16/21 mpg rating

[FlipTrac_511]

Under what specific conditions did Ford run the Trac to achieve a 16 city and 21 highway mpg rating (or any make and model for that matter)?

 

[shawn stonbraker 2]

Probably in Illinois or some flat place like that. I can't complain, I got 20.5mpg on my last fill up with very little highway use. Don't ask me how, but I usually average about 18-19.5mpg and I'm not very light in the foot either.

 

[Nelson Atwell]

The car manufacturers don't provide those numbers. They come from the EPA, which may have never even driven an ST. The number is for COMPARABLE vehicles.

 

[Bill Ellis]

The EPA test is done on a dyno type device following a prescribed test regimen. It does not take into account actual driving conditions. I have averaged about 18 mpg for the 33K miles I've driven my Trac so I would say that it has performed in the range indicated on the sticker. I'm a conservative driver.

 

[Josh Langel]

Crack or a lot of beer I presume.

 

[Dre L]

I get 8/21

 

[Matt Day]

Just heard somthing on the radio about this...the EPA is re-working their "estimated" MPG for cars. The numbers are developed in a lab and have little to no bearing on actual MPG- evidently the tests were developed in the 1970s when traffic, and vehicles were much different. Consumer Reports apparently did a test and the MPG was significantly lower on everything they tested vs. the EPA estimate. Said that the number would use the old formula for the next two years or so, the a more "real world" number would start appearing.

 

[biznaga]

Downhill with a good tailwind?

 

[Richard L]

Actually, the mileage estimates are just that, ESTIMATES. They are based on a 25+ year old fomula that EPA uses to calculate mileage based on road and traffic conditions that are hopelessly outdated. None of the vehicles are evertested on a dyno or on the highway. EPA even admitts that their mileage estimates are inaccurate for todays heavier traffic and congestion, but still have not made changes to their sacred formula.



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Taken from Car and Driver Magazine, December 2005.

The Steering Column



With $3 gas, we need accurate mpg tests.

BY CSABA CSERE

December 2005





Gas prices had been rising steadily for the past year, and then Hurricane Katrina pushed them well over $3 a gallon, finally exceeding the previous peak set in May 1981, when gas cost about $1.80, equivalent today to about three bucks a gallon.



Suddenly, everyone is concerned about fuel economy again. General Motors touts that it has 19 cars that get more than 30 mpg. Toyota makes similar ad claims.



And they're true, at least according to the EPA's highway fuel-economy test. But there's not a snowball's chance that any of these vehicles will match their EPA-certified mpg when you drive them on a U.S. highway. In fact, based on the fuel economy we get from C/D test cars, most vehicles barely match their EPA city fuel-economy numbers while being driven on the highway.



This discrepancy is not caused by shenanigans on the part of any automaker. The mileage shortfall is caused by EPA fuel-economy test cycles that bear no more relation to real-world driving conditions than a Sunday afternoon bicycle ride does to the Tour de France.



Of course, as Patrick Bedard often points out, if you drive at the same speeds that the EPA cycle calls for, you will likely achieve the same mileage numbers. And because we all drive differently, on a variety of roads, in many different climates, no single test can possibly predict the fuel economy every driver will achieve.



The current city and highway test cycles, however, underestimate the mileage that almost everyone gets. And how could they not? The highway test crawls along at an average speed of 48.3 mph and never exceeds 60. At rush hour in Detroit, freeway speeds average more like 80!



What's more, the peak acceleration on this test is 3.3 mph per second. This is equivalent to a 0-to-60 time of more than 18 seconds. The city cycle is equally slothlike. Traffic-blocking Sunday drivers move faster.



To understand why the fuel-economy tests are so off the mark, we need to go back a few decades. The city fuel-economy test, known as Federal Test Procedure 1975 (FTP75), was originally developed in the early 1970s to measure exhaust emissions. Its cycle is based on measurements of actual urban driving in Los Angeles conducted during the '60s. The test starts with a cold engine, although "cold" only means the car sat in a 70-degree garage for 12 hours. The distance is 11 miles; the test vehicle travels at an average speed of 21.2 mph and makes 24 stops, undergoes about five-and-a-half minutes of idling, and touches a maximum speed of 56.7 mph.



The peak acceleration rate of 3.3 mph per second was established because the tests are conducted on indoor chassis dynamometers and 30 years ago those dynos could not reliably tolerate faster acceleration without a vehicle's tires slipping or jumping off the device's rollers.



These indoor dynos are loaded to simulate the vehicle's weight and overall drag. They are also equipped with displays and instruments that ensure the test vehicles run the defined test accurately. They are indoors to eliminate the variations caused by changing temperatures, wind, or traffic that would be found on the open road.



The test is also conducted with the air conditioning turned off and with only those options and features that are installed on more than 33 percent of a particular model's annual production run. That's why you sometimes find limited availability of options, such as a lower-geared, high-performance axle ratio, that might decrease fuel economy.



The current tests seem particularly optimistic when it comes to hybrid vehicles, whose efficiency is best at low speeds. On some test cycles, the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius have suffered 33-percent fuel-economy reductions just from turning<

 

[Jeff C]

With all my mods, I get over 450 miles on a tank. I went to Columbus and back 4 times this weekend (50 miles each way) and only used 18.7 gallons. Not bad IMO; oh, and I was moving furniture from Columbus to GA, so that's the only variable...