You haul all that wieght and a trailer everyday to and from work, to and from the grocery store Ect ?
Read this interesting bit of info
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Gas mileage and ignorance
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You haul all that wieght and a trailer everyday to and from work, to and from the grocery store Ect ?
Read this interesting bit of info
Syringer... you definitely have a point. A LOT of people are up-in-arms about this. The problem in this country is the lack of other alternatives--and public transit. Keeping down on the number of miles you drive is a MUCH bigger help to lowering gas consumption (unless you drive a highly efficient car--I get twice the gas mileage in my Civic that my dad gets in his Durango). Or, another solution is to have two cars.... which my parents are doing. A more efficent car for daily commutes and a truck to haul things around when needed.
If I was going to throw ANY stones at SUVs it would be more likely that I would attack the fact that they block everyone's sightlines in traffic--including other SUVs. Especially ones with really dark windows.
The crashworthiness thing is something else, as well--body-on-frame design is highly dangerous to occupants of BOTH vehicles (it basically makes the car more "rigid" in a crash--which means more energy is carried into the passenger compartment). But things about crashworthness can be done--like making a frame that doesn't extend to both ends of the vehicle, and attaching bumpers to subframes with crumple zones.
And people, take your trailer hitches out when you're not using them!!! its usually one pin and it comes right out! You're asking for damage to both cars if you're in a wreck--its attached directly to the frame (I can't count the number of people who have been hit in the trailer hitch and have bent their frames, basically totaling their car). With the hitch out, someone is MUCH more likely to hit the bumper, and save yourself a LOT of grief.
If I was going to throw ANY stones at SUVs it would be more likely that I would attack the fact that they block everyone's sightlines in traffic--including other SUVs. Especially ones with really dark windows.
The crashworthiness thing is something else, as well--body-on-frame design is highly dangerous to occupants of BOTH vehicles (it basically makes the car more "rigid" in a crash--which means more energy is carried into the passenger compartment). But things about crashworthness can be done--like making a frame that doesn't extend to both ends of the vehicle, and attaching bumpers to subframes with crumple zones.
And people, take your trailer hitches out when you're not using them!!! its usually one pin and it comes right out! You're asking for damage to both cars if you're in a wreck--its attached directly to the frame (I can't count the number of people who have been hit in the trailer hitch and have bent their frames, basically totaling their car). With the hitch out, someone is MUCH more likely to hit the bumper, and save yourself a LOT of grief.
JDub02
Diamond Member
The funny thing about it is that these people don't even come close to practicing what they preach ... just like most liberals. Did you happen to catch the person campaigning to end SUV's that was on Fox News a couple of months back? That person drove a Mercedes .. not exactly an economy vehicle. Ol' Teddy Kennedy flies around in a private jet ... not like that's helping out the environment.
Kind of like the gun control issue. Rosie doesn't think we should have guns, but she has armed bodyguards .. go figure.
Electric Amish
Elite Member
Driving surface roads most of the time my Probe GT gets ~ 300-320 miles per average fillup of 12gal. That's around 25mgp. I can get over 30mpg on the freeway. 🙂
amish
amish
JDub02
Diamond Member
Nope, but the capability is there when I need it. Besides, work is only 3 miles away and the grocery store is a mile. I burn less gas than the guy driving a Hyundai 40 miles to work. 😛
If I could afford multiple vehicles, I would buy a TDI Jetta for any long trips, but unless you want to help the environment by buying me one, I still think liberty and freedom to drive what we want are the best solutions. 🙂
vi_edit... that's usually due to gearing... which is VWs fault. Most likely, if you had another gear, your mileage would probably stay nearly the same (given that you have the power to pull at that gear). The mileage on my civic starts slowly dropping above 70mph.... but I'm betting with a sixth gear, one could "delay" this onset.
StageLeft
No Lifer
You want bad gas mileage get a subaru. My mother had an auto 2000 Impreza with a whopping 145 HP. That thing got low 20's city and highway combined (and this was over many months of testing). Man what a slut it was. It got worse gas mileage than my maxima which not only outweighs it but has a bunch more horsepower too.
AWD is bad bad for gas mileage it would seem.
AWD is bad bad for gas mileage it would seem.
Yeah... it depends, though. Sometimes, designers will make the new fifth gear nearly equivalent to the old "fourth" and make a "close-ratio" gearbox (surely you've heard of this jargon). While its GREAT for performance (theoretically a CVT is ideal to "keep you in the power band"), it doesn't help much for gas mileage. Now if they just tacked on a 5th gear that's taller than the previous 4th, basically, your engine would turn slower for the same speed of the wheels--meaning: less gas consumed. However, this gear would solely be a "highway gear" (the Corvettes have one to keep their EPA numbers decent--except for the Z06)..... it wouldn't do much good in town. 🙂
desertdweller
Senior member
The Dodge trucks are known to have the worst fuel economy. I was originally going to get a Dodge when I bought my
truck, but got the Ford because I got an exceptional deal on it. (my bother was the salesman)
I fill up the tank about once every two weeks, its usually costs between $25 and $30 to fill up.
My other car is a Dodge Stratus with a 2.4L 4 banger.
One of the big things that people don't realize is that how the vehicle is driven can make a huge
difference in how much fuel it uses.
