Testing the federal governments fuel saving advice

[BullittSV6]

Just found this, Wheels tested the fuel saving advice, some good savings to be made, while other suggestions by the federal government are just plain stupid.

They tested driving style, peak vs off peak travel, switching engine off at the lights, tyre pressures, cruise vs no criuse, cruise at 90 instead of 110, air con vs windows open.

They have shown the fuel savings they acheived in the test as well so you can see which methods work the best.

Wheels - Who's fuelling who?

[minux]

lol @ turning the car off at lights, I have had 3 occasions where if I had done this, I'd be dead because some idiot wasn't watching and would of rammed up my arse.

I didnt realise there was a green guide for vehicles, let me guess another great KRudd initituive that cost the taxpayers millions in research?
Doing 90 in a 110 zone...mmm thats real safe.

Seriously, if people don't want to spend money on fuel DONT DRIVE.

[Jesterarts]

^^^ I'm with minux on this one...

The driving at 90kmph in a 110pmph zone this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard... just another reason for all those "safe" drivers with the "drive right" stickers on theyr cars to be even "safer" and drive even slower...

Driving without lights... can't beleive they tested that... wtf... there is already enough idiots out there driving around when its getting dark, raining or foggy without lights on and its plain dangerous... can't see them.

Missing rush hours??? They had to research this?? Seriously??? Cause I already didn't know that sitting in a traffic jam isn't the most economical way to get from A to B.

I can't believe they wasted money on this "research" rubbish to in the end to basically come to the conclusion that sitting in traffic and flooring your car wastes fuel...

Things like this serisouly make me beleive that there is a covert department in the governments and its soul purpose is to come up with new ways to waste tax payers money.

Con-incidentally.... this is probably the most successful and focused department of all.

[azkwazere]

Its not that, people want to reduce the cots fo having to drive. Having a car is pretty much required these days. Some jobs actually require it..so its hardly totally avoidable.. Ive tried!

So its mroe a reduction in costs...

Ill summarise the article so others dont have to read the whole thing to get the jist...

ok:

Car: Calais V6 VE
Tests:

CITY AND SUBURBS

PASSIVE PEDDLER

Potential Fuel Saving: up to 40%
Verdict: Extremely worthwhile; Chillax while driving, slow down...

TOLL ROADS

Economic Benefit: negative
Verdict: Faster if flowing; almost always more costly

ENGINE OFF

Potential Fuel Saving: negligible
Verdict: Annoying and pointless, except in absolute gridlock

TYRE PRESSURES

Potential Fuel Saving: up to 5%
Verdict: Essential for safety, moderately useful for consumption

MISS RUSH HOUR

Potential Fuel Saving: 52%
Verdict: Extremely worthwhile; difficult to put into practice

USE CRUISE

Potential Fuel Saving: up to 8%
Verdict: Worthwhile ... but only if you’re a leadfoot

CRUISE AT 90km/h

Potential Fuel Saving: up to 9%
Verdict: You’re kidding - Summerised...Quite dangerous for a $92 Saving

WINDOWS OPEN

Potential Fuel Saving: up to 4%
Verdict: Ridiculous

CONCLUSION
The good news is that two small but significant changes to the way you use your car could mean a worthwhile cut in your personal fuel consumption.

For more information go to:

Wheels - Who's fuelling who?

aZk.

[BullittSV6]

^^^ I'm with minux on this one...

The driving at 90kmph in a 110pmph zone this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard... just another reason for all those "safe" drivers with the "drive right" stickers on theyr cars to be even "safer" and drive even slower...

Driving without lights... can't beleive they tested that... wtf... there is already enough idiots out there driving around when its getting dark, raining or foggy without lights on and its plain dangerous... can't see them.

Missing rush hours??? They had to research this?? Seriously??? Cause I already didn't know that sitting in a traffic jam isn't the most economical way to get from A to B.

I can't believe they wasted money on this "research" rubbish to in the end to basically come to the conclusion that sitting in traffic and flooring your car wastes fuel...

