Try getting max gas mileage?

[Lets Gekiga In]

I've been trying to short shift the hell out of my car to see what kind of really good gas mileage I can get.

So far, I think the max is about 23 for me (city driving).

[OnBake Platinum]

Don't drive fast.

[Xer0]

If you really want to get great millage, or at least better, roll stops

[Lets Gekiga In]

Yeah, believe me, I'm doing everything. I think I'm pulling max gas mileage out of my car (I think EPA was 23 mpg for my car in the city). I don't have air conditioning on, I try to have no music, I keep my windows rolled up, keep a maximum speed of around 45 mph, I do everything above and beyond to make great gas mileage.

[Viper]

Speed isn't as important as RPM's. Your best mileage will be the moment exactly after you hit top gear.

[Xer0]

You drive a Saabaru right? The turbo if im not mistaken. Honestly, wtf are you doing going 45 in that car? But yea, keep windows up, air off, music doesnt really mater too much, make sure you always have your tires properally inflated, try to avoid fuel with ethonal in it (although i dont know how much of that you actually get in Florida), dont accelerate crazy. There are more but its late.

[goku2057]

Music isn't going to matter at all. The alternator has to run anyway, might as well get some use out of it.

I've pulled about 43 MPG out of my Civic a few times. Roll stops do help, but I've found the getting like 5 mph above the speed limit and just going into neutral and rolling for a while helps alot, too. Ass always, neutral on hills, etc. Basically anytime you can put it in neutral, do.

[Ihsiin]

I tend to average 30 mpg. I could get 40 if I tried but fuck it, I like accelerating and revving at Priuses.

[speed stick]

Your sitting at about the same mileage as I do in the city. On the highway I only get like 28mpg which sucks. Damn Prelude final gear.

[Lets Gekiga In]

Oh man, I shift so freaking early. I shift at like just above 2200 RPM, I try to make sure the car isn't rumbling or about to stall when I do so, but it seems to be fine when it is around 1800 RPM. I should wash and wax my car again so I can do even slightly better.

[Benson]

Right now I am getting 14MPG out of my car.

I drive maybe 4 miles a day, back and forth to school and the gym. Kinda sucks.

[Negativity]

Keep fighting the good fight, guys.

[Mr. Witt]

^I thought the same thing at first glance :p

[speed stick]

Right now I am getting 14MPG out of my car.

I drive maybe 4 miles a day, back and forth to school and the gym. Kinda sucks.

What are you driving?

[goku2057]

Oh man, I shift so freaking early. I shift at like just above 2200 RPM, I try to make sure the car isn't rumbling or about to stall when I do so, but it seems to be fine when it is around 1800 RPM. I should wash and wax my car again so I can do even slightly better.

2200 is wuss. I shift at 2000 in le Civic. Jumpy going into second, but other than that fine.

[Lets Gekiga In]

Nah, it's not wuss. If I shift any earlier than that the car will start rumbling like a bitch from gears 1-5.

[goku2057]

Pfft. What kind of car is it?

[Gookanheimer]

I should wash and wax my car again so I can do even slightly better.

*insert rofling emoticon here. CBF finding it*

[Lets Gekiga In]

*insert rofling emoticon here. CBF finding it*

It actually does make a difference.

[Yo MaMa84]

get a Vespa scooter....

[Lets Gekiga In]

Pfft. What kind of car is it?
Saab 9-2X Aero (WRX wagon rebadged).

[Lets Gekiga In]

get a Vespa scooter....

Well, you live in the city whereas I don't.

[SuperLuigiBros]

How come having the windows up helps?

[Greg]

Sounds like to much work and the whole windows up thing doesn't really matter, mythbusters proved that.

[Gookanheimer]

It actually does make a difference.
Yes, just like me getting out of the water at the beach makes the ocean level drop :P

[goku2057]

Oh man, I shift so freaking early. I shift at like just above 2200 RPM, I try to make sure the car isn't rumbling or about to stall when I do so, but it seems to be fine when it is around 1800 RPM. I should wash and wax my car again so I can do even slightly better.

*insert rofling emoticon here. CBF finding it*

It actually does make a difference.

Muhahahaha. Are you kidding me? That won't make a difference at all. Maybe if you were a Nascar. There's not enough drag coming from stuff like that at 60 to make a difference. Hell, or 160. In fact, I doubt that stuff helps/hurts at all.

[The Dude]

if your are not redlining and power shifting every gear, you clearly suck.

[Ihsiin]

^ Yes.
Fuck fuel economy. Anyone who shifts gear below 3000 revs shouldn't be driving in anything with a bigger engine than 1.0 litre.

[MrX]

^ Yes.
Fuck fuel economy. Anyone who shifts gear below 3000 revs shouldn't be driving in anything with a bigger engine than 1.0 litre.

Haha well for the rest of us who can barely afford the gas in the first place we kinda try to stretch it out ;-]

[Ihsiin]

Don't give me that. I can't afford petrol and it's about twice as expensive here, but get along fine enough.
If you don't want to spend money on petrol, get a car with a small engine. Simple as that.

