Increasing fuel savings

Gubbi said:
I know plastic cars has been a dead end in the past. But once oil hits >$100 per barrel consumer perception might change :)
Cheers
Hey! I've got a "plastic" car but it's not all that economical even despite having a very low CD factor (even with the roof down).... but I thinks that's due to the way I drive it.:???:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mjtdevries said:
Must be very special "heavy-plastic" KIA is using in Europe, because their cars are just as heavy as the competition.

Sorry, didn't intend to imply KIA makes low weight cars. It was more a response to _xxx_'s sentiment that he wouldn't be caught dead in a KIA. I'm guessing he's a BMW/Audi kind of guy. And along with that wouldn't be caught dead in a light weight plastic/composite car.

The problem with steel as the material of choice is that it is heavy. Heavy chasis needs a big powerful engine to haul it -> big strong transmission -> more weight, needs to beef up chasis -> more weight, needs to beef up engine etc. etc.

Cheers
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mjtdevries said:
* aggresive driving.
They are wrong about the reason it takes more fuel. Accelerating fast isn't all that bad for fuel consumption. You are just creating potential energy that you later use when coasting. The effect on fuel consumption is minimal.
No. While you do create kinetic energy, you do so by burning about fifty times as much fuel as when cruising (see page 1 of this thread). Accelerating slowly takes longer, but is much more fuel efficient, and creates just as much kinetic energy.

The real fuel consumption killers are your brakes (strange as it may sound)
When you brake you waste all that energy. You cannot use it in any way anymore. That's why braking hurts the fuel usage so terrible.
No. You're only looking at the kinetic energy, not the amount of fuel you burned to create it.

* Cruise Control
I don't know about you guys, but I also drive smoothly without cruise control. Anybody who has earned their drivers license should already be doing that.
I save absolutely NOTHING by using cruise control !
But you do! As you won't adjust your speed (a bit) all the time, you're not accelerating. Even when you think you're keeping a constant speed, you're probably reacting to the traffic around you and increasing/decreasing your speed often.

Although small increases have a much lower fuel economy penalty than larger or faster ones.

* Excessive idling.
Nice results in their test, but not applicable to real-life at all!
They drove 10 miles, stopping 10 times for two minutes.
Just think about that. Who has ever experienced such a situation in their life?
Most people, when driving through a city, I guess.

Conclusion:
When I use their advice in real life I can save little to nothing!
Or you didn't do it as they said. ;)


When I drive "normal", it's pretty agressive, and I get 7.7 km/liter. When I drive like a grandma, it becomes 11.8 km/liter. Although I did experiment, I haven't got the patience, and gas still isn't so expensive that I care. Although I don't like what I have to pay to fill my tank.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DiGuru said:
But you do! As you won't adjust your speed (a bit) all the time, you're not accelerating. Even when you think you're keeping a constant speed, you're probably reacting to the traffic around you and increasing/decreasing your speed often.

Actually no, keeping constant speed is not optimal except on level roads (well, you're from the Netherlands, so...). It's better not to try to keep the speed up when climbing a hill, and get the speed back up when you're coming down the hill. I've at least scored better without CC than with it.
 
DiGuru said:
Originally Posted by mjtdevries
* aggresive driving.
They are wrong about the reason it takes more fuel. Accelerating fast isn't all that bad for fuel consumption. You are just creating potential energy that you later use when coasting. The effect on fuel consumption is minimal.

No. While you do create kinetic energy, you do so by burning about fifty times as much fuel as when cruising (see page 1 of this thread). Accelerating slowly takes longer, but is much more fuel efficient, and creates just as much kinetic energy.

No, not true.

First of all, you do not burn fifty times more.
Second, when you acceleratie slowly you burn twenty-five times more, and then do that twice as long. In the end you have used the same amount of extra fuel.

It's actually very simple. You need X amount of extra energy to get your car at the higher speed.
A liter of fuel contains Y amount of energy. So you can calculate how much fuel you need to burn, to get the extra amount of energy.

You can then choose to add that energy quickly or slowly. And that results in quick acceleration, or moderate acceleration. In both cases you need to add the same amount of energy.

The only difference is that with quick acceleration you will reach your higher speed sooner. Since a higher speed takes more fuel than a lower speed, you will use extra fuel during the amount of time the slower accelerating car hasn't reached that speed yet.

