If you are so concerned about MPG why did you buy an SS?

[Norm Peterson]

Originally Posted by Comrando

I thought those numbers were the EPA results of testing vehicles under identical conditions. Not "advertised".

The EPA uses data taken from the emissions certification tests. In that respect, the test conditions are at least similar (there is some variation due to car weight/inertia class where different sub-models could be given slightly different inertial loadings) and this does permit some comparison. The test conditions will not be identical to the way any given driver actually drives. At best, they're somebody's idea of "typical".

The car mfrs advertise those numbers, along with whatever they're calling the "average MPG" these days which involves some mathematical weighting.

Nobody I know drives a muscle car quite like the EPA test drivers "drive" the cars during the cert test, unless by chance traffic just happens to match the EPA drive cycles.

Even then, there will always be a bit of MPG variation from one car to the next, just like there is slight HP/torque variation. The effects of mechanical and electrical/electronic tolerances will not always stack up the same way.



Norm

[Angrybird 12]

Originally Posted by Norm Peterson

The EPA uses data taken from the emissions certification tests. In that respect, the test conditions are at least similar (there is some variation due to car weight/inertia class where different sub-models could be given slightly different inertial loadings) and this does permit some comparison. The test conditions will not be identical to the way any given driver actually drives. At best, they're somebody's idea of "typical".

The car mfrs advertise those numbers, along with whatever they're calling the "average MPG" these days which involves some mathematical weighting.

Nobody I know drives a muscle car quite like the EPA test drivers "drive" the cars during the cert test, unless by chance traffic just happens to match the EPA drive cycles.

Even then, there will always be a bit of MPG variation from one car to the next, just like there is slight HP/torque variation. The effects of mechanical and electrical/electronic tolerances will not always stack up the same way.



Norm

No that is not correct
This is from the governments own website .
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/how_tested.shtml
Fuel economy is measured under controlled conditions in a laboratory using a standardized test procedure specified by federal law. Manufacturers test their own vehicles—usually pre-production prototypes—and report the results to EPA. EPA reviews the results and confirms about 10-15 percent of them through their own tests at the National Vehicles and Fuel Emissions Laboratory.

[Norm Peterson]

I wasn't claiming that the EPA actually performed all of the tests . . . I think it's a more a matter of semantics than anything.


Figured that sooner or later somebody was gonna get caught with their fingers in the cookie jar. I'm not too surprised at who was found first having this as a relatively widespread "inconsistency".


Norm

[atma]

Originally Posted by jd10013

when do you suppose was the last time a nuclear reactor was built in the US? I'll give you a hint, it was in the 70's. not sure about canada, but I'd be willing to be that like most countries they proably draw about 10-15 of their power from nuclear. though I think one could easily argue that the waste from nuclear power generation are far worse than the waste from burning gasoline. regardless, there is only a finite amount of uranium too. so nuclear power isn't a permanent solution anyway.

I actually wasn't saying that nuclear power was better nor newer. what I actually said was to claim that everyone who drives an electric car is powering said car by burning coal is a generalization that just can't be made. For example, those who live near Niagara Falls or the Hoover Dam could be using electricity that is generated primarily by hydro electric power. I don't know what someone in Montreal would get, but I just thought perhaps one should be careful before throwing out such gross generalizations.

Originally Posted by jd10013

even if it were true, I've never understood why it's considered a bad thing. just pick up a history book. the warmer the climate the better mankind has fared. it's during cold periods when flu pandemics, plagues, famine, and other such conditions occur. on several occasions cold periods almost wiped humans out.

by contrast, it was during the medieval warming that man crossed the Atlantic, tripled in population, and began the Renaissance.

actually, man made in to the western hemisphere long before the "medieval warming" when they crossed a land bridge formed between Siberia & Alaska during an ice age. in addition, thinking that global warming just makes things warmer is the mistake many make in thinking it's not a problem. global warming is actually a misnomer. global climate change is more appropriate. warma get warmer, colds get colder. there is an increase in frequency and severity of weather systems. ice caps melt, causing sea level to rise, land masses to disappear and increasing the rate at which the average global temperature warms. yes, the earth has warmed before, but never this much this fast. is it a natural process? perhaps. does our CO2 emissions contribute? the consensus amongst scientists seems to be yes, although the consensus among people who just don't want it to be true seems to be no. who knows who's right?

at any rate, i'm not trying to argue with you. just saying that these things may not be as cut and dry as they seem.

[vroomapunk]

Hopefully no one is buying an SS, then buying a 4cyl as a daily driver because of gas prices. The price of the new car is more than the fuel savings. Plus, you are driving around a POS 4 cyl, while your SS sits at home.

[10BlkSS]

People want to get whats expected of the car....IE id expect 18 not 10....even people with money want to save money.

[10BlkSS]

But the SS sure sounds good as the summer DD after driving around a 14MPG red brick that has the ability to get single digits.

[INTIMIDAT3R]

Originally Posted by Captain Awesome

Don't sweat it guys, in 12 short years all car mileage has to double. You either won't have a V8 available to buy, or you won't be able to afford the purchase penalty.

...and to think people wanted the government to run health care.

[justa25thTA]

Originally Posted by INTIMIDAT3R

...and to think sheeple wanted the government to run health care.

fixed it for ya

and to stay on thread, my SS gets 15 around town and the advertised 24 on the highway. Quite happy with that.

[tramtwo]

Why won't this thread die? :seesaw:

[INTIMIDAT3R]

Originally Posted by tramtwo

Why won't this thread die? :seesaw:

Three words... government run healthcare.

[Dznts]

Originally Posted by INTIMIDAT3R

Three words... government run healthcare.

[WheelmanSS]

From MPG to nuclear power to health care.

Camaro5 continues to contribute to my daily loss of brain cells.

[King Sun]

Originally Posted by WheelmanSS

From MPG to nuclear power to health care.

Camaro5 continues to contribute to my daily loss of brain cells.

Funny thing Is this started out as a troll thread