U.S. FTC: rules concerning fuel economy advertising may be updated
 

Have you ever seen an ad trumpeting "XX MPG" for a vehicle only to realize that's the highway rating they're advertising?

The U.S. FTC is looking at updating advertising rules to “focus on information that helps marketers avoid deceptive or unfair claims.”

Absolutely right! I seem to remember it used to be that way, but something changed and lately it's been all highway mpg. Considering how city mileage accounts for approximately half of average driving, it's deceptive to not include it.

Still, it's not been entirely bad. Advertising highway mpg has pushed some makers to put a really tall top gear that we can exploit in our pursuits for MORE. Sadly others haven't jumped on that idea yet (HONDA :rolleyes: )

Some of the auto blogs are worse than the car companies: Headlines like "46 MPG Cruze!" (Autoblog Green, I'm looking at you.)

What confusion? The highway numbers have always gotten the emphasis.

Q: What's the difference between a WHITE lie and any other lie?

A: The WHITE lie was done for YOUR benefit, any other lie was done for THEIR benefit.

If the highway numbers are easily attainable- as they are now- is that a lie?

The key words are: " if " and " attainable " ...which in many cases are NOT valid.

Baloney! 1st gen EPA were darned high and virtually unobtainable by non-hypermilers. 2nd gen EPA was easily obtainable by simply driving sensibly. 3rd gen EPA has been dumbed down to reward idiotic driving. Anyone that can't get EPA now ain't doing it right.

"... avoid deceptive and unfair claims"

Isn't that what marketing is, though?!

This is really a futile effort. EPA estimates are, well, estimates. Listing them at all could be considered deceptive, since the actual results will vary on an individual basis.

This is like banning car makers from advertising peak horsepower, because the majority of drivers will not drive in that RPM range. The Corvette would no longer be advertised at 400+ HP, but a more reasonable 200 HP in the 2k-4k RPM range, where it's more realistic for drivers.

It's fine to advertise peak performance. Anyone with a decently functioning brain can figure out that a car will not get optimal fuel economy in all conditions.

Only showing highway mpg can be deceptive because the ratio of highway to city mpg varies between vehicles. It's not telling the whole story.

Example:
Cruze diesel 46 mpg highway, 27 city
Prius C also 46 mpg highway, but 53 city

By advertising only the highway number, Chevrolet makes the Cruze sound as efficient as the Prius, when in reality its combined mpg is only 2/3 as much and city mpg is only half as good as the Prius.

Yes, but anyone not aware of that is either hopeless or they don't care anyway.

In politics, they're called Spin Doctors.

In car sales, the same people are called Marketing personnel.

This would apply only to advertising, and no ads tell the whole story. It's already mandated that new cars have the specific highway and city EPA ratings displayed on the window sticker, so the buyer does get the whole story before making a purchase.

Based on the fact that the information is readily available from many sources pre-purchase, and that all other industries practice the same technique, I can't see why any changes need to be made, or how this would improve the customer experience.

When you test-drive a new car, do you look at the MPG meter to see what numbers it's showing? Well, now you know *WHY* almost every OEM MPG-meter is 5-7% optimistic...because the manufacturers are NOT afraid to "push/play with" the truth envelope.

The part I find most annoying in car advertising is when they show their top of the line model with every option under the sun and then give the mileage of their base model/ small engine version.

Other than that, I look at their mpg rating, highway, and then add 10% and figure that's what I would get out of it.

If everyone were honest, we'd never need to waste our breath on such threads. But since people are dishonest, we may as well discuss how to keep from getting ripped off. Consider it this way--you are keeping them from getting away with doing something wrong. If everybody made it hard for others to lie, others would not lie as much.

I would have to agree with most of you when speaking about the chevy cruze. No I do not have the cruze diesel unfortunately :(. But I was most frustrated by the window sticker claiming I would get 42 mpg highway and that I do but only when the highway is flat seamless road. I fight to get above 42 mpg on my 26 mile commute to and from work. I'm just saying some actual quantitative testing from the EPA would be beneficial to the general public when it concerns deciding on a car for fuel economy if they're not familiar with hypermiling.

General DRIVERS = 99% of the "Bell Curve" of driving skills & techniques.

HYPERMILERS = 1% of the "Bell Curve" of driving skills & techniques.

Puzzled by this... isn't that what the EPA sticker on the car tells you? What the FE of the car is based on a set of common tests (applied equally to all cars) as specified by the EPA?

Conversely, if everyone where skeptical about claims being made without substantiation, then we'd never need to waste our breath on such threads either. Since many people aren't, we have to discuss how to put more laws in place to protect the sheeple... :rolleyes:

Yup.

A common set of tests that is either woefully pessimistic (for us) or woefully unrealistic (for people on the other end of the bell curve).

The problem is, EPA auditing is spotty enough that a lot of cars slip through the cracks with numbers that are not comparable to other cars on the same driving cycle. Per-variant testing is expensive, but it's probably time the EPA (or some independent third-party) took over testing duties from the manufacturers.

I prefer to err on the side of freedom of speech and caveat emptor. Besides, all of the misleading fuel economy figures the marketers are trumpeting are canceled out by the knuckle-dragging troglodytes from Consumer Reports and Car & Driver that claim far below EPA figures for the vehicle.

I agree it's not perfect, and I have no doubt that manufacturers try to game the system especially since money's on the line. However, since the test procedures are publicly available, it is possible for others (outside of the manufacturer or EPA) to "sanity check" the manufacturer's results. That's a benefit of having quantitative testing. And if the test results fall outside a reasonable range, then there is a way to challenge the manufacturer's results with the EPA (as was done with Hyundai back in 2012).

I think the MPG data should be presented as a series of 4-curves, with MPG on the Y-axis and MPH on the X-axis. In descending order, the curves would be:

1) MPG vs MPH with driver only, no A/C
2) MPG vs MPH with driver only, A/C operating
3) MPG vs MPH with driver, max. passenger(s)/load, no A/C
4) MPG vs MPH with driver, max. passenger(s)/load, A/C operating.

Initially, the data would come from actual, on-the-road vehicle tests, but as soon as the preliminary data was collected and analyzed, computer-simulations would be sufficiently accurate enough to eliminate further road-tests...until something aerodynamically or mechanically on the subject vehicle was changed.

Unfortunately, that's not likely to make a difference... Too much information for the average consumer, and still gives the manufacturer options to tweak the numbers ("Of course a 50lb driver is realistic!"). Probably the best approach is for the consumer to understand that "their mileage may vary" from the posted value (if he/she even cares about that).

Maybe the rating should be split into 3 categories, reflecting driving style.
Some cars, especially hybrids with an automatic gearbox, compensate somewhat for bad driving style as they regain some of the energy wasted on excessive braking and such.
Other cars, like the tiny turbo ecodiesels, start using loads of fuel when revved.

We need not one but 3 combined ratings; one when driven spiritedly, one when driven averagely and one when driven eco conscious, let's call that the CAH rating.

My car (41 MPG EPA combined rating) may have a CAH rating of 33/41/55 MPG.
My colleagues Skoda Fabia 1.2 TDI would have a CAH rating of 30/45/70 MPG or something like that.
So if you are foot heavy you'd know the Fabia would not save you anything compared to the Insight, while if you hypermile you'd save a lot.

Btw. CAH stands for Clarkson/Average/Hypermiler. Other acronyms are still possible at this stage ;)

Even that isn't enough to get more accuracy. Flatland vs mountainous, urban vs rural, windy vs calm, and altitude and humidity are going to have impacts too. Might have to add, does a train cross in front of the motorist at any point, and for how long, and is that period going to be engine on or off?

How in the hell can any test regimen take into account all the variables and give everybody dead-nuts accurate numbers? Should the consumer have to fill out a questionnaire- providing inputs for variables for their specific conditions- before they are granted access to any mpg estimates? Key word being ESTIMATES. Is the test supposed to provide every individual motorist with the exact average mpg they actually get, or is it supposed to provide the consumer comparative information between models?

I don't see the problem with the current system. You look at the number, you consider your own circumstances, you adjust your expectations accordingly.

Well, if EPA can't provide more accurate numbers, maybe they should "require" smarter buyers (wink,wink)!

:thumbup: I've only gotten under EPA HIGHWAY mpg with my Mustang ONCE. And I had to do a few things wrong to achieve that. YMMV :D

My cobalt which is just a old generic looking cruze has an average of about 47mpg over the lifetime of ownership. It gets the best fuel economy at steady speeds well below the 65mph limit.

My guess is that you live in a cold state, you have an automatic and you must not have the best hypermiling ability.

Unless of coarse you have a mix of in town and highway, then getting 42mpg is actually impressive, since any city is going to drop you real fast due to the low rating in the city.

Now if you had a manual transmission, I would say there is something wrong.

Cheers
Ryan

In I.T., we have the acronym PEBKAC (Problem Exists Between Keyboard And Chair). It sounds like you are saying something along the lines of "Problem Exists Between Throttle And Chair".

The epa testing system we have now is not perfect, but it's what we have. It's not likely to change any time soon. So I'll save my breath complaining about it. It's posted on the window of every new car sold. It provides a decent apples-to-apples comparison between cars. If you get below that number in car A, you're likely to be a similar amount below the rated number on car B as well.

If I understand correctly, this proposal is for advertising. TV and billboards and magazines.

I've heard so many times, online and in person, "why would you buy a hybrid, when Car X gets almost as good mileage for cheaper?". Car X that gets marginally lower highway mileage, but woefully lower city mileage. Mose people aren't going to research in depth. Repeated quick "oooh that's a big mpg number" impressions will stick in their mind and sway their choices when it's time to buy. That's how advertising works.

Listing both city and highway EPA in advertising, I can only see as a good thing. It's better than what we have now.

I look at the ratings, but after the wifes Sorento, which was supposed to be 32 MPG highway and later found to be rubbish, I found out that the manufacturers are doing the testing themselves.

Fox in the Chicken coop syndrome. I can get her Sorento to 32, but on the same road and conditions my 38 highway rated Fiesta will do over 50.

For that reason I don't think manufacturer testing is a good idea. I would prefer a closed test track, but that would mean wind and temperature variables. Testing on a dyno brings in manufacturers tweaking vehicles to shine on a dyno.

Best would be a closed course in the southwest where temperatures average higher, with vehicles picked off dealer lots. Testing done is lowest wind conditions.

regards
Mech

"Adjust the nut behind the wheel"...

In aviation electronics (talking about pilots), it's: "...must be a short between the ear(head)phones..."