Any hypermilers? And busting myths.

[dmusic148]

Originally Posted by kanonfodr

That I can't offer you right now,...
Greg

Have a look. You'll see that there IS an increase in MPG from 50 to 60mph, but this is due to engine lugging in top gear at low speed. From there, it's all downhill:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...05-a-9841.html

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Let It Fall

umm. im wrong because I said...

did i say all or even most? nope.
By newer i dont mean 2012. This system can be found in a 1994 sentra a economy car. And since only 38.3% of americans drove a 10 year old or older car in 2001,
[snip]
Im gonna change my statement.. NEARLY ALL MODERN CARS USE THIS.

Your statistics in the above statement are seriously outdated. Since 2001 we've had a recession, changes in automotive technology, seesawing gas prices and entire car companies have come and gone. Numbers from that date are of limited relevance. Between 2001 and 2011 the average age of the US car fleet increased roughly 20% from 8.9 years to 10.8 years. (Source: same as cited earlier, Average age of U.S. cars up again in 2011, may now head down ) Of course, 8.9 years old in 2001 was @1992...10.8 years old in 2011 was @2000. That's 8 years of improvement in technology, which helps to support the argument you are making.

Granted, "modern" cars (an undefined term, but for the sake of argument I'll propose that cars made from the year 2000-up qualify) often (not always) have fuel economy measures built in, that's a real plus for them.

I agree that reducing use of petroleum-based fuels is not only important, but urgent given that those fuels are a finite resource. Those folks who feel good about extracting maximum mileage from their vehicles are doing a good deed, provided that they're not holding up traffic or creating hazards by driving in ways that cause the traffic around them to deviate from normal travel patterns.

But - relief from our current use of petroleum is not going to be achieved by fuel cutoff systems in gas or diesel internal combustion engines. We need to develop other energy sources which can power personal vehicles.

[kanonfodr]

Originally Posted by dmusic148

Have a look. You'll see that there IS an increase in MPG from 50 to 60mph, but this is due to engine lugging in top gear at low speed. From there, it's all downhill:

Tested: speed vs. MPG, 2008 Corvette Z06 (505 hp) - Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com

So far, sir, you are in the lead.

Peace,
Greg

[Let It Fall]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

But - relief from our current use of petroleum is not going to be achieved by fuel cutoff systems in gas or diesel internal combustion engines. We need to develop other energy sources which can power personal vehicles.

bravo sir way to point out the obvious

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Let It Fall

bravo sir way to point out the obvious

NOT to start a political debate: of COURSE it's obvious, but this highly obvious point has completely escaped one major political party in the US. I got into a discussion with one gent who swore that petroleum would be available forever, and that there was enough undiscovered oil to take care of the world indefinitely. He regarded any suggestion to the contrary as a liberal-government plot.

Perhaps $5 per gallon gasoline would incline him to consider his position more carefully. I doubt he's driving a hybrid - yet.

I don't like the current hybrids myself, as I don't find them capable of enough long distance travel to make them worth the cost. I refer to plug-in hybrids as coal or nuclear-powered cars, because that's where the electricity comes from in much of the US.

I just figure that I'll drive a vehicle that suits my needs, and drive it the way that it's built to be driven. When the time comes, I'll move into new technology..but it has to be affordable, powerful, and capable of driving at least 700 miles in a day with four passengers and luggage on board.

I have no argument with hypermilers who are driving safely, as long as they don't impede traffic. They're making a point, I just think it's more important for them to be part of the public process than turning off their AC to gain 1.5 MPG. Sorry if this has resulted in a major deviation of the thread; I do think it's important that anyone considering hypermiling do good research on the vehicle they're driving and understand what the impacts on its mechanical condition might be.

[fdeck]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

NOT to start a political debate: of COURSE it's obvious, but this highly obvious point has completely escaped one major political party in the US. I got into a discussion with one gent who swore that petroleum would be available forever, and that there was enough undiscovered oil to take care of the world indefinitely. He regarded any suggestion to the contrary as a liberal-government plot.

Perhaps $5 per gallon gasoline would incline him to consider his position more carefully. I doubt he's driving a hybrid - yet.

I don't like the current hybrids myself, as I don't find them capable of enough long distance travel to make them worth the cost. I refer to plug-in hybrids as coal or nuclear-powered cars, because that's where the electricity comes from in much of the US.

I just figure that I'll drive a vehicle that suits my needs, and drive it the way that it's built to be driven. When the time comes, I'll move into new technology..but it has to be affordable, powerful, and capable of driving at least 700 miles in a day with four passengers and luggage on board.

I have no argument with hypermilers who are driving safely, as long as they don't impede traffic. They're making a point, I just think it's more important for them to be part of the public process than turning off their AC to gain 1.5 MPG. Sorry if this has resulted in a major deviation of the thread; I do think it's important that anyone considering hypermiling do good research on the vehicle they're driving and understand what the impacts on its mechanical condition might be.

I'm really not kidding about the oil companies running TV commercials blaming the government for higher gas prices.

[fdeck]

The problem with making sense of any grassroots movement, such as hypermiling, is separating the reasonable ideas from the stuff that is rooted in superstition or innumeracy. Do Europeans drive smaller cars because they have better math and science education?

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Let It Fall

I understand the mixture will always be the same that's why it works.

Less oxygen = less fuel for same mixture.

I drive a 2.0 turbo diesel no hybrids here sorry

This is a good example of why this thread is upsetting to an engineer.

You drive a diesel. Diesels are not throttled, and they are not computer controlled to maintain a specific air-fuel ratio. Nevermind that GASOLINE engines do not maintain a 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio across RPM/load conditions (they are almost always either much leaner or richer depending on the conditions)- diesel engines certainly don't perform this way. In your car, there is a constant amount of air fed into the engine, and your foot controls the amount of fuel fed in. More pedal depression, more fuel injected, richer fuel mixture. That's how diesels work. The amount of air is only affected when you are under boost from the turbo, but otherwise all else applies.

You give it warmer air, and you are not changing the amount of fuel injected in a diesel. It will get the engine up to temp quicker, which is good for a diesel, though.

Combustion efficiency has nothing to do with fuel mileage (for gas or diesel), so it's a strange benefit to include.

So much discussion, yet a bunch of it doesn't even apply to your car.

[Let It Fall]

Originally Posted by Angus

This is a good example of why this thread is upsetting to an engineer.

You drive a diesel. Diesels are not throttled, and they are not computer controlled to maintain a specific air-fuel ratio. Nevermind that GASOLINE engines do not maintain a 14.7:1 air-fuel ratio across RPM/load conditions (they are almost always either much leaner or richer depending on the conditions)- diesel engines certainly don't perform this way. In your car, there is a constant amount of air fed into the engine, and your foot controls the amount of fuel fed in. More pedal depression, more fuel injected, richer fuel mixture. That's how diesels work. The amount of air is only affected when you are under boost from the turbo, but otherwise all else applies.

You give it warmer air, and you are not changing the amount of fuel injected in a diesel. It will get the engine up to temp quicker, which is good for a diesel, though.

Combustion efficiency has nothing to do with fuel mileage (for gas or diesel), so it's a strange benefit to include.

So much discussion, yet a bunch of it doesn't even apply to your car.

LOL. Yes I fully understand the warm air intake only applies to gas burners or so I have been told. Why do ppl assume so much? Most Americans drive gas burners which is why I posted it. I never said I do it! I just thought it would make ppl think and question what they know as a few hypermilers have tried it and are experiencing gains. Relax

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

I don't like the current hybrids myself, as I don't find them capable of enough long distance travel to make them worth the cost.

Ummm... as far as I know every currently available hybrid has max travel distances very similar to regular cars.

[iamlowsound]

Originally Posted by slaps76

I did, and it's worse than the 3.7, rated 16/22.

The F150 EcoBoost is rated for 9L/100km in Canada, which is 31 or 32mpg. Not that hard to achieve under normal, highway, driving conditions.

I get an honest 43mpg in my 2002 Mazda Protege. I bought the car for $3200 cash, pay less than $100 a month in insurance and plan on putting another 100,000km on it before it dies. I see no reason to ever hypermile. Honestly, if those hypermilers put in a propane system in their vehicle, they would cut their fuel cost in half. I plan on doing that as I can have the system paid for in under a year in gas savings.

lowsound

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by aborgman

Ummm... as far as I know every currently available hybrid has max travel distances very similar to regular cars.

Hmmm. Maybe I missed something. I live in the western US and this summer will be making regular 700-mile trips in a day to visit a daughter in college. I require a vehicle that will carry a full load of passengers plus luggage and travel freeway speeds (75-79 MPH) for 700 miles in a single day and allow me to complete that trip in less than 14 hours.

