Fuel Saving Thread: Motoring Tips & Tricks

[Proton Soup]

So I expect all you Americans will now be rushing off to your car dealerships asking about imports of small "European" cars?

we prefer stuff that doesn't break, like Japanese cars

 

[baywax]

we prefer stuff that doesn't break, like Japanese cars

Have to agree. I had a '71 Peugeot 404 for 4 years that lost it's master cylinder for the brakes and couldn't get one (life depended on it) so I sold the car for $75. Then I had an '83 Toyota 4x4 Tercel wagon for 12 years with no major re-builds that I sold for $1800. Viva la difference.

 

[russ_watters]

Big cars aren't even safe.

That's such a broad statement, it is impossible to address it directly, but I will say this: Due to the possibility of rollover, SUVs are slightly less safe than similar vehicles like minivans. But it is certainly wrong to label any modern car as unsafe, by standards of recent history:

The USA is about the only country where road deaths are rising.
The problem is that crash tests don't take into account the probability of getting into an accident in the first place.

Though they total number of deaths has risen slightly over the past 10 years or so, the fatality rate has dropped substantially. And if you extend the timeframe to the last 20 years, the death and injury rates have dropped by somewhere around half. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident#Death_and_injury_statistics

Pickup trucks and SUVs are much more likely to get into an accident (poorer brakes, steering, stability)
If you hit a solid object they have more mass and poorer passenger protection than a small car.

I doubt that most of those are true. What is true that rollover is a bigger risk in SUVs and pickups, but rollovers only account for a small fraction of accidents (2.7%), but a decent fraction of deaths (11%). That is the entire difference in death rate for cars vs SUVs:

People driving or riding in a sport utility vehicle in 2003 were nearly 11 percent more likely to die in an accident than people in cars, the figures show.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/b...=a98764ce769867ba&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

 

[russ_watters]

So I expect all you Americans will now be rushing off to your car dealerships asking about imports of small "European" cars?

I drive a Mazda 6. Is it an import? Depends on the criteria, I guess.

 

[baywax]

That's such a broad statement, it is impossible to address it directly, but I will say this: Due to the possibility of rollover, SUVs are slightly less safe than similar vehicles like minivans. But it is certainly wrong to label any modern car as unsafe, by standards of recent history: Though they total number of deaths has risen slightly over the past 10 years or so, the fatality rate has dropped substantially. And if you extend the timeframe to the last 20 years, the death and injury rates have dropped by somewhere around half. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car_accident#Death_and_injury_statistics I doubt that most of those are true. What is true that rollover is a bigger risk in SUVs and pickups, but rollovers only account for a small fraction of accidents (2.7%), but a decent fraction of deaths (11%). That is the entire difference in death rate for cars vs SUVs: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/b...=a98764ce769867ba&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland

These people should take up smoking. It sounds safer.

 

[mgb_phys]

I doubt that most of those are true. What is true that rollover is a bigger risk in SUVs and pickups, but rollovers only account for a small fraction of accidents (2.7%), but a decent fraction of deaths (11%). That is the entire difference in death rate for cars vs SUVs:

It's not just rollovers. Try hitting the brakes in a F350 with no cargo in the back, now try it in a BMW or Subaru Impressa.
Pickups or SUVs based on pickup chassis do really badly when hit from the side or hitting anything solid. Crumple zones are a good idea. Sitting in a detachable box on top of a ladder chassis is not.
There is a big difference in the fatality rate in car vs SUV collisions. This isn't due to the SUVs being safe, it's due to them being murderously dangerous as they ride up over a car and into the passenger compartment. The best solution to this is probably fitting anti tank mines under your cars hood (the 2nd ammendment approach).

I can't find the stats but I remmber the accidents/mile being about twice as high for some pickups as they are for say a VW Golf.

 

[baywax]

Anyone want to buy a Hummer? Its shiny!

 

[mgb_phys]

Anyone want to buy a Hummer? Its shiny!

I can't, my penis is too large for me to drive a Hummer or Porsche SUV.
They check you know when you try and buy one.

 

[Topher925]

They check you know when you try and buy one.

That's true, its on your credit report.

 

[turbo]

Regarding safety. I have a compact 4x4 Nissan pickup, and it is a dangerously squirrely vehicle. My wife drives a Subaru Legacy with REAL horsepower, traction control, ABS and AWD. THAT is a really safe vehicle because you have control in otherwise nasty situations.

My father's Buick Park Avenue Ultra is nickel-and-diming him to death, and tomorrow, I will take him car-shopping. We are going to look for a new AWD Subaru, and it will be up to him whether he wants the low-cost compact, the mid-sized sedan, a wagon, or a higher profile mini-SUV. They get great gas mileage, and when he's got a set of studded snows on there, I will feel better when he trundles off for his weekly poker-game. He and his buddies play every Friday night all winter and I'll feel better knowing he's in a Subaru. His older Caprice and the Buick are heavy, over-powered, and unreliable in slippery weather. He's still pretty sharp at 82, but I want to know that the smart traction control system can help compensate for failing reflexes.

 

[baywax]

I can't, my penis is too large for me to drive a Hummer or Porsche SUV.

OMG... I thought that was an airbag...

 

[baywax]

Sounds alright Turbo. The Forester was rated highest on fuel economy (for SUVs) a while back.

I owned a 1963 Ford Falcon and it was one of my best buys for the time and price of gas.
The flat head 6 is priceless and the styling is my favourite.

About FUEL SAVING... is there any way the roads could be engineered to give maximum attention to fuel efficiency? I was thinking along the lines of an asphalt that springs back or grades that make max. use of gravity... etc...?!

I mean, think of it as a cold fusion type of arrangement or some kind of mag-lev set up...

 

[mgb_phys]

Regarding safety. My wife drives a Subaru Legacy with REAL horsepower, traction control, ABS and AWD.

They are very boring though.
Was that a patch of ice? I didnt notice.
Why is everyone slowing down for this tight bend?
Why can't we stop and kneel in the snow to put chains on?

 

[Proton Soup]

It's not just rollovers. Try hitting the brakes in a F350 with no cargo in the back, now try it in a BMW or Subaru Impressa.
Pickups or SUVs based on pickup chassis do really badly when hit from the side or hitting anything solid. Crumple zones are a good idea. Sitting in a detachable box on top of a ladder chassis is not.
There is a big difference in the fatality rate in car vs SUV collisions. This isn't due to the SUVs being safe, it's due to them being murderously dangerous as they ride up over a car and into the passenger compartment. The best solution to this is probably fitting anti tank mines under your cars hood (the 2nd ammendment approach).

I can't find the stats but I remmber the accidents/mile being about twice as high for some pickups as they are for say a VW Golf.

ah, if you want crash-worthy and fuel efficiency, just go the drag-racing route. rip out every non-essential item, including the back seat, install a driver-compartment roll cage, but keep the engine tuned stock. it'll be loud without the carpet and padding and door panels, and you'll be covered in sweat in the summer, but you'll save maybe 50 bucks a year in gas.

 

[mheslep]

It's not just safety. People in the US just like big cars with big engines and feel that it is their right to have them. The only way this mentality will stop is if you make big cars very expensive.

I don't know. Prius alone sold 170k in N. America.
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/08/0515.html

BTW, anyone else notice how cheap gas is. Its $1.90 down the street from me. I thought we would never see it below $2.00 again.

Thats an undervalued price just like $150/bbl was high. It won't stay that low much past 1st qtr 2009, IMO

 

[baywax]

How about using magnetic strips or particles that are aligned to show the reverse pole to the reverse pole in a magnetically ladened tire... thus, giving a free push to the vehicle upon contact... Am I reducing use of fuel yet?

 

[brewnog]

How about using magnetic strips or particles that are aligned to show the reverse pole to the reverse pole in a magnetically ladened tire... thus, giving a free push to the vehicle upon contact... Am I reducing use of fuel yet?

No. There's no 'free push'.

 

[baywax]

No. There's no 'free push'.

Then this would be a toll highway?

 

[brewnog]

Then this would be a toll highway?

Blinkin flip. Why do I bother?

 

[baywax]

Blinkin flip. Why do I bother?

No bother.

 

[mgb_phys]

I'm asking if there is a way to optimize fuel consumption by engineering the road in some way that serves that end.

We thought you were joking! It's a common theme of perpetual motion machines that you use wheels with opposing magnets to provide never ending power. (in fact you can't because the attraction form the opposite pole affects you as move away from the magnet - most of these 'inventions' need either monopoles or perfect magnetic shields).

