Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-22-2012, 07:52 AM   #21 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,927
Thanks: 877
Thanked 2,018 Times in 1,302 Posts
Jeez, all this friction over saving some gas. Just use cents per mile. Then the cost of driving the FSP is staring you in the face. Better yet make it a deductible business expense at 50 cents a mile, and ride a bike that easily gets 80 MPG without even trying.

4.5 cents a mile in fuel cost means you have 45.5 cents left to cover all the other costs.

Now at 10 MPG you are at 35 cents a mile and at 12 you are at 29 cents a mile.
Comapred to 4.5 you still have a long way to go.

regards
Mech

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 05-22-2012, 09:27 AM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
skyking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Tacoma WA
Posts: 1,356

Woody - '96 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 23.82 mpg (US)

Avion and Woody - '96 Dodge/Avion Ram 2500/5th wheel combo
90 day: 15.1 mpg (US)

TD eye eye eye - '03 Volkswagen Beetle GLS
90 day: 49.05 mpg (US)

Mule - '07 Dodge Ram 3500 ST
Thanks: 691
Thanked 495 Times in 323 Posts
I don't see it as friction. I see opportunity.
If we can make a mod for a 10 MPG motorhome that gets it to 11, and get it onto a significant portion of the fleet, Cha-ching!
People look at the 10 to 11 as big whoop-de-doo. I see it as a gold mine.
__________________




2007 Dodge Ram 3500 SRW 4x4 with 6MT
2003 TDI Beetle
2002 TDI Beetle

currently parked - 1996 Dodge 2500 Cummins Turbodiesel
Custom cab, auto, 3.55 gears
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 09:46 AM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 1,555

Volt, gas only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 38.02 mpg (US)

Volt, electric only - '12 Chevrolet Volt Premium
90 day: 132.26 mpg (US)

Yukon Denali Hybrid - '12 GMC Yukon Denali Hybrid
90 day: 21.48 mpg (US)
Thanks: 168
Thanked 343 Times in 238 Posts
Getting onto the topic of less consumption as a whole, semi's are the big picture. Ive noticed a lot of chrysler trucks hauling back and forth from kokomo to detroit have under-trailer side skirts. I think the entire design needs to change for big rigs.
__________________




  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 10:31 AM   #24 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JacobAziza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 397

Big Orange Work Truck - '83 Ford F-250
90 day: 27.54 mpg (US)

Jessica's - '04 Toyota Matrix
90 day: 41.21 mpg (US)

Ninjette - '01 Kawasaki Ninja EX250R
Thanks: 44
Thanked 65 Times in 42 Posts
You mean maybe something like this?


http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...t-20704-2.html

There is a huge difference though, between a 20-40 ton semi getting 7-8mpgs, and a 2 ton SUV getting 10mpg. The semi getting a low mpg number is totally reasonable and proportionate to the job it's doing. Same with a motorhome.

On the other hand, if Diesel Dave, JQMile, Bennelson, and I can all get in the low 30s in full-size trucks, there is really no excuse for anyone driving something that gets 12mpg as a personal vehicle.
Going from 10 to 12mpg doesn't really "save" you gas, because the other option was buying something that got better than 12mpg to begin with. Its like buying something you don't need on sale, and thinking you saved money because of the sale. You would have saved more by not buying it in the first place.
__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw View Post
A few months ago I returned home just as my neighbor pulled into his driveway. It was cold (around freezing) with some rain and sleet, and he yells to me: You rode your bike? In this weather?!?

So the other day we both returned home at the same time again, only now the weather is warm, sunny, with no wind. And I yell to him: You took the car? In this weather?!?
  Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to JacobAziza For This Useful Post:
jamesqf (05-22-2012), tortoise (05-22-2012)
Old 05-22-2012, 11:42 AM   #25 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,033

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,711
Thanked 1,841 Times in 1,193 Posts
The real point is that the low hanging fruit is where the real gains are to be found in our national fleet.

Finding a way for the next gen Prius to get 2 mpg higher on the EPA test won't make as big a dent in gasoline usage as requiring 1/4 ton pickups to get 2 mpg higher on the EPA test. That won't make pickups green, but it's where the industry should focus its FE efforts.
__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fat Charlie For This Useful Post:
NachtRitter (05-22-2012)
Old 05-22-2012, 11:55 AM   #26 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
JacobAziza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 397

Big Orange Work Truck - '83 Ford F-250
90 day: 27.54 mpg (US)

Jessica's - '04 Toyota Matrix
90 day: 41.21 mpg (US)

Ninjette - '01 Kawasaki Ninja EX250R
Thanks: 44
Thanked 65 Times in 42 Posts
I agree with you on that point.
If only the industry read these forums...
__________________




Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw View Post
A few months ago I returned home just as my neighbor pulled into his driveway. It was cold (around freezing) with some rain and sleet, and he yells to me: You rode your bike? In this weather?!?

