|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > June 2007 > How to conserve energy
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
How to conserve energy
|
|
|
|
| Professor1942 2007-06-11, 5:25 pm |
| On Jun 11, 1:23 pm, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A few ways...
> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/conserve.html
Thanks that's very helpful! I'm going to buy a wood stove right now.
Oh, and do you know where I can get some carbon credits?
| |
| Peter Muehlbauer 2007-06-11, 5:25 pm |
|
"Useful Info" <useful_inf@yahoo.com> wrote
> A few ways...
> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/conserve.html
-----------------------------------------
If you own your house, plant trees on the north side of your house,
to reduce the cooling effect of wind.
When it's cold out, raise the window shades to let in sunlight to help
heat your home. South-facing windows are especially good for this.
During the winter, close off north-facing rooms if possible and seal the
heating duct vents in those rooms. Occupy the warmer south-facing rooms.
-----------------------------------------
Hey, I own a house at the south pole.
What now?
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-12, 3:25 am |
|
Useful Info wrote:
> A few ways...
> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/conserve.html
" When driving a stick-shift car, i.e. with manual transmission, don't be afraid
to take the car out of gear and coast. Your fuel efficiency goes way up when
coasting. "
Totally untrue with modern cars using electronic control units. In fact coasting
may *increase* your gasoline use.
Graham
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2007-06-12, 1:25 pm |
| On Jun 11, 4:23 pm, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> A few ways...
> http://home.comcast.net/~plutarch/conserve.html
And ... interesting difference between diesels and gasoline engines:
specific fuel consumption has opposite variation with load,
meaning that gas engines do better under moderate-high load than
light load, but diesels do better under light-moderate than moderate-
high load.
J
| |
| funkbastler 2007-06-12, 5:25 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:55:29 GMT, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>" When driving a stick-shift car, i.e. with manual transmission, don't be afraid
>to take the car out of gear and coast. Your fuel efficiency goes way up when
>coasting. "
>
>Totally untrue with modern cars using electronic control units. In fact coasting
>may *increase* your gasoline use.
>
Dang. And I've been coasting half way to work every day trying to save
gas. Would love to see some good references about that.
Thanks,
--
-fb-
--
-fb-
---------- Not responsible for anything below this line ----------
Posted Via mcse.ms Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.mcse.ms
| |
|
| Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:466E51EB.5FB1FA9C@hotmail.com:
>
>
> Useful Info wrote:
>
>
> " When driving a stick-shift car, i.e. with manual transmission, don't
> be afraid to take the car out of gear and coast. Your fuel efficiency
> goes way up when coasting. "
>
> Totally untrue with modern cars using electronic control units. In
> fact coasting may *increase* your gasoline use.
>
> Graham
>
That doesn't seem to be the case for my car. I have a 2002 Honda Civic
with a manual transmission, 1.7 liter engine. I thought I was saving as
much fuel as possible by taking my foot off of the gas pedal when I saw a
light change four blocks ahead of me, and what reinforced this belief was
that while decelerating, at a certain rpm the engine seemed to come back on
as if it was completely off (no fuel injection) while decelerating . I
bought a Scan Gauge and installed it, while playing with it I noticed that
even on overrun at higher speeds the fuel gallons per hour was twice or
more the gph when coasting at the same speed with the transmission in
neutral.
I think that the emissions strategy that Honda uses recognises that while
an engine is being overrun the emissions are very nasty from blowby and
keep enough fuel flowing to burn off the blowby and keep temperatures in
the converter high.
If anyone else has direct experience please comment.
Scott
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-12, 8:25 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:41:28 -0500, funkbastler <nobody@nowhere.somewhere.us> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:55:29 GMT, Eeyore
><rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Dang. And I've been coasting half way to work every day trying to save
>gas. Would love to see some good references about that.
No references necessary, just an understanding of how electronic fuel injection
works. Since about 1975, all EFIs have included what's called over-run defueling.
Over-run is essentially coasting. IN motion with the throttle shut. Fueling during
over-run was a major source of HC emissions. With carb'ed engines, there was little
choice but with EFI, over-run is detected and the fuel is turned completely off.
On early systems this was accomplished by a combination of switches on the throttle
and airflow meter. At low flow, high RPM and zero throttle opening, the fuel was
turned off. On coast-down, usually the RPM limit kicked back in first and one could
feel a little bump as the idle fueling came back on.
Modern systems do it much smoother so that it's undetectable. If you put the
transmission in neutral, you've just defeated that feature. The EFI has to fuel the
engine to keep it running. Whereas before you coasted down with zero fuel
consumption, now you're coasting while consuming fuel at the idle rate.
You might at first think that coasting in neutral would let one coast enough longer
to offset the idle fuel consumption. It doesn't, unless you happen to coast to a
nearly complete stop each time. The difference in distance covered with the
transmission in neutral and coasting in the highest gear is minimal, while the
difference in fuel consumed is significant. Computing how much would involve some
fairly complex calculus, more than I'm willing to do in a Usenet post, but experience
shows the difference to be notable.
I've worked in the emission labs of two of the Big (now small?) three auto makers so
I'm quite familiar with the practical issues surrounding fuel economy. PCMs are
programmed to go to the zero-fueling regime during every part of the Federal Test
Cycle where it is possible. The "drivers" who run the FTC are also trained on how to
operate the throttle to maximize this regime.
Operating regimes outside those required for the FTC are not nearly as controlled
because they neither affect CAFE nor emissions. These regimes include high RPM and
high throttle openings regardless of RPM. The best way to maximize mileage is to
stay close to the FTC cycle. Gentle acceleration, early shifting (if you have a
manual), avoiding large throttle openings, etc. There are all sorts of software
tweaks inside the PCM to take maximum advantage of the FTC operating conditions so if
you stay near to the test cycle, you're doing about as well as you can.
