%
2.7%
1.8%
0.9%
0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
Fuel Injection Metering Method
Carbureted GDI Port TBI Diesel
95.7%
97.3%
96.2%
95.2%
94.2%
89.7%
86.7%
80.6%
75.2%
67.6%
56.1%
41.4%
28.4%
15.0%
8.7%
2.1%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
0.1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
4.1%
2.5%
3.4%
3.9%
3.7%
5.2%
5.1%
5.8%
7.3%
11.9%
18.2%
32.5%
39.9%
50.6%
57.3%
70.8%
70.6%
81.6%
85.0%
87.7%
91.6%
99.3%
99.5%
99.8%
99.9%
99.8%
99.9%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
99.7%
99.6%
99.8%
2.3% 97.6%
4.2% 95.2%
8.3% 91.0%
13.7% 85.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.8%
2.4%
8.0%
14.8%
18.7%
24.8%
25.7%
31.4%
34.3%
33.9%
27.0%
28.7%
17.8%
14.6%
12.1%
8.4%
0.7%
0.5%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.2%
0.2%
0.4%
0.9%
2.0%
4.3%
5.9%
5.6%
2.7%
1.8%
0.9%
0.4%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%
0.2%
0.2%
0.1%
0.3%
0.4%
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
Avg.
Number
of
Cylinders
6.82
6.87
6.94
6.69
6.53
5.59
5.50
5.43
5.54
5.49
5.46
5.26
5.17
5.31
5.36
5.39
5.32
5.50
5.50
5.58
5.59
5.59
5.65
5.63
5.75
5.74
5.76
5.77
5.79
5.90
5.75
5.73
5.64
5.56
5.21
5.27
5.36
CID HP
293 137
294 135
287 136
266 129
252 124
198 104
193 102
188 103
193 107
190 109
189 114
180 114
175 118
180 123
185 129
185 135
184 138
191 145
191 147
197 152
196 158
197 164
199 169
199 171
203 179
200 181
201 187
203 195
204 199
212 211
205 209
204 213
203 217
199 219
183 208
188 214
191 228
HP/ Multi-
CID Valve
0.507
0.493
0.510
0.525
0.532
0.574
0.580
0.593
0.599
0.618
0.650
0.678 3.4%
0.710 10.6%
0.726 14.0%
0.743 16.9%
0.781 23.1%
0.796 23.1%
0.807 23.3%
0.809 23.5%
0.816 26.7%
0.857 35.6%
0.878 39.3%
0.890 39.6%
0.904 40.9%
0.921 43.4%
0.942 44.8%
0.968 49.0%
0.994 53.3%
1.007 55.5%
1.026 62.3%
1.049 65.6%
1.073 71.7%
1.099 71.7%
1.122 76.4%
1.156 83.6%
1.160 85.5%
1.216 84.7%
Boosted
(Turbocharged
or
WT CD Supercharged)
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.3%
0.5%
2.0%
2.1%
15.0% - 1.7%
19.6% - 2.3%
25.3% - 2.6%
30.6% - 1.6%
38.5% - 2.9%
45.8% 0.8% 2.3%
55.4% 3.6% 2.6%
57.3% 7.3% 2.9%
58.2% 6.7% 3.3%
72.0% 7.4% 3.5%
83.8% 6.4% 3.5%
93.8% 11.1% 7.4%
51
-------
Table 14
Transmission and Drive Characteristics of MY 1975 to MY 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Manual
19.7%
17.2%
16.9%
19.9%
21.1%
30.9%
29.8%
29.2%
26.0%
24.1%
22.7%
24.7%
24.8%
24.2%
21.0%
19.7%
20.6%
17.6%
17.5%
16.9%
16.3%
14.7%
13.6%
12.0%
10.6%
10.7%
10.5%
10.3%
10.4%
9.3%
8.6%
8.6%
7.6%
7.0%
5.9%
4.9%
7.2%
Automatic
with
Lockup
0.3%
-
-
7.1%
8.8%
16.9%
33.4%
51.3%
56.7%
58.3%
58.8%
58.1%
59.7%
66.2%
69.3%
72.8%
73.6%
76.4%
77.6%
78.9%
81.9%
83.8%
85.5%
87.6%
88.8%
88.3%
88.5%
89.1%
88.2%
88.8%
88.6%
88.6%
82.6%
81.7%
82.4%
79.5%
75.7%
Automatic
without
Lockup
80.0%
82.8%
83.1%
73.0%
69.7%
51.6%
36.2%
19.1%
16.9%
17.6%
18.5%
17.2%
15.5%
9.6%
9.5%
7.4%
5.8%
6.0%
4.9%
4.1%
1.8%
1.5%
0.8%
0.3%
0.6%
1.0%
0.8%
0.2%
-
0.2%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.3%
0.3%
1.7%
3.2%
CVT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
1.4%
1.7%
2.7%
2.8%
9.9%
11.1%
11.3%
13.9%
13.8%
4 Gears
or
Fewer
98.7%
100.0%
100.0%
90.8%
93.1%
87.6%
85.5%
84.6%
80.8%
82.2%
81.4%
79.7%
78.4%
80.3%
81.9%
82.4%
81.0%
83.6%
83.2%
83.4%
83.4%
85.1%
83.5%
82.6%
83.7%
81.5%
78.7%
76.0%
67.1%
64.4%
57.1%
47.0%
36.8%
39.2%
34.8%
29.2%
14.1%
7 Gears
5 6 or
Gears Gears More
1.3%
_
_
9.2%
6.9%
12.4%
14.5%
15.4%
19.2%
17.8%
18.6%
20.3%
21.6%
19.7%
17.9% 0.0%
17.5% 0.1%
18.9% 0.1%
16.3% 0.1%
16.6% 0.2%
16.3% 0.3%
16.2% 0.4%
14.5% 0.3%
16.2% 0.3%
17.1% 0.3%
15.8% 0.5%
17.6% 0.8%
19.9% 1.1%
21.8% 1.8%
28.5% 3.0%
28.8% 4.7% 0.4%
34.1% 5.6% 0.4%
36.4% 12.0% 1.8%
35.1% 16.0% 2.2%
28.7% 18.5% 2.5%
30.4% 20.5% 3.0%
21.2% 32.5% 3.3%
18.2% 48.5% 5.3%
CVT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
0.0%
0.1%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
1.4%
1.7%
2.7%
2.8%
9.9%
11.1%
11.3%
13.9%
13.8%
Average
Number
of
Gears
-
-
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.8
4.9
5.1
5.5
Front
Wheel
Drive
6.5%
5.8%
6.8%
9.6%
11.9%
29.7%
37.0%
45.5%
47.1%
53.4%
61.0%
70.7%
76.3%
80.8%
81.5%
83.9%
81.0%
78.4%
80.5%
81.3%
79.3%
81.7%
81.4%
81.5%
81.8%
79.1%
79.1%
78.5%
78.0%
77.1%
78.1%
74.8%
79.8%
78.2%
83.8%
83.3%
81.6%
Rear
Wheel
Drive
93.5%
94.2%
93.2%
90.4%
87.8%
69.4%
62.3%
53.7%
49.9%
45.6%
36.9%
28.3%
22.6%
18.4%
17.5%
15.1%
17.6%
20.6%
18.4%
18.3%
19.5%
16.9%
17.0%
16.4%
16.1%
19.0%
18.1%
18.1%
18.9%
18.1%
16.8%
20.1%
15.2%
15.5%
10.3%
11.6%
12.4%
Four
Wheel
Drive
-
-
0.3%
0.9%
0.7%
0.8%
3.1%
1.0%
2.1%
1.0%
1.1%
0.8%
1.0%
1.0%
1.3%
1.1%
1.1%
0.4%
1.1%
1.4%
1.6%
2.1%
2.1%
1.9%
2.9%
3.4%
3.1%
4.7%
5.1%
5.1%
5.0%
6.3%
5.9%
5.0%
6.0%
52
-------
Table 14 (continued)
Transmission and Drive Characteristics of MY 1975 to MY 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Manual
37.1%
34.8%
31.8%
32.2%
35.2%
53.1%
51.7%
46.1%
46.3%
42.6%
37.8%
43.1%
40.6%
35.8%
32.9%
28.1%
31.6%
27.5%
24.7%
23.7%
20.6%
16.0%
14.5%
13.9%
9.4%
8.4%
6.6%
5.1%
4.8%
3.7%
2.9%
3.4%
2.6%
2.2%
2.0%
1.8%
1.7%
Automatic
with
Lockup
-
-
-
-
2.1%
24.4%
31.0%
33.3%
36.1%
34.7%
41.3%
41.5%
43.8%
52.5%
56.4%
67.6%
66.8%
71.3%
74.2%
75.3%
78.5%
83.0%
85.4%
85.5%
90.2%
91.3%
93.0%
94.6%
94.2%
95.4%
95.2%
93.8%
94.3%
94.9%
92.4%
92.5%
89.9%
Automatic
without
Lockup CVT
62.9%
65.2%
68.2%
67.8%
62.7%
22.5%
17.3%
20.6%
17.3%
22.8%
20.8%
15.4%
15.6%
11.7%
10.7%
4.3%
1.6%
1.2%
1.1%
1.0%
0.9%
1.0%
0.1%
0.6%
0.4%
0.3%
0.4%
0.3% 0.0%
0.3% 0.7%
0.3% 0.6%
1.8%
2.9%
3.1%
2.8%
5.6%
0.2% 5.5%
2.5% 5.8%
4 Gears
or
Fewer
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
99.3%
96.0%
89.2%
86.0%
83.7%
81.6%
78.5%
78.5%
69.0%
70.1%
68.3%
70.3%
74.1%
69.0%
74.6%
75.9%
76.7%
79.6%
84.0%
80.8%
81.4%
85.5%
87.0%
83.9%
78.6%
71.9%
63.1%
54.4%
48.9%
46.3%
38.1%
24.2%
16.5%
12.2%
7
Gears
5 6 or
Gears Gears More CVT
_
0.7%
4.0%
10.8%
14.0%
16.3%
18.4%
21.5%
21.5%
31.0%
29.9%
31.7%
29.7%
25.9%
31.0%
25.4%
24.1%
23.3%
20.4%
16.0%
19.2%
18.6%
14.5%
13.0%
16.1%
21.3% - - 0.0%
27.4% - - 0.7%
35.4% 0.8% - 0.6%
41.6% 2.2% - 1.8%
43.4% 4.0% 0.8% 2.9%
37.6% 12.0% 1.1% 3.1%
37.0% 20.7% 1.3% 2.8%
34.4% 34.1% 1.7% 5.6%
27.7% 48.3% 2.0% 5.5%
19.0% 58.7% 4.3% 5.8%
Average
Number
of
Gears
-
-
3.3
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.8
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.6
Front
Wheel
Drive
-
-
-
1.4%
1.9%
1.7%
1.4%
5.0%
7.3%
6.0%
7.6%
9.2%
10.2%
15.8%
10.3%
14.5%
16.8%
13.8%
18.7%
21.8%
14.7%
19.8%
17.9%
20.4%
14.1%
15.8%
15.1%
11.7%
19.4%
17.5%
14.2%
15.9%
16.0%
16.6%
14.7%
Rear
Wheel
Drive
82.7%
76.8%
76.0%
70.7%
81.9%
73.5%
78.0%
78.1%
72.5%
63.5%
61.2%
63.3%
60.1%
56.6%
56.9%
52.3%
52.2%
52.0%
50.4%
47.0%
38.2%
37.3%
37.7%
33.9%
32.8%
32.3%
33.9%
28.2%
31.3%
27.7%
24.8%
25.5%
26.4%
23.2%
20.9%
17.6%
24.1%
Four
Wheel
Drive
17.3%
23.2%
24.0%
29.3%
18.1%
25.1%
20.1%
20.2%
26.2%
31.6%
31.5%
30.8%
32.3%
34.2%
32.9%
31.9%
37.4%
33.5%
32.8%
39.2%
43.0%
40.9%
47.6%
46.2%
49.2%
47.3%
52.0%
56.0%
53.7%
60.6%
55.8%
57.0%
59.4%
60.9%
63.2%
65.8%
61.3%
53
-------
Table 14 (continued)
Transmission and Drive Characteristics of MY 1975 to MY 2011 Light Duty Vehicles
Cars and Trucks
Model
Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Manual
23.0%
20.9%
19.8%
22.7%
24.2%
34.6%
33.6%
32.4%
30.5%
28.4%
26.5%
29.8%
29.1%
27.6%
24.6%
22.2%
23.9%
20.7%
19.8%
19.5%
17.9%
15.2%
14.0%
12.8%
10.1%
9.7%
9.0%
8.2%
8.0%
6.8%
6.2%
6.5%
5.6%
5.2%
4.7%
3.8%
5.1%
Automatic
with
Lockup
0.2%
-
-
5.5%
7.3%
18.1%
33.0%
47.8%
52.1%
52.8%
54.5%
53.5%
55.4%
62.2%
65.5%
71.2%
71.6%
74.8%
76.5%
77.6%
80.7%
83.5%
85.5%
86.7%
89.4%
89.5%
90.2%
91.3%
90.8%
91.8%
91.4%
90.6%
87.1%
86.8%
85.5%
84.1%
81.1%
Automatic
without
Lockup
76.8%
79.1%
80.2%
71.9%
68.1%
46.8%
32.9%
19.4%
17.0%
18.8%
19.1%
16.7%
15.5%
10.2%
9.9%
6.5%
4.5%
4.5%
3.7%
3.0%
1.4%
1.3%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.7%
0.6%
0.3%
0.1%
0.3%
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.2%
0.2%
1.2%
3.0%
CVT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
1.1%
1.2%
2.3%
2.8%
7.2%
7.9%
9.5%
10.9%
10.8%
4 Gears
or
Fewer
99.0%
100.0%
100.0%
92.7%
93.8%
87.9%
85.6%
84.4%
80.9%
81.3%
80.7%
76.8%
76.2%
76.8%
78.5%
79.9%
77.3%
80.8%
80.9%
80.8%
82.0%
84.7%
82.4%
82.1%
84.4%
83.8%
80.7%
77.1%
69.2%
63.9%
56.0%
47.7%
40.5%
38.8%
31.5%
24.6%
13.4%
7
Gears
5 6 or
Gears Gears More
1.0%
_
_
7.3%
6.2%
12.1%
14.4%
15.6%
19.1%
18.7%
19.3%
23.2%
23.8%
23.2%
21.4% 0.0%
20.0% 0.1%
22.6% 0.0%
19.2% 0.1%
19.0% 0.1%
19.0% 0.2%
17.7% 0.2%
15.1% 0.2%
17.3% 0.2%
17.7% 0.2%
15.3% 0.3%
15.8% 0.5%
18.5% 0.7%
21.6% 1.1%
28.1% 1.7%
31.8% 3.0% 0.2%
37.3% 4.1% 0.2%
39.2% 8.8% 1.4%
36.1% 14.4% 1.8%
31.9% 19.4% 2.0%
31.6% 24.7% 2.6%
23.5% 38.1% 2.8%
18.5% 52.4% 4.9%
CVT
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
-
-
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
0.2%
1.1%
1.2%
2.3%
2.8%
7.2%
7.9%
9.5%
10.9%
10.8%
Average
Number
of
Gears
-
-
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.8
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.6
Front
Wheel
Drive
5.3%
4.6%
5.5%
7.4%
9.2%
25.0%
31.0%
37.0%
37.0%
42.1%
47.8%
52.6%
57.7%
60.0%
60.2%
63.8%
59.6%
58.4%
59.9%
55.6%
57.6%
60.0%
55.8%
56.4%
55.8%
55.5%
53.8%
52.7%
50.7%
47.7%
53.0%
51.9%
54.3%
54.2%
62.7%
59.5%
56.4%
Rear
Wheel
Drive
91.4%
90.6%
89.8%
86.0%
86.5%
70.1%
65.0%
58.4%
54.8%
49.8%
42.9%
38.0%
32.8%
29.5%
29.3%
26.1%
28.1%
30.4%
28.8%
29.2%
26.3%
24.3%
24.9%
23.5%
22.9%
24.3%
24.2%
22.3%
24.3%
22.4%
20.2%
22.3%
19.6%
18.5%
13.6%
13.7%
16.8%
Four
Wheel
Drive
3.3%
4.8%
4.7%
6.6%
4.3%
4.9%
4.0%
4.6%
8.1%
8.2%
9.3%
9.3%
9.6%
10.5%
10.5%
10.1%
12.3%
11.2%
11.3%
15.2%
16.2%
15.7%
19.3%
20.1%
21.3%
20.2%
21.9%
25.0%
25.0%
29.8%
26.8%
25.8%
26.1%
27.3%
23.7%
26.7%
26.8%
54
-------
Table 15
MY 2011 Technology Usage by Vehicle Type and Size
(Percent of Vehicle Type/Size Strata)
Vehicle
Type
Car
Car
Car
Car
Wagon
Wagon
Wagon
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Non-Truck SUV
Van
Van
Van
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Truck SUV
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Vehicle
Size
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
All
Midsize
Large
All
Midsize
Large
All
Small
Midsize
Large
All
Midsize
Large
All
Front
Wheel
Drive
69%
87%
81%
79%
86%
10%
85%
93%
93%
93%
94%
91%
-
0%
15%
8%
-
-
Four
Wheel
Drive
8%
7%
4%
7%
13%
90%
13%
-
-
-
5%
9%
5%
100%
100%
69%
84%
11%
50%
48%
Manual
Trans
19%
2%
1%
8%
13%
-
13%
2%
-
1%
-
23%
2%
0%
2%
27%
1%
2%
Multi-
Valve
93%
100%
79%
93%
100%
100%
100%
98%
100%
99%
99%
-
96%
-
95%
77%
82%
100%
39%
41%
WT
91%
100%
92%
95%
92%
100%
92%
98%
100%
98%
94%
42%
92%
-
95%
99%
93%
46%
90%
88%
Figure 20 shows trends in drive use for the six vehicle classes. Cars and wagons used to be nearly all rear
wheel drive, but are now nearly all front wheel drive and four wheel drive. The trend towards increased use of
front wheel drive for vans is very similar to that for cars, except it started a few years later. Almost all non-truck
SUVs are front wheel drive, while almost all truck SUVs are four wheel drive. Consistent with load-carrying
capabilities, nearly all pickup trucks use either rear or four wheel drive, and four wheel drive is approaching 50% of
pickup production.
55
-------
Figure 19
Transmission Production Share by Model Year
Car Van
03
T3
O
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
Truck SUV
0%
Pickup
L6
Transmission
A3
A4
A5
A6
A7
A8
CVT
L2
L3
L4
L5
L6
L7
L8
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
OT
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
56
-------
Figure 20
Front, Rear, and Four Wheel Drive Usage - Production Share by Vehicle Type
Car Wagon
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
Non-Truck SUV
Van
o
'•5
T3
O
100%
<5 80%
Drive
Four Wheel Drive
Front Wheel Drive
Rear Wheel Drive
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
Truck SUV Pickup
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
57
-------
Table 16 and Figure 21 show production share stratified by number of engine cylinders. Engines with 8, 6,
and 4 cylinders have accounted for 97 to 99% of all engines produced since MY 1975. The 8-cylinder engine was
dominant in the mid and late 1970s, accounting for over half of production. Subsequently, while production share
stratified by number of engine cylinders varied over time, there were two years with notable production shifts. The
first major shift was in MY 1980, when 8-cylinder engine production share dropped from 54% to 26%, and 4-
cylinder production share increased from 26% to 45%. The 4-cylinder engine continued to lead the market until
overtaken by 6-cylinder engines in MY 1992. The second major shift was in MY 2009, when 4-cylinder engines
once again became the production leader with 51% (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 12%. This shift in MY 2009 reversed very slightly
in MY 2010 and is proj ected to continue in MY 2011. Figure 22 breaks out the data for engine cylinders by vehicle
type. It can be seen that 4-cylinder engines account for nearly 70% of cars and about 25% of truck SUVs, but are
used only rarely in pickups and vans. Vans are almost exclusively powered by 6-cylinder engines, and pickups use
mostly 8-cylinder engines. Over one-half of all truck SUVs use 6-cylinder engines.
Figure 21
Production Share by Number of Cylinders
100%
80%
ro
.c
OD
o
"§
60%
40%
20%
0%
Cylinders
Other
8
6
4
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
58
-------
Table 16
Production Share by Number of Cylinders
Model Year
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
4 Cylinder
19.8%
18.2%
18.4%
22.6%
26.2%
45.1%
47.3%
49.0%
47.6%
48.7%
49.2%
53.8%
55.3%
49.6%
47.0%
45.1%
45.7%
38.4%
37.6%
36.4%
36.7%
36.2%
37.4%
35.9%
32.4%
31.7%
32.0%
31.1%
31.8%
28.0%
31.7%
31.5%
36.5%
37.7%
50.8%
50.0%
47.0%
6 Cylinder
17.7%
19.3%
16.0%
20.0%
19.5%
28.3%
28.7%
28.0%
25.3%
26.1%
25.7%
26.5%
28.1%
33.0%
36.4%
39.2%
39.9%
45.6%
47.7%
46.0%
46.0%
46.9%
42.1%
45.4%
47.2%
48.9%
47.1%
48.8%
46.6%
46.1%
46.2%
47.0%
42.1%
43.4%
35.0%
35.0%
36.1%
8 Cylinder
61.9%
62.2%
65.4%
57.1%
53.6%
25.6%
23.1%
21.9%
25.9%
24.1%
23.7%
18.4%
15.4%
16.3%
15.8%
15.0%
13.2%
14.8%
13.6%
16.5%
16.7%
16.1%
20.1%
17.9%
19.9%
19.0%
20.4%
19.6%
21.3%
23.9%
20.0%
18.9%
19.3%
16.8%
12.4%
13.8%
15.7%
Other
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.3%
0.7%
1.1%
0.9%
1.1%
1.2%
1.1%
1.4%
1.4%
1.2%
1.1%
0.8%
0.7%
1.1%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
0.6%
0.9%
0.5%
0.8%
0.4%
0.5%
0.6%
0.5%
0.3%
2.0%
2.1%
2.6%
2.1%
2.1%
1.9%
1.2%
1.2%
59
-------
03
o
T3
O
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Figure 22
Production Share by Cylinder Count and Vehicle Type
Car
Van
Truck SUV
Cylinders
Other
8
6
4
Pickup
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
60
-------
Table 17 and Figure 23 compare engine horsepower (HP), engine displacement (CID), and specific power
or horsepower per cubic inch (HP/CID) for cars, vans, truck SUVs, and pickups. For all four vehicle types,
significant CID reductions occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Engine displacement has been flat for cars
and vans since the mid-1980s and has declined for truck SUVs since the mid-1990s, but has been increasing for two
decades for pickups. Average horsepower has increased substantially for all of these vehicle types since MY 1981
(with a small decrease in MY 2009) with the highest increase occurring for pickups whose horsepower is now over
2.5 times what it was then (i.e., 307 versus 115). Light-duty vehicle engines, thus, have also improved in specific
power with the highest specific power being for engines used in passenger cars and truck SUVs. The use of
cylinder deactivation has been popular in pickup trucks, now used in over one-third of the pickup fleet.
