Input on Improving MPG- Gas May Reach $5 a Gallon By Year End + Current MPG Poll

[zhp43867]

Well, I read from several sources this week that gas could hit $5 a gallon by the years end. I thought it'd be helpful to start a brainstorming thread on how to achieve decent mileage from our cars.

I've never had great fuel mileage in my car- I average between 19-21mpg combined (about 28-29mpg on the highway). Sometimes my mind wanders to the Golf MK6 TDI 6 Speed I test drove that would achieve ~40mpg combined.

So if you have any tips outside of changing filters, injector cleaner etc., chime in! Also please vote on your current MPG.

[SC4ME]

Biggest factor in getting the maximum mpg I find is owning a manual transmission.

[MasterC17]

It's a lot to do with driving conditions - highway/city. On the highway, I find it easy to modulate the throttle to allow me to achieve about 30mpg. "City" driving the best I can get is about 20mpg. However, I almost never drive on the highway and rarely for drives over 5 miles in the "city". Therefore, I am averaging an awesome 16mpg. I drive 3 miles to school, 2 miles from there to work, and 1 mile from work to my house. That's my daily commute - car doesn't usually go anywhere on the weekends. The "best" way to improve your fuel milage is simply to avoid traffic as much as possible. Last year I parked in a different parking lot at my school and I was averaging about 18mpg. Now I go to the main parking lot and it has fallen to 16mpg - needless to say there is considerably more traffic going in the main entrance. At one point I was down to 14.5mpg :(

[mimalmo]

I see a big difference in my average mileage (I monitor tank average) when I use ethanol-free premium. Ethanol is not only bad for our fuel systems, but it also contains less energy. Gallon for gallon, ethanol contains about 34% less energy than pure gasoline.

[zhpnsnv]

Time to buy a honda fit.

I'm not even joking. I'd commute in one in a second.

[kayger12]

Well, I read from several sources this week that gas could hit $5 a gallon by the years end.

I'd be happy if it only goes to $5. I've seen a few analysts predict upwards of $7...

[nk_zhp]

I see a big difference in my average mileage (I monitor tank average) when I use ethanol-free premium. Ethanol is not only bad for our fuel systems, but it also contains less energy. Gallon for gallon, ethanol contains about 34% less energy than pure gasoline.

That is not entirely true, In the way your and my engine burn ethanol mixed gas that is correct, however ethanol allows much higher compression ratios than regular fuel and as a result a proper engine may extract a lot more out of ethanol mixed fuel. Don't get me wrong I oppose ethanol mixed fuels as much as the next guy.

[nk_zhp]

I might be the "bad guy" in this thread but I want to see expensive gas, it is the only way to teach people responsible spending of this precious resource. Money talks... Al Gore does too, but nobody listens to him.

[zhp43867]

Time to buy a honda fit.

I'm not even joking. I'd commute in one in a second.

I like the first gen fit, but I'm not so fond of the new one... it's a little bulbous.

The new TDI has the GTI seats (but not the plaid upholstery), suspension, etc. It has xenon's, nicer trim than the other golf, and it's made in germany. I was very, very impressed when I decided to drive one on a whim. I like it because I think it's the most fun and certainly the least dorky "eco" car.


I'd be happy if it only goes to $5. I've seen a few analysts predict upwards of $7...

Ahhh Golf TDI here I come! http://www.smileyshut.com/smileys/new/free-scared-smileys-366[1].gif (http://www.smileyshut.com/facebook-smileys.html)

Here are my fuel costs annually at $7 a gallon in my ZHP vs the TDI.

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8270/screenshot20110206at356.png (http://img59.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20110206at356.png/)

[Johnmadd]

At slower speeds higher gear doesn't always get the lowest mileage, its more of a rpm range thing, not to low not to high.

[mimalmo]

That is not entirely true, In the way your and my engine burn ethanol mixed gas that is correct, however ethanol allows much higher compression ratios than regular fuel and as a result a proper engine may extract a lot more out of ethanol mixed fuel. Don't get me wrong I oppose ethanol mixed fuels as much as the next guy.

While what you say is true, it currently only applies to specialty/purpose built vehicles that typically burn 100% ethanol. Even the E85 capable vehicles on the road today can't adjust their compression ratio so they experience much worse mileage when burning E85 versus gasoline.

Still, gallon for gallon, ethanol contains over 30% less energy than gasoline. Not to mention, all of the other negative aspects such as food source challenges, water usage, my tax dollars, etc.

[Mtnman]

+1 on auto vs manual. I have an auto, and get terrible mileage. A manual driver would get 3-5 mpg better than me easily. Especially from what Ive seen here on the forum. Especially true in mostly city driving. On the highway, a manual may beat me by 1-2 mpg only. The ZHP Automatic does not like being near 2000 rpms, it likes to hang out at 3000 to 3500.

[nk_zhp]

While what you say is true, it currently only applies to specialty/purpose built vehicles that typically burn 100% ethanol. Even the E85 capable vehicles on the road today can't adjust their compression ratio so they experience much worse mileage when burning E85 versus gasoline.

Still, gallon for gallon, ethanol contains over 30% less energy than gasoline. Not to mention, all of the other negative aspects such as food source challenges, water usage, my tax dollars, etc.

I am 100% with you on adverse effects of adding ethanol to gas. Typical example of acting fast without putting much thought into it.

[rikdee]

I am 100% with you on adverse effects of adding ethanol to gas. Typical example of acting fast without putting much thought into it.

Kinda sounds like our bloated federal govenment...

[az3579]

I might be the "bad guy" in this thread but I want to see expensive gas, it is the only way to teach people responsible spending of this precious resource. Money talks... Al Gore does too, but nobody listens to him.

I'm going to pretend that you didn't say that, because that definitely ticked me off. Driving 30k miles a year does not agree with that statement whatsoever.

[danewilson77]

Lets not let the topic get the best of us fellas.....

[kayger12]

I might be the "bad guy" in this thread but I want to see expensive gas, it is the only way to teach people responsible spending of this precious resource. Money talks... Al Gore does too, but nobody listens to him.

Nothing bad about opinions on green energy. But let's just say we all don't agree with Al Gore, anthropogenic global warming, or that we burn too many fossil fuels...

[kayger12]

Lets not let the topic get the best of us fella's.....

Exactly-- family before politics...

[zhp43867]

Time to buy a honda fit.

I'm not even joking. I'd commute in one in a second.


Lets not let the topic get the best of us fellas.....

I agree with you, but it might reach an unavoidable point. For example: IIRC you said you drive 36,000 miles a year?

If gas reached $7 a gallon, your fuel cost might approach $10k annually, yikes.

[danewilson77]

I am driving about 30k miles/yr.

[az3579]

If gas reached $7 a gallon, your fuel cost might approach $10k annually, yikes.

Other parts of the world are paying the equivalent of $9 a gallon, in countries where many people make in a month what some of us make in half a week. We have it easy, even if gas only cost $5 or $6 a gallon.

But that doesn't change the fact that it's a lot of money, and such a huge increase in gas prices is going to cause some problems in the social realm of things. I fear that people are going to "take more action", if it's the right way to put in, and I don't mean in a good way.

(I actually once read that someone in Germany burned his E36 because he couldn't afford the gas anymore...)

[kayger12]

Other parts of the world are paying the equivalent of $9 a gallon, in countries where many people make in a month what some of us make in half a week. We have it easy, even if gas only cost $5 or $6 a gallon.


It isn't about having it easy or having it hard.

The problem is that people only have a finite amount of disposal income.

When they are spending it on gas, they are not spending it on other goods and services.

That reduced demand will have a negative effect on an economy that is already in the midst of a jobless recovery.

$7 a gallon gas will crush this economy.

[zhp43867]

Nothing bad about opinions on green energy. But let's just say we all don't agree with Al Gore, anthropogenic global warming, or that we burn too many fossil fuels...

Agree, however I think some things are past the point of being debatable...


I am driving about 30k miles/yr.

My bad. Point is, whatever your fuel cost is could double. If that happens to everyone we're going to have some real problems.

[nk_zhp]

Nothing bad about opinions on green energy. But let's just say we all don't agree with Al Gore, anthropogenic global warming, or that we burn too many fossil fuels...

All I was trying to say is that when gas went up only then we saw true shift towards more efficient cars etc. I am not a fan of Al by the way, though my post might have hinted that way (incorrectly so).

[kayger12]

Agree, however I think some things are past the point of being debatable...


The anthropogenic component is far from past the point of being debatable.

Scientific consensus has a long and storied history of things believed to be past the point of being debatable, many of which have since been disproven...

[nk_zhp]

It isn't about having it easy or having it hard.

The problem is that people only have a finite amount of disposal income.

When they are spending it on gas, they are not spending it on other goods and services.

That reduced demand will have a negative effect on an economy that is already in the midst of a jobless recovery.

$7 a gallon gas will crush this economy.

Here's the picture, you might like it, you might not but this is how it is....

... gas goes up to $7 (let's just say). We suffer for a while and invest into alternative energy sources and hopefully come out victorious.

OR

government artificially keeps the gas prices down fearing a massive movement putting it in danger until the breaking point, past which there is a major meltdown and, sadly, because there was no monetary need to find alternative sources, we are royally .....ed

The last spike in gas prices did pose a heavy burden on many people, however it did kick start a lot of new development in the area of electric vehicles and it did shift the mindset of people from thinking that a Hummer H3 is cool to thinking that is overkill.

I am not suggesting high price for gas because I enjoy when people suffer... I just don't want people to live a delusional life and then find themselves against a brick wall.

[az3579]

government artificially keeps the gas prices down fearing a massive movement putting it in danger until the breaking point, past which there is a major meltdown and, sadly, because there was no monetary need to find alternative sources, we are royally .....ed

We don't need to reach that point. They need to start investing in the technology NOW and keep the prices low 'till we reach the point of having feasable alternative fuels. But nooooooooooooo, that would make things TOO easy. Bastards. All greedy sons of bizzles in the government, I tell you. :mad


And I don't buy this Al Gore crap for a second. He's just another one of those weenies that wants to scare people unnecessarily.
(And the near 0-degree temperatures here for the past few weeks definitely doesn't align with his thoughts...)

[zhp43867]

The anthropogenic component is far from past the point of being debatable.

Scientific consensus has a long and storied history of things believed to be past the point of being debatable, many of which have since been disproven...

Fair enough, beyond that the whole theory is fairly logical.

Sitting in a car running with the garage closed will kill you --> it hurts the environment.

I definitely understand your point, and at the same time I am fairly confident we are responsible to a substantial degree. I'm open minded if other developments occur though.

[nk_zhp]

We don't need to reach that point. They need to start investing in the technology NOW and keep the prices low 'till we reach the point of having feasable alternative fuels. But nooooooooooooo, that would make things TOO easy. Bastards. All greedy sons of bizzles in the government, I tell you. :mad

Everyone knows what the right steps should be, but nobody seems to be taking them. If we sit around and wait for some sort of a massive federal move then we are going to run out of time. If government took on the task of investing into alternative sources it would have to come in a form of a tax hike. Aside from many people loosing their mind completely, the problem with a tax hike would mean some sort of a bureaucratic agency would have to be setup to manage the project... and we all know what happens when a federal agency attempts to oversee something big.

This is why I said I am for expensive fuel, not just for the hell of it, but I really can't see any other means by which everyone will start thinking about preserving the resources we have now and attempting to come up with solutions for tomorrow. Even though this approach comes at a very high cost for folks like you that drive so much more. I hope you are a bit less ticked off with what I said.

[az3579]

I hope you are a bit less ticked off with what I said.

No, not really.
I'm mostly ticked about the fact that it's true that the government isn't going to do a damned thing until there is an actual problem. What's worse is that no companies can just "suck it up" and "donate" some money for the greater good towards the development of these future technologies, for everybody's sake. Nobody with the money can look past themselves to donate to the greater cause. That means, EVERYONE has to suffer the higher prices, because those with the money don't give a crap.

I nor everyone else in the country (or the world for that matter) wants the higher prices, and it really is too bad that the government can't make it happen without needing to spend so much money on it.

[kayger12]

There is no easy answer, gents.

Let's just say we get a huge jump in the electric car market- the whole shebang- affordable electric cars that people actually want that can go further than 40 miles, and plenty of electrical charging stations.

Where is all of the electricity going to come from? The coal fired power plants?

Different resource, same pollution.

How about the millions of used up batteries filed with toxic compounds?

Different resource, different problems.

The only thing that I dislike about our current system is that we are continuing to enrich people who hate us.

Otherwise, we have hundreds of years of fossil fuels left. Plenty of time for the free market to come up with the next solution.

A little over a hundred years ago gasoline powered vehicles saved us from the last pollution crisis- horses.

Yep, late 1800s in New York City the horse population created 3-4 million pounds of manure a day along with around 40,000 gallons a day of urine.

When the time comes, the free market will bring forward a solution.

I don't think we need artificially inflated gasoline prices to make it happen.

[nk_zhp]

When the time comes, the free market will bring forward a solution.

I don't think we need artificially inflated gasoline prices to make it happen.

I believe in the power of the free market as well. But here's the disconnect you and I have. The price of gasoline today is artificially *deflated*. So I am calling for a realistic price and not an inflated one.

Do you wonder why it costs so much more everywhere else? This goes back to the statement you made at the top of the post regarding enriching those that hate us. In terms of absolute cash value, US is the largest "customer" in the middle east. As the largest customer we get special treatment... only there are couple of customers who are getting big very quickly and it's a matter of time before we no longer will get that special treatment. All I am saying is that a little financial pressure will force everyone to think of the real problem at hand and not wake up one day to a 20+/gallon fuel and wonder how we got there overnight.

[mimalmo]

I believe in the power of the free market as well. But here's the disconnect you and I have. The price of gasoline today is artificially *deflated*. So I am calling for a realistic price and not an inflated one.

Do you wonder why it costs so much more everywhere else? This goes back to the statement you made at the top of the post regarding enriching those that hate us. In terms of absolute cash value, US is the largest "customer" in the middle east. As the largest customer we get special treatment... only there are couple of customers who are getting big very quickly and it's a matter of time before we no longer will get that special treatment. All I am saying is that a little financial pressure will force everyone to think of the real problem at hand and not wake up one day to a 20+/gallon fuel and wonder how we got there overnight.


US gasoline prices are not artifically "deflated". Other Nations simply choose to tax it more or have costlier refining and transport costs that get passed on to their consumers.

[nk_zhp]

US gasoline prices are not artifically "deflated". Other Nations simply choose to tax it more or have costlier refining and transport costs that get passed on to their consumers.

OPEC uses US dollar as means to denominate its oil sales. As a result US has a lot of "say" in the pricing. Funny enough all OPEC nation oppose the use of this currency and instead want to move away to some other currency since the weakness of US dollar, artificial or not, cuts their revenue and subsequently their buying power. The very last OPEC member to be very vocal about dumping the US dollar as the currency OPEC uses was Iraq... before the war.. after the interim Iraqi government came to power they reversed their desire to switch away from the US dollar. ... go figure... I thought we are there to set some people free.

[mimalmo]

Actually, if you look at the relationship between the US and OPEC over the last few decades, the US has not been in control at all. In fact, it has been extremely one-sided with OPEC holding all the cards.

[kayger12]

Gas prices are absolutely not lower in the US because of artificial deflation. It is artificially inflated throughout Europe and other parts of the world with taxes.

Countries in Europe have a huge petrol tax PLUS the VAT tax on fuel. In the UK it works out to a 175% tax on fuel.

In Germany, the fuel tax is roughly $3 per gallon plus a 19% VAT tax. Brings their total to well over $6 a gallon. Take away the fuel tax and VAT, and they would be paying the same $3 we are.

And OPEC couldn't care less what we want as far as a price. OPEC has repeatedly made statements that they think prices are too low.

The problem OPEC has with raising prices too much is that they then trigger a conservation mode where the gas is so expensive that people buy and use less, hence, negatively impacting profits.

[nk_zhp]

Actually, if you look at the relationship between the US and OPEC over the last few decades, the US has not been in control at all. In fact, it has been extremely one-sided with OPEC holding all the cards.

If you want to believe that the largest customer of OPEC has no control over it then it's certainly your choice. The fact that OPEC pricing is attached to the US dollar speaks far louder than any "official" position you read about. In politics facts often are the exact opposite of what everybody says. The lats attempt to move towards the Euro as their pricing target ... somehow.. miraculously... against everyone's will ... just died away. I am not saying we have a lovy dovy relationship with OPEC's members, I am saying we have control over them. Last country we lost the handle on from OPEC was Iraq, we all know how we fixed that problem.

By the way, I will give you that my example of prices vs other places was not the best one, it's true a lot of the difference is due to their own internal taxation, but I still stand by my other points. Kayger OPEC ABSOLUTELY cares what the prices are.

In any case guys.. these kinds of discussions rarely change people's opinions, we all have our points of view and we can agree to disagree. I am glad to see a forum where we can argue but keep it clean and respectful.

I still love my ZHP and the mileage it gets me :)

[kayger12]

In any case guys.. these kinds of discussions rarely change people's opinions, we all have our points of view and we can agree to disagree. I am glad to see a forum where we can argue but keep it clean and respectful.


Agreed, bro. Good discussion. That's how it should be.

...and I love your ZHP too ;)

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Yes. Dane and I were watching this thread closely. You know my saying: at ZHPMafia.com we attack issues -- not each other. When people resort to personal attacks, they've lost the debate.

Nicely done, folks.

Carry on.

[Kudos]

A Bit OT, but i saw during the superbowl a commercial for the bmw diesel. Unfortunately i'm sure we'll only keep getting the 335 diesel and not a 120diesel or 320 diesel. Do we really need to tear asphalt everytime we hit the gas pedal? I remember reading that it has like 450 ft-lb of tq. that's nuts on a 4 door sedan.

[az3579]

I remember reading that it has like 450 ft-lb of tq. that's nuts on a 4 door sedan.

You're right.

It's not enough. :biggrin

[zhpnsnv]

(And the near 0-degree temperatures here for the past few weeks definitely doesn't align with his thoughts...)

I have to step in here. I have no more or less love for Al Gore than the next ZHP enthusiast, but I have to wonder if you're comparing the temperature in your specific area to the idea of global warming, which has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature in your specific area, but more to do with the temperature of the ocean, which changes weather patterns, which then changes the temperature in your specific area, be it higher OR lower. Mouthful of a sentence, but it has to be said. The misunderstanding of basic climatic processes is rampant, and to be fair, global warming is terribly and inaccurately named.

/science lesson.

Hopefully someone who knows more about it can correct anything incorrect I said.

[kayger12]

global warming is terribly and inaccurately named.


Correct. It is now officially referred to as, "Global Climate Change." You know, so we can blame any weather change on it ;)

In all seriousness, I don't think many people discount that climate change is occurring- the disagreement is generally whether it is anthropogenic in nature.

[MsRN]

Kayger,

Antarctic ice cores are pretty unbiased, or so I understand. The science behind measuring ancient atmospheric CO2 levels using said ice is also pretty basic. Apparently, the current tripling of atmospheric CO2 levels vs. pre-Industrial Revolution days is unprecedented in natural history, and on the same order of magnitude as global disasters, a la the meteor hit that wiped out the dinosaurs. As a species, we are now estimated to use approximately 40% of all resources on the planet. So attribution of global CO2 rise to human activity is pretty much a no-brainer, given the massive rise in hydrocarbon combustion over the last century or so, and the concurrent lack of a competing cause to which rising atmospheric CO2 levels might reasonably be attributed.

I also love my ZHP, albeit more for its overall gestalt than for the sexy rumble of the motor. For me, it's a visceral connection to the task of driving, one that keeps me interested and aware of the road, while cradled in sybaritic luxury. I also just love how incredibly well-thought-ought and designed it is. As long as we can afford it (we're hardly rich, and don't trust the future to be kind to our economy), the ZHP will have a place in our garage. Nonetheless, when BMWs full-on electric hits these shores, we may very well buy it, and the ZHP may be relegated to 'guilty pleasure' status....

[kayger12]

Great Ms- Now you're gonna make me pull out my climate books so I can intelligently speak to the ice core issue.

The ice core data is unbiased, however, the interpretation of said data is not.

I'll get back to you. Too tired tonight ;)

[az3579]

I have to step in here. I have no more or less love for Al Gore than the next ZHP enthusiast, but I have to wonder if you're comparing the temperature in your specific area to the idea of global warming, which has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature in your specific area, but more to do with the temperature of the ocean, which changes weather patterns, which then changes the temperature in your specific area, be it higher OR lower. Mouthful of a sentence, but it has to be said. The misunderstanding of basic climatic processes is rampant, and to be fair, global warming is terribly and inaccurately named.

/science lesson.

Hopefully someone who knows more about it can correct anything incorrect I said.

My statement was half joke. Doesn't translate into text too well though.

[SC4ME]

Most of what is reported is inaccurate. Just think of all the articles you have read regarding your area of expertise and how accurate they were.

