Bad fuel mileage - '00 SL1

In article >, rhornsby-
says...
> Jerry wrote:
>
> > I am getting 41-43 MPG highway and 35-37 MPG city (summer) - 2002 SL
> > 5-sp. BTW, believe it or not, I started getting better MPG (1-2 miles)
> > after I disabled DRL about a year ago.
>
> The highbeam lamps are running in series when in a 'DRL' state, meaning
> that each uses about half of the electricty normally used to power the
> lamps. How could this possibly affect the MPG? Do the DRLs really put
> that big of a strain on the alternator? If it really does, then it
> seems logical to disable all "extraneous" electrical equipment - radio,
> instrument panel, etc.
>
> I would tend toward saying that 1-2MPG difference could be attributed to
> a whole host of factors including slight average temperature
> differences, tire pressure, road conditions, different fuel mixtures
> from the oil companies, slightly different if imperceptible driving
> habits, etc. Without proper experimental control conditions, it really
> is nearly impossible to account for that slight of a change. It would
> be VERY interesting to measure alternator output (amps, volts) and
> engine output (RPMS) in a garage setting with and without: the DRLs,
> normal headlights, high beams. While not conclusive, I think it would
> be enlightening.


Agreed. One could assume that his engine started to break in and seal better causing better mpg.


> Secondly, disabling the DRLs, while your choice, is also defeating a
> safety feature of the vehicle. We don't turn on our headlights in the
> rain (the law in most states) because it helps us see better - but
> because it helps others see us better. Before DRLs were popularized, a
> study in Europe found that you were some 30% less likely to be in an
> accident with your headlights on - simply because of the added
> visibility and how our brains react when we see light rushing toward us.
> Since I read that, I always turn on my headlights in vehicles not
> equipped with DRLs; and turn on the parking lights on my DRL-equipped
> saturn so that I'm (slightly) more visible from behind as well.
>
> -rj
> 98SL2

I disabled mine not because I think it would give me better gas mileage
or because I think they dont improve safety. No I disabled mine because
those damn halogen bulbs arent cheap and I know how to turn on my own
lights when visibility diminishes for me or anyone else. What I do when
it starts to rain is to just turn on my "parking lights".
The DRL's are ran through a resistor which brings the lights down to
40% of their normal brightness. I've driven 18 wheelers and turning on
your headlights does help in the since that with the lights on people
tend to think your closer than usual. However with drl's its impossible
to flash your lights at the other lane to let them know a cops up ahead.
Thats another reason I disconnected them.
I think they should route the drls to the turn indicators like on
vettes and firebirds (hideaway headlights is why they done those that
way). I've seen to many people driving at night with just their drl's
because they think they got their lights on. Thats another reason to
disconnect them... No tail lights at night is worse than no headlights
in the day.

TheSnipe at anti-spamdotmemindspringdotmecom wrote:
> I'll bite - What is "DRL" ?

Daytime Running Lights

I have a 2002 SL1 standard with over 74,000 Km already. I experienced a
significant drop in fuel economy a few months ago before having the
recommended emissions cleaning done by the dealer. The economy was
immediately restored. I just did some mostly highway travelling of over 1000
Kms in 4 days and used less than 2 tankfuls of gas (about $45 Cdn).

Also note I drive my car hard much of the time. I laugh at my friends who
spend a fortune on gas with their 2L standard 2002 Neon compared to my
Saturn.

Stuart


"Shawn" > wrote in message
...
> I had replaced my o2 sensor on mine. It wasn't reading right. The car was
> getting to much fuel. You could actually smell it coming from the exhaust.
> The car was warmed up, but with the sensor gone, the computer figured the
> engine was still cold. Therefore sending out to much fuel.
> The sensor was fairly cheap. $60 Aftermarket part(not from the dealer). It
> took only minutes to put in. It cured my problem
>
> Good luck
> "Rincewind" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I have noticed that the fuel mileage in my '00 SL1 has slowly been
> > deteriorating over the last few months. I am currently only getting
aroun
> > 22-24 MPG (dpending on how accurate my conversion is). I feel that I
> should
> > be getting better, especially since the pric of gas has increased so
> > dramatically...
> >
> > The car is an automatic, and has been well maintained since new. It has
> > 65,000 kms on it and I have owned it since 40,000. The air filter was
> > changed at 52,000 as were the tranny fluid and filter, and spark plugs.
I
> > change the oil as soon as the light comes on.
> >
> > I was told by someone that the O2 sensor May be the culprit, but I
wanted
> to
> > ask some people in the know before I take it somewhere to have it looked
> at.
> >
> > Any ideas or recommendations?
> >
> >
>
>