Whats your MPGT (Miles Per Gallon Ton)
 

CSX was running a comercial a while back advertising 400MPGT
1ton of frate 400miles per gal
MPGT levels the playing field
Eg
My 91Ram D250 2wd 3/4ton weighting 5500lbs has been averaging 24mpg ×2.75t =66MPGT
A 2017 Prius empty is 3080lbs and epa 53 mpg =81.62mpgt
Formula
Weight (in tons )x mpg =MPGT

I'd think it would be more accurate to calculate it by the weight of cargo - mainly passengers for most of us - being carried, not by using the weight of the vehicle involved. There's nothing gained by moving around several thousand pounds of vehicle. There is something gained by moving around cargo/people.

It wouldn't necessarily reflect poorly on large/heavy vehicles, if you always have passengers. A 400lb mini-van that regularly has 4 passengers will out-do a 1600lb Geo metro with only 1 person in it. Or if you own a truck and are constantly hauling stuff around to your work site, you'd out-perform someone who doesn't move anything but their own self.

I'm of the opinion that a vehicle should be chosen by the purpose it will be put to.

And I doubt CSX is calculating the weight of the vehicle of transportation as part of it. Your own wording says "1 ton of freight 400miles per gal"...not 1 ton of freight & trucks/trains/etc.

When I worked for Union Pacific we calculated total towed weight cars and Freight 6800tons 198mi on 500ga for each of 5 4400hp locomotives over Cascade summit .
2500÷198=12.62gal/mi÷6800=538.82 mpgt counting the 1010tons of power=618.86mpgt going up one of the worst grades on the systom
I had to run the numbers my self when I saw the commercial as i thought they were selling ocean beach condos in Denver, Colorado.

The Batilus: 2572 MPGT.

(Metric tons, actual cargo, US gallons, and land miles)


It's no good for single occupant commuting tho, since it only gets 0.0046 MPG.

"Levels the playing field" is one way to put it.

"Obscures needless vehicle weight to make the manufacturer look better" would be another.

You don't count the vehicle weight unless you're delivering the vehicle to someone and leaving it there.

I'll round myself up to 200 lbs, or 0.1 tons. With boots, coat, coffee mug and pockets full of stuff it's probably not rounding up much. My annual mileage is consistent enough that I'll call it even. Logged annual mpgs are 42.9, 45.5 and 44.4, averaging 44.2666... mpg. I'll round that down to 44.25.

So commuting solo at 44.25 mpg, I'm shipping freight at 4.425 mpg per ton. Not as impressive as a train, or even the 5.3 mpgt I'd get in a Prius (if I got EPA), but it beats the pants off the 2.93 mpgt I was able to get in my Subaru.

Some years back, I read an article in an auto mag about a local auto club mpg economy contest in California. LA, I think. Anyway, they used the total weight: auto, passengers, cargo, etc. in their calcs. It wasn't about the rational use of a vehicle, just to see who could move the most weight for a given amount of gas. The guy who won had an old VW 4 dr sedan loaded up with junk and kids.

That's what I was hinting at. ;)

For sure! I think most of us agree that it's a good thing we don't use TMPG or MPGT anymore. :thumbup:

My car + me (assuming full tank of fuel perpetually)= 1.76 tons
My lifetime MPG=32.8 = 57.7 MPGT
My best trip MPG=48.0 = 84.5 MPGT
My best tank MPG=38.1 = 67.1 MPGT

cibbie with me wearing full gear= .255 tons

Lifetime MPG=51.7 = 13.2 MPGT :eek:
Best tank MPG=58.9 = 15.0 MPGT :eek:

Guess I better drive the car then...:p But I like riding the bike...:(

Cargo based MPGT makes more sense, and in the case of the bike, it would make it make A LOT more sense.