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:

__________________
Dave W.
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=207

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.

__________________
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=2874

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" . 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 ?

__________________

http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=192 http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=281
Miles Per $ Calculator
All My Previous Vehicles
Current Temperature in Canada (& NW USA too)

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

__________________
Standard Disclaimer

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

__________________
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=7

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.

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.

__________________
CO ZX2

garage/view/239

100+MPG Fill

Coasting Info

Front Fender Skirts

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

__________________
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=7

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??

__________________
CO ZX2

garage/view/239

100+MPG Fill

Coasting Info

Front Fender Skirts

Matt -

Thanks for programming this. I think this is the best way to get us all on the same page.

CarloSW2

__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=160http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=315
What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp

Matt, your life would be made easier if you add a manual/auto transmission indicator to the garage entries..

__________________
Standard Disclaimer

that's been discussed and will be implimented as soon as I have time away from the job that pays me.

I read your full post, but from my dealings with other FE sites, I'm not concerned with how they're handling the situation; I'm more concerned how GasSavers plans to handle it with its current setup.

Also, I'm not sure which sites you have referenced in this discussion, nor how they have planned to deal with the changes. There are concerns presented throughout this thread that need to be managed from this site's perspective.

I see GasSavers as a leader and not a follower, when compared to other "FE Sites". Granted we should learn of others mistakes and/or from our History, but I haven't been convinced of either in this discussion.

Please enlighten.

RH77

__________________
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=7

I do plan on displaying a disclaimer with every EPA rating explaining why GasSavers uses the new standard. WIth any luck this will eliminate the confusion a little.

Hitler and Napoleon also thought they were leaders. Recently Sirius Radio thought they were being leaders when they hired Howard Stern. Now they are all down the tube. So are Sirius stockholders.

EPA. Like it or not for many years EPA has been the accepted universal standard for MPG ratings and the comparison for measurement of improvement. There is no viable replacement for EPA ratings. GS is about to change to comparisons that are NOT official EPA ratings at this time and may never be so. I am not very sure how onlookers will view this. It may be damaging to our credibility. I hope not, but hope never got me much gas mileage.

__________________
CO ZX2

garage/view/239

100+MPG Fill

Coasting Info

Front Fender Skirts

CO ZX2, I do think you have some excellent points.

I do wish, however, that you could have addressed them without the hostility and excessive sarcasm. It really makes having a constructive discussion difficult.

I may figure out a way to include both EPA figures.

*sigh* fellas, please, this is about what shows up on a report after the raw mpg top 10 report and what shows up on the in-house signature if you choose to use it, got nothing to do with hitler, or much else for that matter!

since hitler has been mentioned I am invoking godwins law and declaring this thread officially terminated

__________________
Standard Disclaimer

Godwins Law: OK -- now this is funny.

Now down to business, as I provoked this response.

Serious Response to CO ZX2:

Martin Luther King, Jr., FDR, and John F. Kennedy were also leaders -- good ones. Open-minded ones. There's no need to compare controversial Historical figures when it comes to the point at hand -- whom frankly could be taken very offensively. This poll was started to get some educated opinions on the subject. So far, in this Democratic society, the people have spoken and have agreed with the new figures. So has Matt -- another great leader. I merely asked for some specifics regarding your post(s) and the topic has been blown way out of proportion. I'm sorry you feel this way.

-Rick (RH77)

__________________
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=7

don't forget this one, which I find appropriate for this thread:

How to win any argument on the internet

OkeeeDokee...

__________________
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one. - Albert Einstein

So in my case how should I proceed? I've swapped the drivetrain from one car into another. I pulled the diesel engine out of a VW and installed it in place of a gasoline engine in a VW. Should I use the EPA (either the old or the '08 modified) numbers from the gasoline car or from the engine donor diesel? I'm presently using the (pre-'08) EPA gasoline numbers for the vehicle as it was built by the factory.
When do modifications to one vehicle make it, for all intents and purposes, another vehicle?

As far as the pre or post '08 numbers go: I'd think that using the EPA number valid at the time of manufacture could be the value entered by a member. That number could then be used to "convert" to an 08 equivalent using a fixed factor. If an '07 "loses" 15% compared to the same, but '08 model, then the factor would be a loss of 15%. A 2000 with an EPA combined of 36 mpg would be entered by the member as 36 mpg, but the value used for comparison would be 30.6 mpg or 15% less.
Yeah, that means a software rewrite to fudge all 2007 and older by 15% but leaving everything after that model year un-fudged. I don't envy you the task.

We decided a while back to stick with the car you bought it as/it was built as. If you go through the trouble to do a tranny swap or such to get better mileage, that should be noted.

Lug_Nut -

What SVOboy said. Now on to muddier waters.

If I were you I would have wanted to choose the EPA numbers that match the new drivetrain, because in my mind, the drivetrain is the dominant factor. However, those numbers may not be available in cases where the new drivetrain doesn't have an EPA equivalent. In that case, I would have done exactly what you have done, i.e. use what is available.

The key is that you have *documented* the origin of your EPA figures and what you have done to the car. Fine by me.

I think that over time there are going to be some cars that are "far out there" in terms of what the EPA can support. What will DaX do about his Honda Beat, and what will ToeCutter do when his electric is finished?

In terms of programming, Matt is already going to issue a "Reset" for all our EPA numbers. I don't have a problem with this, especially if the new EPA mechanism is able to "pull" the numbers from the website. In it's present form it is actually more error prone than what I *think* Matt is proposing.

Imagine if we were an even bigger website of say 10,000 or more members. Now that would be a mess!!!!!

CarloSW2

__________________
Old School SW2 EPA ... New School Civic EPA :
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=160http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=315
What's your EPA MPG? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/calculatorSelectYear.jsp

I was hoping you would do something like that.

I just changed my figures (you can see it in my signature).

__________________
2008 EPA adjusted:
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=249
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=414
Distance traveled by bicycle in 2007= 1,830ish miles
Average commute speed=25mph (yes, that's in a car)

This sounds like a plan, lets get started.

__________________
B W

http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=292
http://www.gassavers.org/gaslog/sig.php?id=302