Can anyone give a definitive answer to this? Opinions are fine but they don't answer the mail.

Based on this link provided in another thread and going to the EPA site
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calcu...umn=1&id=21735
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...600.513-81.htm

2007 Mustang using old EPA numbers came out to 23.1 MPG and had no GGT
2008 Mustang using new EPA numbrs came out to 20.9 MPG which = $650 GGT

The question I can't get an official answer to is whether the new EPA numbers will be used to calculate GGT. Or more specifically, will the 2008 GT have a GGT?
I looked on that EPA site and couldn't find a place to ask questions. Their FAQ didn't address this issue (or I missed it if it did)
Anyone?

 

Here we go:

I. Combined Fuel Economy Basis

For calculating the combined fuel economy displayed on the label
(and also factored into the estimated annual fuel cost calculation), we
proposed a weighting of 43% city and 57% highway. Currently this value
is based on a 55% city/45% highway weighting. The 43/57 weighting was
based on the new 5-cycle method and reflects average miles driven (not
time spent) at speeds below and above 45 mph respectively, based on
existing data for on-road driving patterns. This analysis is detailed
in the Technical Support Document. We received comments that the 43/57
split was not intuitive to most drivers and that consumers may think
more in terms of the percent of time they spend driving in city or
highway conditions, rather than in percent of distance traveled. Some
commenters suggested a simple 50/50 split, which is more intuitive to
car buyers; others suggested retaining the 55/45 split since it is
closer to the intuitive 50/50 split.
The basis for the 43/57 city-highway weighting as used to assess 5-
cycle fuel economy fleetwide is discussed in the Technical Support
Document. The issue for the label is how best to convey the fuel
economy information most relevant to consumers and which city/highway
weighting supports that purpose.
We agree with the comments that a 43/57 split based on distance is
not intuitive to consumers. We considered the suggested 50/50 split,
since likely most consumers think of ``combined'' fuel economy as an
equal mix of city and highway driving. The 55/45 split was used
historically to determine combined fuel economy since it is consistent
with the statutory requirements for determining fuel economy for CAFE
standards and the Gas Guzzler tax.\47\ Thus, since it will remain the
required weighting for the Gas Guzzler tax that appears on the label
for applicable vehicles, it is most consistent to continue using the
55/45 split for combined fuel economy as well. We do not want to cause
consumer confusion by using different city/highway weightings to
calculate different numbers appearing on the label. Therefore, we are
finalizing that a 55/45 weighting be used to calculate the combined
fuel economy displayed on the label and used to calculate the estimated
annual fuel costs. This decision does not impact the underlying city/
highway split used analytically to determine fleetwide composite 5-
cycle fuel economy, as discussed in the Technical Support Document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\47\ See 49 U.S.C. 32904(c) and 26 U.S.C. 4064(c)(1)
..
This is from:
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-AIR/...y-27/a9749.htm
.
It looks like they have already considered the impact on the GGT.
I think we will see the GGT.
.

 

I foresee some litigation coming. How can they change the way they calculate MPG, thus lowering the results, without RAISING the standard for the GGT? How can a car NOT be a gas guzzler one day, and be slapped with a GGT the next? This one is heading to court.

 

Yo Mark, does this mean you're gonna buy an '07.....or still go with the '08.....or not at all?

 

Karman,

Thanks for the info/research. Looking at your link, I found this tidbit
I'm not sure how to interpret this. Is this "final rule" the same as the new EPA standards? If so, then it would seem to say that they do not impact the GGT.
I'm still confused. We need a freakin lawyer in here

BREAK

Kevin,

You are reading my mind. If the 2008 GTs have a GGT of ~$650, and there are currently $1000 incentives on 2007s and $500 military rebate, then prior to any 2008 Model Year price increases, the difference between a 2007 and comparably equipped 2008 is currently over $2000 for me (assumes no rebates for 2008s in summer 07).

 

.
It is always up to the lawyers in the end.

 

More info from a different EPA doc
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/guzzler/420f06042.htm

So, based on this document, it appears that the new EPA MPG Calculations will not impact the GGT.

 

What I hate about the EPA is no one gets voted into thier positions.They make decisions we have to live,some good,some ridiculous.I'm still trying to figure out the tax on a gas guzzler.The money goes where? Some states already have tax on fuel per gallon.Plus the Feds get their share.It sounds more like paying a fine right up front before you make the purchase.

 

Guys, even today current GT is 1 MPG away from $1000 GGT. I know because my Shelby GT, which gets 1 MPG less than a regular GT, was hit with the $1000 GGT. So it's not going to take much to move the base GT into GGT territory.

 

As long as the current way of figuring GGT isn't changed and the mustang doesn't change, 2008 GT buyers should be ok.

Ford was cutting it close in 2005 and 2006 with the 3.55 gears on the manual. For 2007, that may the reason they made 3.31s the standard gears on the manuals and the 3:55 gears as an option.

The Shelby GT uses higher gears and this was probably the biggest contributer as to why they have a GGT

 

Bingo! I thought I also heard that the impact of the GT500 on Ford's fleet fuel economy for the Mustang was another variable.

Bingo again! I suspect that the Ford Racing tune was optimized around the 3.55 ratio as well. Assuming it was not altered for the Shelby GT, this might be a contributing factor also.

 

Fascinating, even if I didn't read it.

 

The EPA is a parasitical institution that should be closed.

 

The Fleet Average and GGT for individual vehicles will not be calculated on the new EPA MPG #s.

And to answer some other people's comments, the fines for missing fleet MPG and individual GGT are not determined by the unelected EPA officials. Those fines are determined by congress through legislation.

At some point in time the new EPA test proceedure and Fleet MPG / GGT will need to be reconciled.

The old EPA #s were pretty bogus. The test was very short and very light on the throttle. 0-60 acceleration time was 19 seconds during the test. In addition, the city driving cycle was so short that hybrids like the Prius could beat the test by running almost entirely off their batteries. And air conditioning was turned off on the tests.

Although not perfect, the new EPA tests will be a much better representation of how the vehicles are actually driven.

 

Another reason why the EPA should be banned or kept from interfering with the design, sale, and ownership of automobiles in the US.

 

Thanks V10.

I kinda figured that was the case, based on the quote I posted above
No need to rush out and order a 2007. Vapor Silver is looking good.

 

Hmmmm.... Sounds like as good a reason as any for Ford to drop a 500hp N/A DOHC VVT V10 in place of the S/C'd V8. If it were all aluminum you could get away with slightly less power and still be able to maintain parity with past super-charged models, a 6.8 liter V10 in such a configuration could easily belt out 470 to 500 hp and probably produce better fuel economy numbers than the S/C'd V8. It works pretty well for the Z06, which produces a combined mileage rating under the new rules the same as our own Mustang GT.

 

Do these new rules go in effect on the 2008 models when released, or 1 Jan 2008? All - that's ALL - of the Ford sales force at 4 different dealers say they not only know anything about the new standards, but that they even didn't know that the standards were changing. What's the difference in the mileage of the 2007 vs. 2008 Escape?

 

Unless this is not an actual listed cost on the order I can say for sure that the 08 GT's don't have GGT. At least it didn't show anywhere on my order or financing.

 

Check out this link:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml