Source: Consumer Watchdog
quote: Had I known the car wouldn't get over 32 mpg at 70mph then I'd have just stuck with my Jetta and not gotten a new car. I used to do those drives at 80-95 mph in my Jetta and still got 26-28 mpg. Why in the world did I buy a new car that's supposed to be tested to a more real world standard and claims 37 mpg highway to get something barely better than my 2004 Jetta?
quote: When you add these two together, both slow and high speeds consume more fuel. 40-50 mph is about where the sum of these two yield the least energy required per distance traveled.
quote: you should know that different cars perform differently at different speeds.
quote: It sounds to me that you let your guard down because of these magic one-size fits all numbers that the gov't comes up with.
quote: Hence the EPA's testing standards and the changes they made in 2007 to them to more accurately reflect real world conditions.
quote: The government didn't come up with these numbers, the manufacturers did.
quote: Who's real world conditions? You missed my point I think.
quote: Yes they did and the gov't checked them
quote: Checked isn't the same as actually doing the testing. People 'check' a lot of things without actually checking anything.
quote: and [the gov't] said, "Yup, you guys are right on the money! We'll endorse your car with our seal of accuracy!"
quote: I got your point and you seem to be missing mine. 70 mph is real world conditions [sic]. MN and Iowa both have interstate speed limits of 70 mph.
quote: So I am a bit confused.
quote: I fully realize that your best fuel economy will be at around 50 mph, but if you drive 50 mph on the freeway where the speed limit is 70 mph, you're an idiot.
quote: I'm glad this article came out though because I started questioning whether it was just me or some flawed testing. I thought the whole new EPA measures of fuel economy were supposed to be a more real world mix with things like highway driving being 70 mph.
quote: It bears repeating: