as gas prices go up, fuel efficiency becomes more desireable

[bigpaulo]

Now that gasoline prices are pushing $2.10/gallon in Massachusetts, it got me to thinking about the longer term cost of using an "energy-conserving" oil as opposed to a "wear-metal-conserving" oil.

I just switched from GC to a mostly Pennzoil Platinum 5W-30 (with one quart of M1 0W-40 to thicken it up a bit, use up my stash), and with similar weather and driving patterns, my first tank of gas netted me 25.13 mpg vs 23.75 with the last tank I ran on GC. That's almost a 6% increase in fuel efficiency.

6% of $2.10 is almost 13 cents a gallon, over 15 gallon tank, that's $1.89 saving per tank of gas! Extend that out over 18,000 miles a year, that's a savings of about $87 a year.

So, purely from a gasoline savings point of view, if I can justify spending up to $87 dollars a year on more "energy conserving" oil, I'll do better in terms of gasoline expenditures.

These numbers only favor "energy conserving" oils more and more as gasoline prices go up.

Don't know what will happen to my wear metals in this current OCI, but I have some confidence that it will be more than OK (it's a non-turbo Subaru). And frankly, I have no price difference between GC and PP/M1.

Looking at this issue from 30,000 feet, however, it begs some questions...

- Will you see significantly shortened engine life with a more "energy conserving" oil?

- Will you see significantly higher maintenance costs with a more "energy conserving" oil?

- What is the added benefit of reduced environmental load using more "energy conserving" oil?

I haven't driven long enough to know the answers to these questions, but my gut feeling tells me that it's good to burn less gasoline, all other things being equal.

Now that I've started, I'm really interested to hear what the BITOG elders and not-so-elders have to say about this topic!

 

[bigpaulo]

Yes, one tank to the next is not really statistically sound for comparing fuel efficiency, but let's pretend the difference is really 6 percent for this argument's sake and move forward.

I've personally seen much more difference in fuel efficiency due to 100C viscosity versus oil grade... read around and you'll quickly discover that M1 30 weights viscosities start off in the 10's at best, and oils like GC start off in the low 12's.

For sake of argument here, let's assume all other things are equal (driving patterns, winter or summer gasoline, tire pressures, weather, color socks you're wearing, etc), and that some oils net you higher fuel efficiency than others. I've seen evidence of this, and I'm sure others have, too. Let's hear it!

 

[Blue99]

quote:

---

Everyone seems to be increasingly in much more of a hurry, and not enjoying the drive. I like to cruise and enjoy the trip. Maybe I was born in the wrong generation.

---

Probably the best quote of the week, MAJA.

Many factors affect fuel economy. At this time of the year, warmer operating temps generate better economy at start-up and by reducing drag in greases, differentials, wheel bearings & tires.

Gasoline is also changing from the more volatile winter blends to the lower RVP blends, which produce better fuel economy.

 

[jason07-1zzfe]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAJA:
... Everyone seems to be increasingly in much more of a hurry, and not enjoying the drive...

---

Wrong assumption. That's what makes the drive enjoyable. At least for me.

 

[1sttruck]

Keeping the vehicle in good operating condition for as long as possible may deliver the best fuel economy over the long run, as once power starts dropping off due to wear fuel economy will start slipping. If you're using a 'low wear oil' as opposed to a 'better fuel economy oil' try things like lower acceleration, more tire pressure, clean air filters, etc., before possibly sacrificng engine life. If you can find a lower viscosity oil that doesn't sacrifice life then all the better, but it seems that an engine broken in and run over long periods with a heavier oil may suffer a bit when going to a lower viscosity as you're changing film thickenss and effective clearances. My experience is that once normal wear clearances increase quickly wear has also effectively increased quickly, and tends to continue.

It's a good topic for discussion, as in my opinion it was poor judegement on Ford's part to suggest using 5w20 in older engines that have been serviced with heavier oils.

 

[1sttruck]

http://www.practicingoilanalysis.com/article_detail.asp?articleid=401&relatedbookgroup=PowerGen

is a previous post, and a nice article on the subject.

 

[Blue99]

Some more reading - Chevron Fuel Economy Facts

API energy conserving starburst oils have a 1.5% to 3% fuel economy savings.

The above Chevron link & another of my bookmarks indicate that a "perfect" motor oil, with 100% reduction in friction in both boundary & hydrodynamic areas, would only generate from 8% to 12% fuel economy gains.

 

[JHZR2]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MAJA:
I consider performance driving to include getting maximum MPG's.

Everyone seems to be increasingly in much more of a hurry, and not enjoying the drive. I like to cruise and enjoy the trip. Maybe I was born in the wrong generation.

---

TOO TRUE!!!!!!!

I know one of the problems that I encounter is that with real estate how it is, I am effectively priced out of living where I want to. Now I am young and new to the workforce, but I want to get a house as soon as possible, in a good, close location. Thats tough to do. Plus, its terribly evident that $300K will buy something VERY inferior 7 miles away, compared to 37 miles away (I work in Philadelphia). I am flexible, have to look out only for myself, but because its cheap and I have a good roomate, live 35+ miles away, and really dont enjoy the commute, as people are too rushed, aggressive, and make driving not fun. I can only imagine if I had to live far away because of commitment to family, wanting to get good educations, nice low crime arreas, etc. You want all that stuff, but youre often forced to live further away, and that coupled with duties at home, kids, etc. makes it real tough to have free time. Especially when both parents are working.

But I do my best to enjoy the drive, even if it means going to work way early (5:15 am or so). When I do buy a house, Itll be close so that I dont have to be so stressed and rushed like so many folks on the roads are.

You had the best post of the day!!!!

JMH

[ March 30, 2005, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]

 

[ruking77]

I think the whole fuel efficiency issue has been shown to be a sham, (more smoke and mirrors and symbolism) as highlighted by the AAA report that EPA estimates seems to deviate significantly from the "real world", i.e., much less. I am not saying the EPA is at fault. If anything the EPA protocol is infinitely repeatable and is way more scientific than "the real world"

.

So obviously there are many variables that affect/effect fuel mileage. Since this is an oil thread, I would say get the lowest viscosity in line with your OEM's recommendation. When you combine this with a myraid of variables, hopefully in theory and reality they conspire to give you more mpg rather than less mpg; given identical circumstances. The oil producers, despite what folks might think, put a fair amount of R&D in formulating so called "energy saving" oils. I see no real compelling reason to reinvent the wheel, so to speak.

Oil viscosity is not the only variable. I have a VW Jetta TDI that gets between a low of 44 mpg to a high of 62 mpg with an EPA 42/49 mpg. It does this with a 5w40 oil with OCI's of 10,15,20, 25k. What is the regulatory wishes of 5 states ?(one is where I live ) Lets ban new car sales that can get this type of mileage!!

Believe it or not the very same governmental agencies that tell you you should conserve are the very same agencies that help to create the conditions that make conservation almost impossible.

 

[JHZR2]

ruking, I agree with you totally

Seems awful idiotic to make it so hard to get diesels and high-efficiency cars, when the gross tonnage of pollutants of any type are so much less. Lots of people like to argue, but your (sooty, smoky, oil burning... j/k

) diesel is 'greener' than some other person's ULEV-California Emissions SUV.

If they would ever get LSD widespread, then there would be NO excuse to deny dieselers their cars of choice. Once LSD is around everywhere, catalysts and particle traps can be easily added and then they will give ga$$ers a run for their money pollution wise.

Lets see: diesels already produce less unburnt hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, benzene toluene, and ozone emissions, only give a negligible (less than 1%) increase in NOx, provide higher efficiency and better longevity. The problem is where??? soot? OK, get me a particle trap and a catalytic oxidizer and that soot will be gone... to the same PSD as that coming from gassers at least (nano-soot).

As for the EPA tests, they are designed to be identical and reproducible at any time any place. They dont reflect real world, but they do serve as a general trend/comparisson tool. I think the two main factors are (1) people who dont know how to drive gently and (2) the tires put on cars, often by OEMs.

Suprisingly, Id say 2 is as important as 1. I have two great examples: first, my saab. it has low rolling resistance pirelli tires. EPA sticker says 34 MPH hwy, but driving light with cruise control can get me as high as 40 MPG. Not bad for a 175hp sedan. My truck on the other hand has (factory) 31" BFG AT tires, and a factory lift. The sticker said 21 MPG, and I have only reached 21 during the most optimal of drives. I fully believe that it is due to the tires. I drive both vehicles gently, but the saab can blow by EPA ratings easily, the truck usually stretches and fails to hit them by quite a bit. Aerodynamics and other factors may effect it somewhat, but given that more or less the same vehcle is tested by the EPA to put that numbr on your window sticker, the main difference is tires. Cars that come with more aggressive or wider tires (you do see it a lot) as an upgrade package seem to have a harder time achieving the MPG.

I guess my saab was lucky... I got a tire upgrade (factory 16" instead of 15" that come standard), but the tires are low RR ones and do really well for me.

JMH

[ March 30, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: JHZR2 ]

 

[Dr. T]

I agree, but rather than going to thinner lubes that offer less protection, I would stress keeping an engine clean ie. auto-rx and/or LC/FP use in order to see maximum fuel economy.

 

[eljefino]

Agree with what others have said.

Also agree with Cali trying to restrict CO2 emissions.... though it would seem less hypocritical if they allowed diesel sales. CO2 as a greenhouse gas is not nice for the planet but it's not a "fashionable" thing to try and cut down on.

NoX causes smog, but only on still, hot sunny days, if I understand the issue. I don't see why they can't tune a car through intake air temp measurement, or even a radio station subcarrier broadcast frequency, that "today is a smog day" and to reduce NoX only that day. They have those smart power meters that cut off home air conditioners during brownouts and the customer gets a rate break. It's been pointed out that lean running (less CO2 and better MPG) and NoX problems go hand in hand... so detune only when necessary. Would be great if they'd let VW trade even better gas engine NoX emissions reduction for some more diesel cars.

Yes, I know several parts of Cali are just stagnant valleys with poor airflow, and that nox might sit around for weeks waiting to "become smog"... but I can dream. Maine is also diesel unfriendly.

 

[pitzel]

quote:

---

Originally posted by eljefino:

NoX causes smog, but only on still, hot sunny days, if I understand the issue. I don't see why they can't tune a car through intake air temp measurement, or even a radio station subcarrier broadcast frequency, that "today is a smog day" and to reduce NoX only that day. They have those smart power meters that cut off home air conditioners during brownouts and the customer gets a rate break.

---

GPS-selective emmissions controls might be a good option to explore. Many new cars are coming with GPS receivers built into them, and the cars could de-tune themselves for operating in areas that are NOx-sensitive, while they could tune themselves, through the ECU, when operating in environments where NOx is not only not a problem, but rather, actually environmentally beneficial.

 

[Starbreaker666]

I just traded a '02 Dodge Ram 1500 that got 17-19 MPG to a '04 Monte Carlo SC SS that gets 33 MPG on the highway... Much better on the ol'l pocket book. However, if I had seen it before I would have bought a new CRD Jeep Liberty. That little 2.8 diesel is AMAIZING in that thing. That jeep will get 27+ MPG and power up the yin yang... All on nasty diesel....=) I love my monte though. Ill bug the wife for the liberty come trade in time on her car.

 

[Al]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ruking77:
I think the whole fuel efficiency issue has been shown to be a sham, (more smoke and mirrors and symbolism) as highlighted by the AAA report that EPA estimates seems to deviate significantly from the "real world", i.e., much less.

---

That may be, but most people drive like idiots with no realization that they could increase their milage by 15-25% easily.

I have always been able to better the sticker epa estimate..many times by quite a lot. My sentra is rated at 24/30 and we get 27/33. I must admit that I constantly drive to get good milage. Its just a "thing" with me. I have my wife trained too

 

[Brett Miller]

I have noticed a drop in gas mileage with my S-10 with GC. I have gotten as high as 23 mpg with Mobil 1 and the best tank I have ever gotten with GC is 21.5. Same driving habits.

 

[brianl703]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Al:
That may be, but most people drive like idiots with no realization that they could increase their milage by 15-25% easily.

---

The people who drive like idiots can apparently turn what was a free-flowing highway into a total traffic jam. My trip home from work varies from a 23MPG drive from **** sitting in stop and go traffic to a 32MPG non-stop trip without hitting a single red light. (Fuel economy figures from ScanGauge).

I don't understand why the variance, but it's clearly there. I leave work at the same time every day. I can only guess on the days that it's a traffic jam, too many idiots got too close to each other. Once a traffic jam starts, it keeps going until traffic volumes decrease enough to clear it, even after the incident which caused it is long gone.

Although I wonder if maybe having the traffic lights skip a cycle might do it, too..since I've often been sitting in stopped traffic which, as soon as it starts moving at close to the speed limit again, is stopped again by a red light).

 

[JohnBrowning]

Personely I think that it is silly to try to get more economy out of an engine with oil when a smaller engine is really what is needed! I choose a 4 cylinder Camry over the V6 even though I hate 4 cylinders even really lively ones. I realised that fuel economy was more important then my love of powerful engines!

I say run the best oil for the application! Most people do not see the additional MPG improvment that they should in theory get from a lighter engergy conserveing oil! The EPA MPG circuit is not very applicable to most peoples driveing styles! If someones driveing style match's their and you have a realy tightly controlled environment and a lot of right pedal disapline then it might pay off!

 

[bulwnkl]

As a not-so-elder: You're right on the money. IMHO, you're never going to see a penny's worth of difference in maintenance & repair costs or a mile of difference in longevity. So, save your gas money!

 

[nascarnation]

Fuel economy is a tough thing to measure.
Comparing one tankful to the next is subject to a lot of variability.
I'd be tempted to try 5 psi more in the tires and keep the oil that has the best wear properties.

Now deciding what that oil is could consume an entire internet forum........

What I find interesting in my locale (central Indiana) is that despite the constant news reports about fuel prices, I see NO decrease in traffic count (casual observation) or average speeds (freeway 10-15mph over posted limits)