What's your fuel economy to weight ratio?

[thisisntjared]

Originally Posted by Escape_Hybrid

This is a measure of "usefulness" also. An Insight or Geo uses fewer absolute gallons of gas than mine, but those cars are also less useful. ( in the sense of hauling goods, going on vacation, comfort, etc. )

thats a good point. thats part of why i think this statistic is so important. because bikes(motorcylces) murder even the nicest hybrids but they are so far from practical.

[SVOboy]

If we wanted to talk usefullness we would have to add usedness, because I doubt you haul 500 pounds of sheetrock every day on your FEH, just like I don't haul 2 engines every day in my CRX,

[thisisntjared]

ah but you dont haul around 3 kids in a crx. the use of the usefulness is irrelevant. we are talking about the cars and the drivers driving habits, not necisarily the lifestyle of the driver.

[Escape_Hybrid]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

If we wanted to talk usefullness we would have to add usedness, because I doubt you haul 500 pounds of sheetrock every day on your FEH, just like I don't haul 2 engines every day in my CRX,

Not every day, no, sometimes, yes. And it's darn handy picking up relatives from the airport, and lugging stuff home from Costco or Sam's Club!!!

I'm confused by your 2 engines comment, I presume referring to the Hybrid.
Since I do tote "2 engines" and the added weight, and still get 45 MPG, does that not mean my car is doing even better that previously thought?

For the record... motorcycles are the LEAST efficient out there, but you'll have a smaller gas bill each week!

-John

[SVOboy]

I mean that I can haul two engines physically in my car.

I think the use of usefullness is very important, because who gives a **** if I can haul 8 people if I'm the only person in the car at any given time. That doesn't make it more efficient, but it would if I carpooled with my coworkers.

[thisisntjared]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I think the use of usefullness is very important, because who gives a **** if I can haul 8 people if I'm the only person in the car at any given time. That doesn't make it more efficient, but it would if I carpooled with my coworkers.

this is incorrect logic i will fix it.

Originally Posted by SVOboy

I think the use of usefullness is very important, because who gives a **** if I can haul 8 people if I'm the only person in the car at EVERY given time. That doesn't make it more efficient, but it would if I carpooled with my coworkers.

the advantage is that the other car can haul 8 if needed. you dont know if that escape carries a family of five every day and they shouldnt have to prove you wrong

[Matt Timion]

Originally Posted by Escape_Hybrid

This is an interesting concept, and one that I think would help compare apples to oranges ( or a Ford Escape Hybrid to a Prius ).

Based on weight, I beat the socks off any other hybrid.

My FEH weighs 3880 pounds with a full tank of gas.
(I have a certified truck scale at work.)

My best segment over flat terrain was 75.5 MPG for 11.9 miles.
The round-trip home that night was 68.3 MPG for 20.2 miles.

So...75.5 / 3880 = 0.01945 MPG per pound. Does that make sense?
No... don't think so... having a heavier car makes the number smaller....
Gotta multiply, I think....

75.5 x 3880 = 292940 MPG Pounds.

I think MPG Pounds is the correct route to go. Agree?

Now take an Insight. *estimate, I've never owned one

*109 MPG x *1900 pounds = 207100 MPG Pounds.

Wooo hooo! Going by that, I can beat an Insight in my Ford SUV?

Does everyone agree this is a fair way to compare? Thanks.
-J

The more I think about it the more I like it. MPG LbS is a great way to compare apples to oranges.

If I can get 50MPG in my civic sedan, which weighs 2200lbs, my score is smaller than a Ford F150 getting 35mpg. It's no question that smaller cars get better gas mileage, but can you take a mack truck and make it get above 20MPG?

[zpiloto]

[quote=Randy]That's 39.8 thankyouverymuch.

The reason this sort of number is interesting is when comparing very different vehicles. Like a semi... 70k+ lbs, but they get 6 or so mpg on the highway. That would easily trounce the best so far. Things like trains or ships burn insane amounts of fuel... unless you factor in weight, then they trounce anything on the road.

Ok now I'm starting to get it.

2950 * 34.4 / 1000 = 101.480

mines 3950 on the weight.

[95metro]

Originally Posted by thisisntjared

weight * mpg
= weight * distance / energy

do you understand the significance now?

I understand that this is a measure of efficiency - though we now need to define what efficiency is and all that it includes. I did not realize that the 1000 number you used was energy. Was there a basis for choosing 1000 or was it just picked out of the air?

Out of the air numbers are what I don't like - sorry, it's just my personal nitpickyness. I like to have things defined and have a reason for being. If the number is just a number for the sake of showcasing then there is no reason to use it from a data standpoint.

Yes, mpg/lb makes no sense on its own, but neither does power to weight, horsepower, torque, or anything else on their own. They are stats and nothing but stats. mpg/lb is a wildly variable stat and that makes it worse, but it is still just a statistic...which I think is all MetroMPG was trying to do in the first place, but we've horribly hijacked his thread - sorry, Darin, for perpetrating some dead-horse flogging.

Overall I'm saying that if we are going to come up with a number to rate vehicles by then we have to reason through it, define terminology, and be able to prove it over and over again.

[thisisntjared]

i cant believe you think weight, power to weight, torque, horsepower mean nothing on their own. yes they do. the represent a specific value that is useful. weight/mpg is not useful. it will never represent anything. weight*mpg does represent something, i broke it down for you. you need to get back to your highschool physics courses.

Originally Posted by 95metro

I understand that this is a measure of efficiency - though we now need to define what efficiency is and all that it includes. I did not realize that the 1000 number you used was energy. Was there a basis for choosing 1000 or was it just picked out of the air?

1000 was out of thin air to make the number easier to read, however now i think it would be better if we did to to the ton. so the number would be 2000.

mpg is distance divided by energy. hense miles per gallon of gasoline. miles is distance. gasoline is the energy. thats where this comes from. i think we should definitely do it according to weight in tons.

Originally Posted by 95metro

Overall I'm saying that if we are going to come up with a number to rate vehicles by then we have to reason through it, define terminology, and be able to prove it over and over again.

we have a number to rate vehicles, its mpg. theres no need to go crazy with this. this isnt a scientific method or anything like that its just a number. that is all. its a number, just like power to weight, 0-60, its just a raw number. what needs to be proven? this is not that big of a deal guys. its just a creative way of thinking.

the ton mpg factors out weight, it is simply a tool for you to recognize weaknesses in your cars efficiency. if your mpg is above the epa but your ton mpg is low in respect to other peoples, then to improve your raw mpg it might help to focus on things unrelated to removing weight. likewise if you want better mpg and you are ranking very high on the ton mpg then weight reduction might help you more than you think.

understand that this number doesnt really help me at all and i dont care about how we a 'ranked' against each other. its not a scale of which car is better, nor is it a ranking system or anything like that. its a statistic. its just a number. it is a tool not a status symbol.

Originally Posted by zpiloto

mines 3950 on the weight.

are you sure about that? that sounds more like the vehicles gross weight and not curb weight.