Choosing EPA Ratings for Highly Modified Automobiles - Gas Savers

SVOboy · 08-13-2006, 12:04 AM

Anyway, this idea has come up before. What EPA should we compare against when we modify our cars? I'll state two situations, what I think should be done, and why, and we can have a vote with reasoned responses as to our votes, and if we can come to consensus, we'll institute a policy. Good stuff, right?

#1:

I modify my CRX DX Auto by converting to MFPI and a manual HF transmission. FE soars 11MPG to ~50MPG. Should I have really awesome X over EPA by comparing to what my car began as, have medium response as I make some hybrid DX/HF EPA rating, or get my % over (under) trashed by picking the closest set-up? I feel that I should be able to keep my original EPA ratings because I worked hard to take what I had and make something more of it, and that should be shown in some way. If I made a hybrid it would more closely resemble driving ability, and if I just picked the HF (which is what I did) it would make some sense but ultimately not work out very well in any sense. I liken my transmission swap to basjoos's aerodynamic modifications; do we force him to change his EPA because he car is fundamentally different that the CX it began life as? The answer is no, he earned that % over EPA by making his car into a caulked up, aerodynamical machine.

#2:

Jared puts a D16Z6 into his CX. Same possiblities as with my case. I forget what he chose as EPA, but what should we do with him? I say he uses the CX EPA figures, because much like people who drive their CX very hard and get lower than EPA mileage he chose to use a more powerful engine and more shortly geared tranmission in order to achieve greater acceleration. Why punish the fast driver or the driver with some aerodynamics killing body kit and not the person who thoughtfully chose to lower their FE in search for acceleration?

I assume you know how I feel about the situation. If I can work to put a new transmission in and benefit from it in terms of FE I should also benefit from it in terms of bettering what I began with, which shows as % over EPA. Just like adding an undertray or engine block heater, a transmission or engine should be no different. We do not adjust for route, temperature, or any other factors.

The main conflict I find here is the concern over people who switch cars to better FE. This is ultimately the greatest sacrafice, and should be treated so. That's why people like Dan and Compaq still post their retired cars' statistics in order to show that they are progressing, which I think is rather fair.

Please give me your thoughts.

Matt Timion · 08-13-2006, 01:09 AM

It may end up being an individual decision, but my feeling is as follows:

The car I purchased was a 1989 Civic LX. So far I have put lightweight wheels on it, a d15z1 (civic VX) engine, and a CRX HF transmission. There is no car that even closely resembles my car. The Civic VX (from which the engine and wheels came) is a hatchback and is much lighter than my car. The CRX HF (From which my transmission came) is not only lighter but much smaller than my car.

I have a four door sedan.

We are creating frankenstein vehicles. Some of us add engines, transmissions, wheels, undertrays, or even caulk. Some of us change driving habits, or even remove our seats to have a lighter weight vehicle.

In the end the best measure of our improvement is to compare against the original EPA estimates. A modification is a modification. The only way to really measure progress is to see what the starting point was, so I vote for that.

tomauto · 08-13-2006, 01:27 AM

The people who try to earn that extra mpg here should be rewarded with their improved figures. After all, some of the mods here were not easy. Even though the car has changed it should still have its factory EPA numbers.

ketel0ne · 08-13-2006, 01:44 AM

I may be missing the point, it is 3:45am here, but isn't this gassavers.org. It isn't about adding acceleration or being the fastest.

MetroMPG could decide tomorrow he wants a turbo Suzuki Swift GT engine and setup, his mpg would reflect that, and negatively, I might add.

Compaq888 · 08-13-2006, 02:25 AM

I think it should be the stock EPA numbers that the car came with.

Matt Timion · 08-13-2006, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ketel0ne

I may be missing the point, it is 3:45am here, but isn't this gassavers.org. It isn't about adding acceleration or being the fastest.

MetroMPG could decide tomorrow he wants a turbo Suzuki Swift GT engine and setup, his mpg would reflect that, and negatively, I might add.

I think you're missing the point of the question.

Let me rephrase it.

