Thread: EPA Vs NEDC
View Single Post
Old 01-22-2016, 11:15 PM   #1 (permalink)
oldtamiyaphile
Master EcoModder
 
oldtamiyaphile's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,510

UFI - '12 Fiat 500 Twinair
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 40.3 mpg (US)

Jeep - '05 Jeep Wrangler Renegade
90 day: 18.09 mpg (US)

R32 - '89 Nissan Skyline

STiG - '16 Renault Trafic 140dCi Energy
90 day: 30.12 mpg (US)

Prius - '05 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 50.25 mpg (US)

Premodded - '49 Ford Freighter
90 day: 13.48 mpg (US)

F-117 - '10 Proton Arena GLSi
Pickups
Mitsubishi
90 day: 37.82 mpg (US)

Ralica - '85 Toyota Celica ST
90 day: 25.23 mpg (US)

Sx4 - '07 Suzuki Sx4
90 day: 32.21 mpg (US)

F-117 (2) - '03 Citroen Xsara VTS
90 day: 30.06 mpg (US)
Thanks: 325
Thanked 452 Times in 319 Posts
EPA Vs NEDC

We all know that US EPA figures are much easier to beat than European NEDC figures.

This frustrates those of us who own cars that were never EPA rated.

EG: Honda Fit/Jazz 1.5 CVT 36mpg (6.5l/100km) combined. NEDC 4.5l/100km or 52MPG US

A quick look in the garage finds that the best Fit (an older model) is only just breaking 52mpg. I don't know how badly you'd have to THRASH a Fit to only get 36mpg.

Now my my current daily is a 1.6 Renault, rated 9.7 city. Doing all city driving with a payload up to 800kg (~1800lbs) it's running 57% over NEDC.

If I consider the Jazz example, there's a 44% difference between NEDC and EPA.

Now if I multiply my NEDC figures, 9.7 becomes 14l/100km. That would mean my best tank of 6.05 was 130% over. Even the current tank which has been 100% with 800kg payload, would be sitting at 75% over.

So am I a hypermiling god or are you guys just not trying?

__________________






  Reply With Quote