When did this magazine swerve so far to the right?
As I mentioned on Bill Dennis' blog, this month's issue featured an article on alternative fuels. Without going into too much detail, here's what got me from the start.
They compared several fuels, but did not use the same vehicles. The "benchmark" vehicle was a 2006 Honda Civic, running on 87 octane regular fuel (no blends). They show it getting 33 MPG at $2.34 a gallon (wow, what a difference a month makes, huh?) and an average yearly fuel cost of $212.
Then, right next to it, is a Ford Taurus FFV (flex fuel vehicle) that can run on anything from straight unleaded to E85. They quote the cost of E85 to be $2.41 per gallon, and the car gets 17 MPG (or about 3 MPG less than it would get on straight unleaded) for an annual fuel cost of $425. Of course, the "annual fuel cost" numbers are bolded to stand out, just like those two words just did.
Aside from the obvious unfairness of comparing a 33 MPG powerless compact with a much larger Ford Sedan with a larger more powerful motor, the biggest thing is, of course, the obvious flaw in their gas prices.
Right now, in Geneseo, IL (near where I now work) the lone E85 pump has fuel for $2.39 per gallon, and regular E10 blended unleaded for $2.89, with unblended fuel for $2.99 per gallon. Quite a far stretch from the figures quoted in Popular Mechanics. I've never seen E85 more expensive than regular unleaded, that's the point of going with an E85 pump to begin with. Sheesh.
Obviously, saving 60 cents per gallon (or 20% of the total cost) while losing only 15% of the gas mileage would show a yearly advantage to running an E85 car.
But Popular Mechanics chooses not to show things correctly, thus giving the impression that "plain ole' regular gas is still the best way to go."
Again, I have yet to finalize my own personal opinion. But it's quite obvious what opinion Popular Mechanics wants me to have, and that kind of crap ticks me off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
How odd.
You accuse Popular Mechanics of being pro-Republican.
Every time I've picked up an issue of Popular Science recently, I've read statements -- presented as fact -- that would lead me to thing the magazine was promoting a liberal POV.
Could very well be, I haven't read that mag in awhile. I hadn't read PM for quite some time either until I saw that alternative fuel story. BTW, while looking at that issue, I scanned the letters to the editor, and they were also accusing PM of being pro-GOP with their recent story about New Orleans post-Katrina.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbY0Jh9_RJ8
Check out this trafiic cam video.
How can someone be that out of it? Lucky to be alive. Unfortunately, those are the people still having big families.
Oh and E85 is becoming as expensive as regular. The station in Bartonville that carries it charges the same price. With the lower mileage, E85 isn't much of an alternative.
Gouge.
Post a Comment