As the price of gas increases, consumers become increasingly interested in the fuel efficiency of their vehicles, and in fuel efficiency in general
According to a survey conducted by Synovate last year, fuel economy was the third most important concern for customers looking at purchasing a new vehicle, followed by reliability and being well-made. (This being for the American market.)
These findings were largely similar to a Canadian Environics study conducted in 2009 for Pollution Probe and the CAA, which found that fuel efficiency was third on the list of top-of-mind considerations for those looking for a new vehicle, behind good past experience and vehicle price purchase. What is interesting about the Synovate study is that just five years ago, fuel economy sat at 14th place, instead of third.
Vehicle manufacturers are also paying greater attention to the increasing consumer interest in fuel efficiency and are using fuel economy (mpg) numbers and fuel consumption (L/100 kms) numbers more prominently in advertising for new vehicles.
This activity appears to be at the heart of a recent decision in California, where a former corporate attorney successfully sued Honda in small claims court, alleging that the advertised fuel economy for her 2006 Civic Hybrid was nowhere near the advertised number. She was awarded just under the $10,000 limit for small claims court, and the judge admonished Honda by suggesting that Honda’s own testing should be the guideline for how it advertises fuel economy, not the work of the Environmental Protection Agency. Predictably, Honda was quick to indicate that it would appeal the judge’s decision.
The judge’s decision outlines a profound misunderstanding with respect to how fuel efficiency ratings are set and how they should properly be used by consumers — which is essentially as a comparative tool for assessing fuel economy of one vehicle versus another.
If we look at how fuel efficiency ratings for vehicles are set, one quickly discovers that it is a fairly complex process that, even when all is said and done, will not likely reflect real-life fuel efficiency. This is because of a myriad of other variables; road conditions, driving style, acceleration and braking of the vehicle, driving speed, age and condition of the vehicle, temperature, weather conditions, traffic, drive systems, and powered accessories will all affect the fuel efficiency. Because of these variable, two identical, similarly equipped vehicles will produce different fuel efficiency numbers after being driven by two different drivers.
The intent of the federal test procedures as prescribed in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations that are used to test fuel efficiency is to ensure that all manufacturers can test their vehicles in exactly the same consistent and repeatable way, using the same standardized fuel, standardized laboratories and testing equipment, test cycles and calculations. The fuel efficiency results produced by manufacturers in accordance with the federal test procedures allow for comparability between one vehicle and the next to determine which one is more fuel efficient. However, for the reasons highlighted above, the fuel consumption results shown on the fuel efficiency label may well be different — in most cases lower — than what you actually achieve.
The other confusing factor for Canadians looking at both Canadian and U.S. media is that the fuel efficiency indicated for the same vehicle in both countries will be different. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, it needs to be remembered when looking at the fuel economy (mpg) rating for a vehicle in Canada, that our gallon is equivalent to 1.2 U.S. gallons. Additionally, in 2008 the United States modified their testing protocol and moved to a five-cycle test as opposed to the two-cycle test that we currently use in Canada.
Thus, in addition to standardized tests to replicate both city and highway driving that we do in Canada, the U.S. has also added three additional tests that were designed to more accurately portray real world fuel economy. These additional fuel economy tests include a test for cold temperature driving, a test for high acceleration/aggressive driving, and a test for driving while using air conditioning.
Finally, whether you are looking at the five-cycle U.S. test methodology or the two-cycle Canadian test methodology, both tests apply an adjustment factor to the test results and the adjustment factors are not the same for the Canadian and the United States tests.
Canada adjusts its test results downward for highway driving by 15 per cent, whereas the U.S. adjusts its highway test results downward by 22 per cent. The end product is that you can have he same vehicle advertised on both sides of the border with the same equipment but very different fuel economy numbers advertised. Both numbers are right, but they just reflect different testing methodologies and adjustment factors.
These different testing protocols in Canada and the U.S. may be a thing of past, however, as the Hon. Joe Oliver, Minister of Natural Resources announced at this year’s Canadian International Auto Show that the government is intending to move to a five-cycle testing methodology and new fuel consumption labels in 2014, for the 2015 model year. It is intended that the new label would be similar to that which is used on vehicles in the States.
In the end, even when Canada does change its fuel consumption label and testing methodology to align with the States, the fuel efficiency ratings will remain primarily a comparative tool for consumers to assess one vehicle vis-à-vis another.
The five-cycle testing used in the United States may get us closer to real-world fuel efficiency, but unless consumers are made more fully aware of the fact that these fuel efficiency numbers are not to be relied upon as a guarantee for what they should expect, for the reasons I’ve outlined above, then the industry will, unfortunately, still find itself assailed by those feeling deceived by manufacturers who are only using government-mandated testing procedures for reporting the fuel efficiency of their products.
