Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While there is always some variability in MPG during magazine testing, the Fusion and C-Max are off more then other hybrids. Consumer Reports (who is one of the magazines asking for the investigation) achieved 37 combined for the C-Max and 39 combined for the Fusion, off 10 and 8 MPG respectively. CR states that the Prius is off 6 during their testing versus its EPA number and Car and Driver claims that the Camry Hybrid is off 5 MPG in their testing versus it's claimed number. So, it's not that they are saying only Ford is off their MPG numbers in their testing, just that they are off more then usual. There is a good chance that Ford is going to at the very least have to revise the numbers and may be in a position of having to compensate owners like Hyundai/Kia did.
Adding to it the EPA now allows people to report their own achieved mileage with the a car. I don't know what the process is, but the numbers are displated at fueleconomy.gov alongside the rated numbers. The Prius is reported at 51.1 vs. it's 50 rating. The Camry is at 39.8 versus it's 40 rating. The C-Max is at 39.4 vs. 47 and the Fusion is at 40.6 vs. 47.
The prevailing current theory is that Ford basically "gamed" the C-Max and Fusion to get the absolute best possible numbers on the EPA loop. Ford's theory from the article...
CR's response from the article...
Basically, it can most likely get 47 MPG on the EPA loop because it was designed to take advantage of how that test is done. Since no one drives like that in the real world and the particular "tricks" employed have a relatively large impact on MPG, that's why people can't get near the rated mileage in the real world. Which, seems to basically be what Tek_Freek was trying to point out.
But we aren't seeing anywhere near this kind of discrepancies with conventional gasoline-powered cars since the EPA revised their testing and calculation methods a few years ago to arrive at more "real-world" figures. This is why I said earlier that the test appears to be calibrated for conventional gasoline-only vehicles but not well-suited for other powertrain types and therefore the EPA needs to consider different testing methods for conventional gasoline vs. hybrid vs. diesel.
But we aren't seeing anywhere near this kind of discrepancies with conventional gasoline-powered cars since the EPA revised their testing and calculation methods a few years ago to arrive at more "real-world" figures. This is why I said earlier that the test appears to be calibrated for conventional gasoline-only vehicles but not well-suited for other powertrain types and therefore the EPA needs to consider different testing methods for conventional gasoline vs. hybrid vs. diesel.
I think you're right. The EPA tests have long been suspect, even after they got better with the recent revisions. The issue, as I think you accurately pointed out is that different drivetrains are going to behave differently during the test and some are able to "trick" the test. The problem is that at the end of the day, the numbers need to be comparable as that is their basic purpose beyond CAFE. I should be able to look at a hybrid, gas or diesel and compare their numbers and that requires running them through the same test standard.
Ultimately, what I think it comes down to is that the EPA needs to develop a test loop that mimics how people actually drive, which even the revised test doesn't. Take the average 36 mile roundtrip commute that they say is 45% city and 55% highway. They need to simulate a cold start followed by stop and go driving at variable surface street speeds from 25-45 mph. They need to accelerate the cars briskly from light to light. On the highway portion they need to merge at full throttle and then settle down into a 65-75 mph variable speed simulating driving in traffic. The test should be done under three different weather conditions and the results averaged: 30 degree ambient with heater and defroster on; 75 degree ambient with the windows open; 90 degree ambient with AC on. That's how most people drive and would give an accurate representation of what MPG to expect reagrdless of drivetrain.
One source, dude, And look into who's backing that source.
And interestingly enough, you probably didn't even read the responses to the author of that last article, did you? Like this one:
Quote:
metals like Li, Al, Mn are collected in a slag fraction, that is designed for use in construction. It replaces natural raw materials. The Li in the slag has an added value because it mitigates the 'Alkali Silica Reaction' (ASR). Li-nitrate is added to concrete to improve the quality (just google 'ASR Li(NO)3' and you'll find numerous articles on this subject). We have demonstrated that the Li in our slag has the same effect as adding Li-nitrate (patent request pending).
Further you write 'Burning of flammable electrolytes'. Our installation is not an incinerator. The battery organic materials (solvent, plastics) are used as reducing agent, replacing cokes or natural gas. The energy released during these reactions is used to heat the furnace. Excess of energy is used for other processes.
Independent Life Cycle Analysis have demonstrated that Co and Ni recovered by our process are much 'greener' than Co and Ni produced from ores.
I agree that for Co/Ni free batteries (or low Co/Ni content), the recycling cost exceeds the metal value. That is why we have designed a process in which only high valuable elements (Cu, Co, Ni) are refined, and low valuable elements are collected in a slag for construction (no refining burden nor costs). If in future there would be an interest to recover Li from slag, that will be possible (basic R&D work finished and published).
Try the Toxco link that NJGoat gave. And how about this one from Edmunds:
Though lithium is 100% recyclable, currently, recycled lithium reports to the slag and is currently used for non-automotive purposes, such as construction, or sold in the open-markets. However, with the increasing number of EVs entering the market in the future and with a significant supply crunch, recycling is expected to be an important factor for consideration in effective material supply for battery production.
Closed loop recycling, where the recycled materials are sold back to OEMs, is likely to help against potential price fluctuation of metals or compounds. EV battery recycling is expected to play a significant part of the value chain by 2016 when large quantities of EV batteries will come through the waste stream for recycling.
Projects are currently underway in Europe, the United States and Japan to develop effective and feasible recycling technologies with a complete life cycle analysis of recycling. Early stage partnerships and research programs such as LithoRec and LiBRi with stakeholders across the value chain demonstrate the immediate need to develop comprehensive recycling solutions.
For the future, recycling of Li-ion batteries is expected to be one of the main sources of lithium supply. Unlike oil, where the volatile price fluctuations will lead to increase in only the running costs, potential price fluctuations of lithium would impact the total purchase price of the car. Hence, recycling is expected be one of the means to hedge against the uncertain and potential price fluctuations arising due to geo-political or other barriers.
As they come into more widespread use, more facilities will open up (since the ones being installed in cars now will probably not need to be recycled for another decade or more, there's ample time to ramp up the business for it. Give a need, and a business will spring up to fill it...)
As it is, they ARE being recycled to use the components (like the cobalt and lithium) in other industries even now. the author of your articles obviously didn't even check on those facts.
I have the Nissan Altima Hybrid. If it wasn't for the Hybrid tax credit that brought the price down and Nissan's aggressive discounts to move them, I would have gone with the v6. The Hybrid provided the power I wanted (the i4 was underpowered) and it was cheaper while providing better mileage.
To those who are saying that the reliability hasn't been proven, I know people who have the 2001 Prius and they're running perfectly fine. Consumer Reports rates Toyota Hybrid reliability extremely high.
Yeah, I "capisce." You, however, do not. The car is rated at 47mpg city AND 47mpg highway AND 47mpg combined. That means anyone who drives this car in a reasonably controlled manner should be getting somewhere close to 47mpg be it in city or highway conditions, or any combination thereof. And yet, nobody has been able to get anywhere close to that figure in the city, or on the highway, or combined.
Are you starting to see the problem yet or are you too busy trying to belittle me to see the bigger picture here?
Drover,
I went back over the entire thread again and I see what happened.
And it is my error.
My apologies for misunderstanding what you were trying to convey.
I drive 142,000 miles a year for my job and currently drive a 2012 Dodge Ram cargo van, same size as Dodge caravan but no seats in rear. I get 26mpg average and sometimes 29mpg. My next car will be Prius V or Ford C Max. Most likely Prius V cause of good reviews. I will save 700.00 plus a month on fuel.
Particularly the Prius, though, I'm not sure if it qualifies as "best" for any particular need. It's not the cheapest way from A to B, as stated before you can't beat an old cheap car with anything new for economy. It's not that fun to drive, it won't haul things like a truck will. As far as I can tell, the Prius is only good for a "Greener than thou" image.
I'm not bashing it, just saying that I don't get the point.
Now the Leaf, if you want a newer car, if you can deal with it's range limitations, it certainly does cost less per mile than a gas burner.
The Volt, to me, makes some sense as it has a low per mile cost in electric and not that bad when using gas, and the gas engine gives it as much range as any other gas burning car. And if you "get off" on the technology, OK then. But I would still spend $40K on a car some other way. You can get a damn decent Testarossa for $40K, and while the MPG is nothing to brag about, IMHO you get full value for every gallon of high test burnt in it.
But at the end of the day, my daily will probably remain my $1000 82 Scirocco, 37 MPG or better in a car that's not an utter econo-box, I will take it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
