http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141595099.html (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141595099.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/Themes/Button_Copy/images/buttons/mutcd_merge.png)Post Merge: March 31, 2017, 09:09:57 AM
Heres the report from the bee.
QuoteThe $5.2 billion transportation plan unveiled Wednesday (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141475034.html) relies heavily on higher fuel taxes and a new transportation improvement fee linked to a vehicle's value. Over 10 years, the proposed 12-cent increase in the base excise tax would raise an estimated $24.4 billion and the transportation improvement fee would raise an estimated $16.3 billion.
What that means for the owners of California's more than 34 million registered vehicles, though, depends on how much they drive, their vehicle's gas mileage, and its value. In addition, the various increases would take effect at different times. Everything would be in effect by July 1, 2019.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141595099.html#storylink=cpy
Merged posts. Removed unnecessary formatting tags from quoted material. –Roadfro
Quote from: bing101 on March 30, 2017, 11:48:17 AM
Quote from: bing101 on March 30, 2017, 11:47:18 AM
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141595099.html (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141595099.html)
Heres the report from the bee.
QuoteThe $5.2 billion transportation plan unveiled Wednesday (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article141475034.html) relies heavily on higher fuel taxes and a new transportation improvement fee linked to a vehicle's value. Over 10 years, the proposed 12-cent increase in the base excise tax would raise an estimated $24.4 billion and the transportation improvement fee would raise an estimated $16.3 billion.
What that means for the owners of California's more than 34 million registered vehicles, though, depends on how much they drive, their vehicle's gas mileage, and its value. In addition, the various increases would take effect at different times. Everything would be in effect by July 1, 2019.
Finally I do accept this improvement for California aging highways and roads system through what Governor Brown is proposing, much needed long term for repairs along the way.
Removed unnecessary formatting tags from quoted material in the quoted post. –Roadfro
At least there isn't a mileage tax in there. Most of those increases could be chalked up to adjustment for inflation, sure won't help gas prices though. I guess strike while the iron is hot after all these infrastructure debacles this winter? I'm not exactly hedging my bet in regards to being here by 2019 though...
Good - "package would include a constitutial amendment to prevet legislators from diverting the money to non-transportation items."
Bad - "public transit".
Question - Does this have anything to do with the wacky sci-fi train plans?
Quote from: SP Cook on March 30, 2017, 03:29:25 PM
Good - "package would include a constitutial amendment to prevet legislators from diverting the money to non-transportation items."
Bad - "public transit".
Question - Does this have anything to do with the wacky sci-fi train plans?
You bet it does, there are a whole lot of folks that would be very happy to put an end to the High Speed Rail project....especially in the Central part of the state.
Does anyone know how much of the tax increase will be spent on roads vs. transit? Or do the details still need to be ironed out?
http://www.kcra.com/article/see-how-much-california-s-gas-tax-bill-will-cost-you/9246142
Here is an update to the Gas tax bill for California.
Quote from: bing101 on April 07, 2017, 09:19:52 PM
http://www.kcra.com/article/see-how-much-california-s-gas-tax-bill-will-cost-you/9246142
Here is an update to the Gas tax bill for California.
Kind of ironic how some of the people they talk to have completely forgotten about $4-$5 dollar gasoline....especially that retired guy. God forbid you didn't factor in an expense increase on your "fixed retirement income." :rolleyes: Nobody likes paying more, I'll probably be on the high side of the registration hike with my Challenger....really it just puts me into the territory I was paying every year in Arizona.
I'll just have to see in 3 months when I have to re-up my car registration -- although with a pre-turn-of-the-century Camry, it might be closer to the minimum rather than maximum increase. One can only hope!
Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2017, 09:35:19 PM
I'll just have to see in 3 months when I have to re-up my car registration -- although with a pre-turn-of-the-century Camry, it might be closer to the minimum rather than maximum increase. One can only hope!
Mine is up in February next year for the Challenger and January for the Sonic. The Sonic is already pretty reasonably low given it is a 2014, I'm expecting the Challenger will be over $400 but that ought to taper off a little given that it will be over two model years old by that point.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2017, 09:41:57 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2017, 09:35:19 PM
I'll just have to see in 3 months when I have to re-up my car registration -- although with a pre-turn-of-the-century Camry, it might be closer to the minimum rather than maximum increase. One can only hope!
Mine is up in February next year for the Challenger and January for the Sonic. The Sonic is already pretty reasonably low given it is a 2014, I'm expecting the Challenger will be over $400 but that ought to taper off a little given that it will be over two model years old by that point.
Actually, I was in error -- the registration increase won't be implemented until January 2018 -- which means all of us with renewals before that time are off the hook for this year. (sorry about that, Max!)
Quote from: sparker on April 09, 2017, 01:46:11 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on April 07, 2017, 09:41:57 PM
Quote from: sparker on April 07, 2017, 09:35:19 PM
I'll just have to see in 3 months when I have to re-up my car registration -- although with a pre-turn-of-the-century Camry, it might be closer to the minimum rather than maximum increase. One can only hope!
Mine is up in February next year for the Challenger and January for the Sonic. The Sonic is already pretty reasonably low given it is a 2014, I'm expecting the Challenger will be over $400 but that ought to taper off a little given that it will be over two model years old by that point.
Actually, I was in error -- the registration increase won't be implemented until January 2018 -- which means all of us with renewals before that time are off the hook for this year. (sorry about that, Max!)
Well that's a thing. :-D I guess that I can expect to pay the same thing for the next two years on both cars.
If I lived in California and maintained my current vehicle fleet and driving patterns, the gasoline excise tax increase would work out to approximately $96 for a 2005 Toyota Camry and $18 for a 1994 Saturn SL2. I suspect the increases in vehicle license fees for each car would be approximately the same: it would be very strange if a 23-year-old car didn't come in at the bottom of the range ($25), but a 12-year-old car would probably fall somewhere near the middle ($100, let's say--the maximum increase is $175).
By far the most difficult aspect of immatriculation would be getting the Saturn past smog inspection. The CARB keeps ratcheting the requirements so tight that others with well-maintained Saturns of similar vintage report having to swap out MAP sensors (differences in calibration affect short-term fuel trim and thus emissions), check for leaks where the exhaust manifold bolts onto the engine, replace the catalytic converter, etc.
Now that this bill has passed (with the minimum required votes), California is poised to end its long run of underperformance in highway construction. Assuming that most of the money actually goes to highways and is not siphoned off to transit, this will be a big boost to get some big projects done.
In Texas, the additional $2.5 billion per year is making a big difference, and the California funding of $5.2 billion/year should do the same for them, maybe even more.
Excerpted From the Dallas Morning News
Gas tax hike victory displays governor's political skill
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California Gov. Jerry Brown employed all the tricks he's accumulated over a lifetime in politics to pass one of the largest state tax increases in recent memory in one frenzied week.
Using a mix of public pressure, private arm-twisting, a late-night meeting at the governor's mansion and nearly $1 billion of pork, Brown showed the political acumen that's made him California's longest-serving chief executive.
Brown, who typically prefers to politick in private, was a very public campaigner for the deal he negotiated with fellow Democratic legislative leaders. He ventured to Concord and Riverside to pressure undecided legislators from those areas, and he appealed directly to two legislative committees.
A group of contractors and construction unions underwrote a $1 million ad blitz on TV and social media. And the day before Thursday's vote, Brown headlined a rally at the state Capitol.
