backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 67 comment(s) - last by masher2.. on Dec 15 at 1:32 PM


New EPA window sticker

Hybrids like the Toyota Prius will be the biggest losers with the new EPA ratings
The EPA brings mileage ratings closer in line with reality

Starting with the 2008 model year, manufacturers will be required to post newly revised estimated mileage figures for their vehicles' windows. Customers have long complained that their cars, pickups, SUVs and hybrids are not achieving their rated mileage and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally doing something about it.

The previous EPA ratings standards have been in place since 1984 and don't accurately reflect real-world conditions. EPA testing failed to take into account stop-and-go traffic, lead-footed drivers, driving faster than 55MPH, extreme cold temperatures and the use of air conditioners in vehicles.

According to the EPA, most vehicles will see average city mileage ratings drop by 12% and highway ratings will drop by an estimated 8%. Hybrids will be the big losers, however, with the new EPA testing. Hybrids like the Prius and Civic Hybrid will see their city ratings drop by 20% to 30% in the city and 10% to 20% on the highway.

Despite what will likely be a slight damper on the image that its Prius hybrid projects, Toyota is fully behind the changes. "This doesn't change the car or the technology, just the way the mileage is calculated," said Toyota Motor Sales USA spokeswoman Ming-Jou Chen. "It makes the estimate closer to real-world numbers, and we fully support that."

The EPA sticker is also getting a makeover and will include an estimated city/highway mileage range of competing models, estimated costs based on 15,000 miles of driving and a link to www.fueleconomy.gov where potential buyers can go for more information.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Why are they bound to the city/highway model?
By AxemanFU on 12/13/2006 2:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
Why not a speed/load consumption chart or a curve or something? Two stupid numbers that still don't reflect reality? The sticker on my truck read 12/17, but I get 16MPG practically no matter how fast I drive, or whether or not it is city or highway. The only thing that drops it to 12MPG is when I tow a 7000lbs trailer.

My wife's vehicle shows realtime MPG based on current fuel consumption rate/speed, and it would seem reasonable that graphs, charts, or ranges for multiple conditions could be set. City/highway is almost a copout, because it leaves such a large range, and more precise data is available. It is still used because even the slowest minds can sort of comprehend it, I guess. Oh well, kudos for making the data more accurate, but boo/hiss for not making it much better than it was, and not nearly as informative as it could be. I guess real use data from owner groups or road test websites will still provide a good reality check.




RE: Why are they bound to the city/highway model?
By AxemanFU on 12/13/2006 2:47:54 PM , Rating: 3
Thought I might add I got an average of 19.7mpg once driving from Houston to Dallas at an average speed of 80mph. How that happened, I don't know, but I do know how much gas was used and how far I went, so the MPG is right. Maybe it is a sweet spot for the engine and tranny/diffy gear ratio and the aerodynamic resistance curve....


RE: Why are they bound to the city/highway model?
By Kuroyama on 12/13/2006 3:04:42 PM , Rating: 1
It is generally not accurate to compute mileage over a single tank, because the tank will get filled to different levels each time you put in gas (so a 20 gallon tank might get filled to 19 gallons once, but 19.5 another time). As a result, it may just be that your tank was more topped off when you filled it before the drive, and less topped off the next time you filled it. Or, as you say, perhaps you just hit a sweet spot.


By ksherman on 12/13/2006 3:22:24 PM , Rating: 2
What I do to calculate my mileage in my car, at every fill up, I take the amount of miles on my trip (which is reset everytime i fill up) and divide that by the number of gallons I put into the car. it does not make any sense to base it off of a full tank (ie 12.5 in my car), since as you say, you dont ever put in that much.


By AxemanFU on 12/13/2006 4:20:56 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed. My truck (built for long range towing) has a 35 gallon tank, so with that much volume, small fluctuations in fill level aren't as significant of a variation as with a 12 gallon tank. That being said, I used the fill to totally full, drive, and then refill to totally full again method, then taking what it took to refill to totally full as the gas that was used. The variation in topped off fill level should be just a few ounces. It'd be better to try it several times to get an average of course. I think road conditions, tires, bearing condition, engine condition, oil condition, weather, driver skill and habits, road surface, traffic flow, etc have enough influence on average mileage that it'd be hard to get any kind of reliable numbers consistently.


