OT - personal choices - SUV and gas consumption

[Jim Becker]

Pete, I'd really like to see the auto engine shut down feature put on all vehicles...that alone would save some meaningful fuel. It just plain makes sense as so much fuel is burned sitting at lights and stop signs, especially for left turns. (One reason a major delivery service optimized their routes to favor right turns as much as possible)

[Bart Leetch]

I bought an 08 Buick Enclave in August 07 and opted for FWD vs AWD because the FWD was advertised to get 2 mpg better on the highway (22 vs. 24).

In real life I'm eking out 25-26mpg if I drive like granny on the freeway. For a 5000lb vehicle hauling four folks and their gear, I think 25mpg is remarkable.

We have the Enclave for hauling people and an Avalance for hauling stuff. Were not changing anything except to be more cautious about frivolous trips that can be combined into one.

Scott this is interesting in that Dad got 28 MPG in 1955 with a 1953 Willies car with a F head 6 cylinder motor half of the valves in the head the other half in the block)with 4 people & all their luggage going to Vancouver Canada from Vancouver Washington & back.

[Pete Simmons]

Yes, quick, easy and efficient engine shutdown and restart on all new cars would save huge amounts of fuel.

But - It would take some changes. Today's battery and starter system could never withstand the constant use and charging systems would need a boost to keep up with power draw.

[Jim Becker]

Well...I agree with you, Pete, but it's got to be doable since it's working great on the Toyota and Honda hybrids. (and I have to assume at least the Ford, too, since that's derived from Toyota's earlier design as far as I know) The investment/cost differential would still be a lot less than a full hybrid and reduce both fuel consumption and emissions.

[Bart Leetch]

Well...I agree with you, Pete, but it's got to be doable since it's working great on the Toyota and Honda hybrids. (and I have to assume at least the Ford, too, since that's derived from Toyota's earlier design as far as I know) The investment/cost differential would still be a lot less than a full hybrid and reduce both fuel consumption and emissions.

Interesting idea,but what happens if you see your going to get rear ended & need to punch it & get out of the way? I ask this because this is exactly what happened to my mother. She saw it coming & saw that the way was clear & punched her gas peddle & jumped across the intersection.

[Walt Nicholson]

Having been around the car business all my life I have seen some of this before back in the 70's. Before making any rash decisions about dumping what you have and buying small it is really important to do the math first.
The national average for driving is 15,000 miles per year. If your SUV or truck averages (overall in and out of town) only 15 mpg you'll use 1,000 gallons of fuel. At $4.00 per that's $4000. If you buy something that gets double the mileage and averages 30 overall. (there are a few that will do that but not as many as you think despite all the claims) the math says you will spend $2,000 for fuel. Now consider that you will get 3 to 8 thousand less for your trade than normal (it's a gas guzzler remember) and usually pay sticker or over for the "economy" car because of the great demand right now. That 5 to 9 thousand dollar "premium" to make the trade will take you 2 to 5 years of gas saving just to break even before you start "saving" money. Now factor in what comfort, room for the family, friends, ability to "haul butt" if you want to and see what that is worth to you after you reach your "break even" point. Assuming you don't get tired of being cramped, underpowered, etc. and trade the thing sooner. None of the above factors in the "save the planet, sky is falling, global warming panic but is just basic economics.

[Travis Rassat]

Well...I agree with you, Pete, but it's got to be doable since it's working great on the Toyota and Honda hybrids. (and I have to assume at least the Ford, too, since that's derived from Toyota's earlier design as far as I know) The investment/cost differential would still be a lot less than a full hybrid and reduce both fuel consumption and emissions.

Jim and Pete,

If I'm not mistaken, you are describing the Belt-Alternator-Starter system being used on the Saturn Vue, Saturn Aura, and Chevy Malibu mild hybrids. When my wife and I bought our Camry Hybrid about a year and half ago, I was skeptical of this system thinking it wasn't adding enough value. I've since changed my mind on it, especially considering generation 2 is coming out:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/03...-hybrid-syste/

I think the beauty is how easily it can be adapted to an existing vehicle design. It's probably a bit of a stop-gap technology, but as slowly as the automotive industry is moving on hybrids (probably more because of battery tech than anything), it could serve a useful purpose for quite some time. I believe this concept is being considered by BMW and Mercedes, as well as a few others.

[Dennis Peacock]

What I'd like to see is a way to "tele-transport" so I can go and visit all my Creeker Friends without spending any money on fuel cost.

[Glenn Clabo]

What I'd like to see is a way to "tele-transport" so I can go and visit all my Creeker Friends without spending any money on fuel cost.

Aye Captain...me thinks the Transporter has malfunctioned. The bibs are here...but there's no Dennis!!

[Bruce Benjamin]

Having been around the car business all my life I have seen some of this before back in the 70's. Before making any rash decisions about dumping what you have and buying small it is really important to do the math first.
The national average for driving is 15,000 miles per year. If your SUV or truck averages (overall in and out of town) only 15 mpg you'll use 1,000 gallons of fuel. At $4.00 per that's $4000. If you buy something that gets double the mileage and averages 30 overall. (there are a few that will do that but not as many as you think despite all the claims) the math says you will spend $2,000 for fuel. Now consider that you will get 3 to 8 thousand less for your trade than normal (it's a gas guzzler remember) and usually pay sticker or over for the "economy" car because of the great demand right now. That 5 to 9 thousand dollar "premium" to make the trade will take you 2 to 5 years of gas saving just to break even before you start "saving" money. Now factor in what comfort, room for the family, friends, ability to "haul butt" if you want to and see what that is worth to you after you reach your "break even" point. Assuming you don't get tired of being cramped, underpowered, etc. and trade the thing sooner. None of the above factors in the "save the planet, sky is falling, global warming panic but is just basic economics.

