[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 88 (Monday, May 6, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20311-20326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10963]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration


Automotive Fuel Economy Program Report to Congress

    The attached document, Automotive Fuel Economy Program, Twentieth 
Annual Report to the Congress, was prepared pursuant to 49 U.S.C 32916 
which requires in pertinent part that ``the Secretary shall submit to 
each House of Congress, and publish in the Federal Register, a review 
of average fuel economy standards under this part.''


[[Page 20312]]


    Issued on: April 29, 1996.
Barry Felrice,
Associate Administrator for Safety Performance Standards.

Automotive Fuel Economy Program Twentieth Annual Report to Congress

Calendar Year 1995

Table of Contents

Section I: Introduction
Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement by Manufacturers
Section III: 1995 Activities
    A. Passenger Car CAFE Standards
    B. Light Truck CAFE Standards
    C. Low Volume Petitions
    D. Enforcement
    E. Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles
    F. Advisory Committee on Personal Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 
Reductions
    G. Contract Activities
Section IV: Use of Advanced Technology
    A. New Models
    B. Engine and Transmission Technology
    C. Electronics
    D. Materials
    E. Summary

Section I: Introduction

    The Twentieth Annual Report to Congress on the Automotive Fuel 
Economy Program summarizes the activities of the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) during 1995, in accordance with 
49 U.S.C. 32916 et seq., which requires the submission of a report each 
year. Included in this report are sections summarizing rulemaking 
activities during 1995 and a discussion of the use of advanced 
automotive technology by the industry as required by Section 305, Title 
III, of the Department of Energy Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-238).
    The Secretary of Transportation is required to administer a program 
for regulating the fuel economy of new passenger cars and light trucks 
in the United States market. The authority to administer the program 
was delegated by the Secretary to the Administrator of NHTSA, 49 C.F.R. 
1.50(f).
    NHTSA's responsibilities in the fuel economy area include:
    (1) Establishing and amending average fuel economy standards for 
manufacturers of passenger cars and light trucks, as necessary;
    (2) Promulgating regulations concerning procedures, definitions, 
and reports necessary to support the fuel economy standards;
    (3) Considering petitions for exemption from established fuel 
economy standards by low volume manufacturers (those producing fewer 
than 10,000 passenger cars annually worldwide) and establishing 
alternative standards for them;
    (4) Preparing reports to Congress annually on the fuel economy 
program;
    (5) Enforcing fuel economy standards and regulations; and
    (6) Responding to petitions concerning domestic production by 
foreign manufacturers, and other matters.
    Passenger car fuel economy standards were established by Congress 
for Model Year (MY) 1985 and thereafter at a level of 27.5 miles per 
gallon (mpg). NHTSA is authorized to amend the standard above or below 
that level. Standards for light trucks were established by NHTSA for 
MYs 1979 through 1997. NHTSA set a combined standard of 20.7 mpg for 
light truck fuel economy standard for MYs 1996 and 1997. All current 
standards are listed in Table I-1.

  Table I-1.--Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Years 1978 Through 1997 [in MPG] 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Light Trucks \1\            
                                                           Passenger  ------------------------------------------
                       Model year                             cars      Two-wheel    Four-wheel                 
                                                                          drive        drive      Combined \12\ 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\3\------
1978....................................................     \4\ 18.0  ...........  ...........  ...............
1979....................................................     \4\ 19.0         17.2         15.8  ...............
1980....................................................     \4\ 20.0         16.0         14.0          (\5\)  
1981....................................................         22.0     \6\ 16.7         15.0          (\5\)  
1982....................................................         24.0         18.0         16.0           17.5  
1983....................................................         26.0         19.5         17.5           19.0  
1984....................................................         27.0         20.3         18.5           20.0  
1985....................................................     \4\ 27.5     \7\ 19.7     \7\ 18.9       \7\ 19.5  
1986....................................................     \8\ 26.0         20.5         19.5           20.0  
1987....................................................     \9\ 26.0         21.0         19.5           20.5  
1988....................................................     \9\ 26.0         21.0         19.5           20.5  
1989....................................................    \10\ 26.5         21.5         19.0           20.5  
1990....................................................     \4\ 27.5         20.5         19.0           20.0  
1991....................................................     \4\ 27.5         20.7         19.1           20.2  
1992....................................................     \4\ 27.5  ...........  ...........           20.2  
1993....................................................     \4\ 27.5  ...........  ...........           20.4  
1994....................................................     \4\ 27.5  ...........  ...........           20.5  
1995....................................................     \4\ 27.5  ...........  ...........           20.6  
1996....................................................     \4\ 27.5  ...........  ...........           20.7  
1997....................................................     \4\ 27.5  ...........  ...........           20.7  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Standards for MY 1979 light trucks were established for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR)  
  of 6,000 pounds or less. Standards for MY 1980 and beyond are for light trucks with a GVWR of 8,500 pounds or 
  less.                                                                                                         
\2\ For MY 1979, light truck manufacturers could comply separately with standards for four-wheel drive, general 
  utility vehicles and all other light trucks, or combine their trucks into a single fleet and comply with the  
  17.2 mpg standard.                                                                                            
\3\ For MYs 1982-1991, manufacturers could comply with the two-wheel and four-wheel drive standards or could    
  combine all light trucks and comply with the combined standard.                                               
\4\ Established by Congress in Title V of the Act.                                                              
\5\ A manufacturer whose light truck fleet was powered exclusively by basic engines which were not also used in 
  passenger cars could meet standards of 14 mpg and 14.5 mpg in MYs 1980 and 1981, respectively.                
\6\ Revised in June 1979 from 18.0 mpg.                                                                         
\7\ Revised in October 1984 from 21.6 mpg for two-wheel drive, 19.0 mpg for four-wheel drive, and 21.0 mpg for  
  combined.                                                                                                     
\8\ Revised in October 1985 from 27.5 mpg.                                                                      
\9\ Revised in October 1986 from 27.5 mpg.                                                                      
\10\ Revised in September 1988 from 27.5 mpg.                                                                   


[[Page 20313]]



Section II: Fuel Economy Improvement by Manufacturers

    The fuel economy achievements for domestic and foreign-based 
manufacturers in MY 1994 were updated to include final Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) calculations, where available, since the 
publication of the Nineteenth Annual Report to the Congress. These fuel 
economy achievements and current projected data for MY 1995 are listed 
in Tables II-1 and II-2.
    Overall fleet fuel economy for passenger cars was 28.5 mpg in MY 
1995, an increase of 0.3 mpg from the MY 1994 level. For MY 1995, 
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) values increased above MY 1994 
levels for 16 of 22 passenger car manufacturers' fleets. (See Table II-
1.) These 16 companies accounted for over 57 percent of the total MY 
1995 production. Manufacturers continued to introduce new technologies 
and more fuel-efficient models, as well as some larger, less fuel-
efficient models. For MY 1995, the overall domestic manufacturers' 
fleet average fuel economy was 27.7 mpg. For MY 1995, Chrysler, Ford, 
and Mazda domestic passenger car CAFE values rose 2.4 mpg, 0.1 mpg, and 
1.0 mpg, respectively, from their 1994 levels, while General Motors 
remained at its MY 1994 level. Overall, the domestic manufacturers' 
combined CAFE increased 0.4 mpg above MY 1994 levels.

  Table II-1.--Passenger Car Fuel Economy Performance by Manufacturer*  
                        Model Years 1994 and 1995                       
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Model year cafe (MPG) 
                 Manufacturer                  -------------------------
                                                    1994         1995   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic:                                                               
    Chrysler..................................         26.2         28.6
    Ford......................................         27.6         27.7
    General Motors............................         27.4         27.4
    Mazda.....................................         29.1         30.1
Sales Weighted Average (Domestic).............         27.3         27.7
Import:                                                                 
    BMW.......................................         25.1         25.3
    Chrysler Imports..........................         31.3         30.4
    Fiat......................................         19.8         16.0
    Ford Imports..............................         25.7         33.9
    GM Imports................................         24.6         26.2
    Honda.....................................         32.5         31.7
    Hyundai...................................         32.5         30.7
    Kia.......................................         30.8         31.3
    Mazda.....................................         31.2         31.4
    Mercedes-Benz.............................         23.7         24.6
    Mitsubishi................................         28.9         29.5
    Nissan....................................         29.7         30.0
    Porsche...................................         22.0         22.7
    Subaru....................................         28.3         28.6
    Suzuki....................................         43.8         40.6
    Toyota....................................         29.0         30.3
    Volvo.....................................         25.7         26.0
    Volkswagen................................         28.1         28.5
                                               -------------------------
Sales Weighted Average (Import)...............         29.6         29.9
                                               -------------------------
        Total Fleet Average...................         28.2         28.5
                                               -------------------------
        Fuel Economy Standards................         27.5        27.5 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Manufacturers or importers of fewer than 1,000 passenger cars annually 
  are not listed.                                                       
Note.--Mercedes-Benz's MY 1994 CAFE value differs from that used in the 
  Nineteenth Annual Report to the Congress due to the use of the final  
  EPA calculation.                                                      


 Table II-2.--Light Truck Fuel Economy Performance by Manufacturer Model
                           Years 1994 and 1995                          
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Model year cafe (MPG) 
                                                        Combined        
                 Manufacturer                  -------------------------
                                                    1994         1995   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domestic:                                                               
    Chrysler..................................         20.5         20.1
    Ford......................................         20.8         20.6
    General Motors............................         19.9         19.8
    UMC.......................................         18.5        (\1\)
Sales Weighted Average (Domestic).............         20.4         20.1
Import:                                                                 
    Isuzu.....................................         20.8         20.6
    Land Rover................................         16.4         16.3
    Mazda.....................................         21.2         20.9
    Mitsubishi................................         22.0         21.0
    Nissan....................................         22.5         22.5

[[Page 20314]]

                                                                        
    Subaru....................................         29.6        (\1\)
    Suzuki....................................         28.5         28.2
    Toyota....................................         22.0         21.2
    Volkswagen................................         21.0         19.6
Sales Weighted Average (Import)...............         22.0         21.6
Total Fleet Average...........................         20.6         20.4
Fuel Economy Standards........................         20.5        20.6 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Subaru and UMC did not produce light trucks for MY 1995.            


    In MY 1995, the fleet average fuel economy for import passenger 
cars increased by 0.3 mpg from the MY 1994 CAFE level to 29.9 mpg. 
Thirteen of the 18 import car manufacturers increased their CAFE values 
between MYs 1994 and 1995, including six of the nine Asian 
manufacturers. Figure II-1 illustrates the changes in total new 
passenger car fleet CAFE from MY 1978 to MY 1995.
    The total light truck fleet CAFE decreased 0.2 mpg below the MY 
1994 CAFE level of 20.6 mpg. Figure II-2 illustrates the trends in 
total light truck fleet CAFE from MY 1979 to MY 1995.
    A number of passenger car and a few light truck manufacturers are 
projected to fail to achieve the levels of the MY 1995 CAFE standards. 
However, NHTSA is not yet able to determine which of these 
manufacturers may be liable for civil penalties for non- compliance. 
Some MY 1995 CAFE values may change when final figures are provided to 
NHTSA by EPA, in mid-1996. In addition, several manufacturers are not 
expected to pay civil penalties because the credits they earned by 
exceeding the fuel economy standards in earlier years offset later 
shortfalls. Other manufacturers may file carryback plans to demonstrate 
that they anticipate earning credits in future model years to offset 
current deficits.

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 20315]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY96.003



[[Page 20316]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY96.004



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 20317]]

    Fleet average fuel economy for all MY 1995 passenger cars combined 
exceeded the level of the MY 1995 standard by 1.0 mpg.
    Subaru terminated sales of its light trucks in the United States 
after MY 1994; however, the manufacturer continues to sell its 
passenger cars. Subaru accumulated substantial CAFE credits during its 
11-year marketing span of its light trucks in the United States.
    The characteristics of the MY 1995 passenger car fleet reflect a 
continuing trend toward satisfying consumer demand for higher 
performance cars. (See Table II-3.) From MY 1994 to MY 1995, 
horsepower/100 pounds, a measure of vehicle performance, increased from 
4.84 to 4.91 for domestic passenger cars. However, it decreased 
slightly from 4.71 to 4.52 for import passenger cars. The total fleet 
average for passenger cars decreased slightly from 4.79 horsepower/100 
pounds in MY 1994 to 4.77 in MY 1995. Compared to MY 1994, the average 
curb weight for MY 1995 increased by 28 pounds for the domestic fleet 
and 61 pounds for the import fleet. The total new passenger car fleet 
is 45 pounds heavier than it was in MY 1994, primarily because of the 
larger share held by the domestic fleet. Average engine displacement 
decreased from 188 to 186 cubic inches for domestic passenger cars, and 
from 137 to 135 cubic inches for import passenger cars, from MY 1994 to 
MY 1995.

