Fuel economy myths

Page 3 of 7  
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007 13:21:57 +0100, Coyoteboy


Two questions you never believe the answers to:
What gas mileage do you get.
How often do you have sex.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

:) Pretty sure none of my friends have any need to lie about their fuel mileage, certainly in the 7 cars in my close family we average ~30ish, held up by my brother in his 330d and my missus in her 1.6 renault. That said, some of my mates are so car-unfriendly I'd be less than convinced by their calculations, but by rough "i get Xmiles per tank" quotes they seem right enough. I really cant understand why anyone would WANT to lie about MPG - unlike the second point lol.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:
Two questions you never believe the answers to: 1.) What gas mileage do you get? 2.) How often do you have sex? ___________________________________________
"Coyoteboy" wrote:
Some of my mates are so car-unfriendly I'd be less than convinced by their calculations, but by their rough "X miles per tank" quotes they seem right enough. I cant understand why anyone would WANT to lie about MPG. _____________________________________________
I once had a motorhome that got about 7-8 mpg. Whenever I fueled up someone nearby with a small car would invariably ask, "What kind of mileage does that thing get?" To avoid the somber headshaking and eye-rolling I would say, "I get 19 miles per gallon, but only if I go easy on the gas going uphill!" It was delightful to see their facial expressions as their brains tried to cope with the unexpected answer.
Rodan. < - - - - Showing an uncharacteristic mean streak.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rodan wrote:

I'd just call you a liar and walk off :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Miles per imperial gallon, presumably.
I am also in the UK. I get 26 mpg in my 3.2 l motor. It's an older car now (2001) with 6 cylinders. As I do less than 5000 miles pa I don't care too much about prices. Biggest cost anyway is depreciation, followed by insurance.
DAS
--
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

I prefer using L/100KM, keeping in canadian style, but nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.
7.8L/100KM = 30mpg
my ranger 3.0L gets 13l/100km ... 16.8mpg
I'm talking US MPG
1L/100km = ~235 (i use that for rough math in the truck)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't understand the penchant for quoting L/100 km, as is common throughout Continental Europe.
Km/l would be much more useful.
DAS
For direct replies replace nospam with schmetterling
--
"Picasso" < snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:470c97fb$0$14836$ snipped-for-privacy@news.aliant.net...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

Its irrelevant, mpg, l/km and km/l are all equally informative and give you exactly the same information. Its a matter of personal preference. I see what youre thinking though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is a bit strange at first, but after a number of years I've gotten used to it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It certainly has improved for the larger cars and engines. I do agree that for smaller cars and engines there has been little improvement in fuel mileage, but small engine power has increased significantly.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
who wrote:

So what you're saying is we're really going the wrong way?
Honda Civic...
1985    34mpg 1995    38mpg 1999    30mpg 2007    29mpg (fueleconomy.gov)
Why would we want to decrease fuel economy, for a only slightly better working car?
Thats probably only one car though, i don't have time to do others :)
I would guess pickups have hovered somewhat the same... maybe only slighly better with smaller efi engines doing the same job and making more power.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But is this really the same car? The name may still be the same, but the Civic today is closer in size to the Accord of some years ago. We keep asking for (and getting) larger cars. I'm not sure how many cars you can directly compare having the same name and being interior size over a 15 year span. Crown Vic? LeSabre?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Picasso wrote:

We're making choices that result in lower fuel mileage.

Yet there is the new Honda Fit, which is smaller than the Civic and gets better mileage. And the Civic hybrid, Prius, etc.

Larger cars and more power.

It's a common trend. You start with a small car. Over time, successive generations tend to get bigger, more powerful and less fuel efficient.

I think pickup trucks have gotton larger over time, with more power, too.
Jeff
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The 2007 Civic is the size of a 1999 Accord.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm basing my comments on the history of my own total fuel mileage of similar driving with: -1948 Austin A40 -1949 Pontiac 6 cyl flat head. -1956 VW 1.1L -1961 VW 1.3L 1,600 lb. -1963 Chev II 6cyl -1970 Datsun 1.6L 510 1,900 lb. -1986 Chrysler 2.5L LeBaron -1995 Chrysler 3.3L Concorde -2001 Chrysler 2.7L V6 Sebring
The improvement in mileage of my last 3 cars over the 1949 Pontiac, which was in first class running condition, is just amazing. The Pontiac was typical of that ERA. Over a 50% improvement on the highway and 60 to 90% improvement in city driving. The biggest city improvement is in winter time. The 1963 Chev II was in the middle of the my larger cars for mileage. The last three mid sized cars give similar mileage to the older small engined ones, but much more consistent on the highway in the winter. The Concorde is still the best I've had on the highway, yes better than the Sebring at 110kmph/70mph. I keep track of all my fuel used and mileage. That sure is easier now that I carry a Palm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Most of us want higher fuel economy. If you build it, it will be sold.
Sure, lots of soccer moms ply the highways and byways of the country in Suburbans and the like, but they would LIKE to have a Suburban that gets better fuel economy. If they have to give up the Suburban to get the economy, they'll pass on the economy. give them the form-factor of a Suburban and better fuel economy, and they will beat the doors down at the dealership to get one.
There is no "forcing" required. All you have to do is build the damn thing and people will buy it. Maybe not everyone, but enough.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on Thursday 04 October 2007 04:23 pm, someone posing as Jeff Strickland took a rock and etched into the cave:

Bingo!
If I have to choose between being cramped up in a subcompact Prius or Accord or Volt vs. being able to not have my heat touch the roof of the truck in a Suburban I'll take the Suburban/Silverado/Yukon/F150/Ram 2500...
...until they make a car/truck that gets the kind of mileage of a Prius but is not a matchbox in size, then I'll keep driving the large cars.
I recently got my dad's '99 Sebring. It is a fun subcompact car, but my goodness it is small! And it only gets about 5 MPG better on the highway than my Avalanche.
--
www.perfectreign.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I already knew that the current (NHW20) Prius was classified as a mid-size but I had to look up the other 3. The Accord and Sebring are both also mid-size and I am not sure about the Volt but if you call mid-size cars subcompacts then what do you consider a true subcompact like a Yaris or Aveo? It would seem that you would probably rank them right up there with a key slot. Along the same lines a full size would be a compact car to you. Assuming all of this is true what would you consider to be a full size car? Perhaps a stretch limo version of either a Crown Victoria or a Delta 88? I am just trying to understand your post better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
on Thursday 04 October 2007 08:44 pm, someone posing as Daniel Who Wants to Know took a rock and etched into the cave:

Bullshit! They're compacts like my old Maxima.

sorry - those are sardine cans. Never trust a car that is shorter than i am tall.

Yeah, that about sums it up.

My Great Aunt had a '77 Lincoln Continental Town Coupe. That was a nice full-size car.
I loved driving it.

Crown Vics are nice cars. The modern versions are a bit small but they'll do. I see several Interceptor models in the parking lot where I work.
--
www.perfectreign.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.