Consumer Reports: Special 'eco' car models don't pay off

[atlaw4u]

The special “eco” versions of small cars such as the Chevrolet Cruze, don’t improve fuel economy enough to be worth the extra money, according to an analysis by Consumer Reports.

Jerry Hirsch - DETROITNEWS - June 3, 2012

The special "eco" versions of small cars such as the Chevrolet Cruze, Ford Focus and Honda Civic don't improve fuel economy enough to be worth the extra money, according to an analysis by Consumer Reports.

The magazine said it could take as long as 38 years for the extra cost to be worthwhile, depending on the vehicle.

The cars, which come equipped with special low-rolling resistance tires and aerodynamic features, generally cost $500 to $800 more than fuel-efficient siblings that don't carry the "eco" label.

Consumer Reports looked at the Ford Focus SFE, Chevrolet Cruze Eco and Honda Civic HF.

The results: Consumer Reports found that the Cruze Eco saves drivers only $20 a year in gas purchases while the Focus SFE and Civic HF save consumers $145 and $135 a year, respectively.

But the magazine said the Cruze Eco and the Focus SFE drove well, ranking "near the top of class among small sedans."

But it knocked the Civic HF, saying that it was one of the worst cars in the class... [Read More]

[MaxxMPG]

The result is not unexpected, considering the average driver's right foot is the single biggest detriment to good fuel economy. What CR should do is test these three models alongside their non-eco equivalents (Cruze LT, Civic LX, etc), driving them as though an inch of snow had fallen. What they'd find is that the Eco/SFE/HF cars go farther above EPA than the standard-trim versions. You can minimize energy loss with aero mods, different gearing, and lighter weight, but the biggest loss of mpg rests atop the accelerator pedal. Next, we should expect to see CR stating that diet soda is not worth the money because they ordered a diet cola to drink along with 8 Big Macs at each meal and then observed that the weight loss from the reduced calorie beverage doesn't live up to the promise.

[EdwinTheMagnificent]

Gotta love those "thoughtful" and "insightful " comments following that Detroit News article.
Ignorance and apathy prevail here in the "enlightened" Midwest.

And let's not forgive Consumer Reports for their contribution. If they truly cared about consumers , they would be actively lobbying against E15 and other similar debacles.
When I need advice about cars , I listen to Wayne.

[thunderstruck]

Why doesn't Consumer Reports have Wayne driving the cars for their tests? Then they'd find out how the cars can shine. Get a bunch of ninny's that don't drive for economy, not trying to wring out every possible mile, and what do you expect?

[ALS]

If I was looking for a used version of the above I would only be looking for the Eco models.

Because after CR gets done trashing them as not being worth the extra money, you'll easily be able to score one at the same price as a normal version.

Just guessing at numbers on say the Cruze, if you're using it mostly highway and get 42 mpg with the ECO vs the regular model getting 38 mph, with you driving 15K miles a year, I'm seeing 38 gallons of fuel saved. That works out to roughly $133 a year in savings or $11 a month with $3.50 a gallon fuel.

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by MaxxMPG

The result is not unexpected, considering the average driver's right foot is the single biggest detriment to good fuel economy. What CR should do is test these three models alongside their non-eco equivalents (Cruze LT, Civic LX, etc), driving them as though an inch of snow had fallen. What they'd find is that the Eco/SFE/HF cars go farther above EPA than the standard-trim versions. You can minimize energy loss with aero mods, different gearing, and lighter weight, but the biggest loss of mpg rests atop the accelerator pedal. Next, we should expect to see CR stating that diet soda is not worth the money because they ordered a diet cola to drink along with 8 Big Macs at each meal and then observed that the weight loss from the reduced calorie beverage doesn't live up to the promise.

That was my line of thinking. Their carefully detailed analysis simply did: AG(1/m - 1/M)

Gee, thanks guys, you're really adding value.

[southerncannuck]

Why is it that when it comes to "eco" cars the bottom line is always and only the return on investment from a monetary point of view? Is this calculation ever applied to performance car? Or for that matter any other vehicle? Could it be that there are people who want to use less gas for geopolitical reasons? Or environmental reasons?

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by ALS

If I was looking for a used version of the above I would only be looking for the Eco models.

Because after CR gets done trashing them as not being worth the extra money, you'll easily be able to score one at the same price as a normal version.

I wouldn't be so sure. While Honda is saying they're going to do a fast Civic re-design it doesn't seem to have affected sales.

[MaxxMPG]

Originally Posted by thunderstruck

Why doesn't Consumer Reports have Wayne driving the cars for their tests?

CR is too egotistical to consider any outsiders for testing of products. Remember that they have "sensory consultants" who "test" ten brands of canned vanilla pudding and then rant about a "chalky aftertaste" or "an artificial aroma of honey" or similar unverfiable opinion. One man's steak is another man's dog food, and yet CR will "rate the newest generation of frozen mixed vegetables" and find that the Kroger version is best, even though there are only two Kroger stores in the world and they are both apparently located in Antarctica.

I take the CR tests and reviews with a grain of salt because their priorities are out of order and their ratings are based on what they consider important rather than taking the product as a whole. As was said above, I too will seek Wayne's views on a particular new car because he provides a wider perspective and does what no other reviewers will do. I remember the Sonic test where Wayne posted a photo of his luggage placed in the trunk to show that the "number of cubic feet" promised by GM did not translate into usable cargo space. Sure, Wayne's focus is on ultimate and steady state fuel consumption, but he also has a route that includes known road surfaces and that allows comparison of one car to another. Overall, you get a much better picture of how the car handles on actual roads, how it can meet transportation needs on a daily basis, and what it can offer in fuel economy both during steady state and when you choose the "throw the book at it".

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

Originally Posted by southerncannuck

Why is it that when it comes to "eco" cars the bottom line is always and only the return on investment from a monetary point of view? Is this calculation ever applied to performance car? Or for that matter any other vehicle? Could it be that there are people who want to use less gas for geopolitical reasons? Or environmental reasons?

Please avoid the "What's the payback on performance?" cliche.

There are people who will pay a premium to reduce gasoline consumption or pollution, but they are a limited share of the market. If they were a significant share of the market, the Prius would already be manufactured in Mississippi.

Particularly when cars are sacrificing amenities or cabin comfort for gains in mileage, the vast majority of people will make a financial calculation to decide whether the gains are worth it.

The real problem with the "analysis" was its vacuity, because, as Chris noted, it didn't actually test the cars to determine the difference in mileage potential for drivers who are concerned enough about mileage to drive in an efficient manner.