Can anyone explain the logic of this statement to me please?

[Porky Pine]

I just got this off of the new Consumer Reports and the logic behind it confounds me.

"Large Hybrids are said to get better fuel economy than their nonhybrid counterparts, but they likely won't get the numbers of the smaller hybrids we tested. Still, Tom Stevens, GM's powertrain chief says, "If you raise fuel economy 10 percent on a 12-MPG vehicle, you save a lot more gallons in a year than if you raise fuel economy 20 percent on a small 30-MPG car." You also burn more than twice as much fuel overall.

[Tempus]

Ok

Let's say you have a car that gets 30 MPG

If you travel 10000 miles you have burned 333.3 Gallons of Fuel

If you increase the mileage to 36 MPG (20% Increase) , you burn 277.8 Gallons to travel the same 10000 Miles

Net Savings to the World - 55.5 Gallons

If you have a car that gets 12 MPG, you burn 833.3 Gallons to travel 10000 Miles

If you increase that to 13,2 MPG (10% Increase), you burn 757.6 Gallons to travel the same 10000 Miles

Net Savings to the World 75.7 Gallons.

-----------

What the GM guy is saying, is that if your goal is to decrease the total amount of fuel burned by all vehichles, the best bang for buck is modest increases in the worst guzzlers, rather than larger increases in already efficient vehicles.

And, he's right. It's called "The Law of Diminishing Returns"

Apparently Consumer Reports is retorting (the section not in quotes) that by driving the +10% guzzler, you're STILL burning more total fuel than if you drove a more fuel efficient vehicle.

And, he's right too. It's called "Stating the Obvious"

[Sufferin' Prius Envy]

More fuzzy logic:

I’m surprised the GM dude didn’t say, “ If you trade in a large hybrid for a small hybrid the savings to the world would only be 479.8 gallons, BUT if you exchange the large non-hybrid for a small non-hybrid the savings would be an astounding 500 gallons!!!! Therefore it is only logical that we not bother building hybrids because they actually use more gas.”

[BobA]

It's "DRIVE MORE, SAVE MORE"... no mater what you drive...Right?? ops:

[hdrygas]

OK my Ford Explorer got 19-20 average for my driving per tank. Mostly rural/city some freeway not much. I could improve that 2-4 mpg average over the tank by really watching it. With regular driving I am getting 53-54 in my Prius. I am saving gas, money and creating a whole lot less pollution and I don't care what the GM spin doctors say!

[daniel]

More of the same:

Because my commute is only 4 miles, nearly half my driving is in the warm-up phase, and I get lower mileage than most other Prius drivers.

But I also burn a lot less gas than they do. I had 4,100 miles on the odo at my six-month oil change.

[Gurmail]

It's "DRIVE MORE, SAVE MORE"... no mater what you drive...Right?? ops:

NO. It is drive LESS, save more. Avoid unneccesary trips, take public transit ( when possible), walk short distances rather than driving and use the most efficent hybrid like the Prius.

[BobA]

No Gurmail, for a Prius it's my way....haha

NO. It is drive LESS, save more. Avoid unneccesary trips, take public transit ( when possible), walk short distances rather than driving and use the most efficent hybrid like the Prius.[/quote]

[Gurmail]

How? (I know you are probably joking). You may "save" fuel because you will get higher MPG, however, the more you drive the more fuel you will use. Hence whenever you can cut down on driving, you are bound to save. Not to mention other expenses like wear and tear and maintainence of the vehicle, trafic tickets, accidents etc. The more you drive, the more the chances of aforementioned things.

[daniel]

The more miles you drive, the greater is the benefit of an efficient car, compared to a less-efficient one.

But the fewer miles you drive, the less gas you burn and the more you save. As per my previous post.