The EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology Since 1975

The
2022
EPA Automotive
Trends Report
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Fuel Economy, and
Technology since 1975
ft
~
,,.,
EA~ United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA-420-R-22-029 December 2022
This technical report does not necessarily represent final EPA decisions, positions, or validation of
compliance data reported to EPA by manufacturers. It is intended to present technical analysis of issues
using data that are currently available and that may be subject to change. Historic data have been
adjusted, when appropriate, to reflect the result of compliance investigations by EPA or any other
corrections necessary to maintain data integrity.
The purpose of the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to
inform the public of technical developments. This edition of the report supersedes all previous versions.
•-------
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1
A. What’s New This Year ............................................................................................................................ 1
B. Manufacturers in this Report ............................................................................................................... 2
C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics in this Report ...................................................................................3
2. Fleetwide Trends Overview ......................................................................................................... 5

A. Overall Fuel Economy and CO2 Trends ...............................................................................................5
B. Production Trends ................................................................................................................................. 8
C. Manufacturer Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions..............................................................................9
3. Vehicle Attributes....................................................................................................................... 14
A. Vehicle Class and Type ........................................................................................................................14
B. Vehicle Weight......................................................................................................................................20
C. Vehicle Power .......................................................................................................................................24
D. Vehicle Footprint..................................................................................................................................29
E. Vehicle Type and Attribute Tradeoffs................................................................................................32
4. Vehicle Technology..................................................................................................................... 39
A. Technology Overview ..........................................................................................................................39
B. Vehicle Propulsion ...............................................................................................................................42
C. Vehicle Drivetrain.................................................................................................................................64
D. Technology Adoption ..........................................................................................................................69
5. Manufacturer GHG Compliance ................................................................................................ 78

A. Footprint-Based CO2 Standards.........................................................................................................80
B. Model Year Performance....................................................................................................................83
C. GHG Program Credits and Deficits................................................................................................. 109
D. End of Year GHG Program Credit Balances................................................................................... 119
Appendices: Methods and Additional Data

A. Sources of Input Data
B. Harmonic Averaging of Fuel Economy Values
C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics
D. Historical Changes in the Database and Methodology
E. Electric Vehicle and Plug-In Hybrid Metrics
F. Authors and Acknowledgments
- ------ i
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions .........................................................5
Figure 2.2. Trends in Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions Since Model Year 1975 ......................................6
Figure 2.3. Distribution of New Vehicle CO2 Emissions by Model Year ......................................................7
Figure 2.4. New Vehicle Production by Model Year.......................................................................................9
Figure 2.5. Changes in Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions by Manufacturer.....10
Figure 3.1. Regulatory Classes and Vehicle Types Used in This Report ....................................................15
Figure 3.2. Production Share and Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy ..................................................16
Figure 3.3. Vehicle Type Distribution by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021..........................................17
Figure 3.4. Car-Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less ...................18
Figure 3.5. Average New Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type...........................................................................21
Figure 3.6. Inertia Weight Class Distribution by Model Year ......................................................................22
Figure 3.7. Relationship of Inertia Weight and CO2 Emissions...................................................................23
Figure 3.8. Average New Vehicle Horsepower by Vehicle Type .................................................................25
Figure 3.9. Horsepower Distribution by Model Year ...................................................................................26
Figure 3.10. Relationship of Horsepower and CO2 Emissions....................................................................27
Figure 3.11. Calculated 0-to-60 Time by Vehicle Type .................................................................................28
Figure 3.12. Footprint by Vehicle Type for Model Year 2008–2021 ...........................................................30
Figure 3.13. Footprint Distribution by Model Year ......................................................................................30
Figure 3.14. Relationship of Footprint and CO2 Emissions .........................................................................31
Figure 3.15. Relative Change in Fuel Economy, Weight, Horsepower, and Footprint.............................33
Figure 4.1. Vehicle Energy Flow ......................................................................................................................39
Figure 4.2. Manufacturer Use of Emerging Technologies for Model Year 2021......................................41
Figure 4.3. Production Share by Engine Technology ...................................................................................43
Figure 4.4. Gasoline Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders ..................................................45
Figure 4.5. Percent Change for Specific Gasoline Engine Metrics .............................................................47
Figure 4.6. Engine Metrics for Different Gasoline Technology Packages .................................................49
Figure 4.7. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type .....................................................51
Figure 4.8. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders.......................................51
Figure 4.9. Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and Horsepower, Model Year
2011, 2014, and 2021 ..............................................................................................................................52
Figure 4.10. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Vehicle Type....................................................54
Figure 4.11. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Number of Cylinders .....................................54
Figure 4.12. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type ..................................................55
Figure 4.13. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders ...................................55
Figure 4.14. Production Share of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs .............................................................................58
Figure 4.15. Electric Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type.................................................................59
Figure 4.16. Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type ....................................................59
Figure 4.17. Charge Depleting Range and Fuel Economy for EVs and PHEVs..........................................60
Figure 4.18. Diesel Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type ...................................................................62
- ------ ii
Figure 4.19. Diesel Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders.....................................................62
Figure 4.20. Percent Change for Specific Diesel Engine Metrics ................................................................63
Figure 4.21. Transmission Production Share................................................................................................66
Figure 4.22. Average Number of Transmission Gears ................................................................................67
Figure 4.23. Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Real-World Fuel Economy for
Comparable Vehicles...............................................................................................................................68
Figure 4.24. Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive Production Share .........................................................69
Figure 4.25. Industry-Wide Car Technology Penetration after First Significant Use ...............................71
Figure 4.26. Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key Technologies..................73
Figure 5.1. The GHG Compliance Process.....................................................................................................78
Figure 5.2. 2012–2021 Model Year CO2 Footprint Target Curves ..............................................................80
Figure 5.3. Changes in 2-Cycle Tailpipe CO2 Emissions by Manufacturer ................................................85
Figure 5.4. Model Year 2021 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs ............................................................88
Figure 5.5. Model Year 2021 Advanced Technology Credits by Manufacturer ........................................88
Figure 5.6. HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer ....................................................................................91
Figure 5.7. Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type .........................................................................................93
Figure 5.8. Total A/C Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021 ........................................................93
Figure 5.9. Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model Year 2021 .........................95
Figure 5.10. Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021 ......................................... 104
Figure 5.11. Performance and Standards by Manufacturer, Model Year 2021 .................................... 110
Figure 5.12. Early Credits by Manufacturer ............................................................................................... 116
Figure 5.13. Total Credits Transactions ...................................................................................................... 119
Figure 5.14. Manufacturer Credit Balance After Model Year 2021......................................................... 122
Figure 5.15. Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation and Use.................................. 126
List of Tables
Table 1.1. Model Year 2021 Manufacturer Definitions .................................................................................3

Table 1.2. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics Used in this Report....................................................................4
Table 2.1. Production, Estimated Real-World CO2, and Fuel Economy for Model Year 1975–2022......11
Table 2.2. Manufacturers and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy, by Year...................................12
Table 2.3. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions for Model Year
2020–2022.................................................................................................................................................13
Table 3.1. Vehicle Attributes by Model Year .................................................................................................34
Table 3.2. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type ...............................................35
Table 3.3. Model Year 2021 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer ..............................................................36
Table 3.4. Model Year 2021 Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by Manufacturer and
Vehicle Type ..............................................................................................................................................37
Table 3.5. Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2020–2022 (ft2) .....................................................38
Table 4.1. Production Share by Powertrain ..................................................................................................74
- ------ iii
Table 4.2. Production Share by Engine Technologies .................................................................................75
Table 4.3. Production Share by Transmission Technologies......................................................................76
Table 4.4. Production Share by Drive Technology .......................................................................................77
Table 5.1. Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2021 .................................................82
Table 5.2. Production Multipliers by Model Year .........................................................................................87
Table 5.3. Model Year 2021 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by Manufacturer and
Technology (g/mi).................................................................................................................................. 100
Table 5.4. Model Year 2021 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative Methodology, by
Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi)................................................................................................. 103
Table 5.5. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2021, All (g/mi)................................................... 106
Table 5.6. Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/mi) ..................................................................... 106
Table 5.7. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2021, Car (g/mi) ................................................. 107
Table 5.8. Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/mi) ................................................................... 107
Table 5.9. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2021, Truck (g/mi) ............................................. 108
Table 5.10. Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/mi).............................................................. 108
Table 5.11. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2021, All.................................................. 112
Table 5.12. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009–2021, All............................................................ 112
Table 5.13. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2021, Car ................................................ 113
Table 5.14. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009–2021, Car .......................................................... 113
Table 5.15. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2021, Truck ............................................ 114
Table 5.16. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009–2021, Truck ...................................................... 114
Table 5.17 Credit Expiration Schedule........................................................................................................ 117
Table 5.18. Example of a Deficit Offset with Credits from Previous Model Years................................ 120
Table 5.19. Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021 (Mg) ...................................... 123
Table 5.20. Distribution of Credits by Expiration Date (Mg) .................................................................... 124
- ------ iv
1. Introduction
This annual report is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) commitment
to provide the public with information about new light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions, fuel economy, technology data, and auto manufacturers' performance in
meeting the agency’s GHG emissions standards.
EPA has collected data on every new light-duty vehicle model sold in the United States
since 1975, either from testing performed by EPA at the National Vehicle Fuel and
Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, or directly from manufacturers using official
EPA test procedures. These data are collected to support several important national
programs, including EPA criteria pollutant and GHG standards, the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, and vehicle Fuel Economy and Environment
labels. This expansive data set allows EPA to provide a uniquely comprehensive analysis of
the automotive industry since 1975.
A. What’s New This Year

This report is updated each year to reflect the most recent data available to EPA for all
model years, relevant regulatory changes, methodology changes, and any other changes
relevant to the auto industry. These changes can affect multiple model years; therefore,
this version of the report supersedes all previous reports. Significant developments
relevant for this edition of the report include:
• In December 2021, EPA finalized revised light-duty GHG standards for model years
2023-2026 and in March 2022 NHTSA subsequently published revised fuel economy
standards for model years 2024-2026. In March 2022, EPA also restored California’s
waiver to enforce greenhouse gas standards for cars and light trucks. This report has
been updated to reflect these changes where relevant.
• Electric vehicles continue to increase market share and are expected to continue
growing in popularity. The technology, fuel economy, and emissions of electric
vehicles are fundamentally different than their internal combustion counterparts.
Increasing vehicle electrification may require rethinking many of the metrics and
methods used in this report. While no significant changes were made this year, EPA is
evaluating the best metrics and methods to explain these ongoing trends and
technologies for future reports.
- ------ 1
• This report shows projected model year 2022 data, much of which was provided to
EPA by manufacturers in calendar year 2021. Given the impacts of COVID-19 and
ongoing worldwide supply chain issues, and their associated impacts on the
automobile industry, the projected model year 2022 data may change significantly
before being finalized.
• EPA continues to update detailed data from this report, including all years of the light-
duty GHG standards, to the EPA Automotive Trends website. We encourage readers to
visit https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends and explore the data. EPA will continue
to add content and tools on the web to allow transparent access to public data.
B. Manufacturers in this Report

The underlying data for this report include every new light-duty vehicle offered for sale in
the United States. These data are presented by manufacturer throughout this report, using
model year 2021 manufacturer definitions determined by EPA and NHTSA for
implementation of the GHG emission standards and CAFE program. For simplicity, figures
and tables in the executive summary and in Sections 1-4 show only the top 14
manufacturers, by production. These manufacturers produced at least 150,000 vehicles
each in the 2021 model year and accounted for more than 98% of all production. The
compliance discussion in Section 5 includes all manufacturers, regardless of production
volume. Table 1.1 lists all manufacturers that produced vehicles in the U.S. for model year
2021, including their associated makes, and their categorization for this report. Only vehicle
brands produced in model year 2021 are shown in this table; however, this report contains
data on many other manufacturers and brands that have produced vehicles for sale in the
U.S. since 1975.
When a manufacturer grouping changes under the GHG and CAFE programs, EPA applies
the new manufacturer definitions to all prior model years for the analysis of estimated real-
world CO2 emission and fuel economy trends in Sections 1 through 4 of this report. This
maintains consistent manufacturer and make definitions over time, which enables better
identification of long-term trends. However, the compliance data that are discussed in
Section 5 of this report maintain the previous manufacturer definitions where necessary to
preserve the integrity of compliance data as accrued.
- ------ 2
Table 1.1. Model Year 2021 Manufacturer Definitions
Manufacturer Makes in the U.S. Market

BMW BMW, Mini, Rolls Royce
Ford Ford, Lincoln, Roush, Shelby
GM Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, GMC
Honda Acura, Honda
Hyundai Genesis, Hyundai
Manufacturers
Kia Kia
Mazda Mazda
Large
Mercedes Maybach, Mercedes

Nissan Infiniti, Nissan
Stellantis Alfa Romeo, Chrysler, Dodge, Fiat, Jeep, Maserati, Ram
Subaru Subaru
Tesla Tesla
Toyota Lexus, Toyota
Volkswagen (VW) Audi, Bentley, Bugatti, Lamborghini, Porsche, Volkswagen
Jaguar Land Rover Jaguar, Land Rover
Mitsubishi Mitsubishi
Manufacturers
Volvo Lotus, Polestar, Volvo

Other
Karma Karma
Aston Martin* Aston Martin
Ferrari* Ferrari
McLaren* McLaren
* Small Volume Manufacturers
C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics in this Report

All data in this report for model years 1975 through 2021 are final and based on official
data submitted to EPA and NHTSA as part of the regulatory process. In some cases, this
report will show data for model year 2022, which are preliminary and based on data
provided to EPA by automakers prior to the model year, including projected production
volumes. All data in this report are based on production volumes delivered for sale in the
U.S. by model year. The model year production volumes may vary from other publicized
data based on calendar year sales. The report does not examine future model years, and
past performance does not necessarily predict future industry trends.
The carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and fuel economy data in this report fall into one of
two categories based on the purpose of the data and the subsequent required emissions
test procedures. The first category is compliance data, which is measured using laboratory
- ------ 3
tests required by law for CAFE and adopted by EPA for GHG compliance. Compliance data
are measured using EPA city and highway test procedures (the “2-cycle” tests), and
fleetwide averages are calculated by weighting the city and highway test results by 55% and
45%, respectively. These procedures are required for compliance; however, they no longer
accurately reflect real-world driving. Compliance data may also encompass optional
performance credits and adjustments that manufacturers can use towards meeting their
emissions standards.
The second category is estimated real-world data, which is measured using additional
laboratory tests to capture a wider range of operating conditions (including hot and cold
weather, higher speeds, and faster accelerations) encountered by an average driver. This
expanded set of tests is referred to as “5-cycle” testing. City and highway results are
weighted 43% city and 57% highway, consistent with fleetwide driver activity data. The city
and highway values are the same values found on new vehicle fuel economy labels,
however the label combined value is weighted 55% city and 45% highway. Unlike
compliance data, the method for calculating real-world data has evolved over time, along
with technology and driving habits.
Table 1.2. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics Used in this Report
Current
CO2 and Fuel Economy City/Highway Current Test
Data Category Purpose Weighting Basis
Basis for manufacturer

Compliance 55% / 45% 2-cycle
compliance with standards
Best estimate of real-world

Estimated Real-World performance 43% / 57% 5-cycle
This report will show estimated real-world data except for the discussion specific to the
GHG regulations in Section 5 and Executive Summary Figures ES-6 through ES-8. The
compliance CO2 data must not be compared to the real-world CO2 data presented
elsewhere in this report. Appendices C and D present a more detailed discussion of the fuel
economy and CO2 data used in this report.
This report does not provide data about NHTSA’s CAFE program. For more information
about CAFE and manufacturer compliance with the CAFE fuel economy standards, see the
CAFE Public Information Center, which can be accessed at
https://one.nhtsa.gov/cafe_pic/CAFE_PIC_Home.htm.
- ------ 4
N
Fleetwide Trends Overview
The automotive industry continues to make progress towards lower tailpipe CO2 emissions
and higher fuel economy in recent years. This section provides an update on the estimated
real-world tailpipe CO2 emissions and fuel economy for the overall fleet, and for
manufacturers based on final model year 2021 data. The unique, historical data on which
this report is based also provide an important backdrop for evaluating the more recent
performance of the industry. Using that data, this section will also explore basic fleetwide
trends in the automotive industry since EPA began collecting data in model year 1975.
Overall Fuel Economy and CO2 Trends

► ■
In model year 2021, the average Figure 2.1. Estimated Real-World

estimated real-world CO2 emission Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions
rate for all new vehicles fell by 2
g/mi to 347 g/mi, the lowest ever
Real-World CO2 Emissions (g/mi)
measured. Real-world fuel economy 600

remained at a record high 25.4
mpg. 1 500 347g / mi
MY 2021
Since model year 2004, CO2

400
emissions have decreased 25%, or
114 g/mi, and fuel economy has
•
increased 32%, or 6.1 mpg. Over
that time, CO2 emissions have
•
Real-World Fuel Economy (MPG)
improved in fourteen of seventeen 24

years. The trends in CO2 emissions
and fuel economy since 1975 are 25.4 MPG
20 MY 2021
shown in Figure 2.1.
Preliminary data suggest that CO2 16
emissions and fuel economy in

model year 2022 will improve from
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
the levels achieved in 2021. The Model Year
preliminary model year 2022 data
1EPA generally uses unrounded values to calculate values in the text, figures, and tables in this report. This
approach results in the most accurate data but may lead to small apparent discrepancies due to rounding.
&]
5
are based on production estimates provided to EPA by manufacturers months before the
vehicles go on sale. The data are a useful indicator, however there is always uncertainty
associated with such projections, and we caution the reader against focusing only on these
data. Projected data are shown in Figure 2.1 as a dot because the values are based on
manufacturer projections rather than final data.
While the most recent annual changes often receive the most public attention, the greatest
value of the Trends database is to document long-term trends. The magnitude of changes
in annual CO2 emissions and fuel economy tend to be small relative to longer, multi-year
trends. Figure 2.2 shows fleetwide estimated real-world CO2 emissions and fuel economy
for model years 1975–2021. Over this timeframe there have been three basic phases: 1) a
rapid improvement of CO2 emissions and fuel economy between 1975 and 1987, 2) a
period of slowly increasing CO2 emissions and decreasing fuel economy through 2004, and
3) decreasing CO2 emissions and increasing fuel economy through the current model year.
Figure 2.2. Trends in Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions Since Model Year 1975
E
---
-9
(/)
C 600 1988 to 2004 2005 to 2021
0 +14% -25%
·oo(/)
.E
t
'
w 500
0 "'
0
"C
-;:::
~
...!.
400
ro
w
0:::
25
G'
a..
~
>,
E
0
C
0 20
(.)
w
t
w
'
::::,
IL
"C
-;:::
15 1988 to 2004 2005 to 2021
~
...!. +68% -12% +32%
ro
w
0:::
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
- ------ 6
Vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy are inversely related for gasoline and diesel
vehicles, but not for electric vehicles. Since gasoline and diesel vehicles have made up the
vast majority of vehicle production since 1975, Figure 2.2 shows an inverted, but highly
correlated relationship between CO2 emissions and fuel economy. Electric vehicles, which
account for a small but growing portion of vehicle production, have zero tailpipe CO2
emissions, regardless of fuel economy (as measured in miles per gallon equivalent, or
mpge). If electric vehicles continue to capture a larger market share, the overall
relationship between fuel economy and tailpipe CO2 emissions will change.
Another way to look at CO2 emissions over time is to examine how the distribution of new
vehicle emission rates have changed. Figure 2.3 shows the distribution of real-world
tailpipe CO2 emissions for all vehicles produced within each model year. Half of the vehicles
produced each year are clustered within a small band around the median CO2 emission
rate, as shown in blue. The remaining vehicles show a much wider spread, especially in
recent years as the production of electric vehicles with zero tailpipe emissions has
increased. The lowest CO2-emitting vehicles have all been hybrids or electric vehicles since
the first hybrid was introduced in model year 2000, while the highest CO2-emitting vehicles
are generally performance vehicles or large trucks.
Figure 2.3. Distribution of New Vehicle CO2 Emissions by Model Year 2
Worst Vehicle
Real-World CO2 (g/mi)
1000
Worst 5%
Bottom
25%
500
50% of Vehicles
Top
Best 5%
25%
Best Vehicle
0
1975 1980 1985 19 90 19 95 200 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

Model Year
2Electric vehicles prior to 2011 are not included in this figure due to limited data. However, those vehicles were
-
available in small numbers only.
7
It is important to note that the methodology used in this report for calculating estimated
real-world fuel economy and CO2 emission values has changed over time to reflect
changing vehicle technology and operation. For example, the estimated real-world fuel
economy for a 1980s vehicle is somewhat higher than it would be if the same vehicle were
being produced today. These changes are small for most vehicles, but larger for very high
fuel economy vehicles. See Appendices C and D for a detailed explanation of fuel economy
metrics and their changes over time.
B. Production Trends
This report is based on the total number of vehicles produced by manufacturers for sale in
the United States by model year. Model year is the manufacturer’s annual production
period which includes January 1 of the same calendar year. A typical model year for a
vehicle begins in fall of the preceding calendar year and runs until late in the next calendar
year. However, model years vary among manufacturers and can occur between Janurary 2
of the preceding calendar year and the end of the calendar year. Model year production
data is the most direct way to analyze emissions, fuel economy, technology, and
compliance trends because vehicle designs within a model year do not typically change.
The use of model year production may lead to some short-term discrepencies with other
sources, which typically report calendar year sales; however, sales based on the calendar
year generally encompass more than one model year, which complicates any analysis.
Since the inception of this report, production of vehicles for sale in the United States has
grown about 0.5% year over year, but there have been significant swings up or down in any
given model year due to the impact of multiple market forces. For example, in model year
2009 the Great Recession resulted in the lowest model year production since the start of
this report, at 9.3 million vehicles. Production rebounded over the next several model
years, reaching an all-time high of more than 17 million vehicles in model year 2017. Model
year 2020 production fell 15% from the previous year, as the COVID-19 pandemic had
wide-ranging impacts on the economy and vehicle production. Production was up slightly
in model year 2021, but the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, as well as supply chain
disruptions affecting the availability of semiconductors and other components, continue to
challenge the industry. Figure 2.4 shows the production trends by model year for model
years 1975 to 2021.
- ------ 8
Figure 2.4. New Vehicle Production by Model Year
20,000
Annual Production (000)
15,000
10,000
5,000
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
C. Manufacturer Fuel Economy and CO2

Emissions
Along with the overall industry, most manufacturers have improved new vehicle CO2
emission rates and fuel economy in recent years. Manufacturer trends over the last five
years are shown in Figure 2.5. This span covers the approximate length of a vehicle
redesign cycle, and it is likely that most vehicles have undergone design changes in this
period, resulting in a more accurate depiction of recent manufacturer trends than focusing
on a single year. Changes over this time period can be attributed to both vehicle design
and changing vehicle production trends. The change in production trends, and the impact
on the trends shown in Figure 2.5 are discussed in more detail in the next section.
For model year 2021 alone, Tesla’s all-electric fleet had by far the lowest tailpipe CO2
emissions and highest fuel economy of all large manufacturers. Tesla was followed by a
close grouping of Subaru, Kia, Hyundai, Nissan, and Honda. Stellantis had the highest new
vehicle average CO2 emissions and lowest fuel economy of the large manufacturers in
model year 2021, followed by GM and Ford. Tesla also had the highest overall fuel
economy, followed by the close group of Subaru, Kia, Nissan, Hyundai, and Honda.
- ------ 9
Figure 2.5. Changes in Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions by Manufacturer
Fuel Economy (MPG), 2016 − 2021 CO2 Emissions (g/mi), 2016 − 2021
96.8 123.9
Tesla
~-------------.--------1 t.....___ _
I
0
------.-----------,.--------1
Subaru
60 80 100
28.1 ...-
28.8
120 50
309-+317
100 150
Kia
Nissan
Hyundai
26.2
27.8 ... -28.7

28.6
28.5 ◄ 28.8
310
.
II(
311 318
309►310
338
Honda 28.2 ►28.5 312◄315
Mazda 27.4 II( 29.6 301---► 324
Toyota
BMW
VW 24.7
25.0
25.4 ►25.8
.J
~
- 27.1
~
26.5
327 .J
--
339 . 349
355
334 ----l ►352
Mercedes . 23.6 23.6

• •
376 376
Ford 22.8 ►22.9 385◄389
GM 21.6 ◄-22.4 397---► 414
Stellantis 21.3
• 21.5 413 ► 417
All Manufacturers 24.7 f-+ 25.4 347 I+- 359
20 24 28 32 300 350 400 450
- -------- 10
Table 2.1. Production, Estimated Real-World CO2, and Fuel Economy for Model Year 1975–2022
Production Real-World Real-World Production Real-World Real-World

Model Year (000) CO2 (g/mi) FE (MPG) Model Year (000) CO2 (g/mi) FE (MPG)
1975 10,224 681 13.1 2000 16,571 450 19.8
1976 12,334 625 14.2 2001 15,605 453 19.6
1977 14,123 590 15.1 2002 16,115 457 19.5
1978 14,448 562 15.8 2003 15,773 454 19.6
1979 13,882 560 15.9 2004 15,709 461 19.3
1980 11,306 466 19.2 2005 15,892 447 19.9
1981 10,554 436 20.5 2006 15,104 442 20.1
1982 9,732 425 21.1 2007 15,276 431 20.6
1983 10,302 426 21.0 2008 13,898 424 21.0
1984 14,020 424 21.0 2009 9,316 397 22.4
1985 14,460 417 21.3 2010 11,116 394 22.6
1986 15,365 407 21.8 2011 12,018 399 22.3
1987 14,865 405 22.0 2012 13,449 377 23.6
1988 15,295 407 21.9 2013 15,198 368 24.2
1989 14,453 415 21.4 2014 15,512 369 24.1
1990 12,615 420 21.2 2015 16,739 360 24.6
1991 12,573 418 21.3 2016 16,278 359 24.7
1992 12,172 427 20.8 2017 17,016 357 24.9
1993 13,211 426 20.9 2018 16,259 353 25.1
1994 14,125 436 20.4 2019 16,139 356 24.9
1995 15,145 434 20.5 2020 13,721 349 25.4
1996 13,144 435 20.4 2021 13,810 347 25.4
1997 14,458 441 20.1 2022 (prelim) 331 26.4
1998 14,456 442 20.1
1999 15,215 451 19.7
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
- -------- 11
Table 2.2. Manufacturers and Vehicles with the Highest Fuel Economy, by Year
Overall Vehicle with Gasoline (Non-Hybrid) Vehicle
Manufacturer Manufacturer Highest Fuel Economy 4 with Highest Fuel Economy
with Highest with Lowest Real- Real-
Fuel Economy 3 Fuel Economy World FE Engine World FE
Model Year (mpg) (mpg) Vehicle (mpg) Type Gasoline Vehicle (mpg)
1975 Honda Ford Honda Civic 28.3 Gas Honda Civic 28.3
1980 VW Ford VW Rabbit 40.3 Diesel Nissan 210 36.1
1985 Honda Mercedes GM Sprint 49.6 Gas GM Sprint 49.6
1990 Hyundai Mercedes GM Metro 53.4 Gas GM Metro 53.4
1995 Honda Stellantis Honda Civic 47.3 Gas Honda Civic 47.3
2000 Hyundai Stellantis Honda Insight 57.4 Hybrid GM Metro 39.4
2005 Honda Ford Honda Insight 53.3 Hybrid Honda Civic 35.1
2006 Mazda Ford Honda Insight 53.0 Hybrid Toyota Corolla 32.3
2007 Toyota Mercedes Toyota Prius 46.2 Hybrid Toyota Yaris 32.6
2008 Hyundai Mercedes Toyota Prius 46.2 Hybrid Smart Fortwo 37.1
2009 Toyota Stellantis Toyota Prius 46.2 Hybrid Smart Fortwo 37.1
2010 Hyundai Mercedes Honda FCX 60.2 FCV Smart Fortwo 36.8
2011 Hyundai Mercedes BMW Active E 100.6 EV Smart Fortwo 35.7
2012 Hyundai Stellantis Nissan-i-MiEV 109.0 EV Toyota iQ 36.8
2013 Hyundai Stellantis Toyota IQ 117.0 EV Toyota iQ 36.8
2014 Mazda Stellantis BMW i3 121.3 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 39.5
2015 Mazda Stellantis BMW i3 121.3 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 39.5
2016 Mazda Stellantis BMW i3 121.3 EV Mazda 2 37.1
2017 Honda Stellantis Hyundai Ioniq 132.6 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 41.5
2018 Tesla Stellantis Hyundai Ioniq 132.6 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 41.5
2019 Tesla Stellantis Hyundai Ioniq 132.6 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 41.6
2020 Tesla Stellantis Tesla Model 3 138.6 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 41.6
2021 Tesla Stellantis Tesla Model 3 139.1 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 41.6
2022 (prelim) Tesla Stellantis Lucid Air 131.4 EV Mitsubishi Mirage 40.1
3
Manufacturers below the 150,000 threshold for “large” manufacturers are excluded in years they did not meet the threshold.
4Vehicles are shown based on estimated real-world fuel economy as calculated for this report. These values will differ from values found on the fuel
economy labels at the time of sale. For more information on fuel economy metrics see Appendix C.
- -------- 12
Table 2.3. Manufacturer Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Emissions for Model Year 2020–2022
MY 2020 Final MY 2021 Final MY 2022 Preliminary

FE Change CO2 Change
Real-World Real-World Real-World from Real-World from Real-World Real-World
FE CO2 FE MY 2020 CO2 MY 2020 FE CO2
Manufacturer (mpg) (g/mi) (mpg) (mpg) (g/mi) (g/mi) (mpg) (g/mi)
BMW 25.5 347 25.8 0.3 339 -8 25.7 341
Ford 23.0 386 22.9 -0.1 385 -1 23.0 382
GM 23.0 386 21.6 -1.5 414 28 22.2 400
Honda 29.1 305 28.5 -0.6 312 6 28.3 315
Hyundai 28.4 312 28.5 0.1 310 -2 29.1 302
Kia 27.7 320 28.7 1.0 310 -10 28.7 305
Mazda 27.9 319 27.4 -0.5 324 6 26.5 335
Mercedes 23.4 379 23.6 0.2 376 -3 24.6 359
Nissan 27.9 317 28.6 0.6 311 -7 28.0 316
Stellantis 21.3 418 21.3 0.0 417 -1 21.6 410
Subaru 28.5 312 28.8 0.3 309 -3 28.0 317
Tesla 119.1 0 123.9 4.8 0 0 121.5 0
Toyota 27.0 329 27.1 0.1 327 -2 28.0 316
VW 24.9 354 24.7 -0.2 352 -2 27.7 306
All Manufacturers 25.4 349 25.4 0.0 347 -2 26.4 331
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
- -------- 13
3. Vehicle Attributes
Vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy are strongly influenced by vehicle design
parameters, including weight, power, acceleration, and size. In general, vehicles that are
larger, heavier, and more powerful typically have lower fuel economy and higher CO2
emissions than other comparable vehicles. This section focuses on several key vehicle
design attributes that impact CO2 emissions and fuel economy and evaluates the impact of
a changing automotive marketplace on overall fuel economy.
A. Vehicle Class and Type

Manufacturers offer a wide variety of light-duty vehicles in the United States. Under the
CAFE and GHG regulations, new vehicles are separated into two distinct regulatory classes,
passenger cars and light trucks, and each vehicle class has separate GHG and fuel economy
standards 5. Vehicles that weigh more than 6,000 pounds gross vehicle weight 6 (GVW) or
have four-wheel drive and meet various off-road requirements, such as ground clearance,
qualify as light trucks. Vehicles can also qualify as light trucks based on the vehicle’s
functionality as defined in the regulations (for example if the vehicle can transport cargo on
an open bed or the cargo carrying volume is more than the passenger carrying volume).
Vehicles that do not meet these requirements are considered cars.
Pickup trucks, vans, and minivans are classified as light trucks under NHTSA’s regulatory
definitions, while sedans, coupes, and wagons are generally classified as cars. Sport utility
vehicles (SUVs) can fall into either category depending on the relevant attributes of the
specific vehicle. Based on the CAFE and GHG regulatory definitions, most two-wheel drive
SUVs under 6,000 pounds GVW are classified as cars, while most SUVs that have four-wheel
drive or are above 6,000 pounds GVW are considered trucks. SUV models that are less than
6,000 pounds GVW can have both car and truck variants, with two-wheel drive versions
classified as cars and four-wheel drive versions classified as trucks. As the fleet has
changed over time, the line drawn between car and truck classes has also evolved. This
report uses the current regulatory car and truck definitions, and these changes have been
propagated back throughout the historical data.
5 Passenger vehicles (cars) and light trucks (trucks) are defined by regulation in EPA’s 40 CFR 86.1818-12 which
references the Department of Transportation’s 49 CFR 523.4-523.5.
6 Gross vehicle weight is the combined weight of the vehicle, passengers, and cargo of a fully loaded vehicle.
- ------ 14
This report further separates the car and truck regulatory classes into five vehicle type
categories based on their body style classifications under the fuel economy labeling
program. The regulatory car class is divided into two vehicle types: sedan/wagon and car
SUV. The sedan/wagon vehicle type includes minicompact, subcompact, compact, midsize,
large, and two-seater cars, hatchbacks, and station wagons. Vehicles that are SUVs under
the labeling program and cars under the CAFE and GHG regulations are classified as car
SUVs in this report. The truck class is divided into three vehicle types: pickup, minivan/van,
and truck SUV. Vehicles that are SUVs under the labeling program and trucks under the
CAFE and GHG regulations are classified as truck SUVs. Figure 3.1 shows the two regulatory
classes and five vehicle types used in this report. The distinction between these five vehicle
types is important because different vehicle types have different design objectives, and
different challenges and opportunities for improving fuel economy and reducing CO2
emissions.
Figure 3.1. Regulatory Classes and Vehicle Types Used in This Report
Regu latory Class Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car
CarSUV
Vehicles
Truck SUV
Truck MinivanNan
Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type

The production volume of the different vehicle types has changed significantly over time.
Figure 3.2 shows the production shares of each of the five vehicle types since model year
1975. The overall new vehicle market continues to move away from the sedan/wagon
vehicle type towards a combination of truck SUVs, car SUVs, and pickups. Sedan/wagons
were the dominant vehicle type in 1975, when more than 80% of vehicles produced were
sedan/wagons. Since then, their production share has generally been falling, reaching a
- ------ 15
new low in model year 2021 at only 26% of all production, or far less than half of the
market share they held in model year 1975.
Vehicles that could be classified as a car SUV or truck SUV were a very small part of the
production share in 1975 but now account for more than half of all new vehicles produced.
In model year 2021, truck SUVs reached a record high 45% of production. Car SUVs reached
a record high of 13% of production in model year 2020 and account for 11% of production
in model year 2021. The production share of pickups has fluctuated over time, peaking at
19% in 1994 and then falling to 10% in 2012. Pickups have generally increased in recent
years and accounted for 16% of the market in model year 2021. Minivan/vans captured less
than 5% of the market in 1975, increased to 11% in model year 1995 but have fallen since
to 2% of vehicle production in model year 2021. The projected 2022 data shows a vehicle
type distribution that is similar to model year 2021.
In model year 2021, the regulatory truck class reached the highest percentage of
production on record, at 63%, and experienced the largest shift towards trucks observed
since 1975. Trucks increased from 56% to 63% of production in model year 2021. In Figure
3.2, the dashed line between the car SUVs and truck SUVs shows the split in car and truck
regulatory class.
Figure 3.2. Production Share and Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy

35
100% 30
l~ I Sedan
25 32.2
20
15
Wagon
Cars
10
35
Sedan / Wagon 30
75%
Cars
Production Share
25 31.0
Car
. . .. i~ 1
Real-World MPG
20 SUV
15
10
35
l ~ ======= , 1 ............
Car SUV 30
50% 25
Truck
20
15 24.1 SUV
10
Trucks
35
Truck SUV 30
l~======= , I
Trucks
25
25% 20 Minivan
27.3
Minivan / Van 15 Van
10
35
Pickup 30
0%
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025

25
20
15
10 L,,_ ... ,•.1
1975 1985 1995 2005
19.3
2015 2025
Pickup
Model Year Model Year
Figure 3.2 also shows estimated real-world fuel economy for each vehicle type since 1975.
All five vehicle types are at record low CO2 emissions and record high fuel economy in
16
model year 2021. Minivan/Vans increased fuel economy by 3.9 mpg, car SUVs by 2.6 mpg,
sedan/wagons by 0.5 mpg, truck SUVs by 0.3 mpg, and pickups increased fuel economy by
0.1 mpg. All of the vehicle types, except for pickups, now achieve fuel economy more than
double what they achieved in 1975. In the preliminary model year 2022 data (shown as a
dot on Figure 3.2), four of the five vehicle types are expected to improve fuel economy and
one, minivans/vans, is projected to decrease from model year 2021.
Overall fuel economy trends depend on the trends within the five vehicle types, but also on
the market share of each of the vehicle types. The trend away from sedan/wagons, which
remain the vehicle type with the highest fuel economy and lowest CO2 emissions, and
towards vehicle types with lower fuel economy and higher CO2 emissions, has offset some
of the fleetwide benefits that otherwise would have been achieved from the improvements
within each vehicle type.
Vehicle Type by Manufacturer

The model year 2021 production breakdown by vehicle type for each manufacturer is
shown in Figure 3.3. There are clear variations in production distribution by manufacturer.
Nissan had the highest production of sedan/wagons at 57%. For other vehicle types, Tesla
had the highest percentage of car SUVs at 46%; Subaru had the highest percentage of truck
SUVs at 90%; Ford had the highest percentage of pickups at 38%, and Stellantis had the
highest percentage of minivan/vans at 6.4%.
Figure 3.3. Vehicle Type Distribution by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021
Lower average CO2 Emissions
100%
75%
I - ■■
•1- Vehicle Type
■ Sedan/Wagon
Production Share
■ Car SUV
■ Truck SUV
■ Minivan/Van
50% ■ Pickup
25%
0% I
17
A Closer Look at SUVs
SUV Classification
Over the last 30 years, the production share of SUVs in the United States has increased in all
but six years and now accounts for more than 55% of all vehicles produced (see Figure 3.2).
This includes both the car and truck SUV vehicle types.
Based on the regulatory definitions of cars and trucks, SUVs that are less than 6,000 pounds
GVW can be classified as either cars or trucks, depending on design requirements such as
minimum angles and clearances, and whether the vehicle has 2-wheel drive or 4-wheel drive.
This definition can lead to similar vehicles having different car or truck classifications, and
different requirements under the GHG and CAFE regulations. One particular trend of interest
is the classification of SUVs as either car SUVs or truck SUVs.
This report does not track GVW, but instead tracks weight using inertia weight classes, where
inertia weight is the weight of the empty vehicle, plus 300 pounds (see weight discussion on
the next page). Figure 3.4 shows the breakdown of SUVs into the car and truck categories
over time for vehicles with an inertia weight of 4,000 pounds or less. Vehicles in the 4,500-
pound inertia weight class and higher were excluded, as these vehicles generally exceed
6,000 pounds GVW and are classified as trucks. The relative percentage of SUVs with an
inertia weight of 4,000 pounds or less that meet the current regulatory truck definition
increased to 67% in model year 2021, which is the highest percentage of production since at
least model year 2000. Projected model year 2022 data shows a slight decrease.
Figure 3.4. Car-Truck Classification of SUVs with Inertia Weights of 4000 Pounds or Less
100%
75%
Production Share
50%
25%
Car SUV
Truck SUV
0%
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
- ------ 18
Sedan/wagon market penetration fell 5 percentage points across the industry in model
year 2021, with reductions from thirteen out of fourteen large manufacturers. Tesla had
the largest change, as sedan/wagons fell from 65% of production in model year 2020 to
47% in model year 2021. Toyota had the second largest change, from 43% of production to
30%, followed by VW, which saw sedan/wagons fall from 40% to 29% of production. All
three companies increased their relative production of both car SUVs and truck SUVs.
For some manufacturers, changes in the mix of vehicle types they produce has also led to a
significant impact on their overall new vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel economy. Over the
last five years, as shown in Figure 2.5, Kia achieved the largest reduction in CO2 emissions,
at 29 g/mi. Kia decreased emissions in all vehicle types that they offer and decreased
overall emissions even as their truck SUV share increased from 15% to 41% and
sedan/wagon share decreased from 53% to 50%. Toyota achieved the second largest
reduction in overall CO2 tailpipe emissions, at 28 g/mi, and BMW had the third largest
reduction in overall CO2 tailpipe emissions at 10 g/mi. Toyota and BMW also achieved
overall emission reductions by improving all vehicle types, even as their truck SUV
production share increased.
Over the same five-year period, Mazda had the largest increase at 24 g/mi, due to
increased CO2 emission rates within their sedan/wagon and car SUV vehicle types, along
with a shift in production from 33% to 61% truck SUVs. Volkswagen had the second largest
increase at 18 g/mi, as a shift in production from 21% to 66% truck SUVs more than offset
emission reductions within each vehicle type. GM had the third largest increase at 17 g/mi,
with a production shift towards truck SUVs and pickups and an increase in pickup emission
rates more than offsetting emission improvements in all other vehicle types.
- ------ 19
B. Vehicle Weight
Vehicle weight is a fundamental vehicle attribute, both because it can be related to utility
functions such as vehicle size and features, and because vehicles with a higher weight,
other things being equal, will require more energy to move. For vehicles with an internal
combustion engine, this higher energy requirement generally results in more CO2
emissions and decreased fuel economy. For electric vehicles (EVs), the higher energy
required to move a vehicle with more weight will likely decrease fuel economy, measured
in miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge), but will not increase CO2 emissions, since
EVs do not have tailpipe emissions regardless of the weight of the vehicle. Due to the
weight of battery packs, electric vehicles are likely to weigh more than comparable internal
combustion engine vehicles and can even result in the vehicle falling under different
regulatory requirements.
All vehicle weight data in this report are based on inertia weight classes. Each inertia weight
class represents a range of loaded vehicle weights, or vehicle curb weights 7 plus 300
pounds. Vehicle inertia weight classes are in 250-pound increments for classes below 3,000
pounds, while inertia weight classes over 3,000 pounds are divided into 500-pound
increments.
Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type

Figure 3.5 shows the average new vehicle weight for all vehicle types since model year
1975. From model year 1975 to 1981, average vehicle weight dropped 21%, from 4,060
pounds per vehicle to about 3,200 pounds; this was likely driven by both increasing fuel
economy standards (which, at the time, were universal standards, and not based on any
type of vehicle attribute) and higher gasoline prices.
From model year 1981 to model year 2004, the trend reversed, and average new vehicle
weight began to slowly but steadily climb. By model year 2004, average new vehicle weight
had increased 28% from model year 1981 and reached 4,111 pounds per vehicle, in part
because of the increasing truck share. Average vehicle weight in model year 2021 was
about 4% above 2004 and is currently at the highest point on record, at 4,289 pounds.
Preliminary model year 2022 data suggest that weight will continue to increase.
In model year 1975, the difference between the heaviest and lightest vehicle types was
about 215 pounds, or about 5% of the average new vehicle. By model year 2021, the
7 Vehicle curb weight is the weight of an empty, unloaded vehicle.
- ------ 20
difference between the heaviest and lightest vehicle types had increased to more than
1,600 pounds, about 38% of the average new vehicle weight. Over that time, the weight of
an average new sedan/wagon fell 12% while the weight of an average new pickup
increased 30%. In 1975, the average new sedan/wagon outweighed the average new pickup
by about 45 pounds, but the different weight trends over time for each of these vehicle
types led to a very different result in model year 2021, with the average new pickup
outweighing the average new sedan/wagon by more than 1,600 pounds. Pickups are below
their model year 2014 high of 5,484 pounds per vehicle, due to vehicle redesigns of popular
truck models and the use of weight saving designs, such as aluminum bodies.
Figure 3.5. Average New Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type

ALL Sedan/Wagon Car SUV
5500
5000
4500
•
4000
3500
3000 6% t -12% -5%

Weight (lbs)
Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975

2500
Truck SUV Minivan/Van Pickup
5500
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000 7% t
Since MY 1975
9% t
Since MY 1975
30% t
Since MY 1975
2500
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Model Year
Figure 3.6 shows the annual production share of different inertia weight classes for new
vehicles since model year 1975. In model year 1975 there were significant sales in all
weight classes from <2,750 pounds to 5,500 pounds. In the early 1980s the largest vehicles
disappeared from the market, and light cars <2,750 pounds inertia weight briefly captured
more than 25% of the market. Since then, cars in the <2,750-pound inertia weight class
have all but disappeared, and the market has moved towards heavier vehicles.
- ------ 21
Interestingly, the heaviest vehicles in model year 1975 were mostly large cars, whereas the
heaviest vehicles today are largely pickups and truck SUVs, along with a few minivan/vans
and a small number of luxury sedan/wagons.
Figure 3.6. Inertia Weight Class Distribution by Model Year
00%
Weight
■ <2750
75% ■ 2750
Q.)
,._ ■ 3000
C\l
..s::: 3500
(J)
C 4000
0
·..=. 50%
u 4500
:::::l
"O
0
,._ ■ 5000
0..
25% ■ 5500
■ 6000
■ >6000
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Vehicle Weight and CO2 Emissions

Heavier vehicles require more energy to move than lower-weight vehicles and, if all other
factors are the same, will have lower fuel economy and higher CO2 emissions. The wide
array of technology available in modern vehicles complicates this comparison, but it is still
useful to evaluate the relationship between vehicle weight and CO2 emissions, and how
these variables have changed over time.
Figure 3.7 shows estimated real-world CO2 emissions as a function of vehicle inertia weight
for model year 1978 8 and model year 2020. On average, CO2 emissions increase linearly
with vehicle weight for both model years, although the rate of change as vehicles get
heavier is different. At lower weights, vehicles from model year 2021 produced about two
8Model year 1978 was the first year for which complete horsepower data are available, therefore it will be used
for several historical comparisons for consistency.
- ------ 22
thirds of the CO2 emissions of 1978 vehicles. The difference between model year 2021 and
1978 increases for heavier vehicles, as the heaviest model year 2021 vehicles produce
about half of the CO2 emissions of 1978 vehicles.
Figure 3.7. Relationship of Inertia Weight and CO2 Emissions
DModel Year
1978
2021
•
•
• I
• ••
• •
• • •
I
•••• ••
I I • • •
0
• •• • • • • •
2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Inertia Weight (lbs)
Electric vehicles, which do not produce any tailpipe CO2 emissions regardless of weight, are
visible along the 0 g/mi axis of Figure 3.7. As more electric vehicles are introduced into the
market, the relationship between average vehicle CO2 emissions and inertia weight will
continue to evolve.
23
C. Vehicle Power
Vehicle power, measured in horsepower (hp), has changed dramatically since model year
1975. In the early years of this report, horsepower fell, from an average of 137 hp in model
year 1975 to 102 hp in model year 1981. Since model year 1981, however, horsepower has
increased almost every year. The average new vehicle in model year 2021 produced 85%
more power than a new vehicle in model year 1975, and 148% more power than an
average new vehicle in model year 1981. The average new vehicle horsepower is at a
record high, increasing from 246 hp in model year 2020 to 253 hp in model year 2021. The
preliminary value for model year 2022 is 272 hp, which would be another record-high for
horsepower.
Many EVs have high hp ratings, however determining vehicle horsepower for EVs and
PHEVs can be more complicated than for vehicles with internal combustion engines. The
power available at the wheels of an EV may be limited by numerous electrical components
other than the motor. In addition, some EVs have multiple motors and the total available
power may be less than the sum of the individual motor ratings. PHEVs, which have an
internal combustion engine, at least one motor, and complicated control strategies, can be
even more complicated to accurately assign one static power value. Therefore, horsepower
values for the increasing number of EVs and PHEVs are more difficult to determine and
may have higher uncertainty.
Vehicle Power by Vehicle Type

As with weight, the changes in horsepower are also different among vehicle types, as
shown in Figure 3.8. Horsepower for sedan/wagons increased 57% between model year
1975 and 2021, 74% for truck SUVs, 90% for car SUVs, 58% for minivan/vans, and 139% for
pickups. Horsepower has generally been increasing for all vehicle types since about 1985,
but there is more variation between model types in the last decade. The projected model
year 2022 data shows a large increase of about 19 hp across all new vehicles. This is due in
part to the projected increase of electric vehicles, many of which have high horsepower
ratings. The projected data shown horsepower increases for all vehicle types.
- ------ 24
Figure 3.8. Average New Vehicle Horsepower by Vehicle Type
ALL Sedan/Wagon Car SUV
350
300
250
• •
•
200
150
85% t 57% t 90% t
Horsepower
100 Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975
Truck SUV Minivan/Van Pickup

350
300
250
•
200
150
100
74%
Since MY 1975
t 58% t
Since MY 1975
139% t
Since MY 1975
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025 1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Model Year
The distribution of horsepower over time has shifted towards vehicles with higher
horsepower, as shown in Figure 3.9. While few new vehicles in the early 1980s had greater
than 200 hp, the average vehicle in model year 2021 had 253 hp. In addition, vehicles with
more than 300 hp make up more than half of new vehicle production, and the maximum
horsepower for an individual vehicle is now 1,500 hp. Horsepower is projected to increase
again in model year 2022, with 20% of vehicles projected to reach 400 hp or higher.
- ------ 25
Figure 3.9. Horsepower Distribution by Model Year
100%
Horsepower
75% ■ >450
■ 400−450
Production Share
■ 350−400
50% ■ 300−350
■ 250−300
■ 200−250
25%
■ 150−200
■ 100−150
■ 50−100
0%
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Model Year
Vehicle Power and CO2 Emissions

The relationship between vehicle power, CO2 emissions, and fuel economy has become
more complex as new technology and vehicles have emerged in the marketplace. In the
past, higher power generally increased CO2 emissions and decreased fuel economy,
especially when new vehicle production relied exclusively on gasoline and diesel internal
combustion engines. As shown in Figure 3.10, model year 1978 vehicles with increased
horsepower generally had increased CO2 emissions. In model year 2021, CO2 emissions
increased with increased vehicle horsepower at a much lower rate than in model year
1978, such that model year 2021 vehicles nearly all had lower CO2 emissions than their
model year 1978 counterparts with the same amount of power. Technology improvements,
including turbocharged engines and hybrid packages, have reduced the incremental CO2
emissions associated with increased power. Electric vehicles are present along the 0 g/mi
line in Figure 3.10 because they produce no tailpipe CO2 emissions, regardless of
horsepower, further complicating this analysis for modern vehicles.
26
Figure 3.10. Relationship of Horsepower and CO2 Emissions
1200
900
•
•
600
•
•
300
,,• . • ••
•••
• •• •
0 •
f - ••
- ■ ,111•--·· • • •
DModel Year
1978
2021
0 500 1000 1500
Horsepower
Vehicle Acceleration
Vehicle acceleration is closely related to vehicle horsepower. As new vehicles have
increased horsepower, the corresponding ability of vehicles to accelerate has also
increased. The most common vehicle acceleration metric, and one of the most recognized
vehicle metrics overall, is the time it takes a vehicle to accelerate from 0 to 60 miles per
hour, also called the 0-to-60 time. Data on 0-to-60 times are not directly submitted to EPA
but are calculated for most vehicles using vehicle attributes and calculation methods
developed by MacKenzie and Heywood (2012). 9
The relationship between power and acceleration is different for EVs than for vehicles with
internal combustion engines. Electric motors generally have maximum torque available
from a standstill, which is not true for internal combustion engines. The result is that EVs
9MacKenzie, D. Heywood, J. 2012. Acceleration performance trends and the evolving relationship among
power, weight, and acceleration in U.S. light-duty vehicles: A linear regression analysis. Transportation Research
Board, Paper NO 12-1475, TRB 91st Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 2012.
- - - - - - - - - - -
27
can have very fast 0-60 acceleration times, and the calculation methods used for vehicles
with internal combustion engines are not valid for EVs. PHEVs and hybrids may also use
their motors to improve acceleration. Acceleration times for EVs, PHEVs, and hybrids must
be obtained from external sources, and as with horsepower values, there may be more
uncertainty with these values.
Since the early 1980s, there has been a clear downward trend in 0-to-60 times. Figure 3.11
shows the average new vehicle 0-to-60 time since model year 1978. The average new
vehicle in model year 2021 had a 0-to-60 time of 7.7 seconds, which is the fastest average
0-to-60 time for any model year about half of the average 0-to-60 times of the early 1980s.
The calculated 0-to-60 time for model year 2022 is projected to decrease again, to 7.5
seconds. The long-term downward trend in 0-to-60 times is consistent across all vehicle
types. The continuing decrease in pickup truck 0-to-60 times is likely due to their increasing
power, as shown in Figure 3.8. While much of that power is intended to increase towing
and hauling capacity, it also decreases 0-to-60 times. Increasing EV production will likely
continue, and perhaps accelerate, the trend towards lower 0-to-60 acceleration times.
Figure 3.11. Calculated 0-to-60 Time by Vehicle Type
ALL Sedan / Wagon Car SUV

18
15
-44% -43% -43%
12
9
•
Seconds
Truck SUV Minivan / Van Pickup

18
15
-42% -41% -48%
12
1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 20251975 1985 1995 2005 2015 20251975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025
Model Year
- ------ 28
D. Vehicle Footprint
Vehicle footprint is an important attribute since it is the basis for the current CO2 emissions
and fuel economy standards. Footprint is the product of wheelbase times average track
width (the area defined by where the centers of the tires touch the ground). This report
provides footprint data beginning with model year 2008, although footprint data from
model years 2008–2010 were aggregated from various sources and EPA has less
confidence in the precision of these data than that of formal compliance data. Beginning in
model year 2011, the first year when both car and truck CAFE standards were based on
footprint, automakers began to submit reports to EPA with footprint data at the end of the
model year, and these official footprint data are reflected in the final data through model
year 2021. EPA projects footprint data for the preliminary model year 2022 fleet based on
footprint values from the previous model year and, for new vehicle designs, publicly
available data.
Vehicle Footprint by Vehicle Type

Figure 3.12 shows overall new vehicle and vehicle type footprint data since model year
2008. Between model year 2008 and 2021, the overall average footprint increased 5%, from
48.9 to 51.5 square feet. All five vehicle types have increased average footprint since model
year 2008. Car SUVs have had the smallest increase in footprint, up 0.6 square feet or 1.3%.
The footprint of the average truck SUVs has increased 1.4 square feet, the average
minivan/van has increased 1.6 square feet, the average sedan/wagon has increased 1.7
square feet, and the average pickup has increased 2.7 square feet, or 4.3%. The overall
increase in footprint is impacted by both the trends within each vehicle type and the
changing mix of vehicles over time, as the market has shifted towards larger vehicles.
The distribution of footprints across all new vehicles, as shown in Figure 3.13, also shows a
slow reduction in the number of smaller vehicles with a footprint of less than 45 square
feet, along with growth in larger vehicle categories. This is consistent with the changes in
market trends towards larger vehicles, as seen in Figure 3.2 and elsewhere in this report.
Projected data for model year 2022 suggest that overall average footprint will increase to
51.7 square feet.
- ------ 29
Figure 3.12. Footprint by Vehicle Type for Model Year 2008–2021
Figure 3.13. Footprint Distribution by Model Year
100%
75% Footprint
>65
Production Share
60−65
55−60
50% 50−55
45−50
40−45
<40
25%
0%
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022

Model Year
30
Vehicle Footprint and CO2 Emissions
The relationship between vehicle footprint and CO2 emissions is shown in Figure 3.14.
Vehicles with a larger footprint are likely to weigh more and have more frontal area, which
leads to increased aerodynamic resistance. Increased weight and aerodynamic resistance
increase CO2 emissions and decreases fuel economy. The general trend of increasing
footprint and CO2 emissions holds true for vehicles from model year 2008 and model year
2021, although vehicles produced in model year 2021 are projected to produce roughly
20% less CO2 emissions than model year 2008 vehicles of a comparable footprint. Electric
vehicles are shown in Figure 3.14 with zero tailpipe CO2 emissions, regardless of footprint.
As more electric vehicles enter the market, the relationship between footprint and tailpipe
CO2 emissions will become much flatter, or less sensitive to footprint.
Figure 3.14. Relationship of Footprint and CO2 Emissions
1000
•
• ••
D
Model Year
2008
2021
••
750
• • • • •• •
500
250
30 40 50 60 70
Footprint (sq ft)
- ------- 31
E. Vehicle Type and Attribute Tradeoffs
The past 45+ years of data show striking changes in the mix of vehicle types, and the
attributes of those vehicles, produced for sale in the United States. In the two decades
prior to 2004, technology innovation and market trends generally resulted in increased
vehicle power and weight (due to increasing vehicle size and content) while average new
vehicle fuel economy steadily decreased and CO2 emissions correspondingly increased.
Since model year 2004, the combination of technology innovation and market trends have
resulted in average new vehicle fuel economy increasing 32%, horsepower increasing 20%,
and weight increasing 4%. Footprint has increased 5% since EPA began tracking it in model
year 2008. These metrics are all at record highs, and horsepower, weight, and footprint are
projected to increase again in model year 2022, as shown in Figure 3.15.
The changes within each of these metrics is due to the combination of design and
technology changes within each vehicle type, and the market shifts between vehicle types.
For example, overall new vehicle footprint has increased within each vehicle type since
model year 2008, but the average new vehicle footprint has increased more than the
increase in any individual vehicle type over that time span, due to market shifts towards
larger vehicle types. Fuel economy has also increased in all vehicle types since model year
2008, however the market shift towards less efficient vehicle types has offset some of the
fleetwide fuel economy and CO2 emission benefits that otherwise would have been
achieved through improving technology.
Vehicle fuel economy and CO2 emissions are clearly related to vehicle attributes
investigated in this section, namely weight, horsepower, and footprint. Future trends in fuel
economy and CO2 emissions will be dependent, at least in part, by design choices related to
these attributes.
- ------ 32
Figure 3.15. Relative Change in Fuel Economy, Weight, Horsepower, and
Footprint
100% :
75% Real-World Fuel Economy
Change Since 1975
50%
25% Horsepower
0%
•
Weight
−25%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Change Since 2008
10%
0%
j ~ · I
~...............
Footprint
−10%
, ~ ~ , I~,......---------,I·
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
- ------ 33
Table 3.1. Vehicle Attributes by Model Year
Real-World Real-World Car Truck
CO2 FE Weight Horsepower 0 to 60 Footprint Production Production
Model Year (g/mi) (mpg) (lbs) (HP) (s) (ft2) Share Share
1975 681 13.1 4,060 137 - - 80.7% 19.3%
1980 466 19.2 3,228 104 15.6 - 83.5% 16.5%
1985 417 21.3 3,271 114 14.1 - 75.2% 24.8%
1990 420 21.2 3,426 135 11.5 - 70.4% 29.6%
1995 434 20.5 3,613 158 10.1 - 63.5% 36.5%
2000 450 19.8 3,821 181 9.8 - 58.8% 41.2%
2005 447 19.9 4,059 209 9.0 - 55.6% 44.4%
2006 442 20.1 4,067 213 8.9 - 57.9% 42.1%
2007 431 20.6 4,093 217 8.9 - 58.9% 41.1%
2008 424 21.0 4,085 219 8.9 48.9 59.3% 40.7%
2009 397 22.4 3,914 208 8.8 47.9 67.0% 33.0%
2010 394 22.6 4,001 214 8.8 48.5 62.8% 37.2%
2011 399 22.3 4,126 230 8.5 49.5 57.8% 42.2%
2012 377 23.6 3,979 222 8.5 48.8 64.4% 35.6%
2013 368 24.2 4,003 226 8.4 49.1 64.1% 35.9%
2014 369 24.1 4,060 230 8.3 49.7 59.3% 40.7%
2015 360 24.6 4,035 229 8.3 49.4 57.4% 42.6%
2016 359 24.7 4,035 230 8.3 49.5 55.3% 44.7%
2017 357 24.9 4,093 234 8.2 49.8 52.6% 47.4%
2018 353 25.1 4,137 241 8.0 50.4 48.0% 52.0%
2019 356 24.9 4,156 245 7.9 50.8 44.4% 55.6%
2020 349 25.4 4,166 246 7.8 50.9 43.9% 56.1%
2021 347 25.4 4,289 253 7.7 51.5 37.1% 62.9%
2022 (prelim) 331 26.4 4,329 272 7.5 51.7 37.8% 62.2%
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends
34
Table 3.2. Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon Car SUV Truck SUV Minivan/Van Pickup
Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real-
World World World World World World World World World World
Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE
Model Year Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg)
1975 80.6% 660 13.5 0.1% 799 11.1 1.7% 806 11.0 4.5% 800 11.1 13.1% 746 11.9
1980 83.5% 446 20.0 0.0% 610 14.6 1.6% 676 13.2 2.1% 629 14.1 12.7% 541 16.5
1985 74.6% 387 23.0 0.6% 443 20.1 4.5% 538 16.5 5.9% 537 16.5 14.4% 489 18.2
1990 69.8% 381 23.3 0.5% 472 18.8 5.1% 541 16.4 10.0% 498 17.8 14.5% 511 17.4
1995 62.0% 379 23.4 1.5% 499 17.8 10.5% 555 16.0 11.0% 492 18.1 15.0% 526 16.9
2000 55.1% 388 22.9 3.7% 497 17.9 15.2% 555 16.0 10.2% 478 18.6 15.8% 534 16.7
2005 50.5% 379 23.5 5.1% 440 20.2 20.6% 531 16.7 9.3% 460 19.3 14.5% 561 15.8
2006 52.9% 382 23.3 5.0% 434 20.5 19.9% 518 17.2 7.7% 455 19.5 14.5% 551 16.1
2007 52.9% 369 24.1 6.0% 431 20.6 21.7% 503 17.7 5.5% 456 19.5 13.8% 550 16.2
2008 52.7% 366 24.3 6.6% 419 21.2 22.1% 489 18.2 5.7% 448 19.8 12.9% 539 16.5
2009 60.5% 351 25.3 6.5% 403 22.0 18.4% 461 19.3 4.0% 443 20.1 10.6% 526 16.9
2010 54.5% 340 26.2 8.2% 386 23.0 20.7% 452 19.7 5.0% 442 20.1 11.5% 527 16.9
2011 47.8% 344 25.8 10.0% 378 23.5 25.5% 449 19.8 4.3% 424 20.9 12.3% 516 17.2
2012 55.0% 322 27.6 9.4% 381 23.3 20.6% 445 20.0 4.9% 418 21.3 10.1% 516 17.2
2013 54.1% 313 28.4 10.0% 365 24.3 21.8% 427 20.8 3.8% 422 21.1 10.4% 509 17.5
2014 49.2% 313 28.4 10.1% 364 24.4 23.9% 412 21.6 4.3% 418 21.3 12.4% 493 18.0
2015 47.2% 306 29.0 10.2% 353 25.1 28.1% 406 21.9 3.9% 408 21.8 10.7% 474 18.8
2016 43.8% 303 29.2 11.5% 338 26.2 29.1% 400 22.2 3.9% 410 21.7 11.7% 471 18.9
2017 41.0% 293 30.2 11.6% 339 26.1 31.7% 398 22.3 3.6% 399 22.2 12.1% 470 18.9
2018 36.7% 286 30.8 11.3% 324 27.4 35.0% 384 23.1 3.1% 389 22.8 13.9% 466 19.1
2019 32.7% 285 30.9 11.7% 323 27.5 36.5% 378 23.5 3.4% 396 22.4 15.6% 467 19.0
2020 30.9% 277 31.7 13.0% 310 28.4 38.7% 374 23.8 2.9% 379 23.4 14.4% 465 19.2
2021 25.7% 270 32.2 11.4% 278 31.0 44.7% 368 24.1 2.2% 322 27.3 16.1% 463 19.3
2022 (prelim) 25.4% 254 33.7 12.4% 262 32.4 43.1% 354 24.8 3.4% 344 25.6 15.7% 442 20.1
35
Table 3.3. Model Year 2021 Vehicle Attributes by Manufacturer
Real-World Real-World
CO2 FE Weight Horsepower 0 to 60 Footprint
Manufacturer (g/mi) (mpg) (lbs) (HP) (s) (ft2)
BMW 339 25.8 4,443 299 6.3 50.1
Ford 385 22.9 4,685 299 6.9 57.2
GM 414 21.6 4,770 288 7.5 56.9
Honda 312 28.5 3,786 212 7.8 47.9
Hyundai 310 28.5 3,646 194 8.6 47.9
Kia 310 28.7 3,566 190 8.5 47.6
Mazda 324 27.4 3,847 197 8.8 46.4
Mercedes 376 23.6 4,576 304 6.6 50.9
Nissan 311 28.6 3,790 195 9.0 47.6
Stellantis 417 21.3 4,772 304 7.1 55.5
Subaru 309 28.8 3,899 195 9.1 45.9
Tesla 0 123.9 4,317 376 4.8 50.6
Toyota 327 27.1 4,158 224 7.8 49.7
VW 352 24.7 4,394 269 7.2 49.6
Other 340 25.6 4,401 270 7.7 49.0
All Manufacturers 347 25.4 4,289 253 7.7 51.5
36
Table 3.4. Model Year 2021 Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 by Manufacturer and Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon Car SUV Truck SUV Minivan/Van Pickup
Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real- Real-
World World World World World World World World World World
Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE Prod CO2 FE
Manufacturer Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg) Share (g/mi) (mpg)
BMW 49.7% 316 27.8 6.3% 307 29.0 44.0% 369 23.6 - - - - - -
Ford 6.1% 259 29.9 8.1% 304 29.1 46.0% 383 23.2 1.6% 356 25.0 38.1% 425 20.9
GM 8.5% 297 29.4 12.6% 306 29.0 43.1% 421 21.1 - - - 35.9% 471 19.1
Honda 43.6% 274 32.4 10.6% 311 28.5 39.5% 340 26.1 4.0% 376 23.6 2.4% 424 21.0
Hyundai 43.5% 258 34.4 33.5% 323 27.3 23.0% 391 22.7 - - - - - -
Kia 49.7% 266 33.4 8.2% 312 28.5 41.0% 359 24.8 1.2% 420 21.1 - - -
Mazda 20.5% 297 30.0 18.8% 308 28.8 60.8% 339 26.2 - - - - - -
Mercedes 29.4% 342 26.0 14.4% 331 26.8 55.1% 405 22.0 1.0% 428 20.7 - - -
Nissan 56.8% 279 31.7 14.0% 292 30.4 20.7% 354 25.1 1.9% 356 24.9 6.5% 469 18.9
Stellantis 9.5% 417 21.3 4.0% 340 26.1 51.9% 400 22.1 6.4% 341 25.3 28.1% 478 18.7
Subaru 10.0% 326 27.3 - - - 90.0% 307 28.9 - - - - - -
Tesla 47.2% 0 129.8 45.8% 0 119.0 7.0% 0 119.8 - - - - - -
Toyota 30.3% 256 34.6 10.9% 310 28.7 39.5% 333 26.5 3.6% 248 35.8 15.7% 477 18.6
VW 29.0% 302 28.9 5.0% 201 35.7 66.0% 386 22.7 - - - - - -
Other 16.5% 255 33.4 14.5% 287 29.4 68.0% 371 23.6 1.0% 341 26.0 - - -
All Manufacturers 25.7% 270 32.2 11.4% 278 31.0 44.7% 368 24.1 2.2% 322 27.3 16.1% 463 19.3
37
Table 3.5. Footprint by Manufacturer for Model Year 2020–2022 (ft2)
Final MY 2020 Final MY 2021 Preliminary MY 2022

