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 26, 2008 6:33 am) The numbers PROVE NOTHING. Only that some over paid Civil Servant has a computer with Excel. There is no good evidence that we can trust the people that are doing the tests. Think Fannie Mae and the FED. ALL CROOKS getting paid and doing little to protect US. When I see a real world test that matches the average driver's mileage I will believe the system works. Till then it is BROKE, and we are stuck paying the bill. Lies on a window sticker are worse than no mileage information at all. Most of my vehicles over that last 20 years did not have EPA ratings and I was fine with it. Your little calculations should prove to you how flawed their system is. Can you come up with a reason that the percentages are all different? There are no tests involved according to my letter. They call them "adjustment factors". I tell them to factor this you bunch of useless bums 
|
|
|
Gary says, "The credits were ALL based on fuel saved. " Exactly. More Fuel Saved = Cleaner Air More Fuel Saved = The Cars Who Do Best In Populated Areas Help More Than Cars That Do Well In Rural Areas More Fuel Saved = Give Bigger Credits To The Cars Who Save The Most Fuel And Therefore Help Clean The Air I never said the tax credit was designed for the hybrids. It wasn't. It was indeed designed for clean, high mileage cars. You can stick with your illogical position all you want to, but that does not make it any more logical. Gary says, "I would guess some zealous EPA person saw the higher City mileage on the Prius and convinced the rule makers to base it on City mileage rather than combined." That's completely laughable. Give me a few seconds to laugh....................Hard to figure out how much more ridiculous some of your stuff can get but this one really is near the top. My position = based on logic and is completely sound and logical. Your Position = based on some far-out assumption that ONE PERSON could have decided at random "Hey, let's use CITY" and had no logical reason to do so. Every post you put here makes me look smarter and smarter. Keep this up and soon I will become the Einstein of Edmunds.
|
|
|
|
Just in case anyone wants a break from the emotional venting and mudslinging here...  My understanding is the spreadsheet gives the CAFE figures which are used for determining if a manufacturer meets that standard. These differ from the published numbers in the fuel economy guide and window stickers in that they do not use fudge factors to adjust them and I believe they also do not use the new test components (higher speeds/acceleration, cold weather, A/C use). http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f04053.htm#cafe http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/CARS/rules/CAFE/overview.htm
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Sep 26, 2008 7:30 am) |
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 26, 2008 6:12 am) The purpose of the hybrid tax credit was to get cleaner cars on the road. Read the legislation. This is an energy act, not a clean air act. The energy act does include the provision that qualifying vehicles must meet emissions standards, but there is no provision that they show any improvement in emissions. Most of the factors used to determine eligibility and actual credit are tied to fuel consumption, not emissions. The act is riddled with statements regarding improved fuel efficiency, energy independence, energy security, lower fuel consumption, exceeding baseline MPG, and on and on. There is no mention at all about improved air quality. Cars must meet established emission standards, but there is no requirement that they exceed them. The purpose is to improve fuel efficiency, reduce fuel consumption, and ultimately move towards energy independence and energy security. Cleaning up the air is a bonus, not the motivating factor, and the language in the act certainly does not establish that as the purpose of the act. Yes, you can make the argument that reducing fuel consumption and such does indeed result in cleaner air. You can argue that cleaning up the air and reducing pollution are worthy pursuits, and that focusing efforts on more populated areas with the greater problems makes sense. You can even make the argument that this act has indeed resulted in cleaner air since diesels had to improve to meet the emissions standards to become eligible for the tax credits. Those arguments have a lot of merit. That's just not the purpose of this act or this tax credit system. If it was, the language in the act would reflect that. |
|
|
Replying to: mattandi (Sep 26, 2008 8:06 am) I'll concede that point. But lower consumption and cleaner emissions have a side effect, clean air, which is just as important in the mission of the EPA. Clean Air Act Roles and Responsibilities The Clean Air Act is a federal law covering the entire country. However, states, tribes and local governments do a lot of the work to meet the Act's requirements. For example, representatives from these agencies work with companies to reduce air pollution. They also review and approve permit applications for industries or chemical processes. EPA's Role Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets limits on certain air pollutants, including setting limits on how much can be in the air anywhere in the United States. This helps to ensure basic health and environmental protection from air pollution for all Americans. The Clean Air Act also gives EPA the authority to limit emissions of air pollutants coming from sources like chemical plants, utilities, and steel mills. Individual states or tribes may have stronger air pollution laws, but they may not have weaker pollution limits than those set by EPA. I think it is short-sighted and naive to think that vehicle testing and MPG ratings are not also linked to the clean air responsibilities of the EPA. And if you want to tie in the tax credits and try to figure out why they used the city mileage figures for applying the credit: Since lower consumption was a stated goal, and the vast majority of commuter miles are driven in city driving, then the cars which achieve higher numbers on the City portion of the test SHOULD have been rewarded for that, in relation to reducing fuel consumption in the areas where it was most needed.
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 26, 2008 8:44 am) There is a lot of overlap in the mandates to these various departments and agencies. The case in point, the tax credit system is managed by the DOE, but it is tied to tests conducted by the EPA, and it nets out at the IRS, and it has ancillary notice over at the DOT. Energy is not mandated to concern itself with Environment, but clearly energy and the environment are intimately related. Likewise, the DOE has little interest in building codes and development regulations, but activities and mandates handed to Energy have profound effects over at HUD and Interior. I hope you understand that I do not think you are just dead wrong in your assessment of all this. The EPA is the agency that conducts and monitors the mileage tests and publishes the MPG numbers. It is only logical that they do so in light of their mandates regarding the environment. Frankly, the fuel efficiency deal seems to me to be more within the purview of the DOE, but they didn't ask me. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: larsb (Sep 26, 2008 8:44 am) As far as I know, they're really not. There are emission standards for that...so many grams per mile of NOx, etc. I believe striving for low emissions can often actually result in lower efficiency.
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Sep 26, 2008 11:46 am) fueleconomy.gov site talking about air pollution and emissions Gas mileage (MPG), greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution ratings, and safety information for new and used cars and trucks In the same sentence, the EPA puts mpg ratings and air pollution. Seems related to me. |
|
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
