EPA Proposes Grading System For Car Fuel Economy 272
suraj.sun writes with this snippet from CNET:
"The EPA and Department of Transportation on Monday proposed a fuel economy label overhaul to reflect how electric and alternative fuel vehicles stack up against gasoline passenger vehicles. ... The changed label, mandated by the 2007 energy law, includes the same information on city and highway miles per gallon and estimated driving costs based on 15,000 miles a year now available. But the new labels add more comparative information, rating cars on mileage, greenhouse gas contribution, and other air pollutants from tailpipe emissions. That means that consumers can look at a label to see how one vehicle compares to all available vehicles, rather than only cars in a specific class. One label proposes grades, ranging from an A-plus to a D. There are no failing grades, since vehicles need to comply with the Clean Air Act."
Giant letter? (Score:4, Insightful)
Just how stupid do you have to be to need a giant letter grade on a car? I hope that version doesn't fly.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well both of the sheets shown are terrible. They're at information overload, for most people who only care about how far will it go on X type of fuel.
Re:Giant letter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.
Re:Giant letter? (Score:4, Funny)
I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant.
If you walk into a dealership ready to spend >$10,000 based on a window sticker and some pamphlets, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh? Where is this machine? Why aren't you selling them already to all the people that make their purchases based on sheer vanity?
Maybe you need new labeling.
Re: (Score:2)
If you walk into a dealership ready to spend >$10,000 based on a window sticker and some pamphlets, I've got a perpetual motion machine to sell you.
I built a perpetual motion machine [youtube.com] for way less $10,000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because there are no third parties capable of performing MPG testing? It's a good thing the government tests every product on earth for you, otherwise how would you know anything about the products?
Maybe you should tell Underwriter Laboratories to close up shop and let the government do their job for them too.
Underwriters Laboratories = safety testing (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the mere fact that a coffee machine or a breadmaker is safe doesn't actually make it any use for making coffee or baking bread - in fact, in the UK, makers of nonfunctioning "water treatment" products market them as WRAS approved - which is purely safety testing.
Any commercially sponsored test is flawed. Did you ever see a car magazine give a BMW a bad review? Usually they give critical reviews of second tier manufacturers or small cars, which have near-zero "marketing" budgets, and criticise very expensive cars (that their readers can't afford and whose makers don't advertise with them). I'm happy to pay taxes to an organisation that won't go out of business by telling the truth.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, right. That must be why Consumer Reports doesn't exist then. Oh, wait, they do. CR isn't beholden to manufacturers because it doesn't take funding from manufacturers.
And, look at that:
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/buying-advice/most-fuelefficient-cars-206/ [consumerreports.org]
Non-government testing can and does exist where there is a demand for it to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Without government testing of fuel efficiency, there would be no reliable information to go by at all.
Eh? I've never found government testing of fuel efficiency to bear more than a vague resemblance to the real world. Which isn't surprising, because once there's a single 'gold benchmark' then any engineering company will work to get the best score at that benchmark rather than in the real world.
I'd sooner trust somewhere like Consumer Reports than any kind of government MPG testing.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Giant letter? (Score:5, Informative)
The sticker says "over five years, this vehicle saves $6,900 compared to average". The small print says that's based on 15000 miles/year, and an average of 20-23 mi/gal (21.5mi/gal = 4.65 gal/100mi).
Presumably, your Ford Ranger would have had a sticker like "over five years, this vehicle costs $5,200 more than average" (based on your 14mi/gal (7.14gal/100mi) figure, and $2.78/gal). Would that have influenced your decision? You can rent something that hauls heavy loads many times for $5,200, for example. (And presumably insurance, parts etc cost more on the bigger and more powerful car).
(FWIW, with fuel costs here the $5,200 would become $12,306. You could buy a small car [fiat.co.uk] with the saving... and since that one uses 47mi/gal (2.12gal/100mi) you'd save $5300 (or $12500 here) compared to average [I know US gallons are different to the Imperial gallons given on that page, I converted them for you.]).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Presumably, your Ford Ranger would have had a sticker like "over five years, this vehicle costs $5,200 more than average"
Unless the sticker had a lot of fine print explanations, this would just cause more confusion and complaints. What, exactly, is the "average" that is being compared to? The average for all "similar" vehicles? The average for all passenger cars? Or passenger cars plus "light trucks"?
And, since fuel prices change, will the price per gallon assumption on the sticker change? If so, will it happen such that a dealer might have two identical cars on the lot with different "costs $XXX more/less" stickers? Wh
Re:Giant letter? (Score:5, Insightful)
I sometimes feel bad for the guys in charge, it's apparently impossible to please people. We're normally clamouring for more information, operate our markets with the assumption of perfectly informed agents, run democracies that were conceived presuming some degree of voter knowledge, and heap disdain on the apparently ignorant. But a government agency tries to help consumers make decent choices by undermining the ability of companies to easily obscure certain basic information and they're told people want less info of a specific type. We’re a capricious lot.
I had a look at the two proposed sheets and thought they were nicely thorough, explained the basic assumptions, and presented the info in an easily comparable fashion. Guess it takes all sorts.
I wish I could mod that reply higher than +5.
The problem with people is exactly that: those who disagree will always shout the loudest... too little info, and the smart kids demand more. Too much info, all the lazy bastards complain that it's too complicated.
And our poor politicians listen to those who shout. Try to please those who shout (especially when it comes to insignificant things that can get a lot of media attention)... Although we've never been wealthier, never been healthier, politicians must think the average citizen in a Western country is deeply unhappy.
Anyway, the easy way out of this is: Include a very short and simple "executive summary" for the lazy and the dumb. Then add the extended list of facts below that for those who are interested.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Giant letter? (Score:4, Insightful)
It gets worse: they rate electric cars in miles per gallon. "Yeah, just fill 'er up with five gallons of electricity. Premium, please!" The EPA gathered together some focus group of yokels and found that they didn't know what a kilowatt hour was, and so decided to put everything into "gallons", which is an absurd measure for electricity.
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA gathered together some focus group of yokels and found that they didn't know what a kilowatt hour was
But they know what a dollar is so vehicles should be ranked on cost per unit distance.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that they'd need a separate sticker for each location/utility in the country and they'd be obsolete within months.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They'd be obsolete month to month, as rates change not only due to the season, but due to the tiered pricing commonly used.
They would just need to provide the energy cost used as the basis. You see it all the time on appliances. (actually, in the US its required [doityourself.com] on new appliances)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a shell game. Otherwise they'd do the only sensible thing, which is:
For a series hybrid ("EREV" in marketing-speak) like the Volt, "N mpkw on electric and N mpg on gas
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like the second label shown in TFA?
Re:Giant letter? (Score:4, Informative)
That's weird, because the label they show in TFA is clearly for an electric car, and it lists the following figures:
kW-hrs/100 miles, MPGe city, MPGe highway
As I'm sure you're well aware, kW-hr/100 mi is not a rating in miles per gallon. The other two figures are miles per gallon equivalent and are to facilitate comparison across fuel types.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Just how stupid do you have to be to need a giant letter grade on a car? "
Don't ask questions that you don't really want to know the answer to.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, flying cars are still 5-10 years from being ready.
How is this any better? (Score:4, Insightful)
They already have a 1 to 10 scale on the stickers, how is that any more difficult than an A+ through D system?
I call BS.kg (Score:3, Interesting)
'Greenhouse gas emmisions'?
Does this include the source power generation? Of course not, because some regions use wind/solar/nuclear, which have a vastly different greenhouse gas emmsiions then others.
Why not use SIMPLE standard units. It's up to the buyers to know the source of the fuel.
N/m@0-10km/h, 11-50km/h, 51-80km/h, 81-100km/h
All cars can compete on this scale. If a 3000kg SUV takes 40kN/m to go from 0-10km/h, and an all electric 1000kg Prius takes 5kN to achieve the same task, we can figure out what is better.
They should also mandate the energy density be displayed at all fuel pumps/charging stations.
e.g.
diesel: 1000N/L
gasoline: 300N/L
natural gas: 200N/L
(my mind is fuzzy on how to apply this to all-electric, but plenty of the folks on here are smarter then I am), but my point still stands.
Label everything based on the one common denominator: energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Why, the stiffness of a spring of course. You do drive a wind-up, don't you?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
no... the units on a spring constant [wikipedia.org] are in SI units: "Nm^-1" or "kgs^-2"
Which is not N/M.
