Thanks for the link. Mine seems to have changed from 32/36/33 to 27/33/29.

Of course, I was usually blowing way past the older EPA specs, and the newer ones are even lower. Even in the worst of this winter, I think I only had one tankful that was as bad as 29, and most of my winter tanks have been at least the mid-30's (with some winter tanks in the low 40's). And in the warmer weather I should do even better, as I was fairly consistently getting mid to high 40's last summer...

I screwed up when I changed my numbers back. :oops: They are fixed now. CO ZX2 is back on top where he belongs.

I think that the new EPA ratings should be the standard. If not, every new car that's being bought with only the new ratings available will have falsely inflated percentages over EPA. It might be a good idea to raise the percentage needed to achieve hypermiler status now.

I agree. It's probably the easiest to just make 30%+ above EPA the new hypermiler percentage.

I say raise it to 1/3 and stick with the new figures. It probably makes even more sense to figure out the site average over epa and set hypermiler status to make it so that only a certain percentage of members are hypermilers at any given time...

I don't think we should change our EPA numbers until the EPA lists this new values on their main page.

As it is now, you can't find the new values unless you know what you're looking for.

ETA: I do like the idea of changing it to 30% over combined for hypermiler status.

Until the EPA makes the new numbers the official numbers, it is going to be too confusing to change them in the garage.

Now, if the EPA never plans on changing them, I may have to write a converter to automatically convert the values to a modern day equivilant. This is also doable, but I want to try to keep the garage as simplistic as possible (code wise). Adding a bunch of random conditions is just going to confuse me when I go to make new changes in the future.

that works. :)

to go back to the mainstream of the thread: i have a lot of beef with 'calculated averages'. they cannot be accurate, especially when all they do is multiply by some percentage. if they are to stretch the acceleration from the cruising strains on the engine there will be large variations between cars.

in my car alone: if i were to put a modest turbo on my car with a good tune my highway mpg would go up and my city driving would go waaay down. now if you were to compare the 2 cars with the new and old epa estimates and only ran the tests for one while basing the 'calculation' for the other off the only car with the fresh test then it WILL be inaccurate.

all cars have different fuel economy ranges across different driving conditions and generic calculations are crap.

the fact that i have NEVER gotten lower than 30mpg vouches for this. and ben can vouche for the fact that i use a heavy throttle everywhere.

Folks, there sure is a lot of focus on the mpg rating for a given vehicle, any thoughts on OTHER ways to quantify the saved gas? i.e. a number of passengers multiplier? Or a way to quantify efforts to reduce the amount of unnecessary driving that someone does?

Is the point to save gas? or just to get a car to get good mpg regardless of how much extra driving is wasted at that mpg rating?

Amen:)

if you ride your bike/walk to work you should get to add that distance to your distance number.