You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views MPG Ratings Will Drop Under EPA Proposal

MPG Ratings Will Drop Under EPA Proposal

375 messages,  Last post on Oct 02, 2008 at 9:08 PM

You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires

What is this discussion about? Fuel Efficiency (MPG)

See this Edmunds.com article! EPA Overhauls Fuel Economy Estimates for 2008 - As the 2008 model-year cars hit the lot, shoppers will notice a big difference — the EPA has changed its fuel economy testing methods to produce mileage estimates that reflect "real world" driving habits. - (more)

Messages Page 2 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 38 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

#11 of 375 Re: they estimate [carlisimo] by starrow68 Jan 12, 2006 (12:09 pm)
Replying to: carlisimo (Jan 11, 2006 6:04 pm) Some cars, like the Corvette, have been tailored to the test to get a great result (no gas guzzler tax at 400hp or even 505hp), and that has resulted in some drivers getting very good real world results. However, the variation in milage for Corvette drivers is very wide since some don't like to get into 6th except for very high speeds while I'll use it on any flat road over about 40mph. Others like to listen to the exhaust note and stay in 4th and don't even get to 5th much. Don't have any experience in the older 4 speed autos. The new 6sp auto should be good news for mileage. At about 45mph on a flat road my instant mileage readout is at about 35mpg in 6th gear. Of course there are places you have to stop and idle in the real world, hence I average in the low 20's, while the wife who drives much more conservatively on take off than I do, averages in the upper teens, go figure. Randy
#12 of 375 CAFE? by robertsmx Jan 12, 2006 (12:20 pm)
Does it follow suit, or sticks to its current standard?
#13 of 375 Re: they estimate [nippononly] by sls002 Jan 12, 2006 (1:16 pm)
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 11, 2006 3:50 pm) On long highway trips with my Seville I can average around 29 MPG by taking it easy. This is well over the highway rating. For local driving I average more than the city rating but less than the highway rating. Everyday driving is not something that the EPA tests can predict for anyone unless they happen to drive exactly like the test.
#14 of 375 Re: they estimate [carlisimo] by nippononly Jan 12, 2006 (2:10 pm)
Replying to: carlisimo (Jan 11, 2006 6:04 pm) Doesn't the EPA max out at like 52 mph on the highway test? I think the most significant thing is probably that they will use the A/C during the test now.   The place where cars like the Corvette will suffer is the city test, not the highway test. They are going to shorten the cycling from cold for that portion, I believe. So instead of 1 10-mile drive with 40-some stops (or whatever the exact test is - I know it is something like that), they will do something more like 1 5-mile drive with 20 stops and 2 2.5-mile drives with 10 stops. With the engine getting cold in between.   robertsmx: CAFE stays the same. BUA-HA-HA-HA! That is going to hit the domestics a lot harder than the rest, I think, but we will see. The hybrids obviously will drop a TON in rating - I wonder how that will affect sales. They will probably still do significantly better than gas-only counterparts. Replies to this message: rorr (Jan 12, 2006 2:42 pm) nippononly (Jan 12, 2006 2:49 pm) rorr (Jan 12, 2006 3:10 pm)
#15 of 375 Re: they estimate [nippononly] by rorr Jan 12, 2006 (2:42 pm)
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 12, 2006 2:10 pm) "robertsmx: CAFE stays the same."   Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Regardless of who gets hit the hardest, it hardly seems 'fair' that the government CAFE standards establish certain MPG milestones for the manufacturers to hit.....and then the government changes the way MPG is measured midstream.   I'm surprised Ford/GM/DC aren't all screaming bloody murder... Replies to this message: nippononly (Jan 12, 2006 2:49 pm) rorr (Jan 12, 2006 3:10 pm)
#16 of 375 Re: they estimate [rorr] by nippononly Jan 12, 2006 (2:49 pm)
Replying to: rorr (Jan 12, 2006 2:42 pm) Ford and GM already pay penalites on this every year because their fleet average falls below the standard. So maybe it is no big deal for them?   I think they should have the right to make their own test realistic. And it will certainly serve consumers better. With the gas prices spiking all over the place, it would be nice if you could make some reasonable calculation of what gas was going to cost you in a new vehicle before you committed to the purchase. Replies to this message: rorr (Jan 12, 2006 3:10 pm)
#17 of 375 Good Point........... by larsb Jan 12, 2006 (2:55 pm)
This change will reverberate through the auto and government arenas, because a LOT of legislation and rules are in effect based on MPG.   *ALL* of that legislation and all the rules will have to be modified for this change, because car companies will not be penalized all of a sudden after the 2008 model year tests for MPG that the new test "cheats" them out of.
#18 of 375 Re: they estimate [nippononly] by rorr Jan 12, 2006 (3:10 pm)
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 12, 2006 2:49 pm) "I think they should have the right to make their own test realistic."   I'm in absolute agreement; I've felt that the EPA test has needed some tweeking for years now to more accurately reflect real-word results. And the more accurate the info made available to the consumer, the better.   All I'm saying (and which larsb also pointed out) is the fact that there are reams and reams of government legislation which is based on EPA mileage #'s and a sudden change in the way the EPA does their test will have many many ripple effects.   If it can be shown that the new EPA tests result in a fairly consistent 20% reduction in MPG ratings, I would be in favor of a similar 20% reduction in the CAFE requirements.   Look at it on the flip side: what if the EPA changed their test criteria and it resulted in the MPG ratings suddenly INCREASING on average by 20%? Would it be 'fair' for the manufacturer's to still operate under the old CAFE requirements even though their fleet magically received a 20% boost in economy? Or would it be fair for the CAFE requirements to be adjusted accordingly?
#19 of 375 but by nippononly Jan 12, 2006 (3:28 pm)
aren't the CAFE standards already fairly pathetic? Lower them 20% and you might as well just cancel them entirely. Replies to this message: rorr (Jan 13, 2006 7:43 am)
#20 of 375 Re: but [nippononly] by rorr Jan 13, 2006 (7:43 am)
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 12, 2006 3:28 pm) "Lower them 20% and you might as well just cancel them entirely."   You're missing the point. Whether or not the current CAFE standards are 'pathetic' or not isn't relevant. If you change the way something is measured, then any requirements BASED on that measurement should be adjusted accordingly.   Hypothetically, if the EPA had been UNDERESTIMATING fuel economy (so that real-world numbers were higher than the ratings), they might change their methods resulting in 20% HIGHER EPA numbers. This would result in the manufacturer fleet mileage numbers suddenly going up by 20%. Would you or would you not favor an adjustment to the CAFE requirements under that scenario?   You have to be consistent. If you would favor adjusting CAFE requirements UPWARDS to reflect a hypothetical increase in EPA numbers due to changed methodology, you must also understand the rational for adjusting the CAFE requirements down to reflect a decrease in the EPA numbers.

Messages Page 2 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 38 Prev Next Last

Go To Msg # Search This Discussion

You are here: Forums Automotive News & Views MPG Ratings Will Drop Under EPA Proposal