EPA mpg estimates gripe.......(yes, even post 2007)....

[angry hampster]

brands you can trust are Honda & Toyota.

There should be no more discussion after this post. This person has made the decision easy for you.



^_^

 

[SearchMaster]

How can the EPA *possibly* publish numbers that match everyone's mileage in every situation?

Yes, the 32 published for the Equinox is a joke...Chevy programmed the transmission specifically for the EPA ratings. But everyone's commute and driving style are different. My current car is rated 27 highway under the new standards, I rarely get less than 30 per tank and often get >31. But if I did as much "around town" driving as my wife, I'd get closer to 24 or 25.

 

[ThatsABigOne]

brands you can trust are Honda & Toyota.

Going to echo this quote. It is true. EPA number for Japanese labels are gimped, meaning US labeled cars are overhyped?:hmm:

Only if I knew what was the official mileage rating for 1972 Jaguar XJ6 4.2. So far, I am getting about 14mpg.

 

[overst33r]

How can the EPA *possibly* publish numbers that match everyone's mileage in every situation?

Exactly. Most people don't realize that the EPA only tests ~15% of cars. The rest of the time, they simply take the manufacturer's word.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/09q3/the_truth_about_epa_city_highway_mpg_estimates-feature

Two-thirds of the new vehicles the EPA does test are selected randomly, and the remaining third are done for specific reasons. Candidates for scrutiny usually involve new technologies, new manufacturers, class fuel-economy champs, or cars that barely avoid a gas-guzzler tax.

Apparently, VW specifically converted a Bugatti Veyron to RWD for the EPA to test it on their 2 wheel drive dyno.

 

[desy]

Yep better fuel mileage cause they use to lie about their HP ratings

Testing under stricter new horsepower standards reveals that most of the models in Toyota's lineup have less oomph than the company has advertised. Even though the engines are unchanged, the automaker had to lower the horsepower ratings on all but few 2006 Toyota, Lexus and Scion models. The reductions range from 4 to 20 horsepower compared with 2005 models.

Honda Motor Co., the No. 2 Japanese automaker, also has downgraded the horsepower ratings on several models, including most of its Acura luxury brand.

But while the Japanese automakers overstated their power, an analysis of data compiled by Edmunds.com shows domestic vehicles have generally been testing at or slightly above previously stated horsepower. The testing suggests Detroit's automakers may have suffered unfairly in the battle of perceptions.

While drivers may not notice the difference, said George Peterson, president of consulting firm AutoPacific Inc, "it does matter to the manufacturers because each one is engaged in what I would call a brochure war where they're competing for the best specifications. And the average American likes a bigger horsepower number than a smaller one."

Most notably for Toyota, the rating for its top-selling Camry, when equipped with a 3.3-liter V-6 engine, had to be reduced to 190 horsepower from 210.

The V-6 version of Toyota's Highlander sport utility vehicle dropped from 230 to 215, and the Lexus LS and SC 430 decreased by 12.

The revised ratings comply with standards adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers.

The standards specify which components and accessories should be on during testing and what kind of oil and fuel to use. To claim an SAE-certified rating, an automaker also must conduct tests in the presence of an independent witness.

"The intent of the revision was to tighten up the specifications," said Gary Pollak, an SAE program manager. "There were a lot of areas that were loose and subject to interpretation."

Peterson doesn't expect Toyota or Honda to face the same kind of backlash that Hyundai Motor Co. did after inflating the horsepower ratings of its U.S. vehicles by as much as 10 percent for more than a decade. The South Korea-based automaker agreed in 2004 to pay $30 million to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of 858,000 owners.

But for consumers who covet powerful engines and allow horsepower ratings to influence which vehicles they purchase, the revisions could chip away at Honda and Toyota's reputations.

Consumers haven't taken kindly to overhyped claims.

 

[Howard]

Yep better fuel mileage cause they use to lie about their HP ratings

Testing under stricter new horsepower standards reveals that most of the models in Toyota's lineup have less oomph than the company has advertised. Even though the engines are unchanged, the automaker had to lower the horsepower ratings on all but few 2006 Toyota, Lexus and Scion models. The reductions range from 4 to 20 horsepower compared with 2005 models.

Honda Motor Co., the No. 2 Japanese automaker, also has downgraded the horsepower ratings on several models, including most of its Acura luxury brand.

But while the Japanese automakers overstated their power, an analysis of data compiled by Edmunds.com shows domestic vehicles have generally been testing at or slightly above previously stated horsepower. The testing suggests Detroit's automakers may have suffered unfairly in the battle of perceptions.

While drivers may not notice the difference, said George Peterson, president of consulting firm AutoPacific Inc, "it does matter to the manufacturers because each one is engaged in what I would call a brochure war where they're competing for the best specifications. And the average American likes a bigger horsepower number than a smaller one."

Most notably for Toyota, the rating for its top-selling Camry, when equipped with a 3.3-liter V-6 engine, had to be reduced to 190 horsepower from 210.

The V-6 version of Toyota's Highlander sport utility vehicle dropped from 230 to 215, and the Lexus LS and SC 430 decreased by 12.

The revised ratings comply with standards adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers.

The standards specify which components and accessories should be on during testing and what kind of oil and fuel to use. To claim an SAE-certified rating, an automaker also must conduct tests in the presence of an independent witness.

"The intent of the revision was to tighten up the specifications," said Gary Pollak, an SAE program manager. "There were a lot of areas that were loose and subject to interpretation."

