Slashdot Mirror


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?"

68 of 431 comments (clear)

  1. Slow news day? by Quakeulf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Haven't we all been taught to take all of these "tests" with a grain of salt?

    1. Re:Slow news day? by rickb928 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Slow news day? by meerling · · Score: 2

      I'm probably going to regret this question, but why do you drive so many different cars?

    3. Re:Slow news day? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He probably didn't buy them new and so doesn't keep them as long?

      --
      People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
    4. Re:Slow news day? by realityimpaired · · Score: 3, Informative

      Modern cars have to meet much more stringent emissions requirements than older cars did. It was a lot easier to get good gas mileage when the car could exhaust more crap. Cars are also getting heavier bigger, heavier, and more powerful.

      Exhausting unburned hydrocarbons is *bad* for efficiency, not good for it.

      It's the weight that the emissions control and safety systems add which is affecting mileage on modern cars. If you have the same BHP in your car and weigh 200kg more, then your efficiency and performance characteristics are going to suffer. Fitting a bigger engine will actually improve efficiency, if it's being driven sanely, because most engines also lose efficiency when they are running closer to their limits.

      But it's also the car manufacturers' faults... how Chev managed to only get 103HP out of the 2007 Aveo's 1.6L engine is a mystery, for example... You see significantly more than that out of 1.6L engines in European cars and it makes an enormous difference to the overall efficiency (let alone adding a turbo or two, or going to diesel). And they are still doing the same thing today on many of their models.

      The Europeans may be fudging the numbers a bit, but take everything an auto manufacturer says with a grain of salt anyway. The European cars are still better on the efficiency front, because they're designed for a market where gas costs 3x as much.

    5. Re:Slow news day? by Tuidjy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
  2. Relativity by OpenSourced · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuel efficiency tests are for comparison purposes. If all makers cheat equally, comparisons are still meaningful. When legislators set an standard, they'll probably take that into account and make the standard a bit tighter.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Relativity by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that automakers start designing cars to the unrealistic test, and not to get real-world gains. Even if this only accounts for 1 MPG, that is a huge amount of fuel for the entire fleet.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    2. Re:Relativity by dkleinsc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Everybody knows hybrids aren't 'worth it' from a present value _or_ environmentalist POV.

      Whether they're "worth it" or not depends on 5 factors:
      1. Difference in initial cost.
      2. The average price of gasoline.
      3. Distance driven over the lifetime of the car.
      4. Difference in efficiency between the hybrid and non-hybrid.
      5. Potential investment income on the difference in initial cost over the lifetime of the car.

      An example (using the ignorant American measurements I'm unfortunately used to):
      A. Hybrid sedan - $25K, gets 44 miles per gallon.
      B. Standard sedan - $13K, gets 22 miles per gallon
      Price of gasoline at $4.25 per gallon, expected total driving 220,000 miles over 10 years, expected investment return of 5% annually.

      1. The standard sedan uses up 10,000 gallons of fuel for a total fuel cost of $42,500. The hybrid uses up half that, 5,000 gallons of fuel for a total fuel cost of $21,250, leaving a difference in fuel costs of $21,250 in favor of the hybrid.
      2. The hybrid costs $12K more initially, which over those 10 years can earn an additional $7700 in investment returns, for a total of $19,700 in favor of the standard engine.
      3. That means that for the buyer in this situation, the hybrid will save him $1550 total.

      So what "everybody knows" may or may not be true, and the best way to answer the question is to look at the numbers for the vehicles you're considering and your own driving habits, and do the math. The general formula looks like this, where Ch is the cost of the hybrid, Cs the cost of the standard, IR is the investment return, Y is the lifetime in years, M is the lifetime in mileage, Eh is the hybrid's miles per gallon, Es is the standard's miles per gallon, and G is the cost of gasoline:
      Total extra cost of a hybrid = (Ch - Cs)*(1 + IR)^Y + (Ch - Cs) - M / (Eh - Es) * G

      Of course, all this doesn't work if the numbers you plug into the formula are wrong.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:Relativity by bws111 · · Score: 2

      The comparisons are only meaningful if equal cheating produces equal effect. I would think that things like taping panel gaps would have a significantly different effect depending on body shape, size and number of gaps, etc. Same with removing interior components - if model 'A' uses lightweight components and model 'B' uses cheaper but heavier components the effect of removing them will be significantly different.

