EPA to revise mpg testing
- Thread starter John K
- Start date
- Status
Well its about time! I think they ought to let Consumer reports and Edmunds.com take care of it.
They seem to already be doing a much better job.
They seem to already be doing a much better job.
Oh boy now the freaking EPA is going to ruin motor oil for us too. What a shame.
I've never really had any problems with the epa numbers myself, can usually get about the same. I think that in general people are driving more aggressively and thus can't come close to the numbers, but they can only be guidelines. Good for comparing different vehicles, etc....
KW - I don't really understand what you are saying. I didn't see anything about motor oil in the article....(?)
Oops, I assumed to much without reading the link. Sorry for posting in such hast.
I saw EPA and it sent in another direction.
I saw EPA and it sent in another direction.
Consumer Reports magazine, widely followed by car buyers, says its mileage in city driving runs 35% to 50% worse than the EPA city-driving number. In a mix of city and highway driving, the magazine says, gasoline vehicles average 9% worse than the EPA's combined city-highway number
That's interesting. I usually achieve 10-30% above the EPA rating for my car: 26 city, 35 hwy. Of course, I'm using Fuel Power and Lube control because I know better.
(...patting self on back...)
I wonder if CR's MPG ratings include the 0-60 testing runs. That would explain why they nearly always see MPG on the under the EPA numbers.
That's interesting. I usually achieve 10-30% above the EPA rating for my car: 26 city, 35 hwy. Of course, I'm using Fuel Power and Lube control because I know better.
I wonder if CR's MPG ratings include the 0-60 testing runs. That would explain why they nearly always see MPG on the under the EPA numbers.
One must also take into account that much of the testing done by CR and Edmunds is on new vehicles. I usually don't get optimum mileage out of a new car until the car has had 10-20k on the ticker.
I don't see the need to change the standard. It is a measuring/comparison point. By changing the standard we are going to lose an important comparison refernce between model years.
I don't see the need to change the standard. It is a measuring/comparison point. By changing the standard we are going to lose an important comparison refernce between model years.
the 10 t0 12 new cars I have bought since 77 have all gotten EPA or better- never have gotten less! Todays car is rated at 39/43 and for the last over 83000thou+++ miles I have averaged 43.3mpg overall-about 41+ winter and 44/45 summer with runs of 48+ on long nonstop runs. Even the 88Chev&92GEO Sprint Metro XFI's I had got EPA, were rated at something like 52/58-they both averaged over 52++ each and at times they got upwards of the 58mpg. The 92 took me from here to Spearfish,SD. in 94 and back-2800+miles on 52gallons of gas-53++mpg. It wasn't the most comfortable trip ever made but at 53+mpg I made do-cheap!!! still drive versions of them today, am on #5 & 7-98 & 01 Suzuki Swifts.
Bryanccfshr - I agree with you.....
ToyotaNSaturn - Don't think CR includes the 0-60 runs, I think they have a specific loop for mileage tests.....
ToyotaNSaturn - Don't think CR includes the 0-60 runs, I think they have a specific loop for mileage tests.....
"Consumer Reports magazine, widely followed by car buyers, says its mileage in city driving runs 35% to 50% worse than the EPA city-driving number. In a mix of city and highway driving, the magazine says, gasoline vehicles average 9% worse than the EPA's combined city-highway number"
I just got a new '06 4runner, over the last 4,000 miles I have averaged 22.9 MPG on a vehicle rated at 17/21 with 35% city and 65% HW.
In my previous '96 4Runner I was getting 17 MPG city and 19 MPG HW on a vehicle rated at 15/17.
Its all in how you drive 'em, and how you maintain 'em (mostly air pressure).
I just got a new '06 4runner, over the last 4,000 miles I have averaged 22.9 MPG on a vehicle rated at 17/21 with 35% city and 65% HW.
In my previous '96 4Runner I was getting 17 MPG city and 19 MPG HW on a vehicle rated at 15/17.
Its all in how you drive 'em, and how you maintain 'em (mostly air pressure).
I think they should do EPA ratings like this:
Competent driver: 25/35 city/highway
Mediocre driver: 21/31 city/highway
Lousy driver: 17/26 city/highway
Or, better yet, since they're working so hard to make driving record information available to any government agency who wants it, how about you just enter your SSN# into the computer along with the make and model of the car you're interested in, and based on your accident history and moving violations, it calculates what kind of driver you are and therefore what kind of fuel economy you'll get? Maybe they could even work emissions test results and failures into it, to get some idea of how you maintain your car.
Competent driver: 25/35 city/highway
Mediocre driver: 21/31 city/highway
Lousy driver: 17/26 city/highway
Or, better yet, since they're working so hard to make driving record information available to any government agency who wants it, how about you just enter your SSN# into the computer along with the make and model of the car you're interested in, and based on your accident history and moving violations, it calculates what kind of driver you are and therefore what kind of fuel economy you'll get? Maybe they could even work emissions test results and failures into it, to get some idea of how you maintain your car.
An update: At 6,000 miles, I am now up to 23.1 MPG a full 10% over the EPAs HW milage and yet this is across both city and HW use.
There was another article on this subject this week in USA Today. Did anyone notice that the real world info came from the AAA? With the internet I don't think we need the EPA doing these tests anymore.
I think the EPA came up with a way of coming up with the MPG just by doing some math on the results from their standard emission testing, thus it wasn't very costly and it eliminated the variables associated with driving the cars, i.e., drivers, wind, weather, temperature, etc..... I don't see how they can change the testing myself, since CAFE is based on it. Doesn't seem fair to change the test method as it can have an effect on whether mfrs meet CAFE.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