Table 17
MY 2011 Engine Characteristics by Vehicle Type
Multi- Cylinder
Vehicle Type HP CID HP/CID Valve WT Deactivation
Car 198 159 1.25 95% 95% 3%
Van 262 215 1.23 96% 92% 17%
Truck SUV 261 219 1.22 82% 93% 17%
Pickup 307 289 1.08 41% 88% 38%
All 228 191 1.22 85% 94% 11%
61
-------
Car
300
250
200
150
100
300
250
200
150
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
Figure 23
Horsepower, CID, and Horsepower per CID
Van Truck SUV Pickup
••*"
..-.
.
••• •••"• .««..«•.„
.--•
•.••••*•
HP
CID
HP/CID
_l._l._l._l._l.hJhJhJ _1._1._1._1._1.|SJ|SJ|SJ _l._l._l._l._l.hJhJhJ _1._1._1._1._1.|SJ|SJ|SJ
CDCDCDCDCDOOO CDCDCDCDCDOOO CDCDCDCDCDOOO CDCDCDCDCDOOO
^JCDCDCDCDOO-i- ^JCDCDCDCDOO-i- ^JCDCDCDCDOO-i- ^JCDCDCDCDOO-i-
CJiOCJiOCJiOCJiO CJiOCJiOCJiOCJiO CJiOCJiOCJiOCJiO CJiOCJiOCJiOCJiO
Model Year
Table 18 compares HP, CID, and HP/CID by vehicle type and number of cylinders for model years 1988
and 2011. Table 18 shows that the increase in horsepower shown for the fleet in Table 13 extends to all vehicle
type and cylinder number strata. These increases in horsepower range from 50 to 130%. Because displacement has
remained relatively constant, it can be seen that the primary reason for the horsepower increase is increased specific
power - up between 47 and 124% from MY 1988 to 2011.
At the number-of-cylinders level of stratification, model year 2011 cars and truck SUVs generally achieve
higher specific power than vans or pickups. One reason for the lower specific power of some truck engines is that
these vehicles may be used to carry heavy loads or pull trailers and thus need more "torque rise," (i.e., an increase
in torque as engine speed falls from the peak power point) to achieve acceptable drivability. Engines equipped with
four valves per cylinder typically have inherently lower torque rise than two valve engines with lower specific
power.
62
-------
Table 18
Changes in Horsepower and Specific Power by Vehicle Type and Number of Cylinders
Vehicle Type
Car
Car
Car
Van
Van
Van
SUV
SUV
SUV
Pickup
Pickup
Pickup
Cylinders
4
6
8
4
6
8
4
6
8
4
6
8
HP
1988
95
142
164
98
149
168
94
148
184
97
142
180
HP
2011
158
266
378
147
269
269
178
270
349
156
274
333
Percent
Change
66%
87%
130%
50%
81%
60%
89%
82%
90%
61%
93%
85%
CID
1988
118
194
301
145
213
322
121
214
338
142
229
329
CID
2011
129
208
312
128
216
311
148
213
332
154
231
321
Percent
Change
9%
7%
4%
-11%
2%
-4%
22%
0%
-2%
9%
1%
-2%
HP/
CID 1988
0.805
0.743
0.543
0.678
0.722
0.520
0.775
0.703
0.544
0.685
0.644
0.544
HP/
CID 2011
1.233
1.287
1.216
1.147
1.245
0.866
1.210
1.270
1.056
1.007
1.205
1.036
Percent
Change
53%
73%
124%
69%
72%
67%
56%
81%
94%
47%
87%
90%
Table 19 shows similar data to those in Table 18, but the stratification is based on vehicle weight. This
table clearly shows that, for nearly every case for which a comparison can be made between 1988 and 2011, there
were increases in HP, decreases in CID, and substantial increases in specific power ranging from 45 to 181%.
63
-------
Table 19
Changes in Horsepower and Specific Power by Vehicle Type and Weight
Cars
Weight
(Ib)
2000
2250
2500
2750
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
HP
1988
59
73
79
97
114
150
160
145
207
205
205
HP
2011
70
95
105
115
138
179
249
298
387
504
373
Percent
Change
19%
30%
33%
19%
21%
19%
56%
106%
87%
146%
82%
CID
1988
77
90
100
123
145
212
289
306
408
412
412
CID
2011
61
81
91
97
112
145
198
232
272
378
308
Percent
Change
-21%
-10%
-9%
-21%
-23%
-32%
-31%
-24%
-33%
-8%
-25%
HP/CID
1988
0.770
0.808
0.785
0.804
0.797
0.731
0.569
0.473
0.509
0.498
0.498
HP/CID
2011
1.148
1.170
1.149
1.183
1.243
1.238
1.264
1.302
1.430
1.334
1.183
Percent
Change
49%
45%
46%
47%
56%
69%
122%
175%
181%
168%
138%
Vans
Weight
(Ib)
3500
4500
5000
5500
6000
HP
1988
123
169
156
195
126
HP
2011
140
269
249
262
279
Percent
Change
14%
59%
60%
34%
121%
CID
1988
166
321
312
347
379
CID
2011
122
215
236
306
326
Percent
Change
-27%
-33%
-24%
-12%
-14%
HP/CID
1988
0.736
0.528
0.500
0.562
0.332
HP/CID
2011
1.148
1.249
1.082
0.851
0.858
Percent
Change
56%
137%
116%
51%
158%
Truck SUVs
Weight
(Ib)
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
HP
1988
149
135
148
181
200
162
HP
2011
173
198
254
292
344
339
Percent
Change
16%
47%
72%
61%
72%
109%
CID
1988
213
190
309
330
350
368
CID
2011
149
166
211
219
276
329
Percent
Change
-30%
-13%
-32%
-34%
-21%
-11%
HP/CID
1988
0.709
0.723
0.505
0.545
0.572
0.445
HP/CID
2011
1.161
1.203
1.222
1.335
1.281
1.033
Percent
Change
64%
66%
142%
145%
124%
132%
Pickups
Weight
(Ib)
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
HP
1988
130
154
174
193
178
140
HP
2011
155
211
240
287
330
356
Percent
Change
19%
37%
38%
49%
85%
154%
CID
1988
184
282
322
342
363
379
CID
2011
153
221
242
288
315
286
Percent
Change
-17%
-22%
-25%
-16%
-13%
-25%
HP/CID
1988
0.719
0.555
0.539
0.565
0.495
0.369
HP/CID
2011
1.014
0.960
0.994
1.002
1.056
1.286
Percent
Change
41%
73%
84%
77%
113%
249%
64
-------
Figure 24 shows that increases in HP per CID apply to all of the engines, except for a few cases of engines
with three valves. Engines with more valves per cylinder deliver higher values of HP per CID. Engines with only
two valves per cylinder deliver approximately twice as much horsepower per CID than they used to. The increases
in HP and HP/CID are due to changes in engine technologies.
Figure 24
HP/CID by Number of Valves per Cylinder
Q
o
o
Q.
CD
£
O
I
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Car
Van
Truck SUV
Pickup
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
65
-------
Figure 25 shows that usage of multi-valve engines continues to increase and, as shown in Table 17 for MY
2011, is now 80-90% for cars, vans and SUVs, and about 40% for pickups.
Figure 25
Production Share by Valves per Cylinder
Car
Van
.
03
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
o%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Truck SUV
Pickup
Valves
2
3
4
5
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
66
-------
Figure 26 and Table 20 show how the car and truck fleet have evolved from one that consisted almost
entirely of carbureted engines in the 1970s and early 1980s, to one which is now almost entirely port fuel injected
with variable valve timing.
Figure 26
Production Share by Engine Type
Car Truck
03
.C
C/)
c
O
'•G
T3
O
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 20101975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Model Year
Table 20
Production Share of MY 1988 and MY 2011 Light Vehicles
by Engine Type and Valve Timing
Engine Type
Carb
TBI
Port Fixed
Port Variable
GDI Variable
Diesel
Hybrid
Cars
1988
16%
30%
54%
-
-
0%
Cars
2011
-
-
4%
76%
14%
1%
5%
Vans
1988
0%
43%
57%
-
-
0%
Vans
2011
-
-
8%
92%
-
-
SUVs
1988
18%
34%
48%
-
-
0%
SUVs
2011
-
-
6%
70%
21%
1%
3%
Pickups
1988
16%
48%
35%
-
-
0%
Pickups
2011
-
-
12%
81%
7%
-
0%
All
1988
15%
34%
51%
-
-
0%
All
2011
-
-
6%
76%
14%
1%
4%
67
-------
Table 21 compares horsepower, engine size (CID), specific power (HP/CID), Ton- mpg, and estimated 0-
to-60 acceleration time for two selected MY 1988 and five MY 2011 engine types.
Table 21
Comparison of MY 1988 and MY 2011 Cars by Engine Fuel Metering,
Number of Valves and Valve Timing
Ton Ton O-to-60 O-to-60
Fuel Number HP HP CID CID HP/CID HP/CID MPG MPG Time Time
Metering of Valves Valve Timing 1988 2011 1988 2011 1988 2011 1988 2011 1988 2011
Carb
TBI
Port
Port
TBI
GDI
Port
4
2
4
2
4
2
Fixed
Fixed
Variable
Variable
Fixed
Variable
Fixed
88
71
98
137
-
-
232
191
-
246
306
131
91
-
142
193
-
-
236
154
-
166
292
0.75
0.78
0.71
0.74
-
-
0.98
1.23
-
1.51
1.05
37.2
38.1
36.8
36.6
-
-
46.4
45.4
-
47.8
39.5
14.3
15.0
13.7
11.9
-
-
9.2
9.7
-
8.5
8.1
Percent Change over MY 1988 Port Two Valve, Fixed Valve Timing Base Model
Fuel
Metering
Carb
TBI
Port
Port
TBI
GDI
Port
Number
of Valves
-
4
2
4
2
4
2
Valve Timing
Fixed
Fixed
Variable
Variable
Fixed
Variable
Fixed
HP
1988
-35.8%
-48.2%
-28.5%
-
HP
2011
-
-
69.3%
39.4%
-
79.6%
123.4%
CID
1988
-32.1%
-52.8%
-26.4%
-
CID
2011
-
-
22.3%
-20.2%
-
-14.0%
51.3%
HP/CID
1988
1.4%
5.4%
-4.1%
-
-
HP/CID
2011
-
-
32.4%
66.2%
-
104.1%
41.9%
Ton
MPG
1988
1.6%
4.1%
-
-
0.5%
-
-
Ton
MPG
2011
-
-
26.8%
24.0%
-
30.6%
7.9%
O-to-60
Time
1988
20.2%
26.1%
15.1%
-
O-to-60
Time
2011
-
-
-22.7%
-18.5%
-
-28.6%
-31.9%
Because MY 1988 was the peak year for car fuel economy until recently, and because the two valve, fixed
valve timing, port injected engine accounted for about half of the car engines built that year, the MY 1988 version
of this engine was selected as a baseline engine with its average characteristics compared to four MY 2011 engine
configurations. As shown in Figure 27, all of these MY 2011 engine types had substantially higher horsepower
than the baseline MY 1988 engine, and substantially higher specific power. Not all of these improvements in
engine design for these engine types that occurred between 1988 and 2011 were used to improve fuel economy as
indicated by the nominal 20% decrease in O-to-60 time each achieved. Obtaining increased power to weight in a
time when weight is trending upwards implies that horsepower is increasing. Increased horsepower can be obtained
by increasing the engine's displacement, the engine's specific power (HP/CID), or both. Increasing specific power
has been the primary driver for increases in performance for the past two decades.
