Experts: Revise fuel-economy rules to reflect real-world driving

[Chuck]

But the EPA already did that. One concern is factoring more aggressive driving might slight from technologies such as lean burn.

David Shepardson - DETROITNEWS - June 3, 2010

Overall, this is a good thing. --Ed.

Washington -- An expert panel called on government agencies today to revise fuel-economy testing to better reflect real-world driving conditions.

The National Academy of Sciences convened an expert panel in 2007 to assess technologies to boost fuel economy and make findings on the state of vehicle efficiency at the request of government regulators, releasing a report today.

"Reducing the amount of fuel we use is an important goal for the nation and for the individual consumer," said Trevor Jones, chair of the committee that wrote the report and chair and CEO of ElectroSonics Medical Inc. in Cleveland. "Consumers will need to consider the trade-offs between higher vehicle prices and saving fuel and money at the gas pump."... [Read More]

[Damionk]

OK, did I miss something in this article? In the first few paragraphs they talk about changing the EPA ratings, but the rest talks about what to do to improve economy in cars. Seems like two separate articles mashed into one.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by Damionk

OK, did I miss something in this article? In the first few paragraphs they talk about changing the EPA ratings, but the rest talks about what to do to improve economy in cars. Seems like two separate articles mashed into one.

Amongst their many suggestions was changing the EPA ratings and the article began with that.

Personally, I would like to have EPA ratings that reflect the behavior of a normal, safe, defensive driver rather than typical bad behavior.

If they don't go for a good normality then they should test following the suggestions they make themselves.

The more they change the ratings to suit bad driving the less informative and differentiated the figures will be.

Or maybe they can hire my wife:
- drives without concern for fuel economy*
- observant
- considerate to other drivers
- drives about PSL+5 during ideal daytime conditions but adjusts to light and conditions
- maintains speed with CC on highways and with her foot off highway
- accelerates according to traffic conditions
- uses A/C, heater and blowers to keep herself comfortable, with a temperature around 72 being ideal for her.

They'll have to hire somebody else to test MTs though.

* Well, I think my nagging has made some small changes.

[Shiba3420]

As soon as I read the title I figured when could put different catagories of people and MPG, something like....

Car X
88 - Hypermiler
50 - Gentle driver
30 - Average driver
<22 - Total jerk; Please see your local magistrate

[Chuck]

Originally Posted by Shiba3420

As soon as I read the title I figured when could put different catagories of people and MPG, something like....

Car X
88 - Hypermiler
50 - Gentle driver
30 - Average driver
<22 - Total jerk; Please see your local magistrate

You just gave us an excellent idea for social engineering!

On the new EPA stickers, have this quote: "when driven like the typical aggressive driver".

[beatr911]

"The good Lord has tolerated this foolishness of throwing away 90 percent of the energy in the fuel long enough," Kettering said.

Amen!

Someday (I hope soon) we'll be wondering "What the hell were we thinking!?" about ICE's.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by beatr911

"The good Lord has tolerated this foolishness of throwing away 90 percent of the energy in the fuel long enough," Kettering said.

Amen!

Someday (I hope soon) we'll be wondering "What the hell were we thinking!?" about ICE's.

I don't think they'll be saying "What the hell were we thinking!?" but "Why did we put up inefficient engines for so long!?"

[PaleMelanesian]

There IS a problem with the current testing and CAFE rules. The average mpg the carmakers have to reach is based on the old-old epa test. The new tests change the window stickers, but give no incentive for the makers to improve, among other things:

mpg at speeds above 55 mph (aerodynamics)
cold-weather performance
AC efficiency

Even the new tests don't account for much time spent at stoplights or stopped in rush hour traffic. Start-stop systems are good here, but since they don't affect the test results, the makers have no reason to include them.

I suggest a change to the tests to include more time stopped. Then index the CAFE rules to the current window stickers as a baseline, then start increasing the requirements from that point. (instead of raising the old test ratings from 27 to 35, raise the new ratings from 20 to 27)

[Butterfly Mage]

It doesn't seem like many of the options cost that much money. I'm surprised that hybridization didn't get addressed. A relatively simple system like IMA adds about $2,500 to the cost of the vehicle (Fit vs Insight for comparison) but the fuel economy boost is pretty significant. Also, there's room for improvement in gear ratios used (which would cost next to nothing to implement.)

[Bruce]

As long as manufacturers continue to make vehicles more powerful, the EPA will have to continue revising their standards downward. It's just simple physics, and it has nothing to do with the type of engine that's powering the car. Any car that can go from 0 to 60 to 0 instead of 0 to 30 to 0 between stoplights is going to waste more energy doing it, be it from gasoline, electricity, natural gas, hydrogen, wood chips or cow poop.