>
>
> Greetings All,
> I will stay away from the SUV debate for now; since all positions are
> intractable there is no point.
> I would however relay my experience with EPA Estimated Mileage results
> which in my opinion are worthless.
Your data below seems to me to prove this statement illogical. Your mileage
in the 4 bangers is only a bit high - more so for the Honda. But within
10%. I would say the EPA numbers being within 10 0s very useful. After
all, they're not accounting for the you drive vs the way the next guy
drives, they're doing a controlled measurement in a lab. Especially with a 5
speed, driving technique can cause mileage to vary a *lot*. My guess is,
you don't try to win many stoplight races with these 2.
The two Amer cars fall exactly where they should according to EPA. The
Monte Carlo about 7 0.000000e+00ss than hiway on a long trip and the Pontiac
about
midway between city/hiway as a daily driver. Also, they're both automatics
and you can't effect quite as much control over their fuel usage as you can
with a manual.
As for Amer cars being overrated, foreign cars underrated? I think this is
more a conspiracy theory than fact. Little Hondas etc are always at the top
of the EPA list. Course, Maseratis are always at the bottom:>) I don't
think there's any conspiracy in the EPA to make Amer cars look better. Of
course, many more foreign cars are sold with manual trannies - which helps
the mileage for a light footed driver. ANd as I said, my experience is that
EPA numbers are very close to reality.
George
Not only is it worthless for comparing
> vehicles (if mileage is important to you) but they are poor and
> inconsistant
> predictors of the mileage a car actually gets.
> For example, the last two cars I have owned were a '90 Honda Accord and
> a '98 VW Passat. Both 4-bangers and 5-speed manual. EPA stickers
> on both cars
> were similar: the Honda 23 city/28 highway; the VW 23 city/ 32 highway.
> Having always driven 4 cylinder cars I knew these numbers were
> low. In the
> real world mix of suburban street/interstate driving I do I average a
> consistant 32 mi/gal with both vehicles and a solid 36 mi/gal on long
> interstate trips.
> On two occasions I have rented vehicles for about a week: one
> (Chevy Monte
> Carlo 3.4 liter V6) while on a trip and another locally (Pontiac
> Bonneville
> 3.8L V6). Both cars were fairly new but with about 6-10k miles
> (presumably
> broken in). The EPA sticker for each is similar at 20 city/ 30
> highway which
> you will notice is very similar to the predicted mileage of my
> two 4 cylinder
> cars. Both were very nice cars that ran flawlessly but got no way
> near the
> advertised mileage. The Bonneville was driven locally and was
> driven the same
> local route as my regular car. For the week it averaged 23
> mi/gal. The Monte
> Carlo spent most of its time on the highway but could only muster
> about 28
> mi/gal.
> Now I realize this is a small sampling, but in comparing real vs. EPA
> figures from other peoples cars (who are similarly
> obsessive/compulsive about
> these matters) a pattern emerges. Most imported cars (european/japanese)
> which are designed for high mileage because of high local fuel costs are
> consistantly under-rated by the EPA test. Domestic vehicles are
> consistantly
> over-estimated by the same test. What is it about the engineering
> of these
> vehiles that so obfusticates the predictions of the EPA test? Are
> they tested
> differently, are cars engineered specifically for the test? Any auto
> engineers on the OM List with some insight?
>
> Charlie
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|