Fuel Economy

You're spoiled down there in Magnolia country. We use salt up here (don't get me started on why we do - that's beyond my control) and it tears the living daylights out of asphalt and rusts bridges like nobody's business. Over half (yep, really the number) the bridges in western PA are now considered below normal safety ranges. It's not unknown to be able to to look down through what's supposed to be concrete decking to see the road below. I agree about not building any new roads or extra lanes though - that only encourages more driving.

Hello Ron:

I had to take a contrary view, least out here in California, any new highways or improvements on metropolitan freeway systems would yield an increase in fuel economy. Idling in rush-hour traffic wastes fuel and increases pollution, anything that could improve our freeway systems would help.

My personal opinion is hydrogen powered vehicles currently are nothing but hype, and electric vehicles and highbreds both have their drawbacks. Nickel metal hydride batteries are both expensive and not take purely environmentally friendly to recycle.

I personally haven't driven a highbred but a friend of mine that does a lot traveling has rented one and was quite impressed, however both of us question the long-term maintenance cost of such vehicles. As previously stated this person rents cars almost weekly, his biggest criticism of Detroit is that the small and midsize domestic vehicles lack many of the refinements of comparable imports.

Back to fuel economy and highways, if the upcoming administration wants to invest in the transportation system, synchronizing traffic lights in major cities would be a good place to start. On other threads I've posted the results might ad hoc experiment using my truck's onboard indicator. Under ideal conditions I could almost increase around town fuel economy by 50 or 60% ,timing the traffic lights on an early Sunday morning. While synchronization of traffic lights isn't perfect, I would think a 10 to 20% decrease in wasted fuel would be a realistic goal and certainly every little bit helps.

Damaged roads to increase fuel comsumption. The more required braking and accelerating the cars, the more fuel spent - much more than maintaining a constant high speed travel. Also, more car damage, more repairs, more parts production, more energy spent to transport the same amount of people to the same places - bad for the environment. I'm talking with full knowledge - I'm from Brazil, terrible roads, terrible streets, no highways in the cities, traffic stuck, fuel goes by, even in my only 47 hp enginered car.

Reduce car weight, engine size, improve aerodynamics, and install regenerative systems - there you're going in the right way.

Wired had an article on the subject this morning :

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/12/when-ford-and-h.html

Yes, it's a little gimmicky but getting realtime feedback on your fuel economy seems like a good idea to me.

My goal would be for slower and less powerfull cars. Good roads defeats the purpose of increased fuel economy. True, timed traffic lights would help. I just don't understand why we need cars that can go 120mph with 400 hp. I know the motorheads and NASCAR fans want all the power and HP they can get, but they need to grow up and realize we have big problems that need to be addressed.

Guilty as charged. Horsepower is not necessarily the enemy, while it's true some of the high horsepower vehicles get get horrible fuel economy, some do not. When I was shopping for a new pickup, there was actually no fuel economy difference between the smaller eight cylinder engine and the HEMI.

I certainly cannot chastise anybody for buying a vehicle that appeals to them. However a major problem is large SUVs, and pickup trucks that are bought for nothing more than the looks. Any solution to this problem is worse than the problem itself, when we start telling someone what type of car they can buy, it's time to pack it up.

Decreased highway speed can result in fuel savings, but I do not see that as being the ultimate answer. One of my other vehicles is a motorcycle, I have made road trips on the motorcycle at very high speeds, and I can still double the fuel economy that the truck gets at 65 (unfortunately it's hard to get tools and supplies on a motorcycle) there are many compact cars that can approach the fuel economy I get on the motorcycle, but have virtually the same limitations as a motorcycle as far as transporting necessities.

Southern California is a prime example of trucks that never get used for their purpose, there are a lot of urban cowboys out here that the only mud their four-wheel drives will ever see is in one of those potholes that need to be fixed, and the only cargo in the bed is a six pack. Even if I think is ridiculous, I support their right to choose what they want to drive.