Manufacturer Car Truck All Car Truck All Car Truck All
BMW 47.8 52.8 49.7 48.1 52.7 50.1 47.9 52.9 50.1
Ford 47.8 58.1 55.4 47.6 58.8 57.2 48.0 57.7 56.7
GM 45.5 58.9 54.5 45.4 60.0 56.9 45.9 58.6 55.2
Honda 46.1 49.8 47.7 46.6 49.5 47.9 46.9 50.8 48.6
Hyundai 46.5 53.5 47.2 46.5 52.4 47.9 46.9 50.9 48.0
Kia 45.7 50.4 47.5 46.1 49.6 47.6 46.9 50.7 48.7
Mazda 45.5 47.1 46.3 45.5 47.0 46.4 44.3 47.0 46.6
Mercedes 48.8 53.2 51.3 49.1 52.4 50.9 50.1 52.5 51.4
Nissan 46.7 51.1 48.1 46.1 51.1 47.6 46.9 51.3 48.7
Stellantis 49.3 55.8 54.9 50.3 56.3 55.5 50.5 57.2 56.5
Subaru 44.9 46.4 46.1 44.9 46.0 45.9 44.9 46.3 46.0
Tesla 50.4 54.8 50.6 50.6 51.4 50.6 50.4 52.0 50.7
Toyota 46.3 52.6 49.3 46.5 51.9 49.7 46.5 52.6 49.9
VW 46.3 49.4 48.1 47.1 50.8 49.6 46.8 50.2 48.8
Other 44.9 49.9 48.6 44.7 50.8 49.0 46.1 52.9 51.3
All Manufacturers 46.6 54.3 50.9 46.9 54.3 51.5 47.2 54.4 51.7
38
4. Vehicle Technology
Since model year 1975, the technology used in vehicles has continually evolved. Today’s
vehicles utilize an increasingly wide array of technological solutions developed by the
automotive industry to improve vehicle attributes discussed previously in this report,
including CO2 emissions, fuel economy, vehicle power, and acceleration. Automotive
engineers and designers are constantly creating and evaluating new technology and
deciding how, or if, it should be applied to their vehicles. This section of the report looks at
vehicle technology from two perspectives; first, how the industry has adopted specific
technologies over time, and second, how those technologies have impacted CO2 emissions
and fuel economy.
A. Technology Overview
All vehicles use some type of engine or motor to convert energy stored on the vehicle,
usually in a fuel or battery, into rotational energy to propel the vehicle forward. Internal
combustion engines, for example, typically combust gasoline or diesel fuel to rotate an
output shaft. Internal combustion engines are paired with a transmission to convert the
rotational energy from the relatively narrow range of speeds available at the engine to the
appropriate speed required for driving conditions. The transmission is connected to a
driveline that transfers the rotational energy from the transmission to the two or four
wheels being used to move the vehicle. Each of these components has energy losses, or
inefficiencies, which ultimately increase vehicle CO2 emissions and decrease fuel economy.
A basic illustration of the energy flow through a gasoline vehicle is shown in Figure 4.1.
Figure 4.1. Vehicle Energy Flow
Engine
- ----- 39
Manufacturers have been adopting many new technologies to improve gasoline internal
combustion engines. Figure 4.2 illustrates manufacturer-specific technology adoption for
model year 2021, where larger circles represent higher adoption rates. For gasoline
engines, technologies such as turbocharged engines (Turbo) and gasoline direct injection
(GDI) allow for more efficient engine design and operation. Cylinder deactivation (CD)
allows for only using part of the engine when less power is needed. Transmissions that
have seven or more speeds, and continuously variable transmissions (CVTs), allow an
engine to more frequently operate near its peak efficiency, providing more efficient
average engine operation and a reduction in fuel usage. Engine stop/start systems can turn
off the engine entirely when the vehicle is stopped to save fuel.
Manufacturers are also adopting hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs), electric
vehicles (EVs), and fuel cell vehicles (FCVs). Hybrid vehicles store some propulsion energy in
a battery, and often recapture braking energy, allowing for a smaller, more efficiently
operated engine. Plug-in hybrids operate similarly to hybrids, but their batteries can be
charged from an external source of electricity, and generally have a longer electric only
operating range. Electric vehicles operate only on energy stored in a battery that is charged
from an external source of electricity and rely exclusively on electric motors for propulsion
instead of an internal combustion engine. Fuel cell vehicles use a fuel cell stack to create
electricity from an onboard fuel source (usually hydrogen), which then powers an electric
motor or motors to propel the vehicle. PHEVs, EVs, and FCVs offer fundamentally different
architectures than shown in Figure 4.1 and require different metrics 10 and an evolving
analysis of vehicle technology. Hybrids, PHEVs and EVs are a growing portion of the fleet,
and most manufacturers have made recent public announcements committing to billions
of dollars in research towards electrification, and in some cases, manufacturers have
announced specific targets for entirely phasing out internal combustion engines.
The technologies in Figure 4.2 are all being used by manufacturers to reduce CO2 emissions
and increase fuel economy. Each of the fourteen largest manufacturers have adopted
several of these technologies into their vehicles, with many manufacturers achieving high
penetrations of several technologies as shown in Figure 4.2. It is also clear that
manufacturers’ strategies to develop and adopt technologies are unique and vary
significantly. Each manufacturer is choosing technologies that best meet the design
requirements of their vehicles, and in many cases, that technology is changing quickly. The
10 See Appendix E for a detailed discussion of EV and PHEV metrics.
- ------ 40
rest of this section will explore how vehicle technology has changed since 1975, the impact
of those technology changes, and the rate at which technology is adopted by the industry.
Figure 4.2. Manufacturer Use of Emerging Technologies for Model Year 2021
Tesla 100%
Subaru
--• 22%
• •.
99% 95% 80% 0%
Kia
Nissan -
-
. 26%
5% . 47%
72%.
42%
87%
45%
12%
50% 2% 0%
1%
Hyundai
--• ··- ..
18% 44% 23% 46% 21% 4% 2%
Honda
Mazda
Toyota -
··•··
53%
27%
3%
79%
-•. . • • - - .
100%
0%
25%
45%
61%
36%
38%
38%
24%
19%
7%
22%
0%
2%
BMW
VW
99%
•
77%
•
99%
-.
94%
• 3%
98%
90%
64%
71%
25%
20%
7%
7%
Mercedes
Ford
•
94%
80%
-
100%
56%
8%
21% 2%
100%
92%
77%
83%
22%
5% 3%
GM
Stellantis
-
•
37%
•
-.-. -.
13%
91%
10%
54%
22%
9%
1%
74%
96%
75%
45% 15%
•
1%
3%
All Manufacturers 33% 53% 17% 27% 57% 45% 9% 4%
Turbo GDI CD CVT 7+Gears Non-hybrid Hybrid PHEV/

StopStart EV/FC
- ------ 41
B. Vehicle Propulsion
As discussed above, all vehicles use some type of engine or motor to convert stored energy
into rotational energy to propel the vehicle forward. Over the last 45+ years that EPA has
been collecting data, gasoline internal combustion engines have been the dominant
technology used as a power source in vehicles. Over that time, the technology used in
combustion engines has continually evolved. Modern gasoline combustion engines are
continuing that trend, employing technologies such as direct injection, turbocharging, and
cylinder deactivation to improve efficiency and performance.
A growing portion of new vehicles rely on partial or full electrification to achieve

operational improvements, reduce tailpipe CO2 emissions, and increase fuel economy.
Many new vehicles utilize stop-start technology, which turns off the engine during idle
conditions and uses the vehicle battery to restart the engine when needed. Mild hybrids
generally employ stop-start systems and have an electric motor that can assist the engine
with moving the vehicle forward. Full hybrids generally have larger batteries and motors
that can provide more power to move the vehicle or can directly drive the vehicle without
the engine. Plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) add the capability of charging the vehicle battery from
an external source, namely electricity from the power grid. Full electric vehicles (EVs) rely
on electric motors to provide propulsion and use energy stored onboard in a battery. EVs
are charged with electricity from the power grid, and do not have an internal combustion
engine. Most hybrids, PHEVs, and EVs also utilize regenerative braking to recapture braking
energy that otherwise would have been lost as heat, and further improve vehicle efficiency.
This “spectrum of electrification” is creating a wide range of technology implementation
strategies on modern vehicles, and offering numerous pathways to improve vehicle
efficiency, emissions, and performance.
The trend in vehicle propulsion technology since model year 1975 is shown in Figure 4.3.
Vehicles that use an engine that operates exclusively on gasoline (including hybrids, but not
plug-in hybrids which also use electricity) have held at least 95% of the light-duty vehicle
market in almost every year prior to model year 2021 (vehicles with diesel engines briefly
captured almost 6% of the market in model year 1981). In model year 2021, the
combination of EVs, PHEVs, FCVs, and diesel vehicles accounted for slightly more than 5%
of all production. The production of EVs is expected to grow in future model years,
transitioning to a technology found across multiple vehicle types and models. Projected
model year 2022 data suggests EVs alone will capture more than 7% of the market, and
perhaps begin to challenge the dominance of vehicles relying exclusively on gasoline
internal combustion engines.
- ------ 42
Figure 4.3. Production Share by Engine Technology
100%
13 9 13
75% 10
6 8
50% 3 Car
1 7
25% 4
Production Share
2
0%
100% 13
12 11
6 12
75%
10
8
50% 5 Truck
1
25%
3
7
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Fuel Delivery Valve Timing Number of Valves Key
Carbureted Fixed Two-Valve 1
Multi-Valve 2
Throttle Body Injection Fixed Two-Valve 3
Multi-Valve 4
Port Fuel Injection Fixed Two-Valve 5
Multi-Valve 6
Variable Two-Valve 7
Multi-Valve 8
Gasoline Direct Fixed Multi-Valve 9
Injection (GDI) Variable Multi-Valve 10
Two-Valve 11
Diesel 12
EV/PHEV/FCV 13
- ------ 43
Engines that use only gasoline as a fuel (including hybrids) are further divided based on
three broad parameters for Figure 4.3: fuel delivery, valve timing, and number of valves per
cylinder. These parameters enable better control of the combustion process, which in turn
can allow for lower CO2 emissions, increased fuel economy, and/or more power. Fuel
delivery refers to the method of creating an air and fuel mixture for combustion. The
technology for fuel delivery has changed over time from carburetors to fuel injection
systems located in the intake system, and more recently to gasoline direct injection (GDI)
systems that spray gasoline directly into the engine cylinder.
The valves on each cylinder of the engine determine the amount and timing of air entering
and exhaust gases exiting the cylinder during the combustion process. Valve timing has
evolved from fixed timing to variable valve timing (VVT), which can allow for much more
precise control. In addition, the number of valves per cylinder has generally increased,
again offering more control of air and exhaust flows. Combined, these changes have led to
modern engines with much more precise control of the combustion process.
Figure 4.3 shows many different engine designs as they have entered, and in many cases
exited, the automotive market. Some fleetwide changes occurred gradually, but in some
cases (for example trucks in the late 1980s), engine technology experienced widespread
change in only a few years. Evolving technology offers opportunities to improve fuel
economy, CO2 emissions, power, and other vehicle parameters. The following analysis will
look at technology trends within gasoline engines (including hybrids), PHEVs and EVs, and
diesel engines. Each of these categories of engine technologies has unique properties,
metrics, and trends over time.
Gasoline Engines
Since EPA began tracking vehicle data in 1975, over 650 million vehicles have been
produced for sale in the United States. As shown in Figure 4.3, vehicles relying on a
gasoline engine as the only source of power have been the overwhelmingly dominant
technology for that time span, although EVs and PHEVs are now capturing a growing
portion of new vehicle production. For the purposes of this report, hybrid vehicles are
included with gasoline engines, as are “flex fuel” vehicles that are capable of operating on
gasoline or a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline (E85).
Engine Size and Displacement

Engine size is generally described in one of two ways, either the number of cylinders or the
total displacement of the engine (the total volume of the cylinders). Engine size is
- ------ 44
important because larger engines strongly correlate with higher fuel use. Figure 4.4 shows
the trends in gasoline engine size over time, as measured by number of cylinders; note the
gap between the top of the stacked bar and the 100% threshold corresponds to the share
of vehicles relying on technologies other than gasoline engines, primarily diesel engines in
the 1980s and EVs more recently.
Figure 4.4. Gasoline Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
100%
75%
Cylinders
Production Share
■ Less than 4
■ 4 Cylinder
50% 5 Cylinder
■
■ 6 Cylinder
■ 8 Cylinder
■ More than 8
25%
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
In the mid and late 1970s, the 8-cylinder gasoline engine was dominant, accounting for well
over half of all new vehicle production. Between model year 1979 and 1980 there was a
significant change in the market, as 8-cylinder engine production share dropped from 52%
to 23%, and those engines were replaced with smaller 4-cylinder and some 6-cylinder
engines. From model year 1987 through 2004, production moved back towards larger 6-
cylinder and 8-cylinder engines. This trend reversed again in 2005 as production began
trending back towards 4-cylinder engines. Four-cylinder gasoline engines are now the most
popular engine option, capturing about 55% of the market in model year 2021.
- ------ 45
Overall engine size, as measured by the total volume of all the engine’s cylinders, is directly
related to the number of cylinders. As vehicles have moved towards engines with a lower
number of cylinders, the total engine size, or displacement, is also at an all-time low. The
average new vehicle in model year 1975 had a displacement of nearly 300 cubic inches,
compared to an average of 176 cubic inches in model year 2021. Gasoline engine
displacement per cylinder has been relatively stable over the time of this report (around 34
cubic inches per cylinder since 1980), so the reduction in overall new vehicle engine
displacement is almost entirely due to the shift towards engines with fewer cylinders.
The contrasting trends in horsepower (at all-time high) and engine displacement (at an all-
time low) highlight the continuing improvement in engines. These improvements are due
to the development of new technologies and ongoing design improvements that allow for
more efficient use of fuel or reduce internal engine friction. One additional way to examine
the relationship between engine horsepower and displacement is to look at the trend in
specific power (HP/Displacement), which is a metric to compare the power output of an
engine relative to its size.
Specific power has increased 192% between model year 1975 and model year 2021. The
rate at which specific power has increased has been remarkably steady, as shown in Figure
4.5. The specific power of new vehicle gasoline engines has increased by about 0.02
horsepower per cubic inch every year for 45+ years. Considering the numerous and
significant changes to engines over this time span, changes in consumer preferences, and
the external pressures on vehicle purchases, the long-standing linearity of this trend is
noteworthy. The roughly linear increase in specific power does not appear to be slowing.
Turbocharged engines, direct injection, higher compression ratios, and many other engine
technologies are likely to continue increasing engine specific power.
Figure 4.5 also shows two other important engine metrics, the amount of fuel consumed
compared to the overall size of the engine (Fuel Consumption/Displacement), and the
amount of fuel consumed relative to the amount of power produced by an engine (Fuel
Consumption/HP). The amount of fuel consumed by a gasoline engine in model year 2021,
relative to the total displacement, is about 14% lower than in model year 1975. Fuel
consumption relative to engine horsepower has fallen more than 70% since model year
1975. Taken as a whole, the trend lines in Figure 4.5 clearly show that gasoline engine
improvements over time have been steady and continual and have resulted in impressive
improvements to internal combustion engines.
- ------ 46
Figure 4.5. Percent Change for Specific Gasoline Engine Metrics
200%
HP / Displacement •
150%
Change Since 1975
100%
50%
0% Fuel Consumption / Displacement
Fuel Consumption / HP
−50%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Fuel Delivery Systems and Valvetrains

All gasoline engines require a fuel delivery system that controls the flow of fuel delivered
into the engine. The process for controlling fuel flow has changed significantly over time,
allowing for much more control over the combustion process and thus more efficient
engines. In the 1970s and early 1980s, nearly all gasoline engines used carburetors to
meter fuel delivered to the engine. Carburetors were replaced over time with fuel injection
systems; first throttle body injection (TBI) systems, then port fuel injection (PFI) systems,
and more recently gasoline direct injection (GDI), as shown in Figure 4.3. TBI and PFI
systems use fuel injectors to electronically deliver fuel and mix it with air outside of the
engine cylinder; the resulting air and fuel mixture is then delivered to the engine cylinders
for combustion. Engines that utilize GDI spray fuel directly into the air in the engine
cylinder for better control of the combustion process. Engines using GDI were first
introduced into the market with very limited production in model year 2007. Ten years
later, GDI engines were installed in 53% of model year 2021 vehicles.
- ------ 47
Another key aspect of engine design is the valvetrain. Each engine cylinder must have a set
of valves that allow for air (or an air/fuel mixture) to flow into the engine cylinder prior to
combustion and for exhaust gases to exit the cylinder after combustion. The number of
valves per cylinder and the method of controlling the valves (i.e., the valvetrain) directly
impacts the overall efficiency of the engine. Generally, engines with four valves per cylinder
instead of two, and valvetrains that can alter valve timing during the combustion cycle can
provide more engine control and increase engine power and efficiency.
This report began tracking multi-valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per
cylinder) for cars in model year 1986 and for trucks in model year 1994. Since that time
about 90% of the fleet has converted to multi-valve design. While some three- and five-
valve engines have been produced, the majority of multi-valve engines are based on four
valves per cylinder. Engines with four valves generally use two valves for air intake and two
valves for exhaust. In addition, this report began tracking variable valve timing (VVT)
technology for cars in model year 1990 and for trucks in model year 2000, and since then
nearly the entire fleet has adopted this technology. Figure 4.3 shows the evolution of
engine technology, including fuel delivery method and the introduction of VVT and multi-
valve engines.
As shown in Figure 4.3, fuel delivery and valvetrain technologies have often been
developed simultaneously. Nearly all carbureted engines relied on fixed valve timing and
had two valves per cylinder, as did early port-injected engines. Port-injected engines largely
developed into engines with both multi-valve and VVT technology. Engines with GDI are
almost exclusively using multi-valve and VVT technology. These four engine groupings, or
packages, represent a large share of the engines produced over the timespan covered by
this report.
Figure 4.6 shows the changes in specific power and fuel consumption per horsepower for
each of these engine packages over time. There is a very clear increase in specific power of
each engine package as engines moved from carbureted engines, to engines with two
valves, fixed timing and port fuel injection, then to engines with multi-valve VVT and port
fuel injection, and finally to GDI engines. Some of the increase for GDI engines may also be
due to the fact that GDI engines are often paired with turbochargers to further increase
power. Vehicles with fixed valve timing and two valves per cylinder have been limited in
recent years and are no longer included in Figure 4.6 after model year 2015 due to very
limited production.
- ------ 48
Figure 4.6. Engine Metrics for Different Gasoline Technology Packages
2.0
GDI Engines
Specific Power (HP/Displacement)
1.6
•
•
Variable Timing,
1.2 Multi-Valve Engines
0.8 Fixed Timing,

Two-Valve Engines
Carbureted Engines
0.4
0.06
Carbureted Engines
Fuel Consumption/HP ((gal/100 mi)/HP)
0.05
0.04
Fixed Timing,
Two-Valve Engines
0.03
Variable Timing,
Multi-Valve Engines
0.02
GDI Engines
•
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
- ------ 49
Turbocharging
Turbochargers increase the power that an engine can produce by forcing more air, and
thus fuel, into the engine. An engine with a turbocharger can produce more power than an
identically sized engine that is naturally aspirated or does not have a turbocharger.
Turbochargers are powered using the pressure of the engine exhaust as it leaves the
engine. Superchargers operate the same way as turbochargers but are directly connected
to the engine for power, instead of using the engine exhaust. Alternate turbocharging and
supercharging methods, such as electric superchargers, are also beginning to emerge. A
limited number of new vehicles utilize both a turbocharger and supercharger in one engine
package.
Gasoline turbocharged engines have grown rapidly in the marketplace, accounting for
more than 30% of all production in model year 2021, as shown in Figure 4.7. Many of these
engines are applying turbochargers to create “turbo downsized” engine packages that can
combine the improved fuel economy of smaller engines during normal operation but can
provide the power of a larger engine by engaging the turbocharger when necessary. As
evidence of this turbo downsizing, about 73% of gasoline turbocharged engines are 4-
cylinder engines in model year 2021 with most other turbochargers being used in 6-
cylinder and 3-cylinder engines. Model year 2022 is projected to be a similar distribution,
with a growing number of vehicles equipped with 3-cylinder turbocharged engines. This is
Most of the current gasoline turbocharged engines also use GDI and VVT. This allows for
more efficient engine operation, helps increase the resistance to premature combustion
(engine knock), and reduces turbo lag (the amount of time it takes for a turbocharger to
engage). In model year 2021, almost 90% of new vehicles with gasoline turbocharged
engines also used GDI.
Figure 4.9 examines the distribution of engine displacement and power of gasoline
turbocharged engines over time. In model year 2011, turbochargers were used mostly in
cars, and were available on engines both above and below the average engine
displacement. The biggest increase in turbocharger use over the last few years has been in
cars with engine displacement well below the average displacement. The distribution of
horsepower for turbocharged engines is much closer to the average horsepower, even
though the displacement is smaller, reflecting the higher power per displacement of
turbocharged engines. This trend towards adding turbochargers to smaller, less powerful
engines is consistent with the turbo downsizing trend.
- ------ 50
Figure 4.7. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
Car SUV
30%
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
■
■ Pickup
Production Share
20%
10%
0%
2003 2008 2013 2018 2023
Model Year
Figure 4.8. Gasoline Turbo Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
Cylinders
4 Cylinder
■ 6Cylinder
30%
■ 8Cylinder
■ Other
~ 20%
ct!
.c.
en
C:
0
:g
::::,
"O
e
a.. 10%
0% I
2003 2008 2013 2018 2023
Model Year
- ------ 51
Figure 4.9. Distribution of Gasoline Turbo Vehicles by Displacement and
Horsepower, Model Year 2011, 2014, and 2021
Horsepower Displacement (cubic inches)

2,500
Mean HP, Mean Displacement,

2,000 All Cars All Cars
1,500
"' ----
2011
-- Mean HP,
All Trucks
Mean Displacement,
All Trucks
1,000
500
0
r---'
- - '' -
2,500

2,000 All Cars
All Cars
Production (000)
1,500
■ Truck
2014
1,000 All Trucks All Trucks
■ Car
500
2,500 Mean HP,

All Cars
Mean Displacement,
2,000 All Cars
1,500 Mean HP,

2021
All Trucks Mean Displacement,
All Trucks
1,000
500
0 ■
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
52
Cylinder Deactivation
Cylinder deactivation is an engine management approach that turns off the flow of fuel to
one or more engine cylinders when driving conditions do not require full engine power.
This effectively allows a large engine to act as a smaller engine when the additional
cylinders are not needed, increasing engine efficiency and fuel economy. The use of
cylinder deactivation in gasoline vehicles has been steadily climbing, and in model year
2021 gasoline engines with cylinder deactivation were almost 17% of all vehicles. This trend
is expected to continue, especially as new improvements to cylinder deactivation
technology, such as dynamic cylinder deactivation, continue to enter the market.
Stop/Start
Engine stop/start technology allows the engine to be automatically turned off at idle and
very quickly restarted when the driver releases the brake pedal. By turning the engine off, a
vehicle can eliminate the fuel use and CO2 emissions that would have occurred if the
engine was left running. This report began tracking stop/start technology in model year
2012 at less than one percent. Since then, the use of stop/start has increased to about 45%
of all new vehicles in model year 2021, excluding hybrid vehicles. While non-hybrid
stop/start systems have been used in a wide range of applications, they are found more
often in larger vehicles and engines, as shown in Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11.
Hybrids
Gasoline hybrid vehicles feature a battery pack that is larger than the battery found on a
typical gasoline vehicle, which allows these vehicles to store and strategically apply
electrical energy to supplement the gasoline engine. The result is that the engine can be
smaller than what would be needed in a non-hybrid vehicle, and the engine can be
operated near its peak efficiency more often. Hybrids also frequently utilize regenerative
braking, which uses a motor/generator to capture energy from braking instead of losing
that energy to friction and heat, as in traditional friction braking, and stop/start technology
to turn off the engine at idle. The combination of these strategies can result in significant
reductions in fuel use and CO2 emissions.
Hybrids were first introduced in the U.S. marketplace in model year 2000 with the Honda
Insight. As more models and options were introduced, hybrid production increased to 3.8%
of all vehicles in model year 2010, before declining somewhat over the next several years.
However, in model year 2021 hybrid production reached a new high at 9.3%, and is
projected to reach 10.1% in model year 2022, as shown in Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13.
- ------ 53
Figure 4.10. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Vehicle Type
50%
Vehicle Type
40% ■ Sedan/Wagon
■ Car SUV
■ Truck SUV
30% ■ Pickup
Minivan/Van
Production Share
■
20%
10%
2010
--• - 2015
Model Year
2020
Figure 4.11. Non-Hybrid Stop/Start Production Share by Number of Cylinders
50%
Cylinders
4 Cylinder
40% ■ 6 Cylinder
■ 8 Cylinder
■ Other
30%
Production Share
20%
10%
- l!!!!!!I
2010 2015 2020

Model Year
- ------ 54
Figure 4.12. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
10.0%
Vehicle Type
■ Sedan/Wagon
■ Car SUV
7.5% ■ Truck SUV
■ Minivan /Van
Production Share
Pickup
■
5.0%
2.5%
0%
----
2000 2005 2010
I
2015 2020
Model Year
Figure 4.13. Gasoline Hybrid Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
10.0%
Cylinders
■ 4 Cylinder
■ 6 Cylinder
7.5%
■ 8 Cylinder
Production Share
■ Other
5.0%
2.5%
0%
2000 2005
-
2010
Model Year
2015 2020
- ------ 55
The growth in hybrid vehicles is largely attributable to growth outside of the sedan/wagon
vehicle type. In model year 2020 the production of hybrids in the truck SUV category
surpassed the production of sedan/wagon hybrids for the first time and did so by more
than 50%. Hybrids also began to penetrate the pickup and minivan/van vehicle types.
However, there remain very few hybrid car SUVs. Sedan/wagon hybrids accounted for only
21% of all hybrid production in model year 2021, as shown in Figure 4.12. Hybrid vehicles
typically use a 4-cylinder engine, although an increasing number of 6 and 8-cylinder
engines are being used in hybrid systems, as shown in Figure 4.13.
The growth of hybrids in the pickup vehicle type is largely due to the introduction of “mild”
hybrid systems that are capable of regenerative braking and many of the same functions
as other hybrids but utilize a smaller battery and an electrical motor that cannot directly
drive the vehicle. These mild hybrids account for about a third of hybrid production in
model year 2021.
Plug-In Hybrid Electric, Electric, and Fuel Cell Vehicles

PHEVs and EVs are two types of vehicles that can store electricity from an external source
onboard the vehicle, utilizing that stored energy to propel the vehicle. PHEVs are similar to
gasoline hybrids discussed previously, but the battery packs in PHEVs can be charged from
an external electricity source; this cannot be done in gasoline hybrids. EVs operate using
only energy stored in a battery from external charging. Fuel cell vehicles use a fuel cell
stack to create electricity from an onboard fuel source (usually hydrogen), which then
powers an electric motor or motors to propel the vehicle
EVs rely on electricity stored in a battery for fuel. There is no combustion occuring on the
vehicle, and therefore there are no tailpipe emissions created by the vehicle. The electricity
used to charge EVs can create emissions at the power plant. The amount of emission varies
depending on the fuel source of the electricity, which can in turn vary based on location
and time of day. The electric grid in the US has also been changing over time, as natural gas
and renewable energy resources make up a growing portion of electricity generation
across the US. Depending on the source of electricity, EVs often result in lower CO2
emissions over their lifetime compared to gasoline vehicles.
Since EVs do not use gasoline, the familiar metric of miles per gallon cannot be applied to
EVs. Instead, EVs are rated in terms of miles per gallon-equivalent (mpge), which is the
number of miles that an EV travels on an amount of electrical energy equivalent to the
energy in a gallon of gasoline. This metric enables a direct comparison of energy efficiency
between EVs and gasoline vehicles. EVs generally have a much higher energy efficiency
- ------ 56
than gasoline vehicles because electric motors are much more efficient than gasoline
engines.
PHEVs can operate either on electricity stored in a battery, or gasoline, allowing for a wide
range of engine designs and strategies for the utilization of stored electrical energy during
typical driving. Most PHEVs will operate on electricity only, like an EV, for a limited range,
and then will operate like a more conventional hybrid until their battery is recharged from
an external source. The use of electricity to provide some or all of the energy required for
propulsion can significantly lower fuel consumption and tailpipe CO2 emissions. For a much
more detailed discussion of EV and PHEV metrics, as well as upstream emissions from
electricity, see Appendix E.
The production of EVs and PHEVs has increased rapidly in recent years. Prior to model year
2011, EVs were available, but generally only in small numbers for lease in California. 11 In
model year 2011 the first PHEV, the Chevrolet Volt, was introduced along with the Nissan
Leaf EV. Many additional models have been introduced since, and in model year 2021
combined EV/PHEV production reached 4% of all new vehicles. Combined EV and PHEV
production is projected to reach a new high of 8% of all production in model year 2022. The
trend in EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs are shown in Figure 4.14.
11 At least over the timeframe covered by this report. EVs were initially produced more than 100 years ago.
- ------ 57
Figure 4.14. Production Share of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs 12
Plug-In Hybrid EV
Electric Vehicle
Fuel Cell Vehicle
6%
Production Share
4%
2%
0%
1995 2000 2005 2010

- 2015 2020
Model Year
The inclusion of model year 2021 EV and PHEV sales reduces the overall new vehicle
average CO2 emissions by 14 g/mi, and this impact will continue to grow if EV and PHEV
production increases. In model year 2021 there were three hydrogen FCVs produced, but
they were only available in the state of California and Hawaii and in very small numbers.
However there continues to be interest in FCVs as a future technology. Figure 4.15 and
Figure 4.16 show the production share by vehicle type for EVs and PHEVs. Early production
of EVs was mostly in the sedan/wagon vehicle type, but recent model years have shown
growth in car SUVs and truck SUVs. Electric pickup trucks are entering the market in model
year 2022, along with new EV models across many of the vehicle types. Production of
PHEVs has shifted from exclusively sedan/wagons to mostly truck SUVs, with limited
production across the sedan/wagon, car SUV, and minivan/van vehicle types.
12
EV production data were supplemented with data from Ward’s and other publicly available production data
for model years prior to 2011. The data only include offerings from original equipment manufacturers and does
not include data on vehicles converted to alternative fuels in the aftermarket.
58
Figure 4.15. Electric Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type
Figure 4.16. Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle Production Share by Vehicle Type
VehicleType
Sedan / Wagon
6%
Car SUV
Truck SUV
Minivan/Van
Production Share
4%
2%
0%
2010 2015 2020

Model Year
59
Figure 4.17 shows the range and fuel economy trends for EVs and PHEVs 13. The average
range of new EVs has climbed substantially. In model year 2021 the average new EV range
is 298 miles, or about four times the range of an average EV in 2011. The range values
shown for PHEVs are the charge-depleting range, where the vehicle is operating on energy
in the battery from an external source. This is generally the electric range of the PHEV,
although some vehicles also use the gasoline engine in small amounts during charge
depleting operation. The average charge depleting range for PHEVs has remained largely
unchanged since model year 2011.
Along with improving range, the fuel economy of electric vehicles has also improved as
measured in miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (mpge). The fuel economy of electric
vehicles increased by about 18% between model years 2011 and 2021. The combined fuel
economy of PHEVs has been more variable but is about 30% lower in model year 2021 than
in model year 2011. This may be attributable to the growth of truck SUV PHEVs, as shown
in Figure 4.16. For more information about EV and PHEV metrics, see Appendix E.
Figure 4.17. Charge Depleting Range and Fuel Economy for EVs and PHEVs
Range (mi) Fuel Economy (mpge)
300
•
120 r-----------
Electric Vehicles
•
100
Electric Vehicles
200
80
100 Plug-In Hybrid

Electric Vehicles
_________
.............
Plug-In Hybrid
Electric Vehicles
60
•
0 40 •
2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022
Model Year
13 The range and fuel economy values in this figure are the combined values from the fuel economy label, which
weights city and highway driving 55% and 45%, as compared to the rest of the report, which uses a 43% city and
57% highway weighting. See Appendix C for more information.
60
Diesel Engines
Vehicles with diesel engines have been available in the U.S. at least as long as EPA has been
collecting data. However, sales of diesel vehicles have rarely broken more than 1% of the
overall market. Diesel vehicle sales peaked at 5.9% of the market in model year 1981, but
have been at or below 1% of production per year since 1985. In MY 2021, diesel vehicles
were slightly below 1% of all new vehicles produced.
Vehicles that rely on diesel fuel often achieve higher fuel economy than gasoline vehicles,
largely because the energy density of diesel fuel is about 15% higher than that of gasoline.
However, there is less of an advantage in terms of CO2 emissions because diesel fuel also
contains about 15% more carbon per gallon, and thus emits more CO2 per gallon burned
than gasoline.
Figure 4.18 shows the production share of diesel engines by vehicle type. Diesel engines
have historically been more prevalent in the sedan/wagon vehicle type, however, since
model year 2015 there have been very few sedan/wagons vehicles with diesel engines.
Light-duty diesel pickup trucks re-entered the market at about the same time and led to an
overall production share of 1% in model year 2021. This report does not include the largest
pickup trucks and work or vocational trucks, which have a higher penetration of diesel
engines. As shown in Figure 4.19, current production of diesel engines for light-duty
vehicles is largely comprised of six-cylinder engines, along with a smaller share of 4-
cylinder engines.
Diesel engines, as with gasoline engines, have improved over time. Figure 4.20 shows the
same metrics and trends that are explored in Figure 4.5 for gasoline engines. The specific
power (HP/displacement) for diesel engines has increased more than 200% since model
year 1975. Fuel consumption per displacement dropped in the 1980s but has increased
back to about 20% below model year 1975. Finally, fuel consumption per horsepower for
diesel engines has declined about 75% since model year 1975.
- ------ 61
Figure 4.18. Diesel Engine Production Share by Vehicle Type
6%
Vehicle Type
Sedan/Wagon
■
■ Car SUV
■ Truck SUV
4% ■ Minivan/Van
Production Share
■ Pickup
2%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Figure 4.19. Diesel Engine Production Share by Number of Cylinders
6%
Cylinders
■ 4 Cylinder
■ 6 Cylinder
■ 8 Cylinder
4% ■ Other
Production Share
2%
·· ··· -- -- -
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
- ------ 62
Figure 4.20. Percent Change for Specific Diesel Engine Metrics
250%
HP/Displacement •
200%
150%
Change Since 1975
100%
50%
Fuel Consumption/Displacement
0%
•
−50% Fuel Consumption/HP
•
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Other Engine Technologies

In addition to the engine technologies described above, there have been a small number of
other technologies available in the U.S. marketplace over the years. Vehicles that operate
on compressed natural gas (CNG) are one example, but there are currently no CNG
vehicles available from vehicle manufacturers (aftermarket conversions are not included
here). This report will continue to track all vehicles produced for sale in the U.S., and if CNG
or other technologies reach widespread availability they will be included in future versions
of this report.
- ------ 63
C. Vehicle Drivetrain
A vehicle drivetrain includes all components responsible for transmitting rotational energy
from an engine or motor to the wheels. The design of the drivetrain impacts CO2 emissions
and fuel economy in two ways; first through direct energy losses or inefficiencies within the
drivetrain, and second by allowing a vehicle’s engine, or motor, to operate in a more
efficient manner.
For non-hybrid vehicles with an internal combustion engine, the drivetrain includes a
transmission and the driveline (a driveshaft, differential, axle shafts and related
components), as shown in Figure 4.1. Mild hybrids generally use a conventional
transmission and drivetrain, but full hybrids often replace the transmission entirely with a
planetary gearset or some other configuration. PHEVs generally resemble full hybrids but
can have numerous configurations that allow for complicated energy optimization. Electric
vehicles generally use a single speed transmission, and do not need the numerous gears
required by combustion engines. However, some electric vehicles are now being produced
with at least a 2-speed transmission (e.g. Porsche Taycan).
Transmissions
There are two important aspects of transmissions that impact overall vehicle efficiency and
fuel economy. First, as torque (rotational force) is transferred through the transmission, a
small amount is lost to friction, which reduces vehicle efficiency. Second, the design of the
transmission impacts how the engine is operated, and generally transmissions with more
speeds offer more opportunity to operate the engine in the most efficient way possible. For
example, a vehicle with an eight-speed transmission will have more flexibility in
determining engine operation than a vehicle with a five-speed transmission. This can lead
to reduced fuel consumption and CO2 emissions compared to a vehicle that is identical
except for the number of transmission gears.
Transmission designs have been rapidly evolving to increase the number of gears available
and allow for both better engine operation and improved efficiency. The number of gears
in new vehicles continues to increase, as does the use of continuously variable
transmissions (CVTs). Figure 4.21 shows the evolution of transmission production share for
cars and trucks since model year 1980. 14 For this analysis, transmissions are separated into
manual transmissions, CVTs, and automatic transmissions. Automatic transmissions are
further separated into those with and without lockup mechanisms, which can lock up the
14 EPA has incomplete transmission data prior to model year 1980.
- ------ 64
torque converter in an automatic transmission under certain driving conditions and
improve efficiency. CVTs have also been split into hybrid and non-hybrid versions to reflect
the fact that hybrid CVTs are generally very different mechanically from traditional CVTs.
Dual clutch transmissions (DCTs) are essentially automatic transmissions that operate
internally much more like traditional manual transmissions. The two main advantages of
DCTs are that they can shift very quickly, and they can avoid some of the internal resistance
of a traditional automatic transmission by eliminating the torque converter. Currently,
automaker submissions to EPA do not explicitly identify DCTs as a separate transmission
category. Thus, the introduction of DCTs shows up in Figure 4.21 as a slight increase in
automatic transmissions without torque converters (although some DCTs may still be
reported as traditional automatic transmissions).
In the early 1980s, three-speed automatic transmissions, both with and without lockup
torque converters (shown as L3 and A3), were the most popular transmissions, but by
model year 1985, the four-speed automatic transmission with lockup (L4) became the most
popular transmission, a position it would hold for 25 years. Over 80% of all new vehicles
produced in model year 1999 were equipped with a four-speed transmission. After model
year 1999, the production share of four-speed transmissions slowly decreased as five and
six speed transmissions were introduced into the market. Six-speed transmissions peaked
in model year 2013 at 60% of new vehicle production, but then fell quickly, down to 12% by
model year 2021. Eight-speed transmissions became the most popular transmission in
model year 2019 and maintained that position for model years 2020 and 2021, followed by
CVTs and transmissions with nine or more speeds. In model year 2021, vehicles with eight-
speed transmissions accounted for about a third of all new vehicles, while vehicles with
CVTs or vehicles with transmissions of nine or more speeds each accounted for more than
20% of new vehicle production. These trends are projected to continue in model year 2022,
with transmissions of nine or more speeds continuing to increase market share.
Another notable trend in Figure 4.21 is the decline in manual transmissions. Manual
transmissions were included in almost 35% of new vehicles in model year 1980, but have
been gradually declining since, and shrank to less than 1% of all production in model year
2021. Today, manual transmissions are available only in a limited number of small vehicles,
sports cars, off-road truck SUVs, and a few small pickups.
- ------ 65
Figure 4.21. Transmission Production Share
100% Other
M6
M5
L10
L7 L9
75% M4
L8
L5 L6
50%
Car
L4
L3
25% A4 CVT(h)
CVT(n-h)
Production Share
A3 A6 A7
0%
100% Other
M6
M5 L7 L10
75%
M4 L9
L5 L6
M3
Truck
50% L8
L4
L3
A4
CVT(h)
A3 CVT(n-h) A7
0%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
Transmission Lockup? Number of Gears Key

Automatic No 3 A3
Semi-Automatic 4 A4
Automated Manual 5 A5*
6 A6
7 A7
8 A8*
Yes 2 L2*
3 L3
4 L4
5 L5
6 L6
7 L7
8 L8
9 L9
10 L10
Manual 3 M3
4 M4
5 M5
6 M6
7 M7*
ContinuouslyVariable CVT(n-h)
(non-hybrid)
ContinuouslyVariable CVT(h)
(hybrid)
Other Other
*Categories A5, A8, L2, and M7 are too small to depict in the area plot.
66
Part of the reason for the decline in manual transmission is because modern automatic
transmissions now have more gears, are generally more efficient, and can offer better
performance than manual transmissions. Figure 4.22 shows the average number of gears
in new vehicle transmissions since model year 1980 for automatic and manual
transmissions. While both manual and automatic transmissions have added gears over
time, automatic transmission have added additional gears faster, and passed manual
transmissions in model year 2012. In model year 2021, the average number of gears for all
manual transmissions was 6 while the average for automatic transmissions was 7.8 gears.
Figure 4.22. Average Number of Transmission Gears
•
7
Average Number of Gears
6 •
Manual
5
Automatic
3
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
In the past, automatic transmissions have generally been less efficient than manual
transmissions, largely due to inefficiencies in the automatic transmission torque converter.
Figure 4.23 examines this trend over time by comparing the fuel economy of automatic and
manual transmission options where both transmissions were available in one model with
the same engine. Vehicles with a manual transmission were more efficient than their
automatic counterparts through about 2010, but modern automatic transmissions are now
more efficient. Two contributing factors to this trend are that automatic transmission
- ------ 67
design has become more efficient (using earlier lockup and other strategies), and the
number of gears used in automatic transmissions has increased faster than in manual
transmissions. The shrinking availability of manual transmissions does limit the relevance
of analyses comparing current manual transmissions to automatic transmissions.
Figure 4.23. Comparison of Manual and Automatic Transmission Real-World

Fuel Economy for Comparable Vehicles
1.05 •
Ratio of Automatic to Manual Transmission
Automatic transmissions
are more efficient
1.00
Fuel Economy
0.95
Manual transmissions
are more efficient
0.90
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Model Year
Drive Types
There has been a long and steady trend in new vehicle drive type away from rear-wheel
drive vehicles towards front-wheel drive and four-wheel drive (including all-wheel drive)
vehicles, as shown in Figure 4.24. In model year 1975, over 91% of new vehicles were
produced with rear-wheel drive. Since then, production of rear-wheel drive vehicles has
steadily declined to about 10% in model year 2021. Most vehicles available today with rear
wheel drive are performance-oriented sedan/wagons and pickup trucks, but there are
limited rear wheel drive vehicles available in all vehicle types.
Production of front-wheel drive vehicles increased from 5% of new vehicle production in

model year 1975 to 64% in model year 1990 and 63% in model year 2009. Since 2009
however, the production of front-wheel vehicles has also been declining, and is down to
68
32% in model year 2021. Four-wheel drive systems have steadily increased from 3.3% of
new vehicle production in model year 1975 to 59% of production in model year 2021. Four-
wheel drive systems have increased for both cars and trucks, but the high penetration rate
of 82% within trucks (including pickups, truck SUVs, and minivan/vans) and the market
shifts towards these vehicles has accelerated the trend towards four-wheel drive vehicles.
Figure 4.24. Front-, Rear-, and Four-Wheel Drive Production Share
100%
□
Drive
Four-Wheel
Front-Wheel
Rear-Wheel
75%
Production Share
50%
25%
0%
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Model Year
D. Technology Adoption
One additional way to evaluate the evolution of technology in the automotive industry is to
focus on how technology has been adopted over time. Understanding how the industry has
adopted technology can lead to a better understanding of past changes in the industry,
and how emerging technology may be integrated in the future. The following analysis
provides more details about how manufacturers and the overall industry have adopted
new technology.
Industry-Wide Technology Adoption Since 1975

Figure 4.25 shows industry-wide adoption rates for seven technologies in passenger cars.
These technologies are fuel injection (including throttle body, port, and direct injection),
- ------ 69
front-wheel drive, multi-valve engines (i.e., engines with more than two valves per cylinder),
engines with variable valve timing, lockup transmissions, advanced transmissions
(transmissions with six or more speeds, and CVTs), and gasoline direct injection engines. To
provide a common scale, the adoption rates are plotted in terms of the number of years
after the technology achieved first significant use in the industry. First significant use
generally represents a production threshold of 1%, though in some cases, where full data
are not available, first significant use represents a slightly higher production share.
The technology adoption pattern shown in Figure 4.25 is roughly similar for each of the
seven technologies, even though they vary widely in application, complexity, and when they
were initially introduced. It has taken, on average, approximately 15-20 years for new
technologies to reach maximum penetration across the industry. GDI is a newer technology
that has likely not reached maximum penetration across the industry but appears to be
following the adoption trend of other more mature technologies. While some of these
technologies may eventually be adopted in 100% of new vehicles, there may be reasons
that other technologies, like front-wheel drive, will likely never be adopted in all vehicles.
Adoption rates for these technologies in trucks are similar, with the exception of front-
wheel drive.
The analysis for Figure 4.25 focuses on technologies that have achieved widespread use by
multiple manufacturers and does not look at narrowly adopted technologies which never
achieved widespread use. One limitation to the data in this report is that EPA does not
begin tracking technology production share data until after the technologies had achieved
some limited market share. For example, EPA did not begin to track multi-valve engine data
until model year 1986 for cars and model year 1994 for trucks, and in both cases multi-
valve engines had captured about 5% market share by that time. Likewise, turbochargers
were not tracked in this report until model year 1996 for cars and model year 2003 for
trucks, and while turbochargers had less than a 1% market share in both cases at that time,
it is likely that turbochargers had exceeded 1% market share in the late 1980s. Cylinder
deactivation was utilized by at least one major manufacturer in the 1980s.
- ------ 70
Figure 4.25. Industry-Wide Car Technology Penetration after First Significant
Use
Fuel Injection
100%
Advanced Lockup
Transmission
80%
Production Share
Multi-Valve
60% GDI Front-Wheel
Drive
40%
Variable-Valve
Timing
20%
0%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Years after First Significant Use
Technology Adoption by Manufacturers

The rate at which the overall industry adopts technology is determined by how quickly, and
at what point in time, individual manufacturers adopt the technology. While it is important
to understand the industry-wide adoption rates over time, the trends in Figure 4.25 mask
the fact that not all manufacturers introduced these technologies at the same time, or at
the same rate. The “sequencing” of manufacturers introducing new technologies is an
important aspect of understanding the overall industry trend of technology adoption.
Figure 4.26 begins to disaggregate the industry-wide trends to examine how individual
manufacturers have adopted new technologies. 15 For each technology, Figure 4.26 shows
the amount of time it took specific manufacturers to move from initial introduction to 80%
penetration for each technology, as well as the same data for the overall industry. After
80% penetration, the technology is assumed to be largely incorporated into the
manufacturer’s fleet, and changes between 80% and 100% are not highlighted.
Of the seven technologies shown in Figure 4.26, five are now at or near full market
penetration for the included manufacturers, and two are still in the process of adoption by
15This figure is based on available data. Some technologies may have been introduced into the market before
this report began tracking them. Generally, these omissions are limited, with the exception of multi-valve
engine data for Honda. Honda had already achieved 70% penetration of multi-valve engines when this report
began tracking them in 1986, so this figure does not illustrate Honda’s prior trends.
- ------ 71
manufacturers. The technologies shown in Figure 4.26 vary widely in terms of complexity,
application, and when they were introduced into the market. For each technology, there
are clearly variations between manufacturers, both in terms of when they began to adopt a
technology, and the rate with which they adopted the technology. The degree of variation
between the manufacturers also varies by technology.
The data for VVT, for example, show that several manufacturers adopted the technology
much faster than the overall industry, which achieved 80% penetration in just over 20
years. It was not the rate of technology adoption alone, but rather the staggered
implementation timeframes among manufacturers that resulted in the longer industry-
wide average.
Fuel injection systems show the least amount of variation in initial adoption timing
between manufacturers, which resulted in a faster adoption by the industry overall than
technologies like VVT. One important driver for adoption of fuel injection was increasingly
stringent emissions standards. Advanced transmissions, which have been available in small
numbers for some time, have very rapidly increased market penetration in recent years
and are now widely adopted. GDI engines appear to be following a similar path of quick
uptake in recent years. Turbocharged engines have long been available, but the focus on
turbo downsized engine packages is leading to much higher market penetration, although
it is too early to tell what level of penetration they will ultimately achieve industry-wide.
There are many factors outside the scope of this report that influence the rate and timing
of when technology is adopted by individual manufacturers (e.g., price, manufacturing
constraints, regulatory drivers, etc.) While no attempt is made here to identify the
underlying causes, it is important to recognize that variation between manufacturers for
given technologies can be masked when only the industry-wide trends are evaluated.
Technology adoption by individual manufacturers is often more rapid than the overall
industry trend would suggest.
- ------ 72
Figure 4.26. Manufacturer Specific Technology Adoption over Time for Key
Technologies
Toyota
GM
Stellantis
Ford
Honda Fuel Injection
Nissan
Subaru
■■
All Manufacturers
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Toyota
GM
Stellantis
Ford
Honda
Lockup
Nissan
■
Subaru
All Manufacturers
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Toyota
GM
Stellantis
Ford
Honda Multi-Valve
Nissan
Subaru
■■■■■
All Manufacturers ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Toyota
GM
Stellantis
Ford Variable Valve
Honda
Nissan Timing
Subaru
All Manufacturers
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Toyota
GM
Stellantis
Ford Advanced
Honda
Nissan Transmissions
Subaru
All Manufacturers
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Toyota
GM
Stellantis
Ford
Honda
Gasoline Direct
Nissan Injection
Subaru
All Manufacturers
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Toyota
GM
Stellantis ■■■■■■■
Ford
Honda ■■■■■■■■ ■ Turbocharged
Nissan
Subaru
All Manufacturers
■ ..:::;3
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Model Year
Percent of Production
20% to 25%
10% to 15%
0% to 5% 25% to 50% 75% to 80%
1, ~
15% to 20% 50% to 75%
--80% to 100%
5% to 10%
- ------ 73
Table 4.1. Production Share by Powertrain
Gasoline
Model Year Gasoline Hybrid Diesel EV PHEV FCV Other
1975 99.8% - 0.2% - - - -
1980 95.7% - 4.3% - - - -
1985 99.1% - 0.9% - - - -
1990 99.9% - 0.1% - - - -
1995 100.0% - 0.0% - - - -
2000 99.8% 0.0% 0.1% - - - -
2001 99.7% 0.1% 0.1% - - - -
2002 99.6% 0.2% 0.2% - - - -
2003 99.5% 0.3% 0.2% - - - -
2004 99.4% 0.5% 0.1% - - - -
2005 98.6% 1.1% 0.3% - - - -
2006 98.1% 1.5% 0.4% - - - -
2007 97.7% 2.2% 0.1% - - - -
2008 97.4% 2.5% 0.1% - - - -
2009 97.2% 2.3% 0.5% - - - -
2010 95.5% 3.8% 0.7% - - 0.0% -
2011 97.0% 2.2% 0.8% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
2012 95.5% 3.1% 0.9% 0.1% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
2013 94.8% 3.6% 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% - 0.0%
2014 95.7% 2.6% 1.0% 0.3% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0%
2015 95.9% 2.4% 0.9% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
2016 96.9% 1.8% 0.5% 0.5% 0.3% 0.0% 0.0%
2017 96.1% 2.3% 0.3% 0.6% 0.8% 0.0% -
2018 95.1% 2.3% 0.4% 1.4% 0.8% 0.0% -
2019 94.4% 3.8% 0.1% 1.2% 0.5% 0.0% -
2020 92.4% 4.9% 0.5% 1.8% 0.5% 0.0% -
2021 85.1% 9.3% 1.0% 3.2% 1.2% 0.0% -
2022 (prelim) 80.6% 10.1% 0.9% 7.2% 1.2% 0.0% -
To explore this data in more depth, please see the report website at https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends. .
74
Table 4.2. Production Share by Engine Technologies
Fuel Delivery Method Avg. No. Non-hybrid
of Multi- Stop/
Model Year Carb TBI Port GDI Other Cylinders CID HP Valve VVT CD Turbo Start
1975 95.7% 0.0% 4.1% - 0.2% 6.8 293 137 - - - - -
1980 89.7% 0.8% 5.2% - 4.3% 5.6 198 104 - - - - -
1985 56.1% 24.8% 18.2% - 0.9% 5.5 189 114 - - - - -
1990 2.1% 27.0% 70.8% - 0.1% 5.4 185 135 23.1% - - - -
1995 - 8.4% 91.6% - 0.0% 5.6 196 158 35.6% - - - -
2000 - 0.0% 99.8% - 0.1% 5.7 200 181 44.8% 15.0% - 1.3% -
2001 - - 99.9% - 0.1% 5.8 201 187 49.0% 19.6% - 2.0% -
2002 - - 99.8% - 0.2% 5.8 203 195 53.3% 25.3% - 2.2% -
2003 - - 99.8% - 0.2% 5.8 204 199 55.5% 30.6% - 1.2% -
2004 - - 99.9% - 0.1% 5.9 212 211 62.3% 38.5% - 2.3% -
2005 - - 99.7% - 0.3% 5.8 205 209 65.6% 45.8% 0.8% 1.7% -
2006 - - 99.6% - 0.4% 5.7 204 213 71.7% 55.4% 3.6% 2.1% -
2007 - - 99.8% - 0.1% 5.6 203 217 71.7% 57.3% 7.3% 2.5% -
2008 - - 97.6% 2.3% 0.1% 5.6 199 219 76.4% 58.2% 6.7% 3.0% -
2009 - - 95.2% 4.2% 0.5% 5.2 183 208 83.8% 71.5% 7.3% 3.3% -
2010 - - 91.0% 8.3% 0.7% 5.3 188 214 85.5% 83.8% 6.4% 3.3% -
2011 - - 83.8% 15.4% 0.8% 5.4 192 230 86.4% 93.1% 9.5% 6.8% -
2012 - - 76.5% 22.5% 1.0% 5.1 181 222 91.8% 96.6% 8.1% 8.4% 0.6%
2013 - - 68.3% 30.5% 1.2% 5.1 176 226 92.8% 97.4% 7.7% 13.9% 2.3%
2014 - - 61.3% 37.4% 1.3% 5.1 180 230 89.2% 97.6% 10.6% 14.8% 5.1%
2015 - - 56.7% 41.9% 1.4% 5.0 177 229 91.2% 97.2% 10.5% 15.7% 7.1%
2016 - - 51.0% 48.0% 1.0% 5.0 174 230 92.3% 98.0% 10.4% 19.9% 9.6%
2017 - - 49.4% 49.7% 0.9% 5.0 174 234 92.0% 98.1% 11.9% 23.4% 17.8%
2018 - - 48.0% 50.2% 1.8% 5.0 172 241 91.0% 96.4% 12.5% 30.0% 29.8%
2019 - - 45.7% 52.9% 1.4% 5.1 174 245 90.1% 97.2% 14.9% 30.0% 36.9%
2020 - - 40.6% 57.1% 2.2% 5.0 170 246 90.7% 95.8% 14.7% 34.7% 45.8%
2021 - - 42.3% 53.4% 4.3% 5.0 176 253 88.0% 94.4% 16.6% 32.9% 45.0%
2022 (prelim) - - 39.1% 52.8% 8.1% 5.0 172 272 84.3% 90.5% 15.4% 37.7% 49.7%
75
Table 4.3. Production Share by Transmission Technologies
Automatic Automatic CVT 4 Gears Average
with without CVT (Non- or 5 6 7 9+ No. of
Model Year Manual Lockup Lockup (Hybrid) Hybrid) Other Fewer Gears Gears Gears 8 Gears Gears Gears
1975 23.0% 0.2% 76.8% - - - 99.0% 1.0% - - - - -
1980 34.6% 18.1% 46.8% - - 0.5% 87.9% 12.1% - - - - 3.5
1985 26.5% 54.5% 19.1% - - - 80.7% 19.3% - - - - 3.8
1990 22.2% 71.2% 6.5% - 0.0% 0.0% 79.9% 20.0% 0.1% - - - 4.0
1995 17.9% 80.7% 1.4% - - - 82.0% 17.7% 0.2% - - - 4.1
2000 9.7% 89.5% 0.7% - 0.0% - 83.7% 15.8% 0.5% - - - 4.1
2001 9.0% 90.3% 0.6% 0.1% 0.0% - 80.7% 18.5% 0.7% - - - 4.2
2002 8.2% 91.4% 0.3% 0.1% 0.1% - 77.1% 21.6% 1.1% - - - 4.2
2003 8.0% 90.8% 0.1% 0.3% 0.8% - 69.2% 28.1% 1.7% - - - 4.3
2004 6.8% 91.8% 0.3% 0.4% 0.7% - 63.9% 31.8% 3.0% 0.2% - - 4.4
2005 6.2% 91.5% 0.1% 1.0% 1.3% - 56.0% 37.3% 4.1% 0.2% - - 4.5
2006 6.5% 90.6% 0.0% 1.5% 1.4% - 47.7% 39.2% 8.8% 1.4% - - 4.6
2007 5.6% 87.1% 0.0% 2.1% 5.1% - 40.5% 36.1% 14.4% 1.5% 0.2% - 4.8
2008 5.2% 86.8% 0.2% 2.4% 5.5% - 38.8% 31.9% 19.4% 1.8% 0.2% - 4.8
2009 4.8% 85.6% 0.2% 2.1% 7.3% - 31.2% 32.2% 24.5% 2.5% 0.1% - 5.0
2010 3.8% 84.1% 1.2% 3.8% 7.2% - 24.6% 23.5% 38.1% 2.7% 0.2% - 5.2
2011 3.2% 86.5% 0.3% 2.0% 8.0% - 14.2% 18.7% 52.3% 3.1% 1.7% - 5.5
2012 3.6% 83.4% 1.1% 2.7% 9.2% - 8.1% 18.2% 56.3% 2.8% 2.6% - 5.5
2013 3.5% 80.4% 1.4% 2.9% 11.8% - 5.4% 12.8% 60.1% 2.8% 4.1% - 5.6
2014 2.8% 76.7% 1.6% 2.3% 16.6% - 2.2% 7.8% 58.4% 3.3% 8.4% 1.1% 5.9
2015 2.6% 72.3% 1.4% 2.2% 21.5% - 1.5% 4.5% 54.2% 3.1% 9.5% 3.5% 5.9
2016 2.2% 72.3% 2.6% 1.7% 21.2% - 1.1% 3.0% 54.9% 2.9% 11.2% 4.1% 6.0
2017 2.1% 71.5% 2.6% 1.9% 21.8% - 1.0% 2.4% 49.0% 3.4% 14.6% 5.9% 6.1
2018 1.6% 72.8% 3.2% 1.7% 20.6% - 1.9% 2.0% 37.6% 3.7% 19.0% 13.5% 6.4
2019 1.4% 72.1% 2.4% 2.2% 21.9% - 1.5% 1.6% 26.1% 2.6% 27.5% 16.5% 6.6
2020 1.1% 68.3% 2.7% 2.8% 25.0% - 1.8% 0.8% 17.3% 2.1% 28.8% 21.2% 6.9
2021 0.9% 67.0% 5.4% 4.7% 21.9% - 3.2% 1.1% 12.2% 2.0% 32.5% 22.4% 6.6
2022 (prelim) 1.0% 63.3% 9.9% 4.6% 21.2% - 6.8% 0.9% 8.5% 2.5% 30.3% 25.2% 6.5
76
Table 4.4. Production Share by Drive Technology
Car Truck All
Front Rear Four Front Rear Four Front Rear Four
Wheel Wheel Wheel Wheel Wheel Wheel Wheel Wheel Wheel
Model Year Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive Drive
1975 6.5% 93.5% - - 82.8% 17.2% 5.3% 91.4% 3.3%
1980 29.7% 69.4% 0.9% 1.4% 73.6% 25.0% 25.0% 70.1% 4.9%
1985 61.1% 36.8% 2.1% 7.3% 61.4% 31.3% 47.8% 42.9% 9.3%
1990 84.0% 15.0% 1.0% 15.8% 52.4% 31.8% 63.8% 26.1% 10.1%
1995 80.1% 18.8% 1.1% 18.4% 39.3% 42.3% 57.6% 26.3% 16.2%
2000 80.4% 17.7% 2.0% 20.0% 33.8% 46.3% 55.5% 24.3% 20.2%
2001 80.3% 16.7% 3.0% 16.3% 34.8% 48.8% 53.8% 24.2% 22.0%
2002 82.9% 13.5% 3.6% 15.4% 33.1% 51.6% 52.7% 22.3% 25.0%
2003 80.9% 15.9% 3.2% 15.4% 34.1% 50.4% 50.7% 24.3% 25.0%
2004 80.2% 14.5% 5.3% 12.5% 31.0% 56.5% 47.7% 22.4% 29.8%
2005 79.2% 14.2% 6.6% 20.1% 27.7% 52.2% 53.0% 20.2% 26.8%
2006 75.9% 18.0% 6.0% 18.9% 28.0% 53.1% 51.9% 22.3% 25.8%
2007 81.0% 13.4% 5.6% 16.1% 28.4% 55.5% 54.3% 19.6% 26.1%
2008 78.8% 14.1% 7.1% 18.4% 24.8% 56.8% 54.2% 18.5% 27.3%
2009 83.5% 10.2% 6.3% 21.0% 20.5% 58.5% 62.9% 13.6% 23.5%
2010 82.5% 11.2% 6.3% 20.9% 18.0% 61.0% 59.6% 13.7% 26.7%
2011 80.1% 11.3% 8.6% 17.7% 17.3% 65.0% 53.8% 13.8% 32.4%
2012 83.8% 8.8% 7.5% 20.9% 14.8% 64.3% 61.4% 10.9% 27.7%
2013 83.0% 9.3% 7.7% 18.1% 14.5% 67.5% 59.7% 11.1% 29.1%
2014 81.3% 10.6% 8.2% 17.5% 14.2% 68.3% 55.3% 12.1% 32.6%
2015 80.4% 9.7% 9.9% 16.0% 12.6% 71.4% 52.9% 10.9% 36.1%
2016 79.8% 9.1% 11.0% 15.9% 12.2% 72.0% 51.2% 10.5% 38.3%
2017 79.7% 8.3% 12.0% 16.1% 11.1% 72.8% 49.6% 9.6% 40.8%
2018 76.5% 9.4% 14.1% 13.4% 10.9% 75.6% 43.7% 10.2% 46.1%
2019 75.5% 10.1% 14.4% 14.4% 10.2% 75.4% 41.6% 10.1% 48.3%
2020 76.5% 8.8% 14.7% 12.5% 10.0% 77.5% 40.6% 9.4% 49.9%
2021 70.7% 11.2% 18.0% 8.5% 9.2% 82.3% 31.6% 10.0% 58.5%
2022 (prelim) 66.2% 10.9% 23.0% 10.0% 8.6% 81.3% 31.2% 9.5% 59.3%
77
Manufacturer GHG Compliance
Manufacturers that produce passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger
vehicles for sale in the United States are required to meet greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
and fuel economy standards. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through the light-duty GHG program, and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) regulates fuel economy through the
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. The following analysis is designed to
provide as much information as possible about how manufacturers are performing under
EPA’s GHG program, including final compliance data through model year 2021 and credit
trades reported to EPA as of October 31, 2022.
In December 2021, EPA finalized light-duty GHG standards for model years 2023-2026, and
in April 2022 NHTSA finalized fuel economy standards for model years 2024-2026. Since
these regulatory updates only impact future model years, they do not generally impact this
report. However, where applicable, these regulatory changes are reflected in this report.
EPA’s GHG program defines standards for Figure 5.1. The GHG Compliance Process
each manufacturer’s car and truck fleets
based on the average footprint of the
vehicles produced for sale. Each
manufacturer fleet generates credits if the
fleet average emissions performance is
below the standards or generates deficits if
performance is above the standards.
Credits, or deficits, that manufacturers have
accrued in previous model years, credits
earned as part of the early credit program,
credit trades, credit forfeitures, and credit
expirations are also important components
in determining the final compliance status of
each manufacturer. Manufacturers that
maintain a positive, or zero, credit balance
are considered in compliance with the GHG program. Manufacturers that end any model
year with a deficit have up to three years to offset that deficit to avoid non-compliance. The
general compliance process that manufacturers follow at the end of each model year is
78
Averaging, banking, and trading (ABT) provisions have been an important part of many
mobile source programs under the Clean Air Act. These provisions help manufacturers in
planning and implementing a phase-in of emissions reduction technology in their
production that is consistent with their unique redesign schedules. As part of the GHG
program, ABT provisions allow manufacturers to average their car or truck fleet CO2
emissions (i.e., the standards do not apply to individual vehicles), to earn and “bank” credits
by reducing their car or truck fleet performance to below the applicable standards, and to
trade credits between manufacturers. The net effect of the ABT provisions is that they
allow additional flexibility, encourage earlier introduction of emission reduction
technologies than might otherwise occur, and do so without reducing the overall
effectiveness of the program.
How to Calculate Total Emissions
Manufacturer standards and model from an Emission Rate
year performance are discussed in Total emissions, or credits, are calculated by multiplying a
this report as per vehicle emission CO2 emission rate, the production volume of applicable
vehicles, and the expected lifetime vehicle miles travelled
rates, measured in grams of CO2 per
(VMT) of those vehicles. To calculate total emissions, or
mile (g/mi). Any discussion of
credits, the following equation is used:
manufacturer total credit balances,
Credits = ( CO2 Emissions x VMT x Production ) / 1,000,000
credit transactions, and compliance
In the above equation, “Credits” are measured in megagrams
will be in terms of total mass of CO2
(Mg) of CO2, “CO2 emissions” are measured in grams per
emissions, measured in Megagrams mile (g/mi), and “VMT” is in miles, and specified in the
of CO2 (Mg). The use of a mass-based regulations as 195,264 miles for cars and 225,865 for
metric enables the banking and trucks. To calculate g/mi from Mg:
trading portions of the GHG program CO2 Emissions = ( Credits x 1,000,000 ) / ( VMT x Production )
by accounting for vehicle lifetime When using these equations to calculate values for cars and
emissions for all vehicles produced. trucks in aggregate, use a production weighted average of
Converting from an emission rate to the car and truck VMT values. For the 2021 model year, the
industry wide weighted VMT is 212,455 miles.
total emissions is straightforward, as
shown in the box on the right.
Unlike the previous sections of this report, the tailpipe CO2 emission data presented in this
section are compliance data, based on EPA’s City and Highway test procedures (referred to
as the “2-cycle” tests). These values should not be compared to the estimated real-world
data throughout the rest of this report. For a detailed discussion of the difference between
real-world and compliance data, see Appendix C. To download the data presented in this
section please see the report website: https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
-
79
A. Footprint-Based CO2 Standards
At the end of each model year, manufacturers are required to calculate unique CO2
standards for their car and truck fleets, based on the vehicles produced that model year.
The GHG program uses footprint, which is the area between the four tires, as a metric for
determining the specific standard for each manufacturer’s car and truck fleets.
Manufacturers must calculate new standards each year as the regulations become more
stringent, and as their footprint distribution and production change. See Section 3 for a
discussion of footprint and vehicle production trends and the definitions of “car” and
“truck” under the regulations.
The regulations define footprint “curves” that provide a CO2 emissions target for every
vehicle footprint, as shown in Figure 5.2. For example, a car with a footprint of 46.9 square
feet in model year 2021 (the average car footprint) has a compliance CO2 target of 185
g/mi. This is a target and not a standard, as there are no footprint-based CO2 emissions
requirements for individual vehicles at the time of certification. The unique CO2 standards
for each manufacturer’s car and truck fleets are production-weighted averages of the CO2
target values, as determined from the curves, for all the unique footprint values of the
vehicles within that fleet. This is an element of the “averaging” approach of the ABT
provisions. Using one production-weighted average to define a single fleet standard allows
for some individual vehicles to be above that standard, while others are below.
Figure 5.2. 2012–2021 Model Year CO2 Footprint Target Curves
2012 Truck
400
350
Compliance CO2 (g/mi)
2021 Truck
300 2012 Car
250
2021 Car
200
40 50 60 70 80
Footprint (sq ft)
80
The footprint curves for the 2012 and 2021 model years are shown in Figure 5.2. The
targets have gradually decreased (become more stringent) from 2012 to the current 2021
levels, as defined in the regulations. Larger vehicles have higher targets, although the
increases are capped beyond a certain footprint size (i.e., the curves become flat). Trucks
have higher targets than cars of the same footprint in the same model year.
In addition to the footprint-based standards, EPA established several alternative standards

for small to intermediate manufacturers. These provisions provide additional lead-time for
manufacturers that may not be able to take full advantage of averaging or other program
flexibilities due to the limited scope of the vehicles they sell.
The Temporary Lead-time Allowance Alternative Standards (TLAAS) provisions were

available to manufacturers with production of less than 400,000 vehicles in model year
2009. This provision allowed manufacturers to place vehicles in an alternative car or truck
TLAAS fleet each model year, with those vehicles subject to a less stringent standard. The
standard for a TLAAS fleet was 1.25 times the standard that would have applied to that
fleet according to the footprint-based approach applied to all other car and truck fleets.
Each manufacturer could apply the TLAAS standards to a maximum of 100,000 vehicles,
cumulative over model years 2012–2015. Mercedes, Jaguar Land Rover, Volvo, Porsche,
Ferrari, Aston Martin, Lotus, and McLaren participated in the TLAAS program. The overall
industry-wide impact of the TLAAS program was less than 1 g/mi for all years it was
available.
The intermediate volume provisions allowed intermediate volume manufacturers (those

that produced less than 50,000 vehicles in the 2009 model year) to use an alternative
compliance schedule in model years 2017–2020. Under these provisions, manufacturers
were required to meet the model year 2016 standards in the model years 2017 and 2018,
delay meeting the 2019–2020 standards by one model year, and finally align with the
primary standards and other manufacturers in the 2021 model year. Jaguar Land Rover
and Volvo are the two manufacturers utilizing these alternative compliance schedules.
Small volume manufacturers, with U.S. production of less than 5,000 vehicles per year,
have additional options under the GHG program. This includes the ability to petition EPA
for alternative standards for model year 2017 and later, and allowing these manufacturers
to meet an established alternative model year 2017 standard in model years 2015 and
2016. Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lotus, and McLaren applied for unique alternative standards
-
81
for model years 2017–2021, and EPA established alternative standards for these
manufacturers in a July 2020 determination. 16
Each manufacturer’s standards for model year 2021 are shown in Table 5.1. In model year
2021, average new car footprint increased 0.3 square feet while truck footprint remaining
the same. The more stringent model year 2021 footprint targets, along with changes to
footprint, resulted in a reduction of the car standard by 4 g/mi, from 189 g/mi to 185 g/mi,
and the truck standard by 7 g/mi, from 272 g/mi to 265 g/mi. While there is no combined
car and truck standard for regulatory purposes, this report will often calculate one to
provide an overall view of the industry and to allow comparison across manufacturers.
Overall, the effective combined car and truck standard decreased in model year 2021 by 1
g/mi, from 239 g/mi to 238 g/mi.
Table 5.1. Manufacturer Footprint and Standards for Model Year 2021
Footprint (ft2) Standards (g/mi)

