Here is a bit of info. on Jetta diesel available this year.
quote "VOLKSWAGEN DEALERSHIP COMMUNICATION
To: Dealer Principals, General Managers and Department Managers
Name: Mark Barnes Title: Chief Operating Officer
Subject: 2009 MY Jetta TDI Fuel Economy VW Brand Department Date: June 6, 2008
Following up my letter of May 23, I am pleased to inform you that our independent third party certified testing of the fuel economy on the 2009 Jetta TDI with DSG transmission is now complete. AMCI is the industry leader in independent vehicle testing, validation and certification. As expected, the ‘real world” fuel economy is significantly higher than the EPA estimates.
The “real world” AMCI - measured combined fuel economy represents an overdelivery by 24.2% versus the stated EPA fuel economy.
What does this mean? It means your clean diesel customers can safely expect their new Jetta TDI clean diesels will beat the EPA estimates. It means a Jetta TDI owner can expect a range of close to 600 miles between fill ups.
As my earlier note stated, we had optimism going into this independent testing because Volkswagen Jettas with a diesel engine have historically over-delivered on EPA estimates. These independent test results from AMCI assure us that the situation will remain unchanged for 2009.
Should your diesel customers express concern over posted EPA fuel economy estimates, be sure to share these independent certified test results with them.
Jetta TDI clean diesel fuel economy and range, combined with three years of Carefree scheduled maintenance, make the prospect of TDI ownership economical, fun, and worry-free.
Why is the EPA estimate so low? Would it be low on all diesels because maybe the test is not designed for diesels?
Good questions. I tried to get straight answers from EPA on testing. All they would tell me is they test 15% of the vehicles. The rest are tested by the automakers. The new test figures on the older models is just a formula and no testing involved. I would hope the new tests would be close to accurate. Would seem they are not.
If you compare the UK numbers of the Jetta TDI and its gasoline powered siblings, you'll see a distinct disparity versus the EPA numbers, especially with the TDI model. Consider the following table that compares EPA / AMCI / UK fuel economy numbers (converted to U.S. Gallons):
29 / 38 / 33 33 / 41 / 42 40 / 44 / 49
Interestingly enough, the AMCI is even more optimistic about the City mileage ratings of the Jetta TDI than the UK numbers, however, the numbers that the Brits got for the highway are pretty far out there. I've compared the E320 EPA versus UK numbers, and the differences are just as significant (versus what the similar gasoline powered models get), so it does in fact seem that the EPA test does not fully represent the mileage that modern diesels are capable of delivering.
Thought folks might be interested in the proposed bill. They also have a nice map showing diesel tax rates by state.
Will 6 cents make a big difference? One thing we can be sure of, there will be less highway funds.
They should actually raise the RUG and PUG tax rate about 1 cent a year for the next 10 years or so, otherwise there will be little money left to patch the roads.
Here are some pages which detail the new EPA testing methods. There is nothing the EPA does (as far as I can tell) which is "anti-diesel" at all. In fact, using hwy speeds of 80 miles per hour (which they do) would seem to give the ADVANTAGE to diesels over gasoline cars, as we all know that diesels are more efficient at higher speeds because of the low rpm they utilize at higher speeds.
* Testing at higher speeds (up to 80 mph). Previously, speeds were limited to 55 mph to match the speed limit of the 1970s. * More aggressive acceleration and deceleration (up to 8 mph per second rather than just 3.3 mph per second). The previous tests did not match today's hectic traffic patterns. * Hot-weather testing and measuring vehicle fuel economy while using the vehicle's air conditioner. * Testing in cold-weather temperatures while the vehicle's heater and defroster are operating.
EPA’s new fuel economy estimates will also reflect other conditions that influence fuel economy, like road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and the effects of different fuel properties. The fuel economy for each vehicle model will continue to be presented to consumers on the label as city and highway MPG estimates.
In 2011, manufacturers will need to perform additional cold temperature, air conditioning, and/or high speed/rapid acceleration driving tests for those vehicles most sensitive to these conditions. However, in order to provide consumers with better fuel economy estimates sooner, EPA will use new calculation methods that capture these driving conditions. These estimates will begin with model year 2008 vehicles. The interim period from model year 2008 to model year 2011 will give manufacturers enough time to plan for this additional testing, while providing consumers with estimates that capture more realistic driving conditions.
This page gives DETAILED info on what the tests actually are. Look closely at the DETAILED COMPARISON tab and you will understand better what actually gets tested:
"The EIA’s pump price breakdowns seem to confirm Mercedes-Benz’s allegations. While the cost of the basic crude oil accounts for 73 percent of the pump price of gasoline, it only accounts for 61 percent of the diesel price.
Instead, the EIA figures show oil companies are slugging diesel buyers by more than double diesel’s refining costs compared to gasoline. Only 10 percent of the gasoline price is in refining, while that figure leaps to 21 percent for diesel."
It would be really nice if the REAL season was merely a conspiracy. Then we could get the U.S. attorneys involved and send some people to jail, and diesel prices would magically fall back below unleaded gas where they belong.
Too bad it's not that easy.
Go see this post if you want to know why diesel is so high:
I defer to all you diesel PROS - can anyone find anything in the testing procedure which is inherently Anti-Diesel? I would seriously like to know.
Can you name a single model diesel vehicle that was actually tested under the new procedure. The people that are posting are getting far different numbers than the EPA estimates.
I am going to go over this again, as you do not believe what you are seeing on the EPA site. Of those listing their MPG on the 2008 Prius they are spot on to the EPA estimates at 46 MPG. For the only 2008 MB diesels that people are reporting on the EPA estimates are about 20% low.
We all know that the EPA came up with a more modern test because SOOOO many Prius owners were upset with the low mileage compared to the EPA estimates. It just looks to me that they optimized the tests to be accurate on the hybrids.
Maybe you can come up with a better explanation of the discrepancies. The EPA estimates were off with the old tests and diesel cars by a lot and the new tests are even further askew.
The 2005, 2006 & 2007 MB E320 CDI drivers are very consistent in their actual mileage. 23 drivers averaged 32.3 MPG combined. Old EPA was 30 and the new EPA is 26. That is close to 20% off for the EPA.
I know you just LOVE the EPA. Well I am canceling your vote because I Despise both the EPA and CARB as bureaucratic hacks. And throw in Consumer Reports for good measure.
I am going to go point by point so my arguments hit their marks:
Gary says, "Can you name a single model diesel vehicle that was actually tested under the new procedure."
Yes. ALL OF THEM from the 2008 year forward, and the numbers are listed on fueleconomy.gov. They do not use a FORMULA on new cars -the FORUMLA that you seem to "harp on" and "hate" is just a mathematical way to project the new test results onto older cars which CANNOT be tested as new, like the NEW cars ALL ARE.The tests are done either by the manufacturer, or by the EPA, but ALL CARS which receive an EPA window sticker ( i.e. 100 % of the new cars) have been tested.
No car that ever hits the road for sale NEW in the USA ever does so without completing the EPA test.
Gary says, "We all know that the EPA came up with a more modern test because SOOOO many Prius owners were upset with the low mileage compared to the EPA estimates. It just looks to me that they optimized the tests to be accurate on the hybrids.
Wrong mi amigo. First of all, even BEFORE hybrids hit the USA, drivers and people in the car industry and who tracked their mileage KNEW that the old EPA tests were not that accurate. You know that is true. Admit it. Once you admit it we can proceed. Is that admitted to? Yes, I thought so.
Your second contention that the test was "catered" to the hybrids is TOTAL hogwash. That's totally bogus to even think that. Look at the new test: Higher speeds were added - hybrids are GREAT at that (insert sarcasm). More air conditioning and acceleration - hybrids are GREAT at that too !! (more sarcasm)
I don't "LOVE" the EPA. I do TRUST them, however, as nothing anyone has ever printed, said, or investigated says the EPA does anything with car mpg testing that is not 100% above board.
You have no valid reason for doubting the EPA vehicle testing. If you think you do, then put the evidence of their wrongdoing on one of the EPA forums and link me to it.
I'll say it like I tell the 9-11 Conspiracy Freaks: Just because EVERYTHING is not 100% explained to you to your complete satisfaction and that so you understand completely EXACTLY what happened DOES NOT MEAN that someone is lying or holding back information from you.
..."We all know that the EPA came up with a more modern test because SOOOO many Prius owners were upset with the low mileage compared to the EPA estimates. It just looks to me that they optimized the tests to be accurate on the hybrids."...
Indeed the Prius bru ha ha was the main driver. Of course they will try to spin it towards the "fairness" direction.
Indeed my actual diesel mpg is 24% better (50 mpg) than the 38 mpg listed as the average.
I would swag I really need to do a sustained 105 mph plus to sink to what Prius owners get: 46 mpg. 75 mph with sustained bursts to 80 is a no brainer 56-59 mpg.
That is not either EXACTLY what happened. Do your homework. People knew the EPA mpg testing system had flaws LONG before the first hybrid was a seed in Watanabe's garden.
What some people do not understand is this:
The EPA ESTIMATE is just that - AN ESTIMATE !! People will get more, other people will get less !!! There are too many variables to have everyone CLONE each other's MPG numbers !!!
Just because YOU are getting 24% better than EPA numbers does not indicate a flaw in the testing !! There are people getting 28 MPG in a Prius and people getting 72 MPG in a Prius - the validity of the EPA testing is not an issue in those results !!
Indeed the homework was done! You are glossing over the facts. Yours is not homework, it is eraser. In terms of repeat ability, the old EPA test is infinitely repeatable. It was never designed to mirror the real world. In fact it lists the EXACT conditions!! So if you drive in a lab under exact temp and humidity conditions and in the exact manner the test prescribes, then I think you have a pretty good chance of duplicating the epa mpg's!! However the small print mpg WAS. In so far as the new epa being a real world representation, you are telling me that my real world results are flawed under the old test and defacto not in keeping with the new epa testing. You are incorrect on both counts. What is different about the new epa ratings are the procedures. If you check the real world mpg results are still in the small print RANGE. The driver for the new test was indeed political.
Incidently old/new EPA has not changed what I get!!!!
You did everything but address the reasons for the difference in EPA estimates and the actual mileage obtained by the certified diesel tests, so your post was rather pointless.
I certainly did not claim any conspiracy. Those are your words. I would just like to know how the EPA est. could be wrong by 20%. Any answers?
I have addressed this issue several times. Indeed the only person claiming conspiracy is LARSB. LARSB is being intellectually dishonest by saying others are claiming conspiracy.
Indeed if you look at the RANGE listed in the new car sticker epa fine print, you will voila ! Find that most of the figures fall into the stated RANGE !!!!
Your second contention that the test was "catered" to the hybrids is TOTAL hogwash. That's totally bogus to even think that.
I don't recall any big fuss over EPA estimate inaccuracies prior to the Prius. I do not ever remember hearing of people threatening to sue Toyota or the EPA prior to the Prius. Maybe you can shed some light or have some link with folks getting all upset about the EPA estimates prior to the Prius. I never remember having a vehicle that did not hit the old mark fairly close.
Take a look at the 2002 Jetta TDI for example. 15 drivers averaging 47.1 MPG. The old EPA estimate was 45 MPG combined. Who is going to complain when they get better than what is posted on the window?
Most folks will say ALRIGHT!!
Now look at the 2004 Prius first of the 2nd generation. 69 drivers averaging 47.1 MPG. Now why were they complaining? Maybe because the window sticker said they would get 55 MPG and 60 MPG in town.
AND THAT IS WHY THE EPA DECIDED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES.
If you believe the EPA estimates for the diesel cars you will be jubilant when you check your mileage as they are so far off now they are not even recognizable. The average driver will think they were testing some other car. And that my friend is a BIG waste of my tax dollars.
actual mileage will vary with conditions, driving habits and vehicle's condition. Results reported to the EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 35 & 39 mpg city and between 41 & 57 on the highway.
My fuller range has been between 44-62 mpg. Commute range has been between 48-52. On the road 50 mpg. So is this congruent with the stated RANGE?
* E-MAIL * Print * Save * Share o Digg o Facebook o Mixx o Yahoo! Buzz o Permalink
AP Published: April 8, 1984
The Environmental Protection Agency is trimming its gasoline mileage ratings to reflect more accurately what drivers can expect on the road.
The agency said Thursday it will compute the city ratings the same way, based on a laboratory test, but will deflate the number by 10 percent before publishing it.
The highway number will be deflated by 22 percent. The deflation percentages are based on fuel economy data of vehicles in use, the E.P.A. said.
For the best-rated 1984 model car, the Honda Civic coupe, the change would have meant the city rating of 51 miles per gallon would have been 45 and the highway rating of 67 miles per gallon would have been 52.
The agency's test results usually overstated the mileage a car gets on the road, but the E.P.A. said they were a fairly reliable guide to relative differences in mileage among various car models.
The highway test simulates a 10-mile trip at an average of 48 miles an hour. The city test was based on a 23-mile daily commuting drive in Los Angeles.
The agency said the city test result and the deflated city and highway mileage ratings will appear on window stickers of 1985 and 1986 model cars.
And it was STILL WRONG after that too !!
Hard to believe you did not know this Gary. Methinks you are playing ignorant to make me work.
American automobile manufacturers are required to use EPA fuel economy test results to advertise the gas mileage of their vehicles, and the manufacturers are disallowed from providing results from alternate sources. The fuel economy is calculated using the emissions data collected during two of the vehicle's Clean Air Act certification tests, by measuring the total volume of carbon captured from the exhaust during the test. This calculated fuel economy is then adjusted downward by 10% city and 22% highway to compensate for changes in driving conditions since 1972.
The current testing system was developed in 1972, and is a simulation of rush-hour Los Angeles of that era. Prior to 1984, the EPA did not adjust the fuel economy downward, and instead used the exact fuel economy figures calculated from the test. In December 2006, the EPA finalized new test methods to improve fuel economy and emission estimates, which would take effect with model year 2008 vehicles[4], setting the precedent of a 12 year review cycle on the test procedures.
As of the 2000s, most motor vehicle users report significantly lower real-world fuel economy than the EPA rating; this problem is most evident in hybrid vehicles. This is mainly because of drastic changes in typical driving habits and conditions which have occurred in the decades since the tests were implemented. For example, the average speed of the 1972 "highway" test is a mere 48 mph, with a top speed of 60 mph. It is expected that when the 2008 test methods are implemented, city estimates for non-hybrid cars will drop by 10-20%, city estimates for hybrid cars will drop by 20-30%, and highway estimates for all cars will drop by 5-15%[4]. The new methods include factors such as high speeds, aggressive accelerations, air conditioning use and driving in cold temperatures.
See that? MOST MOTOR VEHICLE USERS were reporting significantly lower mileage than the EPA number.
Notice what it did NOT say: ONLY hybrid owners.
The old test was not accurate for MOST cars, hybrid included.
Notice they did not say "only HYBRID owners" complained.
Consumers have long complained that their vehicle's fuel economy is often much less than the estimates on the sticker and Congress mandated the changes in its energy bill in 2005.
EPA's test methods for devising the estimates were last revised in 1984. The rules issued on Monday were first proposed last January and the agency received comments from the public.
We are not specifically talking about hybrids. We were/are talking about the EPA mpg tests. Gary brought up the the fallacy that the test was changed ONLY because of the hybrids and I am disputing that.
Even if adjusted, the EPA's adjustment factors would still fail to accurately reflect the real world's range of changes in driving habits and growing diversity in automobile technology, critics charge. The actual test, they point out, seems almost quaint. Flaws, UCS says, include:
• Highway speeds. The EPA highway test sets an average speed of 48 miles per hour and a top speed of 60 m.p.h. - despite the fact many states have raised their limit to 65 m.p.h. or higher. Fuel economy can fall by 17 percent for vehicles going at a more typical 70 m.p.h.
• Traffic jams. In 1982, urban congestion added seven hours a year to the average person's annual travel, UCS says, compared with 26 hours a year in 2001. In its petition, Bluewater cited a study of 68 US urban areas in which delays rose from 11 hours in 1982 to 36 hours in 1999.
• Quick starts. Maximum acceleration in the EPA test is 3.3 m.p.h. per second, about the same as zero-to-60 m.p.h. in 18 seconds. The typical new truck or car can accelerate almost twice as fast. The EPA's own data, UCS says, show that people accelerate about five times as fast as the test.
• Air conditioning. The EPA fuel-economy tests are run with air conditioning off, even though 99 percent of all cars and trucks have it, UCS says.
Changes in automotive technology - from all-wheel drive to turbocharged engines - also mean that factors like highway speed, traffic, fast starts, and air conditioning affect new cars differently from older cars, UCS says. OK - Gary - Have I proven to you that the EPA test changes were NOT only about the "h" cars? Or do I need to keep posting?
Diesels didn't just win the 24 Hours of Le Mans, they crushed all comers to thoroughly dominate the race for the third consecutive year, taking the top six positions and leading the closest gas-fueled car by 19 laps in a race many pundits are calling one of the best ever.
The prestigious endurance race has in recent years become the key battleground in the fight for diesel engine supremacy, and an Audi R10 - running some biodiesel, no less - scored its third consecutive win in a hard-fought race with Peugeot's 908 HDi.
Everyone expected a tight race going in, and Peugeot held the advantage with faster cars that started from the first three places on the grid. Peugeot got off to a better start, with the No. 7 car of Nicolas Minassian, Marc Gene and Jacques Villeneuve leading the No. 2 Audi of Allan McNish, Tom Kristensen and Rinaldo Capello.
Then the rain started.
The Peugeots are a handful in the wet, and Audi seized the advantage. Kristensen took the lead on lap 234 at 5:17 a.m. Sunday as Villeneuve stopped for fuel. There was no looking back from there, but the race stayed tight. By 2 p.m. Sunday, with 23 hours elapsed, the cars were still less than two minutes apart on a track that's 8 miles long. Another spate of rain dashed Peugeot's hopes, though, as Minassian - running on slicks to make up time on dry parts of the track - spun near the end of the race. Audi opened its lead to finish the race 4 minutes and 31 seconds ahead of the Peugeot.
But throughout the race - all 24 hours and 3,077 miles of it - the two cars were never more than one lap apart. Audi took first, fourth and sixth places, while Peugeot took second, third and fifth. The No. 7 Pescarolo Judd took seventh, the highest finish by a gasoline car.
The performances by Audi and Peugeot should put to rest any lingering doubts about the performance and reliability of turbo-diesel engines.
Generally an interesting post, but I'm having some trouble with this:
Maximum acceleration in the EPA test is 3.3 m.p.h. per second, about the same as zero-to-60 m.p.h. in 18 seconds. The typical new truck or car can accelerate almost twice as fast. The EPA's own data, UCS says, show that people accelerate about five times as fast as the test.
Okay, if 3.3 mph/sec is 0-60 in 18 seconds & people accelerate five times faster than that (one assumes on the average), then the average vehicle can get to 60 in 3.6 seconds.
Forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical. Or it could be that I'm stupid & missing something obvious. Both are certainly possible as well.
That was in the OLD test. The new one is different. See my post 5974 for the link to the new test specs. Go to EPA3 and look at the DETAILED SPECS tab.
The performances by Audi and Peugeot should put to rest any lingering doubts about the performance and reliability of turbo-diesel engines.
This just proves what most of us here have said all along. In a fair match-up diesel will outshine a gas engine any way you want to look at it. I imagine the losers at Le Mans will cry foul as did AJ Foyt against the Turbine car in the 1968 Indy race.
I believe that Audi engine is basically the one that VW puts in the Touareg V10 TDI. The Touareg is having some success in off road races as well. One good thing they don't waste as much fuel as the gas or alky engines.
As of the 2000s, most motor vehicle users report significantly lower real-world fuel economy than the EPA rating; this problem is most evident in hybrid vehicles.
You can post all you like. I think you are the only one convinced that it was not the glaring inaccuracy of the Prius EPA estimates that prodded the EPA to come up with a new way to waste our tax dollars. In a true fair market economy the automakers would put their reputation on the line and give those estimates. Not hide behind the Feds EPA skirt tails.
Don't bother to spin it anymore I am not in the least moved from my skepticism of the EPA diesel vehicle testing both for mileage and emissions. I believe they are both slanted to give a negative appearance to the public about diesel cars.
Right now, the automakers have not really found a really good automatic transmission that takes full advantage of the increased torque, yet still gets close to manual transmission mpg. The only one so far that I would remotely consider is the MB 320 with its automatic transmission. If the truth be known I'd still prefer it to be a 6 speed manual. (not offered) Any others, I would get and also recommend a 6 speed manual transmission. When they come out in 2010, I'd seriously consider a Maxima diesel. Maxima has a pretty good longer term reliability and durability record.
"I don't recall any big fuss over EPA estimate inaccuracies prior to the Prius."
You are kidding, right? The EPA economy numbers have been challenged since day one in 1972.
From 1984! http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1984.tb00328.x "The EPA fuel economy estimates for automobiles are an important instrument of public policy and are widely publicized. However, the accuracy of these figures, for use by consumers as an estimate of actual on-the-road mileage, has come under increasing challenge."
Next, since one example is the 03 Jetta ( NB, Golf, also Passat but slightly different and less common) that actually has the 6 combinations: auto/manual, 2.0 gasser, 1.8T, TDI, what is your take? You can run this on the gov web site side by side .
With upwards of 95% of the US passenger vehicle fleet being automatic, vs say less than 5% of the European passenger vehicle fleet being automatic, it is a less than serious demonstration that we are truly fuel economy minded. We won't even do the low hanging fruit. Another way of saying it is, we are seriously NOT serious about fuel economy.
With upwards of 95% of the US passenger vehicle fleet being automatic, vs say less than 5% of the European passenger vehicle fleet being automatic, it is a less than serious demonstration that we are truly fuel economy minded. We won't even do the low hanging fruit. Another way of saying it is, we are seriously NOT serious about fuel economy.
If I did not have to consider my other half in my transportation needs, I would drive a stick. And to be pathetically honest it would not be as a fuel savings choice, but because they are fun to drive. The fuel saving would be a side benefit.
Well let's get to the heart of the problem. It is just a government agency with no real accountability. Another agency throwing our tax dollars down the drain. It does not surprise me that those in the know would be challenging their faulty non testing since day one. By their own admission in an email to me they DO NOT test more than 15% of the new platforms when they are introduced. They refuse to divulge in a free society which vehicles they have actually tested in their lab.
My vehicles from the 1980s till 2005 were all large PU trucks. None of them even had the EPA estimate that I remember. The 05 GMC Hybrid PU was not too close to what EPA estimated. So when all the flack about the Prius came about I started looking at it closer. It looks to me like we are wasting our tax dollars on a bunch of losers. Good place to start cutting back on BIG Government. Looks like they have not done their job since 1972 except for getting the lead out of gas. Started with a bang and fizzled since then.
My son in law just bought a Yaris stick and loves driving it. I think it is mostly fear. When I got a license you had to take your test in a stick shift. I took it in my dad's 1949 Packard 3 speed on the column. I get lazy but like driving a stick from time to time. We had a Chevy Blazer with a stick shift at work. I usually drove it because the other guys did not like to shift. It was a bit of a hassle because you could not use your emergency brake to park in the Arctic.
In the last 20 years, we've had a Golf (stick), Mazda Protege (auto), Honda Accord (auto), and a VW Passat (auto). For whatever reason, we have consistently beaten the EPA highway mileage estimate, on what I consider my "highway cycle" - meaning any trip on the Interstate that exceeded about 45 minutes. In our suburban area, we consistently got the EPA "city" estimate. In the actual city, we are consistently below the EPA's city estimate. When I buy a car, based on my largely local travel, I could expect to get the EPA's city estimate as my lifetime MPG on the vehicle.
I don't know if this would hold true to the reduced EPA estimates currently in effect. I'd love to run a Jetta TDI wagon to see what I could do with that, mileage-wise. Employing some simple changes in driving style and routes taken, I've boosted my Passat's (1.8T with the 5 speed Tiptronic) mileage by about 10%. Takes a bit of concentration and it's easy to fall back into old bad habits, but every little bit helps.
