Driving tips that can help you guzzle less gasoline

[snopes]

Whether you're trying to save money or the environment, you don't need to drive a hybrid car to cut consumption.

http://www.latimes.com/business/inve...6098597.column

[DrRocket]

There isn't one single thing on this list that hasn't been written about before in numorous other auto savings articles. Not one. In fact, it didn't even mention that keeping the wheels of the car aligned also helps. Both in gas savings and tire life. (Four wheel alignment, folks. Not the cheapo two wheel.)

And it's all common sense.

I NEVER use drive throughs, unless the dining area has been shut down. I always get whatever faster by going inside.

I never "orbit" a parking lot. More than I can count, I've followed a car into a parking lot, and as I park in the first available spot, get out and start for the door, I almost alway walk past that same car still circling around like a shark, looking for that "good spot."

Our society has become incredibly lazy in so many ways. Our driving habits and record consumption of gas show this.

[snopes]

Comment: Any truth in the rumor of filling your tank up half way or all
the way attributing to better gas mileage one way or the other?

[DrRocket]

Originally Posted by snopes

Comment: Any truth in the rumor of filling your tank up half way or all
the way attributing to better gas mileage one way or the other?

Makes no difference. Older cars had tanks vented to the atmosphere, and if you didn't top the tank off, it might allow more fuel to evaporate on hot days. Modern cars have a closed system to capture fumes, which explains why the "check engine" light will come on if you leave the cap off.

BUT! If you're driving a modern car with an electric pump mounted in the fuel tank, (Which is just about all of them.) you should know that the electric pump of today is working much harder than the old mechanical pumps of yesterday did to feed the high pressure fuel injection system. And that pump depends on the gasoline it's immersed in for cooling. It's not unknown for pumps to burn out earlier than usual if you make a habit of driving around with only a few gallons of gas in the tank most of the time.

(edit) High gas prices seem to be coming home to roost. I heard on the news that for the first time since 1986, our national gasoline consumption actually fell. Using less gas is the ONLY way gas prices will fall. It's simple supply and demand folks. A consistent reduction in the demand for fuel is the only thing that will bring prices down. I will note that their seems to be a lot of SUVs in my neighborhood with "For Sale" signs on them. A neighbor down the street sold his Honda Civic about a year ago, keeping his new F-250 crew cab instead because "I never drive it any more!" He freely admits that was a bad move, and wishes he had it back.

[BoKu]

Originally Posted by DrRocket

Makes no difference...

I disagree. Gasoline weighs 6 lbs per gallon (about 1.4 Kg per liter), and it takes energy to accelerate that mass. The more fuel you carry, the more energy you have to spend to accelerate it.

For a 3000 lb car, 10 gallons of fuel constitutes 2% of the mass of the vehicle. That's not a lot, but "no difference" and "not much difference" are definitely not the same thing.

To put it in perspective, if you were an engineer at GM and you figured out how to reduce vehicle mass by 2% you'd probably get a bonus for it.

Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.

[forceflow15]

Can I get a bonus?

Forceflow's solution for lowering mass by 2%:

Make gas tank 10 gallons smaller.


I got the !

Originally Posted by BoKu

I disagree. Gasoline weighs 6 lbs per gallon (about 1.4 Kg per liter), and it takes energy to accelerate that mass. The more fuel you carry, the more energy you have to spend to accelerate it.

For a 3000 lb car, 10 gallons of fuel constitutes 2% of the mass of the vehicle. That's not a lot, but "no difference" and "not much difference" are definitely not the same thing.

To put it in perspective, if you were an engineer at GM and you figured out how to reduce vehicle mass by 2% you'd probably get a bonus for it.

Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.

Reduce gas tank size by 50%.

Send the check via USPS, thanks.

[Troberg]

I disagree. Gasoline weighs 6 lbs per gallon (about 1.4 Kg per liter), and it takes energy to accelerate that mass. The more fuel you carry, the more energy you have to spend to accelerate it.

That's true, but on the other hand, you have to go to the gas station twice as often, which will burn some fuel. Depending on where the gas station is, that might be more than you save.

Also, the weight reduction is less than what one might think. If you fill it completely, you are, on an average, driving around with a 1/2 full tank. If you only fill it halfway, that average is 1/4. In other words, the difference is only 1/4 of a full tank.

Another thing to keep in mind is that during the winter, with extreme cold, you don't want a half tank. A full tank is best for reducing condensation, which can ice up, leaving you stranded on the highway miles from nowhere....not that it's ever happened to me.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Zakor

Reduce gas tank size by 50%.

Send the check via USPS, thanks.

