Not strictly Volvo related, but...

Doggone it, lately I can't turn on the television or pick up the paper without seeing some stupid crap from local reporters. Both of these posts are cross-posted over on Possumblog, but I felt like since this site was more auto-related, it wouldn't hurt to post them here, too.

The first one is from today and deals with this little gem from Sacramento’s NBC affiliate KCRA--Pain At The Pump: Government Gas Secrets

I am so sick and tired of every two-bit news outlet in the United States trying to come up with “secret government conspiracy” crap. It’s stupid, and demeaning, and does nothing but expose the superciliousness and rank stupidity of the people who deign to tell us they should be trusted to find information for us.

This whole story has precious little to do with anything other than someone trying to make themselves look like the next Woodward and Bernstein, but the net effect makes the reporter and the station look like a bunch of Ted Baxters and Les Nessmans.

To begin:

The government has been keeping a secret about automobiles under wraps for the past 30 years.

Okay, I have to give them props--if you’re gonna lie, start lying right out of the gate. The government has NOT been keeping a secret about gas mileage ratings. Just because people don’t LOOK for the information--EVEN THOUGH IT’S PRINTED ON EVERY CAR STICKER MADE, doesn’t mean it’s a COVERUP. You could just as easily say that the government has been keeping a secret about income tax filing. Did you know that if you aren’t going to be able to file on time, that you STILL HAVE TO SEND IN ANY MONEY YOU MIGHT OWE!? Why, it’s a COVERUP! WHO KNEW ABOUT THIS!? Hmm? What’s that? Everyone who can READ knows this? Oh, well--it’s STILL A COVERUP, because I’M TOO BLOODY STUPID TO READ IT FOR MYSELF! LIES! ALL LIES!

Reporter Michelle Meredith teamed up with Consumer Reports to explain why your car probably does not get the mileage advertised.

How about an expose about how the hair coloring picture on the box doesn’t ever look like the hair color on your hair. LIES! ALL LIES!

The Consumer Reports' auto test track in Connecticut looks like it could be a new theme park in Orlando.

OOOOhhhh--exotic ORLANDO! Where there are no lies.

And when it comes to testing cars, Consumer Reports leaves no stone unturned, no lug nut loose. And here's the question Consumer Reports set out to answer -- does your car get the gas mileage promised on the showroom sticker.

What stone-overturning has to do with car testing is left unanswered. IT MUST BE A COVERUP! But one point to make--the sticker with the mileage ratings IS NOT A FRIGGIN’ PROMISE, YOU PEA-BRAINED TWIT! It is a standardized rating based upon laboratory tests, intended to give some semblance for a basis of comparison across a variety of makes and models. But it is NOT a guarantee, warranty, promise, agreement, covenant, assurance or any other synonym MS Word can come up with.

It's the mileage you probably used to decide if the car fit your monthly budget.

Doubtful, since most people budget for car purchases primarily on how much their monthly lease or loan payment will be. Some may look at mileage to the exclusion of all else, but if anyone does, it’s not in evidence in this particular news story. BECAUSE OF THE LIES!

First, Meredith took a look at how carmakers come up with these numbers because you could be in for a big surprise. The guidelines for the tests were set by the federal government decades ago, in the late 1970s. Gerald Ford was president and disco was king.

And local television news reporters were still seen as objective gatherers of information. You know, like Ron Burgundy.

Anyway, the implication is (since all we have to go on is the implied fault of the government, not any actual evidence of a coverup) that since this was done when Quiana shirts were big news, the testing is somehow not to be trusted. Or that somehow our intrepid gal reporter stumbled upon something akin to the Dead Sea scrolls, heretofore unseen since the Fashion Dark Ages, due to a secret cabal of GOVERNMENT COVERERS-UP OF THE TRUTH! LEAD US ON, NOBLE REPORTER!--

And under these guidelines by the Environmental Protection Agency, carmakers are allowed to test miles per gallon by running the vehicle not on the road, but on what's essentially a treadmill for cars.

