(#1) On May 17, 2011, says:
Gosh, darned, golly! A 60MPG car would be really "swell"!!!!!!!!.
The last filling of the tank on my 4 cylinder standard transmission Ford Ranger ran $50. Sending money on gas is "fun" in the same way that we are supposed to buy lottery tickets because it is "fun".
The first thing is that we have to talk of actual "tank to tank" fuel consumption, not that fiction known as EPA ratings.
The tiny detail of the ACTUAL 60 MPH have to do with physics and money. You can reduce weight and frontal drag. Weight reduction can come from new steel alloys. My 2005 Ranger has a lot lighter frame than the early Rangers. If you go to more aluminum and composite plastics you can save weight but these materials are far more expensive. For example the 4 cylinder engine in my Ranger is an aluminum block (with cast iron cylinder sleeves). This saved forty pounds. Losing weight is difficult.
The ACTUAL mileage difference with a flex fuel seems to reflex the alcohol/gas mix fuel energy. There may be a few tricks like a diesel style common rail direct fuel injection system but this is costly. You can go with smaller engines and possibly use a turbo but the turbo-lag is very annoying. (read up on the turbo-diesel Volkswagen).
Hardly anyone talks about manual transmissions but these save 10% and give 10% more power.
The other way to increase mileage is to decrease the size of the vehicle.
A "conditional" survey includes the reality behind the choice. Like "duhh! No one likes paying money to gas up the car. An added factor is that if you don't drive much a more "spartan" vehicle can suffice and especially in urban areas, a smaller vehicle is more practical. One the other hand if your low usage urban you don't burn that much fuel.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
The last filling of the tank on my 4 cylinder standard transmission Ford Ranger ran $50. Sending money on gas is "fun" in the same way that we are supposed to buy lottery tickets because it is "fun".
The first thing is that we have to talk of actual "tank to tank" fuel consumption, not that fiction known as EPA ratings.
The tiny detail of the ACTUAL 60 MPH have to do with physics and money. You can reduce weight and frontal drag. Weight reduction can come from new steel alloys. My 2005 Ranger has a lot lighter frame than the early Rangers. If you go to more aluminum and composite plastics you can save weight but these materials are far more expensive. For example the 4 cylinder engine in my Ranger is an aluminum block (with cast iron cylinder sleeves). This saved forty pounds. Losing weight is difficult.
The ACTUAL mileage difference with a flex fuel seems to reflex the alcohol/gas mix fuel energy. There may be a few tricks like a diesel style common rail direct fuel injection system but this is costly. You can go with smaller engines and possibly use a turbo but the turbo-lag is very annoying. (read up on the turbo-diesel Volkswagen).
Hardly anyone talks about manual transmissions but these save 10% and give 10% more power.
The other way to increase mileage is to decrease the size of the vehicle.
A "conditional" survey includes the reality behind the choice. Like "duhh! No one likes paying money to gas up the car. An added factor is that if you don't drive much a more "spartan" vehicle can suffice and especially in urban areas, a smaller vehicle is more practical. One the other hand if your low usage urban you don't burn that much fuel.
Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.
No comments:
Post a Comment