The tax hike, projected to raise more than $5 billion a year from higher gas taxes and vehicle registration fees, cleared the Legislature on Thursday night without a single vote to spare for the two-thirds majority required for tax increases.
Minutes later, at about 11 p.m. on the eve of his 79th birthday, Brown stepped out of his office and declared victory, flanked by about a dozen lawmakers.
"I appreciate being a Democrat and what the Democrats did tonight," Brown said. "The Democratic Party is the party of doing things. And tonight we did something to fix the roads of California."
Californians have historically been receptive to hiking taxes on the rich and "sins" like cigarettes. In 2012, Brown convinced voters to approve a higher income tax on the wealthy.
Thad Kousser, chair of the political science department at University of California, San Diego, said Brown and his legislative partners – Senate leader Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon – cleared a higher hurdle by winning passage for a much broader tax package.
"What he got was a legislature ... to look ahead 10, 20 years into the future and put some pain on their voters today to build California for the future," Kousser said. "That makes it a really tough trek."
The deal will raise gasoline taxes 43 percent to 47.3 cents per gallon beginning Nov. 1. Diesel taxes will more than double to 36 cents a gallon. Vehicle owners will be charged a new annual fee, paid along with the vehicle registration.
The money, more than $52 billion over the next 10 years, will pay for repairs to state highways and local streets, along with improvements to bridges, public transit, and biking and walking trails.
Every Republican but one, Sen. Anthony Cannella of Ceres, opposed the plan. Republicans said overtaxed Californians can't shoulder another increase. California's gas taxes will be among the highest in the nation.
The decision to ask lawmakers for a tax hike is a departure from Brown's promise in 2010, when he pledged not to raise taxes without a vote of the people. However, he did not repeat the promise when he was reelected four years later.
"He has that uncanny knack for knowing when to seize a political issue and run with it and make it work and score with it," said Larry Gerston, a professor emeritus of political science at San Jose State University. "He rarely loses the big fight."
Quote from: MaxConcrete on April 10, 2017, 10:02:40 PM
Now that this bill has passed (with the minimum required votes), California is poised to end its long run of underperformance in highway construction. Assuming that most of the money actually goes to highways and is not siphoned off to transit, this will be a big boost to get some big projects done.
In Texas, the additional $2.5 billion per year is making a big difference, and the California funding of $5.2 billion/year should do the same for them, maybe even more.
Excerpted From the Dallas Morning News
Gas tax hike victory displays governor's political skill
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – California Gov. Jerry Brown employed all the tricks he's accumulated over a lifetime in politics to pass one of the largest state tax increases in recent memory in one frenzied week.
Using a mix of public pressure, private arm-twisting, a late-night meeting at the governor's mansion and nearly $1 billion of pork, Brown showed the political acumen that's made him California's longest-serving chief executive.
Brown, who typically prefers to politick in private, was a very public campaigner for the deal he negotiated with fellow Democratic legislative leaders. He ventured to Concord and Riverside to pressure undecided legislators from those areas, and he appealed directly to two legislative committees.
A group of contractors and construction unions underwrote a $1 million ad blitz on TV and social media. And the day before Thursday's vote, Brown headlined a rally at the state Capitol.
The tax hike, projected to raise more than $5 billion a year from higher gas taxes and vehicle registration fees, cleared the Legislature on Thursday night without a single vote to spare for the two-thirds majority required for tax increases.
Minutes later, at about 11 p.m. on the eve of his 79th birthday, Brown stepped out of his office and declared victory, flanked by about a dozen lawmakers.
"I appreciate being a Democrat and what the Democrats did tonight," Brown said. "The Democratic Party is the party of doing things. And tonight we did something to fix the roads of California."
Californians have historically been receptive to hiking taxes on the rich and "sins" like cigarettes. In 2012, Brown convinced voters to approve a higher income tax on the wealthy.
Thad Kousser, chair of the political science department at University of California, San Diego, said Brown and his legislative partners – Senate leader Kevin de Leon and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon – cleared a higher hurdle by winning passage for a much broader tax package.
"What he got was a legislature ... to look ahead 10, 20 years into the future and put some pain on their voters today to build California for the future," Kousser said. "That makes it a really tough trek."
The deal will raise gasoline taxes 43 percent to 47.3 cents per gallon beginning Nov. 1. Diesel taxes will more than double to 36 cents a gallon. Vehicle owners will be charged a new annual fee, paid along with the vehicle registration.
The money, more than $52 billion over the next 10 years, will pay for repairs to state highways and local streets, along with improvements to bridges, public transit, and biking and walking trails.
Every Republican but one, Sen. Anthony Cannella of Ceres, opposed the plan. Republicans said overtaxed Californians can't shoulder another increase. California's gas taxes will be among the highest in the nation.
The decision to ask lawmakers for a tax hike is a departure from Brown's promise in 2010, when he pledged not to raise taxes without a vote of the people. However, he did not repeat the promise when he was reelected four years later.
"He has that uncanny knack for knowing when to seize a political issue and run with it and make it work and score with it," said Larry Gerston, a professor emeritus of political science at San Jose State University. "He rarely loses the big fight."
Re the one Republican who voted for the plan: Cannella (R-Ceres) got two tangible things out of the deal for his district: (1) a parkway from CA 99 directly around the east side of Merced to UC Merced, something that has been bandied about for most of the past decade but never funded until now, and (2) an extension of the San Jose-Stockton ACE rail commuter service to Modesto, Ceres, and Merced. The exact routing of this extension (and whether it'll be handled by additional trains branching off from the existing ACE line near Lathrop or directly SE from Stockton) has yet to be revealed.
Why aren't I surprised that the gas hike is happening now? Expect more headaches at the pump in L.A., San Diego and the Bay Area!
Is California that hell-bent on driving people out of the state? At some point, they're going to wonder why they're in so much debt, and why businesses don't want to come here, and all that good stuff.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 17, 2017, 12:52:42 AM
Is California that hell-bent on driving people out of the state? At some point, they're going to wonder why they're in so much debt, and why businesses don't want to come here, and all that good stuff.
Well...I mean come on, anyone can see the road network needs some help with funding and isn't in good shape. Unfortunately you got pay for those kind of things and most of these increases (sans DMV) are pretty nominal. Nothing ever costs the same over a long enough period of time. That isn't meant to say that there isn't wasteful spending, but that necessarily isn't exclusively a California problem.
Bad roads and underdeveloped connections are a pretty good way to discourage inward investment. In any event, as an outsider who visits California occasionally, I perceive that by far the biggest factor that drives people out of the state is very high housing costs, which is as much a result of congestion and high demand as it is of sclerosis in the planning system. An extra $400 in fuel tax and license fees every year is quite small compared to an annual property tax bill of about $30,000 in desirable areas and the fact that newly purchased 1950's houses with 1950's amenities have property tax bills that reflect McMansion redevelopment potential, notwithstanding Proposition 13.
It is supposedly coming out of hat only the new revenue generated is in a lock box. The new legislation seems to allow raiding the pre existing revenue for general purposes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 17, 2017, 10:51:45 AM
An extra $400 in fuel tax and license fees every year is quite small compared to an annual property tax bill of about $30,000 in desirable areas
If you have an annual property tax bill of $30,000, you live in Bel Air or Malibu.
With the small but fast increasing number of electric cars in CA (which don't contribute to the fuel tax,) how do they carry their share of the weight, aside vehicle and tire taxes (and of course tolls?)
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on April 17, 2017, 07:23:19 PMIt is supposedly coming out that only the new revenue generated is in a lock box. The new legislation seems to allow raiding the pre existing revenue for general purposes.
Wasn't there a proposition passed in the mid-noughties that dedicated the proceeds of fuel taxes to transportation purposes?
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 18, 2017, 01:00:30 AMQuote from: J N Winkler on April 17, 2017, 10:51:45 AMAn extra $400 in fuel tax and license fees every year is quite small compared to an annual property tax bill of about $30,000 in desirable areas
If you have an annual property tax bill of $30,000, you live in Bel Air or Malibu.
I take your point. However, I have heard a story of a $27,000 property tax bill that was told by someone living in Ventura County who commented that he could buy a house in Rochester, New York and demolish it for architectural salvage, all for less than he paid each year in property taxes.
I picked a house in South Los Angeles (107th Street or thereabouts) at random just now in Zillow: $200,000 for about 1200 square feet, lot size probably around 5,000 square feet, property taxes of $3,000.
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 19, 2017, 12:06:50 AM
With the small but fast increasing number of electric cars in CA (which don't contribute to the fuel tax,) how do they carry their share of the weight, aside vehicle and tire taxes (and of course tolls?)
They pay their share by getting a state rebate check. Amount on that check is close to what average car would generate in gas taxes over its lifetime..
Quote from: theroadwayone on April 17, 2017, 12:52:42 AM
Is California that hell-bent on driving people out of the state? At some point, they're going to wonder why they're in so much debt, and why businesses don't want to come here, and all that good stuff.
As a former resident of California who has since left the Golden State, I can say that taxes, regulations, fuel prices, etc. had almost nothing to do with my decision to leave the state. Really, in addition to the fact that I was homesick for the Northeast, real estate prices (in any place I would want to live) were a major factor. While I was a carefree twenty-something, I was fine living in a cramped apartment surrounded by million-dollar starter homes, but after having a child, my priorities shifted.
It seems to me that California is remarkably well insulated from any possible resistance to tax increases. You can't easily cross state lines and commute to any of California's major cities from Nevada. And if you like the character of San Francisco, the hills of the Bay Area, the beaches of the Southland, or the climate of Los Angeles, you're only going to find them
there–nowhere else in the country. The state's two major cities have firmly established themselves as "paradise" destinations that millions of people the world over would happily live if given the chance–even if high costs might not make living in California a truly rational decision.
Quote from: Occidental Tourist on April 18, 2017, 01:00:30 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 17, 2017, 10:51:45 AM
An extra $400 in fuel tax and license fees every year is quite small compared to an annual property tax bill of about $30,000 in desirable areas
If you have an annual property tax bill of $30,000, you live in Bel Air or Malibu.
Not necessarily. California property taxes range up to 1.58%, so if the property's value is above $1.8M you'd be paying that much, and that's just a nicer than average house in L.A. county, not a mansion in Bel Air. However, the taxes are based on what it was purchased for, not its current value, so many people pay less too.
If I were still living in CA, the transportation tax increase wouldn't cost me very much because I sold my last hydrocarbon-fueled vehicle in 2013. Electric vehicles are just so much nicer to drive. I would never go back to burning fuel.
Quote from: mcarling on May 05, 2017, 10:12:38 AM
If I were still living in CA, the transportation tax increase wouldn't cost me very much because I sold my last hydrocarbon-fueled vehicle in 2013. Electric vehicles are just so much nicer to drive. I would never go back to burning fuel.
Except the obvious drawback of extended range being a constant issue and lack of infrastructure outside of suburbia for charging stations. Also long term ownership is a much bigger issue in an electric due to the battery needing to be replaced at some point. Even still, we are a long way off before electrics become a totally viable means of replacing the versatility of a combustion engine. There is probably going to come a day when incentive credits will likely need to stop and fees to account for electric usage will need to be implimented...but that's way down the line.
Plus electric cars take a very long time to charge. A gas car can refuel in five minutes. An electric car at a supercharger station will still leave you enough time to eat lunch. At a regular one? Better look for a hotel. Range is generally shorter than a gas car too. An electric car is a perfectly good commuter car (if you have somewhere at home to charge it; a BIG if for someone who isn't a homeowner with a garage), but to use one for road trips? No way, not until the range and charging technology improve. Plus they don't make manual transmission electric cars.
Not to forget even the entry level price is generally way higher even with tax incentives than a comparable combustion engine alternative. Hybrids even have a markup over just a regular combustion counterpart, so really you are always starting in the hole with initial cost. How much in gas savings would be really necessary to make up the cost difference for buying electric and/or a hybrid before the big maintenance items come up? I guess it comes down to making a choice of what vehicle makes you happy but there is no way to qualify the statement that you are "Saving money" by purchasing full electric or hybrid. I can see the costs coming down eventually as more normal cars are equipped with hybrid power trains and electrics takes more market share.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2017, 02:26:40 PM
Not to forget even the entry level price is generally way higher even with tax incentives than a comparable combustion engine alternative. Hybrids even have a markup over just a regular combustion counterpart, so really you are always starting in the hole with initial cost. How much in gas savings would be really necessary to make up the cost difference for buying electric and/or a hybrid before the big maintenance items come up? I guess it comes down to making a choice of what vehicle makes you happy but there is no way to qualify the statement that you are "Saving money" by purchasing full electric or hybrid. I can see the costs coming down eventually as more normal cars are equipped with hybrid power trains and electrics takes more market share.
Just as a random estimate:
if you buy a car which will run 150 k miles at 30 MPG (to make math simple, and numbers are within reason) you're looking at 5000 gallons of gas over car lifetime, $15k worth, give or take. I don't think that actually closes price gap between Tesla and comparable sedan even with tax rebate. Maintenance of electric car... Any estimates?
Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2017, 02:56:40 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 05, 2017, 02:26:40 PM
Not to forget even the entry level price is generally way higher even with tax incentives than a comparable combustion engine alternative. Hybrids even have a markup over just a regular combustion counterpart, so really you are always starting in the hole with initial cost. How much in gas savings would be really necessary to make up the cost difference for buying electric and/or a hybrid before the big maintenance items come up? I guess it comes down to making a choice of what vehicle makes you happy but there is no way to qualify the statement that you are "Saving money" by purchasing full electric or hybrid. I can see the costs coming down eventually as more normal cars are equipped with hybrid power trains and electrics takes more market share.
Just as a random estimate:
if you buy a car which will run 150 k miles at 30 MPG (to make math simple, and numbers are within reason) you're looking at 5000 gallons of gas over car lifetime, $15k worth, give or take. I don't think that actually closes price gap between Tesla and comparable sedan even with tax rebate. Maintenance of electric car... Any estimates?
I seem to recall the Tesla Roadster was 40k to replace the battery at the end of something like 8 years/100,000 miles or 30k if you bought the battery up front. Granted that was about circa 2010 and it wasn't a car most people would ever consider unless they were fairly well off. Supposedly with hybrids the cost of a new battery can run from $2,500 to $8,000 depending on what model, what materials the battery was made from, and when it was made. I'd have grab some like-sized models on hybrids and full electrics to do a proper parts comparison. The prices on replacements has come down substantially in the last five years with lithium ion.
