EU Car Makers Manipulating Fuel Efficiency Figures

pev writes with a report in The Guardian that "European car manufacturers are rigging fuel efficiency tests by stripping down car interiors, over inflating tyres, taping over panel gaps and generally cheating. This overestimates the figures by 25% to 50%. One would have thought that a simple clause stating that cars have to be tested in the conditions that they are sold in would have been obvious?"

Comments

Not surprised

[s4ltyd0g]

This is no different from dot matrix printer specifications from long ago. Sure your printer would do 250cps as long as all the characters were the number 1.

European Magic

[MightyYar]

This topic comes up every time we discuss fuel efficiency on here. Someone inevitably complains that the high-efficiency European cars are not available in the US, and then someone else points out that the Euro cars would not do very well on the EPA test. Hijinks ensue.

Re:European Magic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's made even more hilarious by the nonlinearity of the "miles per gallon" metric vs. the "liters per 100km" metric and by the fact that a British gallon and an American gallon are two different sizes.

Re:European Magic

[JDG1980]

The EPA tests aren't exactly a paragon of realism, either. There is at least as much fudging there. And to complicate things, the MPG figure you see on the window sticker is not the same figure used to calculate aggregate fuel efficiency for CAFE requirements.

Incidentally, one US-specific cause of MPG shortfalls is the use of ethanol. The cars are tested with pure gas, but regulations require a certain amount of ethanol to be blended into the real-world gasoline supply (up to 10% and the lobby wants to raise it higher), and this drastically hurts efficiency.

US Government Standards

[puddingebola]

The EPA standards that were implemented in 2008 supposedly imposed tougher standards on manufacturers, taking into account colder temperatures, faster driving, and AC use. I found in my own car I get much better mileage than what the window sticker advertised. A little surprised the US seems better regulated on this one small issue.

Re:Slow news day?

[rickb928]

Most of the cars I've driven could meet or exceed the MPG specs.

My '98 Saab 900 SET Convertible did 25-28MPG on my mostly highway commute right up to 208K miles. That's winning.

My '95 Explorer was hitting 17-19MPG on the same commute, at 318k miles. Winning.

My 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Rally is hitting 27-31MPG, same commute, 212K miles. Winning.

My wife is driving the 2000 Explorer V8 at 143K miles, and is getting 16-18MPG. Not so winning, but not bad.

Her commute and mine are similar; relatively quick in the morning, stop and go in the afternoon.

Other cars I have driven that met their MPG estimates include various versions of the Taurus, Focus, Malibu Maxx, and a collection of forgettable crap. The older ones, pre-1990, were disappointing.

MPG results are highly influenced by the driver, the traffic, and vehicle condition, but the driver I think counts a lot.

They got nothing on Car & Driver

[Bob the Super Hamste]

A few years back I remembered reading an article from car and driver about them winning a MGP competition put on for the original Honda Insight. The games they played make the cheating going on here seem like the work of petty amateurs. Of course that was for fun and bragging rights for the magazines that participated so excessive bending of the rules was to be expected. If interested I suggest reading the article "How We Won the Insight Fuel-Economy Challenge. Without Cheating. Much". I am surprised that the car manufactures in the EU also don't try lowering the oil level so that it barely covers the oil pickup tube when running thus keeping the crank from hitting the oil in the sump or have most vehicles gone over to a dry sump setup. Also if they are going to disconnect the alternator why not also disconnect the water pump and replace it with an electric one like the drag racers do? Granted it won't work for an extended period of time (the electric racing ones are fairly low volume) but I would imagine the vehicle would survive the test track with it.

Re:So can we have the list of things to do?

[Dr_Barnowl]

Yeah, but what about...

* Panel gaps that aren't on doors (or on doors that you don't use)

You don't crack the bonnet every day. There will be panel gaps on the bumpers, etc. If you don't habitually have passengers in the rear seats, tape the door seals up. Three door models probably do much better than 5 doors models - but don't sell well in the American market because you have to be agile enough to climb into the back seat...

Re:Slow news day?

[Tuidjy]

You got it all wrong. Exhausting more crap reduces your fuel efficiency.

I have replaced every car I've owned with a newer, more powerful one. Every single one has been more fuel efficient.

My current car is a heavily modified S60-R Volvo. Yes, it is heavier than my old Supra, and it has 460hps at the wheel (with the AWD fuse pulled) But it is also a Ultra Low Emission vehicle, and the first time I had it smog checked, the guy did it twice, because all but one of the categories on the California Smog check form were 0 (Zero point Zero)

The guy could not believe him eyes nor his machine. I have a bigger (than original) turbo, a dual intercooler, and a modified exhaust. After every single one of these modifications, the power AND the fuel efficiency went up.

So right now, I have a car that gets 31.1mpg on my daily commute, which is 12 miles highway and 5 miles streets.