Fuel Economy and Oil Dependency

jeffyscott

Yep, I was not saying that everyone who gets less than advertised mileage complains, but instead that everyone who complains gets less than the advertised mileage.

ezshift5

.....y'all make some interesting points......

Here's mine (FWIW)

The day just won't happen that I can't beat ANY EPA rating.....

'course LA freeway traffic rates an exclusion(unreal)...

..ez..

05 Accord 6M
closing in on
40 HWY MPG

qbrozen

so what are you doing on the highway to get 40 mpg out of a 6-cyl 6m accord?

explorerx4

way back when i took a course in logic, one of the rules was that you should not make a general rule from a single experience. most drivers do not try to save gas, so i think the new epa numbers are better for most drivers.

ezshift5

...I'm tempted to ask "what part of 'closing in on 40 MPG' seems to elude................."

..so what am I doing (on the highway)? Sixth gear, flatass desert I-10 east of Yuma, low rpm (2200), cruise....85F...possible east wind at my back...no a/c.

....done as an experiment and a validation of Honda's engineers.......guys could improve paper clips.

Careful calcs (zero nav) show 39.3. (That's how this old sailor views closing in on 40 .............).

Granted, it IS difficult to believe.......

..ez..

qbrozen

hmmm... weird. not my quote, but you did answer my question. Thanks.

I don't have any flat roads, unfortunately. 2200 rpms ... hmmmm... I'll have to see how fast that is when going home tonight. If I'm not mistaken, I cruise around 3k at 75. So I guess 2200 is around 55?

tpe

I have a 6 cyl Accord. I think 2200 is around 60 mph. Something to keep in mind. There's a class action lawsuit against Honda for having inaccurate odometers. They're off by about 4% on the high side. That will make a person think he is getting around 1 more mpg.

jeffyscott

CR measured 32 mpg hwy for a 6 cyl Accord. I'm not sure, but I think they do their test at 65 mph.

qbrozen

yup. that lawsuit will affect my lease and help me out a little bit.

yeah, i checked on my way home friday and 75mph is actually 2500 rpms. I think 2200 is around 65. Keep in mind, this is the 6-speed I'm referring to.

Considering I spend most of my time cruising along at 75 mph and only get 26 mpg, I do find pushing 40 mpg at only 10 mph less to be impossible on my commute. Maybe if I could drive downhill all the way ....

tpe

My Accord is a 2003 with a 5 spd automatic. I've gotten around 31 mpg on the trips I've made that have involved almost 100% highway driving. I'd say my average speed was between 65-70. I agree that 40 mpg seems out of the question.

robertsmx

Thats interesting because my 1998 Accord (4AT), which was rated 23/30 mpg, gets 32-33 mpg at 75 mph, and it has seen a lot of long distance trip thru its life (now I have over 170K miles on the car). I would expect to do it better between 65-70 mph.

explorerx4

i'm thinking the average is taken over a short distance, using the trip computer. i like it being tried. maybe it will make mythbusters.

nippononly

I did most of the driving for a trip my friends and I took in their '04 Accord EX 4-cyl automatic. That's rated 34 highway, and I believe is the same model as yours. We managed 35-36 mpg over a couple thousand miles between Texas and San Diego (round trip, with a leg down from the SF Bay Area first), loaded with three adults and a ton of junk in the trunk, summer trip with the A/C running constantly. I was most impressed. Since I was doing most of the driving, speeds were right around the speed limit, 65 or 70 mph in most places. I let loose a little in western New Mexico and also on the Arizona stretches of I-8.

Driving styles vary so much that the EPA numbers are good for absolutely nothing except comparison with other models. They still won't be good for much after this revision, but at least people will exceed them more often. I guess that's a good thing.

If one gets out there with the philosophy that the speed limit is just fine, that it's OK to be passed by other cars sometimes, and that slowing down briefly behind slower vehicles is an acceptable alternative to punching it to pass them quickly, one might be amazed at just how great one's gas mileage can be!

tpe

I took in their '04 Accord EX 4-cyl automatic. That's rated 34 highway, and I believe is the same model as yours

I have the 6-cyl Accord. My 31 mpg on the highway still exceeds the EPA est. of 30. If I had to do it over again I would have purchased the 4-cyl. I got a chance to drive one not long too ago and it definitely has adequate power.

I have another vehicle with a trip computer and I'll play around with it on the highway while driving different speeds. My experience is at most a 2 mpg difference between 65 and 75. I generally set my speed to match the flow of traffic. For interstates with a posted 65 limit I've found that is typically between 70-75 mph.

nippononly

Oh, well then you did well, getting 31. That's great.

Yes, I agree that the Accord has plenty of power with the 4-cylinder, and the smaller engine has enabled my friends to get mid-20s mpg or higher on all-city tanks of gas.

I would love to know just how high mileage I could achieve in that car on a solo trip with a lot less weight in the car, and with maybe less A/C use. I wonder if it could push 40 mpg if I were really trying. Maybe so, I say.

bumpy

I have a friend that never turns his A/C off - I have never quite understood it.

The A/C is also a dehumidifier; a lot of newer cars are set up to automatically turn on the A/C whenever the defroster vents are selected.

nippononly

Oh yes, I know, but last time I checked, most cars also had windows that still opened (which he never does), and when it's 65 and sunny outside, does one really need the A/C running? Especially if you have the temp knob cranked halfway up? Not really, eh?

In the Bay Area we are very fortunate to have very mild temps that allow me to leave the A/C (and defrost) knob untouched at least half the year. I don't think my friend and many others really appreciate just how much constant A/C use knocks down fuel economy (which of course is part of the reason they have updated the EPA testing methodology). And who knows how much it shortens the life of the engine.

PF_Flyer

The A/C is also a dehumidifier; a lot of newer cars are set up to automatically turn on the A/C whenever the defroster vents are selected.

Yep, my 2001 Altima and new Versa work exactly that way. On a very cold 5 degree morning here today, it's sometimes disconcerting to see the A/C light on. Drives my wife nuts But it does quickly clear up that condensation that tends to form when your warm body and breath first enter the cold confines of the car. Defog is sometimes as important as defrost.

rockylee

Bush to sign biofuels pact in Brazil

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070309/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_latin_america

Bingo problem solved

Rocky

gagrice

It solves nothing at all. We are still imposing the 54 cent tariff on each gallon of ethanol from Brazil. That keeps the price of cane ethanol just out of reach for any real supply to come up here. The question is would you pay about 25% more to use E85 in your new FFV? If not how is anything been solved in our search for oil independence.

rorr

"It solves nothing at all."

You need to understand the logic.

GM offers E85 compatibility on all their full size trucks/SUVs. Toyota doesn't. Therefore, ANY news relating to the additional production/consumption of ethanol is 'good'. Everything else is just white noise to be ignored.

gagrice

ahhhh now I understand

iluvmysephia1

thread's question simply and succinctly.

Answer: yes.

ruking1

So why do we hate the moonshiners so much!?

iluvmysephia1

I don't know.

Done. Did it. Said and done.

Finished.

rockylee

Well take away the $0.54 cent tariff. Why is their a tariff on this stuff anyways ?

rorr, I just knew you would lob a bomb full of poop at me. :P I honestly didn't even think about GM's FFV engines when righting that post. BTW- GM, isn't the only car company that has FFV vehicles and it wouldn't take much for those who don't to convert over and have the capability.

Corn prices are going through the roof and we need other ethanol producing nations to help us out and glad to see Dubya, work a deal for some short-term relief. He finally did something great and I will tip my hat to him.

Rocky

gagrice

I think because of your age you were not around for the last ethanol boondoggle. Brazil went full bore into ethanol in the 1970s. Mandated all these ethanol only cars. When the price of sugar went up and the price of oil came down ethanol was too expensive to produce. They shut down most of the ethanol plants in Brazil and the USA. 1000s of motorists had cars of no value as you could not buy ethanol. During the ethanol boom in the USA our government at the request of the ethanol industry and farmers imposed that tariff to protect local investment. You can bet that a lot of big bucks are fighting to keep the tariff in place. If it goes away the US ethanol business will go down the drain. We cannot compete on a level playing field with cane ethanol.

For the Brazilian motorist it is better now as the vehicles are flex fuel. So when the bottom falls out of ethanol they will still be able to drive their cars.

rockylee

So about 2 mpg less on average ?????

Rocky

rockylee

gagrice,

Appreciate the history lesson. I never knew we tried ethanol once before in this country. :surprise:

Rocky

gagrice

Here is your Ethanol boondoggle of the 1970s.
Ethanol caused a lot of little towns go from boom to bust. It can happen again. And probably will.

1979
Marketing of commercial alcohol-blended fuels began.
Amoco Oil Company began marketing commercial alcohol-blended fuels, followed by Ashland, Chevron, Beacon, and Texaco.
About $1,000,000,000 ($1 billion) eventually went to biomass related projects from the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act.

1980 - 1984
First U.S. survey of ethanol production was conducted. The survey found fewer than 10 ethanol facilities existed, producing approximately 50 million gallons of ethanol per year. This was a major increase from the late 1950s until the late 1970s, when virtually no fuel ethanol was commercially available. Congress enacted a series of tax benefits to ethanol producers and blenders. These benefits encouraged the growth of ethanol production.
1980 -
The Energy Security Act offered insured loans for small ethanol producers (less than 1 million gallons per year), up to $1 million in loan guarantees per project that could cover up to 90 percent of construction costs on an ethanol plant, price guarantees for biomass energy projects, and purchase agreements for biomass energy used by federal agencies.

Here is your ethanol tariff put in place

1980 - Congress placed an import fee (tariff) on foreign-produced ethanol. Previously, foreign producers, such as Brazil, were able to ship less expensive ethanol into the United States.
1980 - The Gasohol Competition Act banned retaliation against ethanol resellers.
1980 - The Crude Windfall Tax Act extended the ethanol-gasoline blend tax credit.

1983 - The Surface Transportation Assistance Act increased the ethanol subsidy to 50 cents per gallon.

1984 - The number of ethanol plants in the U.S. peaked at 163.
The Tax Reform Act increased the ethanol subsidy to 60 cents per gallon.

1985

Many ethanol producers went out of business, despite the subsidies. Only 74 of the 163 commercial ethanol plants (45%) remained operating by the end of 1985, producing 595 million gallons of ethanol for the year.
One reason for producers going out of business was the very low price producers could receive for their ethanol (even with a subsidy of 60 cents per gallon), since the prices of crude oil and gasoline were so low. Despite the very low price of corn, which is the main driver of the cost of producing ethanol, nothing was enough to prevent the high rate of market change.

There you have it straight from the folks that forced it on us last time. I guess they are all young or have short memories.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/history/timelines/ethanol.html

larsb

But times are a changin' my friends. This is not 1970, not 1985.

Now people are REALLY starting to want to put an end to our addiction to oil. It's more serious now than it was then. There are far more environmental groups with political power now than then.

There are Americans dying for oil in the Middle East, and that was not happening in the other times we tried ethanol.

We have cellulosic ethanol now, not just corn-based. Many more vehicles are capable of using ethanol now and will continue to be sold in coming years.

I'm not saying ethanol is the long-term answer, but I am saying that dismissing it would be silly. It has a great chance to put AT LEAST a minor dent in foreign oil usage over the next 10-15 years.

gagrice

Do you have data to back this up?

We have cellulosic ethanol now,

There is one company in Canada that has demonstrated such a plant. They cannot get any $$$interest in the USA for building a production facility.

Ethanol was a boondoggle in 1979 and is a boondoggle now. Plain and simple it is corporate welfare to the max. Just because environmentalist groups will cling to any kind of anti oil solution, does not make it good.

If we wanted to use ethanol because it is a good product all we had to do is lift the tariffs and get a flood of cane ethanol from Brazil. That would save US BILLIONS shoved into the pockets of ADM and Verasun. Save the corn to feed the chickens and pigs.

larsb

dontcha 'member this story Gary:

Honda Ethanol breakthrough

And this one:

DOE - cellulosic within 5 yrs

gagrice

Those stories are like the fuel cell stories we read 30, 40 years ago. It is nothing but vaporware. No one has demonstrated that you can make ethanol from Switchgrass or corn stalks for a reasonable price. When they do we should go into production. Not a minute before. We waste more money on political remedies than any 10 countries. And yes, I remember that is why I am skeptical of all these "Pie In the Sky" programs. You are obviously too young to remember the waste when government sticks their nose into industry.

jeffyscott

So about 2 mpg less on average ?????

