As I’m sure most of you know, the most important movie release of the summer — Turbo Kid — appeared in a very limited selection of theaters two weeks ago. Here in sunny Columbus, Ohio, the sole place to see it is down on the Ohio State campus. This past weekend, therefore, I headed down for a late-night show of just the second film in history to use “Thunder In Your Heart” as the main theme.
Upon my arrival, I was greeted by the newest fad sweeping American campuses — LEED-certified parking. And it was there that, thanks to my hasty reading of a spreadsheet, I broke the law.
An organization calling itself the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) has created a “green rating” for all new cars sold in the United States. It’s done on a quasi-scientific basis:
We analyze automakers’ test results for fuel economy and emissions as reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board, along with other specifications reported by automakers. We estimate pollution from vehicle manufacturing, from the production and distribution of fuel and from vehicle tailpipes. We count air pollution, such as fine particles, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and other pollutants according to the health problems caused by each pollutant. We then factor in greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide) and combine the emissions estimates into a Green Score that runs on a scale from 0 to 100. The top vehicle this year scores a 61, the average is 37 and the worst gas-guzzlers score around 17.
If you read the entire site you’ll eventually come to the meat of it: about 70 percent of the emissions scoring is based on CO2 emissions. Other pollutants don’t count for much at all. This is emissions control for politi-climate reasons, not for reasons of preventing cancer or lung disease or old people dying in their apartments from ozone. And as our friends in the UK found out when that august monarchy began arbitrarily taxing vehicles based on idling CO2 emissions, that’s simply a factor of energy consumption, with a significant comparative benefit accruing to diesel vehicles because those vehicles tend to have less power and consume less fuel.
So the “Green score” is even more heavily biased in favor of low fuel consumption than you’d think. And that’s where I got tripped up. To park in the “LEFE” zone, which has various other names at various other campuses, you need to be on the special list, which you can read here. I downloaded the list to my phone and took a brief look. 2014 Accord Coupe — 3.5L V6 — check! And off I went to the movie.
As I sat in that movie, however, watching Turbo Kid do battle with an assortment of post-apocalyptic, BMX-riding monsters, I started to wonder about the entire composition of that list. More specifically, I started to wonder what the purpose of the list was. It had to be more than just selecting fuel-efficient vehicles — were it that simple, you could put a sign up saying, “You must get more than XX EPA combined mileage to park here.” Instead, the ACEEE uses a Byzantine calculation system which applies various “fudge factors” to arrive at a meaningless “Green Score”. And when the numbers are fudged this heavily, there has to be a purpose.
So I read the list again, to see what the purpose was. You can read it yourself now, and think about it for a moment, before continuing on. The purpose of the list is to…
wait for it…
…exclude SUVs. Only the smallest CUVs with four-cylinder power, like the CR-V and the Equinox/Terrain, make the list. If the ACEEE budged their arbitrary “Green” rating down a couple of points, it would let all sorts of CUVs and SUVs in. The Camry V6, for example, scores 41 and makes the list, which is cut off at 40. The Highlander Hybrid scores 39 and doesn’t make it. The vast majority of the Highlanders and Pilots and the like score 35.
The net effect of the ACEEE-compliant parking will be to create a sea of cars in the campus garages of America. It encourages people to get vehicles with reasonable fuel efficiency, traffic-friendly heights, and sensible exterior dimensions. It permits the Lotus Exige but excludes the Lexus RX350. It’s an unpleasant piece of social engineering and in my opinion it comes dangerously close to being a bill of attainder (look at the entries in the spreadsheet for CHRYSLER and GMC if you want further proof of that) but if the program expands it could create oases of sorts across the country, places where one is not continually faced with the monstrous visage of a Tahoe or Expedition or QX-whatever at all times, where it’s possible to drive a normal car in traffic and not feel like one is driving through the valley of the shadow of the SUV. There would be something nice about that.
Not that I’ll be able to participate, unless I ride one of my motorcycles. Accord V6 Coupes with the automatic transmission score a salutary 41 and are permitted to park as they like; with the manual shifter, the score drops to 38. So unless I want to put a Solo cup over my center console every time I park, I’d better think about finding a spot somewhere else. At most campuses, parking in the ACEEE spots without an appropriate vehicle will get you fined; at Ohio State, there’s somebody waiting to tow you away.
Who would have thought that the day would ever come when having a clutch pedal meant you were choosing the less efficient, less economical, and less ecological version of a car? O brave new world, that has such cars and people in it!
Nobody would ever suspect how special and badass was the owner of that blobmobile. It’s a newish Honda, of course it’s saintly. I’d bet all the Beech-Nut I’ll ever still buy that not one in ten-thousand would think to peek at the shifter. Mountain range from anthill.
Heh… and it’s not like it couldn’t have been parked in another slot. God, would that *my* alma mater ever had such an empty garage anytime, any day. Engineered affrontism.
Is my sleepy, pre-caffeine fog blinding me or am I not seeing anything about stickshifts outside of the headline and closing paragraph?
And I’m a year and a half behind on my LEED reading (I’m in the building industry) but I only remember it giving buildings points for having alternative-fuel parking spots. This thing’s new. Seems better though, since alt-fuel doesn’t necessarily mean efficient.
His manual accord gets worse mileage than the automatic, and it’s enough to put him over the threshold.
The 1990s have been over for along time! Automatics are better, and SUVs have been made obsolete by modern station wagons(CUVs).
“Automatics are better” at gaming the EPA tests.
There, I fixed it for you. Manuals still tend to get better mileage in real world driving than automatics. Is it that you are trying to justify not owning/not learning how to drive a manual by not looking at the whole picture, or were you unaware of this fact?
What the hell does the SUV comment have anything to do with this article or his comment? Come to think of it, he really didnt speak pro or against autos or manuals, either.
CUVs are not “modern station wagons”, they’re AMC Gremlins with four doors. They lack the full-time carrying capacity that an SUV offers even when the second-row seats are occupied.
Anyone that has ever been in any of the best selling CUVs knows that you are completely baseless in saying that CUVs lack carrying capacity when their second row seats are occupied. Old style station wagons often had three rows of seats and zero luggage space when the third row was in use, but both station wagons and CUVs have plenty of useful cargo space when only two rows are in use. Ergo; CUVs are modern station wagons.
“Ergo; CUVs are modern station wagons.”
False. CUVs on average only have about 10 to 12 cubic feet of storage AT MOST behind the second-row seat backs. You certainly can’t crowd two weeks worth of luggage for three or four people back there unless they each carry the barest minimum of clothing and “necessities”. SUVs on average offer 3x that amount for a small one (Jeep Renegade) and 5x that much in something like the old Saturn Vue at over 50 cubic feet. A CUV has the back end chopped off right behind the headrests on average. A wagon typically offered a three- to four-foot-long load floor behind the seats. So it’s the SUV that’s the modern wagon, the CUV is essentially the modern sedan (without the extended boot.)
“CUVs on average only have about 10 to 12 cubic feet of storage AT MOST behind the second-row seat backs”
Ford Escape: 34.3 cu ft
Ford Edge: 39.2 cu ft
Honda CR-V: 35.2 cu ft
Toyota Rav-4: 38.4 cu ft
Chevy Equinox/GMC Terrain: 31.5 cu ft
Subaru Forester: 34.4 cu ft
Jeep Cherokee: 24.8 cu ft
Nissan Rogue: 32 cu ft
Nissan Murano: 39.4 cu ft
2009 Saturn Vue: 29.4 cu ft
Ok Bball, now start listing the real CUVs. Every one of those is classified as an SUV.
In fact, my insurance company listed the Saturn Vue as a “Sport Utility Wagon”.
Those aren’t SUVs to me.
The RAV-4 and CR-V invented the CUV segment. What do you think you’re talking about when you say CUV?
“What do you think you’re talking about when you say CUV?”
Bubbles on wheels. Any 5-door passenger vehicle where the roofline drops right behind the headrests of the second row to a bumper right behind the wheels. As I said, anything that looks like an AMC Gremlin with 4 doors. Just because those other named rigs are unibody construction (or rather, “Space Frame” as GM once put it) doesn’t mean they they can’t be SUVs. If they can offer up to six feet of load floor with the second-row seats folded, they’re far more utility than a rig that can’t even promise four feet. Even my Saturn Vue could carry an 8′ ladder with the hatch closed, as could the Dodge Magnum wagon. How many of those ‘bubbles on wheels’ can make that claim?
I asked you to name some models you’re talking about because I have no idea what vehicles you mean. bball40dtw listed the volume models in the CUV class. None of them are as you describe. Are you talking about the subcompact CUVs, like the Encore and Renegade?
It is pretty hard to say where the line is between SUV and CUV. Some used to say body on frame made for an SUV, but Jeep Wagoneers, Cherokees, and Grand Cherokees have been unibody since before the term CUV had ever been dreamed of. You could also say it is the availability of a 2 speed transfer case, but there’s no question that the current Cherokee is a CUV no matter how many drive ratios it has. I’m going to say it comes down to whether or not a vehicle shares its platform with a car. That means that all the CUVs listed by bball40btw are CUVs. So are all of BMWs CUVs, but maybe not the Porsche Cayenne and VW Touareg.
I’d argue that the one thing that seperates an SUV from a CUV is the drive system, regardless of the position of the engine. If it’s RWD, 4WD, or rear-biased full-time AWD (JGC, Durango, etc.), then it’s an SUV. If it’s 50/50 full-time AWD (some Euro CUVS), front-biased AWD, or FWD (all others), then it’s a CUV.
By those criteria, I’d consider the Touareg and Cayenne to be CUVs. But that’s just me.
@Bball: Your exact words were, “What do you think you’re talking about when you say CUV?” I gave you an answer. There are too many of the type to name them even in part. However…
“It is pretty hard to say where the line is between SUV and CUV. Some used to say body on frame made for an SUV, but Jeep Wagoneers, Cherokees, and Grand Cherokees have been unibody since before the term CUV had ever been dreamed of.”
— Exactly right. And honestly, they can go back even farther than that.
“You could also say it is the availability of a 2 speed transfer case, but there’s no question that the current Cherokee is a CUV no matter how many drive ratios it has.”
— That one I will argue because of its load capacity in volume.
“I’m going to say it comes down to whether or not a vehicle shares its platform with a car.”
— Your choice. I don’t agree. I might agree to the shape of the body somewhat as a more rounded roofline sacrifices load carrying capacity for bulky items. Would you agree to a squared-off body style vs the more rounded rear end?
“That means that all the CUVs listed by bball40btw are CUVs. So are all of BMWs CUVs, but maybe not the Porsche Cayenne and VW Touareg.”