Re:I call BS.kg (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
work [wikipedia.org], Force/distance is work(Joules in SI normally).
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
For the most part, people buying SUVs aren't comparing them to a Prius.
I suppose some people are, but I don't see how it could possibly be the majority, just the ones trying to decide which one projects a better image, and I don't think they really give a shit about how much fuel each one uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I actually stuffed 2 single kayaks inside my prius. There was even room for a sammich!
Re: (Score:2)
can I put 2 adults, 3 car seats (with kids), a dog, and a weeks worth of stuff (clothes, diapers, dog food, etc) to take to the inlaws in a prius?
If so i may reconsider....
Re: (Score:2)
Well...that depends.
Is it okay if the dogs are wearing the diapers?
Do you have any hot in-laws?
Re: (Score:2)
no, the clean diapers need to be on no one. /. standards, assuming you are hetero male. I'm unsure of classifications for other sexualities.
Not really, no. Even by
but really, thats the current/near future needs of the "family car" although, i could settle for needing to pull a small trailer or use a roof top carrier, for ${STUFF}
Re: (Score:2)
also, were the kayaks white water ones, or sea ones?
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I actually stuffed 2 single kayaks inside my prius.
Yes, but gluing the fragments back together once you got to the river must have been a real pain in the ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Woah, woah, You're not going to get a 1000kg all-electric Prius.
Furthermore, the cost of acceleration doesn't hurt the Prius nearly as much as the SUV, because the Prius can recover some of that when slowing back down, so it's still an unfair comparison.
Further, furthermore, You're using the wrong units anyway.
You need to know: kJ to accelerate through the different ranges (say, 0-25, 25-35, 35-55, 55-75 mph) as those are typical limits. Tweak the ranges so that you can interpolate the rest without being t
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Another convenient omission from the sticker is recharge time. Of all the different metrics they're using on these cars, recharge time would be the easiest to calculate and/or test. And yet it is left off.
Re: (Score:2)
120VAC@7.5amp,120VAC@15 amp, 120VAC@45amp, 240VAC@15amp, 460VAC@45amp, or 240VDC@45amp? see it's still a problem, all but the 460V is likely in the home, but most could have 240V in the USA. clothes dryers and some ovens use 240V.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like the second label shown in TFA, which has a section (with a helpful little battery-shaped box to help you find it) that indicates the charge time?
Re: (Score:2)
Newtons is force. Joules is energy. Although those bastard units, kWh, calories, and BTU, are also energy.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see fuel efficiency defined as the total input energy consumed over a driving test. I would define fuel input energy as the heat released by burning the used amount of fuel, and electrical input energy as the heat released by running the amount of electricity used (by the charger, not the motor) through a resistance heater. I'd use a 20-mile city driving test for city, and a 200-mile highway driving test for highway. Then I'd display the results as energy/mile.
Newtons is force. Joules is energy. Although those bastard units, kWh, calories, and BTU, are also energy.
With my definitions, I'd prefer
Re: (Score:2)
I thought you were on to something....right up until you converted the smart idea to imperial. :p
Although you can't assume with electricity. Too many alternative power sources so Coal becomes irrelevant then.
Re:It's all BS (Score:4, Interesting)
Honest question here. Why is gallons/100 miles preferable? It's always seemed backwards and clumsy to me.
With gal/100mi, it's more complicated to figure out how much gas you need to go X miles (with miles/gallon, it's simply X/mileage), and it also provides a more useful number when comparing cars. Sure, Car A might need 2.5 gallons/100mi and Car B needs 3 gallons/100mi, but that tells you less about the actual mileage (40 vs. 33.33).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A might need 2.5 gallons/100mi and Car B needs 3 gallons/100mi, but that tells you less about the actual mileage (40 vs. 33.33).
Only because you are used to thinking in terms of distance / fuel volume.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Only because you are used to thinking in terms of distance / fuel volume.
Fair enough, but it doesn't answer the fact that the math with GPM is easier.
Do you mean this bit?
With gal/100mi, it's more complicated to figure out how much gas you need to go X miles
If I want to go 200 km and my car uses 10 litre/100km then I need 20 litre. Seems simple to me.
