Environmental Protection Agency 

Fuel Economy Label 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 
Environmental Protection Agency 


Fuel Economy Label
 

Phase 1 Focus Groups
 

Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
 

United States Department of Transportation
 

Prepared for EPA by
 

PRR, Inc.
 

EPA Contract No. GS-23F-0364P
 

Task Order 0001
 

EPA-420-R-10-903 

August 2010 
Phase 1 Focus Groups 1

Table of Contents 

Introduction........................................................................3

Vehicle Choice Process and Current Label Use........................7

Factors influencing vehicle choice............................................7

Current fuel economy label use..............................................10

Fuel Consumption Metric....................................................13

Perceptions about fuel consumption......................................13

Fuel consumption rating understanding..................................14

Understanding the MPG Illusion............................................16

Use of fuel consumption metric in vehicle choice....................17

Fuel Cost Metric................................................................19

Most useful framing of fuel cost............................................19

Fuel cost rating understanding...............................................20

Use of fuel cost metric in vehicle purchase.............................22

Environment Metric...........................................................25

Environment rating understanding.........................................25

Use of terms ‘environment’ and CO2......................................28

Use of environmental impact in vehicle choice........................29

Overall Findings.................................................................31

Appendices.......................................................................37

Appendix A: Moderator Guide................................................37

Appendix B: Participant Profiles............................................46

Appendix C: Current Fuel Economy Label................................54

Appendix D: Fuel Consumption Tally Sheet.............................55

Appendix E: Fuel Cost Tally...................................................59

Appendix F: Environment Metric Tally.....................................63
2 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction 

Background 

In 2006, EPA updated how the city and highway fuel economy 

values are calculated to better reflect typical real-world driving 

patterns and provide more realistic fuel economy estimates. In 

addition, EPA redesigned the fuel economy label to make it more 

informative for consumers. The redesigned label more prominently 

featured annual fuel cost information, provided contemporary and 

easy-to-use graphics for comparing the fuel economy of different 

vehicles, used clearer text, and included a Web site reference to 

www.fueleconomy.gov which provided additional information. 

EPA is now initiating a new rulemaking to ensure that American 

consumers continue to have the most accurate, meaningful and 

useful information, as well as an understanding of how the labeled 

vehicle impacts the environment. In 2006 EPA did not include a 

consumption-based metric in the new label design, however EPA did 

recognize at that time that a distance-based metric such as MPG can 

be misleading and that a fuel consumption metric might be more 

meaningful to consumers. In this rulemaking, EPA wants to explore 

‘gallons per 100 miles’ as a potential fuel consumption metric on the 

label. Additionally, EPA must provide metrics that are relevant and 

useful for advanced technology vehicles, such as Electric Vehicles 

and Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles (EVs and PHEVs). 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 3 
4 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To help inform the creation of the new label, EPA engaged PRR 

Inc. to work with them in the design and implementation of several 

information gathering protocols including: 

•	� Literature review 

•	� Focus groups (in 3 phases, including pre-group 

online surveys)
�

•	� Online survey of new vehicle buyers 

•	� Expert panel 

It was decided to use a three-phase approach for the focus groups 

in order to accommodate the sheer amount of information required 

to be covered in the focus groups, as well as to use each phase to 

inform the next phase on overall label design in regard to both 

content and look. The three phases were designed to address the 

following issues: 

•	� Phase I – Use of the current label and design of the label for 

internal combustion engine vehicles 

•	� Phase II – Understandability of metrics for advanced 

technology vehicle labels 

•	� Phase III – Assessment of full label designs and messaging 

testing for educational/marketing campaign 

This document provides a preliminary overview of the Phase I 

focus groups and is designed specifically to inform the next phases 

of focus groups. It is not intended as a comprehensive report of 

results from the Phase I focus groups; that will come at the end of 

all three phases of focus groups in the form of a full, comprehensive 

report. It should be noted that all results reported here refer to 

the focus group discussions, except when specifically identified as 

results from the pre-group online survey. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Methodology 

Focus groups are the optimum approach to use when the task calls 

for qualitative,in-depth understanding of consumer’s understanding 

of fuel economy labels. Focus groups allow for probing around 

such issues as why some label designs are more understandable, 

how such label designs would be used in the vehicle purchase 

process, and which label metrics are most important to consumers. 

The focus group discussion can also provide insights about how a 

label design may nudge consumers toward greater use of the fuel 

economy label, as well as nudging them toward the purchase of 

more fuel-efficient vehicles. 

Eight focus groups were convened between February 25th and March 

9th, 2010 in the cities of Seattle, Chicago, Houston and Charlotte. 

In each city, two groups (one male, one female) were conducted in 

English and each lasted for two hours. A moderator guide was used 

to structure the focus group discussions (see Appendix A). 

Participants were recruited from within panels developed and 

maintained by the focus group facility used in each city. Twelve 

persons were recruited for each group, with the assumption that eight 

to ten would show. Each of the groups consisted of eight participants 

(with the exception of one group that had 6 participants). In order 

to screen out ‘professional focus group participants,’ only those 

who had not participated in a focus group in the last six months 

were included. In addition, participants were screened for having 

purchased a new vehicle (not a used or pre-owned vehicle; not a 

motorcycle; not a ‘Cash for Clunkers’ purchase) in the last 12 months 

and being the sole or primary decision maker with regard to this new 

vehicle purchased to ensure that the groups included only those who 

had been intimately involved in the new vehicle purchase process. 

Having internet access was also a requirement so that they could 

complete the pre-group online survey. To ensure a good cross-section 

of participants each focus group included a mix of participants based 

on the following variables: type of new vehicle, price range of new 

vehicle, distance they typically travelled daily in this new vehicle, if 

they had seriously considered an advanced technology vehicle before 

purchasing their vehicle, and a variety of demographic variables (see 

Appendix B for participant profiles). 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 5 
6 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The participants were also asked to complete an online survey 

before they took part in the focus group discussions. The purpose 

of the online survey was to obtain more information about their 

vehicle purchase process, the role of fuel economy in their purchase 

decision, and how they used the current fuel economy label; three 

important issues for which there was insufficient time in the focus 

groups to discuss in great depth. The pre-group online survey did 

not present new label designs (these were covered exclusively in the 

focus groups). It should be noted that the pre-group online surveys 

are not meant to be representative of new vehicle buyers in general 

(since focus group participants are in many ways unique), but rather 

to provide additional information about these specific participants. 

The online survey was approximately 12 to 15 minutes in length 

and was completed by all of the 114 recruited participants. Only 

those who had completed the online survey were accepted into the 

focus groups. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vehicle Choice Process 

and Current Label Use
�

Factors influencing vehicle choice 

Participants across all the groups were asked about the top two 

things that influenced their vehicle choice, whether they had “There was a time when 

considered the impact of driving the type of vehicle they had compact car meant something, 

purchased on the environment, whether they had a specific vehicle but now there’s sub-compact, 

in mind when they started shopping for a vehicle, if so, whether mid-sized compact; everyone 

it was the vehicle they ended up purchasing, and what “class of has different categories for the 

vehicle” they purchased. Further, they were asked what they same thing. You’re really talking 

thought of when they heard “class of vehicle” and whether there about a small, mid-sized or 

was a better term to express that concept. luxury car.” –Seattle Male 

Top.two.factors.in.vehicle.choice “Fifty years ago I think vehicle 

class meant something, now, I From the participants’ point of view, most across all the groups think it’s a marketing tool.” thought the term ‘vehicle class’ was a good term to use to describe –Seattle Male the group of vehicles in which they were interested, although they 

used this term interchangeably with ‘vehicle type.’ How participants 

“Class could go in many grouped vehicles by type or class varied. Although they generally 

directions, is it more of described it in relatively broad terms such as SUVs, minivans, sport 

luxury or utilitarian vehicle?” cars, trucks, economy cars, and midsize cars, some participants 

 –Seattle Female suggested other classifications such as luxury vehicles or hybrids.
�

Based on participant responses on how to group vehicles by class 

or type, it was clear that they did not necessarily match the typical “[In terms of vehicle class] I 

EPA vehicle classes. When asked if there was a better term for “class was thinking coupe, sedan, 

of vehicle”, a few participants said that the terms “vehicle type” or truck, hybrid, etc.” 

“type of vehicle” could be used to replace it. –Seattle Female
�

Phase 1 Focus Groups 7 
8 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I had requirements about 

type/make.” –Seattle Male

 “We looked for a certain safety 

rating within a certain budget... 

safety was really big for us we 

had a nasty accident in our 

family a few years ago” 

–Seattle Female 

“I went into it thinking price 

and reliability, but then 

reliability went out the window, 

I went for price and style.” – 

Houston Male 

Participants explained that their vehicle choice was primarily 

governed by their individual needs and priorities and that they had 

a general vehicle type in mind before they started searching. They 

searched for information that was pertinent to that vehicle type, and 

used the information to narrow down their choices to a vehicle that 

they subsequently purchased. Further, the online survey revealed 

that about 70% had a specific type of vehicle in mind when they 

started looking for a new vehicle and the majority of those (81%) 

said they ended up purchasing that vehicle type. Yet, when asked 

on the online survey what vehicles they seriously considered before 

making their final purchase decisions, most participants selected 

vehicles that crossed traditional EPA vehicle classes. For example, 

participants that considered purchasing a minivan were also likely 

to consider an SUV. 

According to the online survey, after vehicle type, the next most 

important factor that influenced their vehicle choice was vehicle 

price. .Seventy-seven percent of the participants across all groups 

indicated that price/affordability was one of the top five factors 

that influenced their vehicle choice. The other key factors that 

influenced participants’ vehicle choice included gas mileage/fuel 

economy (60%), safety (52%), reliability (48%), size (46%), 

interior and exterior appearance (43%), comfort (41%), brand 

name (38%) and performance (31%). Only 9% of the participants 

considered low emissions as key factor when they were making a 

vehicle purchase decision. 

These findings were further validated and explained in the focus 

group discussions. Across all the cities, most participants said that 

once shopping within their chosen vehicles, vehicle price was the 

next factor considered when making a vehicle-purchase decision. 

Once they found that the vehicle was affordable, they then 

considered other factors such as fuel economy, safety, reliability, 

size, appearance, etc. Some of the factors that were not included in 

the online survey, but came up in discussions in some of the groups, 

included past experience with the brand, brand loyalty, service and 

resale value of the vehicle. 

In about half of the focus groups, participants were asked if the 

vehicle they selected met their two highest needs, whether they 

would still buy it if it was in their opinion an ugly vehicle. Without 

exception, participants said they would not. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

b..The.part.played.by.fuel.economy 

When it came to fuel economy, most (64% in the online survey 

rated it 8 or higher on a 10 point scale) thought it was an important 

consideration when choosing a new vehicle and two-thirds (67% in 

the online survey) reported that they had searched for fuel economy 

information before buying their most recent new vehicle. Their top 

sources of fuel economy information (in the order as mentioned 

most frequently in the online survey) included manufacturers’ 

Web sites (67%), Consumer Reports (58%), fuel economy label 

on vehicles (58%), consulted others with similar vehicles (32%), 

Edmunds.com (30%), auto magazines (30%), and auto dealers 

(25%). With few exceptions focus group participants indicated 

that the environmental impact of the vehicle did not affect the 

type of vehicle they purchased. Even those who indicated they had 

considered a hybrid vehicle discounted it for other factors such as 

vehicle price and fuel economy when purchasing their new vehicle. 

No major differences were found in the priority of factors that 

influenced people’s vehicle choice based on city or gender. 

Based on the above findings, it may be said that people start 

with specific vehicles and/or vehicle types in mind and search for 

information relevant to those particular vehicles or types. They 

then start narrowing their choices with vehicle price being the next 

most important factor in influencing one’s vehicle choice regardless 

of one’s gender or geographic location. While fuel economy also 

figures high on the consideration list, other factors such as safety, 

size, brand loyalty, past experience with the brand, etc. also 

have a strong influence on the purchase decision. At this time, 

environmental impact does not impact one’s vehicle preference 

considerably. Based on the online survey and focus group results, 

it is also clear that participant’s definitions of vehicle type and/or 

vehicle class vary based on personal perceptions and do not match 

EPA’s typical vehicle type classifications. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 9 
10 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I used the label more to 

confirm, I already had an idea 

when shopping for cars.” 

–Charlotte Female 

“I knew that my prior car had also 

been a Toyota and I had gotten 

very good gas mileage, so when 

it came time to get a new car, 

I really didn’t look too closely. I 

don’t recall what the numbers 

were but they were in line with 

what I was accustomed to.” 

– Houston Female 

“If you’re comfortable with 

the car, you don’t have to 

pay attention to those kinds 

of specifics, especially since 

I owned a Honda Accord 

previously.” –Charlotte Male 

“The economy is important. If 

you looked at this two years ago, 

it would be a lot more accurate. 

But a year ago, gas was closer to 

$4. I thought this on the lot, at 

$2.80- a gallon, the information 

wasn’t accurate.” –Seattle Female 

Current fuel economy label use 

Participants across all the groups were asked if they had used 

the fuel economy label (see Appendix C) when deciding on their 

new vehicle purchase and whether they had noticed and/or used 

the average annual fuel cost information on the label when they 

purchased their most recent vehicle. 

While the online survey found that the vast majority (91%) 

reported using the fuel economy label when deciding on their new 

vehicle, the focus group discussions revealed that some of these 

participants had only briefly glanced at the label and did not really 

use it when deciding on their new vehicle purchase. Most of the 

participants explained that they mainly used the label to get city 

and highway gas mileage estimates and used the information to 

compare different vehicles within the same vehicle type. 

While some used the ‘comparison to other vehicles in class’ slider 

bar information to subsequently make a purchase decision, most 

did not. 

Online survey respondents considered the average annual fuel 

cost information on the label to be less important information as 

compared to the fuel economy information contained on the label. 

Sixty-five percent rated ‘estimated annual fuel cost’ as one of the 

top four pieces of information on the label compared to the fuel 

economy information where 83% voted ‘city mpg’ as one of the 

top four pieces of information and 80% voted ‘highway mpg’ as 

one of the top four pieces of information. 

The focus group discussions helped to explain this finding further. 

According to most participants across all groups, the average annual 

fuel cost estimate was not a useful piece of information. They 

critiqued it for being an inaccurate measure of the actual fuel cost of 

the vehicle because it did not take into consideration the fluctuating 

price of gas. In addition, others mentioned that it did not reflect 

their typical annual mileage or their typical city vs. highway driving 

ratios. On the other hand, most thought that the fuel economy 

information on the label (i.e., city/highway MPGs) provided them 

with useful information for the accurate estimate of fuel cost, which 

they could use to make a purchase decision based on their driving 

style – whether they do more city versus highway driving. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Of the few who used the average annual fuel cost information “I used fuel economy as 

on the label when they purchased their most recent vehicle, they a criterion, but it wasn’t a 

explained that they used this metric to compare different vehicles, decision factor. I used the 

because the estimate was helpful in figuring how a vehicle fared blended, combined fuel 

compared to other vehicles at a particular gas price. Some also said economy, since that’s the 

that the use of a dollar amount to express fuel cost made it easy majority of the driving I do...it 

for them to equate it with dollar savings without doing any math. was the most realistic number 

in our opinion.” –Seattle Male 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

people’s use of the fuel economy label or the average annual fuel cost “I used the city mileage; I was 

information on the label when they were deciding on their new vehicle. calculating how it would work 

for me.” –Chicago Male 

Based on the above findings, it may be said that participants currently 

use the fuel economy label to compare different vehicles within the 

vehicle type category and are more interested in information on city 

and highway gas mileage estimates as compared to fuel cost estimates. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 11 
12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fuel Consumption Metric 

Perceptions about fuel consumption 

Participants across all groups were asked what they thought of 

when thinking about “fuel consumption.” Based on focus group 

discussions, it was found that when participants heard the terms 

“fuel consumption” the following came to mind (in the order as 

mentioned most frequently across all the focus groups): 

•	� Gas mileage of the vehicle (“miles per gallon;” “how far 

can one go on a full tank”) 

•	� Fuel cost (“cost of fuel per gallon;” “how much it would 

cost to fill up a tank of gas”) 

•	� Frequency of filling gas (“how often they had to fill the tank”) 

A few participants also said that they thought about gasoline grades 

(“what type of gas does one fill – regular, mid grade, premium 

grade”; “the fuel that one put into the vehicle”). 

When asked what MPG meant to them the vast majority of 

participants across all the groups used the term ‘MPG’ to describe 

fuel efficiency. All the participants were clear about what MPG meant 

(“how many miles one can drive on a gallon of gas”) and thought 

that the city and highway MPG information on the label was very 

useful. When asked why the MPG information was useful to them, 

they explained these estimates helped them to compare vehicles during 

the vehicle purchasing process, and that it was easy to apply these to 

their personal driving styles - whether they were going to do more city 

versus highway driving, how far they drove to work, etc. 

No major gender or city differences were found with regard to what 

participants thought of when thinking about fuel consumption, 

what MPG meant to them and whether they found the city and 

highway MPG information useful or not. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 13 
Option 1C

n 1B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Based on the above findings,it may be said that most often participants 

think in terms of distance covered per gallon and ‘miles per gallon’ 

estimates when they think about fuel consumption. People also find 

the city and highway MPG information on the label to be useful in 

comparing vehicles during the vehicle purchase process. 

Fuel consumption rating understanding 

This part of the discussion involved presenting the participants with 

four fuel consumption design options and asking them to rate which 

optionstheyfoundtobemostunderstandableandleastunderstandable, 

as well as which they thought had the most and least potential to 

influence their consideration of a more fuel efficient vehicle.1 (See the 

fuel consumption design options to the left and below.)2 

Subsequently, the participants’ ratings were tallied and a discussion 

followed regarding the reasons behind their ratings. (See Appendix 

D for participant tally scores for each group.) 

The table below reflects the participants’ ratings (across all the 

groups) for the most understandable and least understandable 

design options. In order to test if participants actually understood 

the fuel consumption metrics they were probed on city vs. highway 

gals/100 miles and on how this vehicle compares to others based 

on the comparison information on the label designs. Routinely, 

participants displayed understanding of this fuel consumption 

information based on these tests. 

1 Although participants were asked about both the 

‘understandability of ’ and the ‘influence on purchasing 

a fuel efficient vehicle’ of each design option, it was 

found that after discussing ‘understandability’ not 

much was gained from the discussion of how design 

options might influence their purchase of a fuel efficient 

vehicle. Consequently, we focus our reporting on the 

understandability of the design options. 

2 It should be noted that the light gray stars on the Option 1 

designs did not show up when copies were made for each 

participant, although they did show on the large size of 

the design shown on boards in each group. Consequently, 

participants could readily see how many stars a vehicle was 

rated, but not necessarily that it was out of a scale of 5 stars. 

Option 1A

Option 1B

Option 1C Option 1D
 

 

 

 

 

 

All groups 

combined 

Option 

1A 

Option 

1B 

Option 

1C 

Option 

1D 

Most 

understandable 36 10 10 6 

Least 

understandable 3 17 25 17 

Overall * 33 -7 -15 -11 

*Overall = Number of times rated ‘most understandable’ minus 

Number of times rated ‘least understandable’ 

Based on the table above, it can be inferred that Option 1A was “The rating with the stars is 

perceived as the most understandable design option as compared something we can understand 

to the other designs. Interestingly, with the exception of female better because we’re used to 

participants in Seattle, Option 1A received the highest number of seeing it in other ratings.” 

votes across all groups. The reasons mentioned for why participants –Charlotte Female 

preferred Option 1A include: it was simple, straightforward and tothe-point; the star ratings used in Option 1A was a familiar system “There was no confusion. Even 

that was clear, concise, readily understandable and catches people’s if one doesn’t understand the 

attention; the black and white format used in the design was easy to numbers, they can relate to the 

read; and the image of the gas pump was helpful in associating the star rating.” –Chicago Male 

design with fuel economy. The few participants who disliked Option 

1A said that the star ratings did not give them information regarding 

the ‘best’ and ‘worst’ vehicles in regard to fuel consumption (as in 

Option 1C) and therefore was not as informative. 

Those participants who thought Option 1B was the most “The eight, if you just look at it 

understandable design said that it was eye-catching and clearly quickly, you wouldn’t know what 

conveyed the rating of the vehicle. On the contrary, female it was.” –Houston Female 

participants in Houston and Charlotte voted Option 1B as the 

least understandable design more often than participants in the “To me, in 1B, the graphics 

other groups. The reasons why participants disliked Option 1B overwhelm, it’s too colorful, 

included: it was confusing and looked too busy and distracting; the font is too small.” 

the ‘8’ was too big and the rest of the information was too small –Houston Male 

which made it difficult to follow; and the graphics and the use of red 

were unappealing. Some also mentioned that because 1B was more 

elaborate than the basic black and white design of option 1A, that 

they disliked it because it was perceived as being too ‘sales’ oriented. 

