By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
I know my example below does not mean everyone will attain the same results. However, I've been doing some mpg resets on my onboard computer during the 6-mile section of interstate I take going home from work. Here are the results, with the cruise control set at the speed indicated.
60 mph: 29.3 mpg
65 mph: 27.4 mpg
70 mph: 26.4 mpg
I haven't gotten brave enough to set the cruise at 55 and leave it there. I had some people nearly run me over when I was doing 60 (speed limit is 65). I predict it will be somewhere between 30-31 mpg.
I know that on pure highway driving at 60-63 I can get just over 35 MPG at 75 Its 32.
FWIW on the 5 mile section of Interstate that I take home from work doing 55 MPH would lead to an accident as traffic rarely does more than 45 MPH.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
My Echo, now the Yaris, gets me 42 mpg. That's every day, going back and forth to work, picking up my groceries, a running average which now covers more than 45K miles. It does much better than 42 when I take it on a highway trip. This is a vehicle that is only rated 29/36 under the total joke of a new rating system.
It is VERY LIKELY that drivers of the new Jetta TDI will do no better than my mileage as a combined average, given that the AMCI ratings are 38/44. Yet they will get a $1300 tax credit? Where the heck was my $1300??? Where is it now for Yaris buyers?
The whole system is a load of bunk, gagrice. If it underrates diesels, it also significantly underrates gassers too. The only one that seems to be about right now is the hybrids and they are a small minority of all models sold, so why did we tweak the whole system for them?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I will join ANYONE starting a movement, let's call it the "common sense movement", to get 95% of all stop signs in California turned into yield signs. The 5% of stop signs that actually needed to be stops can stay that way.
Since gas shot way up early this year I have been doing a lot more California stops, and I have noticed a definite, if small, uptick in my gas mileage. I try and avoid going back into first gear except at places where I actually need to stop...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
This saves me huge amounts of gas as well as cutting down on traffic in general. These circles take some getting used to, and do require some courtesy on everyone's part, but are way more efficient.
"Courtesy" is not in their vocabulary.
I have to agree with you. I am sure my son in law could use a tax credit on the Yaris he bought to commute. He never gets under 40 MPG and really likes his little car. This whole rebate was started over the potential EVs that never materialized. I could get a credit if I bought a golf cart. Who buys golf carts???? They added the CNG vehicles and the Civic GX still gets $4000 tax credit. Only a few people can really use one of those. They are more limited to So CA commuting. Most of the tax credits on the Prius were sucked up by the dealers with premiums. It was a failed program.
The only one that seems to be about right now is the hybrids and they are a small minority of all models sold, so why did we tweak the whole system for them?
You are Precisely Correct.... The EPA is biased to overly complex hybrids. There are a few whackos running the very secretive EPA that seem to think hybrids are the only way to save energy. Which is blatantly FALSE.
I posted a link from Click-n-Clack last week. They are, you would have to say, AUTHORITIES in the car industry. They said what everyone knew: The old EPA test was BADLY BADLY flawed in the wrong direction. The cars were OVERSTATED in a MAJOR WAY under the old system, because it did not use any "worst case scenarios" in the testing. Now the new test does so.
The new test is FAR FAR more realistic in that it uses:
Air conditioner (the old test DID NOT and HURTS the HYBRIDS not the diesels)
Hwy speeds of up to 80 MPH (favors the diesels and NO BATTERY USE for the hybrids)
City test under cold outside temperature conditions (VERY BAD for the hybrids)
City test with a cold engine (VERY BAD for the hybrids)
None of the tests are longer than 11 miles (shorter trips hurt HYBRIDS)
Don't even TRY to say that the new tests favor the hybrids, because I can shoot that down ALL DAY LONG. It in NO WAY favors the hybrids or you know what? The hybrids MPG would have gone UP not DOWN if the test favored them, right !!!!
The new tests knocked about 20% off the Prius MPG results from the old test. How is that "favoring" them in any way?
Erring on the side of "Hey, my new car gets BETTER mileage than what was on the EPA sticker" is FAR FAR better than, "Hey, my car does not get anywhere NEAR the EPA sticker and I'm going to SUE the carmaker!!!!"
Now, tell me anything I said here is wrong.
Those "overconfident" drivers understand the importance of lane discipline and how it affects safety. Slower traffic is to yield to faster traffic. This works quite well on the Autobahn, for example. The courteous - not to mention, more informed - driver will not block the passing lane for faster traffic.
imidazol97: But many people don't use the drivers training they got even in states like Pennsylvania to drive courteously and effectively.