As a scientist (but not a climatologist), I can say that this whole issue is overshadowed by politics, economics and apathy. Is global warming (bad name) totally anthropomorphic? No, of course not as there has been ice ages and warm ages prior to human arrival on this planet. Is mankind contributing to the climate change, yes - of course. How can burning millions of years of stored energy and releasing all that pollution in less than a 100 years not going to affect the system? The question is, how much influence do we have?

The disagreements are not in the data, but the projections. But that is the beauty of science, it is self correcting. Every time a result is published, there are dozens of people immediately testing it to see if it is reproducible. The glory goes to the one who gets it right, not the one who is the most popular. It may take some time to get it right, but it will be determined eventually.

[kayger12]

Most of what is reported is inaccurate. Just think of all the articles you have read regarding your area of expertise and how accurate they were.

As a scientist (but not a climatologist), I can say that this whole issue is overshadowed by politics, economics and apathy. Is global warming (bad name) totally anthropomorphic? No, of course not as there has been ice ages and warm ages prior to human arrival on this planet. Is mankind contributing to the climate change, yes - of course. How can burning millions of years of stored energy and releasing all that pollution in less than a 100 years not going to affect the system? The question is, how much influence do we have?

The disagreements are not in the data, but the projections. But that is the beauty of science, it is self correcting. Every time a result is published, there are dozens of people immediately testing it to see if it is reproducible. The glory goes to the one who gets it right, not the one who is the most popular. It may take some time to get it right, but it will be determined eventually.

Well said.

[kayger12]

Ok--
Obvious greenhouse gas theory problems:

CO2 changes do not account for any of the historical climate variations including the Roman Warming, Dark Ages, Medieval Warming, or the Little Ice Age.

All of those variations do coincide with the 1500 year climate cycle (discussed in a bit).

Greenhouse gas theory does not explain recent warming. Most of the current century warming occurred prior to 1940 (before most of the human generated co2).

After 1940, temperatures DECLINED until approx 1975 despite massive surge in co2 emissions during that time. These temp changes run counter to Greenhouse theory, but coincide with 1500 year cycle theory.

The 1500 year cycle-- 1984-- Willi Dansgaard and Hans Oeschger publish analysis of oxygen isotopes in Greenland ice cores. Cores showed a 1500 year climate cycle over the preceeding 11,000 years.

Supporting evidence: ice core from Antarctic's Vostok Glacier brought up in 1987 showed same 1500 year climate cycle throughout its 400,000 year length.

Ice core findings coincide with known glacial advances and retreats in Arctic, Europe, Asia, N America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antarctic.

1500 year cycle has been revealed in seabed sediment cores from North Atlantic, Arabian Sea, and Western Pacific.

Fossilized pollen from across N America show nine complete reorganizations of our trees and plants in the last 14,000 years-- one every 1,650 years.

And it goes on and on-- info is from a very well written New York Times Bestseller, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.
Tons of studies and info from many research scientists who do not subscribe to the current, "scientific consensus" on Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Great explanations of the 1,500 year climate cycle and great scientific observations of the numerous inconsistencies and problems with greenhouse theory.

It's a great read and I highly recommend it to anyone who is looking for climate science information from outside of the political dogma we are generally fed on a regular basis. It's available through ZHP Amazon link here (http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?lt1=_blank&bc1=000000&IS2=1&bg1=FFFFFF&fc1=000000&lc1=0000FF&t=zhpcom-20&o=1&p=8&l=as4&m=amazon&f=ifr&asins=0742551245)

[MasterC17]

Staying away from the debate here.

Anyway, I just checked today and my MPG is down to 13.5 :rofl.

In other news I doubt gas will go over $5 a gallon this year. We had a scare with the whole Egypt thing but the market has settled down. Doubt it will go over even $4 this summer.

[mimalmo]

I hope you're right.

[kayger12]

^^^^
Ditto

[danewilson77]

Good news!!!!

[mimalmo]

Good news!!!!


You're not the father?

[johnrando]

Just to continue with the non-political, non-scientific portion of this thread, like an early post said, way too many short trips has my mileage down in the 16s, but if I hit the freeway w/o traffic (and reset my mpg computer) it's well above 25. John

[danewilson77]

You're not the father?

No...about the gas prices.....you crazy.

[mimalmo]

:)

[Mtnman]

You're not the father?
:spit:rofl

[az3579]

You're not the father?

I was gonna say, perhaps he saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to Geico (by using the Geico link on ZHP Mafia).

[Marcus-SanDiego]

I was gonna say, perhaps he saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to Geico (by using the Geico link on ZHP Mafia).

And I just saved $753, BP. Woot woot. See Geico thread for details.

[MsRN]

Kayger,

That was a very nicely, succinctly-put argument against CO2 emissions as the source of global warming. If I'm so fortunate as to find the time, I'll find
the sources I've read and listened to that counter/refute your (well-stated) argument, and PM you. For the record, I would be terrifically happy if fossil fuels were not a significant source of concern to the future of many complex organisms on this planet. Politicians are NOT my chief sources of scientific information, either...

...FWIW, I'm getting just shy of 24MPG combined on a 5AT.

[Mtnman]

You're getting 24 on a step???? What's your average speed? 19 and mph is 28 average I think. (Might be 27. Something...)
Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[kayger12]

Kayger,

That was a very nicely, succinctly-put argument against CO2 emissions as the source of global warming. If I'm so fortunate as to find the time, I'll find
the sources I've read and listened to that counter/refute your (well-stated) argument, and PM you. For the record, I would be terrifically happy if fossil fuels were not a significant source of concern to the future of many complex organisms on this planet. Politicians are NOT my chief sources of scientific information, either...

...FWIW, I'm getting just shy of 24MPG combined on a 5AT.

Sounds good, Ms.

[kayger12]

You're getting 24 on a step???? What's your average speed? 19 and mph is 28 average I think. (Might be 27. Something...)
Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

That's what I got with my step before I did the Vanos.

Ran 25-26 after the Vanos.

[Mtnman]

Gonna have to make a trip to williamsburg sooner than I thought! Dane, i've gotta come see you soon for vanos!

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[Mtnman]

Keith, what is ur mph average on the cpu?

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[kayger12]

Keith, what is ur mph average on the cpu?

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

Presently at 25.5, but that's with a lot of highway miles the last two weeks. Was around 24.5 the last few months.

I definitely drive this a little more aggressively than the 325, though.

Once she's warmed up, the tach needle seems to be quite fond of the numbers 4 and 5 ;)

[Mtnman]

So u are getting 24mpg at 24 to 25 average mph??????

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[kayger12]

So u are getting 24mpg at 24 to 25 average mph??????

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

I'm an idiot-- I didn't see you asked for mph. I thought it said mpg.

Standby...

[kayger12]

MPH is 43.8, but I haven't reset that since the day I bought her.

Reset the MPG after installing the Performance Intake.

