The
EPA Automotive
Trends Report
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Fuel Economy, and
Technology since 1975
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-20-006 March 2020
-------
NOTICE: This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions, positions, or approval
or validation of compliance data reported to EPA by manufacturers. It is intended to present technical
analysis of issues using data that are currently available and that may be subject to change. The purpose
of the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform the public
of technical developments.
These data reflect the most current available data. Historic data have been adjusted, when appropriate, to
reflect the result of compliance investigations by EPA or any other corrections necessary to maintain data
integrity. This edition of the report supersedes all previous versions.
ES2
-------
Table of Contents
1, Introduction 1
A. What's New This Year 1
B. Manufacturers in this Report 2
C. Fuel Economy and C02 Metrics in this Report 3
2, Fleetwide Trends Overview 5
A. Overall Fuel Economy and C02 Trends 5
B. Manufacturer Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions 8
3, Vehicle Attributes 14
A. Vehicle Class and Type 14
B. Vehicle Weight 19
C. Vehicle Power 22
D. Vehicle Footprint 27
E. Summary 30
4, Vehicle Technology 37
A. Engines 39
B. Transmission and Drive Types 59
C. Technology Adoption 65
5, Manufacturer GHG Compliance 75
A. Footprint-Based C02 Standards 78
B. Model Year Performance 81
C. End of Year Credit Balance 108
D. Compliance Status After the 2018 Model Year 121
Appendices: Methods and Additional Data
A. Sources of Input Data
B. Harmonic Averaging of Fuel Economy Values
C. Fuel Economy and C02 Metrics
D. Historical Changes in the Database and Methodology
E. Electric Vehicle and Plug-In Hybrid Metrics
F. Authors and Acknowledgments
i
-------
List off Figures
Figure 2.1. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions 5
Figure 2.2. Trends in Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions Since Model Year 1975 6
Figure 2.3. Distribution of New Vehicle C02 Emissions by Model Year 7
Figure 2.4. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and Tailpipe C02 in Model Year 2013
and 2018 9
Figure 3.1. Regulatory Classes and Vehicle Types Used in This Report 15
Figure 3.2. Production Share and Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy 16
Figure 3.3. Vehicle Type Distribution by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018 17
Figure 3.4. Car-Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less 18
Figure 3.5. Average New Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type 20
Figure 3.6. Inertia Weight Class Distribution by Model Year 21
Figure 3.7. Relationship of Inertia Weight and C02 Emissions 22
Figure 3.8. Average New Vehicle Horsepower by Vehicle Type 23
Figure 3.9. Horsepower Distribution by Model Year 24
Figure 3.10. Relationship of Horsepower and C02 Emissions 25
Figure 3.11. Calculated 0-to-60 Time by Vehicle Type 26
Figure 3.12. Footprint by Vehicle Type for Model Year 2008-2019 28
Figure 3.13. Footprint Distribution by Model Year 28
Figure 3.14. Relationship of Footprint and C02 Emissions 29
Figure 3.15. Relative Change in Fuel Economy, Weight, and Horsepower, since Model Year 1975 30
Figure 4.1. Vehicle Energy Flow 37
Figure 4.2. Manufacturer Use of Emerging Technologies for Model Year 2019 38
Figure 4.3. Production Share by Engine Technology 40
Figure 4.4. Gasoline Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 42
Figure 4.5. Percent Change for Specific Gasoline Engine Metrics 44
Figure 4.6. Engine Metrics for Different Gasoline Technology Packages 46
Figure 4.7. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type 48
Figure 4.8. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 48
Figure 4.9. Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and Horsepower, Model Year
2011, 2014, and 2018 49
Figure 4.10. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type 51
Figure 4.11. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 51
Figure 4.12. Hybrid Real-World Fuel Economy Distribution, Cars Only 52
Figure 4.13. Production Share of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs, Model Year 1995-2019 54
Figure 4.14. Charge Depleting Range and Fuel Economy Trends for EVs and PHEVs 55
Figure 4.15. Diesel Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type 57
Figure 4.16. Diesel Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders 57
Figure 4.17. Percent Change for Specific Diesel Engine Metrics 58
Figure 4.18. Transmission Production Share 60
-------
Figure 4.19. Average Number of Transmission Gears for New Vehicles 62
Figure 4.20. Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Real-World Fuel Economy for
Comparable Vehicles 62
Figure 4.21. Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive Production Share 64
Figure 4.22. Industry-Wide Car Technology Penetration after First Significant Use 66
Figure 4.23. Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key Technologies 68
Figure 4.24. WT Adoption Details by Manufacturer 70
Figure 4.25. Five-Year Change in Light Duty Vehicle Technology Production Share 71
Figure 5.1. GHG Program Compliance Process 76
Figure 5.2. 2012-2018 Model Year C02 Footprint Target Curves 79
Figure 5.3. Changes in "2-Cycle" Tailpipe C02 Emissions, Model Year 2012 to 2018 (g/mi) 82
Figure 5.4. Model Year 2018 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs 85
Figure 5.5. Model Year 2018 Advanced Technology Credits by Manufacturer 86
Figure 5.6. Production of FFVs, Model Year 2012-2018 88
Figure 5.7. FFV Credits by Model Year 88
Figure 5.8. HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer 90
Figure 5.9. Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type 92
Figure 5.10. Total A/C Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018 93
Figure 5.11. Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model Year 2018 95
Figure 5.12. Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018 102
Figure 5.13. Early Credits Reported and Expired by Manufacturer 111
Figure 5.14. Performance and Standards by Manufacturer, 2018 Model Year 113
Figure 5.15. Total Credits Transactions Through Model Year 2018 118
Figure 5.16. Manufacturer Credit Balance After Model Year 2018 121
Figure 5.17. Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation and Use 123
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Manufacturer Definitions 3
Table 1.2. Fuel Economy and C02 Metrics Used in this Report 4
Table 2.1. Production, Estimated Real-World C02, and Fuel Economy for Model Year 1975-2019 11
Table 2.2. Manufactures and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy, by Year 12
Table 2.3. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions for Model Year
2017-2019 13
Table 3.1. Vehicle Attributes by Model Year 32
Table 3.2. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 by Vehicle Type 33
Table 3.3. Model Year 2018 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer 34
Table 3.4. Model Year 2018 Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 by Manufacturer and
Vehicle Type 35
Table 3.5. Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2017-2019 (ft2) 36
-------
Table 4.1. Production Share by Engine Technologies 72
Table 4.2. Production Share by Transmission Technologies 73
Table 4.3. Production Share by Drive Technology 74
Table 5.1. Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2018 80
Table 5.2. Production Multipliers by Model Year 84
Table 5.3. Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by Manufacturer and
Technology (g/mi) 99
Table 5.4. Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative Methodology, by
Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi) 101
Table 5.5. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, All (g/mi) 105
Table 5.6. Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/mi) 105
Table 5.7. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, Car (g/mi) 106
Table 5.8. Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/mi) 106
Table 5.9. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, Truck (g/mi) 107
Table 5.10. Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/mi) 107
Table 5.11. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, All 114
Table 5.12. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, All 114
Table 5.13. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Car 115
Table 5.14. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, Car 115
Table 5.15. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Truck 116
Table 5.16. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, Truck 116
Table 5.17. Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018 (Mg) 119
Table 5.18. Distribution of Credits by Expiration Date (Mg) 120
iv
-------
1. Introduction
This annual report is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) commitment
to provide the public with information about new light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, fuel economy, technology data, and auto manufacturers' performance in
meeting the agency's GHG emissions standards.
EPA has collected data on every new light-duty vehicle model sold in the United States
since 1975, either from testing performed by EPA at the National Vehicle Fuel and
Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, or directly from manufacturers using official
EPA test procedures. These data are collected to support several important national
programs, including EPA criteria pollutant and GHG standards, the U.S. Department of
Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and vehicle Fuel Economy and Environment
labels. This expansive data set allows EPA to provide a uniquely comprehensive analysis of
the automotive industry over the last 40 plus years.
A. What's New This Year
Tesla increased production in model year 2018 to over 190,000 vehicles, or four times
the production achieved in model year 2017. Because this report uses a production
threshold of 150,000 vehicles for many tables and figures, Tesla has accordingly been
added to these tables and figures.
Nissan and Mitsubishi are considered separate corporate entities throughout this
report. In 2016, Nissan purchased a controlling share of Mitsubishi, and NHTSA took
initial action requiring Nissan and Mitsubishi be combined for compliance under the
CAFE program (which EPA would follow for the GHG program). The previous edition of
this report combined Nissan and Mitsubishi, however NHTSA has since determined
that these two companies will in fact remain separate for regulatory purposes.
The website for this report has been expanded with an emphasis on allowing users to
access and evaluate more of the data behind this report. We encourage readers to
visit our website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends and explore the data. EPA
will continue to add content and tools on the web to allow transparent access to
public data.
1
-------
The content in this report was previously published in two separate reports, the Light-Duty
Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends Report, and the
GHG Manufacturer Performance Report. These reports were combined, starting with the
2018 report, to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
The overall long-term trends in the light-duty automotive industry since 1975 are explored
in Section 2. Section 3 focuses on trends in vehicle parameters such as vehicle type, weight,
horsepower, acceleration, and footprint. Section 4 examines industry trends by engine and
transmission technologies. The status of manufacturer compliance with the GHG standards
is included in Section 5. Additional data and methodology discussions are included in the
appendices. This report supersedes all previous reports and should not be compared to
past reports.
B. Manufacturers in this Report
The underlying data for this report include every new light-duty vehicle offered for sale in
the United States. These data are presented by manufacturer throughout this report, using
the model year 2018 manufacturer definitions determined by EPA and NHTSA for
implementation of the GHG emission standards and CAFE program. For simplicity, many
figures and tables throughout the report show only the 14 manufacturers that produced at
least 150,000 vehicles in the 2018 model year. These manufacturers account for
approximately 98% of all production. Table 1.1 lists the 14 manufacturers and their
associated makes, along with an "other" category that captures the remaining
manufacturers.
When a manufacturer grouping changes under the GHG and CAFE programs, EPA makes
the same change in this report. For the analysis of estimated real-world CO2 emission and
fuel economy trends in Sections 1 through 4, EPA applies the current manufacturer
definitions to all prior model years. This maintains consistent manufacturer and make
definitions over time, which enables better identification of long-term trends. However, the
compliance data that are discussed in Section 5 of this report maintain the previous
manufacturer definitions where necessary to preserve the integrity of compliance data as
accrued.
2
-------
Table 1.1. Manufacturer Definitions
Manufacturer
BMW
FCA
Ford
GM
Honda
Hyundai
Kia
Mazda
Mercedes
Nissan
Subaru
Tesla
Toyota
Volkswagen
Audi, Bentiey, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Volkswagen
Aston Martin, Ferrari, Jaguar, Land Rover,
Lotus, McLaren, Mitsubishi, Volvo
Makes in the U.S. Market
BMW, Mini, Rolls Royce
Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, Ram
Ford, Lincoln, Roush, Shelby
Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC
Maybach, Mercedes, Smart
Infiniti, Nissan
Subaru
Tesla
Lexus, Scion, Toyota
Acura, Honda
Genesis, Hyundai
Kia
Mazda
Other1
C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics in this Report
All data in this report for model years 1975 through 2018 are final and based on official
data submitted to EPA and NHTSA as part of the regulatory process. In some cases, this
report will show data for model year 2019, which are preliminary and based on data
provided to EPA by automakers prior to the model year. Preliminary data is not shown for
manufacturer compliance. All data in this report are based on production volumes
delivered for sale in the U.S. by model year. The model year production volumes may vary
from other publicized data based on calendar year sales. The report does not examine
future model years, and past performance does not necessarily predict future industry
trends.
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel economy data in this report fall into one of
two categories based on the purpose of the data and the subsequent required emissions
test procedures.
The first category is compliance data, which is measured using laboratory tests required
by law for CAFE and adopted by EPA for GHG compliance. Compliance data are measured
using EPA city and highway test procedures (the "2-cycle" tests), and fleetwide averages are
1 Only vehicle brands produced in model year 2018 are shown. There are many other manufacturers and
brands captured in the "other" category over the course of this report.
3
-------
calculated by weighting the city and highway test results by 55% and 45%, respectively.
These procedures are required for compliance; however, they no longer accurately reflect
real-world driving. Compliance data may also encompass credits and other flexibilities that
manufacturers can use towards meeting their emissions standards.
The second category is estimated real-world (previously called "adjusted") data, which is
measured using additional laboratory tests to capture a wider range of operating
conditions (including hot/cold weather and higher acceleration) that an average driver will
encounter. This expanded set of tests is referred to as "5-cycle" testing. City and highway
results are weighted 43% city and 57% highway, consistent with fleetwide driver activity
data. The city and highway values are the same values found on new vehicle fuel economy
labels, however the label combined value is weighted 55% city and 45% highway. Unlike
compliance data, the method for calculating real-world data has evolved overtime, along
with technology and driving habits.
C02 and Fuel Economy
Data Category
Compliance
Estimated Real-World
("adjusted" in previous
reports)
Purpose
Basis for manufacturer
compliance with standards
Best estimate of real-world
performance
Current
City/Highway
Weighting
55% / 45%
43% / 57%
Current Test
Basis
2-cycle
5-cycle
This report will show estimated real-world data except for the discussion specific to the
GHG regulations in Section 5 and Executive Summary Figures ES-6 through ES-8. The
compliance CO2 data must not be compared to the real-world C02data presented
elsewhere in this report. Appendices C and D present a more detailed discussion of the fuel
economy and CO2 data used in this report.
This report does not provide data about NHTSA's CAFE program. For more information
about CAFE and manufacturer compliance with the CAFE fuel economy standards, see the
CAFE Public Information Center, which can be accessed at
https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe pic/CAFE PIC Home.htm.
-------
2. Fleetwide Trends Overview
The automotive industry has made strong progress towards lower tailpipe CO2 emissions
and higher fuel economy in recent years. This section provides an update on the estimated
real-world tailpipe CO2 emissions and fuel economy for the overall fleet, and for
manufacturers based on final model year 2018 data. The unique, historical data on which
this report is based also provide an important backdrop for evaluating the more recent
performance of the industry. Using that data, this section will also explore basic fleetwide
trends in the automotive industry since EPA began collecting data in model year 1975.
A. Overall Fuel Economy and CO2 Trends
Figure 2.1. Estimated Real-World Fuel
Economy and CO2 Emissions
>s
E
o
c
o
o
LU
22.5
In model year 2018, the industry
achieved record low new vehicle CO2
emissions and record high fuel
economy, as shown in Figure 2.1.
Average estimated real-world CO2
tailpipe emissions fell by 4 g/mi to 353
g/mi, while estimated real-world fuel
economy increased 0.2 mpg to 25.1
mpg compared to the previous year.2
Over the last fourteen years, CO2
emissions and fuel economy have
improved twelve times and worsened
twice.
The preliminary average estimated
real-world fuel economy of all new
model year 2019 vehicles is projected
to increase again, to 25.5 mpg with a
corresponding decrease in average CO2
emissions to 346 g/mi. If achieved,
these values will be record levels and
an improvement over model year 2018.
The preliminary model year 2019 data are based on production estimates provided to EPA
15 0
12.5
700
600
500
400
1975
1985
1995 2005
Model Year
2015
2 EPA generally uses unrounded values to calculate values in the text, figures, and tables in this report. This
approach results in the most accurate data but may lead to small apparent discrepancies due to rounding.
5
-------
by manufacturers months before the vehicles go on sale. The data are a useful indicator,
however there is always uncertainty associated with such projections, and we caution the
reader against focusing only on these data.
While the most recent annual changes often receive the most public attention, the greatest
value of the Trends database is to document long-term trends. The magnitude of changes
in annual CO2 emissions and fuel economy tend to be small relative to longer, multi-year
trends. Figure 2.2 shows fleetwide estimated real-world CO2 emissions and fuel economy
for model years 1975-2018. Over this timeframe there have been three basic phases: 1) a
rapid improvement of fuel economy between 1975 and 1987, 2) a period of slowly
decreasing fuel economy through 2004, and 3) increasing fuel economy through the
current model year. Vehicle CO2 emissions, which are generally inversely related to fuel
economy,3 have followed the opposite pattern over the same timeframe.
Figure 2.2. Trends in Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions Since Model Year 1975
1975 to 1987
-41%
2004 to 2018
-23%
1987 to 2004
+ 14%
600
500
400
(O
an
25
20
15
1975 to 1987
+68%
1987 to 2004
-12%
2004 to 2018
+30%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Model Year
3 Fuel economy and CO2 emissions are inversely related for gasoline and diesel vehicles, but not for electric
vehicles (which have zero tailpipe emissions). If electric vehicles begin to capture a larger market share, the
overall relationship between fuel economy and tailpipe CO2 emissions will change.
6
-------
Another way to look at CO2 emissions over time is to examine how the distribution of new
vehicle emission rates have changed. Figure 2.3 shows the distribution of real-world
tailpipe CO2 emissions for all vehicles produced within each model year. Half of the vehicles
produced each year are clustered within a small band around the median CO2 emission
rate, as shown in blue. The remaining vehicles show a much wider spread, especially in the
best and worst 5% of production each year. The lowest C02-emitting vehicles have all been
hybrids or electric vehicles since the first hybrid was introduced in model year 2000. The
highest C02-emitting vehicles are generally low volume performance vehicles or large
trucks.
Figure 2.3. Distribution of New Vehicle CO2 Emissions by Model Year4
Worst Vehicle
Worst 5%
Bottom
" 25%
50% of Vehicles
Best Vehicle
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
It is important to note that the methodology used in this report for calculating estimated
real-world fuel economy and CO2 emission values has changed over time. For example, the
estimated real-world fuel economy for a 1980s vehicle in the Trends database is somewhat
higher than it would be if the same vehicle were being produced today as the methodology
for calculating these values has changed over time to reflect estimated real-world vehicle
operation. These changes are small for most vehicles, but larger for very high fuel economy
vehicles. See Appendix C and D for a detailed explanation of fuel economy metrics and
their changes over time.
4 Electric vehicles prior to 2011 are not included in this figure due to limited data. However, those vehicles were
available in small numbers only.
7
-------
B, Manufacturer Fuel Economy and CO2
Emissions
Along with the overall industry, most manufacturers have significantly improved new
vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy in recent years. Figure 2.4 shows the change in
fuel economy and CO2 emissions from model year 2013 to model year 2018 for the
fourteen largest manufacturers. The five-year span covers the approximate length of a
vehicle redesign cycle, so it is likely that most vehicles have undergone design changes in
this period, resulting in a more accurate depiction of manufacturer trends than focusing on
a single year. Over the last five years, twelve of the fourteen largest manufacturers selling
vehicles in the U.S. market improved fuel economy, contributing to an overall industry fuel
economy increase of 0.9 mpg. Eleven of the fourteen largest manufacturers improved
estimated real-world CO2 emissions, resulting in an overall industry reduction of estimated
real-world CO2 emissions by 15 g/mi.
Tesla, which produces only electric vehicles, had by far the lowest CO2 emissions, at 0 g/mi,
and highest fuel economy, at 113.7 miles per gallon equivalent (mpge)5, of all large
manufacturers in model year 2018.
Of the remaining manufacturers, Honda had the lowest CO2 emissions and highest fuel
economy in model year 2018 and achieved the largest 5-year improvements in CO2
emissions and fuel economy. Between model years 2013 and 2018, Honda reduced CO2
emissions by 31 g/mi and increased fuel economy by 2.8 mpg. Subaru and Mazda tied for
the third lowest CO2 emissions and third highest fuel economy in model year 2018. BMW
had the second largest 5-year improvement in CO2 emissions, reducing emissions by 27
g/mi, and Subaru had the third largest improvement, at 26 g/mi. BMW also increased fuel
economy by 1.7 mpg, while Subaru increased by 2.2 mpg.
Two manufacturers increased CO2 emissions and reduced average fuel economy over the
five-year span. Volkswagen had the largest increase in CO2 emissions, at 11 g/mi, and the
largest decrease in fuel economy, at 1.3 mpg, due mostly to a large shift towards sport
utility vehicles (SUVs). In model year 2018 alone, VW's average new vehicle increased CO2
emissions by 25 g/mi and reduced fuel economy by 1.8 mpg. Hyundai also increased CO2
emissions and reduced average fuel economy between model year 2013 and 2018, but to a
much smaller degree than VW.
5 Miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge) is an energy-based metric used to compare the energy use of
vehicles that operate on fuels other than gasoline to gasoline vehicles. For more information, see Appendix E.
8
-------
Figure 2.4. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and Tailpipe CO2 in Model Year 2013 and 2018
Fuel Economy (MPG), 2013 - 2018 C02 Emissions (g/mi), 2013 - 2018
Tesla -
Honda
Subaru
Mazda
Hyundai
Kia
Nissan
BMW
Toyota
VW
Mercedes
GM
Ford
FCA'
All Manufacturers
45
90.7-
-~113.7
ป0
70
95
120
zb.o
27.8 "
28.
27.2 ~
26.5 -~ 27.
-~ 28.7
6 < 29.0
27.8
1
24.3
24
22.2 ^22
22.0 ~23.0
22.2 ~ 22.4
0.9-~21.7
5.0
6*4
5
~ 25.5
25.9
2
24.2
-~
25.1
50
100
150
200
310^320
307 ~ 311
oia ozd
327 ^ 334
366
ooy ^
348 ซ
350-
ฆ35f
~ 3
n
B1
386 < 403
397*4400
409 < 426
353
368
20
24
28
32
300
350
400
450
9
-------
Of the fourteen large manufacturers, FCA had the highest CO2 emissions and lowest fuel
economy in model year 2018. However, FCA did have the largest reduction in CO2 emission
of any large manufacturer between model year 2017 and 2018, with an 11 g/mi reduction,
and a corresponding fuel economy increase of 0.6 mpg. After FCA, Ford and GM had the
highest new vehicle average CO2 emissions and lowest fuel economy of the large
manufacturers in model year 2018. The manufacturer-specific CO2 emissions and fuel
economy data for the last three model years are shown in Table 2.3.
While each manufacturer has taken a different path towards improving CO2 emissions and
fuel economy, the various technology improvements implemented since 2005 have
resulted in steady industry-wide improvement. The vehicle attributes and technologies that
have led to this improvement are further analyzed in the next two sections of this report,
respectively.
10
-------
Table 2.1. Production, Estimated Real-World CO2, and Fuel Econorvv *0 Model Year 1975-2019
Production
Real-World
Real-World
Production
Real-World
Real-World
Model Year
(000)
C02 (g/mi)
FE(MPG)
Model Year
(000)
C02 (g/mi)
FE(MPG)
1975
10,224
681
13.1
2000
16,571
450
19.8
1976
12,334
625
14.2
2001
15,605
453
19.6
1977
14,123
590
15.1
2002
16,115
457
19.5
1978
14,448
562
15.8
2003
15,773
454
19.6
1979
13,882
560
15.9
2004
15,709
461
19.3
1980
11,306
466
19.2
2005
15,892
447
19.9
1981
10,554
436
20.5
2006
15,104
442
20.1
1982
9,732
425
21.1
2007
15,276
431
20.6
1983
10,302
426
21.0
2008
13,898
424
21.0
1984
14,020
424
21.0
2009
9,316
397
22.4
1985
14,460
417
21.3
2010
11,116
394
22.6
1986
15,365
407
21.8
2011
12,018
399
22.3
1987
14,865
405
22.0
2012
13,449
377
23.6
1988
15,295
407
21.9
2013
15,198
368
24.2
1989
14,453
415
21.4
2014
15,512
369
24.1
1990
12,615
420
21.2
2015
16,739
360
24.6
1991
12,573
418
21.3
2016
16,278
359
24.7
1992
12,172
427
20.8
2017
17,016
357
24.9
1993
13,211
426
20.9
2018
16,259
353
25.1
1994
14,125
436
20.4
2019 (prelim)
--
346
25.5
1995
15,145
434
20.5
1996
13,144
435
20.4
1997
14,458
441
20.2
1998
14,456
442
20.1
1999
15,215
451
19.7
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
i
1
11
-------
Table 2.2. Manufactures and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy ป v Vtw
Overall Vehicle with Gasoline (Non-Hybrid) Vehicle
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Highest Fuel Economy7
with Highest Fuel Economy
with Highest
with Lowest
Real-
Real-
Fuel Economy6
Fuel Economy
World FE
Engine
World FE
Model Year
(mpg)
(mpg)
Vehicle
(mpg)
Type
Gasoline Vehicle
(mpg)
1975
Honda
Ford
Honda Civic
28.3
Gas
Honda Civic
28.3
1980
VW
Ford
VW Rabbit
40.3
Diesel
Nissan 210
36.1
1985
Honda
Mercedes
GM Sprint
49.6
Gas
GM Sprint
49.6
1990
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Metro
53.4
Gas
GM Metro
53.4
1995
Honda
FCA
Honda Civic
47.3
Gas
Honda Civic
47.3
2000
Hyundai
FCA
Honda Insight
57.4
Hybrid
GM Metro
39.4
2005
Honda
Ford
Honda Insight
53.3
Hybrid
Honda Civic
35.1
2006
Mazda
Ford
Honda Insight
53.0
Hybrid
Toyota Corolla
32.3
2007
Toyota
Mercedes
Toyota Prius
46.2
Hybrid
Toyota Yaris
32.6
2008
Hyundai
Mercedes
Toyota Prius
46.2
Hybrid
Smart Fortwo
37.1
2009
Toyota
FCA
Toyota Prius
46.2
Hybrid
Smart Fortwo
37.1
2010
Hyundai
Mercedes
Honda FCX
60.2
FCV
Smart Fortwo
36.8
2011
Hyundai
Mercedes
BMW Active E
100.6
EV
Smart Fortwo
35.7
2012
Hyundai
FCA
Nissan-i-MiEV
109.0
EV
Toyota iQ
36.8
2013
Hyundai
FCA
Toyota IQ
117.0
EV
Toyota iQ
36.8
2014
Mazda
FCA
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
39.5
2015
Mazda
FCA
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
39.5
2016
Mazda
FCA
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mazda 2
37.1
2017
Honda
FCA
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
41.5
2018
Tesla
FCA
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
41.5
2019 (prelim)
Tesla
FCA
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
40.1
6 Manufacturers below the 150,000 threshold for "large" manufacturers are excluded in years they did not meet the threshold.
7 Vehicles are shown based on estimated real-world fuel economy as calculated for this report. These values will differ from values found on the fuel
economy labels at the time of sale. For more information on fuel economy metrics see Appendix C.
i
1
12
-------
Table 2.3. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions for Model Year 2017-2019
MY 2017 Final MY 2018 Final MY2019 Preliminary
FE Change C02 Change
Real-World
Real-World
Real-
from
Real-World
from
Real-World
Real-World
FE
C02
World FE
MY 2017
C02
MY 2017
FE
C02
Manufacturer
(mpg)
(g/mi)
(mpg)
(mpg)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(mpg)
(g/mi)
BMW
25.8
342
26.0
0.2
339
-3
26.0
340
FCA
21.1
420
21.7
0.6
409
-11
22.3
398
Ford
22.9
388
22.4
-0.4
397
8
22.8
390
GM
22.8
388
23.0
0.2
386
-2
22.8
389
Honda
29.4
302
30.0
0.6
296
-6
28.8
308
Hyundai
28.6
311
28.6
0.0
311
0
27.3
324
Kia
27.1
327
27.8
0.6
319
-8
27.6
321
Mazda
29.0
306
28.7
-0.4
310
4
27.8
322
Mercedes
23.0
385
23.5
0.5
377
-8
24.4
363
Nissan
26.9
330
27.1
0.2
327
-3
26.9
328
Subaru
28.5
312
28.7
0.2
310
-2
28.1
317
Tesla
98.2
0
113.7
15.5
0
0
117.7
0
Toyota
25.3
351
25.5
0.2
348
-3
26.1
341
VW
26.4
336
24.6
-1.8
361
25
26.4
336
All Manufacturers
24.9
357
25.1
0.2
353
-4
25.5
346
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
i
1
13
-------
3. Vehicle Attributes
Vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy are strongly influenced by vehicle design
parameters, including weight, power, acceleration, and size. In general, vehicles that are
larger, heavier, and more powerful typically have lower fuel economy and higher CO2
emissions than other comparable vehicles. This section focuses on several key vehicle
design attributes that impact CO2 emissions and fuel economy and evaluates the impact of
a changing automotive marketplace on overall fuel economy.
A. Vehicle Class and Type
Manufacturers offer a wide variety of light-duty vehicles in the United States. Under the
CAFE and GHG regulations, new vehicles are separated into two distinct regulatory classes,
cars and trucks, and each vehicle class has separate GHG and fuel economy standards.
Vehicles that weigh more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight8 (GVW) or have four-
wheel drive and meet various off-road requirements, such as ground clearance, qualify as
trucks. Vehicles that do not meet these requirements are considered cars.
Pickup trucks, vans, and minivans are all considered trucks under the regulatory
definitions, while sedans, coupes, and wagons are generally classified as cars. Sport utility
vehicles (SUVs), fall into both categories. Based on the CAFE and GHG regulatory
definitions, all two-wheel drive SUVs under 6,000 pounds GVW are classified as cars, while
most SUVs that have four-wheel drive or are above 6,000 pounds GVW are considered
trucks. SUV models that are less than 6,000 pounds GVW can have both car and truck
variants, with two-wheel drive versions classified as cars and four-wheel drive versions
classified as trucks. As the fleet has changed over time, the line drawn between car and
truck classes has also evolved. This report uses the current regulatory car and truck
definitions, and these changes have been propagated back throughout the historical data.
This report further separates the car and truck regulatory classes into five vehicle type
categories based on their body style classifications under the fuel economy labeling
program. The regulatory car class is divided into two vehicle types: sedan/wagon and car
SUV. The sedan/wagon vehicle type includes minicompact, subcompact, compact, midsize,
large, and two-seater cars, hatchbacks, and station wagons. Vehicles that are SUVs under
the labeling program and cars under the CAFE and GHG regulations are classified as car
8 Gross vehicle weight is the combined weight of the vehicle, passengers, and cargo of a fully loaded vehicle.
14
-------
SUVs in this report. The truck class is divided into three vehicle types: pickup, minivan/van,
and truck SUV. Vehicles that are SUVs under the labeling program and trucks under the
CAFE and GHG regulations are classified as truck SUVs. Figure 3.1 shows the two regulatory
classes and five vehicle types used in this report. The distinction between these five vehicle
types is important because different vehicle types have different design objectives, and
different challenges and opportunities for improving fuel economy and reducing CO2
emissions.
Figure 3.1. Regulatory Classes and Vehicle Types Used in This Report
Regulatory Class Vehicle Type
Car
Truck
Light-Duty
Vehicles
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Pickup
Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type
The production volume of the different vehicle types has changed significantly over time.
Figure 3.2 shows the production shares of each of the five vehicle types for model years
1975-2018. Sedans/wagons were the dominant vehicle type in 1975, when more than 80%
of vehicles produced were sedans/wagons. Since then, their production share has generally
been falling, and by model year 2018 sedans/wagons captured a record low 37% of the
market, or less than half of the market share they held in model year 1975. The production
share of pickups has remained relatively consistent, fluctuating from 13% in model year
1975 to 14% in model year 2018. Minivan/vans captured less than 5% of the market in
1975, increased to 11% in model year 1995 but have fallen since to 3% of vehicle
production. Vehicles that could be classified as a car SUV or truck SUV were a very small
part of the production share in 1975 but have shown sustained growth since. By model
year 2018, truck SUVs reached a record high 35% of production, and car SUVs remained
near a record high, falling very slightly to 11% of production.
15
-------
In model year 2018, 48% of the fleet were cars and 52% were trucks. This was the highest
percentage of trucks on record and a significant change from 1975. In Figure 3.2, the
dashed line between the car SUVs and truck SUVs shows the split in car and truck
regulatory class.
Figure 3.2. Production Share and Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy
100%-
75% -
d)
1
<0
-C
CO
c
o
o
"O
o
50%
25% -
0%-
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
\
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
1975 1985 1995 2005
Model Year
2015
30-
20-
10"
30-
20.
0
CL
10"
2
30-
"O
.
1
O
20-
5
ฆ
10
10
a>
30-
20-
10!
30-
20-
10^
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Model Year
27.3
Sedan/
Wagon
Car
SUV
Truck
SUV
Minivan/
Van
Pickup
o
Figure 3.2 also shows estimated real-world fuel economy for each vehicle type since 1975.
Fuel economy has improved for each of the five vehicle types for several years, and all are
at record fuel economy and CO2 emissions levels in model year 2018. Car SUVs had the
largest year-over-year improvements in model year 2018, improving 1.2 mpg to 27.3 mpg.
Truck SUVs had the second largest improvement, increasing 0.8 mpg to 23.1 mpg.
Sedans/wagons increased 0.6 mpg in model year 2018 to 30.8 mpg, minivans/vans
increased 0.5 mpg to 22.8 mpg, and pickups increased 0.2 mpg to 19.1 mpg. The small
increase for pickup trucks pushed pickup fuel economy above the previous record for
pickups, which was set in 1987. All the vehicle types, except for pickups, now achieve fuel
economy more than double what they achieved in 1975. In the preliminary model year
2019 data, truck SUVs and pickups are expected to further improve fuel economy, while car
SUVs are projected to decrease, and sedan/wagons and minivan/vans are projected to
remain at about the same fuel economy.
While each of the five vehicle types increased between 0.2 and 1.2 mpg, overall fuel
economy improved only 0.2 mpg in model year 2018. The market shift towards SUVs and
16
-------
away from sedan/wagons has offset some of the fleetwide benefits that otherwise would
have been achieved from the increased fuel economy within each vehicle type.
Vehicle Type by Manufacturer
The model year 2018 production breakdown by vehicle type for each manufacturer is
shown in Figure 3.3. There are clear variations in production distribution by manufacturer.
Almost 90% of Tesla's production was sedans/wagons, which is the highest of any
manufacturer. For other vehicle types, Hyundai had the highest percentage of car SUVs at
37%, Subaru had the highest percentage of truck SUVs at 78%, Ford had the highest
percentage of pickups at 34%, and FCA had the highest percentage of minivan/vans at 13%.
Most manufacturers reported a reduction in the percentage of sedan/wagons produced in
model year 2018, compared to the previous year. The manufacturer with the largest
change was VW, which reduced the percentage of sedan/wagons produced from 72% to
45% in one model year. VW's truck SUV production increased from 25% to 55%, as VW
introduced new SUV models.
Figure 3.3. Vehicle Type Distribution by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018
<ป Lower average C02 Emissions -4r
100%
Vehicle Type
Sedari/Wagon
ฆ Car SUV
Truck SUV
ฆ Minivan/Van
I Pickup
17
-------
A Closer Look at SUVs
SUV Classification
Over the last 30 years, the production share of SUVs in the United States has increased in all
but six years and now accounts for more than 45% of all vehicles produced (see Figure 3.2).
This includes both the car and truck SUV vehicle types.
Based on the regulatory definitions of cars and trucks, SUVs that are less than 6,000 pounds
GVW can be classified as either cars or trucks, depending on design requirements such as
minimum angles and clearances, and whether the vehicle has 2-wheel drive or 4-wheel drive.
This definition can lead to similar vehicles having different car or truck classifications, and
different requirements under the GHG and CAFE regulations. One particular trend of interest
is the classification of SUVs as either car SUVs or truck SUVs.
This report does not track GVW, but instead tracks weight using inertia weight classes, where
inertia weight is the weight of the empty vehicle, plus 300 pounds (see weight discussion on
the next page). Figure 3.4 shows the breakdown of SUVs into the car and truck categories
over time for vehicles with an inertia weight of 4,000 pounds or less. Vehicles in the 4,500-
pound inertia weight class and higher were excluded, as these vehicles generally exceed
6,000 pounds GVW and are classified as trucks. The relative percentage of SUVs with an
inertia weight of 4,000 pounds or less that meet the current regulatory truck definition has
stayed relatively constant over time, suggesting that there has not been a shift in vehicle
design to make these vehicles fall into the car or truck regulatory category.
Figure 3.4. Car-Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less
100%
Car SUV
Truck SUV
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
18
-------
B. Vehicle Weight
Vehicle weight is a fundamental vehicle attribute, both because it can be related to utility
functions such as vehicle size and features, and because higher weight, other things being
equal, will increase CO2 emissions and decrease fuel economy. All vehicle weight data in
this report are based on inertia weight classes. Each inertia weight class represents a range
of loaded vehicle weights, or vehicle curb weights9 plus 300 pounds. Vehicle inertia weight
classes are in 250-pound increments for classes below 3,000 pounds, while inertia weight
classes over 3,000 pounds are divided into 500-pound increments.
Vehicle Weight by VeJ
Figure 3.5 shows the average new vehicle weight from model year 1975 through 201910 for
all new vehicles by vehicle type. From model year 1975 to 1981, average vehicle weight
dropped 21 %, from 4,060 pounds per vehicle to about 3,200 pounds; this was likely driven
by both increasing fuel economy standards (which, at the time, were universal standards,
and not based on any type of vehicle attribute) and higher gasoline prices.
From model year 1981 to model year 2004, the trend reversed, and average new vehicle
weight began to slowly but steadily climb. By model year 2004, average new vehicle weight
had increased 28% and reached 4,111 pounds per vehicle, in part because of the increasing
truck share. Since model year 2004, new vehicle weight has been relatively flat even as
truck share has continued to increase. Average vehicle weight did reach a new high in
model year 2018 at 4,137 pounds, but it was less than 1 % higher than model year 2004 and
preliminary model year 2019 data suggest that weight will decrease.
In model year 1975, the average new sedan/wagon outweighed the average new pickup by
about 45 pounds. The average weight of each of the five vehicle types varied by only about
215 pounds, or about 5% of the average new vehicle. However, by model year 2018 the
difference between the lightest vehicle type, sedan/wagons, and the heaviest, pickups,
increased to almost 1,700 pounds, or more than 40% of the average new vehicle weight.
The weight of an average new sedan/wagon fell 13% between model year 1975 and 2018,
while the weight of an average new pickup increased 30%. The large drop in weight for
pickups in model year 2015 is correlated with the redesign of the Ford F-150 to a largely
aluminum body.
9 Vehicle curb weight is the weight of an empty, unloaded vehicle.
10 Model year 2019 data is shown as a separate dot, due to the uncertainty in this projected data.
19
-------
Figure 3.5. Average New Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
-13% ~
Since MY 1975
Since MY 1975
Since MY 1975
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Since MY 1975
Since MY 1975
Since MY 1975
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
_ 3000
w
2500
-t'
sz
O)
CD 5500^
5
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
1
Model Year
Figure 3.6 shows the annual production share of different inertia weight classes for new
vehicles since model year 1975. In model year 1975 there were significant sales in all
weight classes from <2,750 pounds to 5,500 pounds. In the early 1980s the largest vehicles
disappeared from the market, and light cars <2,750 pounds inertia weight briefly captured
more than 25% of the market. Since then, cars in the <2,750-pound inertia weight class
have all but disappeared, and the market has moved towards heavier vehicles.
Interestingly, the heaviest vehicles in model year 1975 were mostly large cars in the 5,500-
pound inertia weight class, whereas the heaviest vehicles today are all trucks.
20
-------
Figure 3.6. Inertia Weight Class Distribution by Model Year
100%-
75%
25%
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Weight
| <2750
| 2750
| 3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
| 5500
| 6000
| >6000
Model Year
Vehicle Weight and CO2 Emissions
Heavier vehicles require more energy to move than lower-weight vehicles and, if all other
factors are the same, will have lower fuel economy and higher CO2 emissions. The wide
array of technology available in modern vehicles complicates this comparison, but it is still
useful to evaluate the relationship between vehicle weight and CO2 emissions, and how
these variables have changed over time.
Figure 3.7 shows estimated real-world CO2 emissions as a function of vehicle inertia weight
for model year 197811 and model year 2019. On average, CO2 emissions increase linearly
with vehicle weight for both model years, although the rate of change as vehicles get
heavier is different between model year 2019 and 1978. At lower weights, vehicles from
model year 2019 produce about two thirds of the CO2 emissions of 1978 vehicles. The
difference between model year 2018 and 1978 increases for heavier vehicles, as the
heaviest model year 2019 vehicles produce about half of the CO2 emissions of 1978
vehicles. Electric vehicles, which do not produce any tailpipe CO2 emissions regardless of
11 Model year 1978 was the first year for which complete horsepower data are available, therefore it will be
used for several historical comparisons for consistency.
21
-------
weight, are visible along the 0 g/mi axis of Figure 3.7. As more electric vehicles are
introduced into the market, the relationship between average vehicle CO2 emissions and
inertia weight will continue to evolve.
Figure 3.7. Relationship of Inertia Weight and CO2 Emissions
1200-
900
|
O)
CN
o
^ 600
0
5
1
<0
-------
Vehicle Power by Vehicle Type
As with weight, the changes in horsepower are also quite different among vehicle types.
Horsepower for sedan/wagons increased 50% between model year 1975 and 2018, almost
70% for car SUVs and truck SUVs, almost 90% for minivan/vans, and 145% for pickups.
Increases in horsepower have been more variable over the last decade, but the general
trend continues to be increasing horsepower. The projected model year 2019 data shows
another expected increase of about 4 hp.
Figure:
350
300
250
200
150
| 100
o
Q.
CD
ฃ 350
o
X
300
250
200
150
100
.8. Average New Vehicle Horsepower by Vehicle Type
ALL Sedan/Wagon Car SUV
50% I
Since MY 1975
68% I
Since MY 1975
75% I
Since MY 1975
Truck SUV Minivan/Van Pickup
145% |
Since MY 1975
69% I
Since MY 1975
88% I
Since MY 1975
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015
Model Year
23
-------
The distribution of horsepower over time has shifted significantly towards vehicles with
more horsepower, as show in Figure 3.9. In the early 1980s, more than half of all new
vehicles had 100 to 150 hp, and very few had more than 200 hp. The average model year
2019 vehicle is projected to have more than 240 hp, and very few vehicles have less than
150 hp. Vehicles with more than 300 hp are projected to make up more than 45% of new
vehicle production, and vehicles with more than 350 hp are projected to make up more
than 20% of new vehicle production. The maximum horsepower for an individual vehicle is
now well over 1,000 hp.
Figure 3.9. Horsepower Distribution by Model Year
a;
CD
W
T3
O
100% -
75% -
o 50% -
25% -
0% -
Horsepower
>450
| 400-450
350-400
| 300-350
250-300
| 200-250
150-200
100-150
I 50-100
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Model Year
Vehicle Power and CO2 Emissions
The relationship between vehicle power, CO2 emissions, and fuel economy has become
more complex as new technology and vehicles have emerged in the marketplace. In the
past, higher power generally increased CO2 emissions and decreased fuel economy,
especially when new vehicle production relied exclusively on gasoline and diesel internal
combustion engines. As shown in Figure 3.10, model year 1978 vehicles with increased
horsepower generally had increased CO2 emissions. In model year 2019, CO2 emissions
increase with increased vehicle horsepower at a much lower rate than in model year 1978,
24
-------
such that model year 2019 vehicles nearly all have lower CO2 emissions than their model
year 1978 counterparts with the same amount of power. Technology improvements,
including turbocharged engines and hybrid packages, have reduced the incremental CO2
emissions associated with increased power. Electric vehicles are present along the 0 g/mi
line in Figure 3.10 because they produce no tailpipe CO2 emissions, regardless of
horsepower, further complicating this analysis for modern vehicles.
