All I know is that there'll be a lot more hypermilers out there.

 

You can say that again, with the new EPA for the AWD FEH at 24 MPG for example, that adds a lot of leeway from the 31 it is now. The same can be said for most vehicles out there, with the new 5 cycle testing.

BTW, I'm indirectly mentioned in the EPA government report, due to my contributions to www.fueleconomy.gov (In the back, in their sections about data contribution and weighing.)

While it's great that we're "out of the lab" for testing, and including things like freezing starts, higher highway speeds, and AC use, at the same time, it's a validation to people who insist on driving their vehicles "unwisely".

 

First of all, any changes to the test that more accurately reflect the driving styles of "the masses" will make the results MORE ACCURATE overall. Whether it will "unfairly" affect some vehicles is irrelevant, as this is just a guideline. No one is trying to create a method for determining the actual fuel economy for each and every driver. All the EPA is trying to do is make the test a little more like a "typical driver".

Second of all, some of you need to actually take a look at a new car sticker and see how the EPA numbers are presented. Most people only read the big numbers and ignore the rest. Here is what new car stickers look like and they all include the same EPA section:
(This is not my car)



Note that while they do put a couple of numbers in marge bold print, they actually list a range that "a majority of vehicle will achieve" and the BIG numbers just happen to be the average (or maybe median, not sure) of the range. They also include an estimated annual fuel cost as well as the FE ranges of other vehicles in the same class.

 

I think its more accurate to say its a more realistic representation "to people who drive vehicles *normally*"

Because the EPA test now biases people who drive like hypermilers, it's not a realistic test--because, like it or not, hypermilers are an extreme minority. Yeah, so people will get more realistic data up front, I'm all in favor of that, even if it makes the hybrids look less appealing. I think that problem is better than the one that rises from the conception of empty promises where people can't get anywhere near the EPA figures if they drive like an average driver.

 

I don't agree.

With my new Prius, like I said, I point it down the road (any Interstate) and get 50 mpg, no tricks, just put the car on cruise, and do the speed limit. That's within 2 percent of the EPA number, 51 mpg.

With my '99 Civic, I consistently get 39 mpg on a trip. The EPA highway is 38 mpg. Again, I point the car down the road, set the cruise, and go.

My experience has been that EPA numbers have been very believable.

Harry

 

Only problem is most people DON'T drive the speed limit, nor hit cruise control. If I were to do a random sample on my commute every morning, a majority of the traffic is driving significantly faster than I am (65 on cruise), a small part is driving the same speed, and a small small part driving slower.

I hit the EPA numbers because my commute and driving style is somewhat similar to the EPA test standards. But I have a hard time believing that the average driver drives anything like the EPA test, especially younger drivers.

~X~

 

Then I too conclude that you drive more like the EPA test than the average driver (who isn't doing the speed limit that's for sure). No single case can prove a theory on its own.

 

The actual information regarding what and how the EPA mpg ratings will change can be found on the following new thread
https://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/...ad.php?t=11789