ExiledInIllinois Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I'm not going to do anything. I did my part when I bought a house that makes my commute only 15 miles round trip. When I'm on the road I get mileage $. Aside from the waste of time every day, I don't understand why people, when given a choice, choose to commute so far away. Aside from the gas, the wear & tear on the car & the added time waste ends up more than the saving on the home's original cost over the years. (Unless you're in California where it's either move far away or rent). Worse yet are renters who live far away. Which came 1st, the chicken or egg? -If you had the job 1st, you should have bought closer (I don't buy the "country give our family a higher quality of life" stuff) If you got transferred or switched jobs & had no choice on the location after buying, it's at least understandable. People who rent have no excuse for 50+ mile one way commutes unless it is a very temporary situation. The only other excuse for a long commute is living with Mommy & Daddy and saving to get out. 422140[/snapback] Wear and tear on your vehicel can be greater if you drive LESS than more. Not letting your engine heat up can be ruinous to a lot of systems on it. Stuck in Cincy... Care to expand on how short drives can be bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 As usual, you don't know what you're talking about. I'd explain it, but others already have. 422107[/snapback] Oh yea, Mr. Know it All? http://www.sae.org/events/aars/presentations/2004-hill.pdf Gee...who will I believe...Bankrate.com or a report by the SAE? You may clean my clock on some issues, but when it comes to cars, dont tell me my business again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 What an exaggeration... Ya look out for your pocketbook... F America.. F patriotic people. 422126[/snapback] What does that gobblygooop mean, excatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I drive a fuel-efficient Saturn SL2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 He has not posted in almost two months and you still take shots at him? The advgice to leave your AC on is bull sh--. Nothing puts a bigger drag on your motor than a running AC compressor. Tying a fat drunken boy from Indiana to your roof causes less drag than running your AC. 422012[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 He has not posted in almost two months and you still take shots at him? 422790[/snapback] Exactly Rock! It is that highschool/locker room mentality that will never be ridded from this place. Take a look around... It comes from all levels here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Oh yea, Mr. Know it All? http://www.sae.org/events/aars/presentations/2004-hill.pdf Gee...who will I believe...Bankrate.com or a report by the SAE? You may clean my clock on some issues, but when it comes to cars, dont tell me my business again. 422411[/snapback] Leave it to engineers to conduct a study that offers no conclusive summary after reading 16 pages of engineering gobbledygook. Perhaps the minor tidbit of not knowing that they should use the word "effect" and not "affect" when describing the impact of energy saving features was a giveaway of the study's efficacy? So, is the conclusion of the study that AC on is always less efficient than AC off and windows down, as illustrated by the graphs? Or is the conclusion that at certain speeds, AC on is better on fuel than windows down, which was highlighted by many analysts and SAE engineers, but never graphically showed on the report? And then you wonder why beancounters sneer at engineers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 He has not posted in almost two months and you still take shots at him? 422790[/snapback] Uhhhhh....."Retatta"? EVERYONE'S taking shots at him, Rock.....why you singling ME out??!!?? Or is such talk prohibited for those outside of the special circle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Leave it to engineers to conduct a study that offers no conclusive summary after reading 16 pages of engineering gobbledygook. Perhaps the minor tidbit of not knowing that they should use the word "effect" and not "affect" when describing the impact of energy saving features was a giveaway of the study's efficacy? So, is the conclusion of the study that AC on is always less efficient than AC off and windows down, as illustrated by the graphs? Or is the conclusion that at certain speeds, AC on is better on fuel than windows down, which was highlighted by many analysts and SAE engineers, but never graphically showed on the report? And then you wonder why beancounters sneer at engineers. 423021[/snapback] The A/C is always less efficient. If you can find a three MPH curve when the car is going downhill, with a tailwind, in Texas, on a Tuesday where that is not true, fine. For the other 99.5% of the time, the A/C remains OFF to save gas. Anyone with a thimbleful of knowledge about cars knows that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 The A/C is always less efficient. If you can find a three MPH curve when the car is going downhill, with a tailwind, in Texas, on a Tuesday where that is not true, fine. For the other 99.5% of the time, the A/C remains OFF to save gas. Anyone with a thimbleful of knowledge about cars knows that. 423051[/snapback] Well, it's certainly not the conclusion that every linked report said (even your SAE report.) They were consistent in saying that at certain speeds, you're better off rolling up the windows & turning on the AC. The other part about the graph that I don't understand is the exponential curve of running the AC in an SUV. To me the graph says that the gas consumption of running the AC goes up in proportion with speed, which inherently doesn't make sense. Why would the compressor consume more energy if you're driving at a faster speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 The A/C is always less efficient. If you can find a three MPH curve when the car is going downhill, with a tailwind, in Texas, on a Tuesday where that is not true, fine. For the other 99.5% of the time, the A/C remains OFF to save gas. Anyone with a thimbleful of knowledge about cars knows that. 423051[/snapback] I will put this argument to rest. The best scientific minds our country has to offer (Myth Busters from the Discovery Channel) conducted an experiment that conclusively found that driving with your windows down and AC off saves more feul than driving with windows up with AC on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Leave it to engineers to conduct a study that offers no conclusive summary after reading 16 pages of engineering gobbledygook. Perhaps the minor tidbit of not knowing that they should use the word "effect" and not "affect" when describing the impact of energy saving features was a giveaway of the study's efficacy? So, is the conclusion of the study that AC on is always less efficient than AC off and windows down, as illustrated by the graphs? Or is the conclusion that at certain speeds, AC on is better on fuel than windows down, which was highlighted by many analysts and SAE engineers, but never graphically showed on the report? And then you wonder why beancounters sneer at engineers. 