Mitsubishi was just caught playing with the fuel economy numbers of kei cars that they make for themselves and Nissan. How, you may ask? They overinflated the tires for the rollers. Yup. That's it. Here's a link for all the details.
Mitsubishi was just caught playing with the fuel economy numbers of kei cars that they make for themselves and Nissan. How, you may ask? They overinflated the tires for the rollers. Yup. That's it. Here's a link for all the details.
WAIT, mitsu is still selling cars in the US?
No, it's for the micro cars they sell elsewhere.
They are going to be selling three models in the us soon (Outlander, Outlander Sport and Mirage). They are dropping the Lancer.
Actually heard of a claim that a certain truck only used one gallon of gas for 66 miles! And it was absolutely TRUE!! Worked out if you used E85 and only counted the gasoline content. This method was actually presented to the EPA informally and was quickly shut down.
Bruce
The local Mitsubishi dealer (only one left I know of in the region) here has 4 2015 Lancer Evo's sitting around still. This will not bode well for the already ailing brand.
egnorant wrote: Actually heard of a claim that a certain truck only used one gallon of gas for 66 miles! And it was absolutely TRUE!! Worked out if you used E85 and only counted the gasoline content. This method was actually presented to the EPA informally and was quickly shut down. Bruce
But that's how CAFE actually worked. It's not illegal.
Exactly why so many pick ups were flex fuel. It was an incentive to produce vehicles that could run on E85.
Remember that CAFE was to reduce our reliance on imported oil. Replacing oil with domestically grown Ethanol achieves that goal.
Now that the focus is changing, that rule went away.
egnorant wrote: Actually heard of a claim that a certain truck only used one gallon of gas for 66 miles! And it was absolutely TRUE!! Worked out if you used E85 and only counted the gasoline content. This method was actually presented to the EPA informally and was quickly shut down. Bruce
ahh, the good old "eMPG" trick... that's how those guys with that one Fox Mustang were able to claim "100mpg" all over the place a few years ago: they built an engine to get 35mpg (or whatever number it takes for the math to work out) on E85 and only counted the gasoline content towards their claimed number.. now, a 35mpg (or whatever) Fox Mustang with a torquey V8 is still plenty impressive all by itself, but they went for triple digit glory..
novaderrik wrote: now, a 35mpg (or whatever) Fox Mustang with a torquey V8 is still plenty impressive all by itself, but they went for triple digit glory..
Considering I've seen stock 5.0 LX Fox Mustangs with a 5sp and 2.73s get 27 mpg doing 70-ish with late 80s era EFI, etc. I wouldn't say 35 is all that impressive.
novaderrik wrote:egnorant wrote: Actually heard of a claim that a certain truck only used one gallon of gas for 66 miles! And it was absolutely TRUE!! Worked out if you used E85 and only counted the gasoline content. This method was actually presented to the EPA informally and was quickly shut down. Bruceahh, the good old "eMPG" trick... that's how those guys with that one Fox Mustang were able to claim "100mpg" all over the place a few years ago: they built an engine to get 35mpg (or whatever number it takes for the math to work out) on E85 and only counted the gasoline content towards their claimed number.. now, a 35mpg (or whatever) Fox Mustang with a torquey V8 is still plenty impressive all by itself, but they went for triple digit glory..
Again, not a trick. It's the intention of CAFE.
Seems pretty bogus, but when the goal is go import less fuel, it's not that bad.
This is very different from that.
And kind of points out how one can get better economy by over inflating their tires.
It was a trick, because they were claiming 100 mpg all over the place and never really explicitly stated that they weren't counting the ethanol content until people started asking questions.. then they put that little "e" in there..
The door placard inflation pressures for most non-poeformance models are, in fact, artificially low for the purpose of avoiding customer complaints to dealer service shops for "harsh ride". They never give best fuel economy, or best handling, or best tire wear. This little factoid was dispensed by my instructors at the OSU Ford Technician School.
In reply to WildScotsRacing:
Yeah, it's pretty much the minimum safe pressure in most cases. I find that +8 psi is about right on most cars and light trucks.
novaderrik wrote: It was a trick, because they were claiming 100 mpg all over the place and never really explicitly stated that they weren't counting the ethanol content until people started asking questions.. then they put that little "e" in there..
Who is "they"?
From a OEM standpoint, counting just the gas for CAFE is totally legal. No trick. It's the point of the CAFE regulation. You don't see that on the sticker.
WildScotsRacing wrote: The door placard inflation pressures for most non-poeformance models are, in fact, artificially low for the purpose of avoiding customer complaints to dealer service shops for "harsh ride". They never give best fuel economy, or best handling, or best tire wear. This little factoid was dispensed by my instructors at the OSU Ford Technician School.
This doesn't surprise me. On my Jeep, placard pressure is 35 psi. My current summer tires are bigger (wider and a hair taller) and heavier load range than the stock ones. And end up needing around 39 psi up front, 33 - 35 in the rear (depending on weight) to sit well and wear evenly. Previous set was the same load range as these and did best around 44 - 46 front, 38 - 40 rear 
To be fair, the laziest fuel economy cheat of all time is simply not to drive anywhere. Don't use your car, you can't burn gas.
32 psi OEM, rotate every 5K, wear is good and I regularly get 40+ mpg.
What's not to like.
Well, as long as they weren't over inflating them to the point of being hazardous, I don't see a cheat. It's like telling your customers "hey, if you drive like a granny you will get more mpg!"
That's not cheating, it's showing the audience what you can do with your machine.
In reply to Trackmouse:
Exactly. If you are upset because someone could "beat" your test by putting air in their tired you should have made a tougher test.
alfadriver wrote:egnorant wrote: Actually heard of a claim that a certain truck only used one gallon of gas for 66 miles! And it was absolutely TRUE!! Worked out if you used E85 and only counted the gasoline content. This method was actually presented to the EPA informally and was quickly shut down. BruceBut that's how CAFE actually worked. It's not illegal. Exactly why so many pick ups were flex fuel. It was an incentive to produce vehicles that could run on E85. Remember that CAFE was to reduce our reliance on imported oil. Replacing oil with domestically grown Ethanol achieves that goal. Now that the focus is changing, that rule went away.
You know more about this than I do, but I never thought CAFE was only intended to reduce imported oil use. E85 wasn't even a thing when CAFE came into being. You can say it's not a cheat, and that's technically true, but it seems like using the letter of the law to dodge it's true intention, which is FUEL economy improvement, not specifying the type of fuel.
In reply to Tom_Spangler:
It became law in '75 just after a fuel embargo- with the goal of raising the fleet average. Given A and B, the goal was to reduce oil imports. Back then, there were places that you could get alcohol fuels, but it wasn't until the 80's that dedicated flex fuel vehicles came about. Even then, thought, the goal was the same.
Any US based alternative fuel- be it Methanol or Ethanol- would apply and not count.
It's quite likely that that tie together was very politically motivated by ag states that would benefit by increased corn production. That's how the whole E10 mandate came about afterall. But it becomes a good excuse to lower imported oil.
And a nice way to inflate CAFE numbers.
That all changed in 2011 when the whole calculation changed. Not sure how E85 is worked in, as there are still a lot of flex fuel cars in production.
alfadriver wrote:novaderrik wrote: It was a trick, because they were claiming 100 mpg all over the place and never really explicitly stated that they weren't counting the ethanol content until people started asking questions.. then they put that little "e" in there..Who is "they"? From a OEM standpoint, counting just the gas for CAFE is totally legal. No trick. It's the point of the CAFE regulation. You don't see that on the sticker.
this is "they":
http://jalopnik.com/5070914/80-mpg-400-hp-87-mustang-x-prize-contestant-heading-to-sema
alfadriver wrote: That all changed in 2011 when the whole calculation changed. Not sure how E85 is worked in, as there are still a lot of flex fuel cars in production.
My guess is that quite a few states/ governments still have mandates in place that their fleets have flex fuel capabilities. That's why you see lots of fleet type vehicles like small econoboxes, police vehicles and half ton trucks/vans with Flex Fuel engines and not so many sports cars.
STM317 wrote:alfadriver wrote: That all changed in 2011 when the whole calculation changed. Not sure how E85 is worked in, as there are still a lot of flex fuel cars in production.My guess is that quite a few states/ governments still have mandates in place that their fleets have flex fuel capabilities. That's why you see lots of fleet type vehicles like small econoboxes, police vehicles and half ton trucks/vans with Flex Fuel engines and not so many sports cars.
A lot of the fleet cars do their own conversions- like the Limos go natural gas on their own.
For OEM's to make them in big numbers, there would have to be a federal incentive.
You'll need to log in to post.
