Edmunds article about MPG calculations

[hybridbear]

Food for thought when complaining about our lower than 47 results and when getting ecstatic about getting better than 47 MPG

 

MPG Is Stupid

[hybridbear]

For example:

 

47 MPG = 2.13 gal/100 mi

my last tank was 55 MPG = 1.82 gal/100 mi

So for those 8 MPG (seemingly huge!) I only got about 100 miles extra range on my tank, or it saved me less than 2 gallons over a set distance of say 600 miles. That means that getting 55 MPG instead of 47 MPG only saved me $7.60 over the 18 days that we drove on that tank. That's $.42 per day. Not as big a deal as ppl think.

 

For those averaging 40 MPG = 2.5 gal/100 mi

If you get 40 MPG you're only giving up 90 miles of range on a tank compared to getting 47 MPG

Over 600 miles you'd burn 15 gallons compared to 12.78 gallons, a difference of only about 2.22 gallons or $7.75. Barely more than $1/100 miles.

[corncobs]

I vote for GP100 mainly because of the percentage comparison. I really liked the example between the Mustang and the other car.

It really is a shame that when cars get measured with different scales. 10 % are 10 % but the number gets as the MPG get higher throwing people of and making them mad.

[Larry Riley Jr]

"That means that getting 55 MPG instead of 47 MPG only saved me $7.60 over the 18 days that we drove on that tank. That's $.42 per day. Not as big a deal as ppl think."

 

1) Whenever I see an analysis like this, it's interesting which "direction" the analysis goes in order to characterize the savings. For me, I look at the long term vs. short-term, which lines up with why I went with a hybrid in the first place. In this case, the savings you mention would add up to $153 bucks per year. There has never been a holiday season where an extra $153 bucks wouldn't come in handy for me! Since I expect to keep the car for at least five years, that would amount to $750 bucks, which is basically a monthly car payment plus insurance, and a couple tanks of gas. LOL, I'm sure we would all love to come to the last month of our car loans and have the bank say "hey, the last month is on us, and we'll even cover the insurance and a couple tanks of gas."

 

2) I noticed that a tank lasted 18 days. Good for you! I wish I could make a tank last that long, but I drive too much for that, so I'm averaging about once per 9 days. If I drove 600 miles on a tank, then you would save the same amount in just one half the time (9 days vs. 18), so the daily amount of the savings would be $.84, the annual savings would be $306, and the 5-year savings would be over $1,500. Those are the kind of numbers that will make me try to squeeze every last extra MPG or GPM I can!

 

Thanks for this; it's definitely food for thought. My two cents (or 42 cents ;-)):

[fusionTX]

Food for thought when complaining about our lower than 47 results and when getting ecstatic about getting better than 47 MPG

 

MPG Is Stupid

Hard to argue with the article. Makes some excellent points. Thanks for sharing.

[keybman]

I think there may be something here that is lost in the math. I agree with the numbers from 55 to 47 MPG. But as the MPG gets lower, the loss of savings grows exponentially. As as illustration, I will use my gasoline savings from my 2013 FFH vs my previous vehicle (which was one of the deciding factors in my purchase), and base the data upon my yearly driving amounts.

 

Assuming $3.50/gallon, if I were to get 55 MPG instead of my current 48.5 mpg, I would save an additional $13.13/mth, or $157.56/year.

On the other hand, if I were to get 40 MPG instead, I would lose (or have "less savings" of) $26.62/mth, or $319.44/year.

 

I tend to keep my cars long term, so if I look ahead 10 years, that savings/loss figure adds up to a lot of money as the MPG gets lower. The attached file illustrates the savings I would experience at various MPG levels and at different gasoline prices ($3.50 vs $5). It also shows the various loss amounts that would ultimately add up. And for me, these are not trivial amounts.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2013 by keybman

[bman2p]

Ford does think MPG is important. They have been taking a lot of heat from the public, owners and the litigious world. So in reply, they are recalibrating the Powertrain Control Module. This will allow the batteries to be used above the 62MPH threshold and it limits out at 85MPH. Just got my letter in the mail yesterday. I have averaged 36MPG while driving 66% highway and 33% city. I've read all the tips online and have radically adjusted my driving style and thats the best I get. I would trade this car in today if I could just walk away form it.

[MaineFusion]

I tend to keep my cars long term, so if I look ahead 10 years, that savings/loss figure adds up to a lot of money as the MPG gets lower. The attached file illustrates the savings I would experience at various MPG levels and at different gasoline prices ($3.50 vs $5). It also shows the various loss amounts that would ultimately add up. And for me, these are not trivial amounts.

I too look at MPG and saved money from the long term perspective. I also look at it as: 1) doing my part to reduce our country's dependence of imported fuels; and 2) trying to reduce my carbon footprint best I can.

Edited August 9, 2013 by MaineFusion

[acdii]

I posted a similar article a long time ago. Look at gallons used vs mile per gallon. This makes a ton more sense in long term savings. Right now I can go a week between fills in the FFH, using 10 gallons of gas, vs filling the Flex going the same distance at 17 gallons used. Same miles, but 7 gallons more used. Thats the difference between the 43 I get in one and 21 I get in the other over 500 miles driven. Rough estimates so please dont try to calculate out what I said. :)

 

Going from the 2010 FFH to the 13 FFH I didnt do it because of MPG. The 10 was doing very well in that respect. I did it because I wanted the newer car, longer warranty and more room. Going to the 10 FFH from the 10 FFS was for MPG gains, 20 MPG to 39 MPG, worked out to at least a 1/2 month car payment every month in gas savings alone..

 

As long as the new one gets or exceeds what the 2010 did, I am happy with it, anything more and I am thrilled.

 

When I had the F150 3.5 it got roughly 17 MPG. I now have a Flex with the 3.5 EB that is getting up to 21 MPG. Seems like a small number until you start adding up the differences. 100 gallons got me 1700 miles vs 2100 miles at 21 MPG. thats 400 miles further for every 100 gallons. Add in that I needed to use Premium in the F150 to achieve that and 89 in the Flex. 89 at the station by me costs about the same as regular everywhere in Mchenry county. Since my math isnt the greatest, I leave that up to whomever wishes to do it. The point is, the Flex does everything I need it to do, while the F150 was overkill, more than I needed it for. The F150 was a beautiful loaded truck, but was too much vehicle for what we needed, so getting the Flex not only fit the bill, it saves me money long term in fuel savings, but still have that Giddyup go factor the F150 did.