[Mtnman]

Huh? Which is it? Lol. I know u just installed that thing! Either way, my mpg is lacking. I have an isssue... it may be my right foot, but im blaming it on vanos! Lol

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL using Tapatalk

[kayger12]

I know-- I've completely humped this up-- I find that I make a lot more sense after a few beers ;)

I was getting 24.5 mpg on the computer

I reset after the Perf Intake and then put a bunch of highway miles on in a short amount of time with the computer reset. It now shows 25.5 mpg.

To make it even more complicated, with the Nav system you actually have two consumption computers that you can reset individually. Comp 1 was reset with the Perf Intake. Comp 2 hasn't been reset since I bought her but I don't remember what she's reading and it's too damn cold in the garage for me to go out and wait for the nav computer to boot up.

I'll check it in the morning when I'm headed up to the tinting place.

[az3579]

So Keith, you're saying you were getting ~19 mpg before the vanos seals and about 24-25 after?
Why am I having a hard time believing that some simple VANOS seals would yield a ~30% increase in fuel economy?? Are you sure it's not in your head, or to different routes? lol

[kayger12]

So Keith, you're saying you were getting ~19 mpg before the vanos seals and about 24-25 after?
Why am I having a hard time believing that some simple VANOS seals would yield a ~30% increase in fuel economy?? Are you sure it's not in your head, or to different routes? lol

Where'd you see me mention 19mpg? I was checking the thread because I don't remember mentioning that.

I was getting low 24s before vanos and high 25s after. About 1.5 mpg improvement.

[MsRN]

Why? Is 24 average bad? It's usually better in the summer (close to 25)...

[kayger12]

Why? Is 24 average bad? It's usually better in the summer (close to 25)...

I don't think it's bad. Have you had the Vanos done yet?

[Mtnman]

I think im confused as well. Were you talking about your old car? cause i thought u had a manual now.. in the zhp! i havent had enough vodka tonics to be this confused yet.....but soon.....

[kayger12]

I think im confused as well. Were you talking about your old car? cause i thought u had a manual now.. in the zhp! i havent had enough vodka tonics to be this confused yet.....but soon.....

:rofl
Yeah-- original post about the mileage improvement with Vanos was about my old 325 with the step trans.

My posts are confusing enough in this thread to equal at least two vodka tonics.

[MsRN]

No. I just hit 70,000 miles on the way home from the hospital this morning. So far, the dreaded VANOS rattle hasn't reared its ugly head. I'm planning to send it to Dr Vanos when the time comes. In the meantime, the ZHP is due for a preliminary cooling system overhaul, new tires, wheel repair, 1st ATF and filter change, steering fluid and brake fluid changes. My drivers-side midrange and midbass (I think) are blown, and I think I'm eventually going the BSW route for replacement (they're building an improved PNP amplifier, too!). The interior needs minor repairs (wear items). Soooo, I think I'm going to be picking up a lot of shifts at the hospital this year...

And then, the price on the Performance Intake and strut brace are really tempting...:)

[Mtnman]

hahaha. i love it. Someone else who has to work hard this year!! nice avatar btw. i like.

[kayger12]

No. I just hit 70,000 miles on the way home from the hospital this morning. So far, the dreaded VANOS rattle hasn't reared its ugly head. I'm planning to send it to Dr Vanos when the time comes. In the meantime, the ZHP is due for a preliminary cooling system overhaul, new tires, wheel repair, 1st ATF and filter change, steering fluid and brake fluid changes. My drivers-side midrange and midbass (I think) are blown, and I think I'm eventually going the BSW route for replacement (they're building an improved PNP amplifier, too!). The interior needs minor repairs (wear items). Soooo, I think I'm going to be picking up a lot of shifts at the hospital this year...

And then, the price on the Performance Intake and strut brace are really tempting...:)

Curious to see how you like the BSW upgrade if you go that route. Planning that for this summer myself.

I would seriously consider doing your Vanos sooner than later regardless of whether you have the rattle or not. The Vanos seals are most certainly shot by 70,000 miles-- conventional wisdom is that they start to fail by 20,000 miles. I think you'd definitely notice a difference in both performance and mileage.

Wouldn't do it before the cooling and ATF, but wouldn't wait for the rattle either.

Just my .02

[az3579]

Where'd you see me mention 19mpg? I was checking the thread because I don't remember mentioning that.

I was getting low 24s before vanos and high 25s after. About 1.5 mpg improvement.

See post #64 in this thread. You quoted someone who said they were getting 19mpg and then you said that's what you were getting before the VANOS seals, and you were getting mid 20's after the seals.
http://www.zhpmafia.com/forums/showthread.php?1029-Input-on-Improving-MPG-Gas-May-Reach-5-a-Gallon-By-Year-End-Current-MPG-Poll&p=19572#post19572

[kayger12]

See post #64 in this thread. You quoted someone who said they were getting 19mpg and then you said that's what you were getting before the VANOS seals, and you were getting mid 20's after the seals.
http://www.zhpmafia.com/forums/showthread.php?1029-Input-on-Improving-MPG-Gas-May-Reach-5-a-Gallon-By-Year-End-Current-MPG-Poll&p=19572#post19572

Gotcha-- I was referring to the first part of the post-- getting 24 on a step.

[RITmusic2k]

Damn, I should do my vanos soon. Time to start saving :)


So, does anybody here dabble in hypermiling?

I did it all the time in the Viggen, and I'm starting to get a feel for what I can pull off with the ZHP... two tips I can give right now are: (1) cruise in the highest gear possible - but almost never accelerate in that gear, and (2) calculate your mileage after every fill up.

I find that I can cruise (and the car seems to do so quite comfortably) on surface streets at ~40mph in 6th gear. The engine sits at around 1,500rpms and seems happy as a clam. As long as none of you experienced guys have some good info to share with me on bearing starvation risks in these engines, I plan to keep doing this. The instantaneous meter fluctuates between 30 - 50 mpg, favoring the high side once I'm settled at cruising speed.

Thoughts? Concerns? Agreements? Disagreements?

[Mtnman]

if my car wasnt an auto, id agree. but the zhp auto tranny loves 3500-4000 rpms... and tries to get there in every gear.

[kayger12]

Damn, I should do my vanos soon. Time to start saving :)


So, does anybody here dabble in hypermiling?

I did it all the time in the Viggen, and I'm starting to get a feel for what I can pull off with the ZHP... two tips I can give right now are: (1) cruise in the highest gear possible - but almost never accelerate in that gear, and (2) calculate your mileage after every fill up.

I find that I can cruise (and the car seems to do so quite comfortably) on surface streets at ~40mph in 6th gear. The engine sits at around 1,500rpms and seems happy as a clam. As long as none of you experienced guys have some good info to share with me on bearing starvation risks in these engines, I plan to keep doing this. The instantaneous meter fluctuates between 30 - 50 mpg, favoring the high side once I'm settled at cruising speed.

Thoughts? Concerns? Agreements? Disagreements?

I'm more of a hypomiler, myself ;)

[danewilson77]

My avg is 47.3mph.....with a 25.2 MPG avg. When I calculated last fill up....It came out to 26.3 mpg.

[RITmusic2k]

I'm more of a hypomiler, myself ;)

I AM STEALING THAT AND USING IT EVERYWHERE FROM NOW ON.