On the first trip, I also need to pull a trailer weighing about 3000 pounds. I realize that I could rent a vehicle for that particular trip, so I separated it as a requirement. However, renting a vehicle will add significant cost.

Which hybrids or non-gas powered vehicles meet those requirements? The Chevy Volt might, but it costs at least $31,000. Perhaps there are others which have that kind of travel range - but if so, they all do it with gasoline (like the Volt), not with electricity.

My 2007 Nissan Murano will do all the above easily and get 22 MPG (aside from the trailer event) doing it. I bought it two years ago with 49K miles on it for $18,000 and it is currently at 72K miles, so it probably has at least 80,000 miles left in dependable service. (I currently own three cars with more than 150K miles on them and another with 120K miles on it.)

Aside from the theoretical range capability of hybrid vehicles, it makes no economic sense for me to sell my existing primary travel vehicle to save a few bucks in gas.

Maybe in another 5-10 years we'll have hybrids that make sense to look at on the used vehicle market. I'm not a new car buyer and don't plan to start.

[iamlowsound]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Aside from the theoretical range capability of hybrid vehicles, it makes no economic sense for me to sell my existing primary travel vehicle to save a few bucks in gas.

Maybe in another 5-10 years we'll have hybrids that make sense to look at on the used vehicle market. I'm not a new car buyer and don't plan to start.

There is absolutely no reason to buy a new car simply for the better gas mileage. I have no car payment and that greatly out weighs any better gas mileage that I might get from a new car.

As an example, my car has no payment and gets 43mpg on a good tank. My wife's car has a payment of $300/month, and gets 47mpg on a good tank. I would have to drive a lot of miles to make up the $300 difference.

lowsound

[Let It Fall]

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

The F150 EcoBoost is rated for 9L/100km in Canada, which is 31 or 32mpg. Not that hard to achieve under normal, highway, driving conditions.

I get an honest 43mpg in my 2002 Mazda Protege. I bought the car for $3200 cash, pay less than $100 a month in insurance and plan on putting another 100,000km on it before it dies. I see no reason to ever hypermile. Honestly, if those hypermilers put in a propane system in their vehicle, they would cut their fuel cost in half. I plan on doing that as I can have the system paid for in under a year in gas savings.

lowsound

Your numbers are far too off. Fuelly.com which is mainly hypermilers get an average of 29 with a max of 31. On a 2002 protege.

Also the people with the v6 ecoboost are reporting 14.5 average.

Sorry your numbers just don't add up

Also 9l/100 miles is 26.1 mpg not 31 or 32

And it's rated for (10.7 L/100km) highway

[The Hawk]

Originally Posted by fdeck

I'm really not kidding about the oil companies running TV commercials blaming the government for higher gas prices.

I just saw a vid the other day about why gas prices are so high, and continuing to climb. The person in the video was a TV news economist, so he at least has an idea about what he was talking about.
He said that the price of oil is based off gold. .65something ounces for 1 barrel. Since our monetary system has nothing actually backing it, and since our government (in the US) keeps printing money, the value of the dollar keeps declining and the price of gas keeps rising- for the US.
If the US monetary system was based off a gold standard (and it hasn't been on one since either just before or just after WWII) then our dollar would be a LOT stronger and the cost of gas would be tremendously lower.
There is a bad side effect of this. The "green" campaign wouldn't have nearly the push it does now for alternative fuels, because we here in the states would have "cheap" gas, and wouldn't be nearly concerned about finding alternative fuel sources. Double edged sword.
At this point, electric cars will be the future, but powering them is still a hurdle to cross. I would love to see something like they had in the Stallone/Snipes movie "Demolition Man". Capacitance Gel in the "Fuel tank" to power the electric motor. The tank would basically be a giant capacitor that gets a trickle charge from driving (generators off each wheel), and gets plugged every couple days.

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

There is absolutely no reason to buy a new car simply for the better gas mileage. I have no car payment and that greatly out weighs any better gas mileage that I might get from a new car.

As an example, my car has no payment and gets 43mpg on a good tank. My wife's car has a payment of $300/month, and gets 47mpg on a good tank. I would have to drive a lot of miles to make up the $300 difference.

lowsound

Your logic is impeccable!!

I sold cars from 1977-80, when the first big oil scare occurred. People were trading cars with poorer MPG to buy new ones - and there was no way they would recover the cost difference simply based on mileage.

