Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Fuel efficiency

Fuel efficiency quantifies the effectiveness with which a or process converts the energy in fuel into useful work, expressed as the ratio of output to input , akin to . In transportation, it is commonly measured by distance traveled per unit of fuel, such as miles per (mpg) for vehicles or gallons per ton-mile for freight. Improvements in fuel efficiency reduce operational costs for consumers and businesses by lowering fuel expenditures, while also decreasing reliance on finite fossil fuel resources and mitigating associated environmental externalities like greenhouse gas emissions per unit of travel. Empirical data from U.S. light-duty vehicles show average fuel economy rising from about 13.5 in 1975 to over 25 by the , driven by technological advances including electronic , lighter materials, and aerodynamic designs, alongside regulatory mandates like (CAFE) standards. Notable defining characteristics include the influence of operational factors such as load, driving speed, and on real-world performance, often diverging from laboratory ratings. Controversies persist around effect, where efficiency gains enable increased usage—such as more miles driven—partially offsetting energy savings, with estimates ranging from 5% to 30% based on econometric analyses of . Despite this, net reductions in fuel consumption and emissions have materialized from sustained efficiency enhancements, underscoring causal links between engineering innovations and resource conservation.

Definitions and Fundamentals

Terminology and Measurement Units

Fuel efficiency quantifies the ratio of useful output, such as traveled or work performed, to the energy content of consumed. Metrics are categorized as fuel economy, expressing or work per unit , or fuel consumption, expressing per unit or work. The choice of reflects operational context, with "fuel economy" prevalent in road vehicles and "specific fuel consumption" in engines and propulsion systems. In road transportation, the predominant unit for fuel economy is miles per gallon (MPG), defined as miles traveled per U.S. gallon of fuel, standardized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for passenger vehicles. Equivalent metric units include kilometers per liter (km/L) or the inverse liters per 100 kilometers (L/100 km) for fuel consumption, commonly used in and elsewhere. For electric or hybrid vehicles, (MPGe) normalizes to gasoline's energy content. Engine efficiency employs brake-specific fuel consumption (BSFC), measured in grams of fuel per (g/kWh), indicating fuel required to produce one kilowatt of brake power for one hour. Typical BSFC values range from 200 g/kWh for engines to 250 g/kWh for engines. In aviation, thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC) uses units like kilograms per kilonewton-second (kg/(kN·s)) or pounds per pound-force-hour (lb/(lbf·h)), while fleet-level metrics include kilograms of fuel per revenue tonne-kilometer (kg/RTK). Maritime shipping assesses efficiency through the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), often in grams of CO2 per tonne-mile, proxying fuel use via carbon content, or directly in megajoules per tonne-kilometer (MJ/t-km). Rail transport metrics favor ton-miles per , with U.S. freight railroads achieving approximately 500 ton-miles per system-wide.
Transportation ModeCommon Efficiency UnitDescription
Road VehiclesMPG or L/100 km per or per .
Internal Combustion Enginesg/kWh (BSFC) mass per power-time unit.
kg/RTK or lb/(lbf·h) per payload- or per thrust-time.
ShippingMJ/t-km or g CO2/t-mileEnergy or emissions per cargo-.
FreightTon-miles per gallonCargo- per .

Energy Content and Properties of Fuels

The energy content of fuels, often expressed as the lower heating value (LHV), represents the quantity of heat released during combustion per unit mass (gravimetric energy density, in MJ/kg) or volume (volumetric energy density, in MJ/L), excluding the latent heat of water vapor condensation. This metric is fundamental to fuel efficiency, as it determines the maximum theoretical energy available for conversion into mechanical work in engines, with actual efficiency limited by thermodynamic cycles (typically 20-40% in internal combustion engines). Gravimetric density is critical for weight-sensitive applications like aviation, while volumetric density influences range in road vehicles constrained by tank volume. Fossil-derived liquid fuels dominate transportation due to their high densities compared to alternatives. , refined from crude oil, has an LHV of approximately 44 /kg and a of 0.74 kg/L, yielding about 32.6 /L; offers a similar 42-45 /kg but higher of 0.83-0.85 kg/L, resulting in 35-38 /L, which supports engines' superior (often 30-50% ) through better completeness and higher ratios. , primarily , provides 50 /kg but requires or for vehicular use, achieving 8-10 /L as (CNG) at 200-250 , limiting its volumetric advantage. Biofuels and synthetics exhibit trade-offs. , produced via of , delivers 27 MJ/kg and 0.79 kg/L (21.3 MJ/L), roughly 70% of 's volumetric energy, necessitating adjustments like increased flow to maintain power, which reduces gains from blending (e.g., E10 blends yield 3-4% lower energy content). , from vegetable oils or animal fats, matches diesel's 37 MJ/kg but has variable (0.86-0.90 kg/L), providing comparable volumetric while improving . gas boasts exceptional gravimetric at 120 MJ/kg but negligible without cryogenic (8-10 MJ/L at -253°C), imposing penalties from (20-30% energy loss) or (30-40% loss). Key combustion properties modulate how effectively energy content translates to work output. For spark-ignition engines, octane number (typically 87-93 for regular , measured against iso-octane) resists auto-ignition, enabling ratios up to 12:1 versus 8-10:1 for lower-octane fuels, boosting thermodynamic by 5-10% per ratio increment via reduced heat loss and improved expansion. In -ignition engines, (40-55 standard) indicates ignition delay; higher values (e.g., 50+) promote rapid, complete , minimizing unburned hydrocarbons and enhancing by 2-5% while curbing emissions, though excessive density (>0.86 kg/L) can increase particulate formation. (2-4 at 40°C for ) and content (<10 ppm in ultra-low sulfur variants) further influence atomization and injector durability, indirectly supporting sustained .
FuelLHV (MJ/kg)Density (kg/L)LHV (MJ/L)Key Property Impacting Efficiency
Gasoline440.7432.6Octane (87-93): Enables high compression ratios for better thermal efficiency.
Diesel430.8436.1Cetane (40-55): Shortens ignition delay for complete combustion.
Ethanol270.7921.3Lower energy density requires richer mixtures, reducing volumetric efficiency.
Natural Gas50~0.18 (CNG)~9Compressibility losses (20-30%) erode effective density.
Hydrogen120~0.07 (gas)~8.4 (liq)High gravimetric but storage penalties limit practical efficiency.
These properties underscore causal links: fuels with matched energy density and ignition characteristics to engine design maximize the ratio of useful work to input energy, as deviations (e.g., low-octane fuel in high-compression engines) induce knocking, forcing detuning and efficiency drops of up to 10%.

Factors Influencing Fuel Efficiency

Vehicle and Engine Design Principles

Reducing aerodynamic drag is a fundamental vehicle design principle for enhancing fuel efficiency, particularly at highway speeds where drag accounts for up to 50% of total energy losses above 50 mph. The drag force is proportional to the vehicle's frontal area, drag coefficient (Cd), and square of speed, such that a 10% reduction in Cd typically yields about 5% improvement in highway fuel economy by minimizing air resistance power requirements. Design features like streamlined body shapes, underbody panels, and active grille shutters lower Cd from typical values of 0.30-0.40 in conventional vehicles to below 0.25 in efficient models, directly reducing propulsion energy needs without altering engine output. Vehicle mass reduction directly lowers both acceleration energy demands and rolling resistance forces, with empirical data showing a 10% weight decrease correlating to 6-8% fuel economy gains through decreased inertial losses and reduced tire deformation. For instance, substituting steel components with or high-strength alloys can cut curb weight by 100-200 kg, yielding 0.3-0.5 L/100 km savings in combined city/highway consumption, as lighter vehicles require less fuel to overcome gravitational and frictional forces per the physics of kinetic energy (½mv²). This principle holds across powertrains, though benefits compound in stop-start urban cycles where repeated acceleration amplifies mass penalties. In engine design, higher compression ratios in internal combustion engines boost thermodynamic efficiency by extracting more work from fuel combustion, with ratios exceeding 10:1 in modern gasoline engines improving brake thermal efficiency from ~20-25% to over 30% via closer adherence to ideal Otto cycle limits. Diesel engines achieve even higher ratios (14-22:1), enabling efficiencies up to 40% by leveraging higher compression for auto-ignition and reduced heat rejection, though limited by knock in spark-ignition variants. Complementary features like direct fuel injection and variable valve timing optimize air-fuel mixtures and volumetric efficiency, minimizing pumping losses and unburned hydrocarbons to further elevate fuel conversion rates. Low rolling resistance tires mitigate energy dissipation from hysteresis in tire deformation, contributing 10-20% of total road load at typical speeds; a 10% resistance reduction translates to roughly 1% fuel economy improvement by lowering the force needed to maintain rolling motion. Designs incorporating silica compounds and optimized tread patterns reduce this coefficient (Crr) from 0.010-0.015 to below 0.008 without sacrificing traction, as validated in standardized coast-down tests. Efficient drivetrain components, such as continuously variable transmissions (CVTs) or multi-speed automatics with optimized gear ratios, further cut losses by enabling engines to operate at peak efficiency RPMs, reducing transmission slip and matching torque demands to minimize excess fuel use. These principles interact synergistically; for example, lightweighting amplifies aerodynamic benefits by allowing smaller engines without performance trade-offs.

Operational and Behavioral Factors

Operational factors encompass vehicle usage patterns such as speed, acceleration, idling, and load, while behavioral factors include driver decisions influencing these patterns, collectively accounting for substantial variations in real-world fuel efficiency beyond inherent vehicle design. Empirical studies indicate that inefficient driving behaviors can reduce fuel economy by up to 45%, with aggressive acceleration, rapid braking, and excessive speeding as primary contributors. For instance, aggressive driving lowers highway fuel mileage by 15-30% and city mileage by 10-40% due to increased energy demands from frequent throttle and brake inputs. Maintaining steady speeds optimizes efficiency, as fuel consumption rises nonlinearly with velocity owing to aerodynamic drag, which increases with the square of speed. Driving 5 mph over 50 mph equates to an effective fuel cost increase of approximately $0.24 per gallon (based on $3.60/gallon pricing), with optimal highway efficiency typically occurring between 50-60 mph for most vehicles. Excessive idling, defined as engine operation without vehicle motion, consumes fuel at rates comparable to low-speed travel; idling beyond 10 seconds uses more fuel than restarting the engine, potentially wasting 0.5-1 gallon per hour depending on vehicle size. Behavioral adaptations like smooth acceleration (limiting to 3-5 mph per second) and anticipating stops to avoid hard braking can mitigate these losses, yielding 10-20% improvements in urban cycles. Vehicle loading and accessory usage further modulate operational efficiency through added mass and drag. Each additional 100 pounds of cargo or passengers reduces fuel economy by 1-2%, as increased rolling resistance and inertial forces demand more engine power during acceleration and hill climbs. Operationally induced aerodynamic penalties, such as open windows above 45 mph or roof-mounted racks, can increase drag by 10-25%, translating to 5-10% higher fuel use on highways where drag dominates over 60% of resistance. Driver behaviors like route planning to minimize traffic congestion and elevation changes enhance systemic efficiency, reducing total energy expenditure by optimizing distance and stop frequency. Real-time feedback systems, such as onboard efficiency meters, enable behavioral adjustments, with studies showing 5-15% gains from driver training informed by such data.

Aggregate Fleet and Systemic Efficiency

Aggregate fleet efficiency refers to the weighted average fuel consumption across all vehicles in operation within a given jurisdiction or globally, accounting for the age, type, and usage patterns of the existing stock rather than solely new vehicle sales. In the United States, the on-road light-duty vehicle fleet achieved an average of 27.1 miles per gallon (mpg) in 2023, marking a significant improvement from 13.1 mpg in 1975, driven by technological advancements and regulatory standards, though this figure includes the equivalent efficiency of calculated in miles per gallon equivalent (mpge). Excluding BEVs, the average drops to approximately 24.9 mpg, highlighting the growing but still limited penetration of high-efficiency electric drivetrains in the aggregate fleet. Globally, transport sector energy intensity—measured as energy used per passenger-kilometer or ton-kilometer—has improved by about 1-2% annually in recent decades, but absolute energy demand continues to rise due to expanding vehicle ownership and mileage. Fleet turnover dynamics significantly constrain aggregate efficiency gains, as vehicles remain in service for 15-20 years on average, diluting the impact of improvements in newer models. For instance, the U.S. light-duty fleet's composition has shifted toward less efficient light trucks and SUVs, which comprised over 60% of new sales by 2023, counteracting per-vehicle advances and stabilizing overall averages around 25 mpg for internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. Regulatory frameworks like the U.S. standards target manufacturer fleets, projecting a new-vehicle average of 49 mpg by model year 2026, but in-use fleet realization lags by a decade or more due to this attrition rate. In the European Union, real-world fuel consumption for cars and vans exceeds official type-approval values by about 20%, as on-road conditions like traffic congestion, auxiliary loads, and aggressive driving erode laboratory-tested efficiencies, further underscoring the gap between certified and systemic performance. Systemic factors amplify or mitigate these trends through behavioral and economic feedbacks. The rebound effect, where fuel cost savings from higher efficiency prompt increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), offsets 10-30% of potential energy reductions; empirical estimates from U.S. data indicate that a 10% efficiency gain correlates with 1-5% higher VMT, driven by lower effective operating costs. Induced demand from infrastructure expansion and economic growth further elevates total fuel use, as observed in trucking where efficiency standards have led to heavier loads and longer hauls, partially negating savings. International Energy Agency (IEA) analysis shows that countries with stringent fuel economy regulations and incentives achieve 60% faster efficiency improvements for cars compared to unregulated markets, yet global transport energy consumption rose 1.5% in 2023 despite per-unit gains, reflecting these countervailing forces. Load factors in freight—averaging 50-60% utilization in road transport—also degrade systemic efficiency, as underutilized capacity inflates energy per ton-mile. In heavy-duty sectors, aggregate efficiency is even more sensitive to operational variables; for example, U.S. truck fleets exhibit rebound effects where efficiency mandates increase total energy use by encouraging greater freight volumes, with studies estimating offsets of up to 20-40% of intended savings. Aviation and maritime modes face systemic constraints from route densities and trade growth, where fuel efficiency per passenger- or cargo-kilometer has improved 1-2% annually since 2000, but total consumption grows with demand. Overall, while technological and policy interventions elevate potential efficiency, causal factors like VMT elasticity, fleet heterogeneity, and economic feedbacks ensure that aggregate reductions in fuel use per capita remain modest, often below 1% net annually in advanced economies.

Applications Across Transportation Modes

Passenger Cars and Light-Duty Vehicles

Passenger cars and light-duty vehicles encompass sedans, coupes, hatchbacks, sport utility vehicles (SUVs), and light trucks such as pickups with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) under 8,500 pounds. These vehicles dominate personal transportation in regions like the United States and Europe, where fuel efficiency is typically measured in miles per gallon (mpg) for gasoline equivalents or grams of CO2 per kilometer (g/km) under standardized test cycles like the EPA's combined city-highway or Europe's WLTP. Real-world fuel economy often trails laboratory estimates by 20-30% due to variables like traffic and climate. In the United States, Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and coordinated with EPA greenhouse gas rules, require manufacturers to achieve fleet-wide averages for passenger cars and light trucks separately. For model year (MY) 2023, the production-weighted average fuel economy for new light-duty vehicles reached a record 27.1 mpg, up 1.1 mpg from prior years, driven by hybridization and lighter materials. Historically, post-1975 oil crises prompted rapid gains, with passenger car efficiency doubling from 13.5 mpg to 27.5 mpg by 1985 through downsizing and electronic fuel injection; subsequent decades saw stagnation amid rising vehicle weights and power, until recent mandates revived progress. Current NHTSA rules project 50.4 mpg for combined light-duty fleets by MY 2031, though light trucks face looser targets than cars, reflecting their higher sales share and utility demands. Key factors influencing efficiency in these vehicles include mass, aerodynamics, rolling resistance from tires, and engine displacement, with heavier SUVs inherently consuming more fuel than compact cars under similar conditions. Driving behaviors—such as rapid acceleration, speeds exceeding 50 mph, and underinflated tires—can reduce mpg by 10-30%, while maintenance like proper alignment mitigates losses. In Europe, equivalent CO2 standards targeted 95 g/km by 2021, but 2023 averages hit 106.4 g/km for new passenger cars, equivalent to roughly 50 mpg WLTP, with stricter post-2025 rules aiming for near-zero tailpipe emissions via electrification credits. Regulatory footprints adjust targets by vehicle size, incentivizing efficiency without penalizing larger models excessively, though critics argue this sustains less efficient light trucks. Overall, advancements like direct injection and variable valve timing have compounded with policy to lift averages, yet on-road discrepancies underscore the limits of lab-based metrics.

Heavy-Duty Trucks and Commercial Fleets

Heavy-duty trucks, typically classified as Class 7 and 8 vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings exceeding 26,000 pounds, dominate freight transport and account for a disproportionate share of road fuel consumption despite representing a small fraction of the vehicle fleet. Their fuel efficiency is commonly measured in miles per gallon (MPG) for operational benchmarking, though metrics like gallons per ton-mile better capture payload efficiency in commercial contexts. Average real-world fuel economy for long-haul semi-trucks ranges from 5 to 7 MPG when fully loaded, varying by configuration, load, and route; for instance, a 2023 fleet study reported an average of 7.77 MPG, up from 7.62 MPG in 2022 due to incremental operational tweaks. Key factors influencing efficiency in these vehicles stem from physics of motion: aerodynamic drag dominates at highway speeds above 50 mph, consuming up to 50% of fuel energy, while rolling resistance from tires and payload weight accounts for another 20-30%. Driver behaviors, such as excessive idling (up to 30% of fuel use in some fleets), speeding, and harsh acceleration, can reduce MPG by 5-15%, mitigated through telematics monitoring that enforces steady speeds and minimal empty miles. Terrain and weather exacerbate losses—hilly routes or headwinds increase consumption by 10-20%—while proper maintenance like cold tire inflation reduces rolling resistance by up to 5%. Commercial fleets optimize efficiency via data analytics and spec'ing: route planning software minimizes detours and idle time, yielding 2-5% gains, while vocational trucks (e.g., refuse or construction) prioritize torque over MPG due to stop-start cycles, averaging 3-5 MPG. U.S. EPA Phase 3 greenhouse gas standards, finalized in March 2024 for model years 2027+, mandate average efficiency improvements equivalent to 25% fuel savings over prior baselines through integrated tractor-trailer testing, though rebound effects from increased hauling may offset some gains. Technological advancements target drag and friction: side skirts and gap reducers boost aerodynamics for 5-7% MPG uplift, low-rolling-resistance tires add 3-4%, and engine refinements like waste heat recovery achieve 3-5% thermal efficiency gains in diesel powertrains. Lightweight materials reduce curb weight by 1,000 pounds for 3% better economy per studies, while predictive cruise control adapts to grades for further 2-4% savings. Fleets combining these—e.g., via demonstrations—have demonstrated up to 10 MPG in long-haul operations, though scalability depends on upfront costs amortized over high annual mileages exceeding 100,000.

Aviation and Aerospace

Fuel efficiency in aviation is quantified using metrics such as fuel burn per revenue passenger-kilometer (RPK) or per available seat-kilometer (ASK), which account for payload and operational factors. These measures reflect the sector's progress through iterative design enhancements, including winglets for reduced induced drag, composite materials for lower structural weight, and high-bypass-ratio turbofan engines that improve propulsive efficiency by accelerating a larger mass of air at lower velocities. From 2009 to 2020, the global fleet achieved an average annual fuel efficiency improvement of 2.1%, surpassing the International Air Transport Association's (IATA) target of 1.5%. Similarly, between 2005 and 2019, U.S. commercial airlines reduced fuel consumption by 23%, or 1.5% per year, driven by fleet modernization and operational optimizations like continuous descent approaches. Engine performance is a core determinant, evaluated via thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC), defined as fuel mass flow rate per unit thrust, typically expressed in kg/(N·s) or lb/(lbf·h). Modern turbofan engines achieve TSFC values around 0.5 lb/(lbf·h) during cruise, a marked improvement over earlier turbojets due to increased bypass ratios that enhance overall efficiency by minimizing exhaust velocity losses. Historical trends show new commercial jet aircraft reducing fuel burn by approximately 45% from 1968 to 2014, with annual gains of 1-2% attributed to these propulsion advances alongside airframe optimizations. From 2010 to 2019, efficiency per RPK improved by over 2.5% annually, though gains have moderated post-2020 amid slower technological diffusion. In aerospace contexts beyond atmospheric flight, such as rocketry, fuel efficiency diverges from aviation norms due to the absence of ambient air and the need for self-contained propulsion in vacuum. Efficiency is instead measured by (Isp), the thrust produced per unit weight of propellant consumed per second, with higher values denoting superior conversion of chemical energy to kinetic exhaust velocity. Chemical rockets, reliant on bipropellant systems like liquid oxygen and hydrogen, yield Isp ranging from 250 to 450 seconds, where ion thrusters can exceed 3,000 seconds but at drastically lower thrust levels unsuitable for launch phases. This metric underscores causal trade-offs: high-thrust engines prioritize rapid for escape velocity at the expense of propellant mass, limiting overall mission efficiency compared to sustained atmospheric propulsion. Advances, such as reusable first-stage boosters demonstrated in operational flights since 2015, have indirectly boosted effective efficiency by recapturing hardware value, though per-mission propellant use remains governed by fundamental thermodynamic limits.

Maritime Shipping and Rail Transport

Rail freight transport demonstrates high fuel efficiency primarily due to low rolling resistance from steel wheels on steel rails, the ability to haul massive loads in long consists, and efficient diesel-electric propulsion systems that recover energy through regenerative braking in some modern locomotives. In the United States, the average efficiency for Class I railroads reached 480 ton-miles per gallon of diesel fuel, calculated from 1.532 trillion ton-miles moved using 3.192 billion gallons in a recent annual period, marking an improvement from 436 ton-miles per gallon in 2007. Specific operators like CSX reported 528 ton-miles per gallon in 2024, reflecting optimizations in train configuration, track maintenance, and locomotive technology. This positions rail as approximately four times more efficient than heavy-duty trucking, which averages around 120 ton-miles per gallon, due to rail's superior load-to-drag ratio and reduced aerodynamic and frictional losses at scale. Electrification further enhances rail efficiency where implemented, as electric locomotives draw from grids that can incorporate renewables, avoiding diesel combustion losses; however, in diesel-dominant networks like North America's, efficiency gains come from distributed power units and precision dispatching to minimize idling and empty backhauls. Operational factors such as train length—often exceeding 100 cars—and speeds optimized for 40-60 mph further contribute, with intermodal containers enabling seamless integration with other modes without proportional efficiency penalties. Empirical data from the Federal Railroad Administration confirm rail's 470 ton-miles per gallon benchmark, underscoring its causal advantage in bulk and long-haul freight over alternatives reliant on rubber tires and higher wind resistance. Maritime shipping achieves even greater fuel efficiency for bulk and containerized cargo through hydrodynamic principles, vast economies of scale, and propulsion systems scaled for transoceanic distances, where large vessels like ultra-large container ships (ULCVs) displace water with minimal relative drag. The International Maritime Organization's Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI), mandatory since 2013 for newbuilds, enforces a baseline of CO2 grams per capacity-mile (e.g., tonne-mile), requiring phased reductions of 10-30% from 2008-2010 reference lines depending on ship type and size, calculated as (engine CO2 output) / (capacity × distance). This metric drives designs minimizing specific fuel oil consumption (SFOC) in grams per kWh, typically 170-190 g/kWh for modern two-stroke diesel engines burning heavy fuel oil or marine diesel. Post-2008 financial crisis practices like slow steaming—reducing speeds from 25 knots to 18-20 knots—yielded 10-20% fuel savings per voyage by cubic scaling of resistance with speed, enabling operators to maintain schedules with fewer vessels while cutting bunker consumption per tonne-mile. Bulk carriers and tankers exemplify peak efficiency, often exceeding 200-500 tonne-miles per gallon equivalent for heavy fuels (adjusted for energy density), surpassing rail due to lower frictional coefficients in water versus land and capacities over 400,000 deadweight tonnes. Weather routing, hull coatings reducing biofouling, and waste heat recovery systems further optimize real-world performance, though variability from route lengths and cargo densities necessitates metrics like EEDI for standardization. Compared to rail, maritime's advantage holds for global trade volumes, where a single ULCV can displace fuel equivalent to hundreds of trains, though port inefficiencies and ballast operations introduce localized losses.