You start with a bone stock 1991 CRX DX Automatic (like SVOBoy did).

You change the transmission to a CRX HF transmission, making it a manual transmission. You also swap in a new engine, which forces you to switch to obd1 (previously you were pre-obd).

SVOBoy's question is this: When entering your EPA numbers into the garage (www.gassavers.org/garage) for your vehicle, should you use your original EPA estimates (what you started out with) or should you somehow construct a new EPA estimate derived from the cars you took the parts from.

In SVOBoy's case he started with a 1991 CRX DX Automatic. He put in a CRX HF transmission, which gave him around a 11mpg improvement. In his garage should his EPA value (city/highway/combined) be that for a CRX DX Automatic, or a CRX HF, since mechanically his vehicle now resembles a CRX HF more than a CRX DX Automatic.

Hope this makes sense, it's also late here

krousdb · 08-13-2006, 06:11 AM

What about this situation?

I started with a Del Sol DX. I modified my body style from a 2 door targa to a three door hatch which changed the Cd from 0.38 to 0.31 and reduced weight by 100 lbs. I added a rear seat. I swapped the D15B7 for a D15Z1. I swapped the DX tranny 4.06 FD to a ZX tranny, 3.25 FD. I also applied rust to my rear wheel wells along with various dents and dings but retained the original color. My Del Sol DX is now a HB VX and my cost was negative $1500. So what do I use? 34/36/38 or 48/51/55? I chose to use the EPV figures for the car that mine most closely resembles. As a result, I have increased my FE but decreased my % over from 84% to only 36%. Quite a severe penalty for seeking to improve one's FE.

I understand the arguements, and that modding your car for better FE should be rewarded. But what about those who make what Matt referred to as the ultimate sacrifice and switch cars?

Modding the vX will have much less dramatic effect than the Del Sol because the Honda engineers have already added the mods as stock features which are already reflected in the EPA numbers. For example, the VX already has the grille blocked off and already has a partial undertray and a rear diffuser. It already has a 192F thermostat and it warms up super quick so an EBH would have little effect. It came with lightweight wheels and skinny tires so what I have today will make a much smaller difference. The car has nothing left to do for weight or drag reduction except for a full bellypan and removing the drivers side mirror.

So we have quite a dilemma here..... One sticky issue being that some cars' EPA figures include very little in terms of FE mods while other cars' EPA figures include factory installed FE mods, what I have referred to as built in FE. The playing field isn't level to begin with so why should we expect to end up with something level?

Anything, I chose the worst case scenario for me which is the 48/51/55. As such, I went from #1 on %over EPA to not even in the top 10.

Whatever everyone decides is OK by me.

SVOboy · 08-13-2006, 10:06 AM

Dan, i was the one who referred to it is the ultimate sacrafice, actually. The way I think that should be adressed it by doing exactly what you have done: showing both cars in your garage and signature. This way it is obvious that you have the skills to thrash EPA and that you're willing to go above and beyond to getting better FE.

I thought about this last night as I was sleeping, and realized that I would've been so much happier just starting out with an HF and getting 10% over EPA than I am with having had to endure a ton of 3X MPG tanks.

I took what I had and improved upon it, and that doesn't show currently. Dracofelis, our newest member, PM'd me last night asking my my EPA rating was so crappy, because there's no way to tell. It would be the same situation if you weren't allowed to display your del Sol, no one would know you'd given up a pristine, low-mileage pimp wagon for a busted on VX, and you wouldn't get that credit.

Iono peoples, just think we ought to do something out of mostest fairness, but if we can't all agree then it'll just stay like it is.

MetroMPG · 08-13-2006, 10:24 AM

I don't think we'll ever get "fairness" in vehicle comparisons since the EPA numbers are not consistent between vehicles to begin with. Using EPA as the basis of any top ten list is flawed from the start.

Dan and I have already concluded (if you don't mind me speaking for you, Dan) that it's harder to beat the EPA rating in our purpose-designed "efficient" cars which have been optimized (some more than others) by the manufacturers to perform close to their maximum efficiency in the EPA test cycles, with the result that they "peak" sooner than other cars in % over EPA comparisons.

