Fuel Saving Thread: Motoring Tips & Tricks

[mgb_phys]

I've never owned an SUV, so I don't know what the attraction is.

The image that any day after work you are going to take off into the mountains to go surfing or drive across the beach to go rock climbing. Ironically of course anybody that does this drives an old battered Volvo station wagon, something that holds lots of gear but doesn't waste money that could be spend on new climbing / surfing gear.

And safety - which is ironic given how unsafe SUVs are. I live near an expensive private school, it seems there is a policy that a single 5year old can only be picked up in a vehicle that weighs more than 2.5tons.

 

[baywax]

So the rumours are trash talk. That's too bad since it would have been a good idea if Ford had come up with the commuter's version of a fuel efficient car before Toyota and Honda.

The oil companies sell gasoline to you and me, not to Ford.

If Ford doesn't buy gas, how do they test their engines?

The fact is, in America anyway, the customers have been choosing to buy big heavy "cars" (ie, SUVs and pickups) because we like the size and the performance. Suggesting that the manufacturers have been coercing us into this is just denial. Look back at the cheep cars marketed in the early 1980s (ford fiesta, renault 'le car', etc). These were popular for about six months and then were relegated to "sh*tbox" status. They are slow, with lousy acceleration, and you feel like nobody will let you merge into traffic, and once you are in traffic everyone is passing you. This goes against our "competitive spirit" and general machismo. Driving powerful cars is fun.

I see. Its funny how the FDA has no problem getting people to stop making foods with trans-fats yet there is no department for stopping people manufacturing gas-hogs or from buying them.

 

[mgb_phys]

The fact is, in America anyway, the customers have been choosing to buy big heavy "cars" (ie, SUVs and pickups) because we like the size and the performance. Suggesting that the manufacturers have been coercing us into this is just denial.

The manufacturers produce what will make the most profit. SUVS are extremely cheap to build and very expensive to buy. They then spend a fortune on ads to convince you that this is what you want to buy, ironically by selling their safety.

I see. Its funny how the FDA has no problem getting people to stop making foods with trans-fats yet there is no department for stopping people manufacturing gas-hogs or from buying them.

There used to be - it used to mandate an improvement in the fuel efficency every year. It then came under political pressure to be 'more responsive to industry needs' and so the crash ratings were adjusted to favour larger vehicles and the emissions ratings to favour large gas engines over small diesel ones.

 

[turbo]

Car manufacturers also play games to avoid having to meet CAFE standards. The PT Cruiser is a little light-weight station wagon built on the Neon platform. It is classified as a truck so that its fuel economy could be averaged in with Chysler's truck fleet - if you bought a PT Cruiser, you have helped ensure that the fuel consumption of Dodge RAM trucks didn't have to be reduced.

 

[gmax137]

well maybe I was being too subtle, but I was trying to point my finger at myself...If we buy cars that are too big and use too much gas, we should blame ourselves. We don't need to blame ford for not making smaller cars, and we sure don't need to blame the feds for not protecting us from ourselves.

My only point was that, while its true that "The manufacturers produce what will make the most profit," they don't make anything on the products we don't buy (witness the current situation). The corrollary is, they try to build what we are buying (duh ?) I guess 4$/gal is some kind of tipping point where most people baulk. Now if gas stays down at 2.25 a gallon for awhile the sales will jump back up.

 

[baywax]

Its fun to watch Dodge make 28 mpg look sexy when there are much higher mpg ratings for other makes.

I don't see why oil and others haven't used all their profit to begin preparing for the next accelerant, electric. (fingers crossed)

Electric will get everybody out of each other's backyards and back home, researching the best ways to generate the power that will be needed to replace oil.

 

[russ_watters]

Have U.S. car makers been aware of a way to manufacture highly efficient engines, yet have been held back from this practice by their main supplier of fuel, the oil industry? There's always rumours about that. How would one find out? Freedom of info?

Well, if one already knew some thermodynamics, the simplest way would be to do an efficiency calculation. Then they'd realize that it isn't possible.

But even a non-engineer can apply a little business logic to the situation: how could it be possible for Toyota and GM to be in bed with each other on this issue? Especially since GM is about ready to fold up their tent and go home. If they could squeeze another 5-10% efficiency out of their vehicles without spending too much money or compromising performance, it could just save the company.