[kayger12]

http://i1234.photobucket.com/albums/ff401/Kayger12/2011-02-10_07-51-53_152.jpg

Consumpt 1-- Reset with the Perf Intake

Consumpt 2-- Reset November 18th

[johnrando]

Kayger12, am I reading this right that your performance intake increased your mileage? Nice. Now the thought comes to mind what is the difference performance/mileage between a CAI and the performance intake. Guess I'll do some forum searches. John

[Linh]

I usually get results around 22-24mpg. Sometimes 24-25. And once, an even 30mpg driving the car home from Daytona, Florida. I was surprised to say the least.

[kayger12]

Kayger12, am I reading this right that your performance intake increased your mileage? Nice. Now the thought comes to mind what is the difference performance/mileage between a CAI and the performance intake. Guess I'll do some forum searches. John

I think so, John, but I've also done more highway mileage since the intake went in- I'd like to give it a few more tanks before I commit to saying I'm getting better mileage from the intake.

[danewilson77]

If I understand this....the only way the performance intake can raise gas mileage is through more air...correct?

[nk_zhp]

If I understand this....the only way the performance intake can raise gas mileage is through more air...correct?

Sort of. On any modern engine the fuel mixture is adjusted to match the amount of air entering the engine for a perfect combustion. There are 2 ways an intake could affect the mileage. Every time you are trying to accelerate, be it hard or soft acceleration, the intake manifold sees a sudden spike in negative air pressure (aka vacuum). This vacuum causes more air to be sucked in and subsequently the engine applies the right amount of gasoline through injector timing to match that air. With the CAI, the air enters the engine more quickly and easily and therefore on a timed basis you get power revamp quicker then if the air had harder time entering the engine with a conventional air box. Because the power revamp is quicker, you as a driver is often satisfied with the power delivery sooner and tend to apply less throttle with the CAI. These are small differences but they add up.

CAI can also negatively affect mileage (more miles but bad for the engine). If the velocity stack, fancy for air flow, isn't uniform across the intake boot going across the MAF then the MAF may incorrectly report the air entering the system. As a result you may be running lean, which increase your mileage but it makes the engine run hotter and interferes with the proper combustion of gases and subsequently affect perfect cat converter work.

[danewilson77]

OK......great info thanks. So hey....how hard is it to get to the injectors on our cars? Do they ever require any type of maintenance? If your answer is yes.....just say yes....and I will start a new thread.

[nk_zhp]

Chevron Techron once or twice a year should do the trick. I never had to remove injectors on an E46.

[danewilson77]

Chevron Techron once or twice a year should do the trick. I never had to remove injectors on an E46.

Copy...

[Jon D]

I have been surprised at the overall mileage I get. My driving tends to be very split - either local streets where is 25-30 avg and some occasional 40-45 mixed in or it's a road trip for business.

According to the computer on a long term no reset I avg about 19 mpg

I recently did a reset on a road trip and on the HWY with the cruise set at 79 [no cops around] I was avg 25ish

I tend to drive the auto like a manual in steptronic mode a lot when around town as too often it up-shifts way to early then I have to brake a lot rather then just coast. If you manually manage rev range you can affect the mileage easily. Also it's way more fun if you want to have fun on a specific corner to get the revs in the right place.. love that sound between 4-6K. OOH that's not really good for mileage is it :)

[nathancarter]

Didn't read the whole thread.

The best way to improve fuel economy is to set up your car and drive in such a way that optimizes fuel economy.

1. Make sure your tires are properly inflated. I add a couple PSI for extra fuel economy and grip, at the expense of ride comfort.
2. Take the excess junk out of your car. Don't go so far as removing the spare, but definitely take other extra junk out of the trunk and back seats. Excess weight saps power and fuel economy.
3. Understand that braking is the opposite of good fuel economy. When you drive, the engine turns gas into kinetic energy; when you brake it turns that kinetic energy into heat. To accelerate again you have to spend more gas. So, drive in such a way that unnecessary braking is minimized.
4. Anticipate what's ahead of you,and what might happen. The stoplight is green but it's 300 yards away. Will it be red by the time you get there? Probably, so take your foot off the gas pedal and coast. If you have a manual, leave it in the current gear; no fuel is consumed if you are coasting in gear. Downshifting to decelerate is unnecessary and wasteful; you burn gas if you rev-match and you burn clutch if you don't.
5. DON'T tailgate, especially in stop-n-go traffic. Leave a long, long space in front of you. While other drivers are wastefully jamming on the gas-brake-gas-brake, you've instead left it in 2nd gear and cruised along at idle speed, never touching the gas or the brake, getting 35mpg even in heavy traffic. The gap in front of your car will grow larger and smaller - this is fine, let it! Another car may jump into the gap you've created - this is A-OK, there's no trophy waiting for them on the rear bumper of the car they're tailgating. Doing this takes patience and concentration, as your natural inclination will be to close the gap and get angry when someone else squeezes in front of you.
6. Use the cruise control, even on short trips. Gently accelerate to the speed limit, set the cruise, and take your foot off the gas. Do this for every road, as soon as you hit your desired cruising speed. When you anticipate that you may have to slow or stop (see #4) tap the I/O button and coast.
7. Don't speed on the highway. Your fuel economy drops off very rapidly after about 65MPH. Wind resistance increases exponentially with speed, so find that sweet spot and stick to it.
8. (probably not gonna happen, but) Get lighter, narrower wheels and tires. Less rolling resistance and less unsprung weight will give better fuel economy - the former for highway cruising, the latter for about-town driving where there's a lot of stop-n-go. get tires with low rolling resistance like the Michelin Energy.


I reset my OBC at every oil change. Using the above tips, over the past 2000 miles my OBC average is 26.7 MPG. Calculating this manually is about 25.5 MPG; the OBC overestimates a bit. I could improve it significantly if I could keep my speed down on the highway, but I break rule #7 and set the cruise at 84MPH for much of my daily commute.

[danewilson77]

Great info Nathan....perfect philosophy....

[L0veZHP]

It's a lot to do with driving conditions - highway/city. On the highway, I find it easy to modulate the throttle to allow me to achieve about 30mpg. "City" driving the best I can get is about 20mpg. However, I almost never drive on the highway and rarely for drives over 5 miles in the "city". Therefore, I am averaging an awesome 16mpg. I drive 3 miles to school, 2 miles from there to work, and 1 mile from work to my house. That's my daily commute - car doesn't usually go anywhere on the weekends. The "best" way to improve your fuel milage is simply to avoid traffic as much as possible. Last year I parked in a different parking lot at my school and I was averaging about 18mpg. Now I go to the main parking lot and it has fallen to 16mpg - needless to say there is considerably more traffic going in the main entrance. At one point I was down to 14.5mpg :(

I feel you my brother.

[MsRN]

If you have a manual, leave it in the current gear; no fuel is consumed if you are coasting in gear.

I disagree with this; won't the continuous movement of the pistons and valvetrain continue to pull in fuel? Wouldn't it be better to uncouple the engine from the drivetrain, thus reducing wear on the motor, and allowing it to idle? Besides the obvious toll that takes on the battery, of course...

[RITmusic2k]

...Don't go so far as removing the spare...
Heh, buying a ZHP means you don't have a choice in that matter :-p

6. Use the cruise control, even on short trips. Gently accelerate to the speed limit, set the cruise, and take your foot off the gas...

While this is good advice for general conditions, there are more efficient ways to drive...

Cruise control typically maintains a set speed by increasing throttle when load increases, and decreasing it when load decreases. This means that elevation changes can cause problems. The car attempts to accelerate when it's hardest to do so (pushing the car up against gravity) and coasts when it would be easiest to accelerate (when gravity would be helping).

By driving with load (DWL, as the hypermilers say), the driver prepares by increasing his speed slightly on the flat where it's easier to accelerate, then reduces pedal input as soon as the car begins traveling up the hill. The car slows down a bit, but that means no extra fuel is being spent trying to maintain speed against the additional resistance. Once the hill is crested, the driver rolls back on the throttle as he proceeds down the hill, returning to his original cruising speed, aided by gravity. Getting back to speed on the downhill requires way less fuel than maintaining speed on the uphill. Since cruise control does the exact opposite, it should be avoided in hilly situations.

Aside from that, everything else you said was pure gold. Excellent advice!



I disagree with this; won't the continuous movement of the pistons and valvetrain continue to pull in fuel? Wouldn't it be better to uncouple the engine from the drivetrain, thus reducing wear on the motor, and allowing it to idle? Besides the obvious toll that takes on the battery, of course...
Actually, it doesn't! Thanks to modern computer-controlled fueling and ignition systems, all cars today are capable of DFCO, or Deceleration Fuel Cutoff. As soon as you're rolling downhill quickly enough or coasting to a stop with your foot off the gas pedal, as long as you stay in gear, the car realizes that rpms are above idle speed even though your foot is completely off the gas. The momentum of the car is actually backfeeding through the tires and transmission, and is spinning the engine without the need for any fuel. After a couple seconds of this, the car's computer shuts off the fuel injectors completely. Even though the parts are still spinning around, the car is consuming zero fuel. No explosions are occurring inside that engine block.

If you were to shift into neutral, the car would have to keep injecting fuel into the cylinders in order to maintain idle rpm... it isn't a lot, but it's more than nothing, and you're not taking advantage of the momentum the car's already carrying forward... momentum you'd need to scrub off with the brakes anyway (if approaching a red light, for example).

There is an exception to this rule, but I won't get into it unless we wanna take a turn into the super-serious advanced hypermiling stuff.

[Mtnman]

Wow. Kevin is either really smart, or I am really stupid! Thanks for the Knowledge Drop, Kevin!

[danewilson77]

Heh, buying a ZHP means you don't have a choice in that matter :-p


While this is good advice for general conditions, there are more efficient ways to drive...

Cruise control typically maintains a set speed by increasing throttle when load increases, and decreasing it when load decreases. This means that elevation changes can cause problems. The car attempts to accelerate when it's hardest to do so (pushing the car up against gravity) and coasts when it would be easiest to accelerate (when gravity would be helping).

By driving with load (DWL, as the hypermilers say), the driver prepares by increasing his speed slightly on the flat where it's easier to accelerate, then reduces pedal input as soon as the car begins traveling up the hill. The car slows down a bit, but that means no extra fuel is being spent trying to maintain speed against the additional resistance. Once the hill is crested, the driver rolls back on the throttle as he proceeds down the hill, returning to his original cruising speed, aided by gravity. Getting back to speed on the downhill requires way less fuel than maintaining speed on the uphill. Since cruise control does the exact opposite, it should be avoided in hilly situations.

Aside from that, everything else you said was pure gold. Excellent advice!



Actually, it doesn't! Thanks to modern computer-controlled fueling and ignition systems, all cars today are capable of DFCO, or Deceleration Fuel Cutoff. As soon as you're rolling downhill quickly enough or coasting to a stop with your foot off the gas pedal, as long as you stay in gear, the car realizes that rpms are above idle speed even though your foot is completely off the gas. The momentum of the car is actually backfeeding through the tires and transmission, and is spinning the engine without the need for any fuel. After a couple seconds of this, the car's computer shuts off the fuel injectors completely. Even though the parts are still spinning around, the car is consuming zero fuel. No explosions are occurring inside that engine block.

If you were to shift into neutral, the car would have to keep injecting fuel into the cylinders in order to maintain idle rpm... it isn't a lot, but it's more than nothing, and you're not taking advantage of the momentum the car's already carrying forward... momentum you'd need to scrub off with the brakes anyway (if approaching a red light, for example).

There is an exception to this rule, but I won't get into it unless we wanna take a turn into the super-serious advanced hypermiling stuff.

This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^j/k

http://i1015.photobucket.com/albums/af278/nicee46/Funny/urkel.jpg

Great info...really.

[RITmusic2k]

Not smart, just overexposed to the topic at hand :-p

That info was won by extensive experimentation and supplemented by intense debate over the last few years. I spend a ton of time over at standardshift.com, and questions about this stuff come up quite frequently. Between the other regulars and I, we've been in and out of these discussion over and over, and really honed in on what works and what doesn't. And actually, we're just dabblers. Go over to ecomodder.com and cleanmpg.com and you'll see just how intense the art of saving fuel can get. Those guys are craaaaaaayzeee.

[nathancarter]

Since cruise control does the exact opposite, it should be avoided in hilly situations.

Good addition. I live in Florida where we don't have hills (max elevation is 345 ft) so I always forget about this scenario.




There is an exception to this rule, but I won't get into it unless we wanna take a turn into the super-serious advanced hypermiling stuff.

Oh, please elaborate :)

[danewilson77]

Trust me...Nathan is like a sponge. Feed it.....

[az3579]

Wow. Kevin is either really smart, or I am really stupid! Thanks for the Knowledge Drop, Kevin!

This is knowledge that surprisingly many people don't know. I'm shocked by how many people don't know it.
Next time you're coasting down a hill in gear, take note at your fuel economy gauge. You'll see it's pinned at infinite. Same with the OBC if you were to reset it.
Now take it out of gear and watch that needle rise to about ~50's mpg. ~50's means less miles per gallon than infinite! The OBC will tell you the same.

That's why it drives me nuts when I ride with people and they put it in neutral when they coast, both from a fuel economy and a safety standpoint.

[RITmusic2k]

Alright, I'll have to come back later to follow up in full detail - I wrote that other reply over my lunch break, but the afternoon's gonna be too busy for me to spend any time at the computer - but in a nutshell, DFCO is more efficient than neutral coasting as long as you're ultimately going to slow to a stop. But neutral coasting is more efficient than DFCO if you're periodically coasting while maintaining a steady speed over time, such as when performing a pulse-and-glide on the highway.

Pulse-and-glide takes a little time to explain well, so I'll have to come back later and elaborate, unless anyone else familiar wants to take up the reins and carry on :)

[danewilson77]

This is knowledge that surprisingly many people don't know. I'm shocked by how many people don't know it.
Next time you're coasting down a hill in gear, take note at your fuel economy gauge. You'll see it's pinned at infinite. Same with the OBC if you were to reset it.
Now take it out of gear and watch that needle rise to about ~50's mpg. ~50's means less miles per gallon than infinite! The OBC will tell you the same.

That's why it drives me nuts when I ride with people and they put it in neutral when they coast, both from a fuel economy and a safety standpoint.

Now...hang on. Leaving it in gear and tranny stopping is worse on the tranny....and I would rather chew up pads vice tranny? No?

[kayger12]

Now...hang on. Leaving it in gear and tranny stopping is worse on the tranny....and I would rather chew up pads vice tranny? No?

In that case, my trans will be dead early-- I downshift and engine brake regularly... My car is hardly ever in neutral.

[danewilson77]

In that case, my trans will be dead early-- I downshift and engine brake regularly... My car is hardly ever in neutral.

I would just like to know whats better....

[kayger12]

Researching....

[kayger12]

From what I'm speed reading so far, downshifting and engine braking will cause added wear to the synchros and clutch unless you are throttle blipping and rev matching.

If you are not blipping and rev matching, then you are wearing those items and are better off in neutral with standard braking as the brake pads are much cheaper to replace.

Seems to be the conventional wisdom over multiple car forums fwiw.

[Mtnman]

Just a side note. In the usa, when our cars are at a stop, the needle goes to infinite. In europe, it goes to zero. Like, less than one, opposite side of the meter. This may have some bearing in the post by botond. But that is the end of my inut.

[RITmusic2k]

Now...hang on. Leaving it in gear and tranny stopping is worse on the tranny....and I would rather chew up pads vice tranny? No?

It's really no worse on the tranny (at least regarding manuals... things may be different on the steptronic; it's definitely better to leave a traditional planetary-gearset automatic in "D", as you avoid unnecessarily engaging and disengaging its clutchpacks when you shift into neutral, though the engine would experience a little less resistance by being completely decoupled from the torque converter), but some people cite a risk of damaging the main and rod bearings by loading the engine in a direction against which they've been worn in. On a properly broken-in vehicle, though, I expect that to be a nonissue.


From what I'm speed reading so far, downshifting and engine braking will cause added wear to the synchros and clutch unless you are throttle blipping and rev matching.

If you are not blipping and rev matching, then you are wearing those items and are better off in neutral with standard braking as the brake pads are much cheaper to replace.

Seems to be the conventional wisdom over multiple car forums fwiw.

That's true that you need to rev-match (and though it's unnecessary, I'm a huge proponent of double-clutching in this scenario as well) if you're gonna downshift for more engine braking, but I'll specify that the only time you'll want to do this is if you're on a long descent and you don't want to cook your brakes. You can just choose a gear with the appropriate amount of engine braking and coast down at a nice constant speed with little or no brake application.

As it pertains to the economy question though, one shouldn't keep downshifting as they slow down to maintain DFCO; he should start DFCO in whatever gear he was in, then shift from that gear into neutral as soon as his rpms get close to idle speed, then finish coming to a stop with the brakes. Actually, if you pay careful attention, you can feel a little bump as your injectors kick back in as you slow down; it's usually a couple hundred rpms above idle, and shifting into neutral as soon as you get there is ideal.


Just a side note. In the usa, when our cars are at a stop, the needle goes to infinite. In europe, it goes to zero. Like, less than one, opposite side of the meter. This may have some bearing in the post by botond. But that is the end of my inut.

Heh, this behavior bothers me a whole bunch; I wonder if there's a way to get a U.S. spec car reprogrammed so it behaves like the euro... while you're sitting stopped, you are getting zero miles per gallon. As far as what Botond was saying, his description of what's happening is actually correct - when the needle goes to 'infinite' while the car's in motion, it actually does mean 'infinite'. This is the indicator that the car is in DFCO, and it can be independently verified by an OBDII telemetry device like my trusty ol' Scangauge II.

[danewilson77]

As far as what Botond was saying, his description of what's happening is actually correct - when the needle goes to 'infinite' while the car's in motion, it actually does mean 'infinite'. This is the indicator that the car is in DFCO, and it can be independently verified by an OBDII telemetry device like my trusty ol' Scangauge II.

If this truly happens won't my car get sucked into a worm hole?

[RITmusic2k]

Yeah but just think of the mileage you'll be getting!

[Mtnman]

Like 100 light years per hour. Damn.

[MsRN]

Maybe a Schwarzschild wormhole; traversable wormholes would require stabilization with exotic matter with negative energy density, and I'm feeling positively dense right now...

[danewilson77]

Maybe a Schwarzschild wormhole; traversable wormholes would require stabilization with exotic matter with negative energy density, and I'm feeling positively dense right now...

:rofl

OBTW....Avatar is beast!

I think my avatar and your avatar should hang out.

[kayger12]

Maybe a Schwarzschild wormhole; traversable wormholes would require stabilization with exotic matter with negative energy density, and I'm feeling positively dense right now...

I am becoming exponentially fonder of you with every post...

[MsRN]

I think my avatar and your avatar should hang out.

I absolutely loved Heath Ledger in that role...(sigh)...he made a great nurse, too! :P

[danewilson77]

Yup....great role and movie.

[az3579]

I would just like to know whats better....


From what I'm speed reading so far, downshifting and engine braking will cause added wear to the synchros and clutch unless you are throttle blipping and rev matching.

If you are not blipping and rev matching, then you are wearing those items and are better off in neutral with standard braking as the brake pads are much cheaper to replace.

Seems to be the conventional wisdom over multiple car forums fwiw.

You two are talking about coming to a stop. That isn't what this discussion is about; we're talking about fuel economy when coasting. This coasting doesn't necessarily mean coming to a stop.
When coming to a stop, I do what someone else here mentioned, which is leave it in gear and coast until it gets to the point where the injectors kick in again, at which point shift into neutral and stop. This puts the least amount of wear on the engine, IMO, and is a lot safer than putting into neutral the second you go to apply the brakes.


Just a side note. In the usa, when our cars are at a stop, the needle goes to infinite. In europe, it goes to zero. Like, less than one, opposite side of the meter. This may have some bearing in the post by botond. But that is the end of my inut.

If the euro gauge went to "zero", it would be in the same direction as the US gauge. Where in the US gauge, infinite is all the way on the left, zero for the euro gauge is all the way on the left as well. The right-side of the meter has the higher numbers, because that would signify more liters used per 100km (aka worse mpg figure).

[RITmusic2k]

Oh, right! I forgot they like their crazy consumption-per-unit-distance scheme. My previous request makes no sense in light of this.

[blablac]

lets just swap an N52B30 or a little TDI engine in there.

[Hermes]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c288/jhermes/other%20stuff/RobinBatmanrunning.jpg

[blablac]

hehe I have no idea how I ended on that thread... and read part of it.

[Meric]

+1 on auto vs manual. I have an auto, and get terrible mileage. A manual driver would get 3-5 mpg better than me easily. Especially from what Ive seen here on the forum. Especially true in mostly city driving. On the highway, a manual may beat me by 1-2 mpg only. The ZHP Automatic does not like being near 2000 rpms, it likes to hang out at 3000 to 3500.

Agree.. It makes me feel like I own a diesel engine that tries to put some power -.- only revs..