View Full Version : Gas Mileage
A poll to see what your gas milage is.
I will start:
Car: 98 Accord 4-door
Engine: Straight-4
Gas milage (when it was gasoline): ~25mpg.
Gas milage (now that we have 10% ethanol) ~21mpg.
I lost roughly 4-5 miles for every gallon now that we are using 10% ethanol in our gasoline here.
Don't put guesstimates, I kept the receiptfrom the gas station, it was 13.269 gallons when I had an empty tank with the gas light on. I used the tach to track the milage, it was 280miles. Now the gas light is back on.
Just round to the nearest value. When in doubt, round down.
Astronuc
Jun23-06, 04:29 PM
At the moment I drive an Odyssey and the mileage varies between 20-23 depending on how much highway driving is done. I could probably push it up on flat roads, but the area where I live has lots of hills.
I was driving a Honda Civic 4-DR sedan that got between 35-40 mpg. I miss that car - but it had worn out with more than 180,000 miles IIRC. It needed an engine overhaul and transmission work, so rather than spend about $3K, I took my wife's car and we got her a newer, more modern Odyssey.
Once that gets paid off, I'd like to find a smaller car, maybe a hybrid, that get 40+ mpg. And I'm trying to use a bike or walk for short trips.
russ_watters
Jun23-06, 04:30 PM
Your poll numbers need to be much, much wider. Few SUVs get above 18mpg and many mid-size and compact cars get above 30.
I drive a Mazda 6i (2.4L 4cyl, 160hp), advertised at 26/32, but I get more like 24/29.
I'm surprised you were only getting 25mpg out of that Accord.
You can fix the pole range if you want to Russ, if not, Ill fix it. (Man I am lazy.)
Astronuc
Jun23-06, 04:43 PM
I drive a Mazda 6i (2.4L 4cyl, 160hp), advertised at 26/32, but I get more like 24/29.
I'm surprised you were only getting 25mpg out of that Accord. I think Cyrus is right on the reduced performance with the ethanol blends. I have observed the same, and I think Pennsylvania may also be using ethanol blended gasoline.
I currently drive a BMW F650GS motorcycle which nominally gets 70 mpg. I'm probably not getting quite that much.
Pengwuino
Jun23-06, 05:12 PM
I currently drive a BMW F650GS motorcycle which nominally gets 70 mpg. I'm probably not getting quite that much.
Man... what an excuse to get a motorcycle! :!!) :!!) :!!)
Wishbone
Jun23-06, 05:42 PM
ya when you save all that money on gas your family can buy you a bigger tombstone after you hit that tiny bump on the highway and get flown 100 yards into a volvo driven by a soccer mom
Pengwuino
Jun23-06, 05:47 PM
ya when you save all that money on gas your family can buy you a bigger tombstone after you hit that tiny bump on the highway and get flown 100 yards into a volvo driven by a soccer mom
Thats why we should ban soccer moms
Wishbone
Jun23-06, 05:48 PM
totally agree
Bystander
Jun23-06, 06:03 PM
(snip)I lost roughly 4-5 miles for every gallon now that we are using 10% ethanol in our gasoline here.
(snip)
Ethanol is "precombusted" --- look at it this way, it's 20% burnt ethane when you buy it. Something of a rip --- does drop operating temps and NOx and CO emissions.
loseyourname
Jun23-06, 06:37 PM
Last time I calculated, Swerve's Expedition got about 11 MPG. Not a poll option.
Last time I calculated, Swerve's Expedition got about 11 MPG. Not a poll option.
Dear god, that's horrible. I honestly thought my poll options were at the upper and lower ends. :surprised
loseyourname
Jun23-06, 06:45 PM
She's been trying to get a new car for two years now. It looks like her parents are finally going to relent and buy her something before the end of the summer.
Gokul43201
Jun23-06, 07:45 PM
I have a '92 Accord 2-door that dives me about 32 on the highway and about 29 on city roads.
0TheSwerve0
Jun23-06, 07:47 PM
yep, selected less than 19. The Honda Civic Hybrid I want allegedly gets 50mpg.
:surprised :surprised I get 45/50 mpg out of my P106 about £36 lasts
me six weeks. Diesel of course, your poll is averagist Cryrus.
mattmns
Jun23-06, 08:34 PM
I ride the bus :smile: It costs me $12 a month :biggrin:
Ivan Seeking
Jun23-06, 09:10 PM
Fuel type.....MJ/L....BTU/imp gal....BTU/US gal......Research octane
number (RON)
Diesel..........40.9.....176,000..........147,000. ............ 251
Gasoline ......32.0.....150,000..........125,000........... 91–98
Gasohol (10% ethanol + 90% gasoline)
..................28.06.....145,200..........120,9 00...........93/94
LPG ............22.16.....114,660...........95,475.... ........115
Ethanol .......19.59 .....101,360 .........84,400............129
Methanol .....14.57.......75,420...........62,800 ...........123
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline
Biodiesel......................................... 120,000
http://www.agriculture.state.ia.us/biodiesel.html
Since you said 'no guestimates', I can only give you figures for the Roadrunner. If I kept it to 59 mph (flat road, no wind), it got 25 mpg. At 60, the secondaries on the carb started to open and it dropped to about 23. If I put my foot in it, or got stuck in city rush-hour traffic, forget it. Probably 5 mpg or so. I once had to pass 9 cars stuck behind a motor home doing 50 mph on a 2-lane highway. Downshift to 2nd and balls to the wall. I was doing 145 mph when I went by the motor home, and immediately dropped back to just above the 60 mph speed limit. That little manoeuvre used about 1/8 of a 22 gallon tank of gas. It's hard to say for sure, because acceleration forced the fuel to the back of the tank and let the float drop. All that I know for sure is that the gauge dropped from 1/2 to 1/4, then slowly returned to 3/8.
Keep in mind, though, that I'm using Imperial gallons which are significantly bigger than US ones. Also, the thing required a minumum of 95 octane leaded, so the addatives seriously kicked the cost above what it would have been had I been using normal gas. (The motor, by the bye, is a .030-over 440 at 12.5:1 compression--approx. 650hp. Curb weight is about 2800 lbs.)
The Camino is significantly better, although not nearly as fast. About 27 mpg out of a 455 Olds motor, as long as I stay under about 75 mph. (It's slow, but it'll climb over anything.)
You have a 650HP roadrunner. I want pics. All hail, the king has arrived.
It's been rotting away in my mother's back yard for over 20 years, so please don't cry too much when you see what shape it's in. It will be rebuilt eventually, but it'll cost over $50,000 to do it. Although it is literally the only one of its kind ever built, the collector value is already gone due to engine mods. If I'd thought of it, I would have kept all of the parts, then I just would have needed a stock block (not overbored) to put it back to original condition. As it is, I've designed my own engine to replace the 440. I'm not going to get into details, but leave it suffice to be said that it's 600 ci with over 2,000 hp. :biggrin: :devil: (hint: doesn't that space between the hood nostrils just cry out for a 6-71 with a bird-catcher? :devil: :devil: )
Anyhow, for what it's worth, here it is:
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/6530/danpics0376is.jpg
JasonRox
Jun23-06, 11:17 PM
I get 90-100 MPG. :tongue2:
JasonRox
Jun23-06, 11:22 PM
It's been rotting away in my mother's back yard for over 20 years, so please don't cry too much when you see what shape it's in. It will be rebuilt eventually, but it'll cost over $50,000 to do it. Although it is literally the only one of its kind ever built, the collector value is already gone due to engine mods. If I'd thought of it, I would have kept all of the parts, then I just would have needed a stock block (not overbored) to put it back to original condition. As it is, I've designed my own engine to replace the 440. I'm not going to get into details, but leave it suffice to be said that it's 600 ci with over 2,000 hp. :biggrin: :devil: (hint: doesn't that space between the hood nostrils just cry out for a 6-71 with a bird-catcher? :devil: :devil: )
Anyhow, for what it's worth, here it is:
2000HP? :uhh:
JasonRox
Jun23-06, 11:33 PM
Sorry, but I have to doubt that completely.
Especially with older cars because old cars had their horsepower ratings way off, and always well above the true number.
I don't see how a street legal car can be pushing 2000HP. Sorry.
There's no 'legal' limit to horsepower. That's an urban myth, the same as the one about your car having to be able to brake more quickly than it can accelerate.
I'm not getting into full details about the engine, but as a starting point it's 600 cubic inches, with plastic rods and titanium-coated plastic pistons. That brings the potential rpm limit up to over 10,000. Add to that a 671 (or maybe 8:71) Roots blower (or an Eaton for higher efficiency) with direct port injection. The cam is replaced by electronically controlled hydraulic or helinoid actuators regulated by an on-board computer that tracks the rpms. As you might know, the power band of the engine depends upon the duration of the cam as well as the intake and exhaust configuration. The computer will continuously alter the duration to match the rpm's of the engine, while maintaining maximum lift the whole time. (And the plastic rods give minimal rod stretch, so that lift can be more.) Although this isn't close to done yet, I'm also working on variable geometry intake and exhaust manifolds to accomplish the same effect.
And incidentally, Mopar products were pretty much the only ones who under-rated their hp and torque figures. You'd better believe that a 426 street hemi put out more than the listed 425 hp
Danger you have to fix that car up! You have to!
I drive an 01 Olds Alero and get about 38 mpg highway and about 32-4 in the city.
Dammit danger, fix that car!
I built a nice model car of that once, bright yellow with a black stripe down the hood.
When properly fixed that car is AMAZING. You have a real diamond in the ruff my friend.
FIX IT THATS AN ORDER!
It's going to need one hell of a lot of body work, everything work really.
For anyone who hasn't seen Dangers car in it's original glory
http://www.shorey.net/Auto/American/Chrysler/Plymouth/71Roadrunner-440-6-1.jpg
http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/cars4kids/plym7101.JPG
That car use pure badass. :cool:
My two cents, replace the black roof liner and ditch the hood for the later model style. Then give her a nice black color. Deep gloss black that will highlight all that chrome trim. She will be spectacular.
brewnog
Jun24-06, 06:30 AM
I get 45mpg on the motorway, and about 40 on a combined.
I voted greater than 28 mpg because my 4-cyl Nissan pickup gets about 25 mpg, but whenever I can travel light, I use my HD Softail. It's fuel-injected and when I put on lower-restriction pipes and a low-restriction air filter (K&N), I also installed a Power Commander - a programmable control module with downloadable performance maps. I'm not only getting much more usable torque than the stock set-up, but better gas mileage too. Close to 50 mpg, if I ride conservatively.
larkspur
Jun24-06, 11:09 AM
It's been rotting away in my mother's back yard for over 20 years, so please don't cry too much when you see what shape it's in. It will be rebuilt eventually, but it'll cost over $50,000 to do it. Although it is literally the only one of its kind ever built, the collector value is already gone due to engine mods. If I'd thought of it, I would have kept all of the parts, then I just would have needed a stock block (not overbored) to put it back to original condition. As it is, I've designed my own engine to replace the 440. I'm not going to get into details, but leave it suffice to be said that it's 600 ci with over 2,000 hp. :biggrin: :devil: (hint: doesn't that space between the hood nostrils just cry out for a 6-71 with a bird-catcher? :devil: :devil: )
You didn't say anything about the neato horn......does it still work? My cousin used to have one of those cars. Her's was bright yellow. The only reason I remember it was because of the horn!
I wish that you were better looking, Cyrus, 'cause I love you for posting that pic!
As you can see, my hood is different and there's no chin spoiler. (That little sticker on the front bumper, incidentally, is from Motor City Rod and Custom who did the first engine mods.)
Larkspur, the horn never did make a proper 'beep-beep'. :grumpy: There's a tuning bolt on it, but it's siezed. It won't be a problem to replace it, though. (I'll keep the original [pink :eek: ] one, but wire in an aftermarket unit for the sound.)
As for the one-of-a-kind factor; there's no paperwork to back this up, so you'll just have to take (or not) my word for it. I bought it from the widow of the original owner in '75. He worked at Chrysler in Windsor, so he followed the car down the line and built it himself.
It came out of the factory with the following features which were not officially available:
split bench front seat, made for the Polara station wagon--Roadrunners came with buckets
Hurst air shocks with the air tits drilled into the bottom of the back bumper
10" slotted chrome-reverse mags on the back with L-60x15 Goodyears--he folded the inner fender lips up against the outer wall for tire clearance
emblems in the wrong places
Oh crap! I'm late for work. Will continue this when I get there.
For anyone who hasn't seen Dangers car in it's original glory
http://www.shorey.net/Auto/American/Chrysler/Plymouth/71Roadrunner-440-6-1.jpg
http://www.hubcapcafe.com/i/2001/cars4kids/plym7101.JPG
That car use pure badass. :cool:
My two cents, replace the black roof liner and ditch the hood for the later model style. Then give her a nice black color. Deep gloss black that will highlight all that chrome trim. She will be spectacular.
