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?"

36 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 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
    3. 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.

    4. 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 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'
  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 Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      No sig today...
    2. 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
    3. 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
  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 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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!

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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?

  9. 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 ...
  10. 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.

  11. 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!"

  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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.

  17. 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...

  18. 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.