Not A, Therefore B fallacy
"""my purpose in this article wasn't to detail them all - it was only to investigate the vehicle efficiency claim. """
Yes that would have been a reasonable investigative scope, yet the article did not stop there:
"""In short: Its not fuel efficiency. Its the recession, stupid."""
That not A, therefore B conclusion is unsupported by the auto efficiency investigation in the article, as the author's own response above on premise indicates.
BTW, when unsupported conclusions pop up, they often indicate the body of the argument was guided by the desired conclusion, instead of following the inevitably conflicting at times data where it leads.
