EU Car Makers Manipulating Fuel Efficiency Figures 431
pev writes with a report in The Guardian that "European car manufacturers are rigging fuel efficiency tests by stripping down car interiors, over inflating tyres, taping over panel gaps and generally cheating. This overestimates the figures by 25% to 50%. One would have thought that a simple clause stating that cars have to be tested in the conditions that they are sold in would have been obvious?"
Shocking (Score:2)
I'm shocked - I had always taken it as read that the figures were very optimistic and now this is considered news.
Re: (Score:2)
I always thought they did it on a rolling road where none of that would make any difference.
Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)
Optimistic? I think the word you meant was 'bullshit'. There is a difference between something that may be possible under 100% perfect conditions (yet nearly 100% unlikely in real-world conditions)... and something that has been completely rigged in such ways that even in perfect theoretical conditions it is impossible for the car, unmodified and straight from the factory, to ever come close to such manipulated stats.
This is worse than controlled, theoretical lab tests... this is downright crooked. There is absolutely nothing 'optimistic' about it. This is fraud.
Slow news day? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Slow news day? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of the cars I've driven could meet or exceed the MPG specs.
My '98 Saab 900 SET Convertible did 25-28MPG on my mostly highway commute right up to 208K miles. That's winning.
My '95 Explorer was hitting 17-19MPG on the same commute, at 318k miles. Winning.
My 2004 Mitsubishi Lancer OZ Rally is hitting 27-31MPG, same commute, 212K miles. Winning.
My wife is driving the 2000 Explorer V8 at 143K miles, and is getting 16-18MPG. Not so winning, but not bad.
Her commute and mine are similar; relatively quick in the morning, stop and go in the afternoon.
Other cars I have driven that met their MPG estimates include various versions of the Taurus, Focus, Malibu Maxx, and a collection of forgettable crap. The older ones, pre-1990, were disappointing.
MPG results are highly influenced by the driver, the traffic, and vehicle condition, but the driver I think counts a lot.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Slow news day? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Modern cars have to meet much more stringent emissions requirements than older cars did. It was a lot easier to get good gas mileage when the car could exhaust more crap. Cars are also getting heavier bigger, heavier, and more powerful.
Re:Slow news day? (Score:4, Informative)
Modern cars have to meet much more stringent emissions requirements than older cars did. It was a lot easier to get good gas mileage when the car could exhaust more crap. Cars are also getting heavier bigger, heavier, and more powerful.
Exhausting unburned hydrocarbons is *bad* for efficiency, not good for it.
It's the weight that the emissions control and safety systems add which is affecting mileage on modern cars. If you have the same BHP in your car and weigh 200kg more, then your efficiency and performance characteristics are going to suffer. Fitting a bigger engine will actually improve efficiency, if it's being driven sanely, because most engines also lose efficiency when they are running closer to their limits.
But it's also the car manufacturers' faults... how Chev managed to only get 103HP out of the 2007 Aveo's 1.6L engine is a mystery, for example... You see significantly more than that out of 1.6L engines in European cars and it makes an enormous difference to the overall efficiency (let alone adding a turbo or two, or going to diesel). And they are still doing the same thing today on many of their models.
The Europeans may be fudging the numbers a bit, but take everything an auto manufacturer says with a grain of salt anyway. The European cars are still better on the efficiency front, because they're designed for a market where gas costs 3x as much.
Re:Slow news day? (Score:4, Interesting)
You got it all wrong. Exhausting more crap reduces your fuel efficiency.
I have replaced every car I've owned with a newer, more powerful one. Every single one has been more fuel efficient.
My current car is a heavily modified S60-R Volvo. Yes, it is heavier than my old Supra, and it has 460hps at the wheel (with the AWD fuse pulled) But it is also a Ultra Low Emission vehicle, and the first time I had it smog checked, the guy did it twice, because all but one of the categories on the California Smog check form were 0 (Zero point Zero)
The guy could not believe him eyes nor his machine. I have a bigger (than original) turbo, a dual intercooler, and a modified exhaust. After every single one of these modifications, the power AND the fuel efficiency went up.
So right now, I have a car that gets 31.1mpg on my daily commute, which is 12 miles highway and 5 miles streets.
Re: (Score:2)
Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
Fuel efficiency tests are for comparison purposes. If all makers cheat equally, comparisons are still meaningful. When legislators set an standard, they'll probably take that into account and make the standard a bit tighter.
Re:Relativity (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that automakers start designing cars to the unrealistic test, and not to get real-world gains. Even if this only accounts for 1 MPG, that is a huge amount of fuel for the entire fleet.
Re: (Score:3)
The comparisons are only meaningful if equal cheating produces equal effect. I would think that things like taping panel gaps would have a significantly different effect depending on body shape, size and number of gaps, etc. Same with removing interior components - if model 'A' uses lightweight components and model 'B' uses cheaper but heavier components the effect of removing them will be significantly different.
Re:Relativity (Score:5, Informative)
Everybody knows hybrids aren't 'worth it' from a present value _or_ environmentalist POV.
Whether they're "worth it" or not depends on 5 factors:
1. Difference in initial cost.
2. The average price of gasoline.
3. Distance driven over the lifetime of the car.
4. Difference in efficiency between the hybrid and non-hybrid.
5. Potential investment income on the difference in initial cost over the lifetime of the car.
An example (using the ignorant American measurements I'm unfortunately used to):
A. Hybrid sedan - $25K, gets 44 miles per gallon.
B. Standard sedan - $13K, gets 22 miles per gallon
Price of gasoline at $4.25 per gallon, expected total driving 220,000 miles over 10 years, expected investment return of 5% annually.
1. The standard sedan uses up 10,000 gallons of fuel for a total fuel cost of $42,500. The hybrid uses up half that, 5,000 gallons of fuel for a total fuel cost of $21,250, leaving a difference in fuel costs of $21,250 in favor of the hybrid.
2. The hybrid costs $12K more initially, which over those 10 years can earn an additional $7700 in investment returns, for a total of $19,700 in favor of the standard engine.
3. That means that for the buyer in this situation, the hybrid will save him $1550 total.
So what "everybody knows" may or may not be true, and the best way to answer the question is to look at the numbers for the vehicles you're considering and your own driving habits, and do the math. The general formula looks like this, where Ch is the cost of the hybrid, Cs the cost of the standard, IR is the investment return, Y is the lifetime in years, M is the lifetime in mileage, Eh is the hybrid's miles per gallon, Es is the standard's miles per gallon, and G is the cost of gasoline:
Total extra cost of a hybrid = (Ch - Cs)*(1 + IR)^Y + (Ch - Cs) - M / (Eh - Es) * G
Of course, all this doesn't work if the numbers you plug into the formula are wrong.
Re:Relativity (Score:4)
You've got to compare the hybrid to an economy car. Comparable size and power.
If you compare it to a V8 cop car of course the hybrid looks good. Note: even there you came up with 'may or may not be true'.
22mpg is an unreasonable number to posit for the hybrid alternatives. You are looking for the answer you think you already know. You are wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
A good model is a Hyundai Sonata. I've described it as the most adequate car I've every owned. It's not fancy, it's not shoddy. It's not fast, it's not underpowered. 100% adequate. (I even ordered the greyishblue color) It's a decently sized car, it can fit two car seats and still have an adult in the passenger seat.
In otherwords, it's adequate and average, and thus a great example to pit against a hybrid as a vehicle in which you won't have to be making tradeoffs.
But even the Sonata gets much more t
Re: (Score:3)
In Germany the sales for the Prius are really bad. If you drive so much through cities and want to save money you are thinking about public transport, not a hybrid. And I remember reading that the fuel efficiency of the Prius becomes horrible when you go fast on the Autobahn, since the engine is not built for high power.
Duh ! (Score:4, Insightful)
If all we have to do is over inflate your tires, tape over the panel gaps, and keep your car empty ( find somewhere else to park your junk ), to get 25% - 50 % better gas milage, why don't we all do it ?
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot that you have to disconnect the alternator as well. You'll also need a plug-in charger to keep recharging your battery.
Re: (Score:2)
add an electric water pump.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Duh ! (Score:5, Insightful)
The single biggest difference to fuel consumption is between the seat and the steering wheel.
Re:Duh ! (Score:5, Funny)
The single biggest difference to fuel consumption is between the seat and the steering wheel.
I can confirm that this is true. When you remove that element for good, your monthly fuel consumption will drop to zero.
Re: (Score:3)
When you remove that element for good, your monthly fuel consumption will drop to zero.
But then the MPG is terrible.
If you let a car sit and you lose X ml of gasoline to evaporation while traveling 0 miles your MPG is 0. Even a leadfoot can beat 0mpg.
Re: (Score:3)
But then the MPG is terrible.
If you let a car sit and you lose X ml of gasoline to evaporation while traveling 0 miles your MPG is 0. Even a leadfoot can beat 0mpg.
Keep the tank completely empty and your MPG will go all the way up to NaN! Beat that!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Duh ! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
extra inflation pressure actually gets you better acceleration, traction, and stopping power.
The extra inflation should make the tire harder resulting in lower friction. Hence the better acceleration so long as you control the torque. However, this means that you have less rubber touching the road (note the lower friction) so, in most circumstances, you have lower traction. Lower traction often means less stopping power.
A harder and narrower tyre on the front can increase the precision and response of your steering but this is a potentially lethal error if your vehicle is front-wheel drive as all t
Re: (Score:3)
You have a lower contact area, but higher *pressure*. If you have 4 tires with a 3 x 3 inch contact area at 30PSI, that's 9 x 4 = 36 square inches of contact. This happens if you have a 1080 pound car. If you have a 3000 pound car, your total contact area will be (surprise...) 3 times bigger, think 5 x 5 inches per tire. Raising the PSI to 50PSI gets you 15 square inches per tire instead of 25, for a 3000 pound car. The normal force increases and the total force of friction stays roughly the same; but
Not surprised (Score:5, Interesting)
This is no different from dot matrix printer specifications from long ago. Sure your printer would do 250cps as long as all the characters were the number 1.
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not surprised (Score:5, Funny)
European Magic (Score:5, Interesting)
This topic comes up every time we discuss fuel efficiency on here. Someone inevitably complains that the high-efficiency European cars are not available in the US, and then someone else points out that the Euro cars would not do very well on the EPA test. Hijinks ensue.
Re:European Magic (Score:5, Interesting)
It's made even more hilarious by the nonlinearity of the "miles per gallon" metric vs. the "liters per 100km" metric and by the fact that a British gallon and an American gallon are two different sizes.
Re: (Score:3)
Up here in Canada we use the Litres per 100 Km metric too. My assumption was that it was intended to obscure just how much gas you are going through, and thus obscure the price you are paying for it as well. Its much harder to compare miles per gallon to litres per 100km that it would be if it was a straight translation of kilometers per litre.
Since the price of gas seems to fluctuate by as much as 25% on a seemingly random basis, I think its in the interests of the Oil companies to keep us as confused as p
Re:European Magic (Score:5, Insightful)
It's actually the opposite. Gaining 10mpg over 40mpg is pathetically little, while gaining 5mpg over 20mpg is HUGE. Dropping 0.5L per 100km is the same amount of saved fuel regardless of if you have a 7L/100km or 3.5L/100km car. Thus it's easy to hype your 30, 35mpg cars and tell people they need to upgrade their 28mpg car, when really that's a huge fucking waste.
The real world effect is that Americans think what we need is shiny new expensive 40mpg hybrids, when the best thing we could do is get the existing 15mpg old-ass broken down shitheaps off the road in exchange for newer 22mpg used cars that exist already. The environmental savings would be bigger than if we just replaced the natural new flow of new cars with a natural new flow of new cars with slightly better mileage. i.e. what's important is the flow of average-mileage used cars into the hands of people who aren't going to buy a new car!
Re:European Magic (Score:5, Interesting)
The EPA tests aren't exactly a paragon of realism, either. There is at least as much fudging there. And to complicate things, the MPG figure you see on the window sticker is not the same figure used to calculate aggregate fuel efficiency for CAFE requirements.
Incidentally, one US-specific cause of MPG shortfalls is the use of ethanol. The cars are tested with pure gas, but regulations require a certain amount of ethanol to be blended into the real-world gasoline supply (up to 10% and the lobby wants to raise it higher), and this drastically hurts efficiency.
Re: (Score:3)
but regulations require a certain amount of ethanol to be blended into the real-world gasoline supply ... and this drastically hurts efficiency.
Except it doesn't have to. My car manufacturer, Hyundai, says I should get 29 mpg city/40 mpg highway. I get between 30 -33 city and on my last long drive I got 40.77 mpg.
Part of it is how you drive. If you're always on the gas, trying to get one car ahead, then slam on the brakes to squeeze into the barely there gap between cars, of course your mileage will be l
Re:European Magic (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, yes it does. Gasoline ~34.2 MJ/L; E10~33.18(~3% less); E85~26.5. Ethanol has less energy per liter, so if you have to add it to your fuel, you will get fewer MPGs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Coasting can be detrimental to fuel consumption if your car is one that cuts fuel supply under deceleration (during coasting, fuel is needed to keep the engine turning).
Re: (Score:3)
How? If I want to slow down and let off the gas pedal completely the wheels turning will still continue to turn the engine. The valves still open and shut, oil and coolant still circulate. My car does shut off the injectors when coasting and when the RPMs drop too low while doing this it turns them back on to keep the engine running. Typically this happens around 25 mph but can be put off some by selecting a lower gear and even then it is running really lean anyway so it is still consuming less fuel than normal.
Coasting means disconnecting the drive train. ie, putting the clutch in, or just putting the manual box into neutral. When you do that, the engine is not turned over by inertia, it simply has to idle.
American cars don't coast since they don't tend to go in for manual transmissions.
Re:European Magic (Score:4, Informative)
There is at least as much fudging there.
Fudging is hard, but not impossible (see Kia [cnn.com]). The EPA spot-checks 15% of all vehicles sold in the US in its own lab, each year. 2/3 of those are randomly selected. So you, as cheating Joe Automaker, have a 1/10 chance that your model will get selected at random. Even if you only have one model that you cheat on, this can't be a long-term strategy or you will get caught, on average, once every 10 years.
And to complicate things, the MPG figure you see on the window sticker is not the same figure used to calculate aggregate fuel efficiency for CAFE requirements.
That was sort-of true until this year. It is true that automakers could use the older methods to calculate fuel economy. But they then had to run the results through a set of equations that estimated the results if the more modern tesst were used instead. Starting this year, everyone has to use the more modern tests.
The cars are tested with pure gas
That isn't true, though I'm not sure what you mean by "pure gas", which itself is a cocktail. They have a standard fuel that they test with, which is 93-octane. For CA-rated cars, they use 91-octane. To get to 93-octane, you need to have ethanol, or some other anti-knock agent "watering" down the gas. The differences you get tank-to-tank are going to account for far more than the variation you'll see between a bit more ethanol added here or there compared to the EPA test.
Anyway, there will never be a "paragon" for predicting how consumers will drive a yet-to-be-sold car - all we can do is try to guess. The EPA test does a fair job, though I think people see the highway number as a bit optimistic unless you really restrain yourself. The city number is pretty realistic.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The cars are tested with pure gas, but regulations require a certain amount of ethanol to be blended into the real-world gasoline supply (up to 10% and the lobby wants to raise it higher), and this drastically hurts efficiency.
Well, "drastically" might be a bit of an overstatement ... on a volumetric basis, ethanol has 36% less energy than gasoline, so E10 (10% ethanol by volume) has 3.6% less energy. In real-world terms, this means getting 29 mpg instead of 30. It's measurable, but not, perhaps, "drastic."
You are correct on certifications being performed using E0 fuel, while E10 is the norm almost everywhere in the US. There is some desire to allow certifications using higher ethanol blends for flex-fuel vehicles, which would le
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If you design an engine to take advantage of the high octane number of a high-ethanol blend (i.e., E20+), with a high compression ratio, etc., there is a lot to be gained. A higher compression ratio inherently makes the thermodynamic cycle more efficient, and the high octane number avoids the losses due to retarded combustion phasing that are necessary to avoid knock with gasoline.
Running certification tests on a high-ethanol blend doesn't, in and of itself, bring about those design changes. What it does is
Re: (Score:2)
It is the case that, until very recently, there were many very efficient cars available in Europe that are/were not available in the US. Especially diesel models.
For example I rented a very nice Audi A3 Tdi in the UK, and drove over 1,100 miles on 30 US gallons of gas. At the time it wasn't available in the US, but you can buy it here now. Still, there aren't many nice US cars that get 36+ mpg in real world use.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why you drop the extra 5 grand for a diesel, and add another greasecar tank and retrofit for another couple grand. Then you can run on waste fuels all day long with minimal cost to yourself as long as you're in good with places that dispose of said waste fuels (fast food, Chinese restaurants [these are the best places since most fast food joints caught on via corporate.])
So can we have the list of things to do? (Score:3)
Over inflating tires maybe not, but taping over panel gaps for -10% in fuel would interest a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
How convenient would it be to have someone tape you into the car every time you went somewhere? Not to mention all the wasted tape...
Re:So can we have the list of things to do? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, but what about...
* Panel gaps that aren't on doors (or on doors that you don't use)
You don't crack the bonnet every day. There will be panel gaps on the bumpers, etc. If you don't habitually have passengers in the rear seats, tape the door seals up. Three door models probably do much better than 5 doors models - but don't sell well in the American market because you have to be agile enough to climb into the back seat...
Re: (Score:2)
Over inflating tires maybe not, but taping over panel gaps for -10% in fuel would interest a lot of people.
Then why don't they just seal the panel gaps when they build the car?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Especially people like the ecomodder folk :
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aerocivic-how-drop-your-cd-0-31-0-a-290.html#post2111
US Government Standards (Score:5, Interesting)
Another way to cheat (Score:3)
For the sarcasm-impaired, I am very much in favor of diesel and have been complaining for at least a decade that we don't get a good selection of diesels in the U.S. All I want is a diesel sports sedan with manual transmission. My only choice right now is the Jetta. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Here [virtualcar...tore.co.uk] is a basic calculator to see if you'd save money. It's in Sterling, but ignore the currency symbol and the math is the same.
Re:Another way to cheat (Score:4, Informative)
Diesel causes cancer [cancer.org]. Diesel particles could raise heart attack risks [bbc.co.uk]. And I'm sure there are tons of other stuff Diesel is good for, by all means let's have some more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So then it appears that is not actually ALL you want: you want something else that precludes the Jetta.
Well, yes. I guess I am looking more towards cars like the Audi A6 or some of the BMWs they sell in Europe. I am aware that the Audi TDI engines are the same engine as the VW. It's not so much the engine that is my issue with the Jetta. I just don't like the styling, and I have known several people that had them and were plagued with issues, mostly not engine related. Also, we only have one local choice for VW dealer, and they make other car dealers look like Sunday School teachers.
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer a manual drive; however I will accept the CVT in the Tesla Model S because it performs. Slushboxes I can't drive, they simply don't work for me. I can't control the car and it behaves unexpectedly. The CVT is a solid clutched transmission that gives maximum performance when accelerating, without hanging around in a high gear for ~1 second and switching up to a high gear if you don't keep the car WOT (fucking stupid Chevy Cobalt auto-tranny shit), so no worries about being crippled on the highway
Re: (Score:3)
From the Wikipedia page on diesel [wikipedia.org]:
However, due to the higher density, diesel offers a higher volumetric energy density at 35.86 MJ/L (128 700 BTU/US gal) vs. 32.18 MJ/L (115 500 BTU/US gal) for gasoline, some 11% higher, which should be considered when comparing the fuel efficiency by volume.
Do you have a better source refuting the energy density (per volume) difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Might want to do a bit of research before saying things like this.
http://www.afdc.energy.gov/fuels/fuel_comparison_chart.pdf [energy.gov]
Diesel is more energy dense than gasoline. However, diesel has a higher percentage of carbon than gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
useable tricks (Score:2)
Maybe some of these 'tricks' can actually be used to improve fuel efficiency.
Can we make tires that are safe at higher pressures? Or improve the aerodynamics?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reason overinflating tires reduces fuel consumption is that it reduces the contact patch between the car and the road. Unless designed for that smaller contact patch it means worse braking distance and handling.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they can - however, people buy cars for looks in general not efficiency. For example spoilers that boy racers wet their pants over generally do nothing much to aid downforce and add a lot of efficiency reducing drag...
Re: (Score:3)
Tire sidewalls are a significant part of any suspension. High pressure tires are not unlike rubber band tires and over-sized wheels. They make for a harsher ride, all other factors being equal.
You should check your facts. High pressure/low rolling resistance tires reduce contact patch area by _design_. That's how they get better mileage. It also explains part of why the Tesla roadster did so badly on 'Top Gears' test track. To be fair the guys at Top Gear gave the Tesla a break by putting better (normal)
Why do they let automakers test? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they let the automakers run the test? Instead the regulatory bodies should ask for 3 production samples and an application fee and then the regulatory body should do the tests themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
So the question becomes which is better. A standard set of tests in which values between models can be compared, or non standard tests in which more relevant values for the real world are
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm... it might be interesting to require testing to be done by the competitors. Probably woudn't solve much even if you required they not actually be part of the same Volkswagon or other corporate superfamily, but interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
Even better: Randomly sample the MPG of cars that have been sold to consumers. That way we get the actual "real world" average MPG. Many modern cars already have the mileage information in their on-board computer, so the data could be collected when they are brought in for service.
Humans gaming a system for their benefit? (Score:2)
DOG BITES MAN!
Agencies should test like Consumer Reports (Score:5, Insightful)
When Consumer Reports wants to test a product (including cars), they don't go to the manufacturer, much less let the manufacturer run the testing process! They buy the product anonymously at normal retail, and then test it in their own labs. Why can't regulatory agencies like the EPA and its European Union equivalent do the same thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Or just use consumer reports
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/the-most-fuel-efficient-cars/index.htm [consumerreports.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
When Consumer Reports wants to test a product (including cars), they don't go to the manufacturer, much less let the manufacturer run the testing process! They buy the product anonymously at normal retail, and then test it in their own labs. Why can't regulatory agencies like the EPA and its European Union equivalent do the same thing?
I might be wrong, but doesn't the EPA/EU have to run the tests before the car is released to the public? Kind of like how you need FDA approval before you can sell a drug on the market? And so if the manufacturer knows that they are giving it to the regulators, there will be some cheating (though much less than stripping the internals out to reduce weight).
Re: (Score:3)
They got nothing on Car & Driver (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
MB likes dry sumps. Partial explanation for why they have such huge oil reserves.
Dry sumps are nothing new, airplane engines sense WWII are all dry sump. They don't usually use them because unless you are pulling Gs, they basically don't make any difference.
So they only go into performance models. 427 AC cobra had one etc.
When dealing with corporations ... (Score:3)
... always use independent measuring. Corporations, even in EU, have people at the helm that are fundamental liars.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You both drive like pussies.
You can get your mileage well under 20. Just maintain over 5k RPM at all times.
Note: The early 90s CIVICs weigh less then the mini.
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
Suit A:"We're losing money and marketshare! What are we going to do"
Suit B: "The same thing we do every time"
Both in unison: "Layoffs and hire some more lobbyists!"
Re: (Score:2)
Suit A:"We're losing money and marketshare! What are we going to do"
Suit B: "The same thing we do every time"
Both in unison: "Layoffs and hire some more lobbyists!"
I, too, often find myself wondering where the Animaniacs end, and Corporate America begins...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Human Nature (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't over inflate! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't over inflate! (Score:4, Funny)
Obviously, it's far more efficient to not brake at all under any circumstance.
Once you have accepted this superior way of driving, like I have, you can increase efficiency by doing away with dead weight like brake discs, pads, fluids and pedal.
As for tires, I recommend cheap Chinese tires made of constable wallops rubber to improve mileage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Informative)
I've heard there are a lot of consumers who like to be open the doors too.
Re:Human Nature (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on where it's placed, but yes.
If I replaced the worn-out seals around my car's windows, I could probably drop my aerodynamic drag a good 5% ('98 Ford Taurus, the weather-stripping and window seal strips are sticking outwards, thanks to warping from the hot CA sun.)
That increase in fuel efficiency alone (especially at higher speeds) would more than make up for the $30 in DIY stuff to replace it all by hand.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sceptical that stripping seams would make that much difference, you'd be better off with rear wheel skirts and smooth full-moon hub caps on the front. Before that I'd go to low viscosity synthetic engine and transmission oils and bearing grease, then the above. Next I'd get rid of any badges in the airstream and mod the car so the winshield wiper park below the hood out of the airflow. After that you need to get really radical like decent air dams, full belly pans, grill shutters and boat-tail the car.
Re: (Score:3)
If you have been running your car on regular oil for more then 20-30K miles the oil has formed a glaze on the edge of the gaskets. The gaskets have dried out past the glaze.
When you add synthetic oil it starts to dissolve the glaze. When it gets to the dry gasket it often starts to slow leak. Usually that happens about 3 months after you switch to synthetic.