EPA Fuel Economy Label 

Focus Groups 

Report of Findings

Prepared for:

March 2005

Prepared by:

PRR, Inc.

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction & Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Focus Group Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Appendix A: Participant Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Appendix B: Sample Moderator Guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Appendix C: Proposed Fuel Economy Labels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 
Report of Findings 1

Executive Summary

With increased gas prices fuel economy has been becoming and may become 

an even more important feature when making a car buying decision. Currently, 

buyers can make fuel economy comparisons by reviewing the Fuel Economy 

Label that appears on all new vehicles, as it is mandated by EPA. A series of 10 

focus groups were conducted across five cities throughout the United States to 

gather qualitative information that would assist EPA in enhancing the current fuel 

economy label. The following is a brief summary of the main findings from this 

research, followed by a more detailed report of the overall findings and recommendations. 

Yes, it is worth the effort to revise 

the current fuel economy label

The current label contains useful information; however the display and verbal 

descriptions on the current label are in need of an update. Overall, nearly all the 

participants agreed that revising the current label would be a good idea, especially 

after viewing the newly proposed labels. 

Of the proposed new fuel economy labels, 

label #1 is the favorite 

Four newly designed labels were presented to participants, and label #1 was undeniably the most preferred label across all the groups. Label #1 provided the type of 

information that was most requested as missing from the current label. 

The City vs. Highway distinction 

is understood and must remain intact

In any revision of the current label, participants want the city vs. highway mileage estimate distinction to remain intact. Participants understand that city and 

highway mileage estimates represent the actual driving conditions, not the type of 

road one drives on. They also understand that the estimates are just that; estimates. 

They do not expect to actually obtain the mileage on the label because they know 

that mileage is contingent upon a variety of factors such as the age of the car, how 

someone drives, regional traffic conditions, etc. They understand that the city vs. 

highway mileage estimates are guidelines for comparison purposes, and they are 

used to seeing the estimates presented this way. 

Annual fuel cost information has no meaning currently, 

but is appreciated if a reference is provided

The annual fuel cost estimate on the current label lacks a reference as to how the 

estimate is generated. The estimate is not comparable between vehicles and does 

not provide participants with a “true” indication of how much the vehicle will cost 

them annually. When additional reference information (estimated annual miles 

and estimated fuel cost per gallon) was presented on the proposed label, participants felt the annual fuel cost estimate became more relevant and important. 

Current Label

Proposed Label #1
2 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

Overall there are mixed reactions about the ‘fine print’ 

on both the current and proposed labels 

On the current label the “actual mileage will vary with...” statement contains 

important information to participants if they actually read it, but the statement 

is hard to understand and comes across as a disclaimer. And the “for comparison 

shopping” statement is unclear and confusing to participants. In fact most participants admitted they had never paid attention to this information before. 

After seeing the proposed labels they preferred some of the changes to the “actual 

mileage will vary” statement, but many were still confused by the “comparison 

shopping” statement. Overall participants preferred fine print statements that explained how calculations were generated, but not the fine print that provided more 

explanation than was necessary or understandable. 

Mixed initial reaction to the environmental 

performance indicators on the proposed labels, 

but may be useful in the future

Participants either liked or disliked the environmental performance indicators in 

the newly proposed labels. Many disliked the indicators merely because they did 

not understand the information that was being presented to them. Many did not 

understand what a green house gas was, and they were unsure as to how to interpret the scores. Towards the end of the discussion though many began to agree 

that the environmental indicators would become more important in the future, 

and they would probably pay more attention if these indicators were displayed on 

the label. 

EPA as a source is unknown, but the logo on the 

proposed label adds credibility to the information

Participants are largely unaware that EPA is the source behind the current fuel 

economy label. However, once made aware of this fact, participants were not necessarily surprised and were relieved that the information is not solely provided by 

the manufacturers. When viewing the proposed labels they clearly noticed the EPA 

logo, and indicated the logo adds credibility to the fuel economy information that 

is provided about vehicles. 

Overall fuel economy information is important, but 

not the most important when buying a car

Nearly all participants agree that the information provided on the current and 

proposed labels is important, however when they buy a car fuel economy is not the 

most important factor. They admit that buying a car is an ‘emotional’ experience, 

and even though they may choose a car with low mileage this is cancelled out by 

the cars many other appealing features. Cars with high fuel economy are often 

viewed as cheap, not aesthetically pleasing, and unsafe.
Report of Findings 3

Introduction & Purpose

With increased gas prices fuel economy has been becoming and may become an 

even more important feature when making a car buying decision. Currently, buyers 

can make fuel economy comparisons by reviewing the Fuel Economy Label that 

appears on all new vehicles, as it is mandated by EPA. 

The EPA’s Certification and Compliance Division (CCD) is conducting research on 

automobile buyer response to these labels. While estimates have been a useful tool 

for comparing the fuel economy of different vehicles, the test procedures on which 

they are based have been in place since l970 and have been adjusted only once, 

twenty years ago. EPA has received significant comment from their stakeholders as 

well as the public in support of updating the methods by which the estimates are 

calculated. As a result, EPA has begun a collaborative process to assure that more 

credible fuel economy information is available to consumers.

Focus groups were conducted to gather qualitative information that would assist 

EPA in enhancing the current fuel economy label. The key objectives of the focus 

groups included: 

• Determine the level of public awareness and knowledge of the fuel economy 

label, including knowledge and credibility of sponsorship

• Determine consumer reaction to the current label/information, including 

comprehension of existing elements

• Identify any elements that are difficult to read or understand

• Determine consumer reaction to proposed label/information concepts, including comprehension of the elements
4 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 
Report of Findings 5

A series of ten focus groups were conducted to understand automobile buyer’s 

response to the current and newly proposed fuel economy labels. 

Focus groups are a preferred methodology to uncover authentic core values and 

beliefs. They can provide access to the underlying reasoning behind people’s 

thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. It is important to caution that focus groups are 

limited in their ability to extrapolate findings to larger populations (such as can be 

done with random sample surveys). 

In order to ensure an appropriate mix of participants and account for possible 

regional differences two groups were conducted in each of five areas representing 

different population densities and geographic regions of the country. These five 

areas included:

• Kansas City, Missouri

• Detroit, Michigan

• Los Angeles, California

• Atlanta, Georgia 

• Boston, Massachusetts

Each group lasted two hours and had a maximum of nine participants (see Appendix A). Moderator guides (see Appendix B for a sample guide) were used to 

structure the discussions however, the dynamic nature of the focus group process 

leads to the same topic areas being covered, albeit in similar but not identical 

ways. Audio and video recording of all groups were conducted and all groups were 

observed from behind one-way mirrors. 

Participants were further screened for the following additional qualifications:

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

• No one in their household worked in the automobile sales field or business

• Person in the household selected had purchased a new vehicle in the last three 

years or had been shopping for one in the past year

Finally, the groups were comprised of a mix of males and females from various 

ages, price they paid for their most recent new car, and the type of new car they 

had purchased (SUV’s, compacts, sedans, etc).

Focus Group Methodology
6 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 
Report of Findings 7

The City vs. Highway distinction is remembered above all 

Nearly all participants remembered a fuel economy label being on the last new car 

they purchased. Without showing them the label, most of the respondents specifically remembered a city vs. highway distinction in how the average mileage for the 

vehicle was displayed. Other information remembered included:

• Annual fuel cost

• General fuel economy information

• Size of gas tank

• Picture of a gas pump

• Features of the car (engine size, color, etc.)

• Type of fuel

Information on the quality of the vehicles emissions was specifically remembered 

in the Los Angeles groups. 

YES, IT IS WORTH THE EFFORT 

TO REVISE THE CURRENT LABEL 

Once the current label was displayed many participants freely provided comments 

and suggestions to improve the label. This was true for all the focus groups. In 

addition towards the end of the sessions, participants were asked if they felt it was 

worth the effort for EPA to revise the old label.1 Most of the participants agreed 

that revising the current label would be a good idea, especially after they viewed 

proposed labels. However, those that agreed that the label should be revised also 

believed EPA should be prudent in how much they spend for this revision. 

An interesting comment by one participant in Kansas City suggested that instead 

of spending the effort on revising the label, money should be spent on improving 

the fuel economy of cars that are manufactured today. Putting pressure, or mandates on the manufacturers to make more fuel efficient vehicles seemed to be the 

better solution for this participant, and others in the group agreed. 

Overall, the participants in all the focus groups agreed on many suggestions for 

improving the current fuel economy label. The following section details some of 

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

current fuel economy label. 

Annual Fuel Cost information has no meaning 

Consistent across all the focus groups, participants indicated that the ‘estimated 

annual fuel cost’ information on the current label is meaningless to them. They 

had no idea what the current annual fuel number was based on. “How many miles 

a year was the estimate based on, and at what fuel cost?” Many indicated this 

information was useless to them unless there was some sort of reference as to how 

the cost estimate was calculated. Without the reference information, the number 

is not comparable between vehicles and it does not provide participants a ‘true’ 

indication of how much the vehicle will cost them annually. 

Findings

“ The estimated annual 

fuel cost doesn’t mean 

anything...people don’t 

drive the same.”

— Detroit

____________________________________

1 This question was only presented to Detroit, 

Kansas City, and Los Angeles. 

