you cant trust the figures thought, thats the entire point.

the data from the new test will be as, if not more universally inaccurate compared to the old test.

When you overhaul a standard you strive for bettering the previous attempt. This appears to have not been the case here which is why I speculate there is probably a more sinister force shaping this stuff.

If you want a reliable test, make the number on the car reflect milage that buyers in the region have actually gotten. We have the technology to collect data, lets use it and publish real world measurements instead of estimates.

to reiterate, the EPA can flex its muscle and affect change as was the case with the introduction of the catalytic converter. That didn't break the bank and its got platinum in it. A fuel economy gauge should be much more affordable.

again this test will be at least as flawed as the previous one, so why go through the trouble of changing it? We get back to the question of which vehicles benefit the most and which lose the most. When you discover the answer to this you will realize how the test is flawed and who benefits from the flaws. You cant believe that there is no way to make the test more reflective of reality that to put the AC on and floor it in the cold?

I have to say that I like the gallons per 1000 miles idea presented, this would put the millage into terms more people can wrap their minds around. We could take it a step further and say gallons per year, and say a year is 12,000 or 15,000 miles. That way people can see the average yearly fuel consumption, much like energy star appliances let you know (based on region) what the cost to operate likely will be.

 

First of all, the EPA ratings are done before a car is released for sale, so data collection from consumers is not an option. Secondly, if the new test is getting closer to representing the way people actually drive then it should be an improvement. I don not know all the details of how they plan to change it, so perhaps you know more than I do, but the few details I have heard about seem completely sensible.

A benchmark is never completely accurate, but it's a consistent way to rate cars relative to each other. They may not perfectly represent the actual performance of every car, but it will give us what we have already, a means for comparison, only now it will be closer to reality than the old test. Imperfect perhaps but an improvement is definitely needed. Washington is all about compromise so I would never expect an ideal solution. The mere fact that it's happening at all is progress, so the compromises necessary to make it a reality may simply be what it takes.

 

so.... due to the fact that the current practice is to not update the milage of a vehicle after historical performace can be established then we cannot start doing that in the future? I dont see the logic


there are no completely sensible tests to establish something as complex as fuel economy other than collecting data. There are driving style differences, maintenance differences, commute difference, vehicle load differences etc etc etc. You cannot test for a number and get an answer. At best you could establish a range, you cannot pin it down to a number, its impossible, without data collection.

the test is not going to be any closer to reality, that is the core issue. If we already have an inaccurate method to compare then why change to another inaccurate comparison? While I agree that an improvement is critical, we don't need to change for the sake of change. Move foreword not parallel to what we have. If you cant see how the test is skewed to disadvantage hybrids then I dont know what to say other than the full throttle, cold commute, air conditioning is not the typical drive for a hybrid owner (or most vehicles). I have never driven a car this way. However I am sure some people do. Which illustrates my point.

If your not going to change to a system that provides real data then why change it at all?

 

It is real data, and just because it can't accomodate all styles it doesn't mean it's meaningless. They're trying to establish a BENCHMARK, not something that represents everyone's driving style. The new mark might not be closer to YOUR driving style but it is their point to make it closer to COMMON driving styles. Trust me, the average person uses air conditioning when it's hot in the car, nobody but the most extreme hybrid owners carry ice instead of using AC. The benchmark is one universal test that all cars will be judged by, which will establish a standardized comparison between them all. Having it more closely reflect today's driving style is an important update. There's no way for a benchmark test to accomodate everyone's style, so they try to get close and judge them all the same. That's as good as we can ask for I'm afraid.

If you want to compare historical figures on fuel economy, go ahead, this test doesn't stop you from compiling data to judge cars by. By all means if you can figure out how to compile and make official some sort of long term FE average for each car, I'm all for it. But good luck getting reliable figures. In my experience, asking people for their gas mileage data is about as reliable as asking a 17 year old male how many times he's had sex. Just how do you propose to collect that data so reliably? It sounds like good data to have in addition to the EPA test, but I'm afraid getting honest results is pie in the sky. In any case, as a supplement it's a great idea, but not as a substitute.

Standardized tests are imperfect, but they play a role. Just like the SAT, it can't reliably judge every student's college ability, but it establishes one standard that is used along with other data to make a judgement. No one component of that judgement can tell the whole story, the EPA test is just one of those components, and like with the SAT, I am in favor of keeping it up to date and making improvements when necessary. No college judges student admissions on the SAT alone, or on grades alone, or on essay alone. The standardized test is one part of the picture, and just because it can't measure everything about every student all by itself does not mean its useless.

