Posted on 07/13/2010 8:04:34 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Drop 'miles per gallon' as fuel measure, says US National Research Council
The US National Research Council has said that "miles per gallon" should not be used on its own in measuring a car's fuel use, backing a green motorist's group which called the measure "stupid".
By Tom Chivers Published: 2:57PM BST 13 Jul 2010
The NRC said that the measure caused consumers to overestimate the importance of changes at high miles-per-gallon (mpg) values, and underestimate it at small ones. Particularly, it says: "Fuel economy data cause consumers to undervalue small increases (1-4 mpg) in fuel economy for vehicles in the 15-30 mpg range."
The panel urged that fuel use be displayed as fuel consumed - perhaps as volume of fuel used per 100 miles - alongside the traditional miles-per-gallon measure. This standard is used already in Europe, with fuel use being given in terms of litres used per 100 kilometres travelled.
An environmental motoring website, GreenCarReports.com, welcomed the move, saying that it had been calling for the change for over a year and describing the mpg measure as "stupid". It asks the question: "Do you save more gasoline by going from 10 to 20 mpg, or going from 33 to 50 mpg?"
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
What happens when busy bodies have no lives of their own.
How bout meters per liter?
Then everybody can have spectacular mileage.
My 454 K2500 Burb gets about 5 mpg when I’m towing something. So do I save more money by running over the Prius in my way or slowing down and traveling at 45mph with him? I say run over it.
It’s all about motive. The self righteous greenies want to move to mileage tax.
25 MPG equals 4 gallons consumed over 100 miles (using the same math I learned more than 35 years ago). How many gallons is that in public school education math this month?
Dollars per year incurred to operate a vehicle given 15,000 miles travelled would be a good yard stick.
Most people know what they can afford in their budget. With mileage ratings they have to do the math.
How would these guys know what measure is more effective? They don’t even drive cars.
MPG is more accurate than L/100KM, has better real life application and is easier to calculate.
Why can’t these greenie weenies invent something instead of redefining something that’s currently accepted?
Oops... I think I just answered my question.
How about something reasonable, like cost to operate per mile.
When you add in the abuse that you put on a lightweight vehicle when it goes more than 12,000 miles a year, the MPG goes out the window.
Good thing the calculation doesn’t include pi. In a lot of “public” schools pi=3. When I was going to school in the 60’s we learned 3.14159.
Changing it makes sense. Distance traveled per gallon is more meaningful and provides a better comparison. Why the resistance? It’s not as if they’re suggesting we go metric.
How about metric tons of carbon emission per kilometer?
Oh, well, hell -- debate over!
They do it that way in Europe!!!
"Bow down, bow ye all down, bow down before the Light of the World!!"
</Sir Walter Scott>
How about “evil exploitation of the world’s resources sin points” per mile /sarc
Leftists sure like to throw the word "stupid" around. Maybe it's projection.
Hogsheads per furlong?
That value had to be rounded to 3 because five decimal place accuracy was deemed racist.
Obviously by going from 10 to 20. You are doubling your milage per gallon. Everybody knows that the low end of the range is where the big savings are.
This is just more "Europe Is Better" nonsense. It all means the same thing, but this guy reflexively believes that the European way is the smart way and the American way is "stupid".
It's always that way with this type of guy.
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.