So the other day we both returned home at the same time again, only now the weather is warm, sunny, with no wind. And I yell to him: You took the car? In this weather?!?
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 12:20 PM   #27 (permalink)
Polymorphic Modder
 
SoobieOut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Utah
Posts: 307

2006 DaCivic Hybrid - '06 Honda Civic Hybrid
90 day: 45.16 mpg (US)
Thanks: 188
Thanked 39 Times in 24 Posts
I agree with this concept only if you account for the number of possible people in each car/truck.

Increasing the fuel economy of a 14 passenger carpool van from 10 to 12 MPG does result in larger savings than a small car, with just a driver, going from 30 to 60 MPG.

I would like to see a sticker on new cars that multiplies the number of possible occupants by the MPG. This could mean a 14 passenger van could get better MPG per occupant than a typical econobox.

Edit: In other words, it would do more good to get rid of the single occupant in a SUV or Pick-up getting 14 MPG, and put them in a carpool or a car that has great mileage like a Prius.

One way to discourage large cars/trucks is to make parking spots smaller and smaller. Or get rid of parking altogether. Taking advantage of lazy drivers is key here. Making it harder and harder to be wasteful of energy.

Last edited by SoobieOut; 05-22-2012 at 08:48 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 12:50 PM   #28 (permalink)
NightKnight
 
NachtRitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Placerville, CA
Posts: 1,594

RippinRoo - '05 Subaru Legacy Wagon 2.5 GT
Subaru
90 day: 21.16 mpg (US)

Helga - '00 Volkswagen Jetta TDI
TEAM VW AUDI Group
Diesel
90 day: 53.91 mpg (US)

Olga - '03 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon
90 day: 46.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 303
Thanked 310 Times in 186 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kodak View Post
Aye, tortoise nailed it. Gallons per X miles (with x being something easy and divisible by 10, like 1,000)
I see... seems like both methods have their advantages and shortcomings... guess it depends on the viewpoint of the user of the measure.

With the focus on being fuel efficient in the past few years, the Average Joe Public would likely benefit from the GPM approach... they probably have a fixed commute in mind and therefore can more easily translate a GPM measure to daily / weekly / monthly fuel usage.

For my recent cross country trip, the MPG measure was quite handy... with a 16gal tank and an average of 60mpg, I could easily figure out that I could do 960miles between fillups which defined my overnight stopping points along the way.

Yes, of course it is possible to use either measure either way. And both measures are non-linear from one perspective or another...

As well (at least for me), I prefer the MPG measure for determining the effectiveness of aero (or other) mods ... improving from 60mpg to 70mpg is HUGE from the perspective of improving the efficiency of my vehicle ... Yes, I know it won't solve the world's fuel consumption problems, but it is definitely a victory in my book. And it sounds better than saying I improved from 1.67g/100mi to 1.43g/100mi ...
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 01:09 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 808 Times in 592 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyking View Post
If we can make a mod for a 10 MPG motorhome that gets it to 11, and get it onto a significant portion of the fleet, Cha-ching!
If instead of making such a marginal improvement, we instead convince even 10% of the people now driving motor homes that they would really be happier putting a tent in the Prius, we'll save a lot more gas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MorphDaCivic View Post
I agree with this concept only if you acount for the number of possible people in each car/truck.
Same logic (or logic fail) as with motor homes. The mpg per potential passenger is irrelevant; what matters is the mpg per actual (average) passenger. Buying an 8 passenger van that you'll use as a single-person vehicle 99% of the time is not increasing efficiency. Indeed, we'd be better off if automakers built & sold more two-passenger models, rather than selling 4-door, 5 passenger sedans - or even pickups :-( - as the default.

Last edited by jamesqf; 05-22-2012 at 01:16 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2012, 04:24 PM   #30 (permalink)
...beats walking...
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: .
Posts: 6,191
Thanks: 179
Thanked 1,521 Times in 1,122 Posts
...it's ALL boils down to the simple equation: N Q, where N = number of items and Q = savings per item.

...since, there are many low-MPG vehicles and relatively few high-MPG vehicles, more progress (benefit) arises from small improvements to the many vehicles, ie: the benefit of the multitude over the benefit of the few.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com