[USMA:38371] Re: Toyota

[G Stanley Doore]

     Hi Martin et al:

     Regards,  Stan Doore


     How Representative of Real Life Driving are the Standard Tests Cymraeg









                                           *********

To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 4:39 PM
Subject: [USMA:38367] Re: Toyota

The following was taken from the UK standards web site. It's what I've been trying to say in my previous emails about standards The US EPA apparently doesn't agree with this or they want to mask something or confuse the public. Because of the need to maintain strict comparability of results achieved by the standard tests they cannot be fully representative of real life driving conditions. Firstly, it is obviously not practicable to test each individual new car; thus only one production car is tested as being representative of the model and may therefore produce a better or worse result than another similar vehicle. Secondly, there are infinite variations in driving styles and in road, car and weather conditions, all of which can have a bearing on the results achieved. For these reasons the fuel consumption achieved on the road will not necessarily be the same as the official test results. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

I sure hope the answer always turns out to be 100 or somebody's gettin' cheated! ;-)

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Martin Vlietstra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Hi Stan, Brian

On this side of the "pond", the way in which fuel consumption figures are
produced is strictly regulated on an EU-wide basis.  Likewise with CO2

when buying a new car.  If you would like to know more, visit
http://www.vca.gov.uk/fcb/index.asp and explore the site.

BTW, fuel consumption in Europe is usually measured in kilometres per 100

you are buying and fuel as your currency.



To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:31 AM
Subject: [USMA:38363] Re: Toyota


> Hi Brian:
>     I'm glad you like the new EPA way of calculating mpg.
>     I don't, since the new method involves someone else's driving in
> different climates, altitudes, and road and congestion conditions, and
these
> vary widely.
>     The previous way EPA calculated mpg was based on physics and set
> standards and not on arm-waving science.  And, it will be come more
complex
> as new technologies are introduced.
>     I have no problem with showing both since it would give buyers a
better
> comparison and better idea of reality.
> Regards,  Stan Doore
>
>

> To: "U.S. Metric Association" <usma@colostate.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:33 PM
> Subject: [USMA:38359] Re: Toyota
>
>
> > EPA just changed their rules for the better. (More accurately portray
> > real-

> > more

> > ratings.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:08:58 -0400, STANLEY DOORE wrote
> >> The Toyota Prius is a much larger car than the Honda two-seater and
> >> is in a couple of classes above the Honda two-seater.  EPA has
> >> standards based on physics to determine fuel efficiency rather than
> >> on ad hoc people driving around. Stan Doore
> >
> >
>

emission figures (which are used as a basis for car tax). While I can see Stan's point about using somebody else's figures, but if fuel consumption is measured according to a fixed set of tests, you can compare like with like km. Although this might be strange as it is the inverse of mpg, it is more consistent with the rest of life - think of kilometres as the product that ----- Original Message ----- From: "STANLEY DOORE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Brian White" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > world conditions.) Again, check out this month's Car and Driver. > > No > > will the Prius and Insight get insanely high (and unattainable) > > 60-70mpg

welsh.gif
Description: GIF image