With aerodynamic, electronically controlled cars of today, most of the old wive's
tales about economy are simply wrong. Coasting in gear, running without AC and the
windows open (the aerodynamic spoilage from open windows costs more mileage than the
AC compressor does.) and so on. The classic advice of keeping your tires inflated
and be gentle on the throttle and brakes still hold, of course.
Oh, and don't ever use an antenna topper or one of those dumb football team flags
that clamps to the window. One test that Ford ran indicated that a round ball
antenna topper costs almost a HP to push through the air at 60 mph. On a small car
that can be more than 5% of the total power required to maintain speed (drag +
rolling resistance).
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
If stupidity hurt then they'd be putting morphine in the water supply.
| |
| Whata Fool 2007-06-12, 9:25 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:41:28 -0500, funkbastler
<nobody@nowhere.somewhere.us> wrote:
>Dang. And I've been coasting half way to work every day trying to save
>gas. Would love to see some good references about that.
>-fb-
The theory is that a car with modern fuel injection shuts
off fuel when coasting, but that doesn't reduce the slowing due to
engine drag even with the throttle closed.
But coasting without knowing both master cylinders are
working, and long steep hills are safer if the transmission is in gear
with just the clutch pushed in.
Coasting works best if it is possible to shut off the engine,
but that can cause the muffler to blow out when the key is turned back
on if a mistake is made and the wheels turn the engine.
On mileage contests, they usually coast as much as possible,
but have a way to turn off the fuel instead of the ignition.
| |
| Whata Fool 2007-06-12, 9:25 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:05:11 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>No references necessary, just an understanding of how electronic fuel injection
>works. Since about 1975, all EFIs have included what's called over-run defueling.
>Over-run is essentially coasting. IN motion with the throttle shut. Fueling during
>over-run was a major source of HC emissions. With carb'ed engines, there was little
>choice but with EFI, over-run is detected and the fuel is turned completely off.
That may be true in normal driving for the average person,
but almost all mileage contestants coast, except those with ultra-small
displacement engines.
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-13, 3:25 am |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:52:41 -0900, Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:05:11 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>
>
> That may be true in normal driving for the average person,
>but almost all mileage contestants coast, except those with ultra-small
>displacement engines.
Currently working with a colleague who is a Ford powertrain engineer on a high
mileage competition vehicle, I just find this laughable. Race cars run wide open all
the time, economy competition cars run both wide open and at coast and all are
designed and purpose-built for the competition. What possible relationship that has
to a stock street going car is lost to me.
My responsibility is the management electronics and energy management. I can assure
you that we'll use every trick in the book and maybe some not in the book as long as
they only bend and don't break the rules, to use every BTU available in the fuel.
OTOH, I'm not constrained by CAFE, emissions, safety or any of the other crap that
governs street cars.
One of the other guys on the team is developing a computer model of the car and the
engine/drivetrain. Rest assured every single technique we come up with will be
rigorously modeled before and then data-logged after deployment. Does that have any
relationship to my advice for street cars? None that I can see.
I often marvel at why people like you make such posts. Your "knowledge" is obviously
from magazines and rumor. I can't detect any hands-on experience. Why make such
spurious posts? Maybe you ought to sit on your fingers and learn something for a
change.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for supper.
| |
|
|
"funkbastler" <nobody@nowhere.somewhere.us> wrote in message
news:rk4u63heoo1hbd3bgk595ieujguoq269tf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:55:29 GMT, Eeyore
> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Dang. And I've been coasting half way to work every day trying to save
> gas. Would love to see some good references about that.
Me too!!
JD
| |
| Whata Fool 2007-06-13, 3:25 am |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:32:51 -0400, Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:52:41 -0900, Whata Fool <whata@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>Currently working with a colleague who is a Ford powertrain engineer on a high
>mileage competition vehicle, I just find this laughable.
I find the mileage of the ICE car to be laughable.
>Race cars run wide open all
>the time, economy competition cars run both wide open and at coast and all are
>designed and purpose-built for the competition. What possible relationship that has
>to a stock street going car is lost to me.
Who said anything about race cars?
>My responsibility is the management electronics and energy management. I can assure
>you that we'll use every trick in the book and maybe some not in the book as long as
>they only bend and don't break the rules, to use every BTU available in the fuel.
Use it for what, to turn the big engine?
>OTOH, I'm not constrained by CAFE, emissions, safety or any of the other crap that
>governs street cars.
The gas mileage is too much a function of the size of the
engine, even the lightweight cars don't do that great as long as the
driver accelerates hard and brakes hard.
>One of the other guys on the team is developing a computer model of the car and the
>engine/drivetrain. Rest assured every single technique we come up with will be
>rigorously modeled before and then data-logged after deployment. Does that have any
>relationship to my advice for street cars? None that I can see.
Advice isn't needed, hybrid design is. It takes about
fifteen horsepower to go 60 MPH, that is the main factor in gas mileage.
There are times when patents are helpful to the public, this
is a case where they are holding back progress.
>I often marvel at why people like you make such posts. Your "knowledge" is obviously
>from magazines and rumor. I can't detect any hands-on experience. Why make such
>spurious posts? Maybe you ought to sit on your fingers and learn something for a
>change.
>John
The first vehicles were electric, and now they don't know how
to make an electric car or electric hybrid and make money doing it.
Coasting is considered not safe, and that argument has merit,
but it is easy to test, and it is by coasting that a Prius got 100 MPG
with 4 men in it.
