MPG Ratings Will Drop Under EPA Proposal

375 messages, Last post on Oct 02, 2008 at 10:08 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)

Outline

Messages Page 33 of 39: 1; ...; 30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35; 36; ...; 39; Prev; Next; Last

#314 of 375 Re: I T D O E S M A T T E R [gagrice] by larsb Sep 15, 2008 (2:00 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 1:53 pm) When I said, "You are mad about ONE CAR out of 615 cars getting a low result. Get OVER it already." you know what I meant. Allow me to refresh your memory: When EPA was doing the revised testing, they had 615 cars to test with the new method and only ONE of them was a diesel. They did not have enough data to worry about tweaking such a small data set. And of the five currently "tested and tax-credited" vehicles, I have not heard you complain that any of them were "robbed" by a faulty diesel test bias other than the Jetta. Did the MB diesels somehow avoid the bias? Replies to this message: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 2:09 pm) larsb (Sep 15, 2008 2:23 pm) gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 2:42 pm) and 1 more...
#315 of 375 Re: I T D O E S M A T T E R [larsb] by gagrice Sep 15, 2008 (2:09 pm)
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 2:00 pm) Did the MB diesels somehow avoid the bias? No, they are just as far off as the VW Jetta diesel. They are rating the blutec R class at 18 MPG city. Probably off at least 25 percent from what owners are getting. At the very least they are off by 18% that the EPA admits to. At the very least they need to fire the top people at the EPA and clean house. They have yet to post the tax credit for the E320 CDI blutec. It is no wonder our Congress has an 8% approval rating with the way they run these agencies. Replies to this message: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 2:23 pm) gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 2:42 pm) larsb (Sep 15, 2008 3:06 pm)
#316 of 375 Search fueleconomy.gov site by larsb Sep 15, 2008 (2:09 pm)
Look at the owner estimates for the 2009 Jetta TDI automatic tranny at fueleconomy.gov website. The City result for the three owners is 34 MPG. Below the 38 MPG that VW "independently" tested, and above the 29 MPG that the EPA tested. Seems like BOTH tests were sucky for the Jetta TDI city driving, no? Gary, are you going to be mad at VW now like you are at the EPA for "overstating" Jetta mileage? Replies to this message: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 2:19 pm)
#317 of 375 Re: Search fueleconomy.gov site [larsb] by gagrice Sep 15, 2008 (2:19 pm)
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 2:09 pm) Seems like BOTH tests were sucky for the Jetta TDI city driving, no? You love to cherry pick your data. Where did you find a 34 MPG city from any owner? Check the one person posting for the stick shift model he is getting 49 MPG Check the 3 people posting for the automatic they are averaging 37.3 MPG The lowest had a 34 MPG average and the highest 43 MPG. Much better than even the company that VW hired to test the cars. I you check the Sportwagen the only person posting is getting 46 MPG. While all those buying the VW TDI will get the last laugh. I am not cutting the EPA one INCH of slack. So you can post all the tainted data you can find. And I will debunk it as usual.
#318 of 375 Re: I T D O E S M A T T E R [gagrice] by larsb Sep 15, 2008 (2:23 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 2:09 pm) Can you point me to a source where "owners" are reporting R320 bluetec mileage? I can't find too many good road test or any owner reports. Found one owner reporting 27 MPG lifetime on an R320. Another guy says he "has seen 22-23 mpg" and another one said the service department got 17.5 MPG when they brought him the car. An estimate of 21 MPG combined might be a little low, but it's not ridiculously low. If the best we can find is an owner getting 27 MPG then I can see why MB did not complain about the tests. Replies to this message: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 2:42 pm) larsb (Sep 15, 2008 3:06 pm)
#319 of 375 Re: I T D O E S M A T T E R [larsb] by gagrice Sep 15, 2008 (2:42 pm)
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 2:23 pm) I doubt that MB will complain. There are not many people buying a new MB diesel that care about the Credit or would qualify. They are mostly people like myself that want the added torque and range that the diesel offers over the gas version. Once you drive the diesel for any distance you will not want the gas version of any modern car or SUV. The difference between 21 MPG and 27 MPG is 23%. Replies to this message: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 3:06 pm)
#320 of 375 Re: I T D O E S M A T T E R [gagrice] by larsb Sep 15, 2008 (3:06 pm)
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 2:42 pm) That variation is not out of line with what hybrids get on the road. If you take out the top and bottom 20% of reporting owners at a "popular' hybrid website, here are the ranges: Prius: Ranges from 39.3 to 51.8 = difference of 31.8% HCH: Ranges from 42.5 to 50.8 = difference of 19.5% Insight: Ranges from 52.3 to 63.3 = difference of 21% Seems about a correct range of variance among highly efficient cars.
#321 of 375 Accuracy in EPA ratings? by saablcp Sep 15, 2008 (4:04 pm)
I sell Saabs and am the owner of a 2008 9-3 Aero 2.8T V-6,255 H.P. The EPA ratings on our Monroni sticker put avg. economy at 15 city/24 highway.I commute 22 miles to work each way mixture of hwy and stop and go, avg.speed overall app.30-35 mph and consistently get 20 to 22 m.p.g.I just did a 120 mile trip on the N.E.Ext of the PA.Turnpike from Philly to Scranton which means I had to go through the Poconos.....not the Rockies by any means, but a significant elevation change none-the-less. At an average speed of 76 M.P.H.,I legitimately got 31.3 M.P.G. My car has about 8,000 miles on it and I run the recommended premium fuel. These kind of discrepancies in their numbers and the "REAL" world render them useless in any practical sense.
#322 of 375 Got letter from EPA by gagrice Sep 25, 2008 (7:59 am)
The letter claims that the tax credit was determined by CAFE numbers. "CAFE values are determined using unadjusted fuel economy numbers". So basically the letter is saying we do it our way and you are not allowed to know the formula. No links to how CAFE comes up with their numbers or what those numbers might be. It does say that the tax credit is based on city mileage. Which would favor hybrids. Which we knew they did that all along. Replies to this message: jeffyscott (Sep 25, 2008 8:43 am) mattandi (Sep 25, 2008 8:48 am) gagrice (Sep 25, 2008 12:53 pm) mattandi (Sep 25, 2008 4:32 pm) larsb (Sep 25, 2008 8:54 am) mattandi (Sep 25, 2008 9:08 am) larsb (Sep 25, 2008 9:30 am) and 27 more...
#323 of 375 Re: Got letter from EPA [gagrice] by jeffyscott Sep 25, 2008 (8:43 am)
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 25, 2008 7:59 am) Unadjusted numbers are available at: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml download from the column titled: "EPA Fuel Economy Datafile"