Unlike my "handle", I really am just a Great Grandpa who loves to act like I am a Great, Grumpy Old Man. This BLOG will concentrate on the woes and gladness that surround my life: woe, when I fail at some complex task that any good man could do; gladness when I succeed at some mundane task that any one of my Grandkids could do. Like this panorama of the Foz do Iguacu in Southern Brazil.
Showing posts with label Gasoline Mileage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gasoline Mileage. Show all posts

Monday, March 10, 2014

All-Wheel Drive vs Four-Wheel Drive vs Two-Wheel Drive

10 March 2014; Over the Internet --
The Number One Son and Grumpy have been having a vigorous discussion regarding the characteristics, advantages and disadvantages of the subject variations of automobiles (and trucks and such). If you are expecting a conclusion at the end of this POST, then stop here; you will find none. This is merely Grumbling Grumpy's summary of our discussions.

And since this is MY BLOG, it will necessarily be biased toward MY opinions.

Some definitions (and abbreviations): 
  1. All-Wheel Drive (AWD)-- a configuration in which all four wheels are driven through a transfer case which includes a differential gear so that all wheels may rotate at the same speed when the vehicle is going strait ahead but allow the front wheels to rotate at a suitably higher speed when the vehicle is turning a corner. Examples include the Subaru.
  2. Four-Wheel Drive (ODFWD)-- a configuration in which the front wheels (usually) may be engaged through a transfer case, either automatically by a computer or manually by the driver. Such configuration may not be operated on dry or wet pavement, since the gear ratio of the front wheel drive is slightly "faster" than that for the rear wheels, thus creating a stress in the drive system when the front wheels are not able to spin slightly (or the rear wheels not able to slide) when the vehicle is going straight ahead.
  3. Two-wheel drive (2WD)-- a configuration in which only one set of wheels (either front or rear) are driven. This is the conventional drive configuration for most passenger vehicles and trucks.
 There is definitely a difference in fuel mileage (MPG) between the 2WD configuration and the other two. This MPG difference is readily understood if one considers the extra weight and friction (due to extra rotating mechanical elements) in the configurations having the capability for four-wheel drive. Approximately 4-5 MPG difference was generally agreed upon by the two of us.

Grumpy had the opportunity to evaluate the MPG of a Subaru Outback last year. I was pleased and in fact surprised that the average MPG for the most of the cross-country trip was about 25 MPG; my 2004 Accord would have attained about 32 MPG.  This respectable MPG was despite the "boxy" shape of the Outback and the fact that we had an "Aerodynamic*" luggage carrier on top!

An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published MPG difference between the AWD and ODFWD was not as easily understood or explainable, however. The AWD configuration necessitates a differential in the transfer case and thus would have a slight weight penalty over the ODFWD. However, this would not appear to explain a measurable MPG difference. The EPA numbers suggest differently.

However, reference to the "Truth About EPA ... Estimates" reveals that only about 15% of new vehicles are actually tested each year. The EPA depends on the manufacturers claims for the rest! Thus, I believe that the EPA numbers do not have the veracity that some people attribute to them. They are especially suspect when comparing the EPA numbers for similar automobiles by different manufacturers; vehicles from one or none may be from actual EPA tests and the others all from manufacturers' "claims".

As I said at the beginning, no conclusions are offered; only "caveat emptor" -- that the buyer should beware! Comments to this dissertation are invited.

___________________________
* "Aerodynamic" as used here is a gross exaggeration and a large bit of sarcasm! However, that is the appellation given by its manufacturer. The luggage carrier was a flexible plastic, water-tight bag of approximately 3' x 4' x one foot high; it looked like a couple partially-filled 33-gallon garbage bags thrown cross-wise on top of this otherwise fairly tidy station-wagon body. I estimate that it added about 3-4 square feet of additional frontal area and considerable "skin drag" as it had numerous wrinkles along all sides.

Saturday, August 11, 2012

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.

Thursday, April 5, 2012

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.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

More on Mileage with Ethanol-blend versus "Real" Gasoline

Two weeks on the road, Summer 2011; A trip to the Midwest and back --
Grumpy just returned from a two week trek to the Midwest, via Montana, Idaho, Utah, Wyoming, Nebraska, Iowa, Minnesota, and South Dakota. Starting with a full tank in Renton WA, fuel stops were made in Missoula MT, Ogden UT, Rawlins WY, Grand Island NE, Des Moines IA, Chamberlain, Spearfish and Belle Fourche SD, again in Missoula MT and the final fill-up in Renton WA, and holding an average (cruise-control regulated) speed of 70 mph on the freeways and the posted* speed limits where 70 was not allowed, resulted in a surprising 32-plus miles per gallon for the 4,746 mile trip.

