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

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-01-2019, 03:01 PM   #21 (permalink)
EcoModding Newb
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,125

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 28.39 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 28.88 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,067
Thanked 2,230 Times in 1,626 Posts
Yeah, Oregon/Washington fuel prices are always more than mountain/south prices. CA is even higher yet.

Lots of stations in MT have regular at 85 octane though, so that might help prices a bit.

__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 08-02-2019, 12:14 PM   #22 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Ecky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vermont
Posts: 3,462

Gaptooth (retired) - '00 Honda Insight
Team Honda
Gen-1 Insights
90 day: 54.26 mpg (US)

Such Fit - '07 Honda Fit Sport
90 day: 41.27 mpg (US)

Connect - '15 Ford Transit Connect XL
90 day: 23.61 mpg (US)

K-sight - '00 Honda K-sight
90 day: 41.38 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,277
Thanked 1,408 Times in 897 Posts
I’d love to see ones of these get a full eco treatment - chop the top, lower it, underbody paneling, aero bed cover, skirts, slightly narrower and LRR tires, weight reduction, gearing compensation for reduced load.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 03:25 PM   #23 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 1,731
Thanks: 117
Thanked 608 Times in 415 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
Yeah, Oregon/Washington fuel prices are always more than mountain/south prices. CA is even higher yet.

Lots of stations in MT have regular at 85 octane though, so that might help prices a bit.
I'm not positive how it works but I think that 85 octane is the same exact gas they sell at 87 in Washington and Oregon it just gets labeled the lower rating because of the average elevation
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 03:50 PM   #24 (permalink)
EcoModding Newb
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,125

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 28.39 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 28.88 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,067
Thanked 2,230 Times in 1,626 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
I'm not positive how it works but I think that 85 octane is the same exact gas they sell at 87 in Washington and Oregon it just gets labeled the lower rating because of the average elevation
That was the opposite of my understanding, that MT 85 is 85 PON, but it has similar resistance to burning at elevation as 87 PON at sea level. Lower atmospheric pressure > lower air density > lower compression heat > lower risk of detonation.

We all observe that the higher the octane rating, the higher the price of fuel, so my assumption is that 85 PON is cheaper to produce.

I run 85 PON when I'm in MT, but then I fill up with "premium" as I head out, prior to descending back to sea level.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 04:02 PM   #25 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 1,731
Thanks: 117
Thanked 608 Times in 415 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5 View Post
That was the opposite of my understanding, that MT 85 is 85 PON, but it has similar resistance to burning at elevation as 87 PON at sea level. Lower atmospheric pressure > lower air density > lower compression heat > lower risk of detonation.

We all observe that the higher the octane rating, the higher the price of fuel, so my assumption is that 85 PON is cheaper to produce.

I run 85 PON when I'm in MT, but then I fill up with "premium" as I head out, prior to descending back to sea level.
I was wrong, I went and looked it up, it is different. It's just most cars can get away with it at altitude. I know I've always ran it in all the cars I have ever had and never had any problems. I bet you could actually get away with it in most cars at any altitude, so I'm glad I at least get a choice. I read in Colorado still 80% choose 85, and about 10% chose 87 and 10% choose 91. If you just are driving normal in a normal car saving $.10-15/gallon is great especially at these low prices. When it goes to $4/gal then it still seems to be at same $.10/gal extra for 87 but it doesn't seem like that much extra.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2019, 04:09 PM   #26 (permalink)
EcoModding Newb
 
redpoint5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 6,125

Acura TSX - '06 Acura TSX
90 day: 28.39 mpg (US)

Lafawnda - '01 Honda CBR600 F4i
90 day: 47.32 mpg (US)

Big Yeller - '98 Dodge Ram 2500 base
90 day: 21.82 mpg (US)

Prius Plug-in - '12 Toyota Prius Plug-in
90 day: 57.64 mpg (US)

Mazda CX-5 - '17 Mazda CX-5 Touring
90 day: 28.88 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,067
Thanked 2,230 Times in 1,626 Posts
Modern cars will mostly be ok running 85 at sea level because they can retard the timing to protect the engine. My Acura might actually become damaged over time if it isn't able to retard the timing enough to prevent knock. The manual states that the engine is designed for 91 octane, and that 87 is the minimum to prevent engine damage.

In OR, we have 87, 89, and 92. BTW, mid grades are always a blend of regular and premium (ever see a fuel truck with 3 tanks?). 89 is 60% regular and 40% premium. Anyhow, I mostly run 87 in my Acura, but lately have been alternating filling up at mid-tank with 87 and 92 to average out somewhere around what it's designed for.

I can "feel" the difference in normal driving between regular and premium in my Acura. This difference is confirmed in more advanced timing on premium, and less advanced timing on regular.
__________________
Gas and Electric Vehicle Cost of Ownership Calculator







Give me absolute safety, or give me death!
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2019, 06:56 PM   #27 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,290

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,284
Thanked 649 Times in 496 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
The other good thing about this Silverado is the 6.2 gas and 3.0 diesel are both priced the same. About $2500 more than the 5.3 v8 so it should pay for itself much sooner than a $5-6k Cummins upgrade. The good thing on the Cummins you can usually get back almost all that at resale compared to a gas Ram.
The 6.2L 400HP engine can crack 20-mpg at 60-mph.

