Hyundai/Kia caught over stating mileage

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Correct me if I'm wrong....but in the 80s and 90s...when the first CAFE law started producing real results....did American's not choose to go out and buy enormous gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs for 2-person families simply because they could?

I've always believed the the original CAFE was counterproductive. CAFE basically wiped out large sized cars except for lower volume luxury/flagship models. People still wanted large cars, but couldn't get them...so they used the truck loophole to get the next closest thing. So when CAFE went to 27.5, instead of buying cars that would have gotten low to mid 20s, they were forced to buy trucks that got mid to high teens (at best).

It didn't hurt that gasoline dropped to an inflation adjusted all time low in the 90s, either.

[LimaCharlie]

Kia and Hyundai owners unconsciously drive like the gas pedal is an on/off switch anyways. They have no concept of progressive pedal movement to maximize mileage.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Good they caught this....never liked their cars much...and I don't like cheaters.


That...and our own vices...

Correct me if I'm wrong....but in the 80s and 90s...when the first CAFE law started producing real results....did American's not choose to go out and buy enormous gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs for 2-person families simply because they could? Did US fuel consumption not continue to rise despite cars becoming more efficient...because people just drove more?!

Honestly, I think CAFE is a pure attempt at something worthwhile...but the entire concept is flawed in believing Americans truly care about fuel economy. All we want is cheap gas and big fuel tanks to put it in.

Yep, when people got access to more efficient cars they simply drove them more. The net result was that people used roughly the same amount of gas as they did before -thus defeating the intended purpose of CAFE.

The there is only one truly effective way to cause people to use less gas, and its not CAFE. But continuing on that train of thought would be in violation of our no politics rule so I'll end it there.

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

I've always believed the the original CAFE was counterproductive. CAFE basically wiped out large sized cars except for lower volume luxury/flagship models. People still wanted large cars, but couldn't get them...so they used the truck loophole to get the next closest thing. So when CAFE went to 27.5, instead of buying cars that would have gotten low to mid 20s, they were forced to buy trucks that got mid to high teens (at best).

It didn't hurt that gasoline dropped to an inflation adjusted all time low in the 90s, either.

Yeah, the explosion of SUV sales in the 90's & early 2000's was due largely to cheap gas and a loophole in CAFE that was intended for commercial vehicles. If it wasn't for that, station wagons and minivans would have been more popular (not that the minivan wasn't popular ... it just would have been more popular). If it weren't for that loophole, automakers would have done more to control the supply of their SUVs.

The loophole was that if the vehicle had a gross vehicle weigh rating in excess of, I'm going to say 6500 lbs (could have been 8500), it didn't count towards an automakers CAFE score. Like I said, this was intended for commercial vehicles (pickups for farmers, vans for work crews, etc). But there weren't any restrictions on it, so everyday people began buying them -much to the automakers delight: high profits & no CAFE penalty, win-win.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by derklug

Fuel economy is getting down to the point where people will have to start accepting some reduced driveability. Start/stop motors that shutdown when not in motion, poorer acceleration, smaller a/c systems, and lighter smaller cars. Automakers will not be able to meet the higher CAFE standards after 2015 without a generous mix of hybrids and all electrics. And as far as diesels go, the EPA is doing their level best to make them too expensive for passenger car use.

They can also switch over to really expensive metals that can ignite at relatively low temperatures and are very difficult to extinguish!

It's going to be awesome!

Thanks, CAFE!

Originally Posted by DGthe3

That would be nice, but its not going to happen. Any reduced demand for gasoline caused by CAFE in the United States is going to be more than offset by increased demand in the rest of the world.

Not if we drill our own and don't export to anyone (or only export what we don't use ourselves).

Originally Posted by Mr. Wyndham

Correct me if I'm wrong....but in the 80s and 90s...when the first CAFE law started producing real results....did American's not choose to go out and buy enormous gas-guzzling trucks and SUVs for 2-person families simply because they could? Did US fuel consumption not continue to rise despite cars becoming more efficient...because people just drove more?!

People dibn't buy them just "because". People do things for a reason, or multiple reasons.

Many people bought SUVs because they have large families that don't fit in tiny cars, and car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Many people bought trucks and suvs because they have something that has to be towed (camper, boat, snow machine, jetski) and dinky FWD econoboxes are poor at this, and car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Many people bought SUVs because they want to protect their loved ones as much as possible. Miniature econoboxes offer less protection and generally feel less safe inside to the occupants. They had no alternative, since car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Many people bought SUVs and trucks because they live in areas where travel is affected by weather, and lightweight cars with dinky tires and no ground clearance do not function as well in these conditions. Trucks were the only choice because car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Most people who think CAFE is a good idea live in areas where tiny cars are a better fit, and/or think everyone should change their lives to eliminate the need for a large vehicle. These masterminds think they know better than the spontaneous order which we have enjoyed until now.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The there is only one truly effective way to cause people to use less gas, and its not CAFE. But continuing on that train of thought would be in violation of our no politics rule so I'll end it there.

Here's a better idea:

Leave the people alone.

There are bigger problems to address (mostly caused by previous attempts to "cause" people to do more or less of some other thing) and there's no need to create more unintended messes with additional meddling in things too big to understand, no matter how good the intentions.

We'll just leave it at that, because I cannot discuss it in greater detail without violating this forums prime directive.

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Here's a better idea:

Leave the people alone.

+1. Thank you.

[Scalded Dog]

Think about THIS: Hyundai has advertised for years that they have more vehicles in their lineup that get over 40 MPG than any other automaker... and now, ironically it turns out, they haven't got a single one. Okay, caught in a lie. But then... how many people purchased these cars and used THAT criteria as a tipping point to decide between that and another vehicle... AND... is it conceivable that certain other automakers who needed a bailout from the U.S. Gov't. (that you and I paid for... YOUR money) might not have needed that bailout IF sales had been a little stronger? Is it possible that Kia/ Hyundai's deception cost YOU money, even if you never even considered owning one?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

People dibn't buy them just "because". People do things for a reason, or multiple reasons.

Many people bought SUVs because they have large families that don't fit in tiny cars, and car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Many people bought trucks and suvs because they have something that has to be towed (camper, boat, snow machine, jetski) and dinky FWD econoboxes are poor at this, and car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Many people bought SUVs because they want to protect their loved ones as much as possible. Miniature econoboxes offer less protection and generally feel less safe inside to the occupants. They had no alternative, since car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Many people bought SUVs and trucks because they live in areas where travel is affected by weather, and lightweight cars with dinky tires and no ground clearance do not function as well in these conditions. Trucks were the only choice because car companies were forced to stop making large RWD cars (or at least affordable ones)

Most people who think CAFE is a good idea live in areas where tiny cars are a better fit, and/or think everyone should change their lives to eliminate the need for a large vehicle. These masterminds think they know better than the spontaneous order which we have enjoyed until now.

Alot of people could have used the last gen Caprice Large, roomy, available towing package with 5000 pound rating, mine with the towing packaged averaged mid 20s in the MPG. With the LSD it even did decent offroad, like a 2WD truck capabilities (gotta love a BOF car!)

Seems like their sales were still pretty good when GM killed them all (Caprice, impala SS, ROadmaster, and Fleetwood) o make more trucks :(

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Stew

Alot of people could have used the last gen Caprice Large, roomy, available towing package with 5000 pound rating, mine with the towing packaged averaged mid 20s in the MPG. With the LSD it even did decent offroad, like a 2WD truck capabilities (gotta love a BOF car!)

Seems like their sales were still pretty good when GM killed them all (Caprice, impala SS, ROadmaster, and Fleetwood) o make more trucks :(

Exactly. They couldn't keep building a high volume large car that only got mid-20s. It dinged their CAFE average too much if they made too many of them. Building truck based SUVs had no such CAFE penalty. There was no CAFE sales ceiling they needed to manage.

[Nessal]

I thought the MPG testing were done by EPA?

[C586]

Every car I've ever owned didn't get advertised mpg. The test is done at like 45 mph for the highway test or something dumb like that.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Nessal

I thought the MPG testing were done by EPA?

EPA develops the test, but they only test 10 to 15 percent of testing themselves. Thats still a couple hundred cars per year. The majority of cars are tested by the automakers, who document their results & submit it to the EPA.

Originally Posted by C586

Every car I've ever owned didn't get advertised mpg. The test is done at like 45 mph for the highway test or something dumb like that.

I've always managed to get better than what the EPA says, when I feel like it (or when I don't get bogged down in a traffic jam/construction zone).

The test itself is done on a dynomometer. A number of factors are idealized, adjusted for, or outright ignored. However, it has been revised a number of times of the past few decades and with the current one (the post ... 2007 version?) you should be able to get reasonably close as long as you have fairly normal driving habits & conditions. But if you are always giving it a some extra throttle, or live in a hilly area, or your commute is a bumper to bumper nightmare ... yeah, its going to be low. On the other hand, if know how to save gas its pretty easy to beat the test.

[Captain Awesome]

Originally Posted by fielderLS3

Exactly. They couldn't keep building a high volume large car that only got mid-20s. It dinged their CAFE average too much if they made too many of them. Building truck based SUVs had no such CAFE penalty. There was no CAFE sales ceiling they needed to manage.

Essentially, the meddling masterminds behind CAFE killed the BOF car and thus accidentally created the new market known as the SUV, to fill the void. One could argue that this market actually had a WORSE impact on the environment and fuel consumption than the cars which they killed.

The laws of unintended consequences plays out and exposes the fallacy of CAFE. People who couldn't set the clock on their VCR were creating rules for the manufacturing and sales of automobiles... and patting themselves on the back for how smart they were for doing so.

Fast forward now and these same people (now unable to make a contact list for their phone) have moved on the designing our power plants.

What could go wrong?

[fielderLS3]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

The laws of unintended consequences plays out and exposes the fallacy of CAFE. People who couldn't set the clock on their VCR were creating rules for the manufacturing and sales of automobiles... and patting themselves on the back for how smart they were for doing so.

There was an anecdote going around right after Congress voted to bump CAFE up to 35.5 a few years ago. One of the swing votes that determined the fate of the bill was initially against it....until one day she saw 32 mpg on the instant DIC readout on her Buick while rolling down the highway, figured we were so close to begin with based on that that it would be easy, and changed her vote.

The people who have forced thousands of regulations on how cars are built....this is the general level of scientific and engineering knowledge they have. There is a reason the Soviets never made a good car.

[Mr Twisty]

Originally Posted by FenwickHockey65

Emissions standards, increasing vehicle weight due to crash safety, etc. Plus you're talking diesels vs. gasoline.

The only real issue with gas v. diesel is public perception... The days of the noisy, smelly, smoking diesels are long gone. I see diesel as a tool in the automakers toolbox that is rarely used by the big 3, and that's too bad.

Originally Posted by DGthe3

The problem is that you are comparing apples to peanuts (which is a waaaay harder comparison than apples vs oranges).

Safety regulations do hurt fuel economy a bit, but one thing that isn't regulated is the demand for more power. Engines today are 2 to 3 times more powerful than they were 30 years ago, that doesn't do much to improve fuel economy. Also, consumers demand more and more features, and more and more comfort, and more and more space. That adds a lot of weight

Fuel economy is something that has always been asked, but despite what people say in focus groups, its rarely been demanded by the consumer when they vote with their wallet at the dealership.

I visited the VW website just to see what they're up to recently... looks like they've kept up pretty well, underrated (from owner feedback) mpg averages in the 40+mpg range, 0-60 ~8 or 9 seconds... in a nutshell, not too shabby.

There's a story on their site about 2 pro's doubling the fuel mileage... believe it... or not

Results may vary greatly.
And awesomely.
Maybe even enough to double the range of a Passat. Mileage experts John and Helen Taylor recently did just that when they went almost halfway across the country on a single tank of diesel fuel. We gave the Taylors a 2012 Volkswagen Passat TDI SE for their trip and they drove it from Houston, TX, to Sterling, VA, on one tank of diesel fuel - that's 1,626.1 miles at a whopping 84.1 miles per gallon. And we thought 43 highway miles per gallon was impressive!