Figure 3.10. Relationship of Horsepower and CO2 Emissions
1200
E
3
CN
o
o
32
1
o
CO
CD
or
900
600
300
0
Model Year
1978
2019
500
1000
1500
Horsepower
Vehicle Acceleration
Vehicle acceleration is closely related to vehicle horsepower. As new vehicles have
increased horsepower, the corresponding ability of vehicles to accelerate has also
increased. The most common vehicle acceleration metric, and one of the most recognized
vehicle metrics overall, is the time it takes a vehicle to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per
hour, also called the 0-to-60 time. Data on 0-to-60 times are not directly submitted to EPA
but are calculated for most vehicles using vehicle attributes and calculation methods
25
-------
developed by MacKenzie and Heywood (2012).12 Data are obtained from external sources
for hybrids and electric vehicles.
Since the early 1980s, there has been a clear downward trend in 0-to-60 times. Figure 3.11
shows the average new vehicle 0-to-60 time from model year 1978 to model year 2018. The
average new vehicle in model year 2018 has a 0-to-60 time of 8.0 seconds, which is the
fastest average 0-to-60 time since the database began in 1975 and is approaching half of
the average 0-to-60 times of the early 1980s. The calculated 0-to-60 time for model year
2019 is projected to fall further, to 7.8 seconds.
Figure 3.11. Calculated 0-to-60 Time by Vehicle Type
ALL Sedan/Wagon
18
15
12
CO
ฆo
c
o
o
-------
The long-term downward trend in 0-to-60 times is consistent across all vehicle types,
though it appears to be diverging in more recent years. The average 0-to-60 time for
pickups continues to decrease steadily, while times for car SUVs have begun to flatten out.
The continuing decrease in pickup truck 0-to-60 times is likely due to their increasing
power, as shown in Figure 3.8. While much of that power is intended to increase towing
and hauling capacity, it also decreases 0-to-60 times.
D. Vehicle Footprint
Vehicle footprint is a very important attribute since it is the basis for the current CO2
emissions and fuel economy standards. Footprint is the product of wheelbase times
average track width (the area defined by where the centers of the tires touch the ground).
This report provides footprint data beginning with model year 2008, although footprint
data from model years 2008-2010 were aggregated from various sources and EPA has less
confidence in the precision of these data than that of formal compliance data. Beginning in
model year 2011, the first year when both car and truck CAFE standards were based on
footprint, automakers began to submit reports to EPA with footprint data at the end of the
model year, and these official footprint data are reflected in the final data through model
year 2018. EPA projects footprint data for the preliminary model year 2019 fleet based on
footprint values from the previous model year and, for new vehicle designs, publicly
available data.
Vehiciซ * Footprint by Vefaic1* * vp?
Figure 3.12 shows overall new vehicle and vehicle type footprint data since model year
2008. Between model year 2008 and 2018, the overall average footprint increased 3.1 %,
from 48.9 to 50.4 square feet. The overall average is influenced by the trends within each
vehicle type, as well as the mix of new vehicles produced and the market shift toward
larger vehicles. Within each of the five vehicle types, footprint increased for all vehicle types
except for car SUVs between model year 2008 and 2018. Car SUVs decreased 0.3 square
feet (0.6%), truck SUVs increased 0.4 square feet (0.8%), sedan/wagons increased 1.5
square feet (3.3%), minivan/vans increased 1.4 square feet (2.5%), and pickups increased
2.5 square feet (4.0%). The distribution of footprints across all new vehicles, as shown in
Figure 3.13, also shows only slight changes over time with approximately two-thirds of all
vehicles in the 40-50 square feet range. Projected data for model year 2019 show overall
footprint will decrease slightly to an average of 50.2 square feet.
27
-------
Figure 3.12. Footprint by Vehicle Type for Model Year 2008-2019
70
60
w
IS)
c
Q-
->
O
o
50
40 -
Minivan/Van
Truck SUV
I
Fleetwide Avg
\ J-.
"
/
Car SUV
T
Sedan/Wagon
2008
2010
2012
2014
Model Year
2016
2018
2020
Figure 3.13. Footprint Distribution by Model Year
(b
L
ro
_c
CO
c
o
o
"O
o
100% -
75%
50%
25% -
0% -
2008 2010 2012 2014
Model Year
2016
2018
Footprint
>65
ฆ 60-65
55-60
ฆ 50-55
45-50
40-45
<40
28
-------
Vehicle Footprint and CO2 Emissions
The relationship between vehicle footprint and CO2 emissions is shown in Figure 3.14.
Vehicles with a larger footprint are likely to weigh more and have more frontal area, which
leads to increased aerodynamic resistance. Increased weight and aerodynamic resistance
increase CO2 emissions and decreases fuel economy. The general trend of increasing
footprint and CO2 emissions holds true for vehicles from model year 2008 and model year
2019, although vehicles produced in model year 2019 produce roughly 20% less CO2
emissions than model year 2008 vehicles of a comparable footprint. Electric vehicles are
shown in Figure 3.14 with zero tailpipe CO2 emissions, regardless of footprint. As more
electric vehicles enter the market, the relationship between footprint and tailpipe CO2
emissions will become much flatter, or less sensitive to footprint.
Figure 3.14. Relationship of Footprint and CO2 Emissions
Model Year
2008
2019
750
E
3
O 500 -
O
ฆo
o
<:
1
CO
$ 250 -
30
40
50
60
70
Footprint (sq ft)
29
-------
E. Summary
The past 40+ years of data show striking changes in the attributes of vehicles produced for
sale in the United States. The marketplace has moved from more than 80% cars to a much
more varied mix of vehicles, with recent growth in SUV sales (car SUVs and truck SUVs)
resulting in SUVs capturing more than 40% of the market. The weight of an average new
vehicle fell dramatically in the late 1970s, then slowly climbed for about 20 years before
flattening off. In 2018 sedans/wagons have an average weight that is 13% below 1975, but
pickups are now about 30% heavier than in model year 1975. Vehicle power and
acceleration have increased across all vehicle types, with average horsepower more than
doubling the lows reached in the early 1980s. Vehicle footprint has increased about 3%
since this report began tracking the data in model year 2008. Figure 3.15 shows a summary
of the relative changes in fuel economy, weight, horsepower, and fuel economy since 1975.
Figure 3.15. Relative Change in Fuel Economy, Weight, and Horsepower, since
Model Year 1975
100% -
80%-
lo 60%-
fc
g 40%-
c
CO
g, 20%-
I
o 0%-
-20%-
-40%-
Real-World Fuel Economy
Horsepower
Weight
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
Over time, automotive technology innovation has been applied to vehicle design with
differing emphasis between vehicle weight, power, CO2 emissions, and fuel economy. In the
two decades before model year 2004, technology innovation was generally used to
30
-------
increase vehicle power, and weight increased due to changing vehicle design, increased
vehicle size, and increased content. During this period, average new vehicle fuel economy
steadily decreased, and CO2 emissions correspondingly increased. However, since model
year 2004, technology has been used to increase fuel economy (up 30%) and power (up
14%), while maintaining vehicle weight and reducing CO2 emissions (down 23%). The
improvement in CO2 emissions and fuel economy since 2004 is due to many factors,
including gasoline prices, consumer preference, and increasing stringency of NHTSA light-
duty car and truck CAFE standards.
Vehicle fuel economy and CO2 emissions are clearly related to vehicle attributes
investigated in this section, namely weight, horsepower, and footprint. Future trends in fuel
economy and CO2 emissions will be dependent, at least in part, by design choices related to
these attributes.
-------
Table 3.1. Vehicle Attributes by Mode \ tv.r
Real-World
Real-World
C02
FE
Weight
Model Year
(g/mi)
(mpg)
(lbs)
1975
681
13.1
4,060
1980
466
19.2
3,228
1985
417
21.3
3,271
1990
420
21.2
3,426
1995
434
20.5
3,613
2000
450
19.8
3,821
2001
453
19.6
3,879
2002
457
19.5
3,951
2003
454
19.6
3,999
2004
461
19.3
4,111
2005
447
19.9
4,059
2006
442
20.1
4,067
2007
431
20.6
4,093
2008
424
21.0
4,085
2009
397
22.4
3,914
2010
394
22.6
4,001
2011
399
22.3
4,126
2012
377
23.6
3,979
2013
368
24.2
4,003
2014
369
24.1
4,060
2015
360
24.6
4,035
2016
359
24.7
4,035
2017
357
24.9
4,093
2018
353
25.1
4,137
2019 (prelim)
346
25.5
4,110
Car
Truck
to 60
Footprint
Production
Production
(s)
(ft2)
Share
Share
-
-
80.7%
19.3%
15.6
-
83.5%
16.5%
14.1
-
75.2%
24.8%
11.5
-
70.4%
29.6%
10.1
-
63.5%
36.5%
9.8
-
58.8%
41.2%
9.5
-
58.6%
41.4%
9.4
-
55.2%
44.8%
9.3
-
53.9%
46.1%
9.1
-
52.0%
48.0%
9.0
-
55.6%
44.4%
8.9
-
57.9%
42.1%
8.9
-
58.9%
41.1%
8.9
48.9
59.3%
40.7%
8.8
47.9
67.0%
33.0%
8.8
48.5
62.8%
37.2%
8.5
49.5
57.8%
42.2%
8.5
48.8
64.4%
35.6%
8.4
49.1
64.1%
35.9%
8.3
49.7
59.3%
40.7%
8.3
49.4
57.4%
42.6%
8.3
49.5
55.3%
44.7%
8.2
49.8
52.5%
47.5%
8.0
50.4
47.9%
52.1%
7.8
50.2
49.8%
50.2%
Horsepower
(HP)
137
104
114
135
158
181
187
195
199
211
209
213
217
219
208
214
230
222
226
230
229
230
234
241
244
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
-------
Table 3.2, Estimated Real-World Fuel Econorm
i CO. i y Vehic,,> <
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Pickup
Model Year
Prod
Share
Real-
World
C02
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
1975
80.6%
660
13.5
0.1%
799
11.1
1.7%
806
11.0
4.5%
800
11.1
13.1%
746
11.9
1980
83.5%
446
20.0
0.0%
610
14.6
1.6%
676
13.2
2.1%
629
14.1
12.7%
541
16.5
1985
74.6%
387
23.0
0.6%
443
20.1
4.5%
538
16.5
5.9%
537
16.5
14.4%
489
18.2
1990
69.8%
381
23.3
0.5%
All
18.8
5.1%
541
16.4
10.0%
498
17.8
14.5%
511
17.4
1995
62.0%
379
23.4
1.5%
499
17.8
10.5%
555
16.0
11.0%
492
18.1
15.0%
526
16.9
2000
55.1%
388
22.9
3.7%
497
17.9
15.2%
555
16.0
10.2%
478
18.6
15.8%
534
16.7
2001
53.9%
386
23.0
4.8%
All
18.8
17.3%
541
16.4
7.9%
493
18.0
16.1%
557
16.0
2002
51.5%
385
23.1
3.7%
460
19.3
22.3%
545
16.3
7.7%
475
18.7
14.8%
564
15.8
2003
50.2%
382
23.3
3.6%
446
19.9
22.6%
541
16.4
7.8%
468
19.0
15.7%
553
16.1
2004
48.0%
384
23.1
4.1%
445
20.0
25.9%
539
16.5
6.1%
464
19.2
15.9%
565
15.7
2005
50.5%
379
23.5
5.1%
440
20.2
20.6%
531
16.7
9.3%
460
19.3
14.5%
561
15.8
2006
52.9%
382
23.3
5.0%
434
20.5
19.9%
518
17.2
7.7%
455
19.5
14.5%
551
16.1
2007
52.9%
369
24.1
6.0%
431
20.6
21.7%
503
17.7
5.5%
456
19.5
13.8%
550
16.2
2008
52.7%
366
24.3
6.6%
419
21.2
22.1%
489
18.2
5.7%
448
19.8
12.9%
539
16.5
2009
60.5%
351
25.3
6.5%
403
22.0
18.4%
461
19.3
4.0%
443
20.1
10.6%
526
16.9
2010
54.5%
340
26.2
8.2%
386
23.0
20.7%
452
19.7
5.0%
442
20.1
11.5%
527
16.9
2011
47.8%
344
25.8
10.0%
378
23.5
25.5%
449
19.8
4.3%
424
20.9
12.3%
516
17.2
2012
55.0%
322
27.6
9.4%
381
23.3
20.6%
445
20.0
4.9%
418
21.3
10.1%
516
17.2
2013
54.1%
313
28.4
10.0%
365
24.3
21.8%
427
20.8
3.8%
422
21.1
10.4%
509
17.5
2014
49.2%
313
28.4
10.1%
364
24.4
23.9%
412
21.6
4.3%
418
21.3
12.4%
493
18.0
2015
47.2%
306
29.0
10.2%
353
25.1
28.1%
406
21.9
3.9%
408
21.8
10.7%
474
18.8
2016
43.8%
303
29.2
11.5%
338
26.2
29.1%
400
22.2
3.9%
410
21.7
11.7%
471
18.9
2017
41.0%
293
30.2
11.5%
339
26.2
31.8%
398
22.3
3.6%
399
22.2
12.1%
470
18.9
2018
36.7%
286
30.8
11.3%
324
27.3
35.1%
384
23.1
3.1%
389
22.8
13.9%
466
19.1
2019 (prelim)
38.5%
283
30.8
11.3%
327
27.0
33.1%
375
23.7
3.4%
387
22.8
13.8%
459
19.4
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
-------
Table 3.3. Model Year 2018 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer
Real-World
Real-World
C02
FE
Weight
0 to 60
Footprint
Manufacturer
(g/mi)
(mpg)
(lbs)
HP
(s)
(ft2)
BMW
339
26.0
4,190
268
6.8
48.3
FCA
409
21.7
4,465
278
7.5
52.0
Ford
397
22.4
4,476
284
7.5
55.3
GM
386
23.0
4,543
269
7.9
54.4
Honda
296
30.0
3,595
202
8.1
47.4
Hyundai
311
28.6
3,470
175
8.9
46.6
Kia
319
27.8
3,521
182
8.7
46.9
Mazda
310
28.7
3,769
187
8.9
46.5
Mercedes
377
23.5
4,430
285
7.0
49.6
Nissan
327
27.1
3,806
201
8.9
47.8
Subaru
310
28.7
3,680
177
9.4
45.0
Tesla
0
113.7
4,523
393
4.7
50.4
Toyota
348
25.5
4,083
220
8.4
48.8
VW
361
24.6
4,168
251
7.6
48.4
Other
351
25.3
4,201
240
8.4
48.1
All Manufacturers
353
25.1
4,137
241
8.0
50.4
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
-------
Table 3.4. Model Year 2018 Estimated Real-World Fuel
Economy and CO. b\ Manufacturer and Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Pickup
Manufacturer
Prod
Share
Real-
World
C02
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
Prod
Share
Real-
World
CO2
(g/mi)
Real-
World
FE
(mpg)
BMW
73.2%
322
27.3
-
-
-
26.8%
387
22.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
FCA
12.1%
397
22.4
7.5%
339
26.2
55.3%
411
21.6
13.0%
386
22.9
12.1%
483
18.5
Ford
22.0%
313
28.4
12.2%
349
25.5
29.8%
416
21.4
1.7%
418
21.3
34.2%
450
19.8
GM
22.5%
297
29.6
14.7%
308
28.9
30.6%
405
22.0
-
-
-
32.2%
466
19.1
Honda
53.7%
263
33.6
9.7%
294
30.2
28.4%
332
26.7
6.9%
382
23.3
1.3%
408
21.8
Hyundai
59.6%
279
31.8
37.3%
353
25.2
3.1%
431
20.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kia
67.9%
290
30.6
11.2%
346
25.7
17.4%
397
22.4
3.5%
426
20.9
-
-
-
Mazda
45.4%
288
30.9
18.5%
311
28.6
36.1%
337
26.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercedes
46.0%
343
25.9
11.5%
339
26.2
40.2%
426
20.8
2.2%
413
21.5
-
-
-
Nissan
57.0%
294
30.1
10.5%
295
30.1
23.8%
369
24.1
1.0%
353
25.2
7.7%
481
18.5
Subaru
22.3%
312
28.4
-
-
-
77.7%
309
28.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tesla
87.8%
0
118.0
8.7%
0
89.9
3.5%
0
90.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toyota
39.9%
267
33.2
11.0%
336
26.4
32.9%
389
22.8
2.8%
397
22.4
13.4%
489
18.2
VW
44.8%
326
27.2
0.4%
380
23.4
54.9%
389
22.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
20.6%
294
30.2
8.9%
330
27.0
68.6%
372
23.9
1.9%
338
26.3
-
-
-
All Manufacturers
36.7%
286
30.8
11.3%
324
27.3
35.1%
384
23.1
3.1%
389
22.8
13.9%
466
19.1
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
-------
Table 3.5. Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2017-2019 (ft2)
Final MY 2017 Final MY 2018 Preliminary MY2019
Manufacturer
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
BMW
46.7
50.6
47.9
47.3
51.1
48.3
46.6
51.5
48.6
FCA
47.4
54.1
52.8
48.9
52.8
52.0
48.1
54.3
52.7
Ford
46.9
57.3
52.5
46.6
59.9
55.3
47.6
58.9
55.1
GM
46.6
58.9
53.5
46.4
59.2
54.4
46.2
57.5
53.6
Honda
45.9
49.7
47.1
46.3
49.4
47.4
46.9
50.3
48.0
Hyundai
46.3
49.2
46.5
46.5
49.2
46.6
46.6
49.2
47.0
Kia
46.1
50.0
47.2
46.2
49.5
46.9
47.1
49.1
47.5
Mazda
45.5
47.2
46.0
45.6
47.9
46.5
45.3
47.7
46.3
Mercedes
48.5
52.0
50.0
48.3
51.3
49.6
47.9
51.3
48.8
Nissan
46.1
51.9
48.0
46.0
51.7
47.8
46.2
52.4
48.3
Subaru
45.1
45.0
45.0
44.9
45.0
45.0
44.8
45.8
45.6
Tesla
53.8
-
53.8
50.3
54.8
50.4
50.0
54.8
50.1
Toyota
45.6
52.6
49.0
46.1
51.6
48.8
46.0
51.6
48.8
VW
45.0
50.2
46.3
45.9
50.5
48.4
45.5
51.1
47.6
Other
44.6
49.3
47.3
45.0
49.4
48.1
46.0
48.9
48.1
All Manufacturers
46.2
53.8
49.8
46.5
53.9
50.4
46.7
53.6
50.2
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
-------
4. Vehicle Technology
Since model year 1975, the technology used in vehicles has continually evolved. Today's
vehicles utilize an increasingly wide array of technological solutions developed by the
automotive industry to improve vehicle attributes discussed previously in this report,
including CO2 emissions, fuel economy, vehicle power, and acceleration. Automotive
engineers and designers are constantly creating and evaluating new technology and
deciding how, or if, it should be applied to their vehicles.
This section of the report focuses on three separate technological areas of a vehicle: the
engine, transmission, and driveline. The engine (or motor) of an automobile is at the heart
of any vehicle design and converts energy stored in fuel (or a battery) into rotational
energy. The transmission converts the rotational energy from the relatively narrow range
of speeds available at the engine to the appropriate speed required for the driving
conditions. The driveline transfers the rotational energy from the transmission to the two
or four wheels being used to move the vehicle. Each of these components has energy
losses, or inefficiencies, which ultimately increase vehicle CO2 emissions and decrease fuel
economy. A basic illustration of the energy flow through a vehicle is shown in Figure 4.1.
Hybrid vehicles, electric vehicles (EVs), and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) may have
somewhat different configurations than shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. Vehicle Energy Flow
-------
Manufacturers are adopting many new technologies to improve efficiency. Figure 4.2
illustrates projected manufacturer-specific technology adoption, with larger circles
representing higher adoption rates, for model year 2019. The figure shows preliminary
model year 2019 technology projections to provide insight on a quickly changing industry,
even though there is some uncertainty in the preliminary data.
Figure 4.2, Manufacturer Use of Emerging Technologies for Model Year 2019
Tesla
Honda -
Subaru -
Mazda
Hyundai -
Kia -
Nissan
BMW -
Toyota -
VW -
Mercedes
GM
Ford
FCA -
All Manufacturers
Engine technologies such as turbocharged engines (Turbo) and gasoline direct injection
(GDI) allow for more efficient engine design and operation. Cylinder deactivation (CD)
allows for only using part of the engine when less power is needed, and stop/start can turn
off the engine entirely when the vehicle is stopped to save fuel. Hybrid vehicles use a larger
54% 83% 50% 40% 21% 5% 4%
14% 70% 93% 28%
27% 95% 54% 0%
15% 82% 27% 3% 4%
10% 86% 13% 22% 6% 8%
7% 39% 80% 10% 1% 0%
84% 85%
98% 98%
3% 1% 26% 51%
86% 99%
98% 100%
12% 9%
89% 0% 82% 3%
100% 4% 91% 3%
65% 46% 5% 54%
75% 5%
14% 13% 1% 84% 19% 52% 16%
34% 54% 24% 48% 13% 36%
6%
100%
1%
1%
2%
2%
3%
4%
0%
1%
2%
40% 90% 4% 49% 47% 62% 0% 2%
0%
1%
3%
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Turbo GDI CVT 7+Gears CD StopStart Hybrid PHEV/
EV/FCV
38
-------
battery to recapture braking energy and provide power when necessary, allowing for a
smaller, more efficiently-operated engine. Transmissions that have seven or more speeds,
and continuously variable transmissions (CVTs), allow the engine to more frequently
operate near its peak efficiency, providing more efficient average engine operation and a
reduction in fuel usage.
The technologies in Figure 4.2 are all being adopted by manufacturers to reduce CO2
emissions and increase fuel economy. In some cases, the adoption is rapid. For example,
GDI was used in fewer than 3% of vehicles as recently as model year 2008 but is projected
to be in more than 50% of vehicles in model year 2019. Electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) are a small but growing percentage of
new vehicles.
Each of the fourteen manufacturers shown in Figure 4.2 have included at least four of
these technologies in their new vehicles (except Tesla, which cannot apply many of these
technologies to their electric vehicles). However, it is also clear that manufacturers'
strategies to develop and adopt new technologies are unique and can vary significantly.
Each manufacturer is choosing technologies that best meet the design requirements of
their vehicles, and in many cases, that technology is changing quickly. The rest of this
section will explore how engine, transmission, and driveline technology has changed since
1975, the impact of those technology changes, and the rate at which technology is adopted
by the industry.
Vehicle engine technology has continually evolved in the 40+ years since EPA began
collecting data. Over that time, engines using gasoline as a fuel have dominated the
market, and the technology on those engines has changed dramatically. More recently,
new engine designs such as PHEVs, EVs, and FCVs have begun to enter the market,
potentially offering dramatic reductions in tailpipe CO2 emissions and further increases in
fuel economy.
The trend in engine technology since model year 1975 is shown in Figure 4.3. Vehicles that
use an engine that operates exclusively on gasoline (including hybrids, but not plug-in
hybrids which also use electricity) have held at least 95% of the light-duty vehicle market in
almost every year. Vehicles with diesel engines briefly captured almost 6% of the market in
model year 1981 but have been less than 1 % of the market in most other years. PHEVs,
EVs, and FCVs have added to the increasing array of technology available in the automotive
marketplace and have been capturing a small but growing portion of the market.
39
-------
Figure 4.3. Production Share by Engine Technology
100% -
75% -
50%
50% -
25% -
25% -
0% -
100% -
75% -
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Car
Truck
Model Year
Fuel Delivery
Valve Timing
Number of Valves
Key
Carbureted
Fixed
Two-Valve
1
Multi-Valve
2
Throttle Body Injection
Fixed
Two-Valve
3
Multi-Valve
4
Port Fuel Injection
Fixed
Two-Valve
5
Multi-Valve
6
Variable
Two-Valve
7
Multi-Valve
8
Gasoline Direct
Fixed
Multi-Valve
9
Injection (GDI)
Variable
Multi-Valve
1
0
Two-Valve
1
1
Diesel
1
2
EV/PHEV/FCV
1
3
-------
Engines that use only gasoline as a fuel (including hybrids) are further divided based on
three broad parameters for Figure 4.3: fuel delivery, valve timing, and number of valves per
cylinder. All of these parameters enable better control of the combustion process, which in
turn can allow for lower CO2 emissions, increased fuel economy, and/or more power. Fuel
delivery refers to the method of creating an air and fuel mixture for combustion. The
technology for fuel delivery has changed over time from carburetors to fuel injection
systems located in the intake system, and more recently to gasoline direct injection (GDI)
systems that spray gasoline directly into the engine cylinder.
The valves on each cylinder of the engine determine the amount and timing of air entering
and exhaust gases exiting the cylinder during the combustion process. Valve timing has
evolved from fixed timing to variable valve timing (WT), which can allow for much more
precise control. In addition, the number of valves per cylinder has generally increased,
again offering more control of air and exhaust flows. All of these changes have led to
modern engines with much more precise control of the combustion process.
Figure 4.3 shows many different engine designs as they have entered, and in many cases
exited, the automotive market. Some fleetwide changes occurred gradually, but in some
cases (for example trucks in the late 1980s), engine technology experienced widespread
change in only a few years. Evolving technology offers opportunities to improve fuel
economy, CO2 emissions, power, and other vehicle parameters. The following analysis will
look at technology trends within gasoline engines (including hybrids), PHEVs and EVs, and
diesel engines. Each of these categories of engine technologies has unique properties,
metrics, and trends over time.
Gasoline Engines
Since EPA began tracking vehicle data in 1975, nearly 600 million vehicles have been
produced for sale in the United States. For most of those years, vehicles relying on a
gasoline engine as the only source of power captured more than 99% of production. The
only exceptions were in the early 1980s when diesel engines peaked briefly at about 6% of
the market, and more recently as electric vehicles have captured some of the market. For
the purposes of this report, hybrid vehicles are included with gasoline engines, as are "flex
fuel" vehicles that are capable of operating on gasoline or a blend of 85% ethanol and 15%
gasoline (E85).
41
-------
Engine Size and Displacement
Engine size is generally described in one of two ways, either the number of cylinders or the
total displacement of the engine (the total volume of the cylinders). Engine size is
important because larger engines strongly correlate with higher fuel use. Figure 4.4 shows
the trends in gasoline engine size over time, as measured by number of cylinders.
Figure 4.4. Gasoline Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
100% -
75% -
-------
capturing a little over half of all production. Production share of 4-cylinder engines has
generally increased since, and now accounts for about 60% of production in model year
2018. Production share of 8-cylinder engines has continued to decrease, to about 10%.
Projected data for model year 2019 suggests these trends will continue.
Overall engine size, as measured by the total volume of all the engine's cylinders, is directly
related to the number of cylinders. As vehicles have moved towards engines with a lower
number of cylinders, the total engine size, or displacement, is also at an all-time low. The
average new vehicle in model year 1975 had a displacement of nearly 300 cubic inches,
compared to an average of 172 cubic inches today. Gasoline engine displacement per
cylinder has been relatively stable over the time of this report (around 35 cubic inches per
cylinder since 1980), so the reduction in overall new vehicle engine displacement is almost
entirely due to the shift towards engines with fewer cylinders.
The contrasting trends in horsepower (at all-time high) and engine displacement (at an all-
time low) highlight the continuing improvement in engines. These improvements are due
to the development of new technologies and ongoing design improvements that allow for
more efficient use of fuel or reduce internal engine friction. One additional way to examine
the relationship between engine horsepower and displacement is to look at the trend in
specific power (HP/Displacement), which is a metric to compare the power output of an
engine relative to its size.
Specific power has increased nearly 200% since model year 1975. The rate at which specific
power has increased has been remarkably steady, as shown in Figure 4.5. The specific
power of new vehicle gasoline engines has increased by about 0.02 horsepower per cubic
inch every year for 40+ years. Considering the numerous and significant changes to
engines over this time span, changes in consumer preferences, and the external pressures
on vehicle purchases, the long-standing linearity of this trend is noteworthy. The roughly
linear increase in specific power does not appear to be slowing. Turbocharged engines,
direct injection, higher compression ratios, and many other engine technologies are likely
to continue increasing engine specific power.
Figure 4.5 also shows two other important engine metrics, the amount of fuel consumed
compared to the overall size of the engine (Fuel Consumption/Displacement), and the
amount of fuel consumed relative to the amount of power produced by an engine (Fuel
Consumption/HP). The amount of fuel consumed by a gasoline engine, relative to the total
displacement, has fallen about 12% since model year 1975, and fuel consumption relative
to engine horsepower has fallen almost 70% since model year 1975. Taken as a whole, the
trend lines in Figure 4.5 clearly show that gasoline engine improvements over time have
43
-------
been steady and continual, and have resulted in impressive improvements to internal
combustion engines.
Figure 4
200% -
150% -
LO
ro 100% -
a>
o
c
if)
g, 50%
c
ro
.c
O
0%
-50%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
Fuel Delivery Systems and Valvetrains
All gasoline engines require a fuel delivery system that controls the flow of fuel delivered
into the engine. The process for controlling fuel flow has changed significantly over time,
allowing for much more control over the combustion process and thus more efficient
engines. In the 1970s and early 1980s, nearly all gasoline engines used carburetors to
meter fuel delivered to the engine. Carburetors were replaced over time with fuel injection
systems; first throttle body injection (TBI) systems, then port fuel injection (PFI) systems,
and more recently gasoline direct injection (GDI), as shown in Figure 4.3. TBI and PFI
systems use fuel injectors to electronically deliver fuel and mix it with air outside of the
engine cylinder; the resulting air and fuel mixture is then delivered to the engine cylinders
for combustion. Engines that utilize GDI spray fuel directly into the air in the engine
cylinder for better control of the combustion process. Engines using GDI were first
introduced into the market with very limited production in model year 2007. Ten years
.5. Percent Change for Specific Gasoline Engine Metrics
HP/Displacement
Fuel Consumption/Displacement
Fuel Consumption/HP
T
T
44
-------
later, GDI engines were installed in 50% of model year 2018 gasoline vehicles and are
projected to continue increasing.
Another key aspect of engine design is the valvetrain. Each engine cylinder must have a set
of valves that allow for air (or an air/fuel mixture) to flow into the engine cylinder prior to
combustion and for exhaust gases to exit the cylinder after combustion. The number of
valves per cylinder and the method of controlling the valves (i.e., the valvetrain) directly
impacts the overall efficiency of the engine. Generally, engines with four valves per cylinder
instead of two, and valvetrains that can alter valve timing during the combustion cycle can
provide more engine control and increase engine power and efficiency.
This report began tracking multi-valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per
cylinder) for cars in model year 1986 and for trucks in model year 1994. Since that time
nearly the entire fleet has converted to multi-valve design. While some three- and five-valve
engines have been produced, the vast majority of multi-valve engines are based on four
valves per cylinder. Engines with four valves generally use two valves for air intake and two
valves for exhaust. In addition, this report began tracking variable valve timing (WT)
technology for cars in model year 1990 and for trucks in model year 2000, and since then
nearly the entire fleet has adopted this technology. Figure 4.3 shows the evolution of
engine technology, including fuel delivery method and the introduction of WT and multi-
valve engines.
As shown in Figure 4.3, fuel delivery and valvetrain technologies have often been
developed simultaneously. Nearly all carbureted engines relied on fixed valve timing and
had two valves per cylinder, as did early port-injected engines. Port-injected engines largely
developed into engines with both multi-valve and WT technology. Engines with GDI are
almost exclusively using multi-valve and WT technology. These four engine groupings, or
packages, represent a large share of the engines produced over the timespan covered by
this report.
Figure 4.6 shows the changes in specific power and fuel consumption per horsepower for
each of these engine packages over time. There is a very clear increase in specific power of
each engine package as engines moved from carbureted engines, to engines with two
valves, fixed timing and port fuel injection, then to engines with multi-valve WT and port
fuel injection, and finally to GDI engines. Some of the increase for GDI engines may also be
due to the fact that GDI engines are often paired with turbochargers to further increase
power. Vehicles with fixed valve timing and two valves per cylinder have been limited in
recent years, and are expected to exit production in model year 2019.
45
-------
Figure 4.6. Engine Metrics for Different Gasoline Technology Packages
2.0
GDI Engines
Variable Timing,
Multi-Valve Engines
Fixed Timing,
Two-Valve Engines
Carbureted Engines
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
Carbureted Engines
Fixed Timing,
Two-Valve Engines
Variable Timing,
Multi-Valve Engines
1
GDI Engines
1
1
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
-------
Turbocfaargiiig
Turbochargers increase the power that an engine can produce by forcing more air, and
thus fuel, into the engine. An engine with a turbocharger can produce more power than an
identically sized engine that is naturally aspirated or does not have a turbocharger.
Turbochargers are powered using the pressure of the engine exhaust as it leaves the
engine. Superchargers operate the same way as turbochargers but are directly connected
to the engine for power, instead of using the engine exhaust. Alternate turbocharging and
supercharging methods, such as electric superchargers, are also beginning to emerge. A
limited number of new vehicles utilize both a turbocharger and supercharger in one engine
package.
Turbocharged engines have been increasing rapidly in the marketplace and 34% of all
engines are expected to be turbocharged gasoline engines in model year 2019, as shown in
Figure 4.7. Many of these engines are applying turbochargers to create "turbo downsized"
engine packages that can combine the improved fuel economy of smaller engines during
normal operation but can provide the power of a larger engine by engaging the
turbocharger when necessary. As evidence of this turbo downsizing, more than 80% of
turbocharged engines are 4-cylinder engines, with most other turbochargers being used in
6-cylinder engines. This is shown in Figure 4.8.
Most of the current turbocharged engines also use GDI and WT. This allows for more
efficient engine operation, helps increase the resistance to premature combustion (engine
knock), and reduces turbo lag (the amount of time it takes for a turbocharger to engage). In
model year 2018, more than 90% of new vehicles with gasoline turbocharged engines also
used GDI.
Figure 4.9 examines the distribution of engine displacement and power of turbocharged
engines over time. In model year 2010, turbochargers were used mostly in cars, and were
available on engines both above and below the average engine displacement. The biggest
increase in turbocharger use over the last few years has been in cars with engine
displacement well below the average displacement. The distribution of horsepower for
turbocharged engines is much closer to the average horsepower, even though the
displacement is smaller, reflecting the higher power per displacement of turbocharged
engines. This trend towards adding turbochargers to smaller, less powerful engines is
consistent with the turbo downsizing trend.
47
-------
Figure 4.7. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
30% -
20% -
10%-
VehicleType
Sedan/Wagon
ฆ Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
I Pickup
0%i
2003
2008
2013
2018
Model Year
Figure 4.8. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
30% -
o
=3
~o
o
L
Q.
20% -
10%-
0%-
Cylinders
4 Cylinder
| 6 Cylinder
8 Cylinder
I Other
ฆฆฆฆIllll
2003
2008
2013
2018
Model Year
48
-------
Figure 4.9. Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and
Horsepower, Model Year 2011, 2014, and 2018
Horsepower
Displacement (cubic inches)
Mean HP,
All Cars
N
. Mean HP.
All Trucks
Mean Displacement,
All Cars
; Mean Displacement,
All Trucks
N>
o
Mean HP
All Cars
Mean Displace
All Cars
nent
Mean HP,
All Trucks
Mean Displacement
All Trucks
Mean HP.
All Cars
Mean Displac
All Cars
;ment
Mean HP.
All T rucks
Mean Displacement
All Trucks
|Truck
Car
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
49
-------
Cylinder Deactivation
Cylinder deactivation is an engine management approach that turns off the flow of fuel to
one or more engine cylinders when driving conditions do not require full engine power.
This effectively allows a large engine to act as a smaller engine when the additional
cylinders are not needed, increasing engine efficiency and fuel economy. The use of
cylinder deactivation in gasoline vehicles has been steadily climbing, and in model year
2018 gasoline engines with cylinder deactivation were 13% of all vehicles. This trend is
expected to continue, especially as new improvements to cylinder deactivation technology,
such as dynamic cylinder deactivation, reach the market.
Stop/Start
Engine stop/start technology allows the engine to be automatically turned off at idle and
very quickly restarted when the driver releases the brake pedal. By turning the engine off, a
vehicle can eliminate the fuel use and CO2 emissions that would have occurred if the
engine was left running. This report began tracking stop/start technology in model year
2012 at less than one percent, and already the use of stop/start has increased to 30% of all
vehicles, with an increase to almost 36% projected for model year 2019.
Hybrids
Gasoline hybrid vehicles feature a battery pack that is larger than the battery found on a
typical gasoline vehicle, which allows these vehicles to store and strategically apply
electrical energy to supplement the gasoline engine. The result is that the engine can be
smaller than what would be needed in a non-hybrid vehicle, and the engine can be
operated near its peak efficiency more often. Hybrids also utilize regenerative braking,
which uses a motor/generator to capture energy from braking instead of losing that energy
to friction and heat, as in traditional friction braking, and stop/start technology to turn off
the engine at idle. The combination of these strategies can result in significant reductions
in fuel use and CO2 emissions.
Hybrids were first introduced in the U.S. marketplace in model year 2000 with the Honda
Insight. As more models and options were introduced, hybrid production generally
increased to 3.8% of all vehicles in model year 2010. Between model years 2010 and 2018,
production of hybrids remained in the range of 2-3%, as shown in Figure 4.10. Most
hybrids through model year 2018 utilized 4-cylinder engines, shown in Figure 4.11.
50
-------
Figure 4.10. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
(D
ฆ_
CTJ
w
c
o
o
~o
o
5%-
4% -
3%-
2%-
1%-
0%-
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
ฆ Car SUV
Truck SUV
I Pickup
2000
2005
2010
Model Year
2015
2020
Figure 4.11. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
-------
The projected data for model year 2019 shows a significant change for hybrid production,
driven mostly by FCA's introduction of a "mild" hybrid into the Ram 1500 pickup truck and
thejeep Wrangler. FCA's hybrid system is expected to push overall hybrid sales to 5% of
production in model year 2019. The new FCA engines also dramatically increase the
number of both pickup hybrids and hybrids based on 6 or 8-cylinder engines.
The mild hybrid system used by FCA (and other manufacturers) are capable of regenerative
braking and many of the same functions as other hybrids, but utilize a smaller battery and
an electrical motor that cannot directly drive the vehicle. If these types of hybrids do in fact
capture a significant market share, this report may disaggregate hybrids in the future for
more detailed analysis.
The production-weighted distribution of fuel economy for all hybrid cars by year is shown
in Figure 4.12. Hybrid cars, on average, had fuel economy more than 50% higher than the
average non-hybrid car in model year 2018. As a production weighted average, hybrid cars
(including sedan/wagons and car SUVs) achieved 45 mpg for model year 2018, while the
average non-hybrid car achieved about 29 mpg.
Figure 4.12. Hybrid Real-World Fuel Economy Distribution, Cars Only
60
Highest Hybrid Car
Average Non-Hybrid Car
0
^ 10-
Lowest Hybrid Car
0-
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
Model Year
52
-------
Figure 4.12 is presented only for cars since the production of hybrid trucks has been
limited. While the average fuel economy of hybrid cars remains higher than the average
fuel economy of non-hybrid cars, the difference has narrowed considerably. Average
hybrid car fuel economy has been relatively stable since model year 2001, while the fuel
economy of the average non-hybrid car has increased more than 30%.
Plug-In Hybrid Electric, Elect? i Furl lYH YHn,
PHEVs and EVs are two types of vehicles that can store electricity from an external source
onboard the vehicle, utilizing that stored energy to propel the vehicle. PHEVs are similar to
gasoline hybrids discussed previously, but the battery packs in PHEVs can be charged from
an external electricity source; this cannot be done in gasoline hybrids. EVs operate using
only energy stored in a battery from external charging. Fuel cell vehicles use a fuel cell to
chemically convert a fuel (usually hydrogen) into electrical energy that is then used to
power the vehicle.
EVs do not emit tailpipe emissions at the vehicle. However, generating the electricity used
to charge EVs, in most cases, creates emissions. The amount of emissions created by
charging EVs varies depending on fuel source of the electricity, which can in turn vary
based on location and time of day. The electric grid in the US has also been changing over
time, as natural gas and renewable energy resources have been responsible for a growing
portion of electricity generation across the US. Depending on the source of electricity, EVs
can result in much lower CO2 emissions over their lifetime compared to gasoline vehicles.
Since EVs do not use gasoline, the familiar metric of miles per gallon cannot be applied to
EVs. Instead, EVs are rated in terms of miles per gallon-equivalent (mpge), which is the
number of miles that an EV travels on an amount of electrical energy equivalent to the
energy in a gallon of gasoline. This metric enables a direct comparison of energy efficiency
between EVs and gasoline vehicles. EVs generally have a much higher energy efficiency
than gasoline vehicles because electric motors are much more efficient than gasoline
engines.
PHEVs combine the benefits of EVs with the benefits of a gasoline hybrid. These vehicles
can operate either on electricity or gasoline, allowing for a wide range of engine designs
and strategies for the utilization of stored electrical energy during typical driving. The use
of electricity to provide some or all of the energy required for propulsion can significantly
lower fuel consumption and tailpipe CO2 emissions. For a much more detailed discussion
of EV and PHEV metrics, as well as upstream emissions from electricity, see Appendix E.
53
-------
The production of EVs and PHEVs has increased rapidly in recent years. Prior to model year
2011, EVs were available, but generally only in small numbers for lease in California.13 In
model year 2011 the first PHEV, the Chevrolet Volt, was introduced along with the Nissan
Leaf EV. Many additional models have been introduced since, and in model year 2018
combined EV/PHEV sales reached 2.2% of overall production, as shown in Figure 4.13.
Figure 4.13. Production Share of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs, Model Year 1995-201914
3.5%
3.0%-
2.5%-
CD
ฎ 2.0% -
(D
c
o
"ง 1.5%-
"O
2
CL
1.0%-
0.5% -
0%-
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
Combined EV/PHEV production is projected to reach more than 3% in model year 2019. The
inclusion of model year 2018 EV and PHEV sales reduces the overall new vehicle average
CO2 emissions by 7 g/mi, and this impact will continue to grow if EV and PHEV production
increases. In model year 2018 there were three hydrogen FCVs available for sale, but they
Plug-In Hybrid EV
Electric Vehicle
Fuel Cell Vehicle
13 At least over the timeframe covered by this report. Electric vehicles were initially produced more than 100
years ago.
