Fuel Economy Rules Set Through 2016 – What it Means for Full-size Pickups
Jason Lancaster | Apr 05, 2010 | Comments 21
On April 1st, the Obama administration released their final rules for vehicle emissions and fuel economy thru the 2016 model year. The big picture is that average vehicle fuel economy (as measured by the EPA) will be somewhere near 35 mpg. However, the actual fuel economy figures are going to very widely from vehicle to vehicle. First, here are some ground rules:
1. The EPA goal is only 29.8 mpg for light trucks. This is a fleet average. Some light trucks will have a higher fuel number and some will have a lower number.
2. The EPA numbers are inflated by as much as 20%. The EPA fuel economy figures are usually 10-20% more optimistic than what people see at the pump. That moves the real world average down to 24-27 mpg (give or take).
3. Individual vehicle requirements will very by ‘footprint.’ If a vehicle is small, it will have a higher than average requirement. If it is big (like a full-size pickup) it will be lower. The regs say that trucks with a footprint larger than 66 square feet will not be granted a ‘break’ on the fuel economy requirement. This likely means that full-size trucks are done growing in size and might even shrink – the smallest Tundra has a footprint of 116 70 square feet (footprint is defined as width x wheelbase, not overall length).
4. Fleet averages are still in use and separated by car and trucks. An automaker’s fuel economy rating is based on the performance of their fleet of cars and their fleet of trucks. The combined fleet has to meet the standards, but each individual fleet has to meet the standards as well.
5. Credits can be traded between cars and trucks. Toyota, for example, might be able to exceed the federal standards in their fleet of cars and use the excess as a ‘credit’ towards their truck fleet.
What This Means For Full-Size Trucks
Fuel economy will be the hot topic in trucks for the next 5 years. Manufacturers are going to have to work very hard to maintain truck capability while also improving fuel economy and emissions performance. There will be plenty to talk about over the next few years, but here are some big picture predictions:
Lots of technology will be added across the board. There’s a long list of possibilities and each manufacturer will take their own path to get where they need to be. Still, here are some things you can expect to see on new trucks over the next 6 years:
- Crappy ‘low rolling resistance’ tires and zero-weight full synthetic oil. Both of these changes are quick and easy ways to improve fuel economy at a low cost. Truck owners won’t like low rolling resistance tires when they go off-road, and low-rolling resistance tires don’t stop your vehicle that well, but it’s all about the fuel economy, right? (sarcasm intended)
- Variable valve lift, cylinder deactivation, and stop-start. Since Toyota already uses a sophisticated VVT-i system on the Tundra, adding their variable valve lift system (known as Valvematic) should be easy enough. Adding cylinder deactivation, however, will be tricky and costly. Dodge and GM already have cylinder deactivation systems, but they’ll need to totally revamp their truck engines to get any sort of variable valve lift system in place. Ford is ahead in a lot of ways with their EcoBoost engines, but they’ll need to add features as well. Finally, no truck manufacturer has an engine stop-start system currently [stop-start shuts off the engine during idle] but there’s a good chance it’s coming on all trucks (all vehicles in fact).
- Electric steering and more efficient alternators. Electric steering isn’t necessarily bad, but more efficient alternators aren’t going to be popular with people who need extra electric power to run winches, lighting, and big stereo systems.
- Weight reduction. Vehicle weight reduction is incredibly difficult because it requires manufacturers to spend a lot more money on materials. Technologically it’s a simple matter to reduce the weight of a modern vehicle by 50%…economically, it’s incredibly difficult to cut weight by as little as 10%.
- Better aerodynamics. A lot of truck’s aerodynamic drag comes from underneath. Partially, high ground clearance is to blame, and it’s likely that ground clearance figures will decline somewhat. Front grille slats that automatically open and close are also an interesting idea being kicked around.
- 7 or 8 speed automatics and dual-clutch 6 speed transmissions. Dual clutch transmissions are essentially two gearboxes side by side with electronic controls, and they’re more efficient than automatic transmissions. However, automatics with 7 or 8 gears might be cheaper and better at managing a lot of torque while still boosting efficiency.
- Smaller engines. It’s highly likely we’ll see more emphasis on V6 pickups. Ford has hinted that they’ll offer a version of their 4cylinder EcoBoost engine in the F150 at some point. It’s likely that some or all of the following engines – the 5.7L Hemi, 5.7 Tundra, 6.2 GM, and 5.6 Titan – will cease to exist in the next 4-6 years. Hopefully, these engines can be improved, but at this point the wind isn’t blowing in that direction.
When everything falls into place, brand new 2016 full-size trucks will get about 20-24 mpg in the ‘real world’ as opposed to 15-18 mpg now. Hopefully, these trucks will do everything the current models can do and only cost slightly more…just kidding.
