10 Myths About Saving Money on Gasoline

[cyberdeity]

I came across this article today, and found it interesting. Some of these I've heard about (and read about in threads on this forum) such as the one regarding devices that claim to increase fuel economy. However, I've never heard of some of these, like the one regarding fuel density in the cooler mornings.

I thought you all might enjoy this one. It's sort of a 'myth-busters' type article. Enjoy!

http://www.thestreet.com/story....html

[Xtrykr]

thanks! nice read!

[KimberKenobi]

4. Idle away: At one time, this may have been true, but with modern fuel-injection technology, it's no longer the case. Just as there is no longer a need to spend 10 minutes warming up your car on a cold morning, if you are going to be sitting for more than a half minute, you will save more gas by turning the engine off than letting it continue to run.

... wait ... I got turned around... so is this (turn off car = gas savings) true?

10. Overinflated tires will save gas: The logic is that if underinflated tires waste gas and properly inflated tires get better mileage because of less tread contact on the road, over inflated tires would have even less tread contact, which would increase mileage. Popular Mechanics tested this theory and found that it didn't provide any added benefit and that it was dangerous.

... overinflating may be a bit much, but I've gotten a minimum of +2 mpg since inflating the Camel's tires to 40 PSI (the max is 44, the min recommended by Nissan is 33) and I've had a few trips that were +4, but none that were less than +2 so now the Camel is getting a minimum of 29.6 mpg.

[Ever Victorious]

I thought you all might enjoy this one. It's sort of a 'myth-busters' type article. Enjoy!

not that people even listen to the Mythbusters when they show the science debunking peoples' myths...

... as evidenced by the Ford Ranger that I followed for nearly 50 miles today running with his tailgate down. and NO CARGO!

... wait ... I got turned around... so is this (turn off car = gas savings) true?

True, and I can verify this through practice. I ran the tank really REALLY low on the Tucson, and still managed to get 70 miles out of the tank after the fuel low light came on, simply by turning off the engine at lights. What can I say? I was late and couldn't afford to pull over for gas.

The thing was running on absolute fumes when I finally got the time to get gas. I put in just a hair over 17 gallons, and the tank holds 17.2.

Quote »... overinflating may be a bit much, but I've gotten a minimum of +2 mpg since inflating the Camel's tires to 40 PSI (the max is 44, the min recommended by Nissan is 33) and I've had a few trips that were +4, but none that were less than +2 so now the Camel is getting a minimum of 29.6 mpg.[/quote]Sadly at 38 psi I have been unable to replicate Kimber's success. My fuel economy has been bouncing from 28 to 30 and back again. However, I just realized that it's been almost 12,000 miles since the last time I ran fuel injector cleaner through my tank, so I put it in the tank when I filled up this morning.

[MinisterofDOOM]

... wait ... I got turned around... so is this (turn off car = gas savings) true?

Yeah, that was confusingly written. But yes, it's true.

Think of it this way:MPG is of course an average. If you're not moving, and you're using fuel, you are getting 0 miles per gallon. As many lazy people like myself learned in school, a 0 thrown into a calculation of average will drag the final result way down.

If you're using fuel and not moving, you're wasting fuel. This is where the primary selling point of Hybrid cars comes from: in congested traffic, while stopped, the gasoline engine can turn off. With critical accessories (like A/C) run electrically, you can sit without using any fuel, then when you start moving again (using electric motor) the gas engine will start back up.

Obvously in non-hybrid cars it's not remotely practical to shut the car off while in traffic, especially since most modern cars are automatics which have to be put in park before starting or removing the key.

I imagine the idea that idling was bad came about in the era of carburetors, when starting required more fuel than idling. But it didn't require that much more. Another possible reason is simply the finicky nature of carburetors. For instance, it could be hard to re-start carbureted cars after they'd been running for a while for various reasons. Old dodge trucks were notorious for this--the fuel lines ran next to the exhaust, and the heat from the exhaust would cause the fuel to vaporize if it wasn't flowing fast enough. This led to "vapor lock" which prevented the engine from getting fuel.

[motoguy128]

Obvously in non-hybrid cars it's not remotely practical to shut the car off while in traffic, especially since most modern cars are automatics which have to be put in park before starting or removing the key.

You should be able to shut off and restart all automatics in Neutral. You may need to have the brake applied to restart.

[kc5f]

From the Versa Owner's Manual:

"N (Neutral): Neither forward nor reverse gear is engaged. The engine can be started in this position. You may shift to N (Neutral) and restart a stalled engine while the vehicle is moving."

But I've never tried it...

[Onyxblue]

From the Versa Owner's Manual:

"N (Neutral): Neither forward nor reverse gear is engaged. The engine can be started in this position. You may shift to N (Neutral) and restart a stalled engine while the vehicle is moving."

But I've never tried it...

Don't try this with a CVT or automatic - it will won't work under 40-50mph and you can destroy the transmission.

[kc5f]

I should have clarified, but the quote from the manual was under the section for the CVT...

(Page 5-13, right hand column)

[Onyxblue]

Sorry - my misunderstanding. I thought you said: set in N, push the versa and switch to D to start the engine.This is possible with manual: set it in 2nd, push the clutch, turn on the ignition, someone is pushing the car, you release the clutch and car starts

[kc5f]

Now that one I did many times in college when I had a battery that didn't seem to hold a charge and I couldn't afford a new one. Didn't even need a friend - I'd just park on a hill and pray that it would start before I got to the bottom of the hill!

[szh]

not that people even listen to the Mythbusters when they show the science debunking peoples' myths...

... as evidenced by the Ford Ranger that I followed for nearly 50 miles today running with his tailgate down. and NO CARGO!

Maybe it all fell out in the first few miles when he started out!

Just kidding ...

Z

[07V84Z]

Good post. Great read.

I HATE all these news stations telling everyone to get gas in the morning because it's denser and you'll get more. Not only is the tank underground and virtually uneffected be abient temp. BUT a car's tank will only hold it's given amount regardless.

As for the turning off the car saving gas, why not? I remember when I used to do that and my friends used to throw the old myth "It takes more gas to start the car than it would to run it..." at me. Maybe with older, carburated cars, but that isn't true at all anymore.

Ever since I got my V, I've changed my driving habits drastically. I mean, my Z used to be my daily driver and it was fun to give it the beans every now and again, but with the V it's all about cost consiencness. And I've even done some test to see how much it helps. Like for one week, I'd drive with my foot to the floor through every gear, downshift a lot and everything, and the next week I shifted below 4k RPM and didn't downshift much, if at all, and I tell ya...the difference is amazing. That, in essence, is a partial solution to gas prices. If people everywhere would just drive a little slower, drive at a lower RPM (Ie a higher gear if possible) and just relax a little, we'd use less gas. If we use less gas supply vs demand shifts and the price of gas wouldn't have to be so high. It worked after Katrina...people changed their driving habbits and all of a sudden oil was below $100/barrel again. But, of course, when prices dropped people didn't follow through and up they went again.

Anyone else think it's just about time for the government to step in here? don't you think that the gas companies could go a little while without charging so much? If they would cut their national profit by even 25% it would save the consumer hundreds of dollars a year. I don't know, I'm no expert, or analyst or anything. That's just what I think about it.

[kc5f]

I HATE all these news stations telling everyone to get gas in the morning because it's denser and you'll get more.

I save money this way, but not for this reason. When I buy gas after work there's always a wait to get to the pump, and the car idles. In the morning it seems like nobody wants to buy gas, and I can always get right to the pump!

As for government intervention, if the cost dropped significantly, demand would go up, and there just isn't the refinery capacity right now to handle it...

[srellim234]

Everybody keeps squawking about oil company profits. They make a lower % of profit than most companies; they are turning the profit on high volume, not %. The companies take all the financial risk. They deserve a reasonable %, which they get.

The #1 benefactor of high prices on fuel is government, not the oil companies. Fuel taxes, sales taxes, corporate income taxes, etc. Pure profit for the government. And every time the price goes up, government takes in more.

How would you feel about the government dictating to you, the consumer? Perhaps it should be illegal to buy a vehicle that gets less than 30 mph highway. Eliminate SUVs, 4x4s, trucks, etc. to the general public. Commercial vehicles would be exempt, but if you ever get pulled over using it for personal use the vehicle would be impounded and not returned.

Sorry, but I'm not ready to live in a socialist state. Let supply and demand handle it. Gas gets high enough, alternatives will become affordable and catch on.

[Ever Victorious]

As for the turning off the car saving gas, why not? I remember when I used to do that and my friends used to throw the old myth "It takes more gas to start the car than it would to run it..." at me. Maybe with older, carburated cars, but that isn't true at all anymore.

I don't shut off my Rambler at lights, because I'm afraid that POS Holley carb under the hood will flood and I won't be able to restart. Though the amount of fuel consumption at idle is probably way greater on the carb vs. my two fuel-injected cars. Lucky for me I'm planning on injecting the Rambler one of these days.

(snip)Quote »downshift a lot and everything, and the next week I shifted below 4k RPM and didn't downshift much, if at all, and I tell ya...the difference is amazing. That, in essence, is a partial solution to gas prices. If people everywhere would just drive a little slower, drive at a lower RPM (Ie a higher gear if possible) and just relax a little, we'd use less gas.[/quote]It's going to be an uncomfortable conversation I have with my best friend when I point out to him the reason he's only getting 22 MPG is because of how aggressively he drives. He will cruise down a city street at 3500 rpm, with gears to spare, and not shift. And he rides peoples' tails (and his brakes) like no tomorrow. His justification? "If I'm not sitting there, someone will just cut on in". So? let them cut. let the potential accident be THEIR problem, just keep sitting back far enough to be out of trouble.

Quote »Anyone else think it's just about time for the government to step in here? don't you think that the gas companies could go a little while without charging so much? If they would cut their national profit by even 25% it would save the consumer hundreds of dollars a year. I don't know, I'm no expert, or analyst or anything. That's just what I think about it.[/quote]The only "intervention" the government should be allowed to have in the case of fuel prices is the right to suspend or eliminate gas taxes. In my state and county, there's something ridiculous like 58 cents of taxes on each gallon of gas. If these were suspended, I'd actually be paying just under $3/gal.

If you start having the government regulate industry more and more, you move more towards the socialist side of economics and society. Yes, there need to be SOME controls over industry so they don't wildly rape everyone and everything, but they should NOT be micromanaged by Uncle Sam.

Also, when you look at the grand scheme of things, the actual PROFITS of the oil companies are just a few pennies a gallon. Having them reduce this by 25% will do next to nothing for Joe Blow in the short run, but the effects that trickle down from the stock market would be absolutely brutal to what is left of our economy.