|
|
|
|
 |
SoichirosHeroes
 |
|
Here's an interesting article about a study to be released in the journal 'Science' about saving fuel. Much is already known, but it's assertion that getting a 12 MPG vehicle to 13 MPGs is the equivalent of getting a 33 MPG vehicle to 40 MPGs is cogent.
" So why does it help to look at gallons per mile instead?
Well, that tells you how much gasoline is used or saved over a given distance, say a year's driving of 10,000 miles.
Gillis calculated that at $4 a gallon, over 10,000 miles, an improvement from 12 mpg to 13 mpg would save $256. For the owner of a 33 mpg car to save that much, mileage would have to go up to 40 mpg, he said.
Here's how it works.
A couple drives a 25 mpg sedan. They trade it for a 50 mpg hybrid, a 25 mpg improvement.
A family with mom, dad and three kids has a 10 mpg SUV to haul everyone around. They trade it for a 20 mpg station wagon, a 10 mpg improvement.
Sounds like the couple did better, at least in miles per gallon.
But lets look at gallons per miles.
At 25 mpg the couple burned 400 gallons over a year and their new 50 mpg hybrid cuts that to 200 gallons. They save 200 gallons.
At 10 mpg the family's SUV burns 1,000 gallons of gas a year. At 20 mpg the station wagon burns 500 gallons -- they save 500 gallons, much better than the couple."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/20/fuelefficiency.ap/index.html
|
VTEC_Inside
|
|
SoichirosHeroes wrote:
Here's an interesting article about a study to be released in the journal 'Science' about saving fuel. Much is already known, but it's assertion that getting a 12 MPG vehicle to 13 MPGs is the equivalent of getting a 33 MPG vehicle to 40 MPGs is cogent.
" So why does it help to look at gallons per mile instead?
Well, that tells you how much gasoline is used or saved over a given distance, say a year's driving of 10,000 miles.
Gillis calculated that at $4 a gallon, over 10,000 miles, an improvement from 12 mpg to 13 mpg would save $256. For the owner of a 33 mpg car to save that much, mileage would have to go up to 40 mpg, he said.
Here's how it works.
A couple drives a 25 mpg sedan. They trade it for a 50 mpg hybrid, a 25 mpg improvement.
A family with mom, dad and three kids has a 10 mpg SUV to haul everyone around. They trade it for a 20 mpg station wagon, a 10 mpg improvement.
Sounds like the couple did better, at least in miles per gallon.
But lets look at gallons per miles.
At 25 mpg the couple burned 400 gallons over a year and their new 50 mpg hybrid cuts that to 200 gallons. They save 200 gallons.
At 10 mpg the family's SUV burns 1,000 gallons of gas a year. At 20 mpg the station wagon burns 500 gallons -- they save 500 gallons, much better than the couple."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/20/fuelefficiency.ap/index.html
|
Haven't read the article yet, but just FYI, here in Canada fuel mileage is always advertised as Litres/100kms.
|
danielgr
|
|
VTEC_Inside wrote:
SoichirosHeroes wrote:
Here's an interesting article about a study to be released in the journal 'Science' about saving fuel. Much is already known, but it's assertion that getting a 12 MPG vehicle to 13 MPGs is the equivalent of getting a 33 MPG vehicle to 40 MPGs is cogent.
" So why does it help to look at gallons per mile instead?
Well, that tells you how much gasoline is used or saved over a given distance, say a year's driving of 10,000 miles.
Gillis calculated that at $4 a gallon, over 10,000 miles, an improvement from 12 mpg to 13 mpg would save $256. For the owner of a 33 mpg car to save that much, mileage would have to go up to 40 mpg, he said.
Here's how it works.
A couple drives a 25 mpg sedan. They trade it for a 50 mpg hybrid, a 25 mpg improvement.
A family with mom, dad and three kids has a 10 mpg SUV to haul everyone around. They trade it for a 20 mpg station wagon, a 10 mpg improvement.
Sounds like the couple did better, at least in miles per gallon.
But lets look at gallons per miles.
At 25 mpg the couple burned 400 gallons over a year and their new 50 mpg hybrid cuts that to 200 gallons. They save 200 gallons.
At 10 mpg the family's SUV burns 1,000 gallons of gas a year. At 20 mpg the station wagon burns 500 gallons -- they save 500 gallons, much better than the couple."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/06/20/fuelefficiency.ap/index.html
|
Haven't read the article yet, but just FYI, here in Canada fuel mileage is always advertised as Litres/100kms.
|
Yeah, in Europe (I mean Europe - UK) we also do it like that, so I guess that's something where your "French small half" won it versus your "English big half" :) :)
That said, it's funny, because I actually always thought it's much more convenient to use the "how far can I drive with this much fuel" approach, and therefore preferred the Japanese way (same as UK-US but in metric units). I understand though the point of the author about people's perception, but I still prefer the direct scale vs. the inverse one. It's just more natural.
|
Frogger
|
|
This has been a revelation to me as someone fascinated with cultural innumeracy.
Have been looking to hybridize our small car for years... but when the analysis is done this way, becomes clear that the attention belongs on the Ody, despite it being the highest mpg vehicle that can haul 5 and real gear... makes me think Fit for 90% of drives and a low-cost older Ody in the barn for the 10% needed... still doesn't work out financially tho, but opens up the considerations...
|
Wizard
|
|
danielgr wrote:
:
I understand though the point of the author about people's perception, but I still prefer the direct scale vs. the inverse one. It's just more natural.
|
I agree. IMO, mpg (or km/l) is just more natural and comes in handy on a daily basis as opposed to inversing it. Besides, going from just three key strokes (mpg) to gallons/mile is something I would hate (gpm is already taken, a unit for flow rate, gallons per minute). :P
To a casual observer (buyer), there won't be much a difference between a vehicle using 7.7 gallons/100 miles (13 mpg) and another using 8.3 gallons/100 miles (12 mpg). If the idea is to help buyers come up with costs, EPA already does it on the sticker.
In fact, it is easier for me to estimate costs looking at 24 mpg (combined mpg for 98 Accord) versus 21 mpg (combined mpg for 06 TL), about 10-15% difference, than it would be looking at 4.17 gallons/100 miles versus 4.76 gallons/100 miles.
|
SoichirosHeroes
|
|
Frogger wrote:
This has been a revelation to me as someone fascinated with cultural innumeracy.
Have been looking to hybridize our small car for years... but when the analysis is done this way, becomes clear that the attention belongs on the Ody, despite it being the highest mpg vehicle that can haul 5 and real gear... makes me think Fit for 90% of drives and a low-cost older Ody in the barn for the 10% needed... still doesn't work out financially tho, but opens up the considerations...
|
I'd read an article in Edmunds about a year ago now that if the U.S. could get all the vehicles in the U.S. to average 20 City, the oil consumption would be halved. It's this same philosophy - the actual gallons being used. An obtuse point to be sure, but a potent one.
|
danielgr
|
|
Wizard wrote:
danielgr wrote:
I understand though the point of the author about people's perception, but I still prefer the direct scale vs. the inverse one. It's just more natural.
|
I agree. IMO, mpg (or km/l) is just more natural and comes in handy on a daily basis as opposed to inversing it. Besides, going from just three key strokes (mpg) to gallons/mile is something I would hate (gpm is already taken, a unit for flow rate, gallons per minute). :P
To a casual observer (buyer), there won't be much a difference between a vehicle using 7.7 gallons/100 miles (13 mpg) and another using 8.3 gallons/100 miles (12 mpg). If the idea is to help buyers come up with costs, EPA already does it on the sticker.
In fact, it is easier for me to estimate costs looking at 24 mpg (combined mpg for 98 Accord) versus 21 mpg (combined mpg for 06 TL), about 10-15% difference, than it would be looking at 4.17 gallons/100 miles versus 4.76 gallons/100 miles.
|
But anyway, our scale has the advantage that 1L saved per 100Km is always that, regardless of it going from 6 to 7 or 1 to 2. Of course, it's always easier to improve (save many liters) on a gas-guzzler than on a compact...
What I like of the direct scale is that it has a wider span, because as you said, going from 5.4 to 5.0 doesn't really sound as a big improvement (even if in percentage terms it may be).
All in all I would say that, as ironic as it may seem, we would both improve by exchanging our systems. For you, where the main problem is that you have your huge trucks consuming tons of fuel, that's the first thing you need to address, and our scale makes it easier to understand.
For us, that we already get a very good average fuel economy, your scale would help us pushing even further (if I go from 2.0L/100Km to 1.9L/100Km with my bike, it sounds like nothing in European units, but its 5mpg in US ones :) )
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
