I am getting about 15mpg and city/hwy seems to stay the same I only have like 1000 miles on it so it is still breaking in,so I hope it gets better than this since my 99 grand cherokee got like 17.5 with my usual driving. Is anyone else having this problem? Is it the winter blend of fuel?
Unless you're towing or offroading, does anyone here feel at all guilty about using two or three times the amount of gasoline you would use if you drove an "ordinary" car instead?
If that were the case wouldn't they find other options like walking/biking/motorcycle/etc
If I drove an "ordinary" car, I would feel just as guilty, not because of gasoline, but because of my laziness
I don't know about towing mileage (although I hear it can be bad), my mileage when I'm off-roading is almost cut in half!
FYI: I have designed/built/driven/raced hybrids and pure electrics. Sorry to say but their time just has never seemed right. Oh yeah and some of the very first cars were electric too. Are you trying to make this into an ' I don't like SUVs, why do you?' forum Tidester?
nah, cause you can always walk if you truely want to save the plant. If all our purchases were based on need, then we'd all be driving geo metros since they seat 4 and get like 50mpg+ Also we'd be living in comunism instead of freedom.
Besides, the quicker we use up all the evil gas the quicker we will develop other resources.
If that were the case wouldn't they find other options like walking/biking/motorcycle/etc
Nah - they could have gotten a "regular" car instead. Also, it is possible that some might recognize the problem only after they've gotten their fuel hungry SUV.
Are you trying to make this into an ' I don't like SUVs, why do you?' forum Tidester?
Not really. I was sitting here looking at one of the earlier messages with someone telling about (what I consider) truly abysmal gas mileage. It made me wonder whether I could personally justify that to myself under similar circumstances.
Obviously, money isn't an issue. But then I think I would have more than a twinge of guilt just because of the sheer inefficiency. We, as a nation, are almost fanatical in our quest for efficiency - in terms of time, resources, productvity, money etc. but when it comes to our vehicles we don't quite seem to have the same priorities.
So, I was wondering what others thought about it - since the topic IS "SUV fuel mileage!"
For anyone driving any car that gets less than 50mpg that the Metro gets.
Unless you need to carry more than 4 people, you don't need an accord or camary, or any other car, no? They should also be painted grey with bright reflective tape along the edges for safety, and no need for anything more than an AM radio to get information to the driver.
It's amazing how inefficient our society really is though. Big business has a way of getting certain things done, but is typically not very efficient IMO. I think it's something like 50% of all new patents/ideas/... come from small business. I wonder how many people work for all of the small businesses compared to those for large businesses, and then we could see whether or not big business is really efficient.
Ever seen the movie Office Space? Where the main character has 8 bosses (or some absurd number) calling him to make sure he got a memo! That movie is great.
mike: Obviously it's not a concern for you. I am not talking about obsession - like walking everywhere or biking. Clearly we need to balance our "needs" which include our time, resources, comfort and money. But for those who drive around in a 5,000 pound vehicle, don't tow and never go off road, it seems tht 5 to 10 mpg is extraordinarily inefficient.
I would personally have a problem with that. You do not.
dielectric: Agree! BTW - I wrote down the name of the video - will have a look! Thanks.
That "I hate SUVs, why do you...." has gone over 100000000000s of times. The same could be said for someone spending 100K on a car. For instance a very well off person would think nothing of a $100-$150/plate meal, average americans think that $15-$20/plate meals are std faire, talk to a guy in a village in India and to him a $15-$20/plate meal is outrageous.
It's all relative.
Excursion is to Accord is to Metro is to Bike.
-mike
PS: let's try not to muddy the waters of this discussion with people posting comments pro-con gas milage. It should be kept a good resource for real-world milage info.
I thought we agreed money was not a concern. The issue is more about efficiency.
I doubt you would opt for a copying machine in the office that wasted 2 sheets of paper and 2 minutes of time for each copy you made or light bulbs that used 2,000 Watts of electrical power while only providing 100 Watts of illumination - even if you could afford both.
SUVs typically get poor mileage. Let's say for this example an SUV averages 15 MPG on the highway. Let's say that the average car gets 35 MPG (hey some can get 50+ while others can't break out of the 20's) The SUV has two people in it. The car has one. 35*1/(15*2)= 1.16
So the car is only 16% more efficient.
Granted the car cold have 7 people (hey two in the trunk) and the SUV 1, but generally I see people driving with one, maybe two people. I also don't see many SUVs towing or going off-road.