If Ford doesn't buy gas, how do they test their engines?

C'mon Baywax, you're better than that. The fuel that Ford buys makes up a small fraction of the cost of the car (most is for transporting the raw materials and finished product). Perhaps 10% But a car owner might spend half as much to fuel a car as it cost to buy it. Thus, it is car owners, not car makers who have by far the bigger impact on the oil market.

 

[russ_watters]

I've never owned an SUV, so I don't know what the attraction is. My guess is that people want the utility of a station wagon, but they don't want to be seen in a station wagon, so they buy a station wagon that has a different, cooler name. And they keep getting bigger because those tiny little SUV's make really crappy station wagons. Perhaps they should have bought mini-van's in the first place.

That's basically it. My parents owned two, starting when I was in middle school or junior high. They just got rid of the second and got a Caddy, but they are lamenting the loss of cargo space.

In the northeast, 4wd and good ground clearance can be legitimate issues as well: They are avid skiiers and up until a few years ago, they owned a townhouse in the pocono mountains.

I see. Its funny how the FDA has no problem getting people to stop making foods with trans-fats yet there is no department for stopping people manufacturing gas-hogs or from buying them.

Efficiency is federally regulated.

 

[Proton Soup]

Car manufacturers also play games to avoid having to meet CAFE standards. The PT Cruiser is a little light-weight station wagon built on the Neon platform. It is classified as a truck so that its fuel economy could be averaged in with Chysler's truck fleet - if you bought a PT Cruiser, you have helped ensure that the fuel consumption of Dodge RAM trucks didn't have to be reduced.

the demise of the station wagon is one of my favorite gripes. i think it was the Carter Era fuel crisis that started it. carburetors were still in style back then, and the big V8 engines in vehicles weren't as efficient as they are today. CAFE required vehicles classed as cars to meet minimum MPG standards, and station wagons were forced out. but middle class folk still needed an all-purpose vehicle to pour all the kids into and pull a boat on the weekend. some put campers on trucks, which were exempt. and then the automakers decided to build the camper into the vehicle, knock out the rear cab wall, and add seating. the replacement of the station wagon is born, the SUV. the politics of the whole thing are funny, too. go look up some graphs at the dept of transportation, and you'll see that SUV sales exploded during the Clinton years. why didn't they just change CAFE if they hated SUVs so much? would be less to complain about i guess. but it would make sense to exempt station wagons in the same way you exempt light trucks because it's impossible to build the trucks as fuel efficient as the wagons. this is because trucks are tall and have a larger front cross-sectional area. build a shorter vehicle with less CSA and you get less drag and higher MPG ratings. but you've got to change CAFE, first.

 

[mgb_phys]

But tax breaks on light trucks like the PT cruiser and Hummer are necessary because they are only driven by small businesses that make up 'real america'.

 

[Proton Soup]

But tax breaks on light trucks like the PT cruiser and Hummer are necessary because they are only driven by small businesses that make up 'real america'.

heh, you mean like doctors and lawyers that can't move their heavy equipment and supplies around without their Escalades?

 

[baywax]

C'mon Baywax, you're better than that. The fuel that Ford buys makes up a small fraction of the cost of the car (most is for transporting the raw materials and finished product). Perhaps 10% But a car owner might spend half as much to fuel a car as it cost to buy it. Thus, it is car owners, not car makers who have by far the bigger impact on the oil market.

What I meant was Ford creates the need for gas by building combustion engines. If the engines got 100 miles to a litre, the gas companies would be selling less gas. Its not hard to imagine a deal between auto/oil to keep the consumption of gas at a nice profitable level.

 

[misgfool]

What I meant was Ford creates the need for gas by building combustion engines. If the engines got 100 miles to a litre, the gas companies would be selling less gas. Its not hard to imagine a deal between auto/oil to keep the consumption of gas at a nice profitable level.

What would Ford gain from such agreement?

 

[baywax]

What would Ford gain from such agreement?

That's not hard to imagine.

 

[brewnog]

If Ford doesn't buy gas, how do they test their engines?

