that was expected.
Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
71–80 of 336 posts
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#72"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.
Or maybe we abolish nonsensical, contrary requirements? Whoever actaully believed the fuel consumption figures is a fool. You cant have a 1,5t of a car and expect it to use only 5l/100km. That's a good rate for a goddamn motorbike (450ccm,one piston, dont exceed 90 km/h and you might reach 4,5l/100km) Its one fifth of the mass...
I've got an 2016 Audi A4.
Audi claims 22mpg city, 32mpg highway and 26mpg combined.
What I see is 24mpg city, 31mpg highway and 26mpg combined; I don't drive especially slow either. FWIW, I factory ordered a manual transmission so that may make a difference.
I'm skeptical of cars that claim crazy high MPG ratings and performance cars claiming good MPG numbers, but for a standard car I do expect the numbers to be achievable. I've gone through a lot of cars over the years and I've gotten very close to the published numbers on all but one (Cadillac CTS).
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
In car braking systems the pedal movement from depressed to pressed corresponds to a very small ( With the brake cylinder fully compressed (as they did for the test), it requires several full pumps of the pedal to bring the pad into contact with the disk. This increases braking distance, which is generally considered a bad thing.
The travel from a single pedal press is small, but its probably a solvable problem. It just needs a different design.
If you make the pedal more sensitive (increase the resulting travel per pedal press) you'll make it harder to apply a precise amount of braking power which doesn't sound like a nice feature. I suppose you could have a more clever system that would move the brake faster until it touches the disc and then behave normally but I suppose that for such a critical system constructors and regulators are very conservative.
There could also be beneficial side effects to having the pad in contact with the disc at all times, such as preventing water/fluids/dirt to coat it. I'm just guessing here.
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually drove my Golf TDI at around the level of 5l/100km in Berlin for many years. Carefully. My girlfriend's Polo is significantly below that. Of course, these cars aren't ton and a half, but more around a ton.
[deleted]
> Audi Q5, Audi Q3 and VW Up
Apart from Up, the other two models you listed are for the above-average-middle-class-people, so to speak, at least in Europe. Most of the car-owners in Europe drive hatchbacks like Opel Corsa (average weight 1200 kg) or Skoda Fabia (average weight 1100 kg).
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#75This is the big next step that a lot of people were expecting - where in-depth studies into all of the competitors occurs and it's gradually revealed that this defeat device game has been played by almost everyone in the industry. It'll be interesting to see the repercussions for the automakers, but inevitably this'll end with sweeping legislation changes and reform of the testing protocol and standards.
Industry self-testing has always been a bad idea. You make it sound like legislation would be a bad thing here.
It was a response to the large numbers of new models being introduced (each with a couple of engine + transmission combinations), such that the EPA and NHTSA were unable to keep up with the testing load each year.
In hindsight, those agencies should have been staffed better. Additional legislation (which is sure to come, if only so Congressmen can appear to be doing something about the problem) wouldn't have helped, as the cars didn't meet existing laws as it was.
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, your facts are valid too, but that's a different comparison than the one I am citing. Read my comment word-for-word and you will see the difference.
GM claimed less improvement(aka cheated less), so your comment is wrong. Edit: Apparently I am wrong.
It's not my comment. It's data presented in the report. My comment is taken directly from the chart I cited. So if you want to quarrel with it, you need to quarrel with those who compiled the data, I suppose.
You first misread my comment, and now you're misreading the chart, apparently, so let me explain: the chart I cited shows the percentage of claimed improvement in fuel economy which was actually delivered in real-world driving.
This is precisely what my comment said.
Edit: I think your confusion might lie in the math that you think is being done, perhaps? The chart is showing the DIFFERENCE between two numbers. It's not based on just the claimed improvement. It's the actual improvement divided by the claim.
GM made a claim of improvement and their performance actually went down, so their number is around -38%. Daimler was the next-worst at around 16%.
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
I actually drove my Golf TDI at around the level of 5l/100km in Berlin for many years. Carefully. My girlfriend's Polo is significantly below that. Of course, these cars aren't ton and a half, but more around a ton.
Yup. Diesel cars can pull of 5l/100km quite easily (even VW Passat from 1998 can do that). My diesel Skoda Fabia consumes 4.6l/100km at 90kmh in highway. If conditions are not terrible, I hover around 5l/100km on average in mixed conditions (city and highway). Though few major traffic jams can ruin statistics pretty badly. Also in winter average is about 5.6l/100km. Maybe /user/emp_zealoth had petrol cars in mind? I'…
You forgot the bicycle tires. :-)
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#78Earlier 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 goes against my subjective experience. The contribution of buses and trucks in US cities is also significant, and my sense is that EU regs on those vehicles are more stringent than US. I particularly tend to notice how much -noisier- large US vehicles are than European equivalents in a city traffic environment, which tends to correlate with lower efficiency.
Europe generally has more stringent regulation and worse pollution than the US. It's many more people in a smaller space.
Noise isn't a good predictor though, a muffler is a drain on efficiency.
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#79More fuel consumption, more CO2. Clear. But it's not the cheating story of VW, continued - that was about nitrogen oxide pollutants which was up to 40 times above what is allowed in the US. From the report: > All carmakers have been exploiting ever more flexibilities in the current official tests during 2013 and 2014, but detailed results from Spritmonitor in Germany (Figure 4) show that cars produced by Daimler, PSA…
"But for sure, I'll never reach the official 5.7 l/km with my car ..." --> are you driving a Russian tank? I drive a 10 year old not particularly efficient Vauxhall (UK) and it is doing ~17 km/l!
Re: Study: Some car models consuming around 50% more fuel than official results
#80Earlier 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.
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.