Yes, failure to yield to faster traffic in the passing lane is a problem. Blocking the passing lane is rude and ignorant.
As someone who has worked in both government and public relations, I can assure you that she had her press person write that as boilerplate without looking at how those enforcement dollars were targeted.
Enforcement can mean many different things. It isn't limited to a police officer on the side of the interstate highway with a radar gun, clocking people exceeding the posted speed limit.
It can mean targeting drunk drivers (no one here is defending them), targeting people who fail to stop for stop signs (which are not found on limited access highways, and thus are irrelevant to the discussion of whether to impose the 55 mph speed limit on a nationwide basis), or even speed enforcement in residential areas or urban downtowns (which are not part of the discussion over speed limits on limited access highways).
It would be too politically incorrect for her to say, "These results further prove that higher speeds on limited access higways have do not negatively affect safety, as it would take a police car posted every 10 miles along every limited access highway in the country to really slow people down." Even though it's the truth.
You completely misunderstood what I said. I will not speak for gagrice. My point is the hybrid ratings are now pretty realistic: they do a good job of estmating the mileage real people will get in the real world in their hybrid cars. Yes, they are lower because they were fairly absurd before (I am basing that statement on fuel economy reported at fueleconomy.gov as well as anecdotal stuff from friends and family with Priuses and Civic hybrids, also one with a Camry hybrid).
EPA now understates by around 20% the mileage I will get in a gas car, and I would assume they will underestimate by around 30% the mileage I would get in a diesel.
In general, the new ratings have hidden the large real-world advantages of having a small 4-cylinder engine vs even the efficient V-6s that are available now (let alone some of the V-8s and all the trucks/SUVs), by compressing all the ratings. In real-world use some of these V-6 powered cars will use twice the gas of a car like the Yaris, yet the ratings, something like 19/28 vs 29/35 totally disguise that fact. Not good if gas conservation is becoming a national goal.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Road awareness is also mostly lacking in the American driver, part of the reason I am sure we have such low speed limits imposed on us.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
No matter how hard you argue or how bold you make your posts. One size test is not adequate to get an honest rating for every vehicle. If they cannot get close, don't bother wasting the consumers time and money.
I can't do anything about your memory, my friend. Notice this information, which does not mention "hybrids" at all but mentions all the problems.
These problems were not "invented" in 2004. They were the same WELL
Before that.
Here is a book written in 2002 which states that "drivers in the 1970s were complaining that their cars could get no where near the EPA estimates:
link title
And more:
The trouble with EPA Mileage Test:
The EPA's fuel economy tests suffer from several fundamental flaws, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, including:
• Underestimating highway speeds. The EPA highway cycle assumes an average speed of 48 mph and a top speed of 60 mph. Many state highway speed limits are set at or above 65 mph. Government data indicates that fuel economy can drop by 17 percent for modern vehicles that drive at 70 mph instead of 55 mph. Even at 65 mph, fuel economy can drop by nearly 10 percent compared with driving at 55 mph.
• Underestimating city driving conditions. The severity and amount of time spent in stop-and-go urban congestion is getting worse. In 1982, congestion added about seven hours a year to the average person's annual travel, but by 2001 congestion effects had nearly quadrupled to 26 hours per year. While EPA data show that we spend about 62 percent of our time in urban driving, EPA fuel-economy tests still assume only 55 percent.
• Assuming gentle acceleration and braking. The maximum acceleration rate in the EPA test cycles is 3.3 mph per second, about the same as going from zero to 60 mph in about 18 seconds. The average new car or truck can accelerate nearly twice as fast. While most consumers don't use all the power in their vehicle, EPA data shows that people accelerate as fast as 15 mph per second, nearly five times the rate in the EPA tests.
• Neglecting real-world outdoor temperatures. The EPA tests are performed between 68 and 86 degrees Fahrenheit. Most states frequently experience weather conditions outside this range and fuel economy can be significantly affected as a result.
• Failing to reflect the use of air conditioning. Fuel-economy tests are run with the air conditioning off, while more than 99 percent of all cars and trucks come with air conditioning.
• Overestimating trip lengths. The EPA city test cycle is 7.5 miles long. EPA's own data, however, indicate that average trip lengths may be only 5 miles long, with typical trips as short as 2.5 miles. Shorter trips often mean lower fuel economy because the engine does not have time to warm up and operate efficiently.
• Ignoring heavier vehicles. Fuel-economy information is not required for nearly 6 million light-duty trucks on the road today. These are SUVs, pickups, and vans rated above 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight. A recent J. D. Power survey found that the top complaint with the Hummer H2 was its poor fuel economy — consumers just did not know what they were getting into. And if you are a farmer or small business owner who needs a big pickup, you are left in the dark.