    4. Re:Relativity by HornWumpus · · Score: 3

      You've got to compare the hybrid to an economy car. Comparable size and power.

      If you compare it to a V8 cop car of course the hybrid looks good. Note: even there you came up with 'may or may not be true'.

      22mpg is an unreasonable number to posit for the hybrid alternatives. You are looking for the answer you think you already know. You are wrong.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    5. Re:Relativity by Zorpheus · · Score: 2

      Yeah, I don't know the numbers.
      In Germany the sales for the Prius are really bad. If you drive so much through cities and want to save money you are thinking about public transport, not a hybrid. And I remember reading that the fuel efficiency of the Prius becomes horrible when you go fast on the Autobahn, since the engine is not built for high power.

    6. Re:Relativity by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2

      A good model is a Hyundai Sonata. I've described it as the most adequate car I've every owned. It's not fancy, it's not shoddy. It's not fast, it's not underpowered. 100% adequate. (I even ordered the greyishblue color) It's a decently sized car, it can fit two car seats and still have an adult in the passenger seat.

      In otherwords, it's adequate and average, and thus a great example to pit against a hybrid as a vehicle in which you won't have to be making tradeoffs.

      But even the Sonata gets much more than 22mpg. I average about 31mpg in it (which is good, but not the best it can get). So saying that 22mpg is typical for a sedan comparable to a hybrid is really leaning on the scales imo.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  3. Duh ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If all we have to do is over inflate your tires, tape over the panel gaps, and keep your car empty ( find somewhere else to park your junk ), to get 25% - 50 % better gas milage, why don't we all do it ?

    1. Re:Duh ! by Endo13 · · Score: 2

      You forgot that you have to disconnect the alternator as well. You'll also need a plug-in charger to keep recharging your battery.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    2. Re:Duh ! by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The single biggest difference to fuel consumption is between the seat and the steering wheel.

      --
      No sig today...
    3. Re:Duh ! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Funny

      The single biggest difference to fuel consumption is between the seat and the steering wheel.

      I can confirm that this is true. When you remove that element for good, your monthly fuel consumption will drop to zero.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Duh ! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Informative

      As far as traction proper inflation and even over inflation works well on roads that are dry or covered with water but it actually makes things worse on ice. One of the tricks I learned early on was to let a few PSI out of your tires when the roads are icy as that will help with traction there.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    5. Re:Duh ! by Aaron+B+Lingwood · · Score: 2

      extra inflation pressure actually gets you better acceleration, traction, and stopping power.

      The extra inflation should make the tire harder resulting in lower friction. Hence the better acceleration so long as you control the torque. However, this means that you have less rubber touching the road (note the lower friction) so, in most circumstances, you have lower traction. Lower traction often means less stopping power.

      A harder and narrower tyre on the front can increase the precision and response of your steering but this is a potentially lethal error if your vehicle is front-wheel drive as all that power hitting a small surface may result in loss of traction meaning no steering.

      Personally, I modify my tyre pressure many times in a day depending on many factors including driving style, surface, load and weather. I generally under-inflate the tyres on my Silvia because this is my wet-weather vehicle. I also want to brake quickly in this vehicle because it is easy to overspeed. My primary vehicle is a Jeep. In good weather, on-road, I tend to over-inflate to help the wallet (with extra care taken for the front tyres). This makes for a very noisy ride and results in the tyres spinning easily or any time I start in first gear.

      --
      [Rent This Space]
    6. Re:Duh ! by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      You have a lower contact area, but higher *pressure*. If you have 4 tires with a 3 x 3 inch contact area at 30PSI, that's 9 x 4 = 36 square inches of contact. This happens if you have a 1080 pound car. If you have a 3000 pound car, your total contact area will be (surprise...) 3 times bigger, think 5 x 5 inches per tire. Raising the PSI to 50PSI gets you 15 square inches per tire instead of 25, for a 3000 pound car. The normal force increases and the total force of friction stays roughly the same; but the pressure put on a layer of water also increases and so the water moves out of the way faster and gives you better ground contact, meaning better traction when wet. Dry... probably not so much.

      Front wheel drive does suck.

    7. Re:Duh ! by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 2

      When you remove that element for good, your monthly fuel consumption will drop to zero.

      But then the MPG is terrible.

      If you let a car sit and you lose X ml of gasoline to evaporation while traveling 0 miles your MPG is 0. Even a leadfoot can beat 0mpg.

    8. Re:Duh ! by dkf · · Score: 2

      But then the MPG is terrible.

      If you let a car sit and you lose X ml of gasoline to evaporation while traveling 0 miles your MPG is 0. Even a leadfoot can beat 0mpg.

      Keep the tank completely empty and your MPG will go all the way up to NaN! Beat that!

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  4. Not surprised by s4ltyd0g · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Not surprised by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 4, Funny

      You could easily make the test more realistic by adding 'l','I', and '|' to the test.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    2. Re:Not surprised by Russ1642 · · Score: 5, Funny

      This needs to be modded up simply because it's a computer analogy for a car issue.

  5. European Magic by MightyYar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:European Magic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:European Magic by JDG1980 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:European Magic by smooth+wombat · · Score: 2

      but regulations require a certain amount of ethanol to be blended into the real-world gasoline supply ... and this drastically hurts efficiency.

      Except it doesn't have to. My car manufacturer, Hyundai, says I should get 29 mpg city/40 mpg highway. I get between 30 -33 city and on my last long drive I got 40.77 mpg.

      Part of it is how you drive. If you're always on the gas, trying to get one car ahead, then slam on the brakes to squeeze into the barely there gap between cars, of course your mileage will be lower. Letting your car coast the last few tenths of mile, when you can do so, turning your car off at long lights, not mashing the pedal to the floor unless you have to, will all boost your mileage.

      The only other thing I do is inflate my tires by 1 pound from what the recommendation says. It's enough to add to my fuel efficiency without highspotting the tires.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    4. Re:European Magic by Phrogman · · Score: 2

      Up here in Canada we use the Litres per 100 Km metric too. My assumption was that it was intended to obscure just how much gas you are going through, and thus obscure the price you are paying for it as well. Its much harder to compare miles per gallon to litres per 100km that it would be if it was a straight translation of kilometers per litre.
      Since the price of gas seems to fluctuate by as much as 25% on a seemingly random basis, I think its in the interests of the Oil companies to keep us as confused as possible. I think the latest jump in gas prices here was probably due to the fact that they were still selecting the next pope. Gas prices seem to reflect international crises (up whenever anything that could be construed as "tense" is happening), and of course season/time (up before a long weekend, down on the weekend, up again Sunday night when everyone refuels for the next work day).
      Oil companies are a remora sucking the life out of modern civilization.

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    5. Re:European Magic by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Informative

      but regulations require a certain amount of ethanol to be blended into the real-world gasoline supply ... and this drastically hurts efficiency. Except it doesn't have to.
      Yes, yes it does. Gasoline ~34.2 MJ/L; E10~33.18(~3% less); E85~26.5. Ethanol has less energy per liter, so if you have to add it to your fuel, you will get fewer MPGs.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    6. Re:European Magic by MightyYar · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is at least as much fudging there.

      Fudging is hard, but not impossible (see Kia). The EPA spot-checks 15% of all vehicles sold in the US in its own lab, each year. 2/3 of those are randomly selected. So you, as cheating Joe Automaker, have a 1/10 chance that your model will get selected at random. Even if you only have one model that you cheat on, this can't be a long-term strategy or you will get caught, on average, once every 10 years.