                     Table II-3.--Passenger Car Fleet Characteristics for MYs 1994 and 1995                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Total fleet               Domestic fleet               Import fleet       
       Characteristics       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  1994          1995          1994          1995          1994          1995    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Average Fuel Economy,                                                                                     
 mpg........................         28.2          28.5          27.3          27.7          29.6          29.9 
Fleet Average Curb Weight,                                                                                      
 lbs........................       3011          3056          3098          3126          2870          2931   
Fleet Average Engine                                                                                            
 Displacement, cu. in.......        169           168           188           186           137           135   
Fleet Average Horsepower/                                                                                       
 Weight ratio, HP/100 lbs...          4.79          4.77          4.84          4.91          4.71          4.52
% of Fleet..................        100           100            61.7          64.1          38.3          35.9 
Segmentation by EPA Size                                                                                        
 Class, %                                                                                                       
    Two-Seater..............          1.1           0.8           0.5           0.4           2.1           1.5 
    Minicompact.............          0.4           0.8           0.00          0.00          1.1           2.1 
    Subcompact*.............         23.3          16.0          17.9          10.3          31.9          26.2 
    Compact*................         34.4          40.3          29.5          37.4          42.2          45.4 
    Mid-Size*...............         25.1          27.9          30.0          31.3          17.1          21.8 
    Large*..................         15.7          14.3          22.1          20.7           5.5           3.0 
    Diesel Engines..........          0.01          0.05          0.00          0.00          0.02          0.14
    Turbo or Supercharged                                                                                       
     Engines................          0.9           0.6           0.4           0.00          1.7           1.8 
    Fuel Injection..........        100           100           100           100           100           100   
    Front-Wheel Drive.......         84.7          84.4          85.0          83.9          84.3          85.1 
    Automatic Transmissions.         82.8          83.3          89.0          88.9          72.7          73.2 
    Automatic Transmissions                                                                                     
     with Lockup Clutches...         95.2          97.6          95.2          99.3          95.1          94.0 
    Automatic Transmissions                                                                                     
     with Four or more                                                                                          
     Forward Speeds.........         83.6          87.4          78.6          84.5          93.4          93.7 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes associated station wagons.                                                                           

    The 0.4 mpg fuel economy improvement for the MY 1995 domestic 
passenger car fleet may be attributed in part to mix shifts and in part 
to technology changes in several areas: a pronounced increase in the 
use of more automatic transmissions with lockup torque converters and 
more automatic transmissions with four speeds.
    The size/class breakdown shows an increased trend towards 
minicompact, compact, and mid-size passenger cars and a decrease in 
two-seater, subcompact, and large passenger cars for the overall fleet. 
The size/class mix in both the domestic and import fleet shifted from 
subcompact and large passenger cars to compact and mid-size passenger 
cars. The import share of the passenger car market declined slightly in 
MY 1995.
    The domestic fleet had a decrease in share of turbocharged and 
supercharged engines. Diesel engines rose slightly in share in MY 1995, 
but were offered only by one import manufacturer.
    Passenger car fleet average characteristics have changed 
significantly since MY 1978 (the first year of fuel economy standards). 
(See Table II-4.) After substantial initial weight loss (from MY 1978 
to MY 1982, the average passenger car fleet curb weight decreased from 
3,349 to 2,808 pounds), then stabilized between 2,800 and 3,000 pounds. 
Table II-4 shows that the MY 1995 passenger car fleet has nearly equal 
interior volume and higher performance, but with over 40 percent better 
fuel economy, than the MY 1978 fleet. (See Figure II-3.)
    The characteristics of the MY 1995 light truck fleet are shown in 
Table II-5. Since light truck manufacturers are not required to divide 
their fleets into domestic and import fleets based on the 75-percent 
domestic content threshold used for passenger car fleets, the domestic 
and import fleet characteristics in Table II-5 are estimated, based 
mainly on manufacturer name. The agency assumed that all products of 
foreign-based manufacturers would not meet the domestic content 
threshold, whether they were assembled in the United States or Canada, 
or in another country. The exception to this is the assumption that the 
import-badged products of a domestic manufacturer's assembly plant were 
``domestic'' (Mazda B-Series pickup and Nissan Quest).

[[Page 20318]]



                          Table II-4.--New Passenger Car Fleet Average Characteristics                          
                                             [Model Years 1978-1995]                                            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Horse-  
                                                     Fuel     Curb weight    Interior   Engine size     power/  
                   Model year                      economy       (lb.)     space  (cu.   (cu. in.)   weight  (hp/
                                                    (mpg)                      ft.)                    100 lb.) 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978...........................................         19.9         3349          112          260         3.68
1979...........................................         20.3         3180          110          238         3.72
1980...........................................         24.3         2867          105          187         3.51
1981...........................................         25.9         2883          108          182         3.43
1982...........................................         26.6         2808          107          173         3.47
1983...........................................         26.4         2908          109          182         3.57
1984...........................................         26.9         2878          108          178         3.66
1985...........................................         27.6         2867          108          177         3.84
1986...........................................         28.2         2821          106          169         3.89
1987...........................................         28.5         2805          109          162         3.98
1988...........................................         28.8         2831          107          161         4.11
1989...........................................         28.4         2879          109          163         4.24
1990...........................................         28.0         2908          108          163         4.53
1991...........................................         28.4         2934          108          164         4.42
1992...........................................         27.9         3007          108          169         4.56
1993...........................................         28.4         2971          109          164         4.62
1994...........................................         28.2         3011          109          169         4.79
1995...........................................         28.5         3056          110          168         4.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BILLING CODE 4910-59-P

[[Page 20319]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY96.005



BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 20320]]



                       Table II-5--Light Truck Fleet Characteristics for MYs 1994 and 1995                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Total fleet               Domestic fleet               Import fleet       
       Characteristics       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  1994          1995          1994          1995          1994          1995    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet Average Fuel Economy,                                                                                     
 mpg........................         20.6          20.4          20.4          20.1          22.0          21.6 
Fleet Average Equivalent                                                                                        
 Test Weight, lbs...........       4274          4338          4340          4409          3832          3938   
Fleet Average Engine                                                                                            
 Displacement, cu. in.......        243           244           255           257           165           171   
Fleet Average Horsepower/                                                                                       
 Weight ratio, HP/100 lbs...          3.86          3.87          3.89          3.93          3.65          3.54
% Fleet.....................        100           100            87.0          84.8          13.0          15.2 
Segmentation by Type, %:                                                                                        
     Passenger Van Compact..         18.0          19.6          19.7          22.3           6.3           4.7 
    Large...................          0.5           0.5           0.6           0.6   ............  ............
    Cargo Van Compact.......          1.5           1.7           1.7           2.0   ............  ............
    Large...................          4.7           4.9           5.4           5.8   ............  ............
    Small Pickup *..........          6.6           7.7           5.3           5.7          14.8          20.2 
    Large Pickup *..........         40.0          32.0          40.5          33.3          36.8          24.5 
    Special Purpose.........         28.7          33.6          26.7          30.6          42.2          50.6 
    Diesel Engines..........          0.30          0.18          0.30          0.22  ............  ............
    Fuel Injection..........         99.7          99.6         100           100            97.7          97.5 
    Automatic Transmissions.         77.3          78.8          82.4          83.5          42.7          52.3 
    Automatic Transmissions                                                                                     
     with Lockup Clutches...         98.3          99.0          98.6          99.3          94.0          95.4 
    Automatic Transmissions                                                                                     
     with Four Forward                                                                                          
     Speeds.................         92.1          93.3          91.6          92.6          98.9          99.3 
    4-Wheel Drive...........         36.1          38.0          34.1          35.5          50.6          52.2 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Including Cab Chassis.                                                                                        

    The MY 1995 average test weight of the total light truck fleet 
increased by 64 pounds over that for MY 1994. Increased popularity of 
special purpose vehicles, heavier trucks, and trucks with 4-wheel drive 
(4WD) lowered the fleet fuel economy in MY 1995 but was offset slightly 
by an increase in the use of automatic transmissions with four forward 
speeds resulting in an overall decline of 0.2 mpg to 20.4 mpg. Diesel 
engine usage decreased in light trucks to 0.18 percent in MY 1995 from 
0.30 percent in MY 1994. The share of the MY 1995 import light truck 
fleet increased to 15.2 percent.
    CAFE levels for light trucks in the 0-8,500 pounds gross vehicle 
weight (GVW) class increased from 18.5 mpg in MY 1980 to 21.7 mpg in MY 
1987, before declining to 20.4 mpg in MY 1995, influenced by an 
increase in average weight, engine size, and performance. Light truck 
production increased from 1.9 million in MY 1980 to 5.7 million in MY 
1995. Light trucks comprised 38 percent of the total light duty vehicle 
fleet production in MY 1995, more than triple the share in MY 1980.
    Figure II-4 illustrates an increase in the light duty fleet 
(combined passenger cars and light trucks) average fuel economy through 
MY 1987, followed by a gradual decline. (See Table II-6.) Passenger car 
average fuel economy remained relatively constant for MYs 1987-1995. 
The overall decline in fuel economy illustrates the growing influence 
of light trucks and their significant impact on the light duty fleet.
    While passenger car fleet fuel economy increased from MY 1994 to MY 
1995 by 0.3 mpg and light truck fleet fuel economy decreased by 0.2 
mpg, the total fleet fuel economy for MY 1995 increased 0.1 mpg over 
the MY 1994 level (24.6 mpg for MY 1994 and 24.7 mpg for MY 1995). The 
shift to light trucks for general transportation is an important trend 
in consumers' preference and has a significant fleet fuel consumption 
effect.
    Domestic and import passenger car fleet average fuel economies have 
improved since MY 1978, although the increase is far more dramatic for 
the domestic fleet. In MY 1995, both domestic and import passenger car 
fleet average fuel economies increased from the prior year to 27.7 mpg 
and 29.9 mpg, respectively. Compared to MY 1978, this reflects an 
increase of 9.0 mpg for domestic cars and 2.6 mpg for import cars.

                     Table II-6.--Domestic and Import Passenger Car and Light Truck Fuel Economy Averages for Model Years 1978-1995                     
                                                                        (in MPG)                                                                        
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Domestic                          Import                                             
                                                      ------------------------------------------------------------------            All light    Total  
                      Model year                                    Light                            Light                All cars    trucks     fleet  
                                                          Car       truck     Combined     Car       truck     Combined                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1978.................................................       18.7  .........  .........       27.3  .........  .........       19.9  .........  .........
1979.................................................       19.3       17.7       19.1       26.1       20.8       25.5       20.3       18.2       20.1
1980.................................................       22.6       16.8       21.4       29.6       24.3       28.6       24.3       18.5       23.1
1981.................................................       24.2       18.3       22.9       31.5       27.4       30.7       25.9       20.1       24.6
1982.................................................       25.0       19.2       23.5       31.1       27.0       30.4       26.6       20.5       25.1
1983.................................................       24.4       19.6       23.0       32.4       27.1       31.5       26.4       20.7       24.8
1984.................................................       25.5       19.3       23.6       32.0       26.7       30.6       26.9       20.6       25.0
1985.................................................       26.3       19.6       24.0       31.5       26.5       30.3       27.6       20.7       25.4
1986.................................................       26.9       20.0       24.4       31.6       25.9       29.8       28.2       21.5       25.9

[[Page 20321]]

                                                                                                                                                        
1987.................................................       27.0       20.5       24.6       31.2       25.2       29.6       28.5       21.7       26.2
1988.................................................       27.4       20.6       24.5       31.5       24.6       30.0       28.8       21.3       26.0
1989.................................................       27.2       20.4       24.2       30.8       23.5       29.2       28.4       20.9       25.6
1990.................................................       26.9       20.3       23.9       29.9       23.0       28.5       28.0       20.8       25.4
1991.................................................       27.3       20.9       24.4       30.1       23.0       28.4       28.4       21.3       25.6
1992.................................................       27.0       20.5       23.8       29.2       22.7       27.9       27.9       20.8       25.1
1993.................................................       27.8       20.7       24.2       29.6       22.8       28.1       28.4       21.0       25.2
1994.................................................       27.3       20.4       23.5       29.6       22.0       27.8       28.2       20.6       24.6
1995.................................................       27.7       20.1       23.7       29.9       21.6       27.6       28.5       20.4       24.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                                                               ---------
                                                                                                                                               [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN06MY96.006
                                                                                                                                               

BILLING CODE 4910-59-C

[[Page 20322]]

    Since MY 1980, the total light truck fleet average fuel economy and 
the average for domestic light truck manufacturers have improved 
overall, but both have remained below the fuel economy level for the 
imported light truck fleet. The imported light truck average fuel 
economy has decreased significantly since its highest level of 27.4 mpg 
for MY 1981 to 21.6 mpg for MY 1995. For MY 1995, the domestic light 
truck fleet has an average fuel economy level of 20.1 mpg, which is 1.5 
mpg lower than the import light truck fleet. For MY 1995, the imported 
light truck fleet fuel economy decreased 0.4 mpg below the MY 1994 
level to 21.6 mpg. The domestic manufacturers continued to dominate the 
light truck market, comprising 85 percent of the total light truck 
fleet.
    The disparity between the average CAFEs of the import and domestic 
manufacturers has declined in recent years as domestic manufacturers 
maintain relatively stable CAFE values while the import manufacturers 
move to larger, higher performance vehicles, and more 4-wheel drive 
light trucks.

