Stretching the Gallon on the Road

You can't get there faster. This is the reason for ground stops, delays, being stuck on the ramp for hours at a time... There are waaaayyy more airplanes than there are gates. The a/c are scheduled to be in at the gate at a certain time, and out of the gate by a certain time. You think boat slips are expensive? Try to buy time at a gate. Since the business traveler has chosen cost as the primary determining factor in choosing a carrier, carriers have to match the costs of the lowest common denominator. It's not the airlines fault. It's simply economics.

So, they operate with the minimum number of gates possible. It's my job to get you there 1) Safely 2) Comfortably 3) On Time (early does no good) 4) Economically. I strive to get the jet to the gate with the max amount of fuel possible, after meeting all of the other criteria. If I get you there early, we'll wait on the ramp for the gate. At LaGuardia, for example, as aircraft pile in for the night, they get pulled back from the gate and parked on the tarmac across the alley to make room for more aircraft to use the gates.

When it snows and operations shut down, there are not enough gates to take the planes to, so people get stuck out on the ramp with no way to get them off the airplane. If an actual emergency occurs, they will find a way to get a gate open and bring the emergency back to the gate.
 
Hampton. . .I almost feel like giving you a green ball for the abuse you are taking in this thread.

And a red ball. . . .

- - - - - - - - -

All I know is that when I go to the airport (a few times a month), MOST flights are leaving at 9:20 am and 5:20 am. The flights are definately clustered. Even within the same airline. When 10 planes leave the gate simultaneously. . .there is going to be a delay.

I read routinely that the number of flights is down. I see it in the destinations to which I travel. Less flights. . .and yet ontime performance is down!

Yes. . gates are being optimized. There are empty terminals at some airports because of this optimization.

- - - - - -

Comfort? No.

Match costs to lowest common denominator? Yes! This is why they charge $2 for soda on a plane, and $15 to check a $#@* bag. THAT is the economics.

- - - - - - -

My biggest airline pet peeve? The inability to cope with delays. I experience the 25% ontime delays. . . let me tell you, the airlines hardly EVER post a flight delay at the gate. It can be 10 minutes before departure, with no plane at the gate, and a delay won't be posted. On those rare times an actual delay is posted, I often see the incoming plane due in 10 minutes before the "new departure" time for the next flight. EVERYONE knows it takes more than 10 minutes to turn a plane around.

And if it rains anywhere on the East Coast. . .watch out! During one set of thunderstorms, I saw US air reschedule 3 flights into the same gate within 20 minutes. (i.e. departures 6:10, 6:25, and 6:30). Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that doesn't work.

- - - - - -

BTW: I have no problems with the pilots. They are doing there job. I agree their job is not to get you in early.

- - - - - - -

Back to cars: I don't think I could see turning off the engine on a car while coasting. . .unless it has a manual transmission. I can quickly restart a car with a stick. Doesn't an automatic have to be in park to start? Or will your truck start in "N"?
 
My truck starts in neutral without applying the brake. I think the key lock is back a couple of positions.

Aircraft do leave in clusters. It's called a "push." In Atlanta, Delta was transitioning to a smooth flow operation a couple of years ago when I began my Military leave. The idea behind the "Push" was to pick everyone up around the country, bring them to the hub, give them about 30-90 minutes to get to the next plane, and get them out. We used to do that 8 or 10 times a day. It's getting too crowded to pack the planes on final, on the runway, on the taxiways, the ramps, and the gates, so they were going to start smooth flowing ops. I don't know much about the progress of that.

As far as tracking the delays at the gates goes, have you figured out the qualifications of gate agents yet? I think a degree in customer service was considered - not! Those folks at the out-stations that have been with the company for years are generally really, really good. But, with the turnover and employee base of the big cities, well, things aren't so great. Everything is planned and manned for normal operations. Contingency ops bring the system to a halt (FAA included).
 
