# Gas-saving advice for y'all



## ToeClaws (Jul 8, 2008)

I noticed in the other car posts, there was a lot of talk about gas mileage - understandable since no one can afford gas anymore.  So, let me share some good advice as a automotive/mechanical enthusiast on saving some money with current gas prices (and this is gonna be a HUGE post).


 First off, I'm not going to mention any gimmickry here, just legitimate facts on saving some funds and how to understand and look at the current situation.  Most of the crazy gadgets and claims to save huge money are nothing but a laughable waste - someone trying to make money off your misfortunes, so don't fall for them.


*Selling Your Vehicle (not so fast!):*

 
Here's the first thing to focus on.  A lot of people right now are trying to ditch big-engined heavy vehicles in favour of smaller more efficient ones.  Before you jump on that band wagon, you need to seriously think about long term benefits here.  If you have a 5 year old Dodge Ram or similar, and lets say its in good shape, don't expect to get very much for it right now.  Most people are doing the same thing you are - trying to save gas, not look for a big old truck.  Many of these large vehicles are selling at WAY under their market value.  What I see people doing all the time is trading in their older big truck or SUV, taking way less than it's worth, then leasing or buying a new or slightly used vehicle that costs even more.  One of my favourites is when some guy cashes in an SUV for a Prius, which runs around $20,000 more than the SUV.  Well... think about that - how many miles are you going to have to drive in the Prius before you use up that $20,000 and break even again?   

 
So before panicking and selling, sit down and figure out how much you drive each week, how much your current vehicle will sell for (aim low, just in case), and how much it will cost to get a replacement.    Given the gas mileage of your old vehicle vs. the new, you may be surprised to find out it can take years of driving before your actually saving money again (if there's a big enough gap in the price).

 
*Tuning up and maintaining your vehicle:*

 
Now here's stuff that can make a HUGE difference, and it doesn't require any gimmicks or expensive changes.  Maintaining your vehicle in good shape mechanically is important.  Modern car engines have more than 40 sensors that have a play on how the engine performs.  Engines are basically giant breathing devices - air goes in, air goes out and that air is used to ignite and harness the power of combustible fuel.  Combustion happens most efficiently at certain air/fuel ratios and temperatures, and all those sensors help make sure all of that is happening at an optimum point.  In older cars, there are no electronic sensors, but things are still mechanically tuned to the right levels to perform the same function.

 
*T**emperature:* Engines are designed to perform at optimal temperatures.  They do this two ways - one is the thermostat, which deals with the flow of coolant to the engine.  When cold, it doesn't let any in so the engine can warm up.  When hot, it lets lots in to keep the engine cool, and so on.  Like any mechanical device, they wear out and can leak or stop working - they should re replaced every so many years.  If you've had your car for years and never had it replaced, have your mechanic check it and possibly do so.  They are not expensive parts for most cars (the labour to have the mechanic do it is probably more than the part).  If you're a bit of a gear head, they're not too hard to replace yourself.  The second thing is the coolant itself.  It consists of a glycol and water mix, often with some anti-corrosion agents in it.  The coolant should be replaced ever few years (usually about 3 to 5 years), and you should always check your levels to make sure you're not low.  Likewise, the radiator that the coolant passes through should be in good condition.  If it's missing a ton of fins from corrosion, it should be replaced because it won't be doing a good job of cooling our engine.  An engine running hot will be inefficient and burn more fuel (not to mention potentially cause damage).

 
*Oil:* This simple stuff is the life blood of your engine.  Most basic and absolutely important rule here... CHANGE IT.  You will here all sorts of stories about how often you should change your oil when using regular vs. synthetic, but here's the simple reality - regardless of what you use, oil sloshes around the engine and like blood, it picks up all the chemicals, contaminants and whatever else is in the engine.  So even if someone says "Oh, that synthetic oil you have doesn't need changing until 10,000 miles" - that's a load of crap.  The oil may not break down because it's synthetic, but it still gets full of the crud in your engine.  All your engine can do is use the oil filter to try and get some of that out, and the filters get filled up pretty quick.  Oil is not really that expensive, and neither is an oil change or filter, so change it every 3000 miles regardless of what you use.  There's another reason for this as well - friction.  All the tiny particulate that collects in old oil reduces its ability to lubricate the engine.  The more friction you have, the harder the engine has to work.  

 
So... synthetic or regular?  Well, as I said above - just changing it regularly along with the filter is what matters most.  But of the two, synthetic is always the better option.  Why?  Well, synthetic oil is much finer at a molecular level.  It has much higher viscosity (basically the ability to lubricate) as well as a much higher viscosity break down temperature.  If you live in a cold winter climate like I do, synthetic oil is a wonderful thing - most of them stay completely viscus (or very thin and liquid like) to as low as -48 degrees C, or -54 F.  If you've ever tried to start a car with normal oil and no block heater at -40... it ain't happening.  With synthetic oil, it's no harder for the engine than summer.  The extra viscosity of synthetic oil does help with gas mileage, though the gains are not gigantic - less than 5%, but over the lifetime of the oil (3000 miles), it does pay for itself, and it's better overall for the long term health of your car's engine.

 
Oil filters come in different flavours too from basic to more advanced ones with embedded oil treatments, finer filter capabilities, or higher flow ratings.  Often with synthetic oil, because it is finer, using finer filter is a good idea, though not necessary.  Avoid using filters with extended use capabilities because you shouldn't be doing anything past 3000 miles anyway, and they don't gain you much for the money.

 
*Fuel:* This is for Octane powered cars, not diesel.  The octane in unleaded gas is what produces the power needed for driving your car around.  You've no doubt noticed that there are more than one kind of fuel out there - often stuff like regular, plus, premium, super - whatever.  The difference is the octane level in the gas.  More regular fuels are 87% octane.  Most cars on the road use this type of fuel.  So why then are there others?  Because of high compression engines.  See, to get more power out of a fancy sports car, the makers of that car increase the pressure that the air/fuel mixture gets squished to in the cylinder before the sparkplug ignites it.  The more compressed the mixture is, the more powerful the result of the explosion.  There's just one problem - gas is volatile; if you compress it too much, it blows up on its own without the sparkplug.  The way around this is to use higher octane percentages, which raise the pressure needed before the fuel can self-ignite.

 
So why does all this matter?  Well one thing gas companies seem to love to do try to convince you to buy their "super" fuel line for more power and cleaner burning engine.  It's a lie - you cannot get more power from it without magically raising your engine's compression.  In fact, you'll get less power, and might even have stall problems.  Gas stations make a slightly higher profit on the premium blends, so of course they want to try and convince people to use them.

 
But there's another catch here too - if you do have a fancy sports car, then you need to check the owners manual to see the minimum octane fuel that you can/should use in your vehicle.  If you fill it with 87 when it suggests at least 91, you may start to notice your engine running rough and even knocking - that's because the gas is sometimes igniting moments before the plug fires, and throwing off engine timing completely.

 
*Ethanol "enhanced" fuels:* Yet another big lie - there's *nothing* "enhanced" about ethanol.  Though it burns cleaner, per volume, than octane, it yields almost half the power.  If the gas station you go to uses say 20% ethanol in their fuel, it means 10% less power and gas mileage for you.  It can also mean some problems in older cars who's sensors cannot understand or change the air fuel ratios for how ethanol burns.  E85 fuel, which you may have heard of, is 85% ethanol, 15% octane and 100% bad idea.  It costs a bit less than normal fuel, but you need a vehicle capable of running on it, plus, you will quickly notice you get 45% less gas mileage when you switch to it.  So suddenly... you need to gas up almost twice as much, and the savings you thought you had go away real quick.  Ethanol is not a viable replacement for octane fuel at this point in time, only a way to waste good farmland on energy crops instead of food for people (and that's a rant in itself).

 
*Tires:* Make sure your wheels are aligned and balanced, but most importantly, are inflated to the correct pressure!  This is one that is probably more overlooked than anything because most people just don't think about the tires.  Tire pressure makes a huge difference on how easy or hard it is for the engine to push or pull the car around.  To understand just how big a difference it makes, try it on your bike.  Most mountain bikes have tire pressures between 40 and 65 PSI (higher than cars).  Try deflating each tire to 15 or 20 PSI and ride around the block.  Then inflate them back to their maximum and ride around the block again.  Bet the second time was WAY easier, right?

 
Same with the car.  Car tires range from about 30 to 50 PSI.  There two different "maximum" pressure ratings to be aware of - the one your manufacture suggests, and the one on the tires.  Which one to you go by?  That depends largely on you notion of comfort.  Manufacturers recommend a maximum pressure based on the weight of the vehicle and it's known handling abilities.  They aim for a pressure that's high enough to be efficient, but low enough to offer some cushioning and comfort.  For most normal vehicles, this is 35 to 39PSI.  The maximum rating on the tire is how much the tire can hold before being unsafe.  It is okay to use that maximum, so long as you understand that it may make the ride feel little more bumpy and jumpy as your tires will be more stiff.

 
*Do NOT* over-inflate the tires beyond their maximum.  In fact, I always aim 3 or 4 PSI below because as they heat up, the air will expand a little.  On that note, remember too that if your inflated your tires to 40 PSI in the 90 degree summer heat, they won't be 40 PSI when it's -20 in the winter.  You should check your tire pressure often.

 
Keeping the tires up near their maximum PSI makes it easier for the car to role along on them, and the easier it is for your engine to push/pull the car, the more gas you'll save.  One other thing I've been asked about in the past on tires is whether big giant rims help.  Simple answer, no, not really.  Big rims can stiffen things up a little, but if they get too big and there's not much tire left between rim and road "you vibrate your teeth out" while driving, as my mechanic likes to say. 

_(Edit - July 9th, next two sections)_
 *Air Filters:* Now, this is more important for older cars than new cars, but is still useful for both.  Air filters do exactly that; filter the dust, bugs, and whatever other small particles are in the air before it gets into the engine.  The longer one is in there, the dirtier it gets, and the harder it is for the engine to suck air through it.  Most filters will recommend how often to change them, and it can vary between every 5000 miles to 20,000 miles.   But you know what?  Filters are cheap, especially if you just buy normal ones.  I mean, real cheap, so I have a different rule - I change them ever year.

So, why is this better in old cars than new cars?  Well, classic cars use carburettors to mix the fuel and air in the correct rations for combustion.  A carburettor is a wondrous piece of mechanical engineering, but it lacks the ability to adapt to changes in air flow and density.  It just does what it's set to do.  As an air filter gets dirtier on a classic car, less air is pulled in, but the carburettor doesn't understand this - it just mixes stuff at the ratio it's set to do, so your car begins to run rich, which means it's mixing more gas than air in the ratio.  When combustion happens, it doesn't burn all the gas.  You get less power, and you get that nasty gas smell out the tailpipe.  Less power means you use more throttle, subtly so, to keep the car at speed, eventually using up more fuel.  Over time, this can also lead to nasty carbon deposits in the cylinders.

On moderately old cars from the 80s which had basic fuel injection, the same story still applies - the first generation of injectors weren't much smarter than a carburettor.

For new cars, the computers and sensors that come before and after the injector are smart enough to detect the drop in air quantity and adjust the fuel mixture accordingly.  This keeps combustion as efficient as possible, but still results in power loss, and thus loss of fuel efficiency.  It's not as dramatic as in an older car, but it's still valid

There are basically three categories of filters out there - normal paper ones which are disposable, oil-treated paper or material, which are disposable, an reusable oil/material ones.  The price goes up accordingly.  Paper filters will run you $5 to $15 for most vehicles.  They do the least effective job in trapping particles, but are very cheap.  Oil-treated paper/material disposable ones are not as common, and cost about 80% more than the paper ones, but they last longer and do a much better job at trapping particles while also allowing through more air.  Sidenote: The easier your engine can breath, the more power you get.  The reusable ones are usually a special material that you can wash and then spray with a special oil.  They work the best, trapping the most particles while letting the most air pass through.  They can be reused over a hundred times, often lasting as long (or longer) than the vehicle.  They cost a lot up front - $50 to $100, but once you get it, all you have to do is buy a recharge kit (about $12) and those last for a good 20 to 30 reconditions.  I use that type of filter in my truck. 

*Location (Carburetted vehicles only):* If you own a classic or use a tweaked engine with a carburettor, where you live an drive can also be an important factor in fuel economy.  As I mentioned above, Carburettors cannot adapt to the environment.  They are set by a mechanic to mix air and fuel in the correct ratio based on the air the mechanic had around him at the time.  If that was set when the owner had it in a place like Louisiana where the air is dense near sea level, and then eventually the car ends up in the Rockies somewhere, it's going to be getting terrible gas mileage because the air is much thinner in the Rockies.  Carburettors have to be adjusted to match their surroundings.  In fact, if you really want to squeeze mileage out of your car, you might even have your mechanic adjust it two or three times a year to match the changing seasons in more extreme climates like the northern states - remember, cold air is denser than hot air.  None of this applies to modern cars with computerized injectors because the computer can make these adjustments on the fly.

*On the Road:*

 
Next, there's actually driving.  How you drive and where you drive does make a big difference in fuel economy as well, both in and out of town:

 
*In Town:* Unless you drive a hybrid, you will always get far worse gas mileage in town.  This is because you are constantly starting and stopping to get to your destination.  That makes the engine rev up and down a lot, which is very inefficient.  

 
Some simple tips to save on gas in town start with the obvious: Do you really have to drive?  Seriously... if it's less than 10km or 6m, why not bike?  As soon as the snow's off the road, I'm on my bike for general commuting in town.  Saves me hundreds of dollars in gas each year (and makes for nice thighs  ).  If you do have to drive, know the route, check for any detours or known traffic issues and avoid them, and try to take a route with as few stops as possible.  The less you have to slow down and speed up, the easier your engine is on fuel.  Watch the traffic not only in front of you, but far up the road too - if you see a light turn red in the distance, relax a bit on the throttle, especially if you're still accelerating - no point racing up to speed only to jam on the brakes again.  And this should go without saying but lighten the load!  If you have 200lbs of crap in the trunk, get rid of it!  Extra weight just means the engine needs to work harder.  If you want to appreciate that more - strap a 60lb weight to your bike and ride it around the block again.  Now you know how the car feels. 

 
*Don't idle:* This is another potential saver but does has some gotcha's (thanks to LunaticMoth for pointing it out).  Idling costs money because it does burn gas while sitting and doing nothing.  If you're going to wait for someone in a parking lot or outside someone's house or are at a long, long stop light, then turning off the vehicle will stop burning through gas.  As LunaticMoth pointed out, one concern though is the starter.  All engines have a small electric motor called the starter who's sole job is exactly that - start the main engine by turning it around a few times to make the combustion process happen.  Like any mechanical part, the starter has a limited life and will one day wear out and need to be replaced.  Some cars have weak starters that burn easily, others have tough ones that can last quite a while.  Since you probably don't know what you have, it's best to use some common sense with turning off instead of idling.  I think a reasonable time frame is a couple minutes or more.  Exceptionally long lights, or usually waiting in parking lots or driveways are where you'll be sitting idle for a few minutes.  They don't happen as often, but why waste the gas if you're just gonna sit in a driveway waiting for someone for 5 minutes?  Remember too that if you do turn off the engine that when you start it back up to put it back in gear.  If you try this at a light, then stay mindful of when the light is going to change so you're not busy starting up and getting in gear when you should be going.

 
*C**onsolidate trips:* Rather than hopping in the car and doing a bunch of different trips throughout the week or day, plan them, and do as many as you can at once.  A friend of mine was very bad for this and I pointed it out to her.  After consolidating her trips, her weekly mileage was cut in less than half of what it used to be.  That's a huge difference.

 
*Out of Town:* Highway driving tends to be a lot more efficient than the city because you aren't stopping much, and you're working your engine closer to it's optimal RPM (revolutions per minute).  All combustion engines have a certain RPM where they are operating at peak efficiency - that is, they're getting the most out of the gas going through them.  Not surprisingly, car manufactures make sure that this certain rpm happens to be reached right around highway speeds.

 
If you have a cruise control, use it - it will keep your vehicle at a consistent speed, and avoid over-working the throttle.  Trying to manually hold a vehicle at speed often has more variances in speed and is thus not as efficient unless you're paying very close attention to what you're doing.

 
*DON'T SPEED* - by far the single biggest help for your wallet.  As I said, cars are designed to be most efficient at a certain rpm.  They achieve this via their transmissions which allow the engine to spin at just the right speed within a very narrow range of highway speeds.  The happy zone for modern cars is 55 to 70 mph.  That's it.  Even if you have a 5 speed auto, or 6 speed manual, you will still get your best mileage with most cars in that range.  If you have an old/classic car, then you may only have a 2 or 3 speed automatic, or 3 to 4 speed manual.  Classic cars generally are most efficient at 45 to 55mph (which historically also makes sense since overall speed limits were lower then).

 
If you're in a hurry to get somewhere, leave earlier.  Fuel economy begins to drop steeply the further away you get from that happy speed, especially if you have a lower number of gears.  If you don't have to take a major highway, take the smaller country or side roads.  I rarely use the main highways in Ontario (called the 400 series).  They are busy, and overly fast.  The speed limit is 100km/h, or about 62mph, but everyone drives at least 115km/h (71mph), some do 140+ (87+mph).  If you try to drive at 100, you feel like you're standing still.  Instead, I use country roads, which have speed limits of 80 to 90km/h (50 to 56mph).  Yeah, it takes a little longer, but the drive is far more interesting - way more scenery, way less people on the road, and much better gas mileage.  When I had my old car, I avoided the main highways completely because the fuel economy was vastly better on the smaller roads.


Lastly, there's the old saying that using the AC is hard on gas.  There's _some_ truth to that... _some_, but not much.  Running the AC does require a little additional muscle from the engine.  In classic cars, it tends to be the least efficient, and in modern cars it's much better, but in either case, it's not a gigantic drain.  In fact, one thing people used to think was better was to just roll down all the windows and drive like that instead.  Truth is, that actually uses more gas the using the AC because of all the drag you create by allowing the air rush into the cabin and create turbulence instead of flowing around it.  Again, the losses either way are not tremendous, so rather than sacrifice comfort, use the AC.

_(Edit - July 8th)_
*Hyper-miling:* Simple advice here - *don't do this*.  It's a new thing that's cropping up that takes squeezing fuel economy out of a vehicle to a dangerous extreme.  Gutting out parts of the interior, shutting off the engine while coasting down hills or to a stop and all the other kooky things this trend suggests will save you gas, BUT... will probably also get you killed.  And anyone you smash into when you realize you can't stop or steer your car properly without hydraulic assist.  Plus, the extreme times they suggst to accelerate and deccelerate will not only annoy other drivers, but will likely cause traffic jams behind you.  Very dumb and irresponsible way to save gas.  



--fin-- 



 So there you go - a bunch of the things that I can think of to help shave a few bucks off of the cost of using your cars.  The era of cheap gas we once knew is gone, and I very much doubt it will ever come back, so anything to help us save a bit is a good thing.   Hope this helps guys.


----------



## Takun (Jul 8, 2008)

Don't drive.

Done >:3


----------



## Echo_wulf (Jul 8, 2008)

^.^ some of this stuff i knew before thank hou very much cuz there are a few very important things i didnt know


----------



## Drakkenmensch (Jul 8, 2008)

I get around by BMW.

That's Bus-Metro-Walking


----------



## amtrack88 (Jul 8, 2008)

Thats very good advice. Shame I live in the tarmac paradise known Los Angeles and it's pure Gridlock at bad hours. I drive an Acura that recommends Premium, but doesn't require it. Using 87 has been just fine.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 8, 2008)

Glad it can/might help guys.  Yeah - living in a HUGE city can be a problem.  If you're fortunate, some of them, like Toronto, have excellent transit systems and you don't need to use (or sometimes even own) a car.  But many have half-ass transit.  Only thing that can help you there is a smaller car and smaller engine, or (one day) an electric car.  I'd say use a bicycle, but I'm guessing that would be suicide in LA?

Oh yeah, thought of something else I should mention - will edit the main post.


----------



## capthavoc123 (Jul 8, 2008)

Ride a bike.


----------



## Ty Vulpine (Jul 8, 2008)

Drakkenmensch said:


> I get around by BMW.
> 
> That's Bus-Metro-Walking



Or carpooling.


----------



## Nylak (Jul 8, 2008)

*raises hand*  Ooh!  Ooh!  Get a motorcycle!  XD  I'm required by my job to have a diesel-guzzling monstrosity (horrible F-250 that's older than me with a stock trailer attached; if I get 10 MPG I'd be amazed), so I rely on either a bike or a motorcycle when I'm not on the clock, depending on road conditions and distance.  XD  I'm so glad I don't live in a huge city; I'd be dead by now.  >_>  Otterroadwaffle.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Jul 8, 2008)

Ride a 50cc scooter, I get 148 miles to the gallon ( I did the math). And its a 2stroke, a 4 stroke may get around 160-180mpg.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 8, 2008)

Heh - "ride a bike" is one of the suggestions I made.  I personally ride everywhere I can whenever I can.  It's not only cheaper, it's better for me and non polluting. 

As for the motorcycle/scooter - those are also excellent ideas so long as the weather co-operates.  Though one thing to mention - a 2 stroke engine is very polluting.  That little scooter probably puts out more pollution than a full size car.  2 stroke engines are slowly being phased out or even outlawed in some places.  Definitely does save gas though.


----------



## EmpusaVampirebat (Jul 8, 2008)

Sadly, I need my car, which is a small car anyways, for work. I do a lot of driving other than work. But I still use 40 bucks to fill up, which is killing us. I'm trying talk our company into getting us a credit card for gas only, but they are cheap asses. D: The one thing I hate about California, is how expensive it is to live here. 

I can't afford any of those hybrid cars, otherwise, I'd get one.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Jul 8, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> Heh - "ride a bike" is one of the suggestions I made.  I personally ride everywhere I can whenever I can.  It's not only cheaper, it's better for me and non polluting.
> 
> As for the motorcycle/scooter - those are also excellent ideas so long as the weather co-operates.  Though one thing to mention - a 2 stroke engine is very polluting.  That little scooter probably puts out more pollution than a full size car.  2 stroke engines are slowly being phased out or even outlawed in some places.  Definitely does save gas though.



You'd be surprised of how clean this 2stroke is, It is cleaner than a car but it still kinda dirty. The only reason why 2strokes are allowed here is because they have (here in EU at least) a system which cleans the exhaust. After the exhaust leaves the cylinder it comes into a small chamber, where are is pumped in and the gases burn, and then they run through a catalysator and then out the exhaust pipe.


----------



## desiring_change (Jul 8, 2008)

I was going to say don't listen to draft-dodging politicians and civilian columnists when they insist that invading Middle Eastern countries is going to bring down the price of oil, but everybody fell for that one already.


----------



## Hybrid Project Alpha (Jul 8, 2008)

I ride a bike. It's fun, cheap, gets you anywhere you need to go, and it's good for you and the environment.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 8, 2008)

Ishnuvalok - yes, the catalytic system dramatically reduces the pollution from the 2 stroke over open exhaust (or straight pipe as it's sometimes called).  That is a requirement on pretty much anything other than a lawnmower nowadays, still of all the engine types the 2 stroke is cursed to be the least friendly by the nature of it's design.  BUT, on the upside, at 50cc, it's so small, it's pretty much insignificant anyway.

EmpusaVampirebat - hybrids seem like a good idea, but in the long run they aren't  In fact, I consider them to be less environmentally friendly than big truck.  Before everyone goes a "OMGWTF!?" on me for that comment, I'll explain.  The environmental "friendliness" of a vehicle has to be something we think about from the very start - that is, it's progression from raw materials into a finished car, it's useful life, maintenance, then eventually it's disposal.  Hybrids are not good on nearly all accounts.  They require more resources to build and more energy to create because they have both conventional and electric drive systems, as well as far more complex computers to manage them.  They place a greater strain on the economy in terms of raw meterials, especially on things like copper.  

Though they get vastlly better gas mileage, the one thing no dealer will tell you is that you can only enjoy that for about 4 to 5 years.  After that time, the batteries will need to be serviced.  Depending on the type they used, it could mean refilling them, or completely replacing them.  Deep cycle sealed batteries are _not _cheap.  A lot of people in a few years are going to be doing some jaw-drops at the dealers when they take their Prius in to see why it's been running so bad of late.

Then comes the eventual time around 10 to 15 years after it's built that most people will be ready to scrap them.  Well you can't just drag a hybrid to the scrap yard because they have to dispose of all the batteries.  All the electric engines and electronics have to be properly disposed of as well, all of this is considered hazzardous waste.  THEN, you can scrap what's left.  

Apart from that, there's other things to consider as well - if you get into an accident in one and the batteries are ruptured, that basically creates a toxic acid spill on the road - that has to get cleaned up.  That can also further injure the people in the car or in the cars that were hit.  Then there's the other wee issue - the extra 30% it costs to actually _buy_ the hybrid in the first place - that 30% more you pay could easily pay for 4 to 5 years of gas in a compact normal car that doesn't come with all these issues.

The ideology of a hybrid is good, and I'm glad to see manufactures starting to embrace a more green approach to vehicles, but the current offerings are a long way from being "green".  They're really just marketing gimmicks that will, at least, help fund the next generation of green vehicles that will be more realistic.  About the only way you can affordably own and drive a hybrid without all the cost concerns is to lease one for a few years - then the maintenance costs are at least not your problem. 

Some of the most affordable vehicles, taking the whole picture into account, are things like the Toyota Yaris, Honda Fit, Dodge Calibre, Kia Rio and similar small cars.  Not exactly glorious muscle cars, BUT, they are affordable and practical, and most come with great warrenties nowadays.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 8, 2008)

desiring_change said:


> I was going to say don't listen to draft-dodging politicians and civilian columnists when they insist that invading Middle Eastern countries is going to bring down the price of oil, but everybody fell for that one already.



*chuckles* Yeah, that won't change anything.  Oil prices, supply and demand is a _whole_ other educational post.


----------



## net-cat (Jul 8, 2008)

If you have a manual transmission:

1. Compression braking is _not_ your friend.
2. Also, I don't know how much gas it actually saves, but there's nothing to say you can't coast down a hill if it's steep enough to keep your speed up.

(Any other tricks I can do would be welcome...)


----------



## TheGreatCrusader (Jul 8, 2008)

I take the subway... Everyday. I ride in the car about once a week.

Doesn't apply to me. Subway fees aren't being hiked up because of high gas prices.


----------



## Furthlingam (Jul 8, 2008)

Date somebody in your neighborhood?


----------



## Kyoujin (Jul 9, 2008)

.. Yeh, I'm guilty of the speeding thing.. >> Hey, I can't help it.. the speedometer registers 160.. it taunts me! ;[ Heh heh.. I was WONDERing why my gas went by so fast. ;[ Jk.

Surprisingly otherwise, the Z isn't too bad on gas for a V6. I'd rather be bicycling, but I'm out in the middle of no where.. town is about 35ish miles away. x-X


----------



## Zaelfoxxie (Jul 9, 2008)

or you could easly get a 100 -200$ hydrogen conversion to your car and get about 60-80Mpg

also turning your car off at stop signs is a bad idea for some cars like mine it takes more gas to start it then idol at a light for  5 min


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 9, 2008)

Kyoujin - I know what you mean - having always owned V8 powered cars/trucks, I like speed and getting up to it quickly.  Learning to drive gently was hard... still is really, but it does help with mileage - particularly with V8s.

Zaelfoxxie - Hydrogen is yet another problem with future-cars, or rather, the process of how we get it.  Remember to think about the whole process when it comes to being energy efficient.  Hydrogen burns 100% clean, BUT... how do you get hydrogen?  It doesn't just exist in a big cloud somewhere, so it has to be made.  The current process for doing so is a process called electrolysis. 

The problem with electrolysis is that it takes quite a bit of electricity and time to separate the hydrogen and oxygen molecules from water so that you can have your hydrogen.   In fact, it takes so much power that if everyone had hydrogen cars, we'd need to more than double the amount of power plants in the world to produce more electricity to keep making the hydrogen.  How do we make electricity?  Natural gas, coal-fired plants (which thankfully are slowly going away), nuclear reactors, solar, wind and hydroelectric plants.  

So you see, there's a bit of a larger effect to consider when hydrogen is the fuel of choice.  But there's even more than the power issues to be aware of.  Another is containment.  The only way to carry large amounts of hydrogen with you is to compress it into a liquid and store it in a tank.  So... imagine your car's fuel tank being not just a tank holding liquid at ambient temperature, but one holding a highly pressurized fluid that's âˆ’252.87Â°C (âˆ’423.17 Â°F), which if ruptured will instantly begin to boil and vapourize, all the while being an extremely flamable gas.  That said, they do their best to make sure the tanks that hold the liquid hydrogen are much, MUCH better than a normal gas tank, but it doesn't eliminate the possibility of a tank rupture in an accident.

There's also the environmental impact.  Yes hydrogen burns 100% clean, but what is the chemical byproduct of a hydrogen and oxygen reaction?  Water.  So imagine if nearly every car and truck on the road was spitting out water vapour from the tail pipe.  The average car today produces 4 tons of Carbon Dioxide a year, the main gas resulting from combustion, so a hydrogen car would likely be about the same except in water vapour.  Now... how many millions of cars are there just in North America?  That's a LOT of water vapour.  It would very likely change weather patterns on the continent (though I'm no meteorologist, so I am taking a guess on that one).

I'm not sure what the future will present as a viable solution to oil-based fuel.  If I had to take a guess, I'd say electric vehicles will probably be the one of choice, but only if they can find vastly more efficient batteries than the ones we have today.


----------



## eternal_flare (Jul 9, 2008)

Well done, I mean in details.
This is worth reading despite its length^^


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 9, 2008)

eternal_flare said:


> Well done, I mean in details.
> This is worth reading despite its length^^



Thanks.  I am a writer after all.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 9, 2008)

Shoot - just remembered a couple more things to mention - air filters and tips for anyone that uses carburetted cars.  Will add in the original post with a marked tag before.


----------



## Cero (Jul 9, 2008)

one word (i think..): mo-ped. These things get over 70mpg, I totally want one.


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Jul 9, 2008)

Cero said:


> one word (i think..): mo-ped. These things get over 70mpg, I totally want one.



Mine gets 148mpg.  you can get even better with a 4stroke moped. I know a friends that goes over 200 miles on one gallon.


----------



## Zaelfoxxie (Jul 10, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> Kyoujin - I know what you mean - having always owned V8 powered cars/trucks, I like speed and getting up to it quickly.  Learning to drive gently was hard... still is really, but it does help with mileage - particularly with V8s.
> 
> Zaelfoxxie - Hydrogen is yet another problem with future-cars, or rather, the process of how we get it.  Remember to think about the whole process when it comes to being energy efficient.  Hydrogen burns 100% clean, BUT... how do you get hydrogen?  It doesn't just exist in a big cloud somewhere, so it has to be made.  The current process for doing so is a process called electrolysis.
> 
> ...




i know all this but im talking about having a gas/hyrdrogen car you can get the addaption for about 150$ its simple to install and you dont need to by hydrogen cause the adaption makes it its self of the power that your car is generating. thus adding about 30-40 miles per gallon of gas


----------



## Ares Dauphin (Jul 10, 2008)

Kyoujin said:


> .. Yeh, I'm guilty of the speeding thing.. >> Hey, I can't help it.. the speedometer registers 160.. it taunts me! ;[ Heh heh.. I was WONDERing why my gas went by so fast. ;[ Jk.
> 
> Surprisingly otherwise, the Z isn't too bad on gas for a V6. I'd rather be bicycling, but I'm out in the middle of no where.. town is about 35ish miles away. x-X



Used to speed here in Ontario till one night I got caught doing 150 in an 80 (KPH, not MPH). Took me over a year to get it over with, and it cost me over 2,000$ and most of the points on my license. 

Now they have an instituted over 50 /kph over? 10,000$ fine and your car is confiscated rule. 

Damn am I glad I didn't have to deal with that.

Just don't get slammed by dick cops like I did.


----------



## FrisbeeRolf (Jul 10, 2008)

Cero said:


> one word (i think..): mo-ped. These things get over 70mpg, I totally want one.


Bikes period are a good choice.  My dad's racing bike gets 50 something mpg, and he was bitching when he said it cost him 14$ to fill that thing up.   This is a racing bike I'm talking about now, has to have premium fuel, top speed of 200 mph, 0-to-60 in the blink of an eye, ect. 

I wish I could just bike (regular, not motor) to work, but if I tried to bike to work it would take me 5 hours to get there.  Plus bikes aren't allowed on the major highways.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 10, 2008)

Heh - to everyone talking about bikes, mopeds, scooters and such - yes, those are definitely ways to save gas as well.  I wrote this up mainly to help explain ways to do it with existing vehicles, though some of those suggestions will help you get better mileage on a motorbike or scooter too. 



Ares Dauphin said:


> Used to speed here in Ontario till one night I
> got caught doing 150 in an 80 (KPH, not MPH). Took me over a year to get it over with, and it cost me over 2,000$ and most of the points on my license.
> 
> Now they have an instituted over 50 /kph over? 10,000$ fine and your car is confiscated rule.
> ...



Ouch... that's some serious speeding.  Yeah, I have a friend that used to drive 175km/h all the time, but after enough tickets and demerit points, he thankfully stopped.  Though his reasoning for stopping was actually that he got married and become a Dad - he didn't want to risk dying when he had kids. :?

Besides, at high speeds like that, your gas mileage is gonna bad BAD.  Just take country roads and enjoy the scenery - much nicer than a high speed drive. 



Zaelfoxxie said:


> i know all this but im talking about having a gas/hyrdrogen car you can get the addaption for about 150$ its simple to install and you dont need to by hydrogen cause the adaption makes it its self of the power that your car is generating. thus adding about 30-40 miles per gallon of gas



Ahhhh, okay - yes, those are a different sort of beast altogether than a pure hydrogen car.  

For the benefit of others, hydrogen hybrids are a neat idea.  They work be using your engine's electricity (via the alternator) to create hydrogen via electrolysis and store it to be used along with octane for combustion in your engine.   Because of the power required to produce it and the comparatively small amount you get as a result, this doesn't give you 10 times the mileage or anything, rather more like a 20 to 30% increase, BUT hey... that's still a lot!

They're also a much safer solution than pure hydrogen cars.  As I mentioned before, the liquid hydrogen is stored at very high pressures (about 10,000 PSI) to remain a liquid, but in a hydrogen hybrid, the tank (which is also much smaller) only stores it at around 60 PSI, or about the same as a bike tire.

The drawback is that it requires a retrofit to an existing engine to add the gas generation and storage system, as well as feeds that go into the fuel injectors.  The Computers in the engine have to be re-flashed to deal with hydrogen in the air fuel mixture, and exhaust manifolds and pipes have to be converted to stainless steel to deal with the increased water vapour the technology produces.  Most of the ones I've seen though have rung in around $6000 for the conversion.  $150 seems awfully cheap for such a complex change to the engine. :/


----------



## Zaelfoxxie (Jul 10, 2008)

it depends on witch way you go with it just having the hydrogen pumped into the air intake will do the job this way you dont need to get all technical about it and dont have to mess with anycomputer or anything to complelx and i know it works cause my uncle has it and has had no problems .. ercept having to fliter a bunch of water to keep the plates clean XD


----------



## thebeast76 (Jul 11, 2008)

CARS YOU DON'T WANT FOR GAS MILEAGE
2000 Chevrolet Suburban 1500
2006 Lamborghini Murcielago
HUMMER ANYTHING


----------



## sablelieger (Jul 11, 2008)

MY advice is to swap your regular paper media filter with a K&N reusable filter. It costs arounf $45 for most vehicles and can be washed and reused, plus it has a 100,000 mile warranty on it. 

Also, change your oil every 3000 miles; not 3500 miles or 5000 miles; EVERY 3000 MILES. I agree with keeping the pressure on your tires to factory specs; overinflating them will cause premature wear on your tire and underinflating them will cause you to burn more gas turning those tires.

Check your engine fluids once a week; brake fluid, power steering fluid, AT fluid and top them off to spec, without these vital fluids, your engine and transmission will wear out faster and you will waste gas.

Oh and don;t be a "Stop & Go" driver; sudden acceleration and decceleration will waste even more gas; try coasting to a stop and slowly accelerating, use cruise control more often and try not to go over 3500 RPMs when shifting gears (on manual transmissions).

Also, look at other options like carpooling, using public transportation, bike rides or walking.

Every little helps.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 11, 2008)

sablelieger said:


> *snip* Awesome advice



Aye!  Some excellent additional points.  I added the air filter stuff to the original post a couple nights ago and said much the same about a good air filter.  Love my K&N filter as well. 

Sablelieger's point about checking things weekly is excellent, I neglected to mention that - you should always check the operational condition of the vehicle on a weekly basis.  It only takes 4 or 5 minutes to do, but being able to correct a problem when it's a small problem is a lot better than waiting until it becomes a big problem or a costly problem.

Another good suggestion is to learn about how cars work in general - the important things to know about the engine's fluids and parts, and how to maintain the various elements of your car that matter on a day to day basis.  One excellent book I can recommend is "How to Repair your Car" by Motorshop Workbooks:

http://www.amazon.com/How-Repair-Yo...r_1_78?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1215779642&sr=1-78

It's written so that there is useful information for both people who know nothing about cars, as well as gear heads who maybe just need a few extra details to add to their knowledge.


----------



## Temarinyo (Jul 11, 2008)

go buy a prius lol


----------



## Zaelfoxxie (Jul 11, 2008)

Temarinyo said:


> go buy a prius lol



Iiiiiiiiiiiimmmmmmmgaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy


ahomohomohomohomo


LAWLS

gay joke sorry


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 11, 2008)

Temarinyo said:


> go buy a prius lol



Actually not necessarily a good idea, explained in my first post on page 2. 

Besides, if you can afford to buy a Prius (that is, have the money without incurring a loss or debt above the one you currently have), then the cost of gassing up can't be that big a concern.


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 12, 2008)

Im not sure if this was said due to l suck at reading big posts lol.

Allways fill your car up in the morning or late at night due to the underground tanks at the servos will heat up during the day and the fuel will expand and you will be basically pumping fumes rather them fuel.
DONT squeeze the trigger too hard as that will also suck up more fumes then fuel.

Basically take your time while filling it up as you will get a lot more fuel for you dollar then. EG. Midday fill up costed me around $45AUD and that was while l rushed it, while 1am fill up costed me $37AUD as the fuel was cooler and less fumes (l filled my car up when it just above 1/4 tank left)


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 12, 2008)

Warrigal said:


> Im not sure if this was said due to l suck at reading big posts lol.
> 
> Allways fill your car up in the morning or late at night due to the underground tanks at the servos will heat up during the day and the fuel will expand and you will be basically pumping fumes rather them fuel.
> DONT squeeze the trigger too hard as that will also suck up more fumes then fuel.
> ...



May be true in Oz, but not for us in Canada or in the US.  In Canada and US, gasoline is volume corrected to 15 degrees Celsius so that it is consistent no matter what time of day or night you pump it.  The extraction pumps are also designed to eliminate the presence of air in the hose to eliminate fumes being measured as part of the volume you're billed for. I think the oil companies here wisened up to that old trick a long time ago. Pity.


----------



## thebeast76 (Jul 12, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> Actually not necessarily a good idea, explained in my first post on page 2.
> 
> Besides, if you can afford to buy a Prius (that is, have the money without incurring a loss or debt above the one you currently have), then the cost of gassing up can't be that big a concern.



A Prius is NOT a good idea. I had a friend who did a little research on the Prius, and the cost to replace those batteries from their drive system? 

$5000


----------



## Warrigal (Jul 12, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> May be true in Oz, but not for us in Canada or in the US.  In Canada and US, gasoline is volume corrected to 15 degrees Celsius so that it is consistent no matter what time of day or night you pump it.  The extraction pumps are also designed to eliminate the presence of air in the hose to eliminate fumes being measured as part of the volume you're billed for. I think the oil companies here wisened up to that old trick a long time ago. Pity.



LOL like normal OZ is way behind the world in everything ^_^


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 12, 2008)

thebeast76 said:


> A Prius is NOT a good idea. I had a friend who did a little research on the Prius, and the cost to replace those batteries from their drive system?
> 
> $5000



Yes - mentioned that on my page 2 post about hybrids.  So that's the actual cost eh?  Ouch.  Like buying a new engine. :/  I should mention too that each time you buy new batteries, their expected service life is 4 to 6 years.


----------



## Ozzie (Jul 12, 2008)

*THIS IS LOVE.*





That's my gas-saving advice. I'm getting 40-45 mpg and _no you do not need to use premium gas!_


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 12, 2008)

Ozzie said:


> *THIS IS LOVE.*
> That's my gas-saving advice. I'm getting 40-45 mpg and _no you do not need to use premium gas!_



I thought the idea of the Smart was good until I saw the price.  Factually speaking, though they do get good gas mileage, for the same price you can buy a few other compacts with a lot more room and the same sort of gas mileage.  Smart is a division of Mercedes as well, so maintenance costs on them are higher than more common American, Japanese and Korean makes.  Cost of ownership over the life of one is a little higher than that of a normal sized compact.

Personally speaking (IE, my own opinion): I'm also a big fan of HUGE vehicles - never had a small one, not sure I can bring myself to do so.  Don't feel safe at all in them.  I was shocked when those first came out to see them on the highways - no WAY I'd drive something that tiny on the highway, heh.  You are far braver than I.


----------



## Ozzie (Jul 12, 2008)

Well, I couldn't find a better car for less than my Smart. Also, the Smart stands up extremely well to crashes, as you can see on YouTube. It has what basically amounts to a roll cage. It got the highest rating for front and side impacts and the average rating for rear impacts.

Different people need different cars. I hate big cars. I don't even like being in them, let alone driving them. I'm much more afraid of rolling over in an SUV than I am of getting crushed in my little Smart. :3


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 12, 2008)

Ozzie said:


> Well, I couldn't find a better car for less than my Smart. Also, the Smart stands up extremely well to crashes, as you can see on YouTube. It has what basically amounts to a roll cage. It got the highest rating for front and side impacts and the average rating for rear impacts.
> 
> Different people need different cars. I hate big cars. I don't even like being in them, let alone driving them. I'm much more afraid of rolling over in an SUV than I am of getting crushed in my little Smart. :3



*chuckles* I'm the opposite - family says I have my grandpa in me in that I like HUGE cars.  No car on the market today is even big enough for my tastes.  I'd be in heaven if someone could make an 18 foot long or more tank that got 100mpg. :roll:

I saw the crash tests for the Smart and was really surprised how well it held up.  Naturally, being someone that's only ever owned V8 powered cars, I can't help but think how cool it'd be if they shoved a V8 in one of those things. :mrgreen:


----------



## Ozzie (Jul 12, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> *chuckles* I'm the opposite - family says I have my grandpa in me in that I like HUGE cars.  No car on the market today is even big enough for my tastes.  I'd be in heaven if someone could make an 18 foot long or more tank that got 100mpg. :roll:
> 
> I saw the crash tests for the Smart and was really surprised how well it held up.  Naturally, being someone that's only ever owned V8 powered cars, I can't help but think how cool it'd be if they shoved a V8 in one of those things. :mrgreen:



That would be interesting. The car already has AMAZING pickup with just three cylinders. 

My grandpa was a mechanic. He's retired now, but still builds cars. He'd flip if he saw my car. XD


----------



## Ishnuvalok (Jul 12, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> *chuckles* I'm the opposite - family says I have my grandpa in me in that I like HUGE cars.  No car on the market today is even big enough for my tastes.  I'd be in heaven if someone could make an 18 foot long or more tank that got 100mpg. :roll:
> 
> I saw the crash tests for the Smart and was really surprised how well it held up.  Naturally, being someone that's only ever owned V8 powered cars, I can't help but think how cool it'd be if they shoved a V8 in one of those things. :mrgreen:



They've stuffed a Hayabusa engine into one though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8KdtuBBLM


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 12, 2008)

Ishnuvalok said:


> They've stuffed a Hayabusa engine into one though.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h8KdtuBBLM



*laughs* Nice - CAThulu and I just watched at - she said "I wanna see one of those with NOS."   I don't think the Death Medal was a good choice in music for a video with Smart Cars though. :roll:


----------



## sablelieger (Jul 13, 2008)

Temarinyo said:


> go buy a prius lol


 
And sell my 350Z? :-|

NEVER!!! :twisted:


----------



## LunaticMoth (Jul 13, 2008)

_*Don't idle:* Another good one for in-town. People often don't even think about how often they sit and idle when waiting in a parking lot, a drive through window, or at a stop light. Why sit there sucking back gas if you don't need to? Most modern vehicles start quickly on the first turn of the key (so too should an old one if it's tuned up well). If you know you're gonna be stuck at a stop light for a while, put the vehicle in neutral (or park) and turn it off. Just remember to keep an eye on the light and start back up (and get back in gear) before your light turns green. I started doing this a while back, and it really becomes second nature after a while. When you drive a vehicle with a big engine like mine, this is all the more important than small engines because more gas is consumed in idling.

_This is the only part I question...I used to do this, as did my dad. We both had new cars. We both went through _multiple_ starters and finally the repair shop manager told us, For The Love Of God Stop That--it tears up your starter to turn the car on and off so frequently. Turn the car off int the parking lot if you must, but don't do it at stop lights (because, inevitably, that's ALWAYS where the starter failed, and believe me, having to push a car all the way to the side of the road from the middle lane of a 4-lane intersection in Atlanta is NOT. FUN.

ETA: In addition, there are still plenty of feul-efficient cars out there that are reasonable, especially if you're willing to take it to the wire to haggle the suckers down. My boyfriend and I bought a brand new, loaded Hyundei Elantra SE last month for $15.3K. $250 a month, 5.9APR, and we're getting an average of 34mpg so far. Sweet deal, but we had to lock horns with two dealerships and pit them against each other to get that price. It made them hate us, but man is it worth it.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 13, 2008)

sablelieger said:


> And sell my 350Z? :-|
> 
> NEVER!!! :twisted:



*laughs* Yeah, hold on to that thing - that's a sweet car.  Besides, they get pretty decent mileage anyway, don't they?



LunaticMoth said:


> _
> _This is the only part I question...I used to do this, as did my dad. We both had new cars. We both went through _multiple_ starters and finally the repair shop manager told us, For The Love Of God Stop That--it tears up your starter to turn the car on and off so frequently. Turn the car off int the parking lot if you must, but don't do it at stop lights (because, inevitably, that's ALWAYS where the starter failed, and believe me, having to push a car all the way to the side of the road from the middle lane of a 4-lane intersection in Atlanta is NOT. FUN.
> 
> ETA: In addition, there are still plenty of feul-efficient cars out there that are reasonable, especially if you're willing to take it to the wire to haggle the suckers down. My boyfriend and I bought a brand new, loaded Hyundei Elantra SE last month for $15.3K. $250 a month, 5.9APR, and we're getting an average of 34mpg so far. Sweet deal, but we had to lock horns with two dealerships and pit them against each other to get that price. It made them hate us, but man is it worth it.



Oi... you know what, that's a damn good point - I admit I totally forgot about how that can wear on some starters. >_<  I think I'll edit that section a bit.  Long idles are still a bad thing - like waiting for someone in a parking lot, or traffic lights that you know will take forever.  But yeah... starter replacement will kill savings if that happens.   Thanks for pointing that one out - I can't believe I neglected that little bit of reality. >_<

And yeah, you can get a good price sometimes when you get dealers warring with one another.  For anyone who's not dealt with a car dealer before the most important thing to remember whether it's a new car or used car is simple: You are under NO obligation to buy it.  None.  Nadda.  Don't let them pressure you into ANYTHING.  Just like LunaticMoth did, if you can find the same sorta car or truck at another dealer for a similar price, get the two working against one another, keep going back and forth between the two to see who will lower their price the most to get you to buy - apart from gas, it doesn't cost you a thing to do it, but it could save you thousands.


----------



## Blackcat008 (Jul 13, 2008)

can i copy this to another forum and give you credit?


----------



## Drake_Husky (Jul 13, 2008)

Just stop drivin your SUV and your truck and buy a good little 4 banger with excellent fuel milage, I get 33 MPG with my 1995 Toyota Camry LE and i'm lookin at a 2008 Subaru Impreza Sport which gets 38 MPG HWY and is a fair price around $23,425.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 13, 2008)

Blackcat008 said:


> can i copy this to another forum and give you credit?



If you wish - or just link it to this site, unless you're worried about the furry goodness of this place.   In fact, it may be best to link to it as I'm often adding or tweaking bits of it (though it's now at the 25000 character limit!)


----------



## Blackcat008 (Jul 13, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> If you wish - or just link it to this site, unless you're worried about the furry goodness of this place.  In fact, it may be best to link to it as I'm often adding or tweaking bits of it (though it's now at the 25000 character limit!)


k thx


----------



## LunaticMoth (Jul 15, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> Oi... you know what, that's a damn good point - I admit I totally forgot about how that can wear on some starters. >_<  I think I'll edit that section a bit.  Long idles are still a bad thing - like waiting for someone in a parking lot, or traffic lights that you know will take forever.  But yeah... starter replacement will kill savings if that happens.   Thanks for pointing that one out - I can't believe I neglected that little bit of reality. >_<
> 
> And yeah, you can get a good price sometimes when you get dealers warring with one another.  For anyone who's not dealt with a car dealer before the most important thing to remember whether it's a new car or used car is simple: You are under NO obligation to buy it.  None.  Nadda.  Don't let them pressure you into ANYTHING.  Just like LunaticMoth did, if you can find the same sorta car or truck at another dealer for a similar price, get the two working against one another, keep going back and forth between the two to see who will lower their price the most to get you to buy - apart from gas, it doesn't cost you a thing to do it, but it could save you thousands.



I wouldn't have known about the starter thing if I hadn't tried it myself. I still turn the car off waiting for people in the parking lot though.

As far as buying cars go, it's also important to do your research. Try to find out how much it costs for a manufacturer to make the car, make sure you know exactly what you want in it and don't just let them sell you a car off the lot because it's "close enough." And beware service plans. Anything more than the warranty that comes free with the car is going to be a ripoff of some kind. Whatever price they give you for special service it complete bubcus--because what they won't tell you is that you will be paying interest on that, too! And in addition, they will be taking the price of the special service plan out of whatever down payment, if any, you make, so it will further inflate your monthly payments--and not in a kinky way.

For anyone looking to get a more fuel-efficient car to replace their Humscalade, I highly recommend reading Confessions of a Car Salesman. It is a very long, but very informative and useful read, and it's worth the time...you'll get a feel for exactly what lengths car dealerships will go to rip you off, and what you can do to fight them when haggling for yours.


----------



## Takun (Jul 15, 2008)

Drake_Husky said:


> Just stop drivin your SUV and your truck and buy a good little 4 banger with excellent fuel milage, I get 33 MPG with my 1995 Toyota Camry LE and i'm lookin at a 2008 Subaru Impreza Sport which gets 38 MPG HWY and is a fair price around $23,425.



And I can fit in it at 6'8" comfortably?

Yeah....I'll get back to you when I can fit in cars well enough to drive :/


----------



## LunaticMoth (Jul 15, 2008)

You'd be surprised how much headroom there is in some small cars nowadays...our Elantra could fit most basketball players.


----------



## Sedit (Jul 15, 2008)

some good stuff in here!

I live in CT...highest gas prices in the US!  About $4.37 a gallon for 87 here as of 7-15-08, and I often have to drive long distances for my job (right now I'm doing about a 110miles round trip each day for work....but sometimes its FAR less, depending on the client)...so I try to be mindful.  I carpool with a coworker who lives nearby, when we're lucky enough to be on the same jobsite. 

I drive a 2003 Toyota Tacoma...4 cyclinder, just a 2 seater (supposed to fit 3 up front, but I'm a rather large dude), small cab...gets excellent milage


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 15, 2008)

Drake_Husky said:


> Just stop drivin your SUV and your truck and buy a good little 4 banger with excellent fuel milage, I get 33 MPG with my 1995 Toyota Camry LE and i'm lookin at a 2008 Subaru Impreza Sport which gets 38 MPG HWY and is a fair price around $23,425.



Well, that often does not save money.  In the first section of my write up, you have to figure out your break-even point.  For me, for example, I've still got two years of payments left on my truck.  If I sell it now, I don't think I'd even get what's left on the loan for it, so to get ANY other vehicle is going to cost me something.  In the summer, I drive only about 300km (160 miles) a month, so it's just not worth it to change vehicles).  If you, however, drive 120 miles a day (like my father) for work, then mileage is a huge part of the equation.

My 2003 Dakota has a 4.7L V8, and in town gets only about 10 to 12mpg (US gallons), which sucks, but for as little as I drive it, I don't mind.  The eventual plan for me will be to get a second tiny car as the everyday commuter, perhaps 3 or 4 years from now or longer, depending on whether my need to commute goes up or not.

One thing I find particularly frustrating about London, Ontario is that it's one of the few Ontarian cities to not time it's stop lights properly and have sensors on them.  So, you spend a great deal of time in-town at red lights, and every time you have to stop, your're getting worse and worse gas mileage.  Most modern cities use software to determine the most efficient light timings possible, and lights are computer controlled.  Sensors mounted at all the lights keep them green as long as possible, or won't turn a light red for you if there's no traffic in the other directions.



LunaticMoth said:


> For anyone looking to get a more fuel-efficient car to replace their Humscalade, I highly recommend reading Confessions of a Car Salesman. It is a very long, but very informative and useful read, and it's worth the time...you'll get a feel for exactly what lengths car dealerships will go to rip you off, and what you can do to fight them when haggling for yours.



Ooooh, I'd heard of that - didn't see it until now - great find!  Thanks for sharing that. 



Takumi_L said:


> And I can fit in it at 6'8" comfortably?
> 
> Yeah....I'll get back to you when I can fit in cars well enough to drive :/



*chuckles* Well, as LunaticMoth said, many cars nowadays are surprisingly accommodating.  You just need to try a few out at the dealers - remember, you don't have to buy anything, but you can ask to sit in as many different cars as you want - see which ones fit, which one's don't.


----------



## thebeast76 (Jul 20, 2008)

Takumi_L said:


> And I can fit in it at 6'8" comfortably?
> 
> Yeah....I'll get back to you when I can fit in cars well enough to drive :/



That's one of the reasons we got our '00 Suburban. That's what we NEED our big SUV for. WE NEED IT. We didn't buy it to "look sick rollin' on 22's". We bought it because we needed the space and it fits everyone. At one point you have to stop thinking aesthetically and start thinking logically. Even at one point looking over mileage and the cost of fill ups.


----------



## cYbEr_PaNdA (Jul 22, 2008)

I have an 02 Grand Am with 95K miles it gots a 2.2L ecotec engine with 140HP with an EPA estimate of 26C 40H but heh stupid canadians cant write an actual number there as its a big ball of BS there, my Cars actual mileage is not as good as in the magazine website but my car gets 25C and 35H but i did some tweakage to the engine and now it gets 27C and 38H but its less HP ...>> and as long as i dont accelerate to fast it and keep it under 70mph it will keep that EPA steady ^^


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 22, 2008)

cYbEr_PaNdA said:


> I have an 02 Grand Am with 95K miles it gots a 2.2L ecotec engine with 140HP with an EPA estimate of 26C 40H but heh stupid canadians cant write an actual number there as its a big ball of BS there, my Cars actual mileage is not as good as in the magazine website but my car gets 25C and 35H but i did some tweakage to the engine and now it gets 27C and 38H but its less HP ...>> and as long as i dont accelerate to fast it and keep it under 70mph it will keep that EPA steady ^^



Ugh... I'm guessing you got this car from Canada?  If so, we can write the numbers just fine, but up here, MPG would be based on the Imperial (British) gallon, which is equivalent to about 1.2 US gallons.  It therefore looks at first glance that MPG claims seem much better up here.  Converted to US gallons, your car's EPA is about 22C/34H - much closer to the truth, eh? 