The few participants who thought Option 1D was the most 

understandable said that it looked clean and they could easily 

understand the information presented in this option. Participants 

in Charlotte, female participants in Seattle and male participants 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 15 
scale

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

in Chicago voted Option 1D as the least understandable design 

more often than participants in other groups. The reasons why 

participants disliked Option 1D included: it was confusing, difficult 

to follow and understand, seemed to include “too many numbers”; 

and the design format was unappealing and did not appear to be 

representing fuel consumption at first glance. 

Option 1C was perceived as the least understandable design. 

Participants in Chicago, male participants in Houston and Seattle 

voted Option 1C as the least understandable design more often 

than participants in other groups. The reasons why participants 

disliked Option 1C included: the ‘gallons per 100 miles’ as the 

metric for fuel consumption was difficult to grasp (especially 

when presented in the slider scale format unique to this design), 

the slider scale was confusing and hard to understand with ‘10’ 

representing ‘worst’ and 2 representing ‘best’ (although this was 

somewhat more understandable when the slider was presented in a 

vertical orientation); the black and orange color format was “too 

colorful” and appeared like a warning sign. Those participants 

who liked Option 1C and chose it as their most understandable 

design explained that they preferred the sliding scale over the star 

rating (in Option 1A) because it provided them a frame of reference 

regarding the best and worst vehicles on the market. A few also 

said that they liked the background used in Option 1C and thought 

it was catchy. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option 1A was 

perceived as the most understandable fuel consumption design and 

Option 1C was perceived as the least understandable design.In essence, 

participants preferred a design that they thought was informative and 

presented information in a simple and familiar format. 

Understanding the MPG Illusion 

Participants were reminded of the example of the ‘MPG Illusion’ 

from the pre-group online survey. The moderator then used several 

approaches3 to explain the MPG Illusion and probed on the 

participants’ understanding of why ‘gallons per 100 miles’ was a 

superior metric of fuel consumption compared to MPG. Further, 

they were asked if gallons per 100 miles (instead of MPG) would 

get them to switch to a different class of vehicle and whether they 

preferred gallons per 100 miles or MPG. 

Option 1C – vertical 

3 It should be noted that as 

we moved from city to city 

conducting the focus groups 

we tried to improve how we 

presented and illustrated he 

‘mpg illusion’ information. By 

the time we concluded the focus 

groups in Seattle the approach 

used seemed to work fairly 

well, but still required a lot of 

explanation by the moderator. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regardless of how it was explained, most participants initially 

had difficulty understanding the MPG Illusion and why ‘gallons 

per 100 miles’ may be a superior measure of fuel consumption. 

However, even those who eventually did understand still preferred 

MPG. According to them, they were used to thinking in terms of 

MPG and were therefore more comfortable using it. 

Subsequently, only a few said ‘yes’ when asked if gallons per 100 

miles (instead of MPG) would get them to switch to a different type 

of vehicle. Those who said ‘no’ explained that their vehicle choice 

was greatly governed by the type vehicle they were looking to 

purchase and most vehicles in that grouping gave similar mileage. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ preference for using MPG over gallons per 100 miles 

in spite of understanding the MPG Illusion. 

Based on the above findings, it may be said that understanding 

the MPG illusion is extremely difficult to achieve and does not 

necessarily lead people to switch to a different type of vehicle 

nor does it make them prefer gallons per 100 miles over MPG. In 

essence, people prefer familiarity over facts. 

Use of fuel consumption metric in vehicle 

choice 

Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/ 

why not) they would use the information on fuel consumption 

(presented in terms of ‘gallons per 100 miles) on the label in their 

vehicle purchase decision. 

While some participants said that they would use the fuel 

consumption information on the label to learn about the vehicle’s 

city and highway gas consumption and use these estimates to 

compare different vehicles in order to make a purchase decision, 

there were others who did not show much enthusiasm about using 

this information on the label. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 17 
18 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“I already know this information 

before I go to the dealer.” 

–Seattle Female 

“I was actively looking for a fuel 

efficient vehicle, so it would 

sway me, but if you’re looking 

for a sports car or truck, it’s 

almost something you don’t 

want to see.” – Charlotte Male 

Of those who said that they were less likely to use the fuel 

consumption information on the label, some said that fuel 

consumption was not really important to them because they drove 

infrequently and/or drove short distances. Others said that they 

were more likely to research about the fuel consumption of vehicles 

on the Internet before they visited the dealers’ showroom and 

looked at actual fuel economy labels. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ likelihood to use the information on fuel consumption 

on the label in their vehicle purchase decision. 

In conclusion, it may be said that people vary with regard to their 

likelihood to use the fuel consumption information on the label in 

making purchase decisions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fuel Cost Metric 

Most useful framing of fuel cost 

Participants were told that the current label showed fuel cost in 

terms of annual costs and asked if there were other ways to express 

fuel cost that they thought would be more useful to them. When 

asked in this open-ended fashion, participants across all groups 

said they thought about ‘how much it cost to fill up the vehicle’s 

tank.’ In addition, some participants said they thought about cost 

over time (“how much is it going to cost daily/each week/each 

month”) and cost over distance travelled (“cost per mile”; “cost 

per 100 miles”; “cost per every 5000 miles”). 

However, after being shown the following options on the rating sheet 

it was found that close to one-third (30%) preferred annual costs. 

Over one-fourth (26%) said that they preferred a monthly estimate 

for fuel cost. Fifteen percent reported that they preferred cost per 

100 miles and another 13% said that they liked weekly and per 

mile (each). Only 4% said that they liked a 5-year fuel cost estimate. 

However, across all the groups, there was skepticism around the fuel 

cost metric. Many participants said the fuel cost estimate was an 

inaccurate measure of the actual fuel cost of the vehicle because it 

did not take into consideration the fluctuating price of gas. 

While those who preferred annual cost said that they were used “Cost is irrelevant, because of 

to looking at cost from a yearly perspective, those who preferred the way gas prices are. Cost per 

monthly costs said that it was in line with their other monthly tank helps me figure out my 

household payments (such as monthly rent payment) and helped budget, because I fill up every 

them in planning their monthly budgets. According to participants two weeks.” – Charlotte Female 

who preferred ‘per mile’ and ‘per 100 miles,’ these estimates gave 

them cost information in terms of the distance travelled which in 

“Monthly works, because turn was easy to understand and did not require them to perform that’s how I think of rent.” mathematical conversions to calculate fuel costs, as did the cost – Chicago Male metrics based on time (per month, per year, etc.). Those who 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 19 
Option 3C

3B

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

preferred cost per 100 miles also added that the metric was in line 

with ‘gallons per 100 miles’ and helped in attaining uniformity 

across the fuel consumption and fuel cost metrics. 

No major gender or city differences were found with regard to 

participants’ preference for the unit of analysis for expressing the 

cost-metric. 

In summary, it may be said that although participants tend to think 

of fuel costs in terms of ‘cost to fill my tank,’ they recognize that 

this is not a good comparison metric when shopping for a new 

vehicle since tank sizes vary by vehicle. For comparison purposes, 

participants preferred annual and monthly estimates of fuel cost 

over other cost metrics because they were used to looking at cost 

from these perspectives. However, there is general skepticism about 

the fuel cost metric and few considered it to be an accurate measure. 

Fuel cost rating understanding 

This part of the discussion involved presenting the participants with 

four fuel cost design options and asking them to rate which options 

they found to be most understandable and least understandable. (See 

the fuel cost design options to the left). Subsequently, the participants’ 

ratings were tallied and a discussion followed regarding the reasons 

behind their ratings. (See Appendix E for participant tally scores per 

group). In order to test if participants actually understood the fuel 

cost metrics, they were probed on the cost per year and on how this 

vehicle compares to others based on the comparison information on 

the label designs. Routinely, participants displayed understanding of 

this fuel cost information based on these tests. 

On tallying, the participants’ ratings (across all the groups) reflected 

the following as most understandable and least understandable: 

Option 3A

Option 3B

Option 3C

Option 3D
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All groups 

combined 

Option 

3A 

Option 

3B 

Option 

3C 

Option 

3D 

Most 

understandable 34 9 17 2 

Least 

understandable 1 17 20 23 

Overall * 33 -8 -3 -21 

*Overall = Number of times rated ‘most understandable’ minus 

Number of times rated ‘least understandable’ 

Based on the table above, it can be inferred that Option 3A (star “3A is black and white, clear. I 

system) was perceived as the most understandable design option as get nervous when there’s a lot 

compared to the other designs. Interestingly, with the exception of of information.” –Chicago Male 

participants in Seattle and male participants in Charlotte, Option 3A 

received the highest number of votes across all the other groups. The 

reasons why participants across all the groups thought Option 3A 

was the most understandable included: it was simple, straightforward 

and to-the-point; the star ratings used in Option 3A was a familiar 

“3A is standard, easy. Nothing 

difficult to understand.” 

–Chicago Female 

system that was clear, concise, readily understandable, and caught 

people’s attention; and the black and white format was easy to 

read. The one participant who disliked Option 3A said that the star 

ratings did not give them information on the range of best and worst 

vehicles in regard to fuel costs (as in Option 3C). 

Those participants who thought Option 3C was the most “3C is the best indication of 

understandable design explained that they liked the sliding scale how much it will cost me. Could 

used in this option (it provided them a frame of reference in regard see it right away what the worst 

to the ‘worst’ and ‘best’ vehicles for fuel cost). They also thought was.” –Seattle Male 

it was concise, clear, informative and easy to understand. In 

addition, some said that they liked the “$” sign, graphics and color 

format used in Option 3C and thought it caught their attention. 

On the contrary, participants in Chicago and female participants 

in Charlotte voted Option 3C as the least understandable design 

more often than participants in the other groups. The reasons why 

“3C is not reader friendly – 

there’s too much stuff. The 

scale, the lower number on right 

was strange.” –Charlotte Female 

participants disliked Option 3C included: it was complicated relative 

to the simpler star design, distracting and was difficult to grasp at “I hate the graph [3C], how 

a glance; the sliding scale was confusing and hard to understand it goes backwards, with the 

with ‘$4,500’ representing ‘worst’ and ‘$500’ representing ‘best’; largest number on the left. The 

and the graphics and the color format were “too dark,” cluttered graph should be reversed.” 

and “too busy”. Several participants suggested reversing the sliding –Houston Male 

scale so that ‘worst’ was on the right and ‘best’ on the left’ to make 

it less confusing. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 21 
22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“3B gave the range. I knew 

what the $1800 meant.” – 

Seattle Male 

“It took me some time to figure 

it out [3B]. If I have to take the 

time, I won’t figure it out.” – 

Houston Female 

“3D is overly simplistic, empty.” 

