Skip to main content

New fuel economy standards May be Little Unrealistic

If you have watched Al Gore's  Inconvenient Truth, you will remember the graph showing Fuel efficiency in USA and China and other countries. USA is far behind China as of now and will reach today's China fuel efficiency standards by 2020. That's lame for USA, otherwise dubbed as the high tech world with lots of innovation.

If you also think that its lame and quite inefficient, think again. Consumer Reports argue that the new standard to raise fuel efficiency to 35Mpg by 2020 is not realistic, based on where we are today.  So, cars in USA might not even reach there and ask for extension to that deadline. Who knows?

The new standards require all new passenger vehicles sold in the United States by 2020 to average 35 mpg. That's reported to be about a 40 percent increase over the current standards of 27.5 mpg for cars and 22.2 mpg for pickups, minivans, and SUVs.

However, in our testing, reaching a real-world 35 mpg would require a bigger jump than that. The current new vehicles we have tested have averaged 20.4 mpg overall on our fuel economy test loop—22.8 mpg for cars and just 16.6 mpg for pickups, minivans, and SUVs.

To reach a true 35 mpg in the real world would require an increase of more than 70 percent in overall vehicle efficiency, broken down to more than 50 percent for cars and more than double the efficiency for pickups, minivans, and SUVs combined. That would be a tall order, for sure.

New fuel economy standards won't bring real 35 mpg cars: Consumer Reports Cars Blog

Popular posts from this blog

You Are What You Think People Think About You

There are about 6.7 Billion people in this world that we know of.  Whether you believe in ‘Creation’ or ‘Evolution’, this human race started with a tiny number. It is quite amazing to see how fast it multiplies. What is more amazing is that every single individual in that 6 billion crowd is born ‘unique’.  Quite literally, you are born to be one in a billion, whether you believe it or not. “ This was the Introduction to my latest and last speech in Toast Masters club, ‘One in a Billion’ as part of International Speech contest. 
As much as I believe that each one of us can be that 'one in a billion' personality, I admit the reality as I perceive it and some times feel alone in that belief.
A famous quote says 'You are what you think'. It is also true that 'you are what you think people think about you'. If you think people think you are smart, then you act smart and become smart. If you think people think you are dumb, you will become dumb even if you are not, a…

Cooking looks like an unforgiving art

When you are writing software, you always get a second chance. In fact, lots of chances to get it correct. You have compiler warnings, failed test cases and some times crashes alert you that something is not right and will give you a chance to correct. And you get literally unlimited chances to apply those corrections. 
Well, cooking looks to be totally unforgiving in this respect and on any given day, you may get just one chance to get it right. If you fail, you fail. Try again right away if you have patience of starting it all over. Or start over some time later or next day. But not much of a second chance to correct a mistake. 
More ruthless, when it comes to salt. If you put just a little more, even a tiny little more, it never hesitate to show what it got. Totally ruthless. End result will be a failed dish that no one will be able (and/or happy) to eat. And most dishes, you may not be able to add something little more to offset it.

Little trick I learned the hard way, start on …

Did NDTV Just Twisted Words?

I have recently spotted quite a few places where NDTV title doesn’t exactly say the same as the details in the article says. Lost in translation? or just plain twisting for journalistic sensationalism?Title says “'AAP doesn't treat women as humans,' says founder member Madhu Bhaduri as she quits”, but the quote in details says, slightly differently: “In this party, women are not considered humans” (see the text highlighted).Source : NDTV.comYou may say, they effectually mean the same thing. Is it? Even if they mean the same,  Why not use the same exact phrase in both places?