Introduction

Introduction

The misunderstanding arising from the target value of "3.3 liters per 100 kilometers" is not what the industry hopes for.

"In August, the retail sales of passenger vehicles and the penetration rate of new energy vehicles reached 53.14%, higher than the 51.1% in July." I tried to discern any signs of disturbance in Mr. He's expression.

"Electrification has always been an irreversible trend." He put down his hot Americano and remained calm.

"So does this mean that gasoline-powered vehicles are in for harder times? Especially since the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology recently proposed a fuel consumption target of 3.3 liters per 100 kilometers for gasoline-powered vehicles."",""Do you really believe that the government requires pure gasoline-powered vehicles to achieve this level of fuel consumption? Those self-media outlets that seek clicks are spreading alarmist rumors, shouldn't in-depth professional media correct the misconceptions?" A hint of amusement appeared at the corners of Mr. He's mouth.

Feeling unsure of myself, I began to search the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's official website for the original document.

"Who is the 3.3-liter target aimed at? Is it difficult to achieve? Are electric vehicles also tested? Carefully examine and consider these three questions, and you will understand that the government does not intend to kill gasoline-powered vehicles," said Mr. He, taking another sip of his coffee. "Promoting electrification and maintaining internal combustion engines may seem like contradictory goals, but under realistic conditions, they can coexist, such as in hybrid vehicles or by simultaneously setting high targets."

Image | Source on the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's official website

With his hint, I finally found the relevant page on the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's official website - a public consultation on two mandatory national standards, including the "Evaluation Methods and Indicators for Passenger Vehicle Fuel Consumption".

The true source of the "3.3 liters per 100 kilometers" target is here; however, the "Limit on Electric Vehicle Energy Consumption" is also outlined here, yet few people mention that electric vehicles have also been set a challenging target of 13.92 kWh per 100 kilometers for electricity consumption.

"Governing a large country is like cooking a small fish; in the development of the automotive industry, electrification is the future direction, while internal combustion engines are the foundation of the present," said Mr. He, pushing up his glasses and gazing into the distance. "Ultimately, you cannot pursue only tomorrow without embracing today."

"Death sentence for gasoline-powered vehicles"? Just a misunderstanding!

On August 21, 2024, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released a public consultation on two mandatory national standards, including the "Evaluation Methods and Indicators for Passenger Vehicle Fuel Consumption." Immediately, the claim that "gasoline-powered vehicles are required to achieve 3.3 liters per 100 kilometers" sparked widespread controversy among both the automotive industry and consumers.

Advocates for gasoline-powered vehicles voiced their discontent, while supporters of electrification felt vindicated. Some sought to stir up controversy for clicks, but few noticed the three questions raised by Mr. He, and even fewer could clearly explain when the "3.3 liters per 100 kilometers" target would be achieved.

"Many media outlets rely solely on emotions and sensationalism, and unfortunately, many audiences seek the same," said Mr. He bluntly.

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology released a total of four documents, grouped into two sets. The first set focuses on "annual requirements for corporate average fuel consumption," while the second set addresses "electric vehicle fuel consumption."","The term 'fuel consumption' implies that it is not exclusively targeted at gasoline-powered vehicles," Mr. He sparked my curiosity again. "For instance, hydrogen used in fuel cell vehicles and coal used for power generation in electric vehicles are both considered part of fuel consumption."",The so-called "3.3 liters per 100 kilometers target for gasoline-powered vehicles" comes from the first set and consists of two core indicators: "Corporate Average Fuel Consumption" and "Vehicle-Specific Fuel Consumption".

The 3.3-liter target refers to the 2030 "Corporate Average Fuel Consumption" target and serves as the baseline for the "Vehicle-Specific Fuel Consumption" target for mid-sized vehicles.

Image | The 3.3 liters per 100 kilometers target is for corporate average fuel consumption in 2030

While "fuel consumption" cannot be simplistically equated with "fuel economy," we can simplify the understanding: The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology hopes that automakers such as FAW Hongqi, Changan Automobile, BYD, SAIC Volkswagen, and Dongfeng Nissan will achieve a weighted average fuel consumption of 3.3 liters per 100 kilometers across all their vehicle models by 2030.

Is this target exclusive to gasoline-powered vehicles? The original document clearly states that it includes vehicles capable of burning gasoline or diesel, pure electric vehicles, fuel cell vehicles, and vehicles that use gaseous or alcohol-ether fuels.","To suggest that this target is solely aimed at gasoline-powered vehicles is sheer nonsense," said Mr. He with a rare smirk. "Electric vehicles are converted into fuel consumption for the purpose of averaging, reducing the overall figure, and they themselves have electricity consumption targets that are no less challenging."

Image | The target scope includes new energy vehicles and is not exclusive to gasoline-powered vehicles

Another core element of the argument that "gasoline-powered vehicles are being driven to extinction" lies in the belief that "3.3 liters is too difficult to achieve." However, this too is a misunderstanding.

Firstly, as mentioned earlier, 3.3 liters refers to the "corporate average fuel consumption" (more accurately, average fuel consumption) across the entire automaker. The energy consumption of electric vehicles is also converted into fuel consumption for statistical purposes. Plug-in hybrids like BYD's DM5.0, which can achieve fuel consumption below 3 liters per 100 kilometers, are also included in these calculations, helping to alleviate pressure on gasoline-powered vehicles.

Secondly, is achieving 3.3 liters really that difficult?

Image | Already achieved 4.1 liters per 100 kilometers in 2022

In real-world driving, actual fuel consumption is often higher than the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's figures, as test conditions are simpler than real-world driving scenarios. Therefore, the Ministry's fuel consumption figures tend to be lower than those provided by apps like XiaoXiongYouHao, Yiche, Autohome, and Autozine.

In other words, don't equate the Ministry's 3.3 liters per 100 kilometers with your own driving experience; achieving the Ministry's target is easier than achieving 3.3 liters in real-world driving conditions.

So, do you know the current level of fuel consumption according to the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology?

Image | Achieved 3.78 liters per 100 kilometers of corporate average fuel consumption in 2023

According to the Ministry's own data, the corporate average fuel consumption already dropped to 4.1 liters per 100 kilometers in 2022 and further to 3.78 liters in 2023. The 3.3-liter target is to be achieved in phases from 2026 to 2030.

Image | Phased achievement of fuel consumption targets, reaching 100% by 2030

"With a basis of 3.78 liters last year, is it really that difficult to achieve 3.3 liters in seven years?" I was left speechless by Mr. He's question.

"You don't understand the Ministry's intentions"

From Sigma summation formulas to lengthy expressions, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's documents left my head spinning.

"Don't get frustrated; the complex calculation system is designed to be comprehensive," said Mr. He, calming me down. "Even different vehicle sizes have different fuel consumption targets."

Image | Fuel consumption targets vary by vehicle size

The Ministry categorizes vehicles into three levels based on curb weight and sets different requirements for each:

For curb weights less than 1.09 tons (micro or compact cars), the fuel consumption target is 2.57 liters per 100 kilometers;

For curb weights greater than 2.51 tons (large vehicles or larger new energy vehicles), the fuel consumption target is 4.7 liters per 100 kilometers;

For curb weights between these two figures, the fuel consumption target is slightly more complex, based on 3.3 liters plus a factor determined by the difference between the actual weight and the average curb weight of 1.58 tons (the average curb weight of all passenger vehicles, as most fall into this category) multiplied by 0.0015. This calculation aligns with the corporate average fuel consumption target of 3.3 liters.

Why do they do this? Because smaller vehicles and electric vehicles can help lower the average.

Let's simplify the calculation with a hypothetical example (which may not perfectly reflect reality): If SAIC Volkswagen sells only two models, the Lavida with 1 million units sold annually at 5 liters per 100 kilometers and the Passat with 100,000 units sold annually at 10 liters per 100 kilometers, SAIC Volkswagen's annual average fuel consumption would be (1 million * 5 + 100,000 * 10) / 1.1 million = 5.45 liters, not the arithmetic average of (10 + 5) / 2 = 7.5 liters.

This regulation ensures that while automakers can strive for an overall average, they cannot rely solely on the high sales of electric and smaller vehicles to offset the high fuel consumption of larger vehicles.","You should know that the CAFC largely references the US CAFE regulations," said Mr. He, beginning another comparison. "People only see the daunting 3.3 liters per 100 kilometers target for 2030 in China but are unaware of the even more daunting 1.9 liters per 100 kilometers target in the US."

Image | The US government has also proposed an ambitious target of 1.9 liters per 100 kilometers by 2032

Mr. He referred to the US light-duty vehicle GHG regulations for model years 2027-2032, which revised the CAFE targets, proposing an industry-wide average CO2 emission of 73 grams per mile for new passenger vehicles by 2032.

Many insiders still recall that "China uses liters per 100 kilometers for fuel consumption, the US uses miles per gallon for fuel economy, and Europe uses grams per kilometer for CO2 emissions." Europe once set a 2020 target of 95 grams per kilometer of CO2 emissions, equivalent to about 4.5 liters per 100 kilometers of fuel consumption. This target was delayed until 2021 due to disagreements between automakers and governments.

The 73 grams per mile translates to approximately 1.9 liters per 100 kilometers, a 60% increase over the 2026 CAFE regulations target.

However, according to the CAFE standards, by 2032, the average fuel economy of US passenger vehicles will reach 85 miles per gallon, equivalent to 2.767 liters per 100 kilometers. While still challenging, this is less stringent than China's 2030 target of 3.3 liters.