It would be best to just keep the engine an put it in a car that can handle
better, may be a 2cv or trabant.:rofl:
Okay, I'm at work now. Pardon the delay... there were things to do when I got here--damned customers :grumpy: .
Anyhow, the major unique thing about it was the engine itself. All that I knew when I bought it was that it went like stink. Going by the VIN, it was the hi-perf 440. (The options were the standard or the Commando.) That indicated the 4-barrel carb, 10:1 compression, and 295 hp. (It's a GTX, by the way, but that package deals with suspension, brakes and cooling.) The factory redline was 5,500 rpm, but it didn't really start making power until 5,000. My rule was that the valves floated at 6,500 so I shifted at 6,400. It's an A-833 4 gear tranny with the long-throw Hurst pistol grip shifter, going into a 3.23:1 Dana 60. If I were going balls to the wall, I shifted to 2nd at 65 mph, third at 85, and 4th at 115--and 4th is a .73:1 overdrive. Top end was 160 mph. The estimated hp by performance (never dynoed it) was about 390.
440's don't particularly like to oil the #4 rod bearing for some reason, and the damned thing spun out on me whilst on vacation. The piston collapsed and took the bore with it. Hence the rebuild. When we took it apart, it surprised the hell out of us to find that it had 6 10:1 pistons and 2 8:1's. Also 6 4-barrel rods and 2 Commando ones. The odd rods were not linked to the off-spec pistons. The only explanation that I can think of is that it was the builder's way of balancing the motor. If so, it worked; the thing ran like a turbine at 6,000+ rpm.
And as for the paint job, Cyrus, it's getting the same one that's on my pool cue. If I can get it to show up properly, I'll post a pic. Starting at the front, it fog-fades from emerald green through teal, deep royal purple, and finally black.
edit: I just saw your post, Woolie; you sneaked it in while I was typing mine. As you've probably foreseen, my response is :tongue: .
2nd edit: Cyrus, there was something nagging me about that picture, but I didn't realize until now what it was. That's a '73; mine's a '72. You can tell because the side markers are 3-section jobbies and mine are single.
Yeah, I realized that too. I like the 73' body personally.
As for the 3 color paint job, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I don't know if that would look proper on a muscle car. I'd stick with solid black. Nothing looks sharper than a solid black car. :tongue2:
http://classiccars.kfunk.net/plymouth/72plymouth_roadrunner.jpg
Meep Meep.
And nothing's harder to keep clean. :tongue:
larkspur
Jun24-06, 01:14 PM
Yeah, I realized that too. I like the 73' body personally.
As for the 3 color paint job, ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. I don't know if that would look proper on a muscle car. I'd stick with solid black. Nothing looks sharper than a solid black car. :tongue2:
http://classiccars.kfunk.net/plymouth/72plymouth_roadrunner.jpg
Meep Meep.
That's it!
JasonRox
Jun24-06, 04:43 PM
There's no 'legal' limit to horsepower.
I never said there was one.
You must have Dyno Sheets to back that claim. And no one throws away 2000HP Dyno Sheets.
You misinterpreted the statement, Jason. I haven't built the thing yet. 2,000 is admittedly a rough estimate, but I know for sure that it'll be over 1,800. It's not at all unreasonable when you consider that a lot of street rods are well over 1,000 using more conventional and much smaller engines.
JasonRox
Jun24-06, 05:06 PM
I can't see it happening though. Not with an old muscle car.
Your best shot would probably be like a Corvette engine rebuilt with a massive turbo strapped on, but even then that would be tough.
Your best shot would probably be like a Corvette engine rebuilt with a massive turbo strapped on
:yuck: :yuck: :yuck:
You misinterpreted the statement, Jason. I haven't built the thing yet. 2,000 is admittedly a rough estimate, but I know for sure that it'll be over 1,800. It's not at all unreasonable when you consider that a lot of street rods are well over 1,000 using more conventional and much smaller engines.
I hope to get the power of 35 horses from my tuned velo, it is going to have special crack cases, a pollished con rod, an 8 to 1 piss ton, a hairy cam, a light head, oh yes and trendy followers.
Oh baby, check this out Danger.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1971-Plymouth-Road-runner-440-6-pack-V-code-rotisserie_W0QQitemZ4652022135QQihZ002QQcategoryZ4 3921QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#mainImage
This is your car in its original condition 71', she's a beaut.
Jeez, that's sweet! I must have been mistaken about '73s having the split side makers, because this one does. In most other regards, other than colours, it's sure almost identical to mine's original look. Mine, however, didn't have the deck spoiler or H-pipe, it had the air shock tits sticking out about an inch from the bottom of the rear bumper, and there were the mags on the back instead of factory rims. Also, the body trim was different and the emblems weren't in the regular locations.
Thanks millions for the links.
By the bye, one of my friends who watches the auction in Vegas told me that one just like it went for slightly under $100,000 US last fall.
edit: For Jason: My design is based upon the 'kangaroo' motor. If you can find anything about it, you'll know what sort of monstrosity I'm planning. :biggrin: :devil: :surprised
Skyhunter
Jun24-06, 09:53 PM
I have an 82 VW Rabbit pick-up. I get 42-44 with diesel fuel, 40-42 with bio-diesel. It had a SVO conversion but it was disconnected so I removed it, found that bio-diesel was more convenient.
I have an 82 VW Rabbit pick-up.
Tell me again why I continue to let you live on my planet? :confused:
AhAHAHA, Im watching shaft right now (original). Hes rolling around in his red roadrunner. :rofl: You damnnnnnnn right!
Believe it or not, I've never seen that movie. Guess I'll have to check it out. :biggrin:
I think we should be using gpm instead of mpg. The savings in going from 8 mpg to 12 mpg, is much greater than in going from 28 mpg to 32 mpg, even though the "difference" is the same, 4 mpg. The more logical system is clearly linear in fuel. I mean, who here, when driving, thinks to theirself "well, I've decided to use 2.37 gallons on this trip, so where will I go?" Rather, we think "I'm going to X today, so how many gallons will I use?" Who agrees?
8mpg = 0.125 gpm
10mpg = 0.100 gpm
20mpg = 0.050 gpm
30mpg = 0.034 gpm
60mpg = 0.017 gpm
The mpg system we're using understates the economic impact of things like Hummers. We should be using a language in which "Hummers use ten times more fuel than small cars" is a common phrase, not meaningless statements like "X" gets 20 miles more than "Y" to the gallon. (relative to what?) I think this is really necessary, since very few Americans really understand how deal with an inverse measure like mpg, so they have no ability to make smart decisions about this.
I think they have the ability to make these decision. Your GPM system is awkward and inconvenient. Its all in decimals! :yuck: No thank you!
MPG is relative to one gallon. So what? GPM is relative to one mile! That's not any more linear than MPG. I don't buy gasoline by the mile....
A side, where do you live Rach? I thought you were in Europe?
A side, where do you live Rach? I thought you were in Europe?
I'm obviously an American, where else do people have to live with Hummers on their roads? (aside from Iraq and Afghanistan...)
I think they have the ability to make these decision. Your GPM system is awkward and inconvenient. Its all in decimals! :yuck: No thank you!
Multiply it by 1000x and call it "Gallons per thousand" (gpt). Then you have the same range as with mpg, and things look like this:
10-15 gpt - motorcycles
~15 gpt - hybrids
~30 gpt - small cars
~50 gpt - medium-sized sedans
80-120+ SUVs
Puts things in perspective.
No, your making things way to complicated! Gallons per thousand miles! :uhh: :rolleyes: This is getting lame!
Like I said, no one buys gasoline by the mile....
And no one buys miles by the gallon.
What, buys miles? Buying miles makes no sense.
Yes, when you go to the station, you buy x gallons of fuel. Your car gets Y MPG, you can drive XY miles. Is that so hard?
Now your system:
You buy x gallons of fuel. Your car gets Y=1000/Z MPG. Now I have to find out how far I can go, 1000*X/Z.......:rolleyes:
No one in their right mind would want to use that system!
It's LAME!
Well then, let's simplify it and go with our Canuk way. Litres per 100 kilometres. :biggrin:
Or we can do fuel efficency in inverse hectares... :rolleyes:
My point is this: what we really want to measure is some sort of "rate of fuel consumption", not this "inverse rate of fuel consumption". How much will fuel cost per year? You multiply X thousands of miles by Y gallons per thousand-mile, and get a figure of gallons. This is practical. The scale is linear in the quantity of fuel. This strange "mpg" system depends inversely on quantity of fuel.
Measuring the number of miles between gas station trips to make decisions is, IMO, a myopic way of doing economics.
No, there is nothing "strange" about it, and it is linear.
You can plot the miles you will get as a function of the number of gallons of fuel. It is a system based on the number of GALLONS not miles, because we purchase GALLONS of gasoline.
Where are you getting this 'inverse' relationship from?
This is middle school math....
y=mx+b
y-miles
m- MPG
x-#gallons in your tank
b= 0 (no gas, no miles)
You are making such a simple concept wayyyyyyyyyyyy too complex my friend.
The fact is, no one cares about how many gallons to the thousand miles.
What I mean is
\mbox{gallons of fuel } \propto \frac{1}{mpg}
for a trip of definite length, and vice-versa.
But I told you ten times now, no one cares, because no one pays by the mile man!
When I had my Kawasaki EX500, I got about 57-60mpg. On my Suzuki SV650S I get about 44. On the Kawasaki ZX6R 636, I'd get about 36-38 mpg.
Cyrus:
Perhaps I am blind, but I really have no idea what you mean by that. People who buy hybrids don't suddenly start driving three times more often; people who buy SUVs don't drive three times fewer. Trip lengths are not a function of fuel efficiency, they are function of how far apart destinations A and B are and what roads are in between them. So a consumer will driver more or less X miles a month, irregardless of what they're driving in. We can treat that length as a constant, because it is independent of the mpg rating.
Now, as far as my meager brain can fathom, the economically interesting number here is how many dollars the consumer is spending on fuel. Since the trip lengths are constant, this rate of spending goes as to
\mbox{spending } \propto \mbox{gallons of fuel } \propto \frac{\mbox{distance travelled }}{\mbox{ fuel efficiency (miles per gallon)}}
And as long as our consumer isn't drastically changing his driving habits, the distances involved are constants:
\mbox{spending } \propto \frac{1}{\mbox{ fuel efficiency \bf{(miles per gallon)}}}
Hence fuel efficiency goes inversely as to our economically interesting quantity, the $.
Now, if we were to use a more sensible fuel efficiency, gallons of fuel per distance, the above equations become
\mbox{spending } \propto \mbox{distance travelled } \times \mbox{ fuel efficiency \bf{(gallons per mile)}}
Which is nicely linear in fuel efficiency. :smile:
I give up, I am going to go drive my car into a wall sticking my head out the window :grumpy:
I give up, I am going to go drive my car into a wall sticking my head out the window :grumpy:
And you made this decision without thinking about said car's fuel efficiency! That supports my point!
Actually I suppose it would be called "fuel inefficiency", but I still think it's the more interesting number.
Ok, replace wall with you. I am going to drive into you (with a hummer that has a leaky gas tank)!
Look, my car has a 13 gallon tank. It's going to cost me 13*(going price of gasoline) each time I fill it. THATS what I care about.
I know that each time I fill my tank, it will cost me that much money, and I can go that far on that full tank of gas.
Why on earth would I want to start calculating my average trip length, multiply that by 1000, divide that by MPG!?
Look, my car has a 13 gallon tank. It's going to cost me 13*(going price of gasoline) each time I fill it. THATS what I care about.
But that's just the point! How often will you be filling it?!
Easy,
My tank holds 13.56 Gallons. It gets 21MPG, so every 284.76 miles.
If I drive lets say 1000 miles a month, ~4 times a month. Wow, was that so hard?!
NOPE!
Using US gallons..
92 Ford Tempo
1.8L I think (I'll check that)
4 cylinders
4 gears
city mileage: ~25
highway mileage: ~33
My job is about 70km away from where I live, so I still get raped at the pump.
I find this rather strange
I ride the bus It costs me $12 a month
Here in Edmonton, Canada the bus cost $58 per month.
Well then, let's simplify it and go with our Canuk way. Litres per 100 kilometres. :biggrin:
It's actually a myth that Canada uses this system. If you go to a Honda or Nissan dealership, you will see little stickers in the windows of cars that say things like "25mpg city, 28mpg highway". Canada still uses mpg because km and L cannot be compared to anything. If the American EPA has a bunch of gas mileage estimates in mpg, and you see something that says L/100km, how can you even compare the two? One is reciprocal and the units for both distance and volume are different. It's extremely hard to compare them unless you happen to have a calculator handy and know the appropriate conversions. You don't even need to know what a mile or a gallon is, you just need to know that 30mpg is better than 25mpg.
Why are you all talking as if mpg is a fixed amount, is it best case, average case, worst case, driver dependant? or just a hypothetical number.
Moonbear
Jul3-06, 07:49 AM
Why are you all talking as if mpg is a fixed amount, is it best case, average case, worst case, driver dependant? or just a hypothetical number.
It's usually the one time you remembered to check the odometer when filling up twice in a row. It's going to seem lower if you're doing a lot of stopping and starting, driving only short distances, etc., and higher on a long road trip when you can keep a nice steady speed on the open highway. Run the air conditioner, and you lose more mileage. So, the sticker in the window when you buy the car is usually the best possible under perfect conditions. Actual mpg is usually a bit lower due to the way real people drive.
It's usually the one time you remembered to check the odometer when filling up twice in a row. It's going to seem lower if you're doing a lot of stopping and starting, driving only short distances, etc., and higher on a long road trip when you can keep a nice steady speed on the open highway. Run the air conditioner, and you lose more mileage. So, the sticker in the window when you buy the car is usually the best possible under perfect conditions. Actual mpg is usually a bit lower due to the way real people drive.
For sure MoonB, as i hate the tax man so much i practice ecconomy driving,
easy on the gas, look ahead keep moving if possible, coast down hills (bad practice i know) but what the hey if there is no hill to go up afterwards and you do not bleed off to much speed, auto boxes are the killer you yanks should ban them, they sap so much power.
Astronuc
Jul3-06, 09:33 AM
I think we should be using gpm instead of mpg. The savings in going from 8 mpg to 12 mpg, is much greater than in going from 28 mpg to 32 mpg, even though the "difference" is the same, 4 mpg. The more logical system is clearly linear in fuel. I mean, who here, when driving, thinks to theirself "well, I've decided to use 2.37 gallons on this trip, so where will I go?" Rather, we think "I'm going to X today, so how many gallons will I use?" Who agrees?
8mpg = 0.125 gpm
10mpg = 0.100 gpm
20mpg = 0.050 gpm
30mpg = 0.034 gpm
60mpg = 0.017 gpm :rofl: Tanks (military) measure mileage in gpm - and probably Humvees, too. :biggrin:
I believe race cars (Formula 1) also measure gpm. In both cases it is a concern about range.
I think mpg is a reasonable measure of efficiency for most driving. On the highway, I use distance and mpg to figure range and when to stop for gas.
Comparatively, when considering purchasing a car, I would tend go with the higher mpg car.
Also, fuel efficiency depends on the type of driving (e.g. speed, terrain, city vs highway, load in the car, and even wind resistance (from experience driving in W. Texas where wind made a huge difference in mileage)).
PS - I just filled up my Odyssey and realized an average of 23.7 mpg - with half of that driving on the highway.
Hootenanny
Jul3-06, 09:35 AM
For sure MoonB, as i hate the tax man so much i practice ecconomy driving,
easy on the gas, look ahead keep moving if possible, coast down hills (bad practice i know) but what the hey if there is no hill to go up afterwards and you do not bleed off to much speed, auto boxes are the killer you yanks should ban them, they sap so much power.
The taxes in this this country, especially those for petrol are criminal! Seriously, Gordan Brown should carry a 'swag bag' rather than his red briefcase! :mad:
DaveC426913
Jul3-06, 10:20 AM
Chrysler 300M. 260 miles on a 12.5gal tank = ~19MPG.
If I were looking to save money, I'd have bought a different car... :biggrin:
I would run my car on used chip shop oil, but knowing the bloody fuzz in the UK they would be chasing me for a free meal.:smile:
Moonbear
Jul3-06, 12:53 PM
:rofl: Tanks (military) measure mileage in gpm - and probably Humvees, too. :biggrin:
:rofl: Yeah, if you need to measure it in gallons per mile, you really should think a bit harder about fuel economy. :biggrin:
Jimmy Snyder
Jul3-06, 01:08 PM
I drive a Honda Civid Hybrid. I drive 55 mph on the highway. I've been getting 45 mpg.
Actual mpg is usually a bit lower due to the way real people drive.