423021[/snapback] That study would be just a little more impressive if any of the pretty multicolor graphs had a vertical scale labelled. But they're pretty multicolored graphs...they must be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Well, it's certainly not the conclusion that every linked report said (even your SAE report.) They were consistent in saying that at certain speeds, you're better off rolling up the windows & turning on the AC. The other part about the graph that I don't understand is the exponential curve of running the AC in an SUV. To me the graph says that the gas consumption of running the AC goes up in proportion with speed, which inherently doesn't make sense. Why would the compressor consume more energy if you're driving at a faster speed? 423065[/snapback] It's a logarithmic curve. The actual values are the nearly straight lines towards the bottom of that graph, which show that the energy required to run the compressor goes down slightly with speed. Basically, they plotted two different graphs - kW/speed and log(kw)/speed - on the same scale, which is total bull sh--. You can't compare kilowatts to log(kilowatts). Like I said, sh-- study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Uhhhhh....."Retatta"? EVERYONE'S taking shots at him, Rock.....why you singling ME out??!!?? Or is such talk prohibited for those outside of the special circle? 423047[/snapback] You crossed the line? Not speaking for anybody else but, you did take a pretty PERSONAL jab by stating "fat drunken boy from Indiana". I have been here off and on in the past couple of months and knew exactly who you were talking about... I know nothing of what "Retatta" and what it means. It is still coded for me having never scoured the boards and I prefer to have it that way. Just my $.02. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Wear and tear on your vehicel can be greater if you drive LESS than more. Not letting your engine heat up can be ruinous to a lot of systems on it. Stuck in Cincy... Care to expand on how short drives can be bad? 422393[/snapback] Sure..moving assemblies expand with the heat of use and wear according to design. A rapid hot and cold cycle results in variance in lubricity (sluggish cold oil causing friction and early shut-down not putting enough heat energy into the sump contents, resulting in an uneven block and head and transmission warm-up. Analogy. In January, go outside and dump a gallon of cold water over your head. Wait ten minutes. Then jog in place for ten minutes. Then pour another gallon of water on yourself. Stand still and stiff for ten minutes. Feeling good? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Sure..moving assemblies expand with the heat of use and wear according to design. A rapid hot and cold cycle results in variance in lubricity (sluggish cold oil causing friction and early shut-down not putting enough heat energy into the sump contents, resulting in an uneven block and head and transmission warm-up. Analogy. In January, go outside and dump a gallon of cold water over your head. Wait ten minutes. Then jog in place for ten minutes. Then pour another gallon of water on yourself. Stand still and stiff for ten minutes. Feeling good? 423107[/snapback] See...I knew who would have the best explanation! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 Sure..moving assemblies expand with the heat of use and wear according to design. A rapid hot and cold cycle results in variance in lubricity (sluggish cold oil causing friction and early shut-down not putting enough heat energy into the sump contents, resulting in an uneven block and head and transmission warm-up. Analogy. In January, go outside and dump a gallon of cold water over your head. Wait ten minutes. Then jog in place for ten minutes. Then pour another gallon of water on yourself. Stand still and stiff for ten minutes. Feeling good? 423107[/snapback] I actually understood that. Although I question whether "lubricity" is actually a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Tate Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I leave the windows all the way down in my full size V8 pickup. I leave the A/C on full blast at all times so I still get a cool breeze when I slow down. Problem solved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 As far as I am concerned, there is just about nothing prohibited here. If there is an inner circle, they have my e-mail address if they want me. It is one thing to single out a dumb statement - Rettata and Google searches come to mind. So do 'tennis balls in the plughole' and 'I peed with Dorenbos' - both mine. I like a laugh as much as anyone. We have known each other a long time Rich. Why so sensitive? It is one thing to tease about a dumb statement or rant; it is another to take a personal shot at someone, especially since they left here. I avoid a lot of stuff, so I do not always know (or care) what everyone else is doing, but this caught my eye as I surfed through. I was not trying to single you out. I ask you a simple question and you respond with basically "everyone is doing it and why are you picking on me"? You can do better than that! If I see ya at the tail gate, I will buy you an ale. Don't take it so seriously. Uhhhhh....."Retatta"? EVERYONE'S taking shots at him, Rock.....why you singling ME out??!!?? Or is such talk prohibited for those outside of the special circle? 423047[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Panther Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 I leave the windows all the way down in my full size V8 pickup. I leave the A/C on full blast at all times so I still get a cool breeze when I slow down. Problem solved. 423190[/snapback] And our enemy... towel heads thank you for your support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts