Goodby cheap oil, so long suburbia

It was probably true in older times that starting a car engine could take a couple of minutes' worth of the time idle that long. With carbureters you often had to give it some fuel and turn the starter for several seconds, even on cars in good mechanical shape. But with electronic fuel injectors, much less fuel is required for starting, and there is no need to 'feed' it more fuel. There are, though, a few drivers around today who still think you have to 'give the car some gas' as you turn the starter, just as an example of how far old habits can go.

There are a couple of tips to improving fuel use that most people don't seem to know about. One is to fill the tank before it becomes half empty, and preferably at the coolest time(s) of day, and at a slow pump speed. Basically, the idea is to stir the gasoline as little as possible and keep the vapor pressure down. A gas pump has a vapor return, and if you pump on high speed that just stirs the liquid more, vaporizing more, which re-enters the pump via the vapor return. Don't underestimate gasoline's rapid vaporization, and know the loss by such can be kept down. Along this line, it's also largely unknown that gasoline storage tanks use an "artificial roof", a floatational slab to rest of the surface of the liquid to allow for little vaporization, in order to keep loss to a minimum. Try this suggestion of slow pumping and filling before half-empty, and then notice how much longer it takes your fuel gauge to begin moving from F.

Of course, another thing drivers can do is to cut their speed. But that seems a burden far too great to bear, to drive 60 instead of 65-70 on the highway to work and back (using my own case example). But I have tested it and it does seem to improve mileage by about 1.5; even though it can be difficult to test because there are always other factors involved and more driving than just daily on the highway. I don't know if automobile psychology is anywhere considered a sub-field of that science(?), but it's an interesting 'lay' study, of which refusal to cut speed to use less fuel is one facet.

 

I suspect that even if petrol rises to $7-8 a gallon Americans will find a way to pay it and suburbia will still be suburbia. Ireland only has a couple of situations comparable to American cities, but Dublin is one of them.

During the cheap fuel days ($4-5 a gallon) there was a mass exodus to to towns and villages around Dublin seeing astounding growth in these little communities. I live in one of them, which is 20 miles from Dublin. When our town "filled up" the suburbs moved further out began growing. Now, the 20 mile (1 1/2 hour each way) commute from Naas is nothing. Thousands commute to and from Dublin from as far as 40-50 miles each way. They leave home at 5.00 am and get home at 7.00 in the evening, They pay, at the moment, around $7.15 a gallon.

The West is hooked on suburbia. Eventually companies will realise that there is no need to have such huge numbers of workers drive to work every day and will create their own computer systems and their workers will work, meet, and have conferences online from home and be MUCH more efficient in their jobs. Some workers will have to still "go in" to work, but driving for 1/2 hour instead of 1 1/2 hours each way will reduce their fuel costs dramatically.

Suburbia is just beginning.

 

Still waiting for someone to tell me why gas should be sold for less than people are willing to pay. What other products are sold for less than people are willing to pay?

 

Good point Bill. Just caught the latest news last nite. Gas here in my neck of the woods averages $1.21 - 1.27/litre in Canada vs $.96/litre in the USA. Right now, it's costing me $60+ to fill up a 4 cyl. compact and I figure before the summer's up, the way prices are going, it'll be somewhere around $65+. It definitely is impacting how I drive and how often.

 

When referring to necessities like fuel, your question doesn't really apply. But if you want to play at it, I bet we would willingly pay far more than we are now.

If you want to parse the word "willing", I'm not willing to pay $1 for a loaf of bread. But I pay more than that.

 

>I'm not willing to pay $1 for a loaf of bread. But I pay more than that.

You are more willing to pay for bread than to take the time to bake a better loaf than you can buy. Same with gas. You prefer to pay than to find a work around.


Get a small motorcycle and spend less for gas. Save the car for when there is ice on the road. Riding in snow is interesting. I rode one for 30 years.

 

Someone at the office is driving one of these to work:

http://spyder.brp.com/en-US/

 

It costs me more to bake a loaf of bread than it does to buy it for 79¢ a loaf.

I can just see me on a motorcycle at 63 with COPD and heart problems.

It is not preferable for me to take the easy way out and spend more money, I assure you.

Your suggestions are nice, but hardly suitable for everyone.

 

I have ridden a motorcycle since 1965. I have one now that gets 50 mpg and I don't drive it slow. It does save me a lot of money since I live 25 miles from where I work.

I believe that, as gasoline prices rise, more people will be buying motorcycles. Although, I do see a lot of large SUV's still on the road, not to mention the pickup trucks.

 

I think there's a lot of plain common sense to this. In fact, I think a lot of people are starting to get on board and figuring out alternate ways to keep costs reasonable and do something for the environment at the same time. Around here, more and more people are taking public buses, biking to work, motorcycling, scooters, etc. (I'm even thinking of a small scooter for at least 6 mos. of the year) and don't even get me started on SUV's!!! Talk about gas guzzlers and BAD, BAD, BAD for the environment! I can see these behemoths in the backcountry, but driving the kids to soccer 6 blocks away in a Humvee?? Give me a break!

 

I rode in the dirt and on the street for maybe 30 years, but I'm too old and fragile now. But I still look at the pictures and remember. When Barb and I were dating I had a Honda 50 C-110 and we rode that thing a bunch...Top speed was about 55 on the level but I could squeeze about 70 going down Merlin Hill. I could easily fill it for $.50 and run for a week. Many real street bikes after that, but it's the most memorable.

 

I drive a Hyundai Accent and I despise SUV's, too. They can block my view, they swing out making right turns, and if I'm behind them in a freeway entrance ramp they seem like a heavy rocket at liftoff trying to get up to speed. And I remember a letter to the editor about the safety and liability angles in which the writer, an SUV driver, said when an SUV collides with a small car and it's, as usual, the small car that sustains most of the damage, liability should always be on the small car driver for failing to have the "protection" of an SUV.

Anyway, does anyone think there is any hope for compressed air engines? There is a car with such an engine that was due to hit the market this summer, manufactured by Tata Motors of India. It's supposed to be capable of more than 60 mph, and range of 50 to 125 miles from a tank of air, depending on driving speed. But there is no combustion, and therefore no exhaust pollutants; except, of course, for the power used to compress the air on which it operates.

 

Thread closing warning: This thread will be closed no sooner than 11:30 p.m. ET by one of the moderators.

LE

 

In case you didn't know, there is a vast difference between believing you know more than someone and just not trusting someone.

 

Closed at 0130 EDT