Current Label
8 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

City vs. Highway mileage distinctions are 

clear and useful guidelines 

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

on the current label is very useful information. Many of the participants realized 

that these scores were not perfect, in that they may never achieve the actual mileage stated on the label. They understood the best use of these mileage estimates 

was as a guide for comparison purposes when shopping for a new car. 

Participants also understood that the mileage numbers were not perfect because 

there is no way to create mileage numbers that are “real” across all situations. How 

someone drives, the age of the car, and regional traffic conditions all effect the 

mileage of the car and participants reluctantly understood this. They did hope for 

an improved and possibly more regional estimate, but understood that no estimate 

would perfectly reflect all driving conditions. However, in Boston and in Atlanta, 

there was concern over recent news articles that referenced the impreciseness of 

EPA mileage estimates. These concerns were voiced by one or two people in several of these groups, but discussion of these concerns were put off until the end of 

the groups so as not to overly influence the discussion or group dynamics. 

Even though most participants reluctantly understand that the mileage numbers 

were estimates, and not ‘perfect,’ many expressed interest in how the numbers were 

generated. The current label does not give any indication as to how the mileage 

estimates are calculated. Some suggestions included providing on the label the 

conditions the mileage estimate was based on. Again, as with the annual fuel cost 

estimate this would provide some sort of reference as to what they could expect. 

The participants made it very clear in all the groups that they know the distinction 

between city and highway driving mileage estimates. City driving means “stop and 

go” conditions and highway driving means “driving at a high speed limit without 

slow downs.” To confirm this distinction, participants were shown 4 driving scenarios and asked to indicate whether the scenario depicted city or highway mileage 

estimates. 

“ Everyone assumes 

these (the mileage estimates) are averages.”

— Kansas City

“ The estimates are good 

for shopping around.”

“ There is no way to get 

more specific... it is 

too hard to make the 

numbers more real.”

— Detroit

“ You are lucky if you 

get these numbers... it 

has to be under perfect 

conditions.”

— Kansas City

“ It varies with the 

person and how they 

drive.. it is not always 

30 (mileage) for everyone.”

— Boston

Without hesitation, participants agreed that driving in scenario A means you can 

expect ‘city’ mileage estimates, or worse. Even though the scenario was technically 

on a highway, participants understood that because there was ‘stop and go’ conditions city mileage estimates were expected. Scenario B very clearly depicted ‘highway’ mileage estimates. Scenario C again clearly represented the kind of conditions 

where participants expect to achieve the ‘city’ mileage estimate. Lastly, for scenario 

D participants agreed the mileage in this condition would probably fall somewhere 

between the ‘city’ and ‘highway’ estimates. In the end, there was no confusion that 

the city and highway mileage estimates represented actual driving conditions.

A

B

D

C
Report of Findings 9

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

but seems like a confusing disclaimer

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

reiterating that the estimates are ‘averages’ and subject to varying driving conditions. However, many of the participants agreed that the actual statement on the 

label failed to make this clarification. In fact, many participants admitted they had 

never read or paid attention to this statement before. When forced to read it for 

the discussion, many felt the way the statement is written makes them suspicious 

of where the numbers come from, and exactly how they were generated. 

It was agreed that making the clarification that the estimates will vary based on 

driving conditions was a necessary reminder, but that providing only some detail 

without clarification only made the statement misleading, as if it was a legal disclaimer. 

Unclear who creates the label, 

but if it is the EPA that is okay

When asked if they knew where the mileage estimate information came from, 

there were varying responses from participants. Only a handful of participants out 

of all the groups combined seemed to have a clear understanding that the labels 

were from EPA. Many indicated they thought the labels were from:

• Manufacturers

• Dealers

• Consumer Reports

• JD Powers

• Gas companies

• Government agency of some sort

Many participants were not overly surprised to find out EPA provided the label, 

which also made them feel better that it wasn’t manufacturers. However, one 

group in Los Angeles was more leery of EPA, because they did not align themselves politically with the current federal administration. Many did make the suggestion that knowing exactly how EPA is involved would make the estimates more 

reassuring, particularly because on the label the term “results reported to the EPA” 

implies the estimates are from manufacturers. The fact the estimates are actually 

from the manufacturers, but under strict EPA guidelines and random testing was 

not known, nor was it apparent. 

The EPA logo on the current label was also not noticeable to most of the participants. Many were confused by the DOE and EPA markings next to the logo. Did 

this mean the information was provided by the DOE or EPA? The logo did not 

clearly indicate on the label that EPA was the source behind the information. 

Mixed reaction about the 

‘for comparison shopping’ statement 

Clarification was almost always needed when discussing the ‘for comparison shop-

“ There needs to be 

more clarification 

about the meaning of 

these numbers.” 