Quote from: vdeane on May 05, 2017, 01:58:56 PM
Plus electric cars take a very long time to charge. A gas car can refuel in five minutes. An electric car at a supercharger station will still leave you enough time to eat lunch. At a regular one? Better look for a hotel. Range is generally shorter than a gas car too. An electric car is a perfectly good commuter car (if you have somewhere at home to charge it; a BIG if for someone who isn't a homeowner with a garage), but to use one for road trips? No way, not until the range and charging technology improve. Plus they don't make manual transmission electric cars.
BTW, regading charging... I've seen electric chargers on some SUNY campuses. Granted, this is few spots only, not even for 10% electric fleet... But as a commuter option that may end up being the case.
As far as I know, at least some parking lots in Winnipeg are already equipped with outlets (low power - for oil heaters, but that is a precedent)
And don't forget that even though electric cars are cleaner at the car, the pollution is simply moved elsewhere, not eliminated. The electrical power generation isn't always clean and the battery production definitely isn't.
Quote from: qguy on May 05, 2017, 09:46:59 PM
And don't forget that even though electric cars are cleaner at the car, the pollution is simply moved elsewhere, not eliminated. The electrical power generation isn't always clean and the battery production definitely isn't.
There was a fairly interesting text.. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed/
Not that I buy everything at face value, though...
Quote from: kalvado on May 05, 2017, 10:01:06 PM
Quote from: qguy on May 05, 2017, 09:46:59 PM
And don't forget that even though electric cars are cleaner at the car, the pollution is simply moved elsewhere, not eliminated. The electrical power generation isn't always clean and the battery production definitely isn't.
There was a fairly interesting text.. http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/unclean-at-any-speed/
Not that I buy everything at face value, though...
A lot of people don't though, things are always much easier to digest with surface level facts alone. With hybrids and electrics it seems that majority of the buyers are interested in buying an "image" rather than a "tool" to suit their needs. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with that...if you feel that's a good use of your money, then good on you. But to come on here and say that you'll be saving money because "I'm an EV owner" is absurd when everything going into said purchase is stacked up.
Surprisingly there has been little substantial push back with any of this legislation with road repairs. Really this situation got pretty bad with infrastructure in general this winter that it really forced an effort to do something about it finally.
We'd use far less gasoline or diesel if we simply drove better, more efficiently, and less waste in our driving.
I.e., consolidate trips. Avoid hard braking/quick acceleration.
The problem is, people see cost only in terms of 'dollars' in they only see it when they pay it. Most people only notice their cost to drive when they stop to fill up the tank. If they go from filling up every 14 days to ever 13 days, they're not going to usually notice it until two fuelings show up where formerly they had 1 in a pay check, month, etc. Taxes, meanwhile, outside the pump, show up annually.
People don't think of the cost of driving their vehicle on an annual or mileage basis. My mother's friend bought a used SUV because it was 'cheap', but then never has money for gas. And now, tires need replaced and they're way more than her former sedan. People do that with mileage all the time. They think in terms of 'cost at the pump' and not 'cost per mile' and figure how many miles they planned to drive.
In two years, my wife and I put over 40,000 miles on our car. We average about 30mpg between city and highway despite hwy being 38mpg and I've gotten it well above 40mpg on longer trips. My wife drives like she's constantly in a city in rush hour. The only good thing for us is we get free gas. So, of those 40,000 miles, we've actually only purchased about 300-400 gallons of gas being away from home.
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 07, 2017, 07:14:05 PM
We'd use far less gasoline or diesel if we simply drove better, more efficiently, and less waste in our driving.
I.e., consolidate trips. Avoid hard braking/quick acceleration.
The problem is, people see cost only in terms of 'dollars' in they only see it when they pay it. Most people only notice their cost to drive when they stop to fill up the tank. If they go from filling up every 14 days to ever 13 days, they're not going to usually notice it until two fuelings show up where formerly they had 1 in a pay check, month, etc. Taxes, meanwhile, outside the pump, show up annually.
People don't think of the cost of driving their vehicle on an annual or mileage basis. My mother's friend bought a used SUV because it was 'cheap', but then never has money for gas. And now, tires need replaced and they're way more than her former sedan. People do that with mileage all the time. They think in terms of 'cost at the pump' and not 'cost per mile' and figure how many miles they planned to drive.
In two years, my wife and I put over 40,000 miles on our car. We average about 30mpg between city and highway despite hwy being 38mpg and I've gotten it well above 40mpg on longer trips. My wife drives like she's constantly in a city in rush hour. The only good thing for us is we get free gas. So, of those 40,000 miles, we've actually only purchased about 300-400 gallons of gas being away from home.
This is why I accelerate gradually compared to most other drivers around me, especially in cold weather. I know how many miles to expect on a tank of gas, and anything under 300 is unacceptable to me. So, when the needle hits ¾ tank, I know my trip odometer (reset at every fill-up) should be at least 75; at ½ tank, at least 150. I first noticed the difference that acceleration makes in my old minivan, in which I started refusing to let the tach needle go above 2200 rpm unless really necessary. In my current vehicle, I can change the trip odometer to show fuel economy instead–which I did for a while, and saw markedly how much of a difference acceleration makes on economy.
However, I still fail to see how hard braking expends more fuel. If I take my foot off the gas pedal as soon as the next light down the road turns red, what difference does it make how long I coast before stepping on the brake? In fact, if I expect the light might turn green before I get there, I might even save gas if I don't brake gradually, because then I wouldn't have as far to go to get back up to speed.
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2017, 01:15:41 PM
This is why I accelerate gradually compared to most other drivers around me, especially in cold weather. I know how many miles to expect on a tank of gas, and anything under 300 is unacceptable to me. So, when the needle hits ¾ tank, I know my trip odometer (reset at every fill-up) should be at least 75; at ½ tank, at least 150. I first noticed the difference that acceleration makes in my old minivan, in which I started refusing to let the tach needle go above 2200 rpm unless really necessary. In my current vehicle, I can change the trip odometer to show fuel economy instead–which I did for a while, and saw markedly how much of a difference acceleration makes on economy.
300? What kind of car is that?
from my experience aiming for 400 was tough, but doable on most cars I drove; and one I have right now should go 500+...
Quote from: kalvado on May 08, 2017, 04:49:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2017, 01:15:41 PM
This is why I accelerate gradually compared to most other drivers around me, especially in cold weather. I know how many miles to expect on a tank of gas, and anything under 300 is unacceptable to me. So, when the needle hits ¾ tank, I know my trip odometer (reset at every fill-up) should be at least 75; at ½ tank, at least 150. I first noticed the difference that acceleration makes in my old minivan, in which I started refusing to let the tach needle go above 2200 rpm unless really necessary. In my current vehicle, I can change the trip odometer to show fuel economy instead–which I did for a while, and saw markedly how much of a difference acceleration makes on economy.
300? What kind of car is that?
from my experience aiming for 400 was tough, but doable on most cars I drove; and one I have right now should go 500+...
Yeah. I like that challenge myself (2500rpm...) In my F150 I can get an "easy" 300 miles before I like to fuel up again (Little less than 1/4 remaining). But that's at
16 mph average, so still annoying.
Can't complain too much, just can't wait to have a more solid income to get a car for my daily driver.
