mattandi says, "Well, the old estimates were obviously achievable. The EPA got them. "
They achieved them in lab conditions - not on real roads. And you could achieve them in some cars under certain conditions. But the vast majority of drivers, driving their normal commute, could not achieve them.
Now, the trend is reversed and the vast majority DOES achieve them.
I don't see how anyone can argue that the new scenario is worse than the old one.
It's human nature to "expect better" than you normally get from a purchase. To actually get better than you expect makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Either the new or the old test was fine as the real purpose was comparison, so what mostly really should have mattered to people was the relative values.
IMO, the new test is better, not because the numbers are more or less realistic but because, as you posted, "The new test includes REAL WORLD scenarios like driving 80 miles per hour, driving with the air conditioner ON, and driving a cold vehicle for short trips." It also features faster acceleration, btw.
This means that manufacturers now need to design their cars to do well under all those circumstances, in order to get a good result from the test.
Part of it, sure. But having owners not complaining about their mileage is good for everyone. Good for the carmakers. Good for the owners. Good for the car dealers.
(Bad for lawyers who have clients who want to sue carmakers, but being bad for lawyers usually means good for everyone else.)
Having a test which uses real-world driving conditions like air conditioning and 80 mph driving is also a good thing.
They can still make tweaks to make the test even more accurate, which they might do.
They might even eventually have more than one test, based on what new car technologies develop.
I have not read the link you provided yet but its always good to get the REST OF THE STORY...
I used to have a house with NG and if I still did I would get a CNG vehicle ASAP and "filler up" myself. Does anyone know what that equipment costs, and how does the state get their hwy taxes.???
Some states do not require a front license plate at all - South Carolina among them.
Had a traffic cop try to tell me to get out of line for my montly parking garage because it was backed up onto the street in Manhattan - we had words and she tried to read my front license plate to give me a ticket!!! :P By the time she realized I had no front license and tried to go to the back I went around the block and entered from the other side. The look on her face was priceless!!! LOL!!!
Aw, don't back off now. I do hope you will forgive me if I am reluctant to see that the real reason that any government program is "better" than whatever came before is because it makes more people feel better.
Like I said before, it just struck me as an odd point to make. The real reason that the new test is better is because of how it makes people feel. Not that it is more accurate or that it more closely reflects real world conditions or that it more closely models how folks actually drive their cars or even that it provides more information to the consumer, but that the real reason it is better is that now more people can brag that they beat the estimate.
Just jumped out at me. That's all.
I'll go back to watching the fireworks between you and Gary now.
Would the EPA mileage testing be considered a "government program?"
I never considered it that, not in the same way that Food Stamps is a program or the Pell Grants are a program.
From the perspective of "do the tests matter AFTER the car is purchased?" then the ONLY value to the consumer is that it makes them feel good to beat the numbers. It certainly made them feel bad to never achieve the numbers in the past with the old tests. That lead to lemon law attempts, lawsuit attempts, buyers protesting outside dealerships, etc. Useless wasteful things.
Other than that, can you name another value it has to the buyer AFTER purchase?
It made the EPA look bad to have a test which was so hard to duplicate on the road. So they fixed that.
The real reason that the new test is better is because of how it makes people feel.
Maybe not so good. My gripe is not so much the inaccuracy of the test. It is that tax credits are based on those tests. It does not bother larsb because he got in under the old tests that favored the hybrids. The Prius tax credit of $3150 was based on it getting 60 MPG City, as rated by the EPA. The new VW TDI is based on a very low 29 MPG City estimate. That means it is affecting the pocket book of those that want a 50 state clean diesel. All of the diesels fare poorly with the new tests. VW has complained to the EPA and now GM is complaining as it will have a tremendous affect on their new Volt if it is only rated at 48 MPG. Hopefully the next President will shake up that lazy bunch of bureaucrats in the EPA.
You have to take into consideration that Larsb would argue the moon is made of cheddar cheese if he could find someone to argue with.
Gary, you are sounding like a "broken record again. Allow me to correct some of your fallacies:
Gary says, "It is that tax credits are based on those tests."
You are mad about ONE CAR out of 615 cars getting a low result. Get OVER it already.
Gary says, "It does not bother larsb because he got in under the old tests that favored the hybrids."
I did not profit much at all from the old tests. And the car with which I earned the tax credit changed from a whopping 39 to a whopping 34 with the new test. So you are wrong about that too.
Gary says, "You have to take into consideration that Larsb would argue the moon is made of cheddar cheese if he could find someone to argue with. "
You are mad about ONE CAR out of 615 cars getting a low result. Get OVER it already.
NO, now there are FIVE diesel vehicles all being under rated by the EPA. All have gotten their Tax Credit posted on the IRS site. Much lower than they should be compared to the darling hybrids. All 3 of the Mercedes diesel SUVs will save a LOT more money per year than the Prius.
Your anti diesel glasses are SO DARK you cannot see the truth.
When I said, "You are mad about ONE CAR out of 615 cars getting a low result. Get OVER it already." you know what I meant.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
When EPA was doing the revised testing, they had 615 cars to test with the new method and only ONE of them was a diesel. They did not have enough data to worry about tweaking such a small data set.
And of the five currently "tested and tax-credited" vehicles, I have not heard you complain that any of them were "robbed" by a faulty diesel test bias other than the Jetta.
No, they are just as far off as the VW Jetta diesel. They are rating the blutec R class at 18 MPG city. Probably off at least 25 percent from what owners are getting. At the very least they are off by 18% that the EPA admits to.
At the very least they need to fire the top people at the EPA and clean house. They have yet to post the tax credit for the E320 CDI blutec. It is no wonder our Congress has an 8% approval rating with the way they run these agencies.
Seems like BOTH tests were sucky for the Jetta TDI city driving, no?
You love to cherry pick your data. Where did you find a 34 MPG city from any owner?
Check the one person posting for the stick shift model he is getting 49 MPG Check the 3 people posting for the automatic they are averaging 37.3 MPG The lowest had a 34 MPG average and the highest 43 MPG. Much better than even the company that VW hired to test the cars. I you check the Sportwagen the only person posting is getting 46 MPG.
While all those buying the VW TDI will get the last laugh. I am not cutting the EPA one INCH of slack. So you can post all the tainted data you can find. And I will debunk it as usual.
Can you point me to a source where "owners" are reporting R320 bluetec mileage?
I can't find too many good road test or any owner reports.
Found one owner reporting 27 MPG lifetime on an R320. Another guy says he "has seen 22-23 mpg" and another one said the service department got 17.5 MPG when they brought him the car.
An estimate of 21 MPG combined might be a little low, but it's not ridiculously low.
If the best we can find is an owner getting 27 MPG then I can see why MB did not complain about the tests.
I doubt that MB will complain. There are not many people buying a new MB diesel that care about the Credit or would qualify. They are mostly people like myself that want the added torque and range that the diesel offers over the gas version. Once you drive the diesel for any distance you will not want the gas version of any modern car or SUV.
That variation is not out of line with what hybrids get on the road. If you take out the top and bottom 20% of reporting owners at a "popular' hybrid website, here are the ranges:
Prius: Ranges from 39.3 to 51.8 = difference of 31.8% HCH: Ranges from 42.5 to 50.8 = difference of 19.5% Insight: Ranges from 52.3 to 63.3 = difference of 21%
Seems about a correct range of variance among highly efficient cars.
I sell Saabs and am the owner of a 2008 9-3 Aero 2.8T V-6,255 H.P. The EPA ratings on our Monroni sticker put avg. economy at 15 city/24 highway.I commute 22 miles to work each way mixture of hwy and stop and go, avg.speed overall app.30-35 mph and consistently get 20 to 22 m.p.g.I just did a 120 mile trip on the N.E.Ext of the PA.Turnpike from Philly to Scranton which means I had to go through the Poconos.....not the Rockies by any means, but a significant elevation change none-the-less. At an average speed of 76 M.P.H.,I legitimately got 31.3 M.P.G. My car has about 8,000 miles on it and I run the recommended premium fuel. These kind of discrepancies in their numbers and the "REAL" world render them useless in any practical sense.
Chrysler introduced EV versions of the Jeep Wrangler, Chrysler Town & Country minivan and a Dodge sportscar to the press today. The Dodge goes 0-60 in under 5 seconds, and reporters behind the wheel took it up to 100 mph.
The company's press release said that one of these three cars will be introduced in 2010, and that others will follow. It also said the company has been working secretly on EVs since January 2007.