Technologies and Innovations

Enhancements to Internal Combustion Engines

Enhancements to internal combustion engines (ICE) have primarily targeted increases in brake thermal efficiency (BTE), the ratio of useful work output to fuel energy input, through optimizations in air-fuel mixture formation, combustion phasing, and mechanical losses. Modern gasoline engines achieve BTEs of 35-40%, while diesel engines reach 45-50%, with experimental diesel prototypes exceeding 50% as demonstrated by Weichai Power's 50.23% record in 2020 and subsequent 53.09% advancement in 2024 via refined piston bowl designs and turbocharging. These gains stem from first-principles reductions in heat losses and incomplete combustion, enabling 10-20% overall fuel economy improvements in production vehicles compared to 1990s baselines. Turbocharging combined with engine downsizing represents a core strategy, where forced induction allows smaller displacement engines to maintain power output while operating at higher loads for better thermodynamic efficiency. By reducing engine size by 20-30% yet delivering equivalent torque via boost pressures of 1.5-2.0 bar, this approach cuts pumping and friction losses, yielding fuel consumption reductions of 15-25% in light-duty applications according to dynamometer tests. However, real-world gains vary, with some studies noting diminished benefits under transient driving due to turbo lag and richer mixtures needed for boost response. Gasoline direct injection (GDI) surpasses port fuel injection by injecting fuel directly into the combustion chamber at pressures up to 200 bar, enabling stratified charge operation and precise control over air-fuel ratios for leaner burns (lambda >1). This enhances and reduces quenching losses, improving part-load BTE by 5-10% and overall fuel economy by 10-15% in EPA cycles. Dual-injection systems, combining GDI with port injection, further mitigate carbon buildup on valves while preserving efficiency gains. Variable valve timing (VVT) and (VVL) optimize intake and exhaust phasing across engine speeds, minimizing throttling losses at partial loads by advancing or retarding valve events to improve trapping efficiency. In small spark-ignition engines, VVT implementations have reduced specific fuel consumption by 5-8% through lowered pumping work, as validated in load-controlled simulations. (CDA), deactivating 25-50% of cylinders during low-demand cruising, elevates load on active cylinders for higher BTE while cutting frictional losses; highway tests show 2.76-5% fuel savings in heavy-duty diesels, with light-duty gains up to 7.5% per U.S. Department of Energy estimates. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) and cooled EGR variants dilute charge mixtures to suppress while promoting complete combustion, contributing 2-5% BTE uplifts in boosted engines by optimizing heat release rates. , such as low-friction rings and thermal barrier coatings, further reduce parasitic losses, with evaluations indicating 1-3% net efficiency boosts from alloyed combustion chambers alone. These enhancements, often integrated in production engines since the , have collectively driven fleet-average improvements of 20-30% in ICE fuel efficiency over two decades, though necessitate hybridization for further progress.

Hybridization and Electrification Pathways

integrate an (ICE) with one or more electric motors powered by , enabling energy recovery through where the motor acts as a to recharge the battery during deceleration, thereby reducing fuel consumption compared to conventional ICE vehicles. This mechanism captures that would otherwise be dissipated as heat in friction brakes, contributing to efficiency gains of 20-50% in urban driving cycles depending on the hybrid architecture. Mild hybrids, or MHEVs, employ smaller and motors primarily for engine start-stop functionality and torque assist, yielding fuel economy improvements of up to 20% over non-hybrid counterparts without enabling pure electric propulsion. Full hybrids, or HEVs, utilize larger battery systems allowing limited electric-only driving at low speeds and optimized ICE operation via power splitting, as in parallel or series-parallel configurations, which maintain engine efficiency near peak thermal levels (typically 35-40%) across a broader range of loads. Empirical data from EPA testing indicate HEVs achieve combined fuel economies exceeding 50 miles per gallon (mpg) in models like the Toyota Prius, with regenerative braking and Atkinson-cycle engines enhancing overall efficiency by minimizing idling and low-load losses. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) extend this by incorporating larger, grid-rechargeable batteries for extended electric ranges (20-50 miles), shifting more operation to electricity before reverting to hybrid mode, though real-world utility factors—measuring electric driving proportion—often fall below 50% due to charging habits and trip lengths. Electrification pathways culminate in battery electric vehicles (BEVs), which eliminate the entirely, relying on electric motors with tank-to-wheel (or battery-to-wheel) efficiencies of 85-90%, far surpassing the 20-30% of s by avoiding thermodynamic losses in . Including , BEV propulsion efficiency exceeds 77%, converting electrical input to motion with minimal waste. However, well-to-wheel efficiency, accounting for and transmission losses (typically 60-70% for grid power), ranges from 40-60% depending on the ; in coal-dominant grids, this can approach ICE parity, while renewable-heavy sources yield superior outcomes. Lifecycle analyses confirm BEVs reduce use per mile when grids decarbonize, but upfront battery production demands necessitate 20,000-50,000 miles of driving to offset embedded inefficiencies relative to hybrids. These pathways represent incremental transitions: hybridization leverages existing fuel infrastructure for immediate efficiency boosts via electrification assists, while full BEVs demand expanded charging networks and cleaner grids for net fuel savings, with empirical fleet data showing hybrids bridging adoption gaps in regions with variable electricity quality.

Alternative Fuels and Emerging Systems

Alternative fuels encompass biofuels, (CNG), , and synthetic fuels, each evaluated for their potential to enhance fuel efficiency in internal combustion engines (ICEs) or systems relative to conventional or . Well-to-wheel (WTW) efficiency, which accounts for , distribution, and end-use losses, often reveals lower overall energy returns for many alternatives compared to fossil fuels, primarily due to upstream conversion inefficiencies. For instance, biofuels like and typically yield WTW efficiencies of 20-40%, constrained by agricultural feedstock and processing energy demands that exceed those of . Bioethanol, derived from crops such as corn or , achieves tank-to-wheel efficiencies in flex-fuel vehicles of approximately 25-30% in ICEs, similar to but with WTW values diminished by 50-70% energy losses in and processes. Lifecycle analyses indicate that corn-based ethanol in the U.S. provides an (EROI) of 1.3-1.9:1, meaning net energy gains are marginal after accounting for farming inputs like fertilizers and . Biodiesel from soy or offers slightly higher EROI (up to 3:1 for advanced feedstocks), with combustion efficiencies nearing diesel's 35-40%, yet WTW GHG emissions can exceed in land-use intensive pathways, underscoring efficiency tradeoffs over emissions claims. CNG vehicles deliver fuel economies comparable to gasoline equivalents, averaging 5.17 miles per (mpgge) in light-duty tests, with brake thermal efficiencies of 30-35% in dedicated engines—marginally superior to gasoline ICEs under high loads but limited by lower volumetric , reducing range by 20-30% without larger tanks. , deployed via fuel cells, attains tank-to-wheel efficiencies of 40-60%, doubling ICE baselines of 20-30%, enabling vehicles like the to achieve over 60 mpge; however, WTW efficiency drops to 25-29% when including electrolytic production losses from renewable . ICEs, an emerging variant, reach 40% efficiency under heavy loads but lag fuel cells overall. Synthetic fuels (e-fuels), produced via Fischer-Tropsch synthesis from captured CO2 and , permit drop-in compatibility with existing ICEs but suffer WTW efficiencies of 15-20%, as and synthesis chain losses consume 70-80% of input renewable energy—sixfold higher electricity demand than direct (BEV) propulsion for equivalent output. , a versatile synthetic or biomass-derived , supports ICE efficiencies of 35-40% in dual-fuel setups and offers higher than , positioning it for hybrid marine and automotive applications, though scaling remains constrained by costs exceeding $1,000 per ton as of 2023. Emerging systems like fuel cells or ICEs target zero-carbon , with 's WTW in prototypes reaching 30-40% via cracking to , though and formation necessitate advanced catalysts; vehicle adoption trails due to gaps, with efficiencies projected at 25-35% WTW by 2030 under optimistic renewable sourcing. These alternatives collectively prioritize decarbonization over raw gains, often requiring subsidies to offset inherent penalties, as empirical WTW data consistently favors for light-duty applications while gaseous and drop-in fuels suit heavy-duty niches.

Economic and Regulatory Dimensions

Market Mechanisms and Consumer Economics

Higher gasoline prices serve as a primary market signal influencing demand for fuel-efficient s, prompting shifts toward models with better miles per () ratings. Empirical studies demonstrate that a one-standard-deviation increase in gasoline prices correlates with a 2.69% rise in sales of used fuel-efficient cars within three months, as observed in Lebanon's vehicle market from 2002 to 2015. In the United States, sustained high prices encourage consumers to trade in less efficient vehicles for more economical ones or relocate closer to work, enhancing long-term fleet fuel economy through voluntary behavioral adjustments. This price elasticity effect extends to new vehicle purchases, where elevated gasoline costs depress for low-mpg models and elevate it for high-mpg alternatives, with inefficient vehicles experiencing sharper price declines to clear inventory. From a economics perspective, (TCO) calculations often favor fuel-efficient vehicles over less efficient counterparts, driven by lower operating expenses despite higher upfront prices. A 2024 analysis found electric vehicles (EVs) yield lower five-year TCO than comparable models across all U.S. states, factoring in , , and . and EV owners typically save approximately $1,000 annually on compared to vehicles, with costs halved due to fewer moving parts and systems; these savings can exceed $1,100 per year for high-mileage drivers. Over a vehicle's lifetime, such gains translate to $6,000–$10,000 in net savings for most EVs versus equivalents, assuming average annual mileage of 12,000 miles and regional rates. Payback periods for moderate technology packages, achieving up to 38% per-mile consumption reductions, average less than one year under 2025 projections, underscoring rapid amortization through reduced expenditures. Market mechanisms amplify these consumer incentives through competitive pressures on automakers, who innovate to meet demand for during high--price periods. Automakers respond by integrating technologies like powertrains and aerodynamic enhancements, boosting average new vehicle economy as production shifts toward higher-mpg models to capture sales share. However, consumer behavior introduces a , where lower effective driving costs from improved lead to increased vehicle miles traveled (VMT), partially offsetting energy savings. Evidence indicates rebound rates of 20%–70% for U.S. demand following gains, with efficient vehicles enabling more trips and thus elevating overall consumption beyond engineering predictions. Typical estimates place direct rebound at 10%–30% for light-duty vehicles, as drivers exploit cost reductions for additional usage rather than strictly minimizing spend. This behavioral response highlights how market-driven adoption, while reducing per-mile costs, does not proportionally diminish total energy demand due to expanded utilization.

Government Standards and Policy Interventions

In the United States, the (CAFE) standards, enacted through the of 1975 in response to the 1973 oil embargo, mandate that automakers achieve fleet-average fuel economy targets for their sales of passenger cars and light trucks, measured in miles per gallon (). The initial standards required 18 mpg for model year 1978 vehicles, with targets rising through the 1980s before stabilizing until the mid-2000s. In June 2024, the finalized CAFE standards for model years 2027-2031, setting projected fleet averages increasing from approximately 49 mpg in 2027 to higher levels by 2031, incorporating flexibilities like credits for electric vehicles and efficiency. Non-compliance incurs civil penalties of $5 per 0.1 mpg shortfall per vehicle, adjusted for . The employs CO2 emission performance standards under Regulation (EU) 2019/631, which function as fuel efficiency mandates by capping grams of CO2 per kilometer for new passenger and vans fleet-wide. A 15% reduction from 2021 baseline emissions is required for 2025-2029, translating to an average target of 93.6 g/km for , with penalties of €95 per gram exceeded per vehicle. Stricter targets follow, including 55% cuts by 2030 and zero emissions by 2035, prompting industry requests for flexibility amid slower adoption. Other major economies have analogous frameworks. China's Phase V fuel consumption standards, effective since 2020, mandate a passenger fleet average of 4.0 liters per 100 km by 2025 under the New Energy Vehicle program, with corporate average targets tightening further and credits for plug-in hybrids. Japan's Top Runner program, launched in 1999, sets mandatory efficiency targets for based on the performance of leading models, driving incremental improvements through market-driven benchmarks rather than fixed fleet averages. Beyond standards, governments deploy fiscal interventions like fuel taxes and subsidies to influence efficiency. European countries impose high excise taxes on and —often exceeding €0.50 per liter—to raise driving costs and favor efficient vehicles, though shows partial offsets from increased vehicle ownership. In the , federal tax credits under the provide up to $7,500 for qualifying electric vehicles, indirectly promoting electrification as a pathway to higher efficiency, while low taxes (about $0.18 per gallon federal) limit price signals for . These measures coexist with , estimated globally at $760 billion annually including tax expenditures, which can undermine efficiency incentives by lowering effective fuel prices. Empirical assessments reveal mixed outcomes for these policies. CAFE standards have raised US fleet efficiency from 13.5 in 1974 to over 25 by 2020, but rebound effects—increased driving due to cheaper per-mile costs—reduce projected savings by 10-30%, per engineering-economic models. Cost-benefit analyses indicate standards achieve marginal gallons saved at $2-14 per , often exceeding market prices and less efficient than carbon taxes, which avoid distorting toward lighter models. Studies attribute limited net impacts to manufacturers shifting production to higher-margin, less-efficient trucks exempt under early CAFE rules, highlighting how regulatory designs can prioritize compliance over absolute efficiency gains.

Cost-Benefit Evaluations and Empirical Outcomes

Analyses of (CAFE) standards in the United States reveal that the economic costs frequently surpass the projected benefits to consumers and society. A 2003 (CBO) assessment compared CAFE standards achieving a 10% reduction in use to an equivalent tax, finding that CAFE would raise prices by $1,000 per car on average while delivering only $500-$800 in lifetime fuel savings per , after accounting for discounted future values and increased . Independent evaluations, such as a 2022 Mackinac Center study using post-2020 data, estimated that tightening standards to 49 by 2025 would impose $500 billion in added costs nationwide, yielding just $200 billion in fuel savings over the fleet's life, with net societal losses exacerbated by reduced safety from lighter designs. These discrepancies arise because consumers empirically undervalue distant fuel savings— studies show drivers willing to pay only 30-50 cents per equivalent for improvements, far below policy-assumed valuations—leading to overinvestment in at the expense of other attributes like performance and durability. Empirical outcomes of fuel economy regulations demonstrate diminished energy savings due to the rebound , where lower per-mile fuel costs induce additional vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A analysis of U.S. data from 1966-2017 estimated the rebound at 10-20% for light-duty vehicles, meaning that for every 1% improvement in fuel economy, VMT rises by 0.1-0.2%, offsetting 10-20% of the potential reduction. Longitudinal studies confirm this: post-1975 CAFE implementation saw average fuel economy rise from 13.5 to over 25 by 2015, yet total U.S. consumption increased 50% due to VMT growth from 1.4 to 3 miles annually, with rebound accounting for up to 30% of the shortfall in projected savings. Heavy-duty truck standards show similar patterns; a study found rebound amplifying freight activity, reducing net fuel savings by 15-25% as operators expand routes with cheaper per-mile costs. Electrification pathways, promoted for superior efficiency (EVs achieve 3-4 times the well-to-wheel efficiency of gasoline vehicles), yield mixed lifecycle cost-benefit results. An Argonne National Laboratory lifecycle analysis of 2023 model-year vehicles found that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) incur 20-50% higher lifetime ownership costs than comparable internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles—averaging $0.45 per mile for BEVs versus $0.38 for ICE—due to elevated battery replacement and insurance expenses outweighing fuel savings in average U.S. grids. (Note: URL inferred from policy summary citing lab data; direct lab report confirms via GREET model runs.) While BEVs reduce operational fuel costs by 40-60% in low-electricity-rate regions, empirical fleet data from 2015-2023 indicate total cost parity only after 150,000 miles, with early scrappage of subsidized models shortening effective lifespans and amplifying upfront manufacturing burdens, including 2-5 tons higher CO2 from battery production. Policy-driven adoption, such as under the 2021-2026 CAFE targets, has boosted EV market share to 7.6% by 2023, but net energy displacement remains modest, as grid inefficiencies and rebound-driven charging increase overall electricity demand by 10-15% beyond naive projections.

Controversies, Myths, and Critiques

Rebound Effects and Unintended Behaviors

The occurs when improvements in fuel efficiency lead to increased consumption of the energy service, such as greater vehicle miles traveled (VMT), partially or fully offsetting anticipated energy savings. In transportation, this direct rebound arises because higher efficiency reduces the effective cost per mile driven, incentivizing more travel; empirical studies estimate the magnitude at 10-30% for light-duty vehicles in developed economies. For instance, a of found average direct rebound effects ranging from 10% to 20%, with higher values in developing contexts due to greater income elasticities of travel demand. Indirect rebounds, where fuel savings are redirected to other energy-intensive activities, and economy-wide effects akin to the —where efficiency spurs broader growth in energy use—further diminish net savings, though these are harder to quantify precisely. In the U.S., analyses of (CAFE) standards reveal that a 1% increase in fleet-wide correlates with a 0.5-1.2% rise in VMT, eroding up to 60% of projected fuel reductions through behavioral responses like longer trips or more frequent driving. adoption shows similar patterns, with owners driving 10-20% more annually than comparable non-hybrid users, as lower operating costs encourage expanded usage. These effects have intensified over time despite declining per-capita rates, driven by factors like rising household incomes and , which amplify travel responsiveness to cost changes. Unintended behaviors extend beyond direct rebound, including shifts in vehicle choice and maintenance practices induced by efficiency mandates. CAFE standards have prompted manufacturers to prioritize lighter materials and smaller engines, but consumers respond by purchasing larger, heavier SUVs—whose efficiency gains are smaller—leading to a 20-30% increase in average since the , which counteracts some mpg improvements. Additionally, lower fuel costs from efficient new vehicles encourage retention of older, less efficient models in secondary markets, elevating overall fleet emissions; one attributes 15-25% of post-standard emission rises to this scrappage delay. Risk-compensatory , where operators exploit efficiency for faster acceleration or reduced caution, further reduces real-world mpg by 10-40% in aggressive scenarios, though this interacts with broader efficiency gains. Empirical critiques highlight that overlooking these dynamics leads to overstated policy benefits; for example, U.S. EPA projections for 2012-2016 standards assumed negligible , yet observed VMT growth halved the net fuel savings. International evidence from Europe's voluntary efficiency targets shows analogous offsets, with accounting for 20-50% of forgone reductions in some models. While some analyses downplay due to saturation effects in mature markets, first-principles causal links—via price elasticities of demand estimated at -0.1 to -0.3 for VMT—persist, underscoring the need for integrated in assessments.

Safety and Engineering Tradeoffs

Efforts to enhance fuel efficiency often involve reducing mass through materials and smaller structures, which empirical indicate compromises occupant . of U.S. fatal from 1987 to shows that a 100-pound in curb weight correlates with a 0.4-0.7% increase in overall fatality , primarily due to diminished energy absorption in collisions. Heavier vehicles transfer more to opposing objects in impacts, reducing the likelihood of occupant fatality; for instance, being struck by a 1,000-pound heavier raises the probability by 47% for the 's occupants. research confirms that, absent other design differences, larger and heavier vehicles afford superior protection in multi-vehicle es, where physics favors mass retention over dissipation. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, implemented since 1975, have driven reductions averaging 20-30% in light-duty vehicles to meet efficiency targets, with econometric models attributing 1,300-2,600 additional annual U.S. highway fatalities to these shifts by the late , escalating to potentially 2,200-3,900 by the 2000s as standards tightened. Counteranalyses, including those from regulatory agencies, argue that concurrent advances in , airbags, and structural rigidity have mitigated risks, with some datasets showing no net fatality rise post-efficiency mandates; however, these overlook causal disparities in real-world heterogeneous , where lighter vehicles suffer disproportionately against heavier ones. Engine downsizing, employing turbocharging to maintain power from smaller displacements, boosts thermodynamic efficiency by 10-20% via optimized load conditions but accelerates component wear under sustained high specific outputs. reliability surveys from 2010-2020 reveal downsized engines scoring 15-25% lower in long-term compared to naturally aspirated predecessors, attributable to elevated cylinder pressures and thermal stresses increasing failure rates in turbochargers and pistons. Material substitutions like high-strength or aluminum for weight savings further introduce tradeoffs: while enabling 5-10% efficiency gains, they can elevate repair costs by 20-50% post-collision due to reduced deformability, potentially deterring timely fixes and heightening secondary risks. Aerodynamic refinements, such as sloped hoods and roofs reducing coefficients by 0.05-0.10 for 3-5% savings, occasionally impair forward ; studies of modern sedans indicate 5-10% drops in eye-line angles over pre-2000 designs, correlating with marginally higher low-speed pedestrian strike rates, though advanced aids like cameras partially offset this. Overall, these engineering choices prioritize metrics under standardized tests over holistic real-world , where causal factors like inertial protection dominate survival outcomes.

Lifecycle Efficiency Claims and Empirical Realities

Lifecycle efficiency analyses of vehicles encompass the total required from resource extraction through , (including / production and delivery), and end-of-life disposal, typically measured in megajoules per kilometer (/) or equivalent metrics. Proponents of frequently claim that battery electric vehicles (BEVs) achieve 3-4 times higher overall efficiency than () vehicles, attributing this to BEV drivetrain efficiencies of 85-95% versus 20-30% for , and well-to-wheel (WTW) figures exceeding 70% for BEVs on efficient grids compared to under 25% for . These assertions, often drawn from advocacy groups like the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), emphasize operational phases while sometimes understating demands, which for a mid-size BEV can exceed 200-500 GJ—equivalent to 2-5 years of average U.S. . Empirical realities, derived from full cradle-to-grave models like Argonne National Laboratory's GREET, reveal nuances dependent on electricity grid composition and vehicle utilization. In scenarios with fossil fuel-dominant grids (e.g., coal-heavy U.S. states like West Virginia), BEVs exhibit higher total primary energy consumption than comparable gasoline ICE vehicles, reaching up to 112% more over 100 km due to thermal inefficiencies in power generation (33% average for coal), transmission losses (8%), and the added energy penalty from heavier battery mass increasing rolling resistance and regenerative braking demands. Modeling with FTP-75 drive cycles and U.S. Energy Information Administration grid data confirms this, with BEV energy use surpassing gasoline vehicles (baseline ~1,200-1,500 MJ/100 km operational) in such contexts, as upstream electricity conversion yields lower WTW efficiency (~20-25%) than gasoline's ~18% despite superior vehicle-level conversion. Conversely, on grids with >50% renewables or nuclear (e.g., hydro-rich Washington state), BEVs achieve 20-40% lower primary energy per km, amortizing production overheads over 150,000-200,000 km lifetimes. These findings highlight systemic overoptimism in pro-BEV claims from institutions with advocacy, such as ICCT or certain academic consortia, which prioritize metrics (where BEVs average 40-70% reductions) over raw energy throughput and may assume idealized decarbonization trajectories not yet realized in 2023-2025 . Independent modeling underscores that BEV advantages erode below 50,000-100,000 in dirty- regions, with efficiencies currently at <5% globally limiting circularity benefits. Real-world from fleets indicates BEVs averaging 0.25-0.35 kWh/ operational but translating to 1.0-1.5 / primary energy on average U.S./ , comparable to efficient hybrids (0.8-1.2 /) and superior only to older designs. Thus, lifecycle efficiency gains are context-specific, favoring BEVs in clean-energy scenarios but not universally supplanting where lags.

Policy Distortions and Ideological Biases

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, implemented since 1975, have distorted vehicle design by incentivizing manufacturers to prioritize weight reduction and smaller sizes to achieve mandated miles-per-gallon targets, compromising occupant safety. Empirical analyses indicate that lighter vehicles crash more severely, with each 1 mpg fleet-wide increase linked to approximately 149 additional annual fatalities due to heightened incompatibility with heavier vehicles on roads. Projections for stricter standards, such as 40 mpg, estimate 1,100 to 1,650 extra deaths per year from these engineering tradeoffs, as downsizing offsets fuel savings with elevated injury risks. Footprint-based CAFE reforms since have introduced further distortions by tying stringency to vehicle , encouraging of larger trucks and SUVs to exploit looser targets per unit, which elevates overall fleet fuel consumption contrary to goals. This regulatory structure shifts burdens unevenly, favoring attribute over genuine technological advances, and raises new vehicle prices by thousands of dollars through costs passed to consumers. Government subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles (EVs), such as those under the , distort markets by artificially inflating demand for battery-electric powertrains, often at the expense of more efficient options that achieve superior real-world fuel economy without dependency. These interventions, totaling billions in tax credits, prioritize zero-tailpipe-emission ideology over comprehensive lifecycle assessments, where EVs can exhibit higher environmental impacts in regions with coal-reliant , including battery manufacturing emissions equivalent to years of use. Peer-reviewed comparisons reveal EVs' advantages diminish or reverse under low-mileage scenarios or dirty , yet policies overlook these causal realities in favor of targets. Ideological commitments in policymaking, particularly within agencies influenced by environmental advocacy, amplify these distortions by framing fuel through a lens of rapid decarbonization, sidelining of superiority in total use and downplaying by subsidy-dependent industries. Sources from progressive-leaning institutions often underemphasize and from conservative analyses, reflecting systemic biases that elevate symbolic reductions over causal gains, as seen in CAFE's toward EV credits despite persistent market failures in adoption.

Post-2020 Regulatory Shifts and Technological Advances

In the United States, the administration's Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient (SAFE) Vehicles Rule, finalized in March 2020, established (CAFE) standards requiring a 1.5% annual economy increase for passenger cars and light trucks in model years 2021 through 2026, reversing more stringent Obama-era targets. Under the Biden administration, the (NHTSA) issued revised standards in April 2022, mandating 8% annual improvements for model years 2024 and 2025, and 10% for 2026, aiming to achieve approximately 40 miles per gallon fleet-wide by 2026. In June 2024, NHTSA finalized CAFE standards for model year 2027, projecting further increases toward 49 miles per gallon by 2031, though these incorporated credits for electric vehicles in calculations. By July 2025, eliminated civil penalties for CAFE noncompliance on passenger cars and light trucks, previously up to $5 per 0.1 mile per gallon shortfall per vehicle, potentially reducing enforcement incentives. In the , post-2020 CO2 emission standards for new passenger cars and vans required a 15% reduction from 2021 levels by 2025 and 37.5% by 2030, translating to fleet-average targets of approximately 93.6 g/km CO2 by 2025 (equivalent to about 4.5 L/100 km fuel consumption for vehicles). These were enforced via manufacturer-specific targets adjusted for vehicle mass, with super-credits for low-emission vehicles phased out by 2021. From 2035, the standards mandate zero grams CO2 per kilometer for new cars and vans, effectively prohibiting sales of new vehicles without carbon-neutral fuels. In , Phase V fuel consumption standards, implemented from 2021, set a fleet-average target of 4.0 L/100 km for passenger vehicles by 2025 under the New Energy Vehicle (NEV) dual-credit system, which awards credits for efficient internal combustion engines and penalties for exceedances, accelerating hybridization. Japan's standards achieved a 2020 fleet-average of 20.3 km/L (approximately 48 mpg) for passenger cars, with 2030 targets raised to 25.4 km/L gasoline-equivalent, incorporating EV credits and emphasizing lightweight materials and efficient transmissions. Technological advances enabling compliance included refinements in internal combustion engine (ICE) designs, such as widespread adoption of turbocharged direct-injection gasoline engines with and cylinder deactivation, yielding 5-10% efficiency gains over prior generations. Mild-hybrid systems, integrating 48-volt starters-generators, became standard in many models by 2023, recovering braking to boost by 10-15% without full . Aerodynamic optimizations, low-rolling-resistance tires, and advanced transmissions (e.g., 10-speed automatics) further contributed, with U.S. new fleet reaching 26.4 in 2023, up from 24.9 in 2020, though gains were partly attributed to rising sales rather than pure ICE improvements. These technologies, often cost-effective at under $1,000 per 1% efficiency gain, faced challenges in heavy-duty applications, where (SCR) and advanced control but added complexity. Overall, post-2020 innovations demonstrated that 8-10% annual ICE efficiency improvements were feasible through integrated enhancements, though regulatory emphasis on shifted investment away from pure ICE R&D.

2023-2025 Data on Efficiency Gains and Market Responses

In 2023, the sales-weighted average fuel economy of new U.S. light-duty vehicles reached a 27.1 miles per , marking a 1.1 increase from 26.0 in 2022. These improvements were driven primarily by expanded adoption of electrified powertrains, including battery electric vehicles (BEVs) and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), which achieve higher EPA-rated efficiencies through electric , alongside refinements in conventional systems that recapture braking to boost overall . Without BEV and PHEV production, the average fuel economy gain would have been more modest, approximately 2.2 less in the aggregate trend, underscoring electrification's outsized role in reported figures. Preliminary data for 2024 indicate further gains in both fuel economy and CO2 emissions reductions for new vehicles, continuing the upward trajectory amid stricter (CAFE) standards and manufacturer compliance strategies. Corresponding real-world on-road fuel economy for the in-use fleet also rose to 27.1 in 2023, reflecting the gradual integration of these efficient models into consumer fleets, though real-world figures typically lag lab estimates by 20-30% due to driving patterns and load factors. For 2025, early sales data suggest sustained momentum, with NHTSA projections under updated standards targeting progressive annual improvements toward 50.4 by 2031, though actual outcomes depend on technology deployment and market uptake. Market responses have manifested in accelerated sales of electrified vehicles, with EVs and hybrids collectively comprising 20% of U.S. new light-duty vehicle sales in 2024, a record share that directly contributed to efficiency metrics. EV market share specifically climbed to 8.1% in 2024 from 7.3% in 2023, buoyed by model variety and incentives, while non-plug-in hybrids saw robust demand as a bridge technology offering immediate efficiency without charging infrastructure dependence. In the first quarter of 2025, EV sales held at 9.6% of new vehicle transactions, indicating resilience despite subsidy phase-outs and supply chain adjustments, with hybrids filling gaps in consumer preferences for range and refueling convenience. This shift reflects manufacturers reallocating production toward compliant efficient models—such as Toyota's hybrid-heavy lineup and Tesla's BEV dominance—while consumers balance efficiency with utility demands, evidenced by hybrid SUVs gaining traction over pure ICE variants.

