Comments on: Car Advertisers Hang-up The Greenwashing (As If)

By: hwyhobo

hwyhobo — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:53:19 +0000

Good point, SunnyvaleCA.

Also, while I usually have limited sympathy for stupid people, the shamelessness of the current “eco ads” makes me cringe. I wouldn’t mind if FTC ruled that any mpg ad has to either clearly spell out both city and highway, or a combined 50%/50%, whichever FTC decided to pick.

By: SunnyvaleCA

SunnyvaleCA — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:23:40 +0000

“Best in class” is only useful if the vehicles are used in a manner for which the class was designed. I’m not sure who buys a Silverado for long highway cruising. If that where what it is designed for, you could probably get an additional MPG or 2 just by lowering the vehicle and adding some aerodynamics.

By: golden2husky

golden2husky — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 12:41:02 +0000

How long before automakers can’t advertise highway mpgs?….

Used to be that if any comment was made about mileage both city/highway figures had to be mentioned. I would like to say that mileage ratings should be required to be posted/mentioned in all ads, but that isn’t really necessary anymore at this point. I can’t imagine anybody being swayed by “miles pert tank”. Detroit did this in the late 70’s when their ads proudly stated “want the best cruising range? The imports aren’t the answer”…Talk about history repeating itself. Back then I could be somewhat sympathetic even if they should have listened to what David Halberstam wrote in “The Reckoning”. Today? Zero sympathy.

By: Landcrusher

Landcrusher — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:45:31 +0000

More truth in advertising and marketing? What? How long can this trend last?

By: Rix

Rix — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:22:06 +0000

Don’t knock the Ford Escape Hybrid. It’s a great product, but you can’t find one. Politicians drive most of the 25k produced every year, I guess. I was stunned by how many politicians drive Hybrid Mariners. I didn’t even know they made a Hybrid Mariner.

By: taxman100

taxman100 — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 02:46:28 +0000

Safety was the big fad in advertising a few years ago. Now itis environmentalism.

It’s all about creating a need to sell your current perfectly good vehicle, and buy a new one.

Times change the message, but not the reason for the message.

By: Frantz

Frantz — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:16:34 +0000

Just how is the chevy truck the worst offender if it is infact the best when it says it is? Just because it’s a truck doesn’t mean it can’t be the greenest truck after all some people do need trucks still.

By: RedStapler

RedStapler — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:42:57 +0000

If we are going to use “miles per tank” as a proxy for fuel economy a Pete 379 with twin 180gal tanks is the greenist thing on the highway.

By: jaje

jaje — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:34:29 +0000

I remember in 2000 when GM and Ford each took the helm and claimed they’d be environmental leaders (ya know to stave off the production and release of the Insight and Prius hybrids).

What have we got so far? A Ford compact SUV with a Toyota hybrid system, a half cocked belt driven hybrid from GM, e85 crap so that the D2.8 can overcome CAFE penalties, GM’s dual mode hybrid that’s pretty much bombed and Chrysler is just about to add their failure to this mold, the Press Release revolution Volt – imagine how much coal and paper wasted just bragging about the car and the numerous delays in dates of production and wishy-washyness. Yep they did squat…all talk and little action.

By: ash78

ash78 — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 20:12:11 +0000

My favorite is the use of “miles per tank” as some sort of proxy for fuel economy.

The new Silverado ads are the worst offender. First they claim “best V8 highway fuel economy in its class,” showing a pic of it next to the Tundra, which gets a measly 19mpg to the Silverado’s 20mpg (at least it’s objective). But then it goes on to compare against some other truck, touting how it can achieve 490 highway miles on a tank.