Fuel Consumption Economics...???

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by redyaris

So if you resrict yourself to one fuel efficiant car like a priuse or yaris you will spend $3000.- less on fuel than the average household.

True, but we're talking about two (or maybe three) different things. Choosing a fuel-efficient car will get you a big chunk of the savings without doing anything else. Likewise, learning to drive efficiently will save maybe 15-20% of fuel cost, whatever car you drive. Neither of those involves making any modifications to the car, thought.

[ShadeTreeMech]

One factor of fuel consumption economics that is worthy of consideration is the purchase cost. It might be easier to get good mpgs from a new Prius, but the amount of money spent for a newer car can buy a lot of fuel. Sometimes (always?) it's more friendly to the enviroment and the wallet to drive an older car more economically than to buy a fuel hating vehicle that fairly recently sent emmisions into the atmosphere during its manufacturing process.

[redyaris]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

True, but we're talking about two (or maybe three) different things. Choosing a fuel-efficient car will get you a big chunk of the savings without doing anything else. Likewise, learning to drive efficiently will save maybe 15-20% of fuel cost, whatever car you drive. Neither of those involves making any modifications to the car, thought.

The way I think about it is; ...how rational is it, rather than, ...is it rational. To my way of thinking there are very few questions that can be answered in the absolute sence. If we start at the begining when we need a new car we pick the most fuel efficiant vehical we can find that meets our needs. In my case it was a Yaris because I live in a small comunity and most of my driving is on the highway. If I did most of my driving in the city I would have bought a Priuse at a price that is 75% more than a Yaris. The next concideration is modifications, and are they economicaly wearth doing? In my case I reasoned that it was, because the benifit is that it would insulates me against future price rises. Return on investment on its own is not sufficiant to justfy the expence of the modification, but if you invest in better FE and the price goes up by a large amount you are insulated/protected from that by the fact that you use so little [about 1/4 of the average] that the doubling of the price of fuel results in the cost/yr being $2000 rather than $8000. If fuel is a dwindeling and harmful/polluting resource then a drastice rise in price at some unknown time in the future is a reasonable/rational expectation...

[jamesqf]

You know, I agree (pretty much) with what you say, but most of it is still irrelevant to the subject, which is the economic benefits of MODS, not original choice of car or driving style. Those have to be thought of in the same way as other performance mods, a hobby on which you expect to spend money :-)

[redyaris]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

You know, I agree (pretty much) with what you say, but most of it is still irrelevant to the subject, which is the economic benefits of MODS, not original choice of car or driving style. Those have to be thought of in the same way as other performance mods, a hobby on which you expect to spend money :-)

Although thinking about ecomods "...in the same way as other performance mods, a hobby on which you expect to spend money." is valid it ends up as a single factor argument, or "reductio ad absurdom"[reduced to the point of absurdety] of economic thought. We also expect to spend money on food, housing, transportation, clothes, utilities, investments and... As I see it we need to evaluate economic benifits from more than one perspective. That is why even though ecomoding has only a small return on investment, it also has an insulating effect on futur price rise, as well as makeing the activity [motorized personal transportation...] more sustainable. So if we add up the verious economic benefits [return on investment + insulation from price rise + sustaneability + ...] we see that the activity seems more and more economicaly rational, even though it may never achieve perfection.

[slowmover]

It's a marginal activity, at best, for our activities can't change the overall fleet of vehicles Americans use. Or, more importantly, the way they use them. Land policy is a greater marginal effect than corporate fuel economy, but it takes decades to change that.

Wearing out the vehicle prematurely in time or miles is counterproductive to economical use (at least 15-years and/or 200k), as is spec'ng the vehicle incorrectly (a truck with no IRS deductible miles, for instance). Same for not combining trips (a single shopping/errands trip per weekend), or, trip-planning them (routing).

I would much rather be able to keep a vehicle a year or two longer than worry about hypermiling, thus building a garage is of better benefit than some of the misguided ideas around here (there are a few) as a car kept enclosed scores higher in all aspects of reliability (almost no matter the climate).

The big choices -- the hard ones -- pay a great deal more, but are so doggoned much harder to change, adapt, acquire.

Paying cash is the real first step in economical car ownership. Other fixed costs of insurance, repairs, maintenance, taxes, parking fees, etc are worth a lot more than a few mpg assuming the vehicle is in the ballpark as far as type is concerned.

.

[dbc1218]

This is good discussion, one that I have thought about more recently. I want to throw out my numbers and see what you guys have to say. I currently have two primary vehicles that I have used since I purchased them in May and June of 2008. I have a 1995 Honda Civic LX 5spd and a 2008 Honda Ruckus 50cc scooter. I have kept track of every gallon I have put in both vehicles over this time and have good records of all my expenses, ie gas, maintenance, registration, insurance and accessories. These are my ACTUAL numbers, not any nation wide averages, like the numbers being thrown around.

Civic Ruckus

Milage
Starting Milage 157821 0
Current Milage 179098 6106.3

Expenses
Purchase $1,500.00 $2,591.00
Insurance $1,638.22 $299.96
Maintenance $1,389.71 $120.84
Registration $219.00 $165.00
Accessory $113.51 $460.35

Gas Expense
2008 $717.33 $95.49
2009 $341.04 $46.88
2010 $429.23 $49.70

Total Gallons 552.971 66.167
Total Milage 21277 6106.30
Total Expense $6,348.04 $3,829.22

Cost Per Mile $0.30 $0.63
Average MPG 38.5 92.3

Sorry for the format I couldn't get it to space things out, I also attached a picture of the data.

As far as average speed goes, I know I average 30mph on the scooter because a few of the longer trips I have taken on it. I also drove a car today, not my civic, on a 200+ mile round trip and the trip computer said average speed was 45mph.

So here is my question, should I drive the car and get half the mileage of the scooter but at half the price, or should I ride the scooter and get double the mileage at double the cost?

I bought the scooter to save on gas but with these numbers it doesn't seem justified.

[Frank Lee]

Depends on if you're more interested in saving money, or gas.

[busypaws]

The only adjustment I would make is subtracting what you could reasonably sell each vehicle for. I.E. you bought the civic for 1,500. If you sold it could you get 1,000? If so then you only really used $500 dollars of original 1500 purchase price. Same with the scooter.

[user removed]

Residual value of each vehicle should be deducted from the per mile cost. My best would be the $800 Honda Rebel with 1887 miles on the odometer. 620 miles since Sep28th, average MPG just under 80, insurance for 8 months was $45.

Depreciation? On an $800 bike, practically nothing.

A little over 3 cents a mile fuel cost.

Insurance tags and taxes, depend on how much I ride it in the next 7 months.

Total cost per mile, probably less than 10 cents.

If I can write it off at 50 cents a mile.

Paid by taxes saved.

regards
Mech