Quote from: kalvado on May 08, 2017, 04:49:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2017, 01:15:41 PM
This is why I accelerate gradually compared to most other drivers around me, especially in cold weather. I know how many miles to expect on a tank of gas, and anything under 300 is unacceptable to me. So, when the needle hits ¾ tank, I know my trip odometer (reset at every fill-up) should be at least 75; at ½ tank, at least 150. I first noticed the difference that acceleration makes in my old minivan, in which I started refusing to let the tach needle go above 2200 rpm unless really necessary. In my current vehicle, I can change the trip odometer to show fuel economy instead–which I did for a while, and saw markedly how much of a difference acceleration makes on economy.
300? What kind of car is that?
from my experience aiming for 400 was tough, but doable on most cars I drove; and one I have right now should go 500+...
2006 Nissan Pathfinder. They're known for having a small-ish gas tank.
Quote from: kphoger on May 09, 2017, 01:21:13 PM
Quote from: kalvado on May 08, 2017, 04:49:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2017, 01:15:41 PM
This is why I accelerate gradually compared to most other drivers around me, especially in cold weather. I know how many miles to expect on a tank of gas, and anything under 300 is unacceptable to me. So, when the needle hits ¾ tank, I know my trip odometer (reset at every fill-up) should be at least 75; at ½ tank, at least 150. I first noticed the difference that acceleration makes in my old minivan, in which I started refusing to let the tach needle go above 2200 rpm unless really necessary. In my current vehicle, I can change the trip odometer to show fuel economy instead–which I did for a while, and saw markedly how much of a difference acceleration makes on economy.
300? What kind of car is that?
from my experience aiming for 400 was tough, but doable on most cars I drove; and one I have right now should go 500+...
2006 Nissan Pathfinder. They're known for having a small-ish gas tank.
Even the 2017 Malibu I had as a loaner recently showed under 300 miles on a full tank. The most I got it up to was about 330 after some back country driving. The tank had to be less than 12 gallons, I noticed GM in particular is getting stingy on gas tank size as of late. Even my 2014 Sonic has a 12 gallon tank which shows empty after 11.
Getting under 300 miles happens to me occasionally. 2002 Mazda Protege, around 20 mpg in town, 14 gallon tank. I know, the mileage is pretty disappointing for such a small car. But good handling and a manual transmission makes me forgive it.
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2017, 01:15:41 PMThis is why I accelerate gradually compared to most other drivers around me, especially in cold weather. I know how many miles to expect on a tank of gas, and anything under 300 is unacceptable to me. So, when the needle hits ¾ tank, I know my trip odometer (reset at every fill-up) should be at least 75; at ½ tank, at least 150. I first noticed the difference that acceleration makes in my old minivan, in which I started refusing to let the tach needle go above 2200 rpm unless really necessary. In my current vehicle, I can change the trip odometer to show fuel economy instead–which I did for a while, and saw markedly how much of a difference acceleration makes on economy.
Perhaps I am not flooring the gas often enough or long enough, but I have never been able to see the effect of a difference in driving style in tank averages. I generally find that fuel economy is influenced by (in rough descending order, the actual sequence varying slightly from model to model) city versus highway driving mix; relative wind speed and heading on mostly-highway trips; frequency of cold starts; ambient temperatures; tire inflation pressures; and A/C use. (The sequence varies partly because of upgrades to air induction systems which have had the effect of making fuel economy in newer cars less sensitive to cold ambient temperatures once the engine is fully warmed up. As an example, my 1986 Nissan Maxima was very piggish in the cold even when warm, the 1994 Saturn SL2 is somewhat less so, and the 2005 Toyota Camry doesn't care how cold it is as long as it can get a long steady run between cold starts.)
I personally prefer gentle acceleration because it is resource-conserving in the wider sense: it results in less wear and tear on the engine, transmission, and powertrain mounts, and it also facilitates a long headway between me and any vehicles in front, which allows me to maintain a steady speed while minimizing usage of the brakes and thus pad and rotor wear. But acceleration up to a steady speed typically comprises a relatively small part of the total driving cycle, so I'd expect differences in fuel consumption to be similarly small.
The effects that are visible in the rolling average MPG readout on a typical trip computer are largely artifacts of recent resets. The numerator is miles since last reset (up to a preset value) and denominator is fuel consumed (or, rather, total fuel injector open time multiplied by an assumed fuel dispensing rate) over the mileage in the numerator. When the computer has been reset recently, both numbers are quite small, so a small fluctuation in driving style, time spent at idle, etc. will have an outsize effect on the displayed average MPG. More than halfway through the tank, the MPG readout will have converged on a value that reflects secular trends affecting MPG, will be very hard to shift through isolated driving maneuvers like overtaking another car, and will typically be within 3 MPG of the eventual tank average. (The average MPG readout has 10% inaccuracy built in anyway because the fuel pressure regulators used in cars with ordinary electronically controlled multipoint fuel injection will allow pressure to vary from nominal by as much as 10%. Control within tighter limits is not really necessary to protect the valves since the primary oxygen sensor supplies the corrections necessary to keep the air-fuel mixture from leaning out in closed-loop operation.)
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2017, 01:15:41 PMHowever, I still fail to see how hard braking expends more fuel. If I take my foot off the gas pedal as soon as the next light down the road turns red, what difference does it make how long I coast before stepping on the brake? In fact, if I expect the light might turn green before I get there, I might even save gas if I don't brake gradually, because then I wouldn't have as far to go to get back up to speed.
The efficiency gains from coasting and braking vary from model to model because they depend on how deceleration fuel cutoff is programmed, how the transmission behaves when the throttle is closed/the accelerator pedal position sensor tells the PCM driver power request is nil, etc. As an example, some economy car automatic transmissions (Saturn SL2, Honda Fit, etc.) stay in lockup in the lower gears, so DFCO is usable without stalling the engine and compression braking is readily available, while the Toyota corporate approach to transmission design is to provide one-way gearing in the lower gears for D (not L3, L2, etc.), so that when you take your foot off the pedal, the engine goes straight to an idle and there is no compression braking. (Compression braking for hill descents etc. is still available, but the transmission actually has to be put in a L range.)
As a very broad generalization, foot off gas = throttle closed = minimum amount of air getting into the engine = less fuel to make a stoichiometric mixture = less fuel consumed. But, as is the case with acceleration, the effect is subtle enough that it doesn't really show up in tank averages.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2017, 01:47:21 PMEven the 2017 Malibu I had as a loaner recently showed under 300 miles on a full tank. The most I got it up to was about 330 after some back country driving. The tank had to be less than 12 gallons, I noticed GM in particular is getting stingy on gas tank size as of late. Even my 2014 Sonic has a 12 gallon tank which shows empty after 11.
1994 Saturn SL2 (my daily driver) has a 12.5-gallon tank and could get 400+ miles pretty consistently on almost pure highway trips; in city service I break 300 miles about half the time.
2005 Toyota Camry XLE V6 (roadtrip car) has a 18.5-gallon tank and gets 500+ miles reliably on almost pure highway trips absent heavy headwinds; MPG wasn't tracked when it was in city service, but I think it got refueled around the 300-mile mark.
These ranges are all with a nominal amount of fuel left in the tank (usually at least a gallon) so as not to compromise fuel pump life.
I've noticed that the extra gallon in the tank or more will vary by automaker. Fords usually would let you go much further down into that last gallon before the gauge would go to E or the range meter would display empty. The estimate on a tank really varies depending the automaker as well. Both Ford and GM vehicles seem to base the estimate off the last fuel run whereas Chrysler cars seem to change during the tank you're on wildly depending on how you drive.
