What a f*cked up double standard

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Now, I'm not a GM fan, but this is just stupid:

http://www.cars.com/carsapp/national/?srv=parser&act=display&tf=/advice/bestworst/mileage/best_worst.tmpl

Is it just me or is this comparing apples to oranges?

Overpaid Slacker's link about ethanol aside (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/031128.html), how can you legitimately (and in good conscience) compare the MPG rating of fossil fuel vehicles to ethanol and CNG-fueled vehicles? For that matter, how can you even compare diesel to gas?

What's the standard here? Higher MPG = less emissions? Higher MPG = lower cost? Higher MPG = "better for the environment"? This is just another example of how statistics are used to hoodwink the average Joe who doesn't know any better.

Sorry, this just pissed me off.

[Overpaid Slacker]

I read it as simply higher mpg is cheaper -- which is not necessarily the case, given the differing costs of fuel.

IMHO, it should've had a brief mention of the apples-oranges nature of the comparison and the price deltas for fuels. However, that's expecting a lot from a simplistic (and perhaps, just perhaps agenda-driven) presentation.

Take a deep breath, BSJ.

JP

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Some of my ire stems from the fact that cars.com is closely associated with NPR via CarTalk (Click & Clack).

Some stems from the fact that I count a number of GM employees as friends, and absorbed a bit of their distaste for this article. Not that I would (or do) own a GM car.

[Purrybonker]

sorry, I don't understand what it is that you find unreasonable about this article. How are the different fuel types "apples and oranges" in view of the intent of the comparison?

Or how is GM prejudiced by this comparison?

Maybe I'm on the slower than usual side today...

[dd74]

Yeah, Blue. Count me in as "hoodwinked."

I don't know what your argument is. The General makes, IMO, some of the least "economical" cars on the road on average of most carmakers. Lump in:

1) Their trucks, which span the Chevrolet, GMC, Cadillac and other lines.

2) The Corvette can't get that great a mileage (though I don't know what it is).

3) The new Goat has a hyper V8 that surely can't be a mileage champ.

4) GM is using engines whose design dates back to the 80s - those V6s in Bonnevilles, for example, are fairly old and can't be efficient by current day standards.

5) The Hummer is a PIG no matter how it's looked at. That'd definitely bring down any company's CAFE standard.

My one thought is this: if I wanted a high-mileage car, I wouldn't look at GM. If I wanted a high performance American car, I'd definitely look at GM. Same for safety, too.

Politically, you bring up some interesting links - VERY INTERESTING - worthy of good investigative reporting, really, because we all know NPR's feelings about the current administration, while we all know the current administration hasn't demonstrated much worry about gas mileage and/or environmental issues.

Bring on Woodward and Bernstein.

[BlueSkyJaunte]

My point is that including ethanol and CNG (and even diesel) in an MPG comparison is flawed due to the different purposes of the fuels.

The point of CNG is purely to reduce emissions. MPG takes a "back seat" to any other concern.

The point of ethanol is (supposedly) to use a renewable resource instead of fossil fuels (and the attendant enviornmental damage associated w/ fossil fuel production).

Diesel has a completely different emissions profile from gas.

A final note, I am told that the ethanol/CNG vehicles in the GM line are not generally available to the general public. They are marketed toward the municipal and commercial sectors.

[Purrybonker]

...yeah, but.

As I understand the purpose of the site/article is to provide insight into fuel efficiency/emission cleanliness. If you're suggesting that the GM products that look sooo bad are being image cheated because of inherently cleaner yet less efficient fuels used in the comparison...

i.e. that ethanol or CNG are less efficient yet cleaner, then I have to take issue with your taking issue.

Fuel efficiency on a nominal basis is still a fair comparison for these purposes. Ethanol or CNG or propane do not take a big efficiency hit in exchange for better emission values. The diesel vehicles get the benefit of higher energy values/measure yet pay an emission penalty.

The GM vehicles listed just happen to be pigs and would be pigs regardless of fuel type. This info should be red flagged rather than small-printed to consumers considering such a purchase.

No offense to GM workers or anyone else, but if we, the intellectual/economic giants of this planet, can't begin to act reasonably in something simple like fuel consumption (when there are easy alternatives to getting 10 mpg), then this world is in really big trouble.

[Aurel]

What matters is how many dollars we put in the tank, how many miles we get out of it, and how much pollution is generated during those miles.
The cost per miles is easy, just divid fuel cost by Mpg. You get $/miles
The pollution is more tricky, because emissions differ in nature from fuel to fuel.
There should be a pollution index to rank fuels. 1 for no emissions, decreasing to 0 as emissions worsen. Now, multiply Mpg by this index. The more you pollute, the less Mpg you get...And now, divide the fuel cost by this new Mpg. That should transform apples and oranges into ($+tax)/miles.
Beleive me, with that system, GM would stop building pigs very fast...

Aurel

[LeeH]

Face it. Most consumers are ignorant. Most people think electric cars would be great since they have zero impact on the environment. Hmm... where does the electricity come from to charge the batteries? Diesels are great because they get better MPG. What about the diesel particulate matter? What's that?

I was buying light bulbs recently. Indoor flood light... $2.50. Right next to it: fluorecent indoor flood light... $8.00. Energy used on BOTH = 65 watts. How many people buy these thinking that they're saving electricity? The fluorescent is going to last longer but they use the SAME energy to make light!

I was in the dairy section at the grocery store. A woman asks the clerk, "Do you know if this yogurt has the big layer of cream on top? My daughter needs the extra fat." OK... yes, your baby does need whole milk yogurt and not low or fat free. But, just because the fat seperates doesn't mean there's more! All she had to do was read the label to see what the fat/serving was. Uggghh!!!