Does it make sense?

Hi.

Please consider this:

• Would it make sense for the owner of an older home to open the windows while cranking up the AC or furnace? He feels safer breathing fresh air, and doesn't want to hassle with dressing up/down for the weather. He rails with complains about their outrageous fuel bill, and against the utility company.
• How about a newer, efficient home owner?
• If the owner of a super-efficient home opened his windows year round would it make sense?
• How about if most everybody did it?

Well it doesn't make sense to me either. So let me apply this to automobiles.

Does it make sense with gas prices over $4 per gallon to drive in anything less than a purposeful, efficient manner?
If the driver of an old car isn't taking steps to curb his fuel bill by more thoughtful driving, should he wail with complaints about his gasoline bill?

How about the owner of a newer compact or subcompact car?

Isn't having an efficient TDI, then driving as everyone else with little to no thought of efficient driving habits- is like buying a super-efficient home and keeping the windows open?

How about if everybody else is doing it? After all, going super speed limit feels safer, less exciting and arriving a couple minutes later is a hassle (Like dressing up or down for weather)

Are we "Grabbing the horse by the reins" and taking responsibility ourselves, or taking for granted the car will do it all? After all, we did buy a fuel efficient car, so we did our part and it should end there.

Right?

Hot Georgia said:

Hi.

Please consider this:

• Would it make sense for the owner of an older home to open the windows while cranking up the AC or furnace? He feels safer breathing fresh air, and doesn't want to hassle with dressing up/down for the weather. He rails with complains about their outrageous fuel bill, and against the utility company.
• How about a newer, efficient home owner?
• If the owner of a super-efficient home opened his windows year round would it make sense?
• How about if most everybody did it?

Well it doesn't make sense to me either. So let me apply this to automobiles.

Does it make sense with gas prices over $4 per gallon to drive in anything less than a purposeful, efficient manner?
If the driver of an old car isn't taking steps to curb his fuel bill by more thoughtful driving, should he wail with complaints about his gasoline bill?

How about the owner of a newer compact or subcompact car?

Isn't having an efficient TDI, then driving as everyone else with little to no thought of efficient driving habits- is like buying a super-efficient home and keeping the windows open?

How about if everybody else is doing it? After all, going super speed limit feels safer, less exciting and arriving a couple minutes later is a hassle (Like dressing up or down for weather)

Are we "Grabbing the horse by the reins" and taking responsibility ourselves, or taking for granted the car will do it all? After all, we did buy a fuel efficient car, so we did our part and it should end there.

Right?

Click to expand...

My mileage has gone up 18% since fuel spiked. Unfortunately not everyone wakes up right away, it takes some an ungodly amount of suffering before they realize their plight is self inflicted. People complain to get others to feel for them, to bond through a united pain. Instead of figuring out a way not to suffer. Easier to complain than take an active role and change things.

I prefer taking an active role

A sense of balance is needed.

I bought a TDI so that I COULD drive however I darn please without concerning myself with what it costs, and that is still true today. My car uses less fuel at 130 km/h than, say, a Ford Explorer uses no matter how economically it is driven.

For ME, the difference in fuel cost between driving the same distance at 130 km/h versus 100 km/h is not worth the extra time it costs to get where I have to go.

AudiLikeA4 said:

I prefer taking an active role

Click to expand...

Good on ya. But it will take a few years to cycle through all the new 8-10 mpg Hummers and other hawgs. I have to laugh at everyone as I have my cruise set on 75mph, and I still feel cautious about moving to the left hand lane for fear of being jumped by a F350 doing 80+.......

GoFaster said:

A sense of balance is needed. (snip)

Click to expand...

__. Agreed. And peoples' situations are different -- I'm retired and my time is worth squat; I have all the time in the world to get somewhere, so a few dollars saved on each trip adds up to good money. A lot of old ladies won't ride with me because I drive so slow but you *have to keep up with traffic*.

__. I like Georgia's thougts, but it's that sense of balance thing.

__. Still, if everyone slowed down by 10 MPH, we could probably save a fair chunk of the oil that we buy from the Middle East. But I'm sure that the "important" people would b!tch about how valuable their time is and how much that would slow them down.

