Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

andre1969

my commute that might normally take 10 minutes on a bad day took 20 going in! Tomorrow I'm going to take a different route and see what happens. It's about a mile longer (boosting my commute by a whopping ~28% :P ), but it does avoid all the congestion that seems to have been popping up around these traffic lights and the little commercial district.

edlee1

is that I only work 2,sometimes 3 days a week. Working into my final retirement. Commute is 40 miles one way, but not bad as I take back roads and have a blast going through farm country. Too dangerous on the main roads, logging trucks (Oregon) going like bats from hell. Just glad for the XM radio.

grbeck

...isn't bad at all. I drive down Route 230, a two-lane artery that goes right through Highspire and Steelton and then flows into Harrisburg. Very little stop-and-go traffic. Door-to-door it takes about 15 minutes, and there is no need to use an expressway.

krony

I drive about 4 miles, all through town and takes about 12-15 minutes door to door. Too long to walk and the streets aren't really suited for bicycles plus I drive home for lunch to be with my wife and kids.

kyfdx

1 mile to the freeway, 18 miles of freeway, then 2 more miles to the office... Most of it is against traffic, so it only takes 25-35 minutes... the worst traffic is the last two miles to and from the office...

It is a pretty easy commute, but I dream about how much money I would save, if I only lived 5 miles from work. 160 miles less per week, 8000 miles less per year.. Instead of 60K miles after 4 years, I'd only have 28K miles on the odometer.. Less fuel, maintenance and a lot less depreciation...

andys120

It is a pretty easy commute, but I dream about how much money I would save, if I only lived 5 miles from work. 160 miles less per week, 8000 miles less per year.. Instead of 60K miles after 4 years, I'd only have 28K miles on the odometer.. Less fuel, maintenance and a lot less depreciation...

You've hit on the crux of our energy problem. The nature of our economy results in changing job locations frequently
(sometimes w/o even changing jobs.) It's impossible to live close to work if you don't know where work will be or you will be working 5-10 years ahead!

odie6l

My commute varies with the day. I live just over 12 miles from work (just outside of our 10 mile you need to come in if there is an emergency circle) and have a straight shot into work. Now this 12 mile drive can go from 10 mins to 40 mins anyday. It's not so much traffic, more so the Fargin Farm Equipment (tractors, hay carts, and poop spreaders (I hate getting behind those) to name a few) that ride on the 55 mph highway at 20mph. But now going home at 11:30pm it's a totally different monster, same 12 mile can be 15 mins to 30 mins pending traffic and things with little glowing eyeballs. The only dowside to my commute is come april '07 we will be moving 6 miles closer to work, but still on the same stretch. Be glad you don't have a 10 mile you need to come in radius of your work place. If you can't drive it in the winter due to snow, the security officers will come and get you, but you need to find your own way home or stay and work. Hospitals are fun. :sick:

Odie
Odie's Carspace

P.S. - if anyone wants to check out the hospitals website, I have a link on Carspace site.

jaxs1

Is there a specific board for this?

I want to know what would be the most ideal car for commuting 180 miles round trip daily.
It would need to have high fuel economy to keep gas cost under control, and low maintenance costs due to maintenance intervals coming up frequently, yet it would also have comfortable seats and a smooth highway ride so the long commute is not a daily nightmare leaving you sore and tired.
What are suggestions?
At that commute, I would put about 45K miles on the car per year and run through even a extended warranty in just over two years. I could drive it for 2 years and sell it with 90K miles and some of the extended warranty left for the new owner as a way to make the resale later or I could drive it for 3 years and hope there are no major repairs before 135K miles.
I am pretty sure the high mileage commute would end by 3 years and I would start driving the normal 12K to 15K miles a year at that point.

wale_bate1

Is your commute freeway, surface, country or a mix of sorts?

Also what have you been in that has made you happy?

jaxs1

It will be 90% freeway driving.
I haven't found anything that had a very comfortable ride combined with low maintenance and high fuel economy.
I considered a Toyota Camry Hybrid, but I don't think maintenance costs would be low on a Hybrid, it will be hard to sell it with high miles out of warranty due to future buyers fears of dealing the the battery replacement out of warranty, plus it's probably a bit pricier than what I want to get into.
I'd like to stay well under $25K.
Maybe a Honda Civic, but I'm not sure that would have a smooth enough highway ride to make the commute liveable. I rode in a 2006 Accord and the ride was quite bouncy on the California freeways with all the expansion joints, so I assume a Civic will be even worse in ride than an Accord.

wale_bate1

For a mostly freeway commute, I don't think a hybrid of any sort gives significant advantage, so you're headed in the right direction there.

A Civic will give you all it's options for under $25K sticker, and return mid 30's+ in the economy bracket, so that's a good path. Have you driven a Fusion? The economy isn't quite there (30 mpg will require a soft touch), but it is a comfortable freeway car with good manners around town. I'm not a Ford fan, but I was impressed with the handling and ride, and I should think deals would be plentiful and deep.

Is this really going to be a commute only car?

jaxs1

Apparently, the Camry Hybrid is an exception that does do well on highway mileage, getting better highway than city mileage in real life.
I will have to test drive the Civic before ruling it out, but I have doubts about the ride being acceptable based on my recent ride in an Accord.
At 45K miles a year, I want to set 35 mpg as realistically attainable highway mpg and I don't think a Fusion will qualify and I think the car may be near worthless at resale with 135K miles on it.

jaxs1

After browsing the web I stumbled onto a car I hadn't thought much of before. It seems to have everything except good resale value.
Chevy Cobalt.
It is supposed to have about the smoothest, quietest ride you can get in a little sedan and should be able to get around 35MPG+ on regular gas on flat highway cruising as long as go don't get the optional SS engine.
GM cars usually have low maintenance requirements, good A/C and good automatic trannys. The Cobalt hasn't been a reliability problem and I think it even has decent crash tests.
Can anyone think of another choice?

andys120

I rented a Cobalt recently and was surprised at how nice it was to drive. It has good steering and brakes as well as a nice ride. It's main drawback is that the seats weren't the greatest-- acceptable but not as comfortable as what you get in a good import.

Karen_S

A book writer is looking to speak to drivers who commute more than an hour to work each way and speak about their experiences. Please provide your daytime contact info to ctalati@edmunds.com no later than Monday, October 16, 2006.

andre1969

now that the weather's getting cooler, it's taking my '85 Silverado longer to warm up on the 3.5 mile commute to work. Often it doesn't even get to the point that the thermostat opens up! I can tell this because the temp gauge usually creeps up to about 200 degrees initially, and then suddenly settles back to about 160-170. Sometimes going in it won't even get up to 140.

I guess with the coming cold, I can kiss that 14 mpg I had been getting good-bye.

snakeweasel

My daily commute is 11.5 miles one way and takes about 35 - 40 minutes. All surface streets with no real good alternatives to this commute. There is one stoplight in the morning that will have a back up of at least a half mile and one on the way home that can get as long as a mile plus backup (rare but will happen once or twice a month).

dtownfb

Don't forget the Corrolla and nissan Versa. there is the Mazda 3 which is rated the top small car. I would not count out the Civic based on a test ride in the Accord. Two very different vehicles.

All of these vehicles fit your needs. I would take a couple of Saturdays and test drive them all before making a decision. Set up a simple spreadsheet with the qualities you are looking for and rate them on a scale of 1-5 or 1-10. Leave price off the spreadsheet until the end. Use that as your tie breaker.

jaxs1

Corolla may be a bumpy ride, not suitable for daily long trips. Versa and Mazda3 don't get great mileage for cars of their size. Low 30's on the highway is common on the Versa and Mazda3. People manage low 30's with V6 Camrys, Avalons, Malibu's etc. so it's very disappointing highway mileage to get when you are sacrificing ride comfort.
It really seems difficult to find something that doesn't require some major compromising and sacrificing.

kdshapiro

If I had your commuting requirements, I would get an Impala.

edwardsf

I am a bit late to this discussion but have you missed something in the last 5 years? Academics have absolutely no debate on:
(1) whether the planet is running out of oil;
(2) whether cars cause global warming or global cooling;
(3) whether human activity has much to do with global warming or cooling;
(4) whether global warming is good or bad for human civilization.

They are busily slugging it out on the following -
(5) and how many angels can dance on the tip of the pin -

But there is no "academic" debate on items 1-4. There certainly are very bizarre Senators (e.g. Inhofe) and Congressmen and their allies in the "liberal" press who debate these issues. But scientists don't. Al Gore notes that of the 900+ peer reviewed articles on climate change, none (ZERO, nada) dispute that climate change has enormous worldwide impacts and that human industrial practices, especially autos, are causing climate change to increase at hugely accelerated rates.

Another issue that is not in contention is the existence of huge subsidies paid by income tax payers who drive little or drive little cars to those who burn up more fuel. Natural resources economists estimate that fuel prices in the U.S. are subsidized to the tune of $3-5/gallon due to illnesses from emissions, destruction of wetlands, infrasturcture costs, etc. These small cars only exist in ALL other countries becuase they don't subsidize a fetish for huge vehicles that Americans have. People who drive F-250s and Excursions as passenger vehicles are as odd to most of the world as the tribe in Africa that elongates their mouths and ears by putting metal discs in them.

imidazol97

> Al Gore notes that of the 900+ peer reviewed articles on climate change, none (ZERO, nada) dispute that climate change has enormous worldwide impacts and that human industrial practices, especially autos, are causing climate change to increase at hugely accelerated rates.

Are you trying to say Al Gore is an expert on science, specifically global climate change?

lilengineerboy

Eh, I have done some research on this a couple of times and I think our friend Al, the inventor of the internet, is mixing up causation with correlation. I have yet to see a paper that wasn't just referencing another paper that said global warming was CAUSED by cars.
I have seen papers that suggest it has something to do with 6,548,360,292 people living and breathing and changing the landscape of the planet so they all fit.

nippononly

In the movie, Al Gore just reports the results of a survey of academic articles that concludes that scientists have no disagreement and no doubts about the existence or contributing causes of global warming.

dtownfb

I see a lot of Corrollas on my 86 mile round trip commute on 83.

The Versa with the CVT is rated 38 mpg highway. I have not read real world results yet.

I will be in the same boat as you in a year. As much as I want to buy a small car, the 4 cylinder Accord is looking pretty good. 34 mpg highway and lots of room to spare. We have a minivan for longer trips.

Looks like oyu are doing the research. Good lUck with your purchase.

boaz47

Didn't academics once tell us the world was flat? Didn't they all agree Thalidomide would cure headaches? Didn't they once teach we couldn't go out in space because of the radiation of the, was it the Van Norman or Van Allen belt? Maybe they can agree on who killed Kennedy and if sub compacts will succeed this time? wait, it is science and academics that run CARB and came up with CAFE. I have to wonder if they could find their back end in the dark?

nippononly

Now boaz, old chum, even if that were true would that mean we should instantly dismiss anything they might have to say 1500 years later?

Anyway, I have learned that folks who firmly disbelieve in the notion of anthropomorphic global warming won't be convinced by any amount of reasoned dialog, so I will let that topic drop.

But check out the new Mini Coopers - yet another reason to cheer the burgeoning subcompact segment! :-)

daysailer

A bigger "Mini" is reason to cheer??? The main thing that seems to be burgeoning is the size and mass of "subcompacts"

tpe

I have seen papers that suggest it has something to do with 6,548,360,292 people living and breathing and changing the landscape of the planet so they all fit.

Well if that's the case our driving cars is certainly a factor, maybe not the sole cause.

The amount of CO2 emitted by one person, per day, due to breathing is the equivalent of what the average vehicle emits over 5 km. We drive about 60 km each day so the amount of CO2 emitted from our driving is 12x what is emitted from breathing. Now take into consideration that we actually consume carbon from eating and the the net impact of an extra human breathing is almost neglible from a CO2 perspective. Methane is another matter.

