Skip to comments.
Drop 'miles per gallon' as fuel measure, says US National Research Council
Telegraph.co.uk ^
Posted on 07/13/2010 8:04:34 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-200 next last
Apparently nothing better to do........
To: Sub-Driver
What happens when busy bodies have no lives of their own.
2
posted on
07/13/2010 8:07:56 AM PDT
by
ChildOfThe60s
(If you can remember the 60s, you weren't really there.)
To: Sub-Driver
How bout meters per liter?
Then everybody can have spectacular mileage.
3
posted on
07/13/2010 8:10:04 AM PDT
by
cripplecreek
(Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
To: Sub-Driver
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.
4
posted on
07/13/2010 8:11:58 AM PDT
by
anton
To: Sub-Driver
It’s all about motive. The self righteous greenies want to move to mileage tax.
5
posted on
07/13/2010 8:13:13 AM PDT
by
aimhigh
To: Sub-Driver
The panel urged that fuel use be displayed as fuel consumed - perhaps as volume of fuel used per 100 miles 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?
6
posted on
07/13/2010 8:16:33 AM PDT
by
IYAS9YAS
(Liberal Logic: Mandatory health insurance is constitutional - enforcing immigration law is not.)
To: Sub-Driver
Why not give people a more useful yard stick with which to compare vehicles.
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.
7
posted on
07/13/2010 8:18:03 AM PDT
by
Pontiac
To: Sub-Driver
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.
8
posted on
07/13/2010 8:19:03 AM PDT
by
Boiler Plate
("Why be difficult, when with just a little more work, you can be impossible" Mom)
To: Sub-Driver
Why can’t these greenie weenies invent something instead of redefining something that’s currently accepted?
Oops... I think I just answered my question.
9
posted on
07/13/2010 8:19:24 AM PDT
by
OrioleFan
(Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15)
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.
10
posted on
07/13/2010 8:21:35 AM PDT
by
Vermont Lt
(I lived in VT for four years. That was enough.)
To: IYAS9YAS
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.
11
posted on
07/13/2010 8:22:18 AM PDT
by
OrioleFan
(Republicans believe every day is the 4th of July, democrats believe every day is April 15)
To: Sub-Driver
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.
12
posted on
07/13/2010 8:23:56 AM PDT
by
BfloGuy
(It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect . . .)
To: Sub-Driver
How about Furlongs per fortnight?..............
13
posted on
07/13/2010 8:25:00 AM PDT
by
Red Badger
(No, Obama's not the Antichrist. He's just some guy in the neighborhood.............)
To: Sub-Driver
How about metric tons of carbon emission per kilometer?
14
posted on
07/13/2010 8:25:13 AM PDT
by
Fresh Wind
(For the first time in half a century, there is no former KKK member in the US Senate.)
To: Sub-Driver
[Art.]
This standard is used already in Europe, with fuel use being given in terms of litres used per 100 kilometres travelled. 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>
To: Sub-Driver
How about “evil exploitation of the world’s resources sin points” per mile /sarc
16
posted on
07/13/2010 8:27:40 AM PDT
by
P.O.E.
("Now who's being naive, Kaye?" - M. Corleone)
To: Sub-Driver
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". Leftists sure like to throw the word "stupid" around. Maybe it's projection.
To: Sub-Driver
18
posted on
07/13/2010 8:28:26 AM PDT
by
WayneS
(Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
To: OrioleFan
When I was going to school in the 60s we learned 3.14159.That value had to be rounded to 3 because five decimal place accuracy was deemed racist.
To: Sub-Driver
It asks the question: "Do you save more gasoline by going from 10 to 20 mpg, or going from 33 to 50 mpg?" 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.
20
posted on
07/13/2010 8:29:40 AM PDT
by
Haiku Guy
(Gov. Chris Christie (R) won the NJ-6 held by Rep. Frank Pallone (D) by a 15.5% margin!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 181-200 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson