Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

EPA Orders Fuel Economy Downgrade - 2014 Mini Cooper Hardtop Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited October 2014 in MINI
imageEPA Orders Fuel Economy Downgrade - 2014 Mini Cooper Hardtop Long-Term Road Test

All 2014 Mini Cooper hatchbacks are subject to an EPA order to reduce window sticker MPG because of testing inconsistencies.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • ebeaudoinebeaudoin NE IllinoisPosts: 509
    Weird. So fishy, these EPA ratings..
  • vvkvvk Posts: 193
    Fascinating! Thank you for the follow up.
  • bankerdannybankerdanny Posts: 1,021
    "In other words, the 2015 label is based on a sales-weighted average of the Mini Cooper 2-door we know today and the new 2015 Mini Cooper 4-door. I don't yet understand why they aren't certified separately."

    The answer to that is 2 paragraphs further down:

    "The smaller one is getting hosed while the bigger one catches a break."

    The small hit to the 2 door is worth being able to overstate the mileage on the larger version. Basically it allows Mini(and GM in the case of the Suburban) to lie to us with government approval.
  • actualsizeactualsize Santa Ana, CaliforniaPosts: 451
    edited October 2014
    @bakerdanny Yeah, but that seems undesirable from the carmaker's perspective, too. The 2015 Mini Cooper 2-door and the Tahoe suffer. Subrban/Tahoe customers probably don't care much, otherwise they wouldn't buy a Suburban or Tahoe. But in Mini's case the customers most interested in fuel economy could decide to go to another brand and not buy a 2015 Mini Cooper coupe.

    I tend to think the reason is more technical, pragmatic or maybe even bureaucratic.

    It may not be a pure weighted average. If both versions fall at either end of the same EPA "weight class", perhaps the heavier one is required to represent both. Maybe the smaller one is getting hosed, period. But that seems even less fair. I'm digging into it.

    Twitter: @Edmunds_Test

  • legacygtlegacygt Posts: 599
    Interesting. I'm also interested to see if this impacts BMW's strategy. Probably not. But they are planning to use the mini's powertrain and FWD platforms for some entry-level cars. That move is no doubt driven by CAFE. The revised numbers aren't that much lower but are they low enough that it doesn't make as much sense for BMW to start adopting this strategy?
  • Perhaps that explains why the Porsche Macan's two varients (roughly 60 HP apart) have exactly the same MPG ratings?
  • fordson1fordson1 Posts: 1,512
    This is good information and very interesting...we'll see how widespread it is.
  • actualsizeactualsize Santa Ana, CaliforniaPosts: 451
    edited December 2014

    Perhaps that explains why the Porsche Macan's two varients (roughly 60 HP apart) have exactly the same MPG ratings?

    That likely to be a real thing. Different engines do need to be certified separately.

    It only takes something like 25 hp (a very rough estimate - the actual number depends on the weight of the car in question) to drive the EPA test cycle because it's nothing like leadfoot late-for-work 10 mph-over driving that many engage in. Quite frankly, this is why many folks complain that the window sticker claims are not real-world achievable.

    What this means is the peak HP of the more powerful Macan doesn't necessarily matter to window sticker MPG ratings. I'll wager the transmission gearing and final drive ratio of the two Macans are identical and their curb weights are different by no more than a handful of pounds. Both are driven far below their potential on the MPG dyno test loops, so they may very well achieve the same numbers in the tests.

    Twitter: @Edmunds_Test

Sign In or Register to comment.