Slashdot Mirror

I chose examples that exclude legislation as the reason lightweight cars aren't built any more.

How so? Lotuses and Smarts and whatnot still have to meet safety standards. In fact, a US-spec Smart Fortwo has eight airbags! (That also helps explain why it weighs almost 500 lbs more than the Honda CRX I keep comparing it to.)

In Europe, there's an entire class of cars smaller than the Mirage and Fiesta. The VW Up (47 mpg), Suzuki Alto (54 mpg), Toyota Aygo (56 mpg) to name a few (and that's real-world fuel consumption, not a theoretical rating).

Oh, don't get me wrong: we have a few tiny cars too, including a Toyota even smaller than the Aygo (the Scion iQ). But even it only gets 37 MPG.

Part of the problem in this discussion is that your UK gallons are larger, which makes the European cars seem better than they actually are -- or makes the US ones seem worse than they actually are, depending on your point of view.

The sad thing is that "minicars" like the iQ and the Smart actually lose in efficiency to subcompacts (either outright in the case of Fortwo vs. Mirage, or at least after considering utility -- a usable back seat is worth losing a MPG or two in almost every case.) A minicar needs to come out way ahead -- by at least 5 MPG, I'd say -- to actually win (a feat which the old cars accomplished). There is, after all, a reason why Geo Metro XFIs are so popular on ecomodder.com, even though they're 20+ years old.

This site has RW usage of the Metro at closer to 40 than 47.

All the numbers I've been quoting are the official EPA numbers from fueleconomy.gov. The "real world" numbers must be assumed to be bullshit because there's no controlling for sample size or bias. (For example: the "real world" MPG for the 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage is 46.8 while for the 2015 it's 33.0, even though they're exactly the same damn car!) If you want to compare "real world" MPG, you're probably better off using fuelly.com, but even then hypermilers skew the data.

I chose examples that exclude legislation as the reason lightweight cars aren't built any more.

How so? Lotuses and Smarts and whatnot still have to meet safety standards. In fact, a US-spec Smart Fortwo has eight airbags! (That also helps explain why it weighs almost 500 lbs more than the Honda CRX I keep comparing it to.)

In Europe, there's an entire class of cars smaller than the Mirage and Fiesta. The VW Up (47 mpg), Suzuki Alto (54 mpg), Toyota Aygo (56 mpg) to name a few (and that's real-world fuel consumption, not a theoretical rating).

Oh, don't get me wrong: we have a few tiny cars too, including a Toyota even smaller than the Aygo (the Scion iQ). But even it only gets 37 MPG.

Part of the problem in this discussion is that your UK gallons are larger, which makes the European cars seem better than they actually are -- or makes the US ones seem worse than they actually are, depending on your point of view.

The sad thing is that "minicars" like the iQ and the Smart actually lose in efficiency to subcompacts (either outright in the case of Fortwo vs. Mirage, or at least after considering utility -- a usable back seat is worth losing a MPG or two in almost every case.) A minicar needs to come out way ahead -- by at least 5 MPG, I'd say -- to actually win (a feat which the old cars accomplished). There is, after all, a reason why Geo Metro XFIs are so popular on ecomodder.com, even though they're 20+ years old.

This site has RW usage of the Metro at closer to 40 than 47.

All the numbers I've been quoting are the official EPA numbers from fueleconomy.gov. The "real world" numbers must be assumed to be bullshit because there's no controlling for sample size or bias. (For example: the "real world" MPG for the 2014 Mitsubishi Mirage is 46.8 while for the 2015 it's 33.0, even though they're exactly the same damn car!) If you want to compare "real world" MPG, you're probably better off using fuelly.com, but even then hypermilers skew the data.

I chose examples that exclude legislation as the reason lightweight cars aren't built any more. So the reason lightweight cars aren't built any more must be something else. The American fondness for huge cars may have something to do with it.

In Europe, there's an entire class of cars smaller than the Mirage and Fiesta. The VW Up (47 mpg), Suzuki Alto (54 mpg), Toyota Aygo (56 mpg) to name a few (and that's real-world fuel consumption, not a theoretical rating).
This site has RW usage of the Metro at closer to 40 than 47.

The XL1 is in production, by the way. Expensive, but definitely not a concept any more.

In my '06 VW TDI I was pulling 42+mpg (trip odometer and gas receipts) consistently with the cruise set at 65 and 79mph (highway/interstate) with little in-town travel. And I'm the kind of guy that, "drives it like he stole it". Even now with my new commute being ~15 mintues of stop-and-go traffic and ~10 minutes of blasting around country corners and hard accel/braking I still manage 34-36 mpg.

