<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/</link>
	<description>hybrid &#38; electric cars smart charged with renewable energy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:18:56 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Why You Should Consider Car Brokers &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-1575</link>
		<dc:creator>Why You Should Consider Car Brokers &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:18:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-1575</guid>
		<description>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards &#124; Clean &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards | Clean &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Oral Exam Police</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-1247</link>
		<dc:creator>Oral Exam Police</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 19:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-1247</guid>
		<description>Saw your blog bookmarked on Delicious. I love your site and marketing strategy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Saw your blog bookmarked on Delicious. I love your site and marketing strategy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: FLoscrudato</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-242</link>
		<dc:creator>FLoscrudato</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 00:31:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-242</guid>
		<description>The CAFE standard must not be confused with the EPA Label ratings. The announcement regarding fuel economy standards can be very missleading. The federal regulations, as established by the NHTSA, are the CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy rating for an auto maker. This CAFE rating, expressed in mpg, is different than the EPA Label rating, or the rating that all consumers see on the Monroney (Window) sticker for a new car. Both these ratings are expressed in MPG, however they are derived by different testinng methods. The CAFE rating, established back in the &#039;70s, utilizes less drive cycles that the new 2008 5-Cycle EPA rating method. The CAFE rating is always less that the EPA rating. It is highly unlikely that a consumer will obtain the CAFE fuel economy rating. There are many subcompact and compact vehicles, that are NOT hybrids, on the road today that can meet the 39 mpg CAFE rating.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The CAFE standard must not be confused with the EPA Label ratings. The announcement regarding fuel economy standards can be very missleading. The federal regulations, as established by the NHTSA, are the CAFE or Corporate Average Fuel Economy rating for an auto maker. This CAFE rating, expressed in mpg, is different than the EPA Label rating, or the rating that all consumers see on the Monroney (Window) sticker for a new car. Both these ratings are expressed in MPG, however they are derived by different testinng methods. The CAFE rating, established back in the &#8217;70s, utilizes less drive cycles that the new 2008 5-Cycle EPA rating method. The CAFE rating is always less that the EPA rating. It is highly unlikely that a consumer will obtain the CAFE fuel economy rating. There are many subcompact and compact vehicles, that are NOT hybrids, on the road today that can meet the 39 mpg CAFE rating.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cash For Clunkers: smart fortwo Gets Maximum Incentive - CleanCarTalk</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-158</link>
		<dc:creator>Cash For Clunkers: smart fortwo Gets Maximum Incentive - CleanCarTalk</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 17:50:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-158</guid>
		<description>[...] CleanFleetReport.com has the smart on its list of New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] CleanFleetReport.com has the smart on its list of New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Green Cars Won&#8217;t Cost the Earth &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-157</link>
		<dc:creator>Green Cars Won&#8217;t Cost the Earth &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-157</guid>
		<description>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards &#124; Clean &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards | Clean &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: UK car sales drop by almost a quarter &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-156</link>
		<dc:creator>UK car sales drop by almost a quarter &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Jul 2009 05:19:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-156</guid>
		<description>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards &#124; Clean &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards | Clean &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is now the Best Moment to Shift Your Used Car? &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>Is now the Best Moment to Shift Your Used Car? &#8212; 20 Places to&#8230; Autos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-149</guid>
		<description>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards &#124; Clean &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] New Cars that Already Meet 2016 Fuel Economy Standards | Clean &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Architecture Blogs</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-136</link>
		<dc:creator>Architecture Blogs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 06:31:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-136</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Architecture Blogs...&lt;/strong&gt;

[...] It has a major opportunity to extend its E-Flex architecture to SUVs and trucks by 2016. For the price conscious buyer, the Chevy Spark hatchback with a 1.2L gasoline engine should deliver over 40 mpg. There are almost 40000 Chrysler ... [...]...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Architecture Blogs&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>[...] It has a major opportunity to extend its E-Flex architecture to SUVs and trucks by 2016. For the price conscious buyer, the Chevy Spark hatchback with a 1.2L gasoline engine should deliver over 40 mpg. There are almost 40000 Chrysler &#8230; [...]&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Finally, Sensible and Achievable Mileage Standards : blog.rv.net</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-135</link>
		<dc:creator>Finally, Sensible and Achievable Mileage Standards : blog.rv.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 19:21:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-135</guid>
		<description>[...] You can seethe current crop of CAFE qualifying vehicles and a taste of what is to come on the Clean Fleet Web [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can seethe current crop of CAFE qualifying vehicles and a taste of what is to come on the Clean Fleet Web [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tombartley</title>
		<link>http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/plug-in-hybrids/cars-meet-2016-fuel-economy-standards/#comment-134</link>
		<dc:creator>tombartley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 May 2009 06:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cleanfleetreport.com/?p=1566#comment-134</guid>
		<description>I like the Nissan EV, but unless the drive cycle is pretty level, I wouldn&#039;t say it gets at least 100 mile range between charges.  Because of dead battery phobia history indicates that most drivers will plan on about 50 mile range.  I would suggest 80 as a good number to stay out of trouble.  For the average 40 mile commute it works just fine.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I like the Nissan EV, but unless the drive cycle is pretty level, I wouldn&#8217;t say it gets at least 100 mile range between charges.  Because of dead battery phobia history indicates that most drivers will plan on about 50 mile range.  I would suggest 80 as a good number to stay out of trouble.  For the average 40 mile commute it works just fine.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
