Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox automobile/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Fuel Economy

There seems to be no obvious reason why fuel economy is not included in the infobox. This is one of the most important data points for automobiles now, far higher than 'designer', 'layout', 'length', 'width', 'aka', and so on. The proposals I've seen for min/max mileage for city and highway make perfect sense, as well as the rating per whichever market the car is primarily targeted for. I support the addition of this item to the infobox, and also support the removal of other superfluous information. Skyemoor (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How many times must it be explained? The infobox is not the most efficient or helpful way to show fuel economy. Giving a 10 MPG range doesn't help anyone because there is no context. My suggestion of including fuel economy in a table that includes engine, transmission, power, and torque data will allow the specific ratings for each powertrain to be included. If you really thought fuel economy was that important wouldn't you want complete data? --Sable232 (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I fully support this. I know Skyemoor is a far more...active member than I, but I can speak as a reader of Wikipedia and not as primarily an editor when I say that wheelbase and dimensions are superfluous to any automobile search I make here, but I would very much like to see fuel economy ratings since it's a bit inconvenient to look it up on fueleconomy.gov, not to mention the fact that that website is only applicable to Americans. The infobox should be there to give people a brief idea of how a vehicle compares to others, and fuel economy is an important indicator. All of the proposed information is useful, but not so much as fuel usage. I suppose I'm supporting more positions than just this one, but the way I see it there ought to be as much information as possible in all articles, and the most important parts (such as model years, body styles, engine type, other names, and fuel economy, as important of a specification as engine type) should be in prominent places where somebody can get a quick idea about the subject without going in-depth. Mewsterus (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Mewsterus: I don't find wheelbase etc. to be "superfluous," as you say. In fact, if the purpose of the infobox is to compare different vehicles, well, I've used the wheelbase/length/width information extensively.
I would like to make it clear that I am not opposed to including fuel economy data in the article. I just believe that if the information is to be useful there is a better way of doing it. --Sable232 (talk) 05:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Above you had said, "Saying "The car has a 110.2-inch wheelbase, an overall length of 198.1 inches, is 70.6 inches wide and is 52.1 or 52.5 or 53 inches tall depending on model" is... less than desirable." Stating fuel economy for city, highway, with ranges for various models would equally be undesirable. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I NEVER suggested that fuel economy data be put into prose. I have said several times what I think, and I'm getting tired of the fact that nobody looks at it. Some articles have a table showing engines and transmissions with power and torque output. (Like here.) If we are going to have fuel economy in the article, adding it to a table like that makes perfect sense. Fuel economy is, in part, a function of engine and transmission design. --Sable232 (talk) 00:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because something is an important data point does not mean it belongs in the infobox. The infobox is not there to list specifications, it is there as summary or overview information. How it could be displayed is irrelevant because it doesn't belong there in the first place. See manual of style for infoboxes. The only argument I've heard for including fuel economy in the infobox so far is that it is "important", but that's only an argument to have it in the article. To say it should be in the infobox you need to give a sound argument for it being overview information. Fuel economy is a measure of performance, meaning it is about what the vehicle can do as opposed to what the vehicle is. This is similar to top speed, acceleration, braking, handling, etc. Hardly summary information. swaq 21:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The current entries for aka, production, assembly, predecessor, successor, designer, etc, don't describe what a vehicle is, so that line of reasoning is invalid within this context. In this age of $120/barrel oil, it is one of the most important data points about a vehicle, far more important especially than the items mentioned at the beginning of this post. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes they do. They give background information on what defines that car. Fuel economy is a performance metric. I don't agree that fuel economy is more important in the context of an encyclopedic entry. If this were Consumer Reports then maybe it would be more important, but we are not writing a car buying guide. swaq 20:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Background information? Not 'what a vehicle is'? All of those fields are trite, superfluous bits of information, that have little to do with what the average reader wants, and that is foreground information, with fuel economy at the top of the list. Consumer reports has nothing to do with an encyclopedia, and constant reference to it is a red herring. Skyemoor (talk) 02:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, try this:

Because one fuel economy value is misleading. And because twenty fuel economy figures don't fit.

One fuel economy figure is misleading because:

Popular models come with a wide range of petrol / diesel / hybrid / ethanol mix engines. Each has its own different fuel economy profile. And, driven now increasingly also by politics, the engine permutations continue to proliferate.
In line with our policy of continuous improvement ... manufacturers quietly add weight to cars, or change the engine tune during model lives. Lighter materials in the seats. Thinner glass. Cheaper / heavier metals / panels. More plastic in the grill.
Popular models have a range of different bodies. Each has its own weight / fuel economy.
Popular models may have manual (six speed optional) or automatic gear boxes. Different fuel economy figures.
Some drivers drive at busy times. Lots of stop:start. Lots of fuel.
Some can avoid busy times. Less stop:start. Less fuel.
Some drivers keep a sack of stones in the trunk and travel with four friends each weighing >200 lb / 90 kg (as you wish). More fuel.
Some drivers are women who sometimes weigh less. Less fuel.
Some passengers are kids: some kids weigh less than their moms.
Some live in the country. Lots of steady cruising at 55 mph in high gear. Less fuel.
Some live in Montana. Mountain driving uses much more fuel
Some live in cities . Stop start. More fuel.
Some switch off the air-conditioning. With a small engine, that saves a lot of fuel. (But you sweat more.)
Some accelerate violently - eg if the business pays your fuel bill.
Some drive gently to save fuel - eg if you pay for fuel from taxed income.
Some manufacturers' have been known to advertise fuel economy figures that drivers can't match (surely not...? - and indeed it's more of an issue, I think, with older sources on older cars)
SO there are government agency defined standardized driving sequences which attempt to get round the variables in both the US and Europe. They're different, of course. And at least in Europe you still get three different values for any permutation of body and engine specification for (1) town driving cycle, (2), rural driving cycle and (3) some sort of average figure.
Some manufacturers in US and Europe quote figures per the government agencies in their ads and are indeed, in some jurisdictions, mandated to do so. Elsewhere they don't and / or they're not.
Some motoring journalists quote official figures.
Some journalists, especially with new cars not yet homologated, quote manufacturer's values.
Some quote their own experience based on their own driving style. Of course, cars tested by motoring journalists are carefully set up by manufacturers to optimize performance. The car you buy is probably pretty well set up and regularly serviced too, of course. Or maybe not.
Despite contrary evidence, wikipedians - even English speaking ones - come from all round the world. If an Englander writes about miles per gallon, he will be thinking in terms of a gallon that is 20% larger (might be smaller - can't remember) than his gallon would be if he were living in the US. And in countries where they've given up on ANY sort of gallon, fuel economy tends to be measured in litres per 100 kilometers. Try explaining that to an American who hasn't left The Union for ten years, maybe except for a couple of brief trips to Windsor to buy medication.

So yes, fuel economy is desperately important, but unless there is also space to spell out very clearly the sources for your fuel economy information, the sort of data you'll find in wiki (unless someone is volunteering to compile a huge database from consistently based sources - in which case you'll find the governments already did it) - a few isolated values for a few permutations of engine/ body / driver / road conditions is the best you can squeeze into the info box at the top of the article. And even there you'll have trouble squeezing in enough info about your sources and their assumptions to enable any reader intelligently to apply what you are telling him.

Yes please, DO include fuel economy info in wikipedia automobile articles: it's very important. But the amount of info you can squeeze into an info box that appears on the top right corner of the page on the average user's screen simply won't cover it. And you risk misleading the more casual reader if you let him believe any information included on this basis can be taken at face value.

After all that, I'm still not sure whether or not we should want to include any fuel economy info in the info box. I think probably we should, because the info box is there to summarize key data, and fuel economy is key data. But IF we do, then I think figures provided by government agencies are the only ones that will begin to offer comparability between different models. And even there, you need to specify either in the info box or by means of a referenced foot note, the engine/body combination applied and the model year / year of the measurements. At least, that's in a perfect world. Where we don't have between us the time and application to do it on that basis, then maybe it's better not to include ANY reference to fuel economy in the info box: you can still include it in the body of the article, and there it is easier to find space to summarize the defining variables which make any values you quote more or less reliable.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel economy is not THAT key. People in the USA suddenly got all worked-up about it and thus few editors are running around in amok about it in Wikipedia. Come on, fueleconomy.gov is just one of those sites you go to for SPECIFIC data. Specialist sites deal with that kind of data much better than Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not have to contain ALL information, just what is notable and encyclopedic. It is an encyclopedia, not a baroque-style almanach of entire human knowledge.
I find all the abovementioned arguments AGAINST inclusion of fuel economy not only in the infobox, but also in the article body whenever it is not really notable, valid and standing. Of course, if we decide to use huge tables listing tech data en masse (which might or might not be a good idea, though certainly better than to stuff it in infobox), we might quote some official figures for that - after all, if we list the number of gears, cylinders, front and rear tracks, this is yet another number. PrinceGloria (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I will respond to the points above;

Popular models come with a wide range of petrol / diesel / hybrid / ethanol mix engines. Each has its own different fuel economy profile. And, driven now increasingly also by politics, the engine permutations continue to proliferate.
A range of city and highway ratings addresses this.
In line with our policy of continuous improvement ... manufacturers quietly add weight to cars, or change the engine tune during model lives. Lighter materials in the seats. Thinner glass. Cheaper / heavier metals / panels. More plastic in the grill.
A range of city and highway ratings addresses this.
Popular models have a range of different bodies. Each has its own weight / fuel economy.
A range of city and highway ratings addresses this.
Popular models may have manual (six speed optional) or automatic gear boxes. Different fuel economy figures.
A range of city and highway ratings addresses this.
Some drivers drive at busy times. Lots of stop:start. Lots of fuel.
These are estimates. Even power varies from car to car.
Some can avoid busy times. Less stop:start. Less fuel.
Again, these are estimates.
Some drivers keep a sack of stones in the trunk and travel with four friends each weighing >200 lb / 90 kg (as you wish). More fuel.
Not much of an argument
Some drivers are women who sometimes weigh less. Less fuel.
Again, these are estimates.
Some passengers are kids: some kids weigh less than their moms.
Again, these are estimates.
Some live in the country. Lots of steady cruising at 55 mph in high gear. Less fuel.
Different city and highway estimates help to differentiate different driving profiles.
Some live in Montana. Mountain driving uses much more fuel
Different city and highway estimates help to differentiate different driving profiles.
Some live in cities . Stop start. More fuel.
Different city and highway estimates help to differentiate different driving profiles.
Some switch off the air-conditioning. With a small engine, that saves a lot of fuel. (But you sweat more.)
Again, these are estimates.
Some accelerate violently - eg if the business pays your fuel bill.
Again, these are estimates.
Some drive gently to save fuel - eg if you pay for fuel from taxed income.
Again, these are estimates.
Some manufacturers' have been known to advertise fuel economy figures that drivers can't match (surely not...? - and indeed it's more of an issue, I think, with older sources on older cars)
Then the manufacturer's claim would be referenced, not a rating agency.
SO there are government agency defined standardized driving sequences which attempt to get round the variables in both the US and Europe. They're different, of course. And at least in Europe you still get three different values for any permutation of body and engine specification for (1) town driving cycle, (2), rural driving cycle and (3) some sort of average figure.
Listing the range of the reporting agency avoids this issue.
Some manufacturers in US and Europe quote figures per the government agencies in their ads and are indeed, in some jurisdictions, mandated to do so. Elsewhere they don't and / or they're not.
Some motoring journalists quote official figures.
Not an issue.
Some quote their own experience based on their own driving style. Of course, cars tested by motoring journalists are carefully set up by manufacturers to optimize performance. The car you buy is probably pretty well set up and regularly serviced too, of course. Or maybe not.
Use established ratings.
Despite contrary evidence, wikipedians - even English speaking ones - come from all round the world. If an Englander writes about miles per gallon, he will be thinking in terms of a gallon that is 20% larger (might be smaller - can't remember) than his gallon would be if he were living in the US. And in countries where they've given up on ANY sort of gallon, fuel economy tends to be measured in litres per 100 kilometers. Try explaining that to an American who hasn't left The Union for ten years, maybe except for a couple of brief trips to Windsor to buy medication.
The EPA ratings are clear on what is used. Plus, the "fuel capacity" listing already addresses this.
Fuel economy can be stated quite simply, such as for the Honda Insight: |fuel_economy_city = 45-49 mpg EPA |fuel_economy_highway = 49-61 mpg EPA

