|
I think the BIL's comments worthwhile. Change one thing, and everything else is affected is sound reasoning. After all, if one wants low operational costs of a personal vehicle, one specs it for that job at the outset. And using it well means being attentive to all the details of road, load, traffic & weather, modifying driving for each and in combination. That's the majority -- the vast majority -- of low fuel burn success.
As this is America where popping a pill is the recipe for overcoming lifes problems the number of those out there (I assume we all know "them") who want a "tuner" for the computer or latest, greatest fluid additive (or believe some Facebook entry on HHO or grille block or some other "idea" such as too high tire pressure) so that the drving style is unchanged as well as the vehicle type (bad match to actual need) is threatened in longevity and reliability.
The vehicle that is left alone, run solely to manufacturer guidelines in the hands of an attentive driver is the one which likely will last the longest. With fewer problems all along the way. Anything that adds to the decision tree in diagnosis is pretty much a bad choice, and a wash at very best. All machines wear down with time and use. And those whose livelihood depends on paying attention to complex interactions of machinery (read vehicle components for this crowd where the plant is equivalent to the vehicle itself) know something, philosophically, that most car owners never will . . they'll trade for the latest before any of their mistakes in spec, use or mods come to haunt them in $$$.
A broken 40-mpg vehicle is worthless compared to a sound-running 25-mpg vehicle.
Give credit to where it's due. Raising questions about non-standard practice is backstop to any discussion of changes to manufacturer advice.
The cars/trucks I've seen last longest were the ones where the owners had developed skill and didnt deviate from the book. Doesn't mean they might not have seen some benefit . . but the lowest overall cost of operation has next to nothing to do with vehicle changes. Only owner use changes. Increasing headaches to potentially improve one aspect of operation (fuel burn) has to be seen in the light of how much of a compromise it really is.
And for the naysayers: What is the payload capacity of your vehicle? With that vehicle loaded to maximum on a day of 100F ambient temps, how much of a grade can you back up? Etc. All of this is part of your vehicle description . . adjust your FE claims to this -- load 'er up and do it over thousands of miles -- and then call that millwright out-of-date or that he fails to understand the differences. Chances are that he can help run that mill at near idle or full-out far better than you can your (let's laugh) "personal vehicle" so long as FE is just a stunt.
FE claims around here might even be realistic were these vehicles asked to do their full jobs well. The driver learning curve isn't in evidence, for the most part, in the above comments. Spend time with an A&P mechanic, a marine diesel specialist or any others taxed with keeping expensive machinery working. Few businesses, if any, aren't concerned with cost and those with ICE machinery, the most of all. A milwright is hardly far off from these as the principles involved are no different.
Load 'em to maximum boys, and run them 6k miles. Let us know your baseline mpg and how you made percentage improvements to that. Just "city or highway" is for punks.
.
|