Poll: Adopt the EPA's "New" FE Figures?
 

OK, it looks like the EPA has changed their FE estimates for many vehicles.

Thread 1

Thread 2

For me, a considerable increase in the "Percentage FE over EPA Combined" would be realized.

Before I go updating this info in the garage, should I consider this inaccurate or accept it as the new value? For consistency, what are others doing?

Cast your vote...

RH77

No, it will be to much confusion on this site. Some people will end up putting in new epa and some will end up putting old epa figures. I vote for keeping with the old figures.

What do we do when they phase out the old figures, and at what point will new cars only be tested with the new method? I don't think that a sudden shift is going to be good now or later. For now, it might be good to have two fields: one for the new and one for the old. With the new figures, a higher percentage should be required for hypermiler status.

A epa-like comparison is ok, it levels the playing field and potentially encourages everyone, but maybe the comparison should be based on that users previous performance, like bracket racing or a golf handicap, so that it accurately absorbs the effects of the particular vehicle and environment?

EPA is pretty arbitrary starting point for comparisons between different vehicle types, especially considering it is currently in flux.

I say yes as there is no way to "backwards" test the new 08 vehicles to find their equivalent EPA value. Take two identical Prius for example an 03 and an 08, should the 03 get seemly better EPA figures compared to the 08?

where do i find the new ones for my car?

Hello -

I voted no but will wait abide by the outcome. We mostly just need to agree on which way to go. Resolving this now will make things easier down the line.

I do think that repete86 is right. There is going to be alot of confusion for people arriving with new or old cars, *UNLESS* the garage entry is *very* helpful in terms of identifying the EPA figures. For old or new cars, they need to be directed to the EPA MPG "remapper" URL. At least the nice thing about that URL is that it appears to be pretty comprehensive. We may need an evergreen "What's Your EPA MPG" thread to help newbies (a pointer in the FAQ or ?????). This thread could also be usefull for outside-USA people who want to fit their non-USA cars into the EPA MPG metrics.

Matt? Skewbe? What do you think?

(Thanks for the poll RH77!)

CarloSW2

Hockey4mnhs-

Here it is :

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

Red posted it in this thread :

Comparing Old and New EPA MPG Estimates
https://www.gassavers.org/showthread.php?t=2821

CarloSW2

Yes, new values. Better comparison between old and new cars...the reason you don't see values pre-85 is because they changed the testing and the old values became invalid. People don't look at them at all anymore. Rather than let the new old values fall by the wayside in terms of utility, we should switch to the corrected old values.

I also voted yes for the new values. New cars will have a different EPA test than before and these values do reflect today's driving environments (for example: the Trans-Canada Highway's speed limit in Saskatchewan was increased from 100km/h to 110km/h a few years back, and the amount of road congestion [hours spent being delayed in traffic] is increasing).

Time to be progressive and bite the bullet that will no doubt come.

I'm just about to update to the new figures then :) And vote yes for now.

Just seen I had overestimated the old combined EPA by 3% anyway :)

Well, that puts me at #7 for above EPA :). From the previous thread on this I see that some people were using old, some new. I vote to go with the new, for the reasons above.

- If everyone uses the new figures, then no-one will be disadvantaged. Also, new cars coming in will only use the new figures anyway, so we need to allow a fair comparison.
- The new figures compare our hypermiling performance, to the current state of fuel consumption + driving habits for 'normal' drivers.

Over at cleanmpg.com they are considering the following revisions for hypermiler status:
Old New

Hypermiler 100% 125%

Expert 125% 150%

Elite 150% 175%

Problem #1, *deleted*

Problem #2, *deleted*

Problem #3, The new figures come up short for accounting for variances in local terrain, traffic, length of commute, average temperature, average local fuel quality, local atmoshpheric pressure, etc. etc.

Problem #4, EPA is a USA thing. The web is not.

Problem #5, *deleted*

Problem #6, (revised) It seems that some vehicles may never be fairly compared with others. I really think we should take the vehicle make/model out of the comparison since the epa accuracy varies greatly from vehicle to vehicle.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself, but I want to hear what other people think? Is there no value in doing a golf/bracket racing type comparison where people are given a "handicap" based on their personal performance compared to the group?

I'm back and forth on this issue. For comparison to current vehicles I think it's a good idea.

However, the "new values" are just a flat percentage below the previous ones. No new tests were run. This introduces a great amout of error into the situation.

I'm also a bit reluctant to do it if the default EPA values are not the new ones. People will definately be confused.

Perhaps I should write a small page that emulates the EPA site yet gives the new values.

My Bad, Strike points #1, #2 and #5.

Out with the old, in with the new. The new ones are supposed to be more accurate, so it only seems right we go by them. That and there is no way my stock car could have got my old highway epa, unless they were going 40 mph.

I voted no. The way the EPA conducts their tests is very flawed. they measure the amount of CO2 generated and estimate fuel consumption from there, and they do not measure the actual amount of fuel consumed. Estimated also is aerodynamic drag.

I think the tests would be more accurate if a FE number was given at various speeds and the test actually measured the amount of fuel consumed.

diamondlarry -

I do like the multiple categories, but 100%?!? :eek: !?!?! If our Hypermiler matched theirs, I would want "lower categories" to give me some goals.

There should also be a special "top ten" gold star for people that are in the top ten list. It could be in same location as the red and blue stars.

Medals and ribbons for all!!!!

CarloSW2

By your explanation, your no vote seems to have nothing to do with the question that's actually being asked. Rick is not asking if we like the EPA or not, he's asking which set of values should be used...

I've always wondered, what do the blue and red stars mean anyways?

I vote yes for the new ones. Just so everyone is on the same level.
The new estimates are more accurate for some vehicles, less so for others, but we all need to be on the same page.

skewbe -

I know, .... but see below ....

Yes, but I will repeat Matt's statement, this is "GasSavers.org". We need a way to measure savings of gallons of gas, so we need a standard. Imperfect as it is, the USA standard is the one used by the (current) majority of users on this website. Translating the EPA of non-USA countries to this standard will be one of our "interesting burdens".

I wish there was an easy way for you to take advantage of the "new EPA" input mechanism that would help user's to identify old/new EPA numbers. I want both worlds. An easy EPA extraction method for the user and not too much work for the programmers.

:confused:, I don't understand. The Make/Model out of the Garage? Can you expand this statement? The Make/Model is a starting point that gives everyone, old and new, a point of reference. I think the Make/Model is important because it helps us to know the drivetrain of each car and help each other with things we know or have learned.

I already do this. I know my Saturn tires are one size too small, so I add one MPG to my "combined EPA" in my car. This makes it harder for me to reach Hypermiler status, but it is "clean" in my mind becuase I know my odometer is reporting more miles than I am actually driving.

I think a handicap would have to be voluntary and explicit. There would have to be another entry below the "combined EPA" that is called "handicap" and explains what it is for. A new user would be told to enter "0" for now and come back later to change that is he/she wanted to.

At this point the voting implies that we are going to adopt the new EPA standard. I would like the ability to "project old school" calculations, either from extrapolation or from real user input. If only on the Garage page, this information would still be useful.

CarloSW2

Peakster -

$20 contribution get's you a Red Star, $40 or $50 gets you a blue star.

CarloSW2

Here's a thought just to be different. Since there are no 2008 models in the garage and 99.9 percent won't be 2008. Leave the old numbers and since the new value are not even tested but just a percetage of the new, just handicap 2008 that percent to match the old numbers. Then you can see if the EPA does anything offical with the old ones. That will give you some time before anything really needs to be done.

The problem is that the EPA figure is arbitrary, it gives some models an advantage on the "hypermiler" comparisons. Not every car performs best FE wise on the epa test, aerodynamics are just a guess, there's lots of issues with the epa testing.

If you want to level the playing field for something other than a raw mpg comparison, you cannot assume that the epa ratings are a level starting point.

Any handicaps should be computable based solely on the existing gaslogs.

So if gaslogs were used what would be a baseline to compare to?

Standard Measurement
 

Exactly, here's the problem:

1. We need a Universal standard of commonly accepted FE Estimates -- this comes from the EPA. Most of the general public (in the U.S.) looks to this agency for said values.
2. If you're a new member, that baseline may not have been generated, or accurate
3. 2008 Model-Year vehicles will have an advantage over previous years

Food for thought...

RH77

If the new set of measurements set to replace the old set has the same inherent flaws as the old set, and if changing the standards by which these measures are conducted will cause further confusion, why even bother to make the change?

It isn't rocket science, anyone who can comprehend how a golf handicaps works should understand the concept, only this would be a bit more dynamic. You don't get an actual "handicap" number, just a ranking of how you are doing recently (say 90 days) over how you did over, say, the last year.

newcomers are basically 1:1 until they get some history.

Folks who have been around for a year or more can do a year over year comparison as well (seperate report) to help absorb seasonal variances and not give the aussies too much of an advantage in the winter :)

The 'inherent flaw' of the old epa numbers was that it didn't accurately reflect real-world mpg. The epa made the changes to reflect real-world driving more accurately.

I'm voting yes simply because we need one standard to gage our mileage. It seems that the epa has come up with a slightly more accurate standard. Lukily we look even better with the new numbers. :)

On a side note, I'm also glad to see the epa lower the mpg rating of all vehicles. Most of the people I ask don't really know how many mpg they're getting. They just have a vague recollection of their epa rating. If only they really knew how bad their mileage was, they might do something about it.

OTOH, since small efficient vehicles take a bigger hit with the new system, new car buyers might not see the point in shoping for a car with better FE. They might think, 'is it worth it for just a few more mpg?' Maybe this is the US gov'ts way of leveling the playing field in favor of US automakers? Could this be played into a win-win situation? i.e. sell more american cars because it's not worth it to buy hybrid technology so just buy the car you want. Then simply drive it better since driving habits play a biger role in actual FE. I can see how it gives a nice ego boost to have a moderatly rated car and drive it high above it's epa rating. It's a personal accomplishment. FE could become the new eco-cool game among trendy yuppies!

:wakes from the dream: :)

IMHO, the only reason to bother at all is to make it fair when comparing to newer vehicles. a 2008 Honda Fit with a combined EPA of 31 will always score much higher than my 2007 with a combined of 35. Even though they are the same car in every way, the 2008 model will always score better in the "percentage above EPA" and hypermiler status.

For that reason alone I think it's a good idea to change to the new numbers.

I quite agree, the epa estimates are really a personal thing, if you want you can jack yours up to the old standards it's not goign to hurt anyone. Heck, you could set your combined to say 30, and try to achieve that, that way you'll have a little line showing your goal.

As far as the Top Ten list goes, I still feel we should definetly be using the new standards. It's the only way to keep everything fair and honest.

Okay...
 

So basically we need someone with authority to declare "Attention everyone: these are the EPA estimates we're going to use. It's just the way it's going to be. And if you don't like it, too bad" :p. Everyone is really all over the place right now in their EPA entries. I'm not going to cry my little eyes out if the decision is one way or another, I just want this debate done! So what's it gonna be :confused:?

I'm switching. The playing field will be a tiny bit more level (by whatever percentage they reduced the numbers). Still it is a LOOONG way from level, but the flaws in the epa calculations are many and apparently beyond comprehension, so long live the king :)

Point of the Exercise
 

That's essentially the point of the post and poll. A discussion was needed with a vote to see where people stand.

To keep the spirit of competition among members, a consistent set of values needs to be adopted. I'm not breaking any records with my 30mpg guzzlers, so it doesn't matter to me personally, but Scientifically, using the same measuring stick to compare 2 items is essential.

RH77

Let it be known...

We will be switching to the new standard, but it will not be enforced until I have programmed a viable way to select these values from the EPA database. It will probably take me an afternoon of coding to get it done. The next few days will be a sort of limbo I guess.

When the switch is official, I will be removing EVERYONE's EPA values from the garage. This is because there is no way for me to know who changed their values to the new ones. I will also send an email to everyone reminding them to enter the new EPA values.

The mushroom syndrome.
 

Matt, I believe we are getting sucked in on this one. These are not the official EPA numbers at this time. These are not the ratings shown when you go the standard EPA fuel economy site. I believe the car manufacturers have put pressure on EPA to change the older car ratings. Why else would they change them?

My thought is that when car buyers start thinking and talking of gas mileage, invariably the mention of "what happened to the Geos rated at 58 MPG, what happened to the 50+ MPG Hondas" comes up. "Why don't they have better MPG cars now instead of worse?" If the new estimates do become official ratings, people won't even be able to find the original ratings for the good mileage rated cars they thought they remembered.

Just what the car manufacturers would like, (the mushroom syndrome: They keep you in the dark and they feed you only crap).

I have not researched but comments I have read would lead me to believe that other FE sites have much reservation about this issue. I just hope that the decision to change at Gassavers will not diminish the excellent esteem that the GS site enjoys. And the members along with it.

Basis
 

I propose researching it further using the links provided. The change is based on Scientific merit due to the use of:

1. Air Conditioning
2. Higher Cruising Speeds with quicker acceleration (both 'City' and 'Highway')
3. and Cold Weather Usage

RH77

I did research the reasons EPA cited as above. What does this have to do with researching whether other FE sites are changing or not? Or whether these are truly official EPA ratings?

Did you read the rest of my reply??