prr, Inc. • August 28, 2006

US Environmental Protection Agency

Fuel Economy Focus Groups

Phase 2 Findings 
US Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Focus Groups

Phase 2 Findings 

Contents

Introduction & Purpose........................................................... 1 

Focus Group Methodology .................................................... 3 

Findings.................................................................................. 5

Appendices ...........................................................................13

A: Participant Profiles 

B: Sample Moderator Guide

C: Label Element Rating Form

D: Label Element Preferences Results
US Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 

Introduction & Purpose

Since the 1970s, epa has provided city and highway mpg estimates for 

all new vehicles, which have provided consumers with a shopping tool 

to help compare the fuel economy of different vehicles. 

epa recently proposed changes to the methods it requires for determining the fuel economy estimates. For the first time, the epa fuel 

economy estimates will reflect vehicle-specific data from tests designed 

to replicate real-world conditions that can significantly affect fuel 

economy: high speed/rapid acceleration driving, use of air conditioning, cold temperature operation, road grade, wind, tire pressure, load, 

and the effects of different fuel properties. The fuel economy for each 

vehicle model would continue to be presented to consumers as city and 

highway mpg estimates. These new fuel economy estimates would be 

lower for most vehicles.

epa has also proposed revising the format and text of the fuel economy 

window sticker that appears on new automobiles. This is being done to 

more clearly convey the fuel economy information to consumers.

To validate the design and content of the revisions, epa’s Office 

of Transportation and Air Quality (otaq) is conducting research on 

automobile buyer response to these labels. 

 In 2005, prior to epa’s proposed changes to the fuel economy estimates, prr conducted the first phase of focus group research to gather 

qualitative information that would assist epa in enhancing the current 

fuel economy label. The key objectives of that research included: 

Determine the level of public awareness and knowledge of the 

fuel economy label, including knowledge and credibility of epa

and doe.

Determine consumer reaction to the current label/information, 

including comprehension of specific label elements.

Identify any elements that are difficult to read or understand.

Determine consumer reaction to proposed label/information 

concepts, including comprehension of the elements.

ü

ü

ü

ü
US Environmental Protection Agency

Background

In 2006, the second phase of this research was conducted by prr in 

order to further test and refine proposed changes to the fuel economy label, 

based on public comments received during the epa rulemaking process. 

The key objectives of this second phase of focus groups included: 

Briefly revisit the level of public awareness, knowledge, 

perception and use of the current fuel economy label.

Determine consumer reaction to proposed label designs 

and label element options, including comprehension of the 

elements.

ü

ü
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 

Focus Group Methodology

A series of ten focus groups were conducted (in late June and early July) 

to understand motor vehicle buyer’s response to the current and newly 

proposed fuel economy labels. Focus groups are a preferred methodology to uncover authentic core values and beliefs. They can provide 

access to the underlying reasoning behind people’s thoughts, feelings, 

and behaviors. It is important to caution that focus groups are limited 

in their ability to extrapolate findings to larger populations (such as 

what can be done with random sample surveys). 

In order to ensure an appropriate mix of participants, and account 

for possible regional differences, two groups were conducted in each 

of five areas representing different population densities and geographic 

regions of the country. These five areas included:

Seattle, Washington 

Detroit, Michigan

Kansas City, Missouri

Baltimore, Maryland

Atlanta, Georgia 

Each group lasted an hour and forty-five minutes and had a maximum of eight participants (see Appendix A for a profile of participants). 

Moderator guides (see Appendix B for a sample guide) were used to 

structure the discussions. The dynamic nature of the focus group process 

leads to the same topic areas being covered across all groups, albeit in 

similar but not identical ways. Comments from all groups were captured 

through the use of both audio and video recordings. Each group also 

had observers from behind one-way mirrors. 

Participants were screened for the following qualifications:

Person had not participated in a focus group during the last six 

months.

No one in their household worked in the motor vehicle sales 

field or manufacturing business.

Person had purchased a new vehicle in the last three years or 

had been shopping for one in the past year.

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü
 US Environmental Protection Agency

The groups were comprised of a mix of males and females from 

various ages and education levels. Finally, the groups had a mix of 

types of new vehicles they had recently purchased or were interested in 

purchasing (SUV’s, compacts, sedans, etc.), including hybrids.
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 

Findings

The city vs. highway distinction is 

remembered above all.

