|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 91 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 54 of 91:
| 
Oct 24 23:23 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:52: The odor is much reduced, I believe, but it's probably
still there if you sniff hard enough. Of course, running on biodiesel
will replace that with a burnt cooking oil sort of smell.
I'm not aware of any minivans that get 30 mpg, and the EPA's website
doesn't list any:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byclass/Minivan2007.shtml
Very few midsize cars manage 30 mpg, either; you generally have to go
to a compact car to get that kind of economy.
|
ball
|
|
response 55 of 91:
|
Oct 25 01:35 UTC 2006 |
Honda claim 24/34 (city/highway) for an Accord with a four
cylinder engine and an automatic transmission (Mrs. Ball is
not comfortable driving a manual). A station wagon might be
heavier, even when it's empty and those are based on the EPA
calculation method, which I understand is a bit dubious.
|
tod
|
|
response 56 of 91:
|
Oct 25 04:59 UTC 2006 |
I saw a Honda Accord claiming to get 40mph hwy
(Not surprising it goes that fast with the lil briggs&stratton lawnmower
engines)
|
keesan
|
|
response 57 of 91:
|
Oct 25 12:57 UTC 2006 |
The air resistance of a van or SUV reduces efficiency, not just the weight.
The claimed 24 mpg might be only for when it is new and perfectly adjusted.
It sounds like you are determined to get something inefficient and are trying
to justify the decision.
|
ball
|
|
response 58 of 91:
|
Oct 25 16:34 UTC 2006 |
You're mistaken. I've pretty much ruled out a minivan
because of their lousy fuel economy. Instead I'm looking at
A Honda Accord, Toyota Camry or VW Passat Station Wagon.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 59 of 91:
|
Oct 25 17:15 UTC 2006 |
My wife drives a VW Passat wagon, and loves it. However when the roads are
icy, she asks to borrow my Subaru Legacy (AWD) wagon.
|
keesan
|
|
response 60 of 91:
|
Oct 25 19:02 UTC 2006 |
Toyota and Honda both have reputations for high quality and efficiency. So
why only 24/30 mpg? Our Toyota does much better than that. Sorry I
misunderstood.
|
ball
|
|
response 61 of 91:
|
Oct 26 01:07 UTC 2006 |
I get about 32 MPG from my Toyota Matrix. Both the Camry and
Accord are larger than the Matrix though, which would lead
me to expect slightly worse fuel economy. Honda claim 24/34
(city/highway) for the Accord, but I'm not sure whether they
made a station wagon variant.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 62 of 91:
|
Oct 26 01:43 UTC 2006 |
Man, I wish I got over 20mpg in my Jeep. :(
|
gull
|
|
response 63 of 91:
|
Oct 28 00:05 UTC 2006 |
I'm a little dubious of your fuel economy claims, keesan. Either
you're not measuring accurately, or your driving habits are very
unusual. I'm not sure what kind of Toyota you have, so I couldn't look
it up; but you earlier claimed to be getting 40 mpg from a 1987 Dodge
Colt. The EPA numbers for that car are 23 MPG city and 24 mpg highway.
Most people don't do as well as the EPA numbers; you claim to have
nearly doubled them.
|
keesan
|
|
response 64 of 91:
|
Oct 28 01:34 UTC 2006 |
Jim drives very carefully. He rarely uses the brakes (he slows down before
intersections). He never goes over 55 mpg. He keeps the spark plugs clean
and whatever else needs adjusting is adjusted. This trip he calculated the
Dodge Colt was getting between 40 and 50 mpg (mostly on rural roads, at about
40-45 mpg). Just fetched Jim: he reset the valve clearance, ran higher tire
pressure, coasted down hills and up the next hill (took it out of gear going
down hills), almost no city driving, drove only once a day without stops in
which the engine would have cooled down. Jim says the car has poor efficiency
until it gets up to temperature and we drove no short trips in any day.
Windows closed. No luggage on top. No radio antenna. Didn't use the wipers.
Manual transmission, manual steering. It depends a lot on how you drive.
This was neither city driving (lots of stops and braking) or highway driving
(very fast speeds). Daytime only, no lights needed. No air conditioning (or
heating). We took only paved roads this trip. Unique exhaust system...
Not much starting and stopping. Engine turned off at any lights. Truck lanes
on the hills, and the trucks would pass us. We did play cassette tapes once
in a while, which uses electricity. Coasted to a stop instead of breaking,
he repeats.
|
ball
|
|
response 65 of 91:
|
Oct 28 03:17 UTC 2006 |
I had a service done recently and the chap commented that
there was "plenty of life left in those brakes!" I pointed
out that "I don't use those much". Driving home from work
(a straight run up the Interstate) around 2am means that I
can drive more sedately (around 65 MPH) without getting in
people's way and coast when I want to slow down. Lights are
not optional and if it's very cold I have the heater on. I
usually have the radio on (unless I've had to defrost the
car) or play a podcast CD. It would be interesting to see
how much my fuel economy improved if I slowed down even
more.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 66 of 91:
|
Oct 28 04:45 UTC 2006 |
During the first gas crisis, Johnny Carson did a bit about maximizing fuel
economy. Apparently an expert he spoke to said accelerate smoothly to 45 mph
and then coast. It looks like jim followed his advice.
|
ball
|
|
response 67 of 91:
|
Oct 28 05:58 UTC 2006 |
I could get away with that on the way home from work
(although I'd probably get stopped by the police rather
frequently), but driving 45 MPH on a busy Interstate during
the day would turn my car into a collision magnet.
|
keesan
|
|
response 68 of 91:
|
Oct 28 21:28 UTC 2006 |
Is there some route you can take which does not require driving 65 mph?
Heating just makes use of some of the large percentage of energy being wasted
by the engine, which converts most of it to heat not motion, so it should not
affect fuel efficiency in a gasoline-powered car. One of the problems of
electric cars is that people want them to be heated. One solution is a
propane heater. Cars are poorly insulated, and not designed to conserve heat.
|
gull
|
|
response 69 of 91:
|
Oct 28 22:02 UTC 2006 |
Re resp:68: I don't know about where ball lives, but where I live
taking a route that doesn't require doing 60 mph would mean taking one
with lots of stops, which would result in worse fuel economy, not
better. It would also take a lot more time, and my time has value,
too.
Running the heat will not effect fuel efficiency *if* you don't use it
until the car is fully warmed up, *and* if the thermostat is working
properly. If you turn on the heat before the car is fully warmed up,
you'll prolong the time it takes to get to operating temperature, and
decrease the fuel economy somewhat. The longer warm-up time is one of
the reasons cars tend to get lower fuel economy in the winter. A bad
thermostat that keeps the engine from ever reaching its proper
temperature can utterly demolish the fuel economy of some cars,
especially diesels.
I read once that turning off the engine while stopped is a net gain in
fuel efficiency if you'll be stopped for more than 30 seconds. I turn
it off at open draw bridges and when waiting for ferries, but not at
every traffic light.
Keesan's right that cold weather is a big problem for electric cars.
The GM EV-1's range on a cold winter day was once estimated at 12
miles. The combination of running the electric heater and the lower
capacity of cold batteries was a real killer.
|
keesan
|
|
response 70 of 91:
|
Oct 28 23:25 UTC 2006 |
Electric cars could be designed with insulation. Jim also never turns on the
heat unless the car has run for 30 minutes. We used to drive once every
winter and I would take along a sleeping bag and wear warm slippers. Is it
possible to warm the batteries?
|
ball
|
|
response 71 of 91:
|
Oct 29 01:39 UTC 2006 |
Re #69: That's true here too and the extra stops and starts
would wear parts (e.g. clutch, brakes) out more quickly.
Re #70: Insulation would also help keep cars cool during the
summer. It would have to be light and relatively thin.
Aerogel would be nice, but I'm sure it would cost a
fortune.
|
keesan
|
|
response 72 of 91:
|
Oct 29 14:29 UTC 2006 |
Anything more than metal and single-pane glass would help. I forgot that
Americans are now also demanding that their cars be air conditioned. Can you
still buy a car made here that is not? Or one without power windows (another
waste of fuel)? Our neighbors replaced their old car when one stopped working
and an expensive repair (motor replacement) did not work for long. Then there
are power seatbelts - anything else?
|
cyklone
|
|
response 73 of 91:
|
Oct 29 16:35 UTC 2006 |
While I too wish there were far fewer power accessories on vehicles, I doubt
their effect on fuel economy is great at all. The intermittent use of a power
accessory is not at all comparable to AC use on a hot day.
|
ball
|
|
response 74 of 91:
|
Oct 29 18:03 UTC 2006 |
Happily my car has manual transmission, manual window
winders and seatbelts. I doubt you can buy a new car in the
U.S. that doesn't come with A/C. I doubt power windows make
much difference to fuel economy, but there's more to go
wrong with power windows and I don't find it a significant
effort to crank a small handle a few times.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 75 of 91:
|
Oct 29 19:55 UTC 2006 |
It is not only inconvenient but really dangerous to open or close any car
window manually while driving, except your own.
I'm surprised they are as reliable as they are, but they hardly affect mileage
or even the car cost. Manual mechanisms are also subject to malfunction and
are not free.
|
keesan
|
|
response 76 of 91:
|
Oct 29 20:10 UTC 2006 |
Why would anyone want to open or close someone else's car window while
driving? Our manual mechanisms have never worn out. I heard you can pay
extra to get manual instead of power windows on some cars.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 77 of 91:
|
Oct 29 22:55 UTC 2006 |
The driver may wish to open or close other windows to increase or decrease
ventilation and/or noise, and to keep out rain, smoke, dust, and other
debris, while driving. You control heating and cooling with switches on
the dash. Controlling window ventilation is part of such environmental
control.
|
gull
|
|
response 78 of 91:
|
Oct 29 23:07 UTC 2006 |
Some luxury cars are coming with double-pane glass now, for sound and
heat insulation. They tend to be better insulated in general, for
noise deadening reasons. However, all that insulation adds a lot of
weight, which is one of the reasons luxury cars get poorer fuel
economy.
|