Posted on 09/22/2005 4:57:12 AM PDT by grundle
http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/daybreak/consumernews/stories/wfaa050920_wz_crmpg.769b7aa2.html
Consumer Reports: Overstating gas mileage
07:22 AM CDT on Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Consumer Reports
When shopping for a new car, the gas mileage is a top priority these days. Automakers' mileage predictions are based on lab tests like the ones conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Cars are strapped onto a machine called a dynamometer. It turns the front wheels while a computer directs the driver to speed up and slow down.
Consumer Reports just analyzed the fuel economy data of every vehicle it has tested in the last five years. CR's Kim Kleman says this analysis reveals the mileage for 90 percent of the vehicles is overstated.
"The EPA tests don't correspond to the way most of us drive," Kleman said. "Their tests represent driving on a 75-degree day on a road with no curves or no hills, which is ideal for maximizing fuel economy."
The EPA tests haven't changed in 30 years, so they don't take into account today's driving conditions. There's a lot more congestion, idling in traffic, and widespread use of air conditioning.
Consumer Reports runs its own fuel economy tests. The engineers say these tests—done outdoors—give a much more accurate assessment of the actual mileage you'll get from a car.
Consumer Reports' tests often turn up results that are substantially different from the EPA's—especially for stop-and-go city driving.
For instance the EPA says you'll get 22 miles per gallon with a Jeep Liberty diesel, but Consumer Reports found you'll get just half that—11 miles per gallon.
With a Chrysler 300 C, the EPA says you'll get 17 miles per gallon, but Consumer Reports' tests get only 10.
As for a Honda Odyssey minivan, the EPA gets 20 miles per gallon; Consumer Reports gets just 12.
The differences Consumer Reports turned up with hybrids in city driving are even greater. The EPA says the Honda Civic hybrid gets 48 miles per gallon; Consumer Reports measured just 26.
"Newer cars tend to overstate the mileage more than older ones," Kleman said, "so the discrepancy between what you're promised and what you're getting seems to be growing."
Consumer Reports says with skyrocketing gas prices, that's a trend that's more troubling than ever.
Given the upfront cost differential between a hybrid and a gasoline powered auto, that difference could easily eliminate any financial advantage to owning a hybrid.
The last 3 or 4 cars I've owned have achieved mileage remarkably close to the EPA figures. And I don't feather the throttle. Perhaps Consumer Reports is doing it wrong.
interesting in that, by statute, cars are required to meet certain fuel efficiency standards - I assume as measured by the EPA. Could these cars be engineered to "ace the test," but not really engineered very well to save gas in real-life situations?
I have never gotten as good a number as they predicted but usually it has been close. Not so with my 2003 Saturn L-200 though. The estimate was for 23 mpg in the city and during the summer, with the AC on all the time, I am getting barely 16! :(
Same here - at the most it's been only 1 or 2 mpg off, which can easily be explained by variations in driving, terrain, wind, etc. They've all been real small cars, though (Integra, Toyota Matrix) - wonder if the difference increases with less fuel efficient ones, which require more care to get good mileage with?
LQ
I always thought that the mileage figures were given for comparison purposes only, and didn't reflect actual mileage a buyer was likely to get. "Your mileage may vary" means your mileage WILL be lower.
I would like to see ACTUAL mileage figures, but that varies widely based on driving styles by individuals, so it may be difficult to come by.
In other words, the sky is blue.
EPA figures are a "benchmark," not real world driving conditions.
Another thing I've found is that they more closely matched the EPA figures after engine break in. The Matrix got bad mileage when it was new (23 or 24, which for that car is bad) and it greatly increased once the engine had a few thousand miles on it, and I'm now routinely getting 31 or 32 during normal useage, and up to 36 on long trips.
I wonder how old the engines in the cars tested were.
LQ
Concur. Idling in the parking lot with the AC running is a rather poor way of calibrating MPG, despite the fact that many people do it. The EPA is giving you the mileage on the assumption that you are actually driving, not stuck in traffic. Not this may be the first time I've defended the EPA. Consumer reports has been drifting closer and closer into crackpot-land for some time.
If our money was not involved, it would be funny!
Considering that this comes from the leftists at Consumer Reports, I would expect them to say that the cars don't meet Bush's EPA mileage figures. No such problem existed under the previous administration, of course. (/sarcasm)
It doesn't matter what the numbers are, so long as all vehicles are tested under identical conditions.
Perhaps it would make them "happy" if all the EPA figures were reduced by, say, 20%? Works for me. In my particular experience, all the vehicles I've driven match quite closely the EPA figure minus 10-20%.
D'OH!
Quite to be expected when one leaves out driver variability and absence of wind conditions.
"Newer cars tend to overstate the mileage more than older ones," Kleman said, "so the discrepancy between what you're promised and what you're getting seems to be growing."
That is because automakers are no longer striving to build cars that get good milage, but are rather building cars that do well on the EPA test. The EPA test result is the figure used to determine Corporate Average Fuel Economy, so the auto companies need to get favorable numbers so they can sell more of the high-profit low milage cars.
The consumer is, of course, screwed. Not only do the auto companies produce vehicles incapable of performing their actual real-world functions efficiently, but they are also providing bad information. But the regulations forbid the manufacturers to use any figure but the EPA figure when advertising milage.
CAFE has been a disaster from start to finish. The definition of the exempt class of light trucks gave rise to the ridiculously inefficient and unstable SUV class. Now the definition of the test is giving rise to the new built-to-rule hybrid class, that does not come close to delivering what is promised.
If the whole rule were scrapped tomorrow, automakers would immediately start building the high milage automobiles that consumers demand, and consumers would insist that they actually perform as advertised. Overall fleet economy would go up almost immediately.
If the greenies were really interested in the environment, they would be campaigning against CAFE. Instead, they are more interested in control, so they are campaigning to make it even more obtuse and restrictive.
Just watching the instantaneous mileage info on the dash - the MPG number ranges from 2 to 200. Yes, the average does settle on some reasonable number, but it just reflects the particular mix of driving/terrain/ascents/decents/etc.
The best any published number can do is hold the conditions for that number steady and do the math. And then, just use the number for comparison with other manufacturers/cars.
Consumer Reports
"We Decide, You Listen"
Unfortunately their liberal enviro bias makes their decisions pretty lame.
20 yrs ago they had some credibility, at least on stuff like household appliances.
Now they seem to be wrong on just about everything.
"EPA figures are a "benchmark," not real world driving conditions."
I also thought it was quite amazing that my sister in law drives a VW bug and gets 29MPG on the highway and my Explorer Sport gets 27 MBG HWY. She gets the smiles and I get the finger. ?
Fortunately, there is yet nobody holding a gun to your head to buy one.
Last time I heard anyone seriously discuss "financial advantage" as a reason for a car purchase was in 1930.
For comparison purposes only.
The fact that Consumers Report went to the effort and expended all that time and energy to write this article simply proves that even apparently intelligent and competent people can fail utterly to be able to grasp a simple concept.
I would like to see what the differences are for different brands and models.
I have bought only Toyotas for over twenty years and they have always done as well as the EPA-rated mileage per gallon.
To get better mileage, I only drive downhill wherever I go.
Driving a relatively conventional competitor to the 'hyprids', I watch these numbers - EPA v. owners report - fairly closely. I find the hyprids typically overstated.
I damn the EPA and the market for not recognizing the VW TDIs potential. I see 45 mpg to 55 mpg (extremes), typically 48 mpg in town and at 80 mph, 52 mpg over long distances.
This is whast happens when you put the inept and incompetent government in charge of the simplest tasks. They screw it up and everyone suffers for it.
That's already been proven. There is a very interesting professor that number crunches all forms of energy based on reality, not EPA pseudo-science and he has proven that there (at this time) no panacea in hybrids, hydrogen or any other fuel source--other than boosting our own production. Recycling/disposal of battery systems in hybrids is a huge expense, offsetting any savings you might have realized and that's just one hurdle.
Besides, liberal drivers of hybrids and similar vehicles still drive in the passing lane at 45 mph, increasing the road rage rate in the U.S., causing higher court costs and repair bills on their mini-hybrids.
Yeah we have a Civic and it get's like 35mpg, I don't think it's 17.5 per gal. There's no way. I could see it being off by 5 from time to time.
The horror of THE BATTERY is another red herring; A hundred and a half or so sealed "D" cells can hardly be placed in the same category as a tanker truck hauling nitro.
Yes, that is possible. In the industry where I work, our products, and our competitors, measure durability through standardized tests. It is possible, and some of our competitors have doen this, to engineer a product to perform fantastically on these tests. However, those tests have nothing to do with real world performance. Marketing likes them because it's easy to say a product scores a point or two better than the competiution, but it has nothing to do with the real world. And I've seen the opposite where products that do great on standardized tests perform very poorly in the real world.
Have you checked the online forums? I've seen things about using 10-W-30 instead of 5-W-20(?) being a problem and some other possibilities.
