In the same vein as they should ban the term "up to" in regard to, well everything (as in "up to 20 meg, well half a meg counts) why can't we ban the use of "fuel efficient"?

This is especially as the people using the term don't appear to understand the difference between efficiency and not having as much car to move. A 650cc engine in a little 2-seater thing doesn't use as much fuel as my Mondeo because it's not shifting luggage space or seats where my children sit. If that engine is so efficient then surely I should be able to put it into my family car and get better fuel consumption than I had. No I think not.

The main problem with this (apart from it basically being false advertising) is that the government and the Green Brigade expect me to not factor in the fact that I will have to transport more than myself in a car. Thus all these little tinboxes they're pushing on people are no good for me.

Then again my car uses less fuel than a HGV, so can I claim my car is more efficient? Have I missed something here or do we agree?

Not entirely sure what you're so upset about?

How exactly is anybody pushing "little tinboxes" on us all?

I think I understand your point, but making a car smaller and lighter does genuinely make it more fuel efficient If it's just carring the driver. I do agree with you though about the whole Green brigade thing. The worst thing is when you see them complaining about people with multiple cars even though it's more enviromentally friendly to have multiple cars as you can have one for when you've got the familly or shopping and another for going to work on your own and so on.

I'm a little confused about why your saying this but I admire the passion that came across. Whats bought this on?

How i interpreted NineHigh's original post, was that the bigger the car, the more fuel they use (generally), and the heavier they are taxed. Thus the government are "Incentivising" the use of smaller "More Economical" vehicles.

What gets me is the cost of the local authorities and government vehicles (Most of which sit in a garage somewhere rotting away, to be sold on at a fraction of its value) and all the government officials that get chauffered around in bullet proof jags, at our cost.

I see exactly what NineHigh means, but im not sure what bought it on!!

The small 650cc box you refer to is a more fuel efficient car than your mondeo, however, the engine itself may not be more fuel efficient. The two are very different. But I understand your frustration, I wouldn't mind paying road tax if I actually saw the roads being repaired once in a while (ETA: as I'm in Vietnam atm I have the same chance of seeing the roads being repaired as I do if I was at home!)

Its all relative
I dont dought that Ford hailed the Mondeo as "most fuel efficent yet" and quoted figures that are impossible in the real world.

3.5/8.0 Meg

I for one dont care about fuel economy
i drive a range rover sport not especialy
good on fuel but its a brill car and enjoy driving it .
i think im doing my bit to help global warming it could do with heating up a bit

No there's a difference between "fuel efficient" and "using less fuel"

Fuel efficient would be using less fuel to move the same weight, i.e. getting more power out of the fuel (although I would allow aerodynamic help too)

Being 18 stone I use more energy to walk 100m than a 10 stone person but that doesn't mean I get less energy out of my muscle.

if you took typical car usage, you'd probably find most journeys only have 1 or 2 people in the car, therefore, the incentive should be to push people to make those journeys with one or two people as efficient as possible.

therefore the fuel efficiency metric is usually based around fuel required to complete the journey. it's still output over input, which is efficiency

you want to compare mass specific fuel consumption

Ah, so it would be a more efficient journey as opposed to a more efficient vehicle/engine.

That makes sense.