|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 26, 2015 19:55:05 GMT
My reason for posting the myth wasn't to disprove it. As I said it is already known to be false. It is more for the commonality of the falsehood. right, and my reason for pointing out that even some models of even-bigger-than-a-suburban get better mileage was not that I think they shouldn't test it on the show. it was because it was funny. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 27, 2015 0:15:36 GMT
To me, I wonder how this could even still be around. Not only can it be dis-proven with a few seconds of googling stuff, but cars have evolved in efficiency to the point where Ford is now making F-150 pickups that can not only get better mileage than a Model-T, but they can do so while hauling two model-Ts with plenty of power to spare.
Sidetrack: For those of you with the big SUV's who live in the snow zone, what is your preferred way of clearing snow off the top? I got a minivan a year and a half ago and i did alright last year, but this year I am struggling to clear the roof with my normal snow brush/ice scrapers on a stick.
|
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Jan 27, 2015 3:47:23 GMT
To me, I wonder how this could even still be around. Not only can it be dis-proven with a few seconds of googling stuff, but cars have evolved in efficiency to the point where Ford is now making F-150 pickups that can not only get better mileage than a Model-T, but they can do so while hauling two model-Ts with plenty of power to spare. Sidetrack: For those of you with the big SUV's who live in the snow zone, what is your preferred way of clearing snow off the top? I got a minivan a year and a half ago and i did alright last year, but this year I am struggling to clear the roof with my normal snow brush/ice scrapers on a stick. I've always kept an old broom out on the front porch for clearing snow from cars. Stayed out there with the snow shovel for clearing the walk. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2015 5:21:53 GMT
To me, I wonder how this could even still be around. Not only can it be dis-proven with a few seconds of googling stuff, but cars have evolved in efficiency to the point where Ford is now making F-150 pickups that can not only get better mileage than a Model-T, but they can do so while hauling two model-Ts with plenty of power to spare. Sidetrack: For those of you with the big SUV's who live in the snow zone, what is your preferred way of clearing snow off the top? I got a minivan a year and a half ago and i did alright last year, but this year I am struggling to clear the roof with my normal snow brush/ice scrapers on a stick. I've always kept an old broom out on the front porch for clearing snow from cars. Stayed out there with the snow shovel for clearing the walk. a push broom with soft bristles or a car wash brush can be handy. |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 27, 2015 6:10:39 GMT
For those of you with the big SUV's who live in the snow zone, what is your preferred way of clearing snow off the top? I got a minivan a year and a half ago and i did alright last year, but this year I am struggling to clear the roof with my normal snow brush/ice scrapers on a stick. On my wife's Excursion, I just use a large push broom with a fairly long handle. On her Astro, we don't clean the snow off. It's just to dangerous to drive that death trap in the snow. On my Wrangle, I just push the snow off with a gloved hand or window brush/scraper. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 27, 2015 7:51:10 GMT
Say WHUT?....
Q1, is the fiesta/focus UK and U$A different...
Q2, whats the U$A equivalent for as toyota Avensis.
Q3, is it because you yanks do different Gallons... UK gallon is 8 pints, do you get less pints to your gallon....
