[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