8/12    What kind of car do you have, how much does it weigh, and what
        kind of mileage are you getting? I'll start:
        98 Honda Accord, 3020lbs, 27MPG
        \_ Alright thanks guys. The reason why I asked was because I was
           curious at the "efficiency" of vehicles, where I personally
           define it as follows:
                My Efficient=(miles * weight) / gallons.
           In another word, how many miles*weight can I carry per
           polluting a unit of petroleum. Sorry bikers, your efficiency
           is 0, however, if you could define your own efficiency,
           measured say, by pollution, that may work. Anyways, the
           following is the efficiency rating of the vehicles below:
                03 Protege5:    74250
                06 Prius:       141610  <--- 1st, most efficient
                06 Accord:      97170   <--- 3rd most efficient
                99 Rav4:        66700
                87 Accord:      72900
                03 BMW:         66462
                94 Pathfinder:  60720   <--- least efficient
                04 WRX Wagon:   72795
                98 Jeep Wrangler: (if shitload==3000&MPG=20, then output=60000)
                98 Audi:        weight unknown
                99 Civic:       63414 (BTW why is your mileage so low?)
                00 E320:        105300 (assume 50% hwy and 50% local) <--- 2nd
                96 Jeep Cherokee: 77000
                \_ 03 Honda F4i: 400lbs * 35MPG = 14000. In another word
                   the motorcycle is the least efficient in terms of
                   carrying weight&distance per gallon. Motorcycle engines
                   are very inefficient and not at all aerodynamic.
                   \_ That's meaningless. Transporting car weight around isn't
                      useful; transporting people and things safely is. People
                      using motorcycles are transporting themselves much more
                      efficiently than most cars, although somewhat unsafely.
           \_ Since your "weight" is the weight of the vehicle instead of the
              weight of the passenges and cargo, you do realize that your
              "efficiency" is actually the efficiency of the engine and the
              aerodynamic shape of the vehicle instead of the efficiency of the
              vehicle as a whole, right?
              \_ First of all I agree that it's a silly measurement. Secondly
                 I already said the efficiency is whatever and however you
                 define it to be. The efficiency that I'm measuring is purely
                 "how many miles*pounds can be achieve with 1 gallon of
                 fuel", and if that is affected by external factors such as
                 the driving condition, type of fuel, aerodynamics, the
                 driver's ability, and what not, so be it. In another word,
                 the numbers I'm giving out is pretty much useless. The only
                 situation that it may be useful is if you're creating lots of
                 kinetic energy bombs that travel on the highway in which you
                 need to create as much damage as possible at the final
                 destination, then you want the vehicle that has as much
                 miles*pounds/gallon rating as possible, as to make it
                 efficient. However cost should also be factored in if
                 the final effect is to crash the vehicle. Yes I'm bored so
                 I'm creating silly non-existing problems to entertain with.
        \_ 2003 Protege5, 2750, 27, I drive <200mi/month, rest on bike.
        \_ Car free since 2000.
        \_ 2006 Prius, 2890lbs, 49MPG
        \_ 2006 Accord, 3239lbs, 30MPG
        \_ 1999 Rav4, 2668lbs, 25MPG
        \_ 1987 Accord, 2700lbs, 27MPG. I'm a poor student.
        \_ 2003 BMW, 3021lbs, 22MPG
        \_ 1994 Pathfinder, 3795lbs, 16 MPG.  Yeah, baby! I get the worst
           I win!  Fuck yah!  -T.E.A.M. America World Police
           \_ Americans are dumb, exhibit A.
              \_ YHBT.
        \_ 2004 WRX Wagon, 3165lbs, 23MPG
        \_ 1998 Jeep Wrangler 2.5L, weighs a shitload, has no power, gets
           about 3MPG but gets up dirt roads.  Back home, 1998 Audi TT 1.8,
           no clue how heavy, about 25MPG  -John
           \_ Yeah, but it's got a lot of torque.
              \_ Buttloads, and awesome fun in the mountains, but for long
                 distance touring I really miss the TT.  -John
        \_ You people are all lardasses.
           \_ Yes, I'm sure you can bench twice your body weight.
        \_ 1999 Honda Civic, 2439lbs, 26MPG
        \_ 2000 Mercedes E320, 3900lbs, 25 MPG (30 hwy)
        \_ rrr... rrii... rrRRRRIDE BIKE!!@@!
        \_ 2003 Subaru; I'm ~ 168 lbs, I don't know how much the car weighs;
           It gets ~ 22 MPG.
        \_ 1996 Jeep Cherokee 4.0L, 3500lb (the vehicle), 22MPG on average;
           2004 Toyota Sienna LE 8-passenger, 3.3L , 23MPG on average.  (I
           don't speed.)
           don't speed.)  I miss my crappy 1987 Ford Escort 1.9L which gave me
           38MPG average.
        \_ 2006 Audi A4 Avant, weight unknown, 24 MPG.  Various motos too.
        \_ 1999 Ford Contour V6. weight ~3000lbs. about 24 mpg. And apparently
           my car is now only worth about $3000. That's interesting. I'll have
           to re-evaluate my damn insurance premiums which are about 1/3 the
           cost of the car, wtf.