Somewhat OT: EPA may be hiding fuel efficiency data

M

Mark 20 years ago

A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the

300HP motor to move it to their liking)?

"And the paper said that major improvements in engine technology over the last couple of decades have been mostly used to make cars faster, not more fuel-efficient."

Bigger, faster vehicles encourage faster speeds and more fuel consumption. And don't tell me it's a SAFETY issue - multiple airbags and crash testing make even small cars safer than last generation's behemoths.

Oh wait, I forgot... it's more FUN to drive your V8 SUV like an outlaw, and it's everyone's RIGHT to do so. Uh huh. I guess it's also OK to make the kids go hungry and shoeless as long as mommy and daddy can fill up the tanks on the dual family trucksters every 3 days.

This is one of those issues where I take sharp exception to the administration... they are doing little or nothing to encourage manufacturers to do the right thing and consumers into making an intelligent choice. I guess it will take an economic depression to force the issue. What a shame.

formatting link

Thanks for reading my little rant...

Vote

D

Dan J.S. 20 years ago

Until they make boats lighter, I need my v8 4runner SUV to tow my boat... cant really do it with anything else.. However, I bike to the train station and take the train to work... not about the money it costs to fill it up, its more about getting in shape...

Vote

M

MelvinGibson 20 years ago

Can't prove it by me. I own a 1971 econobox with an OHC 2.0L engine and a 4sp manual tranny. The EPA fuel rating is 23 MPG. My 300 HP V8 5sp automatic Mustang GT convertible has and EPA rating of 25 MPG. The Mustang is bigger, heavier, safer AND more fuel efficient. Same holds true for my 2005 Lincoln LS with an EPA rating of 27 MPG.

As to SUVS my one doughtier has a seven passenger SUVs that gets

20 MPG. Prier to buying the SUV she had to take their TWO 30 MPG cars whenever she, her husband and their four children went anywhere. Many people own two vehicles, one large and one small to use as needed

Why shouldn't the people that need want and can afford a larger safer SUV not buy what they want? The NHTSA reports to Congress show a marked reduction in the number of injures and death among children over the past five years that is attributed to the fact more, properly belted, children are riding in those larger safer vehicles

mike hunt

Mark wrote:

mike hunt

Mark wrote:

Vote

M

MelvinGibson 20 years ago

That works for you but many Americans commute far to work and live far from public transportation and have five or more people in there family. Half of the working people in NYC live one to two hours away from the city.

mike hunt

"Dan J.S." wrote:

Vote

B

Bassplayer12 20 years ago

snip

Europeans already went through that and drive more fuel efficient cars. Maybe when the price of fuel in North America matches the prices in Europe, people will learn to appreciate fuel efficient vehicules, which include diesels.

Vote

M

Mark 20 years ago

Most people can find reasons (or excuses) for their behavior, and I do not dispute that there are valid reasons for large and powerful vehicles, but not in the numbers seen these days. There are millions of ridiculously plush Escalades, Excursions, Suburbans, Hummers, Navigators etc. getting 10-12 mpg that are never used for more than runs to the grocery, golf outings or impressing the neighbors.

Maybe I am old fashioned, but I was taught that it is WRONG to waste, and that is exactly what our love affair with oversize vehicles is... a waste. And you know? In many cases those SUV drivers are the same people that will be standing around crying with their hands out when they lose their jobs because the economy tanks at the next big oil shock. It's all part of the "I want it all NOW" mentality that grips our country and causes people to go out and mortgage themselves to the hilt buying vehicles that cost more than they make in a year.

Vote

B

Bassplayer12 20 years ago

Submitted without comments.

formatting link

"The IIHS has been compiling crash death statistics since 1975 and reports that while the U.S. population has grown steadily, the rate of motor vehicle crash deaths per 100,000 people has declined by 29 per cent since then. However, declines in the last decade have been smaller. The death rate increased among motorcyclists, but decreased among passenger car occupants (including SUVs, light trucks AND vans), bicyclists, AND pedestrians."

formatting link

:Washington, D.C. - Preliminary estimates released today by the U.S. government reveal the highest number of motor vehicle deaths since 1990 and a 10 percent increase in SUV rollover deaths in the past year.

Vote

M

MajorDomo 20 years ago

I'm sure you are right, after all it is the same American consumer that is buying all the foreign products like Toyotas that are hollering about their jobs going off shore LOL

mike hunt

Mark wrote:

Vote

H

Hachiroku 20 years ago

Yeah, if you can. I'm not saying women drivers suck, but who drives most of the SUVs? Oh, and yeah, for the most part, women drivers DO suck, esp behind the wheel of a 4600 lb, top heavy TRUCK...

Vote

H

Hachiroku 20 years ago

There are a LOT of nice Station Wagons around...

Vote

M

Mark 20 years ago

Mike -

You seem to have a penchant for exaggeration and inaccuracy. Are you just forgetful or do you do it on purpose? Don't you think anyone will bother to check your claims?

The EPA didn't start conducting the current tests until the late 1970s, so you didn't even HAVE an estimate in 1971

formatting link

Only a fewmonths ago we discussed in detail the fact that EPA estimates aregenerally overstated. Even IF your 23mpg number is accurate for your 1971 "econobox" (98% cast iron/steel with a primitive carbureted engine by today's standards), I would certainly hope that we would have progressed enough in 35 YEARS to beat that number easily with a faster, heavier and much more expensive modern car that has 35 YEARS of advances in engine building and especially fuel injection and microprocessor-based electronic sensing and control. My Matrix weighs 2,800 pounds and easily gets 30mpg in mixed driving, although I do not consider it to be a prime economy car like the Echo.

Here are your EPA estimates by the way:

2005 Lincoln LS - 20 city / 26 hwy (6-cylinder), 18 city / 24 hwy (8-cylinder) - NOT 27 in any case

2005 Mustang GT 5 speed - 18 city / 25 HIGHWAY

Don't quote the HIGHWAY number and imply that is what you are going to get... I will call you on it every time

Vote

B

BenDover 20 years ago

The EPA figures are to be used as a comparison among vehicles that are all tested to the SAME standard, not the same USE. Some will drive mainly in cites and generally in lower gears. Other may drive only on the interstates. Winter, summer, elevation, humidity, etc. all effect fuel mileage. That why it says on the label 'your mileage my vary.' My experience in this business shows that most vehicles, on average, will do two miles less then the city mileage if driven only that way and easily do three miles more than the highway mileage when driven mostly that way.

Like most owners, one tends to mention the best mileage not their poorest or even average mileage. On a recent trip of 1,660 miles though several states I averaged 25.7 MPG in the Mustang. On a trip to Montreal from Delaware I averaged 27.3 with the LS. As to average mileage my 1983 Continental Mark VI has a fuel computer. I have never reset the average mileage accumulated setting over nearly 90K and it reads 23.1

My one son recently replaced a vehicle with a 30 MPG rating for a larger vehicle with a 25 MPG rating, that he uses to commute over

100 miles one way to work over mountainous roads. His average MPG is only two MPG less with the larger safer vehicle because the small vehicle need to be run in lower gears to clime the mountains while the lager V8 will run the mountains is top gear.

Why anyone would chooses to ride in a small car, rather than a larger safer vehicle to save a few dollars a week, does not make much sense to me.

mike hunt

Mark wrote:

Vote

B

Bassplayer12 20 years ago

Submitted without comment:

formatting link

"NHTSA's preliminary data for 2003 shows while passenger car fatalities declined by 778, SUV fatalities increased by 456. SUV fatalities in rollover crashes increased 10 percent in a single year, from 2,448 to 2,701. As the agency's press release noted, "This increase was partially accounted for by increases in SUV sales."NHTSA's preliminary data for 2003 shows while passenger car fatalities declined by 778, SUV fatalities increased by 456. SUV fatalities in rollover crashes increased 10 percent in a single year, from 2,448 to 2,701. As the agency's press release noted, "This increase was partially accounted for by increases in SUV sales."

Vote

B

Bassplayer12 20 years ago

Er, it's not MY point... I am not the author of the article.

Vote

Somewhat OT: EPA may be hiding fuel efficiency data

Join the Discussion

Didn't find your answer?