View Single Post
Old 01-03-2013, 02:36 PM   #1 (permalink)
WesternStarSCR
Busting Knuckles Often
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: SE Michigan
Posts: 135

Blue Maxx - '04 Chevrolet Malibu Maxx LT
Team Chevy
90 day: 26.96 mpg (US)

Tink's Van - '08 Chrysler Town & Country Touring
90 day: 19.09 mpg (US)

2004 5 Speed Goldrolla - '04 Toyota Corolla CE
Team Toyota
90 day: 36.3 mpg (US)
Thanks: 313
Thanked 28 Times in 20 Posts
Lightbulb Likely culprit behind low real world MPG vs. EPA numbers? Coast down test by OEM?

Fuel economy follies: Cheatin' or mistaken?


I just came across this article, which is a tale of how the unglamourous coast down test, as conducted by the OEMs, may be where the OEMs are feeding less than accurate info to the EPA test lab?

This can be accidental bad data, but, garbage in, garbage out. The EPA has to TRUST the 'road-load power' numbers that OEMs give it.


The Road - Load Power numbers are generated via OEM coast down testing following a specifc SAE procedure.

The Road - Load Power numbers are then fed into the EPA test plan and systems, to config their dynos to simulate real road use, including aero dynamic drag, RR, weight, etc.

If the numbers are off from OEM, EPA has no way of knowing this, except via coast down audit.

Hyundai has said it was in their coast down test procedure that caused them to state too high MPG numbers.

Maybe this is why the Chevy Cruze has a smaller gas tank? Less mass of fuel, better coast down, better number for EPA to plug into their dyno?

Maybe the Ford C-Max and Fusion 47 MPG claimed situation will get the same scrutiny, with EPA going beyond the dyno and conducting thier own coast down test.

__________________


  Reply With Quote