Posted on 06/19/2008 11:50:26 AM PDT by MaestroLC
In the first place, anybody who doesn't realize that an increase from 18 mpg to 28 mpg is a better improvement in efficiency than 36 mpg to 50 mpg is a dope, and changing to the reciprocal isn't going to help him.
In the second place, nobody comparison shopping cars is looking at vehicles with 18-28 mpg range and vehicles with 36-50 mpg range.
Third, The comparison is invariably between several cars, with one car being the clear winner: Car A gets 16 mpg, Car B gets 18 mpg and Car C gets 19 mpg. "Wait! I know you think I ought to buy Car C on the basis of gas mileage, but I won't, because based on an idiotic conversation between two Duke Professors in a carpool, B is actually a much bigger improvement on A than C is on B. So B is really better."
Uh. huh.
"Most amps only go up to ten. Most blokes' plays only ten, but these go up to eleven. It's more, see? It's higher. It's eleven."
Blonde is as blonde does. Conclusion: Congress will almost certainly mandate that all new cars have the newer, "better" gpm * 100 rating. So it goes...
For example, most people said an increase from 34 to 50 mpg saved more gas over 10,000 miles than an increase from 18 to 28 mpg, even though the latter saves twice as much gas, according to the Duke press release. (Going from 34 to 50 mpg saves 94 gallons; but going from 18 to 28 mpg saves 198 gallons).These mistaken impressions were corrected, however, when participants were presented with fuel efficiency expressed in gallons used per 100 miles. Viewed this way, 18 mpg becomes 5.5 gallons per 100 miles, and 28 mpg is 3.6 gallons per 100 miles -- an $8 difference today.
This actually makes some sense...but only because people are stupid about math. Going from 34mpg to 50mpg is an increase of 47.06% while 18mpg to 28mpg is an increase of 55.6%. It should be obvious but people don't do the math. Gallons per 100 miles does eliminate the need to do the math and would certainly appeal to Democrats who can't do it anyway...
The inverse is confusing?
Quick, how much gas do you need to drive 10,000 annual miles in a car that gets 17, 27, or 37 miles per gallon? At $4 per gallon how much more expensive is 27 mpg against 37 mpg?
Most people would need a piece of paper and a minute. An alarming number of people couldn’t tell you with a piece of paper and five minutes.
How about the same question using the same cars rated at 59, 37 and 27 gallons / 1000 miles respectively?
You can answer that in a few seconds without a pencil.
You owe my employer a keyboard, Ben!
Thanks for the outloud, belly-shaking GUFFAW this afternoon!
What’s this all about? When you’re buying a car you know that the very best get something like 35-45 MPG (highway) and the worst get 10-15 MPG (highway) and if you’re getting 20 you’re doing OK and if you’re getting 30 you’re doing reasonably well....
See. This is why conservatives are so reviled by today's more-educated youth.
You ridicule two educated people that tested their "crazy" idea, and found experimental support for their position. Yet your comment reveals that don't even know the difference between power, mass, and energy.
That may be what's obvious to many people, but it's also wrong and that's exactly the point.
Improving from 18 to 28 mpg saves 111% more fuel - and money to pay for same - than improving from 34 to 50.
Not 8.6% better (55.6 - 47.06). Not 18% better (55.6 / 47.06). 111% better (1/18-1/28)/(1/34-1/50).
And yet, in experiments with real people, it actually does help.
How do you explain your thoughtless, off-the-cuff remark in light of the experimental evidence?
In Continental Europe they use Liters per 100km.
It’s pretty easy once you get used to it.
I prefer “Furlongs per Fortnight”.
I prefer slugs per fortnight.
Use the number, its inverse, a decimal or a fraction...no matter...a better judgment can only be made if you UNDERSTAND what you are judging.
Maybe this is a real peer reviewed paper and study, but an oversimplified news release.
Likely neither could give a definition satisfactory to any prof of Engr 101 of either 'rate' or 'efficiency'.
Jeez. Don’t these two have some innocent lacrosse players’ lives to ruin or something?
}:-)4
I think in Europe they use liters per 100 kilometers. At least whenever I’ve changed my trip computer to metric to see what happens, the fuel economy units switch to l/100km.
On a long trip while crusing, my SUV gets 25mpg, but would translate to about 9.4 l/100km if my math is correct.
Today, of course, that decision would be whether to get a super size or a giganormous.
Or, more importantly, how do you feel about converting mpg into gpm?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.