% over EPA is really fairly meaningless when the Flea achieves its EPA highway rating at 59 mph (when tested in May in its configuration at that time), yet my mom's Camry does it at 72 mph. Guess which car would make me look like a hypermiler star? I think we would somehow have to account for that kind of fundamental difference to be able to make things "fair".

--

As for vehicle mods, if you take a CX hatch and put a VX drivetrain in it, I think you should use VX figures in the gaslog. You haven't done anything the Honda engineers haven't tried already.

But if you create a combination of drivetrain/body components that simply doesn't exist, or improve the vehicle in ways that the engineers didn't originally attempt, then stick with the original EPA figs, and get points for trying harder than the manufacturer.

MetroMPG · 08-13-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krousdb

The car has nothing left to do for weight or drag reduction except for a full bellypan and removing the drivers side mirror.

Ahem.... rear wheel skirts, smooth wheel covers, tire deflectors, front wheel arch gap fillers, partial boat tail... ahem....

DracoFelis · 08-13-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I took what I had and improved upon it, and that doesn't show currently. Dracofelis, our newest member, PM'd me last night asking my EPA rating was so crappy, because there's no way to tell.

More accurately, I was curious why a 1991 CRX DX (which just so happens to be my model car as well) was being listed with the HF (a much higher EPA version of the CRX) EPA ratings. The main reason I was asking, was to make sure I was using the correct EPA ratings for my car (since the owners manual for my CRX doesn't list the EPA).

Of course, when SVOboy told me that he had moded his DX with HF parts, it made a little more sense to me. But, since he didn't start with a HF, nor did he replace all the CRX with HF parts, I still think using the HF EPA in his case is a bit of a "pessimistic" way of looking at things.

BTW: If anyone is wondering, SVOboy said to use the FE.gov site for my EPA. So FWIW this is the entry that most closely matches my car:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/7472.shtml

SVOboy · 08-13-2006, 10:40 AM

Holy crap, they actually got a picture of a crx!!! haha, it's always been the civic sedan. yeah, that's the dx though.

ketel0ne · 08-13-2006, 11:18 AM

I vote for whatever it takes for the site to include more members and promote gas savings of all kinds. If we are too focus on aeromods and mechanical transformations the average commuter who really needs to change their driving habits and buy a scangauge will be turned off.

While I am willing to try anything once on my 1996 Geo, I doubt I will make any aero mods or motor changes to my Yaris during the first 3-5 years.

So the question becomes to want the political party of gassavers.org to be a party of inclusion or a party of elitism.

Some times the vision of a goal blocks the success of a mission.

SVOboy · 08-13-2006, 11:21 AM

I have 0 idea what you're talking about. People who are just trying to improve through driving technique don't have to worry about this at all, they should be happy, we're just wanting to make a better basis for comparison, if one exists.

I like everyone on this site understands that driving modifications are greater than physical modifications, but that does not mean we cannot pursue both, I think.

ketel0ne · 08-13-2006, 11:27 AM

I think you overestimate the readers of this site.

If it affects the top ten list it affects the readers and all the people tracking. Correct?

Matt Timion · 08-13-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

As for vehicle mods, if you take a CX hatch and put a VX drivetrain in it, I think you should use VX figures in the gaslog. You haven't done anything the Honda engineers haven't tried already.

But if you create a combination of drivetrain/body components that simply doesn't exist, or improve the vehicle in ways that the engineers didn't originally attempt, then stick with the original EPA figs, and get points for trying harder than the manufacturer.

This actually makes the most sense to me. I think in the end, however, it's going to be up to the user to decide what they put as their EPA ratings. I have no desire to police the gaslogs to ensure accuracy.

The way I see it my car was never created by Honda:

four door sedan
d15z1 engine
CRX HF transmission
air conditioning
power steering
VX rims
2200lbs

There isn't a vehicle that even comes CLOSE to that. The same can be said for CRX HF that is outfitted with a Civic VX engine. It's a CRX HF with a better engine, one that had not been "invented" (or at least released to the public) yet.