The '06 VW Golf TDI was rated at 31 city, 40 highway, 34 combined:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

One day I bumped into a hyper-miler with a '06 VW Jetta TDI (non-hatchback version of the Golf) at the gas station in town that sells Diesel. He ran low resistance tires, swapped out 5th gear for the 6th gear out of the performance tranny, chipped the computer, and drove slow enough to be annoying. With all that he was pushing 60mpg.

-Rick

Yes. It's getting huge tax breaks here. It got a nearly free auto plant from California.

It gets $7500/car in subsidy from the feds. Many states give $1500 to $5000 on top of that. Some countries they sell into give tens of thousands equivalent.

The feds don't give that $7500 subsidy because the brand of the car is 'Tesla'. They give it because it's an electric car. There's over a dozen models from BMW, Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Nissan and others that get the same subsidy. So spinning this subsidy as "the feds are helping Tesla" is a lie. Same thing for the state subsidies.

If they charged $90K for a car which is luxury equivalent to a Hyundai Sonata I would. It's a nice car, but it doesn't measure up to other $90K cars on luxury.

The Tesla Model S is a full-size luxury liftback which ranks second against other "Super Luxury" cars and has a 0-60 acceleration of 4.2 to 5.9 seconds (depending on model). The Hyundai Sonata is nowhere close to being in the same class seeing as it's a mid-size car and not as sporty with a 0-60 acceleration of 6.5 to 8.5 seconds. So again you're ill-informed or disingenuous.

It's strange how your Metro is nearly 10MPG higher then it's rated economy, while your Prius is 10MPG lower than it's. Plus I also bet your Metro didn't get anywhere near 52MPG city driving where your Prius is designed for it's best economy due to regenerative braking.

In terms of criteria air pollutants (CO, NOx, SO2, PM2.5, PM10), it's certainly true that modern cars are cleaner, even an F150. But that 150 gets 12 mpg, less than half of the U.S. average mpg for new cars. Since climate change is a thing, since automobiles are collectively a significant emitter of CO2, and since the F150 emits twice the CO2 per miles as an average new car, and since those average new cars also emit small amounts of those criteria air pollutants, no a 2011 F150 is not a green car.

Then you just slip into some strange piece of climate change denier and anti-tax zealot. There's no question that the impacts of climate change are systemic, pervasive, and real. Parts of Miami and Norfolk VA are under water during high tide. Hell, there are island nations preparing to no longer exist. Somehow, these "local" disasters are hand-waved, along with the hurricanes, droughts, floods, etc. But you call high gas taxes ruinous for the economy and claim that they have no impact on the environment, despite the facts that (a) most Western European nations have high gas prices, (b) most have higher mpg fleet averages, and (c) most have economies that are functioning just fine.

We get it. Regardless of your actual age, you behave like the old Brits referenced in the summary. That doesn't warrant a 5: interesting, except that it's interesting that old British-type dudes who are entirely wrong on the science and implications of climate change (and foolish about tax policy) are on slashdot.

Glancing here, I gather the new vehicle will probably be able to qualify for a $7500 subsidy from the US government. What bothers me is whether Tesla can produce that car in the absence of the subsidy? A reliance on temporary subsidies for profit would explain why there has been calls to turn Tesla into solely a battery manufacturer.

much higher mileage of gasoline cars (33mpg vs 28mpg) ...and in 1993, most Fords got ~22 mpg

Wear and tear on roads is largely based on vehicle weight and time. I used to work in the Delaware Department of Transportation and we'd use wear rates based on usage and its observed current state to calculate when maintenance was needed. One of the main ways vehicles have gained mileage is by reducing weight which also reduces road wear and tear.

many more trucks used for shipping (70% more in 2007 than in 1997) ...and trucks weigh a ton more (quite literally) and thus have a lower MPG (and pay more in gas taxes).

If anything, our gas taxes are probably the most "fair" tax in the country. If hybrids become too big of a problem, it's probably pretty easy to make electric vehicles pay an "road fee" whenever you get your license plate renewed.

When I can but a Toyota Matrix for half the price, get twice the cargo space and still get 38 mpg. I think consumers are realizing that hybrids are just a clever way for automakers to tax people who suck at math.

Really it sounds like you suck at math, but full points for hyperbole.

The Matrix gets 28 MPG, not 38 MPG. (vs 50 MPG for the Prius)
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

The Matrix doesn't have twice the cargo space. According the same link, the Matrix has LESS cargo space than the Prius.

The Matrix wasn't half the price (It Appears the Matrix is no more), but again according to the above. Matrix was $19275 vs $24200 for Prius. Hardly half. The Base Prius is also a lot better equipped than a Base Matrix.

Also the average driver would save $850 annually on gas driving the Prius over the Matrix(if gas prices stay the same), meaning it would take 5.8 years to make up the price difference, after that it is gravy and you have a better equipped car, and more savings going forward.

Of course I'm not in the UK (even if I was wouldn't i be concerned with km/litre instead of m/g?) Anyhoo I drive a 2003 VW Jetta Wagon TDI (manual transmission) and according to fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=18793), the car gets 35 mpg city 45 mpg (avg 39) highway. From my experience it never gets less than 50mpg on highways (close to 60 driving between CT and NH), but now that I live in the city, with traffic jams, waiting several light changes in queues to make a turn, etc, I'm consistently stuck in the 40s.

This is different than fueleconomy's original rating of my car 42 city/50 (avg 45) hwy. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

Based on feedback from a small number drivers my car gets an average 48.3 mpg (with some reporting as high as 62mpg). So I have no clue why new EPA estimates are considered "more realistic" although they claim make their claims here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
My suspicion is that it's just a way to make newer cars (which aren't as good in terms of economy), look better relative to old cars which are more affordable.

Of course I'm not in the UK (even if I was wouldn't i be concerned with km/litre instead of m/g?) Anyhoo I drive a 2003 VW Jetta Wagon TDI (manual transmission) and according to fueleconomy.gov (http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=18793), the car gets 35 mpg city 45 mpg (avg 39) highway. From my experience it never gets less than 50mpg on highways (close to 60 driving between CT and NH), but now that I live in the city, with traffic jams, waiting several light changes in queues to make a turn, etc, I'm consistently stuck in the 40s.

This is different than fueleconomy's original rating of my car 42 city/50 (avg 45) hwy. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

Based on feedback from a small number drivers my car gets an average 48.3 mpg (with some reporting as high as 62mpg). So I have no clue why new EPA estimates are considered "more realistic" although they claim make their claims here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...
My suspicion is that it's just a way to make newer cars (which aren't as good in terms of economy), look better relative to old cars which are more affordable.

They could get a minivan that has better millage then the gas guzzling SUV.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

the EPA defines a gallon of gasoline as equivalent to 33.7 kWh.

This is based not really on chemistry or scientific properties of either, but on the cost of gasoline at the pump vs the cost of electricity at your house. http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

Basically it is done this way to make it easy to do the math in your head "hey, this costs 1/3 as much to fuel than my current car"

My cars are 16 and 18 years old with about 200K miles each, and are still worth fixing.

One of them, a 1998 VW Beetle TDI, has exactly the same safety rating as one built as recently as 2011 (because it's the same unibody!), gets better fuel economy than a 2014, and pollutes less (except for particulates) because the older engine technology can use 100% biodiesel while the new one can't.

The other one is a 1996 4-cylinder Ford Ranger that gets better (or at least equal) fuel economy to any new (or newish) truck. (I tried to find the most efficient new 4x4 trucks to compare against; if you find any that are better let me know!) It admittedly is probably marginally less safe and marginally more polluting than a new truck, but not enough to be worth the 10x difference in cost!

My cars are 16 and 18 years old with about 200K miles each, and are still worth fixing.

One of them, a 1998 VW Beetle TDI, has exactly the same safety rating as one built as recently as 2011 (because it's the same unibody!), gets better fuel economy than a 2014, and pollutes less (except for particulates) because the older engine technology can use 100% biodiesel while the new one can't.

The other one is a 1996 4-cylinder Ford Ranger that gets better (or at least equal) fuel economy to any new (or newish) truck. (I tried to find the most efficient new 4x4 trucks to compare against; if you find any that are better let me know!) It admittedly is probably marginally less safe and marginally more polluting than a new truck, but not enough to be worth the 10x difference in cost!

Yep - average car 35.6 mpg. I know there's a whole slew of them below 30, meaning there's another slew in the 40+ range. There's only 17 motorcycles above 45 (which is still below the lowest rating on a prius) 7 of which are 250cc or less and don't really count IMNSHO.