68
-------
Figure 27
Percent Difference in MY 2011 Vehicle Characteristics from MY 1988
Port/2 Valve/Fixed Valve Timing Car Engine
0 to 60 Time
Ton-MPG
HP/CID
Engine
Port 4 Valve Variable
Port 4 Valve Fixed
Port 2 Valve Fixed
GDI 4 Valve Variable
CID
-40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140%
Percent Change
For the current model year fleet, specific power has been studied at an even more detailed level of
stratification with both car and truck engines being classified according to: (1) the number of valves per cylinder,
(2) the manufacturer's fuel recommendation, (3) the presence or absence of an intake boost device such as a
turbocharger or supercharger, and (4) whether or not the engine had fixed or variable valve timing. Higher HP/CID
is associated with: (a) more valves per cylinder, (b) higher octane fuel, (c) intake boost, and (d) use of variable
valve timing. The technical approaches result in specific power ranges for cars and trucks from about .9 to about
1.9. The relative production fractions in Table 22 are just for each technical option in the table and exclude
hybrids.
Rotary engines, which are included in Table 22, present a unique challenge when it comes to determining
an engine displacement value that is meaningful in comparison to a standard 4-stroke internal combustion engine.
This report uses the displacement as reported by the manufacturers for the one rotary engine on the market for MY
2011. The Mazda RX-8 has a published displacement of 79.3 cubic inches and 232 hp (manual transmission),
which results in a HP/CID of 2.9. The HP/CID value in Table 22 for non-boosted, 2 valve fixed timing, premium
fuel vehicles appears high due to the inclusion of the Mazda rotary engine. Sales of this category are limited to
0.1% of the fleet.
69
-------
Table 22 shows the incremental effect, on a production weighted basis, of adding each technical option, but
not all of the technical options are production significant. The effect of the use of higher octane fuel cannot be
discounted, because roughly 15% of the current car fleet is comprised of vehicles which use engines for which high
octane fuel is recommended. By comparison, about 9% of this year's light trucks require premium fuel.
Engine technology which delivers improved specific power thus can be used in many ways ranging from
reduced displacement and improved fuel economy at constant (or lower) performance, to increased performance
and the same fuel economy at constant displacement.
Table 22
HP/CID and Production Share by Fuel and Engine Technology
MY 2011 Cars
Fuel
Regular
Regular
Regular
Regular
Premium
Premium
Premium
Premium
Diesel
Total
Boost
No Boost
No Boost
Boost
Boost
No Boost
No Boost
Boost
Boost
Boost
Valve
Timing
Fixed
Variable
Fixed
Variable
Fixed
Variable
Fixed
Variable
-
2 Valve 2 Valve 3 Valve 3 Valve 4 Valve 4 Valve 5 Valve 5 Valve Total
HP/ Production HP/ Production HP/ Production HP/ Production Production
CID Fraction CID Fraction CID Fraction CID Fraction Fraction
0.97
1.05
1.69
-
1.97
1.16
1.47
1.22
-
-
1.2%
4.0%
0.0%
-
0.1%
0.1%
0.1% 1.65
0.0% 1.52
-
5.4%
1.19
1.20
1.72
1.78
1.11
1.32
0.0%
0.0% 1.73
1.21
0.0%
2.4%
73.9%
0.1%
3.1%
0.0%
10.0% 1.34
-
4.2%
0.8%
94.6%
3.6%
77.9%
0.1%
3.1%
0.2%
0.0% 10.0%
0.0%
4.2%
0.8%
0.0% 100.0%
MY 2011 Trucks
2 Valve 2 Valve 3 Valve 3 Valve 4 Valve 4 Valve 5 Valve 5 Valve Total
Valve HP/ Production HP/ Production HP/ Production HP/ Production Production
Fuel Boost Timing CID Fraction CID Fraction CID Fraction CID Fraction Fraction
Regular
Regular
Regular
Premium
Premium
Premium
Premium
Diesel
Total
No Boost
No Boost
Boost
No Boost
No Boost
Boost
Boost
Boost
Fixed 0.89 7.0%
Variable 1.01 24.6% 0.94
Variable
Fixed - - -
Variable - - -
Fixed - - 1.51
Variable - - -
_
31.6%
1.07
1.0% 1.22
1.68
0.96
1.24
0.0%
1.70
1.28
1.0%
1.5%
53.8%
3.1%
0.0%
6.4%
-
2.2%
0.3%
67.4%
8.5%
79.4%
3.1%
0.0%
6.4%
0.0%
2.2%
0.3%
100.0%
One engine technology development that began in MY 2005 is the reintroduction of cylinder deactivation,
an automotive technology that was used by General Motors in some MY 1981 V-8 engines that could be operated
in 8-, 6- and 4-cylinder modes. This approach, which has also been called by a number of names including
Variable displacement', 'displacement on demand', 'active fuel management' and 'multiple displacement', involves
allowing the valves of selected cylinders of the engine to remain closed and interrupting the fuel supply to these
70
-------
cylinders when engine power demands are below a predetermined threshold, as typically happens under less
demanding driving conditions, such as steady state operation or during idle. Under light load conditions, the engine
can thus provide better fuel mileage than would otherwise be achieved. Although frictional and thermodynamic
energy losses still occur in the cylinders that are not being used, these losses are more than offset by the increased
load and reduced specific fuel consumption of the remaining cylinders. Typically half of the usual number of
cylinders is deactivated. Challenges to the engine designer for this type of engine include mode transitions, idle
quality, and noise and vibration. For MY 2011, as shown previously in Table 17, it is estimated that about 11% of
all vehicles are equipped with cylinder deactivation.
Table 23 compares five examples of individual MY 2011 vehicles with cylinder deactivation to vehicles
with similar characteristics. No vehicles are currently offered with and without cylinder deactivation in the same
engine, so direct a direct comparison of fuel economy is not available. Table 23 compares vehicles with cylinder
deactivation to vehicles that are in the same inertia weight class and have similar displacement, horsepower,
transmission, and drive properties. While there are many other factors that affect fuel economy (which are not
considered in this comparison), four out of the five vehicles with cylinder deactivation that are included in Table 23
show an increase in fuel economy.
Table 23
Comparison of MY 2010 Vehicles with Engines with Cylinder Deactivation
MY 2011 Cars
Car Class
Model Name
Weight Engine Engine Lab Cyl. Pet. Change
Drive Trans (Ib) CID HP 55/45 Deact. HP MPG
Compact Car
Subcompact
Large Sedan
Midsize Non-Truck SUV
ACCORD 2DR COUPE
ALTI MA COUPE
ACCORD 4DR SEDAN
RAV4 2WD
Front
Front
Front
Front
M6
M6
L5
L5
3500
3500
4000
4000
214
214
214
211
271
270
271
269
26.7
27.9
31.0
28.9
Yes
No
Yes
No
0%
1%
-4%
7%
Car Class
Model Name
MY 2011 Trucks
Weight Engine Engine Lab Cyl. Pet. Change
Drive Trans (Ib) CID HP 55/45 Deact. HP MPG
Midsize Van
Midsize Van
Large SUV
Large Pickup
Large Pickup
Large Pickup
ODYSSEY 2WD
ENTOURAGE
K1500 YUKON DENALI AWD
K15 SIERRA 4WD
Ram 1500 2WD
TITAN 2WD
Front
Front
4WD
4WD
Rear
Rear
L6
L6
L6
L6
L5
L5
4500
4500
6000
6000
5000
5000
214
214
378
378
348
342
248
271
403
403
390
317
29.0
26.8
20.6
18.2
20.5
19.3
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
-9%
0%
19%
7%
12%
5%
Figure 28 compares historical industry-wide market penetration rates for five mature passenger car
technologies, namely fuel injection (summing the values for all of the individual fuel injection technologies in
Table 13), front wheel drive (FWD), multi-valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per cylinder),
engines with variable valve timing, and lockup transmissions. Figure 28 indicates that, in the past, after the first
significant use, it has often taken an additional decade for a new technology to attain an industry-wide car
production fraction of 20 to 60%, and often as long as another five or ten years to reach maximum market
penetration. It is interesting to note that individual manufacturers, including those with large numbers of vehicle
platforms and engine families, have often integrated new technologies much more quickly relative to the industry-
wide time frames shown in Figure 28.
71
-------
Figure 28
Industry-Wide Car Technology Penetration After First Significant Use
cc
.c
C/)
100%
80%
60%
o
t3 40%
T3
O
20%
0%
Fuel Injection
/ Front Wheel Drive
Lockup
Multi-Valve
Variable Valve Timing
5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Years After First Use
Table 24 compares fuel economy ratings, the ratio of highway to city fuel economy, and ton-mpg of the
MY 2011 diesel and hybrid vehicles with those for the average MY 2011 car and truck. All but one of the hybrid
vehicles in the table have a lower highway/city ratio than the average car or truck. In addition, there are several
cases in the table for which the highway to city ratio is less than 1.0, and these represent cases where a vehicle
achieves higher fuel economy in city than in highway driving. This year's diesel cars achieve ton-mpg values that
are roughly the same as some of the hybrid cars. For MY 2011, the Toyota Prius has the highest adjusted
composite fuel economy value for any hybrid of 49.3 mpg and several diesel vehicles have adjusted composite fuel
economy values of 35-36 mpg. The Prius achieves 86 ton-mpg, which is 82% higher than that of the average car.
Most of the vehicles in Table 24 have conventionally powered counterparts. Tables 25 and 26 compare the
adjusted composite fuel economy and an estimate of annual fuel usage (assuming 15,000 miles per year) for these
vehicles with their conventionally powered (baseline) counterparts. The comparisons in both tables are limited to a
basis of model name, drive, weight, transmission, and engine size (CID). Differences in the performance attributes
of these vehicles complicate the analysis of the fuel economy improvement potential due to hybridization and
dieselization. In particular, hybrid vehicles are sometimes reported to have faster O-to-60 acceleration times than
their conventional counterparts, while vehicles equipped with diesel engines often have higher low-end torque, but
slower O-to-60 times. In addition, some hybrid vehicles use technologies such as cylinder deactivation and CVT
transmissions that are not offered in their counterparts.
Fuel economy improvements for the hybrid vehicles in Table 25 vary considerably from 5-10% for the
larger, luxury hybrid vehicles to over 40%. Similarly, Table 26 shows fuel economy improvements for diesels
range from 15% to 30%.
