Kia MPG reimbursement program in USA

[CraigyMc]

CampDavid said:

CraigyMc said:

Disagree.

The MPG computer generally talks bks as well

Mine doesn't. ETA: Thread on the topic is over here http://pistonheads.co.uk/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&amp...

Edited by CraigyMc on Tuesday 15th January 08:46

[Captain Muppet]

CraigyMc said:

treetops said:

Watch as the 0-60 times increase too.

Flooring the accelerator and banging the clutch up isn't really an option really...

If you aren't allowed to do this then - just for the sake of example - the elise 111R just went from a 4.9s 0-60 car to a 6.?s 0-60 car.

C

Yeah, and what about quoted boot volume? It's just not achievable if you want to load that many litres of milk in bottles. Lies, it's all lies!

We need a standardised test where manufacturers quote the MPG while doing a 0-60 time by slipping the clutch gently at 1500rpm with a boot full of glass bottles of milk.



Also my washing machine is really noisy but in the shop it was really quiet! Someone needs to pay for my unrealistic expectations.

[GroundEffect]

The US emissions and mpg tests are more stringent than in the EU.

[CraigyMc]

Captain Muppet said:

Yeah, and what about quoted boot volume? It's just not achievable if you want to load that many litres of milk in bottles. Lies, it's all lies!

We need a standardised test where manufacturers quote the MPG while doing a 0-60 time by slipping the clutch gently at 1500rpm with a boot full of glass bottles of milk.

I AGREE!

We need to start quoting boot space by how many bodies we can fit in it, not hacked up.

That's at least a real-world test for some people, rather than the "litres" test which is useful to nobody at all - unless you have a requirement to carry around a loose sack of helium or something else squidgy enough to fill up every nook and cranny. You can't use water as it'd probably collapse the suspension.

C

[Superhoop]

kambites said:

When a block the size of the EU introduces a completely standardised test, of course the manufacturers are going to try to get the best results they can on it. To not do so would be madness. The problem is that the test is a bit rubbish.

It's 100% this. What the VCA actually say about their own test:

HOW REPRESENTATIVE OF REAL LIFE DRIVING ARE THE STANDARD TESTS?
Because of the need to maintain strict comparability of results achieved by the standard tests, they cannot be fully representative of real-life driving conditions. Firstly, it is not practicable, nor is it viable to test each individual new car. Only one production car therefore, is tested as being representative of the model and may produce a better or worse result than another similar vehicle. Secondly, there are infinite variations in driving styles, as well as road, car and weather conditions, all of which can have a bearing on the results achieved. For these reasons the fuel consumption achieved on the road is unlikely to be the same as the official test results. The purpose of the official fuel consumption test is to provide comparative data on the relative fuel consumption of different cars rather than to provide an estimate of average, on-the-road, fuel economy.

More information on the actual testing can be found here: http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca/fcb/the-fuel-consumption...

[Scuffers]

GroundEffect said:

The US emissions and mpg tests are more stringent than in the EU.

not so sure about that, EU5 is way harder on Nox etc than the US's EPA 75 etc.

[CraigyMc]

GroundEffect said:

The US emissions and mpg tests are more stringent than in the EU.

In the US the test differentiate between cars and trucks to the extent that trucks have pretty open rules... which is part of why they are so massively underengineered for emissions/etc.

C