My point here is that there are a whole slew of cars available that are equal to motorcycle MPG, which, honestly, removes any fuel saving argument from the motorcycle camp as most won't buy/ride those motorcycles anyways. Only 2 Harley's beat (barely) the prius' city mileage. So again, what's your point? Oh, and here's a nice list of numbers Honestly, motorcycles should be getting a minimum 70 MPG to be worth a look given those numbers, and a gas guzzler tax applied for anything below 50.

It's not "every Tesla", it's "every EV". The feds are not picking a company here. They are kick-starting a new technology, regardless who makes it.

The traditional car companies get exactly the same subsidy.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg...

And one that does 40 mpg will use half the fuel of one that does 20. Yeah, totally unintuitive.

Yes. But that's not the whole story. 40 will use half that 20 does. 20 will use half that 10 does. But 40mpg is 5.88 L/100km, 20 is 11.76 L/100km, 10 is 23.52 L/100km. So switching from a 10 mpg car to a 20 mpg car saves 11.76 L/100km, but switching from a 20 to a 40 mpg car only saves 5.88 L/100km. So that is why mpg is said to be exponential. This is not just me blowing smoke, see https://www.fueleconomy.gov/fe... and look at the section "Fuel Consumption Rate". Even the US department of Energy says Volume/Distance is a better representation (even though they stick to gallons and miles).

Bite me.

According to Mileage Keeper (which I track my gas consumption for the last 2+ years -- and the spreadsheet I tracked before then collecting data from my ancient treo and less ancient android), my last gas bill was $50.86. I had traveled 323 miles, gas was 3.599 per gallon and my mileage was 22.8 mpg. Before that 20.9, before that, 22.7 mpg. Going back to last year when I needed to make a run from LA to Fresno I, as expected, got 27.9 mpg.

I also have the receipts for all work performed on it since 1995 (lost the earlier stuff in a fire). I keep the truck in decent shape (at least the engine -- the cab looks like a disaster), keep the tires at the right pressure, I don't have a heavy foot and I'm easy on the clutch.

click me

Which pretty much matches with what I claim.

Is there a particular reason you find the need to be a prick? Or is it instinct and/or genetics?

How is it efficient if you drive as fast as possible? Fuel mileage decreases once you hit about 50 mph. After that you're driving your costs higher.

A report showing the effect and a chart which gives a graphical representation of this effect.

Time is money, friend.

Apart from the speed the gear ratio and engine efficiency also influence. It could very well be in highest gear at 60mph the car uses more petrol than at 70mph.

For reference, a Gilig hybrid 40 passenger (seated) plus 32 passenger (standing) bus gets about 4.64 mpg (with 30 passengers, that would be 139 passenger miles per gallon).

see pages 3 & 4:
http://146.186.225.57/buses/reports/409.pdf?1347373958

Back to the boat, with a cruising speed just a hair over 31 mph, and assuming 100 gph to cruise, that boat gets 0.31 mpg. At 30 passengers, that is 9.3 passenger miles per gallon.

The thirstiest hummer gets 10 mpg (combined) and with one passenger, that would be 10 passenger mpg. If only city driving occurred, the boat would just edge out the hummer's 9 mpg city rating.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2010_Hummer_H3.shtml

So, Google really could just give each employee a hummer and at least break even green-wise.

How is it efficient if you drive as fast as possible? Fuel mileage decreases once you hit about 50 mph. After that you're driving your costs higher.

A report showing the effect and a chart which gives a graphical representation of this effect.

In the real world, the biggest impediment to fuel economy is time spent in stop-and-go traffic. Just look at the disparity between the City vs. Highway economy of any vehicle. Stop-and-go traffic is almost entirely a result of human drivers behaving erratically

How is it efficient if you drive as fast as possible? Fuel mileage decreases once you hit about 50 mph. After that you're driving your costs higher.

A report showing the effect and a chart which gives a graphical representation of this effect.

Time is money, friend.

How is it efficient if you drive as fast as possible? Fuel mileage decreases once you hit about 50 mph. After that you're driving your costs higher.

A report showing the effect and a chart which gives a graphical representation of this effect.

Let's convert how much energy is wasted in tesla's sleep mode compared to a fossil fuel car: According to yahoo answers, 1 gallon of gasoline = 34.7 kWh.

Energy consumed by a model s in a month = 30 x 1.1 = 33 kWh Converting 33 kWh to equivalent gallons of gasoline = 33 / 34.7 = 0.95 gallons

The tesla wastes the equivalent of 1 gallon gasoline/month while parked!