By michael2k on 12/13/2006 5:30:40 PM , Rating: 1
Suck. When I travel 80mph I usually get 27mpg.


By otispunkmeyer on 12/14/2006 4:26:13 AM , Rating: 4
over here we have an energy rating type system, more like how efficient the car is.

cars get graded much like our other domestic appliences do (fridge, dishwasher, washing machine) from A to F

A is uber good...your car is efficient (hi MPG) and doesnt produce alot of harmful gases (CO2, NOx etc)

F is poor.

and lol 19mpg at 80mph? what the hell are you driving?

come to europe...i mustered 52Mpg out of a 2.2Liter ford modeo TDCi, it had 6 gears....85mph = 2500rpm FTW. its got 170Bhp too....from a diesel.

the prius is a joke too, european diesel engines, espescialy the smaller ones 1.4-1.6liters are better than driving a prius. especially on motorways because diesels have enough torque to be using taller gear's


By AxemanFU on 12/14/2006 10:04:43 AM , Rating: 2
A 3/4 ton model long bed extended cab chevy with a 6.0 liter V8, to be precise. Its a work truck: I have the need to tow trailer loads up to 8000 lbs or more at times, and haul large loads in the bed, and need people space also sometimes. A car is utterly useless to me, for what I require out of a vehicle. I live in the burbs and have to make regular trips out to the middle of nowhere, as Texas is a big state, somewhat similar in size to France, (to set a frame of reference for euros). I made sure to live close to my office location, so my day to day commute is short. 16-19MPG for a large truck is rather decent. If they made a hybrid that could tow that much and meet the requirements I have, I'd try it, but so far, the technology only works out in small light vehicles. Maybe ultralight diesel tech in the future?


By NegativeEntropy on 12/15/2006 8:22:39 AM , Rating: 2
As you point out, the US badly needs more passenger car diesels. As we are finlly getting ULSD (ultra low sulfur diesel) this year, we will hopefully see more than just the VW TDI in the next few years.

The difference is driven by consumer perception of diesels too, which is negative in the US.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/13/2006 2:55:41 PM , Rating: 2
> I get 16MPG practically no matter how fast I drive, or whether or not it is city or highway..."

The breakdown between city and highway driving isn't due to differing speeds, its due to the stop-and-go nature of city driving. Excluding this, one would expect to get slightly better mileage in the city, due to the lower speeds involved.


RE: Why are they bound to the city/highway model?
By rushfan2006 on 12/13/2006 4:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
The highway/city model is based on what you said the "stop and go"..but also, and please don't take my word for it because I posted this on on an Internet board, instead ask someone certified/in the know -- like a dealer mechanic or the actual manufacturer....it actually takes comparatively less fuel to maintain a constant speed, whatever speed it is, than it does to reach that speed (again coming into play with the stop and go)...

So stop and going constantly from 0 to say 45 mph for an hour is actually LESS fuel efficient for the engine than cruising a constant 60 MPH for that same hour.



By masher2 (blog) on 12/13/2006 6:33:06 PM , Rating: 3
It's just basic physics...maintaining a constant velocity requires no work, other than to overcome frictional losses, whereas acceleration requires additional energy...energy that is lost when you slow down.

This is one of the two primary reasons hybrids are more efficient, as regenerative braking allows you to actually capture some of that energy upon deceleration.


RE: Why are they bound to the city/highway model?
By dmurdock on 12/14/2006 1:14:04 PM , Rating: 1
Frictional effects are perhaps the least of the forces acting on a vehicle. Have you thought of wind resistance, tire deformation, and the fact roads are not flat? Try dragging a 16000lb trailer down they highway @ 70mph (my RV) and tell me with a straight face that the only thing holding me back is "friction". lol


By masher2 (blog) on 12/14/2006 1:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
> "Frictional effects are perhaps the least of the forces acting on a vehicle. Have you thought of wind resistance, tire deformation, and the fact roads are not flat? "

Err, wind resistance is a frictional force, as are frictional effects between the tire and the road. Frictional losses within the drivetrain itself are another component.


RE: Why are they bound to the city/highway model?
By dmurdock on 12/14/2006 4:08:34 PM , Rating: 1
OK, so basically your saying any force acting on a car @ 65mph is frictional? If not, what other forces are there (using your unique definition of a frictional force). Whatever YOU may call them, they ARE NOT trivial. I think the problem is you are using "basic physics" when a little more "advanced" understanding is necessary.


By masher2 (blog) on 12/14/2006 4:31:14 PM , Rating: 1
> "OK, so basically your saying any force acting on a car @ 65mph is frictional?"

Any force? No, of course not. Wind and road resistance are frictional forces...this is pretty basic, indeed. Torque from the engine is a nonfrictional force, as is gravitational acceleration experienced whenever the car ascends or descends a slope. There are many other possible forces...but for a vehicle travelling at constant speed on a level highway, frictional forces are the vast majority of those experienced, and are sufficient to exactly counter the work done by the engine.

> "I think the problem is you are using "basic physics" when a little more "advanced" understanding is necessary."

Your sarcasm is noted. However my undergraduate degree is in physics, and while I admittedly struggled a bit in quantum mechanics, I did quite well in classical dynamics.


By bigbrent88 on 12/14/2006 5:55:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not completely, depends on what you consider "ity" speed driving. I've got a 1993 325IS with the nice BMW fuel computer so I get to see the difference in speed/rpm/throttle/shifting. Basically I cant get to a peak stable mileage until I get to 2300rpm in 5th, around 32-35 MPG at that speed. On a long 3 hour trip doing 70-75 pretty consistent I averaged 30mpg with is better then the stated 28, but I do have a chip and cold air running 93 so maybe thats helping. In real "city" around here, stoping and sitting, starting again I can get 20-21.


By mezman on 12/13/2006 3:02:02 PM , Rating: 2
That would certainly be useful to folks like you and me. But charts and graphs are probably too tough of concepts for Joe Dimwit and he struggles to decide what car to buy.


RE: Why are they bound to the city/highway model?
By Aikouka on 12/13/2006 3:27:59 PM , Rating: 1
I believe the point of City/Highway is for ease of use. There are really two types of consumers in this world, Mr. Axeman, and they are the informed and the not-so-informed (for the lack of a better word). The informed would probably love to see information like you're talking about, curves based on 2 or more factors that help show how efficient a car is at certain stages and someone could "select" their stage (mph, location, etc) to see how greedy the car is with gas. But the other type of consumer wants an easy way to compare. They don't want to read a chart, they want straight-forward numbers.

18 > 17, it's that simple, but when going to graphs, you've gotta find your x... your y and coordinate to find where they combine then... my god, just too much effort for some people ;).

Also, the way people drive really hampers their mileage. I tend to waste the most gas on a certain 10 mile stretch, because people are such bad drivers. They constantly slow down, speed up, slow down, speed up and refuse to use the environment to their advantage (such as not braking on a hill and using it as extra speed). All this speed modulation causes more gas use as it's easier to keep your speed than (on level ground) than it is to get back up to your speed.

You know one thing that also grinds my gears... why do people take on-ramps sooooo slowly? I mean, I can understand a huge dumptruck not going fast (due to physical limits), but a car similar to mine (even with my struts that need to be replaced) goes 25 when I take it at 45. You may say that there's no need to go 45 on an on-ramp, but I disagree. Merging onto a highway (65mph) or an expressway (65 or 75mph) at 30mph just tends to slow other people down and gives you a longer time to accelerate up to a tolerable speed (unless you put the pedal to the metal!)

But anyway, that's enough ranting for me... driving 30 miles one-way to work each day encountering your worst pet peeve will do that to ya ;).


By RyuDeshi on 12/13/2006 3:48:07 PM<