New Fuel Economy Stickers

[Gaspar]

Yesterday Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood unveiled the new required fuel economy stickers for cars and trucks.

Beginning with cars and trucks from model year 2013, fuel costs and comparisons of environmental impact to other vehicles will be displayed on the decals, which were developed by the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The labels must be affixed to all new vehicles, including those that run on gasoline, diesel, electricity or a mix. Authorities ditched a proposal to use letter grades after intense opposition from automakers.

"Reducing our consumption and demand for oil is the best way to reduce upward pressure on fuel prices," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. "The old cars have become outdated. A new generation of cars requires a new generation of fuel economy labels."

The new decals will display a plethora of details. The estimated annual fuel cost is there. So are the standard miles-per-gallon figures for city and highway driving.

New features, however, include the amount of fuel or electricity the vehicle will need to go 100 miles, as well as the expected savings or cost of fuel over the next five years compared with the average new vehicle.

Drivers will also be able to see how vehicles stack up against others in smog, tailpipe emissions and fuel economy on a 1-to-10 scale. The miles-per-gallon range for same-class vehicles is included, as is the highest fuel economy among all vehicles, including electrics.

Plug-in hybrids and electric vehicle decals will also show driving range and charging times, as well as a figure for miles-per-gallon equivalent.

I think this is great!  The only funny part of this story is that Ray arrived to the unveiling in his new 12mpg Chevy Suburban LX. 



There's an old saying in sales. . . "Eat your own dog food!" 

[we vs us]

Funny you should bring this up.  Just yesterday . . .

President Obama has ordered agencies to cut fuel use by buying more alternative-fuel vehicles and, in some cases, reduce the size of their fleets.

Obama issued the memo Tuesday as the General Services Administration announced plans to spend $4.3 million to purchase 116 electric vehicles. GSA will rent the cars —101 Chevrolet Volts, 10 Nissan Leafs and five Think City EVs — to 20 federal agencies in five cities across the country. Charging stations to power the cars will be installed in those cities — Washington, San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Detroit.

The new electric cars will save a total of $116,000 annually in fuel costs, according to GSA administrator Martha Johnson.

The federal fleet has more than 662,000 cars, according to data released by GSA in March. About 10,759 are hybrid vehicles, while 158,300 run on a mixture of gasoline and ethanol.

In his memo, Obama ordered all fleet purchases starting in 2015 to be alternative-fuel vehicles. The goal is part of a plan to cut oil imports by one-third over 10 years and make the federal government a leader in developing alternative energy. He also called on agencies to publicly list within six months vehicles they possess that are larger than a midsize sedan or do not meet alternative.

Agencies have nine months to set targets for their optimum fleet size and to post those online. Law enforcement vehicles are exempt from the requirements.

The memo directs GSA to work with agencies to help issue guidance for alternative fuel vehicles for law enforcement.

[carltonplace]

Is that story acurate? Spending $4.3 Million to buy 116 Electric cars to save a total of $116,000 annual fuel costs? if the cost of filling a car is $50 twice a month the total is more like $603,000 per year.

[nathanm]

Presumably they'd be buying new vehicles anyway, so it's more a matter of making GSA buy not-straight-gasoline-only cars. It'll be a good real world test, but somehow I doubt the results will be published so we can all see how the Volt and LEAF compare on cost to run.

[Townsend]

I think this is great!  The only funny part of this story is that Ray arrived to the unveiling in his new 12mpg Chevy Suburban LX. 

There's an old saying in sales. . . "Eat your own dog food!" 

15 city/21 highway

It's right on the sticker.

[Gaspar]

15 city/21 highway

It's right on the sticker.

LOL!  I have an Equinox that advertises 17/24.  I get around 15/21

My Yukon advertised 15 and got about 11.

I've always added a few gallons to the advertised MPG.

[Townsend]

LOL!  I have an Equinox that advertises 17/24.  I get around 15/21

My Yukon advertised 15 and got about 11.

I've always added a few gallons to the advertised MPG.

Lead footing is never recommended.

[Gaspar]

Lead footing is never recommended.

Tulsa driving. . .have to keep swerving to miss the holes.

