ForumsCorollas2019-21ToyotasTech

Search Corolland!

New Epa Ratings On Fueleconomy.gov



Recommended Posts

Brendon

These new ratings are so bad. Here's the changes for our Corollas:

93' 4-speed auto: 23/30 (previously 26/33)

93' 4-speed auto: 23/29 (previously 26/32)

95'-97' 4-speed auto: 23/31 (previously 27/34)

98'-99' 4-speed auto: 25/33 (previously 28/36)

00' 4-speed auto: 25/34 (previously 29/37)

01'-02' 4-speed auto: 26/36 (previously 30/39)

03'-04' 4-speed auto: 25/34 (previously 29/38)

05'-present 4-speed auto: 26/35 (previously 30/38)

These ratings are so inaccurate. They make the Corolla look like it's got a V6 under its hood. 25 MPG city for my car? About the lowest I've EVER dipped was 27 MPG and that was after racing around town with multiple hard acceleration runs. These new ratings claim my car averages 28 MPG with 55% on the highways. I average about 29 MPG and spend almost 90% in city driving. The best I've ever averaged was 33 MPG, also 90% in city driving.

Once again, these new ratings are absolute Bullsh**.

I don't think 95% of people know how to use EPA ratings.

The EPA test is a controlled test to achieve consistent empirical data on each model.

Their data is for comparison between cars only, not an estimate of what any particular car will do.

HappyMom

I don't think 95% of people know how to use EPA ratings.

The EPA test is a controlled test to achieve consistent empirical data on each model.

Their data is for comparison between cars only, not an estimate of what any particular car will do.

I agree. In Canada, the ratings are given in a similar fashion, but are rarely achievable unless you drive like a "little old lady". The tests used to be the same for USA and Canada and I remenber seeing here a description of the test (I remember the max speed for highway was 90 km/h 55 MPH), looks like our southern friends have changed their controlled testing procedure that matches more the average Amarican driver.

For the 9th gen, the highway is under 6 litres/ 100 km which is rougly 40 MPG. I average a little less than 7 l/100 km which is about 33 MPG, in 50/50 driving regularly doing 120 on the highway.

Brendon

About 6 months ago, I did a test to see what was the best possible average I could get, which included granny accelerations, rolled up windows at all times, no a/c, coasting to red lights, and about every other possible way to achieve maximum MPG. 3 weeks later, I refilled my tank with 10.2 gallons. I had driven 334 miles, or 32.75 MPG. It was about 80% city driving.

Currently, I'm doing another test, this time with my normal driving habits. Sometimes I drive easily, and other times I drive hard. I also drive with the windows open almost all the time. So far I've used up just above half my tank and have driven 207 miles. Based on the estimate of 7 gallons used so far, I'm currently averaging just about 29.5 MPG. Since I'm not commuting to College, I've driving about 100% city.

Again, it makes no sense where the EPA is getting these numbers from. I would have to be flooring the pedal all the time and have to a/c blasting before my MPG would ever drop this low.

I like the newer numbers - makes me feel that my car is also, above average default_biggrin. Seriously, newer EGA testing procedures seem to have numbers that mimic what a majority of the people out there are seeing at the pump. Also have to remember that there is really no "real world" number for fuel economy except for the one your come up with yourself. Some can get more or less mileage that someone else in similar driving circumstances. Enough variance in upkeep, vehicle maintenance, fuel quality and makeup, driving styles, etc. that it makes it nearly impossible to get the "perfect" number. I've seen fuel economy numbers for 1ZZ-FE Corollas run from a low of 14MPG to a high of 50MPG - as they say, your mile may vary.