14 EV production data were supplemented with data from Ward's and other publicly available production data
for model years prior to 2011. The data only include offerings from original equipment manufacturers and does
not include data on vehicles converted to alternative fuels in the aftermarket.
54
-------
were only available in the state of California and in very small numbers. However there
continues to be interest in FCVs as a future technology.
Figure 4.14 shows the range and fuel economy trends for EVs and PHEVs. The average
range of new EVs has climbed substantially. In model year 2019 the average new EV is
projected to have a 280-mile range, or more than three and a half times the range of an
average EV in 2011. This difference is largely attributable to higher production of new EVs
with much longer ranges. The range values shown for PHEVs are the charge-depleting
range, where the vehicle is operating on energy in the battery from an external source. This
is generally the electric range of the PHEV, although some vehicles also use the gasoline
engine in small amounts during charge depleting operation. The average charge depleting
range for PHEVs has remained unchanged since model year 2011.
Along with improving range, the fuel economy of electric vehicles has also improved as
measured in miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge). The fuel economy of electric
vehicles has increased almost 20% since model year 2011. The combined fuel economy of
PHEVs has been more variable and does not appear to have a clear trend. For more
information about EV and PHEV metrics, see Appendix E of this report.
Figure 4.14. Charge Depleting Range and Fuel Economy Trends for EVs and
PHEVs
Range (mi)
400-
300
200
100
0
Electric Vehicles /
Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicles
120
100-
80
60
Fuel Economy (mpge)
Electric Vehicles /
Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicles
2012 2014 2016 2018 2012
Model Year
2014 2016
2018
55
-------
sel Engines
Vehicles with diesel engines have been available in the U.S. at least as long as EPA has been
collecting data. However, sales of diesel vehicles have rarely broken more than 1 % of the
overall market. Diesel vehicle sales peaked at 5.9% of the market in model year 1981, but
quickly fell back to below 1 % of production per year. While the overall percentage of diesel
vehicles is low, there are still new vehicles entering the market.
Vehicles that rely on diesel fuel often achieve higher fuel economy than gasoline vehicles,
largely because the energy density of diesel fuel is about 15% higher than that of gasoline.
However, there is less of an advantage in terms of CO2 emissions because diesel fuel also
contains about 15% more carbon per gallon, and thus emits more CO2 per gallon burned
than gasoline.
Figure 4.15 shows the production share of diesel engines by vehicle type. Diesel engines
have historically been more prevalent in the sedan/wagon vehicle type, however there has
been very limited diesel sedan/wagon production in recent years. Light-duty diesel pickup
trucks have recently re-entered the market, although only in small volumes. This report
does not include the largest pickup trucks and work or vocational trucks, which have a
higher penetration of diesel engines. As shown in Figure 4.16, current production of diesel
engines for light-duty vehicles is limited to smaller four- and six-cylinder engines.
Diesel engines, as with gasoline engines, have improved over time. Figure 4.17 shows the
same metrics and trends that are explored in Figure 4.5 for gasoline engines. The specific
power (HP/displacement) for diesel engines has increased about 200% since model year
1975. Fuel consumption per displacement dropped slightly in the 1980s but has increased
back to about the same level as in model year 1975. Finally, fuel consumption per
horsepower for diesel engines has declined about 75% since model year 1975.
-------
Figure 4.15. Diesel Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
6% -
oj 4% -
03
-C
CO
c
.2
+-<
o
3
"O
o
Q_ 2% -
0%"
,.n
VehicleType
Sedan/Wagon
ฆ Car SUV
Truck SUV
| Minivan/Van
I Pickup
.ฆฆฆall
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r*
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
Figure 4.16. Diesel Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
6%
a> 4%
ro
sz
(/)
c
o
o
D
U
o
o: 2%
o%
Cylinders
4 Cylinder
16 Cylinder
8 Cylinder
I Other
...llilll.il
1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 r
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
57
-------
150%
ฃ
S> 100%
-------
B. Transmission and Drive Types
The vehicle transmission and driveline connect the engine to the wheels, as shown in
Figure 4.1. There are two important aspects of transmissions that impact overall vehicle
efficiency and fuel economy. First, as torque (rotational force) is transferred through the
transmission, a small amount is lost to friction, which reduces vehicle efficiency. Second,
the design of the transmission impacts how the engine is operated, and generally
transmissions with more speeds offer more opportunity to operate the engine in the most
efficient way possible. For example, a vehicle with an eight-speed transmission will have
more flexibility in determining engine operation than a vehicle with a five-speed
transmission. This can lead to reduced fuel consumption and CO2 emissions compared to a
vehicle that is identical except for the number of transmission gears.
Transmissions
Transmission designs have been rapidly evolving to increase the number of gears available
and allow for both better engine operation and improved efficiency. The number of gears
in new vehicles continues to increase, as does the use of continuously variable
transmissions (CVTs). Figure 4.18 shows the evolution of transmission production share for
cars and trucks since model year 1980.15 For this analysis, transmissions are separated into
manual transmissions, CVTs, and automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are
further separated into those with and without lockup mechanisms, which can lock up the
torque converter in an automatic transmission under certain driving conditions and
improve efficiency. CVTs have also been split into hybrid and non-hybrid versions to reflect
the fact that hybrid CVTs are generally very different mechanically from traditional CVTs.
Dual clutch transmissions (DCTs) are essentially automatic transmissions that operate
internally much more like traditional manual transmissions. The two main advantages of
DCTs are that they can shift very quickly, and they can avoid some of the internal resistance
of a traditional automatic transmission by eliminating the torque converter. Currently,
automaker submissions to EPA do not explicitly identify DCTs as a separate transmission
category. Thus, the introduction of DCTs shows up in Figure 4.18 as a slight increase in
automatic transmissions without torque converters (although some DCTs may still be
reported as traditional automatic transmissions).
15 EPA has incomplete transmission data prior to MY 1980.
-------
Figure 4.18. Transmission Production Share
CVT(h)
CVT(h)
100% -
75% -
50% -
25% -
a>
U_
CD
^ 0% -
c
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
o 100% -
=3
T3
O
u_
75% A
50% -
25% -
0%-
(0
O
Model Year
Transmission
Lockup?
Number of Gears
Key
Automatic
No
3
A3
Semi-Automatic
4
A4
Automated Manual
5
A5*
6
A6
7
A7
8
K
CO
<
Yes
2
L2*
3
L3
4
L4
5
L5
6
L6
7
L7
8 IPs
9
10
Manual
-
3
M3
4
M4
5
M5
6
M6
7
M7*
Continuously Variable
(non-hybrid)
CVT(n-h)
Continuously Variable
(hybrid)
CVT(h)
Other
-
-
Other
'Categories A5, AS, L2, arid M7 are too small to depict in the area plot
-------
In the early 1980s, three-speed automatic transmissions, both with and without lockup
torque converters (shown as L3 and A3), were the most popular transmissions, but by
model year 1985, the four-speed automatic transmission with lockup (L4) became the most
popular transmission, a position it would hold for 25 years. Over 80% of all new vehicles
produced in model year 1999 were equipped with an L4 transmission. After model year
1999, the production share of L4 transmissions slowly decreased as L5 and L6
transmissions were introduced into the market. Production of L5 and L6 transmissions
combined passed the production of L4 transmissions in model year 2007.
Six-speed transmissions became the most popular transmission choice in model year 2010
and reached 60% of new vehicle production in model year 2013. However, the prevalence
of 6-speed transmissions has since dropped quickly, to 38% in model year 2018 and to a
projected 24% in model year 2019, because manufacturers are increasingly adopting
transmissions with seven or more speeds and CVTs. Over the last ten years, the production
share of transmissions with seven or more speeds has increased from 2% to over 36%, and
the production share of CVTs (including hybrids) has increased from 8% to over 22%. While
six-speed transmissions remained the most popular technology choice in model year 2018,
both CVTs and eight-speed transmissions are projected to capture a higher production
share than six-speed transmissions in model year 2019.
Figure 4.19 shows the average number of gears in new vehicle transmissions since model
year 1980 for automatic and manual transmissions. The average number of gears in new
vehicles has been steadily climbing for car, trucks, automatic transmissions, and manual
transmissions. In model year 1980, automatic transmissions, on average, had fewer gears
than manual transmissions. However, automatic transmissions have added gears faster
than manual transmissions, and now the average automatic transmission has more gears
than the average manual transmission.
-------
Figure 4.19. Average Number of Transmission Gears for New Vehicles
8
7
6
Manual
5
4
Automatic
3
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Model Year
Figure 4.20. Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Real-World
Fuel Economy for Comparable Vehicles
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
Automatic transmissions
are more efficient
Manual transmissions
are more efficient
1980
1990
2000
Model Year
2010
2020
62
-------
In the past, automatic transmissions have generally been less efficient than manual
transmissions, largely due to inefficiencies in the automatic transmission torque converter.
Figure 4.20 examines this trend over time by comparing the fuel economy of automatic and
manual transmission options where both transmissions were available in one model with
the same engine. Vehicles with a manual transmission were more efficient than their
automatic counterparts through about 2010, but modern automatic transmissions are now
more efficient. Two contributing factors to this trend are that automatic transmission
design has become more efficient (using earlier lockup and other strategies), and the
number of gears used in automatic transmissions has increased faster than in manual
transmissions.
Since 1980, there has been a large shift away from manual transmissions. Manual
transmission production peaked in model year 1980 at nearly 35% of production and has
since fallen to an all-time low of 1.6% in model year 2018. Today, manual transmissions are
available only in a limited number of small vehicles, sports cars, and a few pickups. The
shrinking availability of manual transmissions does limit the relevance of analysis
comparing current manual transmissions to automatic transmissions.
63
-------
Drive Types
There has been a long and steady trend in new vehicle drive type away from rear-wheel
drive vehicles towards front-wheel drive and four-wheel drive (including all-wheel drive)
vehicles, as shown in Figure 4.21. In model year 1975, over 91 % of new vehicles were
produced with rear-wheel drive. Since then, production of rear-wheel drive vehicles has
steadily declined to about 10% in model year 2018. Current production of rear-wheel drive
vehicles is mostly limited to pickup trucks and some performance vehicles.
As production of rear-wheel drive vehicles declined, production of front-wheel drive
vehicles increased. Front-wheel drive vehicle production was only 5% of new vehicle
production in model year 1975 but began increasing until about 64% of all new vehicles in
model year 1990 were front-wheel drive designs. Front-wheel drive has remained the most
popular vehicle design, but the production share of front-wheel drive vehicles has been
falling as production of four-wheel drive vehicles, including all-wheel drive vehicles, has
been steadily growing. Four-wheel drive systems have increased from 3.3% in model year
1975 to 46% in model year 2018. If this trend continues, four-wheel drive may be the most
popular drive system within a few years.
Figure 4.21. Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive Production Share
100%-
Drive
Four-Wheel
ฆ Front-Wheel
Rear-Wheel
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
64
-------
C. Technology Adoption
One additional way to evaluate the evolution of technology in the automotive industry is to
focus on how technology has been adopted over time. Understanding how the industry has
adopted technology can lead to a better understanding of past changes in the industry,
and how emerging technology may be integrated in the future. The following analysis
provides more details about how manufacturers and the overall industry have adopted
new technology.
Industry-Wide Technology Adoption Sina l,v /S
Figure 4.22 shows industry-wide adoption rates for seven technologies in passenger cars.
These technologies are fuel injection (including throttle body, port, and direct injection),
front-wheel drive, multi-valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per cylinder),
engines with variable valve timing, lockup transmissions, advanced transmissions
(transmissions with six or more speeds, and CVTs), and gasoline direct injection engines. To
provide a common scale, the adoption rates are plotted in terms of the number of years
after the technology achieved first significant use in the industry. First significant use
generally represents a production threshold of 1 %, though in some cases, where full data
are not available, first significant use represents a slightly higher production share.
The technology adoption pattern shown in Figure 4.22 is roughly similar for each of the
seven technologies, even though they vary widely in application, complexity, and when they
were initially introduced. It has taken, on average, approximately 15-20 years for new
technologies to reach maximum penetration across the industry. GDI is a newer technology
that has likely not reached maximum penetration across the industry but appears to be
following the adoption trend of other more mature technologies. While some of these
technologies may eventually be adopted in 100% of new vehicles, there may be reasons
that other technologies, like front-wheel drive, will likely never be adopted in all vehicles.
Adoption rates for these technologies in trucks are similar, with the exception of front-
wheel drive.
The analysis for Figure 4.22 focuses on technologies that have achieved widespread use by
multiple manufacturers and does not look at narrowly-adopted technologies which never
achieved widespread use. One limitation to the data in this report is that EPA does not
begin tracking technology production share data until after the technologies had achieved
some limited market share. For example, EPA did not begin to track multi-valve engine data
until model year 1986 for cars and model year 1994 for trucks, and in both cases multi-
valve engines had captured about 5% market share by that time. Likewise, turbochargers
65
-------
were not tracked in Trends until model year 1996 for cars and model year 2003 for trucks,
and while turbochargers had less than a 1 % market share in both cases at that time, it is
likely that turbochargers had exceeded 1 % market share in the late 1980s. Cylinder
deactivation was utilized by at least one major manufacturer in the 1980s.
Figure 4.22. Industry-Wide Car Technology Penetration after First Significant
Use
100% -
75% -
ฃ
OJ
.ฃ=
to
c.
50% -
O
3
"O
o
1
Q_
25% -
0%-
0 10 20 30 40 50
Years after First Significant Use
Technology Adoption by Manufacturers
The rate at which the overall industry adopts technology is determined by how quickly, and
at what point in time, individual manufacturers adopt the technology. While it is important
to understand the industry-wide adoption rates over time, the trends in Figure 4.22 mask
the fact that not all manufacturers introduced these technologies at the same time, or at
the same rate. The "sequencing" of manufacturers introducing new technologies is an
important aspect of understanding the overall industry trend of technology adoption.
Figure 4.23 begins to disaggregate the industry-wide trends to examine how individual
manufacturers have adopted new technologies.16 For each technology, Figure 4.23 shows
16 This figure is based on available data. Some technologies may have been introduced into the market before
this report began tracking them. Generally, these omissions are limited, with the exception of multi-valve
Fuel Injection
Lockup
Advanced
Transmission
Front-Wheel
Drive
Multi-Valve
Variable-Valve
Timing
66
-------
the amount of time it took specific manufacturers to move from initial introduction to 80%
penetration for each technology, as well as the same data for the overall industry. After
80% penetration, the technology is assumed to be largely incorporated into the
manufacturer's fleet, and changes between 80% and 100% are not highlighted.
Of the seven technologies shown in Figure 4.23, five are now at or near full market
penetration for the included manufacturers, and two are still in the process of adoption by
manufacturers. The technologies shown in Figure 4.23 vary widely in terms of complexity,
application, and when they were introduced into the market. For each technology, there
are clearly variations between manufacturers, both in terms of when they began to adopt a
technology, and the rate with which they adopted the technology. The degree of variation
between the manufacturers also varies by technology.
The data for WT (shown in Figure 4.22 and Figure 4.23), for example, show that several
manufacturers adopted the technology much faster than the overall industry, which
achieved 80% penetration in just over 20 years. It was not the rate of technology adoption
alone, but rather the staggered implementation timeframes among manufacturers that
resulted in the longer industry-wide average.
Fuel injection systems show the least amount of variation in initial adoption timing
between manufacturers, which resulted in a faster adoption by the industry overall than
technologies like WT. One important driver for adoption of fuel injection was increasingly
stringent emissions standards. Advanced transmissions, which have been available in small
numbers for some time, have very rapidly increased market penetration in recent years
and are now widely adopted. GDI engines appear to be following a similar path of quick
uptake in recent years. Turbocharged engines have long been available, but the focus on
turbo downsized engine packages is leading to much higher market penetration, although
it is too early to tell what level of penetration they will ultimately achieve industry-wide.
engine data for Honda. Honda had already achieved 70% penetration of multi-valve engines when this report
began tracking them in 1986, so this figure does not illustrate Honda's prior trends.
-------
Figure 4.23. Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key
Technologies
ฃ
=3
O
>2
c
ro
GM
Toyota -
Ford -
FCA -
Honda -
Nissan -
VW-
All Manufacturers -
GM
Toyota -
Ford-
FCA
Honda -
Nissan -
VW-
All Manufacturers -
GM
Toyota
Ford
FCA
Honda
Nissan
VW
All Manufacturers
GM
Toyota
Ford
FCA
Honda
Nissan
VW
All Manufacturers
GM
Toyota
Ford
FCA
Honda
Nissan
VW
All Manufacturers
GM
Toyota
Ford
FCA
Honda
Nissan
VW
All Manufacturers
GM
Toyota
Ford
FCA
Honda
Nissan
VW
All Manufacturers
Fuel Injection
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
ฆ
II II II
1980
1990
2000
2010
i
2020
Lockup
ฆฆฆฆ ฆ
ฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆฆ
ฆฆฆฆฆ
ฆฆii
Multi-Valve
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Variable Valve
Timing
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Advanced
Transmissions
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Gasoline Direct
Injection
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
)!ฆฆฆฆ
Turtoocharged
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
Model Year
Percent of Production
20% to 25%
10% to 15%
0% to 5% I
I I
25% to 50% 75% to 80%
15% to 20% 50% to 75%
80% to 100%
5% to 10%
68
-------
The discrepancy between manufacturer adoption rates, and the timeframe when they
chose to adopt technologies, is clear in Figure 4.23 for WT. For more detail, Figure 4.24
shows the percent penetration of WT over time for each manufacturer (solid red line)
versus the average for all manufacturers (dotted grey line) and the maximum penetration
by any manufacturer (solid grey line). The largest increase in WT penetration over any
one-, three-, and five-year period for each manufacturer is shown in Figure 4.24 as green,
orange, and yellow boxes.
Each manufacturer clearly followed a unique trajectory to adopt WT. It took over 20 years
for nearly all new vehicles to adopt WT; however, it is also very clear that individual
manufacturers adopted WT across their own vehicle offerings much faster. All of the
manufacturers shown in Figure 4.24 were able to adopt WT across the vast majority of
their new vehicle offerings in under 15 years, and many accomplished that feat in under
ten years. As indicated by the yellow rectangles in Figure 4.24 several manufacturers
increased their penetration rates of WT by 75% or more over a five-year period. It is also
important to note that every manufacturer shown adopted WT into new vehicles at a rate
faster than the overall industry-wide data would imply. The industry average represents
both the rate that manufacturers adopted WT and the effect of manufacturers adopting
the technology at different times. Accordingly, the industry average shown in Figure 4.22
does not represent the average pace at which individual manufacturers adopted WT,
which is considerably faster.
WT was first tracked in this report for cars in model year 1990 and for trucks in model year
2000. Between model year 1990 and model year 2000, there may be a small number of
trucks with WT that are not accounted for in the data. However, the first trucks with WT
produced in larger volumes (greater than 50,000 vehicles) were produced in model year
1999 and model year 2000, so the discrepancy is not enough to noticeably alter the trends
in the previous figures.
69
-------
Best 1-year increase
Best 3-year increase
Best 5-year increase
Highest
Manufacturer
Fleet Average
Figure 4.24. WT Adoption Details by Manufacturer
All Manufacturers FCA Ford
100%-
75%-
50%-
25%-
I- o%-
>
>
Honda
Hyundai
100%-
co 75% -
0)
o
50%-
25% -
cD 0%H
o
CD
100%-|
Model Year
Technology Adoption in the Last Five Years
Over the last five years, engines and transmissions have continued to evolve and adopt
new technologies. Figure 4.25 shows the penetration of several key technologies in model
year 2013 and the projected penetration for each technology in model year 2018 vehicles.
Over that five-year span, GDI is projected to increase market share by about 17%, CVTs by
17%, and transmissions with seven or more speeds by more than 35% across the entire
industry. These are large changes taking place across the industry over a relatively short
time. As discussed in the previous section, individual manufacturers are making technology
changes at even faster rates.
1990
2000
2010
2020
75% -
50%-
25% -
Nissan
2000
I 1-
2010 2020
Toyota
2000
I 1
2010 2020
70
-------
Figure 4.25. Five-Year Change in Light Duty Vehicle Technology Production
Share
GDI Turbo CD Stop/ Hybrid Diesel Six Seven CVT
Start speed speed +
There are many factors outside the scope of this report that influence the rate and timing
of when technology is adopted by individual manufacturers (e.g., price, manufacturing
constraints, regulatory drivers, etc.) While no attempt is made here to identify the
underlying causes, it is important to recognize that variation between manufacturers for
given technologies can be masked when only the industry-wide trends are evaluated.
Technology adoption by individual manufacturers is often more rapid than the overall
industry trend would suggest. Manufacturers continue to adopt new technologies, and the
penetration of important technologies has grown significantly over the last five years.
71
-------
Tabk s * oductio > c\ En;
Powertrain
Gasoline
Technologies
Fuel Delivery Method
Avg. No.
of
Multi-
Stop/
Model Year
Gasoline
Hybrid
Diesel
Other
Carb
GDI
Port
TBI
EV
FCV
Cylinders
CID
HP
Valve
WT
CD
Turbo
Start
1975
99.8%
-
0.2%
95.7%
-
4.1%
0.0%
-
-
6.8
293
137
-
-
-
-
-
1980
95.7%
-
4.3%
89.7%
-
5.2%
0.8%
-
-
5.6
198
104
-
-
-
-
-
1985
99.1%
-
0.9%
56.1%
-
18.2%
24.8%
-
-
5.5
189
114
-
-
-
-
-
1990
99.9%
-
0.1%
2.1%
-
70.8%
27.0%
-
-
5.4
185
135
23.1%
-
-
-
-
1995
100.0%
-
0.0%
-
-
91.6%
8.4%
-
-
5.6
196
158
35.6%
-
-
-
-
2000
99.8%
0.0%
0.1%
-
-
99.8%
0.0%
-
-
5.7
200
181
44.8%
15.0%
-
1.3%
-
2001
99.7%
0.1%
0.1%
-
-
99.9%
-
-
-
5.8
201
187
49.0%
19.6%
-
2.0%
-
2002
99.6%
0.2%
0.2%
-
-
99.8%
-
-
-
5.8
203
195
53.3%
25.3%
-
2.2%
-
2003
99.5%
0.3%
0.2%
-
-
99.8%
-
-
-
5.8
204
199
55.5%
30.6%
-
1.2%
-
2004
99.4%
0.5%
0.1%
-
-
99.9%
-
-
-
5.9
212
211
62.3%
38.5%
-
2.3%
-
2005
98.6%
1.1%
0.3%
-
-
99.7%
-
-
-
5.8
205
209
65.6%
45.8%
0.8%
1.7%
-
2006
98.1%
1.5%
0.4%
-
-
99.6%
-
-
-
5.7
204
213
71.7%
55.4%
3.6%
2.1%
-
2007
97.7%
2.2%
0.1%
-
-
99.8%
-
-
-
5.6
203
217
71.7%
57.3%
7.3%
2.5%
-
2008
97.4%
2.5%
0.1%
-
2.3%
97.6%
-
-
-
5.6
199
219
76.4%
58.2%
6.7%
3.0%
-
2009
97.2%
2.3%
0.5%
-
4.2%
95.2%
-
-
-
5.2
183
208
83.8%
71.5%
7.3%
3.3%
-
2010
95.5%
3.8%
0.7%
0.0%
-
8.3%
91.0%
-
-
0.0%
5.3
188
214
85.5%
83.8%
6.4%
3.3%
-
2011
97.0%
2.2%
0.8%
0.1%
-
15.4%
83.8%
-
0.1%
0.0%
5.4
192
230
86.4%
93.1%
9.5%
6.8%
-
2012
95.5%
3.1%
0.9%
0.4%
-
22.5%
76.5%
-
0.1%
0.0%
5.1
181
222
91.8%
96.6%
8.1%
8.4%
0.6%
2013
94.8%
3.6%
0.9%
0.7%
-
30.5%
68.3%
-
0.3%
-
5.1
176
226
92.8%
97.4%
7.7%
13.9%
2.3%
2014
95.7%
2.6%
1.0%
0.7%
-
37.4%
61.3%
-
0.3%
0.0%
5.1
180
230
89.2%
97.6%
10.6%
14.8%
5.1%
2015
95.9%
2.4%
0.9%
0.7%
-
41.9%
56.7%
-
0.5%
0.0%
5.0
177
229
91.2%
97.2%
10.5%
15.7%
7.1%
2016
96.9%
1.8%
0.5%
0.8%
-
48.0%
51.0%
-
0.5%
0.0%
5.0
174
230
92.3%
98.0%
10.4%
19.9%
9.6%
2017
96.1%
2.3%
0.3%
1.4%
-
49.7%
49.4%
-
0.6%
0.0%
5.0
174
234
92.0%
98.1%
11.9%
23.4%
17.8%
2018
95.1%
2.3%
0.4%
2.2%
-
50.2%
48.0%
-
1.4%
0.0%
5.0
172
241
91.0%
96.4%
12.5%
30.0%
29.8%
2019 (prelim)
91.0%
5.0%
0.7%
3.3%
-
54.2%
42.4%
-
2.6%
0.0%
5.0
169
244
90.5%
95.3%
13.1%
33.6%
36.3%
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends
i
1
72
-------
Table 4.2,
Production Share by Transmission Technologies
Automatic
Automatic
CVT
4 Gears
CVT Average
with
without
CVT
(Non-
or
5
6
7
8
9+
CVT
(Non-
No. of
Model Year
Manual
Lockup
Lockup
(Hybrid) Hybrid)
Other Fewer
Gears
Gears
Gears
Gears
Gears
(Hybrid) Hybrid)
Gears
1975
23.0%
0.2%
76.8%
-
-
99.0%
1.0%
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1980
34.6%
18.1%
46.8%
-
-
0.5% 87.9%
12.1%
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.5
1985
26.5%
54.5%
19.1%
-
-
80.7%
19.3%
-
-
-
-
-
-
3.8
1990
22.2%
71.2%
6.5%
-
0.0%
0.0% 79.9%
20.0%
0.1%
-
-
-
-
0.0%
4.0
1995
17.9%
80.7%
1.4%
-
-
82.0%
17.7%
0.2%
-
-
-
-
-
4.1
2000
9.7%
89.5%
0.7%
-
0.0%
83.7%
15.8%
0.5%
-
-
-
-
0.0%
4.1
2001
9.0%
90.3%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
80.7%
18.5%
0.7%
-
-
-
0.1%
0.0%
4.2
2002
8.2%
91.4%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
77.1%
21.6%
1.1%
-
-
-
0.1%
0.1%
4.2
2003
8.0%
90.8%
0.1%
0.3%
0.8%
69.2%
28.1%
1.7%
-
-
-
0.3%
0.8%
4.3
2004
6.8%
91.8%
0.3%
0.4%
0.7%
63.9%
31.8%
3.0%
0.2%
-
-
0.4%
0.7%
4.4
2005
6.2%
91.5%
0.1%
1.0%
1.3%
56.0%
37.3%
4.1%
0.2%
-
-
1.0%
1.3%
4.5
2006
6.5%
90.6%
0.0%
1.5%
1.4%
47.7%
39.2%
8.8%
1.4%
-
-
1.5%
1.4%
4.6
2007
5.6%
87.1%
0.0%
2.1%
5.1%
40.5%
36.1%
14.4%
1.5%
0.2%
-
2.1%
5.1%
4.8
2008
5.2%
86.8%
0.2%
2.4%
5.5%
38.8%
31.9%
19.4%
1.8%
0.2%
-
2.4%
5.5%
4.8
2009
4.8%
85.6%
0.2%
2.1%
7.3%
31.2%
32.2%
24.5%
2.5%
0.1%
-
2.1%
7.3%
5.0
2010
3.8%
84.1%
1.2%
3.8%
7.2%
24.6%
23.5%
38.1%
2.7%
0.2%
-
3.8%
7.2%
5.2
2011
3.2%
86.5%
0.3%
2.0%
8.0%
14.2%
18.7%
52.3%
3.1%
1.7%
-
2.0%
8.0%
5.5
2012
3.6%
83.4%
1.1%
2.7%
9.2%
8.1%
18.2%
56.3%
2.8%
2.6%
-
2.7%
9.2%
5.5
2013
3.5%
80.4%
1.4%
2.9%
11.8%
5.4%
12.8%
60.1%
2.8%
4.1%
-
2.9%
11.8%
5.6
2014
2.8%
76.7%
1.6%
2.3%
16.6%
2.2%
7.8%
58.4%
3.3%
8.4%
1.1%
2.3%
16.6%
5.9
2015
2.6%
72.3%
1.4%
2.2%
21.5%
1.5%
4.5%
54.2%
3.1%
9.5%
3.5%
2.2%
21.5%
5.9
2016
2.2%
72.3%
2.6%
1.7%
21.2%
1.1%
3.0%
54.9%
2.9%
11.2%
4.1%
1.7%
21.2%
6.0
2017
2.1%
71.5%
2.6%
1.9%
21.8%
1.0%
2.4%
49.0%
3.4%
14.6%
5.9%
1.9%
21.8%
6.1
2018
1.6%
72.8%
3.2%
1.7%
20.6%
1.9%
2.0%
37.6%
3.7%
19.0%
13.5%
1.7%
20.6%
6.4
2019 (prelim)
2.0%
70.5%
3.5%
2.2%
21.9%
2.9%
1.2%
23.7%
2.9%
25.5%
19.6%
2.2%
21.9%
6.6
73
-------
Table 4.3. Production Share by Drive Technology
Car
Truck
Front
Rear
Four
Front
Rear
Wheel
Wheel
Wheel
Wheel
Wheel
Model Year
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
1975
6.5%
93.5%
-
-
82.8%
1980
29.7%
69.4%
0.9%
1.4%
73.6%
1985
61.1%
36.8%
2.1%
7.3%
61.4%
1990
84.0%
15.0%
1.0%
15.8%
52.4%
1995
80.1%
18.8%
1.1%
18.4%
39.3%
2000
80.4%
17.7%
2.0%
20.0%
33.8%
2001
80.3%
16.7%
3.0%
16.3%
34.8%
2002
82.9%
13.5%
3.6%
15.4%
33.1%
2003
80.9%
15.9%
3.2%
15.4%
34.1%
2004
80.2%
14.5%
5.3%
12.5%
31.0%
2005
79.2%
14.2%
6.6%
20.1%
27.7%
2006
75.9%
18.0%
6.0%
18.9%
28.0%
2007
81.0%
13.4%
5.6%
16.1%
28.4%
2008
78.8%
14.1%
7.1%
18.4%
24.8%
2009
83.5%
10.2%
6.3%
21.0%
20.5%
2010
82.5%
11.2%
6.3%
20.9%
18.0%
2011
80.1%
11.3%
8.6%
17.7%
17.3%
2012
83.8%
8.8%
7.5%
20.9%
14.8%
2013
83.0%
9.3%
7.7%
18.1%
14.5%
2014
81.3%
10.6%
8.2%
17.5%
14.2%
2015
80.4%
9.7%
9.9%
16.0%
12.6%
2016
79.8%
9.1%
11.0%
15.9%
12.2%
2017
79.8%
8.3%
11.9%
16.1%
11.0%
2018
76.6%
9.4%
14.0%
13.4%
10.9%
2019 (prelim)
74.0%
11.6%
14.5%
14.5%
11.1%
Four
Wheel
Drive
17.2%
25.0%
31.3%
31.8%
42.3%
46.3%
48.8%
51.6%
50.4%
56.5%
52.2%
53.1%
55.5%
56.8%
58.5%
61.0%
65.0%
64.3%
67.5%
68.3%
71.4%
72.0%
72.8%
75.6%
74.3%
Front
Wheel
Drive
5.3%
25.0%
47.8%
63.8%
57.6%
55.5%
53.8%
52.7%
50.7%
47.7%
53.0%
51.9%
54.3%
54.2%
62.9%
59.6%
53.8%
61.4%
59.7%
55.3%
52.9%
51.2%
49.6%
43.7%
44.1%
All
Rear
Wheel
Drive
91.4%
70.1%
42.9%
26.1%
26.3%
24.3%
24.2%
22.3%
24.3%
22.4%
20.2%
22.3%
19.6%
18.5%
13.6%
13.7%
13.8%
10.9%
11.1%
12.1%
10.9%
10.5%
9.6%
10.2%
11.3%
Four
Wheel
Drive
3.3%
4.9%
9.3%
10.1%
16.2%
20.2%
22.0%
25.0%
25.0%
29.8%
26.8%
25.8%
26.1%
27.3%
23.5%
26.7%
32.4%
27.7%
29.1%
32.6%
36.1%
38.3%
40.8%
46.1%
44.5%
74
-------
5. Manufacturer GHG Compliance
On May 7, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) established the first phase of a National Program to
reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve fuel economy for 2012 to 2016
model year light-duty vehicles. On October 15, 2012, EPA and NHTSA established the
second phase of the joint National Program for model years 2017-2025. These standards
apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. This
section of the report is designed to provide as much information as possible about how the
manufacturers are performing under EPA's GHG program.
The GHG program is a credit-based averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) program that
evaluates every manufacturer's annual performance against increasingly stringent
standards based on the vehicles each manufacturer sells. Credits represent emission
reductions manufacturers achieve by reducing vehicle emissions beyond the standards.
The provisions of the ABT program allow manufacturers to achieve the standards based on
fleet average CO2 emissions (i.e., the standards do not apply to individual vehicles), to bank
credits or deficits for future years, and to trade credits between manufacturers.
Manufacturers demonstrate compliance with the overall program by maintaining a positive
or neutral credit balance.
Averaging, banking and trading have been an important part of many mobile source
programs under the Clean Air Act. These provisions help manufacturers in planning and
implementing the orderly phase-in of emissions reduction technology in their production,
consistent with their unique redesign schedules. EPA believes the net effect of the ABT
provisions is that they allow additional flexibility, encourage earlier introduction of
emission reduction technologies than might otherwise occur, and do so without reducing
the overall effectiveness of the program.
The GHG Program and the Compliance Process
At the end of a model year, each manufacturer must determine its compliance status with
the GHG program, and report compliance data to EPA, as summarized in Figure 5.1. First,
each manufacturer must determine its individual car and truck standards, based on the
footprint and production volumes of the vehicles it produced in that model year.
Second, manufacturers must determine their model year performance separately for cars
and trucks. For each car/truck fleet, the performance is calculated based on measured CO2
i
i
-------
tailpipe emissions and the impact of flexibilities that manufacturers may qualify for and
use. These flexibilities include optional credits for improved air-conditioning systems,
emission-reducing technologies that are not accounted for on standard EPA tests,
alternative fuel vehicles, and alternate standards for small volume manufacturers.
Figure 5.1. GHG Program Compliance Process
Credit/Deficit
Balance Carried to
Next Model Year
(ABT provisions)
Calculate
Model Year
Standards
Determine Compliance Status
Measure Model Year
Performance
- Tailpipe Emissions
- Flexibilities
Update Credit Balance
- Model Year Standards vs Performance
- Credit Transactions
- Credit Expirations
After determining their standards and performance, manufacturers must determine an
updated credit balance. Each manufacturer must compare its car and truck fleet's
performance to its respective car and truck fleet standards to determine a credit surplus or
shortfall. The model year credit surplus or shortfall for each fleet, any prior credit balance,
and the impact of any credit transactions or expiring credits combine to determine the
manufacturer's updated credit balance.
Finally, manufacturers must determine their compliance status. If a manufacturer ends the
model year with a positive credit balance, it is in compliance with the GHG program, and its
credit balance will be carried forward to the next model year. If a manufacturer ends the
model year with a negative credit balance that it is unable to offset, it is considered to have
a credit deficit. A deficit does not immediately result in non-compliance with EPA's GHG
program, but manufacturers must offset the deficit within three years to avoid non-
compliance. For example, a manufacturer with a deficit remaining from model year 2015
76
-------
after the 2018 model year would be considered out of compliance with the 2015 model
year standards. Manufacturers may not carry forward any credits unless all deficits have
been offset.
GHG Compliance and Credit Data
This section includes final compliance data for model years 2009 to 2018. The data in this
report reflect all credits and transactions reported to EPA prior to September 30th, 2019.
However, credit transactions can occur between manufacturers at any time. Any additional
credit requests or transactions will be reflected in next year's report. This report includes
the most up-to-date data for all model years, and therefore supersedes all previous
reports.
The GHG program uses two different
metrics to measure CO2 emissions,
per vehicle emission rates measured
in grams per mile (g/mi), and total
vehicle lifetime emissions measured
in megagrams (Mg). Manufacturer
standards, tailpipe CO2 emissions,
and most annual credits and
flexibilities described in this report
are discussed as per vehicle
emission rates in g/mi.
However, the total credit balance of
manufacturers is calculated in Mg to
account for the number of vehicles
produced and the expected lifetime
use of those vehicles, in addition to
manufacturer performance
compared to their standards (see
inset "How to Calculate Vehicle Lifetime Emissions from a Per-Mile Emission Rate"). Any
discussion of manufacturer total credit balances, credit transactions, and compliance will
be in terms of megagrams or teragrams (Tg) of credits (1 teragram is equal to 1 million
megagrams).
Unlike the previous sections, the tailpipe CO2 emission data presented in this section are
compliance data, based on EPA's City and Highway test procedures (referred to as the "2-
How to Calculate Vehicle Lifetime Emissions
from a Per-Mile Emission Rate
In the GHG Program, vehicle lifetime emissions are
measured in megagrams (Mg) of CO2. One megagram is
equal to 1,000 kilograms, and is also known as a metric ton.
Emissions in Mg are determined from gram per mile (g/mi)
emission rates, production volume, and expected lifetime
miles. To calculate total Mg of credits the following equation
is used:
Credits [Mg] = (CO2 x VMT x Production ) / 1,000,000
"CO2" represents a credit in g/mi. "VMT" represents the
total lifetime miles, which is specified in the regulations as
195,264 miles for cars and 225,865 for trucks. "Production"
represents the production volume to which the CO2 credit
applies. To calculate g/mi from Mg:
CO2 [g/mi] = ( Credits[Mg] x 1,000,000) / (VMT x Production )
When using these equations to calculate values for cars and
trucks in aggregate, use a production weighted average of
the car and truck VMT values. For the 2018 model year, the
weighted VMT is 210,285 miles.
77
-------
cycle" tests). These values should not be compared to the estimated real-world data
throughout the rest of this report. For a detailed discussion of the difference between real-
world and compliance data, see Appendix C.
In addition, four small volume manufacturers have been excluded from this section of the
report. Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lotus, and McLaren have applied for alternative standards
available to small manufacturers, and decisions on these applications remain pending. A
future edition of this report will include data from these companies once EPA makes a final
determination on their requests. As a result, the total fleetwide production volume
reported in this section will be slightly lower than values reported elsewhere in this report.
To download the data presented in this section, and any additional data EPA may make
available, please see the report website: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
A. Footprint-Based CO2 Standards
At the end of each model year, manufacturers are required to calculate unique CO2
standards for each fleet (cars and trucks) as specified in the regulations. As described
previously, these standards are specific to each manufacturer's car and truck fleet based
on the number of vehicles produced and the vehicle footprints within each fleet.
Manufacturers must calculate new standards each year as the footprint targets become
more stringent, and as their footprint distribution and production change. See Section 3 for
a discussion of the trends in footprint across the industry and the definitions of "car" and
"truck" under the regulations.
The regulations define footprint "curves" that provide a CO2 emissions target for every
vehicle footprint, as shown in Figure 5.2. For example, a car with a footprint of 46.5 square
feet in model year 2018 (the average car footprint) has a compliance CO2 target of 208.8
g/mi. This is a target and not a standard, as there are no footprint-based CO2 emissions
requirements for individual vehicles. The unique CO2 standards for each manufacturer's
car and truck fleets are production-weighted averages of the CO2 target values, as
determined from the curves, for all the unique footprint values of the vehicles within that
fleet. This is an element of the "averaging" approach of the ABT program. Using one
production-weighted average to define a single fleet standard allows for some individual
vehicles to be above that standard, relying on other vehicles below the fleet standard to
achieve compliance.
The footprint curves for the 2012 and 2018 model years are shown in Figure 5.2. The
targets have gradually decreased (become more stringent) from 2012 to the current 2018
i
i
78
-------
levels, as defined in the regulations. Larger vehicles have higher targets, although the
increases are capped beyond a certain footprint size (i.e., the curves become flat). Trucks
have higher targets than cars of the same footprint in the same model year. Trends in the
overall average footprint value and vehicle type mix, as discussed in Section 3, are thus
important because of the direct impact on the annual GHG standards.
Figure 5.2. 2012-2018 Model Year CO2 Footprint Target Curves
400-
f 350-
s
CM
o
o
-------
in the 2017 and 2018 model years, delay meeting the 2018-2020 standards by one model
year, and finally align with the primary standards and other manufacturers in the 2021
model year. Thus, the standards shown in Table 5.1 for these two manufacturers reflect the
less stringent 2016 model year footprint target curves rather than the 2018 curves.
Table 5,1, Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2018
Footprint (ft2)
Standards (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
BMW
47.3
51.1
48.3
212
275
231
BYD Motors
47.9
-
47.9
215
-
215
FCA
48.9
52.8
52.0
220
282
271
Ford
46.6
59.9
55.3
210
308
278
GM
46.4
59.2
54.4
209
308
275
Honda
46.3
49.4
47.4
208
267
232
Hyundai
46.5
49.2
46.6
209
266
211
Jaguar Land Rover
49.1
51.0
50.8
244
287
283
Kia
46.2
49.5
46.9
207
267
221
Mazda
45.6
47.9
46.5
206
260
227
Mercedes
48.3
51.3
49.6
217
276
244
Mitsubishi
41.5
44.2
42.9
192
242
221
Nissan
46.0
51.7
47.8
207
277
232
Subaru
44.9
45.0
45.0
202
246
237
Tesla
50.3
54.8
50.4
225
292
228
Toyota
46.1
51.6
48.8
207
275
243
Volkswagen
45.9
50.5
48.4
206
272
245
Volvo
50.7
52.1
51.8
252
292
283
All Manufacturers
46.5
53.9
50.4
209
286
252
i
i
80
-------
B. Model Year Performance
After determining their standards for a given model year, manufacturers must determine
the CO2 emissions performance for their car and truck fleets. In this report, we use the
concept of a fleet's "performance" as a useful way to explain how manufacturers' fleets are
performing in comparison to the standards (it is not explicitly part of the regulations).
Model year performance is defined as the average production-weighted tailpipe CO2
emissions of that fleet, adjusted by the net impact of all applicable flexibilities.
Tailpipe CO2 Emissions
The starting point for determining compliance for each manufacturer is its "2-cycle" tailpipe
GHG emissions value. All manufacturers are required to test their vehicles on the Federal
Test Procedure (known as the "City" test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (the
"Highway" test). Results from these two tests are combined by weighting the City test by
55% and the Highway test by 45%, to achieve a single combined CO2 value for each vehicle
model. Manufacturers then calculate a sales-weighted average of all the combined
city/highway values for each car and truck fleet. This represents the measured tailpipe CO2
emissions of a fleet without the application of any additional credits or incentives. As
discussed previously in this report, 2-cycle tailpipe CO2 emissions should only be used in
the context of the compliance regulations and are not the same as and should not be
compared to the estimated real-world values reported in Sections 1-4.
Figure 5.3 shows the 2-cycle tailpipe emissions reported by each manufacturer for the 2012
and 2018 model years, for all vehicles and for car and truck fleets. Companies that produce
solely electric vehicles (Tesla and BYD) are excluded from the figure because they produce
zero tailpipe emissions on the 2-cycle test procedures.
Every manufacturer except Ford and Volkswagen reduced fleetwide tailpipe GHG emissions
since the program took effect in model year 2012. Volkswagen is a good example of how
changes in the fleet mix can impact overall emissions; while Volkswagen has reduced
emissions in both their car and truck fleets since 2012, the broader shift to making fewer
cars and more trucks has caused overall fleet emissions to increase. Compliance is
assessed on a fleet-specific basis, and most manufacturers have reduced emissions within
their car and truck fleets, some considerably, leading to reductions of 31 and 49 g/mi in the
car and truck fleets, respectively, since model year 2012.
i
i
81
-------
Figure 5.3. Changes in "2-Cycle" Tailpipe CO2 Emissions, Model Year 2012 to 2018 (g/mi)
Tesla
BYD
Mitsubishi -
Honda ฆ
Mazda -
Subaru ฆ
Hyundai -
Kia -
Nissan -
BMW -
Volvo -
Toyota -
vw-
Mercedes -
GM -
Ford -
Jaguar
Land Rover
FCA -
All .
Manufacturers
100
150
All
229-<ฆ
229-<ฆ
239-"
240-
245 -<24|
253
257+
268
272
273
281
29
3
31
280
7
5
63
32
5
295
302
27
200
- 311
3
282
I 343
-<-331
315
ฆ426
3|27-< 357
302
100
150
Car
0
200
100
150
Truck
200
A f>7
262
37
41
257
243
258
OCQ
203-<-
225-
- 2
(ฆ 2
1 <
ฆ<-
24
>33
25-
21
2'
2
C
2
3 -
7<
221
57-
26ฃ
1-277
OQ7
2ie
*ฆ 274
< 316
283
t-OC-l
!34
2
53-
>69
300
Of O
WOOO
228
d-yJZJ
252 <<283
320
zul ^
6ZA
312 -
320
96
> 34
<324
0
O I O
JUv
3
354
324
300 <ฆ
33
3
34
322
332
320
- 330
393
397
85
3
.
84
9
^
36
200
300
400
200
300
400
200
300
400
82
-------
Compared to the first year of the program, Jaguar Land Rover leads manufacturers in both
the overall reduction in 2-cycle CO2 emissions (109 g/mi) and the percentage reduction
(26%). Eight manufacturers have reduced tailpipe CO2 emissions by 10-15%, while the
remainder produced single digit percentage reductions since the first year of the program.
Overall, tailpipe CO2 emissions of the entire fleet have been reduced by 22 g/mi, or about
7%, since the 2012 model year. These tailpipe values should not be directly compared to
the manufacturer's standards presented in Table 5.1, as the standards were created taking
into consideration the optional credit opportunities available to manufacturers, and final
fleet performance values will take these credits into account.
Credits for Producing Alternative Fuel Vehicles
EPA's GHG program provides several incentives for dedicated and dual fuel alternative fuel
vehicles. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles run exclusively on an alternative fuel (e.g.,
compressed natural gas (CNG), electricity). Dual fuel vehicles can run both on an alternative
fuel and on a conventional fuel; the most common is the gasoline-ethanol flexible fuel
vehicle (FFV), which can run on E85 (85% ethanol and 15% gasoline), or on conventional
gasoline. Dual fuel vehicles also include those that use CNG and gasoline, or electricity and
gasoline. This section separately describes three categories of alternative fuel vehicles:
advanced technology vehicles using electricity or hydrogen fuel cells, CNG vehicle, and
FFVs.
Advanced Technology Vehicles
Advanced technology vehicle incentives apply to electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles (PHEVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). For the 2012-2016 model years, these
incentives allowed EVs and FCVs to use zero g/mi to characterize their emissions, and
PHEVs to use a zero g/mi value for the portion of operation attributed to the use of grid
electricity (i.e., only emissions from the portion of operation attributed to the gasoline
engine are counted). Use of the zero g/mi option was limited to the first 200,000 qualified
vehicles produced by a manufacturer in the 2012-2016 model years. No manufacturer
reached this limit. In the 2017-2021 model years, manufacturers may continue to use zero
g/mi for these vehicles, without any limits. This incentive is reflected in the 2-cycle
emissions values shown previously.
For model years 2017-2021, there are also temporary incentive "multipliers" for EVs,
PHEVs, FCVs, and CNG vehicles. Multipliers allow manufacturers to count these vehicles as
more than one vehicle in their fleet average emissions calculations. For example, the 2.0
83
-------
multiplier for 2018 model year EVs allows a manufacturer to count every EV produced as
two EVs, thus doubling the fleet emissions impact of their EV production. The multipliers
established by rulemaking are shown in Table 5.2.
Table 5,2, Production Multipliers by Model Year
Model
Year
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Electric Vehicles and Fuel Cell
Vehicles
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles,
Dedicated Natural Gas Vehicles, and
Dual-Fuel Natural Gas Vehicles
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.75
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.45
1.3
Figure 5.4 shows the model year 2018 production volume of vehicles qualifying for the zero
g/mi incentive. More than 350,000 EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs were produced in the 2018 model
year; 37% were PHEVs with a multiplier of 1.6, and the remaining 63% were EVs and FCVs
with a multiplier of 2.0. Tesla increased sales substantially in the 2018 model year,
accounting for 86% of the EVs produced. Since the 2012 model year, production of
advanced technology vehicles has increased almost tenfold, with virtually every
manufacturer offering something in this category of vehicles. Most are EVs and PHEVs; only
a very small fraction are FCVs. Figure 4.13 in the previous section shows the overall trends
in EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs.
EPA and NHTSA received a joint petition from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
and the Association of Global Automakers on June 20, 2016 regarding aspects of the CAFE
and GHG programs. Item 8 of the petition, titled "Correct the Multiplier for BEVs, PHEVs,
FCVs, and CNGs," notes that "the equation through which the number of earned credits is
calculated is inaccurately stated in the regulations" and that credits would be inadvertently
lost due to the error. Agreeing with the automaker petition, EPA proposed to modify the
regulations to correctly calculate the multiplier-based credits in a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 1, 2018.
EPA will not prejudge the outcome of an ongoing regulatory process, therefore this report
is unable to include official multiplier-based credits for manufacturers until the rulemaking
is completed. These credits benefit almost every manufacturer; thus, a true picture of
compliance is not possible without representing the impacts of the multipliers. For the
purposes of this report, and to represent the multiplier-based credits fairly and
84
-------
consistently across manufacturers, we include a preliminary determination of multiplier-
based credits for each manufacturer with qualifying vehicles. These preliminary credits
were determined using the methodology proposed in the October 2018 NPRM and should
be viewed only as unofficial estimates. Official values will be included in a future edition of
this report after regulations are finalized.
Figure 5.4, Model Year 2018 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
200
150
o
o
c
o
o
3
T3
O
100
50
0
Electric Vehicle/Fuel Cell Vehicle
(2.Ox multiplier)
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle
(1.6x multiplier)
I
cf3 tP <5^ ^
The multiplier-based credits are dependent on the type of advanced technology vehicle
and the proportion of a manufacturer's fleet made up of qualifying vehicles. Figure 5.5
shows the estimated multiplier-based credits, in g/mi, for each manufacturer. Excluding
Tesla, which makes only electric vehicles, BMW produced the most electrified vehicles in
terms of percentage of total production, and GM led total production. PHEVs made up 7%
of BMW's fleet in model year 2018 and gave them a benefit of 6,9 g/mi (i.e., effectively
reducing their fleet performance by 6.9 g/mi). Volvo had the second largest benefit from
advanced technology vehicles, getting a reduction of 4.5 g/mi from the 4% of their fleet that
85
-------
was PHEVs. The companies that make solely EVsBYD and Teslaare shown separately in
Figure 5.5 because of the disproportionate credit values for these companies.
Figure 5.5. Model Year 2018 Advanced Technology Credits by Manufacturer
ฃ
O)
~a
(D
ฆ
O
O
X
o
All
Manufacturers
Manufacturers
250
200
150
100
50
0
1
O
o
(D
Q.
CO
3
Compressed Natural Gas Vehicles
There were no CNG vehicles subject to the GHG standards in the 2018 model year. The
Honda Civic CNG was the only CNG vehicle produced for general purchase by consumers
during the first phase of EPA's GHG program, and it was only available in the 2012-2014
model years. In the 2015 and 2016 model years, Quantum Technologies offered a dual fuel
(CNG and gasoline) version of GM's Chevrolet Impala through an agreement with GM, but
none were produced in the 2017 or 2018 model years.
Gasoline-Ethanol Flexible Fuel Vehicles
For the 2012 to 2015 model years, FFVs could earn GHG credits corresponding to the fuel
economy credits under CAFE. For both programs, it was assumed that FFVs operated half
86
-------
of the time on each fuel. The GHG credits were based on the arithmetic average of
alternative fuel and conventional fuel CO2 emissions. Further, to fully align the GHG credit
with the CAFE program, the CO2 emissions measurement on the alternative fuel was
multiplied by 0.15. The 0.15 factor was used because, under the CAFE program's
implementing statutes, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 0.15 gallons of
gasoline fuel, and the E85 fuel economy is divided by 0.15 before being averaged with the
gasoline fuel economy.
Starting in model year 2016, GHG compliance values for FFVs are based on the actual
emissions performance of the FFV on each fuel, weighted by EPA's assessment of the actual
use of these fuels in FFVs. A 2014 guidance letter defined an "F factor" of 0.14 to use when
weighting E85 and gasoline CO2 emissions for the 2016-2018 model years FFVs; this
reflects EPA's estimate that FFVs would be operating 14% of the time on E85. This approach
is comparable to the "utility factor" method used to weight gasoline and electricity for
PHEVs, which projects the percentage of miles that a PHEV will drive using electricity based
on how many miles a fully-charged PHEV can drive using grid electricity.
FFVs can still represent a CO2 emissions benefit, and can help to lower the emissions of a
manufacturer's fleet, but the overall impact is significantly diminished. Because the FFV
values now incorporate the slightly lower CO2 emissions when operating on E85 (typically
1 -3% lower than on gasoline), and a realistic rate of E85 fuel use, the benefit from FFVs is
no longer of the same magnitude that it was through the 2015 model year. Thus, we are no
longer illustrating a g/mi benefit to manufacturers specific to producing FFVs. The impact of
E85, a lower-GHG fuel than gasoline, is inseparable from, and built into, the 2-cycle
emissions described earlier.
Most manufacturers focused their FFV production in the truck segment, with trucks making
up more than 80% of all FFV production in the 2018 model year. FFV production continued
the decline that started after model year 2014, dropping 20% relative to model year 2017
and reaching a low since the start of the program in model year 2012. Total FFV production
in model year 2018 was down by almost 70% relative to model year 2014, the peak year for
FFV production. FFV production is shown in Figure 5.6. The credit impact of those FFV
credits is shown in Figure 5.7.
87
-------
Figure 5.6. Production of FFVs, Model Year 2012-2018
3,000'
Truck
2,500
2.000
o 1,500-
ol 1,000
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Model Year
2017
2018
Figure 5.7. FFV Credits by Model Year
10.0
E
19)
"O
(D
O
0
X
0
2012
2013
2014
2015
Model Year
2016
2017
2018
88
-------
Credits for Improved Air Conditioning Systems
Almost all new cars and light trucks in the United States are equipped with air conditioning
(A/C) systems. There are two mechanisms by which A/C systems contribute to the
emissions of greenhouse gases: through leakage of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants
(i.e., "direct" emissions) and through the combustion of fuel to provide mechanical power
to the A/C system (i.e., "indirect" emissions). The EPA 2-cycle compliance tests do not
measure either A/C refrigerant leakage or the increase in tailpipe emissions attributable to
the additional engine load of A/C systems. Thus, the GHG emission regulations include a
provision that allows manufacturers to earn optional credits for implementing technologies
that reduce either type of A/C-related emissions.
Air Conditioning Leakage Credits
The high global warming potential (GWP)17 of the current predominant automotive
refrigerant, HFC-134a, means that leakage of a small amount of refrigerant will have a far
greater impact on global warming than emissions of a similar volume of CO2. The impacts
of refrigerant leakage can be reduced significantly by using systems with leak-tight
components, by using a refrigerant with a lower GWP, or by implementing both
approaches.
A manufacturer choosing to generate A/C leakage credits is required to calculate a leakage
"score" for the specific A/C system. This score is based on the number, performance, and
technology of the components, fittings, seals, and hoses of the A/C system and is calculated
as refrigerant emissions in grams per year, using the procedures specified by the SAE
Surface Vehicle Standard J2727. The score is converted to a g/mi credit value based on the
GWP of the refrigerant, then the g/mi value is used to determine the total tons of credits
based on the production volume of the vehicles employing that A/C system.
In the 2012 model year, all leakage credits were based on improvements to the A/C system
components (e.g., O-rings, seals, valves, and fittings). In the 2013 model year, GM and
Honda introduced vehicles using HFO-1234yf, which has an extremely low global warming
potential (GWP) of 4, as compared to a GWP of 1430 for HFC-134a. In the five model years
since, low GWP refrigerant use has expanded to thirteen manufacturers and more than
60% of the fleet. BMW and Jaguar Land Rover have now fully implemented HFO-1234yf
across their fleets, FCA and GM adoption levels exceed 90% of their 2018 model year fleets,
17 The global warming potential (GWP) represents how much a given mass of a chemical contributes to global
warming over a given time period compared to the same mass of CO2. The GWP of CO2 is 1.0.
89
-------
and both Honda and Volkswagen have topped 80%. Ford and Kia have exceeded 50%
adoption of HFO-1234yf across their fleets. As a result, the overall fleet generated almost
18.5 Tg more CO2 credits than it would have using solely HFC-134a; this is equivalent to a
5.4 g/mi reduction in CO2 emissions for the entire 2018 model year fleet. The growth in
usage of HFO-1234yf is illustrated in Figure 5.8.
Seventeen manufacturers reported A/C leakage credits in the 2018 model year. These
manufacturers reported more than 38 Tg of A/C leakage credits in 2018, accounting for
GHG reductions of 11.3 g/mi across the 2018 vehicle fleet.
Figure 5.8. HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer
10,000
7.500
o
o
o,
ฃZ
o
5 5,000
o
"O
o
2.500
2013 2014
2015 2016
Model Year
2017 2018
BMW
FCA
Ford
GM
Honda
Hyundai
Jaguar Land Rover
Kia
Mitsubishi
Nissan
Subaru
Toyota
VW
-------
Air Conditioning Efficiency Credits
The A/C system also contributes to increased tailpipe CO2 emissions through the additional
work required by the engine to operate the compressor, fans, and blowers. This power
demand is ultimately met by using additional fuel, which is converted into CO2 by the
engine during combustion and exhausted through the tailpipe. Increasing the overall
efficiency of an A/C system reduces the additional load on the engine from A/C operation,
and thereby leads to a reduction in fuel consumption and a commensurate reduction in
GHG emissions.
Most of the additional load on the engine from A/C systems comes from the compressor,
which pressurizes the refrigerant and pumps it around the system loop. A significant
additional load may also come from electric or hydraulic fans, which move air across the
condenser, and from the electric blower, which moves air across the evaporator and into
the cabin. Manufacturers have several options for improving efficiency, including more
efficient compressors, fans, and motors, and system controls that avoid over-chilling the air
(and subsequently re-heating it to provide the desired air temperature). For vehicles
equipped with automatic climate-control systems, real-time adjustment of several aspects
of the overall system can result in improved efficiency.
The regulations provide manufacturers with a "menu" of A/C system technologies and
associated credit values (in g/mi of CO2), some of which are described above. These credits
are capped at 5.7 g/mi for all vehicles in the 2012-2016 model years, and at 5.0 and 7.2
g/mi for cars and trucks, respectively, in the 2017 and later model years. The total tons of
credits are then based on the total volume of vehicles in a model year using these
technologies.
Sixteen manufacturers used the A/C credit provisionsleakage reductions, efficiency
improvements, or bothas part of their compliance demonstration in the 2018 model
year. These manufacturers reported a total of more than 17 Tg of A/C efficiency credits in
the 2018 model year, accounting for about 5 g/mi across the 2018 fleet. Manufacturers
were also allowed to generate A/C efficiency credits in the 2009-2011 model years (see the
discussion of early credits in Section 5.C).
Air Conditioning Credit Summary
A summary of the A/C leakage and efficiency credits reported by the industry for all model
years, including the early credit program years, is shown in Figure 5.9. Leakage credits have
been more prevalent than efficiency credits, but both credit types are growing in use.
91
-------
Figure 5.10 shows the benefit of A/C credits, translated from teragrams to grams per mile,
for each manufacturer's fleet for the 2018 model year.
Jaguar Land Rover had the highest reported credit on a per vehicle g/mi basis, at 24 g/mi.
Thus, A/C credits are the equivalent of about an 8% reduction from tailpipe emissions for
Jaguar Land Rover. BMW, FCA, Ford, GM, and Volkswagen reported total A/C credits of
around 20 g/mi, while most other manufacturers were in the range of 10-12 g/mi.
Figure
60 -
50
cf 40
O
o
u; 30
ฃ
O
O
O 20
10 -
0-
5.9. Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type
Credit Source
A/C Efficienc
| A/C Leakage
y
1
ฆI
il
1
i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Model Year
92
-------
Figure 5.10. Total A/C Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018
25
20 -
E 15
~o>
-o
Q)
i
O
O 10
o
5-
0-
Credit Source
A/C Efficiency
I A/C Leakage
~
Credits for "Off-Cycle" Technology
In some cases, manufacturers employ technologies that result in CO2 emission reductions
that are not adequately captured on the 2-cycle test procedures. These benefits are
acknowledged in EPA's regulations by giving manufacturers three pathways by which to
accrue "off-cycle" CO.? credits. The first, and most widely used, pathway is a predetermined
list or "menu" of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies. The second pathway is to
use a broader array of emissions testing (5-cycle testing) to demonstrate the CO2 emission
reduction. The third pathway allows manufacturers to seek EPA approval to use an
alternative methodology to demonstrate CO2 emission reductions.
4sm
-------
Off Cycle Credits Based oe the Menu
The first pathway to generating off-cycle credits is for a manufacturer to install
technologies from a predetermined list or "menu" of technologies preapproved by EPA. The
off-cycle credit menu provides specific credit values, or the calculation method for such
values, for each technology.18 Technologies from the menu may be used beginning in
model year 2014. This pathway allows manufacturers to use conservative credit values
established by EPA for a wide range of off-cycle technologies, with minimal data submittal
or testing requirements.
The amount of credit awarded varies for each technology and between cars and trucks. The
impact of credits from this pathway on a manufacturer's fleet is capped at 10 g/mi,
meaning that any single vehicle might accumulate more than 10 g/mi, but the cumulative
effect on a single manufacturer's fleet may not exceed a credit of more than 10 g/mi. The
regulations clearly define each technology and any requirements that apply for the
technology to generate credits. Figure 5.11 shows the adoption of menu technologies, by
manufacturer. These credits were widely used in model year 2018, with 94% of off-cycle
credits generated via the menu pathway. Each of these technologies is discussed below.
Active Aerodynamics
Active aerodynamics refers to technologies which are automatically activated to improve
the aerodynamics of a vehicle under certain conditions. These include grill shutters and
spoilers, which allow air to flow over and around the vehicle more efficiently, and
suspension systems that improve air flow at higher speeds by reducing the height of the
vehicle. Credits are variable and based on the measured improvement in the coefficient of
drag, a test metric that reflects the efficiency of airflow around a vehicle.
Most manufacturers implemented at least some level of active aerodynamics on their
model year 2018 vehicles. Tesla reported the highest implementation, at 100% of all new
vehicles, and realized a CO2 reduction of just over 1 g/mi. Ford achieved a similar reduction
with almost 90% of their fleet equipped with active aerodynamic technologies. Overall,
almost 40% of new vehicles qualified for these credits, reducing overall fleet CO2 emissions
by 0.4 g/mi.
18 See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).
-------
Figure 5.11. Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model
Year 2018
8% 100%
23%
100%
BMW
25%
32%
98%
22% 97%
70%
37%
46%
55%
FCA'
89%
22%
100%
7%
48%
26% 60%
62%
56%
Ford
68%
19%
100% 23% 100% 47%
43%
93%
GM
Honda
7%
98%
8%
92%
7% 100%
11%
87%
19%
2%
77%
2% 60%
Hyundai"
Jaguar
Land Rover
Kia"
2%
78%
45%
100%
78%
46% 100% 100%
10%
100% 21%
5%
63%
55%
5%
Mazda
61%
3%
94%
95%
67%
Mercedes1
17%
88%
97%
Mitsubishi1
78%
4%
87%
63%
67%
14%
29%
75%
48%
5%
Nissan
91%
87%
52%
Subaru
100%
100% 100%
100%
Tesla
Toyota
27%
99%
25% 84%
30%
39%
63%
5%
7% 70%
Volkswagen
26%
22%
59%
6%
85%
99%
100% 100%
100% 100%
Volvo
9%
All
Manufacturers
40%
90%
14% 48%
32%
44%
74%
18%
3%
Credit Type
Active Aerodynamic Improvements
Thermal Control Technologies
Active Warmup
Engine Idle Start Stop
High Efficiency Lighting
95
-------
Thermal Control Technologies
Thermal control systems help to maintain a comfortable air temperature of the vehicle
interior, without the use of the A/C system. These technologies lower the load on the A/C
system and thus the amount of fuel required to run the A/C system, subsequently lowering
GHG tailpipe emissions. The thermal control technologies included in the off-cycle menu
are:
Active and passive cabin ventilation - Active systems use mechanical means to
vent the interior, while passive systems rely on ventilation through convective air
flow. Credits available for this technology range from 1.7 to 2.8 g/mi.
Active seat ventilation - These systems move air through the seating surface,
transferring heat away from the vehicle occupants. Credits are 1.0 g/mi for cars
and 1.3 g/mi for trucks.
Glass or glazing - Credits are available for glass or glazing technologies that
reduce the total solar transmittance through the glass, thus reducing the heat
from the sun that reaches the occupants. The credits are calculated based on
the measured solar transmittance through the glass and on the total area of
glass on the vehicle.
Solar reflective surface coating - Credits are available for solar reflective surface
coating (e.g., paint) that reflects at least 65% of the infrared solar energy. Credits
are 0.4 g/mi for cars and 0.5 g/mi for trucks.
Active seat ventilation was used by many manufacturers and the rate of implementation
jumped from about five percent in model year 2016 to 18% in model year 2018. Jaguar
Land Rover remained the leader in adopting active seat ventilation, with implementation
on almost half of their vehicles (this is consistent with this technology being largely limited
to luxury brands or models).
As was the case in the previous model year, there was significant penetration of glass or
glazing technology across manufacturers, with a majority reporting this technology on
more than 75% of their vehicles, and ten manufacturers approaching a 100%
implementation rate. Ninety percent of the 2018 model year fleet was equipped with glass
or glazing technologies, contributing to the fleetwide GHG reduction of 2.4 g/mi from this
technology group. Five manufacturers - FCA, GM, Jaguar Land Rover, Tesla, and Toyota -
achieved reductions of more than 3 g/mi from this technology group, largely from their use
of glass and cabin ventilation technologies.
96
-------
Due to the likelihood of synergistic effects among the various thermal technologies, the
total per-vehicle credit allowed from this technology group is capped at 3.0 g/mi for cars
and 4.3 g/mi for trucks. Because this category of credits is capped, the actual credits
attributable to each technology in this category cannot be accurately summarized. For
example, credits for a car with active cabin ventilation (2.1 g/mi), active seat ventilation (1.0
g/mi), and reflective paint (0.4 g/mi) would total to 3.5 g/mi, thus exceeding the cap by 0.5
g/mi. Credits for this car would have to be truncated at 3.0 g/mi, and there is no non-
arbitrary methodology to assign that 3.0 g/mi to the array of technologies involved.
Therefore, this report can only detail the credits derived from the overall category, but not
from the individual technologies in the category.
Active Engine and Transmission Warmup
Active engine and transmission warmup systems use heat from the vehicle that would
typically be wasted (exhaust heat, for example) to warm up key elements of the engine,
allowing a faster transition to more efficient operation. An engine or transmission at its
optimal operating temperature minimizes internal friction, and thus operates more
efficiently and reduces tailpipe CO2 emissions. Systems that use a single heat-exchanging
loop that serves both transmission and engine warmup functions are eligible for either
engine or transmission warmup credits, but not both. Active engine and transmission
warmup technologies are each worth credit up to 1.5 g/mi for cars and 3.2 g/mi for trucks.
Most manufacturers adopted warmup technologies for their engines, transmissions, or
both. FCA employed active engine warmup in more than 70% of its new vehicles and active
transmission warmup in more than one-third, resulting in an aggregate CO2 reduction for
their fleet of about 3.3 g/mi. Mazda led manufacturers in installing active transmission
warmup technology, which appeared in 95% of its new vehicles, contributing to a benefit
from warmup technologies for Mazda of about 2.2 g/mi. Active engine warmup was
installed in about one-third of all new vehicles, and active transmission warmup in 44% of
the fleet, resulting in a CO2 reduction of about 1.8 g/mi across the 2018 model year fleet.
Engine Idle Stop/Start
Engine idle stop/start systems allow the engine to turn off when the vehicle is at a stop,
automatically restarting the engine when the driver releases the brake and/or applies
pressure to the accelerator. If equipped with a switch to disable the system, EPA must
determine that the predominant operating mode of the system is the "on" setting
(defaulting to "on" every time the key is turned on is one basis for such a determination).
Thus, some vehicles with these systems are not eligible for credits. Credits range from 1.5
-------
to 4.4 g/mi and depend on whether the system is equipped with an additional technology
that, at low ambient temperatures, allows heat to continue to be circulated to the vehicle
occupants when the engine is off during a stop-start event.
The implementation of stop/start has been increasing rapidly, as discussed in Section 4,
which aggregates and reports on these systems regardless of the regulatory eligibility for
credits. Almost 30% of new vehicles qualified for and claimed this credit, resulting in a
fleetwide CO2 reduction of about 1.1 g/mi. Jaguar Land Rover and Volvo claimed start/stop
credits on 100% of their vehicles in model year 2018, providing each of these
manufacturers with CO2 reductions of 4 g/mi. Other manufacturers have not come close to
this adoption rate, with Volkswagen being the closest at 70%.
High Efficiency Exterior Lights
High efficiency lights (e.g., LEDs) reduce the total electric demand, and thus the fuel
consumption and related GHG emissions, of a lighting system in comparison to
conventional incandescent lighting. Credits are based on the specific lighting locations,
ranging from 0.06 g/mi for turn signals and parking lights to 0.38 g/mi for low beams. The
total of all lighting credits summed from all lighting locations may not exceed 1.0 g/mi.
Unlike some other off-cycle technologies, safety regulations require that all vehicles must
be equipped with lights, and the popularity of high efficiency lights across manufacturers
may reflect that lighting improvements are relatively straightforward to implement. All
manufacturers reporting off-cycle credits indicated implementation on at least half of their
fleet, with half of the manufacturers at or approaching 100% implementation. About three
quarters of new vehicles used high efficiency lighting in some form in model year 2018,
reducing fleetwide CO2 emissions by 0.3 g/mi.
Solar Panels
Vehicles that use batteries for propulsion, such as electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and
hybrid vehicles may receive credits for solar panels that are used to charge the battery
directly or to provide power directly to essential vehicle systems (e.g., heating and cooling
systems). Credits are based on the rated power of the solar panels. Nissan claimed this
credit in model year 2017 for a very small number of vehicles, but no manufacturer
claimed use of solar panels in model year 2018.
As shown in Table 5.3, manufacturers are using a mix of off-cycle menu technologies,
though each uses and benefits from the individual technologies to differing degrees. In
98
-------
model year 2018, the industry achieved 6 g/mi of credits from the menu, based on a
production weighted average of credits across all manufacturers.
Table 5,3, Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by
Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Active
Aero-
dynamics
Active
Engine
Warmup
Active
Trans
Warmup
Thermal
Controls
Engine
Start-
Stop
High
Efficiency
Lighting
Total
Menu
Credits
BMW
0.5
0.6
-
2.4
1.0
0.8
5.4
FCA
0.2
2.1
1.2
3.8
2.0
0.1
9.4
Ford
1.2
0.7
1.7
2.9
2.5
0.2
9.2
GM
0.8
1.1
-
3.6
1.4
0.5
7.3
Honda
0.2
0.2
2.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.9
Hyundai
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.8
0.0
0.2
2.2
Jaguar Land Rover
0.5
-
1.4
3.6
4.2
0.8
10.0
Kia
0.0
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
2.5
Mazda
0.2
-
2.1
0.5
-
0.1
2.9
Mercedes
-
-
-
1.1
-
0.7
1.8
Mitsubishi
-
-
-
0.8
0.1
0.3
1.2
Nissan
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.2
3.2
Subaru
0.2
-
2.5
1.0
-
0.2
3.9
Tesla
1.1
-
-
3.1
-
0.7
4.9
Toyota
0.0
0.9
0.2
3.2
0.7
0.3
5.3
Volkswagen
0.2
2.2
0.2
0.8
2.3
0.7
6.3
Volvo
-
2.8
-
2.3
4.0
1.0
10.0
All Manufacturers
0.4
0.8
1.0
2.4
1.1
0.3
6.0
*Data updated on 3/11 /20
Off-Cycle Credits Based on 5-Cycle Testing
In cases where additional laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second
pathway allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as "5-cycle"
testing because the methodology uses five different testing procedures) to demonstrate
and justify off-cycle CO2 credits.19 The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to
be demonstrated over some elements of real-world driving not captured by the GHG
compliance tests, including high speeds, rapid accelerations, and cold temperatures.
Credits determined according to this methodology do not undergo additional public
review.
19 See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
99
-------
GM is the only manufacturer to date to have claimed off-cycle credits based on 5-cycle
testing. These credits are for an auxiliary electric pump used on certain GM gasoline-
electric hybrid vehicles to keep engine coolant circulating in cold weather while the vehicle
is stopped and the engine is off. This enables the engine stop-start system to turn off the
engine more often during cold weather, while maintaining a comfortable temperature
inside the vehicle. GM received off-cycle credits during the early credits program for
equipping hybrid full size pick-up trucks with this technology and has since applied the
technology to several other vehicles through model year 2017. They did not claim credits
for this technology in model year 2018.
Off-Cycle Credits Based on an Alternative Methodology
This third pathway for off-cycle technology credits allows manufacturers to seek EPA
approval to use an alternative methodology for determining the off-cycle technology CO2
credits.20 This option is only available if the benefit of the technology cannot be adequately
demonstrated using the 5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this option for
model years prior to 2014 to demonstrate CO2 reductions for technologies that are on the
off-cycle menu, or reductions that exceed those available via use of the menu. The
regulations require that EPA seek public comment on and publish each manufacturer's
application for credits sought using this pathway. About half of the manufacturers have
petitioned for and been granted credits using this pathway, four of which reported credits
in the 2018 model year for two technologies.21
In the fall of 2013, Mercedes requested off-cycle credits for the following off-cycle
technologies in use or planned for implementation in the 2012-2016 model years: stop-
start systems, high-efficiency lighting, infrared glass glazing, and active seat ventilation. EPA
approved methodologies for Mercedes to determine these off-cycle credits in September
2014.
Subsequently, FCA, Ford, and GM requested off-cycle credits under this pathway, which EPA
approved in September 2015. FCA and Ford submitted applications for off-cycle credits
from high efficiency exterior lighting, solar reflective glass/glazing, solar reflective paint,
and active seat ventilation. Ford's application also demonstrated off-cycle benefits from
active aerodynamic improvements (grill shutters), active transmission warm-up, active
engine-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-greenhouse-gas-ghg-
100
-------
engine warm-up technologies, and engine idle stop-start. GM's application described the
real-world benefits of an A/C compressor made by Denso with variable crankcase suction
valve technology. EPA approved the credits for FCA, Ford, and GM in September of 2015.
EPA approved additional credits under this pathway for the Denso compressor in 2017 for
BMW, Ford, GM, Hyundai, Toyota, and Volkswagen.
In December 2016, EPA approved a methodology for determining credits from high-
efficiency alternators that Ford had applied for in 2016. EPA subsequently approved high-
efficiency alternator credits also for FCA, GM, and Toyota. High efficiency alternators use
new technologies that reduce the overall load on the engine while continuing to meet the
electrical demands of the vehicle systems, resulting in lower fuel consumption and lower
CO2 emissions.
In September of 2017 GM applied for credits under this pathway for "active climate-
controlled seats," which provide cooled air directly to the occupants through the seats, thus
reducing the overall load on the air conditioning system. GM reported credits for this
technology in the 2018 model year.
Most of the approved credits have been for previous model years, and thus are not
included in the detailed reporting for the 2018 model year in this section. Credit balances
have been updated to include retroactive credits that have been reported to EPA, and any
relevant tables that include data from previous model years will reflect the addition of
these credits. Table 5.4 shows the impact of the credits submitted for the air conditioning
systems, high-efficiency alternators, and active climate-controlled seats. On a total
fleetwide basis, the aggregated credit is less than 0.5 g/mi.
Table 5.4. Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative
Methodology, by MamMacturer and Technology (g/mi)
Active
Total
Combined
Denso SAS
High-
Climate
Alternative
Condenser
A/C
Efficiency
Control
Methodology
Manufacturer
A/C System
Compressor
Alternator
Seats
Credits
FCA
-
-
0.5
-
0.5
Ford
-
-
0.6
-
0.6
GM
0.7
0.6
0.0
1.3
Hyundai
0.0
-
-
-
0.0
Toyota
-
0.2
0.3
-
0.6
All Manufacturers
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.4
1
-------
Off-Cycle Credit Summary
In total, the industry achieved 6.5 g/mi of off-cycle credits in model year 2018. More than
90% of those credits were claimed using technologies, and credit definitions, on the off-
cycle menu. The remaining credits were due almost entirely to manufacturer submitted
alternative methodologies. Figure 5.12 shows the average number of credits, in g/mi, that
each manufacturer achieved in model year 2018. Ford led the way with the highest gram
per mile benefit from off-cycle credits, followed closely by FCA, Jaguar Land Rover, GM, and
Volvo. Most manufacturers achieved at least some off-cycle credits; BYD was the only
manufacturer to not report any off-cycle credits for model year 2018.
Figure 5.12. Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018
10.0
7.5
E
3
CO
Id
6 50
0
1
0
2.5
0.0
Non-Menu credits
Menu Credits
1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 T
/ ^ ovvj/ *
* / -s*
V
&
Data updated on 3/11/20
102
-------
Altera Methane and Nitrous Oxide
As part of the EPA GHG Program, EPA set emission standards for methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) at 0.030 g/mi for CbUand 0.010 g/mi for N2O. Current levels of CH4 and
N2O emissions are generally well below these established standards, however the caps
were set to prevent future increases in emissions.
There are three different ways for a manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with these
standards. First, manufacturers may submit test data as they do for all other non-GHG
emission standards; this option is used by most manufacturers. Because there are no
credits or deficits involved with this approach, and there are no consequences with respect
to the CO2 fleet average calculation, the manufacturers are not required to submit this data
as part of their GHG reporting. Hence, this GHG compliance report does not include
information from manufacturers using this option.
The second option for manufacturers is to include CH4 and N2O, on a C02-equivalent basis,
when calculating their fleet average performance values, in lieu of demonstrating
compliance with the regulatory caps. This method directly accounts for CH4 and N2O,
increasing the performance value of a manufacturer's fleets, while the standards remain
unchanged. Analyses of emissions data have shown that use of this option may add
approximately 3 g/mi to a manufacturer's fleet average. Only Subaru chose to use this
approach in the 2018 model year.
The third option for complying with the CH4 and N2O standards allows manufacturers to
propose an alternative, less stringent CH4 and/or N2O standard for any vehicle that may
have difficulty meeting the specific standards. However, manufacturers that use this
approach must also calculate a deficit (in Megagrams) based on the less stringent
standards and on the production volumes of the vehicles to which those standards apply.
Seven manufacturers made use of the flexibility offered by this approach in the 2018
model year. In aggregate, the industry created a deficit of about 0.4 Tg due to this
approach.
Alteraati \ e Mjim toi Mnall Volume Manufacturers
EPA established the Temporary Lead-time Allowance Alternative Standards (TLAAS) to
assist manufacturers with limited product lines that may be especially challenged in the
early years of EPA's GHG program. The TLAAS program was established to provide
additional lead-time for manufacturers with narrow product offerings which may not be
able to take full advantage of averaging or other program flexibilities due to the limited
103
-------
scope of the types of vehicles they sell. This program was only available during the 2012-
2015 model years and is only shown in historic data.
Summary of Manufacturer Performance
Each of the flexibilities described here have been used by manufacturers as part of their
compliance strategies under the GHG program. As described above, the availability of
these flexibilities, and the magnitude of their impact, has varied both by manufacturer and
model year. Table 5.5 through Table 5.10 below detail the impact of these flexibilities by
manufacturer for model year 2017, and for the aggregated industry over the course of the
GHG Program. The Performance Values in these tables can be derived by subtracting the
credits from and adding the deficits to the 2-Cycle Tailpipe value. The TLAAS credits are
excluded from this calculation because they are part of the standard and not tied to the
emissions performance.
104
-------
Table 5.5, Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, All (g/mi)
Credits
ch4&
2-Cycle
Off-
n2o
Performance
Manufacturer
Tailpipe
FFV TLA AS A/C
ATVs
Cycle
Deficit
Value
BMW
268
19.8
6.9
5.4
0.2
236
BYD Motors
0
-
215.1
-
-
-215
FCA
327
21.7
1.5
9.9
0.1
294
Ford
315
19.3
0.5
9.8
0.5
286
GM
309
21.2
1.8
8.6
0.1
278
Honda
229
17.7
1.8
3.9
-
206
Hyundai
245
9.4
0.2
2.3
-
233
Jaguar Land
317
23.8
-
10.0
-
283
Rover
Kia
253
12.9
0.8
2.5
-
237
Mazda
239
3.1
-
2.9
-
233
Mercedes
299
12.5
1.6
1.8
-
284
Mitsubishi
229
12.9
1.4
1.2
-
213
Nissan
257
9.5
2.4
3.2
0.0
241
Subaru
240
9.2
-
3.9
-
227
Tesla
0
10.7
227.9
4.9
-
-244
Toyota
273
12.5
0.9
5.8
0.1
254
Volkswagen
282
19.3
0.8
6.3
0.0
256
Volvo
272
12.5
4.5
10.0
-
245
All
Manufacturers
280
16.3
3.9
6.5
0.1
253
Table 5 6. Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/mi)
Credits
ch4&
2-Cycle
Off-
n2o
Performance
Model Year
Tailpipe
FFV
TLA AS
A/C
ATVs
Cycle
Deficit
Value
2012
302
8.1
0.6
6.1
1.0
0.2
287
2013
294
7.8
0.5
6.9
1.1
0.3
278
2014
294
8.9
0.2
8.5
3.3
0.2
273
2015
286
6.4
0.3
9.4
3.4
0.2
267
2016
285
-
-
10.3
3.6
0.1
271
2017
284
-
-
13.7
2.3
5.1
0.2
263
2018
280
-
-
16.3
3.9
6.5
0.1
253
105
-------
Table 5.7, Manufacturer Performance in Modrl Year 2018, Car (g/mi)
Credits
ch4&
2-Cycle
Off-
n2o
Performance
Manufacturer
Tailpipe
FFV TLA AS A/C
ATVs
Cycle
Deficit
Value
BMW
253
18.4
7.8
4.2
0.1
223
BYD Motors
0
-
215.1
-
-
-215
FCA
302
18.1
1.3
4.2
0.0
278
Ford
253
16.0
1.7
4.7
0.2
231
GM
234
16.7
5.4
6.8
0.1
205
Honda
203
15.3
3.0
2.5
-
182
Hyundai
241
9.4
0.2
2.1
-
229
Jaguar Land
269
18.8
-
6.5
-
244
Rover
Kia
233
13.0
1.1
2.1
-
217
Mazda
225
2.5
-
1.9
-
221
Mercedes
269
11.0
1.7
1.2
-
255
Mitsubishi
197
6.4
3.4
0.8
-
186
Nissan
225
8.9
3.7
2.3
0.1
210
Subaru
244
6.3
-
1.7
-
236
Tesla
0
10.7
225.2
4.8
-
-241
Toyota
216
11.4
1.9
4.4
0.1
198
Volkswagen
257
15.3
1.4
3.6
0.0
237
Volvo
247
9.3
4.4
6.7
-
227
All
Manufacturers
228
13.0
7.9
3.7
0.0
204
Table 5,8, Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/mi}
Credits
ch4&
2-Cycle
Off-
n2o
Performance
Model Year
Tailpipe
FFV
TLA AS
A/C
ATVs
Cycle
Deficit
Value
2012
259
4.0
0.2
5.4
-
0.6
0.1
249
2013
251
4.0
0.1
6.3
-
0.7
0.3
240
2014
250
4.6
0.1
7.5
-
2.2
0.3
236
2015
243
3.1
0.0
8.1
-
2.3
0.1
230
2016
240
-
-
8.8
-
2.3
0.1
229
2017
235
-
-
10.1
4.5
3.0
0.0
217
2018
228
-
-
13.0
7.9
3.7
0.0
204
106
-------
Table 5.9, Manufacturer Performance in Modrl Year 2018, Truck (g/mi)
Credits
Manufacturer
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
FFV TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
BMW
304
-
23.0
4.9
FCA
332
-
22.5
1.5
Ford
343
-
20.8
-
GM
348
-
23.5
-
Honda
269
-
21.3
-
Hyundai
340
-
6.9
-
Jaguar Land
322
-
24.4
-
Rover
Kia
320
-
12.3
-
Mazda
261
-
4.1
-
Mercedes
335
-
14.3
1.5
Mitsubishi
252
-
17.7
-
Nissan
313
-
10.5
-
Subaru
239
-
10.0
-
Tesla
0
-
12.4
292.4
Toyota
324
-
13.5
-
Volkswagen
300
-
22.1
0.4
Volvo
279
-
13.5
4.6
All
Manufacturers
320
-
19.0
0.6
Off-
Cycle
8.1
11.1
12.1
9.5
6.1
5.4
10.4
4.1
4.5
2.4
1.4
5.0
4.5
8.3
7.0
8.2
11.0
8.7
CH4&
n2o
Deficit
0.5
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.2
Performance
Value
268
297
311
315
242
328
287
304
252
317
233
298
225
-313
304
269
250
292
Table 5.10. Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/mi}
Credits
ch4&
2-Cycle
Off-
n2o
Performance
Model Year
Tailpipe
FFV
TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
Cycle
Deficit
Value
2012
369
14.5
1.3
7.3
1.6
0.3
346
2013
360
13.8
1.1
7.9
1.7
0.3
337
2014
349
14.3
0.3
9.7
4.6
0.1
321
2015
336
10.3
0.6
11.0
4.6
0.2
310
2016
332
-
-
11.8
5.1
0.2
315
2017
330
-
-
17.2
0.2
7.1
0.3
306
2018
320
-
-
19.0
0.6
8.7
0.2
292
107
-------
C. End of Year Credit Balance
Each model year, manufacturers must determine their tailpipe CO2 emissions, the
flexibilities that they are eligible to use, and the performance values for their car and truck
fleets. The car and truck performance values can be compared to the respective footprint-
based CO2 standards to determine "net compliance" in a model year for each fleet. This
value provides a snapshot of how each manufacturer's fleet performed within the model
year, but it is not an enforceable compliance value and does not give a complete picture of
the manufacturer's status under the GHG program, due to the ABT-based design of the
overall GHG program.
As discussed at the beginning of this section, the GHG program allows manufacturers to
take advantage of averaging, banking, and trading options. The averaging provisions allow
manufacturers to use a production-weighted standard for car and truck fleets, as opposed
to standards for individual vehicles. It also allows manufacturers to use surplus credits
from their car fleet to offset a shortfall within their truck fleet, or vice versa, within a model
year. The banking provisions allow manufacturers to carry credits, or deficits, between
model years, and the trading provisions allow manufacturers to trade credits between
manufacturers.
The following discussion provides more detail on the credit program and how credit
balances are determined. This includes accounting for credit expirations and forfeitures,
credits earned under the early credit program, each manufacturer's annual standards and
performance values, and credit transactions between companies. The discussion will focus
on credits in terms of Megagrams (or Teragrams), which is how the credits are accounted
for within the GHG program.
Expiration or Forfeiture of Credits
All credits earned within the GHG program have expiration dates. However, the only credits
that have expired so far were credits earned under the early credit program (discussed
below) from model year 2009. All credits earned from model years 2010 to 2016, which
make up the majority of credits currently held by manufacturers, will expire at the end of
model year 2021. Beginning in model year 2017, all credits have a 5-year lifetime; for
example, credits earned in model year 2018 will expire at the end of model year 2023.
A limited number of credits have been forfeited by several manufacturers. Although
forfeiture and expiration both have fundamentally the same effect - a loss or removal of
credits - forfeiture is considered a different and less common mechanism, brought about
108
-------
by unique circumstances. Hyundai and Kia forfeited a specified quantity of 2013 model
year credits after an investigation into their testing methods that concluded with a
settlement announced on November 3, 2014.
Volkswagen similarly forfeited some credits, deducted from their 2017 model year balance.
In the course of the investigation concerning defeat devices in Volkswagen's diesel vehicles,
the EPA discovered that the company employed software to manage vehicle transmissions
in gasoline vehicles. This software causes the transmission to shift gears during the EPA-
prescribed emissions test in a manner that sometimes optimizes fuel economy and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the test, but not under normal driving conditions.
This resulted in inflated fuel economy values for some vehicles. Volkswagen forfeited
credits to account for the higher CO2 emissions of these vehicles in actual use.
Additional manufacturers forfeited credits because of their participation in the Temporary
Lead Time Alternative Allowance Standards (TLAAS). Opting into these less stringent
standards, which are no longer available, came with some restrictions, including the
requirement that any credits accumulated by using the TLAAS standards may not be used
by or transferred to a fleet meeting the primary standard. This impacted Porsche, which
was bought by VW in 2012. Porsche held some credits earned against the TLAAS standards
at the time they were merged with VW, and VW was not participating in the TLAAS
program. Thus, those credits could not carry over to the merged company and were lost.
Similarly, Mercedes and Volvo reached the end of the TLAAS program, which applied
through the 2015 model year, with credits in their TLAAS bank that could not be
transferred to their post-2015 bank and thus were forfeited.
Credits for Early Adoption of Technology
The GHG program included an optional provision that allowed manufacturers to generate
credits in the 2009-2011 model years, prior to the implementation of regulatory standards
in model year 2012. This flexibility allowed manufacturers to generate credits for achieving
tailpipe CO2 emissions targets or introducing technology before model year 2012. The
pathways for earning credits under the early credit program were like the flexibilities built
into the annual GHG requirements, including improved A/C systems, off-cycle credits, and
electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles.
To earn credits based on tailpipe CO2 performance, manufacturers could demonstrate
tailpipe emissions levels below either California or national standards, dependent on the
state the car was sold in. California developed GHG standards prior to the adoption of the
EPA GHG program, and some states had adopted these standards. In all other states, CO2
109
-------
levels were calculated based on the national CAFE standards. The early credits program
required that participating manufacturers determine credits for each of the three model
years. Thus, even manufacturers with a deficit in one or more of the early model years (i.e.,
their tailpipe CO2 performance was worse than the applicable emissions threshold) could
benefit from the early credits program if their net credits over the three years was a
positive value.
Due to concerns expressed by stakeholders during the rulemaking process, 2009 model
year credits could not be traded between companies and were limited to a 5-year credit
life. Thus, all credits earned in model year 2009 expired at the end of the 2014 model year
if not already used. The remaining 2010-2011 model year credits were banked and may be
used until the 2021 model year.
Sixteen manufacturers participated in the early credits program, generating about 234 Tg
of credits in total. Figure 5.13 shows the early credits earned, expired, and remaining for
each manufacturer. Of the 234 Tg of early credits earned by manufacturers, 76 Tg, or about
one-third of the early credits accumulated by manufacturers in the 2009-2011 model
years, were 2009 credits that expired. The remaining 2010-2011 model year credits will be
available until the 2021 model year. Note that Figure 5.13 shows how many 2010-2011
credits were reported; it does not show how many have since been used, nor how many
remain, after the 2018 model year. The impact of credit trading is not accounted for in
Figure 5.13, thus the figure does not show how many of these early credits remain for each
manufacturer at the end of the 2018 model year.
110
-------
Figure 5.13. Early Credits Reported and Expired by Manufacturer
ฆ Expired 2009 Credits
Used 2009 Credits
ฆ Remaining Credits
t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r
Of the 234 Tg of early credits, 85% of those credits were generated from performing better
than the tailpipe CO2 emissions targets established in the regulations. About 10% were due
to A/C leakage credits, 4% were due to A/C efficiency improvements, and just over 1 % were
due to off-cycle credits. Manufacturers can no longer generate early credits. More details of
the early credit program can be found in the "Early Credits Report," which was released by
EPA in 2013.22
22 Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Light-Duty Automobiles: Status of Early Credit Program for Model
Years 2009-2011, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Report No. EPA-420-R-13-005, March 2013.
111
-------
Model Year Performance Versus Standards
Manufacturer-specific standards and performance within the model year were discussed in
Sections 5.A and 5.B above. Comparing these two values for each manufacturer's fleet
determines the annual net compliance for each fleet. The total credit surplus or shortfall
for that model year is determined by manufacturers based on the net compliance and total
production of each fleet.
Figure 5.14 illustrates the performance of the large manufacturers in model year 2018,
compared to their standards, and prior to the application of banked credits from previous
model years or credit transactions between companies. As explained previously,
manufacturers have separate car and truck standards, and do not have an overall
standard. However, it is useful to calculate and show an equivalent overall standard for
evaluating a manufacturer's overall status under the GHG program.
Figure 5.14 is a "snapshot" that shows how manufacturers performed against the
standards with their 2018 fleets, but it does not portray whether these manufacturers have
ultimately complied with the model year 2018 standards. Most large manufacturers were
above (i.e., did not meet) their standard in model year 2018. As with model year 2017, only
three of the 14 large manufacturers were able to achieve compliance based on the
emission performance of their 2018 model year vehicles, without utilizing additional
banked credits. Two of those are the same as last yearHonda and Subaru. Unlike with the
2017 model year, BMW did not achieve compliance based upon emission performance for
the 2018 model year. The third manufacturer to meet compliance based upon emissions
performance is Tesla, which became a large volume manufacturer for the first time for the
2018 model year. The fact that manufacturers were above their standards does not mean
that these manufacturers were out of compliance with the GHG program, as all of these
manufacturers had or acquired more than enough credits to offset the difference, as
shown later in this report. While most individual manufacturers were above their individual
standards, on average the industry only missed the standards by 1 g/mile and achieved the
lowest fleetwide performance of any year of the program thus far.
112
-------
Figure 5.14. Performance and Standards by Manufacturer, 2018 Model Year
ฆ Standard
ฆ Performance
Table 5.11 through Table 5.16 provide a summary of the standards, manufacturer
performance, and net compliance by manufacturer for model year 2018, and for the
aggregated industry for model years 2009-2018 (including early credits). The net
compliance value is the difference between the standard and performance value. A
negative value indicates that the manufacturer, or the industry, was below the applicable
standard and generated credits. Conversely, a positive net compliance value indicates that
the manufacturer, or the industry, exceeded (i.e., did not meet) the standards and
generated a credit shortfall.
Toyota, for example, generated a 2018 model year credit shortfall because their overall
compliance value of 254 g/mi is above their fleet-wide standard of 243 g/mi. Honda, on the
other hand, reported a credit surplus based on a compliance value of 206 g/mi, 26 g/mi
lower than their fleet-wide standard of 232 g/mi.
These tables only show credits generated within a model year, and do not account for
credits used to offset deficits in other model years, credits that are traded between
manufacturers, or credits that have expired or been forfeited. It is important to note that
the tables showing combined results are aggregated from the passenger car and light-duty
truck data and standards; there are no independent standards for the combined fleet.
113
-------
Table 5.11. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, All
Credit
Performance
Net
Surplus/
Value
Standard
Compliance
Shortfall
Manufacturer
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
BMW
236
231
5
368,192
-416,713
BYD Motors
-215
215
-430
2
168
FCA
294
271
23
1,888,041
-9,396,315
Ford
286
278
8
2,103,253
-3,762,524
GM
278
275
3
2,669,227
-1,929,023
Honda
206
232
-26
1,626,866
8,598,273
Hyundai
233
211
22
708,227
-3,011,849
Jaguar Land Rover
283
283
0
110,615
-4,901
Kia
237
221
16
509,318
-1,649,692
Mazda
233
227
6
318,835
-385,089
Mercedes
284
244
40
362,680
-2,974,379
Mitsubishi
213
221
-8
126,438
203,923
Nissan
241
232
9
1,327,744
-2,567,935
Subaru
227
237
-10
674,395
1,533,010
Tesla
-244
228
-472
193,102
17,869,526
Toyota
254
243
11
2,443,132
-5,617,632
Volkswagen
256
245
11
729,483
-1,729,374
Volvo
245
283
-38
94,944
791,296
All Manufacturers
253
252
1
16,254,494
-4,449,230
Table 5,1?, Total Credits Earned in Modi* YtV.rs 2009-2018, All
Model
Year
2009
Performance
Value
(g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Net
Compliance
(g/mi)
Production
Credit
Surplus/
Shortfall
(Mg)
98,520,511
Credit
Expiration
2014
2010
-
-
-
-
96,890,664
2021
2011
-
-
-
-
38,769,164
2021
2012
287
299
-12
13,345,155
33,013,724
2021
2013
278
292
-14
15,103,066
42,627,850
2021
2014
273
287
-14
15,478,831
43,325,498
2021
2015
267
274
-7
16,677,789
25,095,159
2021
2016
271
263
8
16,276,424
-27,721,443
2021
2017
263
258
5
17,010,779
-16,600,603
2022
2018
253
252
1
16,254,494
-4,449,230
2023
114
-------
Table 5.13. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Car
Credit
Performance
Net
Surplus/
Value
Standard
Compliance
Shortfall
Manufacturer
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
BMW
223
212
11
269,666
-561,953
BYD Motors
-215
215
-430
2
168
FCA
278
220
58
370,666
-4,227,633
Ford
231
210
21
721,024
-2,918,968
GM
205
209
-4
992,131
753,552
Honda
182
208
-26
1,032,136
5,183,156
Hyundai
229
209
20
686,103
-2,703,395
Jaguar Land Rover
244
244
0
12,059
680
Kia
217
207
10
402,888
-770,573
Mazda
221
206
15
203,821
-582,325
Mercedes
255
217
38
208,832
-1,556,906
Mitsubishi
186
192
-6
58,412
63,840
Nissan
210
207
3
895,716
-560,324
Subaru
236
202
34
150,547
-1,001,931
Tesla
-241
225
-466
186,290
16,938,526
Toyota
198
207
-9
1,243,916
2,110,765
Volkswagen
237
206
31
329,216
-1,973,519
Volvo
227
252
-25
24,177
120,015
All Manufacturers
204
209
-5
7,787,602
8,313,175
Table 5.14. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, Car
Credit
Performance
Net
Surplus/
Model
Value
Standard
Compliance
Shortfall
Credit
Year
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
Expiration
2009
-
-
-
-
58,017,205
2014
2010
-
-
-
-
50,856,024
2021
2011
-
-
-
-
8,830,528
2021
2012
249
266
-17
8,628,026
30,564,873
2021
2013
240
260
-20
9,722,724
39,290,512
2021
2014
236
253
-17
9,197,604
30,447,846
2021
2015
230
241
-11
9,597,167
22,061,932
2021
2016
229
231
-2
8,998,957
3,373,702
2021
2017
217
219
-2
8,936,169
2,602,721
2022
2018
204
209
-5
7,787,602
8,313,175
2023
115
-------
Table 5.15. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Truck
Credit
Performance
Net
Surplus/
Value
Standard
Compliance
Shortfall
Manufacturer
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
BMW
268
275
-7
98,526
145,240
FCA
297
282
15
1,517,375
-5,168,682
Ford
311
308
3
1,382,229
-843,556
GM
315
308
7
1,677,096
-2,682,575
Honda
242
267
-25
594,730
3,415,117
Hyundai
328
266
62
22,124
-308,454
Jaguar Land Rover
287
287
0
98,556
-5,581
Kia
304
267
37
106,430
-879,119
Mazda
252
260
-8
115,014
197,236
Mercedes
317
276
41
153,848
-1,417,473
Mitsubishi
233
242
-9
68,026
140,083
Nissan
298
277
21
432,028
-2,007,611
Subaru
225
246
-21
523,848
2,534,941
Tesla
-313
292
-605
6,812
931,000
Toyota
304
275
29
1,199,216
-7,728,397
Volkswagen
269
272
-3
400,267
244,145
Volvo
250
292
-42
70,767
671,281
All Manufacturers
292
286
6
8,466,892
-12,762,405
Table 5.16. Total Credits Earned in Mod > Ytv.rs 2009-20 u*, ^ > ^ck
Credit
Performance
Net
Surplus/
Model
Value
Standard
Compliance
Shortfall
Credit
Year
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
Production
(Mg)
Expiration
2009
-
-
-
-
40,503,306
2014
2010
-
-
-
-
46,034,640
2021
2011
-
-
-
-
29,938,636
2021
2012
346
346
-
4,717,129
2,448,851
2021
2013
337
337
-
5,380,342
3,337,338
2021
2014
321
330
-9
6,281,227
12,877,652
2021
2015
310
311
-1
7,080,622
3,033,227
2021
2016
315
297
18
7,277,467
-31,095,145
2021
2017
306
295
11
8,074,610
-19,203,324
2022
2018
292
286
6
8,466,892
-12,762,405
2023
116
-------
Credit Transactions
Credits may be traded among manufacturers with a great deal of flexibility. There are only
a few regulatory requirements that relate to credit transactions between manufacturers,
and these are generally designed to protect those involved in these transactions. While it
may seem obvious, it is worth stating that a manufacturer may not trade credits that it
does not have. Credits that are available for trade are only those available (1) at the end of
a model year, and (2) after a manufacturer has offset any deficits they might have. Credit
transactions that result in a negative credit balance for the selling manufacturer are not
allowed. Although a third party may facilitate transactions, EPA's regulations allow only the
automobile manufacturers to engage in credit transactions and hold credits.
The credit transactions reported by manufacturers through the 2018 model year are
summarized in Figure 5.15. Credits that have been sold are shown as negative credits, since
the sale of credits will reduce the selling manufacturer's credit balance. Conversely, credits
that have been purchased are shown as positive credits, since they will increase the
purchasing manufacturer's credit balance. The values shown in Figure 5.15 are the total
quantity of credits that have been bought or sold by a manufacturer, and likely represent
multiple transactions between various manufacturers. Figure 5.15 also shows the
expiration date of credits sold and acquired. Credits generated in model years 2017 and
2018 have a life of 5 years and will thus expire in 2022 and 2023, respectively. All other
credits will expire in model year 2021. As of the close of the 2018 model year, about 66 Tg
of CO2 credits had changed hands.
Note that manufacturers are not required to report transactions to EPA as they occur; thus,
there may be additional credit transactions that have occurred that are not reported here.
Transactions reported after the manufacturers submitted their model year 2018 data will
be reported in the next release of this report.
117
-------
Figure 5.15. Total Credits Transactions Through Model Year 2018
Sold Purchased
ฆ Expires 2021
Expires 2022
ฆ Expires 2023
Final Credit Balances
At the end of each model year, manufacturers calculate their total credit balance. The final
credit balance is the sum of prior credits or deficits, credit surpluses or shortfalls accrued in
the current model year, expired or forfeited credits, and credits purchased or sold. Table
5.17 shows the impact of each of these categories for each manufacturer, including their
final model year 2018 credit balances. Table 5.18 shows the breakdown of expiration dates
for credit balances, and the distribution, by age, of credit deficits. All credit deficits must be
offset within three years, or a manufacturer will be considered non-compliant with the
GHG program.
118
-------
Table 5,17, Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018 (Mg)
Early Credits
Credits
Credits
Credits
Final 2018
Earned
Earned
Earned
Credits
Credits
Purchased
Credit
Manufacturer
2009-2011
2012-2017
2018
Expired
Forfeited
or Sold*
Balance
BMW
1,251,522
224,909
-416,713
-134,791
-
5,500,000
6,424,927
BYD Motors
-
5,400
168
-
-
-
5,568
Coda
-
7,251
-
-
-
-7,251
-
FCA
10,827,083
-22,967,481
-9,396,315
-
-
45,054,999
23,518,286
Ford
16,116,453
6,154,294
-3,762,524
-5,882,011
-
-
12,626,212
GM
25,788,547
1,216,402
-1,929,023
-6,998,699
-
7,251
18,084,478
Honda
35,842,334
44,423,035
8,598,273
-14,133,353
-
-34,245,245
40,485,044
Hyundai
14,007,495
8,833,667
-3,011,849
-4,482,649
-169,775
-
15,176,889
Jaguar Land Rover
-
-2,869,661
-4,901
-
-
2,722,736
-151,826
Karma Automotive
-
58,852
-
-
-
-2,841
56,011
Kia
10,444,192
-2,990,314
-1,649,692
-2,362,882
-123,956
-
3,317,348
Mazda
5,482,642
6,335,942
-385,089
-1,340,917
-
-
10,092,578
Mercedes
378,272
-6,004,114
-2,974,379
-
-28,416
8,727,713
99,076
Mitsubishi
1,449,336
1,227,844
203,923
-583,146
-
0
2,297,957
Nissan
18,131,200
19,527,625
-2,567,935
-8,190,124
-
-3,545,570
23,355,196
Porsche
-
426,439
-
-
-426,439
-
Subaru
5,755,171
11,636,165
1,533,010
-491,789
-
-
18,432,557
Suzuki
876,650
-183,097
-
-265,311
-
-428,242
-
Tesla
49,772
10,870,056
17,869,526
-
-
-17,831,311
10,958,043
Toyota
80,435,498
28,579,728
-5,617,632
-29,732,098
-
-10,262,431
63,403,065
Volkswagen
6,613,985
-4,247,836
-1,729,374
-1,442,571
-219,419
4,000,000
2,974,785
Volvo
All
730,187
-380,789
791,296
-
-85,163
-
1,055,531
Mil
Manufacturers
234,180,339
99,884,317
-4,449,230
-76,040,341
-1,053,168
(310,192)
252,211,725
* The transactions do not net to zero due to transactions with small volume manufacturers excluded from this report.
119
-------
Table 5,18, Distribution of C red4* itpiration Date (Mg)
Credits
Credits
Credits
Deficit Deficit
Final 2018
Expiring in
Expiring in
Expiring in
Carried Carried
Manufacturer
Credit Balance
2021
2022
2022
1 year 2 years
BMW
6,424,927
2,623,676
3,656,011
145,240
BYD Motors
5,568
4,871
529
168
FCA
23,518,286
12,870,920
2,419,871
8,227,495
Ford
12,626,212
12,626,212
0
0
GM
18,084,478
15,044,507
2,286,419
753,552
Honda
40,485,044
27,814,774
4,071,997
8,598,273
Hyundai
15,176,889
15,176,889
0
0
Jaguar Land
Rover
-151,826
0
0
0
-5,581 -146,245
Karma
Automotive
56,011
56,011
0
0
Kia
3,317,348
3,317,348
0
0
Mazda
10,092,578
9,724,291
171,051
197,236
Mercedes
99,076
99,076
0
0
Mitsubishi
2,297,957
1,922,105
171,929
203,923
Nissan
23,355,196
22,846,419
508,777
0
Subaru
18,432,557
12,706,379
3,191,237
2,534,941
Tesla
10,958,043
0
2,316,012
8,642,031
Toyota
63,403,065
59,063,588
2,228,712
2,110,765
Volkswagen
2,974,785
1,730,640
0
1,244,145
Volvo
1,055,531
0
264,235
791,296
All
Manufacturers
252,211,725
197,627,706
21,286,780
33,449,065
-5,581 -146,245
120
-------
D. Compliance Status After the 2018 Model Year
To evaluate the overall compliance status of manufacturers, EPA considers the credit
balance of each manufacturer at the end of the most recent model year. Because credits
may not be carried forward unless deficits from all prior model years have been resolved, a
positive credit balance means compliance with the current and all previous model years of
the program. The credits accrued will be available to that manufacturer until they are used
to offset a credit shortfall within a future model year, or until they expire. Figure 5.16 (and
Table 5.17) show the credit balance of all manufacturers after model year 2018.
Figure 5.16. Manufacturer Credit Balance After Model Year 2018
Toyota
Honda
FCA
Nissan
Su baru
GM
Hyundai -
Ford
Tesla
Mazda
BMW -
Kia -
VW-
Mitsu bishi
Volvo
Mercedes
Karma Automotive
BY D M otors
Jaguar Land Rover
Manufacturers with a positive credit balance
have complied through Model Year 2018
Manufacturers with a negative credit balance have
up to 3 years to offset the deficit
20 40
GHG Credits (TgofCO )
60
All manufacturers, except one, ended the 2018 model year with a positive credit balance
and are thus in compliance with model year 2018 and all previous years of the GHG
program. Jaguar Land Rover, the sole manufacturer carrying a deficit into the 2019 model
year, does not have any outstanding deficits that would result in noncompliance or
121
-------
enforcement actions from EPA. However, Jaguar Land Rover will have to offset the existing
deficits in future model years either by producing future efficient vehicles that exceed the
standards, or by purchasing credits from other manufacturers.
Figure 5.17 shows the overall industry performance, standards, and credit bank for all
years of the GHG program. As discussed earlier in this section, the performance of the
industry on average was below the standards for the first four years of the GHG program,
from model year 2012 through 2015. In model years 2016 through 2018, the industry was
on average above the standards. In model year 2018 the industry improved overall GHG
performance by 10 g/mi, and while this was not quite enough to meet the standard, the
gap between the GHG standard and fleet average performance narrowed to a very slim
margin of 1 g/mi.
The industry created a large bank of credits using the early credits provision and it
continued to grow the bank of credits during the first four years of the program by
reducing emissions below the requirements of the standards. For the last three years, the
industry has had to use banked credits, reducing the overall credit bank, but the balance of
credits remains substantial, and is practically unchanged after the 2018 model year.
The industry emerges from model year 2018 with a bank of 252 teragrams (Tg) of GHG
credits to draw upon in future years. Based on their compliance strategy, many
manufacturers used credits in model year 2018. As a result, the industry depleted their
collective credit bank by about 4.5 Tg, or about 2% of the total credit balance, to maintain
compliance. If applied entirely to model year 2018, the balance of 252 Tg would be
equivalent to a fleetwide GHG reduction of about 74 g/mi. Of those credits, about 80% will
expire at the end of model year 2021 if not used.
After accounting for the use of credits, and the ability to carry forward a deficit in the case
of Jaguar Land Rover, the industry overall does not face any non-compliance issues as of
the end of the 2018 model year.
i
i
122
-------
Figure 5.17. Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation and Use
Standard
I Performance
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
O
O
H
o
O)
"C
300-
250-
200-
150 -
100-
50-
0-
+25
-28
+42
252
| Credits Earned
Credits Used
Total
Early Credits 2012
(2009-2011)
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018 Carry to
2019
Model Year
123
-------
Appendices: Methods and Additional Data
A. Sources of Input Data
Nearly all of the data for this report are based on automakers' direct submissions to EPA.
EPA has required manufacturers to provide vehicle fuel economy to consumers since 1977,
and has collected data on every new light-duty vehicle model sold in the United States
since 1975. The data are obtained either from testing performed by EPA at the National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, or directly from
manufacturers using official EPA test procedures.
National fuel economy standards have been in place in the United States for cars and light
trucks since 1978. The Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the responsibility for setting and enforcing fuel
economy standards through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. Since
the inception of CAFE, EPA has been responsible for establishing test procedures and
calculation methods, and for collecting data used to determine vehicle fuel economy levels.
EPA calculates the CAFE value for each manufacturer and provides it to NHTSA. NHTSA
publishes the final CAFE values in its annual "Summary of Fuel Economy Performance"
reports at www.nhtsa.gov/Laws-&-Regulations/CAFEFuel-Economy. Since model year
2012, NHTSA and EPA have maintained coordinated fuel economy and greenhouse gas
standards that apply to model year 2012 through model year 202542 vehicles.
The data that EPA collects comprise the most comprehensive database of its kind. For
recent model years, the vast majority of the data in this report are reported to EPA using
the EV-CIS database maintained by EPA. This database contains a broad amount of data
associated with CO2 emissions and fuel economy, vehicle and engine technology, and other
vehicle performance metrics. This report extracts only a portion of the data from the EV-CIS
database.
In some cases, the data submitted by automakers are supplemented by data that were
obtained through independent research by EPA. For example, EPA relied on published data
from external sources for certain parameters of pre-model year 2011 vehicles: (1) engines
with variable valve timing (VVT), (2) engines with cylinder deactivation, and (3) vehicle
footprint, as automakers did not submit this data until model year 2011. EPA projects
footprint data for the preliminary model year 2019 fleet based on footprint values for
42 See 75 Federal Register 25324, May 7, 2010 and 77 Federal Register 62624, October 15, 2012.
1
-------
existing models from previous years and footprint values for new vehicle designs available
through public sources. In addition, vehicle 0-to-60 acceleration values are not provided by
automakers, but are either calculated from other Trends data, as discussed in Section 3, or
taken from external sources.
This report presents analysis and data drawn from the extensive Trends database. The
website for this report has been expanded with an emphasis on allowing users to access
and evaluate more of the data behind this report. EPA plans to continue to add content
and tools on the web to allow transparent access to public data. All public data available on
the web can be accessed at the following links:
Explore data with interactive figures and download data from Supplemental Data
Tables supplied in previous reports here: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-
trends/explore-automotive-trends-data.
Download report tables here: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends/download-
automotive-trends-report.
The full Trends database is not publicly available. The detailed production data necessary
for demonstrating compliance is considered confidential business information by the
manufacturers and cannot be shared by EPA. However, EPA will continue to provide as
much information as possible to the public.
Preliminary vs Final Data
For each model year, automakers submit two phases of data: preliminary data provided
to EPA for vehicle certification and labeling prior to the model year sales, and final data
submitted after the completion of the model year for compliance with EPA's light-duty GHG
regulations and NHTSA's CAFE program.
Preliminary data are collected prior to the beginning of each model year and are not used
for manufacturer GHG compliance. Automakers submit "General Label" information
required to support the generation of the joint EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy and Environment
Labels that appear on all new personal vehicles. As part of these submissions, automakers
report pre-model year vehicle production projections for individual models and
configurations to EPA.
Final data are submitted a few months after the end of each model year and include
detailed final production volumes. EPA and NHTSA use this final data to determine
compliance with GHG emissions and CAFE standards. These end-of-the-year submissions
include detailed final production volumes. All data in this report for model years 1975
Itfl A-2
-------
through 2018 are considered final. However, manufacturers can submit requests for
compliance credits for previous model years, so it is possible that additional credits under
the GHG program could be awarded to manufacturers.
Since the preliminary fuel economy values provided by automakers are based on projected
vehicle production volumes, they usually vary slightly from the final fuel economy values
that reflect the actual sales at the end of the model year. With each publication of this
report, the preliminary values from the previous year are updated to reflect the final
values. This allows a comparison to gauge the accuracy of preliminary projections.
Table A.1 compares the preliminary and final fleetwide real-world fuel economy values for
recent years (note that the differences for CO2 emissions data would be similar, on a
percentage basis). Since model year 2011, the final real-world fuel economy values have
generally been close to the preliminary fuel economy values. In six out of the last seven
years, manufacturer projections have led to preliminary estimates that were higher than
final data. This could be due to many reasons, but lower than expected gasoline costs and
the increasing percentage of SUVs purchased by consumers likely contributed to this
overestimation.
It is important to note that there is no perfect apples-to-apples comparison for model years
2011 -2014 due to several small data issues, such as alternative fuel vehicle (AFV) data. The
preliminary values in Table A.1 through model year 2014 did not integrate AFV data, while
the final values in Table A.1 are the values reported elsewhere in this report and do include
AFV data. The differences due to this would be small, on the order of 0.1 mpg or less.
Table A I Comparison of Preliminary and Final Real-World Fuel Economy
Values (mpg)
Preliminary
Final Minus
Final Value Preliminary
Model Year
Value
22.8
23.8
24.0
24.2
24.7
25.6
25.2
25.4
25.5
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
22.3
23.6
24.2
24.1
24.6
24.7
24.9
25.1
-0.5
-0.2
+0.2
-0.1
-0.2
-0.9
-0.3
-0.3
2019 (prelim)
A3
-------
B. Harmonic Averaging of Fuel Economy Values
Averaging multiple fuel economy values must be done harmonically in order to obtain a
correct mathematical result. Since fuel economy is expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), one
critical assumption with any harmonic averaging of multiple fuel economy values is
whether the distance term (miles, in the numerator of mpg) is fixed or variable. This report
makes the assumption that the distance term in all mpg values is fixed, i.e., that for
purposes of calculating a harmonically averaged fuel economy value, it is assumed that the
distance term (representing miles traveled) is equivalent across various vehicle fuel
economies. This assumption is the standard practice with harmonic averaging of multiple
fuel economy values (including, for example, in calculations for CAFE standards
compliance), and simplifies the calculations involved.
Mathematically, when assuming a fixed distance term as discussed above, harmonic
averaging of multiple fuel economy values can be defined as the inverse of the average of
the reciprocals of the individual fuel economy values. It is best illustrated by a simple
example.
Consider a round trip of 600 miles. For the first 300-mile leg, the driver is alone with no
other passengers or cargo, and, aided by a tailwind, uses 10 gallons of gasoline, for a fuel
economy of 30 mpg. On the return 300-mile trip, with several passengers, some luggage,
and a headwind, the driver uses 15 gallons of gasoline, for a fuel economy of 20 mpg. Many
people will assume that the average fuel economy for the entire 600-mile trip is 25 mpg,
the arithmetic (or simple) average of 30 mpg and 20 mpg. But, since the driver consumed
10 + 15 = 25 gallons of fuel during the trip, the actual fuel economy is 600 miles divided by
25 gallons, or 24 mpg.
Why is the actual 24 mpg less than the simple average of 25 mpg? Because the driver used
more gallons while (s)he was getting 20 mpg than when (s)he was getting 30 mpg.
This same principle is often demonstrated in elementary school mathematics when an
airplane makes a round trip, with a speed of 400 mph one way and 500 mph the other way.
The average speed of 444 mph is less than 450 mph because the airplane spent more time
going 400 mph than it did going 500 mph.
As in both of the examples above, a harmonic average will typically yield a result that is
slightly lower than the arithmetic average.
The following equation illustrates the use of harmonic averaging to obtain the correct
mathematical result for the fuel economy example above:
B-1
-------
2
Average mpg =
Thought the above example was for a single vehicle with two different fuel economies over
two legs of a single round trip, the same mathematical principle holds for averaging the fuel
economies of any number of vehicles. For example, the average fuel economy for a set of 10
vehicles, with three 30 mpg vehicles, four 25 mpg vehicles, and three 20 mpg vehicles would
be (note that, in order to maintain the concept of averaging, the total number of vehicles in
the numerator of the equation must equal the sum of the individual numerators in the
denominator of the equation):
Arithmetic averaging, not harmonic averaging, provides the correct mathematical result for
averaging fuel consumption values (in gallons per mile, the inverse of fuel economy) and CO2
emissions (in grams per mile). In the first, round trip, example above, the first leg had a fuel
consumption rate of 10 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.033 gallons per mile. The second leg had
a fuel consumption of 15 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.05 gallons per mile. Arithmetically
averaging the two fuel consumption values, i.e., adding them up and dividing by two, yields
0.04167 gallons per mile, and the inverse of this is the correct fuel economy average of 24
mpg. Arithmetic averaging also works for CO2 emissions values, i.e., the average of 200 g/mi
and 400 g/mi is 300 g/mi CO2 emissions.
In summary, fuel economy values must be harmonically averaged to maintain mathematical
integrity, while fuel consumption values (in gallons per mile) and CO2 emissions values (in
grams per mile) can be arithmetically averaged.
10
Average mpg =
ฆ3- = 24.4 mpg
2o)
-------
C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics
The CO2 emissions and fuel economy data in this report fall into one of two categories:
compliance data and estimated real-world data. These categories are based on the
purpose of the data, and the subsequent required emissions test procedures. The
following sections discuss the differences between compliance and real-world data and
how they relate to raw vehicle emissions test results.
2-Cycle Test Data
In 1975 when the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulation was put into place,
EPA tested vehicles using two dynamometer-based test cycles, one based on city driving
and one based on highway driving. CAFE wasand continues to berequired by law to use
these "2-cycle tests". For consistency, EPA also adopted this approach for the GHG
regulations.
Originally, the fuel economy values generated from the "2-cycle" test procedure were used
both to determine compliance with CAFE requirements and to inform consumers of their
expected fuel economy via the fuel economy label. Today, the raw 2-cycle test data are
used primarily in a regulatory context as the basis for determining the final compliance
values for CAFE and GHG regulations.
The 2-cycle testing methodology has remained largely unchanged43 since the early 1970s.
Because of this, the 2-cycle fuel economy and CO2 values can serve as a useful comparison
of long-term trends. Previous versions of this report included 2-cycle fuel economy and CO2
data, referred to as "unadjusted" or "laboratory" values. These 2-cycle fuel economy values
are still available on the report website and in Appendix D for reference. It is important to
note that these 2-cycle fuel economy values do not exactly correlate to the 2-cycle tailpipe
CO2 emissions values provided in Section 5 for the GHG regulations. There are three
methodological reasons for this:
43 There were some relatively minor test procedure changes made in the late 1970s that, in the aggregate, made
the city and highway tests slightly more demanding, i.e., the unadjusted fuel economy values for a given car
after these test procedure changes were made are slightly lower relative to prior to the changes. EPA has long
provided CAFE "test procedure adjustments" (TPAs) for passenger cars in recognition of the fact that the original
CAFE standards were based on the EPA test procedures in place in 1975 (there are no TPAs for light trucks). The
resulting impacts on the long-term unadjusted fuel economy trends are very small. The TPAs for cars vary but
are typically in the range of 0.2-0.5 mpg for cars, or 0.1-0.3 mpg when the car TPAs are averaged over the
combined car/truck fleet.
-------
1. The GHG regulations require a car and truck weighting based on a slightly higher
lifetime vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for trucks. The 2-cycle fuel economy values do
not account for this difference.
2. The GHG regulations allow manufacturers to use an optional compliance approach
which adds nitrous oxide and methane emissions to their 2-cycle CO2 emissions.
3. The GHG regulations and CAFE regulations result in very slightly different annual
production values. Prior to model year 2017, the 2-cycle fuel economy values rely on
CAFE production values (see Appendix D).
GHG Compliance Data
Compliance data in this report are used to determine how the manufacturers are
performing under EPA's GHG program. These data are reported in the Executive Summary
and Section 5. The 2-cycle CO2 test values form the basis for the compliance data, but there
are some important differences due to provisions in the standards. Manufacturers' model
year performance is calculated based on the measured 2-cycle CO2 tailpipe emissions and
flexibilities that manufacturers may qualify for and use.
Compliance data also includes the overall credit balances held by each manufacturer, and
may incorporate credit averaging, banking, and trading by manufacturers. The compliance
process is explained in detail in Section 5. Compliance CO2 data is not comparable to
estimated real-world CO2 data, as described below.
Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Data
Estimated real-world (previously called "adjusted") data is EPA's best estimate of real-world
fuel economy and CO2 emissions, as reported in Sections 1 -4 of this report. The real-world
values are the best data for researchers to evaluate new vehicle CO2 and fuel economy
performance. Unlike compliance data, the method for calculating real-world data have
evolved over time, along with technology and driving habits. These changes in
methodology are detailed in Appendix D.
Calculating estimated real-world fuel economy
Estimated real-world fuel economy data are currently measured based on the "5-cycle" test
procedure that utilizes high-speed, cold start, and air conditioning tests in addition to the 2-
cycle tests to provide data more representative of real-world driving. These additional
laboratory tests capture a wider range of operating conditions (including hot/cold weather
and higher acceleration) that an average driver will encounter. City and highway results are
weighted 43% / 57%, consistent with fleetwide driver activity data.
C-2
-------
Calculating estimated real-world CO2 emissions
The estimated real-world CO2 emissions shown in Sections 1 -4 are not based directly on
the 2-cycle tested values, but rather they are based on calculated values that convert
estimated real-world fuel economy values to CO2 using emission factors. This approach is
taken because: 1) test data are not available for most historic years of data, and 2) some
manufacturers choose to use an optional compliance approach which adds nitrous oxide
(N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions to their CO2 emissions (also referred to as Carbon
Related Exhaust Emissions, or CREE), leading to slightly different test results.
The estimated real-world CO2 emissions from gasoline vehicles are calculated by dividing
8,887 g/gal by the fuel economy of the vehicle. The 8,887 g/gal emission factor is a typical
value for the grams of CO2 per gallon of gasoline test fuel, and assumes all the carbon is
converted to CO2. For example, 8,887 g/gal divided by a gasoline vehicle fuel economy of 30
mpg would yield an equivalent CO2 emissions value of 296 grams per mile.
The estimated real-world CO2 emissions for diesel vehicles are calculated by dividing
10,180 g/gal by the diesel vehicle fuel economy value. The 10,180 g/gal diesel emission
factor is higher than for a gasoline vehicle because diesel fuel has a 14.5% higher carbon
content per gallon than gasoline. Accordingly, a 30 mpg diesel vehicle would have a CO2
equivalent value of 339 grams per mile. Emissions for vehicles other than gasoline and
diesel are also calculated using appropriate emissions factors.
Exa parison of Fuel Economy Metrics
The multiple ways of measuring fuel economy and GHG emissions can understandably
lead to confusion. As an illustration to help the reader understand the various fuel
economy values that can be associated with an individual vehicle, Table 1.2 shows three
different fuel economy metrics for the model year 2018 Toyota Prius Eco. The 2-cycle city
and highway fuel economy values are direct fuel economy measurements from the 2-cycle
tests and are harmonically averaged with a 55% city / 45% highway weighting to generate a
combined value. The 2-cycle laboratory tested city fuel economy of the Prius Eco is 84 mpg,
the highway fuel economy is 78 mpg, and the combined 2-cycle value is 81 mpg.
Using the 5-cycle methodology, the Toyota Prius Eco has a vehicle fuel economy label value
of 56 mpg city and 58 mpg highway. On the vehicle label, these values are harmonically
averaged using a 55% city / 45% highway weighting to determine a combined value of 53
mpg. The estimated real-world fuel economy for the Prius Eco, which is the set of values
used in calculations for this report, has the same city and highway fuel economy as the
C-3
-------
label, but the 43% city and 57% highway weighting leads to a combined value of 55 mpg,
which is one mpg less than the values found on the label.
Table C.l Fuel Economy Metrics for the Model Year 2018 Toyota Prius Eco
Fuel Economy Value
Fuel (MPG)
Economy City/Highway Test Combined
Metric Purpose Weighting Basis City/Hwy City Hwy
Basis for manufacturer
2-cycleTest compliance with
(unadjusted) standards 55%/ 45% 2-cycle 81 84 78
Consumer information
to compare individual
Label vehicles 55%/45% 5-cycle 56 58 53
Estimated Best estimate of real-
Real-World world performance 43%/57% 5-cycle 55 58 53
Greenhouse Gases other than COz
In addition to tailpipe CO2 emissions, vehicles may create greenhouse gas emissions in
several other ways. The combustion process can result in emissions of N2O, and CH4, and
leaks in vehicle air conditioning systems can release refrigerants, which are also
greenhouse gases, into the environment. N2O, CH4, and air conditioning greenhouse gases
are discussed as part of the GHG regulatory program in Section 5. Estimated real-world CO2
emissions in Sections 1 -4 only account for tailpipe CO2 emissions.
The life cycle of the vehicle (including manufacturing and vehicle disposal) and the life cycle
of the fuels (including production and distribution) can also create significant greenhouse
gases. Life cycle implications of vehicles and fuels can vary widely based on the vehicle
technology and fuel and are outside the scope of this report. However, there is academic
research, both published and ongoing, in this area for interested readers.
C-4
-------
D. Historical Changes in the Database and
Methodology
Over the course of this report's publication, there have been some instances where
relevant methodologies and definitions have been updated. Since the goal of this report is
to provide the most accurate data and science available, updates are generally propagated
back to through the historical database. The current version of this report supersedes all
previous reports.
