New EPA sticker are announced for feedabck

[vfx]

They are looking for comments. Make them there (as well as here).

There are proposing two types, one with a "grade" and one more like the old horizontal. these a good step (Gallons per 100!) are far from perfect so make your comments heard!

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label.htm
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-label-2.htm

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/gas-label-1.htm

EV versions:
http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label...2-electric.jpg

http://www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/label...1-electric.jpg

feedabck?

[qwk]

Great idea. Since most americans are not very intelligent, this will help in understanding electric vehicle efficiency.

[vfx]

For the record, if you are inclined to make comments (and I hope some of our smarter posters do!) you should do it ASAP for maximum effect.

Things to get you thinking.

Why have an EV be A+? Would a Esclade EV be as good as a Think EV? Should the not give efficiency's for EVs be on a separate scale?

Some of the graphics are not clear as to what they mean.

[kgb]

Why have an EV be A+? Would a Esclade EV be as good as a Think EV? Should the not give efficiency's for EVs be on a separate scale?

I sent in my comment, and that is exactly what I addressed. I didn't like the "school grading" system. Problems with that include what you mention. Also, a vehicle that gets an A in 2005 may only deserve a C in 2015.

I suggested to them that they create a formula in which they can plug in the various relevant numbers and obtain a benchmark number. I admit that I stole the idea from the way computer speed is measured, but that idea would work here. As machines get old, their benchmark would remain the same, but newer vehicles would get better benchmarks allowing for fairer comparison. I figure that you'd plug in the estimated number of gallons used in a year, the CO2 emissions, and other pollutants/particles etc... (for electric, you'd substitute kw-h for gallons) And we'd look for benchmark numbers as they trend down to zero.

I don't know why they didn't ask me for my input before now, I am full of good ideas.

[qwk]

^^^While your idea is good, it is far too complicated for the average person. The school grading system, although very basic, helps EV's because EV efficiency is not going to change much. It does however widen the gap between ICE vehicles and EV's which will hopefully help get more electrics on the road.

[kgb]

...but it doesn't address the issue of comparing a monster Hummer EV with a huge battery and electric motor to a Think EV. A rating scale is supposed to tell people about the differences between cars so they can make an informed choice. When both the Hummer and Think get an A+, then the rating system fails.

[TEG]

Extreme window sticker: Tesla Roadster rated 111 MPGe



Extreme window sticker: Tesla Roadster rated 119 MPGe

[vfx]

I know it says "yet" but it's sweet that the Roadster is the highest mileage car in the world.

Probably have to say mass produced or sumtin'

[doug]

They nixed the letter grades.

[mt2]

I don't like the way Consumer Reports clarified that zero emissions does not consider how the power is generated. Sure, they pointed out that how clean the electricity is generated depends on where you live. But if you are going to invoke the long-tailpipe discussion, you should frame it as well-to-wheel and point out that gasoline production has emissions also.

I understand where Consumer Reports is coming from. They felt compelled to point out that a perfect 10 for emissions doesn't mean there aren't downstream emissions. But it is certainly out of context of the article to get into the whole 'electricity is better than gas' argument. So at least refer to Tesla Motor's well-to-wheel research and play it down as something they haven't independently verified.

I would have commented, but I let my Consumer Reports on-line subscription lapse.