Apparently Americans really don't seem to care very much at this point about efficiency , but I say to each his/her/its own.
I got around 20 mpg with my 98 Acura 2.3CL on my commute which has lot's of lights.Now with my CRV I get 20 if I drive with normal flow but drops to 19 if I race away from each stop.
Nice try, but as you can see, if you drive an SUV (in most cases) there is no interest in discussing efficiency or alternatives. Black is white.
BTW, I average about 16.5 - 17 mpg overall with my PF. About half is highway. If it weren't for the abysmal mpg, I would have little to complain about with it. Of course, you can't have 240 hp and 4400 lbs and get great mpg.
Your example above tidester is a poor example. wasting 2 sheets of paper or running a higher wattage bulb does not provide any extra usefulness than 1 sheet of paper or a extra illumination. An SUV on the other hand, provides the owner/driver with more pleasure than a std. car, and in the case of an SUV v. Metro, it is definitely more comfortable. All the anti-suv cause you don't need it people totally neglect the fact that some people just enjoy driving SUVs over cars combined with the extended durability of them should be enough reason for someone to justify the extra daily cost.
Mike, you're missing the point...tidester's question was...if you're not towing or off-roading. Pleasure? Well...I'm not going to go there...;-)
Using a metro as the comparison is nonsense. There are comfortable, spacious cars (let alone wagons) that get 25mpg or better...compare this to an SUV getting 15.
Hopefully that hybrid and/or variable displacement technology will become available soon so that folks that say "I want an SUV and 15 mpg isn't so bad" will say "ok, it's worth $800 more to get adn SUV and get 25mpg (or better).
I was referring to average mpg, not city vs hwy...that would be dishonest, and I am not :-)
Subaru Outback (you won't complain about a Subaru, will you?) averages 25 (22/28) vs a Denali (14), Expedition (15), Suburban (15), TLC (15)...and let's not even mention the Excursion.
These are all large SUVs...but the comparison is almost as bad with the mid-sized ones...starting with the Pathfinder (17), Explorer (17), JGC (18), Rodeo (19).
I have nothing against SUVs, per se...but there is a significant difference in gas mileage between an SUV and a wagon...let alone a sedan! A 25mpg vehicle uses 40 gallons to go 1000 miles...a 15 mpg vehicle uses 67...that's almost 70% more gas to go the same distance!
Cars average 28.5 mpg across all models on the road today (yes, 1 mpg above the CAFE requirement). That's a huge difference in gas consumption...clearly not a major factor in most folks' buying decision.
I get about 16 (higher when the mix is more highway in the Sub. I one time got 14+ all the others not less than 15.75. Therefore I speculate that the 14+ was an aberation based on fuel in the tank.
My former SUV Montero Sport religiously got 17, and 19.5 when all highway.
The trade off of space is more than worth it. Does that mean it is inefficient. Yes if compared to an Outback (of course there is nothing in common with an outback) but what does that matter?
Now the vehicle size, weight, contents, and aerodynamics are different, also what the vehicle capable of doing is different. So, based on that criteria, I do not consider it inefficient. Inefficient is making 3 trips to home depot to pick up your soil or flooring or other supplies that you could have taken home in one (as an example). Then you time, fuel, wear and tear and that, YES THAT is inefficient.
I guess I could say the PF, Montero Sport etc, are inefficient because they have smaller engines, can do less (based on engine size and weight) and yet only average 1 more mpg than I am.
Now, lets compare the GDP of Sri Lanka to that of The USA, while we're on the subject of fair comparisons.
I didn't buy the outback because it was uncomfortable to sit in. You can't compare the comfort of my Trooper to the Outback. To me that comfort level is well worth the milage trade-off.
If you pay for the gas, it's your gas to do what you want with it. If you don't want to use gas (for some reason...efficiency or other), what makes a car such a better option? A motorcycle can get better mileage and performance, or walking or biking get better mileage than a car (when is enough enough). There are so many other alternatives. I have a friend/neighbor with a truck. He gets about 15MPG with his driving. Here's the problem I have with him: 9 a.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 3 blocks, and stops it. 10 a.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives back 3 blocks, and stops it. 1 p.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 4 blocks, and stops it. 3 p.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 4 blocks back, and stops it.
So he's driven a total of 14 blocks with 4 cold starts. That's hideous for the environment and for efficiency. I make fun of him for being so lazy (he's a marine too), but honestly it's his truck and his gas.
Also perhaps SUV seats and views are more 'pleasurable' than an "ordinary" car seat to some.