Matt Timion · 08-13-2006, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ketel0ne

I vote for whatever it takes for the site to include more members and promote gas savings of all kinds. If we are too focus on aeromods and mechanical transformations the average commuter who really needs to change their driving habits and buy a scangauge will be turned off.

While I am willing to try anything once on my 1996 Geo, I doubt I will make any aero mods or motor changes to my Yaris during the first 3-5 years.

So the question becomes to want the political party of gassavers.org to be a party of inclusion or a party of elitism.

Some times the vision of a goal blocks the success of a mission.

This is why I think that it will always come down to the user. The best way to include everyone is to let them choose their own path.

krousdb · 08-13-2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Ahem.... rear wheel skirts, smooth wheel covers, tire deflectors, front wheel arch gap fillers, partial boat tail... ahem....

My average speed is 35 MPH. How much do you think that stuff would get me? Certainly not 80-100 like you.

The point of a partial boat tail is lost on me, at least on the hatchback. There is already a tail / spoiler on the back which I assume is there to promote separation of the flow.

krousdb · 08-13-2006, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Dan and I have already concluded (if you don't mind me speaking for you, Dan) that it's harder to beat the EPA rating in our purpose-designed "efficient" cars which have been optimized (some more than others) by the manufacturers to perform close to their maximum efficiency in the EPA test cycles, with the result that they "peak" sooner than other cars in % over EPA comparisons.

I don't mind at all Darin and I agree wholeheartedly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

As for vehicle mods, if you take a CX hatch and put a VX drivetrain in it, I think you should use VX figures in the gaslog. You haven't done anything the Honda engineers haven't tried already.

Agreed!

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

But if you create a combination of drivetrain/body components that simply doesn't exist, or improve the vehicle in ways that the engineers didn't originally attempt, then stick with the original EPA figs, and get points for trying harder than the manufacturer.

Agreed, as in Matt's case. But for Ben, swapping from auto to manual creates a match for an existing car, so a 5 speed CRX DX would be the closest, although the 2.95 FD gives him HF type credentials. But Ben also has MFPI and the CX IM/TB. So no reasonable match I would agree.

And more food for thought....
What happens when Ben swaps his head to B8 or the engine entirely? What does he have now? Basically he has a CX with taller gearing, lower Cd and less weight and fewer seats. What would you do in that case?

zpiloto · 08-13-2006, 01:53 PM

I think what your car started out as originally as far as EPA values go.

I think a mod is a mod. Need to leave egos at the door. Look at the pickup that been aero modified. If you have the ability, skills and money have at it. I don't have any of those but strive to get the best I can for the money I'm willing to spend. In the grand scheme of things that what matters. I think that most people that come here won't be swapping engines and transmissions to get the max EPA out of it but will be looking for ideas that can help them save a little gas.

Top ten is the best of the best and people will see what type of cars or modifications they will have to do to get there.

If the top ten is really an issue just add categories: Modified, diesel,manual, standard, hybrid, electric etc that way we could all be in the top ten

.

SVOboy · 08-13-2006, 03:29 PM

*sigh* I'm just going to leave it at the 88 hf level (not even 89-91, that's lower) just because it's the highest rated so no one is going to whine about underrating my EPA values.

As long as dan is happy.

krousdb · 08-13-2006, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVOboy

*sigh* I'm just going to leave it at the 88 hf level (not even 89-91, that's lower) just because it's the highest rated so no one is going to whine about underrating my EPA values.

I don't recall anyone whining about anything.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVOboy

As long as dan is happy.

As I said a few times before in this thread, it doesn't matter to me what we end up with. Prolly the best thing is to let each person decide individually and not make a big deal about it. Like Matt said, he doesn't want to have to police the gaslog. I don't understand why you would make a decision just to make me happy. I'm already happy seeing the improvement you have made. Do what you feel is right. I will back you up 100%.

EDIT: After seeing the poll numbers it looks like there is a clear concensus to use original EPA values. I say we just go with that.

