Many of us will be hopping on a flight to visit the family this holiday season, but what kind of mileage are we getting up there?  Airlines are strapped these days and consequently cut costs, weight, and services to make a buck — including fuel consumption.  As a frequent flier, I can report that generally means: surcharges on luggage, limited use of A/C until the cabin reaches 110-degrees, and packed flights for maximum dollars-per-mile.

The most efficient use of travel time and fuel consumption is simply choosing the proper route taken.  Flights simply cannot fly directly to their destination in a straight line or gradually up to cruise altitude and back down.  Planes have to travel on designated “highways” and take a jagged path to be tracked by air traffic control.  Descending from maximum altitude, the path would look like stair steps as each controller is handed off the flight into their airspace.

Image: Marcin Wichary

So, our controllers are using 1970′s technology, are overworked, and the system is taxed to the limit (just fly through O’Hare on any given day and you’ll see).  Airlines are trying methods of their own to save fuel with what they have to work with.  United Airlines conducted a series of fuel saving measures on a recent flight from Sydney to San Francisco using Boeing’s latest airliner, the 777.

The Asia-Pacific airspace is a large, less-crowded area in which to conduct fuel economy runs.  In this case, the FAA joined the team to allow a gradual decent, instead of the forced, step-down descent.  In total, 11 fuel saving techniques saved 1,564 gallons of fuel and prevented the release of 32,656 pounds of carbon emissions.  Some of these tricks include single-engine taxiing to the runway, direct routing, and a priority approach to landing, instead of slowing to “get in line” to land.  Most airliners these days have a flight computer designed to maximize fuel economy, but the ATC system forces another scenario.

So what about that trip to Grandma’s house in Cleveland?  Here is where the root of problem is fully exposed.  Frankly, our air traffic system is a crumbling existence of our failing infrastructure.  The federal government has not placed a sufficient focus on upgrading the system, so we’re stuck with the wasteful, inefficient design.  Even with a reduction in flights lately, the system is consistently overloaded.

Image: eschipul

The scenario is much like a crowded metro highway.  On-ramps with traffic entry control lights are like runways with ATC holding flight before takeoff into the departure pattern.  For safe spacing distances, planes slow down just like traffic jams, and exit ramps pile-up just like approach control with planes circling or slowing down.  All it would take is what’s called the “NextGen” system.

This is a solution, but it is taking quite a while to implement.  The system will use satellite tracking and updated computer systems to allow a smoother flow of flights to their direct destination and more efficient departure and arrival queues.  So, around 2012-2018, we could see an improvement.  If you’re concerned with emissions, choose an airline with a documented carbon offset scheme.  In the meantime, pack light and chip-in for that extra bag.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

People just aren’t buying new vehicles.  Sales figures from nearly every manufacturer confirm the trend.  With the Global Economic horizon not looking so rosy, the advice is to hang on to what you have, buy what you need, and ride out the storm.  But what if your vehicle finally gave up and is too costly to repair?  It’s time for a “Pre-Owned Vehicle”.  This is the first in a series of used vehicle reviews intended to spotlight vehicles that may be more obscure, yet readily available and inexpensive to purchase, own and operate.

2007 was a good year for Korean Automakers.  Hyundai began to inject both itself and subsidiary, Kia Motors, with increased build quality, overall appearance, and better driveability.   Compared to Hyundais of the past, drivers of these new models were pleasantly surprised.

So, why not a Civic or Corolla?  This question may come up often.  Frankly, the longtime reputation of these models lend themselves to often-inflated pricing and high miles on used units.  The Hyundai (and its Kia Spectra twin) were chosen for their value and the frequency of finding cars with fewer miles.  A quick search noted models in the sub-50K miles range, for $9-11,000.  This mid-sized sedan (or 5-door hatch with the Spectra5) is a great buy for a small family or daily driver with the need for a 3rd or 4th occasional passenger.

I had the chance to drive several of these variants since their debut on rental lots in 2006 (which also can bring down the overall price: fleet usage).  The first impression was a good one.  Back then…

I’m really stretching here to find problems with this car, but perhaps the rounded edges make the rear-half look mild, whereas a frontal perspective re-affirms a more aggressive design.  I was fully expecting it to have the Spartan, no frills interior that other compact Korean vehicles have provided. Instead, a carefully crafted dash, driver-oriented center stack, and electric-blue accents (even in the power window switches) gave the indication that some attention was spent on design and implementation.

The fit and finish of these models are actually better than the new, 2009 Toyota Corolla.

Steering is crisp and precise with it’s electronic steering rack, despite the softer ride. Before heading out on the road, I had visions of nearly all Hyundais tested before: a disconnect among the front and rear suspension, body of the car, and consequently the driver. But that wasn’t the case at all. City driving was enjoyable with turns and curves presenting no challenge. The tilt wheel felt to be properly weighted and sized. Quite simply, the sedan felt light on its feet and fun to drive.

The list goes on and on.  Higher-end models can be found with leather appointments, a bevy of airbags, and a 6-disc sound system.  Base models can be found with a 5-speed manual, while all models offer the 1.6L, 4-cylinder.   What’s even better is the transferable 10-year/100K mile powertrain warranty.  Honestly, I don’t think you’ll need it.  These are solid vehicles.  Certified used models offer further bumper-to-bumper protection. In addition, the rare 5-speed models are out there with better overall fuel economy.

So how is the fuel economy?  My tests, with mostly highway speeds, cold-weather usage, and spirited city driving, yielded 34.6 MPG.  My Wife and 3 friends (with a car-load of luggage) took the same car from KC-Chicago-KC, noted plenty of room, and mileage closer to 30-31 MPG.  That’s pretty good for mid-sized sedan at capacity.

The Data as Tested:

Trim: 2007 Hyundai Elantra SE, 4-speed Automatic
Engine: DOHC, 16-valve, 2.0L Inline-4 cylinder, rated at 138 HP, and 136 lb-ft torque, FWD
Curb Weight: 2747 lb.
EPA: 28 City, 36 Highway, 31 Combined Cycle
FE: 34.6 MPG (ScanGauge Verified)
Vitals: 4.9 hours, over 278 miles, using 8.0 gallons, at a 57 MPH average

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Image: ucouldguess

Fuel-conscious drivers started to see their beloved Diesel passenger vehicles disappear from new car lots from about 2004 to 2007. This wasn’t because of rapid sales due to rising fuel prices, but instead “Tier II” emission regulations were being phased in quicker than car makers could engineer them. Since then, auto manufacturers have been scrambling to meet these new regs and design the engines to operate in our varied climates and conditions.

To mount a strong comeback to the market, Audi tested their latest Diesel drivetrains by setting off on a journey to from New York to LA with their newly tuned, “Clean Diesel” TDI turbodiesel engines, using Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel fuel. Twenty-three vehicles were driven in various driving conditions across the United States. The course ranged from the busy streets of Chicago, to the open highway and 11,000-foot mountain passes — this was to ensure variability in driving conditions for accuracy. To go one step further, the International Motorsport Association, or IMSA, sanctioned and provided oversight for the test (the group is most notably known for governing the American Le Mans racing series). 184 drivers from around the world motored their way across the Country and converged on Los Angeles this past Sunday. The fuel economy results were then revealed.

