Comparing Old and New EPA MPG Estimates
 

Anyone checked their new "performance"?

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp

Mine has changed from 16/19/17 to 14/17/15 :eek:

29/34/31 to 25/31/27!

Damn automatics!

Wow, the new ones are pretty much exactly what my car gets for the 89, the 86 is still a bit higher (even though they are the exact same car, engine, etc..)

24 highway, 16 city. I'm going to go change my garage entry to match. These numbers are a bit more realistic.

Werd, 18/25/21 to 16/19/23!

Wow! 46mpg combined to 40mpg! Does this mean that every vehicle on this site will become easier to hypermile?

Why did they change anyways?

Amerikan'ts aren't the brightest creatures and don't understand why they aren't getting the old EPA ratings using remote startups, racing to every light, and averaging 75mph on the freeway. When not stuck in bumper to bumper traffic of course... :rolleyes:

Pretty much, the new test covers faster accelerations, AC usage and colder temperatures.

The new EPA is alot closer to reality with the Wrangler

20 \ 28 \ 23 to 17 /26 /20
Makes me feel pretty good about the mpg I am getting.

man that site is throwing null pointer exceptions at me left and right!! what is their deal!! anyway, i floor my car around ALL the time and my car has only gotten worse than 32mpg twice, which is what my motors new highway epa is...
old . . . . . . . . new
29/31/35 . . . 25/28/32

anyway, does this mean that all those american car commercials where the companies brag about getting better than 30mpg are gone?

Just updated the EPA ratings of the 3 vehicles I have in the Garage. All the members on this site should do the same so we are all on a level playing field.

Wow, the Honda Insight's EPA crashed from 61/70/65 to 49/61/53.

Shhhh, don't tell GM :D

These aren't actual results from the new tests. They're just calculated from the old test values, downgraded equally for all cars: https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculator.html

good job on doing your homework hahahah i cant believe it!! honda ftw!!!!

True, but I doubt that they are going to retest every old model, some which may not be in production anymore, to get new results. New models like your Fit would probably get new results

Mine went from 27/38/31 to 23/34/27. That puts me at 84% above EPA.:cool:

I wonder how long before the NRCan estimates are revisited. Generally, they matched the EPA pretty closely (Suzukiclones notwithstanding).

If they don't it's going to confuse a lot of people (beyond the US/Imperial gallons confusion that already exists).

Mine went down and makes me feel better about my mileage, I could never get 34. New 29/31/35, old 34/36/39
the old test was aweful, no ac in test not over 55mph, flat land and grandmother acceleration, in ideal weather conditions. It was a jip.

Mine went down a lot in both my cars. Now look at how much above EPA rating i am lol.

I don't like it for my own selfish reasons. We won't try as hard to achieve the stellar mileage we're getting. The oldtimers will, but I'm talking about the newbies who will be bitten with the GasSavers bug this summer when gas skyrockets to $3 a gallon.

Now of course I really like it because it makes me look like I drive my cars with ease since I am now consistantly getting over EPA ratings.

As far as people being able to consistanly get OVER EPA ratings while they drive their cars fast. It's a safe bet your car has plenty of miles on it and it is well broken in, it is looser, just not as tight as it was when it was new. I had an emergency at work this morning, had to drive my 45 miles quick and in many areas I broke 100mph. According to my SGII I closed out the day with 36.4MPG over 90 miles, the car has 74k on it - it's loose. One other reason I really do like a used car. I don't see it as someone elses problem - they just broke it in for me. :thumbup:

Oh, and the Insight took a HUGE hit! (49/53/61) I too have NEVER gotten that low of mileage - I take that back. Once when the wife made me mad on a vacation trip and I drove VERY fast over a large distance. Closed out with about 1mpg under EPA combined rating.

I regularly get better mileage than the old ratings on my 93 Swift. Old was 39/43 and new is 33/39. I average 40/48.

There is no speed limit over 55 mph within 100 miles of where I live.

Q

diamondlarry-

Wooo Hooo!!!! I have the same drivetrain so I just jumped to 41%.

On my old SC2 and this SW2, before I joined GasSavers, I got a consistent 30+ combined MPG, so I was already 13% over EPA :) .

Many thanks to all the leadfoots out there for making us look good ;) !!!!!!!

CarloSW2

The hybrid modifier is larger. The 05 Prius dropped ~13% too.

The new numbers were very close to what I saw without trying. If they are more accurate then it is reasonable to make an adjustment. Any arguments regarding how much gas is currently being wasted just got a boost.

I agree. Kinda of take the driver out of the equation.:(

Next time you're driving and the car behind flashes his light come around hard and slams on the brakes at the next light just think to yourself. Hey he's what the epa estimates are based on now.:confused:

My percentage above EPA just rose dramatically.

22/24/28 to 19/22/26

Mine car went from

31/34/39 to 26/30/35

Does this mean I should change the EPA of my car in the garage?

kickflipjr -

I think this will become a new debate.

Here is what I want from Matt (I know, all gimme gimme gimme) :

In the Garage, there should be a new checkbox that says "New EPA MPG Figures". If the user checks this box, then the user is inputing new EPA values. Otherwise, the assumption by Matt is that the input is old EPA values.

Now, here is the hard part for Matt. Based on the user input, Matt needs to extrapolate the MPG of the *other* EPA value. Why? Because the argument could be made that older cars should have their EPA figures based on how the cars were originally tested because the original EPA figure is based on a *real* test, not a "rigorous guess".

This would create a two-tier Hypermiler display that could look like the following :

EXAMPLE BASED ON OLD EPA FIGURES
https://home.earthlink.net/~cfg83/gas...rmiler_old.jpg

EXAMPLE BASED ON NEW EPA FIGURES
https://home.earthlink.net/~cfg83/gas...rmiler_new.jpg

Both would be displayed in the garage, and the user could decide which one to display.

This is just a suggestion, mind you, :) .

CarloSW2

"I thought that, driven carefully yet not doing any extreme hypermiling, the estimates were darn near exactly what could be obtained in the real world."

I agree. For the first few years I owned this car my driving habits were normal. I didn't try to save gas, I just drove any way I felt like driving. I would typically get about 24mpg that way, which is exactly the same as the old EPA combined est.

OTOH I like how much farther above EPA estimates I am now. I gained 15 percentage points overnight! :)

So.......... what are we going to do? go with the new figures?

should we vote on this?
 

Maybe we need to have a vote on changing or not changing to the new EPA figures? :confused: I am not sure how I feel about this.

In light of the following from cleanmpg.com, I may change my numbers back to the old numbers.

Here is the reply:

EPA ratings aren't supposed to be a goal for drivers, they were supposed to be an estimate for what the average driver would get so that they could effectively cross-compare cars before buying them.

I truly doubt that the average driver was 'ashamed' of not hitting the EPA numbers before. Most people were either mad at the EPA or the automaker for putting out 'inaccurate' numbers, which is why they were changed.

Yes, there will be much fewer cars above 30mpg now, but that has hit all automakers equally. Of course, 30mpg wasn't much of a hurdle anymore. With the new ratings, 30mpg will become a solid bragging point.

As for old vs new ratings - I vote for using the new ratings. Yes, the numbers at www.fueleconomy.gov for the older models are estimates, but they are what is officially published as the numbers to use when comparing older cars to 2008 models. Since we will soon have people joining here with 2008 models that ONLY have numbers published under the new system, we should put everything on a level playing field.

The good:
Auto makers will have to make more fuel efficient cars to meet CAFE.

The bad:
It will be easier for drivers to meet epa. So drivers might have worse driving habit (I doubt this will have any effect. People will continue to drive stupid like they did before).

CAFE tests vehicles seperately from EPA testing, EPA estimate will not affect CAFE.

Hello -

I vote for both, as stated previously. I think this is actually a reasonable request of the Garage. The "CAFE EPA MPG" landscape is changing, so the GasSavers Garage should adapt.

It's more work for Matt, but I think it is also a good value-add.

Should someone start a EPA vote thread?

CarloSW2

see thats what i was thinking about. if everything takes a 13-15% hit then the american trucks only lose 1mpg and they dont care. the cars that are actually worth something like the insight and the prius and anything that was/is over 50mpg, they take the big hit and they suddenly become not that big of a deal this closes the integer mpg gap between cars by 13-15%... making american cars not look as bad compared to the high mpg cars which are coming down 10mpg.

The estimates will eventually need to change just to be fair. As it stands right now, you can buy hypermiling status just by buying a new car.

However, I'm not changing mine until instructed otherwise -- either the instructions in the garage or the EPA's website will need to change. Right now, the instructions still tell you to get your EPA estimates from the old database, https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm.

The new EPA mpg calculation is very accurate - at least for the two 92 VX's I have owned over the past 15 years. I have monitored the mpg of my current VX over the past year. My overall average for 350 gallons of petrol has been 43.5. The highways I drive require me to drive at least 70 mph in the far right lane (you would need to be loony to drive any slower in Michigan, Indiana or Illinois on the interstates) My 48 mpg highway (200 miles or more in a single trip) is within 1 mpg of the new estimates. Both my VX's have had air conditioning and I use it whenever the black/gray interior of my VX gets too warm. And my mpg suffers just like everyone else when the temperature drops below 10?F. I would love to consistently achieve 50 MPG but it is not practical since I can't drive any slower - full size pickups seem to want to drive right over me even at 70 mph - in the slow lane! - and I refuse to sweat profusely just for a few more mpg. Plug in hybrids seem to me the next big leap for mpg. I will be an old man by the time used P.I.H 's are priced below today's equivalent of $5000. I will have to suffer with the 43.5 mpg grand average for now.

Almost. Nice try, diamondlarry.

Actually, if you compare American cars to other cars of similar size/weight you will see that they are not as bad as often thought, even a bit ahead in some instances, both before and after the adjustment. (Take a look at the Chevy Malibu vs Toyota Camry for instance)

The truth is that most people didn't get the rated mileage in the Insight, Prius, etc because most people don't drive the way the EPA test was run. Yes, it narrows the integer gap, but the percentage gap should still be similar (and after all, % is what really matters). All this will do is get rid of the unrealistic expectations and put more pressure on the automakers to go back and get the models back to the mpg's where they used to be rated.

What about putting in boxes for both old and new mileage figures and have the site calculate percentages based on both?