 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Trucks / April 2007Headlight use effect on MPG?
Could someone offer a guess on the fuel costs for using headlights and foglights while driving? 2003 Excursion, stock lamps. V10 I am guessing that the energy draw is around 1/4 MPG. check out the facts at www.lightsout.org  SignatureSteve Barker > Could someone offer a guess on the fuel costs for using headlights and > foglights while driving? > > 2003 Excursion, stock lamps. V10 > > I am guessing that the energy draw is around 1/4 MPG. An independent estimate is easy to do - If you know the wattage of the lamps. 100 Watts is 341 BTU/hr. Gasoline contains over 100,000 Btus per gallon, but your engine is only 30% efficient. Let's just call that 30,000 Btu's per gallon that you can use. So 100 watts is going to cost you 341/30,000 = .01 gallon per hour. MPG math is hard to do, because it's not a consumption figure. Let's do it this way: If you drove an hour at 70 mph and got 12 mpg, then you'd be burning 5.833333 (lots of 3's) gallons per hour. Add the.01 and you have 5.84 gallons per hour, over 70 miles. 70/5.84333333 That comes out to 11.98 mpg. So in that case 100 watts is about .02 mpg > check out the facts at www.lightsout.org > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >> I am guessing that the energy draw is around 1/4 MPG. >An independent estimate is easy to do - If you know the wattage of the >lamps. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >So in that case 100 watts is about .02 mpg Not bad logic but 30% is a bit to generous at cruise and your do not consider that alternator is not 100% efficent either. BTW gas has from about 115,000 to 125,000 BTU's to a gallon so we will average it at 120,000 (the lower number is E10 or 10% alchol) There is about 2800 BTU in a HP to. If your vehcile uses say 40 HP to cruise figure on 40 times 4 (averaging 25% efficency) or 160 HP input needed. next 160 x 2800 equals 448000 BTU's needed or about just under 4 gallons a hour. If we take that engine is susing approx 500 ounces of fuel per hour (128 x 4) and factor in about 4 more ounces for another 380 BTU/hr (120,000 dived 128 equal BTU per ounce) The added usage in this senerio would be about .8% or less (4 oz / 500 oz) so at say 15 MPG (assuming 60 mph cruise at 4 gallons a hour) it would be around or under .12 MPG. (15 x .8%) With a car that gets 30 or 40 MPG it would be more noticable because the energy needed for lights would be constant but a smaller car woul need less to roll and use less fuel and when you used say 2 GPH or 256 oz you would divide 256 into 4 and get 1.5 % or about a .45 MPG or less penalty at 30 MPG. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > check out the facts at www.lightsout.org Facts?? That link is to a bunch of pure BS. Al >> check out the facts at www.lightsout.org > >Facts?? That link is to a bunch of pure BS. > >Al "(The energy required to power the DRLs is not free. It is not surplus energy that is just "available" from the vehicle's engine. Various estimates place the reduction in overall fuell efficiency at 0.25 - 0.5 mpg, and cost estimates range from $5 - $15 per year. GM estimates the annual cost of DRLs at less than $10 per vehicle per year.)" I copied that from the lightsout site and those numbers are in line close enough with other numbers figured here in this post so the site isn't 'PURE' bs is it? > check out the facts at www.lightsout.org Complete crock of sh.t. There is LOTS of evidence that DRLs work. Using High Beams for DRLs is questionable, but DRLs as a generally good diea have ample support, even within the USA. Link to the evidence? I thought not. SignatureSteve Barker >> check out the facts at www.lightsout.org > > Complete crock of sh.t. There is LOTS of evidence that DRLs work. Using > High Beams for DRLs is questionable, but DRLs as a generally good diea > have ample support, even within the USA. >Could someone offer a guess on the fuel costs for using headlights and >foglights while driving? > >2003 Excursion, stock lamps. V10 > >I am guessing that the energy draw is around 1/4 MPG. Good question. It takes about 1/4 HP (give or take) of extra energy input to alternator to power lights. Given the efficency of a gas motor that means in theory about a approx 2 to 4 extra ounces of fuel a hour or so on your V10 or maybe 1/10 th a MPG (at most) or less. It is a good point though in that when you consider the millions of cars on the road daily with them that together they could "waste" maybe 500,000 to 1,000,000 gallons of fuel a day (broad range is because of a guesstimate of units on road) This equals about 12 to 24,000 barrelas of fuel a day or 4.5 to 9 million barrels a year. To put a different perspective on it, this is also equal to about 25 to 50,000 semi tankers trucks of fuel a year or about 140 tanker truck loads a day. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > >Could someone offer a guess on the fuel costs for using headlights and > >foglights while driving? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com Holy crap. I'm charging my cell phone at home from now on:) Al >Holy crap. I'm charging my cell phone at home from now on:) I bet you do not believe in global warming either nor that oil supply is limited. Thats the problem when you cannot "think outside your box' ----------------- TheSnoMan.com > >Holy crap. I'm charging my cell phone at home from now on:) > > I bet you do not believe in global warming either nor that oil supply > is limited. Thats the problem when you cannot "think outside your box' > ----------------- > TheSnoMan.com This coming from you. Well, thanks for allowing me to answer you BEFORE you crucify me. My head is in a box and yours is way up your a.s! By the way, how much is the bet and when do you pay me. Al >> >Holy crap. I'm charging my cell phone at home from now on:) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Al Al, don't pay any attention to SnoBlower. You can't fix stupid. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 6 days 21:08 >>> >Holy crap. I'm charging my cell phone at home from now on:) >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Al, don't pay any attention to SnoBlower. You can't fix stupid. He's over in the Jeep group now, spewing his usual sh.t. yippee. Spdloader Q. Will DRLs reduce fuel economy? A. Yes. The energy required to power the DRLs is not free. It is not surplus energy that is just "available" from the vehicle's engine. Various estimates place the reduction in overall fuell efficiency at 0.25 - 0.5 mpg, and cost estimates range from $5 - $15 per year. GM estimates the annual cost of DRLs at less than $10 per vehicle per year. Multiply that by 200 million vehicles in the US, and you can see why we oppose mandatory DRLs. The cost of DRLs over several years cannot possibly justify the benefits, especially the the benefits are in serious doubt. Given the increasing price of gasoline, the economic impact of DRLs will only get worse. Further, the combustion of the additional gasoline required to power the nation's DRLs will result in several billion pounds of pollutants being exhausted into the atmosphere. What makes the federal government's position on DRLs seem so strange is that the Environmental Protection Agency allows GM to disconnect DRLs before testing! Why? > Could someone offer a guess on the fuel costs for using headlights and > foglights while driving? > > 2003 Excursion, stock lamps. V10 > > I am guessing that the energy draw is around 1/4 MPG. > Could someone offer a guess on the fuel costs for using headlights and > foglights while driving? > > 2003 Excursion, stock lamps. V10 > > I am guessing that the energy draw is around 1/4 MPG. Virtually Nill ACTUALLY, your "virtually nill" could amount to over a billion, YES billion dollars a year. Read this: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm SignatureSteve Barker >> Could someone offer a guess on the fuel costs for using headlights and >> foglights while driving? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Virtually Nill >ACTUALLY, your "virtually nill" could > amount to over a billion, YES billion > dollars a year. Mathematicians/Statisticians can make a case for anything. This is in the realm of: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit" The wallet-effect(MPG) on a persons vehicle having DRLs illuminated is exactly what the man posted....virtually nil. Dave S(Texas) > The wallet-effect(MPG) on a persons vehicle having DRLs illuminated > is > exactly what the man posted....virtually nil. Boy this would be hard one to prove, but I am willing to take a shot at a rough estimate: Say the DRLs consume 40 watts. Assume the average fuel to DRL conversion efficiency is 25% (and it is not this good). Assume the average person drives 12,000 miles a year and that 65% of this is at times when lights are not otherwise required. Assume the average speed is 35 mph (including highway, town, stop and go). I get the following results - Total hours of DRL usage = 12000*.65/35 = 223 hours (could be a lot more, or somewhat less) Energy expended by DRLs = 40*223 = 9 kwh (could be half this or twice this) Energy consumed to power DRLs = 9 kwh/.25 = 36 kwh = 122,000 BTUs (range is probably 50,000 to 500,000) 1 gallon of gasoline = 114,000 BTUs Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but the range is probably 0.1 to 10 gallons of gasoline. Given today's price of gasoline, that means drivers are probably paying from $0.30 to $30 per year to run DRLs, not including bulb replacement. So, for an individual, DRLs are not all that significant. However, there are over 200,000,000 million cars in the US. If they all had DRLs, that would mean an annual use of over 200,000,000 gallons of gasoline to keep the DRLs illuminated. That would be over a half a billion dollars. Ed On Apr 16, 11:12 am, "C. E. White" <cewhi...@removemindspring.com> wrote: > <p...@webtv.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Ed Its all a scheme by the wait for it illuminati. Dave > Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but > the range is probably 0.1 to 10 gallons of gasoline. Ive did the calculations a year or so ago, Ed, and posted them here. My figures were much like yours. The consumption is insignificant, especially when compared with some of the main causes of fuel consumption....high horsepower, large heavy cars, poor aerodynamics. >> Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but >> the range is probably 0.1 to 10 gallons of gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > main causes of fuel consumption....high horsepower, large heavy cars, poor > aerodynamics. I believe the NHTSA has gathered figures in the 450,000,000 to 600,000,000 gallons of gas per year in the US IF DRL's were made mandatory. Most headlamps are ~55 watts each...so could consume ~110 watts per vehicle (depending on the configuration, if they're dimmed some, etc. would be slightly less) >>> Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but >>> the range is probably 0.1 to 10 gallons of gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > vehicle (depending on the configuration, if they're dimmed some, etc. > would be slightly less) How could those figures be accurate? You have to take into account the vast number of folks that use their headlights on full power when they drive which turns on all the lights, not just the high beams on half power that most DR's use. When they don't have to do that, their consumption should drop radically. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) > How could those figures be accurate? You have to take into account the > vast number of folks that use their headlights on full power when they [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 > (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) High-beam DRL's are typically configured to operate at 50% to 60% power (as you mentioned). Headlamp (or low-beam) DRLs are typically configured to operate at 80% power to full power and make up the majority of the configurations out there. (Volvo's and VW's historically have used full power headlamps as DRLs, BTW). Turn signal DRLs are always full power (albeit 23 watts each, so a bit more fuel friendly, but burn out more often). I don't know what assumptions went into the figures the NHTSA has collected. Although I personally haven't noticed that many people driving with marker and tail lights illuminated during the day (maybe one in twenty at most or less than 5%). Do you see more than one in twenty running with full lights in the daytime? "Vast numbers" seem to imply a large percentage (say over half). > > H...@nospam.nix wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > - Show quoted text - For those who feel that DRL's are some sort of personal rights issue then this kind of exercise will provide the justification for unwiring the DRL connection. If fuel usage is really the issue there are many other measures that can be taken that will have enough of an impact in fuel usage that it can actually be measured in daily or weekly mpg averages. >> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote... >>> Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 600,000,000 gallons of gas per year in the US IF DRL's were made > mandatory. These clowns can calculate this for light usage, yet they don't do anything about traffic lights staggered so that every car on the frigging road spends 50% or more of its time idling? SignatureMusic hath charms to soothe the savage breast. That's why stereo has two channels. >>> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@removemindspring.com> wrote... >>>> Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > anything about traffic lights staggered so that every car on the frigging > road spends 50% or more of its time idling? Well, the open docket is for the study of DRL use. So it would stand to reason that any data collected relating to DRL's use would be part of that. My guess is that general fuel consumption isn't a safety issue (one could argue the added pollution causes health issues, I suppose). In any event, automobile fuel usage falls under the EPA, while auto safety falls under the NHTSA. > These clowns can calculate this for light usage, yet they don't do > anything about traffic lights staggered so that every car on the frigging > road spends 50% or more of its time idling? Good point... I dont believe that the mass of the driving public really gives much thought to fuel conservation. If we did, we would plan our trips more carefully, walk or ride bikes more, and buy more fuel efficient rides. We might even carpool. >>Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but >>the range is probably 0.1 to 10 gallons of gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > main causes of fuel consumption....high horsepower, large heavy cars, poor > aerodynamics. But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for the whole country. > But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for > the whole country. Coming from a Scandinavian country where they are mandated, I wholeheartedly disagree with you. They can be lifesavers, IMO. That is not to say that the systems we have here are necessarily well implemented, but the data (which is controversial, Ill admit) indicates they save lives. >> But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for >> the whole country. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > implemented, > but the data (which is controversial, Ill admit) indicates they save lives. I grew up where fog limited visibility and always use my lights when driving, mandated now or not. I even have a rocker switch on my old Jeep CJ7's headlights so I can just turn them on as daytime lights without my running lights. I think being seen is important. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:462694df$0$5682 > I grew up where fog limited visibility and always use my lights when > driving, mandated now or not. I even have a rocker switch on my old > Jeep CJ7's headlights so I can just turn them on as daytime lights > without my running lights. > > I think being seen is important. And as is more often than not, I agree with you,Mike' > "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message news:462694df$0$5682 > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And as is more often than not, I agree with you,Mike' I don't DISagree with either of you- but I think DRLs are useless. The point is that if being seen is a problem, then it is incumbent on drivers TURN ON THE STINKING LIGHTS!! There's no need on earth to waste energy and annoy oncoming traffic on every bright clear sunny day, which is how DRL's operate 99% of the time. And the OTHER thing DRLs do is make ig'nernt drivers forget to turn the headlights (and the rest of the lights) ON as it begins to get dark. I've NEVER EVER seen so many cars driving without their lights on after dark as I've seen since DRLs started becoming common. >> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message >> news:462694df$0$5682 [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > dark. I've NEVER EVER seen so many cars driving without their lights on > after dark as I've seen since DRLs started becoming common. Rear-end collisions were one of the accident types documented several years back (by the HLDI in 1997 I believe it was) as having increased rates with DRL-equipped vehicles vs. non-DRL equipped vehicles. This is probably one reason GM now has auto light control sensors on even some of their low-end models so drivers can't drive without tail lights when it's dark...even on purpose. Although, the auto sensors don't often help in daytime fog situations still. DRLs are also useless when sitting hours-on-end in commuting traffic...when the maximum speed might be spurts of 15-20MPH max between being dead-stopped. > The point is that if being seen is a problem, then it is incumbent on > drivers TURN ON THE STINKING LIGHTS!! If these knotheads would turn on the lights, then there wouldnt be a problem. I have been watching them a lot in this state, and on the average only about one in three turns on the lights during heavy rain, twilight conditions, etc (which is mandated by law). People like this perhaps shouldnt be driving. But the roads are full of them. >> The point is that if being seen is a problem, then it is incumbent on >> drivers TURN ON THE STINKING LIGHTS!! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > People like this perhaps shouldnt be driving. But the roads are full of > them. Some GM vehicles switch lights on with the wipers as well (but not as many as those that gave the ambient light sensor only). Of course the annoying part of that is your dash digital display devices go dim when ever you use the washer-fluid to clean the windshield. ;-) >> But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for >> the whole country. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > implemented, > but the data (which is controversial, Ill admit) indicates they save lives. GM recently posted to their Chevrolet site under "Safety Features" (and has since changed the page to be less specific with the statistics) that they had documented 423 lives that had been saved in the US over the last 10 years. Given that there are 40,000+ lives lost every year, the number saved (averaging 45 a year) hardly seems as though it would be statistically significant. GM is a huge DRL proponent and that is the best number of lives saved that they can come up with?. So, assuming $3.00 a gallon for gas, that is a cost of $1.5 billion (give-or-take) a year in extra gas to light DRLs in order to save 45 lives. So is it worth spending $33.3 million to "save" each life? The added deaths from the additional DRL-induced smog may knock off one or two of the 45. ;-) DRL's are probably not completely useless, but they're darn close to it. And they likely will never pay for themselves on a cost recovery basis I'd bet. >>> But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for >>> the whole country. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > And they likely will never pay for themselves on a cost recovery basis > I'd bet. You are too funny! How do you figure that the 400 or more folks I have avoided hitting because I could see them in the last 10 years, be the only ones 'saved'???? Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) >>>> But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy >>>> for [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > How do you figure that the 400 or more folks I have avoided hitting > because I could see them in the last 10 years, be the only ones 'saved'???? It wasn't my number. It was GM's number (as was explained). I doubt that you would have had 423 accidents all by yourself these past 10 years had DRL's not existed. By the way, how does one identify and quantify an event that has not occured anyway? > By the way, how does one identify and quantify an event that has not > occured anyway? Probability and statistics. SignatureDavid M (dmacchiarolo) http://home.triad.rr.com/redsled T/S 53 sled351 Linux 2.4.18-14 has been up 3 days 12:21 >>>>> But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of >>>>> energy for [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > By the way, how does one identify and quantify an event that has not > occured anyway? I don't think my numbers are too far off if even a bit low for reality.... In the last ten years I have off roaded extensively in areas that are extremely busy with ATV and motocross bikes as well as other full sized rigs. Because bikes and ATV's and 'smart' full sized rig drivers use headlights, I have a chance to see them through the bushes before they come ripping around the corner at me so I can either slow down. pull over or stop before I can look them in the eye. This happens 'many' times each trip. I believe daytime headlights are mandated for bikes too?? I also know that some dumb sh.ts don't use lights off road and I have put several moto cross bikes up in the trees off the corner or dumped down in the dirt in a slide when they weren't seen in time to get out of their way. We had conversations after when I stop to make sure the fool isn't hurt and 'always' discuss the use of 'race' bikes on trails because 'race' bikes don't need or have headlights. They should 'only' be allowed on the closed track because of this. (there is a closed track next door to the open bush pits.) I will never run in the bush without lights on or on the road for that matter. Mike 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view! Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pictures.html?id=2115147590 (More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page) DRLs use very little power, almost infitesimal in the scheme of things. If we're going to bellyache about fuel consumption nationwide, we should bellyache about speeders. Aerodynamic drag increases by the square of the increase in speed, so a 10% higher cruise gives a 21% higher drag. Since drag is the largest single consumer of power in most autos, we'd save much more if we slowed down. If we accelerate more gently, and start slowing down sooner, we'll save more yet. If we ride bikes or walk some, we save fuel (and tires and other stuff) and lose some fat. But those take discipline and compliance, neither of which are popular. We'd rather blame the automakers and government for forcing us to burn another gallon per year. Dan > DRLs use very little power, almost infitesimal in the scheme > of things. If we're going to bellyache about fuel consumption > nationwide, we should bellyache about speeders. First do something about the hugely suboptimal teensy speed limits of 20 and 25 MPH that waste more gas than a Hummer at 80. Then we'll talk. SignatureMusic hath charms to soothe the savage breast. That's why stereo has two channels. So you're advocating a 50 mph speed limit through my neighborhood where my kids play, ride their bikes, etc? How about a 50 mph through a school zone? That would save a lot of money, who cares if a few kids are killed each year.... What we really need is European diesel technology here in the states, I was in Germany recently and our rental car was a diesel BMW 3-series touring sedan, I averaged 35 mpg while routinely at 100+ mph on the autobahn. >> DRLs use very little power, almost infitesimal in the scheme >> of things. If we're going to bellyache about fuel consumption >> nationwide, we should bellyache about speeders. > > First do something about the hugely suboptimal teensy speed limits of > 20 and 25 MPH that waste more gas than a Hummer at 80. Then we'll talk. It's called Adult Supervision. Something most people know nothing about these days. You keep the kids out of the street. No problem. SignatureSteve Barker > So you're advocating a 50 mph speed limit through my neighborhood where my > kids play, ride their bikes, etc? How about a 50 mph through a school > zone? That would save a lot of money, who cares if a few kids are killed > each year.... > It's called Adult Supervision. Something most people know nothing about > these days. You keep the kids out of the street. No problem. So my kids should ride their bikes through everyone's yards because you don't like residential 25-mph speed limits. How about at crosswalks on their way to school, where they are trained to look both ways for oncoming traffic, and when they see the street is clear and start to cross, you come careening down the bend at highway speeds and you don't have enough time to stop before slamming into them? > Steve Barker > >> So you're advocating a 50 mph speed limit through my neighborhood where >> my kids play, ride their bikes, etc? How about a 50 mph through a school >> zone? That would save a lot of money, who cares if a few kids are killed >> each year.... Whoa! Whoa! I wasn't the one who said I didn't like 25mph speedlimits. I just said keep the yard apes out the street. SignatureSteve Barker >> So my kids should ride their bikes through everyone's yards because you > don't like residential 25-mph speed limits. How about at crosswalks on > their way to school, where they are trained to look both ways for oncoming > traffic, and when they see the street is clear and start to cross, you > come careening down the bend at highway speeds and you don't have enough > time to stop before slamming into them? "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote... >> First do something about the hugely suboptimal teensy speed limits of >> 20 and 25 MPH that waste more gas than a Hummer at 80. Then we'll talk. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That would save a lot of money, who cares if a few kids are killed each > year.... Come back when you see a difference between a lazy side street in a bedroom community and a thoroughfare. > What we really need is European diesel technology here in the states, I was > in Germany recently and our rental car was a diesel BMW 3-series touring > sedan, I averaged 35 mpg while routinely at 100+ mph on the autobahn. As politically incorrect as it may be to say so, diesel exhaust is loaded with carcinogens. SignatureMusic hath charms to soothe the savage breast. That's why stereo has two channels. So are cigarettes. And I've never seen anyone put a diesel tailpipe in their mouth on purpose. SignatureSteve Barker > As politically incorrect as it may be to say so, diesel exhaust is loaded > with carcinogens. > > -- > "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote... >>> First do something about the hugely suboptimal teensy speed limits of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > bedroom > community and a thoroughfare. How many modern thoroughfares have 25mph speed limits? Only ones with schools adjacent, I'd wager. You didn't make a distinction between lazy side streets (as in my neighborhood) and thoroughfares. >> What we really need is European diesel technology here in the states, I >> was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > As politically incorrect as it may be to say so, diesel exhaust is loaded > with carcinogens. So does gasoline exhaust. So does the average ribeye. >> But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for >> the whole country. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > but the data (which is controversial, Ill admit) indicates they save > lives. Maybe they're a good idea up near the Arctic Circle where there isn't much ambient light, but for most of the USA there's more than enough light, so DRL's are almost completely a waste of money & gas. Does anyone here know that GM vehicles, perhaps all vehicles with DRL's, are tested for fuel economy with the Damn Running Lights -disconnected-? How else would GM pass the CAFE bar _and_ have DRLs? The reason GM has DRLs on US cars isn't because people started wanting them. It's because they are required in Canada, and having common wiring harnesses between Canadian and US cars allows GM to save maybe $5 per car. Notice how the most of the rest of the industry has not made DRL's mandatory. Maybe they are on Volvo's and some others, but at least designers of those cars had the intelligence to let the driver turn them off, permanently. > Maybe they're a good idea up near the Arctic Circle where there isn't > much ambient light, but for most of the USA there's more than enough [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are tested for fuel economy with the Damn Running Lights > -disconnected-? How else would GM pass the CAFE bar _and_ have DRLs? That is correct. Probably 10 years ago GM sought and were granted that testing exception by the EPA. Prior to that, the rule was that any electrical load that was required as part of the normal operation of the vehicle had to exist during EPA