Gary says, "One size test is not adequate to get an honest rating for every vehicle. If they cannot get close, don't bother wasting the consumers time and money. "
Talk to the EPA about that. As long as the same test is done for all vehicles, the numbers are ESTIMATES and are there for "comparison purposes only."
Even if they change their tests to have ONE test for hybrids, ONE test for diesels, ONE test for gas-only cars, ONE test for PHEVs, ONE test for EVs - Even if they went to all that trouble, it would still be only an ESTIMATE.
It's an ESTIMATE. Your mileage WILL VARY, not matter WHAT test is used.
Having only one test is merely a basis for COMPARISON when consumers are shopping for cars. Using it for that purpose, it's doing the job it was intended to do.
You are selling your home. You have gone through it and installed granite counters tile floors the latest fixtures and you put it on the market. You get a buyer and the appraiser says the house next door with the same square footage just sold for $100k less. Of course it was a repo that was trashed and needed lot of work. Yet the bank will not loan what you have sold your home for. Would you be upset or just say that's the way it is?
Government agencies that are in power to make statements that can affect you financially should be held accountable. They are not accountable and should be abolished. The EPA with their New flawed tests have cheated VW Jetta TDI owners out of a potential $1000+ tax credit. I will pursue this till I get a satisfactory answer from the EPA or my Congress man. The blatant bias against small gas & diesel vehicles needs to be addressed. You would do the same if you felt they had slighted the hybrids on the tax credit.
OR they could simply keep the single test they have now, but make it clear that numbers are good for comparison purposes ONLY between vehicles of the same propulsion type.
And in that case, these tax credits for car purchasing should be eliminated for all but whatever the latest and greatest alt fuel is, and should NOT be used just for any old thing that makes more than XX mpg under the EPA regimen.
Hybrids and diesels both have had their day in the sun for early adopter tax credits. Time to reserve those credits solely for hydrogen or the advancement of CNG or something. PHEVs, perhaps, should have them for a very limited time, and proper full-range, full-service EVs (ones that never use gas) should have them too if the automakers could manage that.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
But, it seems silly that they are incentivizing cars that are so popular, that they sell for over MSRP.. :surprise:
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
That is exactly right. Much of those tax credits ended up in the pockets of the fat cat car dealers. Even now Toyota is limiting the Prius to keep the prices up. When there were plenty of them they went as low as invoice. Now that the market is hot Toyota conveniently has run low on batteries.
If the EPA is so gungho to cut energy usage, why don't they investigate the shortage of hybrids?
We should also remember, me included, that if gas does drop back to $2/gallon (not an outcome I am expecting or think has any chance of occurring), some of these fuel-saving vehicles might start selling "for invoice" again, in which case it may once again look like a pretty good idea to incentivize them a bit.
Overall though, I would say I am against incentives for anything but cutting-edge fuel-saving technology. Hybrids and diesels need not apply.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I maintain that since the EPA had only ONE diesel vehicle out of 615 vehicles available when they were reformulating the test, that modifying the test to account for the difference in the behavior of the one single diesel engine was a little much to ask for.
The test is and will always be an ESTIMATE. And if diesel drivers get more than the sticker mileage, they should be OVERJOYED about it and not whiney about it.
Now, in a few years, when there are 15-20 diesel cars available, then it might be smart to have a separate test for the diesels. Because people will be comparing diesels against other diesels.
And your hangup on the tax credit issue is a tempest in a teapot. Like I said earlier - the people who make enough to buy a nicely equipped Jetta TDI are not going to be really in need of the tax credit anyway. If they can afford a $500+ per month car payment, then they are not going to be hurting for $1300.
The goal of the tax credit is to stimulate the purchase of vehicles with clean exhaust anyway, and it has never been meant as an economic stimulus for the purchaser. If it helps the buyer decide to buy a clean vehicle then it has done it's job, regardless of whether or not the buyer can take advantage of the tax credit.
Other readers - please remember that is Gary's conspiracy opinion ONLY and is not based in facts.
You want the explanation AGAIN for the Prius and the Civic shortage? It's NOT just the battery, and it's not JUST the Prius:
Hybrids are only beginning to move beyond niche-market status - annual Prius sales passed the 100,000 mark for the first time in 2004 - and sales are linked more directly than those of other cars to the volatile price of oil.
"Even Toyota couldn't predict such a high level for oil prices," says Hirofumi Yokoi, analyst at CSM Worldwide, an automotive market research firm. Fixing the Prius shortage will take time. In addition to batteries, other hybrid components, such as regulators and transaxles, are also in short supply, insiders say.
Toyota has also been forced to scale down production at assembly plants to re-tool them to build the next Prius model, which is set to be launched around the world in early 2009.
The factory can produce 500,000 nickel metal hydride battery packs a year, imposing a natural ceiling on Toyota's total hybrid output. Toyota is targeting sales of about 450,000 hybrid vehicles this year, including petrol-electric versions of its Camry sedan and Lexus luxury models.
Between March and May it sold an average of 47,000 hybrids a month - a pace that would have put it on track to sell about 85,000 more cars than expected by the end of the year.
story
So the contributing factors:
1. Oil prices spinning crazily out of control, something NO ONE could have predicted two or three years ago.
2. Higher demand worldwide on smaller cars because of high gas prices.
3. Shortage of OTHER hybrid parts besides batteries.
4. The early 2008 sales successes pushed the one battery factory over it's annual manufacturing capacity.
There is nothing to "investigate" because the answers are right there in the news.
Another story said this:
Midkiff said there is up to a three-month waiting list for any Civic, hybrid or not, across much of the nation
So even Honda, with it's most popular model, is having supply issues, and even on the non-hybrids.
But in the case of the hybrids, Toyota has shown in a study that the "cradle to grave" pollution of a Prius is less than that of a comparable gasoline-only vehicle, including the mfg phase, which includes the building of the battery.
I was against the tax incentives from the beginning, including the HOV pass for solo drivers. I would like to see my tax dollars distributed fairly. That has not happened. The highest incentive has been from the get go for EV or CNG. You can buy a Civic GX today and get a $4000 tax credit. The EV Tax Credit was also $4000. It went away in 2006 as there were no EVs left for sale. Not sure anyone ever got them except for a few golf carts. It was 10% of the retail price as a tax credit.
It just seems to me as much as VW, BMW & MB has invested to make diesels 50 state compliant, they should not be slapped in the face with lousy mileage estimates by the incompetent idiots at the EPA. 5% or maybe 10% is understandable. 25% to 30% is just not right. The old test was much closer to reality for all but the hybrids in spite of what larsb would like people to believe.
Yes, and they were changed by EPA magic to reflect in 1985. It was not until 2006 that any more changes were proposed. Which further strengthens my position that it was because the hybrid under the old tests were so far from reality. As you will see from the following document the EPA was more interested in formulas than finding out what a vehicle would actually accomplish mileage wise. Fortunately for the automakers CAFE used their own test criteria to determine a vehicles mileage. So if you have a flex fuel GM V8 PU or SUV it has a 31 MPG combined rating. Ain't that cool?
Since the 1970's, EPA has relied on data from two laboratory tests to determine city and highway fuel economy estimates posted on the window stickers of new cars and trucks and published in the Fuel Economy Guide and the Green Vehicle Guide. In 1985, in order to bring these estimates closer to the values vehicles actually achieve under real world driving conditions, the calculation of these estimates was revised to adjust the city and highway fuel economy estimates downward by 10% and 22%, respectively.
In January 2006, EPA proposed a new 5-cycle approach for determining consumer fuel economy estimates incorporating three additional tests in addition to the city and highway tests. This new proposal will not affect manufacturer CAFÉ values or CAFÉ compliance. The three additional tests, which are currently used only for vehicle emissions certification, would take effect for MY2008. They are:
1) the US06 test which is designed to represent high speed highway driving and aggressive urban driving including rapid accelerations and decelerations,
2) the SC03 test which is designed to represent the impact of air conditioner operation at low vehicle speeds and high temperatures, and
3) the Cold FTP test, which is designed to reflect the impact of cold temperatures during city driving.
For MY2008 through MY2010, two equations, derived from analysis of recent model year data for the five different tests, would be used to calculate equivalent 5-cycle fuel economy estimates:
City FE (derived) = 1. / (.002549 + 1.2259/FTP city )
Hwy FE (derived) = 1. / (.000308 + 1.4030/FTP hwy )
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/mpg/fetrends/420r06011a.pdf
Hybrids- Alternative Fuel Vehicles
CAFE has special standards for alternative and dual fuel vehicles. These will increase the manufacturer's rating which make hybrids a good deal for everyone because it offsets those low-economy, high-profit trucks and SUVs.
Alternative fuel vehicles use something other than gas or diesel, which includes natural gas, hydrogen, propane, ethanol, bio-diesel etc. The CAFE standard for these is determined by dividing the fuel economy in equivalent miles per gallon of fuel (gas, diesel) by 0.15. Thus a 15 mpg alternative fuel vehicle would be rated as 100 mpg.
Dual-fuel vehicles use either the alternative fuel and/or gas or diesel interchangeably. The rating for those is the average of the fuel economy on gasoline or diesel and the fuel economy on the alternative fuel vehicle divided by .15. For example, this calculation procedure turns a dual fuel vehicle that averages 25 mpg on gasoline or diesel with the above 100 mpg alternative fuel to attain the 40 mpg value for CAFE purposes.
All VW has to do is rate their new VW Jetta TDI for Biodiesel and then and they can get a CAFE rating of 130 MPG. With the new credit system they can sell any mileage over the 35 MPG mandate to other Auto makers. So if Porsche buys VW as is being looked into, they have a built in CAFE cushion for the $millions they currently pay in CAFE Fines. The new BMW diesels are probably being offered for just that reason. If the new BMW 335d gets say 26 MPG combined rating. BMW could declare it should only be run on B100. That would be an automatic upgrade to 173 MPG for CAFE purposes. They could sell a lot of 750s and other gas guzzlers with that kind of off set. Even as a dual fuel car the 335d would be rated at 99 MPG. And you would never have to put a drop of biodiesel in the car. Just as over 99% of all FLEX FUEL vehicles will never see a drop of E85.
And a PT Cruiser is still a TRUCK and subject to the lower CAFE fuel mandate.
If it were that simple, that cut and dry, then VW would do it. There are obviously other things involved about which we know nothing.
Gary, nothing ANYWHERE in any of the EPA revision proposals says ANYTHING about hybrids !!!
When AAA tested a whole large group cars back in 2005, it found that almost ALL the cars they tested performed below the EPA numbers, and some of the worst offenders were not even hybrids !!!
USA Today story March 2005
AAA data come from tests done by drivers across the country "getting groceries, getting stuck in traffic jams, driving the same way you would," says AAA spokesman Mantill Williams.
The organization concedes that its tests aren't scientific but insists the results are representative.
Among vehicles that were farthest off of EPA: 2004 BMW Z4 sports car, which AAA says hit just 14.5 miles per gallon in combined city-highway use, vs. 24 mpg EPA rating; Chevrolet TrailBlazer SUV, 13.6 mpg in AAA testing vs. 17 mpg EPA rating; Chrysler PT Cruiser, 17.5 mpg from AAA vs. 25 mpg EPA rating.
Fuel-economy numbers posted on new vehicles are generated by 30-year-old EPA tests in which vehicles are run without air conditioning, never exceed 60 mph, never accelerate hard enough to hit 60 mph from a standstill in less than 18 seconds and always go far enough to fully warm up the engine. EPA uses correction factors to try to get closer to actual mileage.
Most highway driving now is faster than 60. Even slow family cars will accelerate to 60 in less than 12 seconds, and many trips are too short to warm the engine.
The so-called Fuel-efficiency Truth-in-Advertising act would require EPA tests to "reflect modern driving patterns and experiences, specifically speed and highway-vs.-urban driving," says Rep. Nancy Johnson, R-Conn., co-sponsor of the bill with Rush Holt, D-N.J. "Those are no-brainers," she says.
EPA itself is mulling changes. It is considering how to account for factors that "will lower fuel economy," including, "air conditioning, aggressive driving (e.g. high speeds and quick accelerations), cold weather, traffic congestion and others."
In a statement, EPA promises to "propose appropriate changes this year."
I'm sorry that you are not familiar enough with the fact that everyone knew the the EPA numbers were high on almost all cars LONG before hybrids were a thought in 'Yota's mind. But the fact (FACT) remains that everyone DID already know it, and long before hybrids came along.
Did you see the earlier post where I listed the new parts of the test? Did you notice how I annotated the parts of the test which were HARMFUL to hybrid mileage? I didn't see a comment on that post? Did you miss it?
Here is a post you missed - notice the hybrid MPG CAME DOWN in the new test. With it coming DOWN, how was the new test put in place for the sake of the hybrids?
The fact that the proposals finally happened in 2006 merely reflects that the Congress got tired of hearing about the problem and wanted to do something to resolve it. In other words, finally seeing the problem and addressing it.
None of that CAFE formula stuff matters in the discussion we are having. CAFE is a separate entity and a separate subject.
Hwy speeds of up to 80 MPH (favors the diesels and NO BATTERY USE for the hybrids)
City test under cold outside temperature conditions (VERY BAD for the hybrids)
City test with a cold engine (VERY BAD for the hybrids)
None of the tests are longer than 11 miles (shorter trips hurt HYBRIDS)
If any of that was true why are 95 owners getting exactly the mileage posted by the new EPA tests? The Prius is rated at 46 MPG combined and 95 respondents are getting 46.6 MPG combined as an average. If the tests were not designed to accurately rate the hybrid Prius it tells me that the EPA used DUMB LUCK in their tests.
When the figures start coming in for the VW jetta TDI and they are 30% better than the EPA maybe you will try to explain. Your arguments so far are lame at best. I don't think anyone other than yourself is convinced the new EPA tests are valid.
PS
AAA asked for REAL WORLD mileage tests. Not some hokey lab tests that are meaningless. If AAA has no pull with the EPA, I doubt they will listen to me.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2005-03-02-aaa-usat_x.htm
Because the new test is finally closer to a real-world driving experience - a driver going 80 mph, using the A/C, and running a short trip on a cold engine.
That's stuff of the real world and is now in the test. Nothing in the test is "hybrid specific" or gives a clear advantage to the hybrids.
Question Gary:
Did you go to the EPA "Detailed Test Information" page I told you about so you can look at the test protocol? Please go do that, and tell me what part of the test you believe is damaging to diesels.
Go to this link and click on the tab labeled "Detailed Comparisons" and look at the test protocol
After looking at the test, please tell me what part of the test is "unfair" to diesel vehicles and why you think it's unfair.
Have you seen any complaints from MB about the result from the E320 CDI? If the E320 can be accurately tested using the EPA method, why can't the Jetta TDI be measured accurately?
The EPA has something against VW Diesels but does not have anything against MB Diesels?
And there still is no evidence or report that VW suspects the EPA gave the Jetta TDI fraudulent numbers. The test results are what that diesel car does on that test.
Funny you should include the E320 CDI. The new tests are about 20% low if you believe the 17 owners that have posted on the 2006-07 models. If you think that rating a car at 26 MPG when in reality the average driver will get 33 MPG, we will just have to disagree. If the Mercedes is given a tax credit it will be less than the buyers deserve. I am sure as an avid hybrid lover and diesel basher it will be pleasing to you.
After looking at the test, please tell me what part of the test is "unfair" to diesel vehicles and why you think it's unfair.
It is a flawed test for all gas and diesel small engined vehicles. It seems to be fairly close on big V8 cars, SUVs and PU trucks. It is 10% to 15% off on big sellers like the Corolla and Civic, as well as the Yaris, Fit and Focus.
I would say if any part of the test would destroy the mileage on a diesel it would be the jack rabbit starts mentioned in the tests. Because they are not specific we don't know if it is administered PRECISELY the same for all vehicles. I know from following this board for 10 years that you cannot get good mileage driving a Prius like a maniac. I remember well the huge fuss when CR came out with their mileage test of the Prius. It is quite obvious to an unbiased person that the tests favor the hybrid and especially the Prius. It should be obvious to any one that has studied the before and after EPA tests. Some people cannot see the forest for the trees.
You can go on believing that rating the Prius at 60 MPG city so that it would get a $3150 tax credit was perfectly legitimate. NOTHING you have posted has swayed me one inch from my belief that the EPA is a politically motivated entity controlled by whacko environmental groups. They did manage to get the big SUVs down closer to reality. Which was probably their main goal.
Why they are so far off on all the diesels and small gassers is not clear in my mind. I can tell you from driving one for 13 months it is not hard to beat their figures by a bunch. I beat their old figures that were much closer to reality on diesel vehicles.
Hopefully those looking for a high mileage vehicle are not put off by the flawed tests on diesels. It is about saving fossil fuel and the EPA is not doing a good job of letting people know which vehicles will get good mileage and which will not.
Precisely.
It would be too politically incorrect for her to say, "These results further prove that higher speeds on limited access higways have do not negatively affect safety, as it would take a police car posted every 10 miles along every limited access highway in the country to really slow people down." Even though it's the truth.
In my jurisdiction the local law enforcement agencies get paid overtime with Federal funds- Federal Overtime or FOT. To qualify the officers have to write four tickets per hour(but don't call it a quota). Now here's the kicker- each separate violation counts as a citation, so we now see drivers charged with piddly garbage that normally would have received a warning- license lamp out, operators license expired, brake light out, etc. Plus there are a bunch of speeding citations for 5-10 mph. All this does is clog up the court dockets. Once the officers have written these junk tickets they don't care what happens to them. The judges and prosecutors don't have the time to fool with these ridiculous citations so about 99% are put on pre-trial diversion or are dismissed outright.
Junk tickets.
Harrassed drivers.
Wasted Law enforcement and court resources.
