In a recent thread we had comments about fuel mileage, SUV's etc. I did
some research using my full sized car and the instant read mpg on the
computer that it has. I took readings on the same places, seemingly very
level. Keep in mind the gauge read whole numbers so decimals are not show
but may be rounded.

Using cruise control to keep the human element out, I drove at 70 mph, 65
mph, 60 mph. There was no shown difference between 65 and 70. When I made
the run again at 60, is showed a 3 mpg increase.

I drive about 12,000 mile a year on highway (total is about twice that).
Saving the 3 mpg saves a total of 52 gallons of gas. At today's price of
$3, my savings per year is $156.

Now, driving at 70 mph, I will spend 171 hours at the wheel. Driving that
same distance at 60 mph, I'll be spending 200 hours for the same trips. So,
to save $156 I have to give up 29 hours of my free time. The actual mpg
will vary on different cars, but that is what I was able to do with a Buick
LeSabre. I also don't notice any difference with the AC on or off so I go
for comfort. YM WILL V
Ed

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:gOg0f.2287$Wb3.1371@trndny04...
In a recent thread we had comments about fuel mileage, SUV's etc. I did
some research using my full sized car and the instant read mpg on the
computer that it has. I took readings on the same places, seemingly very
level. Keep in mind the gauge read whole numbers so decimals are not show
but may be rounded.

Using cruise control to keep the human element out, I drove at 70 mph, 65
mph, 60 mph. There was no shown difference between 65 and 70. When I
made
the run again at 60, is showed a 3 mpg increase.

I drive about 12,000 mile a year on highway (total is about twice that).
Saving the 3 mpg saves a total of 52 gallons of gas. At today's price of
$3, my savings per year is $156.

Now, driving at 70 mph, I will spend 171 hours at the wheel. Driving that
same distance at 60 mph, I'll be spending 200 hours for the same trips.
So,
to save $156 I have to give up 29 hours of my free time. The actual mpg
will vary on different cars, but that is what I was able to do with a
Buick
LeSabre. I also don't notice any difference with the AC on or off so I go
for comfort. YM WILL V
Ed


Or you can say you are paying about $5.50 an hour to drive 70 instead of 60
( or earning $5.50, tax free, driving at 60).

The "Myth Busters" did a segment on driving with AC or windows open. It was
not very conclusive I thought. I think the windows open won but the guy
with the AC on was freezing. They were not diving at 70 mph either.

"Rich256" wrote in message
Or you can say you are paying about $5.50 an hour to drive 70 instead of
60
( or earning $5.50, tax free, driving at 60).

That is for the saved 29 hours. For the full time it is more like 91¢ per
hour.


The "Myth Busters" did a segment on driving with AC or windows open. It
was
not very conclusive I thought. I think the windows open won but the guy
with the AC on was freezing. They were not diving at 70 mph either.

I think speed and car design would make a difference. On a smaller engine,
the AC would take more power as a percentage than a larger engine. Years
ago, I'd shut the AC off to pass another car or to struggle up a hill. On my
car, I cannot feel any difference. Compressors have improved.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .

"Rich256" wrote in message
Or you can say you are paying about $5.50 an hour to drive 70 instead of
60
( or earning $5.50, tax free, driving at 60).

That is for the saved 29 hours. For the full time it is more like 91¢ per
hour.


I look at is as your driving 70 instead of 60 you saves about 10 minutes.
The 91 cents is the savings for the 10 minutes, not the whole hour.
Therefore the $5.40 an hour for the saved time.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Rich256" wrote in message
Or you can say you are paying about $5.50 an hour to drive 70 instead of
60
( or earning $5.50, tax free, driving at 60).

That is for the saved 29 hours. For the full time it is more like 91¢ per
hour.


The "Myth Busters" did a segment on driving with AC or windows open. It
was
not very conclusive I thought. I think the windows open won but the guy
with the AC on was freezing. They were not diving at 70 mph either.