mileage testing. (e.g fuel pumps, cooling fans, etc.). > The reason GM has DRLs on US cars isn't because people started wanting > them. It's because they are required in Canada, and having common wiring > harnesses between Canadian and US cars allows GM to save maybe $5 per > car. That is indeed the popular version of how DRLs came about. I've never read where GM disputed those "stories" either. > Notice how the most of the rest of the industry has not made DRL's > mandatory. I believe only VW is the only other manufacturer that has made them "mandatory" along with GM. The rest are optional (if you can get them at all). > Maybe they are on Volvo's and some others, but at least > designers of those cars had the intelligence to let the driver turn them > off, permanently. The last I checked, Volvo's did indeed have a DRL disable switch. I believe nearly all manufacturers have either a disable switch *or* there is a software programming option that the dealer can set for what ever mode the owner wants (DRL or no-DRL). Even GM *could* do it as the disable programming *is* available on newer GM vehicles for government and military customers that request DRLs to be disabled. It is that GM *won't* do it for "regular" customers by corporate policy for some unknown reason. *AND* the government entity has to sign a release that states that they will re-enable the DRL prior to a change in title. GM getting into the personal preferences of others it seems. > The reason GM has DRLs on US cars isn't because people started wanting them. > It's because they are required in Canada, and having common wiring harnesses > between Canadian and US cars allows GM to save maybe $5 per car. Notice how > the most of the rest of the industry has not made DRL's mandatory. Maybe > they are on Volvo's and some others, but at least designers of those cars > had the intelligence to let the driver turn them off, permanently. Whether the buyers wanted them or not has nothing to do with the potential safety features. There is no intelligence in running without lights in rain,fog, and low light conditions. Or the lack thereof. SignatureSteve Barker > Whether the buyers wanted them or not has nothing to do with the potential > safety features. They have never been proven to be a lifesaver. It just doesn't happen. There's no way to prove such a thing anyway. SignatureSteve Barker > Coming from a Scandinavian country where they are mandated, I > wholeheartedly > disagree with you. They can be lifesavers, IMO. > They have never been proven to be a lifesaver. It just doesn't happen. > There's no way to prove such a thing anyway. As I said, the data is controversial, but it comes from accident report statistics. The studies I know about were done in Denmark. A few statistics with actual data have to hold at least the same impact as your personal opinion. > They have never been proven to be a lifesaver. It just doesn't happen. > There's no way to prove such a thing anyway. You may be right. The NHTSA has been "studying" DRL's for over a decade now and apparently have yet to find enough "proof" one way or the other to rule on the matter (one way or the other). So, we're stuck all the while with dealing with a mixed environment (some cars have them and some cars don't...which is probably even a worse situation!). >>> Running DRLs for 1 person for one year = 1.1 gallons of gasoline but >>> the range is probably 0.1 to 10 gallons of gasoline. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for > the whole country. You have never lived in a country that uses then. They are a lifesaver and VERY helpful in many different weather conditions. Second that notion. Totally a waste of energy and downright annoying to have lights on in broad daylight. SignatureSteve Barker > But DRLs are also totally unnecessary, so its a huge waste of energy for > the whole country. While I cannot argue with your equations I have to ask if they take into account over-generation by the vehicles alternator? Do you know if alternators do indeed only put out the minimum required power for any given situation? I would think not as they need to over-generate to recharge the battery. How much excess power is typically generated and how much would that reduce the over-all fuel consumption due to DRL use? On Apr 22, 3:02 pm, Lost.Blue.Ist...