Gallons per mile would help car shoppers make better decisions

June 19, 2008

Posting a vehicle's fuel efficiency in "gallons per mile" rather than "miles per gallon" would help consumers make better decisions about car purchases and environmental impact, researchers from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business report in the June 20 issue of Science magazine.

Inspired by debates they had while carpooling in a hybrid car, management professors Richard Larrick and Jack Soll ran a series of experiments showing that the current standard, miles per gallon or mpg, leads consumers to believe that fuel consumption is reduced at an even rate as efficiency improves. People presented with a series of car choices in which fuel efficiency was defined in miles per gallon were not able to easily identify the choice that would result in the greatest gains in fuel efficiency.

For example, most people ranked an improvement from 34 to 50 mpg as saving more gas over 10,000 miles than an improvement from 18 to 28 mpg, even though the latter saves twice as much gas. (Going from 34 to 50 mpg saves 94 gallons; but from 18 to 28 mpg saves 198 gallons).

These mistaken impressions were corrected, however, when participants were presented with fuel efficiency expressed in gallons used per 100 miles rather than mpg. Viewed this way, 18 mpg becomes 5.5 gallons per 100 miles, and 28 mpg is 3.6 gallons per 100 miles -- an $8 difference today.

"The reality that few people appreciate is that improving fuel efficiency from 10 to 20 mpg is actually a more significant savings than improving from 25 to 50 mpg for the same distance of driving," Larrick said. (See table below.)

Soll noted that replacing a large vehicle that gets 10 mpg with one that gets 20 mpg reduces gas use per 100 miles from 10 gallons to five, a 5-gallon savings. Replacing a small vehicle that gets 25 mpg with one that gets 50 mpg reduces gas use per 100 miles from 4 gallons to 2, a saving of only 2 gallons.

"Miles per gallon is misleading and can play tricks on our intuitions," Soll said.

"For families and other owners of more than one type of vehicle, the greatest fuel savings often comes from improving the efficiency of the less efficient car," Soll added. "When fuel efficiency is expressed as gallons per 100 miles, it becomes clear which combination of cars will save a family the most gas.

"We believe that everyone should try to be as fuel efficient as possible. For some people, that may mean driving the most efficient car available, such as a small hybrid car, but for others it may mean finding the most efficient option possible within their chosen class of car," Soll said. "There are significant savings to be had by improving efficiency by even two or three miles per gallon on inefficient cars, but because we communicate in miles per gallon, that savings is not immediately evident to consumers."

The authors recommend that consumer publications and car manufacturers list efficiency in terms of gallons per 10,000 miles driven, which is already the standard in many other countries. "This measure makes it easy to see how much gas one might use in a given year of driving and how much gas, and money, can be saved by opting for a car with greater efficiency," Larrick said.

Source: Duke University

2.9 /5 (42 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

quantum_flux
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Well, then I would like to see a vehicle that gets 1 gallon per 100 miles then....100 miles per gallon!
RogerB34
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 2.7 / 5 (7)
BS. The scheme is to condition the peasants to calculation of carbon emissions by weight. Later to tax them.
gmurphy
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, the sales person talks about relative savings like they're better than absolute cost. Even if you save 5 gallons by switching from a 10mpg vehicle to a 20mpg vehicle, you're still using 5 gallons every 100 miles. If you switch from the 25mpg vehicle to a 50mpg vehicle you only use 2 gallons per 100 miles. This is a smokescreen by the SUV sales people, jesus tapdancing christ
Soylent
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
Well, then I would like to see a vehicle that gets 1 gallon per 100 miles then....100 miles per gallon!


Your average scooter or moped.
Soylent
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
I don't know whether to laugh or cry, the sales person talks about relative savings like they're better than absolute cost.


No, they're talking about absolute cost like it's better than relative savings.
jburchel
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 3.8 / 5 (5)
Stupid... Either way it is the same thing and it doesn't really make any difference which way it is reported. How about freedom as a concept? Let people buy whatever they want and if they want to drive a gas guzzler, they can pay for the gas, and if they want to drive a Vespa, they can take the risk of being flattened if they collide with anything larger than a blade of grass, but save untold hundreds on fuel and their proudly miniscule carbon footprints...
Glis
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
In case you haven't noticed, us American's aren't the greatest with fractions/decimals. It will take hours of training to get them to understand that less gallons per mile is good.

