http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=1

Someone in the media may finally "get it".

 

I've gotten so cynical ". . . 8 mpg more frugal . . ." - dang me with faint praise.

Bob Wilson

 

This is the best, most well-thought-out and balanced article I've seen yet on hybrids. Good job, R&T!!!

 

At the end of the day, the only opinion that really matters must come from 'outsiders'. You don't ask the already-converted what their opinion is on a matter -- you ask some reasonable person on the outside, if you want an unbiased opinion.

That's why articles like this are important. Us hybrid-loving insiders can talk all we want about how wonderful our cars are, and it has little effect on the rest of the world.

But when unbiased outsiders begin to give praise -- however muted -- to our technology, then I think we are making progress.

Nice article, thanks Sledge for posting it.

 

Preaching to the Choir.

It's nice to see someone not remind us that there's a price difference, then ignore all the benefits that the initial price difference gets the buyer.

 

It has been my observation that social change goes through three stages:

1) the pariah phase where social outsiders point to problems and perhaps even to where their solutions lie. They are, of course, jeered by the rest of society.

2) "Outer" establishment phase where rank-and-file members of society accept the problem and tentatively adopt proposed solutions. I believe that we are in the initia stages of this phase regarding hybrids now.

3) "Inner" establishment phase where the procedures and laws of the society are altered to incorporate the new solutions. (I am not talking here about such things as governemtn tax incentives. Manufacturer incentives might come closer to meeting this point.) But eventually hybrids will be accepted as a regular part of the transportation system and not noticed any more than the difference between a convential sedan and a hatchback. Where procedures and laws have to be modified to accomodate them, this will be done. I think we are a good five to ten years (perhaps more) from this stage.

 

Allow me to add this for your consideration. I am beginnng now, here, to promote in every venue and every conversation ( I sell Toyota's, emphasizing the hybrids, and own a Prius II ) that the method for comparing vehicles' fuel economy ratings should be changed to 'GPC' (Gallons per 100 mi).


GPC is not my idea although I have used a similar idea in past comparing different vehicle's fuel economy. GPC to my knowledge is first proposed as a metric for fuel economy in this R&T article which is the subject of this thread. It's elegant and simple. In fact it's the same metric used here for all the vehicles when each reports a tank full.; i.e. No. of galllons and No. of miles. As R&T notes GPC or it's metric version is the normal way economy is measured in the rest of the world as 'liters/100 km'. Until the American public brings itself into the 20th century by adopting the metric system in daily use ( it has been, btw, the official system of measurement for the Federal Gov't since the mid 80's ) we are stuck with outdated, Middle-Ages terminology.

GPC is simply calculated by (dividing Gallons used by miles driven ) then multiplying by 100. It's the same process everyone now uses, except changing the variables ( dividing miles driven by gallons used ). So why propose a change?

Responsibility.

The difference in the two following statements is Responsibility.
'I get 47.2 mpg on average.'
'I use 2.1 gallons every 100 miles I drive'

One is almost a contest encouraging consumption. 'I can go farther than ...' The latter makes me consider what I use to get where I'm going. In addition now there is another readily available statistic which is very important at this time and likely into the future.

How much does it cost me to go 100 miles?

At 47.2 mpg it's not obvious what the cost of this drive actually is. But in using 2.1 GPC it's an easy exercise to see that it costs me about $6.30 at today's prices.

Which brings me to why is the US system of measuring fuel economy still in use whereas the rest of the world uses 'l/100 km'. We in the US have not been perceived as being as personally responsible as the rest of the world in our use of resources. MPG plays into this by making FE a theoretical game rather than a personal commitment. Marketing plays into this as well as certain numbers like '50' and '60' get promoted. One might even envision the fuel providers and the vehicle providers being on the side of maintaining the status quo, albeit for differing reasons.

Challenge: Think about fuel economy in terms of your personal responsibility in using as little as possible.

Herebelow are some easy examples:
Our ICE V6 Highlander uses 5 Gal/100 mi, 5 GPC on average. which is $15/100 mi ( or $2250 / 15000 mi )
My previous 4c Camry's used about 3.3 GPC. which is $10/100 mi ( or $1500 /15000 mi )
My current Prius uses 2.1 GPC. which is $6.30/100 mi ( or $945 / 15000 mi )

I sell SUV's and trucks which use on average about 6 GPC. $18/100 mi

Note also the verb in each sentence describing fuel economy.

Bob Fogarty
kdhspyder

Change can begin with as small a step as refusing to give up a seat on a bus.

 

In aviation, we use gallons per hour and that is a very useful metric. It allows us to plan our trips without having to do a lot of long division since multiplication is easier and less likly to have errors.

What you've proposed is the inverse of MPG scaled to unit values. Thus 50 MPG becomes 0.02 GPM (Gallons per Mile) and scaled to 100 mile units, 2 GPC. The problem is "C" in GPC is not a natural identifier for "100 miles" and "H" for hundred is ambigious with "Gallons Per Hour." But this suggests looking at Gallons per Hour.

The EPA tests have an average speed of 20 mph City and 48 mph Highway. Invert the EPA MPG and multiply by the speed and you'll have gallons per hour. For a Prius I, it would become:

• 45 mpg Highway -> 1.06 GPH, Highway (variable, 48 mph)
• 52 mpg City -> 0.38 GPH, City (stop and go, 20 mph)

This makes calculating the relative cost fairly easy knowning how long each trip takes in hours. It also solves the problem of leading zeros until cars start getting better than 200 MPG. It won't bring us closer to the metric system but it shares the advantage of simplifying the cost to operate a vehicle.

Bob Wilson

 

Very intriguing. Both the concept of simplifying the process to figure out how much it costs to go somewhere/do something (not a new concept, of course) but also the psychological side.

Like all other conventions in common usage, there is certainly some history as to how/why the US settled on mpg instead of gal/mile or some version of gpc. That screams for a wikipedia article or something. Anyone know the story?

 

But Bob, division IS just multiplication...

Of course, multiplication IS just addition...

Back on topic, I like the "GPC" proposal.