Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views 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
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)
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 13, 2008 7:17 pm) POPPYCOCK
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 13, 2008 8:03 pm) http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/127/story/565922.html http://environment.about.com/od/fossilfuels/a/fuel_label.htm A TRUE Expert here Ford media pipes in Edmunds with a great explanation of the new test J.D. Power website says average car exceeds EPA by 5%. That's pretty dang close. But you want the REAL reason the new test is better than the old one? The REAL reason is that now, almost every car driver can proudly say "MY car gets better MPG than the EPA estimate." This means lower fuel expenses than he/she would expect, which is a GOOD SURPRISE, unlike the BAD SURPRISE of the old tests. Not very many drivers could say that with the old test. Gary, Can you honestly and with a straight face say that merely because you feel the Jetta got cheated that the new test is a bad test? Do you have any other justifiable reasons than that? |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 6:57 am) The REAL reason is that now, almost every car driver can proudly say "MY car gets better MPG than the EPA estimate you kind of open yourself up to the same criticism I have been making of the revised test ever since it was started: the test is now rating cars uniformly low. If every car is rated a certain percentage too low, it is a bad basis for comparison, as the smaller more fuel-efficient models get hammered harder in the raw numbers than big, fat gas-guzzling ones do. A Honda Civic now looks like it will save only 20% in gas costs vs the biggest heaviest thirstiest Toyota V-6 sedan, when the reality is you will probably use HALF as much gas in the Civic in all-city driving. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Sep 15, 2008 7:08 am) If the Civic and the Corolla and the Elantra all are 5% low on the EPA sticker, it does not affect the comparison process, just like when they were 10% high it did not affect the process.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 7:23 am) Yes, but it used to be a good basis for comparison between all vehicles with a same-type engine (gas-powered, or diesel-powered, or hybrid-powered). Now it is an only moderately useful comparative tool between vehicles in the same size class, with a same-type engine. |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 6:57 am) Isn't that a bit like saying a new grading system is better because more students get A's under the new system compared to the old one?
|
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Sep 15, 2008 7:41 am) But even more than that: The new test includes REAL WORLD scenarios like driving 80 miles per hour, driving with the air conditioner ON, and driving a cold vehicle for short trips. The old test had none of that. How realistic could it have been? Not very.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 7:44 am)  It just seemed an odd point to make. That less complaints, or more pleasant surprises, was the real reason the new test was better. The rest of your reply argues points I was not addressing.
|
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Sep 15, 2008 8:10 am) They achieved them in lab conditions - not on real roads. And you could achieve them in some cars under certain conditions. But the vast majority of drivers, driving their normal commute, could not achieve them. Now, the trend is reversed and the vast majority DOES achieve them. I don't see how anyone can argue that the new scenario is worse than the old one. It's human nature to "expect better" than you normally get from a purchase. To actually get better than you expect makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 7:44 am) IMO, the new test is better, not because the numbers are more or less realistic but because, as you posted, "The new test includes REAL WORLD scenarios like driving 80 miles per hour, driving with the air conditioner ON, and driving a cold vehicle for short trips." It also features faster acceleration, btw. This means that manufacturers now need to design their cars to do well under all those circumstances, in order to get a good result from the test. |
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views MPG Ratings Will Drop Under EPA Proposal
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