198.151.13.8 (talk) 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fuel economy is too specific. It should be included either in a table or in prose in the article, not in the infobox. See the manual of style for infoboxes. swaq 16:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Roguegeek (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Many items in the infobox can be labeled as 'too specific', so this is not an argument for or against inclusion into the infobox. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Which ones? Just because specific information is already in there doesn't mean more should be added. More likely the existing specific information should be removed per the guidelines. swaq 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
aka, production, assembly, predecessor, successor, designer, for starters. But you have yet to establish fuel economy as too specific. Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 19:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
That is information about the vehicle's name, when and where it was produced, what car came before and after it, and who designed it. Those fall more under background information than specifications. I fail to see how they are more specific than an experimentally derived number. swaq 20:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that an awful lot of really useful information (top speed, 0-60 times, horsepower) cannot be put into the infobox for the exact same reasons. Look at the fields we currently have:
  • image - Image of which model year? The hatchback or pickuptruck or the saloon? Which color?
  • name - This is a minefield for some cars. Take a look at the Opel Vectra - which is also a Calibra or a Cavalier.
  • manufacturer - Again, lots of cars have many manufacturers.
  • parent_company - What constitutes a parent company and what is merely a majority shareholder or a holding company?
  • aka - Well, yes - exactly!
  • production - Well, this at least is reasonably clear.
  • assembly - Many cars are made in many places, and those places change over the years. It takes several paragraphs of text to explain all of the places where the Mini was made!
  • predecessor, successor, related - All very tricky/subjective matters. We have a lot of edit wars over this.
  • class - Where do you begin with this one? "The BlahTruck2000GT has the best fuel economy in it's class"...yeah, right.
  • body_style - Tricky because there are multiple terms in Brit/US English that are contradictory.
  • layout - May change over model years, also a matter for some recent debate here.
  • engine - There could easily be two dozen engines used over the live of a long-lived car production run.
  • transmission - Ditto
  • designer - Do we even know in the vast majority of cases?
So we don't have very many utterly clean, clear-cut fields right now. I don't think things like top speed, 0-60 time and fuel economy are any worse than these things. But it's going to be tricky to cope with all of the varients of some kinds of car.
I disagree with the original complaint about things like "It depends on how you drive it" - there are plenty of established fuel economy standards we can quote - the US and European 'official' numbers would cover most of the bases. Everyone knows that those numbers are not absolute figures. Sure, my car said 32/35mpg city/hwy on the sticker - I know it really gets about 29/33mpg when I drive it - and I know that if I'm super-careful (and turn off the A/C), I can get more like 35/42mpg. But that doesn't make the sticker numbers useless - they still serve as a useful comparison between brands. My car claimed 32/35 and it gets 29/33 in practice - but it's still getting better economy than that car over there that claims to get 30/33 (and would certainly get less in practice). Those numbers are useful IF they are all measured in the same manner. So let's put the US standard AND the Euro standard if we can find both - if not, we go with what we've got. Yes, there are a bunch of different engine options - but we have that problem with the "engine" and "transmission" fields already.
SteveBaker (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Steve,
First off, the Vectra and Calibra were two very distinctive cars, no Vectra was ever called Calibra and vice-versa.
Now, let me answer your reservations concerning other infobox fields:
  • image - not a big fan of "compulsory" image, we can do without fit for the sake of infobox brevity
  • name - we have ways to establish which name goes "on top", this is subject to another guideline - see also "aka"
  • manufacturer - not THAT "lots", it is usually two companies, with most models having one specific manufacturer. In case some info does not pertain to all generations, it should be excluded from the main infobox, so if e.g. a car was manufactured by XX in its first generation and YY in the second, this info should go into the generational infoboxes
  • parent_company - I think we've had some good definition, not sure if it got officially recorded (as usual with this WikiProject...). Personally, I am not a huge fan of that field, we can do without it.
  • aka - just a useful field to list other names, really don't see what's your problem€
  • production - This is actually tricky, but let's not go into that now.
  • assembly - Not fan of this field, esp. in general infoboxes, I am OK with doing away with it.
  • predecessor, successor, related - we've had good rules here, as usual not sure if recorded, just live in group memory of WikiProject members (i.e. - we need to go over it again and record). For most cases, predecessor and successor are clear. I am not totally against doing away with those, though.
  • class - Was among the ones who preferred doing away with this field, f
  • body_style - Which terms are contradictory? We use American English terminology for American cars, and British English for UK/European-market cars. Á discretion for other cars, though general WP rule says we should follow whichever branch of English the article (or majority thereof) is written in.
  • layout - In case they change, specific info goes into generational infoboxes, field remains empty in general infobox (see e.g. recent Buick Park Avenue edits)
  • engine - Those go into specific generational infoboxes
  • transmission - Well, ditto
  • designer - If we don't know, we leave empty. IMHO, we could do w/o this field.
Actually, I don't see this whole thing as relevant - let us discuss the merits of each field on their own, of course, but just because you can say something against this or that doesn't nullify the reasons we don't want to add fuel economy as a field. PrinceGloria (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
This is entirely relevant. If you can't defend what's in the inbox now, how can you refuse what many editors are stating is a field that is more important than most that are there now? A simple range of fuel economy in the target region (US =EPA, etc) for city and highway is short and simple, conveys valuable information to the reader, and is simple to implement. I can't see one valid reason not to move forward with this. Skyemoor (talk) 02:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
So many things to respond to...anyway, I posted once way back there somewhere, and really all that I want is for fuel economy to be somewhere in every article. I'm not opposed to other performance stats, and just because I don't find them as important doesn't mean they aren't. I read the thing about a table of various specs, and I kind of like that idea, since it accounts for the various permutations of car design which produce enormous amounts of data that has to fit together somehow. I honestly don't care how we mention fuel economy, just that it gets in somewhere. If we put it in the infobox, here's my solution, in example form:
Average fuel economy: 30mpg (7L/100km) (?)
The (?) would link to a Wikipedia page which describes the various things which can affect fuel economy and describes which models in a line of cars are likely to experience more or less gas usage, such as wagons getting less and coupes getting more, and the effects of driving in the city or countryside, in plains or mountains, and driving styles. It's just a way that we could do it. I really don't care how it gets done, so long as it happens at all. Mewsterus (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with this proposal, and would simply it further by showing only the range of fuel economy ratings for city/highway that have been certified for the vehicle (i.e., EPA, etc). Skyemoor (talk) 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Vote on Fuel Economy in the Infobox

