Advertisement
Find a Car
Go!

Is Miles-Per-Gallon Really The Best Measure Of Fuel Economy?

Follow Richard

EPA gas-mileage label (window sticker), design used starting in model year 2013

EPA gas-mileage label (window sticker), design used starting in model year 2013

Enlarge Photo

In the U.S., we tend to talk about fuel economy in terms of miles-per-gallon. After decades of doing so, it's a system that we've come to understand -- or so we think.

Unfortunately, miles-per-gallon doesn't tell the whole story. In fact, it's a metric that can sometimes be deceiving. But what are the alternatives?

In many other parts of the world, shoppers evaluate vehicles based not on miles-per-gallon, but on gallons-per-mile -- or more specifically, gallons-per-100-miles (or 100 kilometers). A few years ago, folks at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business showed that, even though Americans aren't used to thinking in such terms, the gallons-per-100-miles is a more accurate, useful metric.

The Duke team asked consumers to evaluate which is the more fuel-efficient combination for a two-car family:

  • A) a 20-mpg station wagon and a 20-mpg sedan?
  • B) a 10-mpg SUV and a 50-mpg hybrid?

Expressed in miles-per-gallon, it looks as if the answer should be "B", but that would be wrong. If this hypothetical family drives 100 miles in each vehicle per week, the "B" combo would consume 12 gallons of gas, while "A" would use just 10.

The math involved isn't complex. Say your current car gets 25 mpg. Think back to the mists of Algebra 101, and you might recall that 25 miles-per-gallon can be expressed as 25/1.

To get gallons-per-mile, just flip the fraction on its head: 1/25, or .04. Then, multiply by 100 to get your gallons-per-100-miles rating: 4 gallons/100 miles.

Things get especially interesting when you use this method to evaluate fuel savings on new cars. For example, what if you're planning to ditch the aforementioned 25 mpg vehicle for a new one, and the two cars on your short list earn 35 mpg and 50 mpg? The difference seems huge, but do a little math, and you'll realize that the former uses 2.8 gallons/100 miles, while the latter comes in only slightly better, at 2 gallons/100 miles.

Our own John Voelcker made a similar argument last year at TCC's sister site, Green Car Reports. The big takeaway? Looks can be deceiving.

The other side of the coin

The auto industry isn't sold on miles-per-gallon, either. The recent Hyundai/Kia mileage fiasco has clearly made automakers gun-shy about cold, hard numbers. Ford marketing executive Jim Farley told Detroit News  that Ford is looking at new ways to convey fuel economy to customers -- creative ways that are more "consumer-centric". 

In Ford's new marketing campaign for the Fusion Hybrid, for example, Ford says the car "doubles the fuel economy of the average vehicle". Focusing on generalities rather than quantifiable data isn't a bad idea -- especially since the Fusion seems to being having trouble meeting its stated fuel economy figures.

What about electrics?

Part of Ford's nervousness about numbers has to do with proving those numbers under real-world conditions. But Farley's comments also raise a larger question about accuracy.

Specifically, as hybrids and electric vehicles make up a greater part of the auto market, how do we reach a common metric of fuel efficiency -- or, more to the point, can we? Is it fair to use the same yardstick for the extended-range Chevrolet Volt and the conventional Chevrolet Camaro -- much less the all-electric Nissan Leaf? Are these cases of apples and oranges, or can we establish some way to explain the differences between vehicles that use a range of fuel technologies?

For example, would it make more sense to alert customers to a vehicle's annual fuel costs and the savings it offers (or fails to offer) compared to average vehicles? Given the volatility of the fuel/energy markets, would that be an accurate metric? Or should we give customers every possible means of evaluation -- miles-per-gallon, gallons-per-100-miles, annual fuel cost, and annual savings -- as we're seeing on the new, EPA-approved window stickers for 2013 models

We don't have the answers to these questions, but we'll keep you posted as others propose solutions of their own.

Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (5)
  1. Either way MPG or gallons per hundred miles the passenger miles per gallon are a more important factor.
    In other words, my crew cab truck averages 20 mpg and I often have 4 to 6 passengers vs a mini -car that gets 35 mpg and only hauls 2 people.
    Truck ex:5 people riding 20 miles = 100 passenger miles /gallon
    Mini Ex: 2 people riding 35 miles = 70 passenger miles/gallon

    This does not even factor safety in. Which would you rather be riding in if you were involved in a 40 to 50 mph head on crash?............The good news is that a new generation of 8 and 9 speed transmissions will push full size vehicle economy into the 25 to 30 mpg range (without even factoring in passenger miles per gallon).
     
    Post Reply
    0
    Bad stuff?

     
  2. And what makes you think that your truck is safer than a passenger car? The crush tests? ... but you forget that a small car can corner tighter and stop better than your truck, therefore it could avoid the accident all together? (this just in case is not rear ended by another heavy crew cab truck)
    20mpg = 11.76 l/100km = 1.96 l/100km/pass with 6 pass
    35mpg = 3.72 l/100km = 1.86 l/100km/pass with 2 pass
    So your fuel efficient truck needs more gas than 3 passenger cars ... mpg can be really deceiving
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  3. sorry
    20mpg = 11.76 l/100km = 1.96 l/100km/pass with 6 pass
    35mpg = 6.72 l/100km = 1.68 l/100km/pass with 4 pass
    and those 4 passengers in the car will travel far more comfortably than the 6 passengers in the truck
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. With current figures, especially in the US, gallons per 100 miles makes sense.
    However as fuel consumption approves, the numbers get smaller. You have already mentioned that 50mpg is 2.0gal/100 miles. With plug-in vehicles already exceeding 100mpge, this means they are already below 1.0gal/100 miles equivalent, so we're starting to talk about differences between vehicles of less than 0.1. This reduces the incentive for customers to purchase a more efficient vehicle, as the visual difference is so small, and also reduces the incentive for manufacturers to make small improvements.
     
    Post Reply
    +2
    Bad stuff?

     
  5. But the manufacturers will expect you to pay thousands for a 0.1 improvement just because the improvement looks really good in deceiving mpg units ...
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Try My Showroom
Save cars, write notes, and comparison shop with hi-res photos.
Add your first car
Advertisement
Take Us With You!
   
Related Used Listings
Browse used listings in your area
Advertisement

More From High Gear Media


 
 
© 2014 The Car Connection. All Rights Reserved. The Car Connection is published by High Gear Media. Stock photography by Homestar, LLC. Send us feedback.