Changes in Estimated Real-world Fuel Economy and CO2
The estimated real-world fuel economy values in this report are closely related to the label
fuel economy values. Over the course of this report, there have been three updates to the
fuel economy label methodology (for model years 1985, 2008, and 2017), and these
updates were propagated through the Trends database. However, there are some
important differences in how the label methodology updates have been applied in this
report. This section discusses how these methodologies have been applied, partially or in
full, to the appropriate model years based on the authors' technical judgement. The
changes are intended to provide accurate real-world values for vehicles at the time they
were produced to better reflect available technologies, changes in driving patterns, and
composition of the fleet. These changes are also applicable to real-world CO2 values, which
are converted from fuel economy values using emissions factors.
Model year 385; Universal Multipliers
The first change to the label methodology occurred when EPA recognized that changing
technology and driving habits led to real-world fuel economy results that over time were
diverging from the fuel economy values measured using the 2-cycle tests. To address this
issue, EPA introduced an alternative calculation methodology in 1985 that applied a
multiplication factor to the 2-cycle test data of 0.9 for city and 0.78 for highway. The
estimated real-world fuel economy values from model year 1975-1985 in this report were
calculated using the same multiplication factors that were required for the model year
1985 label update. The authors believe that these correction factors were appropriate for
new vehicles from model year 1975 through 1985. The combined fuel economy and CO2
values are based on a 55% city/45% highway weighting factor, consistent with the CAFE and
label fuel economy calculations.
ID 1
-------
Model year 1986-2010; The 2006 5-cycle methodology and 43% City/57% Highway
Weighting
In 2006, EPA established a major change to the fuel economy label calculations by
introducing the 5-cycle methodology.25 In addition to the city and highway tests required
for 2-cycle fuel economy the 5-cycle methodology introduces tests for high speeds (US06),
air-conditioning (SC03), and a cold temperature test. It also indirectly accounts for a
number of other factors that are not reflected in EPA laboratory test data (e.g., changing
fuel composition, wind, road conditions) through the use of a 9.5% universal downward
adjustment factor. The change from the universal adjustment factors to the 2006 5-cycle
method lowered estimated real-world fuel economy values, particularly for high fuel
economy vehicles. In the 2006 rulemaking, EPA projected an overall average fleetwide
adjustment of 11 % lower for city fuel economy and 8% lower for highway fuel economy.
For model year 1986-2004, the authors implemented the 2006 5-cycle methodology by
assuming the changes in technology and driver behavior that led to lower real-world fuel
economy occurred in a gradual, linear manner over 20 years. We did not attempt to
perform a year-by-year analysis to determine the extent to which the many relevant factors
(including higher highway speed limits, more aggressive driving, increasing vehicle
horsepower-to-weight ratios, suburbanization, congestion, greater use of air conditioning,
gasoline composition, etc.) that have affected real-world fuel economy since 1985 have
changed over time.
Under the 5-cycle methodology, manufacturers could either: 1) perform all five tests on
each vehicle (the "full 5-cycle" method), 2) use an alternative analytical "derived 5-cycle"
method based on 2-cycle testing if certain conditions were met, or 3) voluntarily use lower
fuel economy label estimates than those resulting from the full 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle. If
manufacturers are required to perform all five tests, the results are weighted according to
composite 5-cycle equations.26 To use the derived 5-cycle method, manufacturers are
required to evaluate whether fuel economy estimates using the full 5-cycle tests are
comparable to results using the derived 5-cycle method. In recent years, the derived 5-cycle
approach has been used to generate approximately 85% of all vehicle label fuel economy
values.
For vehicles that were eligible to use the 2006 derived 5-cycle methodology, the following
equations were used to convert 2-cycle city and highway fuel economy values to label
25 See 71 Federal Register 77872, December 27, 2006.
26 See 71 Federal Register 77883-77886, December 27, 2006.
m
-------
economy values. These equations were based on the relationship between 2-cycle and 5-
cycle fuel economy data for the industry as a whole.
1
Label CITY =
(ฐ-
003259 +
1.1805 >
2CYCLE CITYJ
1
Label HWY =
(0.001376 +
1.3466
2CYCLE HWY;
Over the same timeframe, EPA phased in a change in the city and highway weightings used
to determine a single combined fuel economy or CO2 value. EPA's analysis of real-world
driving activity underlying the 5-cycle fuel economy methodology assumed a "speed
cutpoint" of 45 miles per hour to differentiate between (and "bin" the amount of) city and
highway driving.27 Based on this speed cutpoint, the correct weighting for correlating the
new city and highway fuel economy values with real-world driving activity data from on-
road vehicle studies, on a miles driven basis, is 43% city and 57% highway; this updated
weighting is necessary to maintain the integrity of fleetwide fuel economy performance
based on Trends data. The 55% city / 45% highway weighting is still used for both Fuel
Economy and Environment Labels and the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs.
The authors used the same gradual, linear approach to phase in the change in city and
highway weightings along with the phase-in of the 2006 5-cycle methodology.
From model year 2005 to model year 2010, the 2006 5-cycle methodology and the 43% city
/ 57% highway weightings were used to determine the real-world fuel economy values for
this report. This required using the derived 5-cycle equations and the 43% city / 57%
highway weightings to recalculate real-world fuel economy values for model year 2005 to
2007, because the 2006 5-cycle methodology was not required until 2008. Model year 2008
to model year 2010 real-world fuel economy values were the same as the label fuel
economy values, except for the city and highway weightings.
Model year 2011-2018; Implementing the model year 2017 derived 5-cycle updates
In 2015, EPA released a minor update to the derived 5-cycle equations that modified the
coefficients used to calculate derived 5-cycle fuel economy from 2-cycle test data.28 This
27 See 71 Federal Register 77904, December 27, 2006.
28 See https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomv/basic-information-fuel-economv-labeling and
http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/displav file.jsp?docid=35113&flag=1
D::3
-------
update was required under existing regulations and applies to fuel economy label
calculations for all model year 2017 and later vehicles. The following equations are used to
convert 2-cycle test data values for city and highway to label fuel economy values:
1
Label CITY =
(o.004091 +
Label HWY =
1.1601
2CYCLE CITY;
1
(0.003191 +
1.2945
2CYCLE HWY;
The updated 5-cycle calculations introduced for model year 2017 labels were based on test
data from model year 2011 to model year 2016 vehicles. Therefore, the authors chose to
apply the updated 5-cycle methodology to all model years from 2011 to 2018. This required
recalculating the real-world fuel economy of vehicles from model year 2011 to 2016 using
the new derived 5-cycle equations. Vehicles that conducted full 5-cycle testing or voluntarily
lowered fuel economy values were unchanged. The 43% city/ 57% highway weightings were
maintained for all vehicles in model years 2011 to 2018. The changes due to the 5-cycle
update were relatively small (0.1 to 0.2 mpg overall) and did not noticeably alter the
general data trends, therefore the authors determined that a phase-in period was not
required for this update.
Figure D.1 below summarizes the impact of the changes in real-world data methodology
relative to the 2-cycle test data, which has had a consistent methodology since 1975 (See
Appendix C for more information). Over time, the estimated real-world fuel economy of
new vehicles has continued to slowly diverge from 2-cycle test data, due largely to changing
technology, driving patterns, and vehicle design.
i
D-4
-------
Figure D.1. Estimated Real-World versus 2-Cycle Fuel Economy since Model
Year 1975
35
30
O
Or 25
0
Phase I
1975-1985
Phase II
1986-2006
Phase III
2007-2010
Phase IV
2011-2018
Universal
adjustment factors
55/45% weighting
2006 5-cycle is phase-in
5-cycle Updated 5-cycle
43/57%
weighting
43/57%
weighting
43/57% weighting phase-in
Ratio of~\
Rea l-Wo rid
Estimated
to 2-cycle:
V 85-2% J
/RatioopN
Real-World
Estimated
to 2-cycle:
V 76.9% )
2-cycle method
unchanged
since 1975
Estimated
Real-World
Phases I - IV
1975 1980 1985 1990
"I 1 1 T
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
Other Database Changes
Addition of Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles
Beginning in 2011 medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), those SUVs and passenger
vans (but not pickup trucks) with gross vehicle weight ratings between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds, are included in the light-duty truck category. This coincided with new regulations
by NHTSAto treat these vehicles as light-duty, rather than heavy-duty, vehicles beginning in
model year 2011, This represents a minor change to the database, since the number of
MDPVs is much smaller than it once was (e.g., only 6,500 MDPVs were sold in model year
2012). It should be noted that this is one change to the database that has not been
propagated back through the historic database, as we do not have MDPV data prior to
model year 2011. Accordingly, this represents a small inflection point for the database for
the overall car and truck fleet in model year 2011; the inclusion of MDPVs decreased
average real-world fuel economy by 0.01 mpg and increased average real-world CO2
D-5
-------
emissions by 0.3 g/mi, compared to the fleet without MDPVs. The impacts on the truck fleet
only were about twice as high, but still very small in absolute terms. Pickup trucks above
8,500 pounds are not included in this report.
Addition of Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Data from alternative fuel vehicles are integrated into the overall database, beginning with
MY 2011 data. These vehicles include electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, fuel cell
vehicles, and compressed natural gas vehicles. CO2 emissions from alternative fuel vehicles
represent tailpipe emissions, and fuel economy for these vehicles is reported as mpge
(miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent), or the miles an alternative fuel vehicle can travel
on an amount of energy equivalent to that in a gallon of gasoline. Sales data prior to MY
2011 are included in some cases based on available industry reports (e.g., Ward's
Automotive data).
Changes in Vehicle Classification Definitions
The car-truck classifications in this report follow the current regulatory definitions used by
EPA and NHTSA for compliance with GHG emissions and CAFE standards (see definitions
for passenger automobiles (cars) and non-passenger automobiles (trucks) in 49 CFR 523).
These current definitions differ from those used in the 2010 and older versions of the Light-
Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends report, and
reflect a decision by NHTSA to reclassify many small, 2-wheel drive sport utility vehicles
(SUVs) from the truck category to the car category, beginning with model year 2011. When
this re-classification was initiated in the 2011 report, the absolute truck share decreased by
approximately 10%.
The current car-truck definitions have been propagated back throughout the entire
historical Trends database to maintain the integrity of long-term trends of car and truck
production share. Since the authors did not have all of the requisite technical information
on which to make retroactive car-truck classifications, we used engineering judgment to
classify past models.
This report previously presented data on more vehicle types, but recent vehicle design has
led to far less distinction between vehicle types and reporting on more disaggregated
vehicle types was no longer useful.
D-6
-------
Manufacturer Definitions
When a manufacturer grouping changes under the GHG and CAFE programs, the current
manufacturer definitions are generally applied to all prior model years. This maintains
consistent manufacturer and make definitions over time, which enables better
identification of long-term trends. However, some of the compliance data maintain the
previous manufacturer definitions where necessary to preserve the integrity of compliance
data as they were accrued.
Differences in Production Data Between CAFE and GHG Regulations
The data used to discuss real-world trends in Sections 1 through 4 of this report are based
on production volumes reported under CAFE prior to model year 2017, not the GHG
standards. The production volume levels automakers provide in their final CAFE reports
may differ slightly from their final GHG reports (typically less than 0.1 %) because of
different reporting requirements. The EPA regulations require emission compliance in the
50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, whereas the CAFE program
requires data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico only. All
compliance data detailed in Section 5, for all years, are based on production volumes
reported under the GHG standards. Starting with model year 2017 and forward, the real-
world data are also based on production volumes reported under EPA's GHG standards. As
described above, the difference in production volumes is very small and does not impact
the long-term trends or analysis.
-------
E. Electric Vehicle and Plug-In Hybrid Metrics
Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (PHEVs) have continued to gain market
share. While overall market penetration of these vehicles is still low, their production share
is projected to reach more than 3.3% in model year 2019. This section addresses some of
the technical metrics used both to quantify EV and PHEV operation and to integrate data
from these vehicles with gasoline and diesel vehicle data.
EVs operate using only energy stored in a battery from external charging. PHEVs blend EV
technology with more familiar powertrain technology from petroleum-fueled vehicles.
Current PHEVs feature both an electric drive system designed to be charged from an
electricity source external to the vehicle (like an EV) and a gasoline internal combustion
engine. There are generally three ways that a PHEV can operate:
1. Charge-depleting electric-only mode - In electric-only mode the vehicle operates
like an EV, using only energy stored in the battery to propel the vehicle.
2. Charge-depleting blended mode - In blended mode the vehicle uses both energy
stored in the battery and energy from the gasoline tank to propel the vehicle.
Depending on the vehicle design and driving conditions, blended operation can
include substantial all-electric driving.
3. Charge-sustaining mode - In charge-sustaining mode, the PHEV has exhausted the
external energy from the electric grid that is stored in the battery and relies on the
gasoline internal combustion engine. In charge-sustaining mode, the vehicle will
operate much like a traditional hybrid.
The presence of both electric drive and an internal combustion engine results in a complex
system that can be used in many different combinations, and manufacturers are choosing
to operate PHEV systems in different ways. This complicates direct comparisons among
PHEV models.
This section discusses EV and PHEV metrics for several example model year 2019 vehicles.
For consistency and clarity for the reader, the data for specific vehicles discussed in this
section reflect values from the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels, which use
a 55% city/ 45% highway weighting for combined fuel economy and CO2 values. When data
for these vehicles are integrated into the data for the rest of the report, the real-world
highway and city values are combined using a 43% city/ 57% highway weighting.
Additionally, some PHEV calculations are also adjusted, as explained at the end of this
section.
I:1
-------
Table E.1 shows the label driving range for several EVs and PHEVs when operating only on
electricity, as well as the total electricity plus gasoline range for PHEVs. The average range
of new EVs is increasing, as shown in Section 4, and many EVs are approaching the range of
an average gasoline vehicle.29 PHEVs generally have a much smaller all electric range,
however the combined electric and gasoline range for PHEVs often exceeds gasoline-only
vehicles. Several PHEVs now exceed 500 miles of total range.
Table E.1. Model Year 2019 Example EV and PHEV Powertrain and Range
Electric
Total
Fuel or
Range
Range
Utility
Manufacturer
Model
Powertrain
(miles)
(miles)
Factor
GM
Bolt
EV
238
238
-
Nissan
Leaf 62kWh
EV
226
226
-
Tesla
Model 3 LR
EV
325
325
-
FCA
Pacifica
PHEV
32
520
0.61
GM
Volt
PHEV
53
420
0.76
Honda
Clarity
PHEV
48
340
0.73
Toyota
Prius Prime
PHEV
25
640
0.53
Volvo
XC90
PHEV
17
490
0.40
Determining the electric range of PHEVs is complicated if the vehicle can operate in
blended modes. For PHEVs like the Chevrolet Volt, which cannot operate in blended mode,
the electric range represents the estimated range operating in electric only mode.
However, for PHEVs that operate in a blended mode, the electric range represents the
estimated range of the vehicle operating in either electric only or blended mode, due to the
design of the vehicle. For example, the Volvo XC90 uses electricity stored in its battery and
a small amount of gasoline to achieve an alternative fuel range of 17 miles. Some PHEVs
did not use any gasoline to achieve their electric range value on EPA test cycles; however,
certain driving conditions (e.g., more aggressive accelerations, higher speeds, and air
conditioning or heater operation) would likely cause these vehicles to operate in a blended
mode instead of an all-electric mode.
29 In addition to growing EV range, the number of public electric vehicle charging stations is growing rapidly. For
more information, see the U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fuels Data Center at
https://www.afdc.energv.gov/.
-------
Table E.1 also introduces the concept of a utility factor. The utility factor is directly related
to the electric range for PHEVs, and is a projection, on average, of the percentage of miles
that will be driven using electricity (in electric-only and blended modes) by an average
driver. The model year 2019 Volt, for example, has a utility factor of 0.76, i.e., it is expected
that, on average, the Volt will operate 76% of the time on electricity and 24% of the time on
gasoline. Utility factor calculations are based on an SAE methodology that EPA has adopted
for regulatory compliance (SAE 2010).
Table E.2 shows five energy-related metrics for model year 2018 example EVs and PHEVs
that are included on the EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy and Environment labels. Comparing the
energy or fuel efficiency performance from alternative fuel vehicles raises complex issues
of how to compare different fuels. Consumers and OEMs are familiar and comfortable with
evaluating gasoline and diesel vehicle fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon, and it is
the primary efficiency metric in this report. To enable this comparison for alternative fuel
vehicles, the overall energy efficiency of vehicles operating on electricity, hydrogen, and
CNG are evaluated in terms of miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (an energy metric
described in more detail below).
Table E.2. Model Year 2019 Example EV and PHEV Fuel Economy Label Metrics
Charge
Fuel
Charge Depleting
Sustaining
Overall
Manufacturer
Model
or
Power
-train
Electricity
(kW-hrs/
100 miles)
Gasoline Fuel
(gallons/ Economy
100 miles) (mpge)
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
Fuel
Economy
(mpge)
GM
Bolt
EV
28
-
119
N/A
119
Nissan
Leaf 62kWh
EV
31
-
108
N/A
108
Tesla
Model 3 LR
EV
26
-
130
N/A
130
FCA
Pacifica
PHEV
41
0.0
82
30
48
GM
Volt
PHEV
31
0.0
106
42
79
Honda
Clarity
PHEV
31
0.0
110
42
76
Toyota
Prius Prime
PHEV
25
0.0
133
54
78
Volvo
XC90
PHEV
55
0.1
58
25
33
The fourth column in Table E.2 gives electricity consumption rates for EVs and PHEVs
during charge depleting operation in units of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles (kW-hrs/100
miles). As shown on the vehicle label, the electricity consumption rate is based on the
amount of electricity required from an electric outlet to charge the vehicle and includes
-------
wall-to-vehicle charging losses. The values for all of the EVs and PHEVs reflect the electricity
consumption rate required to operate the vehicle in either electric-only or blended mode
operation. PHEVs that are capable of operating in a blended mode may also consume
some gasoline in addition to electricity. Any additional gasoline used is shown in the fifth
column. For example, the Volvo XC90 PHEV consumes 55 kW-hrs and 0.1 gallons of
gasoline per 100 miles during this combination of electric-only and blended modes.
The sixth column converts the electricity consumption data in the fourth column and the
gasoline consumption data in the fifth column into a combined miles per gallon of
gasoline-equivalent (mpge) metric. The mpge metric is a measure of the miles the vehicle
can travel on an amount of energy that is equal to the amount of energy stored in a gallon
of gasoline. For a vehicle operating on electricity, mpge is calculated as 33.705 kW-
hrs/gallon divided by the vehicle electricity consumption in kW-hrs/mile. For example, for
the Leaf, 33.705 kW-hrs/gallon divided by 0.31 kW-hrs/mile (equivalent to 31 kW-hrs/100
miles) is 108 mpge.30 Because the Volvo XC90 consumes both electricity and gasoline over
the alternative fuel range of 17 miles, the charge depleting fuel economy of 58 mpge
includes both the electricity and gasoline consumption, at a rate of 55 kW-hrs/100 miles of
electricity and 0.1 gal/100 miles of gasoline.
The seventh column gives label fuel economy values for vehicles operating on gasoline
only, which is relevant here only for the PHEVs operating in charge sustaining mode. For
PHEVs, the EPA/NHTSA label shows both electricity consumption in kW-hrs/100 miles and
mpge, when the vehicle operates exclusively on electricity or in a blended mode, and
gasoline fuel economy in mpg, when the vehicle operates exclusively on gasoline.
The final column gives the overall mpge values reflecting the overall energy efficiency of
the vehicle for all of the fuels on which the vehicle can operate, and provide a common
metric to compare vehicles that operate on different fuels. In addition to the energy
metrics in the previous columns, the one key additional parameter necessary to calculate a
combined electricity/gasoline mpge value for a PHEV is the utility factor that was
introduced in Table E.1. For EVs the overall fuel economy in the last column is equal to the
charge depleting fuel economy, as EVs can only operate in a charge depleting mode.
Table E.3 gives vehicle tailpipe CO2 emissions values that are included on the EPA/DOT Fuel
Economy and Environment labels (and reflected in the label's Greenhouse Gas Rating).
These label values reflect EPA's best estimate of the CO2 tailpipe emissions that these
30 The actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may
result in a slightly different number due to rounding error.
1
-------
vehicles will produce, on average, in real-world city and highway operation. EVs, of course,
have no tailpipe emissions. For the PHEVs, the label CO2 emissions values utilize the same
utility factors discussed above to weight the CO2 emissions on electric and gasoline
operation.
Table E-3 Model Year 2019 Example EV and PHEV Label Tailpipe CO2 Emissions
Metrics
Fuel or
Tailpipe C02
Manufacturer
Model
Powertrain
(g/mile)
GM
Bolt
EV
0
Nissan
Leaf 62 kWh
EV
0
Tesla
Model 3 LR
EV
0
FCA
Pacifica
PHEV
119
GM
Volt
PHEV
51
Honda
Clarity
PHEV
57
Toyota
Prius Prime
PHEV
78
Volvo
XC90
PHEV
216
Table E.4 accounts for the "upstream" CO2 emissions associated with the production and
distribution of electricity used in EVs and PHEVs. Gasoline and diesel fuels also have CO2
emissions associated with their production and distribution, but these upstream emissions
are not reflected in the tailpipe CO2 emissions values discussed elsewhere in this report.
Combining vehicle tailpipe and fuel production/distribution sources, gasoline vehicles emit
about 80 percent of total CO2 emissions at the vehicle tailpipe with the remaining 20
percent of total CO2 emissions associated with upstream fuel production and distribution.
Diesel fuel has a similar approximate relationship between tailpipe and upstream CO2
emissions. On the other hand, vehicles powered by grid electricity emit no CO2 (or other
emissions) at the vehicle tailpipe; therefore, all CO2 emissions associated with an EV are
due to fuel production and distribution. Depending on how the electricity is produced,
these fuels can have very high fuel production/distribution CO2 emissions (for example, if
coal is used with no CO2 emissions control) or very low CO2 emissions (for example, if
renewable processes with minimal fossil energy inputs are used).
An additional complicating factor in Table E.4 is that electricity production in the United
States varies significantly from region to region and has been changing over time.
Hydroelectric plants provide a large percentage of electricity in the Northwest, while coal-
fired power plants produce the majority of electricity in the Midwest. Natural gas, wind, and
solar have increased their electricity market share in many regions of the country. Nuclear
-------
power plants make up most of the balance of U.S. electricity production. In order to bracket
the possible GHG emissions impact, Table E.4 provides ranges with the low end of the
range corresponding to the California power plant GHG emissions factor, the middle of the
range represented by the national average power plant GHG emissions factor, and the
upper end of the range corresponding to the power plant GHG emissions factor for part of
the Midwest (Illinois and Missouri).
Table E-4 Model Year 2019 Example EV and PHEV Upstream CO2 Emission
Metrics (g/mi)
Tailpipe + Total Tailpipe + Net
Fuel or
Upstream C02
Upstream C02
Manufacturer
Model
Powertrain
Low
Avg
High
Low
Avg
High
GM
Bolt
EV
72
134
230
16
77
173
Nissan
Leaf 62 kWh
EV
79
147
251
20
87
192
Tesla
Model 3 LR
EV
66
122
210
1
57
144
FCA
Pacifica
PHEV
213
267
351
126
180
265
GM
Volt
PHEV
124
176
256
66
117
187
Honda
Clarity
PHEV
129
178
255
69
119
195
Toyota
Prius Prime
PHEV
131
160
205
80
109
154
Volvo
XC90
PHEV
327
375
450
238
286
361
Average Sedan/Wagon
366
366
366
293
293
293
Based on data from EPA's eGRID power plant database,31 and accounting for additional
greenhouse gas emissions impacts for feedstock processing upstream of the power plant,32
EPA estimates that the electricity CO2 emission factors for various regions of the country
vary from 256 g C02/kW-hr in California to 811 g C02/kW-hr in the Midwest, with a national
average of 473 g C02/kW-hr. Emission rates for small regions in upstate New York and
Alaska have lower electricity upstream CO2 emission rates than California. However,
California is a good surrogate for the "low" end of the range because California is a leading
market for current EVs and PHEVs. Initial sales of electric vehicles have been largely, though
not exclusively, focused in regions of the country with power plant CO2 emissions factors
lower than the national average, such as California, New York, and other coastal areas.
Accordingly, in terms of CO2 emissions, EPA believes that the current "sales-weighted
31 Abt Associates 2020. The emissions & generation resource integrated database technical support document
for eGRID 2018, prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, January 2020.
32 Argonne National Laboratory 2019. GREET_1_2019 Model, greet.es.anl.gov.
i
E-6
-------
average" vehicle operating on electricity in the near term will likely fall somewhere between
the low end of this range and the national average.33
The fourth through sixth columns in Table E-4 provide the range of tailpipe plus total
upstream CO2 emissions for EVs and PHEVs based on regional electricity emission rates.
For comparison, the average model year 2019 car is also included in the last row of Table .
The methodology used to calculate the range of tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions
for EVs is shown in the following example for the model year 2019 Nissan Leaf (62 kWh
battery):
Start with the label (5-cycle values weighted 55% city/45% highway) vehicle
electricity consumption in kW-hr/mile, which for the Leaf is 31 kW-hr/100 miles, or
0.31 kW-hr/mile
Determine the regional powerplant emission rate, regional losses during electricity
distribution, and the additional regional emissions due to fuel production upstream
of the powerplant (for California, these numbers are 225 g/kW-hr, 4.8%, and 8.3%,
respectively).
Determine the regional upstream emission factor (for California 225 g/kW-hr / (1 -
0.048) * (1 +0.083) = 256 g C02/kW-hr)34
Multiply by the range of Low (California = 256g C02/kW-hr), Average (National
Average = 473 g C02/kW-hr), and High (Midwest = 811 g C02/kW-hr) electricity
upstream CO2 emission rates, which yields a range for the Leaf of 79-251 grams
C02/mile.
The tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions values for PHEVs include the upstream CO2
emissions due to electricity operation and both the tailpipe and upstream CO2 emissions
due to gasoline operation, using the utility factor discussed above to weight the values for
electricity and gasoline operation. The tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions values
for the average car are the average real-world model year 2018 car tailpipe CO2 emissions
multiplied by 1.25 to account for upstream emissions due to gasoline production.
The values in columns four through six are tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions. As
mentioned, all of the gasoline and diesel vehicle CO2 emissions data in the rest of this
report refer only to tailpipe emissions and do not reflect the upstream emissions
33 To estimate the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with operating an EV or PHEV in a specific
geographical area, use the emissions calculator at www.fueleconomv.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2.
34The actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may
result in a slightly different number due to rounding error.
-------
associated with gasoline or diesel production and distribution. Accordingly, in order to
equitably compare the overall relative impact of EVs and PHEVs with tailpipe emissions of
petroleum-fueled vehicles, EPA uses the metric "tailpipe plus net upstream emissions" for
EVs and PHEVs (note that this same approach has been adopted for EV and PHEV
regulatory compliance with the 2012-2025 light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards for
sales of EVs and PHEVs in model year 2012-2016 and model year 2022-2025 that exceed
sales thresholds). The net upstream emissions for an EV is equal to the total upstream
emissions for the EV minus the upstream emissions that would be expected from a
comparably sized gasoline vehicle; size is a good first-order measure for utility, and
footprint is the size-based metric used for standards compliance. The net upstream
emissions for PHEVs are equal to the net upstream emissions of the PHEV due to electricity
consumption in electric or blended mode multiplied by the utility factor. The net upstream
emissions for a gasoline vehicle are zero.
For each EV or PHEV, the upstream emissions for a comparable gasoline vehicle are
determined by first using the footprint-based compliance curves to determine the CO2
compliance target for a vehicle with the same footprint. Since upstream emissions account
for approximately 20% of total CO2 emissions for gasoline vehicles, the upstream emissions
for the comparable gasoline vehicle are equal to one-fourth of the tailpipe-only compliance
target.
The final three columns of Table E-4 give the tailpipe plus net upstream CO2 values for EVs
and PHEVs using the same Low, Average, and High electricity upstream CO2 emissions rates
discussed above. These values bracket the possible real-world net CO2 emissions that
would be associated with consumer use of these vehicles. For the Leaf, these values are
simply the values in columns four through six minus the upstream GHG emissions ofa
comparably sized gasoline vehicle. Based on the model year 2019 CO2 footprint curve, the
5-cycle tailpipe GHG emissions for a Leaf-sized gasoline vehicle meeting its compliance
target would be close to 238 grams/mi, with upstream emissions of one-fourth of this
value, or 60 g/mi. The net upstream emision for a Leaf (with the 62 kWh battery) are
determined by subtracting this value, 60 g/mi, from the total (tailpipe + total upstream).
The result is a range for the tailpipe plus net upstream value of 20-192 g/mile as shown in
Table E-4, with a more likely sales-weighted value in the 20-87 g/mi range.
For PHEVs, the tailpipe plus net upstream emissions values use the utility factor values
discussed above to weight the individual values for electric operation and gasoline
operation.
-------
Alternative Metric
Determining metrics for EVs and PHEVs that are meaningful and accurate is challenging. In
particular, vehicles capable of using dual fuels, such as PHEVs, can have complicated
modes of operation that make it difficult to determine meaningful metrics. Here we've
discussed several metrics that are used on the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment
Labels and in a regulatory context, namely mpge, tailpipe CO2 emissions, and net upstream
GHG emissions. There are, however, other ways that alternative fuel vehicle operation can
be quantified.
Other energy metric options that could be considered include: (1) mpge plus net fuel life
cycle energy, which would also reflect differences in upstream energy consumption in
producing the alternative fuel relative to gasoline-from-oil; and (2) miles per gallon of
gasoline, which would only count gasoline use and not other forms of energy. Compared to
mpge, using the mpge plus net fuel life-cycle energy metric would generally result in lower
fuel economy values, and using the miles per gallon of gasoline metric would yield higher
fuel economy values.
Additional Note on PHEV Calculations
Calculating fuel economy and CO2 emission values for PHEVs is a complicated process, as
discussed in this section. The examples given for individual vehicles were based on
calculations behind the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels. In addition to the
approach used for the labels, there are multiple methods for determining utility factors
depending on the intended use of the value. The standardized utility factor calculations are
defined in the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE) document SAE J2841.
The utility factors that are used for fleetwide calculations are somewhat different than
those used to create label values. For label values, multi-day individual utility factors
(MDIUF) are used to incorporate "a driver's day to day variation into the utility calculation."
For fleetwide calculations, fleet utility factors (FUF) are applied to "calculate the expected
fuel and electric consumption of an entire fleet of vehicles." Since the Trends report is
generally a fleetwide analysis, the FUF utility factors were applied, instead of the MDIUF
utility factors, when the data were integrated with the rest of the fleet data. Additionally,
since Trends uses a 43% city / 57% highway weighting for combining real-world fuel
economy and CO2 data, the FUF utility factors created for Trends were based on that
weighting, not on 55% city / 45% highway weighting used on the fuel economy label.
E 9
-------
F. Authors and Acknowledgments
The authors of this year's Trends report are Aaron Hula, Robert French, Andrea Maguire,
Amy Bunker, and Tristan Rojeck, all of whom work for the EPA Office of Transportation and
Air Quality's (OTAQ) at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. OTAQ colleagues including Sara Zaremski, Line Wehrly, Robert Peavyhouse, and
Karen Danzeisen provided critical access and expertise pertaining to the EV-CIS data that
comprise the Trends database. The authors also want to thank Gwen Dietrich and David
Levin of OTAQ for greatly improving the design and layout of the report. General Dynamics
Information Technology (GDIT) under contract to OTAQ (contract number EP-C-16-012),
provided key support for database maintenance, and table and figure generation.
DOT/NHTSA staff reviewed the report and provided helpful comments. Of course, the EPA
authors take full responsibility for the content and any errors.
The authors also want to acknowledge those OTAQ staff that played key roles in creating
and maintaining the Trends database and report since its inception in the early 1970s. Karl
Hellman, who conceived of and developed the initial Trends reports with Thomas Austin in
the early 1970s, was the guiding force behind the Trends report for over 30 years. The late
Dill Murrell made significant contributions from the late 1970s through the early 1990s,
and Robert Heavenrich was a lead author from the early 1980s through 2006. Jeff Alson
took the lead with the 2007 report, overseeing its continued transformation and
modernization until his retirement in 2018. This report has benefitted immensely from the
wealth of insight, creativity, and dedication from each of these outstanding emeritus
authors.
i
i
i i
-------
Report Tables
Section 2 Tables
Table 2.1: Production, Estimated Real-World CO2, and Fuel Economy for Model Year
1975-2019
Table 2.2: Manufacturers and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy, by Year
Table 2.3: Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions for
Model Year 2017-2019
Section 3 Tables
Table 3.1: Vehicle Attributes by Model Year
Table 3.2: Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type
Table 3.3: Model Year 2018 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer
Table 3.4: Model Year 2018 Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by
Manufacturer and Vehicle Type
Table 3.5: Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2017-2019 (ft2)
Section 4 Tables
Table 4.1: Production Share by Engine Technologies
Table 4.2: Production Share by Transmission Technologies
Table 4.3: Production Share by Drive Technology
Section 5 Figures
Figure 5.3: Changes in "2-Cycle" Tailpipe CO2 Emissions, Model Year 2012 to 2018 (g/mi)
Figure 5.4: Model Year 2018 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
Figure 5.5: Model Year 2018 Advanced Technology Credits by Manufacturer
Figure 5.6: Production of FFVs, Model Year 2012-2018
Figure 5.7: FFV Credits by Model Year (g/mi)
Figure 5.8: HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer (Production Volume)
Figure 5.9: Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type
Figure 5.10: Total A/C Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018
Figure 5.11: Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model Year 2018
Figure 5.12: Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018
Figure 5.13: Early Credits Reported and Expired by Manufacturer
Figure 5.14: Performance and Standards by Manufacturer, 2018 Model Year
Figure 5.15: Total Credits Transactions Through Model Year 2018
Figure 5.16: Manufacturer Credit Balance After Model Year 2018
Figure 5.17: Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation and Use
-------
Report Tabl es, continued
Section 5 Tables
Table 5.1: Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2018
Table 5.2: Production Multipliers by Model Year
Table 5.3: Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by
Manufacturer and Technology (g/ml)
Table 5.4: Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative
Methodology, by Manufacturer and Technology (g/ml)
Table 5.5: Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, All (g/ml)
Table 5.6: Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/ml)
Table 5.7: Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, Car (g/ml)
Table 5.8: Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/ml)
Table 5.9: Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, Truck (g/ml)
Table 5.10: Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/ml)
Table 5.11: Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, All
Table 5.12: Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, All
Table 5.13: Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Car
Table 5.14: Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, Car
Table 5.15: Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Truck
Table 5.16: Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, Truck
Table 5.17: Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018 (Mg)
Table 5.18: Distribution of Credits by Expiration Date (Mg)
Appendices
Table A.1: Comparison of Preliminary and Final Real-World Fuel Economy Values (mpg)
Table C.1: Fuel Economy Metrics for the Model Year 2018 Toyota Prius Eco
Table E.1: Model Year 2019 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Powertrain and Range
Table E.2: Model Year 2019 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fuel Economy Label Metrics
Table E.3: Model Year 2019 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Label Tailpipe CO2 Emissions Metrics
Table E.4: Model Year 2019 EV and PHEV Upstream CO2 Emission Metrics (g/ml)
-------
Jflfc f-riJt United States
Environmental Protection
!ฆฆฆ m * Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 2 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 2.1
Production, Estimated Real-World C02, and Fuel Economy
for Model Year 1975-2019
Model Year
Production
(000)
Real-World
C02 (g/mi)
Real-World
FE (mpg)
1975
10,224
681
13.1
1976
12,334
625
14.2
1977
14,123
590
15.1
1978
14,448
562
15.8
1979
13,882
560
15.9
1980
11,306
466
19.2
1981
10,554
436
20.5
1982
9,732
425
21.1
1983
10,302
426
21.0
1984
14,020
424
21.0
1985
14,460
417
21.3
1985
14,460
417
21.3
1985
14,460
417
21.3
1986
15,365
407
21.8
1987
14,865
405
22.0
1988
15,295
407
21.9
1989
14,453
415
21.4
1990
12,615
420
21.2
1991
12,573
418
21.3
1992
12,172
427
20.8
1993
13,211
426
20.9
1994
14,125
436
20.4
1995
15,145
434
20.5
1996
13,144
435
20.4
1997
14,458
441
20.2
1998
14,456
442
20.1
1999
15,215
451
19.7
1999
15,215
451
19.7
1999
15,215
451
19.7
2000
16,571
450
19.8
2001
15,605
453
19.6
2002
16,115
457
19.5
2003
15,773
454
19.6
2004
15,709
461
19.3
2005
15,892
447
19.9
2006
15,104
442
20.1
2007
15,276
431
20.6
2008
13,898
424
21.0
2009
9,316
397
22.4
2010
11,116
394
22.6
2011
12,018
399
22.3
2012
13,449
377
23.6
2013
15,198
368
24.2
2014
15,512
369
24.1
2015
16,739
360
24.6
2016
16,278
359
24.7
2017
17,016
357
24.9
2018
16,259
353
25.1
2019 (prelim)
-
346
25.5
1
-------
Jk United States
p4E1 Environmental Protection
I fmAflencv
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 2 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 2.2
Manufactures and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy, by Year
Overall Vehicle with
Gasoline (Non-hybrid) Vehicle
Highest Fuel Economy**
with Highest Fuel Economy (mpg)
Manufacturer
Manufacturer
with Highest
with Lowest
Real-World
Fuel Economy*
Fuel Economy
FE
Engine
Real-World
Model Year
(mPg)
(mPg)
Vehicle
(mpg)
Type
Gasoline Vehicle
FE (mpg)
1975
Honda
Ford
Honda Civic
28.3
Gas
Honda Civic
28.3
1976
Honda
Ford
Honda Civic
30.5
Gas
Honda Civic
30.5
1977
Honda
FCA
Honda Civic
37.6
Gas
Honda Civic
37.6
1978
Mazda
Ford
VW Rabbit
37.5
Diesel
Nissan B-210
34.3
1979
Honda
Ford
VW Rabbit
39.1
Diesel
Nissan 210
33.6
1980
VW
Ford
VW Rabbit
40.3
Diesel
Nissan 210
36.1
1981
VW
Ford
VW Rabbit
40.9
Diesel
Toyota Starlet
37.9
1982
Honda
Ford
VW Rabbit
42.7
Diesel
Nissan Sentra
41.0
1983
Honda
Ford
Nissan Sentra
45.3
Diesel
Honda Civic
42.4
1984
Honda
Ford
Honda Civic
48.0
Gas
Honda Civic
48.0
1985
Honda
Mercedes
GM Sprint
49.6
Gas
GM Sprint
49.6
1986
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Sprint
56.8
Gas
GM Sprint
56.8
1987
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Sprint
54.8
Gas
GM Sprint
54.8
1988
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Metro
54.4
Gas
GM Metro
54.4
1989
Hyundai
Mercedes
Honda Civic
50.6
Gas
Honda Civic
50.6
1990
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Metro
53.4
Gas
GM Metro
53.4
1991
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Metro
53.0
Gas
GM Metro
53.0
1992
Hyundai
Mercedes
GM Metro
52.6
Gas
GM Metro
52.6
1993
Honda
Mercedes
GM Metro
52.2
Gas
GM Metro
52.2
1994
Kia
FCA
GM Metro
52.2
Gas
GM Metro
52.2
1995
Honda
FCA
Honda Civic
47.3
Gas
Honda Civic
47.3
1996
Hyundai
FCA
Suzuki Swift
43.3
Gas
Suzuki Swift
43.3
1997
Hyundai
FCA
GM Metro
42.8
Gas
GM Metro
42.8
1998
Honda
FCA
GM Metro
42.0
Gas
GM Metro
42.0
1999
Hyundai
FCA
VWJetta
41.0
Diesel
GM Metro
39.3
2000
Hyundai
FCA
Honda Insight
57.4
Hybrid
GM Metro
39.4
2001
Hyundai
FCA
Honda Insight
56.3
Hybrid
Honda Civic
37.3
2002
Honda
FCA
Honda Insight
55.6
Hybrid
Honda Civic
35.9
2003
Honda
Ford
Honda Insight
55.0
Hybrid
Honda Civic
35.5
2004
Honda
Ford
Honda Insight
53.5
Hybrid
Honda Civic
35.3
2005
Honda
Ford
Honda Insight
53.3
Hybrid
Honda Civic
35.1
2006
Mazda
Ford
Honda Insight
53.0
Hybrid
Toyota Corolla
32.3
2007
Toyota
Mercedes
Toyota Prius
46.2
Hybrid
Toyota Yaris
32.6
2008
Hyundai
Mercedes
Toyota Prius
46.2
Hybrid
Smart Fortwo
37.1
2009
Toyota
FCA
Toyota Prius
46.2
Hybrid
Smart Fortwo
37.1
2010
Hyundai
Mercedes
Honda FCX
60.2
FCV
Smart Fortwo
36.8
2011
Hyundai
Mercedes
BMW Active E
100.6
EV
Smart Fortwo
35.7
2012
Hyundai
FCA
Nissan i-MiEV
109.0
EV
Toyota iQ
36.8
2013
Hyundai
FCA
Toyota IQ
117.0
EV
Toyota iQ
36.8
2014
Mazda
FCA
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
39.5
2015
Mazda
FCA
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
39.5
2016
Mazda
FCA
BMW i3
121.3
EV
Mazda 2
37.1
2017
Honda
FCA
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
41.5
2018
Tesla
FCA
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
41.5
2019 (prelim)
Testa
FCA
Hyundai loniq
132.6
EV
Mitsubishi Mirage
40.1
* Manufacturers below the 150,000 threshold for "large" manufacturers are excluded in years they did not meet the threshold.
** Vehicles are shown based on estimated real-world fuel economy as calculated for this report. These values will differ from values found on
the fuel economy labels at the time of sale. For more information on fuel economy metrics see Appendix C.