Okay. Let's bring this discussion back to the item that started it all. Fuel economy. Since Americans are losing their minds because of the recent oil prices all they think about is fuel economy, and that's all that's important.

The discussion here is about fuel economy data being placed in the infobox. All other infobox fields are irrelevant to this discussion.

Adding fuel economy to the infobox:

Support
  1. Support. My digression into discussion of the other fields in the template was merely to point out that hardly any of the existing fields have a simple, clear-cut answer. This new field would be no different. There will DEFINITELY be problems with obtaining the information for some cars - for others there may need to be generational infoboxes to cover the whole range of cars and engines. But the point is that we shouldn't refuse to collect this data just because we can't do it easily for all models of all cars...that's true of nearly every field in the infobox. What I insist on is that if we do this, we define a couple of standards organizations and stick with them for all vehicle. Quoting the US EPA city/highway numbers and whatever the European equivalent is should suffice. This also allows us to provide both miles-per-US-gallon and liters-per-100km numbers for Europe. Sure, there is a range of numbers and EPA estimates are estimates - but so long as we are utterly consistent about where we get the data from - the numbers will allow our readers to compare one car to another. If car A has better EPA numbers than car B - then even though you won't actually achieve the EPA figure in practice, you can be pretty much assured that your driving patterns for car A will produce better MPG than those same driving patterns driven in car B. We should link the numbers to some kind of caveat that explains why you probably won't get the exact numbers listed. I would support adding top speed and power-to-weight ratios and/or 0-60mph or 0-100kph numbers. SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I think that top speed is really only important on the Autobahn. In New York City and in Los Angeles top speed is normally traffic impeded to about 15 mph, and over 100 mph you have to keep one eye on the rear view mirror and the other on your radar detector. Most cars today are capable of going 15 mph, or 100 mph, for that matter. But please, take my word for it, don't try it out to find out, unless you are on a race course with proper support. 199.125.109.83 (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Top speed isn't literally important - but it matters to some car enthusiasts as a matter of bragging rights - and there is some truth to the statement that it tells you something about performance at lower speeds. My car will do 140mph. My wife's car will do about 105mph. At 90mph, both are operating well under their top speed - however, my wife's car is close to redline and her engine won't last long if she pushes it like that on a 300 mile Texas-style afternoon road trip. My car is barely cruising at 90mph. It is not our decision to supress information because we do not personally find it interesting. There is absolutely no doubt that some people DO find it interesting - so we can justify putting it there for that reason alone. SteveBaker (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Fuel economy is one of the most important attributes of a vehicle and for that reason alone deserves a spot in the infobox. For example, the Honda Insight would have the following fuel economy listing; |fuel_economy_city = 45-49 mpg EPA |fuel_economy_highway = 49-61 mpg EPA 198.151.13.8 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. weak support. At first I was all for this because these days that's one of the most important details a person will want to know about a car these days, but then I realized that each car can have a wide range of fuel economies (across years and variations). If there's a way to give a range cleanly I'm for this, but I'm afraid it might be problematic. NJGW (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support. Agree that fuel economy is one of the most important attributes of an automobile, and that fuel economy ranges can be represented simply and accurately. Skyemoor (talk) 03:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support. When you sell a new car in the U.S. you have to put a large sticker in the side window showing the fuel economy in huge numbers. It must be important. What is really important is the ball park. Is it 12 or is it 50 for example. Above 60 is not very important. You get the same benefit by making a car go from 60 to 120 mpg that you do by making one go from 15 to 17 mpg. So I wouldn't worry about the finer points of fuel economy. 199.125.109.83 (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. I was asked if I was for a fuel economy box... The answer is yes. Scryer_360 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Oppose. As I have said before, but I'll reiterate: Boiling it down to a range of 10 or more MPG would make the figures meaningless and without context. They would not be of much use. Since fuel economy is, in part, a function of engine and transmission design, it makes far more sense to include that in a table with engine, tranmission, power, and torque data. --Sable232 (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment So long at the numbers come from a consistent set of sources (eg the EPA figures in the US) then even though the numbers are approximate for your particular driving style, etc - they are valid for COMPARISON between cars tested under the same set of conditions. The EPA says my car gets 33 (city) to 42 (highway) - the EPA says my wifes' car gets 19 (city) to 26 (highway). Neither set of numbers are what we ACTUALLY get - but it's safe to say that if I want to know which car to take on a long road trip then the EPA numbers are a valid guide. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Too complicated value, old cars (standards ?), european vs american cars too much different and this field would come too long for infobox with all those mpg us,mpg imp and L/100 km conversions --— Typ932T | C  04:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment It's only complex if we choose to make it so. We can put EPA figures in US gallons and whatever Euro standard in L/100km. That's fine because those are the units each standards body uses. We could even have a pop-open box with all of the conversions inside. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Per the reasons stated in the above discussion. I do not oppose quoting fuel economy figures with other stats in appropriate tables. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Per infobox guidelines. Doesn't provide a basic understanding of a car, just a specification. swaq 14:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment That's not "Per MOS" - the infobox guideline doesn't say anything of the sort! Niether the word "basic" or "understanding" appears anywhere in that document! What it actually says is "they are designed to present summary information about an article's subject, such that similar subjects have a uniform look and in a common format". There are three tests for what fields are valid:
    1. Is the field of value? - the number of 'support' responses above says that a significant percentage of people who care about cars would say yes.
    2. Will the field be relevant to many of the articles that will use the infobox? - yes. All cars have a 'miles-per-gallon' number - except perhaps electric cars and other more esoteric vehicles.
    3. How likely is the field to be empty? - again, almost never. This is a number that's easily obtained and sourced from the EPA and other web sites.
    So - please don't appeal to the MOS - it's not supporting an 'oppose' vote! SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Per all the discussion that's already took place on this issue. Roguegeek (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. As has been stated, too complicated and I personally feel that it's not pertinent enough to be included in the infobox.--Flash176 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Cars may have so many engine options that this field would extend the infobox' size even more than needed. If this piece of information should be included in an article, that should be placed in a separate table, not in the infobox.--NaBUru38 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment As I explained before in the debate on the Automobile project page - if "too many options" were grounds for excluding entries then nearly every entry in the present infobox would have to be excluded. So either we slim the infobox down to virtual emptyness - or we accept that in some cases the information will have to be included in generational infoboxes whilst in others it can be up-front where it properly belongs. SteveBaker (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Neutral

