Fuel saving tips thread

tomstickland

scbk wrote: »

Good point, I see so many people driving round with lights on when visibility is fine. Must use a fair amount of extra fuel over the lifetime of a car

I drive around with lights on most of the time. It's to help those who are incapable of seeing a car when they pull out.

anewman

No MPG figures for 2ft as the drivers died? Worst thing about travelling behind lorries is the stones they throw up at your windscreen.

tomstickland

I've got about 4 major marks on my windscreen from stones, usually from something travelling in the opposite direction. Passed the MOT so don't care.

AdrianHi

meester wrote: »

If the throttle is not open, then the engine still uses a minimal amount of fuel, this shouldn't change if you are braking or coasting, because you have not requested any acceleration. I guess ultimately not using the brakes is better because it implies less throttle used beforehand.

Any car with electronically controlled fuel injection (that's most cars built in the last 20 or so years now) use no fuel at all when in gear with clutch engaged (or torque converter for autos) and the motion of the car is keeping the engine turning over.

meester wrote: »

Get low-rolling resistance tyres. These can improve mpg by 6% (proven).

Yes OK fine but I still wouldn't have them on my car, wet weather stopping distances and other aspects of all weather grip security are not as good by a fair margin.



More fuel saving ideas:
When possible drive at times of less congestion to reduce journey time.
Learn you route so you can anticipate and put some thought into the right speed at the right time to reduce accelerating and braking.

There is an argument for doing more than 56mph on some cars, mine for example barely hold 6th gear at this speed, if I do 60-65mph there is more torque on tap and less likely hood of having to change down a gear when driving up hill.

If you have a diesel car use BP Ultimate Diesel or Shell V Power. You break even on cost (5% to 7% cost increase and fuel consumption improvement) by about tank 3 in most parts of the country, so this one is fuel saving, but breaking even on cost.
Consider Millers Diesel Sport 4 additive to get a 5% to 7% fuel consumption improvement by about tank full 3 while only increasing fueling costs by 2.5%.
Not everyone seems to report a saving with any of the above, but most do.

meester

AdrianHi wrote: »

Yes OK fine but I still wouldn't have them on my car, wet weather stopping distances and other aspects of all weather grip security are not as good by a fair margin.

In wet-road tests conducted by TÜV SÜD Automotive, a car equipped with the Michelin Energy Saver has a braking distance three meters shorter than the same vehicle fitted with the previous-generation tyres (when brakes are applied at 80 km/h). The same study showed that, in identical wet-road conditions, the Michelin Energy Saver also has a shorter braking distance than the average for major tyre brands.

meester

AdrianHi wrote: »

If you have a diesel car use BP Ultimate Diesel or Shell V Power. You break even on cost (5% to 7% cost increase and fuel consumption improvement) by about tank 3 in most parts of the country, so this one is fuel saving, but breaking even on cost.
Consider Millers Diesel Sport 4 additive to get a 5% to 7% fuel consumption improvement by about tank full 3 while only increasing fueling costs by 2.5%.
Not everyone seems to report a saving with any of the above, but most do.

Are there any properly controlled studies documenting an improvement using these fuels?

anewman

I've read lots of people raving about the millers diesel sport additive

thescouselander

When driving on the motorway I usually find that using cruise control produces better MPG as it does a better job of maintaining a constant speed.

meester

thescouselander wrote: »

When driving on the motorway I usually find that using cruise control produces better MPG as it does a better job of maintaining a constant speed.

True, but you can technically get better fuel consumption without it, by keeping constant throttle. Cruise control works against gravity, which is bad on hills.

AdrianHi

meester wrote: »

In wet-road tests conducted by TÜV SÜD Automotive, a car equipped with the Michelin Energy Saver has a braking distance three meters shorter than the same vehicle fitted with the previous-generation tyres (when brakes are applied at 80 km/h). The same study showed that, in identical wet-road conditions, the Michelin Energy Saver also has a shorter braking distance than the average for major tyre brands.

Mmm, OK a brand new tyre just on the market which challenges the usual rule that low rolling resistance = worse grip particularly in the wet.
It will be interesting to see what the other tyre manufacturers respond with in the near future.
Some more reading which is almost certainly where the "Some tyre manufacturers have suggested that planned EU light vehicle tyre specifications intended to lower rolling resistance and fuel use risked compromising grip." comment comes from inthe rest of the article you have quoted:
http://www.conti-online.com/generator/www/de/en/continental/automobile/themes/news/meldungen/pr_2007_11_12_reifen_sicherheit_en.html