Is the EPA just shy of useless?
But what about in the real world?When the EPA revised its methodology for determining fuel economy a few years ago, it was realized that the EPA was off by as much as 50 percent. While revisions made the EPA's methodology a little more accurate, many driving conditions still make the EPA's numbers mostly useless.
Even worse, automakers can essentially manipulate the EPA's methodology to make some of their vehicles appear more fuel efficient - at least in the lab - than in reality.
The EPA's 'City' estimates are so ridiculous that Mazda decided against using start-stop technology in many of its vehicles because there was no value - at least no perceived value. Even though science can prove that such technology can pay for itself and increase vehicle fuel economy, EPA testing doesn't calculate any benefit for start-stop technology.
When the government makes real world fuel economy a joke with inaccurate stickers and methodologies, how can automakers be expected to take fuel economy seriously?
Labels: epa, fuel economy
posted by Dahcredyns at
8:35 AM
20 Comments:
Something here doesn't make sense...
All hybrids use start stop technology, and that would seem to be part of the reason for their really high city mpg.
The Prius used to be rated at 60mpg city (& 51 highway). I find it hard to believe the EPA test would have gotten 60mpg without the start stop benefit.
Besides it's tough to force a Prius to idle when stopped under EPA the testing conditions (warm temps, no AC, no heat). You'd have to step on the gas and brake at the stops to force it to idle.
the prius gains in traffic are only partially based on start-stop technology, as the engine doesn't have to completely shut down for the HSD to improve fuel economy.
nonetheless, the engine in a hybrid can shut down much more often as the battery can replace the need for gasoline. thus, even at a steady 25 mph, the gasoline engine on the prius can be off.
for start/stop only vehicles, the engine is probably only going to shut down when the vehicle is at a complete stop, which obviously happens at stop/lights, stop signs, and heavy traffic (but not in the EPA's city cycle apparently).
all the automakers can essentially predict what the EPA's fuel economy estimate will be for their cars before the EPA tests.
mazda might be off slightly with their predictions, but overall i'm sure they know what they are talking about, at least regarding their start-stop technology.
I kind of agree with Markus.
I don't get that much benefit from the start stop feature on my Civic Hybrid.
I get the bulk of my gas savings from the electric assistance during acceleration.
That's why light hybrids, like the Chevy Malibu hybrid, didn't fair that well.....
Think about it. On a 20 minute "city" commute, you might spend a total of about 2 minutes idling at stop lights. How much gas do you really use idling for 2 minutes?
It's no surprise that Mazda hates the "city" rating....It is because the "city" rating is the "real" measurement of the fuel economy of a vehicle.
Most drivers do not spend the bulk of their time driving at 55 mph with the AC off and cruise control on. As a result, rarely if ever do you see vehicles get mileage equal to the "highway" rating.
When I refill the tank and check my mileage, I find that I consistently am getting gas mileage that is very very close to the "City" rating.
The only time I get the "highway" rating is on long road trips of 300 miles or more....
something is not right ....
the "upside down" gas ratings where the city mileage is higher than the highway mileage can only be that way if the engine shuts down ...
Name a car that is not a hybrid where it's city mileage is better than its' highway mileage?
But blaming the EPA is futile because during Bush's 8 years, the auto companies essentially got carte Blanche to "tweak" the ways that cars could be tested for mileage.
Moral of the story. Just because the govt has it's name on something doesn't mean what it says is true especially if the industry was allowed to re-write the rules.
larry-
well, the EPA changed its methodology, after decades, during Bush's admin. so in this case, something good did happen during his watch. of course, in reality, the update had very little to do with any Bush policy.
still, the new CAFE requirements, for instance, are still going to use the OLD methodology that has been proven to be very inaccurate. thus, automakers are being held to a very light, easily manipulated standard when they 'upgrade' their vehicles.
the sticker is purely for consumers.
smurf-
my 20 mile city commutes in LA are often full of many more stops. when i worked downtown, i came to complete, numerous stops on the freeway everyday.
in such conditions, basic start-stop could be very helpful.
likewise, even if i go to the store - maybe a 5 mile round trip - i still hit several stop signs and several red lights.
regardless, i totally agree that the city cycle should be the standard, although i'd prefer it be rated in a range.