It wasn't generally known that Chrysler was as far along as it appears to be in terms of EVs. The company faces serious challenges in the next several months, and nothing was disclosed about how much these EVs will cost.
Do you think EVs will help Chrysler turn the tide, regain market and become profitable again?
If nothing else it will help them get loans from the Congress. That is what they are wanting the automakers to do, is build alternatives. An electric Jeep sounds cool.
Chrysler has a way of surprising and seems to find ways to rise from the ashes. Not sure if this will do the trick, but it sure doesn't seem to hurt
Chrysler Chief Executive Bob Nardelli denied that Chrysler showed off its electric prototypes now because Congress is considering a $25 billion loan program to help automakers and their suppliers modernize plants to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Vice Chairman Jim Press said the timing of the announcement also had nothing to do with the publicity GM gained last week by revealing the production version of the Volt.
pfft, yeah right. Everything indicates that Chrysler needs cash. Of course this development strengthens their case for loan approval. (I'm still befuddled why Congress is considering the loans. The DOE decides who gets them.) Chrysler may have been content to let GM get all the attention until now. GM is beginning to leverage the buzz surrounding the Volt. Chrysler would have been stupid to let them get too far out front with that.
Incidentally, the technology is amazingly similar to GM's development. Might we see the unleashing of the hounds and a few lawsuits?
Chrysler decided to integrate this technology into existing designs. Different from GM's strategy. Wonder if that decision will pay off or backfire? Consider the relative success of the Prius compared to hybridized existing models.
I'm still befuddled why Congress is considering the loans. The DOE decides who gets them
As I understand it, the loans were approved in principle, but now must be funded. All funding is subject to congressional approval.
I wonder how well an electric Jeep would go over. Jeeps and other vehicles that are used to travel away from inhabited areas need long ranges of operation - the bigger the gas tank the better. I suppose if those vehicles were also used around town their owners could see significant fuel savings, but on that trip to the mountains I think they would be using plenty of gas.
The one thing Chrysler is guaranteed lots of for another year or two is cash - it was part of the deal with Daimler, that Daimler would help fund product development for a few years after the split. They may be losing lots of money in day-to-day operations, but they should have money for R&D.
One thing I AM very gratified to see is that so many mainstream automakers are now taking the development of electric vehicles seriously.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It bothers me mightily when automakers tout 0-60 and 1/4 miles speeds when discussing our future.
I continue to think CNG is our future automotive fuel, NOT electricity from the already over-stressed commercial supply grid and power generation capability.
Well, if we are talking long-term, then I don't think we can afford to have one automotive fuel. We need an array of fuels as diverse as we can make it. But in the short term, say the next 20 years, it would be nice if they got some electric vehicles out there quickly as they are for the moment much cheaper to operate per mile than gas/diesel/CNG alternatives.
That's the great thing about the hybrid idea, whose potential is now just beginning to be realized with cars like the Volt: you can use ALL KINDS of fuels to power the "generator" (engine, not connected to the drive wheels), as long as the car is electric-drive. In that sense, if Chrysler is really ready to go in 2010 with cars that have the range and durability of today's gas cars and a price premium of no more than $5000 or so, they could really make a kiling, as that field in general has almost limitless potential, it seems to me.
But is that what they are saying they will have? I think not. A $100,000 Dodge sports car and a $50,000 Town and Country aren't going to move the needle even one tiny little bit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I didn't, because they weren't published. But with the Dodge EV they are hoping to mimic Tesla's Roadster, which currently sells for $109,000. And I am assuming that the T&C will have to have batteries the size of the QE2, which aren't going to come cheap. Or else they will be some new Li-Ion derivative, which will be expensive because of its newness.
If Chrysler can produce a $25,000 T&C with an electric drivetrain, that is WITHOUT QUESTION the model they should bring to market first IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
A new T&C can already reach way north of $40k MSRP. I doubt their selling very many with that kind of number, but still . . .
If they can bring an electric one in at $40k or lower, somebody will buy them. Not me, but somebody. $40k buggies with interiors that fall apart if you sneeze in them don't get my attention.
Tighten up the interior, bring it in at an even lower price point, and I will get in line, most especially if the range is extended even further.
I would get in line for an electric Journey as well.