I hope Tesla keeps working on reducing the amount of energy wasted. But lets use those same numbers for cars that actually get driven and see how the Tesla compares:

Given the average US driver drives 13476 miles per year, which is 1123 miles per month. And the average new car gets 24.9 miles per gallon. Therefore the kWh equivalent for the average ICE car is: 1123/24.9*34.7 = 1564 kWh / month

Whereas the Tesla consumes 38 kWh/100 miles. So for the Tesla we have: 38/100 * 1123 = 427 kWh driving per month, plus 33 kWh wasted per month gives a grand total of 460 kWh / month.

In other words, for people that actually drive their cars, the Tesla uses less than 1/3 of the energy of an ICE. Which seems relevant to the conversation.

Now, to be fair. I bet that people drive their Teslas more aggressively and get less than the EPA 38 kWh/100 miles. And there is the drain of accessories, etc. But that is a lot of headroom, I doubt any of the similar sized ICEs ever come close to the Tesla in energy efficiency.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) are releasing the 2014 Fuel Economy Guide, providing consumers with a valuable resource to identify and choose the most fuel efficient and low greenhouse gas emitting vehicles that meet their needs. The 2014 models include efficient and low-emission vehicles in a variety of classes and sizes, ensuring a wide variety of choices available for consumers.

"For American families, the financial and environmental bottom lines are high priorities when shopping for a new vehicle,” said Administrator Gina McCarthy." This year’s guide is not just about how the latest models stack up against each other; it’s about providing people the best information possible to make smart decisions affecting their pocketbooks and the planet.”

"The Energy Department is committed to building a strong 21st century transportation sector that cuts harmful pollution, saves consumers' money and leads to a more sustainable energy future,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “By providing reliable, user-friendly fuel economy information, the Fuel Economy Guide is helping Americans choose the right fuel efficient vehicle for their family and business and save money at the pump.”

The guide provides “Top Ten” lists allowing consumers to see the most efficient advanced technology vehicles as well as the most efficient gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Consumers will also find a broad range of information in the guide that can be helpful while shopping for a new vehicle— including an estimated annual fuel cost for each vehicle. The estimate is based on the vehicle’s miles per gallon (mpg) rating and national estimates for annual mileage and fuel prices. An online version of the guide, available through www.fueleconomy.gov, allows consumers to enter local gasoline prices and typical driving habits to receive a personalized fuel cost estimate. Also, for the second consecutive year, the guide includes a 1-10 greenhouse gas rating for each model, providing a quick and easy way for consumers to identify vehicles with low greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA fuel economy estimates are the best way to compare the fuel economy among vehicles. Official fuel economy testing is controlled, repeatable, and accounts for a variety of real-world conditions for the average driver, like air conditioning usage and a variety of speed and temperature conditions. Individual mileage will vary depending on factors such as driving style, high air conditioning usage, carrying extra weight and towing, and weather.

For tips on more efficient driving check out the gas mileage tips at http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml.

More information, including a complete version of the guide and details on the fuel economy labels: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and at http://fueleconomy.gov/m/ for mobile devices. EPA and DOE will update the guide online as more 2014 vehicles become available.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) are releasing the 2014 Fuel Economy Guide, providing consumers with a valuable resource to identify and choose the most fuel efficient and low greenhouse gas emitting vehicles that meet their needs. The 2014 models include efficient and low-emission vehicles in a variety of classes and sizes, ensuring a wide variety of choices available for consumers.

"For American families, the financial and environmental bottom lines are high priorities when shopping for a new vehicle,” said Administrator Gina McCarthy." This year’s guide is not just about how the latest models stack up against each other; it’s about providing people the best information possible to make smart decisions affecting their pocketbooks and the planet.”

"The Energy Department is committed to building a strong 21st century transportation sector that cuts harmful pollution, saves consumers' money and leads to a more sustainable energy future,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “By providing reliable, user-friendly fuel economy information, the Fuel Economy Guide is helping Americans choose the right fuel efficient vehicle for their family and business and save money at the pump.”