Gary, the EPA has a lot of missions. Taking care of vehicle mileage testing is only ONE of them. They have never been accused (by anyone in authoriTIE) of doing anything to falsify MPG tests or intentionally mislead the public. Only in your eyes - no one else's.
And your harping about "non-accountability?" Wrong again. They release an annual "Performance and Accountability" report. Here is a link to the 2005 report:
So your personal bias against the EPA has no foundation in fact. As long as that's understood by me and everyone else, then you are hurting no one but yourself I suppose.
The EPA’s FY 2006 Annual Performance Plan and Budget requests $7.6 billion in discretionary budget authority
I don't think we have gotten nearly our money's worth out of the EPA. Of course my distrust of them comes from the lopsided handling of emissions. Which I firmly believe is tied to political string pulling to keep the oil flowing freely. If we had adopted the same standards toward diesel cars, as the EU 15 years ago, we would be using about 30% less fossil fuel today. You can argue that the EU air is dirtier and some cities may be and some may not be. The EPA has done little to cut the use of fossil fuel over the last 30 years. I don't think we get our $7.6 billion worth out of them each year.
If most of the large SUVs sold during the 1990s were diesel we could have saved billions of barrels of oil. Congress the President and the EPA did not want to save oil. They DID NOTHING IN THE 1990s TO CUT CONSUMPTION.
Gary says, "If most of the large SUVs sold during the 1990s were diesel we could have saved billions of barrels of oil. Congress the President and the EPA did not want to save oil. They DID NOTHING IN THE 1990s TO CUT CONSUMPTION."
Gary - in the 1990s, was there ANYONE, ANYWHERE besides the most far left greenies who wanted to "save oil?"
I think putting that on the EPA is a little of an unreasonable reach.
And tell us Oh Wise One - what can a guvmint agency do to make people drive less?
And IF there is something they can do, why have they not already done it?
Funny how they are half of the ones that complain about the current situation!!? Well, last I took this in a statistics class: 106 males to 100 females.
Comments
quote
"VOLKSWAGEN DEALERSHIP COMMUNICATION
To: Dealer Principals, General Managers and Department Managers
Name: Mark Barnes
Title: Chief Operating Officer
Subject: 2009 MY Jetta TDI Fuel Economy VW Brand Department
Date: June 6, 2008
Following up my letter of May 23, I am pleased to inform you that our independent third party certified testing of the fuel economy on the 2009 Jetta TDI with DSG transmission is now complete. AMCI is the industry leader in independent vehicle testing, validation and certification. As expected, the ‘real world” fuel economy is significantly higher than
the EPA estimates.
2009 Jetta TDI 2.0L DSG Fuel Economy
EPA City: 29 Highway: 40 Combined: 33
AMCI City: 38 Highway: 44 Combined: 41
The “real world” AMCI - measured combined fuel economy represents an overdelivery by 24.2% versus the stated EPA fuel economy.
What does this mean? It means your clean diesel customers can safely expect their new Jetta TDI clean diesels will beat the EPA estimates. It means a Jetta TDI owner can expect a range of close to 600 miles between fill ups.
As my earlier note stated, we had optimism going into this independent testing because Volkswagen Jettas with a diesel engine have historically over-delivered on EPA estimates. These independent test results from AMCI assure us that the situation will remain unchanged for 2009.
Should your diesel customers express concern over posted EPA fuel economy estimates, be sure to share these independent certified test results with them.
Jetta TDI clean diesel fuel economy and range, combined with three years of Carefree scheduled maintenance, make the prospect of TDI ownership economical, fun, and worry-free.
It’s what the people want!
Mark Barnes"
end
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Good questions. I tried to get straight answers from EPA on testing. All they would tell me is they test 15% of the vehicles. The rest are tested by the automakers. The new test figures on the older models is just a formula and no testing involved. I would hope the new tests would be close to accurate. Would seem they are not.
29 / 38 / 33
33 / 41 / 42
40 / 44 / 49
Interestingly enough, the AMCI is even more optimistic about the City mileage ratings of the Jetta TDI than the UK numbers, however, the numbers that the Brits got for the highway are pretty far out there. I've compared the E320 EPA versus UK numbers, and the differences are just as significant (versus what the similar gasoline powered models get), so it does in fact seem that the EPA test does not fully represent the mileage that modern diesels are capable of delivering.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Thought folks might be interested in the proposed bill. They also have a nice map showing diesel tax rates by state.
Will 6 cents make a big difference? One thing we can be sure of, there will be less highway funds.
They should actually raise the RUG and PUG tax rate about 1 cent a year for the next 10 years or so, otherwise there will be little money left to patch the roads.
EPA 1
* Testing at higher speeds (up to 80 mph). Previously, speeds were limited to 55 mph to match the speed limit of the 1970s.
* More aggressive acceleration and deceleration (up to 8 mph per second rather than just 3.3 mph per second). The previous tests did not match today's hectic traffic patterns.
* Hot-weather testing and measuring vehicle fuel economy while using the vehicle's air conditioner.
* Testing in cold-weather temperatures while the vehicle's heater and defroster are operating.
EPA 2
EPA’s new fuel economy estimates will also reflect other conditions that influence fuel economy, like road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, and the effects of different fuel properties. The fuel economy for each vehicle model will continue to be presented to consumers on the label as city and highway MPG estimates.
In 2011, manufacturers will need to perform additional cold temperature, air conditioning, and/or high speed/rapid acceleration driving tests for those vehicles most sensitive to these conditions. However, in order to provide consumers with better fuel economy estimates sooner, EPA will use new calculation methods that capture these driving conditions. These estimates will begin with model year 2008 vehicles. The interim period from model year 2008 to model year 2011 will give manufacturers enough time to plan for this additional testing, while providing consumers with estimates that capture more realistic driving conditions.
This page gives DETAILED info on what the tests actually are. Look closely at the DETAILED COMPARISON tab and you will understand better what actually gets tested:
EPA 3
I defer to all you diesel PROS - can anyone find anything in the testing procedure which is inherently Anti-Diesel? I would seriously like to know.