I'm willing to bet money that li_ gets a lot more out of his SUV than just towing I'm trying to keep 'need' out of this forum since we all make up our own 'needs' as we see fit (hence the ability of humans to justify anything, efficiency or other)
I just wish the ones who do most of the scorning and determining for others would simply fess up. Then a truly (add italics) open and potentially meaningful dialogue might ensue.......................................nah.
the automotive companies would be able to provide something that got better gas mileage than my SUV and provide the same power and functionality, for the same price or slightly higher (no more than 25%), I'd gladly buy it. However, there is no pressure on them to do so. That pressure will not come from within the automotive industry either, it is up to the people and politicians to make it happen and make it happen affordably.
I didn't buy the outback because it was uncomfortable to sit in.
Mike, this is like your argument that you need an SUV to deal with rough urban roads. You need an SUV because cars and wagons are uncomfortable? Even if it were true for large folk, it wouldn't be true for average folk and most folks are in the middle of the bell curve.
If you pay for the gas, it's your gas to do what you want with it.
Not really. There are lots of regulations related to car driving.
In any case, that wasn't the question Tidester was asking...he asked if there should be "cause for concern" if you used so much more gas driving an SUV when you didn't tow or go off-road (i.e., could probably drive a wagon or car or something with better mpg).
If you don't want to use gas...
You are completely missing the point. The point is whether you can get the same functionality while using less gas, wouldn't you rather...not asking if you want to reduce the functionality of your vehicle.
Here's the problem I have with him...
Right, I agree that that's a bad thing, too. You're not saying "fix that" but that there's no "cause for concern" if you get 15 mpg when you could get 25 at no loss in functionality, are you?
Why do we always have to use Off-road and Towing as the functions of an SUV? That is a BS and arbitrary function of an SUV.
Because that's what they were designed and spec'd for, Mike. What do you think the clearance is for? The HD suspension? The big engine? The HD frame? It's not arbitrary.
But IMAGE is also a function, and in the US IMAGE is a big big big function (plastic surgury, designer clothes, etc. etc.) What function does high heels give people? or skirts? or Big cowboy hats? or Armani Suits? Vanity and Image!
Tidester was asking if we feel guilty. I said I don't.
'You are completely missing the point.' I am? I don't think so, but that's OK. I'm used to you saying such things by now. If I'm missing the point, what exactly did I say that missed it?
Yes I wouldn't mind if my SUV got 9999999999999999999999 MPG, but they don't (sorry to disappoint you). If they did I'd sign up. When I want to get 9999999999999999999999 MPG I bike (but that's me). When I want to get slightly better mileage out of my SUV I carpool (well it doesn't increase MPG, but it's not so wasteful).
Cars can tow, they can go off-road too. Cars can carry people and luggage as well. But which one does a better job with less initial cost?
Most SUV's were not designed and spec'd to go off-road or tow. They were designed as people movers. Originally the idea was that they go off-road and/or tow, but not any more. SUVs do more than just those functions (but this is more for the I don't...forum).
Just for the record, no one (at least not me) is criticizing your personal choice to opt for greater comfort and to drive an inefficient vehicle. I was just wondering how people felt about the inefficiency part.
I find the contrast between driving inefficient vehicles and obsession with efficiency in the workplace fascinating.
I'll offer a different response to our gracious host. I got a Forester, and guess what? It's actually more efficient than our sedan! Point being there are alternatives for all sorts of tastes (even if you want a fuel efficient LEV).
Our 626 gets 22-24 mpg and Mazda even recommends premium, though we've used regular. Our Forester averages 25mpg and uses plain ol' regular. So I actually save money on gas, and have more range in the Subaru.
This despite AWD, wagon bodystyle for 4 times the space, and more payload capacity.
Am I saying everyone should buy one? Certainly not, buy what you love, nothing else. But mileage is important to me for several reasons:
* I'm less succeptible to gas price spikes * good range means less stopping for gas * lower operating costs
It would be refreshing to see, for once, someone come out and answer our host honestly. Yes, I bought a gas guzzler, I don't care, it's a free country, and yes a [pick an alternative] would have met my needs personally but I wanted that big truck and got it so tough!
I think that obsession for efficiency in the workplace is mainly for show. It's mentioned, it's discussed, it's implemented, but does any of it really work, or is it just a cover up for the boss. Does it look like you're striving for efficiency, or are you actually getting efficiency? IMO higher ups are only concerned with looks. It 'looks' like it on paper, It 'looks' like they're doing great.