Why was 32 mpg surprising? Well, it contrasts significantly with the 29 mpg achieved last year when 65 mph and lower was still the honored limit. Was the higher speed actually more efficient?  A plausible reason? Yes, considering the fact that this car [the Red Rocket] has a five-speed automatic transmission where the torque convertor is locked out at mild throttle settings above about 50 mph, with unlock and downshifting occurring sooner and at smaller throttle advances at lower speeds when hills or headwinds are encountered. 

NO, I do not think the higher speed (70 compared to 65) affected the achieved mpg. In fact, three years ago, when "real" gasoline was generally available and the Grand Mother first imposed the 65 mpg speed limit on our Midwest travels, this same car surprised Grumpy with an overall trip average of 34.06 miles per gallon. And last year, still under the 65 mph limit, the Rocket made just 29 mpg.

This year Grumpy discovered an interesting fact, clearly labelled on the fuel pump, starting in Montana. Next to the "Regular Plus" button, "Contains [up to 10%] Ethanol"; next to the "Regular" button, just a lower Octane rating. In Iowa, the "Regular Plus" was a lower price [enticing, but not to this wily old coot!] as well as a higher Octane. So Grumpy always chose the button selecting the grade of gasoline that was not labelled "Contains [up to 10%] Ethanol". Sure, I often paid a higher price (as much as $0.14 in Iowa), but I believe the higher overall miles per gallon more than justified this sometimes 5% higher price per gallon. You be the judge.

Also, it is a fact that, at higher altitudes the pressures in the combustion chamber cannot reach as a high a pressure as at lower altitudes; therefore it is reasonable that a lower Octane rating may be compatible with an engine, such as the Rocket's,  rated for 87 Octane at sea level. At least Grumpy has not heard Rocket complaining about the 85 Octane that he selected in such places as Montana and Iowa.

As for me, I am convinced that from now on, I will watch for the subtle hint that will allow me to avoid Ethanol-laced gasoline in favor of the real stuff. I will be rewarded by a net improvement in economy by sometimes spending a little more at the gas pump.

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

How Much is too Much to Pay for Economy?

Grumpy's Castle; Rainy Wednesday 13th of April --
The question of how much is too much to pay for economy entered Grumpy's mind recently. The occasion was his noting a used Toyota Camry (Hybrid!) offered for sale by another Senior Citizen -- or so the ad said. Grumpy has been pondering the situation of the Grand Mother and Grumpy travelling to the Midwest (and possibly beyond), and thought "how much more pleasant to ride in the relative quiet of a Rolls Royce -- or a Lexus -- or (more to our pocket-book) a Toyota Camry!"

When the ad for a 2008 Camry Hybrid with only 25,000 miles on its odometer was offered for a "mere" $18,900, Grumpy's automobile slobber-glands wet his shirt front. The ingenious way in which Toyota combines the electric motor drive with the gasoline engine had intrigued him since a friend from Oklahoma sent him a web-link that described the design. Grumpy recognized this as a clever mechanical (with computer controls commanding the mechanical ratios) gadget -- one that he wanted to have.

But the realities of economy emerged when the Grand Mother was brought into the equation. First of all, she did not want Grumpy to squander any of "our" money (our Grandkids' inheritance!) on -- " ... any more of your foolishness!", were approximately her exact words. Well, at least that was their understood meaning.

As Grumpy was assessing the economy equation thus brought into focus, he reckoned that the Toyota Camry Hybrid might achieve 45 miles per gallon, driven the typically-conservative way that Grumpy drives the Red Rocket. That figure would be about 50% more than the Red Rocket achieves. Assuming the Grand Mother and Grumpy drive the Toyota 6,000 miles per year (all of the cross-country, freeway driving now being conducted with the Red Rocket), and assuming gasoline at $4 per gallon, the annual savings would be 75 gallons x $4 = $300  per year. If I were to trade in the Red Rocket (what am I saying!!?) and drive the Toyota exclusively for the additional 6,000 miles of "town" driving, assuming it would get 40 mpg around town (compared to about 20 for Red Rocket), the Toyota would save us another 150 gallons x $4 = $600 per year.

Now, a total savings of $900 per year to drive an economy car (that costs about $3000 more than a non-Hybrid) does not equate to Grumpy as true "Economy".

So Grumpy just decided that the only real justification for the Toyota Camry Hybrid is for its quietness. And if the Grand Mother thinks that the road noise is something which we can put up with, then so be it. Red Rocket is safe!

Monday, March 28, 2011

Miles per Gallon Competition -- Nissan Sentra 2 liter versus Honda Accord V-6

22-23 March 2011; Nebraska --
It is a popular conception that a little four-cylinder automobile will get better miles-per-gallon traveling similar speed and highway conditions compared to a larger-displacement six-cylinder. Grumpy can now confidently state that "... t'ain't necessarily true!"

During his recent safari to Central Nebraska to witness the Sandhill Crane migration spectacle along the Platte River, Grumpy reserved a compact car for his transportation from the commercial airport in Omaha to the viewing site some 200 miles to the west. His preference was to rent a Toyota Corolla; the purpose was to observe the relative quietness from road noise that this model of the Toyota brand exhibited, compared to Grumpy's Red Rocket. Unfortunately (for Grumpy), no Toyota was available at the rental site in Omaha, so he chose instead the comparable Nissan Sentra.

Unlike the Toyota (Lexus and Camry, at least!), Nissan models are not noted for quietness from road noise, and this Sentra was not expected to dispel this reputation -- and it didn't. However, Grumpy was interested in how well this little (well, it was plenty roomy for the two adults -- Grumpy and his sister -- who rode in it from Omaha to Kearney NE) compact performed on I-80 at legal speeds. This economy rental car even had a dash-board indicator of outside air temperature, and cruise control, which Grumpy was able to figure out how to engage after traveling 20-30 miles down the freeway. It also had air-conditioning -- for which Grumpy and his sister were thankful, as the outside air temperature registered 80deg F for awhile west of Lincoln!

But gas mileage! Sorry, that is not one of the bragging characteristics of this Nissan! We drove 403 miles in the 30 hours or so that we had possession, and bought 14.58 gallons of unleaded gasoline to fill it up. That calculates out to 27.64 mpg; Grumpy's Red Rocket has consistently exceeded 30 mpg under similar driving conditions. The observed Nissan RPM was a tad over 3,000 at 70 mph; Red Rocket's RPM is a tad over 2,000. Thus, the engine displacement per mile is about the same for the two cars. All other things being equal (equivalent tire rolling resistance, equivalent aerodynamic cross-section) one should expect that the miles-per-gallon should have been about the same. Grumpy concludes that the Honda V-6 is a more efficient design (higher compression ratio? less internal friction losses?) than is the Nissan 4-cylinder in-line.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Great Myth of Ethanol Additive

All Around Town -- And Country, Too!; December 2010 --
As noted in my first posting on this BLOG, Grumpy has strong documentation, showing that the miles-per-gallon deterioration on the Red Rocket is due to the 10% Ethanol that has been introduced into the gasoline sold in Washington State (as well as many other States, as well). So this got the Old Grump to thinking about what problem this addition to our gasoline was supposed to solve.

Global warming is a "hot" topic [pardon the pun, but Grumpy couldn't resist! Ha! ha!] and a reduction in the unburned hydrocarbons is supposed to help in this regard. The addition of Ethanol, with its high Oxygen content [don't ask Grumpy to cite the chemical compound represented by Ethanol; Grumpy passed college Chemistry, but he didn't set any records!], will definitely reduce the amount of hydrocarbons in the exhaust of the automobile engine. But Carbon Dioxide is also a component of automobile exhaust and apparently a more serious contributor to global warming than is unburned hydrocarbons.


If the addition of 10% Ethanol reduces the miles per gallon by 10%, then isn't it obvious that the same amount of gasoline is going to be used to travel the same distance? And isn't it also obvious that the Carbon content in that gasoline is going to wind up producing the same amount of Carbon Dioxide as before? Another argument for using 10% Ethanol is that it reduces our need for imported petroleum. But if the introduction of 10% Ethanol results in a 10% reduction in miles per gallon, then isn't it also obvious that the same amount of petroleum is still required to drive the same number of miles as before?


So, in reality, the introduction of 10% Ethanol does nothing to reduce our dependence on imported oil, does nothing to reduce the amount of Carbon Dioxide entering our atmosphere and does nothing to keep prices from rising for food for human and animal consumption because of the increased demand for corn to produce Ethanol. The only minor benefit Grumpy sees for keeping Ethanol as the additive of choice in our gasoline is that it reduces the amounts of unburned hydrocarbons; but isn't that what that expensive catalytic chamber, now mandatory in all automobiles, is for?

Grumpy's opinion is that a better solution is to quit making "corn likker" to add to gasoline and, instead, improve the efficiency of the engines (hybrid- and all-electric automobiles; Diesel is a "shovel ready" technology!), and motivate people to use alternative means for commuting (bicycling, another "shovel ready" technology) and by allowing free-market access to the mass transit business (government efforts in this regard are mostly demonstrable failures).

What does the reader think about this?

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Factors that Affect Gasoline Mileage on Modern Automobiles

From the Lair of the Liar; September 2010 --
The other day, on another BLOG, the Great Grumpy Z described steps he undertook to improve the gas mileage on his "Red Rocket" by replacing all six spark plugs. Because there are so many other factors which could also affect mileage, this POST will attempt to address those of which Grumpy is aware. Since he received a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering, and has since childhood held a fascination and interest in engines and other mechanical devices, Grumpy feels well-qualified to bloviate at some length on this subject. Readers for whom such discussion would be boring (they already know all about the subject) or who have no particular interest in improving their gas mileage (they have money -- and gasoline -- to "burn"), should stop at this point and find something better or more interesting to do with their time.

For the rest of us, let us begin with the effect of spark plugs on gasoline mileage. The spark plugs provide the ignition source by which the combustible mixture in the cylinder is ignited at the proper time. The proper time is a mysteriously variable point, where the piston is at the optimum distance during its compression stroke such that the process that follows, namely the initial ignition and subsequent burning of the combustible mixture (no, the mixture does not "explode" -- instead the burning progresses like a flame front out in a more or less radial direction from the spark plug, eventually reaching the most distant part of the cylinder) and the further travel of the piston through the top of its travel and continuing downward in the power stroke, will extract the maximum amount of available energy from the combustion process. If this sounds complicated, well it is!

The fact is, this "mysteriously variable point" varies with speed of the engine, number of spark plugs per cylinder*, and some details of the engine configuration whose effect can only be determined after the engine is designed and tested. Only then can the optimum timing of the ignition be determined for each given engine speed. Now, there are details of the spark plug which have small, but significant, effects on ignition timing. One of the most important details is the gap between the electrodes of the plug. For automobiles built in the 1920's up to the 1950's, the "optimum" gap was about .028 inches. A gap as wide as .030 would degrade gasoline mileage by as much as 20%. Modern automobile engines, which typically have an ignition system of 50,000-75,000 volts to generate a spark, use a much wider gap: .038 to .044 inches. The electrodes on the "old time" plugs was made of Tungsten or Copper-Tungsten alloy. These metals would erode due to the electrons in the spark carrying away particles of the electrodes which are exposed to high temperatures; sufficient wear on these plugs necessitated regapping or replacing in 20-25,000 miles. Most modern spark plugs used today have Platinum or Iridium at the points where the electric arc occurs; these materials are more resistant to the erosion under the high temperature conditions, so they may be expected to give satisfactory operation for 100,000 miles or more.

Now let us talk about another factor which can affect gasoline mileage: the difference in the amount of energy that can be extracted by combustion of different "gasoline". I have placed quotation marks around the word "gasoline" because the fuel we call gasoline that we put in our automobile tanks these days is not the same as it used to be. Pure gasoline -- what Great Grumpy used in his 1928 Chevrolet -- contains about 122,000 BTU's per gallon and it burns at a fairly rapid rate. Most of the gasoline we can buy today contains 10% Ethanol (a form of alcohol). The BTU per gallon is not much different -- slightly lower than pure gasoline -- but the big difference is that the Ethanol slows the rate of burning, so much that the ignition timing should occur earlier than what is optimum for pure gasoline. The engine manufacturer is trapped with the requirement to design his engine to use pure gasoline, but also to be able to use the 10% Ethanol blend. The result is that when the 10% Ethanol blend is used, gasoline mileage suffers. Interestingly, the penalty Great Grumpy has observed is about 10%! This has been my observation, well documented on the '86 Ford F-250 pulling a travel trailer, but also strongly indicated in freeway driving cross-country with the Red Rocket. Perhaps someday a "smarter" engine computer will be able to sense the quality of the fuel in the tank and readjust the timing toward optimum so that this penalty will disappear.

In Brazil, where service stations offer both pure gasoline and pure Ethanol, the car buyer has a choice between an automobile designed to utilize Ethanol, or gasoline. An engine designed to use pure Ethanol can take advantage of Ethanol's higher "Octane" rating by having a much higher compression ratio (12-15 to one), thereby increasing the burn rate of the air-fuel mixture. Such an engine, using pure Ethanol, will get much superior mileage (and more power!). The higher compression ratio results in a significantly-increased engine efficiency compared to an equivalent-sized engine designed to use pure gasoline.

Several factors that are mostly within the driver's power to control, also have a strong effect on gasoline mileage. These include: Speed of travel; Tire design and inflation; Total weight of vehicle and contents; Wind direction and velocity; Driving habits, particularly in stop and go traffic; Vehicle maintenance.

Speed of travel is usually touted as a major factor in affecting mileage. However, the Great Grumpy has found that, with the Red Rocket (and he believes this would be true of other modern automobiles) cruising at a steady speed at 55 miles per hour does not result in appreciably improved gasoline mileage compared to cruising at 65 miles per hour. In fact, the slower speed may actually result in worse mileage, especially if you are driving in hilly terrain. This is because, at the slower speed the engine will be required to shift into a lower gear when going up hills; at the higher speed, the momentum of the car will carry it up many hills without the need to down-shift. To carry this idea further, it must be pointed out that modern cars are designed with an overall gear ratio (engine speed per vehicle speed) such that there is an optimum vehicle velocity at which maximum mileage is achieved on a straight and level highway. This is one of the reasons why advertised mileage shows higher values for highway (or freeway) driving and lower values for city driving.

The reason higher speeds are detrimental to gasoline mileage is because of wind drag. Improved aerodynamics of modern automobiles have done much to decrease the wind drag caused by turbulence that plagued the "old cars" (take the Great Grumpy's "squarish" 1928 Chevrolet, for example!). But, regardless of the "sleekness" of the body design, the fact remains that a certain mass of air must be displaced to accommodate the volume of the vehicle travelling through it. That effect is closely tied to the frontal cross-section of the vehicle; that is, the area and shape of a hole through which the vehicle could pass without any clearance. The drag induced by this effect increases as the square of the airspeed; thus if you are driving into a wind whose velocity is 25 miles per hour, and your vehicle is travelling at 75 miles per hour, the wind drag will be four times as much as with no wind and your vehicle travelling at 50 miles per hour. In fact, this wind drag effect is what limits the top speed of a normal passenger automobile. The power to overcome this wind drag becomes equal to the horsepower output of the engine.

Tire inflation -- and tire carcass design -- affect the rolling resistance of the wheels. Higher inflation pressures -- up to the maximum specified by the tire manufacturer -- will help increase gasoline mileage, but only by a percentage point or two. Road noise will be increased, the ride will be harsher and higher tire inflation is not recommended except when travelling freeways and other paved highways in excellent condition, or when operating the vehicle at or near its gross load limit

Tire carcass design is best illustrated by a comparison of radial tires and bias-ply tires. In the "olden times", only bias-ply tires were available for use on automobiles. The rolling friction of bias-ply tires is greater than radial tires. This causes heat build-up in the bias-ply tires to a much greater extent than in radials, hence the radial tires are less prone to failure due to becoming overheated. [However, either tire design will become overheated if it is driven under-inflated, overloaded or driven at ultra high speeds.] Radial tires provide a bonus by improving the handling quality of an automobile (also true when used on a towed vehicle).

The total weight of the vehicle, including its contents, affects gasoline mileage primarily because of the effect on rolling resistance of the tires. Thus, as mentioned above, increasing the tire inflation up to the maximum allowed by the tire manufacturer will reduce the effect of weight on rolling resistance.

If travel involves going through hilly terrain, or at varying speeds, then weight will also affect gasoline mileage. This situation is somewhat analogous to city driving where traffic causes lots of stop-and-go operations. Hilly terrain, stop-and-go, or other routes that involve varying speeds, may be avoided or at least minimized by carefully choosing the route by which you travel.

Wind direction and velocity effects have been explained in the discussion above regarding vehicle velocity. The driver's choice, when driving into a head wind, is to drive at a somewhat slower speed -- or delay travel for a few hours or a day or so, expecting less unfavorable winds. Winds are generally lighter at night and early morning; winds generally increase in velocity in the mid- to late-afternoon.

Vehicle maintenance is the last subject I have listed that affects gasoline mileage. Assuring that tires are properly inflated, is part of maintenance. Another item is maintaining the proper level of the recommended engine oil; overfilling the crankcase results in the crankshaft "splashing" through the surface of the oil each revolution. This not only creates internal engine drag but also damages the oil by "frothing" it (introducing air into the oil) and heating the oil above what would be normal. Use of the oil grade and viscosity rating recommended by the engine manufacturer is extremely important, not only for good gasoline mileage, but also for achieving maximum engine life. While higher viscosity oils tend to assure better lubrication, modern automobile engines last a very long time, using very low viscosity oils. If your owner's manual recommends SAE 5-20 (a viscosity of 5 at low temperatures and a viscosity of 20 at normal engine operating temperatures), then do not assume you will be better off going to SAE 10-30; you could actually cause damage to your engine, especially during a cold start and initial operation until normal temperatures are reached. The more viscous oil will not lubricate as well as the recommended lower viscosity oil under these low temperature conditions.

A most significant item of maintenance for assuring good gasoline mileage is to replace worn piston rings and valve guides and seals when cylinder pressure readings indicate wear is beyond the manufacturer's specifications. An indication of excessive wear in these areas is an oily smoke emitted from the exhaust pipe, particularly after decelerating down a long hill, or standing with the engine idling for a few minutes at a stop light, and then accelerating up to speed. A blue cloud in your rear-view mirror is a message that your engine may be due for a major overhaul. NOTE: If this symptom exists, your car will not pass the emission test!

In the "olden days", automobiles used carburetors to meter and aerate the gasoline as it mixed with the intake air. This means of metering the proper amount of fuel to be mixed with the intake air was imprecise at best and the best gasoline mileage in those days was less than some of the so-called gas-guzzlers of today. Modern automobiles use "fuel injectors" to inject a much more precise amount of fuel, computed to be the right amount according to air temperature, air density (altitude), engine speed and engine power demands. Notice the word "computed" in the previous sentence! Yes, modern automobiles have an engine control computer -- in fact, there may be several computers doing various tasks in the modern automobile. The engine control computer receives electronic signals from sensors that measure the parameters detailed above. Engine power demand is derived from a sensor on the accelerator pedal (or cruise control computer). Other signals used by the engine control computer include crankshaft angle (or piston position relative to the top of it compression stroke), free Oxygen content in the exhaust gases, exhaust gas temperature (a high exhaust gas temperature indicates that the optimum air-fuel ratio has been achieved), as well as a number of engine parameters related to engine health.

Fuel injectors can malfunction for various reasons. In the "Olden Days", an engine miss was usually attributable to a bad spark plug. In today's modern engines, an engine miss is more likely to be caused by a malfunctioning fuel injector. A sticky fuel injector will not open when needed; this problem may be able to be solved by using a good fuel-injector cleaner (introduced into the fuel tank when fuel level is fairly low). A worn fuel injector can cause excessive fuel consumption because it fails to shut off completely. This problem is significant only during idle and low power states where the injector should be closed most of the time. [Uncle Bob has this problem on his 1990's era Cadillac; the cost of time and labor to trouble-shoot and determine which of the eight injectors is faulty was deemed to be more expensive than the cost of the extra gasoline consumed during those phases of operation where the leaky injector caused excessive fuel flow.]

My last in the items in a modern automobile that can go wrong is a computer! The engine computer was just mentioned; if it has a failure to sense one of the parameters needed to properly compute the timing for ignition, or the length of time for a fuel injector to open, then it obviously cannot effect the best gasoline mileage of which the engine is capable when everything is functioning. The transmission computer can fail in a similar manner: not being able to sense engine or vehicle speed. A typical way in which modern electronics will fail is a mechanical failure of an electronic connection: Cold solder joint; broken "leg" of an electronic component; broken (fatigued) printed circuit trace; incomplete connector insertion (including poorly-designed, i.e., mismatched male-female connectors); etc. Grumpy has seen and/or experienced each of these -- on commercial aircraft as well as on one of  his personal automobiles. Electronics in general, and computers in particular, can be extremely reliable if designed for the environment in which they are supposed to function, and if they are programmed and assembled in a workmanship-like manner.

   *Aircraft piston engines (and the 1928 Nash Touring car) have two spark plugs in each cylinder.