"The EIA’s pump price breakdowns seem to confirm Mercedes-Benz’s allegations. While the cost of the basic crude oil accounts for 73 percent of the pump price of gasoline, it only accounts for 61 percent of the diesel price.
Instead, the EIA figures show oil companies are slugging diesel buyers by more than double diesel’s refining costs compared to gasoline. Only 10 percent of the gasoline price is in refining, while that figure leaps to 21 percent for diesel."
Too bad it's not that easy.
Go see this post if you want to know why diesel is so high:
Every Consumer should know this
Can you name a single model diesel vehicle that was actually tested under the new procedure. The people that are posting are getting far different numbers than the EPA estimates.
I am going to go over this again, as you do not believe what you are seeing on the EPA site. Of those listing their MPG on the 2008 Prius they are spot on to the EPA estimates at 46 MPG. For the only 2008 MB diesels that people are reporting on the EPA estimates are about 20% low.
We all know that the EPA came up with a more modern test because SOOOO many Prius owners were upset with the low mileage compared to the EPA estimates. It just looks to me that they optimized the tests to be accurate on the hybrids.
Maybe you can come up with a better explanation of the discrepancies. The EPA estimates were off with the old tests and diesel cars by a lot and the new tests are even further askew.
The 2005, 2006 & 2007 MB E320 CDI drivers are very consistent in their actual mileage. 23 drivers averaged 32.3 MPG combined. Old EPA was 30 and the new EPA is 26. That is close to 20% off for the EPA.
I know you just LOVE the EPA. Well I am canceling your vote because I Despise both the EPA and CARB as bureaucratic hacks. And throw in Consumer Reports for good measure.
Gary says, "Can you name a single model diesel vehicle that was actually tested under the new procedure."
Yes. ALL OF THEM from the 2008 year forward, and the numbers are listed on fueleconomy.gov. They do not use a FORMULA on new cars -the FORUMLA that you seem to "harp on" and "hate" is just a mathematical way to project the new test results onto older cars which CANNOT be tested as new, like the NEW cars ALL ARE. The tests are done either by the manufacturer, or by the EPA, but ALL CARS which receive an EPA window sticker ( i.e. 100 % of the new cars) have been tested.
No car that ever hits the road for sale NEW in the USA ever does so without completing the EPA test.
Gary says, "We all know that the EPA came up with a more modern test because SOOOO many Prius owners were upset with the low mileage compared to the EPA estimates. It just looks to me that they optimized the tests to be accurate on the hybrids.
Wrong mi amigo. First of all, even BEFORE hybrids hit the USA, drivers and people in the car industry and who tracked their mileage KNEW that the old EPA tests were not that accurate. You know that is true. Admit it. Once you admit it we can proceed. Is that admitted to? Yes, I thought so.
Your second contention that the test was "catered" to the hybrids is TOTAL hogwash. That's totally bogus to even think that. Look at the new test: Higher speeds were added - hybrids are GREAT at that (insert sarcasm). More air conditioning and acceleration - hybrids are GREAT at that too !! (more sarcasm)
I don't "LOVE" the EPA. I do TRUST them, however, as nothing anyone has ever printed, said, or investigated says the EPA does anything with car mpg testing that is not 100% above board.
You have no valid reason for doubting the EPA vehicle testing. If you think you do, then put the evidence of their wrongdoing on one of the EPA forums and link me to it.
I'll say it like I tell the 9-11 Conspiracy Freaks: Just because EVERYTHING is not 100% explained to you to your complete satisfaction and that so you understand completely EXACTLY what happened DOES NOT MEAN that someone is lying or holding back information from you.
Indeed the Prius bru ha ha was the main driver. Of course they will try to spin it towards the "fairness" direction.
Indeed my actual diesel mpg is 24% better (50 mpg) than the 38 mpg listed as the average.
I would swag I really need to do a sustained 105 mph plus to sink to what Prius owners get: 46 mpg. 75 mph with sustained bursts to 80 is a no brainer 56-59 mpg.
What some people do not understand is this:
The EPA ESTIMATE is just that - AN ESTIMATE !! People will get more, other people will get less !!! There are too many variables to have everyone CLONE each other's MPG numbers !!!
Just because YOU are getting 24% better than EPA numbers does not indicate a flaw in the testing !! There are people getting 28 MPG in a Prius and people getting 72 MPG in a Prius - the validity of the EPA testing is not an issue in those results !!
Incidently old/new EPA has not changed what I get!!!!
I certainly did not claim any conspiracy. Those are your words. I would just like to know how the EPA est. could be wrong by 20%. Any answers?
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
It's not "wrong" at all. It's an estimate, based on a strictly enforced scientific testing method.
It is what the car will get in the lab under those conditions.
The real world is different. Each driver has their own style, their own ways of wasting or conserving fuel based on their driving habits.
Any of us who have owned a hybrid can take virtually any car on the road and exceed the EPA numbers.
Any of us AT ALL can put the pedal to the metal and reduce the EPA number by a ton.
I did not accuse anyone of claiming an EPA conspiracy.
If I did, quote me and show where I said that?
GOOD !
I knew you would recognize the products you leave behind.
I don't recall any big fuss over EPA estimate inaccuracies prior to the Prius. I do not ever remember hearing of people threatening to sue Toyota or the EPA prior to the Prius. Maybe you can shed some light or have some link with folks getting all upset about the EPA estimates prior to the Prius. I never remember having a vehicle that did not hit the old mark fairly close.
Take a look at the 2002 Jetta TDI for example. 15 drivers averaging 47.1 MPG. The old EPA estimate was 45 MPG combined. Who is going to complain when they get better than what is posted on the window?
Most folks will say ALRIGHT!!
Now look at the 2004 Prius first of the 2nd generation. 69 drivers averaging 47.1 MPG. Now why were they complaining? Maybe because the window sticker said they would get 55 MPG and 60 MPG in town.
AND THAT IS WHY THE EPA DECIDED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES.