So the REAL difference between fast en slow acceleration is the difference between travelling at a higher or lower speed.

Since accelerating actually takes VERY little time during a normal trip, that difference will be even less. The actual amount of fuel savings will thus be very VERY small.

Quote:
The real fuel consumption killers are your brakes (strange as it may sound)
When you brake you waste all that energy. You cannot use it in any way anymore. That's why braking hurts the fuel usage so terrible.

No. You're only looking at the kinetic energy, not the amount of fuel you burned to create it.

Fuel contains a constant amount of energy. You cannot magically create extra energy out of the fuel.
When you burn more fuel you get more energy, when you burn less you get less.

The only difference can be when the fuel isn't all burned properly. With older Diesels that creates the black smoke plumes. But with a normal modern engine that makes very little to now difference.

The simple statement about the constant amount of energy you can get from a liter fuel, holds true even when you compare a F1 engine to the engine in your own car.
Of course the F1 engine creates a lot more HP by using a lot more fuel. But when you do the calculations you will find that it got the same amount of energy from the fuel.

That is also why you use 20% more LPG in an engine compared to gasoline. The Engine works just as efficient with LPG as with gasoline, but since LPG contains 20% less energy, you need to spend 20% more of it to get the same performance from the engine.

* Cruise Control
I don't know about you guys, but I also drive smoothly without cruise control. Anybody who has earned their drivers license should already be doing that.
I save absolutely NOTHING by using cruise control !

But you do! As you won't adjust your speed (a bit) all the time, you're not accelerating. Even when you think you're keeping a constant speed, you're probably reacting to the traffic around you and increasing/decreasing your speed often.

No I DON'T !!

Remember that I tested all of this in real life in real life conditions.
No with some artificical tests like that website did.
I drive 200km to and from my work every day with the same conditions on the road every week. (traffic jams are very reliable....)

REAL Life has proven that I don't save anything. Now the only thing that remains for discussions is WHY I don't save anything.

I live in the Netherlands so if anybody should see an improvement from that tip, it should be me. [/quote]

Although small increases have a much lower fuel economy penalty than larger or faster ones.
Well, if the penalty becomes immeasurable small, it's not really a great tip for saving fuel is it?
And that is what started the thread. Great tips for saving fuel....

* Excessive idling.
Nice results in their test, but not applicable to real-life at all!
They drove 10 miles, stopping 10 times for two minutes.
Just think about that. Who has ever experienced such a situation in their life?

Most people, when driving through a city, I guess.

Lots of people would guess so. But try to verify it next time you drive through a city.
You'll be amazed and how short the waiting time for traffic lights actually is. Two minutes will seem like an eternity. But you will probably spend only 40 seconds on average.

Then there is the next problem that it is only usefull when you stop two minutes.
If you stop 30 seconds you are actually hurting fuel consumption. (starting an engine wastes a little fuel)
So when you reach that traffic light, how will you predict how long you have to wait?

That is why that tip that looks very usefull, isn't anymore when you want to apply it in real-life conditions.

Conclusion:
When I use their advice in real life I can save little to nothing!
Or you didn't do it as they said. ;)

Well, maybe we can ask everybody here to try it out themselves and collect the results in a poll? :)

When I drive "normal", it's pretty agressive, and I get 7.7 km/liter. When I drive like a grandma, it becomes 11.8 km/liter. Although I did experiment, I haven't got the patience, and gas still isn't so expensive that I care. Although I don't like what I have to pay to fill my tank.

Gas prices in the Netherlands are skyhigh, so I care....
;) Nah.. I'm used to those prices. But I'm always interested in such tips to see how big the margin of error is between artificial tests and real life.
If the difference was worth the effort, you would expect everybody would already be using it. It's not like these things have only recently be discovered.

7.7km/liter Hmm sounds like a typical american fuel gobbling car ;) What kind of car do you drive actually? And where?
The only time I only got so low was when I drove 400km in Germany at 110mph... And remember that was with LPG with takes 20% more fuel...

And of course in cities. And unfortunately no amount of tips can help there.
When that traffic light turns red I can't choose to coast. I have to brake and waste a lot of energy... And even when you can coast to the traffic light, the people behind you won't like it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gubbi said:
You're spoiled :D

Living in a country where a Suzuki Swift costs €20,000 (200% markup thanks to taxes) Audis seem rather nice

Cheers

Well, the taxes apply to the Audi's as well, so I don't see how that would make them seem nice?

I've never understand why people like Audi. They are terribly overpriced. The VW models which are built on the same chassis actually have better car handling than the Audis.

Come to think if it I can't think of any sensible reason to buy a german car....
(or any other car that isn't japanese.... ;))
 
mjtdevries said:
7.7km/liter Hmm sounds like a typical american fuel gobbling car ;) What kind of car do you drive actually? And where?
A Hyundai Lantra 1.6 Sportivo from 1992, in the Netherlands. ;)

If you see no difference, you might want to try to drive agressively instead: acellerate as fast as possible (push that gas pedal to the bottom every time), always drive the maximum speed and only brake at the last moment.


But really, accelerating fast at high rpm does burn much more fuel to reach the same speed. The computer adjusts the air/fuel ratio constantly, and with high rpm you burn more fuel (more explosions) than with low rpm.
 
DiGuru said:
But really, accelerating fast at high rpm does burn much more fuel to reach the same speed. The computer adjusts the air/fuel ratio constantly, and with high rpm you burn more fuel (more explosions) than with low rpm.
Burning more fuel alone is not enough to obtain lower gas mileage. You can burn more fuel at a faster rate, if you're doing it for the sake of higher acceleration, and still come out even in terms of fuel consumption.

The key component that makes fast accelerations inefficient isn't just that you're spending more fuel, but rather that you're not getting as much energy out of the fuel.

That said, every car will have a different point where large accelerations really start to eat into fuel economy, due to factors like the weight of the car, the size of the engine, the number/size of valves, etc. At least when driving a stick shift, I think this point is fairly self-evident: when pressing on the gas, on the sticks I've driven, there typically seems to be a spot where the power increase with more pressure starts dropping off significantly. Personally, I try to always ride my car at or below this level.
 
DiGuru said:
A Hyundai Lantra 1.6 Sportivo from 1992, in the Netherlands. ;)

If you see no difference, you might want to try to drive agressively instead: acellerate as fast as possible (push that gas pedal to the bottom every time), always drive the maximum speed and only brake at the last moment.

I (almost) always accelerate as fast as possible.
I drive maximum allowed speed.

BUT I don't brake at the last moment. As I said before THAT is what KILLS fuel efficiency.

Try it yourself. Still accelerate as fast as possible, but don't brake at the last moment. You'll be amazed at the difference.

DiGuru said:
But really, accelerating fast at high rpm does burn much more fuel to reach the same speed. The computer adjusts the air/fuel ratio constantly, and with high rpm you burn more fuel (more explosions) than with low rpm.

Of course you burn more fuel at high rpm. But because you accelerate much quicker, you also need to burn fuel at that high rate for a very short time!
If you use low rmp you burn it at a low rate, but you have to do it for a very low time.
The end result is the same.
 
Chalnoth said:
Burning more fuel alone is not enough to obtain lower gas mileage. You can burn more fuel at a faster rate, if you're doing it for the sake of higher acceleration, and still come out even in terms of fuel consumption.

The key component that makes fast accelerations inefficient isn't just that you're spending more fuel, but rather that you're not getting as much energy out of the fuel.

That isn't true for a modern car.

If you have the torque/rpm graphs of you car you can confirm that yourself. (The brochure of a car will often have such graphs)
The torque value gives a good indication of how much energy you get out of the fuel. For a modern car, a large middle section of that graph will be flat.
As expected you will see the graph drop at very high revs, BUT you will also see it drop at low revs!
The engine in my own car has a graph that is flat from 2500 rpm to 5500 rpm. (rev limit 6500 rpm)

So whether I run at 2500 rpm or 5500 rpm, the amount of energy I get out of the fuel is the same.

In interesting article on engine efficiency can be found here:
http://www.squadra-tuning.com/English/EN_what_is_torque_and_performance.htm
 
I'll research it a bit more.

Anyway, when I accelerate slowly (never pushing the gas pedal down by more than a few millimeters at a time) and change gear as fast as possible, I get 50% more kilometers out of a tank of gas.
 
mjtdevries said:
That isn't true for a modern car.