Section III: 1995 Activities

A. Passenger Car CAFE Standards

    The following synopsis describes recent litigation challenging 
NHTSA actions under the CAFE program.
    Competitive Enterprise Institute v. NHTSA, D.C. Cir., No. 93-1210
    This case involves a challenge by the Competitive Enterprise 
Institute (CEI) to NHTSA's January 15, 1993, decision to again 
terminate rulemaking the agency commenced to consider amending the MY 
1990 passenger car CAFE standard. The D.C. Circuit had reversed NHTSA's 
original termination decision in 1992. Competitive Enterprise Institute 
v. NHTSA, 956 F.2d 321, (D.C. Cir. 1992). On February 3, 1995, the 
court issued a unanimous decision dismissing the petition for review 
and upholding the agency's decision not to amend the MY 1990 passenger 
car CAFE standard. Competitive Enterprise Institute v. NHTSA, 45 F.3d 
481, (D.C. Cir. 1995). CEI filed a petition for rehearing on March 20, 
1995, the agency filed its response, opposing rehearing, on April 24, 
1995. On May 17, 1995, the Court denied rehearing and rehearing en 
banc. 

B. Light Truck CAFE Standards

    The agency issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking for 
Light Truck Average Fuel Economy Standards for MYs 1998-2006 (59 FR 
16324; April 6, 1994). The agency sought information that would help to 
assess the extent to which manufacturers can improve light truck fuel 
economy, the benefits and costs to consumers of improved fuel economy, 
the benefits to the Nation of reducing fuel consumption, and the number 
of model years that should be covered by the proposal.
    The Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1996, P.L. 104-50, directed the 
agency not to expend funds ``to prepare, propose, or promulgate any 
regulations * * * prescribing CAFE standards for automobiles, as 
defined in such title, in any model year that differs from standards 
promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this section.'' 
The Act was passed while the agency was considering the MY 1998 light 
truck standard. Subsequently, the agency issued a notice of proposed 
rulemaking proposing a light truck fuel economy standard for MY 1998 of 
20.7 mpg, which is the current standard. A final rule will be issued 
early in 1996.

C. Low Volume Petitions

    49 U.S.C. 32902(d) provides that a low volume manufacturer of 
passenger cars may be exempted from the generally applicable passenger 
car fuel economy standards if these standards are more stringent than 
the maximum feasible average fuel economy for that manufacturer and if 
NHTSA establishes an alternative standard for that manufacturer at its 
maximum feasible level. A low volume manufacturer is one that 
manufactured fewer than 10,000 passenger cars worldwide, in the model 
year for which the exemption is sought (the affected model year) and in 
the second model year preceding that model year.
    NHTSA acted on four low volume petitions in 1995, which were filed 
by Bugatti International Holding, SA (Bugatti International), MedNet, 
Inc., Rolls-Royce, and Lamborghini.
    Bugatti International filed a joint low volume petition for Bugatti 
and Lotus high performance vehicles. Bugatti International requested 
alternative standards for its passenger cars for MYs 1994, 1995, and 
1996. Because of the financial instability of Bugatti, Lotus 
resubmitted to the agency its own low volume petition. The agency is 
reviewing Lotus' petition and will respond in early 1996.
    MedNet, Inc., requested an alternative standard for its recently 
acquired Dutcher PTV vehicles for MYs 1995, 1996, and 1997. NHTSA 
established an alternative standard of 17.0 mpg for the three model 
years (60 FR 47877; September 15, 1995).
    Rolls-Royce requested an alternative standard for its passenger 
cars for MY 1997. NHTSA issued a proposed decision to grant an 
alternative standard of 15.1 mpg for MY 1997 (60 FR 37861; July 24, 
1995).
    Lamborghini filed a joint low volume petition for Lamborghini and 
Vector high performance vehicles. Lamborghini requested alternative 
standards for its passenger cars for MYs 1995, 1996, and 1997. NHTSA is 
reviewing this petition and will respond in early 1996.
    Rolls Royce filed a low volume petition for MYs 1998 and 1999 in 
December 1995. NHTSA will respond to this petition during 1996.

D. Enforcement

    49 U.S.C. 32912(b) imposes a civil penalty of $5 for each tenth of 
a mpg by which a manufacturer's CAFE level falls short of the standard, 
multiplied by the total number of passenger automobiles or light trucks 
produced by the manufacturer in that model year. Credits that were 
earned for exceeding the standard in any of the three model years 
immediately prior to or subsequent to the model years in question can 
be used to offset the penalty.
    Table III-1 shows the most recent CAFE fines paid by manufacturers. 
Final CAFE figures for MY 1994 were not available for most 
manufacturers.

                                Table III-1.--Cafe Fines Collected During FY 1995                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Model year                                 Manufacturer              Amount fined   Date paid 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1990..........................................  Callaway Cars, Inc...................     ($20,400)        12/94
                                                Consulier Industries.................           50         01/95
1991..........................................  Maserati.............................        1,600         12/94
                                                Consulier Industries.................           50         01/95
1992..........................................  Mercedes-Benz........................   18,122,440         12/94
                                                Consulier Industries.................           50         01/95
1993..........................................  Peugeot..............................          910         10/94
                                                Porsche..............................      668,500         10/94

[[Page 20323]]

                                                                                                                
                                                Mercedes-Benz........................   13,531,590         12/94
                                                Land Rover...........................    1,094,660         01/95
                                                Autokraft Ltd........................        2,590         08/95
                                                BMW..................................    7,427,160         09/95
1994..........................................  Mercedes-Benz........................   11,254,080         12/94
1995..........................................  Mercedes-Benz........................    7,498,995         12/94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



E. Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)

    The agency has been assisting, within existing resources, the PNGV 
participants in the early stages of subsystem development and systems 
analysis in support of the objectives of the program. In addition to 
limited staff participation by NHTSA and the Volpe National 
Transportation Systems Center (Volpe Center) in selected materials and 
systems analysis activities, the Department, along with the Department 
of Commerce, has funded the National Research Council's annual review 
of the PNGV program.
    The Joint Conference Report on the DOT budget for FY 1996 removed 
funds for agency support of PNGV activities in safety and 
infrastructure analysis. The reasoning for this deletion of funds was 
that the Congress felt that the agency did not need funds until the 
PNGV vehicles were further defined. Nevertheless, the agency will 
continue to make its staff available wherever they can be of use in the 
PNGV program.

F. Advisory Committee on Personal Motor Vehicle Greenhouse Gas 
Reductions

    As part of the Administration's ``Climate Change Action Plan,'' the 
White House formed a one-year advisory committee to develop 
recommendations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by light vehicles to 
the year 1990 level. The committee comprised 29 members representing 
environmental and public interest groups, automotive manufacturers, 
fuel suppliers, vehicle users, and state and local governments.
    The goal of the committee was to develop policy options that will 
cost-effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of light 
vehicles (cars and light trucks) to the 1990 level by years 2005, 2015, 
and 2025. These policy options encompassed reductions in vehicle-miles-
traveled (VMT), vehicle efficiency enhancement, and alternative fuels. 
The committee examined:

 vehicle technologies;
 fuels with lower carbon content;
 vehicle-based regulatory strategies such as CAFE;
 vehicle taxes and/or rebates;
 market-based actions to reduce VMT (fuel taxes, congestion; 
and pricing, and pay-at-the-pump insurance)
 other approaches (e.g., changed land-use patterns, increased 
mass transit, telecommuting, Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), 
and increased carpooling).

    On September 20, 1995, the advisory group conducted its final 
meeting and failed to form a consensus report for the Administration on 
the recommendation to reduce light vehicle greenhouse gas emissions.

G. Contract Activities

    During 1995, NHTSA continued to fund the maintenance of a database 
that details the finances, products, and production capacities of North 
American automobile manufacturing plants. This program is administered 
by the Volpe Center with annual funding of $60,000.
    In response to a request in the Conference Report on the FY 1995 
DOT Appropriations Act, NHTSA also initiated a study of the unique 
capabilities, uses, and utility requirements of light trucks that 
result in design constraints for fuel economy improvement. This study 
is also being conducted by the Volpe Center, using the $300,000 
appropriation designated by Congress for the study. The final report 
will be available early in 1996.
    Finally, the agency has awarded a small contract of $46,750 to 
study the potential fuel economy improvements that could be achieved by 
the application of variable valve timing to conventional engines. This 
study will include an analysis of the cost implications of the 
technology. The report will be published in 1996.

Section IV: Use of Advanced Technology

    This section fulfills the statutory requirement of Section 305 of 
Title III of the Department of Energy Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-238), which 
directs the Secretary of Transportation to submit an annual report to 
Congress on the use of advanced technologies by the automotive industry 
to improve motor vehicle fuel economy. This report focuses on the 
introduction of new models, advances in engine and transmission 
technology, the application of materials to save weight, and the 
advances in electronic technology which improved fuel economy in MY 
1995.

A. New Models

    Domestic auto manufacturers introduced a number of significant new 
products and made major changes to several existing models for MY 1995. 
Chrysler replaced its compact Sundance and Shadow models with the Neon 
which has a larger interior, but weighs about 100 lbs less and achieves 
an average fuel economy of over 34 mpg, 5.5 mpg higher than the 
predecessor models. Chrysler also replaced the mid-size Spirit and 
Acclaim with the Dodge Stratus and Chrysler Cirrus. These models weigh 
about the same as their predecessors, but the average fuel economy is 
about 1 mpg lower due to more emphasis on higher performance engine 
options. Chrysler introduced the Chrysler Sebring and Dodge Avenger 
sports coupes which averaged 27.7 mpg. They replace certain Chrysler 
LeBaron models and the Dodge Daytona which had been previously 
discontinued. Both cars are produced for Chrysler by Mitsubishi at its 
Illinois assembly plant. Mitsubishi also produced a new Eagle Talon for 
Chrysler which has better performance and improved aerodynamics, but is 
similar to the previous model in fuel economy.
    Ford introduced a front-wheel drive minivan, the Windstar, 
supplementing the Aerostar rear-wheel drive model which remains in 
production. The Windstar achieved an average fuel economy of 22.8 mpg, 
1 mpg better than the Aerostar. The Ford Explorer sport utility was 
restyled for MY 1995 and included dual airbags, side door beams, and 
redesigned front suspension. The new Explorer weighs an average of 
about 250 lbs more than its predecessor, but achieves about the same 
fuel economy. The Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz model was replaced by an 
entirely new model, the Ford Contour/Mercury Mystique, and featured new

[[Page 20324]]