Yeah, I got that issue too. I don't 'buy' their claims -- I have an Ody (Odyssey) and they got far lower than I could ever get. And I had it in San Diego for a while, worst I would get is ~15mpg. Heck, I got 25mpg (and change) driving cross country -- loaded down and with the hammer down ;)
Yup. Mine are always on target.
'03 Infiniti QX4: 12 mpg. Have had three of 'em, the all got 12. Suppled to get 17/22 with a V-6.
The 1972 Ford Maverick was a terrible vehicle, but it was better in every respect than a 1949 Ford Sedan. Vehicle technology improves with every generation. Because a 2005 Ford Escape is superior to a 1972 Ford Maverick does not mean a much better car would not be available in a deregulated environment.
The problem with CAFE is it exempted light trucks from the standard. The definition of a light truck mandated that the load floor for the SUV class must be flat from the tailgate to the back of the driver's seat. This requires the load floor to be placed entirely above the rear axle.
Normally, the decision on where to place this floor would be made by the designer, and would be lowered as much as possible to lower center of gravity and improve stability and aerodynamics. But this design decision has been removed from the designer, and been mandated by legislation.
The resulting vehicle is taller and more unstable that it otherwise would need to be. This makes them more inefficient that they would otherwise need to be.
Hey, if you need to go off road or carry 4x8s around, a large SUV might be the very thing. Some were sold even before the CAFE dodge came along, and some would be sold today. But most people who buy SUVs only do so because conventional vehicles with comparable power and room are no longer available, because they are not exempt and have been all but made illegal under CAFE.
If CAFE were eliminated, and the decisions were placed back into the hands of the designers, they would come up with a better solution to this problem.
The problem with CAFE is that it exists.
Much because it became the thing to sit higher than other drivers. The Expedition driver sat higher than the Suburban driver so the Suburban had to be raised in height.
Same here. I bought a 2005 Buick LeSabre last year and so far the combined city and highway mileage is 24.2 mpg. EPA says 23. Sounds like Consumer Reports needs to check the plugs and change the fuel filter on their calculator.
My 1999 Chev Suburban gets consistent 16mpg.
Lets see...if I look up what they claim it was supposed to get...
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1999/chevrolet/suburban/100013043/specs.html?tid=edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Chevrolet*
Fuel
Fuel Tank Capacity: 42 gal.
EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway)
Automatic: : 14 mpg / 18 mpg
Range in Miles: (City/Highway)
Automatic: 588 mi. / 756 mi.
To me it looks similar.
Some of it is driving habits. Proper tire inflation is another. Load is still another. Weather conditions. Type of roadway driven. The cars are tested with a driver, new engine, perfectly inflated tires, on perfect roadway in perfect weather conditions. So yeah, mileage might be a lot lower for John Q. Public.
A note to the "mine gets what EPA says it gets" crowd, I had the misfortune of renting a Lexus something or other last month and it got the same mileage on the highway as our Explorer - and well below what I got from a '67 Falcon V-8.
Can't speak for others' driving habits, but I drive briskly, and I believe in the "over 9, pay the fine rule" (that is, I drive about 8 mph over the speed limit in most places). Terrain around here is very hilly, borderline mountainous. It's part of my every-day driving.
The new engine used in the EPA test should get worse mileage than one that has a few thousand miles on it - that's been my experience anyway. As for tire inflation, that is a significant factor, but you'd have to be running at about 10 PSI to get the results that CR got. I'm not very trusting of the EPA in general, but I'm even less trusting of Consumer Reports. The friend of Nader is my natural enemy, and I believe that they have alterior motives whenever they touch a car.
And here I always thought that the car being tested turned the dyno, now I find out that it's the opposite. No wonder the mileage estimates are so high. I'll bet that the rear wheel drive models have some fantastic ratings.
/sarcasm
If an SUV is unstable, what classification should be given to a motorcycle?
The EPA on my new Camry says 22 city, 32 highway. In the two months I've been driving it on my 30-mile (each way) comute into the DC area, I'm averaging (according to the trip computer) about 29.5 MPG. Now granted, I usually avoid the worst of rush hour and the weather here has been quite warm and dry, but I've seen similar things in previous vehicles I've owned, where my commute milage falls on the high side of the city/highway difference.
I live in the burbs, got a 2003 Saturn Ion in recent weeks and am getting around 22-25 mpg.
Have a 2003 Grand Marquis, The sticker on the window said 27 mpg highyway, never seen it! I get 24 mpg highway with aircondition off. Turn on the air and it goes to 20 mpg.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.