– Seattle Male 

“The weird sliding scale is not 

attractive and hard to decipher 

[3D]. People want to read it 

quickly and this takes too much 

time and effort to figure it out.” 

– Houston Female 

The few participants who thought Option 3B was the most 

understandable said that it was concise, straightforward and easy 

to understand. They also said that they liked the graphics (the 

“dollar bills” background) used in this option and thought it was 

attention-grabbing. As for those who thought Option 3B was 

least understandable, male participants in Charlotte and Houston 

voted Option 3B as the least understandable design more often 

than participants in other groups. Their reasons included: it was 

vague, confusing, “too busy”, difficult to follow and understand; 

and the design format was “too colorful,” cluttered, unappealing 

and did not appear to be representing fuel cost at first glance. 

Option 3D emerged to be the least understandable design. 

Participants in Seattle, male participants in Charlotte and Chicago, 

and female participants in Houston voted Option 3D as the least 

understandable design more often than participants in other 

groups. The reasons why participants disliked Option 3D included: 

the scale was confusing and hard to understand (the ‘$’ sign in 

front of the scale made it seem like the scale was measuring dollar 

amount); the font was too small, the format was “too simple”, and 

had lots of empty space and was unappealing. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option 3A was 

perceived to be the most understandable fuel cost design and 

Option 3D was perceived as the least understandable design. 

However, there was some support for the sliding scale from the 

3C design and several participants suggested including it on the 

3A design in some way. The most understandable design was 

simple, straight forward, concise, and clearly pertained to cost. The 

least understandable were designs people found to be confusing, 

distracting, and complicated. In essence, participants preferred a 

design that they thought was informative and that presented the 

information in a simple and familiar format. 

Use of fuel cost metric in vehicle purchase 

Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/ 

why not) they would use the information on fuel cost in their 

vehicle purchase decision if it were available on the label. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many participants across all groups said that they would use the “I would use the label to verify 

fuel cost information on the label to learn about the vehicle’s fuel what I looked at online.” 

efficiency in terms of dollars and use these numbers to compare – Seattle Male 

different vehicles in order to make a purchase decision. 

However, there were others who did not show much enthusiasm 

for using this information on the label. Of these, some said that 

they considered the fuel cost estimate to be an inaccurate measure 

(because it did not take into consideration the fluctuating cost of 

“The label by itself won’t 

influence me, but it is one 

piece of information.” 

–Chicago Male 

gas) and hence were skeptical of using it. Others said that they 

were more likely to research fuel cost estimates of vehicles on the “This type of information at the 

Internet before they visited the dealers’ showroom and looked at dealer does me no good; I go 

the actual fuel economy labels. online to do the comparison. 

So the pretty picture means 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to nothing to me.” – Seattle Male 

participants’ likelihood to use the information on fuel cost on the 

label in their vehicle purchase decision. 

In summary, it may be said that some people are likely to use the 

fuel cost information on the label in comparing vehicles during 

the vehicle purchase process. However, in general, the fuel cost 

information was suspect because of fluctuating fuel prices. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 23 
24 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environment Metric 

Environment rating understanding 

Participants were asked if the environmental impact of a vehicle in any “For me it goes hand in hand 

way impacted their purchasing decision. Some participants indicated with fuel economy, if it saves fuel 

it did, with a sub-section of these indicating they had considered costs, it’s probably better for the 

hybrid vehicles for this reason. Even for those who indicated environment.” –Seattle Male 

concern for the environment, it seemed that economic considerations 

were more important than concerns about environmental impact. “I own a hybrid. Even though the However, the vast majority of participants did not use environmental Prius cost a little more, it came impact as a part of their purchasing decision. down to the numbers, how much 

I would save. The environmental Participants were then presented with four environment metric design aspect was as bonus.” options and asked to rate which options they found to be most –Charlotte Male understandable and least understandable. (See the environment metric 

design options on the next page).Subsequently,the participants’ ratings 

were tallied and a discussion followed regarding the reasons behind “If cost was same, if the car was 

their ratings. (See Appendix F for participant tally scores per group). affordable, I would consider the 

In order to test if participants actually understood the environmental one that had less impact.” 

metrics they were probed on how many grams of CO2 and on how – Charlotte Male 

this vehicle compares to others based on the comparison information 

on the label designs. Routinely, participants displayed understanding “I care about the environment, of how this vehicle compared to others, but did not understand what but when it comes to money, I grams of CO referred to. 2	� have to put my pocket book first. 

The environment isn’t going to 

pay my bills.” – Charlotte Female 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 25 
Option 

4C

4B

4C

n 3B Option 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

26 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

On tallying, the participants’ ratings (across all the groups) reflected 

the following, as most understandable and least understandable: 

All groups 

combined 

Option 

4A 

Option 

4B 

Option 

4C 

Option 

4D 

Most 

understandable 24 12 22 4 

Least 

understandable 3 10 16 31 

Overall * 21 2 6 -27 

*Overall = Number of times rated ‘most understandable’ minus 

Number of times rated ‘least understandable’ 

As reflected in the table above, it can be inferred that Option 4A 

(star system) was perceived to be the most understandable design 

option, closely followed by Option 4C. Interestingly, with the 

exception of participants in Seattle, female participants in Chicago 

and male participants in Charlotte, Option 4A received the highest 

number of votes across the other four groups. The reasons why 

participants across all the groups liked Option 4A included: it 

was simple, concise and easy to read; and the star ratings used in 

Option 4A was a familiar system that was clear, straightforward, 

readily understandable, and caught people’s attention. The few 

participants who disliked Option 4A said that the star ratings did 

not give them the range of CO2 information (as in Option 4C) 

and was not informative enough. Suggestions for improving 4A 

included using green as the star color. 

Option 4A

Option 4D

Option 4B

Option  Option 3C4A
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Option 4C was tallied as the second most understandable, “[4A] I wasn’t sure about the 

with male participants in Charlotte, and female participants in Seattle information it’s measuring, but 

voted Option 4C as the most understandable design more often than the stars make sense.” 

participants in other groups. The reasons why participants liked –Seattle Male 

Option 4C included: it was clear, to-the-point, readily understandable 

and attractive; the sliding scale was easy to read and provided the “[4C] I don’t understand the reader a frame of reference in addition to range of CO information 2 numbers. Its unfamiliar to me, for an environment metric; the green and black color format with the so to have a graph of it doesn’t picture of a leaf was appealing and was symbolic of the environment. make sense.” –Chicago Male On the contrary, participants in Chicago and male participants in 

Houston voted Option 4C as the least understandable design more 

often than participants in other groups. The reasons why participants 

disliked Option 4C included: it was complicated and difficult to grasp 

at a glance; the sliding scale was confusing and hard to understand 

with ‘888’ representing ‘worst’ and ‘178’ representing ‘best’ since 

higher is usually associated with better; the concept of CO2 grams was 

in and of itself difficult to understand; and the graphics and the color 

format were “too dark” (some suggested it reminded them of smog), 

cluttered and unappealing. Suggestions for improving 4C included 

using a different background color and not using black as the leaf 

color. Some participants suggested that including a rating on the label 

(such as the star rating in 4A or the number rating in 4B) would be 

helpful since the concept of CO2 grams was not well understood. 

As for those who thought Option 4B was most understandable, male “[4B] This is a new kind of thing 

participants in Seattle and female participants in Chicago voted it people are measuring. I don’t 

as the most understandable design more often than participants really know what it is, so the 8 is 

in other groups. The reasons why participants liked Option 4B helpful.” – Seattle Female 

included: it was clear and easy to read; the rating “8” was attention 

grabbing and easily understood; and the green color format was “4B puts the emphasis on the symbolic of the environment. On the contrary, the participants who wrong thing. The 352 is the disliked Option 4B said that it was vague, confusing, “too busy”, important number.” and difficult to follow and understand. They also found the design – Charlotte Female format to be unappealing. 

Option 4D emerged to be the least understandable design as “I don’t know what these 

compared to the other designs. Participants in Seattle and Charlotte, numbers mean. There needs to 

and female participants in Houston voted Option 4D as the least be something to indicate what 

understandable design more often than other groups. The reasons is good or bad, such as ‘most 

why participants disliked Option 4D included: it was confusing, efficient or least efficient,’ ‘most 

not reader-friendly and “poorly-laid out”; the scale was hard to polluting or least polluting. Use 

understand; and the format was “too plain” and unappealing. the ends of the scale to explain 

it.” – Charlotte Female 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 27 
28 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“CO2 is the one you hear most 

about, I wouldn’t add anything 

else.” – Charlotte Female 

“CO2 is the basic one, no others 

needed.” – Chicago Female 

“Would need to know more what 

it’s about – it’s meaningful if you 

know that only a few vehicles get 

the ranking.” – Seattle Female 

“If I knew what the threshold was 

for the SmartWay certification it 

would mean something more to 

me.” – Houston Female 

Use of terms ‘environment’ and CO2 

Participants across all the groups were asked what the term 

environment meant to them, whether there was a better word to 

use, if the label needed to include information on pollutants other 

than CO2

 and whether they would use that information in making 

their vehicle choice. 

Many participants across all the groups said that they thought 

about air quality, air pollution and global warming when they 

thought of the word ‘environment’ relative to vehicle emissions. A 

few participants also said that they thought about carbon footprint. 

The majority of participants said that the word ‘environment’ on 

the label worked for them. When asked to identify other terms, 

suggestions included: ‘emissions’, ‘eco-friendly’, ‘environmental 

rating’, ‘green’, and ‘air quality’. A few suggested ‘clean air’, 

‘energy-efficient’, ‘green footprint’ and ‘longevity’. However, none 

of these suggestions were considered by participants to be better 

than ’environment’. 

Most participants across all groups indicated that they did not 

understand CO2 and having other pollutants listed would not have 

greater influence on their purchasing decision. They also indicated 

that they did not need to know the ‘science’ behind environmental 

ratings – “just give us a rating.” In addition, some participants 

expressed that they trusted the EPA to make sure that vehicles met 

environmental requirements. 

Participants were also asked if they knew what the ‘SmartWay’ logo 

stood for and whether it would influence their buying decision. 

