# MY TIPS - to INCREASE your GAS MILAGE



## TooManyGizmos (Apr 11, 2012)

~


GAS prices are HIGH ...... and still rising !!

Sometimes we forget to do routine-preventative maintanance on our vehicles .

Here are some things you may not have done recently ... but should consider !

Change your plugs and air cleaner and pour in some fuel injector cleaner to your gas tank 
to improve your gas milage. At 4.00 per gallon , it should add some M.P.G's .

You might also put 2 to 3 more P.S.I. in your tires to reduce rolling resistance. 
But don't add too much air which might affect traction, turning, or braking distance
and may cause hydro-planing in the rain.

Remove excess weight that may have accumulated - which robs fuel milage.

And be sure you have air pressure in your spare tire and propper flat repair tools.

These are the things we ALL ..... forget to do .

Racing to the next red light two blocks away is very bad on your milage and wallet.

~


----------



## ElectronGuru (Apr 11, 2012)

Totally good tips. :thumbsup:


Consider also larger changes...

We changed a few years ago, to a vehicle with a third of the weight and 3x the MPG. 

Moving somewhere less sprawled out also helps (yeah, impossible in the US for anyplace built after WWII)!

Went from spending hours every day on the freeways, filling a 30G tank every week - to walking many places in a 1920's neighborhood and filling a 15G tank once a month (annual savings: 1260G).


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 11, 2012)

TooManyGizmos said:


> You might also put 2 to 3 more P.S.I. in your tires to reduce rolling resistance.



Mythbusters already busted this one; even if you add enough PSI to make the tire dangerous, the MPG gain is negligible. 

But speaking of the Mythbusters, don't forget that they added a staggering 11% MPG with no change to the engine or driveability..


----------



## gollum (Apr 11, 2012)

living 3.2 kms from work helps a lot with extending my trips to the bowser

I am getting about 5-7 weeks out of a tank


----------



## Helmut.G (Apr 11, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> Mythbusters already busted this one; even if you add enough PSI to make the tire dangerous, the MPG gain is negligible.


Even if that is true _having the proper tire pressure_ or more still _makes your car a lot safer_, so do it anyway.
Going up from recommended pressure might have little effect, but a too low pressure will definitely increase fuel consumption.
Also if you put in more air it will last longer until you have to re-fill.




My tips:

*Don't use the car for short trips.* A cold engine will use like two times the fuel on the first half mile.

*Buy a lightweight car.*
Every time you accelerate you need to drag all those tons up to speed and every time you get a red light all that energy is GONE.
In germany this would be "Buy a lightweight DIESEL car." because diesel engines need A LOT less fuel, but I see they aren't popular in the US.

*Drive in a smart way.* Don't accelerate when you know you'll have to brake very soon. Every acceleration burns a lot of gas. If you have a red light, let the car roll.

Story: I was in a cab some time ago and the driver was going like an idiot (this story was not the worst he did). One time we were going at a good speed and had a red traffic light approaching in front. It was already red for some time so it was clear (small town and you know your traffic lights) that it would turn green soon.
The driver kept his foot on the gas pedal, maintained his speed and had to brake quite hard to a complete halt. Half a second after we stopped the light turned green.
Had he instead let the car roll 40 meters before the light he would never have had to even touch the brake. We could have gone faster while saving fuel.


*keep a proper distance to the cars in front of you.* I know this is often hard when the other guy is going so SLOWLY, but it really helps saving and safety.
If a car in front of you has to slow down in order to turn and you have no distance, you will have to slow down as well. Re-accelerating uses your expensive gas.


EDIT: I forgot this one but it's important:
*Try to make little use of your air conditioning.* AC needs an incredible lot of gas. Heating is fine as it uses waste heat the engine produces anyway.
Set your AC a couple degrees higher and you will save.
Open the doors only for short times when AC is active or your cool air will escape and you need more gas to make new cool air.



*Tips for manual shifters:*

*Always go in highest gear possible.* This really saves a lot and your engine loves the low RPMs.

*accelerate fast while switching gears up fast* When accelerating, push the gas pedal down 3/4 of the way. Most engines are most efficient around this point, by far. (only accelerate if it makes sense to accelerate of course)

*go to neutral and roll when it makes sense.* You wouldn't believe how far your car will roll, while the engine uses next to nothing in idle. Works especially well when going down a light hill, or on the short way to the next red traffic light.


If you want to make saving as much as you can a hobby and there's no traffic you would bother, you can alternate between accelerating in highest gear and rolling. This way when you use your engine it's in its most efficient state possible. The difference this makes is bigger than you might think.
Many engines can be as efficient as 25% (diesel 35%) but in normal driving will be around 10% or less :sick2:. That's where the difference comes from.



By the way, when going at a constant speed most cars use the least gas when you drive 35-45 MPH in highest gear.
Going slower the friction in the drive train burns your gas (especially when you need lower gears), going faster the air resistance increases.
Going faster than 80 the air resistance increases A LOT.


----------



## orbital (Apr 11, 2012)

+

~ Using particularly smooth acceleration and braking will help the most >> think smooth, smooth, smooth.
~ Make sure your transmission fluid is in tip-top condition
~ Proper tire pressure, but do not over-inflate
~ If I may add,,,,Lucas Fuel Treatment* (Injector Cleaner on label) works very well on making your engine run smooth.
The cost is easily half of what you'll get in gas savings, trust me it is. _= Both Injected & carbureted setups_
Iv' been using it a few years now // buy the gallon jug. {no I don't work for Lucas} 
~ Make less short trips, the starting up & turning off your motor is a gas gulper
~ If its open and clear, applicable & safe, tuck in behind a semi on the highway & take a load off.....
~ Generally, be smart

* This is a cleaner/lubricant, not a detergent,,,,,,big difference between the two types

_______________

Lastly,,,,,With a manual transmission, don't under'rev your motor, 
this will do you more harm than good in the end.


----------



## NonSenCe (Apr 11, 2012)

in cold weather. pre heat the engine with engine block warmer/ oil pan warmer.. anything colder than 30-40f weather you can help your engine by preheating it for 20mins or more (depending how cold it is out there) 

more efficiency better mileage. sometimes changing the stock exhaust and intake from stock will make a difference. (making little more power, more efficiently in lower rpm can mean you do get better mileage) cost vs reward is a problem sometimes.. (so looking at the junkyards for the parts from a car with higher output might be a good option.

re-programming the chip in modern cars is also a good way to up the power and some programs actually can inprove the mileage too. ask around, see if its possible for your car.

tire sizes do matter. big and wide tires are not fuel efficient. (dont change from the original size of tyre much. wide threads eat power!) little taller profile will help with gear ratio too. and there are tires that roll easier than others. (environment green ideas offered to public) there are independent tire tests done.. check the rolling resistance on those tests and you can choose a tire that will save you few dollars on the road as it takes less power to move around.

check the aerodynamics of your car. personal experience: if it was supposed to have a protecting pan under the engine and you or someone else took it out because it was in the way while doing oil change and never installed it back.. put it back. it was meant to be there for 1. protection 2. helping with airflow. - just installing the bottom plate back helped with my cars mileage with little under 0.5mpg. (every little helps) dont have any extra airflow resistors in your car if you dont need them all the time (extra light-rack on top of pickup -more drag) 

check all bearings and brakes so they are not dragging and wheels turn easily. also maintain the car otherwise too. check that everything is ok and in tune.


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 11, 2012)

Helmut.G said:


> Story: I was in a cab some time ago and the driver was going like an idiot (this story was not the worst he did). One time we were going at a good speed and had a red traffic light approaching in front. It was already red for some time so it was clear (small town and you know your traffic lights) that it would turn green soon.
> The driver kept his foot on the gas pedal, maintained his speed and had to brake quite hard to a complete halt. Half a second after we stopped the light turned green.
> Had he instead let the car roll 40 meters before the light he would never have had to even touch the brake. We could have gone faster while saving fuel.


That's standard operating procedure for many cyclists-basically just coast when you have red in front of you. In fact, if motorists emulated what cyclists often do, they would get much better fuel economy in local driving situations.



> *go to neutral and roll when it makes sense.* You wouldn't believe how far your car will roll, while the engine uses next to nothing in idle. Works especially well when going down a light hill, or on the short way to the next red traffic light.


Yep. Most cars will easily roll at a constant speed down a 1% or so gradient (that's a very slight hill). On level ground a car can still roll for many blocks, even from a speed of only 20 mph. Again, emulate what cyclists do. There were times I started coasting 5 or 6 blocks before a red light from an initial speed of ~20 mph. By the time I hit the intersection I was _still_ going at 13-14 mph just as the light flipped back to green, right past the line of stopped cars which rushed past me only to hit the light. It helps also to know the timing of the lights on the roads you travel.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 11, 2012)

Helmut.G said:


> *go to neutral and roll when it makes sense.*



True for older cars, but not newer cars; modern cars shut off their injectors completely when left at zero throttle in gear - you would use more fuel rolling downhill in neutral (engine idling, using fuel as if it were idling) than if you left the car in gear and coasted down the hill (engine effectively off).


----------



## Helmut.G (Apr 11, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> True for older cars, but not newer cars; modern cars shut off their injectors completely when left at zero throttle in gear - you would use more fuel rolling downhill in neutral (engine idling, using fuel as if it were idling) than if you left the car in gear and coasted down the hill (engine effectively off).


Yes you don't use any fuel that way but that's not the rolling I mean. In german we call it the "engine brake" and it has its own important use.


You can easily compare it yourself. Go 50 or 60 MPH and take the foot off the gas pedal. You're not burning ANY fuel, which is good, but your car slows down FAST because you are converting speed into heat via engine friction at high RPMs. That's good if you want to stop or for going down steep hills or mountains.

Now go those 50 or 60 again and take out the gear. You ROLL and roll on, only slowed down by the air hammering against your windshield. Yes your idling engine is still burning 1 to 2 liters an hour depending on your car but at that speed that's a more than excellent gas mileage and you just keep rolling.

There are a lot of situations where rolling is more efficient of the two.


----------



## Steve K (Apr 11, 2012)

jtr1962 said:


> That's standard operating procedure for many cyclists-basically just coast when you have red in front of you. In fact, if motorists emulated what cyclists often do, they would get much better fuel economy in local driving situations.



I had the same thought... probably because I usually commute by bike! 
Seeing as how a bike is very limited in power, it does teach many lessons in conserving power. Gradual acceleration, coasting, timing the arrival at a stoplight in order to not have to stop, etc. It also makes you appreciate aerodynamic drag! Pedaling into a 20mph wind will almost cut my speed in half. 

If it is time to replace your car (as it is for me), there are a lot of cars now that have impressive mileage! I was looking at Mazda's "SkyActive" technology; nothing too cutting edge, but it does combine higher compression ratio, the use of the Atkinson cycle (I need to learn more about this), direct injection, 6 speed transmission, lower weight by virtue of higher strength steels, and (maybe?) better aerodynamics. I think the Mazda 3 with SkyActive is claiming 39mph on the highway. 
Of course, I still prefer to bike to work! 

Steve


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Apr 11, 2012)

MPG ?

adjust the nut behind the wheel.


How ?
install a scanguage II, and 

a) calibrate fuel consumption accurately

fill up at the same gas station and same pump with vehicle parked at
the same spot, and stop at the first click]. do this for the first few tanks to calibrate the
scanguage offset accurately.

b) calibrate actual speed vs sensed speed

drive with a GPS unit and fine-tune the speed calibration offset on the scangauge so
it exactly matches your tire diameter vs actual speed. not all tire diameters exactly match
the speedometer calibration in the car. [a 185/60 r15 from Michelin will be different than
a 185/60 r15 from Goodyear. scangauge is accurate enough to dial a 1% offset if you need it,
and GPS will tell you what the speed actually is]

c) Now it is dialed in, ...

use the scangauge to monitor current, average, and tank MPG and you can then use that
data to adjust the nut behind the wheel for -best overall mileage- and learn yourself somethin' about
how your driving affects mpg

and yes I recommend scangauge over ecometer or any other OBD-II connected device. scangauge
just gives you the data you need and it is fine tunable, therefore can be made 'most accurate'


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 11, 2012)

Steve K said:


> the Mazda 3 with SkyActive



That'd be my recommendation in that price range for economy, or surprisingly, sporty..


----------



## vali (Apr 11, 2012)

- buy a diesel car with manual tranny.
- be smooth.

I currently have a Passat 1.9 TDI with 130 bhp. Great car to do a lot of miles. Can do 1000 km with 60 l of fuel easily (about 45 mpg in non-flat terrain), have lots of torque to overtake a the engine will last more than the gas equivalent.

If you want a sporty drive, just forget it.

PD: diesel is about 10% cheaper than normal gas here.


----------



## orbital (Apr 11, 2012)

^ 

Last fall, my brother traded in his well used Cayenne for the new TDI Passat


----------



## Helmut.G (Apr 11, 2012)

IMO, no dumber car out there than a cayenne.
No wonder you need a 400 horsepower engine to get an acceptable driving experience when your car weights two and a half tons.
I don't get why people buy them. What's the advantage of having the heaviest car possible? If I had that kind of money to blow I'd much rather buy a half the weight, similar powered car. Much less fuel needed, much more fun.


