totoo ba tong 2008 fuel economy run ng Department Of Energy?

[fourtheboys96]

tutal mahilig naman tayo manggaya sa US of A, bakit na din natin gayahin yung paraan ng US EPA sa pag-determine ng fuel economy.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ec...in_automobiles

EPA testing procedure through 2007

Two separate fuel economy tests simulate city driving and highway driving: the city driving program consists of starting with a cold engine and making 23 stops over a period of 31 minutes for an average speed of 20 mph (32 km/h) and with a top speed of 56 mph (90 km/h); the highway program uses a warmed-up engine and makes no stops, averaging 48 mph (77 km/h) with a top speed of 60 mph (97 km/h) over a 10 mile (16 km) distance. The measurements are then adjusted downward by 10% (city) and 22% (highway) to more accurately reflect real-world results. A weight average of city (55%) and highway (45%) fuel economies is used to determine the tax.[21]

In some cases, this tax may only apply to certain variants of a given model - for example, the 2004–2006 Pontiac GTO did incur the tax when ordered with the four-speed automatic transmission, but did not incur the tax when ordered with the six-speed manual transmission.

Because EPA figures had almost always indicated better efficiency than real-world fuel-efficiency, the EPA has modified the method starting with 2008. Updated estimates are available for vehicles back to the 1985 model year.[22]

[pup2]

Actually, I've found that asking an SA for the FC figures and removing 20% is a very good estimate. I've tried this on about 6 cars already and they've been on the spot for each and every one.

[mm15744]

[SIZE=3]The 2008 DOE Fuel Economy Run for Passenger Cars, SUVs, MPVs, and Pick-ups is for baseline, comparison and indicator. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Scientific or laboratory test are very conservative.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3][/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Thanks DOE!!![/SIZE]

the figures are very exAge......please dont fool the people DOE!!!

[niky]

They're not exaggerated. They're perfectly achievable.


Just do what the DOE did. Drive down the NLEX at slow speeds in the middle of the night...

[lazyfoot]

would only be true if you drive 5am in the morning with a convoy escort and drafting partner.

[Burai]

then that is nonesense at all for short. di ma attain eh. ano yun kailangan nating lahat magdrive lang ng 5am or gabi tapos dapat may escorts? XD

[niky]

It's nonsense because setting an arbitrary highway cruising speed skews the numbers in favor of cars with longer gears. And also because there's no control on how the drivers drive. If you have a super eco-driver in one car, he can get an extra 5 km/l over a normal joe.

I've had no problem getting up to 16 km/l on my Lynx or my Crosswind on the highway. And I've gotten 20 km/l out of the Jazz, the Yaris and the Focus TDCi... so those really aren't the best numbers those cars can achieve.

[batangmahal]

Here's Pareng Al Mendoza's take on it:

http://www.businessmirror.com.ph/ind...ring&Itemid=72

AN item last week struck me as superbly, if not bizarrely, interesting.

This was about the so-called “midnight econo-run” staged by the Department of Energy (DOE) from Manila to Subic.

For starters, an “econo-run” or “eco-run,” as had been pioneered by Honda Cars Philippines and Petron, involves the driving of cars in virtual slow motion.

On Edsa, or in city driving, the cars used in the DOE-staged run were required to maintain a speed of 40 kph. At the North Luzon Expressway (Nlex) and Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEx), the speed was 80 kph.

In short, an “eco-run” is, literally, more of a leisure trip than anything.

It puts a premium on slowness more than speed.

Drive slowly and cut gas consumption by nearly half of your usual quota of tank.

Funny, but it forces you to travel à la funeral cortege.

A powerful vehicle, a sports car if you wish, has practically no place in an “econo-run.”

Yet, in the recently staged “econo-run,” a number of huge vehicles were in attendance.

Arm-twisting was used to assemble the large lineup of cars?

Just asking.

Anyway, in the recent DOE-staged run, the vehicle’s air-conditioning system was set to low fan, with the coldest thermostat setting. One stop was required during the event.

Fifty-two vehicles were harnessed from 14 brands. Manila to Subic and back was a total of 333 km.

To avoid traffic, the “econo-run” was held from 11 p.m. on October 23 to 6 a.m. the next day.

What was the “econo-run” all about?

As the title suggests, the “econo-run” aimed to establish which car would consume the least fuel during the turtle-paced run.

The 0.8-liter Suzuki Alto (gasoline-powered, manual transmission) won. It registered a 34-km-per-liter performance, or a fuel cost of P1.38 per km.

The 3.2-liter Volvo XC70 (gas, automatic) had consumed the most at 11 km per liter, or a fuel cost of P4.26 per km.

The other participants were Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Ford, Kia, BMW, Isuzu, Mitsubishi and Ssangyong.

By staging the “econo-run,” what was the DOE trying to achieve?

Establish the best fuel-efficient vehicle in the land?

Let’s listen to Mario Marasigan, him talking to Tessa Salazar of Philippine Daily Inquirer: “This was a rough tank test and not a scientific, instrumented test. The DOE’s goal was to eventually standardize tests once instruments become available.”

So there. Nothing conclusive, really.

Frankly, without meaning to demean the feats of the tested vehicles, particularly the “winning ones” listed in the top 10, the event was far from achieving the desired result: the truly economical car.

While I can believe that, certainly, the Suzuki Alto was the most economical, it does not necessarily mean that it is the most fuel-efficient of them all. Many variables have to be factored in to really establish the truly fuel-efficient car, like the driving habits of all those utilized to handle the 52 vehicles, the actual condition of every car during the event and the unique technology of each car used in the run.

How do we know if all the drivers observed 80 kph at either the Nlex or SCTEx?

I’ve joined a Honda “eco-run” once and it was hard maintaining that kind of speed on both expressways.

Yet, humbly, Andy Sevilla (my partner during the run) and I won the contest at a 39-plus-km-per-liter consumption. All the vehicles used were Hondas; ours was the 2.0 Civic and, humbly again, we even beat the likes of the City and Jazz, both known for their miserly mien.

Without meaning to offend, last week’s DOE event might send the wrong signal, particularly to our car buffs who could be lulled into believing this car pala is much better than that simply because of the sheer gas-miserly result of a particular car.

It could produce myths that might destroy more than develop the healthy sense of knowing the true character of a car based on its inherent features and total technological makeup.

For example, not for anything, but I could not absolutely believe that the Volvo XC70 3.2L AT might become a “bad car” just because it spent, during the event, P4.26 per km covered to place first among the “worst” performers in the area of gas consumption.

If I know my automotive education, Volvo has been a tested fuel-efficient vehicle since time immemorial, not to mention its being consistently awarded as the safest car ever invented since the invention of the bread toaster.

Listen to Angelo Reyes, the DOE secretary: “Hopefully, this exercise and its results would encourage consumers to consider fuel consumption and not just ‘porma [for show]’ in their car choices, because we have an energy crisis.”

Said in another way, it could go, thus: Help in the war against the energy crunch. Start by avoiding buying, as much as possible, a vehicle no bigger than 0.8L.

See what I mean?

[light2light]

Fuel economy runs of this method is not accurate. the only way to have a scientific data is to have the engine be tested at UP-VRTL where the engine is dyno tested and at the same time flowmeters are installed on the vehicle. This test is not cheap - P25K for one vehicle. This includes smoke/emission tests.

[fourtheboys96]

Fuel economy runs of this method is not accurate. the only way to have a scientific data is to have the engine be tested at UP-VRTL where the engine is dyno tested and at the same time flowmeters are installed on the vehicle. This test is not cheap - P25K for one vehicle. This includes smoke/emission tests.

25K for a car manufacturer is actually cheap. if they have 100 models, that is just Php2.5M (right???)

my gulay, dapat institutionalize ng ng gobyerno ang fuel economy rating.

hindi nga kasi accurate yang "eco-run" na yan.