Quick Conversion:

1 US Gallon = 0.832674184628989 UK Gallons = 3.785411784 litres


----------



## Werevixen (Jul 22, 2008)

I still want to buy a Plymouth Road Runner Superbird 426 Hemi some day.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 22, 2008)

Werevixen said:


> I still want to buy a Plymouth Road Runner Superbird 426 Hemi some day.



Hellz ya - or its sister car, the '69 Daytona.  Those cars are made of awesome, though the HEMI versions sell for well over $150,000 nowadays... which means the pictures are likely to be all that we own of them.   Powered by a 426 HEMI with a 4 speed Hurst-shift tranny in a racing gear ratio, they had a top speed of 217mph (though it'd probably take a mile to bring them to a stop, hehe).


----------



## Monarq (Jul 23, 2008)

Buy a horse.


----------



## Koda (Jul 24, 2008)

Monarq said:


> Buy a horse.


Ride a cowboy?

---

I drive a 92 ford exploder. Its a 4.0L V6 and is hand crafted to much resemble a brick. It has an automatic 4 speed transmission, with the 4th gear purposely wider for highway travel (according to the owner's manual). It is the 4wd model. I use cruise control, a lot.

I put a K&N air filter on it, but I haven't noticed any difference in performance or economy. (Probably because of its age). So save your $50, just buy a cheap-o air filter and replace it when you change your oil.

I get in-city 15mpg, and on highway there are 3 levels.
Level 1: Driving highways where the speed limit is 55mph: I can get about 24mpg
Level 2: Driving a toll road (no traffic) at 65-70mph: I get ~21mpg
Level 3: Driving highways where the speed limit is 65, but there are trucks. (I don't have an exact figure, but I can tell that my driving-too-close-for-comfort behind big rigs pays off...) probably around 26mpg.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 24, 2008)

Wow, interesting stats Koda - you track it way closer than most people do, which is good.   My mileage is very similar to yours in my 2003 Dakota.  It's a 4.7L V8, but has 5 gears, so works out about the same in the end - only difference is that I figured my city gas mileage to be a very sad 12mpg. >_<  

K&N filters are great, but their gains on fuel-injected, computer controlled vehicles is very small.  Put one on an old carburetted vehicle, and it makes some difference - for example, the ex has a 1981 Malibu with a 4.4L V8, on putting in a better air filter, the fuel economy went up about 10%.

Sedit - Someone completely missed your comment before!  The Tacoma is an awesome truck - that's actually what I wanted to get when I was looking around for a slightly used truck, but I ended up getting my Dodge because Toyota's don't seem to depreciate very much!  Excellent truck.


----------



## virus (Jul 24, 2008)

lol. You can run any combustion car off of E85. Nothing needs to be changed. Well if you plan running it a long time you have to change the fuel lines to steel braided and change the seals to brass. Also the "Check engine" light will come on, the Oxygen sensor is going crazy because it wasn't designed for the E85.  E85 does get about 20% less mileage then gasoline. That whole "flex fuel" thing is a lie designed to make people believe its completely different. Remember we our dealing with 'combustion' not rocket science. Methane, natural gas, Moonshine, pure hydrogen all can go into cars directly with light modifications to the fuel intake system.

Octane actually does make a minor improvement with mileage with all the crap they stick in it nowadays. I can get about a 2 mile per gallon improve if I use 89 or 91 instead of 87. Because it burns hotter and cleaner then the 87 gas water all the chemicals eventually gunk up the valves and start to effect your overall performance.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 24, 2008)

virus said:


> Octane actually does make a minor improvement with mileage with all the crap they stick in it nowadays. I can get about a 2 mile per gallon improve if I use 89 or 91 instead of 87. Because it burns hotter and cleaner then the 87 gas water all the chemicals eventually gunk up the valves and start to effect your overall performance.



E85 - yeah, technically you can make anything run off it, just not as well and as you say, you need mods if you plan on doing it for a while.  Carburetted vehicles run especially bad/inefficiently on it.

The gas thing has me wondering though if that's more to do with refinement than just the octane.  In most cases, the 89+ premium fuels are much better refined than the base 87.  One nasty thing in fuel is the sulphur, which is one of the main contributers to sludge and build up.  The better refined the fuel, the less sulphur it has in it.  In Canada, Sunoco is far and away the highest quality fuel with even the 87 octane having less than 50 ppm (parts per million).  Esso (own by Imperial Oil) is the worst up here at around 500 to 700ppm for their 87.  I don't know what the values are for their premiums.  Very interesting point.


----------



## virus (Jul 24, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> E85 - yeah, technically you can make anything run off it, just not as well and as you say, you need mods if you plan on doing it for a while.  Carburetted vehicles run especially bad/inefficiently on it.



Quite opposite actually. It requires tweaking the intake of fuel and air but E85 actually runs quite well in older vehicles. What I like about carburetored engines is you can just link fuel into the fuel insert(regardless what it is) directly and away it goes. No fuel rails no injectors(don't get me wrong fuel injection is nice) no computer timing to worry about or change. Just adjust the float level, fuel set intake and air intake.

Realize back in the day, when prohibition was around. Moonshiners where running their carburetor cars directly off 100% 'alchy. They had no modifications done to the cars at all. 

Its a shame their chemically altering gasoline to water it down(I remember when 89 was the lowest and I've saw 101-102 premium). Instead of wasting our oil on plastic products we should be making more quality fuel out of it.
Its so stupid this whole gas thing.


----------



## gypsythecabbit (Jul 28, 2008)

What sucks is that my dad always speeds and he denies it. He keeps calling himself a "good driver".

But this is excellent advice, and I'll consider printing it out next chance I get.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 29, 2008)

virus said:


> Realize back in the day, when prohibition was around. Moonshiners where running their carburetor cars directly off 100% 'alchy. They had no modifications done to the cars at all.
> 
> Its a shame their chemically altering gasoline to water it down(I remember when 89 was the lowest and I've saw 101-102 premium). Instead of wasting our oil on plastic products we should be making more quality fuel out of it.
> Its so stupid this whole gas thing.



Ha... good point.  I agree - anything can run on E85 or pure alcohol for that matter, the point is that it needs tweaking of one type or another to get the ratios just right.  For the sake of simplicity, I was focusing this post on things people can do that don't require anything too complicated.

And yes, the fossil fuel situation in general is just stupid - we should have stopped using it a long time ago, but sadly until it becomes much more expensive, it's still the cheapest option.  Whether people realize it or not, fuel in North America is still a lot cheaper than most other places in the world. 



gypsythecabbit said:


> What sucks is that my dad always speeds and he denies it. He keeps calling himself a "good driver".
> 
> But this is excellent advice, and I'll consider printing it out next chance I get.



Heh, yes, a lot of people don't seem to consider speeding a bad thing.  It's not just bad on gas, but dangerous.  People doing 60 to 80km/h on roads marked as 50km/h really burn me.  They don't seem to think "What happens if I have to stop suddenly?" Like a child runs out onto the road.  Takes a LOT longer to bring a car to a stop from 80 than from 50.


----------



## Science Fox (Jul 29, 2008)

Building a hydrogen fuel cell is a great way to increase gas efficiency. They are not terribly difficult to craft and can generally be built for less than two hundred dollars.  Also, riding a bike, (As Hybrid Project Alpha recommended) or walking/jogging is a great way as well!


----------



## Sieneko (Jul 29, 2008)

Sorry if I've skimmed over the answer already, but is putting your car in neutral (NOT turning it off) and coasting down hills a good idea? Both my friend and I have been doing that recently (he's got a manual, I've got an automatic), but I wonder if it's really doing anything.

I've been investigating putting the hydrogen fuel cell into my car, and my mechanic actually supports the idea, but neither of us has found a model that's efficient enough to be worth it yet. There's no way I'm sticking that mason jar crap in my car - it's such a dumb idea in climates with freezing weather. :/


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 29, 2008)

Science Fox said:


> Building a hydrogen fuel cell is a great way to increase gas efficiency. They are not terribly difficult to craft and can generally be built for less than two hundred dollars.  Also, riding a bike, (As Hybrid Project Alpha recommended) or walking/jogging is a great way as well!



Yep - those were mentioned earlier on another page.  Biking is my favourite method of getting around. 



Sieneko said:


> Sorry if I've skimmed over the answer already, but is putting your car in neutral (NOT turning it off) and coasting down hills a good idea? Both my friend and I have been doing that recently (he's got a manual, I've got an automatic), but I wonder if it's really doing anything.
> 
> I've been investigating putting the hydrogen fuel cell into my car, and my mechanic actually supports the idea, but neither of us has found a model that's efficient enough to be worth it yet. There's no way I'm sticking that mason jar crap in my car - it's such a dumb idea in climates with freezing weather. :/



Hmm... well, the Neutral thing is definitely WAY smarter than the hypermiling practise of turning the car off while in neutral - that's suicidal.  Putting the car in neutral will cause the engine to fall to an idle, which is easier on gas, BUT, there is a drawback, particularly in cars that have higher RPMs at highway speeds.

If your car is doing, say, 3500 rpm to maintain highway speed (common with a 4 cylinder) and you pop it into neutral.  Your engine falls from 3500 rpm to around 600 to 800 rpm.  When you put the car back in gear, the engine then has to go back from idle to highway rev, and if you don't manually sync the rpms, that can put BIG strain on the transmission and the engine, as well as give you a good jerk.  Unless you're very good at managing the rpms as you shift and shift back, I would not suggest it for the potential strain and damage that might occur.

The other thing often neglected in coasting are speed limits - yes coasting down a hill doesn't take energy from your car, but sometimes people figure they'll just get as much speed from the hill as possible.  While that might work well when you're riding your bike (and less likely to break speed limits) in a car, you could end up exceeding the posted speed limits by a huge amount, and safety should *never* take a second place to fuel economy.


----------



## Science Fox (Jul 29, 2008)

Sieneko said:


> There's no way I'm sticking that mason jar crap in my car - it's such a dumb idea in climates with freezing weather. :/


 
Oh of COURSE not. That is not only bad for your vehicle, but is inherentely dangerous! Some of the plans I have seen online consist of PVC pipe, cheap wire, water and baking soda. Yeah, it will produce hydrogen alright... and it could blow you to kingdom come! D:


----------



## Sieneko (Jul 29, 2008)

*ToeClaws* -Yup, 4-cylinder for my little car. While I never really that outside of my neighborhood (35 mph tops, breaking down the hill to maintain the speed limit) I can definitely see how that could hurt my transmission. I usually coast down my neighborhood hill, stop at stop signs, put the car back in gear to get going, coast again, and then put it back in gear when I get to the bottom of my neighborhood and have to stay in gear. 

The hills in my area are great for doing this, but those same hills are what keep me from doing things like riding a bike. It's no wonder the cyclists in my area are in great shape, hahaha!

*Science Fox* - Yeah, I like my car to stay in one piece, plzkthx! Models like these here say they can be used in freezing weather and look more promising than other models I've seen, but I'm so cautious about how safe they are. Yet another reason I haven't bought one yet. D:


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 29, 2008)

Science Fox said:


> Oh of COURSE not. That is not only bad for your vehicle, but is inherentely dangerous! Some of the plans I have seen online consist of PVC pipe, cheap wire, water and baking soda. Yeah, it will produce hydrogen alright... and it could blow you to kingdom come! D:



Yes, thus far, the only professional, high-end and low risk hydrogen hybrid retrofits cost around $4000+ because a number of high tech things need to be fitted to the car.  You can do it cheaper (and less efficiently) with some of the simpler solutions, but safety and efficiency are a big concern.  Primarily safety.  Proper retrofits also involve making sure your car can deal with the increased water vapour emissions - things like making sure your headers, catalytic converter and exhaust system are not going to rust out quicker.  Plus, people tend to overlook the cost they need to lay down to get the benefits.  If it costs you $4500 to do a conversion, and that gains you 30% more mileage, you're gonna have to do a lot of driving before you break even.  Depends on how heavily you depend on driving.


----------



## ToeClaws (Jul 29, 2008)

Sieneko said:


> The hills in my area are great for doing this, but those same hills are what keep me from doing things like riding a bike. It's no wonder the cyclists in my area are in great shape, hahaha!
> 
> *Science Fox* - Yeah, I like my car to stay in one piece, plzkthx! Models like these here say they can be used in freezing weather and look more promising than other models I've seen, but I'm so cautious about how safe they are. Yet another reason I haven't bought one yet. D:



Yep - I hate hills on a bike, but they're great for a work out and the more you do them, the stronger you get. 

Well, that model is still something that has some catches to it.  It uses a KOH electrolyte to help break down the water into hydrogen, which is why it requires less amperage than the more expensive models.  The drawback is that it's a chemical additive that has to be put in every 300 to 1200 miles (depending on the model).  You also have to keep ordering more of it, so some of the fuel savings are lost in the cost of the electrolyte and shipping it.

This solution also doesn't change your exhaust system, so on a non-stainless steel exhaust, it will eventually rot out the pipes quicker than normal.  Also, note the cost increase as you go up in engine size.  People driving little engines less than 2 litres in displacement are already enjoying good gas mileage.  For me, I'd need to by their largest one for my truck, which is almost $1200.  That's almost a year's fuel cost for me, since I don't drive much.  Even if it managed to give me a third better mileage, it would take 3 years to break even on the cost (minus the increased frequency of replacing the exhaust pipes and purchasing the electrolytes several times).

As with all things, there's always a "But..." :???:


----------



## Science Fox (Jul 30, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> For me, I'd need to by their largest one for my truck, which is almost $1200. That's almost a year's fuel cost for me, since I don't drive much. Even if it managed to give me a third better mileage, it would take 3 years to break even on the cost (minus the increased frequency of replacing the exhaust pipes and purchasing the electrolytes several times).


 
I hear you there. I would need to buy the high priced model as well, for my Wrangler. However, I am looking into alternate ways of creating one. That high priced unit can be made for MUCH cheaper than they are selling it for. It just takes a little research.


