There is talk of replacing the (broken) car driven by Mrs.
ball with a "mini-van".  We have found that installing a
child seat significantly reduces useable space, especially
when it is occupied (no folding down the rear seats, piling
up boxes in the rear passenger seat etc.)  Ballmobile II
should be as fuel-efficient as is practical (E-85? Mrs. ball
will veto BioDiesel), should be reliable and hopefully not
be absolutely horrible to drive.

91 responses total.

How fuel-efficient is practical?  Our 1986 Toyota got at least 40 miles per
gallon on hills.  

Presumably downhill.  The 2005 Toyota station wagon that I
drive yielded about 32 miles per gallon (about 7 l/100km)
when it was new.  I haven't checked recently.  That's with a
small, docile 1.9 litre 4-cylinder gasoline (petrol) engine.

We got this going up and down steep hills in Vermont, actually it was closer
to 50 mpg.  

50mpg??? For some reason I doubt this.

We calculated miles and gallons. 

This was a Toyota, are you sure you didn't pull a Nasa?

What is a Nasa?

I think it is a reference to NASA (the space agency) confusing imperial
and metric measurements. 

re #7
Its Romanian for g-dmother

Re #3: Was this in a petrol/gasoline vehicle or Diesel?

I've seen improvements of 10% or more in some cars just by driving
slowly.  I've also seen some cars where the odometer was wildly
inaccurate, due to the wrong size tires.

I would like to drive slower than I do most days, but my
schedule is a limiting factor.

We use to have a Toyota Corolla (1.8L gas) that would get 50mpg on the freeway
at 60 MPH but never with stop & go driving.  We even ran the tires at 40 psi.
The new Corolla use to get 40 MPG average but new, safer, Michelin HydroEdge
tires cut that down to about 33 MPG.

I think ours is a Corolla.  1987, four-door.  

The Matrix that I drive is basically a Corolla station
wagon.  I have to go some way tomorrow, so perhaps I'll get
to check the fuel consumption.

I drove my wife's car to work today and it broke down on the
off-ramp of the Interstate.  I've had it towed to a place
that will hopefully have a look at it tomorrow morning.  In
view of at least one known problem (a bent valve) I would
not be surprised to learn that it was beyond economical
repair. Certainly my wife's initial reaction to the news was
to suggest that we go vehicle shopping tomorrow.

Potential new vehicles that she's mentioned already are a
Toyota Camry (large sedan) or a mini-van of some kind (which
I imagine would have worse fuel economy, but more room
inside).

Why do you want more room in the car?  It would probably be cheaper to rent
a truck once a year if you need to carry large things.  Also to buy another
used vehicle.

It'd be cheaper to ride a bike but not everybody wants to live like Ted
Kaczynski, Cindy.

Re #17: The Toyota Matrix that I drive never fealt cramped
  until we put a child seat in it.  At a minumum, we want
  enough room for one baby, one stroller plus luggage or
  groceries. Elbow room is also useful when changing nappies
  (the baby's) or boots (mine).  During the ownership period
  of the new vehicle, we might have another child so room
  for expansion would be a definite plus.  It will probably
  be a second-hand car that's new enough to be reliable.  My
  wage won't stretch to a brand new car.

How many miles would you drive this replacement vehicle while you owned it?
Any car with a trunk would have room for a stroller and groceries, and also
for at least two baby seats in back.  But maybe you want more personal space
if you are a tall/wide person.  Are there cars which have a larger interior
but still get better mileage than a van?  Jim fits into a small car only if
he leans the seat back to make headroom (he has to sit at an angle).
Why do you change diapers in a car rather than a restroom?

Wild guess: 100,000 miles or further provided the vehicle
holds up.  Our strollers are larger than usual (stooping and
pushing don't go well together) and we usually have a *lot*
of groceries.  We could buy a little less if we ate less and
presumably if we had a garden in which to grow vegetables.
With a stroller in the back of the Matrix, I could get
perhaps three grocery bags in there.

We change the baby in the car sometimes because it's more
convenient than arriving somewhere, trying to locate the
bathroom, and hoping that there is a changing table or
having to figure out what to do with things we're carrying
while we're busy with the baby (wait until we're at the car
and the things are stowed, more arms are free).  Some bath-
rooms are so unsanitary that *I* don't want to go in them,
let alone take a baby in there.

Perhaps a Camry station wagon, if such a thing exists.

Assuming gasoline averages $3/gallon over the life of your vehicle (no
inflation), with a minivan getting 20 mpg and a car getting 40 mpg, 100,000
miles would be 5000 or 2,500 gallons, a difference of 2,500 gallons at
$3/gallon (which is probably a low estimate) or $7,500 extra to drive the
minivan.  Someone please correct my arithmetic or assumptions.  You could 
buy a lot of groceries for that amount (and more if the price of gas goes 
up over the next ten years).  If you drove it 10 years, $750/year, about 
$60/month.  If you change babies in the car for three years, that would be 
$2500/year for a portable baby-changing table with wheels.  $200/month.
It would also produce double the pollution, if you care about that.  
Our local supermarket will pick out and deliver groceries for $15, which 
would let you have your groceries delivered once a week for what you would 
save in gas.  If gasoline averages $6 of course it is double the 
difference ($15,000 extra over the 100,000 miles).  Is there a difference 
in insurance rates or purchase costs on minivans vs small cars?

