Question of the Day: Should Fuel Economy Mandates be Tough or Evolutionary?

Michael Strong
by Michael Strong

Today, the Trump administration lowered the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) from 50.4 mpg to 34.9 mpg by 2031. This applies to passenger cars and light duty trucks. The CAFE at the end of 2024 was 30.1 mpg.



The final move in Trump’s “Freedom Means Affordable Cars” reportedly allows automakers more flexibility in the types of vehicles they build to attract more buyers. It would also reduce the average price of a new vehicle by $1,300 and save $138 billion during the next five years. 

It would also, according to the administration, save 1,900 lives and prevent 300,000 serious injuries because the price reduction would allow more people to buy new cars, trucks and crossovers to replace less safe older vehicles. The average age of a vehicle on U.S. roads right now is 12 years old — a number that has been steadily rising for several years.

Less efficient vehicles will force car owners to spend more on gas, which is much more expensive than normal courtesy of the ongoing conflict between the U.S. and Iran. The previous fuel economy standard would have saved drivers an estimated $600 annually in gas costs, according to estimates from the Biden administration.

So the question of the day is do you think automakers should have targets that are challenging to reach or less strenuous to allow for evolutionary change? Let us know.

[Image: ]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Michael Strong
Michael Strong

Michael Strong has spent more than 25 years writing about the automotive industry. A Detroit-area native, he’s written about everything from local car shows to product reviews to financial news. Currently he writes and edits for a variety of national and local publications. He’s also a longtime member of the Automotive Press Association and the International Motor Press Association, and a graduate of Georgia Southern University. Hail Southern! Despite a love for ’70s land yachts and BMWs from the late ’80s and early ’90s, his personal vehicle is neither of those.

More by Michael Strong

Comments
Join the conversation
4 of 61 comments
  • The original ToolGuy™ The original ToolGuy™ on Sep 29, 2026

    Gotta love all the people concerned with oil company profits (news flash, it’s expensive to run an oil company). Where were all these people when the oil companies were losing billions and billions during the covid cold?

  • Forward Observer Forward Observer on Sep 29, 2026

    Crude oil futures are down. Orange juice futures are high. High compared to what, you ask? Ask Mr. EV. 😂

    • See 1 previous
  • 3-On-The-Tree My C6 with the LS3 got over 30 mpg on the highway in 6th gear on cruise control doing 80-85.
  • KwikShiftPro4X On Kijiji this would be $3000 as-is, where-is. Vintage! Rare! I knows whats I got!
  • SCE to AUX KBB says that the ATP of new vehicles was $50,526 in September. As a group, buyers afforded that much, but we know that some (up to 6%) will default. Deducting 6% from that ATP, we get $47,494.So anything lower than that is 'more affordable', and anything higher than that is 'less affordable'.
  • Tom170698702 It's time to stop recycling old articles. This one is almost 3 months old.
  • Oberkanone Dacia makes product line of affordable vehicles. An entire product line. One vehicle is not the answer for all needs. Dacia does affordable well.
Next