Gas prices are fueling demand for smaller vehicles.

[Alferd Packer]

They could trade-in one of them for a hybrid which gets used when the roads are good, and the remaining Jeep only gets used when the roads are truly crap. Instead of putting 10,000 miles on the Jeep every year, it ends up being maybe 2000 or so a year and the rest of the miles are done by the fuel efficient hybrid.

My wife and I do that. When the weather is bad or we need to haul something, we have my pickup truck. Normally, though, we use her sedan, which is marginally more fuel efficient. Once we get the diesel, though, our daily driver will have triple the fuel economy of my busted old pickup.

[McC]

Do they really need two Jeeps? When my parents retired they went from 2 cars to 1, since my dad doesn't need a car for work anymore they can schedule and share the remaining car.

No, probably not. As it is now, they use the two Jeeps (my mom uses hers for day-to-day errands and the like, my dad for commuting to/from work) exclusively, since they're the most in-shape of the cars they own.

The other two are an early 90s Chrysler LeBaron, formerly owned by my grandmother before she gave up her license and an '84 Toyota Supra, which I bought for my dad a few months back to replace one that he lost to a collision (and had owned since before my birth). Neither of these is an ideal choice as a replacement; the LeBaron isn't in great shape and the Supra is meant to be a hobby car/garage queen, not a workhorse road vehicle.

They could trade-in one of them for a hybrid which gets used when the roads are good, and the remaining Jeep only gets used when the roads are truly crap. Instead of putting 10,000 miles on the Jeep every year, it ends up being maybe 2000 or so a year and the rest of the miles are done by the fuel efficient hybrid.

Yeah, that's a solid idea. My only concern is that the article suggests dealers aren't accepting trade-ins for SUVs. I don't want to see them get screwed, y'know? I'll talk to them about starting to look into this, though. Dad is being cagey about exactly when he's going to retire, but it should be within the year. If it's not, my mom and I may stage an intervention.

[Terralthra]

Also, engine-braking causes over-revving, which goes right back to the engine running faster than it needs to run, ergo fuel wastage (also, additional wear on the clutch and synchros). Brake pads are supposed to be worn down, that's why they're easily and cheaply replaceable.

You should use engine-braking in situations like long downward tracks. If you continue to keep braking when driving down long slopes (like some Alpine pass), your brakes will overheat and they drastically decrease efficiency. Which is kinda bad in those situations...

I agree, but the advice earlier in the thread seemed to advocate downshifting to engine brake in everyday situations, which is just silly. There's no real reason to do so, except to feel like Mario Andretti,

[Chardok]

I found this somewhere - It appears engine braking is fairly efficient...

In a modern vehicle the engine enters an 'over-run' state. That is, the car is moving the engine & NOT the engine moving the car. NO fuel is used. Anybody with a fuel computer that gives an instant display can see that fuel use drops to nil, and I mean NIL.

BUT, as soon as the forward speed & engine/gear is matched it will start to consume fuel.

[His Divine Shadow]

Holy shit! My fuckin' truck gets at least 23 mpg!

Heh my trans am gets around 15-20 mpg...

I've been thinking about ways to save fuel because of this.

Weight-loss is the obvious solution. I hear the carpets, those really weigh the car down and if you get some newer light weight carpet you can save alot of weight. I've also considered getting a fiberglass hood. The AC weighs 50lbs or something thereabouts, I do like my AC and wouldn't want to get rid of though...

I wonder what one could achieve via the ECM, I got a chip programmer and my own chip in the ECM, but I only run stock settings because the old factory chip had gone tits up and I thought better get this one incase I want to tinker.

[SCRawl]

I found this somewhere - It appears engine braking is fairly efficient...

In a modern vehicle the engine enters an 'over-run' state. That is, the car is moving the engine & NOT the engine moving the car. NO fuel is used. Anybody with a fuel computer that gives an instant display can see that fuel use drops to nil, and I mean NIL.

BUT, as soon as the forward speed & engine/gear is matched it will start to consume fuel.

If modern engines can stop consuming even idle-level fuel during engine breaking, then that's some pretty smart engine management. I can conceive of it being possible; after all, if the car's momentum itself is causing the engine to turn, you don't really need fuel for a few seconds. That's pretty slick stuff.

[His Divine Shadow]

I wonder if the Corvette L98 engine does this as well?

[Singular Intellect]

And behold, that warm fuzzy feeling I got buying my hybrid car is even more warm and fuzzy.. Over three hundred kilometers I've put on it and the tank is still almost still full.

Huh?

My little Opel Astra with its 1.4 litre 80 HP engine gets that kind of mileage easily. I was really expecting hybrids to work much better

You're right, I just finished crunching the numbers and according to them I'm only getting about 30 mpg...

Strange, given the vehicle is supposed to be rated at 60 mpg for city driving, and 66 for highway. I'm going to keep a close tab on this for sure...

[Darth Wong]

EPA fuel economy ratings are a joke. They assume driving patterns that are nowhere near realistic (for example, they assume that everyone accelerates and decelerates very gently and slowly, and that people drive at or below speed limits).

[Aorus]

Got any tips for me? I only learned how to drive a manual back in December, and I'm still not set in my ways, so I'm hoping I can learn a few good habits when it comes to shifting. I know how to make it go fast (R is for Race!), but how do I make it go efficient?

Probably the best thing you can do on a standard is drive in the lowest gear possible (i.e. so that the car doesn't stutter). You can also downshift in order to slow down and save your brakes somewhat. Ease up on the clutch slowly when you do this, though, otherwise it can be rather jerky.

Other than that, follow the same guidelines that apply to any car (keep it well maintained, low acceleration/deceleration, etc.)

How does that make sense? In the lowest gear, your engine rpms are higher, so you burn more gas. You're supposed to shift to a higher gear, so your engine rpms drop down.

Right, sorry. I was thinking one thing and wrote the opposite . It should be the highest gear.

[Singular Intellect]

EPA fuel economy ratings are a joke. They assume driving patterns that are nowhere near realistic (for example, they assume that everyone accelerates and decelerates very gently and slowly, and that people drive at or below speed limits).

Yeah, true, I was reading about that.

Plus I'm a new driver to begin with, so I have yet to completely master more efficent driving skills and whatnot.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

EPA fuel economy ratings are a joke. They assume driving patterns that are nowhere near realistic (for example, they assume that everyone accelerates and decelerates very gently and slowly, and that people drive at or below speed limits).

Yeah, true, I was reading about that.

Plus I'm a new driver to begin with, so I have yet to completely master more efficent driving skills and whatnot.

Also, current hybrids are a waste of money because they still connect the engine to the drive train when it's on, which is insanely inefficient. Diesel-electric cars where a mixture of batteries and a small diesel engine which can operate at low power, constant RPMs for long periods of time to recharge the batteries would be the optimal solution, with the electric motors capable of sports-car performance when required, even with a family sedan like a Corolla, though it would drain the battery fast. It's the best of both worlds, though, highly economical and yet capable of extreme acceleration in short periods of time as well as very good high climbing ability due to the nature of electric engines. The current hybrids are a bad joke by comparison.

[Dracofrost]

Also, current hybrids are a waste of money because they still connect the engine to the drive train when it's on, which is insanely inefficient. Diesel-electric cars where a mixture of batteries and a small diesel engine which can operate at low power, constant RPMs for long periods of time to recharge the batteries would be the optimal solution, with the electric motors capable of sports-car performance when required, even with a family sedan like a Corolla, though it would drain the battery fast. It's the best of both worlds, though, highly economical and yet capable of extreme acceleration in short periods of time as well as very good high climbing ability due to the nature of electric engines. The current hybrids are a bad joke by comparison.

Does anybody currently make a diesel-electric hybrid such as you propose? Or is pretty much the only option for getting something like that to make it yourself?

[Ma Deuce]

30 mpg out of a Prius? I suddenly feel better about getting an average of around 24 mpg (20 mpg US) out of my 4,000lb minivan with it's "primitive" 3.4L pushrod V6 .

In regard to the thread, I hear GM is considering on putting a 4-banger in the new Camaro, while making the V8 models prohibitively expensive (they've also said it won't be marketed as a muscle car). Given it will be the same 2.0L, 260hp unit as in the Pontiac Solstice GXP, this 4 banger Camaro shouldn't suck, unlike the last 4-banger Camaro. Heck, there are even rumors of a hybrid Camaro. In contrast, it seems the Challenger will follow in the foootsteps of it's namesake and only be around for a very short time before vanishing, as the Dodge Viper is likely on the chopping block as well.

Fuck you Detriot, I'd say I'd hope the CEO's and executives get the boot, but in age of golden parachutes I hope your workers come to your houses with torches and pitchforks.

Yep, and I guess the substantial cost handicap imposed on American automakers by overpaid, overbeniffited self-entitled Union workers has nothing to do with it with it. Fuck the UAW. You can also blame the government, for still not providing universal healthcare, saddling employers with their workers' health liabilities. All this left Detroit incapable of selling a competitive budget car at a profit. Even though the management was shortsighted about the SUV craze, that would have been a non-issue if that cost handicap didn't exist in the first place.

[Ma Deuce]

Does anybody currently make a diesel-electric hybrid such as you propose? Or is pretty much the only option for getting something like that to make it yourself?

Nope: In fact, no diesel hybrid of any kind is yet in production. The closest planned production car to that idea would be the upcoming Chevrolet Volt, which is supposed to include a diesel among it's engine options.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Also, current hybrids are a waste of money because they still connect the engine to the drive train when it's on, which is insanely inefficient. Diesel-electric cars where a mixture of batteries and a small diesel engine which can operate at low power, constant RPMs for long periods of time to recharge the batteries would be the optimal solution, with the electric motors capable of sports-car performance when required, even with a family sedan like a Corolla, though it would drain the battery fast. It's the best of both worlds, though, highly economical and yet capable of extreme acceleration in short periods of time as well as very good high climbing ability due to the nature of electric engines. The current hybrids are a bad joke by comparison.

Does anybody currently make a diesel-electric hybrid such as you propose? Or is pretty much the only option for getting something like that to make it yourself?

There is one coming out soon apparently, Volkswagen's 69.9-MPG Diesel Hybrid. I'm more interested in their hybrid petrol golf myself, since we really don't need such a large additional car.
What would be really fun, would be an electric car with more range & power than that needed to scootch from one street in London to another. The technology does exist, but I suppose manufacturers won't risk it until they see more infrastructure. At least there are plans for an electric, mass produced car and infrastructure to be bought here to the Oil-well that is ISrael

[Enigma]

I got a 1.6 Astra myself and I get 525 kilometers out of one tank, or there abouts, I gas up every week around 40 liters and I got a 50 liter tank, so thats around 7.6 liters per 100km. I want to get an Auris though, or Yaris diesel that do around 4 liters per 100 instead.

With a 1.4, I get 600-650 kilometers out of a single tank, so it's slightly better. We actually wanted to get a diesel, but our budget was limited at that point.

Just FYI for Americans, I spend about 75 dollars a week for gas and drive between 500-600 kilometers on that.

I drive a 2001 Nissan Sentra GXE 1.8L and I spend about the same as you but I get 800km.

[Sea Skimmer]

Also, current hybrids are a waste of money because they still connect the engine to the drive train when it's on, which is insanely inefficient.

That isn’t really true. Going to an all electric power train would mean a more dead weight in the vehicle, and much of that dead weight would be made up of some pretty expensive and energy intensive to refine metals like nickel. The advantage of more battery capacity is limited, since those hundreds of pounds of batteries already aren’t even close to fully utilized, they can’t be or else they wouldn’t last long enough for the cars to be economically viable in any way. It’s pretty standard for the batteries to cycle only between 40-70-% charge.

What’s more, when operating in a highway cruise the efficiency of a purely electrical powetrain would actually be worse. Existing hybrids are able to recycle maybe 15-20% of the drivetrain energy back into the batteries, so unless you can greatly improve upon that going all electric is a waste. A more realistic place for improvement is to start using more eight speed transmissions, and to work harder on reliable continuously variable transmissions so you can retain the efficiency of a direct mechanical engine-wheel connection while also having the efficiency advantage of running the engine at near optimal RPM. Also we do want enough electrical capability to be able to make short trips on battery power alone, to be replenished via a plug in capability.

We also have a shit load of materials and engine design technology (how do plastic engine blocks sound? They've already been tested) coming out that should help reduce vehicle weight and allow internal combustion engines to run with greater basic efficiency under any condition of loading and engine speed. Course it’s all going to add to costs upfront.

[Qwerty 42]

Got any tips for me? I only learned how to drive a manual back in December, and I'm still not set in my ways, so I'm hoping I can learn a few good habits when it comes to shifting. I know how to make it go fast (R is for Race!), but how do I make it go efficient?

The only real way is practice. The habits which make the car bounce about less are also more efficient. Some tips I picked up when I was learning recently:

1. If you have a tach, shift when it hits about 2.5k RPMs per minute. I don't know how true that actually is, but he's a decent hand at a stick and I don't have a tach to check.

2. If you have a shift indicator like I do, it tells you when to shift based on when it's most fuel efficient. Of course, there are times when this isn't strictly practical (5th gear at 35 mph? No, sorry, it doesn't happen.)

[Qwerty 42]

fake edit: RPMs per minute is redundant, my bad.

[Sea Skimmer]

1. If you have a tach, shift when it hits about 2.5k RPMs per minute. I don't know how true that actually is, but he's a decent hand at a stick and I don't have a tach to check.

That depends entirely on your engine, 2,500rpm would be too high for some engines, too low for others, and to an extent how much load the engine is under (basically are you driving uphill with lots of shit in the back or not) matters as well. Under heavy load you want to shift at higher rpms. Wiring up your own tach from a 30 dollar kit is pretty easy BTW.

2. If you have a shift indicator like I do, it tells you when to shift based on when it's most fuel efficient. Of course, there are times when this isn't strictly practical (5th gear at 35 mph? No, sorry, it doesn't happen.)

A lot of shift lights are of dubious value, as you’ve learned, especially on older cars in which they are more of an idiot light then a serious tool. However not only can you wire up your own tach, you can easily get kits which also include a shift light and the ability to set your own shift points for that light. Course, they’ll cost a bit more then the 30 bucks of a basic kit.

[Qwerty 42]

1. If you have a tach, shift when it hits about 2.5k RPMs per minute. I don't know how true that actually is, but he's a decent hand at a stick and I don't have a tach to check.

That depends entirely on your engine, 2,500rpm would be too high for some engines, too low for others, and to an extent how much load the engine is under (basically are you driving uphill with lots of shit in the back or not) matters as well. Under heavy load you want to shift at higher rpms. Wiring up your own tach from a 30 dollar kit is pretty easy BTW.

2. If you have a shift indicator like I do, it tells you when to shift based on when it's most fuel efficient. Of course, there are times when this isn't strictly practical (5th gear at 35 mph? No, sorry, it doesn't happen.)

A lot of shift lights are of dubious value, as you’ve learned, especially on older cars in which they are more of an idiot light then a serious tool. However not only can you wire up your own tach, you can easily get kits which also include a shift light and the ability to set your own shift points for that light. Course, they’ll cost a bit more then the 30 bucks of a basic kit.

Interesting, thank you.