backtop


Print 33 comment(s) - last by gultim.. on Sep 22 at 4:36 PM


Ford C-Max Hybrid  (Source: caranddriver.com)
Ford still demands changes to hybrid testing methods

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is standing its ground when it comes to the accuracy of its MPG test for hybrid vehicles despite problems with Ford's C-Max Hybrid

The EPA's five-cycle fuel economy test was questioned when owners of the Ford C-Max Hybrid complained about lower-than-advertised fuel economy last year. Consumer Reports even chimed in on the debate, saying that half of its hybrids tested fell below their advertised MPG ratings by 10 percent or more.

The EPA worried about the accuracy of its testing for hybrid models, but this summer, other hybrids like the Toyota Prius and Hyundai Sonata had accurate ratings after going through the same tests as the C-Max Hybrid. 

The EPA is now saying that the C-Max Hybrid's inflated combined fuel economy estimate of 47 MPG was Ford's fault. According to the EPA, Ford used test results from the Fusion Hybrid, which shares a powertrain with the C-Max and weighs about the same. The automaker did this because an old rule allowed it in an effort to cut costs and the amount of testing for companies with nearly identical cars.

However, more efficient vehicles -- although sharing the same powertrain -- have various models. For instance, the Fusion Hybrid is more aerodynamic than the C-Max Hybrid, which led to the inaccurate fuel economy.

But Ford disagrees with the EPA's statement. The automaker believes these tests should be revised for hybrid vehicles. 

"This is an industrywide issue with hybrid vehicles," Raj Nair, the head of global product development for Ford. "We've learned along with EPA that the regulations create some anomalies for hybrid vehicles under the general label rule."

While the EPA doesn't plan to reconfigure its five-cycle fuel economy test, it will change the rules regarding use of the same fuel economy ratings for nearly identical cars -- especially in the case of hybrid vehicles. 

The EPA estimates that proposed changes should take less than a year to complete. 

In July 2012, Ford's C-Max Hybrid achieved 47 MPG -- beating Toyota's Prius v. But in March 2013, tests conducted by reviewer Wayne Gerdes found that the Ford C-Max Hybrid didn't achieve fuel efficiency suggested by the EPA's numbers. Instead of the 47 MPG, his testing showed the C-Max managed only 35.537 miles per gallon over 360 highway miles. However, he does admit that in the city he was able to achieve 52 miles per gallon over 22.8 miles of driving, which is better than the EPA promises.

Source: Automotive News



Comments     Threshold


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

By SeeManRun on 8/27/2013 7:41:23 PM , Rating: 1
Doesn't the Fed fill in when the states fail to act? California has stricter emissions standards than the fed mandates because it is in their best interests. Some states would not bother at all, so the Fed has to step in due to this failing.

Now you might claim that that is the state's right, but some things affect other states, like polluted air and rivers. If one state isn't playing nice with another, someone has to resolve the dispute since we don't really want them going to war with each other.


By SeeManRun on 8/28/2013 12:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
There has to be some resolution system, someone has to decide disputes like they do between countries. The fed seems like the right thing to do.

And I think you underestimate car manufacturers. They will certainly sell things customized in certain markets, especially if states start deviating more and more from each other. Some cars cannot be sold in California due to their emissions standards, while some cars like a Honda Civic are the same all over the country and Canada. What happens if states start requiring more things, like back-up cameras and others don't. You can sure as hell bet that they are going to only put the camera's in as standard where required so they can sell the car more cheaply elsewhere.

I think the constitution was written in a very different time and might not be as applicable today as it once was, especially the original text. Maybe time to draft a new one based on the old one but updated. Take some power away from the states for things that are the common good (education, border security, environmental regulation), and re-affirm some things to be under state control.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 7:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
All I see from you is "bla bla bla I'm a Communist."


By SeeManRun on 8/28/2013 10:34:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
All I see from you is "bla bla bla I'm a Communist."


That is because you don't see the world as it is, but only as you wish it to be.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 2:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
I see the world the way it is. I just don't agree that it's RIGHT.

Just because people do things a certain way, doesn't mean I have to go along with it.

Your argument that any time an issue creeps up, large or small, the Federal Government is justified in arbitrarily deciding it for everyone goes against the rule of law in this country. As Fit correctly stated, this is essentially anarchy you're advocating.

