Why is the word lying in quotes? Seems fairly obvious that they were deceptively marketing their products...
I'm gonna be a bit of a dick and re-state what I've mostly said before I don't get our societys fixation on a lot of things.
MPG is definitely one of those.
Sure trucking companies with a bottom line or other businesses.
But I'm a rideshare driver it only has something of an effect on me. Mainly emotional as in being ticked off how often I had to fill up the 1st Gen Versa M/T when I'm not making money whilst trying to make money with it. But aside from the smaller tank the 2nd Gen rental w/auto has me not really caring about the exact MPG anymore.
Sure the cost of a gallon matters when in DC one station will be $3.99 for regular and another will be $2.34 but that's about it.
Sorry for poo-pooing the story but if I was a VW owner and it would be a GTI or wagon I wouldn't care.
I'd be too smug 'cause I owned a bitchin' car and I say that in a good way. They are attractive vehicles. Sod the MPG.
Here's another VW that I'd not give too hoots about MPG. 
Last time they got in trouble they killed off the 2-door. What are they gonna kill off this time?
Error404 said:Last time they got in trouble they killed off the 2-door. What are they gonna kill off this time?
Manual GTI's and Golfs
MrChaos said:Error404 said:Last time they got in trouble they killed off the 2-door. What are they gonna kill off this time?
Manual GTI's and Golfs
Makes sense. Keep an eye on the dealers, when they stop having them on the lot that's the prelude to the "well, no one is buying them" line they'll use to give the people more of what they want. They've already dropped the manual out of the R. To be fair, the DSG is a nice transmission that, for everyday driving, gives a nice combo of both worlds. It's nice to be able to leave it in auto-D while morning grogginess is being pushed back by coffee and then be able to switch to M for fun. However, what starts in the premium world trickles down to the everyday so I expect it won't be long before they drop the manual to the lowest trim options of the Golf platforms to have the sales figure backing to kill it off entirely.
As for the cheating, I really would find myself hard-pressed to care less. I get lying is lying and that's bad and all that jazz but, c'mon.
From the article "In most cases, the restatements will lower fuel-economy estimates by about 1 mpg."
In reply to nutherjrfan :
EPA fleet regulations have something to do with the manufacturer's obsession with MPG ratings, too.
nutherjrfan said:I'm gonna be a bit of a dick and re-state what I've mostly said before I don't get our societys fixation on a lot of things.
MPG is definitely one of those.
Sure trucking companies with a bottom line or other businesses.
But I'm a rideshare driver it only has something of an effect on me. Mainly emotional as in being ticked off how often I had to fill up the 1st Gen Versa M/T when I'm not making money whilst trying to make money with it. But aside from the smaller tank the 2nd Gen rental w/auto has me not really caring about the exact MPG anymore.
Sure the cost of a gallon matters when in DC one station will be $3.99 for regular and another will be $2.34 but that's about it.
Sorry for poo-pooing the story but if I was a VW owner and it would be a GTI or wagon I wouldn't care.
I'd be too smug 'cause I owned a bitchin' car and I say that in a good way. They are attractive vehicles. Sod the MPG.
Here's another VW that I'd not give too hoots about MPG.
I'm a VW owner and I can't say I care much. My GTI is "supposed" to get 33 highway, 25 city, and 28 combined.
My commute is about half and half and I have a heavy foot, and it consistently gets 30. If I cruise at a reasonable speed on a long highway trip it'll get 35 all day long. And these are my "measured" numbers based on miles and fill-ups. Plus, it'll do that on regular unleaded.
I guess VW was lying to me. But they were lying 2mpg low ;)
EDIT: just noticed it was 2017 and earlier, and mine's a 2018. Oh well, no payoff for me .
I honestly don't care anyhow. 1MPG?? seriously. Do people actually think they'll get what the EPA estimates are in real-world driving?
My WRX averaged 23.7mpg running premium, for the sake of comparison.
In the latest investigation, the EPA confirmed software in VW cars was shifting gears inappropriately (to achieve optimal fuel economy) during the lab tests used to estimate fuel efficiency. The cars and SUVs wouldn’t make the same kinds of gear shifts in the real world, which means consumers were actually getting lower gas mileage
Huh... I thought basically all the manufacturers were trying to game the EPA ratings tests to the detriment of real world economy. For instance the whole wave of small displacement turbo cars.
