They could argue it but only to the point where similarities end. At that point, those arguments just become noise.
"Mustang"Mach-E Efficiency
- Thread starter UncleDave
- Start date
wemay
Site Donor 2023
I just can't go that far...
I think most people don't want to know those numbers and/or will be totally confused by them. The marketers will bamboozle those that don't know anything about how it all works.
I try not to wade into this discussion to much because it is a difficult situation, but there needs to be a relatively accurate 1 rating that most people can understand. As it is right now it will be compared to ICE, I agree that is wrong but it makes people feel comfortable because they just don't know what is actually going on, nor do they care.
I try not to wade into this discussion to much because it is a difficult situation, but there needs to be a relatively accurate 1 rating that most people can understand. As it is right now it will be compared to ICE, I agree that is wrong but it makes people feel comfortable because they just don't know what is actually going on, nor do they care.
Trav - Mustang Mach-e or Tesla Cybertruck?
Agree, but the vast majority of car purchases are subjective. People buy what they want; how they want to be percieved.
For example, many people buy a Tesla Model 3 because it is new, cool, etc. The Tesla mystique. They would be far better off with a Civic, Corolla, Accord, Camry, etc. People don't need Porsches, Vettes, MBZ, you name it.
I did not need our 3.
Totally agree, could not have stated it better myself.
I don't see your point ABT, even though I'm sure you have one. Isn't the end result what matters?
Perhaps an example would help...
That's fine for those who don't want to know or care ( at the end of the day its their right to chose what matters or doesn't to them)
However, that doesn't set the bar or limits for the rest of us who do either.
There's nothing "difficult" about it from a science or engineering perspective. Its literally done everyday everywhere on every piece of designed equipment. Claims to the contrary are either just ignorance or a smoke screen.
Relative to what?
Accurate to what?
What standard is "most people"?
What level of "understanding" do "most people" require?
The Sheeple never will
I did give one ( in a manner of sorts) but I guess a plainly stated one is a better thing as it leaves no doubt.
I am 100% behind the individual and their right to choose and make any decision based on their criteria as they see it.
Although I vigorously disagree, I also am 100% behind the individual's right to ignore all of it and believe what they choose ( as long as they accept the consequences without handing me the bill)
I am also 100% behind an individuals right to willfully remain 100% ignorant to the facts and truth.
None of those scenarios however make allowance for those who design these units to hold that information back from the rest who do want it.
Also, from an ethics perspective, the same information should be made available so those who choose to ignore or discard it are making that decision based on a true representation lest they ever say "had you told me that in the beginning..."
Correct on both counts but I did it to bring out a point. Too many people give vague, nebulous nondescript answers then use ( or hide behind) them as justification for actions ( or lack of actions) when its often deliberate.
As much as it pains me, I agree but will state that their actions ( or inactions) do not set limits or precedent on mine.
It does not require a solution ( as in a standing problem requiring effort to resolve) because ( speaking as a design engineer) they already have and know this data.
All they have to do is publish it and let those who want it use it and the rest ignore it.
The only "problem" is the reasons these are not published in the first place.
Miles per kWh is a good way to monitor during driving. Five plus miles is a good number. I have no trouble with the Mustang name on the car or the supposed electric consumption. People are driving gas hogs all over the place without regard for the gas mileage, so why can’t an EV owner do what they want too. In fact the gas hog trucks seem to have fantastic resale which I could never understand. The more wasteful the better seems to be the fad.
It's kind of funny and sad if you think about it. So many people are going to buy electrics thinking that overall it will be a money saver and never doing the math. Just like you say with trucks and other vehicles. I'm 100% for people buying what they want however, and if they buy a vehicle that has little or no ROI it's on them. I mean heck look at my car list, I buy and drive what I want first. I don't get what I can't afford so I'm ok from a money perspective but I certainly understand my actions.
Please define and explain specifically what constitutes a gas hog and then what would equally define an electricity hog?
Id proffer its more than simply loving to waste.
Part answer is - utility.
The modern half ton is one of the most useful vehicles one can own and in that its almost always more economical to own one vehicle than two a 1/2 ton is a good choice for a 1 car house.
Another part is -
Section 179 subsidy/deduction has allowed them to swell in price with little hit to sales volume.
About everyone I know has a business and uses this to buy their trucks with. Vehicles that start out costing more new cost more used.
Last edited:
I believe we are talking about 2 different things. I asked you about your post responding to my post. Refer to post #61.
Me and then you:
They could argue it but only to the point where similarities end. At that point, those arguments just become noise.
My point was, overall efficiency matters more than individual component's efficiency. Results matter.
You are talking about people's choices while I am talking about overall efficiency comparison.
I think hog stands for itself. It isn’t a specific term, but everyone has an idea of what the words gas hog mean. Let’s say a gas hog gets 10-12 mpg and an electricity hog gets 1-2 miles per kwhr to go from point a to b regardless of loads. It’s still a hog.
It was a question with a reason attached to prove a point and you did it well, thanks.I think hog stands for itself. It isn’t a specific term, but everyone has an idea of what the words gas hog mean. Let’s say a gas hog gets 10-12 mpg and an electricity hog gets 1-2 miles per kwhr to go from point a to b regardless of loads. It’s still a hog.
"Gas Hog" is basically a created insult term to coerce people into going "lean" after the embargo of the early 70's ( along with 'don't be fuelish", empty rooms love darkness, "hey lead foot, get off the gas" and all kinds of other cute sayings)- that's its meaning and its total worth.
The fact is that many of these "hogs" consume more is because of various factors ( strength of materials, potential horsepower or other attributes) that may be required for the specific service of said "hog".
Another meaningless comparison factor based in an appeal to emotion with no science behind it whatsoever.
I think you may be confusing yourself or either I'm not being clear as I need to be with you on this.
You nor anyone else can justify the bold. That's a fools fallacy out of the gate.
Not only is the whole a sum of the parts but it is also subject to the contribution of those parts. Those results matter MOST.
Its very common in some designs that in order to get that "higher number"- they will push a component to its breaking point ( which would easily be seen) and bury it in an aggregate. Other times that "higher number" is only valid if all components perform in a prescribed manner.
Its called deceptive marketing for a reason- its not an outright lie, its a selective manipulation of the truth.
So the 'comparison" is ONLY AS VALID as the "basis" of that comparison. ( and with the same terms and conditions, restraints etc.)
That's the information the people need.
I see your point. Certainly for comparisons to be valid, you have to have conditions, etc.
You added in quality. I considered quality part of the equation. "All other considerations being equal."
If a race car is faster and leads in 99 laps of a 100 lap race but then breaks, it may have been more efficient but lost anyways.
Not a perfect example but perhaps you get the point.
Perhaps we are both wrong. In your comparison of efficiency, you either include quality or you exclude it.