Greenpeace & its hypocritical advert
- Thread starter StewartP
- Start date
-
- Tags
- greenpeace
Rob Lister
Unregistered
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2004
- Messages
- 8,504
It appears that someone in greenpeace.uk hired some senior-level marketing exec from PETA.
If there's one thing PETA excels at, it's being over the top and getting press. This move looks exactly like something PETA would do.
If there's one thing PETA excels at, it's being over the top and getting press. This move looks exactly like something PETA would do.
I was going on the basis of my little Hyundai Tiburon, a 4-cylinder sports coupe that seats two adults and two children. You couldn't call it a true family car unless your family is physically small. I get about 27 mpg combined, 32 highway with it. So I figured 25 mpg combined for the likes of a Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, or Ford Taurus, cars that can carry an actual family.
But regardless, that 300% figure is ridiculous.
steverino
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2006
- Messages
- 3,686
I have this fantasy of being a rich Hollywood type or Congressman who flies around the country in my private jet to preach the gospel of fuel conservation. Actually I kind of admire Elvis who flew from Memphis to Denver on his private jet just to procure a peanut butter and jelly and bacon sandwich from his favorite chef, then flew back. That's living!
Ford Focus Worse Model = 30.4 Best Model = 60.1
Rand Rover Worse Model = 17.7 Best Model = 25.5
"Combined L/100km (Mpg)" figure of worse Range Rover (17.7) compared to best Ford Focus (60.1) is a a differnece of over 300% isn't it?
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
The answer is no. Many SUV type vehicles don't have a crumple zone, and they all roll much more easily. Despite the safety angle implied for them, they don't really make the driver any safer, and some claims are that they are less safe.
Kotatsu
Phthirapterist
Then I understand. Thank you.
Do the actually do that?
My impression was that they criticise the (in their opinion) way the advertising industry is used by companies to promote products and practices that Greenpeace believes harm the environment?
All I can say is, "Huh? What the huh?"
And let me add to that,
."L/100 km", I assume, means liters per hundred kilometers, i.e., what variable quantity of gasoline does it take to travel a fixed distance.
"MPG", miles per gallon, means what variable distance do you travel on a fixed quantity of gasoline.
Look at it again:
The worst Focus takes only 30.4 liters to go 100 km, and the best takes twice as much?
Please recheck your figures, because as presented, they make no sense.
brodski
Tea-Time toad
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 15,516
It looks like Darat misread eth table, but only slightly, his conclusions are correct.All I can say is, "Huh? What the huh?"
And let me add to that,
"L/100 km", I assume, means liters per hundred kilometers, i.e., what variable quantity of gasoline does it take to travel a fixed distance.
"MPG", miles per gallon, means what variable distance do you travel on a fixed quantity of gasoline.
Look at it again:
The worst Focus takes only 30.4 liters to go 100 km, and the best takes twice as much?
Please recheck your figures, because as presented, they make no sense.
The table gives figures for both MPG and L/100km (MPG figured are in brackets in the table) The most efficient ford focus gets 60.1MPG which is 4.7 L/100KM (the worst is 30.4 MPG which is equivalent to 9.3 L/100 KM). Darat should have left the L/KMH descriptor out of his posts, as the numbers he referred to were MPG.
Last edited:
All I can say is, "Huh? What the huh?"
And let me add to that,
"L/100 km", I assume, means liters per hundred kilometers, i.e., what variable quantity of gasoline does it take to travel a fixed distance.
"MPG", miles per gallon, means what variable distance do you travel on a fixed quantity of gasoline.
Look at it again:
The worst Focus takes only 30.4 liters to go 100 km, and the best takes twice as much?
Please recheck your figures, because as presented, they make no sense.
Check the links - the figures quoted are a standard industry measure for fuel consumption. Officially this is given using metric units however in the UK we still tend to use imperial units so they also give the equivalent mpg figure. And since many of the readers of this forum will be from the USA I quoted the (mpg) figures rather then the metric ones. So the best figures for a Ford Focus shows a model that does 60.1 miles to the gallon (in that standard test) and the worse Range Rover model does 17.7 miles to the gallon.
Last edited:
I will tell you why this "anti 4x4" campaign is tripe of the highest order.
I drive a Volvo V70. That is an estate with enough room for all my famil plus luggage and the flexibility to take more than 5 people. It isn't a big engined car, but enough to maanage a full load safely in all driving conditions. Volvo list it as getting 30mpg combined cycle.
I could, if I wanted to be an EVIL person, castigated by Greenpox, buy a VOlvo XC90 (their 4x4). I could get a model with the same type of performance, but is listed as getting 34 mpg combined cycle.
You see, Greenpox should be spitting in my coffee, not that of the 4x4 owner who may be getting better mileage.
And THAT is why this campaign is nonsense.
Just looking at the tables again for CO2 emissions (g per km - sorry no ounces per mile listed 
)
Best Ford Focus model = 127
Worse Range Rover model = 376
So in terms of CO2 emissions it also looks as if it isn't really wrong to say the SUV emits 300% more CO2 the the family car.
Of course there will be huge differences between all the many different makes and models of cars but the 300% figure does seem to be a supportable figure.
)Best Ford Focus model = 127
Worse Range Rover model = 376
So in terms of CO2 emissions it also looks as if it isn't really wrong to say the SUV emits 300% more CO2 the the family car.
Of course there will be huge differences between all the many different makes and models of cars but the 300% figure does seem to be a supportable figure.
That may well be the case but the point I was addressing was the skepticism expressed regarding the "300%" figure and as I've shown the figure can be verified.
Now whether it really makes any difference or is something that is important is or even if it is a red-herring is of course a totally different discussion.
Wudang
BOFH
Just looking at the tables again for CO2 emissions (g per km - sorry no ounces per mile listed
Best Ford Focus model = 127
Worse Range Rover model = 376
So in terms of CO2 emissions it also looks as if it isn't really wrong to say the SUV emits 300% more CO2 the the family car.
Of course there will be huge differences between all the many different makes and models of cars but the 300% figure does seem to be a supportable figure.
Ah -no. 3 times the number is not 300% more, it's 200% more.
Yes it is
- what I did was think of it like this:100% of 127 = 127
200% of 127 = 254
300% of 127 = 381
I was really repsonding to other posters as well as your comment,s although they were the only ones I quoted.
But try this.
"A Man has an IQ 100 points higher than a woman"
Proof:
Men exhibit an IQ in the range 50-150
Women exhibit an IQ in the range 50-150
150 minus 50 equals 100.
QED
It pretty much amounts to the same approach as that used by Greenpox.
Yes it is
100% of 127 = 127
200% of 127 = 254
300% of 127 = 381
The actual term used is "300% more"
as in 100% of 127 is 127 (i.e. 1 times)
100% more than 127 is 254. (1+1 times)
300% more than 127 is 508 (1+3 times)
Think about when you go to the supermarket - "100% more at no extra price!"
The actual term used is "300% more"
as in 100% of 127 is 127 (i.e. 1 times)
100% more than 127 is 254. (1+1 times)
300% more than 127 is 508 (1+3 times)
Think about when you go to the supermarket - "100% more at no extra price!"
I know, I admitted it! You don't need to rub it in even more!