I don't think much good happened that he planned on himself.
Some things went forward in spite of him.
Others were canned.
In general.. he obfuscated when he could not stop.
I think to give him credit for anything along these lines is to mistake happenstance for anything explicit on his part to provide consumers with better info or more fuel efficient vehicles.
so.. no.. I do't give credit for stuff that happened on his watch unless he was the person who actually pushed for it.. as something he wanted and believed in.
And in general, he was not known to be in favor of more/better consumer info and empowerment.
my 2 cents of course.
i'm just pointing out that this problem goes back decades, i'm neither defending nor implicating bush.
moreover, dems had the potential votes to change CAFE during the bush admin, there was enough republican support, but those efforts were squashed by democrats from Michigan, et al.
so, there has been plenty of bipartisan failure on this issue for decades.
inevitably, in 10 years, America's fleet fuel economy is still going to be far behind all other modern countries and possibly all emerging countries.
that's not purely because of republicans and big oil, but also unionist-protectionism from democrats.
moreover, in practice, nothing has really changed in terms of the EPA's role in monitoring fleet fuel economy. and, while cafe has been increased, it's going to be based on methodology that is terribly flawed, unless of course America returns to an agrarian society.
consequently, it is possible that many vehicles will be 50 percent less efficient on the city cycle than required by law thanks to faulty methodology - faulty methodology that both dems and republicans are fully aware.
in my opinion, such duality between the american auto market and the rest of the world in terms of fuel economy is an unavoidable competitive disadvantage for US automakers, particularly in the long term, and i'd bet it comes back to bite the Big 3 and the US taxpayer yet again.
here's a significant change:
" President Obama will direct federal regulators on Monday to move swiftly on an application by California and 13 other states to set strict automobile emission and fuel efficiency standards, two administration officials said Sunday.
The directive makes good on an Obama campaign pledge and signifies a sharp reversal of Bush administration policy. Granting California and the other states the right to regulate tailpipe emissions would be one of the most emphatic actions Mr. Obama could take to quickly put his stamp on environmental policy.
Mr. Obama’s presidential memorandum will order the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. While it stops short of flatly ordering the Bush decision reversed, the agency’s regulators are now widely expected to do so after completing a formal review process."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/26/us/politics/26calif.html
a simple string of " auto fuel efficiency bush" will bring up a large volume of the Bush Record on auto efficiency and related.
It's true the Mich Dems and others were involved on some issues but it's also clear that we had 8 years of NON-LEADERSHIP... opposition, obfuscation, foot-dragging and in general a total lack of leadership on the issue.
This guy may not do much better given the economic headwinds but at least his heart is in the right place.
We sat still or went backwards for 8 years... no question about that in my mind.
If that 8 years had been spent trying to make at least some progress.. there would have been SOME momentum right now.. but this train had mostly come to a halt.. and getting it going again is going to take some time.
I don't mind giving credit where credit is due.
For instance, (nothing to do with hybrid cars), Bush did get the ball rolling on NCLB.
It's not perfect but at least we've agreed we've agreed that we need to get better....
none of that with energy.. it's been 8 years of drill baby drill.
interesting, i thought the CA tailpipe issue was dead, as the goal was uniformed standards.
if CA gets its way, that will throw another wrench in the US auto recovery. long term, however, i think CA has the right idea.
as for Bush. his record speaks for itself. no leadership outside of taking on iraq, which history will probably record as bad leadership.
outside of iraq, i'm not sure what bush was about except the status quo. when you're as rich as the bush family, who needs change?
i'm not a bush hater, but i was never a fan - even before 9/11 and its aftermath. and it disappoints me that such a man could gain such political power simply because of his family's wealth and name.
yet, it's becoming not much different in congress, especially the senate.
democracy or aristocracy?
what I posted was not recent.. from back in January so things could have changed.
In general.. having different state standards is not a good thing except that since California is so big that it's standards become the defacto ones.
I'm overboard a bit on W sometimes.
I always expected him to be industry-friendly ... and in some respects - that perspective is important because even the President cannot force business to do things that are ultimately not sustainable...
We have 3 more years to see what this guy and the Congress might do (or not) but no one should expect politics to be anything other than what it's always been which is sometimes extremely stinky and sometimes.. occasionally good stuff.
problem is ...as bad as it is and can be... it's better than some other countries .... though I think, in general, the Europeans and Japanese are more enlightened on energy issues.
We've become a prolifigate consumer of energy resources.. much, much more than our fair share in the world.. but now it's starting to come back and bite us on the butt ....
I could stomach W until he went off the ranch on Constitutional issues..then he needed to be gone.
it seems to me that without some bi-partisanship, the energy issue cannot be properly dealt with.
that bi-partisanship had to be led by Obama. obviously, it's almost an impossible task for any modern president, especially a democrat, but i believe it is obama's - and america's - path to greatness.
unfortunately, despite the campaign talk on this issue, i'm not seeing that tone coming out of this administration, especially with guys like rahm leading the charge.
instead, it's looking more and more like politics as usual. certainly, that's not obama's fault, but the buck has to stop somewhere.
I agree.. we don't go forward without bi-partisan
"I agree.. we don't go forward without bi-partisan"
The problem is that Republican candidates are screaming "drill baby drill" and Conservative talk show hosts are constantly proclaiming their hatred of hybrid vehicles.
How can we get bi-partisan support with all this going on?
"United we stand. Divided we fall"
This is more true today than ever....
Dahc,
The real benefit from stop-start technology is when sitting at red lights where you spend 30 seconds to a minute idling....
Stop-start technology provides minimal gas savings at stop signs or during the constant stop-start-stop-start of rush hour traffic (unless you stop for long periods of time).
smurf-
so, perhaps we should just give up?
besides, there are some moderate republicans out there.
moreover, dems are playing lots of games on this story as well. its not as if dems are fighting the pragmatic, sensible fight. many are also playing to their special interests.
finally, this is about national security and economic competitiveness. i'm quite sure that's a story that can be sold to the voters of both parties.
Dahc,
My recommendation is that we that are in favor of Hybrids, and alternatives to oil, throw all of our support (and our votes) behind the Democrats in 2010.
The one true power we have in this country is the power of the vote.
One of the main reasons I left the Republican party and became a Democrat is because of the Republican position on oil. It was that position that led to 9/11, the Iraq war, the Afghanistan war as well as $4.00 gas.
In 2010, we need to make oil the number one issue and expose all the weaknesses of the Republican position on oil.
"If you like $4.00 gas, vote Republican"
"If you like seeing Americans die in the Middle East, vote Republican"
"If you want to see more terrorist attacks on the US, vote Republican"
"If you like pollution, vote Republican"
Maybe as a group we can do what we can do what we could not do individually.
Smurf-
Your argument has merit, but that's just not me. I just can't stomach either party these days. Personally, i think incumbency is a disease.
I'd like to see a 90 percent voter turnout and incumbency rates at about 50 percent, then maybe I could believe in a party.
Dahc,
Just like you, I don't particularly like either Party or incumbents.
Unfortunately right now there are usually only 2 choices.
I've tried in the past making a "symbolic" vote for a 3rd party or Independent candidate, but I felt like I was throwing my vote away.
Right now, when it comes to the key issues that are most important to me, especially those regarding energy, the Democrats and I are in agreement on the what path we should take. So for now, they get my vote....
Post a Comment
<< Home