[goku2057]

I have one. 1.7 liter FTW.

And I can afford gas, I just don't want to. I'm a cheap bastard.

[cpiasminc]

^ Yes.
Fuck fuel economy. Anyone who shifts gear below 3000 revs shouldn't be driving in anything with a bigger engine than 1.0 litre.
That seems completely backwards to me. If anything, what they should be driving is a diesel, so they'll have the low end power and double the gas mileage. I find it more fitting, particularly in America, to chide those who complain about gas prices without even making any effort to save gas. People who whine the most are the same ones who brought it on themselves by buying gigantic SUVs and Hummers. But then, people in America think cheap gas and cheap energy are their god-given right.

I would add, though, that a manual transmission is a rare find on the average buyer's car here in the US, and most automatics are pre-programmed to shift pretty early unless you've got a leadfoot. So the likelihood that most anybody's tach will climb north of 3000 rpm is pretty slim to begin with. Of course, because petrol engines don't make low end power, any given engine comes off making less power or so it would seem, so people end up buying all these absurd 6.0-liter pushrod V8s that barely make 350 bhp and saying that's where they finally start to feel like the vehicle has some "oomph"...

[Ihsiin]

No one should be driving a diesel. Even the word: "diesel" sounds all grey and nasty, like some black, repugnant mess on the floor.
Automatic cars are similarly crap. How can you expect to have any fun in automatic? You may as well be driving a pedal car.

This, however, is not the nature of my complaint. Cars with big engines are wasted on people who try to achieve good fuel economy.

[Lets Gekiga In]

Muhahahaha. Are you kidding me? That won't make a difference at all. Maybe if you were a Nascar. There's not enough drag coming from stuff like that at 60 to make a difference. Hell, or 160. In fact, I doubt that stuff helps/hurts at all.

Actually, during love bug season it actually does make a difference considering how many of those little annoying pests there are. Plus you might as well clean them off anyway because if you leave them on your car your paint will go to crap.

[goku2057]

That's what they make car wax for.

[Lets Gekiga In]

Subaru really isn't known to have quality paint jobs. But like I said, leaving love bugs on your car no matter what is not such a good plan.

[cpiasminc]

No one should be driving a diesel. Even the word: "diesel" sounds all grey and nasty, like some black, repugnant mess on the floor.
That attitude tells me a few things. You're unaware of a thing called biodiesel. You're unaware of a thing called synthetic diesel. You're unaware of a thing called TDI. You're unaware of urea injection. You're unaware that the calendar year is no longer 1991.

I'll grant you that the vast majority of countries in the world have some of the crappiest-quality diesel in existence, but that doesn't detract from the system itself or its merits. Especially since it's an engine that will run on just about anything. It's about as thermodynamically efficient as a reciprocating piston engine can ever get, not that there aren't better designs out there, but the difference is that diesel is available and none of those other designs ever will be.

Automatic cars are similarly crap. How can you expect to have any fun in automatic? You may as well be driving a pedal car.
Not about to deny that. But it's rarely a matter of choice. For the most part, you try to go onto a new car lot in a lot of major cities in the US, and you'll hear them say "We don't carry manuals on our lot", and if you ask for one, they'll spend hours trying to convince you not to do it (mainly because they want the extra money for selling you an automatic)... one lot I went to even said, "you can order one if you like, but have it sent to another lot, 'cause we won't take delivery of a stick here. No one buys them."

The exceptions of course are those cars for which having a manual is more of a "point of honor" than a choice you make to save some bucks. Problem is that most every car in this category are expensive, impractical, unreliable, high cost of ownership or some combination of two or more of those.

It's also generally the case that depending on the area, buying a manual will raise your insurance premiums because the general assumption is that American drivers are too stupid to handle one because they want to be busy talking on a cellphone, eating fast food, and trying to find their way on a GPS toy all at the same time. Of course, there are other places where the converse is true because cars with a manual transmission are less likely to get stolen, again because American drivers are too stupid to handle one.

This, however, is not the nature of my complaint. Cars with big engines are wasted on people who try to achieve good fuel economy.
Nonsense. Fuel economy is a function of combustion and drivetrain efficiency, not just displacement. It is VERY easy to make a larger engine yield better mileage than a smaller one in the same vehicle. Nobody ever does it because the numbers that sell a car are always peak power numbers, so engines and transmissions are never tuned to give flatter power curves or tune gearing for efficiency.

I'll assume that when you say "bigger" that you actually are referring to more absurd differences in displacement, and that is mostly true, but leaves out everything in between. I can point to experimentally verified examples of say, a 2.5 L Turbo that outdoes a 1.8 L NA engine on highway mileage, all because the engine gets more complete combustion due to its turbo, it didn't have to work hard to move the car, and the transmission was geared to take advantage of that and keep the engine in low RPMs when coasting at constant highway speeds. Hell, there are examples of people who actually know what they're doing who can get a gigantic 5.5L+ V8 to get about the same highway mileage as a typical 3.0L V6 sedan (though admittedly crappy city mileage by comparison)

[goku2057]

Well, I really do enjoy rading your posts. ^^

I was recently in the car market looking for a manual transmission, only to go to lots (like you said) and have them try to talk me out of it. They never told me that they didn't carry them because people don't buy them, but they did try to convince me otehrwise.

They tried to tell me an awfulmatic would get me better gas mileage, to which I laughed.

So, I went and got my Civic from a private party instead. I've had it about 4 months, and I'm completely happy with it. It's no WRX, but it gets great fuel economy, and I don't have to worry about things going awry on it for a while.

[Ihsiin]

Very long post

Never argue with an American; he'll provide you the fact and figure and conclude he's right.

Point number one. The average diesel is a nasty thing to drive. My experience tells me this. It's noisy, grumbley and all together lends an air of cheapness to the car; makes you feel like you're in a van of some sort.
I know there are diesel cars now a days which overcome these pitfalls, but I don't care. I still wouldn't drive one.

Number two, well, that's a problem with America, then. I was really referring to manuals, anyway, seeing as how people were talking about when to shift.

And finally. If you drive two cars in the same manner, the one with the larger engine will do less miles to the gallon. Of course, you could strive to get them to produce the same fuel economy. I have a 1.4 litre Gold (owing to insurance reasons only, you understand) and I could do 40 miles to the gallon. But I don't. I tend to shift well past 3000 revs and I still get around 30 miles to the gallon. But I think you're still missing my problem.
Cars with bigger engines (generally) have greater capabilities in terms of speed, but these capabilities will never be reached if the driver is so worried about his pocket. He'll never rev the engine to excess for the sheer, unadulterated hell of it. He may as well, then, be driving my 1.4 litre Golf.
I must also make it clear that motorway driving doesn't interest me in the slightest. With the possible exception of the raised but of the A40, which curves so graciously, motorway driving is very tedious. I find how a car performs on the motorway to be a very unimportant feature.

Whatever, I’m already tired of arguing.

[MrX]

Don't give me that. I can't afford petrol and it's about twice as expensive here, but get along fine enough.
If you don't want to spend money on petrol, get a car with a small engine. Simple as that.

I have a cavalier with a 2.2l i4.Bty seeing as you get along fine enough it must not be that bad for you. ;-]

[Gookanheimer]

Point number one. The average diesel is a nasty thing to drive. My experience tells me this. It's noisy, grumbley and all together lends an air of cheapness to the car; makes you feel like you're in a van of some sort.

I was driving my Nonno's diesel '85 Holden Rodeo before me and my sister bought our own car. I loved the grumbly noise of it. Thought it sounded cool :P

[cpiasminc]

Never argue with an American; he'll provide you the fact and figure and conclude he's right.
???
I'm an engineering geek, which makes me about as un-American as they come.

Point number one. The average diesel is a nasty thing to drive. My experience tells me this. It's noisy, grumbley and all together lends an air of cheapness to the car; makes you feel like you're in a van of some sort.
I know there are diesel cars now a days which overcome these pitfalls, but I don't care. I still wouldn't drive one.
Again, I'd agree with you back in the early 1990s or before while driving a giant 1-ton dually pickup. Not anymore. The difference is that while diesel as a technology has always had theoretical superiority over gasoline, now it actually is showing those aspects.

I could mention that things like CVTs/IVTs have theoretical limits far superior to that of any manual transmission, but the problem is they're not there in practice. Everybody who puts CVTs in their cars waste them with the garbage that is a torque converter. The only exception I know of would be Audi, but it was too expensive, and they used a design which scales down beautifully but just doesn't scale up well.

All I care about is the fact that they are more thermodynamically efficient than gasoline spark ignition ever will be. Combustion is more complete as long as you've got enough oxidizer (which is kind of the point of TDI), and power comes early and in the most efficient range of operation.

Now if HCCI ever comes to market (which I don't think will happen), or turbine hybrids ever happen (again, I don't think that will happen), or epielliptical rotaries (again, won't happen), or all sorts of alternative combustion systems out there which do exist in the lab but I doubt will ever exist on the market, I'll be all too glad to remove diesels from the practical efficiency throne.

Number two, well, that's a problem with America, then. I was really referring to manuals, anyway, seeing as how people were talking about when to shift.
Well, I brought that up more as a reference point as to why American car buyers are such idiots. They buy big engines because they're so used to driving conditions that never allow them to bring out more than maybe 15-20% of the car's power, so they buy something that's twice as powerful so they can feel 15-20% of that engine's power and then it feels like it actually has some pickup.