I've been so busy with a new business and a wife going to UC Davis Vet School for the last 3 years I haven't had time to look down to see if Im driving conservitivly.

Previously our 96 Passat was getting 38-41mpg with this drive 85 get there get it done make money attitude.

We're finally under the same roof and able to take our time going places particularly on pleasure drives I tend to keep it at or under the speed limit.

New 01 Golf TDi pushing 18" wheels with a bike rack on still is getting 44mpg.

Im not saying that when I take a 1000+ mile road trip I keep it at 65 probably more like 85 (Im from CA sorry) because the several HOURS I save is worth it to me more than the $15 Ill save on fuel.

I think we should do our part as much as life allows, but more important than anything is keep right except to pass how many times have you had to slow down only to accelerate again because some old fart is doing 45 in the fast lane? How much gas would that save?

I have driven over 33,000 miles in the past 1.75 years (19,000 miles per year) and my lifetime mpg average is 47mpg. I am driving for fuel economy. It is taking a fair amount of effort to increase my average.

Per month, my approximate extra expense, driving a gasoline car, would have been:

$10.11 at 35mpg
$19.52 at 32mpg
$26.85 at 30mpg
$50.28 at 25mpg

These numbers are pretty small (for "efficient" cars).

47 MPG driving for econ!?! Do you have a portly MK V with DSG?

Do what you want, but please stay out of the Left lane unless you're passing someone...

I don't drive too fast (IMHO), but my time is certainly worth something...

Yuri.

Bob_Fout said:

47 MPG driving for econ!?! Do you have a portly MK V with DSG?

Click to expand...

2006 Jetta TDI with 5M. That's the lifetime average mpg (not cherry-picking good tanks).

I'll drive during the winter with the heater on and a window open. Is that as bad as my home with the side door waving like a flag in the breeze, open-close-open-close, as the dogs fuss that they need to go out right now, but its cold let me in, want to go out...?

Some advantages to driving at LESS than speed of the prevailing horde:
1 The right lane is typically less occupied, here in the north east US anyway.
There is less need to adjust speed by braking and greater ability to maintain steady state speed.
2 The service lane to the right can be used as an emergency route. There are some exceptions when it is in use during rush hours and the "fast lane" is to the far left and additionally to the further right.
Something lying in the right lane is more easily avoided than something in the center lane when traffic prevents swerving. The shoulder to the left is typically narrower than the service lane.
3 The idiot driver (everyone that is not me is, by default, an idiot driver) next to me won't still be there in 10 seconds as he would we I to be engaging in a similar cruise control race and oh so nearly matching his speed.
Sure there'll be another idiot right behind him, but she'll be gone in a moment, too.
4 The right lane is not necessarily the slow lane.
There have been more than just a few times when someone blasts past me at the toll booth in Buffalo, the service station in Syracuse, again in Albany, and one last time as I exit in Worcester. Their 75 mph driving speed got them 350 miles no faster than my 60.

I have been at both ends of the MPG spectrum in my TDI. My lifetime average is ~53 MPG's, my min is down in the upper/mid 30's, my max is 75.

I've made some significant power modifications to my car in the last 6 months, along with lots of snow/slush/cold starts/snow tires/winter fuel/etc for this winter, still in the mid/upper 40's for mileage (typical for conditions, especially with snow tires). I had one tank after most of my power adders but before "winter" hit, where I drove it without any regard to fuel economy, and every regard to having fun with almost doubling my power output and still got just a bit over 50 MPG. The difference between a 50 and 60 MPG tank is ~150 miles and ~2.5 gallons which is $10 at $4/gal. Am I willing to spend $10 (in fuel) to have that much fun, most definately. Now I'm the efficient house with the doors open - for a couple weeks, not all year. I'm currently working on a upper 50's MPG tank now that my snow tires are off and it's warmed up a bit. Still on winter fuel yet.

When I pull my trailer and get down in the 30's I'm still doing 2-4x better than just about any truck pulling the same trailer or putting it in the back of the truck.

When I go on a "mileage run" for a tank and turn out 70 MPG's for 1000+ miles (yet to be done with my new power adders, but done with my closer to stock/stock setup a few times), There's only a few other vehicles (insights, mopeds, a really motivated prius driver, basjoos, etc) that are in that MPG catgegory.