— The Porsche has a very rounded back roofline; the Touareg somewhat more square, ignoring the roofline spoiler. That slanted roofline eats into the carrying capacity by volume. The Ford Escape is clearly a CUV, all the rest they offer in their CUV/SUV catalog is an SUV due to their more squared appearance and thusly better cargo carrying capacity. I consider the Jeep Renegade as a compact SUV while the Fiat 500x is a crossover, despite the fact that they share the same basic platform and drivetrain.
You’re perfectly entitled to your opinions, but the accepted definition of a CUV is far closer to mine and bball40dtw’s than yours. Whenever you read a reference to a CUV in an article, keep in mind that they’re talking about car based utility vehicles, not any wagon with a curved rear end.
As has already been stated, the difference between an SUV and a CUV is extremely foggy today. By your definition, they should be one and the same. Even the auto reviewers and OEMs themselves seem to have trouble differentiating them. But maybe that’s also the point. Maybe they NEED something more definite to differentiate them. Any ideas?
Meanwhile, a station wagon traditionally had a square backend, not a sloped one. It also had sufficient room behind the second-row seats to carry a decent amount of luggage/cargo. In the 40s and 50s a “Panel truck” was typically a station wagon with a flat floor and no windows behind the driver’s seat except, maybe, for the glass in the tailgate.
Very few of today’s so-called CUVs offer that capability. Even the PT Cruiser was an attempt to return to the panel truck as a cargo vehicle first in order to game the CAFE rules. When it was demonstrated that the PT Cruiser was used far more often as a passenger vehicle and not a cargo vehicle, it lost its “truck” status. Think about it.
I had forgotten about Turbo Kid! I have to find out when/if that’s playing in Tidewater. B-movies rule.
So if six people wanted to go see the movie together on campus they would have to take two cars. That sounds like a good way to save parking.
Its to promote efficiency, not to save parking, but your point still rings true. Everyone riding in one minivan or 3rd row crossover would be more efficient than taking two more economical cars.
I argued against this with the legally unenforceable “hybrid” spaces, and now the watermelons have come out with their own little standard. Both are questionable but I have less of an issue with the hybrid one than this. What these zealots do not seem to understand is ICE emissions are the lowest they have ever been as a whole and the strictest type, PZEV, was originally only available in a few states. Jack’s MY14? Accord is at least SULEV and gets good mileage, I mean WTF. Oh that’s right, one group defines a nonsensical system and then intimidates or bullies everyone into complying. Here’s a thought, lets throw paint on whomever is behind this.
“Originally, vehicles that meet PZEV standards were only available in California, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, or Vermont and in Canada— or in some sales regions near these states. These six “clean car states” had implemented California’s more stringent motor vehicle pollution control rules. Other states soon began implementing these standards, including Alaska, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Washington, and PZEVs are now widely available in the United States.[5]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_zero-emissions_vehicle
“Oh that’s right, one group defines a nonsensical system and then intimidates or bullies everyone into complying.”
It’s called “deeemoooocraciiiie.” The spelling and worship of, which is the sole thing that is being taught in public “schools” these days. Being at least marginally sentient, I fail at both.
@28
Agree 110%
Are they giving tickets to large vehicles who park in the compact spot? Not from what I can see, so I wouldn’t worry about it.
In one of the ramps I park in, the compact spots are larger than the non-compact spots. You bet I park in them!
Are these private spaces where the owner elects to restrict parking in this way? I find the whole thing ridiculous and overbearing, but if a private entity chooses to do it then I can choose not to patronize that business. Ohio State, being a public U, shouldn’t be able to pull this nonsense.
My new Mazda CX-5 makes the list however.
“Ohio State, being a public U, shouldn’t be able to pull this nonsense.”
Well, if you can get the Ohio Legislature to make them stop, sure.
But public entities have wide latitude, legally, to choose *stupid* policies, so long as they’re not stupid in *specific* prohibited ways.
LEED certification and this list of cars, while *stupid*, does not appear to be stupid in a way that the law or Constitution remotely prohibit.
(Remember, kids – “bad policy” and “un-Constitutional” are not synonyms, any more than “Constitutionally allowed” and “good idea” are.)
“Ohio State, being a public U, shouldn’t be able to pull this nonsense.”
Is Ohio State a “public” university? How public is it?
Of their total FY 2015 budget of $5.4 billion, only $484 million comes from state support.
I can’t speak for Ohio, but here in Florida if you accept $1 of state money, you accept 100% of state rules. I believe the same thing goes for federal money.
Public/Private distinctions don’t cleanly apply anymore, in fascist societies. Using zoning and other laws to prevent someone, anyone, from setting up a parking lot across the street from article style offenders, then falling back on the “It’s private, they can do whatever they want” mantra, is no further than a petty obfuscation from an official ban.
Pretty silly…
A rant about all of the large SUV drivers who use compact spaces would be more on point.
“I didn’t buy the extended wheelbase model. This SUV is compact.”
Why not a rant about compact spaces when the average passenger vehicle is bigger than ever? CAFE is also structured to increase the footprint of every class of vehicle, which will make their existence even less defensible.
I have to admire your consistency. You’re always missing the point.
You’re a malignant narcissist with no empathy. Isn’t that usually what you come here to express? You don’t drive a big vehicle, so you don’t think about how few non-compact spaces are available. That’s what being small-minded is all about.
As usual, you understand nothing.
Why do you think compact parking spaces exist? (Hint: It isn’t to encourage compact car purchases.)
Pick a vehicle without thinking about the consequences of your pick? Tough luck.
Compact spaces are what they are and haven’t changed in a long time. They allow more vehicles to park in a fixed amount of space. If you want to use them, choose your vehicle accordingly. (In other words, not just small, but also a beater so that you don’t care about the inevitable door dings.)
Whaddyamean? Are you saying that drivers should take responsibility for their vehicle choices?
In any case, compact spaces exist so that it is cheaper for developers to comply with parking requirements, since those stalls consume less square footage. They’re a concession to the real estate industry.
Compact car spaces don’t exist to promote smaller cars. They exist because developers can fit more compact spaces than full size spaces in a given area, and if zoning requirements require them to have x number of parking spaces, they can get that on less land.
I’m fully aware of the why, but it doesn’t change the fact that they make parking lots inferior.
I do believe someone should challenge those results. Manual transmissions still tend to offer ONE mile per gallon more on average than automatics for in-town driving which is the real point according to the author’s reading. The only transmission to offer better than that is the CVT, which means the torque level of the engine needs to fall below a certain point to prevent burning out the ‘belt’.
It depends on the engine. For example, on the Ford Mustang, the manual provides better city and combined mileage on the 2.3T, but worse on the 3.7L and 5.0L.
I believe all V6 Accords *except* manual coupes have cylinder deactivation, hence the categorization of the manual coupe as less green. Putting aside the overall rightness or wrongness of this parking garage’s policy, it’s in all likelihood *not* directed specifically against manual transmission cars.
I hadn’t though about cylinder deactivation. Gearing is also a possible difference. I’ve driven stick-shifts that had shorter final drives than the automatic counterparts. Spinning 2800 RPM on the highway instead of 2400 is going to to take a toll.
The EPA tests are also a bit unfair to sticks by requiring unrealistic shift points. So it’s certainly possible that a stick-shift might benchmark worse on the EPA but get better mileage in the real world even when compared to the automatic version.
The vast majority of so-called “greenhouse gases” are carbon dioxide and water vapor – neither of which is a pollutant.
Your inability to grasp the concept of the carbon cycle, which is taught to teenagers in basic science classes, is not surprising.
The physics of CO2-driven warming, the way CO2 interacts with infrared radiation, can be demonstrated in the lab. As soon as you can explain why increased CO2 levels won’t warm the planet, in spite of this demonstrable physical property of CO2, you’ll have my full attention – and that of a lot of other people.
Lab = Closed system
Earth = Open system.
Regardless, if someone can establish beyond a reasonable doubt what the Earth’s optimum temperature is supposed to be, you might have my attention.
The issue isn’t what the “optimum” climate is (there isn’t one), it’s the chaos and displacement that is likely to occur as a result of a very rapid transition from one climate to another. Fill the places where well over a billion people live with seawater and there are going to be major consequences, both in terms of human suffering and expense.
No, dal, too detailed. This needs to stay on the level of “how can CO2 be a pollutant if plants need it to photosynthesize?”
@30-mile fetch
CO2 functions like the glass in a greenhouse. In the atmosphere, it allows the sun’s radiant energy to pass through it to reach the other. However, the energy earth reradiates–different wavelengths–cannot pass through the CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, more CO2 causes the earth to heat up.
It’s not a pollutant in the sense that it causes toxicity when you breathe it in. (at least not in the concentrations that exist in the atmosphere. But if you were to enter a container where there was naught but CO2, you’d quickly suffocate.)
Until the Law of Gravity is repealed, the earth is, in most respects, a closed system.
If the earth were a closed system, we’d be a frozen ice ball as the energy from the sun wouldn’t enter the system.
The concept of the atmosphere is as elusive to some as is the carbon cycle.
It’s an open system in the sense that sunlight enters and the earth radiates energy back into space – but satellites have been measuring those quantities since 1978 so there aren’t any mysteries; it’s all accounted for.
As for the earth, it doesn’t care about an optimum temperature. It’s the human global economy that has an optimum, since we aren’t able to quickly adjust to changes in farmland viability or flooding coastlines.
“It’s the human global economy that has an optimum…”
Is that the same optimum global economy that’s causing tens of thousands of refugees to flood Europe and the West? Islamic fundamentalism is a far greater threat to populations than a few tenths of a degree of warming.
I know it’s popular these days to blame Islamic fundamentalism for all the earth’s woes these days, but the situation in Syria is mostly about a creaky despotic regime unable to adapt to the evolving demands of its populace. Sure, some of the factions fighting or fundamentalists, but many are not.
The world is more complex than the “Islamist fundamentalist vs. us” lens many use.
“Is that the same optimum global economy that’s causing tens of thousands of refugees to flood Europe and the West?”
Some people are blaming it on global warming. imo it’s difficult to reach that conclusion at this point in time – we’ll usually only know that sort of thing once we have years of data after the original event. But it matches the pattern of unrest that the IPCC anticipates as a result of climate change. In fact, it’s the #1 predicted cost of climate change.
Syria entered a drought in 2006, a worse one than they were used to occasionally getting. (2010 article about it here: http://www.irinnews.org/report/90442/syria-drought-pushing-millions-into-poverty – no mention of cause or political effect.) That led to millions of ruined farmers moving to the cities, where they continued to struggle economically. That made them much more likely to become rebellious at the slightest trigger, which came in the form of the similar (but successful) uprising in Tunisia. In Syria’s case, the government did ‘better’ and the resulting parity between opposing forces led to destruction without resolution. And ISIS. Now 15-20% of the country is fleeing into Europe and it’s fair to say that the 2006 drought played a large role in that.
It’s less certain, but arguable, that climate change played a role in the severity of that drought.
“Is that the same optimum global economy that’s causing tens of thousands of refugees to flood Europe and the West?”
Its an invasion and its all by design. Roughly 75% are reported to be males between 18 and 30.
All we need to do is print a nice big green “HYBRID – PZEV – GREENER THAN THOU” magnetic sign that you attach to your trunk lid for parking in those spots. Seems like the eco fashionistas may have inadvertently created a pretty lucrative niche market. http://WWW.EcoSmugParkingPass.Com Anyone want to fund me some start up cash?
You’re only banned from that spot if you never shift earlier than 3000 rpm, like the EPA requires for manual transmissions performing their test.
If only somebody would do a credible fuel economy comparison between current manual and automatic transmissions. How about Road & Track?
The EPA does a credible test. You can read the procedure here http://www.epa.gov/otaq/carlabel/regulations.htm#test-methods. There will be a test afterwards.
No, the EPA sets absurd shift points that only the manuals have to follow. They have cars running in third gear when they should already be in sixth.
So you all have actually read those procedures? I’m impressed with your tenacity.
So it changed in 2006, or earlier? Document 06-451 refers to document 86.128-00. Here’s the relevant excerpt:
“In the case of test vehicles equipped with manual transmissions, the transmission shall be shifted in accordance with procedures which are representative of shift patterns that may reasonably be expected to be followed by vehicles in use, in terms of such variables as vehicle speed or percent rated engine speed. At the Administrator’s discretion, a test vehicle may also be shifted according to the shift procedures recommended by the manufacturer to the ultimate purchaser, if such procedures differ from those which are reasonably expected to be followed by vehicles in use.”
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2013-title40-vol19/CFR-2013-title40-vol19-sec86-128-00
Looking at the recommended shift schedule in the owner’s manual for my Mazda3, three of the four shift points are lower than the EPA’s, and there is a cruise schedule that is at least reasonable. The 1-2 shift is actually 1 mph higher though, bringing the revs over 3000 rpm for that one. Much higher than necessary. An automatic would still choose lower shift and cruise points for every gear, as would I. I’m a gear higher than those cruise recommendations for most speeds up to 41 mph, when they finally grab fifth, and I don’t even cruise with my engine running as low as an automatic allows.
The RX-8’s recommended schedule is better yet. However, the cruise schedule for that isn’t much different than the regular shift schedule. It’s still halfway through fourth when it could be comfortably in sixth. Better than third though, where it would be under the EPA schedule.
So it appears some manufacturers are doing this to themselves. I wonder if any are still following the traditional EPA schedule, and whether the Administrator has ever denied certain manufacturer’s recommendations.
I suppose the manufacturers are to blame just as much as the EPA, unless the EPA is denying their requests for more efficient shift schedules.
The EPA test gains a lot more credibility to me with this information. But it’s still not a credible comparison of the capability of the transmissions if the drivers aren’t able to optimize the efficiency of the manual throughout the test.
“They have cars running in third gear when they should already be in sixth.”
That IS how I drive, though.
The problem is that the EPA test dictates shift points based on road speed for manual transmission vehicles. Automatics can up-shift as quickly as they want, meaning most are programmed based on the test parameters rather than how people actually drive. Manuals have to hold gears far longer than is required for the level of acceleration required by the test. Because of this, manuals do worse on the test than in real conditions and automatics do better.
In fairness, “running in third gear when they should be in sixth” is a decent description of the driving habits of most manual transmission drivers I’ve observed. I’d go so far as to say it’s the reason they drive stick.
Cue twenty people telling me about how they shift at 2,000 rpm like clockwork, okay, okay. My point is just that “the way people actually drive” isn’t what the tests are about.
Once upon a time I had a 6 speed Z28 with the execrable “skip shift” fuel saving technology, which locked out both 2nd and 3rd gear, forcing 1-4 upshifts. Rejoice, the planet is saved by keeping your car at 1200 rpms at all times.
The simplest solution was to simply floor it in 1st, around 3000 RPM or its “logic” would permit a shift into 2nd gear. 4000 RPM 1-2 upshifts resulted in badass tire chirps at the consequence of probably billions of owl deaths due to all the extra pollution. Billions? I mean trillions.
Sam,
No doubt. That doesn’t mean that the tests should artificially penalize manual transmissions or encourage automatic transmission designers to build and program to the test instead of actual efficiency.
Remember the Corvette’s skip-shift? All it does is encourage people to stay in 1st gear much longer than they should.
Or you could spend $12 for a resistor to defeat the skip shift and drive normally.
Although, to be honest, in much of my driving I was *too* gentle to trigger the skip shift when I owned a G8 GXP. In traffic I’d shift into second right off idle, before hitting the speed range where the skip shift applies.
I know what you’re saying, Sam. Most people do not get into their taller gears nearly as quickly as I like to.
