Clackety valves

According to the API web site, oils labeled as "energy conserving" have passed the test that measures an oil's ability to conserve energy when compared with a reference oil in an engine test.

I don't think viscosity is linked to energy conserving.

Reply to
Ray O
Loading thread data ...

snipped-for-privacy@wt.net wrote : ...

So it begs back to the question of what constitutes "energy saving" and what does it entail in actual MPG?

Government standards for things can often be ludicrous, for example "Energy Star", which as John Stossel pointed out, is meaningless. ( see video of his show on that )

Reply to
Jane_Galt

This is reminding me of all the latest greatest Rx drugs that the doctors always recommend, then we see the attorneys and the class action lawsuits after them a few years later.

Reply to
Jane_Galt

Well 5 percent of 40 is 2.. So if a car did 40 mpg with regular oil, and switched to energy saving and had a 5 percent increase in mileage, they would see about 2 more mpg.

Which is also probably fairly close to what you get using low rolling resistance tires vs standard resistance tires.

So the combination of the two might get you an extra 3-4 mpg. What mpg does your Corolla get at 65 mph? My 05 is probably slightly bigger and heavier than your 02, and with the ES oil and LRR tires I get 43 mpg at 65 mph. I do also have the variable valve timing which will help a bit too.. I don't know if the 02 1.8 L engine had that or not.. I wouldn't be half surprised if you did about 4 mpg less than mine which has all that mess..

I've got to get tires soon, and have been racking my brain trying to decide what to get. I can get Fisk Classics fairly cheap.. Those are made for Discount tire by Michelin. Those are not low rolling resistance, but some of the reviews say they seem to be fairly low resistance judging from the mpg some of the people get when they changed. But right now the Goodyear Integrity is on sale, which was the factory tire, and is low rolling resistance. I've had pretty good luck with the original set, although the rain performance is nothing to write home about. But I'm leaning to getting those just to reduce the chance of a large gas mileage drop when I change, and eventually equal what I have. "New tires always have higher resistance than ones that have worn down.." In the last few months the Integrity's have been going for

95 to 100 bucks a tire average. But right now they are on sale for 75 a tire.. The Fisk Classics are 58 a tire.. So I'm leaning to paying the extra $17 a tire and getting the Goodyears. They should pay for themselves and then some over the life of the tire.. I *really* would rather get the Goodyear Assurance Fuel Max tires, but they are $96 a tire right now. That would cost me about 90 bucks more per set.. So I think I'm going to go with the Integrity's again as I'm trying to save a little money, but really want LRR again.. Many people hate those in the reviews, but like I say, I really haven't had much problem with them.. I don't drive like speed racer or anything... And new ones are going to be much better in the rain than my old wore out ones..
Reply to
nm5k

True. The latest and greatest chemical or drug is often not better than the old tried and true chemical or drug. In fact, I think a good doctor used only a few drugs regularly so that he is much more aware of the side effects. And uses only the newer drugs when there is a specific reason why the older drugs shouldn't be used.

Jeff

Reply to
dr_jeff

No cost effective - the cost a fortune. Like $650 a set ( Costco ) vs $300 a set?

I dont always drive at 65, mixed city and highway driving here with the hilly terrain of the Denver area. The '93 averages 28 and the '02 averages

31 MPG, with the AC on. About 2 mpg more in winter without it.

Academic here, I'm afraid.

Havent even heard of that yet. The computer plays the timing?

I guess the real advances in MPG will only be made when the designers try harder than they do now. Maybe if they develop bucky ball technology that can replace all the steel in the engine, the frame and the body?

Reply to
Jane_Galt

Where did you get that idea? It depends on what class of tire you buy, but often the price is no more than regular tires. I just mentioned in the post you just read that I can get a set of Goodyear Integrity's for 75 a tire.. That's $300 before mounting fee's taxes, etc.. And those are low rolling resistance. That's only $17 a tire higher than the cheapest tire they sell, which is the Fisk Classic. The Assurance Fuel Max is $20 less than the Assurance Comfortread which are not LRR..

I don't do 65 all the time either, but I have to give a speed for a certain mpg number or it's useless.. But I guess I made my point. I probably average in the mid to upper 30's, counting city driving. It's not hilly here, but it is where my place in Oklahoma is.. I do pretty well there too.. Your 02 is doing better than the 93 with it's older technology, and my 05 is doing a bit better than your 02 with it's technology.

Yep. Mine adjusts the timing to match the driving needs. That helps the mileage on the highway. And helps the pickup in the city.. etc..

I'm afraid about the only real way to do much better than they are now with a gas engine would be to use a lighter car, and a smaller engine.. :/ Better off getting a diesel if you really want the mpg and not drive an ultra small vehicle with a three cylinder engine..

Reply to
nm5k

Actually the 93 is a wagon and weighs more.

Reply to
Jane_Galt

Bucky balls.

Reply to
Jane_Galt

It still might not weigh more being Corollas were smaller back then.. But no real matter.. BTW, when I state that I get 43 mpg at 65 mph, that's with the car totally loaded with camping gear, lawn mower, chain saws, guns, etc.So I'm not talking about an empty car.

Well, I bought new tires today, but they had to order them and should get them installed tomorrow. Got a good deal.. $320 for four Goodyear Integrity's including balance and mounting and tax. So if you count $60 for mounting and balance which is the usual rate, I got them for $65 a tire including tax. Discount went from $75 to $77+tax for that tire today, so I saved $84 over today's Discount Tire price.. :) Those are low rolling resistance tires, and the same as what came on the car from the factory. I bought them from a smaller one owner, one shop tire store. It pays to shop around.