Yes, it’s called a chassis dynamometer. It’s a big set of steel cylinders that the car's driven wheels sit on and the car is held stationary, so that it can be hooked up to all the test equipment in the lab to--now, get ready for it--TO ELIMINATE POSSIBLE VARIABLES RELATED TO ROAD SURFACE, such as temperature, friction coefficient, and moisture. In other words, it’s SCIENTIFIC. I know it must hurt your pretty little brain to think about all those big machineries and such, but there’s a REASON for all of that, and it’s not to cover up LIES! Oh, and by the way--carmakers aren’t “allowed” to run them on a chassis dyno--they are REQUIRED TO BY LAW. Which, in fairness, does require READING, and therefore is prima fascia evidence of a COVERUP OF MASSIVE PROPORTION! HOW DARE THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRE THAT WE READ ANYTHING! THEY DON’T TEACH THAT IN J-SCHOOL!

Ahem. Sorry.

During an EPA spot check, the car ran with no air conditioning, no inclines or hills, no wind resistance and at speeds no greater than 60 mph.

Can you guess why? Because not every air conditioner is the same; to turn on the compressor and allow it to cycle would introduce another variable into the test. Hills (or inclines, which are somehow different from hills, but still somehow uppy or downy sorta, and allow us to express shock that not only are hills excluded, BUT INCLINES, TOO!!) can be taken into account through variable resistance on the dynamometer rollers, but in the end, when you’re simply trying to come up with a standardized test, you don’t have to introduce every possible scenario, including things like aerodynamic drag, or high road speed, only a sufficient number of criteria to give a repeatable, verifiable basis of comparison across a range of vehicles.

There's hardly anything real world about it, but it gives carmakers what they want -- the highest possible miles per gallon to put on that sticker.

It’s not intended to be “real world.” It’s intended to be a lab test for broad comparison, AND NOTHING MORE. That’s why it says your mileage will vary. And the test was hardly the result of nothing but carmaker input--the EPA developed it and monitors the administration of it. Now, there ARE carmakers who develop their cars to excel on the EPA test--Chevy in particular has been good at this, with a small solenoid-activated shifter mechanism on manual transmission Corvettes (and it used to be on Camaros) that will, under certain exacting specifications matching the EPA test, cause the shifter to bypass 2nd and 3rd gear on the upshift from 1st, and go into 4th. This is intended to give a better mileage number, and indeed it does--but here’s the deal--IT WORKS IN REAL WORLD DRIVING, TOO! Corvettes get excellent fuel mileage even outside the laboratory, and part of it is the built-in device to short-shift when you’re not hard on the throttle.

"People are going into showrooms, they're looking at that sticker that says miles per gallon and they're saying, 'Oh it get goods [sic] miles per gallon,'" said Consumer Reports' David Champion. "In reality, they're being cheated."

No, if this is what’s happening, in reality they are just not being informed consumers. They see a number, and refuse to do any more research. I guarantee you, consumers are being cheated MUCH more by predatory lending practices and shady lease agreements than are being “cheated” because their car doesn’t get the mileage that’s on the sticker. And once more--the sticker is NOT A GUARANTEE!

Consumer Reports conducts their test on a track and in the real world.

And it has been since the 1930s. Which is a good and noble thing, and if you have ever once picked up a copy, you could see their mileage ratings for the cars they test, and get a better idea of how your car might perform IF YOU DRIVE IT LIKE THEY DO.

First, they put them through a simulated city course. Next the highway -- a real highway. For the third test, they take the car out on a 150-mile day trip throughout Connecticut.

All the while, a special miles per gallon meter is ticking away. Their results? Many numbers you see on those stickers are off way off -- one as much as 50 percent..

None of which take into account temperature, humidity, wind, engine tune, gasoline quality, rate of acceleration or deceleration--if the AIR CONDITIONING IS ON--hundreds of other little things that add up when you actually do operate a vehicle outside of a laboratory. If their testing is so thorough, and you buy a car based upon THEIR ratings, and you STILL don’t get as good economy as they do, do you think THEY are keeping a secret from you!? Do you think you could SUE them because their test didn’t reflect the mileage YOU get? Of course not. Even if they do have a “special miles per gallon meter.”

