Quiz time: Which of the following would save more fuel?
a) Replacing a compact car that gets 34 miles a gallon with a hybrid that gets 54 m.p.g.
b) Replacing from an S.U.V. that gets 18 m.p.g. with a sedan that gets 28 m.p.g.
c) Both changes save the same amount of fuel.
The correct answer is b. In fact, going from 18 m.p.g. to 28 m.p.g. saves more than twice as much fuel as going from 34 m.p.g. to 54 m.p.g. (198 gallons vs. 94 gallons), according to two management professors from Duke University.
Richard Larrick and Jack Soll ran a series of experiments to show that the current standard of miles per gallon leads consumers to believe that fuel consumption is reduced at an even rate as efficiency improves. But that’s not the case.
“Miles per gallon is misleading and can play tricks on our intuitions,” Prof. Soll said in a press release, which also links to an interactive quiz.
Profs. Soll and Larrick offered an alternative metric: gallons per mile. Expressed in gallons used per 100 miles, 18 m.p.g. becomes 5.5 gallons per 100 miles, and 28 m.p.g. becomes 3.6 gallons per 100 miles. And the difference is suddenly obvious: nearly two gallons every 100 miles, or a difference of more than $8.
Many European countries already list efficiency in terms of volume per distance traveled (liters per 100 kilometers or L/100km). The Duke professors recommend that American automakers and consumer publications list efficiency in terms of gallons per 10,000 miles. Thus, 10 m.p.g. becomes 1,000 gallons per 10,000 miles, and 25 m.p.g. becomes 400 gallons per 10,000 miles.
Profs. Soll and Larrick offer a better illustration: If you switched from a 12 m.p.g. S.U.V. to a 15 m.p.g. S.U.V., you would save approximately 167 gallons of fuel over 10,000 miles. At a cost of $4 a gallon, that’s roughly $700.
“This measure makes it easy to see how much gas one might use in a given year of driving and how much gas, and money, can be saved by opting for a car with greater efficiency,” Prof. Larrick said.
2008
11:26 am
The problem here is not that one metric is better than the other, it is that the general public is unable (or unwilling) to apply critical thought when making the comparison. Switching to ltr/100km would do very little to improve peoples’ decisionmaking and cost a great deal.
— Posted by John S
2008
11:28 am
Not quite sure about the math on this. The 18 to 28 mpg change is a 56% increase, while the 34 to 54 is a 59% increase.
— Posted by Eric Mendelsohn
2008
11:29 am
Good idea! And while we’re at it, let’s switch to the metric system.
— Posted by SA
2008
11:30 am
This is the dumbest metric I’ve seen in a long time. These guys should lose their tenure.
— Posted by Bill Orrange
2008
11:32 am
Well if we had the electric car back, which needed no gallons at all and ran like a dream, we wouldn’t care about mpg or gpm! Electric cars were the perfect solution to our oil woes, and they were crushed like bugs as a threat to the industry.
— Posted by JGD
2008
11:32 am
So the argument is that the percentage change in efficiency is more meaningful than the absolute change in efficiency?
— Posted by HardyW
2008
11:36 am
True enough, but replacing the SUV with the hybrid will save even more…
— Posted by Dr.R.P.
2008
11:37 am
Actually, the difference between 34 mpg and 54 mpg for 10K Miles is ~109 Gallons. And I am not sure I would call this “a series of experiments”, nothing more than some simple calculations….
— Posted by Warren
2008
11:38 am
In going from 18mpg to 28 mpg, one does save 2 gallons per 100 miles. But going from 54 mpg to 34 mpg, one saves 1 gallon per 100 miles. So it is twice not twise as much fuel saved, as claimed in paragraph 1.
— Posted by Q
2008
11:39 am
Not quite sure about the math on this. The 18 to 28 mpg change is a 56% increase, while the 34 to 54 is a 59% increase.
— Posted by Eric Mendelsohn
That’s the problem right there. It’s not immediately intuitive that a 56% change in a big number is MORE than a 59% change in a small number.
— Posted by Case in Point
2008
11:40 am
I agree that this is a better way to look at fuel efficiency. However, I hope this example does not give anybody the idea that they can replace one gas guzzler with a more efficient gas guzzler. We need to reduce the TOTAL amount of fuel we use.
Tony
— Posted by Tony Andrew
2008
11:40 am
First, the govt. requires mileage to be displayed in MPG and prohibits any other format so it’s not the automaker’s choice. Second, any discussion of fuel economy is flawed if miles driven is not factored in. If I go from a 12MPG SUV to a 48MPG hybrid but decide to use my fuel savings to drive 4X as many miles (perhaps by taking long car trips instead of flying or taking the train) I have not reduced fuel use or emissions at all. So, without considering the effect of efficiency on miles driven the comparision is meaningless. If we, as a country, wanted to reduce fuel use immediately the only way to do it is to reduce the number of miles driven. Indeed, the last six months have seen reductions in miles driven because of the price increase in gasoline.
— Posted by horace
2008
11:41 am
This concept was a “CarTalk Puzzler” about 12 months ago…
— Posted by JonK
2008
11:41 am
Of course, exchanging that 18 m.p.g. SUV for the 54 m.p.g. hybrid would make even more of a difference …
— Posted by fuelcellfan
2008
11:43 am
Why not list both. The cost of ink is negligible.
— Posted by GG Campbell
2008
11:45 am
Stupid analysis like this defies reasoning. The gas efficient cars already save gas thus the inequality when compared to gas guzzlers. If the gas savings already gained with cars that get greater gas mileage was added into the equations the entire thought process becomes moot. I think these hair-brained professors need to get a life.
— Posted by Jim
2008
11:46 am
Here’s a better one, instead of expressing consumption in miles per gallon lets do gallons per hour (like on farm equipment). The efficient car (say 25 mpg in the city and 40 on the highway) is now using about .75 of a gallon an hour in the city (assuming average speeds of 18mph), but using 1.75 gallons an hour on the highway (@ 70mph). In this instance city driving is actually more economical - it’s you just don’t drive far enough.
— Posted by DMO
2008
11:46 am
Often times, when creating a number to measure things, you want to make the desired outcome smaller rather than larger. Would you rather pay $2.50 for a gallon of milk or $3.25 for a gallon of milk? We want to maximize our income and minimize our expenses.
Perversely, our MPG measurements rate higher numbers to be more efficient. With your suggestion of G / 1000 miles, it is simply easier math.
— Posted by Soren L.
2008
11:47 am
What is dumb about stating consumption per distance traveled? It has long been the metric in many countries. We already use a comparable metric for “Energy Star” refrigerators, i.e., kilowatt hours per year.
— Posted by James Maxeiner
2008
11:47 am
I’m happy to avoid the whole discussion. I don’t own a car, and don’t intend to. The whole panic in oil prices was predicted over 10 years ago. Eventually the discussion of miles/gallon or gallons/mile will be moot because oil is increasing in price faster than the replacement rate for motor vehicles.
— Posted by AT
2008
11:47 am
The researchers are talking about FUEL CONSUMPTION in GALLONS.
Here’s how it works for a 100 mile trip:
100 miles/54 miles per gallon=1.85 gallons used
100 miles/34 MPG=2.94 gallons used
Switching from a 34mpg to a 54mpg car saves 1.09 gallons of gas every 100 miles.
100 miles/28 MPG=3.57 gallons used
100 miles/18 MPG=5.56 gallons used
Switching from an 18mpg car to a 28mpg car saves 1.99 gallons of gas every 100 miles.
1.99>1.09
Learn math before shooting your mouth off.
— Posted by Russ
2008
11:47 am
I was really confused by this example because I have a Insight and get 62 mpg. But then I realized that this written for those ‘knuckleheads’ that bought SUV’s and now want to be ‘green’. So here again, math proves that it is more efficent to waste a lot then waste a little, than to waste a little all the time. Oh well….
— Posted by Rush Dougherty
2008
11:49 am
uh how about this…
D) replacing the 18 m.p.g. (5.5 gallons per 100 miles) hybrid with a 54 m.p.g. (1.8 gallos per 100 mile) hybrid.
but, also this doesnt mention the problems with using the EPA mandated mpg calculation with hybrids and ultra low emisssion vehicles. since the epa doesnt actually test based on consumption but on exhaust. which greatly compound the problem.
— Posted by liamaa
2008
11:50 am
Until we get rid of the CAFE system we are just fooling ourselves.
Limit engine size, horsepower, top speed and then go to a more realistic way of measuring: each vehicle must have the MPG listed & verified.
We used to get along just fine with 85/100 HP cars. These vehicles were able to get 20 MPG without futuristic computers, now they have them how would they do? After all how fast can you legally go and how much HP do you need to get you a.. from A to Z?
— Posted by david loeb
2008
11:50 am
This story is and the work it describes is basically an examination of the mathematical properties of the function f(x) = d/x, where f is fuel used to travel d miles in a car getting “fuel economy” x (in MPG), and its derivative df/dx.
Any high school calculus student should be able to come to the same conclusions that these authors did.
— Posted by Nicholas M
2008
11:51 am
The post by John S (#1) is spot on.
The typical consumer does not appreciate the complexity to the models need for informed decision making (eg, #2).
Simplistic models such as mpg or gpm don’t adequately inform.
What’s needed is a model that evaluates price of car (in $ and in CO2 produced to make a new one), price of gas, and the behavior change that each exerts on the individual consumer. If you get 50 mpg, you will probably drive more miles at $5/g than you would if your Detroit urban assault vehicle gets 15 mpg. No, how about $10/g gas?
This is the kind of gap that Google or Intuit should step into: you fill in your means and preferences, and the model tells you how each option would perform vis-a-vis your wallet and your carbon footprint.
And yes, the US will need to go metric or die trying.
— Posted by s phinney
2008
11:51 am
Mathematically correct. However, what you are doing here is selecting the best of two mediocre choices. What would save the most would be to trade an 18 mpg car for a 54 mpg car, thus saving 3.71 gallons per kilomile.
— Posted by Ken Cornelius
2008
11:52 am
The point made by this article would have been clearer if the author had shown the math for both examples (a) and (b), and not just (b).
As I see it, using the 100 mile standard from the article, the calculation for (a) is:
100/34 = 2.94 gallons
100/54 = 1.85 gallons
Difference = 1.09 gallons
Savings = 1.09 x price per gallon
compared with (a):
Savings = 1.90 x price per gallon
— Posted by tonyt
2008
11:53 am
Articles like this don’t help consumers make independent judgments unless they explain how to do the math. “Gallons per mile” is easy to calculate: just take the reciprocal of miles per gallon. Then multiply by 100 to get gallons per 100 miles. For instance, if you get 34 miles per gallon, 1/34 = .029 gallons per mile. Multiply this by 100 to get 2.9 gallons per 100 miles.
The article is right that using “gallons per 100 miles” is a better way to compare gasoline efficiencies, but it falsely implies that the person who trades a major gas guzzler for a minor one is helping save the environment more than someone who goes from a mildly efficient car to a more efficient one. The authors neglect how much the 34 miles per gallon car was already doing to save the environment.
What we all need to do is to move from gas guzzlers to very efficient cars.
— Posted by jayvee
2008
11:53 am
If we’re able to marshall all the best minds and launch a modern day Manhattan Project we could solve the problem with ease. With an all-out effort in horse breeding technology, we could have enough horses for every man, woman, and child in the US by 2012. Who needs these silly cars anyway?
— Posted by Rich
2008
11:53 am
How about this instead:
d) replacing an S.U.V. that gets 18 mpg with a hybrid that gets 54 mpg
No matter how you measure it (mpg or gpm), this is clearly the best change you can make, which is perhaps the more important goal to shoot for.
— Posted by Meredith
2008
11:53 am
HardyW (#6): If measured in terms of the amount of gas used (i.e., “save more fuel”) for a fixed distance, then it would be absolute change in efficiency. That is, you would use less gas.
I don’t get the 94 vs 198 gallons, but it’s too early in the morning to think any more.
— Posted by Kevin
2008
11:54 am
@JGD: Electric cars get their electricity from somewhere. It’s not just free. It has a carbon footprint as well, and we have to think about where that electricity would come from.