I'm with Gary on this. These are stupid recommendations. I drive my Navigator 800-1,000 miles per week. If she averages 14 mpg, that's ok. If traffic was light that day and we hit the lights and tolls right so that she averages 17, that's fine too. Shutting off the engine is stupid, but you already know that it's unsafe. Did you also know that the transmission is pressure lubricated by the front pump which is driven by the crankshaft? So you may save yourself $100 in fuel but end up buying a $3,000 tranny. Must be that pilot math Gary was talking about. I guess pilots learn different math than mathematicians and engineers.

As far as gas mileage goes, there are somethings more expensive than fuel. Things like medical expenses and continuing care. Several years ago, my wife's car was hit from behind by a truck. The cops, ambulance guys, her doctors, all told her that her car saved her from some serious injuries. I was glad I got rid of her 4 popper econobox nissan that she had when when we got married and got her into a series of leased Lincolns. She's now in a leased Jag. Some people buy cars based on sticker price. Some by the EPA mileage numbers. I buy based on safety factors, especially the IIHS actual measured results of injury, death, and medical claims. There's a strong correlation between larger and heavier with lower injuries and fewer deaths. Surviving a crash without a lifetime of life support is worth trading off MPG.

F^^^ gas mileage. If some idiot runs me off the road because he's all drugged up, I'm not going to happy sitting in my wheelchair thinking of all the efing gas I saved.

Best regards,
Frank C
 
The nice part of the subway is that there's always a men's room everywhere you go.
 
fc3 said:
F^^^ gas mileage. If some idiot runs me off the road because he's all drugged up, I'm not going to happy sitting in my wheelchair thinking of all the efing gas I saved.

Best regards,
Frank C
Click to expand...

Now how can you argue with that logic?
 
The new term for the fuel saving suggestions is "hypermiling" like one person has already mentioned. There's several forums and info on it if you want to Google it and yes a lot of the procedures aren't safe.... as another example, you can save a lot of fuel on the highway by tailgating eighteen wheelers and many of them do that.

My SUV has the drag coefficient of a parachute and I can cut my fuel burn on the highway just by not speeding.... at 60 mph I can get about 18 mpg; at 65 it's getting around 15 and at 70 it's down to 14; at 75+ I'm under 13mpg.

I've avoided jackrabbit starts, coasted to stops and timed traffic lights for years in city driving and it makes a huge difference. You want to save fuel in city driving? Pretend there's a raw egg under your accelerator and brake pedals.

Some of it is just for fun and to see what I can do. Currently I'm planning to build an HHO generator. There's lots of quirky/cheap looking stuff and plans out there for HHO kits, but some of them look well-planned and like they might actually work. If the one I build does, that will be cool. If it doesn't, at least it was a fun experiment.
 
GJarrett,

Keep us updated with your progress!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
GJarrett said:
The new term for the fuel saving suggestions is "hypermiling" like one person has already mentioned. There's several forums and info on it if you want to Google it and yes a lot of the procedures aren't safe.... as another example, you can save a lot of fuel on the highway by tailgating eighteen wheelers and many of them do that.

My SUV has the drag coefficient of a parachute and I can cut my fuel burn on the highway just by not speeding.... at 60 mph I can get about 18 mpg; at 65 it's getting around 15 and at 70 it's down to 14; at 75+ I'm under 13mpg.

Some of it is just for fun and to see what I can do. Currently I'm planning to build an HHO generator. There's lots of quirky/cheap looking stuff and plans out there for HHO kits, but some of them look well-planned and like they might actually work. If the one I build does, that will be cool. If it doesn't, at least it was a fun experiment.
Click to expand...

What the heck are you driving? My Navigator has 287,000 miles and doesn't suck gas that badly. She's still will burn 16-17 while running at 75. 80+ is when the fuel economy starts to dive.

Best regards,
Frank
 
I've seen some of those "hypermiling" geeks on tv, wearing out their slide rules and their ignition keys trying to squeeze Dino for all he's worth. Looks to me like some extreme form of OCD.
 
fc3 said:
What the heck are you driving? My Navigator has 287,000 miles and doesn't suck gas that badly. She's still will burn 16-17 while running at 75. 80+ is when the fuel economy starts to dive.

Best regards,
Frank
Click to expand...

I've got a 4wd '99 Ford Explorer but it's my other hobby..... it ain't nowhere near an average grocery getter. It's lifted, has 35" offroad tires, lockers in both axles, 4.88 gears, etc. With the safari rack and 35" spare tire up top it really does have an awful lot of wind drag.

PhotoByRick.jpg


101gerald_1.jpg


101HercOnUpper2.jpg


New-bought and stock it was EPA rated at 15 city and 19 hwy which was pretty close to what it usually got... I think I got nearly 22 a couple of times driving very conservatively. That was a long time ago, LOL.
 
This thread has inspired me to try to save fuel when I'm towing. That's when I get the worst fuel mileage. I might try "shutting the engine off" when coasting to a red light. Yea, I bet I can save, a dollar or two at fill up time!
 
Dang G-man, you think the f-150 could do that. I don't think I have the balls if it could! That's some serious lean angles for a top heavy suv.
 
Frank, of course I realize that my results aren't the same as others would be, I was just stating that speed does kill mileage. My other vehicle is a plain ol' Dodge minivan that will get about 24~25 if I drive 60, but more like 20.5 if I drive 70. Each vehicle has its own "sweet spot" but as a general rule once you go past 65 mph most of them start burning gas exponentially more than at lower speeds.

I'd be amazed that you get similar mileage in a Navigator at 80 as you do at 65. You do get good mlg for 70~75mph or so, but I bet there's a huge difference in your mileage at 65 mph and 80mph.
 
Last edited:
Mike did you put lockers in yet? If you did, yep it will do those angles and a lot more. Join me at Moab Utah next time where the traction is crazy extreme and you can do this:

101dscf0597.jpg


It's quite a rush! :grin:
 
You mean the part where you pitch pole backwards and roll end-to-end?

I could imagine that being quite a rush indeed!
 
Those tires and 4.11s will hurt the efficiency. My Navi is stock. Worn, but stock.

I've not noticed a big difference between fuel burned at 65 and that at 70. It's starts to drop slightly at 75 and at 80 takes a pitch downward. The difference isn't all that significant, until 75. Seems like a combination of drag and the engine turning more than 2,000 RPM. It likes to loaf below 2,000. I've not seen highway mileage above 18. It mostly does 17. Mixed driving is 13-15. Oh well.

On two long trips with my wife's car, I see about a 10% difference running at 70 and running at 80. We burned 28 mpg running to South Carolina last year at 80 and 31 mpg running to Baltimore at 70 this year. It's a small V8 with a ZF 6 speed in an aluminum body, so it's pretty efficient for it's size. Size, shape, and weight do take a toll.
 
fc3 said:
Those tires and 4.11s will hurt the efficiency.
Click to expand...

Yep mine came with 4.10 and did fine with 33" tires, but once I went to 35" tires it just couldn't handle it. I had to pony up some bucks to regear to 4.88 ratio. That cost a bit since with 4wd I had to regear two axles not just one rear axle. As much as I've altered mine, I'm pretty happy getting 18 mpg hwy; I just can't go fast if I want to get it. Inasmuch as it is lifted and the antisway bar is removed I wouldn't fee safe going faster anyway.

If you're getting 17 with a vehicle the size of a Navi and with those miles on it I think that's fabulous. I suspect that's close to what its EPA mpg rating was in the first place.

Keeping close on topic without totally hijacking this thread, there is a guy on our www.explorer4x4.com forums whose hobby seems to be to see what kind of mileage he can get with his Explorer (coincidentally he's a scuba boat operator down in Florida). He's done it all: full synthetics in everything (engine, transmission, axles), MAF and sensor upgrades, an aftermarket tuning chip, tire overinflation, right down to removing roof racks and waxing with Zaino to get the last fraction of percent wind drag coefficient he can. He's paid out more testing and installing crap then he'll ever probably save in gas, but it's a sort of mission to him. He claims he gets over 30mpg which is so high for an Explorer that some of us question whether he's full of it or not. Now he's onto the HHO bandwagon and has spent the last couple of months tinkering around with several different HHO setups. If he can be believed, he just posted that he's getting 31 mpg. In town. That's stretching a gallon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Forum statistics

Threads
113,178
Messages
1,428,022
Members
61,088
Latest member
SGT LAT
Back
Top