Nearly all participants remembered a fuel economy label being on the 

last new vehicle they purchased. Without showing them the label, most 

of the respondents specifically remembered a city vs. highway distinction in how the average mileage for the vehicle was displayed. Other 

information that participants thought they remembered included:

Annual fuel cost

General fuel economy information

Size of gas tank [which is not on the label]

Picture of a gas pump

Features of the car (engine size, options, etc.)

Type of fuel

Review of Current Fuel Economy Label

There were many consistencies between the 2005 and 2006 rounds of 

focus groups, in terms of reaction to the current fuel economy label. 

Details of the 2005 group findings are contained in a separate report, 

posted in the epa Docket for the proposed fuel economy labeling regulation (ref. epa Docket epa-hq-oar-2005-0169). 

Participants in all focus groups agreed that improvements could 

be made to the existing label and most agreed on many of the specific 

revisions offered for discussion. The following section details some of 

the specific items that participants felt needed to be changed or updated 

on the current fuel economy label. 

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

Results from the focus 

groups in all five cities were 

fairly consistent. Therefore, 

findings are presented in 

regard to all cities, unless 

otherwise indicated.
US Environmental Protection Agency

City vs. highway mileage distinctions are clear and useful 

guidelines.

Overall, participants in all the groups agreed that the city vs. highway 

distinction on the current label is very useful information. Many of 

the participants realized that these estimates were not perfect, in that 

they may never achieve the actual mileage stated on the label. They 

understood the best use of these mileage estimates was as a guide for 

comparison purposes when shopping for a new vehicle. 

Participants also understood that the mileage numbers were not 

perfect because there is no way to create mileage numbers that are 

“real” across all situations. How someone drives, the age of the vehicle, 

regional traffic conditions and use of air conditioning, all affect the miles 

per gallon of the vehicle. Even though most participants understood that 

the mileage numbers were estimates, and not ‘perfect,’ many expressed 

interest in how the numbers were generated. 

Annual Fuel Cost information has no meaning.

Consistent across all the focus groups, participants indicated that the 

‘estimated annual fuel cost’ information on the current label is meaningless to them. They indicated this information was useless to them 

because they had no idea what the current annual fuel number was 

based on how the cost estimate was calculated. The number does not 

provide participants a ‘true’ indication of how much fuel the vehicle 

will cost them annually. 

“Actual mileage will vary with...” statement is important, 

but seems like a confusing disclaimer.

This statement seems to be clarifying the meaning behind the numbers, 

and reiterating that the estimates are ‘averages’ and subject to varying 

driving conditions. However, many of the participants agreed that the 

statement on the label failed to make this clarification. In fact, many 

participants admitted they had never read or paid attention to this 

statement before. When forced to read it for the discussion, many felt 

the way the statement is written makes them suspicious of where the 

numbers come from, and exactly how they were generated. 

Though almost all participants track their mileage from time-totime, they didn’t really seem to be concerned about how their mileage 

compared to the mileage estimates on the current label. As previously 

mentioned most of them seem to recognize that the current estimates 

are just that; estimates. Few expected that they might actually get the 

estimated mileage, and that was okay.
Fig. 2: Baseline version, landscape

Fig. 1: Baseline version, portrait

Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 

Mixed reaction about the ‘for comparison shopping’ 

statement.

Clarification was almost always needed when discussing the ‘for comparison shopping’ statement that is on the current label. Many participants expressed confusion, and admitted they did not understand what 

the statement was explaining. Once the statement was explained, some 

participants felt the information was necessary and important for comparison shopping purposes, others felt it was still confusing. Exactly how 

they could use this information to compare cars was unclear, because 

the definition of the classification system was unknown. For example, 

there was no definition of what a “compact” car is. 

It was not clear where the information came from.

Even though the existing label indicates both the epa and doe and each 

participant had a copy of the label in their hands, they were unclear 

what organization(s) were responsible for the label. Many assumed it 

was the manufacturer. Many, but not all, participants knew what epa

and doe stood for.

Proposed Fuel Designs and Elements

Preference for portrait layout vs. landscape not strongly held.

An enlarged baseline version of the proposed new label was shown to 

participants in both a portrait and landscape configuration (the order 

of presentation was randomized across groups). The purpose of this 

exercise was to get a quick, top-of-mind reaction to the two layouts.

The majority in most groups (except the final group in Atlanta) 

preferred the portrait version (Fig. 1) because it allowed one to read 

all of the label information from top to bottom, making it easier to 

process the information. However, later in the groups, 

when asked how they would feel about the landscape 

version (Fig. 2), if the portrait version was not possible, 

the vast majority had no concerns. Therefore, it is clear 

that although the portrait version was preferred, the 

strength of this preference was not especially strong. 

During the sixth of the ten focus groups, one of the 

participants recommended a new version of the landscape 

layout (Fig. 3). It is basically a version that maintains 

the placement of label elements similar to the old label, 

but with updated versions of those elements. When 

asked what the other members of this group thought 
Fig. 4: Modified baseline version

Fig. 3: Updated baseline version

US Environmental Protection Agency

of such a label design there seemed to be high interest. 

Consequently, this new label design was tested at the 

very end of each of the groups in Baltimore and Atlanta. 

Results of this testing indicated a slight preference of 

this layout because:

It is most similar to the current label, and

it places all of the cost information inside the fuel 

pump.

New label is preferred over old.

When shown the proposed new label (in landscape format) and asked to comment on what they thought of it, 

most mentioned that their concerns with the old label 

had been addressed. These comments focused on:

The improved annual fuel cost information that 

now indicated both the assumed miles per year 

and cost per gallon for fuel

The comparative fuel economy graphic was seen 

as a big improvement over the text version of that 

information on the old label.

The updated look of the fuel pump

The availability of the fuel economy website

However, some participants also pointed out one concern with the 

revised label design. The new label has text carried over from a white 

background to a gray background (in the fuel pump area), which they 

found difficult to read. In response to this concern, a modified version of 

the label that addressed this issue was developed (fig. 4) and was tested 

in the last four focus groups (Baltimore and Atlanta). The results of this 

testing indicated there were mixed results with some people preferring 

this new layout because it was easier to read, but others did not like it 

because the “fuel pump was outrageously large.” 

epa is clear sponsor.

When further probed on who is the sponsor of the fuel economy label, 

most participants knew that it was the epa. Surprisingly, many did not 

notice the very large text at the top of the label that clearly states “epa

Fuel Economy Estimates”. Rather, they seemed to pay more attention to 

the much smaller “transition” information at the top of the fuel pump that 

states “These estimates reflect new epa methods beginning with 2008.” 

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 

When asked what the logos at the bottom of the label referred to, 

it was clear that most had not paid much attention to them. However, 

when brought to their attention, they stated that the labels lent an 

“official look” to the label. The size of the logos may be problematic 

since when shown to participants in the actual size in which they would 

appear, most found them very difficult to read. 

More elements of new label likely to be used.

Although participants made it clear that even with the new label they 

would focus most of their attention on the city and highway mpg estimates, with the new label they would be more likely (compared to 

the old label) to use other information on the label. In particular, they 

would be likely to use the comparative fuel economy graphic. They also 

would be more likely to use the estimated fuel cost information and 

many reported they would use the www.fueleconomy.gov website as a 

tool in their vehicle shopping.

Specific Label Element Preferences

Participants were provided a label elements rating sheet (See Appendix 

C.) and then shown a variety of options for specific elements of the proposed new label. All of the element options appeared clearly on the rating 

sheet and were also shown on enlarged copies of the landscape version 

of the proposed new label. Participants were instructed to individually 

choose their preferred option for each of five specific elements and to 

also briefly explain the reasoning behind their preferences. As each of five 

label elements were tested, the results were tallied. (See Appendix D for 

tally.) This was followed by a discussion of participants’ choices. Below 

we discuss the results of each of the label elements that were tested.

Fuel cost information

Participants were presented with two options for the fuel cost information. Overall, Option 1 was slightly preferred (53%) over Option 

2 (48%). In general, those who preferred Option 1 liked the simplicity 

of the information stating that it 

gave them all they needed to 

know. They also stated that Option 2 was less useful for them 

since they knew that they did not 

drive exclusively in either city or 

highway conditions. However, 

Option 1 is “simpler, 

most people drive both 

city and highway” 

— detroit

Option 2 is better because “I 

can select the number that best 

matches my driving profile.”

