Topic: Consumer Reports: Fuel Economy Overstated

[Brigitte]

I found this to be quite interesting.

-------------------------
Why you're not getting the mpg you expect

For years, automakers have been criticized for producing vehicles that get so-so gas mileage. But as gas prices climb and consumers seek more miles per gallon, it turns out that fuel economy is much worse than it appears--50 percent less on some models, a new Consumer Reports analysis reveals.

Drivers who track their own fuel economy have long known that their results seldom match the gas mileage claimed by the Environmental Protection Agency on new-car stickers. Our study, based on years of real-world road tests over thousands of miles, quantifies the problem across a wide swath of makes and models.

We compared the claimed EPA fuel economy with the mileage per gallon we measured for 303 cars and trucks for model-years 2000 to 2006. Our selection represents a good cross-section of mainstream, high-volume vehicles. We looked at city, highway, and overall mpg.

Highlights of our study:

• Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models.

• The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent.

• Hybrids, whose selling point is fuel thriftiness, had some of the biggest disparities, with fuel economy averaging 19 mpg below the EPA city rating.

• The EPA ratings are the result of 1970s-era test assumptions that don't account for how people drive today. Automakers also test prototype vehicles that can yield better mileage than a consumer could get.

• Despite federal certification, it appears that U.S. vehicle fleets, all cars and light trucks produced in one model year, don't meet government fuel-economy standards. For example, fleet mpg for 2003-model-year vehicles we studied was overstated by 30 percent.

For consumers, the news means that their vehicles typically cost hundreds more per year to operate than they were led to believe. Put another way, when gas in August 2005 hit $2.37 per gallon, the mpg shortchange effectively boosted the price for some motorists to $3.13 per gallon.

For the nation, where the fleet average fuel economy is near its lowest point in 17 years, the findings suggest that the country is far short of its energy goals.

“We are concerned about the differences,” Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said of our study. “I think we can do a better job to help consumers assess actual fuel economy.”

Click on this link to see all the details of the testing, as well as the results:

http://www.consumerreports.org/main/content/display_report.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=772749&bmUID=1126102185214#

[tenpenny]

I have never really considered the numbers given as attainable in the real world, but more of a relative measuring stick to compare one car to another. 

[quadzilla]

I looked through some of the numbers and to me it looks like the majority of city mileage results are less than EPA and the highway numbers were higher than EPA.  Is this a reflection of how much more time we are spending in traffic getting 0 mpg while we go nowhere?

Since I don’t drive much city I don’t even worry about those numbers but on highway I have no complaints of my mileage when compared to the EPA numbers. 

I think the way they test should be changed to reflect more of the driving habits of today.  Isn’t the fastest speed on the hwy test only 90kph or something like that?  On the way back from Tremblant this weekend the average speed was still in the range of 120-140kph on the 401.  Guess people are not that worried yet.

[No H2O]

I've always managed to get the Transport Canada fuel ratings as a minimum. Most of the time, I get substantially more...depending on the car.

[smainville]

On the way back from Tremblant this weekend the average speed was still in the range of 120-140kph on the 401.  Guess people are not that worried yet.

I made the same comment about my daily 417 commute to work.

As for economy both my Echo and X-Trail can do what they are rated for, but I never got close with my Focus.

[gta_driver]

Over the last few years, I've stopped believing what Consumer Reports writes. A lot of their articles tend to contradict each other. Increasingly the publication seems to be a well writtem marketing propaganda piece paid for by select manufacturers. I use to put stock in what they wrote but not anymore.

[weebl]

Over the last few years, I've stopped believing what Consumer Reports writes. A lot of their articles tend to contradict each other. Increasingly the publication seems to be a well writtem marketing propaganda piece paid for by select manufacturers. I use to put stock in what they wrote but not anymore.

Please do back up this statement, as Consumer Report continues to this day to state that they accept no money from manufacturers, do not have ads in their magazines, purchase all units in the open market that they test and prohibit their name being used in advertising.  Are you saying that they are lying about this?

[AVToller]

I've stopped believing what gta_driver writes! 

[Drivesideways]

Nice find Bridge.  Very interesting article, regardless of one's opinion of CR.  In many ways it's just validation of what we've already known, and if you read some of the detail on their site you'll find they discuss that.  I would hazard a guess that "car people" and frugal consumers were already taking EPA numbers with a grain of salt...fine for model to model comparison (notwithstanding the allowability of "hand-built" prototypes for gvmt tests), but as a predictor of real-world economy?  Forget it. 

There were certainly some revelations though...the degree of discrepancy of some models, and entire segments (hybrids), and the extent to which the EPA numbers are used to set energy policy and industry regulation.  Very thought provoking.

[tenpenny]

I believe what consumer reports writes, but i don't always agree with their comments.  Sometimes their interpretation of the importance of different features or useability of things is quite different from mine, but their facts are useful.

The mainstream auto press, like car and driver, road and track, motor trend...they're all driven by advertising, and you really can't believe most of what they say.  If you read CD's 50th anniversary issue, it's made absolutely clear that they feature a lot of North American cars in order to get the advertising.  They make their living by sucking up to the manufacturers, so any criticism will be faint and muted.

[AVToller]

If you read CD's 50th anniversary issue, it's made absolutely clear that they feature a lot of North American cars in order to get the advertising.  They make their living by sucking up to the manufacturers, so any criticism will be faint and muted.

I remember when I was researching purchase of my Forester. CD did a test on the then new Escape and RAVED about the incredibly short stopping distance ("retina detaching"), while they said in the previous Forester test that the Forester's braking distance was fairly good. The thing is, according to their own reported data, the Forester stopped in LESS distance than the Escape. I've consistently found that sort of bias.

[sterling]

I think we can safely say that for whatever car we like, Consumer Reports is biased against it.

[AVToller]

In another thread, a while back, there was considerable discussion about "real world" mileage for the Echo vs Corolla. I found this CR information interesting:

The figures are US mpg            EPA City CR City EPA Hwy CR Hwy EPA Comb CR Comb

Toyota Corolla LE  Small car 2001   30       20        39        41          34            29
 
Toyota Echo        Small car 2000   34       29         41        46         37            38

[gta_driver]

Consider this. In the 2005 Consumer Reports Guide to buying used cars, they gave the following vehicles "best buy" or "recommended ratings"

Toyota Camry, Toyota Sienne, Lexus RX, Lexus ES, Saab 9-5, VW Passat, Honda Odyssey, Acura MDX, Acura TL.

The very next month, I believe June 2005 magazine, they wrote a whole article about sludge issues destroying engines Toyota Camry, Toyota Sienna, Lexus RX, Lexus ES, Saab 9-5, VW Passat a lot at low mileage. They also stated that it is diificult for used car owners to get help from the dealers. Yes the dealers have extended their powertrain warranties but want proof of maintenance from day one, before they will do anything, otherwise you pay out of your own pocket. They also noted the number of units of these vehicles affected by this problem. The numbers are in the millions.

It is contradictory and irresponsible to slap a "best buy" or "recommended" used car rating on these models.

They did a similiar thing with the Honda Odyssey, Acura MDX and  Acura TL. Except this time it has to do with transmission failiure.

[ovr50]

I believe what consumer reports writes, but i don't always agree with their comments.  Sometimes their interpretation of the importance of different features or useability of things is quite different from mine, but their facts are useful.

The mainstream auto press, like car and driver, road and track, motor trend...they're all driven by advertising, and you really can't believe most of what they say.  If you read CD's 50th anniversary issue, it's made absolutely clear that they feature a lot of North American cars in order to get the advertising.  They make their living by sucking up to the manufacturers, so any criticism will be faint and muted.

I was under the distinct impression that CD accepted NO ADVERTISING from anyone ever? Is that wrong, do they accept ads?

[tenpenny]

CD = Car and Driver

CR = Consumer Reports, no advertising of any kind....

I know, using a couple of tla's makes it confusing.  Sorry.

[paulk]

For city dwellers, some of those mileage differences are quite significant.  Nearly 40% worse for the Durango, 30% worse for the Civic and Corolla, etc.

It's also interesting that the National Research Council of Canada EnerGuide numbers are even less accurate than the EPA numbers for city driving, but perhaps more realistic for highway driving. 

[ovr50]

Thanks, ten, I totally misunderstood your post....

[tpl]

The way i read that table  from AVToller is that the EPA' computation for aero drag( and tire drag) is much worse than the real world for those two cars.... both of which have a small frontal area and narrow tires. I dont know how the epa does that computation but it may just be done on weight, that they dont actually measure the drag number (Cd* frontal area)

[onearmed]

it has to do with traffic. If people actually used a little bit of gas and accelerated briskly off red lights and merge at 100km/h we'd all never have to worry about traffic again and contrary to belief... a lead foot can save you gas.