For example, Chrysler says the four-wheel drive diesel version of the Jeep Liberty gets 22 mpg in the city. Consumer Reports tested it and found it got more like 11 mpg.

Honda claims its hybrid Civic sedan gets 48 mpg in the city. Consumer Reports found it only gets 26 mpg -- a 46 percent difference.

Chevy's Trailblazer EXT four-wheel drive is supposed to get 15 mpg in the city. For Consumer Reports, it was 9 mpg.

You mileage will vary. If I do happen to get 19 in the “city” with my Liberty, does that mean that Consumer Reports was WRONG, and LYING about it? Maybe. More than likely it’s because they came up with a different number because they used DIFFERENT TESTING METHODOLOGIES! Look, give me any of those cars they tested, and let me drive it, and I can get even WORSE mileage, or if I’m careful, I can get the EPA mileage. IT ALL DEPENDS ON HOW YOU DRIVE, PEOPLE.

"It's an unrealistic sales and marketing tool that they are actually using. They are saying you're going to get 35 mpg, and you're really only going to get 21," Champion said.

Okay, then let’s do away with EPA testing. That would be the simplest thing--we did fine without it for years.

But the urge to regulate is simply overwhelming in Washington, and amongst a certain subset of the population who hate cars and everything they stand for. Somehow we can't let the free market, i.e., Consumer Reports, be a good enough standard for measuring economy. Its only usefulness and good is in being used to try to make the government look bad.

Anyway, don't like carmakers gaming the system? Elimate the opportunity.

Why is this allowed? Meredith asked the EPA's director of transportation.

SPEAK THE TRUTH TO POWER, MEREDITH!!

"We cannot have a perfect test," said Margo Oge.

Oge said for so long, nobody really complained. Meanwhile, everything has changed.

"All the cars today have air conditioning, which was not the case in the mid-80s, and we drive at higher speeds because we are allowed to drive a higher speeds. And technology has changed," Oge said.

Spoken like a true political appointee. None of this means anything, and some of it is downright stupid. Maybe she was trying to speak on Meredith’s level of comprehension, or maybe Meredith broke a nail while trying to write down all the big hard words the director actually said, I don’t know.

Anyway, how about this for "real world" testing--how about loading down a car with the stuff we usually carry--several hundred pounds of junk in the trunk, a bunch of kids, some car seats, a stroller. What about hauling a boat, or an ATV trailer? Or bikes on the roof? --WHY DON’T THEY INCLUDE THAT!?

Because it’s a CONSPIRACY!

Look, everyone is going to get different mileage, and although you can jigger the test mechanism to deliver lower mileage, in the end, it STILL won’t cover everything.

Carmakers know their number is up. Several have been to Consumer Reports' test track to see how they test real world conditions.

Which means they’ll just start using Consumer Reports data as a marketing tool instead of EPA ratings. But you still won’t get what THEY get unless you drive exactly like they do. Any variation, and you’re result will vary.

"I think it's desperately time for a change," Champion said.

The EPA has said a change is coming in time for the 2008 models, but is that soon enough? Consumers need real world tests with real world numbers now because with the price of gas constantly climbing, the real world has become a very ugly place.

WORLD TO END! WOMEN AND MINORITIES HARDEST HIT!

As it is, consumers CAN get real world results NOW. Go buy a car. Drive it. Keep up with your mileage. That’s your real world mileage. If you want to, go read some magazines--including Consumer Reports--and see which cars consistently come out on top in OBSERVED mpg. Then go buy one and keep up with the mileage. If you get the same, great. If not, it’s NOT BECAUSE OF A SECRET GOVERNMENT CONSPIRACY.

