EPA Finally Mulling Over Better MPG Testing

[XS650]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jtantare:
They are not lowering EPA estimates. The problem is EPA estimates have nothing to do with reality. They are almost arbitrary. They don't even take the car out on a test track. Changing the EPA fuel economy estimate system is an easy way of taking away the CAFE loop hole which the big 3 have been adicted to for years. This has nothing to do with traffic or idiots on the road.
And no matter how briliat drivers are if you put enough cars on the freeway traffic will come to a stand still. The road only has a certain capacity it can handle. After that its stop and go.

---

The present CAFE estimates are failry close to what a competent driver can cahive under decent traffic conditions. They are easy to define and competent drivers can usually come close to matching them under favorable conditions.

The problem with derating the CAFE numbers to reflect traffic conjestion and/or brain dead drivers is that the definition of traffic congestion and/or brain dead are wide open.

I know that if I drive efficently I can usually match the CAFE numbers. I also know that if I don't drive effiently or get stuck in traffiC I won't match the CAFE numbers.

Change the CAFE numbers to reflect some arbirtary amount of traffic conjestion or driver brain deadedness, and they will be far less meaningfull than they are now.

Someone else said just divide the CAFE numbers by 2 for the morons. That's as good as any system.

They will probably beat the M for moron number and be happy and the rest of us won't have to adjust to some new less meaningfull number.

We will just tell them it's M for Macho and all will be good.

 

[jtantare]

Who said anything about simulating some arbitrary amount of traffic? Instead of just measuring CO2 emissions on a dyno then multiplying it by some random percentage some EPA bureaucrat pulled out of his you know what, just drive the stupid car a hundred times around a test track at a constant speed. Say 35 mph, 55mph and 75mph. We have enogh oval tracks in this country not being used 364 days out of the year. I don't care how inefficient the car is in stop and go traffic. I'm obviously getting zero mpg when I'm idling the engine at a light.
Also don't let the manufacturer give the EPA the test car. EPA should go out on the market like the rest of us and buy random cars at the manufacturer's expense. The DOT can reuse the car for crash testing. You can have "manufacturer estimate" for the first few months on the market then the EPA estimates come out mid model year. Why does honesty have to be so complicated?

 

[Ugly3]

Anyone read the Consumer Reports article on EPA estimates? They claim many models are as much as 35% off, reported as too high.

All I know is that I always beat the EPA estimates in all my cars.

 

[brianl703]

One thing I've seen some drivers do is is to dance on the gas pedal. Up, down, up down up down..that wastes fuel like you wouldn't believe.

 

[VNT]

You hit the nail on the head. Most cars will hit the highway MPG if the driver has the tires properly inflated and drives the speed limit. CIty MPG is useless due to far too many variables.
Only thing I could see them changing is the rating for Hybrids since they are way over inflated.
Would bet half the hype would disappeatr when people see mid to high 30MPG range for Hybrids highway instead of mid 40's advetised under current system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomJones76:
How do you mean that?
I didn't get facts in line with your sentiments from the article.

---

Anyone who drives in stop-and-go traffic where it takes an hour to go 15 miles and complains that they're not getting the rated city fuel economy is a dummy. Likewise for the one who accelerates pedal to the metal from every stop light only to get to the next light that's still red sooner. (I see that crap every day, and I get passed by these dummies on their way to the next light that I know...from seeing it over and over for the the last 2 years...is STILL going to be red. It's even better when they can see that the **** light is red and pass me anyway).

Anyone who weaves in and out of traffic on the highway and complains that they're not getting the rated highway fuel economy is a dummy.

---

 

[VNT]

Comsumer Reports LOL, You believe that fishwrap ?? They are idiots! Their non-scientific, non-random surveys dont mean a **** thing.

For your info, the EPA #'s are only to be used when comparing cars/drivetrains, not an absolute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Anyone read the Consumer Reports article on EPA estimates? They claim many models are as much as 35% off, reported as too high.

All I know is that I always beat the EPA estimates in all my cars.

---

 

[Bamaro]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VNT:
Comsumer Reports LOL, You believe that fishwrap ?? They are idiots! Their non-scientific, non-random surveys dont mean a **** thing.

For your info, the EPA #'s are only to be used when comparing cars/drivetrains, not an absolute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Anyone read the Consumer Reports article on EPA estimates? They claim many models are as much as 35% off, reported as too high.

