Great little guide to the EPA-ratings featuring the Insight as guineau pig

[jpleong]

The Truth About EPA City / Highway MPG Estimates - Feature - Auto Reviews - Car and Driver

JP

[wstander]

Thanks for posting this!!

Explains very well what does, and does not go on during 'testing'

Interesting that they sort of showcased an Insight without really discussing that car

[Beechjetn]

Good article; did anyone else catch this?

And the Honda Insight’s econ mode—activated by a dash button and claimed to improve fuel economy—registered no effect, either. It relaxes throttle response, so the test driver simply compensates with additional throttle to achieve the required speeds.

I was assured several times by my dealership that the MPG figures on the sticker were lower than "real world" specifically because EPA argued that the ECON mode was a "user-selectable" feature, thus any difference in MPG was not a "hard" number.

Now I know, he's a salesman - he'd tell me there was a winning lottery ticket hidden in the glove box if if meant he'd hit his numbers this month - but come on.

Did EPA tell Honda prior to the I2's release "this ECON button thingy is great marketing, but it doesn't do squat for your MPG rating", and they just decided to pretend they didn't hear it; or did Car & Driver mis-interpret some bit of data they saw regarding the Insight and draw an inaccurate assumption (which they subsequently put in print and distributed nationwide)? What conclusion should we draw from this article?

Ideas? Opinions?

[blippo]

Originally Posted by Beechjetn

Good article; did anyone else catch this?

And the Honda Insight’s econ mode—activated by a dash button and claimed to improve fuel economy—registered no effect, either. It relaxes throttle response, so the test driver simply compensates with additional throttle to achieve the required speeds.

I was assured several times by my dealership that the MPG figures on the sticker were lower than "real world" specifically because EPA argued that the ECON mode was a "user-selectable" feature, thus any difference in MPG was not a "hard" number.

Now I know, he's a salesman - he'd tell me there was a winning lottery ticket hidden in the glove box if if meant he'd hit his numbers this month - but come on.

Did EPA tell Honda prior to the I2's release "this ECON button thingy is great marketing, but it doesn't do squat for your MPG rating", and they just decided to pretend they didn't hear it; or did Car & Driver mis-interpret some bit of data they saw regarding the Insight and draw an inaccurate assumption (which they subsequently put in print and distributed nationwide)? What conclusion should we draw from this article?

Ideas? Opinions?

I wonder if this can be said the same for the 2010 Prius Eco mode.

[wstander]

More than likely, both cars tested without the ECON/ECO modes in play as that is a 'driver selectable' too variable?

[Beechjetn]

I would've thought that too (indeed, this is what was presented to me by the salesman); and of course, it's exactly what I WANT to believe (that the ECON mode does in fact increase the car's fuel efficiency).

If that's true, however, where does the C&D author get the information to make his claim in the article quote above?

[wstander]

"And the Honda Insight’s econ mode—activated by a dash button and claimed to improve fuel economy—registered no effect, either. It relaxes throttle response, so the test driver simply compensates with additional throttle to achieve the required speeds."

The test driver did not allow the ECON mode to do its 'magic' then.

Because the driver overrode the ECON mode, invalidating any effects....just what the EPA might have assumed too?

[jimwalker]

This is a great discussion point. Maybe the EPA should consider a thrid speed/acceleration profile? I for one would like to know what a car can do if driven conservatively. Not taken to the extremes of pulse and glide, but driving with load, smooth even acceleartion, etc. All the techniques that the econ mode helps you achieve. I have to admit that forums like this helped me to see what the insight is capable of, but it would be nice to have a tested conservative benchmark. Seriously, a significant percentage of mileage performance comes from driving style. If the EPA testers are trying to follow an acceleration profile, they are taking away one of the best and easiest ways to conserve fuel.

jw

[wstander]

Originally Posted by jimwalker

Seriously, a significant percentage of mileage performance comes from driving style. If the EPA testers are trying to follow an acceleration profile, they are taking away one of the best and easiest ways to conserve fuel.

jw

But a benchmark needs to be static and not subject to the driver variabilty. Also, the EPA standard should not TRY to conserve fuel; it needs to reflect everyday drivers and driving styles....

[Beechjetn]

wstander, I agree that EPA should test to a "typical" profile for some kind of approximate "apples-to-apples" comparison.

I also have to agree with jimwalker, however; what is a "typical" profile for a hybrid? And what is the "typical" driving style of a hybrid owner/driver? Is "typical" for a non-hybrid the same as for a hybrid? If we are assuming that the average buyer would be prone to drive a hybrid in the same way as a non-hybrid, perhaps we are trying to compare apples to various citrus fruits.

IMHO, EPA should design a profile which more accurately reflects "typical" results specifically for testing hybrids. That profile should ideally take into account the "typical" driving style and reasonable expectation of a "typical" hybrid owner/driver, keeping in mind that people who own or drive a vehicle which is specifically designed to conserve fuel have "typically" sought out such a vehicle deliberately, and would "typically" be prone to use that feature.

Perhaps a standard "fuel-conserving" profile, in which both hybrid and non-hybrid vehicles would be tested using "typical" and "reasonable" fuel-conserving driving techniques could provide a more realistic comparison for prospective buyers of their reasonably expected fuel savings of one vs. the other?

Dissenting views are welcome. I'm always willing to be educated...