Finally....

"Vehicle mileage estimates get real

Ratings for '08 models, especially hybrids, will drop in new EPA tests."

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...home-headlines

 

To be fair, they should re-evaluate all models, not just hybrids. There are too many variables from state to state and region to region person to person such as climate, gasoline formulations, tires, tire pressure, driving styles, etc that adversely affect mpg/FE. I'm sure that someone driving a camry, echo, or accord is probbaly getting 10% less mpg than advertised because of these factors.

Maybe the sticker should say what the mpg will be with 10% ethanol, 15% ethanol, temperatures below 40F, temperatures above 70F etc. Then there would be less complaining. IMHO, the EPA sticker is a total lie when it comes to real life driving conditions.

My 05HCH is getting between 42 and 45 mpg now that the weather has turned colder and since the democratic people's republic of MA has switched to 10% ethanol blended fuels.

 

Really?

I thought they'd adjust UPWARD.

With little or no special effort, I am getting 54.3 mpg. In the summer close to 60.

My first year, I averaged about 48-50, but since then, I don't think I have had more than one tank below 50. My YTD mpg is over 56 (that includes much of the snowy winter from early 2006).

 

They are adjusting all of them.

These are for the window stickers and will not be used to determine CAFE averages -- which would put all the automakers in hot water. However, I still believe it will light a fire.

Lastly, this really belongs in the General Forum section.

 

this is great news, hopefully they create a realistic test.

perhaps they should test for various climates though, so if you live in Florida or southern California your mileage estimate isnt subject to the extreme cold part of the test.

additionally, why not collect actual data? I mean put a data logger in a sample of cars and provide some incentive to have the customer drive back and have it read periodically.

My view has changed read the text below to see why. It is an email from a trusted friend.

As you know, choosing a specific approach to Rating a vehicle for its mileage capability is very tricky, and almost always misleading, due to a number of factors that vary for any single vehicle depending on the user’s driving “style,” the usage (loading, city vs highway travel), the environment (climate, terrain), and the user’s awareness of the need and interest in conserving fuel (minimizing fuel expense, minimizing dependence on imported, minimizing CO2 emissions, minimizing other harmful emissions, etc.)

Still, I agree that the consumer should be given some standardized information about the vehicle’s mileage, starting with the difference between City and Highway travel, with all other factors held in some “normal” state. The challenge is identifying what is “normal” when in reality, these conditions vary substantially. Therefore, I don’t think this is much of an improvement at all in the Rating scheme. It is politically correct for Toyota to go along with it, but the scheme has been modified specifically to disadvantage (or minimize the knowledge of potential advantage for) the hybrids, BECAUSE GM, FORD and CHRYSLER ARE BEHIND in the competition.

The truth is that hybrids offer substantially greater opportunity to save fuel, IF the user wants to learn how to do so. The information is there and the vehicle capability is there. Most people who buy a hybrid are looking to optimize or minimize their fuel consumption, so they will learn how to drive their vehicle most responsibly to do so, without put themselves or anyone else in harm’s way. A rating scheme that presumes people will drive with a lead-foot (so they cannot take advantage of the all-electric mode of the hybrid) is purposefully trying to cover up this advantage of the hybrid. THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING MADE ARE NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE CONSUMER, NOR IN THE INTEREST OF SAVING FUEL, contrary to what most of those commenting on the new system have been led to believe.

IF the EPA really wanted people to make better decisions about their vehicle choice and their driving “style” or behavior, they would have recommended a fuel economy gauge in every new vehicle sold that helps the user understand the dependenc(y) better.

 

All I have to say is by changing the EPA numbers it will not change the REAL MPGs that people on this website are getting. It just means we all have to be that much more active in promoting hybrid technology.

I myself talk about hybrids anytime I can. Even if I never convince anyone to buy a hybrid, at least I am removing ignorance that exists in the public thanks to people/organizations who just don't understand hybrid technology and want us to forever be reliant on foreign oil....

 

I guess the important thing to keep in mind here is that the hybrid car will be disadvantaged disproportionately. And to look at who will gain from this. . . the big 3 who are perpetually delinquent with research and development of technology.

 

This is why we must "advertise" so much more for the hybrids. We need to tell people, yes, the new EPA numbers say 40 mpg but I consistently get 50...And I know because I calculate it...And yes...I am not the only one...Some people get more than that...No I don't plug it in but I wish I could...It is a lot easier to drive efficiently in a hybrid...Driving a hybrid reduces dependence on foreign oil (and terrorist funding), reduces greenhouse gas emissions...etc, etc, etc.

If people hear it from first hand witnesses then a large number will convert in time. It is up to us now since the EPA and the Big 3 are not on our side...

 

I don't think this will help the Big 3 at all. Some Impala rated at 20/25 will now be more like 17/20 and some Suburban may go from 16/19 to 10/16.

These will be very sobering for Big 3 shoppers.

Also, to note bigger vehicles that were "Exempt" before will now get stickers -- like an Escalade ~6/10 -- haha....

 

I hope you're right, noflash.
And I'm right there with you tweulfing and owlmaster08
Ignorance is NOT bliss.