Should sell very well in Europe: 109 gms/km + 0-60 in 10.1 should be enough for most people.

Nice to see such economy in a non-diesel car.
I just hope it will be affordable.

+ It would be nice to see diesel engines on that top chart.

Corrections:

For hybrids should read (by +75% instead of +43%)

For non-hybrids, should read (+150% instead of +60%)

Why non-hydrids do relatively much better than Hybrids?

@mahonj:

I fully agree with you that the time is right for a major gasoline tax increase, specially in USA and in many parts of Canada where fuel taxes are too low.

However, with Fed Election in Canada this fall and pro fossil fuel (PC) Conservative in power, no Fed fuel tax increases are in sight. Minor Provincial fuel taxes increases are a possibility.

The same applies to USA with next election campaing already on the way, no politician will consider a fuel tax increase.

Vehicle weight and not size matters. Look ast what Ford did with the F-150.

TP is correct.

Non-hybrids seems to be more sensitive to weight chnages. If really so, Ford is on the right path with a lighter F-150?

Much lighter weight coupled with less drag and more efficient engines could lead to 60 mpg ICEVs in the not too distant future?

Supercharged, intercooled and super-expanded is the basis of the Miller cycle, no?  Getting volumetric efficiency on demand by turbocharging and changing the intake valve timing and reducing compression back-work in cruise is a combination everyone's been talking about for as long as I can recall.  Is this the first to hit production?

The turbo would be nice to add to hybrids for NVH.  My one complaint about the Fusion Energi is engine buzz when climbing hills, and a turbo engine with the torque at lower speed would address that.

We have more waste streams in the US than we know what to do with.
If we take all of those carbon filled eye sores like tires, sewage, agricultural waste, food waste, plastic waste, anything that has carbon... and reform it into syn-diesel/syn-gasoline/syn-whatever we can easily reduce harmful emissions, reduce CO2, and have better engine performance as a result.

Waste has to go somewhere, we have to pay to treat it or move it... why not make treating it fuel our vehicles? We can probably stop refining petroleum completely if we simply converted our waste streams and existing waste to fuels.

There is so much untapped potential that we don't even need to grow things. Advanced Fischer Tropsch technology could easily displace our need for foreign oil, and as it continues to advance, it may even displace the need to refine gasoline or diesel from petroleum... Electric and H2 vehicles will start taking more and more market share from petro-fueled vehicles...

Are we talking waste streams? or all waste period?

10% of our total energy consumption? or 10% of transportations consumption? or like 10% of road going consumption?

Does your 10% include agriculture waste(like corn stover or other non-traditional waste)? Waste from industry? Sewage? Or existing acres and acres of landfills we have today?

You are also aware that syngas derivatives are almost pure forms of carbon-chains and have much better properties than those found from traditional Petroleum distillation?

Even if it only 10% of automobiles current energy demand, it could easily meet 15% of the need for them. It is a much better fuel, also much cleaner, and cleaner burning.

We need 5 million additional barrels of crude a day capacity to make the US a 'energy self-sufficient' nation.

We only need about 9,000,000 barrels of gasoline per day equivalent to completely get off of petroleum for gasoline.

I looked around and found 16% by 2030 (as quoted by the NNFCC) of all transportation fuels could be made from waste in the EU.

That is a pretty significant chunk of the market.

I'd wager the US could pull down higher levels in the Midwest or any other farming intense areas where there is livestock or grains.

@EP:
Biomass production is put here at 140 billion tons a year:
http://www.unep.org/ietc/Portals/136/Publications/Waste%20Management/WasteAgriculturalBiomassEST_Compendium.pdf

They give that as the energy equivalent of 50 billion tons of oil.

Oil production runs just over 4 billion tons a year:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/world-energy-2014-2050-part-1-2/

Clearly not all the biomass will be used, and the efficiencies will typically give the overall numbers a big hit.

Equally clearly the potential is substantial relative to our use, as other resources such as solar will also take up a large part of the load.

For the most common simple sugar in plants, xylose:

'The team liberates the high-purity hydrogen under mild reaction conditions at 122 degrees and normal atmospheric pressure. The biocatalysts used to release the hydrogen are a group of enzymes artificially isolated from different microorganisms that thrive at extreme temperatures, some of which could grow at around the boiling point of water.

The researchers chose to use xylose, which comprises as much as 30 percent of plant cell walls. Despite its abundance, the use of xylose for releasing hydrogen has been limited. The natural or engineered microorganisms that most scientists use in their experiments cannot produce hydrogen in high yield because these microorganisms grow and reproduce instead of splitting water molecules to yield pure hydrogen.

To liberate the hydrogen, Virginia Tech scientists separated a number of enzymes from their native microorganisms to create a customized enzyme cocktail that does not occur in nature. The enzymes, when combined with xylose and a polyphosphate, liberate the unprecedentedly high volume of hydrogen from xylose, resulting in the production of about three times as much hydrogen as other hydrogen-producing microorganisms.

The energy stored in xylose splits water molecules, yielding high-purity hydrogen that can be directly utilized by proton-exchange membrane fuel cells. Even more appealing, this reaction occurs at low temperatures, generating hydrogen energy that is greater than the chemical energy stored in xylose and the polyphosphate. This results in an energy efficiency of more than 100 percent — a net energy gain. That means that low-temperature waste heat can be used to produce high-quality chemical energy hydrogen for the first time. Other processes that convert sugar into biofuels such as ethanol and butanol always have energy efficiencies of less than 100 percent, resulting in an energy penalty.

In his previous research, Zhang used enzymes to produce hydrogen from starch, but the reaction required a food source that made the process too costly for mass production.

The commercial market for hydrogen gas is now around $100 billion for hydrogen produced from natural gas, which is expensive to manufacture and generates a large amount of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. Industry most often uses hydrogen to manufacture ammonia for fertilizers and to refine petrochemicals, but an inexpensive, plentiful green hydrogen source can rapidly change that market.

“It really doesn’t make sense to use non-renewable natural resources to produce hydrogen,” Zhang said. “We think this discovery is a game-changer in the world of alternative energy.”'

http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/04/040413-cals-hydrogen.html

So while this might not be a total solution to all transport needs, it could potentially provide all the power needed for agriculture, in, for instance, the US Midwest, and in addition provide the hydrogen for the production of ammonia fertilizer.

For transport it would seem to have great potential to provide low carbon hydrogen for fuel cell vehicles, perhaps in a PHEV configuration, so that every day running around is done on electricity, perhaps from solar, and the cars only need a ~12kwh battery instead of a very large pack such as the Tesla's have, as longer runs are done on hydrogen.

A billion tons of oil equivalent here, and a billion there, can really add up!

Biomass production is put here at 140 billion tons a year

That number is unreferenced; if it's supposed to designate any kind of available quantity, color me extremely skeptical.  "The Billion-Ton Vision" only found 1.3 billion tons of potential surplus in the USA, of which about half is currently available.  A number 2 orders of magnitude beyond that is in the realm of fantasy.  It's many times greater than the total mass of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by humans each year (about 30 billion tons).  This only makes sense if you are talking about the total Net Primary Productivity, which produces the annual downswing in the Keeling curve.

Humanity is already causing enough damage with the small fraction of NPP we divert to our own use.

"In truth, nature wastes almost everything, from solar energy to seeds, and its default condition is therefore red-fanged competition for scarce resources. The resources of ecosystems are thus already spoken for; there are no lands that are not used by something for some purpose, no caches of unexploited energy piled up in the margins that we can tap without depriving other organisms, human and non-human, of their sustenance."

@E-P,
How about setting up solar PV panels on top of already occupied lands such as over rooftops and parking lots? Wind turbines placed on farm land or grazing land have no effect on farm's output.
These will have no effect on the environment, yet can satisfy all our energy needs.

The proper mix of Wind, Solar, regional Wastes and Biomass and proper size storage could probably supply most of the energy required on a 24/7 basis.

Electric heaters exist to store enough heat for an average size room for 24+ hours. Recharge can be made in about 3 hours when lower cost energy is available.

New homes can be built to use a lot less energy for HVAC, lights, hot water and cooking.

Existing homes can be upgraded.