Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Hybrids Beware? EPA Revises Mileage Standards

Posted by timothy on Tue Dec 26, 2006 05:04 PM
from the lies-damn-lies-and-downhill-coasters dept.
Shivetya writes "The federal Environmental Protection Agency announced a new system for determining the fuel economy of many cars and trucks. Hardest hit will be hybrids as all-electric driving is not considered. At the same time, many medium-duty vehicles will get rated, but not have to be published until 2011 This move to more realistic ratings will severely reduce the high numbers some cars have posted."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] EPA Fuel Economy Myth: Too High, Too Low? 1378 comments
ThosLives asks: "I have seen here on Slashdot , and just about every other publication, numerous articles about fuel cells, hybrid vehicles, and the inaccuracies of EPA fuel economy stickers. For instance, today there is a review of the Toyota Prius that had the famous line 'Since no car really achieves the EPA estimated mileage...' I happen to drive a car with an EPA sticker of 21 city 25 highway (all figures in miles per gallon). I've driven the car for 47000 miles and the lowest I've ever seen is 23 and some change; the highest, 36.3 (I'm probably about 60% highway 40% stop-and-go and yes, the high was on a long highway trip). My all-time average is about 28.5. As most people get less than the EPA mileage, how does the Slashdot readership fare when it comes to EPA sticker vs actual experience, and on what type of vehicle?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by CDMA_Demo (841347) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:10PM (#17370110) Homepage
    Chili Palmer: How many miles to the gallon to you get on those Hummers, about 12?
    Dabu: Nine.
  • From the EPA site itself http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/420f06009.htm#fuele stimates [epa.gov]

    A site to enter your own observed information http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=addGu estVehicle [fueleconomy.gov]

    or lookup what others have recorded http://www.fueleconomy.gov/mpg/MPG.do?action=addGu estVehicle [fueleconomy.gov]
  • Beware of what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by localman (111171) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:13PM (#17370132) Homepage
    Look, the reality of milage doesn't change because the EPA changes their testing methodology. Yes, the current EPA numbers are inflated. Sounds like the new ones will be deflated. Regardless, I get a real world 40 MPG out of my Prius and that's better than the real world high 20's, low 30's I got out of my previous cars with similar performance. What's the big deal? Why do so many folks go nutty over proving that hybrids are the greatest thing ever or the stupidest thing ever? All cars have different performance, comfort, efficiency, safety, appearance, and cost metrics. So you choose one you like.

    By the way, I don't hate HUMMER owners.

    Cheers.
    • Re:Beware of what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jandrese (485) <kensama@vt.edu> on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:52PM (#17370532) Homepage Journal
      Heck, I never thought massive MPGs were really the point of Hybrids. You can get massive MPGs out of tiny compact cars with little lawnmower engines. The point of the Hybrids to me is to get decent MPG while not accelerating like a fat kid on a tricycle and not bogging down when you need to move three of your friends somewhere in stop and go traffic.

      You're not paying extra for a car that gets exceptionally good MPG. You're paying extra for a car with good MPG that doesn't suck to drive.
      • by Engineer-Poet (795260) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @06:42PM (#17371006) Homepage Journal
        All current hybrids use NiMH batteries, which have no cadmium toxicity issues (unlike NiCd). They're soon going to switch to Li-ion because the specific power (kW/kg) and energy (Wh/kg) are better with some of the new chemistries.

        Li-ion batteries have few toxicity issues either, and the new chemistries like iron phosphate and titanium spinel have even less.

        Of course, it still makes sense to recycle batteries instead of landfilling them. Lead-acid car batteries are already the most-recycled items in the USA, and the more valuable the materials in the battery (nickel, lithium, cobalt in the old Li-ions) the more attractive it will be to recycle them.
      • Re:Beware of what? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Technician (215283) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @08:25PM (#17372068)
        The big deal is that I get a "real world" 40 mpg out of my 96 Honda Civic,

        What nobody is posting is the fuel ratings for many diffrent styles of driving. Highway and city are fine, but what about all the mail delivery and newspaper routes. During the big storm in Louisana, many people simply ran out of gas on the freeway because they were getting less than 5 MPG in the creep and stop driving. I hope the EPA includes local delivery estimates to the mix.

        I do have a Prius. I have stuck a kilowatt inverter in it. It doubles as an emergency generator. I have run for days at a time off it. It would start, run at a fast idle for about 5 minutes and shut down again and repeat in about 20 minutes. A regular car would be out of gas in under 24 hour sitting at idle. I use about 1/8 of a tank a day running this way while running a couple CF lights, the fireplace blower, the small TV, the fridg, and a small chest freezer. I ran that way for an ice storm that knocked out the power for 2 days. When I ran low on gas, I filled it and still got 32 MPG on that tank. (my all time low) Not bad for 2 days of running getting 0 MPG and a week of commuting.

        I would have never been able to do that with a conventional car.

        The choice of a car sometimes comes down to more than just a replacement for public transportation.

        I would like to see the real world numbers for letter carriers and city buses.
        • Re:Beware of what? (Score:5, Informative)

          by khallow (566160) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @06:27PM (#17370876)
          The old Honda Civic VX (straight gasoline) could get 50+ MPG and it was considerably better on the highway. My mom got 55-60 MPG with her VX on the highway, but it dropped to 45-50 in city driving.
          • Re:Beware of what? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by fermion (181285) on Wednesday December 27 2006, @01:16AM (#17373838) Homepage Journal
            We are not talking about hondas or toyotas that get 50 mpg. Every car I have ever owned has gotten around 30 mpg, so it is not technologically difficult to get 40mpg, if one pays for design and materials.

            What the new rules are designed to do, and what the American car manufacturers is upset about, is to close a loophole that allows the American manufacturers to ignore minimum standards in the fuel consumption of the fleet. This is not an evil plot by the government, this is something that the government was forced to enact due to the repeated failure of the manufacturers to obey the spirit of the law.

            Two examples. Cars had certain requirements to help protect our environment, but trucks necessarily did not. The manufactures created this loop hole by saying the farmers and small business could not afford the extra equipment and such equipment was not necessary if rural areas. The congress agreed. In response to this loophole the manufacturers started pushing the SUV because they did not have to put as much technology in it, and therefore the cost to produce was often cheaper. Then, due to certain vagaries in the tax law, they realized the could push really huge SUV and trucks, as the cost after tax deduction can actually be cheaper than smaller, better built, more fuel efficient vehicle. Such things forces responsible manufacturer, like subaru, to end up a competitive disadvantage when they build cars that won't kill the family of four in the Honda Cvcc.

            Which brings us to today. The fuel consumption estimates for hybrids is a jake, and allows manufacturers to seriously underestimate the average fuel consumption for of their fleet. For example, for can use the wildly overestimated fuel consumption on the Hybrid escape to compensate for the fuel consumption on the Expedition, which, even though fuel saving technology increases every year, the fuel consumption does not get better. With the old rules this basically evened out, and the overall fuel consumption remained constant. However, with the new rules they are in trouble. Ford wants to blame the company trouble on health care of the line workers, but I bet it is more an issue of using funds for executive pay rather than R&D. Why else were they so afraid of disclosing executive pay, and why else would they be so happy that the SEC rescinded the requirement to fully disclose compensation. And the fact that the order came the day before christmas was even more interesting.

            Which leads to today.

        • Re:Beware of what? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by JakiChan (141719) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @06:45PM (#17371034)

          Blame your favorite money-losing American car company, and its support for and from Big Oil, for the lack of diesel options in US cars.
          I don't know what the deal with the car companies is, but yeah I do blame the US oil companies for not giving us ULSD until recently. Now that we have it, though, I hope to see nice and advanced diesel engines from the European car companies to show us stupid American'ts what modern diesel is like.
          • Re:Beware of what? (Score:4, Informative)

            by dryeo (100693) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @07:18PM (#17371370)
            In my limited experience Diesels have lots more engine compression braking. I used to drive a Nissan PU with a SD25 diesel. Gear down, let of the clutch and get pulled over by the cops to check your brake lights.
            With a 22.5 to 1 compression ratio (close to 500 lbs engine compression) it had lots of engine braking.
            I think the difference is that this engine had a butterfly valve in the intake hooked up to the throttle and a vacuum line to the fuel pump for throttle operation and others have the throttle connected straight to the fuel pump with no valve in the manifold to create vacuum.
            Another nice thing about that engine that given a hill to jump start it you didn't need electric power for it to run.
  • One-Two Punch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by schwit1 (797399) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:20PM (#17370192)
    Having accurate mileage along with recommendations on raising mpg requirements [cnn.com] could be a very cold shower for the US auto industry.

    Getting the US off of the foreign oil tit should be a national security imperative.

  • by Cylix (55374) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:30PM (#17370294) Homepage Journal
    I thought MythBusters covered this one.

    The final thoughts were that no modern air conditioning system should vastly impact gas mileage.

    They even tested it on some SUV and came out with very similar gas mileage. (Windows down actually caused slightly more loss).

    I'm sure someone will chime in here and clear this up a bit. I was just a bit confused when the article claimed air conditioning was a gas hog. (Note, on an older car I had when I kicked in the AC I really did feel the engine jump to compensate, but this was ages ago.)
  • won't change my car (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mountain_Man87 (253499) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:32PM (#17370314) Homepage Journal
    My little 93 Geo Metro XFi would still get pretty much the same mileage as the old EPA ratings 51/58. I currently get 57 MPG driving it like a nut. There are a few metros on the road getting 70+mpg on the road right now.
  • by plopez (54068) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:53PM (#17370554)
    http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/26/news/companies/gm_ fuel.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes [cnn.com]

    Personnaly I am sort of happy to see GM get thier lunch eaten. They've been asleep at the switch for too many years.

    Here an interesting article as well. http://www.cnn.com/2006/BUSINESS/12/22/toyota.reut /index.html [cnn.com]

    A choice quoute from the head of Toyota: '"The important thing is to be a leader in car-making, and that's done by improving products," he told a year-end news conference, adding that vehicle quality will be Toyota's top priority at a time of rising vehicle recalls.'

    An American manager would have spoken some crap about "leveraging synergys for value added customer delight", in other words not admitting to a problem and just engaging in window dressing. American management seems to have lost thier way, focusing on image without addressing fundamentals.
  • by Colin Smith (2679) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @06:09PM (#17370728)
    5 Passengers and a load as well...

    http://phoenixmotorcars.com/models/fleet.html [phoenixmotorcars.com]

    An electric vehicle has almost no parts which require servicing; no valves, no spark plugs, no oil to change, no air filter, no piston rings. Basically it'll last as long as the chassis is structurally sound and the bodywork remains reasonable. The only bits which'll wear out are the consumables, the battery and bearings. With a battery which can last for 20 years, there's no real reason the vehicle shouldn't do a million miles with bugger all servicing.

    The battery:

    "In addition to high power the Altairnano NanoSafe
    batteries deliver:
      Long life - potentially up to 20+ year life
      Very fast charge - rechargeable in minutes
      Extremely wide operating temperature range
    from -50C/-60F to +75C/165F
      Inherent safety - no risk of thermal runaway"

     
  • by istartedi (132515) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @06:50PM (#17371090) Journal

    ...is something like a Nielsen rating for mileage. Pay some people to put a black box in their car that records the mileage. For new models, you just publish the EPA "laboratory" mileage. For cars with a year or more of real-world driving, they could post "actual" mileage. One big problem however, is that you might not be able to get enough people to sign up. You need enough people to sort out the lemons (although if mileage lemons are produced, that's important to know).

    Kudos to the EPA for taking this a step closer to the real world.

    Now, it wouldn't carry the same weight as a controlled data-gathering or testing effort, but is anybody aware of a mileage website, where people just enter their mileage for various makes and models? Sounds like something GasBuddy could add as a feature.

  • Carpool/HOV lanes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GodWasAnAlien (206300) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @08:29PM (#17372104)
    I admit that it bothers me a little that hybrids get a free Carpool/HOV pass.

    I thought the point of HOV lanes was to have fewer cars on the road.
    Allowing hybrids there does not encourage fewer cars out there.

    But, you say, hybrids are really efficient, and the allowances helps fight polution.

    Well, hybrids, by design are the most efficient in stop and go traffics.
    Braking charges the batteries.

    But in the HOV lane, hybrids are slowing less, so using the gas engine more.

  • by heroine (1220) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @09:13PM (#17372464) Homepage
    With the number of suckers paying insane amounts of money just to save $1 on gas, we'd probably be better off with a total cost of ownership measurement.

    • Re:GOOD. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:46PM (#17370452)
      Typical drive train loss is 15-30% depending on the configuration. Smaller front wheel drive 5 speeds have less drive train loss then a rear wheel big v8 automatic with OD. I've found some comparisons with Google in the past when I was reseaching figures for my own car and setup. I have 450 rear wheel HP as indicated by various dyno runs and was trying to estimate engine HP.

      Even more important then the markeeting driven "HP rating" should be a simple graph showing a dyno run with peak torque and HP noted. Oh, the graph might confuse consumers! Well we are even more let down, fooled, and confused by the peak HP claim that companies use now.

      One of my compact cars is rated at 140HP. My mini van that weighs at least 1500lbs more is rated at 165HP. My van will blow that car off of the road even while pulling a 1000lb trailer. The peak HP are almost meaningless. Torque is more important for determining real world output and neither alone are as informative as looking at a dyno run sheet would be. Hell, I guess you could skip the dyno chart and include a 60ft, 1/8 mile and 1/4 time with the trap speed.
      • Re:GOOD. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Bassman59 (519820) <andy@latTIGERke.net minus cat> on Tuesday December 26 2006, @05:48PM (#17370486) Homepage
        One of my compact cars is rated at 140HP. My mini van that weighs at least 1500lbs more is rated at 165HP. My van will blow that car off of the road even while pulling a 1000lb trailer. The peak HP are almost meaningless. Torque is more important for determining real world output and neither alone are as informative as looking at a dyno run sheet would be. Hell, I guess you could skip the dyno chart and include a 60ft, 1/8 mile and 1/4 time with the trap speed.
        As the old saying goes, "Horsepower sells cars; torque wins races."
    • by giminy (94188) on Tuesday December 26 2006, @06:06PM (#17370696) Homepage Journal
      I drive a diesel (VW Jetta) and it is awesome. No cold weather starting problems, either, even when I lived in central new york, where the temperature was regularly in the single digits. Most fuel sellers put additives in their diesel in the winter to prevent the fuel from gelling, and engines have very good glow plugs these days. The motors are even quiet and soot-free these days (unless you really floor the gas pedal)...every time I've told a passenger in my car that it's diesel, they've been surprised and/or didn't believe me.

      It's also zippy as heck. The motor produces a ton of torque at really low RPMs so it feels a lot faster than it really is, but the feeling makes it a ton of fun to drive.

      The biggest reason that more diesels aren't sold in the states is that California banned the sale of new ones. Several other states adopted California's emissions laws (New York and most of the northeastern states). Consequently not many car companies are interested in investing the time, effort (replace previous two words with 'money') to bring diesels to the US -- it's illegal to sell them in many states so it would be a lot of money spent for not much return in sales revenue.

      You can buy used diesel passenger vehicles in any of those states, but it's hard to find them (since they were never sold as new there in the first place) and they fetch a premium. Case in point: I bought mine *used* for $19,500 in New Jersey (where new diesels are actually legal to sell), and it had 42k miles on it at the time. New, the car's sticker price was about $22,000. Now it has 60k miles on it and my car will fetch $21,000 without too much trouble (I live in California these days). It's kind of a shame they aren't more common, as the mileage is good (36 city/50 highway is my real-world driving).

      Before people call me a diesel zealot, I'll definitely mention the bad things: they are bad in that they create more particulate in their exhaust, which has been shown in studies to be a carcinogen. Old-skool diesel fuel sold in the US also contained lots of sulfur, which created sulfur dioxide in the exhaust, which in turn created acid rain. The sulfur also prevented good catalytic converters from being used, so diesels create way more NOx. Now that we have low-sulfur diesel in the US, I think diesel cars will become quite a bit better...but the reputation they garnered as smoking, smelly, sooty, bad-for-the-environment cars through the 70s and 80s will probably hurt their chance at widespread adoption in the US.

      Diesel is also interestingly becoming more expensive than gasoline where I live. I find it funny, because diesel fuel is a lot easier to produce than gasoline, or so my fuel engineer friend tells me. Still, mile for mile diesel fuel is cheaper, since I get about the double the mileage that I would in a similar gasoline vehicle...