None of the participants recognized the logo. When asked what 

they thought it meant, some participants made the assumption 

that ‘SmartWay’ was an EPA certification and was similar to 

‘EnergyStar.’ They further expressed that it probably represented 

an EPA certified environmentally friendly car. Some participants 

indicated the logo had the potential of drawing credibility toward 

a vehicle. Interestingly, none of the participants indicated that they 

would be less likely to choose a vehicle if the logo was not on the 

label. They stated that they attached more importance to other 

factors such as vehicle class, price, fuel economy, etc. and could 

discount the “environmental impact” factor relative to these other 

factors. Importantly, several participants suggested that the absence 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

of the ‘SmartWay’ logo on a vehicle would have little impact until 

consumers became aware of its meaning and actively looked for 

the logo. Some even suggested a statement on the fuel economy 

label designating a vehicle as ‘not SmartWay certified’ so that its 

designation was clear. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to what 

participants thought of when thinking about environment, whether 

the label needed to include information on pollutants other than 

CO2, and what they thought about the ‘SmartWay’ logo. 

Based on the above findings, it can be said that Option 4A was the 

most understandable environment rating design. However, 4C might 

easily become more preferred with the suggested modifications. 

Option 4D emerged as the least understandable design. Participants 

preferred a design that was informative and presented information 

in a simple and familiar format. Further, participants stated that 

the use of the term ‘environment’ and reporting just the CO2 count 

on the label worked for them as they wanted the label to be easy to 

read and understand. As participants struggle with understanding 

the meaning of CO2, they stated that having additional information 

on other pollutants included on the label would not influence their 

vehicle purchasing decision. Finally, participants felt an overall 

environmental impact designation was of most value and liked the 

idea of the ‘SmartWay’ logo, but suggested that significant public 

education will be needed to inform the public of its meaning. 

Use of environmental impact in vehicle 

choice 

Participants across all the groups were asked whether (and why/ 

why not) they would use the environment information on the label 

in their vehicle purchase decision. They were also asked if they 

would go to a website (if so directed on the label) and use this 

information in their vehicle choice if it was not on the label. 

While some participants said that they would use environmental “How much the number means 

impact information on the label to compare different vehicles, the depends on how much you care 

majority of individuals did not show much enthusiasm about using about the environment.” 

this information on the label. According to the latter, environmental – Seattle Male 

impact of driving a vehicle was not really important to them because 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 29 
30 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It would all depend on price 

and style. It’s part of the bigger 

package you consider when you’re 

shopping.” – Seattle Female 

“It’s a nice to have, not a need to 

have.” – Chicago Male 

“It wouldn’t sway me, if I wanted 

that car, it wouldn’t change my 

mind.” – Chicago Female 

they gave more precedence to other factors such as vehicle class, 

cost, fuel economy, appearance, brand loyalty, etc. Consequently, 

participants across all groups indicated they were not likely to visit 

a website for environmental information. In fact, when asked if 

they could only have two of the three discussed metrics on the 

label, the vast majority of participants chose fuel consumption and 

fuel cost over environmental impact. 

No major city or gender differences were found with regard to 

participants’ likelihood to use the environmental impact information 

on the label in their vehicle purchase decision, and whether they 

would go to a website for this information if it was not on the label. 

In summary, it may be said that most people said they will not 

be very likely to use the environmental impact information on the 

label, although they were open to the presence of such information 

on the label, and indicated they would not visit a website for this 

information in making their vehicle purchase decisions. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overall Findings 

Gender and Location Affects 

Based on the results of these Phase 1 focus groups, no systematic 

gender or city location differences were found. Those reported here 

appear to be random, but will be further tracked and reviewed as 

Phases 2 and 3 of the focus groups are completed. 

Vehicle Choice Process and Current Label Use 

People actively begin the vehicle purchasing process with specific 

vehicles and/or vehicle types in mind that fit their individual 

need and preferences. They then search for relevant information 

to help narrow their vehicle choices. Participants stated that the 

next important factor they considered when determining which 

vehicle they ultimately purchased was vehicle price followed by 

fuel economy regardless of one’s gender or geographic location. . 

Based on the online survey and focus group results, it is also clear 

that participant’s used the terms vehicle type and vehicle class 

interchangeably and defined vehicle type and/or vehicle class based 

on personal perceptions. Participant’s vehicle type classifications 

were typically broad and did not coincide with EPA’s typical vehicle 

type classifications. 

When participants used the fuel economy label to compare different 

vehicles they primarily relied on city and highway gas mileage estimates. 

While fuel economy figured high on the consideration list, there were 

other factors such as safety, reliability, size, comfort, performance, 

brand name, brand loyalty, past experience with the brand, etc. that 

also influenced vehicle purchase decisions. Environmental impact did 

not seem to significantly impact vehicle choice. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 31 
32 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fuel Consumption Metric 

Most often participants thought in terms of distance covered per 

gallon and ‘miles per gallon’ estimates when they thought about 

fuel consumption. They also recognized that this reliance is in-part 

due to this being the only metric they have ever used. 

Option 1A (star system) was perceived as the most understandable 

design for communicating fuel consumption, with Option 1C 

being the least understandable. Participants preferred the Option 

1A design because it was informative and presented information 

in a simple and familiar format. Part of the reason they found 

Option 1C least understandable was because of the difficulty 

of understanding ‘gallons per 100 miles’ as a measure of fuel 

consumption especially when presented in the slider scale design of 

Option 1C. However, when shown the 1C slider scale in a vertical 

orientation (with best at the top and worst at the bottom; see 

Appendix K) understandability increased. Nonetheless, even those 

who understood the MPG Illusion preferred ‘MPG’ over ‘gallons 

per 100 miles’ in large part because it was so familiar to them. 

However, most participants were open to including ‘gallons per 100 

miles’ as long as the font to display it and MPG were of the same 

size (as opposed to having MPG in small font and in parentheses 

underneath the ‘gallons per 100 miles’ metric). 

Fuel Cost Metric 

Participants preferred annual and monthly estimates of fuel cost 

over other “time” cost metrics because they were used to looking at 

cost from these perspectives. However, there is general skepticism 

around the fuel cost metric due to the fluctuating cost of gasoline. 

Option 3A (star system) was perceived as the most understandable 

fuel cost design and Option 3D was the least understandable 

design. In essence, participants preferred a design that they thought 

was informative and that presented the information in a simple 

and familiar format. It should be noted that compared to the fuel 

consumption design option that showed a scale with best and worst 

fuel consumption based on ‘gallons per 100 miles’, there was more 

support for Option 3C (scale showing best and worst fuel cost 

vehicles) because participants had an easier time understanding 

‘dollars’ compared to ‘gallons per 100 miles.’ 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Environment Metric 

Option 4A (star system) emerged as the most understandable 

environmentmetricdesign and Option4Dwas the least understandable 

design. Again, participants preferred a design that they thought was 

informative and that presented the information in a simple and 

familiar format. Option 4C was a very close second choice. Adopting 

the suggestions provided by participants for improving 4C might 

make this a preferred choice. However, many participants were less 

interested in a scale (such as in Option 4C) that showed the best and 

worst vehicles in regard to CO2 emissions. This was, in part, because 

grams of CO2 has little meaning to them and because environmental 

impact is of much less importance in their vehicle choice process 

(compared to fuel consumption and fuel cost). 

Although participants did not know what ‘SmartWay’ was, they 

eventually figured out as the discussion progressed, that inclusion 

of the ‘SmartWay’ logo was an important EPA certification to 

designate environmentally friendly vehicles, but significant public 

education will be needed to inform the public of its meaning. 

Overall Label Design 

The one thing that participants across all groups said that they 

wanted to see on a full label was the fuel consumption information 

expressed in terms of MPG. They explained that they were used to 

the MPG system and that it would take time for them to adopt other 

metrics, including ‘gallons per 100 miles.’ Further, they added that 

the city and highway gas mileage estimates were important pieces 

of information that helped them to compare vehicles based on their 

driving styles, and was something that needed to be prominent on 

the label. When asked to determine which of the three metrics (fuel 

consumption, fuel cost, environmental impact) they would include 

on a label if they could only have two of them, participants across 

all groups chose fuel consumption and fuel cost. With regard to 

the use of graphics and color, many participants said that the black 

and white format (in design Option A) was appealing for the fuel 

consumption and cost part of the label. According to them, such 

a format made the information appear “clean” and “informative,” 

and did not make it look like someone was trying to “sell” them 

something. Several mentioned that it was also similar in look to 

the current label. Across all the groups, participants liked the gas 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 33 
34 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pump icon, the “$” sign, and the green leaf and said that they could 

easily associate each of these with fuel consumption, fuel cost, and 

environmental impact respectively. However, across the groups there 

was also a minority who thought that the star system did not give 

them enough information and recommended including the scale 

from the C design options (showing best and worst vehicles in regard 

to fuel consumption and cost, and possibly environmental impact). 

While some participants said that the statement about the 

availability of the Fuel Economy Guide was useful, many others 

did not show much enthusiasm toward it. The latter said that they 

would do their research about the vehicles before they visit the 

dealer’s showroom and having this information on the label would 

not affect their decision. 

The issue of comparison to ‘all vehicles’ and/or comparison 

‘within class’ was discussed in all groups. It should be noted 

that participants used the terms ‘vehicle class’ and ‘vehicle type’ 

interchangeably and how they grouped vehicles by type or class 

varied and did not necessarily match the typical EPA vehicle 

classes. Nonetheless, when shown the label design options, most 

assumed that the comparison metrics referred to ‘within class’ 

(when in fact they referred to ‘all vehicles’). With the exception of 

female participants in Chicago and male participants in Houston, 

participants in the all groups preferred seeing both ‘within class’ 

and ‘all vehicles’ information for fuel consumption and fuel cost on 

the label. They explained that including both sets of information for 

fuel consumption and cost gave them more and better information 

to make vehicle comparisons. The remaining participants said that 

they preferred only ‘within class’ information for fuel consumption 

and fuel cost metrics on the label. According to these participants, 

the standard of comparison was fair when comparison was done 

within class (“comparing within class means comparing apples to 

apples”). However, this comparison is complicated by participant’s 

varied definitions of what constitutes a ‘vehicle type’ or ‘vehicle 

class’ and that those definitions are not consistent with EPA vehicle 

type classifications. When probed whether they would feel guilty 

if the vehicle they recently purchased had ratings that showed 

that it rated better ‘within class,’ but worse when compared to 

‘all vehicles,’ almost all disagreed. Participants explained that 

vehicle type played a crucial role in their vehicle choice process and 

vehicles within a particular type had similar range estimates for 

fuel consumption and fuel cost. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recommendations regarding metrics 

and label design 

The following recommendations are based on the overall results 

of the Phase 1 focus groups and reflect findings regarding metric 

and label design understanding, preferences, as well as metric and 

design options to which participants are open. 