Re:It's all BS (Score:5, Informative)
Most people argue GPM is better for exactly those reasons - it's easier to compare. For example, you have two cars - one that gets 10 mpg and one that gets 33 mpg. You can replace the 10 mpg with one that gets 11 mpg, or replace the 33 mpg car with one that gets 45 mpg. Quick, which saves more gas?:
A) replace the 10 mpg with 11 mpg
B) replace the 33 mpg with 45 mpg
The answer is A. The first changes from 10 gallons per 100 miles to 9 gallons per 100 miles - 1 gallon saved every hundred miles. Option B changes from 3 gallons per 100 miles to 2.2 gallons per 100 miles - less than a gallon saved (per 100 miles). It's completely non-intuitive if you use the backwards "mpg" measurement.
If we just used consumption instead of MPG, we wouldn't have this problem. [mpgillusion.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have to call BS on that. Yes, there is a bigger increase with A, but the only time this matters at all is if I have 2 vehicles in need of replacement at the same time, money for only one of them, and no pressing preference for utility between them; and then you would have to figure out which you drive more often to get a reasonable determination of which to get.
In reality, it works like this: you have a 20 mpg car in need of replacement. You can replace it with a 25 mpg car, or a 32 mpg car. Quick, which
Re: (Score:2)
They could when I plug in a standardized connector to an electrical recharging station, but even if they did, they can't know how efficiently I drive it.
Oh, sure they could. My car's computer tracks MPG, and it matches pretty closely with actual measurement. (For electrics just substitute Joules/furlong or something, as appropriate.)
If the charging station is smart enough to talk with the car and figure out what make and model it is, then it's already got sufficient communications to ask the car how you
Re: (Score:2)
your commute to work is how many miles? so it makes it easy to compare based on how far you drive. if you commute is 20 miles, and car 1 gets 4gallons/100mile, you can make 5 trips on 4 gallons of gas, Car 2 gets 2 gallons/100 miles, 5 trips is 2 gallons of gas. If gas is currently 3.50/gallon, it makes it very easy to figure out cost per trip to work. Most trips you make are a fixed distance. You rarely think, "ohh hey i'm going to go drive 4 gallons of gas away."
Re:It's all BS (Score:5, Insightful)
With gallons/mile, fuel efficiency is linear instead of inverse-linear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
so do the L/KM -> KM/L conversion once, stick it on a sticky note, and use it when you need it. But L/KM makes comparing trip costs(what most usually do, think: "to work", "to inlaws", "to bar") not require any gymnastics.
So, how many people does it carry? (Score:2, Interesting)
A van that carries 15 people at 15 mpg is not worse for the environment than someone driving a 50mpg vehicle by themselves, but I'm guessing the same ratings will apply. Have they given up on the concept of multi-passenger vehicles and just assume everyone drives alone?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you see vehicles with every seat filled? It doesn't matter if it's a 15 passenger van or a five passenger Prius if it spends most of its time with 1-2 people riding in it. The automaker can only count on there being one person in the car at any time it's operating -- the driver. So it would be stupid to rate a vehicle based on seating capacity.
Automakers would sure love it, they could get B and A grades for their gas guzzling SUVs because the vehicle technically can carry seven people.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Most people do drive alone, even when their car can hold 7 or more people. I ride my motorcycle in to work every day and every day I drive past cars that could carry five or more people and if they were they would be as economical as my bike but the most they ever have is two people and that is rare. If people really wanted to be environmentally friendly they would stop driving around in big tin boxes (and fewer of those around would make the roads a lot safer for those of us on two wheels anyway).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
and fewer of those around would make the roads a lot safer for those of us on two wheels anyway
Bicycle commuter here. To be honest I am not sure it would be safer. Cars (and trucks, etc) keep people driving in lanes. With fewer cars on the road there will be more vehicles behaving like a swarm, and less safety over all. I know its a behavioral issue and it should be addressed with education and enforcement, but I would hate to see the roads I ride on turn into the roads I see in Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
if 90% of the traffic was motorcycles, we would simply divide the lanes up with a secondary stripe for the "bike" lanes.
Re: (Score:2)
if 90% of the traffic was motorcycles, we would simply divide the lanes up with a secondary stripe for the "bike" lanes.
However you divide it up there will always be somebody who will accept less safety than me in return for getting to their destination one minute earlier. In the process of doing that they will compromise my safety.
Re: (Score:2)
How's your bike(motor or pedal) handle in the snow? let alone when we get 2-5 inches an hour sometimes.
Re: (Score:2)
I see this argument any time fuel economy is discussed, "since x isn't a panacea, x is totally worthless." It's just plain stupid and it's that thinking that keeps massive amounts of cash flowing into
Re: (Score:2)
I have a car that seats 5, a car that seats 4, and a car that seats 2.
I have a family of four.
The 5-seat car gets the best mileage of the bunch. The 4-seater a bit less so. And the 2-seater is abysmal.
Tell me, Mr. Motorcycle: If I were traveling alone, which one of these would you rather see me using?
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's just that in our Idiocracy, people can't think of person*miles/gallon as it varies with the number of people you have in the car at any given time. It's not a simple number you can apply to a vehicle because it completely depends on how it's used, and the most common use-case (single occupant) isn't flattering to the car manufacturers.
I don't think this will make a difference (Score:2)
I don't think this will make a difference. 99% of the car buying public goes after features first: they may be looking for a pickup to haul stuff, a minivan to move people, something inexpensive but fun, or even just looks and the need to express masculine virility. It's a very rare person who goes specifically after emissions, and they're all driving a Prius. The rest will be going after price they can afford versus the features they want. There is also the fact that most people know the cost of fuel is sm
Re: (Score:2)
And you represent 99% of the experience? That is pretty bold of you to think that. There are tons of things that people do, and I know a bunch of people that will juggle the range of cars and features and price that they want with the current ratings. The newer ratings provide even more information like comparison to class.
It may or may not make a difference in their decision, but to say that it won't is naive. Just like believing everyone is like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe they tow so often that they don't bother retracting the mirrors when they aren't towing?
Misleading CO2 (Score:5, Insightful)
The CO2 emission numbers would be misleading for battery electric and plug-in hybrids because it only states the tailpipe emissions.
Example... A battery-electric vehicle may use 34 KW/h of electricity per 100 miles. According to official data, in the USA, about 0.6 Kg of CO2 is emitted for every KW/h of electricity consumed. So for every 100 miles, about 20 Kg of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. So the data should state that 200g of CO2 is emitted per mile, not the 0g it currently states.
Ignoring other sources of CO2 emission and only looking at tailpipe emissions are misleading for technology which does not have a tailpipe. For example, a battery electric vehicle which uses 40 KW/h of electricity per 100 miles would release more CO2 into the atmosphere than many small gasoline vehicles.
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. Interesting how the labels state the external cost of charging (ie. 12 cents per kwh) and yet neglect to state the external environmental costs. Another example of greenwashing.
There's no free lunch - energy use always involve a trade off, even geothermal (ie. earthquakes) and solar (ie. less energy available to organisms, such as plants). For the labels to claim CO2 emissions of zero, even with the "tailpipe only" disclaimer, is disingenuous and deceptive.
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
well, whats the CO2/KWatt for your local utility? Good luck asking them that...
That IS bad (Score:5, Insightful)
battery-electric vehicle may use 34 KW/h of electricity
That IS bad. After only 3 years of engine-time, you'll need a full Nuke plant to power just *one* of those.
per 100 miles
Criminey! Assuming it averages about 50mph, that means it'll only take 23 hours to require a 1GW dedicated power plant, and it only gets worse from there!
QR Block information / an app for that? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's currently a link to fueleconomy.gov/m.
EnergyStar 2.0? (Score:2)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26star.html [nytimes.com]
Proof that the Clean Air act is too weak (Score:2)
No failing grades? Have we already forgotten "No child left behind" and how that worked out?
D Flueless (Score:2)
Suggestions to EPA (Score:5, Interesting)
I also suggested that they add "Gallons SAVED per 100 miles" relative to an average car in its class. This statistic can be surprising: switching from a 33mpg Corolla to a 50mpg Prius saves one gallon per 100 miles, but switching from a 10mpg Hummer to a 14mpg Land Rover saves three gallons per 100 miles driven.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they essentially do that with the labels shown, except turn it into a more compelling number -- dollars saved (or spent) on fuel relative to the average?
Ok, all of the negative stuff is... (Score:2)
It won't make any difference. Then why the complaint?
I suspect it will indeed make a difference. People will get a story going forward. There is already experience in the marketplace that labels like this work. Energy Star being the biggest example.
The fact is, that the labels do provide a wide variety of information. This along with features, price and lust will make a difference (If we were all about features and price we would all be driving Kia Amanti's but very very few people do).
There are a univ
Problem with that.... (Score:5, Interesting)
If a car performs really well, it might get an A...
But then a few years down the road, improved technology could make that A rating in 2010 look like a C- or D in 2015, and other "A" rated cars come out that perform far better. Yet the 2010 car still has the "A" rating... so it isn't fairly compared to newer cars.
how about "cost per mile" or "cost per 400 miles"? (Score:2)
(Side note: I'm not counting driver's insurance, since that cost is incurred before a driving pattern can be observed. Life's surprises can alter those calculation
Re: (Score:2)
You haven't set foot in a public American place in a while, have you?
Yes, people are that dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
'Who were the 4 Beatles?' 'Irish'
Oh its nice not living in America. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Nibble, nibble. You can get Win7's experience index down as far as 1.0 if you've an old enough GPU that doesn't have a driver. I've seen ones with supported GPUs down as far as 2.9 because of their CPUs (Pentium-D 830 @ 3.0 GHz), and new Atom-powered netbooks can be lower yet because of the CPU.
Funnily enough, moving up to a real Win7 version from the Starter it was bundled with increased the experience index a fair bit, because Starter doesn't have a 3D accelerated interface. Starter gave 1.0, and Enter
Re: (Score:2)
What are we at right now for a fleet average -- ~25mpg? Average 12,000 mi/year, average vehicle age 9.5 yrs and growing (implying average lifespan of about 20 years). 20 * 12000 / 25 = 9,600 gallons of gasoline. So your 2 ton vehicle -- most of which will be recycled -- contrasts with 33.6 tons of gasoline, all of which ends up burned and straight into the atmosphere.
I know it's trendy to pretend that production energy consumption being left out reverses the equation (because people often used to leave p
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely, as this would make it harder for smug retards to complain about me driving a 14 year old car.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe. Or perhaps grade like they do in the bond ratings business, add more letters and pluses.
So instead of A+ being the top grade, it might become A++ or AA+, etc. And over time, add more .. heck, the grades could eventually resemble eBay positive feedback with lots of As and +s.
Ron
Re: (Score:2)
where you get a score which can be relatively compared to older and newer hardware.
I have a feeling that would spell disaster for auto makers/dealers. If people could compare their car's economy to vehicles from the 80's, they would plainly see just how inefficient their vehicles are. Not that I would be opposed to that, but still.
Re: (Score:2)
If people could compare their car's economy to vehicles from the 80's, they would plainly see just how inefficient their vehicles are.
Yeah, right. Oh, the Horror! [bts.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it depends on your source (pdf) [nhtsa.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if you want to pick the one source which shows different figures, go for it.
Unfortunately, even your own source shows that efficiency has increased overall, while the efficiency of imported vehicles has decreased. Let's compare the most "efficient" year (1987), to the most current year (2004):
Passenger cars went from 28.5 to 29.3
Domestic vehicles went from 27 to 29.3
Imports went from 31.2 to 29.3
Light trucks went from 21.7 to 21.5
Since they seem to be using weighted averages, the reason that the overa
Re: (Score:2)
Well, my original point wasn't necessarily about the actual numbers; your average consumer hasn't a clue about actual numbers. What they see is the difference in MPG. All those older 80's model imports were sporting numbers that, compared to today, are pretty horrendous. Granted, the testing doesn't use the same methods as previously used, but people don't care about that.
When they see some 1983 Honda Civic sporting MPG of 50 (or whatever it was, certainly higher than today) they compare that to today's Ci
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, once a car has been graded, the grade shouldn't need to change unless something is done to the car that makes it more fuel efficient somehow.
Re: (Score:2)
or their clunkers were too good to get a hand out... because they made a decent decision 15 years ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, how is that number excessive? That comes out to just over 40 miles per day.
Reachable for:
-someone who lives 20 miles outside of town
-or lives 30 miles from their employer
-or only 20 miles from work, but their children go to a school 10 miles in the opposite direction or past the office
Throw in a few longer distance trips to visit relatives and I can see people hitting that number quite easily.
To reduce that 15,000 number, un-sprawling needs to happen, good luck with that...