However you've also said you care nothing for the rule of law in this nation, because the Constitution is old and doesn't matter anymore and we should write a new one. Sir, are you on drugs?


By SeeManRun on 8/28/2013 4:36:07 PM , Rating: 1
I am not currently on drugs.

Anarchy is the opposite of what you guys believe I am saying. And I never advocated any time a dispute comes up that the feds come in and resolve it, but you have to acknowledge that they are a tool that can be used to resolve disputes. I read continuous stories about how some states are doing poor jobs at things that is their jurisdiction. There are some things that are too important to have vast differences between states. If Texas wants to abandon science and start teaching theology to millions of kids as fact, you're god damned right I think the Federal government should step in and fix it, the same way that the state government steps in if a specific school starts getting ridiculous (black and white proms maybe, or banning gay groups).

All your posts have a similar theme, that personal freedom trumps everything. Well you are probably in a situation where that works for you due to education, job, wealth level, whatever. But you need to acknowledge that not everyone is as fortunate, and as a society we have decided it is better to keep those people afloat and help them than to step over their bodies in the streets. Rules against monopolies, rules for banks and what they can charge, rules against corporations polluting your lakes and rivers... All this stuff is one and the same; society deciding that some things aren't okay and they must be monitored and regulated.

You said earlier to abolish the EPA. Well then who the hell is going to go after the companies that wreck the environment in the towns they live in. Your answer might be the market takes care of that, but it doesn't. Because they can sell their goods elsewhere so people have no idea they are supporting a terrible company.

You don't have to agree that the world is right, but your proposals to change it continuously are too far to the right to even be considered. You want less government, start by making the shit they do unnecessary. Stop starting wars, and stop charging ridiculous amounts for health insurance. If things worked as they should (open to interpretation I suppose) the government would not be needed. They don't step in just because.

And back to the topic at hand, it is helpful to consumers to have a standardized test to measure certain things about the car they are buying. Horse power is a standard, as is torque, but so far the safety measurements from the insurance institute, and the fuel economy from the EPA (when it works). Someone in government has decided it is worth the tax dollars to have a system to relieve the consumers from that task of finding trust worthy sources about all the cars that are available. Makes sense to me.

The constitution is old, and probably should be updated. The right to bare arms is a good example (think what that really meant at the time), but another is the age limit of 25 years. Why the hell can't a congressman be less than 25 years old? Update the document for the time we live in, as I am sure they didn't intend it to be absolute for all time (I realize there are amendments).

And proposing change has nothing to do with disregarding the rule of law. The constitution is the current law and it should be followed by all, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed or re-drafted. Most of the stuff would likely survive the new version.


By ironargonaut on 8/28/2013 5:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
Who determines what a "poor job" is? Some think not teaching theology is a "poor job". Last I checked all states teach theology, it's called social studies, learning about religions and cultures of all people. And, is perfectly legal, now if what you meant is they shouldn't teach that Bob is god and we should all do what Bob says. I agree, and the current resolution system built into that document you don't like the constitution is what allows the courts to address a violation of the constitution i.e. establishing a religion. If you think the EPA should be in the Constitution all you need to do is get 2/3rds of Congress or the States to amend it.
As far as going after polluters, those effected can, it's called suing. Just remember it is the Feds that made the law that won't allow us to sue criminally negligent companies into bankruptcy. No EPA required.


By Reclaimer77 on 8/28/2013 5:47:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I read continuous stories about how some states are doing poor jobs at things that is their jurisdiction.


LMAO! And the Federal Government doesn't do a "poor job"?? Oh man, there's not enough time in the DAY to list all of it's failings.

quote:
All your posts have a similar theme, that personal freedom trumps everything.


I think that's a very extremist interpretation of "all my posts". Obviously I don't feel I should be able to go around and do anything I want.

But the Constitution is clear, we have virtually unlimited personal freedoms. Guaranteed. And people of your side of the ideological spectrum seem to constantly want to infringe of them, for whatever reason no matter how well it's justified.

quote:
But you need to acknowledge that not everyone is as fortunate, and as a society we have decided it is better to keep those people afloat and help them than to step over their bodies in the streets.


Hyperbole.

quote:
You said earlier to abolish the EPA. Well then who the hell is going to go after the companies that wreck the environment in the towns they live in.


Every State, EVERY single one, has a Department of Health and Environmental Control. Who already monitors and legislates that stuff in-house Hello?

The EPA is just an extra, worthless, wasteful layer on-top of what we already have. Honestly, what do they do for us exactly?

quote:
The right to bare arms is a good example (think what that really meant at the time)


Wrong again. The Supreme Court already settled this, decades ago. We have an absolute right to firearms, and it has nothing to do with a well armed militia.

I think the Second Amendment is a HORRIBLE example. The fact that the Founders placed this right behind the Freedom of Speech should tell you how important this is.

quote:
The constitution is old, and probably should be updated.


What's "old" about the idea of NOT living under a tyrannical Government?

And if you want to update it, fine. Pass Amendments! Instead of just passing mandate after mandate, which are largely illegal.

quote:
The constitution is the current law and it should be followed by all, but that doesn't mean it can't be changed or re-drafted. Most of the stuff would likely survive the new version.


I love how you think I'M the extreme one for questioning the EPA and wanting to preserve my basic freedoms, but it's perfectly rational to you that the entire Constitution should be re-drafted and modernized...


By SeeManRun on 8/29/2013 3:06:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
LMAO! And the Federal Government doesn't do a "poor job"?? Oh man, there's not enough time in the DAY to list all of it's failings.

But all governments fail at things. It isn't like municipal and state government only do excellent work. So your point is irrelevant. The level of government does not guarantee competence.
quote:
But the Constitution is clear, we have virtually unlimited personal freedoms.

I don't really know what virtually unlimited personal freedoms means. What freedoms are they starting to encroach on that you care about? Freedom to not buy health insurance?
quote:
Hyperbole.

The bodies in the street is, but it is really not that far fetched. I believe people in England during the plague had to step over people in the street. If we are purely capitalist then how would the poor or mentally incompetent not be in the streets? Charity?
quote:
The EPA is just an extra, worthless, wasteful layer on-top of what we already have. Honestly, what do they do for us exactly?

2 things without searching that I can think of. They test cars for fuel economy so you receive a consistent test across the entire country which states could not do unless they all agreed to use the same test, or just relied on one state and trusted them. And also deal with environmental issues at a federal level, like with other countries that states would have a harder time doing.
quote:
Wrong again. The Supreme Court already settled this, decades ago. We have an absolute right to firearms, and it has nothing to do with a well armed militia.

If supreme court decisions were for all time, then there would be no talk about repealing Roe vs Wade at the court level. They could easily re-interpret the meaning of the constitution to only mean certain weapons. Unlikely with the culture of guns, but not impossible.
quote:
What's "old" about the idea of NOT living under a tyrannical Government? And if you want to update it, fine. Pass Amendments! Instead of just passing mandate after mandate, which are largely illegal.

Keep the good parts in the re-draft, throw out the irrelevant or adjust the parts that don't make a lot of sense. If those amendments are illegal why are they not being being overturned immediately? Or does it just take time?
quote:
I love how you think I'M the extreme one for questioning the EPA and wanting to preserve my basic freedoms, but it's perfectly rational to you that the entire Constitution should be re-drafted and modernized...

Questioning the EPA isn't the extreme view I find extreme; abolishing it without question and many other government departments you have advocated abolishing without actually considering what that would mean to the US in the global village we now live in. No EPA means almost no way to negotiate with Mexico and Canada with a unified voice.

If you reply I'll read it, but probably won't reply. Enjoy the discussion as usual.


By Myrandex on 8/28/2013 10:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
Yea I'm not sure what the federal government is doing messing with education. I've never considered that a function of a federal government. That has always seemed to be more of a local issue all around.

Jason


By FITCamaro on 8/27/2013 10:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
The states not acting doesn't give the federal government the authority to step in and do so. Otherwise we live in an anarchy.


By ironargonaut on 8/28/2013 5:15:17 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution has a resolution system already in place for this type of issue. It is called the federal court system. So no, the constitution does not need updated. Here is an example of no fed involvement, local building codes. Most communities simply follow codes recommended by the national code group. Their laws state to follow this building code. WOW! Look at that no need for Fed involvement!
"Some states would not bother at all, so the Fed has to step in due to this failing." Translation, some states won't do what I want, and the Feds do what I want therefore they should be in charge. Using the logic that whenever someone(you in this case) determines a "failing" on the states part the Feds are justified in making regulations, pretty much allows the Feds to do whatever they want whenever they want.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki