Mythbusters Car vs. Motorcycle

[neotrotsky]

Now, I have an SUV. But, it's 2 inches shorter in length than the POS Cavalier we just sold, and comes with a 4 cylinder tractor-like motor. Not the most swift thing in the world, but it has more features than these tank like SUV's. Many Escalades, Envoys and Explorers aren't even real trucks! My little 4 cylinder SUV-ette comes with a full frame chassis (not a unibody) REAL 4 wheel drive (not AWD) with lockers, actual ground clearance and a towing package that can actually tow something. And, I still can park in compact spaces!

The point is that most SUV owners are ignorant of even the basics of automotive technology and think they're being "safe" when they have in fact bought the completely wrong machine. Most luxury SUV's are poorly constructed and are about as "utilitarian" as a minivan, which is what they are.

And I'll call a Prius a Pious because I have yet to find one owner that doesn't think they're better than everyone else, when they're really just overpaying for an economy car. I'm sorry, but until I have one prove it, I'm not budging. Call me intolerant... fine. At least I'm not bragging about overpaying for a car that gets less mileage than a 20 year old Geo Metro (since most Prius owners don't understand how the synergy drive actually works on a Prius and don't even average over 45mpg)

[ericalm]

The most absolutely worst thing ive heard someone say about buying a bigass SUV was.."well, in a crash I know I wont be the one getting killed lol"

Thats human selfishness for you.

And ignorance, too, because it's not true. Accident fatality stats show that the safest mid-size and compacts are as safe or safer than the average SUV. The stats for some years are skewed by less safe compacts included in reporting are mostly low-budget American cars that are no longer made or have been much improved on (Cavalier, Escort, and Neon).

In addition, the SUVs pose a much greater risk to other drivers, pedestrians and just about everyone else.

In a rollover, fatality rates for occupants of SUVs are twice (or more) that of compacts. And that SUV can be up to four times more likely to roll, depending on model.

Unlike common misconceptions about small cars, this is all from either academic research or NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) reports.

[AWinn6889]

Now, I have an SUV. But, it's 2 inches shorter in length than the POS Cavalier we just sold, and comes with a 4 cylinder tractor-like motor. Not the most swift thing in the world, but it has more features than these tank like SUV's. Many Escalades, Envoys and Explorers aren't even real trucks! My little 4 cylinder SUV-ette comes with a full frame chassis (not a unibody) REAL 4 wheel drive (not AWD) with lockers, actual ground clearance and a towing package that can actually tow something. And, I still can park in compact spaces!

The point is that most SUV owners are ignorant of even the basics of automotive technology and think they're being "safe" when they have in fact bought the completely wrong machine. Most luxury SUV's are poorly constructed and are about as "utilitarian" as a minivan, which is what they are.

And I'll call a Prius a Pious because I have yet to find one owner that doesn't think they're better than everyone else, when they're really just overpaying for an economy car. I'm sorry, but until I have one prove it, I'm not budging. Call me intolerant... fine. At least I'm not bragging about overpaying for a car that gets less mileage than a 20 year old Geo Metro (since most Prius owners don't understand how the synergy drive actually works on a Prius and don't even average over 45mpg)

I hardly consider a Tracker an SUV I love those things though, and it's a munchkin compared to the Armadas and the Expeditions out there. I love Trackers, when I was coaching rowing one of our "Monitors" (the guy that sat in the office with the phone and the first aid kit) had a black one with blue wheels and blue and fuschia 80s style graphics, and a blue vinyl roof.. it was AWESOME.
Anyway, I totally agree about your Prius statement, I haven't met a single person that owns one that doesn't think they are better than everyone else because they are "saving the world" buy driving the stupid thing.
My 1994 Geo Prizm was like driving a tortoise in a world full of hares, but man did that thing get fantastic gas mileage, even if it was a 3 gear granny-gold slushbox.

[synaps3]

I own a monster SUV, a Honda Pilot. I need it and use it for towing whenever I'm traveling. My other vehicle is an old Honda CR-V, which is actually smaller than many sedans (it only has a 4cyl engine). I didn't buy either for safety, I bought both because I needed the space for work or otherwise.

My best friend's mom in high school drove a Ford Excursion. It had a V8, 4 rows of seating, and got 12mpg. It was awful, and she was a TERRIBLE driver. Luckily, she never crashed it, but I can't imagine getting hit by a vehicle that enormous, even in my CR-V or Pilot.

[Syd]

...And I'll call a Prius a Pious because I have yet to find one owner that doesn't think they're better than everyone else, when they're really just overpaying for an economy car...

I know one. He doesn't think he's better than you, he just thinks he's cheaper than you.

[synaps3]

I know one. He doesn't think he's better than you, he just thinks he's cheaper than you.

I've got a coworker that drives a Corolla that's like that. I laugh in his face when I tell him my PCX gets 95mpg.

[Roose Hurro]

The most absolutely worst thing ive heard someone say about buying a bigass SUV was.."well, in a crash I know I wont be the one getting killed lol"

Thats human selfishness for you.

Indeed. I used to bring up the exact point when people told me they drove an SUV because it was "safe"... for THEM. They didn't care if other people died, so long as they didn't. Funny, though... I had a supervisor who complained about her SUV, the poor gas mileage, difficulty parking, yadda yadda. Yet, when I told her to get a compact car, her response was: "But I love my SUV!" Could've fooled me....

Meanwhile, I would love to own an original mini Cooper. I have absolutely no use for an SUV. And I still miss my 1985 CRX....

I hardly consider a Tracker an SUV I love those things though, and it's a munchkin compared to the Armadas and the Expeditions out there. I love Trackers, when I was coaching rowing one of our "Monitors" (the guy that sat in the office with the phone and the first aid kit) had a black one with blue wheels and blue and fuschia 80s style graphics, and a blue vinyl roof.. it was AWESOME.
Anyway, I totally agree about your Prius statement, I haven't met a single person that owns one that doesn't think they are better than everyone else because they are "saving the world" buy driving the stupid thing.
My 1994 Geo Prizm was like driving a tortoise in a world full of hares, but man did that thing get fantastic gas mileage, even if it was a 3 gear granny-gold slushbox.

My 2000 Toyota Echo is a hare, yet has given me between 33-34 mpg CITY, when I do my part (just partial hypermiling)... and it has a 4 gear "granny-gold" slushbox. Not to mention 1.5 liters and 108 horsepower. Perfectly fine for a vehicle weighing less than 2400 lbs. So technology has been advancing over the years.

And if I did ever own an "SUV", I would go for one of the small versions... I liked the Suzuki Samari when it came out, though it did have rollover problems, due to its narrow track. Solved with the use of wheel-spacers. If I ever owned one, I'd use it as the basis for a "hot rod" custom. And I'd have the one with the steel roof, not the "convertible".

[neotrotsky]

As a former Samurai owner, the "flipping" issue was WAY overhyped. GM and Ford did a huge smear campaign, and even got busted working with a motoring magazine to purposely make the Samurai perform worse by shortening the track and actually MODIFYING the suspension. They claimed it was to "make it safer" but it only made the pitch worse. It went to court and Ford admitted fault. But, by that time the PR damage was already done.

This was because the Samurai was outselling the Bronco II (a HORRIBLE SUV that tipped if you looked at it wrong!) and the Blazer, which was bigger and less maneuverable. And, the Suzuki sold for thousands less, which made both Ford and GM look bad.

The Tracker was on my short list because Suzuki is known for making a rock-solid 4 cylinder. They aren't the fastest or most refined cars, but their trucks are amazingly durable and trustworthy machines with a long reputation and are great if you're looking for something small but tough.

[Keys]

People should drive reasonable vehicles and avoid preaching about why they do or do not own a certain vehicle.

"Reasonable" by who's definition? Ericalm's? Neotrotsky's? AWinn's? Mine? Some environmental group with an agenda? Some anti-environmental group with an agenda? How will you define "reasonable"? I tend to define it as my 16 year-old Nissan pickup that has over 210,000 miles, is properly maintained and still gets mileage in the upper-twenties. Since it is still on the road, another hasn't needed to be built to replace it. The most reasonable thing about it? I only drive it about once every couple of weeks.

--Keys

[neotrotsky]

People should drive reasonable vehicles and avoid preaching about why they do or do not own a certain vehicle.

"Reasonable" by who's definition? Ericalm's? Neotrotsky's? AWinn's? Mine? Some environmental group with an agenda? Some anti-environmental group with an agenda? How will you define "reasonable"? I tend to define it as my 16 year-old Nissan pickup that has over 210,000 miles, is properly maintained and still gets mileage in the upper-twenties. Since it is still on the road, another hasn't needed to be built to replace it. The most reasonable thing about it? I only drive it about once every couple of weeks.

