It's interesting to compare Gene's Honda Insight with the mammoth new $ 33
000 Chevrolet 6-passenger heavy-duty crew-cab 4-wheel-drive pickup truck
that a colleague just bought--seemingly the opposite extreme. While the
truck sucks up four times as much gas, notice that its payload economy (or
"ton-kliks per liter" in slang) is >2 times better than the Insight, its
payload-to-empty mass ratio is 3 times better, and even its seated-passenger
economy is close to that of the Insight.
Payload: Insight = 170 kg, Truck = 1500 kg
Empty mass: Insight = 870 kg, Truck = 2500 kg
Payload/empty ratio: Insight = 20 %, Truck = 60 %
Vehicle fuel economy: Insight = 24 km/L, Truck = 6 km/L
Payload economy: Insight = 4 Mg·km/L, Truck = 9 Mg·km/L
Passenger economy: Insight = 48 passenger·km/L, Truck = 36 passenger·km/L
For comparison, I've read that a Boeing 737 with all seats occupied gets
about 32 passgenger·km/L (of kerosene, not gasoline).
So I guess we can't say that one vehicle is more efficient than the other
unless we know what they are used for. For urban commuting and picking up a
few sacks of groceries, the Insight is clearly better. But for a couple
traveling here in the outback West, where most of the roads are dirt, steep,
and rocky, and there are no motels and restaurants, the Insight would be
essentially useless. Not only would it be impossible to carry enough food,
water, and other gear to survive, but many of the roads would be impassable.
The problem, I guess, is that many people who buy gas-hog SUVs and trucks
only fantasize about camping in the boondocks; they don't really do it. I
suspect my colleague will not use his truck as much as he thinks he will. He
will be too busy working to pay for it.
I commute to work on an ancient bicycle, which costs nothing, but for a
couple months a year my family and I travel in an old gas-hog pickup camper.
All things considered, I suspect we use less energy than urban folks who
commute in tiny cars and jet off to resorts for vacations--and I know we
spend a lot less money!
