EPA Proposes Grading System For Car Fuel Economy

suraj.sun writes with this snippet from CNET: "The EPA and Department of Transportation on Monday proposed a fuel economy label overhaul to reflect how electric and alternative fuel vehicles stack up against gasoline passenger vehicles. ... The changed label, mandated by the 2007 energy law, includes the same information on city and highway miles per gallon and estimated driving costs based on 15,000 miles a year now available. But the new labels add more comparative information, rating cars on mileage, greenhouse gas contribution, and other air pollutants from tailpipe emissions. That means that consumers can look at a label to see how one vehicle compares to all available vehicles, rather than only cars in a specific class. One label proposes grades, ranging from an A-plus to a D. There are no failing grades, since vehicles need to comply with the Clean Air Act."

Comments

Giant letter?

[WalksOnDirt]

Just how stupid do you have to be to need a giant letter grade on a car? I hope that version doesn't fly.

Re:Giant letter?

[cappp]

I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant. But a government agency tries to help consumers make decent choices by undermining the ability of companies to easily obscure certain basic information and they're told people want less info of a specific type. We’re a capricious lot.

I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.

Re:Giant letter?

[Rei]

It gets worse: they rate electric cars in miles per gallon. "Yeah, just fill 'er up with five gallons of electricity. Premium, please!" The EPA gathered together some focus group of yokels and found that they didn't know what a kilowatt hour was, and so decided to put everything into "gallons", which is an absurd measure for electricity.

Re:Giant letter?

[hairyfeet]

The basic problem is we humans, for all our talk of rationality, are about the most irrational "gut driven" creatures to ever draw breath. Hell I know I should probably care that my 99 Ford Ranger gets a whole 14 MPG, but you know what? I LIKE my Ranger. It's paid for, it has a nice stereo with MP3 player, hauls heavy loads without a bit of trouble (even though I mainly haul groceries in it, it is nice to be able to haul equipment when I need to), looks like new, rides great, etc.

Would having a bunch of MPG info have changed my mind? Probably not, even though it would have been nice to have, because I've always been a truck guy and I liked the way it looked and drove. Same as my GF always had "beep beep" cars until she had to take a Dodge Ram 4x4 as a loaner when her car was in the shop, fell in love with being higher off the ground (she is a short little thing) and not having to worry about getting stuck when she visits her dad on the mountain, and ended up trading in her car and keeping the Ram. Would have knowing the gas mileage difference made her keep the beep beep? Again probably not, as she says the Ram is the first vehicle she has ever had that just "seems built for her" and it makes her happy.

Sure we can talk a good game, but at least here in the USA we buy our vehicles on things like feel, looks, and comfort more than a bunch of numbers on a sticker. Numbers? We don't need no steenkin numbers!

Re:Giant letter?

[captainpanic]

I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant. But a government agency tries to help consumers make decent choices by undermining the ability of companies to easily obscure certain basic information and they're told people want less info of a specific type. We’re a capricious lot.

I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.

I wish I could mod that reply higher than +5.

The problem with people is exactly that: those who disagree will always shout the loudest... too little info, and the smart kids demand more. Too much info, all the lazy bastards complain that it's too complicated.
And our poor politicians listen to those who shout. Try to please those who shout (especially when it comes to insignificant things that can get a lot of media attention)... Although we've never been wealthier, never been healthier, politicians must think the average citizen in a Western country is deeply unhappy.

Anyway, the easy way out of this is: Include a very short and simple "executive summary" for the lazy and the dumb. Then add the extended list of facts below that for those who are interested.

How is this any better?

[pinqkandi]

They already have a 1 to 10 scale on the stickers, how is that any more difficult than an A+ through D system?

Misleading CO2

[Antony T Curtis]

The CO2 emission numbers would be misleading for battery electric and plug-in hybrids because it only states the tailpipe emissions.

Example... A battery-electric vehicle may use 34 KW/h of electricity per 100 miles. According to official data, in the USA, about 0.6 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every KW/h of electricity consumed. So for every 100 miles, about 20 Kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. So the data should state that 200g of CO2 is emitted per mile, not the 0g it currently states.

Ignoring other sources of CO2 emission and only looking at tailpipe emissions are misleading for technology which does not have a tailpipe. For example, a battery electric vehicle which uses 40 KW/h of electricity per 100 miles would release more CO2 into the atmosphere than many small gasoline vehicles.

That IS bad

[zippthorne]

battery-electric vehicle may use 34 KW/h of electricity

That IS bad. After only 3 years of engine-time, you'll need a full Nuke plant to power just *one* of those.

per 100 miles

Criminey! Assuming it averages about 50mph, that means it'll only take 23 hours to require a 1GW dedicated power plant, and it only gets worse from there!

Re:It's all BS

[blueg3]

With gallons/mile, fuel efficiency is linear instead of inverse-linear.

Underwriters Laboratories = safety testing

[Kupfernigk]

Unless UL has changed its mandate, its role is to safety test products (hence its name - it was set up by insurance underwriters to help control insurance costs.)

However, the mere fact that a coffee machine or a breadmaker is safe doesn't actually make it any use for making coffee or baking bread - in fact, in the UK, makers of nonfunctioning "water treatment" products market them as WRAS approved - which is purely safety testing.

Any commercially sponsored test is flawed. Did you ever see a car magazine give a BMW a bad review? Usually they give critical reviews of second tier manufacturers or small cars, which have near-zero "marketing" budgets, and criticise very expensive cars (that their readers can't afford and whose makers don't advertise with them). I'm happy to pay taxes to an organisation that won't go out of business by telling the truth.