# Vehicle Fuel Research



## readytogo

US Dept. of Energy.
1984 C10 Chevy P/U,yearly fuel cost=$2900.00/20 miles per combined.
2013 C15 Silverado P/U,yearly fuel cost=$3250.00/17 miles combined.
1984 Ford F-150 P/U,yearly fuel cost=$3050.00/18 miles combined.
2013 Ford F-150 P/U,yearly fuel cost=$3050.00/18 miles combined.
Now for the good new
The average American car today gets about 20 miles per gallon (mpg) of gasoline. Eighty years ago, Henry Ford's Model T got 25 to 30 mpg and that car could run on gas or ethanol. What happened? In the decades since the Model T, car technology, speed,weight,more plastic, thinner metal, safety and comfort have improved tremendously. But in terms of fuel economy, we're still decades behind.


----------



## Tirediron

The model T got fuel mileage because it was light , had a hi torque low speed engine that the fuel mixture and spark advance were both driver controlled, the also had a lot lower cruising speed. Modern junk is just that junk. huge parisitice loads etc, if the gov mandated a specific fuel mileage per pound or something the manufacturer would figure it out, but they just build good enough.and they have to meet the EPA 's pollution standards that often have almost nothing to do with most of the operating range.


----------



## swjohnsey

Henry's Model T only got 13 - 21 mgg with a top speed of 45 mph according to Ford. Grandma's Toyota is faster than '60s Corvette.


----------



## helicopter5472

Tirediron said:


> The model T got fuel mileage because it was light , had a hi torque low speed engine that the fuel mixture and spark advance were both driver controlled, the also had a lot lower cruising speed. Modern junk is just that junk. huge parisitice loads etc, if the gov mandated a specific fuel mileage per pound or something the manufacturer would figure it out, but they just build good enough.and they have to meet the EPA 's pollution standards that often have almost nothing to do with most of the operating range.


Not to mention all the safety items added, Add all the electronics, hi out-put lights, which is a big draw on the alt.


----------



## LincTex

I think the new modern engine controls have got it down pretty good.

However, I believe that if you took all the stupid emissions controls off, and just let the computer worry about engine efficiency only, then we would all be getting much better gas mileage.

....which is why my 5.0 liter Ford Ranger gets 21-22 MPG on a good day. That is really not much worse than the 2.3 liter that came out of it; the best it ever got was 25 mpg (and had NO power).


----------



## helicopter5472

A lot of that is weight and horsepower, more HP less work that engine requires to push it on it's way. My neighbors 86 Vette got 28 mpg on the hi-way all day. Look at the Current HP ratings on the new engines, twice plus what they used to be. However with this added HP comes heavier foots on the pedal, From what I see, myself included, people hit the on ramp and are doing 80mph before they even hit the Blvd. They mash the pedal from stop light to stop light. Most people on the interstate are not even watching their speed cause they are on the phone. My 1970 Chevelle SS 454 once got 14 mph, cause my wife drove it on a trip. With me, lucky to get 6mpg and I got lots of tickets to prove it. Gas back then 35 cents a gallon, so who cared.


----------



## LincTex

helicopter5472 said:


> My 1970 Chevelle SS 454.... With me, lucky to get 6 mpg


LOL, I think my 440 Road Runner with 4.10 gears got about the same MPG. It would burn 5 gallons doing just two quarter mile passes. I never thought that was even possible!!


----------



## cowboyhermit

For the most part, fuel economy has just not been a big concern for people buying new cars. At most times people have been willing to sacrifice nothing to get it, let alone pay more for a more efficient model, so not a lot of incentive for the car companies to improve. They have been great at adding horsepower, gps, all kinds of junk that people are willing to pay more for. Then of course the government does everything possible to make things worse, I know, that's their job.

Look at rangers for instance, from the mid-eighties to the 2000's same mileage more or less, they managed to double the horsepower, well "woopty flippin do" With all that horsepower how much more can this truck do, payload increased, well... nothing. I guess I can get up to hiway speed faster:dunno: Maybe save a few seconds of driving for people who REALLY don't want to be behind the wheel I guess.

Don't get me started on the vehicles I can't even get new anymore like a diesel ranger (mechanically injected).

:rantoff:


----------



## swjohnsey

I had '93 and '07 C2500, one Chevy one GMC, pretty much identical, stripped down work truck. The '93 would get about 15 mpg on the highway and was rated about 190 hp. It was pretty much a dog but would haul 4,000 lbs without complaining, disc in front drums back semi-floater. The '07 gets 19 mpg on the highway, 353 hp, disc/disc, full floater, will haul even more, fit and finish much better. Truck will light up the back tires with posi-. 

Car/trucks are getting better, much better. Big block 'vette would do 145 mph and scare you to death doing it. Raptor pickup will do that now.


----------



## helicopter5472

swjohnsey said:


> I had '93 and '07 C2500, one Chevy one GMC, pretty much identical, stripped down work truck. The '93 would get about 15 mpg on the highway and was rated about 190 hp. It was pretty much a dog but would haul 4,000 lbs without complaining, disc in front drums back semi-floater. The '07 gets 19 mpg on the highway, 353 hp, disc/disc, full floater, will haul even more, fit and finish much better. Truck will light up the back tires with posi-.
> 
> Car/trucks are getting better, much better. Big block 'vette would do 145 mph and scare you to death doing it. Raptor pickup will do that now.


I have 2012 Impala with a 300hp 6 banger, I had it at 148 mph the other day. cars/trucks today have better ratio drive gears and overdrive trans. It makes it the best of both worlds, good out of the hole, and good high speed. They are a lot safer, well maybe not at 145...


----------



## Woody

A lot of mileage has to do with the way folks drive. I am a hypermiler and drive with good gas mileage and safety as my primary concerns. You’d be amazed at the mileage you can squeeze out of a vehicle if you try. Unfortunately most folks do not try.

But talking on trucks, I had a 1982 Chevy K20 that got 9 mpg on a good day, going downhill with a tail wind. You could put it in high gear at 25 mph and accelerate, top speed was 65 mph. I would regularly gross out over 10,000# from the gravel pit and that thing would take the load anywhere. I had to put another gas tank in it so I could drive a day without stopping to fillup!


----------



## cowboyhermit

It is nearly impossible to describe how little I care that one of my vehicles can do 145 mph.


----------



## Tirediron

swjohnsey said:


> I had '93 and '07 C2500, one Chevy one GMC, pretty much identical, stripped down work truck. The '93 would get about 15 mpg on the highway and was rated about 190 hp. It was pretty much a dog but would haul 4,000 lbs without complaining, disc in front drums back semi-floater. The '07 gets 19 mpg on the highway, 353 hp, disc/disc, full floater, will haul even more, fit and finish much better. Truck will light up the back tires with posi-.
> 
> Car/trucks are getting better, much better. Big block 'vette would do 145 mph and scare you to death doing it. Raptor pickup will do that now.


if you compared the 07 to a 97 it wouldn't look nearly as much better, the 5.7 vortec was getting pretty decent power and mileage. The diesel pick up mileage has gone down the tubes in recent years. 
Heavy truck mileage has gotten worse and so has quality and that effects everyone's bottom line.


----------



## helicopter5472

cowboyhermit said:


> It is nearly impossible to describe how little I care that one of my vehicles can do 145 mph.


No? but I'll bet you pushed a horse or two to it's max a few times.....

I grew up as a mechanical person, building and racing cars, rodding is my thing. I just cranked it one day, not a everyday happening.

P.S. I had two barrel racing horses, I used to crank them up too, even got a couple ribbons....


----------



## LincTex

Really, there are a lot of experimental cars that get 200 mpg. Volkswagen built a small 2-banger turbo-diesel that did much better than that.... and this one is NOT a concept.

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/...not-a-concept-car-2013-geneva-motor-show.html

The reason gas mileage numbers sucks is all the reasons cowboyhermit mentioned. People won't buy a car just because it gets good gas mileage. They want power EVERYTHING. You can't even buy a car without power steering anymore. Just about the same with crank-up windows. even manual transmissions are disappearing.

95%+ of the people want cars loaded, not basic.


----------



## cowboyhermit

I was pulling a swjohnsey with that quip 
Seriously though, I have nothing against fast cars and all that entails, quite the opposite. I just get completely baffled when people talk about an extra few horsepower or miles per hour in a daily driver, not saying that someone shouldn't go for it if that is what turns their crank. I have spent my share of money on things that don't make a lot of rational sense, I just think with cars the average person doesn't have a clue what actually matters. Looks, status, fashion, all sorts of things have more influence on a typical car buyer than fuel economy. Part of it is that people look to "car guys" for advice on what to buy and most of them are into horsepower, speed, etc. Nothing wrong with that but the typical person will not/should not be approaching the top speed of ANY car they will buy, on a regular basis. I know quite a few guys who take their daily driver to the track and that's great but for the vast majority of vehicles the amount of time they will spend above typical highway speed is miniscule imo. 

A good example is I was talking to a guy with an 18.5 hp lawnmower with no pto or anything, trying to explain why, even though a W6 only has 30some odd horsepower, no he could not pull half as much with the lawnmower. "But it says the horsepower right there":brickwall:


----------



## drfacefixer

One thing that hasnt been mentioned is that americans want large heavy cars for the feeling of safety (not just safety features). The common thought is that if you go head to head : the bigger car wins. In europe and most of the dominating asian markets this is just the opposite. Heavy and large equates to poor mpg and difficulties parking and maneuvering. There are very few large cars, so the fear of being hit while driving a mini just isnt the same there. When gas hits $6 / gallon youll see some thoughts change here...except in the south.... where a truck is an extension of ones manhood. They call me chevy love.


----------



## Tirediron

cowboyhermit said:


> I was pulling a swjohnsey with that quip
> Seriously though, I have nothing against fast cars and all that entails, quite the opposite. I just get completely baffled when people talk about an extra few horsepower or miles per hour in a daily driver, not saying that someone shouldn't go for it if that is what turns their crank. I have spent my share of money on things that don't make a lot of rational sense, I just think with cars the average person doesn't have a clue what actually matters. Looks, status, fashion, all sorts of things have more influence on a typical car buyer than fuel economy. Part of it is that people look to "car guys" for advice on what to buy and most of them are into horsepower, speed, etc. Nothing wrong with that but the typical person will not/should not be approaching the top speed of ANY car they will buy, on a regular basis. I know quite a few guys who take their daily driver to the track and that's great but for the vast majority of vehicles the amount of time they will spend above typical highway speed is miniscule imo.
> 
> A good example is I was talking to a guy with an 18.5 hp lawnmower with no pto or anything, trying to explain why, even though a W6 only has 30some odd horsepower, no he could not pull half as much with the lawnmower. "But it says the horsepower right there":brickwall:


TORQUE Just like a pickup diesels 400 hp is laughable compared to a 400 horse Cat in a Peterbilt


----------



## swjohnsey

A 400 hp motor with 100 ft/lbs or torque will do exactly the same work as a 400 hp motor with 300 ft/lbs of torque.


----------



## Tirediron

Get an education,


----------



## cowboyhermit

Tirediron said:


> TORQUE Just like a pickup diesels 400 hp is laughable compared to a 400 horse Cat in a Peterbilt


That's just it, horsepower is only important to the extent that it is actually useful. I am sure that motor in the lawnmower does put out 18.5 hp (screaming at several thousand rpm) but when pulling it could only use a fraction, traction is the worst limiting factor, then the drive system, etc in reality 1-2hp in the original variety could pull that mower in circles
The mower deck isn't much better, 3-4foot but speed is limited by the quality of the cut way before all that horsepower comes into play.

Same thing imo with most daily driver cars, 99% of it's life all that horsepower isn't even entering the equation.

Btw, swjohnsey is (giving him the benefit of the doubt for some reason) using the Physics definition of work not, you know, the relevant one.


----------



## OldCootHillbilly

Momma had a 90 geo metro, 3 cyl with a 5 speed. All the get up an go it ever needed, run 75 mph easy an gave 43 mpg. Sporty little thin. 

Had a 49 Crossley station wagon, 4 cyl with a 3 speed. Well built (heavy metal) an that little bugger would run 45 mpg all day.

Big oil ain't interested in anybody gettin good gas mileage. Automakers don't care long as them thins rollin out the door.

Better gas mileage be easily done, just nobody cares enough bout it ta getter done.


----------



## cnsper

Real simple... SLOW DOWN!!!

I drive daily a 2011 Dodge 5500 pulling a 43 foot goose neck. I regularly gross 40,000 pounds with this rig and I did a test. Driving to the pickup location empty at 60 mph which is the posted speed limit and 55 mph loaded which is 5 mph slower than the posted commercial vehicle speed limit and I saved nearly 25% in fuel. I have increased the mileage in this truck over 1 mpg. Does not sound like much but when you drive 300+ miles per day, it adds up quickly and only takes me another 30 minutes of time.

P.S. I love pissing off the people behind me that are late to work. They should get up 10 minutes earlier. I have seen more times than I can count where someone passes me and when they turn off I count 6 seconds until I pass that point. You really do not save much time.


----------



## Tirediron

cnsper are the numbers right in you post, if you are getting 25% better and gained 1mpg you would have had to be getting 3 or 4 mpg?? or did I read it wrong??


