Thread: Beware of Bunk!
View Single Post
Old 11-17-2007, 05:31 PM   #1 (permalink)
SVOboy
Dartmouth 2010
 
SVOboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hanover, NH
Posts: 6,447

Vegan Powa! - '91 Honda CRX DX
Team Honda
90 day: 66.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 92
Thanked 122 Times in 90 Posts
Send a message via AIM to SVOboy Send a message via MSN to SVOboy Send a message via Yahoo to SVOboy
Beware of Bunk!

This article will be the first in an ongoing series examining fuel economy claims made on the internet and in advertising. I begin with this specific page because it's suggestions are most damaging to the true hunt for improved fuel economy and because it carries more credibility as a "third party" source. While products will be analyzed in the future most people already carry some doubt of their advertised fuel economy claims, which means that consumers are less likely to be suckered into believing those claims. However, there are many people who present themselves as lifelong experts in the field of fuel economy. Why not believe them, with all their experience? What it comes down to is that the claims, and not the person should be analyzed. I make no claims to be a great thinker or industry insider, I am merely a student from Dartmouth College, 2010. Nevertheless, logic and critical thinking have led me to certain conclusions about many fuel economy enhancements, some of which I will share with you today.

The first source of such suspect claims will be "Tips for Economy (Methods for Great Mileage.)" This article outlines several tips that purportedly will double gas mileage in any vehicle. Feel free to read through the text on your own before reading this analysis. However, the text will be quoted in full on this page in order to be broken down and examined piece by piece. This examination will be done as completely within the scope of the text (and not referencing other pages on the site or other resources with similar claims) as possible. While outside sources will be used to contradict or confirm what is written within the SmartGas article, it will not be criticized because it shares opinions with other articles.

See the rest of this (blabby) article here.

  Reply With Quote