I don't believe leaving potholes in the road, we'll fix anything. I agree with you there is a serious problem, however until the government comes up with a real energy policy I don't see any real solution. So let the Highway Patrol take care of the high-speed vehicles, they're bigger fish to fry.

I know very little about this supposedly more fuel-efficient engine design, but I thought you might be interested in this link.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4261288.html

Hi all,

I seem to type the same thing every few weeks and I'm not sure why I do it anymore.

I drive a '96 VW Passat Estate TDi (station wagon to you over in the US) and AVERAGED over 17.6 miles per litre of diesel over the summer. A little worse now winter is here (16.4)

For the times I need the extra carrying capacity, I also have a SEAT Alhambra TDi (an MPV or Van, same as Ford Galaxy / VW Sharan), with which I can achieve 13.2 mpl, but it tends to do short journeys so often does not hit its potential, usually gets more like 11 mpl

Sorry about the units but since a "gallon" has different meanings in different places and a litre is universal I use the litre

I manage to achieve this mostly by using the mpg meters to change my driving style and also by realising that in any congested area driving fast gets you to your destination insignificantly sooner.

So, if you care at all.....

task 1 for everyone should be to buy the most efficient vehicle you can find, that does the job you NEED (avoid pick-ups 'cos the aerodynamics are so poor)

task 2 is to re-learn how to drive but this time focussed on mpg as well as safety etc

task 3 is to stop wingeing on about everyone else not doing things - lead by example

task 4 is to get a decent education in physics, thermodynamics etc and use it to understand the world, OR stop believing that the engineers and scientists and the businesses that employ them are after screwing everyone else - they are far too busy trying to make products that the market wants to pay for

Diesel engines are still THE MOST EFFICIENT available way to convert chemical energy (fuel) into mechanical energy (work) that you can buy - of course the world needs experts working on alternatives that could become the practical solutions for the future and that's why some very clever people are working on just about everything one can imagine, but there is no sustitute for REDUCING CONSUMPTION NOW

Have a good / nice day!

Hello dieselphil:

I had to reread your post, I missed the liter part of your fuel economy reports it looked like you are getting a lot less mileage than my truck.

The onboard mileage indicators are a great suggestion, I found mine quite useful, by resetting the indicator on the fly I've gathered some useful information. For instance there was a much sharper than expected drop-off in fuel economy above about 65 miles an hour, I later found out that the multi-displacement system defaults to all eight cylinders at anything above 70 miles an hour.

Around town driving also indicated some counterintuitive driving techniques, I attribute this to the multi-displacement system , the best results were obtained by accelerating a little faster and backing off once I reached my desired speed as opposed to a very slow and gentle acceleration.

I don't know if you checked out the link in my last post, if the information is correct the efficiency of this gasoline engine should exceed that of a diesel engine, Interesting technology.

You forgot step 5. As I previously stated I put a pickup truck to use in my work, and hobbies, and I have a motorcycle for my fun and economical vehicle (economical when referring to fuel consumption anything but when you compare wear items such as tires), I recently started riding a bicycle for exercise, and actually it is quite practical for the 1 or 2 mile quick trips to grab what you forgot when you went shopping trips. It even gets better fuel economy than the motorcycle, and the tires cost a lot less

Hi YWR-R,

thanks for the reply - yes I did follow the link - v interesting technology, I've come across it a couple of times in my career but it's never gone anywhere yet ........ therefore compression ignition (diesel) engines are still the leaders of the pack when it comes to actual available power plants (and the older VW engines are, as far as I know the most efficient available to the general public in vehicles, excepting maybe BMW's later offerings)

I am convinced that all vehicles should BY LAW be fitted with mpg meters, and they should have pride-of-place on the dash up there with the speedo

I note you replied to edignan's post 13 (which I thought hit the nail on the head spot on); the auto industry, being so big and with such long lead times, struggles have any agility, and the Big 3, by focussing on one market (the US) don't have product offerings to suit other markets (eg cheaper, smaller, more efficient) like the Europeans and Far Eastern car companies do, so can't pull vehicles from other markets quickly across into the US from plants elsewhere

So what can we do? Thoughts please...........

Actually I started looking into the I-10 and I-40 corridors off the west coast into the rest of the nation, largely because I was making that commute. Traffic off the coast of goods and merchandise carried by trucks is expected to increase 40% by 2010.

The slow lane is already effectively the truck lane, and the hint of weekend traffic brings huge sections of these freeways to a halt.

So I started looking at growth nationwide, try this:

http://www.road-scholar.org/nafta.html

The real issue isn't bridges and potholes, but finding enough lanes.

Ahyup,

Till one of the bridges one crosses unthinking - falls down with you on it. Good on boyo.

Well, I have to take a contrary view to most of these posts. Living in Texas, Houston to be exact, and looking out my office window at five or six oil company high rise buildings, I don't think better roads and more efficient vehicles is the path to success.

Don't get me wrong, I love my pickup truck and enjoy driving through our beautiful country, but for day to day, back and forth to work, we need to push for more mass transit.

Cars do need to get better mileage, and our roads need to be kept in good repair, but pull as many one person per vehicle commuters off the road and get them on a bus/carpool/train or whatever your particular community has to offer.

Then we can minimize our fuel consumption and have more gas available to travel and enjoy our time away from work. And isn't work just a necessary evil, something that allows us to have a life at home?

P.S. I use my truck as a truck, driving Boy Scouts on camping trips on the weekends, and I always have a project or two at home that involves lumber, sand, cement, landscape materials and the like. Monday through Friday, I drive my 4 miles to the Park and Ride lot and get on a bus to travel 30 miles to the office.

As I see it, the big three have come to the end of an era, an era of gas guzzlers and SUV's. This era actually came to an end many years ago, but with the lack of foresight, they looked the other way and didn't acknowledge that it was time to change their thinking and start thinking small. The public told them what they wanted, more fuel efficient vehicles, but only the foreign vehicle makers were listening. Now we have come full circle and the big three are crying and promising reform. A new era of fuel efficient and alternate fuel vehicles is on the horizon. If the big three keep their promises, they can continue to exist. I too own a pickup as it is a necessity where I live in a rural area. I used to own a Mitsubishi turbo diesel pickup. That was the best truck I ever owned. I got 30+ mpg on it regularly and it could carry as much as a full size pickup. The technology is obviously here. the Asians, Germans, know it and have been doing it for a long time. Detroit needs to pull their head out of the sand and follow the lead set by Japan and others.

Good Post BR,

Likewise, I keep my FreeStar for longer errand and business (Have removed the third seat weighing 190#'s, too.). Most in to town trips from the suburb I live in are accessible via back streets using my doubled 36 volt battery pack powered Adult Trike to run errands under 30 miles on pleasant days or mornings, in summer. Waiting on the Poulsen Hybrid System ( http://www.poulsenhybrid.com ) to get started here in the DFW area; saving up for a conversion kit for the FreeStar. Want the rear DC motor drive system with a shift column throttle. Have been in communication with their PR department and they are done with development on the smaller car versions and now convinced that the best bang for the buck is mid and large vehicle conversions... much greater fuel efficiency numbers than small vehicles, is why. Just the shear load hauling capacity is insurmountable for smaller vehicles, which must resort to lead acid batteries (Toyota still close holding the deep capacity Li Ion battery it bought the patent rights for a decade ago and is still sitting on.)... as an example.

Did the math and there is no way to make current models of hybrid cost effective were we to trade up. India has a couple auto makers and now Mitsubishi also has its iMiEV to tantalize us next year. (Wikipedia has an excellent disertation on their in-wheel motor.) Next year's Volt its a dolt joke, however - too freaking expensive. It's a status symbol for those who have ordered them. It won't bail GM out of its hole, anyway. GM is not building cars for the greater unwashed, in my opinion.