If you have the torque/rpm graphs of you car you can confirm that yourself. (The brochure of a car will often have such graphs)
The torque value gives a good indication of how much energy you get out of the fuel. For a modern car, a large middle section of that graph will be flat.
That's all well and good, but those graphs don't say anything about fuel economy. They just tell you how much power you can possibly get out of your engine at a given RPM.

But since at higher RPM's you can give the car more gas (more explosions), that extra power can well come at a cost of much more gas.

So, considering that you can make use of much more gas as RPM's increase, take a look at that nearly-flat area again. Your RPM's are increasing, and thus the amount of fuel you can make use of is increasing, but power barely does. This means that once you move into the flat area, higher and higher RPM's are going to give you worse and worse fuel economy.
 
Especially since the whole problem with fuel economy while accelerating hard is that you're trying to raise the rpm from a low rpm, low power condition (at least until you change gears), and consuming extra fuel to get up there. The increase in fuel doesn't give you a linear increase in power to get up to those rpms because the A/F ratio isn't staying the same either (it's getting enriched). When you're maintaining speed, the mixture is actually pretty lean and the total volume of air and fuel is lower in general. It's especially costly to accelerate in low gear because your speed is so low that a small difference in volumetric fuel consumption rate yields a large mpg difference.

Also, most dyno charts aren't exactly that applicable in real life since power is tested at WOT (while fuel economy most certainly is not), which is something you basically never get a chance to use in real life.
 
Yes, Chalnot is right.

It's simple, really: all graphs I came across talk about the curves for rpm, efficiency, power, etc. in relation to the average or best (most optimal) combustion figures. Which aren't realistic at all.

For starters, modern combustion engines (or even old ones like mine, first generation with ECM) don't use carburators that supply a fixed percentage of fuel according to the air intake. And second, they don't even try to inject the amount of fuel that would guaranty the most optimal combustion and/or expansion. Rather, they try to supply the amount the user wants.

So, (as I started out to say in my first post), when idling or cruising, they only supply the minimum amount of fuel (and air) that still allows detonation and just enough power to keep on moving. While when you want maximum acceleration, by pushing the gas pedal down fast, they supply the most fuel (and air) that will still explode.

Why? Because all engines are overdesigned for cruising, and underdesigned for maximum acceleration. While that doesn't matter much for diesel engines, it does for gasoline engines. And so, the producers run them as lean as possible when cruising, and as rich as possible when accelerating hard.

But it turns out to be pretty difficult to get any other figures than the "official" ones, that don't take the way people drive into account.


Then again, it's not really that hard to grasp. It takes more power to accelerate faster, even when you go for a fixed speed and take the time it took into account. Inertia and all that. Otherwise, why would people buy large V8 engines? And I'm not going to explain why those are much less fuel efficient than small ones.

And lastly, even the car manufacturers themselves suggest you accelerate slower and shift earlier if you want better mileage. They should know and have all the graphs.
 
ShootMyMonkey said:
Especially since the whole problem with fuel economy while accelerating hard is that you're trying to raise the rpm from a low rpm, low power condition (at least until you change gears), and consuming extra fuel to get up there. The increase in fuel doesn't give you a linear increase in power to get up to those rpms because the A/F ratio isn't staying the same either (it's getting enriched). When you're maintaining speed, the mixture is actually pretty lean and the total volume of air and fuel is lower in general. It's especially costly to accelerate in low gear because your speed is so low that a small difference in volumetric fuel consumption rate yields a large mpg difference.

Also, most dyno charts aren't exactly that applicable in real life since power is tested at WOT (while fuel economy most certainly is not), which is something you basically never get a chance to use in real life.
Exactly.
 
Btw, if you have a car that displays current mileage statistics, all that is really easy to see, as the figure changes from (say) 10 km/l when cruising to 0.1 km/l when accelerating fast. And that's even while most of them do a rough calculation without even taking the percentage of fuel injected into account. Probably not even because that would be more difficult, but rather to make it seem not as bad as it really is.

And yes, I did check that out.

;)
 
ShootMyMonkey said:
It's especially costly to accelerate in low gear because your speed is so low that a small difference in volumetric fuel consumption rate yields a large mpg difference.
Now this point is just wrong. In the situation of acceleration, the instantaneous fuel economy is unimportant, since acceleration doesn't last long. It's the average that is important, and low gears are what you want for maximal fuel economy for acceleration, as otherwise you'd have to have an exceptionally-rich mixture to get any amount of power out of the engine.
 
Back
Top