Reneg on my statement
I had to renege on my stated intent not to post further on this.
The EPA tests the gas milage of 12-15% of the new cars sold each year, yet they post “their” gas milage figures on all new car stickers. So, 85-88% of the “EPA” gas milage figures they post are not EPA tested even thought that is the impression buyers have. On the cars they do test, it is done in a lab by computer on a roller device. They don’t test cars in the real world, on actual roads. Past years their gas milage figure posted on stickers have been substantially higher than the real world milages experienced by real drivers on real roads. After a couple of decades of complaints on the inaccuracy of their figures, last year they revised their test. The revised EPA testing has resulted in lower figures-close to what CU has always obtained in testing by real drivers on real roads.
CU tests the gas milage (on roads) for all cars they test. They will also use the milage of a previous year if there are no changes between the models. They have never pretended to be the authority on the actual milage of every car made. They are not charged with that responsibility nor are they funded to do so. They only report on what they test, unlike the EPA which accepts the manufacture’s figures for 85-88% of the figures listed under their name on the stickers. That’s why I consider them a joke. Their recent inability to check out the complaints about Toyota products is consistent with their record of failure in the past, such as being late to investigate the fatalities from Explorer rollovers and SUV rollovers in general, the exploding gas tanks on Pintos and Chevy/GMC pick ups---- the list could go on and on. The EPA is a joke and a poor one at that.
I looked up the CU vs Suzuki lawsuit. It was “settled” by a joint statement ending the lawsuit and with no fault found or money paid:
“The parties have acknowledged their mutual respect for each other in that Suzuki recognizes Consumers Union stated commitment for objective and unbiased testing and reporting, and CU recognizes stated commitment for designing, manufacturing and marketing safe vehicles”
As I recall GM had money in Suzaki and Daewoo and Suzuki had money in Daewoo and GM. GM decided it was in their interest for this issue to be over and put pressure on Suzuki for a settlement.
Of course CR using data collected by owners reporting of repair experience is subject to many possible skewing factors. It’s just that there is no better source for reliability information, so however imperfect, they are by default the only show in town. I sometimes have trouble with how this data is weighed as I noted in an earlier post.
I looked up the word “Test” since you are very specific in your understanding of it. Using my 1963 American College Dictionary, bought when I was leaving for that experience, there are 10 definitions of “test”. #1 applies to CR “that which the presence, quality or genuineness of anything is determined: a means of trial”
#3 is more up your alley “a particular process or method of doing this”
Dave
Not sure about EPA methods
I remember complaints about EPA mileage testing on rollers, but I also remember that substantial changes to the process occurred ages ago, not last year. I started shopping for a new car in 1991 or 1992, and the EPA figures at that time were already being praised as being "quite realistic", which was memorable because they had been horrendously incorrect prior to that time (I just can't remember how much earlier). I finally bought a new car in 1995, and that car's EPA mileage estimate was virtually the same as it had been on that model car for the previous 3 or 4 years, and I found it to be nearly 100-percent accurate, though I can beat it by 1 or 2 mpg under ideal conditions. I certainly remember the inflated mpg figures from way back when, because it's something that everybody knew about, and everybody talked about, but it was a really long time ago (I'm guessing 20 years). Not trying to argue about this as much as questioning whether the time line is correct.
Also, I never would have guessed that the EPA had any responsibility for dealing with all those safety issues you've mentioned. I've never heard "EPA" mentioned in any automotive context except in regard to how vehicles burn their fuel. There are other government agencies that deal with transportation safety issues.
As far as reports of repairs supplied to Consumer Reports and how they can be interpreted, the only problem I have with that (which I mentioned already) has nothing to do with Consumer Reports themselves. Nobody else could make such a system truly accurate either.
Okay, I just did some reading about EPA testing, and you have misunderstood the meaning of that 10 to 15 percent figure. All manufacturers are required by law to test fuel economy according to a certain standard, and the EPA uses that same method as a "check" to make sure no one is cheating. In other words, auto makers will perform the test as directed because they "might" get caught cheating if they fake it. You can be pretty sure there's a stiff penalty for non-compliance. This is not the same as the EPA being lazy in it's testing. It's practical, and it insures that everyone uses the same standardized method. As I've said all along, testing by qualified firms is always done using standard methods, and that's the case here. You have to remember something else, and this is something I have to explain to clients all the time when hired to do tests on construction materials. Standard test methods do not necessarily duplicate what happens in the real world, but they ARE valid means for making comparisons between samples (in this case, cars).
The changes initiated last year are to simulate aggressive and high-speed driving, in less-than-ideal temperatures and with accessories like the A.C. turned on. I know that there was another change, much more substantial, 20 years ago or more, because back then there was no correlation at all between EPA figures and actual driving results. Back then, nobody got the same mileage that the EPA estimated, whereas for the last several years, anybody can match the EPA estimates if they simply drive at reasonable speeds and keep a steady foot on the gas.