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2007-06-13, 3:25 am |
| Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
>... don't ever use an antenna topper or one of those dumb football team flags
>that clamps to the window. One test that Ford ran indicated that a round ball
>antenna topper costs almost a HP to push through the air at 60 mph...
Did you test a 4'x8' flag in the bed of a pickup? :-)
Nick
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-13, 9:25 am |
|
funkbastler wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> Dang. And I've been coasting half way to work every day trying to save
> gas. Would love to see some good references about that.
If your car has an instantaneous mpg readout you can see it for yourself.
Graham
| |
| Matt Colie 2007-06-13, 9:25 am |
| John,
Great writeup. As an engine lab rat for the last several decades, the
only thing I would disagree with is you date of de-fuel implementation.
The early TBI weren't very good at it because of the poor distribution
issues, but the electronic port fuels (as opposed to Bosch K&J systems)
when there as soon as the controls worked. That was about 1980 (the
Ford 5.0 port fuel was the first real good one), as the processor power
and fast O2 sensors let them do individual cylinder control.
Some of us have been doing this way too long.
Matt Colie
Neon John wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:41:28 -0500, funkbastler <nobody@nowhere.somewhere.us> wrote:
>
>
> No references necessary, just an understanding of how electronic fuel injection
> works. Since about 1975, all EFIs have included what's called over-run defueling.
> Over-run is essentially coasting. IN motion with the throttle shut. Fueling during
> over-run was a major source of HC emissions. With carb'ed engines, there was little
> choice but with EFI, over-run is detected and the fuel is turned completely off.
>
> On early systems this was accomplished by a combination of switches on the throttle
> and airflow meter. At low flow, high RPM and zero throttle opening, the fuel was
> turned off. On coast-down, usually the RPM limit kicked back in first and one could
> feel a little bump as the idle fueling came back on.
>
> Modern systems do it much smoother so that it's undetectable. If you put the
> transmission in neutral, you've just defeated that feature. The EFI has to fuel the
> engine to keep it running. Whereas before you coasted down with zero fuel
> consumption, now you're coasting while consuming fuel at the idle rate.
>
> You might at first think that coasting in neutral would let one coast enough longer
> to offset the idle fuel consumption. It doesn't, unless you happen to coast to a
> nearly complete stop each time. The difference in distance covered with the
> transmission in neutral and coasting in the highest gear is minimal, while the
> difference in fuel consumed is significant. Computing how much would involve some
> fairly complex calculus, more than I'm willing to do in a Usenet post, but experience
> shows the difference to be notable.
>
> I've worked in the emission labs of two of the Big (now small?) three auto makers so
> I'm quite familiar with the practical issues surrounding fuel economy. PCMs are
> programmed to go to the zero-fueling regime during every part of the Federal Test
> Cycle where it is possible. The "drivers" who run the FTC are also trained on how to
> operate the throttle to maximize this regime.
>
> Operating regimes outside those required for the FTC are not nearly as controlled
> because they neither affect CAFE nor emissions. These regimes include high RPM and
> high throttle openings regardless of RPM. The best way to maximize mileage is to
> stay close to the FTC cycle. Gentle acceleration, early shifting (if you have a
> manual), avoiding large throttle openings, etc. There are all sorts of software
> tweaks inside the PCM to take maximum advantage of the FTC operating conditions so if
> you stay near to the test cycle, you're doing about as well as you can.
>
> With aerodynamic, electronically controlled cars of today, most of the old wive's
> tales about economy are simply wrong. Coasting in gear, running without AC and the
> windows open (the aerodynamic spoilage from open windows costs more mileage than the
> AC compressor does.) and so on. The classic advice of keeping your tires inflated
> and be gentle on the throttle and brakes still hold, of course.
>
> Oh, and don't ever use an antenna topper or one of those dumb football team flags
> that clamps to the window. One test that Ford ran indicated that a round ball
> antenna topper costs almost a HP to push through the air at 60 mph. On a small car
> that can be more than 5% of the total power required to maintain speed (drag +
> rolling resistance).
>
> John
> ---
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Cleveland, Occupied TN
> If stupidity hurt then they'd be putting morphine in the water supply.
>
| |
| Steve Ackman 2007-06-13, 1:25 pm |
| In <f2fu63lrm7jn162qmeuupr6v2atq6o8l8o@4ax.com>, on Tue, 12 Jun 2007
21:05:11 -0400, Neon John wrote:
> With aerodynamic, electronically controlled cars of today, most of the old wive's
> tales about economy are simply wrong. Coasting in gear, running without AC and the
> windows open (the aerodynamic spoilage from open windows costs more mileage than the
> AC compressor does.) and so on.
Mythbusters did a show which seemed to simultaneously
confirm and dispel the AC / windows opened "wives tale."
I don't know why the switched methodology, but one test
was conducted with an onboard computer, while the other
was conducted with measured amounts of fuel, and running
til empty.
What I took away from this sub-par (for them) testing
was that (for the Ford Expedition) it's more economical
at high speed to leave your windows up and use the AC,
while at lower speeds, it's better to turn off the AC
and open the windows... though I don't recall that was
exactly the conclusion they reached.
Other real-life, though not rigidly controlled tests
with other cars show that AC uses more energy than
opening windows even at highway speeds.
The question of AC vs. windows down has so many
variables that there can't be any single simple answer
except, "it depends."
| |
|
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:466FAC65.528290DC@hotmail.com...
>
>
> funkbastler wrote:
>
>
> If your car has an instantaneous mpg readout you can see it for yourself.
>
> Graham
I've had three different cars with mpg readout and they all disagreed with
the "fill the tank, drive it X miles and fill the tank again; divide the
miles driven by the number of gallons to refill the tank". I don't care what
the readout says, X number of miles requires a certain amount of fuel.
Max
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-13, 8:25 pm |
|
Whata Fool wrote:
> Neon John <no@never.com> wrote:
> competition vehicle, I just find this laughable.
>
> I find the mileage of the ICE car to be laughable.
Which ICE car ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-13, 8:25 pm |
|
Max wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
>
>
> I've had three different cars with mpg readout and they all disagreed with
> the "fill the tank, drive it X miles and fill the tank again; divide the
> miles driven by the number of gallons to refill the tank". I don't care what
> the readout says, X number of miles requires a certain amount of fuel.
That's a way to calculate *average* mpg, not instantaneous. I'd like to know how
you can do it accurately too.
The mpg display in the car tells you about the instantaneous fuelling of the
engine. When it says it's not using any fuel - it really isn't.
You ought to pay more attention to science over myth.
Graham
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-13, 9:25 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:52:12 -0400, Matt Colie <mc@nospam.net> wrote:
>John,
>Great writeup. As an engine lab rat for the last several decades, the
>only thing I would disagree with is you date of de-fuel implementation.
> The early TBI weren't very good at it because of the poor distribution
>issues, but the electronic port fuels (as opposed to Bosch K&J systems)
>when there as soon as the controls worked. That was about 1980 (the
>Ford 5.0 port fuel was the first real good one), as the processor power
>and fast O2 sensors let them do individual cylinder control.
>Some of us have been doing this way too long.
Thanks Matt. I've spent some time in the emissions labs, OEM and independent, but
probably more importantly, I've written a LOT of PCM code for custom processors and
have hacked a number of GM PCMs. Maybe even more important, I collect PCM source
codes and like to study the algorithms. People just would not believe what it takes
to keep the EPA happy these days.
Anyway, the L-jetronic clone system on my 75 Datsun Z had over-run defueling. There
was a switch on the throttle and one in the airflow meter, both to indicate zero
opening. The third element was an RPM gate that inhibited the defueling under a
certain RPM, 3200 if my memory serves. Its action could definitely be felt,
especially at trailing throttle and high RPM entering a turn. Double-especially if
the airflow switch was out of adjustment. Since that same system was used on
european cars for some time before Datsun adapted it, over-run defueling has actually
been in place for some time before '75.
I THINK that the Bosch K-jetronic on my '68 VW Type II had it too but that's been so
long that I just don't recall. I spent weeks reverse-engineering that ECM and
drawing a schematic but I just can't recall the details anymore.
I used to have a close relationship with American Datsun's ECM expert. I have lots
of otherwise unobtainum design documentation on the L-jetronic. I do recall that the
main purpose of the over-run defueling back then was to stop backfire and burbling
during coasting. Economy was a distant second purpose.
[color=darkred]
A correction. That should have read "coasting out of gear".
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
What do you call 10 blondes standing in a row? Pneumatic air line.
| |
| Dean Hoffman 2007-06-13, 9:25 pm |
| Steve Ackman wrote:
> In <f2fu63lrm7jn162qmeuupr6v2atq6o8l8o@4ax.com>, on Tue, 12 Jun 2007
> 21:05:11 -0400, Neon John wrote:
>
>
> Mythbusters did a show which seemed to simultaneously
> confirm and dispel the AC / windows opened "wives tale."
> I don't know why the switched methodology, but one test
> was conducted with an onboard computer, while the other
> was conducted with measured amounts of fuel, and running
> til empty.
>
> What I took away from this sub-par (for them) testing
> was that (for the Ford Expedition) it's more economical
> at high speed to leave your windows up and use the AC,
> while at lower speeds, it's better to turn off the AC
> and open the windows... though I don't recall that was
> exactly the conclusion they reached.
>
> Other real-life, though not rigidly controlled tests
> with other cars show that AC uses more energy than
> opening windows even at highway speeds.
>
> The question of AC vs. windows down has so many
> variables that there can't be any single simple answer
> except, "it depends."
Mythbusters did a follow up sometime later. A lot of viewers
told them they screwed up. I don't remember how they redid the tests.
Outside experts told them that the critical speed was 45 mph. It was
better to run with windows closed with AC on above 45 and with windows
open below 45 mph. I think the Mythbusters original test happened to be
run at the 45 mph cut off point.
Dean
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
|
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46709455.6271F1CF@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Max wrote:
>
>
> That's a way to calculate *average* mpg, not instantaneous. I'd like to
> know how
> you can do it accurately too.
>
> The mpg display in the car tells you about the instantaneous fuelling of
> the
> engine. When it says it's not using any fuel - it really isn't.
>
> You ought to pay more attention to science over myth.
>
> Graham
I don't know what kind of car you drive but mine give me a choice of
"instantaneous mpg", *average mpg*, and "anticipated miles to empty", most
of which is inaccurate.
(the inst. mileage will obviously depend on the TPS) (The miles to empty
will vary with the throttle setting) And the average mpg is measured over
all the mileage on the car.
However, if I fill the tank and attempt with each fill to get it to the same
level and keep track of my miles traveled, over several tankfuls, I can
determine reasonably accurately what king of mpg I'm getting. (fuel in, fuel
out)
Also, none of the cars I've owned with the readouts had an indication that
read infinite mpg. they all read up to 99 mpg which is the reading I get
every time I descend Transmountain road here. That's with the transmission
in gear and the foot off the throttle. There is *some* fuel still being
used. So there is *no* indication that says the engine is "not using any
fuel".
The foregoing is not myth; it's observed phenomenon.
