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