Article: EPA to Fortify Certification Oversight in Wake of Mileage Controversies

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by niky

Real world is simply an unrealistic way to test with any consistency.

Several billion real world miles logged by owners would beg to differ.
Browse All Cars | Fuelly

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Several billion real world miles logged by owners would beg to differ.
Browse All Cars | Fuelly

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.

[niky]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

Not, when you consider these two points: (1) all EPA tests are performend using 'neat' Indolene 91 octane gasoline, NOT the ethanol-diluted E10 stuff everybody is forced to use; and (2) some manufacturers stipulate milage tests be performed with daytime running lamps (DRL) and automatic headlamps and other "normal" electrical loads disconnected (which can only be done by pulling fuses!). So, how often do you pull fuses before you drive to work?

Also, up to now, EPA has NOT had a standard E85 fuel specified, so they relied upon numbers provided from manufacturers tests. They, now, however, have proposed an E85 standard fuel...but, it's not (yet) been approved.

There are ways to game other tests. The NEDC is woeful in the way they blend electric and gas. The JC08 tests, I'm not sure, but I think you can choose your octane, which, if the vehicles are programmed for it, can make for better economy than with a set octane.

As for electrical loads... are DRLs required in all states? If not, then it's a valid reason to disconnect them for the tests, though if they're standard, they shouldn't be.

Originally Posted by tjts1

Several billion real world miles logged by owners would beg to differ.
Browse All Cars | Fuelly

If all owners were the same and had the same routes, yes... the averages would average out. But for some vehicles, there is a self-selection bias in the kind of driver who will report on Fuelly. Not discounting the importance of the place, though. It's a very good resource.

A standardized test, if you close the loopholes and test over a wide enough set of driving conditions, should give you a fair representation of the difference between two cars in comparable conditions.

[MetroMPG]

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday that German automaker Daimler AG will lower the miles per gallon estimates on two of its Mercedes-Benz vehicles after a government audit turned up a problem.

Mercedes-Benz lowers mpg on two models

[nemo]

Don't think FE is high on the list for Benz owners, but good to see EPA is checking.

[MetroMPG]

BMW is the latest to be caught:

BMW dropping mileage ratings on ’14 Mini Cooper

Washington — The Environmental Protection Agency said Wednesday that BMW AG will reduce its fuel economy ratings on four 2014 Mini Coooper models — the latest automaker to be ordered by federal regulators to revise vehicle labels.

Source: BMW dropping mileage ratings on

They're mostly being reduced by 1 mpg (eg. combined rating of the 3-door manual is going down from 34 to 33 mpg). The biggest change is the Cooper S 3-door manual, which is going from 38 to 34.

[Daox]

Ouch, 4 mpg drop!

[brucey]

If I'm honest, I'm having a real hard time matching the EPA numbers in the new car, versus the old car where 50% over EPA was an obtainable number. I don't know if my hypermiling skills has eased up or if the EPA Cycle #s are a little optimistic to begin with.

Still satisfied with the mileage, but just not blown away I guess. I've also read that the mileage improves as the engine/car breaks in as well. Just seems odd still.

[redpoint5]

My guess is that it will become increasingly difficult to obtain MPG much higher than EPA as cars become more efficient in general.

In an older manual gearbox car, I can select efficient gears, DFCO, cut the engine at stoplights, etc. A newer car might come with engine stop/start, CVT, and other efficiency improvements that allow less skilled drivers to get good economy.

With my 1997 5-speed Subaru Legacy, I was able to get about 30 MPG compared to the 24 MPG EPA rating. When I bought a 2007 Outback with automatic tranny, my hypermiling couldn't get it above 25 MPG.

[roosterk0031]

I think some manufactures are trimming the fat in the EPA ratings they submit. Looked at the 2015 Subaru Impreza, AWD rated at 37 mpg HWY, pretty impressive. One Fuelly member of 63 is making it. Manual tranny is rated 33, 9 of 63 (14%) are matching or beating that.

By comparison 2014 Mirage 9/26 (35%) are getting the 44 hwy mpg the CVT is rated for or better, 11/26 (42%) are beating the 42 mpg hwy of the manual.

Not the best cars to choose to compare, I'd like to see how Outlander sport AWD with 2.0 would compare, I think it's rated 30 with CVT, but not much of a sample and hard to tell which are FWD or AWD. Be interesting even to compare Subaru's ratings of today to 4-5 years ago.