lawnchair wrote:Well, the shutting off unneeded cylinders is not always possible. There's no easy way to do it in a car with one carburetor nor a car with a single manifold fuel injector. It's possible in a modern car with per-cylinder fuel injection, but the engine management computer would go nuts. You could do it all in software, though, which is what manufacturers are doing today.
Syeer - Well, the 64 is certainly before the VW 'refinements' (fuel injector or watercooling). I know some VWs were twin-carb (it makes some sense in a boxer engine) and some were single-carb. If it is twin-carb, try pinching off the fuel line before one carb with the engine running. Wait a second for the fuel in the carb to get drained. See if it will run on two. On the Opel, it was just a spring-loaded ball valve in the fuel line before the carb and a Bowden cable (bicycle brake cable) to the dash.
YMMV and please don't sue me if this destroys your nice vintage VW. It's not worth killing a nice car!
jdmartin wrote:PS: Some of these people are just stupid.
I did a calculation once, based on my driving, and I drive a lot (40k+ miles per year, not including my wife's driving, some of it for my job). I figured out that I could gain roughly 3.5mpg if I were to drop my speed down to a point where I added 20 minutes total (10 min each way) to my commute. When I added up the extra gas I was spending at $3, and then divided my annual extra time against the annual extra savings, I found that I would be "paying" myself about $2 per hour to add 20 minutes commute to my daily ride, which means I would be paying myself about $3 per week ($150 per year) for that savings. I don't know about too many other people, but I sure as hell am not going to work anywhere for $2 per hour, even if it is tax free. Gas would have to get to some pretty impressive levels - say $15 per gallon - before I'd be willing to add that much time to an already arduous commute...
gg3 wrote:Or you can telecommute.
Terrapin wrote:Even the modern Civics are impressive. If you put the “low rolling resistance” (rock hard) tires common to hybrids on them they would be even better. If the manufactures would only add an instantaneous MPG display that gives the driver feedback as to what they are doing most everyone that wanted to could improve their mileage by 10% or more without doing anything dangerous like Wayne does.
jdmartin wrote:Terrapin wrote:Even the modern Civics are impressive. If you put the “low rolling resistance” (rock hard) tires common to hybrids on them they would be even better. If the manufactures would only add an instantaneous MPG display that gives the driver feedback as to what they are doing most everyone that wanted to could improve their mileage by 10% or more without doing anything dangerous like Wayne does.
That's probably the best idea I've heard about the issue. Real simple readout on the dashboard would give a lot of people insight as to how their driving affects their MPG.
Terrapin wrote:jdmartin wrote:Terrapin wrote:Even the modern Civics are impressive. If you put the “low rolling resistance” (rock hard) tires common to hybrids on them they would be even better. If the manufactures would only add an instantaneous MPG display that gives the driver feedback as to what they are doing most everyone that wanted to could improve their mileage by 10% or more without doing anything dangerous like Wayne does.
That's probably the best idea I've heard about the issue. Real simple readout on the dashboard would give a lot of people insight as to how their driving affects their MPG.
Exactly.
BTW JD, I still miss Jerry. How ‘bout you?
joewp wrote:Interesting article, but I wonder what he'd do if he was informed of Jevons' Paradox and he realized that his saving fuel makes it cheaper and just results in more people "throwing it away"?
I_Like_Plants wrote:And 5 miles a WEEK means if it's possible (some places in the US it's simply not!) you can walk or bike it.
No fuel use at all!
Then again, the technology exists that would make a die-off unnecessary, so I doubt it will happen.
The_Toecutter wrote:Then again, the technology exists that would make a die-off unnecessary, so I doubt it will happen.
Odds are good that this technology won't be ramped up in time; it will take at least a decade if we have a WWII style crash program in place.
The Toecutter wrote:There are a few very wealthy individuals that will see to it that their traditional income sources, such as oil, defense, automobiles, coal, and others aren't compromised. Alternatives by their very nature are extremely disruptive to the status quo and those in positions of power just don't want them taking hold.
The Toecutter wrote:Asset inertia is the only remaining problem of any extreme significance to addressing peak oil, and it just so happens to be the biggest problem of them all.(Next of course, is population levels).
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests