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.

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.

Vehicle Inspection Report -- 2011 Style

15 April 2011; South King County WA --

About a month ago, Grumpy received a card from DOL that the license tabs on his trusty Red Rocket would expire --

Alas, it suddenly dawned on Grumpy this past weekend that maybe he better get into gear; now where did I put that card??

Well, nowadays you don't need a card or Registration; you just log onto the DOL website (WA State Licensing: Renew your vehicle tabs ) and type in the last four digits of the vehicle Identification Number, and voila! out pops the information on your automobile! Except my automobile, the Red Rocket, was due for a pollution check! 

On Friday, with the Grand Mother and Darrell in the car, we stopped by the local inspection station for a quick check. (Thank goodness, Grumpy had just changed the oil -- that usually makes a car burn cleaner for a few hundred miles, doesn't it?)

As I drove into the slot for inspection I was told to "put it in Park, and turn off the engine". Doing as I was instructed, I was about to get out to allow the operator to run the engine for the pollution check, when he motioned me to sit still; he connected a computer cable to something under the dash and then went back to his computer. After a few seconds he instructed me to start the car and let it idle for a few more seconds. He then extracted a printed Report sheet from his printer, handing it to me, with "your car passed!" And not more than a total of two minutes had passed.

No probe up the tail pipe, no running the front drive wheels on a dynamometer, no operations at 2500 RPM!! Just a readout from the vehicle's computer!! I was impressed. However, as I perused the Report sheet, I see no CO2/CO readings, no Unburned HC reading, no particulate readings -- none of the old familiar readouts. Instead, this check apparently determines that the engine system (including the Engine Control System) is functioning as designed; what a concept!! [It's very similar in ability to the EPCS that my colleague in Propulsion and I conjured up that eventually was certified on the 757 airplane!]

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!

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.

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?

Disc Brake Pads, Part IV; A Happier Story

Grumpy's Garage; A Clammy, Dreary Armistice Day --

Well, as reported earlier, after much careful greasing of the metallic contact points in the front disc brake calipers, there remained a light moan or groan which the Grand Mother and Resident Grandson attributed to (variously) the left rear -- or the right rear. Grumpy vowed to tackle both of those two potential "complainers" as soon as possible -- or later.

However, much to Grumpy's delight, the noises have apparently gone completely away!!  It has been nearly a tank full of gas and several days since another peep has been heard from those pesky brakes. Perhaps there remained a dry spot between the metallic contacts in the front and the grease finally worked its way into these areas. Anyway, the "soon as possible" noted in an earlier BLOG and in the paragraph above, will now be postponed at least until fair weather sets in -- maybe as early as May 2011 -- if not later. [Heck, for all Grumpy knows, there might even be a Lemon Meringue Pie event before he gets around to working on the rear disc brakes!]

Reader may be assured that, fair weather or not, the task of lube-ing the rear brake calipers will not be long delayed if that annoying moan reappears.