2
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 2 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 2.3
Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 Emissions for Model Year 2017 - 2019
MY 2017 Final
MY 2018 Final
MY 2019 Preliminary
FE Change
C02 Change
Real-World
Real-World
Real-World
from
Real-World
from
Real-World
Real-World
FE
C02
FE
MY 2017
co2
MY 2017
FE
CO 2
Manufacturer
(mPg)
(g/mi)
(mPg)
(mPg)
(g/mi)
(g/mi)
(mpg)
(g/mi)
BMW
25.8
342
26.0
0.2
339
-3
26.0
340
FCA
21.1
420
21.7
0.6
409
-11
22.3
398
Ford
22.9
388
22.4
-0.4
397
8
22.8
390
GM
22.8
388
23.0
0.2
386
-2
22.8
389
Honda
29.4
302
30.0
0.6
296
-6
28.8
308
Hyundai
28.6
311
28.6
0.0
311
0
27.3
324
Kia
27.1
327
27.8
0.6
319
-8
27.6
321
Mazda
29.0
306
28.7
-0.4
310
4
27.8
322
Mercedes
23.0
385
23.5
0.5
377
-8
24.4
363
Nissan
26.9
330
27.1
0.2
327
-3
26.9
328
Subaru
28.5
312
28.7
0.2
310
-2
28.1
317
Tesla
98.2
0
113.7
15.5
0
0
117.7
0
Toyota
25.3
351
25.5
0.2
348
-3
26.1
341
VW
26.4
336
24.6
-1.8
361
25
26.4
336
All Manufacturers
24.9
357
25.1
0.2
353
-4
25.5
346
3
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 3 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 3.1
Vehicle Attributes by Model Year
Model Year
Real-World
C02 (g/mi)
Real-World FE
(mPg)
Weight
(lbs)
HP
Oto 60
(s)
Footprint
(sq ft)
Car
Production
Truck
Production
1975
681
13.1
4,060
137
-
-
80.7%
19.3%
1976
625
14.2
4,079
135
-
-
78.9%
21.1%
1977
590
15.1
3,982
136
-
-
80.1%
19.9%
1978
562
15.8
3,715
129
13.6
-
77.5%
22.5%
1979
560
15.9
3,655
124
14.6
-
77.9%
22.1%
1980
466
19.2
3,228
104
15.6
-
83.5%
16.5%
1981
436
20.5
3,202
102
15.6
-
82.8%
17.2%
1982
425
21.1
3,202
103
16.6
-
80.5%
19.5%
1983
426
21.0
3,257
107
14.9
-
78.0%
22.0%
1984
424
21.0
3,262
109
14.7
-
76.5%
23.5%
1985
417
21.3
3,271
114
14.1
-
75.2%
24.8%
1986
407
21.8
3,238
114
13.4
-
72.1%
27.9%
1987
405
22.0
3,221
118
13.4
-
72.8%
27.2%
1988
407
21.9
3,283
123
13.3
-
70.9%
29.1%
1989
415
21.4
3,351
129
12.5
-
70.1%
29.9%
1990
420
21.2
3,426
135
11.5
-
70.4%
29.6%
1991
418
21.3
3,410
138
11.4
-
69.6%
30.4%
1992
427
20.8
3,512
145
11.0
-
68.6%
31.4%
1993
426
20.9
3,519
147
10.3
-
67.6%
32.4%
1994
436
20.4
3,603
152
10.1
-
61.9%
38.1%
1995
434
20.5
3,613
158
10.1
-
63.5%
36.5%
1996
435
20.4
3,659
164
10.4
-
62.2%
37.8%
1997
441
20.2
3,727
169
10.2
-
60.1%
39.9%
1998
442
20.1
3,744
171
10.4
-
58.3%
41.7%
1999
451
19.7
3,835
179
10.3
-
58.3%
41.7%
2000
450
19.8
3,821
181
9.8
-
58.8%
41.2%
2001
453
19.6
3,879
187
9.5
-
58.6%
41.4%
2002
457
19.5
3,951
195
9.4
-
55.2%
44.8%
2003
454
19.6
3,999
199
9.3
-
53.9%
46.1%
2004
461
19.3
4,111
211
9.1
-
52.0%
48.0%
2005
447
19.9
4,059
209
9.0
-
55.6%
44.4%
2006
442
20.1
4,067
213
8.9
-
57.9%
42.1%
2007
431
20.6
4,093
217
8.9
-
58.9%
41.1%
2008
424
21.0
4,085
219
8.9
48.9
59.3%
40.7%
2009
397
22.4
3,914
208
8.8
47.9
67.0%
33.0%
2010
394
22.6
4,001
214
8.8
48.5
62.8%
37.2%
2011
399
22.3
4,126
230
8.5
49.5
57.8%
42.2%
2012
377
23.6
3,979
222
8.5
48.8
64.4%
35.6%
2013
368
24.2
4,003
226
8.4
49.1
64.1%
35.9%
2014
369
24.1
4,060
230
8.3
49.7
59.3%
40.7%
2015
360
24.6
4,035
229
8.3
49.4
57.4%
42.6%
2016
359
24.7
4,035
230
8.3
49.5
55.3%
44.7%
2017
357
24.9
4,093
234
8.2
49.8
52.5%
47.5%
2018
353
25.1
4,137
241
8.0
50.4
47.9%
52.1%
2019 (prelim)
346
25.5
4,110
244
7.8
50.2
49.8%
50.2%
4
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
^FIhI a Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 3 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 3.2
Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 by Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Pickup
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
co2
FE
Model Year
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
1975
80.6%
660
13.5
0.1%
799
11.1
1.7%
806
11.0
4.5%
800
11.1
13.1%
746
11.9
1976
78.8%
598
14.9
0.1%
840
10.6
1.9%
755
11.8
4.1%
754
11.8
15.1%
714
12.4
1977
80.0%
570
15.6
0.1%
731
12.2
1.9%
692
12.8
3.6%
710
12.5
14.3%
656
13.6
1978
77.3%
525
16.9
0.1%
768
11.6
2.5%
723
12.3
4.3%
736
12.1
15.7%
668
13.3
1979
77.8%
517
17.2
0.1%
623
14.3
2.8%
844
10.5
3.5%
774
11.5
15.9%
674
13.2
1980
83.5%
446
20.0
0.0%
610
14.6
1.6%
676
13.2
2.1%
629
14.1
12.7%
541
16.5
1981
82.7%
418
21.4
0.0%
605
14.7
1.3%
621
14.3
2.3%
599
14.8
13.6%
500
17.9
1982
80.3%
402
22.2
0.1%
450
19.8
1.5%
616
14.7
3.2%
605
14.7
14.8%
486
18.5
1983
77.7%
403
22.1
0.3%
430
20.7
2.5%
568
15.8
3.7%
593
15.1
15.8%
473
18.9
1984
76.1%
397
22.4
0.4%
461
19.3
4.1%
551
16.2
4.8%
552
16.1
14.6%
488
18.3
1985
74.6%
387
23.0
0.6%
443
20.1
4.5%
538
16.5
5.9%
537
16.5
14.4%
489
18.2
1986
71.7%
375
23.7
0.4%
470
18.9
4.6%
523
17.0
6.8%
509
17.5
16.5%
471
18.9
1987
72.2%
373
23.8
0.6%
458
19.4
5.2%
515
17.3
7.5%
503
17.7
14.4%
467
19.0
1988
70.2%
368
24.1
0.7%
462
19.2
5.6%
522
17.0
7.4%
497
17.9
16.1%
490
18.1
1989
69.3%
375
23.7
0.7%
465
19.1
5.7%
537
16.6
8.8%
499
17.8
15.4%
499
17.8
1990
69.8%
381
23.3
0.5%
472
18.8
5.1%
541
16.4
10.0%
498
17.8
14.5%
511
17.4
1991
67.8%
379
23.4
1.8%
488
18.2
6.9%
531
16.7
8.2%
496
17.9
15.3%
489
18.2
1992
66.6%
385
23.1
2.0%
498
17.8
6.2%
548
16.2
10.0%
496
17.9
15.1%
508
17.5
1993
64.0%
379
23.5
3.6%
522
17.0
6.3%
546
16.3
10.9%
488
18.2
15.2%
505
17.6
1994
59.6%
382
23.3
2.3%
493
18.0
9.1%
555
16.0
10.0%
498
17.8
18.9%
510
17.4
1995
62.0%
379
23.4
1.5%
499
17.8
10.5%
555
16.0
11.0%
492
18.1
15.0%
526
16.9
1996
60.0%
381
23.3
2.2%
482
18.4
12.2%
548
16.2
10.7%
485
18.3
14.9%
518
17.1
1997
57.6%
380
23.4
2.5%
462
19.2
14.5%
551
16.1
8.8%
489
18.2
16.7%
528
16.8
1998
55.1%
380
23.4
3.1%
487
18.2
14.7%
550
16.2
10.3%
475
18.7
16.7%
523
17.0
1999
55.1%
386
23.0
3.2%
480
18.5
15.4%
553
16.1
9.6%
486
18.3
16.7%
546
16.3
2000
55.1%
388
22.9
3.7%
497
17.9
15.2%
555
16.0
10.2%
478
18.6
15.8%
534
16.7
2001
53.9%
386
23.0
4.8%
472
18.8
17.3%
541
16.4
7.9%
493
18.0
16.1%
557
16.0
2002
51.5%
385
23.1
3.7%
460
19.3
22.3%
545
16.3
7.7%
475
18.7
14.8%
564
15.8
2003
50.2%
382
23.3
3.6%
446
19.9
22.6%
541
16.4
7.8%
468
19.0
15.7%
553
16.1
2004
48.0%
384
23.1
4.1%
445
20.0
25.9%
539
16.5
6.1%
464
19.2
15.9%
565
15.7
2005
50.5%
379
23.5
5.1%
440
20.2
20.6%
531
16.7
9.3%
460
19.3
14.5%
561
15.8
2006
52.9%
382
23.3
5.0%
434
20.5
19.9%
518
17.2
7.7%
455
19.5
14.5%
551
16.1
2007
52.9%
369
24.1
6.0%
431
20.6
21.7%
503
17.7
5.5%
456
19.5
13.8%
550
16.2
2008
52.7%
366
24.3
6.6%
419
21.2
22.1%
489
18.2
5.7%
448
19.8
12.9%
539
16.5
2009
60.5%
351
25.3
6.5%
403
22.0
18.4%
461
19.3
4.0%
443
20.1
10.6%
526
16.9
2010
54.5%
340
26.2
8.2%
386
23.0
20.7%
452
19.7
5.0%
442
20.1
11.5%
527
16.9
2011
47.8%
344
25.8
10.0%
378
23.5
25.5%
449
19.8
4.3%
424
20.9
12.3%
516
17.2
2012
55.0%
322
27.6
9.4%
381
23.3
20.6%
445
20.0
4.9%
418
21.3
10.1%
516
17.2
2013
54.1%
313
28.4
10.0%
365
24.3
21.8%
427
20.8
3.8%
422
21.1
10.4%
509
17.5
2014
49.2%
313
28.4
10.1%
364
24.4
23.9%
412
21.6
4.3%
418
21.3
12.4%
493
18.0
2015
47.2%
306
29.0
10.2%
353
25.1
28.1%
406
21.9
3.9%
408
21.8
10.7%
474
18.8
2016
43.8%
303
29.2
11.5%
338
26.2
29.1%
400
22.2
3.9%
410
21.7
11.7%
471
18.9
2017
41.0%
293
30.2
11.5%
339
26.2
31.8%
398
22.3
3.6%
399
22.2
12.1%
470
18.9
2018
36.7%
286
30.8
11.3%
324
27.3
35.1%
384
23.1
3.1%
389
22.8
13.9%
466
19.1
2019 (prelim)
38.5%
283
30.8
11.3%
327
27.0
33.1%
375
23.7
3.4%
387
22.8
13.8%
459
19.4
5
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 3 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 3.3:
Model Year 2018 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Real-World
C02 (g/mi)
Real-World FE
(mPg)
Weight
(lbs)
HP
0 to 60
(s)
Footprint
(ft2)
BMW
339
26.0
4,190
268
6.8
48.3
FCA
409
21.7
4,465
278
7.5
52.0
Ford
397
22.4
4,476
284
7.5
55.3
GM
386
23.0
4,543
269
7.9
54.4
Honda
296
30.0
3,595
202
8.1
47.4
Hyundai
311
28.6
3,470
175
8.9
46.6
Kia
319
27.8
3,521
182
8.7
46.9
Mazda
310
28.7
3,769
187
8.9
46.5
Mercedes
377
23.5
4,430
285
7.0
49.6
Nissan
327
27.1
3,806
201
8.9
47.8
Subaru
310
28.7
3,680
177
9.4
45.0
Tesla
0
113.7
4,523
393
4.7
50.4
Toyota
348
25.5
4,083
220
8.4
48.8
VW
361
24.6
4,168
251
7.6
48.4
Other
351
25.3
4,201
240
8.4
48.1
All Manufacturers
353
25.1
4,137
241
8.0
50.4
6
-------
United Stater
fbKHu Frtvironmfmal Protection
I M * Afluncy
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 3 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 3.4
Model Year 2018 Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and C02 by Manufacturer and Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Pickup
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
Real-
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
World
Real-
World
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
co2
FE
Prod
World co2
FE
Manufacturer
Share
(g/mi)
(mPg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
Share
(g/mi)
(mpg)
BMW
73.2%
322
27.3
-
-
-
26.8%
387
22.9
-
-
-
-
-
-
FCA
12.1%
397
22.4
7.5%
339
26.2
55.3%
411
21.6
13.0%
386
22.9
12.1%
483
18.5
Ford
22.0%
313
28.4
12.2%
349
25.5
29.8%
416
21.4
1.7%
418
21.3
34.2%
450
19.8
GM
22.5%
297
29.6
14.7%
308
28.9
30.6%
405
22.0
-
-
-
32.2%
466
19.1
Honda
53.7%
263
33.6
9.7%
294
30.2
28.4%
332
26.7
6.9%
382
23.3
1.3%
408
21.8
Hyundai
59.6%
279
31.8
37.3%
353
25.2
3.1%
431
20.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
Kia
67.9%
290
30.6
11.2%
346
25.7
17.4%
397
22.4
3.5%
426
20.9
-
-
-
Mazda
45.4%
288
30.9
18.5%
311
28.6
36.1%
337
26.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercedes
46.0%
343
25.9
11.5%
339
26.2
40.2%
426
20.8
2.2%
413
21.5
-
-
-
Nissan
57.0%
294
30.1
10.5%
295
30.1
23.8%
369
24.1
1.0%
353
25.2
7.7%
481
18.5
Subaru
22.3%
312
28.4
-
-
-
77.7%
309
28.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
Tesla
87.8%
0
118.0
8.7%
0
89.9
3.5%
0
90.3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toyota
39.9%
267
33.2
11.0%
336
26.4
32.9%
389
22.8
2.8%
397
22.4
13.4%
489
18.2
VW
44.8%
326
27.2
0.4%
380
23.4
54.9%
389
22.8
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other
20.6%
294
30.2
8.9%
330
27.0
68.6%
372
23.9
1.9%
338
26.3
-
-
-
All Manufacturers
36.7%
286
30.8
11.3%
324
27.3
35.1%
384
23.1
3.1%
389
22.8
13.9%
466
19.1
7
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 3 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 3.5
Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2017 - 2019 (ft2)
Manufacturer
Final MY 2017
Final MY 2018
Preliminary MY 2019
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
Ail
BMW
46.7
50.6
47.9
47.3
51.1
48.3
46.6
51.5
48.6
FCA
47.4
54.1
52.8
48.9
52.8
52.0
48.1
54.3
52.7
Ford
46.9
57.3
52.5
46.6
59.9
55.3
47.6
58.9
55.1
GM
46.6
58.9
53.5
46.4
59.2
54.4
46.2
57.5
53.6
Honda
45.9
49.7
47.1
46.3
49.4
47.4
46.9
50.3
48.0
Hyundai
46.3
49.2
46.5
46.5
49.2
46.6
46.6
49.2
47.0
Kia
46.1
50.0
47.2
46.2
49.5
46.9
47.1
49.1
47.5
Mazda
45.5
47.2
46.0
45.6
47.9
46.5
45.3
47.7
46.3
Mercedes
48.5
52.0
50.0
48.3
51.3
49.6
47.9
51.3
48.8
Nissan
46.1
51.9
48.0
46.0
51.7
47.8
46.2
52.4
48.3
Subaru
45.1
45.0
45.0
44.9
45.0
45.0
44.8
45.8
45.6
Tesla
53.8
-
53.8
50.3
54.8
50.4
50.0
54.8
50.1
Toyota
45.6
52.6
49.0
46.1
51.6
48.8
46.0
51.6
48.8
VW
45.0
50.2
46.3
45.9
50.5
48.4
45.5
51.1
47.6
Other
44.6
49.3
47.3
45.0
49.4
48.1
46.0
48.9
48.1
All Manufacturers
46.2
53.8
49.8
46.5
53.9
50.4
46.7
53.6
50.2
8
-------
Jflk rnA United States
^f>vironrneri'tal Protฎctior
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 4 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 4.1
Production Share by Engine Technologies
Model Year
Powertrain
Fuel Delivery Method
Avg. No. Of
Cylinders
CID
HP
Multi-
Valve
WT
CD
Turbo
Stop/
Start
Gasoline
Gasoline
Hybrid
Diesel
Other
Carb
GDI
Port
TBI
EV
FCV
1975
99.8%
0.2%
95.7%
4.1%
0.0%
6.8
293
137
1976
99.8%
0.2%
97.3%
2.5%
0.0%
6.9
294
135
1977
99.6%
0.4%
96.2%
3.4%
0.0%
6.9
287
136
1978
99.1%
0.9%
95.2%
3.9%
0.0%
6.7
266
129
1979
98.0%
2.0%
94.2%
3.7%
0.1%
6.5
252
124
1980
95.7%
4.3%
89.7%
5.2%
0.8%
5.6
198
104
1981
94.1%
5.9%
86.7%
5.1%
2.4%
5.5
193
102
1982
94.4%
5.6%
80.6%
5.8%
8.0%
5.4
188
103
1983
97.3%
2.7%
75.2%
7.3%
14.8%
5.5
193
107
1984
98.2%
1.8%
67.6%
11.9%
18.7%
5.5
190
109
1985
99.1%
0.9%
56.1%
18.2%
24.8%
5.5
189
114
1986
99.6%
0.4%
41.4%
32.5%
25.7%
5.3
180
114
3.4%
1987
99.7%
0.3%
28.4%
39.9%
31.4%
5.2
175
118
10.6%
1988
99.9%
0.1%
15.0%
50.6%
34.3%
5.3
180
123
14.0%
1989
99.9%
0.1%
8.7%
57.3%
33.9%
5.4
185
129
16.9%
1990
99.9%
0.1%
2.1%
70.8%
27.0%
5.4
185
135
23.1%
1991
99.9%
0.1%
0.6%
70.6%
28.7%
5.3
184
138
23.1%
1992
99.9%
0.1%
0.5%
81.6%
17.8%
5.5
191
145
23.3%
1993
100.0%
0.3%
85.0%
14.6%
5.5
191
147
23.5%
1994
100.0%
0.0%
0.1%
87.7%
12.1%
5.6
197
152
26.7%
1995
100.0%
0.0%
91.6%
8.4%
5.6
196
158
35.6%
1996
99.9%
0.1%
99.3%
0.7%
5.6
197
164
39.3%
0.2%
1997
99.9%
0.1%
99.5%
0.5%
5.7
199
169
39.6%
0.4%
1998
99.9%
0.1%
99.8%
0.1%
5.6
199
171
40.9%
0.8%
1999
99.9%
0.1%
99.9%
0.1%
5.8
203
179
43.4%
1.4%
2000
99.8%
0.0%
0.1%
99.8%
0.0%
5.7
200
181
44.8%
15.0%
1.3%
2001
99.7%
0.1%
0.1%
99.9%
5.8
201
187
49.0%
19.6%
2.0%
2002
99.6%
0.2%
0.2%
99.8%
5.8
203
195
53.3%
25.3%
2.2%
2003
99.5%
0.3%
0.2%
99.8%
5.8
204
199
55.5%
30.6%
1.2%
2004
99.4%
0.5%
0.1%
99.9%
5.9
212
211
62.3%
38.5%
2.3%
2005
98.6%
1.1%
0.3%
99.7%
5.8
205
209
65.6%
45.8%
0.8%
1.7%
2006
98.1%
1.5%
0.4%
99.6%
5.7
204
213
71.7%
55.4%
3.6%
2.1%
2007
97.7%
2.2%
0.1%
99.8%
5.6
203
217
71.7%
57.3%
7.3%
2.5%
2008
97.4%
2.5%
0.1%
2.3%
97.6%
5.6
199
219
76.4%
58.2%
6.7%
3.0%
2009
97.2%
2.3%
0.5%
4.2%
95.2%
5.2
183
208
83.8%
71.5%
7.3%
3.3%
2010
95.5%
3.8%
0.7%
0.0%
8.3%
91.0%
0.0%
5.3
188
214
85.5%
83.8%
6.4%
3.3%
2011
97.0%
2.2%
0.8%
0.1%
15.4%
83.8%
0.1%
0.0%
5.4
192
230
86.4%
93.1%
9.5%
6.8%
2012
95.5%
3.1%
0.9%
0.4%
22.5%
76.5%
0.1%
0.0%
5.1
181
222
91.8%
96.6%
8.1%
8.4%
0.6%
2013
94.8%
3.6%
0.9%
0.7%
30.5%
68.3%
0.3%
5.1
176
226
92.8%
97.4%
7.7%
13.9%
2.3%
2014
95.7%
2.6%
1.0%
0.7%
37.4%
61.3%
0.3%
0.0%
5.1
180
230
89.2%
97.6%
10.6%
14.8%
5.1%
2015
95.9%
2.4%
0.9%
0.7%
41.9%
56.7%
0.5%
0.0%
5.0
177
229
91.2%
97.2%
10.5%
15.7%
7.1%
2016
96.9%
1.8%
0.5%
0.8%
48.0%
51.0%
0.5%
0.0%
5.0
174
230
92.3%
98.0%
10.4%
19.9%
9.6%
2017
96.1%
2.3%
0.3%
1.4%
49.7%
49.4%
0.6%
0.0%
5.0
174
234
92.0%
98.1%
11.9%
23.4%
17.8%
2018
95.1%
2.3%
0.4%
2.2%
50.2%
48.0%
1.4%
0.0%
5.0
172
241
91.0%
96.4%
12.5%
30.0%
29.8%
2019 (prelim)
91.0%
5.0%
0.7%
3.3%
54.2%
42.4%
2.6%
0.0%
5.0
169
244
90.5%
95.3%
13.1%
33.6%
36.3%
9
-------
Jftji United States
ฆ"ฆฆ'tUl Environmental Protection
%rWmmM Agency
Table 4.2
Production Share by Transmission Technologies
Model Year
Manual
Automatic
with Lockup
Automatic
without
Lockup
CVT (Hybrid)
CVT
(Non-
Hybrid)
Other
4 Gears
or Fewer
5 Gears
6
Gears
7
Gears
8
Gears
CVT
9+Gears (Hybrid)
CVT
(Non-
Hybrid)
Avg. No.
of Gears
1975
23.0%
0.2%
76.8%
-
-
-
99.0%
1.0%
-
-
-
-
-
1976
20.9%
-
79.1%
-
-
-
100.0%
-
-
-
-
-
1977
19.8%
-
80.2%
-
-
-
100.0%
-
-
-
-
-
1978
22.7%
5.5%
71.9%
-
-
-
92.7%
7.3%
-
-
-
-
1979
1980
24.2%
34.6%
7.3%
18.1%
68.1%
46.8%
-
-
0.4%
0.5%
93.8%
87.9%
6.2%
12.1%
-
-
-
3.3
3.5
1981
33.6%
33.0%
32.9%
-
-
0.5%
85.6%
14.4%
-
-
-
-
3.5
1982
32.4%
47.8%
19.4%
-
-
0.4%
84.4%
15.6%
-
-
-
-
3.6
1983
30.5%
52.1%
17.0%
-
-
0.4%
80.9%
19.1%
-
-
-
-
3.7
1984
28.4%
52.8%
18.8%
-
-
0.0%
81.3%
18.7%
-
-
-
-
3.7
1985
26.5%
54.5%
19.1%
-
-
-
80.7%
19.3%
-
-
-
-
3.8
1986
29.8%
53.5%
16.7%
-
-
-
76.8%
23.2%
-
-
-
-
3.8
1987
1988
29.1%
27.6%
55.4%
62.2%
15.5%
10.2%
-
-
0.0%
76.2%
76.8%
23.8%
23.2%
-
-
-
-
3.9
3.9
1989
24.6%
65.5%
9.9%
-
0.1%
0.0%
78.5%
21.4%
0.0%
-
-
0.1%
3.9
1990
22.2%
71.2%
6.5%
-
0.0%
0.0%
79.9%
20.0%
0.1%
-
-
0.0%
4.0
1991
23.9%
71.6%
4.5%
-
0.0%
-
77.3%
22.6%
0.0%
-
-
0.0%
4.0
1992
20.7%
74.8%
4.5%
-
0.0%
-
80.8%
19.2%
0.1%
-
-
0.0%
4.0
1993
19.8%
76.5%
3.7%
-
0.0%
-
80.9%
19.0%
0.1%
-
-
0.0%
4.0
1994
19.5%
77.6%
3.0%
-
-
-
80.8%
19.0%
0.2%
-
-
-
4.1
1995
17.9%
80.7%
1.4%
-
-
-
82.0%
17.7%
0.2%
-
-
-
4.1
1996
15.2%
83.5%
1.3%
-
0.0%
0.0%
84.7%
15.1%
0.2%
-
-
0.0%
4.1
1997
14.0%
85.5%
0.5%
-
0.0%
-
82.4%
17.3%
0.2%
-
-
0.0%
4.1
1998
12.8%
86.7%
0.5%
-
0.0%
-
82.1%
17.7%
0.2%
-
-
0.0%
4.1
1999
10.1%
89.4%
0.5%
-
0.0%
-
84.4%
15.3%
0.3%
-
-
0.0%
4.1
2000
9.7%
89.5%
0.7%
-
0.0%
-
83.7%
15.8%
0.5%
-
-
0.0%
4.1
2001
9.0%
90.3%
0.6%
0.1%
0.0%
-
80.7%
18.5%
0.7%
-
0.1%
0.0%
4.2
2002
8.2%
91.4%
0.3%
0.1%
0.1%
-
77.1%
21.6%
1.1%
-
0.1%
0.1%
4.2
2003
8.0%
90.8%
0.1%
0.3%
0.8%
-
69.2%
28.1%
1.7%
-
0.3%
0.8%
4.3
2004
6.8%
91.8%
0.3%
0.4%
0.7%
-
63.9%
31.8%
3.0%
0.2%
-
0.4%
0.7%
4.4
2005
6.2%
91.5%
0.1%
1.0%
1.3%
-
56.0%
37.3%
4.1%
0.2%
-
1.0%
1.3%
4.5
2006
6.5%
90.6%
0.0%
1.5%
1.4%
-
47.7%
39.2%
8.8%
1.4%
-
1.5%
1.4%
4.6
2007
5.6%
87.1%
0.0%
2.1%
5.1%
-
40.5%
36.1%
14.4%
1.5%
0.2%
2.1%
5.1%
4.8
2008
5.2%
86.8%
0.2%
2.4%
5.5%
-
38.8%
31.9%
19.4%
1.8%
0.2%
2.4%
5.5%
4.8
2009
4.8%
85.6%
0.2%
2.1%
7.3%
-
31.2%
32.2%
24.5%
2.5%
0.1%
2.1%
7.3%
5.0
2010
3.8%
84.1%
1.2%
3.8%
7.2%
-
24.6%
23.5%
38.1%
2.7%
0.2%
3.8%
7.2%
5.2
2011
3.2%
86.5%
0.3%
2.0%
8.0%
-
14.2%
18.7%
52.3%
3.1%
1.7%
2.0%
8.0%
5.5
2012
3.6%
83.4%
1.1%
2.7%
9.2%
-
8.1%
18.2%
56.3%
2.8%
2.6%
2.7%
9.2%
5.5
2013
3.5%
80.4%
1.4%
2.9%
11.8%
-
5.4%
12.8%
60.1%
2.8%
4.1%
2.9%
11.8%
5.6
2014
2.8%
76.7%
1.6%
2.3%
16.6%
-
2.2%
7.8%
58.4%
3.3%
8.4%
1.1% 2.3%
16.6%
5.9
2015
2.6%
72.3%
1.4%
2.2%
21.5%
-
1.5%
4.5%
54.2%
3.1%
9.5%
3.5% 2.2%
21.5%
5.9
2016
2.2%
72.3%
2.6%
1.7%
21.2%
-
1.1%
3.0%
54.9%
2.9%
11.2%
4.1% 1.7%
21.2%
6.0
2017
2.1%
71.5%
2.6%
1.9%
21.8%
-
1.0%
2.4%
49.0%
3.4%
14.6%
5.9% 1.9%
21.8%
6.1
2018
1.6%
72.8%
3.2%
1.7%
20.6%
-
1.9%
2.0%
37.6%
3.7%
19.0%
13.5% 1.7%
20.6%
6.4
2019 (prelim)
2.0%
70.5%
3.5%
2.2%
21.9%
-
2.9%
1.2%
23.7%
2.9%
25.5%
19.6% 2.2%
21.9%
6.6
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 4 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
10
-------
United States
Jb Environmental Protection
ImI B* Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 4 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 4.3
Production Share by Drive Technology
Car
Truck
All
Front Wheel
Rear Wheel
Four Wheel
Front Wheel
Rear Wheel
Four Wheel
Front Wheel
Rear Wheel
Four Wheel
Model Year
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
Drive
1975
6.5%
93.5%
-
-
82.8%
17.2%
5.3%
91.4%
3.3%
1976
5.8%
94.2%
-
-
77.0%
23.0%
4.6%
90.6%
4.8%
1977
6.8%
93.2%
-
-
76.2%
23.8%
5.5%
89.8%
4.7%
1978
9.6%
90.4%
-
-
70.9%
29.1%
7.4%
86.0%
6.6%
1979
11.9%
87.8%
0.3%
-
81.9%
18.1%
9.2%
86.5%
4.3%
1980
29.7%
69.4%
0.9%
1.4%
73.6%
25.0%
25.0%
70.1%
4.9%
1981
37.0%
62.2%
0.7%
1.9%
78.0%
20.1%
31.0%
65.0%
4.0%
1982
45.6%
53.6%
0.8%
1.7%
78.1%
20.2%
37.0%
58.4%
4.6%
1983
47.1%
49.9%
3.1%
1.4%
72.5%
26.1%
37.0%
54.8%
8.1%
1984
53.5%
45.5%
1.0%
5.0%
63.5%
31.5%
42.1%
49.8%
8.2%
1985
61.1%
36.8%
2.1%
7.3%
61.4%
31.3%
47.8%
42.9%
9.3%
1986
70.7%
28.2%
1.0%
5.9%
63.4%
30.7%
52.6%
38.0%
9.3%
1987
76.4%
22.6%
1.1%
7.6%
60.2%
32.2%
57.7%
32.8%
9.6%
1988
80.9%
18.3%
0.8%
9.2%
56.7%
34.1%
60.0%
29.5%
10.5%
1989
81.6%
17.4%
1.0%
10.1%
57.1%
32.8%
60.2%
29.3%
10.5%
1990
84.0%
15.0%
1.0%
15.8%
52.4%
31.8%
63.8%
26.1%
10.1%
1991
81.1%
17.5%
1.3%
10.3%
52.3%
37.3%
59.6%
28.1%
12.3%
1992
78.4%
20.5%
1.1%
14.5%
52.1%
33.4%
58.4%
30.4%
11.2%
1993
80.6%
18.3%
1.1%
16.8%
50.6%
32.7%
59.9%
28.8%
11.3%
1994
81.3%
18.3%
0.4%
13.8%
47.0%
39.2%
55.6%
29.2%
15.2%
1995
80.1%
18.8%
1.1%
18.4%
39.3%
42.3%
57.6%
26.3%
16.2%
1996
83.7%
14.8%
1.4%
20.9%
39.8%
39.2%
60.0%
24.3%
15.7%
1997
83.8%
14.5%
1.7%
14.2%
40.6%
45.2%
56.1%
24.9%
19.0%
1998
82.9%
15.0%
2.1%
19.3%
35.5%
45.1%
56.4%
23.5%
20.1%
1999
83.2%
14.7%
2.1%
17.5%
34.4%
48.1%
55.8%
22.9%
21.3%
2000
80.4%
17.7%
2.0%
20.0%
33.8%
46.3%
55.5%
24.3%
20.2%
2001
80.3%
16.7%
3.0%
16.3%
34.8%
48.8%
53.8%
24.2%
22.0%
2002
82.9%
13.5%
3.6%
15.4%
33.1%
51.6%
52.7%
22.3%
25.0%
2003
80.9%
15.9%
3.2%
15.4%
34.1%
50.4%
50.7%
24.3%
25.0%
2004
80.2%
14.5%
5.3%
12.5%
31.0%
56.5%
47.7%
22.4%
29.8%
2005
79.2%
14.2%
6.6%
20.1%
27.7%
52.2%
53.0%
20.2%
26.8%
2006
75.9%
18.0%
6.0%
18.9%
28.0%
53.1%
51.9%
22.3%
25.8%
2007
81.0%
13.4%
5.6%
16.1%
28.4%
55.5%
54.3%
19.6%
26.1%
2008
78.8%
14.1%
7.1%
18.4%
24.8%
56.8%
54.2%
18.5%
27.3%
2009
83.5%
10.2%
6.3%
21.0%
20.5%
58.5%
62.9%
13.6%
23.5%
2010
82.5%
11.2%
6.3%
20.9%
18.0%
61.0%
59.6%
13.7%
26.7%
2011
80.1%
11.3%
8.6%
17.7%
17.3%
65.0%
53.8%
13.8%
32.4%
2012
83.8%
00
CO
7.5%
20.9%
14.8%
64.3%
61.4%
10.9%
27.7%
2013
83.0%
9.3%
7.7%
18.1%
14.5%
67.5%
59.7%
11.1%
29.1%
2014
81.3%
10.6%
8.2%
17.5%
14.2%
68.3%
55.3%
12.1%
32.6%
2015
80.4%
9.7%
9.9%
16.0%
12.6%
71.4%
52.9%
10.9%
36.1%
2016
79.8%
9.1%
11.0%
15.9%
12.2%
72.0%
51.2%
10.5%
38.3%
2017
79.8%
8.3%
11.9%
16.1%
11.0%
72.8%
49.6%
9.6%
40.8%
2018
76.6%
9.4%
14.0%
13.4%
10.9%
75.6%
43.7%
10.2%
46.1%
2019 (prelim)
74.0%
11.6%
14.5%
14.5%
11.1%
74.3%
44.1%
11.3%
44.5%
11
-------
aFPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Agency Section 5 Figures EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.3
Changes in "2-Cycle" Tailpipe C02 Emissions, Model Year 2012 to 2018 (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Model Year 2012
Car Truck All
Model Year 2018
Car Truck All
BMW
277
363
302
253
304
268
BYD Motors
0
-
0
0
-
0
FCA
300
384
357
302
332
327
Ford
261
385
315
253
343
315
GM
283
397
331
234
348
309
Honda
237
320
266
203
269
229
Hyundai
243
312
249
241
340
245
Jaguar Land Rover
376
439
426
269
322
317
Kia
258
324
266
233
320
253
Mazda
241
324
263
225
261
239
Mercedes
316
393
343
269
335
299
Mitsubishi
262
283
267
197
252
229
Nissan
258
382
295
225
313
257
Subaru
257
296
282
244
239
240
Tesla
0
-
0
0
0
0
Toyota
221
354
273
216
324
273
Volkswagen
274
330
281
257
300
282
Volvo
297
343
311
247
279
272
All Manufacturers
259
369
302
228
320
280
12
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.4
Model Year 2018 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
Manufacturer
Production of
EV/FCV (2.Ox)
Production of
PHEV (1.6x)
BMW
1,765
25,585
BYD Motors
2
-
FCA
990
13,417
Ford
322
6,245
GM
9,879
20,949
Honda
840
24,156
Hyundai
244
1,181
Jaguar Land Rover
-
-
Kia
603
3,815
Mazda
-
-
Mercedes
1,293
2,232
Mitsubishi
-
5,353
Nissan
13,347
-
Subaru
-
-
Tesla
193,102
-
Toyota
1,370
19,199
Volkswagen
526
5,471
Volvo
-
3,935
All Manufacturers
224,283
131,538
13
-------
aFPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Agency Section 5 Figures EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.5
Model Year 2018 Advanced Technology Credits by Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Car (Mg)
Truck (Mg)
Total (Mg)
Total (g/mi)
BMW
409,763
108,392
518,155
6.9
BYD Motors
84
-
84
215.1
FCA
92,564
511,457
604,021
1.5
Ford
245,353
-
245,353
0.5
GM
1,046,633
-
1,046,633
1.8
Honda
600,784
-
600,784
1.8
Hyundai
30,717
-
30,717
0.2
Jaguar Land Rover
-
-
-
-
Kia
87,080
-
87,080
0.8
Mazda
-
-
-
-
Mercedes
69,005
50,907
119,912
1.6
Mitsubishi
38,452
-
38,452
1.4
Nissan
645,943
-
645,943
2.4
Subaru
-
-
-
-
Tesla
8,192,147
449,885
8,642,032
227.9
Toyota
467,692
-
467,692
0.9
Volkswagen
90,556
33,897
124,453
0.8
Volvo
20,955
72,823
93,778
4.5
All Manufacturers
12,037,728
1,227,361
13,265,089
3.9
14
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.6
Production of FFVs, Model Year
2012-2018
Model Year
Car Truck
2012
815,440 1,352,258
2013
791,660 1,701,209
2014
709,192 2,091,685
2015
538,648 1,300,077
2016
429,195 910,075
2017
307,116 859,376
2018
164,578 772,181
15
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.7
FFV Credits by
Model Year (g/mi)
Model Year
GHG Credits
2012
8.1
2013
7.8
2014
8.9
2015
6.4
2016
-
2017
-
2018
-
16
-------
aFPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Agency Section 5 Figures EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.8
HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer (Production Volume)
Model Year
Manufacturer
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
BMW
-
-
-
-
334,633
367,072
BYD Motors
-
-
-
-
-
-
FCA
-
540,098
1,683,956
1,504,046
1,633,139
1,750,652
Ford
-
-
-
-
1,326,663
1,530,469
GM
41,913
30,652
16,298
32,775
1,632,981
2,433,265
Honda
471
599 -
541,393
897,751
1,368,127
Hyundai
-
-
-
-
14,663
211,969
Jaguar Land Rover
-
56,604
62,316
114,580
122,586
110,615
Kia
-
-
-
-
264,353
336,262
Mazda
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mercedes
-
-
-
-
-
-
Mitsubishi
-
-
-
-
-
58,968
Nissan
-
-
-
-
-
94,474
Subaru
-
-
-
-
292,788
228,363
Tesla
-
-
-
-
-
-
Toyota
-
-
-
-
277,645
819,578
Volkswagen
-
-
-
-
50,884
588,194
Volvo
-
-
-
-
-
-
All Manufacturers
42,384
627,953
1,762,570
2,192,794
6,848,086
9,898,008
17
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.9
Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type
Model Year
A/C Leakage A/C Efficiency
Credits (Tg) Credits (Tg)
2009
6.2
2.1
2010
8.3
2.8
2011
8.9
3.6
2012
11.1
5.9
2013
13.1
8.6
2014
16.7
10.6
2015
20.4
12.4
2016
22.3
12.6
2017
32.8
16.2
2018
38.7
17.3
18
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.10
Total A/C Credits by Manufacturer for
Model Year 2018
Manufacturer
A/C Leakage
Credits (g/mi)
A/C Efficiency
Credits (g/mi)
BMW
14.6
5.2
BYD Motors
-
-
FCA
15.9
5.8
Ford
13.6
5.7
GM
15.4
5.8
Honda
13.4
4.4
Hyundai
5.8
3.5
Jaguar Land Rover
16.9
7.0
Kia
9.1
3.8
Mazda
3.1
-
Mercedes
6.5
6.0
Mitsubishi
10.5
2.4
Nissan
5.6
3.8
Subaru
5.0
4.2
Tesla
5.6
5.1
Toyota
7.3
5.1
Volkswagen
13.3
6.0
Volvo
6.6
5.9
All Manufacturers
11.3
5.0
19
-------
Jflfc United States
Environmental Protection
%#Lil ^%Anency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.11
Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model Year 2018
Manufacturer
Active
Aerodynamic
Improvements
Active Engine
Warmup
Active
Transmission
Warmup
Engine Idle
Start Stop
High
Efficiency
Lighting
Active Seat
Ventilation
Glass Or
Glazing
Solar
Reflective
Coating
Active Cabin
Ventilation
Passive
Cabin
Ventilation
BMW
25%
23%
-
32%
100%
8%
-
-
100%
-
BYD Motors
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FCA
23%
70%
37%
46%
55%
32%
98%
22%
-
97%
Ford
89%
26%
60%
62%
56%
22%
100%
7%
-
48%
GM
68%
47%
-
43%
93%
19%
100%
23%
-
100%
Honda
39%
8%
92%
7%
100%
7%
98%
-
-
-
Hyundai
2%
2%
77%
2%
60%
11%
87%
19%
-
-
Jaguar Land Rover
78%
-
46%
100%
100%
45%
100%
-
-
78%
Kia
5%
5%
63%
9%
55%
10%
100%
21%
-
-
Mazda
61%
-
95%
-
67%
3%
94%
-
-
-
Mercedes
-
-
-
-
97%
17%
88%
-
-
-
Mitsubishi
-
-
-
4%
87%
-
78%
-
-
-
Nissan
48%
29%
63%
1%
75%
5%
67%
14%
-
-
Subaru
32%
-
87%
-
52%
-
91%
-
-
-
Tesla
100%
-
-
-
100%
-
100%
-
100%
-
Toyota
5%
30%
39%
16%
63%
27%
99%
25%
-
84%
Volkswagen
26%
85%
7%
70%
99%
22%
59%
6%
-
-
Volvo
-
100%
-
100%
100%
9%
-
-
-
100%
All Manufacturers
40%
32%
44%
29%
74%
18%
90%
14%
3%
48%
20
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.12
Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for
Model Year 2018
Manufacturer
Menu Credits
(g/mi)
Non-Menu
Credits (g/mi)
BMW
5.4
-
BYD Motors
-
-
FCA
9.4
0.5
Ford
9.2
0.6
GM
7.3
1.3
Honda
3.9
-
Hyundai
2.2
0.0
Jaguar Land Rover
10.0
-
Kia
2.5
-
Mazda
2.9
-
Mercedes
1.8
-
Mitsubishi
1.2
-
Nissan
3.2
-
Subaru
3.9
-
Tesla
4.9
-
Toyota
5.3
0.6
Volkswagen
6.3
-
Volvo
10.0
-
All Manufacturers
6.0
0.4
*Data updated on 3/11/20
21
-------
aFPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Agency Section 5 Figures EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.13
Early Credits Reported and Expired by Manufacturer
Manufacturer
Expired 2009
Credits
(Tg of C02)
Used 2009
Credits
(Tg of C02)
Remaining
Credits
(Tg of C02)
BMW
0.1
0.4
0.7
BYD Motors
-
-
-
FCA
-
6.3
4.5
Ford
5.9
2.5
7.8
GM
7.0
6.0
12.8
Honda
14.1
-
21.7
Hyundai
4.5
0.1
9.4
Jaguar Land Rover
-
-
-
Kia
2.4
0.8
7.3
Mazda
1.3
0.1
4.1
Mercedes
-
0.1
0.3
Mitsubishi
0.6
0.0
0.8
Nissan
8.2
2.3
7.6
Subaru
0.5
1.1
4.1
Suzuki
0.3
0.2
0.4
Tesla
-
-
0.0
Toyota
29.7
1.6
49.1
Volkswagen
1.4
0.8
4.4
Volvo
-
0.2
0.5
22
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.14
Performance and Standards by Manufacturer,
2018 Model Year
Manufacturer
Performance
(g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Ford
286
278
GM
278
275
FCA
294
271
All Manufacturers
253
252
Volkswagen
256
245
Mercedes
284
244
Toyota
254
243
Subaru
227
237
Nissan
241
232
Honda
206
232
BMW
236
231
Tesla
-244
228
Mazda
233
227
Kia
237
221
Hyundai
233
211
23
-------
aFPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Agency Section 5 Figures EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.15
Total Credits Transactions Through Model Year 2018*
Manufacturer
Expires 2021
Expires 2022
Expires 2023
BMW
2.0
3.5
Coda
0.0
FCA
34.4
2.4
8.2
GM
0.0
Honda
-30.7
-3.5
Jaguar Land Rover
2.7
Karma Automotive
0.0
Mercedes
8.7
Nissan
-3.5
Suzuki
-0.4
Tesla
-6.2
-2.4
-9.2
Toyota
-10.3
Volkswagen
3.0
1.0
* Small volume manufacturers are not included in the 2019 Automotive
Trends Report. However, transfers of credits by manufacturers shown
above TO small volume manufacturers are shown in this table. Thus,
the net transactions in this table will not sum to zero.
24
-------
SERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Figures
Figure 5.16
Manufacturer Credit Balance
After Model Year 2018
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Manufacturer
Credit Balance
Carry to 2019
(Tg C02)
Toyota
63.4
Honda
40.5
FCA
23.5
Nissan
23.4
Subaru
18.4
GM
18.1
Hyundai
15.2
Ford
12.6
Tesla
11.0
Mazda
10.1
BMW
6.4
Kia
3.3
Volkswagen
3.0
Mitsubishi
2.3
Volvo
1.1
Mercedes
0.1
Karma Automotive
0.1
BYD Motors
0.0
Jaguar Land Rover
-0.2
25
-------
aFPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Agency Section 5 Figures EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Figure 5.17
Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation
and Use
Model Year
Performance
(g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
2012
287
299
2013
278
292
2014
273
287
2015
267
274
2016
271
263
2017
263
258
2018
253
252
Model Year
Credits (Mg)
Credits (Tg)
Early Credits (2009-2011)
157,868,491
158
2012
32,837,047
33
2013
41,977,130
42
2014
43,370,247
43
2015
25,149,505
25
2016
-27,721,443
-28
2017
-16,820,022
-17
2018
-4,449,230
-4
carry to 2019
252,211,725
252
26
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.1
Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2018
Manufacturer
Footprint (ft2)
Standards (g/mi)
Car
Truck
All
Car
Truck
All
BMW
47.3
51.1
48.3
212
275
231
BYD Motors
47.9
-
47.9
215
-
215
FCA
48.9
52.8
52.0
220
282
271
Ford
46.6
59.9
55.3
210
308
278
GM
46.4
59.2
54.4
209
308
275
Honda
46.3
49.4
47.4
208
267
232
Hyundai
46.5
49.2
46.6
209
266
211
Jaguar Land Rover
49.1
51.0
50.8
244
287
283
Kia
46.2
49.5
46.9
207
267
221
Mazda
45.6
47.9
46.5
206
260
227
Mercedes
48.3
51.3
49.6
217
276
244
Mitsubishi
41.5
44.2
42.9
192
242
221
Nissan
46.0
51.7
47.8
207
277
232
Subaru
44.9
45.0
45.0
202
246
237
Tesla
50.3
54.8
50.4
225
292
228
Toyota
46.1
51.6
48.8
207
275
243
Volkswagen
45.9
50.5
48.4
206
272
245
Volvo
50.7
52.1
51.8
252
292
283
All Manufacturers
46.5
53.9
50.4
209
286
252
27
-------
** rnA United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.2
Production Multipliers by Model Year
Model Year
Electric Vehicles and
Fuel Cell Vehicles
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles,
Dedicated Natural Gas Vehicles, and
Dual-Fuel Natural Gas Vehicles
2017
2.0
1.6
2018
2.0
1.6
2019
2.0
1.6
2020
1.75
1.45
2021
1.5
1.3
28
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.3
Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Active Aero-
dynamics
Active Engine
Warmup
Active Trans
Warmup
Thermal
Controls
Engine Start-
Stop
High Efficiency
Lighting
Total Menu
Credits
BMW
0.5
0.6
-
2.4
1.0
0.8
5.4
BYD Motors
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FCA
0.2
2.1
1.2
3.8
2.0
0.1
9.4
Ford
1.2
0.7
1.7
2.9
2.5
0.2
9.2
GM
0.8
1.1
-
3.6
1.4
0.5
7.3
Honda
0.2
0.2
2.0
1.0
0.3
0.3
3.9
Hyundai
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.8
0.0
0.2
2.2
Jaguar Land Rover
0.5
-
1.4
3.6
4.2
0.8
10.0
Kia
0.0
0.1
1.3
1.0
0.1
0.1
2.5
Mazda
0.2
-
2.1
0.5
-
0.1
2.9
Mercedes
-
-
-
1.1
-
0.7
1.8
Mitsubishi
-
-
-
0.8
0.1
0.3
1.2
Nissan
0.2
0.6
1.3
0.9
0.0
0.2
3.2
Subaru
0.2
-
2.5
1.0
-
0.2
3.9
Tesla
1.1
-
-
3.1
-
0.7
4.9
Toyota
0.0
0.9
0.2
3.2
0.7
0.3
5.3
Volkswagen
0.2
2.2
0.2
0.8
2.3
0.7
6.3
Volvo
-
2.8
-
2.3
4.0
1.0
10.0
All Manufacturers
0.4
0.8
1.0
2.4
1.1
0.3
6.0
*Data updated on 3/11/20
29
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.4
Model Year 2018 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative Methodology, by
Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Combined
Condenser
A/C System
Denso SAS A/C High-Efficiency Active Climate
Compressor Alternator Control Seats
Total
Alternative
Methodology
Credits
FCA
-
-
0.5
-
0.5
Ford
-
-
0.6
-
0.6
GM
-
0.7
0.6
0.0
1.3
Hyundai
0.0
-
-
-
0.0
Toyota
-
0.2
0.3
-
0.6
All Manufacturers
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.4
30
-------
Jflk United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.5
Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, All (g/mi)
Manufacturer
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
Credits
ch4 & n2o
Deficit
Performance
Value
FFV
TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
Off-Cycle
BMW
268
-
-
19.8
6.9
5.4
0.2
236
BYD Motors
0
-
-
-
215.1
-
-
-215
FCA
327
-
-
21.7
1.5
9.9
0.1
294
Ford
315
-
-
19.3
0.5
9.8
0.5
286
GM
309
-
-
21.2
1.8
8.6
0.1
278
Honda
229
-
-
17.7
1.8
3.9
-
206
Hyundai
245
-
-
9.4
0.2
2.3
-
233
Jaguar Land Rover
317
-
-
23.8
-
10.0
-
283
Kia
253
-
-
12.9
0.8
2.5
-
237
Mazda
239
-
-
3.1
-
2.9
-
233
Mercedes
299
-
-
12.5
1.6
1.8
-
284
Mitsubishi
229
-
-
12.9
1.4
1.2
-
213
Nissan
257
-
-
9.5
2.4
3.2
0.0
241
Subaru
240
-
-
9.2
-
3.9
-
227
Tesla
0
-
-
10.7
227.9
4.9
-
-244
Toyota
273
-
-
12.5
0.9
5.8
0.1
254
Volkswagen
282
-
-
19.3
0.8
6.3
0.0
256
Volvo
272
-
-
12.5
4.5
10.0
-
245
All Manufacturers
280
-
-
16.3
3.9
6.5
0.1
253
31
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.6
Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/mi)
Model Year
2-Cyde
Tailpipe
Credits
ch4 & n2o
Deficit
Performance
Value
FFV
TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
Off-Cycle
2012
302
8.1
0.6
6.1
1.0
0.2
287
2013
294
7.8
0.5
6.9
1.1
0.3
278
2014
294
8.9
0.2
8.5
3.3
0.2
273
2015
286
6.4
0.3
9.4
3.4
0.2
267
2016
285
-
-
10.3
3.6
0.1
271
2017
284
-
-
13.7
2.3
5.1
0.2
263
2018
280
-
-
16.3
3.9
6.5
0.1
253
32
-------
Jflk United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.7
Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, Car (g/mi)
Manufacturer
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
Credits
ch4 & n2o
Deficit
Performance
Value
FFV
TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
Off-Cycle
BMW
253
-
-
18.4
7.8
4.2
0.1
223
BYD Motors
0
-
-
-
215.1
-
-
-215
FCA
302
-
-
18.1
1.3
4.2
0.0
278
Ford
253
-
-
16.0
1.7
4.7
0.2
231
GM
234
-
-
16.7
5.4
6.8
0.1
205
Honda
203
-
-
15.3
3.0
2.5
-
182
Hyundai
241
-
-
9.4
0.2
2.1
-
229
Jaguar Land Rover
269
-
-
18.8
-
6.5
-
244
Kia
233
-
-
13.0
1.1
2.1
-
217
Mazda
225
-
-
2.5
0.0
1.9
-
221
Mercedes
269
-
-
11.0
1.7
1.2
-
255
Mitsubishi
197
-
-
6.4
3.4
0.8
-
186
Nissan
225
-
-
8.9
3.7
2.3
0.1
210
Subaru
244
-
-
6.3
-
1.7
-
236
Tesla
0
-
-
10.7
225.2
4.8
-
-241
Toyota
216
-
-
11.4
1.9
4.4
0.1
198
Volkswagen
257
-
-
15.3
1.4
3.6
0.0
237
Volvo
247
-
-
9.3
4.4
6.7
-
227
All Manufacturers
228
-
-
13.0
7.9
3.7
0.0
204
33
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.8
Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/mi)
Model Year
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
Credits
ch4 & n2o
Deficit
Performance
Value
FFV
TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
Off-Cycle
2012
259
4.0
0.2
5.4
-
0.6
0.1
249
2013
251
4.0
0.1
6.3
-
0.7
0.3
240
2014
250
4.6
0.1
7.5
-
2.2
0.3
236
2015
243
3.1
0.0
8.1
-
2.3
0.1
230
2016
240
-
-
00
CO
-
2.3
0.1
229
2017
235
-
-
10.1
4.5
3.0
0.0
217
2018
228
-
-
13.0
7.9
3.7
0.0
204
34
-------
Jflk United States
Environmental Protection
*m Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.9
Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2018, Truck (g/mi)
2-Cycle
Credits
ch4 & n2o
Performance
Manufacturer
Tailpipe
FFV
TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
Off-Cycle
Deficit
Value
BMW
304
-
-
23.0
4.9
8.1
0.5
268
FCA
332
-
-
22.5
1.5
11.1
0.1
297
Ford
343
-
-
20.8
-
12.1
0.6
311
GM
348
-
-
23.5
-
9.5
0.1
315
Honda
269
-
-
21.3
-
6.1
-
242
Hyundai
340
-
-
6.9
-
5.4
-
328
Jaguar Land Rover
322
-
-
24.4
-
10.4
-
287
Kia
320
-
-
12.3
-
4.1
-
304
Mazda
261
-
-
4.1
-
4.5
-
252
Mercedes
335
-
-
14.3
1.5
2.4
-
317
Mitsubishi
252
-
-
17.7
-
1.4
-
233
Nissan
313
-
-
10.5
-
5.0
-
298
Subaru
239
-
-
10.0
-
4.5
-
225
Tesla
0
-
-
12.4
292.4
8.3
-
-313
Toyota
324
-
-
13.5
-
7.0
0.1
304
Volkswagen
300
-
-
22.1
0.4
8.2
-
269
Volvo
279
-
-
13.5
4.6
11.0
-
250
All Manufacturers
320
-
-
19.0
0.6
8.7
0.2
292
35
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.10
Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/mi)
Model Year
2-Cycle
Tailpipe
Credits
ch4 & n2o
Deficit
Performance
Value
FFV
TLAAS
A/C
ATVs
Off-Cycle
2012
369
14.5
1.3
7.3
1.6
0.3
346
2013
360
13.8
1.1
7.9
1.7
0.3
337
2014
349
14.3
0.3
9.7
4.6
0.1
321
2015
336
10.3
0.6
11.0
4.6
0.2
310
2016
332
-
-
11.8
5.1
0.2
315
2017
330
-
-
17.2
0.2
7.1
0.3
306
2018
320
-
-
19.0
0.6
8.7
0.2
292
36
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.11
Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, All
Manufacturer
Performance
Value (g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Net
Compliance
(g/mi)
Production
Credit Surplus/
Shortfall (Mg)
BMW
236
231
5
368,192
-416,713
BYD Motors
-215
215
-430
2
168
FCA
294
271
23
1,888,041
-9,396,315
Ford
286
278
8
2,103,253
-3,762,524
GM
278
275
3
2,669,227
-1,929,023
Honda
206
232
-26
1,626,866
8,598,273
Hyundai
233
211
22
708,227
-3,011,849
Jaguar Land Rover
283
283
0
110,615
-4,901
Kia
237
221
16
509,318
-1,649,692
Mazda
233
227
6
318,835
-385,089
Mercedes
284
244
40
362,680
-2,974,379
Mitsubishi
213
221
-8
126,438
203,923
Nissan
241
232
9
1,327,744
-2,567,935
Subaru
227
237
-10
674,395
1,533,010
Tesla
-244
228
-472
193,102
17,869,526
Toyota
254
243
11
2,443,132
-5,617,632
Volkswagen
256
245
11
729,483
-1,729,374
Volvo
245
283
-38
94,944
791,296
All Manufacturers
253
252
1
16,254,494
-4,449,230
37
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.12
Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, All
Model Year
Performance
Value (g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Net
Compliance
(g/mi)
Production
Credit
Surplus/
Shortfall (Mg)
Credit
Expiration
2009
-
-
-
-
98,520,511
2014
2010
-
-
-
-
96,890,664
2021
2011
-
-
-
-
38,769,164
2021
2012
287
299
-12
13,345,155
33,013,724
2021
2013
278
292
-14
15,103,066
42,627,850
2021
2014
273
287
-14
15,478,831
43,325,498
2021
2015
267
274
-7
16,677,789
25,095,159
2021
2016
271
263
8
16,276,424
-27,721,443
2021
2017
263
258
5
17,010,779
-16,600,603
2022
2018
253
252
1
16,254,494
-4,449,230
2023
38
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.13
Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Car
Manufacturer
Performance
Value (g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Net
Compliance
(g/mi)
Production
Credit
Surplus/
Shortfall (Mg)
BMW
223
212
11
269,666
-561,953
BYD Motors
-215
215
-430
2
168
FCA
278
220
58
370,666
-4,227,633
Ford
231
210
21
721,024
-2,918,968
GM
205
209
-4
992,131
753,552
Honda
182
208
-26
1,032,136
5,183,156
Hyundai
229
209
20
686,103
-2,703,395
Jaguar Land Rover
244
244
0
12,059
680
Kia
217
207
10
402,888
-770,573
Mazda
221
206
15
203,821
-582,325
Mercedes
255
217
38
208,832
-1,556,906
Mitsubishi
186
192
-6
58,412
63,840
Nissan
210
207
3
895,716
-560,324
Subaru
236
202
34
150,547
-1,001,931
Tesla
-241
225
-466
186,290
16,938,526
Toyota
198
207
-9
1,243,916
2,110,765
Volkswagen
237
206
31
329,216
-1,973,519
Volvo
227
252
-25
24,177
120,015
All Manufacturers
204
209
-5
7,787,602
8,313,175
39
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.14
Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, Car
Model Year
Performance
Value (g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Net
Compliance
(g/mi)
Production
Credit
Surplus/
Shortfall (Mg)
Credit
Expiration
2009
-
-
-
-
58,017,205
2014
2010
-
-
-
-
50,856,024
2021
2011
-
-
-
-
8,830,528
2021
2012
249
266
-17
8,628,026
30,564,873
2021
2013
240
260
-20
9,722,724
39,290,512
2021
2014
236
253
-17
9,197,604
30,447,846
2021
2015
230
241
-11
9,597,167
22,061,932
2021
2016
229
231
-2
8,998,957
3,373,702
2021
2017
217
219
-2
8,936,169
2,602,721
2022
2018
204
209
-5
7,787,602
8,313,175
2023
40
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.15
Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2018, Truck
Manufacturer
Performance
Value (g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Net
Compliance
(g/mi)
Production
Credit Surplus/
Shortfall (Mg)
BMW
268
275
-7
98,526
145,240
FCA
297
282
15
1,517,375
-5,168,682
Ford
311
308
3
1,382,229
-843,556
GM
315
308
7
1,677,096
-2,682,575
Honda
242
267
-25
594,730
3,415,117
Hyundai
328
266
62
22,124
-308,454
Jaguar Land Rover
287
287
0
98,556
-5,581
Kia
304
267
37
106,430
-879,119
Mazda
252
260
-8
115,014
197,236
Mercedes
317
276
41
153,848
-1,417,473
Mitsubishi
233
242
-9
68,026
140,083
Nissan
298
277
21
432,028
-2,007,611
Subaru
225
246
-21
523,848
2,534,941
Tesla
-313
292
-605
6,812
931,000
Toyota
304
275
29
1,199,216
-7,728,397
Volkswagen
269
272
-3
400,267
244,145
Volvo
250
292
-42
70,767
671,281
All Manufacturers
292
286
6
8,466,892
-12,762,405
41
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.16
Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009-2018, Truck
Model Year
Performance
Value (g/mi)
Standard
(g/mi)
Net
Compliance
(g/mi)
Production
Credit Surplus/
Shortfall (Mg)
Credit
Expiration
2009
-
-
-
-
40,503,306
2014
2010
-
-
-
-
46,034,640
2021
2011
-
-
-
-
29,938,636
2021
2012
346
346
-
4,717,129
2,448,851
2021
2013
337
337
-
5,380,342
3,337,338
2021
2014
321
330
-9
6,281,227
12,877,652
2021
2015
310
311
-1
7,080,622
3,033,227
2021
2016
315
297
18
7,277,467
-31,095,145
2021
2017
306
295
11
8,074,610
-19,203,324
2022
2018
292
286
6
8,466,892
-12,762,405
2023
42
-------
Jflfc f-riJt United States
Environmental Protection
!ฆฆฆ m * Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Section 5 Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.17
Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2018 (Mg)
Manufacturer
Early Credits
Earned Credits Earned
2009-2011 2012-2017
Credits Earned
2018
Credits Expired
Credits Purchased
Credits Forfeited or Sold*
Final 2018 Credit
Balance
BMW
1,251,522
224,909
-416,713
-134,791
-
5,500,000
6,424,927
BYD Motors
-
5,400
168
-
-
-
5,568
Coda
-
7,251
-
-
-
-7,251
-
FCA
10,827,083
-22,967,481
-9,396,315
-
-
45,054,999
23,518,286
Ford
16,116,453
6,154,294
-3,762,524
-5,882,011
-
-
12,626,212
GM
25,788,547
1,216,402
-1,929,023
-6,998,699
-
7,251
18,084,478
Honda
35,842,334
44,423,035
8,598,273
-14,133,353
-
-34,245,245
40,485,044
Hyundai
14,007,495
8,833,667
-3,011,849
-4,482,649
-169,775
-
15,176,889
Jaguar Land Rover
-
-2,869,661
-4,901
-
-
2,722,736
-151,826
Karma Automotive
-
58,852
-
-
-
-2,841
56,011
Kia
10,444,192
-2,990,314
-1,649,692
-2,362,882
-123,956
-
3,317,348
Mazda
5,482,642
6,335,942
-385,089
-1,340,917
-
-
10,092,578
Mercedes
378,272
-6,004,114
-2,974,379
-
-28,416
8,727,713
99,076
Mitsubishi
1,449,336
1,227,844
203,923
-583,146
-
0
2,297,957
Nissan
18,131,200
19,527,625
-2,567,935
-8,190,124
-
-3,545,570
23,355,196
Porsche
-
426,439
-
-
-426,439
-
Subaru
5,755,171
11,636,165
1,533,010
-491,789
-
-
18,432,557
Suzuki
876,650
-183,097
-
-265,311
-
-428,242
-
Tesla
49,772
10,870,056
17,869,526
-
-
-17,831,311
10,958,043
Toyota
80,435,498
28,579,728
-5,617,632
-29,732,098
-
-10,262,431
63,403,065
Volkswagen
6,613,985
-4,247,836
-1,729,374
-1,442,571
-219,419
4,000,000
2,974,785
Volvo
730,187
-380,789
791,296
-
-85,163
-
1,055,531
All Manufacturers
234,180,339
99,884,317
-4,449,230
-76,040,341
-1,053,168
-310,192
252,211,725
* The transactions do not net to zero due to transactions with small volume manufacturers excluded from this report.
43
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 f^Agency Section 5 Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Table 5.18
Distribution of Credits by Expiration Date (Mg)
Manufacturer
Final 2018 Credit
Balance
Credits Expiring in Credits Expiring in Credits Expiring in
2021 2022 2023
Deficit Carried
1 year
Deficit Carried
2 years
BMW
6,424,927
2,623,676
3,656,011
145,240
BYD Motors
5,568
4,871
529
168
FCA
23,518,286
12,870,920
2,419,871
8,227,495
Ford
12,626,212
12,626,212
0
0
GM
18,084,478
15,044,507
2,286,419
753,552
Honda
40,485,044
27,814,774
4,071,997
8,598,273
Hyundai
15,176,889
15,176,889
0
0
Jaguar Land Rover
-151,826
0
0
0
-5,581
-146,245
Karma Automotive
56,011
56,011
0
0
Kia
3,317,348
3,317,348
0
0
Mazda
10,092,578
9,724,291
171,051
197,236
Mercedes
99,076
99,076
0
0
Mitsubishi
2,297,957
1,922,105
171,929
203,923
Nissan
23,355,196
22,846,419
508,777
0
Subaru
18,432,557
12,706,379
3,191,237
2,534,941
Tesla
10,958,043
0
2,316,012
8,642,031
Toyota
63,403,065
59,063,588
2,228,712
2,110,765
Volkswagen
2,974,785
1,730,640
0
1,244,145
Volvo
1,055,531
0
264,235
791,296
All Manufacturers
252,211,725
197,627,706
21,286,780
33,449,065
-5,581
-146,245
44
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 ** Agency Appendix Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Appendix Table A.l
Comparison of Preliminary and Final Real-World
Fuel Economy Values (mpg)
Preliminary
Final Minus
Model Year
Value
Final Value
Preliminary
2011
22.8
22.3
-0.5
2012
23.8
23.6
-0.2
2013
24.0
24.2
0.2
2014
24.2
24.1
-0.1
2015
24.7
24.6
-0.2
2016
25.6
24.7
-0.9
2017
25.2
24.9
-0.3
2018
25.4
25.1
-0.3
2019 (prelim)
25.5
-
-
45
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 ** Agency Appendix Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Appendix Table C.l
Fuel Economy Metrics for the Model Year 2018 Toyota Prius Eco
Fuel Economy Metric
City/Highway
Purpose Weighting Test Basis
Fuel Economy Value (MPG)
City/Hwy City Hwy
2-cycle Test
(unadjusted)
Label
Estimated Real-
World
Basis for manufacturer
55%/45% 2-cycle
compliance with standards
Consumer information to
55%/45% 5-cycle
compare individual vehicles
Best estimate of real-world
43%/57% 5-cycle
performance
81 84 78
56 58 53
55 58 53
46
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 ** Agency Appendix Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Appendix Table E.l
Model Year 2019 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Powertrain and Range
Manufacturer
Model
Fuel or
Powertrain
Alternative Fuel
Range (miles)*
Total Range
(miles)
Utility
Factor
BMW
13
EV
153
153
-
BMW
13s
EV
153
153
-
BYD Motors
e6
EV
187
187
-
FCA
500e
EV
84
84
-
GM
Bolt
EV
238
238
-
Honda
Clarity
EV
89
89
-
Hyundai
loniq
EV
124
124
-
Hyundai
Kona
EV
258
258
-
Jaguar Land Rover
l-Pace
EV
234
234
-
Kia
Niro
EV
239
239
-
Kia
Soul
EV
111
111
-
Mercedes
smart EQfortwo (convertible)
EV
57
57
-
Mercedes
smart EQ fortwo (coupe)
EV
58
58
-
Nissan
Leaf 40kWh
EV
150
150
-
Nissan
Leaf 62kWh
EV
226
226
-
Nissan
Leaf SV/SL 62 kWh
EV
215
215
-
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range
EV
325
325
-
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range AWD
EV
310
310
-
Tesla
Model 3 LongRange AWD Performance
EV
310
310
-
Tesla
Model 3 Mid Range
EV
264
264
-
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range
EV
220
220
-
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range Plus
EV
240
240
-
Tesla
Model S100D AWD
EV
335
335
-
Tesla
Model S75D AWD
EV
259
259
-
Tesla
Model S Long Range AWD
EV
370
370
-
Tesla
Model S Performance (19" Wheels)
EV
345
345
-
Tesla
Model S Performance (21" Wheels)
EV
325
325
-
Tesla
Model S Standard Range AWD
EV
285
285
-
Tesla
Model X 100D AWD
EV
295
295
-
Tesla
Model X75D AWD
EV
238
238
-
Tesla
Model X Long Range AWD
EV
325
325
-
Tesla
Model XP100D AWD
EV
289
289
-
Tesla
Model X Performance (22" Wheels)
EV
270
270
-
VW
e-Golf
EV
125
125
-
VW
e-tron
EV
204
204
-
Honda
Clarity
FCV
360
360
-
Hyundai
Nexo
FCV
354
354
-
Hyundai
Nexo Blue
FCV
380
380
-
Toyota
Mirai
FCV
312
312
-
BMW
530e
PHEV
16
360
0.39
47
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 ** Agency Appendix Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Manufacturer
Model
Fuel or
Powertrain
Alternative Fuel
Range (miles)*
Total Range
(miles)
Utility
Factor
BMW
530e xDrive
PHEV
15
360
0.37
BMW
740e xDrive
PHEV
14
340
0.36
BMW
13 with Range Extender
PHEV
126
200
0.92
BMW
13s with Range Extender
PHEV
126
200
0.92
BMW
18 Coupe
PHEV
18
320
0.42
BMW
18 Roadster
PHEV
18
320
0.42
BMW
Mini Cooper SE Countryman AII4
PHEV
12
270
0.32
FCA
Pacifica
PHEV
32
520
0.61
Ford
Fusion Energi
PHEV
26
610
0.54
Ford
Fusion Special Service Vehicle PHEV
PHEV
26
610
0.54
GM
Volt
PHEV
53
420
0.76
Honda
Clarity
PHEV
48
340
0.73
Hyundai
loniq
PHEV
29
630
0.57
Hyundai
Sonata
PHEV
28
600
0.56
Kia
Niro
PHEV
26
560
0.54
Kia
Optima
PHEV
29
610
0.57
Mercedes
GLC 350e 4MATIC
PHEV
10
350
0.33
Mitsubishi
Outlander
PHEV
22
310
0.49
Subaru
Crosstrek AWD
PHEV
17
480
0.42
Toyota
Prius Prime
PHEV
25
640
0.53
Volvo
S60 AWD
PHEV
22
520
0.48
Volvo
S90 AWD
PHEV
21
490
0.48
Volvo
XC60 AWD
PHEV
17
500
0.41
Volvo
XC90 AWD
PHEV
17
490
0.40
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid
PHEV
14
490
0.36
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid Executive
PHEV
14
490
0.36
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid ST
PHEV
14
490
0.36
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid
PHEV
14
450
0.35
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid Exec
PHEV
14
450
0.35
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid ST
PHEV
14
450
0.35
48
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
^FIhI a Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Appendix Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Appendix Table E.2
Model Year 2019 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Fuel Economy Label Metrics
Manufacturer
Model
Fuel or
Powertrain
Charge Depleting
Charge
Sustaining
Overall Fuel
Economy
(mpge)
Electricity
(kW-hrs/
100 miles)
Gasoline
(gallons/
100 miles)
Fuel
Economy
(mpge)
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
BMW
13
EV
30
-
113
-
113
BMW
13s
EV
30
-
113
-
113
BYD Motors
e6
EV
47
-
72
-
72
FCA
500e
EV
30
-
112
-
112
GM
Bolt
EV
28
-
119
-
119
Honda
Clarity
EV
30
-
114
-
114
Hyundai
loniq
EV
25
-
136
-
136
Hyundai
Kona
EV
28
-
120
-
120
Jaguar Land Rover
l-Pace
EV
44
-
76
-
76
Kia
Niro
EV
30
-
112
-
112
Kia
Soul
EV
31
-
108
-
107
Mercedes
smart EQfortwo (convertible)
EV
33
-
102
-
102
Mercedes
smart EQfortwo (coupe)
EV
31
-
108
-
108
Nissan
Leaf 40kWh
EV
30
-
112
-
112
Nissan
Leaf 62kWh
EV
31
-
108
-
108
Nissan
Leaf SV/SL 62 kWh
EV
32
-
104
-
104
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range
EV
26
-
130
-
130
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range AWD
EV
29
-
116
-
116
Tesla
Model 3 LongRange AWD Performance
EV
29
-
116
-
116
Tesla
Model 3 Mid Range
EV
27
-
123
-
123
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range
EV
26
-
131
-
131
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range Plus
EV
25
-
133
-
133
Tesla
Model S100D AWD
EV
33
-
102
-
102
Tesla
Model S75D AWD
EV
33
-
103
-
103
Tesla
Model S Long Range AWD
EV
30
-
111
-
111
Tesla
Model S Performance (19" Wheels)
EV
32
-
104
-
104
Tesla
Model S Performance (21" Wheels)
EV
35
-
97
-
97
Tesla
Model S Standard Range AWD
EV
31
-
109
-
109
Tesla
Model X100D AWD
EV
39
-
87
-
87
Tesla
Model X75D AWD
EV
36
-
93
-
93
Tesla
Model X Long Range AWD
EV
35
-
96
-
96
Tesla
Model XP100D AWD
EV
40
-
85
-
85
Tesla
Model X Performance (22" Wheels)
EV
43
-
79
-
79
VW
e-Golf
EV
28
-
119
-
119
VW
e-tron
EV
46
-
74
-
74
Honda
Clarity
FCV
66
-
68
-
68
Hyundai
Nexo
FCV
56
-
57
-
57
Hyundai
Nexo Blue
FCV
60
-
61
-
61
Toyota
Mirai
FCV
66
-
67
-
67
BMW
530e
PHEV
46
0.0
72
29
37
49
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
^FIhI a Agency
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Appendix Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Manufacturer
Model
Fuel or
Powertrain
Charge Depleting
Charge
Sustaining
Overall Fuel
Economy
(mpge)
Electricity
(kW-hrs/
100 miles)
Gasoline
(gallons/
100 miles)
Fuel
Economy
(mpge)
Fuel
Economy
(mpg)
BMW
530e xDrive
PHEV
49
0.0
67
28
36
BMW
740e xDrive
PHEV
52
0.0
64
27
33
BMW
13 with Range Extender
PHEV
32
0.0
100
31
86
BMW
13s with Range Extender
PHEV
32
0.0
100
31
86
BMW
18 Coupe
PHEV
49
0.0
69
27
36
BMW
18 Roadster
PHEV
49
0.0
69
27
36
BMW
Mini Cooper SE Countryman AII4
PHEV
51
0.0
65
27
33
FCA
Pacifica
PHEV
41
0.0
82
30
48
Ford
Fusion Energi
PHEV
33
0.0
103
42
61
Ford
Fusion Special Service Vehicle PHEV
PHEV
33
0.0
102
42
60
GM
Volt
PHEV
31
0.0
106
42
79
Honda
Clarity
PHEV
31
0.0
110
42
76
Hyundai
loniq
PHEV
28
0.0
119
52
76
Hyundai
Sonata
PHEV
34
0.0
99
39
59
Kia
Niro
PHEV
32
0.0
105
46
66
Kia
Optima
PHEV
33
0.0
103
40
61
Mercedes
GLC 350e 4MATIC
PHEV
59
0.0
56
25
31
Mitsubishi
Outlander
PHEV
45
0.0
74
25
38
Subaru
Crosstrek AWD
PHEV
38
0.0
90
35
46
Toyota
Prius Prime
PHEV
25
0.0
133
54
78
Volvo
S60 AWD
PHEV
43
0.1
74
31
43
Volvo
S90 AWD
PHEV
45
0.1
71
29
41
Volvo
XC60 AWD
PHEV
55
0.1
58
26
33
Volvo
XC90 AWD
PHEV
55
0.1
58
25
33
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid
PHEV
65
0.0
51
23
28
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid Executive
PHEV
65
0.0
51
23
28
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid ST
PHEV
65
0.0
51
23
28
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid
PHEV
66
0.1
48
20
25
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid Exec
PHEV
66
0.1
48
20
25
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid ST
PHEV
66
0.1
48
20
25
50
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 ** Agency Appendix Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Appendix Table E.3
Model Year 2019 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Label Tailpipe C02 Emissions Metrics
Fuel or
Tailpipe C02
Manufacturer
Model
Powertrain
(g/mile)
BMW
13
EV
0
BMW
13s
EV
0
BYD Motors
e6
EV
0
FCA
500e
EV
0
GM
Bolt
EV
0
Honda
Clarity
EV
0
Hyundai
loniq
EV
0
Hyundai
Kona
EV
0
Jaguar Land Rover
l-Pace
EV
0
Kia
Niro
EV
0
Kia
Soul
EV
0
Mercedes
smart EQfortwo (convertible)
EV
0
Mercedes
smart EQ fortwo (coupe)
EV
0
Nissan
Leaf 40kWh
EV
0
Nissan
Leaf 62kWh
EV
0
Nissan
Leaf SV/SL 62 kWh
EV
0
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range
EV
0
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model 3 LongRange AWD Performance
EV
0
Tesla
Model 3 Mid Range
EV
0
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range
EV
0
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range Plus
EV
0
Tesla
Model S 100D AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model S75D AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model S Long Range AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model S Performance (19" Wheels)
EV
0
Tesla
Model S Performance (21" Wheels)
EV
0
Tesla
Model S Standard Range AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model X100D AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model X75D AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model X Long Range AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model X P100D AWD
EV
0
Tesla
Model X Performance (22" Wheels)
EV
0
VW
e-Golf
EV
0
VW
e-tron
EV
0
Honda
Clarity
FCV
0
Hyundai
Nexo
FCV
0
Hyundai
Nexo Blue
FCV
0
Toyota
Mirai
FCV
0
BMW
530e
PHEV
193
51
-------
S CPA Environmental Protection 2019 Automotive Trends Report Office of Transportation and Air Quality
^#11 ** Agency Appendix Tables EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Fuel or
Tailpipe C02
Manufacturer
Model
Powertrain
(g/mile)
BMW
530e xDrive
PHEV
200
BMW
740e xDrive
PHEV
214
BMW
13 with Range Extender
PHEV
22
BMW
13s with Range Extender
PHEV
22
BMW
18 Coupe
PHEV
191
BMW
18 Roadster
PHEV
191
BMW
Mini Cooper SE Countryman AII4
PHEV
223
FCA
Pacifica
PHEV
119
Ford
Fusion Energi
PHEV
99
Ford
Fusion Special Service Vehicle PHEV
PHEV
101
GM
Volt
PHEV
51
Honda
Clarity
PHEV
57
Hyundai
loniq
PHEV
74
Hyundai
Sonata
PHEV
100
Kia
Niro
PHEV
90
Kia
Optima
PHEV
97
Mercedes
GLC 350e 4MATIC
PHEV
235
Mitsubishi
Outlander
PHEV
174
Subaru
CrosstrekAWD
PHEV
151
Toyota
Prius Prime
PHEV
78
Volvo
S60 AWD
PHEV
149
Volvo
S90 AWD
PHEV
165
Volvo
XC60 AWD
PHEV
210
Volvo
XC90 AWD
PHEV
216
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid
PHEV
255
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid Executive
PHEV
255
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid ST
PHEV
255
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid
PHEV
289
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid Exec
PHEV
289
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid ST
PHEV
289
52
-------
United Stater
fbKHu Frtvironmfmal Protection
I M * Afluncy
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Appendix Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Appendix Table E.4
Model Year 2019 EV and PHEV Upstream C02 Emission Metrics Metrics (g/mi)
Manufacturer
Model
Regulatory
Class
Fuel or
Powertrain
Tailpipe & Total Upstream C02
Tailpipe & Net Upstream C02
Low
(g/mile)
Avg.
(g/mile)
High
(g/mile)
Low
(g/mile)
Avg.
(g/mile)
High
(g/mile)
BMW
13
Car
EV
76
141
242
19
83
184
BMW
13s
Car
EV
76
141
242
19
83
184
BYD Motors
e6
Car
EV
119
221
378
58
160
317
FCA
500e
Car
EV
77
142
243
22
87
188
GM
Bolt
Car
EV
72
134
230
16
77
173
Honda
Clarity
Car
EV
76
140
240
13
77
177
Hyundai
loniq
Car
EV
64
118
203
4
58
142
Hyundai
Kona
Car
EV
72
132
227
13
73
168
Jaguar Land Rover
l-Pace
Car
EV
113
209
359
43
139
289
Kia
Niro
Car
EV
77
142
243
16
81
183
Kia
Soul
Car
EV
80
148
253
22
89
195
Mercedes
smart EQfortwo (convertible)
Car
EV
84
156
268
30
101
213
Mercedes
smart EQfortwo (coupe)
Car
EV
79
147
251
25
92
197
Nissan
Leaf 40kWh
Car
EV
77
143
245
18
83
185
Nissan
Leaf 62kWh
Car
EV
79
147
251
20
87
192
Nissan
Leaf SV/SL 62 kWh
Car
EV
83
153
262
23
93
202
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range
Car
EV
66
122
210
1
57
144
Tesla
Model 3 Long Range AWD
Car
EV
74
137
235
9
72
169
Tesla
Model 3 LongRange AWD Performance
Car
EV
74
137
235
9
72
169
Tesla
Model 3 Mid Range
Car
EV
70
130
223
5
65
157
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range
Car
EV
66
122
208
0
56
143
Tesla
Model 3 Standard Range Plus
Car
EV
65
120
206
0
55
140
Tesla
Model S 100D AWD
Car
EV
85
157
269
14
86
198
Tesla
Model S75D AWD
Car
EV
84
154
265
12
83
193
Tesla
Model S Long Range AWD
Car
EV
77
143
246
6
72
174
Tesla
Model S Performance (19" Wheels)
Car
EV
83
153
263
12
82
192
Tesla
Model S Performance (21" Wheels)
Car
EV
89
164
282
18
93
211
Tesla
Model S Standard Range AWD
Car
EV
79
146
250
8
75
179
Tesla
Model X 100D AWD
Car
EV
99
183
314
26
110
241
Tesla
Model X 100D AWD
Truck
EV
99
183
314
10
94
225
Tesla
Model X75D AWD
Car
EV
93
171
294
20
99
221
Tesla
Model X75D AWD
Truck
EV
93
171
294
4
83
205
Tesla
Model X Long Range AWD
Car
EV
90
166
284
17
93
211
Tesla
Model X Long Range AWD
Truck
EV
90
166
284
1
77
195
Tesla
Model X P100D AWD
Car
EV
101
187
321
29
114
248
Tesla
Model X P100D AWD
Truck
EV
101
187
321
12
98
232
Tesla
Model X Performance (22" Wheels)
Car
EV
110
202
347
37
130
274
Tesla
Model X Performance (22" Wheels)
Truck
EV
110
202
347
21
114
258
VW
e-Golf
Car
EV
73
134
230
15
77
173
VW
e-tron
Car
EV
117
216
370
48
147
301
BMW
530e
Car
PHEV
287
326
386
212
251
311
BMW
530e xDrive
Car
PHEV
297
336
398
221
261
322
BMW
740e xDrive
Car
PHEV
316
357
420
235
276
340
BMW
13 with Range Extender
Car
PHEV
103
167
266
44
108
208
BMW
13s with Range Extender
Car
PHEV
103
167
266
44
108
208
BMW
18 Coupe
Car
PHEV
291
336
406
215
260
330
53
-------
United Stater
fbKHu Frtvironmfmal Protection
I M * Afluncy
2019 Automotive Trends Report
Appendix Tables
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
EPA-420-R-20-006
March 2020
Manufacturer
Model
Regulatory
Class
Fuel or
Powertrain
Tailpipe & Total Upstream C02
Tailpipe & Net Upstream C02
Low
(g/mile)
Avg.
(g/mile)
High
(g/mile)
Low
(g/mile)
Avg.
(g/mile)
High
(g/mile)
BMW
18 Roadster
Car
PHEV
291
336
406
215
260
330
BMW
Mini Cooper SE Countryman AII4
Car
PHEV
321
356
412
246
281
337
FCA
Pacifica
Truck
PHEV
213
267
351
126
180
265
Ford
Fusion Energi
Car
PHEV
170
208
269
110
148
209
Ford
Fusion Special Service Vehicle PHEV
Car
PHEV
172
211
271
112
150
211
GM
Volt
Car
PHEV
124
176
256
66
117
197
Honda
Clarity
Car
PHEV
129
178
255
69
119
195
Hyundai
loniq
Car
PHEV
134
168
222
80
115
169
Hyundai
Sonata
Car
PHEV
174
216
281
113
154
219
Kia
Niro
Car
PHEV
157
194
253
101
139
197
Kia
Optima
Car
PHEV
170
211
274
108
149
213
Mercedes
GLC 350e 4MATIC
Truck
PHEV
344
386
452
256
299
365
Mitsubishi
Outlander
Truck
PHEV
274
321
396
194
242
316
Subaru
Crosstrek AWD
Truck
PHEV
229
264
317
161
195
249
Toyota
Prius Prime
Car
PHEV
131
160
205
80
109
154
Volvo
S60 AWD
Car
PHEV
239
284
354
172
217
286
Volvo
S90 AWD
Car
PHEV
261
308
380
187
234
306
Volvo
XC60 AWD
Truck
PHEV
320
368
444
233
282
357
Volvo
XC90 AWD
Truck
PHEV
327
375
450
238
286
361
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid
Car
PHEV
378
429
508
290
340
419
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid Executive
Car
PHEV
378
429
508
288
339
418
VW
Panamera 4 e-Hybrid ST
Car
PHEV
378
429
508
290
340
419
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid
Car
PHEV
421
472
551
324
375
454
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid Exec
Car
PHEV
421
472
551
323
374
453
VW
Panamera Turbo S e-Hybrid ST
Car
PHEV
421
472
551
324
375
454
Average Car
Car
366
366
366
293
293
293
54
------- |