It’s most likely that trucks will get less powerful in the short term – do you think it’s worth trading power for better fuel economy?
Filed Under: Auto News
Jason..I think the real question would be the price of gas in 4-5 years. Six extra mpg does make a difference at five bucks a gallon. Its that fuzzy math thing…lol. Toyota’s got plenty of challenges to face, I hope they can weather this storm (16 Million CP, wrongful death, and possible criminal charges). However, getting back to the aforementioned fuel economy, I’ve always felt the oil companies have had a hand in the auto fuel economy. With that said, bring on the race for the best truck!!!
I’m just waiting to see how the costs of doing this get passed on to the consumer. It’s all possible and it can all happen, but in the end, it’s the CONSUMER that always pays monetarily and still ends up with less than great product/service.
“Ford has hinted that they’ll offer a version of their 4cylinder EcoBoost engine in the F150 at some point.”
The only problem i see with that is, what is the point in putting a 4cyl. engine in a fullsize pickup truck? Wont that burn more fuel since that tiny 4cyl has to work harder to get the truck moving and then what about those day’s when it comes time to do yard work? Like say getting some heavy stepping stones from the home depot, we bought about 50 of those for the backyard, and i definitely felt a different engine response from the V6 in my taco from all that weight in the bed, i wouldnt say it was underpowered or anything, but it sure did feel different.
It makes sense to have a 4cyl in a base model tacoma or ford ranger, but in a F-150? That doesnt seem very smart to me.
Rich – Very true. If gas is expensive enough, a lot of fuel economy technologies become feasible.
TXTee – That’s a great point. All the documents released by the federal government say that adding these technologies will only add $1,000 to the price of a new vehicle…but that’s not including the cost of developing all this technology. It’s just the parts cost. I think that we’ll see trucks be about 20% better in terms of fuel economy, but at least 10% more expensive. As for the Corolla, if you can live with less space, it’s a great way to save a lot of money.
Jr – Ford’s EcoBoost 4cyl is supposed to be the equivalent of a V6 in terms of performance. I think the trouble in a turbo 4cyl truck would be when it was fully loaded – not a lot of torque to get going. Still, the 2.3L Ranger sells pretty decently, and it’s rated to haul over 1,000 lbs.
I think a 4cyl *can* work, but I’m not sure that anyone will enjoy it. Ford is killing the Ranger, and a lightweight F150 with an EcoBoost 4 banger seems like a likely replacement.
Ahhh jason that makes so much more sense!
Im with you on the enjoyment. I hate driving 4cyl cars because car manufacturers seem to love to put 4cyl engines in heavy vehicles. My favorite case and point is the toyota camry…
Isn’t this a repeat of the 60’s and70’s with the gas crunch that killed the muscle cars?
Jason,
This is a very political and big business blog. It’s amazing that even when oil prices drop, our own American refineries cut production to keep prices high. You can blame the economic woes on the oil companies, refineries as well as Greenspan and Clinton (but i won’t start a whole new debate here).
Yes, if gas prices keep going up, 5 mpgs means a whole lot. And yes, this looks a lot like the oil cruch of the 70’s (death of the muscle cars) and the overinflated oil prices of the early 2000’s (death of the SUV). But as soon as prices settled down, everybody went right back to the big gas hogs.
Now, averages for a fleet of trucks…. before this year, chevy considered my HHR a truck to improve their cafe average. It’s now considered a car…finally. Is this cheating??
Also, i always though GM should chop the back end of the HHR off and make a lightweight pickup truck. It would be great, 1000 pounds towing and ?? cargo. Not everyone needs a mid or full size truck. Maybe this will get Scion to produce the XB concept truck. Then i can have a big Tundra and a small XB truck. Each one for a particular need. Just my thoughts. My hhr can get 32mpg at 70 mph carrying 5-7 hundred pounds of cargo to a job site but it sure cant carry full sheets of plyboard. LOL.
Jr – I agree, but it seems inevitable.