----------



## orbital (Apr 11, 2012)

^

Helmut, he did a alot of towing


----------



## Jay R (Apr 11, 2012)

By a Kia Rio Ecodynamics. 88 miles to the gallon combined cycle. Drive it carefully on the freeway and you'll get over 120 mpg easy. Course, that's proper Imperial gallons. Your little U.S gallons would only return 74mpg combined and something over 110mpg on the highway. Give it a few months and a bunch more cars will come out with the same or similar engines. You could get a Skoda Fabia estate now that will do 83mpg so around 75miles per U.S. gallon.
Sound good, well when gas costs $10 a gallon as it does over here, the car makers appreciate that they have to produce something a bit more economical if they want to sell any cars.


----------



## Illum (Apr 11, 2012)

Good advice here, I'll add a couple more


Drive with the windows up. 
Try not to linger under 35mph for too long, neither for speeds over 75 [mainly for trucks and SUVs]
If possible, avoid driving behind anything that could cause wake turbulance
Accelerate slow, brake slow
Check your oil often, the books say 3000 miles... but I find that often a change is warranted around 2700 miles. 
If you have to carry a payload, work it inside, avoid streamers or paints on the windows. I found a good clean/wax job helps with mileage too.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 11, 2012)

vali said:


> - buy a diesel car with manual tranny.



Diesel is the way to go for Interstate travel, but doesn't hold a candle to the hybrid in city cycle. As is usually concluded in these threads, diesel for long-distance commuting, hybrid for city commuting.



Jay R said:


> By a Kia Rio Ecodynamics.



None of the cars in this post are available in the US.



Illum said:


> If possible, avoid driving behind anything that could cause wake turbulence



Getting a couple car lengths from a larger vehicle can dramatically increase MPG; I'm particularly fond of enclosed race trailers which sit low to the ground - even at very safe distances, getting behind one of these at any speed can add 10+ MPG..


----------



## Illum (Apr 11, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> Getting a couple car lengths from a larger vehicle can dramatically increase MPG; I'm particularly fond of enclosed race trailers which sit low to the ground - even at very safe distances, getting behind one of these at any speed can add 10+ MPG..



This is true if you are on the highway, but even then I'm somewhat pessimistic in following a lorrie that close.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 11, 2012)

Illum said:


> This is true if you are on the highway, but even then I'm somewhat pessimistic in following a lorrie that close.



You can start to see the difference in the MPG meter from several car lengths away, it's pretty impressive how big a hole those trailers punch in the air.

Speaking of bump drafting, a fun story: Back when the first-generation Honda Insight was introduced, they lent a copy to each of the major car magazines and set up a contest; Drive from Columbus to Detroit, most MPG wins. Car and Driver got creative and rigged the back end of a Chevy Suburban with giant RV mudflaps and bungee cords to hold the rear liftgate and swing doors open - driving down the highway with the Insight tucked snugly into this vacuum, the normally 70 MPG Honda averaged 121.7 MPG oo:


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 12, 2012)

Jay R said:


> By a Kia Rio Ecodynamics. 88 miles to the gallon combined cycle. Drive it carefully on the freeway and you'll get over 120 mpg easy. Course, that's proper Imperial gallons. Your little U.S gallons would only return 74mpg combined and something over 110mpg on the highway. Give it a few months and a bunch more cars will come out with the same or similar engines. You could get a Skoda Fabia estate now that will do 83mpg so around 75miles per U.S. gallon.
> Sound good, well when gas costs $10 a gallon as it does over here, the car makers appreciate that they have to produce something a bit more economical if they want to sell any cars.



There are times when you need both low-end torque, as well as horsepower. My first car was a Ford Escort. I actually liked it a lot. Very economical. Just two major issues with it. One, the driver's seat would become very uncomfortable if you sat in it for two hours or longer. Two, there were times when I was white-knuckling it down the entrance to the expressway. Never again. Something very economical, such as a KIA Rio; just not for everyone.


----------



## NonSenCe (Apr 12, 2012)

veering far offtopic.. sorry:

about escorts.. i could not ever get my leg comfortable on the gas pedal. there was no support for it. so i had to take off road every 150miles just to stretch my legs because of that alone. that on top of the crappy seats with short bench and no side support, and the wrong angle steering column.. did you notice that at all. (all i have driven had the steering wheel in slight angle, not aimed at the driver dead on. and many had the gear box also in angle. the gears didnt go straight foward and back but few degrees to right side) 1st gear was too short to be useful as it run out too fast, basically just to get the car rolling, and engines (1.3 and 1.4) were too powerless to use the second gear to start moving. i hated them all. (none of them were mine, but my grandad, my dad and my sister has had 4 of them that i drove alot too, best was my dads 1.6l ofcourse. not counting the 1.8 and hopped up versions with turbos my friends had) but like said.. hated the escorts as driving experience.. but except one particular car they all worked fine and did what a car needs to do. move, stop and turn. 

there is always a need for little bit of more power, but that can can somwhow compensated by smart driving by the perseon behind the wheel. to see into the future. know that your cars acceleration is like molasses mixed with bungee cord you learn to prepare to it. you dont try to make it into tight spots at all if you are not used to be able to go there. jumping from powerful car into no-go version will be difficult. one gets used to the performance.

i have been actually waiting for the manufacturers to start installing NOS systems into the small cars for that small short need for more power (overtaking or something like that), thats what they are doing with hybrids (when one needs more power both engines run), they have tried that with "overboost" functions in turbo cars (few seconds of more power available, not available for all the time but just for while). or some aftermarket company starts promoting 10-20hp nos boost for econoboxes alone.. dealer installed and factory warranty stays kind of deal. economy when one needs it, instant boost of power for seconds if you really need it, and then back to the shop to refill the bottle when needed. (easy revenue to the dealer, refilling the bottles.) 

this might be viable solution to power needs vs economy, because seriously if one knows how to participate the need of power and learn to drive with slow car they dont need the extra power that often. i would imagine hardly anyone really drives their cars daily so that they are always at peak power when shifting. (those that do, they drive too agressively and they often already have a powerful car in their use.. most commuters dont ever see more than 3000rpm if they drive normally and smoothly, i know i dont) and this way a 20hp for 10seconds boost from nitrous oxide bottle would last a long time. if i recall right, 10lbs bottle of nos, lasts about 7-9 times of 100hp shot before running low.. so that would likely make it roughly 35-40 of 20hp shots available to eco friendly motor. plus with these new fancy computer injection electric computer-stuff the engine should be easy to compensate for the nos blast so it wont detonate etc when you press the boost buttons in the steering wheel. (yeah 2 hands operation needed so you do it intentionally and have a good hold of the steering wheel when you will experience the power pull! hahah.) 

---
on topic.. ermmm.. lower mileage. dont go looking for a deal for low gas price.. likely you will burn the "winnings of few cents" while driving to find the station. if you KNOW some place sells fuel for less.. think if you need to go near there for other business or is it cheaper to use the nearest station after all. minimize the extra driving. 

and again.. ooofff tooopic..
about diesels, i have learned that diesel injector cleaners (like LiquiMoly diesel purge) they are basically just kerosene. (the kind we use in storm lanterns etc over here) - i add a drop of 2stroke engine oil for safety measure to my kerosene treatment (3parts kerosene 1 part diesel) if i connect the bottle directly into the diesel pump end.. it will likely work without the diesel part but i like to play safer.  

and i think gas engine injector cleaners have kerosene, turpentine(of sorts) and bit of octane booster. 

and many oil purge/passage cleaners are also kerosene based.


----------



## 0dBm (Apr 12, 2012)

Sensible tips. Thank you all for contributing.

*"At 4.00 per gallon..."*
I only wish that we in metropolitan Southern California are still paying this amount; however, I gladly do so to enjoy mid-60s weather in January and February.


----------



## Cataract (Apr 12, 2012)

Your car is at its most fuel efficient at the point where the last gear just kicked in - that is, if you accelerate slowly enough for it to engage sooner rather than later to give you extra power.

Keep your speed as steady as possible.

Cruise control is only fuel efficient on flat surfaces or constant inclines: by trying to keep your speed steady, it uses up a whole lot of gas to get over a hill and then tries to slow the car when going down the other side. Disengage the cruise, and keep your foot steady on the pedal. Yes, you will slow down uphill but then regain your speed when going down. 

Keep the exterior of you car clean - it reduces drag.

Buy good tires (good idea about checking rolling distance in reviews) and get your car properly aligned (front AND rear wheels, too many places only check the front alignment). This will save friction, drag and tire life.


And my extreme tip:
If you can't take anything more out of your car, lose weight yourself. One way to accomplish this while saving a whopping 100% on MPG is to get around on your bicycle. The lazy way to do this is to leave your 4D EDC flashlight at home with your 10$ in pocket change and ask your girlfriend to meet you at the restaurant.

Cheaper gas is often just that: cheap gas. Check your mileage and see which gas station gives you the best MPG for your dollar.


----------



## orbital (Apr 12, 2012)

+

One great way to save a ton of gas is a good old moped.

We have two '02 Honda Metropolitans w/ nearly 18K miles on _*each*_ of them! {these are 4-stroke}
They are an absolute blast to ride and do odds and ends on.
(you can easily get a couple of bags of groceries under the seat)
They are super simple to work on & maintain 

*With the throttle fully wide open, they still get around 75MPG*
They top out at about 40mph, but that's a fun 40

_>>>> I'v saved over 1500 gallons gas @ $4/gal. over the last 10 years,,, if I was to use my 4L Grand Cherokee for those miles._


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 12, 2012)

@ NonSenCe -

My Escort was a 1998 model. Thankfully by then, Ford was using the excellent Mazda Protege but with different styling and Ford badges. Makes sense that one of the most reliable-rated Fords of all time was actually a Mazda under the skin. I had no issues with angles. I was impressed with Mazda enough that my current vehicle is a V6 Mazda6. One of the most comfortable driver's seats out there. Even recognized for that by the major car publications. 

Driving smart is always a good idea. Unfortunately, we share the road with a ton of idiots. I've used the power of my V6 engine countless times to accelerate quickly away from a potential accident because some idiot was either chatting away on their cellphone or was, basically, just an oblivious idiot. When it comes to driving, you can do everything right; and still end up in an accident.

@ Cataract -

I recently had to have my car's fuel system flushed out. Three year-old car. The culprit? Yup, I had been filling up consistently with cheap off-brand gas. Turns out those additives the major brands mix in really does make a difference. I no longer use that off-brand gas station. In the end, the few bucks I saved just wasn't worth it.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 12, 2012)

Economy doesn't have to be slow: the new BMW 328i sedan; 0-60 in 5.6 sec, 155 mph top speed, 24 MPG city/36 MPG highway:


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 12, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> Economy doesn't have to be slow: the new BMW 328i sedan; 0-60 in 5.6 sec, 155 mph top speed, 24 MPG city/36 MPG highway:



Are those actual numbers or projected numbers for what the car is capable of?

That's the one thing I hate about the Auto industry. They have their own version of emitter lumens vs. (actual) out the front lumens.


----------



## StarHalo (Apr 13, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> Are those actual numbers or projected numbers for what the car is capable of?



An EPA projection, but bear in mind it's a four cylinder mated to a tall-geared eight speed with multiple overdrives.


----------



## Monocrom (Apr 13, 2012)

A good point worth keeping in mind. Thanks!


----------



## Steve K (Apr 13, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> An EPA projection, but bear in mind it's a four cylinder mated to a tall-geared eight speed with multiple overdrives.



sort of like a CVT, but not quite meeting the standards of "continuous"?

As a cyclist, I fully appreciate what can be done by having a lot of potential gears available when it comes to getting the most power or efficiency out of a limited power source! 
Just a 5% change in gear size is noticeable on a bike, but it does require a lot of shifting if you are really trying to optimize things. For cars, this seems like a great application for a smart automatic tranny with a "sport" and "eco" modes, and maybe a few modes in between.

Steve K.


----------



## RBR (Apr 13, 2012)

.....


----------



## ElectronGuru (Apr 18, 2012)

FYI for euro dudes, US diesel fuel has so much sulphur, that diesel cars (which are then seen as smelly/polluting) can be impossible to buy. Ironically, the guys who want to run on vegetable oil then have a hard time locating cars to use.


----------



## jellydonut (Apr 18, 2012)

ElectronGuru said:


> FYI for euro dudes, US diesel fuel has so much sulphur, that diesel cars (which are then seen as smelly/polluting) can be impossible to buy. Ironically, the guys who want to run on vegetable oil then have a hard time locating cars to use.


Might have been correct years ago, but this is not true.

US diesel is ultra-low-sulfur, just like in Europe.

One thing I will concede is that the price advantage is smaller, since diesel fuel is actually more expensive than gasoline. It does still work out to an overall advantage because of the lower consumption, but it is smaller than here. The extra emissions stuff the EPA forces on manufacturers also adds to cost, and the vehicles that require AdBlue also have an extra cost added.

Solution? Buy an old diesel.  Or, if you live in one of the many states with less restrictive technical controls, just remove the emissions stuff.

Personally, this old 250 D serves me very well.


----------



## Jay R (Apr 19, 2012)

Diesel cars over here in Europe are now cleaner than their pertol versions. They have filters in the exhaust that trap the particles and then vaporise them when the exhaust gets hot.

After the comment Star Haalo made about efficent cars not being available in the U.S. I had a look and I'm stunned by how true this is. Even big established car makers like Volkswagen don't bring their small cars like the Polo into the U.S. and even Chrylser don't bother to sell their Ypsilon small car in America.


----------



## NonSenCe (Apr 19, 2012)

jellydonut: neat, i have been chucking around with 300td. how many miles/kilometers in your odometer? mine just passed 530 000km (about 330 000miles). but now as diesel prices are climbing close to petrol these days over here (goverment adding taxes on top of taxes) i am thinking about changing back to "normal" car next year maybe. 

diesel used to be lot cheaper per gallon than petrol. but then car companies and their cohorts started to persuade people to swap to new diesel cars that get great mileage and offer decent acceleration and torque (most new diesels sold here are with turbo) goverment looked over and chuckled when they realised people had bought tons of new cars with loanmoney.. and by now they are used to the convinience of the turbodiesel econoboxes.. people are hooked! so the goverment decided to raise the price of diesel a lot. easy money! (btw here diesel about 7.20$/gal and petrol about 1$more. in past 7 or so years that i have had a diesel car, the price of diesel has risen about 50%)


----------



## Helmut.G (Apr 19, 2012)

NonSenCe said:


> jellydonut: neat, i have been chucking around with 300td. how many miles/kilometers in your odometer? mine just passed 530 000km (about 330 000miles). but now as diesel prices are climbing close to petrol these days over here (goverment adding taxes on top of taxes) i am thinking about changing back to "normal" car next year maybe.
> 
> diesel used to be lot cheaper per gallon than petrol. but then car companies and their cohorts started to persuade people to swap to new diesel cars that get great mileage and offer decent acceleration and torque (most new diesels sold here are with turbo) goverment looked over and chuckled when they realised people had bought tons of new cars with loanmoney.. and by now they are used to the convinience of the turbodiesel econoboxes.. people are hooked! so the goverment decided to raise the price of diesel a lot. easy money! (btw here diesel about 7.20$/gal and petrol about 1$more. in past 7 or so years that i have had a diesel car, the price of diesel has risen about 50%)


I don't know about the situation in your country, but in germany driving a car is indirectly subsidized by the laws. Car taxes and fuel taxes are not even high enough to maintain the roads with the tax money alone, not to speak of the various other costs caused by the heavy traffic.
Yet people are complaining about the taxes (and politicians that raised them a bit years ago) all the time.


----------



## RBR (Apr 19, 2012)

.....


----------



## Gregozedobe (Apr 20, 2012)

Seeing as no one else has specifically mentioned it (or if they did I missed it - sorry), here's one more fuel saving tip:

Reduce the number of trips you make by doing as many thing as is practical on the one trip (yes it does take some planning) eg call in and do your shopping on your way home from work (or gym or whatever meeting), and collect your mail from your P.O box too.

We have a notebook that we write down things that we need to buy/collect/drop off that aren't urgent, and when we are going near the relevant location for some other (usually more pressing reason) we do that as well. Today we polished off 4 different tasks in the one trip


----------



## jellydonut (Apr 20, 2012)

NonSenCe said:


> jellydonut: neat, i have been chucking around with 300td. how many miles/kilometers in your odometer? mine just passed 530 000km (about 330 000miles). but now as diesel prices are climbing close to petrol these days over here (goverment adding taxes on top of taxes) i am thinking about changing back to "normal" car next year maybe.
> 
> diesel used to be lot cheaper per gallon than petrol. but then car companies and their cohorts started to persuade people to swap to new diesel cars that get great mileage and offer decent acceleration and torque (most new diesels sold here are with turbo) goverment looked over and chuckled when they realised people had bought tons of new cars with loanmoney.. and by now they are used to the convinience of the turbodiesel econoboxes.. people are hooked! so the goverment decided to raise the price of diesel a lot. easy money! (btw here diesel about 7.20$/gal and petrol about 1$more. in past 7 or so years that i have had a diesel car, the price of diesel has risen about 50%)


Mine has done a little over 630000 km's, so 100k+ more.  Of course, I've only driven a few of those myself. This is a relatively new acquisition.

It is unfortunate that diesel cars still emit so many particles and nitrogen oxides (NOx) compared to a gasoline vehicle. I would still say that a diesel is cleaner for the local environment and the air because of the very low emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) and VOCs/petroleum gases compared to a gasoline engine. These poisons are emitted because of the composition of gasoline vs. diesel which is nominally a very 'clean' form of oil in terms of toxicity, carcinogens, etc.

If they could just get the NOx and particle emissions down, the politicians would have no decent reasoning to place additional taxes on the cars and the fuel. Unfortunately they seem content to perform bits-and-pieces fixes like attaching SCRs that require diesel exhaust fluid, and particle filters, instead of attempting to enhance combustion or develop new combustion and intake technologies, solving the problem in-cylinder instead of trying to fix it afterwards.


----------



## davyro (Apr 20, 2012)

I drive a diesel van for work & i have a diesel toyota 7 seater for everything else,the toyota is really quiet & very clean,my work van isnt so quiet but i get great mileage from my van i make sure i'm carrying as little weight as possible
& it seems to do the trick,its now completed 120,000 miles & its still going great.I do use a really good additive to keep everything clean & running well & i'm sure this helps quite a lot.


----------



## ev13wt (Apr 27, 2012)

Current gas prices in Germany come in at 1,70 Euros per liter. So that's around 9,49 dollars per gallon give or take.

People still blast 120 mph all day long, me included.


Fawk it, use it while it lasts.


----------



## NonSenCe (Apr 27, 2012)

ev13.. thats in british gallons i think.. (us gallon is abt 3.8liters, brits 4.6l) the price of fuel about the same here in finland.


----------



## PCC (Apr 27, 2012)

Part of the reason that diesel prices in the US (for sure in California) is so high is because of the Road Usage tax. So few people drive diesel passenger cars in the US that they figured that it's only used by the big trucks and big trucks account for a majority of the damage and maintenance needed on the roads so diesel passenger car owners pay the price. The money saved due to better economy is offset by this higher price so it'll take longer to recoup the difference. The only real advantage that I had when I drove my TDI was that I could go an extra day or two between fill ups. On the road, the car was great up to about 60 MPH, but, beyond that it accelerated like a freight train. My car had larger injector nozzles, chip, tons of tweaks, etc, done to it and it was still a dog on the freeway. My current car has the 2.0T in it, weighs more, and accelerates from 50 to 80 in top highly overdriven gear than my TDI did 30-70.

One tip for saving fuel: adjust your entire seat back one notch so that you have to reach a bit more to get to it. You'll have to try harder to drive faster and this should help you save fuel.


----------



## ev13wt (Apr 30, 2012)

NonSenCe said:


> ev13.. thats in british gallons i think.. (us gallon is abt 3.8liters, brits 4.6l) the price of fuel about the same here in finland.



1,70 Euros = 2,24876 U.S. dollars
1 US gallon = 3,78541178 liter

2,24876 * 3,78541178 = 8,51248259 dollars per gallon


Not sure but I screwed up originally somewhere.


----------



## JemR (May 1, 2012)

PCC said:


> One tip for saving fuel: adjust your entire seat back one notch so that you have to reach a bit more to get to it. You'll have to try harder to drive faster and this should help you save fuel.



Love this idea PCC! Also wearing shoes with thin soles, not thick work boots etc, may also assist in stopping the “lead foot”!!


----------



## Cataract (May 1, 2012)

JemR said:


> Love this idea PCC! Also wearing shoes with thin soles, not thick work boots etc, may also assist in stopping the “lead foot”!!



Definitely right. I sometimes have to drive with my steel toed shoes and man do I drive faster than normal... Sometimes when it's really hot in the summer I take my sandals off while driving and I definitely feel how much pressure my foot is really exerting on the pedal... that makes me drive like an old lady.


----------



## Lite_me (May 1, 2012)

Along the same line.. drive like there's an egg between your foot and the gas pedal.


----------



## Monocrom (May 1, 2012)

. . . I always bring a towel to clean up the mess afterwards. :thumbsup:


----------



## NonSenCe (May 2, 2012)

tip. put the egg into a ziplok bag before putting it under the pedal. (bonus tip: hardboiled egg makes even less of a mess)

----
moving the seat back: no. that screws up the ergonomics, you shouldnt need to reach to the steering wheel and other stuff to use them properly. one needs to have adjusted the seat and the distances correctly to be a safe driver. 
----
saving electricity does help with mileage.. turn off the radio (and amplifier) if you are not really listening it or need to listen it. and turning the AC off has been mentioned right?


----------



## JemR (May 2, 2012)

NonSenCe said:


> moving the seat back: no. that screws up the ergonomics, you shouldnt need to reach to the steering wheel and other stuff to use them properly. one needs to have adjusted the seat and the distances correctly to be a safe driver.



Second thoughts, I do agree moving the seat back too much is a bad idea. But some people do sit to close the wheel. There is a correct driving position for everyone, finding it is often hard if more than one person uses a car so moving seats around all the time. I stand by my suggestion on footwear. I see many ladies driving in shoes they can barely walk in. How can they control the pedals?. Some men too!. Race car drivers wear fairly thin flat grippy soled shoes. They need to know exactly where the pedals are all the time. “Feel” for the pedal is the important thing I think. My thoughts were wearing heavy work steel toe cap type boots means you may not be able to feel the pedals at all or flex your ankle much. Meaning you can't help but push the pedals too hard.


----------



## ElectronGuru (May 2, 2012)

Very important to saving money on gas, if not fuel itself; don't drive during these times:

trouble in the middle east
summer
election year

*multiply effect for any combination of above


----------



## Helmut.G (May 2, 2012)

you can add winter to that list, you need a lot more fuel in the winter due to cold engines and the need to often go slower than ideal.


----------



## orbital (May 2, 2012)

+

Saw my brothers Passat TDI _SEL_ for the first time today.

Couple things:
Nice overall lines
Its not a little tiny car, good size, large back seat area.
Excellent looking gauges! 80mph essentially straight up on needle,,,well done here
Clean logical interior 

>>>My brother was saying, with the cruise control set at 75mph,,*he gets nearly 45mpg*
@ 55mph, way over 50mpg highway

Those are truly fantastic numbers for such a good looking car _{it needs the little duck tail & matt black wheels though}_:naughty:


----------



## StarHalo (May 2, 2012)

orbital said:


> Saw my brothers Passat TDI _SEL_ for the first time today.



The Passat is a hard package to beat; you can tell there was an Audi engineer in there somewhere when they did the interior, and nobody in the class comes close to that near-stretch body backseat. It's the logical evolution of the old Accord and Camry, now that those two models have lost their way..


----------



## Lite_me (May 3, 2012)

NonSenCe said:


> and turning the AC off has been mentioned right?


This is ok so long as you leave the windows up. With the windows down you actually cause more drag, requiring more energy than what the AC would use. At highway speeds would be the worst.


----------



## jasonck08 (May 3, 2012)

A couple tips I use to save gas:

1) If you're in a parking lot of a shopping center or anywhere else, don't start the car until your all buckled in, and you've checked out the rear window that it is a good time to backup. Many times people start their cars then have to wait till its clear to backup.

2) If you're going to be stopped for more than about 1 minute, shut off the engine.

3) For city driving if you see a red light, just coast as far as you can. There is a good chance the light will turn green as you near the light. I see so many people driving full speed then slamming on their brakes at the red light like morons. Look ahead and anticipate the lights.

4) If time and traffic allow, drive ~60mph on the highway. You'll save about 10% vs going 70-75mph.


----------



## Monocrom (May 3, 2012)

ElectronGuru said:


> Very important to saving money on gas, if not fuel itself; don't drive during these times:
> 
> trouble in the middle east . . .



No offense, but that would mean no one would ever drive during their lifetime.


----------



## Helmut.G (May 3, 2012)

jasonck08 said:


> A couple tips I use to save gas:
> 
> 1) If you're in a parking lot of a shopping center or anywhere else, don't start the car until your all buckled in, and you've checked out the rear window that it is a good time to backup. Many times people start their cars then have to wait till its clear to backup.
> 
> ...


can't repeat 1 and 3 often enough.

There's also no need to accelerate to 20 mph in first gear like a maniac when you need to stop in a few meters, thus converting all the energy in the movement you just built up to heat in your brakes.




Lite_me said:


> This is ok so long as you leave the windows up. With the windows down you actually cause more drag, requiring more energy than what the AC would use. At highway speeds would be the worst.


The drag really doesn't matter much at city speed while most cars' AC use a heck of a lot of fuel.
On the highway the drag does matter.

Also keep in mind that the AC uses fuel per the hour, not per distance. So in the city when you're going relatively slow the AC will affect the MPG much more (and city MPG is already terribly low).


Get a white car and it will heat up less, so your AC will use less fuel.


----------



## ElectronGuru (May 3, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> No offense, but that would mean no one would ever drive during their lifetime.



0 taken. And a good chance to add clarification:

Enough trouble (above normal/typical) to get the attention of the commodities market.


----------



## Lite_me (May 3, 2012)

Some very good tips and info in this thread. Just think... if everyone that drives would read and heed some of the suggestions here, it would defiantly make a difference. 



jasonck08 said:


> 3) For city driving if you see a red light, just coast as far as you can. There is a good chance the light will turn green as you near the light. I see so many people driving full speed then slamming on their brakes at the red light like morons. Look ahead and anticipate the lights.


This is a good one. It also applies to RR tracks. I go over 2 sets almost every time I go out. They only require a slight reduction in speed to cross, and everyone stays on the gas until they're near the tracks and then hit the brakes to slowdown to cross. In the mean time, I've anticipated the forthcoming reduction in speed needed, and will let off the gas and coast, maybe 100yds or more sooner... I end up catching up to the car in front of me, often going over the tracks at the same speed and right behind them. By not scrubbing off the energy you used to get the vehicle moving with the brakes, and coasting, you add efficiency. And it adds up. ANY time you use the brakes it cost you MPG. So, if you can get around using them unnecessarily, or even try and use them in a more gentle nature, it's good practice. 

I always get better MPG than the EPA ratings on my cars. Usually by several MPG. It helps that I'm usually never in a hurry.  But then again, you'll often find me in the outside lane on the interstate. I hate pokin' along there for some reason. It's just in-town where I'm conservative.


----------



## StarHalo (May 3, 2012)

Lite_me said:


> I always get better MPG than the EPA ratings on my cars. Usually by several MPG.



You could be a hypermiler; they have a forum where the hardcore guys have their "total MPG" in their siglines - they use hardware in their cars that always monitors their MPG, and can therefore very specifically track what their numbers are not just for the day, but for the entire time they've owned the car. All of them score in the upper 90%, that is above 90% of the rated MPG for their car, but I don't think anyone has ever matched or beaten it..


----------



## Lite_me (May 4, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> You could be a hypermiler; they have a forum where the hardcore guys have their "total MPG" in their siglines - they use hardware in their cars that always monitors their MPG, and can therefore very specifically track what their numbers are not just for the day, but for the entire time they've owned the car. All of them score in the upper 90%, that is above 90% of the rated MPG for their car, but I don't think anyone has ever matched or beaten it..


Huh... never knew that one existed. Shouldn't be surprised though. I'll check it out. I do track my MPG regularly but I'm not that fanatical about it. It's mostly due to the high prices and trying to conserve. 

I recently advanced the static timing by about 3-4 deg by moving the sensor block off the crank pulley on My Mazda3 2.5 I'm now getting 1-2 more MPG. Seems a little stronger in the mid range too. It was an easy mod. I should also add, I run 89 octane. It just feels smoother to me than 87. Even before the mod.


----------



## PCC (May 7, 2012)

Lite_me said:


> This is ok so long as you leave the windows up. With the windows down you actually cause more drag, requiring more energy than what the AC would use. At highway speeds would be the worst.


On days where the car interior heats up from the greenhouse effect (typically between 62 to 75 degrees F) I drive with the windows down up to 40 MPH then roll them up as I accelerate past that speed. I then gulp colder air every few miles when the interior starts to get uncomfortably warm by opening the electric windows on one side of the car fully then closing them as soon as they're wide open. I don't use the air conditioning at all. On warmer days, like today (91F!) I only turn on the AC when the car is pointed downhill on the freeway. Same rule applies about having the windows open until 40 MPH. If it gets much warmer than that then I don't care about mileage and the AC is on regardless of the speed I'm driving.


----------



## Slazmo (Jun 3, 2012)

I try to keep the paintwork clean as we all know that air will pass over a smooth surface thats not encrusted with dust and other stuff like mud, bird droppings etc... I know its would be a tiny gain however enough over a lifetime. Also I remove my AC belt over the winter months, it still runs off the main pully wheel and drives another wheel regardless if the electro coupling isnt in effect but there are some savings there...

We've just had a TV advert that states that these particular tyres would save you $400 (Aud) over the life of your tires, so say 80,000km's average if you look after them eg: rotate 5 tyres and swap outside to inside etc.

so it'd be $400 / 80,000km's = .005 cents a km... Umm not worth it buddy!

Buy good tyres that are safe and keep them rotated every 6000km's and keep up the pressure or use Nitrogen if available.


----------



## Illum (Jun 6, 2012)

I took the car in and had it waxed today, now I hear a whistle


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 6, 2012)

Illum said:


> I took the car in and had it waxed today, now I hear a whistle



Did they do it properly? Two coats of wax. Always two.


----------



## BVH (Jun 6, 2012)

Be aware that some, if not all automatic transmissions have very reduced basic lubrication of their internal parts going on when RPMs are down at idle. So if you coast at road speed and idle RPM frequently, you may end up damaging your transmission and then where are the savings? Also, it's a distraction shifting in and out of gear, it may end up causing an accident or you may end up putting the tranny in reverse by mistake. Is it really worth the risks to maybe save a few pennies per tank? Changing spark plugs is almost a thing of the past with precious metal tipped plugs, which are in most factory cars now. You should not change them for an absolute minimum of 60,000 and more like 80,000 miles and more. Change them early and you're wasting money.


----------



## TyJo (Jun 10, 2012)

While I don't recommend it, I'm pretty sure putting an automatic transmission in reverse while going forward does no damage due to safety mechanisms (it was on mythbusters episode and those that know about cars confirmed this to me).


----------



## StarHalo (Jun 10, 2012)

TyJo said:


> While I don't recommend it, I'm pretty sure putting an automatic transmission in reverse while going forward does no damage due to safety mechanisms



Reverse won't engage at speed. You can put it in park - makes your car sound like a Big Wheel as the parking pawl goes clacking across its gear, but doesn't do anything otherwise. Not sure what that has to do with saving gas..


----------



## Monocrom (Jun 10, 2012)

TyJo said:


> While I don't recommend it, I'm pretty sure putting an automatic transmission in reverse while going forward does no damage due to safety mechanisms (it was on mythbusters episode and those that know about cars confirmed this to me).



Even if reverse gear didn't also use up gas, or perhaps not quite as much as Drive; it's FAR too impractical as well as dangerous to drive through the streets in reverse. (Hell, some folks barely know how to drive forwards.)


----------



## TyJo (Jun 10, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> Reverse won't engage at speed. You can put it in park - makes your car sound like a Big Wheel as the parking pawl goes clacking across its gear, but doesn't do anything otherwise. Not sure what that has to do with saving gas..


I was referencing an earlier post, agreed it wont affect gas usage, as most gas savings tips won't. The best thing is to be easy on the accelerator and coast rather then brake when possible, not too complicated (if there are brake lights or a red light in the distance release the accelerator or cancel the cruise control, at green lights lightly depress the accelerator).


Monocrom said:


> Even if reverse gear didn't also use up gas, or perhaps not quite as much as Drive; it's FAR too impractical as well as dangerous to drive through the streets in reverse. (Hell, some folks barely know how to drive forwards.)


Very true.


----------



## Illum (Jun 10, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> Did they do it properly? Two coats of wax. Always two.


Don't know... I dropped the car off and went to werk by shuttle. I'll go back and ask tomorrow


----------



## orbital (Jun 10, 2012)

^
Regarding waxing car to increase mileage:

Rough (sandpaper like) surfaces go the fastest through water,...our atmosphere is measured as a liquid.
>>>same reason there are dimples in golf balls, fly straight and further

I saw a thing on_ Nike_ making micro textured racing clothing for Lance Armstrong, 
they calculated it was worth like 20 seconds in a hundred mile stage, using the same output.
That doesn't sound like anything, but that could easily be enough time for a win.

Waxing your car could get chicks attention & that has some value


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Oct 6, 2012)

*Does anyone have any tips or tricks to save on gas?*

In California, gas prices have skyrocketed over 50 cents in the last week (20 cents in the last day). Some areas in San Diego county are nearing $6 a gallon. I can't afford these increases and I doubt anyone can in the current economy. I heard from an employee at my local Circle K that California is getting rid of 87 Octane gas (Regular Unleaded), forcing people to buy Midgrade which is 10-15 cents more a gallon (I really hope that employee was wrong). On top of that, BP is fed up with California and is leaving the state, so all Arco stations (all of the cheapest gas stations in my area) are going out of business or changing ownership. With the changeover to the winter grade of gasoline, oil companies sold off the summer grade to Mexico and elsewhere and let supplies dwindle knowing that soon, they wouldn't be able to sell it in California. After that, there was a refinery power outage and pipeline incident that shot gas prices to near record levels (we're likely to shatter records by tomorrow). Other than bugging our representatives to get rid of the requirements for a special blend of fuel in California (at least temporarily), I don't see a way to lower prices any time soon (If we didn't have to have the special California blend of fuel, we could get supplies from out of state and there would be absolutely no shortage of fuel.). Therefore, if we can't save on the price, we have to reduce consumption to save. What tricks do you use to save on gas? 

I'll start. I just replaced my car that was totaled by a friend with an old 99 Toyota Camry that should get around 30 MPG highway. It came with a full 18.5 gallon tank of gas. I'm hoping to ride out the price increase if I think it will be short-term (1-2 weeks tops). If I think prices will continue to rise, I'll change strategy and top off daily. If you have any other tips to save on gas please share them.

Thread Merge - Norm


----------



## ElectronGuru (Oct 6, 2012)

This is a long term problem requiring long term solutions, like moving closer to work. Nothing you can likely do in the coming days will let you skirt most of these near term issues.

The question is: when this crises is over, how can you stay motivated to reduce your exposure before the next crises arrives.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 6, 2012)

I agree with ElectronGuru here. In the short term the impact of higher gas might be mitigated by changing driving habits slightly, doing things like coasting to red lights and driving slower. In the long run this issue isn't going anywhere. With China and India industrializing, demand for oil will only go up, whether the oil is used to make plastics or burned as fuel. The long term price trends are therefore up, way up actually. Had the economy fully recovered, I've little doubt we would be seeing $7 a gallon gas prices. At some point we as a nation are going to have to reduce our dependency on oil-based transportation in particular, and mechanized transportation in general. This will mean the preferred solution will be to live within walking or biking distance of jobs if no local rail transit exists, or living/working within walking/biking distance of train stations if it does. Rail will be the king of mechanized transport in the 21st century for the simple reason no other technology comes close in terms of using the least energy, land, and labor to move a ton of cargo. All three will be relevant because all three will be either expensive or in short supply in the future. This is why even if electric cars become mainstream, which I feel they will, sprawling communities just aren't sustainable either economically or resource-wise except maybe for the wealthy few. The basic issue is the infrastructure costs more per capita, but the residents aren't really willing or even able to pay these costs. And the larger issue is that personal automobiles as a means of transport are grossly inefficient in terms of land use, energy use, resource use, and even time.

For now anyone with a very long car commute would do well to see if they can either get a job closer to home, or move closer to work. Even better would be relocating to places where you can live without a car. If demand for such places increased, then more would be built. In many cases it's simply a matter of reviving existing city centers. Granted, housing in many transit-oriented communities is more expensive, but factor in the annual cost of owning a car or two or three. Also factor in the hours spent in traffic. And consider that the same job in a city will often pay more than in the suburbs. In the end you might find that moving is feasible.

I highly recommend reading blogs and websites pertaining to living a car-free lifestyle for inspiration. That's really going to be the only way going forward to cope with increasing oil prices.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 6, 2012)

For many, not really an option to move closer to work. Job might be $#!%. Paycheck only. No room for promotion. Might get laid off soon after moving. Even if the job is a decent one, family obligations might not allow simply moving closer. Spouse might not want to leave. If you're single but signed a lease, makes no sense to break it just to move a bit closer.

Better option would be getting something like a Diesel-powered VW Jetta. Better fuel economy than any hybrid. Or perhaps a vehicle with a small engine that is known for sipping fuel. Something about the size of a Toyota Yaris hatchback. (Though "something" like that. The Yaris itself is surprising not fuel-efficient for its size and small engine.) Driving less aggressively helps too. But that's as good as it gets. Being a car enthusiast isn't easy in this Day & Age. Still . . . You can have my sports sedan when you pry it from my cold, dead, hands. (Or, if you can keep up with me on the open highway.)

If a car is just an appliance to someone, yeah; they do have options for saving fuel.


----------



## SemiMan (Oct 6, 2012)

Contrary to the first post, cleaning or replacing your air intake filter will not improve your mileage if you have a car made in the last 10+ years. You may even get better mileage with a dirty filter. All a clean filter will give you is more peak horsepower.

Did anyone mention synthetic? Dyno tests usually show 1-2% more peak horsepower, but no idea if that really makes a difference in real world horsepower. I run it for reduced engine wear and reduced change intervals.

Hate to be political, but perhaps we need to be investing more in battery technology. I know that is not the panacea to a solution, but we really need to explore every option in this area as who knows what will shake out. While we all hate government involvement, electricity prices tend to have a lot less volatility than gas prices. Price per unit of usable energy is lower too. .... side note, that Chevy Volt does not seem like such a bad idea now.

I find the high prices of gas taking the fun out of driving.

Semiman


----------



## ElectronGuru (Oct 6, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> For many, not really an option to move closer to work. Job might be $#!%. Paycheck only. No room for promotion. Might get laid off soon after moving. Even if the job is a decent one, family obligations might not allow simply moving closer. Spouse might not want to leave. If you're single but signed a lease, makes no sense to break it just to move a bit closer.



Totally get you. I've spent the most of my life being car dependent. New car, new job, new housing all fall into the category of personal long term solutions, little you can do this year. New/portable jobs are rare, theres a year left on a lease/loan, and even when options are available, the expense of moving and/or new home loan requires long intervals. This is made more challenging in that most US housing built in the last 60 years (90% of whats in the west) is specifically designed to be car dependent. With our individual and collective choices, we have built ourselves into a corner. 

Even if gas persisted at $20/G, it would take another 60 years to begin to balance against that structural inertia. But that isn't even the real challenge. We've not built our country like this because of cars. We've done so because of what cars do for us. Say you're starting a family and can pay 3k/mo for a small flat in town with parking for one car and not even a shared court to play in and dangerous parks. Compare that to 2k/mo for a single family detached on quarter acre, with personal playground and good schools and 1k/mo in commenting expenses. Everything goes great until gas goes from 3 to 6 a gallon and 3k becomes 4k. This is what Californians are facing right now.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 6, 2012)

ElectronGuru said:


> Even if gas persisted at $20/G, it would take another 60 years to begin to balance against that structural inertia. But that isn't even the real challenge. We've not built our country like this because of cars. We've done so because of what cars do for us. Say you're starting a family and can pay 3k/mo for a small flat in town with parking for one car and not even a shared court to play in and dangerous parks. Compare that to 2k/mo for a single family detached on quarter acre, with personal playground and good schools and 1k/mo in commenting expenses. Everything goes great until gas goes from 3 to 6 a gallon and 3k becomes 4k. This is what Californians are facing right now.


 I'm not so sure it will take 60 years to readjust to the new reality of higher energy costs. Remember that it took us less than 50 years to get to the mess we're in now. Already with higher gas prices demand for public transit is exceeding supply in many places. And the cities are showing net growth while many exurbs are being abandoned. The problem in a nutshell is in the last 50 years we built as if we were going to have cheap energy forever. It's not just that we became overly car dependent, but also that we built huge McMansions in suburban subdivisions. Now we're realizing we just can't afford to maintain the status quo. You hit the nail on the head of suddenly going from $3K a month to $6K. In the short term there's very little you can do. It's the decisions people make down the road which will make a difference. Do I take that job 5 miles away which I can bike to even though it pays $10K less than a job 35 miles away? Do I buy a smaller, but still adequate, home which has lower operating expenses? If I'm still car dependent, do I buy an electric car when my gas car needs to be replaced? All of these decisions can mean the difference between being comfortable versus not being able to make it. We can either voluntarily start using our resources more sensibly, or let shortages/price spikes do it for us. Either way, there's going to be fewer resources spread among more people.


----------



## SemiMan (Oct 6, 2012)

jtr1962 said:


> I agree with ElectronGuru here. In the short term the impact of higher gas might be mitigated by changing driving habits slightly, doing things like coasting to red lights and driving slower. In the long run this issue isn't going anywhere. With China and India industrializing, demand for oil will only go up, whether the oil is used to make plastics or burned as fuel. The long term price trends are therefore up, way up actually. Had the economy fully recovered, I've little doubt we would be seeing $7 a gallon gas prices. At some point we as a nation are going to have to reduce our dependency on oil-based transportation in particular, and mechanized transportation in general. This will mean the preferred solution will be to live within walking or biking distance of jobs if no local rail transit exists, or living/working within walking/biking distance of train stations if it does. Rail will be the king of mechanized transport in the 21st century for the simple reason no other technology comes close in terms of using the least energy, land, and labor to move a ton of cargo. All three will be relevant because all three will be either expensive or in short supply in the future. This is why even if electric cars become mainstream, which I feel they will, sprawling communities just aren't sustainable either economically or resource-wise except maybe for the wealthy few. The basic issue is the infrastructure costs more per capita, but the residents aren't really willing or even able to pay these costs. And the larger issue is that personal automobiles as a means of transport are grossly inefficient in terms of land use, energy use, resource use, and even time.
> 
> For now anyone with a very long car commute would do well to see if they can either get a job closer to home, or move closer to work. Even better would be relocating to places where you can live without a car. If demand for such places increased, then more would be built. In many cases it's simply a matter of reviving existing city centers. Granted, housing in many transit-oriented communities is more expensive, but factor in the annual cost of owning a car or two or three. Also factor in the hours spent in traffic. And consider that the same job in a city will often pay more than in the suburbs. In the end you might find that moving is feasible.
> 
> I highly recommend reading blogs and websites pertaining to living a car-free lifestyle for inspiration. That's really going to be the only way going forward to cope with increasing oil prices.



In developed countries, population growth is light ... with the real possibility of stagnancy beyond immigration.

Oil will get expensive and/or run out ... this is true, but I am more concerned with climate impact of the industrialization of more of the world.

I really do not think the personal care will go out of style though. The average car as 4000 pounds of metal .... that will definitely change.

In many countries, there is far too much established "suburbia" which is highly likely to be abandoned. While in an ever escalating oil market it may be easy to think of this as something that must go away, the reality is that we are humans like and rise to challenges. It's an enormous economic market and one for which solutions will arrive. Do our fat democracies at least in North America have the political fortitude to make the right steps? .... that is the bigger question.

Today we could build thorium cycle nuclear reactors that are extremely safe and we have enough thorium to power the world for well over the next 100's of years. Cost of electricity would be higher than today, but as a "fuel" for transportation, still cheaper than today's gas by far.

I think viability of a tolerable battery, i.e. 300km range is within the next 20 years if not less.

So while 4000lbs of metal will disappear for the most part, commuter cars weighing a 1000lbs and able to carry 4 people will be common.

Intelligent vehicle highway systems and automated driving will become the norm for highways enabling 2-3x the traffic density with no increase in highway construction.

The exact time frame of this is debatable and their will be some grief along the way, but it will happen. At least in North America, we have enough oil reserves, as difficult as they are to get at, for at least the next 50 years. 

Semiman


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 6, 2012)

The Green Wars are just starting in the car industry; the aforementioned Mazda 3 Skyactiv gets 40 mpg @ 76 mph, the four-cylinder Mustang and Camaro are returning, the new Ford Fusion will be four-cylinder-only, and Ford is reintroducing the three-cylinder engine (61 cubic inches making 148 lb-ft of torque!)


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 6, 2012)

SemiMan said:


> Today we could build thorium cycle nuclear reactors that are extremely safe and we have enough thorium to power the world for well over the next 100's of years. Cost of electricity would be higher than today, but as a "fuel" for transportation, still cheaper than today's gas by far.
> 
> I think viability of a tolerable battery, i.e. 300km range is within the next 20 years if not less.
> 
> ...


I also feel the personal car won't disappear, but will probably evolve into a small, battery-powered "errand" machine suitable for shopping and getting to work/school, and most definitely self-driven. Even though I feel we'll soon have electric cars with 300+ km range, long distance car travel I think will be pretty much dead, mostly replaced in the short term by high-speed rail, in the long term possibly by maglevs in evacuated tubes. The idea in all cases is as you said-to go from using oil as transport fuel to using electricity. That in my opinion is the only way any type of lifestyle dependent upon mechanized transport will survive. In many cities we already have established transport networks based on electricity-namely subways and railroads.

I also think it's imperative to conserve as much oil as possible because the need for plastics and other materials derived from oil isn't going anywhere.


----------



## Hooked on Fenix (Oct 6, 2012)

I did a little research on what I think is the real reason why gas prices are so high. Yes, we had some refineries shut down and an oil pipeline shut down. Yes, BP is shutting down many of the Arco's in California (They are being replaced with USA Gas). Yes, BP is getting out of the oil refining business in California and Texas (half of their oil refining capacity countrywide) and using their resources to get oil out of the ground in Canada (moving their business toward the Keystone Pipeline). And all this is happening when summer grade fuel supplies are dwindling and winter grade gas is required to be produced. All of these things are bad and contributing to the price skyrocketing. However, there is one larger factor that no one is talking about. It's not that BP is leaving the state that is the biggest problem. It's why BP is leaving the state that's the problem. Part of it is that BP is fed up with the bureaucracy and environmental regulations in California. The largest problem has to do with the environmental regulations in California making it impossible for oil refineries to make a profit. The places that oil comes from for California are running out of light and sweet crude oil. Many of the oil refineries are only capable of making gas from light and sweet crude oil. This is causing reduced output as light and sweet crude oil runs out. The BP refinery that BP is selling is capable of making gasoline from lousy grades of oil but requires expensive upgrades to make the gas. With the little profits they receive from refining the oil now, it isn't worth it to them to invest in the upgrades, especially with Cap and Trade beginning soon in California. This problem isn't going to get any better. BP is abandoning a sinking ship. This is a warning of things to come. As the supply of light and sweet crude runs dry, California will run out of gas as the refineries that can produce gas from poor grades of oil will leave the state since there is no incentive to invest in upgrades without profit potential. The only relief will be if new supplies of light and sweet crude oil are found by drilling elsewhere, if regulations cease to exist allowing us to purchase gas that is not California's special blend, or if oil companies find a way to make the upgrades and continued business in California profitable. In short, we're screwed for the long term, not just until Thanksgiving like news stations are telling us. I honestly don't see any real relief in sight unless we get some serious changes. Electricity prices make electric cars a lousy solution as well. We have a tiered system. My home is already at the highest tier. Monthly electric bills are already up to $400 with gas appliances and heating. The state lets energy companies pay practically nothing back for solar to homeowners (it isn't worth the investment). I don't see any real solutions near term.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 6, 2012)

jtr1962 said:


> I also feel the personal car won't disappear, but will probably evolve into a small, battery-powered "errand" machine suitable for shopping and getting to work/school, and most definitely *self-driven.*



Not gonna happen. For a variety of reasons. Some good, some not so good. An example of the latter being the insurance industry. They're not going to give up the lucrative, legal, racket of providing insurance to drivers who are legally required to have it. (A retired insurance adjuster once admitted to me that the insurance industry is indeed a racket. Just happens to be a legalized one.) Cars that drive themselves? Well, can't hold the vehicle owner responsible anymore for accidents that take place. After all, he wasn't the driver. Who do you hold responsible? Why, it's the car-makers of course! If self-driven cars are ever created, watch their demise after the very first lawsuit against Ford, GM, or Toyota, etc. after the first self-driven car crashes into someone or something. So that's the car-makers who will also lobby Congress too to make sure cars are never self-driven.

Also, unless you live in Britain where driving regulations are overly complicated for no reason at all; it's not that hard to learn to drive a car. It's just not. I'll even go so far as to say it's easy for the vast majority of folks.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 6, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> Not gonna happen. For a variety of reasons. Some good, some not so good. An example of the latter being the insurance industry. They're not going to give up the lucrative, legal, racket of providing insurance to drivers who are legally required to have it. (A retired insurance adjuster once admitted to me that the insurance industry is indeed a racket. Just happens to be a legalized one.) Cars that drive themselves? Well, can't hold the vehicle owner responsible anymore for accidents that take place. After all, he wasn't the driver. Who do you hold responsible? Why, it's the car-makers of course! If self-driven cars are ever created, watch their demise after the very first lawsuit against Ford, GM, or Toyota, etc. after the first self-driven car crashes into someone or something. So that's the car-makers who will also lobby Congress too to make sure cars are never self-driven.


I'm not so sure about that. Elevators used to have operators and then they became automated. There have been some fatalities due to failures, but nobody has ever suggested we go back to elevator operators. There is one compelling reason here for self-driven cars-the fact that most humans *can't* safely operate one. Sure, it's easy as you say to learn to move a car. It's well beyond the capability of most people to safely operate one on roads with other vehicles and pedestrians and cyclists. Most people just don't have the coordination, level of judgement, or spatial ability to do so. Why do I say this? Well, 35,000 deaths and 2 million injuries a year from collisions in the US alone is why. We wouldn't tolerate this level of carnage with plane travel or train travel, yet for now we tolerate it for car travel.

There is a great reason why self-driven cars will happen, and it's that the costs of not automating cars greatly exceed the costs of automating them. Liability is a non issue here. Even if automakers are held liable for the deaths caused by automated cars at the current going rate (say about $2 million per life), that will be a drop in the bucket to their bottom line. I'd be surprised if there were more than a handful of deaths annually due to issues with self-driven cars. Don't forget these systems won't be implemented until they're thoroughly tested in the real world. I could put another angle on it. Suppose there was a class-action lawsuit against the automakers right now for the carnage their vehicles cause? That's actually fairly plausible because many car commercials depict cars driven in an illegal and dangerous manner, with only a small disclaimer "car driven on closed course by professional driver". My guess is the automakers would lose big time because they've done little to prevent their vehicles from being operated in a dangerous manner. Certainly they could have done things like use GPS and speed limit data to limit acceleration rates on city streets (to prevent drag racing on streets with pedestrians), and also to limit speeds to the posted speed limit at all times. None of this would even have required any extra hardware. Most cars already have GPS navigation which could be tied into the engine controls to limit speeds and acceleration rates. My larger point is that going to self-driven cars might actually shield automakers from liability because I suspect they won't be able to hide forever behind the fact that how the vehicle is operated is out of their control. To some extent they're complicit in this already just by building cars which have top speeds and acceleration rates well beyond what the average driver can handle.

On the insurance industry, I think this is the one thing which will get the general public to embrace automated cars. Some may not like no longer being able to drive because they enjoy it. The carrot though will be that auto insurance will be a thing of the past. The auto makers and possibly service stations would end up facing liability if something happened, not the individual driver. I suspect that once automated cars are widespread, accidents will be so rare that they will make the national news.

Remember an underlying reason for the trend towards automated driving is the increasing number of driver distractions. Evidently enough people would prefer to text or web surf instead of drive because that's what they're already doing. At least with self-driven cars they can do this without placing others in danger. There are also tons of other advantages. You can do away with traffic lights. You can run closer together at much higher speeds on expressways. The value of all these things far exceeds any potential liability issues.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 6, 2012)

Sorry, I can't agree about "most humans can't safely operate [a motor vehicle]." 

That's an incredibly general statement. That's your belief. And that's perfectly fine. Mine is that they can, but that many don't take driving seriously. It's not a question of physical or mental limitations. Such as hand / eye coordination, or being tall enough to reach the pedals. Some of us take driving seriously. Others have way the wrong mindset / attitude. The ones who text & drive, for example. Or those who eat & drive. Apply make-up while driving. Shave while driving . . . 

Problem isn't their ability at all, it's their wrong-headed mentality. 

The main issue once again is money. The insurance industry isn't going to give up their legalized racket that allows them to figuratively print money. No way are they going to make as much money insuring the various car-makers for self-driven vehicles as they would the sheer staggering number of private civilians who need to drive in order to get to work. No way are the various car brands going to have their profit margins greatly reduced by having to buy a new type of insurance for self-driven cars. Then, there are the enviromentalists who will also be petitioning Congress. After all, they're not going to support a ton of self-driven cars clogging up the highways when each of those car owners could be "self-driven" on a public bus along with a ton of other such car owners. 

So that's at least 3 huge groups that will flood Congress with lobbyists. All lobbying against self-driven cars. Also, in the incredibly unlikely event that these groups are ignored. After the very first malfunction of a self-driven car in which a person gets killed, that's it! They're getting yanked off the roads.


----------



## blasterman (Oct 6, 2012)

I work in the tech industry as a contractor, and as much as I see the whining and complaining about fuel costs I still have seen nothing but resistance from drivers to get away from *real* problems such as commuter mentality. We want to work over there, but we want to live way over there, and then call a vehicle that gets 25mpg as 'fuel efficient'.

I was over in the UK before in 1998, and recall the average fuel efficiency of vehicles as a mean was still better than in the U.S today in so called 'green minded' areas. I simply cannot believe the size of bumpkin trucks, sedans and SUVs passing me like I'm standing still while I'm doing 77mph everyday to work. I have to ask again how expensive does gas have to get before I.Qs increase enough in the U.S to realize that a two ton vehicle with one passenger in it and not hauling freight does not entitle you to complain about gas mileage.

I was interviewing for an engineering job some months ago for a very well run company, and for the first time recalled being asked in the interview about how long my commute was. Hallelujah I thought. Companies are starting to figure out that long commutes *do* affect productivity and they are taking this into account when hiring for certain positions. As it was, I was on th inside of the loop, and we both exchanged compliments about their interviewing process and myself being one of the few candidates who saw this as a positive.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 6, 2012)

blasterman said:


> I was interviewing for an engineering job some months ago for a very well run company, and for the first time recalled being asked in the interview about how long my commute was. Hallelujah I thought. Companies are starting to figure out that long commutes *do* affect productivity and they are taking this into account when hiring for certain positions. As it was, I was on th inside of the loop, and we both exchanged compliments about their interviewing process and myself being one of the few candidates who saw this as a positive.



Sounds more like hard-working individuals who don't mind waking up early and coming to work on time will get passed over for the job. There are far better indicators of what type of employee an applicant will be, in terms of productivity, than how far away they live. In 2006, I started a job that required me to take a bus and two different subway trains to get to the client's site. Not even a remotely easy commute. I did it everyday for the next few years. Number of times I was late? Once.

Commute time is at the bottom of the list for what type of work-performance one can expect out of a potential employee.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 6, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> Sorry, I can't agree about "most humans can't safely operate [a motor vehicle]."
> 
> That's an incredibly general statement. That's your belief. And that's perfectly fine. Mine is that they can, but that many don't take driving seriously. It's not a question of physical or mental limitations. Such as hand / eye coordination, or being tall enough to reach the pedals. Some of us take driving seriously. Others have way the wrong mindset / attitude. The ones who text & drive, for example. Or those who eat & drive. Apply make-up while driving. Shave while driving . . .
> 
> Problem isn't their ability at all, it's their wrong-headed mentality.


All the examples you gave fall into the category of "lacking judgement". No amount of training can probably fix that, especially when far too many people regard their car as an extension of their living room. There was actually a time when driving was taken seriously and most drivers took pride in being able to drive well. That was before we as a society decided it was a good idea to make driving nearly universal. Whenever you make anything universal, the end result is that it's dumbed down.

Also, a growing number of people are either on drugs or just physically older. In both cases, the resulting increase in reflex time definitely impairs safety. Regardless, the numbers speak for themselves. I don't care even if a majority _can_ drive safely if they applied themselves. Fact is they don't, and I'm only seeing things getting worse. For example, this year there was actually an increase in the number of pedestrian/cyclist injuries in NYC at the hands of motor vehicles.



> The main issue once again is money. The insurance industry isn't going to give up their legalized racket that allows them to figuratively print money. No way are they going to make as much money insuring the various car-makers for self-driven vehicles as they would the sheer staggering number of private civilians who need to drive in order to get to work. No way are the various car brands going to have their profit margins greatly reduced by having to buy a new type of insurance for self-driven cars. Then, there are the enviromentalists who will also be petitioning Congress. After all, they're not going to support a ton of self-driven cars clogging up the highways when each of those car owners could be "self-driven" on a public bus along with a ton of other such car owners.
> 
> So that's at least 3 huge groups that will flood Congress with lobbyists. All lobbying against self-driven cars. Also, in the incredibly unlikely event that these groups are ignored. After the very first malfunction of a self-driven car in which a person gets killed, that's it! They're getting yanked off the roads.


I think you're wrong here. First off, the insurance industry isn't particularly well-liked. Do you really think they'll have much luck getting self-driven cars banned solely on the basis that it will affect their profit margins? No lawmaker who wants to get reelected is going to vote in favor of the insurance industry, no matter how much they get in campaign contributions. Look what happened with SOPA. Despite all the lobbying, the will of the general public prevailed. Remember also that the only reason the insurance industry makes these massive profits is because we have laws requiring auto insurance. Those laws could be repealed at any time, self-driven cars or not. In fact, on many levels I feel people would drive better if they were personally liable.

Second, my educated guess is the resulting liability to the automakers for self-driven vehicles will be so low that they'll include it in their expenses rather than have insurance for it. A dozen deaths a year at a few million each is peanuts to any automaker. I'm also sure after a few years the system would be refined to the point of near zero accidents. It's really not hard to safely drive a car by computer so long as all the other cars are also driven by computer. If there were any issues, they would most likely occur during the time when you had a mix of human and computer controlled vehicles on the same roads. Once everything is automated, the path any vehicle takes would be boringly predictable.

Third, why would environmentalists or other like-minded groups lobby against self-driven cars when the alternative is human-driven cars which use more energy, then use yet more resources when they cause carnage? All those collisions mean emergency vehicles use huge amounts of fuel getting victims to hospitals. And what about the huge amounts of fuel burned by highway patrol (which is yet another expensive thing robocars will do away with)? Sure, a self-driven bus might be better, but I'm not seeing why environmentalists would lobby against something which will only save lives and energy. If anything, environmentalists will tend to lobby against roads, period, in favor of rail. In fact, many are already doing exactly that.

I'm really having trouble though with the last statement. We're not a society that just gives up. You really think the very first malfunction of a self-driven car will cause all of them to be yanked? Heck, a while back a laptop battery exploded and killed someone. Nobody suggested pulling everything with lithium-ion batteries off the shelves. Like I said, I honestly feel sooner or later there will be more liability issues if we don't take the human out of the loop. Humans are actually great at creative tasks. Here I feel no machine can ever replace us. For rout, repetitive tasks like driving or assembling parts, machines can do the same job far faster and better and safer than humans ever could.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 6, 2012)

blasterman said:


> I was interviewing for an engineering job some months ago for a very well run company, and for the first time recalled being asked in the interview about how long my commute was. Hallelujah I thought. Companies are starting to figure out that long commutes *do* affect productivity and they are taking this into account when hiring for certain positions. As it was, I was on th inside of the loop, and we both exchanged compliments about their interviewing process and myself being one of the few candidates who saw this as a positive.


It's actually refreshing to hear companies are actually starting to think like this. I spent the last five semesters of college commuting from Eastern Queens to Princeton. It took 2 hours on a good day. After I graduated, I said never again. The fact that it took so much out of me (and this was just sitting on trains, not driving) at that young an age tells me there's no way anyone who has a 2 hour each way commute is going to be at their best. That goes double if they're piloting a vehicle for those 2 hours. If any candidates who live far away get passed over by the company, to me that's doing them a favor even if they might not mind the commute. Over the years a long commute has to impact your health. I know I was burned out by the time college was over.

What I'm really surprised doesn't exist is some kind of national jobs database. Suppose a company could say that we have people doing these jobs in this location. Every other company does the same. You might find many pairs of employees doing similar work who can greatly reduce their commute by voluntarily switching jobs. Imagine now what happens if this database allows millions of people to greatly shorten their commutes by exchanging jobs.

Keeping more with the original theme of this thread, what about making more use of telecommuting for jobs which don't really require a physical presence? How about passing some tax incentives for companies which allow more employees to telecommute? That seems like it would work well.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 7, 2012)

Driving, for many, is a necessity. Accidents do happen. No denying that. Yet the vast majority of folks who do drive, do so on a daily basis without issues or accidents at all. If the situation was indeed one of "most" drivers getting into accidents, insurance rates would be so outrageously high that cars would once again simply become toys that the rich could only afford. Originally due to the cost of cars before Henry Ford introduced the Model T. Now, due to cost of insurance from daily, horrific, accidents caused by most of the general public. That hasn't happened. The vast majority of drivers aren't dying (or killing) on a routine basis due to motoring. 

Doesn't matter if the insurance industry is well-liked or not. They have money. That translates into lawyers and lobbyists. Politics is a dirty game made up mostly of influence and favors. 

The insurance industry loves fender-benders. They love minor mistakes made by drivers. No one hurt, vehicle drivable, insurance premiums through the roof! That's the concept behind "No fault" insurance policies. No one gets blamed. So both drivers involved in an accident get their premiums increased, not just one. Not just the one who was actually responsible or mostly responsible. The insurance industry isn't going to give up that cash cow in exchange for what (ideally) will be far fewer minor accidents from self-driven vehicles.

The Green Camp doesn't want cars at all. Self-driven vehicles isn't a good alternative, for them. 

Look at blimps. They were once thought of as the future of trans-continental travel. The future! Advanced, high-class, luxury, air-travel. Took one horrific tragedy for them to vanish off the face of the Earth. Perhaps the very first accident won't do it with self-driven vehicles. (Unless it's truly horrific or involves the death of a child.) But it's a realistic outlook. There's another issue. We're both assuming that self-driven vehicles will have reached the point of being reliable once they are introduced to the public. Rarely are technologically new innovations without bugs, issues, and general teething problems. So, accidents would be a genuine concern.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 7, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> Look at blimps. They were once thought of as the future of trans-continental travel. The future! Advanced, high-class, luxury, air-travel. Took one horrific tragedy for them to vanish off the face of the Earth. Perhaps the very first accident won't do it with self-driven vehicles. (Unless it's truly horrific or involves the death of a child.) But it's a realistic outlook. There's another issue. We're both assuming that self-driven vehicles will have reached the point of being reliable once they are introduced to the public. Rarely are technologically new innovations without bugs, issues, and general teething problems. So, accidents would be a genuine concern.


Blimps might have caught on, despite the Hindenburg disaster, had aeroplanes not gotten faster and cheaper. That's really what killed off the blimp. It became a solution in search of a problem. Remember in the US blimps used non-flammable helium which Germany didn't have access too.

I can't say whether or not self-driven vehicles would be trouble free from day one. I feel that in today's lawsuit-prone environment they will have the hell tested out of them before being sold to the general public, which is as it should be. The problem here is that you're acting as if the status quo is just fine. You even call collisions "accidents", as if they just happen on their own. Studies show the opposite-namely that nearly all collisions are the result of human error of some kind. Anyway, I'm astounded that we as a society accept 35,000 annual deaths and 2 million injuries, just in the US alone. If we have the technology to seriously reduce these numbers, even if it isn't perfect, we should use it.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Oct 7, 2012)

jtr1962 said:


> I'm not so sure it will take 60 years to readjust to the new reality of higher energy costs. Remember that it took us less than 50 years to get to the mess we're in now. Already with higher gas prices demand for public transit is exceeding supply in many places. And the cities are showing net growth while many exurbs are being abandoned. The problem in a nutshell is in the last 50 years we built as if we were going to have cheap energy forever.