— Posted by Rachel
2008
11:55 am
Following up on nos. 2, 4, and 6 above:
This piece is confusing b/c only the SUV->sedan case is presented in gal/100mi. If you do the math for the compact->hybrid case, then you’ll see that this change saves just over 1 gal per 100 miles, or only about 55% of the reduction in the SUV->sedan switch, so Soll & Larrick are correct about the absolute change in cost.
On the other hand, it’s pretty striking to see the difference in cost/consumption between the two “efficient” choices:
sedan: 3.57 gal/100 mi
hybrid: 1.85 gal/100 mi
which, in my mind, makes a pretty compelling case for the hybrid.
— Posted by jpm
2008
11:55 am
As many people have pointed out in other places, these metrics are not useful in understanding the overall effect of an automobile on the environment or bank accounts. Getting 30 mpg on a 3 year-old compact is a lot better off for someone’s wallet and the planet than buying a hybrid that gets 45 mpg. That’s part of the ‘hidden’ cost.
Amortizing the cost of the car and the amount spent on maintenance & fuel will clearly show a reliable used car as financially compelling. Couple that with the environmental benefits and the notion of we, as consumers, replacing our cars in 2-3 year cycles (as detroit and Mr. Bush would probably request) becomes QUITE OBSOLETE.
— Posted by Paul
2008
11:57 am
Replacing the 18 mpg SUV for the 54 mpg hybrid is better, but even better is to put your car keys down and get on a bike.
— Posted by bike commuter
2008
11:57 am
Gallons per 10,000 miles would make a lot of sense, but I don’t know that it’s worth changing over. It’s simple to do the math to convert. I question some of the numbers in the article a little, though.
I guess the example at the beginning of the article is meant to show the savings over 10,000 miles. Doing the math myself, though, I get:
18 mpg = 556 gallons per 10,000 miles
28 mpg = 357
34 mpg = 294
54 mpg = 185
So going from 34 to 54 mpg saves approximately 109 gallons over 10,000 miles while going from 18 to 28 mpg saves approximately 199 gallons over the same time.
People are currently considering cost of fuel, but if prices stabilize for a little while and people get used to the prices, will they keep that in mind?
— Posted by Allen
2008
11:57 am
Dumb! I would think the preferred alternative would be to switch from an 18 mpg SUV (5.5 gpm)to a 54 mpg Hybrid (1.85 gpm). Of course, no mention is made of manufacturing or disposal costs. Do the traded vehicles remain on the road. How about reducing highway speed limits 10 mph? Aargh!
— Posted by Dana Barker
2008
11:58 am
And if you replaced a garbage truck that got 5 mpg with a moving van that got 10 mpg you’d save 1000 gallons a year (assuming you drove your garbage truck 10000 miles a year to work).
Wow. That would save you $4000.
Driving the new moving van still costs $4000 in gas a year while the 54 mpg Hybrid only cost $780.
This is a little silly. I think what people need is to actually work out what their annual fuel budget is.
— Posted by steve-p
2008
11:59 am
Bill O., above: The study was published in Science. You’ve not read the study. You’re not qualified to revoke anyone’s tenure. Unless you define “dumb.” (You’re not still an undergrad are you? I get comments all the time along these lines in my classes. They usually come from the failing students.)
The experimental aspect, as I understand it, was in asking people what their perceptions of increased efficiency are.
I am lousy at math too, but I puzzled this out and came to the same conclusion as Hardy W–it’s the percentage change that matters. In other words, increased efficiency is not linear, it’s curvilinear.
— Posted by Tom in Raleigh
2008
11:59 am
This is disingenous. distance per unit volume is exactly the same as unit volume per distance,
although perhaps for the average observer, dealing with the smaller numbers is a bit easier.
Annualized cost to operate, or savings, can be calculated from either number, given an estimated
cost per unit volume and estimated distance.
What’s more important, perhaps, is distance per monetary unit. This allows one to calculate, and
make decisions about, how much improvement in fuel
economy is necessary to justify an increase in price,
or the distance at which driving out of one’s way results in a net savings.