•	� Give prominence to fuel consumption, followed by fuel 

cost and environment metric. 

•	� Retain the black and white format for the fuel consumption 

and fuel cost metric,and use the color green in communicating 

the environment part of the label. 

•	� For the fuel consumption part of the label: 

•	� Use MPG estimates as the primary metric for fuel 

consumption. If there is a desire to introduce ‘gallons 

per 100 miles’ estimates, do so in a way that positions 

it as additional information and use the same font size 

for presenting the MPG and gallons per 100 miles 

information. 

•	� Utilize external marketing and education activities to 

help consumers understand the value and benefit of 

using gallons per 100 miles. 

•	� Provide both city and highway gas mileage estimates. 

•	� Provide both“within class”and“all vehicles”comparison 

scales for fuel consumption. 

•	� Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as 

well) for easy comparison: 

•	� To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring 

of stars. 

•	� Make the sliding scale into a vertical scale with the 

worst at the bottom and best at top. 

•	� Usebetterdescriptors(suchas“bestfuelconsumption”, 

“worst fuel consumption”) to explain the tail ends 

of the scale. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 35 
36 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	� Mention EPA as the source for the fuel consumption ratings. 

• For the fuel cost part of the label: 

•	� Use bigger and bolder font compare to that used on some 

of the labels to describe annual fuel cost. 

•	� Provide both “within class” and “all vehicles” comparison 

scales for fuel consumption. 

•	� Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as well) 

for easy comparison: 

•	� To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring of 

stars. 

•	� Make the sliding scale into a vertical scale with the 

worst at the bottom of the scale and best at the top 

•	� Use better descriptors (such as “most cost efficient”, 

“least cost efficient”) to explain the tail ends of the 

scale. 

• Mention EPA as the source for the fuel cost ratings. 

• For the environment part of the label: 

•	� Use green for this part of the label and change the color of 

the stars to green. 

•	� Include star ratings (and possibly a sliding scale as well) 

for easy comparison: 

•	� To show accurate star rating, use partial coloring of 

stars. 

•	� Make the sliding scale into a vertical scale with the 

worst at the bottom of the scale and best at the top. 

•	� Use better descriptors (such as “most polluting”, “least 

polluting”) to explain the tail ends of the scale. 

•	� Mention EPA as the source for the environment ratings. 

•	� Include the SmartWay logo for those vehicles that are certified. 

•	� Conduct an education/marketing campaign to increase 

awareness and value in the SmartWay logo. 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Moderator Guide 

Introduction (8 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 observers in separate room. 

•	� Housekeeping – Toilets and refreshments. 

•	� Mention ground rules: 

•	� There is no right or wrong answer; we’re interested in your 

honest and candid opinions and ideas. 

•	� Our discussion is totally confidential. We will not use your 

name or contact information in any report. 

•	� Our discussion today is being recorded. These recordings 

allow us to write a more complete report, and to make sure 

we accurately reflect your opinions. However, please only 

speak one at a time, so that the recorder can pick up all 

your comments. 

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

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

•	� Please turn off cell phones 

•	� Your stipend will be provided as you leave. 

•	� Relax and enjoy 

Thank you all for participating in the survey we sent to you in 

advance. Today we will continue the discussion talking about new 

car purchases. Any questions before we begin? 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 37 
38 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

•	� Let’s start off by getting to know a little more about each other. 

I’d like us to go around the room with each person answering the 

following questions: 

•	� Your first name 

•	� When did you buy your last new vehicle? 

•	� What type of vehicle did you buy recently (make and 

model)? 

•	� Did you consider buying a hybrid, or clean diesel, or some 

other alternative fuel vehicle? 

Current Label Use (8 minutes) 

1.	� What were the top two things that influenced your vehicle 

choice? 

2.	� Did you have a specific vehicle in mind when you started 

shopping for a vehicle? Is that the vehicle you ended up 

purchasing? Why or why not? 

3.	� In what ‘class’ of vehicles is the vehicle you ended up 

purchasing? What do we mean by ‘class of vehicle’? Is there a 

better term to use to get at this issue? What better terms? 

4.	� Did you use the fuel economy label when deciding on your 

new vehicle purchase? Why or why not? How did you use it? 

Then show participants a large size example of the current 

label (as well as 8 x11 copy for each participant) and ask 

what information on the label most influenced their purchasing 

decision. Probe briefly on why. 

Fuel Consumption Metric (37 minutes) 

SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS 

COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC. THEN EXPLAIN THAT 

WE ARE GOING TO LOOK AT FUEL CONSUMPTION FOR A NEW LABEL 

SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE PART OF A TOTAL 

LABEL. 

5.	� When you think of fuel consumption, how do you think 

about it? (Listen for mpg, miles per tank full, gallons to go a 

particular distance, how often they have to fill the tank.) 

6.	� The current label includes mpg for both city and highway. What 

does mpg mean to you? Is this useful information? Why or why not? 
 

7.	� (Hand out the fuel consumption metric work sheets and the 

individual copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on 

large boards.) 

a.	� Would any of the four options make you more likely to 

purchase a fuel efficient vehicle? (Have them indicate 

which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT discuss yet.) 

LISTEN FOR CONCERNS ABOUT MPG BEING DEEMPHASIZED. ASSURE THEM THAT IT IS HERE TO 

STAY AND THAT THE LABEL COULD SHOW MPG AND 

GAL/100 MI IN THE SAME SIZE FONT (SHOW LABEL 

EXAMPLE OF THIS.) 

b.	� Then instruct them to “indicate on your worksheet 

which option is most understandable and which is least 

understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points 

explaining why.” 

c.	� Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion 

regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which of 

the 4 options explains fuel consumption most effectively? 

Test correct interpretation of metrics by asking what the 

metrics mean, if they are ‘easy to understand’. Test to 

include probing on: city vs. highway gals/100 miles, how 

does this vehicle compare to others?) 

d.	� Then tally from 7a above and ask which of the 4 options, 

if any, would make you more likely to purchase a fuel 

efficient vehicle. (Probe on why) 

8.	� If the label had a sentence that said: 

•	� In the city, this vehicle would use approximately 4.5 

gallons of gasoline to travel 100 miles. 

•	� On the highway, this vehicle would use approximately 3.3 

gallons of gasoline to travel 100 miles. 

Would that be more helpful or less helpful compared to the 

metric that appears on the label? Why? 

9.	� Can you suggest other ways to express this information 

visually? 

10. If this information was available on the label, would you use it 

in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why 

not? If so, at what point? 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 39 
40 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

11. All of the options we’ve shown you include a comparison to 

all other vehicles. Does having this assist you in choosing the 

most fuel efficient new vehicle? Why or why not? Is it useful 

to also have such a fuel consumption comparison in regard 

to vehicles in your class? Why or why not? Is it too much 

information? 

12. Remind them of the example of the “mpg illusion” from the 

pre-group survey. 

a.	� Show them the front of the handout that includes annual 

gallons used and annual cost. Ask them what do they see 

that is different than the current label? 

b.	� Then have them look at the top two examples on the back 

of the form and ask them to indicate what is different 

between the two. (Probe on how 5 mpg translates into 

fewer gallons and lower costs.) 

c.	� Then have them look at the bottom two examples on the 

back of the form and ask them to indicate what is different 

between the two (Probe on how 5 mpg translates into 

fewer gallons and lower costs.) 

d.	� Ask them to then compare the difference between the 

top two labels and bottom two labels. What is the lesson 

learned? (Probe on fact that although both indicate a 5 

mpg increase, that 5 mpg increase has different gallons 

and cost implications depending on whether vehicle is a 

gas guzzler or not.) 

e.	� Ask them if gals/100 mi (instead of mpg) would get them 

to switch to a different class of vehicle. Why or why not? 

(Probe on whether the gallons used and cost is important 

to them. Why or why not?) 

Ask: If you had the choice of ‘gallons per hundred miles’ or 

mpg, which would you use? Why? 

13. Range of comparable vehicles. (Show 4 examples of the same 

design – one with ‘within class’ and one ‘within class’ and ‘for 

all vehicles’. 2 will emphasize ‘gallons per 100 miles’ and the 

other 2 will emphasize ‘mpg’.) Hand out the 4 comparable 

designs sheet. Tell them that some vehicles will compare well 

to other vehicles in their class and to all vehicles. But other 

vehicles may compare well within class, but not well when 

compared to all vehicles. 

•	� Which of the 4 labels would be most useful to them? 

Why? 

•	� Discuss where the same vehicle falls on scale in regard to 

‘gallons per 100 miles’ vs. ‘mpg’. 

•	� If the vehicle you recently purchased had ratings that 
 

 

 

 

 

 

showed it was better ‘within class’ compared to ‘all 

vehicles’ how would you feel about your choice? Use 

choice 5B1 as an example. (Probe on whether they feel 

guilty or not.) 

14. Then probe on comparison bars in regard to: (IF THIS COMES 

UP EARLIER THEN DISCUSS EARLIER.) 

•	� How do we best visually tell a story when in some cases a 

big number is good and in other cases a big number is bad? 

(Show them the example where the lower fuel consumption 

number is better and where the higher mpg is better.) 

Ask client if they have any questions at this time. 

Fuel Cost Metric (25 minutes) 

SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS 

COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC. THEN EXPLAIN THAT 

WE ARE NOW GOING TO LOOK AT FUEL COST FOR A NEW LABEL 

SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT WILL EVENTUALLY BE PART OF A TOTAL 

LABEL. 

15. Did you notice the average annual fuel cost information on the 

current label when you purchased your most recent vehicle? 

(Show current label.) How do you think about this fuel cost 

information on the current label? Did you use this information 

in making your decision? Why or why not? 

We would now like to explore talking about cost. The cost per 

year depends greatly on variables such as fuel price, driving 

patterns and mix of city and highway driving. For the label, 

we rely on basic assumptions such as a person drives 15,000 

miles a year and gas costs $3.00 a gallon. 

16. The current label shows annual costs. Are there other ways to 

express cost that would be more useful (salient) to you? (Write 

their suggestions on flip chart and probe on the why behind 

their suggestions. If they don’t mention monthly, 5-year, weekly, 

cost per 100 miles, cost per mile, add these to the list and 

get their reactions to these.) Show them actual numbers (on a 

handout sheet) for each of the following metrics and ask which 

of these is most useful to them. 

•	� Annual 

•	� Monthly 

•	� 5-year 

•	� Weekly 

•	� Cost per mile (BE SURE TO PROBE ON .12 OR 12 CENTS) 

•	� Cost per 100 miles 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 41 
42 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

 

 

 

 

 

Then show board with the combinations and ask what 

combination of these, if any, would be the most powerful? Why? 

17. (Hand out the fuel cost metric work sheet and the individual 

copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on large 

boards.) 

a. Would any of the four options make you more likely to 

purchase a vehicle with lower fuel costs? (Have them indicate 

which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT discuss yet.) 

b. Then instruct them to “indicate on your worksheet 

which option is most understandable and which is least 

understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points 

explaining why.” 

c. Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion 

regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which 

of the 4 options explains fuel costs most effectively? Test 

correct interpretation of metrics by asking what the metrics 

mean, if they are ‘easy to understand’. Test to include 

probing on: cost per year, how does this vehicle compare 

to others?) 

d. Then tally from 17a above and ask which of the 4 options, 

if any, would make you more likely to purchase a vehicle 

with lower fuel costs. (Probe on why) 

18. Can you suggest other ways to express this information 

visually? 

19. If this information was available on the label, would you use it 

in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why 

not? If so, at what point? 

20. All of the options we’ve shown you include a comparison to all 

other vehicles. Does having this assist you in choosing which 

vehicle to purchase? Why or why not? Is it useful to also have 

such a fuel cost comparison in regard to vehicles in your class? 

Why or why not? Is it too much information? 

Ask client if they have any questions at this time. 

Environmental Metric (20 minutes) 

SHOW THEM THE CURRENT LABEL AND SHOW THEM THAT IT HAS 

COMPONENTS FOR MPG, FUEL COSTS, ETC. THEN EXPLAIN THAT 

WE ARE NOW GOING TO LOOK AT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FOR A 

NEW LABEL SEPARATELY, BUT THAT IT MAY EVENTUALLY BE PART 

OF A TOTAL LABEL. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Does the impact of driving on the environment affect the type 

of vehicle you purchase? Why or why not? 

22. (Hand out the environmental metric work sheet and the 

individual copies of the designs. Show them the 4 options on 

large boards) 

a. Would any of the four options make you more likely to 

purchase a more environmentally friendly vehicle? (Have 

them indicate which one on their rating sheet. Do NOT 

discuss yet.) 

b. Then instruct them to “indicate on your worksheet 

which option is most understandable and which is least 

understandable. For each choice write brief bullet points 

explaining why.” 

c. Moderator then tallies rankings and opens up to discussion 

regarding reasons behind their choices. (Probe on which 

of the 4 options explains environmental impact most 

effectively? Test correct interpretation of metrics by asking 

what the metrics mean, if they are ‘easy to understand’. 

Test to include probing on: how many grams per mile, how 

does this vehicle compare to others?) 

d. Then tally from 22a above and ask which of the 4 options, 

if any, would make you more likely to purchase a more 

environmentally friendly vehicle. (Probe on why) 

23. Can you suggest other ways to express this information visually? 

24. If this information was available on the label, would you use it 

in your decision about which vehicle to purchase? Why or why 

not? If so, at what point? 

25. If it wasn’t on the label, but you were directed to a web site for 

it, would you go to the website and use this information? Why 

or why not? 

26. All of the options we showed you used the term “Environment”. 

What does that mean to you? Do you think there is a better word 

to use? (Moderator to write suggestions on flip chart. Then open 

up to discussion regarding reasons behind their suggestions.) 

27. All of the options also report on CO2, but not on other 

pollutants. Does the label need to include information on these 

other pollutants? Would you use that information in making 

your vehicle choice? Why or why not? 

28. Moderator to point to the ‘SmartWay’ logo and ask them ‘what 

is this?’ (Probe on what they think it means.) Ask- ‘if it was 

not on the label would that make you less likely to choose that 

vehicle.’ Why or why not? (Note to moderator: SmartWay label 

refers to more than CO2.) 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 43 
44 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Range Metric (10 minutes IF TIME PERMITS) 

29. What do we mean by a vehicles range? When you think about 

your vehicle, do you think about its range? 

30. Show them the 1 option on large board. Then ask if range 

affects their purchase decision. What if one vehicle had a range 

of 600 miles and another had a range of 300 miles, would that 

affect your choice of vehicle? Why or why not? 

31. Can you suggest other ways to express this information 

visually? 

32. If it wasn’t on the label, but you were directed to a web site for 

it, would you go to the website and use this information? Why 

or why not? 

Overall Label Design Issues (15 minutes) 

33. How should we present the information we just discussed on 

a full label? Should some information be emphasized over 

other information? Moderator to use consumption, cost, and 

environment design choices most favored by the group to lead 

this discussion. Probe on: 

•	� relative importance of each metric 

•	� prominence 

•	� placement of information 

•	� use of graphical elements 

•	� use of color 

•	� importance of including the statement about the 

availability of the Fuel Economy Guide (show from 

current label). 

34. If you could only have TWO items on the label what would they 

be? Why? (Probe on how those would influence their choice of 

the most fuel efficient vehicle.) 

35. We have discussed a number of elements that could be on the 

label. Are there any other elements that we have not discussed 

that would influence you to buy a fuel efficient vehicle? 
 

36. Other than the label, are there other methods that would be 

useful in providing the information we have been discussing? 

For example (show label code), if a code such as this were on 

every label and you could scan it with your phone camera and 

it could tell you about this vehicle, or you could scan multiple 

vehicle and compare them, would that be useful? Any others 

ideas that would be useful to assist you in choosing the most 

fuel efficient vehicle? 

37. For those of you who chose a vehicle with a partner, how did 

that process work? (Probe on who was involved in the decision 

making process, what input did each person have, who made 

the final choice, etc.) 

Wrap-Up (5 minutes) 

•	� Summarize findings from focus group and ask for confirmation 

of summarized findings. 

•	� Is there information that we have not discussed today that would 

influence you to choose a fuel efficient vehicle? 

•	� Anything else you would like our clients to know about you 

thoughts about fuel economy labels? 

Ask client if they have any last questions. 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 45 
46 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign Appendix B: Participant Profiles CHARLOTTE MALE Group Q9. What type of vehicle did you purchase? Q10. How is this vehicle powered? Q11. What is the distance in miles of your typical daily travel in this vehicle? Q12. Price range of new vehicle Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 1 Passenger car Gasoline powered 40+ $20-$30k 35-49 Some college or White college graduate 2 Passenger car Gasoline powered 30-39 $30-$40k 20-34 Some high school White or high school graduate or GED 3 Passenger car Hybrid 50 $20-$30k 35-49 Some college or White college graduate 4 Station wagon/ Gasoline powered 40+ $20-$30k 35-49 Some college or White minivan college graduate 5 Pickup truck Gasoline powered 40+ $20-$30k 50-64 Some college or White college graduate 6 Passenger car Gasoline powered 20-29 $30-$40k 35-49 Graduate degree White 7 Passenger car Hybrid 25 $20-$30k 50-64 Graduate degree White 8 Passenger car Gasoline powered 15 $20-$30k 35-49 Some college or White college graduate 
 CHARLOTTE FEMALE Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 SUV Gasoline powered 40+ $20-$30k 20-34 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

2 Mini Van Gasoline powered Less then 10 $30-$40k 35-49 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

3 Passenger car Gasoline powered Less then 10 $15-$20k 20-34 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

4 Passenger car Hybrid 45 $20-$30k 20-34 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

5 Passenger car Gasoline powered 40+ $20-30k 65+ Some college or

college graduate 

White 

6 Passenger car Gasoline powered 40+ $20-$30k 35-49 Graduate degree White 7 Passenger car Hybrid 20-29 $20-$30k 50-64 Some college or

college graduate 

African American 

8 Passenger car Gasoline powered 20-29 $15-$20k 35-49 Some college or

college graduate 

African American 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 47 
48 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign HOUSTON FEMALE Group Q9. What type of vehicle did you purchase? Q10. How is this vehicle powered? Q11. What is the distance in miles of your typical daily travel in this vehicle? Q12. Price range of new vehicle Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 1 SUV Gasoline 27 $20-30k 35-49 Some College or Hispanic College Graduate 2 Truck Gasoline 50 $40-50k 35-49 Some College or African American College Graduate 3 Passenger Car Diesel 80 $20-30k 35-49 Some College or White College Graduate 4 Passenger Car Gasoline 20 $20-30k 50-64 Some College or Asian College Graduate 5 Passenger Car Gasoline 30+ $20-30k 20-34 Graduate Degree White 6 Passenger Car Gasoline 50 $15-20k 50-64 Some College or Asian College Graduate 7 Passenger Car Gasoline 50 $30-40k 50-64 Graduate Degree White 8 SUV Gasoline 60 $20-30k 35-43 Some College or Asian College Graduate 
 HOUSTON MALE Group

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger Car Gasoline 30-39 $15-20k 35-49 Graduate degree White 2 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $23k 20-34 Some college or

college graduate 

African American 

3 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 $20k 20-34 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

4 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $32k 35-49 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

5 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $30-40k 35-49 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

6 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $20-30k 35-49 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

7 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ $11k after tradein 50-64 Graduate degree White 8 Passenger Car: Gasoline 20-29 $20-30k 35-49 Some high school

or high schoolgraduate or GED 

Asian 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 49 
50 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign CHICAGO MALE Group Q9. What type of vehicle did you purchase? Q10. How is this vehicle powered? Q11. What is the distance in miles of your typical daily travel in this vehicle? Q12. Price range of new vehicle Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 1 Passenger car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $20,000 to 35-49 Graduate degree African American $30,000 2 Minivan Gasoline powered Less than 10 $30,000 to 50-64 Some college or White miles $40,000 college graduate 3 Passenger car Hybrid vehicle 20-29 miles $15,000 to 20-34 Graduate degree White $20,000 4 Passenger car Hybrid vehicle 40 or more miles $20,000 to 60-64 Graduate degree White $30,000 5 Passenger car Hybrid vehicle 30-39 miles $30,000 to 20-34 Some college or Asian $40,000 college graduate 6 SUV Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $30,000 to 20-34 Graduate degree White $40,000 7 Passenger car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles $30,000 to 50-64 Some college or White $40,000 college graduate 8 SUV Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $20,000 to 35-49 Graduate degree Hispanic $30,000 
 

Q9. What type ofvehicle did youpurchase? 

Q10. How is thisvehicle powered? 

Q11. What is thedistance in milesof your typicaldaily travel inthis vehicle? 