Anyone who's concerned about whether the new EPA test will skew comparisons to older generations, then I suggest continuing to administer the old test in addition to the new test so a direct comparison to the past can still be made. That would also offer two different EPA ratings for two different driving styles, hey more data is a good thing in my book. Perhaps that would please those who fear the change because it would mean not having to completely give up on the old test. People could determine the driving style that is closer to theirs and weigh the figures accordingly.

 

I use my AC when its hot, but that isnt all the time and my AC usage is different that that of those in Arizona.

again my point is why change the test if its not going to be any more accurate, which it is defiantly not going to be any more accurate in the aggregate.

you dont need to ask for the data, just make the owners aware you are collecting it. You would simply monitor the odometer (which the car already has to do). Now the 2nd part, You measure how much fuel goes through the fuel pump with an inexpensive flow meter. Now the really tricky bit. Anyone who brings the car to the dealer for an oil change will get the data pulled from a data logger (which also exists in the vehicle already).
the data is then pulled into a database and distributed to wherever it needs to go. the only part of this system that isn't in EVERY car is an accurate method to meter fuel flow.

you could easily do what the MPAA does with movies (this car is not yet rated) for the first couple months of a new model. And after a new generation of the design is a couple months old the data is usable for more than 1 model year. It will be valid until the design is reworked.

I can live with a standardized test, but dont revamp it to disadvantage the very vehicles are are addressing fuel consumption issues. And if your going to try to make the test better, actually make it better. Dont change it for changes sake.

 

First of all, I like the idea of real mileage stats, and requiring a FE meter on board. I am totally in favor of it, but not as a replacement for the EPA test, it would be a great addition to the big picture. However, american consumers will reject the idea of collecting their data involuntarily. Despite how many people seem to support the patriot act, I don't think they're going to want uncle sam spying on their vehicle--unless of course it comes hidden inside a new anti-terrorism act :-) It won't matter how innocuous it seems, people will be paranoid the cops are watching their speed and other things and flat-out reject the idea. Remember when they wanted to put Emergency Activation System chips in everyone's TV so it would turn on whenever there was an emergency message? It got shot down immediately because people percieved it as a Telescreen (a la 1984).

Second, from what I have heard I believe the new test WILL be more accurate. If you want to convince me it won't, then try explaining how and why. What exact complaints do you have with the new test? (and where can I find it so I can read the full story).

Third, frankly I suspect you object mostly because you feel it will reflect poorly on your car, and that's not an objective viewpoint. If your point is that a standardized test shouldn't bias a particular style of driving, then it shouldn't bias a particular kind of car either, which seems to be what you want by trying to protect the reputation of your own car. If you know your driving style is different from the test's assumptions you need to take that into account in your use of the figures. Everybody knows this, and everybody must interpret the figures appropriately. But the FACT is that people drive a lot faster than they did when the current EPA test was conceived, speed limits are higher, traffic is more congested, more cars have AC, etc. No it may not be perfect, but YES it is an improvement. It's not a change for change's sake, it's a change for the sake of accommodating real changes in aggregate driving style. Plus if the "average" driver begins to embrace hybrid technology, they're not going to drive like you anyway, they're going to drive like they drove their old car, which is going to be a lot closer to the EPA test than hypermiling.

 

Do you REALLY think any governmental agency could do this task efficiently? I think you're asking too much. Plus, there is no SINGLE number that should be quoted, even if the government did get an average. It would be misleading, as it would have many drivers that drive differently than you do (and differently than I do). The only fair way would be to still give a range - maybe the average and the 90th percentile range plus and minus. And that would only confuse shoppers more.
I agree the current method is flawed, and the new method will also be flawed. I think it will be a little better, and will allow people to be potentially "pleasantly surprised" rather than the current "often disappointed." I say this even though hybrids, and small-engined cars in general, will be more severely affected than most larger and larger-engined vehicles. But I'd rather have an EPA system that meets more of the mass population's expectations.
It *might* even help folks become more aware of just how fuelish (and expensive) some of their choices are. Most people don't really follow their gas mileage very closely. Many of them PRESUME they're getting what the EPA sticker says. Now, if that sticker has lower numbers across the board, maybe they'll think a little bit more about making that gas-hog purchase. One can only hope

Now if it turns out that the Hummer, Escalade & Expedition get the same MPG with the new EPA tests as with the old, while all small vehicles get worse MPG, then we have an issue - and maybe some manufacturer tinkering to advantage the tests towards the 'behind-the-times" manufacturers.

 

Moved thread out of "Civic Hybrid".

 

For anyone interested, EPA has published a "technical support document" for the fuel economy test changes. It's available at http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420r06017.pdf (caution, large .pdf file).

 

The new EPA mileage numbers will be too low, at least for the Prius.

All I do is point the car down the road (any Interstate), set cruise to the speed limit, and get 50 mpg. And that's in chilly weather. The existing EPA highway number seems pretty darned accurate to me right now.

Harry