I'm not saying that human activity is contributing to global warming. The planet is clearly warming and CO2 levels are rising but this could be part of a natural cycle. This particular warming cycle seems rather extreme compared to others so a scientist is going to ask himself, what might be causing this difference? Clearly the planet is far more industrialized than it was during previous cycles so at the very least it makes for a plausible theory. Even if this theory is wrong it might be best to err on the side of safety. The consequences of doing nothing and being wrong are far greater than the consequences of taking unnecessary precautions.

andre1969

The amount of CO2 emitted by one person, per day, due to breathing is the equivalent of what the average vehicle emits over 5 km.

So is there actually a rule of thumb for how much CO2 the average human being emits in a day? Or what they consider to be the CO2 emissions of the "average" car? I remember the last time my 2000 Intrepid went in for a treadmill emissions test (these days they just do the OBD-II scan), according to the test it put out about 30 grams per mile. I remember when my '85 LeSabre went in for the treadmill test years ago, and more recently my '85 Silverado, each of them put out around 48 grams per mile.

My commute is actually pretty short, about 7 miles round trip. So if I drive the truck, round trip it looks like I'm putting out about 12 ounces of CO2, whereas the Intrepid is about 7.5 ounces.

One thing that probably contributes to global warming is the mass paving of the world. Farms, fields, and forests are diminishing at a rapid rate, being replaced by housing tracts, strip malls, and other development. And all that development is taking away from nature's ability to balance the climate.

imidazol97

I have learned that folks who firmly believe in the notion of anthropomorphic global warming won't be convinced by any amount of reasoned dialog, so I will let that topic drop.

Even though they try to correlate symptoms with cause, the scientists have proposed that the Earth's climate balances change more rapidly than previously thought, and more eclectically.

When we have politicians who think they invented the internet making a movie and having it believed as proven science, not hypothetical science even, we know as a country we are 'gone.'

IIRC the warming of the Earth was going to have the oceans overrunning coastal beaches by 2000 in earlier versions. Have the fanatics changed their predictions since the earlier predictions didn't occur?

What we need is Michael Moore to make a movie explaining to us how it really is.

tpe

It might be better to put CO2 emissions in terms of gallons of gasoline. Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 8.8 kg of CO2 (19.5 lbs). The average person emits 1.15 kg (2.5 lbs) of CO2 per day from breathing.

Those CO2 numbers you gave for your vehicles seem very low. It sounds like your Intrepid is putting out less than 2 lbs of CO2 per gallon burned. That's 10% of what it should be.

tpe

I have learned that folks who firmly believe in the notion of anthropomorphic global warming won't be convinced by any amount of reasoned dialog, so I will let that topic drop.

So you don't believe humans can have all that much of an impact on the environment. What about the holes in the ozone layer, were they naturally occuring? How does the planet naturally dispose of CO2? My belief was that the oceans and vegetation were the carbon sink. Seems like clearing the rainforest might have an impact on the planets natural ability to maintain its environment. I think the answer to this debate will be definitively clear within the next 20 years. So assuming you're reasonably young and in good health you will eventually know for certain whether you're right or wrong. BTW, I really hope you are right.

andre1969

It might be better to put CO2 emissions in terms of gallons of gasoline. Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 8.8 kg of CO2 (19.5 lbs).

That seems kinda odd, considering that a gallon of gas only weighs about 7 pounds to begin with. But then, you do have to account for the fact that hundred of cubic feet of air per minute are getting sucked into the combustion chamber as well.

Wouldn't how much CO2 gets produced from burning a gallon of gas depend on how it's burned? For instance, just throwing a gallon of gas on an open fire might yield a different result compared to burning it in a lawn mower, which itself would be different from burning it in an automobile engine. And there are so many differences in autombile engines that I doubt any two designs would burn it exactly the same.

FWIW, according to the EPA's website and its calculations, they have the 2000 Intrepid 2.7 putting out 7.9 tons of greenhouse gas emissions. They figure 15,000 miles per year, 45% highway/55% city. Well, just using 15K miles per year and 30 grams per mile, if I'm doing the calculations right, I'm coming out with 7.987 tons per year. Doing the calculation at 48 grams per mile, I come out with 12.766 tons per year. The EPA's estimate for my truck is 12.5. They only rate the LeSabre at 9.4 tons, but they also rate the LeSabre's fuel economy at 17/24. By the time I got that car it had 144,000 miles on it, and it was mainly used for short, local trips, bad weather runs, and sat alot, so I usually got about 14-15 mpg out of it.

Oh, I just found the emissions results for the LeSabre, which was tested in February 2001.

HC: 0.1622 GPM
CO: 1.7541 GPM
NOX: 0.2485 GPM
CO2: 46.4807 GPM

So that car put out a total of 48.6455 grams per mile in pollutants, according to the test at least.

gagrice

Each gallon of gasoline burned produces 8.8 kg of CO2 (19.5 lbs).

I find that very hard to understand. How we get 19.5 lbs of CO2 from burning 7 lbs of gasoline. Your figure pretty well matches what the EPA says. I guess it is over my head. I just looked at my smog test on the 1990 Mazda. It has CO2 as a percentage. It says 13.2% at 25MPH. Whatever that relates to in lbs I have no idea.

I guess I need to plant more trees. With Brazil cutting down the rain forest we will have a lot less oxygen left to breath.

I wish Al Gore would have stuck with inventing stuff like the Internet and CamCorders. Much easier to understand.

andre1969

I just looked at my smog test on the 1990 Mazda. It has CO2 as a percentage. It says 13.2% at 25MPH. Whatever that relates to in lbs I have no idea.

That sounds kinda like an odd reading. I always thought the treadmill tests expressed it on a grams-per-mile basis. The old tailpipe test, where they just hook the tube to your exhaust pipe and gun the engine in park, showed some of the figures in percentages.

I found the old results from a 1979 Newport I had which was tested in 1997.

It showed Hydrocarbons (HC) in parts per million, 162 in my case. CO was expressed as a percent: 0.03% in this case. And CO2 was also a percent, 14.5%. On the tailpipe text, they didn't test for NOX.

john500

That's a reasonably accurate calculation for the amount of CO2 emitted. The carbon combines with atmospheric oxygen and evolves far more mass as CO2 due to the very light molar mass of hydrogen (the other component of a hydrocarbon). Isooctane is usually used as crude example of gasoline (C8H18). All of the carbon becomes carbon dioxide (8 moles of CO2). The mass increase = (8*44)/ 114 = 352/114 = ~ 3 x the amount that one starts with (114 g/mol = molar mass of isooctane).

jeffyscott

Lets suppose I concede your 1-4, so global warming is happening and it is a bad thing. What do you propose to do about it? There would be serious consequences to "doing something" of any significance to try to stop global warming. Slighlty reducing the rate of increase of CO2, etc. (Kyoto Protocol) is not going to have a significant impact.

So doing something to attempt to stop it is also "bad for human civilization". The most sensible course of action may well be to prepare to deal with the consequences of warming.

gagrice

My readings are from 2 weeks ago here in CA. We are probably behind times. I had the car tested twice. Failed first test and passed the second one. The second tester said the first did not do his warm-up on the engine correctly. I think the reason is I used a discount coupon and they wanted to charge twice. The whole emissions testing is a scam in my book.

The Mazda HC was 10 PPM @15 MPH and 23 PPM @ 25 MPH. My failure was NOx the first time. He measure it at 1385 PPM @ 15 MPH, with a maximum allowed of 807. Second tester NOx was 12 PPM @ 15 MPH. I drove straight to the first test station less than a mile from home. He put it on the treadmill and tested it. From 1385 PPM to 12 PPM is a quite a difference. Makes you wonder about this whole business. I read where a reporter took the same car to half a dozen test stations and got different readings from each one.

rockylee

You and Andre, both need to quit speaking over my head. I'm trying to follow but can't understand what you guys mean. You guys remind me of the actual "rocket scientist" at my work.

Rocky

gagrice

Sunscreen will be a booming business. I agree with most of the world leaders. There is not much we can do in a growing economy about GHG. Kyoto was not well thought out. Can you name any of the countries that signed on, that have met the Kyoto goals? I know that Japan and Britain HAVE NOT.

gagrice

I think I flunked that class :shades:

andre1969

I might work for NASA, but that don't make me no rocket scientist! :P I swear though, I've never seen such a high concentration of pocket protectors and Priuses in my life!

rorr

"...and it is a bad thing."