--Keys

This is a very good point. My cousin in Belfast thinks that my Vitara (which is what they brand the Tracker as over there) is an opulent, massive "truck" that is silly for living in Phoenix. Here, it's considered a "reasonable" compact. At the same time, I saw the P200 as a "reasonable" vintage scooter that gave me the best balance of reliability and age, but others would consider it too unreliable in comparison to a Buddy or a Vespa LX150

It's all in perspective

[Roose Hurro]

As a former Samurai owner, the "flipping" issue was WAY overhyped. GM and Ford did a huge smear campaign, and even got busted working with a motoring magazine to purposely make the Samurai perform worse by shortening the track and actually MODIFYING the suspension. They claimed it was to "make it safer" but it only made the pitch worse. It went to court and Ford admitted fault. But, by that time the PR damage was already done.

This was because the Samurai was outselling the Bronco II (a HORRIBLE SUV that tipped if you looked at it wrong!) and the Blazer, which was bigger and less maneuverable. And, the Suzuki sold for thousands less, which made both Ford and GM look bad.

The Tracker was on my short list because Suzuki is known for making a rock-solid 4 cylinder. They aren't the fastest or most refined cars, but their trucks are amazingly durable and trustworthy machines with a long reputation and are great if you're looking for something small but tough.

Really, though, any SUV, compact or huge, will have more of a rollover issue than a family sedan or a sportscar... heh, that's just it, an SUV is not a "performance" vehicle, especially when it comes to going around corners. I had a 1995 Geo Metro (otherwise known as a Suzuki Swift) that did indeed show durability and reliability to me, even though I owned it for only a short time (returned it in a settlement deal with the dealer... had to sue, dealer never revealed it was a "previous daily rental", which was illegal according to California law). Very solid. The Tracker was also nice, size-wise.

[neotrotsky]

As a former Samurai owner, the "flipping" issue was WAY overhyped. GM and Ford did a huge smear campaign, and even got busted working with a motoring magazine to purposely make the Samurai perform worse by shortening the track and actually MODIFYING the suspension. They claimed it was to "make it safer" but it only made the pitch worse. It went to court and Ford admitted fault. But, by that time the PR damage was already done.

This was because the Samurai was outselling the Bronco II (a HORRIBLE SUV that tipped if you looked at it wrong!) and the Blazer, which was bigger and less maneuverable. And, the Suzuki sold for thousands less, which made both Ford and GM look bad.

The Tracker was on my short list because Suzuki is known for making a rock-solid 4 cylinder. They aren't the fastest or most refined cars, but their trucks are amazingly durable and trustworthy machines with a long reputation and are great if you're looking for something small but tough.

Really, though, any SUV, compact or huge, will have more of a rollover issue than a family sedan or a sportscar... heh, that's just it, an SUV is not a "performance" vehicle, especially when it comes to going around corners. I had a 1995 Geo Metro (otherwise known as a Suzuki Swift) that did indeed show durability and reliability to me, even though I owned it for only a short time (returned it in a settlement deal with the dealer... had to sue, dealer never revealed it was a "previous daily rental", which was illegal according to California law). Very solid. The Tracker was also nice, size-wise.

Obviously they aren't going to corner like a Miata. But the Samurai was a well built 4x4 for it's design and handled about what you should expect a short wheel base 4x4 to handle. Far better than the mis-sized Bronco II. If someone can't grasp physics enough to realize that taller things are more difficult to keep balanced than shorter things, it's not my problem and I shouldn't feel beholden to justify why they're an idiot for flipping a car because they don't know how basic physics work when they're behind the wheel.

And, yes, I'll buy another Suzuki if I ever have to give up this Tracker. Hopefully it won't be for a very long time.

[Keys]

Pssst. Your Tracker IS a Suzuki...don't tell anyone...

--Keys

[AWinn6889]

Pssst. Your Tracker IS a Suzuki...don't tell anyone...

--Keys

I think that's why he said:

And, yes, I'll buy another Suzuki if I ever have to give up this Tracker. Hopefully it won't be for a very long time.

..just like my Geo Prizm was a mash of Corolla and Cavalier, but given a different name.

[neotrotsky]

Pssst. Your Tracker IS a Suzuki...don't tell anyone...