Wasted federal dollars when deficit spending is a national concern.
Impact on highway safety: 0
Priceless :sick:
Mine: 1995 318ti Club Sport-2020 C43-1996 Speed Triple Challenge Cup Replica
Wife's: 2021 Sahara 4xe
Son's: 2018 330i xDrive
Amazing info. Thanks.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
No, If you can't handle to drive faster then 55 then only drive 55 or contact AARP because you need to be evaluated to see if your fit to drive or not. Also I choose not to live my life based off fuel economy, so if 75mph makes me get 2 miles less per gallon so be it.
C'Mon Gary, let's be truthful here. When's the last time I "BASHED" a clean diesel vehicle? Are you incapable of moving on past that fallacy about me?
Gary says, "It is quite obvious to an unbiased person that the tests favor the hybrid and especially the Prius. It should be obvious to any one that has studied the before and after EPA tests."
Once again, Gary, let me say this and bold it and enlarge it because you missed it before I guess: If the Prius LOST about 20% of it's mileage rating in the new test, then HOW is that FAVORING the hybrids? Wouldn't a test which "favored" the hybrids therefore EXAGGERATE it's performance? If anything, doesn't the OLD test "favor" the hybrids? How can the new test, which makes hybrids LOOK WORSE, be a good thing for the hybrids? I'm still waiting for that leap in logic to be explained.
Gary says, "NOTHING you have posted has swayed me one inch from my belief that the EPA is a politically motivated entity controlled by whacko environmental groups"
You have presented ZERO evidence for that stance other than your personal opinion. Can you find ANY website or ANY news story which confirms your belief in ANY fashion? I bet not.
Gary says, "...the EPA is not doing a good job of letting people know which vehicles will get good mileage and which will not"
Gary, please answer this question, which I have posed before. It's a very simple multiple choice:
Is it better overall for the majority of drivers for
A. The EPA to OVERSTATE the mileage and therefore mislead the public (like the old test did), or
B. The EPA test to be more realistic and allow owners to consistently achieve higher numbers (like the new test does)
Which is correct, Gary, A or B?
Favoring does not mean it gives them a better rating than they deserve. It means they are getting a FAIR rating an HONEST rating. Unlike the VW TDI, Focus, Yaris, Fit, Corolla, Civic etc, etc. I know you see that and are just to bull headed to accept that the EPA are a bunch of political hacks.
Which is correct, Gary, A or B?
None of the above, "C" an honest accurate realistic mileage rating or NONE at all. If they are not up to the job of mileage ratings it should be subcontracted to the private sector. Then their is accountability. Which you know as well as I do the EPA has NO accountability to the car buyers.
The whole REASON the EPA spends the millions of dollars a year on mpg testing is to ASSIST the car buyer. Without that rating, we would have to rely on potentially biased, potentially unscientific tests.
Gary says, "I know you see that and are just to bull headed to accept that the EPA are a bunch of political hacks. "
I see a test which is FAR FAR better than the old test, because NOW people get the psychological boost of being able to say, "I'm finally beating the EPA estimates after YEARS of having cars which never meet my expectations.
And I'm STILL waiting for you to post a link which shows the EPA in bed with the environmental whackos. Or that says anything close to your bias against them.
You said in one other post "I lost confidence in the EPA about 10 years ago." What was the event that launched you into your current mindset?
The blocking of high mileage diesel PU trucks by EPA and CARB. Even in 1998 the diesel Jetta was underrated while the gas cars were over rated. The new tests are even further from reality for diesels, by their own admission.
Anyone would like to jump in feel free. This is a long term ongoing debate on the viability and or necessity of mileage ratings by the EPA.
Whether you would like to defend the EPA or as I have disdain for the EPA, your comments are more than welcome.
Can you expound on that a little bit? Which models were "blocked?" What carmakers were REALLY TRYING to get a small diesel pickup into this country?
I'm going to go do some research on that subject and get back...........
Tighter Tailpipe Standards
Tailpipe (exhaust) standards for cars have been reduced under the 1990 law. The previous standards of 0.41 gram per mile (gpm) total hydrocarbons, 3.4 gpm carbon monoxide, and 1.0 gpm nitrogen oxides have been replaced with standards of 0.25 gpm nonmethane hydrocarbons and 0.4 gpm nitrogen oxides (the 3.4 gpm standard for carbon monoxide does not change). These standards will be fully phased in with 1996 models. EPA is required to study whether even tighter standards are needed, technologically feasible, and economical. If EPA determines by 1999 that lower standards are warranted, the standards will be cut in half beginning with 2004 model year vehicles.