Ford would love to spend less on fuel to develop their products. The fact is, however, that market demands and forecasts dictate what Ford (and all the others) put the bulk of their R&D investment into. To suggest that the engine manufacturers have some cartel with the oil companies is ridiculous.

 

[russ_watters]

What I meant was Ford creates the need for gas by building combustion engines. If the engines got 100 miles to a litre, the gas companies would be selling less gas. Its not hard to imagine a deal between auto/oil to keep the consumption of gas at a nice profitable level.

It is hard to imagine if that deal means they sell only half as many cars and are in danger of going out of business, which is roughly the situation they are in right now.

This would also require collusion among companies across international lines (ie, Ford and Toyota would both have to be in on it, even though the deal is hurting Ford much more than Toyota). It just isn't possible.

That's not hard to imagine. [what Ford could gain]

If your idea is right, what Ford is currently "gaining" is the real possibility of going out of business.

 

[baywax]

Ford would love to spend less on fuel to develop their products. The fact is, however, that market demands and forecasts dictate what Ford (and all the others) put the bulk of their R&D investment into. To suggest that the engine manufacturers have some cartel with the oil companies is ridiculous.

That is your suggestion. But I do see how market demand can keep efficiency performance on a back burner in favour of manufacturing the big, shiny and protective vehicles the consumer seemed to want when gas was as available as air.

 

[baywax]

It is hard to imagine if that deal means they sell only half as many cars and are in danger of going out of business, which is roughly the situation they are in right now.

This would also require collusion among companies across international lines (ie, Ford and Toyota would both have to be in on it, even though the deal is hurting Ford much more than Toyota). It just isn't possible. If your idea is right, what Ford is currently "gaining" is the real possibility of going out of business.

That deal would be beneficial to both parties. More cars; more demand for oil. Cheap oil; more demand for cars. I don't know if the price of oil went up because of speculation like the OPEC head suggested or if it went up because it is getting harder to produce. Its down now and some say that's because demand diminished.

I've been waiting for America to stand up to the auto makers who get the 50 mpg ratings by unveiling their secret gas miser car that delivers on performance and bling. The closest I've seen is the Volt which is very cool. The next would be the Aveos and Waves that resemble Japanese designs but their milage stats are still around 15 mpg lower than the Echo and Yaris or Fit. (As far as I know.)

 

[baywax]

I see that Euro Ford has come up with a winner in my books... the Ka...

Some great specs on MPG etc...

http://www.ford.co.uk/safari/ka/Ka_models/ka_models/-/-/-/-

Trouble is, its only in Europe right now.

 

[mgb_phys]

Why sell them a $10K Ka when you can sell them a $25K Explorer?

 

[russ_watters]

In the US, you can't sell people small cars, so making hybrids is a good compromise.

 

[baywax]

In the US, you can't sell people small cars, so making hybrids is a good compromise.

If protection is the issue, how about a small air bag with wheels?

 

[Topher925]

If protection is the issue, how about a small air bag with wheels?

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.

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.

 

[mgb_phys]

Big cars aren't even safe. 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.

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.
The only time they win is in a head-head with a smaller vehicle - the trouble is that there is always someone bigger than you.

 

[brewnog]

I see that Euro Ford has come up with a winner in my books... the Ka...Some great specs on MPG etc...

The Ka is nothing new. It was introduced 12 years ago. It's not exactly state of the art either. There are dozens of small hatchbacks, most of which now have better fuel economy figures.

 

[mgb_phys]

It's replacement is even better.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/23/british-motor-show-ford-fiesta-econetic-63-5-mpg-us/

 

[Topher925]

Ford actually has a descent line-up for small and economic cars. The only problem is that their CEO's and marketing groups are ran by dipgarbages that are only now planning to bring those cars to the US. For the past 20 years they have just been letting the imports own that share of the market in the US.

 

[mgb_phys]

It's not just Ford pretty much every manufacturer is taking theUS consumer for a ride.

Volkswagon makes a whole range of very nice small cars. In the US the smallest engine I could buy for the Golf is a 2.5L that does <30mpg, in europe I could get diesel versions that do more than twice that. The two smaller models (Polo and Lupo) don't even sell in the US.

 

[brewnog]

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

 

[Topher925]

Not all of us. I drive a civic. European cars break to often.