2011 TwinForce F-150 EPA figures

[Z71_Silvy]

Haha! Yeah, it's not as though they really mean shit anyway.

See, that's where you're wrong.

The EPA tests...regardless of outcome, test all vehicles to the same standard. It removes and discrepancies or possibly all of the variables such as temperature, wind speed, how heavy your foot is, elevation, etc.

So...even if all vehicles tested got well below what they should, it's still a valid test as all 'experiments' were carried out the exact same way.

 

[daddy]

Morris, you know I'm just playing around, eh?

 

[Moeman]

Morris, you know I'm just playing around, eh?

I know you are....It's the OTHER GUY.

 

[daddy]

Haha! Yeah, it's not as though they really mean shit anyway.

See, that's where you're wrong.

The EPA tests...regardless of outcome, test all vehicles to the same standard. It removes and discrepancies or possibly all of the variables such as temperature, wind speed, how heavy your foot is, elevation, etc.

So...even if all vehicles tested got well below what they should, it's still a valid test as all 'experiments' were carried out the exact same way.

How, exactly, are those tests performed by the EPA. I've never looked into the actual procedure.

You are right, my comment was more about the general inaccuracy of their estimates in relation to real-world numbers.

 

[LMSeven]

Haha! Yeah, it's not as though they really mean shit anyway.

See, that's where you're wrong.

The EPA tests...regardless of outcome, test all vehicles to the same standard. It removes and discrepancies or possibly all of the variables such as temperature, wind speed, how heavy your foot is, elevation, etc.

So...even if all vehicles tested got well below what they should, it's still a valid test as all 'experiments' were carried out the exact same way.

And what does the EPA prove that is valuable or that which would be proven otherwise anyways?

IIRC they test on a Dynamometer. You don't need a govt agency to test fuel economy. It's going to cost a lot of money and yield inaccurate sub-par results. The EPA wouldn't have saved GM from nearly digging it's own grave, it took competition. GM and Ford build respectable cars now thanks to Japanese automakers.

Oh and they can never remove the most important variable or discrepancy: driver. It simply isn't possible.

 

[Moeman]

Haha! Yeah, it's not as though they really mean shit anyway.

See, that's where you're wrong.

The EPA tests...regardless of outcome, test all vehicles to the same standard. It removes and discrepancies or possibly all of the variables such as temperature, wind speed, how heavy your foot is, elevation, etc.

So...even if all vehicles tested got well below what they should, it's still a valid test as all 'experiments' were carried out the exact same way.

And what does the EPA prove that is valuable or that which would be proven otherwise anyways?

IIRC they test on a Dynamometer. You don't need a govt agency to test fuel economy. It's going to cost a lot of money and yield inaccurate sub-par results. The EPA wouldn't have saved GM from nearly digging it's own grave, it took competition. GM and Ford build respectable cars now thanks to Japanese automakers.

Oh and they can never remove the most important variable or discrepancy: driver

Foot...Gas peddle.

 

[LMSeven]

Haha! Yeah, it's not as though they really mean shit anyway.

See, that's where you're wrong.

The EPA tests...regardless of outcome, test all vehicles to the same standard. It removes and discrepancies or possibly all of the variables such as temperature, wind speed, how heavy your foot is, elevation, etc.

So...even if all vehicles tested got well below what they should, it's still a valid test as all 'experiments' were carried out the exact same way.

And what does the EPA prove that is valuable or that which would be proven otherwise anyways?

IIRC they test on a Dynamometer. You don't need a govt agency to test fuel economy. It's going to cost a lot of money and yield inaccurate sub-par results. The EPA wouldn't have saved GM from nearly digging it's own grave, it took competition. GM and Ford build respectable cars now thanks to Japanese automakers.

Oh and they can never remove the most important variable or discrepancy: driver

Foot...Gas peddle.

Differs between every person on the planet. My point was it's a monumental waste of money like most govt ideas are. The EPA has it's place. IMO they've stretched it a bit far.

 

[Z71_Silvy]

How, exactly, are those tests performed by the EPA. I've never looked into the actual procedure.

For the most part, they're not. They are performed by each manufacturer. Every year, the EPA picks vehicles here and there to test, but the majority of vehicles are tested by the manufacturer, then they submit the results (and I assume all testing data) to be certified. But I don't know the exact methodology. I'll see if I can dig it up...

You are right, my comment was more about the general inaccuracy of their estimates in relation to real-world numbers.

Which is a valid point. However, I don't think the EPA could change the test to provide accurate numbers for the majority of people. Everyone's driving style is different and we know that plays the biggest role in fuel economy.

And what does the EPA prove that is valuable or that which would be proven otherwise anyways?

It's not so much what the "EPA proves", it's more about how the EPA provides a standardized test, if you will, that all vehicles must be tested by. It holds the manufactures accountable for their numbers, otherwise Ford would be posting those 80+MPG figures they claimed they got while hyper-mileing a Fusion...and then covering their ass when they said "your mileage will vary"....or can you imagine every Volt with that pipe-dream "230MPG" figure on them?

Oh and they can never remove the most important variable or discrepancy: driver

Yes they can...that is the whole point of the EPA test...remove variables.

 

[LMSeven]

And what does the EPA prove that is valuable or that which would be proven otherwise anyways?

It's not so much what the "EPA proves", it's more about how the EPA provides a standardized test, if you will, that all vehicles must be tested by. It holds the manufactures accountable for their numbers, otherwise Ford would be posting those 80+MPG figures they claimed they got while hyper-mileing a Fusion...and then covering their ass when they said "your mileage will vary"....or can you imagine every Volt with that pipe-dream "230MPG" figure on them?

This was sort of my point with competition. They can advertise all they want to, when it doesn't deliver it will bite them in the ass They bit themselves in the asses for 2 decades and it's cost them quite a bit.

 

[daddy]

How, exactly, are those tests performed by the EPA. I've never looked into the actual procedure.

For the most part, they're not. They are performed by each manufacturer. Every year, the EPA picks vehicles here and there to test, but the majority of vehicles are tested by the manufacturer, then they submit the results (and I assume all testing data) to be certified. But I don't know the exact methodology. I'll see if I can dig it up...

I'm not sure how you can claim that the EPA tests rule out all variables if the tests are being performed and submitted by the manufacturers independently and then "certified" by the EPA. That's HORRIBLE experimental design.

You are right, my comment was more about the general inaccuracy of their estimates in relation to real-world numbers.

Which is a valid point. However, I don't think the EPA could change the test to provide accurate numbers for the majority of people. Everyone's driving style is different and we know that plays the biggest role in fuel economy.

If the EPA numbers are consistently higher than the actual average of the general public, clearly they need to change the methods being used. If it averaged out and was a wash, that'd be one thing, but that's not the case.