Autoblog Article: Ways Automakers Cheat Fuel Economy Tests
 

I saw this Autoblog Article and thought, gee, sounds like they've been looking in on our ecomodder web site here for Hot Tips!!!. :D

http://i58.tinypic.com/a4ygdz.jpg

Except that doesn't make any sense as they don't actually test the cars on the road right? Basically run it on a dyno and add numbers into a computer program. I have always wondered why they don't list different mpg for different available gear ratios. What do they get to use the best available even if it's not want is actually installed in that car/truck. This is more common on trucks were ranges from 3.2-4.1:1 are possible yet the epa rating is the same.

They missed the biggest one of them all:
Drive at impossibly slow speeds to improve highway FE.

European economy figures are crap. I always refer to EPA figures, especially with the new SAE guidelines closing many loopholes, as the most realistic ones.

I was under the impression this was one done in Europe. That's what other articles I've read were about. Not that some are gaming or just outright lying about their figures on this continent.

They really need to start using fuel with 10% ethanol, it's everywhere.

So, in a nutshell, they ecomod their own cars to increase the mileage.

Why don't they design this changes into the car - and BUILD them that way?

More like "They really need to stop using 10% (or 15%) ethanol everywhere, cause it's moronic."

They continue this because they know how much we enjoy complaining and attempting to overcome the challenges they give us because they love us! :)

Would you like to go back to MTBE or lead, or do you have a different idea?

They can't just make 100% gasoline Frank? Maybe I'm missing something on the "Ethanol as an Enhancer" front.

I just thought it was a stupid way to make a filler reducing the amount of gasoline we use. It takes mores energy and pollutes more to produce ethanol than just straight gas, and it has created havoc with the food industry.

Back in the day- almost 100 years ago- they added lead as an octane booster and also it helped non-hardened valve seat longevity tremendously. Well that was nasty and it killed cat converters so it had to go. MTBE came and went for environmental reasons too.

Wiki says ethanol may have been our oxygenate additive since the '20s were it not for political reasons. Tetraethyllead - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At any rate, it seems 100% gas is not a viable way to go.

The rest- energy conversion and food- come on. :rolleyes:

This again

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ear-30343.html

Ethanol is still being used as an Octane booster, last year (IIRC) the midwest pipe lines switched frome being 87 octane to 85, without 10% ethanol or premium mixed in, their (big oil) base fuel is not marketable. E10 burns cleaner is about 5% cheaper than 87 octane E0, but only 1.5% lower BTU's per gallon though studies in the link above show that btu's/ gallon doesn't = btus/mile.

Big oil came up with the food vs fuel lie and have been running with it for years. Petrolumn had a greater influence on food cost than ethanol.

How Oil Prices Affect the Price of Food

I didn't even read it, it was just second article that came up googling "petrolum vs food" the graph provides all the data food cost follows petrolum.

How can anyone say that using food for fuel and therefore changing supply vs demand wouldn't effect food? The corn isn't just eaten by us, it's eaten by the things we then eat, and isn't possible some land that might grow something else or some of our precious water is being wasted making fuel? So maybe there isn't a food shortage in our country but it certainly makes the food more expensive by the government mandating we use it for fuel rather then just letting the free market work out what is best.

Smh

Since basically all corn in the US is GMO, it's really only suitable for use as a fuel.

Oh Great!! Now we bring GMO's into the debate. This thread is going to Helena Handcart in short order. Is there no stopping this madness?

FYI, GMO's taste delicious just like the real thing.

Funny, the same people who discount the "broad scientific consensus" that food on the market derived from GM crops poses no greater risk than conventional food. And no reports of ill effects have been proven in the human population from ingesting GM food. Are often the same people who throw out the "broad scientific consensus" on global warming. Sadly it seems the last great scientist died in 1955. I used to have some respect for Steven Hawking but think he may have lost his mind thinking our only chance at avoiding extinction in the next 1000 years is to colonize other planets. Really? I think I'll place my bet on Earth 3006 being alive and kicking with humans.

What were we talking about anyway?

I go through a box of Kashi in a day or two, usually two, but there are days when I eat an entire box in one sitting. Either way, it is fairly expensive, so I looked into making my own Kashi, and all that I found was "Kashi is poison!"

Poison, eh?

Poison - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

I do not watch the news or read the paper, but Win8 has a news app, so when I go to open a program, I see headlines, and often click on them. I removed that when I was in school and blocked sites where I spent too much time, like this one.

I really think that I would have heard if anyone had died from eating GMO food, or even gotten sick. I spent all night last week in the ER with my friend and she decided that she was allergic to the soy in her diet food, she gets sick every time that she starts her diet. I imagine that she could just as easily decided that GMO made her sick, without any factual evidence. Those blogs certainly seemed like too much hype. Fear-mongering? I just wanted to know how to use my own, regardless of the GMO argument. Besides, Kashi stopped using that stuff, undoubtedly without discernible difference, except profit margin.

So, there is a second part to the definition:
The idea is unpleasant, therefore it is poison? I am continuously disappointed with the dictionary. I try to look up a better way to phrase something and see a word listed as is own synonym. Oh, okay, I will just use the same word repeatedly. At least it is not an auto-antonym!

Duh... guys... he's technically correct. All commercially-grown corn varieties ARE GMOs.

This is the only corn that isn't:

http://www.livingcropmuseum.info/Cro...inte%20ear.jpg

Well... strictly speaking... it is genetically modified... but not "artificially", not like corn has been over the past several thousand years...

I like corn.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r...ps26ae0cef.jpg

What? Oh yeah... fuel economy.

I'm not sold yet on either side of the argument, largely because I don't feel I'm educated enough on it, but as I understand it some of the arguments for using corn ethanol are:

-Ethanol mixed gas burns a lot cleaner, and air quality in the U.S. has improved considerably since emissions became important
-Ethanol increases food costs, but it also reduces fuel costs which in turn directly reduces food costs, so it's not as bad as it appears at first glance
-After ethanol production, there's still edible parts left over which can be used as feed
-Ethanol doesn't hurt gas mileage as much as you'd expect (basically not at all in small percent blends) because it can be burned more efficiently than gasoline in engines designed to take advantage of its properties

http://i58.tinypic.com/2ynhxy1.jpg

Fuel Injected Corn?

Why shouldn't corn prices go up? From '99-'01 the price was the same or less than it was in '73. I'm willing to bet cost of production is higher now than it was 41 years ago. When the commodity is worth something the govt doesn't have to pay out via price supports.

Uhmm, I can buy unleaded, non-MTBE, ethanol free gasoline at a local station. It's not an illicit substance, it just doesn't have any corn in it.

Well, technically if you eat enough of it, it could give you terminal obesity :-)

Just about anything will hurt or kill you if you take too much of it. What amuses me, though, are the great number of things that are beneficial, or even absolutely necessary for life, in low amounts, but toxic at higher levels. Start the list with oxygen and water :-)

Or surgar.

So, what would happen if subsidies went away?

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing, and you are right, it really looks as if they are lurking on ecomodder and other efficiency-related forums. Deep down they know those tricks work. I say we demand an A-B-A wind tunnel testing from each and every automaker as a "thank you" gesture. :D

Corn ethanol-specific subsidies, general corn farming subsidies, transportation subsidies or gasoline subsidies? Best to be specific, here... :p

Many first world countries, as the United States is (are... waited... are the United States a country or a confederation? Hmmm....), have high levels of farming subsidies.

Which, in turn, is why third world farming is so unprofitable. No way can your typical farmer pushing a handcart out in the sticks compete on price with a rich, industrialized farmer receiving generous subsidies from even richer taxpayers.

Which, in turn, is why they'd rather grown fuel crops to sell at higher prices to corporations rather than food crops which they can only sell for pennies on the pound.

Which, in turn, is part of why the food versus fuel debate even exists.

-

Errh... long story short: There are complex farming subsidies, with or without corn-for-fuel, and the ethanol policy only affects demand, not production price.

Lead is good for me. No thanks on mtbe or ethanol. I like to eat corn, not burn it. And I prefer drinking alcohol to burning it for that matter.

There was once 'broad scientific consensus' that; the earth was flat; that asbestos was harmless & that saturated fat caused heart disease.

We don't live in an age of science, we live in an age of big business and politics.

As I understand it, it was never widely accepted that the earth was flat among the educated, at least in recorded history. The Greeks measured its size well before Christ, and one of the reasons Christopher Columbus had difficulty in getting funding for finding another route to India was that the size of the world was known, and therefore it was known that crossing the Atlantic would take longer (nevermind that nobody knew if there would be any landmass in the way).

Hey, since you dragged Christoph Columbi into the conversation, check out this link. You'll never think of that Jackwagon (Mild term for the more tender sensibilities here) in the same light again. I haven't been much of a fan of CC for a couple of decades, and after perusing this, even less so.

Christopher Columbus was awful (but this other guy was not) - The Oatmeal

Hah, I'm actually quite familiar with his atrocities. Thanks though, I love The Oatmeal and it was a fun read.

The Oatmeal is not funny.

On Columbus Day I posted on Facebook that I was commemorating by putting three boats in someone else's backyard.

Columbus Day was created by a democrat to get more democrat votes. I am all for trading it and making Sept 11th a holiday instead. My problem with the holiday is it has nothing to do with America. He was a tremendous sailor but also a good example why sailors should be in charge of anything outside the realm of King Neptune.

Wrong on all three.

1) There never was a scientific consensus (or even a significant scientific minority view) that the Earth was flat. There was a religious dogma that said so (and still does :-)). A good many early scientists endangered themselves by demonstrating otherwise. See e.g. Galileo, Copernicus, et al.

2) Asbestos, like a good many other things, is far less harmful than certain public hysterics would like us to believe. Certainly in the ways and quantities it was used prior to the mid-20th century.

3) Sorry, but excessive consumption of saturated fats IS linked to heart disease.

I do not remember who claimed that I would post a link to another site and walk away.

I certainly do not.

From the .PDF:
No, I did not provide anything to support those claims, that is in the document, but now that the facts have been established, I guess that we can go home.

:confused: