the important thing for the big 3 is that is disadvantages the hybrid disproportionately, this is the key. They are hindering the tech they are behind in developing. This is how they operate. Instead of innovating they try to legislate the problems away. Now I cant say they are behind the legislation, but i would bet that they were approached about how to make the test more accurate and I am sure they added their 2 cents.

 

I'm sure this is one of the LAST things the Big 3 or ANY automaker wants.

I think it comes from a couple things.
1. Reports in the popular media (esp. Consumer Reports) that the hybrids got no where near sticker ratings (in their tests).
2. Consumers who initially complained (to NHTSA and the media) that their cars didn't get anywhere near sticker ratings (in their initial driving).

Unfortunately, there is this weird discussion going around that hybrids aren't that great b/c "in reality they only get 40 mpg!" I hear this all the time from the Sheeple. "It's ridiculous how horrible the Hybrid Camry's gas mileage is!"

I think this stems from the overall misconception that ALL cars get better than they really do. The Camry doubter assumed the 4-cylinder Camry already gets 35 mpg and that his truck gets 18 mpg. The general population is under this guise.

So, yes initially it will look bad for the hybrids. Then people will gradually realize, oh ****! My Freestar gets 16 mpg!!! Maybe 35 or 40 mpg isn't that bad.

Der!

I say bring on the new ratings. It'll get some outrage going and some CAFE averages up.

 

I think this is actually a very good point. People tend to look at this with a major double standard. I've often heard it said that the Hybrid Civic is not a good deal as it only gets around 40mpg, which is almost as low as the 36 for the standard Civic... failing to take into account that the regular Civic, driven the same way, will deliver far below 36. People I know with similar commute (lots of hills, lots of stops) as I do in standard Civics and other compact non-hybrid cars average around 28mpg, so me getting "only" mid 40s in the Hybrid is not bad at all. It's much better than a friend of mine who manages 11mpg in his Tundra rated 18.

The reason for the criticism of hybrids however is that they are expecting more out of the hybrid, and people pay attention to the hybrid's mileage yet probably never even check for the non-hybrid.

However, another thing that is stacked against the hybrids is the way that the MPG units tend to amplify small changes in economy for small high MPG vehicles, and underplay huge changes in fuel consumption for low MPG vehicles. Consider that dropping the mileage by 15% on a hybrid, from 50 to 42.5 mpg looks like a huge difference. Likewise, dropping the mileage on an SUV by 10% as a result of the new test, from 18 to 16mpg looks like a fairly minor change. In reality however, over the course of 1000 miles, that's the difference of 3.5 gallons for the hybrid, and 7 gallons for the SUV or truck. The 2mpg deviation for the SUV represents twice as much additional fuel as the 7.5mpg deviation for the hybrid. Presenting the fuel economy figures in terms of gallons per thousand miles would both be simpler for calculating fuel costs, and more realistically show just how much fuel those large vehicles actually burn

 

You are right...I don't think they will because if so, then most if not all SUV's will never even reach 20MPG.

 

This will be for ALL models.

 

Yes, I'm sure most cars EPA ratings will go down if they make a realistic test, especially for standard cars and trucks. The hybrids may go up or down, I don't know, but I would be willing to bet that the difference between standard and hybrid will be higher in the new test.

 

For another example, mine is a very good indicator i believe. I drive an 04HCH CVT and my commuting partner drives an 03 Civic Manual (ho hybrid) and we trade off doing the same commute day after day for 18 months now (80 miles each way, 90% flat-out 75mph highway driving, mostly flat). We both track mileage.

I average over this entire period about 43.5 MPG. He doesn't keep a total figure but most tanks come out between 32 and 36, with an occasional tank in the 38-40 range. This means that over the long haul I do at least 20% better MPG than him in basically the same car over the same exact commute driving pretty much the same way (cruise set at 75, using AC when needed). The only difference being mine is the hybrid and his is not. That's a pretty solid direct comparison as far as I'm concerned, especially since we've been collecting the data over a 30,000 mile (each) span.

Now this is really not even taking advantage of the extra savings possible with a hybrid car. I don't even try any more because I'm so tired of the drive I just set the cruise and go. Driving more effectively for FE would only increase the difference I believe.

 

Are you kidding? Of course the big three are behind the legislation. They pour over 20 million dollars a year into lobbying. So I am sure they added a hell of a lot more than two cents on this debate.

 

Unfortunately this poster and this post are on the money. The new regulations are a result of political interests and are not in the best interest of the consumer, and Hybrids will be disproportionately affected in a downward fashion.

Specifically, the new testing involves air conditioning on during the testing as well a the testing speed to be set at 65 MPH. This doesnt favor a 4 cylinder car in general or a honda hybrid civic in specific--the only thing I can say is the Toyota Prius is gonna take a HUGE hit.

 

I really don't have a problem with that, because it's how most people drive. The EPA ratings will only mean anything if they're applied universally to all vehicles. Since the hybrid cars seem to favor slower driving, they may see an extra hit in the ratings, but it's fair to me because the new standard is much closer to how most people drive. I am all for being able to trust the figures given. A standard is useless if everyone knows the data is universally inaccurate.