Canada's NRCAN fuel economy ratings finally catch up to the EPA for 2015

[MetroMPG]

"64 MPG Mitsubishi Mirage" from Mirage rated 64 MPG highway in Canada, 44 MPG in the US? WTF?! - MirageForum.com!

Canada's fuel economy overseer (NRCAN) has finally adjusted its fuel economy ratings approach to catch up to the EPA... six years later.

We're going from 2-cycle to 5-cycle fuel economy testing, which means our ratings will now more or less fall in line with U.S. ratings which have used this method since 2008.

Originally, NRCAN seemed to resist changing the ratings. I remember reading one article where an official justified the previously optimistic numbers by calling them "aspirational". In other words: you can expect to get this fuel economy if you drive very, very carefully.

For most "normal" drivers, it was practically impossible to get their car's city ratings.

I saw this in my ecodriving coaching sessions, where zero out of 5 normal drivers (non-EM members) was able to beat the "aspirational" city rating on their baseline (un-coached) lap. However 4 out of 5 of them were able to beat it after about 30 minutes of demonstration & coaching. (And the 5th was driving a Ford Edge AWD which I honestly believe has an incorrect rating. Ford. Ahem.)

The NRCAN changes apply to 2015 model year vehicles.

Like the EPA, NRCAN is now providing "updated" fuel economy ratings on its website for older cars. (Though they still need to make it more obvious on their site. If you search for an older vehicle's ratings, you still see the old "aspirational" figures in the first page of search results. To see the "adjusted" ratings, you have to go a page deeper by clicking to view the vehicle's details)

Fuel Consumption Search | Office of Energy Efficiency

So, sayonara "64 mpg" (Imperial gallons) Mirages and "76 mpg" Priuses!

[Hersbird]

In a way I wish there was the option of seeing best possible mileage along side an epa type rating. Some cars seem to get the numbers but can't really do much better where other cars can really beat the numbers if you try. Manual transmissions for example have a silly handicap with the epa testing. By the mirage example its fine to know if you drive like the average yahoo you will only get 40s but if you try it is possible to hit 60s. "Aspirational" is not such a bad thing. With a average SUV there is no aspirational, you might pick up a mpg or two which percentage wise is something but leads the average driver to not even try. If in the US the population was made aware of what was possible maybe more would try.

[Fat Charlie]

I would naturally expect a random driver from a random country to operate a vehicle better than a random Murrican. Why shouldn't their EPA ratings reflect that?

[MetroMPG]

I can see the argument in providing "aspirational" numbers.

On the other hand, the numbers were so difficult to get with 'normal' driving (never mind aggressive driving) that they made a number of auto journalists angry, who constantly complained that they were "fairy tale" figures that had no basis in reality.

People who got mad at the numbers or believed what the press said would also not bother trying.

Seems to me a better result would have been somewhere between the old 2-cycle tests and the current 5-cycle numbers.

[Frank Lee]

I think the previous generation of EPA ratings were spot-on. A person could match them without hypermiling, but with good conservative technique. The first gen EPA was wildly optimistic and now the current gen ratings reward idiocy.

[PaleMelanesian]

Are these real gallons or the bonus-extra-mpg imperial ones?

[MetroMPG]

In the photo? Those are the original gallons. The kind everyone used to use before some people got upset with the old world and decided to make up new ones.

[PaleMelanesian]

Touché.

[Fat Charlie]

Don't you realize that our new and improved gallons are lighter and take up less space?