I think speed and car design would make a difference. On a smaller engine,
the AC would take more power as a percentage than a larger engine. Years
ago, I'd shut the AC off to pass another car or to struggle up a hill. On my
car, I cannot feel any difference. Compressors have improved.

There's also a good probablility the computer cuts the compressor off
when you downshift automagically, too...

your "test"--I wouldn't put too much faith in the absolute values of
those onboard systems for small differences and short distances
particularly. Your data doesn't negate physical reality other than the
zero difference at the lower speed differential which is quite likely
owing to the imprecision of the display as much as anything (as you
note)....

"3rd eye" wrote in message
...


snipped
I wish I had as much time on my hands as you do.

I have a 35 minute commute to work each morning. Aside from listening to
the radio or playing a CD, what else is there to do? Perhaps you need a
longer commute

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
In a recent thread we had comments about fuel mileage, SUV's etc. I
did some research using my full sized car and the instant read mpg on
the computer that it has. I took readings on the same places,
seemingly very level. Keep in mind the gauge read whole numbers so
decimals are not show but may be rounded.

Using cruise control to keep the human element out, I drove at 70
mph, 65 mph, 60 mph. There was no shown difference between 65 and
70. When I made the run again at 60, is showed a 3 mpg increase.

I drive about 12,000 mile a year on highway (total is about twice
that). Saving the 3 mpg saves a total of 52 gallons of gas. At
today's price of $3, my savings per year is $156.

Now, driving at 70 mph, I will spend 171 hours at the wheel. Driving
that same distance at 60 mph, I'll be spending 200 hours for the same
trips. So, to save $156 I have to give up 29 hours of my free time. The
actual mpg will vary on different cars, but that is what I was
able to do with a Buick LeSabre. I also don't notice any difference
with the AC on or off so I go for comfort. YM WILL V
Ed

Dripping 5mph to 55 mph would likely save more than the 5 mph between 60
& 65.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

How many polish mathemeticians does it take to fill a moat?
Both or all three.
U have too much time on hands their meathead.
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:gOg0f.2287$Wb3.1371@trndny04...
In a recent thread we had comments about fuel mileage, SUV's etc. I did
some research using my full sized car and the instant read mpg on the
computer that it has. I took readings on the same places, seemingly very
level. Keep in mind the gauge read whole numbers so decimals are not show
but may be rounded.

Using cruise control to keep the human element out, I drove at 70 mph, 65
mph, 60 mph. There was no shown difference between 65 and 70. When I
made
the run again at 60, is showed a 3 mpg increase.

I drive about 12,000 mile a year on highway (total is about twice that).
Saving the 3 mpg saves a total of 52 gallons of gas. At today's price of
$3, my savings per year is $156.

Now, driving at 70 mph, I will spend 171 hours at the wheel. Driving that
same distance at 60 mph, I'll be spending 200 hours for the same trips.
So,
to save $156 I have to give up 29 hours of my free time. The actual mpg
will vary on different cars, but that is what I was able to do with a
Buick
LeSabre. I also don't notice any difference with the AC on or off so I go
for comfort. YM WILL V
Ed

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message

Dripping 5mph to 55 mph would likely save more than the 5 mph between
60 & 65.


You may be right, but I've not been able to try that. If I slowed to 55,
I'd be run over. I'll have to do out late at night, not morning traffic.

"Northern Oil Sands Boy" wrote in message
news
How many polish mathemeticians does it take to fill a moat?
Both or all three.
U have too much time on hands their meathead.

Wow, you are brilliant. Thanks for joining in.

I've not taken any readings over a period of time. However, I do remember
one time I was hauling through Ohio, on the way home from Indiana. It was a
warm summer day, and I was running the AC here and there to take the edge
off the heat. The MPG went from about 20 usual to about 17.

I didn't run the stats, how much more it cost, or how shorter was my range
on the tank of gas. However, I do believe that if I was trying to escape
Hurricane Katrena, I'd have been wise to leave the AC off. Too many people
running out of gas. Don't want to be one of them.

--

Christopher A. Young
Do good work.
It's longer in the short run
but shorter in the long run.
..
..


