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 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.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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