Fuel Mileage - we're going the wrong way

[Sharp11]

I was looking at the test results of average fuel mileage for many of the current, popular suv/cuv's and it's pretty dismal stuff.

Acura's MDX 17 mpg, the Mazda C7 18mpg, BMW's new X5 4.0 a dismal 14 mpg.

I can't shake the feeling we're really killing ourselves with this stuff - these are, after all, the newest models and they're destined to be with us for at least the next seven years :eeps:

Most require premium fuel, no less.

Ed

[BahnBaum]

Hasn't there been a significant change to the protocol the EPA is using to estimate mileage?

Alex

[lip277]

Hasn't there been a significant change to the protocol the EPA is using to estimate mileage?

Alex

My understanding is that the change in how the EPA rates fuel economy are for MY2008 and on...

[stuka]

Applying the gas guzzler tax fairly will easily take care of this problem.

Yep, I am still annoyed that I had to pay a grand of it for my E46 M3. Oh, and the Turbo.

[Sharp11]

Hasn't there been a significant change to the protocol the EPA is using to estimate mileage?

Alex

...but these were results from Motorweek and other auto journalist publications :dunno:

Ed

[FT@SGP]

Well I cannot be happier with my car; I am at 26K mi. and last 1K mi. I averaged 24.0 mpg; where as between 5K and 25K each 1K mi. avg was a consistent 22.4-22.6 mpg. We'll see if it holds up.

[clyde]

...but these were results from Motorweek and other auto journalist publications :dunno:

Ed

oh, so you mean that you're drawing conclusions based on thus cars being flogged,or at least driven much more aggresively than they normally will ne in the real world by normal people using them as appliances. Makes sense.

[equ]

I have the problem of having the guzzler as a daily and the economical one (relatively) as a weekender. As my gf's impreza is down and she drives the s4avant as well as my montreal trip, we're putting the miles on it pretty quick.

We've put 4k miles on the avant in less than two months, with only 2k on the cayman in all of 2007. Keeping it nice for one of you guys...

[Sharp11]

oh, so you mean that you're drawing conclusions based on thus cars being flogged,or at least driven much more aggresively than they normally will ne in the real world by normal people using them as appliances. Makes sense.

Your point is taken, however, the X5 was a teaser for a long-term report, a couple of other figures I recall were from Consumer Reports tests (typically more long-term oriented).

Still, the point is, as CUV's replace SUV's and get larger and heavier (have you seen a CX9 or Audi CUV on the road? They're huge), they become the same gas guzzlers they purportedly replace.

Ed

[clyde]

have you seen a CX9 or Audi CUV on the road? They're huge)

No.

they become the same gas guzzlers they purportedly replace.

Not if they don't sell in the same numbers.

[Pinecone]

Funny thing is, coming back from Nelson Ledges I got 28 MPG in my Gas Guzzler (eemed so by the US Gov), while yesterday I filled up the Jeep Grand Cherokee and figured a whopping 15 MPG, which actually was pretty good for it.

Time to figure that a vehicle is a vehicle and that gas mileage is gas mileage.

We are looking at a SMART car. :)

[Sharp11]

Not if they don't sell in the same numbers.

http://www.carpages.ca/go/autonews/12152005,detroit_report_ford_predicts_explosive_cu v_growth.aspx

It's the fastest growing segment in car-dom :dunno:....and while the article likes to say CUV's are generally more fuel-efficient than SUV's, my concern is there's still too little effort expended over fuel mileage - the Acura RDX, for example, gets a best case 18mpg average rating - this from Honda, normally considered a green-friendly company in a relatively small vehicle (CRV-sized) double-cursed with too much weight (4000lbs) and a turbo.
Ed

[Rob]

The latest proposed law for gas consumption requirements requires these vehicles to be included in the overall average. The average is going up. The car companies will find some way to sell more efficient vehicles - either by improving gas mileage or selling less of the behemoths. At least they will in a perfect world.

[lupinsea]

See, if we use these gas guzzlers and burn up all the world oil reserves it will then give us incentive to find alternate fuel systems.

Only problems:

1. all the smog and pollution

2. they seem to keep finding more oil reserves ans sources





Apart from that smart (half)ass comment, I can't contribute anything substantive other than voice my agreement with the OP. To me it seems we are at a point where cars are generating enough power. I'd rather the automakers start working more intently on the fuel efficiency side while simply maintaining current power levels.

That and handling / weight reduction improvements. They can leve well enough alone as far as I'm concerned regarding power.




Any why the current CAFE standards were structured the way they were I have no idea. Doesn't seem to make much sense. If there were to be any regulation I would think a simple XX mpg target level with YYY polution targets / requirements would be fine and it's up to the automakers to figure out how to meet that.

[Pinecone]

The problem is that "trucks" are not included. And SUVs are "trucks". But then again so are minivans and even the PT Cruiser (has to do with a definition that includes a flat load floor).

[lupinsea]

I still haven't figured out why buses, semis, and delivery trucks can get away with some of the nastiest, foul, black, gunk spuing out of the exhaust pipe (as far as emissions go).

And as far as the various definitions go it certainly seems like they should be updated. Especially when so many "trucks" and SUVs (classified as trucks, apparently) are being used as family cars and such. Completely ridiculous.

[Sharp11]

I still haven't figured out why buses, semis, and delivery trucks can get away with some of the nastiest, foul, black, gunk spuing out of the exhaust pipe (as far as emissions go).

And as far as the various definitions go it certainly seems like they should be updated. Especially when so many "trucks" and SUVs (classified as trucks, apparently) are being used as family cars and such. Completely ridiculous.

You can thank the auto lobby for that one - at one time, the exemption made sense as pickups were bought by guys like my dad, a carpenter, to do real work. The idea was to keep them cheap to build and buy - for the working class.

Today, pickups are just another form of an SUV, selling in great numbers featuring passenger space and luxury amenities unheard of in the old days.

The auto lobby kept up pressure, however, to keep them classified as trucks - and why not? That way they could build 'em cheap and keep maximizing profits on every SUV built - some 10 to 15 thousand dollars on every unit sold at the height of the trend.

American car makers always seem to be the victims of their own success - while they enjoy periods of great sales, they sit on their asses, as if the gold rush will never end and spend next to nothing on R&D while the competition develops plans for the future. When the sky inevitably falls, they cry poor and blame the government, the same one that cut them all kinds of breaks, and everyone else for their troubles.

Chrysler is the most egregious example of this - after being bailed out by the government in 1980 and doing a pretty decent job of developing a mix of models through the 90's, since 2000, they've built a line of mostly truck-based vehicles - model after model that no one apparently wanted to buy as dealer inventory just piled up. At least they're no longer asking for us to bail 'em out.

Ed