Tom – Possible. On one hand, the regs are pretty tough. On the other, new technology and ‘credits’ from plug-in electric vehicles could allow automakers to keep on building powerful pickups that don’t get great gas mileage. If anyone could figure out how to get HCCI working in a pickup truck, hitting the fuel economy figures would be relatively easy. https://www.tundraheadquarters.com/blog/2009/03/27/what-is-hcci-engine/
Danny – Thanks (I hope). I try not to make things too political here, but I guess it comes out. Anyways…I think oil is only going to get more expensive for the next few years – at least until someone makes the fuel cell or the electric plug-in more feasible (or figures out how to make gasoline synthetically using algae or bacteria or Santa’s elves). Still, I’ve never been convinced that high gas prices will hurt truck sales too much. As long as there are ATVs, dirt bikes, RVs, and millions of acres of national forest people are going to want a big pickup to go and do things. As to your point about a little compact truck, I think you’re absolutely right. PickupTrucks.com has hinted that Toyota will produce the Scion pickup, and Mahindra’s little diesel is (supposedly) debuting next year. Both of these will be smaller trucks with decent capability. As you say, they’ll do a lot of the things a big pickup can do, but they can’t do them all. Full-size forever! 🙂
Jason,
with the rise in gas prices, i debated getting a tacoma instead of the Tundra but the v6 taco’s mpg wasnt that different from the Tundra with the 4.6 v8. The 4cylinder Ranger and Taco get something like 26mpg but it cant pull my trailers. I do see a drop in fullsize truck sales for customers that dont really have a need for them. There are a lot of people that think big trucks are status symbols. There will always be a need for full size trucks on farms and construction sites. I also know several full size truck owners that have atv’s and such that have downsized to the nissan frontier. So…. it’s still debateable over the rise or fall of the full size truck as gas prices increase. As i mentioned before, we bought the HHR to save gas on the smaller cargo runs. in the last 2 months, we’ve put 1400 miles on the tundra and 7500 miles on the HHR. We try our best to only use the beast when we have too. This sucks since i really enjoy driving my Tundra but the all might dollar is making the decisions right now:(
Danny – Your experience with the Taco vs. the Tundra is very, very common. I’m thinking that manufacturers will probably tighten up the fuel economy a little more on the smaller trucks, but at the end of the day I don’t know if the so-called ‘compact’ truck will ever be significantly more fuel efficient than a full-size.
##
Incidentally, I think we’ll see full-size trucks remain status symbols for the foreseeable future, and here’s why: They’re incredibly inexpensive when compared to a similar luxury car or SUV. A loaded out Tundra Limited Crew costs $50k. A base model LandCruiser costs $67k. A premium GX is $57k. I think a lot of men view a luxury pickup as the ‘moderate’ choice for a luxury vehicle, and gas that costs $5-7 per gallon isn’t a deterrent to those buyers. The growth in the luxury pickup market – be they full-size or heavy duty – is pretty understandable in my mind. Given the choice between a $70k luxury auto and a $50k luxury pickup, I’d get the pickup every time. Now at $150k, I’d got get a 911 Turbo convertible…scratch that. I’d buy a used 07′ or 08′ Tundra and put the rest towards my mortgage. 🙂
I think that having a full size truck with all the options is alot better than having a premium car or SUV. I can get right now 22mpg+. It depends on how I feel like driving. Also you have the 5 star crash test protection around you and still have a bed to load and haul whenever needed. My EPA sticker had 16 – 20mpg city and highway. In a year or two the truck will be paid off. My options can be get a Platinum or maintain the one I got with a little more mods to it and not having a note which can be used for that $5-7 a gallon gas price. Right now I’m trying to get on with a job only as mile away instead of 30 miles one way. Gas savings would be extremely nice since I would probably ride my bike instead.
I think it is fine to trade a few hp/torque numbers for better fuel economy within reason. I could easily live with a 4.6L tundra generating 300 hp/325 lbs. of torque ONLY if I get 22 mpg hwy. miles in real world driving. The way the price increase goes up each year 3-4% (Toyota and others are being sneaky and only doing a 1-2% increase 2-3 times per year and not 1 big jump all at once anymore), I foresee pretty soon the way I like my 1/2 ton tundras that they will be out of my price range to buy in a few more years. I spent 30K on my 2010 tundra DC 5.7L, and I always said I will not spend more on a vehicle than what I make in a year. That time has come now and if 30K x 3% increase = 900 bucks each more out of my pocket to buy a new vehicle, it will be out of most people’s price range. Seriously, how can vehicle mfgs. expect the average Joe to afford these vehicles going up every year at least 600-1200 bucks depending on model? Most of our paychecks are strapped the way it is now with satellite TV going up, utilities, and everything else we like to have each month. Sorry, in 10 years I suspect a 2020 tundra like mine equipped in 2010 will be 40K selling price and I know my paycheck in 10 years will not go up 10 grand more per year. From say 1990 to 2010, my hourly increase, and several others in my area, has only gone up say 5 bucks per hour in what, 20 years of working. This economy cannot and I fear will not support these type of yearly price increases in new vehicles for much longer.
I’m not in the new car market and won’t be for quite a while so it all depends on the consumer need as well. I bought a motorcycle years ago when gas prices creeped up and that has worked well. I also have other vehicles that burn less gas but I like to “mall crawl” in my truck when it’s not toting pets, something dirty, or a motorcycle, etc. And I totally agree with MK on the inflation of costs but not pay. Just have to wait and see in time but for now I’d seriously consider investing in maintaining and caring for your current vehicle because you may not be able to afford one of the future.
Mickey – You make a great point about the safety and security benefits of owing a truck as well. That’s another reason that people choose to buy big trucks instead of fancy cars and SUVs.
##
mk – Your point about trading capability for fuel economy is well taken. Chevy’s 5.3 is a good example of a popular engine that gets good mileage but that’s not too powerful, so I think a lot of people feel the same way. As for pricing, I agree completely. A basic new truck is $35k – that’s ridiculous considering a basic new car costs $15k, and a nice used truck costs $20k. Either new cars and used trucks are too cheap, or new trucks are getting really expensive.
##
TXTee – You’ve hit on a big trend in the last few years. Better vehicle quality means that used vehicles aren’t as much of a crap shoot, and certified used programs are beginning to present a credible alternative to buying new. Taking care of your vehicle for a long time – or buying a used vehicle that someone else cared for – is a smart way to save money.
MK, The trade off is fine. I had a used d/c 5.7 for a few months and traded it back and bought a new d/c 4.6 4×4. The 5.7 was just overkill. The 4.6 is very respectful in power and more than capable. mpg isnt that much better but it works for me. I also agree that the prices for a work truck is far past the means of a working man. I held on to my z71 for 15 years basically because it was a reliable truck but also because i was too cheap to buy another. Unfortunately with its age and slow deterioration, i had to buy something to replace it. If it wasnt for that, i’d still be trying to get every dime out of her. 1995 Z-71 sticker plice was 26k, my new 2010 Tundra sticker was 33k. thats an increase of 466 bucks a year and the new Tundra is not quite equiped as the old z was, but close.
Mickey, i agree there too. I perfer a truck anyway. I’d rather have a multi-function vehicle than a car that just carries passengers. even our HHR is a cargo wagon/people mover
Jason, I have to admit that a little ego was envolved with our purchase of the Tundra. I could have easily bought a less expensive Frontier with a v-6 and made it work but there is nothin’ like a full size truck to work and play in. As for our previous conversation about gas prices, i find it amazing that sooo many people will complain about the price of gas but will leave their vehicles running while they run inside a store to shop. What ticks me off even more, the other night i was fueling up the hhr for a working roadtrip and another car pulls up next to my car. lets say 2-3 minutes pass while filling up. as i try to get in my car, her car is still running and she’s yammering on her cell phone and then she sticks her head out of the car and begged for a few bucks for gasoline. If she needs money for gas so bad, she need to shut the car off and sell the darn phone! So, maybe the cost of gas wont change our wasteful habits.
danny – Isn’t that the truth. Frankly, that’s why I’m in favor of a gas tax. People that are smart and efficient about their fuel use can plan their errands, maybe car pool once in a while, etc., and cover most (if not all) of the “extra” costs. However, people who don’t plan, don’t take care of their vehicles, don’t check their tire pressure, etc., can pay more. It might sound crazy coming from a truck guy, but a gas tax is the best way to keep fuel costs under control in the long run because it will slow down a lot of the idiots and force people to be smarter about fuel use. We pay more now, but we pay less later (and the oil companies and middle east get less of our money too).
##
Of course, having said that, I realize a lot of good people would be effected by a gas tax…so it’s not a perfect solution. Maybe what I want is an “idiot tax,” LOL.
I hear you Jason. I go as far as checking my tire depth with a thread depth guage along with checking air temp. All 8 tires take less than 5 minutes and I write this down and put it on the computer to keep track of exactly what both of us are doing. My wife’s Prius did better than the Tundra though. All four tires had the right amount of psi and all were above 5 – 6/32 thread depth. She has over 50,000 on her prius so the thread will last quite awhile. My thread is over 8/32 but my two front tires both needed 2lbs of air put in them. I like to ride at 40psi. Yes I do this check weekly. Anyone can call it what they want but I check my wife’s car out so I know everything is okay and so I can have piece of mind.
Here’s a read for you Jason. Alittle long:
http://www.yahoo.com/_ylt=Aufx.....amily-home
Mickey – That’s the way to do it. Thanks for the link too – that’s going to be tomorrow morning’s story!
NO MO TAXES!
well, if we had an “idiot tax”, there would be no government debt. lol. there are an overabundance of idiots and most of them are in washington dc.
[…] (EPA) released their rules for fuel economy standards for the years 2012 to 2016. According to Car and Driver, “Under the new rules, combined fleet fuel economy will have to increase to 29.7 mpg for the 2012 […]