Walt, I agree with you on this but there's more... Unless the gas-guzzler was ancient and worn out and you needed to buy a new car anyway, it doesn't necessarily save you money to buy a new car. Even then, sometimes it's cheaper to fix up an older car than buy a new one. However, some people want to buy new because they think they are going to save the planet or save the U.S. economy buy burning less gas. Well, that may or may not happen, (I suspect not). But another reason to keep the gas-guzzler is that it takes a lot of energy and raw materials to get that new car. It takes energy to mine the raw materials or recycle the same materials. It takes energy to transport and process those materials. It takes energy to transport the processed materials. It takes energy to build the parts, transport the parts, assemble the parts, and transport the assembled cars. I have no way of knowing what the net energy savings is when you compare the energy used by the old but reliable car versus the combined energy consumption required to get the new more fuel efficient car into your driveway. But it isn't as much as those people who paid a premium for their new Prius pretend it is.

Another thing is what happens to your old gas-guzzler when you sell it? If it is still a reliable car/truck then it's going to be sold to someone else. It's still going to be driven and it's still going to use a lot of fuel and produce more pollution. If you don't crush it then you're just passing on the problem, not eliminating it.

The green tree huggers are not only whining about saving energy and reducing pollution but they are also whining about not mining our other resources and not just throwing everything away. Buying a new car that's fuel efficient isn't quite as fuel efficient and clean as some people think.

Bruce

[Lee DeRaud]

Well...I agree with you, Pete, but it's got to be doable since it's working great on the Toyota and Honda hybrids. (and I have to assume at least the Ford, too, since that's derived from Toyota's earlier design as far as I know) The investment/cost differential would still be a lot less than a full hybrid and reduce both fuel consumption and emissions.

It works fine on a hybrid because you've already got the battery "infrastructure" in place: a single 12V lead-acid battery isn't gonna cut it. Another issue in non-hybrids is keeping things like the A/C and lights going under stop-and-go conditions: I for one would not want want to be stuck in midsummer rush-hour in some place like Dallas with an engine that was only turning the A/C compressor when the car was moving.

I read an article awhile back (IEEE Spectrum magazine IIRC) where several companies were working on a complete rework of automotive electrical systems, something in the 45V range, so they could start powering major subsystems (power steering, A/C) electrically on conventional non-hybrid drivetrains. Don't know the current status though...I think BMW was one of them.

[JohnT Fitzgerald]

Having been around the car business all my life I have seen some of this before back in the 70's. Before making any rash decisions about dumping what you have and buying small it is really important to do the math first.
The national average for driving is 15,000 miles per year. If your SUV or truck averages (overall in and out of town) only 15 mpg you'll use 1,000 gallons of fuel. At $4.00 per that's $4000. If you buy something that gets double the mileage and averages 30 overall. (there are a few that will do that but not as many as you think despite all the claims) the math says you will spend $2,000 for fuel. Now consider that you will get 3 to 8 thousand less for your trade than normal (it's a gas guzzler remember) and usually pay sticker or over for the "economy" car because of the great demand right now. That 5 to 9 thousand dollar "premium" to make the trade will take you 2 to 5 years of gas saving just to break even before you start "saving" money. Now factor in what comfort, room for the family, friends, ability to "haul butt" if you want to and see what that is worth to you after you reach your "break even" point. Assuming you don't get tired of being cramped, underpowered, etc. and trade the thing sooner. None of the above factors in the "save the planet, sky is falling, global warming panic but is just basic economics.

OK, this is totally surreal....I used this EXACT example with a coworker the other day - the same numbers, everything. actually, I think I had a $2500 'ding' on your trade instead of 3K-8K, but otherwise - MPG, miles driven, premium for a new car...

spooky.

[Bruce Benjamin]

It works fine on a hybrid because you've already got the battery "infrastructure" in place: a single 12V lead-acid battery isn't gonna cut it. Another issue in non-hybrids is keeping things like the A/C and lights going under stop-and-go conditions: I for one would not want want to be stuck in midsummer rush-hour in some place like Dallas with an engine that was only turning the A/C compressor when the car was moving.

I read an article awhile back (IEEE Spectrum magazine IIRC) where several companies were working on a complete rework of automotive electrical systems, something in the 45V range, so they could start powering major subsystems (power steering, A/C) electrically on conventional non-hybrid drivetrains. Don't know the current status though...I think BMW was one of them.

Sort of along this line of thinking, what happens to the power brakes of one of the hybrids when the car shuts off at a stop? San Francisco has some seriously steep hills. I don't live there but I have lived near there and I still travel there sometimes. I know that even properly functioning brakes can be tested on some of those hills. I'm wondering how many cars go flying backwards or forwards down a hill when the engine shuts off at a stop. Even if the brakes hold initially, if the driver happens to release the brakes even momentarily they lose their hold. Maybe those types of hybrids have a different braking system.

Bruce

[Glenn Clabo]

Bruce,
They have an electro-hydraulic system...for brakes and power steering.

[Jerome Hanby]

I wonder how well a solid state cooling device would work to keep the air cool while you were stopped without the engine running...