Various transportation methods, how many gallons to go 350 miles

[dcb]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

OK, but the 5-year, 85K mile AVERAGE for my Insight

Oh, yah, your insight is a two seater, maybe you should have 16 cans

[jamesqf]

No, just the other way around. Look at the legend down at the bottom. (You'll need the large image to read it.) For the cars & motorcycle, the cans are for just the driver, then there's a little bar above that shows how many cans for X number of passengers. So I would get maybe 5 or 6 cans normally, but only 3 for the rare occasions when I carry a passenger - other than the aforementioned dog, of course :-)

I would really like the option of a 1-passenger car, if it could get say half again the mpg of the 2-seater Insight.

[Daox]

Nice catch jamesqf. I didn't even notice that hah!

[shovel]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

No, just the other way around. Look at the legend down at the bottom. (You'll need the large image to read it.) For the cars & motorcycle, the cans are for just the driver, then there's a little bar above that shows how many cans for X number of passengers. So I would get maybe 5 or 6 cans normally, but only 3 for the rare occasions when I carry a passenger - other than the aforementioned dog, of course :-)

I would really like the option of a 1-passenger car, if it could get say half again the mpg of the 2-seater Insight.

Werd, I was about to comment that I don't like the way the data is presented.. big movers (boat, plane, coach) are broken down by per-passenger, fully booked(with the big fuel cans) but then the automobiles are shown with just one occupant with the big fuel cans. Then it shows tiny, subtle lines illustrating consumption per person with 1 or 2 or 3 passengers, but the SUV can carry 4 passengers and that isn't shown at all.

Overall a very unclear and misleading presentation of data. If they're trying to make a point of some sort, they discredit themselves when they present data in an unclear fashion.

[wibiwo]

FWIW, I rode motorcycles for 15 years in the SF Bay Area, 20,000 mi/year. They ranged from 750 to 1200cc, and the only bike to get less than 50 mpg avg. was the 1200 Bandit.

[Crono]

Maybe part of the reason for the weird mpg numbers is that they're assuming only highway mpg? I imagine motorbikes would actually do rather well just sitting at a somewhat conservative constant speed.

[instarx]

Originally Posted by GenKreton

I'm surprised at how bad cruise ships are since cargo ships are so efficient. I'm also surprised amtrack loses that badly to buses. Is there a specific reason? Like outdated train systems? Again, rail is MUCH more efficient at cargo for numbers I saw.

It's likely because cargo trains carry tonage and efficiency is measured as gallons per mile per ton, while passenger trains carry items (people) where efficiency is measured as gallons per mile per person. It's an apples and oranges thing.

[Piwoslaw]

Also, cargo is stacked and packed very efficiently, while passengers need lots of room, need bathrooms and swimming pools and ballrooms, etc. The cargo's crew is around 15-30 people doing multiple jobs, while on a cruise ship for 3000 passengers there are 1200 crew members. All of those people need food and fresh water.
I'd bet that the cruise ship uses the same amount of fuel total as a cargo ship of similar size, but the cargo ship is actually doing something productive. The "cargo" on a cruise ship is lighter, but the engines are burdened with a huge electrical load for lights, cooking, movie theaters, A/C.