 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / May 2008Slow down a little, save a lot of gas
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > In a typical family sedan, every 10 miles per hour you drive over 60 is like the price of gasoline going up about 54 cents a gallon. That figure will be even higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles that go fewer miles on a gallon to start with. > Driving even slower, say 55 mph, could save slightly more gas. When such advice is taken too literally, what happens is that Sloths start driving more Slothily on all roads and lanes. If traffic slowed from the usual speeds to Slothly speeds, many roadways would be unusable because of congestion. This often happens during snow and ice storms, when traffic cannot go any faster than the reduced traction allows. People seem to be accelerating much more slowly lately. I saw a traffic jam at a green signal yesterday, where drivers were accelerating at a slug's pace. It took 20 seconds for the third car in the line to start moving. I passed them all on the right, on the walkway! What these petrol-sippers don't seem to realise is that their attempts to save a little petrol will actually cause all drivers to waste much more petrol in the resultant traffic jams. If you want to save petrol, use the bus, the train, a bicycle, walk, or at least keep with the flow of traffic in the right lane. My fuel efficiency decreases significantly in traffic jams and when using slower roads. I have approximately a 30% reduction in efficiency when switching my autobahn trips to secondary roads. I lose an additional 15-20% when I'm stuck in traffic jams caused by Slothly drivers. My most efficient travel speeds are between 110 km/h and 160 km/h, non-stop and without hard acceleration in the passing lane. I also have a significant fuel efficiency above 160 km/h, especially considering how much sooner I get to my destination and off the engine. My fuel-saving tips include: Don't brake unnecessarily while going down hills. It takes more fuel to go up a hill than it does to coast down a hill. If anything, accelerate down the hill and coast up the hill. This is what I usually do on a bike. Don't brake for no reason. This causes braking waves and wastes fuel. Check tyre pressure frequently. Don't drive on underinflated or overinflated tyres. Accelerate quickly from a stop, and at the same time as any cars in front of you. Shift through all the gears. If you have a clutchless shifter, don't sit at a stop with the transmission in gear and the brakes applied. Doing that is like putting an ordinary transmission into first gear and depressing the accelerator pedal while braking with the other foot. > http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > because of congestion. This often happens during snow and ice storms, > when traffic cannot go any faster than the reduced traction allows. > People seem to be accelerating much more slowly lately. I saw a traffic > jam at a green signal yesterday, where drivers were accelerating at a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > use the bus, the train, a bicycle, walk, or at least keep with the flow > of traffic in the right lane. As these high fuel prices continue I am getting more frustrated with the idiot americans programed with this mainstream media go-slow to save fuel BS. Now I don't have a lot of experience driving in europe but they did not sloth along creating traffic congestion. Brisk timely acceleration was what I experienced. All these fuel saving 'habbits' are decreasing fuel economy for me. It doesn't matter how fast I drive my car within the range of speeds that I can reasonably achieve, it matters how many times I have to stop and how much time I spend with it idling. Backups are getting longer. I am going to be driving in the middle of the night more just to escape the idiotcy that is making road construction season just that much worse. On May 26, 7:54 pm, Brent P <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > the idiotcy that is making road construction season just that much > worse. In the last couple weeks, I have made it a point to not top 65 mph, as opposed to not topping 70 mph. My mpg has gone from about 27 to just barely over 30. I have a 4 cyl, 2003 GMC pickup. ( I also just topped 91,000 miles on my original tires, but I will need to replace them in a couple months.) I also moved to the right one lane most of the time, because of the speed change, so don't jump all over my case! Because I drive before the jams usually hit, traffic blockage usually isn't an issue. > http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > > > In a typical family sedan, every 10 miles per hour you drive over 60 is like the price of gasoline > going up about 54 cents a gallon. Actually NO. > > That figure will be even higher for less fuel-efficient vehicles that go fewer miles on a gallon to > start with. > > > Driving even slower, say 55 mph, could save slightly more gas. Complete rubbish. Modern vehicles rarely see any improvement in mpg below 60 mph. This is because the engine and gearbox ratios are designed to give good economy at 'sensible' speeds. The only way you'll see an advantage in mpg at 55 or lower is with ultra-low powered cars e.g. 60 bhp or so. Few modern cars see a serious drop in mpg up until 80 mph. Most of all, the best way to get good mpg is to drive at as constant a speed as possible. Driving too slowly tends to cause 'bunching' with wasteful braking and subsequent acceleration coming into play destroying the mpg. At higher speeds it's easier to 'coast' somewhat and not wastefully lose kinetic energy like that. Graham > http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > an ordinary transmission into first gear and depressing the accelerator > pedal while braking with the other foot. Good points on driving techniques. I do have a quibble or two though: >My most efficient travel speeds are between 110 km/h and 160 > km/h, non-stop and without hard acceleration in the passing lane. I > also have a significant fuel efficiency above 160 km/h, especially > considering how much sooner I get to my destination and off the engine. 