The Pay-off for 65 Mph Speed Limit, and Tire Problems

Mid-June to Mid-July; Cross Country and Back --

Grumpy and the Grand Mother traditionally took this time of year to travel to the Midwest to visit relatives and friends -- especially our older relatives and friends. Despite being alone in command of the automobile and route since 64 years ago, Grumpy decided that the visits were still important and he would make this trip despite a definite sadness in his heart.

One thing he decided he would do, as a sort of memorial to the First Wife, the Grand Mother, and his one and only lover, was to heed one of her wishes that he not exceed 65 miles per hour. This he did with great patience and forbearance -- to his ultimate benefit by averaging 32.548 miles per gallon overall!! [The 2004 Honda Accord V-6 was EPA certified to get 28 mpg in freeway driving and about 23 mpg in city driving.]

I had observed the previous year, that where the make-up of the fuel was clearly indicated on the pump as containing no Ethanol, my mileage was significantly better than when I filled with gasoline containing "... up to 10% Ethanol". The difference in fuel mileage was sufficient such my fuel cost per mile was lower even though I sometimes paid more (Iowa) for lower octane gasoline which did not contain Ethanol.

Just a few days before I left on this nearly 5000 mile tour, I "lost" one of my General brand tires ("guaranteed for 80k miles") that had only about 40k miles on it. It had suffered a flat and when I took it to a tire dealer in another city, this dealer insisted he couldn't fix it "because it was too far worn on one side". Of course he had a $150 tire of a different brand to sell me to replace it.

On my trip -- in Northern WY -- I suffered another flat tire (I believe it was due to a non-identifiable road hazard). Again, I was told by the local tire dealer that it could not be repaired; again, this dealer had a $150 tire -- of yet another different brand -- to sell me.

I retained the General tire that was "ruined" and brought it back to my dealer here at home [talk about excess baggage for almost 4000 miles!!] for an adjustment based on my mileage guarantee. What I observed, though in looking at the carcass, was that this tire had "chewed" itself to pieces along the juncture where the sidewalls meet the part of the casing supporting the tread. I have never had a tire destroy itself in this fashion before; I believe it is a design flaw in this model of the General tire. It appears that there exists too sudden a change from the stiffness of the tread part to the flexibility of the sidewall part.

As part of my total solution when I arrived back home was to replace all four tires with brand new Michelin tires. One of my reasons for buying the General's in the first place was because they were advertised as being helpful in reducing road noise. However, I haven't noticed that the Michelin's are any noisier -- if anything, they may be quieter.

Either that or my hearing "problem" is solving my road noise problem.

The Chrysler 200 -- Better Gas Mileage than a Toyota Corolla?

17-23 March 2012; In and Around Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska --

Grumpy reserved an "Intermediate" car ("Toyota Corolla or equivalent") through Alamo to pick up at the Des Moines International Airport on 17 March. When he arrived, the Alamo/National agent told him that his car would be a Chrysler 200 model. Grumpy expressed his disappointment (he had wanted to evaluate the Corolla for road noise, compared to the Red Rocket and previous impressions of the Toyota Camry). The agent assured Grumpy that "... the Chrysler 200 is a better car -- and besides, it gets better miles per gallon than the Corolla!".

To be sure, the Chrysler 200 is a bigger car than the Corolla; in fact, it was listed as a "Standard" size. This upgrade was supposed to be a no-charge "gift" to the renter. Right off the bat, as I drove out of Des Moines Airport, I sensed that this was a four-banger, lacking much in the way of acceleration performance for such a big car. "No problem", I thought; I was more interested in good fuel economy, since I was planning on driving over 1000 miles, down to Topeka KS, to Central Nebraska and back to Des Moines with my kid sister, after all.

The first surprise came as I noticed that the mileage listed on the contract at checkout was "12,286", but by checking with my GPS, the odometer at checkout read "12,442"! Well, it didn't matter, since I had "unlimited" miles on this week-long rental anyway.

The next surprise came when I had to refill the gas tank after only 282 miles (23.5 mpg). Well, maybe the tank wasn't really FULL when I had picked the car up, I thought. However, the next requirement for fuel came after only 448 more miles (27.2 mpg). This "gutless wonder" not only didn't perform as well as my Honda Accord V-6, but it didn't even approach the miles-per-gallon that my Accord had repeatedly achieved over this same route!

When I checked the Chrysler in a few days later, I commented to the agent that I was disappointed in its poor gas mileage. The agent boasted that, " ... after all, this is a V-6!" Well, it sure didn't sound like a V-6, nor respond like a V-6, as far as I was concerned. Sure enough, when I checked the specifications on the Chrysler 200 after I got home, it was indeed a four-banger, just like I thought.

On a positive note, there were a couple things about the Chrysler that I did like. First of all, its automatic transmission had a mode where the driver could "lock" the direct-drive clutch and gear selection into which ever gear he was in at the time, and then manually shift into a higher or lower range of his choice, all the while keeping the direct-drive clutch solidly engaged. This feature should allow better gas mileage during freeway driving -- it is a nuisance and an annoyance if you forget and leave it in this mode when you get into "stop-and-go" driving. I wish I had this feature on my V-6 Accord; I believe I could improve my long-distance fuel mileage by two or three miles per gallon.

The second positive thing I liked about the Chrysler was its roominess compared to the Corolla I had reserved. Also, the ride was probably more comfortable than the Corolla would have been. Detracting from the ride comfort, however, was the fact that the Chrysler did not handle as well on the freeway nor on the side roads as well as my Accord; I wouldn't be surprise if the Corolla handles better, too.

In summary, I was disappointed by Alamo's deceitful claim that the Chrysler 200 " ... gets better gas mileage than the Toyota Corolla", and particularly by their agent misrepresenting the Chrysler engine as a V-6. I will think twice before choosing Alamo as my car rental choice next time.