Why you're not getting the miles per gallon you expect

[nickel]

For years, automakers have been criticized for producing vehicles that get so-so gas mileage. But as gas prices climb and consumers seek more miles per gallon, it turns out that fuel economy is much worse than it appears—50 percent less on some models, a new Consumer Reports analysis reveals.
Drivers who track their own fuel economy have long known that their results seldom match the gas mileage claimed by the Environmental Protection Agency on new-car stickers. Our study, based on years of real-world road tests over thousands of miles, quantifies the problem across a wide swath of makes and models.

We compared the claimed EPA fuel economy with the mileage per gallon we measured for 303 cars and trucks for model-years 2000 to 2006. Our selection represents a good cross-section of mainstream, high-volume vehicles. We looked at city, highway, and overall mpg.


Highlights of our study:


-Shortfalls in mpg occurred in 90 percent of vehicles we tested and included most makes and models.

-The largest discrepancy between claimed and actual mpg involved city driving. Some models we tested fell short of claimed city mpg by 35 to 50 percent.

-Hybrids, whose selling point is fuel thriftiness, had some of the biggest disparities, with fuel economy averaging 19 mpg below the EPA city rating.

-The EPA ratings are the result of 1970s-era test assumptions that don't account for how people drive today. Automakers also test prototype vehicles that can yield better mileage than a consumer could get.

-Despite federal certification, it appears that U.S. vehicle fleets, all cars and light trucks produced in one model year, don't meet government fuel-economy standards. For example, fleet mpg for 2003-model-year vehicles we studied was overstated by 30 percent.

For consumers, the news means that their vehicles typically cost hundreds more per year to operate than they were led to believe. Put another way, when gas in August 2005 hit $2.37 per gallon, the mpg shortchange effectively boosted the price for some motorists to $3.13 per gallon.
For the nation, where the fleet average fuel economy is near its lowest point in 17 years, the findings suggest that the country is far short of its energy goals.

"We are concerned about the differences," Margo Oge, director of the EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality, said of our study. "I think we can do a better job to help consumers assess actual fuel economy."



http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4023460

[kgsilvas]

Wow, the hybrid part is really troubling. People trade off performance and sometimes styling to get significantly better mileage. They already cost more to operate due to their shorter life span. That really sucks.

It sucks for non-hybrid carpoolers too, since Cali lets most hybrids share the carpool lane. If they are not actually being much more fuel efficient, they should be out in the regular lanes.

Lastly it sucks for most taxpayers because we're carrying the weight for hybrid owners that get tax credits for them. Again, if the hybrids are not actually being much more fuel efficient, the owners should not get tax breaks for them.

Jeepers, I feel like I should have posted my response in the SSS thread. :winkie:

[Airencracken]

Yeah well, my hybird get 46mpg regulary in mixed driving and that ain't bad

[attgig]

interesting:

Two-row SUVS

Best
Toyota Highlander Ltd. 19
Nissan Murano 19
Worst
GMC Envoy SLT 15
Chevrolet TrailBlazer LT 19
Volkswagen Touareg 15



typo or media just not liking chevy's?

[Jeffbx]

Heh - must have been from Consumer Reports, right?

They are heavily biased against US MFRs, and heavily toward Japanese. One of the many reasons I can't stand that publication.

[InfiniteNothing]

It's not a bias it's statistics. I think it's good to tell it like it is. Make the US makers step up. If you believe the bias to be true then just buy the highest rated American cars. It's your prerogative.

Hey, one of the highest rated cars ever (if not the highest): the new miata with a 99% (drive it; it's sweet) rating was designed both in Japan and America.

[Kevster]

Heh - must have been from Consumer Reports, right?

They are heavily biased against US MFRs, and heavily toward Japanese. One of the many reasons I can't stand that publication.

How do you explain their rating for the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero? They gave that a "Not Acceptable" rating because of how it performed in their short-course avoidance-maneuver test.

