List of ways to improve fuel economy?

[F8L]

DWDean, try taking off your shoe. It sounds dumb but on long trips it's more comfortable and you can better feel what the car is doing and control throttle position better.

[dwdean]

Originally Posted by F8L

DWDean, try taking off your shoe. It sounds dumb but on long trips it's more comfortable and you can better feel what the car is doing and control throttle position better.

No, actually it doesn't sound stupid. I've noticed that my FE really does have some dependancy on the shoes that I'm wearing, or actually more specifically on the character of the soles. I'd never thought about driving barefoot, but had thought about trying a pair of thin house slippers...

[F8L]

Originally Posted by dwdean

No, actually it doesn't sound stupid. I've noticed that my FE really does have some dependancy on the shoes that I'm wearing, or actually more specifically on the character of the soles. I'd never thought about driving barefoot, but had thought about trying a pair of thin house slippers...

We could really trip people out by slipping on some Simpson racing shoes before taking off in our Prius'. Hahaha



I have all the racing gear except for the shoes as they are not required till you get REALLY fast. So I guess I'll use my old kung-fu shoes, they have very thin soles.

[Jiipa]

So I shouldn't wear my steel toe work boots when driving?

[PriusFan808]

Stop running the A/C and see if your MPG improves. I'm just a noob but I have watched a good 55-60 MPG average tank of gas drop due to idling with the A/C on at lights, banks, drive-throughs, etc. If the A/C is running on battery, you will have to recharge the battery eventually by (most likely) the ICE.

Another thing I have noticed is that my wife doesn't get good MPG when she is distracted. Turn off the radio and focus on your techniques. Get a friend to watch the MFD for you as you drive to give you feedback when you are doing good, and when your not. It becomes like a video game, as my wife describes it. Through the help of the advice in this forum I have coached her to getting 60-70MPG.

This is funny. Our daughter was looking out of her window the other night and saw headlights moving very slowly and she knew it was us coming. Why? Because we completely coast the whole 1/2 mile down our street, going only about 5 mph toward the last 150 feet.

[Sheepdog]

I take it you never lived in Central Florida then. You cannot get anything from anywhere without driving. No work, no groceries, no anything.

Originally Posted by darelldd

My best advice is to not concentrate on miles per gallon, but concentrate totally on *gallons*.

What's better:
1. Getting 50 mpg during a month of driving, and using 10 gallons (500 miles of driving) for that month...
or
2. Getting 40 mpg during a month of driving, and using 5 gallons (200 miles of driving) for that month?

When we concentrate on the mpg, we sell ourselves short. We should be bragging about how much we didn't drive. About how much gas we didn't burn. Instead, the emphasis is on mpg - and for many, that means driving MORE miles, and burning MORE gas so that number looks better.

Might not be the case with you... but if you just concentrate on NOT driving the car so much, it really doesn't matter what your mileage is when you DO drive it. For the short trips around town - ride your bike. I managed to live in Berkeley for several years without even owning a car. I even had a girlfriend way up in the North hills!

[Rokeby]

Some while back in this thread dwdean wrote:

...The other thing you can do is look at your routes. For instance, my
parents will drive down the steep part of Marin in the Prius, but they
always go back up the hill on streets with more gentle grades...

I took me a while to remember that to go up hills, even at a steady rate of
speed, necessitates accelerating the vehicle. Accelerating smartly to target
speed -- 16 - 20K RPMs on ScanGauge -- then backing off the go-pedal is
said to be best for FE. In my experience, given a choice, going up the steep
side of a hill, and then no-arrow gliding the long shallow side is preferable.

For me at least, this approach was non-intuitive. The only way I could even
do test runs was to not look at the iMPG readout on the MFD on the up hill
pull. But by resetting the trip MPG reading on the SG I was able to prove it
to myself.

A practical consequence of this finding is that now my outbound and
homebound routes are usually different.

[mcmoyer]

Originally Posted by darelldd

My best advice is to not concentrate on miles per gallon, but concentrate totally on *gallons*.

What's better:
1. Getting 50 mpg during a month of driving, and using 10 gallons (500 miles of driving) for that month...
or
2. Getting 40 mpg during a month of driving, and using 5 gallons (200 miles of driving) for that month?

When we concentrate on the mpg, we sell ourselves short. We should be bragging about how much we didn't drive. About how much gas we didn't burn. Instead, the emphasis is on mpg - and for many, that means driving MORE miles, and burning MORE gas so that number looks better.

Shoot if I go by that criteria, I'm a failure I drive at least 500 miles/week so I prefer to frame it as "in the 5000 miles I've driven so far, I've *saved* 160 gallons of fuel."

[dwdean]

Originally Posted by Rokeby

For me at least, this approach was non-intuitive.

I'm not arguing with the emperical result, but I do admit that I'm having some difficulty getting my mind wrapped around this. The only way I can make sense out of this is by assuming your steep hill is the most direct route to your destination. Therefore, by inducing the most efficient fuel burn you can for the shortest distance, you're getting better FE overall. Even if your iMPG doesn't look so good, there's likely some other part of trips that "makes up" for that.

[Rokeby]

dwdean,

I suspect that our mindsets from driving in differing topographies are getting
in the way of clear communication. In fact, I think we are of like mind,
though our perspectives may be different.

Where I am, in the Baltimore metro area, you can't go anywhere without
going up and down hills. They aren't monstrously big or long, but how you
handle them can be a big plus or minus on the daily FE.

In dealing with hills, I've come to realize that the most direct route may not
be the most efficient, either in terms of MPG or fuel used. I have found that
by taking short judicious departures from the direct route to use "hills of
opportunity," I can reduce ICE-on time and thus fuel use. Hills of opportunity
are not symmetrical; they have, in the direction you want to go, a steep up
side, and a long gradual down slope permitting no-arrow, true glide.

Ideally, as you've pointed out, you go up at your most efficient speed. It is
the immediately following no arrow glide that meets your, "there's likely
some other part of trips that "makes up" for that." Sometimes the long
down slope comes first, then the steep up hill -- perhaps a "valley of
opportunity?"

In my experience, what you don't want, if it can be avoided, is a long
gradual climb, and a short, sharp descent -- in either order -- which in this
urban setting often has a stop sign, traffic light, speed bump, or necessary
turn at the bottom.

Coming back on the same route will not, can not, net the same positive
results. If you're lucky, you can find a different route that "turns the
hills around," and doesn't add mileage.