EPA To Announce New Mileage-Rating System

  • Thread starter Seanman
  • 34 comments
  • 1,747 views
1,087
Seanman1
The New York Times
DETROIT, Jan. 10 - The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday proposed the first major overhaul in 20 years in the way it calculates fuel economy ratings for cars and trucks, a shift the agency said would reduce mileage estimates by 5 to 30 percent, depending on the type of driving and kind of vehicle.

The new testing method, according to Stephen L. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, would come much closer to bridging "the gap between what the window sticker says and what consumers can expect in their fuel economy."

The agency expects to introduce the changes starting with 2008 models, which will go on sale as early as a year from now.

Consumer groups have long complained that the E.P.A.'s ratings are far too optimistic, compared with fuel economy that drivers achieve under real-world conditions. Recent tests by Consumer Reports magazine, for example, found that E.P.A. window stickers could be off by up to 50 percent.

The new calculations will have the greatest impact on hybrid-electric vehicles, the agency said, cutting estimated fuel economy sharply on some of the industry's most sought-after models now that gasoline prices have soared.

For all vehicles, the agency said its new testing methods would result in a 10 to 20 percent drop in fuel-economy estimates in city driving, and a 5 to 15 percent decline in highway performance.

But for hybrids, which run off a gasoline engine and an electric battery, city driving estimates could drop 20 to 30 percent. The decline in highway ratings would be 5 to 15 percent, the same as for regular cars.

Buyers are willingly paying thousands of dollars above the price of conventional vehicles, and waiting up to a year in the case of Toyota's most popular hybrid, the Prius, all in the belief that they yield much better gas mileage - the Prius officially gets 60 m.p.g. in the city and 51 on the highway.

While hybrids are almost always more fuel efficient than conventional vehicles, E.P.A. officials said their estimates for city driving would shrink more because their engines were more sensitive to changes in road conditions, as well as the use of fuel-draining features like air-conditioning and electronic controls.

The E.P.A. could not give estimates for specific vehicles. And at this point, they would not be completely accurate. Automakers have some time to improve their fuel economy ratings under the new calculations.

Mr. Johnson of the E.P.A. said the proposed standards, which will be open to public comment for 60 days, are meant to depict more accurately what consumers can expect from new cars and trucks. In its report in October, Consumer Reports said it found shortfalls in as many as 90 percent of the 203 vehicles it tested, which were built in the model years from 2000 to 2006.

The most inaccurate results came in city driving, especially involving hybrid cars. But popular models like the Chrysler 300C sedan also had inaccurate estimates: the magazine calculated its fuel economy in city driving at 10 miles a gallon, versus the 17 m.p.g. estimate on its window sticker, a difference of 41 percent.

Likewise, the E.P.A. measured the city driving performance of the Honda Odyssey minivan at 20 m.p.g., but the magazine said it achieved only 12 m.p.g., a 40 percent discrepancy.


The agency's new testing method, however, will have no effect on the regulations used in judging whether auto companies are meeting their fuel economy standards, which are overseen by the Transportation Department. The new government estimates, like those used by the consumer magazine in its testing, will include much more information to make the calculations.

For example, the E.P.A. now will use data from tests meant to show performance under conditions known to deplete gasoline. These include driving at high speeds and with rapid acceleration, as well as when air-conditioning is in use and when the weather is cold.

The agency also said it planned to consider other conditions that could hurt fuel economy, including road grade, wind velocity, whether tires were properly inflated and the type of fuel in a vehicle's gas tank.

Mr. Johnson stressed that fuel economy estimates did not reflect anything that auto companies - or consumers - have done wrong when it comes to gasoline mileage.

"What this proposal does is give consumers better information," Mr. Johnson said. He added that "there is no perfect test" and that consumers' performance would vary, even once the new ratings are in effect.

Also set to change, assuming the proposal is adopted, is the appearance of window stickers themselves. The agency is considering four designs for the stickers.