Image | The US CAFE standard equates to 2.767 liters per 100 kilometers by 2032

"You might say this is an unrealistic target set by the current liberal government, but one thing is certain: governments worldwide are promoting energy conservation and emission reduction in pursuit of industrial upgrading and energy security," I have always admired Mr. He's broad perspective. "At least we can roughly conclude that countries are generally pursuing similar goals, and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's 3.3-liter target is not the most stringent."",At this point, the narrative pushed by some clickbait outlets that the "Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is driving gasoline-powered vehicles to extinction" completely collapsed in my mind, and the truth gradually emerged.

Electric vehicles also face significant challenges

Many people have a misconception that electric vehicles are being pampered like flowers in a greenhouse by the government.

"In the long run, to cultivate industrial competitiveness, it is impossible to keep providing crutches for electric vehicles forever," I've always admired Mr. He's memory. "You can see from the fuel consumption conversion standards for electric vehicles that a decade ago, electric vehicles had zero fuel consumption and their sales were counted as ten times the actual number. Nowadays, the fuel consumption conversion for electric vehicles takes into account carbon emissions from thermal power generation and transmission losses, so they are far from pampered."

Image | In 2013, electric vehicles were counted as zero fuel consumption and five times their actual sales

I found the 2013 "Corporate Average Fuel Consumption Calculation Method for Passenger Vehicles," Article 15 states:

· For pure electric passenger vehicles, fuel cell passenger vehicles, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles with a driving range of 50 kilometers or more under combined driving conditions produced or imported by enterprises, the actual fuel consumption under combined driving conditions is calculated as zero, and the number of vehicles is counted as five times the actual number for the purpose of calculation.

· For vehicle models with actual fuel consumption under combined driving conditions of 2.8 liters per 100 kilometers or less (excluding pure electric and fuel cell passenger vehicles), the number of vehicles is counted as three times the actual number for the purpose of calculation.

· Other plug-in hybrid electric vehicles are counted based on their actual numbers.

This means that electric vehicles were previously calculated as having zero fuel consumption, and their sales were weighted five times higher.

Image | Electric vehicles need to have their fuel consumption converted

Eleven years later?

The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology's latest document clearly states that the fuel consumption of electric vehicles is calculated according to the GB/T 37340-2019 method, which takes into account carbon emissions from thermal power generation, transmission losses, and charging efficiency.

The conversion of fuel consumption for battery electric vehicles needs to consider factors such as thermal power generation and transmission losses.

According to national standards, if a battery electric vehicle consumes 15 kWh per 100 km, the simple conversion method equates to 1.74 liters of fuel per 100 km, the fuel lifecycle method equates to 3.4 liters, and the carbon dioxide emission method equates to 4.65 liters.

"Stop complaining that thermal power generation for electric vehicles is not environmentally friendly. They also need to convert carbon emissions from thermal power generation into fuel consumption, right?" Mr. He said with disdain. "Not to mention the concentrated carbon emissions from thermal power generation, which cannot be compared to random exhaust emissions in residential areas."

A battery electric vehicle that consumes 15 kWh per 100 km can be converted to 4.65 liters of fuel per 100 km using different conversion methods.

Like gasoline-powered and hybrid vehicles, battery electric vehicles also have specific energy consumption targets, known as electricity consumption targets, in addition to converted fuel consumption targets.

· For vehicles with a curb weight of less than 1.09 tons, such as minicars or small cars, the electricity consumption target is 10.1 kWh per 100 km.

· For vehicles with a curb weight greater than 2.71 tons, such as large vehicles or larger-sized new energy vehicles, the electricity consumption target is 19.2 kWh per 100 km.

· For vehicles with curb weights between these two figures, the target is calculated using a base of 13.92 kWh plus the actual weight minus 1.78 tons, multiplied by a factor of 0.00556. Notably, 1.78 tons is also the average curb weight of all electric passenger vehicles.

Figure|Electricity consumption targets for battery electric vehicles are also tiered.

"Electric vehicles and gasoline-powered vehicles are treated almost equally," said Mr. He with a calm demeanor. "The government is not stupid. They nurture electric vehicles in their infancy and eventually let them stand on their own as they mature. Harsher training cultivates stronger competitiveness. Bringing in Tesla as a catalyst is a similar strategic consideration."

Of course, it's easy to criticize from the sidelines, but for the R&D teams at automakers working on powertrains, every 0.1-liter improvement in fuel consumption per 100 km is a significant achievement when engine performance is already near its limits.

However, it's not as difficult as people might think. We should have more confidence in the potential of internal combustion engines and the rational development of industries in our country, rather than falling into the illusion that the government is forcing gasoline-powered vehicles out of existence and reacting with anger and frustration.

"Truly powerful automakers are already on the path of progress," concluded Mr. He. "They are optimizing the thermal efficiency of internal combustion engines while advancing the development of electric drive systems."

Industrial upgrades are driven by the tireless efforts of millions of people, not by the ranting and raving that fills our screens.