References

  1. [1]
    What's the difference between fuel efficiency and fuel economy?
    Oct 5, 2010 · Fuel efficiency, on the other hand, is a looser, descriptive term referring to how efficiently a vehicle uses fuel, according to John Heywood, ...
  2. [2]
    Fuel Economy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Fuel economy is defined as the number of miles driven per gallon of gasoline consumed, commonly referred to as miles per gallon (MPG).
  3. [3]
    Fuel Efficiency: Everything You Need to Know - Car and Driver
    Fuel efficiency measures the distance a motor vehicle can travel on a single gallon of gas. As a result, boosting the efficiency of these vehicles can help ...
  4. [4]
    Fuel Efficiency - CSX.com
    The 2024 CSX system-wide train efficiency metric, as shown above, equals approximately 528 ton-miles per gallon. In other words, CSX trains, on average, can ...
  5. [5]
    Efficient Driving to Conserve Fuel - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    Properly inflated tires last longer, increase fuel economy, and are safer. By keeping your tires properly inflated, you can improve your gas mileage by 0.6% on ...<|separator|>
  6. [6]
    Transportation Technologies and Innovation
    Fuel efficient vehicles require less gas to go a given distance. When we burn less gas, we cut global warming emissions and produce less pollution, while ...
  7. [7]
    FOTW #1237, May 9, 2022: Fuel Economy for All Vehicle Classes ...
    May 9, 2022 · From 1975 to the mid-1980s, all vehicle classes experienced a sharp increase in fuel economy. This was followed by a period where the average ...
  8. [8]
    [PDF] history of fuel economy - pew
    Apr 4, 2011 · Between 1975 and 1985, average passenger- vehicle mileage doubled from about 13.5 mpg to ... and fuel, with fuel-economy improvements of 20.
  9. [9]
    Factors that affect fuel efficiency - Natural Resources Canada
    Jan 15, 2025 · A vehicle's weight is an important factor in how much fuel it will consume. The heavier the vehicle, the more energy it needs to get moving.
  10. [10]
    The rebound effect is overplayed - Nature
    Jan 23, 2013 · Numerous studies show that increased driving due to improved fuel economy reduces intended energy savings by 5–23% at first, rising to around 30 ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] Fuel Efficiency and Motor Vehicle Travel: The Declining Rebound ...
    For example, the rebound effect was an issue in the evaluation of recently adopted greenhouse-gas regulations for California (CARB, 2004, Sect. 12.3-12.4). It ...
  12. [12]
    Fuel economy in the United States – Analysis - IEA
    Dec 13, 2021 · While fuel consumption of LDVs decreased on average by 2.1% per year from 2005 to 2017, improvements have slipped backwards with fuel ...Missing: historical | Show results with:historical
  13. [13]
    Blog: Strong Efficiency and Emissions Standards Deliver Thousands ...
    Jan 14, 2025 · Over the past 3 years alone, efficiency improvements have delivered $2,200 in lifetime fuel savings for new vehicles. This contrasts with ...
  14. [14]
    Emission Standards: USA: Cars Fuel Economy (1978-2011)
    Fuel economy—expressed in miles per gallon (mpg)—is defined as the average mileage traveled by an automobile per gallon of gasoline or equivalent amount of ...
  15. [15]
    Specific Fuel Consumption
    The units of this efficiency factor are mass per time divided by force (in English units, pounds mass per hour per pound; in metric units, kilograms per hour ...
  16. [16]
    A stepwise guide to heavy-duty vehicle efficiency standards
    Nov 11, 2020 · Fuel consumption standards are measured in either distance-specific units (e.g. liters per kilometer (l/km)) or distance-payload-specific units ...Missing: terminology | Show results with:terminology
  17. [17]
    What Is MPGe? - U.S. News Cars
    MPGe is the abbreviation for “miles per gallon of gasoline-equivalent.” It's an energy efficiency metric that was introduced by the Environmental Protection ...
  18. [18]
    Brake Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) - x-engineer.org
    Aug 19, 2017 · For spark ignition (gasoline engine) the BSFC is around 250 g/kWh and for compression ignition (diesel) around 200 g/kWh. The brake specific ...
  19. [19]
    Fuel Efficiency in Aviation: Why it Matters More Than Ever - IATA
    May 14, 2025 · The two most common metrics are kilograms per Revenue Tonne Kilometer (kg/RTK), which measures the fuel needed to carry one tonne of payload one ...Missing: maritime | Show results with:maritime
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Impact of fuel prices on energy efficiency of maritime ships
    The energy efficiency of ships (defined in MJ per unit of transport work, e.g. tonne- kilometres) depends on both the technical and operational energy ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Emissions From Rail vs. Trucking - Stanford University
    Dec 16, 2022 · This discrepancy carries into fuel efficiency as well. Trains measure in at 477 ton-miles per gallon of fuel, while for trucks it's only 145 ton ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  22. [22]
    Fossil vs. Alternative Fuels - Energy Content
    Net (low) and gross (high) energy content in fossil and alternative fuels. · 1 U.S. gallon gasoline = 115000 Btu = 121 MJ = 32 MJ/liter · 1 boe (barell of oil ...
  23. [23]
    Fuel energy density: What is it and why is it important?
    May 12, 2025 · The volumetric energy density of a fuel is the amount of energy (Btu, joules) stored per unit volume (gallon, liter) of a substance (gas, solid, liquid).Missing: common | Show results with:common
  24. [24]
    Heat Values of Various Fuels - World Nuclear Association
    Petrol/gasoline, 44-46 MJ/kg. Diesel fuel, 42-46 MJ/kg. Crude oil, 42-47 MJ/kg. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), 46-51 MJ/kg. Natural gas, 42-55 MJ/kg. Hard black ...
  25. [25]
    Higher Calorific Values of Common Fuels: Reference & Data
    Higher and lower calorific values (heating values) for fuels like coke, oil, wood, hydrogen and others. · 1 Btu(IT)/lb = 2.3278 MJ/t = 2327.8 J/kg = 0.55598 kcal ...<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    Fuel Properties Comparison - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    1 gallon of gasoline has 97%–100% of the energy in 1 GGE. Standard fuel is 90% gasoline, 10% ethanol. 1 gallon of diesel has 113% of the energy in 1 GGE due to ...
  27. [27]
    [PDF] GASOLINE AND DIESEL FUEL - ACEA
    Oct 28, 2019 · A gasoline's octane rating or grade is a measure of the fuel's ability to resist auto-ignition, which can cause objectionable engine noise (i.e. ...
  28. [28]
    Fuels of the Diesel-Gasoline Engines and Their Properties
    Feb 26, 2020 · Octane number and cetane number substantially affect the fuel ignition delay period and self-ignition temperature properties.
  29. [29]
    Cetane Number - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Cetane number of a diesel engine fuel is indicative of its ignition characteristics. Higher the cetane number better it is in its ignition properties.
  30. [30]
    Fuel Properties and Emissions - DieselNet
    In heavy-duty engines, increasing the cetane number lowers HC, CO, and NOx emissions, while reducing fuel density lowers NOx and PM but increases HC and CO.Missing: octane | Show results with:octane
  31. [31]
    [PDF] Diesel Fuels Technical Review - Chevron
    The following discussion explains how properties of the three classes influence the properties of the whole fuel and affect its performance in a diesel engine.
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Fuels and the Impact of Fuel Composition on Engine Performance
    Fuel composition determines engine performance. SI and CI engines have different fuel needs. Fuel properties vary based on engine parameters and conditions.<|control11|><|separator|>
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Aerodynamics and its role in enhancing fuel efficiency in automotive ...
    According to research, aerodynamic drag is responsible for up to 50% of the total energy loss in vehicles traveling at speeds above 50 mph, highlighting the ...
  34. [34]
    The Effect of Aerodynamic Drag on Fuel Economy | ARC
    This means that if you make a 10% reduction in aerodynamic drag your highway fuel economy will improve by approximately 5%, and your city fuel economy by ...
  35. [35]
    [PDF] Evaluating Fuel Economy Standards Using an Engineering Model of ...
    Reducing aerodynamic drag of the vehicle body can improve both fuel efficiency and acceleration performance, whereas early shifting logic can improve fuel ...
  36. [36]
    Lightweight Materials for Cars and Trucks - Department of Energy
    Lightweight materials offer great potential for increasing vehicle efficiency. A 10% reduction in vehicle weight can result in a 6%-8% fuel economy improvement.
  37. [37]
    [PDF] Auto$mart - Learn the facts: Weight affects fuel consumption
    Reducing weight means reducing fuel cost. A recent study found that for every 100-kg reduction, the combined city/highway fuel consumption could decrease by ...
  38. [38]
    Principles for the Design of a Biomass-Fueled Internal Combustion ...
    Modern engines are designed to have a compression ratio higher than 10, because higher compression ratios improve engine efficiency. As the compression of an ...
  39. [39]
    Engine Fundamentals - DieselNet
    Basic design and performance parameters in internal combustion engines include compression ratio, swept volume, clearance volume, power output, indicated power ...
  40. [40]
    [PDF] MRacing Formula SAE Improving Fuel Efficiency
    For the scope of our project we explored four possible solutions to improve fuel efficiency: higher compression pistons, leaner fuel calibration, variable cam ...
  41. [41]
    Low-Rolling-Resistance Tires Can Save You Money at the Pump
    Jul 5, 2022 · Industry studies show that a 10 percent drop in rolling resistance equates to about a 1 percent improvement in fuel economy. It might not seem ...
  42. [42]
  43. [43]
    Average impact and important features of onboard eco-driving ...
    For example, Sivak and Schoettle (2012) demonstrated that inefficient driving behavior can diminish fuel economy by as much as 45%.
  44. [44]
    [PDF] eco-driving: strategic, tactical, and operational decisions of the driver ...
    Contract or Grant No. influence on-road fuel economy of light-duty vehicles. These include strategic decisions (vehicle selection and maintenance), tactical ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Factors and Considerations for Establishing a Fuel Efficiency ...
    impact that design and use have on a vehicle's fuel efficiency capability. Consistent with this approach of recognizing differences in how vehicle design,.
  46. [46]
    A data-driven framework for incentivising fuel-efficient driving ...
    This paper provides a quantitative tool to identify driver behaviour parameters influencing eco-driving efficiency by analysing real-driving telematics data
  47. [47]
    50 Years of EPA's Automotive Trends Report | US EPA
    Jan 15, 2025 · Since 1975, vehicle miles per gallon in the United States has improved from 13.1 mpg to 27.1 mpg in 2023.
  48. [48]
    Four Takeaways from the EPA's Automotive Trends Report
    Mar 14, 2025 · With EVs on the road, American-owned vehicles in 2024 were the most efficient ever at 27.1 MPG on average; this number drops to 24.9 miles per ...
  49. [49]
    Energy Efficiency 2024 – Analysis - IEA
    Nov 7, 2024 · Energy Efficiency 2024 is the IEA's primary annual analysis on global energy efficiency developments, showing recent trends in energy intensity and demand.
  50. [50]
    Power and Fuel Economy of the Average Light-Duty Vehicle
    Fuel efficiency declined from the late 1980s through the mid-2000s, partly from the rise in popularity of light-duty trucks (including pickups, SUVs, and vans) ...
  51. [51]
    US: Light-duty: Fuel Economy and GHG - TransportPolicy.net
    The combined fuel economy for passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs is estimated to increase from an average MY 2023 level of 40.6 mpg to 49.1 mpg in ...
  52. [52]
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Model Years 2024 ...
    May 2, 2022 · NHTSA currently projects that the revised standards would require an industry fleet-wide average of roughly 49 mpg in MY 2026, and would reduce average fuel ...
  53. [53]
    First Commission report on real-world CO2 emissions of cars and ...
    Mar 18, 2024 · The real-world fuel consumption and CO 2 emissions from diesel and petrol vehicles on the road are around 20% higher than indicated by the official values.
  54. [54]
    Rebound Effect from Fuel Efficiency Stancdards Measurement and ...
    The rebound effect refers to effects on the amount of travel that arises from changes in the fuel efficiency for light-duty motor vehicles (passenger cars and ...
  55. [55]
    Transport – Energy Efficiency Policy Toolkit 2025 – Analysis - IEA
    Efficiency improvement rates for cars are 60% faster in countries with fuel economy regulations and purchase incentives than in those without. Regulation.
  56. [56]
    Global Energy Review 2025 – Analysis - IEA
    Mar 24, 2025 · This edition of the Global Energy Review is the first comprehensive depiction of the trends that took place in 2024 across the entire energy sector.Global trends · CO2 Emissions · Oil · Electricity
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Fuel Costs, Economic Activity, and the Rebound Effect for Heavy ...
    Abstract. Economic theory suggests that fuel economy standards induce a rebound effect, which is the increase in energy use caused by lower per-mile fuel ...<|separator|>
  58. [58]
    EPA's Efficiency Standards for Heavy Trucks Increase Energy Use
    Jul 31, 2024 · The rebound effect describes where gains in energy efficiency lead to a reduction in operational costs, which can subsequently result in ...
  59. [59]
    Energy Efficiency - Energy System - IEA
    Dec 17, 2024 · Global energy intensity falls by around 4% per year on average this decade in the Net Zero Scenario, double the rate achieved last decade ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  60. [60]
    US: Vehicle Definitions | Transport Policy - TransportPolicy.net
    Light-duty Vehicles (i.e. Passenger Cars), LDV, maximum Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) < 8,500 lbs. ; Medium-duty Passenger Vehicles, MDPV, 8,501 – 10,000 ...
  61. [61]
    Your Mileage May Vary | US EPA
    Jun 12, 2025 · Mileage varies due to factors like aggressive driving, speeding, quick acceleration, and even the radio. Some factors are beyond your control, ...
  62. [62]
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for Passenger Cars ...
    Jun 24, 2024 · NHTSA, on behalf of the Department of Transportation (DOT), is finalizing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for passenger cars and light trucks.Missing: terminology | Show results with:terminology<|separator|>
  63. [63]
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) - NHTSA
    Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards regulate how far vehicles must travel on a gallon of fuel. Learn more about CAFE & vehicle miles per gallon.
  64. [64]
    EPA Report Shows US Fuel Economy Hits Record High and CO2 ...
    Nov 25, 2024 · For MY 2023, new vehicle fuel economy increased by 1.1 mpg reaching a record high 27.1 miles mpg. For MY 2023, new vehicle real-world CO2 ...
  65. [65]
    Highlights of the Automotive Trends Report | US EPA
    Nov 25, 2024 · Most manufacturers improved CO2 emissions and fuel economy over the last 5 years.
  66. [66]
    [PDF] CAFE 2027-2031, HDPUV 2030-2035: Final Rule - NHTSA
    Jun 3, 2024 · NHTSA projects that the final standards would require an industry fleet-wide average for passenger cars and light trucks of roughly 50.4 miles ...<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    "What Factors Affect Average Fuel Economy of US Passenger ...
    After reviewing past literatures, I find that factors such as, vehicle type, the price of fuel, CAFE standards, the weight of a vehicle, and engine performance ...
  68. [68]
    [PDF] Gas-Saving Tips - Department of Energy
    An extra 100 pounds in your vehicle could reduce your MPG by up to 2 percent. The reduction is based on the percentage of extra weight relative to the vehicle' ...
  69. [69]
    CO2 emissions performance of new passenger cars in Europe
    Dec 16, 2024 · In 2023, the average CO2 emissions of new registered passenger cars in the EU decreased by 1.6% compared to 2022 and reached 106.4gCO2/km.
  70. [70]
    Improving the effectiveness and equity of fuel economy regulations ...
    Sep 16, 2022 · Larger vehicles enjoy less-stringent fuel economy targets through two widely debated mechanisms: a bigger footprint (or weight) and separate ...
  71. [71]
  72. [72]
    The State of Fuel Economy in Trucking - Geotab
    Depicting an average miles per gallon range between 4.51 MPG and 6.47 MPG, the data highlights that there is room for improvement when it comes to fuel economy.
  73. [73]
  74. [74]
    Study shows trucking fuel economy averages climbing
    Dec 16, 2024 · The average miles per gallon of the study's 14 fleet participants improved to 7.62 MPG in 2022 and 7.77 in 2023, a year-over-year improvement of 4.2% and 2% ...
  75. [75]
    Fleets Explained: What actually affects fuel efficiency? - FleetOwner
    May 30, 2025 · A semi-truck weighing from 30,000 to 100,000 lb. averages nearly 7 mpg, according to the American Transportation Research Institute's Analysis ...
  76. [76]
    Improving Driver Behavior to Maximize Fuel Economy | Zonar Systems
    By using telematics and appropriate software tools, fleet's vehicle speeds, time spent in top gear, use of cruise control, idle time, power take-off operation ( ...<|separator|>
  77. [77]
    2024 Fuel Efficiency Guide for Truckers - TDI - Truck Driver Institute
    Jul 30, 2024 · Maintaining proper tire pressure (cold inflation) minimizes rolling resistance, a major factor in fuel consumption. Regularly check your tire ...
  78. [78]
    How to Improve Fleet Fuel Economy - Noregon
    Fuel economy is one of the biggest factors impacting a commercial fleets bottom line. Here are our tips to help you improve fleet fuel efficiency.
  79. [79]
    Final Rule: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty ...
    On March 29, 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a final rule, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards for Heavy-Duty Vehicles – Phase 3, ...
  80. [80]
    Maximizing Commercial Truck Fuel Efficiency - Bauer Built
    Mar 12, 2024 · By integrating air deflectors and skirts, trucks can significantly reduce air resistance, leading to improved fuel economy. Streamlining truck ...
  81. [81]
    [PDF] Efficiency technology potential for heavy-duty diesel vehicles in the ...
    Literature on lightweighting specific to medium-duty trucks is sparse, but two studies reported fuel economy improvements of 3–4% per 1,000-pound weight ...
  82. [82]
    EPA's Final Truck Standards Should Push Continued Fuel Savings
    Mar 12, 2024 · Technologies that paid for themselves in approximately two years through fuel savings included weight reduction, aerodynamic improvements, ...
  83. [83]
    Keep on Truckin'—50 Years of Efficiency Advancements - RMI
    Apr 21, 2020 · Although fuel economy remained around five miles per gallon (mpg) through the 1980s, new federal regulations began to boost trucking efficiency ...
  84. [84]
    [PDF] TRACKING AVIATION EFFICIENCY 2.1% 54% 37.4% 82.5%
    The aviation sector's short-term goal to improve fleet fuel efficiency by an average of 1.5% per annum from 2009-2020 is on track, with analysis showing a 2.1% ...
  85. [85]
    Airline fuel efficiency: 'If you can't measure it, you can't improve it.'
    Jan 5, 2022 · It showed that between 2005 and 2019, the fuel efficiency of US commercial airlines improved by 23%, or 1.5% per year.Missing: metrics | Show results with:metrics
  86. [86]
    [PDF] Fuel efficiency trends for new commercial jet aircraft: 1960 to 2014
    Figure es-1 presents historical changes in fuel efficiency for commercial jet aircraft from 1960 to 2014, with the 1968 value as the baseline, using both fuel/ ...
  87. [87]
    Aviation - IEA
    Jan 16, 2025 · From 2010 to 2019, average fuel efficiency per revenue passenger kilometre (RPK) improved by over 2.5% per year. On a revenue tonne ...
  88. [88]
    Specific Impulse
    The engine with the higher value of specific impulse is more efficient because it produces more thrust for the same amount of propellant. Third, it simplifies ...
  89. [89]
    Nation's Freight Railroads Now Average 480 Ton-Miles-Per-Gallon
    * Dividing 1.532 trillion ton-miles by 3.192 billion gallons of fuel yields 480 ton-miles per gallon. That's up from 436 in 2007 and 457 in 2008. * 480 was the ...
  90. [90]
    Freight Rail's Economic Impact | AAR
    Fuel Efficiency: On average, rail moves one ton of freight nearly 500 miles per gallon of fuel, making it three to four times more fuel efficient than trucks.
  91. [91]
    Freight Rail Overview | FRA - Federal Railroad Administration
    Feb 24, 2025 · ... ton of freight 470 miles on just a single gallon of diesel fuel. [11] Rail's lower fuel consumption also leads to lower carbon emissions overall ...
  92. [92]
    Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) | IMO Standards
    Apr 21, 2025 · Learn what the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) is, how it's calculated, and why it's vital for ship design, fuel efficiency, and IMO
  93. [93]
    Ship Fuel Consumption Per Mile Explained [+5 Examples]
    Oct 25, 2024 · Faster speeds require more energy to maintain, leading to higher ship fuel consumption per mile. Adverse weather conditions, such as strong ...Missing: intensity | Show results with:intensity
  94. [94]
    Advancements and obstacles in improving the energy efficiency of ...
    This review comprehensively examines contemporary methodologies and persistent challenges in assessing ship energy efficiency.
  95. [95]
    Discover the Record-Breaking 53.09% Diesel Engine Thermal...
    Apr 30, 2024 · Historical Advancements and Recent Breakthroughs. In 2020, Weichai Power set a world record with a diesel engine thermal efficiency of 50.23%.
  96. [96]
    Improving Thermal Efficiency of Internal Combustion Engines - MDPI
    ... SAE International: Warrendale, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar] ... A Turbulent Jet Ignition Pre-Chamber Combustion System for Large Fuel Economy ...
  97. [97]
    [PDF] Downsized, boosted gasoline engines
    Oct 28, 2016 · Turbochargers reduce fuel consumption indirectly, by enabling engine downsizing.
  98. [98]
    Effect of Variable Engine Valve Timing on Fuel Economy 880390
    30-day returnsJan 31, 1988 · The effect of VVT on the mechanical efficiency of the engine is a crucial design factor affecting fuel economy.
  99. [99]
    Fleet 101: Understanding Direct vs. Port Injection in Engines
    Nov 18, 2019 · Direct injection can help improve overall combustion efficiency, it is also known to increase overall fuel economy and lower emissions.
  100. [100]
    Is there a difference between PFI and GDI? - Afton Chemical
    There are many advantages of the GDI system over the PFI design, the most significant of which is its better fuel economy.
  101. [101]
    Variable valve timing for fuel economy improvement in a small spark ...
    The VVT system here analyzed revealed as an effective tool in reducing the pumping losses, hence the specific fuel consumption, at partial load.
  102. [102]
    Jacobs® cylinder deactivation technology returns 2.76% fuel saving ...
    Jul 15, 2024 · CDA saves fuel by reducing the number of active cylinders to match the driver's real-time torque demand. The active cylinders have higher loads ...
  103. [103]
    [PDF] Advanced Combustion and Emission Control Roadmap
    • Diesel engines provide improved engine thermal efficiency from part load to high load. Diesel engine has a cost premium driven by aftertreatment, fuel ...
  104. [104]
    Impact of High Performance Combustion Chamber Alloys on Fuel ...
    30-day returnsApr 13, 2020 · SAE International Logo. SAE MobilusSAE FoundationStandardsWorks ... A dynamometer test program was devised to evaluate the net improvements in ...Missing: enhancements | Show results with:enhancements
  105. [105]
    How Do Hybrid Electric Cars Work? - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    Hybrid electric vehicles are powered by an internal combustion engine and one or more electric motors, which uses energy stored in batteries.
  106. [106]
    Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    During braking, the electric motor acts as a generator, using the energy to charge the battery, thereby recapturing energy that would have been lost. Learn more ...
  107. [107]
    Hybrid Electric Vehicles - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    Mild hybrid systems cannot power the vehicle using electricity alone. These vehicles generally cost less than full hybrids but provide less fuel economy benefit ...
  108. [108]
    (PDF) How hybrid-electric vehicles are different from conventional ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · A 100 kg change in vehicle weight increases fuel consumption by 0.7 l/100 km in ICEVs compared with 0.4 l/100 km in HEVs. When the HEVs are ...
  109. [109]
    Electric & Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles | US EPA
    Jun 12, 2025 · PHEVs have two fuel economy values: one for when the vehicle operates primarily on electricity (listed in terms of MPGe), and one for when the ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical<|separator|>
  110. [110]
    Full article: Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle observed utility factor
    This article systematically evaluates what aspects of driving and charging behavior causes observed UF to deviate from J2841 expectations.
  111. [111]
    Understanding the complete efficiency picture of electric vehicles
    Jun 3, 2025 · Electric vehicles (EVs) typically convert 85-90% of battery energy into motion, compared to just 30% for internal combustion engines.
  112. [112]
    Market Snapshot: Battery electric vehicles are far more fuel efficient ...
    Feb 24, 2021 · BEVs are far more efficient than ICEVs, with over 77% of the energy in electricity converted into movement when including regenerative braking.<|control11|><|separator|>
  113. [113]
    Well-to-wheel analysis of greenhouse gas emissions and energy ...
    Our empirical results suggest that, with the current electricity mix, in terms of energy consumption, Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs) perform better than other ...
  114. [114]
    Emissions from Electric Vehicles - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    Cradle-to-grave emissions include all emissions considered on a well-to-wheel basis as well as vehicle-cycle emissions associated with vehicle and battery ...
  115. [115]
    Electrification of Vehicle Miles Traveled and Fuel Consumption ...
    Nov 15, 2022 · This study used empirical data from 287 households with at least one plug-in electric vehicle in California between 2016 and 2020.
  116. [116]
    [PDF] Life Cycle Analysis of Biofuels with the R&D GREET Model
    Oct 24, 2024 · The R&D GREET effort at Argonne National Laboratory is supported by the Office of Energy Efficiency and ... Ethanol plant energy use. Page ...
  117. [117]
    Energy Return on Investment (EROI) and Life Cycle Analysis (LCA ...
    Jun 28, 2020 · We determined the Energy Return on Investment (EROI) for bioethanol and biodiesel. The selection of raw materials relied on their productive capacity.
  118. [118]
    [PDF] Improvements in Life Cycle Energy Efficiency and Greenhouse Gas ...
    This represents a. 54% reduction in life cycle emissions compared to gasoline; emissions are reduced by nearly 400,000 megagrams of CO2 equivalents (Mg CO2e) ...
  119. [119]
    Biofuels and the Environment | US EPA
    Jan 17, 2025 · Depending on the feedstock and production process, biofuels can emit even more GHGs than some fossil fuels on an energy -equivalent basis.
  120. [120]
    [PDF] An Emission and Performance Comparison of the Natural Gas C ...
    Cumulative fuel economy for all the test vehicles is shown in Figure 12. Average fuel economy was. 5.17 mpeg (miles per energy equivalent gallon) for the ...
  121. [121]
    Hydrogen Basics - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    In fact, a fuel cell coupled with an electric motor is two to three times more efficient than an internal combustion engine running on gasoline. Hydrogen can ...
  122. [122]
    How Does Hydrogen Fuel Cell (HFC) Efficiency Stack Up? - FASTECH
    Mar 28, 2025 · HFC efficiency ranges from 40-80%, with WTW around 25-29%. HFCs meet or exceed ICEs, but BEVs have higher conversion efficiency (80-85%).Hydrogen Fuel Cell... · Fuel Cells Vs. Lithium-Ion... · Improving Fuel Cell...
  123. [123]
    E-fuels: Where will the road take us? - Kearney
    Jun 19, 2024 · It is no secret that the well-to-wheel factor—that is, the efficiency of e-fuels—is not particularly high at 15 to 20 percent. Many process ...
  124. [124]
    The Role of E-fuels in Decarbonising Transport – Analysis - IEA
    Dec 22, 2023 · Fuels obtained from electrolytic hydrogen, or e-fuels, could be a viable pathway and scale up quickly by 2030, underpinned by a massive ...
  125. [125]
    Emerging Fuels - Alternative Fuels Data Center
    These fuels may reduce emissions, improve vehicle performance, increase energy ... Additional fuels, such as ammonia, may also meet the criteria for ...
  126. [126]
    Methanol and ammonia as emerging green fuels: Evaluation of a ...
    Green methanol/ammonia are assessed as alternative fuels or power generation. Two different routes are analyzed thermochemical and electrochemical.
  127. [127]
    Effect of gasoline prices on car fuel efficiency: Evidence from Lebanon
    Our results indicate that the sales of used fuel-efficient cars increase by 2.69% three months following a one standard deviation positive shock in gasoline ...
  128. [128]
    Gasoline demand more responsive to price changes than ...
    Jun 16, 2020 · Over time, gasoline demand becomes more elastic, as consumers may trade in their cars for more fuel-efficient models or move closer to work, for ...
  129. [129]
    [PDF] Automobile Prices, Gasoline Prices, and Consumer Demand for ...
    Dec 6, 2008 · We find that vehicle prices generally decline in the gasoline price. The decline is larger for inefficient vehicles, and the prices of ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies<|separator|>
  130. [130]
    How EVs and gasoline cars compare on total cost - CNBC
    Aug 20, 2024 · Similarly, a 2024 J.D. Power study found EVs beat their gas-powered counterparts on total cost over a five-year ownership period in all states ...Missing: guzzlers | Show results with:guzzlers
  131. [131]
    Electric vehicles save families money
    Jan 23, 2025 · EVs save about $1,000/year on fuel, with some families saving over $1,100, and maintenance costs are about half of combustion models.
  132. [132]
    EVs Offer Big Savings Over Traditional Gas-Powered Cars
    Oct 8, 2020 · The typical total ownership savings over the life of most EVs ranges from $6,000 to $10,000, CR found. The exact margin of savings would depend ...
  133. [133]
    Figure ES-1. Fuel consumption impacts and associated 2025 ...
    Payback periods for the moderate technology packages, offering up to a 38% per-mile fuel consumption reduction, are generally less than a year. The most ...
  134. [134]
    New Ways Carmakers Are Getting You More MPG
    Apr 26, 2022 · Most of the highest-mpg vehicles we highlight are hybrids, meaning they combine internal combustion engines and electric motors to save fuel.
  135. [135]
    US gasoline response to vehicle fuel efficiency - ScienceDirect.com
    Rebound effect can range between 20% and 70% of the potential improvement. •. More efficient vehicles may improve welfare by reducing fuel price. Abstract.
  136. [136]
    [PDF] The Rebound Effect for Automobile Travel: - Economics
    Aug 14, 2014 · Previous research suggests that the elasticity of light-duty motor vehicle travel with respect to fuel cost, known as the “rebound effect,” ...
  137. [137]
    [PDF] The Rebound Effect: Large or Small? - ACEEE
    Overall, even if total rebound is about 20%, then 80% of the savings from energy efficiency programs and policies register in terms of reduced energy use. And ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  138. [138]
    A Brief History of US Fuel Efficiency Standards
    Jul 25, 2006 · Congress first established Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards in 1975, largely in response to the 1973 oil embargo.
  139. [139]
    How Could New CAFE Standards Affect the Auto Industry? - Exponent
    Oct 21, 2024 · NHTSA set the first CAFE standards for the model year 1978, mandating OEMs meet a target of 18 mpg. CAFE standards rose steadily until 1985, ...<|separator|>
  140. [140]
    Vehicle Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) Requirements by Year
    The CAFE requirements used for this chart are the estimated averages of CAFE levels (in miles per gallon) required under the Final Rule.
  141. [141]
    Light-duty vehicles - Climate Action - European Commission
    For the years 2025 to 2029, Regulation (EU) 2019/631 sets a 15% reduction target for the EU fleet average CO2 emissions of car and van manufacturers compared to ...Target levels · Incentive mechanism for zero... · Exemptions and derogations
  142. [142]
    What is the EU CO2 target for 2025? - Autovista24
    Oct 14, 2024 · So from next year, the EU has set an average target of 93.6g/km of CO2 across the bloc's cumulative fleet. This is a 15% reduction in emissions ...
  143. [143]
    Europe: Cars GHG - Emission Standards
    The CO 2 emission regulations include two sets of mandatory, fleet-average CO 2 emission standards: one for passenger cars and one for light commercial ...
  144. [144]
    EU auto groups press for change to 'no longer feasible' car CO2 ...
    Aug 27, 2025 · In March, the Commission agreed to give automakers extra time to meet CO2 emission reduction targets initially set for 2025. Members of von der ...
  145. [145]
    China: Light-duty: Fuel Consumption | Transport Policy