There's an important east/west difference at play. Most of the east coast was built out before WWII, with areas of expansion smaller and less influential. Places that still are can be updated and reinhabited. In the west and the area I'm most familiar with (socal), 30m people live in an area configured almost entirely post WWII. Picture a massive Long Island, a solid 100sq/mi blanket of curvilinear streets, broken only by freeways The only indication you've even left one city and entered another is the wording on the offramp signs. Its impossible to install trains and bus service (to anywhere near most front doors) would be horrifically impractical. Changing it would require dozing the whole super lot and abandoning it (land worth trillions) would require moving half way to Vegas. There simply isn't enough 'old town' for enough people to move into.




Hooked on Fenix said:


> This is a warning of things to come. As the supply of light and sweet crude runs dry, California will run out of gas as the refineries that can produce gas from poor grades of oil will leave the state since there is no incentive to invest in upgrades without profit potential.



If I'm understanding your description: there are several companies, all producing gas to CA standards. Some are running out of source LSC and are not able to pass production cost increases from using normal crude to customers, who would then start buying from companies who still (for now) have sources of LSC. But when they too run out of LSC, no companies will have the lower cost advantage and all retail prices will go up, covering the increased cost of new equipment.

California has several remarkable abilities. One of them is squandering huge advantages/opportunities (that other states would kill for), but another is providing previews of things to come, for the rest of the country. What we are seeing is the early signs of declining oil supplies. These will eventually show up elsewhere. In the mean time, this short term crisis will pass and this thread will again grow quiet.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 9, 2012)

Easiest way to cut your fuel costs is to avoid driving. There are many ways to do that. All of these are frequently done. * Each will cut your gas costs 20%*

Telecommute once a week.

Work 4 days at 10 hours a day or even 3 days at 13.5 hours each.

Car pool twice a week (you drive once, they drive once).


When you do drive, you can improve your mileage with easy tricks like;
Coast to the stop sign.
Coast to the red traffic signal.
Accelerate slowly and smoothly. 
Find out what speed gives you the best mileage around town. Frequently right around 43 gives great mileage. Do the same for the freeway. Very few cars are as efficient at 65 or 75 as they are at 55.
Don't carry extra weight in the car. It takes energy to accelerate a pound of anything, even as light as school books.

If you are replacing the car anyway, look at higher gas mileage cars. If you only drive 10 miles a week it does not matter too much what you drive. If you drive 100 it does. 

Match the car (assuming you are buying one) to your driving. An electric car is a great choice if you can take advantage of it's strengths. Same with a hybrid. I love my hybrid but if you only drive a few miles at a time, you don't get the full benefit of the system. 

Daniel


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 9, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> Work 4 days at 10 hours a day or even 3 days at 13.5 hours each.


I've been saying this for years. Besides the obvious savings in commuting costs/time, you always have either 3-day or 4-day weekends. Actually, to me the 3-day work week makes the most sense, the theory being once you work 8 hours, the day is pretty much shot anyway. Might as well just stay there another 5 or so hours and get 2 extra days a week off. I also think this is healthier from a lifestyle standpoint. 5 days on, 2 days off is a drag any way you look at it. 3 days on, 4 days off gives you plenty of time for yourself.


----------



## Fresh Light (Oct 9, 2012)

I'd like to add that on my car, coasting in gear does not use fuel, while shifting into neutral forces the engine to burn fuel to idle. I drive a vw jetta tdi with modifications to the intake/exhaust, computer tuning, turbo, injectors allowing for a maximum output of 175 hp and 290 ftlbs of tq. The tank when completely full to the brim will hold 15.9 gallons. Without running it empty on a single tank I've driven 910 miles, which equates to 57.2mpg if I had ran it to empty. Most of that trip was at 60 but sometimes up to 80 as a max. Driving to work 40 miles and back I regularly get 46-50. Filled it tonight and only 45mpg, a little dissapointing. I can't stress enough how little I try to get 45 mpg, I regularly rip the onramps and drive for fun.













A friend just bought a new passat 6 sp. He is getting 55mpg on all highway trips at 75. This car set the mileage record for a single tank, somewhere around 1400 or so miles. I may get one of these as the next car, but I'm really liking having no payments.


----------



## Kestrel (Oct 9, 2012)

I understand that there is a substantial "back story" to gas mileage & prices, but please stay closer to the main topic and keep in mind post #1 back in April and the 'restart' earlier this month:



TooManyGizmos said:


> GAS prices are HIGH ...... and still rising !!
> Sometimes we forget to do routine-preventative maintanance on our vehicles .
> Here are some things you may not have done recently ... but should consider !
> Change your plugs and air cleaner and pour in some fuel injector cleaner to your gas tank
> ...





Hooked on Fenix said:


> *Does anyone have any tips or tricks to save on gas?*
> 
> In California, gas prices have skyrocketed over 50 cents in the last week (20 cents in the last day). Some areas in San Diego county are nearing $6 a gallon. I can't afford these increases and I doubt anyone can in the current economy. I heard from an employee at my local Circle K that California is getting rid of 87 Octane gas (Regular Unleaded), forcing people to buy Midgrade which is 10-15 cents more a gallon (I really hope that employee was wrong). On top of that, BP is fed up with California and is leaving the state, so all Arco stations (all of the cheapest gas stations in my area) are going out of business or changing ownership. With the changeover to the winter grade of gasoline, oil companies sold off the summer grade to Mexico and elsewhere and let supplies dwindle knowing that soon, they wouldn't be able to sell it in California. After that, there was a refinery power outage and pipeline incident that shot gas prices to near record levels (we're likely to shatter records by tomorrow). Other than bugging our representatives to get rid of the requirements for a special blend of fuel in California (at least temporarily), I don't see a way to lower prices any time soon (If we didn't have to have the special California blend of fuel, we could get supplies from out of state and there would be absolutely no shortage of fuel.). *Therefore, if we can't save on the price, we have to reduce consumption to save. What tricks do you use to save on gas?
> 
> *I'll start. I just replaced my car that was totaled by a friend with an old 99 Toyota Camry that should get around 30 MPG highway. It came with a full 18.5 gallon tank of gas. I'm hoping to ride out the price increase if I think it will be short-term (1-2 weeks tops). If I think prices will continue to rise, I'll change strategy and top off daily. If you have any other tips to save on gas please share them.


(emphasis added in the long paragraph above)

Anyone, please feel free to create other threads as needed to cover other aspects the rather broad topic of automobiles and automobile policies. Thanks,


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Oct 9, 2012)

One thing you can do is to replace your stock air filter with an aftermarket high flow filter, which wont directly decrease fuel consumption, but it will increase performance, by increasing the air flow into your engine, and BTW, your vehicle doesnt run on gas or diesel, it runs on air, so the more air you get into the engine, the better it runs, with more power, which means you wont have to push the gas petal down as much to get your car moving, which will lead to better gas mileage.

_Admin note: Your cross posting of this, posted to an additional thread, has been removed. Cross-posting isn't permitted. - Empath_


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 11, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> One thing you can do is to replace your stock air filter with an aftermarket high flow filter, which wont directly decrease fuel consumption, but it will increase performance, by increasing the air flow into your engine, and BTW, your vehicle doesnt run on gas or diesel, it runs on air, so the more air you get into the engine, the better it runs, with more power, which means you wont have to push the gas petal down as much to get your car moving, which will lead to better gas mileage.



I'm pretty sure this is only valid for older cars. Newer cars with computerized fuel systems have sensors for everything from airflow to the oxygen in the exhaust. They meter the fuel to match the airflow and don't rely on the venturi effect to pull gas into the airstream. A more free flowing filter should not impact the amount of air or fuel that gets to the combustion chamber.

Now that I think of it, I've not looked into the actual control algorithms used in fuel injected engines. Do they just enrich the air/fuel ratio to increase speed and lean it out to slow down? That does not sound quite right from an emissions point of view. Still using a throttle plate to decrease air and fuel to slow it down? Hmm. Research time! 

Daniel


----------



## vpr5703 (Oct 11, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> I'm pretty sure this is only valid for older cars. Newer cars with computerized fuel systems have sensors for everything from airflow to the oxygen in the exhaust. They meter the fuel to match the airflow and don't rely on the venturi effect to pull gas into the airstream. A more free flowing filter should not impact the amount of air or fuel that gets to the combustion chamber.
> 
> Now that I think of it, I've not looked into the actual control algorithms used in fuel injected engines. Do they just enrich the air/fuel ratio to increase speed and lean it out to slow down? That does not sound quite right from an emissions point of view. Still using a throttle plate to decrease air and fuel to slow it down? Hmm. Research time!
> 
> Daniel



A high level overview on how the modern gasoline fuel injection systems work - 

A sensor on the throttle plate detects how wide the plate is opened. Using that, the computer alters how long to keep the injectors in the intake manifold open. The longer they are open, the more fuel the car gets. Basically, the injectors are pulsed off and on based on where the crankshaft is and how wide the throttle plate is opened. The cylinders still get the same mix of fuel and air, they either get more of it for more power, or less of it for lower power. Once the engine is warmed up, the computer maintains the fuel/air mix at the right level by monitoring the oxygen levels right after the exhaust is mixed in the header, usually with a sensor in the downpipe. This promotes an optimal burn of all the fuel in a cylinder, resulting in more power, greater efficiency and less emissions going to the catalytic converter.

If you only leaned out or richened the mix, all that would do is either create more power, but at the expense of a greater amount of heat (if leaned) or cool the engine and decrease power (if richened)


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Oct 11, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> I'm pretty sure this is only valid for older cars. Newer cars with computerized fuel systems have sensors for everything from airflow to the oxygen in the exhaust. They meter the fuel to match the airflow and don't rely on the venturi effect to pull gas into the airstream. A more free flowing filter should not impact the amount of air or fuel that gets to the combustion chamber.
> 
> Now that I think of it, I've not looked into the actual control algorithms used in fuel injected engines. Do they just enrich the air/fuel ratio to increase speed and lean it out to slow down? That does not sound quite right from an emissions point of view. Still using a throttle plate to decrease air and fuel to slow it down? Hmm. Research time!
> 
> Daniel




Well, there is a difference in the performance increases in carbureted engines vs fuel injected engines, but you can still get better air flow in an EFI engine with either a higher flow filter, or a cold air system, or a filter system that connects your air inlet up front near the grille where it will tend to be forced in. Also, the colder the air is, the more compressed the air molecules will be, which equals more air, which equals more power. Thats the basic idea behind nitrous oxide, which is injected into the engine at very cold temperatures, which cools the surrounding air and compresses it as well. PLus, N2O increases power by increasing the amount of oxygen and the increased nitrogen helps by acting as a buffer to prevent or reduce detonation(But those last couple advantages are irrelevant to the topic)

Here's an article about high performance air filters and their effectiveness in EFI engines:
http://trucks.about.com/od/truckaccessory/fr/KN_kit.htm

But here's something that touches on your point that the onboard computer monitors and controls pretty much everything(unfortunately). You can buy a "performance chip" that will modify the way the computer runs the engine so that it will change the timing, add more fuel, more air, etc., which 'can' increase power and fuel efficiency as well.


----------



## bstrickler (Oct 12, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> You could be a hypermiler; they have a forum where the hardcore guys have their "total MPG" in their siglines - they use hardware in their cars that always monitors their MPG, and can therefore very specifically track what their numbers are not just for the day, but for the entire time they've owned the car. All of them score in the upper 90%, that is above 90% of the rated MPG for their car, but I don't think anyone has ever matched or beaten it..



I'm one of the few actually getting more than EPA postings. I'm getting 33-35mpg on my car, and they've listed it at 32mpg. And that's only hyper-miling one way! If I left about 30 minutes earlier, I may get 36-38mpg if I try.

I hypermile by hitting 10-15mph above speed limits, and coasting until about 10-15 below. Makes a pretty big difference, but it's hard to do on a crowded highway (fortunately for me, it's empty during my commute at 7 pm and 6am). I also coast to all 3-8 lights on my way to/from work, should I need to stop (depends on which route I take).

I'm thinking I'll try the route I take on my way home, now that my shift starts later, and I don't have to worry about the daily 4:30 accident (I'm not kidding. Almost EVERY day, there's an accident at this intersection. I would think people would get a freaking clue by now to not be so impatient!).




BVH said:


> Be aware that some, if not all automatic transmissions have very reduced basic lubrication of their internal parts going on when RPMs are down at idle. So if you coast at road speed and idle RPM frequently, you may end up damaging your transmission and then where are the savings? Also, it's a distraction shifting in and out of gear, it may end up causing an accident or you may end up putting the tranny in reverse by mistake. Is it really worth the risks to maybe save a few pennies per tank? Changing spark plugs is almost a thing of the past with precious metal tipped plugs, which are in most factory cars now. You should not change them for an absolute minimum of 60,000 and more like 80,000 miles and more. Change them early and you're wasting money.




Most vehicles have a safety block that keeps you from shifting into reverse. My Fiero can shift between drive and neutral all day. My '84 Firebird was stupid in the fact that they set it up so you could jump between REVERSE and Neutral (and go from drive to reverse by just pushing the shifter forward), even while driving (did it once, in a parking lot, so fortunately, I was going slow)! 

Just another reason I love manual transmissions... If you shift into reverse somehow, it's your own **** fault.

Also, for those who hyper-mile, remember to raise your RPM's before shifting back into drive, otherwise you will cause excessive wear on your transmission, due to the sudden jolting of the transmission going from 0 rpm to 2,000 (or whatever your engine RPM's should be at for the speed you are going). You can be plus or minus 200 rpm, and it won't be a big issue. You just don't want to be much further outside of that range.


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 12, 2012)

bstrickler said:


> I'm one of the few actually getting more than EPA postings.



The serious hypermilers count only the MPG over the life of the car; that means you'd have to calculate your MPG every single time the car moves - best done with a plug n' play device. And trip mileage one-way especially doesn't count, because it might be more downhill than the return trip.


----------



## vpr5703 (Oct 12, 2012)

It is so easy to get higher than EPA ratings. I can get 36 out of my car just by staying at the same speed. Overall, my car is rated at 26 combined, but I find myself hovering at the 30 mark on a tank to tank basis.


----------



## Kestrel (Oct 12, 2012)

It's trivial to outperform the EPA ratings for my car at least.

The official numbers for my '94 Corolla wagon are 23 City / 31 Highway / 26 combined. I check every tank I've ever used from when I bought it @ 105K to where it is now @ 295K. I usually get 39-40 in the summer and 36-37 in the winter for my combined driving (primarily relatively short highway trips). I have never gotten less than 33 MPG for any tank during the entire 180,000 miles that I have driven the car, and I have never gotten less than 35 for something like the last 120,000 miles.

In its golden years (~130K to ~230K) I would consistently get 42-44 mpg for pure highway driving, and earlier this summer I did a round-trip that took me over the Cascade mountains where I got 42 mpg for the round trip. I even filled up at the exact same gas pump at the beginning and end of the trip, which is about as good a test as any.

In summary, in my combined driving I have outperformed the highway rating of the car by over 20% during the entire 10 year period that I have owned the car, which has been the majority of its useful life. I hope to retire the car at ~390K and don't expect these numbers to change significantly, although they will continue to decline slightly. I will then have data for 73% of the life of the car - my only regret is not buying one of these sooner otherwise I could present more data.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Oct 12, 2012)

Kestrel said:


> to where it is now @ 295K...
> ...I hope to retire the car at ~390K



:wow:


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 18, 2012)

I'm sad to report that after all those years of commuting 60 or more miles a day, I retired so I am now using my Prius exactly the wrong way.

Where I was getting a bit above 45 mpg on my daily commute (including stop and go up hill for 30 minutes a day) I hit my all time low this month, with only 37 MPG for the last 220 miles. On the open freeway I usually hit 55 mpg or more. I almost never drive in a way that conserves gas.

Here's what I'm doing wrong; I shop locally, so I make 1 and 2 mile trips to the store. I have all day free, so it's not unusual to make a run to the store in the morning, and another to home depot in the afternoon. The poor car is never warming all the way up. Without warming up the 2002 models don't go into the mode where it turns off the motor at lights and stop signs. Add to that the fact that I leave the AC running when my wife waits in the car and the mileage is shot. 

OTOH, I'm only driving 10 to 20 miles a week, so even at 37 MPG that will take a couple of weeks to use $4.25 worth of gas. Maybe it is time to start hyper-miling. 

Daniel


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 18, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> I'm only driving 10 to 20 miles a week, so even at 37 MPG that will take a couple of weeks to use $4.25 worth of gas. Maybe it is time to start hyper-miling.



You'd be getting right around 85 MPG with a Chevy Volt.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Oct 18, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> ... so I am now using my Prius exactly the wrong way.



Driving is one of the few cases where quantity (few) is more important than quality (mpg). A 5 mpg car will use a third less gas, driven 10 miles a week than a 50 mpg car driven 150 miles a week.

Just let it stretch it's legs once a month with a Sunday drive. Get the engine up to full temp to burn off the impurities.


----------



## Steve K (Oct 18, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> Here's what I'm doing wrong; I shop locally, so I make 1 and 2 mile trips to the store. I have all day free, so it's not unusual to make a run to the store in the morning, and another to home depot in the afternoon.



sounds like the perfect scenario for a bicycle with panniers, or even a little trailer! 
I usually bike commute to work, 5 miles away, and frequently swing by the grocery store on the way home. If I take the scenic route home, it helps justify buying an extra snack at the store.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 18, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> Here's what I'm doing wrong; I shop locally, so I make 1 and 2 mile trips to the store. I have all day free, so it's not unusual to make a run to the store in the morning, and another to home depot in the afternoon.


I'll personally just walk if the store is only a mile or two away-not even worth taking out the bike for such a short distance. If I'm buying more than I can hand carry, I use a shopping cart. I've yet to find an instance where that wasn't adequate. The cart can hold about 100 pounds. If I lived in a place where I regularly had to go a few miles away or more to shop, I would get a bike trailer. No option for me to use a car for errands-no license and I couldn't afford a car anyway.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 19, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> You'd be getting right around 85 MPG with a Chevy Volt.



Actually, I'd be carrying around an expensive motor that is not really needed, since 20 miles a week is only one full charge of it's batteries.

Occasional driving is the kind that really does not work out well at all. All batteries have a shelf life. Li-Ion batteries tend to wear out in less than 5 years even if mildly used. All batteries have some internal discharge. Li-Ion loses a huge percentage of it's charge in storage. 

So here's the problem. Driving 20 miles a week is only 1,000 miles a year. 

Electric; Replacing the battery pack after only 5 to 10 thousand miles is really expensive on a per mile basis. In addition, I might use as much energy to charge it and store it as I do to drive it.

Hybrid; Same problem as electric, plus you still need the periodic oil changes.

Fuel Cell; $100,000 for a glorified hybrid that might or might not last 5 years? Nope nope nope.

As much as I hate to say it, there are cases where a good old fashioned small, lean burn gas engine in a small car is enough.

Dan


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 19, 2012)

jtr1962 said:


> I'll personally just walk if the store is only a mile or two away-not even worth taking out the bike for such a short distance. If I'm buying more than I can hand carry, I use a shopping cart. I've yet to find an instance where that wasn't adequate. The cart can hold about 100 pounds. If I lived in a place where I regularly had to go a few miles away or more to shop, I would get a bike trailer. No option for me to use a car for errands-no license and I couldn't afford a car anyway.



Around here they don't allow the shopping carts to leave the parking lot. They even have wheels that lock up if you cross an invisible fence. I suspect you have your own cart. 

I do still need my hybrid, BTW. Every once in a while I take a long drive in it still, so a bike or city car will not really replace it's functionality. Things like geocaching require an inordinate amount of driving in central California. 

Dan


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 19, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> Around here they don't allow the shopping carts to leave the parking lot. They even have wheels that lock up if you cross an invisible fence. I suspect you have your own cart.


Yes, I meant that you use your own cart. Around here the store shopping carts also lock up when you go past a certain perimeter.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Oct 20, 2012)

blasterman said:


> I work in the tech industry as a contractor, and as much as I see the whining and complaining about fuel costs I still have seen nothing but resistance from drivers to get away from *real* problems such as commuter mentality. We want to work over there, but we want to live way over there, and then call a vehicle that gets 25mpg as 'fuel efficient'.
> 
> I was over in the UK before in 1998, and recall the average fuel efficiency of vehicles as a mean was still better than in the U.S today in so called 'green minded' areas. I simply cannot believe the size of bumpkin trucks, sedans and SUVs passing me like I'm standing still while I'm doing 77mph everyday to work. I have to ask again how expensive does gas have to get before I.Qs increase enough in the U.S to realize that a two ton vehicle with one passenger in it and not hauling freight does not entitle you to complain about gas mileage.
> 
> I was interviewing for an engineering job some months ago for a very well run company, and for the first time recalled being asked in the interview about how long my commute was. Hallelujah I thought. Companies are starting to figure out that long commutes *do* affect productivity and they are taking this into account when hiring for certain positions. As it was, I was on th inside of the loop, and we both exchanged compliments about their interviewing process and myself being one of the few candidates who saw this as a positive.





I agree with the notion you are conveying, but not everyone who drives a truck is doing so because they just like trucks. I'd say that at least 50-60% of trucks out there are for work purposes. You cant drive a subcompact electric car to deliver drywall! I am not particularly a "truck guy" per se, but my primary vehicle is a truck because I need it to run my business. Another aspect to it, is that I bought it new in 2005, when gas was around $1.60 per gallon, and it had been steady for years. But only about 3 months after I bought it, gas prices began to skyrocket to near $3 a gallon, then the next year it was near $4 per gallon. Now its at $4 per gallon again. So things were much different when I drove that truck off the dealer's lot in July 2005. 

There are too many people who go out and buy huge SUV's even though they arent married and dont have a family, and those people shouldnt complain about high gas prices. But to be honest, if I didnt need a truck, I wouldnt own one. I wouldnt own an SUV or a van, etc. However I would own a sports car with a V-8 that would probably get 25mpg highway. But that would be worlds better than the 12mpg I get now!


----------



## RBR (Oct 21, 2012)

.....


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 21, 2012)

RBR said:


> If you think $4 would be skyrocketing just come over to Europe.
> 
> Gas prices here start currently at about $8 per gallon.



Depending on how things in Iran and Syria go, we might be joining you soon..


----------



## SilentK (Oct 21, 2012)

My sole vehicle is a 1993 Lincoln Town Car. The car weighs a solid 4,400-4,500 pounds with me, a full tank of gas, full sized spare tire and a 2.5 ton floor jack in the trunk for tire changes. I've got 146k on the odometer and on the interstate going 75mph, I get a consistent 29/30mpg. I've seen a 7-8mpg increase on that if I hang a little behind an 18 wheeler. (About three or four car lengths.) In the city, I get around 23/24. That's with slow accelerations, rolling to stop lights, and overall just driving like I'm 70 years old.  Although I've seen that number plummet down to 15/16mpg if I drive like a majority of my friends who go to high school with me. I don't think I'm doing too bad for driving a land yacht that's almost 20 years old and that I only paid $1,200 for! Especially since I've got three different brands of used tires on it. (New tires are coming at the end of the month) :thumbsup:


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 21, 2012)

SilentK said:


> I've seen a 7-8mpg increase on that if I hang a little behind an 18 wheeler. (About three or four car lengths.)



Yep, I especially love race trailers that are low to the ground; the MPG starts to climb from even ~20 feet away - I could consistently get right around 40 MPG in an older Lexus SUV this way..


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 21, 2012)

SilentK said:


> I've seen a 7-8mpg increase on that if I hang a little behind an 18 wheeler. (About three or four car lengths.)


You would probably do even better hanging behind a bus, especially if you can hang a car length or two behind. Not related to mpg per se, but I've gone 50+ mph on level roads on my bike hanging behind buses. I also hit close to 60 mph once behind a large van when I accidentally got on an expressway. I don't even need to hang right behind-a car length back is sufficient, and it gives me sufficient time to react if the driver hits the brakes. Really amazing how much those things block the wind. The only downside is I'm spinning at about ~135 RPM in my top 53-11 gear @ 50 mph, so it's not something I feel like doing for more than a brief time. When I feel like slowing to more pedestrian speeds, I just get out of the slipstream. Once I do that, I slow down like I hit a sand pit.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 22, 2012)

When tailgating a truck to increase mileage, several things come into play. Among them are less turbulence, reduced wind resistance and consistent speed.

An early Prius driver did some tests (complete with wind speed sensors) and found that you still get benefit from following a Semi at a normal distance. The 'wind shadow' extends much further than was expected.

Don't discount the fact that the semi will also tend to go at a more steady speed than typical traffic. Steady speed means less chance of needing to hit the brakes.

Semis also tend to go a little slower. This decreases fuel consumption on most cars. 

Daniel


----------



## SilentK (Oct 22, 2012)

gadget_lover said:


> When tailgating a truck to increase mileage, several things come into play. Among them are less turbulence, reduced wind resistance and consistent speed.
> 
> An early Prius driver did some tests (complete with wind speed sensors) and found that you still get benefit from following a Semi at a normal distance. The 'wind shadow' extends much further than was expected.
> 
> ...



Would you happen to remember about how many car lengths you need to be back behind a rig before you get any measurable increase in fuel economy? And i second the idea that slower speeds are more efficient. On my particular car, if i go the slowest speed i can without the transmission dropping me out of overdrive, it is more effecient than faster speeds. Cruise control helps a great deal as well.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 22, 2012)

For following distance, the two second rule works well. You should pass a highway marker two seconds after the truck/car ahead of you pases it. That will come out to close to 200 feet at 65 mph.


I do not remember the optimum distance. The research was back in 2002-2003, and I can't find the post on priuschat.com

Daniel


----------



## StarHalo (Oct 22, 2012)

SilentK said:


> Cruise control helps a great deal as well.



Don't use cruise if MPG is the goal; if you let the car lose a bit of speed uphill and regain it going downhill, you'll get better mileage than maintaining the same speed. And you can do a better job of ensuring there's no downshift than the cruise can.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 26, 2012)

Cruise can be your friend. With a well implemented cruise, the speed is kept steady with a minimum of power input. Without cruise, you tend to oscillate between speeding up and coasting. You may also tend to drive faster. I have discovered that I get several more MPG if I use the cruise on the freeway than I do if I just use my foot to control speed. 

The difference is enough that I notice it at the end of my commute when I have had to drop out of cruise and forget to use it.

Daniel


----------