Mass transit, repair existing bridges and roads, buying Ev's and hybrid's are the best bets, now. Cleaning out waste cooking oil is a good bet for diesel power, but bio-diesel and bio-alcohol is stupid beyond words.

The public told them what they wanted, more fuel efficient vehicles,

I would argue that is the LAST thing the public was demanding prior to the fuel price escalation, just based on SUV, truck, and Hummer sales. Hell, even Toyota caved and offered bigger and bigger SUVs.

Peoples votes with their feets and dollars. And they voted for F-350 duallys with gas engines lifted a couple of feet off the frame, and SUVs with the fattest tires they could fit to drive to the grocery in L.A.

Thanks to independent suspension, the mods to lift an SUV ran into the thousands of dollars, and they paid it.

That demand was what allowed Detroit to raise the price of a pickup to $40,000 and up.

Oye Boy,

Beware of what you postulate - it has a way of coming true. OPEC and ONGEC are both cutting back oil and natural gas production and exports. EXXON has set a 9300+ Gulf of Mexico depth record and will break that next year with another at 9600 feet plus. Their Corporate heads are getting raises and big bonuses. They are betting on a BIG jump in energy prices and are scrambling to get a piece of it. To raise U.S. oil production from 3% of net oil needs to 6% is gonna cost us all big time folks because we DO have untapped oil - it is just way deep to get at. Supply of energy will never exceed demand again in our lifetimes - bet on it. The exporters may have been surprised by the drastic cut backs in energy consumption over the past 5 months - but they do not have a track record of repeating their mistakes.

I'm angling to upgrade my mini-van to a hybrid next year at the latest. And I'm helping friends to play catch up on calculating their break even point to buy a hybrid, too. None of the current Detroit made cars make trading up worth it at this time.

Back to fuel economy:

One of the things rarely discussed on this board when we start talking mileage - I suspect the way you design your engine is as big a factor as total vehicle weight, drag, speed, etc.

Ford Ranger Edge - 2003 Maybe 15mpg on highway.

Nissan 350 Z - 2006 Highway 22mpg.

Both 3L engines.

And before you want to tell me about the above factors, how about the Infinity FX3? Same engine as the Nissan 350Z, way worse aero, all-wheel-drive - way better mileage, way more power.

The Ford, in addition to horrible mileage has absolutely no power except at the very bottom end.

Did Ford just recycle the same old engine design from the '60s with some more crap stuck on the outside to meet emissions?

Rejuvenating an old topic doesn't seem to be a common thing to do on CR4, but I came across this yesterday and I thought it might interest you all.

"Advanced Automotive Technology:Visions of a Super-Efficient Family Car" September 1995 OTA-ETI-638 GPO stock #052-003--01440-8

A pity that no-one in a position of power / responsibility seems to have had a clue what to do with it, or indeed acted upon it in any constructive way that I've come across.

Ah well, maybe the next intelligent beings will make a better job of it than us......

happy musing....

Having viewed "Who Killed the Electric Car" via Netflix.com just before the holidays, I think there is enough documentation around to substantiate the theory that NO ONE wants to downsize or go greener in any effective sense. Detroit, Car Buying Public, Auto Sales Juggernauts, you, me... No One.

We all want the status quo - we are addicted to it.

And behind us all the way are the middle east oil patch boys sitting on about a trillion barrels of oil. Let's see... at 1T X $100 that's $100T bucks give or take. Who, in there right mind would NOT want to keep the status quo with that kind of money at stake?

Answer: The poor, hungry, disenfranchised who cannot afford to maintain their own status quo. Oh? and those who can perhaps calculate the below emissions production which I'm going to post as a new thread.

I want to start a thread on CR4.com. I'm asking for a calculus formula for the number of metric tons of carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, wellhead flared methane gas and mercury that will be produced by one point one trillion tons of burnt crude oil in the form of other products that will be cracked from it and used directly or indirectly for energy if we attempt to dig this carbon energy up and use it as fuel and products. Refer to the below link for a reference on where I got this number as a start point. Anyone know how to calculate this 1.1T base number? Link: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html