[Conan71]

Is that story acurate? Spending $4.3 Million to buy 116 Electric cars to save a total of $116,000 annual fuel costs? if the cost of filling a car is $50 twice a month the total is more like $603,000 per year.

Those numbers seem really skewed unless that's all the savings after electrical costs.

While I do applaud the government for trying to lead by example, $116K per year savings while buying cars averaging nearly $40K a copy doesn't seem very thrifty to me.  Seems like they could purchase gas-powered econoboxes which get 30-35 MPG and come up with better savings at a lower acquisition cost.

After a couple of years of excuses as to why I can't ride to work, I finally commuted to work today on my mountain bike.  I left my truck at work so if I do need to get out during the day or if the weather goes to Hell in the afternoon.  Time to get serious about training for the Leadville Trail 100 anyhow, so I will be getting a lot more miles on the mountain bike.  Can't beat the gas mileage on it either!

[nathanm]

Tulsa driving. . .have to keep swerving to miss the holes.

I don't know how the hell you can get worse gas mileage than the ridiculously conservative EPA estimates. I drive like a bat out of hell, but I still get better than the EPA estimate in every car I've driven and kept track of mileage..I did once drive a guy's Suburban from Prescott to Yuma, it may have gotten less than the EPA estimate, it was full when I got it and not empty when I arrived, so I didn't get a chance to check. It's unlikely, though, given that Yuma is downhill from Prescott. You'd be surprised at what a big difference that makes..

Conan, gas prices are only going to increase, barring sudden new refining capacity and a major new discovery of cheap to extract oil, so the economics should improve over the lifetime of the vehicles.

[Conan71]

I don't know how the hell you can get worse gas mileage than the ridiculously conservative EPA estimates. I drive like a bat out of hell, but I still get better than the EPA estimate in every car I've driven and kept track of mileage..I did once drive a guy's Suburban from Prescott to Yuma, it may have gotten less than the EPA estimate, it was full when I got it and not empty when I arrived, so I didn't get a chance to check. It's unlikely, though, given that Yuma is downhill from Prescott. You'd be surprised at what a big difference that makes..

Conan, gas prices are only going to increase, barring sudden new refining capacity and a major new discovery of cheap to extract oil, so the economics should improve over the lifetime of the vehicles.

As they would with gas powered vehicles.  Unfortunately there's no simple magic bullet which makes great economic sense in lowering our demand on foreign oil.  Acquisition cost is still pretty high for hybrid and electric cars.

You seem to be one of the few who can beat the numbers.  My truck has always been at least 3 below in the city and on the highway.  Only place I ever seem to beat them is up in the mountains where you use less gas due to the altitude.  I'm usually right on the numbers or a mile or two short on my Sonata.  There again, I've got a bike rack on the back which creates some drag, so without that, I might be on or slightly above the estimates on every tank.  25/34 I believe is what EPA claims.

[nathanm]

You seem to be one of the few who can beat the numbers.

It probably helps that I have yet to locate the brake pedal...

[we vs us]

The good thing is that a mandate like that on the Fed level will inevitably drive down green tech costs for the rest of us.  That's always been the good news about our government size (I know, ha ha):  the gov is a big enough buyer of just about everything that it can change market dynamics simply by its purchasing power. 

[Conan71]

The good thing is that a mandate like that on the Fed level will inevitably drive down green tech costs for the rest of us.  That's always been the good news about our government size (I know, ha ha):  the gov is a big enough buyer of just about everything that it can change market dynamics simply by its purchasing power. 

Certainly it starts to improve the economy of scale.  116 cars won't make much of a difference, but it's a start in the right direction if one believes that electric cars are really that practical.  I'm still curious why there's not more coming on the hydrogen fuel cell front.

[nathanm]

I'm still curious why there's not more coming on the hydrogen fuel cell front.

Last I looked, the fuel cells degrade rather quickly. Something about the membranes, but I don't recall specifics. Also, there's not really a great source of carbon-free hydrogen. Presently we get most of it from natural gas. Electrolysis would be fine if we had more nuclear, wind, and solar, but it would probably be more efficient to just charge a battery from a wall plug than it would be to make hydrogen and then use a fuel cell to make electricity by burning it.

The oil and gas companies love it, though, because hydrogen keeps them in the loop.