Ok what I'm saying is that you can design a car to pass a test or you can design a car to drive in real life. Same goes for electronics or computers. Would you rather have a computer that scores high in synthetic benchmarks but plays games poorly or a computer that plays your favorite game perfectly but lacks bragging rights due to lower bench scores? Would you rather have a stereo that sounds good to you or one that scores well in a frequency response test?

You might think that scoring well in tests assures good results in real life but that is simply not true. Imagine a video card that has fantastic maximum and also fantastic average frame rates. Such a card would score well in tests. Now imagine a card That has low max frame rates and medium average frame rates. Such a card would benchmark far lower however the important feature of a video card is not max frame rate or even average frame rate. The most important spec is MINIMUM frame rate. I always sync my card to the video display which limits the max frame rate to 60 fps so my card always scores low on benchmarks but it is smooth and does not get bogged down because it has a high minimum frame rate.

I'd rather have a product that works good in real life over one that scores well in artifical conditions.

 

Hi,
I'm probably the wrong one to ask because of my private pilot and engineering experience. I want to know what the machine or part really does, not what I wish it would do.

If the engineering backed system does not perform in practice to my expectations, I investigate what is going on. In the example of a sterio system, it could be because of a wax build-up or hearing loss. It could also be due to improper installation of the speakers. It could also be due to a personal preference for non-linear equalization. Starting from the real numbers, we can adjust to achieve the desired result. But a sterio that has terrible engineering specifications will always have limits that can not be overcome.
Seeing the term "in real life" reminds of an old joke on an engineering test, "Define the universe and give three examples." What is "real life?" Fortunately, the "artificial" EPA conditions can be replicated in the "real world" and with the exception of 42 mph, the NHW11 Prius margins are wider than the EPA senario:

• City: Represents urban driving, in which a vehicle is started with the engine cold and driven in stop-and-go rush hour traffic. The driving cycle for the test includes idling, and the vehicle averages about 20 mph.
• Highway: Represents a mixture of rural and Interstate highway driving with a warmed-up engine, typical of longer trips in free-flowing traffic. Average test speed is about 48 mph and includes no intermediate stops or idling.

The first leg driving our Prius home had a disappointing 39.0 MPG at 75+ mph. The second and third legs were 51.7 at 60 mph and 51.2 MPG at 65 mph so I had bracketed the 45 MPG EPA number for highway driving. Since I knew the highway EPA numbers could be achieved, I knew the car wasn't broke and had confidence the EPA 52 MPG City rating could be achieved.

I've made a study of our NHW11 Prius including plotting MPG vs MPH mileage in operation. With the exception of speeds around 42 MPH, there is good agreement with the Prius model. Poor cold weather performance led to investigation of transaxle oil temperature vs. performance. My 11k mi. at 50.9 MPG shows 'real life' Prius driving can achieve EPA and better numbers and I am not the only NHW11, Prius I driver to achieve hyper miler performance.

BTW, I tried to reach some of the low-performing Prius I pilots without luck. So in the meanwhile, I wrote a Prius FAQ to help drivers achieve better than EPA performance. It is Prius specific and unlikly to work for a different type of hybrid.

Bob Wilson

 

gang

great info -and valid points of view.

Lakedude and others bring up an excellent point. If the Pruis can be shown to underperform under those dubious conditions on the 'unbiased test' , why didnt they use a HONDA instead to run the test?

Like i have been saying all along, using a honda with the lower EPA , would have defeated what the test was really all about , which was to equate in the average Americans brain that hybrids suck.

Here ye here ye ....' dont buy a toyota or honda hybrid. Our unbiased test shows the to selling Toyota hybrid -which in the average americans eyes = all hybrids are not worth it. Buy our gas or diesel cars that are sitting unsold on car lots across the land.

I guess some naysayers will say 'they just picked the top selling hybrid ' it wasnt rigged................blah blah blah.....

these same naysayers wont even touch the fact that the test under those conditions does not showcase the best aspects of any hybrid to begin with, which is of course city driving.

The naysayers will also have to conclude the experts at Auto week are villiage idiots and even though they are professionals , they know less than we do about cars in general.

So let me get this straight. Professionals at Autoweek, who long know ALL ABOUT EVERY HYBRID and its real world tendencies more than we do, make a test using the hybrid that has the best chance at not reaching its EPA using parameters that are conviently designed to be the most unflattering possible.

Their report reaches the nieve ears of Americans everywhere, who equate one hybrid as the same as the next. They take the report as pure 'gospel' cause they no nothing about cars. Another very convienent coincidence -if you wanna sell gas cars that is.......

I deal in the mortgage industry, and when i go sign my clients in their homes, i quite often ask them what they think of hybrids. ALL of them say ' i dunno, but they sound good' -indicating they dont have the first clue what one is vs the next. Its like they are all the same.

To say Auto week, Car and Driver and many others dont know this as well, right?

Yet some here still say that it is all a 'coincidence' somehow. Its virually impossible

 

Hi Tom,
I'm not ready to conceed "Autoweek" and "Car and Driver" are all that expert. To me, they are the "Esquire" of automotive publications more interested in 0-60 and creature comforts than engineering. So when they do a badly designed test, at most, I might send them a 'Letter to the Editor' if I really cared. I just really don't see buyers going to the dealership with either magazine in hand to close a deal.

In contrast, I did send a letter to "Consumer Reports" (along with a bunch of other folks) and "Consumer Reports" published a correction. To me, errors in "Consumer Reports" are worth correcting since we aren't the only people who take that magazine with us to the dealer. Just I don't have that same commitment to "Autoweek" and "Car and Driver" magazines.

Speaking as a Prius owner, I'm convenced our cars are perfectable but not yet perfect. There are 'low hanging fruit' in the transaxle and aerodynamics that could make a good car even better. We've already seen the NHW11 replaced by the NHW20 with significantly improved mileage. Toyota is on the right path and eventually "Autoweek" and "Car and Driver" will find it impossible to do a 'bad test.'

So for me, for now, I'm not convenced "Autoweek" deserves a letter.

Bob Wilson

 

brian

fair enough. So in other words you find the test dubious, but not worth raising a big stink out of.

i admit myself that i have made a HUGE stink out of it. However, I do so on the mind numbing logic they use on us when they know better, not the reality that folks will roar out in droves to buy gas cars because of this one test.

That was a good point. Its just one stupid test.

 

I'm sure Autoweek didn't "rig" the test.Why would they? Toyota is a much bigger advertiser than VW.
The problem is that they really didn't measure how much fuel the vehicles actually used.They did the same test "we" might so:Fillup-drive-fillup-divide.
A test like this has a huge +-- probably 10-15% for each fillup.
Now if they did this over 20,000 miles-50 or more fillups-then it would have sort of balanced out and their results would be valid(actually measuring what they think they are measuring).Unfortunately,they did it over 350 miles-one fillup for these FE vehicles.
I could see the Prius getting 42 mpg at 75-80 mph on a cool day.Hey, 42 mpg is fairly decent. The VW getting close to 50 mpg at the same speed seems unlikely.CR did hy tests on the TDI Jetta and the Prius-the Prius "won" by about 4 mpg(I think it was 50 vs 46 from memory).On CR's 150 mile "trip" the Prius won 48 vs 41 mpg.
One other important point-Autoweek was loaned the usual "ringers" by the manu. CR buys the vehicles right off the lot-just like we do.Manu. hand select and prep. the vehicles that are loaned to the moto mags.The chances are that the vehicle you buy won't be quite as good(QC,ACCEL,FE) as the ringers the mags are loaned!Luck,Charlie