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 27, 2015 7:53:26 GMT
For those of you with the big SUV's who live in the snow zone, what is your preferred way of clearing snow off the top? I got a minivan a year and a half ago and i did alright last year, but this year I am struggling to clear the roof with my normal snow brush/ice scrapers on a stick. On my wife's Excursion, I just use a large push broom with a fairly long handle. On her Astro, we don't clean the snow off. It's just to dangerous to drive that death trap in the snow. On my Wrangle, I just push the snow off with a gloved hand or window brush/scraper. We have a household soft bristle brush out where the car is kept, its used to was the roof in summer, and to push snow in winter, its a rubberised base as well to make sure it dont scratch. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 27, 2015 15:03:47 GMT
Say WHUT?.... Q1, is the fiesta/focus UK and U$A different... Q2, whats the U$A equivalent for as toyota Avensis. Q3, is it because you yanks do different Gallons... UK gallon is 8 pints, do you get less pints to your gallon.... I understand an imperial gallon is larger than a US gallon, but I forget the exact measures we use. but yes, our cars consistently get less fuel efficiency than yours because ours have more motor driven clutter involved. (and frequently more weight, even in the same model of car) the closest US equivalent to the Avensis is the Corolla. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Corollanote that in the UK, the Avensis is a large car, and in the US, the Corolla is a compact car. this is why our average fuel economy is worse. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Jan 27, 2015 20:19:50 GMT
Say WHUT?.... Q1, is the fiesta/focus UK and U$A different... Q2, whats the U$A equivalent for as toyota Avensis. Q3, is it because you yanks do different Gallons... UK gallon is 8 pints, do you get less pints to your gallon.... I'm not sure where Greg got his numbers. According to EPA testing the 2015 Focus and Fiesta are listed as having the following numbers: Fiesta 28/36(manual) 27/37(automatic) Focus 26/36(manual) 27/37(automatic) |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Jan 27, 2015 20:33:51 GMT
Say WHUT?.... Q1, is the fiesta/focus UK and U$A different... Q2, whats the U$A equivalent for as toyota Avensis. Q3, is it because you yanks do different Gallons... UK gallon is 8 pints, do you get less pints to your gallon.... I'm not sure where Greg got his numbers. According to EPA testing the 2015 Focus and Fiesta are listed as having the following numbers: Fiesta 28/36(manual) 27/37(automatic) Focus 26/36(manual) 27/37(automatic) This is where I got the figures for the Focus. It's a Ford site but appears to be on the low side compared to other Ford sites. Maybe it just for this particular Focus configuration. www.ford.com/cars/focus/trim/st5door/?fmccmp=lp-fetech-mid-focusAlso an Imperial gallon is 20% larger than a US Gallon so you have to watch which one they are using in the ratings. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 27, 2015 21:35:27 GMT
I'm not sure where Greg got his numbers. According to EPA testing the 2015 Focus and Fiesta are listed as having the following numbers: Fiesta 28/36(manual) 27/37(automatic) Focus 26/36(manual) 27/37(automatic) This is where I got the figures for the Focus. It's a Ford site but appears to be on the low side compared to other Ford sites. Maybe it just for this particular Focus configuration. www.ford.com/cars/focus/trim/st5door/?fmccmp=lp-fetech-mid-focusAlso an Imperial gallon is 20% larger than a US Gallon so you have to watch which one they are using in the ratings. Why not using the metric system to make sure? My old car with the homemade AI in its ECU almost always gave me 7 l/100km as fuel consumption (total average). The lowest consumption was 6.3 l/100km but that was with a damaged brake balance regulator so I drove much more careful during that month. Recently we did another attempt to demystify how the ECU could boost the mpg of that old greycast engine so dramatically. We noticed very odd gaps and peaks in the n-dimensional look up table it had created a long time ago. Recently I had found out that one of its "rules" applied to those crazy numbers. One rule had applied a correcting factor to "decrypt" the weird numbers while another rule became active if the first rule is active and this one seems to either decrease or boost the engine power. Looks like the car avoided inefficient situations by speeding up or slowing down some. Awesome how complex the AI was able to make its behaviour just by fooling around more or less randomly and monitoring its success to determine what works and what not. Back to the T engine. It's amazing how well it runs (on modern, pure gas) and how efficient it is even if it is physically unable to actually burn all the gas it consumes. |
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 27, 2015 23:05:48 GMT
I tried to find what the average car got around the time of the Model T but it wasn't conveniently available. - however, I think the model T gas mileage myth hit the scene back in the 70s, when it was actually generally true. (at least in the US) Got to love the 70's where gas was so cheap we weren't concerned about MPG and didn't know what we were doing to the environment. Also there were no obvious signs. Just like Asbestos was perfectly safe and saves lifes - it just itches a bit. But they took the old <20% efficency power plants out of comission since energy did cost money after all. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 28, 2015 5:24:09 GMT
This is where I got the figures for the Focus. It's a Ford site but appears to be on the low side compared to other Ford sites. Maybe it just for this particular Focus configuration. www.ford.com/cars/focus/trim/st5door/?fmccmp=lp-fetech-mid-focusAlso an Imperial gallon is 20% larger than a US Gallon so you have to watch which one they are using in the ratings. Why not using the metric system to make sure? My old car with the homemade AI in its ECU almost always gave me 7 l/100km as fuel consumption (total average). The lowest consumption was 6.3 l/100km but that was with a damaged brake balance regulator so I drove much more careful during that month. Recently we did another attempt to demystify how the ECU could boost the mpg of that old greycast engine so dramatically. We noticed very odd gaps and peaks in the n-dimensional look up table it had created a long time ago. Recently I had found out that one of its "rules" applied to those crazy numbers. One rule had applied a correcting factor to "decrypt" the weird numbers while another rule became active if the first rule is active and this one seems to either decrease or boost the engine power. Looks like the car avoided inefficient situations by speeding up or slowing down some. Awesome how complex the AI was able to make its behaviour just by fooling around more or less randomly and monitoring its success to determine what works and what not. Back to the T engine. It's amazing how well it runs (on modern, pure gas) and how efficient it is even if it is physically unable to actually burn all the gas it consumes. because it's french. (edited to put the response where it belongs) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 28, 2015 8:02:01 GMT
Because we scientific people cant do the math, and would just convert back to gallons per mile again?...
