New EPA Testing Criteria

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Starfall @ Dec 11 2006, 07:58 PM) [snapback]360665[/snapback]</div>

Now most Prius drivers and nearly all TCH drivers will exceed the EPA values. Life is good.

 

We're gonna see a huge increase in the "I beat the EPA" thread, aren't we?

Heck, a 30% drop means the Prius will be 42 city, 35.7 highway - i'm not even getting that low now during the winter!

 

What? Are they running the EPA highway test at 80MPH now?
I almost always acheive EPA of 50 on the highway. How can they lower the highway #? City, yes. I've never acheived 60 in the city and never will. It should be 50/50.

 

What would be really sweet... if Toyota could come out with the next gen of the Prius for the 2008 MY (since the mileage estimates are already on the 2007s, i doubt they'll change the stickers)... Imagine having all this hype about how Hybrid numbers will drastically drop with the 08 MY, and then the Prius actually goes up!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 12 2006, 10:48 AM) [snapback]360847[/snapback]</div>

Maybe there should be an EPA and EPA Classic thread.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 12 2006, 06:48 AM) [snapback]360847[/snapback]</div>

I probably am getting as low as 35 in the city, but that's because I drive never more than two or three miles at a time in town. I get my overall mpg back up to about 50 by driving to and from Spokane. The temperatures were in the mid 20s (F), but are not back up to the mid 30s. Now 35.7 highway might be right, if you took the average after driving only 5 miles, but if warmed up it should be at least 45 mpg, unless you do an awful lot of very "bad" driving.

Dave M.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Darwood @ Dec 12 2006, 06:48 AM) [snapback]360848[/snapback]</div>

Actually, they should be quoting all averages with the information of how long (time) the car is running, and the speed at which they are doing the test.

Dave M.

 

To qualify for the carpool lane in California, a hybrid car has to get at least 40mpg combined milage. Wouldn't it be funny (or not) if Prius no longer qualified for the carpool lanes once the new numbers are announced?

 

Acoording to today's San Jose Mercury News: (don't know why hybrids have two numbers for city and for highway as well)

TOYOTA PRIUS
2007 OLD CALCULATION = City: 60 Highway: 51
2008 NEW CALCULATION = City: 42-48 Highway: 41-46

HONDA ODYSSEY
2007 = City: 19 Highway: 26
2008 = City: 17 Highway: 24

FORD FUSION
2007 = City: 23 Highway: 31
2008 = City: 20 Highway: 28.5

CHEVROLET TAHOE 1500
2007 = City: 15 Highway: 21
2008 = City: 13 Highway: 19

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jbarnhart @ Dec 12 2006, 11:16 AM) [snapback]361025[/snapback]</div>

In the previous discussion with Dave Hermance with the pre-release Camry Hybrid, it was thought that Prius and the Civic Hybrid would both still qualified for carpool after the new numbers.

Otherwise, it would be very funny, and maybe the bill sponsor might have to make amendments.

 

Doesn't anyone besides me find it disappointing that hybrid mileage numbers will fall so far? And I'm not complaining about the new EPA formula, I'm complaining that it took them so long to change it to reflect real world use.

How many Prii do you suppose have been sold to people because they thought they'd be getting 60mpg in the city? And Toyota even uses these numbers in their advertising, even though they know for a fact that these numbers are not even close to accurate.

Just one of the things that irks me about the Prius' MPG rating. I regularly exceed the highway rating so that's not a problem.

Vince

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Dec 12 2006, 05:31 PM) [snapback]361203[/snapback]</div>

The thing is, every car company advertises with their mileage numbers, not just Toyota. And they all are off from real world expectations. The one thing the EPA numbers are capable of doing, however, are giving an objective comparison between two cars based on identical testing conditions.I don't care if the sticker on the Prius says 60 and i only get 45 - the stickers on the other cars next to it that say 38 will only get 30, so i'm still coming out ahead.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 13 2006, 10:50 AM) [snapback]361437[/snapback]</div>

Yeah. I had done my research on consumer reports before buying so I knew how many miles I'd be getting. And the real mileage numbers will save me from the little annoyances, like when I last filled up, and the guy behind me asked, "do you get 60 in the city?" And I said no, about 44. But he was so delighted I didn't get 60 he just kept saying that until he got in his car and drove off (I think my comments must have just helped him win an argument or something. I don't know. It was a little strange.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(VinceDee @ Dec 12 2006, 06:31 PM) [snapback]361203[/snapback]</div>

If you lived in and around Manhattan and commuted into the city everyday you might exceed the City rating several times on a single daily drive. I used to commute back in the Dark Ages before hybrids. I took my Prius on a trip to see what the values might have been had I been driving a Prius.

