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)
|
|
|---|---|
|
I mentioned this elsewhere, but this is the more appropriate place for it: Does anyone think this will cause a revolution in consumer buying patterns? Will they now totally shift away from more powerful cars as fuel economy ratings under 20 mpg become common? Will they go further and downsize their next purchase, as even class leading 4-cyl midsize sedans will probably only get a rating of around 25 mpg, and midsize SUVs and crossovers will also be under 20 mpg? Or will they not care, and go right ahead, because gas is cheap and easy in the good ol' U.S.? OR will the whole thing fizzle out, as the new EPA test proves to be little better than the old one, because it is too difficult to predict (as posters here have pointed out) what real-world driving will produce for FE?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 19, 2006 8:29 am) Just out of curiousity, why try to predict what the real-world FE would be? If in the buying process you are comparing (for example) a Civic Sedan rated at 30/40 and a Corolla Sedan rated at 30/38, all I would care about was that in the City they should get about the same mileage and on the highway the Civic might get about 5% better mileage. It wouldn't change my buying decision one iota if the new ratings were 20% lower (24/32 for the Civic and 24/30 for the Corolla). I would STILL expect to get about the same mileage in the city and maybe 5% better on the highway in the Civic. Or are you saying that folks go into the decision buying process saying "I must buy something which is rated at 30/40" and so, because the ratings get revised, they will just naturally seek out an even more fuel efficient car to achieve a predetermined target?
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Jan 19, 2006 8:52 am) So if you are trying to figure out the running costs of various cars you might buy (and witness the huge popularity of Edmunds' TCO tool for an example of the number of people that do try to figure that out), an accurate FE rating would be the single-most important number in your calculations. In fact, if nobody cared about the ACTUAL mileage and only used the EPA numbers for comparison purposes (and yes, I know that was their original intent), why would there be such a large discontent over cars missing the ratings that EPA is now bowing to public pressure to update their test?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Jan 19, 2006 9:46 am) Because people have an expectation that if Product 'X' is advertized to have some measured 'something', then it darn well better have it. I'm reminded of the flack that some manufacturer's take when they re-rate hp figures (when the engines don't generate the hp in the specifications). For instance, when Mazda first released the RX-8, it was rated at around 250hp. A few months after it went on sale, Mazda re-rated the engine at 238hp. And a lot of people were very angry. Why? It's not as though their performance suddenly dropped; it's because they thought they bought a car with 'x' amount of power and BY GOD they DESERVED to have that car with 'x' amount of power. Why? Because they were sitting down with spec sheets and feverishly comparing hp numbers and curb weights and gear ratios and who knows what else to rationalize the purchase of car 'x' over car 'y'. Same (IMO) with mileage ratings. You wouldn't believe the number of times people with BRAND NEW CARS go into the various 'Problems' board to complain that their new whatever is not getting the EPA rated mileage (go check out the '06 Honda Civic board) even though their cars won't get their best mileage until after break-in and gas mileage is notoriously worse in the winter than in the summer. But that doesn't matter: all they know is the car was rated at 'x' and it damn well better GIVE them 'x'. They aren't trying to figure out their running costs (and figuring in expected tire life/replacement costs, etc.). They just have this number in their head (the mythical RATING....oooohhhhhmmmmmmmmmm) and they want their car to get that. But even if everyone IS really trying to figure out the running cost of the cars under consideration prior to purchase, the PURPOSE of doing that calculation is to COMPARE. And if car 'x' is projected to have lower running costs than car 'y' under the old EPA ratings, it will have lower running costs under the new ratings. And the delta in the running costs should be about the same. Or are you suggesting that some folks calculate to such a razor thin economic edge that whereas they could AFFORD the running cost for their car under the old ratings, that the new ratings would cause them to reconsider their purchase? I can't see that.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: rorr (Jan 19, 2006 10:46 am) For the record, I always drive older used vehicles that get 25-28 mpg and are midsized. I would never buy a NEW car (or a used one) in order to get a better mileage one until the old car is ready to die. I have never been able to justify in my mind that the fuel savings would cover the additional costs of owning a newer vehicle. Having said that, when you go to market like Honda and Toyota have with inflated mileage claims, you have to make sure that the vehicles can actually achieve those mileage claims. I went with one of my employees when he purchased his Hybrid Civic last year. The salesman touted the 50 mpg and the tax credits over and over again throughout the presentation. The employee drived mostly on rural highways and has pretty consistently achieved 38-40 mpg during the breakin period, during the summer months, and during the winter months. He has never gotten anywhere close to 50 mpg. He was getting 40 mpg+ on his old Plymouth Colt. Personally, I would be very content driving to work in a car the size of a Fiat 500 with modern safety equipment. Howevr, I have no intention of doing it until such time that the average vehicle on the road is not half the size of a tank.
|
|
|
Replying to: jlawrence01 (Jan 19, 2006 1:27 pm) The hybrids are overrated, but... they're the still the most fuel efficient cars you can buy with modern amenities and the safety level of a modern and decently sized car. And for every 38mpg Civic hybrid, someone's getting 24mpg in a Civic non-hybrid.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: carlisimo (Jan 19, 2006 2:26 pm) Civic non-Hybrids are only getting 24 mpg....??? I guess that I mistakenly thought that they were getting closer to 32 ppg.
|
|
|
Replying to: jlawrence01 (Jan 19, 2006 3:21 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
drop is going to hit the poor old hybrids. I am really wondering just how bad it will be. Most Prius owners are reporting 42-48 mpg, which is already bad enough compared to an EPA rating of 60/51, but a recent AAA survey that Automotive News cited concluded the owners surveyed were only getting 37 mpg on average. If the new EPA test slaps a 37 mpg on the Prius sticker, just watch sales wither away... |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: carlisimo (Jan 19, 2006 3:38 pm) BTW, the employee really liked his Plymouth Colt. Bought it for $700, drove it for six years, sold it for $300. Of course, he is in his early 60s and has had 6 or 7 vehicles including his '70 Winnebago.
|
|
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