In the case of the Toyota, which is the only car I drive regularly that is equipped with a trip computer, the following appears to be its behavior as fuel runs low:
* Low-fuel light comes on: 4 gallons to true empty
* Fuel gauge needle pins past E: 2 to 2.5 gallons to true empty
* Indicated range goes to zero: 50 miles to true empty (estimated using the prevailing average MPG)
If average MPG is quite high (due e.g. to a heavy tailwind or less dense air in the mountains), the gauge may have been pinned past E for many miles before range goes to zero. Last winter, when returning east from Tucson along an indirect route involving the Mogollon Rim and the high plateau country in northern Arizona and New Mexico, I stopped for a fillup in Texhoma, Oklahoma, 559.8 miles after the last fillup, the low fuel light having been on since shortly before Dalhart (52 miles earlier). I had had an earlier refueling opportunity in Stratford, Texas, that I blew past because the fuel gauge was still not pinned past E and I knew Texhoma would have a gas station. I think both this range and the corresponding 33.3 MPG tank average are records for this car, but the latter was also significantly lower than the indicated average MPG, which started in the high twenties/low thirties in a snowstorm on US 60 between Show Low and Springerville, climbed to 35 or so under clearing skies on NM 117 past El Malpais National Monument (speed limit 55), kept on increasing to really ridiculous values (I think it topped out at 36.9 MPG) on I-40 (speed limit 75) (even as it got dark and temperatures dropped like a rock), and gradually floated down to 35.4 MPG or so by the time I left the Texas Panhandle the next day. (I stayed for the night in Santa Rosa, so this tank reflects warmup from one cold start on a winter morning, as well as a modest amount of city driving from hotel to restaurant and vice versa.)
The funny thing? After that fillup, I hit the highway immediately on a fully warmed-up engine, so indicated average MPG went really high (39+ MPG!) before it started to float down to realistic values.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2017, 10:13:09 PM
I've noticed that the extra gallon in the tank or more will vary by automaker. Fords usually would let you go much further down into that last gallon before the gauge would go to E or the range meter would display empty. The estimate on a tank really varies depending the automaker as well. Both Ford and GM vehicles seem to base the estimate off the last fuel run whereas Chrysler cars seem to change during the tank you're on wildly depending on how you drive.
In my Mustang my 50 to go warning comes on at an indicated 12.3-12.5 gallons used (16 gallon tank).
This past weekend on was on one of my road trips and it said I was bone dry empty with 6 miles to go to my desired exit. Knowing what my cars actual consumption usually is I was not worried, and I was right, it only took 14.8 gallons to fill it back up again.
I miss that 27 gallon tank in my F150. Yeah, I was only getting 18-19 mpg on the road, but 450-475 miles between fuel stops was nice.
http://www.tankonempty.com/
Some of the margins quoted are quite conservative. I try to be kind to people who say they sweat bullets when estimated range approaches zero, since at least they are being responsible with regard to fuel pump life, but everything I have read says that it is fuel actually running through the pump that provides the essential cooling and lubrication, so it will remain in good health as long as it never actually runs dry.
A good rule of thumb is that fuel supply is reliable in any town that has a population of 1,000 or greater. Smaller towns are also likely to have some fuel availability (e.g. I have refueled in Leon, Kansas, population 704, and also in Lamont, Oklahoma, population 417), but quite often it will be at a farm cooperative off the main road.
I tend not to push range in unfamiliar areas because of rural gas station closures (ten years of economic stagnation, meth/opioid epidemic, etc.). Service desert signing is not guaranteed and even signed deserts are starting to crop up east of the frontier-tier states (e.g. I-49 between the Many/Natchitoches and Coushatta/Pleasant Hill exits in northwestern Louisiana).
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 10, 2017, 11:15:19 AM
http://www.tankonempty.com/
Some of the margins quoted are quite conservative. I try to be kind to people who say they sweat bullets when estimated range approaches zero, since at least they are being responsible with regard to fuel pump life, but everything I have read says that it is fuel actually running through the pump that provides the essential cooling and lubrication, so it will remain in good health as long as it never actually runs dry.
A good rule of thumb is that fuel supply is reliable in any town that has a population of 1,000 or greater. Smaller towns are also likely to have some fuel availability (e.g. I have refueled in Leon, Kansas, population 704, and also in Lamont, Oklahoma, population 417), but quite often it will be at a farm cooperative off the main road.
I tend not to push range in unfamiliar areas because of rural gas station closures (ten years of economic stagnation, meth/opioid epidemic, etc.). Service desert signing is not guaranteed and even signed deserts are starting to crop up east of the frontier-tier states (e.g. I-49 between the Many/Natchitoches and Coushatta/Pleasant Hill exits in northwestern Louisiana).
There are different situations. Once upon a time I found myself on I-88 at 2 AM with "refuel" light coming up.
Two closed stations at nearest exit (so it wasn't true middle of nowhere). Next exit featured a 24/7 Dunkin Donuts. A very nice lady served me coffee, and once I asked replied:
-are you heading East or West?
-huh????
-east it is 32 miles to next 24/7 station, and west it is 26 miles. Or you can sleep in our parking lot (it was fairly warm summer night), Mobil across the street opens at 6.
I ended up putting 13.48 gallons in nominally 13.5 gallon tank 32 miles east. Running on fumes? Sure, been there and done that. I kept that receipt for a few years...
Quote from: slorydn1 on May 10, 2017, 05:36:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2017, 10:13:09 PM
I've noticed that the extra gallon in the tank or more will vary by automaker. Fords usually would let you go much further down into that last gallon before the gauge would go to E or the range meter would display empty. The estimate on a tank really varies depending the automaker as well. Both Ford and GM vehicles seem to base the estimate off the last fuel run whereas Chrysler cars seem to change during the tank you're on wildly depending on how you drive.
In my Mustang my 50 to go warning comes on at an indicated 12.3-12.5 gallons used (16 gallon tank).
This past weekend on was on one of my road trips and it said I was bone dry empty with 6 miles to go to my desired exit. Knowing what my cars actual consumption usually is I was not worried, and I was right, it only took 14.8 gallons to fill it back up again.
I miss that 27 gallon tank in my F150. Yeah, I was only getting 18-19 mpg on the road, but 450-475 miles between fuel stops was nice.
Apparently the fuel tank size is 18.5 gallons in the Challenger which I think is pretty generous. Granted I was averaging under 300 miles a tank for most of the life the car, most of my economy runs fall under 15 MPG. The best I ever did was 27.4 on a 700 mile trip from Phoenix, that should have gave me about 506.9 miles on a tank! I don't get what the think is giving any car above a compact less than 15 gallon capacity...it must be a packaging thing.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 09, 2017, 04:51:06 PM
Perhaps I am not flooring the gas often enough or long enough, but I have never been able to see the effect of a difference in driving style in tank averages. I generally find that fuel economy is influenced by (in rough descending order, the actual sequence varying slightly from model to model) city versus highway driving mix; relative wind speed and heading on mostly-highway trips; frequency of cold starts; ambient temperatures; tire inflation pressures; and A/C use.
The hierarchy of difference-makers for me would go like this: City versus highway driving (most of my daily commute is highway driving, so I don't see the effects of this as much as someone else might); Cold temperatures; Wind direction especially if using the car-top cargo box; RPM during acceleration; Cruising speed especially if using the car-top cargo box; Tire inflation.
I first noticed the correlation between accel rate and fuel economy with our previous vehicle, a 2004 Grand Caravan, which did not have an MPG calculator. Reducing the RPM during acceleration by 5000 RPM made more of a difference than reducing top speed by 5 mph. This is part of why cold temperatures sink my fuel economy, as my car insists on shifting at higher RPMs when the engine is cold. Now that I have an MPG calculator, I see the difference very starkly shortly after filling up (or at least I used to back when I kept my display set to show that).
Back when I used to drive an Isuzu turbo-diesel cab-over box truck for a living, I could count on exactly 300 miles to a tank no matter what. It didn't care how heavy the load was, it didn't care what my top speed was, it didn't care how I accelerated, it didn't care which way the wind was blowing. 300 miles. The engines in large, boxy vehicles are already built to overcome weight and wind drag, so adding weight and wind doesn't affect them very much. This is why putting a huge Sears X-Cargo box (and not the newer aerodynamic ones) on top of our SUV only drops the mileage from highway average to city average, whereas people who put those things on small sedans report seeing more marked drops in fuel economy.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 09, 2017, 04:51:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on May 08, 2017, 01:15:41 PMHowever, I still fail to see how hard braking expends more fuel. If I take my foot off the gas pedal as soon as the next light down the road turns red, what difference does it make how long I coast before stepping on the brake? In fact, if I expect the light might turn green before I get there, I might even save gas if I don't brake gradually, because then I wouldn't have as far to go to get back up to speed.
The efficiency gains from coasting and braking vary from model to model because they depend on how deceleration fuel cutoff is programmed, how the transmission behaves when the throttle is closed/the accelerator pedal position sensor tells the PCM driver power request is nil, etc. As an example, some economy car automatic transmissions (Saturn SL2, Honda Fit, etc.) stay in lockup in the lower gears, so DFCO is usable without stalling the engine and compression braking is readily available, while the Toyota corporate approach to transmission design is to provide one-way gearing in the lower gears for D (not L3, L2, etc.), so that when you take your foot off the pedal, the engine goes straight to an idle and there is no compression braking. (Compression braking for hill descents etc. is still available, but the transmission actually has to be put in a L range.)
As a very broad generalization, foot off gas = throttle closed = minimum amount of air getting into the engine = less fuel to make a stoichiometric mixture = less fuel consumed. But, as is the case with acceleration, the effect is subtle enough that it doesn't really show up in tank averages.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your reply, but you seem to be disregarding what I highlighted above. My foot is off the gas pedal for the duration in both scenarios. In one I brake gradually, and in the other I brake suddenly. How is there a difference? If there is none, then people need to stop touting gradual braking as improving fuel economy.
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2017, 01:20:13 PMThe hierarchy of difference-makers for me would go like this: City versus highway driving (most of my daily commute is highway driving, so I don't see the effects of this as much as someone else might); Cold temperatures; Wind direction especially if using the car-top cargo box; RPM during acceleration; Cruising speed especially if using the car-top cargo box; Tire inflation.
Based on what you have said elsewhere in this forum, I'm guessing you have a one-way commute of about 12 miles (subdivision catercorner from where Southeast High School used to be to somewhere near 61st North and Hydraulic), and are therefore cold-starting the engine 25 times per tankful of commute mileage. Your current vehicle is probably quite good at warming up quickly, but even so I'd estimate the repeated cold starts are giving you a 2-5 MPG penalty (slightly steeper in winter) compared to 300 highway miles with just one cold start.
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2017, 01:20:13 PMI first noticed the correlation between accel rate and fuel economy with our previous vehicle, a 2004 Grand Caravan, which did not have an MPG calculator. Reducing the RPM during acceleration by 5000 RPM made more of a difference than reducing top speed by 5 mph. This is part of why cold temperatures sink my fuel economy, as my car insists on shifting at higher RPMs when the engine is cold. Now that I have an MPG calculator, I see the difference very starkly shortly after filling up (or at least I used to back when I kept my display set to show that).
I think that Caravan had other problems as well. Didn't you mention having to do a shadetree replacement of the catalytic converter? I strongly suspect you had a bad thermostat or a failed coolant temperature sensor--quite probably both given the American manufacturers' history of using resin-tipped coolant temperature sensors. Failure of either part biases the engine to run rich (in the case of the sensor, this is because software workarounds for bad input have to bias richward since running lean kills the engine a lot faster than running rich), and that in turn kills the catalytic converter over time.
I don't think you should have been seeing a cold shifting regime after more than two miles of highway driving, even in bitter cold. This would also point to sensor failure even though the transmission has its own separate fluid temperature sensor.
My Saturn has a cold shifting regime with noticeable displacement of shift points in cold and outright prohibition of certain gears below 10° F, and it is usually out of this regime within a mile of road load. I don't idle it to warm it up either. However, this is with thermostat, coolant temperature sensor, and transmission fluid temperature sensor all replaced in 2014. (Setpoints went up slightly with the new thermostat, and the old coolant temperature sensor was definitely bad since the resin tip had cracked.)
Quote from: kphoger on May 10, 2017, 01:20:13 PMMaybe I'm misunderstanding your reply, but you seem to be disregarding what I highlighted above. My foot is off the gas pedal for the duration in both scenarios. In one I brake gradually, and in the other I brake suddenly. How is there a difference? If there is none, then people need to stop touting gradual braking as improving fuel economy.
I was speaking in very general terms. In the specific case you describe (foot off the gas and thus throttle closed a fixed distance away from the next signal), I think the savings associated with gradual braking versus extended coasting followed by relatively firm braking are slight, dependent on control programming, and likely to go in either direction. However, I do not think it is wrong to tout gentle braking as a fuel-saving technique. The reality is that it goes hand in hand with extended coasting because it is refraining from bombing along to the next red light/other obligatory stop with throttle part open that makes gentle braking possible in the first place. In fact I'd say both sides of your scenario amount to gentle braking, one being just a little more firm than the other.
Another consideration is that, in a given gear, the more slowly you are moving and the further away from the red signal you are, the more flexibility you have in timing your arrival so that you can go through on a fresh green without having to stop and wait, or slow down further (maybe even forcing an unwanted downshift) and hang behind to give other vehicles waiting at the light time to go through, get up to speed, and develop an adequate headway for you. For lights I know well, I often have a point I aim to be moving past at a given speed when I see that they are red--a point that moves further back the more traffic is queued at the light--and I try to arrange things so that I can coast down to the desired speed at that point without having to use the brakes.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 11, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
Based on what you have said elsewhere in this forum, I'm guessing you have a one-way commute of about 12 miles (subdivision catercorner from where Southeast High School used to be to somewhere near 61st North and Hydraulic), and are therefore cold-starting the engine 25 times per tankful of commute mileage. Your current vehicle is probably quite good at warming up quickly, but even so I'd estimate the repeated cold starts are giving you a 2-5 MPG penalty (slightly steeper in winter) compared to 300 highway miles with just one cold start.
Approximately right, yes. I never let the engine idle for more than just a minute before driving away, as this can lead to an improper fuel mixture for the catalytic converter and is little useful in these days of fuel injection (exception being when I'm running the defrosters on thick ice and snow). And yes, it is quick to warm up; last winter didn't get bitterly cold enough for me to straight-up compare it to our old one, but it seems to do better than the GC.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 11, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
I think that Caravan had other problems as well. Didn't you mention having to do a shadetree replacement of the catalytic converter? I strongly suspect you had a bad thermostat or a failed coolant temperature sensor--quite probably both given the American manufacturers' history of using resin-tipped coolant temperature sensors. Failure of either part biases the engine to run rich (in the case of the sensor, this is because software workarounds for bad input have to bias richward since running lean kills the engine a lot faster than running rich), and that in turn kills the catalytic converter over time.
I don't think you should have been seeing a cold shifting regime after more than two miles of highway driving, even in bitter cold. This would also point to sensor failure even though the transmission has its own separate fluid temperature sensor.
Yes, the catalytic converter was replaced in 2010, if memory serves. It was installed backwards, leading to the downstream oxygen sensor being completely shorn off due to contact with the vehicle body. We drove it that way for six years and approximately 100,000 miles. The cooling system appeared to be in good working order, or at least it seemed to function appropriately when the radiator developed a leak a couple of years ago. And I should have been more specific to your last point: shift points normalized after about five miles of driving in the bitter cold, more like the two miles you expected in more normal cold weather. But I've noticed delayed shifting in cold weather no matter what vehicle I was driving, and I still think it's part of the reason fuel economy suffers in the cold weather.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on May 09, 2017, 10:13:09 PM
I've noticed that the extra gallon in the tank or more will vary by automaker. Fords usually would let you go much further down into that last gallon before the gauge would go to E or the range meter would display empty. The estimate on a tank really varies depending the automaker as well. Both Ford and GM vehicles seem to base the estimate off the last fuel run whereas Chrysler cars seem to change during the tank you're on wildly depending on how you drive.
I have a Hyundai Sonata Eco. Based on the size of the tank and MPG, the tank should get about 700mi on highway travel. However, based on regular driving, 600mi is about the absolute max. But, when you fill the tank, the computer resets the 'miles until empty' guage to usually around 550-560 miles.
However, once you get to 50 mue, when the dash light comes on, it starts dropping much much slower. That final '50' miles turns into about 100 miles. I drove the car roughly 15 miles on 8 mue. Not exactly optimal since you don't want to run out with newer fuel injection engines, but we were out in nowhere. The thing is, when we gassed up, we were still over a gallon shy of filling the full tank. Almost 2 gallons.
So, we know that the 'low gas' light is nowhere close to honest. But, it is nice going about 500 miles-plus on one tank. My old car had a bad gas gauge and you couldn't trust it anywhere after 200mi. Which meant fueling frequently just to be safe. I kept track of mileages per gallon, and it averaged about 18-25mpg. Which on a 16g tank made a huge difference to how many miles you could go on a tank without risking running out.
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 11, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
I was speaking in very general terms. In the specific case you describe (foot off the gas and thus throttle closed a fixed distance away from the next signal), I think the savings associated with gradual braking versus extended coasting followed by relatively firm braking are slight, dependent on control programming, and likely to go in either direction. However, I do not think it is wrong to tout gentle braking as a fuel-saving technique. The reality is that it goes hand in hand with extended coasting because it is refraining from bombing along to the next red light/other obligatory stop with throttle part open that makes gentle braking possible in the first place. In fact I'd say both sides of your scenario amount to gentle braking, one being just a little more firm than the other.
Another consideration is that, in a given gear, the more slowly you are moving and the further away from the red signal you are, the more flexibility you have in timing your arrival so that you can go through on a fresh green without having to stop and wait, or slow down further (maybe even forcing an unwanted downshift) and hang behind to give other vehicles waiting at the light time to go through, get up to speed, and develop an adequate headway for you. For lights I know well, I often have a point I aim to be moving past at a given speed when I see that they are red--a point that moves further back the more traffic is queued at the light--and I try to arrange things so that I can coast down to the desired speed at that point without having to use the brakes.
My point about gentle deceleration was the simple idea that some people will see a red light, but instead of immediately letting off the throttle, will continue at speed until they have to brake. Even with traffic in front of them preventing them from zooming through the light if it changes green before slowing.
Once a light changes, you should begin to coast from any distance to the light. Unless far enough where one full cycle of the light might happen (then you'd hit the second red, but you'd have to know that in advance and be generally aware how long the light lasts). But, the odds of 'keeping speed' and making it through the resulting green is less likely than coasting at the first sign of the yellow (even far back), so that when it does turn green barely any further shot at deceleration is needed in comparison. Especially with traffic ahead of you (stopped or otherwise).
It's the length of coasting that matters, not that you are coasting/stopping/slowing. If you coast for 400 feet compared to 200 feet, you've just drive with fuel pumping for 200 feet that became completely pointless. That's wasted energy. And it adds up during a city commute where your top speed never reaches top gear for quite long periods, before the next light.
Quote from: Sykotyk on May 11, 2017, 08:07:47 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on May 11, 2017, 04:00:31 PM
I was speaking in very general terms. In the specific case you describe (foot off the gas and thus throttle closed a fixed distance away from the next signal), I think the savings associated with gradual braking versus extended coasting followed by relatively firm braking are slight, dependent on control programming, and likely to go in either direction. However, I do not think it is wrong to tout gentle braking as a fuel-saving technique. The reality is that it goes hand in hand with extended coasting because it is refraining from bombing along to the next red light/other obligatory stop with throttle part open that makes gentle braking possible in the first place. In fact I'd say both sides of your scenario amount to gentle braking, one being just a little more firm than the other.
Another consideration is that, in a given gear, the more slowly you are moving and the further away from the red signal you are, the more flexibility you have in timing your arrival so that you can go through on a fresh green without having to stop and wait, or slow down further (maybe even forcing an unwanted downshift) and hang behind to give other vehicles waiting at the light time to go through, get up to speed, and develop an adequate headway for you. For lights I know well, I often have a point I aim to be moving past at a given speed when I see that they are red--a point that moves further back the more traffic is queued at the light--and I try to arrange things so that I can coast down to the desired speed at that point without having to use the brakes.
My point about gentle deceleration was the simple idea that some people will see a red light, but instead of immediately letting off the throttle, will continue at speed until they have to brake. Even with traffic in front of them preventing them from zooming through the light if it changes green before slowing.
Once a light changes, you should begin to coast from any distance to the light. Unless far enough where one full cycle of the light might happen (then you'd hit the second red, but you'd have to know that in advance and be generally aware how long the light lasts). But, the odds of 'keeping speed' and making it through the resulting green is less likely than coasting at the first sign of the yellow (even far back), so that when it does turn green barely any further shot at deceleration is needed in comparison. Especially with traffic ahead of you (stopped or otherwise).
It's the length of coasting that matters, not that you are coasting/stopping/slowing. If you coast for 400 feet compared to 200 feet, you've just drive with fuel pumping for 200 feet that became completely pointless. That's wasted energy. And it adds up during a city commute where your top speed never reaches top gear for quite long periods, before the next light.
Yes, I follow. But then fuel economy is not a matter of braking, but rather one of coasting.
http://www.ttnews.com/articles/californias-new-gas-tax-approved-caltrans-hiring-spree-construction-work-ramps
Update The gas tax includes more hires at Caltrans.
Death, potholes, and taxes...
Hey, if we get better roads out of this, whatever. I've gotta pay for gas anyway.
What is the current status of Brown's "fantasy" train? Have heard cost estimates for that - as approaching $68 Billion.