Is fuel economy blown way out of proportion?
Discussion
Captain Muppet said:
I've just thought of a new example that might be easier to understand - you increase your speed by 100%.
Hands up everyone who thinks you save 100% of the time. Anyone?
Didn't think so.
If you double your speed you get there in half the time - this is obvious.
The percentages aren't the same though, because simple maths is sometimes not simple enough.
It's a shame because sometimes I walk to the pub and sometimes I drive. When I drive I'm going 750% faster, so I should save 112.5 minutes on my 15 minute journey. Which would mean I could drive to the pub, drink solidly for an hour and a half and still get home before having left, and therefore still be sober. And younger.
Gold! Hands up everyone who thinks you save 100% of the time. Anyone?
Didn't think so.
If you double your speed you get there in half the time - this is obvious.
The percentages aren't the same though, because simple maths is sometimes not simple enough.
It's a shame because sometimes I walk to the pub and sometimes I drive. When I drive I'm going 750% faster, so I should save 112.5 minutes on my 15 minute journey. Which would mean I could drive to the pub, drink solidly for an hour and a half and still get home before having left, and therefore still be sober. And younger.
That made me chuckle a treat, thanks.
Fastdruid said:
Captain Muppet said:
It's a shame because sometimes I walk to the pub and sometimes I drive. When I drive I'm going 750% faster, so I should save 112.5 minutes on my 15 minute journey. Which would mean I could drive to the pub, drink solidly for an hour and a half and still get home before having left, and therefore still be sober. And younger.
That only works if you take the Delorean.
irocfan said:
Appreciate the suggestion, however 260bhp out of a 4.6l v8 is just not trying hard enough! antspants said:
irocfan said:
Appreciate the suggestion, however 260bhp out of a 4.6l v8 is just not trying hard enough! 
I seriously looked at buying one but every company I contacted wanted £1500 to insure it. When a 4.5 Cerbera was £1000 and a Skyline GTR was £1200. I never found out why and no one at any of the insurance companies could figure it out either.
busta said:
big_boz said:
It is a sad indictment of the times we live in if a few pounds is more important to people that the act of being alive and doing "things" that enrich their own lives and the life of others, i know the last thing i think when i'm on my death bed in (fingers crossed at least 60 years from now)...wont be that i wished i had driven a bit quicker and seen and done more.
This sums it up for me. I'm self employed and have lots of hobbies. I want to spend my life having fun, but I also need to earn money. Sitting at 60mph on a motorway achieves neither of those things. The saving in fuel/hour is significantly less than my hourly rate. It's also less than I'd be prepared to fore-fit for an hour doing what I want to do. I enjoy driving quickly and the art of making progress.Life is far to short to worry about saving £2 of fuel an hour, especially if that hour is dull.
It's quite hilarious reading all these posts from people who think fuel economy is over-rated, but yet choose to live miles away from where they really need to be.
big_boz said:
oyster said:
1. There is no way on UK motorways that travelling say 20% faster saves you 20% of the time - with the volume of traffic it just doesn't work like that.
2. If you're really so worried about saving time on the motorway, why do you have a job that involves travelling so far?
1. If your average speed is 20% higher, you save 20% in time, this is simple maths. In case you have forgotten from school, Speed = Distance/time..... fairly simple maths2. If you're really so worried about saving time on the motorway, why do you have a job that involves travelling so far?
2.I am not "worried" about it, time is not the point of this thread, perceived monetary savings derived from greater MPG is. As such i have illustrated that a relatively small extra expense equates to less travel time and more time doing whatever you traveled to do. Clearly you have missed the point entirely, that being, an additional 5MPG (or whatever you gain by driving at say 65 vs 75) is worth very little in your pocket, and to me at least time is worth than money. As it goes i have changed jobs recently and now only commute 16 miles total per day now, thus most of my distance journeys are now to do something not work related, like seeing family. To me i would rather spend more time with my loved ones and less time staring at the back of your car (i assume you are a 65'er based on your post?) and spend a little extra on fuel.