The current system is ideal for being poor. If it's 25mpg and I can afford 2 gallons of gas, I know how far I'll get without a calculator, which I don't have because I sold it for gas.
canuckit
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
In Canada and Europe fuel consumption/efficiency of motor vehicles is measured in liters per 100 km.
Valentiinro
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Aptera gets 120 per gallon and seats 2.
http://www.aptera.com/
retread
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 4 / 5 (5)
Please USA, go metric. In Japan, km/litre is norm, but for whatever reason, Canada has adopted the most annoying European litres/100km standard.
Also, it is true as mentioned - there's no way your gonna get 'mericans to figure out that less is more when they are so used to more being more.
joefarah
Jun 19, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
In Canada we measure in litres per 100km. But ever since we've started doing this, over a quarter century ago, most drivers have lost touch with car efficiency. It's just that much more complex. Just enough to confuse most of the population. I buy a litre of gas, I want to know how far it takes me... that's intuitive. I don't drive 100km and wonder how much gas I used. That's much less intuitive.
zevkirsh
Jun 20, 2008

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
no crap , everyone who knows anything about the CAFE regulation knows this.
d01phi
Jun 20, 2008

Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
As others mentioned, in Europe we've been using l/100km for decades. And I find it very useful for answering questions like, how much does it cost me to get from a to b. Maybe you Americans are more in the mindset of having to decide whether it is possible to cross vast deserts with a given amount of gas. But I wonder who does this very frequently, as opposed to commuting to work over a known fixed distance.
Mercury_01
Jun 20, 2008

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
So are we going to switch our spedometers to hours per mile? This is dumb.
PJS
Jun 20, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
Just wait until we switch to electric cars and watch the mass confusion!
DGBEACH
Jun 20, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
Just wait until we switch to electric cars and watch the mass confusion!


Then it will be Amps-per-mile (kilometer)I should imagine...or better, miles-per-charge. 'Seems LESS confusing.
ErickS
Jun 21, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
miles, gallons. Only Liberia, Birma and the U.S. are non-metric. Sigh.
deatopmg
Jun 21, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
34 to 50 mpg may not be as big a % change as 18 to 28 mpg but at 34 mpg the owner is already way ahead of the fool switching to the 28 mpg car.

This whole study is ridiculous waste of my money.

anyway, we all (should) know that there is reduced return as we get closer to (asymptote) the limit. So the %change to 54 mpg is less but it is nearly 100% better than 28 mpg.
Bill_Hees
Jun 23, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
I've been a fan of the gallons-per-mile viewpoint for several years now. What did it for me? A while back I heard a politician praise an 80 mpg experimental car and claim 'if you think 80 mpg is good, imagine how great 120 mpg will be! we've got to substantially increase funding and achieve that goal next!'. I imagined it and I realized it would save only a miniscule amount of gas beyond what 80 mpg would save, but that the bigger mpg number *sounded* so much better. I thought "great, some politician who's bad at math is going to spend our taxes in pursuit of a sound bite". So my concern is policy makers who are bad at math. This article's authors are concerned with consumers who are bad at math. Either way, same conclusion -- using "miles per gallon" hurts people's understanding of how much different levels of fuel efficiency actually matter -- or don't.

One question is what denominator is best. 1 mile? 100 miles? My personal preference would be gallons per 1000 miles. This roughly approximates gallons used per month, which puts it in the same terms as other bills and notably car payments. Then most car purchasers could more easily put a value on reduced fuel consumption.

For example, is it worth $120/month extra to get a 50 mpg Prius instead of a 34 mpg Corolla? Most people would need a calculator to figure this out. However if you're told the Prius uses 20 gallons per month and the Corolla uses 29, well, that's only a 9 gallon/month savings. Maybe you like the Prius for it's styling, but the lower fuel costs sure don't justify the higher price.

Using the right units makes everything so much clearer.
Bill_Hees
Jun 23, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
> there's no way your gonna get 'mericans to figure out that less is more when they are so used to more being more.

Americans have one case of "less is more" down pretty well. We understand that lower costs are better. Just refer to gallons per mile as "fuel costs" instead of "fuel efficiency". Then less is more.
Bill_Hees
Jun 23, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
> 34 to 50 mpg may not be as big a % change
> as 18 to 28 mpg but at 34 mpg the owner
> is already way ahead of the fool switching
> to the 28 mpg car.

This isn't about awarding medals to those who are "way ahead"; it's about recognizing the best opportunities for saving fuel. If you currently use only a tiny amount of fuel, by definition you cannot reduce your usage by more than a tiny amount of fuel. However someone who uses a lot of fuel has the potential to reduce their usage by a much greater amount than you can (even if after doing so they still use more than you). That's the opportunity.

Using gallons per mile instead of miles per gallon makes it more clear where the opportunities are for reducing fuel consumption.

> So the %change to 54 mpg is less but it is
> nearly 100% better than 28 mpg

Really? 54 mpg uses nearly 50% less fuel than 28 mpg. I'd call that "nearly 50% better", not "nearly 100% better".
Eco_R1
Jun 23, 2008

Rank: not rated yet
one of these days fuel will be so expensive....... that i will have to push my car to the liquor store!!!
Rank 2.9 /5 (42 votes)
Tags

Related Stories
Relevant PhysicsForums posts

More news stories

Myths and shame keep many from seeking bankruptcy protection

(PhysOrg.com) -- Two interesting facts that may counter modern ideas about bankruptcy: The overwhelming majority of U.S. filings belong to individuals rather than corporations or entities, and most of these ...

Other Sciences / Economics & Business

created 10 hours ago | popularity 3.7 / 5 (3) | comments 7

What we mean when we ask for the milk

New research into the different ways that English and Polish people use language in everyday family situations can help members of each community to understand each other better and avoid cultural misunderstandings.

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created 8 hours ago | popularity 3.7 / 5 (3) | comments 3

A lost world? How zooarchaeology can inform biodiversity conservation

A new study of tropical forests will provide a 50,000-year perspective on how animal biodiversity has changed, explored through an archaeological investigation of animal bones.

Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils

created 10 hours ago | popularity 3 / 5 (2) | comments 0

Putting the magic into maths

Queen Mary, University of London has developed a new educational resource for teachers to help students use amazing magic tricks to learn about maths.

Other Sciences / Mathematics

created 11 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 0

Australian women reject 'I love u' texts

Australian women may have embraced the digital era, but they prefer a face-to-face declaration of affection to an "I love u" text and find men addicted to their mobile phones a major turnoff.

Other Sciences / Social Sciences

created 15 hours ago | popularity 3 / 5 (2) | comments 2


First-of-its-kind stem cell study re-grows healthy heart muscle in heart attack patients

Results from a Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute clinical trial show that treating heart attack patients with an infusion of their own heart-derived cells helps damaged hearts re-grow healthy muscle.

Scientists discover reason for Mt. Hood's non-explosive nature

(PhysOrg.com) -- For a half-million years, Mount Hood has towered over the landscape, but unlike some of its cousins in Oregon’s Cascade Mountains and many other volcanoes around the Pacific “Rim ...

Discovery paves way for salmonella vaccine

(Medical Xpress) -- An international research team led by a University of California, Davis, immunologist has taken an important step toward an effective vaccine against salmonella, a group of increasingly antibiotic-resistant ...

Time of year important in projections of climate change effects on ecosystems

(PhysOrg.com) -- Does it matter whether long periods of hot weather, such as last year's heat wave that gripped the U.S. Midwest, happen in June or July, August or September?

Smoking bans lead to less, not more, smoking at home: study

Smoking bans in public/workplaces don't drive smokers to light up more at home, suggests a study of four European countries with smoke free legislation, published online in Tobacco Control.

Ovarian cancer arises in fallopian tube of knockout mice

(Medical Xpress) -- The most deadly form of "ovarian" cancer arises in the fallopian tubes – not the ovaries – of knockout mice that lack two genes associated with the disease, said researchers led by Baylor College ...