----------



## Vagabond (Aug 2, 2008)

Those hydrogen/water electrolysis kits are BS.

Get a bike. If it's too far for a bike, ride the bus.


----------



## Mc_Jack (Aug 4, 2008)

public transport for me  D= better than this.


----------



## Rhainor (Aug 4, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> The octane in unleaded gas is what produces the power needed for driving your car around... <snip> ...octane is volatile; if you compress it too much, it blows up on its own without the sparkplug.



Incorrect.

Octane (or rather, the stuff in modern fuel that takes the place of octane, and serves the same purpose) actually _decreases_ the volatility of the fuel/air mix, by increasing the temperature/pressure at which the mix will self-ignite.  The octane itself has no bearing on the energy output of the combustion.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 4, 2008)

Rhainor said:


> Incorrect.
> 
> Octane (or rather, the stuff in modern fuel that takes the place of octane, and serves the same purpose) actually _decreases_ the volatility of the fuel/air mix, by increasing the temperature/pressure at which the mix will self-ignite.  The octane itself has no bearing on the energy output of the combustion.[/size]



Thanks Rhainor - I'm no chemist, so I'll correct that in the main post.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 5, 2008)

I wanted to add something last sunday, but my 'puter laughed into my face the moment I hit the reply button... 

first of all, don't confuse combustions with explosions. there ain't such thing as a regulated explosion; everyone who tells you different has no clue. if that thing would be an explosion engine it would blow up into your face, is all.

a thermostate actually keeps the cold coolant within the engine block until it's warmed up, otherwise your description was right. it could happen on very cold days that the thermostate never opens up at all.

giving the tyres more pressure doesn't hurt them; modern tyres can take a lot of abuse. pumping them up to about 20% more eases on the rolling resistance, and in my opinion the thread worn out can be ignored. unless it's rubbed all down, of course.
anything wider than a hand width's should be watched closely; if the thread wears considerably down in the middle, lessen the pressure a bit. if not, add a little bit.
I pump up the tyres of my little classic Fords up to 2.5 bar, some 0.6 bar above the factory recommendation. it's a difference like the handbrake loosened.

there is no reason why using the engine to decelerate should hurt it. as soon as you lift the gas pedal, the computer cuts off injecting fuel, so the engine brakes even more. all the while you save on fuel. this doesn't hurt the catalytic converter at all.

one thing that's also important to save on fuel, is maintenance. if you have a classic, chances are high you'll have to adjust valve play and ignition along with the carburetor regularly. depending on how good your classic's engine swallows unleaded fuel, you might have to adjust valve play every 1500 miles... here in germany leaded fuel is unavailable for some 15 years now, and I had my experiences with exhaust valves hammered firmly into the cylinder head's seats. some engines swallow it, some don't. ask around in a respective forum if needed.
sometimes, spark plugs and/or ignition lines can give out. this goes slowly and can put a hefty strain on the power output of your engine. if you are unsure, have them checked. there are large testing devices which look like straight from a laboratory where the experienced mechanics can tell you exactly which one of your cylinders is not working well, and why.

it's true that start/stop at traffic lights put a strain on your starter motor. if you can afford it, try it out. if the starter dies very soon, go easy on it. if not, you can save fuel as sokn as the engine stands for more than 20 seconds. maybe a teaspoon only per action, but it also sums up. and it saves your environment some exhaust fumes...

turn the engine off while running down a slope only if you know what you do. power steering is not working then, and in extreme situations it can make a difference. besides, modern engines stop injecting gas when you use the engine for deceleration, so nothing will be saved, then.
the brake servo should hold enough underpressure for at least two complete full brake actions; if not, have it checked. your life can depend on it.
not recommendable is switching the engine off for Citroen cars with hydropneumatic suspension. the engine delivers pressure for brakes, suspension and power steering. without it, the car sinks down onto it's belly, unable to handle at all.

a good alternative to hydrogene are methane, or natural gas, or auto-gas, a byproduct of natural oil processing. they deliver as much energy as hydrogene, but the alterations to your car are easier and cheaper. it's stored with less effort, as the tank doesn't need to be isolated against the content's cold for example. the pressures are lower, too. it's easier on environment as gasoline/diesel anyway. and cheaper. alas, there are only a few gas stations offering it, so it serves as temporary alternative to fuel now.

what they try to sell us as hybrid are nothing but normal cars with extar electric motor, thus extra weight for that, extra weight for electronics, extra weight for batteries... hence that Lexus SUV doesn't guzzle that much less gas as the standard one does. a true hybrid would use a little combustion engine running at it's most economic speed, driving a generator, which in turn would deliver the energy for the electric motors that then drive the car. less weight, less electronics, not much of a battery needed, and more space for the passengers. I always wonder why nobody goes that length yet, even as prototype?

ah. allow me to rant on those asphalt bubbles named SMART. I happened to work for the Micro Car Company (the name for Daimler's subspecies company) development facility for three monts. those cars are made from lots of plastic, of which most look cheap (and are, too; a whole set of body plastic part in exchange costs you some â‚¬200), some solutions are laughably impractical, or even cheaper. I could write you a whole novel, but let me just say, I wouldn't want one for free. most maintenance services take a lot of time, way too much for a small car; and you have to pay for it as though you drove a Mercedes 500 SE!
as small as their engines are, tey still suck too mcuh gasoline; even the Diesel engine can't be made to suck less than 3.5 litres of diesel fuel per 100 km. and it's the size of a hayabusa engine, even...with as much displacement, too.
their latest fad is a faked dynastart motor (alternator serves both as energy deliverant and starter motor) which is supposed to save lots of fuel. truth is, the micro car still sucks around 6 litres per 100km... part of the problem is the engine's sound which reminds one of an angry vac cleaner. it sounds hectic, and makes the driver drive hectic, too. pushing the gas pedal requires fuel, after all.
another part is also the EU rules to determine fuel comsumption, which couldn't be farther from real life. but it makes the manufacturer's lie about their fuel consuming tin crates... legally.
and yet another part is, people still byuy them, regardless of their actual fuel comsumptions. or whatever a tiny tin crate can do for more than 11.000 Euros... there are bigger cars on the market which consume as much fuel, but with four seats and a luggage compartment to speak of.
for example, my classic fords (intermediate for europeans, subcompact for americans if I'm taken right XD) which some might know as Cortina Mk3, with 1.6 OHC and 72 HP DIN, consume around 7-9 litres per 100 km, around 11 if pushed extreme. not too bad for cars that are beyond 30 years old, eh?

rant ends here.

anyway, good advices all around, and most comments speak of people who at least try to find out about it. the rest knows what they say... a nice sight.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 5, 2008)

Anbessa - Wow, thank you for all the additional input - great advice.  I wish I could add some to the original post, but it's at the size limit.  

There is one thing though I would still caution against, and that's the tire pressure one.  It _is_ true that modern tires can take extra pressure, sometimes even more than 20%, but that figure is never well documented, so it's hard to know what's safe and what isn't.  In North America, Insurance companies will be looking at everything they can too in order to deny your claim, so if they find any of the tires to be well above the maximum, you have problems.  Even though the tire couldn't have been a factor, they will use whatever excuse they can to deny an accident claim.  What I'd suggest is just investing in good tires from the start that are designed for higher than average pressure.

And yes - great point about the classics.  I touched on the carburettor tuning, but yeah, the cars all-round need more constant tuning.  It's not because their inferior in design, it's just that they are 100% mechanical, meaning there are no computers to tweak and tune settings.  Keep them tuned though, and a classic will just keep on going.  Very durable old designs. 

Heh, and love the rant about the Smart Car, that gave me my laugh for the day.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 5, 2008)

happy to provide you with some humour, although I'm very serious about it. 

yes, with that tyres it's really an issue. by the way, 60PSI seems a bit much to me. most intermediates are supposed to get something between 1.9 and 2.2 bar regularly, with say we, 2.5 bar when fully loaded. now, you could say we, give the front tyres 2.3 bar, and the rear tyres 2.5 bar. it's still a good bit more, doesn't influence the comfort, and you can always say you were about to get the car loaded with your friends and your sister. 
when I was working as auto mechanic at a Daihatsu dealer most of the Cuore asphalt bubbles had way too less pressure in their tyres, with the original brand (Bridgestone if I recall right) having a tendency to wear off at the corners of the thread. normally this would be an issue with germany's traffic authorities, so Bridgestone came up with an expert report stating that it wouldn't influence the tyre's performance... small cars usually don't Ã¶et you feel the tyres working under low pressure, but the heavier the vehicle, the more it influences it, and the more the tyre wears out, being 'kneaded' way more than if it had over-pressure, and this also lowers the tyres' lifespan.

I just wanted to add that there are still actual cars around whose valves have mechanical rockers instead of hydraulic ones (supposed to eliminate valve play throughout the engines' run from cold to hot). part reason is that hydraulic rockers eat up engine power, so many japanese small-scale high-output engines running in their small cars have mechanical valve play. sometimes the cylinder head has no room for additional oil lines and such.
another reason is that the manufacturer sees no point in creating an all-new engine, so we have the opportunity to enjoy an old engine from the 60's in Ford Fiesta/Ka, equipped with single point injection, electronic ignition... and valves cluttering louder than the originals from the old Fiesta, Escort and Capri imports. it's a shame they even have the guts to offer them, naming them "Endura-E"...


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 5, 2008)

Anbessa said:


> happy to provide you with some humour, although I'm very serious about it.



I know!  That's what made it all the funnier. :mrgreen: 

And yeah, there are a lot of cars in North America still sold with mechanical lifters.  Sometimes you just don't need to over-complicate what already works.

Interesting short article here about something called the 50 litre challenge, where 10 popular fuel efficient regular engine cars were tested in Ontario and Quebec to see how far they could go on 50 litres of fuel - the winner was the Toyota Corolla which travelled 1,017km:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080728/kilometres_driving_080728/20080728/

I think my truck would only get about 300km.  Woo for Dodge V8's.  They should have a little animated gas gauge that goes "MUAHAHAHA, MORE!" when you start the truck.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 5, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> I think my truck would only get about 300km.  Woo for Dodge V8's.  They should have a little animated gas gauge that goes "MUAHAHAHA, MORE!" when you start the truck.



hrhrhr*

[insert evil laughter here to replace the starter motor noise]

you know, the most useless car Merdedes builds right now in my opinion, is the R-class. weighing about 2.2 tons (metric even), with 6 seats in three rows (who had THAT idea, anyway? the days of full-sized statioon wagons with that layout are long gone, and THEY had a luggage boot you still could fit a SMART into...and a spare wheel.). thing is, 
1: the two back rows have no leg room to speak of, so you'll sit there like a startled spider unless you are not older than 5.
2: unless you take out the back seat, you have no boot to speak of. and only 4 seats...
besides, it's design reminds me of carelessly shaped toy cars, and it looks oversized from every angle. needless to say it sucks gas like a thirsty bull.
I have seen someone desperately trying to get one into a parking lot before an auto shop. after a couple tries he eventually gave up and almost took off a neighbouring houses' corner on his way off the premises...

some weird clichÃ© here in germany claims that classic fords suck one dry of gasoline like nothing, forgetting that likewise a collection of automobiles from Mercedes, BMW, Opel, Lancia, Citroen, sucked even more, sometimes due to way bigger engines. once, some hapless schmuck approached me, and said something along the line of, "Old Ford, hm? What does it comsume, thirty litres?"
I didn't know of any witty reply, since the emblem on the fender says, "1600", (meaning 1.6 OHC) so I only nodded and mumbled like, "Dude, you have no idea..." the sob went on, grinning like a scientist finding the meaning of life or something. I hope he made himself the fool he was.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 5, 2008)

Oi, some people just don't know what they're talking about.  Engine size is one part of gas consumption, sure, but weight and gear ratios are another huge factor.  Some 30+ year old classics got fantastic gas mileage using nothing advanced at all.  The car I drove before I had my 2003 Dakota was a 1975 Pontiac Laurentian, 2 tons, 18 feet 10 inches long with V8 350 (5.7L) engine.  In town, it got the same mileage as my truck.

Thing with Mercedes is that if you can afford one, then gas costs probably aren't a concern.  But agreed - some of their big offerings have outlived their usefulness (if they were ever even useful to begin with).

Vehicles in North America tend to be larger than in Europe though.  For North Americans reading this, a large reason is because fuel in Europe is MUCH more expensive than here.  If you think we have it bad... ha... no, fuel is still cheaper here by far than other parts of the world.  To me, Mercedes doesn't even make a "big" car, but then, neither does anyone else.  Gone are the days of 18 and 19 foot long cruisers.  Though I'm a minority in saying it, I love huge cars and really wish there were an economical way to make them again.


----------



## King Gourd (Aug 6, 2008)

I found it funny today how my friends and I were so excited to see that the local Citgo had regular for $4.06. Even funnier was how absolutely ecstatic we were to see gas at $3.89 on the way to Pittsburgh. Kind of pissed we paid $4.50 in Connecticut beore we left. Glad my wagon gets 33 miles to the gallon.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 6, 2008)

my thoughts exactly. here in germany, for example, gas stations do not set their prices as they see fit, it's adjusted online by a central point owned by the oil company. so what you ca see is one price at the morning, and something between 4 and 10(!) cent â‚¬ up six hours later. and while periods of higher prices they would lower the price considerably, normally 5-7 cents, for a couple of hours, apparently to help the gas stations empty their tanks to receive new fuel. of course, then cars woudl literally pile up like crazy, eager to refill as long as it's a bit lower (the fact that most of them let their engines run idle while waiting for a free gas point speaks volumes of the gas prices still not high enough for these morons) than usual. I would laugh at them, if I wouldn't be among those who had refilled the day before, because I have to get to bleeding work by car, gawdammit!

build something like a '59 Caddy nowadays without wasting resources like anything? no, not really. with all those chomed steel bumpers, containing enough material to build an army of samurai, stainless steel and aluminium linings, and bodies longer than many peple's foregardens were wide... design filled with playful details, most of them speakign of luxury with a voice like a eight-cylindred hurricane...

speaking of which, one way to help a classic V-8 to more power with less consumption is equipping it with a modern carburetor. these wear out with the years, as any mechanical device; some more, some seem to hold a lifetime without any wear and tear. I met a guy who helped his Chevy Caprice '80 with the 305 cuin with a brand-new Edelbrock of a fitting size. it replaced the worn-out original (Rochester?), and he saved some 5 litres after that.
if you go and replace a carb, see to it that it will fit the intake breath ratio of the engine. larger valves have also a great influence to it, as someone who put 324 cylinder heads onto a 305, with it's original carburetor. more power, but also way more comsumption.
the reason? the velocity of the air flowing through the carburetor's narrowing (named Venturi Tube) sets the mass of fuel sucked in. if the carb is too big, the flow is too slow, and you lose power. if it's too small, the flow is too fast, and the engine sucks in more fuel than it needs.
a way to find out what carburetor setting is the best working is installing a pair of lambda sonds and find out which condition produces which exhaust combination. it's a lot like electronic regulating in modern engines, only with a carb on top of the engine. one might find out the factory setting is anything but optimal for the engine...


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 6, 2008)

Anbessa said:


> build something like a '59 Caddy nowadays without wasting resources like anything? no, not really. with all those chomed steel bumpers, containing enough material to build an army of samurai, stainless steel and aluminium linings, and bodies longer than many peple's foregardens were wide... design filled with playful details, most of them speakign of luxury with a voice like a eight-cylindred hurricane...



Exactly why I like them!  Ironically, many of those cars were no heavier than todays, in fact, some were lighter.  Today's cars don't have the lavish design accents of the old ones, but there's so much gadgetry, electronics, safety equipment and moulded parts that all the weight is hidden away.  Old cars had style, new cars have "stuff", but little style.

Great advice about replacing the carburettor too.  That's something I've been trying to get the ex to consider with her 1980 Malibu.  There are also fuel injection kits that one can get from manufacturers like Edelbrock or Holley that convert a number of various engines to using modern injectors.  As with the carburettors, the correct size unit has to be purchased and would likely have to be installed by a mechanic unless one possesses those skills.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 8, 2008)

curiously enough, the aforementioned guy with his Chevy Caprice had me install the carb (since the automatic choke added 100% to the already hefty price of DM 600, including a set of nozzles and a special adapter to the intake manifold, some care had to be taken of some adjustment underpressure lines, and the manual choke had to be installed) and then undertook it to himself to find out the correct nozzle setting using the set and a obviously really good manual... and he was a physician.  so, at least with edelbrock it doesn't seem too much of a chore if you know how to hold a tool.

another curious detail is that I know about Holleys single-point injections because the Revell-Monogram model kit of the '70 Chevy Chevelle features one as an option. ^^
in fact, I know most of my automotive-technical terms from model kit manuals provided by Revell-Monogram, AMT-Ertl, and MPC.


----------



## KaiserVadin (Aug 8, 2008)

only buy cars with 100mpg in them =D


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 8, 2008)

KaiserVadin said:


> only buy cars with 100mpg in them =D



Sold at the nearest fantasy dealer?  One day maybe, but we're a LONG way from there right now with the average new car.


----------



## Cavy (Aug 15, 2008)

Use a car-sharing service. That is, if you have one in your area.


----------



## Werevixen (Aug 15, 2008)

My car does 61mpg if I drive like a Christian motorist. It did 27mpg when I wasted â‚¬120 last week running the Autobahn when I was in Germany.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 15, 2008)

another evidence to the rule that stop-and-go as typical in city traffic consumes more gas than the higher, but more even speed on country roads and highways.

some time ago, it was usual to put a little column with the fuel consummation of the various standard-engines of a given car model in the lower corner of "new car" advertisements in magazines and such. so you could easily compare one model to the competitor's ones.
somewhen in the nineties those columns vanished, replaced by messages like "Driving our car gives you the organism of your life" and such. apparently, consumers had stopped caring. it looks like obligatory three-way-catalyst systems for new cars eased the motorist's concience, and the lower taxes for them made them care even less for it. I can't think of any other reason for modern humans to drive fuel-wasting automobiles when a smaller one would do nicely.

on my way to work via Autobahn I see quite some SUVs, micro-buses and minivans, with only one person inside (the driver) despite the high number of seats available. I have even seem someone driving to work into town with a camping bus! as long as people do this, and don't care about the fuel wasted, it's still too cheap...


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 15, 2008)

Anbessa - I agree totally in principle that it's terribly wasteful to drive something over-sized for basic commutes, but the reality that face many is that it's also costly not to.

I'm a good example there myself in that I drive a truck.  Most of the time, I don't _need_ a truck - a tiny little thing like a Toyota Yaris would be more than enough for 70% of the driving that I do.  The problem is that once and a while, I do need the truck for its ability to carry lots of stuff.  So... if money were no object, that would mean having two vehicles would be a good solution for me.  But money  _is_ an issue - I can't afford to by a second vehicle just to have a more efficient one for commuting use.  Selling the truck would likely not get me much, and buying a small vehicle instead would mean not having the truck when I need it anymore.

So while I don't like the fact that using my truck is wasteful for general commuting, I can't do much about it without either incurring debt, or sacrificing utility.  Instead, I tend to ride my bike 3 seasons of the year as much as possible so that I'm not using a vehicle at all.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 15, 2008)

fair enough. I would also rather have a small car for commuting rather than wearing down my classic cars without being able to afford more vehicles.
but.
seeing that the mentioned cars I saw where nowhere from being old, pre-used, or cheap in appearance (and granted, most cars nowadays are actually private-leased) I just reckon most drivers are show-offs. this notion might be unfair, but why use a VW Bus T4 nine-seater for commuting to work (if the license was any hint there must have been more than 50 kilometers one direction for that one) if leasing a small car costs less? if the Bus is for family values why use it to drive to work? I guess it was something of a 'Conference Mobile', which makes not more sense using to drive to work.

now if you say "you can't possibly know that, and guessing would be probably unfair" I'd have to take that point. but the example with the camper was not seen only once, but several times over the course of a couple weeks. this is especially interesting because the vicinity of Stuttgart where that guy was headed has almost no free parking lots for working people, and they clutter them for the people living there already as it is.

sorry for ranting again. I see too much people leaving their oh-so-gas-saving engines run idle when they must know the red lights are on for the next two minutes, or even before the gas station... and then they tell ME I waste ressources.


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 15, 2008)

Heh - yes, people have a very odd notion of "wasteful".  Using classic cars is recycling.  Rather than committing a working vehicle to a scrap yard, people keep them maintained and running.  Often people forget just how many resources as well as manpower goes into building a new vehicle.  I have never bought a new vehicle and likely never will because I actually don't want to encourage the production of new vehicles.  I'd rather see the production of _good_ vehicles that can last years or even decades for a service life via maintenance, upgrades and such.

I don't what's up with the guy driving that camper though - that seems a bit nuts.  I do get irritated as well when I see people driving TOTALLY impractical vehicles just because they like them.  I've seen one guy when getting groceries that has a huge Dodge RAM 3500 with duellies in the back, chrome everywhere, yet... no hitch on it, not a scratch on the bed.  It's obvious it's not used as a working truck so... that's a rather impractical commuting vehicle!  Though, heh, amusing to note I have not seen that truck for the last year since gas has been so expensive.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 15, 2008)

*heh* some people have to learn the hard way. 

this thursday I was downtown with a few good friends, at a restaurant. I have rarely seen more sports cars in a row like on this evening (it has been a sunny day with 22-25Â°C, and mild weather. today it's raining again). needless to say, they inevitably had to showoff their toys. not even between the rows of pedestrians they would slow down... until someone cries, as the saying goes.

as for that Dodge truck, one like this is also seen around here, with the same getup (crew cab, Duallie, long bed, and so on). if I catch it standing I shall look see if it's used to carry more than the latest issue of playboy in the glovebox.


----------



## Foamy (Aug 20, 2008)

If you are a teenager and do not know what car to get, then look at ether a 
TOYOTA, OR HONDA. GREAT MPG 
In fact the one I am driving right know is a TOYOTA that gets 24 MPG and its just 19 years old.
My mother drives a TOYOTA which is 10 years old getting her 30 MPG.

Learn from the companies that have had to deal with HIGH GAS PRICES since WW2 (ex:TOYOTA and BMW)


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 20, 2008)

Foamy's got a great point.  Right now the "big three" (Ford, GM and Chrysler) are pretty far from optimizing their offerings for fuel economy.  Chrysler's probably the closest of the three, but they're still a long way from Toyota.  In the link from the other page about the most fuel efficient cars, you'll see that the list is dominated by Toyota, Honda, Mazda and Hyundai.  All of those guys build cars that get fantastic mileage.  My father used a Hyundai Elantra for his 120 miles a day of driving and it averaged 42 mpg (US gallons).  A Toyota Yaris or Corolla will do even better.

Only downside, of course, is that they're small vehicles, so if cargo capacity and/or towing capacity is a concern, remember to bear that in mind with looking at smaller cars.


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 22, 2008)

a good point indeed. if you don't need a big car, get yourself a tincrate. it's also easier on parking space, and if someone parks their car too close for you to drive out of your parking lot you can ask a handful of friendly construction workers to lend a hand each. 

some other thought... there is a difference between _big_ cars, and _generous_ cars. as in, station wagons of the approximate same size outside can have vastly different payload compartments in the back; some are so "big" you can't load a fridge in the back, much less a full set of wheels, without fuzzing. some are even smaller... something of a lifestyle-station, style over substance...
I'm not sure if they were ever sold in USA under their original name, but Ford Granada and Opel Omega were station wagons of a "you can found a family in the back and have room left for the dog" size. their engines were also easy on fuel if you picked an intermediate sized engine.
not sure what I wnated to say, just choose carefully what ride you lay your hard-earned money out for.


----------



## Tommy Fox Stone (Aug 23, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> Foamy's got a great point.  Right now the "big three" (Ford, GM and Chrysler) are pretty far from optimizing their offerings for fuel economy.  Chrysler's probably the closest of the three, but they're still a long way from Toyota.  In the link from the other page about the most fuel efficient cars, you'll see that the list is dominated by Toyota, Honda, Mazda and Hyundai.  All of those guys build cars that get fantastic mileage.  My father used a Hyundai Elantra for his 120 miles a day of driving and it averaged 42 mpg (US gallons).  A Toyota Yaris or Corolla will do even better.
> 
> Only downside, of course, is that they're small vehicles, so if cargo capacity and/or towing capacity is a concern, remember to bear that in mind with looking at smaller cars.



My 66 T-bird gets just as good or better mileage then any of them...


----------



## Anbessa (Aug 24, 2008)

Tommy Fox Stone said:


> My 66 T-bird gets just as good or better mileage then any of them...




1: depending on it's condition, and your driving style, you may as well be right.

2: got pictures of that beauty for a craving Fordoholic?

=^^=


----------



## Tommy Fox Stone (Aug 25, 2008)

Anbessa said:


> 1: depending on it's condition, and your driving style, you may as well be right.
> 
> 2: got pictures of that beauty for a craving Fordoholic?
> 
> =^^=



Its in A 1 condition, black on black convertible and I drive between 55 and 65, I'm right I take very good care of my car,I build race cars for a liveing at Jr Motorsports. yes I do have some nice pic of my car but I don't have any way of posting them...


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 26, 2008)

Ah, makes sense then - you keep that T-bird well tuned, and drive it right in the happy spot it's high-gear was made for, which runs the engine at optimal performance.   That'd be a gorgeous car.  I used to own an '81 T-bird Heritage, which I loved, though that was a far cry from the style of yours.


----------



## Kangamutt (Aug 27, 2008)

If you are looking into getting a new car, make sure it's manual. You can shift to a higher gear earlier, thereby going faster at a lower RPM. The higher the RPM, the more gas you are using, the lower, the better. Try to get a diesel too. Although Volkswagen is the only company that imports diesel compacts (the TDI) to the States, I hear thru the automotive grapevine that the domestics are gong to make them, and more will be imported in the next few years. It may be a bit more at the pump, but those buggers get 45-50 mpg. Not only that, diesel is _cheaper_ to make, and disproves the so-called "oil shortage". Not only that, you probably could lift used frying oil from restaurants and use that. Biodiesel, baby!


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 27, 2008)

Agreed - both will gain you better mileage, though admittedly I can barely drive a standard myself. :/  There's even investigation underway to see if they can build an octane-fuelled engine that uses heat and compression to explode the gas instead of a spark plug (for those wondering, a diesel engine does not use a spark plug).  That would result in around a 15% improvement.  The only problem with diesel is that it can be a lot more polluting without the right emission controls in place (which is easily tackled nowadays).  I think the biggest roadblock to that will be the oil companies themselves resisting the move to diesel as there's far less profit in that for them.


----------



## Kangamutt (Aug 29, 2008)

I think they would profit heavily from the switch to diesel. The trucking industry uses tons of diesel as it is, and with more diesel cars, it means they will have to pay less to refine crude oil to diesel, rather than gas. You could always go hillbilly and brew your own moonshine (ethanol). In CA, you can get a permit to do so, as long as you use it to fuel your car, and no intention to sell it. Of course who would be stupid enough to drink 200 proof?


----------



## ToeClaws (Aug 29, 2008)

I mentioned the ethanol issue in the original post - basically, almost half as much power per volume as octane at the same engine compression ratios. :/  

They would pay less for refinement of diesel, yes, but where they would not be so apt to change would be the cost of refitting all refineries to eventually phase out octane production.  They also know that because of octane use, the demand will be higher since more is used to go the same distance as diesel.  

There's one other thing too - don't forget all the other products that petroleum accounts for; credit cards, clothing, drinking bottles, gas cans, tupperware and so on.  All of those come from other by-products of petroleum refinement.  If they refine it less, they won't have as many of those without further refinement anyway, which just brings them doing nearly what they are now less the sale of octane, so not as profitable.  

So one way or another, they want to keep things as it is until the oil starts to run out, then you'll see them all make this sudden shift toward other energy products to maintain their profitability.


----------



## Notorious (Aug 30, 2008)

Not to mention that making ethanol uses an absolutly huge amount of crops to make meaning we either need to create vast crop fields by damaging more wildlife habitats or we deal with having less crops overall for use to eat.

There's also the fact that high quantities of ethanol can cause mechanical problems with things like fuel pumps and corrosion.


----------



## Anbessa (Sep 1, 2008)

that is one argument against ethanole fuel we sholdn't forget; the high demand of 'bio'-ethanole already has raised the prices for food beyond belief in third-world countries.

the EU tried to raise the amount of ethanole in regular fuels to 15%, ignoring the fact that there is no way to make so much ethanole in the whole world considering the sheer amount of fuel used all in all. they also ignore that it can cause mechanical problems, and some manufacturers of parts and cars don't give permission to use it anyway, so you'd have to buy a new car...
german authorities tried to enforce this by going that way this year early already, before EU laws would enforce it; until they found out that
a) it wasn't saving the environment indeed (like Notorious mentioned, they would have to cover whole countries in crop to make booze from it)
b) it would cause the mentioned problems, forcing people to buy a new car, which would be against german laws (the government is forbidden to make laws which would people force to abandon their belongings for any reason)
c) there was no way to produce enough ethanole for germany alone _in the whole world!_ and that with only 15% extra in the fuel alone...

as a side note, I wouldn't recommend using bio-oils like old frying oil in modern diesel cars. the parts are manufactured so tightly they need the lubricating quailities of modern diesel fuel, something which vegetable oils can't provide, even Bio-Diesel fuel. you could do it with an older diesel from the 80's, though, after replacing plastic parts and sealings with those suited for vegetable oils. but, don't mix those and regular diesel fuel, it can cause cloggings and damage to injectors.

as another side note, rape oil ain't no alternative to regular fuel either, since the rape plant uses up lots of space, and needs extra fertilizer, also extra refinement of the resulting oil. this only pays out for farmers to produce their own fuel for their machines, really.
some years ago they used genetic enhancement to remove a certain proteine from the oil seeds. it worked pretty well; the only problem was, the seeds now damaged the sensual areas in the brains of wild animals eating them, rendering them deaf, blind, and completely helpless. thus the plant was put away for good...

as you can see, we would need natural oil for a long time, given the current possibilities and society structure.


----------



## Hollow-Dragon (Sep 1, 2008)

Just don't drive period.  Ride a bike, walk, or skate or whatever else can get you someplace without gasoline.  I'd prefer to drive, being the motor freak I am, but I guess when desperate times come to desperate measures... I don't even have a car....


----------



## CatScratchFever (Sep 3, 2008)

I saw a lot of good advice, but there are a few topics I'd like to talk about too:

Oil and filter change intervals -- Oil chemistry has advanced tremendously in just the last ~25 years, but it is far and away better than it was the 60+ years ago when the 3000-mile interval became the norm. Back then you were lucky to get multi-viscosity oil and ALL of it was paraffin-base. It didn't have the detergents, dispersants, corrosion inhibitors, and high-pressure additives that they do now. Back then, it wasn't unreasonable to have exhausted the oil by 3000mi, although many manufacturers recommended _filter_ changes every 6000mi.

Today, the viscosity modifiers and additive packages easily allow change intervals in excess of 6000mi and that's why so many modern cars have factory recommended change intervals of 7500mi or more. Changing even petroleum oil at 3000 is wasteful unless you do some unbelievably hard driving....and it's just about impossible to drive that hard on public roads. Synthetic in itself is unnecessary save for a few special applications. One way to find out how your oil is doing is to send it to a lab for analysis. They can tell you exactly how much the viscosity degraded, how much particulate contamination there is, and also how much life is left in it.

Fuel octane -- This obviously falls into the category of chemistry and I don't expect the average driver to care, but hey, knowledge is power, right? Anyway, isooctane(100 octane) and heptane(0 octane) are petroleum distillates used as the baseline for doing knock-resistance tests on spark-ignition fuels and other chemicals. 87 octane gasoline is equal to a mixture of 87% isooctane and 30% heptane, but it does not mean there is 87% isooctane in 87 pump gas. As it applies to gasoline, "octane" is only a rating system; It typically does not account for the majority of the chemical contents in a standard way. A less confusing term is "knock index." I should also add that the knock index is wholly independent of the specific heat, volatility, or flame speed of a fuel. Just use the lowest octane fuel that your vehicle is designed to run on.

Hydrogen as a vehicle fuel -- The sad fact that lobbyists and interest groups won't tell you about hydrogen as a fuel is that it doesn't come from electrolysis. Even worse; large scale commercial hydrogen, really the only kind that is practical to build a fuel infrastructure around, is a *byproduct of petroleum refining*.

Coasting down hill to save gas -- Since the advent of digital electronic fuel injection, this has been largely ineffective and in many places, illegal to begin with. Most, if not all modern fuel injected cars use a type of "overrun fuel cut." What this means is that when your car is in gear and you let off the gas, the computer shuts off the injectors and you get engine braking that uses no fuel. Coasting down hill in neutral with the engine idling actually uses more fuel! Even "ancient" '80s EFI used this and it is typically good for a 15% fuel savings over no fuel cut. BTW, those same "ancient" '80s EFI systems actually do adjust to changes in air temperature and density. Many also have some sort of learning system just like new cars. You' be surprised what they were capable of back in the late '70s and were actually doing in the early '80s. The biggest advance I can think of is since then is the implementation of wideband exhaust gas oxygen sensors on production cars.

Direct injection gasoline engines -- They're here; both Ford and GM have production models that have been on the market for a few years and boat engines are available in 2-cycle DI models now. Unfortunately they are still spark-ignition engines and as such cannot effectively burn a wide range of air:fuel ratios like a diesel(compression ignition). Likewise, they also still use a throttle blade which just wrecks the pumping efficiency.

If you made it through my long-winded post, my hat's off to you. Really the most effective, yet basic things that can be done to improve fuel economy are to keep the vehicle in a good state of tune and repair, remove unused roof racks and big trailer mirrors/etc, make sure the tires are not underinflated, and mind your driving style.


----------



## hillbilly guy (Sep 3, 2008)

get a horse hay is cheep but grass is cheeper and you can ride it while dunk (long as the horse aint) and when you ride one in the city you will be the most popular ride on the side walk

im sory


----------



## ToeClaws (Sep 3, 2008)

*CatScratchFever:* Awesome additional advice!  I had a good laugh at the hydrogen one - yet another reason the hydrogen car is just _not_ a good idea yet.  The only thing I would add to that is a bit of a footnote to your oil statement.  Everything you said there is absolutely right - oil refinement, especially with synthetic, is incredibly advanced today compared to decades past.  The oil itself does not break down for a long time.  In fact, synthetic oils are so good, many of them can push 25,000 miles before their viscosity degrades to a concerning level.  _However_, there is one thing to consider with changing it often, and that's contaminants.  See, oil is something that gets pushed around the engine, picking up everything there is to pick up inside that block.  The more you change it, the more you get rid of any potentially bad things in it.  But... as CatScratchFever pointed out, you can also get it tested to see just what's in it though most people probably wouldn't go to that extreme.  Oil isn't too pricey, so if your budget allows it to be changed ever 3000 miles, then it won't do any harm.  If your tight on case and need to go 6000 miles (especially if you had synthetic in there) then you'll still be okay.
*
Hillbilly Guy:* I would LOVE to have a horse, but would be a bit tricky in the city.


----------



## Kangamutt (Sep 4, 2008)

I went and checked my oil today-BLACK SLUDGE. Of course I've only replaced what _dripped_ out rather than what was getting dirty, but the motor is holding out surprisingly well. Of course when I first got it, it was a rusted hulk, dripping with the black death (super black sludge) and still started on the first try! That's an aircooled Volkswagen for ya! Hell I can probably get 2000 additional miles on top of the 6000 I racked up AND I'M TALKING IN A MONOLOGUE LIKE A BAD JAMES BOND VILLAIN! I really don't think I have anything useful to say here. :/ Unless my rant about the resilience of old VW engines...


----------



## lilEmber (Nov 12, 2008)

I've lived with my father who's a specialized small engine mechanic, we raced snowmobiles racing and took apart almost all types of engines from lawnmower to diesel in-lines (he might of been specialized small engine, he did other stuff as well)

I then got a job with Honda and worked there for 2 years. Then I had a job at General Motors working there for a year.

After reading this (though I must admit I didn't read every last bit of detail, just most of it) YOu're pretty spot on. Good job.

Though I myself would recommend replacing coolant every year, it's not necessary.


----------



## thebeast76 (Nov 12, 2008)

If you wanna go old school for gas mileage, go for a Citroen 2CV.
It gets 48 MPG and is 60 years old.


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 13, 2008)

Yeah, the irony is that many old vehicles got very good gas mileage for a few reasons.  One is that some had higher compression engines that got more bang for the buck, so to speak.  Others like in the Citroen's case are lighter, and have a very small, simple engine.  Same reason that Motorbikes and Scooters get such awesome mileage.

On a sidenote, I hate this time of year - now that the weather's gotten cold and miserable, I can't bike to work anymore.


----------



## thebeast76 (Nov 16, 2008)

ToeClaws said:


> Yeah, the irony is that many old vehicles got very good gas mileage for a few reasons.  One is that some had higher compression engines that got more bang for the buck, so to speak.  Others like in the Citroen's case are lighter, and have a very small, simple engine.  Same reason that Motorbikes and Scooters get such awesome mileage.
> 
> On a sidenote, I hate this time of year - now that the weather's gotten cold and miserable, I can't bike to work anymore.



I find it sad that car companies can't look to the past for designs anymore.
I think they could learn a lot about efficiency and styling from cars from the late seventies during the gas crisis.


----------



## Anbessa (Nov 19, 2008)

thebeast76 said:


> I find it sad that car companies can't look to the past for designs anymore.
> I think they could learn a lot about efficiency and styling from cars from the late seventies during the gas crisis.



the only good old-school design from the last few years are the actual mustang and the new camaro in my opinion.

way back whern the oil crisis hit the people many companies just lowered the compression to allow for lower gas qualities, especially in the US. henxce there were big, fat caddies with 8 litres of displacement and some 130HP only. not that they consumed less gas, they just consumed cheaper stuff. new exhaust laws did one more, so the time of street dinosaurs was over everywhere. in europe they came up with some new engines, new carburetors, or even injection systems, not all of them in order to rise mileage, but more like 'more power for the same consumption'. back in the days it wasn't as easy to come up with new engine/car concepts than it is now; a car was typically ten years in the making. so all they could do is trying their best with little adjustments in that single year or so before the crisis became real. here in germany we had a couple 'car-free sundays' meaning the general populace was expected to walk rather than drive the whole day. didn't help much, though.

@thebeast76: nice 'deuxchevaux' you have there... but, 'Land of Lincoln' and an UK license plate..? did I miss something in history class? ^^


----------



## ToeClaws (Nov 19, 2008)

Anbessa said:


> the only good old-school design from the last few years are the actual mustang and the new camaro in my opinion.
> 
> way back whern the oil crisis hit the people many companies just lowered the compression to allow for lower gas qualities, especially in the US. henxce there were big, fat caddies with 8 litres of displacement and some 130HP only. not that they consumed less gas, they just consumed cheaper stuff. new exhaust laws did one more, so the time of street dinosaurs was over everywhere. in europe they came up with some new engines, new carburetors, or even injection systems, not all of them in order to rise mileage, but more like 'more power for the same consumption'. back in the days it wasn't as easy to come up with new engine/car concepts than it is now; a car was typically ten years in the making. so all they could do is trying their best with little adjustments in that single year or so before the crisis became real. here in germany we had a couple 'car-free sundays' meaning the general populace was expected to walk rather than drive the whole day. didn't help much, though.



Yes - Mustang and Camero took some great styling cues from the cars of old.  One might argue the Challenger did too, though it's more of a copy of the old than a re-work of it.  Problem is that Ford and Chrysler both put live axels in the back of the new versions, making them perform little better than their 30+ year old cousins.  GM plans on _not_ making that mistake with the Camero, but then... who wants a GM product anymore? 

Anbessa pointed out, many of the tricks for better mileage in the 70's weren't very well done.  The problem then was they knew that higher compression ratios meant more power with smaller engines and less consumption, BUT, the new pollution laws made it too expensive for them to try and figure out how to do it cleanly.  Unleaded fuel in the 70's was awful - it contained hundreds of times more sulpher and other sludge-making chemicals than today's fuel, and yielded far less power per unit consumed.

A solution to fuel consumption today is, from a technical stand point, much easier to do than it was 30+ years ago, but many car manufacturers are also in financial peril because of years (if not decades) of mismangement and bad decisions, so they're not putting nearly the funding into research and development that they should.


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 19, 2008)

thebeast76 said:


> If you wanna go old school for gas mileage, go for a Citroen 2CV.
> It gets 48 MPG and is 60 years old.



Man those are great cars. I love the fact that they're designed for rough roads as well, living where I live, all the roads are still concrete, and completely devastated from earthquakes. Personally, however, I'd go with the DS.


----------



## thebeast76 (Nov 20, 2008)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> Man those are great cars. I love the fact that they're designed for rough roads as well, living where I live, all the roads are still concrete, and completely devastated from earthquakes. Personally, however, I'd go with the DS.



That's a really cool look!!


----------



## Anbessa (Nov 21, 2008)

Kangaroo_Boy said:


> Man those are great cars. I love the fact that they're designed for rough roads as well, living where I live, all the roads are still concrete, and completely devastated from earthquakes. Personally, however, I'd go with the DS.



good choice. and good luck with finding either in the US... 

the vehicles of old weren't just built for rough roads, they also were built for lesser oil and fuel qualities, some things about long-term material reactions we know now were unbeknownst then, or presumed; and sometimes wrong, too. from a modern point of view, pre-war automobiles were built overly massive, but nobody knew better. Carl Benz' first three-wheeler would have died pretty soon from the engines unfettered vibrations and torques slowly tearing the frame apart, but what did he know about these forces? ^^


----------



## Kangamutt (Nov 21, 2008)

I've actually found a few for sale on Craigslist, under $5000 USD. And within driving distance!
But I already have my VW Type 1, which I have no plans for getting rid of anytime soon.


----------

