If you want the best fuel economy, don't buy the smallest cars. Yes, that is right.

So much for all the people who have bought more dangerous cars because they thought they were getting better fuel economy or saving money on gas.  From the UK Telegraph:

Drivers looking for savings at the petrol pump could be making a mistake if they swap their estate or 4x4 for a smaller car, according to research which suggests that fuel economy estimates are biased against larger vehicles. . . . 

The discrepancy between manufacturers’ claims and the road data was especially stark for vehicles with smaller engines, which generally have to work harder to accelerate. 

Tests showed that vehicles with an engine size up to one litre had an average advertised 60.3mpg, but consumption was measured at 38.6mpg in tests, a drop of 36 per cent. 

Average consumption for cars with one to two-litre engines was measured at 46.7mpg, 21 per cent lower than the advertised 59.1mpg. This meant they travelled further on the same amount of fuel than the average smaller car. . . .

It is also interesting that there is almost no difference in fuel economy between midsize and larger cars.

There are at least a couple US cars with 1 Liter engines.

2014 Ford Fiesta 1.0L EcoBoost
2014 Smart fortwo

UPDATE: Here is something that I found at Green Car Reports:

The worst offenders were vehicles with engines displacing 1.0 liter or less (no sub-1.0-liter engines are available in the U.S.), which missed the mark by 36 percent. Engines between 1.0 liter and 2.0 liters were second worst, at 21 percent. . . .

 

Read More

A great example of the lack of perspective on the environment: Environmentalists really believe that a single lane road through federally protected wilderness park will severely endanger wildlife

A road that would allow people access to emergency medical care or preserve the environment?  Do environmentalists really believe that a single lane road through a 315,000-acre sanctuary will endanger wildlife?  Almost all of Alaska is federal land.  From Politico:

More than 15 years later, his daughter, Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski — along with the rest of the Alaska congressional delegation — is still fighting for the road, insisting it’s the only viable way to ensure that King Cove’s 965 largely native Alaskan residents have access to emergency medical care. 

What seems like a simple request is anything but. The proposed road would cut through federally protected wilderness land in the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge, a 315,000-acre sanctuary near the tip of the Alaska Peninsula. And the Interior Department says the road would threaten vulnerable plants and animals that rely on the area’s unique ecology. 

The oftentimes ugly fight has pitted Alaska politicians against the federal government for decades, sowing mistrust and frustration. It has also reinforced the view of many in Alaska that policymakers in the Lower 48 are out of touch with their needs. . . .

Read More