These days it seems more common to overhear comments about a particular car's appalling fuel economy than idle chatter about the weather, which makes sense when a gallon of gas costs as much as a cheap umbrella. For instance, just the other day there was some guy going on about how his car was getting 3 mpg less than just a few months ago and had no idea why. That is until it was pointed out to him that his car's adjustable luggage rack was in its full, upright position, giving his car the aerodynamic efficiency of a cinder block.
That's just one of the points Forbes includes on its list of things to do so you can drive green without buying a new car. Improving your gas-guzzling vehicle's sleekness by losing that luggage rack, ditching that inefficient and egregiously ugly three-foot-tall spoiler and quit sticking your hand out the window are all little things that add up to an appreciable difference at the pump.
Most of the advice is common sense we've all heard before, but Sebastian Blanco, editor of AutoblogGreen, offered a novel suggestion for the list. Reduce your car's weight by only filling up half the tank. One gallon of gasoline can weigh as much as 6.5 lbs. On a 2008 Ford Escape, a half a tank of gas weighs 53 pounds.
Like the Forbes article points out, there's only so much you can do to curb a car's drinking habit, especially if you're driving something like an Escalade. But in smaller, lighter cars, even small steps like this can make a big difference in your fuel bill.
[Source: Forbes.com]
Spy Shots: Production Audi TT Clubsport Quattro
Chevy Camaro getting early unveil at Indy in September
James Garner recovering from mild stroke
VIDEO: God's ringtone is a V10-powered Audi R8
IIHS releases official results on the smart fortwo
Autoline on Autoblog with John McElroy
In the Autoblog Garage: 2008 Ford Shelby GT500 Mustang
Future Classic: 1984 Chrysler Minivans
First Drive: 2009 Volkswagen Jetta Sportwagen
_thumbnail.jpg "Lamborghini Reventon unboxed in Las Vegas")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Black03Marauder @ Mar 31st 2008 6:24PM
just because you have a 4 banger doesn't mean that it automatically gets good gas mileage either. NOTHING will get good mileage if you floor it all the time. I knew a guy with a miata who would always get around 12 mpg because he had to flog that poor engine just to keep up with traffic. Contrast that with the v8 in my slushboxed Marauder. I've gotten 33 mpg out of it, by keeping the tach under 1500 and with no a/c.
TMC @ Mar 31st 2008 6:35PM
|BS|
|
|
|
|
I know of people who get better than 12 mpg during track days.
Hell, I get 20+ driving like a complete maniac in my NB. I have seen 33+ driving like a grandma.
Pick a better example, because unless your friend was driving around with the e-brake on, he/she is full of brown smelly stuff.
CarbonBlack @ Mar 31st 2008 8:55PM
I think that is why turbos are popular.
You have the power when you need it (high RPM)
but when cruising, the turbo isn't pushing much boost, and the engine gets similar economy of an N/A version.
my 50cc scooter gets about the same economy as my fathers 250cc bike. my scooter is ALWAYS at full throttle. my dad's can just cruise at low RPMS.
Black03Marauder @ Mar 31st 2008 9:24PM
uh oh, another internet expert...you want the long, boring version, ok then.
1. it was his first stick. Im not knocking his driving, he just had just had to redline every time because of how long it took him to shift(Im guessing, we never did fiqure out why he was so slow).
2. One day he told me he had to stop 4 times for gas on a 250 mile drive(10 gal * 4 stops=40 gallons!!!)oh wait, you're going to come back with a "I only have to put in 9.5544342409 gallons when I stop for gas" so even if he put in 8 gal for 4 stops thats still 32 gallons, which divided 250 is about 8ish. I was shocked in disbelief as you are right now. THATS WHAT HAPPENED
Now onto more important business...do you really think I came unto this thread and thought "By lying in a comment on autoblog, I WIIILLLL RULLLEE THE WORLD BWAHAHHAHAHA" I have nothing to gain by lying. But one thing you must remember is that there are no absolutes in life, so quit acting like you know everything
but after all, you did just thward the miatashelloililluminatironpaulCONSPIRACY
Black03Marauder @ Mar 31st 2008 9:32PM
oh, 2 people replied to my post, my previous tirade was directed at TMC, not carbonblack, whose comment made more sense than this article.
TMC @ Apr 1st 2008 11:10AM
Uh oh, another load of anecdotal evidence on the internet.
I'd have to drive WOT in 3rd gear on the highway to get 13 mpg. Or I'd have to be on a track wringing it out good.
Simply put - to get that sort of mileage, your friends car had something wrong with it. Clogged cat, bad injectors, blown headgasket - something. Miatas do not get 12mpg on a regular basis - especially not on the highway. Not even FI Miatas get 12mpg!
Get over yourself and maybe listen to those who have (first hand) knowledge about the cars. I am certainly not an "expert" on a lot of things, but I absolutely know my way around the Miata.
The bottom line is your bud's anecdotal evidence is not nearly a large enough sample size to come to any sort of conclusion, other than he needs to service his car - and soon.