Four different models were tested: the Q7 Luxury SUV 3.0L, Q5 “Performance” Luxury SUV 3.0L, A4 3.0L Luxury Sport Sedan, and the A3 Sportback 5-door with the 2.0L TDI engine and “S-Tronic” automatic gearbox.

The Results:

• Q7: 30 MPG combined over 954 miles at an average speed of 50 MPH
• Q5: 33 MPG / 946 miles / 47 MPH
• A4: 38 MPG / 980 miles / 47 MPH
• A3: 40 MPG / 954 miles / 47 MPH

The full story can be found at audimileagemarathon.com.

Lots of advertisements will tout “real world” fuel economy increases and testing procedures in an attempt to make their product look more desirable. Surely, if you wanted to buy something to increase fuel economy, testing that proves it actually does would be good, right? And what’s more conclusive than someone actually taking the thing you plan on buying and driving around with it?

Well, unfortunately, it’s not that simple.

How the EPA does testing

The EPA doesn’t just stick a driver in a car, give them a course, and tell them to drive around it and hope that they do it consistently every time. Instead, they put test vehicles up on a dyno and run a course designed to simulate driving.

Many people fault the EPA for this method, but I believe they have put a lot of effort into developing and refining their testing methods, and at the very least, they are internally consistent, which is what’s most important when comparing vehicles. In fact, it is internal consistency that the EPA is most concerned with, and also the reason that their EPA ratings often conflict with our own real life observations.

Sure, the EPA may have rated my car at 27 mpg combined, and I might get 40 mpg by EcoDriving it, while you might be upset that you only get 25 mpg by driving normally. But therein lies the great flaw of “real world” fuel economy numbers. No driver, road, traffic, or weather condition is ever consistent enough to make comparison fruitful.

How scammers do testing

Using acetone as an example of a scam (and not wanting to link any pages for fear increasing their reputation with Google), you can see that it’s proponents will often talk about “beating the EPA” or the “inefficiency of modern internal combustion engines.” They use these buzzwords to lead you into their story, which hinges on “real world” benefits for “drivers like you.”

Acetone rests on a very shaky, some would say fraudulent, technical background, and relies mostly on “evidence” from fuel economy “tests.” Most of these tests, however, consist of walking up to someone who has never thought much about fuel economy and telling them, “Hey, I’m going to put this stuff in your tank and you’ll see 30% better fuel economy.” From there, the testers, who sometimes don’t even calculate fuel economy, will give reports like, “I’ve driven my car with acetone for two weeks now and the needle is still above the halfway line! OMGLOLWUT.”

Other, slightly more intelligent scammers will run tank-to-tank testing, meticulously recording their findings, but ignoring major variations in weather, type of driving, or driving technique. Just take a look at my fill-up history from the last three years and tell me if you think it’s a consistent enough to base tests on:

Other, even trickier scammers, usually companies, will pay for “3rd party” testing to be done at some “university” or other credible place. This is a tricky area, because there are many reputable places working on fuel economy testing, but there are also many devices that’ve “shown increases” at such facilities that have also been declared scams when brought to court by the government or investors.

How I do testing

I use my MPGuino to record fuel economy over predetermined courses using predetermined driving techniques. I try to be meticulous about what RPM a shift at, how much throttle pressure I use, and control as many factors as I can. However, I’m not here to say that even given how much effort I put into it, I’m not much better than those scammers.

Recently, I attempted to test fuel economy changes when removing the alternator belt on my car. It’s relatively well-known that the parasitic drag from the alternator reduces fuel economy. However, I was interested in seeing for myself the difference that it made on my own car.

In NJ, where I usually reside, I have a test loop where I can usually get mpg reading within +/- .5% through consistent driving. Generally, others have high confidence in these tests due to the low deviation in my results. In MO, where I am now, there is a similar loop, albeit a hilly one. I used the same ideas to test my fuel economy with the alternator, without the alternator, and then with the alternator again, and these were my results:

First, I’d like you to notice that the distance was a very consistent 7.31 miles. Now, please notice how inconsistent the mileage readings were. I lost mpgs without the alternator, then lost them again when I reattached it! These numbers are, of course, not good, and a result of faulty testing. Not only are they not internally consistent, but they are inconsistent with the results that many others have demonstrated.

So who should you believe?

The takeaway here is that you can’t take fuel economy testing at face value. Not from me, or anyone else. The people most worth trusting are those that are transparent about the difficulties of accurate numbers and their testing methods. Take a look at the methods used and decide for yourself if they are prone to error or not. And remember, even the most well-intentioned testers can make errors.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

+ Efficient for Size
+ Good Torque Response
+ Improved Exterior Styling

- Bargain-Basement Interior and Defects
- Expected Reliability
- Sponge-Tastic Tires

Introduction: I’ll admit it.  I have mixed feelings for Mitsubishi.  I once owned a 2003.5 Lancer Evolution VIII that was a blast to drive, yet was plagued with factory defects.  Most owners of that conveyance have since traded it for a Subaru Impreza STI, or something else, before it catastrophically failed.

The Galant was the only 4-cylinder offering in which to choose from the lineup in Rental Row.  Among with the Impalas, SUVs, and Chrysler 300’s, the Galant offered the most promise in it’s small 2.4L “World” engine (that’s the same one shared with many Chrysler-based vehicles — such as the Sebring, Avenger, and high-trimmed Caliber.  The FE may just save this vehicle’s shortcomings.

On the Outside: The front-end harkens images of the ill-fated Diamante, with the rear ¾ view taking after the youthful Lancer.  I would classify it “awkwardly average” with an air of some class.

Mitsubishi has had its fair share of trouble lately.  Before the Chrysler buy-out from Cerberus, Mitsubishi was left wondering were to go and was struggling to gain a foot-hold on the U.S. market while still sharing engines.  The Eclipse bloated-up, the Galant itself was slipping in simplicity, and the brand was viewed as a risk to buy.  Now, the Chrysler brand has broken free any new design sharing, but retains the venerable 2.4L, DOHC, 4-cylinder that powers much of its lineup.  The question: has Mitz redeemed itself lately?

On the Inside: Ugh.  The interior is cut-and-pasted from the Endeavor SUV, which is at best, mediocre (or vice-versa).  The biggest complaint is the driver’s seat comfort.  Height adjustment is available in this trim via knob, but lumbar is fixed in the Hunchback Position.  The wheel/column only tilts and doesn’t telescope.  Even the Chevy Cobalt offers a telescoping wheel.  Not good.  The HVAC and radio controls are cheaply lit, and hard to see in bright light.  Is the A/C on or not?

Reporting in all fairness, blind-spots were abundant and sound system was utterly awful.  The bass boost was in full-force.  A full adjustment to “-6” on that setting still announced the authority of the thump.  Conclusion: it’s uncomfortable in there.

Otherwise, expect faux-wood trim, a bit of extra room and some added safety features.

Safety:Tire Pressure Monitoring, depowered drivers bag, side airbags, and ABS with EBD.

Efficiency: This is the only reason why I bothered to report on this car.  Over 73.4 miles of Cincinnati hills and gridlock, the car only used a smidge under 2 gallons of fuel.  Let’s assume the previous renter filled-up a ways-out from the lot, and give it 73 miles at 2 gallons.  That’s [B]36.5 MPG[/B].  I could hardly believe it!  Honestly, I didn’t go easy on the go pedal at all.  On the highway (when it opened-up), I set the cruise for about 65-70 and went around town with the traffic (at their hefty pace and acceleration).  The only technique I used was to force an upshift from the slap-shift gear selector.  Otherwise, it was business as usual.

The Drive: Perhaps this is where the Galant makes up for it’s shortcomings.  Steering feedback is precise, torque is well-pronounced, and transmission feel is rather appropriate.  The ride is well-adjusted for the vehicle’s size, which promotes some driving confidence.  Where it starts to sponge out, is during corners with its marshmallow tire sidewall strength.  Save cash on manufacturing where you can, I suppose.

For the Energy Conscious: This car competes with some pretty heavy-hitters in the FE lineup: Accord, Camry, Sonata, Malibu, Fusion.  Further testing would be required, but the only advantage I can see is: 1) Potential FE, and 2) being different (with choice #1 actually paying for itself).

As always, consider the size of vehicle you need. This car may fit the bill for folks looking for a new car with low financing and a gracious warranty.

For an efficient, mid-sized sedan, others are out there.

Raw Data — Specs:
Model: 2009 Mitsubishi Galant
Trim: ES (Base)
Class Size: Mid-Sized Sedan
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter
Engine: 2.4L SOHC, 16-Valve, “MIVEC” Variable Valve Timing, I-4
Rating: 160 hp at 5500 RPM and 155 ft-lbs. @ 4000 rpm
Drivetrain: FWD
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
RPM @ 60 MPH: 2400
Price as Tested: $21,000 USD (June, 2008)
Curb Weight: 3483 lbs.
EPA: 20/27
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: TBD
Emissions: ULEV

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: [B]36.5 MPG[/B]
Speed Avg: ~40 MPH
Time of Operation: ~1.0 hours
Distance Driven: 73.4 Miles
Ambient Outside Temp: 75-95F
Cruise Speed: 65-70 MPH
Test Loop: Metro Cincinnati, OH
A/C Usage: 100% of time
Wind/Weather: Warm, Humid – Wind calm
Driving Style: Average (including some rush hour jams)

Photos: Edmunds.com

Recently the BS-o-meter of many forum members was tripped by a guy claiming to get 110 mpg out of his 1987 Ford Mustang. Though the claim seems a little ridiculous, and I think most people would be quick to dismiss it, the fact that it’s getting some media attention warrants a debunking.

The first thing to say is that conspiracy theories will not be considered here. I am not on the payroll of big oil, the government, Saudis, terrorists, or any of that. Nor is there any real evidence that any of these agents are going above and beyond normal business tactics to keep the US addicted to oil. Sure, the Saudis may produce more oil to lower prices and make the need for alternatives less pressing, but is Exxon assassinating the “water4gas” internet spammers? I think not. So, if your argument for the feasibility of this device is that it’s always been possible and the man is keeping it down, then don’t waste your breath arguing.

Now on to this specific case. Here we have a mechanic named Doug Pelmear with an ’87 Ford Mustang that he claims gets 110 mpg, 400 horsepower, 500 ft-lbs of torque, and can do 0-60 in 3 seconds. According to Doug, the builder:

“My grandfather had the idea back in the 40′s that he can make a difference then,” Pelmear says, “There was quite a need at that time also with the war going on and everything, there was quite the need then.” And quite a need now.

This should throw up our first red flag. His grandfather had an idea back in the 40s that this guy has remade into some sort of miracle device 60 years later? Nevermind the fact that automakers spend billions of dollars working on having the best of the best in terms of both power and efficiency, and that to date the Honda Insight holds the mileage crown at with a combined EPA rating of 53 MPG. Doug Pelmear claims to more than double that using something his grandfather thought up 60 years ago? Engine technology from that period is nothing like the fuel injected, computer controlled tech of today, but this device still works wonders?

Those this technology could be working to increase the thermodynamic efficiency of the engine, as one ecomodder pointed out,  thermodynamic efficiency can only be increased so much before it is at 100%, which would be impossible. Given that car engines are typically 25-30% efficient, there is only so much gain to be had before you’re claiming to have broken the laws of physics.

As for the car itself, 1987 Mustangs come with EPA ratings from 17-24 MPG, with 17 being the number assigned to the V8 variety.  Completely disregarding the performance claims Doug is making, if we are to assume he’s using the 5.0L V8 as a base, he’s claiming a 640% increase in fuel economy. While ecomodders regularly report increases of 50% to 100% on the extreme side, does such a huge improvement seem feasible? And if so, how could it be done while dramatically increasing power output?

The next red flag comes up when we learn that Doug won’t tell anyone what he’s done to the car or what technology he’s using:

While Pelmear won’t let us look under the hood, he says the technology can easily be applied to smaller engines for even better gas mileage. He’s entering the car in the prestigious Progressive Automotive X competition; a race where inventors from around the world compete for the best mileage with a car that is the most marketable. Pelmear says, his technology is very marketable because it will allow people to drive large cars and SUV’s without sacrificing gas mileage.

As the original report notes, the X-Prize is a prestigious competition, but to me it seems like he is only using the name in order to make his claims appear more legitimate. While his plan to sell his design to automakers in order to make it big certainly could explain why he wouldn’t want to make a DIY and post it online, but he can’t expect anyone to believe his claims if he’s not even willing to drive the car around and fill it up at the pump to throw a little weight behind his claims.

And even that brings up another question. Evidently Doug’s job was recently cut in Ford’s latest round of lay-offs. If he intends to use this invention to bring back the US automotive industry, why didn’t it see the light of day during the years he worked for  billion-dollar manufacturer? This kind of technology would have definitely gotten him a nice promotion, a fat paycheck, and position as the savior of his company. Instead, he doesn’t mention until he’s out of a job.

If you watch this video from CNN, you will see a few more interesting things:

httpv://youtube.com/watch?v=sBG2QGM8SUI

The first thing that I notice is that he’s running (or at least claiming to run) E85. While E85 is higher octane, it is also known for returning lower fuel economy in flex-fuel vehicles. Wikipedia notes that  the flex-fuel Chevy Tahoe is rated for 18 mpg with regular gasoline, but only 13 mpg using E85. That’s 38% less fuel economy in a vehicle designed to run on E85.

