Full Version: MPG lies by the manufacturers
http://news.yahoo.com/s/kcra/20060508/lo_kcra/3452610
I was just curious about some real world numbers on gas needs and use in America and was sort of surprised to see this pop up on Digg today.
Interesting, but not shocking that it pans out that way. I am sure the fine print in the advertising of course relates this reality of numbers do not represent all user's experiencing and all the other lying lawyers usually cook up,
but since these are the numbers they display in the big BOLD print--and seem to be the ones used in defending the current mileage rates versus raising fuel economy demands......
Considering the growing effect of gas prices these days should automakers be allowed to lie in their advertising any longer?
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
QUOTE
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.
"People are going into showrooms, they're looking at that sticker that says miles per gallon and they're saying, 'Oh it get goods miles per gallon,'" said Consumer Reports' David Champion. "In reality, they're being cheated."
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.
"People are going into showrooms, they're looking at that sticker that says miles per gallon and they're saying, 'Oh it get goods miles per gallon,'" said Consumer Reports' David Champion. "In reality, they're being cheated."
I was just curious about some real world numbers on gas needs and use in America and was sort of surprised to see this pop up on Digg today.
Interesting, but not shocking that it pans out that way. I am sure the fine print in the advertising of course relates this reality of numbers do not represent all user's experiencing and all the other lying lawyers usually cook up,
but since these are the numbers they display in the big BOLD print--and seem to be the ones used in defending the current mileage rates versus raising fuel economy demands......
Considering the growing effect of gas prices these days should automakers be allowed to lie in their advertising any longer?
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Considering the growing effect of gas prices these days should automakers be allowed to lie in their advertising any longer?
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Your gas mileage will vary according to your driving habits. This is what folks need to understand. Otherwise, it's a matter of exercising the old noggin when buying a vehicle. The sticker mileage is the best that can be expected and probably out of reach, but if you grab a good tail wind, you might exceed it.
I've seen reports that some Prius owners have figured out how to get over 100 miles per gallon using a pulse technique -- accelerate up and coast, up and coast, etc. and so on. I guess that would work on flat roads.
Oh, and don't expect any good mileage out of big trucks and SUVs, or anything that's built for speed. It's just common sense.
If all the car manufacturers lie in the same way, the mileage numbers are good for comparison shopping. Hey, my Jeep gets 99 miles to the gallon on a downhill 7% grade, according to the computer readout. Around 26 mpg on average, and I think it was rated at 28 mpg on the sticker. At some point, all the numbers are technically true.
Let's just be thankful that mileage doesn't take into consideration the rotation of the Earth and its orbital speed.
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Your gas mileage will vary according to your driving habits. This is what folks need to understand. Otherwise, it's a matter of exercising the old noggin when buying a vehicle. The sticker mileage is the best that can be expected and probably out of reach, but if you grab a good tail wind, you might exceed it.
I've seen reports that some Prius owners have figured out how to get over 100 miles per gallon using a pulse technique -- accelerate up and coast, up and coast, etc. and so on. I guess that would work on flat roads.
Oh, and don't expect any good mileage out of big trucks and SUVs, or anything that's built for speed. It's just common sense.
If all the car manufacturers lie in the same way, the mileage numbers are good for comparison shopping. Hey, my Jeep gets 99 miles to the gallon on a downhill 7% grade, according to the computer readout. Around 26 mpg on average, and I think it was rated at 28 mpg on the sticker. At some point, all the numbers are technically true.
Let's just be thankful that mileage doesn't take into consideration the rotation of the Earth and its orbital speed.
Considering the growing effect of gas prices these days should automakers be allowed to lie in their advertising any longer?
Technically, auto makers do achieve the advertised MPG ratings--under ideal conditions. Of course the real world is far from ideal.
This quote struck me as funny:
I don't know anyone who brings their calculator to the showroom and figures: well I drive 8.8 miles to and from work, 5 times a week. That's 88 miles per week so if I get a Prius I'll only use 2 gallons per week! Maybe someone does that, but nobody that I know.
Instead, MPG rating are used as a comparison tool. Priuses (
) get about double (maybe two and a half times) the fuel efficiency of a Ford Explorer.
As this government site says:
I like their creative use of the word "typical" (which usually represents sort of average conditions, typically
).
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Who is going to compile these "real world" statistics? Should you count AC running and drivers in the Rocky Mountains in these estimates? I doubt drivers stuck in LA rush hour are getting their advertised MPGs. The real world is too varied to take this into account.
Now, the proposed revision of the EPA test procedure should be a good step forward. EPA Press Release. Notice how this does not effect CAFE standards, which are administered by the Dept. of Transportation (specifically the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). I think we need more government agencies involved here...
Technically, auto makers do achieve the advertised MPG ratings--under ideal conditions. Of course the real world is far from ideal.
This quote struck me as funny:
QUOTE
It's the mileage you probably used to decide if the car fit your monthly budget.
I don't know anyone who brings their calculator to the showroom and figures: well I drive 8.8 miles to and from work, 5 times a week. That's 88 miles per week so if I get a Prius I'll only use 2 gallons per week! Maybe someone does that, but nobody that I know.
Instead, MPG rating are used as a comparison tool. Priuses (
) get about double (maybe two and a half times) the fuel efficiency of a Ford Explorer.As this government site says:
QUOTE
The EPA ratings estimate the MPG a "typical" driver should get under "typical" city and highway conditions. However, most drivers and driving environments aren't typical, and the factors that affect fuel economy can vary significantly:
Driver Behavior & Driving Conditions
Vehicle Condition & Maintenance
Variations in Fuels
Inherent Variations in Vehicles
Engine Break-In
So, the EPA rating is a useful tool for comparing vehicles when car buying, but it may not accurately predict the average MPG you will get.
Driver Behavior & Driving Conditions
Vehicle Condition & Maintenance
Variations in Fuels
Inherent Variations in Vehicles
Engine Break-In
So, the EPA rating is a useful tool for comparing vehicles when car buying, but it may not accurately predict the average MPG you will get.
I like their creative use of the word "typical" (which usually represents sort of average conditions, typically
).Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Who is going to compile these "real world" statistics? Should you count AC running and drivers in the Rocky Mountains in these estimates? I doubt drivers stuck in LA rush hour are getting their advertised MPGs. The real world is too varied to take this into account.
Now, the proposed revision of the EPA test procedure should be a good step forward. EPA Press Release. Notice how this does not effect CAFE standards, which are administered by the Dept. of Transportation (specifically the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration). I think we need more government agencies involved here...
Considering the growing effect of gas prices these days should automakers be allowed to lie in their advertising any longer?
They aren't liying. The figures they give for mpg are real, under the conditions specified, which have to be the same for all vehicles being tested (a constant 56 mph, and 'urban cycle', for example).
Of course, they may only explain the test conditions in very small print, but these are real fuel consumption figures. As has been mentioned, the fuel figures are only really there for comparison. You should no more expect to be able to match exactly the consumption figures shown in the brochure than you should be able to match the maximum speed figures - measured, as they are, on a closed speed circuit with a perfect road surface and a car in showroom condition. (Speaking for myself, I routinely get higher mpg than my car was advertised at, as well as lower, depending on where I am going, under what conditions, and the way I drive to get there.)
But this whole question misunderstands what advertising is for - it is there to make you want to buy the product or service in the first place, and to make you feel good about having done so afterwards (marketing textbooks will tell you that this latter function - combating 'congitive dissonance' is the main function of consumer car advertising).
It's like a dating service. Are you going to post a photograph of yourself with spots and a beergut having just got out of bed after a heavy night, or one of you smiling, well groomed and looking your best? Provided you aren't doing what lots of online daters do, and positng a photo that's 15 years and 60 pounds out of date, both are telling 'the truth', or at least an aspect of it.
And if you're surprised that advertising shows its products and services in a bad light, you really are going to be devastated when I tell you what bears do in the woods...
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Whose real world?
Someone small who drives alone over long distances on empty roads in an unladen vehicle?
Or someone large and heavy who takes all six of their large and heavy family with them, along with their luggage and some shopping, while towing a trailer, and stopping & starting on multiple short trips through rush-hour traffic?
Or somewhere in between? What, specifically, should the "real world" conditions be?
They aren't liying. The figures they give for mpg are real, under the conditions specified, which have to be the same for all vehicles being tested (a constant 56 mph, and 'urban cycle', for example).
Of course, they may only explain the test conditions in very small print, but these are real fuel consumption figures. As has been mentioned, the fuel figures are only really there for comparison. You should no more expect to be able to match exactly the consumption figures shown in the brochure than you should be able to match the maximum speed figures - measured, as they are, on a closed speed circuit with a perfect road surface and a car in showroom condition. (Speaking for myself, I routinely get higher mpg than my car was advertised at, as well as lower, depending on where I am going, under what conditions, and the way I drive to get there.)
But this whole question misunderstands what advertising is for - it is there to make you want to buy the product or service in the first place, and to make you feel good about having done so afterwards (marketing textbooks will tell you that this latter function - combating 'congitive dissonance' is the main function of consumer car advertising).
It's like a dating service. Are you going to post a photograph of yourself with spots and a beergut having just got out of bed after a heavy night, or one of you smiling, well groomed and looking your best? Provided you aren't doing what lots of online daters do, and positng a photo that's 15 years and 60 pounds out of date, both are telling 'the truth', or at least an aspect of it.