72
-------
Table 24
Characteristics of MY 2011 Diesel and Hybrid Vehicles
Diesel Cars
Model Name
335d
A3
E350BLUETEC
GOLF
GOLF
Jetta
Jetta
JETTASPORTWAGEN
JETTASPORTWAGEN
Fleetwide Cars
Transmission
L6
L6
L7
L6
M6
L6
M6
L6
M6
Weight
(Ib)
4000
3500
4500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3589
CID
(cu in)
183
120
182
120
120
120
120
120
120
159
Lab
55/45
MPG
36.0
46.2
34.0
46.2
46.0
46.2
46.0
44.2
46.0
32.8
Adj
City
MPG
22.7
29.9
21.8
29.9
29.6
29.9
29.6
28.9
29.6
21.7
Adj
Hwy
MPG
36.1
41.6
33.4
41.6
41.7
41.6
41.7
39.5
41.7
30.4
Adj
Comp
MPG
28.8
35.6
27.2
35.6
35.5
35.6
35.5
34.1
35.5
25.9
Ton-
MPG
57.6
62.3
61.1
62.3
62.1
62.3
62.1
59.6
62.1
47.4
Hwy/
City
Ratio
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
Hybrid Cars
Model Name
ActiveHybrid 7
ActiveHybrid 7L
CAMRY HYBRID
CIVIC HYBRID
CR-Z
CR-Z
CT 200h
ESCAPE HYBRID FWD
FUSION HYBRID FWD
GS 450h
HS 250h
INSIGHT
LS 600h L
MKZ HYBRID FWD
OPTIMA HYBRID
PRIUS
S400 HYBRID
SONATA HYBRID
TRIBUTE HYBRID 2WD
Fleetwide Cars
Transmission
L8
L8
CVT
CVT
CVT
M6
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
A6
CVT
L7
A6
CVT
Weight
(Ib)
5000
5000
4000
3000
3000
3000
3500
4000
4000
4500
4000
3000
5500
4000
3500
3500
5000
3500
4000
3589
CID
(cu in)
269
269
144
79
92
92
110
153
153
211
144
79
303
153
146
110
213
146
153
159
Lab
55/45
MPG
25.6
25.6
45.9
58.8
50.1
44.9
57.5
44.1
54.2
30.8
47.3
57.1
26.9
54.2
50.6
70.8
27.5
52.2
44.1
32.8
Adj
City
MPG
17.1
17.1
33.4
40.2
34.8
30.7
42.3
34.0
41.4
21.9
35.3
40.1
19.6
41.4
35.1
50.8
18.6
35.4
34.0
21.7
Adj
Hwy
MPG
24.1
24.1
34.1
45.3
39.1
36.8
40.0
30.5
36.4
25.3
33.6
42.6
21.8
36.4
39.5
48.2
25.1
41.9
30.5
30.4
Adj
Comp
MPG
20.5
20.5
33.8
42.9
37.1
33.9
41.0
31.9
38.4
23.8
34.3
41.5
20.8
38.4
37.5
49.3
21.8
38.8
31.9
25.9
Ton-
MPG
51.3
51.3
67.6
64.4
55.7
50.9
71.7
63.9
76.8
53.5
68.6
62.2
57.2
76.8
65.6
86.3
54.6
67.9
63.9
47.4
Hwy/
City
Ratio
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.2
0.9
1.4
73
-------
Table 24 (continued)
Diesel Trucks
Lab Adj Adj Adj Hwy/
Weight CID 55/45 City Hwy Comp Ton- City
Model Name Transmission (Ib) (cu in) MPG MPG MPG MPG MPG Ratio
GL 350 BLUETEC 4MATIC
ML350BLUETEC4MATIC
Q7
R350BLUETEC4MATIC
TOUAREG
X5 xDrive35d
Fleetwide Trucks
L7 6000
L7 5000
L8 6000
L7 5500
L8 5000
L6 5500
4905
182
182
181
182
181
183
245
24.8
27.1
26.4
26.3
28.9
28.2
23.6
16.9
18.4
17.0
17.9
18.6
18.9
16.0
22.7
24.7
26.8
23.9
29.0
26.1
21.9
19.8
21.5
21.5
20.9
23.4
22.5
18.9
59.3
53.7
64.5
57.5
58.5
61.8
46.6
1.3
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.4
Hybrid Trucks
Model Name
ActiveHybrid X6
C15 SIERRA 2WD HYBRID
C15 SILVERADO 2WD HYBRID
C1500TAHOE 2WD HYBRID
C1500 YUKON 2WD HYBRID
Cayennes Hybrid
ESCALADE 2WD HYBRID
ESCALADE 4WD HYBRID
ESCAPE HYBRID 4WD
HIGHLANDER HYBRID 4WD
K15 SIERRA 4WD HYBRID
K15 SILVERADO 4WD HYBRID
K1500TAHOE4WD HYBRID
K1500 YUKON 4WD HYBRID
K1500 YUKON DENALI HYBRID 4WD
ML450HYBRID4MATIC
RX 450h
RX 450h AWD
Touareg Hybrid
TRIBUTE HYBRID 4WD
Fleetwide Trucks
Transmission
L7
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
L8
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
L8
CVT
Weight
(Ib) 1
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
5500
6000
6500
4000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6500
5500
5000
5000
5500
4000
4905
CID
[cu in)
269
366
366
366
366
183
366
366
153
211
366
366
366
366
366
213
211
211
183
153
245
Lab
55/45
MPG
23.1
28.5
28.5
28.5
28.5
28.1
28.5
28.0
39.0
38.7
28.4
28.4
28.4
28.4
28.0
29.6
40.4
38.6
28.2
39.0
23.6
Adj
City
MPG
16.6
20.4
20.4
20.4
20.4
19.9
20.4
20.0
30.4
30.1
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.0
21.2
31.5
29.5
19.9
30.4
16.0
Adj
Hwy
MPG
19.4
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.8
23.6
23.3
27.2
27.1
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.4
23.3
24.2
27.9
27.6
23.8
27.2
21.9
Adj
Comp
MPG
18.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
21.9
22.1
21.7
28.5
28.3
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
21.7
22.8
29.4
28.4
22.0
28.5
18.9
Ton-
MPG
54.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
66.3
60.3
66.3
70.6
57.0
70.7
65.9
65.9
65.9
65.9
70.6
62.7
73.4
70.9
60.4
57.0
46.6
Hwy/
City
Ratio
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
0.9
0.9
1.2
0.9
1.4
74
-------
Table 25
Comparison of MY 2011 Hybrid Vehicles with Their Conventional Counterparts
Hybrid Version
Model Name
ActiveHybrid7**
ActiveHybrid7L**
ActiveHybrid X6**
CIS SIERRA 2WD HYBRID
CIS SILVERADO 2WD HYBRID
C1500TAHOE 2WD HYBRID
C1500 YUKON 2WD HYBRID
CAMRY HYBRID
Cayennes Hybrid
CIVIC HYBRID
CT200h**
ESCALADE 2WD HYBRID
ESCALADE 4WD HYBRID
ESCAPE HYBRID 4WD
ESCAPE HYBRID FWD
FUSION HYBRID FWD
GS450H**
HIGHLANDER HYBRID 4WD
HS250H**
K15 SIERRA 4WD HYBRID
K15 SILVERADO 4WD HYBRID
K1500 TAHOE 4WD HYBRID
K1500 YUKON 4WD HYBRID
K1500 YUKON DENALI HYBRID 4WD
LS 600h L**
MARINER HYBRID 4WD
MARINER HYBRID FWD
MILAN HYBRID FWD
MKZ HYBRID FWD
ML450 HYBRID 4MATIC**
OPTIMA HYBRID
RX450H**
RX450H AWD**
S400 HYBRID**
SONATA HYBRID
Touareg Hybrid
TRIBUTE HYBRID 2WD
TRIBUTE HYBRID 4WD
Weight
(Ib)
5000
5000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
4000
5500
3000
3500
6000
6500
4000
4000
4000
4500
5000
4000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6500
5500
4000
4000
4000
4000
5500
3500
5000
5000
5000
3500
5500
4000
4000
CID
269
269
269
366
366
366
366
144
183
79
110
366
366
153
153
153
211
211
144
366
366
366
366
366
303
153
153
153
153
213
146
211
211
213
146
183
153
153
Trans
L8
L8
L7
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
L8
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
CVT
A6
CVT
CVT
L7
A6
L8
CVT
CVT
Adj
Comp
MPG
20.5
20.5
18.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
22.1
33.8
21.9
42.9
41.0
22.1
21.7
28.5
31.9
38.4
23.8
28.3
34.3
22.0
22.0
22.0
22.0
21.7
20.8
28.5
31.9
38.4
38.4
22.8
37.5
29.4
28.4
21.8
38.8
22.0
31.9
28.5
Gal
per
Year*
731
731
829
679
679
679
679
444
684
349
366
679
690
526
470
391
631
530
437
683
683
683
683
690
721
526
470
391
391
657
400
511
529
687
386
683
470
526
Weight
(Ib)
4500
5000
5500
5500
5500
6000
6000
3500
5000
3000
4000
6000
6000
4000
4000
3500
4000
4500
4000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
5000
4000
3500
3500
4000
5000
3500
4500
4500
4500
3500
5000
3500
3500
CID
269
269
269
323
323
323
323
152
293
110
153
378
378
153
153
153
211
211
153
323
323
323
323
378
281
153
153
153
214
213
146
211
211
213
146
219
153
153
Baseline
Trans
L6
L6
L8
L6
L6
L6
L6
L6
L8
L5
L6
L6
L6
L6
L6
L6
L6
L5
L6
L6
L6
L6
L6
L6
L8
L6
L6
L6
L6
L7
L6
L6
L6
L7
L6
L8
L6
L6
Improvement
Adj
Comp
MPG
18.0
17.7
17.0
17.7
17.7
17.9
17.9
26.7
19.0
29.6
25.5
17.1
16.7
23.0
24.1
27.6
22.4
19.5
25.5
17.7
17.7
17.6
17.6
16.7
19.2
23.0
24.1
27.6
22.0
17.3
28.6
21.3
21.3
19.2
28.1
19.9
24.4
23.3
Gal
per
Year*
832
846
883
847
847
840
840
562
788
506
589
878
897
652
623
544
669
770
589
847
849
850
850
897
781
652
623
544
681
867
524
703
706
781
533
755
616
644
Adj
Comp
MPG
12%
14%
6%
20%
20%
19%
19%
21%
13%
31%
38%
23%
23%
19%
25%
28%
6%
31%
26%
19%
20%
20%
20%
23%
8%
19%
25%
28%
43%
24%
24%
27%
25%
12%
28%
9%
24%
18%
Gal
per
Year*
101
115
54
168
169
161
161
118
104
157
222
199
206
126
153
153
38
240
152
164
166
167
167
206
60
126
153
153
290
210
124
192
177
94
147
72
146
118
*Note: Gallons per year calculation is based on all vehicles being driven 15,000 miles.
