Fuel economy "gain" with Starburst oils

Status
Not open for further replies.
quote:

Originally posted by oilyriser:
European governments collect so much tax on their fuels. Why would they want people to conserve?

You're joking, right?

If that was truly the case, the European gov's would heavily tax SMALL cars and subsidize enormous SUV's and pickup trucks, just to get folks to consume more fuel.

That does appear to be the case here in North America though. Even if you WANT to buy a small car, the choices are limited. The makers all claim no profit margin, so they want you to buy a giant SUV.

If that was the case, then the car makers in Europe must be losing money hand-over-fist selling all those small cars.

On average, Europeans are far more thrifty and environmentally-conscience than we are.

Here in Canada you can finally buy the Toyota Echo Hatchback, which appears to be a copy of the European Toyota Yaris. However, it's only offered with the 1.5 litre motor.

In Europe you can get the 1.0 litre and 1.3 litre motors. I've driven 1.0 litre 3 cylinder cars in Europe and see nothing wrong with them. They don't breathe fire at a green light, but with that kind of fuel economy, who cares?

Actually, a giant SUV like the Ford Excursion V10 might be fine if you used it for car pooling and regularly stuffed 10 people into it. Sad thing is, I've noticed +99% of those things with a single occupant.

If somebody complains about their fuel economy, I only have to wonder what they were thinking when they bought a giant thing with 10 MPG.

Jerry
 
I think you guys are right to be suspicious as to why Europe has not switched to thinner oils. At least in Germany, driving is much more revered than it is here. Add to that the environmental concerns, and I've gotta believe that they know what they're doing with thicker oil. I don't believe much that the EPA says anyways...
 
quote:

Originally posted by heyjay:

quote:

Originally posted by oilyriser:
European governments collect so much tax on their fuels. Why would they want people to conserve?

You're joking, right?

If that was truly the case, the European gov's would heavily tax SMALL cars and subsidize enormous SUV's and pickup trucks, just to get folks to consume more fuel.

That does appear to be the case here in North America though. Even if you WANT to buy a small car, the choices are limited. The makers all claim no profit margin, so they want you to buy a giant SUV.

If that was the case, then the car makers in Europe must be losing money hand-over-fist selling all those small cars.

On average, Europeans are far more thrifty and environmentally-conscience than we are.

Here in Canada you can finally buy the Toyota Echo Hatchback, which appears to be a copy of the European Toyota Yaris. However, it's only offered with the 1.5 litre motor.

In Europe you can get the 1.0 litre and 1.3 litre motors. I've driven 1.0 litre 3 cylinder cars in Europe and see nothing wrong with them. They don't breathe fire at a green light, but with that kind of fuel economy, who cares?

Actually, a giant SUV like the Ford Excursion V10 might be fine if you used it for car pooling and regularly stuffed 10 people into it. Sad thing is, I've noticed +99% of those things with a single occupant.

If somebody complains about their fuel economy, I only have to wonder what they were thinking when they bought a giant thing with 10 MPG.

Jerry


I'd hardly call the euros far more environmentally-conscience than we are. It was years before their auto pollution standards caught up with ours.

They deal with fuel economy issues in a different way. They tax fuel heavily. Here we have numbers that whole fleets have to meet so a 1% difference is important to meet the law. What's a 1% difference going to look like on a 40 mpg auto? It's going to look like 40.4 mpg and no one will care at the point of purchase...
 
quote:

Originally posted by jsharp:

quote:

Originally posted by heyjay:

quote:

Originally posted by oilyriser:
European governments collect so much tax on their fuels. Why would they want people to conserve?

On average, Europeans are far more thrifty and environmentally-conscience than we are.

Jerry


I'd hardly call the euros far more environmentally-conscience than we are. It was years before their auto pollution standards caught up with ours.

They deal with fuel economy issues in a different way. They tax fuel heavily. Here we have numbers that whole fleets have to meet so a 1% difference is important to meet the law. What's a 1% difference going to look like on a 40 mpg auto? It's going to look like 40.4 mpg and no one will care at the point of purchase...


True, at first they used high registration and fuel taxes to "convince" folks to buy more fuel efficient cars.

We were the first in the grand experiment to have unleaded fuels, catalytic convertors, etc. However, we have now fallen far behind the Europeans.

Europeans lowered their fuel sulfur levels long before we even started debating it. Not only are our sulfur levels MUCH higher in fuels here, but especially in Canada the refiners are allowed to add large amounts of MMT, which contains manganese (Can cause premature failure of O2's and cats).

Europeans have always been more conscience of recycling too. It's a fact of life there. The reason why an oil change is so expensive is because they build-in the environmental cost of that oil change.

Using the Ford Excursion V10 again as an example, the EPA classifies it as a "Low Emission Vehicle." They're kidding, right? 10 MPG and it's also a LEV??

Of course, the EPA CAFE has that weird formula approach to fleet averages, and you can build CAFE "credits" with theoretical increases of fractional MPG to avoid EPA fines.

So I find it laughible that we can call a 10 MPG SUV a "green" truck. Catalytic convertors aren't some magic gadget that makes everything go away. You trade CO, HC for CO2.

I'm not a "tree hugger" by any definition but I do have common sense. When you compare the overall fleet MPG of most European cars to our domestic truck-based fleet, there are sobering numbers.

Jerry
 
I'd forget about running 5w-20 petroleum lubes and use an ultra premium, 0w-20,5w-20 or 0w-30,PAO/Ester synthetic. I've tested every viscosity from 0w-20 to 20w-50 over the past twenty years and seen very noticable fuel efficiency gains with the 0w-20/5w-20 and 0w-30 grades.

You will have to pay $7.00-$9.00/qt to get the best oils in these grades - oils like the Synergyn 0w-20, Amsoil Series 2000, Redline 5w-20 or the new Mobil 1-R. However if you run 12,000-15,000 mile change intervals like I do, the fuel savings alone will almost pay for the stuff.
 
Hi,
TooSlick - Ted, what records do you have to verify these fuel savings?

Can you share the data with us please as I am sure Jerry would be very very interested too!

Ted I notice that you have not provided input on the Detroit Diesel UOA's I posted some time ago
could you please oblige - thanks in anticipation!

Regards
Doug
cheers.gif


[ March 05, 2004, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
 
Doug,

I've used the Synergyn 0w-20 in the last year and have tons of experience with the S2000, 0w-30 since 1995 in a series of engine types. The most significant gains in fuel efficiency have been with OHC engines that have direct acting camshafts like older, two valve per cylinder VWs and Audis. Engines with pushrods and/or roller lifters already have more optimized valvetrains in terms of frictional losses.

If you can run a low vis, shear stable, synthetic and get acceptable rates of bearing wear, I think it's well worth it. I saw NO increase in oil consumption - even with the 0w-20 used all summer in Alabama. I believe this is partially due to decreases in average oil temps with low vis synthetics.

I've also seen several fleet tests of low vis., synthetic diesel oils like the BP/Castrol "Elixion" and S3000, that showed fuel savings of 3%-4%, compared to conventional 15w-40 lubes in over the road service. With short trip operation, I believe you'd do even better w/ the 5w instead of the 15w during the warmup phase of operation.

I honestly have NO experience with the 5w-20 Redline or Mobil 1R, 0w-30. My comments there are based on their excellent viscometrics and additive chemistry effects. But I'd be very surprised if both didn't show measurable fuel savings; compared to conventional 10w-30 oils.

Ted
 
One of the great things about Series 2000 0w-30 is that it's fuel efficient and shear stable. The oil is very friction modified.
 
Hi,

Yes Ted - but where is the actual data or is it hypothetical, circumstantial,........... and etc?

Even with clinical like fuel consumption monitoring replicating vehicle, driver (attitude, skill, knowledge ) and use parameters including temperature/weather is difficult if not totally impossible

Ted I have excellent database of fuel use records for my vehicles as I have spent millions of $ on fuel over the last decade and spend thousands daily. It is the greatest cost in a trucking fleet especially in Australia diesl fuel costs about $A0.90 per litre

I have run hundreds of Courses on the fuel economy subject since 1974 - 30 years - in a number of different Countries. We do in-cabin Driver training too and I have worked very closely with both Cummins and Detroit for many years. I have published many documents as well

I drove the pre-release prototype "Fuel Squeezer" 8v92TTA Detroit in the USA in 1975 - at Milton near New York as I recall

Without a doubt the Driver has the greatest influnce on a vehicle's fuel economy - all else being equal

In a Laboratory using a dyno and feeding in similar parameters, of course gains can be made from engine oil viscosity changes. As much if not more can be gained from lower viscosity/synthetic transmission lubricants too

We covered this in another tread on here Ted but there is simply too many variables involved

I'll wait to see your data before commenting further

Regards
Doug
cheers.gif
 
Hi Jerry,
yes the USA is not the World!

I love the USA and have been there many times and have lived some years in Europe

The different Automotive design philosphies have been part of my Professional life for nearly 50 years. Having trained with BMC and worked for MB, VW, and etc. you quickly learn that wasting energy resources is "foreign" to them

Fuel is too cheap in the USA and as soon as it is aligned to the rest of world pricing fuel inefficiency will remain a way of life there

And a 0w-20 oil in a test cell won't help a cracker!

I have owned SUVs too but currently my fuel efficient Subaru Outback 2.5 does all one could ask for. I will criuse at 160k+ and handles nearly like my BMW and Porsche. It gets well over 30mpg without trying too hard

There is also a public backlash here against large SUV's - taxes are likely to be imposed on these to limit their proliferation

TooSlick - Ted, where is the fuel economy data?
Thanks for the Detroit UOA comments - I'll reply soon

Regards
cheers.gif


[ March 06, 2004, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Doug Hillary ]
 
quote:

Originally posted by Doug Hillary:
Hi,

Yes Ted - but where is the actual data or is it hypothetical, circumstantial,........... and etc?

Even with clinical like fuel consumption monitoring replicating vehicle, driver (attitude, skill, knowledge ) and use parameters including temperature/weather is difficult if not totally impossible

Ted I have excellent database of fuel use records for my vehicles as I have spent millions of $ on fuel over the last decade and spend thousands daily. It is the greatest cost in a trucking fleet especially in Australia diesl fuel costs about $A0.90 per litre

I have run hundreds of Courses on the fuel economy subject since 1974 - 30 years - in a number of different Countries. We do in-cabin Driver training too and I have worked very closely with both Cummins and Detroit for many years. I have published many documents as well

I drove the pre-release prototype "Fuel Squeezer" 8v92TTA Detroit in the USA in 1975 - at Milton near New York as I recall

Without a doubt the Driver has the greatest influnce on a vehicle's fuel economy - all else being equal

In a Laboratory using a dyno and feeding in similar parameters, of course gains can be made from engine oil viscosity changes. As much if not more can be gained from lower viscosity/synthetic transmission lubricants too

We covered this in another tread on here Ted but there is simply too many variables involved

I'll wait to see your data before commenting further

Regards
Doug
cheers.gif


Doug:

Precisely. That's why all the hypothetical fuel economy "gains" are more than offset by a driver who keeps the pedal on the mat.

The best thing for us fleet owners was modern electronics. For example, the Cummins PowerSpec software on my laptop allows me to go into the cab, plug in the adaptor cable for the J1939 interface bus, and heavily modify the following:

Torque applied, max speed, cruise control range, idle cutoff based on temp, total idle time, max HP (Or "detune" the motor), low RPM grade lugging, etc etc etc.

I have averaged 10% gains fleet-wide by playing Big Brother and substantially derating my fleet. No magic elixirs in the crank, just common sense.

Of course, some drivers resent being monitored so closely. How about airline pilots, where every single control input is subject to review?

The good drivers quickly learn "easy does it" and drive the tractor/trailer the most economical means possible.

Lab testing with motors hooked up to precision instruments and mounted to a test stand may uncover fractional improvements in fuel economy.

As you mentioned Doug, how does that translate to the "real world?" In many cases, not very well.

To me, it still seems a** backwards that here in North America we promote this EPA CAFE nonsense so folks feel good about driving giant pickups and SUV's as "daily drivers."

I find it simply ironic that an individual exercises their "free will" to purchase a 10 MPG SUV, then complains about the high operating costs. They still drive alone to work. I used to do carpooling and it works well.

It's not the first time we hit a brick wall though. Remember the first OPEC oil embargo? All those fire breathing hotrod cars getting 6-10 MPG became obsolete overnight.

Just got back from the Toyota dealer and have test driven the Toyota Echo Hatchback. Overall, not bad for a tiny car. I truly think I could live with it. I wish it had a SMALLER motor though.

Since I have rented tiny 3 cylinder 1 litre cars in Europe while on vacation, I find nothing wrong with them. Their lack of subjective "power" is more than made up for by stellar fuel economy.

As an example, the VW Lupo 3L is rated 3 litre per 100 kilometre fuel consumption: that works out to around 94 miles per Imperial gallon, if my math is correct. The tiny turbodiesel won't melt the tires off, but who cares?

True, I probably would not want to drive from my house to Nevada and back in such a tiny car. Something like a Buick LeSabre or a Cadillac Deville would be far more comfortable.

Then again, for what it costs to drive +3,000km one way (Fuel, meals, motel, etc), it's usually cheaper and more environmentally friendly for me to fly. I get there in 4 hours instead of 3 days.

Jerry
 
Hello Doug:

That's right. Once fuel prices equalize to the rest of the world, and you know VERY WELL that is only a matter of time, we're going to see a lot of giant pickup trucks and SUV's in used lots.

If somebody wants to buy such a large vehicle that gets 10-12 MPG, let them. I just wish they wouldn't whine so much about the cost of fuel.

So rather than offer PROVEN technology that allows smaller cars to get +40 MPG, we instead have the EPA CAFE nonsense that applies theoretical increases of 0.6% - 1.6% fleet wide.

Of course, the car makers enjoy enormous profit margins on pickup trucks and SUV's. They even claim they lose money selling "small" cars.

That would imply that car makers in Europe and Japan lose huge amounts of money selling small cars. I doubt that.

As far as safety issues, it's true that when you're in a small car and you are hit by a giant SUV, you may likely die. Ever see what happens when two giant SUV's collide? Not a pretty sight.

So in the end, as a consumer I have to exercise my free will, such as it is, to make a sound decision for my second car.

I narrowed the field down to Honda Civic and Toyota Echo Hatchback. The tiny 1.5 litre VVT-i motor in the Toyota no longer uses timing belts but has a timing chain, and does not appear to requre routine valve adjustments.

The EPA rated fuel economy in miles per U.S. gallon (3.78 litre per gallon) is 35 city, 43 highway. By comparison, the Chevrolet Cavalier is rated 24 city and 34 highway, which is similar to the Ford Focus sold here.

So in the end I can juggle with theoretical fuel economy increases, or I can buy a small car that gets 25-30% greater fuel economy by design.

Let's not forget the driver, right? A gentle driver will almost always achieve superior road fuel economy over an aggressive driver.

Jerry
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top