And finally. If you drive two cars in the same manner, the one with the larger engine will do less miles to the gallon. Of course, you could strive to get them to produce the same fuel economy.
Again, not true in the generic sense. Engine load and engine RPMs are the two biggest factors, and if the larger engine is tuned for a flatter power curve and more complete combustion, then it can still be more efficient even if driven the same way. I would like to note that you specifically said both would be "driven in the same manner" and not that both would be "driven with total abandon for efficiency." That opens up a lot more possibilities. In general, you have low-rpm high load conditions and high rpm low load conditions. For gasoline spark combustion, the latter is more inefficient all the time mainly because rpm is a far more significant factor.

However, by having a flatter power curve and a wider powerband, you have the possibility to garnering more efficiency out of an engine over a wider range of driving conditions because you've changed characteristics of combustion. And size is not the sole factor. I'm not about to say that an 8-liter engine can be more efficient than a 2-liter engine, but it is entirely possible in a multitude of driving conditions for a given vehicle to get better mileage on a 2.3 liter engine than a 1.9 liter engine all because the larger engine is simply better tuned. And that's without heading into alternative combustion methods (I'm not about to compare a 1.3 L Wankel to a 3.0 L V6).

Cars with bigger engines (generally) have greater capabilities in terms of speed, but these capabilities will never be reached if the driver is so worried about his pocket. He'll never rev the engine to excess for the sheer, unadulterated hell of it. He may as well, then, be driving my 1.4 litre Golf.
Ummm... that's precisely why I mentioned diesel in the first place. Early onset of power means you don't have to rev to get to the fun part. That too, you get instant gratification. More importantly, you can get everything, a greater *sense* of power because it is available so early, and more efficiency.

Everybody talks about getting power out of the high end, and I have to say that's totally useless. If I'm driving a race car, I'll give a damn about that, but that's not exactly something that will ever happen. It's nice to look at time trials for Nurburgring for pure curiosity, but at the end of the day, I'm driving on a street in stop and go residential and highway traffic on hot days, cold days, wet streets, dry streets, streets that are dead smooth, and streets that are in such poor condition that slabs of asphalt stand up vertically... For that, I could care less how some car runs around Nurburgring or how fast it takes the 1/4 mile. All those measures are wastes of time.

I must also make it clear that motorway driving doesn't interest me in the slightest. With the possible exception of the raised but of the A40, which curves so graciously, motorway driving is very tedious. I find how a car performs on the motorway to be a very unimportant feature.
Funny. I never thought of where you drive as a matter of choice. I have places to go and things to do, and no it's not anything lofty -- it's all the ordinary stuff everybody has to do. And whatever route is the most effective way for me to get from point A to point B is the route I take. That's all there is to it. I don't have the luxury of just taking a particular road because I feel like it and neither do the vast majority of drivers anywhere on the planet. You speak of revving for the sheer hell of it, and I say "there is no such thing."

I'm not about to say I don't enjoy driving, but I will say that having the chance to do something in my car for the hell of it is a non-existent condition. Especially out here where every 100 ft is an office of some multi-million dollar corporation, meaning there's always some 200 cars around you no matter where you go.

[Ihsiin]

Right, let's see.

???
I'm an engineering geek, which makes me about as un-American as they come.

In my experience I find Americans argue by bombarding the opponent with a great torrent of facts. I find that very trying. Oh well.

Again, I'd agree with you back in the early 1990s or before while driving a giant 1-ton dually pickup. Not anymore. The difference is that while diesel as a technology has always had theoretical superiority over gasoline, now it actually is showing those aspects.

I could mention that things like CVTs/IVTs have theoretical limits far superior to that of any manual transmission, but the problem is they're not there in practice. Everybody who puts CVTs in their cars waste them with the garbage that is a torque converter. The only exception I know of would be Audi, but it was too expensive, and they used a design which scales down beautifully but just doesn't scale up well.

All I care about is the fact that they are more thermodynamically efficient than gasoline spark ignition ever will be. Combustion is more complete as long as you've got enough oxidizer (which is kind of the point of TDI), and power comes early and in the most efficient range of operation.

Now if HCCI ever comes to market (which I don't think will happen), or turbine hybrids ever happen (again, I don't think that will happen), or epielliptical rotaries (again, won't happen), or all sorts of alternative combustion systems out there which do exist in the lab but I doubt will ever exist on the market, I'll be all too glad to remove diesels from the practical efficiency throne.

I can’t pretend that the engineering behind a car interests me. I’m a physics student and find even that mind-crushingly dull. As such the vast majority of what you said has fallen on deaf ears.
What I gather, however, is that you said that diesels these days do not fit into the horrible, noisy picture I painted of them. I would challenge you on that front. My description of diesel powered cars comes from my experience with diesel powered cars, and for the most part those cars were built in the 21st century.
And I now refer you to the last sentence of my paragraph: “I know there are diesel cars now a days which overcome these pitfalls, but I don't care. I still wouldn't drive one.”
Loathed as I am to admit it, Jeremy Clarkson once put it very well, while talking about some Alfa Romeo or other: “...you can have on with a diesel engine, if you’re the sort of person who thinks the Mona Lisa would look better with a moustache.” I remember thinking: that’s exactly right.

But, yes, I concede. If you like diesel cars go ahead and drive them. I’ll continue avoiding them like the plague.


Well, I brought that up more as a reference point as to why American car buyers are such idiots. They buy big engines because they're so used to driving conditions that never allow them to bring out more than maybe 15-20% of the car's power, so they buy something that's twice as powerful so they can feel 15-20% of that engine's power and then it feels like it actually has some pickup.

Yes... automatics truly are the devil’s work.

Again, not true in the generic sense. Engine load and engine RPMs are the two biggest factors, and if the larger engine is tuned for a flatter power curve and more complete combustion, then it can still be more efficient even if driven the same way. I would like to note that you specifically said both would be "driven in the same manner" and not that both would be "driven with total abandon for efficiency." That opens up a lot more possibilities. In general, you have low-rpm high load conditions and high rpm low load conditions. For gasoline spark combustion, the latter is more inefficient all the time mainly because rpm is a far more significant factor.

However, by having a flatter power curve and a wider powerband, you have the possibility to garnering more efficiency out of an engine over a wider range of driving conditions because you've changed characteristics of combustion. And size is not the sole factor. I'm not about to say that an 8-liter engine can be more efficient than a 2-liter engine, but it is entirely possible in a multitude of driving conditions for a given vehicle to get better mileage on a 2.3 liter engine than a 1.9 liter engine all because the larger engine is simply better tuned. And that's without heading into alternative combustion methods (I'm not about to compare a 1.3 L Wankel to a 3.0 L V6).

Right. Originally I wrote in my post: “in the same, casual manner” but decided that would go without saying. Obviously not. And yes, I’m sure a 2.3 litre engine can be more economical than a 1.9 litre engine. I really had bigger gaps in engine size in mind.

Ummm... that's precisely why I mentioned diesel in the first place. Early onset of power means you don't have to rev to get to the fun part. That too, you get instant gratification. More importantly, you can get everything, a greater *sense* of power because it is available so early, and more efficiency.

Everybody talks about getting power out of the high end, and I have to say that's totally useless. If I'm driving a race car, I'll give a damn about that, but that's not exactly something that will ever happen. It's nice to look at time trials for Nurburgring for pure curiosity, but at the end of the day, I'm driving on a street in stop and go residential and highway traffic on hot days, cold days, wet streets, dry streets, streets that are dead smooth, and streets that are in such poor condition that slabs of asphalt stand up vertically... For that, I could care less how some car runs around Nurburgring or how fast it takes the 1/4 mile. All those measures are wastes of time.

Having discounted diesel cars earlier on I was really talking about petrol cars.
My problem really stems from Lets Gekiga In. He said that when he drives economically he achieves 23 miles to the gallon. It occurs to me, then, that he’s not driving a diesel. It occurs to me also that he’s not driving a car with a particularly small engine. Why, then, is he pottering about at 2000 RPM?
I hope you understand me.

And finally...

Funny. I never thought of where you drive as a matter of choice. I have places to go and things to do, and no it's not anything lofty -- it's all the ordinary stuff everybody has to do. And whatever route is the most effective way for me to get from point A to point B is the route I take. That's all there is to it. I don't have the luxury of just taking a particular road because I feel like it and neither do the vast majority of drivers anywhere on the planet. You speak of revving for the sheer hell of it, and I say "there is no such thing."

I'm not about to say I don't enjoy driving, but I will say that having the chance to do something in my car for the hell of it is a non-existent condition. Especially out here where every 100 ft is an office of some multi-million dollar corporation, meaning there's always some 200 cars around you no matter where you go.

You talk about cars as if they’re busses. Yes, we all have places to go and things to do, but as car drivers we have the choice of how to get there. You’re not telling me there’s only one way to get to where you need to go, are you? I like in North-West London and go to university in East London. That journey’s very long and I make it most days of the week. Now, I could take the A40 down the Central London and then Ring Road all the way to the east, but I don’t. Instead I choose to a take a multitude of small side roads, going through Hampstead and Camden and Islington, all the while playing some Godspeed You Black Emperor or Mogwai through the stereo. It makes the journey several hundred times more enjoyable.

And of course you can do things for the sheer hell of it. I use my engine, not only to drive, but to ward off stray pedestrians, for example.

[goku2057]

Don't give me that. I can't afford petrol and it's about twice as expensive here, but get along fine enough.
If you don't want to spend money on petrol, get a car with a small engine. Simple as that.

Something else you're forgetting, Americans have to drive a helluva lot farther than le British. Why? My state is about as big as your country.

Yeah, I totally went there.

[cpiasminc]

What I gather, however, is that you said that diesels these days do not fit into the horrible, noisy picture I painted of them. I would challenge you on that front. My description of diesel powered cars comes from my experience with diesel powered cars, and for the most part those cars were built in the 21st century.
Now that's really absurd, unless you were driving an enormous American-made diesel (Most any American-made engine of any kind does not fit the bill of an engine made "these days" -- most all were made in 1965 and left untouched) and/or filling it up with crappy fuel that was probably refined in someone's backyard. I tend to point fingers more at the likes of VW's or BMW's diesels running on biomass fuel, which run dead smooth and just seem to have bottomless torque and sip fuel and basically last forever.

If I were still living in Chicago, I'd refrain from diesels mainly because of their primary weakness being a need for rather high operating temperatures, which yields a little hell when you come around to cold starting. Here in California, they're really quite perfectly suited... if only they didn't border on the illegal.

Loathed as I am to admit it, Jeremy Clarkson once put it very well, while talking about some Alfa Romeo or other: “...you can have on with a diesel engine, if you’re the sort of person who thinks the Mona Lisa would look better with a moustache.” I remember thinking: that’s exactly right.
???? Okay, that analogy is totally lost on me. Explanation?

Having discounted diesel cars earlier on I was really talking about petrol cars. My problem really stems from Lets Gekiga In. He said that when he drives economically he achieves 23 miles to the gallon. It occurs to me, then, that he’s not driving a diesel. It occurs to me also that he’s not driving a car with a particularly small engine. Why, then, is he pottering about at 2000 RPM?
So that's a perfectly good reason to make things worse (BTW, I believe the 9-2X is a 2-Liter Turbo)? To me, unless he has cash reserves of several tens of thousands (in which case, he shouldn't be complaining about cost of gas), I doubt he paid for that 9-2X out of pocket from a new car dealer. Given that, I'd additionally doubt that it was a matter of choice. So might as well stretch the bucks that you didn't have to spend too many of.

Of course, if I'm wrong on that (only he can say one way or another), then I'd agree he shouldn't be that worried about mileage, but for a different reason. Nothing to do with the engine he paid for, but the fact that he was willing to buy a car as expensive as that that's that expensive to insure and complaining about gas, which is comparatively cheap.

You talk about cars as if they’re busses.
More like tools. It's something you USE, not some sort of consumable good. It's nice to have the luxury of buying a "fun" car, but spending tens of thousands of dollars on a toy is not something I'm about to do. While there are plenty of companies that try to make cars that fit both bills, they'll always be more expensive than can ever be acceptable.

Yes, we all have places to go and things to do, but as car drivers we have the choice of how to get there. You’re not telling me there’s only one way to get to where you need to go, are you?
No. Just one or two that are remotely feasible. Given the choice of taking the highway or the service roads to get to work every day for instance, I have the option of constantly moving even if not always at a reasonable speed and getting there in a half hour, or stopping at a red light every 200-300 meters for 15 miles and getting there in 90 minutes. The latter is utterly unacceptable even if it was ten times more fun.

[Ihsiin]

I won't use quotes because it's too much effort.
I will also talk to you in reverse order.

Concerning your lack of alternate routes, well, that's a shame.

Concerning his car, that's exactly my point. Why have a fast car and then drive it boringly? He may as well have bought a slow car to begin with. And don't tell me he didn't have a choice on what kind of car to get, because I won't believe you.

Concerning that analogy, sorry, can't put it anymore tangibly then that. It's just about the air a diesel engine lends a car. Not really something one can explain.

Concerning the diesel cars, they're generally of a European nature (we don't get too many American cars 'round here) running on normal diesel from a normal petrol station. And I swear to you that's true.

[cpiasminc]

Concerning your lack of alternate routes, well, that's a shame.
That's what life is.

Concerning his car, that's exactly my point. Why have a fast car and then drive it boringly? He may as well have bought a slow car to begin with. And don't tell me he didn't have a choice on what kind of car to get, because I won't believe you.
Well, my point wasn't so much about *fast* car so much as *expensive* car. And the "having a choice" was a question of whether he personally bought it from a dealer with his own money, or he had it passed down, or he knew someone who was trying to get rid of it for peanuts or something similar. The latter two are more matters of chance than choice, and I have no idea just from this thread which is the case. Can he not jump on the chance? Well sure, but if the alternatives are never to have a penny in your pocket or simply not to have any personal means of transportation, then there's no such thing as choice.

Concerning that analogy, sorry, can't put it anymore tangibly then that. It's just about the air a diesel engine lends a car. Not really something one can explain.
In other words, too many people have no working brain cells with which to learn anything. And that holds back everybody. Well, I'm not about to tell you that there is any particular place or industry that is particularly dense with people who make humanity worse by existing, but in short you're saying dogma rules all else. I'd agree with that. If not for that, we'd probably not be running on petrochemical fuels at all by now.

Main difference is that I don't condemn machines for it. I condemn humankind.

Concerning the diesel cars, they're generally of a European nature (we don't get too many American cars 'round here) running on normal diesel from a normal petrol station. And I swear to you that's true.
American-made engines show up everywhere because everybody has financial stakes in everybody else. Now if only more European-made engines would make their way into American cars rather than the other way around, but alas, it's not that Vauxhall owns GM, but that GM owns Vauxhall. It's not Volvo owns Ford, but that Ford owns Volvo. And thus does the industry stagnate eternally.

But I'm curious. It's fairly widely accepted that the typical diesel fuel available throughout the EU countries is basically third-rate crap that's only a few notches above diesel available to third-world countries. In India, we get cheap diesel that pretty much smells like someone used it to replace toilet water, and expensive diesel that's marginally better than what the EU gets. Diesel in the US is typically decent quality mainly because the emissions of every diesel vehicle on the road would fail to meet US standards otherwise, and you can get some damn nice synthetic and biodiesels if you know where to look... but since diesels themselves are rare, so too are fueling stations. So what does the UK get?

[Ihsiin]

Well, my point wasn't so much about *fast* car so much as *expensive* car. And the "having a choice" was a question of whether he personally bought it from a dealer with his own money, or he had it passed down, or he knew someone who was trying to get rid of it for peanuts or something similar. The latter two are more matters of chance than choice, and I have no idea just from this thread which is the case. Can he not jump on the chance? Well sure, but if the alternatives are never to have a penny in your pocket or simply not to have any personal means of transportation, then there's no such thing as choice.

Fair enough.

In other words, too many people have no working brain cells with which to learn anything. And that holds back everybody. Well, I'm not about to tell you that there is any particular place or industry that is particularly dense with people who make humanity worse by existing, but in short you're saying dogma rules all else. I'd agree with that. If not for that, we'd probably not be running on petrochemical fuels at all by now.

Um, what?

American-made engines show up everywhere because everybody has financial stakes in everybody else. Now if only more European-made engines would make their way into American cars rather than the other way around, but alas, it's not that Vauxhall owns GM, but that GM owns Vauxhall. It's not Volvo owns Ford, but that Ford owns Volvo. And thus does the industry stagnate eternally.

Well, in Germany at least, the car manufacters are swiming in it. And in England they're still making their own engines. Well, Jaguar are, anyway. Usually.

But I'm curious. It's fairly widely accepted that the typical diesel fuel available throughout the EU countries is basically third-rate crap that's only a few notches above diesel available to third-world countries. In India, we get cheap diesel that pretty much smells like someone used it to replace toilet water, and expensive diesel that's marginally better than what the EU gets. Diesel in the US is typically decent quality mainly because the emissions of every diesel vehicle on the road would fail to meet US standards otherwise, and you can get some damn nice synthetic and biodiesels if you know where to look... but since diesels themselves are rare, so too are fueling stations. So what does the UK get?

I don't know, the stuff out of the black pump. The stuff that the cab driver in front fills up on before rattling off.

[masonite]

Concerning that analogy, sorry, can't put it anymore tangibly then that. It's just about the air a diesel engine lends a car. Not really something one can explain.

I think it's more to do with the air that alfa's appaling diesel's lend their cars, especially compared to their (holden's ;)) pertrol six.

[MrX]

*sigh* Why don't you all just stfu.

[Bryan]

To touch on the issue that Americans have on fuel prices further: Umm.. most Americans don't live in an area with an effective mass transit system. In fact, many live in an area with none what so ever!

I drive a 1999 Toyota Corolla right now that gets damn near 35 mpg average whilst driving like a complete maniac, and I feel the pinch of high fuel prices fucking me up good and proper.

[cpiasminc]

To touch on the issue that Americans have on fuel prices further: Umm.. most Americans don't live in an area with an effective mass transit system. In fact, many live in an area with none what so ever!
Well, as far as the US is concerned, I've lived in Chicago, Houston, Dallas, and now Silicon Valley... Chicago and the Bay are pretty dense with mass transit systems, and the Bay in particular has lots of options like MUNI, VTA, BART, and Caltrain. Hell, in Chicago, I pretty much relied on the train all the time to get to school. Houston and Dallas had mass transit, but it wasn't proliferated enough to be useful to that many people (Houston, quite many levels better than Dallas, though).

On the whole, though, I think people just don't care enough about mass transit. I mean, we talk all about hybrid cars, we talk about fuel cell cars, we talk about biofuels, but who talks about advances in mass transit? Even those towns that DO have good mass transit systems, they still spend many times more money on building and expanding highways and major roads. Most people commute a reasonably small distance (small being less than 35 km), and it's on the same route, else there wouldn't be any point in having those highways in the first place... and is mass transit being used all that heavily? I don't think it is. I look at Houston and Dallas, and I see this utterly insane preoccupation with putting fly-over ramps everywhere. How much money does that cost? Especially compared to how much it costs to lay down concrete and steel for something like a light rail system?

Sure, America is big, but the places for which mass transit is meaningful are the densely populated areas where, for the most part, everybody is staying pretty local. And I don't think anybody thinks that mass transit is a *bad* thing -- just that nobody considers it a priority.

A friend of mine pointed to the example that if you look at a lot of Japanese anime, you'll see that all their visions of the future city (at least among those that don't have a dystopic vision of the future in general) involve some fancy and efficient train system. Look at India's futurists who all have these images of futuristic busses and taxi shuttles and couriering services. Then you look at American sci-fi, like say, Minority Report, and you'll see fancy personal transportation units that fly or ride on "smart roads". That's pretty much consistent with the respective visions of "ideal" transportation.

[Bryan]

Yeah.. those are much bigger places than my town, though. When I visit a large city I depend on mass transit to get around, but that isn't where I live. We don't even have a suitable bus system! If we did, I'd use it more often. Not because I think my Corolla is polluting the environment, and that we're all going to die, but because I want to save money. Unfortunately that hasn't worked out for me.

I think you're on the right track, though. Developing mass transit is an outstanding idea -- and one that doesn't seem to get very much attention.

[The Dude]

I think most Americans will not embrace any mass transportation system is the fact that we like the convince and freedom that owning a car grants us. No having to be at places at certin times, having to buy tickets, sharing seats with strangers, you get the picture.

[stanDarsh]

There's plenty of ways to save on fuel:

1) Keep your car as empty as possible, extra weight on the car will use more fuel, so if you are a big person losing weight will actually help your fuel economy.

2) As low revs as possible

3) Put the car in neutral as much as possible particularly on hills and slopes.

4) Turn off air-con and fans

5) Slipstream as much as possible

6) Get more efficient spark plugs.

[Gookanheimer]

2) As low revs as possible

4) Turn off air-con and fans

When I turn on the fan (with the air con off, I think) the revs dropped a little. So which should I do? :P

[traderonline]

i always try to avoid traffic. that is where my most gas is spent on ;)

[cpiasminc]

When I turn on the fan (with the air con off, I think) the revs dropped a little. So which should I do? :P
Minuscule drops in revs are pretty insignificant. The swings of concern would be hundreds or thousands of revs. In addition, if turning on the fan affects your revs, that means the fan is adding engine load, and since the difference in revs is small, that probably means it's hurting your mileage.

For a lot of newer cars (particularly foreign ones), the fans draw electric power only, so they wouldn't affect your mileage if you don't use the A/C.

Opening the windows won't be too significant a drop at low speeds, but at high speeds, it will hurt your mileage very badly. Energy drain of drag grows linearly with changes to drag coefficient, and opening your windows has a small effect on this... however, energy drain of drag grows cubically with speed, so the faster you go, each little effect on drag counts for many times more.

There's plenty of ways to save on fuel:
I would add to those... get out of low gear quickly. Accelerate and brake hard out of necessity, only. Regular maintenance sort of things -- keeping filters clean, tire pressure, try using synthetic oils if you can.

If you're really serious about it, you can also buy something like a ScanGauge (http://www.scangauge.com/) and plug it into your diagnostic port to monitor your fuel consumption, and based on what you see, you can adjust the way you drive. Nice thing about this is that it uses your computer's monitoring of the fuel system to get actual consumption rates. Most other computer tools for this (like the one used on Mythbusters) measure intake vacuum strength, which gives you a figure which is only accurate to within 20%. Of course, this is assuming you HAVE a diagnostic port (and EFI), which if the car is too old, could be an issue.

[jaxmkii]

2200 is wuss. I shift at 2000 in le Civic. Jumpy going into second, but other than that fine. I love going up hills in my 01 beetle just below boost range. 1200-1600 the turbo trys to spool but the gasses just arn't moving fast enuff so you get this turboprop spooling sound. LOL my 1800cc turbo bug can hit top boost at just 2000 RPM in fact i have peak torque 240ft lbs from 2200-5300 RPM the 1.8T with a K-04 turbo has a table top torque curve... but if i runn around using the turbo all day my milage will suffer but on long extended road trips crusing @3000 RPM or 68MPH i can get about 35mpg. not to bad for a 260hp engine. i actualy gained about 2 MPG after steping up to a larger turbo and bigger exaust/induction plumbing.

power+efficancy its a wonder they all Audi's 1.8ts don't have K-04 and 2.5 exaust running 22lbs... oh yea it makes the car EXTREAMLY picky about fuel quality. 94 or better or she detonates. and i have to be picky where i get the fuel from not all gas co are equil. Sonoco seems to the only ones the car like unless its EFL 112 oct but at 8usd a gallon its a rare treat.

[Gookanheimer]

2200 is wuss. I shift at 2000 in le Civic. Jumpy going into second, but other than that fine.

Been giving short-shifting a go lately. I usually do 2000, but it's still wuss. I can go as low as 1500 and still be pretty much fine.

[stanDarsh]

You could always start in 3rd gear ;)

[Gookanheimer]

Ooh, that'd be pushing it. Maybe if I revved the hell out of the thing while letting the clutch out millimetre by millimetre. I think 2nd's about the limit for my Laser. Of course, that's not to say I've ruled out giving it a shot... :P

[goku2057]

My Civic will start in second. I've never tried third. Something about my transmission blowing up scares me away from it ;p.

[jaxmkii]

My Civic will start in second. I've never tried third. Something about my transmission blowing up scares me away from it ;p.

dude its a honda it will probley just stall it.