We're definitely planning to add an option across all vehicles for selecting automatic or manual transmission. That's been on our to do list forever. So we're not going to go down the road of adding a special model for transmission differences, because a blanket auto vs. manual feature will take of that eventually.
Any system that has rules is going to have friction where those rules exist. People are going to want those rules changed no matter where we draw the line. The passion for this change is there, I see that. I know that you really want it. I'd like to be able to add for it you, but you have to see things from our perspective as well. I'm trying to find a way to change our rules so I can make this happen and I just don't see it yet.
Our current rule is: we don't add a new model distinction for a trim level without a significant difference. A significant difference might be a completely different engine. (eg. Civic vs. Civic Si. The Si has its own Wikipedia article.) We not only manage the Cruze section of the site, but every other section as well, so we need to have rules that apply across all vehicles.
The new rule I've heard proposed here is: split the trim into its own model when you have at least 6-8 mpg difference from the base model. That's a tough rule to use going forward because it's very difficult to prove that. Mileage can be all over the map based on driving style, geographic location, and a bunch of other factors. Basing a rule on mileage is going to be very difficult for us to follow.
There is no easy filter for the ECO unless you add it as a body style option.
That's true, and there simply can't be an easy filter option for every aspect of a vehicle that people want to compare. It might be nice to see how spoilers affect mileage, but we can't have a "spoiler" filter—it's too narrow of an interest. We're serving a very wide audience and we have to make decisions based on that.
If you add manual/auto transmission that covers the issue for me.
BDC, yes I am a customer. In case you hadn't noticed they are getting AD revenue. If they treat their customer the way it appears you would treat your customers they would not get much AD revenue, as their customers would leave.
I pay Google nothing, I am sure that they consider me to be a customer.
No one is paying here, but yes we do make money with ads and we do take customer service seriously. We want to work with people so they're happy using Fuelly. We know it's not possible for it to work out that way 100% of the time. It's a balancing act and we're always trying to improve.
Well, you're given an opportunity to improve here. What more proof do you need? You have the numbers recorded in your very own website.
I went through the 2011 model Cruzes since the 2012 sample size is fairly small. I calculated the average of all of the Eco models, Auto and Manual, and then calculated the average of all other models, or models that weren't specified regardless of what fuel economy they posted. Here's what I discovered:
Cruze Eco average recorded fuel economy: 37.3
Cruze non-Eco average recorded fuel economy: 28.8
I used the best of my ability to differentiate which was an Eco and which wasn't. Its typically very easy to tell apart an Eco from another model due to the unique forged aluminum wheels only available on the Eco.
The difference in average recorded fuel economy is 8.5mpg between Eco models and non-Eco models. If you took out the automatic Eco models, that Eco average would be even higher, but I digress.
How much more of a case needs to be made? 8.5mpg is no minor difference. I think its safe to assume that being able to separate the Eco from the non-Eco models, or being able to separate the automatic from the manual transmission would make the numbers your site is producing much more accurate.
8.5 MPG is a good difference. I tried to explain why we can't base a rule on mileage difference. Someone might have a Cruze 2LT. Through careful driving they also get > 8.5 MPG difference. Should that be added as its own model as well? I don't think so. We don't want to get into adding every trim level for every model. It would make the directory sprawl out of control very quickly. So while you see adding the ECO as an opportunity to improve, I see it as a step toward making things worse.
If we can come up with a solid rule that makes sense going forward and wouldn't degrade the quality of the listings we can do it. Until then I'm going to have to say no.
That "point" can go both ways, but I can guarantee you that nobody will be getting 64.4 MPG out of a non-Eco. They chose the Eco instead of a 1LT, 2LT, or LTZ with a manual (which by the way are very uncommon) if not flat out rare.
If you want help making a solid rule, you have people here willing to help. You don't seem to be asking for help though; you seem to be repeating the same thing, that you won't add this as a separate model.
I get it, I really do, which is why I changed the wording in my last post from "new model" to "separate" and "differentiate." Is there any way to allow a separation between the Cruze Eco (+8.5mpg over non-Eco average over 151 vehicles), Cruze LS (only model with a 1.8L N/A), and Cruze 1LT, 2LT, and LTZ? All technicalities aside, you stated very clearly in another thread here that this is a fuel economy site (not a cost of ownership site), so for the purposes of fuel economy tracking, there are 3 types of "Cruze" that are different from each other.
Why hasn't an option been considered for trim level as a drop-down menu? You have it for engine - which for 95% of the population is useless and confusing. Will people really know the difference between "Flex L4", "Gas L4", and "Gas?" That information isn't even in the window sticker of a new Cruze and is more difficult to obtain for you than trim levels would be.
Sure, it would be more work, but am I the first one to come here with this kind of problem, and will I be the last?
We're not going to add a trim level option. I disagree that people know their trim level better than the type of fuel their vehicle uses. Fuelly is a small operation—two guys working on it part time. We have to structure the site in a way that we can manage.
I understand why you're disappointed that Fuelly can't be everything that you can imagine it could be. There are other options out there. The EPA has a fuel-tracking site, and they use much more detailed vehicle listings. That might be a good alternative for you.