- In this report
- TEST INFORM PROTECT ®
- Our mission
- Overview
- From our president
- Viewpoint
- Our history
- No Commercial Use Policy
- ConsumerReports.org staff
- Senior Leadership Team
- Board members
- Our annual report
- How we test
- How we survey
- Annual Questionnaire
- Lab tour
- Vintage test photos
- Where to find us
- Career opportunities
October 2005
Fuel-economy claims need a reality check
With the average price of gasoline approaching record highs--$2.37 a gallon in August 2005, up about 49 cents a gallon from a year ago--consumers more than ever need accurate information on the fuel economy of the cars and trucks they buy. For years, Consumer Reports readers have told us they are not achieving the fuel economy promised by automakers. We do our own real-world testing, and we checked the accuracy of claimed fuel economy of vehicles for model years 2000 to 2006. Our investigation shows that the mileage promised on car stickers is very often inflated, sometimes by as much as 50 percent.
Who's responsible for such glaring disparities? Primarily Congress and the automakers. Congress hasn't allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to update its testing protocol since the 1970s. Automakers are allowed to test their vehicles under optimal conditions and may use hand-built prototypes to get the best mileage in the test. Our investigation found that the EPA sticker overpromised expected city or highway fuel economy on 90 percent of the models we tested.
What can be done to ensure that promised fuel economy better reflects reality? In the past two years, Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, has urged the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to overhaul their testing and classification protocols.
In April 2004, for example, CU asked NHTSA to stop classifying sport-utility vehicles and minivans--which are built and sold to carry passengers--as light trucks, which are permitted to get far lower mpg than vehicles sold as cars: 21.6 mpg for model-year 2006 vs. the 27.5 mpg standard for cars. We recommended that cars, SUVs, and minivans be reclassified as light passenger vehicles, weighing 4,000 pounds or less, and heavy passenger vehicles, weighing more than that. NHTSA said that it would release proposed regulations in August 2005 to set new fuel-economy requirements for “light trucks.” At press time, it had not provided details. NHTSA should also close the loophole that allows passenger vehicles over 8,500 pounds when fully loaded, which use the most fuel, to escape fuel-economy requirements altogether.
CU believes that by 2010, fuel-economy standards can be raised 7 mpg, to 34.5 mpg (based on the current testing method) for light passenger vehicles and to 31.1 mpg for heavy passenger vehicles. If those changes were made by 2011, they would greatly contribute to reducing gasoline demand by about 10 billion gallons that year alone, says the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. If vehicles were designed for better fuel economy instead of higher performance, automakers could achieve higher gas mileage without sacrificing vehicle weight, a possible safety concern.
In July 2004, CU and other groups recommended that the EPA update its fuel-economy testing protocol to reflect current driving patterns. For example, today's automobiles spend 62 percent of their time in stop-and-go city traffic, but the protocol still calls for a 55/45 percent city/highway formula.
The EPA should prohibit automakers from optimiing their vehicles and testing methods. The agency should regularly
update the test protocols to keep pace with changes in driving patterns. Congress should restore funding to the Energy Information Administration, the Department of Energy's research arm, and once again use it as a check on the EPA's fuel-economy tests.
Technology makes better mileage possible. The steps outlined here would save consumers money, reduce pollution, and lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
With the average price of gasoline approaching record highs--$2.37 a gallon in August 2005, up about 49 cents a gallon from a year ago--consumers more than ever need accurate information on the fuel economy of the cars and trucks they buy. For years, Consumer Reports readers have told us they are not achieving the fuel economy promised by automakers. We do our own real-world testing, and we checked the accuracy of claimed fuel economy of vehicles for model years 2000 to 2006. Our investigation shows that the mileage promised on car stickers is very often inflated, sometimes by as much as 50 percent.
Who's responsible for such glaring disparities? Primarily Congress and the automakers. Congress hasn't allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to update its testing protocol since the 1970s. Automakers are allowed to test their vehicles under optimal conditions and may use hand-built prototypes to get the best mileage in the test. Our investigation found that the EPA sticker overpromised expected city or highway fuel economy on 90 percent of the models we tested.
What can be done to ensure that promised fuel economy better reflects reality? In the past two years, Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports, has urged the EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to overhaul their testing and classification protocols.
In April 2004, for example, CU asked NHTSA to stop classifying sport-utility vehicles and minivans--which are built and sold to carry passengers--as light trucks, which are permitted to get far lower mpg than vehicles sold as cars: 21.6 mpg for model-year 2006 vs. the 27.5 mpg standard for cars. We recommended that cars, SUVs, and minivans be reclassified as light passenger vehicles, weighing 4,000 pounds or less, and heavy passenger vehicles, weighing more than that. NHTSA said that it would release proposed regulations in August 2005 to set new fuel-economy requirements for “light trucks.” At press time, it had not provided details. NHTSA should also close the loophole that allows passenger vehicles over 8,500 pounds when fully loaded, which use the most fuel, to escape fuel-economy requirements altogether.
CU believes that by 2010, fuel-economy standards can be raised 7 mpg, to 34.5 mpg (based on the current testing method) for light passenger vehicles and to 31.1 mpg for heavy passenger vehicles. If those changes were made by 2011, they would greatly contribute to reducing gasoline demand by about 10 billion gallons that year alone, says the Union of Concerned Scientists, a research and advocacy group. If vehicles were designed for better fuel economy instead of higher performance, automakers could achieve higher gas mileage without sacrificing vehicle weight, a possible safety concern.
In July 2004, CU and other groups recommended that the EPA update its fuel-economy testing protocol to reflect current driving patterns. For example, today's automobiles spend 62 percent of their time in stop-and-go city traffic, but the protocol still calls for a 55/45 percent city/highway formula.
The EPA should prohibit automakers from optimiing their vehicles and testing methods. The agency should regularly
update the test protocols to keep pace with changes in driving patterns. Congress should restore funding to the Energy Information Administration, the Department of Energy's research arm, and once again use it as a check on the EPA's fuel-economy tests.
Technology makes better mileage possible. The steps outlined here would save consumers money, reduce pollution, and lessen U.S. dependence on foreign oil.