**Note: Baseline version used for the GS 450h comparison is the GS 350. Baseline vehicle used for the LS 600HL comparison is the LS 460L. Baseline
versions used for the Rx 450h and Rx 450h AWD comparison were the Rx 350 and the Rx 350 AWD. Baseline version used for the S400
comparison is the S550 4MATIC
75
-------
Table 26
Comparison of MY 2011 Diesel Vehicles with Their Conventional Counterparts
Model Name
335d
A3
E 350 BLUETEC
GOLF
GOLF
Jetta
Jetta
JETTA SPORTWAGEN
JETTA SPORTWAGEN
GL 350 BLUETEC
4MATIC
ML 350 BLUETEC
4MATIC**
07
R 350 BLUETEC
4MATIC**
TOUAREG
X5xDrive35d**
Diesel
Weight
(Ib)
4000
3500
4500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
3500
6000
5000
6000
5500
5000
5500
Diesel
CID
183
120
182
120
120
120
120
120
120
182
182
181
182
181
183
Diesel
Trans
L6
L6
L7
L6
M6
L6
M6
L6
M6
L7
L7
L8
L7
L8
L6
Diesel
Adj.
Comp.
MPG
28.8
35.6
27.2
35.6
35.5
35.6
35.5
34.1
35.5
19.8
21.5
21.5
20.9
23.4
22.5
Diesel
Gal.
per
Year*
520.7
421.3
552.1
421.3
422.8
421.3
422.8
440.2
422.8
759.2
697.8
698.1
716.9
641.1
667.6
Baseline
Weight
(Ib)
4000
3500
400
3500
3500
3000
3000
3500
3500
6000
5000
6000
5500
5000
5000
Baseline
CID
183
121
213
151
151
121
121
151
151
285
213
183
213
219
183
Baseline
Trans
L6
A6
L7
L6
M5
L6
M5
L6
M5
L7
L7
A8
L7
L8
L8
Baseline
Adj.
Comp.
MPG
23.2
24.6
20.9
26.1
25.8
25.8
27.5
26.1
25.8
15.1
17.3
18.5
17.3
19.9
19.4
Baseline Improvement:
Gal. Adj.
per Comp.
Year* MPG
645
610
718
575
581
582
546
575
581
993
867
813
867
755
773
19%
31%
23%
27%
27%
28%
23%
23%
27%
24%
20%
14%
17%
15%
14%
Improvement:
Gal.
per
Year*
124.8
189.0
166.3
153.7
158.1
160.6
123.6
134.8
158.1
234.2
169.2
114.9
150.1
113.5
105.2
*Note: Gallons per year calculation is based on all vehicles being driven 15,000 miles.
Note: Baseline version used for the R350 Bluetec comparison is the R350 4MATIC. Baseline version used for the GL350 Bluetec comparison is the
GL450 4MATIC. Baseline version used for the ML350 Bluetec comparison is the ML350 4MATIC. Baseline version used for the X5 xDrive
35d comparison is the X5 xDrive 30i.
76
-------
VII. Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make
This report groups vehicles by "manufacturer" and "make." The initial reports in this series examined fuel
economy and technology trends for the "Domestic" and "Import" vehicle categories which are part of the corporate
average fuel economy (CAFE) program. Over time, this classification approach evolved into a market segment
approach in which cars were apportioned to a "Domestic," "European," and "Asian" category, with trucks classified
as "Domestic" or "Imported." More recent reports in this series used "Marketing Groups" to better reflect the
financial arrangements and transnational nature of the modern automobile industry.
This report reflects the manufacturer definitions used by the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) for purposes of implementation of and manufacturer compliance with the CAFE
program. Table 27 lists the 13 manufacturers which had production of 100,000 vehicles or more in MY 2009
and/or MY 2010, which together accounted for approximately 99% of total industry-wide production, and for
which data are shown in Tables 28 through 32 (industry-wide tables in the rest of this report also include production
from those manufacturers that do not meet the 100,000 production threshold).
Make is typically included in the model name and is generally equivalent to the "brand" of the vehicle.
Table 27 also lists the 30 makes for which data are shown in Tables 28 and 29. The MY 2010 production threshold
for makes to be included in Tables 28 and 29 is 40,000 vehicles, though the Smart was included as well because of
the high interest in this make. The Pontiac, Saturn, and Mercury makes no longer exist, but are included since
Tables 28 and 29 also provide data for MY 2009 and 2010.
Table 27
Manufacturers and Makes for MY 2009-2011
Manufacturer
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
Toyota
Honda
Nissan
Hyundai
Volkswagen
Kia
Subaru
BMW
Daimler
Mazda
Others
Makes Above Threshold
Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick, CMC, Pontiac, Saturn
Ford, Lincoln, Mercury
Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram
Toyota, Lexus, Scion
Honda, Acura
Nissan, Infiniti
Hyundai
Volkswagen, Audi
Kia
Subaru
BMW, Mini
Mercedes-Benz, Smart
Mazda
Makes Below Threshold
Hummer
Roush, Shelby
Lamborghini, Bentley, Bugatti
Rolls Royce
Maybach
Mitsubishi, Volvo, Rover, Suzuki, Porsche, Jaguar, Saab,
Ferrari, Maserati, Lotus, Spyker
77
-------
It is important to note that when a manufacturer or make grouping is changed to reflect a change in the
industry's current financial structure, EPA makes the same adjustment for the entire historical database back to
1975. This maintains a consistent manufacturer or make definition overtime, which allows a better identification
of long-term trends. On the other hand, this also means that the current database does not necessarily reflect actual
financial or structural arrangements in the past. For example, the 2010 database no longer accounts for the fact that
Chrysler was combined with Daimler for several years, and Tables 28 and 29 show a separate Chrysler Ram make
for MY 2008 and 2009, even though Ram did not become a separate make until MY 2010.
Automakers submit vehicle production data, rather than vehicle sales data, in formal end-of-year CAFE
compliance reports to EPA. Accordingly, the vehicle production data in this report may differ from sales data
reported by press sources. In addition, the vehicle production data presented in this report are tabulated on a model
year 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 be introduced in the spring or
summer, with a new model year designation, 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 year anomalies, though, of course, these even out over a multi-year period.
Tables 28 and 29 give laboratory and adjusted fuel economy values for cars, trucks, and cars and trucks
combined for MY 2009-2011, for the 13 manufacturers and 30 makes shown in Table 27. By including data from
both MY 2009 and 2010, 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 MY 2011 projections, changes from MY 2010 to
MY 2011 may be less meaningful.
The relative fuel economy comparisons for manufacturers and makes in Tables 28 and 29 will be similar,
of course, since the relative offset between laboratory and adjusted values will be similar across manufacturers and
makes. The following discussion will be based on the adjusted composite fuel economy data from Table 29.
In MY 2010, 10 of the 13 highest-selling manufacturers increased fuel economy and the industry reached
an all-time high of 22.6 mpg. In terms of manufacturers, Hyundai and Kia had the highest MY 2010 adjusted
composite fuel economy of 27.0 mpg, followed by Toyota at 25.4 mpg. Daimler had the lowest MY 2010 adjusted
fuel economy for any manufacturer, 18.9 mpg, and was followed by Chrysler at 19.5 mpg and Ford at 20.4 mpg. In
terms of improvement from MY 2009 to MY 2010, Kia had the largest improvement of 2.8 mpg, followed by
Hyundai at 1.9 mpg and Volkswagen and Mazda at 1.2 mpg.
In terms of makes in MY 2010, the Smart make was the leader at 36.8 mpg. Of course, the Smart Fourtwo
is the smallest and lightest car in the U.S. market and has relatively low production. The make with the second-
highest fuel economy in MY 2010 was the Mini, which produces a relatively low number of small vehicles, at 29.2
mpg. Of the makes with higher production, Hyundai and Kia had the highest overall fuel economy at 27.0 mpg,
followed by Volkswagen at 26.4 mpg.
Preliminary projections suggest that 11 of the 13 manufacturers will improve fuel economy further in MY
2011, though EPA will not have actual data for MY 2011 until later this year. Hyundai, Kia, and Honda are
projected to be the overall fuel economy leaders for MY 2011.
Table 30 shows footprint by manufacturer for MY 2009-2011, along with truck production share by
manufacturer. GM, Ford, and Chrysler had the largest footprint values in MY 2010 at 51-52 square feet, with most
of the other manufacturers having average footprint values in the 44-47 square feet range. Overall footprint
78
-------
increased by 0.3 square feet in MY 2010, with the largest increases for Ford, Nissan, and Toyota. Kia had the
largest decrease in footprint, followed by GM and Mazda. Subaru had the highest MY 2010 truck share at 72%,
followed by Chrysler at 58%, while Hyundai, Kia, and Volkswagen had the lowest truck shares, all between 8%
and 11%. Industry-wide footprint and truck share are projected to grow in MY 2011.
Table 31 (actual MY 2010) and Table 32 (MY 2011 projections) show the adjusted fuel economy values
broken out by manufacturer and vehicle size and type. For example, Honda had the highest small car adjusted
composite fuel economy in MY 2010 at 30.5 mpg. Of course, these tables rely on the threshold definitions for
small/midsize/large vehicle sizes that have been discussed earlier in this report, and a vehicle that just crosses the
threshold into the next largest class can be a fuel economy leader in that class, while it may have been a relatively
poor performer in the next smaller class.
For a long-term perspective going back to 1975, Figure 29 shows the adjusted fuel economy values (cars,
trucks, and both cars and trucks) and truck production shares for each of the 13 highest-selling manufacturers. More
information for the historic database stratified by manufacturer can be found in Appendices L through P.