--Keys

I think that's why he said:

And, yes, I'll buy another Suzuki if I ever have to give up this Tracker. Hopefully it won't be for a very long time.

..just like my Geo Prizm was a mash of Corolla and Cavalier, but given a different name.

I'm fully aware I bought a Vitara... it's why we were looking for a Tracker in the first place. After TWO POS Cavaliers I am done with GM's backwards engineering

[KABarash]

As a former Samurai owner, the "flipping" issue was WAY overhyped. GM and Ford did a huge smear campaign, and even got busted working with a motoring magazine to purposely make the Samurai perform worse by shortening the track and actually MODIFYING the suspension. They claimed it was to "make it safer" but it only made the pitch worse. It went to court and Ford admitted fault. But, by that time the PR damage was already done.

This was because the Samurai was outselling the Bronco II (a HORRIBLE SUV that tipped if you looked at it wrong!) and the Blazer, which was bigger and less maneuverable. And, the Suzuki sold for thousands less, which made both Ford and GM look bad.

The Tracker was on my short list because Suzuki is known for making a rock-solid 4 cylinder. They aren't the fastest or most refined cars, but their trucks are amazingly durable and trustworthy machines with a long reputation and are great if you're looking for something small but tough.

Really, though, any SUV, compact or huge, will have more of a rollover issue than a family sedan or a sportscar... heh, that's just it, an SUV is not a "performance" vehicle, especially when it comes to going around corners. I had a 1995 Geo Metro (otherwise known as a Suzuki Swift) that did indeed show durability and reliability to me, even though I owned it for only a short time (returned it in a settlement deal with the dealer... had to sue, dealer never revealed it was a "previous daily rental", which was illegal according to California law). Very solid. The Tracker was also nice, size-wise.

Obviously they aren't going to corner like a Miata. But the Samurai was a well built 4x4 for it's design and handled about what you should expect a short wheel base 4x4 to handle. Far better than the mis-sized Bronco II. If someone can't grasp physics enough to realize that taller things are more difficult to keep balanced than shorter things, it's not my problem and I shouldn't feel beholden to justify why they're an idiot for flipping a car because they don't know how basic physics work when they're behind the wheel.

And, yes, I'll buy another Suzuki if I ever have to give up this Tracker. Hopefully it won't be for a very long time.

AND we ALL know the 'roll-over' issues Jeep Wranglers have, how many of those roll over and expose their bellies? Hundreds, maybe thousands each year? In seventeen years and nearly 300,000 (yes, three hundred thousand) miles on my Jeep I have once, just once, had a close call, that was while off-road and the hillside trail gave way under my left front while creeping down hill.........
Big deal, it's NOT the vehicle, it's the nut behind the wheel!!!

[Syd]

Let's say we roll back to the topic of comparing cars and bikes, environmentally speaking, shall we?

[Howardr]

I came across this the other day. The driver said it's got a 750cc motorcycle motor in it. Nice little truck, and the fusion of bike and truck.

[ericalm]

Via Vesbar (Munich) on FB.

[BlueMark]

If you calculate emissions per passenger mile on the road motor vehicles, you just can't beat a full size passenger bus. Doesn't even have to be particularly "clean". Doesn't matter if it is gasoline, diesel, or multi-fuel turbine engine powered. A bus even beats electrics when you take into account the life-cycle emissions burden of the electric vehicle - which accounts for the emissions produced by manufacturing and power generation.

Scooters don't have a chance when compared to a really efficient means of transportation like a bus. But for transporting a single person a small modern scooter is one of the best choices out there.

[Roose Hurro]

Obviously they aren't going to corner like a Miata. But the Samurai was a well built 4x4 for it's design and handled about what you should expect a short wheel base 4x4 to handle. Far better than the mis-sized Bronco II. If someone can't grasp physics enough to realize that taller things are more difficult to keep balanced than shorter things, it's not my problem and I shouldn't feel beholden to justify why they're an idiot for flipping a car because they don't know how basic physics work when they're behind the wheel.

I like short-wheelbase vehicles... nice, tight turning-circles. One of the reasons I loved my "Little Rollerskate" CRX. Would definitely have to take care with a tall short-wheelbase vehicle. Easy for that maneuverability to destablize a vehicle with a high CG. Just have to take it slow and easy around tight turns. Still wouldn't mind a hardtop Samurai with some tasteful custom touches, for a small and handy four by four.

AND we ALL know the 'roll-over' issues Jeep Wranglers have, how many of those roll over and expose their bellies? Hundreds, maybe thousands each year? In seventeen years and nearly 300,000 (yes, three hundred thousand) miles on my Jeep I have once, just once, had a close call, that was while off-road and the hillside trail gave way under my left front while creeping down hill.........

Big deal, it's NOT the vehicle, it's the nut behind the wheel!!!

Yes... you need to understand the limits of your chosen vehicle. It only makes sense.

If you calculate emissions per passenger mile on the road motor vehicles, you just can't beat a full size passenger bus. Doesn't even have to be particularly "clean". Doesn't matter if it is gasoline, diesel, or multi-fuel turbine engine powered. A bus even beats electrics when you take into account the life-cycle emissions burden of the electric vehicle - which accounts for the emissions produced by manufacturing and power generation.

Scooters don't have a chance when compared to a really efficient means of transportation like a bus. But for transporting a single person a small modern scooter is one of the best choices out there.

That's why I owned a CRX... I looked at all the vehicles I'd owned up till then, and realized a back seat was a complete waste, considering how little need I had to carry more than myself and one other passenger. Ideally, I'd prefer a vehicle designed for one, with enough cargo space available to carry some groceries or other small items. A scooter would be perfect for this. So, "environmentally" speaking, it would be a waste to have a vehicle bigger than my needs.

Heh... I'd love one of these: http://www.monotracer.ch/index.php?opti ... 58&lang=de

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9-hMlN19NE

This is also very neat: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_rpYRP2RD_04/T ... France.jpg

Two pics for comparison: http://worldcaredition.blogspot.com/201 ... cycle.html

[Ethan Allison]

The Monotracer is $85,000. That's 10 MP3-500s, and those things can stand up straight on their own too. Why is there so little development in this market?

[Randall]

They called the myth busted but the results showed that the only column where the bike was "lacking" was overall greenhouse emissions. Every other column for the bike was a win by far. Add to it that they didn't take into consideration the pollution involved in manufacturing of the bike vs. car and the entire "experiment" is wrong. It is a good thing that they are special effects guys and not scientists.

I have lost interest in the show since they started portraying movie stunts as "myths". .... Can you curve a bullet? ... sheeesh

[ScootLemont]

If they didn't jack up the entire test, I MIGHT trust the results. But, they did it with some half-thought reasoning, which disappoints me. Here are some major points they did wrong:

-They compared sport bikes to standard sedans. That's like comparing a Porsche to a Buddy 125. Those bikes are not built for efficiency but to go fast. So, they aren't going to be as balanced for economy and performance, thus having many of the features a "commuter bike" would have.
------------------------------------------
If they used commuter bikes (medium and large displacement scooters, Ninja/CBR 250's and the like) to commuter cars, then I would trust their findings far more. Instead, they came up with a quick and dirty (literally) version that would give them a California friendly result. I *love* the Mythbusters, don't get me wrong, but my enjoyment for their production probably explains why their glaring faults in this "test" irritate me so much.

They say in the episode they tried to come up with an example of the most commonly sold of each type of vehicle for each decade.
The idea being a typical car driver switching to a typical bike.

[BlueMark]

They called the myth busted but the results showed that the only column where the bike was "lacking" was overall greenhouse emissions.

No ... the two wheelers were much better in "greenhouse" emissions (CO2), they were worse in the other pollutants - NOx, particulates, etc. So - less global warming, more global coughing.

There isn't much you can do to reduce greenhouse emissions in IC engines except change to non-hydrocarbon fuels. But the other emissions can be reduced with cleaner burning engines and better emissions controls - which is being done.

I am rather surprised there is not already a strong trend in making small engine motorbikes (whether motorcycles or scooters) that run on E85 and straight ethanol. Even though those fuels have a lower energy content than straight gasoline (petrol), because of their lower stoichiometric ratios (they use less air to fully combust) they effectively increase the HP of engines by around 10 to 25% for the same displacement. Ethanol is a hydrocarbon, but it's carbon source is the atmosphere, so there is no net increase in greenhouse gas with its use.

[Southerner]

The Monotracer is $85,000. That's 10 MP3-500s, and those things can stand up straight on their own too. Why is there so little development in this market?

If anybody's interested, there's an article about the Monotracer in Cycle World this month. They must really know what they're doing. The company was running short of money so they slapped together an electric model and entered it into a contest in the US. It wiped the floor with the others, especially as regarded top speed, etc. and walked away with the prize in its category.

Surely somebody can get these things in volume production for a decent price.

I believe VW had an experimental that was quite similar.

[gitsum79]

No SUV or full size pickup in the comparison? No scooter either? I know my scooters and small motorcycles are way greener than a gas guzzler, and still better than an economy car.

SUV 18 mpg, Buddy 170i 80 mpg, 4 1/5 times better.

Modern scooter with catalyst and fuel injection will probably emit half the emissions of MythBusters 416% average, let's say around 200%.

Factor in the gas mileage, and that means the scooter is over twice as green as the SUV.

Dare I mention how much fossil fuel/energy was used to manufacture the SUV compared to the scooter? How much more labor, more complex machine tooling, materials, research and development, ect.? Same goes for replacement part costs.

In the big scheme of things, the modern scooter is way more than twice as green as any SUV or pickup, and yes, that includes an "economy" car that gets twice the gas mileage.

I don't have a PHD or TV show, and maybe my figures/percentages aren't completely accurate. But my common sense does tell me that a $3000 scooter that gets 80 mpg is way greener than any cage

[michelle_7728]

+1

Not to mention not having a boatload of batteries to dispose of and replace (speaking of Hybrid cars) at some point in the future...

I'm still trying to figure out buying a car that requires batteries to be replaced big time down the road is considered green, but maybe it's just me...

[Southerner]

It's because you're not supposed to think these things through.

Nonetheless, if we are to have electric vehicles in the future, proper disposal, which hopefully means recycling, will have to be addressed. I expect California will lead the pack on this one. Considering the number of Priuses (plural ?), I wouldn't be surprised if they have already.

[TVB]

I'm still trying to figure out buying a car that requires batteries to be replaced big time down the road is considered green, but maybe it's just me...

The chemical components of batteries can – and should – be recycled (in very much the same way that gasoline cannot).

[rkcoker]

I'm still trying to figure out buying a car that requires batteries to be replaced big time down the road is considered green, but maybe it's just me...

The chemical components of batteries can – and should – be recycled (in very much the same way that gasoline cannot).

Gasoline is recycled via the water vapor and carbon dioxide and the green plants. Lead-acid batteries are not re-cycleable except via energy intensive and inefficient methods.
All "green" technologies are inherently inefficient but are acceptable because they have an "out of sight, out of mind' aspect.

[Lotrat]

I'm still trying to figure out buying a car that requires batteries to be replaced big time down the road is considered green, but maybe it's just me...

The chemical components of batteries can – and should – be recycled (in very much the same way that gasoline cannot).

Gasoline is recycled via the water vapor and carbon dioxide and the green plants. Lead-acid batteries are not re-cycleable except via energy intensive and inefficient methods.
All "green" technologies are inherently inefficient but are acceptable because they have an "out of sight, out of mind' aspect.

All large lead-acid batteries are recycled. Core deposits on new batteries help to ensure consumers bring back their old batteries. The cost of recycling is added to the price of the new battery. It's as efficient as any other recycling process.
http://science.discovery.com/videos/how ... cling.html

The downfall of electric vehicles is the replacement cost of the battery. The Volt battery "should" last 8 years and 100k miles... $8,000 replacement cost today.
The Leaf battery "should" last 8 years and 100k miles too... but they are hiding the replacement cost from consumers. Estimates are $18,000.
The Prius Hybrid battery "should" last 8 years and 100k miles and is around $3000.
No one wants to dump that kind of money into a older car with 100k on the ODO. The used marked for these is gonna be sketchy at best.

[michelle_7728]

Exactly...

[davidscooter]

<All "green" technologies are inherently inefficient but are acceptable because they have an "out of sight, out of mind' aspect.>


Refrigerators made today are much more energy-efficient than those made 20 years ago.

The Toyota Yaris and Ford Fiesta are gasoline cars that get very good gas-mileage.

Adding insulation to the walls and attic of your 1970's-build home will reduce the energy needed to heat/cool your home.

High-performance skylights, installed in a home/business that uses large amounts of electric lighting during the day, will substantially reduce the energy needed to light that home/business.

Dual-paned windows will substantially reduce the energy needed to heat/cool your home/business.

Summary: it is incorrect to say that all green technologies are inherently inefficient. Before the development of cheap petroleum and electricity, all human technologies were green, out of necessity.