Via Yahoo News:
The government has been keeping a secret about automobiles under wraps for the past 30 years.
And when it comes to testing cars, Consumer Reports leaves no stone unturned, no lug nut loose. And here’s the question Consumer Reports set out to answer — does your car get the gas mileage promised on the showroom sticker.
And under these guidelines by the Environmental Protection Agency, carmakers are allowed to test miles per gallon by running the vehicle not on the road, but on what’s essentially a treadmill for cars.
During an EPA spot check, the car ran with no air conditioning, no inclines or hills, no wind resistance and at speeds no greater than 60 mph.
There’s hardly anything real world about it, but it gives carmakers what they want — the highest possible miles per gallon to put on that sticker.
The article also points out that the tests conducted by Consumer Reports provide, no surprise here, more accurate results than the EPA’s tests. It is no coincidence that car manufacturers are not additionally offering other reports since they know that EPA standards result in fuel efficiency numbers that are higher than they really are. Indeed, this morning I was watching a segment on this and a Consumer Reports spokesman said that a good rule of thumb is to subtract at least 20% from the EPA’s published efficiency numbers.
Another government failure. Let’s have dynamic, comprehensive and independent testing instead of a static, tax-funded and bloated EPA.
{ 11 comments }
I wish I could say I was surprised. ;-(
Besides, the fact that this isn’t news, why would this even be surprising?
Can someone remind me the last time “Our Government” told us the truth about anything?
Quite seriously, I’d be interested to understand what it was, and its context.
while the article may be right in saying that car makers never quote other sources for mpg, the reason for doing so is not for fraudulant reasons. With EPA testing the federal government has set rules that forbid car companies to realease any other numbers. So even if the car companies wanted to release lower, more accurate numbers, they would be breaking the law for doing so.
“So even if the car companies wanted to release lower, more accurate numbers, they would be breaking the law for doing so.”
Ahh how typical. It’s like how the USDA doesn’t let farmers privately screen for Mad-Cow.
In a free market, companies compete not only in terms of price, but quality as well. That’s a threat to the Gov’ts protection scheme, so they’d rather give the consumer weaker, but standardized “quality control” under their iron fist.
This is the perfect example of why “regulation” is not only unfair, but also worthless.
(a similar argument can be used against social security as well… nearly any private investment bundle will yield more return than SS)
Adam makes a good point which I’ve wrote about before:
As libertarians, we don’t favor deregulation of industry- we favor REAL regulation of industry, the condition that will be present under free market conditions.
A free market where competition and quality really matter, and not just some adherence to a politically devolved baseline standard, which also happens to have a major point of failure (a business only has to bribe one state bureaucrat, instead of multiple private quality assurance agencies)
The statist variety of regulation is a counterfeit good, much like everything else the government makes pretense of providing.
Iceberg, “we favor REAL regulation of industry”
You will not be surprised at how pervasive and unyielding the knee-jerk reaction is. “Abolish the FDA? So you want big pharmacutical companies to sell poison to little old ladies!”
Curt,
I’m aware of that perception, and funnily enough I’ve used that pro-free market argument on my father in law, who is a pharmacist, who couldn’t quite see himself poisoning an old lady, but assured me that every other pharmacist would.
Its funny how not only there is the pervasive Hobbesian-tinged perception of mankind, but somehow the person you confront on that perception will assure you that its not him, but everybody else who is guilty of that. I’ve even gone ahead and given that pathology a name and defintion: humantropy.
Iceberg,
“and funnily enough … my father in law, who is a pharmacist, who couldn’t quite see himself poisoning an old lady, but assured me that every other pharmacist would.”
LOL! This just nails it doesn’t it? You’ve got practically the whole world insisting on state regulation to assure high standards because the rest of the world is not diligent enough, forward-thinking and self-interested enough, or possessed of enough common decency to assure those standards if just left to the forces of the free market.
“Its funny how not only there is the pervasive Hobbesian-tinged perception of mankind, but somehow the person you confront on that perception will assure you that its not him, but everybody else who is guilty of that. I’ve even gone ahead and given that pathology a name and defintion: humantropy.”
This is really it! And if pressed, these people who advocate the state, will even reluctantly concede that even they can’t be trusted to act properly without the iron fist of the state ready to crush them. They elect instead preemptive tyranny. It’s like they ask this of the state: “Coerce them and me to be good, before we change our minds and want to act bad in the absence of state regulation”. I attribute this asinine mentality to our rotten state run schools, and a disgusting and pathetic state regulated and state worshiping popular media.
It gets to us young and colours our mind for the rest of our lives. “God save the state”, you can hear them all cry out. “We’d ask for help on us mere mortals too, but we are beyond help. And besides, the state will keep us in line.”
OK, so the EPA tests don’t represent “normal” use. Big surprise there. Let’s not also assume that Consumer Reports reflects my driving-style either. The entire mileage-testing scam is the problem, not the EPA’s methodology.
It’s been 30 years since mileage was first tested and posted on new car stickers. I think that anyone who still believes he’ll achieve those numbers needs some therapy — or maybe some grief-counseling.
The EPA’s test merely indicates each vehicle’s relative fuel-efficiency, albeit under saccharine circumstances. No one drives like I do and no one drives like you do — the numbers won’t ever match up and this argument simply begs the real question.
Why are we paying gov’t bureaucrats to do it anyway?
Craig,
Because will allow them to extract “Tributes”, and except “Tribunals” in exchange.
Clarification/wishful thinking:
except, should be: accept
sorry
Comments on this entry are closed.