A couple of real life examples:
38mpg, 87 octane fuel at $4.139 per gallon is 9.181 miles per dollar. 93 octane fuel at $4.339 requires 39.84 miles per gallon to achieve the same miles per dollar. In this example, the actual switch results in 43 mpg, for a yield of 9.910 miles per dollar, a clear savings.
10 gallon fillup, 43 mpg, 2 cent difference in price, or $0.20 savings. 9.910 mp$ * $.20 = 1.982 miles. Driving out of one’s way more than that costs money, rather than saves it.
Two more examples:
switch to a diesel fueled vehicle. At current prices, $4.139 for 87 octane, 9.181 mpd,
$5.159 for diesel, the diesel would have to achieve 47.36 mpg.
switch to ethanol/flex fuel vehicle. Assuming $3.499 for ethanol, the flex fuel vehicle would have to achieve no less than 32.12 mpg.
None of this takes into account the costs of making the switch, which range from zero for changing grades of fuel to many thousands of dollars for
modifying or changing the vehicle. The “payback period” may be too long for some people’s taste or financial ability.
— Posted by J Omega T
2008
11:59 am
Nice work. The “law of diminishing returns” applies in fuel consumption as elsewhere. In other words, the lower your fuel consumption to begin with, the less total quantity gasoline you can save by increasing mileage.
HardyW, you’ve got it backwards. The absolute change is more important than the percentage. Say you have 100 apples, and take away 10%. That’s 10 apples. Now you’ve got 90 apples left. Take away 10% this time, and its only 9 apples. By the time you get down to around 10 apples, 10% is only one apple.
I would also like to point out that most fuel economy metrics (including these) ignore the effect of multiple passengers. For an SUV carrying 8 people and getting 18 m.p.g. (as noted above, 5.5 gallons per 100 miles), each person is only consuming 1/8 of that 5.5 gallons, or .6875 gallons per 100 miles. In our standard measurement, that’s 144 miles per gallon per person, far better than a Prius. In simpler terms, you can instantly double your gas mileage by sharing a ride with one person.
— Posted by Dave W.
2008
12:00 pm
Agree, let’s go metric. The US is the only country using the “English” system of weights and measures. A system, even the English have abandoned.
— Posted by Christian VanSchayk
2008
12:00 pm
The article fails to explain how 20 additional miles on a gallon is less than 10 additional miles on a gallon.
— Posted by Greg Rogers
2008
12:00 pm
The real cost to the consumer is $$/mile, or to the average working Joe, how many hours do I work to pay for getting behind the wheel? Maybe some of those suburban housewives who go shopping in their SUV ego mobiles might reconsider the trip if they knew how many hours someone in the family had to work to pay for the trip.
— Posted by Andy
2008
12:03 pm
Eric, that’s exactly the point. Assuming that the amount of miles driven in a year is fixed regardless of efficiency (which is actually probably not true), option b) will save much more fuel.
Assume each car is driven for 10,000 miles a year:
10,000 mi / 34 mpg = 294 gallons
10,000 mi / 54 mpg = 185 gallons
A savings of about 109 gallons.
10,000 mi / 18 mpg = 556 gallons
10,000 mi / 28 mpg = 357 gallons
A savings of about 199 gallons.
Having the efficiency listed with the gallons on top makes the math that much easier, because what we are really looking for is the percentage change in 1/e, not just the change in e.
— Posted by Kyle Gong
2008
12:04 pm
My understanding is that we have reached NOW the time to convert to METRIC SYSTEM. As so few people can actually do the maths they will be more OPEN
to a system used the world over.
— Posted by Ydrob
2008
12:04 pm
You have all missed the point.
@John S: They advocate switching to gal/10000mi, which retains our imperial-ish units and makes the efficiency comparison easier, as stated in the post.
@Eric Mendelsohn: Their math is correct:
10000mi @ 54mpg -> 185.185 gal
10000mi @ 34mpg -> 294.118 gal (difference: 108.933 gal)
10000mi @ 28mpg -> 357.143 gal
10000mi @ 18mpg -> 555.556 gal (difference: 198.412 gal)
So you save 90 more gallons of fuel per 10000mi with the second switch than the first.
@Bill Orrange: For the given case, the new metric gives the values I showed above, and the differences in efficiency are obvious by subtraction instead of division, which is what confused Eric. The fuel savings become simple to compute, and as we Americans tend to be bad at math, the simpler we make it to see how much gas the car uses, the more easily a consumer can make his decision.
@HardyW: The argument is exactly the opposite. As Eric points out, 34->54 is a larger percent change, but saves you less fuel than 18->28. That’s why gal/10000mi is an easier metric to understand, because my comparison above is obvious, whereas you and Eric were confused when trying to calculate in mpg.
— Posted by JT
2008
12:04 pm
Oops! (5.5 gpm) should read (5.5 gpcm), simarly (1.85 gpm) should read (1,85 gpcm).
— Posted by Dana Barker
2008
12:05 pm
It is the gallons you use and not the mpg.
A seldom used SUV uses little fuel and is greener than a frequently used hybrid. Many posts by hybrid users boast about their lack of lifestyle adjustment. I have reduced my gallons used per month by 75% without changing my car.
— Posted by Ransome
2008
12:07 pm
(10,000/54)/(10,000/34)=(185.185/294.117)-1=37% decrease in fuel consumption
(10,000/28)/(10,000/18)=(357.14/555.55)-1=35% decrease in fuel consumption
However, 294.117-185.185 = 108.932 gallons and 555.55-357.14=198.41 gallons
You are saving 198.41 gallons per 10,000 miles when you switch from an 18MPG vehicle to a 28MPG vehicle, and you are saving 108.932 gallons per 10,000 miles when you switch from a 34MPG vehicle to a 54MPG vehicle. You make a bigger impact by switching to the 28MPG vehicle, but of course you could switch from the 18MPG to the 54MPG and save 370.365 gallons of fuel per 10,000 miles.
Remember, this is a measurement of SAVINGS from a baseline of 18MPG. You will use 555.55 gallons of gas per 10,000 miles at 18MPG, and you will use 185.185 gallons of gas per 10,000 miles at 54MPG. You save 370.365 gallons per 10,000 miles by switching. Of course, this is assuming 100% efficiency (good luck with that hahahaha).
— Posted by Joe
2008
12:08 pm
Richard S. Chang responds:
Tom, you’re right about the savings reversal. It’s now corrected in the text. Thanks!
No wonder everyone is confused! The article doesn’t state that the gallons used are calculated over a distance of 10,000 miles. What is more, the savings are reversed. The sentence should have read “(198 gallons vs 94 gallons)”
— Posted by Tom Buckley
2008
12:09 pm
WHY you want to change a compact car to a hybrid? You should change a SUV to a hybrid.
— Posted by izzycafe
2008
12:09 pm
With all due respect,
1) this presumes the general population will understand the “higher math” needed to understand this new efficiency model; in short, it is more complicated even if, on some level, not as “accurate”.
2) the approximations are huge; efficiency, regardless of the method used to calculate it, depends on driving habits (in-town vs. highway), etc. This method may thus be as misleading as the current one.
3) it *is* misleading. Switching to a car that gets better miles per gallon, or gallons per mile, ceteris paribus, makes no difference in the sense that better efficiency, regardless of the metric, is *better*.
Some things need to remain simple. Think about food labeling. The more information provided, the less people know. Harsh, and arrogant sounding, yes, but look to the empirical evidence. Pragmatism, or ‘expedient means’ if you like, often make sense.
— Posted by Rael64
2008
12:10 pm
Yes, this is definitely the way to go. It would also help us understand that getting the country to abandon SUVs and move towards vehicles that get 25-30mpg will save much more fuel than a (relatively small) number of people moving from Corollas to Priuses.
Another thing it would help with is this question: Suppose you have two cars, one gets 30mpg and another 20mpg. You take both together on a drive; what is the mpg of the two-car combination? That problem is hard to answer with mpg, but easy using g/100 mi.
— Posted by Bob
2008
12:11 pm
to horace: flying is far and away the most wasteful form of transportation. planes are fast but horribly inefficient. you’re right about trains though; they are angels compared to planes.
