It's a common complaint among new-vehicle owners, and it's an especially ripe one given the cost of a gallon of gasoline these days. Drivers are complaining that their real-world fuel economy doesn't match up with the official estimate given by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). These figures are regularly included in published and Internet car guides, are posted on the window stickers of nearly every car and truck sold in theU.S., and are highly touted in automakers' advertising for all but the most-gas-swilling models. So why doesn't the car or truck you drive to and from work every day get the same fuel economy the government, the manufacturer, and us trusted legions of automotive journalists seem to promise it will? The answer is as simple as it is ultimately complex. New vehicles, as tested for their energy consumption, are never actually driven anywhere, much less to and from work, and their fuel economy ratings are not ultimately based on how much fuel they consume. Full Article
Part of the complaint stems from simple mathmatics. If all cars generally get 15% less than EPA, the discrepancy just feels bigger in a hybrid. 15% of 60 MPG is 9 MPG. That feels a whole lot bigger than 15% of 15 MPG (2.25 MPG). The average SUV driver doesn't care about 2 measly MPG, even though its the same percentage. Although I thought the article was pretty fair and balanced and not anti hybrid, I disagree about the comment regarding hybrids not achieving EPA especially on highway driving. Around town I average about 50-53 depending on the weather, which is about what I expect (~15% below). On the highway, I consistantly beat EPA, so I find that the opposite is true. I drive 115 miles to a cabin most weeekends. I fill before I leave and always get around 52 MPG (even got 56 once when I hit traffic). This is actually the first car I've ever seen that beats EPA in any form whatsover.
From the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/17/automobi...s/17hybrid.html? Apparently, some mfrs just want power, not energy savings.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood\";p=\"107504)</div> Yeah, I usually get much better than the average 51 MPG on the highways as well... usually about 55 or so depending on where i'm going. In my town, however, the terrain is somewhat hilly, so that substantially effects my city driving mileage. Plus, I've found that even in the middle of summer, because my morning commute is quite short (3 or 4 miles), the gas engine stays on for most of that trip. I get in the 40s or so.
The other problem is that fuel consumption metric in North America is upside down If we converter to fuel usage from milage, we get: 60 MPG = 3.9 L/100km 51 MPG = 4.6 L/100km so only 0.7 L/100 km, not that big a difference Now if we take the SUV 15 MPG = 15.7 L/100km 12.75 MPG = 18.5 L/100km 2.8 L/100 km = much bigger difference. This would cause much larger outcry with SUV owners the the MPG metric.
