Advertisement
Why is that good news? Because EPA mileage estimates are notoriously optimistic. That’s because the agency does not test the vehicles it rates at anywhere near normal usage.
For example, the EPA mileage estimates are made driving cars without the air conditioning on. It doesn’t test cars when the weather is cold. And it doesn’t include high-speed driving or rapid acceleration.
In short, the EPA doesn’t test cars the way most American consumers drive them. The result, according to Consumer Reports magazine, is that the EPA window stickers could be wrong by up to 50 percent.
Over-optimistic fuel usage estimates don’t help consumers. If we’re going to make a difference in fuel efficiency, we need to know upfront what we’re dealing with.
To be sure, energy efficiency is only part of the answer. The American addiction to fossil fuel requires a continuing supply of oil as well as wise use of it.
Because transportation makes up more than 67 percent of the oil consumed in the U.S., we need to pay much more attention to fuel efficiency.
This can have economic as well as environmental benefits. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, a nonprofit group, drivers of sport utility vehicles were estimated to spend about $1,225 each on fuel in 2004, while drivers of hybrid cars were estimated to spend $350 to $450.
Ask someone who has a hybrid car — which runs on a combination of internal combustion and electrical power — and they likely will tell you that the fuel estimates for their cars were too optimistic, too.
If we’re going to get serious about energy use, we need to have more honest assessments of fuel efficiency for vehicles.
If the EPA does a good job changing to a more realistic way to estimate fuel use, consumers will be much better off.
In the long run, so will the country.
|
More Opinion: |
