U.S. wants consumers' advice on fuel-economy stickers

[cfg83]

jamesqf -

Originally Posted by jamesqf

What's wrong with a simple miles per KWh rating? And plug-in hybrids get both mpg and mpk ratings.

Could the same be applied to ICE engines? I mean ICE HP is also rated at kW :



Or am I mixing electric apples with electric oranges?

CarloSW2

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by cfg83

jamesqf -



Could the same be applied to ICE engines? I mean ICE HP is also rated at kW :

[IMG]...[/IMG]

Or am I mixing electric apples with electric oranges?

CarloSW2

KW like HP is a measurement of Power output. It does not show the energy consumption which in watts is measured by the hour or kilowatt-hours.

ICE fuel economy could be measured in KW-hours per mile like Battery Electric vehicles but there should be a MPG figures for ICE posted as well. Battery packs are not yet larger in capacity than a gallon of Gasoline, which is commonly accepted at approx 33.5Kw-hours. The range per charge should be enough to give an idea of range for BEVS. MPG doesn't really apply to BEVs as it is a measurement of range per gallon, something that BEVs don't function on. Whereas MPG for ICE is required to understand their effective range.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by tjts1

Here is some timely consumer advice: Stop wasting our tax money researching god damn stickers.

+1x1,000,000,000,000x13

Overpaid idiots need to ask us how to do their job.

regards
Mech

[dcb]

What is wrong with soliciting public input? This ain't stalin-ville.

[PaleMelanesian]

Here's my input:

Just give us the information. List any that apply: Miles per gallon city/hwy. Electric - either battery capacity and kwh / mile electric city/hwy, or range city/hwy and kwh to recharge.

Don't try to interpret it for us, or tell us what's better for us. We can figure that out. Whether we as individuals will make wise decisions is a separate matter that does not need to be brought into this discussion. No letter grades, thank you.

[RobertSmalls]

Your input in this thread is fine, but make sure you echo your opinion here, where it will be heard by the decisionmakers:

Fuel Economy Label | Fuel Economy | US EPA

More info on the label is a good thing. I've also recommended that the EPA act only to inform, not to advocate.

My opinions on giving every last electric vehicle an "A+" and putting "tailpipe emissions only" in fine print below a big 0g CO2/mi label have been discussed at length elsewhere.

[gone-ot]

...see "...MPG illusion..." on page 7 and Figure 4 on page 8 of this EPA document:

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label/420f10048.pdf

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/math/mpg.pdf

[gasman]

People can be generalized into 2 major categories. Those who do research, and those who compulsively buy. Those who do research are going to know the truth anyway. Those who don't wouldn't anyway, and will still buy impulsively just like they do now.

They only need to change it for vehicles that don't use gas/diesel (liquid fuel). Perhaps it could be kw/h per mile? That wouldn't help with cost, but it would let vehicles be directly comparable in efficiency, which is what the crux of all this is anyway. If whatever they decide is not a standardized "unit of energy" per "distance" measurement, then it will simply be a meaningless label that confuses people (because people will assume that it has meaning, when it does not). For environmental awareness, some sort of greenhouse gas or CO2 rating could be added, but it is absolutely imperative that this rating be completely separate from the efficiency (energy/distance) rating. The reason they must be separate is because they measure two completely different things. They simply cannot be combined into a single meaningful number/label.

The only way they could do anything of the sort meaningfully would be to have a label or number that conveys two meanings at once. One option could be, for example, to have a kw/h/m rating that is big and colored. The color would correspond to the environmental impact of the vehicle. The scale would go from red to orange to green (in several steps- perhaps 10). It could then have a smaller number for the environmental impact (to quantify it, and for people who are color blind). The point would be, though, that anyone could tell from a distance the environmental impact and the efficiency. This "combined" label would be valid, reliable, and easy to comprehend. There would, of course, need to be some more information that goes along with it, in tables.

edit: why not go the way of electric appliances? They have an energy consumption rating scheme that not only shows the efficiency and estimated cost of yearly operation, but it also puts the number in perspective on a line, so you know how well it stands up to competition. This would work very well when combined with the above number/color label. It would probably be best to have the color (and associated impact number) relative to similar vehicles, but also have the numbers to make absolute (ratio) comparisons (and for knowledge of overall impact).

[gone-ot]

...statistics = lying with numbers, a process too often used by governments and big businesses.

[Piwoslaw]

Here's my fuel-economy window sticker: