EPA efficiency testing may not work, at all

Status
Not open for further replies.

wemay

Site Donor 2023
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
17,196
Location
Kendall, FL
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/epa-testing-broken-heres-fix/

Quote:
Yesterday, a technical assessment report from the EPA, National Highway Traffic Administration, and the California Air Resources Board took a look at those standards and said, yeah, car companies should be able to hit them. The technology is there, or will be.

But there’s a problem: Even if the car companies do, they don’t. Or at least, no one has any way to know if they do. Because the EPA’s test to make sure automakers are hitting their CAFE numbers—the sole federal, legal requirement that cars get more efficient—probably doesn’t work. At all.
 
What's your point? It's not the EPA fault. Congress needs to change the law for the EPA to change the test procedure.

The 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act specifies that “the Administrator shall use the same procedures for passenger automobiles the Administrator used for model year 1975.”
 
The government writes the rules and the car companies are playing the game.

Article is a little biased because it assumes that the car companies can meet the more stringent CAFE standards by focusing on the tests, but those improvements made won't affect one bit how the car would operate in the real world.
 
Article doesn't justify its headline.

Like, AT ALL.

But I suppose "The Relationship Between Cafe Standards and Real-World Fuel Economy Needs Further Investigation" ain't such a good hook.
 
Yeah, after a second read, the title is a little much. I could have saved some bandwidth and left this one out. Just thought the premise was of interest being that the technology is outdated.
 
Originally Posted By: wemay
Yeah, after a second read, the title is a little much. I could have saved some bandwidth and left this one out. Just thought the premise was of interest being that the technology is outdated.


Don't see what "technology" is outdated. Its a standardised test. Backward compatability/consistency/historical trending (plus, in this case, legislation) often requires you stick with a standardised test even though it would be possible to devise a better one, because its, like, THE STANDARD.

Doesn't mean it couldn't be supplemented, or its relationship with other stuff investigated. The article says the latter has been done, but conspicuously fails to give any details. Not quite fact-free journalism, but close.
 
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
What ever happened to free enterprise?


Over the top politicking and self-centered, stupid people.

People will poop in their drinking water if it's convenient and cheap.
 
My car is rated 28 city. I'd be lucky to get 20mpg having a little fun. I'd also be lucky to get 25mpg city driving the most conservative as actually possible.
 
Originally Posted By: motor_oil_madman
What ever happened to free enterprise?


I think it turned into globalised corporate capitalism and shafted everyone but the rich.

Are we off-topic yet?
 
I'm and I know JHZR2 is as well a veteran of doing efficiency and performance tests.

Mine, spend $500k on a formal test, correct all back to standard conditions, and get within 1%, and you can't formally tell that there's a difference, or it's all the same...same load et al.

These fuel economy tests, introduce a "standard" road and inertial load, based on some calculation of vehicle weight and driving style.

A HEAP more variables, including non tangibles in how the types of people who buy the types of vehicles use them.

Plus the ability to change gearing/shift points such that a car excels in these tests, and drives like a dog in real life.

Same trip, there's 10% variance between myself and my wife typically...I'm faster, and more economical in my manuals, about even in the autos.
 
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
A camel is a horse designed by bureaucrats.
If you are traveling in the desert a camel is better than a horse.
 
The EPA FE numbers are rather elegantly derived from the emissions test.
These tests must be highly standardized and repeatable to have any legal validity in an enforcement action.
The relative ranking of vehicles in the EPA FE reports probably reflects their relative performance in the hands of drivers in real use on real roads.
I don't think that the EPA FE numbers were ever intended to provide a guide as to the typical fuel consumption that vehicles will deliver in actual use but rather to serve as a guide to which vehicles use relatively more or less fuel for any given distance traveled.
In this way, the EPA FE numbers do serve their intended purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top