It appears to me that the gas price increases are only going to get worse...we will never see gas at 1.99 again.

I can easily see 6-8 dollars come a couple years. From what I read online, It is near 6 in Canada and Australia as we speak.

I started driving very carefully the last 700 miles just to see what the difference was....after recent reflash on my 2006, I had been getting 23 mpg..lots of vtech usage.

I noticed if I pay attention to stop light changing and traffic flow and coast to a stop from a good distance along with not "crushing the gas pedal too often"
I am getting 26 mpg.

My driving is 50/50 highway city

I notice a lot more deliberate driving in my area , especially with the sun blocking SUV's with one occupant.

In the end, if everybody slows down a bit and pays attention, maybe gasoline powered vehicles will still be in production come the year 2030

 

^^ I was getting around 16-17mpg when i was boostin it...i was able to get ~28mpg driving normally...90% of my daily driving is highway...

 

http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...513_720178.htm

Just thought I'd post that...

 

I am a big time coaster. I hate using the brakes.

 

It's best to coast in 6th gear because it keeps the engine spinning without requiring any idle gas and gives the least resistance so you won't slow down as quickly. It's also better to engine break by downshifting instead of puting the car in neutral and mashing the breaks because that also uses more gas and it wears out your breaks faster.

I don't care for the high gas prices but I realy like that it causes people to be more conservative with a non-renewable resource that pollutes the atmosphere. Is social consciousness remains optional then we're doomed.

 

I would try to use my brakes as little as I can and just let my car coast along till the light turns green then I pick up speed again. If I see a red light from afar then I'll just let go of my pedal and let the speed drop and hope it turns green before I really have to press on the brake. I memorized the timing scheme of the traffic lights I hit when I go to work so I know when not to brake and just cruise. Sometimes I would coast down to 10 mph and still have some ways to go (around two blocks) and the person behind would be going like "wtf?!" I definitely save a lot of gas doing this; I can get around 26 mpg with all city driving.

 

i can't believe these people call themselves economists... the fundamental reason for speculation is someone out there, based on supply and demand believe oil will rise to that price sometime in the future. so in a lot of ways these speculators are doing everyone a favor by driving up prices gradually... without them there is a higher chance of a more drastic increase in a shorter amount of time.

 

I found the article very difficult to follow but took comfort in the fact that understanding it wouldn't make gas any cheaper.

 

The article basically comes down to saying that the big time investors who are not seeing the returns they expected have found other ways to profit, through commodities such as gasoline and even food.

They can charge whatever prices they want, where else are we going to get it from?

But as long as we're driving our TSXs we'll be a little better off than the rest.

 

I was looking longingly at a TL in a parking lot earlier, thinking about the extra here-and-theres and the extra girth, but realizing if I had bought one I would be having much stronger feelings about the TSX with gas prices what they are and the TSX's attractive amenities, not to mention it looks a little better, as if it were designed by a single person with one single vision while the TL looks as if it were designed by a comity of designers with differing ideals. Did they ultimately create a luxury sedan or a sports sedan? No one will ever know.

 

I believe there's plenty of digital ink already spilled on the virtues of gradual coasting versus aggressive downshifting and hard braking. On the latter, brakes are cheaper to fix than transmissions, so downshifting (or "engine breaking" [sic], ironic goof) can consume MORE gas and also wear out your powertrain. Car Talk guys and others have some good articles online about this.

I generally coast down and accelerate conservatively, partly as a result of training I got in my first car from my private driving instructor. He drilled in my head to follow four seconds or more behind cars, and in a sports car (MGB in my case) to look much further down the road than most drivers. The idea being, the faster you're going, the sooner you'll be effected by changes and conditions up ahead. See someone tailgating in the right late? Chance are s/he'll swerve into the #1 lane. See someone in the "fast lane" being passed on the right? Might be that driver is waiting for a moment to merge right. See a bunch of people merging onto the freeway in close formation? Someone's going to jump out. See a Christmas tree effect of brake lights? Start decelerating early. Et cetera. Always "reading" other drivers by watching their style, keeping an eye on their front wheels (some drivers will "hint" that they're thinking of changing lanes by adjusting their steering a small amount when they look left or right), gauging whether they seem impatient, distracted, aggressive, indecisive,....