Not everyone can buy a new house/car only for the energy efficiency benefits. Energy prices are not high enough to make it $$ effective. A TDI is not the cheapest $/mile vehicle you can buy by a long shot, but it is one of the highest MPG vehicles out there. For me it's the most useful vehicle for what I do I've ever owned. I still have a truck for things that I need a truck for, but it's had less than 1000 miles on it in the last 4 years, but those miles are things that I absolutely needed a truck for - no question.

I do agree that one shouldn't needlessly waste energy for a handfull of reasons, but in comparison, with my car, my most wasteful attempt are still better than many vehicles maximum effort attempts. Most of the time these two vehicles are doing the same thing - taking someone from one place to another. Now I know there are many who use their vehicles for what they were intended to the capacity of the vehicle, no problem with that. But there are many who don't. I wish they would re-consider their vehicle choice at their next purchase.

Lots of rambling, not much sense, having trouble consolidating my thoughts, hope it makes sene to someone.

I commute in my Jetta 65 mi/day, get 50+ mpg, and am very happy since last July with my purchase. Every day Suv's and pickups are flying down the freeway by me at 80+ mph with one person in the vehicle. I drive in the next to the slow lane and am comfortabe here at 72 mph and do not get run up on very often. I am in this for economy, I have other toys for performance.

I was in Italy on a business trip to the Ferrari facility in Maranelo and rented a Alpha Romeo 159 Diesel at the Bologna airport. This was a HUGE car compared to everything else on the road. There were quite a few Jetta's and Golfs which themselves were larger than most of the Fiats, etc... I took a few days and drove all over the place, paid 1.59 Euros per liter for fuel and think the only way we here in north america will ever run around in little fuel efficient vehicles is if our fuel gets to 7 -8 bucks a gallon. Sad but I believe true.

Unfortunately I make up for my economic behavior "off" track. We have an F-250 and trailer for bikes, quads, getting supplies, etc. and use it when needed. We also have a '99 28 ft. Motorhome, pull a trailer, bring quads, bikes, etc. all out to the desert once a month or so and get 6 mpg while absolutely SUCKING down the fuel. Then we fill the bikes, quads, and suck down more fuel! I race 100cc karts and pay 7 bucks a gallon for racing fuel and once a month burn more fuel pulling the trailer to the track.

I was born in 1960, I used to ride my mini-bike at 9 yrs old to the gas station and fill it's little tank for 15 or 20 cents. The days of cheap gas are over but it is still ingrained in my head to use fuel to have fun. The new generations are not going to have that luxury and will find solutions as we always have. For now, we pay... or find ways to lessen the pain such as a commuter that gets 50+ mpg

I see your point HotGeorgia. The stink of it is, if you ever hear someone mention, or a news cast, or a study where fuel consumption is an issue, most if not all the time it is said, "people should drive more fuel efficient vehihcles." Which is true of course, to reduce fuel consumption, but I rarely if ever hear ANYTHING stating people should drive more efficiently. Kind of burns my hiney.

I drive efficiently, and I continuously have Excursions and Tahoes behind me (with "24 inch" stickers on their side windows) try to put their front bumpers on my back window pulling away from traffic lights. Then jerk it left, foot to the floor, giving me a look, only to rocket up to the traffic light that is visible and already red just ahead ... only for me to roll/coast back by them just as the light turns green. Every day. It's beyond frustrating. The only satisfaction is watching one of those types put $5 in gas in the thing at the gas station. While I'm putting $42 in it and having driven ~550 miles on that last $42. You know the gas guzzler is breaking them and likely that will force them into something more reasonable on gas.

"people should drive more fuel efficient vehihcles." Which is true of course, to reduce fuel consumption, but I rarely if ever hear ANYTHING stating people should drive more efficiently.

Click to expand...

JyRO this is exactly the point of my post.
Almost no drivers actually know what their MPG's are ... they've never checked. Driving on half deflated tires, partially clogged air filters will usually assume the stickers's EPA or thier dash board figure. 100% Slave to their fuel consumption, their car just "gets what it gets".

I love my country home - but am considering selling and moving closer to town.

