What's Jalopnick "up To"?

Yet another wacky article by Tavarish, this time contemplating what the mean inning of "up to" is.

http://jalopnik.com/elio-is-now-advertising-up-to-84-mpg-1753005172

John Painter said:

Yet another wacky article by Tavarish, this time contemplating what the mean inning of "up to" is.

http://jalopnik.com/elio-is-now-advertising-up-to-84-mpg-1753005172

Click to expand...

I like the comments:

“Up to X MPG” is actually a pretty common phrase among car manufacturers. It’s how manufacturers refer to their highway mileage, typically, rather than their combined score. Take Jeep for example;




There’s nothing inherently wrong with this language, at least according to the FTC. Of course, if you’re a writer for Jalopnik with an axe to grind against Elio, it’s another matter...

I did notice the wording switch a while ago, but really, so what? I dont care if it gets 55 mpg, its all good to me.

Hog said:

I did notice the wording switch a while ago, but really, so what? I dont care if it gets 55 mpg, its all good to me.

Click to expand...

I care. Though I was more intrigued to see EM's assertion in their SEC filing that they expect the vehicle to get closer to 92mpg with EPA, and 84mpg with NHTSA's closer to real world tests.

Seriously, this is standard CYA practice. They now have both reservation holders and stock holders who will hold them accountable for their public statements. If they happen to fall below the target and always state an unqualified "84 mpg", they could potentially have some legal liability for "misleading" advertizing. And it doesn't preclude higher numbers for things like efficiency. What would you sue for, the lost opportunity to buy more gas?

slinches said:

Seriously, this is standard CYA practice. They now have both reservation holders and stock holders who will hold them accountable for their public statements. If they happen to fall below the target and always state an unqualified "84 mpg", they could potentially have some legal liability for "misleading" advertizing. And it doesn't preclude higher numbers for things like efficiency. What would you sue for, the lost opportunity to buy more gas?

Click to expand...

really? "we"?, samples and posts above seem to clearly indicate it's common practice.
22 miles per gallon -I'm still in as long as it's regular My BMW got 22 and needed premium!!

I have saved all the advertising emails (I call them flyers in my folder) almost since the beginning. The first one I see where they use the "up to" qualifier is 25 September 2014. Has jalopnik been sleeping?

Jalopnik is a third-rate hack rag -- with what appears to be a particular ax to grind against Elio based on its consistently negative series of articles on the Elio -- which is struggling to avoid irrelevancy.

John Painter said:

I care. Though I was more intrigued to see EM's assertion in their SEC filing that they expect the vehicle to get closer to 92mpg with EPA, and 84mpg with NHTSA's closer to real world tests.

Click to expand...

I care too. I'll be happy with the 75 MPG and $7500 price numbers in EM's original '08 Hello Elio 'Test the Waters' Marketing campaign. They should have left those numbers alone and simply met or better yet exceeded their original expectations.........Jalopnik's..........and more importantly...............ours. The "comforting 5 - star safety rating" marketing message was "comforting" to reservationists, but was never realistic for an autocycle to meet auto safety standards.



I was told that the many intriguing EM assertions in the SEC filing document are of secondary importance to the more current and accurate information posted on EM's Website.

https://web.archive.org/web/20091006081735/http://www.eliomotors.com/

"Over 70 MPG"


DONT CLICK THIS! ---> https://web.archive.org/web/20120203201247/http://eliomotors.com/colors.html