1. I don't know what you are driving but I seriously doubt that your best economy is above 80 mph. 2. You seem to be a believer in the fallacy that you save gas if you get there faster, i.e., engine runs less time. If so, it is wrong. The engine will (assuming it stays in top gear) turn over the same number of times per kilometer if you drive 100k at 100 kph or 160 kph. It will also suck more gas (assuming it isn't some supper slippery design) due to wind and rolling resistance at the higher speed. Time enroute is only a function of how hard you push on the pedal. I find claims of better efficiency at speeds above 70-80 mph to be dubious as that would indicate that driving at 70 and wanting to go to 90 you wouild ease up on the pedal - not likely. Of course you could claim that you have to increase the pedal pressure to get to 90 but then let off to less than what it was at 70 - also not likely. Harry K > >http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - I need to clarify that I am talking about speeds above about 70 mph. No argument that most cars will do better at 60-70 than they will at 50. Harry K > > >http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > - Show quoted text - When you use the brakes, you are throwing away the fuel that got you up to speed. Solution is simple - loof far ahead and figure out what will probably happen in the next ferw minutes'. Don't be a looney who never looks more than where the car will be in five seconds! (It can save your life, too,) > > > >http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] > > - Show quoted text - ???? I said nothing about using brakes. Was that intended for someone else? Of course you are correct. Harry K > http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > When such advice is taken too literally, what happens is that Sloths > start driving more Slothily on all roads and lanes. Shirley you have some data to support your widely cast assumption... > If traffic slowed > from the usual speeds to Slothly speeds, many roadways would be unusable > because of congestion. Spurious conclusion; non sequitur. x number of vehicles in any allotted space = x number of vehicles in any allotted space. > This often happens during snow and ice storms, > when traffic cannot go any faster than the reduced traction allows. So... I assume you mean to imply the crashes that are so common under those conditions contribute nothing to congestion... > People seem to be accelerating much more slowly lately. I saw a traffic > jam at a green signal yesterday, where drivers were accelerating at a > slug's pace. It took 20 seconds for the third car in the line to start > moving. I passed them all on the right, on the walkway! So... you passed them on the sidewalk, and kept right on timing the 3rd car in line...?! > What these petrol-sippers don't seem to realise is that their attempts > to save a little petrol will actually cause all drivers to waste much > more petrol in the resultant traffic jams. Shirley you have some data...? > If you want to save petrol, > use the bus, the train, a bicycle, walk, or at least keep with the flow > of traffic in the right lane. Where's Brent to protest this suggestion of control of other drivers? > My fuel efficiency decreases significantly in traffic jams and when > using slower roads. I have approximately a 30% reduction in efficiency > when switching my autobahn trips to secondary roads. Shirley you have some data...? > I lose an > additional 15-20% when I'm stuck in traffic jams caused by Slothly > drivers. So... you come upon a traffic jam and can determine its cause ..? How....? > My most efficient travel speeds are between 110 km/h and 160 > km/h, non-stop and without hard acceleration in the passing lane. Where's your data...? > I > also have a significant fuel efficiency above 160 km/h, especially > considering how much sooner I get to my destination and off the engine. Lol! Where's your data...? > My fuel-saving tips include: This ought to be good... > Don't brake unnecessarily while going down hills. Who does that...? How did you determine their braking was "unnecessary"? > It takes more fuel to > go up a hill than it does to coast down a hill. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." > If anything, accelerate > down the hill and coast up the hill. This is what I usually do on a bike. While management of energy is an advanced driving technique, I have my doubts that you are interpreting it correctly. If it's such a great idea why do you only practice it "usually", on a bike? > Don't brake for no reason. This causes braking waves and wastes fuel. Who does that...? How did you determine their braking was "for no reason"? > Check tyre pressure frequently. Don't drive on underinflated or > overinflated tyres. "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." > Accelerate quickly from a stop, and at the same time as any cars in > front of you. I'm supposed to increase my odds of rear-ending a vehicle in order to save a half thimbleful of gas? > Shift through all the gears. Skipping a gear can't increase fuel efficiency? A driver should use their "granny" gear, if they have one, all the time? > If you have a clutchless shifter, don't sit at a stop with the > transmission in gear and the brakes applied. Doing that is like putting > an ordinary transmission into first gear and depressing the accelerator > pedal while braking with the other foot. A "clutchless" shifter somehow apples the throttle...? Idle rpm of vehicles with "ordinary" transmissions is less than those with "clutchless" shifters? Wouldn't holding a vehicle with a "clutchless" shifter in gear with the brakes lower the idle rpm, thereby saving fuel? "Truly, you have a dizzying intellect." ----- - gpsman > http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > an ordinary transmission into first gear and depressing the accelerator > pedal while braking with the other foot. I would add, use the cruise control whenever it is safe to do so. My fuel economy increases markedly when I'm able to hold a steady speed as opposed to constantly accelerating and decelerating as I find myself doing in typical rush-hour traffic. I noticed when driving home for Christmas that even though the car was heavily loaded with two people and luggage that I got close to hundred miles more per tank than I did typically (well over 400 as opposed to the usual 350-ish.) There's only so much that I can do in rush hour, but it's the repeated accelerations that kill your economy at least in my car. that seems to be a far more significant factor than the speed at which you choose to drive. nate > http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/index.htm > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > an ordinary transmission into first gear and depressing the accelerator > pedal while braking with the other foot. This is such a negligible argument for using fuel. You're going to burn it anytime you drive somewhere. Exploit all fuel resources available to keep prices down while researching alternatives if necessary. The sky is not falling, chicken little... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.