Nicholas Grubbs

10/3/2013
Period 6
Weight vs. Fuel Economy
Ever since its invention, the automobile has been growing in size, weight and
complexity. Even though they are getting heavier, the efficiency is still improving. Physics
dictates that the more weight that we have to move, the harder it becomes. I wanted to know if
weight and efficiency were actually related in the real world.
Weight is the explanatory variable and the fuel economy is the response variable. My
linear regression is y=37.61-.001943(x), where x equals weight and y equals fuel economy. The
r-squared value is .2736 which means that 27.36% of the variation in fuel economy can be
explained by the regression line. The r value is .52 which means that there is only a moderate
correlation between fuel economy and weight of the vehicle. The y intercept is 37.61 which
means that if your car weighs zero pounds, then, theoretically, it would achieve 37.61 miles to
the gallon. The slope is for every 1 pound there is .001943 less miles to the gallon. When I tried
to use other types of regressions, the results were a lower r-squared value than when I used a
linear regression. This shows that a linear regression is the best fit to try to predict my data. The
quadratic regression had an r-squared value of .28, the exponential regression had an r-squared
value of .2748, and the logarithmic regression had an r-squared value of .2679. One career that
could use this type of analysis is an engineer in the automotive industry. As more countries are
industrialized, vehicular transportation has become more widespread globally.
Some of the influential points in my data are the Dodge Viper and Chevrolet Corvette,
which both have very low weights but low fuel economy. These cars are built for quick
acceleration and have large, thirsty engines. Because these cars still have near the same fuel
economy and weight as other cars, they are not considered outliers. When I take the Corvette
and Viper out of the equation, I get a linear regression of y=41.79-.0026(x). X still equals weight
and y still equals fuel economy. The r-squared value is increased to .5282 which is .25 higher
than the original r-squared value. The R value is .726 which is .2 higher than the original which
shows that this new data has a much higher correlation. The y intercept has been increased
from 37.61 to 41.79. At zero pounds the miles per gallon will be 41.79. The slope for the new
data is for every 1 pound the miles per gallon decreases by .0026.
My residual plot has a little bit of a pattern so I think that the data has a moderately
good fit. For my predicted value I chose 3800 pounds because it is in the middle of the data.
When I plugged in 3800 into my linear regression I got 30.2266 miles per gallon. The Mercedes
E-class weighs about 3800 pounds and is estimated at 30 miles per gallon which means my
prediction is valid. The residual is .2266, which is an overestimate of the fuel economy.
My data has shown that on average the more weight that a car has the worse fuel
economy it will have. This is what I predicted because the more weight a car has the more
power the car needs to have to feel adequately powered to the consumer. The data is a better
fit when high powered low weighing sports cars are taken out of the data.
All of my data came from AOLautos.com

y = -0.0019x + 37.614
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
MPG
Weight(lbs)
MPG Vs. Weight





y = -0.0026x + 41.79
R = 0.5282
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000
MPG
Weight (lbs)
MPG Vs. Weight w/o influential points
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0 2000 4000 6000 8000
R
e
s
i
d
u
a
l
s

Weight
Weight vs. MPG Residual Plot