I have found their recommendations to be on the mark for the most part. A fine example would be my 1996 Honda Accord EX and my wife's 1999 Saturn SC2 POS. The only good thing I can say about the saturn is that it's paid for, nothing more. The Saturn POS burns a quart of oil every 1000 miles and I have had to replace the radiator and alternator before it reached 50,000 miles. Granted I am a second owner on my Honda, but it is running fantastic, I haven't had any problems with it whatsoever, and it has TWICE the number of miles (110k!) on it as the Saturn! I think Consumer Reports has plenty of reason to try and get the US manufacturers to build a car that will last more than 3-5 years before falling apart. There's a reason why quality is Job 1,223,452,842,348,269 at Ford - it forces people to have to go buy another vehicle because their (and other American vehicles, mind you) lifespan is limited. An example of is a post on here somewhere concerning a mechanic's observation of Volvo's quality decending into the depths of hell after Ford took over.

[cheapie]

i gotta say that after working with union vs non-union OEMs and tier-1 suppliers i have absolutely zero sympathy for the big three. they let the tail wag the dog and are now paying through the nose for decades of mgmt stagnation, costly internal initiatives, and for not reining in the ridiculous demands of the UAW.

oh the stories i could tell. of even our own facilities. including one i used to work at.

[mcs328]

I watched my local news conduct an investigation on the mpg thing. The mpg sticker you see on the sticker is based on what the manufacturer says it is when they test it. The gov't only tests 10% of all the car models using the standard mentioned above to see if what they get matches with what the manufacturer says it gets.

[Houdini]

Weather conditions (temperature) affect mileage, and of course how you drive. This, according to most experts, is what makes hybrids not as efficient as people hoped. You really have to take it easy on the throttle - think eggshell - before it will improve to the great target numbers. Then again, for highway driving, they do almost nothing.

[Jeffbx]

How do you explain their rating for the 2001 Mitsubishi Montero? They gave that a "Not Acceptable" rating because of how it performed in their short-course avoidance-maneuver test.


Well, not in every single case, of course (although they also have a bias against SUVs (http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/consumer_suv.htm)). And I'm CERTAINLY not saying that US MFRs deserve to be at the top of the quality pile.

But overall, I've found their blatant disdain for US MFRs to be a little over the top. I've seen instances where they've reviewed the same car with a different nameplate on it (sorry, can't remember what it was - maybe the Honda Matrix & Pontiac Vibe??) where the Japanese version was the best thing since sliced bread, and the one with the US badge failed to meet their expectations.

I'm just saying that if you want car reviews, look at Car & Driver or another actual automobile magazine. IMHO, CR isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[mechmike0034]

This is old news - the EPA ratings have been a running joke for thirty years. Thus the "YMMV" expression... (which has been around since EPA mileage ratings were created)

[thresher]

It's one of the few times I am grateful I live in FLatland. Ha. I just thought that one up. :) My gas mileage is terrible, but almost dead-on with the window sticker. Of course I have an aftermarket air filter and exhaust and I drive like a grandpa, but still, I am earning those 13mpg, baby!

[guiseppewv]

Wow, the hybrid part is really troubling. People trade off performance and sometimes styling to get significantly better mileage. They already cost more to operate due to their shorter life span. That really sucks.


The hybrids are off the most becuase they get much higher gas mileage. For example if all cars are off ~20% then a car that is supposed to get 25 mpg will get 20 and a hybrid that should get 65 mpg will get 52 mpg. See what I mean? :)


i gotta say that after working with union vs non-union OEMs and tier-1 suppliers i have absolutely zero sympathy for the big three. they let the tail wag the dog and are now paying through the nose for decades of mgmt stagnation, costly internal initiatives, and for not reining in the ridiculous demands of the UAW.

oh the stories i could tell. of even our own facilities. including one i used to work at.

Its not just the UAW but 95% of the unions out there. I have tons of stories from the 3 unions that I worked with (UMWA, UFCW, and one other I can't remember). I would be interested in hearing some of your stories b/c I one of my friends used to work for GM and the stories he told were unbelievably hilarious and another friend worked for delphi......

[InfiniteNothing]

Well, not in every single case, of course (although they also have a bias against SUVs (http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/consumer_suv.htm)). And I'm CERTAINLY not saying that US MFRs deserve to be at the top of the quality pile.

But overall, I've found their blatant disdain for US MFRs to be a little over the top. I've seen instances where they've reviewed the same car with a different nameplate on it (sorry, can't remember what it was - maybe the Honda Matrix & Pontiac Vibe??) where the Japanese version was the best thing since sliced bread, and the one with the US badge failed to meet their expectations.

I'm just saying that if you want car reviews, look at Car & Driver or another actual automobile magazine. IMHO, CR isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

It's the only one without ads. When you are getting paid by the people who you are reviewing... it's hard to imagine you'd stay perfectly unbiased.

I pulled out the car issue. The vibe and matrix have near identical reliability over the last few years. They have the same trouble spots and the review mentions that they are twin-like. Satisfaction rating is identical and the depreciation is slightly low on the vibe for obvious reasons.

[Jeffbx]

No ads does not = good information.

The auto mags actually get out there & test the cars on a number of industry accepted benchmarks, including high mileage use, dyno testing, speed, skidpad, etc.

CR gets most of their info from user surveys - have a look at this site - http://www.allpar.com/cr.html


Consumer Reports' ads imply that they have no bias. Their articles prove otherwise. When they say they are unbiased because they do not accept advertising, think about their logic for a moment. Is the Toyota Corolla enthusiast page unbiased because it does not have advertising? Our ideas on reducing bias are shown up front - essentially, try to make sure testers do not know which car they are testing (to avoid self-fulfilling test results) and also to keep an eye out for bias. Our friends at Consumers Guide could do that better, too - they seem to have a need to write "but not up to the best of the European/Japanese imports" at the end of every American review. Well, some of the imports aren't up to the best of the Americans - but we never read that. (If you still believe Consumer Reports, take a look at Mercedes quality ratings, and tell me about "the best of the imports!")

For that matter, we can look at their February 2005 issue, where they call the interior of the Caravan "plasticky" (no more than the Sienna in our experience); and, as "Grim" said,

[Regarding a comparison of the Acura TSX and Volvo S40], seeing them trash a car from a company I don't like confirmed their bias more than seeing them trash a car from a company I do like (where I might be biased myself). For example, in a one page review, they said five times that the Volvo had unacceptably tight rear legroom. This despite the fact that in the objective measurements published on the next page, the Volvo had as much legroom as any other car in the comparo (there were four) and more than most...They also call the Acura's gas mileage "good," while they call the Volvo's "acceptable." That's interesting, since they get the exact same mileage and the Volvo gets it on regular gas rather than premium like the Acura. They also ding the Volvo a couple of times for sluggish acceleration, despite the fact that it's only two-tenths slower to 60 than the Acura (which was "good" and "peppy"). Two-tenths falls well within the range of measurement error.

[Chgoman]

Anyone who doesn't know that the sticker MPG ratings are a joke has been asleep or dead for the last 10 years. The numbers can be useful for comparison, but most people know you have to knock about 20% off the sticker claims unless you live in a flat area and don't drive over 50.

[guiseppewv]

No ads does not = good information.

The auto mags actually get out there & test the cars on a number of industry accepted benchmarks, including high mileage use, dyno testing, speed, skidpad, etc.

CR gets most of their info from user surveys - have a look at this site - http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

Anyone who has ever watched motor trend or seen their ratings know they are biased. The same goes for car and driver. You would think American vehicles are the shiznit instead of a POS if you listen to them.


CR gets most of their info from user surveys - have a look at this site - http://www.allpar.com/cr.html



Consumer Reports' ads imply that they have no bias. Their articles prove otherwise. When they say they are unbiased because they do not accept advertising, think about their logic for a moment. Is the Toyota Corolla enthusiast page unbiased because it does not have advertising? Our ideas on reducing bias are shown up front - essentially, try to make sure testers do not know which car they are testing (to avoid self-fulfilling test results) and also to keep an eye out for bias. Our friends at Consumers Guide could do that better, too - they seem to have a need to write "but not up to the best of the European/Japanese imports" at the end of every American review. Well, some of the imports aren't up to the best of the Americans - but we never read that. (If you still believe Consumer Reports, take a look at Mercedes quality ratings, and tell me about "the best of the imports!")


Actually they say the best of the European/JApanese imports - Mercedes is bottom of the barrel in terms of premium European imports - at least in reliability and quality.



For that matter, we can look at their February 2005 issue, where they call the interior of the Caravan "plasticky" (no more than the Sienna in our experience); and, as "Grim" said,


They said the same thing about the Nissan Altima - an import. :shrug:

[InfiniteNothing]

No ads does not = good information.

The auto mags actually get out there & test the cars on a number of industry accepted benchmarks, including high mileage use, dyno testing, speed, skidpad, etc.

CR gets most of their info from user surveys - have a look at this site - http://www.allpar.com/cr.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by From above link
Consumer Reports' ads imply that they have no bias. Their articles prove otherwise. When they say they are unbiased because they do not accept advertising, think about their logic for a moment. Is the Toyota Corolla enthusiast page unbiased because it does not have advertising? Our ideas on reducing bias are shown up front - essentially, try to make sure testers do not know which car they are testing (to avoid self-fulfilling test results) and also to keep an eye out for bias. Our friends at Consumers Guide could do that better, too - they seem to have a need to write "but not up to the best of the European/Japanese imports" at the end of every American review. Well, some of the imports aren't up to the best of the Americans - but we never read that. (If you still believe Consumer Reports, take a look at Mercedes quality ratings, and tell me about "the best of the imports!")

For that matter, we can look at their February 2005 issue, where they call the interior of the Caravan "plasticky" (no more than the Sienna in our experience); and, as "Grim" said,

[Regarding a comparison of the Acura TSX and Volvo S40], seeing them trash a car from a company I don't like confirmed their bias more than seeing them trash a car from a company I do like (where I might be biased myself). For example, in a one page review, they said five times that the Volvo had unacceptably tight rear legroom. This despite the fact that in the objective measurements published on the next page, the Volvo had as much legroom as any other car in the comparo (there were four) and more than most...They also call the Acura's gas mileage "good," while they call the Volvo's "acceptable." That's interesting, since they get the exact same mileage and the Volvo gets it on regular gas rather than premium like the Acura. They also ding the Volvo a couple of times for sluggish acceleration, despite the fact that it's only two-tenths slower to 60 than the Acura (which was "good" and "peppy"). Two-tenths falls well within the range of measurement
I never said no ads=good info. What I implied was no ads = less bias. It's not true that most of their info is from surveys. They buy each car off the lot of the dealer posing as a regular consumer. This guarantees they don't get a ringer. They only use surveys for reliability. Though this method has a few flaws I think the Vibe to Matrix reliability comparison I did above shows that the flaws are minor.

I'm not sure what you mean by high milage use. Sounds like reliability to me. Here's the problem with keeping a car around for a while and assuming the reliability: You can only derive the properties of the group of which you sample from. That is, you'll only determine the reliability of that one car. It says nothing about the reliability of other cars of the same make/model/year.

Dyno testing is interesting but is purely academic when it comes to acceleration. They do test 0-60, 45-65, and the quarter mile. Probably the most important tests for 95% of people. They also test accident avoidance, braking, headlights, etc. Hey, if you don't like what they test, you have a valid reason not to read but it doesn't make them biased.

In terms of your quote: why compare any reliability to the midrange. You'll always want to base it off the top or bottom. Anyhow, I think that's just Consumers Guide not Consumer Reports. With CR just use the ovals. Also, what's the point of true blind tests when you are testing measureables. I don't think someone's bias will show up in a 60-0 dry/wet breaking test. You can measure that in feet. If you are concerned about bias you can just ignore subjective qualities such as fit and finish.

In terms of leg room, I looked at the issue and none of the cars had good reviews on the back seat. The Acura had low thigh room. Volvo and Audi had the worst back seats but a cramped back seat isn't only about how many inches you have, it's about angle and how big the back seat is. They have pictures of both the Audi and Volvo back seats and they look very tight. I see no bias.

Gas milage: neither are said to be good or adequate. They are simply left as numbers.

Acceleration: Both given "average" ratings. In terms of subjective things like "peppy" or "sluggish". I don't see it. The performance of the Volvo is said to be "good" and "nimble" but not "sporty feeling" due to less steering feed back (which is pretty darn important IMO)

[guiseppewv]

I never said no ads=good info. What I implied was no ads = less bias. It's not true that most of their info is from surveys. They buy each car off the lot of the dealer posing as a regular consumer. This guarantees they don't get a ringer. They only use surveys for reliability. Though this method has a few flaws I think the Vibe to Matrix reliability comparison I did above shows that the flaws are minor.

I'm not sure what you mean by high milage use. Sounds like reliability to me. Here's the problem with keeping a car around for a while and assuming the reliability: You can only derive the properties of the group of which you sample from. That is, you'll only determine the reliability of that one car. It says nothing about the reliability of other cars of the same make/model/year.

Dyno testing is interesting but is purely academic when it comes to acceleration. They do test 0-60, 45-65, and the quarter mile. Probably the most important tests for 95% of people. They also test accident avoidance, braking, headlights, etc. Hey, if you don't like what they test, you have a valid reason not to read but it doesn't make them biased.

In terms of your quote: why compare any reliability to the midrange. You'll always want to base it off the top or bottom. Anyhow, I think that's just Consumers Guide not Consumer Reports. With CR just use the ovals. Also, what's the point of true blind tests when you are testing measureables. I don't think someone's bias will show up in a 60-0 dry/wet breaking test. You can measure that in feet. If you are concerned about bias you can just ignore subjective qualities such as fit and finish.

In terms of leg room, I looked at the issue and none of the cars had good reviews on the back seat. The Acura had low thigh room. Volvo and Audi had the worst back seats but a cramped back seat isn't only about how many inches you have, it's about angle and how big the back seat is. They have pictures of both the Audi and Volvo back seats and they look very tight. I see no bias.

Gas milage: neither are said to be good or adequate. They are simply left as numbers.

Acceleration: Both given "average" ratings. In terms of subjective things like "peppy" or "sluggish". I don't see it. The performance of the Volvo is said to be "good" and "nimble" but not "sporty feeling" due to less steering feed back (which is pretty darn important IMO)

Great rebuttal. I think you pointed out a lot of the types of inaccuracies in the link provided by Jeffbx.

[Airencracken]

Yeah well, my CIVIC gets 40mpg regulary in mixed driving and that ain't bad

Sure isn't!

[Kevster]

Well, not in every single case, of course (although they also have a bias against SUVs (http://www.junkscience.com/consumer/consumer_suv.htm)).

While I am not bashing your opinion of Consumer Reports, I do have to say that the link you posted is quite dated and NTSB & insurance studies have since come out about SUV rollover risks and the much higher levels of injury of car occupants where SUVs were involved in accidents above 30mph. I lost a cousin to an SUV rollover accident (single vehicle accident, overcorrection at 55mph on the freeway, while wearing seatbelt, resulted in massive head trauma).

As for reading about different vehicles, the other magazines mentioned are just as, if not more biased the other way. I go more by word of mouth (like reading about other people's experiences with a particular car) and internet research now instead of relying on car magazines since I generally don't trust their opinions when having to make a $20-40k decision.

[InfiniteNothing]

The problem with going by word of mouth is generally one will have selective hearing and everything will confirm what they want to hear. It's just human nature.

[guiseppewv]

The problem with going by word of mouth is generally one will have selective hearing and everything will confirm what they want to hear. It's just human nature.

:stupid:

Plus it is not statistically accurate (i.e. you are only getting one or two or maybe a few data points).

[Houdini]

Well, C&D and Motor Trend, etc., have become excited about newer American cars recently, with the introduction of the new Vette, the newer old muscle cars, and the nifty things like the Sky. But they love Civics, Accords, etc.

But overall, they tend to be biased toward Japanese and/or German cars (not to mention Italian Exotics.)

MT's car of the year last year was the WRX-STI, if I remember. So, that's not exactly biased against imports...

[Kevster]

The problem with going by word of mouth is generally one will have selective hearing and everything will confirm what they want to hear. It's just human nature.

You don't see too many articles in car mags reviewing the latest used vehicles, do you? Most of what you can look for is stuff from Consumer Reports, Edmunds, and other sites on model year quality, reliability and manufacturer recalls. With only that, sometimes you have to check owner opinions and such on automotive forums (like this one) to find out more. The last car I bought was my Honda Accord EX, and I got that used from the only owner. Thanks to a number of factors, I won't be in the position to buy a new car for a few years so I will have to take good care of my Honda.

[ramazank2]

I just bought a 2006 Toyota Rav4 rated at 22mpg street 29mpg hwy to replace my 1995 chevy blazer. And to my surprise they get similar gas milage.....

Mixed driving with rav4: 19mpg
Mixed driving with blazer: 18mpg

[sizemic1]

I get exactly what was advertised. 37mpg.

[guiseppewv]

I get exactly what was advertised. 37mpg.


What are you driving? Do you drive like a grandpappy?

[sizemic1]

06 Civic LX 5-speed.
Typically cruise 70-75mph on the freeway.
Not sure if you consider it grandpappy speed or not ;)

[ray]

I drive a 2002 Camry LE V6 and I pretty much get the advertised mileage:

Advertised: 20 City/28 Highway
Actual: 22 City/27 Highway