      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.

      That was sort-of true until this year. It is true that automakers could use the older methods to calculate fuel economy. But they then had to run the results through a set of equations that estimated the results if the more modern tesst were used instead. Starting this year, everyone has to use the more modern tests.

      The cars are tested with pure gas

      That isn't true, though I'm not sure what you mean by "pure gas", which itself is a cocktail. They have a standard fuel that they test with, which is 93-octane. For CA-rated cars, they use 91-octane. To get to 93-octane, you need to have ethanol, or some other anti-knock agent "watering" down the gas. The differences you get tank-to-tank are going to account for far more than the variation you'll see between a bit more ethanol added here or there compared to the EPA test.

      Anyway, there will never be a "paragon" for predicting how consumers will drive a yet-to-be-sold car - all we can do is try to guess. The EPA test does a fair job, though I think people see the highway number as a bit optimistic unless you really restrain yourself. The city number is pretty realistic.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    7. Re:European Magic by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's actually the opposite. Gaining 10mpg over 40mpg is pathetically little, while gaining 5mpg over 20mpg is HUGE. Dropping 0.5L per 100km is the same amount of saved fuel regardless of if you have a 7L/100km or 3.5L/100km car. Thus it's easy to hype your 30, 35mpg cars and tell people they need to upgrade their 28mpg car, when really that's a huge fucking waste.

      The real world effect is that Americans think what we need is shiny new expensive 40mpg hybrids, when the best thing we could do is get the existing 15mpg old-ass broken down shitheaps off the road in exchange for newer 22mpg used cars that exist already. The environmental savings would be bigger than if we just replaced the natural new flow of new cars with a natural new flow of new cars with slightly better mileage. i.e. what's important is the flow of average-mileage used cars into the hands of people who aren't going to buy a new car!

    8. Re:European Magic by bkaul01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      Well, "drastically" might be a bit of an overstatement ... on a volumetric basis, ethanol has 36% less energy than gasoline, so E10 (10% ethanol by volume) has 3.6% less energy. In real-world terms, this means getting 29 mpg instead of 30. It's measurable, but not, perhaps, "drastic."

      You are correct on certifications being performed using E0 fuel, while E10 is the norm almost everywhere in the US. There is some desire to allow certifications using higher ethanol blends for flex-fuel vehicles, which would let automakers take advantage of some of the other fuel properties of ethanol (e.g., very high octane rating) to make engines more efficient (and have those efficiency gains actually count for CAFE purposes) and thus offset the energy density penalty.

    9. Re:European Magic by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

      I doubt running the tests with higher ethanol blends for flex fuel vehicles would ever amount to them being able to increase fuel economy, but would allow them to highlight where alcohol fuels shine which is in producing power. To fully utilize the useful properties of ethanol you need to ignore other parts of the environmental regulations. Its very high octane raiting means you can run much higher compression ratios or much higher boost but doing so increases your NOx emissions. Another of its useful property is its stoichiometric ratio which allows you to dump a whole bunch more fuel into the cylinder per unit air than you could with gasoline. This allows more energy to be released for each power stroke than can be with regular un-oxygenated gasoline. The only place where ethanol can be used to increase you MPG is in an alcohol injection system where you are injecting a small portion of ethanol into the cylinder that already contains an air fuel charge. The very high latent heat of ethanol cools the air fuel charge allowing for higher compression ratios which can increase you MPG of gasoline (depends on how the vehicle is setup) at the cost of consuming additional ethanol. If you are going to do this a better option would be to use water as it has an even higher latent heat and costs less. Ethanol, especially in the US, is a joke of a general purpose motor fuel but is awesome from performance engines. Yes I know it works fairly well in Brazil but then they can produce it efficiently because they grow sugar cane which produces much more ethanol per acre than corn could ever hope to. Methanol is even better even though it has a lower octane rating and lower latent heat it allows even more fuel to be consumed per power stroke liberating slightly more energy than ethanol does.

