|
|
|
|
23/01/2011
By EWAN KENNEDY
|
|
|
I’m becoming increasingly concerned at the efforts being put in by some car companies to persuade buyers that the cars they sell are economical when they may well be gas guzzlers.
I’m talking about the use of the words ‘fuel economy’ when the correct term is ‘fuel consumption’. We all know that fuel economy is highly desirable, all the more so in these times of increasing concern over climate change. So vehicle makers are talking about their products’ economy even when the vehicles are anything but economical.
It all started in the good old US of A, a country that’s well renowned for twisting facts just enough to bamboozle all of the people some of the time. When the public began to question the ridiculously high petrol consumption of many of the locally designed vehicles over there the government set targets. These began in 1975 and have became ever more stringent over the years.
Which sounds good, but an unknown marketing genius, presumably from one of the auto makers, came up with a brilliant idea to hide the fact that we are talking about high fuel consumption. He came up with the misleading acronym of Cafe.
In this case the word Cafe doesn’t denote the sort of pleasant place where I enjoy spending Sunday mornings, rather it stands for Corporate Average Fuel Economy. Note that already the word economy has been inserted to trick us. Giant Yank tanks at the time had a fuel consumption that was frequently in the 20 to 25 litres per hundred kilometres range. Not what I call ‘economy’.
The misuse of the words economy by marketers and others has resulted in such ridiculous statements as, “Economy has been reduced by 25 per cent in the last 10 years,” when what they mean is that a new model uses 25 per cent less fuel than the equivalent car 10 year ago.
To their credit the serious behind the scenes people at the Australian car maker and/or importers are doing the right thing. So when you read the official specification sheets they almost invariably refer to fuel consumption, not fuel economy.
It’s the sales and marketing people who are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Watch their ads on TV or read them in papers and magazines and you will see that dreaded word economy being used to hide the high fuel consumption of whatever they are promoting.
While writing on the subject of fuel consumption, I’m intrigued by the word ‘return’ to describe the fuel being used. Car reviewers who really should know better are saying things like, “The Holden returned 10.7 litres per hundred kilometres during our road test.”
Huh? They drove 100 kilometres and the Holden gave them back 10.7 litres of petrol. Wouldn't that be great? All our worries would be over, except we would have to worry about finding somewhere to store all that free fuel!
The expression ‘returned’ in reference to fuel usage is a carryover from the days almost 40 years ago when fuel consumption was measured in miles per gallon. So the petrol gave you so many miles for every gallon, 4.5 litres, it used.
Am I being overly pedantic? Perhaps, but it really does irritate me when I see deliberate attempts being made to fool the buying public.
ewan@marque.com.au
|
|
|
|
|
|
Print Article
Submit Feedback
Email This Article