Detroit's two biggest auto companies, General Motors and Ford Motor, said Tuesday that they were in favor of more accurate information, but did not say whether they would embrace the new calculations.

"G.M. supports providing consumers with more accurate fuel economy data for comparative purposes, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this rulemaking," the company said in a statement.

Ford said it backed changes "that will help provide consumers with more meaningful information for their purchasing decisions."

Martha Voss, a Toyota spokeswoman based in Washington, said: "Circumstances have changed in the world since the rules were established. We want customers to get the most accurate information possible. The ratings might change, but the performance of our customers' car won't change."

Environmental groups said the move was a much-needed first step, but it did little to deal with the fundamental issue of improving fuel economy itself.

"The current fuel economy labeling system is broken," said Don MacKenzie, an engineer with the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"E.P.A.'s proposal is a long overdue tuneup that better reflects the growing diversity of vehicle technologies and today's driving conditions," he added.

Dan Becker, director of the Sierra Club's global warming program, said the new government standards would not address how to increase the number of fuel-efficient vehicles.

"The real issue," Mr. Becker said, "is making auto companies put the technology in cars that make them go farther on a gallon of gas."

Link
 
Interesting. I wonder if this is the goverment's way of telling the "truth" before they tax the gas guzzlers? Maybe they'd like to reduce even the semi-efficiant so they can be in the gas guzzler taxation grid. I smell something fishy...

Both of my Focuses get exactly or within 2-3mpg of the window sticker. I call foul on the US goverment...
 
I think it was long overdue. Nobody takes EPA figures seriously anymore. It's more like a way to measure how much MPG you'll actually get. I'm glad that they are finally fixing it. Better late than never, right? :lol:
 
there was a proposal in the last Motortrend by one of the editors to get away from miles per gallon, and switch to a more European style measurement.
gallons per 1000 miles. i was burning something like 100 gallons per thou or 10 GPC...you can imagine what that is in liters per hundred that the rest of the world uses.
 
Well its a long overdue change to the test standards, and puts an end to a debate that has lasted the better part of a decade.

But, I have always been able to match the figures that were posted in the window sticker of my car ('96 VW Jetta w/2.0L 8V rated at 24/30) by averaging about 27-30MPG with a good combination of highway and city driving.

What I'm getting at is that if people knew how to drive their cars the right way, the EPA figures would be much more accurate. You can't slam on the gas and expect to get 60MPG with the Prius, you have to take advantage of the electric motor, and accelerate slowly.

Education and moderation would greatley improve fuel mileage. Added to that would be if everyone maintained their car properly, then we wouldnt have needed to overhaul the EPA system.
 
YSSMAN
What I'm getting at is that if people knew how to drive their cars the right way, the EPA figures would be much more accurate. You can't slam on the gas and expect to get 60MPG with the Prius, you have to take advantage of the electric motor, and accelerate slowly.

This is what the problem is, the numbers on the maroni's (window stickers) aren't wrong it's the "jackrabbit" starts and hard stops the driver makes that burns the petrol. It doesn't matter how much highway driving you do if you accelerate with more than ½ throttle that'll kill your MPG. If I keep my '05 ZX5 Focus under 3k RPMs at all times I get 35-40mpg...but if I drive it any other way I get 25-30mpg. Trust me, it works. Try keeping your car under 25% of the RPM range and see what happends--keep in mind this WILL annoy drivers behind you because you aren't "going fast enough" and they are impatient cocks. :sly:
 
Poverty
Maybe now we will figures that are similair to what european testing and magazines claim.

Considering the EC test numbers are actually more optimistic than the EPA's in some cases (even taking into account the discrepancy between US and UK Gallons), I'd find it even harder to reconcile those numbers with newer, more pessimistic EPA numbers.

At least EPA city numbers gave you a good indication of possible mixed driving mileage.

It's been a long standing problem in fuel economy testing that they don't account for accessory usage in traffic. This is the single biggest problem in approaching the Prius' fantastic EPA ratings in the real world, as engine shut-off doesn't mean a thing if it's over 100 degrees outside and you need to keep the AC on full.

