Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency
How much power are you willing to give up for that last bit of fuel economy?
I get the impression that while there's a lot of attention on mileage in absolute terms and ensuing discussion on the cost of the more fuel effecient cars, there seems to be very little discussion if any, about fuel mileage in relation to power.
Topics
- production cars
- aftermarket cars and parts
- power band
(remember, unit-wise: hp@rpm = torque x rpm)
- highway vs city
- cruising vs WOT
- gearing
I get the impression that while there's a lot of attention on mileage in absolute terms and ensuing discussion on the cost of the more fuel effecient cars, there seems to be very little discussion if any, about fuel mileage in relation to power.
Topics
- production cars
- aftermarket cars and parts
- power band
(remember, unit-wise: hp@rpm = torque x rpm)
- highway vs city
- cruising vs WOT
- gearing
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Getting closer to real world usage..
It will be a good thing. Right now they are kind of pie in the sky for many folks (although I personally always achieve mileage somewhere in between the two ratings).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Hybrids will fall much more: 20-30%. This will be a hit for the hybrid market but may be more realistic.
http://www.autoextremist.com/page6.shtml
Page down a litte to the paragraph about mileage.
hah!
As for hybrids, the new numbers may reduce showroom traffic, but they'll also reduce complaints by owners. Dealers have complained that they're legally not allowed to give realistic mileage numbers because you have to display the EPA figures.
There could also be an effect on tall-geared engines like the Corvette (is "tall" correct?), which will suffer a greater change (proportionately) in revs at the more realistic highway speeds.
Randy
The place where cars like the Corvette will suffer is the city test, not the highway test. They are going to shorten the cycling from cold for that portion, I believe. So instead of 1 10-mile drive with 40-some stops (or whatever the exact test is - I know it is something like that), they will do something more like 1 5-mile drive with 20 stops and 2 2.5-mile drives with 10 stops. With the engine getting cold in between.
robertsmx: CAFE stays the same. BUA-HA-HA-HA! That is going to hit the domestics a lot harder than the rest, I think, but we will see. The hybrids obviously will drop a TON in rating - I wonder how that will affect sales. They will probably still do significantly better than gas-only counterparts.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Regardless of who gets hit the hardest, it hardly seems 'fair' that the government CAFE standards establish certain MPG milestones for the manufacturers to hit.....and then the government changes the way MPG is measured midstream.
I'm surprised Ford/GM/DC aren't all screaming bloody murder...
I think they should have the right to make their own test realistic. And it will certainly serve consumers better. With the gas prices spiking all over the place, it would be nice if you could make some reasonable calculation of what gas was going to cost you in a new vehicle before you committed to the purchase.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
*ALL* of that legislation and all the rules will have to be modified for this change, because car companies will not be penalized all of a sudden after the 2008 model year tests for MPG that the new test "cheats" them out of.
I'm in absolute agreement; I've felt that the EPA test has needed some tweeking for years now to more accurately reflect real-word results. And the more accurate the info made available to the consumer, the better.
All I'm saying (and which larsb also pointed out) is the fact that there are reams and reams of government legislation which is based on EPA mileage #'s and a sudden change in the way the EPA does their test will have many many ripple effects.
If it can be shown that the new EPA tests result in a fairly consistent 20% reduction in MPG ratings, I would be in favor of a similar 20% reduction in the CAFE requirements.
Look at it on the flip side: what if the EPA changed their test criteria and it resulted in the MPG ratings suddenly INCREASING on average by 20%? Would it be 'fair' for the manufacturer's to still operate under the old CAFE requirements even though their fleet magically received a 20% boost in economy? Or would it be fair for the CAFE requirements to be adjusted accordingly?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You're missing the point. Whether or not the current CAFE standards are 'pathetic' or not isn't relevant. If you change the way something is measured, then any requirements BASED on that measurement should be adjusted accordingly.
Hypothetically, if the EPA had been UNDERESTIMATING fuel economy (so that real-world numbers were higher than the ratings), they might change their methods resulting in 20% HIGHER EPA numbers. This would result in the manufacturer fleet mileage numbers suddenly going up by 20%. Would you or would you not favor an adjustment to the CAFE requirements under that scenario?
You have to be consistent. If you would favor adjusting CAFE requirements UPWARDS to reflect a hypothetical increase in EPA numbers due to changed methodology, you must also understand the rational for adjusting the CAFE requirements down to reflect a decrease in the EPA numbers.
I'd be interested to know (long-term) how this is supposed to work as new models are introduced. Will each model carry two sets of EPA ratings? (one figured the 'old way' for CAFE purposes and one figured the new way for the window stickers/consumer information).
This could work AGAINST the reasons behind CAFE. As a manufacturer, why would I make an attempt to increase my REAL-WORLD mileage by 10% if it would require the vehicle to be certified under the new EPA guidelines resulting in an EPA number 10% less than the old number under the old guidelines? Heck, I'd just leave the thing alone for as long as the EPA let me use the old numbers for CAFE.
Personally, I'm glad the EPA methodology is being revised. For too long, the EPA numbers have been unrealistic. The problem now though is that, while it would be 'fair' to adjust the CAFE requirements in line with the new tests, it would be political suicide for someone to actually propose this.
Too many folks educated in government schools to understand the rationale behind adjusting the CAFE numbers.
Thanks for ending my week on a high note!
Under the new proposed scheme, window stickers will have to reflect the new test results, but CAFE for manufacturers will still be figured the old way. Otherwise, they WOULD be screaming bloody murder, especially those who make the most gas guzzlers!
In my opinion, rating the MPG at a steady cruising speed of say 50, 60 and 70 MPH or perhap 50, 65 and 80 MPH would really show buyers what sort of MPG they might expect on long trips at whatever sort of speed they like to cruise at. Also, showing the effect of speeding on MPG would be quite instructive.
A cold start, short trip MPG is very sensitive to the length of the short trip. This is why everyone gets a different city MPG. I get quite good city mileage because I currently live 10 miles from anywhere worth going to, and most of that ten miles is highway. I also limit my speed while the engine is warming up to 50 MPH till the temp gauge is fully warm, which takes about 5 miles on winter days.
They run the EPA test at 52 mph max for the highway portion, right? It's no wonder the current ratings are so hard to achieve for most folks.
Automotive News had an article this week about how AAA did an owner survey and then did their own alternate test, and neither one got close to the EPA ratings.
Prius gets a 56 mpg combined EPA rating, owners are reporting an average of 37, in the AAA test it got 44.
Explorer got 16.8 in the AAA test, as well as in the owner's reports, but 18.3 from the EPA.
Silverado got 17.8 from the EPA, but only 15 mpg among the owners, and 13.9 in AAA's test.
I always manage to get close to the highway figure in around-town driving, and 10-20% above the highway figure on long highway drives. The key to city driving is smooth acceleration and letting off the gas if you see a stoplight ahead you know you are going to have to stop at anyway. Plus combining errands as much as you can. On the highway, the key is to keep speed as constant as possible, without a lot of accelerating to pass, and letting up on speed a little on long grades.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am getting around 23 to 25 MPG in local driving. The computer says about 23 in winter driving, but my computer is goofy since the transmission was worked on. It randomly adds about a half gallon of fuel to the fuel used which then lowers the average MPG.
Does anyone think this will cause a revolution in consumer buying patterns? Will they now totally shift away from more powerful cars as fuel economy ratings under 20 mpg become common?
Will they go further and downsize their next purchase, as even class leading 4-cyl midsize sedans will probably only get a rating of around 25 mpg, and midsize SUVs and crossovers will also be under 20 mpg?
Or will they not care, and go right ahead, because gas is cheap and easy in the good ol' U.S.?
OR will the whole thing fizzle out, as the new EPA test proves to be little better than the old one, because it is too difficult to predict (as posters here have pointed out) what real-world driving will produce for FE?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Just out of curiousity, why try to predict what the real-world FE would be? If in the buying process you are comparing (for example) a Civic Sedan rated at 30/40 and a Corolla Sedan rated at 30/38, all I would care about was that in the City they should get about the same mileage and on the highway the Civic might get about 5% better mileage.
It wouldn't change my buying decision one iota if the new ratings were 20% lower (24/32 for the Civic and 24/30 for the Corolla). I would STILL expect to get about the same mileage in the city and maybe 5% better on the highway in the Civic.
Or are you saying that folks go into the decision buying process saying "I must buy something which is rated at 30/40" and so, because the ratings get revised, they will just naturally seek out an even more fuel efficient car to achieve a predetermined target?
So if you are trying to figure out the running costs of various cars you might buy (and witness the huge popularity of Edmunds' TCO tool for an example of the number of people that do try to figure that out), an accurate FE rating would be the single-most important number in your calculations.
In fact, if nobody cared about the ACTUAL mileage and only used the EPA numbers for comparison purposes (and yes, I know that was their original intent), why would there be such a large discontent over cars missing the ratings that EPA is now bowing to public pressure to update their test?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Because people have an expectation that if Product 'X' is advertized to have some measured 'something', then it darn well better have it.
I'm reminded of the flack that some manufacturer's take when they re-rate hp figures (when the engines don't generate the hp in the specifications). For instance, when Mazda first released the RX-8, it was rated at around 250hp. A few months after it went on sale, Mazda re-rated the engine at 238hp. And a lot of people were very angry.
Why? It's not as though their performance suddenly dropped; it's because they thought they bought a car with 'x' amount of power and BY GOD they DESERVED to have that car with 'x' amount of power. Why? Because they were sitting down with spec sheets and feverishly comparing hp numbers and curb weights and gear ratios and who knows what else to rationalize the purchase of car 'x' over car 'y'.
Same (IMO) with mileage ratings. You wouldn't believe the number of times people with BRAND NEW CARS go into the various 'Problems' board to complain that their new whatever is not getting the EPA rated mileage (go check out the '06 Honda Civic board) even though their cars won't get their best mileage until after break-in and gas mileage is notoriously worse in the winter than in the summer. But that doesn't matter: all they know is the car was rated at 'x' and it damn well better GIVE them 'x'.
They aren't trying to figure out their running costs (and figuring in expected tire life/replacement costs, etc.). They just have this number in their head (the mythical RATING....oooohhhhhmmmmmmmmmm) and they want their car to get that.
But even if everyone IS really trying to figure out the running cost of the cars under consideration prior to purchase, the PURPOSE of doing that calculation is to COMPARE. And if car 'x' is projected to have lower running costs than car 'y' under the old EPA ratings, it will have lower running costs under the new ratings. And the delta in the running costs should be about the same.
Or are you suggesting that some folks calculate to such a razor thin economic edge that whereas they could AFFORD the running cost for their car under the old ratings, that the new ratings would cause them to reconsider their purchase?
I can't see that.
For the record, I always drive older used vehicles that get 25-28 mpg and are midsized. I would never buy a NEW car (or a used one) in order to get a better mileage one until the old car is ready to die. I have never been able to justify in my mind that the fuel savings would cover the additional costs of owning a newer vehicle.
Having said that, when you go to market like Honda and Toyota have with inflated mileage claims, you have to make sure that the vehicles can actually achieve those mileage claims.
I went with one of my employees when he purchased his Hybrid Civic last year. The salesman touted the 50 mpg and the tax credits over and over again throughout the presentation. The employee drived mostly on rural highways and has pretty consistently achieved 38-40 mpg during the breakin period, during the summer months, and during the winter months. He has never gotten anywhere close to 50 mpg. He was getting 40 mpg+ on his old Plymouth Colt.
Personally, I would be very content driving to work in a car the size of a Fiat 500 with modern safety equipment. Howevr, I have no intention of doing it until such time that the average vehicle on the road is not half the size of a tank.
The hybrids are overrated, but... they're the still the most fuel efficient cars you can buy with modern amenities and the safety level of a modern and decently sized car. And for every 38mpg Civic hybrid, someone's getting 24mpg in a Civic non-hybrid.
Civic non-Hybrids are only getting 24 mpg....??? I guess that I mistakenly thought that they were getting closer to 32 ppg.
If the new EPA test slaps a 37 mpg on the Prius sticker, just watch sales wither away...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
BTW, the employee really liked his Plymouth Colt. Bought it for $700, drove it for six years, sold it for $300. Of course, he is in his early 60s and has had 6 or 7 vehicles including his '70 Winnebago.
What I was saying though, was that sure, the best Civic EX might come close to the worst Civic Hybrid in mileage. But the worst Civic Hybrid will be a lot better than the worst Civic EX. The average Civic Hybrid will still be 20-30% better than the average Civic EX.
As for the Colt... glad he liked it; I wasn't expecting to hear that. I've been rather frustrated with my own $300 car, and now realize the worthwhileness (to me) of refinement and ergonomics.
The Echo is rated something like 34/42, and I am getting about 39 mpg so far in exclusively local driving. The new version of this car, the Yaris, will be available in about three months. Its EPA rating has actually dropped slightly, to 34/40. It has the same engine as my car but has put on some weight. I wonder what its rating will be under the new system when the '08s arrive. I imagine it will be around a combined 33 or 34. Once they get done re-rating the whole fleet, American cars are going to look like a group of SERIOUS gas guzzlers.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
While I would like a station wagon for example, and while something like the SRX or Suburban is like a station wagon, the SRX is a bit of a fuel hog, although better than the Suburban. A VW diesel wagon is probably the best choice.
I am guessing that after the new EPA ratings go into effect, Toyota's number will drop to about three (Yaris, Corolla, Prius?), and Chevy may not have any at all! :-P
Possibly the Aveo will still make the cut, my guess is that would be about it.
But what a hit it will be for both companies' advertising, eh?! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But lets take a look at the real world. I know you were pulling for a Hatchback a few months ago, and out came the Honda SI. It had lower HP than the other little hot boxes so it fell flat on its face. I am sure it got better mileage but no one seemed to care. Now the new SI is out and seems to be selling better with more ponies. People don't seem to care.
But lets take a look at the real world. I know you were pulling for a Hatchback a few months ago, and out came the Honda SI. It had lower HP than the other little hot boxes so it fell flat on its face. I am sure it got better mileage but no one seemed to care. Now the new SI is out and seems to be selling better with more ponies. People don't seem to care.
I was half joking with my previous remarks, by the way. Chevy and Toyota won't care - Chevy will go back to pushing horsepower in its ads, what with all the SS models hitting the streets this summer, and Toyota will go back to pushing hybrids.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Regarding the proposed changes in measuring MPG: The EPA clearly expects the ratings to fall. What is not clear to me is whether they still plan to adjust the ratings under the new method like they do now, or if the new measurements are supposed to be accurate enough to stand on their own. The do seem to be proposing to have an expected range that a typical driver might expect for each vehicle. Cars with a 30 highway rating now may drop to 26, but the range may be 21 to 31. (see EPA's example)
I am afraid they will make it so meaningless that we will long for the old system back. If my new Corolla gets 18-48 city and 25-55 highway, that information is going to be pretty uninformative!
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
the top one is the current label.