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: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 1:09 pm) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 15, 2008 1:23 pm) The difference between 21 MPG and 27 MPG is 23%.
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 15, 2008 1:42 pm) 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. |
|
| 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. | |
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 25, 2008 6:59 am) download from the column titled: "EPA Fuel Economy Datafile" |
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 25, 2008 6:59 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: gagrice (Sep 25, 2008 6:59 am) Gary says, "Which would favor hybrids. Which we knew they did that all along. " When you say "WE knew that" you should be saying "I KNEW THAT" because no one else here (or anywhere else that I can determine) believes that the EPA intentionally did ANYTHING to favor hybrids. You are the sole creator and proponent of that theory. And Gary, I have explained this before. The old EPA test was in place BEFORE hybrids were created. Nothing about the test was CHANGED to "favor hybrids." The new test is "not favoring hybrids" so I guess it evened out.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 25, 2008 7:54 am) The tax system, via credits, does show a bias that favors hybrids. It provides an incentive to buy a fuel efficient car. The incentive is based on city figures, which is where hybrids shine. All other factors considered, a hybrid is going to show greater improvement in the city figure, thus making it eligible for a greater incentive.
|
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Sep 25, 2008 8:08 am) Yes it DID, in the old test. But it was COMPLETELY UNINTENTIONAL. The tax credit was based on city mileage because reducing pollution in the CITIES is what is most important in regard to air pollution. So that is where that logic comes from - they did not just randomly say "OK, City is better so we will use CITY as the basis of the tax credit." It just so happened that the old, more severely flawed EPA test was so unrealistic in regard to the way it tested (no cold engine, no air conditioner) REAL-WORLD conditions that the hybrids used a lot of battery during the city portion of the test and therefore had good numbers. Clean diesel sedans driven in the City will pollute in the CITY, which is a more important consideration because of the density of population. Therefore the city number is important in that type of car also. Makes perfect sense.
|
|
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
