Quote:
Originally Posted by tjts1
|
If I am to make a purchase based on a baseline test, I am not going to wait for the manufacturer to be able to test for billions of miles. It is unreasonable and illogical based on the design and development time cycle. The original post was to an article that hoped to address the issues found when Brand X games their test so they can out do Brand Y by a great margin to provide marketing clout only to find the tested numbers are far outside the bell curve of normal driving resulting in "poor" consumer satisfaction as few can attain the test numbers. The test numbers should fall reasonably within the middle ground of real world numbers. Unfortunately, as we all know, the average driver has driving habits that return poor numbers in comparison to the EPA numbers. The problem becomes highlighted when few can even attain the EPA numbers.
The EPA standardized tests are fine just as long as the manufacturers adhere to guidelines. Ecomodder tricks such as special lubricant packages as well as higher coolant temperature levels help a "standard" vehicle do much better on the EPA cycle tests. More subtle tricks are re-flashed engine and drive-train ECU programs. The standard fuel is just that - a standard. The tests allow someone to compare vehicles. Fuelly.com does give me real world comparisons but not for the new model on my dealer lot.
It looks like the EPA will allot an extra number of people who will hopefully have the training to make sure the models of cars we buy are as reasonably represented by their tested counterparts, to a standard.