$3.50 a gallon? GMAFB

[kleinwl]

you think gas is expensive... try buying a house in LA! The average is over $500K. Even spending $300/mo (yes I drive 30K/yr), it would take me 138 years to spend as much on gas as a house cost. BTW this average house is probly only 1000 sqft... without a lawn and built sometime around 1950.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I like Sheeps idea about tire inflation. That's huge. .

CR had a discussion of gas ideas in the april issue. Slow down, remove everything from the roof and drive with the windows closed; use the vents, or a/c

 

[Sheep]

CR had a discussion of gas ideas in the april issue. Slow down, remove everything from the roof and drive with the windows closed; use the vents, or a/c

HAHA Wrong!

If you knew anything about cars, you'd know AC hogs TONS of gas. Driving with the windows down is much easier on the car then AC.

Also, you need to be going 100mph or more for drag to become a factor.

SheepStar

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

The next time you drive somewhere, look in the other cars and ask yourself
1. How many adults can safely occupy that vehicle?
2. How many adults are in that vehicle?

I always wonder these, because, on avaerage, the most common vehicle here is a mid-sized SUV (explorer/trailblazer), they all seat 5 adults and maybe 1 out of 15 has more than 1 person in them.

wwastewastewastewastewaste......

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

CR had a discussion of gas ideas in the april issue. Slow down, remove everything from the roof and drive with the windows closed; use the vents, or a/c

"Remove everything from the roof." LOL, I wonder how many mpg I'm losing with that monster rack. Greenpeace would have me shot.

I read the same thing regarding windows - at highway speeds, it's more efficient to travel with the A/C on as opposed to the windows down. Also, to wash and wax the car to keep drag as low as possible.

 

[Hi Ho]

HAHA Wrong!

If you knew anything about cars, you'd know AC hogs TONS of gas. Driving with the windows down is much easier on the car then AC.

Mythbusters actually tested this. I don't remember the details but I believe they did two different tests. In one test, the A/C proved to be far more efficient, in the other, the windows won but only by less than 1 MPG. I believe the difference between the tests was speed. They had two identical Ford Expeditions with exactly the same amount of fuel driving the exact same speed (cruise control) until they ran out of gas. I'd say that was a pretty thorough test.

I hate driving with the windows down. A/C is much more pleasant. Now if only my car had A/C...

To add to that, the other family car, a 95 Civic, has A/C and we drove to Death Valley a couple years ago with the A/C on 99% of the time. We averaged nearly 42 MPG the entire time, with an automatic transmission.

 

[Sheep]

Mythbusters actually tested this. I don't remember the details but I believe they did two different tests. In one test, the A/C proved to be far more efficient, in the other, the windows won but only by less than 1 MPG. I believe the difference between the tests was speed. They had two identical Ford Expeditions with exactly the same amount of fuel driving the exact same speed (cruise control) until they ran out of gas. I'd say that was a pretty thorough test.

I hate driving with the windows down. A/C is much more pleasant. Now if only my car had A/C...

To add to that, the other family car, a 95 Civic, has A/C and we drove to Death Valley a couple years ago with the A/C on 99% of the time. We averaged nearly 42 MPG the entire time, with an automatic transmission.

Wrong again. The AC car lost. And by a good margain. Might wanna brush up.

SheepStar

 

[Hi Ho]

Well I said I wasn't sure. I'm biased anyway because one of my major pet peves is driving with the windows down. I hate when people in my car open the windows.

 

[Sheep]

Well I said I wasn't sure. I'm biased anyway because one of my major pet peves is driving with the windows down. I hate when people in my car open the windows.

Rofl. Afarid you'll fall out?

SheepStar

 

[sjdgpt]

Years ago I made a 400+ mile interstate trip in my little econo car.


I left early in the morning on a lovely spring day. No need for AC, used the dash vents to cool the car. I was not in a hurry. Drove the damn 55 mph speed limit (it was a few years ago). After stopping for a lunch break I finally turned on the AC. Trip took nearly 9 hours.

I got 42 mpg.

Great, wonderful.


Coming back the weather had warmed. I was in a hurry.

AC on 100%. Damn the speed limit all horsepower ahead. Trip took 6 hours.

I got 36 mpg.


Not using the AC and backing off the gas pedal can make a difference. But even if gas was $5 per gallon is 6 mpg on the highway worth the time and comfort hassle of driving so slow and potentially uncomfortable?

By the by, my full size gas guzzler gets 33 mpg on the highway while doing more than 70 mph. Gets 34 mpg doing 60. Can anybody guess which speed I do most often?

 

[jaxvon]

Mythbusters actually tested this. I don't remember the details but I believe they did two different tests. In one test, the A/C proved to be far more efficient, in the other, the windows won but only by less than 1 MPG. I believe the difference between the tests was speed. They had two identical Ford Expeditions with exactly the same amount of fuel driving the exact same speed (cruise control) until they ran out of gas. I'd say that was a pretty thorough test.

I hate driving with the windows down. A/C is much more pleasant. Now if only my car had A/C...

To add to that, the other family car, a 95 Civic, has A/C and we drove to Death Valley a couple years ago with the A/C on 99% of the time. We averaged nearly 42 MPG the entire time, with an automatic transmission.

