10 to 12 mpg improvement is the same as 30 to 60 mpg

[user removed]

Jeez, all this friction over saving some gas. Just use cents per mile. Then the cost of driving the FSP is staring you in the face. Better yet make it a deductible business expense at 50 cents a mile, and ride a bike that easily gets 80 MPG without even trying.

4.5 cents a mile in fuel cost means you have 45.5 cents left to cover all the other costs.

Now at 10 MPG you are at 35 cents a mile and at 12 you are at 29 cents a mile.
Comapred to 4.5 you still have a long way to go.

regards
Mech

[skyking]

I don't see it as friction. I see opportunity.
If we can make a mod for a 10 MPG motorhome that gets it to 11, and get it onto a significant portion of the fleet, Cha-ching!
People look at the 10 to 11 as big whoop-de-doo. I see it as a gold mine.

[ksa8907]

Getting onto the topic of less consumption as a whole, semi's are the big picture. Ive noticed a lot of chrysler trucks hauling back and forth from kokomo to detroit have under-trailer side skirts. I think the entire design needs to change for big rigs.

[JacobAziza]

You mean maybe something like this?


http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...t-20704-2.html

There is a huge difference though, between a 20-40 ton semi getting 7-8mpgs, and a 2 ton SUV getting 10mpg. The semi getting a low mpg number is totally reasonable and proportionate to the job it's doing. Same with a motorhome.

On the other hand, if Diesel Dave, JQMile, Bennelson, and I can all get in the low 30s in full-size trucks, there is really no excuse for anyone driving something that gets 12mpg as a personal vehicle.
Going from 10 to 12mpg doesn't really "save" you gas, because the other option was buying something that got better than 12mpg to begin with. Its like buying something you don't need on sale, and thinking you saved money because of the sale. You would have saved more by not buying it in the first place.

[Fat Charlie]

The real point is that the low hanging fruit is where the real gains are to be found in our national fleet.

Finding a way for the next gen Prius to get 2 mpg higher on the EPA test won't make as big a dent in gasoline usage as requiring 1/4 ton pickups to get 2 mpg higher on the EPA test. That won't make pickups green, but it's where the industry should focus its FE efforts.

[JacobAziza]

I agree with you on that point.
If only the industry read these forums...

[SoobieOut]

I agree with this concept only if you account for the number of possible people in each car/truck.

Increasing the fuel economy of a 14 passenger carpool van from 10 to 12 MPG does result in larger savings than a small car, with just a driver, going from 30 to 60 MPG.

I would like to see a sticker on new cars that multiplies the number of possible occupants by the MPG. This could mean a 14 passenger van could get better MPG per occupant than a typical econobox.

Edit: In other words, it would do more good to get rid of the single occupant in a SUV or Pick-up getting 14 MPG, and put them in a carpool or a car that has great mileage like a Prius.

One way to discourage large cars/trucks is to make parking spots smaller and smaller. Or get rid of parking altogether. Taking advantage of lazy drivers is key here. Making it harder and harder to be wasteful of energy.

[NachtRitter]

Originally Posted by Kodak

Aye, tortoise nailed it. Gallons per X miles (with x being something easy and divisible by 10, like 1,000)

I see... seems like both methods have their advantages and shortcomings... guess it depends on the viewpoint of the user of the measure.

With the focus on being fuel efficient in the past few years, the Average Joe Public would likely benefit from the GPM approach... they probably have a fixed commute in mind and therefore can more easily translate a GPM measure to daily / weekly / monthly fuel usage.

For my recent cross country trip, the MPG measure was quite handy... with a 16gal tank and an average of 60mpg, I could easily figure out that I could do 960miles between fillups which defined my overnight stopping points along the way.

Yes, of course it is possible to use either measure either way. And both measures are non-linear from one perspective or another...

As well (at least for me), I prefer the MPG measure for determining the effectiveness of aero (or other) mods ... improving from 60mpg to 70mpg is HUGE from the perspective of improving the efficiency of my vehicle ... Yes, I know it won't solve the world's fuel consumption problems, but it is definitely a victory in my book. And it sounds better than saying I improved from 1.67g/100mi to 1.43g/100mi ...

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by skyking

If we can make a mod for a 10 MPG motorhome that gets it to 11, and get it onto a significant portion of the fleet, Cha-ching!

If instead of making such a marginal improvement, we instead convince even 10% of the people now driving motor homes that they would really be happier putting a tent in the Prius, we'll save a lot more gas.

Originally Posted by MorphDaCivic

I agree with this concept only if you acount for the number of possible people in each car/truck.

Same logic (or logic fail) as with motor homes. The mpg per potential passenger is irrelevant; what matters is the mpg per actual (average) passenger. Buying an 8 passenger van that you'll use as a single-person vehicle 99% of the time is not increasing efficiency. Indeed, we'd be better off if automakers built & sold more two-passenger models, rather than selling 4-door, 5 passenger sedans - or even pickups :-( - as the default.

[gone-ot]

...it's ALL boils down to the simple equation: N × Q, where N = number of items and Q = savings per item.

...since, there are many low-MPG vehicles and relatively few high-MPG vehicles, more progress (benefit) arises from small improvements to the many vehicles, ie: the benefit of the multitude over the benefit of the few.