|
|
BATMAN 12-11-2006, 07:45 PM Car buyers will face a new form of sticker shock when they browse dealer lots next year: Mileage estimates will be down, reflecting the way people actually drive.
The Environmental Protection Agency Monday issued new testing procedures that will cause fuel economy estimates on the stickers of new vehicles to drop an average of 12 percent for city driving on most 2008 model year vehicles and 8 percent for highway driving.
Highly fuel-efficient vehicles are expected to see the largest slide, with ratings for city driving dropping by as much as 30 percent and highway estimates falling 25 percent from current levels.
Mileage estimates for gas-electric hybrids probably will be 20 to 30 percent lower for city driving and 10 to 20 percent lower on the highway, the agency said.
The changes respond to consumer complaints that fuel economy estimates are frequently less than advertised. EPA’s new system will take into account data from vehicle tests designed to more accurately assess high-speed driving, rapid acceleration, the use of air conditioning and driving in cold temperatures.
“EPA’s new fuel economy sticker ensures American motorists won’t be stuck with higher-than-anticipated charges at the pump,” EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson said in a statement.
The agency said no test can precisely predict the fuel economy of a vehicle because driving behaviors and conditions vary. But the test methods will help bring the estimates on the window stickers closer to what drivers achieve on the road.
Stickers also will be upgraded to include fuel cost information, a graphic for comparing the fuel economy of different vehicles and a Web site address for more information.
Test results will not be used to determine whether automakers comply with laws requiring the U.S. fleet to have an average fuel economy of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and 21 mpg for sport utility vehicles, pickup trucks and vans.
Those requirements are found in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy program, which is run by the Transportation Department and has separate regulations to determine fuel economy.
Russell Long of Bluewater Network, a San Francisco-based environmental group that sought the changes, said the new testing procedures would help motorists save money and reduce pollution.
But Long said the “new numbers will expose how far short American passenger vehicles are from the 27.5 mpg that Congress intended them to achieve over 30 years ago.”
Consumers have long complained that their vehicle’s fuel economy is often much less than the estimates on the sticker, and Congress mandated the changes in its energy bill in 2005.
EPA’s test methods were last revised in 1984. The rules issued Monday were proposed in January and implemented after public comment.
For the first time the agency will require labeling of medium-duty vehicles, which weigh between 8,500 and 10,000 pounds, including SUVs and vans. Automakers will be required to post the labels on the vehicles beginning with the 2011 model year.
Toyota and Ford said they did not have revised fuel economy estimates for 2008 models of their hybrid vehicles. The top-selling Toyota Prius reports an EPA estimate of 60 mpg in the city and 51 mpg on the highway while the Ford Escape hybrid, the first hybrid SUV on the market, gets an estimated 36 mpg in the city and 31 mpg on the highway.
Auto industry officials noted that mileage estimates differ depending on vehicle speeds, quick stops and starts, routine maintenance and whether the vehicle is hauling cargo in the trunk.
“Even with the new labels, mileage will vary,” said Charles Territo, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The trade group released a new Web site detailing the changes dubbed mileagewillvary.com.
The industry group said 2007 will be a transition year for the labels, with some of the new estimates appearing on dealer lots in the next few months. Consumers should compare the mileage estimates on 2007 models to other 2007 vehicles and 2008 vehicles to other models from that year, they said.
“Consumers deserve the government’s best efforts when it comes to compiling the information they see on the label of new vehicles,” said Robert L. Darbelnet, president of the industry group. “That has not been the case, and EPA is moving to correct the situation.”
wotnartd 12-11-2006, 08:39 PM Good.
MazdaTed 12-12-2006, 03:20 PM I figured everybody would know that those estimates are made to sell the car and would be done under Ideal conditions.
Then again most people are stupid and wouldnt think of that.
aznpoopy 12-12-2006, 09:20 PM i agree. this is for the better.
nobody drives 50mph down the high way with the cruise control on
Tofuball 12-13-2006, 06:55 AM 50mph is not where ideal fuel economy is on most cars
Most cars with a good CoD will actually hit it at around 65 or 70.
My S5 'vert hit it at 75 (28mpg w/ mountains)
The Chevy 3500 I drive gets 13MPG no matter what, under 80mph (unless I'm hauling, then I get 12.7mpg) but thats for other reasons :P
But seriously, I liked them posting the ideal economy. It gives you something to shoot for when driving.
Ever see that Top Gear episode when he was trying to drive some insane distance on one tank in a diesel Passat?
He said something like "If everyone drove for fuel economy, no one would ever get in an accident"
Some cars I've managed to actually beat the posted fuel economy. Like my stock 1989 Corolla SR5, I hit 44mpg at 80MPH. This is with 150K on the clock. Those cars are awesome!
YearsOfDecay 12-13-2006, 12:01 PM In 1908.. the friggin FORD MODEL T got 25 MPG
Its almost 100 years later... and the average car gets LESS MPG!!!!!!!
WTF is going on???????
in 2002 Toyota prototyped a car that got 100MPG called the Eco Spirit.. and they ditched it.... why??
Tofuball 12-13-2006, 12:30 PM I'm unhappy that we dont have more direct injection gasoline engines. or 'lean burn' style engines, or stratified charge diesel engines.
Honestly, if America REALLY cared about fuel economy, we'd have a whole lot more smaller light duty diesel engines around in smaller cars, and less emissions restraints.
Personally, I belive emissions is one of the greatest enemies of fuel economy.
Our emissions laws are rather insane, for example a junkyard is not allowed to sell you a used catalytic converter, because they "may be faulty" . . . this is from the same junkyard that's allowed to sell you brake and suspension parts!
Savington 12-13-2006, 02:31 PM I've always thought the EPA boys LITERALLY pulled those numbers from a hat. I've seen the new numbers and they're closer, but until they do real-life testing and not just laboratory BS, I won't believe anything.
aznpoopy 12-13-2006, 02:43 PM In 1908.. the friggin FORD MODEL T got 25 MPG
Its almost 100 years later... and the average car gets LESS MPG!!!!!!!
WTF is going on???????
in 2002 Toyota prototyped a car that got 100MPG called the Eco Spirit.. and they ditched it.... why??
the model t was made out of wood, spit and glue.
the engines today produce alot more and power and drive heavier cars and get nearly the same mileage.
but to answer your question, there hasn't been serious serious demand for better mileage cars because gas is really cheap relative to the work it does. either that or its president bush's fault.
fishbulb95 12-14-2006, 12:05 PM Wait... there's this thing called air that pushes against the car when I drive? Finally it's nice to see some changes. Also by posting the Mileage on those larger SUV's might deter people from buying them.
SpartanTS 12-15-2006, 01:02 PM Wait... there's this thing called air that pushes against the car when I drive? Finally it's nice to see some changes. Also by posting the Mileage on those larger SUV's might deter people from buying them.
If you can afford an SUV, you know what you're getting into. I doubt posting the mileage is going to make someone buy a Prius over that Tahoe they've been eyeing for a while.
clean85owner 12-16-2006, 06:38 PM My new car is rated at 30/33. I drive at least 75% highway and get right at 30mpg. Good enough for me!
It's a hell of a lot better than the 15mpg I got from the 7.
SpartanTS 12-16-2006, 08:30 PM I get 16 MPG on average. I'm not bitching about it. Sure it costs me $40 to fill, but if I don't feel like driving the guzzler, i'll pull out my chevy and enjoy 30 MPG.
Even when gas was $3 a gallon, it only cost me $20 more to fill up. Big loss there.
Tofuball 12-26-2006, 08:18 AM I get 16 MPG on average. I'm not bitching about it. Sure it costs me $40 to fill, but if I don't feel like driving the guzzler, i'll pull out my chevy and enjoy 30 MPG.
Even when gas was $3 a gallon, it only cost me $20 more to fill up. Big loss there.
It's good to be easygoing, but some people drive all day long, and it makes a really major difference in the end-of-month finance planning.
especially for big corporations with a fleet of vehicles.
|