What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.127 Comments
- tokachu, on 10/12/2007, -19/+50The title itself ("Pain At The Pump: Government Gas Secrets") is completely inaccurate. There's nothing secret about how EPA fuel efficiency measurements are made. In fact, it's a good idea: rather than using millions of kinds of roads during millions of kinds of weather, they test the vehicles under a regulated, scientific environment. The lab results are meant to provide a standard number to compare with other standard numbers.
There's no "pain at the pump", either: the United States has the highest per-capita median income on the planet, and for the most part raw materials like fuel and food are incredibly cheap in the U.S. Subsequently, I'm flagging this as "inaccurate". - gage006, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17I think that's the problem. We want real numbers. 46% off is not an acceptable error.
- rodball, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12The article is very interesting. I had no idea that the required tests and real world conditions could produce such disparate results. I wonder if any company in particular had generally more realistic mileage estimates. (Even Honda Civic turned out to get almost 50% less miles per gallon.)
This helped cure me of my new car envy, particularly since gas is so high now. I've had my eye on some of these 40+ mpg vehicles. (Honda Civic, for one!) Now it turns out my old clunker doesn't compare too badly at all with them.
Minor point: the article states that the standards for measuring mileage were set during the Ford administration. This was about the same time (or before) the OPEC trouble in the 70s and the resulting gas lines. Why wasn't this a big topic then? Everyone drove much more inefficient vehicles than they do now. - Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I really don't find this too surprising. The government tests were designed to create a level playing field (no pun intended). Putting them on a rolling conveyor rather than a real road clearly produces completely standardized results.
It makes a fair amount of sense to measure without aircon on too, if you are trying to produce a baseline figure. The main problem is the lack of wind resistance. That really screws the realworld figures given tghe amount of time and money that car manufacturers have spent over the last two decades with computer modelling and wind tunnels.
In the meantime, the important thing is not the absolute figures given, but the *comparative* figures - which model do better worse. - merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Part of the problem is that everyone drives differently, over different roads in different climates.
Driving style alone accounts for a good 10% of gas usage -- the faster you accelerate and harder you break, the more gas you'll use.
If I drive my car through the flatest parts of Kansas, and then take it to hilly San Francisco, I'm going to get TOTALLY different milage.
At any rate, it's really easy to see how many miles you're getting per gallon. Next time you fill your tank (note: you must fill it all the way), reset your trip odometer. Then, the next time you get gas, fill up again, and compare the number of gallons of gas you pump to the trip odometer. Say you've used 14 gallons, and driven 420 miles.
420 miles / 14 gallons = 30 MPG. - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference."
*****. I have this exact vehicle; I've driven it for over 3 years and I do much, much better than 26mpg. I usually get about 38 in the city, and 46 freeway. - rocjoe71, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8They might not have been inefficient, they just had bigger engines and bigger cars.
For an example, go see any Chrysler New Yorker or a Ford Galaxy from the 60's. They're enormous and they're made from solid steel, no alloys, fiberglass or plastic in sight. Some of the later Ford Galaxy models actually used the same engine as a pickup truck (a "358" I think...)
Its not exactly right to say they were inefficient, they moved 2 tons of steel very efficiently otherwise no one would have been able to get anywhere at all in a car. Cars then were just not built from an economic standpoint, the present-day SUV... - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Wow I can't believe these ridiculous arguments about "continuity" and controlled conditions. We do not care about gas mileage as some vaporous abstract metric, but as a means of estimating how much gas might cost to run a car. Yes, different people can get different economy from the same car, but Consumer Reports is at least making a stab at providing a number that has some kind of real world meaning.
The real reason the standard hasn't changed is because the manufacturers like to keep the bar static and low. The standard mentioned is clearly bogus. Wind resistance is a major factor in highway fuel economy and cannot be excluded and still produce a meaningful number. It reminds me of the ridiculous situation with HP ratings on cars. Originally, they were ratings of the motor directly. Then, the stupid SAE ratings came out, with arbitrary correction factors. All they needed to do is put the dang car in gear and measure the power at the wheels, but they'd rather come up with an artificial method that makes it easy to fudge things. - EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It's my understanding that measuring MPG this way is required by law. Even if a car manufacturer wanted to list more accurate results they couldn't. The issue is becoming painfully obvious now because the test particularly distorts fuel economy for hybrids. In the past the test was somewhat accurate for comparing relative economy but that is no longer the case.
It's good to hear they're finally working on a new model. - o2sk8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5While it's true most other parts of the world have significantly higher gas prices than us, many of those places have significantly less commute distance as well. Additionally, it's not just that people are complaining because the price is so high, but they are complaining because the price is so high relative to what it was just a short time ago. The cost of a gallon of gas has more than doubled in the past five years FOR NO REASON.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"actual milage may vary"
So this applies to anyone not driving on a treadmill under controlled lab conditions, right? :P - ramiro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6A better digg about this subject had been submitted before http://digg.com/links/Why_are_you_not_getting_the_EPA_mileage_on_your_car
but the title was too explicit to make front page.
Digg users like to be fooled into thinking they are the privileged few about to discover a - oh! - secret, so the title "Gas Secrets" and the description that doesn't tell anything about the news piece attract diggers. - srodolff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4So, EPA estimates are not accurate......
That means that all estimates are inaccurate to the same level. It is still a valid comparison tool. A 35MPG car still gets better mileage than a 15MPG car. - thirdtenor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5kind of annoying there was no link to the CR site
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/ratings/a-guide-to-stretching-your-fuel-dollars.htm?resultPageIndex=1&resultIndex=7&searchTerm=fuel - Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7"It's the mileage you probably used to decide if the car fit your monthly budget."
Ummm, nope MPG has never been a deciding factor in the purchase of a car or truck for me.
Horsepower, yes.
Torque, yes.
0-60 time, yes.
Options (power seats, windows, locks, cruise control 4 wheel drive (for trucks)), yes
MPG, nope.
If the number of miles you get per gallon actually can make or break your monthly budget, maybe you should look into public transportation, or a bike/scooter. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Let's assume the article is accurate. Doesn't that mean that ALL automobiles gas milage are being misrepresented? So it's not to say that one manufacturer's mileage is truer or not. They are all wrong. So in that sense, yes, the mileage is misrepresented. But if they are all misrepresented "equally" well than you maybe still be picking a car for it's better mileage over another and that would still be accurate. Just not the number of miles. Does that make sense?
- smhill, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree. At least there is a standard, even though it may not reflect any actual milage numbers. As you said it is comparative.
Imagine if every company was able to conduct their own tests. The numbers would be more inaccurate and you would lose any comparative value.
Maybe if they a assigned it a arbitrary number on a scale or something. Car A gets 4.5 fuel consumption rating while car B gets a 3.8. Not any more helpful, but at least abstracted a bit. - fohf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@Drizzit
Actually the U.S. doesn't pay the highest for gas. Japan pays over a dollar per liter of gas (3.79 liter = 1 gallon) so they are paying close to $4.00 a gallon and this was 4 years ago. Whatever news agency you got the info from is wrong. - tonicboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@Drizzit
"when you take out taxes we still pay more" Nice try, but in America, as elsewhere, we do in fact PAY THE TAXES, so what's the point of not factoring that in to the comparison? And when you do take taxes into account, we have some of the cheapest gas prices in the world.
http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/
(keep in mind that those figures were for last March, when our own prices were around $2/gallon.) - cybersamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4this way of testing gives us a baseline in perfect conditions. while it is not really usefull for predicting the actual fuel consumption, it still shows that one car is better than another. 30 mpg cheating is better than 20 mpg cheating, and since they all cheat, it is still a relative and usefull comparison.
- carve, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wind resistance IS accounted for. They take the coefficient of drag and the frontal area into account when they tell the dynamometer how big of a load to put on the motor. Did you think they used the same dynamometer load on an Insight as on an Excursion? How about a Corvette and a Tahoe? Similar driveline, but the Vette has far better highway mileage, largely due to aerodynamics.
- PilotBob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8No one should be surprised by this. I think even the EPA says that they "actual milage may vary". These numbers should only be used for comparison purposes and not as a practical number.
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5"It's the mileage you probably used to decide if the car fit your monthly budget."
No, everyone knows that you do not get the advertised mileage.
My Ford Explorer with a V8 had an advertised 15-19 MPG. When purchasing it I estimated it would get 14-15 MPG, and I was right on. Basically take the city MPG subtract a little bit, and that's it. - SpeedyG, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4How is this any different from, say, a computer with a 3 GHz processor speed rarely getting that kind of speed because of a myriad of real-world factors? But yet we still imply government coverup... because they haven't changed the way they test gasoline in 30 years?
Inaccurate. - mechengr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dude, learn2spell
- pencilneck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Nothing new in that artical.... at all. Hardly any "secret" stuff to be found.
The EPA ratings can and will vary from your real world use. It is more a rating in that "this is what the car can do in terms of MPG" rather than "this is what you can expect for MPG". People who've been suckered into the hybrid hype have learned this leason quickly.
But the test results are useful... if all cars are tested under the same conditions, then you can see how car X is better than car Y and that SUV Z sucks gas down faster than you can pump it.
My MPG rating in my "real world" is different than the EPA listing... the car is rated at 47MPG on the highway, I've gotten 52MPG. 04 Jetta Wagon TDI PD w/manual trans. - toddv, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Minor inaccuracy: Jimmy Carter was president in the late '70s, not Gerald Ford.