Back to cars, but not mileage: I'm willing to bet that the first cars ever produced took well under a year to build (I actually want to say a month). Nowadays it can take a decade before a vehicle actually comes into production. Now that's efficiency for ya
Like I've said before (not on this forum), just because you drive a vehicle that plugs into the wall, or uses hydrogen, or what not doesn't necessarily make the vehicle any better. You have to look at the overall picture (and under the skin too).
If it is strictly related to MPG then put me down.
If it is not inefficient due to size/weight. Then put me down there.
If I can make, (restating) in one trip to the hardware store what takes you three -- then who is more 'inefficient?'
Define the term and I'll answer your question.
If the only thing I do was drive say 20 miles to and from work and get groceries etc, and nothing else and was single (or perhaps no kids), and theeneeeeeeennnnnnnnnnn still has the Suburban, that would be (to me inefficient), but as that is not the case, is it still?
Who cares if SUV's are less efficient than most cars. My wife and I bought a house with three bedrooms, two of which are not being used but are still heated in the winter, and cooled in the summer. Should we have bought a one bedroom efficiency instead? No! We wanted it, we could afford it, so we bought it just as we did with our 2002 Escape. Where are these trees that some of you are wrapping your arms around? I could use some good wood so I can add another unused room to the house. Just thought I'd try to add some comic relief. Carry on.
Look at the whole CAFE thing, and it's ridiculous how hyprocritical the government can be. Gas prices go up, and they temporarily rescind gas taxes to keep them down.
Why not let them go up? This would push people into more fuel efficient cars more effectively than CAFE standards.
Gas is cheap, so people don't care much. That's the bottom line, and it won't change until we see sustained high prices for fuel. Folks in some countries pay $4-5 per gallon. That would influence plenty of folks.
Why do we care so much about gas supplies? When it's gone, we'll move on to new sources of energy, the market will drive that. The oil reserves aren't going to just stop flowing all of a sudden. Let the fuel flow til it's dry, then we'll move on to alternatives.
Comments
tidester
Host
SUVs
If I drove an "ordinary" car, I would feel just as guilty, not because of gasoline, but because of my laziness
I don't know about towing mileage (although I hear it can be bad), my mileage when I'm off-roading is almost cut in half!
FYI: I have designed/built/driven/raced hybrids and pure electrics. Sorry to say but their time just has never seemed right. Oh yeah and some of the very first cars were electric too. Are you trying to make this into an ' I don't like SUVs, why do you?' forum Tidester?
Besides, the quicker we use up all the evil gas the quicker we will develop other resources.
-mike
Nah - they could have gotten a "regular" car instead. Also, it is possible that some might recognize the problem only after they've gotten their fuel hungry SUV.
Are you trying to make this into an ' I don't like SUVs, why do you?' forum Tidester?
Not really. I was sitting here looking at one of the earlier messages with someone telling about (what I consider) truly abysmal gas mileage. It made me wonder whether I could personally justify that to myself under similar circumstances.
Obviously, money isn't an issue. But then I think I would have more than a twinge of guilt just because of the sheer inefficiency. We, as a nation, are almost fanatical in our quest for efficiency - in terms of time, resources, productvity, money etc. but when it comes to our vehicles we don't quite seem to have the same priorities.
So, I was wondering what others thought about it - since the topic IS "SUV fuel mileage!"
tidester
Host
SUVs
Unless you need to carry more than 4 people, you don't need an accord or camary, or any other car, no? They should also be painted grey with bright reflective tape along the edges for safety, and no need for anything more than an AM radio to get information to the driver.
-mike
It's amazing how inefficient our society really is though. Big business has a way of getting certain things done, but is typically not very efficient IMO. I think it's something like 50% of all new patents/ideas/... come from small business. I wonder how many people work for all of the small businesses compared to those for large businesses, and then we could see whether or not big business is really efficient.
Ever seen the movie Office Space? Where the main character has 8 bosses (or some absurd number) calling him to make sure he got a memo! That movie is great.
-mike
"Yeah that'd be great, I'm going to need you dielectric to go ahead and come in on saturday!"
I would personally have a problem with that. You do not.
dielectric: Agree! BTW - I wrote down the name of the video - will have a look! Thanks.
tidester
Host
SUVs
It's all relative.
Excursion is to Accord is to Metro is to Bike.
-mike
PS: let's try not to muddy the waters of this discussion with people posting comments pro-con gas milage. It should be kept a good resource for real-world milage info.
I doubt you would opt for a copying machine in the office that wasted 2 sheets of paper and 2 minutes of time for each copy you made or light bulbs that used 2,000 Watts of electrical power while only providing 100 Watts of illumination - even if you could afford both.
tidester
Host
SUVs
So the car is only 16% more efficient.
Granted the car cold have 7 people (hey two in the trunk) and the SUV 1, but generally I see people driving with one, maybe two people. I also don't see many SUVs towing or going off-road.
Apparently Americans really don't seem to care very much at this point about efficiency
I get 20 if I drive with normal flow but drops to 19 if I race away from each stop.
BTW, I average about 16.5 - 17 mpg overall with my PF. About half is highway. If it weren't for the abysmal mpg, I would have little to complain about with it. Of course, you can't have 240 hp and 4400 lbs and get great mpg.
-mike
Using a metro as the comparison is nonsense. There are comfortable, spacious cars (let alone wagons) that get 25mpg or better...compare this to an SUV getting 15.
Hopefully that hybrid and/or variable displacement technology will become available soon so that folks that say "I want an SUV and 15 mpg isn't so bad" will say "ok, it's worth $800 more to get adn SUV and get 25mpg (or better).
-mike
25mpg you are quoting is highway milage v. 15mpg for city milage on the SUV. Also let's get some names associated with these vehicles please.
-mike
Subaru Outback (you won't complain about a Subaru, will you?) averages 25 (22/28) vs a Denali (14), Expedition (15), Suburban (15), TLC (15)...and let's not even mention the Excursion.
These are all large SUVs...but the comparison is almost as bad with the mid-sized ones...starting with the Pathfinder (17), Explorer (17), JGC (18), Rodeo (19).
I have nothing against SUVs, per se...but there is a significant difference in gas mileage between an SUV and a wagon...let alone a sedan! A 25mpg vehicle uses 40 gallons to go 1000 miles...a 15 mpg vehicle uses 67...that's almost 70% more gas to go the same distance!
Cars average 28.5 mpg across all models on the road today (yes, 1 mpg above the CAFE requirement). That's a huge difference in gas consumption...clearly not a major factor in most folks' buying decision.
Or a little leaguer to a major leaguer
or pop warner to pro football
or a sunday golfer to Tiger Woods.
I get about 16 (higher when the mix is more highway in the Sub. I one time got 14+ all the others not less than 15.75. Therefore I speculate that the 14+ was an aberation based on fuel in the tank.
My former SUV Montero Sport religiously got 17, and 19.5 when all highway.
The trade off of space is more than worth it. Does that mean it is inefficient. Yes if compared to an Outback (of course there is nothing in common with an outback) but what does that matter?
Now the vehicle size, weight, contents, and aerodynamics are different, also what the vehicle capable of doing is different. So, based on that criteria, I do not consider it inefficient. Inefficient is making 3 trips to home depot to pick up your soil or flooring or other supplies that you could have taken home in one (as an example). Then you time, fuel, wear and tear and that, YES THAT is inefficient.
I guess I could say the PF, Montero Sport etc, are inefficient because they have smaller engines, can do less (based on engine size and weight) and yet only average 1 more mpg than I am.
Now, lets compare the GDP of Sri Lanka to that of The USA, while we're on the subject of fair comparisons.
-mike
I have a friend/neighbor with a truck. He gets about 15MPG with his driving. Here's the problem I have with him:
9 a.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 3 blocks, and stops it.
10 a.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives back 3 blocks, and stops it.
1 p.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 4 blocks, and stops it.
3 p.m. goes to vehicle, starts it, drives 4 blocks back, and stops it.
So he's driven a total of 14 blocks with 4 cold starts. That's hideous for the environment and for efficiency. I make fun of him for being so lazy (he's a marine too), but honestly it's his truck and his gas.
Also perhaps SUV seats and views are more 'pleasurable' than an "ordinary" car seat to some.
What an enigma, can anyone say credibility?
Do as I say, not as I do.
-mike
Mike, this is like your argument that you need an SUV to deal with rough urban roads. You need an SUV because cars and wagons are uncomfortable? Even if it were true for large folk, it wouldn't be true for average folk and most folks are in the middle of the bell curve.
Most americans are overweight too.
And Yep most americans drive on crappy roads like PA, NY/NJ/etc.
-mike
Not really. There are lots of regulations related to car driving.
