|
As noted above, consistency matters, not perfection.
MPG isn't really a goal. It’s in knowing the fuel cost expressed as cents per mile.
Cars are about practicality. More than one per household is where it gets out of hand. There’s not even a reasonable attempt to try this, yet it was the norm right into the 1960s.
There are minimums to meet in re safety (design + size) which happily correspond with what’s needed for a household.
Specification, matters most. Past that is the detail of circumstance: climate, terrain and driver motivation. These are fixed, for the most part.
Fuel burn is just a trend. How it’s monitored doesn’t mean much. It’s less than half the cost of a vehicle, on average (any type). The trend is about VEHICLE USE as to what matters.
That’s the other part ignored. There are a dead-minimum number of places to stop for which one requires a car. That’s the MPG loop that counts as the car will be in constant service to & from those locations. Highway trips are a laughable “worry”.
It’s not just avoiding cold starts. It’s avoiding the use of an empty vehicle altogether.
How accurate a fuel pump is or isn’t , as FC notes above, relevant to the trend itself. Especially on a car that couldn’t be any more impractical.
1). Where’s the annual miles reduction from Square One? (the decision to emphasize economy)?
2). Where’s the upgrade to vehicle weather-proof storage?
3). Where’s the savings account to cover ALL TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES as a car is only one category. The weekly family expense over a years time?
4). What’s the expected increase in vehicle component life? Tires, brakes, steering, etc? What’s the projected life extension at a lower vehicle expense (but temporarily increased by expense of a garage) to lower THE LIFETIME EXPENSE?
5). What’s the projected increase to Net Income as a percentage once analysis & remedy are implemented?
Buying gas is just use Fuelly. Be consistent as with all else. But it’s the “all else” as above that matters. On a car that’s ridiculous, the whole exercise is pointless.
“Claims” are trends. Consistent use. So long as the owner isn’t disciplined enough to take the driver out of the equation (anyone can replicate it in his car), any claims he makes can’t be backed.
As MG notes, it’s A LOT of fill-ups to make an accurate trend. It’s at least a year to cancel weather effects. Afterwards, anyone should be able to match it with minimal rules to follow.
Has the Corvette owner — after 50-miles of warmup — scaled the car with full fuel (dialed in tires based that data) and then made a 2-300/mile Interstate
roundtrip at 58-mph on cruise control? No acceleration, braking or lane-changes except as the law requires. Zeroed-out driver inputs.
He hasn’t? Then there’s not even a baseline against which to work. Much less make claims which aren’t suspect. (Good intentions ain’t the thing).
.
|