new MPG testing- public comment
 

60 days for open public comment.

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.pdf

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

How is this any better than what they were doing before? Unless I'm missing something, it doesn't even say what the revised testing procedure is. Are they just running the same test, just with the A/C on?

I guess my first comment (which I will be sending) is to state what the actual test procedure is going to be. ****, the government really irks me - even though I work for it :eek:)

Jeff

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

FTA:

Since the mid-1990s, EPA’s emission certification compliance regulations have required the use of three additional tests which capture a much broader range of real-world driving conditions; specifically: high-speed, fast-acceleration driving and the use of air conditioning and colder temperature operation (2 0 degrees F). Not only do these conditions impact the amount of air pollutants a vehicle emits, they also have a significant impact on a vehicle’s fuel economy. However, they are not currently required to be used to measure fuel economy.

They run more comprehensive tests now, for emissions certification. Sounds like they're going to run the same, or similar tests, and include them in the fuel economy test suite.

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

Last page:

"For More Information you can access documents on this rulemaking on EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality Web site at: www.epa.gov/fueleconomy"

which ultimately takes you here for those who want the specific details:
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420d06002.pdf

The newer test will more closely resemble the emissions testing, with more variations tossed in to boot.

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

Just noticed a chart in the USA Today estimates that the HCH will drop to EPA rating of 36 MPG combined.

Say What?

If that is true, is that not a VERY BAD thing for the future of hybrids? If the HCH is rated at 36 MPG and the gasoline Civic comes in at 33 MPG (which is what USAT had on their chart for that car) then is that not a big disincentive for buyers of the hybrid?

Here is the page with the story and chart:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...-ratings_x.htm

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

--

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

The article also states that the last time a change was implemented was in 1985 when city and highway figures were cut by 10 and 22% respectively. That would explain why the 84 CRX had a 54/67 rating while the 85 CRX had a 49/54 rating. I had been wondering about that.

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

Maybe we need to find a way to get all the media to pay attention to THIS site. We could have a forum for just media to ask questions of members and get REAL information from REAL everyday drivers. They could all have articles that will teach the general public 'simple' ways of increasing fuel efficiency in any vehicle and show how much of a difference it makes in a Hybrid to utilize those same techniques.

I also think if a reporter/news source wanted to be more true, they would rent cars, get thier OWN results and publish them instead of relying on other source to do the leg work for them and possible have a hidden agenda (sell american, big oil?) in mind. It seems the media (generalized) is trying to discredit hybrids, to prevent them from selling, from people getting the true facts. If I can go from my first tank never driving a hybrid before and get 54.1 (58.8 actual), to 120 miles in to my second reading 58.1, and I am not doing anything but driving 'defensively', safe, responsible, and minding the FCD so I can put the car in lean burn without losing speed, then the average person in the same conditions as me should be able to get mid 40s without any problem. I had a horrible traffic day and still managed over 50, it was a short trip, stop and go. I have said it before, but again ... I know someone who was getting 35, I told them to accelerate a little slower and plan ahead for red lights, coast to stop signs, and they jumped to 45 mpg. There is NO REASON for the media to crucify hybrid because they drive them like they are in a Ferrari Enzo on a race track with a/c or even worse.

I am getting sick of the bad media when they seem so uninformed and don't care to investigate at all. This site shouldn't be that hard to find if they are looking for hybrid information. GreenHybrid was at the bottom of the second page of results in an aol explorer browser search, and the middle of the third page on a google search ... the word searched for ... Hybrid. maybe we can do something to make it come up on the first page, but i would know nothing about that :P

ok, i vented, it just seems that there is a hidden agenda, or it is just more fun for them to blindly accuse rather than research and give facts and lift something up. :confused:

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

One way to move Green Hybrid to the first page and maybe the top half is for all of us to donate money to GH so Jason can spend the money with Google it will take to move it up the list. There are other factors that determine search result placements because of the algorithms that Google uses but that is the quickest way. Especially since Jason is at university and isn't Bill Gates (at least not yet). Another part of that is the number of hits a site receives, so the more hits we can personally generate/refer to GH, the higher up the list it move as well. So spread the word!

Re: new MPG testing- public comment
 

It seems pretty clear to me that there is something behind all this other than a reaction to a firestorm of public dismay. That's the face of it. It cleanses the hands behind it. IMO it's certainly the non-hybrid auto manufacturers who have prevailed upon an agency of a political entity, the US Govt. The non-hybrid auto makers ( NHAM ) look bad at the moment and they are way way behind in the hybrid race; maybe too far to catch up. As tough businessmen they need to discredit hybrids with an EPA seal of approval in order to give themselves a chance to do something to catch up.

Consider this statement from the Proposal:

Hybrid numbers will come down more because they work best when driven conservatively in mild temperatures that don't tax their batteries or require air conditioning.

From which scientific study did this come? Hybrids are basically ICE vehicles and as such are subject to the same laws of physics as other ICE vehicles. Without supporting data for the above statement I'll consider it hearsay at best.