In any case, that wasn't the question Tidester was asking...he asked if there should be "cause for concern" if you used so much more gas driving an SUV when you didn't tow or go off-road (i.e., could probably drive a wagon or car or something with better mpg).
If you don't want to use gas...
You are completely missing the point. The point is whether you can get the same functionality while using less gas, wouldn't you rather...not asking if you want to reduce the functionality of your vehicle.
Here's the problem I have with him...
Right, I agree that that's a bad thing, too. You're not saying "fix that" but that there's no "cause for concern" if you get 15 mpg when you could get 25 at no loss in functionality, are you?
Do as I say, not as I do.
-mike
Remember paisan's motto..."when your argument is lame, start name calling"
Gee, I miss the old days, don't you Mike????
Why do we always have to use Off-road and Towing as the functions of an SUV? That is a BS and arbitrary function of an SUV.
-mike
Because that's what they were designed and spec'd for, Mike. What do you think the clearance is for? The HD suspension? The big engine? The HD frame? It's not arbitrary.
-mike
'You are completely missing the point.' I am? I don't think so, but that's OK. I'm used to you saying such things by now. If I'm missing the point, what exactly did I say that missed it?
Yes I wouldn't mind if my SUV got 9999999999999999999999 MPG, but they don't (sorry to disappoint you). If they did I'd sign up. When I want to get 9999999999999999999999 MPG I bike (but that's me). When I want to get slightly better mileage out of my SUV I carpool (well it doesn't increase MPG, but it's not so wasteful).
Cars can tow, they can go off-road too. Cars can carry people and luggage as well. But which one does a better job with less initial cost?
Most SUV's were not designed and spec'd to go off-road or tow. They were designed as people movers. Originally the idea was that they go off-road and/or tow, but not any more. SUVs do more than just those functions (but this is more for the I don't...forum).
Lots of cars off-roading there...
-mike
He'll ne-ver change I have been reading and posting to various forums here at Ed-munds for about a month.
I have seen many (in-cluding me) ac-knowledge when they were in error or when the li-ght buld of un-derstanding went off.
But sad to say, there is one here who won't or can't
Pity ain't it.
But hey, I'll not say who I think it is.
I find the contrast between driving inefficient vehicles and obsession with efficiency in the workplace fascinating.
tidester
Host
SUVs
Our 626 gets 22-24 mpg and Mazda even recommends premium, though we've used regular. Our Forester averages 25mpg and uses plain ol' regular. So I actually save money on gas, and have more range in the Subaru.
This despite AWD, wagon bodystyle for 4 times the space, and more payload capacity.
Am I saying everyone should buy one? Certainly not, buy what you love, nothing else. But mileage is important to me for several reasons:
* I'm less succeptible to gas price spikes
* good range means less stopping for gas
* lower operating costs
It would be refreshing to see, for once, someone come out and answer our host honestly. Yes, I bought a gas guzzler, I don't care, it's a free country, and yes a [pick an alternative] would have met my needs personally but I wanted that big truck and got it so tough!
-juice
Yeah, and then you'll be subjected to that gas station "music" blaring from the speakers at the pumps that less often.
Oops, wrong topic - nevermind :-)
Steve
Host
SUVs, Vans and Aftermarket & Accessories Message Boards
Back to cars, but not mileage: I'm willing to bet that the first cars ever produced took well under a year to build (I actually want to say a month). Nowadays it can take a decade before a vehicle actually comes into production. Now that's efficiency for ya
Like I've said before (not on this forum), just because you drive a vehicle that plugs into the wall, or uses hydrogen, or what not doesn't necessarily make the vehicle any better. You have to look at the overall picture (and under the skin too).
If it is not inefficient due to size/weight. Then put me down there.
If I can make, (restating) in one trip to the hardware store what takes you three -- then who is more 'inefficient?'
Define the term and I'll answer your question.
If the only thing I do was drive say 20 miles to and from work and get groceries etc, and nothing else and was single (or perhaps no kids), and theeneeeeeeennnnnnnnnnn still has the Suburban, that would be (to me inefficient), but as that is not the case, is it still?
Look at the whole CAFE thing, and it's ridiculous how hyprocritical the government can be. Gas prices go up, and they temporarily rescind gas taxes to keep them down.
Why not let them go up? This would push people into more fuel efficient cars more effectively than CAFE standards.
Gas is cheap, so people don't care much. That's the bottom line, and it won't change until we see sustained high prices for fuel. Folks in some countries pay $4-5 per gallon. That would influence plenty of folks.
-juice
-mike