Increasing your gas millage the easy way

I know that this particular car is expensive, but the philosophy of producing smaller cars out of light-weight materials was the main goal. There are many more examples of efficient vehicles out there.

Obviously carbon-fibre is one of the best light-weight materials but it is not the only one, and if the demand is there the price will drop. And remember, if the public demands it, then the auto industry will produce.

"For this to work, the price needs to be realistic and in the reach of Mr. Averages budget!"

True.

And remember, if the public demands it, then the auto industry will produce.

Ah but the gullible public demand what they are told to demand...

The public should be told to demand that a manifold vacuum gauge be installed in every vehicle. The higher the vacuum (the least pedal pressure necessary to maintain the desired speed), the higher the mpg. You would be surprised how much difference in vacuum results from the slightest change in pedal pressure, and the change in power is almost imperceptible, particularly in heavier vehicles.

Another way would be to NOT EXCEED THE SPEED LIMIT no matter how much the idiot behind you is pushing you.

A truly quick & cheap way to to get a lighter vehicle is to eliminate surplus junk from the trunk. It's amazing how much extra some people carry. I.E.: Whole toolbox for repairs they couldn't perform anyways, box of sand so they won't get stuck last winter (but it's summer, now), 3yr of junkmail...

I'm with you... but Mr Truman Brain makes some excellents points, the market is manipulated to screw out the maximum bucks ...'lets make just a few so it becomes rare trendy and expensive'. Some would argue that this funds research, others would argue it's greed.
The fashion for idiot cars like the hummer you mentioned was manipulated in just this way....let's have Big Arnie turn up for a film premier in one...next thing you know every redneck wannabe wants one.

The tide is turning...quite a few 'celebrities' _{<Yaks up fur ball onto floor>} in UK are driving electric town cars...

Del

It's quite ironic that Volkswagen 'The inventors of the peoples car' has prototyped this super light machine! Wasn't the philosophy something along the lines of 'A car that the average person could afford!'

If everybody in the chain only made there little bit of profit a little smaller then the price would come down by a dramatic amount! But I can't see that happening! The buzz word in our 'modern society' is GREED! It is so wide spread that IMHO it is irreversible! Only last week I quoted for a job which for me turned out to be just under 2000 euros. When I talked to the client, he was quite relieved! The other three quotes he had were almost double mine! Admittedly, my overheads are smaller, but not 2000 euros smaller! So, I got the job, did the job and gained my profit! Off the back of that quote, I gained another two installations! Everybody's happy, we all make or save a bit of money! GREED my friends is the biggest social illness there is! Unfortunately, the really ill run the world! Lets find the vaccine!

Communism and socialism reduce and control profits. Check out their track records.

Greed (your words) or a free market economy does a much better job.

I might add, that your lower bids is an excellent form of greed. You undercut your competition to win the job. You got the money. And you are right.

Greed isn't bad. Greed is simply focused enlightened self interest.

Everyone (even you) have various levels of greed. For instance, if you were absent greed you would have quoted that job at cost.

You didn't because you like to eat, stay warm and have to get from one place to another.

It is not uncommon that every time a part or product changes hands that it's price is doubled. This holds true for what you buy at the grocery store, lumber yard or car lot.

One popular guide is to set price to where you experience about 20% rejection. That is, set your price so that you are thought to be "too high" by 2 out of every 10 people who would be your "average customer".

You can sell 10 of something for a dollar or you can sell one of them for $10, but you would make more money if you sold 5 of them for $5.00. Now, this assumes a linear demad curve. Few things actually have a demand curve but the objective is the same - to maximize the area under the Price/Demand chart.

No, greed isn't a bad thing. Think what would happen if nobody were motivated to earn more.

Travis

We've gotten spoiled. Just think what would happen if you introduced a 1958 "Bug" into the market today (assuming you had fixed the pollution and crash deficits). "Whatta ya mean there's no gas gauge?" "Where's the window washer pump?" "I can't find the heater!" "Doesn't this have air?" We keep adding bells and whistles to our small cars till the price goes through the roof, then wonder why the idea isn't catching on.

Somebody (maybe you?) asked the question a while back if engineers could solve the energy problem. I think we could, but not many people would be happy.

There comes a point in a person's life when they have to choose between huge engines, more bells and whistles or common sense. If someone complains about gas prices and millage but refuses to get rid of their V8 fitted with seat warmers and rear-seat fitted game consoles they will get no sympathy from me. Period.

People are going to have to realise that there comes a point where a vehicle has enough gadgets. Adding more will not solve their problems. Complaining will not solve their problems. Sticking over unity fuel devices will not solve their problems. Buying a bigger car will not solve their problems.

There are plenty of good efficient cars on the market to choose from, it's not like we don't have a choice right now.

I seem to remember the thread but I can't lay any claim to it!

If you introduced a with a little green engine, I would shine your shoes for a year while whistling jumping jack flash! If all the old press moulds of all the old favorite classics were adapted to make cheap lightweight plastic panels, you could relive those days of glory with a fare priced plastic replica with a little green engine! Come on guys, let me dream! Is it such a bad idea!

Regarding 'creature comforts': Innumerable times i've encountered vehicles in parking lots of public buildings, engines running solely to drive Heat/or/AC. Would seem that @ that moment they're getting Zero MPG.

Some peoples avg MPG would increase significantly if they were to just sit inside @ McD's to consume their burger.

Howdy, I got a 58 Bug last year and LOVE its simplicity including as you noted; no gas gauge, air conditioning, windshield washer or time delay, radio/cassette/cd player and an engine I can work on it without hooking it to a computer. With only 38 HP I still get almost 30 miles per gallon while going between 55 and 70 MPH depending upon the terrain. I have even passed two vechicles in the last year.

This is how the Japanese cars gained a toe hold in the American market. When they were introduced the American cars had a lot of gadgets that were prone to failure. Of the worst were the vacuum operated accessories like windows and headlight doors as well as vacuum operated heater dampers. It did not take long for hoses to rot or otherwise form vacuum leaks and then these accessories failed to work. Vacuum accessories have improved across the board and are but one example of the gadgetry found on American vehicles in the era when the Japanese cars were entering the market.

So, at first people laughed at those driving a Japanese import. Then the began to talk to one another.

"How do you like your Lincolin MK 3?"

"Oh, it's ok but it is always having something going wrong with it."

"How do you like your Toyota Corola?"

"It's fine - never have any problems and it gets me where I'm going."

Soon they gained a reputation for being dependable and not needing a lot of attention.

Granted it was the energy "crissis" of the Carter era ('70's) that got the Japanese imports into the US market, but it was their lack of problems (which equates to reliability) which assured their long term success.

It took quite some time before the American Auto Industry caught on to quality and reliability.

Travis

It took quite some time before the American Auto Industry caught on to quality and reliability.

You're telling me they've caught on?

Sure they did, they import and badge them under the big 3.

would you drive it next to a 100,000 truck?

Not if your mother was driving the truck!

Considering a 100K# truck (lorry), what's the real difference betw a 1.5K# auto & one of 4.5K#?

Around the world there are different options for small vehicles. The Japanese Kei cars are a good example. Wikipedia has good info on them. They have been around for a long time and have really pushed the limit on getting a lot out of very little. There are even some pretty cool sports cars.

The consumer here in Ontario seems to be sending a message. I see a lot of small cars like the Smart and the Echo. Both are very good options for economy. But it is obvious that it could go farther than the fuel economy that is available to us today.

When you're in a car accident, do you want to be the guy in the 660 lb "fuel efficient" model, or the 5000 Lb hummer?

Knowing your car gets its peak mileage at 55 mph, how efficient are you being when you slow down to 30 mph in a rainstorm so your lightweight car doesn't hydroplane? How well does it handle in the snow?

What if you're in a situation when you need to "floor it" to avoid a potential disaster (something as routine as changing lanes on a busy highway, for example) - you really want the torque/HP equivalent of a lawnmower taking you to safety?

... fallacious argument as some of the SUVs are less safe than smaller vehicle.

Maybe all cars should be like a thin glass bubble at the front where the driver sits...maybe they'd be a bit more careful then .

You like this sort of thing Del! From what I can recall, was it not you who said something on the lines of 'Put a big spike on the steering wheel! That'll slow the bas**rds down!'

Any idea what you were in a previous life?

Your points, Guest, are real ones. But I believe there are opposing views to equal them. I'm not trying to trash you comment, just show another perspective.

"When you're in a car accident, do you want to be the guy in the 660 lb "fuel efficient" model, or the 5000 Lb hummer?"

A light vechicle is more manouverable and will stop sooner. More accidents would be avoided. Also many of the smaller vehicles have very good crash ratings. Better than many SUV models that have serious cab intrusion issues.

"Knowing your car gets its peak mileage at 55 mph, how efficient are you being when you slow down to 30 mph in a rainstorm so your lightweight car doesn't hydroplane? How well does it handle in the snow?"

Handling in varying weather conditions includes many factors beyond weight and speed. The early VW Beetle was know for driving through any weather. Factors like weight balance, tire width and tread, suspension, etc....

"What if you're in a situation when you need to "floor it" to avoid a potential disaster (something as routine as changing lanes on a busy highway, for example) - you really want the torque/HP equivalent of a lawnmower taking you to safety?"

I use to think this way as well. However acceleration has nothing to do with HP. This is actually when you do want a light car. Power to weight ratio is what gets your butt out of a jam. Not a large swaying truck.

I don't recall the exact numbers I used, but recently I compared my paid for, 20 mpg Ford Winstar to purchasing a new little 250CC motorcycle which gets 60-70 mpg.

At $4.40 per gallon for gas you would have to substitute about 13,000 miles ridden on the motorcycle and drive none in the van to pay for the motorcycle (which was about $2000).

Clearly I am not going to substitute all of my milege on the motorcycle (especially one that is just a 250).

When people rush out and buy a hybrid they hardly ever do some pay back calculations. I think if they did they would not be purchasing them in the numbers they do. I think what is keeping the hybrid market afloat is the large number of people who have simply accepted that they will always have a car payment. From that point of view, they can make a large payment on a hybrid or a large payment on a standard vehicle and think they are defraying their cost by better milege.

If you are one to not have a car payment, a paid off vehicle is worth far more than one with a payment. For me the only way it would make sense to have a hybrid (or even a motorcycle) is if one was dropped in my lap for free.

Travis

I am a big fan of recycling cars. I buy them for about $1000 and squeeze the life out of them.

However, my wife has a different opinion. So we went out Sat and bought a new car.

I am going to keep an eye on the costs and (If I remember) I'll reply to this forum with my findings of the difference. I commute 100km each way and the fuel costs have been crazy with our not-so-economical SUV. Not to mention the maintenance.

I am guessing the fuel savings will come close to paying for the car. But we will see.

Well here I am after 5 fill-ups with the new car. It is very evident that the fuel savings is worth it. Does it pay for the car? In my case it does. I am saving more than my payments. And it will be even more evident when I go on vacation in Aug.

Here are the results of real world driving in my car. It is "rated" at 8.2L/100km city and 6.0L/100km hwy or 34mpg and 47mpg. I am not a speedy driver and I have been easy on the acceleration. As you can see I am getting close to this economy. Not bad for a mid-sized 4-door.

So I guess I am reducing emissions and lowing my fuel consumption without costing me anything. But I'm still keeping my SUV for those nasty snow storms.

Are we all forgetting the main point. The purpose of increasing fuel mileage isn't to reduce monetary cost, it's to reduce pollution, dependence on foreign oil, and stretch the total availability of oil for the future. 50, 100, 500 years, whoever you listen to, is a rather short time to run out of oil completely with little to turn to supply the volume of energy the world population consumes. The petty argument of being able to drive a 5000# vehicle 55 mph and being able to "floor it" isn't constructive in the effort to sustain a viable civilization. We thought corn was the answer. A couple of floods and a rise in food prices makes you think about putting a lot of your eggs in that basket. One major volcano and you can forget about using crops.

The only "free" renewable energy source is the sun, or rather cosmic radiation, collected by solar sails and transmitted to earth by the ongoing development of the space elevator concept. We have already spent millions on testing (remember the tethered ball experiment on one of the shuttle flights and I'm sure you have heard of carbon nanotubes being the lightest and strongest material so far that can be used as the tether).

The selfish idea of what will cost ME the least without restricting what I want to do isn't the solution, it's the problem.

So, here's a really easy way to improve gas mileage. Take an ordinary light bulb and drill a 0.25 hole in the base. Fill it with the stinkiest stuff you can find (maybe deer repellant, a mixture of mercaptans, you name it). Seal the opening with some wax. Now carefully balance that bulb on the back of the driver's seat so that any great acceleration +/- will send it crashing to the floor. I'll bet you get at least 10% better mileage the first day.

A box of eggs on the bonnet (hood) works too.

Works fine for people who have more money than sense. What about the average guy with a wife and 2 children? What happens when this little thing is hit by a large truck as compared to a larger vehicle being hit? The little one is crushed and the larger one may keep its driver alive.

Then what about the average family, do you tie the babies on the roof? The average family of 4 won't buy this car. The luxury sports car type won't buy it because there is no luxury and apparently not much zoom. It is a novelty car.

If you combine lighter weight with size and strength, then you could improve the mileage. Use all these strong, lightweight materials to build a Hummer and you could get more mpg out of one. I am not with you on this kind of toy. The nanny-state would love to ram this type of tiny expensive car down our throats. It would prevent ordinary people from owning a car or driving, forcing them to be dependent on public [government] transportation, thus enabling greater control over people's movements.

We should examine every possible way to make comfortable cars of the same capacity and range we now have, but use every technique possible to keep the cost down and safety high as we try to get more mpg. "www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml) shows that an internal combustion engine (ICE) only has an average efficiency of 12 % despite that the maximum efficiency for a gasoline engine is 35 %. The main reason to that is that a 200 kW ICE operates at very low loads (10-20 %) almost all it's life where efficiency is about 10 % instead of 35 %. A steam engine has the opposite efficiency characteristic, that is, maximum efficiency at part load (10-20 % load) and lower efficiency at full load. Complete simulation indicate 32 % efficiency at part load for a steam engine, that is 3 times lower fuel consumption for a 200-300 kW engine operating during normal conditions. Figure 1 shows also that consumption at standby/idling corresponds to 17 %. The steam engine system doesn't consume energy when standing still."

This is why I favor a plug-in EV with a steam engine to power a generator to keep the batteries charged instead of an IC engine. You can have such a car in the size you want, the capacity needed, have the same range, speed and accessories. Use strong lightweight materials that are not too expensive, so you keep the price down to that of a standard car. The EV part saves you about 80% in fuel use for miles traveled since most driving would be as an EV, the steam/generator starting only as needed when the batteries are low.

The initial price, if higher than an IC auto, should be offset within 5 years or sooner by the savings on fuel and repair costs. This is better than squeezing the last bit of efficiency from the inherently polluting IC engine or attempting to with phony gadgets or additives. I don't think these ultralight, no frills, 2 passenger cars can be more than a novelty for the rich, who will also own and drive regular large cars. However a steam-electric hybrid EV could solve all the problems.

What about the average guy with a wife and 2 children?....
Then what about the average family, do you tie the babies on the roof? The average family of 4 won't buy this car.

This is simply justification of 'big car' consumerism.

When our kids were small we managed with a Reliant Regal, and then a Supervan III .

Ok it's nice to have a people carrier or a big fancy 4x4.... but please don't tell us it's vital. The safety arguments are pretty fallacious too.

Del

The Reliant Regal was at least a 4 passenger vehicle, the VW is not. It is an absolute necessity for a family car to carry 4 passengers and parcels or luggage also as needed. There is no way a tiny 1000 lb car will resist an impact with a 20,000 lb truck as well as a 4,000 lb vehicle, providing they are equally engineered for passenger safety. Weight helps in safety, even though it is not the most important thing.

