Gas Too Expensive? Try These Options

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:37:20 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
> >http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/...6-1006751.html
> >
> >Gas too expensive? Try these options
>
> They left out the biggest gas saver of all. Drive slower.

The biggset saver is smaller cars with smaller engines actually.

Graham

laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:37:20 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> > wrote:
>
> >http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/...6-1006751.html
> >
> >Gas too expensive? Try these options
>
> They left out the biggest gas saver of all. Drive slower.

Driving below ~ 50 mph typically *increases* fuel consumption.

Graham

Bolwerk wrote:

> laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE wrote:
> > On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 06:37:20 -0700, Scott en Aztlán
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.pioneerlocal.com/cgi-bin/...6-1006751.html
> >>
> >> Gas too expensive? Try these options
> >
> > They left out the biggest gas saver of all. Drive slower.
>
> Cars are optimized to travel at certain speeds, usually somewhere in the
> 50-70mph range. Faster or slower is wasteful.

60 is often close to optimal.

Graham

Laura Bush murdered her boy friend wrote:

> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > "laura bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >
> > > They left out the biggest gas saver of all. Drive slower.
> >
> > Given the article was mainly talking about commuters, that's not really an
> > option since rush-hour commuters spend most of their time sitting still.
> > Non-hybrid cars are not very fuel efficient at the 10-20mph average speed of
> > urban highways during peak congestion, and going even slower would make
> > things worse.
>
> By drive slower, i'm including things like coasting up to stop lights

In a modern car with EFI, coasting uses *more* fuel ! THINK !

Graham

Alan Baker wrote:

> Slow acceleration uses more fuel.

I'd *love* to see a viable explanation for that !

Graham

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>Alan Baker wrote:
>
>> Slow acceleration uses more fuel.
>
>I'd *love* to see a viable explanation for that !

Part-throttle pumping losses (diesels need not apply). But full
throttle has its own problems; typically the engine computer will
enrich the mixture above stochiometric when you floor it. So don't
push it quite to the floor.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Eeyore > wrote:
>
> Bolwerk wrote:
>
>> Cars are optimized to travel at certain speeds, usually somewhere in
>> the 50-70mph range. Faster or slower is wasteful.
>
> 60 is often close to optimal.

There was a study done about 9 years ago for the Feds that looked at the
fuel economy vs speed of 9 different types of vehicles.

The results of the study showed that there wasn't much difference in fuel
economy between 30 and 60 mph, but as the speed increased above 60, the
efficiency started to drop significantly.

At 80 mph, the fuel efficiency was about 30 percent lower than the peak
efficiency at 55 mph.

Here's a link to the table of numbers from the Transportation Energy Data
Book:

http://tinyurl.com/rvfdd

Eeyore > wrote:
>
> Driving below ~ 50 mph typically *increases* fuel consumption.

Not really. The efficiency doesn't drop until below 30 mph.

"Andrew Price" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 14:55:08 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"
> > wrote:
>>Of course. Then again, as hybrids become more common, such
>>tactics will become irrelevant since sudden stops will power the
>>hard acceleration and only actual movement will consume gas.
>
> Is that just an assumption, or is there already a clear trend
> indicating that this will in fact happen?

That's why hybrids get _better_ city mileage than highway. Low speeds mean
low aerodynamic and rolling resistance, and each stop powers the subsequent
start in stop-and-go traffic or at long strings of traffic lights. You get
great mileage under those conditions in a hybrid. Too bad the extra cost of
hybrids today won't save you money over the cost of wasting gas in a
conventional car.

A friend of a friend has a Prius, and I was riding with him one day. The
ICE shut off as we entered the freeway and didn't kick back in until we
exited a few miles later and sped up. It probably would have kicked on if
we'd been on the freeway longer, but only for a little while to replace
battery cycle losses and power the A/C and radio.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
> >
> >
> >Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> >> Slow acceleration uses more fuel.
> >
> >I'd *love* to see a viable explanation for that !
>
> Part-throttle pumping losses (diesels need not apply). But full
> throttle has its own problems; typically the engine computer will
> enrich the mixture above stochiometric when you floor it. So don't
> push it quite to the floor.

I'm sure that various manufacturers' ECUs differ widely. My Saab had a new
exhaust in January yet the tailpipe barely even has any carbon at all on it yet.

Graham