Sorry, automobile manufacturers figured this out decades ago. In the sixties many cars had ~20 gallon tanks. Now the average for a passenger car is probably 12 gallons or less.

CAFE regulations (in the US) mean that anything that boosts mileage by a small fraction of an MPG, especially if it costs nothing, especially especially if the modification actually costs less than the old way, were adopted long ago.

A smaller tank is cheaper to make, takes up less room in the smaller frame of modern cars, weighs less empty and full, is easier to protect from rupture during a crash, and does help increase the MPG rating by a small amount.

[UEL]

Originally Posted by BoKu

I disagree. Gasoline weighs 6 lbs per gallon (about 1.4 Kg per liter), and it takes energy to accelerate that mass. The more fuel you carry, the more energy you have to spend to accelerate it.

For a 3000 lb car, 10 gallons of fuel constitutes 2% of the mass of the vehicle. That's not a lot, but "no difference" and "not much difference" are definitely not the same thing.

To put it in perspective, if you were an engineer at GM and you figured out how to reduce vehicle mass by 2% you'd probably get a bonus for it.

Thanks, Bob "BoKu" K.

I'd like to point out that gasoline weighs in at roughtly half of what you have it at. It is 0.739 kg/litre. That's why gas floats on water.

Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sp...ids-d_336.html

Your 2% is indeed correct, but you had missed on the metric conversion calculation of the mass of fuel.

Cheers

Originally Posted by jimmy101_again

Sorry, automobile manufacturers figured this out decades ago. In the sixties many cars had ~20 gallon tanks. Now the average for a passenger car is probably 12 gallons or less.

True, but the distance that they both travel on "A full tank" is probably roughly the same, I would wager.

[tagurit]

• Use the cruise. There's no hard estimate of how much gas this saves, but Energy Department engineers maintain that flipping on the cruise control to keep a constant speed improves mileage at least incrementally.

I've been wondering if using my cruise control actually improves my mileage or not. I drive 27 miles one way to work everyday; 20 of that is freeway. I use the cruise because it's a much easier ride that way, but I was hoping I wouldn't have to feel guilty about it. I've been meaning to look it up online but keep forgetting to.

[Troberg]

I've been wondering if using my cruise control actually improves my mileage or not. I drive 27 miles one way to work everyday; 20 of that is freeway. I use the cruise because it's a much easier ride that way, but I was hoping I wouldn't have to feel guilty about it. I've been meaning to look it up online but keep forgetting to.

For me, cruise control almost halfed my fuel consumption, especially when I had the Firebird.

I'll leave the question of if that means that cruise control is good or that I'm an expensive driver as an exercise for the curious reader...

True, but the distance that they both travel on "A full tank" is probably roughly the same, I would wager.

Depends on the car. A friend has a Mitsubishi Outlander, has always had a smaller thank than mine, but doesn't get as good of mileage as her last car which had a bigger tank. Thus, she has both a smaller tank and shorter range, however it costs less to fill each time. She used to go 10 days on her old car, now only goes 6-7 days, however, she spends about 30% less to fill the tank if she still ran the old car.

I have a 1990 BMW 7 series, with a 20 gallon tank, the newer ones have the same size or bigger tanks. They go even further with a tank than mine even though the engines have more hp and bigger engine sizes; they get better mileage.

Most cars are engineered to run about 500 kilometers on a tank of gas (hwy, or combination city/hwy), as most people require a break from driving by then anyway. (tiredness, bathroom break, hunger, etc). Having the range at that distance helps reduce driver fatigue. On motorcycles, depending on the model, and style (cruise vs sportbike vs scooter) the range is usually 120 to 150 miles on a tank. Touring bikes generally go further. Again, a lot of it is designed for reducing fatigue, as a human factor.

Economics aside, the size of the tank doesn't make much difference in the building of the car. Sometimes a smaller tank is not cheaper, in fact, it depends on location, shape, where it's located on the car, location of the fuel pump, and more.

Interesting to note (for me at least) is that a V8-engined Lincoln LSC from the mid to late 90's, gets better mileage than the 70's 4 cylinder Ford Pinto, considered to be an economy car at the time. Technology has come a long way since the 70's.

[Troberg]

Interesting to note (for me at least) is that a V8-engined Lincoln LSC from the mid to late 90's, gets better mileage than the 70's 4 cylinder Ford Pinto, considered to be an economy car at the time. Technology has come a long way since the 70's.

It's a common misunderstanding that large engines get worse mileage. They have a larger effective RPM spectrum and can work effectively on a lower RPM. This means that you don't have to shift as much and can, on the average, drive on a higher gear. You don't have to almost redline it when accelerating, it has strength even at lower RPM.