----

I almost always drive at under 2000rpm in commuting... and my best usage on a full tank has been only 22 mpg (US) or 26.7 mpg (UK)... nowhere near the EPA highway sticker of 32 mpg... but close to city numbers.

Keep in mind that I live in the tropics, where you almost never turn the AC off and our traffic is bad. If I lived in the US, I could probably get near-EPA numbers.
 
Oregon(USA) weather's pretty mild and it rarely reaches 100 degrees, so I almost never use A/C. Still, I get a similar result as niky. My '04 Altima 2.5S is rated at 23/city, 29/hwy. I don't drive much on highway, but I average 21 to 23 mpg. I don't drive crazy anymore, but certainly not slow.
 
The EPA's system has been long overdue for a rehaul. No one drives the way they did their testing, and even if you accelerate slowly and drive efficiently, you'll be doing more accelerating and stopping than their former city test, and you'll be driving a lot faster than their former highway test.

What's annoying, though, is that people will think they can use the lower hybrid MPG numbers to make a point about their uselessness...and as always, they will ignore the fact that a hybrid is meant to greatly reduce emissions while saving a bit of fuel, and increasing efficiency overall -- not saving people money at a gas pump. :rolleyes:
 
...People's misconceptions of the "Hybrid Miracle" are only fueld by the misguided writings and spoken words of the news media. If we would all take a moment, pick up a book or a car magazine that entails how the system works, people might realise exactly whats going on...
 
Don't forget Hybrids in any southern state is useless. Even in winter here in Texas you couldn't use a Hybrid because we STILL use the A/C on some days when it's 80-85ºF IN WINTER! Hell it was 101ºF here on monday and 100ºF on Tuesday--in APRIL! AND people who own Hybrids do not know how to fully utilize them anyway--the goal is to stay in the "green" charge mode by not being a speed demon--or even a small speed demon.
 
only old people keep below half throttle...and end up with this huge line of traffic behind them. it doesn't help in the hills around here, either.

with my last batch of vehicles, tho, i actually tended to GET the EPArating on the nose. one still had the window sticker in the glovebox, and I was .6 MPG under the EPA printed on it.
 
Wolfe2x7
The EPA's system has been long overdue for a rehaul. No one drives the way they did their testing, and even if you accelerate slowly and drive efficiently, you'll be doing more accelerating and stopping than their former city test, and you'll be driving a lot faster than their former highway test.

What's annoying, though, is that people will think they can use the lower hybrid MPG numbers to make a point about their uselessness...and as always, they will ignore the fact that a hybrid is meant to greatly reduce emissions while saving a bit of fuel, and increasing efficiency overall -- not saving people money at a gas pump. :rolleyes:

While I still contend that the easiest way to reduce emissions is to buy a smaller motor... of course, since you can't get that in America, you have to buy the damn expensive hybrid... :lol:

Lookit, Honda has a Fit that'll do over 50mpg, and they won't send it there because it's too slow and "Americans don't like CVTs"... What's up with that?
 
niky
While I still contend that the easiest way to reduce emissions is to buy a smaller motor... of course, since you can't get that in America, you have to buy the damn expensive hybrid... :lol:

Lookit, Honda has a Fit that'll do over 50mpg, and they won't send it there because it's too slow and "Americans don't like CVTs"... What's up with that?

The Honda Fit is here and it's a great car. [opinion]As for the CVT comment--Americans are ignorant mostly to the CVT because "if it ain't broke don't fix it" that's why they have had the same stupid 4spd auto setup for what now 40 years? Only recently updated some of thier auto transmissions. CVT along with DSG are the future in transmissions in my opinion. [/opinion] CVT transmissions do not have the acceleration kick that traditional transmissions do--maybe that's also a factor? I, frankly, love CVT transmissions and would definately own one if I got another automatic car.
 
JCE3000GT, niky knows we get Fits here(my next car? :D). He's talking about the smaller engine that gets over 50mpg that Honda won't be able to sell in the U.S., because most Americans(and myself included) thinks it doesn't have enough power to get around, around here.
 
a6m5
JCE3000GT, niky knows we get Fits here(my next car? :D). He's talking about the smaller engine that gets over 50mpg that Honda won't be able to sell in the U.S., because most Americans(and myself included) thinks it doesn't have enough power to get around, around here.

Ah, if they can sell Kia Rios which are the slowest things out there the tiny Honda motor should be imported. 👍
 
niky
While I still contend that the easiest way to reduce emissions is to buy a smaller motor... of course, since you can't get that in America, you have to buy the damn expensive hybrid... :lol:

Lookit, Honda has a Fit that'll do over 50mpg, and they won't send it there because it's too slow and "Americans don't like CVTs"... What's up with that?

The hybrid offers reduced emissions without sacrificing as much power and speed... ;) ...and those two requirements will never leave the average american buyer's mind.
 
Wolfe2x7
The hybrid offers reduced emissions without sacrificing as much power and speed... ;) ...and those two requirements will never leave the average american buyer's mind.
That is an admirable cause, but people have got it in there head that because of the bloated test figures, Hybrid=near-nothing fuel usage. The fact that it isn't designed to do so is also negated by the fact that both Ford and Toyota have been advertising it as such.
 
JCE3000GT
Ah, if they can sell Kia Rios which are the slowest things out there the tiny Honda motor should be imported. 👍

Actually, the 2006 Kia Rio is a pretty quick car, with a 0-60 time of less than nine seconds. The same can be said of the rest of the sub-compact lineup that indeed includes the Honda Fit. By comparison, my '96 Jetta Wolfsburg only accelerates to 60 in about 10 seconds, and I belive the slowest vehicle (in terms of acceleration) available in the US is the Ford Escape which takes nearly 14 seconds to hit 60.

Head back 10 years, and most cars would accelerate between 9-10 seconds on average. I seem to recall reading an article written by Car and Driver where they had such vehicles as the VW Quantum (Passat) and Datsun Maxima taking well over 11 seconds to hit 60, and I belive the year was 1984 or so...
 
YSSMAN
I seem to recall reading an article written by Car and Driver where they had such vehicles as the VW Quantum (Passat) and Datsun Maxima taking well over 11 seconds to hit 60, and I belive the year was 1984 or so...

Yea, but you are forgetting the best thing about the Datsun Maxima--IT WAS REAR WHEEL DRIVE!!! I'd LOVE to get my hands on one and make it a drifter!
 
@Wolfe: I kinda realize that about power, speed and the American public... what's puzzling to me is that I've never seen anyone rip off a 0-60 mph in less than ten seconds getting on the highway. It's not like you have people sitting on on-ramps torque-braking their engines and then letting loose as soon as a gap appears.

I can just imagine what we'll be driving in twenty years. Electric cars with just 40hp, with gasoline "helper" motors to help us get to 60 mph in less than an hour. :lol: :lol:

The US public has no idea what slow really is. I've driven cars that take 24 seconds just to get to 60, and though they drove me to the edge of boredom, I've never had any problem cruising at 60-80 mph or merging into traffic. Of course, a car like that obviously can't overtake a road train going at 55 mph... but then, why would you try to overtake one? :lol:

The CVT doesn't have much feeling of acceleration, it's true... but in a small car like the Fit, it can produce identical test numbers (8.7 seconds to 62 mph/100 kmh) to the MT version... and it can do it over and over and over again. From experience, it's the closest you can get to that "electric" feeling in a gas car... either that, or an airliner taking off... in slow motion. It's just one constant shove.

As for lack of acceleration... the 1.3 (or 1.4, depending on the market... but they're exactly the same) does 0-60 in just under 14 seconds. It can also maintain 80-100 mph (140-160 kph) speeds on the highway for hours at a time. It should be quick enough for the US market, especially for yuppies and urbanites, shouldn't it?

I'm predicting that as gas prices go up, Honda will be looking at offering the 1.3 in the US.

Of course, me being who I am, I'm looking at the 1.5 sport... manual. :lol:

About how off-topic are we now? :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
How much power does that kia rio have to hit 0-60 in under 9 secs. Thats very impressive seeing as the average car in the UK does it in around 10-12 secs.
 
Poverty
How much power does that kia rio have to hit 0-60 in under 9 secs. Thats very impressive seeing as the average car in the UK does it in around 10-12 secs.

Rio specs: http://www.kia.com/06rio/rio-specs.php

Guess I'm spoiled--0-60 in less than 8 seconds is what I consider "quick" and 0-60 in less than 6 seconds is what I consider "fast" and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds is what I consider "fast as ****". So anything that's 8.0+ seconds to 60mph is slow to me. After having a car that are in the "fast" range and a couple in the "quick" range I guess that makes me spoiled.

The slowest car to 60 I ever drove was my 1991 Ford Thunderbird V6--that thing was so slow and heavy. Specs: 3.8L 140 hp V6 with a 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds dead...it felt so much slower than that trust me.
 
JCE3000GT
Guess I'm spoiled--0-60 in less than 8 seconds is what I consider "quick" and 0-60 in less than 6 seconds is what I consider "fast" and 0-60 in less than 4 seconds is what I consider "fast as ****". So anything that's 8.0+ seconds to 60mph is slow to me. After having a car that are in the "fast" range and a couple in the "quick" range I guess that makes me spoiled.

The slowest car to 60 I ever drove was my 1991 Ford Thunderbird V6--that thing was so slow and heavy. Specs: 3.8L 140 hp V6 with a 0-60 time of 9.0 seconds dead...it felt so much slower than that trust me.

Actually, my definitions for 0-60 speeds are similar to yours, for the most part...

Less than 8 or 9 seconds is "quick," less than 6 is "fast," and less than 4 is "holy ****"...but then, less than 12 seconds is "adequate." More than 12 seconds is "slow." :)

Judging from an issue of Top Gear magazine I bought, and the show itself (great sources, eh? :scared: ), it seems Brits have pretty much the same definitions for speed as I do...after all, Hammond called the 6.5-seconds-to-60 E30 M3 "quick," and BMW was still selling the 318i for the E46 generation.
 
Wolfe2x7
Actually, my definitions for 0-60 speeds are similar to yours, for the most part...

Less than 8 or 9 seconds is "quick," less than 6 is "fast," and less than 4 is "holy ****"...but then, less than 12 seconds is "adequate." More than 12 seconds is "slow." :)

Judging from an issue of Top Gear magazine I bought, and the show itself (great sources, eh? :scared: ), it seems Brits have pretty much the same definitions for speed as I do...after all, Hammond called the 6.5-seconds-to-60 E30 M3 "quick," and BMW was still selling the 318i for the E46 generation.

The 9.0 in my Thunderbird was so slow I can NOT even IMAGINE 12 seconds to 60...that would be a freaking eternity!!! I drove a 10 second to 60 car as a rental once and it was so pathetic I almost called in sick so I didn't even drive it to work. But I see where Europeans are coming from--for the longest time they've been using diesels that were frankly rubbish in the acceleration department. But thankfully times have changed and Euro diesels aren't so crappy anymore. I just wish the US would clean it's diesel fuel and get some good Euro boxes for a change.
 
Poverty
How much power does that kia rio have to hit 0-60 in under 9 secs. Thats very impressive seeing as the average car in the UK does it in around 10-12 secs.

The 2006 Kia Rio5 that I went to look at today has a screaming 1.6L I4 that puts down 110HP. Not too bad for a Korean car, she got moving pretty well.

My '93 Fox took about 11 seconds to hit 60, but it felt a lot faster than that. By comparison the Jetta I'm driving now takes about 10, so the Rio was noticeably quicker with 5 fewer horsepower and a few hundred pounds less.

...Just goes to prove how much not only cars in general have improved, but how much Korean cars have improved in the past ten years.
 
Back