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

[landspeed]

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

[landspeed]

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.

[diamondlarry]

Originally Posted by repete86

With the new figures, a higher percentage should be required for hypermiler status.

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

Hypermiler 100% 125%

Expert 125% 150%

Elite 150% 175%

[skewbe]

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?

[Matt Timion]

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.

[skewbe]

Originally Posted by Matt Timion

...However, the "new values" are just a flat percentage below the previous ones. No new tests were run.

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

[red91sit]

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.

[The Toecutter]

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.

[cfg83]

diamondlarry -

Originally Posted by diamondlarry

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

Hypermiler 100% 125%

Expert 125% 150%

Elite 150% 175%

I do like the multiple categories, but 100%?!? !?!?! 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

[SVOboy]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

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.

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...