This amuses me...."the 2013 to 2016 Bentley Continental GT and GTC, the 2014 to 2016 Bentley Flying Spur, "
Because I know those Bentley owners are outraged over not getting those great MPGs they were expecting 
In reply to nutherjrfan :
Well there was a time when oil was controlled by a cartel and cars lined up around the block to get gas. People screamed bloody murder and it was decided that for national security purposes the US cannot be put in such a position again. So we’ve spent billions if not trillions on wars and at the same time started regulating the efficiency of vehicles.
The group on this forum probably doesn’t care about MPG but trust me the vast majority of Americans who use their vehicles for commuting do care the price at the pump and how much they spend on gas. This is before one gets into the externalities of emissions, etc.
Just to put some numbers to this:
The cheapest (and likely most common) vehicle on the list is the 2017 Tiguan which was rated at 20mpg city/24 hwy/21 combined.
The average annual miles driven in the US is basically 13k.
The average price of regular unleaded is currently $2.57/gal
So the hypothetical average Tiguan driver that drives an average amount and pays an average amount for fuel is spending about $60/yr more on the low end (lots of highway) and $90 more (lots of city) on the high end with the 1mpg penalty than if the vehicle got the claimed 24mpg fuel economy.
The difference between 23mpg and 24 mpg is about 24 gallons per year with average driving. The difference between 20mpg and 19mpg is about 34 gallons of fuel. An average driver probably lies somewhere in between around 30 extra gallons.
1 gallon of gasoline produces 8887g of CO2 X 30 gallons of extra fuel burned = An extra 266610g of CO2 = 0.26661 metric tons of CO2 produced per vehicle per year.
irish44j said:I'm a VW owner and I can't say I care much. My GTI is "supposed" to get 33 highway, 25 city, and 28 combined.
My commute is about half and half and I have a heavy foot, and it consistently gets 30. If I cruise at a reasonable speed on a long highway trip it'll get 35 all day long. And these are my "measured" numbers based on miles and fill-ups. Plus, it'll do that on regular unleaded.
I guess VW was lying to me. But they were lying 2mpg low ;)
I recently drove out to your neck of the woods with a car rated for, IIRC, 17/22, and I averaged 23 while decidedly ignoring the local speed limits (except for the construction zones, of which there were many...) and towing a trailer. Had to drop down to 5th gear to keep from needing so much boost to haul the mail up those long grades at 80mph 
I've also acheved 30 highway when driving something closer to the EPA loop.
This meshes with my general experience that European cars are overachievers when it comes to rated economy vs. real world, for cars engineered primarily for the European market anyway.
I honestly don't care anyhow. 1MPG?? seriously. Do people actually think they'll get what the EPA estimates are in real-world driving?
"YMMV" isn't just a cute acronym after all!
freetors said:In the latest investigation, the EPA confirmed software in VW cars was shifting gears inappropriately (to achieve optimal fuel economy) during the lab tests used to estimate fuel efficiency. The cars and SUVs wouldn’t make the same kinds of gear shifts in the real world, which means consumers were actually getting lower gas mileage
Huh... I thought basically all the manufacturers were trying to game the EPA ratings tests to the detriment of real world economy. For instance the whole wave of small displacement turbo cars.
That depends. The small displacement (1.9l) turbo car I used to own would get a real world 37-40mpg highway no problem. The small displacement (2.5 is small for a 4000lb AWD hosebeast) turbo car I currently own will get a real world 27mpg highway no problem.
Both of these were far in excess of what the EPA test calculated.
Remember that the EPA highway mpg test isn't just cruising at 70. It involves speeding up, slowing down, simulated passing, all kinds of crap. Just cruising on flat ground at highway speed you'll pretty much always get better than the EPA MPG.
I change oil, filters and plugs before we drove here to Louisana and was happy I was getting 26 mpg in an awd CR- V with 190k on it.
At what point does the EPA rating account for wear and many pounds of clothes and construction tools jammed in the back ?
The EPA is like labor unions. At one point it was a good thing for Amerca, now, not so much.
For this instance, the tests required by the EPA are really meaningless- what they do, though, is make sure that the playing field is even across all of the manufacturers. Just like the SAE standard that is used to tell you the power of an engine, the tests tell the consumer what the projected fuel economy is. Which does two things- it makes sure that manufacturers are meeting fuel economy requirements (that date back to the 70's, and have always remained) and that consumer expectation is reasonably met. And that consumer expectation has to be even across ALL OEM's, or people will be mislead in what they buy.
So stop taking it so personally to you- and just realize that it's one more thing to make sure that we all work on an even playing field when delivering a product to you.