I could not figure out any pattern, or at least not that fit everything.

Most middle of the road cars looked to be about 10% lower...so typically reduction was right around 2 mpg city and 3 highway. But Prius was down 12 city (about 20%) and 6 hwy (which is close to 10%). Diesel Jetta was also down about almost 20% (5 mpg) on the city rating.

larsb

I don't think Honda is a political entity...

And I don't dismiss things out of hand because of past failures - anyone who does that is not visionary and doomed to be stagnant......

gagrice

I have no problem with Honda or Toyota spending all they like on hydrogen, ethanol or squirrel power. I don't want my tax dollars filling the wallets of gangster corporations. Research grants to colleges etc is not as bad with oversight. Even that can have the smell of corruption.

ruking1

I would agree. I really think the major problem the so called "system" has against nat gas and electricity is both can be filled at home and from that sense do not offer a readily handy way of collecting the ROAD tax revenue. In additon the cost per mile goes precipituously lower (from my point of view this is GREAT) Indeed you STILL would/do pay the typical nat gas and electrity taxation.

gagrice

I really think that is one of the reasons CARB dumped the EV mandate. They all of a sudden realized it would be real tough to collect road tax from all these EVs running around. CNG & cooking oil presents the same challenge. As long as they make alternatives that are impossible for the little guy to get around their taxation, it is good. So we get every kluge form of fuel and transportation in this country. E85 and hybrids being at the top of that list.

ruking1

Yes I can just see when those elderly folks you posted, being convicted of "felony cooking oil use".

So old man, I am here for all the capital crimes, even embezzled 3 billion dollars. Why are you here? Putting cooking oil in my fuel tank.

GEEZ.......... our priorities are way way way out of wack.

gagrice

Way out there. There is no consensus in Washington to cut oil independence or cut back on fossil fuel use. They throw up every conceivable alternative that will do nothing but move the oil money to another location. Even solar power is controlled by the oil companies. ARCO which is now BP bought up the technology decades ago. BP Solar is the largest producer of solar panels in the world. Do you think they will cut the prices to where it competes with their oil prices? Is it just coincidence that prices for gas in the Midwest were the first to drop about the time E85 was starting to get a foothold. Now with corn prices pushing ethanol higher they can run the price of gas back up. Mission accomplished. Politicians advocating using less oil are only trying to get the attention of the guys handing out the money.

iluvmysephia1

prices for ghastly because that's what I've always done and that's what I'll always do. Just as sure as the San Antonio Spurs will be beaten and popped out of the NBA playoffs earlier than their fans would like I will pay more for my Lancer's ghastly than I should have to.

"Feel so bad...feel like a ballgame on a rainy day..."

Lonesome Dave Peverett - Foghat

tpe

ARCO which is now BP bought up the technology decades ago. BP Solar is the largest producer of solar panels in the world. Do you think they will cut the prices to where it competes with their oil prices?

I'm not sure if BP is the biggest producer of solar panels. I thought it was Sharp. Regardless there are so many players right now that no one dominates or controls that market. Even Honda's getting in the game. I also don't think that solar competes with oil since we don't use much oil for electricity.

gagrice

You are probably right about the competing directly. I do believe ARCO was looking ahead when they bought into the Solar panel business. I think Solar is being held back currently by material shortages and price. Home Depot is getting into the business in a big way here. A system that will cover about 85% of the average home electric needs costs right at $22,000 installed. There are incentives in CA. I have not checked them out yet. The advertising claims a 15 year payback. Not quite enough for me to consider. When you tie it to an EV you would have to put enough back into the system to charge your car over night. I am not sure all electric utilities are allowing two way current flow. It is really quite simple. When your PV cells produce more than you are using the meter runs backward. Ideally you would only have to pay the minimum monthly service charge.

ruking1

Right now the cost is (1.83 per day @ 28 days), $ .1173076 per Kwh 15.6 per day. x $668. per year. 55.67 per mo. Wholesale CA price is estimated at .07 cents per KWH.

..."The average cost of residential electricity was 9.86¢/kWh in the U.S. in March 2006. The average household used 888 kWh/mo. in 2001 and would pay $87.56 for it based on the March 2006 average rate. (Dept. of Energy)"...

http://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/cost.html

Here is a very quick and dirty sign post. So how many days will it take to B/E? $22,000/1.83 per day = 12,022 days/365= 33 years? (to get folks in the ball park)

http://www.steinermarketing.com/calc_break_even.htm

BUT anymore, ACTUAL electrical usage is a VERY small percentage of the total electrical bill. So out of a 100% electrical (only) bill here are the actual categories:

Generation 31.50497 %
Tranmission 9.15479 %
Distribution 35.29182 %
Public Purpose Programs 5.98474 %
Nuclear Decomissioning .0031292 %
Trust Transfer Amount (TTA)5.82828 %
DWR Bond Charge 4.11868 %
Ongoing CTC 3.93115 %
energy Cost Recovery Amount 3.71601 %
taxes: Energy Commission Tax $.10

for app 99.48% of the bill . Anybody care to calculate the B/E point with these mandated %'s that you HAVE to pay? In other words, I can use absolutely no electricity and I would still have to pay these percentages when you sell back to the power company. Power company's do NOT want you off the grid. If you are on the GRID they really do not WANT YOU to sell power to them at RETAIL, when they can buy wholesale!?? Essentially a retail customer is capped at ZERO $.00 per month after selling back and paying mandated fees.

gagrice

Those are all issues that have to be addressed if you are considering Solar or Wind generation. I jumped in once in 1983 and got burnt. Do not plan to repeat, just to feel good. Let someone else feel green and lighter in the wallet.

ruking1

"Can Biofuels Help Break Our Addition To Oil?" by Patti Meagher

http://www.coe.berkeley.edu/forefront/fall2006/biofuels.html

Interesting article from the alma mater.

If I might make a take, as folks can read it and judge for themselves. One side of the debate would agree with Gagrice (and I, among others), ethanol while already much more expense than oil, might become an expotentially more expensive work horse in the MACRO sense.

Macro could be defined as the following snap shot

..."The United States consumes 140 B gals of petroleum annually, more than half of which is used for transport. (of note, (my sic) ) If the country's entire corn crop were processed into ethanol today, it would provide enough fuel to meet only about 15 percent of those transportation needs."...

In the micro sense, it might and definitely does have its place, i.e. taking advantage of waste generated by ongoing and TDA needed processes and further developed R & D processes'. This is turn would be converted to a PERCENTAGE relief of demand for oil. i.e., target of 5 percent.

Now of course we need to get an article from those AGGIES further north up the road at the University of California, DAVIS. GO AGGIES.

Unleaded regular is 46% of a barrel of oil (light sweet crude) So given the 24% ratio of diesel produced from a barrel of oil(higher priced light sweet crude and the "other crude"), shifting the passenger vehicle fleet to 15% as a short term goal and really higher at a min of 24% is a mathematical no brainer. Current passenger fleet being 235.4 M vehicles.

Conversion is practically seamless and cost less. Fuel is available anywhere and has been true for YEARS. There is also a 20-40% mpg advantage. At higher inventory levels it has shown an ability to even be cheaper than unleaded regular.

gagrice

Interesting reading. This is the part that squeezes me in the wrong place.

Biofuels would not be viable, Patzek says, without the generous federal subsidies that have cost U.S. taxpayers $144 billion in the last 10 years and end up lining the pockets of investors in agribusiness giants like Archer Daniels Midland, the leading U.S. ethanol producer. In fact, taxpayers pay twice for ethanol: first through crop subsidies to corn farmers and again in a 51-cent subsidy on every gallon of corn-derived ethanol sold as fuel. Even worse, Patzek says, policymakers and drivers are being lulled into a sense of false comfort by what they think is the magic bullet of biofuels.

ruking1

Well in a manner of speaking that makes ethanol the fuel closer to 6 dollar per gal fuel that a lot of folks are advocating. But it seems those advocates are not willing to pay the price (themselves) they advocate. You know what is really funny is since our taxation system is voluntary, this would not prevent those very same advocates from sending in a monthly, quarter, yearly check to increase their fuel use to 6 per gal or more if they so desire. Matter of fact here is an easy plan. Have those advocates buy an E85 vehicle. Then send into the IRS 3 or so dollars per gal to make a total of a soft 9 dollar per gal. Monthly, quarterly, yearly.

wale_bate1

is an ADM scam.

Not the only biofuel to consider though...