EPA seeks improved fuel mileage standards

post-gazette .com Business News

Thursday, December 29,2005

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05363/629214.stm

This came over my Google Alert:

Terry

 

I hope they put an estimated range for the new estimates. They can use thier current style test and measurements for the high and the new system for the low. GreenHybrid.com and the drivers in it have proven that EPA can be reasonably met and at times exceeded on a consistent basis.
To take the numbers from that article the HCH could be rated 26-48 city 36?-51 highway. It would give the consumer a realistic range and understanding that how they drive, the conditions of traffic, road, and weather, and what accessories they run.
I also don't know what they were doing (consumer reports) to get 26 mpg on the HCH. I know someone who drives a new 05 (around 5000 miles) with a very heavy left foot for braking and acceleration, I checked his tire pressure and it was at 25 psi all around, and still manages to get around 34 mpg, all city. I am sending him here to help learn techniques after he gets back from out of state, and try to have some techniques printed up for easy reference. I did raise his tire pressure to almost 50 psi (51 max).
There will be one thing true, the hypermiler list will expand greatly after the change ... maybe make a second tier for the current hypermilers and/or a third tier for those who are already way above it now (exceed by more than 15 or 20 lmpg?).

 

Hi Terry,


I'd read the first drafts and was under impressed. What we need to operate our vehicles efficiently are:

1) MPH vs. MPG chart - steady state under standard conditions so we can see the optimum and sub-optimum speeds

2) accelleration vs. MPG chart - something that shows a 50%, 75% and 100% full throttle accelleration fuel cost

3) temperature vs MPG chart - something that shows what the vehicle does at 32 (F), 70 (F) and 90 (F)

4) accessory impact - mileage impact of AC

I used to fly a Cherokee 140 and we had this type of data which was critical to safe flying. That it remains missing for our vehicles is a mistake.

Bob Wilson

 

that kind of detail would be exceptional. i never knew that planes had such a thing, it does suprise me that automobiles don't have it, if it has been a standard on a smaller niche product for a long time. great info, thanks!

 

It boggles me too that one cannot even ask for that information form a maker- I've tried.

I'd be shocked to see anything but a rudimentary subset of that information. Aircraft have it for safety of flight; ships for safety of navigation. Safe ports and fuel stops are few and not always available, so precise voyage planning is necessary- not the case on modern US roads.

Both aircraft and ships are operated by specialists who demand that information and KNOW how to interpret and use it. Cars, shall we say, are a least common denominator of transportation in America. Nobody has demanded it for cars so it is not provided, secondarily protecting what a company might try to consider 'proprietary' engineering data.

I can't think of a good reason to not include it on cars, but pure inertia weighs against it.

 

just like bwilson said, it is really critical data. My 3 year old daughter loves to fly. If it is just me and her, I opt to take a small 2 seater called a Diamond Eclipse. It cruises at a solid 115 knots, at 2700rpm burning under 6 gallons an hour. It is a vfr only aircraft, but more to the point about what bwilson said, the aircraft operators hand book is full of information about fuel burn at various RPM's at various altitudes, climb performance based on weight and temperature....the list goes on and on. If we could get data as listed for aircraft, I wonder how many people would drive for mileage? Might need a little black box to see what is really happening.