Bikeman982

These new ratings are so bad. Here's the changes for our Corollas:

93' 4-speed auto: 23/30 (previously 26/33)

93' 4-speed auto: 23/29 (previously 26/32)

95'-97' 4-speed auto: 23/31 (previously 27/34)

98'-99' 4-speed auto: 25/33 (previously 28/36)

00' 4-speed auto: 25/34 (previously 29/37)

01'-02' 4-speed auto: 26/36 (previously 30/39)

03'-04' 4-speed auto: 25/34 (previously 29/38)

05'-present 4-speed auto: 26/35 (previously 30/38)

These ratings are so inaccurate. They make the Corolla look like it's got a V6 under its hood. 25 MPG city for my car? About the lowest I've EVER dipped was 27 MPG and that was after racing around town with multiple hard acceleration runs. These new ratings claim my car averages 28 MPG with 55% on the highways. I average about 29 MPG and spend almost 90% in city driving. The best I've ever averaged was 33 MPG, also 90% in city driving.

Once again, these new ratings are absolute Bullsh**.

How can ratings change? Did we do something to our cars, or is it a result of different fuel?

 

Did they do a poll to ask people what they get? They never asked me.

I get 29MPG normally - combined highway and local driving in my 1994 automatic.

Max

The ratings changed because they changed the way they test the cars.

Bikeman982

The ratings changed because they changed the way they test the cars.

Is the new way of testing cars supposed to be more indicative of how people actually drive?

 

 

Max

Yes, so they say. But as was said in other posts, there are just too many variables to make an accurate assessment. I get better mileage than the FIRST set of numbers said I would. If I got what this second set says, I'd be looking for a problem with the car.

Bikeman982

Yes, so they say. But as was said in other posts, there are just too many variables to make an accurate assessment. I get better mileage than the FIRST set of numbers said I would. If I got what this second set says, I'd be looking for a problem with the car.

The second set of figures probably came from some "bad" drivers.

 

I don't think the numbers represent a "typical" driver, unless we have all become a minority.

foobar

I think the new mpg numbers are just some percentage of the old mpg numbers (around 88.5% for city and 91% for highway). Maybe the 2008 numbers will be actual numbers from the new tests.

Bikeman982

I think the new mpg numbers are just some percentage of the old mpg numbers (around 88.5% for city and 91% for highway). Maybe the 2008 numbers will be actual numbers from the new tests.

Why would they want to change the list to be only a percentage of the old numbers?

 

 

Brendon

I suspect that could be true. How could fueleconomy.gov possibly retest every single car, body, engine, or drivetrain built since 1985. Can they really find a mint condition 1985 AMC Eagle or a 1989 Ford Tempo AWD and retest it like they did back 18 or 22 years ago to get factory production results?

Edit: Well today I just filled up my tank. Here is the results of my MPG test based on my typical driving:

Start fill-up was on 07/19/07 at 67173 miles.

Finish fill-up was on 08/10/07 at 67495 miles.

Finish Fill-up amount: 10.9 gallons

Total miles driven: 322

Estimated MPG: 29.54

Elapse time: 22 days

Miles driven per day: 14.64

Estimated Driving Conditions: 90% city, 10% highway

Number of hard accelerations (revving passed 3000 RPM): 10

Number of all-out accelerations (rev to redline, 6000 RPM): 5

Number of days driven "hard": 10/22

Number of days driven "soft": 7/22

Number of days with mixed "hard" or "soft" driving: 5/22

Conclusion:

It seems to me that the old EPA estimates were alot more accurate to me than the new ones. Based on 28/36 with 90% city driving, I should have averaged around 29 MPG, which I did. I estimate the two top reasons why I achieved this was due to my lack of use of A/C (though driving with open windows can negate this arguement) and my type of driving. While I often drive hard, I almost never rev out my engine, staying under 3000 rpm most of the time. The trick I use when accelerating fast is pressing down the pedal hard at first so that it spikes up to 2200-2400 RPM, but then slowly easing off the pedal as it approaches 3000, until it shifts. By doing this, I can achieve good acceleration without overworking my engine.

Bikeman982

I suspect that could be true. How could fueleconomy.gov possibly retest every single car, body, engine, or drivetrain built since 1985. Can they really find a mint condition 1985 AMC Eagle or a 1989 Ford Tempo AWD and retest it like they did back 18 or 22 years ago to get factory production results?

 

Edit: Well today I just filled up my tank. Here is the results of my MPG test based on my typical driving:

Start fill-up was on 07/19/07 at 67173 miles.

Finish fill-up was on 08/10/07 at 67495 miles.

Finish Fill-up amount: 10.9 gallons

Total miles driven: 322

Estimated MPG: 29.54

Elapse time: 22 days

Miles driven per day: 14.64

Estimated Driving Conditions: 90% city, 10% highway

Number of hard accelerations (revving passed 3000 RPM): 10

Number of all-out accelerations (rev to redline, 6000 RPM): 5

Number of days driven "hard": 10/22

Number of days driven "soft": 7/22

Number of days with mixed "hard" or "soft" driving: 5/22

Conclusion:

It seems to me that the old EPA estimates were alot more accurate to me than the new ones. Based on 28/36 with 90% city driving, I should have averaged around 29 MPG, which I did. I estimate the two top reasons why I achieved this was due to my lack of use of A/C (though driving with open windows can negate this arguement) and my type of driving. While I often drive hard, I almost never rev out my engine, staying under 3000 rpm most of the time. The trick I use when accelerating fast is pressing down the pedal hard at first so that it spikes up to 2200-2400 RPM, but then slowly easing off the pedal as it approaches 3000, until it shifts. By doing this, I can achieve good acceleration without overworking my engine.

I tend to agree. The old figures seemed more accurate.

 

Why do you call it "estimated" for your readings. Seems to me the numbers are actual.

Brendon

I call my MPG an estimate because when I fill up, I stop once the pump clicks out. Some gas stations might design their pumps differently from others and click out at different levels. Therefore, I'm never truly "filling" it to the top, short of having the gas spilling onto the pavement. I could have used 10.7 gallons or used 11.1 gallons; but in either case, I hit roughly 29-30 MPG, which is exactly what I expected.

I really wish fueleconomy.gov and the EPA didn't give into dumb complaints about not getting the MPG advertised. If people just drove like normal human beings and not idiots (plenty of those drivers around here in Mass), you'll get what the EPA estimated.

Bikeman982

I call my MPG an estimate because when I fill up, I stop once the pump clicks out. Some gas stations might design their pumps differently from others and click out at different levels. Therefore, I'm never truly "filling" it to the top, short of having the gas spilling onto the pavement. I could have used 10.7 gallons or used 11.1 gallons; but in either case, I hit roughly 29-30 MPG, which is exactly what I expected.

I really wish fueleconomy.gov and the EPA didn't give into dumb complaints about not getting the MPG advertised. If people just drove like normal human beings and not idiots (plenty of those drivers around here in Mass), you'll get what the EPA estimated.

I always do a complete fill-up. I top off the tank (they don't like it, but I want to get maximum amount in).

 

The tank holds 13 gallons, so I know about how empty it was after I fill it. I ocassionally spill some.

I go from full tank to full tank.

If people drove more like a turtle than a rabbit they would get optimum fuel economy.

c2105026

Have seen the new figures; I like what I see. That lines up more with what I actually get.

Brendon

I got a quick question. I never use my a/c, either windows open or above 40 MPH, I just use the fan blowing in outside air. I read an article that says your HVAC's fan uses the same amount of power whether is blows on the lowest or highest setting. Is this true?

Yup - there is really only one speed - HIGH - the rest of the speeds are generated through the blower resistor (think voltage divider). So the same amount of power is regardless of the speed: either it is directed completely at the blower (HIGH), or some fraction of the power is run through the blower (lower speeds) with the excess power is bleed off by the resistor.

Also depending on your speeds - it is sometimes even more beneficial to run with the A/C on with the windows up - from an aerodynamic drag POV. I forgot where the crossover point was - but it seemed to be in the highway speed range, varying with vehicle shape and power.

Brendon

I saw this test on Mythbusters yesterday. Up to about 50 MPH, its more benefitial to just keep the windows down, basically when you're driving around town. They tested it with SUVs though, which have a higher drag coefficient, so it may be at a higher MPH on our Corollas. Of course, its even more benefitial to have neither the windows open nor the a/c compressor running, which is why above 40 MPH, I close the windows and just use the fan blowing outside air in to keep getting airflow in without causing drag on my car.