      I have looked into using alternative fuels for my project car and have basically settled on E85 because of how available it is in my state and I should be able to produce some impressive H.P. numbers out of that little A-series engine (hoping for close to 200). It doesn't hurt that the only environmental regs I have to conform to are crank case emission ones which are a very low hurdle to get around with a PCV valve which the vehicle already has.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    10. Re:European Magic by Khyber · · Score: 2

      That's why you drop the extra 5 grand for a diesel, and add another greasecar tank and retrofit for another couple grand. Then you can run on waste fuels all day long with minimal cost to yourself as long as you're in good with places that dispose of said waste fuels (fast food, Chinese restaurants [these are the best places since most fast food joints caught on via corporate.])

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:European Magic by bkaul01 · · Score: 2

      If you design an engine to take advantage of the high octane number of a high-ethanol blend (i.e., E20+), with a high compression ratio, etc., there is a lot to be gained. A higher compression ratio inherently makes the thermodynamic cycle more efficient, and the high octane number avoids the losses due to retarded combustion phasing that are necessary to avoid knock with gasoline.

      Running certification tests on a high-ethanol blend doesn't, in and of itself, bring about those design changes. What it does is give the manufacturers a motivation to put all the extra work into really calibrating their engines twice for both a high-ethanol and a low-ethanol fuel, by actually giving them credit on CAFE, etc. The approach would also require that high-ethanol blends be available and actually be purchased by the consumers... there are more than a few barriers there, but research shows that it is possible to overcome the energy density penalty if the engine is optimized for E85.

    12. Re:European Magic by jo_ham · · Score: 2

      How? If I want to slow down and let off the gas pedal completely the wheels turning will still continue to turn the engine. The valves still open and shut, oil and coolant still circulate. My car does shut off the injectors when coasting and when the RPMs drop too low while doing this it turns them back on to keep the engine running. Typically this happens around 25 mph but can be put off some by selecting a lower gear and even then it is running really lean anyway so it is still consuming less fuel than normal.

      Coasting means disconnecting the drive train. ie, putting the clutch in, or just putting the manual box into neutral. When you do that, the engine is not turned over by inertia, it simply has to idle.

      American cars don't coast since they don't tend to go in for manual transmissions.

  6. So can we have the list of things to do? by Lorens · · Score: 2

    Over inflating tires maybe not, but taping over panel gaps for -10% in fuel would interest a lot of people.

    1. Re:So can we have the list of things to do? by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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...

  7. US Government Standards by puddingebola · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Another way to cheat by tompaulco · · Score: 2

    Another way to cheat is they use diesel, which is more energy dense.
    For the sarcasm-impaired, I am very much in favor of diesel and have been complaining for at least a decade that we don't get a good selection of diesels in the U.S. All I want is a diesel sports sedan with manual transmission. My only choice right now is the Jetta. No thanks.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    1. Re:Another way to cheat by Cenan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Diesel causes cancer. Diesel particles could raise heart attack risks. And I'm sure there are tons of other stuff Diesel is good for, by all means let's have some more.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    2. Re:Another way to cheat by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      From the Wikipedia page on diesel:

      However, due to the higher density, diesel offers a higher volumetric energy density at 35.86 MJ/L (128 700 BTU/US gal) vs. 32.18 MJ/L (115 500 BTU/US gal) for gasoline, some 11% higher, which should be considered when comparing the fuel efficiency by volume.

      Do you have a better source refuting the energy density (per volume) difference?

    3. Re:Another way to cheat by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      I prefer a manual drive; however I will accept the CVT in the Tesla Model S because it performs. Slushboxes I can't drive, they simply don't work for me. I can't control the car and it behaves unexpectedly. The CVT is a solid clutched transmission that gives maximum performance when accelerating, without hanging around in a high gear for ~1 second and switching up to a high gear if you don't keep the car WOT (fucking stupid Chevy Cobalt auto-tranny shit), so no worries about being crippled on the highway trying to aim your wobbly car into a 3 car length gap when you can't control your acceleration.

      I wish they'd just put a slide shifter on the damn thing so I can switch to manual mode and smoothly glide the ratio... yeah the car's better at it but hell.

  9. Why do they let automakers test? by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why do they let the automakers run the test? Instead the regulatory bodies should ask for 3 production samples and an application fee and then the regulatory body should do the tests themselves.

    1. Re:Why do they let automakers test? by fermion · · Score: 2
      Because, as in the case of Tesla, when independent reviewers test they do not follow instructions to the letter and the car does not perform as well. Of course most drivers don't follow the instructions to the letter, don't keep the tires inflated properly, drive inefficiently, have to drive in stop and go traffic, etc.

      So the question becomes which is better. A standard set of tests in which values between models can be compared, or non standard tests in which more relevant values for the real world are attained.

      I would say both. That said I agree with other posters who say their european cars meet of exceed the values posted in the US. My car easily gets the average efficiency now that I know how to drive it. I rented a Subaru a while back, went through a few tanks, and it exceeded my expectations. Obviously the EU testing is different and may overstate fuel consumption.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  10. Agencies should test like Consumer Reports by JDG1980 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When Consumer Reports wants to test a product (including cars), they don't go to the manufacturer, much less let the manufacturer run the testing process! They buy the product anonymously at normal retail, and then test it in their own labs. Why can't regulatory agencies like the EPA and its European Union equivalent do the same thing?

    1. Re:Agencies should test like Consumer Reports by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 2

      When Consumer Reports wants to test a product (including cars), they don't go to the manufacturer, much less let the manufacturer run the testing process! They buy the product anonymously at normal retail, and then test it in their own labs. Why can't regulatory agencies like the EPA and its European Union equivalent do the same thing?

      I might be wrong, but doesn't the EPA/EU have to run the tests before the car is released to the public? Kind of like how you need FDA approval before you can sell a drug on the market? And so if the manufacturer knows that they are giving it to the regulators, there will be some cheating (though much less than stripping the internals out to reduce weight).

  11. Re:My car... by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    You both drive like pussies.

    You can get your mileage well under 20. Just maintain over 5k RPM at all times.

    Note: The early 90s CIVICs weigh less then the mini.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  12. Re:useable tricks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason overinflating tires reduces fuel consumption is that it reduces the contact patch between the car and the road. Unless designed for that smaller contact patch it means worse braking distance and handling.

  13. Re:Human Nature by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm continually amazed at how much more effort and creativity people seem to put into shortcuts to money and various get rich quick schemes, rather than boring, honest work.

    Suit A:"We're losing money and marketshare! What are we going to do"
    Suit B: "The same thing we do every time"
    Both in unison: "Layoffs and hire some more lobbyists!"

  14. Re:Human Nature by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Informative

        I've heard there are a lot of consumers who like to be open the doors too.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  15. They got nothing on Car & Driver by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Time to offend someone
    1. Re:They got nothing on Car & Driver by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      MB likes dry sumps. Partial explanation for why they have such huge oil reserves.

      Dry sumps are nothing new, airplane engines sense WWII are all dry sump. They don't usually use them because unless you are pulling Gs, they basically don't make any difference.

      So they only go into performance models. 427 AC cobra had one etc.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  16. Re:Human Nature by bkaul01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fashion ... and things like the engine not overheating, the hood and doors being able to open, and other such trivialities...

  17. Re:Shocking by UltraZelda64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Optimistic? I think the word you meant was 'bullshit'. There is a difference between something that may be possible under 100% perfect conditions (yet nearly 100% unlikely in real-world conditions)... and something that has been completely rigged in such ways that even in perfect theoretical conditions it is impossible for the car, unmodified and straight from the factory, to ever come close to such manipulated stats.

    This is worse than controlled, theoretical lab tests... this is downright crooked. There is absolutely nothing 'optimistic' about it. This is fraud.

  18. When dealing with corporations ... by Skapare · · Score: 2

    ... always use independent measuring. Corporations, even in EU, have people at the helm that are fundamental liars.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  19. Re:Because Socialism. by Minwee · · Score: 2

    Personally, I like to blame broccoli for anything that isn't perfect in my life.

  20. Re:Human Nature by Khyber · · Score: 2

    Depends on where it's placed, but yes.

    If I replaced the worn-out seals around my car's windows, I could probably drop my aerodynamic drag a good 5% ('98 Ford Taurus, the weather-stripping and window seal strips are sticking outwards, thanks to warping from the hot CA sun.)

    That increase in fuel efficiency alone (especially at higher speeds) would more than make up for the $30 in DIY stuff to replace it all by hand.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  21. Re:Human Nature by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The obvious takeaway everyone is missing is that this is a nice list of things you can do to increase fuel efficiency, in some cases by up to 25% to 50%! I mean really... Is over-inflating the tires (by the car spec, not the tire safety rating) and taping over infrequently used body gaps all that hard? I even know racers that had body color match vinyl tape for just this purpose... Some hyper-milers even disconnect the alternator and change the battery at home...

  22. Re:Human Nature by mk1004 · · Score: 2

    This sounds similar to the old days of horsepower ratings, where the engines were stripped of a accessory components, exhaust system, and so on.

    --
    I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.
  23. Re:Human Nature by PRMan · · Score: 2

    Simple. Animaniacs is MUCH more clever than Corporate America...

    --
    Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  24. Re:useable tricks by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    Tire sidewalls are a significant part of any suspension. High pressure tires are not unlike rubber band tires and over-sized wheels. They make for a harsher ride, all other factors being equal.

    You should check your facts. High pressure/low rolling resistance tires reduce contact patch area by _design_. That's how they get better mileage. It also explains part of why the Tesla roadster did so badly on 'Top Gears' test track. To be fair the guys at Top Gear gave the Tesla a break by putting better (normal) tires onto the roadster.

    That said: All (excepting a very few) stock suspensions are mushy as hell. That should be fixed with shocks, not rock hard tires.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  25. Don't over inflate! by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Over inflating tires is dangerous. The whole idea of the correct tire pressure is to give you the full width of the tire to grip the road. If you over inflate, the tire might not blow, but your stopping distance when having to do an emergency stop, will increase dramatically. The exact amount of grip you lose will also make you lose control in corners much quicker.

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Don't over inflate! by maestroX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Over inflating tires is dangerous... If you over inflate, the tire might not blow, but your stopping distance when having to do an emergency stop, will increase dramatically

      Obviously, it's far more efficient to not brake at all under any circumstance.
      Once you have accepted this superior way of driving, like I have, you can increase efficiency by doing away with dead weight like brake discs, pads, fluids and pedal.

      As for tires, I recommend cheap Chinese tires made of constable wallops rubber to improve mileage.

  26. Re:Human Nature by budgenator · · Score: 2

    I'm sceptical that stripping seams would make that much difference, you'd be better off with rear wheel skirts and smooth full-moon hub caps on the front. Before that I'd go to low viscosity synthetic engine and transmission oils and bearing grease, then the above. Next I'd get rid of any badges in the airstream and mod the car so the winshield wiper park below the hood out of the airflow. After that you need to get really radical like decent air dams, full belly pans, grill shutters and boat-tail the car. Lots of ideas over at Ecomoder's forums.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  27. Re:Wheel Alignment and Oil by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

    If you have been running your car on regular oil for more then 20-30K miles the oil has formed a glaze on the edge of the gaskets. The gaskets have dried out past the glaze.

    When you add synthetic oil it starts to dissolve the glaze. When it gets to the dry gasket it often starts to slow leak. Usually that happens about 3 months after you switch to synthetic.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'