The guide provides “Top Ten” lists allowing consumers to see the most efficient advanced technology vehicles as well as the most efficient gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Consumers will also find a broad range of information in the guide that can be helpful while shopping for a new vehicle— including an estimated annual fuel cost for each vehicle. The estimate is based on the vehicle’s miles per gallon (mpg) rating and national estimates for annual mileage and fuel prices. An online version of the guide, available through www.fueleconomy.gov, allows consumers to enter local gasoline prices and typical driving habits to receive a personalized fuel cost estimate. Also, for the second consecutive year, the guide includes a 1-10 greenhouse gas rating for each model, providing a quick and easy way for consumers to identify vehicles with low greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA fuel economy estimates are the best way to compare the fuel economy among vehicles. Official fuel economy testing is controlled, repeatable, and accounts for a variety of real-world conditions for the average driver, like air conditioning usage and a variety of speed and temperature conditions. Individual mileage will vary depending on factors such as driving style, high air conditioning usage, carrying extra weight and towing, and weather.

For tips on more efficient driving check out the gas mileage tips at http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml.

More information, including a complete version of the guide and details on the fuel economy labels: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and at http://fueleconomy.gov/m/ for mobile devices. EPA and DOE will update the guide online as more 2014 vehicles become available.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy (DOE) are releasing the 2014 Fuel Economy Guide, providing consumers with a valuable resource to identify and choose the most fuel efficient and low greenhouse gas emitting vehicles that meet their needs. The 2014 models include efficient and low-emission vehicles in a variety of classes and sizes, ensuring a wide variety of choices available for consumers.

"For American families, the financial and environmental bottom lines are high priorities when shopping for a new vehicle,” said Administrator Gina McCarthy." This year’s guide is not just about how the latest models stack up against each other; it’s about providing people the best information possible to make smart decisions affecting their pocketbooks and the planet.”

"The Energy Department is committed to building a strong 21st century transportation sector that cuts harmful pollution, saves consumers' money and leads to a more sustainable energy future,” said Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz. “By providing reliable, user-friendly fuel economy information, the Fuel Economy Guide is helping Americans choose the right fuel efficient vehicle for their family and business and save money at the pump.”

The guide provides “Top Ten” lists allowing consumers to see the most efficient advanced technology vehicles as well as the most efficient gasoline and diesel powered vehicles. Consumers will also find a broad range of information in the guide that can be helpful while shopping for a new vehicle— including an estimated annual fuel cost for each vehicle. The estimate is based on the vehicle’s miles per gallon (mpg) rating and national estimates for annual mileage and fuel prices. An online version of the guide, available through www.fueleconomy.gov, allows consumers to enter local gasoline prices and typical driving habits to receive a personalized fuel cost estimate. Also, for the second consecutive year, the guide includes a 1-10 greenhouse gas rating for each model, providing a quick and easy way for consumers to identify vehicles with low greenhouse gas emissions.

EPA fuel economy estimates are the best way to compare the fuel economy among vehicles. Official fuel economy testing is controlled, repeatable, and accounts for a variety of real-world conditions for the average driver, like air conditioning usage and a variety of speed and temperature conditions. Individual mileage will vary depending on factors such as driving style, high air conditioning usage, carrying extra weight and towing, and weather.

For tips on more efficient driving check out the gas mileage tips at http://fueleconomy.gov/feg/drive.shtml.

More information, including a complete version of the guide and details on the fuel economy labels: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ and at http://fueleconomy.gov/m/ for mobile devices. EPA and DOE will update the guide online as more 2014 vehicles become available.

You probably won't own that car for 150k miles. You might, but most people don't.

I will. For those who won't -- they recoup most of it as resale value.

Gas isn't $4/gal, and here it is $2.79/gal.

And your car price is $xx.xxx, and the mileage is xx mpg, yet there is still a significant fuel cost markup

Time value of money, the gas has to be paid over time, the car has to be bought up front.

Gas also becomes more expensive with time, we can assume that present value of future gas spending = present price of gas.

If I drive less, I buy less gas.....I probably plan to drive less...

But your car lives longer if you drive less. You will recoup EV markup over a longer time period, that does not affect my formula.

Electricity isn't free

Cost to Drive 25 Miles $0.96

That knocks down the difference from $4 per 25 miles to $3 ($3 to $2 in your case) , but does not make it insignificant.

add in the cost of a new battery.

This is a topic of a separate research, but you might never need to replace one.

It looks like you are not an EV backer, because you forgot to include

1. Tax rebate and

2. Much lower maintenance costs for EV, such as oil changes, etc.

If 25% of gas cars are replaced with EV cars, gas may well get cheaper, electricity may well get more expensive.

This one is my favourite!
2. If Obama builds 25 nuclear power plants, electricity will become dirt cheap.
3. If oil reserves dry out, gas cars will become landfill
4. if WWIII starts, you will get to drive a tank for free, all the way until #3 happens!

Tire pressure is a safety and emissions issue. A big safety issue. Where I'm at, Ontario, any MIL code is a fail, any code. http://www.thecarconnection.com/news/1076372_tire-pressure-at-fault-in-5-percent-of-accidents-study (note in the last section, bad weather effect amplified by poorly infalted tires) http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2012/05/14/study-finds-low-pressure-factor-in-many-crashes/ http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/maintain.shtml And of course, proper inflation gives the best mileage. This applies to *any* vehicle. A slow leak in the mountains is no fun. Even in the city, a slow tire leak can ruin your day. That's the point of your sensor, avoiding the hell of changing your tire on the side of the highway.

The article says 85% efficiency, which may be raised to 90%. 15% is a lot to give away.

And how efficient is a petrol engine?

Spoiler alert: not very.

I don't spill much gas when I fill my tank.

From http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evtech.shtml:

Electric vehicles convert about 59–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels—conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.

So you may not lose anything on filling up, but it sounds like plenty of it gets wasted for nothing in other ways.

Which is interesting because those cars actually get much better gas mileage than their predecessors.

The 23-year-old Honda CRX and Geo Metro -- not to mention a whole bunch of other old economy cars -- beg to differ. For other examples, my wife's 1998 Volkswagen Diesel blows a new one completely out of the water in terms of fuel economy, and my 10-year-old Accent is only slightly outclassed by a new one. Even the first hybrid got much better fuel economy than its modern counterpart!

Which is interesting because those cars actually get much better gas mileage than their predecessors.

The 23-year-old Honda CRX and Geo Metro -- not to mention a whole bunch of other old economy cars -- beg to differ. For other examples, my wife's 1998 Volkswagen Diesel blows a new one completely out of the water in terms of fuel economy, and my 10-year-old Accent is only slightly outclassed by a new one. Even the first hybrid got much better fuel economy than its modern counterpart!

Which is interesting because those cars actually get much better gas mileage than their predecessors.

The 23-year-old Honda CRX and Geo Metro -- not to mention a whole bunch of other old economy cars -- beg to differ. For other examples, my wife's 1998 Volkswagen Diesel blows a new one completely out of the water in terms of fuel economy, and my 10-year-old Accent is only slightly outclassed by a new one. Even the first hybrid got much better fuel economy than its modern counterpart!

Which is interesting because those cars actually get much better gas mileage than their predecessors.

The 23-year-old Honda CRX and Geo Metro -- not to mention a whole bunch of other old economy cars -- beg to differ. For other examples, my wife's 1998 Volkswagen Diesel blows a new one completely out of the water in terms of fuel economy, and my 10-year-old Accent is only slightly outclassed by a new one. Even the first hybrid got much better fuel economy than its modern counterpart!

For electric cars with a 200+ mile range there's a $7,500 federal tax credit so yeah, it would end up at ~$25k after discount but plus fees.

The car doesn't have to have a 200+ mile range to get the full federal tax credit. Any pure EV with a battery of not less than 4 Kwh capacity. Actually the requirements don't even say it has to be a pure EV, but apparently the Volt doesn't qualify.

There are quite a few EVs that qualify.

I could find a single modern SUV with worse MPG

Really? Not a single one?

I could find a single modern SUV with worse MPG

Really? Not a single one?

A mobile internal combustion engine has to have certain concessions for weight, vibrations, ease of maintenance, and other things that a stationary power plant does not need, and power plants can install expensive equipment and expensive maintenance to reduce emissions that a car cannot have.

See for example: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 and let's assume that we are generating our energy according to 2012 rates http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1 so that average CO2 production per kwh is 1.20.

Let's compare the 2013 RAV4 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33397 which gets 44 kwh per 100 miles (the worst I could find that has a gas equivalent). Compare that to the RAV4 2WD http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33425 which gets 26 MPG.

1 mile on the gas-powered RAV4 produces .63 pounds of CO2.
1 mile on the electric RAV4 produces .52 pounds of CO2.

(I used to do the same calculations on coal alone, but it appears that either coal has gotten more polluting or gas powered cars have gotten a lot more efficient since I last checked)

A mobile internal combustion engine has to have certain concessions for weight, vibrations, ease of maintenance, and other things that a stationary power plant does not need, and power plants can install expensive equipment and expensive maintenance to reduce emissions that a car cannot have.

See for example: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=74&t=11 and let's assume that we are generating our energy according to 2012 rates http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_1_1 so that average CO2 production per kwh is 1.20.

Let's compare the 2013 RAV4 http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33397 which gets 44 kwh per 100 miles (the worst I could find that has a gas equivalent). Compare that to the RAV4 2WD http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33425 which gets 26 MPG.

1 mile on the gas-powered RAV4 produces .63 pounds of CO2.
1 mile on the electric RAV4 produces .52 pounds of CO2.

(I used to do the same calculations on coal alone, but it appears that either coal has gotten more polluting or gas powered cars have gotten a lot more efficient since I last checked)

You'll need the electricity savings to offset the absurd cost of the MacBook Air.

If it saves you $50 in electricity per month over your present system, all other factors being equal, in 3 and a half years you'll be saving money. People don't buy luxury to save money. Relevant car analogy, not a single 2013 Ferrari model gets 20 MPG or better. By contrast, most Kia vehicles get 30 MPG or better.

The moral of this story? Poor people care about economy, wealthy people care about performance, and business people look for a happy medium.

You'll need the electricity savings to offset the absurd cost of the MacBook Air.

If it saves you $50 in electricity per month over your present system, all other factors being equal, in 3 and a half years you'll be saving money. People don't buy luxury to save money. Relevant car analogy, not a single 2013 Ferrari model gets 20 MPG or better. By contrast, most Kia vehicles get 30 MPG or better.

The moral of this story? Poor people care about economy, wealthy people care about performance, and business people look for a happy medium.

30% is max efficiency, which usually occurs at around 75% output power. You don't use anywhere near that much power cruising (with the possible exceptions of Montana and the Autobahn). Average efficiency in driving is 14-26% according to this: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml That's a frustratingly wide range, but you get the idea. IIRC coal plants are about 40%. Combined cycle natural gas powered plants are approaching 60%.

Entire article is false, EPA changed the testing in 2008. Since 2008 they test mpg up to 80mph and accelerate at 8.5 miles per second, roughly 0-60 in 7 second

So I'm guessing you never bothered to read the article. (I know, what was I thinking).

In particular the part where EPA may not actually be doing those additional tests amd simply relying on the manufacturer to estimate those numbers in good faith (aka, fudging it). Similar estimation was also how the EPA revised the numbers for older pre-2008 vehicles that were never subjected to these test.

Speaking of power in the gas tank, it seems that all these tests are conducted with straight gas, but all you can find at the pump these days is 10% ethanol, which immediately cuts your mph by 3 to 4 mph.

Very few new car advertising even mentions the difference.

Yup, this can be verified by looking at the EPA FAQ at http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml

To minimize variability due to inconsistent fuel, they use a specially blended fuel mixture and not anything you'd find at the local gas station.
  The EPA has a specialized company manufacture small batches of consistent fuel, which is 93 octane (cars running 50-state certifications get a slightly different, 91-octane “California” blend). http://www.caranddriver.com/features/the-truth-about-epa-city-highway-mpg-estimates-measuring-fuel-economy-page-2

In any case, you're best bet for figuring fuel economy is websites that collect real word inputs from users.

Entire article is false, EPA changed the testing in 2008. Since 2008 they test mpg up to 80mph and accelerate at 8.5 miles per second, roughly 0-60 in 7 second

So I'm guessing you never bothered to read the article. (I know, what was I thinking).

The new standard is FULLY addressed in the article. Go read it.

Entire article is false, EPA changed the testing in 2008. Since 2008 they test mpg up to 80mph and accelerate at 8.5 miles per second, roughly 0-60 in 7 second

I have made that calculation, and many others besides. My trip MPG is consistently ~1 mpg off the one I calculate from the gas pumps at fill-up and from the odometer. While not perfect, you couldn't realistically ask for a better estimate than that.

In fact, the web-site fueleconomy.gov allows people to put in real world estimates of their fuel economy and show that data side-by-side the EPA estimates. Here's the one for my car, a 2010 Honda Civic Hybrid. The real world estimates (based on 11 data points) are about 1 mpg off from the EPA estimates. That's pretty darn good. While I will admit that there might be some companies who are gaming the system, it's not EPA's fault that they are doing that. By posting the real world fuel economy estimates, EPA is actually trying to combat that behavior. What I see here going on in this thread (and all too commonly on /. and American society in general) is a bunch of people demonizing the government for no good reason when they should be blaming the companies/individuals who are actually conducting the bad behavior.