EU Car Makers Manipulating Fuel Efficiency Figures 431
pev writes with a report in The Guardian that "European car manufacturers are rigging fuel efficiency tests by stripping down car interiors, over inflating tyres, taping over panel gaps and generally cheating. This overestimates the figures by 25% to 50%. One would have thought that a simple clause stating that cars have to be tested in the conditions that they are sold in would have been obvious?"
Slow news day? (Score:4, Insightful)
Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuel efficiency tests are for comparison purposes. If all makers cheat equally, comparisons are still meaningful. When legislators set an standard, they'll probably take that into account and make the standard a bit tighter.
Duh ! (Score:4, Insightful)
If all we have to do is over inflate your tires, tape over the panel gaps, and keep your car empty ( find somewhere else to park your junk ), to get 25% - 50 % better gas milage, why don't we all do it ?
Why do they let automakers test? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they let the automakers run the test? Instead the regulatory bodies should ask for 3 production samples and an application fee and then the regulatory body should do the tests themselves.
Re:Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that automakers start designing cars to the unrealistic test, and not to get real-world gains. Even if this only accounts for 1 MPG, that is a huge amount of fuel for the entire fleet.
Agencies should test like Consumer Reports (Score:5, Insightful)
When Consumer Reports wants to test a product (including cars), they don't go to the manufacturer, much less let the manufacturer run the testing process! They buy the product anonymously at normal retail, and then test it in their own labs. Why can't regulatory agencies like the EPA and its European Union equivalent do the same thing?
Re:Human Nature (Score:1, Insightful)
creativity like elon musk?
remember the standard the media held him and his car to?
guilty until proven inocient.
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
Suit A:"We're losing money and marketshare! What are we going to do"
Suit B: "The same thing we do every time"
Both in unison: "Layoffs and hire some more lobbyists!"
Re:Duh ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The single biggest difference to fuel consumption is between the seat and the steering wheel.
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Optimistic? I think the word you meant was 'bullshit'. There is a difference between something that may be possible under 100% perfect conditions (yet nearly 100% unlikely in real-world conditions)... and something that has been completely rigged in such ways that even in perfect theoretical conditions it is impossible for the car, unmodified and straight from the factory, to ever come close to such manipulated stats.
This is worse than controlled, theoretical lab tests... this is downright crooked. There is absolutely nothing 'optimistic' about it. This is fraud.
Re:European Magic (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually the opposite. Gaining 10mpg over 40mpg is pathetically little, while gaining 5mpg over 20mpg is HUGE. Dropping 0.5L per 100km is the same amount of saved fuel regardless of if you have a 7L/100km or 3.5L/100km car. Thus it's easy to hype your 30, 35mpg cars and tell people they need to upgrade their 28mpg car, when really that's a huge fucking waste.
The real world effect is that Americans think what we need is shiny new expensive 40mpg hybrids, when the best thing we could do is get the existing 15mpg old-ass broken down shitheaps off the road in exchange for newer 22mpg used cars that exist already. The environmental savings would be bigger than if we just replaced the natural new flow of new cars with a natural new flow of new cars with slightly better mileage. i.e. what's important is the flow of average-mileage used cars into the hands of people who aren't going to buy a new car!
Re:Slow news day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Human Nature (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't over inflate! (Score:5, Insightful)