In dear old Blighty where the distances are shorter and the roads have been reported as less than perfect and long trips few and far between, one may get by with a tiny car and driving slower. In countries with huge distances to travel at higher speeds on modern superhighways those tiny cars are usually cramped, noisy and uncomfortable without enough room for the passengers or the luggage. A big fancy 4X4 is not what I was talking about, it was about a way to build vehicles that did not have to be tiny toy cars, but normal sized cars, the sizes people want and still save fuel. The Reliant Regal could have been a steam-electric hybrid and gotten even better mpg. The size of the vehicle one desires to purchase and drive is up to the consumer. No nanny-state supporter should ever dictate what someone drives as long as it fits on the roads and complies with general safety regulations. You may be happy with a Reliant Regal, I may be happy with a Hyundai Tucson and someone else may be happy with a Hummer. As long as we can afford to be happy we should have that right.

As long as we can afford to be happy we should have that right.

Even if it craps on everyone else....

We are consumers. We consume excessively. In North America people can't save $20/wk to prevent defaulting on their mortgage much less save a few litres of fuel to help the environment.

And even if 1 million families went with fuel sipping and emission free cars it would not mean very much. Large industries all over the world are continuously releasing large amounts of toxins into the air, oceans and inland waters.

If I were the type to propose a conspiracy based hypotheses, I would suggest that the focus on making the ecological issues the consumers fault is propaganda. But I'm not going to suggest that at all.

I am certainly not implying that we should not lower ICE emissions. It just seems that the large amount of money and attention on the issue could be more effective focused elsewhere.

We should ask what energy and emissions are involved in developing and producing light weight materials and batteries? What energy and emissions are involved recycling or disposing of these materials? In the case of EVs, what is involved in remotely creating and transferring the electricity?

I believe the real answers involve more than an idealistic minivan. And I know there are many avenues being investigated. I just seems to me it needs a global view and control to make it work. Yikes! That sounds ominous……

Unfortunately, that is the nature of civilization. As soon as you dig irrigation canals, you need water allocation laws, then you need police to enforce those laws, then you need taxes to pay those police, then you need a central government to collect those taxes, then you need courts to convict the crooked government officials, and so on and so on. Rules of conduct that might work in 1870 Montana aren't necessarily useful in 2008 Shanghai. No matter our political hopes and views, greater order is probably the only way to survive absent some apocalyptic event.

The problem is whose "Greater Order" is to be imposed and how much freedom will be lost. Montana in 1870 lacked many of the freedoms it has now and had some that we have decided were not good for the people [like shooting Indians at will]. The rules for living in an extremely crowded city like Shanghai under a repressive Communist regime is a completely different situation. Any and every curtailment of freedom should be fought over and argued over until the majority of the people accept its need. Greater order should be only by the choice of the people, not by politicians or political parties imposing it on an unwilling people.

I'm guessing you haven't been through airport security recently?

Ha! Security at airports or federal buildings is a result of paranoid fear and political correctness and an almost total lack of common sense. Where I work the guard who sees me every day, that I talk with on my breaks, does not recognize me as I arrive [while greeting me by name] and will not let me in to work unless I have a valid ID. Knowing that I work there, I am scanned just like every stranger. If someone arrives for a court hearing with ID that expired yesterday, he cannot get in, even with his lawyer there vouching for him.

Some bureaucrat in a basement office writes up the rules, says there is zero tolerance, therefore zero thought and the guards job depends on unthinking enforcement of idiocy. So I am familiar with this imposition of restrictions on freedom and it comes from both extremes of both parties. I hate flying anyway, so that doesn't affect me, but it is still outrageous.

What is the practical difference between Fascism and Communism? None, because there is no freedom under either one. Far Left and far Right meet in the same thing, totalitarian dictatorship, they just use different terminology. The political scale actually should run from no laws or government, total freedom to total tyranny, where there is no freedom and everyone is a slave to the state/ruler. So the problem then becomes where on the scale do the people agree to live? Who sets the limits?

I am in favor of letting people live the way they want and can afford as long as they do not do direct harm to others. Driving a big car is a choice. Using incandescent bulbs is a choice. Having a huge house and using lots of electric power is a choice. If people can afford it they should be allowed to do it. We don't need nanny-state laws forcing everyone to do what the elite few decide is good for us. Let us decide what is good for us.

Which is why I oppose passing laws that force people to drive smaller cars or raising taxes on fuel so that the ordinary person can't afford to even drive a tiny car. I am in favor of cars that are more fuel-efficient, not by law, but because the people want to buy them. As people demand, the manufacturers will supply. Let freedom reign.

Personally, I am sympathetic to your views. My problem (to give an illustration) is Kittanning. My drinking water comes out of the Allegheny River and those folks in Kittanning are upriver of me. If I allow them to just pee in the river, I can't prove that it directly harms me, but I don't want to drink it. So, I try (by laws) to force them to have a sewage treatment plant. In turn, I use a sewage treatment plant so the folks in Cincinnatti don't have to drink my untreated pee.

The trick is to find that (not bright) line where I can be as free as possible while still living in a world with lots of other people. That's been a challenge for engineers for thousands of years.

Pissing in my water or excreting in it, is likely to be directly harmful to me. I want it treated before it goes into the river and I want it treated after it comes out so it will be safe to drink.

That is a lot different than someone driving a gas hog they can afford or using as much electricity as they can afford. Sure they may drive prices up so that I have to cut back, but that is not direct harm to me. Running over me in their Hummer or making me part of the electrical circuit would be direct harm. There are many things the elitist nannies are trying to force us to do by law, which really should be left to the choice of the individual. The nannies want to tell everyone exactly how to live. Tobacco is not illegal to grow or sell, but making it illegal to smoke while making money taxing it is seen as perfectly OK. Certain foods must be banned because someone declared them unhealthy. Zero tolerance becomes zero thought. A teenage gang member with a 6 in.lock-blade knife in his pocket is treated the same as an honor student who accidentally left a butter knife on the back seat of her car in the school parking lot. You must believe in Global Warming or become an outcast. Margarine was good for you, but now it is bad for you. Make incandescent bulbs illegal, even though you can't see as well with CFs. Raise taxes on gas and cars so people will drive less and gas prices will never go down. Ban cars from inner cities. Limit the size car you can own. Limit the size house you can have. Close down the Interstate because some endangered flies might be splattered on windshields. The nannies never stop.

The trick is not just finding that often fuzzy line where you can be as free as you want while respecting the freedom of others, but in drawing the line as to what freedoms are not negotiable, no matter how hard the nannies try to limit them. How many times can one side meet the other halfway before the other side has all but a wafer of what was being bargained over.

That has been a challenge for people since there have been people. Keeping freedom once you have it it very tricky and difficult, because so many want to take it from you.

Yes. I agree the line between freedom and good sense is often fuzzy. I try, when possible, to go with political freedom rather than personal license (although, once in a great while, personal license is a lotta fun!). My goal is to be as reasonable as I can about consumption (fortunately, the current administration has helped me out by darn near bankrupting me), and to try, by law if possible, to limit those activities that directly harm me. So, I don't care what kind of knife you carry, but I do want to limit your public smoking to cigars or pipe since I'm violently allergic to cigarette smoke (likely the chemicals they add to cigarettes).

Yes, the 250 Kg man has the right to consume still more food.

Why, then, do we compelled to make the addicts narcotics illegal? Just another burden on what could be a free market (would take the profit motive from the trade!).

In both cases, we're probably denied permission to withhold healthcare to these individuals; their 'illness' is self induced.

The "gas hog they can afford" will still emit tailpipe discharge; more for every liter they consume. That goes into 'our' atmosphere.

This discussion of 'rights'/responsibility will be very convoluted.

Yes, i personally, can afford more energy costs. I prefer, however, to allocate it to things like good wine, theater, savory foods, & other indulgences. Not necessarily more meritorious, but much more enjoyable to me. Personally, i do not require a 'Freudian' substitute.

What about a gluttony tax? Excessive use of gasoline and excessive use of electricity would categorize a person as a hog at the energy trough. Just kidding........

Like I commented previously, attacking the consumer is a waste of effort in my opinion. What about factories that chug along all day using precious electricity and fuels to turn precious oil products into plastic toys for the dollar store. Toys that break within a week and end up in a land fill.

Consumers are cattle and capitalism is the farmer that keeps feeding them. These cattle are always "mooing" about rights and freedoms. But not very many remember that it comes with a responsibility.

Oh ya, in my cattle analogy, the banks are the butchers.