zero Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 As to gelling I just add cetane like most folks do. Also Derrick the EPA page on the Mercedes is in summer mode... You lost me on that one. Cetane is just a measure of the combustion quality of fuel and has nothing to do with gelling or the creation of wax crystals at cold temps. That is unless the "Cetane" you mention is a brand name of an additive I'm not privy too. "Power Service" is the most popular brand in my area for an anti-gel and anti-biotic for diesel fuel and maybe Stanadyne takes 2nd place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Yeah it's a brand of thinner JD..Here that Maineah ? I think Derek must surely think your 52 more impressive than my 47. You guys are a hoot. Sorry for my iPhones autocorrection on beetle; it was design by hippy coffee house types that love Dianne Feinstein . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 The word police are hot for my gun... Time to drop out for a while. Bye bye coppers. Have fun explaining cetane boost to someone that can stand reading your constant criticism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiter Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Sorry for my iPhones autocorrection on beetle; it was design by hippy coffee house types that love Dianne Feinstein . LMAO One of the reasons I moved out of Calif. John Mc 88 Dolphin 4 Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamar Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 dont trust the government but especially not that mpg site. Its propaganda that was orignally part of the cash for clunkers campaign. A huge 'economic' stimulus type thing. these are not the origgnal epa sticker numbers that you are looking for but a formula that makes all old cars get terrible gas mileage. It doesnt sound right I know, how can the epa lie about epa numbers. Because its not going to sue itself thats why. im a used car dealer and i wish it wasnt true. Its a big oil conspiracy to make you buy a new car make no mistake at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamar Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I ditched california. Feel free to put it down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamar Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 on any given day the most obnoxious people in the world are on a car forum somewhere arguing about gas mileage. I cant imagine how i got suckered into participating in this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 dont trust the government but especially not that mpg site. Its propaganda that was orignally part of the cash for clunkers campaign. I think the "cash for clunkers" and all the auto bail-outs were huge rip-offs for taxpayers. That being said, I've found the EPA figures to be very reliable. They are trying to take into account various drive-styles and altitudes and that fact that most north americans speed. I rarely see anyone driving at under 70 MPG where I live. Here's what I have noticed. Low on a few and high on others but overall - pretty close. Their VW diesel rating is the most off of any. EPA rating versus what I've logged in certain vehicles: 1986 Chevy diesel Blazer EPA 15-20 MPG, my experience 16-19 MPG. 1992 VW Jetta diesel EPA 31-36, my experience 38-48 MPG 1998 Dodge Grand Caravan AWD, EPA 14-22, my experience - 12-21.5 MPG 1999 Kia Sportage, EPA 17-21, my experience 17-22 MPG 1995 Chevy Astrovan AWD, EPA 14-17, my experience 14-18 MPG 2002 Subaru Outback Impreza, EPA 19-25, my experience 18-24 MPG 2010 Ford Escape 2.5, EPA 21-28, my experience 20-29 MPG 1985 Isuzu 4WD minitruck diesel, EPA 23-24, my experience 23-27 MPG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiter Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 After the comments, I was curious as to how my cars stacked up.1997 4 cyl Camry EPA=20/28 actual 24/332006 4 cyl Camry EPA=21/31 actual 25/35 1999 6 cyl F150 EPA=14/18 actual 16/23It appears that my driving style is a little more conservative than the EPAs as I'm able to consistently beat their results by a couple MPG. My favorite is the 97 Camry, it has 280,000 and still gets great mileage.JOhn Mc 88 Dolphin 4 Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Well lets not forget the motorhomes. 1986 toyota cab and chassis automatic EPA 12mpg my experience with an 18ft Sunrader 14 to 19 mpg Makes you wonder if it was ever tested at all Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Toyota Motorhome owners must get such good fuel economy because we're conditioned to cruise at 55MPH. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiter Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I checked the site again for an 88 Toyota truck EPA = 19/22. Obviously they didn't have a 6,000 lb barn door strapped to it :-)heres the site I looked at. EPA MILEAGEJOhn Mc 88 Dolphin 4 Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Toyota Motorhome owners must get such good fuel economy because we're conditioned to cruise at 55MPH. I don't. The 19 can be gotten on relatively flat terrain at just a kick under 60 and the 14 is when I'm doing 65 plus. Of course there's not a lot of plus beyond that 65 but I can do 70 pretty easy if I don't have much cross wind. Handling get to be a pain then. Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I checked the site again for an 88 Toyota truck EPA = 19/22. Obviously they didn't have a 6,000 lb barn door strapped to it :-) heres the site I looked at. EPA MILEAGE JOhn Mc 88 Dolphin 4 Auto But cab and chassis for that year is still 12 Linda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiter Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I need to look at mine, I averaged about 13.5 on this last trip and have an idle problem. (It doesn't like to idle, will stall). I looked carefully for vacuum leaks and didn't detect any. I'm going to look at the Throttle Position Sensor and will probably pull the fuel injectors and get then serviced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 -returning to the scene of the crime... someone recently posted a screenshot of the mythbusters results on drafting semis. I was interested to see that they had 11% improvement at 100 feet. fascinating... that would take my nominal 17 mpg to...19. lol... newfangled math... by the way in math, 11% of 17 is 1.87.... which nets out to 18.87. that's closer to 19 at 100 feet. I looked at my picture of the swift truck; I think I was closer than 100 feet. Dangerous yes, but incredible on change of MPG? no. Face it Derek... its just not that impressive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Are you referring to that Topic where you claimed to get 10mpg at 61mph not drafting and 21mpg at 61mph drafting? Yes, a 110% improvement is very impressive. Mythbusters only claimed a 39% improvement when drafting at 10'. Are you sure you weren't using a 100' chain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 yep. the one where you considered the delta between 10 - 21 but I was talking about delta of 17-21 or 10- 17. The newfangled math... the baseline was stated to be 17; that which is usually attainable in most states roads and weather. In other words, I usually get somewhere around 17 as an average.. Thus something was causing drag and problems on the return route. I believe I was experiencing 25% improvement in other words on the way there. Now the bag of chips goes to person that can guess the distance I was to get 25%... anyone anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamar Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Cash for clunkers was part of the detroit bailout you're totally right jd. We are going back almost 6 years. That's when fuel economy.gov went live look it up. They are allowed to figure out pre 96 cars mpg using a formula that has nothing to do with the sticker mileage. You can find many that are ridiculous. Obd 2 cars compute their own gas mileage believe it or not but obd 1 cars gas mileage is a debatable point. So they are allowed to literally take a number and subtract an amount based on year. Look thiis up if it sounds hokey. We paid the incentive a taxpayer paid new car incentive. Huge scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Don't know anything about your 'baseline' of 17mpg. What's that, 'half drafting'? All I know is that you claimed 10mpg not drafting, 21mpg drafting. That's a 110% improvement the way anyone I know calculates it. Oh, and something about it being downhill all the way Westbound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 you still aren't following ... Just as Drafting can improve MPG so too can other factors reduce it from its nominal expected value. After revisiting my photo I can clearly see the navy blue chrysler and red pickup truck are approximately 3-4 car lengths apart. they mark the distance to the truck. I was tailgating. Your oldfangled math keeps assuming that 10 MPG is the standard hwy MPG. The improvement percentage is relative to the nominal MPG of the vehicle not what the vehicle is getting at that point in time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stamar Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 I think its worth it to make a thread of mpg with guideline on how to compute it for your toyhome. Unfortunately the regulars would fill it with theories on increasing 12 volts to 14: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 So now you've gone from your original "... sat about 10 - 15 car lengths back." to "I was tailgating"? Does Borg Warner cover trips to the optometrist? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waiter Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Aerodynamic drag increase as the square of speed. I can see where tailgating the truck would significantly improve the mileage. I would guess 50 - 60 ft would be good (closer the better) . Air would still be turbulent a couple lengths back, so it would help. I'll look around and see if I can find any trucks in wind tunnels, But from my aviation experience, if you can get that truck to separate the air for you, that is a significant decrease in your energy requirement to get the air to separate (front end).The biggest factor in aerodynamic drag is air flow re-combination (the back end) SO, if you can get the truck to tail gate you, that would be a little better than you tailgating the truck.HUMM, maybe a bumper sticker that says "Tailgate me"JOhn Mc 88 Dolphin 4 Auto Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 16, 2013 Share Posted January 16, 2013 Or one saying 'Tow me." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I see, said the blind man I see... The only thing I am going back on is my resistance to feel that there wasn't anything wrong with drafting. I'll not do so that much at that speed and will hang back in the 50's. Until the EPA publishes a drafting site or Wikipedia makes a chart for you to post a link to I'm afraid all I have to offer your disbelief is the multiple testimonials that everyone just posted on mpg for any of our vehicles and our experiences. I'll try not to defile the temple of the sultan of google any longer and agree to disagree on the math. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 No Google required. From 10mpg to 21mpg is a 110% increase. Your mpg numbers, grade 3 math. What exactly do you do at Borg Warner anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linda s Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Have any of you ever tried this. 5 or 6 car lengths behind a semi and the wind coming off the truck whips you back and forth like there's no tomorrow. Besides the fact that if someone pulls in front of that truck you can kiss your behind goodbye. Or are we talking about cars here that actually stop when you brake Linda S Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 I am a janitor and a fixer , I clean other people's messes that's all you need be concerned with as to my job. My mop is my brain and my degreaser is wisdom. What is your job? Let me guess, retired....also technically even by your math it's a DECREASE. 21 to 10 is not an increase but I suppose Canada teaches its students to count down; that way they are able to see how many people are left still working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Yep, retired. But haven't forgotten my Grade 3 math. Yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 you still aren't following ... Just as Drafting can improve MPG so too can other factors reduce it from its nominal expected value. No math here; just one anecdotal report I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 No math here; just one anecdotal report I Let me try again. I'm on a lap-top and my fingers do not fit the keyboard and bad posts result. One anecdotal report that I am sure is true. Friend of mine in his 80s that has been fooling with RVs most of his life. He drives back and forth between NY and Florida every year and camps in a hayfield in NY during the summer. He keeps an accurate log of fuel mileage and other factors. No fantasy, BS, guessing or reading some silly computer-driven screen that shows 40 MPG when coasting down a hill. He made a few trips back and forth with a Ford dually RV with a 460 gasser. He always got 7.5 MPH coming "up" to NY and 8 MPG going back "down" to Florida. Last year he towed a small car back from NY to Florida (1996 Geo Tracker). He got 9.2 MPG on that trip when towing. Without using high science here we figure the vehicle being towed broke some sort of wind-vacuum on the flat back of his RV and he gained MPGs via enhanced aerodynamics. Don't know for sure, but I AM sure of his fuel mileage log. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Have any of you ever tried this. 5 or 6 car lengths behind a semi and the wind coming off the truck whips you back and forth like there's no tomorrow. Besides the fact that if someone pulls in front of that truck you can kiss your behind goodbye. Or are we talking about cars here that actually stop when you brake Linda S When I first got my driver's license late 60s - I was told to keep one car length behind for every 10 MPH of speed. So at 75 MPH that would be 7 1/2 car lengths? Seems now adays that is impossible. At least anywhere I drive. I've been rear-ended twice in the past few years by a tail-gater and both times, the NYS trooper refused to give the person a ticket that slammed into me. Seems "following too closely" is not regarded as a problem anymore by our local law. When driving any of my RVs, I'd like some time to stop when possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totem Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 Agreed JD, no math just a report. The math was an esoteric attempt at calling me a liar. Most posts with exclamations followed by links to websites are just that. It's cool though, from all these posts apparently we are all liars. It was cool to see the myth busters picture and try to determine a hypothesis as to the observation. My employers health care coverage was unfortunately not the one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek up North Posted January 17, 2013 Share Posted January 17, 2013 10mpg vs 21mpg, "... simply amazing." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.