Fuel economy rating

Combined fuel economy mileage rating
Rating mpg L/(100 km)
A+ >120 <2
A 61 - 120 2 - 3.7
B 41 - 60 3.8 - 5.7
C 21 - 40 5.8 - 11.2
D 16 - 20 11.3 - 14.D
E 13 - 15 14.8 - 18
F 10 - 12 18.1 - 23.5
F- <10 >23.5

199.125.109.83 (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That would violate NPOV so badly it's almost obscene... --Sable232 (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention original research... swaq 14:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey I have no idea how it would be implemented. I'm just saying that it makes a lot more sense to assign ranges and just indicate what range of fuel mileage a car gets. It's not original research because it is simply a way to display the data. It would be a lot less messy to just put a single letter in the infobox instead of the actual mileage, plus it makes it easier to compare vehicles by just looking to see what range of mileage they get. And if you think that giving someone an A for getting good mileage is NPOV, you really need to get a life. 199.125.109.49 (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the insult, asshole!
Arbitrarily saying something "fails" or "gets an A for good mileage" is pushing a point of view. Apparently, you consider above 40 MPG to be good. I consider above 20 MPG to be "good." I know people who consider anything above 15 exceptional.
The fact that you suggest reducing it to a "grade" makes me think the only reason you want it included at all is to show what cars get "bad" mileage and what cars get "good" mileage. That won't fly. --Sable232 (talk) 03:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
There isn't enough room in the infobox to include both mpg and L/100km, and the range is more important than the value, so by grouping the ranges you simplify the presentation. Mileage isn't even that important to many people, recently I think it was rated 27th most important feature in an automobile, in the United States, but of course that was before gas prices went up again. I noticed that VW is coming out with a 235 mpg car in two years and Aptera a 300 mpg 3 wheel "car" next year, so for some I guess nothing less than 200 mpg is "good" mileage. However, if your favorite car is the AC Cobra, 3 mpg is "good mileage". I think Jay Leno has a car that gets less than that. He jokes that he has to shut it off when he fills it because it uses gas idling faster than what the pump delivers and the tank would never fill up. Probably not true, but it makes a good joke. The point is not to make one range good or bad, just define a range and use a letter instead of a number. You are completely misinterpreting an F as failing. There are no failing grades, just grades that are higher and lower, and only for the purpose of rating mileage. 199.125.109.51 (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
There isn't enough room in the infobox to include both mpg and L/100km. Don't necessarily need both, use the rating for the region that the vehicle is targeted to. If a vehicle is rated in both rating systems, then use both rating systems, there is enough room (look at the infoboxes that show multiple engines, transmissions, etc).
the range is more important than the value By whose opinion? How many people set out to see how far they can drive, versus the number of people who are attempting to pay for their commutes?
recently I think it was rated 27th most important feature in an automobile, in the United States, but of course that was before gas prices went up again Then your (missing) reference carries no weight.
If there were a standard scale to be used, then it could be used here. I don't know of any other than the actual mileage ratings. Skyemoor (talk) 02:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There isn't enough room in the infobox to include both mpg and L/100km. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. We can have pop-open boxes, we can link to sub-pages and length isn't actually a restriction (although it WOULD be nice to keep it within reason). I think there is plenty of room for two more lines of small-font text - one for the EPA mpg number and another for the Euro L/100km number. Many other fields have the same problem and we don't exclude them.
the range is more important than the value Rarely. Most people care more about the cost of motoring than the number of times they have to stop and fill up.
recently I think it was rated 27th most important feature in an automobile, in the United States, but of course that was before gas prices went up again Do this for me: Go to a new car lot. Look at the window on the side of the car - there is a big sticker there. What is the largest font size used for? It's the EPA MPG numbers. They are in letters at least an inch high. Things like the price, the horsepower and all of the other stuff is in a regular 10 point font. They wouldn't do that if it were the 27th most important thing. Also, many of the things that are of higher importance are things we don't even mention - the color, the 'look' of the thing, the prestige value of owning one, the resale value. Of the things we COULD put into the infobox, I bet fuel economy is one of the top three. Certainly MPG is more important than: Assembly plant, Wheelbase Curb weight and Designer. I can't imagine ANYONE caring about those things - yet all of them are in the infobox.
SteveBaker (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Empassioned plea for reason and logic. I don't think the people who oppose the MPG box are thinking rationally.

Look in the template now and you'll see "Curb weight". Now, argue for me why "Curb weight" can be justified and "Miles per gallon (EPA)" and "L/100km (Euro)" cannot?

The preceeding oppose arguments have spoken about:

  • Complexity - well, to specify the curb weight for a dozen different engine sizes and a half dozen model years in both pounds and kilos is PRECISELY as difficult as doing the same thing for MPG.
  • Space - there are plenty of other fields that are vastly less important than MPG. Let's find one that's less important and rip that out to make room. Actually - almost any of the other fields is less important. Let's dump length, width and height along with curb weight and 'assembly' - toss out 'wheelbase'. OK now we have plenty of space for even the most complicated MPG field...I don't think anyone can successfully argue that any of those fields is more important, easier to define or whatever.
  • Relevance - be honest, who EVER said Curb weight was more important than MPG? Ever...anyone? Maybe for a formula I racecar...but not for anything that we use this template for.
  • Sourceability - we can get MPG numbers right off the web for any car made since the EPA started collecting data in 1970. We have a solid reference for each and every car since then. For Curb weight we have...what? Some manufacturers show it in their spec sheets - but others don't. It's gonna be tough.
  • Precision - sure, we don't know the exact MPG of any given car with a particular driver, we only know it for a very particular set of conditions - the EPA (or other) test regimen. But we don't know the weight of any particular car either - it depends how much junk you have in the back - how much the driver and passengers weigh - how much gas is in the tank - whether you bought the 65lb sunroof option or not. We only know the weight according to the formal definition "Curb weight" - which has no relevance whatever to daily driving - but is a somewhat useful way to compare one car to another.

So if you decide the MPG is not warranted under those grounds then you must SURELY agree that 'Curb weight' has to go under those exact same grounds. Now, trust me, I can argue similarly strongly for almost every other field that we have right now. You cannot consistently argue that MPG is not appropriate without stripping the infobox down to about two fields: Photo and Manufacturer...and even the latter is a bit complex for some cars. SteveBaker (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, none of other fields are as important as fuel economy. I mean, Designer, who are we kidding here?? 198.151.13.8 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
As said before the mpg value is too complicated too many standards = hard to compare , too many conversions (too long field)
us mpg, imp mpg and L/100 km, how about old cars there is no standards how are those measured, so finally the mpg field would be :::real mess...Its easier to write in main article. And in USA the petrol is so cheap I cant understand how it is so important there....  :) Here it was today 1,55e/L not funny really --— Typ932T | C  20:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_automobile/Archive_3&oldid=1141950751"