Longer route with steady speed vs. short stop n go route

[Daox]

I completely agree.

[dongs]

I took the shorter city route in to work today and had forgotten all the excellent coasting opportunities afforded. Until I get an ultragauge or similar I won't really have concrete numbers but if I had instrumentation it would be a lot easier to adjust my driving. The only downer is the traffic. The lights aren't too bad and I know how they're timed but add a bunch of mid day traffic and there's a lot of variables. My preference would be to take the longer freeway route to work since traffic is always moving and take the city route home at night when traffic is minimal. Until they finish the night work they've been doing on the road ill probably stick to the freeway. The rail crossings aren't a huge issue since I always shut off the motor as soon as the gates come down and don't start again til they're going up.
That leads me to another question...
I can avoid one of the crossings all together by taking a road that passes under a viaduct. There's less traffic on that road and no stoplights but the hill after the crossing is extremely steep but not very long. The route that has an at grade rail crossing is still fairly steep but isn't nearly as long with a few stop lights and a lot more traffic.

[The_Jed]

I have the same dilemma; just over 7 miles, more city driving and 55mph is the highest speed limit or 13 or so miles with more highway driving and a speed limit of 70 mph, drives people nuts when I don't go over 60.

I like taking the highway since it brings up my average mpgs but I also like taking the shorter route since it reduces my overall fuel useage for the week.

[dongs]

Does your car get to operating temp on the shorter drive? And by operating temp I mean oil temp, not coolant.
I always like to try and get the oil up to it's normal operating temperature to get rid of any condensation that may have built up while the engine was off. I value mpg but i also value vehicle longevity and engine health.

[slowmover]

The non-stop route is better.

Reduced wear on vehicle and components, not to mention the lower accident rate plus severity thereof in using a limited access roadway, offsets the fewer extra miles. Full warm up is more likely. Lower vehicle wear over time saves energy or money.

And time is crucial. Few will have to relinquish a vehicle due to total miles. Most will time-out in regards vehicle reliability.

The heavier the vehicle the more accurate this is. I don't average 100k on tires and brakes by making bad route decisions. Or that the clutch is original at over 200k miles. And besides u-joints, repairs have been limited to pocket change.

A few more miles at a lower rate of consumption with faster warmup and steadier temps plus minimized use of brakes concurrent with minimized acceleration events is a recipe for success.

To keep it simple, keep the average mph high as per engine hours. Give the vehicle what it wants versus forcing it to an unnatural existence. Minimize risks.

[The_Jed]

Originally Posted by dongs

Does your car get to operating temp on the shorter drive? And by operating temp I mean oil temp, not coolant.
I always like to try and get the oil up to it's normal operating temperature to get rid of any condensation that may have built up while the engine was off. I value mpg but i also value vehicle longevity and engine health.

I assume so since I can watch the coolant temp gauge fluctuate slightly as the thermostat opens a few times during the 7 mile trip, even at below zero ambient temps. I don't have an oil temp gauge so I don't know for sure.

[dongs]

Usually 15 miles or so is enough to get the oil up to temp. Keeping the engine in good shape is key to good mpg so a good highway run a couple times a week or so is a good thing.

[dongs]

Originally Posted by slowmover

The non-stop route is better.

Reduced wear on vehicle and components, not to mention the lower accident rate plus severity thereof in using a limited access roadway, offsets the fewer extra miles. Full warm up is more likely. Lower vehicle wear over time saves energy or money.

And time is crucial. Few will have to relinquish a vehicle due to total miles. Most will time-out in regards vehicle reliability.

The heavier the vehicle the more accurate this is. I don't average 100k on tires and brakes by making bad route decisions. Or that the clutch is original at over 200k miles. And besides u-joints, repairs have been limited to pocket change.

A few more miles at a lower rate of consumption with faster warmup and steadier temps plus minimized use of brakes concurrent with minimized acceleration events is a recipe for success.

To keep it simple, keep the average mph high as per engine hours. Give the vehicle what it wants versus forcing it to an unnatural existence. Minimize risks.

Highway miles are always easier on a vehicle than stop and go. I'd liken to get good mpg and also have a healthy engine and transmission.

[Baltothewolf]

Which route takes longer is the question. I will happily use a little more gas if it gets me there 10-15 minutes faster each way.

[dongs]

They're about the same time wise