Mythbusters Episode Fuel Saving Tips Jun 12 @ 9EST

[101Volts]

I'm gathering from the replies that Mythbusters didn't do that good of a job. I haven't watched the episode, But this isn't the first time I've heard of them not being quite correct; I'd heard discussion of an earlier episode - A bed-wetting one where if one would put a sleeping person's hand in warm water, They person sleeping would wet the bed in their sleep - And they said "Busted" On that one but I read more than a few comments saying that it does work. Perhaps that just doesn't work on every person.

For some of their episodes, I imagine they get the results right but in many, It seems the results just aren't right.

Originally Posted by Flakbadger

I'm writing about the episode, intending to post the final essay here, but for now, here's an excerpt:

"You missed one of the biggest hypermiling tips:don't drive more car than you need. The single largest contribution to my MPG was switching from a 16MPG truck to a 42MPG car. By doing this, I have increased my fuel economy by about ~263%"

Off-topic a bit, But buying a new car will have more of an impact on the environment than using a beat up sedan from the 80s for 20,000 miles or so I read. It's food for thought, Anyway.

[PressEnter[]]

It looks like Fuelly has gotten in the Mythbusters spirit...did anyone else see their current tip on the home page:

Tip: 50/50 rule--updated | Fuelly

[redpoint5]

Both of these posts below imply an ambiguous fact.

Originally Posted by 101Volts

Off-topic a bit, But buying a new car will have more of an impact on the environment than using a beat up sedan from the 80s for 20,000 miles or so I read.

Positive or negative impact on the environment?

Besides environmental concerns, there are financial ones as well, among many others.

Originally Posted by PressEnter[]

It looks like Fuelly has gotten in the Mythbusters spirit...did anyone else see their current tip on the home page:

Tip: 50/50 rule--updated | Fuelly

Although Mythbuster has "proven" that it is more efficient to have the windows up at 50 miles an hour and higher, likely their test was done with a car with belt driven A/C. This rule will not be true with newer cars that have electric A/C.

In what way will the rule be broken for cars with an electric A/C? Will it be more efficient to drive with the window open at higher or lower speeds than 50mph in this case?

[PressEnter[]]

I believe they are saying that with electric AC there is no point where it is more efficient to use it rather than opening the windows.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by 101Volts

Off-topic a bit, But buying a new car will have more of an impact on the environment than using a beat up sedan from the 80s for 20,000 miles or so I read. It's food for thought, Anyway.

You would be leaving a swath of junked cars and replaced parts.

[Xist]

this tip works for 40% of voting Fuelly members.

It works in the sense that it justifies them using air conditioning. Weird how LocoDiesel put "proved" in quotes. That makes it sound like he does not believe it, so why would he share it.

I do not think that he or she understands quotation marks.

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by Xist

I do not think that he or she understands quotation marks.

I'm pretty sure the quotation marks implied sarcasm.

[Flakbadger]

Originally Posted by 101Volts

I'm gathering from the replies that Mythbusters didn't do that good of a job. I haven't watched the episode, But this isn't the first time I've heard of them not being quite correct; I'd heard discussion of an earlier episode - A bed-wetting one where if one would put a sleeping person's hand in warm water, They person sleeping would wet the bed in their sleep - And they said "Busted" On that one but I read more than a few comments saying that it does work. Perhaps that just doesn't work on every person.

For some of their episodes, I imagine they get the results right but in many, It seems the results just aren't right.



Off-topic a bit, But buying a new car will have more of an impact on the environment than using a beat up sedan from the 80s for 20,000 miles or so I read. It's food for thought, Anyway.

The Mythbusters commonly mess up on scientific accuracy, because they simply don't have the funding to be truly scientific on some stuff, or the motivation to be truly scientific on other stuff. I think it's a show you have to take with a grain of salt and that is difficult for me.

On another note, keeping the same car since the 80's could be a disastrous financial decision. I know I commonly cite the same source (myself), but in the first three months since purchasing my car I made my car payments plus saved $111 just based on the fuel I wasn't putting into my paid-off truck---and it was going to need ~$2,000 in work within the next six months.
I totally understand your point and to some extent it's very true, but just like hypermiling, it's situational and best left to fluid judgment.

[Frank Lee]

What if the '80s car gets 34 mpg and the annual miles accrued are low?

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

What if the '80s car gets 34 mpg and the annual miles accrued are low?

Eighties! Not nineties!

Most of Mythbuster's audience seems content with McScience and I think that they would be upset by the real thing.