— seattle
Option 2 is best “because 

it clarifies that 10–63 is all 

vehicles and it shows how 

your class of vehicle ranks 

compared to all other vehicles.”

— baltimore

Option 1 is best because 

“I only need the fuel 

economy information in 

the class of vehicle I am 

looking to purchase.”

— atlanta

10 US Environmental Protection Agency

those who preferred Option 2 did so precisely because they were more 

likely to drive almost exclusively in either city or highway conditions. 

Some who preferred Option 2 also mentioned that they were the type 

of person who likes as much detail before making a vehicle choice and 

that the additional detail in Option 2 met this need.

Comparable fuel economy graphics

Participants were presented with three options, and the results were 

somewhat more definitive compared to the fuel cost options discussed 

above.

Option 3 was clearly the least preferred, with only 4 percent preferring it. The major problem with Option 3 was that it was not clear to 

most participants what the range of 10 to 63 referred to. 

Option 2 was preferred by 44% of all participants. (In Seattle, 81% 

preferred this option). The major benefit of this option was seen as 

allowing customers to see how their vehicle choices compared to all 

vehicles, as well as in their class of vehicle. It was mentioned by many 

that such information might hopefully influence people to reconsider 

vehicle classes with higher fuel economy.

Option 1 was the slight majority choice with 52% of all participants 

preferring this option (especially in Baltimore and Kansas City). Several 

participants mentioned that they preferred this option over Option 2

because they already knew what class of vehicle they would be shopping 

for and the additional information in Option 2 might make them feel 

guilty about their choice. Some also mentioned that they preferred the 

simplicity of Option 1. It told them everything they needed to know.

Disclaimer Text

Here too, participants were presented with three options. Initial preferences prior to the group discussion resulted in an almost even split 

across all three options: Option 1 (33%), Option 2 (32%) and Option 

3 (35%).
Option 1 is best because it 

is “less wordy, to the point.”

— detroit

Option 2 is best because 

it “gives drivers specific 

tips on how to drive for 

more fuel efficiency.”

 — seattle

Option 3 is best because 

“with gas so high you want 

to know every option 

besides the obvious.” 

“This gives you more info 

and at the same time allows 

you to get even more doing 

your own research.”

 — seattle

Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 11

Many participants spontaneously referred to the disclaimer 

information as obvious, particularly 

those who earlier had mentioned 

reasons why gas mileage can vary. 

Some assumed that it needed to 

be there for legal reasons. Others however, indicated that not everyone 

knows why fuel economy may vary and how it can be improved. 

More specifically, those who preferred Option 1 focused on the 

simplicity of the message, whereas those who preferred Option 2 liked 

the additional information providing specific tips on how to increase 

fuel economy. And those who preferred Option 3 mentioned both its 

simplicity and the fact that it directed people to where they could learn 

more about how to improve fuel economy. These participants also 

mentioned that listing some but not all of the ways to improve fuel 

economy (as in Option 2) was counter-productive. 

Very importantly, in literally every group (except one group in Kansas 

City), participants spontaneously suggested a combination of options 1

and 3 (or in a few cases, a combination of options 2 and 3). 

Options 1 & 3 Combined

Your actual mileage will vary

depending on how you drive and 

maintain your vehicle and other factors. 

For tips on improving your fuel 

economy see www.fueleconomy.gov

Their thinking was that this combination provided the clear message 

that mileage may vary, and directed people to where they could learn 

more about improving fuel economy. When participants in all groups were 

asked to rethink their preferences for the disclaimer language with this 

fourth option included, a large number shifted to this fourth option.

Transition Text

When asked what their reaction was to the transition text that appears at 

the top of the fuel pump, most reactions were accepting of the text. The 

real issue here was to determine if such text was really necessary and if 

so, for how long should the transition text remain on the label. Many 

initially thought the transition text was unnecessary. Those who did not 

favor including the text at all indicated they felt that it is assumed the 

best methods at the time are being used and that saying these are new 
“I like this, but I would 

add on the page where the 

website is referenced that the 

information about the new 

methods can be found there.”