You can do a lot to engineer roads to reduce fuel consumption but it's a little more prosaic.
Smooth road surfaces, well designed interchanges, active speed control to avoid traffic jams being created, roundabouts rather than stop signs.

 

[baywax]

We thought you were joking! It's a common theme of perpetual motion machines that you use wheels with opposing magnets to provide never ending power.
(in fact you can't because the attraction form the opposite pole affects you as move away from the magnet - most of these 'inventions' need either monopoles or perfect maagnetic shields).

You can do a lot to engineer roads to reduce fuel consumption but it's a little more prosaic.
Smooth road surfaces, well designed interchanges, active speed control to avoid traffic jams being created, roundabouts rather than stop signs.

Yeah, well, I was slightly joking just to get some kind of ball rolling re: engineering the road to give max. performance of fuel. Your ideas are appreciated. Once again I think the extreme miserly driving technique is the most accessible method for now.. but as an earlier poster remarked, you'll save about 50 bucks a year.

The tracks of the "linear motor car" in Japan and the "super conducting maglev" technology they use would present too much of a restriction on motorists... at least those motorists who are used to commanding their own direction and speed etc...

 

[mgb_phys]

I think the extreme miserly driving technique is the most accessible method for now.. but as an earlier poster remarked, you'll save about 50 bucks a year.

Thats a little pessimistic, you can easily save 10% by simply slowing down when you see a red traffic light, leaving enough gap to the car in front that you aren't constantly braking and driving at 55mph instead of playing racing driver.
With a manual transmission, coasting and driving much more slowly you can do 20-25% better than an impatient driver.

The tracks of the "linear motor car" in Japan and the "super conducting maglev" technology they use would present too much of a restriction on motorists...

There is a technology where many cars can be linked together so that only the front one needs power, metal rails in the road guide the cars and allow much higher speeds (200mph) with much greater safety, they can even use electric power - they are called trains.
Another alternative is to build a bigger car (about the size of a Cadilac SUV) and put 50 seats in it, then you can all pay a couple of dollars to ride into the city and relax while the chauffer does the driving for you. I'm thinking of calling it a Big Utility Sport or 'BUS'

 

[baywax]

Another alternative is to build a bigger car (about the size of a Cadilac SUV) and put 50 seats in it, then you can all pay a couple of dollars to ride into the city and relax while the chauffer does the driving for you. I'm thinking of calling it a Big Utility Sport or 'BUS'

Actually they're called a 72 window limo here.

You're right to say that coasting up to the red light etc... does save more than $50 a year... my calculations (after trying the miserly approach) put it at more like a savings of $312 a year at the $1.40 a litre price we had for a few months. We're down to about 90 cents a litre now, almost double what you guys are paying. We're actually close to a deal on bailing out the auto companies that have Candn manufacturing plants.

 

[mheslep]

...
Another alternative is to build a bigger car (about the size of a Cadilac SUV) and put 50 seats in it, then you can all pay a couple of dollars to ride into the city and relax while the chauffer does the driving for you. I'm thinking of calling it a Big Utility Sport or 'BUS'

Single passenger cars have better average energy usage than a multistop, go to/from the barn empty BUS.

 

[mgb_phys]

And the space shuttle has about the same fuel efficency as a compact car.

A launch uses 1000t of solid propelleant and 750t of liquid fuel. ( 20E12J total energy)
But with an orbit speed of 7.8km/s a 11-12 day mission does about 8Mkm and uses the equivalent energy of about 500,000l of regular gasoline. That's 7litre/100km or 33mpg - not bad for an american vehicle.

But if you carpool and have 6 astronauts that's quite a saving! So for longer trips swap the minivan for a space shuttle.

 

[baywax]

And the space shuttle has about the same fuel efficency as a compact car.

A launch uses 1000t of solid propelleant and 750t of liquid fuel. ( 20E12J total energy)
But with an orbit speed of 7.8km/s a 11-12 day mission does about 8Mkm and uses the equivalent energy of about 500,000l of regular gasoline. That's 7litre/100km or 33mpg - not bad for an american vehicle.

But if you carpool and have 6 astronauts that's quite a saving! So for longer trips swap the minivan for a space shuttle.