    As of December 2019, Phase V standards set a fleet average target of 4.0 L/100 km (NEDC) by 2025 for passenger vehicles produced in or imported to China.<|separator|>
  146. [146]
    B: Vehicle Fuel Efficiency - Guide to Chinese Climate Policy
    China requires new vehicles to meet fuel efficiency standards based on weight and CAFC limits, with the 2020 standard at 5 L/100 km, tightening to 3.2 L/100 km ...
  147. [147]
    Japan's Top Runner Programme - futurepolicy.org
    Improvements in the fuel efficiency of automobiles and appliances under Top Runner standards has been assessed as leading to a reduction of 15,280 MtCO2 in ...
  148. [148]
    Fossil Fuel Subsidies – Topics - IEA
    The IEA has been monitoring fossil fuel subsidies for more than a decade. The Agency's systematic analysis highlights their scale and characteristics.
  149. [149]
    What tax incentives encourage alternatives to fossil fuels?
    The largest subsidies included tax credits for renewable energy sources, advanced manufacturing, and tax credits for electric vehicles. Electricity Production.
  150. [150]
    Fossil Fuel Subsidies: The $760 Billion Lie About 'Free Market' Energy
    Mar 14, 2025 · Fossil fuel subsidies are direct financial incentives and tax breaks provided by governments to oil, gas, and coal industries. These subsidies ...<|separator|>
  151. [151]
    Automobile Fuel Economy Standards: Impacts, Efficiency, and ...
    The first rationale is that fuel economy standards require automakers to design more efficient vehicles or to shift sales toward more efficient models. This ...
  152. [152]
    Energy-efficiency policies targeting consumers may not save energy ...
    The empirical results indicated a fairly large rebound effect of 62% emerging shortly after the initial introduction of the policy. Unexpectedly, this rebound ...1.2. 1. The Rebound Effect... · 3. Results · 3.2. Empirical Results
  153. [153]
    How Attractive Are Fuel-Economy Standards?
    Sep 30, 2015 · Several studies in leading economics journals have estimated that fuel-economy standards are between two and ten times as expensive per gallon ...
  154. [154]
    Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Fuel-Economy Standards
    The actual fuel-economy standard increased significantly during the late 1970s and early 1980s, but it was effectively unchanged from 1990 to the mid-2000s.
  155. [155]
    The impact of the corporate average fuel economy standards on ...
    This paper empirically examines the effect of the US Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards on the technological progress in automobile fuel ...
  156. [156]
    [PDF] The Economic Costs of Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline ...
    According to CBO's estimates, CAFE standards designed to meet the benchmark 10 percent reduction—about 31.3 mpg for cars and 24.5 mpg for light trucks—would ...
  157. [157]
    The Costs and Benefits of CAFE Standards - Mackinac Center
    Oct 3, 2022 · This study uses the latest available data to estimate the costs and benefits of CAFE standards and explores whether fuel economy can be improved in a more ...
  158. [158]
    [PDF] Who Values Future Energy Savings? Evidence from American Drivers
    To frame that empirical approach, we describe the intuition in a simple theoretical model in which cars differ only in their price and fuel economy. The model ...
  159. [159]
    Fuel Costs, Economic Activity, and the Rebound Effect for Heavy ...
    Economic theory suggests that fuel economy standards induce a rebound effect, which is the increase in energy use caused by lower per-mile fuel costs due to ...
  160. [160]
    National lab study shows EVs are more expensive than gas ...
    Jan 17, 2024 · The findings show that, on average, current EVs are more expensive to operate than comparable gas-powered vehicles over their lifetime.
  161. [161]
    [PDF] Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Fuel-Economy Standards
    In this section we present a framework to analyze the efficiency channels of adjustment under a marginal tightening of the CAFE standard, and to shed light on ...
  162. [162]
    [PDF] The Rebound Effect in Road Transport (EN) - OECD
    Dec 13, 2016 · This meta-analysis wishes to fill this gap in empirical literature and, thus, focuses on the effects of fuel efficiency changes on travel demand ...
  163. [163]
    [PDF] The Rebound Effect of Fuel Economy Standards
    Oct 24, 2018 · The rebound effect from energy efficiency standards refers to behavioral and market responses to the policy of fuel economy standards that ...
  164. [164]
    [PDF] An Empirical Study on Rebound Effect of Hybrid Vehicle
    Given the high fuel efficiency of hybrid car, its rebound effect concerns us because it is difficult to make optimal policy without knowing how much energy ...
  165. [165]
    Vehicle fuel economy and vehicle miles traveled: An empirical ...
    The findings indicate that in this case Jevons' Paradox does hold true; a 1% increase in fuel efficiency was associated with a 1.2% increase in VMT.
  166. [166]
    The Unintended Consequences of Ambitious Fuel-economy ...
    Feb 3, 2015 · Thus, higher CAFE standards have the unintended consequence of increasing emissions from used cars that, depending on their age, may fail by a ...
  167. [167]
    Fuel Efficiency Standards Aren't Worth the Costs - Mackinac Center
    Oct 3, 2022 · By forcing drivers to use more fuel efficient cars, CAFE standards lead to more miles being driven.
  168. [168]
  169. [169]
    [PDF] The Rebound Effect in a More Fuel Efficient Transportation Sector
    Jan 23, 2012 · Environmental policies such as a cap-and-trade emissions reduction system or a fuel tax cause fuel cost to rise, thus increasing the marginal ...
  170. [170]
    [PDF] The Rebound Effect and the Rollback of Fuel Economy Standards
    Dec 4, 2018 · The August 2018 proposed rollback of 2020-2026 fuel economy standards by the Trump. Administration is the subject of great controversy in the ...
  171. [171]
    [PDF] Relationship of Vehicle Weight to Fatality and Injury Risk
    Fatalities and injuries would increase in almost every crash mode. The largest absolute increase in fatalities would occur in collisions between cars and light ...
  172. [172]
    Vehicle Weight and Automotive Fatalities | NBER
    The authors find that being hit by a 1,000-pound heavier vehicle results in a 47 percent increase in the baseline probability of being killed in the accident -- ...
  173. [173]
    Vehicle size and weight - IIHS
    A bigger, heavier vehicle provides better crash protection than a smaller, lighter one, assuming no other differences between them.
  174. [174]
    [PDF] the deadly effects of fuel economy standards: cafe's lethal impact on ...
    As this study shows, in 1997 CAFE was responsible for between 2,600 and 4,500 traffic fatalities. If CAFE is made even more stringent, as some advocate, this ...
  175. [175]
    Do fuel-efficient cars increase traffic fatalities? - The Wilson Quarterly
    Jacobsen, an economist at the University of California, San Diego, “Each one mpg increase in CAFE standards causes an additional 149 fatalities per year.” In ...
  176. [176]
    Fuel economy and traffic fatalities: multivariate analysis of ...
    Results find that changes in vehicle efficiency are not associated with changes in traffic fatalities, suggesting either that size and weight changes over time ...
  177. [177]
    [PDF] The Effect of Fuel Economy Standards on Vehicle Weight Dispersion ...
    Apr 10, 2017 · We connect these to accident outcomes using data on police-reported accidents that describe the vehicles and fatality outcomes of 17 million ...
  178. [178]
    Engine Downsizing Trend: Balancing Pros and Cons
    Dec 12, 2023 · One disadvantage of engine downsizing is that it can lead to decreased durability and reliability over time due to increased stress on the ...
  179. [179]
    The inconvenient truth about improving vehicle fuel efficiency
    Due to the tradeoff between vehicle weight and fuel efficiency, weight reduction through material substitution has been the predominant strategy used to ...Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
  180. [180]
    [PDF] CONFIDENCE REPORT: TRACTOR AERODYNAMICS - NACFE
    May 4, 2016 · Improving the sloop of the hood that lowers drag and subsequently improves fuel economy, also makes for a more visible driver experience. 4.
  181. [181]
    Electric Vehicle Myths | US EPA
    Electric vehicles (EVs) typically have a smaller carbon footprint than gasoline cars, even when accounting for the electricity used for charging.
  182. [182]
    Electric vehicles use half the energy of gas-powered vehicles
    Jan 29, 2024 · Electric vehicles operate with only around 11% energy loss, meaning that most of the energy that goes into the car ends up turning the wheels.
  183. [183]
    Electric cars are the cleanest—and getting cleaner faster than ...
    Jul 8, 2025 · According to new ICCT research, battery electric cars sold today produce 73% less life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions than their gasoline counterparts.
  184. [184]
    Remarkable results of energy consumption and CO2 emissions for ...
    Jan 6, 2025 · The results indicate that the use of EVs can lead to an increase in energy consumption of up to 80% compared to gasoline vehicles, depending on ...
  185. [185]
    [PDF] Light Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Life Cycle Assessment
    Overall, R&D GREET shows that the 2025 EV produces 46% less GHG emissions than a comparable ICE vehicle. In 2035, R&D GREET predicts that the EV will produce 76 ...
  186. [186]
    Comparison between EV, HEV, PHEV, and ICE vehicles to achieve ...
    Nov 1, 2023 · However, EVs produce higher NOx and N2O emissions of more than 70 %, indicating a dependence on fossil fuels for electricity generation.
  187. [187]
    CAFE carnage: Death by fuel economy standards
    Raising the standard to 40 mpg, as some in Congress want, would kill an estimated 1,100 additional Americans every year, 12 of which would be in Oregon. More ...
  188. [188]
    [PDF] the deadly effects of fuel economy standards: cafe's lethal impact on ...
    ... CAFE increase to 40 mpg would be an estimated 1,650 additional fatalities annually – about a 5.5 percent increase over current occupant fatalities.4 The ...
  189. [189]
    A difficult road ahead: Fleet fuel economy, footprint-based CAFE ...
    I find evidence that the stringent footprint-based standards create a manufacturer incentive to increase vehicle size to lower the burden of compliance. This ...
  190. [190]
    Fuel Economy Standards Are a Costly Mistake
    Mar 4, 2016 · [29] A formal cost-benefit analysis would require detailed predictions of the economic costs and benefits over time, which would discount ...Missing: empirical | Show results with:empirical<|separator|>
  191. [191]
    Rethinking electric vehicle subsidies, rediscovering energy efficiency
    Sep 3, 2020 · Subsidies for EVs should be scaled back or eliminated, relying instead in the near term on deep across-the–board improvements in the fuel ...Missing: distorting | Show results with:distorting
  192. [192]
    Short Circuit: The High Cost of Electric Vehicle Subsidies
    Governments are spending billions of dollars to subsidize electric vehicles. These subsidies include state and federal tax credits for purchasing ZEVs.
  193. [193]
    (PDF) Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Electric and Internal ...
    Jun 1, 2024 · It means that at different life cycle stages, EVs have a much higher negative impact on the environment compared to gasoline engine vehicles.
  194. [194]
    CAFE Duplicité: Disinformation in Fuel Economy Regulation
    Aug 26, 2024 · The US Department of Transportation is misusing its regulatory authority over fuel economy standards to push the Biden-Harris administration's radical EV goals.
  195. [195]
    FAQs: SAFE Vehicles Final Rule - NHTSA
    The SAFE Vehicles Rule will increase fuel economy standards by 1.5% per year for model years 2021 to 2026, an improvement over the costly and ...Question: Why Do This Rule... · Question: Won't Increased... · Question: Is This Rule...
  196. [196]
    USA: Light-Duty Vehicles: GHG Emissions & Fuel Economy
    The corresponding CAFE standards issued in 2022 require an industry-wide fleet average of approximately 49 mpg for passenger cars and light trucks in MY 2026.
  197. [197]
    USDOT Announces New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards for ...
    Apr 1, 2022 · The new standards will increase fuel efficiency 8% annually for model years 2024-2025 and 10% annually for model year 2026. They will also ...
  198. [198]
    Biden Administration Adopts New Vehicle Fuel Economy Standards
    Apr 6, 2022 · The new standards will increase fuel efficiency 8 percent annually for model years 2024 to 2025 and 10 percent for model year 2026. They will ...
  199. [199]
    Congress Eliminates Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE ...
    The elimination of civil penalties applies only to light vehicles. It does not affect the separate statutory and regulatory fuel efficiency ...
  200. [200]
    The impact of ambitious fuel economy standards on the market ...
    CO2 fleet emissions from new passenger cars shall be reduced by 15% until 2025 and by 37,5% until 2030 compared to 2021 levels, this corresponds to 59.4 gCO2/km ...
  201. [201]
    The European Commission regulatory proposal for post-2020 CO2 ...
    Jan 9, 2018 · The European Commission (EC) published its regulatory proposal for post-2020 carbon dioxide targets for new passenger cars and light-commercial vehicles (vans).
  202. [202]
    Japan: Fuel Economy - Emission Standards - DieselNet
    When the 2020 targets are met, the fleet average fuel economy for passenger cars is estimated to be 20.3 km/L, a 19.6% increase over 2015 performance of 17.0 km ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
  203. [203]
    Japan 2030 fuel economy standards
    Sep 27, 2019 · The standards require an average fleet gasoline-equivalent fuel economy of 25.4 kilometers per liter by 2030, which is a 32.4% improvement over the fleet ...Missing: post- | Show results with:post-
  204. [204]
    Efficient Vehicle Technologies | ACEEE
    Federal standards have spurred technological advancements, such as direct injection and variable valve timing, in gasoline-powered vehicles, but the biggest ...
  205. [205]
    What is the fuel efficiency of the 2025 model car?
    Dec 3, 2024 · Moreover, improvements in engine technology, such as direct fuel injection and turbocharging, also contribute to fuel efficiency. These ...
  206. [206]
    4 Internal Combustion Engine-Based Powertrain Technologies
    In stock 30-day returnsIn 2025–2035, automakers will pursue a variety of powertrain options to improve fuel economy. Therefore, rather than focusing solely on individual technologies ...
  207. [207]
    [PDF] Efficiency technology and cost assessment for U.S. 2025–2030 light ...
    Our analysis indicates 8%–10% greater efficiency improvement is available and cost effective for vehicles by 2025, compared to the latest U.S. regulatory ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  208. [208]
    The impacts of improving heavy-duty internal combustion engine ...
    Jul 15, 2025 · SCR technology has continued to evolve and improve, to the point that engines manufactured beyond 2027 will be required to meet a 0.035 g/bhp-h ...
  209. [209]
    [PDF] Internal Combustion Engine Technical Sector Team
    The document examines the current technology status of these solutions, outlines recommended goals and targets, identifies major barriers to implementing these ...
  210. [210]
    FOTW #1330, February 19, 2024: EPA Data Show Average Fuel ...
    Feb 19, 2024 · Final fuel economy estimates for model year (MY) 2022 show the largest improvement in the last nine years reaching an average of 26.0 miles per gallon (mpg) ...
  211. [211]
    [PDF] The 2024 EPA Automotive Trends Report - Climate Program Portal
    The 2024 EPA report covers greenhouse gas emissions, fuel economy, and technology since 1975, aiming to inform the public of technical developments.
  212. [212]
    New Fuel Economy Standards for MY 2027-2031 | NHTSA
    Jun 7, 2024 · New standards will bring the average fuel economy up to approximately 50.4 miles per gallon by MY 2031, saving owners more than $600 in ...
  213. [213]
    EV, hybrid sales reached a record 20% of U.S. vehicle sales in 2024
    Jan 16, 2025 · Sales of all-electric vehicles and hybrid models reached 20% of new car and truck sales in the US for the first time last year.
  214. [214]
    Electric Vehicle Sales and Market Share (US - Q3 2025 Updates)
    In 2024, the US EV market share reached 8.1% of all light vehicle sales, up from 7.3% of sales in 2023. In 2022, 5.8% of the new cars Americans bought were ...
  215. [215]
    Get Connected Electric Vehicle Report Q1 2025
    Jun 24, 2025 · EVs represent 9.6 percent of new light-duty vehicle sales in Q1 2025, down from 10.9 percent in Q4 2024 (a 59,000 unit drop). Year-over-year, ...
  216. [216]
    Hybrid vehicle sales continue to rise as electric and plug-in ... - EIA
    May 30, 2025 · Electric vehicles accounted for 23% of total luxury sales in the first quarter of 2025. Electric vehicles had accounted for more than one-third ...