DD
In high school I was the proud owner of an '81 Mustang that got 14 mpg coasting downhill - good thing I only lived about 10 miles from the school. Now i drive a car with the combination of a small engine and a turbocharger (91 Probe GT). I can average 35 mpg along I-5 coming down the west coast but if I want the acceleration the turbocharger adds plenty of pep. Of course i won't mention that cars with turbochargers are also cars that have the possibility of needing turbocharger maintanence and repairs.
In the end the economic aspects boil down to a matter of consumer preference. If a consumer feels that they have greater utility out of being able to carry 7 people in their vehicle compared to having another $200-300 a year they will prefer the SUV. The only reason that the issue of SUV's should be up for a debate is in regards to safety. If you want to burn a couple thousands of gasoline per day in a big barrel in your driveway then that's your option living in a capitalistic society, provided you can pay for it.
Edit to respond to desertdweller's:
My probe has a dash panel with instantaneous and longterm mile per gallon information displayed- It's really shocking to watch myself getting 65 mpg coasting down a hill and then 5 mpg while accelerating after a stop sign. I'm always tempted to see if I can go a tank of gas at 40 mpg+ but the real world always interferes and I need to be someplace 10 minutes away in 5 minutes.
In the end the economic aspects boil down to a matter of consumer preference. If a consumer feels that they have greater utility out of being able to carry 7 people in their vehicle compared to having another $200-300 a year they will prefer the SUV. The only reason that the issue of SUV's should be up for a debate is in regards to safety. If you want to burn a couple thousands of gasoline per day in a big barrel in your driveway then that's your option living in a capitalistic society, provided you can pay for it.
Edit to respond to desertdweller's:
My probe has a dash panel with instantaneous and longterm mile per gallon information displayed- It's really shocking to watch myself getting 65 mpg coasting down a hill and then 5 mpg while accelerating after a stop sign. I'm always tempted to see if I can go a tank of gas at 40 mpg+ but the real world always interferes and I need to be someplace 10 minutes away in 5 minutes.
There are several factors that makes SUVs burn more gas, and a larger tank isn't one of them. The one obvious factor is the body size/weight compared to the average sedan. The bigger the car is the more the engine has to work to displace the car, so it will burn more fuel per mile compared to a relatively lighter sedan. The larger engines typically found in SUVs will also burn more gas, and even though the engine size on some SUVs are similar to some sedans, another big factor to consider is the torque per pound. Sedans have transmissions that make more efficient use of torque at low RPMs, something that SUVs certainly don't do, with probably the exception of the smaller SUVs like the Rav4 or the Santa Fe.
The way you drive a SUV also has a big effect on how much gas it will burn. If you love to engage the over-drive every time you want to cut someone off or out-run someone on the highway, the engine will chug that gas right up like you wouldn't believe. I have a truck that does decent gas mileage for it's size, but even so many sedans do a lot better.
Many anti-SUV advocates claim that SUVs are the unsafest vehicles in the market these days citing their inability to prevent rollovers or their gas consumption that will dry out the oil wells a lot quicker, yada yada yada. Personally, I love my SUV. I feel safe in it, it handles very well for it's class, it drives through the snow much better than any sedan could, and if I don't abuse the engine it renders very decent gas mileage. Some folks need to educate themselves about the vehicles they choose to buy. It all comes down to outright ignorance.
The way you drive a SUV also has a big effect on how much gas it will burn. If you love to engage the over-drive every time you want to cut someone off or out-run someone on the highway, the engine will chug that gas right up like you wouldn't believe. I have a truck that does decent gas mileage for it's size, but even so many sedans do a lot better.
Many anti-SUV advocates claim that SUVs are the unsafest vehicles in the market these days citing their inability to prevent rollovers or their gas consumption that will dry out the oil wells a lot quicker, yada yada yada. Personally, I love my SUV. I feel safe in it, it handles very well for it's class, it drives through the snow much better than any sedan could, and if I don't abuse the engine it renders very decent gas mileage. Some folks need to educate themselves about the vehicles they choose to buy. It all comes down to outright ignorance.
Pepsi90919
Lifer
well at least it has one good benefit...
imported_Tomato
Diamond Member
My gas light went on yesterday, so I pulled into a Shell and it cost $26 to fill up my little Honda Civic.
I waited in line behind a guy with a monster truck, and his total came to $60.50 for one tank of gas. :Q:Q:Q
I waited in line behind a guy with a monster truck, and his total came to $60.50 for one tank of gas. :Q:Q:Q
Pepsi90919
Lifer
in the summer i can get about 30 mpg in my honda civic which sees mostly city driving.
i drive about 1700 km a week, so 1700x52 = 88400 km, or 55250 miles/yr.
pizza driver 😉
i drive about 1700 km a week, so 1700x52 = 88400 km, or 55250 miles/yr.
pizza driver 😉
thank you cpt. obvious. if you want to do even more case studies go to fuel economy.gov
let me summarize your post. gasoline is a cheap commodity, therefore it's use is not a primary deciding factor when purchasing a vehicle.
for EPA autoemissions go here
let me summarize your post. gasoline is a cheap commodity, therefore it's use is not a primary deciding factor when purchasing a vehicle.
for EPA autoemissions go here
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
