Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / July 2005
Somewhat OT: EPA may be hiding fuel efficiency data
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mark - 28 Jul 2005 14:48 GMT A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the 300HP motor to move it to their liking)?
"And the paper said that major improvements in engine technology over the last couple of decades have been mostly used to make cars faster, not more fuel-efficient."
Bigger, faster vehicles encourage faster speeds and more fuel consumption. And don't tell me it's a SAFETY issue - multiple airbags and crash testing make even small cars safer than last generation's behemoths.
Oh wait, I forgot... it's more FUN to drive your V8 SUV like an outlaw, and it's everyone's RIGHT to do so. Uh huh. I guess it's also OK to make the kids go hungry and shoeless as long as mommy and daddy can fill up the tanks on the dual family trucksters every 3 days.
This is one of those issues where I take sharp exception to the administration... they are doing little or nothing to encourage manufacturers to do the right thing and consumers into making an intelligent choice. I guess it will take an economic depression to force the issue. What a shame.
http://money.cnn.com/2005/07/28/news/economy/epa_fueleconomy/index.htm
Thanks for reading my little rant...
Scott in Florida - 28 Jul 2005 15:32 GMT >A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when >will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Thanks for reading my little rant... I think the higher gas prices will take care of the problem thru the marketplace....would be my guess.
The resale value of SUV's is going down and the demand for new ones will decline...as well.
Our family cars seem just right to me, now...
'92 Corolla Wagon good for haulin everything I need to haul
'97 Corolla Sedan good for everything else
Both get aprox 30mpg overall.
The '92 drops to 27mpg during the air conditioning season.
I'd rather have the marketplace fix the problem than have the f*ing government tell everyone what to drive...
 Signature Scott in Florida
Mark - 28 Jul 2005 15:57 GMT Scott -
Points well taken, and I am generally speaking as resistant to govt. interference in the market as you, but I just don't see average yahoos giving up their fixation with overbuying cars and trucks (and sometimes going without the basics) until gas prices get high enough to throw us into a real tailspin. Personally, I could afford $5 or $8 gas, and often wish it would go there for a month or two to scare a little common sense into people, as well as slow them down and make the roads safer. But the fallout for employment (including mine) would be pretty painful if it was to do so long term.
Both of my versatile vehicles (the 03 Matrix and a 99 Honda CR-V) are 25mpg or higher (30 for the Matrix) and are capable of hauling as much or more than I ever need to.
MelvinGibson@mailcity.com - 29 Jul 2005 00:49 GMT The government has a one size fits all mentality, but one size does NOT fit all. My one son commutes 102 miles one way to work. When he took the job he bought a small 30 MPG car. He was in a car pool and drove every fourth working day. Since he was running up, over mountainous roads he seldom got to run in fifth gear. He traded the econobox for a big Mercury Grand Marquis with and EPA of 25 MPG. Now he is in a five person car pool, drives every fifth working day and gets around the same fuel mileage as he did with the smaller car because the big V8 easily runs the mountains in top gear. ;)
mike hunt
> Scott - > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > 25mpg or higher (30 for the Matrix) and are capable of hauling as much > or more than I ever need to. Dan J.S. - 28 Jul 2005 15:53 GMT >A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when > will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks for reading my little rant... Until they make boats lighter, I need my v8 4runner SUV to tow my boat... cant really do it with anything else.. However, I bike to the train station and take the train to work... not about the money it costs to fill it up, its more about getting in shape...
MelvinGibson@mailcity.com - 29 Jul 2005 00:36 GMT That works for you but many Americans commute far to work and live far from public transportation and have five or more people in there family. Half of the working people in NYC live one to two hours away from the city.
mike hunt
> >A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when > > will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > and take the train to work... not about the money it costs to fill it up, > its more about getting in shape... MelvinGibson@mailcity.com - 29 Jul 2005 00:29 GMT Can't prove it by me. I own a 1971 econobox with an OHC 2.0L engine and a 4sp manual tranny. The EPA fuel rating is 23 MPG. My 300 HP V8 5sp automatic Mustang GT convertible has and EPA rating of 25 MPG. The Mustang is bigger, heavier, safer AND more fuel efficient. Same holds true for my 2005 Lincoln LS with an EPA rating of 27 MPG.
As to SUVS my one doughtier has a seven passenger SUVs that gets 20 MPG. Prier to buying the SUV she had to take their TWO 30 MPG cars whenever she, her husband and their four children went anywhere. Many people own two vehicles, one large and one small to use as needed
Why shouldn't the people that need want and can afford a larger safer SUV not buy what they want? The NHTSA reports to Congress show a marked reduction in the number of injures and death among children over the past five years that is attributed to the fact more, properly belted, children are riding in those larger safer vehicles
mike hunt
> A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when > will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks for reading my little rant... mike hunt
> A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when > will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Thanks for reading my little rant... Mark - 29 Jul 2005 02:54 GMT Most people can find reasons (or excuses) for their behavior, and I do not dispute that there are valid reasons for large and powerful vehicles, but not in the numbers seen these days. There are millions of ridiculously plush Escalades, Excursions, Suburbans, Hummers, Navigators etc. getting 10-12 mpg that are never used for more than runs to the grocery, golf outings or impressing the neighbors.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I was taught that it is WRONG to waste, and that is exactly what our love affair with oversize vehicles is... a waste. And you know? In many cases those SUV drivers are the same people that will be standing around crying with their hands out when they lose their jobs because the economy tanks at the next big oil shock. It's all part of the "I want it all NOW" mentality that grips our country and causes people to go out and mortgage themselves to the hilt buying vehicles that cost more than they make in a year.
MajorDomo@mailcity.com - 29 Jul 2005 04:09 GMT I'm sure you are right, after all it is the same American consumer that is buying all the foreign products like Toyotas that are hollering about their jobs going off shore LOL
mike hunt
> Most people can find reasons (or excuses) for their behavior, and I do > not dispute that there are valid reasons for large and powerful [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > our country and causes people to go out and mortgage themselves to the > hilt buying vehicles that cost more than they make in a year. Bassplayer12 - 29 Jul 2005 03:38 GMT Submitted without comments.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/050214-4.htm: "The IIHS has been compiling crash death statistics since 1975 and reports that while the U.S. population has grown steadily, the rate of motor vehicle crash deaths per 100,000 people has declined by 29 per cent since then. However, declines in the last decade have been smaller. The death rate increased among motorcyclists, but decreased among passenger car occupants (including SUVs, light trucks AND vans), bicyclists, AND pedestrians."
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/040429-5.htm :Washington, D.C. - Preliminary estimates released today by the U.S. government reveal the highest number of motor vehicle deaths since 1990 and a 10 percent increase in SUV rollover deaths in the past year.
IleneDover@mailcity.com - 29 Jul 2005 16:36 GMT The rollover deaths in cars is far greater than in SUVs, as a raw number. Ten percent is a rather low statistical increase in roll-overs in SUVs, considering there has been a 70% increase in the number of SUVs sold in the US over the past five years. As well as the fact the average SUV caries an average of three more occupants on average. To point to the total number of deaths without equating it to passenger miles traveled and to the hugh increase in the number of vehicle on the road is disingenuous.
The fact remains the death and injury RATE in all types of accidents is going down, particularly among children in the US. The US NHTSA attributes that decline to the greater number of, properly belted, children riding in bigger, safer, SUVs.
That was one reason the US Senate declined to raise the CAFE for light trucks and chose to leave it to market forces to determine what vehicles consumers would chose to purchases
mike hunt
> Submitted without comments. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > highest number of motor vehicle deaths since 1990 and a 10 percent increase > in SUV rollover deaths in the past year. Mark - 29 Jul 2005 21:12 GMT By saying that "the average SUV carres an average of three more occupants on average" do you mean that the average SUV carries at least 4 occupants? Nonsense...
BenDover@mailcity.com - 29 Jul 2005 22:16 GMT Little slow are you? 'I' did mean anything. The government figures on which I was commenting says the average car has seating for four or five. The average large SUV has seating for seven or eight. Try to keep up. You can search the Congressional Record or the NHTSA cite for the facts if you need further information. ;)
mike hunt
> By saying that "the average SUV carres an average of three more > occupants on average" do you mean that the average SUV carries at > least 4 occupants? Nonsense... Gord Beaman - 30 Jul 2005 01:48 GMT >Little slow are you? 'I' did mean anything. The government >figures on which I was commenting says the average car has [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >mike hunt C'mon Mike...you made an error...why can't you just admit it and carry on?...to argue this point makes you look small and detracts from your accountability sir...
Here's what you said:
quote
>As well as the fact the average SUV caries an average of three more >occupants on average. unquote
>> By saying that "the average SUV carres an average of three more >> occupants on average" do you mean that the average SUV carries at > least 4 occupants? Nonsense...
 Signature -Gord.
"I'm trying to get as old as I can, and it must be working 'cause I'm the oldest now that I've ever been"
BenDover@mailcity.com - 30 Jul 2005 15:15 GMT I will gladly admit when I'm wrong, but I was simply referring to what was in the report about the relative seating capacity of those vehicle. He was assuming that to mean there are those numbers in the vehicle, on average, and that is what is nonsense ;)
mike hunt
> >Little slow are you? 'I' did mean anything. The government > >figures on which I was commenting says the average car has [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > and it must be working 'cause I'm > the oldest now that I've ever been" Gord Beaman - 31 Jul 2005 04:32 GMT >I will gladly admit when I'm wrong, but I was simply referring >to what was in the report about the relative seating capacity [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >mike hunt C'mon now...he stated that there was so many SEATS...you stated that there was so many OCCUPANTS...it was YOU who did the assuming...it was, therefore, YOUR error...to continue arguing when you're so obviously wrong makes you look stupid.
Snap out of it Mike. --
-Gord. (use gordon in email)
Mark - 31 Jul 2005 06:38 GMT Yeah, but those extra empty seats are less likely to be killed ;-)
Bassplayer12 - 30 Jul 2005 16:34 GMT Submitted without comment:
http://www.canadiandriver.com/news/040429-5.htm: "NHTSA's preliminary data for 2003 shows while passenger car fatalities declined by 778, SUV fatalities increased by 456. SUV fatalities in rollover crashes increased 10 percent in a single year, from 2,448 to 2,701. As the agency's press release noted, "This increase was partially accounted for by increases in SUV sales."NHTSA's preliminary data for 2003 shows while passenger car fatalities declined by 778, SUV fatalities increased by 456. SUV fatalities in rollover crashes increased 10 percent in a single year, from 2,448 to 2,701. As the agency's press release noted, "This increase was partially accounted for by increases in SUV sales."
DustyRhoades@mailcity.com - 31 Jul 2005 23:05 GMT What is you point? Raw numbers, not quantified for number of vehicles on the road and miles driven per vehicle are meaningless. The fact is although the numbers go up, I E nearly 43,000 deaths in motor vehicle accident in 2004. The percentage of SUVs has risen dramatically to over 50% from less than 30% of the nearly 17,000,000 new vehicles sold annually. The car sales percentage has gone down over the past five years. The injury and death RATE continues to decline among them, every year.
mike hunt
> Submitted without comment: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > agency's press release noted, "This increase was partially accounted for by > increases in SUV sales. Bassplayer12 - 01 Aug 2005 00:13 GMT > What is you point? Er, it's not MY point... I am not the author of the article.
Hachiroku - 30 Jul 2005 14:12 GMT On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 19:29:55 -0400, MelvinGibson wrote:
> Can't prove it by me. I own a 1971 econobox with an OHC 2.0L > engine and a 4sp manual tranny. The EPA fuel rating is 23 MPG. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > anywhere. Many people own two vehicles, one large and one small > to use as needed There are a LOT of nice Station Wagons around...
> Why shouldn't the people that need want and can afford a larger > safer SUV not buy what they want? The NHTSA reports to Congress [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] >> >> Thanks for reading my little rant... Mark - 30 Jul 2005 14:55 GMT Mike -
You seem to have a penchant for exaggeration and inaccuracy. Are you just forgetful or do you do it on purpose? Don't you think anyone will bother to check your claims?
The EPA didn't start conducting the current tests until the late 1970s, so you didn't even HAVE an estimate in 1971 (http://www.antiquecar.com/feature_fuel_economy_faux.php). Only a few months ago we discussed in detail the fact that EPA estimates are generally overstated.
Even IF your 23mpg number is accurate for your 1971 "econobox" (98% cast iron/steel with a primitive carbureted engine by today's standards), I would certainly hope that we would have progressed enough in 35 YEARS to beat that number easily with a faster, heavier and much more expensive modern car that has 35 YEARS of advances in engine building and especially fuel injection and microprocessor-based electronic sensing and control. My Matrix weighs 2,800 pounds and easily gets 30mpg in mixed driving, although I do not consider it to be a prime economy car like the Echo.
Here are your EPA estimates by the way:
2005 Lincoln LS - 20 city / 26 hwy (6-cylinder), 18 city / 24 hwy (8-cylinder) - NOT 27 in any case
2005 Mustang GT 5 speed - 18 city / 25 HIGHWAY
Don't quote the HIGHWAY number and imply that is what you are going to get... I will call you on it every time
BenDover@mailcity.com - 30 Jul 2005 15:59 GMT The EPA figures are to be used as a comparison among vehicles that are all tested to the SAME standard, not the same USE. Some will drive mainly in cites and generally in lower gears. Other may drive only on the interstates. Winter, summer, elevation, humidity, etc. all effect fuel mileage. That why it says on the label 'your mileage my vary.' My experience in this business shows that most vehicles, on average, will do two miles less then the city mileage if driven only that way and easily do three miles more than the highway mileage when driven mostly that way.
Like most owners, one tends to mention the best mileage not their poorest or even average mileage. On a recent trip of 1,660 miles though several states I averaged 25.7 MPG in the Mustang. On a trip to Montreal from Delaware I averaged 27.3 with the LS. As to average mileage my 1983 Continental Mark VI has a fuel computer. I have never reset the average mileage accumulated setting over nearly 90K and it reads 23.1
My one son recently replaced a vehicle with a 30 MPG rating for a larger vehicle with a 25 MPG rating, that he uses to commute over 100 miles one way to work over mountainous roads. His average MPG is only two MPG less with the larger safer vehicle because the small vehicle need to be run in lower gears to clime the mountains while the lager V8 will run the mountains is top gear.
Why anyone would chooses to ride in a small car, rather than a larger safer vehicle to save a few dollars a week, does not make much sense to me.
mike hunt
> Mike - > > You seem to have a penchant for exaggeration and inaccuracy. Are you > just forgetful or do you do it on purpose? Don't you think anyone will > bother to check your claims? Bassplayer12 - 29 Jul 2005 02:39 GMT snip
> This is one of those issues where I take sharp exception to the > administration... they are doing little or nothing to encourage > manufacturers to do the right thing and consumers into making an > intelligent choice. I guess it will take an economic depression to > force the issue. What a shame. Europeans already went through that and drive more fuel efficient cars. Maybe when the price of fuel in North America matches the prices in Europe, people will learn to appreciate fuel efficient vehicules, which include diesels.
Learning Richard - 31 Jul 2005 23:07 GMT > snip > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > people will learn to appreciate fuel efficient vehicules, which include > diesels. Not that simple. Hell... my commute to work alone could take me through three countries in Europe.
Apples and oranges.
Hachiroku - 30 Jul 2005 14:11 GMT > A horrible trend... fuel economy DOWN 6% in the last 15 years... when > will people realize they don't need all that steel around them (and the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OK to make the kids go hungry and shoeless as long as mommy and daddy > can fill up the tanks on the dual family trucksters every 3 days. Yeah, if you can. I'm not saying women drivers suck, but who drives most of the SUVs? Oh, and yeah, for the most part, women drivers DO suck, esp behind the wheel of a 4600 lb, top heavy TRUCK...
> This is one of those issues where I take sharp exception to the > administration... they are doing little or nothing to encourage [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks for reading my little rant... Scott in Florida - 30 Jul 2005 20:20 GMT >Yeah, if you can. I'm not saying women drivers suck, but who drives most >of the SUVs? Oh, and yeah, for the most part, women drivers DO suck, esp >behind the wheel of a 4600 lb, top heavy TRUCK... I think men driving SUV's give women a hell of a run for their money....
 Signature Scott in Florida
|
|
|