# Fuel Economy



## C-Dog (Jan 14, 2008)

The auto companies say higher fuel economy standards will drive them out of business, I don't believe it. Look at these numbers from http://green.yahoo.com/news/ap/20080113/ap...more_mpg_3.html :



> In 1987, for example, the average vehicle could accelerate to 60 miles per hour in 13.1 seconds, weighed 3,221 pounds and had a 118 horsepower engine, offering about the same power as a 2008 Nissan Versa subcompact, which offers 122 horsepower.
> By 2007, according to data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the average vehicle weighed 4,144 pounds, boasted a 223 horsepower engine and did zero to 60 in 9.6 seconds


If they just cut the weight and reduced the power, it can simply be done. I currently drive a 2000 VW Jetta that averages 50 mpg. I am currently looking to replace it, yet I can not find anything with comparable milage


----------



## roadmonkey (Jan 14, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> If they just cut the weight and reduced the power, it can simply be done.


Hasn't every increase in engine efficiency been met with an increase in vehicle weight? I think that is what i s really killing any advances in fuel economy.


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 14, 2008)

My beloved 89 Civic Si had 108hp, weighed2200 pounds, did 0-60 in 8.5 seconds and got 35-38 mpg. Great car.


----------



## GTScott (Jan 14, 2008)

My toy car gets 8 mpg if I drive carefully! Then again, it does not get driven much.


----------



## SSmith (Jan 14, 2008)

roadmonkey said:


> Hasn't every increase in engine efficiency been met with an increase in vehicle weight? I think that is what i s really killing any advances in fuel economy.


As an FYI -- The Army now requires Fuel Efficiency be a Kep Performance Parameter for new capabilities development. Working those requirements is a big ball of not fun mixed with an occassional paycheck.


----------



## C-Dog (Jan 28, 2008)

I am now in the market for a station wagon w/ baby C-Dog II on the way. When I look at my options today, I do not see anything that will fit my needs:

1. Compact station wagon able to handle 2 car seats

2. &gt; 45 mpg Hwy

But I recently say the VW Sport Wagon is coming soon. While I was hoping not to get another VW, they do make what I want.

http://www.vw.com/jettasportwagen/en/us/


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 28, 2008)

My 199 Chevy Lumina is giving me only 20.5 miles per galon. Did the calculation the other day. 90% of these miles are highway miles.

The daily commute for me is 102 miles and the car has a 16 gallons capacity....give or take.

16 gallons @ $3.10: $49.6 per tank

20.5 mpg * 16 g: 328 miles

102 @ 5 days a week: 510 miles a week

510/328 : 1.59 times per week I have to fill the tank

1.5 * 49.6: $74.40 per week

$74.40 * 4 : $297.60 per month

297.60 *12: $3571.20

Got a $7900 pay rise when changed jobs

$7900 - 3571.20: $4328 net per year.

Don't want to bother you but after calculating the money I have to give my wife to drive around our area to pick up the kids and our oldest on the TriRail Station, etc., and also the $$$ to my son in college for lunch, an evening snack and transportation, my net went down to -$1200 (give or take) a year.

Conclusion: I am screwed. Now I know why I am feeling so depressed lately.


----------



## EngRanger (Jan 28, 2008)

BringItOn said:


> 297.60 *12: $3571.20
> Got a $7900 pay rise when changed jobs ...
> 
> $7900 - 3571.20: $4328 net per year. ...


Dude, what about your "old" commute - was it zero miles?! With a 30 mile commute (assuming identical mileage) you still would have spent:

$3571.20 * (30/102) = $1050.35 and so your net would be more like $7900 - ($3571.20 - $1050.35) = $5379.15

In my case I was looking at spending 15-20k for a car that averaged 35+ mpg's. My current car gets about 22. With the miles that I drive the annual savings are less than 1k per year. Since my current car is paid for, it makes little sense to spend the money.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 28, 2008)

EngRanger said:


> Dude, what about your "old" commute - was it zero miles?! With a 30 mile commute (assuming identical mileage) you still would have spent:
> $3571.20 * (30/102) = $1050.35 and so your net would be more like $7900 - ($3571.20 - $1050.35) = $5379.15
> 
> In my case I was looking at spending 15-20k for a car that averaged 35+ mpg's. My current car gets about 22. With the miles that I drive the annual savings are less than 1k per year. Since my current car is paid for, it makes little sense to spend the money.


I had a company Van with a gas card on my old commute Dude.


----------



## C-Dog (Jan 28, 2008)

EngRanger said:


> Dude, what about your "old" commute - was it zero miles?! With a 30 mile commute (assuming identical mileage) you still would have spent:
> $3571.20 * (30/102) = $1050.35 and so your net would be more like $7900 - ($3571.20 - $1050.35) = $5379.15
> 
> In my case I was looking at spending 15-20k for a car that averaged 35+ mpg's. My current car gets about 22. With the miles that I drive the annual savings are less than 1k per year. Since my current car is paid for, it makes little sense to spend the money.


I agree, it would make great $$ sense to keep my current 45 mpg sedan, but with the addition, we will need the hatchback space of a wagon. But I do not want to go backwards. My 45 mpg sedan is going to be 8 yrs old in Oct, it runs pretty good, is well paid for, but lacks some room. So I want more space and better milage. Come on Car makers of the world.


----------



## roadwreck (Jan 28, 2008)

BringItOn said:


> I had a company Van with a gas card on my old commute Dude.


I hate to break this to you BIO, but fuel mileage is only a portion of the cost of operating a vehicle. So giving up that company car is costing you more then just the fuel you are now paying for out of pocket.


----------



## Dark Knight (Jan 28, 2008)

roadwreck said:


> I hate to break this to you BIO, but fuel mileage is only a portion of the cost of operating a vehicle. So giving up that company car is costing you more then just the fuel you are now paying for out of pocket.


Don't feel bad for giving me the bad news RW. I realized that was a mistake. But there is hope on the horizon.

In my new job my co-workers are great, my boss is a very nice guy and I have future here, even though it is so boring some times. The pace is very slow and I am not used to that. As a former Field Engineer sometimes, for me, this is a punishment :joke: But honestly I do not miss my close encounters with snakes, the calls at 3AM or having to go out during severe weather alerts. Not to mention my old boss' rants when he was running low on nicotine. I think you read the story. :smileyballs:

I took the decission to come here based on results on the long run. We will have raises in March and the rumor is my boss is very happy with the job I am doing. So I am expecting something. My source told me that I am going to be very pleased. In my old job only got 600 dollars as a raise after three years, and that was after getting my PE. So I thought I had nothing to loose by coming where I am right now. So we will see after March. I will like to stay here because they have been good to me and trully think I can help a lot.

Back to the darn car....I have spent like two times what the car worths right now in the last three months. But thinking about buying a new one is forbidden for me. Cannot afford it. You are right. Fuel milleage is a portion of the cost. I learned that the hard way.


----------



## udpolo15 (Jan 29, 2008)

has anyone seen this company? they supposedly have hybrid technology that can get 150mpg with decent performance.

http://www.afstrinity.com/


----------



## C-Dog (Jan 29, 2008)

udpolo15 said:


> has anyone seen this company? they supposedly have hybrid technology that can get 150mpg with decent performance.
> 
> http://www.afstrinity.com/


Yeah, their 150 mpg is not real though. They do not include the energy they are getting from the plug. How much oil did that require?


----------



## EngRanger (Jan 29, 2008)

udpolo15 said:


> has anyone seen this company? they supposedly have hybrid technology that can get 150mpg with decent performance.
> 
> http://www.afstrinity.com/


Interesting. You know the EPA mandates a sticker on all vehicles stating the mpg's. With the advent of electric / hybrid vehicles it would make sense to state a kw*hr per mile or something along those lines. How else could you possibly compare total costs of operation?

The other things that strikes me as odd is the statement on their web site about surplus electricity being available on the grid. It wasn't too long ago we had a major blackout in the northeast and heard nothing but bad news about the pitiful state of our infrastructure. Hmmm, which is it?

From their site:

"... sufficient excess electrical generating and transmission capacity exists today during off-peak hours in America’s power grid to recharge 84% of America’s light duty car, truck and SUV fleet..."


----------



## C-Dog (Jan 29, 2008)

EngRanger said:


> Interesting. You know the EPA mandates a sticker on all vehicles stating the mpg's. With the advent of electric / hybrid vehicles it would make sense to state a kw*hr per mile or something along those lines. How else could you possibly compare total costs of operation?
> The other things that strikes me as odd is the statement on their web site about surplus electricity being available on the grid. It wasn't too long ago we had a major blackout in the northeast and heard nothing but bad news about the pitiful state of our infrastructure. Hmmm, which is it?
> 
> From their site:
> ...


Surplus electricity is typically available from 8pm to 5am, like they said. The blackout was during peak hrs (I think it was around 3pm) on a 100 degree day. Luckily for me, our house had power, but 1 mile away was in the dark.


----------



## roadwreck (Jan 29, 2008)

roadmonkey said:


> Hasn't every increase in engine efficiency been met with an increase in vehicle weight? I think that is what i s really killing any advances in fuel economy.


I think if we were to compare apples to apples we would see an improvement in fuel economy over the past 20 years. It's hard to make that comparison though because instead of seeing fuel mileage increase over the past 20 years we have seen fuel economy remain about the same and engine performance increase. The increased weight of the average vehicle today as compared to 1987 probably has much to do with the greater popularity of SUV's today.

The fact of the matter remains that the automobile manufacturers are right, they can't stay in business manufacturing fuel efficient cars b/c while people may bitch and moan about high fuel costs very seldom does anyone do anything to help themselves improve their own fuel economy. Most people (at least the ones I encounter) want something with a ridiculous amount of power, if they can't buy that then they drive their vehicle like it has a ridiculous amount of power. I must admit I am guilty of this too from time to time. But I try to drive efficiently as possible when I'm just driving to and from work. That means I don't accelerate like crazy toward a traffic light that is already red. I don't accelerate away from traffic lights at breakneck speed. I try to let gravity, momentum, and friction do as much work as possible. You know what I've discovered. Usually I get places at just as fast as the people who think their drag racing and people really hate it when they are stuck behind you and you aren't accelerating towards a red light. It's like they are in a race to go and stop. I don't understand that, but I've gotten quite a lot of dirty looks. :huh:


----------



## udpolo15 (Jan 29, 2008)

C-Dog said:


> Yeah, their 150 mpg is not real though. They do not include the energy they are getting from the plug. How much oil did that require?



The technical answer is 0, but I understand your point. It would be interesting to see the increase demand on the power grid as technology like this becomes widespread.

I do however think that technology like this is a big part of the answer. All other technologies have severe infrastructure limitations that would take big big money to change as well as many decades. While the electricity demand would increase, pollution control the power generation (and pollution) is centralized and therefore easier to control. You can also take advantage of clean energy that doesn't scale to the car.


----------



## mudpuppy (Jan 29, 2008)

udpolo15 said:


> The technical answer is 0


Close, but not exactly. There are a few oil-burning plants around. My employer owns two 640 MW oil or natural-gas fired peaking units. According to a DOE website there were about 65,000 GWh of electricity generated from oil in 2006, or about 1.6% of the total, and this required 115 million barrels of oil. Which works out to around 1.5% of all U.S. oil consumption.

Don't forget it also takes oil to dig coal and uranium out of the ground and ship it.

But I agree with your point--this amount of oil is miniscule compared to the amount burned in cars.


----------



## Sschell (Jan 29, 2008)

BringItOn said:


> My 199 Chevy Lumina is giving me only 20.5 miles per galon. Did the calculation the other day. 90% of these miles are highway miles.
> The daily commute for me is 102 miles and the car has a 16 gallons capacity....give or take.
> 
> 16 gallons @ $3.10: $49.6 per tank
> ...


I've got you beat...

Hyuandi Elantra I average about: 28 mpg.

Daily commute: 190 miles

Daily consumption: 6.79 gpd

@ $3.10/gal: $21.04/day

@ 5 X per week: $105.18/week

@ 52 weeks per year: $5469.29/year

oil companies love me!


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2008)

sschellhase said:


> Daily commute: 190 miles


Are you kidding ??!!!! hmy:

JR


----------



## Sschell (Jan 29, 2008)

jregieng said:


> Are you kidding ??!!!! hmy:
> JR



route


----------



## Desert Engineer (Jan 29, 2008)

sschellhase said:


> Daily commute: 190 miles


Dude, you're a road warrior! You should change your screen name to "mad max".

Do you live or work in riverside? I used to live in riverside, but moved out towards the desert.

Here is my commute:

27.8 miles. I live in banning, and work in palm springs.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&amp;hl=en&amp;...p;z=11&amp;om=0


----------



## cement (Jan 30, 2008)

I drive 40 miles each way, but there is a 3500' elevation gain.


----------



## Guest (Jan 30, 2008)

Wow .. that is AMAZING !! hmy: I can't bitch about my commute based on that !!!

I used to live a little further north of you in Oxnard - I was stationed at Port Hueneme when I was in the Navy. I think I was lucky that I lived on the base and rarely had to deal with traffic. 

JR


----------



## Capt Worley PE (Jan 30, 2008)

I had a 100 mile round trip commute for a couple of years. Then a 30 mile round trip commute from there to another location. It proved to me that Scott Adams is right: You can get used to anything.


----------



## Sschell (Jan 30, 2008)

Desert Water said:


> Dude, you're a road warrior! You should change your screen name to "mad max".
> Do you live or work in riverside? I used to live in riverside, but moved out towards the desert.
> 
> Here is my commute:
> ...


live in SD, work in Reeberside... banning to palm springs? must be fun in the summer! are you involved with the purple water stuff they have been working on out there lately?



Captain Worley said:


> I had a 100 mile round trip commute for a couple of years. Then a 30 mile round trip commute from there to another location. It proved to me that Scott Adams is right: You can get used to anything.


Concur, barley notice the long ass haul any more.


----------



## Desert Engineer (Jan 30, 2008)

sschellhase said:


> live in SD, work in Reeberside... banning to palm springs? must be fun in the summer! are you involved with the purple water stuff they have been working on out there lately?


Summer time temps are tough. But, it’s not so bad, sad to say, but you get used to it. I work inside most of the time. I spend about 25% or so of my time outside, but it seems that all of the 25% is in the summer surveying. I've only had a couple times that it got to me. The trick is to not go in and out of the AC too much; going from 65 to 115 can be a real shock to the system.

We supply reclaimed water at the agency I work for. We have a reclaimed water plant where we do tertiary treatment. We were going to buy the wastewater treatment plant from the city, but the governator vetoed the bill a couple of years ago. We have the capacity to accept all of the effluent from the city owned wastewater treatment plant. Currently we are working on fine tuning the plant to improve the run times and lower the backwash/recycle. We only supply it to golf courses, school and parks (we are too weary to allow residential connections). I recently installed a 250hp, 4000gpm reclaimed booster to add another golf course to reclaimed.


----------



## Sschell (Jan 31, 2008)

Last year at some point they were talking about demineralizing ground water to boost the reclaimed water supply out there... did that ever go through?


----------



## Desert Engineer (Jan 31, 2008)

Was that for CVWD? We are fairly small compared to them. They are the 800lb gorillias in the valley, we are the small guys next to them.


----------



## Sschell (Jan 31, 2008)

I don't know... I am just a lowley engineer here... at least thats how management acts!


----------



## Desert Engineer (Jan 31, 2008)

sschellhase said:


> I don't know... I am just a lowley engineer here... at least thats how management acts!


Yeah, sometimes i feel like a mushroom... Kept in the dark and fed shit...


----------



## Sschell (Jan 31, 2008)

lol!


----------

