The EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are revising the fuel economy label that is required on all new cars and light-duty trucks sold in the U.S., according to this press release. There are two primary label designs under consideration.

There are new stickers for Hybrid/Advanced Technology cars; the new designs are much cleaner than the tired ones we are all so familiar with — a welcome upgrade.

Gas and Diesel Vehicles
Advanced Technology Vehicles
Submit a Comment

The circa 1970s stickers received a modest upgrade in 2008, but the new ones are far more comprehensive.  I think these are a big improvement over the old ones.  The EPA is taking comments now also: Might not be a bad thing to let them know you like the concept . . .

>

Fuel Economy Label 1 for Gas/Diesel Vehicle

click for interactive version

>

Fuel Economy MPG Label for Gas/Diesel Vehicle

click for interactive version

>

Hat tip: USA Today

PDF of all labels here: PDF

Category: Energy, Regulation

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

18 Responses to “Proposed New Car Fuel Economy Stickers”

  1. dead hobo says:

    Yes, they are better. But most people, even with the old stickers, knew that 20 is 5 worse than 25.

    Annual fuel cost = WTF??? (ROTFLMAO)

  2. dead hobo says:

    If Uncle Stupid wants to sell more high fuel economy cars than SUVs and the like, then each new car with over 30 MPG should come with 50 free state lotto tickets, paid for from federal gas taxes.

  3. stubzee says:

    I’m impressed with a couple of the “borrowed” innovations from other fields, particularly the Annual Fuel Cost metric, which hearkens to the CARDs-mandated “how long will it take you to pay this off” box on billing statements, and the Quick Response code, the box of squiggly gobbledygook just below the letter grade. Probably you’ve seen these QR codes on your UPS packages and in the corners of ads in magazines and newspapers. They enable you to use a bar code scanner app (like ShopSavvy) on your iPhone or Droid or whatever and link quickly to more information, and even to provide portability to complicated info.

    Anything that simplifies complex information like this ultimately makes things easier for consumers, and therefore improves their likelihood for trust and purchase. Financial services could learn a thing or two from this.

  4. mathman says:

    Complete waste of time – the whole idea is to GET OFF FOSSIL FUELS – so who cares how many miles per gallon you get? The sticker would be much more effective if it rated how much carbon pollution the vehicle puts into the already overloaded atmosphere – that would tell you something meaningful.
    Miles per gallon is so last century . . .
    Bring on the fuel cells, the solar driven cars – stop the pollution already.

    ~~~

    BR: Off fossil fuels? That wont happen for 15-50 years . . .

  5. DG_Allen says:

    I don’t like the letter grades. The special interestes will see to it that a big SUV only winds up with B and people will feel good about buying it.

    So, I vote for the small only.

  6. mathman,

    O RLY? see: http://www.activistpost.com/2010/07/marijuana-conspiracy-reason-hemp-is.html

    Do yourself/the rest of us a favor..come off the MSM-Agitprop drip-feed, and I’ll show you how decent Ecological practices are part of sound Economics that lead to sustainable Finance.

  7. Andy T says:

    That’s awesome.

    I wonder how much time and money government wasted coming up with these “new standards.”

  8. yeah — Andy T is right !

    What about the money the gummint wastes on roads and Police And fire departments? All those goddamned national parks. And national defense? Fuck dat! I hate those bastards!

    We should let the car manufacturers and the banks self-regulate, without any oversight. What harm could ever come from that ?

  9. ZedLoch says:

    what gets 103 mpgs? the volt?

  10. mathman says:

    MEH: thanks for the link.

    Other than that, if you want to believe that humanity has no effect on the planet with all our pollution, you go right ahead keeping your head in the sand.

    Coal: http://unearthed.earthjustice.org/blog/2010-august/report-unveils-greater-threat-drinking-water-coal-ash

    Oil is obvious after the last “spill” (and all the others you haven’t been keeping up with, cost of doing “business”?) but: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/18/oil-plumes-may-be-more-toxic-than-thought-scientists-warn/

    CO2: http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/pollution-overview.html

    i won’t bore you with more. Enjoy your days.

  11. mathman says:

    Barry, as per your comment: that’s exactly my point – “our” leaders keep up the status quo as long as their corporate paymasters wish, despite scientific warnings to the contrary, and people are only too happy to go along and not change their ways until it’s forced on us by mother nature. In other words, i’m not sure we have 15 – 50 years to prepare for what’s coming:

    http://kunstler.com/blog/2010/08/one-lump-or-two.html

  12. ACS says:

    Looking at those labels brings to mind the phrase GIGO.

  13. curbyourrisk says:

    Get off Fossil Fuels……yeah right.

    I WILL NEVER, EVER GIVE UP MY CHERRY RED 1973 CORVETTE. EVER!!!! I don’t care what the idiots in Congress say. I don’t care what my local government says. I don’ care what the brain dead greenies say or my nieghbor. There is nothing like driving the old…POWER cars. I would never ever even consider driving one of those smart cars…they are a 2 seater death trap.

  14. Ny Stock Guy says:

    Great idea! About time something like this happened.

  15. What a waste of time. Fuel standards are irrelevant. Consider:

    – Priced in oil dollars are worth something. People will hoard them, which is taking place now (in fits and starts). Once hoarding becomes obvious the consequence will be energy conservation by (dollar) proxy.

    – Decreasing solvency across the economy drives the price of fuel lower (alongside the hardening dollar) which holds replacement fuel production off the market. This is occuring alongside and amplifying the ongoing decline in net exports of fuel due to both depletion and increased consumption (waste) in oil producing countries.

    We are in a fuel deficit compounding spiral. Lower price of fuel means less wealth generally (to bid up the price) meaning less productive/profitable economic output, leading to less employment which leads to lower prices in a vicious and self- reinforcing cycle. Ultimately fuel production will be shut in as the least expensive forms are either depleted or held off the market against future demand. Higher priced fuel production will be simply unaffordable.

    The endgame will be (widespread) shortages at low nominal prices, the difference being that there will be NO END TO THE SHORTAGES and the economy will grind to a halt … driving prices even lower, leading to more unemployment, etc. This price process has been taking place since 2002 (with dollar- available peak oil having taken place in 1998). The endgame is an extrapolation of the ongoing price process.

    If there is no fuel in your state it will not matter if your car gets 50 or 500 mpg. You won’t be able to drive and your car will be an expensive paperweight.

  16. xnycpdx says:

    that ‘letter grade’ tag is gonna get them sued by the MTA, big time!

  17. Andy T says:

    “We should let the car manufacturers and the banks self-regulate, without any oversight. What harm could ever come from that ?”

    Yeah, because that’s what I’m saying in the above….

    You want to have a debate on the merit of “fuel standards” and CAFE and how it was the stupidest idea ever? That’s an easy one….

    But why debate the ‘core issue?’ Let’s just celebrate the new “super cool” labels that the some bureaucrat is mandating….because it’s the label that’s really important.