One of the beauties of a manual is in how easy and enjoyably you can combine both performance and fuel economy. You can scream through a gear or two to get up to speed, and then gently skip to the tallest gear for calm, efficient cruising. Then, when you need to get going again, you’re just a quick double clutch away from whatever gear you desire. No waiting for a computer to think about things, make multiple shifts to get where it wants, or downshift at undesirable moments. Everything just happens the way you want it when you want it.
I like to drive in a spirited manner when it makes sense to do so. My engine has been over 6000 rpm many thousands of times. Yet my total combined fuel economy since I purchased the vehicle new in ’04 still just beats the EPA highway rating. The other manual I’ve owned – a ’98 Pathfinder – wasn’t even close. I beat it by 23%.
Wasn’t there a super-ultra-economy version of the Cobalt that had a little light on the dash to tell you when to shift for maximum empeegees?
I like to take 1st and 2nd gear (and 3rd if necessary) right up near red line, then shift directly into sixth at cruising speed and stay there. I get a bit over 18 mpg combined in my ’15 Mustang GT, which is not awful.
“Wasn’t there a super-ultra-economy version of the Cobalt that had a little light on the dash to tell you when to shift for maximum empeegees?”
The XFE. I wonder if the shift light was used to convince the Administrator to allow lower shift points, or if it was implemented solely for the benefit of the consumer.
It also had unusually tall gearing for a manual in a compact. Almost as tall as the automatic.
“I like to take 1st and 2nd gear (and 3rd if necessary) right up near red line, then shift directly into sixth at cruising speed and stay there.”
That is the proper way to implement “skip-shift” in a pony car!
” In fairness, “running in third gear when they should be in sixth” is a decent description of the driving habits of most manual transmission drivers I’ve observed. I’d go so far as to say it’s the reason they drive stick.”
(In my best Leonard Nimoy voice) It is logical to assume that those same drivers would also force automatic cars to hold gears longer, downshift often, etc. In effect, theyd also get significantly worse mileage in a car with an automatic.
I know Ive seen plenty of people driving like that in cars I know are automatics. Racing from one street light to the next so they can hurry up and wait, stuff like that. So, should the EPA set the Camry SE automatic shift points at 6000 rpm? Based on how a few people (who mistakenly bought the car thinking it was sporty) drive it? If its logical to assume that every manual driver beats the crap out of their car everytime they drive it because some do, then it would be just as logical to assume that people who drive sportier versions of cars with automatics would do the same.
People who buy something like Fiesta ST probably drive like that, and yes, driving like that is a good reason to have a manual. But to lump those types of drivers in with those who bought the EcoBoost 3 cyl (manual trans only) version isnt fair. They likely drive a lot more sanely since they bought a car specificly designed for good mileage.
Personally, I like manuals because you can either have fun or save fuel- often times both, depending on the car. I drive an automatic now because of physical issues, but my next vehicle (to supplement the automatic Taurus) will likely have a manual. So Ill keep the automatic around for daily driving, but have the manual vehicle for either fun (sporty car like a Prelude, etc) or work (pickup).
I recently took delivery of a Tacoma with the 2.7L four and a five-speed manual gearbox. Believe me, if you don’t run almost to redline before shifting, you will regret it. The first-to-second shift is particularly problematic. Even shifting at 5K, the engine is just below its powerband once you make upshift. That short first gear reminds me of old Beetles, which were actually pretty quick off the line until you shifted to second.
I love this truck, but it definitely needs more torque down low.
@ Drzhivago138
Lots of small cars have had an upshift indicator light with manual transmissions. My 1987 Ford Escort GT had one, so did my 87 Tempo 5-speed and many other manual economy cars Ive driven. I cant remember if my 90 Festiva had one, but Im pretty sure my 99 Saturn SL did.
I was pretty sure it was on other economy cars, but I only ever heard of it from the RCR video of the Cobalt XFE.
/watch?v=HvPuzie1GEM
I remember that on GM vehicles of the eighties too. It seems that may have been a way around the standard EPA shift schedule at the time.
“I’ve found references that at various times in the past, the EPA used:
(A) Pre-1976 … exclusive use of universal shift points for all vehicles based on speed thresholds: 1st to 2nd @ 15 mph; 2nd to 3rd @ 25 mph; 3rd to 4th at 40 mph (source)
(B) Vehicle-specific shift points as provided by the manufacturer (which, predictably, led to MPG boosting shenanigans like skip-shifting and/or lugging the engine);
(C) Vehicle-specific shift points that were based on a percentage of max engine RPM or bracketed the engine’s torque peak (maybe… that one was part of an old comparison study on the subject);
(D) Shift points based on a vehicle’s dashboard shift light/indicator;
(E) Shift points based on research of how actual drivers shifted;
(F) Some combination of the above.”
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/shift-points-epa-testing-manual-transmissions-why-beating-27416.html
Just remembered that my 96 Isuzu Hombre had an upshift indicator light as well. I wouldve just added this to my comment above, but I dont have permission to edit it lol.
Seems like my brother’s 92 Chevy 1500 5spd had one, too, but I may be mistaken about that as he got rid of it in the mid-late 90s.
Just remove any V6 badging and you’re good. The 2.4L passes.
I’d remove the V6 badging anyway if I had Jack’s car. No need to attract unneeded attention (to the small extent you would in any Accord) from the constabulary.
That’s such a quaint notion; the idea that some cop has time to target Accords that have V6s. I understand that an Accord V6 is faster than pretty much any car that was once targeted by cops for its performance, but aren’t they too busy going after people based on their demographic ability to pay fines instead?
Exactly. It must be a slow news day.
I like the idea of LEED certification for commercial and large residential buildings. All things equal, the dome home is not the most efficient home design, it’s actually the row home. There’s no getting around the fact that your HVAC costs are directly related to the interior volume and total surface area (a row home shares 1 or 2 common walls with its neighbors).
You’d think that a non-LEED high rise would be even more efficient than a row house because you have shared floors and ceilings above and below you, but my understanding is that they’re actually leaky and inefficient.
LEED is a bit of a mess because there are multiple standards, each with seemingly arbitrary things like Eco-parking spots to gain enough points for certification. But it’s what I’d look for if I were in the market for a condo.
LEED is worse than nonsense – it’s a credential racket, nothing more or less.
For interested readers – this article explains the racket for most professional oversight and credentialing in the US.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/04/the_maintenance_of_certificati.html
The last psychiatrist article is worth a read.
I’m a licensed structural engineer, and the exams I’ve had to go through felt like a fair assessment of my ability to do my job. I don’t think it’s a bad system.
With LEED, buildings get certified and design professionals get accredited. The requirements to renew your accreditation do smell of money-making, but you only need a few people on each project to have it. For the buildings, it’s a reasonable, if imperfect, way of encouraging more energy-efficient designs than usual. Better yet, some aspects of LEED are likely to make it into building codes, locking in the energy efficiency without any accreditation or licensing beyond what you need to be an architect or engineer.
I’m an SE, too! I think the rigor of the SE examination is much more appropriate for our profession than that of the PE examination, but I am critical of the additional costs to secure an SE. I think big A/E/C firms are backing the elevated SE costs to create unnecessary barriers to entry for small firms and individual practitioners. Furthermore, the biggest firms are promoting schemes to operate nationally outside of the current state-by-state licensing system to further eliminate the smaller firms.
I fully support the rigor of the SE examinations, but I think it’s unfortunate that the big firms are trying to manipulate the issues to secure their business interests under the banner of “public safety”. Then again, risk of injury due to structural failure is among the lowest risk Americans face in their daily lives…perhaps we’re beyond splitting hairs?
Glad to know there’s at least one other SE among the B&B!
EDIT: I also think the PE exam is a sorry joke.
@319583076
I’m glad you said it. I think LEED’s an out and out fraud.
You’d bee the rare case, I’ve never had a client ask if the building was LEED certified or had any other type of “green” certification. If it is a newer building they are pretty tight by modern building standards though around here most new high rise projects are because of the incentives offered by what ever jurisdiction they are in. For example I know one city in my area that has a 10% density bonus if you meet one of the their acceptable “green” standards.
“For example I know one city in my area that has a 10% density bonus if you meet one of the their acceptable “green” standards.”
LEED did its job then, by being the first ‘green’ standard to see widespread use. Its success spurred the creation of competing standards and led to a lot of local codes adopting parts of it (or them).
“EDIT: I also think the PE exam is a sorry joke.”
I didn’t think it was that bad, but here in California it’s two days with a seismic section and a surveying section. Still easy compared to the SE. But for both the PE and SE, exam fees increased by 4x a few years ago. That’s frustrating.
my guess is that the inspectors are college aged kids who will be challened enough as it is to identify manufacturer and model let alone sub-model and transmission. looks smallish, non-suv, on to the next one ….
So I’m guessing that I get TWO spaces to park my Suburban in ?
I’m guessing (based on my experience driving Suburbans) that you’re not going to wait for the answer to that question before you park :)
My van is 8′ tall since I put the lift on it. These ivory tower liberal left wing eco nazi elites have been discriminating against me since I bought it, with their “parking garages”.
What happened to the good old days when a man could pave several hundred acres of viable farm land, draw lines on it, then run a separate shuttle to pick people up, rather than making them walk for 30 or 40 more seconds. Does nobody believe in the constitution anymore?
*slow clap*
*tears of patriotism*
And it was a Canadian who wrote that!
So now on campuses not only do you have to be indoctrinated on correct speech and gender identity, but you will be required to conform to an eco world view as well? Is this some sort of safe zone in the parking garage for fragile eco minded coeds so they don’t come into proximity of the micro aggression that is the SUV? It’s getting a bit ridiculous. Can’t they just put a trigger warning on the parking garage “this parking garage may contain SUVs and other non ecologically friendly vehicles.”
Gee, I hope the university I work for doesn’t do this. Although since my office is on the edge of campus, the far-away spots are actually more convenient for me.
Hmm…..looks like my A5 with a stick would not get towed, but someone with an automatic transmission would get towed. Score for the manuals!!
This is even crazier than the “green vehicle” parking spaces you need to mark off to get your building LEED certified. At least those were meaningless and I used to subvert them by parking our green 1995 Ford Escort in one, since it was both green in color and green in conservation of resources because it was smaller and lighter than most new cars and by keeping it running I did not consume more resources and generate more pollution by making a new car.
You know I noticed an Accord Coupe in traffic yesterday, just the one right before this design with the large brake lenses. It was white, but the paint was coming off at the C-pillar by the window, on either side! So unusual, all that grey bare metal exposed.
That’s why Jack got a grey one.
Is a white Honda paint issue known in recent years? Seems like it would’ve been mentioned here or there.
That’s not a defect, it was molting. Fall is Accord mating season and their breeding plumage is grey.
“Accord mating season” takes place between late spring and early winter, after second shift at the Marysville Assembly plant, in the distant parking lot past the offices.
That, at the very least, is when and where Honda employees are of one Accord, so to speak.
+1!
Hmm. My manual ’13 Fusion makes the list, with a 45 score, even better than the automatic version at 44. Must be one of the few manual options where the mileage is better than the auto, Was, anyway; the manual was discontinued in early 2014.
“in my opinion it comes dangerously close to being a bill of attainder “?
*Words have meanings*, Baruth!
Nothing a voluntary organization does can be a Bill of Attainder, nor can an arbitrary list defining what *kinds of cars* can park where be one.
A Bill of Attainder is solely and only a law that declares someone or some group guilty of a crime and punishes them *by legislative act*, without a trial.
Saying “you can’t park your CR-V there, because we say so” is not that; it’s just a stupid policy.
They’re free to make as stupid and arbitrary a policy [LEED certification at all] as they want, sadly.
Rail against that; lobby against it; tell everyone in great detail how stupid and pointless it is!
But don’t call it close to a Bill of Attainder, because it ain’t.
I accept your chastisement — I, too, am interested in preserving the distinction between words like “good” and “awesome”.
With that said, if the state of Ohio declared it illegal to park an Accord V6 anywhere in the state of Ohio, that would likely be considered a BoA by a sane court. So if a state university closes off half of its parking to Accord V6es, that is at least on the road to such a conclusion, the fallacy of the beard notwithstanding.
The Clinton “assault weapon” ban got smacked on the hand for its bill-of-attainder provisions because it *named* particular firearms. The “point system” escaped unscathed. But if you could prove that the point system was manipulated to produce a desired result, you might get somewhere.
Maybe a taking (of the value of your now-unparkable Accord V6), but still not a bill of attainder.
A bill of attainder would be the legislature imposing a fine on you or throwing you in jail, without a judicial process, for having bought an Accord V6 in the past.
Looking at the list of cars I was surprised to see all kinds of vehicles, including numerous SUVs, categorized as “two seaters.” I know that sitting in the back of a 911 or Toyabaru will hurt most adults but they do have seats back there. In any event I guess I will still be parking my manual transmission Corvette (Green Score: 34!)far far away from any convenient spot.
The AGW greenies are getting really, really obnoxious. There’s no corner of life they won’t invade.
There are LEV-specific spots at the library closest to my house. I can never park my Golf SportWagen there, because SVT Raptors and GX 460s are usually hogging the spots.
But what you’re dealing with sounds quite silly.
LEED should have better things to do than to discriminate against manual transmissions.
Come on. You know that isn’t what it’s doing.
Not even our 4-banger non-turbo Subbie makes the cut.
I was surprised to see the V8 powered G8 break “30” in their scoring system.
Sounds like a real law breaker to me driving a manual Accord coupe. Maybe they could give you special dispensation for carring 4 extra passengers with you then you could all travel in “one Accord.”
Jesus owned a Honda Accord, but didn’t like to talk about it (John 12:49). Presumably, it was a wagon, and the disciples inherited it, because they were all in or with it at Pentecost (Acts 12:1).
All this time I thought Jesus and his disciples traveled around in an old VW Bus with Peace symbols on it. I would think if they upgraded it would be to a Honda Odyssey but then if they wanted to they could travel as one Accord.
“[…] unless I want to put a Solo cup over my center console every time […]”
Actually, you might still be towed away. All they need to do is run a numberplate or VIN to determine what flavor of offender you are.
Meh, if you have a cool gas guzzling muscle car, who wants to park it in the garage’s best spot anyway? I usually go up to the 4th or 5th floor to avoid the plebs who will just ding up the car anyway.
I’m most surprised that that movie theater is still alive. The Gateway project was always such a mess.
I take reasonable precautions with my cars, like not parking next to the hooptie ’79 Monte Carlo…but at the end of the day, they’re just cars and I’m not particularly attached to them. Parking on a higher level or further away from the door is also reasonable, but I’ll never understand the people who go to extreme measures to avoid dings and dents that are just normal parts of car ownership.
You see a ding every single time you walk up to the car. It taunts you: “Your car could look perfect. But, no, there’s this dent in it.”
For me, that happens at least a few times a week for 5-7 years (the average time I keep my cars). That’s enough to make me insane. I’ll go to considerable lengths to avoid it, although not to douchebaggish steps like taking up multiple spots or parking in no-parking zones.
My G8 had no door dings when I sold it after 6+ years of ownership. My Forester, usually driven by my wife who just parks wherever is convenient, already has four noticeable dings after 2 1/2 years.
The Mazda3 can be parked anywhere, but I park the Miata up higher. The top 2 levels are usually empty, so no need for any jerk moves like taking multiple spots. The 3 is a lost cause, but I know no one else cares about my Miata.
It’s usually the same cars every day. You can always spot the new ones though. They park on the empty levels… for the first week or two. Lately a GTI, a Golf, and a Mazda6 joined me on the upper levels, before deciding that was too far to walk.
2014 Infiniti Q50 AWD green score is 37
2012 Infiniti G37 sedan AWD green score is 37
2013 Nissan Juke AWD green score is 43
Looks like my stick shift Jetta 1.8 TSI gets a 44 score. Yay. I can park in LEFE spots. Not that I’ve ever seen one in Kansas City, but I’m sure they’re coming.