VW will import that new 1.6 CRD in Polo I think next year and it is 50 - 70 mpg. My home is still vey much wanted in Central Florida - 5 acres - away from coast.

ieracer said:

paid 1.59 Euros per liter for fuel

Click to expand...

Wow, looks like a lot of tax to me. Here, in Spain, diesel is hovering around 1.14€/litre and heating oil, which is pretty much the same thing with a marker in it is around 0.70€/litre

wjdell said:

VW will import that new 1.6 CRD in Polo I think next year and it is 50 - 70 mpg.

Click to expand...

Here, the fuel efficient Polo is the BlueMotion 1.4-litre 3 cylinder 74bhp TDI (PD + DPF). Its rated at 3.8L/100km (61 mpg US) on the combined cycle and 3.2L/100km (74 mpg US) extra-urban. European test figures are usually pretty accurate for the "avaerage" driver.

Hot Georgia a hybrid question: I know hybrids have regenerative braking but how efficient do you think it is? especially if you never use the brakes. Lets say you were going 30 and braked gently to a stop the energy is saved for when you start off again. How much of that energy do you think will be captured and turn back into kinetic energy? 15-20% (assuming there was actually space available in the battery)?

Hot Georgia said:

JyRO this is exactly the point of my post.
Almost no drivers actually know what their MPG's are ... they've never checked. Driving on half deflated tires, partially clogged air filters will usually assume the stickers's EPA or thier dash board figure. 100% Slave to their fuel consumption, their car just "gets what it gets".

Click to expand...

I wager that if American's could all suddenly go out and check their under inflated tires and bring them up to 36 psi, universally, our national fuel economy would go up 10%

My stepdad constantly runs on half flat tires, even though I constantly pester him to add air. Many times I've whipped out the compressor and added it for him, but he just doesn't give a damn for some reason. Pure neglect.

I agree with you about people not knowing how to calculate their economy. I work with a young biologist who recently graduated. She actually asked me how to calculate fuel economy in her Prius a few months back. Actually I was glad she had the guts to--most people are too sheepish, but...she still hasn't hand-calculated her mileage (trip computers make you lazy?)

Hi bokeh.

How much of that energy do you think will be captured and turn back into kinetic energy?

Click to expand...

I don't have any way to calculate the percent.
The electric motor is used as a kind of turbo and the output is proportional to how much torque is neccessary. On very light acceration it may come on lightly up to 25MPH or so then go off, not really much boost with that one.

On contrast, heavy acceleration might go to 100% (~46ft lbs) and provide a good boost.

I drive extremely light footed, so my battery demand is usually very low. I use brake regeneration mainly as another uses his MT to downshift, however in my case it charges the battery. I'm sure there is considerable loss in the mechanical/electrical/mechanical conversion.

Years ago I heard that GM was experimenting with a hydraulic system which was nearly 100% efficient. I haven't heard anything since.

I doubt any part of the process is much more than 90% efficent. So, converting mechanical energy to electricity, electricity to chemical, and then back again is 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9, or 66% efficency. Maybe 70% overall.

Hot Georgia, question for you: on the hybrids, do you have to lightly tap the brake for it to regeneratively recharge the battery?

supton said:

I doubt any part of the process is much more than 90% efficent. So, converting mechanical energy to electricity, electricity to chemical, and then back again is 0.9*0.9*0.9*0.9, or 66% efficency. Maybe 70% overall.

Click to expand...

I doubt it's anywhere near that, probably less than 40%.

That sounds too low. Even if it was, though, I bet it stands for a fair amount of energ savings that otherwise would be making brake dust.

nicklockard said:

My stepdad constantly runs on half flat tires, even though I constantly pester him to add air. Many times I've whipped out the compressor and added it for him, but he just doesn't give a damn for some reason. Pure neglect.

Click to expand...

My mom can figure out her mileage using a calculator, but the last time I drove her minivan, I though I was going to die when I had to take a hard corner -

The problem was tires so under-inflated, that they were begging to roll off the rims going around every turn.

I check the pressure at a service station - 8psi front, 12 in the rear...Guess Iffy lube's 8 million point check at ever oil change doesn't cover tire inflation.

[/quote]Hot Georgia, question for you: on the hybrids, do you have to lightly tap the brake for it to regeneratively recharge the battery?[/quote]

I don’t know about the Honda but the Prius has stages of resistance that it applies on regenerating, if your coasting with your foot off the throttle its applies little resistance with regeneration (10-20 amps) but once you hit the break it ramps up the generator applying more resistance (100+ amps) charging the battery faster. I found it more efficient when in the city if you apply the breaks gradually rather then coasting into a stop or tapping the breaks. It also has an engine break (the B mode) that essentially puts a full load on the generator and turns the engine without fuel increasing resistance. This is really nice for the mountains where you never have to touch the brakes coming down long step hills; it’s pretty much useless in urban driving. The Prius is capable of recovering 30-40% of the energy lost in breaking so it’s much lower then 70%. I installed a switch in my car that you can manually shut off the electric system or gas system and run on one entirely. If I shut of the electric system the car gets around 38 mpg which lowers its fuel economy about 40%.

I read 30% efficiency for the braking-to-battery-to-motor cycle (it was in an article about hydraulic hybrids, so the writer may have been biased). The article is linked from the front page of cleanmpg.com.

I stand corrected then.

The reason people who drive TDI's and hybrids don't worry as much about efficiency is an ingrained assumption in America: 25 mpg is average, so anything below that is "bad" and anything above it is "good." Comparing 40mpg to 43mpg doesn't matter, since they're both "good." If the average car in America got 60 mpg, then a car getting 40 mpg would be a gas guzzler, and the 90 mpg hybrid would be the smug 'good' car.

The inherent problem with conservation is that it doesn't totally solve the problem. Properly inflated tires, tuned engine, light on the gas, all those things save petroleum, but they don't eliminate it. The environmental community has always said "It's ok to pollute the earth this much, but it's not ok to pollute it that much." You're still polluting the earth! Take colder showers, don't leave lights on, drive less, eat less, consume less, less is good! Wrong.

The real solution is to eliminate pollution completely. How? The technology is there for renewable energy we just need to get it going. A carbon-fiber plug-in biodiesel-electric hybrid with advanced particulate and smog traps, EGR's, biodiesel made from non-food, non-polluting sources in a production plant powered by wind-power electricity . . . that's pretty damn good. If someone can pull off hydrogen even better. The point is to completely scrap everything you know about cars and start over. Design them from the ground up to be non-polluting, made from safe recyclable or biodegradable materials, running a non-polluting fuel. Cradle to Cradle. Then the only downside of driving a big SUV is you use a bit more fuel which costs you more, but doesn't hurt the planet any more than the smug tiny car.

Hot Georgia said:

The electric motor is used as a kind of turbo and the output is proportional to how much torque is neccessary. On very light acceration it may come on lightly up to 25MPH or so then go off, not really much boost with that one.

On contrast, heavy acceleration might go to 100% (~46ft lbs) and provide a good boost.

Click to expand...

This kind of operation depends on which hybrid we're talking about. The Civic Hybrid works like this, as well as the full size luxury hybrids, like the Lexi (plural of Lexus?). The Prius however, is opposite. On LIGHT acceleration, the gas engine isn't even running and it only uses the electric motor. Once the battery starts dropping too much, or the gas pedal pressed down too far, or the AC turned on, then the gas engine automatically starts up and gives power, then turns back off when not needed. I wonder what the efficiency differences are for the brake-battery-motor process between the two systems, if any.

I worked in a body shop and saw a few Prii (plural of Prius? Wow, that's really difficult). It was always fun trying to pull them in and out of the shop and around the parking lot without kicking the engine on.

Makes me wonder what Volkswagen is doing with the diesel hybrid prototype they have.

I heard that the VW hybrid is more like the Prius than the Civic in that you can drive on electric only. But unlike the Prius I think that you don't have to wait for the engine to heat up first (i.e., you can have an entirely electric journey as long as it is short, the battery is fully charged and you don't travel too fast, i.e., the urban cycle).

MikeMars said:

you can have an entirely electric journey as long as it is short

Click to expand...

Well it would need to be short! The usable battery cycle for the current hybrids is less than 1 kW/h which is equivelant to 4 fl/oz of gas. How far can you go on 4 fl/oz of gas?