I'm sorry GM, but 17 mpg is NOT fuel efficient by any standard:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080812/gm_fuel_economy.html
I don't care if the typical small truck gets 16 mpg and this new one is a whole 1 mpg (estimated) better.
And all these car ads claiming their car is "fuel efficient" at 23 or 26 mpg. Again, sorry, it's just not accurate, especially when cars used to be able to get 35 to 40 mpg in the early 80's. (So it's definitely possible, there's just no excuse.) (See old car ads from the period.)
The government regulates what foodmakers can claim on their packaging, so that they don't dupe consumers. Should they be restricting claims of "fuel efficiency" for auto manufacturers too, so that none can claim it unless they get at LEAST 35 mpg, for example?
The typical, AVERAGE <1000cc motorcycle still gets 40-55 mpg folks. And some scooters get 100 mpg. THAT'S fuel efficient.
What do you think?
Should anyone be impressed that a light truck gets 17 mpg?
Tags: