Drivers Claim Fuel Economy Numbers are Too Low

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

 

As always..................

 

my dodge dakota said 18, i only get 17, who do i call?

 

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.

 

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.

 

exactly, and that's under any conditions, very consistent.