How to Get Consumer Reports to fix their testing

[MrLoganRoss]

Maybe a collective amount of feedback may help them to fix their testing methodology related to electric vehicles. This is not an attempt to claim that the F150 meets its EPA target. However, their methodology is inherently flawed, which makes the F150 look pretty bad. The article is here:
https://www.consumerreports.org/car...s-models-that-beat-epa-estimates-a1103288135/

In terms of the point I am trying to make Make:

If you are going to test on the highway, you should use each car’s 100% highway rating (which they allow you to calculate or “personalize” at fueleconomy.gov). You would then expect the results to be lower if you test at a faster speed than the EPA calculation is based on. I would expect Trucks to under perform the EPA rating on a 100% highway test at a faster speed than the EPA rating is based on. Therefore I think this article is a bit flawed. For example, the actual F150 lighting EPA rating is 302 mile range for all-highway driving, and that EPA rating is not at 70mph. If the EPA were based on 70mph, wouldn’t the rating be somewhere between 270 and 302 (probably closer to 280 given it is a big body truck)?


Consumers should not have to help Consumer Reports correct their testing methodology and baseline assumptions.

Sponsored

 

[22legit2quit]

Stil cheaper than gas. I mean, if you believe the government, consumer reports or anything but your own driving habits to determine range there’s your problem. If you only drove city 50 and below you’d probably get 4-500 miles on a charge. The tesla adapter is an absolute game changer, driving 280 miles on the highway between charges with kids, animals and wife who have to goto the bathroom far more often than you need to charge makes it simple. Good luck.

 

[Timeless Epoch]

It is just dishonest clickbait reporting IMO, which is disappointing for CR. In the first paragraph they state they are comparing EPA estimated range to "real world" 70MPH highway range. We all know that is not how the EPA test works, so what is the point of the article? They do explain this later, but continue the flawed test anyway and make absurd comments like, "Of the 30 EVs we have tested so far, more than half fell short of their EPA-estimated ranges when driven at highway speeds." What they are really saying there is, "some vehicles fall short of their EPA estimates when not driven to the same standards the EPA used." To which I say... no .

The way CR is conducting their testing will bias towards more aerodynamically friendly vehicles that will be less affected by highway speeds. It feels agenda driven.

At the end of the day, EPA numbers provide a standard way of comparing vehicles but shouldn't be considered a highly accurate estimate for how YOU use YOUR vehicle. This is true for ICE and BEV.

 

[MrLoganRoss]

Agreed. Honestly, I am not sure that I ever achieved 320 range. I suspect that 270 is about right for highway driving, and matches what I get. It’s just not 50 miles below what you would expect based on EPA.

My main point is that they used the wrong EPA number, and even if the big boxy F150 falls short of aero-vehicles, it wouldn’t appear so bad.

They should have run two tests, one under actual EPA conditions, and the other under real world conditions. That would have been very interesting.

But again to close - The EPA estimate for highway driving is 302, not 320.

 

[Newton]

I think that it is fair to report the actual range, because people make decisions based upon it. We can debate on how realistic their test is, but you can’t debate that the Lightning does not usually get the EPA range. In good conditions, I easily beat the EPA on my e-Golf and my Kia EV6 but it is hard to get 200 out of my EPA-rated 230 SR Lightning. That is important information.

This was also true of my ICE F-150, which was the only vehicle that I have owned that underperformed the EPA. (The EPA testing protocols can be gamed by the auto manufacturers and some try harder than others.)

 

[Maineiac12]

Real world range tests are very common for all cars - EV and ICE. This is because the EPA test is BS and doesn’t reflect how people drive in the real world. I think the problem is more with how EPA presents the numbers than anything else. They should list out city vs highway like they do for ICE cars. People would be a lot less disappointed once they understand EVs are the opposite of ICE for efficiency.

 

[rembrant]

Maybe a collective amount of feedback may help them to fix their testing methodology related to electric vehicles. This is not an attempt to claim that the F150 meets its EPA target. However, their methodology is inherently flawed, which makes the F150 look pretty bad. The article is here:
https://www.consumerreports.org/car...s-models-that-beat-epa-estimates-a1103288135/

In terms of the point I am trying to make Make:

If you are going to test on the highway, you should use each car’s 100% highway rating (which they allow you to calculate or “personalize” at fueleconomy.gov). You would then expect the results to be lower if you test at a faster speed than the EPA calculation is based on. I would expect Trucks to under perform the EPA rating on a 100% highway test at a faster speed than the EPA rating is based on. Therefore I think this article is a bit flawed. For example, the actual F150 lighting EPA rating is 302 mile range for all-highway driving, and that EPA rating is not at 70mph. If the EPA were based on 70mph, wouldn’t the rating be somewhere between 270 and 302 (probably closer to 280 given it is a big body truck)?


Consumers should not have to help Consumer Reports correct their testing methodology and baseline assumptions.

I’ve found that consumer reports is not very good at testing anything that requires a skill set. They can test a toaster or a hairdryer but anything that requires the knowledge of how stuff works they fail. My father used to subscribe to the magazine and anytime I read about a item that I had very specific knowledge of consumer reports was so far off base that they would list the product as the best that everyone in the industry of said product knew that that product was the worst thing in the market. They would use parameters in (testing) that were not relevant to the product. I refuse to accept anything that consumer reports say anymore. They are not experts at anything.

 

[MrLoganRoss]

A number of comments about testing real world range. Yes. I agree with you. No issue on that. We should focus on real world estimates as it’s all that matters in the end.

The issue is that the article conclusion is presented as a pass/fail relative to EPA estimates and they used the wrong EPA estimates. It is especially problematic for trucks,

 

[Firn]

A number of comments about testing real world range. Yes. I agree with you. No issue on that. We should focus on real world estimates as it’s all that matters in the end.

The issue is that the article conclusion is presented as a pass/fail relative to EPA estimates and they used the wrong EPA estimates. It is especially problematic for trucks,

They use THE epa estimate, and compared it against a real world test.

The only "fix" here would be the EPA doing a realistic highway test instead of what they currently do

 

[MrLoganRoss]

The EPA is a mixed driving estimate. However, can can use the gov website to adjust the mix (in this case 100% highway). Again, the point is if you are going to change the test criteria (driving type), you need to use the correct rating to compare against.

 

[PJnc284]

I like MotorTrend's chart. Shows how higher speed can impact range and fairly accurate based on my experiences. Obviously cold temps, head wind or large elevation changes could further impact the ratings.

 

[Timeless Epoch]

The EPA is a mixed driving estimate. However, can can use the gov website to adjust the mix (in this case 100% highway). Again, the point is if you are going to change the test criteria (driving type), you need to use the correct rating to compare against.

Even then, what they are really testing and rating is the EPA’s methodology. Unless Ford (or any of these other manufactures) have made independent claims.

 

[MrLoganRoss]

I actually think their results are accurate. They match mine, even if I wish they didn’t. I just object to the characterization that the f150 is an outlier with a range 15% lower than EPA estimates.

Sponsored