----------



## swjohnsey

Slowing down improves gas mileage. We are near the limit on improving fuel efficienty by technology. There is only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline. We have also dramatically inproved fuel efficiency by improving aerodynamics and I don't see alot more coming. There is probably some to be had by regenerative braking. Most increase in mileage will have to come from going to smaller, lighter vehicles. The government is going to push most of us into Geo Metros or smaller while they continue to drive Escalades and 600 Mercedes.


----------



## Tirediron

Bmw X5 s @ 6000+ pounds (to beat some luxury tax thing in the US could get 25+ mpg, a highway tractor grossing 160,000#(Canadian super B train) gets 4.5 mpg, the highway tractor is far more efficient.
But you are probably right about the ceiling being hit for spark ignition Gasoline engines, the BMW has variable valve timing and a pretty decent injection system. But spark ignition is a pretty caveman way of using the energy in fuel. one time flame front from a controlled explosion, where as a compression ignition engine continues to add fuel well into the power stroke, thus the ability to run a much leaner mixture.


----------



## cowboyhermit

Yup, diesels are still much more efficient that gasoline typically. Direct injection will help with the gasoline engines efficiency imo, now that it is being adopted more widely, it does allow them to run lean. Other ideas like the Scuderi engine have potential but the other options like steam injection etc seem far from being practical at this point. I wouldn't discount someone coming up with a practical way to use all that heat though, I'm not holding my breath but it is certainly possible.


----------



## cnsper

Tirediron said:


> cnsper are the numbers right in you post, if you are getting 25% better and gained 1mpg you would have had to be getting 3 or 4 mpg?? or did I read it wrong??


Well maybe I worded it wrong. When I say 25% I meant savings in $$$$$. Before I got the job they were averaging 6.4 MPG because they were driving 65 mph and it cost $130 to fill up after that trip. I am getting 7.9 mpg and it costs around $97 to fill up. That is a 25% savings. Do that every day and we are talking over $600 a month.

Not only that but it is easier on the transmission.


----------



## HamiltonFelix

The simple method of getting good mileage is being small and light. The Geo Metro (later got a hair bigger and was called a Chevy Metro, but it was really always a Suzuki Swift) could hit 50 mpg because it was really small and had a tiny 1 liter 3 cylinder engine. I would take one of those over the unnecessarily complex and expensive hybrids any day. The Metro is no longer avaiable; it worked too well and was too affordable.

Modern engine management and fuel injection can help, as does a modern transmission, but a well set up carbureted car can do pretty well, too, and it doesn't depend on electronics.

My old 2000 Crown Vic Police Interceptor never gets less than 20 unless we're shopping in town or pulling a trailer. That's with the little 4.6 OHC V8 and a 3.55 rear end. But my wife can break 40 mpg with the 2007 Corolla 5 speed if she has real gas in it (can't do so well on that gasohol crap).

I'm thinking about getting a fuel test kit at http://www.fuel-testers.com/ so I can see what we're actually buying.


----------



## cowboyhermit

I think it's worth mentioning that the amount of fuel saved by slowing down varies a lot by vehicle. In a fairly aerodynamic car for instance, if it has a very large motor the difference in fuel economy change for 5-10mph either way will often be minimal because such a large chunk of fuel is being used to just keep that engine going, whereas with a smaller engine in the same car the difference can be substantial. With a less aerodynamic vehicle or load the savings will depend much less on engine size.

Also, I am loathe to do it because I have seen vehicles with problems as a result, but I have seen some excellent results by "chip"ing, diesels in particular. Of course with the aftermarket stuff there is risk and a diesel engine aint cheap, but it shows that the potential is there for better economy if that was a higher priority.


----------



## swjohnsey

I was making the long drive from South Texas to East Texas, about 300 miles, in my truck, '07 GMC 2500 puttin' along a 60 mph and decided to calculate how much I was savin'. At 60 mph (actually 58 mph GPS) I was getting almost 20 mpg. At 75 it will get about 17 mpg. It takes me about an hour longer at 60 mph than 75 mph. I had save more than 2 gallons and it had cost me only an hour. I figured I made $9.26/hour. How much is your time worth. Mostly my time is more valuable than that.


----------



## cowboyhermit

If someone really hates driving then that hour might be worth it to them but most likely they will not spend that hour doing something that pays them anyways. Plus there are lots of benefits to driving slower, definitely easier on all vehicle components but also safer and less stressful as well.
Still, it is pretty hard to imagine the amount of fuel that could be saved from 1000 vehicles in a year at that rate, let alone a million of them.