If you don't drive like a jackass, the EPA estimates are actually very accurate. My Tempo is 14 years old and the gas mileage is still pretty close to the EPA estimates. It only differs from the estimates when driving on snow or gravel.
Ivan Seeking
Jul10-06, 04:55 PM
After just checking on a long run, I was happy to find that our largest car - the gas hog - is getting just over 30mpg with the A/C running and with the Oregon/California mountain passes in the middle. The other car gets about 35 Hwy and about all we drive is hwy speeds. Hoping to get a diesel hybrid and burn locally produced biodiesel next.
btw, giving out the make, model, and year of your car, is a bad idea if you wish to protect your anonymity.
What? Knowing my car wont get you my bank account numbers.
The taxes in this this country, especially those for petrol are criminal! Seriously, Gordan Brown should carry a 'swag bag' rather than his red briefcase! :mad:
I so agree, soon the goverment will be sending out knights to torture us
out of our money and build splendid castles out of thier ill gotten gains,
but the time will come when the land is empty.
Ivan Seeking
Jul10-06, 06:33 PM
What? Knowing my car wont get you my bank account numbers.
Well, normally one wouldn't need to worry about it, but if someone was trying to get information for credit fraud or whatever, information like this is useful. It could help complete the map to your name, address, etc. It's probably a good idea to avoid revealing any definitive identifying information about yourself.
This information is public knowledge. All they need is your name.
It's really quite useless, they need something better than that.
For instance, my bank account number is 5659-3330-582.......
Edit: Oh crap....................
Ivan Seeking
Jul10-06, 06:42 PM
I'm just tellling you what I've heard and read from the alleged experts.
They also warn against telling tales of college party life or other compromising information. Some companies are now searching for this information in order to make hiring decisions.
Moonbear
Jul10-06, 06:50 PM
I'm just tellling you what I've heard and read from the alleged experts.
Maybe if you drive something really unusual. If you want to know what car I drive, you can just sit outside and watch for me to pull out of the garage. There are at least 3 others in the same model and color in the parking lot at work (though maybe not all the same year; and there are others in different colors), so I don't think it narrows down much. I wouldn't recommend giving out your license plate number, though.
They also warn against telling tales of college party life or other compromising information. Some companies are now searching for this information in order to make hiring decisions.
That's because some people are silly enough to share that information with their real names attached. Of course, I take the view that if the company I apply to work at snoops around to learn what I do in my non-work hours, or what youthful indiscretions I've made, then I probably don't want to work for them anyway.
russ_watters
Jul10-06, 08:18 PM
If you don't drive like a jackass, the EPA estimates are actually very accurate. My Tempo is 14 years old and the gas mileage is still pretty close to the EPA estimates. It only differs from the estimates when driving on snow or gravel. Apparently, it depends on the car - I got very close to the rated mileage with my last car, but not with my current car. Part of that is that some are more sensitive to variations in driving conditions than others. My last car (an Eagle Talon) had a tiny engine, but it got into 5th gear as low as about 35mph, which meant in suburban driving I was often in 5th gear. With my 6, I don't get into 5th gear until 50mph, which means in suburban driving I'm rarely in 5th gear. It also seems to be much more sensitive to driving faster, meaning above about 65, the fuel economy drops off pretty quickly.
Gallons per mile (or thousand miles) is a more useful than miles per gallon. What you're really interested in is how much your travel is going to cost you. Miles per gallon gives you one extra step in calculating your cost.
Over the last week, I used over half a tank of gas and the odometer didn't even budge .... but then it hasn't budged for a couple years now.
On trips on the Interstate, where I can actually get a somewhat accurate estimate, I get a little over 20 mpg in my '91 Jeep Cherokee with the 6 cylinder engine. It seems to get better mileage travelling East than West, at least between Colorado Springs and Omaha. It kind of surprised me that the difference is noticeable considering the elevation loss is so gradual, but the wind also tends to blow across the prairie from West to East. That nearly straight up front windshield kills the mileage, I think. In normal driving, a lot is outside the city, but I think I still spend enough time in city traffic to push my mileage under 20.
I haven't seen my Ford Explorer recently, but I think it was getting around 25 mpg on the highway. With a little more streamlined body and cruise control, the mileage is a lot better than you'd expect from an SUV (actually, I'd compare the Explorer and other modern SUVs more to those vans popular in the 70's than a true SUV - they're not nearly as good off road as my old Jeep, but they sure are a dream for road trips.)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.