@gmail.com wrote: > While I cannot argue with your equations I have to ask if they take > into account over-generation by the vehicles alternator? Do you know [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and how much would that reduce the over-all fuel consumption due to > DRL use? NO excess power is generated. The voltage is held constant at about a volt or so above battery voltage to keep it charged, and this difference is there whether or not any lights are on. If the battery has a resting voltage of about 13 volts, the alternator will put out 14 volts or a little more, and that will be constant regardless of load, until the load beomes so heavy that the field current is maxed out and the alternator can't put out any more. Alternators are sized to the auto's requirements and unless someone has installed huge lights or winches or some other power-greedy machinery, the alternator cannot be maxed out. If there is no load, the regulator will reduce the field current to the absolute minimum needed to produce the battery maintenance current plus the bit needed for PCMs and ignition. You need to study the alternator/regulator functions. They make perfect sense once you know what's up. Even the old electromechanical vibrator-type regulators were able to control the full range of alternator output current, from zero to max. Dan > While I cannot argue with your equations I have to ask if they take > into account over-generation by the vehicles alternator? "Over-generation?" That makes no sense. The alternator puts out enough current to maintain the bus voltage, no more. > Do you know > if alternators do indeed only put out the minimum required power for > any given situation? Absolutely. That's the function of the voltage regulator. If the alternator just put out its max power all the time, you'd have 60 volts when driving at 70 mph with no lights or AC on, and 12 volts at idle with the high-beams, wipers, AC, blower fan on max, brake lights, and stereo on. > I would think not as they need to over-generate > to recharge the battery. Nope. The alternator restores the charge of the battery after the engine is started, then throttles back so that it is providing all the power for the electrical loads of the vehicle and nothing more. > Lost.Blue.Ist...@gmail.com wrote: > > While I cannot argue with your equations I have to ask if they take [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > with the high-beams, wipers, AC, blower fan on max, brake lights, and > stereo on. With full battery voltage to the alternator field and the engine RPM up around, say, 2000, the alternator will generate well over 100 volts. You used to be able to buy a kit to install in your vehicle that cut the regulator out of the circuit and disconnected the alternator output from the battery, and with some means of keeping the RPM fixed, you could run power tools (with series-wound motors only, since it's 110V DC), lights, and so on until the battery got weak and you had to switch back to recharge it. I had one of these things, andbefore i installed it I opened it to see why it cost so much. A DPDT toggle switch, a neon light with dropping resistor that fired at 110V so you knew when you were at the right RPM, and a household electrical outlet. Total cost no more than five bucks back then, maybe ten today. You could even weld with it, though the current rating of the alternator had to be respected. And that's what limits the alternator: current. Too much demand and we burn it out. It really doesn't care about turning out 110 volts if we want it to. > > I would think not as they need to over-generate > > to recharge the battery. > > Nope. The alternator restores the charge of the battery after the engine > is started, then throttles back so that it is providing all the power > for the electrical loads of the vehicle and nothing more. The regulator holds the alternator's output voltage constant, and with the battery run down a bit its voltage will be lower so it'll allow more current through it. The current decreased as its voltage rises and opposes the alternator voltage. All the regulator senses (and controls via field current) is output voltage. Dan > The regulator holds the alternator's output voltage constant, > and with the battery run down a bit its voltage will be lower so it'll [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dan The "output voltage" is the same as the voltage at the positive terminal of the battery, neglecting wiring resistance. If the internal charge state of the battery is low, the set-point voltage of the regulator will result in a charging current flowing into the battery. If the battery is fully charged, the voltage on the bus doesn't change, but the charging current no longer flows into the battery so the regulator is able to throttle back the field current and therefore the output current (not voltage) of the alternator. The term "voltage regulator" seems to confuse some people. Yes, the voltage is what is being regulated- but "regulated" actually means "held constant" in this case. The current out of the alternator is what varies in order to make the voltage stay constant. > ACTUALLY, your "virtually nill" could amount to over a billion, YES billion > dollars a year. Read this: > > http://www.howstuffworks.com/question424.htm Just cut the wires to all my lights, radio, rear window defroster, electric mirrors, power windows, compressor clutch and the blower motor. I'll save billions this year. Since I don't spend more than a thousand on fuel it will be a neat trick, but you can't argue with facts.... Al
|
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.