No one but the europeans who are not UK understands litres per kilometre, 'cos we all drive in Miles.
Just a moment to add in a silly story, one guy at work was complaining about the low mileage his wife got in the car, 10 to the gallon, someone asked how it was that low, "She always goes everywhere twice, the second time to get what she forgot the first"
|
|
|
|
Post by c64 on Jan 28, 2015 20:57:23 GMT
No one but the europeans who are not UK understands litres per kilometre, 'cos we all drive in Miles. Big numbers = bad 0 = perfect negative numbers are inconvinient because the gas tank keeps spilling at the worst possible moments. 7 is good for modern gas, 4 is very good for a diesel. 3 is the holy grail for the environmentalists, but they accept diesel, too. The only RL 3-liter-cars available are as exiting as a lawnmowing tractor. I had a "3-liter-car" for a few weeks. Buying that much oil wasn't too bad, it was the gas it also took which was way too expensive! |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 29, 2015 9:05:01 GMT
No one but the europeans who are not UK understands litres per kilometre, 'cos we all drive in Miles. Big numbers = bad 0 = perfect negative numbers are inconvinient because the gas tank keeps spilling at the worst possible moments. 7 is good for modern gas, 4 is very good for a diesel. 3 is the holy grail for the environmentalists, but they accept diesel, too. The only RL 3-liter-cars available are as exiting as a lawnmowing tractor. I had a "3-liter-car" for a few weeks. Buying that much oil wasn't too bad, it was the gas it also took which was way too expensive! Whut?... Sorry, maybe lost in translation, but I understand not anything you said there..... |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 29, 2015 14:39:52 GMT
Big numbers = bad 0 = perfect negative numbers are inconvinient because the gas tank keeps spilling at the worst possible moments. 7 is good for modern gas, 4 is very good for a diesel. 3 is the holy grail for the environmentalists, but they accept diesel, too. The only RL 3-liter-cars available are as exiting as a lawnmowing tractor. I had a "3-liter-car" for a few weeks. Buying that much oil wasn't too bad, it was the gas it also took which was way too expensive! Whut?... Sorry, maybe lost in translation, but I understand not anything you said there..... I think he was talking about liters of gas per hundred kilometers, and that his "3 liter car" burned 3 liters of oil per hundred kilometers. (back at the gas station, I had a customer like that. she'd buy 5 gallons of gas and 2 quarts of oil) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 29, 2015 16:25:04 GMT
I cant think like that.
3litres is foreign, 100km, for all I know, that could be here to the shop at the end of the road, or Birmingham Alabama.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 29, 2015 16:53:25 GMT
I cant think like that. 3litres is foreign, 100km, for all I know, that could be here to the shop at the end of the road, or Birmingham Alabama. okay, for a meter, you take a pace, then add a little bit. or a fathom, divide it in half, and add a bit. a liter is just over 7 gills. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 30, 2015 9:09:31 GMT
So its either just a likkle more or a likkle less than what we already know.....
|
|
