3 ms·
I'm not sure what that proves, at least relative to what I'm saying? IFF the EPA's regulatory test procedure accurately described/expressed normal driving habi
by rnovak 11y ago
I'm not sure what that proves, at least relative to what I'm saying?
IFF the EPA's regulatory test procedure accurately described/expressed normal driving habits, then the only way that numbers would differ between the real world and the reported numbers would be fraud/lying/alteration, like what Volkswagen Group engaged in (let there be no mistake, it WAS fraud/lying, not a case of poor optimization).
BUT the EPA's regulatory test DOES NOT accurately depict normal driving conditions.
In the current case, a manufacturer has to:
- Realize and Formally accept that the test procedure is inaccurate
- Optimize for:
- Simulated driving conditions, aka the Test Procedure
- Real life driving
To me, it looks like GM just didn't do any of that, and only optimized for the simulated conditions and not real world road conditions.
Depending how far out of wack the test procedure really is could explain the entire data-set.
- semi-extrinsic 11y agoSo the point is that these official numbers should be taken with a generous pinch of salt. Now, when you talk about GM, remember this is data from Germany, so GM essentially means Opel. Now I believe that before the quite successfull Insignia which launched in 2008, Opel were mainly known for cheap and efficient and small cars like the Corsa and Astra, while now they have a more premium lineup, and "Turbo" versions of several models.
- rnovak 11y agoYes exactly, with a pinch of salt. Exactly what I was trying to say. And yeah, I've driven a Chevy Spark, and that thing was so slow I could get out and walk faster. I could totally see people driving with their foot to the floor in it.