Major inaccuracy: there has been nothing "secret" about the testing regulations--they have been public knowledge since the '70s. - philmunt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Figures between cars I would imagine would be reasonably comparative if it weren't for the lack of wind resistance. Aerodynamic profiles could cause a large problem as far as comparability goes.
- bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think motorweek did a chrysler 300 where one car drove like a maniac and another drove like a mattress salesman. one was consitently 17mpg, where was the other was 22mpg. same car.
- hokieaudi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4@ rocjoe71
Metallurgically speaking steel *is* an alloy of iron and carbon. Aside from maybe gold and platinum you want your metals to be alloyed, they tend to be poorly suited for engineering applications otherwise. - ZombieFlanders, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Inane,
It's very likely. Mostly, the different fuel companies get the same oil from the pipeline, and then just add their own "ingredients" to it after refining. So each brand of fuel definitely does have some differences, albeit within certain tight specifications. The specs are similar enough across the board so that car makers don't have to worry about things like fuel line o-rings breaking down, and government agencies can reasonably expect certain energy and emissions performance. - fani, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6My 2004 BMW was rated as : 19 city/ 27 highway.
I normally get : 22 city / 28 highway. With all the gizmos on ( a/c, stereo, computer sensors, navigation etc. )
So I'm happy with the info given to me by BMW before I bought my car.
Oh ! and what helps is - I don't drive like a maniac, don't floor the pedals, keep to posted speed limits, use cruise controls on long drives, have good tire pressure and don't idle the engine for long times. - jschrab, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Digg has a "Check Spelling" feature - use it. Please.
- astrotrain, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Another lame local news company trying to get more ratings....they just realized there is an issue at the gas pumps and carmanufatures have been lying to us on the mpg that car companies state vs. what we really get.
Next story on KCRA3, our bloopers of us saying the four letter word when we mess up on camera... - bacon_skoda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3hybrid basically get the bonus mileage when you stop and wait at stop lights and crusing at parking lots or stop and go traffic. CR's test obviously didn't go heavy on those. If you test only has hills and never stop, then the hybrid will most certainly lose. so this gets back to why the EPA does what it does. Does CR's "real world" really apply to everyone's real world? Kansas or San Francisco is the same as CR's Conneticut track? I don't think so.
I know in San Francisco, people can cruise for 15 minutes just trying to find parking on bad days.
EPA numbers are "max" numbers under ideal conditions. sort of like your pentium and Athlon numbers under Ideal conditions. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3everything is over hyped..
I think most people would assume that it is the maximum milage under optimal conditions.
my wireless keyboard says it works out to 6 feet but at 5 feet it doesnt work well.
batteries that say they last for 4 hours normally last for 3
and sunscreen just got blasted for making up the numbers on sunscreen.. wow spf 48 i must be protected for 2 days..
bah people just need to be skeptical and read unbias reviews of everything
If someone out there really has a product that is living up to it's promisses then they arent advertising well. - webXL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Did you go faster than 70? Was there traffic? was the A/C on?
I doubt the air intake would matter that much, although it is supposed to add to performance (bringing cooler air to the engine, I guess), so maybe it uses more gas then. - NakedSnake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Pretty lame "secret" as this was no secret to me. I thought this was common knowledge among drivers?
- MichaelDoherty, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3None of this is secret and if you're not aware that the EPA gives you an estimated rating, then you're blind and dumb. Real world fuel economy depends more on how you drive, not on what car you drive. For instance, most cars are capable of hypermiling, i.e. getting better than the EPA estimate. People just don't drive that way. They idle too long, accelerate too fast, load up their cars with junk they don't need, etc... I can take the most efficient car in the world and ruin it's fuel economy or I can make something of it. It's all up to the driver!
- phlux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The only thing I dont knwo about the test is if the resistance of the "treadmill" is calibrated to simulate bringing the vehicle's weight up to speed. Or if they are measuring the fuel consumption at a flat out pace of X MPH ...
If you could simulate variable resistance to the tires/vehicle via the "treadmill" then that would alter the effective load on the engine asa car in the real world experiences and likely yeild a more accurate result...
I have a Volvo XC90 - I bought the smaller engine/2 wheel drive version because the sticker advertised as much as 6 MPG more than the AWD larger engine (the V* wasnt an option unti lthe '05 year) - After driving this thing for 2 years - I was very upset in that the internal MPG calcualtor told me I was getting 17 MPG on average. Now after the car has "broken in" (whatever that means) - I average (according to the internal calculator only) ~20MPG...
I dont do any of those tricks for increasing fuel economy. I drive 80+ MPH consistently and accelerate rather rapidly.