Reply to
nm5k

1993 Corolla Wagon curb weight = 2,403 lbs 2002 Corolla CE Sedan curb weight = 2,410 lbs, 7 lbs more than the 1993 Wagon 2002 Corolla S Sedan curb weight = 2,405 lbs, 2 lbs more than the 1993 Wagon 2002 Corolla LE Sedan curb weight = 2,445 lbs, 42 lbs more than the 1993 wagon
Reply to
Ray O

According to 11/2002 Motor magazine

formatting link
oils certified as "Energy Conserving" give at least 0.5% better gas mileage than other oils, but I think the standard has different requirements for different viscosities. The earlier API certification for this required a 1.5% improvement for Energy Conserving I and a 2.7% improvement for Energy Conserving II, but that standard is obsolete. In the 1970s, Exxon and ARCO brought out oils they claimed would save

4-4.5% over conventional oils available at the time (Popular Science, 5/1978). That Exxon oil contained moly, but several years ago Exxon said they quit putting moly in its motor oils for gasoline cars & trucks..

Don't trust John Stossel or other extremist kooks on the left or right. He's right about Energy Star being invalid for dishwashers with dirtiness sensors because the government test uses clean dishes, but for most other kitchen appliances and air conditioners, Energy Star is valid, and I believe Consumer Reports (a critic of the dishwasher test) uses the government's energy ratings for refrigerators and freezers. Stossel is also a hypocrite and took government welfare even after he became rich and had been riling against handouts, and in his reports he made some major factual errors, as would be expected of a reporter who's ignorant of math & science.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

You're talking about the auto business, one of the least progressive industries in the world and one that's far less daring and invests a far smaller proportion of its revenue than the chip and biotech industries do. The vast majority of new technolgoy put into cars has been due to government regulations or fear of them. Do you really think all cars would have computers, fuel injection, and really good ignition systems now if there were no smog or safety laws? Fuel economy has improved since WWII only because of government fuel economy standards or higher fuel costs. The federal government should have gradually raised fuel economy standards since they were first imposed them in 1975, but instead they were virtually frozen for two decades, resulting in average MPG, after making a dramatic improvement in the first 5-10 years, stayed about flat.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

A few years, I saw some Unocal 20W-50 or 10W-40 oil at the 99-cent store and noticed that it was rated SF (when almost all oil was SH or SJ) and wasn't rated Energy Conserving. I asked Unocal, and they said the viscosity was too high for the oil to have that rating.

Reply to
larry moe 'n curly

That's true. Because they only consider 30 weight and thinner as being able to qualify as energy conserving. 40 or 50 doesn't qualify. But just because an oil is 30 weight or thinner doesn't mean it automatically qualifies as energy conserving. So as far as 30 weight and thinner, viscosity alone isn't linked to energy conserving. But it is one of the requirements of the base oil they begin with.

Reply to
nm5k

The best way to improve fuel economy is to raise fuel prices.

Reply to
dr_jeff

I dont think they were. I can see them side by side in the driveway and the wagon is bigger. same 1.8L engine, but the 02 is redesigned.

I cant figure what the point is of redesigning them and making them more complicated and harder to repair, when they wind up getting pretty much the same MPG anyway.

Well humph. :)

I guess. I used to think Costco was a good deal. Then they started charging for swapping the snow tires, so it's WAY not such a good deal anymore.

Reply to
Jane_Galt

We have the LE. Hmm. I think the 02 gets like 2-3 MPG better but am not totally sure.

Reply to
Jane_Galt

They have lower emissions. And better fuel economy. The '93 is rated at

32 mpg highway, and the 02 37 mpg highway. And the newer cars are more reliable.

Gee, that's a strong statement.

Oh, gee, what a shame. Charging you when they have to pay their technicians for something. Guess what, they don't work for free.

Reply to
dr_jeff

It's actually the other way around on many.. In many ways they are becoming less complicated and easier to work on. The car I had before the 05 Corolla was a 89 Honda Accord. It was actually smaller than the Corolla. Sat a lot lower and had a 2.0 L vs the 1.8 L. But it got probably 8-10 less mpg than the Corolla. I averaged about 27 mpg with a city/highway mix. The 89 Accord was more complicated than the 05 Corolla. It had a feedback carb, and about 129 vacuum lines. :/ Working on that car was like going in for a root canal. Access was hard to almost anything. Just changing the starter was a PIA.. Hardly any room, so when you unbolted it, you then had to snake it through pipes to the other side to get it out. It was a good car, but I hated working on that thing. :(

In comparison, the 05 Corolla should be a relative breeze to work on. Under the hood is much less cluttered, few vacuum lines, no plug wires, distributor ,etc.. No goofy feedback carb. The Honda had a timing belt which needed to be regularly changed. The newer Corolla has a timing chain which does not require regular service. I've never had to work on it yet because so far nothing has broke, but from looking at them, I'd rather work on the newer Corolla any day. I'll also take it's 8-10 mpg mileage increase. It's coming up on 60k miles, so I'll probably give it a good going over, and likely should change the serpentine belt on it just to avoid future problems. If I do, that will be the first time I'd actually had to do any real work on it besides changing the oil.

Reply to
nm5k

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.