I suppose the lightness of a vehicle really factors into its mpg ability. But, safety and lightness conflict. The only aluminium vehicle I know if is the Grueman (sp) trucks out of Detoit or where ever. Canada built one rare one called the Yukon. Never rusts and is very light. Is it the cost of Aluminium that is keeping it out of mass produced vehicles? Are aluminium blocks too costly?

Another factor is the tire. We need grip of course but it slows everything. How about teflon tires or just another material altogether that reduces mpg by reducing friction?

About taking the shuttle, buying or renting the thing is going to wipe out any savings on gas. I think the "Astronaut Farmer" had the right idea.

 

[mgb_phys]

The only aluminium vehicle I know if is the Grueman (sp) trucks out of Detoit

They were built from scrap aircraft aluminium when they were introduced after WWII and still going strong.

Never rusts and is very light.

That's a problem - around 75% of landrovers built in the last 60years are still in use. Not something a manufacturer wants to encourage.

But, safety and lightness conflict.

Only if you go head-head with another car, then the larger one wins - that's why if you care about your children you should be driving semi tractor units on the school run.
Other than that brakes and handling matter - it's generally better to avoid an accident in the first place.
ABS is great, as is suspension design that puts the weight over the braking wheels and keeps the tires in contact with the road. That's why you stop quicker slamming on the brakes in a BMW than in an unloaded full size pickup.

Is it the cost of Aluminium that is keeping it out of mass produced vehicles? Are aluminium blocks too costly?

The engine blocks and transmissions of most small cars are aluminium. It's the body panels that remain steel on all but the most expensive cars. Machining aluminium blocks is cheaper and faster than machining steel and since the drive train is the heaviest component so benefits most from the weight saving.
Joining Al panels is trickier than steel (welding Al is more specialised) so steel body panels are much cheaper to fabricate and assemble. The landrover gets round this by having very simple bolted on body panels.

Another factor is the tire. We need grip of course but it slows everything. How about teflon tires or just another material altogether that reduces mpg by reducing friction?

Proper inflation is important, other than that the rolling resistance of a car has very little effect. At low speeds the driver behaviour is most important and at high speed aerodynamics.

 

[mender]

Canada built one rare one called the Yukon. Never rusts and is very light.

The Yukon is just another variation of the regular SUV, nothing fancy or light.

 

[baywax]

The Yukon is just another variation of the regular SUV, nothing fancy or light.

We're talking about two different vehicles with the same name... Oops... it was called the "Grizzly" by the Pacific Truck Company actually made, designed and used in Canada... much of its work done in the Yukon.

http://www.canadiandesignresource.ca/officialgallery/?p=599

 

[mheslep]

I suppose the lightness of a vehicle really factors into its mpg ability. But, safety and lightness conflict.

That might not necessarily be so when all the relevant factors are considered. The Hypercar people make a detailed argument as to howlightweight vehicles can be made as safe as heavier vehicles by inserting more technology. See the "CRASHWORTHINESS, SAFETY, AND VEHICLE DYNAMICS" section here if you are interested.
http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Transportation/T95-27_VehicleDsnStategies.pdf

 

[baywax]

Kewl guys...

I'll look at your link later mheslep

Betcha never thought Canada never produced much more than the Avro Aero, eh?!

 

[mgb_phys]

That might not necessarily be so when all the relevant factors are considered. The Hypercar people make a detailed argument as to howlightweight vehicles can be made as safe as heavier vehicles by inserting more technology.

Crash a Smart car into a concrete block at 70mph and the doors still open normally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

Or for a physics lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://video.aol.com/video-detail/smart-fortwo-vs-mercedes-e-class-crash-test/1631560842

 

[mheslep]

Crash a Smart car into a concrete block at 70mph and the doors still open normally.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJHpUO-S0i8

Or for a physics lesson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://video.aol.com/video-detail/smart-fortwo-vs-mercedes-e-class-crash-test/1631560842

This highlights why ultralight proponents favor reducing mass, but not size so much as those crush zones have to be there.

 

[russ_watters]

Crash a Smart car into a concrete block at 70mph and the doors still open normally.

Well, one of them anyway. It's kind of obvious that the Smart car needs to be built with a cage around the passenger compartment though, since it has no room for real crumple zones. Not sure how the drivers legs fared, though. In any case, the engineering they put into it is impressive.

In any case, here's the offical insurance institute crash tests. Note what they say in the end about the safety and fuel economy of it: