Battling the non-believers

[larrybuck]

My best mpgs in my CRX were in WYO.; high elevation w their regions 85 octane instead of my home life 87.

Tried a mpg discussion on a CRX forum once; it was old school no interest...you are wasting space w your talk, old school brains in SOME young punks.

[redpoint5]

I'm new to the Jeep forum, so I clearly know nothing. tjkj2002, with several thousand posts obviously knows everything. Every comment in that thread just reaffirmed the position of their leader as all knowing. Not a single person was brave enough to disagree with him.

The problem with (some) old people is that they remember how things used to be and assume the same applies today. tjkj2002 insults me by saying everyone since 70 years ago knows elevation kills FE. Yes, but as a "master tech" he fails to realize that almost nobody drives with a carburetor these days, and the engine management adjusts for the reduced air density.

Impossible to discuss logic to the masses, who are quick to fall for ad hominems, appeals to authority, and straw man arguments.

[user removed]

Not my yob to drag Morons out of their pit of stupidity. If they choose to waste energy in their daily routines, why should I try to make them understand the error of their ways.

regards
Mech

[pete c]

Your whole post and everything in it would leave,like myself,any ASE Master Tech rolling on the ground laughing and give most automotive engineers a heart attach.

you would think that an ASE master tech would understand modern fuel injection systems and be able to spell.

I am tempted to head back over to fordrangerforum and stir up some CAI/WAI trouble.

[pete c]

this ought to go over like a lead zeppelin over at FRF.

CAI don't work on any gasoline engines regarding mpg. In fact, just the opposite, warm air intakes, improve mpg.

I realize this seems counterintuitive because CAI may improve peak hp, but, it all comes down to pumping losses. Internal combustion engines are inefficient beasts. Part of this inefficiency is due to the means it uses to control power, a throttle. A throttle controls OP by restricting air flow, or more importantly oxygen flow. This is called a pumping loss and it is substantial. Diesels have higher efficiency partly because they control power by limiting fuel, not air. Therefore, they don't have this loss.

A CAI works by supplying colder, denser, more oxygen rich air. The result is the engine makes more power, which means you must close the throttle some for the desired power output. And the result, from an engine efficiency viewpoint is lowered efficiency due to increased pumping losses.

This does not apply to carbureted engines. They ain't smart enough to detect oxygen content. They monitor fuel strictly by airflow, rather than oxygen flow. A CAI will simply result in the engine running a little richer.

CAIs definitely do help diesels. Turbos help diesel efficiency too, unlike gassers. It is why every single big rig on the road today has one.

For those that may dispute this, take a look at your mpg numbers in the winter. Part of the drop is due to pushing your truck through denser air, part is due to the fact that we all run CAIs when it's 20 degrees out.

And yes, "that ought to go over like a lead zeppelin" is how the greatest band in history came about its name. It was said by Keith Moon.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by pete c

I had a fun afternoon of going back and forth with a handful of guys on a ford ranger board about hypermiling in general and EOCing in particular.

It seems that people in general out there think that engine off coasting a manual transmissioned car is crazy and dangerous. I turned it around on them and said that someone with a 6" lift and mudder tires should probably just STFU when it comes to preaching safety.

Then the pile on of the bigfooters commenced!!!!

Good times.

It is amazing how basic physics seems to be beyond the comprehension of most folks.

Anyone else here been through this when explaining to "normal" people that you are actually looney enough to shut your engine off at 40 mph?

I get a similar kind of response on RV boards, whether of more affluent, higher education, or in more common blue collar contributor forums: silence.

Which, when one thinks about it, makes little sense. Not all RV'ers are well-to-do, and many if not most (among the retired) are on fixed incomes. And, as this concerns those savvy enough to participate on Internet forums, the possible resources available (starting with definitions) is profound in itself . . but no real takers.

One may enter a discussion and suggest starting from scratch to spec the one or two vehicles being acquired for best mpg (among other attributes), or in more specific cases of a type, that vehicle and driver can both be improved, and not a high or prohibitive cost. Even short of appearance changes there are no real "takers".

Then, from the widest perspective, how to make an annual fuel budget that accurately tracks use, to:

1] Use less gallons to perform the same work in non-RV miles; and,

2] To "trip plan" effectively to use those "saved" gallons wisely with the RV

. . still no takers.

They'll argue hitches, tires, particular vehicles, etc, till threads are closed on rancor alone.

But FE barely makes a blip.

I've shown more than once that effective use of my truck on all miles (gallons savings, dollar savings, cpm savings) effectively underwrites from 5-15k annual miles "free"

An astonishing silence ensues considering the Number One place of fuel costs for operational expenses. May not "like" me, but not even PM's to ask for more source material to sidestep my perhaps mistaken assertions (to put it diplomatically).

The links I've put up (as with AEROLID) is not taken up by others.

Much moaning and groaning, but besides "slow down" and "fewer trips" and/or "fewer miles" the association of RV and mpg is not taken seriously.

Yet, just look at 9-mpg Class C motorhomes and Orbywans' 15-mpg Class C. And it is good looking.

I could continue with other work and ideas being pursued around here, and remain surprised that some overlap hasn't or isn't occuring. There is no lack of informed DIY and fabrication skills among these sub-groups.

.

[2000neon]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Candy didn't agree with my posts, which is fine, and I didn't post "bannable" stuff; what Candy did was read a PM of mine to another member and that put him over the top.

I was originally on there for the wealth of 283 info- there's some old guys there with loads of experience with those and the 283 is one of my favorite small block Chevys (I have several of 'em and was in the middle of hopping one up at the time).

Well without knowing what was said I can't comment any farther on it, but that site definitely is an incredible wealth of knowledge. I have been on there for a few years and have gotten so much help, and learned so much from there. I love that site. There is a few guys with a lot of interest in gas mileage, and all sorts of other fun. One guy just posted some details on his 555" twin turbo big block for his vette, something about 1200+ hp on the street seems pretty fun.

[pete c]

only 1200?

pffttttt.

wonder what sort of mpg he gets in that thing?

do you think he EOCs it?

prolly not.

[jakobnev]

Some people have the hobbies they have, to show off their wealth. If you start talking to them about saving money (especially if it means having visibly DIY-bits on their vehicles) their brain will tilt and go into violent cognitive dissonance mode immidiately.

[Vman455]

Originally Posted by Neen

We don't compare the handling/braking characteristics of an 18 wheeler to a Lotus do we?

And yet, we allow both to legally operate on the same roads.

The argument raised in the OP was not that EOC-ing is less safe than driving normally, but that it is "crazy and dangerous." Neither claim is true. As pointed out by others, cars with power brakes maintain assist for some time after the engine is shut off (in the case of my car, for several hours); secondly, if one is EOC-ing properly, one does not use the brakes unless an emergency arises, so they are not being "depleted"; thirdly, if use of the brakes is necessitated for any reason, the driver can simply restart the engine and regain assist. Compared to the consistent decrease in braking performance and handling in a vehicle with a lifted center of gravity and tires designed to go offroad, any rational person would not try to argue that a vehicle coasting with the engine off but maintaining stock braking capabilities is more dangerous.