If you believe the EPA estimates for the diesel cars you will be jubilant when you check your mileage as they are so far off now they are not even recognizable. The average driver will think they were testing some other car. And that my friend is a BIG waste of my tax dollars.
This is ONE EXAMPLE!
03 TDI 5 speed manual gives EPA 42 city mpg 49 highway mpg.
It goes on to say;
actual mileage will vary with conditions, driving habits and vehicle's condition. Results reported to the EPA indicate that the majority of vehicles with these estimates will achieve between 35 & 39 mpg city and between 41 & 57 on the highway.
My fuller range has been between 44-62 mpg. Commute range has been between 48-52. On the road 50 mpg. So is this congruent with the stated RANGE?
EPA test flawed, cicra 1984
E.P.A. REVISES MILEAGE TESTS
*
E-MAIL
* Print
* Save
* Share
o Digg
o Facebook
o Mixx
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Permalink
AP
Published: April 8, 1984
The Environmental Protection Agency is trimming its gasoline mileage ratings to reflect more accurately what drivers can expect on the road.
The agency said Thursday it will compute the city ratings the same way, based on a laboratory test, but will deflate the number by 10 percent before publishing it.
The highway number will be deflated by 22 percent. The deflation percentages are based on fuel economy data of vehicles in use, the E.P.A. said.
For the best-rated 1984 model car, the Honda Civic coupe, the change would have meant the city rating of 51 miles per gallon would have been 45 and the highway rating of 67 miles per gallon would have been 52.
The agency's test results usually overstated the mileage a car gets on the road, but the E.P.A. said they were a fairly reliable guide to relative differences in mileage among various car models.
The highway test simulates a 10-mile trip at an average of 48 miles an hour. The city test was based on a 23-mile daily commuting drive in Los Angeles.
The agency said the city test result and the deflated city and highway mileage ratings will appear on window stickers of 1985 and 1986 model cars.
And it was STILL WRONG after that too !!
Hard to believe you did not know this Gary. Methinks you are playing ignorant to make me work.
American automobile manufacturers are required to use EPA fuel economy test results to advertise the gas mileage of their vehicles, and the manufacturers are disallowed from providing results from alternate sources. The fuel economy is calculated using the emissions data collected during two of the vehicle's Clean Air Act certification tests, by measuring the total volume of carbon captured from the exhaust during the test. This calculated fuel economy is then adjusted downward by 10% city and 22% highway to compensate for changes in driving conditions since 1972.
The current testing system was developed in 1972, and is a simulation of rush-hour Los Angeles of that era. Prior to 1984, the EPA did not adjust the fuel economy downward, and instead used the exact fuel economy figures calculated from the test. In December 2006, the EPA finalized new test methods to improve fuel economy and emission estimates, which would take effect with model year 2008 vehicles[4], setting the precedent of a 12 year review cycle on the test procedures.
As of the 2000s, most motor vehicle users report significantly lower real-world fuel economy than the EPA rating; this problem is most evident in hybrid vehicles. This is mainly because of drastic changes in typical driving habits and conditions which have occurred in the decades since the tests were implemented. For example, the average speed of the 1972 "highway" test is a mere 48 mph, with a top speed of 60 mph. It is expected that when the 2008 test methods are implemented, city estimates for non-hybrid cars will drop by 10-20%, city estimates for hybrid cars will drop by 20-30%, and highway estimates for all cars will drop by 5-15%[4]. The new methods include factors such as high speeds, aggressive accelerations, air conditioning use and driving in cold temperatures.
See that? MOST MOTOR VEHICLE USERS were reporting significantly lower mileage than the EPA number.
Notice what it did NOT say: ONLY hybrid owners.
The old test was not accurate for MOST cars, hybrid included.
Notice they did not say "only HYBRID owners" complained.
Consumers have long complained that their vehicle's fuel economy is often much less than the estimates on the sticker and Congress mandated the changes in its energy bill in 2005.
EPA's test methods for devising the estimates were last revised in 1984. The rules issued on Monday were first proposed last January and the agency received comments from the public.
Wikipedia is a source of opinion on everything and an expert on nothing.
Even if adjusted, the EPA's adjustment factors would still fail to accurately reflect the real world's range of changes in driving habits and growing diversity in automobile technology, critics charge. The actual test, they point out, seems almost quaint. Flaws, UCS says, include:
• Highway speeds. The EPA highway test sets an average speed of 48 miles per hour and a top speed of 60 m.p.h. - despite the fact many states have raised their limit to 65 m.p.h. or higher. Fuel economy can fall by 17 percent for vehicles going at a more typical 70 m.p.h.
• Traffic jams. In 1982, urban congestion added seven hours a year to the average person's annual travel, UCS says, compared with 26 hours a year in 2001. In its petition, Bluewater cited a study of 68 US urban areas in which delays rose from 11 hours in 1982 to 36 hours in 1999.
• Quick starts. Maximum acceleration in the EPA test is 3.3 m.p.h. per second, about the same as zero-to-60 m.p.h. in 18 seconds. The typical new truck or car can accelerate almost twice as fast. The EPA's own data, UCS says, show that people accelerate about five times as fast as the test.
• Air conditioning. The EPA fuel-economy tests are run with air conditioning off, even though 99 percent of all cars and trucks have it, UCS says.
Changes in automotive technology - from all-wheel drive to turbocharged engines - also mean that factors like highway speed, traffic, fast starts, and air conditioning affect new cars differently from older cars, UCS says.
OK - Gary - Have I proven to you that the EPA test changes were NOT only about the "h" cars? Or do I need to keep posting?
http://www.leftlanenews.com/2010-diesel-nissan-maxima-to-be-manual-only.html
Diesels didn't just win the 24 Hours of Le Mans, they crushed all comers to thoroughly dominate the race for the third consecutive year, taking the top six positions and leading the closest gas-fueled car by 19 laps in a race many pundits are calling one of the best ever.
The prestigious endurance race has in recent years become the key battleground in the fight for diesel engine supremacy, and an Audi R10 - running some biodiesel, no less - scored its third consecutive win in a hard-fought race with Peugeot's 908 HDi.
Everyone expected a tight race going in, and Peugeot held the advantage with faster cars that started from the first three places on the grid. Peugeot got off to a better start, with the No. 7 car of Nicolas Minassian, Marc Gene and Jacques Villeneuve leading the No. 2 Audi of Allan McNish, Tom Kristensen and Rinaldo Capello.
Then the rain started.
The Peugeots are a handful in the wet, and Audi seized the advantage. Kristensen took the lead on lap 234 at 5:17 a.m. Sunday as Villeneuve stopped for fuel. There was no looking back from there, but the race stayed tight. By 2 p.m. Sunday, with 23 hours elapsed, the cars were still less than two minutes apart on a track that's 8 miles long. Another spate of rain dashed Peugeot's hopes, though, as Minassian - running on slicks to make up time on dry parts of the track - spun near the end of the race. Audi opened its lead to finish the race 4 minutes and 31 seconds ahead of the Peugeot.
But throughout the race - all 24 hours and 3,077 miles of it - the two cars were never more than one lap apart. Audi took first, fourth and sixth places, while Peugeot took second, third and fifth. The No. 7 Pescarolo Judd took seventh, the highest finish by a gasoline car.
The performances by Audi and Peugeot should put to rest any lingering doubts about the performance and reliability of turbo-diesel engines.
Maximum acceleration in the EPA test is 3.3 m.p.h. per second, about the same as zero-to-60 m.p.h. in 18 seconds. The typical new truck or car can accelerate almost twice as fast. The EPA's own data, UCS says, show that people accelerate about five times as fast as the test.
Okay, if 3.3 mph/sec is 0-60 in 18 seconds & people accelerate five times faster than that (one assumes on the average), then the average vehicle can get to 60 in 3.6 seconds.
Forgive me if I'm somewhat skeptical. Or it could be that I'm stupid & missing something obvious. Both are certainly possible as well.
Party on.
This just proves what most of us here have said all along. In a fair match-up diesel will outshine a gas engine any way you want to look at it. I imagine the losers at Le Mans will cry foul as did AJ Foyt against the Turbine car in the 1968 Indy race.
I believe that Audi engine is basically the one that VW puts in the Touareg V10 TDI. The Touareg is having some success in off road races as well. One good thing they don't waste as much fuel as the gas or alky engines.
You can post all you like. I think you are the only one convinced that it was not the glaring inaccuracy of the Prius EPA estimates that prodded the EPA to come up with a new way to waste our tax dollars. In a true fair market economy the automakers would put their reputation on the line and give those estimates. Not hide behind the Feds EPA skirt tails.
Don't bother to spin it anymore I am not in the least moved from my skepticism of the EPA diesel vehicle testing both for mileage and emissions. I believe they are both slanted to give a negative appearance to the public about diesel cars.
You are kidding, right? The EPA economy numbers have been challenged since day one in 1972.
From 1984!
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1984.tb00328.x
"The EPA fuel economy estimates for automobiles are an important instrument of public policy and are widely publicized. However, the accuracy of these figures, for use by consumers as an estimate of actual on-the-road mileage, has come under increasing challenge."
AMCI is a marketing/consulting company. Need I say more.
http://www.amcimarketing.com/case-studies.php?id=19
Can you expand on what you mean by good?
The transmission will need to be stronger to handle the torque. The extra beef will add weight and zap fuel economy a bit.
Next, since one example is the 03 Jetta ( NB, Golf, also Passat but slightly different and less common) that actually has the 6 combinations: auto/manual, 2.0 gasser, 1.8T, TDI, what is your take? You can run this on the gov web site side by side .
link title
With upwards of 95% of the US passenger vehicle fleet being automatic, vs say less than 5% of the European passenger vehicle fleet being automatic, it is a less than serious demonstration that we are truly fuel economy minded. We won't even do the low hanging fruit. Another way of saying it is, we are seriously NOT serious about fuel economy.
If I did not have to consider my other half in my transportation needs, I would drive a stick. And to be pathetically honest it would not be as a fuel savings choice, but because they are fun to drive. The fuel saving would be a side benefit.
All of my pre marriage cars were sticks.
My vehicles from the 1980s till 2005 were all large PU trucks. None of them even had the EPA estimate that I remember. The 05 GMC Hybrid PU was not too close to what EPA estimated. So when all the flack about the Prius came about I started looking at it closer. It looks to me like we are wasting our tax dollars on a bunch of losers. Good place to start cutting back on BIG Government. Looks like they have not done their job since 1972 except for getting the lead out of gas. Started with a bang and fizzled since then.
I don't know if this would hold true to the reduced EPA estimates currently in effect. I'd love to run a Jetta TDI wagon to see what I could do with that, mileage-wise. Employing some simple changes in driving style and routes taken, I've boosted my Passat's (1.8T with the 5 speed Tiptronic) mileage by about 10%. Takes a bit of concentration and it's easy to fall back into old bad habits, but every little bit helps.
And your harping about "non-accountability?" Wrong again. They release an annual "Performance and Accountability" report. Here is a link to the 2005 report:
EPA - Accountable? YOU BETCHA !!!
So your personal bias against the EPA has no foundation in fact. As long as that's understood by me and everyone else, then you are hurting no one but yourself I suppose.
I don't think we have gotten nearly our money's worth out of the EPA. Of course my distrust of them comes from the lopsided handling of emissions. Which I firmly believe is tied to political string pulling to keep the oil flowing freely. If we had adopted the same standards toward diesel cars, as the EU 15 years ago, we would be using about 30% less fossil fuel today. You can argue that the EU air is dirtier and some cities may be and some may not be. The EPA has done little to cut the use of fossil fuel over the last 30 years. I don't think we get our $7.6 billion worth out of them each year.
If most of the large SUVs sold during the 1990s were diesel we could have saved billions of barrels of oil. Congress the President and the EPA did not want to save oil. They DID NOTHING IN THE 1990s TO CUT CONSUMPTION.
Gary - in the 1990s, was there ANYONE, ANYWHERE besides the most far left greenies who wanted to "save oil?"
I think putting that on the EPA is a little of an unreasonable reach.
And tell us Oh Wise One - what can a guvmint agency do to make people drive less?
And IF there is something they can do, why have they not already done it?