— Detroit

“ I would think they have 

to say this to cover 

themselves.”

— Boston

“ Make it clear that the 

information is not 

coming from the 

manufacturer... EPA 

is better than the 

manufacturers.”

— Detroit

“ What really is the 

deal... what is the 

EPA involvement?”

“ The use of the term 

‘EPA guidelines’ is 

confusing.” 

— Los Angeles
10 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

ping’ statement that is on the current label. Many participants expressed confusion, and admitted they did not understand what the statement was explaining. 

Once the statement was explained, some participants felt the information was 

necessary and important for comparison shopping purposes, others felt it was 

still confusing and unnecessary. Exactly how they could use this information to 

compare cars was unclear (particularly in the Kansas City, Detroit and Los Angeles 

groups), because the definition of the classification system was unknown. There 

was no definition of what a “compact” car is. It was suggested by some that the 

entire statement could be removed from the label. 

Some do measure their fuel economy, 

but mostly due to habit or for maintenance checks

Not everyone in the focus groups measured their own fuel economy, but some did. 

A few even indicated they kept track of their mileage every time they filled up with 

gas. This helped them to track if the mileage was dropping, which might indicate 

a car maintenance issue. Some participants, particularly women, indicated that 

they would ‘notice’ their mileage once in while because it was displayed on their 

instrument panel. A few also mentioned they particularly tracked their mileage 

while on road trips, as this helped to gauge how far they could travel before their 

next fill-up. 

Most of participants didn’t really seem to be concerned about tracking their 

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

mentioned most of them seem to recognize that the current estimates are just that; 

estimates. No one really expected that they might actually get the estimated mileage, and that was okay. However, one participant in Los Angeles was particularly 

annoyed that his earlier model hybrid did not attain the mileage that was represented on the label. This participant even went to great efforts to research why this 

had occurred, and had spoken to the manufacturer at length. 

Many suggestions recommended for the current label

Overall participants agreed that most of the information, particularly the city vs. 

highway mileage estimates, are important to provide on the label. However, some 

suggested that the range indicated in the “actual mileage will vary with” statement 

should be displayed instead of the one estimate for city and highway driving. 

Other suggestions included:

• Indicate the size of the vehicle gas tank

• Provide safety information

• Provide an overall fuel economy rating (like the system used to rate energy 

usage for appliances)

• Clarify how the information on fuel economy was gathered- make references 

that are meaningful

• Make the important information, that you want me to read, bigger 

• Emphasize more that a complete fuel economy guide is available

• Emphasize the fuel economy website

• Indicate the type of gas that is used, or recommended, to get the estimated 

mileage

• Indicate for how long in the life of the car I should expect this mileage 

• Regional estimates instead of national ones

“ The comparison shopping statement is 

‘verbal vomit’... I don’t 

want to think that 

much.” 

— Detroit

“ All the information in 

the center part (small 

text on the label) is 

‘Greek’ to me.” 

— Kansas City

“ Fuel economy is an 

indicator of how your 

car is running.” 

— Boston

“ The small print tells me 

you don’t want me to 

read it... it is mandatory but not important 

information.”

 — Detroit
Report of Findings 11

OF THE PROPOSED NEW FUEL ECONOMY 

LABELS, LABEL #1 IS THE FAVORITE

Four newly designed labels were shown to the participants after the discussion 

about the current label. Label #1 was presented first, #3 second, then #2, and lastly 

#4 (Full page versions of the labels are in Appendix C). Label #1 was undeniably 

the most preferred label across all groups. This was mostly due to the fact that 

participants felt label #1 displayed most all the information they had requested 

be changed about the current label. In fact participants in one of the focus groups 

joked that after the discussion on the current label when the moderator left the 

room to see if observers had questions (5 minutes), they were instead quickly creating label #1. The following section highlights what participants indicated as the 

most improved aspects of the new labels, and items that still needed improvement. 

City vs. Highway distinction must remain intact

Maintaining the current ‘city’ vs. ‘highway’ 

mileage estimate distinction was clearly 

preferred by almost all participants. Prior 

to presenting the new labels, a few participants had recommended showing the 

range of mileage, but when they saw the 

range displayed in Label #3, they instantly 

disliked it. Participants strongly agreed 

that displaying the range was not as appealing as they thought it might be. The 

range displayed on Label #3 was too large of a range, it was not a number they 

could easily compare to other cars, and the range conveyed that the mileage was 

unknown. Many also stated that they were used to seeing the mileage presented 

as city vs. highway, they knew what the distinction meant, and that changing this 

would be very hard for them to adjust to. 

New Estimated Annual Fuel Cost Appreciated 

One of the most liked features of Label #1 was that the estimated annual fuel cost 

included information on how the number was calculated. The estimate provided a 

reference that was more meaningful, and comparable to other vehicles. When label 

#2 was presented, participants were very unhappy that the information explaining 

the estimated annual fuel cost was missing. 

“ I don’t like the range at 

all... stick with the city 

vs. highway groups.”

 — Detroit

Indicated as Favorite Label

#1 #2 #3 #4

Boston 13 1 2 0

Atlanta 11 2 1 0

Detroit 17 0 0 0

Kansas City 14 1 0 1

Los Angeles 10 6 0 0

Total 65 11 3 1

Proposed Label #1

Proposed Label #2

Proposed Label #3

Proposed Label #4
12 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

Mixed reaction about ‘fine print’

Labels #2 & #4 are basically the same as Labels #1 & #3, except that they contain 

less ‘fine print.’ Overall the groups consistently agreed they did not want a lot 

of ‘fine print.’ However one participant in Detroit, and others agreed that ‘fine 

print’ also makes them feel good about the information. ‘Fine print’ is associated 

with being a disclaimer, so if the label has a disclaimer that means the information provided is probably more legitimate. In other words ‘fine print’ provides an 

appearance of legitimacy. 

Most of the participants agreed that the fine print indicating how annual fuel costs 

were calculated must be there, or the estimate is useless information. Many also 

preferred the “actual mileage will vary depending on driving conditions” statement 

in label #1, to the “actual mileage will vary” in label #2. The statement in label #1 

was more true and simple, whereas the statement in label #2 was viewed as over 

simplified and open to various interpretations. 

The ‘results reported to EPA’ statement in label #1 was also not a strongly preferred statement. Some thought it was important information; others felt the statement still didn’t explain enough as to how the numbers were generated. The “for 

comparison shopping” statement was also preferred by some because they found 

it useful to compare to other cars, but really disliked by others. Those disliking 

the ‘comparison shopping’ statement felt the statement was contradictory to the 

‘results reported to EPA’ statement, that there was no definition of what ‘compact’ 

meant, and the statement was still very unclear to them. Even towards the end of 

the discussion, many still did not understand the information being presented in 

the ‘comparison shopping’ statement. 

In the end it seems safe to conclude that participants prefer the ‘fine print’ that 

explains how calculations are generated, but not the ‘fine print’ that provides 

more explanation than is necessary or understandable. Some also indicated that if 

the information in the ‘fine print’ is important then it should be bigger, as many 

agreed they never had and probably never will read the actual ‘fine print’ the next 

time they buy a car. 

Mixed initial reaction about the environmental performance 

indicators, but may be useful in the future

Participants either liked or disliked the environmental performance indicators in 

the newly proposed labels. The ‘green house gas score’ indicator was meaningless 

to most of the participants, in that they did not understand what a green house 

gas was. However in Detroit, Kansas City, and Los Angeles participants were asked 

if the indicator made more sense if it was called the ‘global warming score.’ Again 

there was a mixed reaction to this indicator. For some the term ‘global warming’ 

gave more meaning to the score, but they still were not sure if this was useful 

information. And many in Detroit, Kansas City and Los Angeles indicated they 

weren’t sure how to interpret the indicators; was a high score good or bad? 

After seeing label #2, many in Detroit, Kansas City and Los Angeles liked the 

environmental performance indicators slightly more because of the “to protect the 

environment, choose vehicles with higher scores” statement. (However, in Boston 

and Atlanta most participants thought this additional information was not neces-

“ It is an educational 

process that has to be 

talked about. We really 

don’t know what those 

(ENV Indicators) mean.”

 — Atlanta

“ I don’t read the little 

stuff there...I just look 

at the 23 & 30 (city vs. 

hwy mileage)... that 

is all.”

 — Atlanta

“ They don’t take into 

consideration that 

most people tend not 

to read small print.”

 — Los Angeles
Report of Findings 13

sary.) This ‘fine print’ told them how to interpret and understand the information 

presented. However they were still uncertain about the usefulness of the environmental indicators. When pointing out (in Detroit, Kansas City and Los Angeles) 

that the “greenhouse gas score” was the same as an overall ‘fuel economy’ score, 

most all the participants then agreed that ‘yes’ this was important information, and 

the label should depict this interpretation.

Those in Los Angeles and Boston liked the “air pollution score” slightly more than 

participants in the other cities, due to their being made aware of air pollution 

issues in their region. Those in Kansas City, Detroit, and Atlanta became more 

accepting of these indicators towards the end of the discussion. In fact, several of 

the participants in these cities indicated that this information would become more 

important in the future, and they would probably pay more attention to it if they 

started seeing it displayed. They realized it was information they just had not been 

“programmed” to be aware of yet. Again they stressed that if the environmental 

indicators are important, then they should be on the label because in time people 

will find the information useful and will come to expect it. Similar to how people 

expect to see the ‘city’ vs. ‘highway’ mileage distinctions. 

EPA logo more noticeable and adds credibility 

The EPA logo was definitely more visible and noticeable on all the newly proposed labels, and participants agreed this was good. The logo indicated legitimacy, 

and was synonymous with a ‘seal of approval.’ Even though participants saw the 

new logo as a ‘seal of approval’ it was clear to them the approval was in regards 

to information provided about a particular vehicle, not to endorse that vehicle. 

Participants also welcomed the addition of the website address to research more 

fuel economy information.

Participants also very much appreciated the title, ‘fuel economy information’ at the 

top of all the new labels. However, those in Boston and Atlanta were in agreement 

that if the environmental performance information were to be included in a new 

label then the title at the top of the label should reflect both the fuel economy and 

environmental performance information. Lastly, participants expressed that the 

new gas tank image, the overall professional looking layout, and simplification of 

the information that was in all four of the proposed labels was preferred over the 

current label. 

Some information is still missing 

on the newly proposed labels

Even though the new labels were definitely preferred over the current fuel economy label many still felt that some important information was missing. Particularly 

for the males in the groups, information such as the engine type, make and model, 

and type of gas recommended for the vehicle being rated was missing. The current 

label presents some of this information, and even though the fuel economy label 

is on the actual vehicle sticker where all of this information is displayed, these participants would also prefer it be on the fuel economy label as well. At a minimum 

the make and model of the vehicle being rated should be on the fuel economy 

label to ensure that the wrong label was not placed on the car. Other information 

participants would like to see on the new labels are:

“ I wouldn’t feel good 

about buying that car if 

it had a bad rating for 

the environment and 

overall fuel economy.”

 — Kansas City

“ The EPA logo looks 

more like a ‘seal of 

approval,’ than when it 

was in the gas tank.”

 — Atlanta
14 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

• Gas tank capacity

• How the EPA regulates or provides the guidelines for measuring fuel economy

• If the ‘comparison shopping’ statement is on the label the classification should 

be explained

• How the estimates are calculated and under what conditions

• Interpretation of the environmental indicator scores 

Overall fuel economy information is important, but not the 

most important feature when buying a car 

Most all of the participants agreed across all the groups that the information 

provided and presented in new label design #1 was preferred over the current 

label. Most all participants also agreed on the importance of EPA continuing to 

provide and regulate this information, because with the changes in fuel prices, this 

information will become even more useful. Most even half-heartedly agreed that 

effort to revise the current label was worthwhile, as long as over-spending on the 

revisions was not part of the effort. 

In the end though, many still admitted that even with rising fuel costs, fuel 

economy was not the most important feature of buying a car. Buying a car is an 

‘emotional’ experience. People buy the cars they choose because they like the image & status the cars provides, they like the way the car drives, the color, feeling 

safe in the car, and other similar aesthetic type features. Many thought of fuel 

economy cars as cheap, not aesthetically pleasing, and less safe because they are 

smaller. Those participants that currently prefer SUV’s for functionality (pulling 

trailers, storage space, etc) and the perceived sense of safety will continue to prefer 

these types of vehicles, even with rising fuel costs. People like their cars, and it is 

important to them that they drive one they like no matter the cost.

“ When you fall in love 

with the car none of 

this (referring to FE 

info) is going to 

matter.”

 — Boston

Average Score out of 5

Statement Score

Label #1 is useful 4.2

Label #1 is clear 4.4

Proposed Label #1
Report of Findings 15

Boston Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30k

Female 30-39 Small sedan <$15k

Female 20-29 Small sedan $20-30K

Male 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 40-49 SUV $15-20K

Female 60-69 Small sedan $15-20K

Male 40-49 Pickup $30-40K

Male 60-69 Large sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 Large sedan/SUV $30-40K

Boston Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 60-69 Large sedan $15-20K

Male 20-29 Large sedan $20-30K

Male 40-49 Pickup <$15K

Male 40-49 SUV $30-40K

Female 50-59 Small sedan $15-20K

Female 40-49 Large sedan $20-30K

Male 50-59 Large sedan $30-40K

Female 60-69 Minivan $40-50K

Female 20-29 Small sedan $20-30K

Atlanta Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 Large Sedan $20-30K

Female 20-29 SUV; Minivan $15-20k

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30K

Female 40-49 Sports car $30-40k

Male 40-49 Large Sedan $20-30k

Female 50-59 Small sedan $15-20k

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40K

Appendix A: Participant Profiles 
16 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