Of course, many people are looking for an excuse to buy, not a reason to buy.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

Originally Posted by Let It Fall

Your numbers are far too off.

I think we are coming back to a previous confusion here and you both have your numbers right.

He's from Canada and they tend to use Imperial Gallons, so:

9L per 100Km.

9L = 2.37 US Gallons or 1.98 Imp. Gallons.

100 miles = 62.14 miles


So dividing the distance by the number of gallons used:

26.2 mpg (US)
31.4 mpg (Imperial)

[iamlowsound]

Originally Posted by i_got_a_mohawk

I think we are coming back to a previous confusion here and you both have your numbers right.

He's from Canada and they tend to use Imperial Gallons, so:

9L per 100Km.

9L = 2.37 US Gallons or 1.98 Imp. Gallons.

100 miles = 62.14 miles

So dividing the distance by the number of gallons used:

26.2 mpg (US)
31.4 mpg (Imperial)

This. US gallons are used nowhere else in the world. Also, my last tank of gas was 42.2mpg, you can't say that I don't get that. I track all my mileage, where I got the gas from, and cost per km. I find the station that I fill up at has the biggest impact on my mileage. I am only going to get 36ish on my current tank, all because of the place that I filled up at.

Pilgrim, I would be a poor engineer if I didn't have impeccable logic.

[Frank Tuesday]

Originally Posted by iamlowsound

As an example, my car has no payment and gets 43mpg on a good tank. My wife's car has a payment of $300/month, and gets 47mpg on a good tank. I would have to drive a lot of miles to make up the $300 difference.

lowsound

If gas were us$3.50/gal, you'd have to drive 43,307 miles per month for the new car to pay off on gas cost alone.

Your gas cost per mile is 8.14 cents, and your wife's is 7.45 cents for a difference of 0.69 cents per mile.

[aborgman]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Hmmm. Maybe I missed something. I live in the western US and this summer will be making regular 700-mile trips in a day to visit a daughter in college. I require a vehicle that will carry a full load of passengers plus luggage and travel freeway speeds (75-79 MPH) for 700 miles in a single day and allow me to complete that trip in less than 14 hours.

Yes, and every available hybrid will do that.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

On the first trip, I also need to pull a trailer weighing about 3000 pounds. I realize that I could rent a vehicle for that particular trip, so I separated it as a requirement. However, renting a vehicle will add significant cost.

Some hybrids will do that (trucks and SUV's), most won't.

...but then, neither will most passenger cars.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Which hybrids or non-gas powered vehicles meet those requirements?

If you toss the towing requirement:

Chevy Volt, Toyota Prius, Honda Insight, Ford Focus Hybrid, Toyota Camry hybrid, Ford Fusion hybrid, Lexus HS250H, Honda Civic Hybrid, BMW AH7, Ford Escape Hybrid, Chevrolet Tahoe Hybrid, GMC Yukon Hybrid, Toyota Highlander Hybrid, Cadillac Escalade Hybrid, Chevy Tahoe Hybrid, Lexus RX 450h, etc, etc.

The Chevy Volt might, but it costs at least $31,000. Perhaps there are others which have that kind of travel range - but if so, they all do it with gasoline (like the Volt), not with electricity.

Ummm... that is kinda of the point of a HYBRID - it's a vehicle that uses two or more distinct power sources.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

My 2007 Nissan Murano will do all the above easily and get 22 MPG (aside from the trailer event) doing it. I bought it two years ago with 49K miles on it for $18,000 and it is currently at 72K miles, so it probably has at least 80,000 miles left in dependable service. (I currently own three cars with more than 150K miles on them and another with 120K miles on it.)

...and my current Ford was cheaper, seats more, has more cargo space, and gets better mileage (about 30mpg on the highway) - but that is pretty irrelevant as to whether your claim of hybrid mileage is wacky.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Aside from the theoretical range capability of hybrid vehicles, it makes no economic sense for me to sell my existing primary travel vehicle to save a few bucks in gas.

Good thing no one claimed it did. I never said YOU should buy a hybrid. I just said you're completely wrong about the travel range of hybrids.

There are LOTS of cars that make zero economic sense - they're luxury items. Every sports car in existence, every luxury car in existence, etc.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim

Maybe in another 5-10 years we'll have hybrids that make sense to look at on the used vehicle market. I'm not a new car buyer and don't plan to start.

My MIL bought a 2008 Prius for about $16,000 with about 40k miles on it last year - so the used market is starting to appear.