Secondly, when the 110 mpg image pops up, you’ll note that it actually says “MPGe.” This stands for “miles per gallon energy equivalent,” which, coupled with the knowledge that he is running E85 suggests that he is getting less that 110 mpg and using a conversion factor to make the number sound more impressive than it otherwise would. Using the previous Chevy Tahoe example as an analogy, this means that he might only be getting 80 mpg while deceptively claiming 110 mpg. Though his website does show “MPGe” and state that it means “energy equivalent,” he neither explains this to readers nor to the reporter. This, at least, seems as if he is trying to mislead us and makes me question his other claims.

Finally, you’ll notice that even though the two men behind the scenes are talking up the performance of this car, we only see it peacefully cruising the neighborhood streets. Were the reporters to daft to ask for a ride or is that another one of Doug’s secrets? Surely a muscle car like that would be capable of a few burnouts or revs to show off for itself. However, we’re left knowing nothing more than that it actually runs under its own power.

In the end, Doug Pelmear doesn’t give us any reason to believe his claims. All his website states is that on the 14th of June the car will be tested at a race track. Sadly, that was posted on the 16th of June, and there were never any results. There are plenty of reasons to believe this is nothing more than a fuel price-related scam cooked up by someone pissed off that he got fired from his job at Ford, and unless there is some great revelation, I’m calling this a hoax. As always, feel free to disagree.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Gen-I Matrix/Vibe:

+ FE vs. Cargo and Passenger Capacity
+ Fun to Drive (especially handling)
+ Added Feature Content

- Uncomfortable Driving Position
- Hodgepodge of Toyota and GM Parts
- Spartan Interior

“New United Motor Manufacturing Inc.” or NUMMI is printed on stickers under the hood. What’s up with that?

That’s the name given the to the GM/Toyota joint venture in Fremont, CA. The unique situation is the History of a UAW manufacturing agreement between General Motors and Toyota, at a facility that has produced Union-made vehicles, such as the:

Chevy Nova (1984-1988)
Geo/Chevy Prizm / Toyota Corolla (1998-2002)
Pontiac Vibe / Toyota Matrix (2003-Present)
…and other vehicles exported abroad.

Background: The Pontiac Vibe and Toyota Matrix were introduced in 2003 as a compact wagon to provide an answer to those looking for a performance-oriented Corolla Wagon, or a domestically-nameplated, small utility vehicle. The secret? Essentially a tall, extended Corolla with GM parts (radio, miscellaneous parts, etc.) + great FE to boot.  Now, a 2009 variant is available with a sleek makeover.  This review examines the Pontiac Vibe, along with the Toyota Matrix.  The latter is available with different outward styling and a near-identical interior, in the 2003-2008 model run.

2008 Toyota Matrix

The First Generation model was introduced about 6 model-years ago. The problem is this: I rented several of both variants over the course, and the FE wasn’t stellar.

Confession: Hypermiling rehab is a slow and steady process. I used to set the cruise for 6-7 MPH over the limit. That ended up being 77 in a 70. With the A/C running in the summer, the transmission was quick to downshift on modest hills, and was quite erratic. The FE suffered terribly. I gave it a shot at the speed limit and no more…

This was the only 4-cylinder vehicle available on the rental lot this week (mid-week slim-pickins). I hopped-in and gave it another try. Nowadays, I set the cruise for the limit and just let it ride. That made all the difference in the World.

On the Inside: The vehicle accomplishes so much in its totality, that I refuse to stress minor inconsistencies. The interior trim is basic and plasticky, but who cares? The look and substance exudes durability, and the FE seals the deal.

Feature content includes a 115V inverter to plug-in AC items (for me — perfect: I’m too cheap to buy an i-Pod, so I use my laptop as an MP3 player and pipe the sound through the speakers through an FM transmitter). Some vehicle models offer an auxiliary input (not in this case).  But hey, rock on…

The cargo area is where this vehicle shines brightly. The rear seats fold flat (including the front passenger seat) to allow the transport of long items. It’s a true wagon, so expect that sort of utility (and appearance).

From the driver’s seat, expect a “love it or hate it” Corolla-like seating position, and a 4-pod dash.   Rear seat passengers may find the legroom cramped if adults are passengers. If kids are the ride-alongs, then it’s perfect — no worries.

On the Outside: The Toyota is more streamlined and Sporty, while the Pontiac displays durability and simple functionality. My test model offered foglamps, a rear wiper, and side skirts. Just speculation: later models seem to offer better aero than previous.

The Drive: Seating position is perhaps the weakest link. Think: SUV height and feel. I had no problem setting the seat to a higher height, moved the seat back and adjusted the tilt wheel. The problem is, some drivers may find this uncomfortable. I’m not at all tall, at 5′ 9″, with short legs. The position wasn’t too bad — although the ideal setup prohibited viewing the top of the instrument cluster through the wheel top (duck-n-view). If you’re unsure of this seat, visit a dealer and give it a shot (the Corolla is very similar).

Cubbies and cupholders abound. Handling is sprite, as is throttle response and acceleration. If you keep the speed down, downshifts are infrequent, and the FE total will thank you. At 60, the engine turns at about 2500. Road noise is adequate, and blind-spots minimal.

Features: The Toyota is more “upscale” in outward appearance. A 5-speed or 6-speed manual is available, as is a higher horsepower 1.8L and/or AWD (up to 2007).  The Pontiac has similar amenities available.

Used Analysis: A 2003 Vibe 5-speed can be picked-up for $8K, on upwards to a fully loaded ’08 Matrix XRS for 22K. The vehicle essentially hasn’t changed since its inception, so you can get the same feature content at a reduced price when purchasing used. In addition, Edmunds.com rated the Matrix/Vibe a “Used Car Best Bet” for reliability, etc.

Vehicle Specs as Tested:

Latest Model: 2008 Toyota Matirix / Pontiac Vibe
Trim: Base
Class Size: Compact Wagon
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter (5-speed Manual Available)
Engine: Toyota 1.8L DOHC, 16-Valve, I-4 with Variable Valve Timing
Rating: 126 hp at 6000 RPM and 122 lb-ft torque at 4200
Drivetrain: FWD (AWD available)
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
Price as Tested: $17,000 USD (April, 2008)
Curb Weight: 2700 lbs.
EPA: 21/31
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: $1554

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: 35.5 MPG
Average Speed: 57 MPH
Distance Driven: 455 Miles
Engine RPM @ 60 MPH: 2500
Route: Kansas City – Wichita, KS – Kansas City (hit rush hour on the return)
Temp: 40F – 55F
Wind Speed vs. Heading: NW @ 5 MPH. Course 1 = SSW; Return = NNE
2009: Complete Re-design

Conclusion: Brilliant!

