Thanks for the info guys, this should help a lot. Remember, it must be production, non-electrical cars and the mpgs must be official ratings, not what you got driving at 55mph on 6th gear for 3 hours on the highway behind a semi...
It requires a significant amount of property, though. And they can't eat while you're riding, so you do have to feed them something witha higher nutritional value that can be caried with you (may not be much to eat where you stop.) Plus in a lot of areas you have to feed your horses vitamins in their grain to supplement for what's missing from the local diet to keep them healthy. Also, the travel rates are pretty slow. It's quite a bit cheaper to just ride a bike, if that's all you care about.
However if you ride your horse to the bar it does help you pick up women. DUI's apply even on horseback, though, so you have to be careful.
Big cities suck
"Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis
Big cities suck
"Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
I think the point is that they're at least a regular baseline for comparison instead of numbers from a bunch of different people when you have no idea how they were driving. For instance, neon SRT-4 figures that range from 14mpg to 39 mpg. Hard to judge where in there your own driving would land. But with the EPA numbers you at least (should) know what to expect.
Big cities suck
"Not putting miles on your Ferrari is like not having sex with your girlfriend so she'll be more desirable to her next boyfriend." -Napolis
the problem is that manufacturers are wanting us to believe that these are what you say they are. They do manipulate their engines/gear ratios to make them look most favourable under the laboratory test conditions that everybody knows. I am not saying that the best figures are obtained by the best cheaters, but it is not very far off the mark.
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
Alright, 118d official fuel consumption (combined) 52mpg US. And it's a 130mph 5 door hatchback.
But I can see where wwgkd is coming from. You might not get the official figures, but for comparing which car will use the most or the least fuel they can be base to work on.
Lack of charisma can be fatal.
Visca Catalunya!
The problem is that you do get the "official" figures but they are bogus,
especially when you note that "observed deviations" from the official figures vary greatly for different cars. It would be OK if all cars would take say on average about 20% more fuel than indicated, but that ranges from 5-30% or so in practice. So you simply cannot say: Add 20% to the EPA/ECE values and you have your mileage.
"I find the whole business of religion profoundly interesting, but it does mystify me that otherwise intelligent people take it seriously." Douglas Adams
LOL! I agree with you.
Frankly, the points you raised begs the question, what is the the opportunity cost to this planet, of moving towards a green culture and a green world??? I haven't heard much discussion about this in much of the articles i have read related to this matter.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)