You don't need to look at the back of my car, you can just overtake. I'll be doing 55 in lane 1. Saving my money for my next trip to a racetrack or for a weekend hoon. You know - real driving.
oyster said:
In your post you talked about doing 90mph over 150 miles? Where in the UK could you possibly do that. There is almost no motorway route that doesn't have roadworks every 50 or so miles. Oh and then there's traffic jams too.
You don't need to look at the back of my car, you can just overtake. I'll be doing 55 in lane 1. Saving my money for my next trip to a racetrack or for a weekend hoon. You know - real driving.
For work visiting sites etc I don't bother speeding, just not worth it. 70 (on the GPS) tops but normally 70 (on the speedo) which is 65 or so. Its work time so either I'm 'being paid' or it's overtime, either way I'm not risking my license.You don't need to look at the back of my car, you can just overtake. I'll be doing 55 in lane 1. Saving my money for my next trip to a racetrack or for a weekend hoon. You know - real driving.
Oh and I _can_ get 35mpg out of mine over a run at ~70ish, probably even more if I was to do 55 I just don't because it's much more satisfying to go <clarkson>POWER!!</clarkson>, I do 7k a year personal though so I just don't care.
I stopped using my 350Z for work. 40 mile round trip each day, at 20 MPG or less on super unleaded was costing about £70 a week.
The same trip in a 1.7 Ford Puma is costing just shy of £35 a week.
That's a saving of almost £2K a year.
I don't usually have much fun on the way to work, or back. Normally there might be about 5 minutes out of the 45 minutes it takes where I can have any fun... and to be quite honest, long straight bits excepted, they are just as much fun in the Puma as they were in the Zed. And those straight bits could have potentially lost me my licence one day.
Unlike most PHers it would seem, having £2K back in my pocket a year for what is not a particularly fun drive makes quite a difference to me. It's the difference in fact from possibly being able to go on holiday once a year, or not.
I guess I'm just not enough of a committed petrolhead any more to justify this.
And this is without taking into account the extra road tax, insurance and maintenance costs, all of which add up to another £1k in the pocket.
Blown out of proportion? Only if having £3K per year extra means nothing to you... sadly, on my non-directorship wage, it does to me.
The same trip in a 1.7 Ford Puma is costing just shy of £35 a week.
That's a saving of almost £2K a year.
I don't usually have much fun on the way to work, or back. Normally there might be about 5 minutes out of the 45 minutes it takes where I can have any fun... and to be quite honest, long straight bits excepted, they are just as much fun in the Puma as they were in the Zed. And those straight bits could have potentially lost me my licence one day.
Unlike most PHers it would seem, having £2K back in my pocket a year for what is not a particularly fun drive makes quite a difference to me. It's the difference in fact from possibly being able to go on holiday once a year, or not.
I guess I'm just not enough of a committed petrolhead any more to justify this.
And this is without taking into account the extra road tax, insurance and maintenance costs, all of which add up to another £1k in the pocket.
Blown out of proportion? Only if having £3K per year extra means nothing to you... sadly, on my non-directorship wage, it does to me.
TameRacingDriver said:
I stopped using my 350Z for work. 40 mile round trip each day, at 20 MPG or less on super unleaded was costing about £70 a week.
The same trip in a 1.7 Ford Puma is costing just shy of £35 a week.
That's a saving of almost £2K a year.
I don't usually have much fun on the way to work, or back. Normally there might be about 5 minutes out of the 45 minutes it takes where I can have any fun... and to be quite honest, long straight bits excepted, they are just as much fun in the Puma as they were in the Zed. And those straight bits could have potentially lost me my licence one day.
Unlike most PHers it would seem, having £2K back in my pocket a year for what is not a particularly fun drive makes quite a difference to me. It's the difference in fact from possibly being able to go on holiday once a year, or not.
I guess I'm just not enough of a committed petrolhead any more to justify this.
And this is without taking into account the extra road tax, insurance and maintenance costs, all of which add up to another £1k in the pocket.
Blown out of proportion? Only if having £3K per year extra means nothing to you... sadly, on my non-directorship wage, it does to me.
I'm the same. The same trip in a 1.7 Ford Puma is costing just shy of £35 a week.
That's a saving of almost £2K a year.