Atlanta Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 Small sedan $15-20K

Female 20-29 SUV $20-30K

Female 20-29 SUV $20-30K

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40K

Male 40-49 Pickup $20-30K

Male 40-49 Minivan $20-30K

Male 50-59 SUV $30-40K

Female 60-69 SUV $20-30K

Male 60-69 Large sedan $20-30K

Detroit Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 40-49 Large sedan $20-30k 

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40k

Female 60-69 Large sedan $15-20k

Male 20-29 Small sedan <$15k

Male 50-59 Small sedan $15-20k

Male 40-49 Pickup $30-40k

Female 50-59 Minivan $30-40k

Male 30-39 Small sedan $15-20k

Male 40-49 Station wage $20-30k

Detroit Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 30-39 Small sedan $20-30K

Female 50-59 SUV $30-40K

Female 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 70+ Large sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 SUV $30-40K

Male 30-39 Sports car $20-30K

Female 60-69 Small sedan $15-20K

Male 30-39 SUV $40-50K

Male 20-29 Large sedan; SUV $15-20K
Report of Findings 17

Kansas City Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30k

Male 20-29 SUV $20-30k

Female 20-29 Large Sedan $15-20K

Female 40-49 Small sedan $15-20k

Female 40-49 Large sedan $30-40K

Male 50-59 SUV $20-30k

Female 50-59 Sports car $20-30k

Female 50-59 Minivan $30-40K

Female 60-69 Large sedan $20-30k

Kansas City Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 20-29 Small sedan $15-20k

Male 20-29 Pickup <$15k

Female 30-39 Minivan $20-30K

Male 40-49 Large sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 SUV $30-40K

Female 50-59 Large Sedan $20-30K

Female 50-59 Pickup $15-20k

Male 60-69 SUV $40-50K

Male 70+ Large Sedan $20-30K

Los Angeles Group #1

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Male 50-59 Large Sedan $15-20k

Female 40-49 Large Sedan $20-30K

Male 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Female 30-39 SUV $30-40K

Male 30-39 SUV $30-40K

Male 20-29 Large sedan $20-30K

Female 30-39 Minivan $20-30K

Male 60-69 Large Sedan $30-40K

Female 20-29 Large Sedan $20-30K
18 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

Los Angeles Group #2

Gender Age Vehicle Type Price Paid

Female 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 30-39 SUV $30-40k

Male 30-39 Small sedan $20-30K

Female 40-49 Minivan $30-40k

Female 40-49 SUV $20-30K

Male 30-39 Small sedan $30-40k

Male 60-69 Large sedan $40-50K

Female 20-29 SUV; sports car $30-40k

Male 60-69 Small sedan $20-30K
Report of Findings 19

FUEL ECONOMY LABEL FOCUS GROUP

Introduction (10 minutes)

• [Moderator introduces herself/himself.]

• [Explain:] A focus group is a group discussion where we can learn more indepth about peoples’ ideas and opinions (compared to telephone or written 

surveys). 

• My job is to facilitate the discussion and make sure that everyone has an opportunity to speak and to make sure that no one dominates the conversation.

• [Mention facility, audio and video equipment (so I do not have to take notes), 

observers in separate room.]

• Housekeeping – Toilets and refreshments.

• [Mention ground rules.] 

° There are no right or wrong answers; we’re interested in your honest and 

candid opinions and ideas.

° One person speaks at a time. This will allow all of us to be heard by each 

other and by the recording equipment.

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

think, or what you think others want to hear.

° Your ideas and opinions will be kept anonymous. 

° Your stipend will be provided as you leave.

° Relax and enjoy

• We’re going to spend our time today talking about fuel economy information. Any questions about the purpose of our focus group or the ground rules 

before we begin?

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

• Your name

• When did you buy your last new vehicle?

• Are you currently shopping for a new vehicle?

• Was/Is fuel economy a consideration in your vehicle purchase?

• When do you plan to buy your next new vehicle

Current Label Awareness, Understanding 

and Use (50 minutes)

• How many are aware of the fuel economy label found on new cars? Do you 

remember what information is given on the label? [if not, “what sort of information do you think might be on the label”]? Please list the type of information you think is found on the label. [Then discuss as a group to create the 

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

• [Show participants a large size example of the current label.] Discuss their 

Appendix B: Sample Moderator Guide
20 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

understanding of each component of the label, what is useful, what the 

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

information, is there more information you’d like to see, etc. 

• Can you tell from this label where this information is coming from/who is 

responsible for this information? (the EPA logo clearly appears on the current 

label – we want to see if they get that) [If they don’t get it, then point out the 

logo and ask them what this means. If they still don’t get it, go on to next section.]

Referring to the different areas on the label, ask the following:

• What do the city and highway numbers mean? Where do you think they 

come from? Dealers? Auto manufacturers? What if I told you that this logo 

belongs to the Environmental Protection Agency? Would this add credibility 

to the information on this label? Why or why not?

