remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
edited March 2012
<!--quoteo(post=1911929:date=Mar 10 2012, 12:15 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 10 2012, 12:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what you're saying is that 20 is twice as much as 10, but 30 isn't twice as much as 20, and 40 isn't twice as much as 30. I don't see what the huge revelation is supposed to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The point is that it's not linear and this is a fact that most people do not understand. Personally I would not view MPG as a priority because any car nowadays is relatively efficient and because the monetary difference between a 30 to 35 MPG vehicle is minuscule (in gas costs). If MPG is a priority to you despite the small difference in gas costs, you still should at least understand the meaning of the number and that it is not a linear scale so that you can make an informed choice (and not fall prey to marketing).
"Any" car isn't relatively efficient. SUVs are still gas-guzzling monstrosities that belong in containment instead of on the street. But I'm assuming that that's not what you meant by any car. Still, at least have a cursory glance at the mileage. 30mpg still means you save 33% in gas over 20mpg. That's non-negligible.
Heck, if you do a lot of miles I'd say a 5mpg difference is huge.
Is the American mile or gallon different to the British one? Sops says his Ford hybrid drops as low as 8mpg which is only slightly more efficient than a Formula 1 engine. Hybrid engines on this side of the pond get an economy of 60-100mpg.
Ford advertises the Escape Hybrid as having 34mpg, which is pretty low as far as hybrids go but keep in mind this is an SUV. (Small SUV by US standards)
Edit: My company's mpg is so low due to the way the vehicles are used, my point being real world mpg depends much more heavily on how you drive then the extra couple of pounds for electric windows.
<!--quoteo(post=1912110:date=Mar 11 2012, 05:50 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Mar 11 2012, 05:50 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1912110"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->(Small SUV by US standards)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So about the size of a lorry then?
TalesinOur own little well of hateJoin Date: 2002-11-08Member: 7710NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators
<!--quoteo(post=1911929:date=Mar 10 2012, 03:15 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (lolfighter @ Mar 10 2012, 03:15 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911929"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->So what you're saying is that 20 is twice as much as 10, but 30 isn't twice as much as 20, and 40 isn't twice as much as 30. I don't see what the huge revelation is supposed to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, the gp100m measurement is meant to show gas used. 10mpg = 10g/100m. 20mpg = 5g/100m. 40mpg = 2.5g/100m. Meaning going from a 10mpg vehicle to a 20mpg vehicle saves more fuel (5gal/100m less used) than going from a 20mpg to a 40mpg vehicle (2.5g/100m less used). While the mileage increase is TWICE the 10->20, it only actually saves half as much fuel of the 10->20.
It's a diminishing-returns problem, and is a non-linear curve as far as fuel usage/savings goes; even switching to a 100mpg vehicle, you're still only saving 9g/100m as compared to a 10mpg vehicle. The point it's intended to make is that replacing 100 10mpg clunkers/SUVs with 20mpg vehicles would lead to less fuel utilization (500gal/100mi saved) than 100 people with 20mpg cars buying a 40mpg Hybrid (250gal/100mi saved), which would cost quite a lot more, incidentally.
<!--quoteo(post=1911991:date=Mar 10 2012, 07:30 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Mar 10 2012, 07:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But then you have to have hand crank windows.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Which aren't really that bad. Just most Americans are entitled lazy-asses, used to the <i>conveniences</i> being considered as basic amenities. Exactly how often do you roll down your passenger-side window if you don't have a passenger? Not often, unless it's to yell at someone. So... positive result, overall. The added reliability is just a bonus. Honestly the only really annoying bit about his car is the non-power door locks. Which are still an amenity, but rely on other lazy-asses to remember to LOCK THEIR DAMN DOOR when he has a passenger, instead of just hitting a central switch.
<!--quoteo(post=1912206:date=Mar 11 2012, 08:30 PM:name=Talesin)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Talesin @ Mar 11 2012, 08:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1912206"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Exactly how often do you roll down your passenger-side window if you don't have a passenger?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Every day actually.
remiremedy [blu.knight]Join Date: 2003-11-18Member: 23112Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
<!--quoteo(post=1912217:date=Mar 11 2012, 05:31 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Mar 11 2012, 05:31 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1912217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Every day actually.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> And how often do you roll down ANY window while driving? I would argue that crank windows require more time and are less safe than power windows... especially on cars where the crank is about 1/2 of the way down the door so you can't keep sitting up while cranking it down.
Comments
Easy way to pick up chicks.
The point is that it's not linear and this is a fact that most people do not understand.
Personally I would not view MPG as a priority because any car nowadays is relatively efficient and because the monetary difference between a 30 to 35 MPG vehicle is minuscule (in gas costs).
If MPG is a priority to you despite the small difference in gas costs, you still should at least understand the meaning of the number and that it is not a linear scale so that you can make an informed choice (and not fall prey to marketing).
Is the American mile or gallon different to the British one? Sops says his Ford hybrid drops as low as 8mpg which is only slightly more efficient than a Formula 1 engine. Hybrid engines on this side of the pond get an economy of 60-100mpg.
Edit:
My company's mpg is so low due to the way the vehicles are used, my point being real world mpg depends much more heavily on how you drive then the extra couple of pounds for electric windows.
So about the size of a lorry then?
BURRRRRRRRN!
No, the gp100m measurement is meant to show gas used. 10mpg = 10g/100m. 20mpg = 5g/100m. 40mpg = 2.5g/100m.
Meaning going from a 10mpg vehicle to a 20mpg vehicle saves more fuel (5gal/100m less used) than going from a 20mpg to a 40mpg vehicle (2.5g/100m less used).
While the mileage increase is TWICE the 10->20, it only actually saves half as much fuel of the 10->20.
It's a diminishing-returns problem, and is a non-linear curve as far as fuel usage/savings goes; even switching to a 100mpg vehicle, you're still only saving 9g/100m as compared to a 10mpg vehicle. The point it's intended to make is that replacing 100 10mpg clunkers/SUVs with 20mpg vehicles would lead to less fuel utilization (500gal/100mi saved) than 100 people with 20mpg cars buying a 40mpg Hybrid (250gal/100mi saved), which would cost quite a lot more, incidentally.
<!--quoteo(post=1911991:date=Mar 10 2012, 07:30 PM:name=Sops)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Sops @ Mar 10 2012, 07:30 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1911991"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->But then you have to have hand crank windows.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which aren't really that bad. Just most Americans are entitled lazy-asses, used to the <i>conveniences</i> being considered as basic amenities. Exactly how often do you roll down your passenger-side window if you don't have a passenger? Not often, unless it's to yell at someone. So... positive result, overall. The added reliability is just a bonus.
Honestly the only really annoying bit about his car is the non-power door locks. Which are still an amenity, but rely on other lazy-asses to remember to LOCK THEIR DAMN DOOR when he has a passenger, instead of just hitting a central switch.
Every day actually.
And how often do you roll down ANY window while driving? I would argue that crank windows require more time and are less safe than power windows... especially on cars where the crank is about 1/2 of the way down the door so you can't keep sitting up while cranking it down.
Look into a used 1.8T vehicle from VW. (Or Audi if you're feeling fancy.)
Great mileage, pretty powerful, easy to maintain as long as the previous owner took decent care of it.