— Atlanta

12 US Environmental Protection Agency

is redundant to this assumption. However, after the group discussion, 

many saw the importance of it, but also wanted to know exactly what 

the “new epa methods” are. However, most thought the inclusion of the 

www.fueleconomy.gov website was sufficient to allow those who want 

to know more about the “new methods” find that information.

There was less consensus on how long the transition text should remain 

on the label. Some thought one year was sufficient, while others thought it 

should remain in use until the next time the methods are changed. Others 

suggested that the length of time the information should remain on the 

label should somehow be tied to the average length of time between vehicle purchases. This would allow those who purchase vehicles, say, three 

years from now, to know that the methods of estimating fuel economy had 

changed since their last vehicle purchase. This reasoning was even more 

evident when participants were told that the new methods would result 

in an approximate 15 percent decrease in estimated fuel economy.

Environmental Statement

The environmental statement was clearly the most polarizing of all the 

issues connected with the new label. Strong feelings were expressed on 

both sides of the issue, with some believing that such a statement was long 

overdue and necessary to encourage people to purchase more fuel efficient 

vehicles. Others felt that the statement was unnecessary since everyone 

already knows this. So obvious was this to some participants that they 

referred to it as “duh!” information. Others, particularly in the case of the 

Detroit groups, thought the statement should not be on the label since it 

would hurt the American auto industry by encouraging people to buy more 

fuel efficient foreign models. Others felt that this was consistent with the 

mission of epa and what they should be expected to say in their role.

A consistent and unprompted comparison made by many of the groups 

was to the Surgeon General’s statement on tobacco products. Here, too, 

they felt it is something that everyone knows, but is important to state 

since it expresses a concern among most of the population.

“Makes it seem like the 

auto industry is thinking 

about the environment 

and our problems.”

— seattle

“Not needed. Anyone concerned with fuel economy 

realizes all of this.” 

— kansas city

“Could make people 

look at cars by foreign 

auto makers. So [our] 

economy might suffer.” 

— detroit

“Comparable to the 

warning label on cigarettes. 

Reminds U.S. buyers of 

our ‘addiction’ to oil.”

— detroit
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 13

Appendices

A: Participant Profiles 

B: Sample Moderator Guide

C: Label Element Rating Form

D: Label Element Preferences Results
14 US Environmental Protection Agency
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 15

Appendix A

Participant Profiles 

Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid 

Interest

Atlanta, GA — 6:00 p.m.

M 28 Graduate degree SUV No

M 59 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

M 27 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

F 44 Graduate degree SUV No

F 53 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

F 49 Graduate degree Passenger car No

M 49 Graduate degree Passenger car No

F 36 Graduate degree SUV No

Atlanta, GA — 8:00 p.m.

F 42 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

F 45 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station wagon or minivan No

F 31 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

M 62 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

F 57 Graduate degree Passenger car No

F 32 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

M 26 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

Baltimore, MD — 6:00 p.m.

F 20-34 Graduate degree SUV No

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No
16 US Environmental Protection Agency

Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid 

Interest

M 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

M 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station wagon No

F 20-34 Graduate degree Minivan No

F 65+ High school grad Passenger car No

Baltimore, MD — 8:00 p.m.

M 20-34 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV Yes

M 50-64 Graduate degree Passenger car No

F 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

M 65+ Some college or 

undergrad degree Pickup truck No

Detroit, MI — 6:00 p.m.

M 20-34 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

M 35-49 Graduate degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

F 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger car No

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

F 50-64 Graduate degree Passenger car No

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

F 65+ Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes

M 65+ Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes

Detroit, MI — 8:00 p.m.

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car Yes
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 17

Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid 

Interest

M 35-49 Graduate Passenger Car No

M 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes

F 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

F 65+ Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

F 20-34 High school degree Pickup Truck No

F 65+ High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes

M 35-49 Graduate degree Passenger Car No

Kansas City, MO — 6:00 p.m.

F 20-34 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car No

M 35-49 Graduate degree SUV No

M 65+ Graduate degree Pickup Truck Yes

F 50-64 High school degree Passenger Car No

M 65+ Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

F 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

M 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

Kansas City, MO — 8:00 p.m.

M 35-49 Graduate degree Pickup Truck No

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car No

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

F 20-34 Graduate degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

F 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree SUV No

F 20-34 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan Yes

M 50-64 High school degree Pickup Truck No
18 US Environmental Protection Agency

Gender Age Education Car Type Hybrid 

Interest

F 20-34 High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

Seattle, WA — 6:00 p.m.

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Pickup Truck No

F 20-34 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car Yes

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car No

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car Yes

F 35-49 High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

F 35-49 Graduate degree Passenger Car No

M 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

Seattle, WA — 8:00 p.m.

M 50-64 Graduate degree Passenger Car Yes

M 35-49 Graduate degree SUV Yes

F 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car No

M 35-49 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car No

M 50-64 Graduate degree Passenger Car No

M 50-64 Some college or 

undergrad degree Passenger Car No

F 50-64 High school degree Station Wagon/Minivan No

F 65+ High school degree Passenger Car No
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 19

Appendix B

Sample Moderator Guide

Fuel Economy Label Focus Group Moderator Guide 

Introduction (10 minutes)

[Moderator introduces herself/himself.]

[Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we 

can learn more in-depth about peoples’ ideas and opinions 

(compared to telephone or written surveys). 

My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that 

everyone has an opportunity to speak and to make sure that 

no one dominates the conversation.

[Mention facility, audio and video equipment (so I do not have 

to take notes), observers in separate room.]

Housekeeping – Toilets and refreshments.

[Mention ground rules.] 

There are no right or wrong answers; we’re interested in 

your honest and candid opinions and ideas.

One person speaks at a time. This will allow all of us to be 

heard by each other and by the recording equipment.

It is important to tell YOUR thoughts, not what you think 

others will think, or what you think others want to hear.

Your ideas and opinions will be kept anonymous. 

Relax and enjoy

We’re going to spend our time today talking about fuel 

economy information. Any questions about the purpose of our 

focus group or the ground rules before we begin?

I’d like you each to introduce yourselves. Please tell us: 

Your name

When did you buy your last new vehicle?

When do you plan to buy your next new vehicle

Was/is fuel economy a consideration in your vehicle purchase?

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü
20 US Environmental Protection Agency

Current Label Awareness, Understanding and Use (20 minutes)

How many are aware of the fuel economy/mileage rating label 

found on new cars? Do you remember what information is 

given on the label? [if not, “what sort of information do you 

think might be on the label”]? [Then discuss as a group to 

create the group’s sense of the label content. Write this on flip 

chart.]

[Show participants a large size example of the current label 

embedded in a price sticker. Then show just the fuel econ 

label part in a large size.] Discuss how they use the label when 

making vehicle choices. (Probe on whether they shop within 

class or not, such as within brand, price range, or utility type.)

Discuss their understanding of each component of the label: 

what is useful, what the information means, what is clear, 

what is unclear, what is the most important information, is 

there more information that is needed, etc. (Probe on the 

“expected range” information in regard to their understanding 

of it and how useful it is.)

Ask if they know where the information on the label comes 

from? Who's responsible for it? (don't spend too much time on 

this, but see if they know if it's the government.)

Do you have any experience measuring your own fuel 

economy? How did you measure it? How did the numbers 

compare to the label values? Why do you think you got the 

results you did? Let’s talk briefly about those things that we as 

drivers do that can impact the miles per gallon we get. [don't 

spend too much time on this - we covered it pretty well in the 

previous groups]

Ask client if they have any questions at this time.

Consumer Reaction to Proposed Labels (60 minutes)

First show them either the the portrait version of the label 

or the landscape version (alternate order in groups for each 

city). Ask for a quick reaction to how these labels look 

visually compared to the existing label. DO NOT DISCUSS 

CONTENT AT THIS POINT.)

Then open up to group discussion and review large version 

of the new landscape label with the preferred EPA language 

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü
Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 21

in terms of what is clear, what is unclear, what is useful, not 

useful, and what is missing. Ask if this label makes it any 

clearer as to who is responsible for the label. [just want to be 

sure that the gov’t logos are large enough and that the term 

“EPA” at the top is understood]

Then show them the new label and the old label and ask how 

they would be likely to use the new label when shopping for 

cars compared to how they used the old label.