FWIW, the numbers that come from the actual tests are not even close to the sticker numbers. Any more, the actual number is calculated via 5 different tests, which should measure a more nominal usage and let the consumer compare apples to apples when it comes to fuel economy. It's not about extremes, like super highly loaded, or super light, or trailer towing, or whatever- it's just a nominal measure to compare cars. And it does a pretty darned good job when it comes to the nominal US driver.
As much as people on this board don't care, there are a huge amount of consumers where it does matter, even for a used car.
VW cheated GM, Ford, FCA, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, etc etc etc. And the consumer is the one who gets the payout- lucky them.
It's not "lying." It's "creative marketing."
Is the 6MT really dead in the next R? I haven't seen that yet but I wouldn't be surprised. That's one of the reasons I bought my R now, I wanted a 6MT.
I don't really think the DSG gives the same engagement as a real MT. Yeah, you can "change" gears in it but honestly it's just a fancy automatic transmission. The fact that you flick a paddle doesn't change that.
If I had a longer commute in heavier traffic I would've been more tempted to get one, but since I don't, it's 6MT for me.
So, should I not get a GTI? I love the interior of the base model GTI's with a manual transmission.
I care when I'm comparing cars to buy, but after that, not so much. I can't remember owning a car that actually met the stated figures.
alfadriver said:For this instance, the tests required by the EPA are really meaningless- what they do, though, is make sure that the playing field is even across all of the manufacturers. Just like the SAE standard that is used to tell you the power of an engine, the tests tell the consumer what the projected fuel economy is. Which does two things- it makes sure that manufacturers are meeting fuel economy requirements (that date back to the 70's, and have always remained) and that consumer expectation is reasonably met. And that consumer expectation has to be even across ALL OEM's, or people will be mislead in what they buy.
So stop taking it so personally to you- and just realize that it's one more thing to make sure that we all work on an even playing field when delivering a product to you.
FWIW, the numbers that come from the actual tests are not even close to the sticker numbers. Any more, the actual number is calculated via 5 different tests, which should measure a more nominal usage and let the consumer compare apples to apples when it comes to fuel economy. It's not about extremes, like super highly loaded, or super light, or trailer towing, or whatever- it's just a nominal measure to compare cars. And it does a pretty darned good job when it comes to the nominal US driver.
As much as people on this board don't care, there are a huge amount of consumers where it does matter, even for a used car.
VW cheated GM, Ford, FCA, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Honda, and the environment, etc etc etc. And the consumer is the one who gets the payout- lucky them.
^ Everything this guy said plus a small edit.
In reply to Knurled. :
voted up because i haven't heard "hosebeast" in a long time
I'm honestly a bit surprised by the responses. They seem to fall into four categories:
1) Govt is evil - Well, whatever, not going to settle that one here!
2) EPA tests are inaccurate so berkeley it - as alfadriver mentioned, the tests are applied equally across all models, so the point is to give as good of an estimate as possible on expected MPG. It would be silly for me to go complain to Toyota that my FRS does not get stated MPG when I'm driving it on track...
3) We should not expect people who buy (some of) VW cars to care - Some people are unlikely to care, and many on this forum may feel that way, but most other people do. The vast majority of consumers use cars as appliances, and MPG is an important factor. Take a look at the Prius thread for an example of where folks who do care about MPG congregate.
4) The difference is small enough that it should not matter - I'm not sure how this feels like a justification to anyone.. Where's the bright line? Is it 2MPG? 3MPG? $100 a year? $500 a year? The facts seem pretty clear - VW manipulated their product to run differently when tested vs. in the real world. If Chase charged you an extra $10 bucks a month for your checking account when it's advertised as free, you'd be pissed (as you should!). If Shell knowingly sold you 89 octane gas as 93 on the logic that a tiny percentage of cars would notice a difference due to better knock detection in cars these days, you'd be pissed (as you should!). At the end of the day as consumers we need to trust that we are buying what's being advertised. If reliance on truth in advertising gets shaky, we are all worse off.
Whether a single person's driving habits result in better/worse mileage, they're supposed to be a measurement to help make a purchasing decision. Being a little optimistic is troublesome (most cars are). Designing the software to run different shift patterns and engine mapping during tests is a whole lot more nefarious. Surprised, not surprised.
My Alltrack's computer is consistently 2 mpg optimistic, apparently they are all. My real-time mileage (mostly highway) does typically exceed the EPA estimates.
You'll need to log in to post.