----------



## readytogo

*Battery Power Vehicles*

First this fuel mileage has shown that is nothing more than a joke and is costing Us lots of money just to make ends meet, The Gov. ,Corporate America are all in the same bowl and is costing Us plenty. Now feather research has shown that battery power has been around a long time, somewhere around 1888 the Spanish Navy and the French Navy launch electrically powered and fully functional military submarine, this projects where shut down do to and only for the short range of the subs, that was long time ago, the technology was there so now an electric car cost more than a gas car with less, everything is smaller , everything is plastic, everything is cheaper(solar cells included),again, Big Corporate Gluttony is out there.
A little note: Mercedes, as documented by the Guinness Book of World Records, was able to extract 2,400+ miles out of one gallon of gasoline (yes, 2,400 MPG).


----------



## swjohnsey

readytogo said:


> First this fuel mileage has shown that is nothing more than a joke and is costing Us lots of money just to make ends meet, The Gov. ,Corporate America are all in the same bowl and is costing Us plenty. Now feather research has shown that battery power has been around a long time, somewhere around 1888 the Spanish Navy and the French Navy launch electrically powered and fully functional military submarine, this projects where shut down do to and only for the short range of the subs, that was long time ago, the technology was there so now an electric car cost more than a gas car with less, everything is smaller , everything is plastic, everything is cheaper(solar cells included),again, Big Corporate Gluttony is out there.
> A little note: Mercedes, as documented by the Guinness Book of World Records, was able to extract 2,400+ miles out of one gallon of gasoline (yes, 2,400 MPG).


The "car" had a displacement of 3 ci, two wheels, top speed of 30 mph. No thanks.


----------



## cowboyhermit

It is really amazing how much can be accomplished theoretically, a big part of the challenge is trying to integrate this stuff into our distorted society (thanks governments of the world). Of course we still have bicycles integrated to a certain extent:dunno: But 3000 miles on a gallon of gas is mind boggling.


----------



## swjohnsey

It amazing how the aerodynamics of cars and trucks have improved, more raked windshields, flush glass, etc. I predict cars will become lower and narrower to reduce frontal area, ligher.


----------



## cnsper

No thanks on the cars. I drove a Kia Sportage once and buy the time I got to the top of the first hill I was doing 35 mph... On the freeway! I don't even want to think what would happen if I had to go over the pass. I think it had a 1.9 liter engine. Those things are good for city driving but will not work well outside the city unless you live on the great plains.

Now my personal vehicle I love.

30 year old 1983 Ford F250
4 speed manual transmission
never drive over 60 mph
6.9 liter diesel (all mechanical)
19 mpg average.


----------



## HamiltonFelix

There is no free ride. Talk about electric vehicles if you wish. Just be willing to double your nation's capability to generate and deliver electricity.


----------



## helicopter5472

cowboyhermit said:


> If someone really hates driving then that hour might be worth it to them but most likely they will not spend that hour doing something that pays them anyways. Plus there are lots of benefits to driving slower, definitely easier on all vehicle components but also safer and less stressful as well.
> Still, it is pretty hard to imagine the amount of fuel that could be saved from 1000 vehicles in a year at that rate, let alone a million of them.


Even better if your employment depends on road travel, You tend to go slower, stop more often.


----------



## HamiltonFelix

OTOH, if a long commute to and from work steals hours that you would rather spend with your family, it can be difficult to go slow. My wife manages it, gas is expensive, but that doesn't mean we like it.


----------



## LincTex

HamiltonFelix said:


> OTOH, if a long commute to and from work steals hours that you would rather spend with your family, it can be difficult to go slow.


Sometimes it's better to move closer to work. It was easier to do the 45 mile commute when gas was $1.15 a gallon. Now that we are around $3.50 a gallon, it's nice being only 12 miles away. Spending time with family is usually preferable than spending it driving.


----------



## HamiltonFelix

I understand that, LincTex. In our case, if my Better Half doesn't get the raise she wants and deserves, she'll probably give up the 145 mile round trip every day in favor of staying at home, homeschooling the boys and raising a garden and a few critters. I'd like to retire, but I make the good bucks and have the good benefits. Even with $1,500 a month to my ex, I think we can get by. Right now, a big chunk of my wife's meager income is going just to buy gas/oil/tires/insurance so she can drive to work. 

As for me, it's time to get off my lazy backside and make time to put my bike back on the road. Two wheeled vehicles are not a efficient or aerodynamic as cars, but it does get better mileage.


----------