You might be thinking of the tailgate up/down test. They did that with a pair of Ford F-150 trucks. Tailgate up is actually the best way to drive, as the aerodynamic properties of the truck are designed around having the gate up.

 

[Hi Ho]

You might be thinking of the tailgate up/down test. They did that with a pair of Ford F-150 trucks. Tailgate up is actually the best way to drive, as the aerodynamic properties of the truck are designed around having the gate up.

Yep, I remember that one too, but they did do an A/C vs MPG test with two Expeditions. I could have sworn that at least on of their tests showed the A/C at an advantage, and it wasn't a huge difference when the windows won.

Then theirs that 95 Civic where having the A/C on doesn't seem to make one bit of difference.

Rofl. Afarid you'll fall out?

Hahaha, no, I hate the noise! It drives me crazy! I also hate the pulsating air pressure.

I have spent a lot of time making my car as quiet as possible and opening the windows negates all of that work.

 

[Ajax]

Here is the first test (Show #24, 11/10/2004):

AC vs. Windows Down Debate
The Myth: You have more fuel efficiency if you have the AC on.

The Experts: Bob Masterson (service manager Stan Tracy Ford) helps the guys bust this one by hooking the SUV up to a computer that measures air intake of the engine.

Quotable/Memorable Moments:
Jamie: It's getting pretty chilly in here! Glad I brought my jacket! I pity the poor cameraman who doesn't have one on! (Then the cameraman shivers!)

The Action/Results: First Jamie drives fifteen laps around the track - five with the windows up and the AC off, five with the windows down and five with the windows up and the AC on full. The verdict, according to Bob Masterson, is that the car is more fuel efficient with the windows up and the AC on, due to the amount of drag that is created when the windows are down. But Adam and Jamie have another test to run. They load each car up with the same amount of people and stuff, and fill the tanks up. They want to do this like an "Average Joe" would do it. Adam has his bananas and his coffee, and Jamie has his famous 444 - the mixture of fruits, vegetables and grains that he says tastes like gazpacho.

However, it is decided that this test is too dangerous, so they decide to put only five gallons of gas in each tank and run the test that way instead. The results surprise everyone! Jamie's car runs out of gas first! They decide that the computer model isn't really measuring fuel consumption, but air intake, and that it is based on ideal conditions. In the end, this myth is BUSTED!

Here is the second test (show #49 10/12/2005):

The Myth: More Fuel Efficient to Drive with your Windows down than with the AC at full blast.

Initial Results: At 55mph Air Conditioning was more efficient, however open Windows proved to be more fuel efficient at 45mph than AC at Full Blast.
New Data:

Both results were correct. As you go faster open window drag increases until you reach a point where AC is more efficient. That crossover point is 50mph.

Result: Busted

What do they mean by "AC at full blast"? Do they mean the AC dial set for maximum cooling, or do they mean AC dial set for maximum cooling and the fan on at it's highest speed. I never find it necessary to run my fan at maximum for any length of time.

Also, they state the myth one way in the first test and declare the myth "busted." Then they state it the opposite way in the second test and declare that myth "busted."

My take on the whole thing is that, since they didn't get any consistent results, they failed to prove anything. YMMV

 

[~JC~]

I drive my F-250 and get 9-10 mpg. If I traded it in on a Toyota, It would cost me 15k. It would take me 10-15yrs for that transaction to break even. I just drive my truck and smile. It was good enough for my dad, it's good enough for me.

 

[Hi Ho]

Thanks for posting the actual results Ajax. I couldn't remember any of the details.

I believe they declared the myth "busted" because above a certain point, 50 MPH, the A/C is more efficient. Since many people drive above 50 MPH, I'd say it's probably more efficient to use the A/C.

I think what they meant by "full on" was MAX A/C. Though my Civic isn't that fancy with simply an on/off for the A/C, I see many cars that have different levels.

 

[Rock&Roll Ninja]

Now we need the EPA to do a real highway test: Set the cruise at 72 and let it run for 120 miles, not the current 45mph they use... totally worthless.

 

[ironmike86]

If Brazil can burn sugar cane and fuel everything which is better for the enviroment why can't WE. Bio diesel burns cleaner also and we should be able to use that. But oil co = big business= big business runs the Government. My boss told me not to worry gas is a good right off for him. I drive a Chevy 1500 4x4 co truck cost my boss $150 a week. He doesn't seem to care. I don't want to see high gas prices= everything else goes up but I'm lucky I don't pay for gas for work

 

[majorloser]

Canada did its part in important wars.

SheepStar

Yeah, let our draft dodgers hide there.

 

[zipper]

Funny how when there was a threat of probes for price-gouging gas prices went down briefly. Now it's higher then ever. They set us up (again)..........they jacked prices but when we *****ed they backed off to placate us. Still, the reduced prices were higher than when they began raising them LY. So now the jump from $2.70 to $3.10 doesn't seem that drastic.

I drive a '95 Maxima (for 9 years now ) & must use premium. Two weeks ago I filled it at Safeway &,using my card for a discount, paid $2.83/gallon.........for premium! Driving past the same place today it looks as though I'll be paying $3.22.

Sure I'd like a new rig..................maybe I'll invest in some oil co. stocks so I can afford one by later this year.

 

[Sheep]

Yeah, let our draft dodgers hide there.

See you soon!

SheepStar