engines and transmissions, as well. This is a world car program with a 
European counterpart known as the Ford Mondeo. The Contour/Mystique is 
over 200 lbs heavier than the Tempo/Topaz, but fuel economy is better 
by about 2.5 mpg. Ford also redesigned the Lincoln Continental which 
becomes the first front-wheel drive Ford product to use a V-8 engine. 
The engine is a 4-valve-per-cylinder dual overhead cam (DOHC) design. 
The Continental has dual airbags, four-wheel disc brakes, a load 
leveling suspension, and driver-selected modes for power steering 
effort and ride control. The new model weighs about 400 lbs more than 
the 1994 model, and the fuel economy is about 0.8 mpg lower.
    The General Motors Blazer and Jimmy compact sport utilities were 
restyled for improved aerodynamics and featured better ride and 
handling. The new models achieved about the same fuel economy as the 
1994 models. A 4-door model was added to the large sport utility models 
of the Chevrolet Tahoe and GMC Yukon. This 4-door model is lighter and 
14 in. shorter than the Suburban and is also available with either 2WD 
or 4WD. The subcompact Geo Metro was redesigned to have a larger 
interior and a 4-cylinder engine in the 4-door models. The weight of 
the new models increases by 200 lbs. and the fuel economy declines to 
an average of 44 mpg, still one of the best in the industry. The 
compact Chevrolet Cavalier and Pontiac Sunfire were completely 
redesigned for the first time since their introduction in 1982. The new 
models have longer wheelbases, but shorter overall length, offer an 
optional 4-valve-per-cylinder engine, and have an average fuel economy 
more than 1 mpg higher than the 1994 models. Compared to the original 
1982 models, the 1995 Cavalier/Sunfire models weigh about 250 lbs more 
due to a higher content of convenience, safety, and emissions equipment 
but still deliver about 1.8 mpg more in fuel economy. The mid-size 
Chevrolet Lumina was extensively redesigned and the coupe was 
redesignated as the Monte Carlo. The weight remains about the same, but 
the average fuel economy has declined by about 0.5 mpg. Finally, GM 
introduced entirely new mid-size Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora 
models. These replace the Riviera and Toronado models that were 
discontinued after MY 1993. The Riviera uses a significantly redesigned 
version of the pushrod 3.8 L V-6 engine with a supercharger option 
while the Aurora uses a new 4 L DOHC V-8. Both models are heavier and 
have lower fuel economies than their predecessors.
    Among the import manufacturers, BMW redesigned its 7-series models 
for greater body rigidity, improved suspension, longer wheelbase, and 
dual airbags. The average weight of the series is unchanged, but the 
fuel economy has improved by about 0.6 mpg.
    Honda introduced its first minivan, the Odyssey, which was based on 
the Accord platform. It has 3 rows of seats, accommodating up to 7 
passengers and an average fuel economy of 25.5 mpg.
    Hyundai introduced a redesigned mid-size Sonata model with a new 
platform, interior, suspension, longer wheelbase, and dual airbags. 
Fuel economy improved by about 0.8 mpg. Hyundai also replaced its 
subcompact Excel with a compact Accent model. This model also features 
a new suspension, dual airbags, and a longer wheelbase. Average fuel 
economy is improved by about 1 mpg to 36.9 mpg.
    Another South Korean Manufacturer, Kia, expanded its line of 
vehicles offered for sale in the U.S. by adding a compact sports 
utility model, the Sportage. The Sportage is available in both 2WD and 
4WD versions and averaged 25.5 mpg for MY 1995.
    Mazda introduced a redesigned compact Protege with dual airbags, a 
larger interior, two optional DOHC engines, and an average fuel economy 
that, at 35.5 mpg, was 3 mpg higher than the previous model. Mazda also 
introduced a new line of sedans called the Millenia. One of the engine 
options on the Millenia is the 2.3 L, 4-valve-per-cylinder, DOHC Miller 
cycle V-6 with a supercharger. This model achieves about 1 mpg better 
fuel economy than the conventional 2.5 L standard engine.
    As a companion to the Eagle Talon, Mitsubishi introduced a 
redesigned Eclipse sports model. It was over 100 lbs heavier than the 
predecessor model, but achieved about the same fuel economy.
    Nissan introduced major redesigns of three passenger car lines for 
MY 1995: the Sentra, the 240SX, and the Maxima. All three lines now 
include dual airbags, and each has a fuel economy rating of about 2 mpg 
higher than the previous model and a larger interior volume. The Maxima 
includes a redesigned 3 L DOHC V-6 engine.
    Land Rover introduced the first major redesign in 25 years of its 
luxury sport utility, the Range Rover 4.0 SE. The new model has better 
ride and handling, dual airbags, and somewhat higher fuel economy with 
the redesigned 4 L V-8 engine.
    The compact Subaru Legacy was redesigned to include greater 
interior volume and dual airbags. Fuel economy improved by over 1 mpg 
on both the 2WD and 4WD versions of this model.
    The subcompact Suzuki Swift was redesigned like the companion Geo 
Metro to have a longer wheelbase, larger interior, and dual airbags. 
Average fuel economy increased by nearly 1 mpg to 44.4 mpg.
    Toyota's new models for MY 1995 included a redesign of the 
subcompact Tercel to include dual airbags and a new 1.5 L 4- valve-per-
cylinder DOHC engine that yielded an average fuel economy of 39.5 mpg, 
nearly 4 mpg higher than the 1994 model. Toyota also introduced the new 
Avalon, Toyota's first large car with 6-passenger seating. Its fuel 
economy averaged 26.9 mpg, one of the highest values for a large car. 
Toyota's Lexus LS400 was redesigned to have a longer wheelbase, larger 
interior, and a new 4 L V-8. The LS400 is lighter by about 250 lbs and 
delivers nearly 2 mpg higher fuel economy than its predecessor. 
Toyota's compact pickup line was redesigned for MY 1995 and renamed the 
Tacoma. The base engine for the 4WD models was enlarged to 2.7 L and 
the optional engine on both lines is a new 3.4 L DOHC V-6. The 4WD 
models are lighter and achieve about 0.5 mpg higher average fuel 
economy. The 2WD models, however, weigh about the same as their 
predecessors, but have about 1 mpg lower average fuel economy.
    Volkswagen redesigned its compact Passat line to be mid-size 
without changing the average weight or fuel economy of these models. 
The Cabriolet model was replaced after a year's absence with a new, 
larger Cabrio model that weighed about 300 lbs more but achieved nearly 
the same fuel economy as the 16-year old design.

B. Engine and Transmission Technology

    Several new engine designs and some significant engine redesigns 
were introduced on light vehicles for sale in the U.S. for MY 1995. The 
new engines for Chrysler include a 2 L, 4-valve-per- cylinder, 4-
cylinder engine for use in the Neon, the Stratus, and the Talon in 
various versions. It is produced in single-overhead camshaft (SOHC) and 
DOHC configurations, and the DOHC design is offered in naturally 
aspirated and turbocharged versions. Another new Chrysler engine is a 
similar, but larger, 2.4 L DOHC, 4-valve, 4-cylinder engine with a 
balance shaft for the Cirrus and Stratus. Chrysler also introduced a 
2.5 L SOHC, 4-valve V-6 for the Cirrus and Stratus. All of these 
engines use cast iron blocks with aluminum cylinder heads. The 2 L DOHC 
engine has the highest specific

[[Page 20325]]

