Not sure if this is a 'dog bites man' story: Drivers Claim Fuel Economy Numbers are Too Low | TheDetroitBureau.com . . . A new AAA survey indicated that a third of Americans do not believe the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new vehicle window sticker accurately reflects the fuel economy they achieve when driving. Consumer advocates have complained for years the EPA fuel economy tests, which are performed in a laboratory-like setting rather than on public streets, don’t accurately reflect the rear-world performance of vehicles. . . . However, AAA analyzed data collected on the EPA’s FuelEconomy.gov website, along with laboratory and real-world vehicle testing, and found that driver behaviors and environmental conditions, rather than vehicle shortcomings, are likely responsible for most fuel economy variances. . . . In partnership with the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center, AAA tested the vehicles independently to verify the fuel economy. Over the course of several weeks, testing was conducted using a certified dynamometer and on the streets of Southern California. Test results from of all three vehicles confirmed the EPA mileage rating was accurate, leaving AAA to conclude that driving behaviors, vehicle condition, driving environment and terrain are likely responsible for most deviations from EPA ratings that consumers experience. “In addition to logging hundreds of miles in various driving environments, the research team put the vehicles through EPA-specified testing designed to mimic the real-world conditions, including city, highway and aggressive driving,” said Megan McKernan, manager of the Automobile Club of Southern California’s Automotive Research Center. . . . In your face Consumer Reports! Bob Wilson
It's sad that this has to be a report and isn't just obvious. People have no idea how things work, it is a very sad state of society.
It wasn't too long ago (2004 - 2005ish) that car manufacturers began crying about EPA numbers. Remember? Gen II Prius EPA of 60mpg City freaked out auto manufacturers (because their land barges were so pathetic - & fuel prices were on the rise), who began complaining that the EPA test was flawed. Yet it was the same manufacturers who influenced those early EPA standards! But in true form ... cutting off their nose to spite their face ... the EPA standards were redrawn .... and what do you know ... the land barge economy was shown to be worse than estimated under the earlier EPA formula. Now the claim is that EPA guesswork fuel Economy #'s are too low. Jeeez - what's the EPA to do ... .
Seems to mainly say diesels are dinged by EPA with lower than true MPG. Unclear to me why AAA investigated this, a little confusing. Wish someone would test E0 vs. E10 and pin down the difference.
As someone regularly over EPA I find their estimates too pecimisic. I suspect 1/3 drivers are under EPA, 1/3 on and 1/3 over, it's just the ones who below complain. Another part of it recent overinflated numbers by Hyundai, Ford, etc
Fortunately, we don't have that problem with the Prius. Those drivers got pissed off with the NHW20 and left a long time ago! Bob Wilson
Well the test was horribly flawed if this AAA is to be believed. i believe that Consumer Reports was the biggest organization freaking out, and they still seem to freak out about hybrids, but, again, their methodology seems as terribly flawed as the old epa standard. I thought car manufacturers liked the high numbers from the easy test. Let's face it, the old 2 cycle test was based on how people drove in the 1940s in LA. Slow acceleration, low top speeds, no airconditioning because it wasn't invented yet, little heat because LA is a warm place. The 5 cycle test is an improvement, but is fudged to try to get a mathematical combined that is close using antiquated perimeters. The city mpg ends up high, highway low compared to how most people drive, but its much better than the old 2 cycle test. Then we get cases like ford that seemed to use the fudging rules to artificially inflate their hybrids from the 2-cycle test, legal but slimy. EPA could use current data of driving cycles to how american's drive today, instead of a slight modification of LA in the 1940s, but ... car companies don't want that. The current EPA test favors the non-aerodynamic SUVs and Pickup trucks that are more profitable. It also helps hybrids and hurts diesels and plug-ins. We get an aerodynamic hybrid vehicle like the prius and it is probably neurtral combined, but helps something like the Lexus RXh (SUV + hybrid) and hurts jetta tdi (aero and diesel). Not much to get excited about with the politics, its less bad than in many areas of life. I side with aaa and against consumer reports when it comes to these things.
E0 has 3.1% more energy on average than E10. Different cars react differently and can have more or less difference. Diesels and plug-ins are areas where epa tests and math seem to make come out worse than relative performance. NEDC test gets different relative results, so it is something to look into.
I'm pretty sure this is a VW problem. Other diesels (when I last looked), were much closer. Bob Wilson
That's 5.56% lower than the claim. That's like getting 47mpg on a 50mpg Prius and we see complaints for that all the time.