And if you're surprised that advertising shows its products and services in a bad light, you really are going to be devastated when I tell you what bears do in the woods...
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Whose real world?
Someone small who drives alone over long distances on empty roads in an unladen vehicle?
Or someone large and heavy who takes all six of their large and heavy family with them, along with their luggage and some shopping, while towing a trailer, and stopping & starting on multiple short trips through rush-hour traffic?
Or somewhere in between? What, specifically, should the "real world" conditions be?
Considering the growing effect of gas prices these days should automakers be allowed to lie in their advertising any longer?
Another moronic and evil question, wherein corporations are blamed for the unsatisfactory results of their adherence to government mandates. (see Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether, aka "MTBE") The test protocols are set by the government, the very design and layout of the window sticker on the car are set by the government, in short, blame the government for the "lies."
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
As noted, "who's real world?" Due to the substantial differences in driver behavior, road and environmental conditions, as well as performance differences between two cars that come off the assembly line one after the other, "real world" is a pretty nebulous concept. A standard such as the EPA standard allows comparisons, but it also creates its own problems. The shortcomings of the standards have been known for at least 2 decades, but the gov't has yet to change them. Should they be changed? Perhaps, but again, how?
Here's a simple solution: be a responsible consumer. There are a LOT of other sources for "real world" mileage ratings. Use those, rather than expecting the gov't to mandate that you be spoon fed.
Another moronic and evil question, wherein corporations are blamed for the unsatisfactory results of their adherence to government mandates. (see Methyl Tertiary-butyl Ether, aka "MTBE") The test protocols are set by the government, the very design and layout of the window sticker on the car are set by the government, in short, blame the government for the "lies."
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
As noted, "who's real world?" Due to the substantial differences in driver behavior, road and environmental conditions, as well as performance differences between two cars that come off the assembly line one after the other, "real world" is a pretty nebulous concept. A standard such as the EPA standard allows comparisons, but it also creates its own problems. The shortcomings of the standards have been known for at least 2 decades, but the gov't has yet to change them. Should they be changed? Perhaps, but again, how?
Here's a simple solution: be a responsible consumer. There are a LOT of other sources for "real world" mileage ratings. Use those, rather than expecting the gov't to mandate that you be spoon fed.
I have to go with the conservatives on this one- you are an idiot if you believe the numbers in those windows- and the numbers are what the gov't mandated to THEM- not what they wished to produce. If you really believe your Hemi Dodge Durango is going to get 16mpg in the city- well, stupid is as stupid does- and stupid is expensive!
And the car manufacturer are just adhering to the standards they were forced to use.
In fact, this is one area that the car manufacturers should be allowed to write thier own standards, as long as they are universal.
Quite frankly- this is a great selling point they would be able to use- and WOULD use- to sell cars with larger profit margins than SUVs.
Considering the growing effect of gas prices these days should automakers be allowed to lie in their advertising any longer?
Why in the world do you use the word “lie” here? The manufacturers do the test as REQUIRED by the law. The fools here are the idiots who defined the test criteria. The question you may want to ask is – did industry have a say in the test criteria and the answer is certainly yes.
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Where would you get “real world stats” and what are they? AAA and others have a list of recommendations to change the criteria for this test. The regulators who set the criteria are considering them now. Best to contact you congressman and let him/her know you would like to see it done RIGHT this time, including real world speeds, AC, cold starts in north etc.
Why in the world do you use the word “lie” here? The manufacturers do the test as REQUIRED by the law. The fools here are the idiots who defined the test criteria. The question you may want to ask is – did industry have a say in the test criteria and the answer is certainly yes.
Should real world gas usage statistics (averages) be used and represented during talks about increasing the fuel efficiency of cars in relation to rising energy costs?
Where would you get “real world stats” and what are they? AAA and others have a list of recommendations to change the criteria for this test. The regulators who set the criteria are considering them now. Best to contact you congressman and let him/her know you would like to see it done RIGHT this time, including real world speeds, AC, cold starts in north etc.
My car is 3 years old. The sticker said 23 city, 31 highway. My mileage in the winter has been around 26 on average, and in the summer it's 29. I'm guessing that this is due to the summer fuel formulation, because it just went up again last week, after the oil companies re-blended. I regularly get 33-35 on strictly highway driving. Should I complain about the manufacturers 'lying' about the mph being too low?
I vote for a more realistic standard, but in my case, the measures were on-target. It's a manual and I drive a mix of city / highway, so maybe I'm closer to the standard test than others?
I vote for a more realistic standard, but in my case, the measures were on-target. It's a manual and I drive a mix of city / highway, so maybe I'm closer to the standard test than others?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.