I won't buy any vehicle that only gets 20 MPG.  Most cars
(petrol/gasoline ones) won't get 40 MPG.  I think a van is
likely to suffer lower economy than a car (even a station
wagon) because of increased weight and drag, so even if the
numbers are wrong, the concept is probably valid.  National
Geographic thinks the price of oil (and petrol) is likely to
increase consistently over the next ten years, which sounds
quite likely.

I do care about pollution.  It's a shame that I can't buy a
fuel cell car today.  It's also unfortunate that a family of
three living in the Mid West require two cars. My sister has
a husband, three children and they have no car because they
live in Britain and the few things that aren't in walking
distance can be reached easily via inexpensive public
transport.

My wife has to choose her own groceries.  You'd have to ask
her about that. Insurance may actually be less expensive for
a van than a car because they're larger and the perception
seems to be that the passengers are less vulnerable in the
event of a collision.  Perhaps they also think 'soccer moms'
drive with more care.

For $750/year (or more) would it be worth making a few extra trips to the
grocery store?  Our 1987 Dodge Colt gets about 40 mpg, and I assume newer cars
could do better.  What do the best new ones get?  What do the best minivans
get?

Two mistaken assumptions: 

1 Not a lot of cars suitable for a family with small children get 40 mpg
2 If space is a problem, buying a portable changing table is not likely to
improve that situation.

I don't know how you wring 40 MPG out of your Dodge.  What
kind of engine does it have?  Perhaps you could describe how
you calculate the fuel economy.

Re #25: I think that was a metaphor.

Small children should not have a lot of trouble fitting into the back seat
of a small car.  We don't wring mileage, we simply kept track of the miles
and the gallons and did the calculations a few times.  The 1986 Toyota was
getting closer to 50 mpg out of the city.  Jim keeps the tires properly
inflated, and the spark plugs cleaned, and the engine tuned, and fluid levels
correct.  And drives so as to not need the brake (he slows down before stop
lights and turns off the car at longer lights).  These are manual
transmission, which if properly used is more efficient.  The Toyota is 4-door.
I don't know about the engines - 4 cylinder?  150,000 miles when we got the
Dodge about 10 years ago from the original owner, who kept itmaintained. 
We put on another 10,000 or so doing long trips.  It is only driven once a
year.

It sounds as though Jim and I have somewhat similar driving
styles.  I think 50 MPG is very unusual for a conventional
car with a petrol engine.  I drive my car almost every day,
but it's hard to imagine that making so vast a difference in
fuel economy.  My car has a 1.9 litre engine (tuned towards
'docile') with a manual gearbox.

Small children sit in huge child seats.

Car seats are, I presume, designed to fit standard size cars.
Jim says the 40-50 mpg was outside of cities, he never drove over 55 mpg, he
did not brake going down hills, he stopped using the gas before intersections
and coasted into them, etc.  We don't drive in the city, just once a year on
vacation.   What mpg do the best new cars get nowadays?

See http://www.fueleconomy.gov for lots of info about pollution,
efficiency, driving styles, etc.  The best hybrid car of 2005 got 61 mpg city,
and the best SUV (hybrid) got 36 mpg.  You need to download an entire list of
all the vehicles for 2006 to see specifics, I think (and use a javascript
browser - which maybe will let you look up specific models).  How much extra
does a hybrid car cost?  I bet it pays for itself in a few years.

I think the jury is still out, because (I don't believe) a retail price 
has been set yet for replacement battery packs.

I understand that most non-trivial work on a hybrid has to
be done at a dealership, with expensive labour rates.
Hybrids are a red herring anyway I think, but perhaps they
will help debug technologies that will later prove useful in
electric, Hydrogen or fuel-cell cars.

I get about 32 MPG on the highway, mostly driving around 65
MPH (unless I'm running late for something).

People tell me that 32 MPG is "not bad at all".

Some minivans can get low- to mid-20s, which is not quite as good as a 
mid-sized car but better than a full-size car.  A full-size van would 
put you down below 20 mpg, but it doesn't sound like you're talking 
about a full-sized van anyway.

You might consider choosing a car that's a flexible-fuel vehicle (FFV), 
since that would give you the option to run on E85 if it ever becomes 
widely available.

For the type of vehicle you're talking about, you might consider buying 
from a rental company.  They sell off their cars after a year or two in 
rental service.  They're usually dealer-maintained and sometimes still 
carry a warranty, so they can be a pretty good bet.

E85 is available at just about every filling station in this
area.  Biodiesel less so, although if you know where to look
you can buy it.  E85 apparently decreases fuel economy,
perhaps to the point where it ofsets its lower cost.  It may
be a little less harmful to the environment though, perhaps.

I think I read somewhere that E85 has a much lower energy
return on energy invested (EREI) than BioDiesel too.

Making ethanol is inherently a more expensive operation per Kcal than making
biodiesel. 

It has been estimated by engineering professionals that if we converted 
*every* hectare of agricultural land to corn production for ethanol in 
this country, it would amount to less than 10% of our current fuel 
consumption. Of course then we wouldn't need fuel as we would all starve 
to death.

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss