NEW ENERGUIDE LABELS ARE EXPECTED TO RAISE A FEW EYEBROWS AMONG CONSUMERS
Be prepared to deal with sticker shock when some of your customers get a look at the window stickers on your 2015 model year vehicles. Not because of the prices (although maybe that too in some cases) but primarily because of the fuel consumption reported on their window stickers, which are based on Natural Resources Canada’s (NRCan) Energuide listings.
In the absence of any other vehicle change, that posted fuel consumption figure is likely to be in the order of 15 per cent greater than for last year’s comparable model. The challenge will be explaining to customers that this is a good thing — because it really is. Both the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers Association (CVMA) and the Global Automakers of Canada (GAC) have both expressed support for the change.
Everybody knows the published NRCan figures have always been unrealistically optimistic. Under ideal circumstances with very careful driving they might be achievable in the real world but it just doesn’t happen in ordinary driving — hence the long-used caveat, “your mileage may differ.”
Hence also the countless complaints you’ve probably received from customers who don’t understand why they’re not achieving the fuel economy advertised. And now, according to the window stickers, the fuel consumption is actually getting worse? It’s grounds for customer revolt!
Change in procedures
Except that’s not exactly what’s happening. Even a car with no real changes from 2014 to 2015, for which the actual, real-world fuel consumption doesn’t change at all, will still show an increased consumption figure — but only because the procedure for testing and reporting it changed.
It did so precisely to make the reported numbers closer to what customers can realistically expect to achieve.
It’s a step the U.S. took back in 2008, for just that reason. Until then, both countries had used a so-called “Two-Cycle” laboratory test procedure for determining fuel consumption ratings: one cycle for city driving and one for highway. At that time, the U.S adopted a new “Five-Cycle” procedure that also took into account the effects of higher operating speeds, lower temperatures and air-conditioning use — all of which are more realistic operating conditions.
For reasons unclear, the Canadian government failed to change its procedures at the same time — despite long-held principles to harmonize vehicle standards between the two countries. That’s why, if anyone took the trouble to convert advertised U.S. mpg figures to L/100 km and compared them to Canadian figures, they didn’t match up.
This country has continued to drag its feet on the matter ever since — until now. Canada’s (then) Minister of Natural Resources, Joe Oliver, announced the decision to make the change for 2015 at a low-key press conference in the final days of this February’s Canadian International AutoShow, rather than on the opening media day, which has traditionally been NRCan’s time slot and when media attendance is at its peak.
Oliver also announced that an updated, more informative fuel consumption label will be introduced for the 2016 model year. It will include additional information such as the fuel consumption of other models in the same vehicle class and CO2 emissions. No reason was given for the delay in introducing that label, which has been under consideration for at least a couple years.
How it’s done
For those interested in how the old and new test methods differ, the Two-Cycle test was originally based on a “Los Angeles” driving regime, with separate fuel consumption ratings determined for City and Highway driving cycles.The tests are conducted at an ambient (surrounding air) temperature between 20 and 30 degrees Celsius, with the vehicle initially stabilized at that temperature.
The City test covers 17.8 km at an average speed of 34 km/h, with a maximum speed of 90 km/h, 23 stops, more than five minutes of idling and relatively light acceleration rates (maximum 5.3 km/h/sec).
The Highway test covers about 16.8 km at an average speed of 78 km/h, with a maximum speed of 97 km/h, no stops and similarly light acceleration rates (maximum 5.2 km/h/sec).
The reported ratings (L/100 km) have been arbitrarily adjusted upwards by 10 per cent (city) and 15 per cent (highway) to more accurately reflect real-world results. The Five-Cycle test added three more cycles to that process, addressing cold starting and operation at -7 degrees Celsius, hot starting and operation at +35 degrees Celsius with air conditioning on, and operation at higher speeds (maximum 129 km/h), with quicker acceleration (maximum 13.6 km/h/sec).
The increased figures that result may not bring the advertised figures fully into line with customers’ real-world experience, but it will bring them much closer — and that’s a very good thing.