I also find that in stop 'n go traffic, this kind of mindset lets me do 50% less stoppin' and goin' than others. While most drivers are rushing ahead and then stopping, paying attention only to the cars directly in front of them, I can slowly crawl in 1st or 2nd, adjusting my speed to the average speed of the traffic. I dunno if I save gas doing that, but I sure save myself from a headache, neck strain, and driving frustration (those sharp stops are annoying! "Dammit, stopped again!"). Not hard to do, just pick a low-gear, slow speed and keep to it, and pay attention to if you catch up to the car in front of you and have to brake, or if s/he starts moving again before you catch up to them.

I don't coast in neutral, btw. I know some recommend it, claim that it saves gas, but the reality is that it's not as safe as downshifting conservatively to keep your car in gear. In some states, it's considered not controlling your vehicle, and arguably illegal. Again, CarTalk.com has an article or two on this.

 

You could spend days pointing fingers at OPEC, Commodity Brokers, and the falling dollar.
If I was new prez, I would abolish lobbyists and special interest groups...unfortunately that is what gets a person elected, they are beholden when they get the job.

The facts are with the new found prosperity in China and India (at the expense of American jobs I might add) with their millions of people wanting cars instead of their bicycles,
we are competing for oil, therefore higher prices..
There is only so much to go around, a net deficit.
T.Boone Pickens ( a rich wise market maker) is calling for 150-200 dollars a barrel.

He is investing heavily in alternate enegy sources, wind. He said as long as the gubberment doesn't change the tax benefits, he personally can help make a difference.

The sad truth is that the Gubberment could have made a difference in new energy sources by starting projects such as wind, sun, geo-thermal during the oil embargo of 1973.
We mobilized the moon missions priority in 1961, did it in 8 yrs.

New energy sources could be done, the will in Washington is lacking....

 

Interesting concept...I should probably just get used to coasting instead of just passing people that I think are driving too slow, haha. Damn those gas prices.

 

Wow.

I wish there were more than 5 of us on the planet that knew how to drive like this.

 

Even though that sounds like a lot but it really should only take no more than 1-3 seconds to see it all... and then doing that continuously.

I want to add another tip that my dad taught me... when approaching a green light from far away (like maybe 1-3 blocks), try to look at the pedestrian light to see if it's still white or beginning to blink red. That's when you decide if you should speed up a bit to go while it's still white or coast since it will turn red soon anyway. Sure there will be times when the light is red even though you see green for cars but you can use the line of traffic ahead of you to judge that sometimes.

 

Gas prices have finally gotten me to change my driving style. I put most of my work miles on my minivan which was getting 17 mpgs of semi-aggressive driving. I have started to drive more gas conscience and now get 25 mpgs city/hwy. I have also found that I am less stressed and more relaxed. However in the TL I would regularly hit the higher rpm's and my gas milage was 23 mpg. I reset the MID made the same changes as I did with my van but I can only get 24 mpg. Its an auto so I wonder if it is already running efficiently? If thats the case Acura rules!

 

These guys are out to fill their pocketbooks at our expense. They are not doing us any favors. Commodities and futures (such as oil) are regulated (or at least are supposed to be). They are traded on the NYMEX which is a regulated U.S. exchange. Because it is regulated, trades and volumes are tracked and it is very easy to see if someone or some group of people are speculating, trying to fix prices, trying to influence prices, etc. This regulation is a "good" thing for the consumer as it keeps commodities prices fairly stable and avoids large price spikes due to speculation.

However, there is currently a major loophole in that US companies can trade oil futures on international exchanges that are NOT regulated. This is where the problem in speculation lies. Because the exchange is unregulated, there is no way of knowing who is trading what and prices can spike just like they have in the last year. Seriously, its that simple. Yet our government seems unable or unwilling to put a stop to it.

The largest traders in oil futures are not big oil companies, but investment banks (Goldman Sachs is probably the biggest for oil). Unfortunately, these investment banks are also the ones responsible for predicting future prices. These predictions have a significant impact on the price of oil futures. The banks also trade in large enough volume that their trades can influence the price. See the problem here?

The price of oil has doubled in the last year. Supply has remained fairly steady, stockpiles are at 8 year highs and oil companies are making record profits. Does this still sound like simple supply and demand? The media continually cites increased demand due to China and India and nothing more. Are we supposed to believe everyone in China and India suddenly purchased two new cars in the last year? Yes, we will eventually run out of oil, so long term prices must/will go up. But doubling in one year? Something isn't right. In a few years we may very well hear of some new Enron type scandal dealing with oil...okay, my rant is over.

As for driving:

The tip about looking at the pedestrian signals is great. I do that all the time to see how much time I have before the light goes red. The ones that count down are especially nice.

One question regarding coasting (which I do quite often). Don't all modern fuel injected cars cut off the fuel when the engine is at relatively high RPM and you aren't on the gas? Do we know what this RPM limit is? I recall hearing 3000RPM, but even that seems a bit high... I've heard that because of this, coasting in gear more fuel efficient than coasting in neutral.

I think the real "trick" for high fuel economy is just shifting early so you don't end up in the high RPM. For the majority of my driving I shift around 3000-4000 RPM. Yeah, it isn't that fun to drive like a grandma, but you will save some money in the process.

 

Nice writeup. I've paid attention to the general traffic situation (i.e. not just the car in front of me) for my whole driving career, and yeah, I look at ped signals too.

I usually keep ~2 seconds between vehicles in light traffic, but yes, when the freeway starts to pack up I increase distance. By holding back, a minority of us can use the aggressive stop-and-go behavior of everyone else to eek a little more mileage out of our cars. Part of the problem is that it seems to me that not everyone can do this, I would think that would be just as bad as not doing it at all... or maybe it would just result in a slower overall traffic situation with less stop-and-go. Not sure.

There's a writeup out there somewhere on the virtues of "damping out the wave", i.e. trying to maintain a slower (but more consistent) speed when in freeway stop-and-go. Ok, here it is. He only provides anecdotal evidence that this works however. On the other hand, a more scientific study seems to suggest that once you get beyond a certain vehicle density threshold, it doesn't matter how anybody is driving, you're going to get stop-and-go conditions.

With regard to what the "state" could do for us, here's an interesting story about stoplight timing. Although Denver has some streets with timed lights, I certainly think they could do a lot better overall.

You and wackura have talked me out of neutral coasting for the most part; I still do it sometimes, old habits die hard.

 

 

Some people argue slowing down with the engine is hard on the car, maybe it is but I've had to get brake jobs fairly regularily in past cars but I've never needed any transmission work nor have I ever heard of any stories about people needing repairs as a result of the practice. The risks are hypothetical but the bills for brake replacement are very real. Is there a mechanic here who can say they had to fix a clutch or a tranny as a result of compression braking?

 

I'm not agreeing here. Idle is at about 800 rpm and coasting means no engine braking (but is also illegal in most states, go figure) to slow you down quicker. No matter how you spin it, idling at 800 rpm uses less gas than slowing down from a much higher rpm.

Closer, but still off and burning more gas. The key to coasting is to be looking ahead on the road and when that light up ahead turns yellow, slip out of gear and stay off the brake. If you start getting close, you use as little brake as possible as late as possible (much easier if you know the light's timing).

Coasting will certainly improve your mileage, but is of limited use in traffic and built up areas. The recommendation for sixth is OK if you need to maintain little maneuverability, however a better choice is whatever gear keeps you in the 2000-2500 rpm (the best compromise for some response with least consumption while slowing). This, of course, is the bad point of coasting...you are losing some control and manuverability in exchange for saving money.

 

I think the impression here is that if you're in gear without any gas pedal there is essentially no gas being injected, the motor is turning over pure air. If this is true (confirmation anyone?) then engine braking is more economical.

 

We average 29-30 mpg in our '05 TSX in mixed driving... we average 27-28 mpg in our '07 TL-S. Exterior design aside, there's not a heck of a lot of gas economy difference between the two for me... although, FWIW, the TSX is the one I enjoy modding.

 

It's also my understanding that being in gear while not depressing the gas pedal uses zero gas because it's not needed, and that if it were to use gas in that circumstance it would be pissing it away for no reason. Basicly being in neutral while that car is rolling = waste of gas, and if coming to a stop, waste of brakes.

So if the intention is to stop then you'd want to down shift and let the compression of the engine slow the car down and if you want to roll as far as possible then put it in sixth so that the engine still spins without requiring gas but at the same time puts up the least resistance. Maybe downshifting to stop is hard on the car, maybe it's not, that's beside the point.

Compression braking is often illegal for large trucks but that's only because they're very loud, and no other reason that I know of.

 

I've read conflicting articles on the benefits of acclerating briskly vs. accelerating gradually from a gas savings perspective. I tried it both ways several times and tracked my results --- I actually see significant savings when I give the throttle a little more juice as opposed to easing into my cruising speed.

 

I think that would violate some sort of law of energy.

 

I doubt the planet will have anymore oil by then. All the aircraft carriers, jet liners, baby boomer's great grand children's vehicles, etc. will deplete the oil. I think they're already running low (so they're charging more?)

And good riddance. I wish we were all driving electric vehicles tomorrow. I miss how the environment was when I was very young.

It took the planet millions of years to get all the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere; humans took 2 or 3 centuries to put it all back into the atmosphere. If a kid ever asks you what you think life would be like if humans had lived among dinosaurs, tell them the environment now is very similar to how it was back then.

 

About 2/3 of my drive to work is thorough a very low traffic, but very highly patrolled area of 4 - 6 lane highway. I found, quite by accident, that by using the cruise for those sections yields much, much greater efficiency. Even if I keep it at a steady speed, the MID tells me the gas mileage is a lot better using the cruise than than my foot. When I come up on a light, I just hit the cancel button, and don't hit the brakes until I have to. And I use the resume button to take me back up to speed. All of my speed adjustments are done from the steering wheel. And that held true for my last car as well. Just by doing that, I average about 3 - 4 mpg more than using my foot. And it has the added benefit of keeping me from getting speeding tickets, too!

 

The energy in the vehicle at cruising speed (on level ground) is the same regardless of how you get there - at first approximation you could say it was just 1/2 m v^2, i.e. the kinetic energy of the vehicle.

Of course, there are losses on the way due to road friction, internal friction, etc, and it would also depend on the efficiency of the motor through its rev range getting you there. There are surely other things that I'm not thinking about. So it's path dependent.

The path calculation gets more complex from here, so I'm not going to try it in any rigorous fashion, but I wouldn't think it would make a big difference. If you accelerated quickly to speed you'd cover less distance doing it, so the work done by various frictions would be somewhat less. On the other hand, revving the motor into its upper ranges might be less efficient (?)... so it's a wash?

 

Not true (I believe, will dig out the data when I get a chance). The engine does not "shut off" gas to cylinders. Now the newer VCM (Variable Cylinder Management) Hondas take the V-6 and turn it into either an I-3 or a V-4 if the engine load is light enough, but the TSX doesn't have this feature.

An idling engine uses gas...a slowing engine uses gas too. Consider that if there was no power being generated, that the drag from the serpentine belt and it's driven accessories (alternator, A/C, power steering, etc) would stop the engine very quickly, even allowing for momentum chenging into rotational energy via the engine through the transmission.

 

OK, much disagreement out there, we need an Acura tech who knows for sure, but when I get some time I'll leaf through the Service manual to see if there is a reference.

The fuel cutoff was true for (some) OBDI cars, but may not be for OBDII.

The fuel cutoff would not work on an unlocked automatic transmission, so unless the TSX transmission has additional programing for locking, the cutoff would only be at or above lock-up speed (and I don't know what that is on a TSX).

A fuel reduction mode would, howver, make sense. The OBDII system wants the cats as warm as possible, which is why I suspect they won't shutoff the injectors...but a reduced fuel pulse might just work.

We need more data...

 

It's not that hard to understand. There is no such thing as no gas usage. If the gas was shut off, then your RPM would be at 0 since the engine doesn't have anything to burn. RPM will never be at 0 unless your turn off the car.

 

If the car is moving and in gear, the kinetic energy of the car will force the cylinders to turn. When you push start a manual car, that's exactly what you're doing. If you're at speed and going down a hill, you could switch the car off and get the same effect, the motor would continue to turn.

Whether or not the ECU does this, I don't know.

 

You must drive an automatic, if you drove an MT you'd have a much better understanding. Just as the engine can turn the wheels the wheels can turn the engine. For exmaple if you keep your car in gear and let off the gas while rolling down a steep hill your RPMs can rise very high.

 

The idea that you would burn gas for no other reason than to keep the catalytic converter warm seems kinda funny.

 

If I'm not mistaken, it was C&D that did the test... and they showed through empirical data that more gas is burned when you "conservatively" take your time to get to cruising speed versus "stepping on it"... as I said, it's not a great barometer of accuracy, but the navi trip computer says I get 2-3 mpg more when I drive a more aggressively...

 

Cutoff is about 1500rpm. So coasting in 6th gear below 1500rpm will consume more fuel than having it in neutral at 800rpm. But if you were above 1500rpm with your foot off the accelerator, then it will use less fuel than neutral @ 800rpm. It will still consume some fuel, just not as much.

You can test by having it in, say, 3rd gear, at 2000rpm. Lift yuor foot off the throttle and the car will slow down. At about 1500rpm or so, you get a little shove as if you were lightly pressing the accelerator. That is when the ECU cuts in to open the throttle a little bit (and inject more fuel in) to keep the engine spinning.

 

Nope...that's because the emissions in modern cars are vastly greater until the cats warm up. The OBDII programing is tuned to get the cats to and keep them at operating temperature ASAP.

However, from the Service Manual "During deceleration with the throttle valve closed, current to the injectors is cut off to improve fuel economy ay engine speeds over 1,000 rpm (A/T: 1042 rpm) Fuel cutoff also occurs when the engine speed exceeds 7,300 rpm, regardless of the poisition of the throttle valve, to protect the engine from over revving. When the vehicle is stopped, the ECM/PCM cuts the fuel at engine speeds over 5,000 rpm. Fuel cut is lower on a cold engine."

So your suggestion that the fuel cuts off is true...my bad ...however, it still leaves an open question:

The fuel cutoff is installed because of laws against coasting out of gear in most states. This allows fuel use reduction while slowing in gear. However, since this means additional braking and reduction in momentum, is this savings more than the savings gained from an extended roll at idle?

I would suggest that, in light of this data, rolling to a light where a stop is anticipated would be most efficient in gear, but if the light will likely change before you reach it, coasting out of gear is probably more effective because the volume of fuel required to get back up to speed is probably less that what was consumed at idle during your coast.

As a side note, my most efficient rpm point, so far, seems to be about 2,600-2,700 rpm. Anyone have any good data?

 

It's probably a toss up, but that's only scenario. In most others it makes sense. If you keep it in sixth gear you'll roll a good long time.

I have no idea about this but would maintaining speed on a flat surface at the lowest RPM reasonable, say 1500, be the best?

 

After reading those three Business Week articles by Ed Wallace (one is provided above by Just02; the other two link from it) I'm pretty pissed. Yes, speculation is okay when it's grounded in market fundamentals but all the data seems to suggest that this time it's not. The dollar has sunk 30% against other currencies; China's demand is up, but only slightly... meanwhile, gas has increased in price by 400%. Sure, there's some risk in the markets right now, especially given the middle east situation. But 400%? There's a lot of greed in that number.