David @ Mar 31st 2008 6:24PM
Fill the tank half way to save on weight? You've got to be kidding me. Next thing this guy will want is a gas guzzler tax for those who weigh over 200 lbs. This tool has too much time on his hands. Next he'll prove he's right with a calculation- 'If all the tanks were only half full we'ld use 10 billion less galloons of gas per year and we could all retire from work three years early.'
paul34 @ Mar 31st 2008 9:41PM
I don't understand why you think it is so unreasonable. Are you opposed to believing that gasoline weighs 5.8-6.5 pounds per gallon?
black @ Mar 31st 2008 10:29PM
it will work if your car/truck has an excessively high capacity tank. Fuel savings is minimal if, for example, you drive a Corolla with a 11 gallon fuel tank.
TwinTurbo3000GT @ Mar 31st 2008 6:26PM
"Reduce your car's weight by only filling up half the tank."
And when the top half of your tank rusts, or for those of us in cold climates, you get water in your gas from condensation, you'll wish you weren't so damn cheap.
Franz @ Mar 31st 2008 6:37PM
LOL. That's too funny.
steveo391 @ Mar 31st 2008 10:11PM
Not only is it funny, but's it the cold hard truth. Seen it happen to a few people
Quattroporte @ Mar 31st 2008 6:49PM
Filling up on less gas means more stops at the gas station which means more braking, and more braking hurts fuel economy as well. I say help reduce the weight of your car by not braking for that burger.
Quattroporte @ Mar 31st 2008 6:53PM
...and idling needlessly in the drive-thru.
Kumar @ Mar 31st 2008 6:55PM
What, were they afraid of hurting feelings by telling drivers to shed some weight (their own)?
White Goodman @ Mar 31st 2008 7:01PM
If anyone thinks 53 lbs is going to make a noticeable difference is kidding themselves. Ambient air temperature will have a larger effect than a half-tank of gas.
Besides, it's also more "green" to buy a used car over a new car as the used car already has sunk "eco"-costs of manufacturing and transportation.
Not that any of it really matters because the "man-made global climate change" movement is a farce.
jg @ Mar 31st 2008 7:49PM
Where's the farce? That it's man made or that climate change is occurring. I get so confused by you deniers saying its fake then saying it's real but you can't say it's man made. Make up your mind. Or just get informed. You might learn no one but deniers are saying it's man made. GCC is about how much effect we are having on the natural climate fluctuations. Only someone who stands to inherit oil money could deny our presence and our activities the last 100 years have had an effect. Some are certainly exagerating the effect, laugh at them, we do too, but the effect is real.
Goober @ Mar 31st 2008 10:36PM
I'm with you White. I get so sick of these science dorks trying to convince everyone that the earth is warming, buying hybrids is good for the environment, cigarettes kill and man actually landed on the moon. And don't even get me started on that Oswald farce. You guys will buy anything Big Brother tries to sell you.
montoym @ Apr 1st 2008 2:02AM
@ jq: The only one I see confused is you. All along the "deniers" I've seen have claimed that the warming that occurs is not solely caused by humans. That's been very consistent with everything I've seen and read. I've never seen claims that climate change does not exist.
Where the inconsistancy lies from my view is the environmentalists side which started by claiming that humans cause global warming. But then when data comes out that shows that the warming is not really the biggest issue and may be slowing, then the mantra changed to "humans cause global climate change" rather than "global warming". Plus, that allows them to blame humans for either event regardless of the true cause.
From my side of it(call me a denier or whatever), I believe 100% that the Earth's climate changes. It warms, it cools, it rains, it snows, it hails, wind blows, droughts happens, floods happen etc. All of this is going to happen with or without us(cue the U2).
I do feel that CO2 is characterized as far, far more problematic than it really is. Water vapor from the oceans plays a larger role in our climate than CO2, by a large part. Not to mention the pollution that the Earth spews unto itself. Volcanoes emit huge amounts of toxins and soot into the air all the time. The ocean floors leak oil into our oceans in larger amounts than any of our human-caused oil spills on a yearly basis.
Also, the Sun happens to play a huge role as well and I'm unaware of anything we've done that has changed it. It also happens to have it's own cycles as well and is currently in a warmer period. Find a timeline that overlays both the temperatures on Earth and the cycles of the Sun and there "will" be an uncanny similarity between the Earth's temperature and the warming and cooling cycles of the Sun, irregardless of CO2 levels and anything else. I guess I'm one of the few who is not surprised that something millions of times larger(the Sun) than us(Earth) might actually play a larger role than we give it credit for.
Additionally, all of us humans could die off tomorrow and the Earth would continue to have warming and cooling cycles, just as it did for billions of years before we came along. Our Earth is a far more remarkable planet than many people realize and it's ability to adapt and change is amazing.
White Goodman @ Apr 1st 2008 5:12PM
@ Goober: the ironic part is that I'm actually one of those "science dorks".... a physicist by education and trade.
And montoym pretty much covered my perspective. Sure, humans emit CO2 in their everyday activities. Sure, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But I think it is EGOTISTICAL to assert that humans are the primary cause for EVERY SINGLE D*MNED WEATHER EVENT IN THIS WORLD. The climatologists and meteorologists told me it was going to rain on Friday and we didn't get a single drop... so why should I believe that their computer models of the Earth's incredibly complex eco-system have any validity with regard to "global climate change"?
Beyond that, the Earth is largely self-regulating. At the most we'll just accelerate the change between peaks and valleys, and being the intelligent organisms that we are, we'll find ways to deal with it... without needing taxes, regulations, and governments to inevitably screw things up (as they already have).