I don't usually have much fun on the way to work, or back. Normally there might be about 5 minutes out of the 45 minutes it takes where I can have any fun... and to be quite honest, long straight bits excepted, they are just as much fun in the Puma as they were in the Zed. And those straight bits could have potentially lost me my licence one day.
Unlike most PHers it would seem, having £2K back in my pocket a year for what is not a particularly fun drive makes quite a difference to me. It's the difference in fact from possibly being able to go on holiday once a year, or not.
I guess I'm just not enough of a committed petrolhead any more to justify this.
And this is without taking into account the extra road tax, insurance and maintenance costs, all of which add up to another £1k in the pocket.
Blown out of proportion? Only if having £3K per year extra means nothing to you... sadly, on my non-directorship wage, it does to me.
I like going out in the car, don't really care what car it is, just like to be able to jump in it and go where I want.
If I can do that without thinking about costs in a 2 litre diesel then so be it.
I have owned loads of nice thirsty motors, but it does start to wind you up. I had an V8 S4 and that cost me £900 in fuel one month, simply going up and down the motorways of the UK, pointless!
If you're buying a car purely for fun, many of my fiends train into work and only use their car at the weekend, then fair enough, buy something that you like regardless, but for many the difference between a car doing 20mpg and 50mpg is the difference between owning a 10 year old car or having a brand new one with no hidden cost surprises that might pop up.
If my mortgage was paid, I had no kids, and I was not worrying about what I am going to live on when I retire in 25 years I wouldn't really care, but when I sat down and did the maths the expensive cars went and I wnet back to older economical cars.
I am saving around £15000 a year compared with a couple of years back. On its own yeah 'fuel economy blown way out of proportion?' but when you put it all together and do the real sums no it is not.
No one posted this yet http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detail...
In all seriousness the number of people I know that have swapped their perfectly good, minimal-depreciation cars for brand new eco-boxes astounds me. I genuinely think that most people don't either know about or understand depreciation.
In all seriousness the number of people I know that have swapped their perfectly good, minimal-depreciation cars for brand new eco-boxes astounds me. I genuinely think that most people don't either know about or understand depreciation.
I sold my beloved Impreza in 2007 and replaced it with a 120d
In order to make myself feel a bit better, I calculated how much money I was saving. The monthly total saving, including fuel for 1400 miles per month, road tax and insurance was just over £100. That is a significant amount of money to me, although it's probably loose change to many PHers.
In order to make myself feel a bit better, I calculated how much money I was saving. The monthly total saving, including fuel for 1400 miles per month, road tax and insurance was just over £100. That is a significant amount of money to me, although it's probably loose change to many PHers.
cornet said:
In all seriousness the number of people I know that have swapped their perfectly good, minimal-depreciation cars for brand new eco-boxes astounds me. I genuinely think that most people don't either know about or understand depreciation.
You're forgetting that most important aspect of a new car purchase, the "I need a feelgood moment" factor.I want a new car, the finance of the last one is out, I have a few quid to spend, I want more shiny, I want something nicer than the neighbours, I want the people at work to think I'm doing well and so on and so on.
If that didn't exist, the car industry would be screwed - totally...
Economy etc. is an excuse in the way that other factors were - they're even an excuse for Govt when they run irresponsible stupidity like the scrappage scheme which was environmentally harmful and drove UP cheaper car prices (e.g. it taxed the poor - AGAIN).
As if depreciation is the be all and end all. Old car needs more tlc, and a lot of thirsty cars come with fairly high running costs too. New car = warranty = no unexpected bills. And in the longer term the shift to more economical cars will eventually save them money.
For me personally, I do want to drive sporty cars but no longer have time for gas guzzlers. Give me an elise over a 20 mpg special any day.
For me personally, I do want to drive sporty cars but no longer have time for gas guzzlers. Give me an elise over a 20 mpg special any day.
TameRacingDriver said:
As if depreciation is the be all and end all. Old car needs more tlc, and a lot of thirsty cars come with fairly high running costs too. New car = warranty = no unexpected bills. And in the longer term the shift to more economical cars will eventually save them money.
A new car can be far cheaper than running an old one. Someone was saying the other day that he is contract hiring a Nissan Juke, £660 deposit and then £110 a month for 24 months, including vat.
The 1.6 petrol is not quick, but refined and is returning and average of 38mpg mostly round town.
Compared to his 7 year old 3 series that is still loosing £50 a month, costing around £800 a year to keep on the road over the last 3 years and it was only returning 26mpg.
All in all he reckons the new car is cheaper and with no concerns over hidden bills etc.
The better consumption is just one piece of the overall ownership that keeps costs down.
I'm truly dreading the day when i become so sensible that i'd trade in an ineffecient but fun car that i love because a brand new eco box will work out cheaper and "get me from A to B just as fast, i mean you can't go over 70 mph anyway so why bother with a fast car" surely life is about fun and enjoying as much of your time on earth as possible
if saving money on fuel is going to give you the spare cash to do something else you truly love then great, however if you're saving money on fuel but just for that to be offset against a new finance agrement then it seems utterly pointless, surely any "feel good factor" that comes from buying a brand new eco box is gone within 6 months
if saving money on fuel is going to give you the spare cash to do something else you truly love then great, however if you're saving money on fuel but just for that to be offset against a new finance agrement then it seems utterly pointless, surely any "feel good factor" that comes from buying a brand new eco box is gone within 6 months
gizlaroc said:
A new car can be far cheaper than running an old one.
Someone was saying the other day that he is contract hiring a Nissan Juke, £660 deposit and then £110 a month for 24 months, including vat.
The 1.6 petrol is not quick, but refined and is returning and average of 38mpg mostly round town.
Compared to his 7 year old 3 series that is still loosing £50 a month, costing around £800 a year to keep on the road over the last 3 years and it was only returning 26mpg.
All in all he reckons the new car is cheaper and with no concerns over hidden bills etc.
The better consumption is just one piece of the overall ownership that keeps costs down.
It's a good example that might work - I do see that keeping the Beemer is still 15% cheaper to run each year if it really does need £800 worth of work. Someone was saying the other day that he is contract hiring a Nissan Juke, £660 deposit and then £110 a month for 24 months, including vat.
The 1.6 petrol is not quick, but refined and is returning and average of 38mpg mostly round town.
Compared to his 7 year old 3 series that is still loosing £50 a month, costing around £800 a year to keep on the road over the last 3 years and it was only returning 26mpg.
All in all he reckons the new car is cheaper and with no concerns over hidden bills etc.
The better consumption is just one piece of the overall ownership that keeps costs down.
That's excluding fuel, if his town is quoted maybe he is doing shorter journeys and low ish mileage which would make the difference quite small.
However there is nothing wrong with fancying a change, in your mates scenario if the BMW really is costing £800 every year there isn't much in it. Certainly beats someone trading their car for a brand new diesel and paying double, even triple on the lease.
BRMMA said:
I'm truly dreading the day when i become so sensible that i'd trade in an ineffecient but fun car that i love because a brand new eco box will work out cheaper and "get me from A to B just as fast, i mean you can't go over 70 mph anyway so why bother with a fast car" surely life is about fun and enjoying as much of your time on earth as possible
if saving money on fuel is going to give you the spare cash to do something else you truly love then great, however if you're saving money on fuel but just for that to be offset against a new finance agrement then it seems utterly pointless, surely any "feel good factor" that comes from buying a brand new eco box is gone within 6 months
I think that is the important thing you have to weigh up. if saving money on fuel is going to give you the spare cash to do something else you truly love then great, however if you're saving money on fuel but just for that to be offset against a new finance agrement then it seems utterly pointless, surely any "feel good factor" that comes from buying a brand new eco box is gone within 6 months
I would buy another M3, I would buy a 911. But for now a saloon with a nice engine doesn't appeal as much as one that does 0-60 in sub 8 seconds and still returns 45-65mpg.
Although, you then have things like the M135i that does 60 in 4.5 seconds and still does 30-40mpg.
To me the difference between 25mpg and 30mpg is not worth worrying about, the difference between 25 and 45mpg is worth worrying about, now I have a 45mpg car going back would not be easy.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff