Car Fuel Mileage Gripe

It's probably a USA thing.

Australia has standardised driving sequences that are used to standardise the "economy" factor for passenger vehicles. There are two cycle models that are reported, being "city" and "country".

Some years ago when the USA had a fuel efficiency target, the auto industry clouded the real customer cost by having the efficiency measure be something like "ton-mile per gallon". This meant that a SUV that weighed 3 ton and got 10 MPG (30 ton-mile per gallon) seemed more efficient than a 1 ton vehicle that got 25 MPG.

I suspect the root cause is creating confusion in the market place so that the customer does not have an apples for apples review.

Might be a good opportunity to develop a "phone app", called "compare the mileage". Copyright the idea and send me 10%.

Blimey! Do they even have electric cars over there? I thought you were a nation of gas guzzlers who couldn't give a damn!

We don't, except for notable variances in the islands of fantasy: All of Californica, and a mysterious opaque (that was supposed to be transparent) place called D.C. - not short for direct current, more of an obliviated current, or O.C.

20 miles per charge! Is that in electrons (what a wonder that would be), Coulombs, or Faradays? J.K. - if that is all the further one can get, why bother? That is a ridiculously useless amount of travel. They could do that with electric cars back in 1905, or so (not at speed). Heck, a golf cart can probably beat that.

Apples and oranges, or lemons and mangoes. We all have places to go, and things to do, and the last thing anyone needs is something that requires constant attention to nagging, whining, or computer voice demanding more electrons. I will just keep driving my 2001 Chevy pickup truck until hell freezes over.

Because unfortunately most of their target market are people like my wife who see miles per tank as a better number than miles per gallon.

My old 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis four door sedan with the 4.6l V8 and most of its emissions systems gutted or bypassed was and still is a good mid 20's MPG vehicle but her daily driving to work and back would get her about a week and a half between fuel ups.

Now her newer 2006 Ford Explorer easily gets her a full two weeks of driving between fuel ups even though it only gets about 16 017 MPG at best.

In her mind the explorer is better on fuel because she has to fuel it up less often. Never mind that to fuel it up takes her about $80 Vs my old Mercury only took about $50.

Thats why.

Get a bigger tank then, and stop the whining! Actually, the above pic is for a wood gas generator mounted in the "truck" (actually it is an El Camino mod) bed, just don't tell the wife. Tell her it is a larger gas tank - at least half the truth, as it is a "gas" tank, and it is larger.

Here I go talking to (and answering myself once again). I was just thinking about this wood-gas fuel converter and had an interesting idea:

(1) The original diesel engine was actually designed for and ran on pulverized (powderized) coal dust. OK sure, the ash pretty much ground the engine to smitherines, even with low ash content, I bet that was pretty near a loser of a deal.

(2) I bet there is an engineer out there that can solve the wood ash problem, and design a "diesel" engine that can and will run off powderized wood dust, and simultaneously come up with an answer to the wood ash problem, char, etc.

For hints: try a dry lubed cylinder piston set, or even water lubed (as in the Cyclone Power radial engines). Advanced materials make it possible to reduce sliding friction without oil that would pick up the ash/char, thus making it more likely to be swept from the cylinders.

Probably, the engine will have to have an included electrolysis system to make hydrogen-oxygen (hopefully separated) to do two things: (1) increase burn (flame) velocity in the cylinder at ignition such that flame front stays with the piston all the way down the stroke, and (2) produces a higher O2 % in the cylinder so that all the wood dust burns very quickly, and no embers leave the cylinder, just hot ash.

I presume the engine would have to have a sophisticated exhaust ash separator to prevent dust pollution- if one intended to be out on the highway with "others" to have to play nice with. Otherwise, just go road warrior, and burn old tires in the thing.

I don't know about for a vehicle, but that would be interesting for a home generator. You would probably need to use good wood that is low in resin. Or start the thing on propane and switch to wood dust. Perhaps using low grade biomass like plant cellulose left over from another process. Just think, a grain mill could generate it's own electricity from the waste biomass from farming and processing.

Drew K

P.S. if it works, I only ask for 1% revenue!

the reply I attempted a few minutes ago, simply disappeared, why? I don't know.

I think look at www.cyclonepower.com steam external combustion, and you will see what actually works. This thing makes some really high pressure, high temperature steam, and is remarkably efficient. Lube of cylinders is by liquid water, no oil. Very clean steam-condensate system is air cooled, and has a good, quick startup even in freezing conditions by using a hot air-bypass back to the condenser to produce a warm up even in sub-zero conditions.

Get an engine from them if you can, the apocalype is on its way in October (at least that has been spread around){SPOOF ALERT}. Or mimic what they have done as nearly as possible without violating their patent rights.

You just don't understand female logic. Try using this fuel mileage formula. Try to compare days per swipe. The Merc only got 10-11 DPS, while the Explorer gets 14 DPS.

Hey, it's advertising. The purpose is to fool the customer into buying what you're selling. You can't expect them to make it easy to make it easy to compare.

"People want economy, and they will pay any price to get it" Lee Iacocca

"Ivory soap is 99 and 44 one hundredths percent pure". They didn't say pure what.

"Apple's iPhone 4 'Retina' Display Has More Pixels Than the Human Eye Can Perceive".

The list goes on and on.

Most people don't believe these claims anyway.

Yes but is it the responsibility of manufacturers to fairly and plainly differentiate their products against the competition?

At the moment the manufactures are pulled in two directions, Toyota produce the Prius and the LandCruiser - surely they are also getting mixed messages from us the consumer?

"The public gets what the public wants" - The Jam

Not mixed messages - mixed consumers! They play to ALL the customers.

Agreed, personally I think the Jam pretty summed it all up for me which is why I blame politicians or manufacturers less often than some people.

Yes but is it the responsibility of manufacturers to fairly and plainly differentiate their products against the competition?
I wasn't saying that. As a matter of fact, I'm highly in favor of "buyer beware".
I was just answering the question posed by the OP. The fact is, most manufacturers' rely on an ill-informed customer. As do politicians.
For many (most?), purchasing a car, much like purchasing a home, is an emotional decision. No matter how many boxes you check off on your list of pros and cons, when you get behind the wheel (or takes a tour of the home) if the potential buyer doesn't like it, they probably won't buy it.

II went to buy a bottled product the other day and the price shown on a BIG sign said $3.99 for a package. But nooooo, that's AFTER THE BOTTLES HAVE BEEN RETURNED to get your refund! Didn't find out 'till I was that the check out.

It's called marketing...

I believe PT Barnum many years ago was quoted as saying; "There is a sucker born every minute."

I find it very interesting that the V-6 engines with Variable-Valve-Timing and Variable Displacement technologies outperform the current IL4 and they get just as good or better fuel mileage other than in short, flat ground city travel distances on secondary streets.

All of the 4 cylinder vehicles are being "spun" up way beyond their capability.

I also am very sure that the 4 cylinders with turbo-assist will in no way be as reliable nor will they have the longevity of a V-6 due to their being constantly overtaxed when driven at freeway speeds and/or up and down steep grades.

My neighbor has a Prius hybrid that despite advertised high mileage actually only gets 45 MPG and my daughter's 4 cylinder Malibu only attains 25MPG at best.

My V-6 Monte Carlo with VVT consistently attains 33-35 MPG at 75 MPH and 28-30 MPG around town.

There is absolutely no comparison in performance especially in the mountains on long steep grades and/or at 75 MPH on the freeways.

For the life of me I cannot see why I would ever entertain buying a 4 cylinder and I worry that soon we will not have a choice but then I am suffering from OFS, I think, maybe?.

"...despite advertised high mileage actually only gets 45 MPG..." Well my 2013 Prius is advertised at 44 MPG and for the last 30K miles has averaged 45 MPG. In my daily non-highway driving in the summer, I get 49-50. So what was your daughters "advertise high mileage". I'm happy with mine! My sons SO drives the same car as mine and only get 35MPG because she drives like a maniac!

Is that in the city? Or highway mileage?

The current MPG rating for a Prius is 51 HWY/48 City and my neighbor says that he only gets 45 MPG on the highway and around 38 MPG in the city.

One of my nieces want a reliable, hybrid that gets good mileage for driving mainly in the city and I suggested she consider the Prius but also look at the Hyundai.

I favor Toyota but I do not know anything about how other hybrid offerings stack up against it and she cannot afford to invest in a new car then have issues with it.

My daughter's Malibu is rated 38 HWY / 36 City but it has never reached the rating for either.

In my neighbor's case I am sure his driving habits have a significant impact on the MPG but my daughter has always been a very sensible driver and does not have the same bad habits.

Because there is such a significant difference in actual-vs-rated MPG I am convinced there is something wrong with the Malibu and I keep telling her to take it in to the dealer for a checkup before it gets worse.

As I said...non-highway. That's back roads here in Maine. On the highway I get around 44-45 at 65MPH. The weather has a lot to do with the mileage on a Prius. I don't drive mine in the winter, but when it jets cold the mileage drops off quite a bit...maybe 40 MPG. My Prius is the model V wagon which gets a little less than the regular sedan...it's a 2013 and was rated at 44 MPG. Have your daughter check out the Prius Chat forum....lots of good info on mileage in there.

So then you owe Prius for the extra 1 mpg over the life of the project.

At least you got more than you paid for, but you are obviously, not the average driver under average conditions, in average traffic, with average fuel, on a controlled test loop with average tire pressure.

I don't get many miles per day with my 2001 Chevy Pickup, but I only fill up about once a week to ten days. What I do get is a lot of hours per gallon. (another advertising ploy on my part)

Here's a nice article which discusses the difference owners see between their actual fuel efficiency and what's advertised.

It talks about difference in driving styles (aggressive vs. calm), location (hot and mountainous is worse than flat and cool), actual city/hwy ratio compared with what the EPA assumes and also mentions that the EPA uses 100% gasoline not what most of us are basically forced to use (10-15% Ethanol).

What I haven't seen mentioned is something I read a few years ago....that manufacturers design their vehicles to have maximum efficiency at the speeds the EPA requires for testing. Away from those speeds there is no telling what fuel efficiency you are going to get. So if you don't do most of your driving at or near the testing speeds, don't be surprised.

That 714 one is advo for their TDI engine a turbo diesel. It's suppose to to show the extended mileage from a gas engine with the same size tank. Which all depends on how you drive.The Golf/ Jetta TDI 30MPG city/ 43 MPG highway. The owners that I've talked to if you drive sensible you can get mid 50's mpg on the highway. Most drove the Golf TDI. Even VW acknowledges this on their web site gives the range of 594 to 814 to a tank.

As far as MPG on hybrid vehicles. The way they proposed the EPA test they can all get ∞MPG. As each mile driven under a charge is figured in. So if you keep it charged for the trips you take and never have it consume fuel. You can't compute a MPG. EPA has since changed the test for hybrids to MPGe.

If you want to know what speed the range is go here. Bottom of page.

http://www.teslamotors.com/models

I have a 1.5 year old VW Passat TDI. I live at 2100 ft altitude, and frequently drive down to very close to sea level, so there is almost always some significant hill climbing.

My overall average is between 42 and 43mpg, and my trip average is just over 47mpg. This car is way heavier than a Golf, so a Golf should get way higher mileage, if driven the same way. I use cruise control a lot, usually set to 73 or 74mph on the freeways, and use my brakes a LOT less than most people I observe. When driving on a level freeway in the lane next to a big rig, I commonly see instantaneous mileage of 52-53mpg. I'm not dumb enough to actually try drafting behind a big rig, although I've been tempted, just to see what kind of mileage I'd get.

On my last tank of diesel, I drove 669.4 miles, and it indicated I still had 45 miles left, so that's really close to the advertised 715 miles. That tank included a trip to Berkeley and I believe 4 trips to Sacramento, so 5 excursions from 2100 ft to essentially sea level.

My truck gets such poor mileage, that I absolutely have shut the engine off before fueling!

The first Airport Fire trucks I worked on had two Ford 534 cubic inch gasoline engines. The trucks were 66,000 GVW, and always driven hard. As long as the mileage stayed around 4-5 gallons per mile things were good. (1971 Walter CB 3000s.)

The 1965 full size Chevy had a 19 gallon gas tank. ( think). as the series progressed, the tank grew till in 1970, the tank was 25 gallons. The engine size grew from the standard V8 of 283CI, to the 350 CI standard engine in 70. Miles per tank remained similar.

Our last car was purchased based on independent consumption ratings - of course independent does not imply meaningful in all scenarios.

I have the electronic consumption meter option on full time and I try to change my driving habits to keep the number low ( its expressed in litres per 100 km ) and its saving us a fair amount of fuel and we have never been heavy footed drivers.

I havent previously had such a meter ( we buy used cars and so lag behind ).

Best long trip so far averaged 5 litres per 100 km (petrol) but if distracted, in a rush or irritated the value seems to go up very easily.

Car and pump may start communicating so cost or "money burn" display might be a good option for the future.

That there is metric, I isn't into metric.

Regards, Joe X-pack.

I don't know about Joe, but I don't understand how a pump curve really relates (any more than my incessant whining about any topic in general), other than average citizen doesn't really even know what a pump is (other than a "gas pump"), and they certainly have not seen the actual pump that pumps the gas. They might think a pump is a box with a display unit on it, a card reader, and a hose and valve nozzle.

I was watching the Carbonero effect (or something to that effect) last night, and this magician actually had some girl thinking he had a "wireless transmission" of water to a water hose 2 footer with a box at one end, and a spray nozzle at the other end. He could make water spray out on the plants, but she would just stand around in different spots "trying to get better WiFi reception". It was too doggone hilarious - LMFAOSTO.