Why making changes to a physical window sticker might not be the most effective way to educate consumers about vehicle fuel economy
One year ago in the April 2012 edition of Canadian auto dealer I wrote an article related to the issues of fuel efficiency, fuel efficiency testing, fuel efficiency advertising and the communication of fuel efficiency information to the general public via the EnerGuide label on each new vehicle.
Well here we are a year later and not a lot has happened since last February. Back then the Minister of Natural Resources Canada announced pending changes to the fuel efficiency testing methodologies and an attendant new EnerGuide label for vehicles, during a press conference at the Canadian International AutoShow.
The Minister’s 2012 announcement was really two-fold, a change in vehicle fuel efficiency test methodologies — from two-cycle to five-cycle testing — combined with a new EnerGuide label that would reflect the new fuel efficiency ratings, along with other information deemed to be helpful for the consumer.
The first part of last year’s announcement, outlined the intention to move Canada to the same five-cycle testing methodology used
by the United States since 2008 for the 2015 model year. Simply put this change would bring Canada’s fuel consumption ratings more in line with those in the U.S. by adding the same three additional test protocols into the mix when testing vehicles for fuel efficiency.
MORE REALISTIC
The two-cycle test methodology is designed to replicate both city and highway driving, while the five-cycle test methodology also adds in three additional tests, one that accounts for cold temperature operation of the vehicle, another that accounts for the use of air conditioning in the vehicle and a third that reflects quick acceleration and high speed driving.
The end result is that the five-cycle test methodology generates fuel efficiency results that correspond roughly to a 15 per cent decrease in fuel economy in the U.S., and about the same adjustment factor in terms of an increase in fuel consumption in Canada.
The 15 per cent number is really a bit of an average because every vehicle is different and in addition, some advanced technology
vehicles would have a larger downward adjustment in terms of their fuel economy as a result of adding the additional three tests. Therefore, the results arising from using a five-cycle test methodology mean that the fuel efficiency numbers will more closely replicate the real world fuel economy/consumption experience of the person driving the car. This is a good thing for both consumers and manufacturers, especially when fuel efficiency continues to be an ever more important consideration among consumers looking
to purchase a vehicle.
HARD TO REPLICATE
However, as I noted last year, even when Canada moves to a five-cycle test methodology, there are a myriad of other variables such as road conditions, driving style, acceleration and braking, vehicle condition, temperature, traffic and powered accessories that all affect fuel efficiency. As a result, two vehicles that are exactly the same and similarly equipped will produce different fuel efficiency numbers after being driven for a bit by two different drivers. It is very hard to replicate the fuel efficiency test results from a laboratory in the real world.
The second part of the Minister’s announcement at the CIAS last year, concerned a new label on the vehicle to help consumers have the best information possible when purchasing a vehicle. This was to be facilitated by aligning our label with those found on U.S. vehicles for model year 2013. Like the change to five-cycle testing, the Minister announced that this change to the label was to be made in 2014 for 2015 model year vehicles.
Perhaps in pre-Internet days, such a label on the vehicle would have proven very helpful to consumers but one has to ask if such a move is relevant today. If the label’s relevance is declining then one has to ask if it really does matter what information is contained on the label? It seems to me that the Minister’s goal with a new label is to have a better informed consumer. Fair enough and that is a laudable goal. However, if that goal can be achieved through other, more relevant and accessible mechanisms then shouldn’t they be the focus, rather than a paper label?