Peterson doesn't expect Toyota or Honda to face the same kind of backlash that Hyundai Motor Co. did after inflating the horsepower ratings of its U.S. vehicles by as much as 10 percent for more than a decade. The South Korea-based automaker agreed in 2004 to pay $30 million to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of 858,000 owners.

But for consumers who covet powerful engines and allow horsepower ratings to influence which vehicles they purchase, the revisions could chip away at Honda and Toyota's reputations.

Consumers haven't taken kindly to overhyped claims.

It's kind of stupid to buy a car for the HP number. Why not just look at the 0-60 or quarter mile times? That's what's important when you're actually driving. I don't feel sorry for people who don't research their purchases...

 

[redgtxdi]

Well, and I'd go even further to say "GO DRIVE IT" to make sure the HP/Torque are enough for you. For the most part, I think it's easy to figure out what you're going to get. If it's a 170hp i-4 in a 3000lb car, you're probably fine. The same motor in a 4,000lb SUV, probably not so much. But still........GO DRIVE IT to be sure.

I'm just surprised they can get away with it ESPECIALLY after the revamp in 2007. Why not just be brutally honest all around?? I'd put 18/26 in the Equinox i-4 window in a flash. Then, just let the consumer decide. If they're happy with that, then go for it.

Same thing for a V-6 in a 4500lb SUV. Instead of 17/24 in the window.......put 14/21 & let the customer decide.

As for earlier comments about fuelly.......I know the averages show 16-ish, but there are a few 12.8 on individual fillups and 13.x's as well for the Lambdas. To me.......in 2011........that should be unacceptable in a vehicle showing 17/24 in the window. Pre 2007, maybe but post-2007.......NO WAY!!! Like I said.....get real or forget it altogether. I can probably do better guessing based on HP/Torque & weight.

 

[overst33r]

Why not just be brutally honest all around?? I'd put 18/26 in the Equinox i-4 window in a flash. Then, just let the consumer decide. If they're happy with that, then go for it.

Same thing for a V-6 in a 4500lb SUV. Instead of 17/24 in the window.......put 14/21 & let the customer decide.

As for earlier comments about fuelly.......I know the averages show 16-ish, but there are a few 12.8 on individual fillups and 13.x's as well for the Lambdas. To me.......in 2011........that should be unacceptable in a vehicle showing 17/24 in the window. Pre 2007, maybe but post-2007.......NO WAY!!! Like I said.....get real or forget it altogether. I can probably do better guessing based on HP/Torque & weight.

They ARE being honest. The consumer is just retarded and can't read. Some car "enthusiast" are as well.

It says it right on the window sticker. For example, the model people have their hands up in the air about advertises 22/32, but also says it might be as low as 18/26. People see what they want to see.

 

[ShawnD1]

It's kind of stupid to buy a car for the HP number. Why not just look at the 0-60 or quarter mile times? That's what's important when you're actually driving. I don't feel sorry for people who don't research their purchases...

0-60 is a horrible measure of performance because at least 90% of it is the driver. If it's an automatic, are they starting the way a normal person starts or do they rev it up while holding the brakes and do a launch start (or whatever it's called). If manual, do they rev it past red line or do they shift at red line as the manufacturer suggests? It's too wishy washy. Too many variables.
HP is simple to measure. Put it on a treadmill, floor it, see what the computer says.

IMO companies should be required to post several performance numbers:
-average horsepower from 2k to red line and include a graph
-brake specific fuel consumption graph

Well, and I'd go even further to say "GO DRIVE IT" to make sure the HP/Torque are enough for you. For the most part, I think it's easy to figure out what you're going to get. If it's a 170hp i-4 in a 3000lb car, you're probably fine. The same motor in a 4,000lb SUV, probably not so much. But still........GO DRIVE IT to be sure.

It would probably feel a lot like driving a Corolla.
4000 / 170 = 23.5 lb/hp SUV
2600 / 130 = 20 lb/hp Corolla

Ok it would actually be slower than a Corolla. Have fun with that :awe:

 

[Ferzerp]

No, HP is not exactly a simple to measure because the published values are always bhp, and you can only measure whp unless you pull your engine out and measure it directly

That, and manufacturers tend to overrate or underrate the HP values they publish as well, but it's hard to tell because you can only estimate based on normal drivetrain loss.

 

[ShawnD1]

People caught lying about tests should be killed, and it should be enforced by the CIA.

new standard: the official horsepower rating should be based on a regular dyno test at the wheels using an automatic transmission (unless auto is not available). Then we would see some real data.

 

[Howard]

0-60 is a horrible measure of performance because at least 90% of it is the driver. If it's an automatic, are they starting the way a normal person starts or do they rev it up while holding the brakes and do a launch start (or whatever it's called). If manual, do they rev it past red line or do they shift at red line as the manufacturer suggests? It's too wishy washy. Too many variables.
HP is simple to measure. Put it on a treadmill, floor it, see what the computer says.

Why does it matter how people use it? What matters is that the potential is there. A fast car is not made slow by driving habit, and a slow car driven hard is not a faster car than one that is actually fast.

 

[Kroze]

People caught lying about tests should be killed, and it should be enforced by the CIA.

new standard: the official horsepower rating should be based on a regular dyno test at the wheels using an automatic transmission (unless auto is not available). Then we would see some real data.

Bailing out GM just to kill it again?