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Who says racing has nothing to do with fuel economy? Honestly, I was rather shocked to hear about the prominence of hypermiling techniques in racing, especially NASCAR. Perhaps the revolution is hitting home with more people than the news would lead us to believe. Here’s the word direct from Earnhardt and ESPN:

Knowing the race was going to be extended beyond its scheduled 200 laps, Eury told Earnhardt to shut the engine off and coast whenever he could under the caution flag in a desperate effort to save more gas.

Junior did just that, coasting fast enough at times that he passed the pace car — until NASCAR warned Eury to have Earnhardt cut it out.

“I didn’t know how much they were going to worry about it,” Earnhardt said. “All the cars out there are gassing it, shutting ‘em off, coasting about a half straightaway, cranking ‘em back up, gas it, coast. Everybody’s doing it.

For those of you who don’t know already, this technique is oftentimes called “Pulse & Glide,” and is widely used by ecodrivers looking to get better gas mileage. P&G works by making your engine work only when it’s most efficient, and shutting it off at other times.

P&G, as the name suggests, has two main components. The pulse is an acceleration phase with lots of throttle, and the glide is a coast in neutral or with the engine off. People using P&G for fuel economy will often pick a median speed and pulse up to 10 MPH above that and then glide down to 10 MPH below, so that they can maintain an average speed around where the would be driving anyway.

It works because your engine is most efficient in high load operation, and then uses no fuel if you’re coasting with the engine off, as Earnhardt did. Rather than being in a constant low load, inefficient state, the combination of burning more during acceleration and then none during coast averages out to savings. While it may seem counter intuitive, Earnhardt’s victory clearly shows that it’s a viable technique.

Now, that said, I do not recommend using P&G in traffic where other drivers might not know what you’re doing or it might be dangerous. It’s best at low speeds (where aerodynamics is not so much of a factor) and when you have an open road that you know well. For a better description of P&G, see this MetroMPG.com article. For more fuel efficient driving techniques check out the 100+ EcoDriving Tips list.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

This post is part of a series on basic ecodriving techniques, intended to expound upon a more basic description in order to make them more accessible as well as put them in the context of safety and practicality. 

Reducing your speed is one of the simplest things you can do to increase fuel economy.  Keep in mind I did not say it is the easiest thing to do.  I’ll admit it, most drivers like speed.  But, it is a very simple thing to do.  You just have to let off the pedal a little bit.

On average, a 5 mph reduction at highway speeds (ex. From 70 to 65 mph) will net you an 8% increase in fuel economy.  Of course this differs from vehicle to vehicle.  The larger your vehicle the larger you gain is likely to be.  Fueleconomy.gov says that you can see between 7 to 23 percent increase in mileage simply by slowing down to the speed limit.  What about even a little bit under the speed limit?

Here is a some testing done by MetroMPG.com comparing speed to mileage.

There is also the fact that the speed limit is also a much safer speed should speak volumes to the car buyers who buy large vehicles because they are safer.  If you really want to be safe, slow down to recommended speeds.  Road engineers design roads with these kinds of things in mind.

A little more on the technical side is the fact that aerodynamic drag increase exponentially with speed.  So, if you double your speed you have quadrupled your aerodynamic drag.  So, you can see small increases in speed can drastically increase drag.  Aerodynamic drag is also the main force your engine must overcome while traveling at highway speeds.

So, since your going slower your going to be late all the time now, right?  I sure hope not.  Slowing down from 60 mph to 55 mph on an hour trip takes you roughly 5 more minutes.  Anything less than an hour trip is going to be less and for that 8% fuel savings you are sure getting a good deal.

The last thing I will mention is stress.  How many times have you come up on a car going slower than you, and gotten all flustered as you try to find a way to zip past it?  Stress is a serious issue with people these days.  Your daily drive can be a great time to unwind after a stressful day at work.  Its a lot easier to unwind while just cruising along at the speed limit where you don’t have to worry about that slow poke who won’t get out of your way as you rush home.  Take a few minutes longer to get home and feel better at the same time.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Image: yr0gerg @ flickr, under CC

+ Best Domestic Midsize FE
+ Comfortable Ride for all Passengers
+ Easy, yet Fun to Drive

- Keeps Getting Bigger Every Re-design (how many more times do I have to write this)?
- Low Quality of Interior Parts / Assembly
- Low Resale due to Fleet Sales

Introduction: If you’re familiar with my reviews, you know that I absolutely love the previous generation Malibu. Its simplicity, ergonomics, and fuel economy has earned it several accolades on my part. The new model has some big shoes to fill.

Made alongside the Saturn Aura at the Fairfax Assembly Plant in Kansas City, Kansas, the new Malibu is very similar in dimensions and appearance. The advantage to the Malibu is the available Eco-Tec 4-Cylinder. This all new redesign impacted the Press with its striking exterior, driveability and character (not to mention its larger size).

“2008 North American Car of the Year” by vote. “Car of the Year” boasts Motor Trend Magazine. “Ten Best” says Car and Driver . Others rave of its design; however, I was still apprehensive to drive it. Having driven its twin, the Saturn Aura, my impressions were that it wasn’t a good family representative. Heavy steering, poor V-6 FE, and vague driving feel turned me off to that model’s appeal. So, I stuck with the previous generation Malibu as my tried-and-true companion of 1000’s of efficient miles. Moreover, the new Malibu looks bigger and less efficient than before. The time had come to choose a pinch hitter for a family trip. It turns out that this player just might be from the Major Leagues…

The first trip included a family weekender from Kansas City to the Minneapolis Area / Central Minnesota, and back. Four adults and luggage cruised at 70-75 with ease and efficiency. The second portion was for business: KC – Sioux City, IA and back – with just yours truly.

Note: The 2008 “Malibu Classic”, or last year’s model, can be bought by fleets and the like. These will trickle into the mainstream as they enter the auction block. There is little to identify them, since GM decided not to call it the “Classic” like they did last time.

On the Outside: “It’s the car you can’t ignore”, advertises GM. Two model generations ago, I would have liked to ignore the Malibu by sinking it to the bottom of the Missouri River. Since that horrible lump of a conveyance, each redesign has vastly improved the outward quality of the drivetrain, driving feel, interior and exterior. The new model is vastly different, with a large frontal aspect, sweeping lines, and chopped rear deck. It has a European air about it, with side-marker turn signals and aggressive dual-grille.

Those are actually 5-spoke, 17” steel wheels with plastic wheel covers made to look like chrome. It will fool the average passerby, and give it a more expensive appearance. The taillights match the car’s aggressive demeanor and add to the visual experience.

The 4-cylinder is also available in the upline LTZ model, with satellite radio, heated seats, leather, and other goodies.

On the Inside: The interior is yet another improvement over the last model. The instrument cluster and accent lighting give it an upscale feel. The audio system offered a standard auxiliary input jack and good tone. Interior sound levels were low. There were some things that did not exude quality, however.

As mentioned, the trip included a trip with the the In-Laws to Minneapolis. While loading up at the hotel, one of the rear doors wouldn’t close – something was stuck! In the meantime, a cab driver began honking with impatience. “Hold on a second!” I shouted.

The plastic kickplate trim had come loose and became stuck in the door. I opened the door fully (more honking) and quickly snapped it back into place, but not without getting into a face-to-face argument with the Cabbie. All was resolved after the exchange of “pleasantries”, and we were on our way. Other trim pieces seemed loose or poorly fitted. On my way to Sioux City, an annoying rattle developed in the driver’s door. A few swift wallops took care of it.

Side Note: “I must explain, that it’s not my usual demeanor to get into a shouting match with other drivers (anymore). The hotel was downtown, near the I-35W bridge collapse site. Traffic was mayhem and construction detours seemed to raise the blood pressure of other drivers in the area, including me. The Interstate basically dumped itself into the streets of downtown. One has to stand back and reflect at the number of bridges we take for granted on a daily basis. In this case, it took a major catastrophe to open the eyes of the public. Luckily, the city had several other options to cross the Mississippi, but without GPS, I still would’ve been circling the Metrodome”.

Otherwise, steering-wheel buttons, ergonomically placed controls, and overall comfort and convenience trumped the stumbles in build quality. The dash is swept with more style, yet simple plastic panels are run-of-the-mill. The instrument cluster matches the nighttime “mood lighting” with a pleasant blue-green hue.

The information center cycles Avg. FE, Instant FE, Dual Tripometers, Ambient Temp, Average Speed, Distance to Empty, and other info such as Cruise Control updates. All are accessed within easy reach, on steering wheel.

The trunk is sizable, and stowed a 4-person luggage set with ease. Rear seat passengers are offered a dual cupholder, and plenty of room. The extended length of this model refresh allows for more legroom. Again, all passengers acclaimed that comfort was a definite improvement over the last model.

I have to summarize that the front seats were also very supportive and comfortable – no complaints. With Mother’s Day brunch sitting heavy and the satisfaction of a Red Sox win the night before, the 3 passengers soon drifted to sleep in the quiet abode. And yes, the center armrest is adjustable by sliding forward for elbow comfort (but the door’s rest is solid plastic). A Tilt/Telescoping wheel is standard. This car just might compete in the highly competitive mid-sized family sedan segment.

Safety: To put it bluntly, safety comes standard. The Malibu received 5-Star NHTSA Driver and Passenger impact ratings. Side-curtain airbags are standard on all models, with the driver’s bag deployed based on the weight of the driver. 4-wheel ABS is also standard, as is traction and stability controls.

Efficiency: This engine and transmission combo is a great pair. GM has taken cues from the obvious by making the final gearing taller. With a final drive ratio of 3.29, this rivals the 3.63 of past Inline-4’s. Revs at 60 MPH are approximately 2100, with 70 MPH coming in at 2500. This is traditional GM V-6 territory. Honestly, the 4-banger handled this range excellently. An odd trend during cruise: the torque converter would constantly unlock and lock slightly – in a rhythmic motion. While just cruising along, any reduction in load or throttle would cause the tach to bump up 200 RPM and back down into full lockup. It wasn’t noticeable or felt – just something noticed at the tach. I predict this to be a wear-out point in the future, but may be the secret to the low-RPM drivability of this engine.

A mild-hybrid model is also available, with a slight bump in EPA ratings.

The Drive: Based on GM’s Epsilon platform, the Malibu shares underpinnings with the popularly selling, European Opel/Vauxhall Vectra. For the U.S., Chevy made sure the drive would be “just right”. Electric power steering in the 4-cylinder is easy to operate, yet offers little feedback. This is just fine, since it likely saves on fuel. The ride is perfectly balanced whether loaded or with a lone driver. Cornering is precise and the ride is mid-range (not too harsh or soft). The engine is rev-happy and very efficient. Shifts are firm and deliberate from the 4-speed automatic – that is, until the torque converter slides into lock and back again (and lock again, and back…)

The upline V-6 models come standard with a 6-speed automatic. The top-level LTZ model offers the 6-speed in 4-cylinder trim. This is a curious addition. Hopefully, the FE will benefit. This particular 6-speed was tested in the Saturn Aura and Vue over the last year. Around town, this transmission was indecisive and hesitant to downshift and seemed rather confused as to what to do. The Vue was equipped with the “Manu-Matic” shift gate, so to save on confusion, I did the shifting myself. On the highway, the final gearing proved beneficial, but balked on slight grades. We shall see.

For the Energy Conscious: Surprisingly, GM has come-up with an FE winner in an overall appealing package. This large, mid-size sedan, hits decent FE numbers through common sense techniques. Drive and ride is not compromised, and the looks don’t scream “Rental Car!” If you are after a Domestic, Mid-Sized Family Sedan, look no further. If FE is a priority, Imports such as the Accord, Camry, or Sonata manual-transmission models can offer better economy at a higher price tag.

Loaded up, the average was 28-30 MPG. Single passenger averaged 34-36 MPG.

As always, consider the size of your vehicle needs, and think smaller.

Raw Data — Specs:
Model: 2008 Chevy Malibu
Trim: 1LT
Class Size: Mid-Size Sedan
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter
Engine: 2.4L DOHC, 16-Valve, I-4 with Variable Valve Timing
Rating: 169 hp at 6400 RPM and 162 lb-ft torque at 4500
Drivetrain: FWD
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
RPM @ 60 MPH: 2100
Price as Tested: $22,500 USD (May, 2008)
ECU Target Coolant Temp: 190F
Curb Weight: 3436 lbs.
EPA: 22/30
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: $1842

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: 31.3 MPG
Speed Avg: 60 MPH
Time of Operation: Lots
Distance Driven: 1791 Miles
Gallons Used: 57.26
Ambient Outside Temp: 50-80F
Cruise Speed: 70-75 MPH
Test Loop: Kansas City – Minneapolis and Central Minnesota – KC – Sioux City, IA – KC
A/C Usage: 5-10% of time
Wind/Weather: Over 4 days: 50-80F Max Tailwind = 25 gusting to 40 MPH, Max Headwind = 20; 20% Rain, 80% Clear
Driving Style: Average, with max sidewall tire pressure applied

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Real World Review: 2009 Toyota Corolla LE
+ Super Efficient
+ Expected Reliability
+ Handling

- Keeps Getting Bigger Every Re-design (how many times do I have to write this)?
- Low-quality interior feel
- Painful Seating Position in lower-end models

Introduction: The 10th Generation, 2009 Corolla is already out, and it was ripe for the picking. It’s rare anymore to find a variety of FE-friendly vehicles on the lot, so it was selected. I wonder how it’s changed since its redesign?

For Toyota, the Corolla has been the solid poster child of efficiency and simplicity for decades, and all over the world. It sells and sells. As expected this year, it gained some weight – 200 lbs. The base 1.8L now has dual variable valve timing and likely some tweaks to make it more of a fuel sipper. At a glance, the Cd seems to have improved.