Manufacturer Car Truck All Car Truck All
Aston Martin 49.0 55.4 52.9 376 376 376
BMW 48.1 52.7 50.1 190 259 223
Ferrari 47.7 - 47.7 373 - 373
Ford 47.6 58.8 57.2 188 283 271
GM 45.4 60.0 56.9 181 289 269
Honda 46.6 49.5 47.9 184 245 214
Hyundai 46.5 52.4 47.9 184 258 203
Jaguar Land Rover 46.9 51.8 51.6 185 255 252
Kia 46.1 49.6 47.6 182 245 211
Mazda 45.5 47.0 46.4 180 233 214
McLaren 47.1 - 47.1 329 - 329
Mercedes 49.1 52.4 50.9 193 258 232
Mitsubishi 41.2 44.2 42.0 168 221 183
Nissan 46.1 51.1 47.6 182 252 205
Stellantis 50.3 56.3 55.5 198 274 265
Subaru 44.9 46.0 45.9 177 229 224
Tesla 50.6 51.4 50.6 199 253 203
Toyota 46.5 51.9 49.7 183 256 228
VW 47.1 50.8 49.6 186 251 231
Volvo 48.9 51.1 50.6 193 252 239
All Manufacturers 46.9 54.3 51.5 185 265 238
16
-
89 FR 39561, July 1, 2020.
82
Since the beginning of the GHG program, two notable changes in manufacturer groupings
have occurred. Porsche was part of the program as an independent manufacturer for
model years 2012 and 2013, but has been included as part of Volkswagen for all following
model years. Beginning in model year 2020, Lotus and Volvo submitted data as one
manufacturer for compliance with the GHG program, since both companies are majority
owned by Zhejiang Geely Holding Group Co., Ltd (Geely). EPA determinations related to this
merger are subject to change and will be updated in future reports as necessary. Table 5.1
shows the manufacturers that produced vehicles in model year 2021 using current
manufacturer groupings, while later tables in this report show all manufacturers that were
regulated independently in any model year, to allow for complete credit accounting.
B. Model Year Performance

After determining car and truck fleet standards for the model year, manufacturers must
determine the performance value for their car and truck fleets. This is the average
production-weighted CO2 tailpipe emissions of each fleet, including the impact of several
optional performance credits and adjustments. These credits and adjustments allow
manufacturers to benefit from technologies that reduce emissions but are not wholly
captured in standard regulatory tests, provide incentives for manufacturers to adopt
advanced technologies, and provide flexibility in other areas of the program. The available
performance credits and adjustments include:
• Performance credits for producing alternative fuel vehicles

• Performance credits for improving air conditioning systems
• Performance credits for deploying “off-cycle” technologies that reduce emissions
but are not captured on EPA’s regulatory test cycles
• Adjustments for utilizing alternate methane and nitrous oxide standards
The impact of these credits and adjustments are integral to the annual model year analysis.
Any performance credits generated must be included in the model year fleet calculations
before a manufacturer can bank or trade credits. In addition, the performance value,
including the impact of the performance credits and adjustments, is the most accurate way
to compare how manufacturers’ car and truck fleets are performing in comparison to the
standards within a model year. The standards discussed previously were designed
assuming manufacturers would use these optional provisions; therefore, any comparison
that excludes them is incomplete. Manufacturer tailpipe emissions, and each of the
performance credits and adjustments, are examined in detail below.
-
83
Tailpipe CO2 Emissions
The starting point for determining compliance for each manufacturer is its “2-cycle” tailpipe
GHG emissions value. All manufacturers are required to test their vehicles on the Federal
Test Procedure (known as the “City” test) and the Highway Fuel Economy Test (the
“Highway” test). Results from these two tests are combined by weighting the City test by
55% and the Highway test by 45%, to achieve a single combined CO2 value for each vehicle
model. Manufacturers then calculate a sales-weighted average of all the combined
city/highway values for each car and truck fleet. This represents the measured tailpipe CO2
emissions of a fleet without the application of any additional performance credits. As
discussed previously in this report, 2-cycle tailpipe CO2 emissions should only be used in
the context of the compliance regulations and are not the same as and should not be
compared to the estimated real-world values reported in Sections 1–4.
As part of the GHG program, electric vehicles and fuel cell vehicles are included in the 2-
cycle tailpipe calculations with zero g/mi of tailpipe emissions. Plug-in hybrid vehicles
(PHEVs) are allowed to use a zero g/mi value for the portion of operation attributed to the
use of grid electricity (i.e., only emissions from the portion of operation attributed to the
gasoline engine are counted). Use of the zero g/mi option was limited to the first 200,000
qualified vehicles produced by a manufacturer in the 2012–2016 model years. No
manufacturer reached this limit. In the 2017–2026 model years, manufacturers may
continue to use zero g/mi for these vehicles, without any limits.
Figure 5.3 shows the 2-cycle tailpipe emissions reported by each manufacturer for the 2012
and 2021 model years, for all vehicles and for car and truck fleets. Companies that produce
solely electric vehicles (Tesla) are shown separately in the figure because they produce zero
tailpipe emissions on the 2-cycle tests. Figure 5.3 includes all manufacturers that reported
production in 2012 and 2021; there are additional manufacturers that produced vehicles in
that timespan that are not shown. The tailpipe values in Figure 5.3 should not be directly
compared to the manufacturer’s standards presented in Table 5.1, as the standards were
created taking into consideration the optional performance credits available to
manufacturers to reduce their performance values.
-
84
Figure 5.3. Changes in 2-Cycle Tailpipe CO2 Emissions by Manufacturer
Tesla 0 0
100 150 200 100 150 200 100 150 200
All Car Truck

Mitsubishi 218 267 202 262 258 283
Subaru 238 282 254 257 237 296
Honda 239 266 212 237 266 320
Nissan 240 295 216 258 290 382
Hyundai 243 249 221 243 308 312
A
Kia 245 266 213 258 282 324

!
Volvo 248 311 186 297 266 343

Mazda 253 263 234 241 263 324
Toyota 253 273 206 221 282 354
BMW 263 302 245 277 283 363
VW 277 281 224 274 300 330
Mercedes 299 343 268 316 320 393
t
Ford 300 315 221 261 311 385
l
l
Jaguar Land Rover 320 426 291 376 321 439

GM 324 331 231 283 346 397
A
Stellantis 330 357 300 319 332 384

t
t
l
l
Ferrari 416 494 416 494
All 272 302 210 259 304 369
Manufacturers
200 300 400 500 200 300 400 500 200 300 400 500
2-Cycle Tailpipe CO2 Emissions (g/mi)

&]
85
Every manufacturer that has been in the U.S. market since the GHG program was
implemented in 2012 has reduced fleetwide overall tailpipe GHG emissions, except for
those manufacturers that only produce electric vehicles. Compared to the first year of the
program, Jaguar Land Rover leads manufacturers in both the overall reduction in 2-cycle
CO2 emissions (106 g/mi) and the percentage reduction (25%). Nine manufacturers have
reduced tailpipe CO2 emissions by more than 10%, while the remainder have produced
single digit percentage reductions since the first year of the program. Overall, tailpipe CO2
emissions of the entire fleet have been reduced by 30 g/mi, or about 10%, since the 2012
model year. Compliance is assessed on a fleet-specific basis, and most manufacturers have
reduced emissions within their car and truck fleets, some considerably, leading to
reductions of 49 and 66 g/mi in the car and truck fleets, respectively, since model year
2012. The overall reduction in tailpipe CO2 emissions is smaller than the reduction in either
the car or truck fleets because of the shifting fleet mix towards trucks.
Performance Credits for Producing Alternative Fuel Vehicles

EPA’s GHG program provides performance credits for dedicated and dual fuel alternative
fuel vehicles. Dedicated alternative fuel vehicles run exclusively on an alternative fuel while
dual fuel vehicles can run both on an alternative fuel and on conventional gasoline. This
section describes two pathways for manufacturers to benefit from the production of
alternative fuel vehicles. The first pathway is through a set of defined production
multipliers available for certain alternative fuel vehicles. The second pathway is based on
incentives for gasoline-ethanol flexible fuel vehicles (FFVs), which can run on E85 (85%
ethanol and 15% gasoline), or on conventional gasoline.
Performance Credits for Advanced Technology Vehicles

The GHG program created an incentive for advanced technology vehicles through the
introduction of vehicle “multipliers” for electric vehicles (EVs), plug-in hybrid electric
vehicles (PHEVs), fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), and compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles.
Multipliers allow manufacturers to increase the amount of credits created by each vehicle
during the compliance process. For example, the 1.5 multiplier for 2021 model year EVs
allows a manufacturer to increase the credits created by each electric or fuel cell vehicle by
an additional 50%. The impact of the multipliers is calculated separately from the main car
or truck fleet of each manufacturer and is included in this report as an advanced
technology credit. The multipliers established by rulemaking are shown in Table 5.2. The
credits available for model year 2023 and 2024 are subject to a cumulative credit cap of 10
g/mi.
-
86
Table 5.2. Production Multipliers by Model Year
Dedicated and Dual-

Model Electric Vehicles Plug-In Hybrid Electric Fuel Natural Gas
Year and Fuel Cell Vehicles Vehicles Vehicles
2017 2.0 1.6 1.6
2018 2.0 1.6 1.6
2019 2.0 1.6 1.6
2020 1.75 1.45 1.45
2021 1.5 1.3 1.3
2022 None None 2.0
2023-2024 1.5 1.3 None
2025+ None None None
Figure 5.4 shows the model year 2021 production volume of vehicles qualifying for
multiplier incentives. More than 600,000 EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs were produced in the 2021
model year. Of those vehicles, about 73% were EVs, 27% were PHEVs, and less than 1%
were FCVs. There were no CNG vehicles subject to the GHG standards in the 2021 model
year, and only a limited number of CNG vehicles in prior years. Figure 4.14 in the previous
section shows the overall growth in EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs.
The impacts of the advanced technology multiplier credit are shown in Figure 5.5. The
impact of this incentive is particularly evident for Tesla, because Tesla produces only
electric vehicles. Before including air condition and off-cycle credits, each Tesla vehicle on
average created 203 g/mi of credits, which is the difference between Tesla’s standard and
their 0 g/mi tailpipe emissions. The 1.5 multiplier results in an additional 102 g/mi of credit
per vehicle, on average, for Tesla. Tesla is shown separately in Figure 5.5 due to the scale of
the credits generated by their vehicles.
After Tesla, Volvo had the highest g/mi effect on their fleet performance, at 9.4 g/mi. Of
Volvo’s model year 2021 production, 6.6% were EVs and another 11.6% were PHEVs. VW
had the third highest g/mi effect on their fleet performance, at 7.6 g/mi due to 5.9% EVs
and 1.4% PHEVs. Tesla, Volvo, and VW had the highest percentage of EVs, while Ferrari,
Volvo, and BMW had the highest percentage of PHEVs.
-
87
Figure 5.4. Model Year 2021 Production of EVs, PHEVs, and FCVs
Electric Vehicle
Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicle
300
Fuel Cell Vehicle
250
Production (000)
200
50
BM n
M a
M zda
L a yu a
ta
lvo
er en
s la
its es
el n
S u t is
ru
ri
Ro ai
Ni hi
r
VW
H M
rd
Fe W
ti
Ki
ar H nd
ve
St s a
rra
yo
is
nd nd
ar
ba
M ed
n
G
M ar
Fo
Vo
Te
a
la
ub
o
To
M
cL
c
n
to
As
gu
Ja
Figure 5.5. Model Year 2021 Advanced Technology Credits by Manufacturer
250
200
GHG Credits (g/mi)
GHG Credits (g/mi)
150
All
2 Manufacturers
100
1
50
All
Mfrs.
0
a
sl
Te
88
EPA finalized a technical amendment on March 31, 2020 that corrects the regulations
pertaining to how manufacturers calculate credits for the GHG program’s advanced
technology incentives. 17 Manufacturers that produced vehicles eligible for these incentives
have resubmitted 2-cycle data to EPA, and this report uses these updated data and
calculations.
Gasoline-Ethanol Flexible Fuel Vehicles

For the 2012 to 2015 model years, FFVs could earn performance credits corresponding to
the fuel economy credits under CAFE. For both programs, it was assumed that FFVs
operated half of the time on each fuel. The GHG credits were based on the arithmetic
average of alternative fuel and conventional fuel CO2 emissions. Further, to fully align the
GHG credit with the CAFE program, the CO2 emissions measurement on the alternative fuel
was multiplied by 0.15. The 0.15 factor was used because, under the CAFE program’s
implementing statutes, a gallon of alternative fuel is deemed to contain 0.15 gallons of
gasoline fuel, and the E85 fuel economy is divided by 0.15 before being averaged with the
gasoline fuel economy.
Starting in model year 2016, GHG compliance values for FFVs are based on the actual
emissions performance of the FFV on each fuel, weighted by EPA’s assessment of the actual
use of these fuels in FFVs. In 2014, EPA issued a determination defining an “F factor” of 0.14
to use when weighting E85 and gasoline CO2 emissions for the 2016–2018 model years
FFVs; this reflects EPA’s estimate that FFVs would be operating 14% of the time on E85. This
approach is comparable to the “utility factor” method used to weight gasoline and
electricity for PHEVs, which projects the percentage of miles that a PHEV will drive using
electricity based on how many miles a fully charged PHEV can drive using grid electricity.
EPA also adopted an F-factor of 0.14 for model years 2019 and 2020, and in a separate
action has extended the use of 0.14 to model years 2021 and later. 18 This value will
continue to apply until EPA issues a new determination.
FFVs can still represent a CO2 emissions benefit and can help to lower the emissions of a
manufacturer’s fleet, but the overall impact is significantly diminished. Because the FFV
values now incorporate the slightly lower CO2 emissions when operating on E85 (typically
1–3% lower than on gasoline), and a realistic rate of E85 fuel use, the benefit from FFVs is
no longer of the same magnitude that it was through the 2015 model year. Thus, we are no
1785 FR 22609, April 23, 2020.

18“E85 Flexible Fuel Vehicle Weighting Factor for Model Years 2020 and Later Vehicles,’’ EPA Office of Air and
Radiation, CD–20–12.
-
89
longer illustrating a g/mi benefit to manufacturers specific to producing FFVs. The impact of
E85, a lower-GHG fuel than gasoline, is inseparable from, and built into, the 2-cycle
emissions described earlier.
Performance Credits for Improved Air Conditioning Systems

Almost all new cars and light trucks in the United States are equipped with air conditioning
(A/C) systems. There are two mechanisms by which A/C systems contribute to the
emissions of greenhouse gases: through leakage of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) refrigerants
(i.e., “direct” emissions) and through the combustion of fuel to provide mechanical power
to the A/C system (i.e., “indirect” emissions). The EPA 2-cycle compliance tests do not
measure either A/C refrigerant leakage or the increase in tailpipe emissions attributable to
the additional engine load of A/C systems. Thus, the GHG emission regulations include a
provision that allows manufacturers to earn optional credits for implementing technologies
that reduce either type of A/C-related emissions.
Air Conditioning Leakage Performance Credits

Refrigerants used in automotive air conditioning systems can have high global warming
potentials (GWP) 19, such that leakage of a small amount of refrigerant can have a far
greater impact on global warming than emissions of a similar mass of CO2. The impacts of
refrigerant leakage can be reduced significantly by using systems with leak-tight
components, by using a refrigerant with a lower GWP, or by implementing both
approaches.
A manufacturer choosing to generate A/C leakage credits is required to calculate a leakage

“score” for the specific A/C system. This score is based on the number, performance, and
technology of the components, fittings, seals, and hoses of the A/C system and is calculated
as refrigerant emissions in grams per year, using the procedures specified by the SAE
Surface Vehicle Standard J2727. The score is then converted to a g/mi credit value based on
the GWP of the refrigerant. In model year 2012, all leakage credits were based on
improvements to the A/C system components (e.g., O-rings, seals, valves, and fittings).
In model year 2013, GM and Honda introduced vehicles using a refrigerant with a
significantly reduced GWP. This new refrigerant, HFO-1234yf, has a GWP of 4, compared to
a GWP of 1430 for the predominant refrigerant at the time, HFC-134a, as illustrated in
The global warming potential (GWP) represents how much a given mass of a chemical contributes to global
19
warming over a given time period compared to the same mass of CO2. The GWP of CO2 is 1.0.
-
90
Figure 5.6. In the eight model years since, low GWP refrigerant use has expanded to 95% of
new vehicles. Of the remaining 5% of new vehicles that are not using HFO-1234yf, all except
a very small number achieved A/C leakage credits through improved performance of the
air conditioning system. All manufacturers reported some type of A/C leakage credits in the
2021 model year, resulting in an overall performance credit of 15.1 g/mi for the industry.
Figure 5.6. HFO-1234yf Adoption by Manufacturer
100%
75%
Production Share
50%
25%
0%
--
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Model Year
2018 2019 2020 2021
Air Conditioning Efficiency Performance Credits

The A/C system also contributes to increased tailpipe CO2 emissions through the additional
work required by the engine to operate the compressor, fans, and blowers. This power
demand is ultimately met by using additional fuel, which is converted into CO2 by the
engine during combustion and exhausted through the tailpipe. Increasing the overall
efficiency of an A/C system reduces the additional load on the engine from A/C operation,
and thereby leads to a reduction in fuel consumption and a commensurate reduction in
GHG emissions.
- ------ 91
Most of the additional load on the engine from A/C systems comes from the compressor,
which pressurizes the refrigerant and pumps it around the system loop. A significant
additional load may also come from electric or hydraulic fans, which move air across the
condenser, and from the electric blower, which moves air across the evaporator and into
the cabin. Manufacturers have several options for improving efficiency, including more
efficient compressors, fans, and motors, and system controls that avoid over-chilling the air
(and subsequently re-heating it to provide the desired air temperature). For vehicles
equipped with automatic climate-control systems, real-time adjustment of several aspects
of the overall system can result in improved efficiency.
The regulations provide manufacturers with a menu of A/C system technologies and
associated credit values (in g/mi of CO2), some of which are described above. These credits
are capped at 5.7 g/mi for all vehicles in the 2012–2016 model years, and at 5.0 and 7.2
g/mi for cars and trucks, respectively, in the 2017 and later model years. Seventeen out of
twenty manufacturers reported A/C efficiency credits in 2020, resulting in an average credit
of 5.7 g/mi for the industry.
Air Conditioning Performance Credit Summary

A summary of the A/C leakage and efficiency performance credits reported by the industry
is shown in Figure 5.7. Leakage credits have been more prevalent than efficiency credits,
but both credit types are growing in use. Figure 5.8 shows the benefit of A/C credits, for
each manufacturer’s fleet for the 2021 model year. All manufacturers used the A/C credit
provisions—leakage reductions, efficiency improvements, or both—as part of their
compliance demonstration in the 2021 model year. Jaguar Land Rover had the highest
reported credit on a per vehicle g/mi basis, at 24.2 g/mi. Thus, A/C credits are the
equivalent of about an 8% reduction from tailpipe emissions for Jaguar Land Rover. All but
two manufacturers, Aston Martin and McLaren, reported at least 11 g/mi of credits. The
overall industry reported an average of 20.8 g/mi of total A/C credits.
-
92
Figure 5.7. Fleetwide A/C Credits by Credit Type
25
I.
Credit Source
A/C Efficiency
A/C Leakage
20
15
GHG Credits (g/mi)
10
0 II
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Model Year
Figure 5.8. Total A/C Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021
25
Credit Source
A/C Efficiency
[. A/C Leakage
20
GHG Credits (g/mi)
15
10
- ------ 93
Performance Credits for “Off-Cycle” Technology
In some cases, manufacturers employ technologies that result in CO2 emission reductions
that are not adequately captured on the 2-cycle test procedures. These benefits are
acknowledged in EPA’s regulations by giving manufacturers three pathways by which to
accrue “off-cycle” performance credits. The first, and most widely used, pathway is a
predetermined list or “menu” of credit values for specific off-cycle technologies. The second
pathway is to use a broader array of emissions testing (5-cycle testing) to demonstrate the
CO2 emission reduction. The third pathway allows manufacturers to seek EPA approval to
use an alternative methodology to demonstrate CO2 emission reductions.
Off Cycle Performance Credits Based on the Menu

The first pathway to generating off-cycle credits is for a manufacturer to install
technologies from a predetermined list or “menu” of technologies preapproved by EPA. The
off-cycle credit menu provides specific credit values, or the calculation method for such
values, for each technology. 20 Technologies from the menu may be used beginning in
model year 2014. This pathway allows manufacturers to use conservative credit values
established by EPA for a wide range of off-cycle technologies, with minimal data submittal
or testing requirements.
The regulations clearly define each technology and any requirements that apply for the
technology to generate credits. Figure 5.9 shows the adoption of menu technologies, by
manufacturer. The amount of credit awarded varies for each technology and between cars
and trucks. The impact of credits from this pathway on a manufacturer’s fleet is capped at
10 g/mi through model year 2022, meaning that any single vehicle might accumulate more
than 10 g/mi, but the cumulative effect on a single manufacturer’s fleet may not exceed a
credit of more than 10 g/mi. The manufacturer cap increases to 15 g/mi for model year
2023 through 2026 before reverting to 10 g/mi for subsequent model years. Off-cycle
technology credits based on the menu were widely used in model year 2021, with more
than 95% of off-cycle credits generated via the menu pathway. Each of these technologies
is discussed below.
20 See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(b).

-
94
Figure 5.9. Off-Cycle Menu Technology Adoption by Manufacturer, Model Year
2021
Aston Martin
BMW 81% 100% 18% 91% 96% 94% 100%
72% 100% 100%
Ford 87% 27% 100% 100% 3% 67% 90% 88% 87% 93%
GM 75% 26% 100% 100% 25% 56% 17% 76% 97% 91%
33% 8% 100% 100% 8% 96% 71% 73% 86% 100%
Hyundai 7% 77% 23% 91% 100% 19% 32% 73% 40% 94% 66%
Jaguar Land Rover 96% 63% 100% 100% 91% 99% 100%
Kia 1% 58% 18% 100% 100% 23% 25% 65% 52% 98% 60%
Maserati
Mazda 60% 23% 82% 27% 97% 22%
McLaren 70% 100% 100% 100%
Mercedes 36% 95% 37% 20% 99%
Mitsubishi 63% 1% 98% 1% 62% 100%
Nissan 61% 4% 69% 29% 16% 34% 65% 63% 86%
Stellantis 47% 86% 16% 86% 87% 3% 85% 61% 70% 29% 70%
Subaru 45% 7% 97% 95% 80% 96% 76%
Tesla 100% 100% 100% 100%
Toyota 22% 11% 53% 100% 14% 36% 53% 43% 68% 95%
Volkswagen 53% 65% 23% 94% 96% 3% 93% 21% 85% 91% 100%
Volvo 26% 100% 100% 32% 93% 12% 100%
All Manufacturers 48% 24% 17% 86% 79% 12% 53% 54% 58% 68% 85%
ro nt en
t
ing nt ng up up rt tor tin
g
e Ae i n Ve
atV l az i n Ve oati ar m ar m p Sta r na igh
ti v ab e r G ab r C W W to l te L
Ac S o la S A c y
C
tive ss C
So ine ns cy en
tive Ac Gla ssi
ve ng Tra ien fici
Ac Pa e E
tiv e ffi c E f
tiv Ac hE h
Ac Hig Hig
Credit Type
Active Aerodynamic Improvements Engine Idle Start Stop
Thermal Control Technologies High Efficiency Alternator
Active Warmup High Efficiency Lighting
95
Active Aerodynamics
Active aerodynamics refers to technologies which are automatically activated to improve
the aerodynamics of a vehicle under certain conditions. These include grill shutters and
spoilers, which allow air to flow over and around the vehicle more efficiently, and
suspension systems that improve air flow at higher speeds by reducing the height of the
vehicle. Credits are variable and based on the measured improvement in the coefficient of
drag, a test metric that reflects the efficiency of airflow around a vehicle. Most
manufacturers implemented at least some level of active aerodynamics on their model
year 2020 vehicles. Tesla reported the highest implementation, at 100% of all new vehicles.
Overall, 48% of new vehicles qualified for these credits, reducing overall fleet CO2
emissions by 0.5 g/mi.
Thermal Control Technologies

Thermal control systems help to maintain a comfortable air temperature of the vehicle
interior, without the use of the A/C system. These technologies lower the load on the A/C
system and thus the amount of fuel required to run the A/C system, subsequently lowering
GHG tailpipe emissions. The thermal control technologies included in the off-cycle menu
are:
• Active and passive cabin ventilation – Active systems use mechanical means to
vent the interior, while passive systems rely on ventilation through convective air
flow. Credits available for this technology range from 1.7 to 2.8 g/mi.
• Active seat ventilation – These systems move air through the seating surface,
transferring heat away from the vehicle occupants. Credits are 1.0 g/mi for cars
and 1.3 g/mi for trucks.
• Glass or glazing – Credits are available for glass or glazing technologies that
reduce the total solar transmittance through the glass, thus reducing the heat
from the sun that reaches the occupants. The credits are calculated based on
the measured solar transmittance through the glass and on the total area of
glass on the vehicle.
• Solar reflective surface coating – Credits are available for solar reflective surface
coating (e.g., paint) that reflects at least 65% of the infrared solar energy. Credits
are 0.4 g/mi for cars and 0.5 g/mi for trucks.
Active cabin ventilation was installed on 24% of all new vehicles in model year 2021, with
Tesla and BMW utilizing this technology on all of their vehicles. Hyundai, Kia, Stellantis, and
-
96
VW also utilized active cabin ventilation. Passive cabin ventilation technologies, however,
were used much more widely, with eight manufacturers reporting passive cabin ventilation
on all model year 2021 production, and a 79% adoption rate overall.
Active seat ventilation was used by many manufacturers and the rate of implementation
remained about the same at 17% in model year 2021. Jaguar Land Rover was the leader in
adopting active seat ventilation, with implementation on 63% of their vehicles. Glass or
glazing technology continues to be used throughout the industry, with more than 86% of
the model year 2021 vehicles equipped with these technologies. Solar reflective coatings
have been used less widely, with a penetration of 12% across new vehicles in model year
2021, and no manufacturer above 40%.
Due to the likelihood of synergistic effects among the various thermal technologies, the
total credit allowed from this technology group is capped at 3.0 g/mi for cars and 4.3 g/mi
for trucks. Overall, manufacturers widely adopted thermal control technologies, which
reduced model year 2021 overall new vehicle fleet CO2 emissions by 3.1 g/mi
Active Engine and Transmission Warmup

Active engine and transmission warmup systems use heat from the vehicle that would
typically be wasted (exhaust heat, for example) to warm up key elements of the engine,
allowing a faster transition to more efficient operation. An engine or transmission at its
optimal operating temperature minimizes internal friction, and thus operates more
efficiently and reduces tailpipe CO2 emissions. Systems that use a single heat-exchanging
loop that serves both transmission and engine warmup functions are eligible for either
engine or transmission warmup credits, but not both. Active engine and transmission
warmup technologies are each worth credit up to 1.5 g/mi for cars and 3.2 g/mi for trucks.
Most manufacturers adopted warmup technologies for their engines, transmissions, or

both. Active engine warmup was installed in 53% of all new vehicles, and active
transmission warmup in 54% of the fleet, resulting in a CO2 reduction of about 2.7 g/mi
across the 2021 model year fleet. Honda, BMW, Volvo, and VW led the industry in active
engine warmup, with more than 90% of their new vehicles employing the technology.
Ferrari, McLaren, Mitsubishi, Mazda, and Subaru led the industry in active transmission
warmup technologies, with more than 95% of their new vehicles utilizing these
technologies.
-
97
Engine Idle Stop/Start
Engine idle stop/start systems allow the engine to turn off when the vehicle is at a stop,
automatically restarting the engine when the driver releases the brake and/or applies
pressure to the accelerator. If equipped with a switch to disable the system, EPA must
determine that the predominant operating mode of the system is the “on” setting
(defaulting to “on” every time the key is turned on is one basis for such a determination).
Thus, some vehicles with these systems are not eligible for credits. Credits range from 1.5
to 4.4 g/mi and depend on whether the system is equipped with an additional technology
that, at low ambient temperatures, allows heat to continue to be circulated to the vehicle
occupants when the engine is off during a stop-start event.
The implementation of stop/start has been increasing rapidly, as discussed in Section 4,

which aggregates and reports on these systems regardless of the regulatory eligibility for
credits. In model year 2021, 58% of new vehicles qualified for and claimed this credit,
resulting in a fleetwide CO2 reduction of about 2.2 g/mi. Ten manufacturers installed stop
start systems on at least half of their model year 2021 vehicles.
High Efficiency Exterior Lights

High efficiency lights (e.g., LEDs) reduce the total electric demand, and thus the fuel
consumption and related GHG emissions, of a lighting system in comparison to
conventional incandescent lighting. Credits are based on the specific lighting locations,
ranging from 0.06 g/mi for turn signals and parking lights to 0.38 g/mi for low beams. The
total of all lighting credits summed from all lighting locations may not exceed 1.0 g/mi.
Unlike some other off-cycle technologies, safety regulations require that all vehicles must
be equipped with lights, and the popularity of high efficiency lights across manufacturers
may reflect that lighting improvements are relatively straightforward to implement. All
manufacturers, except Mazda and Aston Martin, reported high efficiency lighting
implementation on at least 60% of their new vehicles in model year 2021. Overall, in model
year 2021, 85% of new vehicles implemented high efficiency lighting in some form,
reducing fleetwide CO2 emissions by 0.5 g/mi.
High Efficiency Alternators

Alternators convert mechanical energy from an engine into electrical energy, which is used
to power the vehicle’s electrical system and accessories. High efficiency alternators reduce
the amount of mechanical energy needed to drive the alternator and provide the necessary
electrical requirements of the vehicle. High efficiency alternators were added as an off-
cycle menu option beginning in model year 2020. Twelve manufacturers claimed menu
-
98
credits for high-efficiency alternators on 68% of all new vehicles, reducing fleetwide CO2
emissions by 0.6 g/mi. Two manufacturers also claimed credits for high-efficiency
alternators in model year 2021 through the alternative methodology described below.
Solar Panels
Vehicles that use batteries for propulsion, such as electric, plug-in hybrid electric, and
hybrid vehicles may receive credits for solar panels that are used to charge the battery
directly or to provide power directly to essential vehicle systems (e.g., heating and cooling
systems). Credits are based on the rated power of the solar panels. Hyundai claimed this
credit in model year 2021 for a small number of vehicles.
Summary of Off-Cycle Menu-Based Performance Credits

As shown in Table 5.3, manufacturers are using a mix of off-cycle menu technologies,
though each uses and benefits from the individual technologies to differing degrees. In
model year 2021, the industry achieved 8.5 g/mi of credits from the menu, based on a
production weighted average of credits across all manufacturers. BMW, Ford, GM, Honda,
Jaguar Land Rover, Stellantis, and VW all reached the 10 g/mi cap in 2021. For those
manufacturers, the sum of the credits from individual technologies in Table 5.3 will exceed
the total allowable credits, and only the 10 g/mi value will be used in subsequent
calculations. The overall industry-wide value of 8.5 g/mi reflects the capped credits.
Off-Cycle Performance Credits Based on 5-Cycle Testing
In cases where additional laboratory testing can demonstrate emission benefits, a second
pathway allows manufacturers to use a broader array of emission tests (known as “5-cycle”
testing because the methodology uses five different testing procedures) to demonstrate
and justify off-cycle CO2 credits. 21 The additional emission tests allow emission benefits to
be demonstrated over elements of real-world driving not captured by the GHG compliance
tests, including high speeds, rapid accelerations, and cold temperatures. Credits
determined according to this methodology do not undergo additional public review.
21
-
See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(c).
99
Table 5.3. Model Year 2021 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from the Menu, by Manufacturer and Technology
(g/mi)
Active Active Active High High Total

Aero- Thermal Engine Trans Engine Efficiency Efficiency Solar Menu
Manufacturer dynamics Controls Warmup Warmup Stop-Start Alternator Lighting Panels Credits
Aston Martin - - - - - - - - -
BMW 1.3 3.3 2.2 - 2.7 - 0.9 - 10.0
Ferrari - 0.2 - 1.5 - - 1.0 - 2.7
Ford 1.6 3.8 2.0 2.8 3.8 1.0 0.5 - 10.0
GM 0.9 3.9 1.5 0.5 3.1 0.8 0.7 - 10.0
Honda 0.1 3.0 2.2 1.5 2.4 0.4 0.4 - 10.0
Hyundai 0.0 2.9 0.6 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.2 0.1 7.1
Jaguar Land Rover 1.1 4.2 - 2.9 4.3 - 0.5 - 10.0
Kia 0.0 3.1 0.6 1.4 1.4 0.7 0.1 - 7.3
Mazda 0.3 1.2 0.8 2.6 - 0.1 - - 4.9
McLaren 0.6 - - 1.5 1.5 - 0.8 - 4.4
Mercedes - 1.7 - - 0.8 - 1.0 - 3.5
Mitsubishi - 0.5 - 2.0 0.0 0.3 0.4 - 3.2
Nissan 0.4 0.9 0.7 1.3 - 0.4 0.4 - 4.2
Stellantis 0.5 3.7 2.7 2.0 3.1 0.3 0.3 - 10.0
Subaru 0.2 1.3 - 3.0 2.3 0.7 0.4 - 7.9
Tesla 1.1 3.1 - - - - 0.7 - 4.9
Toyota 0.1 3.7 0.3 1.3 1.6 0.5 0.5 - 8.0
VW 0.3 2.4 2.5 0.4 3.1 1.5 0.8 - 10.0
Volvo - 3.7 2.7 - 0.5 - 1.0 - 7.9
All Manufacturers 0.5 3.1 1.3 1.4 2.2 0.6 0.5 0.0 8.5
- -------- 100
GM is the only manufacturer to date to have claimed off-cycle credits based on 5-cycle
testing. These credits are for an auxiliary electric pump used on certain GM gasoline-
electric hybrid vehicles to keep engine coolant circulating in cold weather while the vehicle
is stopped and the engine is off. This enables the engine stop-start system to turn off the
engine more often during cold weather, while maintaining a comfortable temperature
inside the vehicle. GM received off-cycle credits during the early credits program for
equipping hybrid full size pick-up trucks with this technology and has since applied the
technology to several other vehicles through model year 2017. They did not claim credits
for this technology in model year 2021.
Off-Cycle Performance Credits Based on an Alternative Methodology

This third pathway for off-cycle technology performance credits allows manufacturers to
seek EPA approval to use an alternative methodology for determining off-cycle technology
CO2 credits. 22 This option is only available if the benefit of the technology cannot be
adequately demonstrated using the 5-cycle methodology. Manufacturers may also use this
option for model years prior to 2014 to demonstrate CO2 reductions for technologies that
are on the off-cycle menu, or reductions that exceed those available via use of the menu.
The regulations require that EPA seek public comment on and publish each manufacturer’s
application for credits sought using this pathway.
After reviewing the petitions submitted by manufacturers, EPA drafts and publishes
decision documents that explain the impacts and applicability of the unique alternative
method technologies via the Federal Register. Each alternative methodology Federal
Register notice and technology explanation can be found through the following EPA
website: https://www.epa.gov/ve-certification/compliance-information-light-duty-
greenhouse-gas-ghg-standards. To date, thirteen manufacturers have applied for and
received credits for technologies through alternative methodologies. Several applications
request credits for technologies initially submitted by other manufacturers, thus, more
than one manufacturer may ultimately request credits for similar technology. The off-cycle
technologies that have been approved to date under the alternative pathway include:
Menu technologies (alternative values or retroactive credits)

EPA has approved credit requests for retroactive credits back to model year 2012, or for
manufacturers that have requested alternative credit amounts. This includes credits for
22
-
See 40 CFR 86.1869-12(d).
101
stop-start systems, high-efficiency lighting, infrared glass glazing, solar reflective paint, and
active seat ventilation technologies
High Efficiency Air Conditioning Compressors

In September of 2015, EPA approved credits for the use of high efficiency air conditioner
compressors. These systems provide real-world benefits using an A/C compressor with
variable crankcase suction valve technology.
High Efficiency Alternators

In December of 2016, EPA approved credits for the use of high efficiency alternators. High
efficiency alternators use new technologies that reduce the overall load on the engine
while continuing to meet the electrical demands of the vehicle systems, resulting in lower
fuel consumption and lower CO2 emissions. High efficiency alternators were added to the
off-cycle menu credits beginning in model year 2020, although some manufacturers
continue to receive credits through alternative methodology instead.
Active Climate Controlled Seats

In September of 2017, EPA approved credits for the use of active climate-controlled seats,
which provide cooled air directly to the occupants through the seats, thus reducing the
overall load on the air conditioning system.
Brushless Motors
In October of 2019, EPA approved credits for the use of a pulse width modulated brushless
motor power controller through the alternative methodology pathway. This “brushless
motor” technology is used to improve the efficiency of the HVAC system.
Cold Storage Evaporators

In October of 2020, EPA approved credits for a “cold storage evaporator.” Air-conditioning
systems employing this technology essentially freeze a mass of material during normal
operation, such that the material can provide cabin cooling when the engine is off. This
allows stop-start systems to leave the engine off longer, resulting in reductions in
emissions and fuel usage.
Summary of Off-Cycle Alternative Methodology Credits

Since the beginning of the light-duty GHG program, thirteen manufacturers have been
granted approval for alternative methodology off-cycle GHG credits using the alternative
methodology pathway. Nine manufacturers requested off-cycle credits based on the
-
102
approved alternative methodologies in model year 2021. Table 5.4 shows the impact of the
credits submitted for model year 2021. On a total fleetwide basis, the aggregated credit is
0.2 g/mi for model year 2021.
Table 5.4. Model Year 2021 Off-Cycle Technology Credits from an Alternative
Methodology, by Manufacturer and Technology (g/mi)
Total
Menu A/C High- Cold Alternative
Tech- Com- Efficiency Brushless Storage Methodology
Manufacturer nologies pressor Alternator Motors Evaporator Credits
GM - - - 0.1 - 0.1
Honda - - - - 0.6 0.6
Hyundai - 0.4 - - - 0.4
Kia - 0.3 - - - 0.3
Mazda 0.7 - - - - 0.7
Nissan - 0.2 - - - 0.2
Stellantis - - 0.5 - - 0.5
Subaru - - - 0.0 - 0.0
Toyota - 0.0 0.0 0.1 - 0.2
All Manufacturers 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2
Off-Cycle Performance Credit Summary

In total, the industry achieved 8.7 g/mi of off-cycle performance credits in model year 2021.
More than 95% of those credits were claimed using technologies, and credit definitions, on
the off-cycle menu. The remaining credits were due almost entirely to manufacturer
submitted alternative methodologies. Figure 5.10 shows the average credit, in g/mi, that
each manufacturer achieved in model year 2021. Honda achieved the highest gram per
mile benefit from off-cycle credits at 10.6 g/mi, followed closely by Stellantis at 10.5 g/mi
and several manufacturers around 10.0 g/mi. Most manufacturers achieved at least some
off-cycle credits; Aston Martin was the only manufacturer to not report any off-cycle credits
for model year 2021.
-
103
Figure 5.10. Total Off-Cycle Credits by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021
12 Non-Menu Credits
Menu Credits
10-
8-
GHG Credits (g/mi)
4-
2-
0
hi
Su s
nd ai
M ren
M des
n
M da
W
da
a
M
ta
n
rd
ru
lvo
ri
VW
ve
i
sa
sl
Ki
ti
rra
nt
is
La nd
G
yo
ba
Fo
BM
az
on
ar
Te
Vo
Ro
ub
la
ce
is
Fe
yu
To
M
cL
M
H
el
N
its
er
H
n
St
to
As
ar
gu
Ja
Alternative Standards for Methane and Nitrous Oxide

As part of the GHG Program, EPA set emission standards for methane (CH4) and nitrous
oxide (N2O) at 0.030 g/mi for CH4 and 0.010 g/mi for N2O. Current levels of CH4 and N2O
emissions are generally well below these established standards, however the caps were set
to prevent future increases in emissions.
There are three different ways for a manufacturer to demonstrate compliance with these
standards. First, manufacturers may submit test data as they do for all other non-GHG
emission standards; this option is used by most manufacturers. Because there are no
credits or deficits involved with this approach, and there are no consequences with respect
to the CO2 fleet average calculation, the manufacturers are not required to submit this data
as part of their GHG reporting. Hence, this GHG compliance report does not include
information from manufacturers using this option.
- ------ 104
The second option for manufacturers is to include CH4 and N2O, on a CO2-equivalent basis,
when calculating their fleet average performance values, in lieu of demonstrating
compliance with the regulatory caps. This method directly accounts for CH4 and N2O,
increasing the performance value of a manufacturer’s fleets, while the standards remain
unchanged. Analyses of emissions data have shown that use of this option may add
approximately 3 g/mi to a manufacturer’s fleet average. No manufacturers have elected to
use this approach since the 2019 model year
The third option for complying with the CH4 and N2O standards allows manufacturers to
propose an alternative, less stringent CH4 and/or N2O standard for any vehicle that may
have difficulty meeting the specific standards. However, manufacturers that use this
approach must also calculate the increased emissions due to the less stringent standards
and the production volumes of the vehicles to which those standards apply, and then add
that impact from their overall fleet performance. Ten manufacturers made use of the
flexibility offered by this approach in the 2021 model year. In aggregate, the impact of the
methane and nitrous oxide flexibilities resulted in an increase in the industry-wide
performance of about 0.3 g/mi.
Summary of Manufacturer Performance

Each of the performance credits and adjustments described here have been used by
manufacturers as part of their compliance strategies under the GHG program. As
described above, the availability of these provisions, and the magnitude of their impact,
has varied both by manufacturer and model year. Table 5.5 through Table 5.10 below
detail the impact of these provisions by manufacturer for model year 2021, and for the
aggregated industry over the course of the GHG Program. The performance values in these
tables can be derived by subtracting the credits and adjustment from the 2-Cycle Tailpipe
value.
-
105
Table 5.5. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2021, All (g/mi)
Performance Credits and Adjustments

2-Cycle Adv. Off- CH4 & Performance
Manufacturer Tailpipe Tech FFV A/C Cycle N2 O Value
Aston Martin 413 - - - - - 413
BMW 263 3.8 - 21.3 10.0 -0.0 228
Ferrari 416 - - 13.8 2.7 - 400
Ford 300 2.3 - 23.6 10.0 -0.2 264
GM 324 0.6 - 23.1 10.1 -1.2 292
Honda 239 0.1 - 20.4 10.6 - 208
Hyundai 243 1.7 - 18.1 7.6 -0.0 216
Jaguar Land Rover 320 1.5 - 24.2 10.0 -0.0 284
Kia 245 0.3 - 18.8 7.6 -0.0 218
Mazda 253 - - 5.1 5.6 -0.8 243
McLaren 410 - - 12.0 4.4 - 394
Mercedes 299 - - 13.7 3.5 - 282
Mitsubishi 218 0.2 - 18.4 3.2 - 196
Nissan 240 0.8 - 18.5 4.3 - 216
Stellantis 330 1.9 - 23.3 10.5 -0.3 295
Subaru 238 0.1 - 21.1 7.9 - 209
Tesla 0 101.9 - 18.8 4.9 - -126
Toyota 253 1.4 - 20.4 8.1 -0.3 224
VW 277 7.6 - 21.9 10.0 -0.0 237
Volvo 248 9.4 - 22.2 7.9 - 208
All Manufacturers 272 3.8 - 20.8 8.7 -0.3 239
Table 5.6. Industry Performance by Model Year, All (g/mi)

Model Year Tailpipe Tech FFV A/C Cycle N2 O Value
2012 302 - 8.1 6.1 1.0 -0.2 287
2013 294 - 7.8 6.9 1.1 -0.3 278
2014 294 - 8.9 8.5 3.3 -0.2 273
2015 286 - 6.4 9.4 3.4 -0.2 267
2016 285 - - 10.3 3.6 -0.1 271
2017 284 2.2 - 13.8 5.6 -0.1 262
2018 280 3.7 - 16.3 7.0 -0.1 253
2019 282 3.0 - 17.9 7.7 -0.1 253
2020 275 2.9 - 19.3 8.4 -0.2 244
2021 272 3.8 - 20.8 8.7 -0.3 239
-
106
Table 5.7. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2021, Car (g/mi)

Aston Martin 353 - - - - - 353
BMW 245 3.0 - 18.7 7.9 -0.0 215
Ferrari 416 - - 13.8 2.7 - 400
Ford 221 18.0 - 18.5 7.6 -0.1 177
GM 231 3.3 - 18.1 7.7 -0.0 202
Honda 212 0.2 - 17.3 6.9 - 188
Hyundai 221 2.3 - 17.1 5.8 -0.0 196
Jaguar Land Rover 291 - - 18.7 6.3 - 266
Kia 213 0.5 - 16.9 5.2 -0.1 191
Mazda 234 - - 3.3 3.0 -0.4 228
McLaren 410 - - 12.0 4.4 - 394
Mercedes 268 - - 11.2 2.4 - 254
Mitsubishi 202 0.3 - 17.3 2.5 - 182
Nissan 216 1.1 - 17.6 3.2 - 194
Stellantis 319 - - 18.6 0.5 - 300
Subaru 254 - - 15.0 2.6 - 236
Tesla - 99.7 - 18.3 4.7 - -123
Toyota 206 1.2 - 17.3 5.5 -0.1 182
VW 224 12.1 - 18.1 7.2 -0.0 187
Volvo 186 25.6 - 17.8 4.7 - 138
Table 5.8. Industry Performance by Model Year, Car (g/mi)

Model Year Tailpipe Tech FFV A/C Cycle N2O Value
2012 259 - 4.0 5.4 0.6 -0.1 249
2013 251 - 4.0 6.3 0.7 -0.3 240
2014 250 - 4.6 7.5 2.2 -0.3 236
2015 243 - 3.1 8.1 2.3 -0.1 230
2016 240 - - 8.8 2.3 -0.1 229
2017 235 4.3 - 10.2 3.5 -0.0 217
2018 228 7.6 - 12.9 4.2 -0.0 204
2019 228 6.3 - 14.7 4.4 -0.0 203
2020 221 6.5 - 15.8 5.2 -0.1 194
2021 210 8.5 - 17.0 5.3 -0.0 179
-
107
Table 5.9. Manufacturer Performance in Model Year 2021, Truck (g/mi)

Aston Martin 446 - - - - - 446
BMW 283 4.6 - 24.2 12.3 - 242
Ferrari - - - - - - -
Ford 311 0.1 - 24.4 10.3 -0.2 276
GM 346 - - 24.2 10.7 -1.5 313
Honda 266 - - 23.5 14.5 - 228
Hyundai 308 - - 20.9 12.7 - 274
Jaguar Land Rover 321 1.6 - 24.4 10.1 -0.0 285
Kia 282 - - 21.1 10.5 - 250
Mazda 263 - - 6.1 7.1 -1.1 251
McLaren - - - - - - -
Mercedes 320 - - 15.4 4.3 - 300
Mitsubishi 258 - - 21.2 5.1 - 232
Nissan 290 - - 20.5 6.8 - 263
Stellantis 332 2.1 - 23.9 11.8 -0.4 295
Subaru 237 0.1 - 21.7 8.4 - 207
Tesla - 126.7 - 24.1 6.8 - -157
Toyota 282 1.4 - 22.3 9.7 -0.4 249
VW 300 5.6 - 23.6 11.3 -0.0 260
Volvo 266 4.7 - 23.5 8.8 - 229
Table 5.10. Industry Performance by Model Year, Truck (g/mi)

Model Year Tailpipe Tech FFV A/C Cycle N2 O Value
2012 369 - 14.5 7.3 1.6 -0.3 346
2013 360 - 13.8 7.9 1.7 -0.3 337
2014 349 - 14.3 9.7 4.6 -0.1 321
2015 336 - 10.3 11.0 4.6 -0.2 310
2016 332 - - 11.8 5.1 -0.2 315
2017 330 0.2 - 17.3 7.7 -0.2 305
2018 320 0.6 - 19.0 9.3 -0.2 292
2019 318 0.7 - 20.1 9.9 -0.1 288
2020 311 0.5 - 21.6 10.6 -0.3 279
2021 304 1.4 - 22.7 10.4 -0.5 270
-
108
C. GHG Program Credits and Deficits
The previous two sections outlined how to determine manufacturer standards and
manufacturer performance values for the current model year. The next step in the
compliance process it to compare the car and truck standards to the corresponding
performance values to determine if each fleet was above or below the standards. This
process then allows manufacturers to determine if each fleet will create GHG program
credits or deficits. These program credits are the credits available to manufacturers to
bank, trade, and ultimately show compliance with the overall GHG program.
Program credits are always expressed as mass-based credits in megagrams of CO2. A mass-
based credit metric captures the performance of each manufacturer’s fleets relative to the
standards, the total number of vehicles produced in each fleet, and the expected lifetime
vehicle miles travelled for those vehicles. This conversion is necessary to enable the
banking and trading of credits across manufacturer fleets, model years, and between
manufacturers. To convert g/mi emission rates to total emission reductions in Mg, see the
insert “How to Calculate Total Emissions from an Emission Rate” at the beginning of this
section.
Manufacturers also had a limited, and voluntary, option to generate program credits in
model years 2009 through 2011 from early technology adoption before the standards went
into effect. Credit expirations, credit forfeitures, and credit trades between manufacturers,
are also important in determining the overall program credits available to manufacturers.
This section will detail these components of the GHG program, which are essential in
determining manufacturer overall credit balances and manufacturer compliance with the
GHG program.
Generating Credits and Deficits from Model Year Performance

Manufacturers can calculate the credits or deficits created within a model year by
comparing their car and truck fleet standards to their respective performance values and
converting from a gram per mile emission rate to a mass-based total. When a car or truck
fleet is below the applicable standard, that fleet generates credits for the manufacturer.
Conversely, when a car or truck fleet is above the applicable standard, that fleet generates
deficits.
The GHG program evaluates car and truck fleets separately, which means that there is no
single, overall standard for manufacturers. However, it is possible to calculate an effective
overall manufacturer standard, and performance value, from the underlying passenger car
-
109
and truck data. Figure 5.11 illustrates the performance of all manufacturers in model year
2021, compared to their effective overall standards.
Of the 20 manufacturers that produced vehicles in model year 2021, six were below their
overall effective standards. Tesla, Volvo, Subaru, Ford, Honda, and Toyota were all below
their standards, and generated net credits (accounting for credits and deficits from each
manufacturer’s car and truck fleets). Fourteen manufacturers were above their standards
and generated net deficits in model year 2021. The fact that manufacturers were above
their standards in Figure 5.11 does not mean that these manufacturers were out of
compliance with the GHG program, as discussed later in this report.
Figure 5.11. Performance and Standards by Manufacturer, Model Year 2021
McLaren Standard 329 394

Mercedes 11 Performance 232 282
Aston Martin 376 413
Jaguar Land Rover 252 284
Stellantis 265 295
Mazda 214 243
Ferrari 373 400
GM 269 292
Hyundai 203 216
Mitsubishi 183 196
Nissan 205 216
Kia 211 218
Above Standard
WI
BMW
Toyota
1 Below Standard
231 237
223 228
224 228
Honda 208 214
Ford
Subaru
Volvo
l 209 224
208
264 271
239
Tesla −126 203
−200 0 200 400
Compliance GHG (g/mi)
110
In model year 2021, seven manufacturers generated credits from their truck fleets, while
eleven generated deficits. Five manufacturers generated credits with their car fleets,
compared to 15 that generated deficits. Table 5.11 through Table 5.16 provide a summary
of the standards, manufacturer performance, and the credits and deficits generated by
each manufacturer’s car and truck fleets for model year 2021 and for the aggregated
industry for model years 2009–2021 (including early credits). These tables show only credits
generated within a model year, and do not account for credits used to offset deficits in
other model years, credits that are traded between manufacturers, or credits that have
expired or been forfeited. The tables showing combined car and truck, or overall industry
values, are aggregated from the underlying car and truck data.
-
111
Table 5.11. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2021, All
Performance Standard Credits

Value Standard Exceedance Generated
Manufacturer (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Production (Mg)
Aston Martin 413 376 37 1,876 -14,760
BMW 228 223 5 343,198 -371,970
Ferrari 400 373 27 2,175 -11,270
Ford 264 271 -7 1,331,018 2,118,16
GM 292 269 23 2,119,706 -10,743,549
Honda 208 214 -7 1,141,061 1,574,426
Hyundai 216 203 13 580,827 -1,535,942
Jaguar Land Rover 284 252 32 73,462 -523,911
Kia 218 211 7 624,110 -922,331
Mazda 243 214 29 381,558 -2,340,967
McLaren 394 329 65 723 -9,115
Mercedes 282 232 50 305,259 -3,243,566
Mitsubishi 196 183 13 57,837 -152,985
Nissan 216 205 12 886,181 -2,107,655
Stellantis 295 265 30 1,669,092 -11,181,886
Subaru 209 224 -15 633,217 2,128,046
Tesla -126 203 -329 338,884 22,003,557
Toyota 224 228 -5 2,562,568 2,592,586
VW 237 231 6 633,145 -830,468
Volvo 208 239 -30 125,951 831,916
All Manufacturers 239 238 1 13,811,848 -2,741,678
Table 5.12. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009–2021, All

Model Value Standard Exceedance Generated Credit
Year (g/mi) (g/mi) (g/mi) Production (Mg) Expiration
2009 98,522,058 2014
2010 96,891,340 2021
2011 38,770,273 2021
2012 287 299 -12 13,446,550 33,033,097 2021
2013 278 292 -14 15,200,118 42,234,774 2021
2014 273 287 -13 15,514,338 43,292,494 2021
2015 267 274 -7 16,740,264 25,218,704 2021
2016 271 263 8 16,279,911 -27,615,344 2021
2017 262 258 4 17,015,504 -15,412,770 2023
2018 253 252 1 16,259,539 -3,276,719 2024
2019 253 246 7 16,139,407 -23,316,177 2024
2020 244 239 6 13,720,942 -17,101,982 2025
2021 239 238 1 13,811,848 -2,741,678 2026
-
112
Table 5.13. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2021, Car

Aston Martin 353 376 -23 734 3,296
BMW 215 190 25 192,231 -954,675
Ferrari 400 373 27 2,175 -11,270
Ford 177 188 -11 188,973 406,264
GM 202 181 21 446,617 -1,820,328
Honda 188 184 4 618,050 -431,478
Hyundai 196 184 12 447,303 -1,042,567
Kia 191 182 9 360,808 -600,540
Mazda 228 180 48 149,735 -1,405,400
McLaren 394 329 65 723 -9,115
Mercedes 254 193 61 133,731 -1,602,028
Mitsubishi 182 168 14 42,745 -116,509
Nissan 194 182 12 627,557 -1,485,362
Stellantis 300 198 102 225,009 -4,475,684
Subaru 236 177 59 63,060 -731,854
Tesla -123 199 -322 315,098 19,798,192
Toyota 182 183 -1 1,055,169 189,817
VW 187 186 1 215,428 -27,229
Volvo 138 193 -55 31,740 341,887
All Manufacturers 179 185 -6 5,119,934 5,977,201
Table 5.14. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009–2021, Car

2009 58,018,752 2014
2010 50,856,700 2021
2011 8,831,637 2021
2012 249 267 -18 8,657,393 30,484,967 2021
2013 240 261 -21 9,747,624 39,249,608 2021
2014 236 253 -17 9,209,352 30,407,996 2021
2015 230 241 -12 9,602,215 22,043,043 2021
2016 229 231 -2 9,012,178 3,411,251 2021
2017 217 219 -2 8,954,269 2,987,971 2023
2018 204 209 -6 7,800,403 8,630,537 2024
2019 203 198 4 7,170,630 -5,837,447 2024
2020 194 189 4 6,029,845 -5,033,384 2025
2021 179 185 -6 5,119,934 5,977,201 2026
113
Table 5.15. Credits Earned by Manufacturers in Model Year 2021, Truck

Aston Martin 446 376 70 1,142 -18,056
BMW 242 259 -17 150,967 582,705
Ferrari - - - - -
Ford 276 283 -7 1,142,045 1,711,902
GM 313 289 24 1,673,089 -8,923,221
Honda 228 245 -17 523,011 2,005,904
Hyundai 274 258 16 133,524 -493,375
Kia 250 245 5 263,302 -321,791
Mazda 251 233 18 231,823 -935,567
McLaren - - - - -
Mercedes 300 258 42 171,528 -1,641,538
Mitsubishi 232 221 11 15,092 -36,476
Nissan 263 252 11 258,624 -622,293
Stellantis 295 274 21 1,444,083 -6,706,202
Subaru 207 229 -22 570,157 2,859,900
Tesla -157 253 -410 23,786 2,205,365
Toyota 249 256 -7 1,507,399 2,402,769
VW 260 251 9 417,717 -803,239
Volvo 229 252 -23 94,211 490,029
All Manufacturers 270 265 4 8,691,914 -8,718,879
Table 5.16. Total Credits Earned in Model Years 2009–2021, Truck

2009 40,503,306 2014
2010 46,034,640 2021
2011 29,938,636 2021
2012 346 349 -2 4,789,157 2,548,130 2021
2013 337 339 -3 5,452,494 2,985,166 2021
2014 321 330 -9 6,304,986 12,884,498 2021
2015 310 312 -2 7,138,049 3,175,661 2021
2016 315 297 19 7,267,733 -31,026,595 2021
2017 305 295 10 8,061,235 -18,400,741 2023
2018 292 286 6 8,459,136 -11,907,256 2024
2019 288 279 9 8,968,777 -17,478,730 2024
2020 279 272 7 7,691,097 -12,068,598 2025
2021 270 265 4 8,691,914 -8,718,879 2026
114
Program Credits for Early Adoption of Technology
The GHG program included an optional provision that allowed manufacturers to generate
credits in the 2009–2011 model years, prior to the implementation of regulatory standards
in model year 2012. This flexibility allowed manufacturers to generate credits for achieving
tailpipe CO2 emissions targets or introducing emission-reducing technology before model
year 2012. Sixteen manufacturers participated in the early credits program, generating a
large bank of credits for the industry before the standards took effect in model year 2012.
The pathways for earning credits under the early credit program mirrored those built into
the annual GHG requirements, including improved tailpipe CO2 performance and A/C
systems, off-cycle credits for other technologies that reduced CO2 emissions, and credits
for manufacturing electric, plug-in hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles.
Of the 234 Tg of early credits, 85% of those credits were generated from performing better
than the tailpipe CO2 emissions targets established in the regulations. To earn credits
based on tailpipe CO2 performance, manufacturers could demonstrate tailpipe emissions
levels below either California or national standards, dependent on the state the car was
sold in. California developed GHG standards prior to the adoption of the EPA GHG
program, and some states had adopted these standards. In all other states, CO2 levels were
calculated based on the national CAFE standards. Of the remaining early credits, about 10%
were created through improving A/C system leakage, 4% were due to A/C efficiency
improvements, and just over 1% were due to off-cycle credits for other technologies.
The model year 2009 credits could not be traded between companies and were limited to a
5-year credit life. Thus, all credits earned in model year 2009, or about a third of the early
credits generated, expired at the end of the 2014 model year if not already used. The
remaining 2010–2011 model year credits were banked and may be used until the 2021
model year. Manufacturers can no longer generate early credits. More details of the early
credit program can be found in the “Early Credits Report,” which was released by EPA in
2013. 23
23Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Light-Duty Automobiles: Status of Early Credit Program for Model
Years 2009-2011, Compliance Division, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection
-
Agency, Report No. EPA-420-R-13-005, March 2013.
115
Figure 5.12. Early Credits by Manufacturer
80 Model Year
60
D 2011
2010
2009
GHG Credits (Tg of CO2)
40
20
Expiration and Forfeiture of Credits

All credits earned within the GHG program have expiration dates, based on the model year
in which they were earned. Any credits held by any manufacturer past their expiration date
will be considered expired, and will not be available to offset future deficits, to sell to other
manufacturers, or usable in any other way. Credits earned in model year 2009 under the
early credit program were the first to expire, at the end of model year 2014. At that point,
76 Tg of credits expired. This represented 22% of all existing credits.
At the end of model year 2021, all unused credits from model years 2010 to 2016 expired.
At this point, 81 Tg of credits expired, which was 39% of the existing industry-wide credit
balance. There are no credits that will expire after model year 2022, then credits expire
according to the schedule published in the December 2021 final light-duty rulemaking, and
shown in Table 5.17.
- ------ 116
Table 5.17 Credit Expiration Schedule
Credits earned in Expire at the end of

model year: model year:
2017 2023
2018 2024
2019 2024
2020 and later credits last 5 years
A limited number of credits have been forfeited by several manufacturers. Although

forfeiture and expiration both have fundamentally the same effect – a loss or removal of
credits – forfeiture is considered a different and less common mechanism, brought about
by unique circumstances. Hyundai and Kia forfeited a specified quantity of 2013 model
year credits after an investigation into their testing methods that concluded with a
settlement announced on November 3, 2014.
VW similarly forfeited some credits, deducted from their 2017 model year balance. In the
course of the investigation concerning defeat devices in VW’s diesel vehicles, the EPA
discovered that the company employed software to manage vehicle transmissions in
gasoline vehicles. This software causes the transmission to shift gears during the EPA-
prescribed emissions test in a manner that sometimes optimizes fuel economy and
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions during the test, but not under normal driving conditions.
This resulted in inflated fuel economy values for some vehicles. VW forfeited credits to
account for the higher CO2 emissions of these vehicles in actual use.
Additional manufacturers forfeited credits because of their participation in the Temporary

Lead Time Alternative Allowance Standards (TLAAS). Opting into these less stringent
standards, which are no longer available, came with some restrictions, including the
requirement that any credits accumulated by using the TLAAS standards may not be used
by or transferred to a fleet meeting the primary standard. This impacted Porsche, which
was bought by VW in 2012. Porsche held some credits earned against the TLAAS standards
at the time they were merged with VW, and VW was not participating in the TLAAS
program. Thus, those credits could not carry over to the merged company and were lost.
Similarly, Mercedes and Volvo reached the end of the TLAAS program, which applied
through the 2015 model year, with credits in their TLAAS bank that could not be
transferred to their post-2015 bank and thus were forfeited.
-
117
Credit Transactions
Credit trading among manufacturers has been an important part of the program for many
manufacturers. An active credit market is enabling manufacturers to purchase credits to
demonstrate compliance, with nine manufacturers selling credits, thirteen manufacturers
purchasing credits, and nearly 100 credit transactions occurring since the inception of the
program. Credits may be traded among manufacturers with a great deal of flexibility,
however there are several limitations, including:
1) Manufacturers must offset any existing deficits before selling credits.

2) Manufacturers may not sell credits they do not have.
3) Manufacturers are the only parties that may engage in credit transactions and hold
credits (although a third party may facilitate transactions).
4) Manufacturers may not sell early credits created in model year 2009.
5) Manufacturers may not sell credits generated under an alternative standard
(including TLAAS and small volume manufacturer standards).
As of October 31, 2022, about 169 Tg of credits have been traded between manufacturers.
Figure 5.13 shows the total quantity of credits that have been bought or sold by
manufacturers since the beginning of the GHG program. Credits that have been sold are
shown as negative credits, since the sale of credits will reduce the selling manufacturer’s
credit balance. Conversely, credits that have been purchased are shown as positive credits,
since they will increase the purchasing manufacturer’s credit balance.
Manufacturers can purchase or sell credits generated in any model year. The model year
the credits were generated in remains important, as those credits must be used (and will
expire) according to the model year in which they were originally created. Figure 5.13 also
shows the distribution of credits sold and acquired by the model year after which the
credits will expire. One additional credit transaction occurred in 2021, as Volvo used
banked credits to offset the small deficit Lotus held prior to their merger into one
manufacturer under the GHG program.
-
118
Figure 5.13. Total Credits Transactions
Sold Purchased
100 Credits
■ EExxpi ring 2026

piring 2025
■ Expiring 2024
80
■ Expiring 2023
■
■ Expired 2021
60
Total Credits Traded (Tg of CO2)
40
20
--
n
da
ta
sa
a
yo
on
- --
sl
is
Te
To
H
0
I I
' I
en
is
s
sw a
H n
St M
N r
nd W
M ove
de
d
sa
e
nt
G
ag
Vo on
th
La M
la
ce
is
O
R
B
el
er
−20
lk
ar
gu
Ja
−40
−60
D. End of Year GHG Program Credit Balances

The final GHG program credit balance at the end of each model year, and compliance
status, for each manufacturer relies on all the components outlined to this point in the
report. Manufacturer car and truck standards and performance within each model year,
early credits, credit trades, credit forfeitures, and credit expirations are all required to
determine final model year credit balances for each manufacturer. If a manufacturer ends
the model year with a positive credit balance, they are in compliance with the GHG
program and the accrued credits will be carried forward to the next model year. If a
manufacturer ends the model year with a deficit, that manufacturer must offset the deficit
within three years to avoid non-compliance. For example, a manufacturer with a deficit
lj -----------
119
remaining from model year 2017 after the 2020 model year would be considered out of
compliance with the 2017 standards. Manufacturers may not carry forward any credits
unless all deficits have been offset.
Using Credits to Offset Deficits

If a manufacturer generates a deficit from either their car or truck fleets, that deficit must
be offset from existing credits, if they are available. When applying credits, the oldest
available credits are applied to the current deficit by default. Credits earned in past model
years may be applied to car or truck deficits, regardless of how they were generated. Table
5.18 shows a simple example. In this case, a manufacturer generated 300,000 Mg of credits
from its car fleets in model years 2019, 2020, and 2021. The manufacturer’s truck fleets did
not generate any credits or deficits in model years 2019 or 2020 but generated a deficit of
500,000 Mg in 2021. Because the oldest credits are applied first, credits generated in model
year 2019 are the first credits applied towards the 2021 truck deficit, then 2020 and 2021
credits would be applied until the deficit is offset. After offsetting the example truck deficit
in Table 5.18, this manufacturer would be left with 100,000 Mg of credits from model year
2020, and 300,000 Mg of credits from model year 2021 to bank for future use.
Table 5.18. Example of a Deficit Offset with Credits from Previous Model Years
Model Model Model

Year 2019 Year 2020 Year 2021
Generated Truck Credits 0 0 -500,000
Generated Car Credits 300,000 300,000 300,000
Applied to 2020 Deficits -300,000 -200,000
Remaining Credits 0 100,000 300,000
The complete credit and deficit accounting for each manufacturer also includes the impact
of credits earned as part of the early credit program, credit trades, credit forfeitures, and
credit expirations over the full span of the GHG program. The detailed deficit offset
calculations for each manufacturer are not published in this report, since some of the
credit trade information is considered confidential business information and is not
published in detail by EPA. However, most of the underlying data for all manufacturers and
model years is available on the Automotive Trends website at
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
-
120
Compliance Status After the 2021 Model Year
EPA determines the compliance status of each manufacturer based on their credit balance
at the end of the model year, after offsetting all deficits. Because credits may not be carried
forward unless deficits from all prior model years have been resolved, a positive credit
balance means compliance with the current and all previous model years of the program. If
a manufacturer ends the model year with any deficits, that manufacturer must offset the
deficit within three years to avoid non-compliance. For model year 2021, deficits from
model year 2018 or prior would be considered non-compliant
Figure 5.14 shows the credit balance of all manufacturers after model year 2021 including
the breakdown of expiration dates, and the distribution of deficits, by age of the deficit. All
but three manufacturers ended the 2021 model year with a positive credit balance and are
thus in compliance with model year 2021 and all previous years of the GHG program.
Mercedes and Kia ended model year 2021 with deficits from model year 2021, but those
deficits are within the allowable time span and will not result in non-compliance or
enforcement actions from EPA. McLaren has deficits remaining from model year 2019,
2020, and 2021, which are also within the allowable time span. However, McLaren will have
to offset the existing deficits in the next model year either by producing efficient vehicles
that exceed model year 2022 standards, or by purchasing credits from other
manufacturers.
The breakdown of each manufacturer’s final model year 2021 credit balance, based on the
source of the credits or deficits, is shown in Table 5.19. Each manufacturer has pursued a
unique combination of early credits generated in model years 2009–2011, credits or deficits
created in model years 2012–2021, and credit expirations, forfeitures, and trades to
achieve their current credit balance. The “net” credits earned in Table 5-19 are a sum of all
credits and deficits earned by a manufacturer and may not be the amount of credits
remaining due to the use of banked credits across model years. The actual distribution of
credits, by expiration date, and deficits, by the age of the deficit, are shown in Table 5.20.
-
121
Figure 5.14. Manufacturer Credit Balance After Model Year 2021
122
Table 5.19. Final Credit Balance by Manufacturer for Model Year 2021 (Mg)
Early Credits Net Credits Net Credits Credits Final 2021

Earned Earned Earned Credits Credits Purchased Credit
Manufacturer 2009-2011 2012-2020 2021 Expired Forfeited or Sold Balance
Aston Martin 3,332 -12,864 -14,760 - - 35,844 11,552
BMW 1,251,522 -1,624,862 -371,970 -134,791 - 5,500,000 4,619,899
BYD Motors - 5,568 - -4,871 - - 697
Coda - 7,251 - - - -7,251 -
Ferrari - -169,218 -11,270 -72,140 - 265,000 12,372
Ford 16,116,453 -1,710,128 2,118,166 -12,551,923 - - 3,972,568
GM 25,788,547 -15,272,320 -10,743,549 -15,194,361 - 28,277,251 12,855,568
Honda 35,842,334 62,817,051 1,574,426 -23,246,649 - -50,515,245 26,471,917
Hyundai 14,007,495 -916,844 -1,535,942 -11,384,934 -169,775 - -
Jaguar Land Rover - -3,192,752 -523,911 -10,128 - 5,603,867 1,877,076
Karma - 84,597 - -56,011 - -2,841 25,745
Kia 10,444,192 -7,408,961 -922,331 -2,362,882 -123,956 - -373,938
Lotus - -3,147 - - - 3,147 -
Mazda 5,482,642 3,709,186 -2,340,967 -6,504,355 - - 346,506
McLaren - -26,374 -9,115 - - 12,193 -23,296
Mercedes 378,272 -15,317,853 -3,243,566 - -28,416 17,427,713 -783,850
Mitsubishi 1,449,336 1,327,864 -152,985 -1,102,279 - -574,148 947,788
Nissan 18,131,200 9,673,209 -2,107,655 -21,499,499 - -2,145,570 2,051,685
Porsche - 426,439 - - -426,439 - -
Stellantis 10,827,083 -55,738,088 -11,181,886 - - 102,569,367 46,476,476
Subaru 5,755,171 17,220,409 2,128,046 -10,206,744 - - 14,896,882
Suzuki 876,650 -183,097 - -265,311 - -428,242 -
Tesla 49,772 53,565,158 22,003,557 -92 - -72,058,348 3,560,047
Toyota 80,435,498 16,480,789 2,592,586 -50,620,615 - -38,962,431 9,925,827
VW 6,613,985 -7,430,369 -830,468 -1,442,571 -219,419 5,000,000 1,691,158
Volvo 730,187 745,433 831,916 - -85,163 -306 2,222,067
All Manufacturers 234,183,671 57,056,077 -2,741,678 -156,660,156 -1,053,168 - 130,784,746
- -------- 123
Table 5.20. Distribution of Credits by Expiration Date (Mg)
Model Model Model

Final 2021 Credits Credits Credits Credits Year Year Year Non-
Credit Expiring in Expiring in Expiring in Expiring in 2021 2020 2019 Compliant
Manufacturer Balance 2023 2024 2025 2026 Deficits Deficits Deficits Deficits
Aston Martin 11,552 - - 8,256 3,296 - - - -
BMW 4,619,899 3,498,823 420,467 117,904 582,705 - - - -
BYD Motors 697 529 168 - - - - - -
Coda - - - - - - - - -
Ferrari 12,372 8,180 4,192 - - - - - -
Ford 3,972,568 - - 1,854,402 2,118,166 - - - -
GM 12,855,568 2,170,666 5,584,902 5,100,000 - - - - -
Honda 26,471,917 4,938,779 14,658,284 2,868,950 4,005,904 - - - -
Hyundai - - - - - - - - -
Jaguar Land Rover 1,877,076 - 46,790 - 1,830,286 - - - -
Karma 25,745 - 17,731 8,014 - - - - -
Kia -373,938 - - - - -373,938 - - -
Lotus - - - - - - - - -
Mazda 346,506 181,564 164,942 - - - - - -
McLaren -23,296 - - - - -9,115 -9,405 -4,776 -
Mercedes -783,850 - - - - -783,850 - - -
Mitsubishi 947,788 170,465 251,774 48,852 476,697 - - - -
Nissan 2,051,685 651,685 - - 1,400,000 - - - -
Porsche - - - - - - - - -
Stellantis 46,476,476 3,046,286 22,986,303 8,443,887 12,000,000 - - - -
Subaru 14,896,882 3,172,408 5,822,837 3,041,737 2,859,900 - - - -
Suzuki - - - - - - - - -
Tesla 3,560,047 1,766 53,704 208,003 3,296,574 - - - -
Toyota 9,925,827 1,944,036 3,722,735 1,666,470 2,592,586 - - - -
VW 1,691,158 - 691,158 - 1,000,000 - - - -
Volvo 2,222,067 78,996 1,095,257 215,898 831,916 - - - -
All Manufacturers 130,784,746 19,864,183 55,521,244 23,582,373 32,998,030 -1,166,903 -9,405 -4,776 -
- -------- 124
Figure 5.15 shows the overall industry performance, standards, and credit bank for all
years of the GHG program. The industry created a large bank of credits using the early
credits provision in model year 2009 through 2012. For the next three years,
manufacturers continued to generate credits, as the industry GHG performance was below
the industry-wide average standard. At the end of model year 2014, unused early credits
generated from model year 2009 expired, which reduced the overall credit balance. In
model year 2015, the industry again generated credits, however from model year 2016-
2021 the industry GHG performance has been above the standard, resulting in net
withdrawals from the bank of credits to maintain compliance. In addition, unused credits
generated in model years 2010-2016 expired at the end of model year 2021, which further
drew down the overall industry credit balance.
In model year 2021, the industry achieved overall GHG performance at 239 g/mi, while the
standard fell from 239 g/mi to 238 g/mi. The gap between the standard and GHG
performance decreased from 6 g/mi in model year 2021 to 1 g/mi in model year 2021.
Overall, manufacturers drew down their industry-wide total credit bank by about 3
teragrams (Tg), which was about 1% of the total available credit balance (before credits
expired at the end of the model year). The overall industry emerged from model year 2020
with a bank of 131 Tg of GHG credits available for future use, as seen in Figure 5.15.
The credits available at the end of model year 2021 will expire according to the schedule
defined by the GHG Program and detailed in Table 5.17. The next group of credits to expire
will do so at the end of model year 2023. An active credit market has allowed
manufacturers to purchase credits to demonstrate compliance, with nine manufacturers
selling credits, thirteen manufacturers purchasing credits, and approximately 100 credit
trades since 2012.
After accounting for the use of credits, and the ability to carry forward a deficit, the industry
overall does not face any non-compliance issues as of the end of the 2021 model year.
-
125
Figure 5.15. Industry Performance and Standards, Credit Generation and Use
Standard
300 299
Performance
292
287
Compliance GHG (g/mi)
287
280 278
274
273
271
267
262
260 263
258 253 253
252 244
246 239
240
239 238
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
400 Credit or Deficit

Credit
43 Deficit
350
42
GHG Credits (Tg of CO2)
25 −28
300
33 −16
-76 −3 −23
250 234 −17
Expiration of unused
2009 credits −3
200
150 131
Expiration of unused -81
100 2010-2016 credits
50
Early 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Carry
Credits to 2022
Model Year
(2009-2011)
126
Appendices: Methods and Additional Data
A. Sources of Input Data
Nearly all of the data for this report are based on automakers’ direct submissions to EPA.
EPA has required manufacturers to provide vehicle fuel economy to consumers since 1977
and has collected data on every new light-duty vehicle model sold in the United States
since 1975. The data are obtained either from testing performed by EPA at the National
Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor, Michigan, or directly from
manufacturers using official EPA test procedures.
National fuel economy standards have been in place in the United States for cars and light
trucks since 1978. The Department of Transportation, through the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), has the responsibility for setting and enforcing fuel
economy standards through the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) program. Since
the inception of CAFE, EPA has been responsible for establishing test procedures and
calculation methods, and for collecting data used to determine vehicle fuel economy levels.
EPA calculates the CAFE value for each manufacturer and provides it to NHTSA. NHTSA
publishes the final CAFE values in its annual “Summary of Fuel Economy Performance”
reports at www.nhtsa.gov/Laws-&-Regulations/CAFE-–-Fuel-Economy. Since model year
2012, NHTSA and EPA have maintained coordinated fuel economy and greenhouse gas
standards that apply to model year 2012 through model year 2026 vehicles. EPA’s light-
duty GHG program is described in detail in Section 5 of this report.
The data that EPA collects for this report comprise the most comprehensive database of its
kind. For recent model years, the vast majority of data in this report comes from the
Engines and Vehicles Compliance Information System (EV-CIS) database maintained by EPA.
This database contains a broad amount of data associated with CO2 emissions and fuel
economy, vehicle and engine technology, and other vehicle performance metrics. This
report extracts only a portion of the data from the EV-CIS database.
In some cases, the data submitted by automakers are supplemented by data that were
obtained through independent research by EPA. For example, EPA relied on published data
from external sources for certain parameters of pre-model year 2011 vehicles: (1) engines
with variable valve timing (VVT), (2) engines with cylinder deactivation, and (3) vehicle
footprint, as automakers did not submit this data until model year 2011. EPA projects
footprint data for the preliminary model year 2022 fleet based on footprint values for
existing models from previous years and footprint values for new vehicle designs available
- ------ A-1
through public sources. In addition, vehicle 0-to-60 acceleration values are not provided by
automakers, but are either calculated from other Trends data, as discussed in Section 3, or
taken from external sources.
The website for this report has been expanded with an emphasis on allowing users to
access and evaluate more of the data behind this report. EPA plans to continue to add
content and tools on the web to allow transparent access to public data. To explore the
data using EPA’s interactive data tools, visit the report webpage at
https://www.epa.gov/automotive-trends.
The full database used for the analysis in this report is not publicly available. The detailed
production data necessary for demonstrating compliance is considered confidential
business information by the manufacturers and cannot be shared by EPA. However, EPA
will continue to provide as much information as possible to the public.
Preliminary vs Final Data

For each model year, automakers submit two phases of data: preliminary data provided
to EPA for vehicle certification and labeling prior to the model year sales, and final data
submitted after the completion of the model year for compliance with EPA’s light-duty GHG
regulations and NHTSA’s CAFE program.
Preliminary data are collected prior to the beginning of each model year and are not used
for manufacturer GHG compliance. Automakers submit “General Label” information
required to support the generation of the joint EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy and Environment
Labels that appear on all new personal vehicles. As part of these submissions, automakers
report pre-model year vehicle production projections for individual models and
configurations to EPA.
Final data are submitted a few months after the end of each model year and include
detailed final production volumes. EPA and NHTSA use this final data to determine
compliance with GHG emissions and CAFE standards. These end-of-the-year submissions
include detailed final production volumes. All data in this report for model years 1975
through 2021 are considered final. However, manufacturers can submit requests for
compliance credits for previous model years, so it is possible that additional credits under
the GHG program could be awarded to manufacturers.
Since the preliminary fuel economy values provided by automakers are based on projected
vehicle production volumes, they usually vary slightly from the final fuel economy values
that reflect the actual sales at the end of the model year. With each publication of this
- ------ A-2
report, the preliminary values from the previous year are updated to reflect the final
values. This allows a comparison to gauge the accuracy of preliminary projections.
Table A.1 compares the preliminary and final fleetwide real-world fuel economy values for
recent years (note that the differences for CO2 emissions data would be similar, on a
percentage basis). Since model year 2011, the final real-world fuel economy values have
generally been close to the preliminary fuel economy values. In eight out of the last nine
years, manufacturer projections have led to preliminary estimates that were higher than
final data.
It is important to note that there is no perfect apples-to-apples comparison for model years
2011–2014 due to several small differences in data, such as inclusion of alternative fuel
vehicle (AFV) data. The preliminary values in Table A.1 through model year 2014 did not
integrate AFV data, while the final values in Table A.1 are the values reported elsewhere in
this report and do include AFV data. The differences due to this would be small, on the
order of 0.1 mpg or less.
Table A.1. Comparison of Preliminary and Final Real-World Fuel Economy

Values (mpg)
Model Year Preliminary Final Minus

Value Final Value Preliminary
2011 22.8 22.3 -0.5
2012 23.8 23.6 -0.2
2013 24.0 24.2 +0.2
2014 24.2 24.1 -0.1
2015 24.7 24.6 -0.2
2016 25.6 24.7 -0.9
2017 25.2 24.9 -0.3
2018 25.4 25.1 -0.3
2019 25.5 24.9 -0.6
2020 25.7 25.4 -0.3
2021 25.3 25.4 +0.1
2022 (prelim) 26.4
- ------ A-3
B. Harmonic Averaging of Fuel Economy Values
Averaging multiple fuel economy values must be done harmonically in order to obtain a
correct mathematical result. Since fuel economy is expressed in miles per gallon (mpg), one
critical assumption with any harmonic averaging of multiple fuel economy values is
whether the distance term (miles, in the numerator of mpg) is fixed or variable. This report
makes the assumption that the distance term in all mpg values is fixed, i.e., that for
purposes of calculating a harmonically averaged fuel economy value, it is assumed that the
distance term (representing miles traveled) is equivalent across various vehicle fuel
economies. This assumption is the standard practice with harmonic averaging of multiple
fuel economy values (including, for example, in calculations for CAFE standards
compliance), and simplifies the calculations involved.
Mathematically, when assuming a fixed distance term as discussed above, harmonic

averaging of multiple fuel economy values can be defined as the inverse of the average of
the reciprocals of the individual fuel economy values. It is best illustrated by a simple
example.
Consider a round trip of 600 miles. For the first 300-mile leg, the driver is alone with no
other passengers or cargo, and, aided by a tailwind, uses 10 gallons of gasoline, for a fuel
economy of 30 mpg. On the return 300-mile trip, with several passengers, some luggage,
and a headwind, the driver uses 15 gallons of gasoline, for a fuel economy of 20 mpg. Many
people will assume that the average fuel economy for the entire 600-mile trip is 25 mpg,
the arithmetic (or simple) average of 30 mpg and 20 mpg. But, since the driver consumed
10 + 15 = 25 gallons of fuel during the trip, the actual fuel economy is 600 miles divided by
25 gallons, or 24 mpg.
Why is the actual 24 mpg less than the simple average of 25 mpg? Because the driver used
more gallons while (s)he was getting 20 mpg than when (s)he was getting 30 mpg.
This same principle is often demonstrated in elementary school mathematics when an

airplane makes a round trip, with a speed of 400 mph one way and 500 mph the other way.
The average speed of 444 mph is less than 450 mph because the airplane spent more time
going 400 mph than it did going 500 mph.
As in both of the examples above, a harmonic average will typically yield a result that is
slightly lower than the arithmetic average.
The following equation illustrates the use of harmonic averaging to obtain the correct
mathematical result for the fuel economy example above:
- ------ B-1
2
Average mpg = = 24 mpg
1 1
� + �
30 20
Though the above example was for a single vehicle with two different fuel economies over
two legs of a single round trip, the same mathematical principle holds for averaging the fuel
economies of any number of vehicles. For example, the average fuel economy for a set of 10
vehicles, with three 30 mpg vehicles, four 25 mpg vehicles, and three 20 mpg vehicles would
be (note that, in order to maintain the concept of averaging, the total number of vehicles in
the numerator of the equation must equal the sum of the individual numerators in the
denominator of the equation):
10
Average mpg = = 24.4 mpg
3 4 3
� + + �
30 25 20
Arithmetic averaging, not harmonic averaging, provides the correct mathematical result for
averaging fuel consumption values (in gallons per mile, the inverse of fuel economy) and CO2
emissions (in grams per mile). In the first, round trip, example above, the first leg had a fuel
consumption rate of 10 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.033 gallons per mile. The second leg had
a fuel consumption of 15 gallons over 300 miles, or 0.05 gallons per mile. Arithmetically
averaging the two fuel consumption values, i.e., adding them up and dividing by two, yields
0.04167 gallons per mile, and the inverse of this is the correct fuel economy average of 24
mpg. Arithmetic averaging also works for CO2 emissions values, i.e., the average of 200 g/mi
and 400 g/mi is 300 g/mi CO2 emissions.
In summary, fuel economy values must be harmonically averaged to maintain mathematical

integrity, while fuel consumption values (in gallons per mile) and CO2 emissions values (in
grams per mile) can be arithmetically averaged.
- ------ B-2
C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics
The CO2 emissions and fuel economy data in this report fall into one of two categories:
compliance data and estimated real-world data. These categories are based on the
purpose of the data, and the subsequent required emissions test procedures. The
following sections discuss the differences between compliance and real-world data and
how they relate to raw vehicle emissions test results.
2-Cycle Test Data

In 1975 when the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulation was put into place,
EPA tested vehicles using two dynamometer-based test cycles, one based on city driving
and one based on highway driving. CAFE was—and continues to be—required by law to use
these “2-cycle tests”. For consistency, EPA also adopted this approach for the GHG
regulations.
Originally, the fuel economy values generated from the “2-cycle” test procedure were used
both to determine compliance with CAFE requirements and to inform consumers of their
expected fuel economy via the fuel economy label. Today, the raw 2-cycle test data are
used primarily in a regulatory context as the basis for determining the final compliance
values for CAFE and GHG regulations.
The 2-cycle testing methodology has remained largely unchanged 24 since the early 1970s.
Because of this, the 2-cycle fuel economy and CO2 values can serve as a useful comparison
of long-term trends. Previous versions of this report included 2-cycle fuel economy and CO2
data, referred to as “unadjusted” or “laboratory” values. These 2-cycle fuel economy values
are still available on the report website for reference. It is important to note that these 2-
cycle fuel economy values do not exactly correlate to the 2-cycle tailpipe CO2 emissions
values provided in Section 5 for the GHG regulations. There are three methodological
reasons for this:
24There were some relatively minor test procedure changes made in the late 1970s that, in the aggregate,
made the city and highway tests slightly more demanding, i.e., the unadjusted fuel economy values for a given
car after these test procedure changes were made are slightly lower relative to prior to the changes. EPA has
long provided CAFE “test procedure adjustments” (TPAs) for passenger cars in recognition of the fact that the
original CAFE standards were based on the EPA test procedures in place in 1975 (there are no TPAs for light
trucks). The resulting impacts on the long-term unadjusted fuel economy trends are very small. The TPAs for
cars vary but are typically in the range of 0.2–0.5 mpg for cars, or 0.1–0.3 mpg when the car TPAs are averaged
over the combined car/truck fleet.
- ------ C-1
1. The GHG regulations require a car and truck weighting based on a slightly higher
lifetime vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for trucks. The 2-cycle fuel economy values do
not account for this difference.
2. The GHG regulations allow manufacturers to use an optional compliance approach
which adds nitrous oxide and methane emissions to their 2-cycle CO2 emissions.
3. The GHG regulations and CAFE regulations result in very slightly different annual
production values. Prior to model year 2017, the 2-cycle fuel economy values rely on
CAFE production values (see Appendix D).
GHG Compliance Data

Compliance data in this report are used to determine how the manufacturers are
performing under EPA’s GHG program. These data are reported in the Executive Summary
and Section 5. The 2-cycle CO2 test values form the basis for the compliance data, but there
are some important differences due to provisions in the standards. Manufacturers’ model
year performance is calculated based on the measured 2-cycle CO2 tailpipe emissions as
well as optional performance credits and adjustments that manufacturers may qualify for
and use.
Compliance data also includes the overall credit balances held by each manufacturer, and
may incorporate credit averaging, banking, and trading by manufacturers. The compliance
process is explained in detail in Section 5. Compliance CO2 data is not comparable to
estimated real-world CO2 data, as described below.
Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy and CO2 Data

Estimated real-world (previously called “adjusted”) data is EPA’s best estimate of real-world
fuel economy and CO2 emissions, as reported in Sections 1–4 of this report. The real-world
values are the best data for researchers to evaluate new vehicle CO2 and fuel economy
performance. Unlike compliance data, the method for calculating real-world data has
evolved over time, along with technology and driving habits. These changes in
methodology are detailed in Appendix D.
Calculating estimated real-world fuel economy

Estimated real-world fuel economy data are currently measured based on the “5-cycle” test
procedure that utilizes high-speed, cold start, and air conditioning tests in addition to the 2-
cycle tests to provide data more representative of real-world driving. These additional
laboratory tests capture a wider range of operating conditions (including hot/cold weather
- ------ C-2
and higher acceleration) that an average driver will encounter. City and highway results are
weighted 43% / 57%, consistent with fleetwide driver activity data.
Calculating estimated real-world CO2 emissions

The estimated real-world CO2 emissions shown in Sections 1–4 are not based directly on
the 2-cycle tested values, but rather they are based on calculated values that convert
estimated real-world fuel economy values to CO2 using emission factors. This approach is
taken because: 1) test data are not available for most historic years of data, and 2) some
manufacturers choose to use an optional compliance approach which adds nitrous oxide
(N2O) and methane (CH4) emissions to their CO2 emissions (also referred to as Carbon
Related Exhaust Emissions, or CREE), leading to slightly different test results.
The estimated real-world CO2 emissions from gasoline vehicles are calculated by dividing
8,887 g/gal by the fuel economy of the vehicle. The 8,887 g/gal emission factor is a typical
value for the grams of CO2 per gallon of gasoline test fuel and assumes all the carbon is
converted to CO2. For example, 8,887 g/gal divided by a gasoline vehicle fuel economy of 30
mpg would yield an equivalent CO2 emissions value of 296 grams per mile.
The estimated real-world CO2 emissions for diesel vehicles are calculated by dividing
10,180 g/gal by the diesel vehicle fuel economy value. The 10,180 g/gal diesel emission
factor is higher than for a gasoline vehicle because diesel fuel has a 14.5% higher carbon
content per gallon than gasoline. Accordingly, a 30 mpg diesel vehicle would have a CO2
equivalent value of 339 grams per mile. Emissions for vehicles other than gasoline and
diesel are also calculated using appropriate emissions factors.
Example Comparison of Fuel Economy Metrics

The multiple ways of measuring fuel economy and GHG emissions can understandably
lead to confusion. As an illustration to help the reader understand the various fuel
economy values that can be associated with an individual vehicle, Table 1.2 shows three
different fuel economy metrics for the model year 2022Toyota Prius Eco. The 2-cycle city
and highway fuel economy values are direct fuel economy measurements from the 2-cycle
tests and are harmonically averaged with a 55% city / 45% highway weighting to generate a
combined value. The 2-cycle laboratory tested city fuel economy of the Prius Eco is 84 mpg,
the highway fuel economy is 78 mpg, and the combined 2-cycle value is 81 mpg.
Using the 5-cycle methodology, the Toyota Prius Eco has a vehicle fuel economy label value
of 58 mpg city and 53 mpg highway. On the vehicle label, these values are harmonically
averaged using a 55% city / 45% highway weighting to determine a combined value of 56
- ------ C-3
mpg. The estimated real-world fuel economy for the Prius Eco, which is the set of values
used in calculations for this report, has the same city and highway fuel economy as the
label, but the 43% city and 57% highway weighting leads to a combined value of 55 mpg,
which is one mpg less than the values found on the label.
Table C.1. Fuel Economy Metrics for the Model Year 2022 Toyota Prius Eco
Fuel Economy Value

Fuel (MPG)
Economy City/Highway Test Combined
Metric Purpose Weighting Basis City/Hwy City Hwy
Basis for manufacturer
2-cycle Test compliance with
(unadjusted) standards 55% / 45% 2-cycle 81 84 78
Consumer information
to compare individual
Label vehicles 55% / 45% 5-cycle 56 58 53
Estimated Best estimate of real-

Real-World world performance 43% / 57% 5-cycle 55 58 53
Greenhouse Gases other than CO2

In addition to tailpipe CO2 emissions, vehicles may create greenhouse gas emissions in
several other ways. The combustion process can result in emissions of N2O, and CH4, and
leaks in vehicle air conditioning systems can release refrigerants, which are also
greenhouse gases, into the environment. N2O, CH4, and air conditioning greenhouse gases
are discussed as part of the GHG regulatory program in Section 5. Estimated real-world CO2
emissions in Sections 1–4 only account for tailpipe CO2 emissions.
The life cycle of the vehicle (including manufacturing and vehicle disposal) and the life cycle
of the fuels (including production and distribution) can also create significant greenhouse
gases. Life cycle implications of vehicles and fuels can vary widely based on the vehicle
technology and fuel and are outside the scope of this report. However, there is academic
research, both published and ongoing, in this area for interested readers.
- ------ C-4
D. Historical Changes in the Database and
Methodology
Over the course of this report’s publication, there have been some instances where
relevant methodologies and definitions have been updated. Since the goal of this report is
to provide the most accurate data and science available, updates are generally propagated
back to through the historical database. The current version of this report supersedes all
previous reports.
Changes in Estimated Real-world Fuel Economy and CO2

The estimated real-world fuel economy values in this report are closely related to the label
fuel economy values. Over the course of this report, there have been three updates to the
fuel economy label methodology (for model years 1985, 2008, and 2017), and these
updates were propagated through the Trends database. However, there are some
important differences in how the label methodology updates have been applied in this
report. This section discusses how these methodologies have been applied, partially or in
full, to the appropriate model years based on the authors’ technical judgement. The
changes are intended to provide accurate real-world values for vehicles at the time they
were produced to better reflect available technologies, changes in driving patterns, and
composition of the fleet. These changes are also applicable to real-world CO2 values, which
are converted from fuel economy values using emissions factors.
Model year 1975–1985: Universal Multipliers

The first change to the label methodology occurred when EPA recognized that changing
technology and driving habits led to real-world fuel economy results that over time were
diverging from the fuel economy values measured using the 2-cycle tests. To address this
issue, EPA introduced an alternative calculation methodology in 1985 that applied a
multiplication factor to the 2-cycle test data of 0.9 for city and 0.78 for highway. The
estimated real-world fuel economy values from model year 1975–1985 in this report were
calculated using the same multiplication factors that were required for the model year
1985 label update. The authors believe that these correction factors were appropriate for
new vehicles from model year 1975 through 1985. The combined fuel economy and CO2
values are based on a 55% city / 45% highway weighting factor, consistent with the CAFE
and label fuel economy calculations.
- ------ D-1
Model year 1986–2010: The 2006 5-cycle methodology and 43% City / 57%
Highway Weighting
In 2006, EPA established a major change to the fuel economy label calculations by
introducing the 5-cycle methodology 24 In addition to the city and highway tests required for
2-cycle fuel economy, the 5-cycle methodology introduces tests for high speeds (US06), air-
conditioning (SC03), and a cold temperature test. It also indirectly accounts for a number of
other factors that are not reflected in EPA laboratory test data (e.g., changing fuel
composition, wind, road conditions) through the use of a 9.5% universal downward
adjustment factor. The change from the universal adjustment factors to the 2006 5-cycle
method lowered estimated real-world fuel economy values, particularly for high fuel
economy vehicles. In the 2006 rulemaking, EPA projected an overall average fleetwide
adjustment of 11% lower for city fuel economy and 8% lower for highway fuel economy.
For model year 1986–2004, the authors implemented the 2006 5-cycle methodology by
assuming the changes in technology and driver behavior that led to lower real-world fuel
economy occurred in a gradual, linear manner over 20 years. We did not attempt to
perform a year-by-year analysis to determine the extent to which the many relevant factors
(including higher highway speed limits, more aggressive driving, increasing vehicle
horsepower-to-weight ratios, suburbanization, congestion, greater use of air conditioning,
gasoline composition, etc.) that have affected real-world fuel economy since 1985 have
changed over time.
Under the 5-cycle methodology, manufacturers could either: 1) perform all five tests on
each vehicle (the “full 5-cycle” method), 2) use an alternative analytical “derived 5-cycle”
method based on 2-cycle testing if certain conditions were met, or 3) voluntarily use lower
fuel economy label estimates than those resulting from the full 5-cycle or derived 5-cycle. If
manufacturers are required to perform all five tests, the results are weighted according to
composite 5-cycle equations. 25 To use the derived 5-cycle method, manufacturers are
required to evaluate whether fuel economy estimates using the full 5-cycle tests are
comparable to results using the derived 5-cycle method. In recent years, the derived 5-cycle
approach has been used to generate approximately 85% of all vehicle label fuel economy
values.
For vehicles that were eligible to use the 2006 derived 5-cycle methodology, the following
equations were used to convert 2-cycle city and highway fuel economy values to label
24 See 71 Federal Register 77872, December 27, 2006.

