Consumer Reports beats the EPA

[tracysaboe]

Via Yahoo News:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/kcra/20060508/lo_kcra/3452610

The government has been keeping a secret about automobiles under wraps for the past 30 years.

    And when it comes to testing cars, Consumer Reports leaves no stone unturned, no lug nut loose. And here's the question Consumer Reports set out to answer -- does your car get the gas mileage promised on the showroom sticker.

    And under these guidelines by the Environmental Protection Agency, carmakers are allowed to test miles per gallon by running the vehicle not on the road, but on what's essentially a treadmill for cars.

    During an EPA spot check, the car ran with no air conditioning, no inclines or hills, no wind resistance and at speeds no greater than 60 mph.

    There's hardly anything real world about it, but it gives carmakers what they want -- the highest possible miles per gallon to put on that sticker.

The article also points out that the tests conducted by Consumer Reports provide, no surprise here, more accurate results than the EPA's tests. It is no coincidence that car manufacturers are not additionally offering other reports since they know that EPA standards result in fuel efficiency numbers that are higher than they really are. Indeed, this morning I was watching a segment on this and a Consumer Reports spokesman said that a good rule of thumb is to subtract at least 20% from the EPA's published efficiency numbers.

Another government failure. Let's have dynamic, comprehensive and independent testing instead of a static, tax-funded and bloated EPA.

From http://blog.mises.org/archives/005022.asp

Tracy

[Pat McCotter]

What is so important about those numbers that we need the government to mandate manufacturers tell us what they are?

A quote from the blog:

Another government failure. Let's have dynamic, comprehensive and independent testing instead of a static, tax-funded and bloated EPA.

A quote from the referenced article:

For more information and for a list of the most fuel efficient cars and SUVs, check out Consumer Reports' special report A Guide To Stretching Your Fuel Dollars.

So we do have independent testing. Support Consumer Reports.

[Zork]

A quote from the referenced article:

For more information and for a list of the most fuel efficient cars and SUVs, check out Consumer Reports' special report A Guide To Stretching Your Fuel Dollars.

So we do have independent testing. Support Consumer Reports.

Support Consumer Reports?  NEVER!  I'm not saying support EPA instead, but Consumer Reports has its own biases.    Their worst with cars, and major household appliances.  If you want REAL information for cars, check out a car mag

[cathleeninnh]

But remember, taking out all those driving condition variables leaves a very useful statistic. One that is comparable. At least it is useful if the driving conditions affect efficiency similarly. CR implies it does when they say driving conditions usually account for 20% reduction. Otherwise we would have to rely on CR or some other tester/rater to try to recreate identicle driving conditions to compare vehicles. And we would still have people crying foul because THEIR results vary.

In any case, lets get the government out of this business.

Cathleen 

[tracysaboe]

At least it is useful if the driving conditions affect efficiency similarly.

It's not exact though. Some were 20% lower. Many were 50% worse. And some were kind-of close.

I think the point is that competing rating companies (there are numerous competing car mags, and Consumer reports, and travel mags, and other even more official market based sources of testing and rating information.) will give much more information to the customer then a government regulated one.

There's already demand for these free market rating systems. If the government ones didn't exist, there'd even be more demand. Which means we don't need no stinking EPA standards.

Tracy

[AlanM]

If weight and wind resistance are not taken into account, the rating is basically useless, as it has no comparison to actual use conditions. All EPA does is rate engine efficiency. It has nothing to do with actual MPG.

[cathleeninnh]

I've seen the spinning spool/tread thingy they use to run the cars on. With the car standing still, there is no wind resistance. The weight of the vehicle would be involved if the car is actually sitting on the thing. I don't remember that it is, though. The spool thing could have just been the "distance" measure mechanism.

If you can't figure out all these other factors and if they differ significantly from vehicle to vehicle, how can you use the number?

Cathleen

[toowm]

I stopped my Consumer Reports subscription because their big-government bias has entered their reviews. The solutions to consumer problems are no longer education and caveat emptor, but more government regulation.

I find Edmunds.com more useful for cars.

[KBCraig]

Here's my report.

We picked up our travel trailer today (24', 4,800 pounds with full LP and water tanks).

When towing it, our van (2000 GMC Savanah, 5.7 liter Vortec) dropped from 16mpg to 8, when I tried to maintain 70mph. I had to shift out of overdrive to 3rd, and even then the A/C cutout kicked in, leaving us hot.

I finally found the magic spot: 60mph in overdrive. It would downshift on hills, with occasional A/C cutout. This gave us about 11.4 mpg.

It's going to be an expensive trip in June. 

Kevin

[aries]

My car actually gets better than EPA mileage. They say it gets 17MPG, I can manage to get around 22.

[Zork]

Can't remember where I read it now (I think it was the May issue of PC Magazine), but I read yesterday that the EPA is retooling their fuel efficiency tests and numbers  are estimated to go down by 10-22%

Found another website talking about the changes.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/fuel_economy/fixing-the-epas-fuel-economy-tests.html