79
-------
Table 28
Laboratory 55/45 Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2009—2011
Manufacturer
Toyota
Toyota
Toyota
Toyota
Hyundai
Honda
Honda
Honda
Kia
VW
vw
VW
Nissan
Nissan
Nissan
Mazda
Subaru
BMW
BMW
BMW
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Daimler
Daimler
Daimler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Other
Fleet
2009
Make Cars
Toyota
Lexus
Scion
All
All
Honda
Acura
All
All
VW
Audi
All
Nissan
Infiniti
All
All
All
BMW
Mini
All
Chevrolet
Pontiac
CMC
Buick
Cadillac
Saturn
All
Ford
Lincoln
Mercury
All
Mercedes-Benz
Smart
All
Dodge
Chrysler
Jeep
Ram
All
All
All
36.5
27.8
32.5
35.3
32.3
34.2
29.2
33.7
32.6
31.7
28.6
30.8
33.3
26.3
32.5
30.2
28.9
26.4
39.2
28.4
30.7
29.6
21.1
30.5
23.5
30.0
29.8
30.2
25.1
26.5
29.1
24.3
49.5
25.6
26.6
27.6
26.0
-
26.7
28.2
31.4
2009
Trucks
25.7
23.1
-
25.3
24.9
26.0
22.4
25.5
24.1
24.4
22.9
23.5
24.4
21.8
24.2
27.1
28.4
nn
22.7
21.3
24.8
21.3
23.8
18.9
23.9
21.4
21.9
23.0
25.2
22.0
20.8
-
20.8
22.1
24.4
21.7
19.5
22.0
20.9
23.0
2009
Cars
and 2010
Trucks Cars
33.3
26.2
32.5
32.4
31.7
31.7
26.3
31.1
30.7
31.3
27.3
30.0
30.5
25.3
29.9
29.3
28.7
25.6
39.2
27.3
25.7
29.5
21.3
28.5
22.4
28.3
25.6
25.4
24.9
26.2
25.4
23.3
49.5
24.3
25.9
25.4
22.6
19.5
23.9
26.5
28.2
39.4
29.1
33.1
37.5
34.9
35.2
29.1
34.5
35.8
34.0
29.7
32.8
33.6
26.4
32.7
32.0
30.2
26.1
37.6
28.5
30.8
32.4
31.4
26.1
25.4
27.5
29.9
30.9
25.6
28.7
30.3
24.5
49.1
24.7
27.1
27.9
26.7
-
27.2
28.5
32.3
2010
Trucks
24.1
27.1
-
24.6
29.2
26.6
23.6
26.2
25.0
25.3
24.6
24.8
23.1
19.8
22.8
25.9
29.6
23.6
-
23.6
22.6
-
22.8
24.0
22.6
24.5
22.8
21.6
23.7
24.1
21.7
21.4
-
21.4
23.9
24.3
22.2
19.7
22.6
21.3
23.4
2010
Cars
and 2011
Trucks Cars
33.2
28.3
33.1
32.4
34.4
32.2
27.0
31.5
34.5
33.5
28.0
31.7
29.8
24.6
29.3
30.9
29.7
25.5
37.6
27.6
27.2
32.4
23.7
25.2
24.6
25.6
26.5
25.5
25.1
27.7
25.6
23.4
49.1
23.6
25.8
25.7
23.1
19.7
24.4
25.4
28.4
38.2
32.1
36.5
37.0
35.4
36.1
29.9
35.5
35.9
35.1
29.6
33.2
34.3
27.4
33.2
32.6
30.3
27.8
39.7
29.5
32.4
-
32.3
27.7
25.5
-
31.0
31.4
26.4
27.3
30.9
25.1
49.5
26.4
28.4
28.6
27.8
-
28.4
29.3
32.8
2011
Trucks
25.0
27.1
-
25.2
28.5
27.5
23.6
26.8
28.5
27.1
26.6
26.7
24.5
21.0
24.2
24.5
30.5
25.0
25.0
22.2
-
22.2
24.3
21.7
-
22.2
23.0
22.7
27.2
23.0
22.0
-
22.0
23.8
25.9
22.7
19.9
22.8
22.4
23.6
2011
Cars
and
Trucks
32.1
30.3
36.5
32.0
34.8
33.4
26.8
32.6
34.7
34.4
28.6
32.0
31.3
26.3
30.7
31.7
30.4
27.2
39.7
28.7
26.3
-
22.7
26.6
23.9
-
25.6
26.8
25.2
27.3
26.7
24.0
49.5
24.9
26.3
26.9
23.6
19.9
24.5
27.0
28.6
80
-------
Table 29
Adjusted Composite Fuel Economy by Manufacturer and Make for MY 2009-2011
Manufacturer
Toyota
Toyota
Toyota
Toyota
Hyundai
Honda
Honda
Honda
Kia
VW
vw
VW
Nissan
Nissan
Nissan
Mazda
Subaru
BMW
BMW
BMW
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Ford
Ford
Ford
Ford
Daimler
Daimler
Daimler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Chrysler
Other
Fleet
2009
Make Cars
Toyota
Lexus
Scion
All
All
Honda
Acura
All
All
VW
Audi
All
Nissan
Infiniti
All
All
All
BMW
Mini
All
Chevrolet
Pontiac
CMC
Buick
Cadillac
Saturn
All
Ford
Lincoln
Mercury
All
Mercedes-Benz
Smart
All
Dodge
Chrysler
Jeep
Ram
All
All
All
28.5
22.1
25.4
27.6
25.6
27.0
23.3
26.6
25.6
25.1
nn
24.4
26.1
21.1
25.5
23.9
22.8
21.3
30.3
22.8
24.5
23.5
17.1
24.3
19.1
23.9
23.8
23.9
20.3
21.3
23.1
19.6
37.1
20.6
21.3
22.0
20.4
-
21.3
22.5
24.8
2009
Trucks
20.4
18.4
-
20.1
19.9
20.8
17.9
20.3
19.3
19.5
18.2
18.7
19.4
17.6
19.2
21.5
22.4
18.3
-
18.3
17.2
19.9
17.2
19.2
15.5
19.2
17.3
17.5
18.5
20.1
17.6
16.7
-
16.7
17.8
19.6
17.3
15.8
17.7
16.9
18.4
2009
Cars
and 2010
Trucks Cars
26.1
20.9
25.4
25.4
25.1
25.1
21.0
24.6
24.2
24.8
21.7
23.8
24.0
20.3
23.6
23.2
22.6
20.6
30.3
21.9
20.7
23.5
17.2
22.8
18.2
22.6
20.6
20.3
20.1
21.1
20.3
18.8
37.1
19.5
20.7
20.4
18.0
15.8
19.2
21.2
22.4
30.4
23.1
25.9
29.1
27.4
27.7
23.2
27.1
27.9
26.8
23.5
25.9
26.3
21.1
25.7
25.3
23.8
21.1
29.2
22.8
24.7
25.5
25.0
21.1
20.5
22.0
23.9
24.4
20.6
23.0
24.0
19.7
36.8
19.9
21.7
22.3
20.9
-
21.7
22.7
25.5
2010
Trucks
19.2
21.4
-
19.6
23.0
21.3
18.8
20.9
20.0
20.1
19.5
19.7
18.4
16.0
18.2
20.6
23.3
18.9
-
18.9
18.2
-
18.4
19.4
18.2
19.7
18.3
17.3
18.9
19.2
17.4
17.2
-
17.2
19.3
19.7
17.8
16.0
18.2
17.2
18.7
2010
Cars
and 2011
Trucks Cars
25.9
22.4
25.9
25.4
27.0
25.4
21.5
24.9
27.0
26.4
22.1
25.0
23.5
19.8
23.1
24.4
23.4
20.6
29.2
22.1
21.8
25.5
19.1
20.4
19.8
20.6
21.3
20.3
20.2
22.1
20.4
18.8
36.8
18.9
20.7
20.6
18.4
16.0
19.5
20.4
22.6
29.5
25.2
28.3
28.7
27.9
28.4
23.8
27.9
28.1
27.6
23.5
26.2
26.8
21.9
26.1
25.7
23.9
22.4
30.6
23.6
25.9
-
25.7
22.4
20.6
-
24.9
24.9
21.2
21.9
24.5
20.2
37.1
21.2
nn
23.0
21.9
-
22.7
23.3
25.9
2011
Trucks
19.8
21.3
-
20.0
22.5
21.9
18.8
21.4
22.5
21.5
21.1
21.2
19.5
17.0
19.3
19.5
23.9
20.0
-
20.0
17.9
-
17.9
19.6
17.5
-
17.9
18.4
18.2
21.3
18.4
17.6
-
17.6
19.2
20.9
18.2
16.1
18.3
18.0
18.9
2011
Cars
and
Trucks
25.1
23.8
28.3
25.1
27.5
26.3
21.3
25.7
27.2
27.1
Tin
25.2
24.6
21.1
24.2
25.0
23.9
21.9
30.6
23.0
21.1
-
18.4
21.5
19.3
-
20.6
21.3
20.2
21.9
21.3
19.3
37.1
20.0
21.1
21.7
18.9
16.1
19.7
21.5
22.8
81
-------
Table 30
Footprint (sq ft) and Truck Share by Manufacturer for MY 2009—2011s
2009
Manufacturer Cars
Toyota
Ford
GM
Honda
Chrysler
Nissan
Hyundai
VW
Mazda
Subaru
Kia
Daimler
BMW
Other
All
44.9
46.0
46.6
44.8
47.8
45.3
45.3
43.4
45.4
44.4
45.2
47.7
44.3
44.3
45.5
2009
Trucks
51.5
57.6
60.0
49.1
53.4
51.4
47.0
50.5
46.8
43.4
50.8
52.2
51.2
49.1
54.3
2009
Cars
and
Trucks
46.4
51.1
52.1
45.9
50.9
46.8
45.4
44.0
45.8
43.9
46.2
48.7
45.4
45.2
48.2
2009
Percent 2010
Trucks Cars
22.6%
44.2%
41.1%
25.9%
55.7%
24.6%
7.0%
8.6%
24.5%
47.6%
17.7%
22.8%
16.4%
18.3%
31.0%
44.3
46.2
46.8
44.7
48.3
45.4
45.0
43.5
45.0
44.2
44.3
47.8
44.9
44.8
45.4
2010
Trucks
53.3
58.4
58.4
49.3
52.7
53.1
46.9
48.9
47.8
44.1
52.4
50.7
50.7
48.3
54.1
2010
Cars
and
Trucks
47.0
51.9
51.6
46.0
50.9
47.5
45.2
44.1
45.4
44.1
45.0
48.7
45.8
46.1
48.5
2010
Percent 2011 2011
Trucks Cars Trucks
30.0%
46.4%
41.3%
29.7%
57.6%
27.2%
7.5%
11.3%
14.8%
71.8%
8.8%
32.0%
15.7%
35.5%
35.7%
44.8 53.5
46.3 59.3
47.0 61.0
45.5 50.1
48.1 53.9
45.0 53.1
46.6 46.8
44.4 49.4
44.3 49.7
44.4 44.5
44.4 48.3
45.1 50.0
45.8 50.9
45.3 49.1
45.8 55.9
2011
Cars
and
Trucks
47.7
52.2
54.5
46.8
51.8
46.8
46.6
45.2
44.7
44.5
44.9
46.6
46.7
46.4
49.6
2011
Percent
Trucks
33.4%
45.2%
53.4%
28.1%
64.5%
22.5%
6.7%
15.7%
8.4%
65.2%
13.4%
29.8%
16.5%
28.0%
37.6%
*Note: all footprint values for MY 2011 are preliminary, and are based on different data sources than values for MY 2009-2010.