Matt Timion · 08-13-2006, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krousdb

I'm already happy seeing the improvement you have made. Do what you feel is right. I will back you up 100%.

Agreed. This site is about helping each other obtain better fuel economy. Each person does it their own way. I personally think that SVOBoy's improvements have been amazing.

It's a real honor to be here with all of you guys.

SVOboy · 08-13-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krousdb

I don't recall anyone whining about anything.

As per this thread, I'm whining.

Quote:

As I said a few times before in this thread, it doesn't matter to me what we end up with. Prolly the best thing is to let each person decide individually and not make a big deal about it. Like Matt said, he doesn't want to have to police the gaslog. I don't understand why you would make a decision just to make me happy. I'm already happy seeing the improvement you have made. Do what you feel is right. I will back you up 100%.

EDIT: After seeing the poll numbers it looks like there is a clear concensus to use original EPA values. I say we just go with that.

I probably sounded sarcastic, but I wasn't being so. I realize that my caring at all is just vanity, I don't do these things to show off or look cool, so what does it matter what my % over EPA reflects.

krousdb · 08-13-2006, 04:10 PM

The biggest influence that none of us have control over is our daily commute. I happen to have a FE friendly commute but I didn't pick my job based on that. People who have short commutes, like you Ben, will always have a handicap when comparing yourselves to me or Basjoos. I wish I could figure out a way to level the playing field, but I can't.

I believe that it has been mentioned here before, but maybe we should add another top ten list for lowest fuel useage. That way, those that choose to walk or ride thier bike would be able to have something to show for it.

MetroMPG · 08-13-2006, 07:41 PM

I think that's a good idea, Dan. For example, I've noticed and admire Brick's deliberations on route, etc., because he seems want to do just that: burn less fuel overall.

On commutes... agreed. I have an unfair advantage there. My commute is from my bed to wherever the computer is. All my driving is "free range", and I can pick the best routes whenever I head out.

And I personally don't care what yardstick people use to measure their "% over". More important is that everyone keep their garage info up to date so we can see in detail what's been done to the car (if anything), and what type of driving techniques they use... Hey Matt - that's not in there, but might make a good category, above the car info: "Driving techniques commonly used."

SVOboy · 08-13-2006, 07:46 PM

I don't keep my garage current at all, *sigh* Before I go and when Matt gets pictures up.

MetroMPG · 08-13-2006, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krousdb

My average speed is 35 MPH. How much do you think that stuff would get me? Certainly not 80-100 like you.

True. But I just figured if you see the utility of doing a belly pan, then it just seems logical to do other aero things as well.

Quote:

The point of a partial boat tail is lost on me, at least on the hatchback. There is already a tail / spoiler on the back which I assume is there to promote separation of the flow.

The roof extension is good for getting clean separation, true. But a boat-tail would taper the car's shape even further than stock, so where it ends, the trailing wake would be that much smaller. Kamm figured: assuming laminar flow and the proper tapered shape, the optimum area at the very rear of the vehicle should be 50% of the vehicle's maximum projected area.

I'd be surprised if you didn't net at least a couple of percent FE improvement just with skirts, smooth wheel covers & carefully applied wheel/tire deflectors.

Matt Timion · 08-13-2006, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I don't keep my garage current at all, *sigh* Before I go and when Matt gets pictures up.

Did more work on it last night. Should have something basic up tomorrow.

rh77 · 08-14-2006, 11:54 PM

Late to the party as usual... OK -- simple answer from a data consistency standpoint: use the EPA figures. Time and money is spent on making these modifications to stock vehicles, and when compared to the base figure with city/highway/combined, these vehicles typically achieve Hypermiler status. It would be very cumbersome, and honestly next to impossible, to devise an equation for each mod compared with the stock vehicle or to just replace the figures with what is closest to the end-resulting car. If you get 60mpg out of the deal instead of where you started out at 35, then you've accomplished something profound. Perhaps instead we could get a baseline of economy for the vehicles before the mods and report it that way. IMHO, Hypermiling deserves some attention.