Saving fuel

[pe2dave]

Small electric motor (30mls worth battery). On hybrid, battery to pull away, engine once going, I'm getting over 100mpg, really quite chuffed with it.

 

[HamsterJam]

Remember a lot of engines shut off the fuel when you come right off the gas. This combined with gentle acceleration, short shifting and anticipating the road ahead can get me nearly 70mpg on run in a 12 year old 150,000 mile diesel Golf.

 

[Jacob]

Main thing is to drive slowly and carefully enough to reduce having to use brakes.
When the govt starts to take climate change seriously we should see 50mph limits and 20 or less in towns. Long overdue IMHO. We need to face reality.

 

[Jameshow]

Main thing is to drive slowly and carefully enough to reduce having to use brakes.
When the govt starts to take climate change seriously we should see 50mph limits and 20 or less in towns. Long overdue IMHO. We need to face reality.

Yea and how long will it take to get to Dorset from Yorkshire to see my parents in a weekend?

Yet lorries aren't slowed down and buses still pump out black smoke from 20yo diesels!

 

[baldkev]

Yea and how long will it take to get to Dorset from Yorkshire to see my parents in a weekend?

Yet lorries aren't slowed down and buses still pump out black smoke from 20yo diesels!

I guess that depends how many coppers you encounter on the journey quite a few years ago i did some mad things in cars, but now with dashcams everywhere, youd get locked up! Reducing speed limits is not going to happen.... 1st they want to move us to electric, second, shipping / transport costs would rocket, third, it'd take a lot longer for travel and lastly, probably most importantly, on a motorway or dual carriageway, 70 for most vehicles is quite economical, so on a longer run, reducing the limits wouldnt have a significant impact, most cars are greared with that in mind

 

[nickds1]

Ride a push bike, it's free.

Going a kilometer over ploughed fields and unmade farm tracks carrying 25kg+ of syrup for the bee hives... yep, easy to do on a bike...

My bike is fine, but since I've had a knee op, I've had to re-think it slightly - I used to do about 150km/week but the lack of "bend" past about 80 degrees in my left leg means getting the bike re-fitted (it's a complex bike that was custom made for me) if I'm to ride decent distances (60km+ and hilly) without pain.

Also, having a carbon fiber bike and then carrying 25kg of syrup in 10ltr containers would simply be weird! Probably better if I lose a few kilos first.

So, I have self-built a decent eco-house (other posts about that here, so have green credentials) but have to admit to owning an old Landrover 90 200TDi which I am rebuilding as currently it's the only thing that gets me and all the equipment to and from the apiaries on various farms around here.

 

[Spectric]

change your air filter

Expand that to keeping the servicing upto date along with tyre pressures so you cover everything.

 

[Jacob]

.... on a longer run, reducing the limits wouldnt have a significant impact, most cars are greared with that in mind

Actually it would be a very large margin. My last car (VW Passat) went into electronic "safe" mode every now and then (blocked air sensor or something) which limited acceleration but not speed. It'd take a long run to get up to 70 etc and slow right down on hills. Fuel consumption on long runs dropped from about 50mpg average to 70+. Same sort of performance you'd get from an old Ford Escort or Morris 1000 but much better fuel economy in a much bigger car!
Doesn't make that much difference to journey times on modern roads as there's plenty of other things slowing everybody else down too. Anyway what's the hurry? Saves accidents and lives too.
Made me laugh the other day - a convoy of Aston Martins, some sort of club meet I expect, chugging along behind a tractor and then a group of cyclists!

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Next time you buy a car, move down one size. Will save 15-25% in energy consumption, be it petrol diesel or leccy.

With the improvements in car technology the difference in comfort and performance and equipment will scarcely be noticeable.

Exceptions - need car with capacity for work or family size, if already driving a city car the next move down is a moped - may not be an entirely attractive prospect!

 

[johna.clements]

I guess that depends how many coppers you encounter on the journey quite a few years ago i did some mad things in cars, but now with dashcams everywhere, youd get locked up! Reducing speed limits is not going to happen.... 1st they want to move us to electric, second, shipping / transport costs would rocket, third, it'd take a lot longer for travel and lastly, probably most importantly, on a motorway or dual carriageway, 70 for most vehicles is quite economical, so on a longer run, reducing the limits wouldnt have a significant impact, most cars are greared with that in mind

I would not be surprised if they lower the speed limit for petrol/ diesel but not electric. Fuel use increses quite qiuckly after 50 mp to 60 mph so reducing the speed limit for the most polluting vehicles would have an impact.

 

[Adam W.]

Getting beaned by the snowplow doing 100K clearing the shoulder doesn't appeal to me a lot. I do know a guy that does ride his bike in the city down to -25C but he grew up here and might have frozen a few brain cells along the way.

My milage is better in the summer because in the winter the studded snows on steel rims are heavier than the aluminium rims the summer tires are on. I also have at least a 100kg of cement blocks in the back of the truck for traction. I use the cruise control as much as I can. I can buy at least 3 tanks of gas for the cost of a speeding ticket.

Pete

Only if you are given one or steal one.


But if you monitor your mpg it can alert you to any problems. Don't need to in modern cars because they do it for you but for years I carried a pen, notebook & calculator in the glovebox to work out the mpg.

Going a kilometer over ploughed fields and unmade farm tracks carrying 25kg+ of syrup for the bee hives... yep, easy to do on a bike...

My bike is fine, but since I've had a knee op, I've had to re-think it slightly - I used to do about 150km/week but the lack of "bend" past about 80 degrees in my left leg means getting the bike re-fitted (it's a complex bike that was custom made for me) if I'm to ride decent distances (60km+ and hilly) without pain.

Also, having a carbon fiber bike and then carrying 25kg of syrup in 10ltr containers would simply be weird! Probably better if I lose a few kilos first.

So, I have self-built a decent eco-house (other posts about that here, so have green credentials) but have to admit to owning an old Landrover 90 200TDi which I am rebuilding as currently it's the only thing that gets me and all the equipment to and from the apiaries on various farms around here.

Alright ....whatever! Don't ride a pushbike then and keep on spending.

Just don't complain about how much it's costing.

 

[niall Y]

Ride a push bike, it's free.

Not totally free. I used to ride a push bike to work with all my work tools in panniers. Last part of the journey was up a large hill. Luckily there was a bakers at the foot of the hill, where I stopped to refuel. Cycling to work, and doing a physical job, equals more calories.

 

[Jacob]

I would not be surprised if they lower the speed limit for petrol/ diesel but not electric. Fuel use increses quite qiuckly after 50 mp to 60 mph so reducing the speed limit for the most polluting vehicles would have an impact.

Pollution not the issue - the idea is to use less power, from whatever source, except Shank's pony, or wind etc

 

[baldkev]

Actually it would be a very large margin. My last car (VW Passat) went into electronic "safe" mode every now and then (blocked air sensor or something) which limited acceleration but not speed. It'd take a long run to get up to 70 etc and slow right down on hills. Fuel consumption on long runs dropped from about 50mpg average to 70+. Same sort of performance you'd get from an old Ford Escort or Morris 1000 but much better fuel economy in a much bigger car!
Doesn't make that much difference to journey times on modern roads as there's plenty of other things slowing everybody else down too. Anyway what's the hurry? Saves accidents and lives too.
Made me laugh the other day - a convoy of Aston Martins, some sort of club meet I expect, chugging along behind a tractor and then a group of cyclists!

Maybe im missing something, and I'll have to check next time im driving the truck, but i think at 70ish, maybe 75, id be at about 2800rpm, which is pretty low.... and im sure they used to say to keep below 3000rpm for good fuel economy

 

[johna.clements]

Pollution not the issue - the idea is to use less power, from whatever source, except Shank's pony, or wind etc

Pollution is the issue. CO2 is pollution.

Less petrol/ diesel will mean less CO2 produced.

 

[Jacob]

Pollution is the issue. CO2 is pollution.

Less petrol/ diesel will mean less CO2 produced.

I always think of "pollution" as things like toxic chemicals, smoke, dust, exhaust particles etc which cause direct harm to life. Tend to be very localised - big towns, industrial area rivers etc.
CO2 doesn't cause harm directly (except in very large concentrations) but does cause climate change in small concentrations measured in parts per million, and is world wide in effect.
Two very different scenarios.
An efficient cleaner exhaust system with filters etc produces less "pollution" but the same amount of CO2 per unit consumed.
On the other hand e.g. wood burning, may be highly polluting (dust etc) but CO2 net zero if taken from sustainable sources.

 

[John Brown]

Maybe im missing something, and I'll have to check next time im driving the truck, but i think at 70ish, maybe 75, id be at about 2800rpm, which is pretty low.... and im sure they used to say to keep below 3000rpm for good fuel economy

Air resistance is proportional to the speed squared, IIRC.
Makes sense, really, otherwise you'd just be able to have much higher gear ratios, and do infinity MPH. I think friction, on the other hand, has a limiting and a sliding value. Long time since I learnt this stuff - no doubt they've changed the laws of physics since then

 

[baldkev]

@John Brown
Good point

 

[johna.clements]

I always think of "pollution" as things like toxic chemicals, smoke, dust, exhaust particles etc which cause direct harm to life. Tend to be very localised - big towns, industrial area rivers etc.
CO2 doesn't cause harm directly (except in very large concentrations) but does cause climate change in small concentrations measured in parts per million, and is world wide in effect.
Two very different scenarios.
An efficient cleaner exhaust system with filters etc produces less "pollution" but the same amount of CO2 per unit consumed.
On the other hand e.g. wood burning, may be highly polluting (dust etc) but CO2 net zero if taken from sustainable sources.

From Britannica

"pollution, also called environmental pollution, the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form.""

https://www.britannica.com/science/pollution-environment
There are many pollutants that have or had wide spread effects. Rules and regulations have stopped there spread.

CFC are not good for the ozone layer. There are rules about how it is handled. If none escapes is it no longer a potential pollutant.

The storage of chemicals has greatly improved. They are now stored in bunded containers but at times you do get flows down rivers and into the sea.

CO2 is pollution on a global scale.

 

[Jacob]

From Britannica

"pollution, also called environmental pollution, the addition of any substance (solid, liquid, or gas) or any form of energy (such as heat, sound, or radioactivity) to the environment at a rate faster than it can be dispersed, diluted, decomposed, recycled, or stored in some harmless form.""

https://www.britannica.com/science/pollution-environment
There are many pollutants that have or had wide spread effects. Rules and regulations have stopped there spread.

CFC are not good for the ozone layer. There are rules about how it is handled. If none escapes is it no longer a potential pollutant.

The storage of chemicals has greatly improved. They are now stored in bunded containers but at times you do get flows down rivers and into the sea.

CO2 is pollution on a global scale.

Right ho!
I still think there's an important distinction in that most forms of pollution are a side product of a process and many can be cleaned or reduced by doing things differently.
But CO2 can't be cleaned or reduced from the processes which generate it, except by halting the processes i.e. burning fossil fuels.