REPORT: EPA planning to address outlandish fuel economy claims of electric cars
The EPA is aware that range-extended electric vehicles can game the current fuel economy test to deliver mileage estimates way up in the stratosphere. It makes for impressive advertising, like General Motors' touting of the Chevrolet Volt's estimated 230 mpg, but the EPA wants to give a more realistic reflection of the fuel efficiency of these types of cars, and it's not alone.
According to USA Today, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory would like the EPA's new formula to provide buyers information about the efficiency of the vehicle on either of its two fuels, providing two different numbers. An Israeli company also wants more data, pushing for three pieces of information: electricity used when fully charged, electricity consumed to top off the batteries, and how much fuel the range-extending gasoline engine uses when pressed into service.
The new ratings are important to consumers and automakers alike. If accurate, these new ratings would give buyers more insight into what they can actually expect to get. For now, carmakers are holding their breath to determine just what they'll be able to get away with claiming when advertising... let the lobbying begin!
[Source: USA Today]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
Adam Marcello 1:35PM (10/01/2009)
MPG is outdated. They need to reflect cars in energy used per mile instead. This will work with both electricity and fuels.
Reply
Sea Urchin 1:55PM (10/01/2009)
How about MPG City/HGWY
Miles per Volt or BTU City/HGWY
Rick C. 1:58PM (10/01/2009)
Quick, as you're walking down the street, ask a stranger if they know what units energy is measured in. Chances are, the majority will have no answer or the incorrect answer. I see a very confused public in the next few years, easily fooled and molded.
Temple 2:20PM (10/01/2009)
The point of all these numbers is to inform the consumer. Its not informative to the buying public if you give them statistics like kilojoules-per-kilometer; it serves no reference to them relative to their everyday lives. The consumer doesn't care about how much energy s/he is using, they care about how much its going to cost to run their car or truck per mile.
The consumer understands "gallons" because its something they directly pay for at the pump, they know how much it costs, its plastered on big signs on the side of the street. However, converting that to electric-vehicles seems very counter-intuitive, you don't pay for home electricity in gallons.
Regardless, its good to know the EPA is at least giving this some thought...
BrianM 3:40PM (10/01/2009)
Why not MPG being calculated based on a full Tank, and full Charge till the car is dead done at both City and Highway plus how many kW to charge the battery from the dead points above?
Judy Zik 3:55PM (10/01/2009)
It is an outdated system and statements like GM's 230mpg border on outright fraud. It doesn't pass the sniff test because the reality is I cannot put one gallon of gas in a Volt and drive out to visit a friend 230 miles away.
If America insists on sticking with mpg then manufacturers should be forced to provide 3 sets of numbers.
1) How much electricity does it take to charge the vehicle (with an estimated cost per charge based on average electricity rates).
2) How far can I go on a charge.
3) In a case like the Volt how many mpg (city and hwy) it gets once it starts using it's gas motor.
Of course mpg itself is an outdated system because it fails to reflect how little you actually save in buying a 70 mpg car vs a 35 mpg car when compared to a 10mpg and 20 mpg vehicle.
100 mile road trip based on current prices around $2.20 a gallon they each use...
70mgp= 1.4 gallons of gas $3.08
35mpg= 2.9 gallons of gas $6.38
20mpg= 5 gallons of gas $11.00
10mpg=10 gallons of gas $22.00
So while both are twice as efficient moving to a 70 mpg vehicle only saves you $3.30 on that 100 mile road trip while moving from a 10 mpg vehicle to a 20 mpg vehicle saves you $11! The worst part is the average person not doing the math will be fooled into thinking the reverse is true because of the higher numerical difference between 35 and 70. You would even save more just moving from 10mpg to 15mpg. Mpg is outdated because it fails to provide easily comparable numbers at all ends of the scale.
In a perfect world you would get away from this and use gallons of gas used per 20miles of stop and go (average American's commute) instead of the "City" estimate and gallons of gas used to go 100 miles (typical road trip) instead of the "Highway" number. This would more realistically reflect how we use our vehicles and just how much you are going to save with one model over another.
Photo Phil 5:36PM (10/01/2009)
Adam,
Exactly! Agreed. MPG is almost as bad as labeling a light bulb light output in watts...
Temple,
I do agree, things need to be simple for everyone. So wouldn't kilowatt hour be the best unit? You buy kilowatt hours from your electric company, so you can see how much you're paying rather easily. onlineconversion.com says 1 gallon of gas is 36.6 kilowatt hours, but with what efficiency? So the rating on a car would be kilowatt hr per mile. With a rating of the range extending gas engine in gallons per kwatt hr. ...That would show how inefficient an internal combustion engine is...
costa 12:18AM (10/02/2009)
Watts and volts are not units of energy.
kthxbye.
mapoftazifosho 1:38PM (10/01/2009)
This will go down as one of the most deceptive marketing messages ever.
Reply
Sea Urchin 1:54PM (10/01/2009)
But the car was never sold, so at this point no one was harmed.
mktnb 2:26PM (10/01/2009)
To be fair, the EPA is WAY behind the ball on establishing a standard since the properties and capabilities of range-extended EVs are known. They bear the brunt of blame for sharing the draft standards with Chevy.
I can understand GM milking every last PR opportunity when they're against the ropes.
Smegley 2:50PM (10/01/2009)
The EPA needs to address the outlandishly bogus claims of Global Warming that the government wankers are using to try to control every aspect of our lives.
Commander Cool 1:39PM (10/01/2009)
Three ratings? That seems to me to be a good way to only confuse consumers.
Reply
Temple 2:23PM (10/01/2009)
Likely less confusing then telling them their Volt will do 230mpg or their Nissan Leaf will do 367 mpg?
Homo Sapiens, fortunately, have the mental capacity to understand more then one set of numbers as long as its properly descriptive.
James 1:40PM (10/01/2009)
"It makes for impressive advertising, like General Motors' touting of the Chevrolet Volt's estimated 230 mpg..."
Yeah, 230..meters per gallon....
;p
Reply
Jim 1:42PM (10/01/2009)
Perhaps a good way to measure mileage would be how much fuel is used on a 500 or 1000 mile trip at highway speeds with a city circuit also included. Just the short distance now used is misleading.
Reply
FThorn 1:46PM (10/01/2009)
Why are they doing this? Because GM looks good now? Well, we 'own' them and have a vested interest in their success. We always have had, too.
Just give some raw data and let consumers figure it out. If they can't then F them.
Reply
jv2k 4:01PM (10/01/2009)
Because GM has kind of shown them how dumb the figure is.
If the volt is actually advertised as getting 230mpg it will bite GM in the ass when people drive 70+ miles or don't fully charge it, or just forget to charge it over night at all; and then wind up getting the more realistic 40 or 50mpg figure that the volt actually gets.
Of course the problem GM has is that 40 miles on EV + 40 or 50 mpg figure doesn't seem like much of an achievement in the grand scheme of things and it's hard to market. In theory you could go for days or months without using a drop of gas, but that requires explanation and it's difficult to get that point across( just look at any volt discussion on autoblog).
turbo-quattro 1:55PM (10/01/2009)
Finally. Ive been saying for years they need to say what the true mpg for the internal combustion is, then tack on the range for the electric motor, or something like that.
its like saying i ride a bicycle so i get infinite mpg, not really an apples to apples comparison.
unfortuantly it is no easy task to create a fair, easily comprehendable, new rating system.
Reply
Danimal 2:13PM (10/01/2009)
"...it is no easy task to create a fair, easily comprehendable, new rating system."
This is very true. FAIR and EASY TO COMPREHEND are the most important point of a new system. Not to mention it should be applicable to cars that don't even exist yet.
The real challenge it seems is the range extender on the Volt that will show dramatic changes in efficiency when the generator kicks in. Right now the Volt is the only model even close to carrying such technology. It will be hard not to see the EPA as favoring the Volt whenever they release a final draft considering the Volt will be the only one using it for a while.