Fuel Saving Thread: Motoring Tips & Tricks

  • Thread starter Thread starter wolram
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fuel Thread
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
289 replies · 42K views
Physics news on Phys.org
mgb_phys said:
I would have thought the biggest fuel saving tip was don't buy a Land Rover or a Mustang.

If one has to worry about fuel economy one would not consider buying a fuel hungry vehicle,
putting that aside, if one has such a vehicle, driving it in a considered economical way can pay dividends, having an electronic box over seeing ones driving methods could only help improve economy.
 
My boss has a Ford dually crewcab (to pull her horse trailer; she's a professional barrel-racer). This thing delivers about 10mpg. It costs her 50 cents/mile to drive it.
And dig on this: her warrantee would be automatically voided if she were to use farm gas.
 
mgb_phys said:
I would have thought the biggest fuel saving tip was don't buy a Land Rover or a Mustang.

Thinking about it , the best way to stop excessive fuel use is to limit or stop manufacture
of vehicles that can exceed the top speed limits of ones country by 120% and get to those speeds in a ridiculously small amount of time.
Over all in mixed motorway, A road driving over say 100 miles the time saving is a few minutes.
 
I suppose that on a physics forum that people will naturally be forward looking, but there are some OLD technologies which I think should be resurrected. This vehicle for instance gets great mileage !
 

Attachments

  • Yabadabado.jpg
    Yabadabado.jpg
    22.1 KB · Views: 394
If you installed enough of those gadgets that promise to improve mileage by 20%, you could manage well over 100 miles per gallon in a Hummer!

But seriously... Light foot on the accelerator is the single biggest factor for better mileage.
 
pantaz said:
But seriously... Light foot on the accelerator is the single biggest factor for better mileage.
Light foot on the brake is even better!

Yes you're right, aggresive accelaration is silly but once you are moving fuel consumption isn't a big function of speed at regular higway speeds.
Braking to almost a stop everytime you see the car in front's red lights o driving up to traffic lights at 50mph thene stopping dead is expensive.

Of course, if people just drove with a few more car lengths in front of them and watched the road ahead and predicted what was going to happen they wouldn't need to drive amoured cars to feel safe and the auto industry would collapse!
 
Last edited:
pantaz said:
If you installed enough of those gadgets that promise to improve mileage by 20%, you could manage well over 100 miles per gallon in a Hummer!

But seriously... Light foot on the accelerator is the single biggest factor for better mileage.
I used to get the J.C. Whitney catalog regularly (needed lots of parts to keep my old Jeep CJ5 on the road) and I used to joke that I installed all the fuel-economy gadgets that they offered, and I had to stop every 50 miles or so to siphon gas out of my tank so it wouldn't overflow.
 
mgb_phys said:
That used to be the joke about the VW Rabbit - if you put it in overdrive it makes gas!
They stole my joke! The Rabbit wasn't in production when I first owned my CJ. It had vacuum-operated (not electric) windshield wipers that didn't work too good when climbing steep hills. :rolleyes:
 
Speaking of car jokes: Why did the Yugo have rear-window defrosters?A: So you could keep your hands warm while pushing it.
 
Tips to reduce fuel consumption.

1: buy a hybrid car or a TDi diesel.
2: don't be in a hurry. the fuel consumption roughly increases with the square of the speed.
3: Keep the car clean and shining, reducing skin friction. (strongly underrated factor)
4: Drive minimum rpm in a lower gear than usual
5: Do not brake, but anticipate well in advance about reducing/increasing speed when approaching traffic lights etc.
 
Redbelly98 said:
I don't see how, as the battery gets its energy from the engine.
Because you only need the fan when the car is moving very slowly or stationary.
An electric fan is turned off when the coolant is below a certain temp.

Its been a long time since I've seen an engine driven fan on a car.
It's possible that there are exceptions, but they all seem to be electric nowadays.
 
Don't take the drive belt off as you will disconnect the alternator and your battery will die.
 
bassplayer142 said:
Don't take the drive belt off as you will disconnect the alternator and your battery will die.

That actually just brought to mind something that I saw in a Hot Rod or Car Craft magazine back in the 70's. For some reason, this one guy's street rod had the alternator run from a pulley on the driveshaft. It didn't, of course, charge in neutral. I wonder if that would save anything significant in stop-and-go traffic.
 
NoTime said:
Because you only need the fan when the car is moving very slowly or stationary.
An electric fan is turned off when the coolant is below a certain temp.

Its been a long time since I've seen an engine driven fan on a car.
It's possible that there are exceptions, but they all seem to be electric nowadays.

Got it, thanks.
 
bassplayer142 said:
Don't take the drive belt off as you will disconnect the alternator and your battery will die.

Also, many vehicles drive the power steering pump and water pump from the main accessory belt.
 
To address those thinking of taking off the drive belt, its a nice idea, but it is simply not a wise one.
Everything that is run off of this belt is of importance, otherwise it wouldn't be there. Period. The benefit simply does not outweigh the consequences of removing it. My advice, as a technician in an auto shop is simply don't do it.

More to the point there are tried and true ways of conserving fuels, but keep in mind that not only do almost all modifications decrease the life of your motor, but they also void the factory warranty.

That said, I have been looking to alternative fuels as a most effective route. These include bio-diesel, fuel cells and flex fuels as well as other technologies. In my opinion the answer lies in the works of an inventor, Stan Meyer. His work in running cars off of pure water should be taken a lot more seriously. However, there are a lot of knock off ideas and hacks claiming to use his principles.

Be careful!
 
Last edited:
Naicamine said:
That said, I have been looking to alternative fuels as a most effective route. These include bio-diesel, fuel cells and flex fuels as well as other technologies. In my opinion the answer lies in the works of an inventor, Stan Meyer. His work in running cars off of pure water should be taken a lot more seriously. However, there are a lot of knock off ideas and hacks claiming to use his principles.

As a technical person, you should know better than to believe the claims of Meyer. Water is not a fuel.
 
Yep. We may be eventually able to use solar energy to separate H and O economically and recombine them as a fuel, but Meyer's stuff was pure hokum. The laws of thermodynamics are not the "suggestions" of thermodynamics.
 
I guess, I read in Popular mechanics that one company in CA has started commercial production of bio-fuel unit to be used in backyard, needs tree leaves and branches + bio waste like vegetables to make fuel. cost of unit $10K

Rick
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To turbo-1 and brewnog in regards to the hokum of Meyer:

I hope that the both of you might enlighten me a little. As of yet, I haven't heard anything viable as to make me completely disregard the idea of hydrogen power from water. I hope for something better than simply restating the law of conservation of energy. I've heard that one, and, pun intended, it doesn't hold water; I don't plan on using more than 0.5 amps to split the molecule.

I hope either of you are not offended when I ask your credentials on the topic as I will freely admit I am not by any stretch a physicist; just a guy trying to save some gas money.
 
Last edited:
Naicamine said:
To turbo-1 and brewnog in regards to the hokum of Meyer:

I hope that the both of you might enlighten me a little. As of yet, I haven't heard anything viable as to make me completely disregard the idea of hydrogen power from water. I hope for something better than simply restating the law of conservation of energy. I've heard that one, and, pun intended, it doesn't hold water; I don't plan on using more than 0.5 amps to split the molecule.

I hope either of you is not offended when I ask your credentials on the topic as I will freely admit I am not by any stretch a physicist; just a guy trying to save some gas money.

How much energy is required to dissociate Oxygen and Hydrogen from water? How much energy is required to separate and compress these gases? How much energy is required to transport these gases and provide for their recombination to provide "clean" power? Am I surrounded by idiots?
 
turbo-1 said:
Am I surrounded by idiots?
So much for not trying to offend...

As I stated half an amp is required to split the molecule, in a process that IS NOT ELECTROLYSIS as that is NOT efficient.

The compression shouldn't be a problem as it already occurs in any ICE I have ever seen. Well any that worked worth anything, anyway. There are those that had holes in a piston. There is no transportation of gases, only the water. In the past I hear this has been done previously by a remarkable device they called a "fuel pump." And I was pretty sure that since hydrogen is much more combustible than gasoline, it could possibly be that it may just burn more efficiently. Just a hunch. Maybe my idea of using a standard ignition coil is slightly flawed but I think I'll manage to find an alternative that isn't far from similar.

As for "clean fuel" I don't know if you realize that gasoline isn't exactly pristine, with the sediment from being buried in the ground and all.

Maybe brewnog has something credible to offer?
 
Last edited:
I should specify that it is not standard electrolysis. It involves the same ideas but instead of brute forcing the molecules apart, it uses electro-chemistry to its benefit.

And I didnt mean to come on strong. Its just that I am not prepared to listen to cynicism. Only facts.
 
Depending on the car, you can gain milage by installing roller rockers(rocker arms that have a roller bearing instead of a pivoting action) this reduces friction, increases engine life and adds efficiency. Make sure you replace the push rods and lifters as well so that they wear together right. You may be able to get a new camshaft designed for fuel economy as well.

You can get aluminum cylinder heads which are very much lighter than cast iron. You can also get an aluminum block for some engines. Aluminum intake manifold instead of cast iron. You can also get aluminum rims to eliminate weight. Carbon fiber hood/body panels also.

Headers/muffler/pipes, you can also use that insulating wrap around your headers to reduce extra heat in the engine compartment.

K&N or similar air filter/cold air intake(rout your plastic intake attachment so that it is in the front of the car with direct air contact(through the grill or something).

If you don't care about looks and comfort so much, you can strip out all the carpet and interior materials/plastic and stuff. I have seen want to be street racers do this and eliminate a considerable amount of extra weight.

Buying a hybrid cost a lot of money right, like 30 grand or so plus. How much gas can you buy with 30 grand? That much money alone could pay for years of gas. A couple years ago I bought a 1989 honda accord LXI for $1500. That car got 35-40 miles per gallon, and it is one of the most dependable cars ever made, my friends parents had the same car and it went to about 450,000 mile before anything major went wrong(transmission finally went). Why buy an expensive new car when there are old cars that get great gas milage. I believe those older accords got better milage than the new ones do.
 
Last edited:
Naicamine said:
To turbo-1 and brewnog in regards to the hokum of Meyer:

I hope that the both of you might enlighten me a little. As of yet, I haven't heard anything viable as to make me completely disregard the idea of hydrogen power from water. I hope for something better than simply restating the law of conservation of energy. I've heard that one, and, pun intended, it doesn't hold water; I don't plan on using more than 0.5 amps to split the molecule.

I hope either of you are not offended when I ask your credentials on the topic as I will freely admit I am not by any stretch a physicist; just a guy trying to save some gas money.

I remember from about 5 years ago I was reading about a type of fuel that was made by using a certain chemical to make water and oil mix which resulted in more efficient fuel. It had a specific name, and I'm pretty sure it was legit, can't remember, but I found this link which sound similar, sorry if it isn't fully credible.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/03/news/business/doc47c5005337448125816114.txt
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited:

Similar threads

Is the Neo Socket Truly a Fuel Saving Device?
  • Bararontok
  • · Replies 5 ·
  • Electrical Engineering
Replies
5