You know, historically the Earth has had both warming and cooling periods. So, if you set aside (for a moment) the issue of whether the planet is currently warming up and what the cause is, perhaps we should look at how our species (and the planet itself) has fared during the warmer periods?

Why do we take for granted that a warming trend is, by definition, bad? Would a cooling trend also be, by definition, bad? Why is it that the global temperatures as they existed in 1900 (or 1890 or 1910 or whenever) the 'optimum' temperature?

I've seen huge efforts put forth to stress all the 'bad' effects of warming. Has there been any effort to itemize the good effects? Like, extended growing seasons for agriculture?

gagrice

If there is any good to come of global warming you will not see it on mainstream news. They only want to portray the bad side of life. The worst part is the whole GHG thing is a political tool. Has very little to do with science and a lot to do with fear mongering and manipulating elections.

What field of science did Bobby Kennedy junior or Al Gore get their PHD's in?

tpe

If your Intrepid was producing 30 grams of CO2 per mile that would be 450 kg per 15,000 miles, or roughly 1/2 ton. It doesn't seem to agree with the EPA figures.

It matters some how the gas is burned. Throwing it on a fire is probably going to result in more carbon being used to produce HC and CO so less will be left for CO2. But I don't think this makes a huge difference. So essentially it becomes a function of how much gas you've burned.

If a gallon of gas weighs around 7 lbs and roughly 3/4 of that weight is carbon it seems reasonable that the CO2 produced would be around 19.5 lbs. The atomic weight of oxygen is 4/3 that of carbon so since you have 2x as much oxygen the result would be around triple the initial weight.

andre1969

with a grain of salt, but a lot of those global warming shows they have on the National Geographic channel and such paint a pretty bleak picture. In addition to melting polar caps causing the sea levels to rise, they predict it could also screw with global ocean currents, which could cause some really screwy weather, increase the frequency and strength of storms, and actually cause it to get colder in some regions.

But then there are other programs that speculate it's just a normal cycle, or that we're coming out of a period of global cooling that lasted for hundreds of years, partially set on by the eruptions of several volcanoes.

So in a nutshell, nobody knows for sure. We'll find out when we get there.

rockylee

What you guys better leave my man Bobby alone. :mad:

Al, got his PhD when he invented the internet and took the first on-line course. :P

Rocky

tpe

I don't think that rising temperatures are inherently bad, within reason. I think that climate change of any kind is disruptive if it occurs too quickly. Along with the actual temperatures going up many scientist are predicting more severe weather phenomena, i.e. floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, etc... These are clearly not advantageous.

I look at this issue and see scientist with impressive credentials on both sides. Clearly one group is wrong. Since I don't have nearly the amount of education in this field how am I supposed to know who to believe? If I start speculating on hidden agendas it is easier to come up with one for the group that claims there is no problem with GHG emissions.

andre1969

If your Intrepid was producing 30 grams of CO2 per mile that would be 450 kg per 15,000 miles, or roughly 1/2 ton. It doesn't seem to agree with the EPA figures.

Oops, it just hit me where I was calculating wrong in my figures. I had multiplied 30 grams X 15K miles, getting 450,000 grams total. Then I divided by 28.2 to get it in ounces. Then divided by 2000 to get it in tons. But I forgot one little detail. Dividing by 16 to convert the ounces to pounds. Oops! Hey, like I said before, I may work for NASA, but I ain't no rocket scientist! :P

Also, maybe that treadmill test just doesn't put much of a load on the car either? It's actually not a treadmill, but a set of rollers that the drive wheels sit on. The tester then puts it in drive and gets it up to various speeds predetermined by a computer screen in front of him. I don't know how much resistance the rollers provide, if it's comparable to actual pavement or not?

Anyway, if those rollers aren't putting much load on the car, it's not going to burn as much gas as it would in real life. After all, I could put the car up on jackstands and put it in drive and it wouldn't take much pedal effort to get the speedo to peg. But on a real road, it would take a lot more energy.

Those treadmill tests might be good for comparing the results of various cars to each other, and against a state standard, but maybe they're still lower than what the car actually puts out in the real world?