Q12. Price range of new vehicle 

Q13. Age Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger car Hybrid 40 or more miles $20,000 -

$30,000 

20-34 Graduate degree White 

2 SUV Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $50,000 or more 50-64 Graduate degree White 3 Passenger car Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $40,000 -

$50,000 

35-49 Graduate degree White 

4 SUV Gasoline powered 20-29 miles $50,000 or more 35-49 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

5 SUV Gasoline powered 40 or more miles $40,000 -

$50,000 

20-34 Graduate degree White 

6 Passenger car Gasoline powered 10-19 miles Less than $15,00 35-49 Some college or

college graduate 

White 

7 SUV Gasoline powered 30-39 miles $15,000 -

$20,000 

20-34 Graduate degree White 

8 Passenger car Hybrid 40 or more miles $20,000 -

$30,000 

20-34 Graduate degree White

 CHICAGO FEMALE Group 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 51 
52 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign SEATTLE MALE Group Q9. Type of vehicle purchased Q10. How is this vehicle powered? Q11. Distance in miles of typical daily travel in the vehicle Q12. Price range of new vehicle Q13. Age range Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 1 Station Wagon Gasoline Less than 10 $20,000- 50-64 Graduate Degree White or Minivan Powered Vehicle miles 30,000 2 Pickup Truck Gasoline Less than 10 $15,000- 20-34 Graduate Degree White powered vehicle miles 20,000 3 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles $40,000- 50-64 Some College or White Powered Vehicle $50,000 College Graduate 4 Passenger car Gasoline 10-19 miles $15,000- 20-34 Some College or White Powered Vehicle $20,000 College Graduate 5 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles $30,000- 35-49 Some College or White Powered Vehicle $40,000 College Graduate 6 Passenger car Gasoline 19-Oct less than 35-49 Some College or Hispanic Powered Vehicle 15,000 College Graduate 7 Pickup Truck Gasoline 10-19 miles $30,000- 50-64 Graduate Degree White Powered Vehicle $40,000 8 SUV Gasoline 10-19 miles $20,000- 50-64 Some College or White Powered Vehicle $30,000 College Graduate 
 SEATTLE FEMALE Group

Q9. Type purchased powered? typical daily

travel in thevehicle 

of vehicle 

Q10. How isthis vehicle 

Q11. Distancein miles of 

Q12. Price range of newvehicle 

Q13. Age range Q14. Education Q15. Ethnicity 

1 Passenger Car Gasoline Less than 10 $15,000- 35-49 Some College or White 

powered vehicle miles 20,000 College Graduate

2 SUV Gasoline 20-29 miles $30,000- 35-49 Some College or White 

powered vehicle 40,000 College Graduate

3 Passenger Car Gasoline 10-19 miles $20,000- 35-49 Graduate Degree White 

powered vehicle 30,000 

4 Passenger Car Gasoline 20-29 miles $20,000- 65+ Some College or Asian 

powered vehicle $30,000 College Graduate

5 Passenger Car Hybrid Vehicle 10-19 miles $20,000- 35-49 Graduate Degree Mixed Race 

$30,000 

6 Passenger Car Gasoline 40+ miles $30,000- 50-64 Some College or Asian 

powered vehicle 40,000 College Graduate 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 53 
54 EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 

Appendix C: Current Fuel Economy Label
�
 

Appendix D: Fuel Consumption Tally Sheet 

(1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
�

Overall = Number of times rated ‘most understandable’ – Number of times rated ‘least understandable’)
�

Option 1A Option 1B Option 1C Option 1D 

Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010 

Participant 1 1 X 

Participant 2 1 X 

Participant 3 1 X 

Participant 4 1 X 

Participant 5 X 1 

Participant 6 1 X 

Participant 7 X 1 

Participant 8 1 X 

Total Most 

understandable 

5 1 1 1 

Least 

understandable 

2 2 4 

Overall 5 -1 0 -3 

Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010 

Participant 1 1 X 

Participant 2 X 1 

Participant 3 1 X 

Participant 4 X 1 

Participant 5 1 X 

Participant 6 X 1 

Participant 7 1 X 

Participant 8 1 X 

Total Most 

understandable 

4 1 2 1 

Least 

understandable 

3 2 3 

Overall 4 -2 -1 -2 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 55 
56 

Option 1A Option 1B Option 1C Option 1D 

Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010 

Participant 1 X 1,C 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1,C X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1 C X 

Participant 7 X 1 

Participant 8 1 C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

5 1 2 

Least 

understandable 

1 4 3 

Overall 4 -3 2 -3 

Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 X 1,C 

Participant 3 C X 1 

Participant 4 1 X C 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

6 1 1 

Least 

understandable 

1 2 5 

Overall 5 -2 -4 1 

Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 X 1 

Participant 4 1 X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

2 2 2 

Least 

understandable 

2 1 3 

Overall 2 0 1 -3 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Option 1A Option 1B Option 1C Option 1D 

Seattle Male Group: 03/08/2010 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1 X C 

Participant 4 X 1 C 

Participant 5 1 C X 

Participant 6 X 1,C 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

4 3 1 

Least 

understandable 

1 2 4 1 

Overall 3 1 -3 -1 

Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010 

Participant 1 1, C X 

Participant 2 1 X C 

Participant 3 1 C X 

Participant 4 1 C X 

Participant 5 1 C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 X 1,C 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

6 1 1 

Least 

understandable 

1 7 

Overall 6 0 -7 1 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 57 
58 

Option 1A Option 1B Option 1C Option 1D 

Chicago 

Male Group: 

03/04/2010 

Participant 1 1 X,C 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 X 1,C 

Participant 5 1 X,C 

Participant 6 X 1,C 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

4 1 1 2 

Least 

understandable 

1 4 3 

Overall 4 0 -3 -1 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total Most 

understandable 

36 10 10 6 

Least 

understandable 

3 17 25 17 

Overall 33 -7 -15 -11 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix E: Fuel Cost Tally 

(1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
�

Overall = Number of times rated ‘most understandable’ – Number of times rated ‘least understandable’)
�

Option 3A Option 3B Option 3C Option 3D 

Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010 

Participant 1 1 X 

Participant 2 1 X 

Participant 3 X 1 

Participant 4 1 X 

Participant 5 1 X 

Participant 6 1 X 

Participant 7 1 X 

Participant 8 X 1 

Total Most 

understandable 

3 1 4 

Least 

understandable 

3 2 3 

Overall 3 -2 2 -3 

Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010 

Participant 1 X 1 

Participant 2 1 X 

Participant 3 1 X 

Participant 4 1 X 

Participant 5 1 X 

Participant 6 1 X 

Participant 7 1 X 

Participant 8 1 X 

Total Most 

understandable 

6 2 

Least 

understandable 

1 5 2 

Overall 6 -1 -3 -2 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 59 
60 

Participant 1 1 C X 

Participant 2 1 X C 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1 C X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

8 

Least 

understandable 

3 1 4 

Overall 8 -3 -1 -4 

Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010 

Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010 

Participant 1 X 1,C 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1 X C 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 X 1,C 

Participant 7 1,C 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

6 2 

Least 

understandable 

5 2 

Overall 6 -5 0 

Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 X 1,C 

Participant 5 1 X C 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

1 1 4 

Least 

understandable 

1 1 1 3 

Overall 0 0 3 -3 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Seattle Male Group: 03/08/20104 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1,C X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

2 4 2 

Least 

understandable 

1 7 

Overall 2 4 1 -7 

Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010 

Participant 1 X 1,C 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 C X 1 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

3 2 1 2 

Least 

understandable 

2 5 1 

Overall 3 0 -4 1 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 61 
62 

Chicago Male Group: 03/04/2010 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 1 C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 X 1,C 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

5 1 2 

Least 

understandable 

2 3 3 

Overall 5 -1 -1 -3 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total Most 

understandable 

34 9 17 2 

Least 

understandable 

1 17 20 23 

Overall 33 -8 -3 -21 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Appendix F: Environment Metric Tally 

(1: Most understandable; X: Least understandable; C: Most Compelling;
�

Overall = Number of times rated ‘most understandable’ – Number of times rated ‘least understandable’)
�

Option 4A Option 4B Option 4C Option 4D 

Charlotte Male Group: 02/25/2010 

Participant 1 X 1 

Participant 2 1 X 

Participant 3 1 X 

Participant 4 1 X 

Participant 5 1 X 

Participant 6 1 X 

Participant 7 1 X 

Participant 8 1 

Total Most 

understandable 

1 1 5 1 

Least 

understandable 

1 1 5 

Overall 0 0 5 -4 

Charlotte Female Group: 02/25/2010 

Participant 1 1 X 

Participant 2 1 X 

Participant 3 1 X 

Participant 4 X 1 

Participant 5 X 1 

Participant 6 1 X 

Participant 7 1 X 

Participant 8 1 X 

Total Most 

understandable 

5 3 

Least 

understandable 

3 5 

Overall 5 -3 3 -5 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 63 
64 

Participant 1 C 1 X 

Participant 2 1 C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1,C X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1.C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

4 1 3 

Least 

understandable 

8 

Overall 4 1 3 -8 

Houston Female Group: 03/03/2010 

Houston Male Group: 03/03/2010 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 X 1,C 

Participant 5 1 X C 

Participant 6 X 1,C 

Participant 7 1,C 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

6 1 1 

Least 

understandable 

3 4 

Overall 6 -3 -3 1 

Seattle Female Group: 03/09/2010 

Participant 1 1 C X 

Participant 2 C 1 X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1,C X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 X C 1 

Total Most 

understandable 

1 1 4 

Least 

understandable 

1 5 

Overall 0 1 4 -5 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign 
 

Seattle Male Group: 03/08/2010 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 X 1,C 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1,C X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1 X 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

1 5 2 

Least 

understandable 

1 1 6 

Overall 0 5 1 -6 

Chicago Female Group: 03/04/2010 

Participant 1 X 1,C 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1,C X 

Participant 5 X 1 C 

Participant 6 X 1,C 

Participant 7 1,C X 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

2 3 1 2 

Least 

understandable 

2 6 

Overall 2 1 -5 2 

Phase 1 Focus Groups 65 
66 

Participant 1 1,C X 

Participant 2 1,C X 

Participant 3 1,C X 

Participant 4 1,C X 

Participant 5 1,C X 

Participant 6 1,C X 

Participant 7 C X 1 

Participant 8 1,C X 

Total Most 

understandable 

4 1 3 

Least 

understandable 

1 5 2 

Overall 4 0 -2 -2 

Chicago Male Group: 03/04/2010 

COMBINED TALLY FOR ALL GROUPS 

Total Most 

understandable 

24 12 22 4 

Least 

understandable 

3 10 16 31 

Overall 21 2 6 -27 

EPA Fuel Economy Label Redesign