The baby diesel let’s say will do 30 under the same conditions.

That’s a difference of 85-gallons in 5k miles.

If gasoline is $2.50 and diesel $3.00, it’s not much of a savings at $125.

15k annual applicable miles, and it’s $3,750 over ten years.

No IRS depreciation, etc, and needing VERY high annual miles it’s just another vehicle badly spec’d for private use.

.
__________________
2004.0 DODGE Ram QC/LB 2500 2WD/NV-5600 305/555 ISB. 7,940-lb. Stock. 200,000 miles/5000-hrs @ 40-mph average.
1990 35' Silver Streak TT 7,900-lb.
11-cpm solo & 19-cpm towing; 21-mpg average past 54k-miles
Sold: 1983 Silver Streak 3411
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2019, 08:29 PM   #28 (permalink)
It's all about Diesel
 
cRiPpLe_rOoStEr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
Posts: 7,124
Thanks: 0
Thanked 723 Times in 638 Posts
I'd like to see what it could get with an engine more similar to the Cummins ISF3.8 and that 10-speed transmission, considering my previous experience with a Brazilian F-250 4WD regular-cab which was factory-fitted with a Cummins ISB3.9 and a 5-speed manual. With a lead foot it could get around 20MPG, while a more conscious driving would get it around 30MPG.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
The I6 was rare into the 70s and 80s in trucks (pretty common in GM cars) and they may have only been available in what they may not have considered "light duty" trucks (even though according to DOT even a 2020 Duramax 2500 Silverado HD is "light duty"). Still up until the mid 50s it was the only motor available in a Chevy pickup. Agreed a bad claim.
Last time an inline-6 gasser had been available for a GM truck was before the production of the GMT400 shifted from Argentina to Brazil between late-'99 and 2000. There was also a turbodiesel inline-6 sourced from MWM which soldiered on until the GMT400 was phased out in Brazil in late 2001.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
A lot of it may have to do with the 2.8 gets a 6 speed and the 3.0 gets a 10 speed.
I'm sure the 10-speed transmission might've held an important role for an old Bolivian to tell me his late-model F-150 Lariat with the 3.5 Ecoboost was somewhat a fuel-saver.


Quote:
I also suppose more smaller cylinders may be more efficient at complete diesel burn than fewer larger cylinders even though you have 2 extra sets of rings and a few more bearings.
Compression ratio, injection pressure and the fuel spray have more to do with a complete burn than the cylinder bore.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to cRiPpLe_rOoStEr For This Useful Post:
slowmover (08-18-2019)
Old 08-04-2019, 11:58 PM   #29 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Missoula, MT
Posts: 1,731
Thanks: 117
Thanked 608 Times in 415 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
The 6.2L 400HP engine can crack 20-mpg at 60-mph.

The baby diesel letís say will do 30 under the same conditions.

Thatís a difference of 85-gallons in 5k miles.

If gasoline is $2.50 and diesel $3.00, itís not much of a savings at $125.

15k annual applicable miles, and itís $3,750 over ten years.

No IRS depreciation, etc, and needing VERY high annual miles itís just another vehicle badly specíd for private use.

.
Except the baby diesel can crack 43 mpg at 60 mph, it will certainly beat the 33 mpg EPA rating. Also currently even in Montana where diesel prices are usually well over unleaded (one big reason I sold the Cummins) now gas and Diesel are within 3 cents of each other.
So say 35 mpg vs 20 and 10c more for diesel. That is a $860/yr savings for the same initial price based on average miles driven.
They both make the same 460ft-lbs of torque as well.
To me if buying a new GM pickup the choice would be a no brainer.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Hersbird For This Useful Post:
slowmover (08-18-2019)
Old 08-07-2019, 09:18 AM   #30 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,290

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,284
Thanked 649 Times in 496 Posts
1). Expect that diesel pricing will continue to reflect the 1/3-more energetic content of that fuel. THEN make your calculations.

2). Then it comes to use. “Solo, empty”, ISN'T a valid category.

Then IRS applicability.

Against a gasoline big block of 20-yes ago or more, yeah, it’s great. Against today’s gassers, barely.

We built this country without pickups. It’s “need” now is still more “want”. Desire.

The higher risk of accidents (and type) ALWAYS mitigates against pickups. (“Skill” is a laughable counter).

__________________
2004.0 DODGE Ram QC/LB 2500 2WD/NV-5600 305/555 ISB. 7,940-lb. Stock. 200,000 miles/5000-hrs @ 40-mph average.
1990 35' Silver Streak TT 7,900-lb.
11-cpm solo & 19-cpm towing; 21-mpg average past 54k-miles
Sold: 1983 Silver Streak 3411
  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com