But I welcome your scientific explanations to the contrary.
Max
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-14, 3:25 am |
|
Max wrote:
> Also, none of the cars I've owned with the readouts had an indication that
> read infinite mpg. they all read up to 99 mpg which is the reading I get
> every time I descend Transmountain road here. That's with the transmission
> in gear and the foot off the throttle. There is *some* fuel still being
> used. So there is *no* indication that says the engine is "not using any
> fuel".
It's probably 99 because no-one had the sense to make the display say " -- "
which is what I'm used to seeing (actually --.-)
Your idea that this means fuel is still being used is plain wrong.
Graham
| |
| Whata Fool 2007-06-14, 3:25 am |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:35:39 GMT, Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
>If your car has an instantaneous mpg readout you can see it for yourself.
>Graham
Right, and it should jump to 70 MPG or better coasting even
without shifting to neutral.
| |
| Tex Houston 2007-06-14, 3:25 am |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4670A773.30B621BC@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Max wrote:
>
>
> It's probably 99 because no-one had the sense to make the display say " --
> "
> which is what I'm used to seeing (actually --.-)
>
> Your idea that this means fuel is still being used is plain wrong.
>
> Graham
>
I'm just a simple country boy but if the engine is running and the car is in
gear then fuel is being used however minute the quantity. If not, why not?
Tex (whose SAAB had a freewheeling unit in the transmission)
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-14, 3:25 am |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:59:02 -0600, "Tex Houston" <texhouston@pcisys.netVVV> wrote:
>I'm just a simple country boy but if the engine is running and the car is in
>gear then fuel is being used however minute the quantity. If not, why not?
>
>Tex (whose SAAB had a freewheeling unit in the transmission)
>
Sorry but that hillbilly line just doesn't work here. The reason is because the PCM,
you know, that computer that controls the injectors, turns off the injectors during
over-run. Completely. Not even a little gas is injected. None, nadda. Read my
previous long post in this thread for details.
If you're coasting down one of those western mountain roads with grade that lasts 10
or 20 miles then you'll get infinite mileage over that distance because no fuel* will
be injected. Of course, you make it back up on the backstroke.
*in practice, a little fuel is occasionally injected during long coasts to keep the
cats hot but the amount is insignifcant as far as mileage is concerned.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Remember, amateurs made the Ark, professionals made the Titanic.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-14, 9:25 am |
|
Tex Houston wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
>
>
> I'm just a simple country boy but if the engine is running and the car is in
> gear then fuel is being used however minute the quantity. If not, why not?
The injectors shut off the fuel supply when decelerating. The engine neeeds no
fuel in this situation.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-14, 9:25 am |
|
Whata Fool wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> Right, and it should jump to 70 MPG or better coasting even
> without shifting to neutral.
Why settle for something as poor as 70 when you can get 'infinite mpg' using the
ECU as it was intended without even degrading your control of the car ?
Graham
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2007-06-14, 9:25 am |
| The tale of two houses.........
House #1.............A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by
natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all
heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas
alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes
more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is
not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
House #2...........Designed by an architecture professor at a leading
national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current
home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4
bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A
central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees
F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no
fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the
electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater
from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the
area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker)
Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas.
Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the
President of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T
hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the
Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
| |
| Balanced View 2007-06-14, 1:25 pm |
| JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
> The tale of two houses.........
>
> House #1.............A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by
> natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all
> heated by gas. In ONE MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the
> average American household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for
> electricity and natural gas runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas
> alone (which last time we checked was a fossil fuel), this property consumes
> more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is
> not in a northern or Midwestern "snow belt," either. It's in the South.
>
> House #2...........Designed by an architecture professor at a leading
> national university, this house incorporates every "green" feature current
> home construction can provide. The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4
> bedrooms) and is nestled on arid high prairie in the American southwest. A
> central closet in the house holds geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water
> through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees
> F.) heats the house in winter and cools it in summer. The system uses no
> fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and it consumes 25% of the
> electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater
> from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground
> cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground
> purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
> irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the
> area blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
>
> HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville,
> Tennessee. It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker)
> Al Gore.
>
> HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas.
> Also known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the
> President of the United States, George W. Bush.
>
> So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T
> hear on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the
> Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."
>
There's another story in all this, Based on his house, Bush knows
something about energy supplies he's not telling anyone else.
| |
| Tex Houston 2007-06-14, 1:25 pm |
|
"Neon John" <no@never.com> wrote in message
news:6kp173h8bid3v3tcf20bnfj47tb47tv984@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:59:02 -0600, "Tex Houston"
> <texhouston@pcisys.netVVV> wrote:
>
>
>
> Sorry but that hillbilly line just doesn't work here.
I said I was a country boy. I am NOT a hillbilly nor do I consider country
and western music.
Thanks though for the explanation. I do not understand it but thank you
anyway.
Regards,
Tex
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-06-14, 5:25 pm |
|
"JerryD(upstateNY)" <jerryd@wherever.com> wrote in message
news:46711fdf$0$3151$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also
> known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President
> of the United States, George W. Bush.
In that case, we can only wish that he ran his energy policy like he runs
his own home.
(Excessive crossposts removed)
Vaughn
| |
| clare at snyder.on.ca 2007-06-15, 3:25 am |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:59:02 -0600, "Tex Houston"
<texhouston@pcisys.netVVV> wrote:
>
>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:4670A773.30B621BC@hotmail.com...
>
>I'm just a simple country boy but if the engine is running and the car is in
>gear then fuel is being used however minute the quantity. If not, why not?
>
>Tex (whose SAAB had a freewheeling unit in the transmission)
>
Without the freewheel, the engine can be "over-run" and the fuel shut
off totally on decel/coast. No fuel, because the engine is not
actually "running" = it is being "pushed"
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| William Wixon 2007-06-15, 1:25 pm |
|
<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:dqv3735ihmf9enk70ndhtr4rrp8ttljnu9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 20:59:02 -0600, "Tex Houston"
> <texhouston@pcisys.netVVV> wrote:
> Without the freewheel, the engine can be "over-run" and the fuel shut
> off totally on decel/coast. No fuel, because the engine is not
> actually "running" = it is being "pushed"
>
>
this is interesting, i've been assuming i've been saving gas by coasting,
i'm majorly disappointed because it took me a while and some effort to train
myself to coast. one consolation though is that neon john qualified his
statement by saying "...unless you coast to a stop." which is what i do.
if i'm approaching a known stop sign i'll coast to a stop (with the vehicle
in neutral) i'm sure i'm not saving a lot of gas, but i thought i was
saving a LITTLE (and saving on the brakes too) (and busting the balls of the
guy behind me who has been tailgating me for the last 3 miles) when clare
said "...it's being "pushed"", i'd assume that's commonly referred to as
"engine braking". i assume that's what's going on when you have your
vehicle on cruise control and you're going down a long steep hill.
actually, come to think of it, i do the "coast to a stop" thing as a game, i
try to see (as often as possible, without creating a problem w/ traffic) how
many times i can literally coast to a stop, but i mean, right at the stop
sign. not touch the brakes at all, or, use the brakes as little as
possible. it's fun.
b.w.
| |
| clare at snyder.on.ca 2007-06-15, 1:25 pm |
| On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 16:16:18 GMT, "William Wixon"
<wwixon@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
><clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
>news:dqv3735ihmf9enk70ndhtr4rrp8ttljnu9@4ax.com...
>
>this is interesting, i've been assuming i've been saving gas by coasting,
>i'm majorly disappointed because it took me a while and some effort to train
>myself to coast. one consolation though is that neon john qualified his
>statement by saying "...unless you coast to a stop." which is what i do.
>if i'm approaching a known stop sign i'll coast to a stop (with the vehicle
>in neutral) i'm sure i'm not saving a lot of gas, but i thought i was
>saving a LITTLE (and saving on the brakes too) (and busting the balls of the
>guy behind me who has been tailgating me for the last 3 miles) when clare
>said "...it's being "pushed"", i'd assume that's commonly referred to as
>"engine braking". i assume that's what's going on when you have your
>vehicle on cruise control and you're going down a long steep hill.
>actually, come to think of it, i do the "coast to a stop" thing as a game, i
>try to see (as often as possible, without creating a problem w/ traffic) how
>many times i can literally coast to a stop, but i mean, right at the stop
>sign. not touch the brakes at all, or, use the brakes as little as
>possible. it's fun.
>
>b.w.
>
The "georgia overdrive" (coasting out of gear) is technically illegal
in most states, and can be dangerous. Coasting out of gear with the
engine idling can use more gas than driving "properly" with today's
engines (as noted here earlier) due to the fueling algarythms used for
economy and emissions.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-06-15, 5:25 pm |
|
"William Wixon" <wwixon@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:mXyci.10418$ya1.7227@news02.roc.ny...
>
>
> this is interesting, i've been assuming i've been saving gas by coasting, i'm
> majorly disappointed because it took me a while and some effort to train
> myself to coast. one consolation though is that neon john qualified his
> statement by saying "...unless you coast to a stop."
Years ago, I equipped my car with a fancy computer that gave me (among
other info) average and instantaneous MPG. I tried all different combinations,
but coasting definitely resulted in the best MPG. Of course, that was with a
"dumb" carbureted engine. My technique is simple, if I have enough energy to
take me to the next red light or stop sign, I don't add any more. Since both of
my cars are stick, I usually push in the clutch and coast. Perhaps because I am
a long-time sailplane pilot I have a special feel for momentum, but I doubt that
it makes much difference. I admit that it is possible that a computerized,
injected engine is so different that it might not give better gas mileage with
that style of driving, but you would have to prove it to me.
For what it is worth, a common technique in super-gas mileage contests
takes this style of driving to an extreme, it is called "pulse" driving
http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm . Not surprisingly, the same
technique works for getting amazing range (fuel economy) from a motor-glider.
It is called "sawtooth" flight. One climbs, shuts off the engine, and then
glides 10 to 100 miles (depending on the performance of the glider, the climb
height & wind conditions) and then repeat.
Vaughn
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-15, 5:25 pm |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> coasting definitely resulted in the best MPG. Of course, that was with a
> "dumb" carbureted engine
Well it would do of course !
Not so with an injected engine.
Graham
| |
| clare at snyder.on.ca 2007-06-15, 9:25 pm |
| On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:07:00 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
<vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net> wrote:
>
>"William Wixon" <wwixon@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>news:mXyci.10418$ya1.7227@news02.roc.ny...
>
> Years ago, I equipped my car with a fancy computer that gave me (among
>other info) average and instantaneous MPG. I tried all different combinations,
>but coasting definitely resulted in the best MPG. Of course, that was with a
>"dumb" carbureted engine. My technique is simple, if I have enough energy to
>take me to the next red light or stop sign, I don't add any more. Since both of
>my cars are stick, I usually push in the clutch and coast. Perhaps because I am
>a long-time sailplane pilot I have a special feel for momentum, but I doubt that
>it makes much difference. I admit that it is possible that a computerized,
>injected engine is so different that it might not give better gas mileage with
>that style of driving, but you would have to prove it to me.
>
> For what it is worth, a common technique in super-gas mileage contests
>takes this style of driving to an extreme, it is called "pulse" driving
>http://www.metrompg.com/posts/pulse-and-glide.htm . Not surprisingly, the same
>technique works for getting amazing range (fuel economy) from a motor-glider.
>It is called "sawtooth" flight. One climbs, shuts off the engine, and then
>glides 10 to 100 miles (depending on the performance of the glider, the climb
>height & wind conditions) and then repeat.
>
>Vaughn
>
But on the motor glider you can "sawtooth" without engine power if you
can find a ridge wave, or some good thermals. The "motor" is nice for
self launching and getting you home when the thermals fizzle.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| William Wixon 2007-06-15, 9:25 pm |
|
<clare at snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:4vg673tsl76dkajd1305kushpbqjruqm63@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 22:07:00 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net> wrote:
> But on the motor glider you can "sawtooth" without engine power if you
> can find a ridge wave, or some good thermals. The "motor" is nice for
> self launching and getting you home when the thermals fizzle.
>
>
that's interesting as well. years ago i knew someone who turned her water
heater off in the morning and turned it back on when she got home. i always
wondered if it was more efficient to turn it off or leave it on all day. i
mean, because it prolly used as much energy to heat the water up from cold
as it would've to keep it warm all day. ("sawtooth-ing" the water heater)
b.w.
| |
| Neon John 2007-06-16, 3:25 am |
| On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:14:52 GMT, "William Wixon" <wwixon@frontiernet.net> wrote:
>that's interesting as well. years ago i knew someone who turned her water
>heater off in the morning and turned it back on when she got home. i always
>wondered if it was more efficient to turn it off or leave it on all day. i
>mean, because it prolly used as much energy to heat the water up from cold
>as it would've to keep it warm all day. ("sawtooth-ing" the water heater)
Probably not. It would depend mostly on the water heater. One could set up the math
to figure the cross-over but probably not worth the effort.
If the off time is long enough for the water to cool to near ambient and remain there
then turning the heater off definitely saves money. I'd rather put my effort into
installing more insulation. Or an on-demand water heater.
I'm now in a similar situation, living in my remote cabin where power is fairly
expensive. No natural gas available and propane is expensive so I haven't installed
my Paloma on-demand heater. Instead I've worked out a hybrid solution.
I've installed a small 40 gallon water heater have it plumbed only to the shower. It
stays off until it's time to shower. I've replaced the elements and rewired it so
that both high power elements run at the same time. The water heats rapidly. The
heater stays off until about 15 minutes before shower time. Once the water is hot,
the heater is turned off. I shower with the stored heat which is more than enough.
I've equipped my sinks with electric on-demand heaters. These ~$120 heaters draw 30
amps at 240 volts and supply enough hot water for hands washing and light
dishwashing. If I need more hot water than this type of heater can supply in a
reasonable time period then I heat a pot on the stove. That's a pretty rare
occurrence.
My washing machine also has an on-demand heater. The flow is low and the resultant
water is best described as "tepid". With modern cold water detergents, this is more
than warm enough.
Other than energy saving, another benefit is that the water is almost instantly hot.
Several years ago I designed a direct heat electric water heater for a small pressure
washer. By "direct heat" I mean that the passage of current through the water did
the heating. Two sets of stainless steel electrodes were immersed in the water
inside a tank and 240 volts applied. The surface area determines the current and
wattage for a given water conductivity. I sized my electrodes to draw around 130
amps which was about all I was comfortable with out of a 200 amp box, considering the
balance-of-house loads. This worked extremely well.
I'm now considering something similar to on-demand heat my shower water and eliminate
the tank heater completely. The construction is very simple, amounting to little
more than a tank with a couple of insulated feed-throughs, the electrodes, a flow
sensor and a safety thermal switch. If there is an expansion tank in the water
system then the safety switch really isn't necessary, as steam will drive water from
the tank and thus uncover the electrodes, reducing and eventually stopping the
current.
From my initial calculations, the tank can be little more than two 1 lb disposable
propane tanks with their ends cut off and welded together, along with appropriate
fitting. I'll put up a web page when I get this all figured out and a unit
constructed.
John
PS: no, there isn't any shock hazard. The current flows between electrodes and not
to ground/neutral. The only current that might flow through the tank is that
resulting from any voltage imbalance between the legs. The tank is grounded so that
is of no safety consequence.
PSS: No, there is no electrolytic effect with AC.
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my disk?
| |
| Matthew Beasley 2007-06-18, 8:25 pm |
|
"Whata Fool" <whata@fool.ami> wrote in message
news:a10v639v4h87maos3qcp4eopcfuspqdaoi@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:41:28 -0500, funkbastler
> <nobody@nowhere.somewhere.us> wrote:
>
> Coasting works best if it is possible to shut off the engine,
> but that can cause the muffler to blow out when the key is turned back
> on if a mistake is made and the wheels turn the engine.
>
If EFI defueling the engine, there shouldn't be a worry about blowing the
muffler. Let the clutch out, bringing the engine up to speed and turn the
key on.
Of course one other risk is that the air bags don't work when the key is
off.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-06-18, 8:25 pm |
|
Matthew Beasley wrote:
> "Whata Fool" wrote
>
> If EFI defueling the engine, there shouldn't be a worry about blowing the
> muffler. Let the clutch out, bringing the engine up to speed and turn the
> key on.
>
> Of course one other risk is that the air bags don't work when the key is
> off.
Nor the power assisted steering and brakes.
Graham
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2007-06-18, 8:25 pm |
| Coasting works best if it is possible to................. shut off the
engine
That's the dumbest thing you could ever do.
Why would you put your life and other people's lives in jeopardy by coasting
with the key off ?
You have no power steering, your power brakes will only work one time before
you run out of vacuum and you have no signal lights.
It's a disaster looking for a place to happen.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID !!!!
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
| |
|
| JerryD(upstateNY) wrote:
> Coasting works best if it is possible to................. shut off the
> engine
>
>
> That's the dumbest thing you could ever do.
> Why would you put your life and other people's lives in jeopardy by coasting
> with the key off ?
> You have no power steering, your power brakes will only work one time before
> you run out of vacuum and you have no signal lights.
> It's a disaster looking for a place to happen.
>
> STUPID, STUPID, STUPID !!!!
A long long time ago I used to coast down the grapevine with my 1974(??)
Honda Civic, with the engine on. Never had any problems and while it had
neither power steering or brakes, I could engage the clutch at need and
have as much power as before (the spec was 74 HP I think, but I doubt that's
what I got in practice).
Cheers,
Rich
| |
| no spam 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| > Coasting works best if it is possible to................. shut off the
> engine
>
>
> That's the dumbest thing you could ever do.
> Why would you put your life and other people's lives in jeopardy by
> coasting with the key off ?
> You have no power steering, your power brakes will only work one time
> before you run out of vacuum and you have no signal lights.
> It's a disaster looking for a place to happen.
>
> STUPID, STUPID, STUPID !!!!
Can be a dumb thing to do but FYI, in every newer car (1995 is about the
newest I have) the power assist for the brakes works for quite a while after
the motor stops. Any way it isn't that hard to stop a car w/o the power
assist. If nothing else you can use the cable/emergency/parking brake.
Also driving w/o power steering isn't that tough. I had a minivan that the
power steering rack went out on and I drove it for a long time. As long as
the van was rolling it wasn't that hard to steer. Now parking was no fun.
One last thing, I don't know about the new cars w/ manual trans but with a
car with an auto trans you CAN NOT coast in a car today with the motor off
and not have signal lights unless your ignition lock is damaged. The car
must be in neutral to coast and you can not turn the car off without it
being in park.
| |
| Frank Tabor 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:22:47 +0000, no spam wrote:
>
> Can be a dumb thing to do but FYI, in every newer car (1995 is about the
> newest I have) the power assist for the brakes works for quite a while
> after the motor stops. Any way it isn't that hard to stop a car w/o the
> power assist. If nothing else you can use the cable/emergency/parking
> brake.
>
> Also driving w/o power steering isn't that tough. I had a minivan that
> the power steering rack went out on and I drove it for a long time. As
> long as the van was rolling it wasn't that hard to steer. Now parking
> was no fun.
>
> One last thing, I don't know about the new cars w/ manual trans but with
> a car with an auto trans you CAN NOT coast in a car today with the motor
> off and not have signal lights unless your ignition lock is damaged.
> The car must be in neutral to coast and you can not turn the car off
> without it being in park.
Yes you can. You just can't lock the ignition. Go try it.
--
Frank Tabor
Q: Are we not men?
A: We are Vaxen.
| |
| JerryD\(upstateNY\) 2007-06-19, 5:25 pm |
| >in every newer car (1995 is about the newest I have) the power assist for
>the brakes works for quite a while after the motor stops.<
> Also driving w/o power steering isn't that tough.<
So your brakes will work more than once and the steering "isn't that tough".
It's STILL a stupid idea.
--
JerryD(upstateNY)
| |
| clare at snyder.on.ca 2007-06-20, 5:25 pm |
| On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:22:47 GMT, "no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote:
>
>Can be a dumb thing to do but FYI, in every newer car (1995 is about the
>newest I have) the power assist for the brakes works for quite a while after
>the motor stops.
Seldom more than one stop, and without boost it takes both feet to
manage. (unliss you are a little squirt, then all bets are off.)
> Any way it isn't that hard to stop a car w/o the power
>assist. If nothing else you can use the cable/emergency/parking brake.
I have not seen one that will effectively stop a vehicle at speed in
over 20 years.
>
>Also driving w/o power steering isn't that tough. I had a minivan that the
>power steering rack went out on and I drove it for a long time. As long as
>the van was rolling it wasn't that hard to steer. Now parking was no fun.
>
>One last thing, I don't know about the new cars w/ manual trans but with a
>car with an auto trans you CAN NOT coast in a car today with the motor off
>and not have signal lights unless your ignition lock is damaged. The car
>must be in neutral to coast and you can not turn the car off without it
>being in park.
No, you can turn it off, but not lock the steering. In many cars you
CAN shut off the signals(ignition) while leaving accessories on - and
in some cases even turn off accessory feed without locking the
steering column.
>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| talk-n-dog 2007-06-20, 5:25 pm |
| [color=darkred]
>
This is the true danger of Global Warming...
| |
| 617211 2007-06-23, 5:25 pm |
| On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 07:00:56 -0400, "JerryD\(upstateNY\)"
<jerryd@wherever.com> wrote:
>The tale of two houses.........
It would be interesting to know what the constructions costs were for
those 2 houses. Around here, geothermal runs about $15,000 for a 2000
sq.ft. house. The first inch of insulation in a house is the most cost
effective, after that it gets progressively worse, yet they insist on
20" in the ceiling! How much energy are we using to extract oil from
the tar sands or build a new factory to build energy efficient light
bulbs? If I had the money, I would be off the grid so fast, like
Bush!! If you get the chance, watch the show " End of Suburbia " &
tell me you don't think it can't happen.
|
|
|
|
|