How do you feel about the EPA mpg rating change in 2008?

[Lazarus]

The actual number does not matter to me. I just use them as a reference to compare different models.

[gone-ot]

...under the "old" EPA, our '99 Malibu 3.1L V6 got 30-32 mpg on the freeway even though the EPA values were 20/29.

...her "lifetime" average (163K miles) stands at 29.2 mpg.

...the lowest we ever got was 22 mpg, which was 100% city-traffic, during the summertime, with a/c on all the time (wife driving).

[RobertSmalls]

I like the fact that the EPA appears to be using Wh/mi for electric cars, not something stupid like mi/Wh.

Gal/mi would paint the clearest picture in the minds of Americans. It spells out the fact that a few mpg in a very thirsty car is a very big deal. For example, improving from 15mpg to 17mpg saves as much gas as going from 30mpg to 34mpg, or 60 to 68mpg (though of course, 60mpg > 17mpg). Thus, even though a Silverado hybrid or an aerocap may only save a few mpg, it's a very big improvement, which would become apparent in a gal/mi scheme.

It would also allow the average person to calculate how many gallons per year he will burn based on how many gal/mi a given car requires.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

I like the fact that the EPA appears to be using Wh/mi for electric cars, not something stupid like mi/Wh.

Gal/mi would paint the clearest picture in the minds of Americans. It spells out the fact that a few mpg in a very thirsty car is a very big deal. For example, improving from 15mpg to 17mpg saves as much gas as going from 30mpg to 34mpg, or 60 to 68mpg (though of course, 60mpg > 17mpg). Thus, even though a Silverado hybrid or an aerocap may only save a few mpg, it's a very big improvement, which would become apparent in a gal/mi scheme.

It would also allow the average person to calculate how many gallons per year he will burn based on how many gal/mi a given car requires.

We can already do that...

If a car gets an average of 10 MPG, and I drive 10,000 mi/year, I will need 1,000 gallons of gas.

I'll never get all the ranting about "mi/gal sucks - gal/mi is better!!!"... makes no diff to me.

[RobertSmalls]

A person who struggles with math can't do that, unless he gets a nice round number like 10mpg.

Suppose you got 26mpg and drove 5000mi/yr. How many gallons is that? Need a calculator?

But if I told you it was .038gal/mi, and 5000 mi/yr, you no longer need a calculator. Just multiply, and anyone can see the units will be gal/yr.

It's about making the math more accessible and intuitive.

[Christ]

What's so difficult about 5,000/26 as opposed to .038*5,000?

You're doing the same math.

To simplify the math, you can change your mileage estimate to 5,200 and divide that by 26. Nobody knows for sure exactly how many miles they're going to travel per year anyway, so it's just as valid to make your mileage a multiple of your average MPG and figure it from there as it would be to attempt to figure it out any other way.

5,200/26 = 200. Man, that was hard.

You could also change your MPG figure to 25, and get the same result:

5,000/25 = 200.

.038*5,000.... umm... yep, need a calculator for that. But, for the sake of argument, we can simplify the problem to it's actual equation, then figure it from there:

.038*5,000 =
.38*500 =
3.8*50 =
38*5 =
190

The other way to solve the equation would have involved division, which many people simply cannot do in their heads.

So we were off by 10 gallons using the old way vs your way... and we were even 10 gallons high. At $4 per gallon, that's $40 for the year. Surely not insignificant, but I've always been taught to budget for more than I think I'll need anyway.

Guess you defeated your own point there, eh?

[Lazarus]

The EPA already does a annual fuel calculation for you check on the EPA values for a particular vehicle from there website.

Of course most buying a car probably don't go there.