Results 1 to 25 of 73
-
05-01-2006, 09:59 AM #1
Musings: the media + fuel prices + fuel consumption
Been paying attention to a lot of news coverage lately from various sources and have heard a ton of stories about high fuel prices and the "wacky" things people are doing to save $ plus usually a whole raft of things you can do type advice...lets not forget to mention those windfall profits either but! the one thing that I have yet to hear, not one danged time is the single piece of advice that'll make the most difference in anyone's fuel bill and it doesn't cost a cent to do:
SLOW DOWN
Time to bring back the national speed limit methinks.
Other stuff:
Traveled 740 miles over the weekend all highway (with 200mi of 4wd) and offroad (4wd also) averaged out to 18.45mpg in da big truk traveling generally around 60-65mph except for the long 4wd run that was mostly done about 40/45mph). Not too shabby for a truck that weighs close to 8K #s, has 190k on the clock and has 4:10s. Now, if I were to assign a dollar value to my time for driving slower it probably wasn't worth it but since the trip was just for pleasure I don't and I folded up about 20 bucks or so that didn't go into the tanks.
Got enough miles on it now to say that the new intake is good for about .5mpg across the board (Tymar) which is different from my chip, which has a sliding scale of improvement depending on the speed of the run. So at a hundred ten bucks the payback on that isn't great but isn't bad (very roughly: no interest, fuel at $3 equals about 20,000mi for me or... about a year then). But she's definitely running better, smog's a bit cleaner and I like the sound so the "non-economic payback period" has already been met.
My E-test is coming up so once that's complete on goes the new downpipe & cat-test-pipe. Didn't do the two at the same time so I can see how much each would improve (if at all) mileage individually, instead of all at once.Last edited by lemon boy; 05-01-2006 at 10:07 AM.
"It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
-
05-01-2006, 10:08 AM #2
Enjoy it while you can, LB. It won't be too long before running a vehicle with that sort of fuel consumption becomes a luxury few can afford. It's happened here and looks like it could happen to you guys. It's easy to be all preachy but having been used to paying $7 a gallon for gas, the first thing I'd do if I lived in the US would be to go out and buy a Corvette.
-
05-01-2006, 10:11 AM #3features a sintered base
- Join Date
- Apr 2002
- Location
- Impossible to knowl--I use an iPhone
- Posts
- 13,142
Before the hookers and blow? I doubt that.
[quote][//quote]
-
05-01-2006, 10:12 AM #4
Just to add to Lemon Boy's post - being conscientious of your driving habits is the greatest impact anyone can have on fuel consumption/savings in the short term - smooth acceleration, coasting up to stops or slower traffic rather than maintaining your speed until you absolutely have to slow down, and traveling at slower speeds (generally speaking - traveling at lower RPMS for whichever particular gear you are in, which translates to traveling slower on the highway because you are in your top gear). Also, as he mentioned, certain modifications can yield great results in fuel savings. For example I recently replaced a stock air filter with a K&N air filter and saw a ~2mpg increase.
-
05-01-2006, 10:19 AM #5
using cruise control on road trips gives you around a 7% bump in economy, also.
a question, did you put the 4.10's in da truk?"The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money" --Margaret Thatcher
-
05-01-2006, 10:30 AM #6
Gyptian, I drive sticks now, but used to use cruise control on my autos (Ford Taurii). I found that cruise usually made for worse fuel economy compared to disciplined pedal-pushing: cruise will hold me at speed XX whether I'm coasting downhill or climbing, which often resulted in a kickdown and higher revs. Why not just slacken speed a few mph on the uphills?
That said, I'm now driving fairly long distances for work. I'm now driving a smaller 4-cyl 5-speed, which is more fun and gets better fuel economy than the Taurus, even at 90 mph.
I love driving, and I love driving fast. I'm compensated for my fuel use, so driving faster doesn't give me the economic fuel-cost disadvantage. What I have found is that taking an hour's drive at 65 mph is more relaxing than a 45-min home-run at up to 90 mph... the mental benefits alone are often worth slowing down.