Clean Fleets:
Beginning in 1998, 30 percent of new vehicles purchased by centrally-fueled fleets in certain cities will be required to use clean fuels and meet tailpipe standards that are lower than those in place for general passenger cars (0.075 gpm hydrocarbons, 3.4 gpm carbon monoxide, and 0.2 gram per mile nitrogen oxides). The purchase requirement will grow to 70 percent by the year 2000. The program, which is intended to stimulate development of new, low-polluting fuel/vehicle combinations, will affect 22 metropolitan areas in 19 states across the country where pollution levels are high.
Obviously, the trucks you wanted were not clean enough. Who was at fault for that? I guess it would be the auto manufacturer, no? Has the EPA ever put one single catalytic converter on a vehicle? I don't think they have.
So it appears it was a "Bush The First" CONGRESS who blocked your little diesel trucks, not the EPA or CARB. You have had a grudge against the wrong people for 10 years now !!!!
1999: EPA announces more protective tailpipe emissions standards, marking the first time that SUVs and other light-duty trucks are subject to the same national pollution standards as cars. Standards are set at an average of 0.07 grams per mile for nitrogen oxides for passenger vehicles by 2004. In addition, for the first time, vehicles and fuels are considered one system. EPA announces lower standards for sulfur in gasoline, which will ensure the effectiveness of low emission-control technology and reduce harmful air pollution."
So basically, as a part of compliance with their duty to abide by the 1990 Clean Air Act, the EPA said that light duty passenger trucks had to be as clean as diesel passenger cars. Closed a loophole, so to speak.
The carmakers could have met that requirement with additional emissions control technology, but apparently in their greed decided not to do so.
1998 NYT story - explains a lot
Margo T. Oge, the E.P.A.'s director of vehicular pollution, said today that light trucks posed a problem because they were increasingly used as substitutes for cars and accounted for nearly 50 percent of new vehicle sales, up from 20 percent in the early 1980's. A few of the smallest sport utility vehicles, like the Toyota RAV-4, are subject to the same air pollution limits as cars. But most mini-vans, pickups and mid-size sport utility vehicles are allowed to produce nearly twice as much smog-causing nitrogen oxides per mile as cars, while large sport utility vehicles and pickups are allowed to emit nearly three times as much pollution.
''We need to do something as soon as possible to reduce the emissions from light-duty trucks,'' Ms. Oge said. If nothing is done, she said, ''emissions from light trucks will exceed the emissions from cars by 60 to 80 percent in 2007.''
Today's technical study presented arguments why new rules could be necessary, but the decision will be made later. The E.P.A. plans to continue studying automotive air pollution and propose any new rules by the end of this year. The agency will solicit public comment on any rules early next year and adopt new regulations by the end of 1999 for vehicles produced in the 2004 model year. The study suggested a range of emissions standards that would add up to $161 to the cost of a vehicle.
So, Gary, you could have had your light duty truck if the automaker had wanted to spend $161 extra to accommodate the regulations.
$161 Gary. You were making more than that for a days wage in 1998, weren't you?
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
All the baloney about nasty diesel emissions is not the fault of the consumer that just wanted to save on fuel. The same EPA and CARB that blocked Americans from owning diesel cars and PU trucks, allow vehicles to drive into the USA from Canada and up from Mexico with NO emissions control.
Face it you have no argument other than the diesel bashing ones you have used the last 4 years you have been here. There were others the 6 years before you.
Like I said earlier in the day Gary, please try to remain truthful in these discussions, as I try to do.
When is the last time I "bashed" a "clean diesel" vehicle? Can you recall? Can you post an example? No, because I have never done so.
Bashing the older dirty diesels is something we ALL should have done, you included. You understand the problematic medical aspects of highly sulfurized diesel exhaust, I KNOW YOU DO.
But the newer, cleaner systems like the BlueTec are state of the art and rate the new engines at least SULEV, and that's pretty darn clean.
The fact that they finally rate as 50-state vehicles PROVES that CARB and the EPA agree with that statement.
That's better than spending 10 years of displaced aggression toward the EPA when Congress was the real enemy...........................:)
Did I say bashed clean diesel.
Bashing the older dirty diesels is something we ALL should have done, you included.
That is your opinion. I happen to think the rules were repressive for other reasons. I still think dirty unleaded gas has more toxicity than diesel. If not why do they have the special dispensers for gasoline and not diesel. It is to keep you from breathing the VERY toxic fumes in Regular Unleaded Gas.
You know if the government did not allow people to drive around in the USA with anything they can get to the border with, I probably would not have known high mileage diesel PU trucks existed.