MIS PROJECT
MAHMOUD EID AND CAN KASAPOGLU
Sunday, April 5, 2015
This is a data analysis project performed to provide understandable results out of the given data “Fuel Consumption Canada 2006”. The project consists of barplots, barcharts, boxplots, density plots and tables to ease the understanding and decision making difficulties of the reader.
| Make | Model | Class | Capacity | Cyl | Trans | Fuel | City | Hwy | ComboL | ComboM | Co2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHEVROLET :111 | C1500 SIERRA : 6 | SUV :221 | Min. :0.800 | Min. : 2.000 | A4 :294 | D: 12 | Min. : 4.90 | Min. : 4.1 | Min. : 4.50 | Min. :11 | Min. :104.0 | |
| GMC : 66 | C1500 SILVERADO : 6 | PICKUP TRUCK - STANDARD:141 | 1st Qu.:2.500 | 1st Qu.: 4.000 | M5 :146 | E: 23 | 1st Qu.:12.60 | 1st Qu.: 8.9 | 1st Qu.:10.90 | 1st Qu.:19 | 1st Qu.:251.0 | |
| MERCEDES-BENZ: 59 | K1500 SIERRA 4X4 : 6 | COMPACT :137 | Median :3.500 | Median : 6.000 | M6 :123 | X:544 | Median :14.40 | Median :10.1 | Median :12.40 | Median :23 | Median :285.0 | |
| BMW : 56 | K1500 SILVERADO 4X4: 6 | MID-SIZE :111 | Mean :3.519 | Mean : 6.046 | A5 :119 | Z:389 | Mean :14.75 | Mean :10.6 | Mean :12.88 | Mean :23 | Mean :293.3 | |
| DODGE : 54 | RANGER : 6 | SUBCOMPACT : 78 | 3rd Qu.:4.300 | 3rd Qu.: 8.000 | AS5 :104 | NA | 3rd Qu.:16.70 | 3rd Qu.:12.1 | 3rd Qu.:14.70 | 3rd Qu.:26 | 3rd Qu.:336.0 | |
| FORD : 49 | ALTIMA : 5 | FULL-SIZE : 56 | Max. :8.300 | Max. :12.000 | AS6 : 67 | NA | Max. :29.10 | Max. :22.1 | Max. :26.00 | Max. :63 | Max. :573.0 | |
| (Other) :573 | (Other) :933 | (Other) :224 | NA | NA | (Other):115 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
This is a summary of the given data.
## 'data.frame': 968 obs. of 12 variables:
## $ Make : Factor w/ 39 levels "ACURA","AUDI",..: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ...
## $ Model : Factor w/ 553 levels "300","300 AWD",..: 169 169 351 418 419 419 419 493 493 506 ...
## $ Class : Factor w/ 13 levels "COMPACT","FULL-SIZE",..: 1 1 10 3 9 9 9 3 3 1 ...
## $ Capacity: num 2 2 3.5 3.5 2 2 2 3.2 3.2 2.4 ...
## $ Cyl : int 4 4 6 6 4 4 4 6 6 4 ...
## $ Trans : Factor w/ 13 levels "A4","A5","A6",..: 8 12 2 8 8 12 13 8 13 8 ...
## $ Fuel : Factor w/ 4 levels "D","E","X","Z": 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 ...
## $ City : num 10.9 10 15.9 14.5 10.6 9.9 11.8 13.3 13.3 11.9 ...
## $ Hwy : num 7.8 7.6 11.1 9.9 7.6 7.6 8.3 8.9 8.9 8.3 ...
## $ ComboL : num 9.5 8.9 13.7 12.4 9.3 8.9 10.2 11.3 11.3 10.3 ...
## $ ComboM : int 30 32 21 23 30 32 28 25 25 27 ...
## $ Co2 : int 219 205 315 285 214 205 235 260 260 237 ...This is the structure of the given data. There are 968 vehicles and 12 types of variables.
Figure 1 illustrates the available vehicle brands and corresponding vehicle numbers. There are 39 different vehicle brands available. As it can be seen from plot, whilst the number of CHEVROLET cars is the highest, that of ROLLS-ROYCE cars is the lowest.
The pie chart illustrates the distribution of vehicle classes. As it can be seen, number of SUVs accounts for the biggest proportion whereas the number of Van-Passenger type vehicles for the smallest.
Figure 3 gives information on Number of vehicles with the corresponding transmission types. As it can be seen, there are 11 automatic and 2 manual transmission types starting with the letter A and M respectively. The number of cars with A4 type transmission is the highest whereas that of AM4 and AS7 is the smallest.
Figure 4 gives data on maximum, minimum and average of combined (City and highway together) miles per galon fuel consumption of each vehicle class. While one of TWO-SEATER class vehciles has the maximum combined MPG, that of one of the PICKUP TRUCK-STANDARD class vehicles has the minimum.
Figure 5 gives data on maximum, minimum and average of combined (City and highway together) miles per galon fuel consumption of each vehicle brand. Again, SMART seems the most advantageous in combined MPG as it was in citywise fuel consumption while BENTLEY, on average, consumes the most.
Figure 6, which provides easiness in deciding on fuel type illustrates the distribution of combined miles per gallon fuel consumption according to 4 different fuel types. It can be clearly seen from the figure that the fuel type D is Diesel fuel which has a mode around 40 miles per galon while fuel type E has the lowest.
Figure 7 gives information about the distribution of combined miles per gallon fuel consumption according to 8 different number of cylinders. From the figure, 3 cylinder cars are the most advantageous in terms of fuel consumption while cars with 10 cylinders are the least.
Figure 8 gives data on maximum, minimum and median of combined (City and highway together) miles per galon fuel consumption for each available transmission and fuel type combination. The plot indicates that the manual transmission types (M5 and M6) coming with the fuel type D (Diesel) reveal the most efficient combined fuel consumption on average regardless of an exception of M5 and X combination. Also, the combination of Automatic transmission type A5 and the fuel type E does come with a money saving type of vehicle.
Figure 9 shows interaction of transmission types and number of cylinders against combined MPG. It can be interpreted that the best combination of 5 speed manual type with 3 cylinder engine.
Figure 10 illustrates the types and the amount of fuel consumed in city by every vehicle brand. The 4 different types of fuel are shown in 4 different colors. For instance; CHRYSLER vehicles come with Z, X and E fuel type choices only and amongst them, fuel type X appears to be the most efficient within all CHRYSLER models. In case of Diesel fuel, CHRYSLER does not offer much but SMART, VOLKSWAGEN and JEEP have some models amongst which SMARTs’ seem to be the most efficient ones.
Figure 11 gives data on Co2 emmisions for each vehicle brand. From the figure, one of the DODGE has the highest whereas HONDA has the lowest Co2 emmisions. However, as far as the average emmission is concerned, SMART is the lowest.
This table summarizes the most efficient cars for each type of vehicle class according to city and highway fuel consumption (L/100km). For example; As far as SUVs and city fuel consumption are concerned, CHEVROLET HHR, FORD ESCAPE HYBRID AND SATURN VUE are always the best choices amongst all others based on given data. Analogously, HONDA CIVIC HYBRID would be the best choice amongst all COMPACT class vehicles as far as city fuel consumption is concerned.