Jeep likes to market their trail readiness, but a whole bunch of those vehicles will never get further off road than the nether regions of a mall parking lot. They showed the electric drive in a Wrangler, but I would think there would be a better fit, from a marketing perspective, in the Patriot.
It's been almost two years since the last message was posted on this discussion. In the meantime oil prices have gone up over $100 per barrel, and that's been reflected in significantly higher gasoline prices. Have these price increases caused you to change your commute in any way? If so, how?
runs a "green commute" incentive plan, and they just recently did their latest survey of us little employees to see how many of us were still doing the dreaded "driving solo" commute, and if we were commuting that way, what they could do to get us out of our cars or at least into a carpool.
Me, I use my car during the day, and sometimes on the job as well, so I don't much like the idea of a carpool (for other reasons too).
I live close to work and would consider bus transit (the only transit available to me in my suburban county), but we have some of the worst in the western hemisphere, making the LA bus system look stellar by comparison. I hammered that point in the "comments" section. I can usually be at work in less than ten minutes in my car. That's the way I like it. There is a bus that can make the same trip in less than 20 minutes, which I would ride probably 3 days a week if it offered service at the hour I go to work, but it doesn't.
Even so, being so close to work, my actual commute use of gas is less than 10 gallons a month.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The letter claims that the tax credit was determined by CAFE numbers.
"CAFE values are determined using unadjusted fuel economy numbers".
So basically the letter is saying we do it our way and you are not allowed to know the formula. No links to how CAFE comes up with their numbers or what those numbers might be. It does say that the tax credit is based on city mileage. Which would favor hybrids. Which we knew they did that all along.
Oh sure, all the minivan makers produce a loaded up luxo model that tops $40K, but the meat of that market is at the $25K price point.
Let me modify my earlier remarks though: if Chrysler can produce one that sells for $30K, they will make a splash. If they price them at $40K, it will be just like if the Volt gets priced at $40K: exciting new tech that no-one but a few eager (and very rich) beavers will buy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
My wife changed jobs a few weeks ago. Her commute is a few miles and fifteen minutes shorter (less traffic). The commute wasn't the reason she switched, but it's a nice benefit, especially the extra time. The place is flexible too, so lots of people go in at 7 or 7:30 to miss the school rush in the morning and you can work 4 tens and have a day off or work 4 nines and take a half day off a week.
The extra time means more than the gas savings. It's about a 15 minute commute now.
has actually lengthened, but it's my own doing. Once fuel prices started shooting up several years ago, I started driving my older, less-efficient cars less. As a result, they'd just sit around, batteries would go dead, etc.
This spring, once the weather got nice, I started pressing the older cars into service. And since my commute is only about 3.5 miles, I've taken back roads and longer routes in, stretching it out to 5, 7, or even 10 miles on occasion. Sure, it wastes gas, but in the long run it's probably better for the cars, giving them a chance to warm up.
I figure I'll do this until the first road salting.
I might be seeing more motorcycles these days...but traffic volumes are the same here (varying from mildly annoying to hellish). I haven't changed anything, as I optimized my driving habits when gas was $2/gallon.
Gary says, "Which would favor hybrids. Which we knew they did that all along. "
When you say "WE knew that" you should be saying "I KNEW THAT" because no one else here (or anywhere else that I can determine) believes that the EPA intentionally did ANYTHING to favor hybrids. You are the sole creator and proponent of that theory.
And Gary, I have explained this before.
The old EPA test was in place BEFORE hybrids were created. Nothing about the test was CHANGED to "favor hybrids." The new test is "not favoring hybrids" so I guess it evened out.
I don't mean to speak for Gary, and he should feel free to correct me if I misunderstand him. I know you guys have differing opinions on whether the test favors hybrids, but I read this post a little differently.
The tax system, via credits, does show a bias that favors hybrids. It provides an incentive to buy a fuel efficient car. The incentive is based on city figures, which is where hybrids shine. All other factors considered, a hybrid is going to show greater improvement in the city figure, thus making it eligible for a greater incentive.
About 3 years ago, my company moved its office from downtown Denver to a site in the southern suburbs. This was good for me in two ways:
1) The number of miles, one way, dropped from 35 to 22 2) I didn't have to pay for parking, which saved me about $4-5 each day
Last November, I took a new job within my company and I stopped working with the team at the office - my new team is scattered all over the country. I started working from home more and more, and a couple of months ago I gave up my office to be a full-time work from home employee.
Now, instead of filling up once a week, it now takes 10-20 days to empty my tank. At $40-50 per tank, I'm saving anywhere between $40-150 each month on gas.
mattandi says, "The tax system, via credits, does show a bias that favors hybrids."
Yes it DID, in the old test. But it was COMPLETELY UNINTENTIONAL.
The tax credit was based on city mileage because reducing pollution in the CITIES is what is most important in regard to air pollution. So that is where that logic comes from - they did not just randomly say "OK, City is better so we will use CITY as the basis of the tax credit."
It just so happened that the old, more severely flawed EPA test was so unrealistic in regard to the way it tested (no cold engine, no air conditioner) REAL-WORLD conditions that the hybrids used a lot of battery during the city portion of the test and therefore had good numbers.
Clean diesel sedans driven in the City will pollute in the CITY, which is a more important consideration because of the density of population. Therefore the city number is important in that type of car also.
Well, I don't know that it was completely unintentional. The folks who set up the credits system surely knew that hybrids would be the greatest beneficiaries. Regardless of the relative merits or faults with new test v. old test, it is not out of line to say that the system favors hybrids. (or to think another way, to say that hybrids have the greatest capacity to benefit from this system) The whole system is set up to encourage market activity on cars that show improvement in city MPG. Greatest encouragement goes to those vehicles that show the greatest improvement, and right now, as in the past, that means hybrids.
My commute is 2.1 mi each day. It can take anywhere from 5 to 20 minutes. 7 on average.
It should take 5 minutes all the time. Problem is the freeway underpass I go under, because it gives acces to both 290 and the Tollway, so traffic backs up all the way to the light and the right lanes clog with drivers trying to beat the light to scoot to the left and cut in line to get onto the freeway.
Its a very simple drive: 0.3 miles from my driveway to FWY, I go under it, and turn right at the very next exit, where I have reached the office in 0.5 mi.
One time there was an accident in the middle lane (3-lane feeder) and it took me 45 minutes to go to work... now how do you explain to your bss yu're half an hour late because of an accident when you live 2 miles away :mad:
From the charts submitted above it claims for the 2008 Prius an unadjusted city rating of 66.6 MPG. The VW TDI they rate at 38 MPG City.
I still have no idea how they come up with those figures. I do thank the poster for the spreadsheets provided. It lets me know that CAFE figures are as screwed up as the EPA ratings.
A clear bias toward hybrids. Been that a long time.
Comments
They achieved them in lab conditions - not on real roads. And you could achieve them in some cars under certain conditions. But the vast majority of drivers, driving their normal commute, could not achieve them.
Now, the trend is reversed and the vast majority DOES achieve them.
I don't see how anyone can argue that the new scenario is worse than the old one.
It's human nature to "expect better" than you normally get from a purchase. To actually get better than you expect makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
IMO, the new test is better, not because the numbers are more or less realistic but because, as you posted, "The new test includes REAL WORLD scenarios like driving 80 miles per hour, driving with the air conditioner ON, and driving a cold vehicle for short trips." It also features faster acceleration, btw.
This means that manufacturers now need to design their cars to do well under all those circumstances, in order to get a good result from the test.
(Bad for lawyers who have clients who want to sue carmakers, but being bad for lawyers usually means good for everyone else.)
Having a test which uses real-world driving conditions like air conditioning and 80 mph driving is also a good thing.
They can still make tweaks to make the test even more accurate, which they might do.
They might even eventually have more than one test, based on what new car technologies develop.
I used to have a house with NG and if I still did I would get a CNG vehicle ASAP and "filler up" myself. Does anyone know what that equipment costs, and how does the state get their hwy taxes.???
That would be good. Not likely with that bunch of losers at the EPA. Hopefully that is one of the agencies Obama is planning to CHANGE :shades:
Had a traffic cop try to tell me to get out of line for my montly parking garage because it was backed up onto the street in Manhattan - we had words and she tried to read my front license plate to give me a ticket!!! :P By the time she realized I had no front license and tried to go to the back I went around the block and entered from the other side. The look on her face was priceless!!! LOL!!!
Like I said before, it just struck me as an odd point to make. The real reason that the new test is better is because of how it makes people feel. Not that it is more accurate or that it more closely reflects real world conditions or that it more closely models how folks actually drive their cars or even that it provides more information to the consumer, but that the real reason it is better is that now more people can brag that they beat the estimate.
Just jumped out at me. That's all.
I'll go back to watching the fireworks between you and Gary now.
I never considered it that, not in the same way that Food Stamps is a program or the Pell Grants are a program.
From the perspective of "do the tests matter AFTER the car is purchased?" then the ONLY value to the consumer is that it makes them feel good to beat the numbers. It certainly made them feel bad to never achieve the numbers in the past with the old tests. That lead to lemon law attempts, lawsuit attempts, buyers protesting outside dealerships, etc. Useless wasteful things.
Other than that, can you name another value it has to the buyer AFTER purchase?
It made the EPA look bad to have a test which was so hard to duplicate on the road. So they fixed that.
Now they may need to adjust it again.
Maybe not so good. My gripe is not so much the inaccuracy of the test. It is that tax credits are based on those tests. It does not bother larsb because he got in under the old tests that favored the hybrids. The Prius tax credit of $3150 was based on it getting 60 MPG City, as rated by the EPA. The new VW TDI is based on a very low 29 MPG City estimate. That means it is affecting the pocket book of those that want a 50 state clean diesel. All of the diesels fare poorly with the new tests. VW has complained to the EPA and now GM is complaining as it will have a tremendous affect on their new Volt if it is only rated at 48 MPG. Hopefully the next President will shake up that lazy bunch of bureaucrats in the EPA.
You have to take into consideration that Larsb would argue the moon is made of cheddar cheese if he could find someone to argue with.
Gary says, "It is that tax credits are based on those tests."
You are mad about ONE CAR out of 615 cars getting a low result. Get OVER it already.
Gary says, "It does not bother larsb because he got in under the old tests that favored the hybrids."
I did not profit much at all from the old tests. And the car with which I earned the tax credit changed from a whopping 39 to a whopping 34 with the new test. So you are wrong about that too.
Gary says, "You have to take into consideration that Larsb would argue the moon is made of cheddar cheese if he could find someone to argue with. "
Pot, meet Kettle.
NO, now there are FIVE diesel vehicles all being under rated by the EPA. All have gotten their Tax Credit posted on the IRS site. Much lower than they should be compared to the darling hybrids. All 3 of the Mercedes diesel SUVs will save a LOT more money per year than the Prius.
Your anti diesel glasses are SO DARK you cannot see the truth.
Allow me to refresh your memory:
When EPA was doing the revised testing, they had 615 cars to test with the new method and only ONE of them was a diesel. They did not have enough data to worry about tweaking such a small data set.
And of the five currently "tested and tax-credited" vehicles, I have not heard you complain that any of them were "robbed" by a faulty diesel test bias other than the Jetta.
Did the MB diesels somehow avoid the bias?
No, they are just as far off as the VW Jetta diesel. They are rating the blutec R class at 18 MPG city. Probably off at least 25 percent from what owners are getting. At the very least they are off by 18% that the EPA admits to.
At the very least they need to fire the top people at the EPA and clean house. They have yet to post the tax credit for the E320 CDI blutec. It is no wonder our Congress has an 8% approval rating with the way they run these agencies.
The City result for the three owners is 34 MPG.
Below the 38 MPG that VW "independently" tested, and above the 29 MPG that the EPA tested.
Seems like BOTH tests were sucky for the Jetta TDI city driving, no?
Gary, are you going to be mad at VW now like you are at the EPA for "overstating" Jetta mileage?
Edmunds has a CNG Civic in the fleet and a Phill home CNG unit.
Home CNG Station Gives Civic GX Fuel Economy Boost
There's ~20 blog posts about it that you may be interested in:
Long Term Test Blog
You love to cherry pick your data. Where did you find a 34 MPG city from any owner?
Check the one person posting for the stick shift model he is getting 49 MPG
Check the 3 people posting for the automatic they are averaging 37.3 MPG
The lowest had a 34 MPG average and the highest 43 MPG. Much better than even the company that VW hired to test the cars. I you check the Sportwagen the only person posting is getting 46 MPG.
While all those buying the VW TDI will get the last laugh. I am not cutting the EPA one INCH of slack. So you can post all the tainted data you can find. And I will debunk it as usual.
I can't find too many good road test or any owner reports.
Found one owner reporting 27 MPG lifetime on an R320. Another guy says he "has seen 22-23 mpg" and another one said the service department got 17.5 MPG when they brought him the car.
An estimate of 21 MPG combined might be a little low, but it's not ridiculously low.
If the best we can find is an owner getting 27 MPG then I can see why MB did not complain about the tests.
The difference between 21 MPG and 27 MPG is 23%.
Prius: Ranges from 39.3 to 51.8 = difference of 31.8%
HCH: Ranges from 42.5 to 50.8 = difference of 19.5%
Insight: Ranges from 52.3 to 63.3 = difference of 21%
Seems about a correct range of variance among highly efficient cars.
The company's press release said that one of these three cars will be introduced in 2010, and that others will follow. It also said the company has been working secretly on EVs since January 2007.
It wasn't generally known that Chrysler was as far along as it appears to be in terms of EVs. The company faces serious challenges in the next several months, and nothing was disclosed about how much these EVs will cost.
Do you think EVs will help Chrysler turn the tide, regain market and become profitable again?
Chrysler Chief Executive Bob Nardelli denied that Chrysler showed off its electric prototypes now because Congress is considering a $25 billion loan program to help automakers and their suppliers modernize plants to make more fuel-efficient vehicles.
Vice Chairman Jim Press said the timing of the announcement also had nothing to do with the publicity GM gained last week by revealing the production version of the Volt.
pfft, yeah right. Everything indicates that Chrysler needs cash. Of course this development strengthens their case for loan approval. (I'm still befuddled why Congress is considering the loans. The DOE decides who gets them.) Chrysler may have been content to let GM get all the attention until now. GM is beginning to leverage the buzz surrounding the Volt. Chrysler would have been stupid to let them get too far out front with that.
Incidentally, the technology is amazingly similar to GM's development. Might we see the unleashing of the hounds and a few lawsuits?
Chrysler decided to integrate this technology into existing designs. Different from GM's strategy. Wonder if that decision will pay off or backfire? Consider the relative success of the Prius compared to hybridized existing models.
As I understand it, the loans were approved in principle, but now must be funded. All funding is subject to congressional approval.
I wonder how well an electric Jeep would go over. Jeeps and other vehicles that are used to travel away from inhabited areas need long ranges of operation - the bigger the gas tank the better. I suppose if those vehicles were also used around town their owners could see significant fuel savings, but on that trip to the mountains I think they would be using plenty of gas.
The one thing Chrysler is guaranteed lots of for another year or two is cash - it was part of the deal with Daimler, that Daimler would help fund product development for a few years after the split. They may be losing lots of money in day-to-day operations, but they should have money for R&D.
One thing I AM very gratified to see is that so many mainstream automakers are now taking the development of electric vehicles seriously.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I continue to think CNG is our future automotive fuel, NOT electricity from the already over-stressed commercial supply grid and power generation capability.
That's the great thing about the hybrid idea, whose potential is now just beginning to be realized with cars like the Volt: you can use ALL KINDS of fuels to power the "generator" (engine, not connected to the drive wheels), as long as the car is electric-drive. In that sense, if Chrysler is really ready to go in 2010 with cars that have the range and durability of today's gas cars and a price premium of no more than $5000 or so, they could really make a kiling, as that field in general has almost limitless potential, it seems to me.
But is that what they are saying they will have? I think not. A $100,000 Dodge sports car and a $50,000 Town and Country aren't going to move the needle even one tiny little bit.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I was wondering about prices because I hadn't seen anything about this in the press releases. Where did you see these numbers?
If Chrysler can produce a $25,000 T&C with an electric drivetrain, that is WITHOUT QUESTION the model they should bring to market first IMO.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
If they can bring an electric one in at $40k or lower, somebody will buy them. Not me, but somebody. $40k buggies with interiors that fall apart if you sneeze in them don't get my attention.
Tighten up the interior, bring it in at an even lower price point, and I will get in line, most especially if the range is extended even further.
I would get in line for an electric Journey as well.
Or a Jeep.
Me, I use my car during the day, and sometimes on the job as well, so I don't much like the idea of a carpool (for other reasons too).
