just got done watching a report on NBC Nightly News. appears that complaints about misleading EPA mileage estimates are not the exclusive problem of hybrids. AAA of So. CA is now advertising their own "real world" mileage figures and is trying to get a law introduced to change the way the EPA comes up with the numbers. some examples shown were a Mercedes and a Chrysler that both rated 21 mpg city and 29 mpg highway. according to AAA, real mileage was actually 15.7 and 17.3 mpg respectively. as you can see, that is a huge difference. that is the same as the Prius getting 34.86 to 38.41 mpg when rated at 51 and 60 mpg. so maybe we should count our blessings as only a very few of us are averaging figures that low
I saw the same report. I was sure they were going to mention the Prius, but they didn't. You can watch the report at this link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7128017/ I would love to view the report online, but Microsoft and NBC froze out Mac users quite a while ago.
I hope they don't change it. My current mileage in mixed driving is 59.7 for the last 250 miles. Perhaps they should revise it upward. I drive as fast as 80% of the other drivers. I anticipate red lights a little more.
they didnt mention the Prius because they were emphasizing the message that EPA figures were very very off target for other vehicles. for the Prius, most will find that the EPA is only about 10-15% high compared to real world figures for the average driver. that is why they were not mentioned. its because the EPA figures are relatively accurate for them. mentioning the Prius would have lessened the impact of the story. for many of us, our summer averages meet or exceeds the EPA so including the Prius would be counterproductive to the spin on the story. i have tracked every drop put into my car and before the switch to winter formula gas, my previous 5 tanks all averaged over 55 mpg. and i am at a distinct disadavantage in this area since E10 has been required here year round since 1988. one thing i might say to the EPA is their individual numbers may need work. i have to drive 75 mph to get my highway average down to their figure and i rarely if ever come close to the 60 mpg figure for city. in fact, my "real world" figures say about 55 highway and about 54-56 city. and its easy to maintain the highway figures and only on very good days can i make the city figures.
Manufacturers also likely build their cars to perform well on the tests, rather than real-world driving. They know exactly the conditions that they'll be driving under, so they can optimize their cars to perform best under those conditions.
Every car should be road tested on a sunny day in July and during a blizzard in February, and those are the number to be reported. Then, nobody would have room to complain...
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA\";p=\"70829)</div> When does the change from winter formula, to summer happen? Is it fixed or is it variable?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mikepaul\";p=\"70864)</div> Hi Mike: I *love* that idea! Maybe even a disclaimer as follows: "Winnipeg Snow Routing city fuel economy, January, -40: Your results may be as bad, maybe worse."
Re: If You Are Upset Because You Are Not Getting EPA Rated G I tend to do better than the EPA fuel economy values. I'm on my 11th tank getting 56 mpg. In my morning commute (30 mi @ 66 mph on highwy). I notice the MFD fuel economy values rise once things are warmed up (vs. when things are cold and just starting out). I anticipate red lights, maximize use of the cruise control, try to drive as if I have no brakes (anticipation). I'm about to add the 12th tank of fuel and will be interested to see what the fuel to distance value is.
Re: If You Are Upset Because You Are Not Getting EPA Rated G wellI'm averageing 4.6 ltrs per 100km The EPA average is 4.4ltrs per 100km I'm happy enough.. I get nearly 1000km from one 45ltr tank