All I know is that I always beat the EPA estimates in all my cars.

---

---

I believe them before I believe the EPA. Their mpg estimates come from actual driving not "non-scientific, non-random surveys"

 

[brianl703]

In "actual driving" my commute to work has varied in terms of fuel economy from a low of 17MPG (lower than the EPA city rating) to a high of 33MPG (higher than the EPA city rating).

Which number is accurate? Or should we take the average of the two and say "25MPG"? But wait..I only got the 17MPG on two days and the rest of the time it's mostly been about 30MPG...decisions, decisions...what to do..???

 

[VNT]

And yes, I believe CR for their reviews of toliet paper, cough medicine and Toaster Ovens too

Bamaro if you only knew how poorly they test things. In the industry I worked in as R&D Engineer for 17 years, I can attest to the stupid things they come up with. They are not even slightly interested in using any industry standard tests( I worked in Lighting) by IES or ANSI for Lighting Products. Their reviews and conclusions are totally a waste of time.

However I guess their conclusions and non-random surveys appeal to people who do not have a background in Engineering.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bamaro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by VNT:
Comsumer Reports LOL, You believe that fishwrap ?? They are idiots! Their non-scientific, non-random surveys dont mean a **** thing.

For your info, the EPA #'s are only to be used when comparing cars/drivetrains, not an absolute.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ugly3:
Anyone read the Consumer Reports article on EPA estimates? They claim many models are as much as 35% off, reported as too high.

All I know is that I always beat the EPA estimates in all my cars.

---

---

I believe them before I believe the EPA. Their mpg estimates come from actual driving not "non-scientific, non-random surveys"

---

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by VNT:
[QB] And yes, I believe CR for their reviews of toliet paper, cough medicine and Toaster Ovens too

Bamaro if you only knew how poorly they test things. In the industry I worked in as R&D Engineer for 17 years, I can attest to the stupid things they come up with. They are not even slightly interested in using any industry standard tests( I worked in Lighting) by IES or ANSI for Lighting Products. Their reviews and conclusions are totally a waste of time.

However I guess their conclusions and non-random surveys appeal to people who do not have a background in Engineering.

---

Just chalk it up to the fact that the government is totally bad, and we'd be better off if they never even tried to do anything at all

JMH

 

[bulwnkl]

quote:

---

Originally posted by brianl703:
I don't believe that poorly planned development is any justification for lowering EPA estimates.

---

I don't necessarily, either, although if the estimates are supposed to have any kind of connection with reality one might wish to at least consider actual conditions in designing the test(s). I think they tried to do so when they designed the current test. To me, this is a no-win situation.

At the very base, though, is the fact that any time you have a relatively simple test or metric by which relatively complex things are measured, you get people/organizations playing to the test. You can optimize a vehicle somewhat to the EPA test method and it will put up great numbers if you need/want the tax credit or the advertizing PR. When that vehicle gets out west to 80mph+ freeways (sorry; 75mph signs) it may not get very close to that highway rating. Or you can get into gridlock that plunges mileage to 0mpg and not get the city rating, either. The same kind of design-to-the-test thing happens big-time for crash tests. We spend a ridiculous amount of time focusing on head-on collisions when most fatalities are the result of single-car rollovers.

To get back on track, though, I think the EPA measurements are still a pretty good way to compare things before I buy. The only caveat is that every Japanese vehicle I've ever owned has beat the EPA ratings (if it had a rating), whereas I cannot recall any American vehicle I've owned or primarily driven that did so (if it had one). My Grandpa's experience is different even though he lived across the road from me in the same rural place for most of my life.

 

[bulwnkl]

I lied. I had an '02 Subaru Legacy GT that didn't beat EPA.

 

[Mitch Alsup]

Every car I have ever driven could be driven is such a manner as to exceede its CAFE millage numbers. I can get the cars over the limits, my wife, driving the same car, does not even while driving with cruise control on.

Example:: I could get a 96 Vette to deliver 24 MPG while driving through city traffic--however, I was a road hazzard to those behind me until the 0.05Gs of acceleration got me up to posted limits. I could get 31 MPG driving from Ft Davis Texas to Austin Texas but only 30 MPG going there.

Example:: 95 Ferrari F355B, I routinely get 22 MPG on the highway from 55 through 70 MPH, while it is rated at 17 or 18 MPG by CAFE. It also shows as little as 6 MPG on the road race tracks....