Live data from Hacker News

Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

transportenvironment.org

91–100 of 336 posts

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#91
post #29

If you read the full report, the automaker with by far the largest gap between its claimed improvements in fuel economy and its actual on-the-road performance is General Motors. Much worse than VW and Mercedes (who also did very poorly), by this measure. A reckoning is coming. source: see page 13, here http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...

"3. Deducting 4% from measured results Bizarrely the NEDC procedure allows carmakers to actually declare (use) a value 4% lower than the one measured. The provision is designed to minimize the testing burden but is being abused by carmakers to declare lower test results systematically." I wonder if there is a person that didn't expect this to happen.

Does it matter however when it is systematic?

This is going to sound backwards, but consider this: People buy cars based in part on MpG, however MpG is within itself an abstract thing (i.e. you don't actually get X miles per gallon, never did, never will too many other factors to include).

So if everyone removes 4% from an abstract number, the entire market has shifted down, but the relative difference between two models remains identical (e.g. if one car has 21 MpG and another has 25 MpG, even with 4% removed from both they retain their relative position).

If some were removing 4% while others weren't, that would legitimately be a problem. If they're all removing 4% then we're essentially where we would be at the start just with lower abstract numbers.

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#92
post #29

If you read the full report, the automaker with by far the largest gap between its claimed improvements in fuel economy and its actual on-the-road performance is General Motors. Much worse than VW and Mercedes (who also did very poorly), by this measure. A reckoning is coming. source: see page 13, here http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...

The source of the data is actually www.spritmonitor.de, which is a self-reporting mileage tracking site (like www.fuelly.com). With ~501k vehicles tracked and 8.885B kilometers tracked, the site represents ~17k kilometers per car of user-reported mileage information. Is this the best, or a reliable source, of information to start the reckoning/witch hunt to come? I'm not sure.

The interesting part is that the difference increased from 2001 to today.

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"3. Deducting 4% from measured results Bizarrely the NEDC procedure allows carmakers to actually declare (use) a value 4% lower than the one measured. The provision is designed to minimize the testing burden but is being abused by carmakers to declare lower test results systematically." I wonder if there is a person that didn't expect this to happen.

Does it matter however when it is systematic? This is going to sound backwards, but consider this: People buy cars based in part on MpG, however MpG is within itself an abstract thing (i.e. you don't actually get X miles per gallon, never did, never will too many other factors to include). So if everyone removes 4% from an abstract number, the entire market has shifted down, but the relative difference between two mo…

[deleted]

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#94
post #80
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that's a surprise to whom? It's the same with smartphone and notebook batteries. Tell me, when was the last time, you actually got 9 hours of battery live (in case of a MBP)? Don't get me wrong, i see it the same way as you are, but this is an issue that you can find everywhere not just in car manufacturing. For example, a lot of power supply companies try all kinds of tricks to game the efficiency test systems.

The consequences are different however, increased pollution has far reaching consequences, first of all human health. If my neighbour's smartphone has a shorter battery life it doesn't concern me, however if their car (and the cars of million of people around me) pollute more it's definitely my problem.

All these little things add up though. Every device that gets less battery life than expected is taking more power to run. That power likely comes from a non-clean source. Given, it's not on the scale of the automobiles, but dismissing it outright may be a mistake.

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#95
post #29

If you read the full report, the automaker with by far the largest gap between its claimed improvements in fuel economy and its actual on-the-road performance is General Motors. Much worse than VW and Mercedes (who also did very poorly), by this measure. A reckoning is coming. source: see page 13, here http://www.transportenvironment.org/sites/te/files/publicati...

The source of the data is actually www.spritmonitor.de, which is a self-reporting mileage tracking site (like www.fuelly.com). With ~501k vehicles tracked and 8.885B kilometers tracked, the site represents ~17k kilometers per car of user-reported mileage information. Is this the best, or a reliable source, of information to start the reckoning/witch hunt to come? I'm not sure.

Given that this concerns an empirical question that is definitively determinable, I am not sure that the concept of a "witch hunt" applies here.

We aren't trying to determine if the companies have an improper ideology.

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#96
post #43
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are obfuscating the issue here. The issue isn't that we can't "represent real street results", the issue is that manufacturers took deliberate steps to alter car behaviour with the intention of obtaining better test results than would be present outside the tests.

And that's a surprise to whom? It's the same with smartphone and notebook batteries. Tell me, when was the last time, you actually got 9 hours of battery live (in case of a MBP)? Don't get me wrong, i see it the same way as you are, but this is an issue that you can find everywhere not just in car manufacturing. For example, a lot of power supply companies try all kinds of tricks to game the efficiency test systems.

MBP battery issue is a bit complicated, especially when discrete graphics is present due to switching issues with their in-house solution (no Nvidia Optimus for OS X). MBAs on the hand, I've seen them go past 13 hours easily (~1 year old, WiFi off, low-med brightness, editing documents).

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#97
post #2

"On average, two-thirds of the claimed gains in CO2 emissions and fuel consumption since 2008 have been delivered through manipulating tests" How deep does this rabbit hole go :( Here in Ireland the motortax for cars newer than 2008 is based on CO2 emissions, if motorists find their tax rising due to cheating by car manufacturers thats an unexpected and direct cost to their wallets.

"if motorists find their tax rising due to cheating by car manufacturers" This doesn't require new enforcement or new taxes - a large part of the purchase price of petrol is tax.

In the UK we pay an annual tax [0] based on the engine size or CO2 emissions of the vehicle, in addition to tax on fuel. I doubt the government will move affected cars up the price bands post-purchase as it would be politically unpopular.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/calculate-vehicle-tax-rates

Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results

#100
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason air pollution is so much worse in European cities than American ones is largely due to diesel passenger vehicles.

That both suprises me, do you have any sources? Honest question, both seem counterintuitive. Maybe I am actually fed enough "feelgood" information in the past.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/mar/05/industry-...
Post reply on HN