They ranged from 25 mpg going across town in Manhattan to 75 to 90 mpg in heavy but moving traffic.

 

Here is an interesting statistical anomoly which is not readily apparent. Despite the massive drop in FE Ratings of the Prius under the new standard it actually is shown to be more efficient than before!! :blink: Taking the estimates published by the SJM from the prior post for the Prius and the Fusion

2007 Combined FE rating
Prius 55 mpg... using 18.2 gal/1000 mi driven
Fusion 27 mpg... using 37.0 gal/1000 mi driven
The Prius was theoretically saving 18.8 gal/1000 mi driven

2008 Combined FE rating ( est )
Prius 44 mpg... using 22.7 gal/1000 mi driven
Fusion 24 mpg... using 41.7 gal/1000 mi driven
The Prius now theoretically saves 19 .0 gal/1000 mi driven.

DING!!!

Only using 20.66 gal/1000 mi driven over the life of mine. ( see sig )

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Dec 13 2006, 06:50 AM) [snapback]361437[/snapback]</div>

I haven't found that to be true, for the most part. I've found that the EPA estimates have been very reliable for us. As a two car family, in the past 15 or so years we've owned about 10 vehicles (all purchased used except for the Celica and Prius):

Car.............................our mpg.....epa avg*....diff
1988 Toyota Celica.........30.............28............+2
1989 BMW 325ic.............20.............20.............0
1993 Honda Del Sol........33.............29............+4
1996 Geo Tracker...........26.............24............+2
1996 Honda Civic HB.......26.............32............-6
1997 Subaru Impreza......23.5..........26...........-2.5
1998 Jeep Cherokee.......17.5...........17...........+.5
2001 Toyota Tacoma.......18.............18.............0
2001 Honda Insight.........44.............56...........-12
2007 Toyota Prius...........44.............55...........-11

6 of those 10 cars met or exceeded the EPA numbers, with the Subaru coming close. Of the 3 cars that substantially didn't reach their EPA numbers, two of them are hybrids, the Insight and the Prius (the Honda Civic HB must have been an anomaly because I haven't seen any evidence from anyone else that supports the crappy mileage that I got from that car).

So, from my own personal experience, I've concluded that the EPA estimates have largely been reliable. It's only when they started measuring hybrids that they really started to fail badly, which is unfortunate, because it puts a bit of a black mark against the hybrids coming out of the gate, as far as public perception.

What do you suppose the public's reaction will be next year when the new EPA numbers come out for the Prius and Civic hybrids, and they're markedly lower than before even though these are the same cars as before?

Vince












*source: www.fueleconomy.org EPA combined average.

 

Every car but my prius has been pretty right on with EPA estimates. My 2000 Trans Am (28mpg) and Corvette (30mpg) both got better than EPA milage for freeway only and my truck was dead on at 16mpg mixed.

I think it all comes down to a percentages deal. When you lose 20% MPG on a 16mpg vehicle its not so much of a difference but 20% of 60mpg seems much larger. The funny thing is, while the numbers seem so much worse, the actual price you pay in gas is not so great because the milage is so high. IE. When I calculated my trip to Seattle from Sacramento using 60mpg and 48mpg the difference was on the order of $10 over 850miles worth of driving.

Example:

My Prius:

60mpg / 850miles = 14.16gallons * $2.85 = $40.77 spent in gas

Less 20% for EPA standards = 48mpg

48mpg / 850miles = 17.70gallons * $2.85 = $50.46 spent in gas

Total difference betwen 60mpg and 48mpg over 850miles is $9.69


Now the same kind of loss on a lower MPG type car would equal out much higher in the amount spent on gas simply because you are multiplying a larger volume of gas.

[/b]My 4x4 Z71:[/b]

16mpg / 850 = 53.125gallons * $2.85 = $151.40

Less 20% for whatever reason

12.8mpg / 850 = 66.41gallons * $2.85 = $189.25

Total difference between 16mpg and 12.8mpg over 850miles is $37.85

Even if the math is off a bit the point is the same. I'm just glad I can drive the Prius to my sister's instead of the truck. I save $138.79 and get to play MPG games all the way there. Woot! lol

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Dec 13 2006, 04:20 PM) [snapback]361929[/snapback]</div>

Yes, the late Dave Hermance and Toyota were/are very adamant that MPG is an entirely wrong metric for comparing vehicles' fuel efficiency because it's a nonlinear 1/x equation that ends up being compared linearly.

A better metric is gallons/liters per month, and a simple multiplication to go to year. Now, you have something that's truly linear and comparable between all vehicles.

The 20% EPA mpg loss is entirely misleading and a PR fire.