I drive faster because I want to spend less time on the road...
but the cost to fuel the vehicle has gone from 40 when I bought it to 60 now (Premium fuel only)
-Phlux
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
"Its hard to advance Freedom in a country strangled by tyranny" - G.W. Bush - 4/13/04 - bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Very true, but if I'm in the market to drop 20k on a car I'd like to know realistically what I'm gonna spend on gas. That's especially true these days. :P
- inane, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Good observation. My friend has a 79 Ford with one of those giant toolboxes that replaces the bed and that truck fully loaded with tools and pulling a small trailer still got better mileage than my 2001 Dodge Ram Hemi with no load. There's something terribly wrong here folks.
- webXL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4My Toyota 4Runner V8 4WD was rated 16/19 and my last tank got me 18.7 MPG with about 200 highway miles and 180 city miles. I think Toyota's estimate is pretty honest and I'm amazed because it's a "gas-guzzler". But I also don't drive like a maniac and I use the AC as little as possible.
- senfo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What you fail to realize is that nations build their lifestyles based on the cost of living. When the price of gas suddenly more the doubles in less than a year, the cost of living increases drastically. As wages have remained mostly unchanged, it's quite understandable how some people are getting hit hard with the increase in prices.
- m0nk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2My 2006 Hyundai Elantra GT 5-speed has a trip computer to tell the average mpg that the car gets under the current conditions. I've also measured this meter against the miles I could get on a full tank of gas and the computer is totally accurate. The sticker said 27-31 mpg city, 30-34 mpg highway. I've been getting a steady 31 mpg with the A/C on and I drive rather fast.
I think the real problem isn't the standards that they're computing the mpg for the sticker, it's actually that the EPA should be requiring higher gas mileage no matter what from every single car that's sold in the US. - hammerattack, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2You have to love sensationalist muckraking journalism.
a) Just because something is not widely know does not make it a secret. A secret is something for which deliberate steps have been taken to conceal the nature or contents of. Point in fact, the EPA has long published it's testing methodologies.
b) Any idiot knows that the sticker and the reality don't agree. For instance, SUV's that are avertised at 18 MPG city typically get as little as 12 MPG city. OTOH, some SUV's get as much as 35 to 40 MPG on the highway because engines with more cylinders require less fuel to maintain constant velocities (or, more properly, constant power output).
c) No test can reasonably deliver numbers which describe the behavior of the driver themself, and that is the biggest factor affecting mileage by far. Heavy footed drivers who accelerate rapidly, lope their speed on the highway, and treat every green light like a drag race will turn even the most judicious gas sipper into a CO2 factory. Smooth easy acceleration will maintain the fuel consumed by the car to get to speed. Maintaining a two to five second following distance (two to ten car lengths for every 10 mph is a good judge) allows you to minimize braking and allows you to coast while the driver in front of use wastes their gas to get back up to speed; it's also far safer by giving you a reaction time buffer. Even the best drivers have a few milliseconds of 'oh *****' before they being to calculate appropriate emergency maneuvers. Most of you are already crashing into something before you realize anything has gone awry. Lastly, do your damnedest to maintain a constant velocity. Speed really doesn't matter, and some people who don't know jack ***** about physics will tell you to do the speed limit, but the fact of the matter is that for most cars a difference of 80 mpg is less than a mile per gallon. Lastly, I can't emphasize this enough, but track your fuel mileage by keeping track of how much gas you put in your car and how far you drove on that gas. A slow decrease in mileage over time can indicate the need for maintenance. Usually it's a tuneup, but sometimes you can watch your mileage go up as your clutch wears down to the rivets, or your trannys valve body becomes clogged. If you're a true geek, you can get a mileage meter that connects to your fuel pressure regulator and vss wire (literally a four wire setup), and it gives you instant readings on MPG. This can be a great way to reinforce good driving habits. They do this with the Prius, only in a cartoon fashion, and many owners actually make a game out of managing their hybrid drivetrain to maximize their mileage.
d) The EPA recently announced an overhaul of mileage ratings. It's still going to be wrong, but it's going to be much closer to real world conditions. Expect all numbers to drop, particularly for hybrids and mini cars. SUV's, not so much. - lunarship, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not particularly widely known in the States this, perhaps, but the UK government are pretty upfront about it. You do sometimes actually see on TV car adverts an MPG quoted, when it has to be accompanied by wording such as "achieved at a constant 56MPH". :-)
Some cars also come with an MPG gauge as well, to help work out how efficient your driving is (I think my dad's girlfriend's car has one, but I'm not 100% sure on that so I won't quote the model.) - towjam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1damn!!!!! , thats crazy , as if the gas prices weren't enough.................... now we have to worry about these ***** cars that the companies are producing.
- tokachu, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Stop posting your car's fuel efficiency stats. Nobody cares.
Just post your VIN instead for all the stalkers out there. - Xiol, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@Drizzt.
Works out at nearly $7 a gallon in the UK. (93p/litre)
You have the cheapest petrol anywhere, shut up. -
Show 51 - 100 of 126 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is