As for the real world becoming a very ugly place, well, once we start mocking idiotic local television reporters, we can always hope they’ll stop clogging up the airwaves with such meaningless chaff and start doing something important--like not driving gigantic gas-guzzling satellite trucks and SUVs to every cat-stuck-in-a-tree story.

The EPA said even though the new test will reflect more real-world conditions, there is no perfect test.

Yes, they did say that--just a few paragraphs earlier. Must be some kind of secret government SECRET REDUNDANCY RAY.

For more information and for a list of the most fuel efficient cars and SUVs, check out Consumer Reports' special report A Guide To Stretching Your Fuel Dollars.

Hey, finally! Some useful information!

And yes, this did strike a nerve, because it's silly, fatuous, and useless. I would really like to believe I could expect more, although I don't know why I should.

###

Next is a post I did last week about the supposed wonderpill that you add to your gas tank to get SUPERDEEDOOPER gas mileage--

Look, I realize that it's hard to fill up an hour and a half of a local news broadcast, but I think it might be better to at least do a LITTLE journalistic groundwork.

Last night our local FOX affiliate had yet another segment designed to play upon the gas price hysteria with an interview of some woman in Washington state who has a miracle product--a pill you drop in your tank that "changes the molecular structure" of gasoline and you can then get a 25% increase in your fuel mileage. The woman was driving around in an Explorer, I believe, and noted that although she was not a chemical engineer, her experience with her own gas mileage proved that the additive worked just fine.

In the interest of journalistic integrity, the reporter also interviewed some dude from AAA who said it might not work, or might void the warranty. Then they gave the woman's web address at the end of the segment.

Void the warranty?! WELL, DUH! THAT'S WHAT THE CAR COMPANIES WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!

::sigh::

Okay, here's the deal. It's nothing but a scam, pure and simple. I'm not going to give the website, because these jokers don't need any business, but the whole operation is set up as a multilevel marketing scheme. The website given belongs to one of the "sponsors," i.e., sales person, but the content is provided by a company that is well-known amongst those people who frequent bulletin boards trying to beat the automaker/oil company/EPA/FTC/Trilateral Commission conspiracy.

The company's website offers a wildly unintelligble explanation of how the pills work ("The gas pills have the property of modifying the fuel’s molecular structure and liberating the energy contained within"), along with detailed instructions about how many pills must be put in the tank each time. And lots of testimonials. Lots and lots. Including those from people who have achieved financial independence by selling the pills to other people.

But, here's the deal--testimonials (about fuel mileage, at least) aren't the same thing as instrumented testing in a laboratory. The idea of laboratory testing is NOT to keep everything all secret and hush-hush, but to eliminate variables that can effect the results. Such things as engine temperature, ambient temperature, load, atmospheric pressure, humidity, gasoline quality--all have something to do with how efficiently the engine operates, and unless you can say for certain those things are being accounted for, that 4 mpg increase you see might just be that you're trying to drive more efficiently, or a host of other factors. That's why EPA mileage ratings are lab derived using standardized criteria--and it's why the tag "YMMV" had become part of the lexicon--although testing can be made better, there is still no way to look in a crystal ball and determine what your exact mileage will be. But you CAN do lab testing and say if one change or another actually has some effect.

The EPA has tested hundreds of things that purport to boost mileage, and found that very few actually work. Of course, this doesn't stop people from making claims, but from a purely economic standpoint, you are MUCH better off doing the simple things everyone has always talked about: make sure your tires are properly inflated and your alignment is accurate, make sure you aren't carrying around any extra weight, and drive slower. You will increase your mileage for free. I guarantee it.

A more thorough discussion of this product (as well as a bunch of other fuel saving tips and topics by a U.K.-based automotive engineer) can be found here. (Be sure to read the conspiracy theory page--it's a corker.)

And if you're a local television station, and you want to maintain a shred of journalistic integrity, DON'T throw your incredulity out the window and run stories like this and then have the absolute unmitigated gall to promote your investigative reporter/ombudsman/scam finder segments and blabber about how you're out to protect people from scams.

###