To begin, a quiz:

Bob and Jane Smith have two vehicles: One is a 15 MPG (miles per gallon) pickup truck that Bob uses for his construction job. The other is a 28 MPG sedan that his wife Jane uses for her work commute. The couple wants to upgrade to something more fuel efficient, but only has the cash to replace one of their vehicles. Assuming each drives the average American distance of about 13,500 miles per year, which of the following options would save the most gas?


a. Replacing the 28 MPG sedan with a 38 MPG compact


b. Replacing the 15 MPG truck with a 20 MPG truck

The first option seems to make the most sense. But — as you may have predicted — it’s not the right answer. In fact, choice b saves nearly twice as much gas (even though the new truck still requires way more gas than the old car). Here’s the math to prove it:


If you guessed wrong, you’re not alone. In a 2008 study published in Science Magazine, Richard P. Larrick and Jack B. Soll of Duke University suggest “there is a systematic misconception in judging fuel efficiency when it is expressed as miles per gallon.”  Namely, most drivers think gas usage falls linearly (in a straight line) as MPG increases. But the actual relationship between the two is curved: one additional MPG has significantly greater impact in the gas consumption of an inefficient vehicle than it does in a more efficient one. Essentially, it’s the law of diminishing returns. The authors call this the “MPG Illusion,” and note that encouraging gas guzzlers to upgrade to slightly more efficient vehicles actually has a much more positive impact than is commonly perceived.

“The environment would benefit most if all (car-driving) consumers chased highly efficient cars that get 40 MPG, not 14, and incentives should be tied to achieving such efficiency,” the authors write. But, they argue, the impact of encouraging people who drive gas guzzling SUVs that get a measly 12 MPG to switch to ones that get a slightly less measly 14 MPG is certainly not negligible. “The 2 MPG improvement is actually a significant one in terms of reduction in gas consumption.”

That logic is illustrated here:

It’s true that 15 to 20 MPG is a bigger percentage jump than going from 28 to 38 MPG, But even when comparing proportions, the same logic holds true. The chart below shows the savings from a 50 percent boost in MPG. Note that the higher the MPG, the less gas a 50 percent boost saves.

The case for switching to gallons per mile

MPG, the study’s authors argue, is a somewhat misleading measurement of fuel efficiency. Because it’s a fraction with miles in the numerator and gallons in the denominator, it’s a convenient measure  for calculating answers in terms of miles. For example: “If my car has 5 gallons left in the tank, and it gets 30 miles per gallon, how many miles can I go without stopping for gas?”


In most cases, however, it’s more useful to express your calculations in terms of gallons, since it is gallons, after all  — not miles — that matter to your budget and the environment (especially considering that burning 100 gallons emits one ton of CO2). Therefore, it makes sense to flip the fraction, converting it to gallons per mile (GPM):


But because the small numbers can get confusing, it’s easier to instead express this as gallons per hundred miles (GPHM):


When you put gallons in the numerator, comparing fuel usage is easy. The chart below shows how a 1 GPHM drop always saves the same amount of gasoline regardless of the vehicle’s fuel efficiency.

Policy implications

So does this mean it’s fine to buy a new gas guzzler as long as it’s just a teeny bit more efficient than your old one?

Just the opposite. The higher the fuel efficiency of your replacement vehicle, the more gas you save. That’s why Larrick and Soll argue that “removing the most inefficient vehicles is where policy and popular opinion should be focused.”  Ideally, all drivers of gas guzzlers would make a giant leap and swap their SUVs for very efficient small hybrids … or bicycles. But that’s a pretty unlikely possibility. So, given the restraints of reality, it’s more important to encourage drivers of gas guzzlers to switch to normal cars, than it is to nudge drivers of normal cars to switch to hybrids.

The federal government has already taken steps in this direction: the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs this year came out with “gallons per 100 miles” stickers, which they’re  are encouraging car dealerships to start using them in showrooms.

Lewis Lehe is a PhD student in Civil Engineering at the UC Berkeley, where he researches electronic road tolling and runs the Visualizing Urban Data idealab.

Forget Miles per Gallon! The Case for Switching to Gallons per Mile 16 September,2016Lewis Lehe

  • So…wait, what?

  • Jack Daniels

    Agreed 100%. Great article. They should also use the Gallons per 100 miles for CAFE standards as well instead of the stupid needlessly complex thing we have now that only encourages making trucks bigger. They should make it so target fuel consumption is gallons used per 100 miles as a percentage of vehicle curb weight. Regulate them all the same instead of giving “light trucks” the loophole they currently have.. Crossovers counterintuitively count as “light trucks” so they get away with being less efficient even though they are used in exactly the same manner as any other “passenger vehicle”. Example:
    2016 target for all gasoline vehicles: (.08% gallons (combined city and hwy) * curb weight) per 100 miles

    3500lb sedan: 2.8 gallons and 35.7 mpg
    5000lb pickup: 4 gallons and 25 mpg

    Same rules apply to both unlike current standards.

    Problem solved. No more incentive for ever bigger trucks and no free loopholes for CUVs/SUVs. No more unfair burden on passenger cars as VW intelligently pointed out. Decrease the target % every year gradually. Rince repeat.

    • Outcast_Searcher

      Ever heard of CAFE standards? The mpg standard is already being raised 5% a year. Every year.

  • Renaissance77

    Europe, Canada, and other metric countries already use “liters per 100 kilometers” (L/100 km)

  • davebarnes

    Gallons per mile?
    Why not liters/100km ? You know, like the rest of the world.
    And, if fuel were sold in liters instead of gallons think about much lower the unit cost would be.

    • Outcast_Searcher

      Why not sell it by the drop? Why then, everyone could afford MANY units!

      • davebarnes

        You are a genius. ¢/ml. Brilliant.

  • Outcast_Searcher

    Heaven forbid we educate people well enough that doing a tiny bit of arithmetic isn’t beyond people when making a decision like buying a (on average) $30,000+ new vehicle.

    It’s like the thing where they mandate the price per unit be put in everything in the supermarket. As if Jethro Clampett with his 6th grade education shouldn’t be able to easily come up with the rough price per unit. Or carry a calculator if he’s “bad at math”.

    But no, let’s make government much bigger so we can mandate and regulate such issues in abundance. Because, how can it be a problem as long as other people are paying for it? Right?

  • Outcast_Searcher

    “I’m SOOOOO confused!” “7 years of college gone to waste!”

    (I can do this all day. In fact, I have an evening show.)



Lewis Lehe

Lewis Lehe is a PhD student in Civil Engineering at the UC Berkeley, where he researches electronic road tolling and runs the VUDlab (Visualizing Urban Data Idealab). He also creates data visualizations under the brand “Setosa” at

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor