I wouldn’t trust the EPA to have any idea on how to classify car sizes. Their metric is so left-field, it might as well be applicable to tricycles built for circus animals.
Here is the EPA page with the chart as found in the “How are vehicle size classes defined?” link:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml
Here’s a link to Nissan USA’s page for the 2013 Nissan Versa:
http://www.nissanusa.com/versa-sedan/specifications/
Under “capacities”, you’ll find the Versa has an interior volume of 90.2 cubic feet, which according to the EPA would put the Versa in the Subcompact segment. With me so far?
Now lets try something that nobody would call a subcompact, a Bentley Continental GT!
Since Bentley doesn’t list the interior volume on it’s website, I’ve had to get an average from 3 different sources:
http://www.autobytel.com/bentley/continental-gt/2013/specifications/
^ they say the GT has 89.0 cubic feet.
http://www.cars.com/bentley/continental-gt/2012/specifications/
^ cars.com says 89.0 cubic feet.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/specifications/bentley_continental-gt_2013_2dr-cpe_dimensions
^ TCC says 89 cubic feet.
And guess what? The EPA says that the 6L, twin-turbo, W-12 powered, 5000lb, $190K, 616hp, 590ft-lb 2012 Bentley Continental GT is a Subcompact….just like the Nissan Versa. The EPA, as well intentioned as it is, isn’t catergotizing cars based on their fuel effieciency, the very thing that would put the Versa up the chart and the Continental further down were it would be subject to taxation.
Now you know why the EPA doesn’t have clue on how to size cars properly.
