"MPG is just stupid"

sba55

sba55

En-Route
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
2,552
Location
Marin County, CA
Display Name
Display name:
sba55
sba55 said:
Interesting discussion about why MPG is such a confusing metric, including this little snippet: "Which saves more gasoline, going from 10 to 20 mpg, or going from 33 to 50 mpg?"

Hint: It's not what you might think initially.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is what I think initially.
 
The author's essential premise is that the people reading stickers are too dense to make the most basic fuel expense calculations and comparisons. You cannot teach those who are too dense to be taught, no matter what metrics you give them.
 
SCCutler said:
The author's essential premise is that the people reading stickers are too dense to make the most basic fuel expense calculations and comparisons. You cannot teach those who are too dense to be taught, no matter what metrics you give them.
Click to expand...

Uhh, say again?
 
I just read the article Felix linked, summarized their premise.

Coulda been wrong, have been before.
 
SCCutler said:
The author's essential premise is that the people reading stickers are too dense to make the most basic fuel expense calculations and comparisons. You cannot teach those who are too dense to be taught, no matter what metrics you give them.
Click to expand...
For some reason, Spike, the format of your response reminded me of writing countless IRAC briefs in college :p
 
It's the same reason that taking on a 3rd partner doesn't save you as much money as taking on the second partner which doesn't save as much as taking on a first partner in an airplane.

But to really sum up, the reason they use L/km*100 in Europe is because they are too stupid to be able to do simple math. Of course, looking at the comments at the end of the article, so are most Americans.
 
Last edited:
That article was written 15 months ago. I though it looked familiar.
 
EdFred said:
But to really sum up, the reason they use L/km*100 in Europe is because they are too stupid to be able to do simple math. Of course, looking at the comments at the end of the article, so are most Americans.
Click to expand...

No, no, no, Ed.

If it's European, it's clearly a better way of doing things.

Get with the program.
 
mpg is not stupid but it is also not the best metric for the purpose that people use it for the most. As Felix mentioned gal/km or any volume/distance metric is a better one. I track the fuel in all of my vehicles. While the plane is of course in gal/hr the cars are not. Since one car uses regular unleaded, another has to have premium unleaded and the third is using Diesel, a simple mpg or even vol/dist is not all of that much use. I calculate a cost/mile metric based on fuel.

With that I get the following results.

VW Jetta TDI $.08/mile

BMW M-Roadster $.10/mile

Honda Accord $.11/mile

I was surprised that the Honda was the poorest performing vehicle per my metric.
 
ScottM said:
mpg is not stupid but it is also not the best metric for the purpose that people use it for the most. As Felix mentioned gal/km or any volume/distance metric is a better one. I track the fuel in all of my vehicles. While the plane is of course in gal/hr the cars are not. Since one car uses regular unleaded, another has to have premium unleaded and the third is using Diesel, a simple mpg or even vol/dist is not all of that much use. I calculate a cost/mile metric based on fuel.

With that I get the following results.

VW Jetta TDI $.08/mile

BMW M-Roadster $.10/mile

Honda Accord $.11/mile

I was surprised that the Honda was the poorest performing vehicle per my metric.
Click to expand...

Nerd Alert!!
 
The comments at the end of the article are...errr...I don't even really know the word.
 
What would be nice(not that I want it gov't mandated) would be mpg/speed charts for cars. Who cares if a pious gets 48 mpg at 54 mph What does it get at 75 mph?
 
ClimbnSink said:
What would be nice(not that I want it gov't mandated) would be mpg/speed charts for cars. Who cares if a pious gets 48 mpg at 54 mph What does it get at 75 mph?
Click to expand...

Prius_Speed_vs_MPG-z.jpg

http://www.metrompg.com/posts/speed-vs-mpg.htm

The link show examples of other cars too.
 
I don't think anyone has ever driven a Pious over 54 mph...and that was in the fast lane.
 
SCCutler said:
The author's essential premise is that the people reading stickers are too dense to make the most basic fuel expense calculations and comparisons. You cannot teach those who are too dense to be taught, no matter what metrics you give them.
Click to expand...

"But maybe you don't quite see the problem. OK, so here's a little test: Which saves more gasoline, going from 10 to 20 mpg, or going from 33 to 50 mpg?"

"If you're like most Americans, you picked the second one. But, in fact, that's exactly backwards. Over any given mileage, replacing a 10-mpg vehicle with one that gets 20 mpg saves five times the gasoline that replacing a 33-mpg vehicle with one that gets 50 does."


"Don't believe it? Here’s the math. If you replace your old 1990s SUV (10 mpg) with a new 2009 Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid (20 mpg), over 100 miles you cut your gasoline consumption from 10 gallons to 5. That saves you five gallons. If you swap your old Toyota Echo (33 mpg) for a new 2010 Toyota Prius (50 mpg), that only saves you one single gallon over the same distance--down from 3 to 2 gallons."


If Mr. Voelcker was just a little bit smarter he'd see his question could be answered with even less math. Doubling the mpg obviously saves more gas than a 50% increase in mpg.
 
Trapper John said:
I don't think anyone has ever driven a Pious over 54 mph...and that was in the fast lane.
Click to expand...
I borrowed one for a total of about 3 weeks over the past couple months and I thought it was a fine car compared to others of that size and type. The acceleration was indistinguishable from a pure gasoline engine. The only thing that was a little strange is that at idle it would sound like the car had died because there was no noise or vibration, but that just meant it was running on its electric motor.
 
roncachamp said:
If Mr. Voelcker was just a little bit smarter he'd see his question could be answered with even less math. Doubling the mpg obviously saves more gas than a 50% increase in mpg.
Click to expand...
Remember how I said that it might not be what you think and you were quick to deny that? You shouldn't have.

Doubling the MPG doesn't "obviously" save more gas than a 50% increase. Over 100 miles, an increase of 50% from 10 mpg to 15 mpg means you use 6.7 gallons instead of 10 gallons, a savings of 3.3 gallons. A doubling from 30 to 60 mpg means you use 1.7 gallons instead of 3.3 gallons, a savings of 1.6 gallons.

Notice something? Doubling the mpg saved you much less fuel than a 50% increase in mpg. Thus proving the author's point that mpg is confusing and misunderstood. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that your post was, as usual, flame bait and you knew this already.

-Felix
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The comments at the end of the article are...errr...I don't even really know the word.
Click to expand...

Well, more than *a* word, but I'd say, "Par for the course in online article commenting..."
 
sba55 said:
Remember how I said that it might not be what you think and you were quick to deny that? You shouldn't have.

Doubling the MPG doesn't "obviously" save more gas than a 50% increase. Over 100 miles, an increase of 50% from 10 mpg to 15 mpg means you use 6.7 gallons instead of 10 gallons, a savings of 3.3 gallons. A doubling from 30 to 60 mpg means you use 1.7 gallons instead of 3.3 gallons, a savings of 1.6 gallons.

Notice something? Doubling the mpg saved you much less fuel than a 50% increase in mpg. Thus proving the author's point that mpg is confusing and misunderstood. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that your post was, as usual, flame bait and you knew this already.

-Felix
Click to expand...

You have two different starting points. Doing that, I can make numbers say anything I want.
 
sba55 said:
Remember how I said that it might not be what you think and you were quick to deny that? You shouldn't have.

Doubling the MPG doesn't "obviously" save more gas than a 50% increase. Over 100 miles, an increase of 50% from 10 mpg to 15 mpg means you use 6.7 gallons instead of 10 gallons, a savings of 3.3 gallons. A doubling from 30 to 60 mpg means you use 1.7 gallons instead of 3.3 gallons, a savings of 1.6 gallons.

Notice something? Doubling the mpg saved you much less fuel than a 50% increase in mpg. Thus proving the author's point that mpg is confusing and misunderstood. Now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that your post was, as usual, flame bait and you knew this already.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did notice something. I noticed you used different figures than Mr. Voelcker used in his question.

My quick response was correct.
 
The benefit is all relative. Starting at 10 mpg versus 33 mpg. 100% improvement versus 50% improvement.

For instance replace any of the vehicles with a bicycle and with 0 mpg you see a 100% reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Now the CO2 emission comparison would be interesting and has to consider size of bicycle tires, age and health of operator, type of terrain, etc ad nauseum.
 
What the rest of the world needs to do is realize that the imperial measurement system is so much better and convenient and drop that retarded metric system.

Then we can be on an international standard. And there can be no more fights over the proper pronunciation of kilometer (or spelling for that meter).
 
SkyHog said:
What the rest of the world needs to do is realize that the imperial measurement system is so much better and convenient and drop that retarded metric system.

Then we can be on an international standard. And there can be no more fights over the proper pronunciation of kilometer (or spelling for that meter).
Click to expand...

In what countries does the imperial measurement system remain the standard?
 
EdFred said:
But to really sum up, the reason they use L/km*100 in Europe is because they are too stupid to be able to do simple math. Of course, looking at the comments at the end of the article, so are most Americans.
Click to expand...

Over on the red board, some guy wants to know why aircraft engines are so inefficient because when he uses an ice scraper between the seat and gas pedal to run his car up to 2500 rpm, the car doesn't use nearly as much gas as his airplane does flying at 2500 rpm.

I can't decide which smilie thng to use: :loco: or :dunno: or :rolleyes: or :rofl: or even :yikes:
 
roncachamp said:
In what countries does the imperial measurement system remain the standard?
Click to expand...

The United States. And there's 50 of us. I figure with the 50 of us vs. the rest of the world, we got something right.
 
SkyHog said:
The United States. And there's 50 of us. I figure with the 50 of us vs. the rest of the world, we got something right.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken, the imperial system of measurement is not the standard in the US. The US uses the US Customary System, sometimes called the American System.
 
roncachamp said:
You're mistaken, the imperial system of measurement is not the standard in the US. The US uses the US Customary System, sometimes called the American System.
Click to expand...

Meh, its the same thing.
 
SkyHog said:
Same diff.
Click to expand...

Close, but no cigar. Imperial gallons v. U.S. gallons, fluid ounces, etc.

Also, the Imperial System uses area measurements that aren't part of the U.S. Customary System, like roods and perches. There are difference in mass measurements, too.
 
i dont really know for sure what kind of mileage my cars get. i just put gas in them when they get empty.
 
Another stupid one is MPH. Law enforcement has it all wrong. Say, they clock you on the interstate going 80 MPH in a 70 MPH zone. They neither clock you for an hour, nor for 80 miles. They clock you for a second or less. So, if one is going to be cited for a misdemeanor, at least the measurement and law should be on the same terms. Therefore, if the law makers want to be sure you travel no more than such and such distance in a second, then we should change the speed limits to read distance per second. So, the limits can be posted in feet per second, or meters per second i.e. 70 MPH would be posted as 103 FPS or 100 (rounded) FPS. Then, of course, all the vehicles would need to have the speedometers converted as well as all the signs changed. H'm m, would this create some jobs?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top