• Have you seen these numbers anywhere else besides the label? If so, where?

• What do you think "city" and "highway" driving consists of? Does it mean 

driving in a certain location or does it mean driving in a certain way? [show 4 

driving scenarios as follows:

1. Show a picture of congested rush hour traffic on a freeway – which fuel 

economy would you expect to get in this situation?

2. Show a picture of clear-moving traffic on a city freeway with a posted 

speed of 55+ MPH – which fuel economy would you expect to get in 

this situation?

3. Show a picture of a 2-lane country road with a posted 45 mph limit and 

no visible traffic or stop signs/lights – which fuel economy would you 

expect to get in this situation? 

4. Show a picture of a city street with stop signs/lights – which fuel economy would you expect to get in this situation? 

• Do you have any experience measuring your own fuel economy? How did you 

measure it? How did the numbers compare to the label values? Why do you 

think you got the results you did? 

• What does the "Actual mileage may vary..." statement mean? Do you know 

why actual mileage may vary? Is this information useful? Do you think this 

statement provides enough information? If not, what’s missing? 

• What does the "estimated annual fuel cost" mean? Is this information useful? 

If not, what would make it more useful? 

• What does the “For Comparison Shopping...” statement mean? Do you do 

comparison shopping? If so, are you comparing similar types of vehicles? This 

example says “COMPACT” [or whatever] vehicles. What other vehicle types 

can you think of that you might want to compare to?

• Overall, what is your opinion of this label? Anything missing? Confusing? 

What one thing would you change?

Ask client if they have any questions at this time.
Report of Findings 21

Consumer Reaction to Proposed Labels (30 minutes)

• First show them label 1 and instruct them to indicate on the rating sheet what 

is clear, what is unclear, what is useful, not useful, what is missing.

• Then open up to group discussion and review label 1 as a group in terms of 

what is clear, what is unclear, what is useful, not useful, what is missing. 

• Then have them compare labels 1 and 3 and test if they prefer “city vs. highway” estimates or a single range.

• Then have them compare labels 1 and 2 for more or less fine print. Then 

compare labels 3 and 4 and test for more or less fine print.

• If you had to choose just one of these four proposed labels as is, which would 

you choose? Why is that?

• If you were designing your ideal label, what elements do you think would be 

the most useful? 

Wrap-Up (5 minutes)

• Now that we’ve had this discussion let me ask you again -- If there was just 

one thing that could be changed on the fuel economy label what would you 

want that one thing to be? If there was just one thing/element/feature you 

would keep, what would that be? [phrase in a way that they could consider 

the city/highway numbers as “one thing”]

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

fuel economy labels?

Ask client if they have any last questions.
22 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups ������������������� ������������������� ������������������������ ����� ��� ������ ��� ����������� ������� � ���� ��������� ����� ��� ������� ����������������������������������������������� ����� � � � � � ����������� �� ��� ����� ��� ��� ������ ������������������������������������������� ������ � � � � � �������� ������ ������ ��� ����������� ������� � ���� ��������� ����� ��� ������� ����������������������������������������������� ����� � � � � � ����������� �� ��� ����� ��� ��� ������ �������������������������������������������� ������ � � � � � ���� �� ������ �������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� �� ��������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� ����������� �� ������� ������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� ����������� �� ��� ������� ���������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� ����������� �� �������� �������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� �� ������� ����� ���� ������ ����������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� ����������� �� �������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� �������������������������������������������������� ���� ����������� �� �������� ��������������������������
Report of Findings 23

Appendix C: Fuel Economy Labels

Current Label
24 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

Proposed Label #1

������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

6

0 10

Avg. Best

7

0 10

Avg. Best

�������������������� �������������������

�������������������������

����������������������

��������

��

�����������

��

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

���������������������

����������

����������������

�����

�����������������������

��������������������

�������������������������������������������������

Å
Report of Findings 25

Proposed Label #2

������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

6

0 10

Avg. Best

7

0 10

Avg. Best

�������������������� �������������������

�������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������

����������������������

��������

��

�����������

�� ����������

����������������

�����

��������������������������

Ç
26 EPA Fuel Economy Label Focus Groups 

Proposed Label #3

������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

6

0 10

Avg. Best

7

0 10

Avg. Best

�������������������� �������������������

�������������������������

����������������������

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�������������������������

����������������������

�������

����������

����������������

�����

�����������������������

��������������������

�������������������������������������������������

É
Report of Findings 27

Proposed Label #4

������������������������

����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������

6

0 10

Avg. Best

7

0 10

Avg. Best

�������������������� �������������������

�������������������������

���������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������

�����������������������������������������������������������������������������������

����������������������

������� ����������

����������������

�����

��������������������������

Ñ