If you want more power, a 2.4L engine sourced from the Camry is available. Furthermore, leather, Sat-Nav, and a nifty stereo system can be added. The model tested was the “Rental’s Choice” LE, thankfully without the gaudy fake wood trim.

One note before we get started – you can tell Toyota is slipping on quality. The Interior is one place to easily note this. Secondly, a faulty fuel gauge indicated ¾ tank instead of full on pickup. I immediately went to the pump only to squeeze 0.8 gallons into the tank. Later I noticed the gauge at full, after driving a while. Not good.

This could all be stricken from the record after you see the gas mileage…

On the Outside: I think this is where they spent the most money on the redesign. The exterior has a sporty new looks and a younger feel. The 15” wheels shown are standard. Otherwise, the slab-sided sedan looks run-of-the-mill.

The rear shot seems to be the most attractive, with inset reflectors and a stylish lamp wraparound. The test vehicle was “Blue-Streak Metallic”, which was a striking color and spiced up the overall look and impression. Heated mirrors were equipped with this trim level.

On the Inside: Well, a bit of a disappointment. In this area, it appears as if the Korean makes could be overtaking interior quality. Fit and finish is clunky, and would it kill them to put some padding on the armrest! There’s nothing like driving down the highway resting your elbow on a cinder block. Don’t get me started on the “Park Bench” driver’s seat. You get the picture…

Optional Equipment Shown

Controls were placed within an easy reach, and the instrumentation average. The A/C was frigid and finally, the vents were redesigned to not blow cold air into your eyeball. But the center stack looks like it was taken out of the Kia/Hyundai Spectra/Elantra. Storage bins, nooks, crannies, and a double-door glove box make it practical.

One complaint: the clock was part of a “select-one” instrument cluster menu (and who knows how to set it)? I just used my cell phone or the GPS. Speaking of which, the SG had to be discluded from MPG and speed tests since the speedo was about 5% off. For the first time, though, the speedometer was spot-on with the GPS.

More on the instrument cluster – the display at the left cycled through: Instant FE, average FE, Time of Day, Timer, and Outside Temp. The tripometer had 2 memory positions.

The trunk is good for the car’s size, with a wide opening. Rear seat passengers have little room and a dual cupholder. If the driver is short, you might squeeze 4 people in there. It’s rated for 5 – I call dibs on the window.

Safety: Side-curtain airbags are standard on all models, which will likely earn it a top safety pick. The driver’s bag is deployed based on the weight of the driver. 4-wheel ABS is also standard. Optional are traction/stability controls.

Efficiency: The FE is definitely an improvement over the last model, which says a lot. The outbound leg was calculated at 43.1 MPG. This could be artifact based on the overfill, so the average from the car’s readout and the pump will be taken for both legs. The total averaged FE was 37.9 MPG! This could very well be the most efficient, non-hybrid tested.

The Drive:: Standard compact car fare here. Handling is superb, but the ride is a bit unsettling. Chassis rigidity is up, but there’s a shudder over bumps – similar to a convertible, but less pronounced. The feel is rather “large-car”, with soft responses to dips and undulations. The car is still tossable in the corners. I would recommend some additional tweaking for a more solid feel.

For the Energy Conscious: A manual transmission is available in the “S” and Base models with the 1.8 engine. The S adds sporty touches like ground effects and smoked headlamps and foglamps, and 16-inch wheels. This also opens the door for leather and satellite navigation. The base model is likely the best option with smaller wheels and less overall weight of options.

Consider the size of vehicle you need. This car may fit the bill for young families looking for an efficient, compact sedan. Others out there: Mazda 3, Civic, Kia/Hyundai Spectra/Elantra, Lancer, Sentra.

Raw Data — Specs:
Model: 2009 Toyota Corolla
Trim: LE
Class Size: Compact Sedan
Transmission: 4-speed automatic with lock-up torque converter
Engine: 1.8L DOHC, 16-Valve, I-4 with dual, intelligent variable valve timing
Rating: 132 hp at 6000 RPM and 128 lb-ft torque at 2400
Performance: 0-60 in 9.1 seconds; Skidpad – 0.83g; Slalom – 63.3 MPH
Drivetrain: FWD
Seating Capacity: 5 (very snug) at 2+3 or 4 more comfortably at 2+2
RPM @ 60 MPH: 2400
Price as Tested: $16,750 USD (May, 2008)
ECU Target Coolant Temp: 190F
Curb Weight: 3523 lbs.
EPA: 27/35
EPA Average Fuel Cost per Year: TBD
Emissions: ULEV-II

Raw Data — Stats:
EcoModder Tested Mileage: 37.9 MPG
Speed Avg: 63 MPH
Time of Operation: 2.6 hours
Distance Driven: 446 Miles
Ambient Outside Temp: 60-80F
Cruise Speed: 70-75 MPH
Test Loop: Kansas City – Des Moines – Kansas City
A/C Usage: ~10% of time
Wind/Weather: Outbound – humid, sunny, slight tailwind; Inbound: Party Cloudy, 15 MPH Headwinds gusting to 20
Driving Style: Average

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

This post is part of a series on basic hypermiling techniques, intended to expound upon a more basic description in order to make them more accessible as well as put them in the context of safety and practicality.

Lets face it, this is about as basic as it gets. You’re not going to get better gas mileage if you have no idea what kind of mileage you are currently getting. This task is the first step to improving your gas mileage.

So, how do you track your mileage? Its quite easy, just follow this formula:

Miles traveled / gallons used

This gives you your miles per gallon or mpg.

One thing you must always do is fill your tank completely to ensure accuracy. I recommend filling the tank until it shuts off the first time. Filling past that point can introduce more variation in tank to tank gas mileage measurements.

Logging your information can be done in a number of ways. Many people like to carry a small notebook in their car that they can log their miles and gallons. Some get fancy and use a PDA. Still, others may simply write their mileage down on a receipt and log their info into a spreadsheet or ecomodder’s fuel log once they get home. They are all means to an end. Dating your entries is very helpful as you can see your mileage go up in the summer and down in the winter. It also may help to add notes to your log so you can remember when you did something like pump up your tires more, or track driving conditions if that week the traffic or weather was abnormally bad.

There are some nice benefits to tracking your mileage. Number one is probably being able to monitor driving technique changes. Changing driving technique can alter fuel economy drastically (+/- 50%) for the good or for the worse. Logging mileage also helps with maintenance. If you fill up and see your mileage is oddly low, you know something is wrong with the car and you can have it looked at right away. This may prevent you from being stranded somewhere which is a nice thought, especially in winter. Even if you do nothing else but log your mileage, you are at least going to be somewhat aware of how your driving and environment is effecting your gas mileage.

Is there something more you can do for immediate mileage feedback? Well, yes there is. For those wanting to dive right in, you can purchase a scangauge (or similar device) if your car is a 1996 or newer vehicle. The scangauge plugs into your car’s computer port and spits out all sorts of useful information that can lead to much better fuel economy. For those with an older vehicle you don’t have it quite as easy. But, if you visit our forum we can point you in the right direction. Instant feedback from a mileage device is almost invaluable for tweaking driving style.

So, the quick and easy of it is:

• Track your miles divided by gallons.
• Find a way to log that works best for you.
• If you can, get a scangauge. It is an amazing tool.

If you liked this post, sign up for our RSS Feed for automatic updates.

This post is part of a series on basic hypermiling techniques, intended to expound upon a more basic description in order to make them more accessible as well as put them in the context of safety and practicality.

Driving without brakes (DWB) always makes me think of some run away roller coaster ride. You know, children screaming for their lives and all that good stuff. However, it is actually a very useful technique that can save you a lot of fuel in heavier highway traffic and in the city. This technique overlaps with a lot of other techniques which won’t all be mentioned here.

The whole idea is generally to conserve momentum, momentum you have built up by burning gas. For example, you burn gas to get up to 60 miles per hour. Then traffic slows down suddenly and you use your brakes to slow to 40 mph. Shortly after, traffic speeds up again so you accelerate back up to 60 again. How many times does this happen in your daily commute? Well, what if you only had to accelerate up to 60 once? You would have saved the gas used to go from 40 back up to 60. This is an example of what DWB does for you.

What would you do in this case if you were driving without brakes? Well, first you would leave a good cushion of space between you and the driver in front of you. Next, you would watch well ahead of the car in front of you. When you see brake lights from a few (or more) cars ahead you let off the gas and coast. Ideally, by the time you catch up to the car ahead of you they should already be accelerating again and you shouldn’t have to use your brakes at all. If you find yourself still braking a lot, increase the following distance to give yourself a bigger cushion.

The same thing applies for city driving. Watch the lights and try not to use your brakes. Slowing down is pretty much inevitable, but minimizing brake use can greatly increase your gas mileage.

The point is, if you know your going to have to slow down at any point, stop accelerating as soon as possible and start coasting. By using the brakes you are wasting gas – you’re effectively turning it into brake dust.

This may sound like common sense, but so many drivers neglect to do this day in and day out. Just think about how much gas is wasted when you see brake lights going to work tomorrow. It’s amazing how much fuel could be saved with this technique alone.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Last week I spent some time with GM discussing their new HCCI technology. After taking their test vehicle, a Saturn Aura, for a test spin, I was very impressed with the heads up display (HUD) that kept track of whether the car was in HCCI or SI mode. Upon returning to the conference room, my first question for the GM techs was whether or not something indicating HCCI mode or gas mileage would show up on the production models of cars equipped with this technology.

I don’t know quite what I expected for an answer, but it certainly wasn’t the one I got. Paul Najt seemed to like the question, and came to the same conclusion that I’ve long had, which is that fuel economy can become like a game. Cars (like many hybrids) with fuel economy displays were mentioned, and some in the room even commented that they believed the knowledge would automatically make people try to get better fuel economy.

More after the break!

I agreed heartily, but I didn’t expect the final answer: “It’s ultimately a marketing decision.” While this makes sense, don’t you think that some control should be left in the hands of the engineers? I mean, GM is asking their people to design a fuel efficient engine to get people through this gas crunch and into the future while still being economically viable, but it’s not the engineers that get to decide if a $10 piece of electronics will be part of that effort?

While I was there I was also told by an engineer who’d recently moved to the US from Germany that in the US people sometimes drive cars that are plain “unnecessary.” Coming from Germany, he and his family were used to a market for much smaller cars, one that GM and its Opel brand is a part of. However, it seems that globally General Motors is in the business of selling what people want, and not necessarily what people need. This mentality is certainly understandable from a business perspective, but I implore GM to consider that if marketing research shows that people don’t want fuel economy displays, it’s because they don’t know how much the feedback could improve their gas mileage.

Seeing that this is one of the things that makes the Prius so popular, and something that other manufacturers are phasing in, I hope GM pushes on with it. Do you think they will, or are ye of little faith (as I sometimes, admittedly, am)?

—

Discuss fuel economy instrumentation in the EcoModder forum.

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Recently, Darin, the other founder of EcoModder, and a few other members got their hands dirty compiling a master list of hypermiling tips to serve as a reference for everyone interested in getting better mileage. This list took a lot of work, and certainly isn’t complete, but I wouldn’t be out of line in suggesting it’s the best thing out there thus far.

When looking at it, please keep in mind that not every tip is for every person, every car, or every situation. You’ll have to use your best discretion and factor in many variables, the most important of which is safety.

That said, practicing some of these driving tips will definitely help you realize a boost in your mileage and some savings at the pump. Each of these tips will eventually be blogged here in greater detail, so stay tuned for more!

Which do you do already? Is there anything you would add?

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.

Ever wondered if using a certain kind of oil could actually help you use less oil? With the recent introduction of its “Advanced Fuel Economy” 0w-20 and 0w-30 motor oils, Mobil is saying yes to this question.

For years, auto manufacturers have been building engines that use lighter and lighter weight oils in order to reduce friction and increase fuel economy. Most notably, the late Honda Insight was built to use 0w-20 motor oil, which is the lightest motor oil I’ve ever seen used in an auto engine. As of writing, most vehicles seem to have moved to 5w-20 or 5w-30 oil weights, something manufacturers like to claim saves a small (~1%) amount of fuel.

Now, according to Mobil, they have developed a new formula that can increase fuel economy up to 2%. For a 20mpg vehicle paying $3/gallon of gasoline, this translates to a $441 savings over a 150,000 mile lifespan. This “low friction,” synthetic motor oil is designed to be used in engines that are marked for thicker oil weights. This means that your new Honda Civic, which would normally take 5w-20 motor oil, will operate just fine on Mobil’s lighter Advanced Fuel Economy 0w-20 oil. For cars running 5w-30, you can make the switch to the 0w-30 version to try to pick up your 2% savings.

According to Mobil, this oil eliminates friction in 4 key areas:

1. 1. Valve Train – Being lighter, the oil flows more quickly to the camshaft and valves to prevent friction at startup.
   2. Piston & Cylinder - Lots of friction occurs between the pistons and the cylinder walls, some of which is reduced by Mobil’s new Advanced Fuel Economy oils.
   3. Oil Pump – It is more difficult to pump thicker oils through the oil pump, and low viscosity oils reduce some of these losses.
   4. Crankshaft – Friction at the connection between the rods and the crankshaft is constant and important – lower viscosity oils reduce the amount of friction in this location.

So, this new oil is definitely interesting, but is it revolutionary? Not really. Do I believe the claims? Perhaps, 2% isn’t much of a huge claim, but it’s also so small that no one is likely to try to quantify it. Perhaps Mobil is going to push this new oil banking on the fact that no one will ever try to verify its claims.

What do you think?

For more tips to save fuel, check out the EcoModder.com Forums!

If you liked this post, sign up for out RSS Feed for automatic updates.