I live close to work and would consider bus transit (the only transit available to me in my suburban county), but we have some of the worst in the western hemisphere, making the LA bus system look stellar by comparison. I hammered that point in the "comments" section. I can usually be at work in less than ten minutes in my car. That's the way I like it. There is a bus that can make the same trip in less than 20 minutes, which I would ride probably 3 days a week if it offered service at the hour I go to work, but it doesn't.
Even so, being so close to work, my actual commute use of gas is less than 10 gallons a month.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
It's easier to change the vehicle than the commute..
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
"CAFE values are determined using unadjusted fuel economy numbers".
So basically the letter is saying we do it our way and you are not allowed to know the formula. No links to how CAFE comes up with their numbers or what those numbers might be. It does say that the tax credit is based on city mileage. Which would favor hybrids. Which we knew they did that all along.
Let me modify my earlier remarks though: if Chrysler can produce one that sells for $30K, they will make a splash. If they price them at $40K, it will be just like if the Volt gets priced at $40K: exciting new tech that no-one but a few eager (and very rich) beavers will buy.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The extra time means more than the gas savings. It's about a 15 minute commute now.
This spring, once the weather got nice, I started pressing the older cars into service. And since my commute is only about 3.5 miles, I've taken back roads and longer routes in, stretching it out to 5, 7, or even 10 miles on occasion. Sure, it wastes gas, but in the long run it's probably better for the cars, giving them a chance to warm up.
I figure I'll do this until the first road salting.
download from the column titled: "EPA Fuel Economy Datafile"
Gary says, "Which would favor hybrids. Which we knew they did that all along. "
When you say "WE knew that" you should be saying "I KNEW THAT" because no one else here (or anywhere else that I can determine) believes that the EPA intentionally did ANYTHING to favor hybrids. You are the sole creator and proponent of that theory.
And Gary, I have explained this before.
The old EPA test was in place BEFORE hybrids were created. Nothing about the test was CHANGED to "favor hybrids." The new test is "not favoring hybrids" so I guess it evened out.
The tax system, via credits, does show a bias that favors hybrids. It provides an incentive to buy a fuel efficient car. The incentive is based on city figures, which is where hybrids shine. All other factors considered, a hybrid is going to show greater improvement in the city figure, thus making it eligible for a greater incentive.
1) The number of miles, one way, dropped from 35 to 22
2) I didn't have to pay for parking, which saved me about $4-5 each day
Last November, I took a new job within my company and I stopped working with the team at the office - my new team is scattered all over the country. I started working from home more and more, and a couple of months ago I gave up my office to be a full-time work from home employee.
Now, instead of filling up once a week, it now takes 10-20 days to empty my tank. At $40-50 per tank, I'm saving anywhere between $40-150 each month on gas.
Yes it DID, in the old test. But it was COMPLETELY UNINTENTIONAL.
The tax credit was based on city mileage because reducing pollution in the CITIES is what is most important in regard to air pollution. So that is where that logic comes from - they did not just randomly say "OK, City is better so we will use CITY as the basis of the tax credit."
It just so happened that the old, more severely flawed EPA test was so unrealistic in regard to the way it tested (no cold engine, no air conditioner) REAL-WORLD conditions that the hybrids used a lot of battery during the city portion of the test and therefore had good numbers.
Clean diesel sedans driven in the City will pollute in the CITY, which is a more important consideration because of the density of population. Therefore the city number is important in that type of car also.
Makes perfect sense.
The credit was designed to urge people to buy hybrids to REDUCE POLLUTION.
The biggest pollution issues are in the CITY.
You do the math. It's not hard. My 9 year old daughter could find the connection.
It should take 5 minutes all the time. Problem is the freeway underpass I go under, because it gives acces to both 290 and the Tollway, so traffic backs up all the way to the light and the right lanes clog with drivers trying to beat the light to scoot to the left and cut in line to get onto the freeway.
Its a very simple drive: 0.3 miles from my driveway to FWY, I go under it, and turn right at the very next exit, where I have reached the office in 0.5 mi.
One time there was an accident in the middle lane (3-lane feeder) and it took me 45 minutes to go to work... now how do you explain to your bss yu're half an hour late because of an accident when you live 2 miles away :mad:
I still have no idea how they come up with those figures. I do thank the poster for the spreadsheets provided. It lets me know that CAFE figures are as screwed up as the EPA ratings.
A clear bias toward hybrids. Been that a long time.