25 See 71 Federal Register 77883-77886, December 27, 2006.
- ------ D-2
economy values. These equations were based on the relationship between 2-cycle and 5-
cycle fuel economy data for the industry as a whole.
1
𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋 𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 =
1.1805
�0.003259 + �
2CYCLE CITY
1
𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐇𝐇𝐇𝐂𝐂 =
1.3466
�0.001376 + �
2CYCLE HWY
Over the same timeframe, EPA phased in a change in the city and highway weightings used
to determine a single combined fuel economy or CO2 value. EPA’s analysis of real-world
driving activity underlying the 5-cycle fuel economy methodology assumed a "speed
cutpoint" of 45 miles per hour to differentiate between (and "bin" the amount of) city and
highway driving. 26 Based on this speed cutpoint, the correct weighting for correlating the
new city and highway fuel economy values with real-world driving activity data from on-
road vehicle studies, on a miles driven basis, is 43% city and 57% highway; this updated
weighting is necessary to maintain the integrity of fleetwide fuel economy performance
based on Trends data. The 55% city and 45% highway weighting is still used for both Fuel
Economy and Environment Labels and the CAFE and GHG emissions compliance programs.
The authors used the same gradual, linear approach to phase in the change in city and
highway weightings along with the phase-in of the 2006 5-cycle methodology.
From model year 2005 to model year 2010, the 2006 5-cycle methodology and the 43% city
and 57% highway weightings were used to determine the real-world fuel economy values
for this report. This required using the derived 5-cycle equations and the 43% city and 57%
highway weightings to recalculate real-world fuel economy values for model year 2005 to
2007, because the 2006 5-cycle methodology was not required until 2008. Model year 2008
to model year 2010 real-world fuel economy values were the same as the label fuel
economy values, except for the city and highway weightings.
Model year 2011–present: Implementing the 2017 derived 5-cycle updates

In 2015, EPA released a minor update to the derived 5-cycle equations that modified the
coefficients used to calculate derived 5-cycle fuel economy from 2-cycle test data. 27 This
26See 71 Federal Register 77904, December 27, 2006.

27See https://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/basic-information-fuel-economy-labeling and
http://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=35113&flag=1
- ------ D-3
update was required under existing regulations and applies to fuel economy label
calculations for all model year 2017 and later vehicles. The following equations are used to
convert 2-cycle test data values for city and highway to label fuel economy values:
1
𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋 𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂𝐂 =
1.1601
�0.004091 + �
2CYCLE CITY
1
𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋𝐋 𝐇𝐇𝐇𝐇𝐂𝐂 =
1.2945
�0.003191 + �
2CYCLE HWY
The updated 5-cycle calculations introduced for model year 2017 and later labels were
based on test data from model year 2011 to model year 2016 vehicles. Therefore, the
authors chose to retroactively apply the updated 5-cycle methodology to model years 2011
to 2016. This required recalculating the real-world fuel economy of vehicles from model
year 2011 to 2016 using the new derived 5-cycle equations. Vehicles that conducted full 5-
cycle testing or voluntarily lowered fuel economy values were unchanged. The 43% city and
57% highway weightings were maintained. The changes for model years 2011-2016 due to
the 5-cycle update were relatively small (0.1 to 0.2 mpg overall) and did not noticeably alter
the general data trends, therefore the authors determined that a phase-in period was not
required for this update.
Figure D.1 below summarizes the impact of the changes in real-world data methodology
relative to the 2-cycle test data, which has had a consistent methodology since 1975 (See
Appendix C for more information). Over time, the estimated real-world fuel economy of
new vehicles has continued to slowly diverge from 2-cycle test data, due largely to changing
technology, driving patterns, and vehicle design.
- ------ D-4
Figure D.1. Estimated Real-World versus 2-Cycle Fuel Economy since Model
Year 1975
Phase I _ -_ Phase II -Phase -

III Phase IV
1975–1985 1986–2006 2007–2010 2011–present
Universal 2006 5-cycle is phase-in 5-cycle Updated 5-cycle
adjustment factors
43/57%
55/45% weighting 43/57% weighting phase-in weighting 43/57% weighting
35
30
2-cycle method
Fuel Economy (MPG)
unchanged
25 since 1975
Ratio of Estimated
20 Real-World
Real-World
Estimated
to 2-cycle: Phases I - IV
15 75.8%
Ratio of
Real-World
10 Estimated
to 2-cycle:
85.2%
5
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Model Year
Other Database Changes
Addition of Medium-Duty Passenger Vehicles

Beginning in 2011 medium-duty passenger vehicles (MDPVs), those SUVs and passenger
vans (but not pickup trucks) with gross vehicle weight ratings between 8,500 and 10,000
pounds, are included in the light-duty truck category. This coincided with new regulations
by NHTSA to treat these vehicles as light-duty, rather than heavy-duty, vehicles beginning in
model year 2011. This represents a minor change to the database, since the number of
MDPVs is much smaller than it once was (e.g., only 6,500 MDPVs were sold in model year
2012). It should be noted that this is one change to the database that has not been
propagated back through the historic database, as we do not have MDPV data prior to
model year 2011. Accordingly, this represents a small inflection point for the database for
the overall car and truck fleet in model year 2011; the inclusion of MDPVs decreased
average real-world fuel economy by 0.01 mpg and increased average real-world CO2
emissions by 0.3 g/mi, compared to the fleet without MDPVs. The impacts on the truck fleet
only were about twice as high, but still very small in absolute terms. Pickup trucks above
8,500 pounds are not included in this report.
D-5
Addition of Alternative Fuel Vehicles
Data from alternative fuel vehicles are integrated into the overall database, beginning with
MY 2011 data. These vehicles include electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles, fuel cell
vehicles, and compressed natural gas vehicles. CO2 emissions from alternative fuel vehicles
represent tailpipe emissions, and fuel economy for these vehicles is reported as mpge
(miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent), or the miles an alternative fuel vehicle can travel
on an amount of energy equivalent to that in a gallon of gasoline. Sales data prior to MY
2011 are included in some cases based on available industry reports (e.g., Ward’s
Automotive data).
Changes in Vehicle Classification Definitions

The car-truck classifications in this report follow the current regulatory definitions used by
EPA and NHTSA for compliance with GHG emissions and CAFE standards (see definitions
for passenger automobiles (cars) and non-passenger automobiles (trucks) in 49 CFR 523).
These current definitions differ from those used in the 2010 and older versions of the Light-
Duty Automotive Technology, Carbon Dioxide Emissions, and Fuel Economy Trends report, and
reflect a decision by NHTSA to reclassify many small, 2-wheel drive sport utility vehicles
(SUVs) from the truck category to the car category, beginning with model year 2011. When
this re-classification was initiated in the 2011 report, the absolute truck share decreased by
approximately 10%.
The current car-truck definitions have been propagated back throughout the entire
historical Trends database to maintain the integrity of long-term trends of car and truck
production share. Since the authors did not have all of the requisite technical information
on which to make retroactive car-truck classifications, we used engineering judgment to
classify past models.
This report previously presented data on more vehicle types, but recent vehicle design has
led to far less distinction between vehicle types and reporting on more disaggregated
vehicle types was no longer useful.
Manufacturer Definitions
When a manufacturer grouping changes under the GHG and CAFE programs, the current
manufacturer definitions are generally applied to all prior model years. This maintains
consistent manufacturer and make definitions over time, which enables better
identification of long-term trends. However, some of the compliance data maintain the
- ------ D-6
previous manufacturer definitions where necessary to preserve the integrity of compliance
data as they were accrued.
Differences in Production Data Between CAFE and GHG Regulations

The data used to discuss real-world trends in Sections 1 through 4 of this report are based
on production volumes reported under CAFE prior to model year 2017, not the GHG
standards. The production volume levels automakers provide in their final CAFE reports
may differ slightly from their final GHG reports (typically less than 0.1%) because of
different reporting requirements. The EPA regulations require emission compliance in the
50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, whereas the CAFE program
requires data from the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico only. All
compliance data detailed in Section 5, for all years, are based on production volumes
reported under the GHG standards. Starting with model year 2017 and forward, the real-
world data are also based on production volumes reported under EPA’ s GHG standards. As
described above, the difference in production volumes is very small and does not impact
the long-term trends or analysis.
- ------ D-7
E. Electric Vehicle and Plug-In Hybrid Metrics
Electric Vehicles (EVs) and Plug-in Hybrid Vehicles (PHEVs) have continued to gain market
share. While overall market penetration of these vehicles is still relatively low, their
production share is projected to reach 8% in model year 2022. This section addresses some
of the technical metrics used both to quantify EV and PHEV operation and to integrate data
from these vehicles with gasoline and diesel vehicle data.
EVs operate using only energy stored in a battery from external charging. PHEVs blend EV
technology with more familiar powertrain technology from petroleum-fueled vehicles.
Current PHEVs feature both an electric drive system designed to be charged from an
electricity source external to the vehicle (like an EV) and a gasoline internal combustion
engine. There are generally three ways that a PHEV can operate:
• Charge-depleting electric-only mode – In electric-only mode the vehicle operates

like an EV, using only energy stored in the battery to propel the vehicle.
• Charge-depleting blended mode – In blended mode the vehicle uses both energy
stored in the battery and energy from the gasoline tank to propel the vehicle.
Depending on the vehicle design and driving conditions, blended operation can
include substantial all-electric driving.
• Charge-sustaining mode – In charge-sustaining mode, the PHEV has exhausted the

external energy from the electric grid that is stored in the battery and relies on the
gasoline internal combustion engine. In charge-sustaining mode, the vehicle will
operate much like a traditional hybrid.
The presence of both electric drive and an internal combustion engine results in a complex
system that can be used in many different combinations, and manufacturers are choosing
to operate PHEV systems in different ways. This complicates direct comparisons among
PHEV models.
This section discusses EV and PHEV metrics for several example model year 2022 vehicles.
For consistency and clarity for the reader, the data for specific vehicles discussed in this
section reflect values from the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels, which use
a 55% city and 45% highway weighting for combined fuel economy and CO2 values. When
data for these vehicles are integrated into the data for the rest of the report, the real-world
highway and city values are combined using a 43% city and 57% highway weighting.
Additionally, some PHEV calculations are also adjusted, as explained at the end of this
section.
- ------ E-1
Table E.1 shows the label driving range for several EVs and PHEVs when operating only on
electricity, as well as the total electricity plus gasoline range for PHEVs. The average range
of new EVs is increasing, as shown in Section 4, and many EVs are approaching the range of
an average gasoline vehicle. 28 PHEVs generally have a much smaller all electric range,
however the combined electric and gasoline range for PHEVs often exceeds gasoline-only
vehicles. Several PHEVs now exceed 500 miles of total range.
Table E.1. Model Year 2022 Example EV and PHEV Powertrain and Range
Electric Total
Fuel or Range Range Utility
Manufacturer Model Powertrain (miles) (miles) Factor
Ford F-150 Lightning EV 300 300 -
Platinum
GM Bolt EV 259 259 -
Hyundai Ioniq 5 LR RWD EV 303 303 -
Nissan Leaf 62 kWh EV 226 226 -
Tesla Model 3 LR AWD EV 358 358 -
BMW X5 xDrive PHEV 31 400 0.60
Ford Escape PHEV 37 520 0.66
Stellantis Pacifica PHEV 32 520 0.61
Toyota Prius Prime PHEV 25 640 0.53
Determining the electric range of PHEVs is complicated if the vehicle can operate in
blended modes. For PHEVs like the Ford Escape, which cannot operate in blended mode,
the electric range represents the estimated range operating in electric only mode.
However, for PHEVs that operate in a blended mode, the electric range represents the
estimated range of the vehicle operating in either electric only or blended mode, due to the
design of the vehicle. For example, the BMW X5 uses electricity stored in its battery and a
small amount of gasoline to achieve an alternative fuel range of 31 miles. Some PHEVs did
not use any gasoline to achieve their electric range value on EPA test cycles; however,
certain driving conditions (e.g., more aggressive accelerations, higher speeds, and air
conditioning or heater operation) would likely cause these vehicles to operate in a blended
mode instead of an all-electric mode.
28In addition to growing EV range, the number of public electric vehicle charging stations is growing rapidly. For
more information, see the U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fuels Data Center at
https://www.afdc.energy.gov/.
- ------ E-2
Table E.1 also introduces the concept of a utility factor. The utility factor is directly related
to the electric range for PHEVs, and is a projection, on average, of the percentage of miles
that will be driven using electricity (in electric-only and blended modes) by an average
driver. The model year 2022 Escape, for example, has a utility factor of 0.66, i.e., it is
expected that, on average, the Escape will operate 66% of the time on electricity and 34%
of the time on gasoline. The label utility factor calculations are based on an SAE
methodology that EPA has adopted for fuel economy labeling (SAE 2010).
Table E.2 shows five energy-related metrics for model year 2022 example EVs and PHEVs
that are included on the EPA/NHTSA Fuel Economy and Environment labels. Comparing the
energy or fuel efficiency performance from alternative fuel vehicles raises complex issues
of how to compare different fuels. Consumers and OEMs are familiar and comfortable with
evaluating gasoline and diesel vehicle fuel economy in terms of miles per gallon, and it is
the primary efficiency metric in this report. To enable this comparison for alternative fuel
vehicles, the overall energy efficiency of vehicles operating on electricity, hydrogen, and
CNG are evaluated in terms of miles per gallon of gasoline equivalent (an energy metric
described in more detail below).
Table E.2. Model Year 2022 Example EV and PHEV Fuel Economy Label Metrics
Charge
Fuel Charge Depleting Sustaining Overall
or Electricity Gasoline Fuel Fuel Fuel
Manufact Power (kW-hrs/ (gallons/ Economy Economy Economy
urer Model -train 100 miles) 100 miles) (mpge) (mpg) (mpge)
Ford F-150 Lightning EV 51 - 66 N/A 66
GM Bolt EV 28 - 120 N/A 120
Hyundai Ioniq 5 LR RWD EV 30 - 114 N/A 114
Nissan Leaf 62 kWh EV 31 - 108 N/A 108
Tesla Model 3 LR AWD EV 26 - 131 N/A 131
BMW X5 xDrive PHEV 63 0.1 50 20 32
Ford Escape PHEV 32 0.0 105 40 67
Stellantis Pacifica PHEV 41 0.0 82 30 48
Toyota Prius Prime PHEV 25 0.0 133 54 78
The fourth column in Table E.2 gives electricity consumption rates for EVs and PHEVs
during charge depleting operation in units of kilowatt-hours per 100 miles (kW-hrs/100
miles). As shown on the vehicle label, the electricity consumption rate is based on the
amount of electricity required from an electric outlet to charge the vehicle and includes
wall-to-vehicle charging losses. The values for all of the EVs and PHEVs reflect the electricity
consumption rate required to operate the vehicle in either electric-only or blended mode
- ------ E-3
operation. PHEVs that are capable of operating in a blended mode may also consume
some gasoline in addition to electricity. Any additional gasoline used is shown in the fifth
column. For example, the BMW X5 consumes 63 kW-hrs and 0.1 gallons of gasoline per 100
miles during this combination of electric-only and blended modes.
The sixth column converts the electricity consumption data in the fourth column and the
gasoline consumption data in the fifth column into a combined miles per gallon of
gasoline-equivalent (mpge) metric. The mpge metric is a measure of the miles the vehicle
can travel on an amount of energy that is equal to the amount of energy stored in a gallon
of gasoline. For a vehicle operating on electricity, mpge is calculated as 33.705 kW-
hrs/gallon divided by the vehicle electricity consumption in kW-hrs/mile. For example, for
the Leaf, 33.705 kW-hrs/gallon divided by 0.31 kW-hrs/mile (equivalent to 31 kW-hrs/100
miles) is 108 mpge. 29 Because the BMW X5 consumes both electricity and gasoline over the
alternative fuel range of 31 miles, the charge depleting fuel economy of 50 mpge includes
both the electricity and gasoline consumption, at a rate of 63 kW-hrs/100 miles of electricity
and 0.1 gal/100 miles of gasoline.
The seventh column gives label fuel economy values for vehicles operating on gasoline
only, which is relevant here only for the PHEVs operating in charge sustaining mode. For
PHEVs, the EPA/NHTSA label shows both electricity consumption in kW-hrs/100 miles and
mpge, when the vehicle operates exclusively on electricity or in a blended mode, and
gasoline fuel economy in mpg, when the vehicle operates exclusively on gasoline.
The final column gives the overall mpge values reflecting the overall energy efficiency of
the vehicle for all of the fuels on which the vehicle can operate, and provide a common
metric to compare vehicles that operate on different fuels. In addition to the energy
metrics in the previous columns, the one key additional parameter necessary to calculate a
combined electricity/gasoline mpge value for a PHEV is the utility factor that was
introduced in Table E.1. For EVs the overall fuel economy in the last column is equal to the
charge depleting fuel economy, as EVs can only operate in a charge depleting mode.
Table E.3 gives vehicle tailpipe CO2 emissions values that are included on the EPA/DOT Fuel
Economy and Environment labels (and reflected in the label’s Greenhouse Gas Rating).
These label values reflect EPA’s best estimate of the CO2 tailpipe emissions that these
vehicles will produce, on average, in real-world city and highway operation. EVs, of course,
have no tailpipe emissions. For the PHEVs, the label CO2 emissions values utilize the same
29The actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may
result in a slightly different number due to rounding error.
- ------ E-4
utility factors discussed above to weight the CO2 emissions on electric and gasoline
operation.
Table E.3. Model Year 2022 Example EV and PHEV Label Tailpipe CO2 Emissions
Metrics
Fuel or Tailpipe CO2

Manufacturer Model Powertrain (g/mile)
Ford F-150 Lightning EV 0
GM Bolt EV 0
Hyundai Ioniq 5 LR RWD EV 0
Nissan Leaf 62 kWh EV 0
Tesla Model 3 LR AWD EV 0
BMW X5 xDrive PHEV 178
Ford Escape PHEV 77
Stellantis Pacifica PHEV 119
Toyota Prius Prime PHEV 78
Table E.4 accounts for the “upstream” CO2 emissions associated with the production and
distribution of electricity used in EVs and PHEVs. Gasoline and diesel fuels also have CO2
emissions associated with their production and distribution, but these upstream emissions
are not reflected in the tailpipe CO2 emissions values discussed elsewhere in this report.
Combining vehicle tailpipe and fuel production/distribution sources, gasoline vehicles emit
about 80 percent of total CO2 emissions at the vehicle tailpipe with the remaining 20
percent of total CO2 emissions associated with upstream fuel production and distribution.
Diesel fuel has a similar approximate relationship between tailpipe and upstream CO2
emissions. On the other hand, vehicles powered by grid electricity emit no CO2 (or other
emissions) at the vehicle tailpipe; therefore, all CO2 emissions associated with an EV are
due to fuel production and distribution. Depending on how the electricity is produced,
these fuels can have very high fuel production/distribution CO2 emissions (for example, if
coal is used with no CO2 emissions control) or very low CO2 emissions (for example, if
renewable processes with minimal fossil energy inputs are used).
Electricity production in the United States varies significantly from region to region and has
been changing over time. Hydroelectric plants provide a large percentage of electricity in
the Northwest, while coal-fired power plants produce the majority of electricity in the
Midwest. Natural gas, wind, and solar have increased their electricity market share in many
regions of the country. Nuclear power plants make up most of the balance of U.S.
- ------ E-5
electricity production. In order to bracket the possible GHG emissions impact, Table E.4
provides ranges with the low end of the range corresponding to the California power plant
GHG emissions factor, the middle of the range represented by the national average power
plant GHG emissions factor, and the upper end of the range corresponding to the power
plant GHG emissions factor for part of the Midwest (Illinois and Missouri).
Table E.4. Model Year 2022 Example EV and PHEV Upstream CO2 Emission
Metrics (g/mi)
Tailpipe + Total Tailpipe + Net

Upstream CO2 Upstream CO2
Fuel or
Manufacturer Model Powertrain Low Avg High . Low Avg High
F-150 136 211 369 35 110 267
Ford EV
Lightning
GM Bolt EV 76 117 204 25 66 153
Hyundai Ioniq 5 EV 81 125 218 26 70 163
Nissan Leaf 62 kWh EV 84 130 228 30 76 173
Model 3 LR 69 107 188 10 48 128
Tesla EV
AWD
BMW X5 xDrive PHEV 323 378 494 230 285 401
Ford Escape PHEV 154 185 251 97 129 195
Stellantis Pacifica PHEV 217 254 332 134 171 250
Toyota Prius Prime PHEV 134 154 196 86 106 148
Average Sedan/Wagon 338 338 338 270 270 270
Based on data from EPA’s eGRID power plant database, 30 and accounting for additional
greenhouse gas emissions impacts for feedstock processing upstream of the power
plant, 31 EPA estimates that the electricity CO2 emission factors for various regions of the
country vary from 269 g CO2/kW-hr in California to 727 g CO2/kW-hr in the Midwest, with a
national average of 416 g CO2/kW-hr. Emission rates for small regions in upstate New York
and Alaska have lower electricity upstream CO2 emission rates than California. However,
California is a good surrogate for the “low” end of the range because California is a leading
market for current EVs and PHEVs. Initial sales of electric vehicles have been largely, though
not exclusively, focused in regions of the country with power plant CO2 emissions factors
lower than the national average, such as California, New York, and other coastal areas.
Accordingly, in terms of CO2 emissions, EPA believes that the current “sales-weighted
30 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2022. “Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated
Database (eGRID), 2020” Washington, DC: Office of Atmospheric Programs, Clean Air Markets Division. Available
from EPA’s eGRID web site: https://www.epa.gov/egrid.
31 Argonne National Laboratory 2022. GREET_1_2022 Model. greet.es.anl.gov.
- ------ E-6
average” vehicle operating on electricity in the near term will likely fall somewhere between
the low end of this range and the national average. 32
The fourth through sixth columns in Table E.4 provide the range of tailpipe plus total
upstream CO2 emissions for EVs and PHEVs based on regional electricity emission rates.
For comparison, the average model year 2022 car is also included in the last row of Table
E.4. The methodology used to calculate the range of tailpipe plus total upstream CO2
emissions for EVs is shown in the following example for the model year 2022 Nissan Leaf
(62 kWh battery):
• Start with the label (5-cycle values weighted 55% city / 45% highway) vehicle
electricity consumption in kW-hr/mile, which for the Leaf is 31 kW-hr/100 miles, or
0.31 kW-hr/mile
• Determine the regional powerplant emission rate, regional losses during electricity
distribution, and the additional regional emissions due to fuel production upstream
of the powerplant (for California, these numbers are 233 g/kW-hr, 5.3%, and 9.2%,
respectively).
• Determine the regional upstream emission factor (for California 233 g/kW-hr / (1–
0.053) * (1+0.092) = 269 g CO2/kW-hr) 33
• Multiply by the range of Low (California = 269g CO2/kW-hr), Average (National

Average = 416 g CO2/kW-hr), and High (Midwest = 727 g CO2/kW-hr) electricity
upstream CO2 emission rates, which yields a range for the Leaf of 84-228 grams
CO2/mile.
The tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions values for PHEVs include the upstream CO2
emissions due to electricity operation and both the tailpipe and upstream CO2 emissions
due to gasoline operation, using the utility factor discussed above to weight the values for
electricity and gasoline operation. The tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions values
for the average car are the average projected real-world model year 2022 car tailpipe CO2
emissions multiplied by 1.25 to account for upstream emissions due to gasoline
production.
The values in columns four through six are tailpipe plus total upstream CO2 emissions. As
mentioned, all of the gasoline and diesel vehicle CO2 emissions data in the rest of this
32 To estimate the upstream greenhouse gas emissions associated with operating an EV or PHEV in a specific
geographical area, use the emissions calculator at www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=bt2.
33 The actual calculations were done with unrounded numbers. Using the rounded numbers provided here may
result in a slightly different number due to rounding error.
- ------ E-7
report refer only to tailpipe emissions and do not reflect the upstream emissions
associated with gasoline or diesel production and distribution. Accordingly, in order to
equitably compare the overall relative impact of EVs and PHEVs with tailpipe emissions of
petroleum-fueled vehicles, EPA uses the metric “tailpipe plus net upstream emissions” for
EVs and PHEVs. The net upstream emissions for an EV is equal to the total upstream
emissions for the EV minus the upstream emissions that would be expected from a
comparably sized gasoline vehicle; size is a good first-order measure for utility, and
footprint is the size-based metric used for standards compliance. The net upstream
emissions for PHEVs are equal to the net upstream emissions of the PHEV due to electricity
consumption in electric or blended mode multiplied by the utility factor. The net upstream
emissions for a gasoline vehicle are zero. This approach was adopted for EV and PHEV
regulatory compliance with the 2012–2016 light-duty vehicle GHG emissions standards for
the production of EVs and PHEVs beyond a threshold; however, those thresholds were
never exceeded.
For each EV or PHEV, the upstream emissions for a comparable gasoline vehicle are
determined by first using the footprint-based compliance curves to determine the CO2
compliance target for a vehicle with the same footprint. Since upstream emissions account
for approximately 20% of total CO2 emissions for gasoline vehicles, the upstream emissions
for the comparable gasoline vehicle are equal to one-fourth of the tailpipe-only compliance
target.
The final three columns of Table E.4 give the tailpipe plus net upstream CO2 values for EVs
and PHEVs using the same Low, Average, and High electricity upstream CO2 emissions rates
discussed above. These values bracket the possible real-world net CO2 emissions that
would be associated with consumer use of these vehicles. For the Leaf, these values are
simply the values in columns four through six minus the upstream GHG emissions of a
comparably sized gasoline vehicle. Based on the model year 2022 CO2 footprint curve, the
5-cycle tailpipe GHG emissions for a Leaf-sized gasoline vehicle meeting its compliance
target would be close to 217 grams/mi, with upstream emissions of one-fourth of this
value, or 54 g/mi. The net upstream emision for a Leaf (with the 62 kWh battery) are
determined by subtracting this value, 54 g/mi, from the total (tailpipe + total upstream).
The result is a range for the tailpipe plus net upstream value of 30–173 g/mile as shown in
Table E.4, with a more likely sales-weighted value in the 30-76 g/mi range.
For PHEVs, the tailpipe plus net upstream emissions values use the utility factor values
discussed above to weight the individual values for electric operation and gasoline
operation.
- ------ E-8
Alternative Metrics for EVs and PHEVs
Determining metrics for EVs and PHEVs that are meaningful and accurate is challenging. In
particular, vehicles capable of using dual fuels, such as PHEVs, can have complicated
modes of operation that make it difficult to determine meaningful metrics. Here we’ve
discussed several metrics that are used on the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment
Labels and in a regulatory context, namely mpge, tailpipe CO2 emissions, and net upstream
GHG emissions. There are, however, other ways that alternative fuel vehicle operation can
be quantified.
Other energy metric options that could be considered include: (1) mpge plus net fuel life
cycle energy, which would also reflect differences in upstream energy consumption in
producing the alternative fuel relative to gasoline-from-oil; and (2) miles per gallon of
gasoline, which would only count gasoline use and not other forms of energy. Compared to
mpge, using the mpge plus net fuel life-cycle energy metric would generally result in lower
fuel economy values, and using the miles per gallon of gasoline metric would yield higher
fuel economy values.
Additional Note on PHEV Calculations

Calculating fuel economy and CO2 emission values for PHEVs is a complicated process, as
discussed in this section. The examples given for individual vehicles were based on
calculations behind the EPA/DOT Fuel Economy and Environment Labels. In addition to the
approach used for the labels, there are multiple methods for determining utility factors
depending on the intended use of the value. The standardized utility factor calculations are
defined in the Society of Automobile Engineers (SAE) document SAE J2841.
The utility factors that are used for fleetwide calculations are somewhat different than
those used to create label values. For label values, multi-day individual utility factors
(MDIUF) are used to incorporate “a driver’s day to day variation into the utility calculation.”
For fleetwide calculations, fleet utility factors (FUF) are applied to “calculate the expected
fuel and electric consumption of an entire fleet of vehicles.” Since the Trends report is
generally a fleetwide analysis, the FUF utility factors were applied, instead of the MDIUF
utility factors, when the data were integrated with the rest of the fleet data. Additionally,
since Trends uses a 43% city / 57% highway weighting for combining real-world fuel
economy and CO2 data, the FUF utility factors created for Trends were based on that
weighting, not on 55% city / 45% highway weighting used on the fuel economy label.
- ------ E-9
F. Authors and Acknowledgments
The authors of this year's Trends report are Aaron Hula, Andrea Maguire, Amy Bunker,
Tristan Rojeck, and Sarah Harrison, all of whom work for the EPA Office of Transportation
and Air Quality (OTAQ) at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. OTAQ colleagues including Karen Danzeisen, Ching-Shih Yang, and Kelly Kacan
provided critical access and expertise pertaining to the EV-CIS data that comprise the
Trends database. The authors also want to thank Gwen Dietrich and Eloise Anagnost of
OTAQ for greatly improving the design and layout of the report. General Dynamics
Information Technology (GDIT) under contract to OTAQ, provided key support for database
maintenance, and table and figure generation. DOT/NHTSA staff reviewed the report and
provided helpful comments. Of course, the EPA authors take full responsibility for the
content and any errors.
The authors also want to acknowledge those OTAQ staff that played key roles in creating
and maintaining the Trends database and report since its inception in the early 1970s. Karl
Hellman, who conceived of and developed the initial Trends reports with Thomas Austin in
the early 1970s, was the guiding force behind the Trends report for over 30 years. Dill
Murrell made significant contributions from the late 1970s through the early 1990s, and
Robert Heavenrich was a lead author from the early 1980s through 2006. Jeff Alson
oversaw the continued transformation and modernization of this report from 2007
through 2018. The compliance portion of this report (now section 5), was developed by
Roberts French, and he remained the lead author through the 2019 report. This report has
benefitted immensely from the wealth of insight, creativity, and dedication from each of
these outstanding emeritus authors.
- ------ F-1

The EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology Since 1975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology Since 1975

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The EPA Automotive Trends Report: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Fuel Economy, and Technology Since 1975

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The

2. Fleetwide Trends Overview ......................................................................................................... 5

5. Manufacturer GHG Compliance ................................................................................................ 78

Appendices: Methods and Additional Data

Table 1.1. Model Year 2021 Manufacturer Definitions .................................................................................3

A. What’s New This Year

B. Manufacturers in this Report

Manufacturer Makes in the U.S. Market

Mercedes Maybach, Mercedes

Volvo Lotus, Polestar, Volvo

C. Fuel Economy and CO2 Metrics in this Report

Basis for manufacturer

Best estimate of real-world

Overall Fuel Economy and CO2 Trends

In model year 2021, the average Figure 2.1. Estimated Real-World

measured. Real-world fuel economy 600

Since model year 2004, CO2

improved in fourteen of seventeen 24

Preliminary data suggest that CO2 16

emissions and fuel economy in

Figure 2.3. Distribution of New Vehicle CO2 Emissions by Model Year 2

1975 1980 1985 19 90 19 95 200 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025

C. Manufacturer Fuel Economy and CO2

27.8 ... -28.7

Honda 28.2 ►28.5 312◄315

Mazda 27.4 II( 29.6 301---► 324

334 ----l ►352

Mercedes . 23.6 23.6

Ford 22.8 ►22.9 385◄389

GM 21.6 ◄-22.4 397---► 414

All Manufacturers 24.7 f-+ 25.4 347 I+- 359

20 24 28 32 300 350 400 450

Production Real-World Real-World Production Real-World Real-World

MY 2020 Final MY 2021 Final MY 2022 Preliminary

A. Vehicle Class and Type

Regu latory Class Vehicle Type

Fuel Economy and CO2 by Vehicle Type

Figure 3.2. Production Share and Estimated Real-World Fuel Economy

1975 1985 1995 2005 2015 2025

Model Year Model Year

Vehicle Type by Manufacturer

Lower average CO2 Emissions

Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type

7 Vehicle curb weight is the weight of an empty, unloaded vehicle.

Figure 3.5. Average New Vehicle Weight by Vehicle Type

3000 6% t -12% -5%

Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975

Figure 3.6. Inertia Weight Class Distribution by Model Year

Vehicle Weight and CO2 Emissions

Figure 3.7. Relationship of Inertia Weight and CO2 Emissions

Vehicle Power by Vehicle Type

100 Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975 Since MY 1975

Truck SUV Minivan/Van Pickup

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Vehicle Power and CO2 Emissions

0 500 1000 1500

Figure 3.11. Calculated 0-to-60 Time by Vehicle Type

ALL Sedan / Wagon Car SUV

Truck SUV Minivan / Van Pickup