"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:gOg0f.2287$Wb3.1371@trndny04...
In a recent thread we had comments about fuel mileage, SUV's etc. I did
some research using my full sized car and the instant read mpg on the
computer that it has. I took readings on the same places, seemingly very
level. Keep in mind the gauge read whole numbers so decimals are not show
but may be rounded.

Using cruise control to keep the human element out, I drove at 70 mph, 65
mph, 60 mph. There was no shown difference between 65 and 70. When I made
the run again at 60, is showed a 3 mpg increase.

I drive about 12,000 mile a year on highway (total is about twice that).
Saving the 3 mpg saves a total of 52 gallons of gas. At today's price of
$3, my savings per year is $156.

Now, driving at 70 mph, I will spend 171 hours at the wheel. Driving that
same distance at 60 mph, I'll be spending 200 hours for the same trips. So,
to save $156 I have to give up 29 hours of my free time. The actual mpg
will vary on different cars, but that is what I was able to do with a Buick
LeSabre. I also don't notice any difference with the AC on or off so I go
for comfort. YM WILL V
Ed

id like to get a toyota corrolla ,,,for the mileage , but im 6"5" and
none of the small cars have enough head room. my grande marquis gets 18
on the highway 13 city.

http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm

wrote:
id like to get a toyota corrolla ,,,for the mileage , but im 6"5" and
none of the small cars have enough head room. my grande marquis gets 18
on the highway 13 city.

http://www.minibite.com/america/malone.htm


If some of these whiney ass indigent bus riders around here had their
way, you'd have your legs amputated to the knees so you could drive a Miata.

YM Will V - Correct - A lesabre will show little difference, as you
noted, between 65 and 70. A 4 cyl car will show more difference at
those speeds. The smaller engines will need to work harder to maintain,
hence use more gas. Unfortunately its all relative. The lesabre mpg may
be, lets say, a difference of 20mpg to 23 mpg at 65mph and 60mph
respectively. the little 4cyl car may show a larger difference but may
be more like 22mpg to 28mpg at 65 and 60 respectively.

Not to knock you for having a large car though. You have every right to
drive what you want and spend your money how you want without
criticism. (I drive a Chevy Suburban and a Chevy Silverado!)

On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 22:09:28 -0400, "Northern Oil Sands Boy"
wrote:

How many polish mathemeticians does it take to fill a moat?
Both or all three.
U have too much time on hands their meathead.
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:gOg0f.2287$Wb3.1371@trndny04...
In a recent thread we had comments about fuel mileage, SUV's etc. I did
some research using my full sized car and the instant read mpg on the
computer that it has. I took readings on the same places, seemingly very
level. Keep in mind the gauge read whole numbers so decimals are not show
but may be rounded.

Using cruise control to keep the human element out, I drove at 70 mph, 65
mph, 60 mph. There was no shown difference between 65 and 70. When I
made
the run again at 60, is showed a 3 mpg increase.

I drive about 12,000 mile a year on highway (total is about twice that).
Saving the 3 mpg saves a total of 52 gallons of gas. At today's price of
$3, my savings per year is $156.

Now, driving at 70 mph, I will spend 171 hours at the wheel. Driving that
same distance at 60 mph, I'll be spending 200 hours for the same trips.
So,
to save $156 I have to give up 29 hours of my free time. The actual mpg
will vary on different cars, but that is what I was able to do with a
Buick
LeSabre. I also don't notice any difference with the AC on or off so I go
for comfort. YM WILL V
Ed


mathematicians, not "mathemeticians"
there, not "their"

Plonk!

"No" wrote in message
Not to knock you for having a large car though. You have every right to
drive what you want and spend your money how you want without
criticism. (I drive a Chevy Suburban and a Chevy Silverado!)


I have a smaller car too. I get the same mileage and better acceleration as
the larger newer car. Same engine, better technology. If I drove around the
city all the time, I'd go for small. I do to much highway not to have some
comfort. I do too much driving period, not to have some comfort.

Hey nick:
PLONK!

"NickySantoro" wrote in message
...
: On Mon, 3 Oct 2005 22:09:28 -0400, "Northern Oil Sands Boy"
: wrote:
:
: How many polish mathemeticians does it take to fill a moat?
: Both or all three.
: U have too much time on hands their meathead.
: "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
: news:gOg0f.2287$Wb3.1371@trndny04...
: In a recent thread we had comments about fuel mileage, SUV's
etc. I did
: some research using my full sized car and the instant read
mpg on the
: computer that it has. I took readings on the same places,
seemingly very
: level. Keep in mind the gauge read whole numbers so
decimals are not show
: but may be rounded.
:
: Using cruise control to keep the human element out, I drove
at 70 mph, 65
: mph, 60 mph. There was no shown difference between 65 and
70. When I
: made
: the run again at 60, is showed a 3 mpg increase.
:
: I drive about 12,000 mile a year on highway (total is about
twice that).
: Saving the 3 mpg saves a total of 52 gallons of gas. At
today's price of
: $3, my savings per year is $156.
:
: Now, driving at 70 mph, I will spend 171 hours at the wheel.
Driving that
: same distance at 60 mph, I'll be spending 200 hours for the
same trips.
: So,
: to save $156 I have to give up 29 hours of my free time.
The actual mpg
: will vary on different cars, but that is what I was able to
do with a
: Buick
: LeSabre. I also don't notice any difference with the AC on
or off so I go
: for comfort. YM WILL V
: Ed
:
:
: mathematicians, not "mathemeticians"
: there, not "their"
:
: Plonk!
:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we could
get better milage in the city.


save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

Mark

I also saw the MythBusters show about the a/c vs. gas mileage. What
stuck in my mind about the "test" was that the people standing around
outside were wearing jackets! The results would have been a lot more
accurate if it had actually been in hot weather. The compressors on the
vehicles probably didn't even run 50% of the test. I do agree that the
a/c affects small engines a lot more than larger. I have a 94 Ford
Aspire that got about 40+ mpg on two 500 mile trips I took in it last
winter. I have not actually checked the mileage with the a/c, but it
seems to knock off about 5 mpg, both in town and on the highway.
Larry

On 4 Oct 2005 19:42:45 -0700, "Mark" wrote:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we could
get better milage in the city.


save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

Mark
=============
Around here all the lights ARE synchronized......just pull away from
the light when it turns green.... DO not accelerate ...DO not exceed
15 mph and the next light will turn green just before get to it...

I think I CAN average about 4 MPh between lights ...on a good day and
I am not dragracing a kid on a bike...

Bob G.

"No" wrote in message
oups.com...
YM Will V - Correct - A lesabre will show little difference, as you
noted, between 65 and 70. A 4 cyl car will show more difference at
those speeds. The smaller engines will need to work harder to maintain,
hence use more gas.

This morning I tried 55 and go 30 mpg, or two better than the 28 at 60.
Nice, but I'm still going to drive at 70.Thee is not just the time factor,
but it is UNSAFE to be on the highway at 55.

Mark wrote:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we could
get better milage in the city.

save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

In which direction?

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we could
get better milage in the city.

save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

In which direction?

the direction i happen to be going in at the time.

I have a 35 minute commute to work each morning. Aside from listening
to
the radio or playing a CD, what else is there to do? Perhaps you need
a
longer commute

I used to have an hour commute, its amazing the things you can get so
focused on day after day after day......

On Wed 05 Oct 2005 08:46:10a, Bob G. wrote in alt.home.repair:

On 4 Oct 2005 19:42:45 -0700, "Mark" wrote:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we could
get better milage in the city.


save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

Mark
=============
Around here all the lights ARE synchronized......just pull away from
the light when it turns green.... DO not accelerate ...DO not exceed
15 mph and the next light will turn green just before get to it...

I think I CAN average about 4 MPh between lights ...on a good day and
I am not dragracing a kid on a bike...

Bob G.


LOL! At that rate it would take me 9 hours to get to work!

--
Wayne Boatwright *¿*
_____________________________

http://tinypic.com/dzijap.jpg

Popie-In-The-Bowl

in both directions....it CAN be done.

Mark

Mark wrote:

in both directions....it CAN be done.


Sorta'...

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
"No" wrote in message
oups.com...
YM Will V - Correct - A lesabre will show little difference, as you
noted, between 65 and 70. A 4 cyl car will show more difference at
those speeds. The smaller engines will need to work harder to maintain,
hence use more gas.

This morning I tried 55 and go 30 mpg, or two better than the 28 at 60.
Nice, but I'm still going to drive at 70.Thee is not just the time factor,
but it is UNSAFE to be on the highway at 55.

Even not considering other traffic it is unsafe IMO. Just trying to
stay awake at a yawn producing 55 is hard.

Harry K

"House Mouse" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:14:38 -0700, "Charles Spitzer"
wrote:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we
could
get better milage in the city.

save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

In which direction?

the direction i happen to be going in at the time.

Just remember kids that lights that are synchronized for 35MPH are
also synchronized for 70MPH.

I wonder if that's really true. Sounds logical.

HM


Perhaps sometimes but not always. Take for example a lights 35 miles apart
that is to go green at one hour intervals. If you drove at 70 MPH you would
be a half hour early at each light. That same analogy can be applied for
shorter distances and shorter times.

"House Mouse" wrote

Just remember kids that lights that are synchronized for 35MPH are
also synchronized for 70MPH.

I hate to see the fine on that ticket! Let alone whether or not you will
have a license afterwards....

;-]

House Mouse wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:14:38 -0700, "Charles Spitzer"
wrote:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

Mark wrote:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we could
get better milage in the city.

save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

In which direction?

the direction i happen to be going in at the time.


Just remember kids that lights that are synchronized for 35MPH are
also synchronized for 70MPH.

I wonder if that's really true. Sounds logical.

HM


Of course it isn't true. It depends on how many
sequences of off and on occur when going 35 and
this depends on distance between lights. If
light A turns green while Light B is red, and
Light B turns green just before the car get there,
typical of intown lights at every block, then the
person going 70 mp has to stop at light B until a
guy going 35 catches up. If light B turns green
and then red twice in the time it takes a 35 mph
car to get there, then it is sequenced for 70 mph
also. Obviously, only even numbers of changes
will sequence for 70 mph.

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message

Of course it isn't true. It depends on how many sequences of off and on
occur when going 35 and this depends on distance between lights. If
light A turns green while Light B is red, and Light B turns green just
before the car get there, typical of intown lights at every block, then
the person going 70 mp has to stop at light B until a guy going 35 catches
up.

OK, then let's try 105 and see if that works. Any volunteers?

On Sat, 08 Oct 2005 22:37:05 +0000, George E. Cawthon wrote:

House Mouse wrote:
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:14:38 -0700, "Charles Spitzer"
wrote:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

Mark wrote:

we should all push to have the traffic signals synchronized so we could
get better milage in the city.

save time
save brakes
save gas
reduce accidents...

It should be a law that lights within 2000 feet of each other MUST be
synchronized.

In which direction?

the direction i happen to be going in at the time.


Just remember kids that lights that are synchronized for 35MPH are
also synchronized for 70MPH.

I wonder if that's really true. Sounds logical.

HM


Of course it isn't true. It depends on how many
sequences of off and on occur when going 35 and
this depends on distance between lights. If
light A turns green while Light B is red, and
Light B turns green just before the car get there,
typical of intown lights at every block, then the
person going 70 mp has to stop at light B until a
guy going 35 catches up. If light B turns green
and then red twice in the time it takes a 35 mph
car to get there, then it is sequenced for 70 mph
also. Obviously, only even numbers of changes
will sequence for 70 mph.

Add in non-uniform spacing between lights, another direction, and then
another dimension and see how easy it is to synchronize lights.
Synchronization can be done, but it can't be perfect.

--
Keith