-
05-01-2006, 10:35 AM #7
not saying this is anyone in here but i find it hilarious that people spend all this time worrying about the price of gas and do all this crap to increase their mileage by 1 or 2 mpg so they can drive to a starbucks and plonk $5 on a coffee every morning.
the average american consumes 500 gallons of gasoline a year, at the current national average price of $2.90 a gallon thats a whopping $3.97 a day, compare that with prices from five years ago when gasoline cost half that and we're talking about an increase of nearly $2 a day on gasoline! i can see why its such a dilemma for most people, how in the world can anyone be expected to cut $2 a day out of their regular frivolous spending habits to cover this extra $2 a day?? its madness!!
-
05-01-2006, 10:38 AM #8
Roo Ha!
Luxury?
My truck is 9 years old, rides like an unsprung go-kart so luxurious is hardly the word I'd use to describe it and is quite affordable being paid for, the purchase of almost any other vehicle not having a reasonable payback on a miles traveled basis... until we get into the 7ish range for fuel. Of course at 7/gallon I could afford to simply purchase SVO at the store and run that either straight or processed as bio-d ($3.15/gallon and it'd be easy to get for less than "retail") Eventually though I'll end up with the wife's jetta as a commuter and the truck will be relegated to more "truckly" activities.
Mr_G: I've actually heard before that cruise turns in worse mileage, never bothered to test it either way though cause I hate using the stupid thing.
4:10s came with it, I wish it had 3:55s but I bought used and didn't really think necessarily every little detail through. Now though, changing gears or getting an overdrive simply for mpg gains is again, tossing good money after the bad. Especially b/c I'd have to put in front and rear's if I did."It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
- A. Solzhenitsyn
-
05-01-2006, 10:43 AM #9Originally Posted by grapedrink
-
05-01-2006, 10:46 AM #10Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 8,887
Originally Posted by Nate DoggElvis has left the building
-
05-01-2006, 10:48 AM #11
How about some decent public transit systems, like Toronto has?
-
05-01-2006, 10:50 AM #12
I just made my last trip to the mountain for the season. My goal now is to keep my personal gasoline consumption down to 1 gallon for the month of May. Of course it helps that I drive a company car most of the time. Gasoline here just passed 3.40 for 89.
But for really good gasoline mileage, go to go with downhill - I reset my mpg meter when I left white salmon yesterday- averaged 49.6 mpg on the drive down to Bellingham.Living vicariously through myself.
-
05-01-2006, 10:53 AM #13You pay $5-6k more for the car and a 10-20mpg improvement in fuel economy.
I disagree that driving habits are the #1 thing for fuel economy- its the car. I could redline every gear in my protege and still get 20mpg.
The problem with a national 55mph speed limit is that nobody will follow it- that was the problem with it last time."Verily, my folly has grown tall in the mountains." - Fredrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra
-
05-01-2006, 10:56 AM #14Originally Posted by cj001f
-
05-01-2006, 10:57 AM #15Originally Posted by cj001f
But I grant you, it is not necessarily cost effective. I have a friend who bought an Escape hybrid, cost him $34k. He gets 29-33mpg. I get 26-29mpg in my Volvo, and it's a whole lot nicer to drive. Cost me $33K. As he pointed out, though, he is a contractor and driving around in a luxury car would not fit the image he needs to portray to customers.
On the other hand, another friend has an Insight and gets over 70mpg. His main rationale isn't money, but doing the right thing. Hybrids, electric cars and mini-cars are all the rage here. It would actually be nice to see this island convert over to little cars instead of those damn SUV's.Living vicariously through myself.
-
05-01-2006, 10:59 AM #16Originally Posted by nealric
-
05-01-2006, 11:02 AM #17Originally Posted by grapedrink
Only market forces will make individuals change their habits.
You really wanna save the planet? Kill yourself.
Gas prices will have to rise by an order of magnitude to make us really change. Americans are plenty rich to pay an extra few bucks a day.
-
05-01-2006, 11:03 AM #18Registered User
- Join Date
- Oct 2003
- Posts
- 8,887
Originally Posted by grrrr
As for mother nature - what if you took the cost difference and bought a chunk of land for preservation? There's plenty of other places to put that capital to good use...
High gas prices will only make people change their behavior if they are sustained; a short term rise will just soak the pocket book.Elvis has left the building
-
05-01-2006, 11:08 AM #19Originally Posted by Nate Dogg
-
05-01-2006, 11:12 AM #20Originally Posted by lemon boy
You can't polish a turd, 18mpg is still terrible. Is this why the slowest drivers on the road are often people (middle-aged men) with huge trucks? Maybe they want a truck because it's manly more than functional, but sadly they can't afford to drive it the speed limit? Many people around here have trucks, they wouldn't be caught dead in a little subaru/jetta/whatever.
-
05-01-2006, 11:20 AM #21
1) saving money is not the only reason to traven in a fuel-conscious manner . . . reducing the emission of hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and reducing strain on the world fossil-fuel supply are good reasons too.
2) you could buy a $30000 prius that gets 45 mpg or a $600 bike that gets many thousands of miles per 1 gallon of fossil fuel used to clean/lubricate it. plus more fun to bike to work than drive
-
05-01-2006, 11:21 AM #22Originally Posted by Sphinx
and yes americans are plenty rich to afford a few bucks extra a day for gasoline, thats my point. what boggles my mind is why every american seems to think an extra $2 a day on gasoline is somehow something that will put them in the poor house. "no vacations this years kids", "sorry timmy, you won't be going to college", "i guess we'll have to sell that cottage on the lake", "well i guess i'll have to quit skiing".. its silly.
-
05-01-2006, 11:24 AM #23Originally Posted by grapedrink
-
05-01-2006, 11:27 AM #24Originally Posted by lemon boy
I love my Tundra, but the best I can do is 22 mpg on the highway at about 62 mph. It takes a lot of discipline to just cruise at 62, when people are blowing by you at 75 in their F350's. In fact, most people don't correlate greater speed/rpm with greater fuel consumption. Most people don't care. The people driving $40K Escalades just flow with the rise in gas prices. It's the poor fuckers already driving the most economic car they can find to save money that are getting strung out.
I'm torn about whether to keep the truck. Spend more money to save more money in the long run? Build a Mr. Fusion? I probably couldn't offload it anyway at current gas prices.
-
05-01-2006, 11:32 AM #25Originally Posted by grapedrink
from my boy george at urbansurvival.com :
Wage Rate Up 10% - But look, Ma - NO SAVINGS!
Wow - a blockbuster report this morning on the Personal Consumption and Expenditure rates from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Their report puts wage increases at 8-10ths of one percent for the month of March - a whopping 10% annual rate.
While the markets will no doubt call this "good news" on initial spin, the reality shows up on page 4 of the report - people can't save a dime!
"Personal saving -- DPI less personal outlays -- was a negative $32.5 billion in March, compared with a negative $58.3 billion in February. Personal saving as a percentage of disposable personal income was a negative 0.3 percent in March, compared with a negative 0.6 percent in February. Negative personal saving reflects personal outlays that exceed disposable personal income. Saving from current income may be near zero or negative when outlays are financed by borrowing (including borrowing financed through credit cards or home equity loans), by selling investments or other assets, or by using savings from previous periods."
Now, carefully think back a couple of weeks ago, when I told you inflation was running at an 8.7% (using the "old weights" system at the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. I told you then, and I will tell you now - with these latest numbers supporting the case - that inflation in America is now running at 10% - and will no doubt go up as gasoline price impacts propagate.
The People's Economist will make it very simple for you, in the event that your coffee hasn't kicked in yet: "When wages going up 10% still results in a negative savings rate, then inflation is going up at something approaching 10%, too!" Damn, that's simple.
Welcome to the Argentina North. Watch metals continue their romp.
Bookmarks