output of any naturally aspirated engine that Chrysler has ever 
produced.
    Ford developed two new engines for its new Contour and Mystique 
models--the 2 L 4-cylinder ``Zetec,'' and the 2.5 L V-6 ``Duratec.'' 
Both engines use 4 valves per cylinder. The Zetec is SOHC with cast 
iron block and aluminum cylinder head while the Duratec is DOHC with 
aluminum block and cylinder heads. Ford claims the Duratec engine is 
the smallest and lightest V-6 engine in the world for its displacement, 
and Ford has established a 100,000-mile interval for major service of 
the engine. A significant engine modification at Ford was the 
adaptation of the 4.6 L DOHC 4-valve V-8 for a transverse, FWD 
installation for the Lincoln Continental. This is Ford's first 
application of a V-8 engine in a FWD car. This engine was previously 
used only in the rear-wheel drive Mark VIII.
    GM introduced a 4 L version of its Premium V engine family for the 
Oldsmobile Aurora. This engine is a DOHC V-8 with 4 valves per cylinder 
and uses an aluminum block and cylinder heads. A 1.3 L SOHC 4-cylinder 
was added to the Geo Metro line to augment the previous 1 L 3-cylinder 
engine. The engine has an aluminum block and cylinder head and produces 
40 percent more horsepower than the 3-cylinder. GM also refined the 2.3 
L Quad 4 engine by adding two balance shafts to reduce the engine 
vibration. The GM 3.8 L V-6 received extensive improvements with larger 
valves, lighter pushrod valve train, and a lower, lighter engine block. 
The redesigned engine produces more power, better fuel economy, and 
less emissions than its predecessor.
    Mazda introduced a modification of the conventional spark ignition 
engine called the ``Miller cycle.'' By using a late closing of the 
intake valves coupled with a supercharger, the Miller cycle design 
reduces pumping losses while retaining high power and mid-range torque. 
The optional 2.3 L DOHC 4-valve V-6 Miller cycle engine produces better 
fuel economy and better performance in the Mazda Millenia than the 
similar, but conventional cycle, 2.5 L standard engine. Mazda also 
claims that its Miller cycle engine will have 1.3 times better 
durability than conventional engines.
    Mercedes-Benz introduced a 4-valve-per-cylinder, naturally 
aspirated diesel engine with a catalytic converter that meets 50 state 
emissions standards. The new engine is an indirect injection design 
with a variable resonance intake manifold to improve the torque 
performance. It was offered in the 3,500-lb E300 sedan where it 
achieved an average fuel economy of 34.2 mpg, the highest fuel economy 
of any car of over 2,700 lbs curb weight.
    Nissan developed a 3 L DOHC V-6 ``VQ'' engine with aluminum block 
and cylinder heads for use in its Maxima passenger cars. The engine has 
lower internal friction and lighter rotating parts than its 
predecessor, resulting in improved performance and fuel economy for the 
Maxima. This engine is expected to be produced in other sizes in the 
future for other Nissan models.
    Saab began offering its ``Light Pressure Turbo (LPT)'' 2.3 L engine 
in U.S. models of the 9000. This engine has a lower turbocharger boost 
pressure that achieves better fuel economy with smoother power flow by 
reducing the typical turbocharger lag. The Saab 9000 with this LPT 
engine had the best fuel economy of any large car in MY 1995.
    New transmissions for MY 1995 include the Ford 4-speed automatic 
for the Contour and Mystique which features a belt-rather than gear-
drive to the final drive. Ford claims this electronically controlled 
transmission is the most compact 4-speed automatic for its torque 
capacity. Ford also designed a new 5-speed manual transmission for 
these models that has low friction bearings and is synchronized in all 
gears. GM developed its first 4-speed transverse automatic transmission 
for use in compact cars.

C. Electronics

    As electronic devices for safety and convenience proliferate, much 
of the improvements in electronics are centered on further integration 
of the control systems. MY 1995 saw an increase in the application of 
anti-lock braking systems, traction control, anti-theft devices, and 
remote locking systems. New or more advanced electronic systems are 
being applied to engine diagnostics, more sophisticated air bag 
systems, vehicle stability controls, and navigation systems. The auto 
industry and its suppliers are developing computers, integrated 
circuits, and multiplex wiring to simplify and improve the operation of 
the variety of electronic systems contained in the modern vehicle.

D. Materials

    Although the average weight of the new passenger car and light 
truck fleets increased for MY 1995, auto manufacturers introduced 
significant new applications of lighter or stronger materials that 
precluded greater weight increases on some models. According to 
information included in Ward's Automotive Yearbook 1995, several 
materials have increased their share of the composition of the typical 
family vehicle between 1990 and 1995. These materials include high- and 
medium-strength steel, stainless steel, plastics and plastic 
composites, aluminum, powder metal (PM), magnesium, and glass. These 
increases have been at the expense of several of the more traditional 
automotive materials: regular steel, cast iron, copper and brass, and 
zinc.
    Some of the notable applications of lighter or stronger materials 
are discussed in the following paragraphs.
    Examples of new model uses of high- and medium-strength steels 
include medium-strength steel for the hood, door, and rear-hatch outer 
panels of the Eagle Talon/Mitsubishi Eclipse and high-strength steel 
for the longitudinal frame rails. The front door inner panels and hinge 
reinforcements of the Dodge/Plymouth Neon are high-strength steel. Ford 
uses bake-hardenable medium-strength steel for outer body panels on the 
Windstar minivan and the Contour and Mystique sedans.
    New applications for plastics for MY 1995 have been mainly in small 
parts and conversions from one type of plastic to another. Some of the 
notable applications include sheet molding composite (SMC) hoods for 
the Ford Windstar and hoods and front fenders for the Lincoln 
Continental. Plastic intake manifolds are widely used, and new 
applications for MY 1995 include the Ford 2 L, 16-valve engine, the 
Cadillac Northstar and Olds Aurora
V-8s, and the Ford Windstar 3.8 L V-6.
    Much of the growth in use of aluminum in MY 1995 vehicles can be 
attributed to Ford Motor Company applications. The Duratec V-6 engine 
for the Contour/Mystique models is the first U.S.-production 6-cylinder 
engine with both the block and heads of aluminum. The new Lincoln 
Continental uses the Ford modular V-8 for the first time, and this 
engine contains about 70 lbs of aluminum. The restyled Ford Crown 
Victoria and Mercury Grand Marquis use aluminum deck lids. Aluminum 
wheels are standard equipment on more cars from all manufacturers and 
are also popular options. Also of note is the Ford test fleet of 20 
Mercury Sables designed with aluminum body structures and body panels. 
These vehicles weigh about 400 lbs less than the production Sable and 
are being evaluated extensively in a 42-month program with a number of 
organizations at a variety of locations.
    PM connecting rods are approaching universal application in U.S. 
production spark ignition engines. New for MY

[[Page 20326]]

1995 are PM connecting rods for the Ford Duratec V-6, 3.8 L V-6, and 
the modular V-8 for the Lincoln Continental. Chrysler uses PM for the 
connecting rods of the 2 and 2.4 L engines, and GM added PM rods to the 
Aurora and Northstar Premium V engines which completes GM's conversion 
to PM connecting rods. GM also used PM gears for the parking brake of 
its new 4-speed automatic transmission for small cars.
    The GM Aurora V-8 engine uses magnesium camshaft covers, baffles, 
and oil filter adapters for MY 1995. Ford uses magnesium for some of 
the seat stanchions for the Windstar minivan. On the experimental side, 
Chrysler built a light-weight version of the Neon compact car, reducing 
the weight by 600 lbs. This vehicle employs an aluminum body and engine 
block but also uses magnesium for seat frames, instrument panel 
structures, and parts of the steering column.

E. Summary

    The continued availability and low cost of gasoline has encouraged 
the production and sale of larger, heavier passenger cars and light 
trucks. The increased popularity of light trucks relative to passenger 
cars and the popularity of accessories that add weight and draw 
additional power from the engine have reduced the fuel economy of the 
vehicles. Nevertheless, there was still progress in improving fuel 
economy evident in many new model introductions. Much of the 
improvement was due to innovations in engine technology, but there was 
also some weight reduction accomplished through more efficient 
packaging design and the use of lighter or stronger materials.

[FR Doc. 96-10963 Filed 5-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P