82
-------
Table 31
MY 2010 Adjusted Composite Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type
and Size for Largest Manufacturers
Vehicle
Type/Size
Cars
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Wagons
Small
Midsize
All Sizes
SUVs (non-truck)
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
All Cars
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Vans
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
SUVs
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Pickups
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
All Trucks
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Fleet
All Sizes
Toyota
29.8
31.6
23.7
30.6
25.9
25.9
-
22.6
-
22.6
29.5
28.8
23.7
29.1
-
20.8
-
20.8
-
21.7
15.3
21.2
19.1
15.9
17.3
-
21.0
15.8
19.6
25.4
Ford
25.7
25.6
20.8
24.7
-
-
23.7
20.7
22.3
25.7
25.0
20.8
24.0
-
23.4
-
23.4
21.7
17.0
18.4
21.7
16.4
16.6
-
22.0
16.5
17.4
20.4
GM
24.2
24.0
22.6
23.7
25.6
-
25.6
-
21.9
24.3
24.3
24.5
24.0
23.3
23.9
-
-
16.2
16.2
19.5
19.4
19.4
20.6
17.3
17.3
-
20.5
18.3
18.3
21.3
Honda
30.5
21.4
25.4
27.7
30.7
30.7
-
23.1
22.4
23.0
30.5
22.6
25.2
27.1
-
20.2
-
20.2
-
21.5
20.7
21.5
17.6
17.6
-
21.1
19.3
20.9
24.9
Chrysler
19.8
25.1
20.7
21.9
24.3
24.3
17.5
20.8
20.1
20.4
21.7
23.4
20.5
21.7
-
19.7
-
19.7
17.4
18.0
18.5
17.8
16.0
16.0
17.4
19.2
16.2
18.2
19.5
Nissan
23.5
26.8
19.6
26.4
25.0
25.0
-
23.0
20.2
21.8
24.1
26.4
20.1
25.7
-
-
-
22.0
17.5
19.2
16.4
16.4
-
22.0
17.0
18.2
23.1
Hyundai
28.7
29.9
25.5
28.2
26.9
-
26.9
-
24.6
19.8
24.0
28.3
28.2
25.1
27.4
-
-
-
-
23.6
19.0
23.0
-
-
-
-
23.6
19.0
23.0
27.0
VW
25.7
23.3
19.2
25.5
31.3
24.9
30.6
-
21.4
-
21.4
26.3
22.8
19.2
25.9
-
-
-
-
-
20.9
19.4
19.7
-
-
-
-
20.9
19.4
19.7
25.0
Mazda Subaru
26.9 22.7
24.4 25.3
-
26.3 24.4
22.5
22.5
-
23.4
18.7
21.8
26.9 22.6
24.0 25.3
18.7
25.3 23.8
24.1
-
-
24.1
-
20.3 23.3
17.8
18.5 23.3
-
-
24.1
20.3 23.3
17.8
20.6 23.3
24.4 23.4
Kia
29.3
26.4
-
28.7
27.1
23.1
27.0
-
22.4
18.9
22.4
28.4
25.3
18.9
27.9
-
19.8
-
19.8
20.3
20.3
-
-
-
20.0
-
20.0
27.0
Daimler
20.9
19.9
16.6
20.0
-
-
-
19.1
19.1
20.9
19.8
16.6
19.9
-
-
-
-
18.0
16.8
17.2
-
-
-
-
18.0
16.8
17.2
18.9
BMW
24.1
21.2
17.8
22.8
21.5
20.0
20.5
-
-
-
-
24.1
21.2
17.8
22.8
-
-
-
-
-
18.9
18.9
-
-
-
-
18.9
18.9
22.1
All
26.8
26.8
nn
26.1
26.5
22.8
26.4
17.5
22.8
21.8
22.4
26.8
25.7
22.4
25.5
24.1
20.1
16.2
20.1
17.4
21.2
18.2
19.7
19.7
16.5
16.9
18.3
20.8
17.2
18.7
22.6
83
-------
Table 32
MY 2011 Adjusted Composite Fuel Economy by Vehicle Type
and Size for Largest Manufacturers
Vehicle
Type/Size
Cars
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Wagons
Small
Midsize
All Sizes
SUVs (non-truck)
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
All Cars
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Vans
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
SUVs
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Pickups
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
All Trucks
Small
Midsize
Large
All Sizes
Fleet
All Sizes
Toyota
30.6
30.8
24.0
30.3
25.3
-
25.3
23.0
-
23.0
29.9
28.2
24.0
28.7
20.8
-
20.8
-
21.9
15.4
21.6
21.9
16.9
17.5
-
21.6
16.7
20.0
25.1
Ford
28.0
26.2
21.0
25.6
-
-
23.5
21.4
22.4
28.0
25.2
21.2
24.5
23.2
13.6
20.5
21.5
18.4
19.5
21.5
17.4
17.8
-
21.7
17.6
18.4
21.3
GM
23.1
26.1
22.6
24.9
25.2
-
25.2
-
24.7
24.7
23.7
26.1
23.2
24.9
15.5
15.5
-
18.9
18.9
21.5
17.3
17.4
-
21.5
17.9
17.9
20.6
Honda
31.8
21.5
27.3
28.9
31.0
-
31.0
22.6
22.4
22.5
31.6
22.3
27.0
27.9
23.0
-
23.0
-
21.1
21.6
21.1
-
17.6
17.6
-
21.6
19.7
21.4
25.7
Chrysler
21.2
24.4
21.6
22.8
25.1
-
25.1
22.5
20.4
21.4
23.7
23.7
21.2
nn
20.9
-
20.9
17.5
19.4
18.4
18.3
-
16.1
16.1
17.5
20.4
17.0
18.3
19.7
Nissan
22.9
27.2
-
26.5
27.2
-
27.2
23.6
20.6
21.7
25.1
27.0
20.6
26.1
21.5
21.5
23.7
18.5
20.5
-
16.4
16.4
-
22.8
17.4
19.3
24.2
Hyundai
28.3
34.4
27.3
29.1
26.9
-
26.9
24.1
19.8
23.8
28.0
29.0
27.1
27.9
22.8
19.0
22.5
-
-
-
-
22.8
19.0
22.5
27.5
VW
26.0
20.4
21.0
25.6
31.1
21.0
31.0
22.1
-
22.1
26.7
21.1
21.0
26.2
-
-
-
-
22.1
21.1
21.2
-
-
-
-
22.1
21.1
21.2
25.2
Mazda
27.0
24.8
-
26.5
-
-
23.0
20.2
22.0
27.0
24.1
20.2
25.7
20.1
19.2
19.5
-
-
-
-
20.1
19.2
19.5
25.0
Subaru
22.4
25.5
-
24.4
22.7
-
22.7
-
-
-
22.6
25.5
23.9
-
-
-
-
23.9
-
23.9
-
-
-
-
23.9
23.9
23.9
Kia
30.3
29.6
-
29.8
27.3
22.8
27.2
24.9
18.9
24.2
28.8
28.0
18.9
28.1
21.3
21.3
23.3
18.5
22.8
-
-
-
-
22.9
18.5
22.5
27.2
Daimler
22.3
20.3
18.8
21.4
19.6
19.6
19.2
-
19.2
22.3
20.0
18.8
21.2
18.4
17.0
17.6
-
-
-
-
18.4
17.0
17.6
20.0
BMW
24.2
24.2
18.5
23.6
21.5
-
21.5
-
-
-
24.1
24.2
18.5
23.6
-
-
-
-
-
20.0
20.0
-
-
-
-
20.0
20.0
23.0
All
27.1
27.2
24.5
26.5
26.9
20.0
26.8
23.2
22.0
22.8
27.0
26.2
23.8
25.9
21.3
14.8
20.9
17.5
21.6
18.8
19.9
21.7
17.1
17.3
17.5
21.5
17.8
18.9
22.8
84
-------
Figure 29
Manufacturer Adjusted Fuel Economy and Percent Truck by Model Year
GM Toyota Honda Ford Nissan
O
a.
Car
Q.
E
O 20
t 15
E 50%
„ 40%
20%
10%
Truck
Car
Truck
1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005
Chrysler Hyundai VW Kia BMW
O
CL
30
25
CL
I 20
t 15
70%
^ 60%
O
2 50%
». 40%
Truck
1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005
Subaru Daimler Mazda
O
CL
25
Q.
E
O 20
O
? 50%
OJ 20%
CL
10%
Both
Car,
Truck
Both
ruckVT
1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005 1975 1985 1995 2005
85
-------
VIII. References
1. "U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Fuel Economy and Emission Control," November 1972.
2. "Passenger Car Fuel Economy - Trends and Influencing Factors," SAE Paper 730790, Austin and Hellman,
September 1973.
3. "Fuel Economy of the 1975 Models," SAE Paper 740970, Austin and Hellman, October 1974.
4. "Passenger Car Fuel Economy Trends Through 1976," SAE Paper 750957, Austin and Service, October 1975.
5. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1977," SAE Paper 760795, Murrell, Pace, Service, and
Yeager, October 1976.
6. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1978," SAE Paper 780036, Murrell, February 1978.
7. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1979," SAE Paper 790225, Murrell, February 1979.
8. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1980," SAE Paper 800853, Murrell, Foster and Bristor,
June 1980.
9. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1981," SAE Paper 810386, Foster, Murrell and Loos,
February 1981.
10. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy Trends Through 1982," SAE Paper 820300, Cheng, LeBaron, Murrell,
and Loos, February 1982.
11. "Why Vehicles Don't Achieve EPA MPG On the Road and How That Shortfall Can Be Accounted For," SAE
Paper 820791, Hellman and Murrell, June 1982.
12. "Light-Duty Automobile Fuel Economy Trends through 1983," SAE Paper 830544, Murrell, Loos, Heavenrich,
and Cheng, February 1983.
13. "Passenger Car Fuel Economy - Trends Through 1984," SAE Paper 840499, Heavenrich, Murrell, Cheng, and
Loos, February 1984.
14. "Light Truck Fuel Economy - Trends through 1984," SAE Paper 841405, Loos, Cheng, Murrell and
Heavenrich, October 1984.
15. "Light-Duty Automotive Fuel Economy - Trends Through 1985," SAE Paper 850550, Heavenrich, Murrell,
Cheng, and Loos, March 1985.
16. "Light-Duty Automotive Trends Through 1986," SAE Paper 860366, Heavenrich, Cheng, and Murrell,
February 1986.
17. "Trends in Alternate Measures of Vehicle Fuel Economy," SAE Paper 861426, Hellman and Murrell,
September 1986.
86
-------
18. "Light-Duty Automotive Trends Through 1987," SAE Paper 871088, Heavenrich, Murrell, and Cheng, May
1987.
19. "Light-Duty Automotive Trends Through 1988," U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/CTAB/88-07, Heavenrich and Murrell,
June 1988.
20. "Light-Duty Automotive and Technology Trends Through 1989," U.S. EPA, EPA/AA/CTAB/89-04,
Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman, May 1989.
21. "Downward Trend in Passenger Car Fuel Economy—A View of Recent Data," U.S. EPA,
EPA/AA/CTAB/90-01, Murrell and Heavenrich, January 1990.
22. "Options for Controlling the Global Warming Impact from Motor Vehicles," U.S. EPA,
EPA/AA/CTAB/89-08, Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman, December 1989.
23. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1990," U.S. EPA,
EPA/AA/CTAB/90-03, Heavenrich and Murrell, June 1990.
24. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1991," U.S. EPA/AA/CTAB/91-02,
Heavenrich, Murrell, and Hellman, May 1991.
25. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1993," U.S. EPA/AA/TDG/93-01,
Murrell, Hellman, and Heavenrich, May 1993.
26. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1996," U.S. EPA/AA/TDSG/96-01,
Heavenrich and Hellman, July 1996.
27. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends through 1999," U.S. EPA420-R-99-018,
Heavenrich and Hellman, September 1999.
28. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2000," U.S. EPA420-R-00-008,
Heavenrich and Hellman, December 2000.
29. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2001," U.S. EPA420-R-01-008,
Heavenrich and Hellman, September 2001.
30. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2003," U.S. EPA420-R-03-006,
Heavenrich and Hellman, April 2003.
31. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2004," U.S. EPA420-R-04-001,
Heavenrich and Hellman, April 2004.
32. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2005," U.S. EPA420-R-05-001,
Robert M. Heavenrich, July 2005.
33. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends 1975 through 2006," U.S. EPA420-R-06-011,
Robert M. Heavenrich, July 2006.
87
-------
34. "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.
35. "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.
36. "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.
37. "Light-Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through
2010," U.S. EPA-420-R-10-023, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, November 2010.
38. "Concise Description of Auto Fuel Economy in Recent Years," SAE Paper 760045, Malliaris, Hsia and Gould,
February 1976.
39. "Automotive Engine ~ A Future Perspective," SAE Paper 891666, Amann, 1989.
40. "Regression Analysis of Acceleration Performance of Light-Duty Vehicles," DOT HS 807 763, Young,
September 1991.
41. "Determinates of Multiple Measures of Acceleration," SAE Paper 931805, Santini and Anderson, 1993.
------- |