Things like this serisouly make me beleive that there is a covert department in the governments and its soul purpose is to come up with new ways to waste tax payers money.

Con-incidentally.... this is probably the most successful and focused department of all.

You have to remember it is actually wheels testing the government's suggestions, not the government wasting money on tests, proving just how stupid the suggestions are, some of these suggestions are total crap!

Also where did they test with having their lights off...

I think its useful to see just how much fuel you are actually saving.

[stocky]

oh cmon, wheres the "driving 3 feet behind a big truck on the highway" fuel saving advice? lol

[Tom_1569]

lol @ turning the car off at lights, I have had 3 occasions where if I had done this, I'd be dead because some idiot wasn't watching and would of rammed up my arse.

I didnt realise there was a green guide for vehicles, let me guess another great KRudd initituive that cost the taxpayers millions in research?
Doing 90 in a 110 zone...mmm thats real safe.

Seriously, if people don't want to spend money on fuel DONT DRIVE.

I agree with Minux (is this a bad thing lol)

But if you cant afford fuel, then dont drive. Honestly I will make my car econimcal in anyway I can, BUT I will not compromise on safety, i.e My headlights are always on as soon as it starts to get dark, and I sure dont turn my car off unless im parked.

[BullittSV6]

Ok i'm confused, where in the article does it mention driving without lights

[minux]

You have to remember it is actually wheels testing the government's suggestions, not the government wasting money on tests, proving just how stupid the suggestions are, some of these suggestions are total crap!

The government would have wasted a ****load in producing these by testing. Surely people can see this govt has already wasted enough money(with Grocery watch $13 million dollar website FAIL) and Fuel watch(11 million dollar fail).

If people do not realise that smooth accelerating and travelling with less traffic on the road is more fuel efficent, then I suggest a cull of these people to save humanity.

[MasterOfReality]

Here is another perspective.

Me and a mate going to work in my Suzuki Grand Vitara.

It averages 9 L/100km on the drive to work and back.

On a per person basis, me and and my mate are using roughly the same amount of fuel as the bloke in front of us in his Prius.

I go for a cruise with me and 3 mates in my 5 litre. Averages 16L/100km. That works out to 4L/100km per person.

Fuel efficiency is very subjective.

[Rufus®]

oh cmon, wheres the "driving 3 feet behind a big truck on the highway" fuel saving advice? lol

lol, they tested this on myth busters and maximum efficiency was around 12ft, supposedly saving 33%, when they did it at 2ft it dropped to 27%.

[Jesterarts]

You have to remember it is actually wheels testing the government's suggestions, not the government wasting money on tests, proving just how stupid the suggestions are, some of these suggestions are total crap!

Also where did they test with having their lights off...

I think its useful to see just how much fuel you are actually saving.

Yeah... but I bet it cost alot for the government to come up with those suggestions. Thus... I will ot retract my government bashing comments lol

[Jesterarts]

lol, they tested this on myth busters and maximum efficiency was around 12ft, supposedly saving 33%, when they did it at 2ft it dropped to 27%.

Now thats a saving...! lol... Good ol' myth busters FTW again!

[BullittSV6]

Yeah... but I bet it cost alot for the government to come up with those suggestions. Thus... I will ot retract my government bashing comments lol

You and minux have a point, they just reiterated what most motorists already know.

I will also stand by my point that it is useful to see just how much is saved by using these suggestions in the real world. Some of the suggestions are just silly and dangerous...you have to wonder a) which goose who thought of them and b) did they test all of them.

[minux]

You and minux have a point, they just reiterated what most motorists already know.

I will also stand by my point that it is useful to see just how much is saved by using these suggestions in the real world. Some of the suggestions are just silly and dangerous...you have to wonder a) which goose who thought of them and b) did they test all of them.

The goose who thought of it is probably chauffeur driven around courtesy of the tax payers.

[BullittSV6]

Just to make my position clear:

I believe that it was a waste of tax payers money bringing in these guidelines and setting up a website that gives suggestions which most people already know.

I believe wheels did the right thing in testing these suggestions and published the actual savings.

[BullittSV6]

This is whats on the actual website (Items that are in bold are WTF moments): Air Pollution

Tips for greener motoring



Your driving habits, the type of vehicle you drive and the conditions under which you drive will affect your vehicle's environmental performance. Follow these tips for greener driving.

Minimise your vehicle use
Think about your travel needs prior to your travel. Planned travel decisions will result in fewer trips and more efficient/cheaper travel than unplanned decisions made 'on the go'. Some travel planning tips:

*Plan to do a number of errands in one trip rather than several trips and save both time and fuel (for the first couple of minutes of a car trip the engine is cold and this results in an increase in fuel consumption per kilometre).

*Patronise shops near to you whenever possible to reduce the distances you travel by car. Walk or cycle to your local shops if you can.
Avoid peak-hour traffic whenever possible.

*Use alternative transport, eg. public transport (bus, train, tram or ferry), walking or cycling. These alternative methods of travel are often cheaper, and may provide other benefits including increased fitness.

Drive in high gear
The engine runs most efficiently between around 1,500 and 2,500 rpm (lower in diesels). To maintain these low revs you should change up through the gears as soon as practical and before the revs reach 2,500 rpm. Automatic transmissions will shift up more quickly and smoothly if you ease back slightly on the accelerator once the car gathers momentum.

Drive smoothly - avoid unnecessary acceleration
Drive at a good distance from the car in front so you can anticipate and travel with the flow of traffic. You will be able to see such things as traffic lights changing or cars turning and minimise your fuel use through braking and accelerating back up to full speed.

Minimise fuel wasted in idling
Minimise fuel wasted in idling by stopping the engine whenever your car is stopped or held up for an extended period of time. By having the engine switched off, even for a short period, you will save more fuel than is lost from the burst of fuel involved in restarting the engine. The net increased wear and tear from this practice is negligible.

Speed kills economy
High speeds result in high fuel consumption. At 110 km/h your car can use up to 25% more fuel than it would cruising at 90 km/h.

Minimise aerodynamic drag
Additional parts on the exterior of a vehicle such as roof racks and spoilers, or having the window open, increases air resistance and fuel consumption, in some cases by over 20%.

Look after your vehicle's tyres
Inflate your vehicle's tyres to the highest pressure recommended by the tyre manufacturer and make sure your wheels are properly aligned (remember to keep your spare tire inflated as well). Looking after your tyres will not only reduce your fuel consumption it will also extend tyre life and improve handling.

Use air conditioning sparingly
Air conditioners can use extra fuel when operating. However, at speeds of over 80 km/h, the use of air conditioning is better for fuel consumption than an open window.

Travel light
Don't carry more people or cargo than you have to. The more a vehicle carries the more fuel it uses; an extra 50kg of weight can increase your fuel bill by around 2%.

Service your vehicle regularly
Keeping your vehicle well tuned will minimise its environmental impact.

[Full Spectrum]

I wonder if anyone knows a secret, The green cars guide was made in the Howard dictatorship. Who is the fool?.

http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/...ter_choice.pdf


So anyway after people stop there sooking and moaning, You will realize people actually want these facts figures, No matter the cost, Because they actually want ideas to try and reduce there fuel economy..
Doesn't matter if you can or can't afford the fuel, Everyone is still trying to get decant fuel economy from there cars..
Whilst some ideas are very stupid, Windows down, Can't work that out..
Sitting behind a truck, we all know that one, But who wants half the roads dirt and grim stones etc on our beautiful paint work?..

Best thing is, Drive careful, Drive when you need to, avoid traffic "if" possible, It's not a race drive smooth.

I personal like Cruise control, And set mine when ever i can, It saves my leg, It keeps me at a good throttle position, And i wont be caught by speed camera's also.
It's saved me a few km's.


One more thing, Where did it actually say drive at night with no lights on??.. I think it was alluding to the fact many people drive during the day with lights on, For show.

[commsirac]

One more thing, Where did it actually say drive at night with no lights on??.. I think it was alluding to the fact many people drive during the day with lights on, For show.

Yeh, where did it say about lights?
Interestingly, the daytime running lamps law in Canada has been widely criticised for the amount of fuel it consumes. While the average motorist probably cant measure the difference in fuel used on a per tank basis, the extra power required to drive the lights doesnt come from no where and when taken across the whole country certainly adds up to a significant amount of extra CO2 produced. Im certain, though in winter light levels in Canada are low enough during the day to warrant the lights hence why the law were perhaps implemented.

Back to this country, I reckon all road coloured cars should be driving around with at least parkers on in this country during the daytime on overcast days.
While my eyesight still measures up as excellent, at times I have nearly missed seeing one of those grey ghosts on the grey tarmac against a grey sky. Grey = every non descript colour like the many shades of charcoal, black, silver, chamagne etc that seem to form the majority of new vehicle colours atm.

The recommendations for less fuel use come from an environmental standpoint, whereas the wheels testing looks at it entirely from a cost perspective. Sure turning the motor off saves about 5c/minute, yet the collective CO2 released from cars that are idling unnecessarily is significant, one of the reasons electric vehicles/hybrids do offer greater benefits when operated in stop start traffic. Actually, how accurate is the wheels testing, they claim they accuracy of the fuel used is to the nearest 10mls, because that is what the readout on the dash says? did they test to see if it really is accurate to the nearest 10mls, and how did they get that it uses 6.3mls on a hot restart? I can tell you a car running a lpg mixer users zero extra fuel on restart.
Minux: nearly been killed three times while sitting in traffic and you were able to be saved by accelerating forwards?(past a red light?) id of given up driving if id had that many near misses at your young age.

Dangerous to drive at 90km/h on a road designed for 110km/h? perhaps, but there are no roads in vic at least where the limit is set as such on a single land road. When I was on Ps, the open road limit was 80km/h, dont remember it being dangerous...but did take a bit longer to get places!
I dont see a lot of problems on our freeways atm with vehicles moving at less than the speed limit keeping to the left lane, isnt that the only reason there is a right hand lane? to get pass vehicles that are going slower than 110km/h?

Cruise control? the system on the vx is a bit heavy, the throttle cycles on and off quite severely on less than perfect surfaces and dippy roads etc which my trials so far show uses more fuel than could be achieved by a lighter right foot, but not conclusive. On a billiard table flat freeway, it behaves much better.

Actually Master of Reality has got it right. Its not about what you drive or how you drive it, its about how much fuel you use. An hsv driven stupidly for a km will use less fuel than a prius driven through traffic for an hour.

[Reaper]

You have to remember it is actually wheels testing the government's suggestions, not the government wasting money on tests, proving just how stupid the suggestions are, some of these suggestions are total crap!

Also where did they test with having their lights off...

I think its useful to see just how much fuel you are actually saving.

I'm sure some tree hugger spent a ****load of government grant to come up with their little booklet.

Reaper

[Cheap6]

The government would have wasted a ****load in producing these by testing. Surely people can see this govt has already wasted enough money(with Grocery watch $13 million dollar website FAIL) and Fuel watch(11 million dollar fail).

If the coalition (or Costello) gets their act together, we might see this being a one term gov't. With any luck.

Yeah... but I bet it cost alot for the government to come up with those suggestions. Thus... I will not retract my government bashing comments lol

The goose who thought of it is probably chauffeur driven around courtesy of the tax payers.

Just to make my position clear:

I believe that it was a waste of tax payers money bringing in these guidelines and setting up a website that gives suggestions which most people already know.

I believe wheels did the right thing in testing these suggestions and published the actual savings.

Anyone else watch the Hollowmen?

And, has anyone else noticed ********s cruising along at 10km/h below the speed limit, presumably in an attempt to save fuel, on an otherwise empty road? That's fine except when it's done in such a way as to block the road (sometimes two of them do it side by side and block both lanes, sometimes it's just a single lane road).

Often I get stuck behind someone doing this and then have to stop and idle at traffic lights while they get through. How much fuel (CO2) is saved then and by whom? Selfish and self absorbed. It's ironic when those doing it are driving an SUV.

Driving for better fuel economy is good but needs to be done within reason.

[CSP]

many people drive during the day with lights on, For show.

I think you'll find many people drive with their lights on during the day because IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SAFER!!! Nothing to do with "show". NRMA were actually giving people fuel vouchers at one time for driving with their lights on.

I will always drive with my lights on. Anything that helps with visibility is a GOOD thing.

[BullittSV6]

I think you'll find many people drive with their lights on during the day because IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SAFER!!! Nothing to do with "show". NRMA were actually giving people fuel vouchers at one time for driving with their lights on.

I will always drive with my lights on. Anything that helps with visibility is a GOOD thing.

Yeah definately, there are even signs here in SA beside the highway saying put your lights on 24 hours a day, and anything that makes you more visible to other motorists and pedestriants can only be a good thing.

[Full Spectrum]

Yeh, where did it say about lights?
Interestingly, the daytime running lamps law in Canada has been widely criticised for the amount of fuel it consumes. While the average motorist probably cant measure the difference in fuel used on a per tank basis, the extra power required to drive the lights doesnt come from no where and when taken across the whole country certainly adds up to a significant amount of extra CO2 produced. Im certain, though in winter light levels in Canada are low enough during the day to warrant the lights hence why the law were perhaps implemented.

I don't remember wheels doing a section at all on lights?.

I do drive with parkers, More for people to pay more attention behind me, But many that drive with light on in day weather, Only do so for the show factor with fog lights, They want to be noticed more then seen.

Back to this country, I reckon all road coloured cars should be driving around with at least parkers on in this country during the daytime on overcast days.
While my eyesight still measures up as excellent, at times I have nearly missed seeing one of those grey ghosts on the grey tarmac against a grey sky. Grey = every non descript colour like the many shades of charcoal, black, silver, chamagne etc that seem to form the majority of new vehicle colours atm.

I'd have no issue if a law was passed for parkers during day driving, Your right on some cars, There colors are extremely hard to view on a back ground they mimic.

Dangerous to drive at 90km/h on a road designed for 110km/h? perhaps, but there are no roads in vic at least where the limit is set as such on a single land road. When I was on Ps, the open road limit was 80km/h, dont remember it being dangerous...but did take a bit longer to get places!
I dont see a lot of problems on our freeways atm with vehicles moving at less than the speed limit keeping to the left lane, isnt that the only reason there is a right hand lane? to get pass vehicles that are going slower than 110km/h?

Mine was like that, They liked me to sit @ 60 around local, But highways was always below marked speeds..

Also, Trucks are not allowed to sit on 110 they need to sit @ 100. Most trucks have issues with doing 90 with some hills..

Wish we would exstend the keep right unless overtaking to any multi lane roads.

Cruise control? the system on the vx is a bit heavy, the throttle cycles on and off quite severely on less than perfect surfaces and dippy roads etc which my trials so far show uses more fuel than could be achieved by a lighter right foot, but not conclusive. On a billiard table flat freeway, it behaves much better.

I'm probebly very lucky to drive around a pretty flat section of roads.

I think you'll find many people drive with their lights on during the day because IT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE SAFER!!! Nothing to do with "show". NRMA were actually giving people fuel vouchers at one time for driving with their lights on.

I will always drive with my lights on. Anything that helps with visibility is a GOOD thing.

I'm talking about the Fog light brigade.

[minux]

Also, Trucks are not allowed to sit on 110 they need to sit @ 100. Most trucks have issues with doing 90 with some hills..

Wish we would exstend the keep right unless overtaking to any multi lane roads.

Of course some have issues, they are usually carrying a lot of weight. As for keep right on any multi lane road, why? How the **** do you turn? Have you ever actually driven at least a HA? I am presuming not by your comment, try driving up any melbourne multi lane rd and go from the left lane to the right lane to make a turn. It is near impossible with the wankers in Melbourne because once they see your indicator go on it is like a race to get past you.

Until there is no ****wits like this driving, the laws on keeping right in speedzones below 90 km/h will not change.