^^^^ I don’t think your wrong. I’m sure you could find the spec truck.
Side note- are these #s hand calculations, truck calculations or both- very close to each other?
Well I searched online for about 30 minutes trying (in vain) to find an article(s) that described how the EPA and/or manufacturers tested various trim levels. They don't, as far as I can tell,
All I can find is that the EPA spot checks/tests the claimed mpg's from 10-15% of new vehicles annually. This is in an effort to "keep the manufacturers honest". If you dig enough you'll find where periodically the EPA tests force car makers to re-label their Mulroney stickers with corrected values. (
https://www.epa.gov/recalls/fuel-economy-label-updates)
Begin article quote:
Can engineers "game" the system? You bet: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084565_gaming-the-epa-gas-mileage-tests-how-it-really-works
"...But do manufacturers really game the test cycles?
An interesting thought piece on Road & Track by ubiquitous writer Steve Abrams touches on the topic.
The 4-page article notes the increased level of electronic vehicle-control systems that sit between the driver and the car. They interpret driver requests for power, braking, or cornering--and decide which vehicle systems to activate, and to what degree, to fulfill the driver's requests safely.
It ties those systems together with future possibilities for autonomous driving by cars, and the challenges for engineers of designing cars that actually attain their EPA ratings.
Because the more sophisticated those electronic control systems become, the more opportunities there are for engineers to map some of their parameters directly against the known, standardized EPA tests.
End quote
Of the several "relabeled" values, most were off (too high, duhh) by 1-2 mpg in either city, highway, combined or any combination of the three. The hybrids were the worst, with some being off as much as 27%. The EPA's test was revised in 2008 to try and be more realistic yet it is still not real-world. Here's an opinion article quote:
https://www.wired.com/2016/07/epa-testing-brokenheres-fix/
Begin quote:
“
Since CAFE testing is done using the two-cycle system, it's likely automakers are prioritizing technologies that do well in those conditions, without considering how they do in the real world,” says John German, a researcher with the International Council on Clean Transportation and one of the people who exposed the Volkswagen diesel scandal.
In other words, today’s CAFE testing regimen encourages automakers to build cars that would be great for a world that’s flat like Kansas, temperate like San Diego, and slow-moving like the Shire. A world that doesn’t exist."
End quote
If you were to try and find out how the EPA and makers test, they use a "road load determination" for each type of vehicle and then plug that into their computers and their dyno's. Real world driving/testing is not done due to "too many variables". See:
https://iaspub.epa.gov/otaqpub/display_file.jsp?docid=34102&flag=1
Engineering types will want to read this article:
http://www.thecartech.com/subjects/auto_eng/Road_loads.htm
So, while I can't find how the different trim levels were tested, or even if they were (
there's no way my loaded CC 4x4 Ltd would get the same mpg as a QC 4x2 Tradesman...), maybe someone else can...
So the main point is, no one should accept that the Mulroney mpg sticker is all that accurate if you have anything other than a basic (car) truck. I cannot compalin that my truck doesn't get the same mileage as the one 500# lighter, and I certainly don't drive indoors on a dyno.
What % of variation is "acceptable"? That's for anyone to guess. I've never attained the sticker mileage on my last 4 vehicles. I've only been "off" by at most 20%, and usually am within 2-3 mpg city and 1-2 mpg highway (highway if I'm on flat roads going 70, not 80+).