| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 89977 | 2008-05-18 21:02:00 | 6 gas-saving myths | Trev (427) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 670498 | 2008-05-18 21:02:00 | money.cnn.com :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 670499 | 2008-05-18 21:21:00 | More salt required. Many used imports will be doing more KM / $ if they use 96, and in some cases cheaper still on 98 octane. They were never intended for 91. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 670500 | 2008-05-18 21:22:00 | Yeah . . . I debunked a few of these same things myself a week or two ago . People get all nuts and crazy when it affects their pockets . . . money-wise . Decently accelerating to speed and holding it there is one good way to make the most of fuel . Use the cruise control as much as possible . . and let the computer and the transmission take you to the max economy . "Dancing" on the foot feed is one way to cut fuel mileage . . as well as carrying all the "needed" things in the trunk . . . like a full set of tools, extra tires and carrying fuel at about 8 lbs/gallon is not a good way to economize either . There are really no such things as "tune-ups" any more either . You cannot adjust the timing and the carb fuel-mixture etc . Radial tires make a good difference . . . they waste a little fuel accelerating, but use a lot less when at speed . Old-style bias belted tires use less to accelerate, but require more to sustain speed . Driving with the CEL (Check-Engine-Light) on is a real waste of fuel . Most cases the CPU/ECM will change the sequential fuel injection to "banked" or "Odd-Even" to keep the engine running but at a huge waste of fuel as the delivery times/rates are all off the board all the while the little light is on and telling you that the computer is having a problem with either a sensor or a controlled device that isn't responding correctly to input . If you really want to get max fuel mileage . . it is common knowledge that a good coat of wax on the paint will help a lot . |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 670501 | 2008-05-19 03:49:00 | If you get paid weekly, filling your tank and then topping it up every payday can save you money (though it may not save you gas) because you are only replacing what you actually use - rather than putting a certain dollar value in your tank every week as many people seem to do. | Deane F (8204) | ||
| 670502 | 2008-05-19 03:58:00 | If you get paid weekly, filling your tank and then topping it up every payday can save you money (though it may not save you gas) because you are only replacing what you actually use - rather than putting a certain dollar value in your tank every week as many people seem to do. I can't say I've ever thought of that - I find if I have petrol in the tank I'm tempted to use it - have to overcome that :D but that idea is really good...probably better for the car to have a full tank than an empty one all the time too. I'm pretty sure there will be rust at the top of my tank! :blush: |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 670503 | 2008-05-19 04:37:00 | There was some discussion here that some people thought that they used less liters per 100km using higher octane fuels but according to this article you won't. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 670504 | 2008-05-19 04:40:00 | There was some discussion here that some people thought that they used less liters per 100km using higher octane fuels but according to this article you won't. :) Not thought, know. No study or 'professional' opinion can compete with real-life experimenting. I get a consistent 50 - 100 km more out of a tank of 95 over a tank of 91. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder you use Nortons, you believe the reviews! ;) |
wratterus (105) | ||
| 670505 | 2008-05-19 05:24:00 | I also heard the fuller your tank the better as the fumes evapourate quicker if there is more air/space in the tank....or something like that... | rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 670506 | 2008-05-19 05:28:00 | Not thought, know. No study or 'professional' opinion can compete with real-life experimenting. I get a consistent 50 - 100 km more out of a tank of 95 over a tank of 91. With an attitude like that, it's no wonder you use Nortons, you believe the reviews! ;) I actually have gone from using 91 to 95 and feel I'm using less liters per 100kms. Havn't tried it out on a trip though. :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 670507 | 2008-05-19 05:43:00 | I also heard the fuller your tank the better as the fumes evapourate quicker if there is more air/space in the tank . . . . or something like that . . . This MIGHT be true if you drive a pre-1964 vehicle . After that date . . almost ALL vehicles have vapor recovery systems that guarantee that the vapors/fumes go into the engine to propel it via a purge system . There should never be any fumes or vapors escaping from modern vehicles . . . in fact many will tell you that you left the filler cap off by turning on the CEL or SES light on the dashboard . (Some vehicles require a computer scan to remove the failure code . . some not . . . but it will let you know you goofed up if you leave the cap loose or off . . thereby allowing those nasty fumes to escape . ) |
SurferJoe46 (51) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||