— Posted by jason
2008
12:12 pm
Who cares about the math when the bottom line is we all need to use LESS gallons. This is not about the savings but about the air quality and the future of the planet.
— Posted by Ajax
2008
12:13 pm
heh. I’ve been trying to explain this simple principle to people for years. Guess it takes a professorship at Duke to get anyone to listen to basic math.
— Posted by aarons
2008
12:13 pm
Horace, You’re right. But I don’t know that most people would drive significantly more just because they had a more efficient car. I would expect most people to keep their driving habits basically the same. And if I’m right, then they would reduce fuel use a lot by switching from an SUV to a hybrid.
In terms of flying, that’s an interesting question. If a person flies from NYC to Washington, DC, for example, does he use less fuel than he would if he drove a hybrid? It’s not a simple question. Was the plane half empty, or was the plane full (which determines how much fuel per person was consumed)? Was he riding in a turboprop or a jet?
— Posted by Steve
2008
12:15 pm
Good Idea! I have two degrees in mathematics, but I it is still want one number, with no calculations needed, when making choices. This example also illustrates what my Econ Prof, Dr Hagen, repeats, “Worst First.” You almost always get the biggest bang for the buck by fixing the worst problem first. Which in this case is the 18 mpg SUV.
— Posted by Richard Navas
2008
12:16 pm
What is the point of this article? Both choices posed at the start of the piece represent a lower marginal cost for fuel. Is the author suggesting that a car buying consumer would trade an Escalade for a Prius to save on fuel costs? I think a more relevant discussion would be the purchase price differential for two cars in the same category (e.g. midsize sedan) with differing fuel economy - regardless of MPG or GPM metric.
— Posted by PT
2008
12:17 pm
Eric hit the nail on the head. Most people believe, at first glance, that there is a linear relationship between MPG and cost savings - that is, if we assume we drive the same miles regardless of car chosen, Savings (S) = (Difference in MPG * Cost/Gallon). Anyone who has taken Physics in high school (really, any science class, though most other science disciplines don’t enforce this type of analysis until college) will see that the units don’t match (Dollars don’t equal Mile-dollars/gallon^2). The right equation is S = (Difference in GPM * Cost/Gallon).
If you look at the numbers in percentage terms, %Savings = (%Difference in MPG) * Total current gas costs, the “illusion” goes away.
Note my emphasis on “at first glance.” Entire industries are built on the fact that our first impressions aren’t always rational.
— Posted by Adam Kaplan
2008
12:17 pm
America not wanting to cooperate with the world, will cause its status to fall from from its current position as world leader to something less. Therefore let’s adopt these sort of mileage standards, embrace Kyoto, be part of the world order, instead of acting like a childish renegade and cooperate with the nations of the world. It is time to grow up USA. (from a US citizen.)
— Posted by Roy G. Biv
2008
12:18 pm
If the goal is to reduce the nations consumption, the critical metric is not a number, but a percentage. Going from 18 to 28 reduces fuel consumption by 35%, going from 34 to 54 reduces fuel consumption by 37%, and going from 18 to 54 reduces fuel consumption by 67%.
— Posted by rlb
2008
12:19 pm
JGD states that if we had pure electric vehicles, we could forget about miles per gallon. That’s true. But we would still want to consider miles per dollar.
How many miles per charge does the electric car achieve? How many watt-hours does it take to charge it?
Same thing goes for the compressed air motor I read about recently; there’s a cost associated with filling it up.
On the other hand, perhaps that technology could be adapted to small engines, say for lawnmowers and garden tractors. But that’s a different discussion.
— Posted by J Omega T
2008
12:21 pm
Comments 4 & 7 make a lot of sense.
.
The moral of this story is that if we want to save gas & oil, as well as improve the economy, we should first get rid of Cadillac Escalades and other gas-guzzlers. Only then should we focus on switching from Toyota Corollas to Priuses.
.
Neither new government incentives nor taxes are needed; four-dollar-a-gallon gasoline will do it quite nicely.
— Posted by Nelson M
2008
12:22 pm
Give me a break. So we should congratulate some guy who trades his Hummer in for a Lincoln? The point seems to be a little screwy to me. While the SUV owner who’s downsizing in (b) sees a greater *relative* fuel savings, the owner in (a) began by using less fuel and remains the overall most fuel efficient person. So generally (a) saves more. Thank you Einstein.
— Posted by Shaun
2008
12:23 pm
This would lead to a good change in mindset.
The pursuit of efficiency back in the 1970s was always half-hearted and MPG reflects that. Telling us “how far we can go with our gas” fit better with the idea that we Americans were still free to take our car whenever and wherever we wanted. Car advertisements sometimes even mentioned how far you could go on a tank of gas.
GPK (gallons per 1000 miles) gets people to think more along the lines of “to get where I need to go, this is what I need.” It should help people be more conscious of costs and make more efficient decisions.
— Posted by KilobarrelsOfOil
2008
12:25 pm
I think the math is sound, but the example in the quiz is flawed because it first compares two vehicles with a 20 mpg different, and then it compares two vehicles with only a 10 mpg difference. However, if you compare gallons used to travel 10,000 at each mpg, then the numbers look like this:
18 mpg = 555.6 gal
28 mpg = 357.2 gal (198.4 gal less than 18 mpg)
38 mpg = 263.2 gal (94.0 gal less than 28 mpg)
48 mpg = 208.3 gal (54.9 gal less than 38 mpg)
58 mpg = 172.4 gal (35.9 gal less than 48 mpg)
So improvements in gas mileage at higher numbers save less gasoline than improvements from lower numbers. It then becomes a matter of comparing savings to the cost of the vehicle. For instance, suppose I want to trade in a vehicle that gets 28 mpg for one that gets 34 mpg. At 34 mpg it would take 294 gal to go 10,000 miles. That’s a difference of 63 gallons. At $4 a gallon, that’s a savings in gas of $252.00. If the cost of financing the new vehicle is more than $252.00, then I’ll keep the older vehicle.
— Posted by rwditmer
2008
12:25 pm
18mpg SUV, what! Try 15-13…
— Posted by 18mgp!
2008
12:28 pm
If one professor drove an SUV and one professor drove a Hybrid the answer would be a lot easier.
— Posted by Richc
2008
12:28 pm
Good grief people - this article has nothing to do with the metric system! It’s about how measuring efficiency with “miles/gallon” is misleading.
I track my car costs at www.spritmonitor.de and get all my statistics calculated this way. I get gallons per 100 miles, grams CO2 per mile, and dollars spent per mile.
For anyone interested my 2000 Volvo wagon uses 4.52 gallons per 100 miles, emits 400 grams CO2 per 100 miles, and costs $16.04 per 100 miles to drive (includes taxes, insurance, maintenance and gas).
— Posted by C. Reaves
2008
12:29 pm
The article is badly written.
The savings are not “according to two professors”. They are basic math.
What the professors ran experiments on was whether people understood the savings correctly and could apply critical thought. The answer was clearly “No!” People use easy intuition (always bad unless your math is really good) instead of calculating.
It is implicit in the question that miles driven is constant. The consumer clearly cannot calculate an inverse ratio and the idea suggested in the changeover is that the consumer is better aware of projected fuel costs over a CONSTANT distance. Perhaps it is difficult for people to change their driving distances much. (I walk to work).
Anyone can calculate this figure for the car they’ll buy, work out lifetime fuel costs. Will any company go to the trouble and cost of educating consumers about this? Maybe.
PS: As several people have pointed out, you will get much higher savings by going from 2mpg to 3mpg (only 50%)…a whopping 1667 gallons! It’s all to do with the point you start.
— Posted by Ryan
2008
12:30 pm
I like the gallons/mile idea. It makes sense for the metric to be proportional to the real quantity of interest - which, in this case, is cash out of the wallet. MPG is the inverse relation so it’s non-linear (the cash difference depends on where you are on the scale) and not very intuitive. One problem in changing the metric is that people are used to the idea that a bigger number equals a better product. Marketers are going to resist the idea of advertising cars as having cars as having low GPMs.
— Posted by Scott Lacy