Then hand out the rating sheet and show them separate 

posters that illustrate the choices for the following five label 

elements. Have them individually circle preferences and record 

on rating sheet. Then tally preferences for each issue and and 

discuss reasons behind preferences for each element. 

fuel cost info [show this element on the label to see if they 

think it adds to much info/words]

comparable FE range graphic options [show this element on 

the label to see if they think it adds to much info/words]

disclaimer text (be sure to test if they will use the fueleconomy.

gov website)

transition text (Do they understand what the words mean? If 

the changes start with 2008 models should this text go on later 

models as well? For how many years?)

environmental statement (be sure to probe on if they think this 

is necessary and their reaction to the tone of the message)

At end of discussion of elements, summarize their expressed preferences, 

see if they’d add anything else. (Attempt to link their responses here to 

earlier brainstorming statements of how they use the label, i.e., “You 

said earlier that you used the label to do X: how does the new label 

affect how you do X?”)

Show them the portrait version and landscape versions again 

and ask about preferences (given the discussion about the new 

label).

Then show them the baseline in which all “city/highway text” 

is within the white part of the pump. See if they prefer this to 

baseline and probe on why.

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü

ü
22 US Environmental Protection Agency

Then show the label version in which the annual fuel costs are 

in the white part of the label. Compare it to the baseline. Ask 

for preference and reasons for preferences.

Ask client if they have any last questions.

Wrap-Up (5 minutes)

Anything else you would like our clients to know about you 

thoughts about fuel economy labels?

ü

ü
Buying a vehicle with better fuel economy helps protect the environment and reduces dependence on oil.

See the FREE Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or www.fueleconomy.gov

These estimates reflect new EPA 

methods beginning with 2008 models.

18

Your actual mileage will vary

depending on how you drive 

and maintain your vehicle 

and other factors.

Your actual mileage will vary.

For best mileage avoid high 

speeds and rapid acceleration, 

keep tires properly inflated and 

reduce air conditioning.

Your actual mileage will vary.

For tips on improving 

your fuel economy see 

www.fueleconomy.gov.

Estimated 

Annual Fuel Cost

Combined:$2,100

City ......... $2,333

Highway ..........$1,680

based on 15,000 miles 

at $2.80 per gallon

Estimated 

Annual Fuel Cost

$2,100

based on 15,000 miles 

at $2.80 per gallon

Combined fuel economy

10 q 31

All SUVs

25

21

This Vehicle

10 31

All SUVs

All Vehicles

63

25

Combined fuel economy

q

21

This Vehicle

21

This Vehicle

Combined fuel economy

25

10 31

All SUVs

q 63

Rating Sheet — Fuel Economy Label Options 

City: _____________________________ Date: ______________ Time: ______________

Fuel Cost

Fuel Economy Comparison

Disclaimer Text

Transition Text

Environmental Statement

Option 1 Option 2

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

Why this preference?

What is your reaction to this?

What is your reaction to this?

Why this preference?

Why this preference?

Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

The government estimates the average time needed to fill out this form is 0.6 hours and welcomes suggestions 

for reducing this level of effort. Send comments (referencing OMB control number 2060-058) to the Director, 

Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

OMB ICR No. 2060-058 

exp. 8/31/2006

Fuel Economy Focus Groups • Phase 2 Findings 23

Appendix C

Label Element Rating Form
Appendix D: Label Element Preferences Results 

6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. Ct. %

5 4 9 2 5 7 6 2 8 5 3 8 6 4 10 42 53%

3 4 7 6 3 9 2 6 8 3 5 8 2 4 6 38 48%

6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. Ct. %

6 3 9 7 4 11 4 3 7 5 6 11 2 1 3 41 52%

2 4 6 1 4 5 3 4 7 2 2 4 6 7 13 35 44%

0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4%

6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. 6p 8p Ct. Ct. %

3 3 6 2 2 4 0 1 1 4 3 7 3 5 8 26 33%

2 3 5 5 4 9 4 1 5 2 1 3 2 1 3 25 32%

2 2 4 1 2 3 4 6 10 2 4 6 3 2 5 28 35%

KC Seattle Totals Disclaimer Text Atlanta Baltimore Detroit

KC Seattle Totals

Fuel Economy Comparison Atlanta Baltimore Detroit KC Seattle Totals

Fuel Cost Atlanta Baltimore Detroit

24 US Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix D

Label Element Preferences Results