Talk:Electric car EPA fuel economy

Discrepancy of MPG-e and KWh/100km

Quoted MPG-e numbers do not correspond to the kW⋅h/100 km numbers. For example, Hyundai Ioniq Electric is quoted as having 122 mpg-e and 17.5 kW⋅h/100 km on highway, while Tesla Model S AWD - 70D has 102 mpg-e (lower) but 21 kW⋅h/100 km (higher). Why? --Pgan002 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

These values are inverse...mpg is distance traveled per unit of fuel consumed while kWh/100km is fuel consumed per unit of distance traveled. The Model S uses more energy to go the same distance and goes a shorter distance on the same unit of fuel. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

kW-hrs versus kWh

The US federal standard for cars seems to be kW-hrs rather than kWh, see (miles per gallon equivalent).

Wikipedia needs to make a consistent choice which to use for vehicles; the data in this table comes from US sources, and the mpg-e is a US standard based on the US gallon (which is also different from other gallons.)

At present we seem to be going with kW-hrs, and the convert macro uses that.

If we have agreement we can change it all reasonably easily, but I'm not going to let it flip-flop in articles arbitrarily.GliderMaven (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, I couldn't care less about the template. Also, I don't think that U.S. federal standards are some kind of meaningful when it comes to the usage of SI-units on wikipedia. Just one favor: please correct the "kw-hr" in the footer of the table... it's such a travesty. -- Cheers, Rfassbind -talk 21:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not particularly happy with using federal standards either, but it was like this before I got there, and at least it's reasonably consistent. I haven't noticed any major problems yet. They claim they did studies that showed that kW-hrs were more easily understood than kWh and that this was so even though kWh appears on everyone's bills, even in America.GliderMaven (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Trimming of "old" models

GliderMaven, I think your initiative to create this template was great. I noticed that you left out several models from the early days, but today you trimmed models still on sales (like the 2016 Nissan Leaf) and most of the Tesla Model S variants, which are included in the EPA 2015 guide, which is one of the two main references for this table. As the explanation says, the intend of the table was to show all models rated by the EPA since 2010, but your editing is leaning towards models available for sale. This is why I reverse your edits, I think at least we must show the models in EPA guides from 2013 to 2015. If you disagree, I suggest we open a discussion, but since this template page has to few visitors, I suggest we open the discussion to the electric car talk, where this topic is the most relevant. In addtion, I am aware that the table is getting too long, so we can take the opportunity to discuss with other editors which would be the best criteria to keep a reasonable size for this table. Please transclude this discussion there if you want to open the discussion. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia should source all the models by all the manufacturers of electric cars, not even for the most popular models. There are flatly far too many listed models of Tesla model S in the table, and they all have similarish mpg-e. Even listing all current models is unlikely to be scalable into the future. The number of types of electric cars can only go up, and go up a lot over time. If anything the table is too big, even after the trimming I did today. I think it's a much better idea to stick to representative ranges, exemplars.GliderMaven (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Shall we take the discussion to the electric car talk to hear other opinions and alternatives about a better way to present this information (or define a criteria for inclusion, or what can be considered representative)?--Mariordo (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Table becoming too cluttered

I think we should condense the different battery options of the same models into one entry and just use the range from the most basic to the most advanced option. Right now we have 2 entries about the BMW i3, 2 about the Fiat 500e, 2 about the Nissan Leaf, 7(!) about the Tesla Model S, and 2 about the Tesla Model X.

With all the new EV models and versions being released within the next year, listing every single option for every single model will make the table become extremely cluttered.

My proposal is to condense the table like this (using the example of the BMW i3):

|- style="text-align:center;" | style="text-align:left;" |BMW i3 (60 A·h) to (94 A·h) || 2014/15/16/17 ||124 mpg-e (60A)
(27 kW·h/100 mi
16.9 kW⋅h/100 km) to 118 mpg-e (94A)
(29 kW·h/100 mi
17.7 kW⋅h/100 km) || 137 mpg-e (60A)
(25 kW·h/100 mi
15.3 kW⋅h/100 km) to 129 mpg-e (90A)
(16.2 kW⋅h/100 km) ||111 mpg-e (60A)
(30 kW·h/100 mi
18.9 kW⋅h/100 km) to 106 mpg-e (90A)
(19.8 kW⋅h/100 km) || $0.88 (60A) - $0.94 (90A) || $550 || style="text-align:left;" | (1) (3) (4) (5)

That would shrink the list from 31 to 16 entries. Over the next 1-2 years, there will be at least 30 new models released. Listing every option for every model would mean this template will grow to over 100 entries very quickly, and I find it too cluttered as it is already.

Sarrotrkux (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Excellent proposal. I support your only 2 points of data per car, mim and max.--Mariordo (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Deletion

This article is being discussed for deletion. If so, is there a good place elsewhere to park the information in this table ? TGCP (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting Userfication from an admin is the usual thing. You can also just copy the source to your sandbox or other subpage of your talk page, or create a Workpage or Draft under Talk:Electric car or someplace like that. It isn't supposed to be kept around for the sake of data storage, but if the intent is to support article creation or eventually become an article, it's fine. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant outside WP. I think the information is useful, and if not WP-material then I would like to see it preserved somewhere. I don't intend to work on it here. TGCP (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Still a shopping guide

Moving this from a template to an article doesn't address at all that this is a shopping guide and price comparison, violating WP:NOTSALES. I don't think it would survive an AfD nomination, but maybe somebody knows how to refactor it to make it encyclopedic. The telltales you can't hide, telling us this is a price comparison chart, are:

1. It's focused narrowly on cars on the market right now, or slightly earlier version of those cars. It starts in 2016! It should go back to a logical start of an era or wave in electric cars. Perhaps the early 2000s or 1990s. There needs to be a rational justification for the cutoff date. If it's an arbitrary date, it violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
2. Even without the actual dollar values of electricity and fuel costs, the data that remains, the EPA estimates, are themselves data created strictly to help car buyers shop. An list/article that excludes all other data and only gives this shopping guide data is a shopping guide. An encyclopedic list would have columns for other relevant data that shows us the progression of electric car technology and economic feasibility, such as the relative manufacturing cost per kwh or kilograms per kwh of batteries, which made them more affordable, and increased range into a usable zone
3. We know exactly why it was initially created: as a template showing prices side by side of each electric car on the market today. A fig leaf here and there doesn't erase that knowledge. So if we don't just delete it, a good faith effort to genuinely change the nature of this thing has to happen.
4. Totally US-centric

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd certainly rid it of mpg-e figures for starters. That unit might be in use in the US, but will inevitably become dated as prices of electricity and gasoline fluctuate. Daß Wölf 01:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The table includes only models sold in the U.S. rated by the EPA, and the MPG-e units does not vary with prices, it is a metric for fuel consumption developed by the EPA (official). Clearly, this table is not to be used in articles about country specific PEVs. Therefore, neither argument is valid. The whole purpose of the MPG-e is to allow an easy comparison of fuel efficiency with regular internal combustion engine vehicles. This is not a shopping list, the whole purpose of plug-ins is to have a better energy efficiency than ICEs.--Mariordo (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's not a shopping list then we need to grossly reduce the number of models listed. These should be examples not a full list of all manufacturers and models. There's about 27 listed. There probably should be nearer 7.GliderMaven (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The list is indeed comprehensive, includes all BEV models rated by the EPA, but it could be trimmed to show, let's say only BEVs still available for retail sales in the market, or by model year, such as the last three MYs. It is a matter of reaching consensus about the trimming criteria. And by the way, when operating costs were trimmed the name of the article is no longer right. There are no prices or running costs shown, only info about fuel consumption or fuel efficiency were left, therefore the title should be adjusted accordingly. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Limiting it only to "BEVs still available for retail sales in the market" is one of the reasons this violates WP:NOTSALES. The EPA doesn't waste time issuing ratings for cars you can't buy any more. They are trying to give information that consumers can use. When you use the EPA to decide what to include, you're going to end up primarily serving car shoppers. Or "the last three MYs", also a sale-driving approach, as well as being arbitrary. Why three? why not five? Arbitrary lists are against policy.

I'd expand the list to include all cars of this era. Why weren't electric cars of any significance in the 1960s or 70s or 80s? But then something changed? What changed? Battery cost? Production costs? Whatever point in history that is the beginning of the current electric car era would be a good criterion for inclusion. If the list you end up with then is too long (which I doubt), it could be split according to some other meaningful change in cars during that era, again, ignoring the needs of new car shoppers of the present. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment. I'd also like to add, regarding mpg-e, I stand corrected that it doesn't fluctuate, but that in itself brings up another problem, and that is that a casual reader (such as me) will often draw the incorrect conclusion that a 50 mpg-e car has a similar cost per mile as a 50 mpg gasoline or diesel car. (Amusingly, mpg-e is in this way a good cost estimate for some countries, including mine, but understates U.S. costs of electric vehicles by almost a half.) Daß Wölf 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Efficiency section, delete?

I'm here because of the copy-edit tag. The section was added by JeffMik1. A discussion of estimated, simplified, average efficiency seems out of place here, because the whole point of the table is to show real-world actual results. A brief statement of uncertainties or issues with comparisons (i.e. assumptions, 33.7 kWh per gallon, different vehicle capacities, maybe others) seems useful, but most of the discussion should be deleted. It looks a bit like Original Research, not summarizing sources, and the main source looks like a self-published blog too, so maybe the whole thing should just go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yae4 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Well one source has this blatantly false statement "it is a remedy worse than the disease if the country where it happens produces massively its electricity with coal (typically most US states)." and the other is in French so I can't read it. I agree that the concept of this section makes sense, but its implementation is a rather vague organization and could be removed. Reywas92^Talk 02:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Deleted. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Move page from Electric car energy efficiency to Electric car EPA fuel economy?

Moving from "Electric car energy efficiency" to "Electric car EPA fuel economy" will match what is actually shown in table column headings. Although some references use the word "efficiency" in titles, moving to new title would better match what table actually shows now. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)